THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTE

INTRODUCTION-
The Cauvery River is considered to be the lifeline of the peninsular India. Karnataka, Tamil
Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry are the four riparian states staking claim on the Cauvery river
water and Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are major contending states.

Cauvery river basin is spread over an area of 87,000 km with basin area of 36,240 km2 in
Karnataka and 48,730 km2 in Tamil nadu. Harangi, hemavathi, shimsha, arkavathi,
lakshmanthirtha and swarnvathi are major tributaries joining the river Cauvery in Karnataka
and amaravathi, bhavani, noyyal and kodaganaru are major tributaries of Cauvery in Tamil
nadu. The below map shows the basin of Cauvery river in all states.

WHY THESE STATES NEED WATER-

Tamil Nadu: This Southern Indian state brims with green paddies and palm fields in the East,
alluvial plains stretch to the Coromondel Coast to the West, and high rocky hills cover the
Northern portion of the state.

 Karnataka: This state is considered the economic power of southern India. Bangalore, its
capital city, is the fastest growing city in India. Growing high tech sectors are centred in
Bangalore such as pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Due to the "industry friendly"
atmosphere in Karnataka, major international firms are finding it a beneficial location for
business. International firms in Karnataka include Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Kentucky Fried
Chicken, and Cargill Corporation. This industrialization is not without consequence for
Karnataka. These firms and industry sectors require a mass amount of water; water that is
scarce in this region. In times of weak monsoons, the fragile water situation in Southern India
is exposed.

CLAIMS-
The state of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the river
as Tamil Nadu does. Karnataka claims that these agreements were skewed heavily in favor of
the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable
sharing of the waters". Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed
almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily
on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the
livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties
bore no fruit.

PRE INDEPENDENCE HISTORY -

During the colonial period the Mysore and Madras governments entered into the 1892 and
1924 agreements. While the 1892 agreement was a general agreement relating to numbers of
interstate rivers, the 1924 agreement related to irrigation development in the Basin of
Cauvery River through krishnarajasagar dam. Both agreements were permanent. It also says
that when upstream works are planned, the prior consent of state government of lower down
area is to be obtained. This was to ensure that nothing shall be done in Mysore which will
have the effect on customary supply of waters in lower riparian states.

POST INDEPENDENCE HISTORY-

 The Cauvery River Dispute has been a serious issue since 1974 when a 50 year old
agreement between the Madras president and the princely Mysore state collapsed.
Karnataka asserts that the 1924 agreement demanded a discontinuation of the water
supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 years. The Karnataka maintains that the state suffered
due to its ‘discriminated past’. Attempts of irrigation development were frustrated by
British government in Mysore region who protected the interest of people in madras
presidency. Therefore, 1892 and 1924 agreements were imposed on weak Mysore
state. Tamil nadu, on other hand, argue that early irrigation has always been in delta
region which is primarily due to conductive soil, water and topographic conditions.
 Also, story of British rulers is of immediate past; its actual history dates back to 2nd
century AD.

 STAGE 1: between 1924-1974

There were protests but they were sporadic and unnoticeable.

 When Karnataka began construction of the Harangi dam at Kushalanagara in Kodagu,

it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to court
demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under the Interstate River Water Disputes
Act (ISWD- this act provides an important mechanism to resolve interstate water
dispute) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at
the dam site. In spite of this Karnataka went for completion of the dam without taking
into account the impact on the livelihood of other states.
 In April 1991, the Supreme Court of the Government of India reassigned a tribunal to
settle the dispute as mandated in the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. The
Tribunal heard arguments from both states, and reached the decision that Karnataka
must release 205 TMC of water from the Cauvery reservoirs to Tamil Nadu on a
monthly basis .Karnataka declined to accept the ruling of the Tribunal. The
Government of Karnataka argued that the Tribunal issued a decision that was not
implementable. Due to failed monsoons, many parts of Karnataka were left without
adequate water supplies. If the government were to release more than 100 TMC of
water to Tamil Nadu, then it would be disadvantaging its own people.

 STAGE 2: BETWEEN 1974-1990

Dispute got intensified and distrust built up due to information and
communication gap.
 The rejection of the Tribunal's decision pushed the negotiations on a downward spiralling
path that eventually led to aborted talks. As mentioned previously however, water issues
seem to only erupt when there is a lack of adequate rain. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, the rain
was sufficient to pacify the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
 In 1995, the monsoons failed to fill the Cauvery tributaries possessed by Tamil Nadu. On
January 1, 1996, Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao asked Karnataka to release an
immediate six tmcft (one thousand million cubic feet) of water to Tamil Nadu to save the
standing crops. In addition, the Prime Minister announced the immediate formation of an
expert council to "spot assess" the status of the standing crop of both states to include the
level of water needed to sustain the crops.
  STAGE 3: 1995-96
Thousands of Tamil families had to flee from Bangalore in fear of being
attacked by pro-Kannada activists. The violence and show down, mostly
centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bangalore and Mandya, lasted
for nearly a month.

NOTE: It should be noted that despite the stalemate in negotiations and the violence that
erupts, Karnataka has been releasing water from the Cauvery River to Tamil Nadu in
instalments for the last twenty years. The dispute between the two states is over the quantity
of water released.

 The tribunal gave its final award share in 2007 as: Kerala 30 TMC, Karnataka 270
TMC, Tamil nadu 419 TMC and Pondicherry 7 TMC.Tamil nadu dissatisfied with the
decision approached the Supreme Court by filling special leave petition (SLP).
 On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian
Government has notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
(CWDT) on sharing the waters of the Cauvery system among the basin States of
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala and Union territory of Pondicherry. The verdict is
as follows

Karnataka Tamil Nadu Kerala Pondicherry Total

34,273 (42% 44,016 (54% 2,866 (3.5%

Basin Area (in km²) 148(-) 81,155
) ) )

Share for each state as

per Cauvery Tribunal
270 (37%) 419 (58%) 30 (4%) 7 (1%) 726
final award Dated 19
February 2013 

 In response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) lodged by Tamil Nadu earlier, the
Supreme Court on 10 May 2013 issued an interim direction to the Government of
India (GoI) to establish a temporary Supervisory Committee to implement the
Cauvery tribunal order till the constitution of “Cauvery Management Board” as stated
in the tribunal order. GoI issued the gazette notification establishing the said
Supervisory Committee.

A PRIVATE NOTE CIRCULATED BY RAMASWAMY IYER, 2003-

“Itmust be noted that in Indian or International law, there is no ownership rights over flowing
waters. Neither karnataka nor tamil nadu owns the cauvery. They all have use rights. There is
no hierarchy of rights; neither the upper riparian nor the lower riparian has primacy. There is
an equality of rights but of course not an entitlement to equal rights. How much each state is
entitledto is a matter for agreement or adjudication. It is inappropriate to talk of the upper
riparian ‘giving’ waters to the lower riparian, as though it is a gift. At the same time, there is
no question of the lower riparian asserting a pre-emptive right to waters to the detriment of
the upper riparian. The upper riparian cannot say to the lower riparian: “this is difficult year.
We do not have enough water for our own needs. We cannot spare any water for you.” Even
in a difficult year the available water has to be shared. Similarly, the lower riparian cannot
say to the upper riparian: “we have been receiving certain flow from centuries. They must
continue to come to us undiminished. This is our absolute right.”

LESSONS LEARNT-
1. A sound research is required for carrying and undertaking forward the dialogue.
2. Degree of success or failure of process depends upon active and sustained states’
political support.
3. Need for an untiring, and credible facilitator (it could be an institution or individual)
who can carry the job for arranging a good platform between both states.
CONCLUSIONS-
1. One need to understand the complicated nature of basin complexity due to over
politicization and emotional attachment to the Cauvery water.
2. One needs to acknowledge the fact that Cauvery region is the deficit region.
3. The issue is not the sharing of unutilized surplus water but re-sharing of water
shortages.
4. Farmers and politicians in both major contending states should recognize the fact that
losing or gaining some quantities in the process of negotiation is much better than
keep or bargaining forever or keeping conflict alive.
5. Adaptation is what most needed at the moment – adapt to the changing needs and
changing socio-economic and ecological conditions.
6. Since the basin is already been in stress, the negotiators should move ahead with long
term perspective.

By AGAM JAIN

SOURCES:
1.http://www.pildat.org/publications/publication/WaterR/CaseStudy-
InterStateWaterDisputesAmongtheRiparianStates.pdf
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rivers_Inter-link
3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/CAUVERY.HTM