Cauvery: From crisis to cascade of hope

The Cauvery flows near the Nimishamba temple in Karnataka’s Srirangapatna on August 9, 2024.
| Photo Credit: The Hindu

The Cauvery river now presents a picture of calmness, much to the relief of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.

In early July, both States were on the brink of a water crisis. However, since the second half of July, nature brought a dramatic change in the situation with rains, bringing copious inflow to the river. The situation turned positive with regard to the realisation of water by Tamil Nadu — from deficit to “over surplus.” In a matter of 15 days, Tamil Nadu received its entire share — even marginally higher — for July and August, as mandated in the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)’s final award of 2007, which was modified by the Supreme Court in February 2018. The spell of surplus flows continued in the subsequent weeks.

Totally, as of September 2, the lower riparian State received about 181 tmc ft since June 1, the inaugural date of any water year, whereas the stipulated quantum for the entire year — up to May 2025 — is 177.25 tmc ft. The Tribunal and the Court have fixed Tamil Nadu’s share for July at 31.24 tmc ft; for August — 45.95 tmc ft and for September — 36.76 tmc ft. The southwest monsoon is crucial for both States, as it represents the wettest period for Karnataka and yields the highest quantum of (123.14 tmc ft) of water for Tamil Nadu. So, barring the initial five or six weeks, the 2024-25 water year has not been problematic for the two principal riparian States.

Implementation mechanism

The current year is in stark contrast to the corresponding period (June-September 2) of last year when the aggregate realisation by Tamil Nadu was a mere 33.2 tmc ft. A close perusal of the data of 30 years (1994-95 to 2023-24) reveals that on 11 occasions, the realisation during June-September was less than 100 tmc ft, as against the stipulated 123.14 tmc ft. This means that at least once in three years, there is distress. This is where the final award’s implementation mechanism — Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) — and the Supreme Court assume importance, of course, apart from the spirit of accommodation.

The efficacy of the CWMA and its assisting body Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC), as institutional arrangements, was put to test during 2023-24. Unlike its predecessor, the Cauvery River Authority, which was a high-profile setup with the Prime Minister as the chairperson and Chief Ministers of all the basin States as Members, the CWMA is headed by a full-time official with government officers of all the States and various departments of the Union government. Many of their decisions last year were not to the liking of the two States, but given the constraints, the performance of the CWMA and CWRC can be considered satisfactory.

Needless to say, there is enormous scope for improvement on their part. First, there should be greater transparency in their functioning. Both the Authority and the Committee will have to make public, as quickly as possible, all their decisions in writing. In an intense water conflict such as the Cauvery, the version of the affected parties, in times of crisis, cannot be expected to be impartial. Even otherwise, dissemination of authentic information is vital in an inter-State water dispute. If the authority is constrained by a shortage of manpower, in carrying out its functions effectively, the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti should intervene and solve the problem.

Moreover, the Authority should enlarge its composition from being a body of only officials to one of multi-disciplinary and a mix of officials and non-officials, who could be drawn from farmers, environmentalists, and independent water experts. The Union government could follow the example of the Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board Act. The law provides for six non-official directors on the Board of the water agency, which includes persons to represent the interests of the public, industrial, and commercial establishments.

As for the composition of the CWMA, the implementation mechanism that the Tribunal had in mind is only recommendatory and there is no bar on the Union government to fine-tune it. The presence of a non-official environmentalist can push the government to take the problem of environmental degradation of the much-venerated river more seriously in view of the challenges being caused by climate change.

Water shortage

The “feel good factor” prevalent now can be used to look at the problem of Bengaluru’s drinking water shortage, which assumed a serious proportion earlier this year. The Supreme Court, in its 2018 judgment, made a special allocation of 4.75 tmc ft for the city while the Karnataka government has been pressing for implementing the ₹ 9,000-crore Mekedatu Balancing Reservoir-cum-Drinking Water Project. At present, the Mekedatu project is before the Central Water Commission.

Given the trust deficit between the two States (which explains the reason behind Tamil Nadu’s opposition to the project), the idea of the participation of a third party — say, the Union government — can be explored to execute not only the Mekedatu project but also any other project, including hydro-electric across the Cauvery, upstream of the Mettur reservoir.After all, attempts made since the late 1990s in this regard failed. There is no harm in making yet another earnest attempt as the intention is to optimally utilise the precious water resource which, if untapped, will go to waste, as is happening now.