After a gap of some eight years, the paucity of water in the Cauvery River—the lifeline for parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu—has returned to haunt the two southern states. It was in 2016 that the two neighbours last saw the much-repeated dispute raising its head again as they faced water shortage.
The 802-km-long Cauvery takes its birth in Karnataka at Talacauvery in Kodagu (Coorg) district and flows through the southern districts of the state. It enters Tamil Nadu from its northwestern part, traverses through vast areas of central TN and finally reaches the Bay of Bengal. In Karnataka, it is the primary source of drinking water for Bengaluru and many other districts. It also serves the purpose of irrigation.
Five districts in Tamil Nadu, including Thanjavur, the rice bowl of Tamil Nadu, depend almost totally on the river water (apart from the groundwater generated from the catchment areas) to feed the short-term Kuruvai crop. Some dozen districts also depend on the river water for drinking purposes. So, these districts must rely on water released from Karnataka reservoirs as well as the groundwater from both states. Karnataka gets its rainfall from the southwest monsoon (June–September) and very little from the northeast monsoon (October–December), while the entire TN receives rain only from the northeast monsoon. Kuruvai is cultivated from June to September.
The dispute between the two states is 125 years old; the first water-sharing agreement was signed in 1892, followed by another in 1924. The shortage this time, like earlier, has evoked passions on both sides, especially in upper riparian Karnataka, which has seen violence more than once after 1990. Bengaluru (then Bangalore) and other parts of Karnataka witnessed large-scale violence in 1991–92, resulting in several deaths in different parts of the state. There was unrest in Karnataka in 2016, too. As a result, the emotive issue has become a political slugfest every time there is a deficit. If we take the last 30 years, the Cauvery issue erupted in 1995–96, 2002–03, 2012–13 and 2016–17 as rains failed and the two states experienced drought.
It is not that efforts were not made to resolve this wrangle. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was set up, and when it did not seem to resolve the problem entirely, the matter was taken to the Supreme Court. Additionally, while the prime minister-led CRA (Cauvery River Authority), comprising chief ministers of riparian states as members, was set up some years after the Tribunal’s interim order, the apex court later formed the CWRA (Cauvery Water Regulatory Authority) and CWMA (Cauvery Water Management Authority).
The CRA was a political body, while the other two consisted of experts and officials. Despite their political differences, the BJP-led NDA at the Centre, the Congress in Karnataka and the AIADMK in Tamil Nadu met several times, which helped the CRA come out with a directive in 2002–03. However, TN later was not happy with it.
In its final order in 2007, the Tribunal determined the total availability of water in the Cauvery basin at 740 TMC, allocating 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu and 270 TMC to Karnataka. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu went to the SC, and the latter modified the order and allocated 404.25 TMC to Tamil Nadu and 284.75 TMC to Karnataka (which must be released monthly).
When so many bodies have gone into the dispute so minutely for so many years and had the benefit of the experts’ opinions, including engineers, scientists, judges, advocates, officials, etc., why does the dispute arise again and again when scarce rainfall leads to a bad year?
Over the last many years, only the SC and the experts-officials committees have been looking into the dispute. Should there be a political body to thrash out the tangle? Well, a political body is unlikely to help. TN is strongly opposed to it, saying that the SC verdict of 2018 was the culmination of a decades-long dialogue. Tamil Nadu says that it would be forced to water down its stand in such political negotiations, and doesn’t want talks even though friendly parties rule the two states.
One major reason for this is the lack of a water-sharing formula in a distress year. Without the distress-sharing formula (DSF), the Cauvery imbroglio may never be resolved. When the Tribunal and the apex court went into the details to find a solution, they couldn’t resolve to create a “distress-sharing formula” to address the problems of the two riparian states to their satisfaction. The Tribunal said in a distress year, the allocated shares of the party states would be proportionately reduced. It referred to “pro-rata sharing of distress” in its final order, while the SC mentioned distress-sharing and that efforts should be made to create a formula.
But both stopped short of giving a definitive shape for a mandated distress-sharing formula. A committee was set up in 1993 to frame a DSF but did not meet after holding a few meetings. The CWRA and CWMA, in their last two meetings, again referred to the importance of a DSF, but there was no finality on how to proceed.
Both Karnataka and TN are in favour of such a formula. If the states, the Centre and adjudicating organs want a DSF, what is the problem in framing one? Well, the DSF is a highly complex matter involving various issues transcending technical, legal, hydrological and many other parameters. While Karnataka believes there are many points to consider when formulating the DSF, Tamil Nadu simply wants the DSF to be the percentage of the deficit which must be shared. Karnataka says this is not the correct way to measure distress.
The need of the hour is for the Centre to intervene and take an interest in framing a DSF through consensus, which seems to be the only way to get out of the mess a bad monsoon creates. Otherwise, we will continue to witness the Cauvery crisis every time the rains fail.
B S Arun
Senior journalist based in Bengaluru