A Glimpse into the "Unshared Waters" of Cauvery

Water is an integral resource for the sustained development of a state. Unfortunately, the statistics with respect to the availability of portable water in the world are not very impressive.

The situation in India is a primary example of these mind-boggling statistics.  As water resources are becoming scarce at an alarming rate, major problems regarding inadequate supplies of water for sanitation and drinking are expected to rise. Over the past decades we have witnessed the advent of many such national conflicts.

The Cauvery watershed is divided between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Similar to other divided watersheds, there is peace in times of good monsoons else violence erupts. The Cauvery River Dispute has been a serious issue since 1974 when a 50-year-old agreement between the Madras presidency and the princely Mysore state collapsed. Karnataka asserts that the 1924 agreement entailed a discontinuation of the water supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 years. The dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka entails a century old conflict over the vital interests of farmers in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

While temples are the main attraction to Tamil Nadu, agriculture is the primary means of livelihood. Tamil Nadu, furthermore, has the most productive sugar cane farmers in India. Tamil Nadu relies on the Cauvery River to sustain its agricultural needs. Beyond the Cauvery, Tamil Nadu has very few resources for complex irrigation systems to maintain its water supply. Cauvery is the backbone of Tamil Nadu's agriculture, and agriculture is the backbone of Tamil Nadu. It would appear that the Tamil Nadu government's claims that it cannot survive without the regular delivery of the Cauvery water are more than just mere political speculations. They are in fact, quite accurate. This is especially true for the coastal plains areas. Population growth in TN is higher than the average in India. Thus the demand for food, jobs, and water will likely accelerate. Agricultural productivity in other areas outside the Cauvery basin has begun to increasingly depend on groundwater.

Karnataka is evidently the economic powerhouse of southern India. Its capital city, Bangalore is the fastest growing city in India. It is the home to growing high tech, pharmaceutical, and chemical industries that are both water and power hungry. Recently, the failed monsoons have created severe drought situations in much of Karnataka. The total requirement for Karnataka in 1994 was 24 TMC of water. Therefore, Southern Karnataka and Bangalore City are short of drinking water. Water is such a desperate issues that if Karnataka were to release water to Tamil Nadu; it would be at the expense of its economic growth and its own citizenry. Karnataka contends that the shared river dispute should be made a national issue. It refuses to accept the decisions of the Tribunal because it is not an independent decision making body outside of the influence of either state. Karnataka asserts that it will not abide by any decisions until a National Water Policy is established that would apply to all shared water resources, not just the Cauvery.

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 rejected the ruling of the Tribunal stating 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 at the expense of its own people.

The rejection of the Tribunal's decision pushed the negotiations on a downward spiraling 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.

One of the most recent conflicts over the Cauvery River was in 1996 that continues till today. In 1995, the monsoons failed to fill the Cauvery tributaries in Tamil Nadu. On January 1, 1996, the then Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Roa asked Karnataka to release an immediate 6 TMCFT (one thousand million cubic feet) of water to Tamil Nadu to save the standing crops.

In the summers of 2002, things once again grew sour when the monsoon failed in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Water Reservoirs in both states fell to record low-levels and consequently tempers flared up. As in 1995-96, the main agenda was to how the resources would be shared between the two states if there were to be a crisis. The tribunal had overlooked this crucial point when it gave the interim award. This had once again returned to haunt the situation. Tamil Nadu demanded that Karnataka honour the interim award and release to Tamil Nadu its proportionate share. Karnataka on the other hand stated that the water levels were hardly enough to meet its own demands and ruled out releasing any water in the circumstances that prevailed.

The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007. According to its verdict, Tamil Nadu gets 419 billion ft³ (12 km³) of Cauvery water while Karnataka gets 270 billion ft³ (7.6 km³). The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is to be 192 billion ft³ (5.4 km³) annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 billion ft³ and Pondicherry 7 billion ft³. Tamil Nadu appears to have been accepting the verdict while the government of Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before the tribunal seeking a review.

Despite the stalemate in negotiations and the violence that erupts, Karnataka has been releasing water from the Cauvery River to Tamil Nadu in installments for the last twenty years. It is an important point to note that the dispute between these two states is not over whether one state has been releasing waters to the other or not, but over the quantity of water released.

The level of conflict in the Cauvery River Dispute must be classified as low. The extent of conflict in the dispute is rioting and aggressive vandalism. While some of these acts have resulted in death, the numbers of fatalities do not indicate "war-like" conditions. The rioting and violence that has occurred in the Southern region of India is always, somehow, related to resource access. While the people of Tamil Nadu have threatened mass agitation if their needs are not met properly, the people of Karnataka have rioted in response to the threat of decreased water access.

The dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Cauvery River continues today. The dispute flares up when the monsoons fail, and pacify when the rains are plenty. Therefore, the recent outburst between the states in 2002 inflamed the dispute yet again, thus keeping the conflict in progress. Karnataka still rejects the Tribunal. The state is now suggesting that a monitoring committee be set up that shall be independent of the authority of both the States and the Tribunal. The Committee would be called the Cauvery River Committee and should take the form of a regulatory authority. The Karnataka Government has suggested that the Committee be comprised of high-ranking people with expertise in law, administration, agriculture, and irrigation engineering.

The Cauvery water dispute has encompassed so much uncertainty, complexity and anxiety - that it can, undisputedly, be adjudged as the mother of all inter-state water disputes in India. As both states continue their struggle over the shared water dispute over the Cauvery River, it is likely that national intervention will be necessary. Due to thick political tensions harboured in the regions of Cauvery Basin, the future of these farmers has been endangered. It has become a "must" for the National Government of India to intervene, preside over the matter and contribute positively towards sustainable water management in the Cauvery Basin contending states, thereby also securing the future of these farmers.

Shared water is a national issue that goes beyond the Cauvery River. Numerous rivers in India are shared by two or more states. Similar to Cauvery, disputes and violence are a norm. Water supply is a national issue that is going to require a national response.

References:

http://www.expressindia.com/news/ie/daily/20000713/ied13026.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveri_River_water_dispute

http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/bitstream/handle/10535/4217/The_Cauvery_Water_War.pdf?sequence=1

http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/CAUVERY.HTM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_conflict

http://www.pildat.org/publications/publication/WaterR/CaseStudy-InterStateWaterDisputesAmongtheRiparianStates.pdf

Digvijay Mahra

CH11B022

An Insight into the "Historical moments" and "Causes" of the Conflict

In the NEWS:

19^th September, 2012 : Karnataka was directed to release Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from 21^st September, 2012 till October 15^th September, 2012 daily.

21^st September, 2012 : Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its  19^th September order.

24^th September, 2012 : Tamil Nadu filed a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Cauvery water.

28^th September, 2012 : The Supreme Court slammed the Karnataka government for defying the order of the CRA which lead to the release of water and also to wide protests and violence in Karnataka.

04^th October, 2012 : Karnataka government filed a stay order petition (until 15^th October, 2012) before the Supreme Court.

06^th October, 2012 : Bandhs were called all over the state and several protests were held all over.

08^th October, 2012 : Supreme Court of India played the ball into CRA’s court and tried to avoid interference. CRA stood firm and even reviewed it till 20^th October, 2012. Raged at this, within hours Karnataka stopped release of water to Tamil Nadu.

What is all this about?

No Clue?? Its a Conflict! Huh! Another one! 

Though it has been a hot debate all over the country for the last couple of weeks, it has a history of more than one and half centuries.

Conflicts:

Why do conflicts (resource conflicts) arise? Can’t they be resolved? are the two major questions that strike our mind when we come across any conflict or dispute. I guess I can answer the first one pretty well and the answer to the second is (un)known to everyone.

"Natural Resource Conflicts are disagreements and disputes over access to, and control and use of, natural resources" which have become an inevitable feature of all societies whose scope and magnitude are increasing and intensifying every day. They can arise due to lack of information about programme objectives, lack of clarities in laws and policies and even due to poor programme implementation. Of all, Inequity in Resource Distribution is a major factor which can be observed in any dispute.

These conflicts exist in every country and community and India is no exception. In India we find most of these conflicts over Water. Being the second largest populated country in the world, it faces a major challenge in meeting the demands of the people. Not only is the availability of the water resources but also distribution of those resources a mighty task. Most of the population lives in places where demand for water exceeds supply, or the place eventually moves to scarcity due to increase of population. Water scarcity and inequities are also risk factors for violent conflict which are common in the country and are impeding integral human development.

       “Too often, where we need water, we find guns instead.”

                                                                                             -Ban Ki-Moon

There are many water disputes in the country; almost every river is associated with one, of which Cauvery River Water Dispute, a unique, seemingly never ending, is one of the oldest disputes which is yet to be sorted out.

Before moving on to know about the historical background and causes of the dispute, we’ll have a look at the geographical location and its role in this issue.

Geographical Location:               

Course of River Cauvery

Cauvery originates from "Talakaveri", "Kodagu" in the Brahmagiri ranges of the Western Ghats. It is the fourth largest river in southern India and runs the 800 km long journey across three states i.e. Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and a Union Territory, Pondicherry till it joins the Bay of Bengal. On its course in Karnataka it forms a couple of islands Srirangapatna and Shivanasamudra where it drops 320 ft to form waterfalls which serves a source for electricity. It served many hectares of land in the southwest of the state in irrigation and has been a major source of water for many purposes.

Hogenakkal Falls  

After passing through many dams, reservoirs and ‘ayucuts’ in Karnataka, it enters Dharmapuri district of Tamil Nadu and later drops into the "Hogenakkal Falls" as it enters the town of Hogenakkal. Later it continues to flow through famous Mettur dam, then splits into branches and provides irrigational facilities in Tamil Nadu.

Monsoon plays the card:

The southwest monsoon causes rain effectively in southern Karnataka in the Cauvery basin leading to more water than the Tamil Nadu region in the basin which receives a meagre rainfall. This paves way for a conflict as both the regions receive unequal amount of water and moreover Karnataka stores most of it in various dams, reservoirs and Ayucuts.

The Birth - 'Historical Agreements':

      Cauvery being a rich source of water, was exploited by the then Maharajas of Mysore as they started constructing dams, reservoirs etc. on it in the middle of the nineteenth century. It didn’t take much time for the Madras Province to act against those constructions which eventually lead to the water shortage in their state. It was more than 150 years ago this happened, which lead to negotiations and eventually ended up in signing agreements.

• The first such agreement was signed on 18th February 1892 in which the state of  Mysore agrees to stop the new constructions on the river and cannot construct without the consent of the Madras state.
• In the year 1910 the Government of Mysore formulated its proposal for a reservoir on the Cauvery at Kannambadi and sought the consent of Madras Government as per the agreement of the year 1892.
• As difference and conflict arose with respect to this project between the two States, the dispute was referred to Arbitration in accordance with the Agreement of the year 1892 whose proceedings began on 16^th July, 1913 and concluded on 12^th May, 1914.
• The award given was not accepted by the state of Madras and hence they filed a petition with the Government of India which later didn’t interfere in this issue. Without giving up on the issue, the Madras state appealed to the Secretary of State in July, 1916 requesting for an intervention in the matter as it would cause a serious damage to the then existing irrigated areas.
• Though, the then Government of Mysore objected to the appeal, the Secretary of State came to the conclusion that there was a "prima facie" case for interfering the award and different possible choices were given to the Mysore Government with respect to the sharing of the waters in November 1919.
• Eventually, after years of negotiations another agreement was signed on 18^th February, 1924 between the Governments of Madras and Mysore. The above two agreements were the two historical pieces in this issue though few minor agreements were made in 1929 and 1933. 

The Battle of the 'FOUR':

                After the reorganization of the princely states in 1956, the Madras state turned into Tamil Nadu and the State of Mysore turned into Karnataka. As the time period of the historical second agreement of 1924 is 50 years, there was a need to address the situation and solve it at the earliest. But, then entered into the fray were the state of Kerala and the Union Territory, Pondicherry.

•       Soon the negotiations started and continued for a decade and later a committee was called, the "Cauvery Fact Finding Committee" (CFFC) was constituted to make a report. It submitted an initial report in 1972 and a draft in 1973. Later, after many discussions, 50 years from the 1924 agreement, an agreement draft was created but was not ratified.
•         In the State of Kerala, the diversion of the water from Cauvery basin provides a scope for development of hydroelectric power in addition to meeting the need for consumption of water for irrigation purposes. In spite of several negotiations with other States Kerala could not materialize.
•        Karnataka started to construct the dams on Cauvery during which, Tamil Nadu though initially opposed later held several negotiations. But, the farmers agitated and demanded for a tribunal in the end of 1980s.
•     Eventually, a tribunal was formed on 2^nd June, 1990 which gave its final verdict on 5th February, 2007.

Critical Errors:

The major reasons in the failure of reaching a solution are "Politics and Inefficient Governments", "Failure of Negotiations" and "Delays of the Tribunal and its faulty solutions"  which made this dispute as old as 150 years and still no proper solution.
   
   Politics and Inefficient Governments:

•  The Union Governments were inefficient in providing a proper deal and solution.
•  Instead they used it as a point in their agenda in the center and the states as well where the farmers' votes were used to win the elections.

    

         Failure of Negotiations:

• The Cauvery issue became intensely politicized in the 1970s and 1980s where both states were run by different political parties which made a final solution almost impossible.
• The irrigation ministers were not the same all over the period and it was a hindrance for the uphill task and moreover the engineers too got involved in the politics.
• There didn’t exist a common interest between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu on the question of pursuing negotiations as Karnataka tried to prolong the negotiations in order to gain time to complete its new projects.

     Delays of Tribunal and its Faulty Solutions:

• The constitution, the submission and the enforcement of the tribunals have caused a lot of delay in sorting the issue.
• Sometimes, the orders either were not followed or were delayed which led to further increase in the gravity of the situation.
• The solutions provided by the Tribunal were dependent on the values of resources , instead they should have provided a solution based on percentages which would have been same in distribution of the resources in any season. This is solely due to the fact that Cauvery is not a Himalayan river and it is highly dependent on monsoon, thus the water level varies again leading to the conflict in the former case.

The Final word:

                     Though, this is the last part of the blog but I feel that, the end is nowhere near to the dispute. We see that there has been no outcome in several major disputes such as Godavari - Krishna, Ravi - Beas etc., and in the future, it is no wonder if we see that no solution is also a solution. These kinds of issues have negative impacts on economic growth. Now-a-days these problems are compounded by the general center-state conflicts, and everyday political issues. We need a more efficient design of mechanism for negotiating inter-state water disputes such as a "National Water Commission", an autonomous body, so that it works independent of regular political pressures.

        

The river knows the way to the sea; 

                                without a pilot it runs and falls,

                                                            Blessing all lands with its charity.                                                                                                                                
                                                                                    -Ralph Waldo Emerson
References: 

• The Report of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal with the decision : Volumes I - VI .
• Wikipedia : 1) Cauvery  2) Cauvery River Water Dispute.
• Water Stress in the Cauvery Basin, South India. 

                      --  Marius Ferdin, Stefan Görlitz, Steffen Schwörer

• Making Sense of the Cauvery River Water Dispute.

                                                                                --  P.B. Anand

• The Cauvery Conflict.
                   -- SS Meenakshisundaram, Priya Raghavan and
                                            M Amarjeet Singh.
• An article on Inter State River Water Disputes. 

                        www.law-essays-uk.com/resources/sample-essays/

                          indian-law/inter-state-river-water-disputes.php

• Images Courtesy : Wikipedia

      Definitions were taken from: 

• Inter State Water Disputes in India: Institutions and Policies.

                                           --  By Alan Richards & Nirvikar Singh

• Water and Conflict.

                                       -- By Jason Gehrig with Mark M. Rogers

• Conflict and Natural Resource Management

                                             -- By Violet Matiru for FAO of UNO



                                                                            Ratnakar Alkanti
                                                                                (AE11B003)

Of water-less turf wars - the Hydropolitical perspective

It’s not rare to find expressions such as “Water is life” or “Water is basic”. However, after delving into the innumerable attributes of life that water is crucial to, we realize this is grossly understating its value. Cause since time immemorial, even great societies have met their unfortunate fall due to the failure to develop sustainable water policies. Therefore it is only apt to state that water is progress and water is, indeed, development. However, since it is multifaceted in nature, it impacts developmental issues on multiple levels. By virtue of being structurally scarce and intrinsically invaluable simultaneously, water is enhanced into being possibly the most vital resource for not just sustaining life but for stability of societies across. This vitality when placed against the reality of human inhabitation of the Earth rather unsustainably, we see the birth of the biggest reason for conflict. Hence there is a need for better understanding of these conflicts, as traditional discourses seem to ignore certain key factors. As reliance on water increases, so does the competition for the control of the resource, edging the issue into the political domain as the issue of power symmetry crops up. It is precisely for this reason that Hydropolitics, as a branch of studies and as an area of research for solutions, is multi-disciplinary in nature, locates and attempts to understand the problem with respect to the various aspects of the issue itself and seeks for solutions that solve the conflicting plethora of variables that operate within a water conflict.


Hydropolitics can be understood from four major angles:

Water and state control – This core aspect of hydropolitics places the resource of water in a context of control, analyzing cases of conflicts and domination and co-operation and equity. Here, the underlying theme of hydro hegemony is crucial to understanding as there is a particular imbalance in the power structures involved in the conflicts and this impacts the way solutions are arrived at. In most cases, the core of each conflict can be traced back to its management and hence, state policies and regulation play a massive role in the discussion of a water conflict, the case of the Oslo Agreement II that the Palestinians signed over the Jordan’s waters that Israelis had an bizarrely inequitable veto over is a perfect example.


Water and environment – The setting of a natural resource in the environment might seem a little too obvious but the nature of politics with regards to this aspect is quite complex. By looking at water as a resource of the environment that is being contested, other factors such as population pressure, pollution etc. are directly linked, pointing towards a whole new arena of the issue that requires specific solutions. Power and politics play a crucial role in deciding the nature of arbitration in such cases of collective responsibility and in analyzing weak institutional frameworks that work towards the protection of the environmental variables.


Water and security – The extended principle of security is one that in exists as one of the more genuine reasons for the politization of water conflicts. This exists as a result of the other factors that are being discussed – the question of sufficient access and availability. The idea of water security in hydropolitics is of even more importance thanks to the intrinsic value of the resource itself and life’s dependence on it. Most African nations, China and India are considered to be water insecure, according to the findings of the Consultative Group on International Agriculture Research. 

Water and society and culture – One of the background factors of hydropolitics, the social and cultural dimension is one that is almost subtly at play in every case of hydropolitics we have ever known. Water, the most important resource man has ever known of is therefore also made to possess certain societal and cultural dimensions that impact the conflict even when cooperation is possible. For example, parties not possessing the necessary physical infrastructure to handle their own demands or instances of solutions where despite state consensus, social disapproval towards the other party due to other reasons often affect mediation even when there is no clear case of power asymmetry. The case of Little Colorado water dispute settlement involving the tribes of Navoji and Hopi is a clear case of conflict due to disapproval of the other, purely on historical and social grounds.


THE INDIAN CASE SCENARIO – The Cauvery River Dispute


When considering the political contexts of various water disputes raging around us in India today, the world unanimously agrees that the dramatic farce around the Cauvery river issue needs to die. Since its first notable entry into the public opinion decades ago, it has only been a series of unnecessary events ranging from fasts called on by the chief ministers on either sides, flouting orders from the supposed mediator the Centre to film stars making speeches, declarations and even innuendos cleverly smuggled into their movies. The Cauvery Waters dispute is a classic case of the ideal Indian Dispute reconciliation method. To never reconcile. Egos and demigod status take precedence over real problems, power struggles of politicians over the real struggles of the common man.


However, the outcome of the heavy hydropolitics at play is one demanding immediate attention, away from the drama itself. With the political stage too busy to look at facts, policies emerging from the debate (or lack thereof) are increasingly skewed and actively harmful. According to the final verdict of the Cauvery Waters Disputes Tribunal, Tamil Nadu was awarded 419 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) of Cauvery water, out of which 192 tmcft will be released by Karnataka and the rest 227 tmcft is to be released from tributaries within Tamil Nadu such as the Amaravathy, Bhavani and Noyyal rivers, apart from ground water. Karnataka was awarded 270 tmcft, Kerala is to get 30 tmcft, and Puducherry was awarded only 7 tmcft. Karnataka was unhappy with this arrangement and instead of seeking a review on the allocated amounts of water, the battle between the states began. What was needed was a credible discussion considering the constraints and requirements but what did happen were unreasonable ego clashes. This meant that key issues that has to be dealt with in the policies and strategies adopted, fell through the cracks leaving an eventual solution to the problem in wreckage and dangerously pushing the states towards acute water shortage.


First such issue cropped up in as early as the 1960s. Pressure on farmers to grow water-intensive cash crops in Tamil Nadu has been a direct outcome of the two governments trying to grab more water off Cauvery, especially since the construction of the Mettur Dam. The PDS system’s pricing of rice allows it to be consumed like water itself, suggestions of water minimizing rice crops not withstanding. For instance, the kurvai crop of rice was the summer season rice, a crop that requires huge quantities and a steady supply of water to grow in a season where scarcity is at it’s excruciating best. Traditionally farmers grew winter rice or sambha crop because the region gets its rainfall during these months. Seedlings were prepared in August and the rice transplanted a month later, ready for the northeast monsoons, the rainwater was stored in the fields and its flow to the sea minimized. The paddy seasons of both states were different and conflict was contained as they each could grow the necessary crops at ease. But the kurvai crop changed all this as it water guzzled far more than what the State needs, more than what Cauvery can provide for. Karnataka, however, has not played it safe; it has arbitrarily increased its water needs, expanding irrigated agriculture massively and without thinking. The need to seek political mileage has been growing and rapidly, since 1992.


As early as 1990s, water policy planners had warned both the states about the necessity to reduce the rice growing area as even a 2 percent decrease would make available enough water resources that could satisfy the growing needs of both the states. It wasn’t just about water as well, it was also about the toll the haphazard cultivation was taking on the soil and thereby making it impossible to ensure productivity. Scientists had also worked on early maturing crops and water minimizing rice crops but crucially enough, there was an active stated need to diversify the crops in the lower reaches of the river to less water consuming, but equally profitable crops that could be grown. Clearly, it was not a case of not knowing the right thing to do but to compulsively do the opposite; naturally those ended up being suggestions that were ignored as the governments were too busy protesting on the streets.


However, what seems to have gone past the concerns of these governments is that the overall supply of water from the river will remain constant; the key is to regulate and manage demand, not increase it. According to a Central Water Commission report, thanks to the construction of dams in both states and bad irrigation decisions, water utilization level in the Cauvery basin is the highest among all rivers in the country; the estimated demand of approximately 900 tmc per year is way above the real yield of 780 tmc. Political drama has shifted the light away from judging the realistic sharing, irrigation and crop diversification plans leaving the issue, not about how much water that the Supreme Court or even the Cauvery River Authority will decide Karnataka must give to Tamil Nadu, it’s about a river that is under colossal pressure.


But what the political struggle has also done is create an artificial obsession that convinces all of the supposedly humungous dependence on the river. Investing crores in gigantic projects on the river has allowed research and development of alternatives fall through the cracks, despite tanks and ponds proving to be stable sources of water supply in the past in both these states. Alternative sources and conservation and augmentation strategies will prove to be key to solving the real water scarcity in these states, however, only if enough attention was given to assessing its potential and facilitating its realization. Noyyal and Bhavani, for example, were the rivers that Tamil Nadu was also expected to depend upon. While one is considered to be dead, the other witnesses horrifying levels of pollution thanks to industrial waste dumping. Both emerge from the Western Ghats and empty into the Cauvery in Tamil Nadu making them perfectly viable but hardly ever actually considered options. This needs to stop, both the states need to analyse all probable options available, as the real problem is not one of sharing but one of scarcity.


Informed consent of stakeholders is yet another factor that would make the solution, if ever arrived at, implementable. Because the considerations of a supposedly modern disputes settlement infrastructure, the tribunal here, cause the announcement of the verdict only managed to flare up fasts and outright rejections from both sides, each demanding more. If only the river could satisfy their seemingly bizarre demands. However, the problem with stakeholders’ consensus is deeper than just figureheads and their war cries. With farmers and industry wielding considerable political clout, negotiations and compromises end up in deadlock as a lack of information disallows for possible solutions to even be considered. The role and authority of the arbitrator needs to be acknowledged if consensus has to be reached, forcing away the slangling match of the two cities. Cause it all began in 1892 when agreement was reached on sharing the Cauvery water. But ever since its revision in 1924, we have witnessed nothing but mere disagreement without any efforts to negotiate and mammoth clashes of the ego, despite the formation of the Cauvery Waters Disputes Tribunal in 1990 and the 16 years it has taken to come up with the final plan in 2007. However, one needs to remember that other than tribunals, there are no other statutory remedies under the Constitution implying that unless cooperation is promised and delivered from both the sides with respect to the Cauvery Waters Disputes Tribunal and negotiate with its verdict on the table, the deadlock is pointless, here to stay and leave both the states bitter and water-less.


We can see from the above failures to deal with availability, accessibility and feasible solutions, the Cauvery dispute draws from all the angles of Hydropolitics as stated earlier, making it one of the worst possible conflicts the country has ever known. Possible solutions would involve the constitutionalizing the rights of the centre to allocate water resources equitably, increasing the judicial enforceability of the tribunals and their verdicts, a representative arbitration process, strategically sound policies and a plea for increased cooperation from the two parties to resolve the issue in an amicable manner.


But until then, what are real concerns in front of turf wars. Water water everywhere, not one politician to save!



REFERENCES

Johns Hopkins University Press, William Ascher, Why Governments Waste Natural Resources: Policy Failures in Developing Countries

Tony Allan, Virtual Water: Tackling the Threat to Our Planet's Most Precious Resource

Mark Zeitoun and Jeroen Warner, Hydro-hegemony – a framework for analysis of trans-boundary water conflicts

http://www.internationalwaterlaw.org/bibliography/articles/hydropolitics_book.pdf

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/11/28/the-power-politics-of-water-struggles/

http://green.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/04/06/a-difficult-choice-on-water/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaveri_River_water_dispute

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/content/cauvery-river-dispute

http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/cauvery-water-dispute-the-ambedkar-way-3738.html

http://www.ndtv.com/topic/cauvery-water-disputes-tribunal

http://ibnlive.in.com/news/cauvery-water-dispute-is-there-hope-for-a-permanent-solution/300016-37-64.html

Sithara Rasheed

HS10H033

Attempts to Resolve the Cauvery Water Dispute and Future Remedies

One of the most controversial inter-state disputes over shared resources between two states is one of the Cauvery water dispute tribunal. The source of this conflict was mainly due to the agreement on the water sharing treaties conceded by the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu during 1892 and 1924 between the Madras presidency (Tamil Nadu) and the princely state of Mysore (Karnataka) which was more in favour of Tamil Nadu. Now, Karnataka demands equitable sharing of the Cauvery waters and Tamil Nadu had already set up a livelihood which depends solely on the existent water partition between the two states. If Karnataka got their way, then a massive population in Tamil Nadu would get severely affected as a consequence of it.

            Most of the initiatives taken by the local communities had proved unsuccessful because of a difference of opinion. Earlier futile protests were because the 50 year old agreement signed in 1924 was never carried out till 1974. And in the later years, around 1990’s, the issues ballooned up creating unrest within the communities involved. This is when the judicial and bodies stepped in in an attempt to remedy the issue. Thus formed the Cauvery River Authority and its monitoring committee headed by the Prime Minister and Chief Ministers of the riparian states. Since this committee didn’t act effectively as planned, a Cauvery Water Tribunal was formed in 1990 under the act of 1956 Inter State Water Disputes. After proposing an interim order in 1991, the final award was delivered in 2007 according to which the water partitioning for each of the four states would be as follows:

       Tamil Nadu, 419 TMC

       Karnataka, 270 TMC   

       Kerala, 30 TMC

 Pondicherry, 7 TMC

*TMC – thousand million cubed

After the final award was proposed, initially there were no major grievances. But eventually, all states approached the Supreme Court with Special Leave Petitions. Availing no other option, the Supreme Court acknowledges the petition and left the situation back at ground zero. 

            During this entire process, the farmers and the stakeholders never came into the picture. This is one conflict that has been going on for quite some decades now and we need a fresh new perspective into the problem. Multi-Stakeholder’ Dialogue (MSD) is one such possibility. Also, the farmers involved in this have never actually had a say in any of this. This has been initiated by the Madras Institute of Development Studies in 2003. As a consequence of this, the Committee of the Cauvery Family held several meetings and made significant improvement in the remediation. Using relevant facts and research, the total water quantity was summed unto 670 TCM (approx.). Of which, Kerala and Pondicherry shares 50 TCM, and the rest is to be respectively shared between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka depending on the agricultural and agronomical scene in both these states.  

LONG TERM Solution:

            When considering issues over natural resources, we must always seek remedies that are long term. Temporal treatment to such disputes would spur even bigger problems in the future. Due to the early efforts of the Tamil Nadu government,   Tambrapani watershed (The entire geographical area drained by a river and its tributaries; an area characterized by all runoff being conveyed to the same outlet), a tributary through Tirunelveli, is being well protected and preserved. This tributary is the very reason why Tirunelveli is one of the highest agricultural crop yielding districts of the state. Since most of the agricultural land usage depends purely on this tributary, these districts are very well content with the way things are. Hence, watershed management proves very beneficial and is also a sustainable method of water resource usage.                    

Although, Tamil Nadu has rights over the tributaries Bhavana and Moyar, its legislature prevents rights over the main headwaters of Cauvery. The government also has full control of the watersheds like, Ponnayar, Palar etc. Reports suggest Tamil Nadu to receive 13 less rain days annually, but the amount hasn’t decreased. This says that there would be harder rains but lesser number of times. This further propels the necessity of healthy and efficient watersheds.  

Following are the advantages of proper utilization of watersheds:

-           Help slow down the process of surface water run-off,

-           Improve percolation of water to recharge underground aquifers,

-           Decrease the siltation of waterway

-           Help lengthen the flow period of rivers.

      Watersheds have proved useful for over a century in Tirunelveli alone, and it has also proven its worth many other districts within India. In Madura district and in less than five years, the watershed had recovered causing a improved stream flow as and when the cattle grazing and fuel wood harvesters were removed. Similarly in the reserve forests of Karavakurichi, these watersheds have improved the forest growth within two years of their implementation.

    

    Though everything seems well and good, the problem arises while setting up a watershed management. Seeking foundation through politically motivated social forestry and village forest schemes will fail as this involves usage of large areas of land. The setup of such an establishment requires the full consented cooperation of the government, political parties, NGO’s, the forest department and most essentially the local people. Money required reaches over 20 crores rupees and about 500,000 hectares of land (which should be regenerated). 

The Ambedkar Way:

            While addressing to such issues where the livelihoods of people is at stake, the remedies should  be such that the verdict equally suffices all parties involved. Though this method has been quite frowned upon in the past, could possibly work in the issue at hand. It seems to add much more sense in the entire process of fostering solutions not just momentarily but for future days to come.

            Ambedkar believed in a path of “equity”, wherein equal sharing of resources and opportunities seeds understanding and peaceful mutual existence between societies. There are situations where local and regional bodies get involved and because of the absence of a properly functional legal system there seems to be no solution at hand. He had come up with an idea of implementing independent authorities of these water resources controlled by the Central. This gives autonomous governance rights to the Central which would ensure equal water sharing in times of desperate needs largely based on a constitutional framework. Since, the system is centralised it reduces the chances of conflicts over the outcome.

REFERENCES:

From Publications:

-          Transforming Potential Conflict into Cooperation Potential: Role of International Water Law

                        By: Sergei Vinogradov, Patricia Wouters, Patricia Jones

-          The Cauvery Water War

            By: Neil Pelkey

-          Water And Conflict

            By: Jason Gehrig with Mark M. Rogers

-           Article reviewed - Inter State Water Disputes in India: Institutions and Policies

By: Alan Richards & Nirvikar Singh

From Sites:

-          Wikipedia: www.wikipedia.org

-          http://www.ipcs.org/article/india/cauvery-water-dispute-the-ambedkar-way-3738.html

                                                                                                      KARTHIK CHANDRASEKAR
                                                                                                      AE11B015