Why is it in the News?

The resurgence of the Cauvery water-sharing conflict between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, despite the Supreme Court's 2018 ruling on the longstanding dispute, is primarily due to inadequate rainfall in Karnataka's Cauvery river catchment area.

A Historical Overview of the Cauvery Water Dispute

• Origin of the Dispute Before Independence: The origins of the Cauvery water dispute trace back to 1892 during the British colonial era, involving the Madras Presidency and the Princely state of Mysore.
• In 1924, an agreement was reached between Mysore and Madras, with a validity period of 50 years.
• Post-Independence Dispute: The agreement signed between the Madras Presidency and the Princely state of Mysore concluded in 1974.
• Starting in 1974, Karnataka began diverting water into its four newly constructed reservoirs without obtaining consent from Tamil Nadu, leading to a post-independence dispute.

Supreme Court's Ruling on the Cauvery Water Dispute:

• Clear Allocation of Water Quantities to TN and Karnataka: In 2018, the Supreme Court made a definitive decision to allocate an additional 14.75 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic Feet) of water to Karnataka while reducing Tamil Nadu's share by the same amount.
• Karnataka's additional allocation was primarily designated for addressing the drinking water needs in southern Karnataka.
• As per this ruling, out of the total annual Cauvery water share of 740 TMC, Tamil Nadu was granted 404.25 TMC, Karnataka received 284.75 TMC, and Kerala obtained 30 TMC.
• Furthermore, the court allocated 7 TMCs to Puducherry and reserved 14 TMCs for environmental conservation and preventing waste into the sea.
• Establishment of CWMA (Cauvery Water Management Authority): The Supreme Court also mandated the establishment of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) along with the Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC) to resolve inter-state disputes according to the court's directives.
• The CWMA operates as a primarily non-political body operating under the supervision of the Union Water Resources Ministry.
• It serves as the central agency responsible for regulating disputes between the two states.

Reasons for the Ongoing Dispute:

• Political parties in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu argue that the 2018 Supreme Court order delineated water-sharing guidelines solely for typical monsoon years, not accounting for scenarios of water scarcity.
• The present monsoon season is unfolding as deficient, with rainfall measuring more than 30 percent below the usual levels.
• In particular, the months of August and September, within the four-month monsoon period that commenced in June, have experienced the lowest rainfall in Karnataka in 123 years.

How the Current Crisis Has Unfolded?

• Karnataka's Reduced Water Release: Per the 2018 Supreme Court verdict, Karnataka is obligated to release 123.14 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic Feet) of water to Tamil Nadu between June and September during a normal monsoon year.
• For August and September in a typical monsoon season, Karnataka should release a combined total of 82.71 TMC.
• However, this year, Karnataka had only released 40 TMC of water by September 23, citing an ongoing distress situation in the state.
• Tamil Nadu's Engagement with CWMA: In August, Tamil Nadu turned to the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to ensure regular water supplies.
• The Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC), functioning under the CWMA, noted that rainfall in the Cauvery basin in Karnataka was 26 percent below normal by early August.
• The committee also observed that Karnataka had only released 30.252 TMC of water from June 1 to August 28, far less than the usual 80.451 TMC in a typical year.
• CWMA's Decision: In accordance with the committee's advice, the CWMA initially ordered the release of approximately 13 TMC of water for 15 days at a rate of 12,000 cubic feet per second (cusecs) per day, despite Tamil Nadu's request for 25,000 cusecs per day.
• Subsequently, after reviewing the monsoon situation once more, the CWRC and CWMA decreased Karnataka's water release to 5,000 cusecs per day, while Tamil Nadu sought 12,000 cusecs.
• Supreme Court's Verdict on CWMA's Decision: Both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka appealed to the Supreme Court to contest the CWMA's orders.
• However, the Supreme Court upheld the release of 5,000 cusecs of water until September 26.
• The Karnataka government has stated its intention to adhere to the Supreme Court's order until September 26 and then reassess the situation.

Karnataka's Arguments:

• Reliance on Southwest Monsoon: Karnataka contends that Tamil Nadu predominantly receives its significant rainfall during the retreating northeast monsoon period, typically occurring between October and November.
• In contrast, Karnataka heavily depends on rainfall during the southwest monsoon months from June to September.
• Protesters argue that water is being directed to Tamil Nadu as the southwest monsoon season nears its end, resulting in critically low storage levels in the Cauvery basin reservoirs in Karnataka.
• The Cauvery River serves as the primary source of drinking water for Bengaluru and for irrigation purposes in the Mandya region of the state.
• Mekedatu Check Dam Project Implementation: The Karnataka government is advocating for the execution of the Mekedatu Check Dam project on the Cauvery River.
• This project is designed to serve as a reservoir for Bengaluru's drinking water needs and to release surplus water to Tamil Nadu during crisis situations, such as the current one.

The Storage Status of Cauvery Basin Reservoirs in Karnataka:

• As of September 23, the four reservoirs located in the Cauvery basin – Krishna Raja Sagar, Kabini, Hemavathy, and Harangi – were at 50% of their storage capacity.
• Collectively, these reservoirs held 51.1 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic Feet) of water, compared to their total capacity of 104.5 TMC.
• According to the Karnataka government, the state's water requirements are estimated at 112 TMC (79 TMC for crop irrigation and 33 TMC for supplying Bengaluru's drinking water needs) until June 2024.
• Given that the southwest monsoon season in Karnataka is concluding, the Karnataka government asserts that the remaining water in the Cauvery basin reservoirs must be preserved for essential drinking water and agricultural irrigation purposes.

Is the Current Situation Unique?

• The current Cauvery water crisis bears similarities to previous crises that occurred in 1991, 2002, 2012, and 2016.
• What sets this crisis apart is that it has arisen after the Supreme Court's final resolution of the dispute in 2018.
• Furthermore, historical protests related to the Cauvery issue have sometimes escalated into violence, often driven by mainstream political parties attempting to gain favor with voters by adopting chauvinistic stances.
• In recent years, however, Karnataka's politicians have adopted a more conciliatory approach.
• Notably, in the Mandya region, farmers have shifted towards cultivating less water-intensive crops, and younger generations are increasingly moving away from agriculture.
• As a result, the Cauvery issue is no longer as emotionally charged as it was three decades ago.

In Conclusion

• The Cauvery River, often referred to as the 'Dakshina Ganga,' has long been recognized as the economic lifeline of the states it traverses, with its most significant impact being felt in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
• Although the contest over Cauvery's waters can be traced back to the 11th century AD, contemporary Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have grappled with disagreements regarding the sharing of Cauvery's waters.
• It is imperative for the states to shift away from a regional-centric approach and embrace cooperation and coordination as genuine solutions, transcending conflicts for the benefit of all.

Mains Question:

• How has the Cauvery River played a pivotal role in the economic development of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, and what are the contemporary challenges and potential cooperative solutions in managing its water resources? (15M)