Will the Apex court verdict resolve the Cauvery dispute?

Everyone is hoping that the Supreme Court’s (SC) 465-page judgment of February 16, 2018, on Cauvery river water sharing dispute will help resolve the impasse. The SC judgment came in response to a number of appeals that were filed in the SC soon after the February 2007 award of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT). Leaving aside the question as to why the SC took 11 years to decide, it is heartening to see that the SC verdict has not started any immediate protests. 

Will it help achieve sustainable water use in Cauvery basin? 

The SC judgment has increased the allocation to Karnataka by 14.75 tmc (thousand million cubic feet), vis-a-vis the stipulation of CWDT award, effectively reducing Tamil Nadu’s share by the same quantum. Karnataka’s water release obligation has accordingly been reduced from 192 tmc per year (all flow figures are for a 50 per cent dependable year) to 177.25 tmc. Monthly release obligations would also reduce proportionately compared to CWDT stipulations. Karnataka’s share has also been increased. The additional allocation of 4.75 TMC for Bangalore is based on the reasoning that drinking water is the top priority as per National Water Policy (NWP). This reference to NWP in the SC judgment is welcome, as it provides some legal support for the priorities given in National Policy. However, Karnataka is already supplying additional water for Bangalore from its own share, so it is moot if it was necessary to raise this issue at this forum, particularly since two-thirds of Bangalore is outside Cauvery basin, as determined by CWDT. 

Moreover, it is well known that Bangalore’s use of its water options is sub-optimally utilised. For example, Bangalore is not adequately harvesting rainwater; is not protecting its local water bodies, including lakes and streams; is not adequately treating or recycling its waste water and is not carrying out extensive demand-side management. The SC could have used the opportunity to push for better water management in Bangalore rather than rewarding poor water management with more water.

There is also a larger question that looms menacingly: Will the additional allocation of Cauvery water for regions outside the Cauvery basin further complicate other interstate water disputes? Will claims of areas outside the river basin receive higher priority? 

The SC has said that Tamil Nadu has access to additional groundwater, and at least 10 tmc of groundwater is available for use in TN, which the CWDT has not accounted for. In view of this availability, SC has increased Karnataka’s share by 10 tmc. Firstly, its welcome that SC has brought groundwater into the water use calculation. Groundwater is India’s water lifeline since most of our irrigated areas, the rural and the urban sector, as well as water-based industries, depend on groundwater. Sadly, the SC judgment accounts for the groundwater use by TN only in an ad hoc manner, instead of undertaking a comprehensive accounting of groundwater availability and use. 

Will it be helpful in achieving equitable water distribution in deficit years?

That, in fact, is the crux. The SC has directed that the implementing mechanism for the CWDT award and SC verdict be set up in six weeks, on the lines directed by CWDT. This mechanism needs to function in an independent and transparent manner and establish its credibility quickly. For this, the SC will have to play a key role. It is the efficacious functioning of this mechanism that will decide if equitable water distribution will happen in deficit years or not. Let us hope the mechanism is set up soon and SC continues to ensure that it delivers on its mandate. 

Unfortunately, all the parties involved, including the states, Centre, CWDT and SC see river only as a water channel. The paltry and half-hearted allocation of 10 tmc for the river notwithstanding, the CWDT and SC saw the dispute only as one related to water sharing, and not one inextricably linked to the sustainability of the river. One will have to wait before the tribunals and judiciary in India start putting concerns about the longevity of the river at the centre of resolving interstate river disputes. For this, these forums will also need to listen to other stakeholders besides the states and the Union as both of them have failed in adequately representing the interests of the river. 

Will it reduce the number of future water disputes or increase them? 

In the immediate and shorter term, the tribunals and judiciary, while dealing with river water disputes, have not taken an in-depth view on rainwater, groundwater, soil water, catchment, and local water bodies. Going forward, these disputes are likely to increase at a time when climate change is already complicating this situation. The SC Cauvery verdict has further complicated the situation by suggesting that “a digression from the confines of the concept of in-river basin would be justified”. 

The author is coordinator of South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers & People