Cauvery Water Dispute Escalates Amid Monsoon Deficiency and Storage Capacity Concerns

Tensions over sharing waters of the monsoon rain-fed Cauvery between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu flare up whenever there is a deficiency in rainfall. When rainfall is good, there is no problem in water-sharing. This year, the rain gods have not be kind as the Cauvery basin districts have experienced a rainfall deficit and the water stored in the seven major reservoirs are filled to only 55.7% of their capacity. The poor monsoon and low storage levels were a major reason why Tamil Nadu’s chief minister, C Joseph Vijay, belatedly opened the sluice gates of the Stanley reservoir — built across the Cauvery in Salem district of the state — in Mettur. Water stored in this reservoir is also 55% of its live storage capacity and releases will be for 45 days starting September 1 to meet irrigation needs for the samba paddy crop. Matters have come to a boil this year as flows to Tamil Nadu have considerably diminished from the upper riparian state of Karnataka. Tamil Nadu is clamouring for its share of water as per the directions of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and has approached the Supreme Court in this regard. On August 25, the CWMA upheld the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee’s recommendation directing Karnataka to ensure a flow of 9,000 cusecs for 15 days to Tamil Nadu between August 26 and September 8. Karnataka, for its part, told the apex court that it is complying with the CWMA’s directions. Tamil Nadu has further sought its intervention to direct Karnataka to also make good the accumulated shortfall in earlier releases. Since it sought water over and above what the CWMA had directed, Tamil Nadu was urged to challenge the authority’s decision before the appropriate forum. Approaching the Supreme Court may make for good political optics but a settlement over sharing waters will be elusive unless there is a mutually acceptable distress-sharing formula for years of rainfall deficiency. Only a political dialogue between the riparian states (which should include Kerala and Puducherry as well) in a genuine spirit of give and take can lay the foundations of a durable settlement. Karnataka should stop harping on the inequity of historical agreements. Tamil Nadu, for its part, should get used to living with less water from the Cauvery, perhaps shifting away from water-intensive crops like paddy. Interestingly, its farmers have been requested to cultivate medium-duration paddy varieties with low water requirements and also adopt direct sowing of rice to conserve water supplies. Perhaps all of this is easier said than done as the biggest stumbling block is Karnataka’s assumption of primacy of rights over the Cauvery as an upper riparian state. How can a party to a dispute assume the role of the judge as well? In contrast, as a lower riparian state, Tamil Nadu is often reduced to the position of a supplicant and forced to approach the Supreme Court for implementation of the directions of the CWMA to Karnataka regarding the flow of water. As if all of this weren’t bad enough, Karnataka has plans to build the Mekedatu Dam across the Cauvery to supply drinking water to Bengaluru despite the opposition of lower riparian states. This problem is not specific to the Cauvery. Even West Bengal as an upper riparian state has for a long time come in the way of equitably sharing waters of the Teesta with Bangladesh.