Why in the News
The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) can order Karnataka to release water to Tamil Nadu but cannot enforce those orders, and Karnataka did not comply in five of the seven 15 day release spells ordered since late July. Tamil Nadu is contemplating asking the Supreme Court to give the Authority enforcement powers, on the lines of the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB).
What is the CWMA, and what can it not do?
- What it is: The CWMA fixes how much Cauvery water Karnataka must release to Tamil Nadu. It works like an umpire who can announce a decision but cannot make players follow it.
- Why it exists: The Union government set it up in 2018 to give effect to the water sharing award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, as modified by the Supreme Court.
- How releases are ordered: The Authority orders releases in 15 day spells. The flows are measured at Biligundlu on the inter State border.
- Missing power: The Authority has no power to enforce its orders on a State.
- The takeaway: A sharing formula without an enforcing body leaves the downstream State dependent on the upstream State’s compliance.
What does Tamil Nadu want, and what is the BBMB model?
- Model sought: Tamil Nadu wants the Authority modelled on the BBMB, which Volume V of the Tribunal’s report mentions.
- BBMB mandate: Established in October 1967, the BBMB regulates the supply of water and electricity from the Bhakra Nangal and Beas projects.
- Beneficiaries: The supply goes to Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Chandigarh.
- Control over projects: The Union government appoints the board’s chief. The board “owns, operates, manages, and regulates” the projects.
- Joint decisions: The BBMB takes joint decisions on how much water is given and when. The CWMA chairperson has referred to the Tribunal’s recommendation.
What is Tamil Nadu’s grievance over the releases?
- Inadequate orders: Tamil Nadu holds that the releases the CWMA stipulated in the last three months were inadequate and lower than its proportionate share.
- Mandated flows not released: Karnataka did not release even those reduced flows in most of the spells.
- Cumulative receipt: Across all the spells together, Tamil Nadu received about 5,000 cusecs (cubic feet per second) more than the total of 5.71 lakh cusecs ordered.
- Backlog: The Authority has not asked Karnataka to clear the backlog of undelivered water, which Tamil Nadu calculates at nearly 17 tmc ft (thousand million cubic feet).
How far did the monsoon deficit cut the flows?
- Karnataka’s reservoirs: Central Water Commission data cover Krishnaraja Sagar, Kabini, Hemavathi and Harangi. Their net cumulative inflow between early June and early November was about 132 tmc ft.
- Inflow shortfall: The inflow into Karnataka’s reservoirs was around 54% below the long period average of around 288 tmc ft.
- Proportionate entitlement: Cutting Tamil Nadu’s share by the same proportion gives around 67 tmc ft, against 145 tmc ft in a normal year.
- Actual receipt: Tamil Nadu received 53.43 tmc ft at Biligundlu, around 13 tmc ft less than that reduced entitlement.
Challenges
- No control over reservoirs: The States operate the Cauvery reservoirs, so the Authority depends on the upstream State to carry out each order.
- Distress sharing: In a deficit year the two States calculate the shared shortfall differently, and each spell becomes a fresh dispute.
- Recurring litigation: Deficit years repeatedly bring the dispute back to the Supreme Court, and hearings move slower than the crop season.
Way Forward
- Operational control: The Union government should amend the Authority’s scheme to give it BBMB style control over releases from the reservoirs.
- Deficit formula: The CWMA should publish a formula that links each State’s share to reservoir inflows in a deficit year.
- Backlog accounting: The Authority should record the shortfall of each spell and schedule its recovery in later spells.
Conclusion
Tamil Nadu has not yet filed a petition, and no date for one is indicated. The question to watch is whether the Supreme Court is asked to turn the Authority from a body that orders releases into one that can deliver them.
Back2Basics: Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal
- Legal basis: Article 262 lets Parliament provide for the adjudication of inter State river water disputes. The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 was enacted under it.
- Constitution: The Union government constituted the Tribunal in 1990 under that Act.
- Final award: Its 2007 award divided the Cauvery waters among Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.
Matching Previous Year Question
“[2017] Which one of the following is not a feature of Indian federalism ? (a) There is an independent judiciary in India. (b) Powers have been clearly divided between the Centre and the States. (c) (c ) The federating units have been given unequal representation in the Rajya Sabha. (d) It is the result of an agreement among the federating units. ANSWER: (d)”
