Cauvery waters still rage

As per ISWD Act, if the Centre or any concerned state needs any guidance on any point in the verdict, they could again refer the matter to the tribunal for further consideration within a period of three months and ask for a further report. Once the further report is received, the Centre has to notify the award and the decision shall be final and binding on the parties. The amended Act stipulated further that the tribunal8217;s decision shall have the same force as an order or decree of the Supreme Court. It is also to be noted that under Article 262 of the Constitution, the tribunal8217;s decisions are outside the jurisdiction of the courts, including the Supreme Court.

A study of the final order would confirm that it is a just and equitable settlement of a highly contentious inter-state water dispute. However, some politicians have unleashed a disinformation campaign against the award. For example, the upper riparians are being given the impression that against 205 TMC to be released by Karnataka as ordered under the interim relief in 1991, a substantially large quantum 8212; 419 TMC 8212; has been allotted to Tamil Nadu in the final award! The fact is that as per the award, Karnataka is to release 192 TMC to Tamil Nadu, which includes environmental releases of 10 TMC and Puduchery allocation of 7 TMC.

There are certain grey areas in the verdict that need to be clarified in the further report. These are: one, a more elaborate clause on distress/deficit sharing as to how the sharing is to be done when there is distress in the upper basin areas due to a weak southwest monsoon while there is a normal northeast monsoon providing adequate precipitation to the lower areas in the basin and vice versa. Two, there is need for a time period to be fixed for which such allocation shall remain binding on the parties, since water allocation may become inequitable when the conditions on which it is based are substantially altered such as due to climate change. Three, a direction has to be given to the co-basin states to furnish to the regulatory authority the water utilisation data in the basin to facilitate modification/ adjustment in the delivery schedules in future.

The tribunal has given its verdict and now it is for the basin states to forge a policy for maximising a fair distribution to reap the benefits of the Cauvery waters. With a major part of the country8217;s river waters going unutilised and flowing into the sea every year, the Union government cannot and should not remain a helpless spectator to the water disputes on the plea that water is a state subject. Of course, in the present political scenario any change in the constitutional scheme to bring water entirely under Union List or Concurrent List is to be ruled out. But the Centre has to seriously consider how it can empower itself under Entry 56, List I, to enact laws to regulate interstate river waters. It especially needs to step in now since the spectre of scarcity haunting this water-endowed country in the coming decades is becoming a reality, what with falling water tables and drying streams.

The writer is a former member-secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage