THE FINAL VERDICT

The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on February 5, 2007
According to its verdict Tamil Nadu gets 419 billion ft³ (12 km³) of Cauvery water while
Karnataka gets 270 billion ft³ (7.6 km³). The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil
Nadu is to be 192 billion ft³ (5.4 km³) annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 billion ft³ and
Puducherry 7 billion ft³. Tamilnadu appears to have been accepting the verdict while the
government of Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before the
tribunal seeking a review…

COMMENTS:
CLAUSE-IV
This raises one of the most important issues that the final order has left somewhat vague,
but which the fine print of the award may have dealt with in greater detail, namely, that of a
distress-sharing formula. First, the total quantum of water calculated at 740 tmc ft is on the
basis of 50 per cent dependability. Should it have been 75 per cent? As the water resources
expert Ramaswamy R. Iyer has said, a 50 per cent (or 75 per cent) dependable flow means
that the flows are expected to be equal to or higher than the number in 50 (or 75) years out
of 100.

If water allocation in normal years is the central point of the nine-page order, its other
major components relate to distress allocation, water allocation for drinking and industrial
purposes, and future status of hydro-projects.

On the contentious issue of a distress-sharing formula, the award is all too brief; it merely
states that distress shall be shared proportionately. "In case the yield of the Cauvery basin
is less in a distress year, the allocated shares shall be proportionately reduced" among the
States and Puducherry.

A significant aspect of the final order is that it lays no cap on the extent of irrigated area in
Karnataka, unlike the interim order. That order had said that Karnataka could not extend
its irrigated area beyond 11.2 lakh acres (one acre is 0.4 hectare), an imposition that
Karnataka had argued was unfair and against the interests of its farmers.

CLAUSE-IX framed conditions for normal years. There are no disputes involved in
normal years of monsoons, obviously severe disputes occurred in the months in which
monsoons failed. Nothing was mentioned for allocation of water in these months of
drought.
The order says that shortages must be proportionately shared among the States. The
percentage shares of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry in the total quantum
of water are 57.7, 37.2, 4.0 and 1.0 respectively. Thus, if the water yields falls in a poor
monsoon year, water must be shared in the same proportion. This is problematic in several
ways. There is first the issue of how river flows are to be determined, a task which will
presumably be left to the new authority that will supersede the Cauvery Monitoring
Authority.
Secondly, distress can affect different parts of the basin differently. It could happen as a
result of the failure of the southwest monsoon, in which case it will affect both the basin
and the delta. On occasions there has been a failed southwest monsoon but a successful
northeast monsoon. In this scenario, the basin States will disproportionately bear the brunt
of the distress. Further, in a distress year, should Karnataka release water after it utilises
the 270 tmc ft allocated to it, or is it expected to release to Tamil Nadu its share first?
Further, once the shares of the State are proportionately reduced in a distress year, what
will be the quantum that Karnataka must release to Tamil Nadu, and Tamil Nadu to
Puducherry? On what basis will that figure be calculated? Distress can set in in a matter of a
couple of months. How quickly can the new monitoring body respond to the situation?
Finally, whether the present award will settle the long-festering dispute
depends on politics and not on the technical merit of the water-sharing and
management package…

(With a new water-sharing formula in place, the Tribunal has put in place new mechanisms
for implementing the accord and for determining distress. It has set down detailed directions
on setting up a Cauvery Management Board (CMB), which in turn has to set up a Cauvery
Water Regulation Committee. The Cauvery Regulatory Authority and the Cauvery Monitoring
Committee will cease to exist. The new Committee will have a chairman, four members and a
member-secretary. It will “ensure the implementation of the final order with the directions of
the CMB to collect daily water levels, inflows and storage position at each of the following
reservoirs - Hemavathy, Harangi, Krishnarajasagar, Kabini, Mettur, Bhavani Sagar,
Amaravathy and Banasurasagar to ensure 10 daily releases of water on monthly basis from
the reservoirs as directed by the Board... and to collect and compile weekly information about
important rain gauge stations of the Meteorological Department to assess the position of
monsoon and keep the board informed about the status of the monsoon."

It is the Board that will determine the distress caused by decreasing water flows. At the start of
the irrigation season on June 1, the party-States must indent for supplies at each reservoir site
for June. After determining the reasonableness of the demand, the committee will release water
on a 10-day basis. If there is a deficiency in rainfall, the Board will consider reducing the indent
proportionately.

If the Tribunal took 16 years to come to its final award, the implementation of the award will
hopefully be swifter. The disputant-States have already indicated that they will go before the
Tribunal on what they perceive as the shortcomings of the award. Karnataka has not yet
officially responded to the award. Once appeals are filed, the Tribunal will have to hear them
and issue further orders.)