See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/328305499

Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?

Article · October 2018

CITATION READS

1 2,539

2 authors:

Guido Schmidt Nitin Bassi

Fresh Thoughts Consulting GmbH Council on Energy Environment and Water (CEEW)
47 PUBLICATIONS 229 CITATIONS 127 PUBLICATIONS 1,129 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Nitin Bassi on 16 October 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

Guido Schmidt, Fresh-Thoughts Consulting, Austria, and Nitin Bassi, Institute for
Resource Analysis and Policy, India

The Cauvery River Basin in India, which drains a total of 8.1 million hectares in the states of
Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry, has experienced conflict regarding water
resources allocation for a long time. The Cauvery river originates in Karnataka and is mostly
fed by seasonal monsoon rains and several tributaries. During the years of high rainfall, the
basin witnesses excessive flow of water, sometimes leading to floods. Yet, in times of low
precipitation, drought-like conditions mean irrigation needs are not met, leading to dispute
between the upper and lower riparian states in the basin.

The pre-Independence disputes over water sharing were largely settled by the British through
the agreements of 1892 and 1924 between the erstwhile princely state of Mysore (presently
largely Karnataka) and the Madras presidency (presently Tamil Nadu and parts of Kerala). A
significant feature of these agreements was that it put restrictions on the extent of area that
could be safely irrigated by the two states by using the Cauvery waters. However, after re-
organization of States in 1956, the division of water became a serious issue as the number of
riparian states increased from two to four. Tamil Nadu, being the lower-riparian state had
complained on several occasions of receiving reduced flows due to Karnataka’s action of
building new dams and expanding the agricultural areas irrigated by the available water in
contravention of the existing water sharing agreements.

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 1

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

Cauvery River Basin. Source: Government of India, 2014.

After years of failure in negotiations over the water sharing between the two main riparian
states (Karnataka and Tamil Nadu) in the basin, The Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal was
established in 1990 pursuant to the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. The tribunal made
a final decision regarding basin water allocation in 2007. It allocated 7,641 million cubic
meters (m3) of water to Karnataka, 11,858 million m3 to Tamil Nadu, 849 million m3 to Kerala,
and 198 million m3 to Puducherry during a normal rainfall year. Subsequently, the decision
was challenged by the riparian states in the Supreme Court of India.

Recently, the Supreme Court gave a final verdict on this decades-long dispute on water
distribution, including a slight change in water allocation from the one under the order given
by the Tribunal. While Karnataka’s share has been increased to about 8,058 million m3, Tamil
Nadu’s share has been reduced to 11,440 million m3 of water. Water allocation for Kerala and
Puducherry remained same as was decided by the Tribunal in its 2007 decision. The court
also made it clear that the final water ‘award’ should stand unchanged for the next 15 years,
when it shall be revisited.1

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 2

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

In two of the states with major shares of basin area (i.e., Karnataka and Tamil Nadu), water
users and politicians have made a large number of comments regarding the Tribunal’s
decision and Court’s verdict. One such recent assessment3 has highlighted many short-falls of
the Supreme Court verdict, such as the failure to consider “poor” water availability years,
climate change, and demand-control measures. These are crucial considerations for
achieving a balance between water availability and demand in future.

The assessment also anticipates further disputes in the Cauvery as well as in other basins in
India, where state politicians might be interested in following the judicial pathway to achieve
their water-related ambitions.3 Thus, though the Supreme Court verdict should be hailed in
view of settling decades-old conflict over water sharing, the judgement may open a
Pandora’s Box and lead to litigations being filed over water sharing from states in other
comparatively ‘peaceful’ river basins as well where prospect of amicable negotiations exist.

A major question is what action will follow the Supreme Court decision. The authors foresee
three possible approaches: 1) a business-as-usual pathway following the Supreme Court
mandate, which would only be feasible in the short-term; 2) coordinated action for improved
water management; and 3) the strengthened implementation of inter-basin water transfers in
the long-term.

The Supreme Court ordered that implementation of the revised water allocation be
completed in a very aggressive timeline by framing a scheme (including setting up of the
Cauvery Water Management Board and Monitoring Authority) in only six weeks. But water
management changes are usually much slower, and given the significant operationalization
gaps in data, metering, water rights and entitlements for users and their enforcement, it can
be anticipated that changes will be slow and partial only. Under such scenario, we expect
politicians in the riparian states to blame the others for non-cooperation or maybe climate
change for negative impacts, and requesting for a larger water share.12 This will likely lead
the Cauvery river basin to new disputes and complaints, and increased water-related
problems.

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 3

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

Furthermore, the Indian Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga
Rejuvenation (MoWR, RD & GR) is skeptical on the implementation of the Supreme Court
decision, as Article 262(2) of the Indian Constitution excludes the Supreme Court or any other
court from hearing or deciding on any appeals against the specific Water Dispute Tribunals’
decisions. Even the deadline for setting up of Cauvery Water Management Board and
Monitoring Authority for ensuring monthly releases (as directed by the Supreme Court) was
not adhered by the MoWR, RD & GR citing one or other reasons.4 However due to Supreme
Court’s continuous insistence, finally it was constituted and notified on 1st June 2018, more
than three months after the verdict. Nevertheless, in the weeks since the Supreme Court
decision, the conflict has already extended to water quality aspects, and to the setting up of
proper governance institutions; without apparent moves towards solution-finding.

Cauvery River in monsoonal flood. Source: Sarangib, Pixabay.

A second pathway is coordinated action between the Central and State governments and
other stakeholders for improved water management. This will require political will for

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 4

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

negotiation and better governance of inter-state water sharing, as well as substantial

investments in Information, Institutions and Infrastructure7, and thus is much costlier in the
shorter run. However, we firmly believe that it’s a better option for facing ongoing water
challenges and driving sustainable growth.

Regarding information, MoWR, RD & GR has already started assessing water availability and
use with the help of a “water accounting” framework, developed jointly with IHE-Delft.
Further information for robust decision-making shall be compiled for the impact of climate
change on water resources availability. This assessment will consider the inter-annual climate
variability; the interaction between surface water and groundwater; the effects of water
quality for people, the economy; and ecological flows (e-flows). Regarding the latter, the
283-396 million m3 allocated (283 million m3 for environmental purposes and 4 million m3 for
natural outlets into the sea) by the Supreme Court in the Cauvery represents less than 2% of
the river flow. However, deciding on water allocation for e-flows is not amenable to simple
formulations and is much more complex. It requires formulation of a sound scientific
methodology as per the hydro-environmental regime of the river and its ecology. Such
knowledge will facilitate understanding of the social, environmental and economic
consequences of water allocation decisions, and ease possible negotiations in future by
providing a ready reckoner of the various water demands in the basin.

Compared globally, India is severely lagging in setting up regimes for water rights, water
allocation and water pricing, aimed at better demand management and economically
efficient use of water.5,6 The institutional set-up needs to undergo a fundamental change to
facilitate trust-building and negotiation of complex deals. Lessons can be learned from the
OECD-supported activities in Brazil7,8, the ongoing UK license review9 or the European Water
Framework Directive implementation10. A mid-term focused development of River Basin
Management Plans would bring actors together to jointly address water management
challenges. Incipient activities have already started in India – with World Bank funding under
the National Hydrology Programme – to start such planning efforts for the Godavari, Krishna
and Mahanadi river basins, with 2030 Water Resources Group in the Hindon river and with

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 5

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

the India-EU Water Partnership for the Tapi river basin.

Improved infrastructure – ideally based on such river basin plans – is another fundamental
pillar for assuring change on the ground. These shall target reduction of water leakages (e.g.
in urban water supply system of Bangalore, a major claimant for Cauvery water allocated to
Karnataka), and improving water-use efficiency in irrigation not only at the plot level, but also
at the command area and basin levels. However, improving water-use efficiency in irrigation
will be a major challenge as paddy (rice) which is irrigated largely through flood irrigation
method is the major crop in the Cauvery basin, and basin-wide water savings have so far
been difficult to achieve in India and elsewhere.13 Further, proper infrastructure for
conveyance and treatment of urban and industrial wastewater is required to improve water
quality and to augment effective water availability for meeting various competitive water
needs.

A third pathway, which has been on the political agenda for a long time, is to supply water to
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu from other basins through inter-basin water transfers (IBWTs).
Such cost-intensive solutions involving large-scale water infrastructure are in place in many
water-scarce regions across the world, but disputes on inter-basin water transfers emerge
similarly to disputes within the basins11, and such disputes would involve even more states.
But even if Karnataka and Tamil Nadu wish to choose this pathway, the regions should also
improve their domestic water management (leakage reduction, water use efficiency, water
quality, data and governance), for them to be able to argue with “legitimate” water requests
in the case of litigations starting on water distribution by IBWTs.

We encourage politicians, managers and stakeholders to explore the second pathway of

improved water management, but are aware that solutions will not be put in place and be
effective immediately. In developing countries, water management is usually tradition-based
and reluctant to innovation. Often, there is less political support to implement stringent
demand side measures such as introduction of water metering, realistic water pricing and
setting up of systems of water rights and entitlements. Also, adoption of water use efficiency

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 6

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

measures in irrigation is dependent on extent of government subsidies and restricted to

some high value crops. In comparison, even in the European Union – a region often looked to
for lessons on improved water management – ongoing water management changes for the
past 18 years have led to some progress, but major steps to achieve set targets are still
needed. In any case, we look forward to action being taken; the count-down for the next
Cauvery water allocation review has already started!

Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Dr M Dinesh Kumar and Dr Nuria Hernandez-Mora

for their review comments.

References:

1. Supreme Court of India, 2018. In the Supreme Court of India: Civil appellate jurisdiction,
civil appeal no. 2453 of 2007. New Delhi, India.
2. Government of India, 2014. Cauvery basin report. New Delhi: Central Water Commission
and National Remote Sensing Centre. Available at: https://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/, 2014.
3. Noolkar-Oak, G. and Manubarwala, A., 2018. Why Supreme Court’s Cauvery verdict is a
precursor to intense water wars ahead. New Delhi, India: DailyO. Available at:
https://www.dailyo.in/politics/cauvery-water-sharing-verdict-supreme-court-dispute-karn
ataka-tamil-nadu/story/1/22504.html.
4. Times of India, 2018. Frame draft scheme for Cauvery judgment implementation by May
3: Supreme Court to Centre. New Delhi. Available at:
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/frame-draft-scheme-for-cauvery-judgment-imp
lementation-by-may-3-supreme-court-to-centre/articleshow/63678960.cms.
5. Kumar, M.D., 2005. Impact of electricity prices and volumetric water allocation on
energy and groundwater demand management: analysis from Western India. Energy

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 7

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

Policy, Vol 33 (1), 39-51.

6. Bassi, N., 2014. Assessing potential of water rights and energy pricing in making
groundwater use for irrigation sustainable in India. Water Policy, 16 (3), 442-453.
7. OECD, 2015. Water resources governance in Brazil. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
8. OECD, 2016. Water, growth and finance. Paris, France: OCED Publishing. Available at:
https://www.oecd.org/environment/resources/Water-Growth-and-Finance-policy-perspec
tives.pdf.
9. UK Government, 2014. Guidance water management: abstract or impound water.
Available at:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/water-management-abstract-or-impound-water.
10. European Commission, 2015. The fourth implementation report: Assessment of the
Water Framework Directive Programmes of Measures and the Flood Directive. Brussels,
Belgium: European Commission. Available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-framework/impl_reports.htm.
11. Hernández-Mora, N., del Moral Ituarte, L., La-Roca, F., La Calle, A. and Schmidt, G.,
2014. Interbasin water transfers in Spain: Interregional conflicts and governance
responses. In: Schneier-Madanes, G. (ed), Globalized water (pp. 175-194). Dordrecht:
Springer.
12. Rai, R., 2018. Cauvery conflict: Resolution lies beyond politics. New Delhi: Observer
Research Foundation. Available at:
https://www.orfonline.org/expert-speak/cauvery-conflict-resolution-lies-beyond-politics/.
13. Grafton R. Q., J. Williams, C. J. Perry, F. Molle, C. Ringler, P. Steduto, B. Udall, S. A.
Wheeler, Y. Wang, D. Garrick, R. G. Allen (2018): The paradox of irrigation efficiency.
Science 24 Aug 2018:Vol. 361, Issue 6404, pp. 748-750. DOI: 10.1126/science.aat9314.

Guido Schmidt is a Policy Expert with Fresh-Thoughts Consulting in Austria and has 25 years
of experience in the water sector. He has been involved in assessing the implementation of
European Water Framework Directive and was a Team Leader for first phase of the India-EU
Water Partnership.

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 8

 Cauvery water dispute judgement: What next?
Oct 16, 2018

Nitin Bassi is a Natural Resources Management Specialist with Institute for Resource Analysis
and Policy and based at their Liaison Office in New Delhi. He has nearly 12 years of
experience in India’s water sector and has been involved in research project pertaining to
river basin management. He was on board as one of the specialists for implementing the first
phase of the India-EU Water Partnership.

The views expressed in this article belong to the individual authors and do not represent the
views of the Global Water Forum, the UNESCO Chair in Water Economics and Transboundary
Water Governance, UNESCO, the Australian National University, Oxford University, or any of
the institutions to which the authors are associated. Please see the Global Water Forum
terms and conditions here.

Global Water Forum www.globalwaterforum.org | 9

View publication stats