Click to play videoIt has taken the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 16 years to decide on its final plan for sharing the waters of the river between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry. The Tribunal awarded Tamil Nadu 419 tmc feet of Cauvery water and 270 tmc feet to Karnataka of a total 740 tmc feet in a normal year.
However, Karnataka will only release 192 tmc ft to Tamil Nadu annually. While Tamil Nadu is satisfied with the decision, Karnataka is not and is considering of filing a review petition before the Tribunal.
Shortly after the verdict, Karnataka Deputy Chief Minister B S Yediyurappa told the state Assembly that the issue would be discussed in the cabinet and at an all-party meet on Tuesday indicating that the Tribunal’s decision may not be the last word yet on the issue.
This was the topic of discussion on the show Face The Nation on Monday: Should water be a national asset?
On the panel to try and answer the question were Minister of Water Resources, Professor Saif-ud-din Soz, senior counsel for Tamil Nadu and former additional solicitor general, C S Vaidyanathan and irrigation expert and economist, professor C Narasimhappa.
Reacting to the verdict, Soz says that this time the Tribunal’s mechanism is “more favourable.”
“For us, it is a decision equal to that of Supreme Court and it is for Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala to react. This time the mechanism seems to be a little more favourable because there will be a regulatory authority and the Tribunal has also indicated the monthly releases,” Soz explains.
Soz also says that if Karnataka has something to say then “they have relief, as they have three months to get back to the Tribunal and place their grievances before it. Thereafter, the Tribunal can come up with a final decision within a year’s time.”
Review petition
Professor C Narasimhappa has been advising Karnataka over the water-sharing issue. So, will he advice the state to question the verdict and go ahead with the review petition?
“I will very much tell the state to approach the Tribunal again and I am hopeful that they will present the petition within three months time,” Narasimhappa says.
The professor also explains that the “total contribution to the Cauvery kitty 740 tmc feet of water is about 53 per cent of the quantity. Out of 270 tmc feet we have to provide drinking water to Bangalore, Mysore and other towns and villages. Already, 70 tmc of water is required for drinking purpose only.”
Tamil Nadu’s water woes
On the other hand, C S Vaidyanathan, who has been fighting the case for Tamil Nadu, says the Tribunal had balanced the demand for water and has come out with an equitable portion, which should be accepted by all parties.
“If you look at the utilisation of a national asset like scarce water, it should be used where it yields the most and water-use efficiency is the highest,” Vaidyanathan says.
But does Vaidyanathan believe Narasimhappa’s claim that Karnataka did not have enough water to give to Tamil Nadu?
“Yes, there is not enough water in Cauvery but there is enough water in Karnataka. Tamil Nadu has limited water resources as compared to Karnataka,” Vaidyanathan claims.
Centre’s intervention required?
With Karnataka and Tamil Nadu not agreeing with each other on the Cauvery issue, is there a need for the Centre to intervene and sort the issue?
Agreeing Soz says that he is willing to help the states come to a conclusion in which both parties are satisfied.
“Yes, if both the states are agreeable, I am available. The states are free to act and react in whatever way they like. As the SC has said, in sovereign India, irrespective of water resources, states are sovereign and they have to manage their water resources. But Karnataka seems to have some grievance and it can be placed before the Tribunal,” Soz says.
The never-ending saga
Out of all the states involved in the Cauvery water issue, the main conflict is between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
There is a charge against Karnataka that the dispute has been deliberately kept on the boil by the state politicians to use as a tool around elections. With the dispute running into a 16-year long battle, is it not time to put an end to it?
“The onus of solving the issue does not lie only with Karnataka. We have as much right to ask for what is our share,” Narasimhappa says.
But isn’t it true that there is no solution to this problem legally considering it has been on the boil politically for so many years?
“Cutting across political lines, the entire state has been demanding justice all these years. Tamil Nadu has a traditional irrigation system. We have our plans for irrigation and Mr Vishweshwara has worked hard on the KRS dam. Bringing water into the concurrent list only happens when you are faced with a difficulty. It should not be limited to the Cauvery water issue. National assets should be used in a national context,” Narasimhappa says.
Agreeing with Narasimhappa, Vaidyanathan says, “I think it should be in national interest to make water a national asset. Linking rivers should be agreeable to states and political parties.”
However, Soz says that it was completely wrong for the states to think that they are the owners of the water resources in their region.
“The Standing Committee in Parliament on water resources has taken a decision that it should be on the concurrent list. When the Consultative Committee met, the honorable Members of Parliament cut across party lines and suggested that it should be on the concurrent list. Now it is for Parliament to decide. But water in all states belongs to the nation. The Perspective Plan that was devised 20 years ago did say that states that have less water will get water from states that have a surplus,” Soz explains.
Concluding the debate and replying to Soz, Narasimhappa says, “I don’t agree with the minister unless the totality of the situation starting from Brahmaputra, Godavari and rivers with plenty of water is taken into account. So much of it is wasted which could be used for irrigation in the southern states. All that should also be taken up at the Centre.”
Final SMS poll results:
Yes: 82 per cent
No: 18 per cent
(For updates you can share with your friends, follow IBNLive on Facebook, Twitter and Google+)
displayed with permission. Use of the CNN name and/or logo on or as part of CNN-IBN does not derogate from the intellectual property rights of Cable News Network in respect of them.