The ongoing Cauvery water-sharing row between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, which has sparked violent protests in both the states, underscores how little has been learnt by policymakers when it comes to finding a solution to such matters. The roots of the current strife can be traced back to the states" refusal to comply with the outcomes of countless adjudication and arbitration efforts since the British era. The closest this issue came to resolution was in 1924, when the then princely state of Mysore and Madras Presidency concurred to build a dam at Kannambadi village, now in Karnataka, to meet the emergency needs of the entire basin. Though the accord was supposed to last for 50 years, both states developed cold feet even as demand for water steadily surged due to unchecked expansion of cropped acreage. What is worse, the traditional millet crops that require less water were replaced by water-guzzling paddy and sugarcane. The result is that even though three more dams - Harangi, Hemavathi and Kabini - have come up in this area, apart from the Krishna Raja Sagar (KRS) dam built in 1924, there is not enough stored water to meet the increased demand, especially during rain-deficient periods.
Of course, the latest row is precipitated by the vagaries of the monsoon. The "normal" monsoon, on aggregate, that India is experiencing this year masks regional and local variations. According to the Central Water Commission"s data, reservoirs in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are short of water by 30 per cent and 49 per cent, respectively. Water levels of the main reservoirs in the Cauvery catchment area of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are 46 per cent below the 10-year average and almost 30 per cent less than the levels in 2015. According to some experts, more than just the quantum of rainfall, it is the intensity with which rain falls that leads to massive amounts of run-offs, leaving the land barren.
The unpredictability of the weather is made worse by inconsistency in decision-making. The Supreme Court"s initial decree and its subsequent revision only ended up stoking more violence. According to the revised order, the court directed Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu every day till September 20, the next date of hearing. What is not being appreciated is that the apex court has passed only an interim order, similar to the ones issued in the earlier water-short years of 1995, 2002 and 2012, leaving the matter to be finally settled by the Cauvery Supervisory Committee, which is the standing body to arbitrate on this issue. Far from making timely interventions, this committee has failed to anticipate the standoff despite sub-normal rainfall in the Cauvery catchment area for the third year in a row. Regrettably, the committee could not come up with a solution, even a provisional one, when it met in New Delhi on Monday. That leaves the issue hanging till it reconvenes next week.
It is a damning indictment of the administrative system that the best chance of resolving the crisis might lie with either the revival of the southwest monsoon or the arrival of the northeast monsoon, which usually causes copious rainfall in Tamil Nadu. So what can be done? One, the governments must restrict cropping according to water availability. Two, since the problem is linked to the amount of rainfall, the Cauvery Tribunal"s 2007 award should be revisited to recalibrate the share of each riparian state based on a rainfall-linked formula.
