Daily Current Affairs : 16-August-2023

The ongoing tussle between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the allocation of Cauvery river water has a history rooted in agreements and disagreements that span decades. Recently, the Tamil Nadu government has sought the intervention of the Supreme Court to ensure Karnataka’s compliance with the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s (CWDT) final award, as modified by the Supreme Court in 2018. This water dispute has its origins in the intricate web of historical agreements and evolving allocations.

Historical Context: Princely States and Water Sharing

The utilization of Cauvery waters was initially governed by the 1892 and 1924 agreements between the former princely state of Mysore and the Madras presidency. The 1924 agreement emerged due to Madras’ opposition to Mysore’s construction of the Krishnarajasagar dam. To accommodate this, Madras was allowed to build the Mettur dam. An important aspect of this agreement was limiting the area that both states could irrigate using Cauvery waters. This river, originating in Karnataka’s Kodagu district, flows mainly through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu while also affecting areas in Kerala and the Puducherry region.

Key Water Allotments and Agreements

The dispute essentially revolves around sharing Cauvery Basin waters. The 1892 and 1924 agreements allocated approximately:

  • 75% to Tamil Nadu and Puducherry,
  • 23% to Karnataka, and
  • the remaining to Kerala.
Unresolved Matters: CFFC and AIADMK’s Rejection

In 1976, the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) formulated a draft solution, endorsed by all states. However, Tamil Nadu’s political dynamics stalled its implementation. Subsequent AIADMK governments rejected the draft, insisting on reverting to the 1892 and 1924 agreements. This stance perpetuated the deadlock.

Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal’s Intervention

In 1986, a Tamil Nadu farmer’s association approached the Supreme Court, demanding the formation of a tribunal to address the Cauvery water dispute. By 1990, with negotiations between the states yielding no resolution, the Supreme Court directed the central government to establish a tribunal. In 1990, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was established, led by Chittatosh Mookerjee and later N.P. Singh. Each state presented its demands:

  • Karnataka: 465 TMC,
  • Kerala: 99.8 TMC,
  • Puducherry: 9.3 TMC,
  • Tamil Nadu: 566 TMC, and
  • Karnataka (alternative demand): 177 TMC.
The Verdict: CWDT’s Final Allocation

In 2007, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s final award allocated water among the four states as follows:

  • Tamil Nadu: 419 TMC,
  • Karnataka: 270 TMC,
  • Kerala: 30 TMC, and
  • Puducherry: 7 TMC. Additionally, 10 TMC were reserved for environmental purposes, and 4 TMC for outlets into the sea.
Managing Allocations: The Role of CWMA and CWRC

To oversee the implementation of the 2018 Supreme Court judgment on the CWDT’s award, the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) were established. These bodies manage the periodic release of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu based on a monthly schedule.

Current Dispute and Karnataka’s Stand

Presently, the dispute is centered on Karnataka’s reluctance to release the stipulated water quantity. Karnataka’s argument rests on lower rainfall in the Cauvery catchment, including Kerala, leading to diminished inflow into its reservoirs. According to Meteorological Department data, Kodagu received 44% less rainfall than expected during June-August.

Important Points:

  • Ongoing water dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over Cauvery river water.
  • Tamil Nadu seeks Supreme Court intervention for Karnataka’s compliance with CWDT’s award.
  • History of agreements and disagreements spanning decades.
  • Utilization of Cauvery waters governed by 1892 and 1924 agreements.
  • 1924 agreement facilitated Madras’ construction of Mettur dam due to opposition to Mysore’s Krishnarajasagar dam.
  • 1924 agreement limited irrigated area by both states using Cauvery waters.
  • Cauvery river originates in Karnataka’s Kodagu district, flows through Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, also affecting Kerala and Puducherry.
  • Dispute revolves around sharing Cauvery Basin waters.
  • 1892 and 1924 agreements allocated about 75% to Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 23% to Karnataka, and the rest to Kerala.
  • CFFC formulated draft solution in 1976, accepted by all states, but Tamil Nadu’s political situation halted its implementation.
  • AIADMK governments rejected draft, insisting on reverting to 1892 and 1924 agreements.
  • In 1986, Tamil Nadu farmer’s association approached Supreme Court for tribunal formation.
  • 1990: Supreme Court directed central government to establish CWDT due to failed state negotiations.
  • CWDT led by Chittatosh Mookerjee and later N.P. Singh.
  • Each state presented demands for water allocation.
  • CWDT’s 2007 award allocated water: Tamil Nadu (419 TMC), Karnataka (270 TMC), Kerala (30 TMC), Puducherry (7 TMC).
  • Environmental and outlet allocations: 10 TMC for environment, 4 TMC for outlets into sea.
  • CWMA and CWRC established to implement 2018 Supreme Court judgment on CWDT’s award.
  • Dispute centered on Karnataka’s reluctance to release stipulated water quantity.
  • Karnataka’s argument: Lower rainfall in Cauvery catchment, including Kerala, reduced inflow into reservoirs.
  • Complexities include historical agreements, evolving allocations, environmental concerns, changing weather patterns.
  • Resolution requires balanced approach, considering all stakeholders and sustainable resource use.
Why In News

Recently, the Tamil Nadu government strongly appealed to the Supreme Court, urging it to issue a directive to Karnataka, compelling the state to uphold the release of water in accordance with the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)’s conclusive decision from February 2007, which had been subsequently revised by the Supreme Court in 2018. This fervent plea underscores the critical importance of adhering to the established water-sharing agreement between the two states, which has long been a subject of contention.

MCQs about Cauvery Water Conflict

  1. What was the main purpose of the 1924 agreement between Mysore and Madras?
    A. To build the Krishnarajasagar dam
    B. To establish water-sharing agreements
    C. To mediate border conflicts between the states
    D. To allow Madras to construct the Mettur dam
    Correct Answer: D. To allow Madras to construct the Mettur dam
    Explanation: The 1924 agreement facilitated Madras’ construction of the Mettur dam due to objections to Mysore’s Krishnarajasagar dam.
  2. What was the role of the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) in the dispute resolution process?
    A. It formulated the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
    B. It was responsible for implementing the 2007 tribunal’s decisions.
    C. It proposed a draft solution that was accepted by all states.
    D. It mediated negotiations between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
    Correct Answer: C. It proposed a draft solution that was accepted by all states.
    Explanation: The Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) proposed a draft solution that was accepted by all states, but its implementation was hindered by political changes in Tamil Nadu.
  3. Which body was established to manage the implementation of the 2018 Supreme Court judgment on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s award?
    A. Cauvery Water Allocation Authority (CWAA)
    B. Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)
    C. Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)
    D. Cauvery Basin Regulation Committee (CBRC)
    Correct Answer: C. Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA)
    Explanation: The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) was established to oversee the implementation of the 2018 Supreme Court judgment on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s award, ensuring compliance with the allocation decisions.

Boost up your confidence by appearing our Weekly Current Affairs Multiple Choice Questions

Loading