By: M.S.Yatnatti: : According to information Karnataka chief secretary Subash Chandra Khuntia and water resources minister MB Patil failed to mention vital information in dossier A 30-page memorandum which was submitted to Mr. Jha who is also chairman of the Central Water Commission (CWC), which embarked on a trip to the basin area of Cauvery basins in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. like Tribunal gazettee order clause IX (A) Read with clause XIX (a) Question of monthly releases arises only in a normal year if the all states get 740 TMC feet of rain fed water as per allocations made in clause V (A) and (B) in their respective catchments otherwise no release of 182 TMC is mandated of from the allocated share of 419 to Tamilnadu at billigundalu gauge and discharged station. Whenever 740 TMC feet rain has come in both state Karnataka has released more tan 195 TMC feet water has flown below billigundalu gauge and discharged station .Karnataka is allocated 270 TMC feet to store water and from stored water out 270 feet Tamilnadu cannot ask as Tamil nadu water 0f 419 TMC is not stored in Karnataka dams. Tamil Nadu is free to store 419 TMC in its dams and use it. Let the Karnataka Government file fresh IA in Supreme Court and seek justice by filing facts of the case which were earlier suppressed and not told to court. Untold Cauvery river Facts need to be told to Supreme Court and central Government. Question of upstream and downstream does not arise as downstream is bigger and upstream is smaller and both are rain fed independently and upstream is not snow fed and question of upstream getting water every day does not arise in case of Cauvery river which is rain fed. It is pertinent to note that Down steam Tamil Nadu Cauvery river has biggest rain fed catchment (419 TMC feet) than the upstream Karnataka Cauvery river has small rain fed catchment(270 TMC Feet) .Karnataka Cauvery river has one basin (Upstream rain fed catchment Upstream of Harangi Hemavathi Kabini KRS.Whereas Tamil Nadu Cauvery river has Five basins NamelyBasin 1 (Upper Cauvery (Below KRS Karnataka upstream for mettur which gives 192 TMC feet Rain fed measured at billigundalu gauge and discharged station and Tamil nadu Cauvery area up stream upto Mettur reservoir), Basin 2 (Bhavani basin from Mettur to Upper Anicut), Basin 3 (Amaravathy basin), Basin 4 (Upper Anicut to Grand Anicut) and Basin 5 (Downstream of Grand Anicut, including lower Anicut and the delta region) totaling 419 TMC Feet (Inclusive of Tamil Nadu water from down stream of KRS 192 tmc Feet) .
Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) is a tribunal set up by the government of India in 1969 under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act of 1956 to resolve the disputes between the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh over sharing of Krishna river water. The KWDT I was headed by R. S Bachawat, a former judge of the Supreme Court. Scheme A pertained to the division of the available waters based on 75% dependability, while Scheme B recommended ways to share the surplus waters. The KWDT in its award outlined the exact share of each state. The award contended based on 75% dependability that the total quantum of water available for distribution was 2060TMC. This was divided between the three states560 TMC Maharashtra 700TMC Karnataka 800 AndhrapradeshTMS . Further, the Tribunal has allowed the States to utilize their allocated share of water for any project as per their plans. This means all states have right to use their allocated share of water for any project and store that water by constructing storage dams as per allocation according to their catchment area upstream and every state have their catchment area upstream for the length of river passing respective states .The water allocated restricts the storage of dam .Now the question is the states have power to utilize their allocated river water and not the stored water in respective dams constructed by each states.In the similar way after Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The Government of India then constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 TMC of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 TMC to Karnataka; 30 TMC of Kaveri river water to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu being the major shareholders, Karnataka was ordered to release 192 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu in a normal year from June to May and normal year is defined if river water is 720 TMC and this allocation of water is in river water and not stored water as tribunals are setup for allocation of river water. Further, the Tribunal has allowed the States to utilize their allocated share of water for any project as per their plans. This means all states have right to use their allocated share of water for any project and store that water by constructing storage dams as per allocation according to their catchment area upstream and every state have their catchment area upstream for the length of river passing respective states .The water allocated restricts the storage of dam .Now the question is the states have power to utilize their allocated river water and not the stored water in respective dams constructed by each states. Question of asking the down steam states as a right in stored water of upstream states is out of question .States have been allocated river water and not stored water .The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted under Article 262 of Constitution of India on the eve of reorganization of states on linguistic basis to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river or river valley. Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the Central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding inter-state rivers that arise among the state/regional governments. This Act further has undergone amendments subsequently and its most recent amendment took place in the year 2002.River waters use / harnessing is included in states jurisdiction (entry 17 of state list, Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). However, union government can make laws on regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys when expedient in the public interest (entry 56 of union list, Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). When public interest is served, President may also establish an interstate council as per Article 263 to inquire and recommend on the dispute that has arisen between the states of India. IRWD Act (section 2c2) validates the previous agreements (if any) among the basin states to harness water of an interstate river/ river valley.IRWD Act is applicable only to interstate rivers / river valleys. An action of one state should affect the interests of one or more other states. Then only water dispute is deemed to have arisen under IRWD Act (section 3). It can be divided into two independent parts for clarity purpose in understanding the techno-legal application of IRWD Act.Actions of a downstream state affecting the interest of an upstream state: A downstream state's action can affect the upstream state interest only in one case. I.e. when a downstream state is building a dam / barrage near its state boundary and submerging the territory of an upstream state on permanent / temporary basis. Other than this action, no other action of a downstream state could affect the upstream states interest which they have been using for economical, ecological and spiritual/ religious aspects. The meaning of the word 'interest' in this context is concern / importance / significance / relevance / consequence of losing the prevailing water use or purpose..Otherwise down steam state can construct dam / barrage away from upstream states and without submerging upstream state lands.Karnataka reservoirs Harangi Hemavathi Kabini KRSdoes not store water allocated to tamil nadu in its reservoirs and question of releasing its own water to Tamilnadu does not arise. North Indian Rivers are snow-fed river and as well as rain-fed. But the South Indian Rivers are only rain-fed and basin fed rivers and if a river has independent basin it is independent river and if a dam has independent basin it is independent dam not depending on other basin for its storage .Cauvery River has Six separate basins one in Karnataka and Five In Tamilnaduand both have theirdistinct water resources each basin does not depend on another and it is rain fed river and not snow based river like Ganga which flows 24/7 for 365 days According to their rain fed independent basins area the tribunal allotted Tamil Naduu of Rain or river water predictedallocated 419 TMC of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 TMC to Karnataka; 30 TMC of Kaveri river water to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry and all states can construct dams and storages to store their allocated rain fed river water according to their rain fed basin area .Tamil nadu from its basin can store 419 TMC Feet and Karnmataka from its basin can store 270 TMC Feet of water by having storages and dams ,It is pertinent to note that Karnataka reservoirs store water from its own basin and not from the basin of tamil nadu .So Karnataka reservoirs Harangi Hemavathi Kabini KRSdoes not store water allocated to tamil nadu in its reservoirs and question of releasing its own water to to tamilnadu does not arise and where fore Tamlnadu has no legal right to demand to release stored water belonging to Karnataka as it has own storage of water in its own dams of 419 TMC feet of water from its own five Cauvery basins existing in Tamilnadu sate and contributing 419 TMC Feet of water predicted independent of Karnataka..
Use information technology using rain harvesting and usingcorrect data and usingcorrect provision of law for adjudication river water dispute and in a transparent manner can be sorted out by all citizens and governments for just and equitable distribution of river water and its use by storing it .Still lot of legal defense can be worked out after detailed study of the disputed points and this is very preliminary study made to show case that lot of points can be made out to benefit both the sates and provide win win situationfor both sates to resolve the water dispute issue once for all .The Interstate River Water Disputes Act of 1956 is legislated to resolve the disputes between the states over sharing of river water and it is not about sharing stored water in dams and barrages of respective states for its beneficial use .And once beneficial use is made and stored it cannot be allowed to flow in river it is only allowed to flow in the irrigation canals or in pipes for drinking purposes. It is allowed to flow in the river only in case of more rain fall than expected .. So question of demanding stored water does not arise under the law both state cannot demand share in stored water .State Government can find a permanent legal solution for Cauvery Water Dispute. As States have power to utilize their allocated "river water” and not the stored water in dams of each states as per Interstate River Water Disputes Act of 1956 so question of demanding stored water from the downstream state cannot arise specially when down steam has more catchment area then upstream state and has more river /rain water predicted is allocated by tribunal which it can store in its dams and storages without allowing it to go waste in sea. Karnataka Cauvery is about 270 KM (32,000 km2 ) and Tamilnadu Cauvery is about 570 KM (44,000 km2 ) and both can be taken as independent rivers as Karnataka Cauvery, (32,000 km2 ) basin which is served to a large extent only by the south west monsoons, which start in June ,andTamilnadu Cauvery basin which is served to a large extent not only by the south west monsoons, (The basin in Tamilnadu receives good flows from the North-East Monsoon) , which start in June and north east monsoon which start in October-january , is about 570 KM (44,000 km2 ) has Basin 1 (Upper Cauvery upto Mettur reservoir), Basin 2 (Bhavani basin from Mettur to Upper Anicut), Basin 3 (Amaravathy basin), Basin 4 (Upper Anicut to Grand Anicut) and Basin 5 (Downstream of Grand Anicut, including lower Anicut and the delta region) not asInterstate River making tribunal order infructus .According to reports and few experts "If you read the Gazetted tribunal order it has allocated rain water predicted to flow in river and it has not has allocated the stored water in respective state dams and barrages and no state can demand stored water. You cannot read clause ix in isolation with clause X to XV N where it does not mandate to releasestored water from KRS or Karnataka reservoirs or dams .The 192 TMC out of allocated 419 TMC ft Feet monthly releases are based on rain data from the down scream of Karnataka reservoirs the discharge is measured at billigundaluplus Basin 1 (Upper Cauvery upto Mettur reservoir), which automatically flow innormal rain year .This 192 feet is not from Karnatak al9cation of 270 TMC and not from the stored water in Karnataka reservoirs . If rain comes respective states can store their allocated water otherwise they cannot store and no states can demand stored water as their rights. ".The first important aspect is The 802 kilometers (498 mi) Kaveri river has 44,000 km2 basin area in Tamil Nadu and 32,000 km2 basin area in Karnataka. The monthly rainfall changes expected in the mid and end century for Cauvery basin as per Model prediction for monthly rainfall indicates that across the Cauvery basin, the rainfall in the mid century is expected to increase in the SWM and post monsoon months starting from May through December expect basin 1 where the rainfall start decreasing from December month onwards. The increase is in the order of 1 to 36% (Basin 1), 3 to 21% (Basin 2), 1 to 17% (Basin 3), 3 to 22% (Basin 4) and 4 to 22% (Basin 5). In contrast, the rainfall is expected to decrease from December through April during the mid century in most of parts of Cauvery basin. The same trend in rainfall is expected in the end century also with different magnitude.