Cauvery River Water Dispute
Current Situation:
- The Cauvery dispute has just erupted once more; this is the first time it has done so since 2018, when the Supreme Court (SC) reopened the case following a tribunal’s ruling.
- In order to carry out the ruling, the Court also ordered the establishment of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).
Regarding the current problem and its effects:
- Tamil Nadu initiated the latest round of contestation in August when it petitioned the Supreme Court, requesting that Karnataka provide Cauvery waters to its rightful share at a rate of 24,000 cusecs per day.
- Karnataka disagreed, citing unfavourable precipitation. The instructions sent to Karnataka last week, requesting that it start releasing at a pace of 3,000 cusecs, ultimately caused the state to witness large-scale demonstrations.
- Numerous arrests, cancelled flights, and a stalled economy resulted from the September 26 bandh in Bengaluru and the September 29 statewide bandh.
Causes of the interstate river conflict:
States lost as a result of the river water dispute:
- Despite the fact that the conflict dates back several centuries, it has frequently erupted since the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) started making decisions in 1990. Numerous escalation episodes have occurred, always during difficult times.
- It not only causes large economic losses but also frequently results in civil turmoil and violent crimes.
- The latest flare-up in 2016 cost Karnataka alone Rs 25,000 crore in losses, according to the ASSOCHAM. In addition, the 2016 dispute had become an unsightly national show, with the two states arguing nearly daily over the release of Cauvery waters.
Procedure for settling conflicts over water between states:
- Article 262 gives Parliament the authority to establish procedures for resolving disputes pertaining to the use, allocation, or management of interstate rivers’ or river valleys’ waters.
- The Inter-State River Water Disputes Act (ISWD) of 1956 allows tribunals to be established in order to settle interstate river disputes.
- To amend the ISWD Act, the Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019 was introduced.
CWDT’s function in the water sharing of the Cauvery River:
- The Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC), the CWMA’s technical arm, has been helping to coordinate the Cauvery decision’s implementation. This process is being tested by the distress conditions of this year.
- Considering the current series of events, observers concur that the CWMA had a noticeable impact. The degree and scope of escalation were lessened by the existence of an official interstate coordinating system.
- Political configurations and equations are important, but the CWMA, as a specific institutional channel for unbiased discussion and exchange of ideas, seems to have had some influence.
Path ahead:
- First, escalation incidents debunk the notion that interstate river water disputes can ever be permanently resolved.
- There is a growing realisation that conflict and cooperation are no longer mutually exclusive.
- Conflict and collaboration coexist in the framework of transboundary water sharing. In order to maintain collaboration and reduce conflict, institutional responses must be added to legal adjudication.
- Two, depending on how this episode plays out, we need to consider how organisations like the CWMA can be improved.
- We have models such as the CWMA, which was developed in response to Supreme Court orders, and the NCA, which developed from consensus. Perhaps reaching a consensus has to be prioritised more.
In summary:
- The contrary is demonstrated by this escalation scenario, which could potentially result in the humiliating discrediting of the entire argument. This is a pivotal moment for the Court as well as the Interstates River Water Disputes Act revision that Parliament is now debating.
