ನೀರು ಬಿಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ, ನಿರ್ವಹಣಾ ಮಂಡಳಿಗೂ ವಿರೋಧ : ಸಿದ್ದರಾಮಯ್ಯ
ನವದೆಹಲಿ, ಸೆ. 29: ಕೇಂದ್ರ ಜಲಸಂಪನ್ಮೂಲ ಸಚಿವೆ ಉಮಾ ಭಾರತಿ ಅವರ ನೇತೃತ್ವದಲ್ಲಿಗುರುವಾರ ನಡೆದ ಕಾವೇರಿ ಸಂಧಾನ ಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ ನೀಡಿದ ಸಲಹೆಯನ್ನು ತಮಿಳುನಾಡು ತಿರಸ್ಕರಿಸಿದೆ. ಆದರೆ, ಯಾವುದೇ ಕಾರಣಕ್ಕೂ ಕಾವೇರಿ ನೀರು ಬಿಡುವುದಿಲ್ಲ ಹಾಗೂ ಕಾವೇರಿ ನಿರ್ವಹಣಾ ಮಂಡಳಿ ರಚನೆಗೂ ಒಪ್ಪುವುದಿಲ್ಲ. ನಾಳೆ ಸುಪ್ರೀಂಕೋರ್ಟಿನಲ್ಲೂ ಇದನ್ನೇ ಹೇಳುತ್ತೇವೆ ಎಂದು ಸಿದ್ದರಾಮಯ್ಯ ಅವರು ಸುದ್ದಿಗೋಷ್ಠಿಯಲ್ಲಿ ಹೇಳಿದರು.
ಅಣೆಕಟ್ಟುಗಳಲ್ಲಿನ
ಸದ್ಯದ
ಪರಿಸ್ಥಿತಿಯನ್ನು
ಮನಗಂಡು
ವರದಿ
ಸಲ್ಲಿಸಲು
ಉಭಯ
ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳಿಗೆ
ತಜ್ಞರ
ತಂಡ
ಕಳಿಸುವ
ಸಲಹೆಯನ್ನು
ಕರ್ನಾಟಕ
ಮುಂದಿಟ್ಟಿತು.
ಆದರೆ,
ತಮಿಳುನಾಡು
ಈ
ಸಲಹೆಗೆ
ಒಪ್ಪಲಿಲ್ಲ.
ಕೊನೆಗೆ,
ಜನರ
ಹಿತಕ್ಕಾಗಿ
ಉಭಯ
ರಾಜ್ಯಗಳು
ಕೋರ್ಟಿನಿಂದ
ಹೊರಗಡೆ
ಮಾತುಕತೆ
ನಡೆಸಿ
ಸಂಧಾನ
ಮಾಡಿಕೊಳ್ಳಿ
ಎಂದು
ಉಮಾಭಾರತಿ
ಸಲಹೆ
ನೀಡಿದರು
ಎಂದು
ಸಭೆಯ
ವಿವರವನ್ನು
ತಿಳಿಸಿದರು.
ಸಭೆಯಲ್ಲಿ
ಸಿದ್ದರಾಮಯ್ಯ
ಅವರು
ಮಂಡಿಸಿದ
ಅಂಶಗಳನ್ನು
ಇಲ್ಲಿ
ಯಥಾವತ್ತಾಗಿ
ನೀಡಲಾಗಿದೆ...[ತಮಿಳುನಾಡಿಗೆ
ಈ
ಬಾರಿ
ಉತ್ತಮ
ಮಳೆ
ನಿರೀಕ್ಷೆ]
1. At the outset, may I thank Hon'ble Ms. Uma Bharti, Union Minister for Water Resources for taking urgent steps in felicitating this Inter-State meeting on Cauvery.[ಉಮಾ ಸಲಹೆ ತಿರಸ್ಕರಿಸಿದ ತಮಿಳುನಾಡು, ಸಂಧಾನ ವಿಫಲ]
2. Madam, today we are meeting under extraordinary circumstances to find out an amicable and practical solution to the impasse arising from the severe deficiency in the south-west monsoon rainfall in the Cauvery basin in Karnataka and predictably good north-east monsoon rainfall in Tamil Nadu which starts in mid-October.[ನೀರು ರಕ್ಷಿಸಿ, ಇಲ್ಲಾ ಕಠಿಣ ಬೇಸಿಗೆ ಎದುರಿಸಿ, ಖಡಕ್ ಎಚ್ಚರಿಕೆ!]
In fact, we had two consecutive drought years in 2015-16 and 2016-17. We all equally know, this dispute on sharing of Cauvery Water has a history of more than 125 years occupying the best techno-legal minds. However, the nature of crisis faced by us in this water year has put to test the very constitutional foundation on the Inter-State sharing of water in India.[ಕಾವೇರಿ ನೀರು ಬಿಡುವುದು ಬಿಡದಿರುವುದು ದೈವೇಚ್ಛೆ ಮೈಲಾರ್ಡ್!]
I need not take you into the pending legal and constitutional issues and the orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this month of September 2016 and releases made by Karnataka, I think, we are here to find a solution to the problem.[ಟೈಮ್ ಲೈನ್ : ಸಂವಿಧಾನ ಬಿಕ್ಕಟ್ಟಿನ ಹಾದಿ ಹಿಡಿದ ಕಾವೇರಿ ವಿವಾದ]
I am sure, under your mediation as mandated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its order dated 27.09.2016, the people of both the States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu will find a necessary guidance on how to "live and let live" in using the severely limited water resources of the Cauvery basin in this distress water year of 2016-17.
3. The Inter-State Cauvery basin is spread across the States of Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu and Union Territory of Pondicherry. Historically, the dispute started between the upper riparian Princely State of Mysore which now forms part of Karnataka and the lower riparian Madras Presidency which then formed part of British India. Under the shadow of archaic natural flow theory, the lower riparian Madras secured huge quantity of water to the disadvantage of upper State of Mysore.
The Agreements of 1892 and 1924 were seen as imposed on Mysore by the people of Mysore at large. However, after independence in 1947 and reorganization of States in 1956, the new State of Mysore (known as Karnataka after 1973) asserting its equal share in the waters of Cauvery.[ನಿರ್ವಹಣಾ ಮಂಡಳಿ ರಚನೆ, ಸುಪ್ರೀಂ ಪೀಠಗಳಲ್ಲೇ ದ್ವಂದ್ವ!]
The State planned new projects namely Kabini, Hemavathy, Harangi etc., to harness Cauvery water for meeting the demands of drought areas. However, the efforts of Karnataka met with unreasonable resistance from the lower riparian Madras renamed as Tamil Nadu in 1969.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal was constituted in 1990 to resolve the water dispute. The State of Karnataka led evidence of eminent experts known at International level on hydrology, agronomy, rice, groundwater etc., to establish that its demand for providing dry irrigation or supplementary irrigation to one crop in the drought area is a part of equitable share.
However, the records shows Tamil Nadu asserted its claim to 28 lakh acres developed under the shadow of colonial agreements for growing wet rice crop using large part of Cauvery water.
The Tribunal in its Final Order dated 05.02.2007 allocated 740 tmc of water at 50% dependability and imposed an unreasonable burden of ensuring 192 tmc annually which includes whopping 134 tmc between June to September at the inter-state border Biligundlu in a normal water year. These issues are subject matter of Civil Appeal filed by Karnataka in the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
4. The sharing of water in a normal year is different from sharing of water in distress year that too in Cauvery basin which has unique physiographic feature.
It is necessary to recognise an important feature of the Cauvery basin, that is the impact of The South-West monsoon and the North-East monsoons is in two distinctive zones both in space and time and they are almost mutually exclusive. The southwest monsoon impacts the states of Kerala and Karnataka in the months June-September above the Biligundlu check point, giving an yield of 483 TMC.
Whereas, the north east monsoon primarily impacts Tamil Nadu and Puducherry in the months of October to. December giving an yield of 257 TMC below Biligundlu check point. Further it may also be noted that the yields above the catchment areas of KRS and Kabini reservoirs are controlled flows.
The yields below the reservoirs and up to Biligundlu are uncontrolled flows, which contribute about 80 TMC, as acknowledged in the Tribunal order. Unfortunately, the yields of two distinctive zones are added to indicate the total yield of 740 TMC. In a normal year the south-west monsoon was expected to yield 257 TMC inflows into the four major reservoirs of Karnataka up to September, against which it has received only 129.85 TMC.
As of today it is clear that the South West Monsoon has failed causing severe distress in the Karnataka and Kerala parts of Cauvery basin. Whereas, the IMD has forecast a normal north eat Monsoon. The Tribunal in the Final Order expects riparian States to share the water on proportionate basis in a year which is not a normal year.
Therefore, when the annual yield is less than 740 tmc, the available water is proportionately reduced among the riparian States. Though this rule of proportionate sharing or pro-rata sharing appears on the face of it just and reasonable, but, on a deeper examination of the climatic factors of the Cauvery basin, particularly, the impact of two rainfalls in two different parts of the basin, makes it impossible to implement.
This is the root of the cause which we are here to address. I may draw your attention to what the US Supreme Court had said in connection with Colorado Water Dispute in 1962 [Arizona vs. California: 10 Led 2d 542 at 574]. The US Supreme Court observed that:
"....While
pro
rata
sharing
of
water
shortages
seems
equitable
on
its
face,
more
considered
judgment
may
demonstrate
quite
the
contrary.
Certainly
we
should
not
bind
the
Secretary
to
the
formula.
We
have
held
that
the
Secretary
is
vested
with
considerable
control
over
the
apportionment
of
Colorado
river
waters....."
5.
Even
while
implementing
the
interim
order
passed
by
the
Tribunal
on
25.06.1991
read
with
order
dated
03.04.1992,
the
difficulties
in
working
the
pro-rata
(proportionate)
sharing
was
noticed.
The Cauvery River Authority - a statutory body constituted vide Notification dated 11.08.1998, in its 3rd meeting dated 10.10.2001 had decided that the authority would - "work out an acceptable and equitable procedure for pro-rata sharing of the distress and accordingly requested the basin States to put forward their specific suggestions for consideration by the Authority".
However, even after deliberating for a decade, no acceptable formula could be worked out for pro-rata or proportionate sharing of water in a distress situation. The State of Tamil Nadu itself has noticed the difficulty in operating clause VII of the Final order on proportionate sharing of distress and sought the following clarification in Reference No.8 from the Tribunal in its application dated 27.04.2007 under Sec.5(3) of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956:
"Grant
relief
by
giving
appropriate
explanation
and
guidance
for
the
sharing
of
flows
during
distress
period
as
also
for
recognizing
and
ensuring
supplies
to
the
age-old
irrigation
during
the
distress
period
in
the
basin".
Even
Union
of
India
thought
it
necessary
to
seek
explanation
of
distress
sharing
by
specifically
asking
following
clarification
in
its
application
dated
01.05.2007:
"2(B)
It
has
been
mentioned
that
Cauvery
Management
Board
(CMB)
will
identify
situations
of
distress
in
the
basin
(page
233,
Vol.V).
It
is
not
clear
whether
'distress
year' and
'situations
of
distress'
are
envisaged
as
two
different
entities.
It
is
also
mentioned
(page
233,
Vol.V)
that
distress
will
be
shared
after
the
distress
conditions.
Whether they relate to individual periods (i.e. end of SW or NE monsoon season or end of both SW and NE season or end of a particular crop season(s) or year as a whole is not clear. Tribunal may kindly explain some procedure for distress sharing to avoid future problems, especially, in view of the fact that the upper catchments in Karnataka and Kerala are predominantly under the influence of South-West monsoon where as the catchments in Tamil Nadu are influenced by North-East monsoon."
6. If an annual sharing of water on proportionate or pro-rata basis is difficult, the monthly sharing or mid-season sharing of water during distress in Cauvery basin is almost impossible. In fact, Clause-VII which is sought to be relied upon by Tamil Nadu does not speak about monthly sharing of distress at all. Moreover, the monthly sharing of distress require monthly normal yield or monthly component of annual yield of 740 tmc.
However, the Tribunal did not estimate the monthly component by relying upon the outdated series of 1934-35 to 1971-72 proposed by Tamil Nadu. The fundamental problem associated with monthly sharing of distress arises from two separate rainfalls: south-west monsoon falling in Karnataka during June to mid-October and north-east monsoon falling in Tamil Nadu during mid-October to December.
Until the impact of north-east monsoon is known, distress cannot be shared. If the water is divided at the end of August or September as Tamil Nadu proposes, it works out to the disadvantage to Karnataka. The requirement of Tamil Nadu depend upon the performance of north-east rainfall. The pattern of rainfall shows that the relation between the south-west and north-east is in the negative. If south-west fails, north-east is likely to succeed. In the last 26 years, north-east has failed only on four occasion making the strike rate as 85%.
7.
The
sharing
of
distress
on
monthly
basis
premised
on
the
overestimated
June
to
September
monthly
quota
of
134
tmc
creates
unjust
situation.
The
performance
of
flows
in
the
post
1980
show
that
the
deficit
or
arrears
which
accrue
in
pre-September
get
mostly
cleared
in
post-September
period.
Keeping
this
principle
in
mind,
the
Tribunal
while
dealing
with
the
shortfall
in
water
year
1995-96
has
specifically
commented
in
its
order
dated
19.12.1995
that
:
"....Our
order
dated
25th
June,
1991
clearly
spells
out
that
the
deficiency
in
a
particular
week
has
to
be
made
good
in
a
subsequent
week
and
not
necessarily
within
a
particular
month
in
which
the
deficit
occurs.
Until
the
deficit
is
made
good,
the
deficit
would
accumulate.
In
a
particular
year,
shortfall
or
excess
in
releases
would
have
to
be
adjusted
in
an
appropriate
manner
before
the
close
of
the
particular
season.
Distress
as
contemplated
in
our
Order
dated
3rd
April,
1992
does
not
envisage
that
same
will
be
in
relation
to
a
particular
month.
In
deciding
whether
the
distress
situation
prevails,
one
ought
to
consider
the
precipitation
in
the
entire
season
and
not
mere
slackness
in
rains
in
any
particular
month
or
months."
8.
The
Tribunal
in
its
Final
Report
(Vol.
V,
Chapter-7)
considered
the
effect
of
successive
bad
years
and
expected
the
Regulatory
Authority
to
relax
the
monthly
schedule.
The
relevant
observations
are:
".....However,
if
there
are
two
consecutive
bad
years,
it
would
cause
distress
which
shall
have
to
be
appropriately
tackled
by
the
Cauvery
Management
Board/Regulatory
Authority
by
relaxing
the
schedule
of
deliveries
and
getting
the
reservoirs
operated
in
an
integrated
manner
through
the
States
concerned
to
minimize
any
harsh
affect
of
a
bad
monsoon
year.
In
view
of
such
practical
difficulties,
the
Cauvery
Management
Board/Regulatory
Authority
shall
have
the
liberty
to
alter
monthly
and/or
ten-daily
schedule
of
releases
while
making
effort
to
meet
the
seasonal
allocations
for
the
crop
as
far
as
possible,
in
consultation
with
the
party
States."
9. From the above, I appeal to you that the sharing of water in distress situation cannot be decided on a mathematical reduction formula as Tamil Nadu proposes, particularly at the end of August or September. The whole thing has to be seen at the end of the season based on ground realities which include performance of south-west and north-east monsoon and the available ground water in the delta region of Tamil Nadu.
10. The Karnataka part of Cauvery basin has suffered the most in this water year. At present, the water resources in Karnataka are only 31 tmc of live storage. The expected inflow into Karnataka reservoirs in the remaining upto February is not more than 40 tmc if the performance of previous bad years of 2002-03, 2003-04 and 2012-13 are considered totaling about 71 tmc.
However,
Karnataka
requires
at
least
about
26
tmc
for
meeting
the
drinking
water
requirement
and
about
60
tmc
for
meeting
the
water
needs
of
standing
crops,
totaling
86
tmc.
Therefore,
Karnataka
being
in
shortage
for
its
own
needs,
cannot
spare
any
water
from
its
reservoirs.
Both
the
Houses
of
Karnataka
Legislature
considered
the
matter
in
the
special
Session
called
on
23.09.2016
and
passed
the
identically
worded
Resolution
as
:
"It
is
now
resolved
to
direct
that
in
this
state
of
acute
distress
it
is
imperative
that
the
Government
ensures
that
no
water
from
the
present
storages
be
drawn,
save
and
except
for
meeting
drinking
water
requirements
of
the
villages
and
towns
in
the
Cauvery
basin
and
for
the
entire
city
of
Bruhat
Bangalore.
The
above
resolution
is
unanimously
passed
after
carefully
considering
the
needs
of
the
inhabitants
of
the
State
of
Karnataka
whose
interests
are
likely
to
be
gravely
jeopardized
if
water
in
the
four
reservoirs
is
in
any
way
reduced
other
than
for
meeting
the
drinking
water
requirements
of
inhabitants
in
the
Cauvery
basin
including
the
entire
city
of
Bangalore."
11.
The
position
in
Tamil
Nadu
is
far
more
comfortable
than
in
Karnataka.
The
present
storage
at
Mettur
in
Tamil
Nadu
is
about
43
tmc
live.
In
the
remaining
part
of
the
season
upto
the
end
of
February
2017,
the
Mettur
reservoir
in
Tamil
Nadu
would
receive
about
42
tmc
from
the
uncontrolled
intermediate
catchment
in
Karnataka
and
catchment
between
the
interstate
border
and
Mettur.
The total of 85 tmc should be sufficient for meeting the needs of Tamil Nadu if we consider what was drawn by Tamil Nadu for its Samba rice crop of 15 lakh acres in the similar bad years as shown below:
"The
water
sharing
in
this
distress
water
year
of
2016-2017,
should
be
guided
by
water
shared
in
the
similar
bad
years
upto
the
end
of
August
which
are
2002-2003,
2003-2004
and
2012-2013.
The
position
of
flows
ensured
by
the
State
of
Karnataka
and
the
storages
available
in
Mettur
reservoir
in
Tamil
Nadu
in
those
water
years
as
compared
to
this
water
year
are
set
out
below:-
Water
Year
Flows
ensured
at
the
inter-State
border
Biligundlu
at
the
end
of
August
Live
storages
at
Mettur
in
Tamil
Nadu
at
the
end
of
August
2002-03
32.891
tmc
30.19
tmc
2003-04
17.247
tmc
20.60
tmc
2012-13
19.390
tmc
38.67
tmc
2016-17
33.05
tmc
35.17
tmc
The
above
comparison
reveals
that
the
waters
ensured
by
Karnataka
in
this
water
year
of
2016-2017
upto
the
end
of
August
is
not
only
comparable
but
adequate.
The
likely
flows
at
the
inter-State
border
Biligundlu
in
the
month
of
September
would
be
between
13
to
20
tmc
depending
on
the
rainfall,
since
in
the
similar
bad
years
of
2002-03,
2003-04
and
2012-13
was
13.774
tmc,
13.385
tmc
and
20.345
tmc
respectively."
12.
Never
in
the
past
decade,
the
yield
in
the
Cauvery
Basin
were
so
bad.
The
deviation
from
the
normal
rainfall
has
been
quite
high
and
the
whole
south-west
monsoon
did
not
give
us
the
minimum
required
rainfall
and
inflows
that
could
have
saved
the
crops
of
the
farmers.
The
south-west
monsoon
was
expected
to
yield
257
tmc
inflows
into
the
four
major
reservoirs
of
Karnataka
in
a
normal
year
upto
the
end
of
September
based
on
41
years
average
(1974-75
to
2014-15)
against
which
the
4
reservoirs
as
on
28.09.2016
have
received
only
129.85
tmc
(50.5%
of
the
average
flow).
This
clearly
shows
that
in
all
probability
this
year
is
a
going
to
be
severe
distress
year.
13.
The
inflows
into
four
major
reservoirs
(Harangi,
Hemavathy,
Krishnarajasagara
and
Kabini
reservoirs)
upto
end
of
August
was
114.66
tmc
against
the
average
inflow
of
219.38
tmc,
resulting
in
an
enormous
deficit
of
104.72
tmc,
which
is
about
47.7%.
The
live
storage
in
all
the
four
major
reservoirs
was
48.0
tmc
against
the
designed
live
storage
of
104.55
tmc,
which
is
about
46%
only
which
would
indicate
precarious
situation
about
water
availability
in
the
Karnataka
storages.
14.
Since
the
water
year
2015-16
was
admittedly
a
'bad
year'
and
2016-17
up
to
now
has
all
the
prospect
of
a
'bad
year'
if
not
a
worst
year,
it
is
respectfully
submitted
that
in
compliance
to
the
directive
contained
in
para
29
of
Chapter-7
read
with
Clause-XVII
of
the
Final
Order
it
is
requested
to
alter
as
a
first
step
the
monthly/ten
days
schedule
of
releases
"while
making
efforts
to
meet
the
seasonal
allocations
for
the
crops
as
far
as
possible
with
consultation
with
the
party-States".
In
the
second
step,
after
alteration
of
the
monthly/ten
daily
releases,
the
liability
of
Karnataka
at
the
interstate
border
Biligundlu
should
be
tentatively
decided
having
regard
to
the
deficient
yield
in
Karnataka
catchment
of
Cauvery
basin.
In
the
third
step,
if
it
is
found
that
what
has
been
already
released
by
Karnataka
is
lesser
than
what
is
due
to
Tamil
Nadu
on
tentative
assessment,
the
shortfall
should
be
considered
for
releases
at
the
end
of
the
season
having
regard
to
performance
of
North-East
rainfall
and
the
ground
water
in
the
delta
region.
The
ground
reality
at
present
stare
at
the
face
that
no
further
releases
from
Karnataka
can
be
directed
without
destroying
the
standing
crops
of
farmers
and
causing
shortages
in
the
drinking
water
supplies
in
Karnataka.
In
these
circumstances,
I
respectfully
submit
for
your
kind
consideration
that
no
further
releases
from
Karnataka's
reservoirs
can
be
made.
It
would
be
more
appropriate,
if
the
Union
Government
sends
a
Team
of
Experts
to
the
Cauvery
basin
in
Karnataka
and
Tamil
Nadu
to
verify
the
ground
realities,
storages,
inflows
and
outflows
for
taking
informed
decision.
I
thank
the
Hon'ble
Minister
for
Water
Resources
for
convening
this
meeting.
(Siddaramaiah)
Chief
Minister
of
Karnataka