Misplaced Pages

#354645

94-480: Based on the inflow, Karnataka is demanding its due share of water from the river. It states that the pre-Independence agreements are invalid and are angled heavily in the favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing of the waters". Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, says that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km) of land and as

188-408: A conduit per second in a cubic foot is described as a cusec . In agriculture, a rough estimate by irrigation experts is that 1 TMC water is needed each year to irrigate 10,000 acres. This standards - or measurement -related article is a stub . You can help Misplaced Pages by expanding it . Interstate River Water Disputes Act The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act)

282-585: A few hours, Karnataka stopped release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court on 17 October, reiterating its demand for appropriate directions to be issued to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 TMC of water as per the distress sharing formula. On 15 November 2012, The Cauvery Monitoring Committee directed the Karnataka government to release 4.81 TMC to Tamil Nadu between 16 and 30 November. On 6 December,

376-457: A flurry of development has been afoot in the courts. The term of the tribunal was initially set to expire in August 2005. However, in the light of the many arguments the court was yet to hear, the tribunal filed a request for extension of its term. The extension was granted and the tribunal's term was extended for another year until September 2006. Early in 2006, a major controversy erupted over

470-489: A gazette order by the Union. Under Section 6A of this Act, central government may frame a scheme or schemes to give effect to the decision of a tribunal. Each scheme has a provision to establish an authority for the implementation of a tribunal verdict. However, every scheme and all its regulations shall be approved by the parliament. When a tribunal verdict, after formally gazetted by the union government, stipulates to establish

564-404: A normal water year. Tamil Nadu can also use all the excess water available in its area (including flood water from Karnataka if any). Karnataka has proposed a project to store excess water during good monsoon years at Mekedatu for drinking water needs of Bengaluru city and en route, hydro power generation, etc. Tamil Nadu is raising objections to this project. When the total water availability

658-431: A normal year. Water going waste to sea at Lower Coleroon Anicut in excess of 4 TMC (other than 10 TMC minimum environmental flows) in any water year forms part of the utilizable water share of Tamil Nadu. The ambiguity in the verdict is that utilizable water (clauses IV and V) in the basin is allocated among the states but it has not defined how to measure the same. Instead, clause XIV of the final order defines how to measure

752-462: A plan to construct a dam in two stages at Kannambadi village that would hold up to 41.5 TMC of water. However, Madras opposed the plan as it had its own plans of building a dam at Mettur which could hold up to 80 TMC of water. The Government of India gave permission to Mysore to build a dam that could store 11 TMC, but the dam's foundation was constructed and designed to hold the full capacity of water, 41.5 TMC. This lead to further dispute amongst

846-443: A result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. The pre-Independence agreements were based on the area occupied by Mysuru Kingdom and Madras presidency. The areas of South Canara (previously under Madras presidency) and Coorg Province which later merged with Karnataka have not been accounted to calculate

940-459: A riparian state actions which can affect other riparian state interests is enough to raise interstate water dispute. The activities of an upstream state without affecting downstream states' interests are peak flood control measures by impounding the flood waters only (not base flows) in 100% or more capacity storage reservoirs for use without affecting water quality appreciably and the run-off hydropower generation taken up in its territory. Whenever

1034-612: A river basin. In response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) lodged by Tamil Nadu earlier, the Supreme Court on 10 May 2013 issued an interim direction to the Government of India (GoI) to establish an Interim Supervisory Committee to implement the Cauvery tribunal order till the constitution of "Cauvery Management Board" as stated in the tribunal order. GoI issued the gazette notification on 22 May 2013 establishing

SECTION 10

#1732779870355

1128-602: A shortage in river water availability. The Union government is contemplating bringing a new act in place of the River Boards Act, 1956 which is presently purely an advisory body of the union government. The new bill called "River basin Management Bill" would constitute River Basin Organisations for each interstate river basin with a two-tier structure. The lower tier 'Executive Board' of a river basin

1222-581: A sign of protest. On 21 September, Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its 19 September ruling. On 28 September 2012, the Supreme Court criticized the Karnataka government for failing to comply with the directive of the Cauvery River Authority . Left with no other option, Karnataka started releasing water. This led to wide protests and violence in Karnataka. On 4 October 2012,

1316-571: 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 union government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding interstate rivers that arise among

1410-525: Is below 740 TMC (i.e. distress year), the allocated share of each state is reduced proportionately. Kerala (in Kabini basin) and Karnataka would use their reduced allocations and release rest of water below Billigundulu gauging station for use in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry. Karnataka has to release water to Tamil Nadu on monthly basis proportionate to the monthly figures indicated for a normal year. Based on

1504-408: Is formed under the direction of the Supreme Court to adjudicate water sharing dispute between Odisha and Chhattisgarh states. The Mahadayi Water Tribunal pronounced its final verdict in August 2018 and permitted Karnataka state to use water outside the basin for drinking water use. The tribunal has not vacated the stay order on the execution of works by Karnataka till the verdict is notified by

1598-446: Is invariably denial of prevailing use/purpose in the downstream state as it is altering the natural flow regime of river water with respect to quantity, quality and time of availability in downstream states. Also dam failures in upstream states can create flash floods or further dam failures in downstream states causing unprecedented property damage and loss of human lives. IRWD Act (section 3) clearly stipulates that mere anticipation of

1692-446: Is proposed to resolve the growing number of interstate river water disputes expeditiously. A tribunal bench shall have one technical expert member and one judicial member with the chairman or vice chairman out of the members of the permanent water dispute tribunal. Section 5 (2a) of the amended Act mandated that the tribunal report shall also prescribe for the distribution of water among the states during distress situations arising from

1786-517: Is represented by various relevant faculties from each riparian state including the union government. The top tier called the 'Governing Council' of a river basin will have all chief ministers of riparian states as its members to arrive at unanimous decisions. In case of no consensus decision, the dispute would be referred to the tribunal formed under Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956. Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Bill, 2019  : The Inter-State River Water Disputes Amendment Bill

1880-438: Is sum of beneficial water uses and the water going waste to sea in excess of 14 TMC at Lower Coleroon and Grand Anaicuts. The water-sharing criteria are based on two situations: The 50% dependable water year is considered as normal water year whose total water availability in the basin is 740 TMC. All the unused water in the reservoirs (≥ 3 TMC storage) at the beginning of water year in the basin are also considered for arriving

1974-419: Is to be 192 TMC annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 TMC and Puducherry 7 TMC. Water to be released to Tamil Nadu according to monthly schedule as: June month (10 TMC ), July (34), August (50), September (40), October (22), November (15), December (8), January (3), February (2.5), March (2.5), April (2.5) and May (2.5). The Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before

SECTION 20

#1732779870355

2068-474: The Cauvery districts of the state. Tamil Nadu aghast at the defiance, went back to the Supreme Court. Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but stopped it again on 18 September as a Karnataka farmers and their protests threatened to take a dangerous turn. The centre now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. The Supreme Court meanwhile, in response to Tamil Nadu's petition asked

2162-570: The Cauvery ), became a part of Mysore state. Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went to Kerala , and parts of Puducherry also fell in the Kaveri basin. As a result, both Kerala and Puducherry became invested in the Kaveri River. The reorganization caused some of the river's upper tributaries to be in Kerala. New disputes also arose as Mysore took on new projects on

2256-432: The Cauvery River Authority for details of the water release and water levels in the reservoirs. This period did not see any major flare up in the dispute even though the summer of 2003 saw a dry spell in both states. The monsoons in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was quite copious and this helped a great deal in keeping the tempers calm. While the last 3 or 4 years have been relatively quiet as far as jingoistic voices are concerned,

2350-549: The Mettur dam . The 1924 agreement was written to last 50 years and gave Tamil Nadu 75% of the surplus water, Karnataka 23%, and the remaining to Kerala. In 1947, India attained independence from the British. Further in 1956, the reorganization of the states of India took place and state boundaries were redrawn based on linguistic demographics which lead to the creation of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Kodagu or Coorg (the birthplace of

2444-425: The public interest (entry 56 of union list , Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). Damodar Valley Corporation , NHPC , River Boards Act 1956, etc under the control of the union government, are referable to Entry 56 of the union list. When union government wants to take over an interstate river project under its control by law (as provided in the constitution) from states per entry 56 of the union list, it has to take

2538-460: The 'Assessor's report' that was apparently 'leaked' to the press. The report had suggested a decision which Karnataka summarily rejected. Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committee to study the 'ground realities' yet again. This was unanimously and vehemently opposed by all

2632-416: The 'ground realities' and report to the government. In the summer of 2002, things once again came to a head as the monsoon failed in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu . Reservoirs in both states fell to record low levels and inevitably tempers rose. The sticking point yet again, as in 1995–96 was how the distress would be shared between the two states. The tribunal had overlooked this crucial point when it gave

2726-538: The 11 TMC that the tribunal ordered. Karnataka complied with the decision of the Prime Minister and the issue blew over. Karnataka had all through maintained that the interim award was not 'scientific' and was inherently flawed. It had, nevertheless, complied with the order except during 1995–96 when rains failed. What complicated matters was that the Interim award was ambiguous on distress sharing and there

2820-656: The Central Government to set up the Cauvery Management Board in order to provide a permanent solution for the dispute. However, in a special session of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly held on 23 September, a resolution was passed not to release water to Tamil Nadu, hence defying the Supreme Court's order. On 27 September, the Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to give 6000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu for 3 days which

2914-582: The Government set up two new bodies, viz., Cauvery River Authority and Cauvery Monitoring Committee. The Cauvery River Authority would consist of the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of all four states (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu , Puducherry and Kerala ) and was headquartered in New Delhi . The Cauvery Monitoring Committee on the other hand, was an expert body which consisted of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of

Kaveri River water dispute - Misplaced Pages Continue

3008-413: The Karnataka government filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on its 28 September order directing it to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water everyday to Tamil Nadu, until 15 October. On 6 October 2012, several Kannada organisations, under the banner of "Kannada Okkoota", called a Karnataka bandh (close down) on 6 October in protest against the Cauvery water release. On 8 October,

3102-487: The President's rule which caused deferral of the agreement. The new government of M.G. Ramachandran rejected the draft agreement stating that the 1924 agreement allowed for an extension but not a review and that the 1892 and 1924 agreements should be reinstated. Additionally, Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala had agreed in 1976 to form a committee which would be headed by a Central Water Commission member, but this committee

3196-665: The States unless mutually agreed upon per Article 258 . Till now three tribunal awards are notified in official gazette by the Government of India. These are water dispute tribunals allocating river water use by the riparian states for Krishna (tribunal 1), Godavari and Narmada rivers. All these tribunal awards were issued before the year 2002 which cannot be altered by the new tribunals. The tribunals formed on sharing water of Ravi & Beas rivers, Cauvery / Kaveri river, Vamsadhara River , Mahadayi / Mandovi River and Krishna River ( tribunal 2 ) are either yet to pronounce

3290-467: The Supreme Court of India announced the release of 9,000 cusecs had to be continued and it was up to the Cauvery River Authority' s head, the Prime Minister, as a responsible person, to ensure this happened. The Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authority ’s decision until 20 October, rejecting the plea by both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders from Karnataka. Within

3384-446: The Supreme Court that it can release 10,000 cusecs per day, while Tamil Nadu demanded 20,000 cusecs per day. Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs per day to Tamil Nadu for next 10 days till 16 September 2016. On 9 September 2016, the state of Karnataka observed a bandh and protested against the release of water to Tamil Nadu. Supreme Court was approached by Karnataka citing public unrest, seeking modification of

3478-468: The Tamil Nadu Farmers of the Cauvery filed a petition requesting the government to establish a Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) and intervene because it was an interstate water issue. During the initial hearing of the petition, the Supreme Court encouraged that states to negotiate their own water sharing deal, but they were unable to find a solution. In 1990, the Supreme Court instructed

3572-490: The Union government to set up the CWDT. The tribunal was later formed and heard arguments from all four states. The three-man tribunal was constituted on 2 June 1990 and the tribunal was headed by Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee . The four states presented their demands to the tribunal. Karnataka requested 465 TMC , Kerala requested 99.8 TMC, Puducherry requested 9.3 TMC, and Tamil Nadu requested 566 TMC of its share based on

3666-586: The Union-State relations was created by Tamil Nadu's government which recommended that the Supreme Court should handle the interstate water disputes and ensure that its decisions are implemented. In 1971, petitions were submitted to the Supreme Court requesting that the Union of India should send the dispute to a tribunal under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act of 1956. However, the petitions were withdrawn in 1975 due to

3760-620: The already established implementation board/authority. In the case of the Cauvery River basin, SC directed the GoI to set up a temporary Supervisory Committee to implement the tribunal order till the constitution of the Cauvery Management Board by GoI. GoI established the said temporary Supervisory Committee on 22 May 2013. In the case of Babli barrage dispute, SC itself constituted the Supervisory Committee to implement

3854-464: The approval of the riparian states' legislature assemblies before passing such bill in the Parliament per Article 252 of the constitution. When public interest is served, President may also establish an interstate council as per Article 263 to inquire and recommend the dispute that has arisen between the states of India . IRWD Act (section 2c2) validates the previous agreements (if any) among

Kaveri River water dispute - Misplaced Pages Continue

3948-428: The basin states to harness the water of an interstate river/ river valley. This act is confined to states of India and not applicable to union territories . Only concerned state governments are entitled to participate in the tribunal adjudication and non-government entities are not permitted. Any river water sharing treaty made with other countries, has to be ratified by the Parliament per Article 253 after deciding

4042-688: The behest of the state government. The violence and show down, mostly centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bengaluru, lasted for nearly a month and most schools and educational institutions in Bengaluru remained closed during this period. On 20 February 2013, the Indian Government announced the final award. The final award makes an annual allocation of 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 TMC to Karnataka, 30 TMC to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry. Utilisable water in Tamil Nadu

4136-487: The beneficial water uses which are not equal to the utilizable water. According to verdict, monthly release of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu in TMCs would be: – 10 June, July – 34, August – 50, September – 40, – 22 October, – 15 November, – 8 December, – 3 January, February – 2.5, March – 2.5, April – 2.5, May – 2.5. Karnataka can now use all the excess water available in its area after releasing 192 TMC applicable in

4230-494: The concerned riparian states per Article 252. 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 the IRWD Act. A downstream state's action can affect

4324-534: The constitution before publishing the tribunal awards in the official gazette. When pronounced in the ambit of IRWD Act and the Indian constitution, the tribunal's verdict after its publication in the official gazette is equivalent to Supreme Court verdict as per section 6 of IRWD Act. This amendment (second para of section 4 (1) of the Act) specifically does not permit altering the prevailing tribunal verdicts issued before

4418-543: The earlier order. On 12 September 2016, Supreme Court slammed Karnataka for citing law and order problem and modified the 5 September order, directing Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water till 20 September 2016. This decision by the Supreme Court lead to an unrest among the people of Karnataka as the water release limit was increased by extending the number of days and violence broke out in Bangalore , Mysore , Mandya and other parts of state. Two people were killed in

4512-589: The final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 2007. Karnataka cited distress situation as Karnataka felt there was only enough water for drinking purposes and declined to release water. On 2 September 2016, Supreme Court asked Karnataka to consider Tamil Nadu's plea on humanitarian grounds and release water and advised both states to maintain harmony. The Court also asked Karnataka to revert by 5 September 2016 as to how much water it can release. On 5 September 2016 Karnataka informed

4606-468: The four states party to the dispute. The states contended that this move would further delay a judgement which has already been 16 years in the making. More than the disapproval of all the four states of the new expert committee that was proposed, the proposal turned out to be a major embarrassment for the tribunal. This was because, not only were the four states opposed to it even the Chief Judge of

4700-421: The ground water use in the river basin. The tribunal has also permitted the basin states to use all the excess water available in above normal water years. Moreover, the river basin population has reached 40 million in the year 2015 and the increasing per capita inorganic salts used/consumed in industrial, agriculture and residential sectors are enhancing the salt export requirements. When adequate salt export from

4794-454: The infrastructure for its storage (water reservoirs) and distribution network (canals, pipelines, groundwater charging, etc.). All these acts fall under the river water distribution and control category under IRWD Act. All the above actions of an upstream state are legal causes of water dispute to the downstream states since their existing interests are affected as given below: The use or control or distribution of river water in an upstream state

SECTION 50

#1732779870355

4888-400: The interim award and it had returned once again to haunt the situation. Tamil Nadu demanded that Karnataka honour the interim award and release to Tamil Nadu its proportionate share. Karnataka on the other hand stated that the water levels were hardly enough to meet its own demands and ruled out releasing any water in the circumstances that prevailed. A meeting of the Cauvery River Authority

4982-466: The interim order had no scientific basis and was intrinsically flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority. The Government then made several modifications to the powers of the Authority and came up with a new proposal. The new proposal greatly reduced the executive powers of the Authority. The power to take over control of dams was also done away with. Under this new proposal,

5076-537: The judges probably needed help settling their own disputes before adjudicating on the dispute at hand. Nonetheless, the new expert committee was formed and carried out further assessments. The extended deadline of the tribunal also passed and the tribunal was given yet another extension. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007. According to its verdict, Tamil Nadu gets 419 TMC of Cauvery water while Karnataka gets 270 TMC. The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu

5170-452: The meet citing insufficient notice as the reason. A minister from her cabinet, however represented Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery River Authority revised the Court's order from 1.25 TMC to 0.8 TMC per day. This time however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the Cauvery River Authority , refused to release any water succumbing to the large scale protests that had mounted in

5264-531: The national level for each river basin. State governments shall provide all the data regarding water resources, land, agriculture and matters related thereto as requested by the central government. The central government is also vested with powers to verify the data supplied by the state governments. However, many state governments, e.g., Maharashtra, Chattishgarh, etc have not been furnishing the land use data in their states (Tables 14 to 16 of Integrated Hydrological Data Book, 2012) and Central Water Commission of MoWR

5358-407: 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 (11.9 km) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 TMC (7.6 km) to Karnataka; 30 TMC (0.85 km) of Kaveri river water to Kerala and 7 TMC (0.2 km) to Puducherry . Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are the major shareholders, and Karnataka

5452-485: The princely state of Mysore decided to revive the irrigation projects that were previously drafted up by the British for both states, but was met with resistance from the Madras Presidency. A conference was held in 1890 between the two states that eventually resulted in the Agreement of 1892 which aimed to meet the needs of both states. In 1910, king Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar and Chief Engineer Dawes of Mysore drafted

5546-552: The right of Karnataka's water share. Although the River Kaveri originated in the Coorg Province, the province is not included in the agreement. This raises a question about the validity of bilateral agreements between Mysore and Madras presidencies. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit until the Government of India constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all

5640-476: The riparian states are not able to reach amicable agreements on their own in sharing of interstate river waters, section 4 of the IRWD Act provides a dispute resolution process in the form of a Tribunal. As per section 5.2 of the Act, the tribunal shall not only adjudicate but also investigate the matters referred to it by the union government and forward a report setting out the facts with its decisions. It implies that

5734-401: The river basin and its regenerated water either goes to sea or outside the Cauvery basin. The total dissolved salt load generated in the basin is nearly 3.5 million metric tons per year. The estimated salinity or total dissolved salts (TDS) for the water available in Cauvery delta is 441 ppm which is close to the safe maximum permissible 500 ppm. There is no limit imposed by the tribunal for

SECTION 60

#1732779870355

5828-404: The river basin is not taking place to the sea by forcing Cauvery delta to face water shortage , the water quality (salinity, pH, alkalinity, sodicity, etc.) available for Cauvery delta would deteriorate beyond the permissible limits impeding its sustainable productivity and its aquatic ecosystem conservation. Ultimately salt export criterion is the limitation for the water resources development in

5922-415: The river basin water data available from the year 1934 to 1971, the tribunal estimated the average water yield in the total river basin as 767 TMC which corresponds to 47% dependability. The live storage capacity available in the river basin is nearly 310 TMC which is 40.5% of the average yield. The water used in the Cauvery delta in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is nearly 280 TMC which is the tail end water use in

6016-420: The river in line with the 1924 Agreement, which Tamil Nadu opposed. As the 1924 Agreement came to an end, differences arose between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu regarding its interpretations. Karnataka believed that the agreement had to expire because the 1924 Agreement did not address water issues occurring in 1974 between the two states. Tamil Nadu believed that the agreement was meant to be reviewed after 50 years as

6110-588: The rivers in India instead of interstate rivers, a petition was filed in High Court against such law challenging its constitutional validity. The Act makes executive wing of states responsible in implementing the objectives of the Act. This legislation was made by the Parliament per item 56 of the Union List whose implementation per Article 73 and 162 is totally under executive powers of the Union and not by

6204-521: The said Supervisory Committee. Interim Supervisory Committee is a stop gap arrangement when there is delay in getting its approval by the parliament per section 6A(7) of Interstate River Water Disputes Act . However, Interim Supervisory Committee established by GoI under Interstate River Water Disputes Act has full powers {including suing and to be sued by riparian states/victims for damages / compensation per section 6A(3)} similar to an authority/ board established by parliament till parliament has not annulled

6298-492: The same. In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and the state found itself hard pressed to fulfill the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 TMC. The Supreme Court refused to entertain Tamil Nadu's petition and asked it to approach the tribunal. The tribunal examined the case and recommended that Karnataka release 11 TMC. Karnataka pleaded that 11 TMC

6392-405: The share of the Indian riparian states per Article 262 to make the treaty constitutionally valid or enforceable by the judiciary as India follows dualist theory for the implementation of international treaties/laws. The Indian government has signed Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, Ganga water sharing treaty with Bangladesh, etc. without the ratification by the Parliament and the consent of

6486-473: The state/regional governments.  This Act has been amended subsequently, with the most recent amendment in 2002. River waters use / harnessing is included in states jurisdiction (entry 17 of state list , Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). However, the union government with parliament approval can make laws on regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the extent such water resources are directly under its control when expedient in

6580-697: The supreme court directed Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. The court asked the union government to indicate the time frame within which the final decision of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal , which was given in February 2007, was to be notified. This decision was given in the view of saving the standing crops of both the states. On 22 August 2016, Tamil Nadu approached Supreme Court, seeking direction to Karnataka to release 50.052 TMC ft Cauvery water from its reservoirs for its third samba cultivation, as mandated in

6674-611: The suspension of fundamental rights during a national emergency from 1975 to 1977. Later after the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, intervened Tamil Nadu started to engage in talks with the other states and dropped its demand for a tribunal. In 1975, Jagjivan Ram, the Union Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation led further discussions between the states and created a report from the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee. In 1976 Tamil Nadu came under

6768-525: The terms of the agreements of 1892 and 1924. The tribunal gave an interim award on 25 June 1991 that was based on its 10 year calculation of average inflow of water into Tamil Nadu. It instructed Karnataka to release water from its reservoirs and provide 205 TMC to the Mettur reservoir in Tamil Nadu in a water year and also specified weekly and monthly stipulations. Karnataka deemed this extremely inimical to its interests and issued an ordinance seeking to annul

6862-402: The total available water in a water year to be shared by the riparian states. Tamil Nadu has to use 10 TMC for minimum environmental flows downstream of Lower Coleroon Anicut and supply 7 TMC to Puducherry out of the 192 TMC water released by Karnataka in a normal water year. Kerala can use 21 TMC from Kabini river basin, 6 TMC from Bhavani river basin and 3 TMC from Pambar river basin in

6956-459: The tribunal final verdict issued based on the deliberations on the draft verdict is accepted by the union government and notified in the official gazette, the verdict becomes law and binding on the states and union government for implementation. In case the constitutional rights of states are ingressed upon by the tribunal award in any manner, the union government is obliged to take the consent of parliament and all riparian states under Article 252 of

7050-451: The tribunal seeking a review. On 19 September 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the chairman of Cauvery River Authority, ordered Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of water per day from the Kaveri to Tamil Nadu. But Karnataka felt that this was impractical due to the drought conditions prevailing because of the failed monsoon. Karnataka then walked out of the high-level meeting as

7144-522: The tribunal was opposed to it. However the other two assistant judges on 3-man adjudication team, overruled the opinion of the main Judge. And all this was done in a packed courtroom and this led to petty bickering and heated arguments between the three judges in the packed courtroom. This left everyone in the courtroom shocked and the Tamil Nadu counsel was moved to remark that it was embarrassing that

7238-404: The tribunal's responsibility is not limited to adjudication of issues raised by the concerned states and also the investigation of other aspects which are in the public domain such as water pollution, salt export requirement, water quality deterioration, flood control, sustainability of river basin productivity & its ecology, environmental flow requirements, climate change effects, etc. When

7332-646: The tribunal’s award. The Supreme Court now stepped in at the President’s instance and struck down the Ordinance issued by Karnataka. It upheld the tribunal’s award which was subsequently gazetted by the Government of India on 11 December 1991. Karnataka was thus forced to accept the interim award and widespread demonstrations and violence broke out in parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu following this. Thousands of Tamil families had to flee from Bangalore in fear of being attacked and lynched by pro-Kannada activists with

7426-552: The two states and the British Government of India sent the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement. The award was declared in 12 May 1914, which allowed Mysore to construct the dam up to 11 TMC. The decision was appealed by the Madras Presidency which eventually led to the Agreement of 1924 between the two states which allowed Mysore to build the Krishna Raja Sagara dam and Madras to build

7520-523: The unrest and section 144 was imposed in Bengaluru. Curfew was also imposed on few parts of Bengaluru. On 19 September 2016, the Cauvery Supervisory Committee, set up by Supreme Court, ordered Karnataka to release 3,000 cusecs per day from 21 September 2016 to 30 September 2016. On 20 September 2016, Supreme Court directed Karnataka to further release 6,000 cusecs of water from 21 September 2016 to 27 September 2016 and directed

7614-412: The upstream state's 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 state's interest which they have been using for economic, ecological and spiritual/ religious aspects. The meaning of

7708-461: The verdict implementation authority/board, the same shall be complied by the union government as the tribunal verdict is equal to Supreme Court verdict. As per Articles 53 & 142 of the constitution, it is the duty of the President to enforce the tribunal/supreme court order/verdict without time delay till the Parliament, under Section 6A of this Act, decides against or makes modifications to

7802-508: The verdicts or the issued verdicts are to be accepted by the Government of India. Cauvery water disputes tribunal order was notified by the GoI on 20 February 2013 and later Supreme Court changed the tribunal order altering water allocations. The Vamsadhara tribunal pronounced its final verdict in September 2017 and permitted AP state to construct the side weir at Katragedda and Neradi barrage. In March 2018, Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal

7896-453: The water sharing agreement between Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in middle Godavari sub-basin. After nearly 7 years, the KRMB and Godavari River Management Board are notified by the central govt as autonomous bodies and their project-wise functions are stipulated for implementation. Under Section 9A of this Act, the central government shall maintain a data bank and information system at

7990-443: The word ‘interest’ in this context is concern/importance/significance/relevance / consequence of losing the prevailing water use or purpose. Whereas all the actions of an upstream state to use or control or distribute the water of an interstate river can affect the downstream states in one way or other. The following are some examples but not complete: Generally, river water is transferred to water deficit areas for use after creating

8084-529: The year 2002 (i.e. but not the tribunal awards issued after the year 2002). Thus this amendment bars the tribunals to give any time period/validity for constituting a new tribunal. This is to keep provision to resolve new water disputes which were not addressed by earlier tribunals/ agreements as and when they surface. A permanent water dispute tribunal, with its members from sitting/retired judges of Supreme Court or High courts (maximum five including chairman and vice chairman) and technical experts (maximum three),

8178-661: Was again not carried out. Tmcft Tmcft , ( Tmc ft ), ( TMC ), ( tmc ) is the abbreviation of thousand million cubic feet (1,000,000,000 = 10 = 1 billion ), commonly used in India in reference to volume of water in a reservoir or river flow. 1 tmcft is equivalent to: Alternatively, 35.32 tmcft = 1 cubic kilometer (km ) is the standard unit used by Central Water Commission of Government of India for reporting gross and effective storage capacities of dams in India in National Register of Large Dams (NRLD). The amount of water that can be discharged through

8272-447: Was called on 27 August 2002 but the Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha walked out of the meeting. The focus now shifted to the Supreme Court which ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 TMC of water every day unless the Cauvery River Authority revised it. Karnataka was forced to release water but pressed for another meeting of the Cauvery River Authority which was fixed for 8 September. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister this time boycotted

8366-629: Was introduced in Lok Sabha on 25 July 2019 by the minister of Jal Shakti, Mr.Gajendra Singh Shekhawat. It amends the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.  The Act provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers and river valleys. Parliament passed the Dams Safety Act, 2021 to monitor the safety of aging dams located on all rivers of India. As it is covering all

8460-602: Was never established due to political reasons. Despite having 26 ministerial meetings between 1968 and 1990 to resolve the Kaveri water dispute, an agreement could not be reached. During this time, a crisis management system was also established for 15 years, with Tamil Nadu requesting more water annually to support its crops in the delta. In 1983, the Society for the Protection of the Irrigation and Agricultural Rights of

8554-516: Was no clear cut formula that everyone agreed upon to share the waters in the case of failure of the monsoon. In 1997, the Government proposed the setting up of a Cauvery River Authority which would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order. These powers included the power to take over the control of dams in the event of the Interim Order not being honoured. Karnataka, which had always maintained that

8648-400: Was ordered to release 192 TMC (5.4 km) of water to Tamil Nadu in a normal year from June to May. The dispute, however, did not end there, as all four states decided to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order. The first agreement on sharing Kaveri river water dates back to 1892, between Madras Presidency and princely state of Mysuru. In 1881,

8742-491: Was understood during negotiations. It also believed that the agreement could not expire because it served as a foundation for developmental projects for both states and if it was altered it would harm both states. Tamil Nadu wanted a tribunal established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 to address the conflict, but it was turned town by the Union government. A report on

8836-444: Was unimplementable in the circumstances that existed then. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court demanding that Karnataka be forced to obey the tribunal's order. The Supreme Court this time recommended that the then Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao , intervene and find a political solution. The Prime Minister convened a meeting with the Chief Ministers of the two states and recommended that Karnataka release 6 TMC instead of

#354645