SC Delivers Verdict on Cauvery Water Issue. The dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu dates given back to 1892. The Supreme Court pronounced its verdict on the decades-old Cauvery water dispute on Friday between riparian states of Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Puducherry, and Kerala.
SC Delivers Verdict on Cauvery Water Issue
The court has directed Karnataka to provide Tamil Nadu with 177 tmcft of Cauvery water. It also added that Karnataka will get 14.75 tmcft additional water. The bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice AM Khanwilkar and Justice DY Chandrachud had on 20 September 2017 reserved the verdict on the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing of water. Security was beefed up in both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka ahead of the apex court's verdict for fear of clashes. The 802-kilometre-long Cauvery River is the largest river basin in South India, originating in Talacauvery in Karnataka's Kodagu district.
The Cauvery dispute began in the year 1892, between the Madras Presidency (under the British Raj) and the Princely state of Mysore (as Karnataka was known then). They had to come to the terms with dividing the river water. Since then, Cauvery river water has been a bone of contention between the two states. In the year 1910, both states started planning the construction of dams on the river. The issue was presided upon by the British who also decided which state would receive, what share of the water. In 1924, an agreement was signed between the two states where the rules of regulation of the Krishnarajsagar dam were pointed out. The two stated that existing irrigation should not be hindered by constructing new dams upstream (in Karnataka) and that irrigation should be impacted downstream. It was said that all works planned must be agreed to by the states located downstream (in this case, Tamil Nadu).
According to the 1892 and the 1924 agreements the river water was distributed as follows: 75 percent with Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 23 percent to Karnataka and the remaining with Kerala. However, Karnataka did not implement these agreements. A protest kept simmering over the state gets how much of the Cauvery water through the pre-Independence and post-Independence years. Things became complicated after 1956 following the re-organization of states. Prior to 1956, most matters were settled through arbitration and agreements. Through the 1960s, Tamil Nadu strongly objected to Karnataka buildings two dams on the Cauvery River but the latter went ahead anyway. Five rounds of talks to resolve the dispute also failed, according to Outlook. By this time, Tamil Nadu had also built the Mettur dam. The state had become heavily dependent on the Cauvery River after they developed millions of agricultural land around the river. They argued that the livelihood of farmers would be affected if there was a change in the distribution of water.
In 1972, the Centre agreed to appoint a committee who would collect statistics from each of the states that had the river basin — Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The fact-finding committee found that Tamil Nadu used 566 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet), Karnataka used 177 tmcft. In 1974, Karnataka claimed the 1924 agreement allowed the state to discontinue water supply from the Cauvery to Tamil Nadu after 50 years. It argued that since the river originated in its territory, the state had the right to use its waters as it wished. Karnataka also said that British-era agreements favored Tamil Nadu and were not bound by a British Raj deal brokered between the British empire and the Maharaja of Mysore.
The Cauvery dispute began in the year 1892, between the Madras Presidency (under the British Raj) and the Princely state of Mysore (as Karnataka was known then). They had to come to the terms with dividing the river water. Since then, Cauvery river water has been a bone of contention between the two states. In the year 1910, both states started planning the construction of dams on the river. The issue was presided upon by the British who also decided which state would receive, what share of the water. In 1924, an agreement was signed between the two states where the rules of regulation of the Krishnarajsagar dam were pointed out. The two stated that existing irrigation should not be hindered by constructing new dams upstream (in Karnataka) and that irrigation should be impacted downstream. It was said that all works planned must be agreed to by the states located downstream (in this case, Tamil Nadu).
According to the 1892 and the 1924 agreements the river water was distributed as follows: 75 percent with Tamil Nadu and Puducherry, 23 percent to Karnataka and the remaining with Kerala. However, Karnataka did not implement these agreements. A protest kept simmering over the state gets how much of the Cauvery water through the pre-Independence and post-Independence years. Things became complicated after 1956 following the re-organization of states. Prior to 1956, most matters were settled through arbitration and agreements. Through the 1960s, Tamil Nadu strongly objected to Karnataka buildings two dams on the Cauvery River but the latter went ahead anyway. Five rounds of talks to resolve the dispute also failed, according to Outlook. By this time, Tamil Nadu had also built the Mettur dam. The state had become heavily dependent on the Cauvery River after they developed millions of agricultural land around the river. They argued that the livelihood of farmers would be affected if there was a change in the distribution of water.
In 1972, the Centre agreed to appoint a committee who would collect statistics from each of the states that had the river basin — Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The fact-finding committee found that Tamil Nadu used 566 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet), Karnataka used 177 tmcft. In 1974, Karnataka claimed the 1924 agreement allowed the state to discontinue water supply from the Cauvery to Tamil Nadu after 50 years. It argued that since the river originated in its territory, the state had the right to use its waters as it wished. Karnataka also said that British-era agreements favored Tamil Nadu and were not bound by a British Raj deal brokered between the British empire and the Maharaja of Mysore.
Comments
Post a Comment