Karnataka resents TN's objection to silting work

By S.K. Ramoo

BANGALORE, JUNE 20. Karnataka is ``disheartened'' over what it perceives as the ``insidious'' manner in which the Tamil Nadu Government prevailed upon the Union Water Resources Ministry to restrain it (Karnataka) from removing silt from its irrigation tanks in the Cauvery basin. The Krishna Government has drawn up an ambitious World Bank-assisted Jala Samvardhane Project to rejuvenate 36,000 tanks at a cost of Rs. 996 crores. Following Tamil Nadu's objection, the World Bank initially had some reservations in funding the project, but relented after Karnataka's clarification.

Significantly, the Cauvery Tribunal, adjudicating the sharing of the Cauvery waters among Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry, in its order on May 21, 1991, brushed aside Tamil Nadu's objections seeking to restrict Karnataka from undertaking watershed development programmes and desilting of tanks in the Cauvery basin. Tamil Nadu's ``unfounded'' apprehension was that it would lead to the cultivation of crops in excess of the 11.2 lakh-acre ceiling imposed on Karnataka by the Tribunal.

The Karnataka Chief Minister, Mr. Krishna pointed out that tanks in the Cauvery basin existed long before the construction of the Krishnaraja Sagar Dam, and they depended on rainwater for storage. He asserted that Karnataka was within its power and jurisdiction for repairing its tanks, including those in the Cauvery basin, over which both the Union and Tamil Nadu Governments had raised ``needless'' objections.

Against this backdrop, and the Centre's ``unjustified and unwarranted'' direction, Karnataka initially reacted by declaring that it would not desilt tanks in the Cauvery basin. But shortly afterwards, it announced that it would go ahead with the desilting of all tanks in the State.

Mr. Krishna hinted that Karnataka, if required, would approach the Tribunal for a clarificatory order relating to the Jala Samvardhane Project. The Water Resources Minister, Mr. H.K. Patil, made known Karnataka's stand by declaring that it would go ahead with desilting of 8,000 tanks in the Cauvery Basin with or without aid from the World Bank.

Meanwhile, several jurists in the State have pointed out that the Centre had no power or jurisdiction to prevent Karnataka from desilting its tanks. According to them, the State was merely exercising its legal rights for the maintenance of its tanks, including those in the Cauvery basin. They said it was merely trying to restore them to their original capacities. Significantly, Karnataka did not object to the previous Karunanidhi Government undertaking extensive desilting of tanks in Tamil Nadu, including those in the Cauvery delta.

The Cauvery Tribunal was constituted by the then Union Government on June 2, 1990, under Section 4 of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, following a direction from the Supreme Court after the Tamil Nadu Government informed the court that it was not prepared to continue talks as they had not resulted in any breakthrough. The interim award was announced on June 25, 1991.

To the dismay of the riparian States, even 10 years after it was set up, the Tribunal has not pronounced its final award. The ``inordinate'' delay lately provoked Mr. Krishna to declare that it was causing unwarranted ill-feeling between the two States. He suggested that inter-State river water dispute tribunals should pronounce their final orders within a reasonable time-frame. He implied that the interim award ordering Karnataka to release 205 tmcft Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu under a stipulated monthly calender was ``unrealistic'' as the State was finding it difficult to adhere to the stipulation during ``distress years'' following inadequate rainfall in the catchment areas of its Cauvery reservoirs.

The Tribunal has ordered that hardship be shared by the two States under a formula evolved by it. However, the rain gods were benevolent in the last couple of years and there were copious inflows into reservoirs of both States owing to a good monsoon. This enabled Karnataka to fulfil its interim award obligation to Tamil Nadu.

Legal pundits contend that the formulation of a comprehensive national water policy by the Centre in consultation with the States would have greatly helped the Tribunal in pronouncing its final award early. However, the Inter-State Water Disputes Act lacks guidelines to ensure a uniform approach for adjudication.

There appears to be no consensus among the States for evolving a national water policy. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu seem to have no time for a joint exploration to create additional storage both upstream and downstream of the Mettur Dam for prevention of water run-offs during excess inflows into their reservoirs.

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : National
Previous : Move to let in foreign media through the back
           door?
Next     : Environment award for U.S.-AEP chief