|
|||||
|
S. Ranganathan, secretary, Cauvery Delta Farmers' Welfare Association, Tamil Nadu, has played an important role for the past 30 years in the resolution of the Cauvery dispute. He says the Tribunal's final award has done justice to all the claimants and he is optimistic about the future. Ranganathan, 70, lives in the Cauvery heartland, in Mannargudi near Thanjavur, and is confident that the river can be made into one with surplus water by modernising its canals, using modern methods to convey water and by inter-linking the rivers in the peninsula. Excerpts from an interview he gave Frontline:
What is your assessment of the Tribunal's final award?
It appears to be an equitable apportionment. First, the Tribunal's work was a very difficult exercise. The report on the final award opens with a clear introduction that the 1892 and 1924 agreements stand superseded. This means you cannot claim any more the earlier apportionment of water based on usage over a period of time. Present-day water accords are based on The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers. According to the Helsinki principles, any water accord should be based on equitable apportionment of water. It should take into account the population, ayacut, farmers' needs, use of water and so on. The Tribunal's final award appears to be based on The Helsinki Rules.
Secondly, the Cauvery is a deficit river. On 75 per cent dependability, only 671 tmc ft [thousand million cubic feet] of water is available for all the basin States. On 50 per cent dependability, 740 tmc ft is available. The final Award is based on the higher margin so that on paper more water is available. Using 50 per cent dependability is more risky than using 75 per cent.
How is it risky?
In 50 per cent dependability, there is a chance of failure [of the southwest monsoon] or lesser release of water every alternate year. However, in 75 per cent dependability, there will be shortage of water for a year in the course of every four years. Fifty per cent means every alternate year will be a difficult year. So 50 per cent is a risky affair.
On the basis of 50 per cent dependability, that is, availability of 740 tmc ft of water, Tamil Nadu has been given 419 tmc ft, Karnataka 270, Kerala 30 and Puducherry seven. Ten tmc ft is reserved for environmental protection and 4 tmc ft will escape into the sea. This totals to 740. But only 726 tmc ft is shared.
Out of 419 tmc ft, Tamil Nadu should receive 182 tmc ft from Karnataka at the Biligundlu gauging station and 10 tmc ft is reserved for environmental protection. [According to the Tribunal, the water availability between Biligundlu in Karnataka and Mettur in Tamil Nadu is 25 tmc ft.] So Tamil Nadu will get 207 tmc ft, including Puducherry's share of 7 tmc ft. So, it will be 200 tmc ft for Tamil Nadu. But for actual reference, it will be 207 tmc ft plus 10 tmc ft for environmental protection.
The interim order had given a similar quantum - 205 tmc ft to Tamil Nadu [at Mettur]. So there is not much of a difference between the interim award and the final award.
The final award has provided for monthly releases. Tamil Nadu should get in June 10 tmc ft, July 34 tmc ft, August 50 tmc ft, September 40 tmc ft, October 22 tmc ft, November 15 tmc ft, December 8 tmc ft, January 3 tmc ft, and February, March, April and May 2.5 tmc ft each. This works out to 192 tmc ft at Biligundlu. Out of this, 10 tmc ft is for environmental protection.
Karnataka has objected to this monthly schedule. The monthly releases shall be broken into 10 daily intervals by the Regulatory Authority. It will be monitored every third day by the Regulatory Authority, which has been given powers to monitor the schedule in consultation with the State governments and the Central Water Commission.
Does the award satisfy the needs of the four riparian States?
The need as indicated by Tamil Nadu and Karnataka go beyond 1,000 tmc ft. If Kerala's and Puducherry's requirements are taken into account, it will exceed 1,200 tmc ft. But water availability is only 740 tmc ft at 50 per cent dependability.
How to make good the deficit? Since this dispute has been raging for more than 30 years, no improvement by way of modernisation in the delta, such as the lining of canals and improvement in conveyance, estimated at Rs.1,000 crores, could be planned and executed because financial institutions could not help us.
Rs.1,000 crores for Tamil Nadu?
Yes, at least Rs.1,000 crores for Tamil Nadu alone. Now that the final award has been given, modernisation is possible. It will mean saving a considerable quantity of water.
Secondly, 2,000 tmc ft of water is being wasted because it falls into the Arabian sea from the Karnataka side. A part of it can be utilised for augmenting the river water supply.
Thirdly, inter-linking of peninsular rivers is possible. By using these three methods, the Cauvery can be made a surplus river to satisfy the needs of the riparian States, including their needs for irrigation, drinking water and industry.
Tamil Nadu had insisted that water availability at the Mettur dam rather than at the gauging station at Biligundlu was a more accurate way of measuring the quantum of water released by Karnataka. But the Tribunal says the yardstick will be the water released at Biligundlu. Will this not affect Tamil Nadu's interests?
The difference between Biligundlu and Mettur is in the method of gauging. Biligundlu adopts international standards, so the Tribunal has preferred it.
The final award has not come up with a specific "distress-sharing formula". Is this a flaw in the award?
The final award is vague on this aspect. It should have been more specific on this.
The Tribunal has recommended that the Centre set up a Cauvery Management Board to implement its recommendations. Do you welcome it?
It is absolutely essential that the board is constituted as early as possible with enough powers vested in it to see that the final award is implemented properly. The Tamil Nadu Cauvery Delta Farmers' Welfare Association expresses its satisfaction over the apportioning of the waters among the four States even though there has been a considerable delay [in giving the final award], and the award is a good exercise on the distribution of available water.
What will happen to the "Cauvery Family" of both Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, which played a conciliatory role in the issue?
The Cauvery Family was the brainchild of S. Guhan of the Madras Institute of Development Studies (MIDS). He started it in 1992. Unfortunately, after his demise in 1998 it became dormant. S. Janakarajan of the MIDS gave it a fresh lease of life. In the last four years, it has cemented a good relationship between farmers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.
How did you do it?
The Cauvery Family provided a platform to farmers of both States to exchange views and vent their feelings. Subsequently, they discussed their problems. Karnataka's farmers visited the Cauvery delta region in Tamil Nadu and we visited the basin in Mandya and Mysore districts and other areas in Karnataka. We were able to understand better the problems of farmers in the other region.
What will happen if Karnataka refuses to implement the award?
With farmers of the two States realising the difficulties of each other, and the plus and minus of farming on the other side becoming clear to them, this [refusal] will purely be temporary and can be sorted out because farmers are interested in their mutual welfare. Everything depends on the availability of water. If the suggestions I have made to augment the quantity of water available are implemented, the Cauvery can be made a river with surplus water.
Printer friendly
page
|
