The Cauvery River, which flows through the southern Indian states of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and the Union territory of Puducherry, has been a source of persistent and intricate water conflict. The dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Cauvery River is traced back to as early as 1890, with roots in the pre-independence era when the then princely states of Mysore (now Karnataka) and Madras (now Tamil Nadu) contended for control over the river’s waters. Even after independence, the issue has persisted, revolving around the judicious sharing and utilisation of water resources, and has resulted in numerous legal battles, protests, and political maneuvering.
The tussle between the lower riparian state of Tamil Nadu, with a share of 404.25 tmc (thousand million cubic feet) annually, and the upper riparian state of Karnataka, which has a share of 284.75 tmc, has aggravated today due to the failure of southwest monsoons in Karnataka this season. Judicial and quasi-judicial bodies formed to resolve the issues over the years have failed. Despite these efforts, a lasting resolution still needs to be achieved, with both states continually vying for their rightful share of the river’s water.
This article focuses on the key findings from research that must guide the dispute resolution mechanisms. It is high time to advocate not for the rightful share of water for each state but the reasonable share in water conservation mechanisms by both states given the climate crises.
Also read: Soon, We May Not Have a Cauvery River to Fight Over
As per the Nobel Laureate Ronald Coase, if there are low transaction costs and clear property rights, the two states could engage in voluntary negotiations to efficiently allocate the river water. However, the historical complexities of the dispute, high transaction costs, and political factors do not allow efficient bargaining.
Instead, the Tragedy of the Commons perspective comes into play, highlighting the risk of overuse and depletion of the Cauvery River as a common-pool resource without adequate regulation or property rights. This perspective underscores the need for government intervention and regulatory mechanisms to prevent the Tragedy, acknowledging the collective action problem where individual interests can lead to suboptimal outcomes for both the states and the environment.
In transboundary water disputes, upstream states typically apply the Harmon doctrine (source-based water rights). In contrast, downstream states adhere to historical principles (prioritising primary water rights for historical users) as per a study by the Observer Research Foundation (2018). International guidelines can advocate for equitable and reasonable utilisation of transboundary waters and offer valuable insights into the resolution process.
The Supreme Court judgement in 2018 on Karnataka’s appeal discusses the water-sharing formula in the Cauvery basin and references the Helsinki, Berlin, and Compoine rules. Water allocation to each party state is based on the total available yield generated in the Cauvery basin.
According to the judgement, the full yield figure of the Cauvery basin areas within the states of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, and the Union territory of Pondicherry was estimated at 740 tmc, assuming 50% dependability. Of the 740 tmc, 14 tmc is apportioned for environmental protection and inevitable flows to the sea, leaving around 726 tmc of water shared among the four riparians. The judgment mentions that the Cauvery basin’s rainfall, flows, and crop pattern will determine water release during a year of distress.
A view of the Cauvery River. Photo: File
While the water-sharing formula is essential, it should integrate a water conservation strategy, reflecting the shared responsibility of the states towards Cauvery as a property. Investments in irrigation efficiency, diversion of the cropping pattern, water conservation, or any measures to regulate the demand for water from both states need emphasis during water sharing. These factors become relevant when the water supply is constrained, and shortages are recurrent over the years.
Firstly, the actual cost of irrigation water becomes inconsequential, making agricultural water almost a free resource in the basin. The free resource has resulted in inefficient demand-side management of irrigation water as farmers in other irrigation command areas habitually utilise large amounts of water from the river for a longer time with low end-use efficiency. Conserving scarce resources must take precedence over subsidising agriculture for redistributive justice during crises.
Secondly, diversifying crop patterns in the Cauvery Delta, in both states, forms a solution for managing demand for irrigation. A sudden shift from high-value crops to other crops may be challenging, but promoting crop diversification through a minimum support price regime favoring drier crops, millets, horticulture, and oilseeds (which are suited to both States geographical conditions) to nudge farmers promotes less water-intensive crops in both States.
Also read: Who Is Willing to Find a Long-Term Solution to the Cauvery Dispute?
Thirdly, water conservation is neglected by the states because, Bengaluru, which depends on Cauvery for its water needs, ranks second among Indian metros in water wastage as per an article in The Wire. In addition, it is ironic to note that Tamil Nadu received a $100 million loan from the Asian Development Bank to reduce water stress in the Cauvery Delta in 2016 and the projected completion in 2020, yet the water demand persists.
Finally, water pollution in the Cauvery Basin is an overlooked dimension. As per a study by IIT Madras, the Cauvery water is plagued by pharmaceutical contaminants. Adding to it, the industrial effluents, untreated sewage, and agricultural runoff have severely compromised the quality of the Cauvery’s waters.
Hence, water demand management and conservation are pivotal in resolving the Cauvery dispute. Prioritising the preservation of catchment areas and river basins to ensure a sustainable water supply for both states. The politicisation of water resources has exacerbated the Cauvery dispute, and shifting the focus from water sharing to water conservation is imperative for the water-sharing formula, given the long-time and recurrent battle between the states.
California, for instance, implemented a 15-year plan to reduce its reliance on Colorado River water, emphasising water conservation, recycling, and storage as part of its separation from an overreliance on the river. Currently, the seven states involved in Colorado River water sharing are considering how to cut the demand for water. Hence, the Cauvery water dispute is far more intricate considering the water conservation than a mere dispute between the states.
To move forward, stakeholders must recognise the urgent need for a new narrative that prioritises the sustainable use of water resources, minimises ecological harm, and embraces the challenges posed by climate change. Legal requirements advocating for water conservation and demand management, as a prerequisite for water sharing rights, is the only lasting solution to the age-old conflict. Consequently, Cauvery River remains a lifeline for both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu in the future.
Roopa Patavardhan, Faculty at Department of Economics Christ University, Bengaluru.