New Delhi, Feb 16 (IANS) In a setback to Tamil Nadu, the Supreme Court on Friday reduced its share of the Cauvery river water to 177.25 thousand million cubic feet (TMC), down from 192 TMC allocated by a tribunal in 2007.

A bench of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice Amitava Roy and Justice A.M. Khanwilkar reduced the state’s share as it noted that the Cauvery tribunal had not taken into account the 20 TMC of ground water available in Tamil Nadu’s side of the river basin.

“In totality, we deem it appropriate to award to the State of Karnataka an additional 14.75 TMC of water, i.e., 10 TMC (on account of availability of ground water in Tamil Nadu) + 4.75 TMC (for drinking and domestic purposes including such need for the whole city of Bengaluru),” the court said in its order.

In view of the additional allocation to Karnataka, the court said that it would now be required to release 177.25 TMC of water at the inter-state border with Tamil Nadu at Billigundulu.

The court further clarified that the scheme to be formulated under Section 6A of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, “in terms of the present adjudication” and “with regard to the monthly releases” are for the “period of 15 (fifteen) years hence”.

Justifying the cut in Tamil Nadu’s share, the court cited the empirical data suggesting that around 20 TMC of groundwater was available in Tamil Nadu — a position which the Tribunal did not take into account describing it as a “conjecture”.

“We, while keeping in mind the risks associated with over-extraction of underground water, deem it fit that 10 TMC of the said available groundwater in Tamil Nadu can, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, be accounted for in the final determination of its share,” it saidd.

Therefore, the share of Karnataka has been increased by 14.75 TMC, which includes increased allocation for “global” city of Bengaluru for drinking purposes.

“Drinking water requirement of the overall population of all the States has to be placed on a higher pedestal as we treat it as a hierarchically fundamental principle of equitable distribution,” said Chief Justice Misra speaking for the bench.

“It is obligatory to clearly state that in view of the acute scarcity of the water resources and the intensely contested claims of the States, it is expected that the allocations hereby made would be utilized for the purposes earmarked and accepted and no deviancy is shown in carrying out the verdict of this court.”

Allocating 4.75 TMC to Bengaluru, the judgment said that Karnataka could use the increased allocation for irrigation and industrial purposes by marginally increasing its area under crop.

The court hiked the allocation of water for Bengaluru as it found “unsustainable” the Tribunal drastically reducing Karnataka’s share towards domestic and industrial purposes for the reason that only 1/3rd of Bengaluru falls within the river basin and also on the presumption that 50 per cent of the drinking water requirement would be met from ground water supply.

The top court meanwhile kept intact allocation made to Kerala and Puducherry by the Tribunal.

The court directed that as per the Tribunal award, the Centre would take steps for setting up the Cauvery Water Management Board for the implementation of the interim water sharing arrangement, which would remain in operation for the next 15 years.

It rejected the Central government’s stand that word “may” in Section 6A of the 1956 Act leaves room for discretion to the Government for the purpose of framing a scheme.

Concurring with the Tribunal awards, except for the reduction in the share of Tamil Nadu, the court said that after considering all relevant material brought on record, “we are of the view that having regard to imperative of economy of consumption of water, the final determination of irrigated area arrived at by the Tribunal for Tamil Nadu cannot be declared incorrect or fallacious”.

“The Tribunal in its approach primarily referred to Helsinki Rules, 1966 which rejected the Harmon doctrine and laid stress on equitable utilization of international rivers. We are of the opinion that the Tribunal was correct in its approach,” the judgement said.

Referring to its answer to the Presidential reference on the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, the court said that “waters of an inter-state river passing through corridors of the riparian states constitute a national asset and no single State can claim exclusive ownership of its water”.

–IANS
pk/vd