New Delhi: The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal's final award stipulating monthly releases of water to Tamil Nadu "is like the tribunal ordering God to send rain to Karnataka" argued senior counsel Fali Nariman in the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
Mr Nariman made this submission before a three-judge Bench of Justices Dipak Misra, Amitav Roy and A.M. Kanwilkar hearing the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala challenging the February 2007 final award of the Cauvery Tribunal.
Earlier counsel Mohan Katarki, appearing for Karnataka brought to the notice of the bench that the burden of Karnataka to supply 192 tmcft annually at the inter-state border, Billigundlu, has been fixed without any regard to 30 tmcft groundwater available in Tamil Nadu. He said had that amount been taken into account, the burden on this score alone would have come down to 162 tmcft annually in a normal year at Billigundlu.
He said as per the award Karnataka was bound to ensure weekly and monthly releases of water from June to August and then from September to January next.
Except in three years due to drought, Karnataka had ensured the quantity of water to Tamil Nadu as directed by the Tribunal. If about 3.50 lakh acres of land illegally being irrigated by Tamil Nadu was taken into account, another 60 tmcft of water should be reduced and in all Tamil Nadu ought to have been awarded only 102 tmcft as against 192 tmcft, Mr Katarki added.
At this juncture Mr Nariman intervened and said "it is perverse for the Tribunal to have fixed monthly water releases to Tamil Nadu without any regard to the availability of water in Karnataka. It is like the Tribunal ordering God to send rain to the state. How can the tribunal fix the quantity of water to be released? It is for the regulatory authority to determine the water release and not the tribunal. If there is no rain, Karnataka can't give water and Tamil Nadu then complains."
Senior counsel Shekar Naphade for Tamil Nadu intervened and objected to this averment and said "the sum and substance of Karnataka's stand is that it does not want to give any water to Tamil Nadu. If Tamil Nadu's share is reduced by 90 tmcft, then the entire 90-tmcft water will go to Karnataka. Their whole attempt is to use the entire 90 tmcft which is not possible." He also countered Mr Nariman's argument on regulatory au-thority saying "it was Karnataka which opposed in the apex court the setting up of the Cauvery Management Board, which is a mechanism provided under the award for regulating water releases."
Mr. Katarki continuing his arguments said the Tribunal estimated the domestic and industrial water requirement of Karnataka and Tamil nadu from Cauvery waters, allocating 1.85 tmcft to Karnataka and 2.73 tmcft to Tamil Nadu as consumptive use. However, in respect of Bengaluru, the Tribunal did not consider requirement of 2/3rd of the city on an erroneous consideration that the said area was falling outside the Cauvery basin and it was not entitled to the supply from Cauvery. He also questioned as to why Karnataka should bear the entire burden of meeting environmental flows of 10 tmcft to Tamil Nadu.
Senior counsel Jaideep Gupta, for Kerala intervened and said the Tribunal had determined the total availability of surface water in the Cauvery basin at 740 tmcft. If availability of 90 tmcft of ground water were added, the total would be 830 tmcft, which should be apportioned among the three States and Puducherry afresh. Arguments will continue on Wednesday.
