Kaveri River water dispute
It states that the pre-Independence agreements are invalid and are angled heavily in the favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing of the waters".
[11] In 1910, king Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar and Chief Engineer Dawes of Mysore drafted a plan to construct a dam in two stages at Kannambadi village that would hold up to 41.5 TMC of water.
[12] The 1924 agreement was written to last 50 years and gave Tamil Nadu 75% of the surplus water, Karnataka 23%, and the remaining to Kerala.
[16] Tamil Nadu wanted a tribunal established under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act of 1956 to address the conflict, but it was turned town by the Union government.
A report on the Union-State relations was created by Tamil Nadu's government which recommended that the Supreme Court should handle the interstate water disputes and ensure that its decisions are implemented.
Later after the Prime Minister of India, Indira Gandhi, intervened Tamil Nadu started to engage in talks with the other states and dropped its demand for a tribunal.
In 1975, Jagjivan Ram, the Union Minister of Water Resources and Irrigation led further discussions between the states and created a report from the Cauvery Fact Finding Committee.
During this time, a crisis management system was also established for 15 years, with Tamil Nadu requesting more water annually to support its crops in the delta.
[12] During the initial hearing of the petition, the Supreme Court encouraged that states to negotiate their own water sharing deal, but they were unable to find a solution.
[12] The tribunal gave an interim award on 25 June 1991 that was based on its 10-year calculation of average inflow of water into Tamil Nadu.
Thousands of Tamil families had to flee from Bangalore in fear of being attacked and lynched by pro-Kannada activists with the behest of the state government.
According to verdict, monthly release of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu in TMCs would be: – 10 June, July – 34, August – 50, September – 40, – 22 October, – 15 November, – 8 December, – 3 January, February – 2.5, March – 2.5, April – 2.5, May – 2.5.
Kerala (in Kabini basin) and Karnataka would use their reduced allocations and release rest of water below Billigundulu gauging station for use in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.
In response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) lodged by Tamil Nadu earlier, the Supreme Court on 10 May 2013 issued an interim direction to the Government of India (GoI) to establish an Interim Supervisory Committee to implement the Cauvery tribunal order till the constitution of "Cauvery Management Board" as stated in the tribunal order.
[37] Interim Supervisory Committee is a stop gap arrangement when there is delay in getting its approval by the parliament per section 6A(7) of Interstate River Water Disputes Act.
In 1997, the Government proposed the setting up of a Cauvery River Authority which would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order.
Karnataka, which had always maintained that the interim order had no scientific basis and was intrinsically flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority.
The Cauvery Monitoring Committee on the other hand, was an expert body which consisted of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the 'ground realities' and report to the government.
The focus now shifted to the Supreme Court which ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 TMC of water every day unless the Cauvery River Authority revised it.
Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committee to study the 'ground realities' yet again.
[citation needed] On 19 September 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh as the chairman of Cauvery River Authority, ordered Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of water per day from the Kaveri to Tamil Nadu.
[48] On 8 October, the Supreme Court of India announced the release of 9,000 cusecs had to be continued and it was up to the Cauvery River Authority's head, the Prime Minister, as a responsible person, to ensure this happened.
The Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authority’s decision until 20 October, rejecting the plea by both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders from Karnataka.
[49] Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court on 17 October, reiterating its demand for appropriate directions to be issued to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 TMC of water as per the distress sharing formula.
The court asked the union government to indicate the time frame within which the final decision of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, which was given in February 2007, was to be notified.
On 2 September 2016, Supreme Court asked Karnataka to consider Tamil Nadu's plea on humanitarian grounds and release water and advised both states to maintain harmony.
This decision by the Supreme Court lead to an unrest among the people of Karnataka as the water release limit was increased by extending the number of days and violence broke out in Bangalore, Mysore, Mandya and other parts of state.
[58][59] However, in a special session of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly held on 23 September, a resolution was passed not to release water to Tamil Nadu, hence defying the Supreme Court's order.
[60] On 27 September, the Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to give 6000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu for 3 days [61] which was again not carried out.
[62] On 30 September, the Supreme Court gave Karnataka a "last chance" and ordered 6,000 cusecs of water to be released during the first 6 days of October.
