While recognising the predicament of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu on receiving a lesser share of Cauvery water, the Central government has asked the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) to clarify whether these states would scale down the project-wise utilisation of water in their respective states, in view of the final awards by the Tribunal on February 5, 2007.
Submitting an application before the Tribunal, the Ministry of Water Resources said, “It may be clarified whether the states are free to scale down the project-wise utilisation filed by states in 1990.”
In the last 17 years, the states have launched several other irrigation, drinking water and other projects in the Cauvery basin using its water. “The Tribunal has apportioned water to Karnataka and TN for cropped area that is less than that claimed by the two states,  and the quantum apportioned is much lesser than their claim. Area considered in these two states are already developed and commitment was given prior to 1990,” said the application filed by Secretary to Water Resources, Gauri Chatterji.
Unutilised share
The government has sought clarification on the unutilised share of 192 tmc from Kabini sub-basin in a normal year, which was to be given to TN by Karanataka
While seeking to differentiate between a “distress year” and “situations of distress”, government has sought clear procedures for distress-sharing to avoid future problems, especially in view of the fact that the upper catchments in Karnataka and Kerala are predominantly under the influence of South-West monsoon.
But the catchments in TN are influenced by North-East monsoon.”
If the less than annual yield of 740 tmc water in a normal year is distress yield, then would it include the carry over in the projects as on June 1 every year? When would the Cauvery Management Board decide that it is a distress year and how would it reduce the water share of the states — Kerala, Karnataka, TN and Pondicherry, even though the normal share of water flow will be carried out till then?
All the states party to the awards had submitted their objections before the Tribunal, which would be hearing them before giving its final decision.
In February 2007, Karnataka had said that the Tribunal’s award on water sharing was “not acceptable” and had thereby filed a petition seeking its review. Karnataka wanted 408 tmcft for irrigating.