<p> Karnataka on Friday approached the Supreme Court terming the supervisory committee's direction to release 3,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil Nadu as “wholly erroneous”.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In its objection to the committee's order, the state maintained that it would suffer “grave prejudice” and “unreasonable burden” of delivering flows to Tamil Nadu during period of admitted distress, if the order was enforced upon it.<br /><br />It also contended that Tamil Nadu has a live storage of 49.219 tmcft, which means the state does not require any more water. The people of Karnataka would be penalised as water requirement is 26.33 tmcft while the storage at its four reservoirs is at 27.62 tmcft only. If one considers evaporation loss of 6 tmcft, the water left for drinking purpose would be only 20 tmcft, less than the requirement, it submitted. <br />Karnataka further averred that the supervisory committee has not taken into account that the North East monsoon is likely to occur in Tamil Nadu and that distress cannot be accounted for only a part of the year.<br /><br />“If Northeast monsoon is excessive and Tamil Nadu gets compensated, Karnataka does not get any benefit out of it,” it stated, maintaining the distress cannot be determined on the monthly basis and can best be calculated at the end of the season on January 31. <br /><br />It contended that the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal passed on February 5, 2007 and published on February 19, 2013 ought not be enforced strictly during the pendency of civil appeal before the apex court's three-judge bench.<br /><br />Challenging the committee's direction, Karnataka contended that it had already released 18.248 tmcft of water between September 1 and 20 at Biligundlu. If it releases further, the water to Tamil Nadu would come to 20.842 tmcft, more than its share, the state claimed. <br /></p>
<p> Karnataka on Friday approached the Supreme Court terming the supervisory committee's direction to release 3,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil Nadu as “wholly erroneous”.<br /><br /></p>.<p>In its objection to the committee's order, the state maintained that it would suffer “grave prejudice” and “unreasonable burden” of delivering flows to Tamil Nadu during period of admitted distress, if the order was enforced upon it.<br /><br />It also contended that Tamil Nadu has a live storage of 49.219 tmcft, which means the state does not require any more water. The people of Karnataka would be penalised as water requirement is 26.33 tmcft while the storage at its four reservoirs is at 27.62 tmcft only. If one considers evaporation loss of 6 tmcft, the water left for drinking purpose would be only 20 tmcft, less than the requirement, it submitted. <br />Karnataka further averred that the supervisory committee has not taken into account that the North East monsoon is likely to occur in Tamil Nadu and that distress cannot be accounted for only a part of the year.<br /><br />“If Northeast monsoon is excessive and Tamil Nadu gets compensated, Karnataka does not get any benefit out of it,” it stated, maintaining the distress cannot be determined on the monthly basis and can best be calculated at the end of the season on January 31. <br /><br />It contended that the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal passed on February 5, 2007 and published on February 19, 2013 ought not be enforced strictly during the pendency of civil appeal before the apex court's three-judge bench.<br /><br />Challenging the committee's direction, Karnataka contended that it had already released 18.248 tmcft of water between September 1 and 20 at Biligundlu. If it releases further, the water to Tamil Nadu would come to 20.842 tmcft, more than its share, the state claimed. <br /></p>
