The story so far:

On June 22, Tamil Nadu’s Water Resources and Rural Development Minister N. Anand made public the State government’s opposition to the latest guidelines, cleared by the Union Ministry of Jal Shakti, regarding appraisal of water resources projects in the Cauvery basin. While participating in a debate in the Assembly on the contentious Mekedatu dam project proposed by the Karnataka government, Mr. Anand said his government wrote on June 9, expressing “strong reservations” over the guidelines, which, he added, had been prepared “unilaterally.” So far, Karnataka, another principal riparian State in the basin, has not commented on the issue.

Why have the guidelines been prepared?

The latest set of guidelines is a continuation of what was done in 2017, pertaining to major, medium irrigation and multi-purpose projects on inter-State rivers or their tributaries. The Central Water Commission (CWC), which is the author of the guidelines and the apex technical body in the field of water resources, had stated that the previous guidelines were prepared before the establishment of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) in June 2018.

The Authority has been set up to ensure the execution of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s (CWDT) final award of 2007, as modified by the Supreme Court in its judgment in February 2018. As the CWMA is, in the CWC’s words, the “regulator and implementer” of the final award, it becomes mandatory for the Commission and State governments concerned to approach the Authority for views, while pursuing any proposed irrigation and multipurpose project including extension, restoration and modernisation (ERM), or drinking water supply project or industrial project or hydro-electric project or pumped storage project in the Cauvery basin.

What is the purpose that such guidelines seek to serve?

Though the States are required to establish the soundness of their water sector proposals after taking into consideration several factors such as inter-State or international aspects, environmental impact and intended benefits, the CWC has found, more than once, that the State governments take their own time to respond to its comments or observations of other Central scrutinising agencies on the project proposals made at the time of examination. Many a time, some projects have become even more irrelevant by the time the States send their replies. As a result, either the projects have to be abandoned or require drastic modification. It is for the purpose of avoiding any such delay and providing clarity that such guidelines are being revised and updated at regular intervals.

In fact, the States have to secure the Commission’s nod even for preparing detailed project reports (DPRs). Once the CWC’s approval is given for the DPRs, the project proponents will have to approach, for clearances, other agencies such as the Union Ministry of Environment, Forests and Climate Change for Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) reports and the Union Ministry of Tribal Affairs for rehabilitation and resettlement plan reports in the event of anticipated displacement of tribals.

What do the guidelines on the Cauvery say?

Covering a host of types of projects proposed in the basin, the fresh norms require the project proponent (State government) to prepare and submit a preliminary report (PR) or pre-feasibility report (PFR) or concept note in tune with what has been stipulated in the 2017 guidelines and with the 2007 final award of the Tribunal. After scrutinising the proposal from hydrological, irrigation planning and inter-State aspects, the CWC gives its approval for DPR. On receiving the DPR, the Commission prepares a technical note on the project proposal and sends it to the CWMA.

What has made the guidelines more noticeable is the presence of a provision for presumptive concurrence. If the Authority fails to convey its views within six months, or if the CWMA returns the project proposal without offering its views regarding conformity or otherwise of the proposed water utilisation with the CWDT award, it will be presumed that CWMA concurs with the views of CWC as mentioned in the technical note. If the views of the CWMA and the CWC differ, the former’s position will prevail.

Why is Tamil Nadu peeved over the guidelines?

On a substantive point, the State is opposed to the guidelines as it wonders what the need for mooting new projects is, including the Mekedatu drinking water-cum-balancing reservoir project proposed by the Karnataka government, regardless of the purpose and the size, when the Cauvery basin is a deficit one. That the basin is deficit has been stated in the final award of the CWDT and the Supreme Court’s February 2018 judgement.

There is apprehension on the part of the lower riparian State that the presumptive concurrence clause might be used against it.

What is the way forward?:

The CWC would do well if it held discussions with all the stakeholders before deciding to come out with any set of guidelines on any inter-State river issue. In the case of the Cauvery dispute, where there has been a history of competitive political rhetoric, the Commission should have exercised more caution. In the light of objections raised by Tamil Nadu, it can invite for discussions all the basin States and the Union Territory of Puducherry; ascertain their respective position and alter, if required, the guidelines.