THE REPORT OF THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTES TRIBUNAL WITH THE DECISION IN THE MATTER OF WATER DISPUTES REGARDING THE INTER-STATE RIVER CAUVERY AND THE RIVER VALLEY THEREOF BETWEEN 1. The State of Tamil Nadu 2. The State of Karnataka 3. The State of Kerala 4. The Union Territory of Pondicherry VOLUME V APPORTIONMENT OF THE WATERS OF THE INTER-STATE RIVER CAUVERY NEW DELHI 2007 ii Volume V Apportionment of the water of inter-State river Cauvery (Issues under Group III) Chapters Subject Page Nos 1. Crops and Crop Water requirement in 1 - 46 Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the Cauvery basin 2. Trans-basin diversion of the waters of river 47 - 52 Cauvery or its tributaries 3. Apportionment of the Cauvery waters for 53 - 95 Irrigation in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka 4. Domestic & Industrial water requirement 96 - 106 of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu from Cauvery Waters 5. Water requirement for Environmental 107 - 114 Protection and Inevitable Escapages into sea. 6. Apportionment of the share of the State of Kerala 115 - 198 and the Union Territory of Pondicherry in the Waters in river Cauvery 7. Final determination of the share of the waters of 199 - 215 river Cauvery among the States of Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and U.T. of Pondicherry and monthly schedule of releases 8. Machinery for implementation of the Final Decision/ 216 - 236 Orders of the Tribunal. 9. Final Order and Decision of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 237 - 245 ---------- Chapter 1 Crops and Crop Water requirement in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka in the Cauvery basin The development of irrigation in both the States covered the following periods:- (i) Areas existing prior to 1924; (ii) Areas contemplated to be developed under various clauses of the 1924 Agreement in each State; (iii) The areas which have been developed/under ongoing development for irrigation beyond the entitlement contemplated in the 1924 Agreement covering the period from 1924 to 1990. 2. Having examined the areas of the two States as indicated above, the next step is to make an assessment of the water required for irrigation for those areas in each State. This part of the dispute is not only very crucial but also of scientific nature. From the earlier volumes of this report it shall appear that dispute regarding sharing of the water of river Cauvery between the State of Madras/Tamil Nadu and the State of Mysore/Karnataka goes back to about 150 years. Details whereof have already been given including the correspondence starting from the middle of the 19th century. The situation has been aggravated and became more complicated as the years have passed because in the meantime both States have developed areas under the terms of the agreement of the year 1924 and areas not covered by the terms of the agreement. 2 3. On the question of water requirement for irrigation, both States have produced documents including information given in the Common Format. Eminent witnesses who are experts in the field were examined on behalf of the two States. During the arguments the learned counsel appearing on behalf of these States could not satisfy as to how the demand of 566 TMC on behalf of the State of Tamil Nadu and 465 TMC on behalf of the State of Karnataka can be adjusted when the total yield of the basin of river Cauvery has been estimated to be about 740 TMC. Apart from the claim of these two States there are claims on behalf of the State of Kerala for about 100 TMC and Union Territory of Pondicherry for about 9 TMC. It is obvious in this background that some curtailments in the demand of the two States have to be made. For this object some restrictions have to be imposed in order to do justice to both the States for the purpose of determining the need and the equitable share of the each State in the waters of the inter- State river Cauvery. In this process the following factors are important and relevant. i) The State of Tamil Nadu was having three paddy crops in the delta area as well as in some other areas. In the same field they were having first Kuruvai and followed by Thaladi and in the rest, Samba crop which takes a longer time to mature was being grown. After examining the records it appeared that Madras/Tamil Nadu was having Kuruvai followed by Thaladi in about 95,000 acres prior to the agreement of the year 1924 in the delta area. From the agreement of 1924 read with its Annexures it shall appear that the State of Madras was allowed to extend double crop in the same field by 90,000 acres (70,000 acres in the old delta and 20,000 acres in the Mettur Project area). The total being 1,85,000 acres. The practice of growing 3 double crop by the cultivators in the aforesaid area of 95,000 acres was being followed much before the execution of the agreement; it is difficult to direct to discontinue that practice. Same is the position so far the balance of 90,000 acres are concerned because that was permitted under the terms of the agreement and has been specifically mentioned in the Cauvery Mettur Project Report (1921) as well. All these aspects have been discussed in earlier chapters. But it is an admitted position that State of Madras/Tamil Nadu with the copious flows of water being available started growing double crop of paddy in the same field in different areas. The total of such areas has been discussed in earlier chapters. Similarly Karnataka also followed a practice of growing double crops which were not permitted by the agreement. In this background it is considered necessary in the end of justice not to take note for the purpose of apportioning the waters of inter-State river Cauvery in respect of growing second paddy crop or any other crop in the same field in the same agriculture year except in the areas in which these practices were being followed prior to 1924 agreement or was specifically permitted under the terms of the agreement. ii) The State of Karnataka under the terms of the agreement of the year 1924 was allowed to grow sugar-cane only on 40,000 acres which it has raised to about 70,000 to 90,000 acres. It is well known that crop like sugarcane requires much more water, affecting equitable distribution of waters. Therefore, note is being taken of areas for sugarcane only upto 40000 acres as provided in the agreement for the purpose of apportioning the waters of inter-State river Cauvery . iii) It is admitted position that both the States were having summer crop including summer paddy from the waters of river Cauvery. When there is so much scarcity of water in the basin, they have to be restricted from growing any summer paddy except in some area where it was being grown prior to 1924 agreement, even 4 that is to be replaced by any light irrigated crop within the irrigation season. iv) The delta of water claimed on behalf of the two States in respect of different crops including paddy have to be reduced in view of the new variety of paddy and other inputs which have been developed of late which require lesser delta of water. v) Trans-basin diversion takes out the water of the basin to another basin. As such no note is being taken for the purpose of determining the need and the equitable share of the each State in the waters of the inter-State river Cauvery in respect of any trans-basin diversion already made or proposed for providing extra waters. vi) Lift schemes will not be considered for water allocation. 4. The two States have also admitted that the water requirement of the crops over the years (after 1920) have been reduced with the new variety of seeds of paddy being grown by the cultivators in the basin. Same is position in respect of semi-dry and dry crops. In this connection several circulars in respect of delta of water, from Central Government concerning Southern States with reference to the nature of soil, are of great relevance. Even the notes of the arguments and charts which were filed by the two States during the hearing of the arguments show that the delta of water for different crops have been reduced. 5. There was a time when the cultivators of paddy were extremely happy when the paddy plants used to float in the water. But the situation has drastically changed because of the introduction of new variety of high yielding paddy crops requiring less delta of water. It will be proper to mention that the State of Karnataka has taken a clear stand that they are 5 not going to grow wet crop which consumes more water in the new project areas as specified in Annexure K-V filed during the hearing of the application for interim relief before this Tribunal in the year 1991. There they said that in those areas only semi-dry crops shall be grown and water shall be provided according to the requirements of the plants. 6. In the present proceeding for ascertainment of the share of water for the different riparian States eminent witnesses have been examined, who have filed affidavits before this Tribunal on behalf of their States and Union Territory of Pondicherry in support of their respective claim of waters. The views of several renowned Agriculture scientists, namely, Dr. M.S. Swaminathan, witness on behalf of Tamil Nadu, Dr.