Mahadayi River Dispute

A Karnataka Bandh was observed on July 30, 2016, against the rejection (by the Mahadayi River Disputes Tribunal) of Karnataka’s interim application seeking 7 tmcft of water for the Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project.

The River, the Project and the Timeline of the Dispute:

·      Mahadayi, called Mandovi in Goa, is a west-flowing inter-state river in the Western Ghats; originates in Belagavi district of Karnataka, travels 35 km in Karnataka and 82 km in Goa before joining the Arabian Sea.

·      Total catchment area is 2030 sq km and the catchment area in Karnataka is 375 sq km.

·      As per the Central Water Commission, the yield in the Mahadayi river basin is 220 tmcft. According to Karnataka’s Water Resources Development Organization, the yield in Karnataka basin is 44.15 tmcft.

·      1989: Karnataka and Goa sign an MOU on sharing the waters and for a hydel project, but the project is kept in abeyance.

·      2002: Karnataka proposes a project to draw 7 tmcft from the river to the Malaprabha through Kalasa and Banduri Nalas; Goa raises objection to it, but NEERI says no harm will come from the project.

·      2002: NDA government first clears the project, but then keeps it in abeyance, in deference to the objections from the BJP government in Goa.

·      2002: Goa files a complaint seeking setting up of a tribunal.

·      2006: Karnataka performs bhoomi-puja for project.

·      2006: Goa moves the Supreme Court seeking constitution of a tribunal, withdrawing approval for any work in the basin. ‘Mahadayi (Mandovi) is a water deficit basin and water diversion could impact the environment.’

·      2010: The Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal is set up on 22.11.2010.

·      The Tribunal frames 70 issues for determination of claims by the riparian states. Tribunal gives clearance to Karnataka for work in non-forest area. Karnataka claims 44 tmcft of water as its share.

·      2015: Karnataka files interim application seeking 7 tmcft for the Kalasa Banduri project.

o   Karnataka’s main argument: ‘We are only seeking the surplus water, which will be otherwise wasted by going to the sea.’

o   Goa’s main argument: ‘Diversion will stress the entire ecosystem. Water going to the sea is not wasted, it performs ecological functions.’

·      2016, July 27: Tribunal rejects Karnataka’s request. ‘Karnataka failed to establish that surplus water was available at the points where the water is sought to be transferred to Malaprabha Basin.’

·      Protests in North Karnataka; Karnataka Bandh on July 30.

·      Karnataka plans to move the Supreme Court.

Water Disputes:

Chapter 7 of the book discussed the question of inter-country and inter-state disputes over water. It also covered the Cauvery Waters Dispute and the case of Sutlej-Yamuna Canal.

The Mahadayi Case is yet another example of water disputes. The central government’s mechanism for solving such disputes is the setting up of tribunals. However, most decisions of tribunals are seen as favouring one party. Then the other parties protest and go to the Supreme Court. The issue also gets politicized and that hinders any resolution of the conflict.

What is the way out?

Many have suggested that the only way to resolve water disputes is for the affected farmers and others to sit together and come up with an acceptable solution. In the Mahadayi Case, T.N.Prakash, Chairman, Karnataka Agricultural Commission, has suggested this approach:

·      Form a ‘Mahadayi Family’ of farmers, experts, fishermen, academics, and the public from both the states to learn the actual situation and come up with an amicable solution.

Prakash had been a member of such a ‘Cauvery Family’. Though the approach did not work in that case, Prakash feels that the Mahadayi Case is easier to solve since there are surplus waters available, compared to distress sharing in the Cauvery Case.

(This story belongs to Chapter 7: Water Resources of the book)