The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) on Tuesday upheld a regulatory recommendation directing Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of water daily to Tamil Nadu for 15 days.
The CWMA finalised the decision during its 56th meeting in Delhi. S K Haldar chaired the proceedings, as per PTI
A Supreme Court directive on Monday triggered the meeting. The court instructed Tamil Nadu to present its water release grievances directly to the CWMA.
Conflicting State Demands
The states demanded contrasting water volumes at the session. Meeting attendees included Karnataka officer Gaurav Gupta, Tamil Nadu Water Resources Secretary Prashant M Wadnere and Cauvery Technical Cell Chairman Thiru Subramanian.
Representatives from Puducherry, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala also participated in the discussions to address regional supply issues.
"According to the CWRC, 11.6 TMC of water has to be released over 15 days. We requested them to reduce it to 6,000 cusecs. Tamil Nadu argued for increasing the release to 28 TMC. After all discussions in the meeting, the CWMA reiterated the recommendation of the CWRC." Gupta told PTI.
Implementation & Impact
The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) issued the initial order during its 141st meeting on Monday. The committee directed Karnataka to release water from its reservoirs to maintain a 9,000 cusecs flow at the Biligundulu border point, totaling approximately 11.66 TMC.
The water release will support Kuruvai cultivation across the agricultural belt. It will also fulfill drinking water requirements in Tamil Nadu.
Earlier, the CWRC directed Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs daily for 15 days starting August 12, which was also upheld by the CWMA.
Why Does The Dispute Recur Almost Every Monsoon
The dispute resurfaces almost every monsoon because the availability of Cauvery waters depends on seasonal rainfall, while the allocations and monthly releases fixed by the Tribunal continue to govern sharing between the riparian States.
In years of deficient rainfall, disagreements arise over the extent of proportionate reductions and the quantity of water that Karnataka should release downstream. Tamil Nadu argues that scheduled releases must continue in accordance with the Tribunal's award and the Supreme Court's judgment, while Karnataka contends that poor inflows and local requirements, particularly drinking water, make such releases difficult.
The recurring disagreements are further complicated by Karnataka's proposed Mekedatu balancing reservoir. Tamil Nadu maintains that increased upstream storage could affect downstream releases during dry years, whereas Karnataka argues that the project is intended primarily for Bengaluru's drinking water supply, groundwater recharge and hydropower generation, and would not alter the allocations fixed by the Tribunal or the Supreme Court.
The latest controversy over the project's revised DPR and the renewed political exchanges between the two States have once again highlighted the unresolved differences over balancing upstream development with downstream water-sharing obligations.
