The Mahanadi water dispute between the two co-basin States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh has become a serious inter-State issue, seemingly moving towards the tribunal path.
This is evident in the light of the two Chief Ministers harbouring non-compromising attitude and the Odisha Chief Secretary who is ex-officio Chairman of Odisha Water Resources Board, alleging that the Chhattisgarh Government and the CWC approved projects without consulting Odisha what Chhattisgarh has rubbished saying that it is using less than 25 per cent of the river water.
At this point, it is important for the two co-basin States to examine the Cauvery Water dispute processes and award.
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT), which was set up in 1990, gave its final award in 2007, after 17 years. The final award was notified by the Center in the official Gazette in February, 2013, after six years of the award by a direction of the Supreme Court. The delay in the settlement of the dispute is historic. Some salient contents of the CWDT award needs to be understood for its application to the Mahandi dispute.
The tribunal had recommended a Cauvery Management Board /Authority for implementation of the order. The final award settled the definition of a normal year, water year and irrigation season. It defined a “normal year” as a year in which the total yield of the Cauvery basin is 740 tmcft, a “water year” as a year commencing from June 1 to May 31 and an “irrigation season” as the season beginning from June 1 to January 31 next year.
The award further said that in a normal year, Karnataka has to release to Tamil Nadu at Biligundulu 192 tmcft in monthly deliveries which
comprises 182 tmcft from the allocated share of Tamil Nadu, including
10 tmcft for environmental purposes. It defined “Cauvery river” as the main river with all its “tributaries” and all other “streams” contributing water “directly” or “indirectly” to it. The award directed the Cauvery Management Board to monitor eight reservoirs in Cauvery basin, namely Hemavathy, Harangi, Kabini and Krishnarajasagara in Karnataka, lower Bhavani, Amaravathy, Mettur in Tamil Nadu and Banasurasagar in Kerala.
In spite of the landmark award, the critics find certain shortcomings in the whole tribunal process like exclusion of farmers and other interest groups, meager allocation of 10 TMC for environment flows, no calculation of groundwater use in interstate water allocation and absence of clear priority for drinking water and livelihood supporting irrigation water, not bringing water storages below 3 TMC into calculation.
Applying the Cauvery award to the Mahanadi, there arises few positions. The Mahanadi shall be defined as main river with its tributaries and streams. Therefore, the Mahanadi water dispute shall also cover dams on streams and tributaries, beyond Kelo or Arapa projects. Normal year and water year, definition may be easily agreed upon by both States but there shall be deviation of irrigation season which Odisha shall define from June 1 to February 28 of the next year due to cyclone activities at delta during October-November that delays Rabi farming. The water need of Odisha shall be demanded, calculated on monthly flow basis over last 30 years at Hirakud Dam site. The environmental flow and basin ground water recharge needs shall be also demanded by Odisha. Here, the whole issue will concentrate, especially with regard to non-monsoon flow. In the meanwhile, Odisha will ask for interim order for stay on all dams of Chhatisgarh which Chhatisgarh will not agree.
The rivers of Odisha can be divided into four groups viz.1) Rivers having their sources outside the State such as Subarnarekha, Brahmani and Mahanadi, 2) Rivers having sources inside the State such as Budhabalanga, Baitarani, Salandi, Rushikulya, 3)Rivers having their sources inside Odisha but flows through other States like Bahudu, Vansadhara, and Nagavali and 4)Rivers that have source inside Odisha, but tributary to rivers flow all the way through other States like Machkund, Sileru, Kolab and Indravati.
The total average basin annual surface water flow from all these rivers was estimated by State Government in 2001 at 120. 397 BCM out of which 82.841 BCM was State flow and 37.556 was outstate flow. The outstate Mahanadi flow alone was 29.255 BMC. In case of Mahandi, the State flow is 29.90 BCM . This indicates Mahanadi surface flow is dependent on both Odisha and Chattisgarh equally. Similarly, as per the 2008-09 assessment, Odisha has net dynamic ground water resources of 16.69 lakh ha m (BCM) on various river basins from which Mahanadi basin alone has 6.8 lakhs BCM ground water resources. Thus Odisha is naturally dependant on the Mahanadi for surface and ground water and has a strong point to argue its case.
On the other hand, looking at Chhatisgarh, out of total 1,35,100 sq km of geographical area, the State has five river basins consisting of Mahanadi basin which drains 75,858.45 sq km, Godavari basin draining 38694.02 sq km , Ganga basin draining 18406.65 sq km, Brahmani basin draining 1394.55 sq km and Narmada basin , draining 743.88 sq km of catchment area. The largest basin Mahanadi has the main tributaries of Seonath, Jonk, Hasdeo, Mand, Ib, Ong, and Tel. The largest sub-basin Seonath contributes 40 per cent water to Mahanadi whose tributaries are Tandula, Kharun, Amner, Surhi, Hamp, Arpa and lilagar. Jonk sub-basin gives only 3 per cent water to Mahanadi whereas IB and Kelo sub-basin gives 8 per cent water.
According to water resource information system of Government of India, there are 250 dams in Chhatisgarh on Mahanadi, Ganga, Godavari basin, many of which the State Government has inherited from erstwhile MP State and later, since its formation in 2000, it has constructed more than 20 dams on the Mahanadi basin and nine dams on the Ganga basin and one on the Godavari basin. The approach of the MP/Chhatisgarh Government was building small dams on streams. But the Cauvery award indicates that tributaries and nallas shall also form part of a river.
In this context, Chhatisgargh Government’s position that it is using less than 25 per cent water cannot be maintainable and Chhatisgarh Government has to really look inward.
The delay in protest by the Odisha Government is arising due to historical difference in outlook of the two State Governments. While MP/ Chhatisgarh looked at Mahanadi from drought management perspective, Odisha was more concerned with flood control. Due to flood control attitude, perhaps people of Odisha did not imagine a water stress future on the Mahanadi. The conflict of interest between the two States was more aggravated after Chhatisgarh became a new State and wanted faster industrial growth. It is the right time that Odisha is awake to take a review of the situation and change the historical flood attitude towards the Mahanadi.
While States are fighting for river water, the Union is planning for “water-highways” and “inter-connectivity” of rivers to take the nation forward. It is time that Union should amend the old laws and come up with a National River Policy to deal with such conflict situations. Tribunals and Boards are time consuming systems. Unless there is a new legal regime, the Union Government cannot intervene to achieve its dream water projects but become a mute spectator to the conflict. At the same time, each State should not exceed its use of water, keeping in view the ecological needs of river and needs of co-basin States. In the meanwhile, Odisha should take up proposals to construct dams on the Mahanadi and its Odisha source tributaries.