The Hindu : Kerala / Thiruvananthapuram News : Kerala penalised for failure to develop river basins

Online edition of India's National Newspaper
Friday, Feb 16, 2007
ePaper


<SCRIPT language='JavaScript1.1' SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/adj/N4322.hinduonline/B2155503.3;abr=!ie;sz=468x60;ord=[timestamp]?"> </SCRIPT> <NOSCRIPT> <A HREF="http://ad.doubleclick.net/jump/N4322.hinduonline/B2155503.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=468x60;ord=[timestamp]?"> <IMG SRC="http://ad.doubleclick.net/ad/N4322.hinduonline/B2155503.3;abr=!ie4;abr=!ie5;sz=468x60;ord=[timestamp]?" BORDER=0 WIDTH=468 HEIGHT=60 ALT="Click Here"></A> </NOSCRIPT>

Kerala

Kerala - Thiruvananthapuram

Kerala penalised for failure to develop river basins

Roy Mathew

CAUVERY AWARDFALLOUT

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM: Historical factors and default on the part of the Government in developing the river basins and arguing its case effectively before the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal resulted in the State getting a lower share of the Cauvery waters.

The Tribunal awarded the State 30 tmc ft (thousand million cubic feet) of water though the State contributed 147 tmc ft to the Cauvery through its three tributaries — the Kabini, the Bhavani and the Pambar originating in Kerala.

Malabar, where the Kabini and the Bhavani flow, was part of the erstwhile Madras Presidency. The British Government neglected the development of the region and the potential of its river basins remained untapped. The basin of the Pambar also met with the same fate. The river flowed through an economically unimportant area (but for the sandalwood wealth) of the princely State of Travancore.

After the Kerala State was formed, the Government chose to stay away from development in disputed river basins. It was the view of the then Irrigation Minister V.R. Krishna Iyer and the Government that in an inter-State river basin, the use of water should be under a mutual agreement or accord on sharing of waters. So, no development of the three river basins was undertaken until the 1970s.

In the Seventies, the Government decided to augment power generation at the Kuttiyadi Hydroelectric Scheme by diverting waters from the Panamaram, one of the tributaries of the Kabini. Subsequently, the Karappuzha project was also taken up.

In those years, the emphasis at the national level was on big hydroelectric and irrigation projects, which were described as citadels of development. Kerala also followed the same pattern. Naturally, attention fell on larger west-flowing rivers. Large sums were spent on major projects, which focussed mainly on paddy cultivation. However, almost all these projects faced heavy cost escalation and failed to provide reasonable returns. Much of the funds spent on them became dead investment, as the projects got prolonged for decades. This situation affected the development of smaller projects on the tributaries of the Cauvery in Kerala. The State could not get Central assistance on account of objections raised by Tamil Nadu and Karnataka for its projects. Even getting Central clearance for the State to take up the projects on its own had become difficult. Schemes such as the Attappady Irrigation Project and the Mukkali Diversion Project drew environmental objections. Given the history of irrigation development in the State, the economic viability of some of the State's projects too was in doubt. At the same time, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka were implementing several schemes on the Cauvery basin. Tamil Nadu wanted the entire quantity of water flowing down through the tributaries in Kerala.

Kerala could not mount strong arguments and present its case before the Tribunal consistently on account of a number of reasons. Politicians did not pursue the issue with vehemence unlike other States. The State kept changing its counsels before the Tribunal during the past 17 years for no apparent reason. Officials also failed to track the case over such a long period. This was the situation despite the Irrigation Department (now the Water Resources Department) having unused manpower.

Now, one of the key arguments advanced by the Tribunal while awarding higher shares for Tamil Nadu and Karnataka is that past use is relevant in apportioning waters. There is no absolute rights-based contribution to the overall pool of waters. This would be a major point that Kerala would have to contest. Though all the States except Puducherry are talking of seeking a review of the Award, the Inter-State Water Disputes Act does not provide for a real review by the Tribunal.

All that the States can seek is explanations and guidance for implementation. The Award can really be challenged only through a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court.

Concluded

Printer friendly page
Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Kerala