The draft scheme for sharing Cauvery Waters has been presented by the union government to the Supreme Court.
It is now for the Cauvery basin States to quickly embrace the scheme to avoid further bickering and rioting.
What are the broad contours of the scheme?
The Centre has finally submitted a draft scheme in the Supreme Court for distribution of Cauvery waters among the riparian States.
While the centre has given no name for the scheme, it derives largely from the pronouncement of the 2007 Cauvery Tribunal’s.
It will be a two-tier structure, with an apex body charged with the power to ensure compliance, and a regulation committee that will monitor the flows.
The powers and functions of the authority are fairly comprehensive and its decisions are intended to be final and binding.
However, if any States is not cooperative, the authority has to seek the Centre’s help, and the Centre’s decision will be final in such a scenario.
The authority’s powers include apportionment, supervision of operations of reservoirs and regulation of water releases.
What are some concerns?
Final Say - The clause involving the central government’s envisioned role in case of non-compliance by any state is tricky.
While this has been envisioned to solve the problem, there is the possibility of the centre taking a partisan stand in the future due to political considerations.
Rather, strict compliance with the court’s allocated share of water at all times would be better, instead of leaving situations to the centre’s discretion.
Differences - There are a few differences between the Cauvery Management Board envisaged by the Tribunal and the authority proposed in the scheme.
The Tribunal favoured the chairperson being an irrigation engineer with not less than 20 years of experience in water resources management.
But the present scheme envisions a senior engineer in water resources management or an officer in the rank of “Secretary” at the union level.
Similarly, the representatives from the four States would be administrators rather than engineers as proposed by the Tribunal.
How does the future look?
The Cauvery dispute has dragged on for several decades, and it would be unfortunate if the final decision isn’t implemented in letter and spirit.
All States should agree to the broad contours of this scheme and comply with the authority’s decisions.
If the proposed draft is implemented, then an issue concerning the livelihood of millions will be taken out of the sensationalist political domain.
