COVER STORY

'There is no emergency for Tamil Nadu'

Interview with H.K. Patil, the Karnataka Minister for Water Resources.

When Frontline met H.K. Patil, the Karnataka Minister for Water Resources, on September 5, he appeared optimistic that the Prime Minister would concede Karnataka's demand to hold a meeting of the Cauvery River Authority before he left on September 9 on an overseas visit. Patil had finished his consultations with Opposition leaders on the implications of the Supreme Court order for Karnataka and to help finalise the State's stand at the Cauvery Monitoring Committee meeting. Excerpts from the interview the Minister gave Parvathi Menon in Bangalore:

How do you assess the impact of the September 3 Supreme Court directive?

The Supreme Court direction is unfortunate. Karnataka is a rule-abiding State and we have honoured the Court judgment. Karnataka will explore all avenues possible, including the filing of a review petition in the Supreme Court. We will also urge the Government of India to convene the CRA before the Prime Minister goes abroad on September 8.

I would like to state that the Government of Karnataka has implemented the Interim Order of 1991 right from the beginning. In many years we have released more than 205 tmc ft as the figures released by the Central Water Commission show. (The figures he read out are presented in a table here). This year, despite the shortages, we have released 33.4 tmc ft of water. According to the Interim Order of 1991, we have to ensure 205 tmc ft of water at Mettur in a water year. In a clarificatory order issued in April 1992, the Tribunal said that the 205 tmc ft at Mettur was inclusive of contributions from the catchment area between Biligundulu and Mettur, which it estimated at 25 tmc ft. In a situation of distress, they recommended a pro rata sharing, and also said that the shortfalls could be adjusted at the close of the particular year. In the last 10 years, except for 1995-96 and 2001-2002, Karnataka has ensured more than 205 tmc ft to Tamil Nadu.

There is therefore no basis for the allegation by Tamil Nadu that Karnataka has violated or dishonoured the Interim Order. Unfortun-ately, this is a year of distress for us, and we have not been able to ensure water.

Do you have draft guidelines for a distress sharing formula ?

Well, the CWC had circulated a draft formula and we had given our reactions. Tamil Nadu did not agree to them. We have suggested some parameters or factors to be considered when a distress-sharing formula is calculated.

What are these parameters?

There are several. The first is the extent of rainfall in various segments of the region above Biligundulu in space and time. The second is the extent of flows in the segment of Kabini and Krishnarajasagar, and in the lower catchment up to Mettur in the particular water year of distress. The third factor is the available storages at the beginning of the water year, and the carry-over storages on account of excess flows received during the preceding water year. The fourth is that the computation of inflow ensured at Mettur must be the sum of the inflow measured at Biligundulu by the CWC and the established flows from the balance catchment between Mettur and Biligundulu. The next factor would be the computation of available storages at the end of December in the Mettur reservoir in that particular water year. The sixth is the utilisation in the Bhavani system and the contribution to the downstream area including the Cauvery delta basin. The seventh is to establish the extent of the Northeast (monsoon) rainfall in the system depending upon the Mettur reservoir and (the) Cauvery delta region. The last is the expected inflow into Mettur during November-December and January-May having regard to the inflow regime during the last 10 years.

K. BHAGYA PRAKASH

Tamil Nadu has said that Karnataka has a very comfortable storage position. There was also a newspaper report that said that your counsel in the Supreme Court said that Karnataka could release 1 tmc ft a day. What is your response?

The gross capacity of the four reservoirs in Karnataka is 114.57 tmc ft. The gross storage as on September 5 was 70.53 tmc ft. The live storage was only 47.22 tmc ft on that date. Our total requirement of drinking water as computed by the Interim Award was 18 tmc ft. Then we must give allowance for a 10 per cent evaporation loss. When all this is considered, our storage is 30 tmc ft. What about water for our standing crops?

As for the report you are talking about, that is totally wrong. Our counsel did not say that. This water year, our total withdrawal of water from the Cauvery basin reservoirs was 30 tmc ft for irrigation and drinking water needs. Last year it was 52 tmc ft. Despite this, we have released 33 tmc ft to Tamil Nadu this year, more than what we ourselves have drawn.

But what about the issue of distress in Tamil Nadu in the Cauvery delta? Does not the situation there make a case for Karnataka to release water?

Looking at the grave situation of drought, Tamil Nadu's withdrawals have been very less from Mettur. In many areas they have not gone for kuruvai at all. They have a current storage of 35 tmc ft. They are assured of getting 10-15 tmc ft or even more in September if there are better rains. Their position will then be comfortable.

For Karnataka, the monsoon is over, and the rains are at an end. If we are forced to release water and there are no rains in late September-October, the dams will be empty. For Tamil Nadu on the other hand, the Northeast (monsoon) rains begin in September. If I release water and there are no rains, water cannot be retrieved. There is no emergency for Tamil Nadu, they have a comfortable storage of 35 tmc ft. They require water for further crops. I require water for standing crops and drinking water, including for Bangalore city.

How long will you be able to sustain water release if there are no rains?

Our storage is so poor that we have been driven to the wall. We want the Supreme Court or the CRA immediately to take stock of the ground realities and get justice for us.