TN has also claimed that the High Level Technical Team's report didn't take account of Karnataka's excessive or unauthorised use of Cauvery water.

Drought in Karnataka All lies says Tamil NaduPTI
news Cauvery Water Dispute Wednesday, October 26, 2016 - 13:19

The tussle between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the Cauvery refuses to die down. On Tuesday, the Tamil Nadu government claimed in a petition to the Supreme Court that the Karnataka government’s claims that 42 out of 45 taluks in the Cauvery Basin are drought-hit are exaggerated and incorrect.

The petition states that the findings of the High Level Technical Team (HLTT) constituted by the apex court are incorrect since it does not properly calculate the availability and usage of water in Karnataka for the season.

Here are the salient points of the Tamil Nadu government’s case:

1. The HLTT report flawed because it did not take into account “excessive/unauthorized uses” of water by Karnataka in the current year.

2. Firstly, Karnataka increased the extent of cultivation of water-intensive crops like paddy and sugarcane in a distress year instead of reducing it in proportion to the distress. It also irrigated perennial crops such as coconut and arecanut using Cauvery water.

3. Secondly, Karnataka is using Cauvery water to irrigate areas that are not authorised for irrigation or are meant to be irrigated through lift irrigation, against the provisions of the Final Order of the Cauvery Water Tribunal.

4. Karnataka’s claims for how much water is required to irrigate standing crops is exaggerated. The state claims to require 36.38 tmc ft for a total of 4.27 lakh acres of standing crops, which translates to 8.52 tmc ft for every 1 lakh acres. This is too much water, especially considering that the total crop area includes semi-dry crops.

5. The Cauvery Tribunal only counted the drinking water requirements of parts of states within the Cauvery Basin, which included only one-third of Bengaluru. Karnataka’s claim of 23.444 tmc ft of drinking water includes a much larger area of Bengaluru, which should actually be provisioned by reducing water supplied for irrigation.

6. Even considering the drinking water requirements of the whole of Bengaluru city, Karnataka’s demands are exaggerated, as only around 10.3 tmc ft are required if consumption and regenerative flows are calculated.

7. The water that Tamil Nadu should receive at Billigundulu on the state border has not been properly considered by the HLTT. The inflow at Karnataka’s four reservoirs this year has been 49.76% of the normal flows. This means that the amount of water received at Billigundlu should be 71.27 tmc ft, but only 58.33 tmc ft has been realised here. Thus Tamil Nadu has received 12.94 tmc ft less than it should considering the actual flows received by Karnataka.

Show us some love and support our journalism by becoming a TNM Member - Click here.