What is the issue?
- The recent SC verdict in Cauvery dispute made an additional allocation for Bengaluru, than in the earlier tribunal's order.
- Click here to know more on the verdict
- The principles adopted raises some serious questions on water management approach in the cities.
What was the tribunals approach?
- The SC mentioned that the tribunal had miscalculated Bengaluru’s water needs.
- The tribunal argued that only 1/3rd of the city fell within the Cauvery basin, and so, only 1/3rd water demand would be met from the river.
- Tribunal had also assumed that 50% of the drinking water requirements would be met by ground water.
- However, increasing urbanisation and population has been depleting and contaminating groundwater, making it unusable.
What was the SC's verdict?
- The SC had ruled out the above principles and modified the directions of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
- It pointed out that the share of water for a basin State is for addressing the social and economic needs of its community as a whole.
- The SC has overturned the one-third argument, saying that cities like Bengaluru deserve more water regardless of their location.
- As it is the seat of intellectual excellence, especially in terms of information technology and commercial flourish.
- The SC also dismissed the groundwater principle of the tribunal.
- Therefore, it has, in effect, agreed that cities have the “right” to trans-boundary water supply.
- The verdict thus offered an additional entitlement of 4.75 tmcft for the Bengaluru city.
What are the shortfalls in the verdict?
- Groundwater - The tribunal's idea was that groundwater could be replenished through natural recharge, stream flow and through lakes and reservoirs.
- The SC's verdict, dismissing this principle, is of a serious concern.
- Lakes were the sponges of the city, which would recharge groundwater and allow it to build on its rainwater endowment.
- But Bengaluru is a classic case of a city that is deliberately and wilfully destroying its lakes.
- The SC verdict has increasingly made Bengaluru less dependent on groundwater for its water supply.
- This could further contribute to the careless management of the water reservoirs.
- Drinking Water - The SC has also said that drinking water would get the highest priority in terms of allocation.
- In the west, people have moved away from agriculture and indeed away from rural to urban; water is used in cities and industries.
- But in countries like India, a vast number of people still get their employment from agriculture and so water is used in rural areas.
- Prioritising drinking water, above the demand of water by agriculture and food, amounts to a flawed approach.
What should be done?
- The economics of water and waste are crucial in cities of the global South.
- The city should have been first made to use its own local water sources.
- It should have then been made to meet the deficit from the imported and transported Cauvery water.
- But the irony is that, increasingly depending on transported water is already making water so costly.
- This is making more and more people switching to groundwater and overusing this source.
- At this juncture, it is crucial that Bengaluru focuses on its water storages to improve the ground water source.
- Only this could prove to be more sustainable than the additional allocation.
- Another concern is that nearly 80% of the water that is demanded and supplied to Bengaluru is discharged in terms of waste.
- The city has to plan now deliberately to take back this sewage water and to treat it, clean it and reuse it.
Source: Business Standard
