Water Management in Cities - Bengaluru and Cauvery

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