NEW DELHI: Tamil Nadu chief minister C Joseph Vijay has written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi opposing Karnataka’s proposed Mekedatu dam across the Cauvery and challenging the Centre’s claim that the consent of lower riparian states is not expressly required under the Supreme Court’s 2018 judgment.Vijay’s letter came a day after Union minister of state for Jal Shakti Raj Bhushan Choudhary told the Rajya Sabha that the February 16, 2018 verdict contained no provision requiring Karnataka to secure the approval of Tamil Nadu, Kerala or Puducherry before constructing a structure across the Cauvery. The reply was given to a question raised by PMK MP Anbumani Ramadoss.“This disappointing reply from the Hon’ble Minister of State for Jal Shakti seems to have been made without taking into consideration the prevailing legal position and settled law with regard to the consent of the lower riparian states,” Vijay said in his letter.The Tamil Nadu chief minister cited the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Alamatti dam dispute between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh to argue that the consent of downstream states was necessary for projects capable of affecting river flows.Citing the judgment, Vijay said: “Nor can Karnataka State be permitted to construct up to that height without the consent of all other riparian States as well as without the approval of the Central government.”He also referred to Clause XVIII of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s final award, which preserves a state’s authority to regulate the use of water within its territory only when such action is not inconsistent with the tribunal’s order.Vijay argued that any project that could affect the regulated flow regime established under the award must therefore be examined for compliance with it.The Centre, in its Rajya Sabha reply, had relied on the same clause to say that the 2018 Supreme Court judgment did not specifically require Karnataka to obtain the consent of the other Cauvery basin states. It said states retained the authority to use water within their boundaries as long as their actions were not inconsistent with the tribunal’s directions.Tamil Nadu, however, maintained that the issue could not be decided merely by looking for an explicit consent clause in the 2018 verdict.In his letter, Vijay pointed to the tribunal’s directions concerning Kerala’s Pambar hydroelectric project, which involved only 0.1 TMC of consumptive use. The tribunal had directed Kerala and Tamil Nadu to jointly agree on the schedule of water releases to ensure that downstream irrigation was not adversely affected.According to Vijay, the direction showed that the tribunal had attached importance not only to annual water allocations but also to the coordinated regulation of releases affecting downstream states.He further cited Clause XI of the award, which, according to the letter, prohibits an upper riparian state from taking action affecting scheduled deliveries to downstream states except through mutual agreement and consultation with the regulatory authority.Clause XX, he said, recognises that changes to the award can be made only through an agreement among the party states.“Tamil Nadu is therefore of the considered opinion that the proposed Mekedatu Project cannot be evaluated merely as an engineering proposal,” Vijay wrote.He said the project’s legal permissibility must first be examined against the Cauvery tribunal’s final award, the Supreme Court’s February 2018 judgment and the rights of lower riparian states.The chief minister also pointed out that the Detailed Project Report submitted by Karnataka in 2019 had been returned by the Central Water Commission for revision to ensure compliance with the tribunal award and applicable guidelines.Tamil Nadu has consistently opposed Karnataka’s proposal to construct the balancing reservoir, arguing that it could affect the quantity and timing of Cauvery water reaching the downstream state.Karnataka maintains that the project is intended primarily to meet Bengaluru’s drinking-water requirements and generate hydroelectric power.
