An intervention petition filed in the Supreme Court by activist Sudip Tamhankar has tried to make a belated case against Karnataka for "misleading the Mahadayi Inter-State Water Dispute tribunal" in a bid to receive a larger share of water than it deserves. The petition argued that Karnataka falsely pleaded before the tribunal seeking diversion into the Malaprabha basin, claiming it to be for drinking water requirements of the twin cities of Hubli and Dharwad.
The petition points out that the Malaprabha Dam is a major water supplier for irrigating cash crops and backs this argument with the 0.201 tmc of potable water shown in the revised Detailed Project Report (DPR) approved by the Centre. Crucial points have been raised on how Karnataka diverted the flow of nullahs and forced a change in the course of Mhadei.
While the petition has made out a clear case of deceit and manipulation, it could be too little too late when the Supreme Court takes up another petition pending before it. The court is hearing Goa's interlocutory application seeking to stop Karnataka from undertaking construction activity based on the DPR, and the case is likely to come up before the court this month.
However, the recent affidavit filed before the court throws light on the fact that Karnataka's claim for potable water was unrealistic and disproportionate to the requirements of the existing population, indicating that the State was trying to serve agricultural needs. In doing so, it has exposed the chinks in Goa's case before the tribunal. The question is over the State government's failure to present such an argument and appeal against the tribunal's award of 2018. There could be a forceful case against disturbing water to the Tiger Reserve and cutting out the water supply to the age-old vegetation, which was unique to the area.
Surprisingly, the government's response then was celebratory because the tribunal rejected Karnataka's plea for the diversion of 7.56 tmc ft of water from the river to the Malaprabha basin and granted them 3.9 tmc instead. Back then, Goa's defence fell flat against Karnataka because no material evidence was placed before the tribunal to support claims, but the State was defocused from the more significant issue of diversion.
Now, the chances of the apex court taking cognisance of this petition are bleak against the background that the court has rarely reviewed the tribunal's past orders. Expecting the court to strike down the 3.9 tmc award to Karnataka is wishful thinking.
Goa's claim of defending Mhadei waters hangs on a thin thread of hope. The Water Management Authority headquartered in Panaji could be the only consolation for Goa that will quantify the water usage of States. We must be realistic about the options at hand, and while awaiting the court verdict, we need to reconcile to the fact that only forest clearances could be the ultimate hurdle in Karnataka's way. All protests sprouting in Goa must deviate from the demands of withdrawal of DPR and adopt a more practical approach with a clear focus.
