PANAJI
If there is one factor that spoilt it for Karnataka, it was the monsoons. Karnataka s intervention application for diversion of 7 TMC of water from the Mhadei to the Malaprabha basin was based on the alleged drought-like conditions prevailing there. Attempting to create an emergency-like situation, Karnataka stated that the year 2015-16 “is the most severe drought year in the history of the Malaprabha basin.” It further stated that as on April 24 this year the live storage in the reservoir was 0.84 TMC, which was not enough to meet the irrigation and drinking water requirements. Last year the districts of Belagavi, Dharwad and Gadag had received -30 per cent, -32 per cent and -38 per cent rainfall respectively thus causing drought-like conditions. About 136 of the 175 talukas in Karnataka were declared as drought hit. Of these, 20 talukas are in the Malaprabha basin, the Karnataka legal team argued. This was hotly contested by Goa s legal team which claimed the drought-like conditions were exaggerated and asserted that 50 per cent of the severity of the drought could be reduced if Karnataka had to reduce the area under sugarcane cultivation by 56 per cent. Then came the monsoons which was +19 per cent in the entire State at the time the Tribunal was hearing the matter and the game changed. The drought-like conditions, which Karnataka had been banking on to get the Tribunal to agree to diversion of 7 TMC of water, disappeared. Armed with data from the Indian Meterological Department, Goa s legal team provided evidence to show that the situation had changed with the advance of the south west monsoons. The drought affected areas in Karnataka registered rainfall of +1 per cent, +7 per cent and +12 per cent respectively. The tribunal also noted from weekly weather reports that cumulative rainfall from June 1, upto week ending 6 July and 10 July for north interior Karnataka were +21 per cent, +23 per cent and +11 per cent respectively. The tribunal headed by Chairman Judge J M Panchal, noted, “once the above mentioned datas are taken into consideration, it becomes absolutely clear that there is no shortage of rainfall at all as pleaded by Karnataka. To that extent the application becomes infructuous.” It further stated that, “It must be noticed that on account of rainfall above normal… the emergent situation which was alleged to exist (by Karnataka) at the time of filing the application cannot be visualised to exist anymore. Therefore the relief (diversion of 7 TMC) which is quoted cannot be granted.”
