---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Though all three states have asked for the Mahadei Water Disputes Tribunal to determine the exact amount of water available in the basin, Karnataka and Maharashtra have asked for diversion for the purpose of drinking and irrigation. Goa however has asked that no water is diverted to any state
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PANAJI: Whether 220 TMC or 145 TMC (as a new report undertaken by the IIT has established), the state of Goa has consistently put up a fight against diversion of water from the Mahadei water basin. Karnataka and Maharashtra on the other hand have justified their requirement for drinking and irrigation purposes.
Under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act 1956, the Mahadei Water Dispute Tribunal was set up to tackle the issue of whether Goa should share water from its Mahadei water basin with its neighboring states.
In their reliefs to the tribunal, Karnataka has demanded their share of the river as being “not less than 24.15 TMC for consumptive utilization.” Their distribution pattern includes 7.56 TMC to provide drinking water to Hubli- Dharward under the Kalasa- Bandura nala project.
Though work had already begun on the canals of the nala, that forms a tributary to the water basin, Goa has vehemently objected on the lines that the basin is a deficit one. Karnataka has also asked for diversion of 5.527 TMC to the Kali basin to augment the flow of Kali for hydro power generation under Kali Hydro Electric Project (KHEP) and the remaining water for generation of power under the Mahadayi Hydro Electric Project at Kotni.
They have consistently pointed fingers at Goa for failing to establish that it is likely to be affected by the diversion. According to them, the basin had 7 TMC of surplus water, which could be diverted to the Malaprabha basin for the proposed Kotni dam.
Maharashtra, in its reliefs sought have in addition to determining the total availability of water in the basin, has asked the tribunal allocate 6.36 TMC to the state. Their demands also include distribution of power generated from the Kali Hydro Power Project in Karnataka.
Goa has however said neither Karnataka nor Maharashtra had any right or authority to divert the water outside the basin. In their affidavit to the tribunal, Goa has also asked for determination of the share of each state would receive, keeping in mind “the water requirement of ecological sustenance of the River valley eternally, specifically giving due consideration of the scientifically predicted global warming, sea level increase, increased salinity ingress in coastal areas, etc.”
In addition to claiming the basin to be deficient, Goa has pointed to the rich biodiversity of the area that also includes a wildlife sanctuary as being threatened.
-------------------------------------------
HOW THE TREE STATES STAND
GOA: Seeks no diversion
Goa's case against diversion is based on the following principles
a) The Mhadei is a deficit basin and Goa is dependent on all the water flowing from the upper reaches in Karnataka.
b) The case before the Tribunal is not about water sharing but about ecological damage.
c) Reduction of flow in the river will result in ingress of saline water which will affect flora and fauna.
d) Karnataka should first examine if water can be diverted to the Malaprabha from other water projects in the State before claiming water from Mhadei.
e) Diversion of water from one basin to another (Mhadei to Malaprabha) is not permitted.
f) Diversion of water is a threat to fishing, river navigation and agriculture.
g) Karnataka does not have relevant forest and planning commission clearances for canal work.
h) If Karnataka changes its cropping pattern its water requirements will drop drastically.
KARNATAKA: Diversion of 24.15 TMC
a) There is sufficient water in the Mhadei (220 TMC) and diversion of 24 TMC will not affect Goa as it is a small amount.
b) The marginal change in salinity will not affect flora as mangroves have high tolerance to salinity and fish will be redistributed. Hence fauna will not be affected.
c) Changes in the river flow between monsoon and non-monsoon month will not affect salinity in khazan lands. In fact the NEERI study indicates a reduction in salinity which will benefit these lands.
d) Diversion of water from one basin to another is permitted.
e) Due to construction of dams and diversion of water, flow during the peaks will be moderated. There will be no alteration in post monsoon months.
f) The grave situation in Hubli and Dharwad merits immediate attention.
----------------
MAHARASHTRA: Diversion of 6.36 TMC
a) There is sufficient water in the Mhadei for diversion.
b) There is a huge demand in surrounding areas for drinking water and for irrigation.
c) Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal held that diversion of water of an inter-state river outside the basin is legal.
d) The Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal permitted Andhra Pradesh to divert water from the Godavari river to the Krishna delta.
e) The tribunal has been given the task of distribution of the water from the entire Mandovi basin and this has to be done in an equitable manner on the basis of evidence.
