Does the Cauvery authority order really come as relief to Karnataka?
While Karnataka has to release water to Tamil Nadu only if there is an increase in the inflow of water, the farmers in the state are concerned about the water that is necessary to sustain standing crops
Bengaluru: Karnataka government has been directed by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) to release water to Tamil Nadu if there is an increase in inflow into reservoirs in the state’s Cauvery basin. This comes as a relief to the state.
Just around 12 thousand million cubic (TMC) feet of water was available in all four reservoirs including KRS and Kabini as of Tuesday. KRS had an inflow of just around 253 cusecs while the inflow at Kabini was 1,078 cusecs yesterday (June 25).
A senior officer of the Water Resources Department reportedly said that the CWMA order for the state comes as relief given the current situation in the state.
According to reports, State Sugar Cane Growers Association president Kurbur Shantha Kumar welcomed the authority’s decision. He reportedly said that the authorities should have ordered for release of water to irrigation canals. This will help in saving standing crops.
Some of the farmers felt that there is no clarity on release of water to the irrigation canals in Karnataka, reports said. Some farmers were reportedly unhappy that the state failed to convince the authority to release water for standing crops.
The farmers questioned the state government as to why they cannot release water now if they could release water during Lok Sabha election, reports said.
Nanjunde Gowda, BJP Raitha Morcha leader said the state government failed to inform the authority regarding the water issue.
Also read: Karnataka to release 40.43 TMC water to Tamil Nadu: Cauvery Water Management Authority
Previous reports on the Cauvery water issue had stated that the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) had asked Karnataka to release 40.43 thousand million cubic (TMC) feet of water to Tamil Nadu for the months of June and July.
The decision was subject to review.