Over a week back the Multidisciplinary Cluster on Mhadei (MCM), Goa University, organised a two-day workshop. About 30 research papers were presented, and at the end, it was decided to have a dialogue between the two rivers — Malaprabha and Mhadei. I have no idea what this means, but I do hope it translates into a dialogue between the people of Goa and the people dependent on the Malaprabha for drinking water and farming. Because then, we might be able to understand the issue from their standpoint.
First question: Why did this dialogue not take place earlier? What is the block? Is it cultural, regional or does language get in the way? I am not suggesting a dialogue with the Karnataka government. I am referring to a dialogue between the people of the two states.
If Goa could talk to Maharashtra and forge an agreement to dam the Tillari river (which becomes the Chapora when it enters Goa) and transfer water from the Tillari basin to the Mhadei basin without any fuss, why is it so difficult to extend the same courtesy to Karnataka? Perhaps, it was easier to talk to Maharashtra because of the cultural, regional and language ties we share with them.
Another question: If it is legitimate to transfer water from the Tillari basin to the Mhadei basin, why do we oppose trans-basin transfer of water only when it comes to Karnataka? And we oppose this even while water disputes tribunals have upheld the legal validity of inter-basin transfer of water. (The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal upheld the legality of trans-basin diversion of water. Also, the Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal permitted Andhra Pradesh to transfer 80 tmc from the Godavari river to the Krishna basin.)
By and large, the research papers presented at the two-day workshop dealt with bio-diversity, wildlife and forest conservation, all of which can be grouped under the term environment. (By the way, preservation of the environment was the main thrust of the Goa government’s case before the Tribunal.)
Third question: Weren’t all matters concerning the environment debated, discussed and disposed by the Tribunal? The answer to that question is an emphatic ‘yes’.
After Goa presented its case for protection of the environment, the Tribunal had a simple question— how much water is required to maintain environmental flow in the river? If you are sitting in Goa you might argue that all the water is required to preserve environment and you will be cheered by the all the people fighting to save the Mhadei. But when you go before a water disputes tribunal, you have to possess scientific data to back your claim.
It was a relief when the Tribunal accepted Goa’s contention that allocation of the river’s water must take into account environmental needs. But this was like a double edged sword because it meant that the Tribunal would first determine the quantum of water required to maintain environment flow and then allocate the remaining for consumptive use by the three States. So one way or the other, we would have to share.
So, once again, how much water is required for environmental needs? (I don’t think any of the research papers presented at the workshop tackled this issue.)
During the hearing of the Tribunal, Rajendra Kerkar, who deposed as an expert witness on environment, ecology and forest, said the water requirement for environment flow was around 50 tmc (preferred) and not less than 28 tmc. He was the only one who presented a study on environmental flows.
In the end, Kerkar’s arguments of environmental flows required in the river were rejected because the report of which it was based was found to be unreliable and not accepted by the Ministry of Environment. In the end, the Tribunal relied on environment flow norms of the Union Environment Ministry.
Since we are still on the issue of scientific data (or the lack of it) it might be interesting to consider another pertinent question raised by the Tribunal. During hearings Goa made a case for withdrawal of 72 tmc of water from the Mhadei for various purposes. That is, 18 times more water than the 3.9 tmc allocated to Karnataka, so the Tribunal asked Goa, have you done a study on the environmental impact if 72 tmc is withdrawn from the river? Goa had no answer because no study had been done.
The quantum of water given collectively to Maharashtra and Karnataka by the Tribunal is around 5.32 tmc from the total of 188 tmc which flows down the Mhadei river in a given year. Was any study done to ascertain the environment impact of the diversion of 5.32 tmc. The answer again is, no.
The scientific data presented to the Tribunal was so sketchy at best that it noted that, “two important aspects, namely (a) sustainability, and (b) minimization of environmental harm, have not been scientifically examined by the States while presenting their case for future projection of water demand.”
The point I am trying to make is that even though the Tribunal pointed out to several gaps in the data, no one in Goa is doing any research to fill those gaps.
The State government did not bother to fill those gaps because it was inconvenient. Consequently, it picked the data that suited its case and buried the rest. This is what State governments generally do. I am hopeful that the scientific community in Goa will rise above politics, fill in the gaps and present Goa with the true picture of the Mhadei, even if it means finding oneself on the wrong side of the Mhadei Bachao Andolan.
(Derek Almeida is a former editor who always took the road less travelled)
