IRRIGATION

* TANK

* WELLS

* CANAL
TANKS

* most feasible and widely practiced method

* Small in size built by raising bunds across seasonal streams.

* Excavated type in WB,ORISSA, BIHAR & mostly used for raising fishes beside irrigation

* Get silted up soon so need to be desilted

* High rate of evaporation and occupation of fertile land

* At many places dried up surface used for cultivation

* Most of the tanks are non perennial

* Karnataka , TN, AP, ORRISA, MAHARASHTRA have more area under tank irrigation.
WELLS

* most widely distributed source of irrigation.

* water from underground so possible in areas of low rainfall where adequate amount of GW is present
within the reach of small farmer

* the great plains, deltaic region of Krishna, Godavari, narmada, kaveri, Mahanadi and tapti

* large tracts of peninsula holds little sub surface water

* in some parts of Haryana ,Rajasthan , Gujarat, Punjab ground water is saline so not suitable for irrigation

* 41 % of the net irrigated area
CANAL

* principal source of irrigation

* 40% of the net irrigated area

* Require an adequate source of water supply, allow relief and an extensive command area

* Inundation canals are taken out of river without any regulating system at their heads ( to use flood water)

* Perennial canals take off from perennial rivers with a weir system (to regulate flow of water)

* In great plains canals take off from barrages, while in peninsula large dams and reservoirs necessary for taking off canals

* Half of the net canal irrigated area lie in UP, PUNJAB, HARYANA AND A.P


UTTAR PRADESHUpper and lower ganga canal, eastern Yamuna canal, sarda canal ramganga canal, betwa canal, agra canal

ANDHRA PRADESHCanal system taken off from Krishna, Godavari,Tungabhadra, dowlaiswaram anicut (Godavari delta), prakasam barrage(Krishna delta), penner canal,canals of nizamsagar,pochampad project, nagarjunsagar & Tungabhadra project (mainly irrigate rayalseema districts)

WEST BENGALDVC (hooghly), mayurakshi,kangsabati

TAMIL NADUdeltaic regions of tambraparni & kaveri, grand anicut, katalai high level canal, mettur canal system,lower bhawani project,manimuthar project(tambraparni)

BIHAREastern kosi canal, eastern gandak canal, son canal

RAJASTHANBikaner canal (satluj), ottu feeder(ghaggar), bhakra canal, Chambal project canals, rajasthan canal

M.PChambal project , barna project, tawa project canal

KARNATKATungabhadra project canals, malprabha project, ghatprabha project,bhadra project, visvesaraya canal (kaveri)(krishnaarjunsagar dam)

MAHARASHTRAMutha canal(khadakwasola reservoir),mula canal , upper Godavari canal, girna canal , nira canal, pravara canal,ghod and purna canal

ORISSACanals of Mahanadi (hirakund project)

KERALAMalampuzha canal, periyar canal, pamba canal



OTHER SOURCES OF IRRIGATION - irrigation from temporary dams called ahars & pynes, spring channels, direct lift from water channels.
*Great plains and east coastal lowlands have more area under irrigation than the uplands in the peninsular regions due to greater concentration of the sown area and availability of more surface and sub surface water.
NATIONAL WATER POLICY 2002

* emphasis on integrated water resource development.

* Management for optimal and sustainable utilization of water.

* Creation of well developed information system.

* Water conservation, participatory approach on water management

* Avg annual water availability of country -1869 billion cubic metre(bcm)

* Of which 1123 bcm usable of which 690 bcm surface water rest ground water

* In bhart nirman emphasis on extension renovation and modernization (ERM ) & repair renovation and restoration


Accelerated irrigation benefit programme

* To gave loan assistance to states to help in completion of major / medium irrigation project

* Central loan assistance scheme for surface minor irrigation schemes of north eastern states and other hilly states

* 25 % project grant for non special states and 30% for special states, drought prone tribal areas including.
Hydro project -2

* With world bank assistance in 13 states

* To promote the sustainable and effective use of hydrological information system(HIS)

COMMAND AREA DEVELOPMENT AND WATER MANAGEMENT

* to bridge the gap between irrigation potential created and utilized through micro level Infrastructure development for efficient water management and enhancement of agriculture production

* Assistance of 50:50 basis for construction activity and 75:25 basis for training activity

* Parcitipatory approach with water users association

* Minimum 10% contribution by the beneficiary in the cost of construction of field channels, reclamation of water logged area

* Flood management

* 45 mha flood prone area in the country

* By way of construction of embankment , drainage channels town protection works & providing raised platforms

* 100% central assistance to W.B ,Tripura, N.E states

* Flood management programme flood control, river management drainage development ,flood proofing, anti sea erosion works

* A network of flood forcasting and warning system established by central water commission in major river basins for flood forcast

* Advisory council on artificial recharge of ground water

* Implementation of 5000 farmers participatory action research programme

* Organization of national ground water congress

* Institute of ground water augmentation award and national water award

* Preparation of policy on use of ground water by industries

* FPARP technologies micro irrigation system (drip and sprinkler), water conservation(jalkund, storage tanks, check dams, recharging wells), crop diversification, system of rice intensification (SRI), in-situ soil moisture conservation, micro nutrient management

* Ministryof water resources constituted bhoomijal samvardhan puraskars- cash award of 1 lkh.
National water resource council

* Prime minister chairman, union minister of water resources vice chairman ,chief ministers of all states secretary (ministry of water resources)
Central water commission 3 technical wings

* Design and research wing

* Water planning and project wing

* River management wing

* 13 regional organizations to carry out techno-economic appraisal and economic aspects of irrigation, flood control and multipurpose project proposed by state government

* All work related to hydrological data

* Flood forcasting system

* To advise on basin wise development of water resources

* To advise and assist survey and investigate on designs and schemes on development of river valleys in respect of power generation , irrigation, flood management , environmental management, resettlement and rehabilitation, soil conservation, anti water logging measures, reclamation of alkaline and saline soils, drainage and drinking water supply

* To impart training on various aspects of water resource development

* Dam safety studies, promotion of modern data collection techniques such as remote sensing assessment of water erosion problems
Central soil and material research station

* Soil mechanics, rock mechanics, construction materials

* Soil dynamics, geotextile, soil chemistry, rock fill technology, drilling technology
Central water and power research station

* Khadakwasla, pune

* Hydraulic research

* River engineering, reservoir and appurtenant structures, coastal and offshore engineering, shiop hydrodynamics, hydraulic machinery, earth sciences, mathematic modeling
Central ground water board

* Disseminate technologies for scientific and sustainable development and management of india;s ground water resource including monitoring , assessment, exploration & augmentation

* RGI scheme provide training, setting up laboratories , r & d studies
Farraka barrage project

* For preservation and management of kolkata port(bhagirathi hoogly river system)
Bansagar control board

* On sone river

* M.P , U.P , bihar involved
Ganga flood control commission

* Headquartered at patna
Upper Yamuna board

* MoU between H.P, Haryana, U.P, rajasthan and nct delhi

* Allocation of available flow and also maintain the return flow

* Three storage project- renuka dam, Krishna dam, lakhwar vyas project
National water development agency

* National perspective plan (NPP) under national common minimum programme

* Transferring water from water surplus basin to water deficit basin by interlinking of rivers
two components

* 1. Himalya water development component

* 2 .peninsular rivers development component

* Main river links- ken betwa link (M.P, U.P involved)

* Parbati- kali sindh- Chambal link(M.P , rajasthan involved)

* PAR-TAPI NARMADA LINK and damangana panjal link (gujrat Maharashtra involved)

* Godavari- Krishna link (andhrapradesh involved)

* Mahanadi Godavari- Krishna- pennar kaveri- gundar link system -7 states involved

VIBHOR BACHCHAN

REF. 1. ECONOMIC AND COMMERCIAL GEOGRAPHY OF India BY SHARMA & COUTINHO.
2. India 2013.

THE CAUVERY WATER DISPUTE

INTRODUCTION-
The Cauvery River is considered to be the lifeline of the peninsular India. Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry are the four riparian states staking claim on the Cauvery river water and Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are major contending states.
Cauvery river basin is spread over an area of 87,000 km with basin area of 36,240 km2 in Karnataka and 48,730 km2 in Tamil nadu. Harangi, hemavathi, shimsha, arkavathi, lakshmanthirtha and swarnvathi are major tributaries joining the river Cauvery in Karnataka and amaravathi, bhavani, noyyal and kodaganaru are major tributaries of Cauvery in Tamil nadu. The below map shows the basin of Cauvery river in all states.

WHY THESE STATES NEED WATER-
Tamil Nadu:This Southern Indian state brims with green paddies and palm fields in the East, alluvial plains stretch to the Coromondel Coast to the West, and high rocky hills cover the Northern portion of the state.
Karnataka:This state is considered the economic power of southern India. Bangalore, its capital city, is the fastest growing city in India. Growing high tech sectors are centred in Bangalore such as pharmaceutical and chemical industries. Due to the "industry friendly" atmosphere in Karnataka, major international firms are finding it a beneficial location for business. International firms in Karnataka include Hewlett-Packard, IBM, Kentucky Fried Chicken, and Cargill Corporation. This industrialization is not without consequence for Karnataka. These firms and industry sectors require a mass amount of water; water that is scarce in this region. In times of weak monsoons, the fragile water situation in Southern India is exposed.
CLAIMS-
The state of Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the river as Tamil Nadu does. Karnataka claims that these agreements were skewed heavily in favor of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiated settlement based on "equitable sharing of the waters". Tamil Nadu, on the other hand, pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 km2) of land and as a result has come to depend very heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millions of farmers in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit.

PRE INDEPENDENCE HISTORY -
During the colonial period the Mysore and Madras governments entered into the 1892 and 1924 agreements. While the 1892 agreement was a general agreement relating to numbers of interstate rivers, the 1924 agreement related to irrigation development in the Basin of Cauvery River through krishnarajasagar dam. Both agreements were permanent. It also says that when upstream works are planned, the prior consent of state government of lower down area is to be obtained. This was to ensure that nothing shall be done in Mysore which will have the effect on customary supply of waters in lower riparian states.

POST INDEPENDENCE HISTORY-

* The Cauvery River Dispute has been a serious issue since 1974 when a 50 year old agreement between the Madras president and the princely Mysore state collapsed. Karnataka asserts that the 1924 agreement demanded a discontinuation of the water supply to Tamil Nadu after 50 years. The Karnataka maintains that the state suffered due to its discriminated past. Attempts of irrigation development were frustrated by British government in Mysore region who protected the interest of people in madras presidency. Therefore, 1892 and 1924 agreements were imposed on weak Mysore state. Tamil nadu, on other hand, argue that early irrigation has always been in delta region which is primarily due to conductive soil, water and topographic conditions. Also, story of British rulers is of immediate past; its actual history dates back to 2nd century AD.

* STAGE 1: between 1924-1974
There were protests but they were sporadic and unnoticeable.

* When Karnataka began construction of theHarangidam atKushalanagarainKodagu, it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to court demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under theInterstate River Water Disputes Act(ISWD- this act provides an important mechanism to resolve interstate water dispute) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site. In spite of this Karnataka went for completion of the dam without taking into account the impact on the livelihood of other states.

* In April 1991, the Supreme Court of the Government of India reassigned a tribunal to settle the dispute as mandated in the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act. The Tribunal heard arguments from both states, and reached the decision that Karnataka must release 205 TMC of water from the Cauvery reservoirs to Tamil Nadu on a monthly basis .Karnataka declined to accept the ruling of the Tribunal. The Government of Karnataka argued that the Tribunal issued a decision that was not implementable. Due to failed monsoons, many parts of Karnataka were left without adequate water supplies. If the government were to release more than 100 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu, then it would be disadvantaging its own people.


* STAGE 2: BETWEEN 1974-1990
Dispute got intensified and distrust built up due to information and communication gap.

* The rejection of the Tribunal's decision pushed the negotiations on a downward spiralling path that eventually led to aborted talks. As mentioned previously however, water issues seem to only erupt when there is a lack of adequate rain. In 1992, 1993, and 1994, the rain was sufficient to pacify the dispute between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka.

* In 1995, the monsoons failed to fill the Cauvery tributaries possessed by Tamil Nadu. On January 1, 1996, Prime Minister P.V. Narasimha Rao asked Karnataka to release an immediate six tmcft (one thousand million cubic feet) of water to Tamil Nadu to save the standing crops. In addition, the Prime Minister announced the immediate formation of an expert council to "spot assess" the status of the standing crop of both states to include the level of water needed to sustain the crops.


* STAGE 3: 1995-96
Thousands ofTamilfamilies had to flee fromBangalorein fear of being attacked by pro-Kannada activists. The violence and show down, mostly centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bangalore and Mandya, lasted for nearly a month.

NOTE: It should be noted that despite the stalemate in negotiations and the violence that erupts, Karnataka has been releasing water from the Cauvery River to Tamil Nadu in instalments for the last twenty years. The dispute between the two states is over the quantity of water released.

* The tribunal gave its final award share in 2007 as: Kerala 30 TMC, Karnataka 270 TMC, Tamil nadu 419 TMC and Pondicherry 7 TMC.Tamil nadu dissatisfied with the decision approached the Supreme Court by filling special leave petition (SLP).

* On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Government has notified the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) on sharing the waters of the Cauvery system among the basin States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, and Kerala and Union territory of Pondicherry. The verdict is as follows

KarnatakaTamil NaduKeralaPondicherryTotal

Basin Area (in km)34,273(42%)44,016(54%)2,866(3.5%)148(-)81,155

Share for each state as per Cauvery Tribunal final award Dated 19 February 2013270 (37%)419 (58%)30 (4%)7 (1%)726



* In response to the Special Leave Petition (SLP) lodged by Tamil Nadu earlier, the Supreme Court on 10 May 2013 issued an interim direction to the Government of India (GoI) to establish a temporary Supervisory Committee to implement the Cauvery tribunal order till the constitution of Cauvery Management Board as stated in the tribunal order. GoI issued the gazette notification establishing the said Supervisory Committee.
A PRIVATE NOTE CIRCULATED BY RAMASWAMY IYER, 2003-
It must be noted that in Indian or International law, there is no ownership rights over flowing waters. Neither karnataka nor tamil nadu owns the cauvery. They all have use rights. There is no hierarchy of rights; neither the upper riparian nor the lower riparian has primacy. There is an equality of rights but of course not an entitlement to equal rights. How much each state is entitledto is a matter for agreement or adjudication. It is inappropriate to talk of the upper riparian giving waters to the lower riparian, as though it is a gift. At the same time, there is no question of the lower riparian asserting a pre-emptive right to waters to the detriment of the upper riparian. The upper riparian cannot say to the lower riparian: this is difficult year. We do not have enough water for our own needs. We cannot spare any water for you. Even in a difficult year the available water has to be shared. Similarly, the lower riparian cannot say to the upper riparian: we have been receiving certain flow from centuries. They must continue to come to us undiminished. This is our absolute right.
LESSONS LEARNT-

1. A sound research is required for carrying and undertaking forward the dialogue.

2. Degree of success or failure of process depends upon active and sustained states political support.

3. Need for an untiring, and credible facilitator (it could be an institution or individual) who can carry the job for arranging a good platform between both states.
CONCLUSIONS-

1. One need to understand the complicated nature of basin complexity due to over politicization and emotional attachment to the Cauvery water.

2. One needs to acknowledge the fact that Cauvery region is the deficit region.

3. The issue is not the sharing of unutilized surplus water but re-sharing of water shortages.

4. Farmers and politicians in both major contending states should recognize the fact that losing or gaining some quantities in the process of negotiation is much better than keep or bargaining forever or keeping conflict alive.

5. Adaptation is what most needed at the moment adapt to the changing needs and changing socio-economic and ecological conditions.

6. Since the basin is already been in stress, the negotiators should move ahead with long term perspective.
By AGAM JAIN

SOURCES:
1.http://www.pildat.org/publications/publication/WaterR/CaseStudy-InterStateWaterDisputesAmongtheRiparianStates.pdf
2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indian_Rivers_Inter-link
3.http://www1.american.edu/ted/ice/CAUVERY.HTM