While keeping mum on the crucial issue of continuance of support to the ruling BJP-led coalition at the Centre, the AIADMK supremo in a statement charged that Vajpayee had `completely ignored' several crucial aspects while constituting the Cauvery River Authority, and reiterated that it had ``no authority or power to order or implement anything regarding the release of Cauvery water''.

She said, ``It is really a wonder as to how the Authority, comprising the chief ministers of four states, who have been quarrelling and fighting among themselves over implementing an interim award delivered seven years ago by the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, will be practicable.''

Dismissing the Authority as a `debating club', she said, `the very disputants of the three decade old crisis, who have been unable to resolve anything and sought arbitration, have been given the veto power to block any decision.'

The objective of the Authority was not just to monitor whether 205 tmcft of Cauvery water flowed into Tamil Nadu from Karnataka as per the Cauvery Water Tribunal's interim award. Jayalalitha observed sarcastically, ``If the issue is just that, the Prime Minister and the four chief ministers can meet leisurely once a year over lunch or dinner and disperse.''

But the implementation of the interim order of the Tribunal was much more complicated. The main aspect of the interim order was the process of sharing waters on a weekly basis during the summer crop cultivation of `Kuruvai' in the Cauvery delta region. And, the crux of the interim order was a schedule of weekly releases from May to October every year, stipulating that any shortfall in one week had to be made up in the following week during the critical summer months.

``Is it practically possible for the Prime Minister and the four chief ministers (as members of the Authority) to get together and count how many drops of water flow into the Mettur reservoir every week from May to October of each year?'' she demanded. The Authority's task was purely technical and administrative and not a matter for political negotiations, she said.

While the new Authority spoke about the ``distress sharing problem'', the minimum weekly outflow specified by the Tribunal itself was a ``distress sharing formula''. The objective of the Tribunal was that in the case of excess rain during ordinary times, Karnataka should release more water to Tamil Nadu than the prescribed minimum quantity.

The Supreme Court, Jayalalitha said, had ruled that the Tribunal would adjudicate any problem if even the minimum could not be released in distress. ``The Prime Minister has completely ignored all these aspects,'' she charged. ``When things get difficult, the chief ministers concerned will meet for discussion. There will be heated exchanges, threats and walk-outs. But not a drop of water would trickle to Tamil Nadu,'' she said, adding that an `independent Authority' would have ensured the `minimum needs' of the State.

Faulting Chief Minister M Karunanidhi for accepting the Authority, she said the new Cauvery settlement would expire in April 1999 when the final order of the Tribunal is expected. Karunanidhi and his counterpart in Karnataka, J H Patel, had accepted the new accord because they knew it was ``totally meaningless''. When the final order is granted the Authority would become defunct, she said.

Hence the new Authority would not benefit Tamil Nadu ``even by an iota'', she alleged.