But Kerala didn’t take that lying down, and its assembly went on to unanimously pass a bill, the Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Bill 2006, empowering a government-appointed Dam Safety Authority to have the final say about the safety of the state’s 22 major and minor dams. An all-party meeting came to a rare consensus in Kerala that the government should do the spadework to build a new Rs 350-crore plus dam, and junk the agreement with Tamil Nadu to draw up a new one. The new dam idea, in fact, had been hanging fire for many years now, through the row.

Kerala’s bill had spelt out the maximum permissible water levels for all dams, and the ceiling was put at 136 feet for Mullaperiyar. The bill gave the Dam Safety Authority, headed by a former judge, the power to direct any “custodian” of any dam to suspend the functioning of the dam, or even decommission it if it is found to be a safety threat. The custodian, for Mullaperiyar, is the Tamil Nadu government, but the Authority has not yet begun flexing its muscle.

But such legislative manoeuvring in inter-state water wars hasn’t always been foolproof. Down south itself, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal had asked Karnataka to release 205 thousand million cubic feet of water to Tamil Nadu, and Karnataka made an ordinance, later adopted as an Act, voiding the Tribunal’s order. The Supreme Court did not take long to declare the ordinance unconstitutional.

Not very different was the case of the Sutlej-Yamuna canal row when the Supreme Court directed the centre to take over construction of a portion of the canal in Punjab. The SC rejected Punjab’s review petition, and the Punjab Assembly quickly legislated to junk the 1981 agreement that the state had with its neighbours on sharing of river waters. The issue is still in court.

... contd.