Tamil Nadu's demand that its consent is required for the Mekedatu project is rooted in the Cauvery water-sharing framework established by the tribunal and the Supreme Court. The final award explicitly states that no new works can be constructed that would affect the agreed water allocation without the concurrence of all parties. Any deviation undermines a hard-won legal settlement meant to ensure fair distribution.
For millions of farmers in the Cauvery delta, water is a lifeline. Even a small reduction in flow could devastate crops and livelihoods. The Mekedatu reservoir, if built without safeguards, would store water during the monsoon, potentially delaying releases to Tamil Nadu during critical irrigation periods. This is not a hypothetical risk but a recurring pattern in the dispute, where Karnataka's upstream dams have often impacted downstream supply.
Beyond agriculture, Tamil Nadu's urban water supply, particularly in Chennai, depends on Cauvery releases. The project's cumulative impact on the state's water security could be severe. The state government's argument is also about federal principles: water-sharing agreements must be honored by all states, including the Centre. Karnataka's unilateral move sets a dangerous precedent for interstate river disputes across India.
The Centre's 'no consent needed' position appears to bypass these legal and practical realities. Vijay's appeal to the PM is a call to uphold the federal compact and protect the rights of a downstream state. A fair resolution must involve Tamil Nadu's consent, not override it.