text:
Kaveri River water dispute
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
The sharing of waters of the Kaveri River (also spelled as Cauvery) has been the source of a serious conflict between the two states of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka. The genesis of this conflict rests in two agreements in 1892 and 1924 between the Madras Presidency and Kingdom of Mysore. The 802 kilometres (498 mi) Cauvery river has 44,000 km2 basin area in Tamil Nadu and 32,000 km2 basin area in Karnataka.[1] The inflow from Karnataka is 425 TMCft whereas that from Tamil Nadu is 252 TMCft [2]
Based on the inflow Karnataka is demanding its due share of water from the river. It states that the pre-independence agreements are invalid and are skewed heavily in the favour 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.[3][4]
Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The Government of India then constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into the matter. After hearing arguments of all the parties involved for the next 16 years, the tribunal delivered its final verdict on 5 February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 TMC of water annually to Tamil Nadu and 270 TMC to Karnataka; 30 TMC of Cauvery river water to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu being the major shareholders, Karnataka was ordered to release 192 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu in a normal year from June to May.[5]
The dispute however, did not end there, as all four states decided to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order.
BASIS
Tamil Nadu
Karnataka
Kerala
Puducherry
Total
Basin Area up to Lower Coleroon Anicut site (in km²)[6] 44,016 (54%) 34,273 (42%) 2,866 (4%) 0(-) 81,155
Drought area in the basin (in km²) [7] 12,790 (36.9%) 21,870 (63.1%) -- -- 34,660
Inflow from basin in TMC [7] 252 (32%) 425 (54%) 113 (14%) --
Share for each state as per tribunal verdict of 2007 [8] 419(58.19%) 270(37.19%) 30 (4.13%) 7 (0.96%) 726
Share for each state as per Supreme Court verdict of 2018 [9][10] 404.25(55.68%) 284.75(39.22%) 30 (4.13%) 7 (0.96%) 726
The Cauvery flows in southern Karnataka and then to Tamil Nadu.
The first agreement on sharing Cavery river water dates back to 1892 , between Madras Presidency and princely state of Mysuru
Contents
1 History of the dispute
2 Post-Independence developments
3 Indian Government notifies Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal
3.1 Above normal water year
3.2 Below normal water year
3.3 limitations for water use
4 Interim Supervisory Committee
5 Timeline
5.1 1970s
5.2 1980s
5.2.1 The constitution of the tribunal
5.2.2 Interim award and the riots
5.3 The crisis of 1995–1996
5.3.1 Constitution of the CRA
5.4 Events during 2002
5.4.1 CRA meeting and the Supreme Court order
5.4.2 Demonstrations
5.5 2003–2006
5.6 2007 tribunal verdict
5.7 2012
5.8 2016
5.9 2018
5.9.1 Criticism on SC verdict
5.9.2 Cauvery Management Board - Govt Gazette
6 Final Verdict 2018
6.1 Highlights of the key observations of SC and its implications[73]
6.2 Draft Scheme by Center 2018
6.3 Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) 2018
7 See also
8 References
History of the dispute[edit]
This section does not cite any sources. Please help improve this section by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (September 2016) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
The British controlled both Mysore and Madras for a short period in the middle of the 19th century. During their regime, numerous plans were drawn up for the utilization of the Cauvery waters by both states. However, the drought and subsequent famine in the mid-1870s put a hold on the implementation of these plans. The plans were revived by Mysore in 1881, by which time Mysore was back in the hands of the Mysore kings, while present day Tamil Nadu continued to remain a part of the Madras Presidency.
Mysore's plans to revive the irrigation projects met with resistance from the Madras Presidency. Mysore state made a representation to the Madras Presidency then British government; as a result of which, a conference was held in 1890 with the objective of agreeing "…on the principles of a modus vivendi, which would on the one hand allow to Mysore in dealing with irrigation works, and on the other, give to Madras practical security against injury to interests" and eventually the Agreement of 1892 was signed.
Things came to a head in 1910 when Mysore, under Nalvadi Krishnaraja Wodeyar as the king and Capt. Dawes[11] as Chief Engineer came up with a plan to construct a dam at Kannambadi village to hold up to 41.5 TMC of water. The dam was planned to be built in two stages. In the first stage a capacity of 11 TMC was envisioned, while in the second stage the full capacity was set to be realized. Madras however, refused to give its consent for this move as it had its own plans to build a storage dam at Mettur with a capacity of 80 TMC.
After a reference to the Government of India, permission was accorded to Mysore, but for a reduced storage of 11TMC. During construction, however, the foundation was laid to suit the earlier desired full storage. This raised Madras' hackles and the dispute continued. As a result, the then British Government of India referred the matter to arbitration under Rule IV of the 1892 Agreement. The Cauvery dispute thus had come up for arbitration for the first time.
Sir H D Griffin was appointed arbitrator and M. Nethersole, the Inspector General of Irrigation in India, was made the Assessor. They entered into proceedings on 16 July 1913 and the Award was given on 12 May 1914. The award upheld the earlier decision of the Government of India and allowed Mysore to go ahead with the construction of the dam up to 11 TMC.
Madras appealed against the award and negotiations continued. Eventually an agreement was arrived at in 1924 and a couple of minor agreements were also signed in 1929 and 1933. The 1924 agreement was set to lapse after a run of 50 years.
Post-Independence developments[edit]
In 1947, India attain independence from the British. Further in 1956, the reorganization of the states of India took place and state boundaries were redrawn based on linguistic demographics. Kodagu or Coorg (the birthplace of the Cauvery), became a part of Mysore state[12]. Parts of Malabar which earlier formed part of Madras Presidency went to Kerala[13]. Puducherry had already become a de facto Union territory in 1954.
Redrawing of state boundaries caused parts of Kerala and Puducherry to be in the Cauvery River basin and therefore become stakeholders in the sharing of its waters. Kerala staked its claim as one of the major tributaries of the Cauvery since the Kabini River, now originated in Kerala. The Karaikal region of Puducherry at the tail end of the river demanded the waters that it claimed to have always been using for drinking and some minimal agriculture. While these additional claims complicated matters greatly at a technical level, Mysore state and Tamil Nadu still remained the major parties to the dispute.
By the late 1960s, both states and the Central government began to realize the gravity of the situation as the 50-year run of the 1924 agreement was soon coming to an end. Negotiations were started in right earnest and discussions continued for almost 10 years.
Indian Government notifies Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal[edit]
On 20 February 2013, based on the directions of the Supreme Court, the Indian Government 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 Puducherry. The "extraordinary" notification in the gazette dated 19 February 2013 says the order takes effect on the date of publication.[14] The Tribunal, in a unanimous decision in 2007, determined the total Cauvery basin water availability in a normal year as 740 TMC at the Lower Coleroon Anicut site and Grand Anaicut, including 14 TMC for minimum environmental flows and unavoidable wastage to the sea. The final award makes an annual allocation of 419 TMC to Tamil Nadu in the entire Cauvery basin, 270 TMC to Karnataka, 30 TMC to Kerala and 7 TMC to Puducherry.[15][16][17] Utilisable water in Tamil Nadu is sum of beneficial water uses and the water going waste to sea in excess of 14 TMC at Lower Coleroon and Grand Anaicuts.
The water sharing criteria is based on two situations:
When water availability is above the normal water year flows.
When water availability is equal or below the normal water year flows
The 50% dependable water year is considered as normal water year whose total water availability in the basin is 740 TMC.[18] All the unused water in the reservoirs (≥ 3 TMC storage) at the beginning of water year in the basin are also considered for arriving the total available water in a water year to be shared by the riparian states. Tamil Nadu has to use 10 TMC for minimum environmental flows downstream of Lower Coleroon Anicut and supply 7 TMC to Puducherry out of the 192 TMC water released by Karnataka in a normal water year. Kerala can use 21 TMC from Kabini river basin, 6 TMC from Bhavani river basin and 3 TMC from Pambar river basin in a normal year. Water going waste to sea at Lower Coleroon Anicut in excess of 4 TMC (other than 10 TMC minimum environmental flows) in any water year forms part of utilisable water share of Tamil Nadu. The ambiguity in the verdict is that utilisable water (clauses IV and V) in the basin is allocated among the states but it has not defined how to measure the same. Instead clause XIV of final order defines how to measure the beneficial water uses which is not equal to the utilisable water.
According to verdict, monthly release of water from Karnataka to Tamil Nadu in TMCs would be: June 10, July 34, August 50, September 40, October 22, November 15, December 8, January 3, February 2.5, March 2.5, April 2.5, May 2.5.[19]
Above normal water year[edit]
Karnataka can now use all the excess water available in its area after releasing 192 TMC applicable in a normal water year. Tamil Nadu can also use all the excess water available in its area (including flood water from Karnataka if any).
Karnataka has proposed a project to store excess water during good monsoon years at Mekedatu for drinking water needs of Bengaluru city and en route, hydro power generation, etc. Tamil Nadu is raising objections to this project.[20][21]
Below normal water year[edit]
When the total water availability is below 740 TMC (i.e. distress year), the allocated share of each state is reduced proportionately. Kerala (in Kabini basin) and Karnataka would use their reduced allocations and release rest of water below Billigundulu gauging station for use in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry.[22] Karnataka has to release water to Tamil Nadu on monthly basis proportionate to the monthly figures indicated for a normal year.
limitations for water use[edit]
Based on the river basin water data available from the year 1934 to 1971 (about 44 year old data), the tribunal estimated the average water yield in the total river basin as 767 TMC which corresponds to 47% dependability. The live storage capacity available in the river basin is nearly 310 TMC which is 40.5% of the average yield. The water used in the Cauvery delta in Tamil Nadu and Puducherry is nearly 280 TMC which is the tail end water use in the river basin and its regenerated water either goes to sea or outside the Cauvery basin.[23] The total dissolved salt load generated in the basin is nearly 3.5 million metric tons per year. The estimated salinity or total dissolved salts (TDS) for the water available in Cauvery delta is 441 ppm which is close to the safe maximum permissible 500 ppm.[24][25][26] There is no limit imposed by the tribunal for the ground water use in the river basin. The tribunal has also permitted the basin states to use all the excess water available in above normal water years. Moreover, the river basin population has reached 40 million in the year 2015 and the increasing per capita inorganic salts used/consumed in industrial, agriculture and residential sectors are enhancing the salt export requirements.[4][27] When adequate salt export from the river basin is not taking place to the sea by forcing Cauvery delta to face water shortage, the water quality (salinity, pH, alkalinity, sodicity, etc.) available for Cauvery delta would deteriorate beyond the permissible limits impeding its sustainable productivity and its aquatic ecosystem conservation.[28][29][30] Ultimately salt export criteria is the limitation for the water resources development in a river basin.
Interim Supervisory Committee[edit]
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 an Interim 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 on 22 May 2013 establishing the said Supervisory Committee.[31] Interim Supervisory Committee is a stop gap arrangement when there is delay in getting its approval by the parliament per section 6A(7) of Interstate River Water Disputes Act. However, Interim Supervisory Committee established by GoI under Interstate River Water Disputes Act has full powers {including suing and to be sued by riparian states/victims for damages / compensation per section 6A(3)} similar to an authority/ board established by parliament till parliament has not annulled the same.[32][33]
Timeline[edit]
1970s[edit]
While discussions continued, a Cauvery Fact Finding Committee (CFFC) was constituted. The brief of the CFFC was to inspect the ground realities and come up with a report. The CFFC came up with a preliminary report in 1972 and a final report in 1973. Inter state discussions were held based on this report. Finally in 1974, a draft agreement which also provided for the creation of a Cauvery Valley Authority was prepared by the Ministry of Irrigation. This draft however, was not ratified.
In 1976, after a series of discussions between the two states and the Central government chaired by Jagjeevan Ram, the then Irrigation Minister, a final draft was prepared based on findings of the CFFC. This draft was accepted by all states and the Government also made an announcement to that effect in Parliament.
When Karnataka began construction of the Harangi dam at Kushalanagara in Kodagu, it was once again met with resistance from Tamil Nadu. Tamil Nadu went to court demanding the constitution of a Tribunal under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act (ISWD) of 1956. It also demanded the immediate stoppage of construction work at the dam site.
1980s[edit]
Later Tamil Nadu withdrew its case demanding the constitution of a tribunal and the two states started negotiating again. Several rounds of discussions were held in the 1980s. The result was still, a stalemate. In 1986, a farmer’s association from Tanjavur in Tamil Nadu moved the Supreme Court demanding the constitution of a tribunal. While this case was still pending, the two states continued many rounds of talks. This continued till April 1990 and yet yielded no results.
The constitution of the tribunal[edit]
The Supreme Court then directed the government headed by Prime Minister V. P. Singh to constitute a tribunal and refer all disputes to it. A three-man tribunal was thus constituted on 2 June 1990. The tribunal was headquartered at New Delhi and was to be headed by Justice Chittatosh Mookerjee.
The four states presented their demands to the tribunal as under
Karnataka - claimed 465 TMC as its share
Kerala - claimed 99.8 TMC as its share
Puducherry - claimed 9.3 TMC (0.3 km³)
Tamil Nadu - claimed the flows should be ensured in accordance with the terms of the agreements of 1892 and 1924 (ie., 566 TMC for Tamil Nadu and Puducherry; 177 TMC for Karnataka and 5 TMC for Kerala).
Interim award and the riots[edit]
Soon after the tribunal was set up, Tamil Nadu demanded a mandatory injunction on Karnataka for the immediate release of water and other reliefs. This was dismissed by the tribunal. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court which directed the tribunal to reconsider Tamil Nadu’s plea.
The tribunal reconsidered Tamil Nadu’s plea and gave an interim award on 25 June 1991. In coming up with this award, the tribunal calculated the average inflows into Tamil Nadu over a period of 10 years between 1980–81 and 1989–90. The extreme years were ignored for this calculation. The average worked out to 205 TMC which Karnataka had to ensure reached Tamil Nadu in a water year. The award also stipulated the weekly and monthly flows to be ensured by Karnataka for each month of the water year. The tribunal further directed Karnataka not to increase its irrigated land area from the existing 1,120,000 acres (4,500 km2)
Karnataka deemed this extremely inimical to its interests and issued an ordinance seeking to annul the tribunal’s award. The Supreme Court now stepped in at the President’s instance and struck down the Ordinance issued by Karnataka. It upheld the tribunal’s award which was subsequently gazetted by the Government of India on 11 December 1991.
Karnataka was thus forced to accept the interim award and widespread demonstrations and violence broke out in parts of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu following this. Thousands of Tamil families had to flee from Bangalore in fear of being attacked and lynched by pro-Kannada activists with the behest of the state government.[34] The violence and show down, mostly centered in the Tamil populated parts of Bangalore, lasted for nearly a month and most schools and educational institutions in Bangalore remained closed during this period.
The crisis of 1995–1996[edit]
In 1995, the monsoons failed badly in Karnataka and the state found itself hard pressed to fulfill the interim order. Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court demanding the immediate release of at least 30 TMC. The Supreme Court refused to entertain Tamil Nadu's petition and asked it to approach the tribunal. The tribunal examined the case and recommended that Karnataka release 11 TMC. Karnataka pleaded that 11 TMC was unimplementable in the circumstances that existed then. Tamil Nadu now went back to the Supreme Court demanding that Karnataka be forced to obey the tribunal's order. The Supreme Court this time recommended that the then Prime Minister, P. V. Narasimha Rao, intervene and find a political solution. The Prime Minister convened a meeting with the Chief Ministers of the two states and recommended that Karnataka release 6 TMC instead of the 11 TMC that the tribunal ordered. Karnataka complied with the decision of the Prime Minister and the issue blew over.
Constitution of the CRA[edit]
Karnataka had all through maintained that the interim award was not 'scientific' and was inherently flawed. It had, nevertheless, complied with the order except during 1995–96 when rains failed. What complicated matters was that the Interim award was ambiguous on distress sharing and there was no clear cut formula that everyone agreed upon to share the waters in the case of failure of the monsoon.
In 1997, the Government proposed the setting up of a Cauvery River Authority which would be vested with far reaching powers to ensure the implementation of the Interim Order. These powers included the power to take over the control of dams in the event of the Interim Order not being honoured. Karnataka, which had always maintained that the interim order had no scientific basis and was intrinsically flawed, strongly protested the proposal to set up such an authority.
The Government then made several modifications to the powers of the Authority and came up with a new proposal. The new proposal greatly reduced the executive powers of the Authority. The power to take over control of dams was also done away with. Under this new proposal, the Government set up two new bodies, viz., Cauvery River Authority and Cauvery Monitoring Committee. The Cauvery River Authority would consist of the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of all four states (Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Puducherry and Kerala) and was headquartered in New Delhi. The Cauvery Monitoring Committee on the other hand, was an expert body which consisted of engineers, technocrats and other officers who would take stock of the 'ground realities' and report to the government.
Events during 2002[edit]
In the summer of 2002, things once again came to a head as the monsoon failed in both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Reservoirs in both states fell to record low levels and inevitably tempers rose. The sticking point yet again, as in 1995–96 was how the distress would be shared between the two states. The tribunal had overlooked this crucial point[35] when it gave the interim award and it had returned once again to haunt the situation. Tamil Nadu demanded that Karnataka honour the interim award and release to Tamil Nadu its proportionate share. Karnataka on the other hand stated that the water levels were hardly enough to meet its own demands and ruled out releasing any water in the circumstances that prevailed.[36]
CRA meeting and the Supreme Court order[edit]
A meeting of the Cauvery River Authority was called on 27 August 2002 but the Tamil Nadu chief minister Jayalalitha walked out of the meeting. The focus now shifted to the Supreme Court which ordered Karnataka to release 1.25 TMC of water every day unless the Cauvery River Authority revised it. Karnataka was forced to release water but pressed for another meeting of the Cauvery River Authority which was fixed for 8 September. The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister this time boycotted the meet citing insufficient notice as the reason. A minister from her cabinet, however represented Tamil Nadu. The Cauvery River Authority revised the Court's order from 1.25 TMC to 0.8 TMC per day.
This time however, the Karnataka government in open defiance of the order of the Cauvery River Authority, refused to release any water succumbing to the large scale protests that had mounted in the Cauvery districts of the state. Tamil Nadu aghast at the defiance, went back to the Supreme Court. Karnataka now resumed the release of water for a few days, but stopped it again on 18 September as a Karnataka farmers and their protests threatened to take a dangerous turn. The centre now stepped in and asked Karnataka to release the water. The Supreme Court meanwhile, in response to Tamil Nadu's petition asked the Cauvery River Authority for details of the water release and water levels in the reservoirs.
Demonstrations[edit]
The flare up had by now, well and truly taken an ugly turn and there were accusations and counter accusations being thrown all around in both states. The dispute had already spilled onto the streets in the Mandya district of Karnataka and was threatening to spread to other parts of the state too. Precipitating the matters on the streets, the Supreme Court ordered Karnataka on 3 October to comply with the Cauvery River Authority and resume the release of water.
Karnataka once again refused to obey the orders of the Supreme Court. Tamil Nadu filed another contempt petition on Karnataka and soon the issue degenerated into a 'free for all' with all and sundry from both states joining the protests. Soon, film actors and various other cross sections of society from both states were on the streets. Tamil TV channels and screening of Tamil films were blocked in Karnataka. Also all buses and vehicles from Tamil Nadu were barred from entering Karnataka.
The Karnataka Chief Minister, S. M. Krishna on the other hand, fearing that the situation might spiral out of control, embarked on a padayatra from Bangalore to Mandya. While some saw this as merely a gimmick, some, like U R Ananthamurthy saw it as a good faith effort to soothe tempers and joined him in the yatra.
2003–2006[edit]
This period did not see any major flare up in the dispute even though the summer of 2003 saw a dry spell in both states. The monsoons in 2004, 2005 and 2006 was quite copious and this helped a great deal in keeping the tempers calm. While the last 3 or 4 years have been relatively quiet as far as jingoistic voices are concerned, a flurry of development has been afoot in the courts.
The term of the tribunal was initially set to expire in August 2005. However, in the light of the many arguments the court was yet to hear, the tribunal filed a request for extension of its term. The extension was granted and the tribunal's term was extended for another year until September 2006. Early in 2006, a major controversy erupted over the 'Assessor's report' that was apparently 'leaked' to the press. The report had suggested a decision which Karnataka summarily rejected. Another major controversy erupted when just a couple of months before the September 2006 deadline, the tribunal recommended the formation of another expert committee to study the 'ground realities' yet again. This was unanimously and vehemently opposed by all the four states party to the dispute. The states contended that this move would further delay a judgement which has already been 16 years in the making.
More than the disapproval of all the four states of the new expert committee that was proposed, the proposal turned out to be a major embarrassment for the tribunal. This was because, not only were the four states opposed to it even the Chief Judge of the tribunal was opposed to it. However the other two assistant judges on 3-man adjudication team, overruled the opinion of the main Judge. And all this was done in a packed courtroom and this led to petty bickering and heated arguments between the three judges in the packed courtroom. This left everyone in the courtroom shocked and the Tamil Nadu counsel was moved to remark that it was embarrassing that the judges probably needed help settling their own disputes before adjudicating on the dispute at hand. Nonetheless, the new expert committee was formed and carried out further assessments. Subsequently, the extended deadline of the tribunal also passed and the tribunal was given yet another extension. ,
2007 tribunal verdict[edit]
The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal announced its final verdict on 5 February 2007.[14] According to its verdict, Tamil Nadu gets 419 TMC of Cauvery water while Karnataka gets 270 TMC. The actual release of water by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu is to be 192 TMC annually. Further, Kerala will get 30 TMC and Puducherry 7 TMC.[37] Water to be released to Tamil Nadu according to monthly schedule as: June month (10 TMC), July (34), August (50), September (40), October (22), November (15), December (8), January (3), February (2.5), March (2.5), April (2.5) and May (2.5).[38] The Tamil Nadu and Karnataka, unhappy with the decision, filed a revision petition before the tribunal seeking a review.[citation needed]
2012[edit]
On 19 September 2012, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, who is also the Chairman of the Cauvery River Authority, directed Karnataka to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu at Biligundlu (the border) daily. But Karnataka felt that this was impractical due to the drought conditions prevailing because of the failed monsoon. Karnataka then walked out of the high-level meeting as a sign of protest. On 21 September, Karnataka filed a petition before the Cauvery River Authority seeking review of its 19 September ruling.
On 24 September, Tamil Nadu's Chief minister directed the officials to immediately file a petition in the Supreme Court seeking a direction to Karnataka to release Tamil Nadu its due share of water.[39]
On 28 Sep 2012, the Supreme Court slammed the Karnataka government for failing to comply with the directive of the Cauvery River Authority.[40] Left with no other option, Karnataka started releasing water. This led to wide protests and violence in Karnataka.[41]
On 4 October 2012, the Karnataka government filed a review petition before the Supreme Court seeking a stay on its 28 September order directing it to release 9,000 cusecs of Cauvery water everyday to Tamil Nadu, until 15 October.[42]
On 6 October 2012, several Kannada organisations, under the banner of "Kannada Okkoota", called a Karnataka bandh (close down) on 6 October in protest against the Cauvery water release.[43] On 8 October, the Supreme Court of India announced the release of 9,000 cusecs had to be continued and it was up to the Cauvery River Authority's head, the Prime Minister, as a responsible person, to ensure this happened. The Prime Minister ruled out a review of the Cauvery River Authority’s decision until 20 October, rejecting the plea by both the Congress and Bharatiya Janata Party leaders from Karnataka. Within a few hours, Karnataka stopped release of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu. [44]
On 9 October 2012, Tamil Nadu's chief minister directed authorities to immediately file a contempt petition against the Karnataka government for flouting the verdict of the Supreme Court by unilaterally stopping the release of water to Tamil Nadu.[45] Tamil Nadu made a fresh plea in the Supreme Court on 17 October, reiterating its demand for appropriate directions to be issued to Karnataka to make good the shortfall of 48 TMC of water as per the distress sharing formula.[46]
On 15 November 2012, The Cauvery Monitoring Committee directed the Karnataka government to release 4.81 TMC to Tamil Nadu between 16 and 30 November.[47]
On 6 December, the supreme court directed Karnataka to release 10,000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu. The court asked the union government to indicate the time frame within which the final decision of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal, which was given in February 2007, was to be notified. This decision was given in the view of saving the standing crops of both the states.[clarification needed][48]
2016[edit]
On 22 August 2016, Tamil Nadu approached Supreme Court, seeking direction to Karnataka to release 50.052 TMC ft Cauvery water from its reservoirs for its third samba cultivation, as mandated in the final order of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal 2007. Karnataka cited distress situation as Karnataka felt there was only enough water for drinking purposes [49] and declined to release water.
On 2 September 2016, Supreme Court asked Karnataka to consider Tamil Nadu's plea on humanitarian grounds and release water and advised both states to maintain harmony. The Court also asked Karnataka to revert by 5 September 2016 as to how much water it can release. On 5 September 2016 Karnataka informed the Supreme Court that it can release 10,000 cusecs per day, while Tamil Nadu demanded 20,000 cusecs per day. Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to release 15,000 cusecs per day to Tamil Nadu for next 10 days till 16 September 2016.
On 9 September 2016, the state of Karnataka observed a bandh and protested against the release of water to Tamil Nadu. Supreme Court was approached by Karnataka citing public unrest, seeking modification of the earlier order. On 12 September 2016, Supreme Court slammed Karnataka for citing law and order problem and modified the 5 September order, directing Karnataka to release 12,000 cusecs of water till 20 September 2016. This decision by the Supreme Court lead to an unrest among the people of Karnataka as the water release limit was increased by extending the number of days and violence broke out in Bangalore, Mysore, Mandya and other parts of state.[50] Two people were killed[51][52][53] in the unrest and section 144 was imposed in Bangalore. Curfew was also imposed on few parts of Bangalore.
On 19 September 2016, the Cauvery Supervisory Committee, set up by Supreme Court, ordered Karnataka to release 3,000 cusecs per day from 21 September 2016 to 30 September 2016. On 20 September 2016, Supreme Court directed Karnataka to further release 6,000 cusecs of water from 21 September 2016 to 27 September 2016 and directed the Central Government to set up the Cauvery Management Board in order to provide a permanent solution for the dispute.[54][55] However, in a special session of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly held on 23 September, a resolution was passed not to release water to Tamil Nadu, hence defying the Supreme Court's order.[56] On 27 September, the Supreme Court ordered Karnataka to give 6000 cusecs of water to Tamil Nadu for 3 days [57] which was again not carried out.[58]
On 30 September, the Supreme Court gave Karnataka a "last chance" and ordered 6,000 cusecs of water to be released during the first 6 days of October. The Court asked the Central Government to set up the Cauvery Water Management Board by 4 October so that the Board can visit the Cauvery sites to check the ground realities. The apex court called for a report on 6 October, which would be the next date of hearing.[59] On 1 October 2016, Karnataka filed for review petition over Supreme Court's latest order to release 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water from 1 to 6 October and also held a special session of the state legislature.[60][61][62] After another special legislature session on 3 October, the Karnataka government decided to release water for agricultural purposes, but it was not specified whether water would be released to farmers of Karnataka or Tamil Nadu.[63] The Supreme Court on Tuesday, 4 October directed Karnataka to release 2,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day to Tamil Nadu from 7 to 18 October. The apex court had ordered the state to release 6,000 cusecs of Cauvery water per day. The hearing of the case is adjourned to 18 October.[64]
2018[edit]
Main article: 2018 Cauvery water dispute
Supreme Court (SC) on 9 January 2018 declared that it would pronounce its verdict clearing all the pending cases and the confusion within a month.[65] On 16 February 2018, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has pronounced its verdict. Reduced 14.75 tmc water allocation to Tamilnadu and now Karnataka to release only 177 tmc of water to Tamilnadu for next 15 years. The verdict also mandated to formally constitute the Kavery river management board by the union government within 40 days for implementing strictly the tribunal award and its verdict.[9]
Criticism on SC verdict[edit]
Karnataka is also not happy with setting up Cauvery Management Board for monitoring water availability and use as part of the SC verdict.[66] Union government is also not comfortable with the SC verdict to form the Cauvery management board with in the stipulated period.[67]
The reallocation of water by the three member SC bench among the both states Tamilnadu and Karnataka, is considered as deviation from earlier rulings given by bigger benches of SC in terms of changing the water allocations to a state by reviewing water allocations of a tribunal.[68][69] Per Article 262, the role of SC in an interstate water dispute is limited only to the interpretation and implementation of the tribunal order and to examine whether tribunal exceeded its limit by violating the constitution and the Interstate River Water Disputes Act.
Cauvery Management Board - Govt Gazette[edit]
The Ministry of Water Resources and River Development on Friday directed that the Cauvery Water Management Authority be published in the government gazette. With this, the authority, which will play a major role in sharing of the river's waters amongst three states and a Union Territory is finally official. Headquartered in Delhi, the Cauvery Management Authority will be the sole body to implement the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal award as modified by the SC. The Centre, as per reports, would have no say except for issuing administrative advisories to it.
The Authority will be assisted in the discharge of its functions by a Regulatory Committee. A bench consisting of Chief Justice Dipak Misra, Justice A.M. Khanwilkar and Justice D.Y. Chandrachud has further directed the government to notify them before the monsoon season sets in June.
It took nearly three months after the Supreme Court order for the Centre to file the draft scheme in court. The NDA government had come under immense criticism for delaying the finalisation of the scheme because of the Karnataka election. The Government's counsel had even said in court that the cabinet was yet to approve of the scheme as Prime Minister Narendra Modi and other ministers were campaigning in Karnataka where election took place on May 12.
Final Verdict 2018[edit]
The Supreme Court on 16 February 2018 delivered its verdict in the decades-old Cauvery water dispute, allocating more water to the state of Karnataka. The top court ordered the Karnataka government to release 177.25 tmcft of Cauvery water to Tamil Nadu from its inter-state Biligundlu dam. The judgment clarified that Karnataka will now have an enhanced share of 14.75 tmcft water per year while Tamil Nadu will get 404.25 tmcft, which will be 14.75 tmcft less than what was allotted by the tribunal in 2007. Earlier, in accordance with the 2007 award of the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT), Karnataka had a share of 270 tmcft of Cauvery water. This will now increase to 284.75 tmcft.
The long-awaited judgment was pronounced by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justices Amitava Roy and A M Khanwilkar, which had on September 20, 2017 reserved the verdict on the appeals filed by Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Kerala against the 2007 award of the tribunal.[70]
Final allocation is as under[71]:- Karnataka : 284.75 (270 + 14.75) TMC Tamil Nadu : 404.25 (419 – 14.75) TMC Kerala : 30 TMC UT of Pondicherry : 7 TMC Environmental Protection : 10 TMC Inevitable escapagaes into sea : 4 TMC Total : 740 TMC
It was observed that the overall population of a river basin must be given prime consideration for determining equitable share of water. So, on that basis Bangalore with inhabitants of around 10 million inhabitants deserves to have more share of water than was awarded. Additional 4.75 tmcft water has been allocated for the purpose of implementation of water supply schemes of Karnataka and another 10 tmcft for agricultural activities.
Around 10 tmcft groundwater from the Cauvery delta is to be preserved for safe use by Tamil Nadu
Therefore, while increasing the share of Karnataka, it did not ignore the needs of Tamil Nadu as well. The Court was fair to both the states while giving its verdict. However, the Court has not looked deep into the issue like deciding on a deficit formula for sharing of water, issue with respect to construction of a hydel power project in the common boundaries of the river by Karnataka (Mekedatu hydel project), allocation of surplus water and problems of climate change.
Moreover, a major drawback of the judgement is that unlike in cases of the coal mine scam or the iron ore mining case, the Court did not seek the assistance of atleast two technical experts as required under the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956. This can cause serious practical challenges in the future water sharing and disputes may still arise before it. [72]
Highlights of the key observations of SC and its implications[73][edit]
The verdict of the Supreme Court on the Cauvery river waters sharing dispute can open a Pandora's box of challenges. The verdict can have spillover effects on the various inter and Intrastate river disputes. Vital observations from the Judgment:
Rivers are national assets. No state can claim ownership over the rivers.
Drinking water concerns must be given priority.
Possibility of considering the availability of groundwater in resolving of disputes.
Concept of warrantable flexibility in determining of the basin area of the states.
The order for devising a mechanism for implementation of the order.
Reiteration of the powers of the Supreme Court to intervene in the river water disputes contrary to the restrictions mentioned in Article 262 of the constitution.
The judgment reiterated the supremacy of the Supreme Court and its powers of judicial review. With increasing number of river water disputes between the states, the applications before the Supreme Court may Increase. The judgment will also impact various ongoing disputes like Mahadayi. The important implications would be :-
Strengthening of Implementation mechanisms for the implementation of the orders of the tribunals. Often the political reasons were delaying in constituting of the river management boards for the implementation of the orders.
Rivers as national asset will restrict the states in putting forward their claims on the basis of the rights..
The provision for drinking water requirements of Bengaluru which largely falls outside the Cauvery basin is a significant departure for the established norms adopted in the procedures of Inter-state Rivers.
The recognition of ground water availability and asking Tamil Nadu to bridge the reductions in the water allotment through ground water may give rise to new dimension in resolution of the water disputes.
Inter-State river disputes have become a threat to the nation’s unity and Integrity. The approach towards river basin must be more of responsibility based rather than rights based approach. The Supreme Court order is a welcome sign as it emphasizes for humanistic considerations not just factual and legal matters in resolving the disputes.
Draft Scheme by Center 2018[edit]
As on 14th May 2018, after the conclusion of Karnataka Legislative Assembly Polls of 2018, Center submitted a draft scheme for implementation of the final decision on apportioning the Cauvery waters among the riparian States.[74] The draft, which gives no name for the authority it proposes to create to monitor implementation of the Cauvery Tribunal’s final award, as modified by the Supreme Court, has been largely drawn from the Tribunal’s directions. It will be a two-tier structure, with an apex body charged with the power to ensure compliance with the final award, and a regulation committee that will monitor the field situation and water flow. The powers and functions of the authority are fairly comprehensive. Its powers would extend to apportionment, regulation and control of Cauvery waters, supervision of operations of reservoirs and regulation of water releases. The draft makes the authority’s decisions final and binding. However, there is an ambiguous clause: if the authority finds that any one of the States is not cooperative, it can seek the Centre’s help, and the Centre’s decision will be final and binding. This can be seen either as an enabling clause to resolve the situation when there is a stand-off, or as one that gives scope to the Centre to intervene on behalf of one State.
The draft Cauvery Water Management Scheme, as prepared by the Union government and submitted to the Supreme Court in May 2018, is essentially based on the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s final order of February 2007.[75][76] There are a few differences between the Cauvery Management Board envisaged by the Tribunal and the authority proposed in the scheme. The Tribunal favored the chairperson being an irrigation engineer with not less than 20 years of experience in water resources management, whereas the scheme says the chairperson could be a senior and eminent engineer with wide experience in water resources management or an officer in the rank of Secretary or Additional Secretary to the Union government. Similarly, the representatives from the four States would be administrators rather than engineers as proposed by the Tribunal.
Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) 2018[edit]
Acting on the Supreme Court's direction, the Centre constituted a Cauvery Water Management Authority (CMA) on 1st June 2018 to address the dispute over sharing of river water among Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Puducherry.
On February 16 2018, the apex court had directed the government to form the CMA within six weeks in a verdict that marginally increased Karnataka's share of Cauvery water, reduced the allocation for Tamil Nadu and sought to settle the protracted water dispute between the two southern states.
On June 22 2018, Despite opposition from Karnataka, the Central government constituted the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee as per the provisions in the Cauvery Management Scheme laid down by the Supreme Court.
Central Water Commission chairman, S. Masood Hussain will head the CWMA and chief engineer of the Central Water Commission, Navin Kumar will be the first chairman of the CWRC. While the CWMA is an umbrella body, the CWRC will monitor water management on a day-to-day basis, including the water level and inflow and outflow of reservoirs in all the basin states.
See also[edit]
Cauvery river
Interstate River Water Disputes Act
Helsinki Rules
Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal
Kaveri–Vaigai Link Canal
Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal
Water Resources in India
Right to water
Water right
Water law
Soil salinity control
Alkali soils
Palar River
References[edit]
Jump up ^ "Cauvery River basin map". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ Sood, Jyotika (31 October 2012). "The paddy compulsion". Down to Earth.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery River basin". WRIS. 2014. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b "Basin Report - Cauvery" (PDF). WRIS. 2014. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal report". Retrieved 15 May 2017.
Jump up ^ "A Background Paper on Article 262 and Inter-State Disputes Relating to Water". Ministry of Law and Justice. Retrieved 13 May 2013.
^ Jump up to: a b Anand, P. B. (2004). Water and Identity - An Analysis of the Cauvery River Water Dispute. University of Bradford. ISBN 9781898828686.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery tribunal gives TN 419 tmcft, 270 to Karnataka". Rediff.com. 5 February 2007.
^ Jump up to: a b "Supreme Court verdict dated 16 February 2018" (PDF). Retrieved 17 February 2018.
Jump up ^ "Bengaluru's global status earns Karnataka 4.75 tmcft Cauvery water". Rediff.com. 5 February 2007.
Jump up ^ "Namma Kannambadi Katte" by Prof. PV Nanjaraj Urs
Jump up ^ "Kodagu | district, India". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-10-27.
Jump up ^ "Kerala | state, India". Encyclopedia Britannica. Retrieved 2017-10-27.
^ Jump up to: a b "Cauvery water disputes tribunal award,". GoI. 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ Parsai, Gargi (20 February 2013). "Centre notifies Cauvery Tribunal final award". The Hindu.
Jump up ^ "Centre notifies Cauvery Tribunal award". The Economic Times. 20 February 2013.
Jump up ^ Vaidyanathan, A. (20 February 2013). "Centre notifies Cauvery Tribunal award; Karnataka braces for protests". NDTV.
Jump up ^ "Final Order of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal" (PDF). 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ https://www.firstpost.com/india/cauvery-water-dispute-verdict-live-updates-supreme-court-likely-to-pronounce-order-at-10-30-am-4353279.html
Jump up ^ "Mekedatu: Floodgates of dispute". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "What is the Mekedatu project?". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Who Should Karnataka Blame in the Cauvery Dispute? History Has Some Answers". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Pages 77, 79 & 100 of Volume III of CWDT" (PDF). 2007. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Water Quality Database of Indian rivers, MoEF". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Murray–Darling River Basin - Assessment of the salt export objective and salinity targets for flow management 2014-15" (PDF). Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Conductivity units converter". Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Soon, We May Not Have a Cauvery River to Fight Over". Retrieved 23 September 2016.
Jump up ^ J. Keller; A. Keller; G. Davids. "River basin development phases and implications of closure". Retrieved 25 August 2016.
Jump up ^ David Seckler. "The new era of water resources management - From 'dry' to 'wet' water savings" (PDF). Retrieved 25 July 2016.
Jump up ^ Andrew Keller; Jack Keller; David Seckler. "Integrated Water Resource Systems: Theory and Policy Implications" (PDF). Retrieved 5 July 2016.
Jump up ^ "Interim Cauvery water Supervisory committee" (PDF). Government of India. Retrieved 5 July 2016.
Jump up ^ "Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 - As modified up to 6th August 2002" (PDF). Government of India. Retrieved 15 September 2016.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery issue: Why Supreme Court must refuse to hear the case and how it will help". Retrieved 17 September 2016.
Jump up ^ https://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/05/world/tamils-are-target-of-riots-in-southern-india.html?src=pm
Jump up ^ Iyer, Ramaswamy R. (September 2002). "The Cauvery tangle - what's the way out?". Frontline. 19 (19). Archived from the original on 24 November 2002.
Jump up ^ "Delayed monsoon rekindles Cauvery row". Rediff.com. 25 June 2002.
Jump up ^ "Tamil Nadu wins the Cauvery water battle". The Economic Times. 5 February 2007.
Jump up ^ [1]
Jump up ^ "Tamil Nadu to immediately approach SC against Cauvery panel's ruling". The Times of India. 24 September 2012.
Jump up ^ Venkatesan, J. (28 September 2012). "Supreme Court comes down on Karnataka". The Hindu.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery row: Protests start flowing in Bangalore thick and fast". DNA. 1 October 2012.
Jump up ^ "Karnataka to SC: Alter Cauvery order". The New Indian Express. 5 October 2012.
Jump up ^ Bhattacharya, Santwana (22 September 2012). "Kannada organisations call for bandh on October 6". The Hindu.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery row: PM tosses out plea, Karnataka stops water release". The New Indian Express. 9 October 2012.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery row: Jaya turns the screws, to sue Karnataka for contempt". The New Indian Express. 10 October 2012.
Jump up ^ Venkatesan, J. (18 October 2012). "Fresh plea in SC seeks 48 tmcft Cauvery water". The Hindu.
Jump up ^ Mariappan, Julie (16 November 2012). "Panel asks Karnataka to release 4.81 TMC to Tamil Nadu". The Times of India.
Jump up ^ Venkatesan, J. (6 December 2012). "Release 10,000 cusecs till Sunday, Karnataka told". The Hindu.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery water only for drinking needs". The Indian Express.
Jump up ^ "Karnataka erupts over SC order on Cauvery". The Hindu.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery Water Dispute: Second death in Karnataka, over 300 held". The Indian Express.
Jump up ^ "One more death in Bengaluru over Cauvery row". The Indian Express.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery row: One dead in police firing, several vehicles torched in Bengaluru; Centre appeals for calm". The Indian Express.
Jump up ^ "STORM CLOUDS OVER CAUVERY". The Times of India.
Jump up ^ "SC asks K'taka to give 6,000 cusecs, wants Cauvery board set up in 4 weeks". The New Indian Express.
Jump up ^ "No water to spare, resolves Karnataka". The Hindu. 23 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Supreme Court to Karnataka: Release Cauvery water for 3 more days". India Today. 27 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Karnataka Defies Supreme Court, Does Not Release Cauvery Water". NDTV. 28 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Supreme Court gives last chance to Karnataka to release Cauvery water". The Hindu. 30 September 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery setback: Karnataka files review petition over SC order". NewsKarnataka. 1 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Karnataka Says Not Defying Cauvery Orders, Misses Supreme Court Deadline". NDTV. 1 October 2016. Retrieved 2 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery dispute: Karnataka files review petition against apex court orders". NewsKarnataka. 2 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery row: Karnataka contemplates releasing water". The Times of India. 3 October 2016. Retrieved 3 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Release 2,000 cusecs daily to TN from Oct 7-18, SC tells Karnataka". NEWSKARNATAKA. 4 October 2016. Retrieved 4 October 2016.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery verdict within a month: Supreme Court". 9 January 2018. Retrieved 9 February 2018.
Jump up ^ "CM says no to Cauvery Management Board". Retrieved 22 February 2018.
Jump up ^ "Gadkari sees no time frame for setting up Cauvery management board". Retrieved 27 February 2018.
Jump up ^ "Is the Supreme Court verdict on Cauvery fair?". Retrieved 27 February 2018.
Jump up ^ "A river runs through it". Retrieved 27 February 2018.
Jump up ^ "Full text of Supreme Court verdict on Cauvery water dispute". Indian Express.
Jump up ^ "Judgement Copy- SC verdict on Cauvery water dispute". Scribd.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery Dispute: Background, Timeline, Recent Verdict, Issues". GK Today.
Jump up ^ "Highlight the key observations of Supreme Court in recent judgment over River Cauvery water-sharing dispute and their potential implications over federalism". GK Today.
Jump up ^ "Cauvery water issue: At last, a scheme". The Hindu.
Jump up ^ "Draft Cauvery scheme based on 2007 tribunal order". The Hindu. Retrieved 21 May 2018.
Jump up ^ "The Cauvery water disputes tribunal report, Volume V". 2007. Retrieved 20 May 2018.
//economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/64420363.cms?utm_source=contentofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kaveri_River_water_dispute&oldid=855983331"
Categories:
Politics of Karnataka
History of Tamil Nadu (1947–present)
Rivers of Tamil Nadu
Rivers of Karnataka
History of Karnataka (1947–present)
Economy of Karnataka
Inter-state disputes in India
Arbitration cases
Water disputes in India
Water case law
Water resource conflicts
Indian case law
Hidden categories:
Use dmy dates from March 2013
Articles needing additional references from September 2016
All articles needing additional references
All articles with unsourced statements
Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009
Wikipedia articles needing clarification from January 2013
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
हिन्दी
ಕನ್ನಡ
മലയാളം
मराठी
ਪੰਜਾਬੀ
پنجابی
தமிழ்
Edit links
This page was last edited on 22 August 2018, at 04:21 (UTC).
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view
Enable previews

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: mw-jump-link #mw-head

values: mw-jump-link #p-search

value: p

value: b

value: sup

attrs: alt src width height class srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: checkbox button toctogglecheckbox toctogglecheckbox display:none

attrs: alt src width height srcset data-file-width data-file-height

values: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Unreferenced

values: Edit section: Post-Independence developments

values:
/wiki/Malabar_(Northern_Kerala)
mw-redirect
Malabar (Northern Kerala)

values: Edit section: Indian Government notifies Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal

values:
/wiki/Grand_Anaicut
mw-redirect
Grand Anaicut

values:
/wiki/Environmental_flows
mw-redirect
Environmental flows

values:
/wiki/Kabini_river
mw-redirect
Kabini river

values:
/wiki/Bhavani_river
mw-redirect
Bhavani river

values:
/wiki/Pambar_river
mw-redirect
Pambar river

values: Edit section: Interim Supervisory Committee

values:
/wiki/Jagjeevan_Ram
mw-redirect
Jagjeevan Ram

values: Edit section: The constitution of the tribunal

values: Edit section: Interim award and the riots

values:
/wiki/Tamil_people
mw-redirect
Tamil people

values: Edit section: CRA meeting and the Supreme Court order

values:
/wiki/U_R_Ananthamurthy
mw-redirect
U R Ananthamurthy

values: This claim needs references to reliable sources. (March 2009)

values:
noprint Inline-Template Template-Fact
white-space:nowrap;

values: The text near this tag may need clarification or removal of jargon. (January 2013)

values:
noprint Inline-Template
margin-left:0.1em; white-space:nowrap;

values:
/wiki/Section_144
mw-redirect
Section 144

values:
/wiki/2018_Cauvery_water_dispute
mw-redirect
2018 Cauvery water dispute

values: wikisource:Constitution of India/Part XI

values: Edit section: Cauvery Management Board - Govt Gazette

values: Edit section: Highlights of the key observations of SC and its implications[73]

values: Edit section: Draft Scheme by Center 2018

values: Edit section: Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) 2018

values:
/wiki/Cauvery_river
mw-redirect
Cauvery river

values: The Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of International Rivers

values: width: 25%;text-align: left; vertical-align: top;

values:
/wiki/Water_Resources_in_India
mw-redirect
Water Resources in India

values:
/wiki/Right_to_water
mw-redirect
Right to water

values:
/wiki/Alkali_soils
mw-redirect
Alkali soils

values: border-collapse: collapse; padding: 0; border: 0; background:transparent; width:100%;

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.britannica.com/place/Kodagu

values:
nofollow
external text
https://www.britannica.com/place/Kerala

values: -moz-column-width: 25em; -webkit-column-width: 25em; column-width: 25em; list-style-type: decimal;

values: Category:History of Tamil Nadu (1947–present)

values: Category:History of Karnataka (1947–present)

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from September 2016

values: Category:All articles needing additional references

values: Category:All articles with unsourced statements

values: Category:Articles with unsourced statements from March 2009

values: Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification from January 2013

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Kaveri_River_water_dispute
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: p-views navigation vectorTabs p-views-label

values:
p-cactions
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-cactions-label

values:
mw-wiki-logo
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page

values:
/wiki/Main_Page
Visit the main page [ctrl-alt-z]
z

values: Featured content – the best of Wikipedia

values: Find background information on current events

values:
/wiki/Special:Random
Load a random article [ctrl-alt-x]
x

values: portal navigation p-navigation p-navigation-label

values: Guidance on how to use and edit Wikipedia

values: About the project, what you can do, where to find things

values: A list of recent changes in the wiki [ctrl-alt-r]

values: portal navigation p-interaction p-interaction-label

values: List of all English Wikipedia pages containing links to this page [ctrl-alt-j]

values: कावेरी जल विवाद – Hindi

values: ಕಾವೇರಿ ನದಿ ನೀರಿನ ವಿವಾದ – Kannada

values: കാവേരീ നദീജല തർക്കം – Malayalam

values: कावेरी पाणी वाटप – Marathi

values: ਕਾਵੇਰੀ ਦਰਿਆ ਦੇ ਪਾਣੀਆਂ ਦਾ ਵਿਵਾਦ – Punjabi

values: کاویری دریا دے پانیاں دا تنازعہ – Western Punjabi

values: காவிரி ஆற்று நீர்ப் பிணக்கு – Tamil

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Kaveri_River_water_dispute rootpage-Kaveri_River_water_dispute skin-vector action-view


text:
Westward Expansion Trails
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2013) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)
In the American Old West, overland trails were popular means of travel used by pioneers and immigrants throughout the 19th century and especially between 1830 and 1870 as an alternative to sea and railroad transport. These immigrants began to settle various regions of North America west of the Great Plains as part of the mass overland migrations of the mid-19th century. Settlers emigrating from the eastern United States were spurred by various motives, among them religious persecution, economic incentives, and the prospect of new wealth and new freedoms in what was then a largely unspoiled and unregulated country. By the 1840s, several popular and well-established routes had been blazed through the continental interior to destinations in the far west, including the Oregon Trail, California Trail, and Mormon Trail. After the end of the Mexican–American War in 1849, vast new American conquests again enticed mass immigration. Legislation like the Donation Land Claim Act and significant events like the California Gold Rush further lured colonists to travel overland to the west.
Two major wagon-based transportation networks, one typically starting in Missouri and the other in the Mexican province of Santa Fe de Nuevo México, served the majority of migrants during the era of westward expansion. Three of the Missouri-based routes—the Oregon, Mormon, and California Trails—were collectively known as the Emigrant Trails. Historians have estimated at least 500,000 emigrants used these three trails between 1843 and 1869, and despite growing competition from transcontinental railroads, some use even continued into the early 20th century. The major southern routes were the Santa Fe Trail, the Southern Emigrant Trail, and the Old Spanish Trail, as well as its wagon road successor the Mormon Road, a southern spur of the California Trail used in the winter that also made use of the western half of the Old Spanish Trail. Regardless of the trail used, the journey was often slow and arduous, fraught with risks from infectious diseases, dehydration, malnutrition, injury, and harsh weather, with as many as one in ten travelers dying along the way, usually as a result of disease.
The history of these trails and the pioneers who traveled them have since become deeply embedded in the culture and folklore of the United States as some of the most significant influences to shape the content and character of the nation. The remains of many trail ruts can still be observed in various locations throughout the American West. Travelers may loosely follow various routes of the emigrant trails on modern highways through the use of byway signs across the western states.
Contents
[hide]
1 Trail choices
2 Santa Fe Trail
3 Old Spanish Trail
4 Oregon Trail
5 California Trail
6 Mormon Trail
7 Southern Emigrant Trail
8 See also
9 References
Trail choices[edit]
Travelers across what became the Western United States in the 19th century had the choice of several routes. Some of the earliest were those of the Mexicans in the southwest. American trade with Northern Mexico created the Santa Fe Trail between St. Louis and Santa Fe following an 18th-century route pioneered by the Spanish Empire. From Santa Fe, American traders followed the old El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro southward to Chihuahua by way of El Paso del Norte. The Old Spanish Trail from Santa Fe, in Mexican New Mexico Territory to Los Angeles, in Mexican Alta California, developed in 1829-1830 to support the trade of New Mexican wool products for California horses and mules and carried parties of fur traders and emigrants from New Mexico to Southern California.
Following the trails pioneered by fur traders, the Oregon Trail from Independence, Missouri to the Oregon Territory developed crossing the central Great Plains, Rocky Mountains and northern Great Basin. Branching off from that route, some settlers traveled southwestward on the California Trail from Fort Hall, Oregon Territory to Sutters Fort, in Mexican Alta California. Also branching off to the south was the Mormon Trail from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake City, Utah Territory. During the twenty-five years 1841–1866, 250,000 to 650,000 people "pulled up stakes," and headed west along these trails. About one-third immigrated to Oregon, one-third to California and one-third to Utah, Colorado, and Montana.
Although it is often stated that the Northern trails began in certain cities on the Missouri River, emigrants following any of the three trails typically left from one of three "jumping off" points on the Missouri's steamboat serviced river ports: Independence, Missouri or Saint Joseph, Missouri, or Council Bluffs, Iowa. (Once known as Kanesville, Iowa until 1852; after river dredging in the early 1850s, the latter town at the Missouri-Platte confluence became the most common departure point since it was close in proximity to the River Platte—along which the eastern trails ascend to South Pass above Fort Laramie. ) The trails from these cities (and several others) converged in the mostly empty flatlands of central Nebraska near present-day Kearney, in the vicinity of Fort Kearney. From their confluence there the combined trails followed in succession the Platte, North Platte, and Sweetwater rivers westward across the full widths of Nebraska and Wyoming, and crossed the continental divide south of the Wind River Range through South Pass in southwestern Wyoming.
The most common vehicle for Oregon and California-bound settlers was a covered wagon pulled by a team of oxen or mules (which were greatly preferred for their endurance and strength over horses) in the dry semi-arid terrain common to the high plains in the heat of summer. In later years, following the advice of Brigham Young, many Mormon emigrants made the crossing to Utah with handcarts. For all emigrants, the scarcity of potable water and fuel for fires was a common brutal challenge on the trip, which was exacerbated by the wide ranging temperature changes common to the mountain highlands and high plains where a daylight reading in the eighties or nineties can drop precipitously to a frigid seeming nighttime temperature in the low 40s. In many treeless areas, buffalo chips were the most common source of fuel.
Routes of the California, Mormon and Oregon Trails west of the Rocky Mountains
During the Mexican–American War, the wagon to California road known as Cooke's Wagon Road, or Sonora Road, was built across Nuevo Mexico, Sonora and Alta California from Santa Fe, New Mexico to San Diego. It crossed what was then the northernmost part of Mexico until the 1853 Gadsden Purchase. During the California Gold Rush the routes to California used were increased by the Siskiyou Trail from Oregon. In the south the forty-niners used the Cooke Wagon Road, until some found a short cut, the Tucson Cutoff. This route, not closed to travel in winter, permitted travelers coming to New Mexico Territory on the Santa Fe Trail or on the San Antonio-El Paso Road developed in 1849, across West Texas to El Paso where it followed the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro north to link up to the Cooke's Wagon Road/Southern Emigrant Trail at the cutoff through the San Diego Crossing. In 1856, as part of an improvement of the route as a military road, a cutoff was built to Cooke's Spring from Mesilla, (part of Mexico until 1853). From Cooke's Spring the road ran to the Yuma Crossing into California and on to Los Angeles. This route became the Southern Emigrant Trail. From Los Angeles the goldfields could be reached by land over the two routes north, the old El Camino Viejo or by what became the Stockton – Los Angeles Road. During the Gold Rush era it was these routes by which many herds of sheep and cattle were driven to California and the goldfields.
With the passes of the Sierras and the Rocky Mountains blocked in winter, another winter route, the Mormon Road between Salt Lake City and Los Angeles was developed by a Mormon expedition from their new settlements at and around Salt Lake City, and by some Mormon Battalion soldiers returning to Utah in 1847–48. The first significant use of the route was by parties of Forty-Niners late in 1849, and by some Mormon trains, to avoid crossing the snow bound Sierra Nevada Mountains by linking up with the Old Spanish Trail in southern Utah and closely following it, with alterations to the route of the mule trails only to allow wagons to traverse it for the first time. Soon afterward it was the route Mormon colonists followed to settle southwestern Utah, a mission in Las Vegas and a colony in San Bernardino, California. This wagon route, also called by some of its early travelers the Southern Route, of the California Trail, remained a minor migration route and in the early 1850s a mail route. After some alterations of the route between Cajon Pass and the border of California and in southern Utah, in 1855, it became a significant seasonal trade route between California and Utah, until 1869, when the transcontinental railroad ended Utah's winter isolation.
Up to 50,000 people, or one-tenth of the emigrants who attempted the crossing continent, died during the trip, most from infectious disease such as cholera, spread by poor sanitation: with thousands traveling along or near the same watercourses each summer, downstream travelers were susceptible to ingesting upstream wastewater including bodily waste. Hostile confrontations with Native Americans, although often feared by the emigrants, were comparatively rare, prior to the American Civil War. Most emigrants traveled in large parties or "trains" of up to several hundred wagons led by a wagon master. In 1859 the government published a guidebook written by Captain Randolph B. Marcy, called The Prairie Traveler, in order to help emigrants prepare for the journey.[1]
Santa Fe Trail[edit]
Main article: Santa Fe Trail
The Santa Fe Trail was a 19th-century transportation route through central North America that connected Independence, Missouri with Santa Fe, New Mexico. Pioneered in 1821 by William Becknell, it served as a vital commercial highway until the introduction of the railroad to Santa Fe in 1880. Santa Fe was near the end of the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro which carried trade from Mexico City.
The route skirted the northern edge and crossed the north-western corner of Comancheria, the territory of the Comanches, who demanded compensation for granting passage to the trail, and represented another market for American traders. Comanche raiding farther south in Mexico isolated New Mexico, making it more dependent on the American trade, and provided the Comanches with a steady supply of horses for sale. By the 1840s trail traffic along the Arkansas Valley was so heavy that bison herds could not reach important seasonal grazing land, contributing to their collapse which in turn hastened the decline of Comanche power in the region. The Trail was used as the 1846 U.S. invasion route of New Mexico during the Mexican–American War.
After the U.S. acquisition of the Southwest ending the Mexican–American War, the trail helped open the region to U.S. economic development and settlement, playing a vital role in the expansion of the U.S. into the lands it had acquired. The road route is commemorated today by the National Park Service as the Santa Fe National Historic Trail. A highway route that roughly follows the trail's path through the entire length of Kansas, the southeast corner of Colorado and northern New Mexico has been designated as the Santa Fe Trail National Scenic Byway.
Old Spanish Trail[edit]
Main article: Old Spanish Trail
The Old Spanish Trail witnessed a brief but furious heyday between 1830 and 1848 as a trade route linking Santa Fe, New Mexico and Los Angeles, California. During that period, Mexican and American traders took woolen goods west over the trail by mule train, and returned eastward with California mules and horses for the New Mexico and Missouri markets. Between 1598 and 1830, Spanish (1598–1821) and later Mexican (1821–1830), and American (1821–1830) traders connected the native trade routes that started to Old Spanish Trail and completed it.
The Trail left Santa Fe and split into two routes. The South or Main Branch headed northwest past Colorado's San Juan mountains to near Green River, Utah. The North Branch proceeded due north into Colorado's San Luis Valley and crossed west over Cochetepa Pass to follow the Gunnison and Colorado rivers to meet the Southern Branch near Green River. From central Utah the trail trended southwest to an area now shared by Utah, Nevada and Arizona. It crossed southern Nevada and passed through the Mojave Desert to San Gabriel Mission and Los Angeles
Oregon Trail[edit]
Main article: Oregon Trail
The Oregon Trail, was the longest of the overland routes used in the westward expansion of the United States, was first traced by explorers and fur traders for traveling to the Oregon Country. The main route of the Oregon Trail stopped at the Hudson's Bay Company Fort Hall, a major resupply route along the trail near present-day Pocatello and where the California Trail split off to the south. Then the Oregon Trail crossed the Snake River Plain of present-day southern Idaho and the Blue Mountains of northeastern Oregon before reaching the Willamette Valley. It was the only practical way for settlers in wagons without tools, livestock, or supplies to cross the mountains and usually thought critical to the colonization of the American West. Some of the first to travel the Oregon Trail were Christian missionaries, members of the Methodist Episcopal Church who established the Methodist Mission in 1834. Even though they didn't make many converts, they were impressed by the short amount of time needed to reach the Pacific Coast. Rumors about how the sun always shone there and wheat grew as tall as a man attracted American settlers.
American settlers began following the trail in 1841, with the first recorded colonist wagon traingroup being the 1843 "Great Migration" of about 900 colonists, led by Marcus Whitman. The Provisional Government of Oregon was established by such colonists in 1843, generally limited to the Willamette Valley. The Oregon Treaty of 1846 divided the Oregon Country between Great Britain and the United States, mostly along the 49th parallel. The Territory of Oregon was established shortly afterwards, in 1848, and over 12,000 American settlers made the journey there during the decade.
Families usually began their journey at Independence, Missouri, near the Missouri River with the best time to travel being from April to September. The journey to cross the entire Oregon Trail in a covered wagon took from four to six months, following a winding trail 2,000 miles (3,200 km) through prairies, deserts, and across mountains to the Pacific Northwest. The journey was a severe test of strength and endurance so travelers often joined wagon trains traveling about 12–15 miles (19–24 km) per day. Settlers often had to cross flooded rivers. Indians attacked the wagon trains; however, of the 10,000 deaths that occurred from 1835 to 1855, only 4 percent resulted from Indian attacks. Cholera, smallpox, and firearms accidents were the chief causes of death on the trail. Food, water, and wood were always scarce, and the travelers often encountered contaminated water holes. During summer, the trail was crowded with wagon trains, army units, missionaries, hunting parties, traders, and even sightseeing tours. Some travelers complained that they sometimes had to stop early in the day in order to find a good campsite ahead of the crowd. Others spoke of the need to wear masks for protection against the dust kicked up by the heavy traffic.
California Trail[edit]
Main article: California Trail
The main route of the California Trail branched from the Oregon Trail west of Fort Hall, as immigrants went on forward going southwestward into present-day Nevada, then down along the Humboldt River to the Sierra Nevada. The California Trail came into heavy use after the California Gold Rush enticed over 250,000 gold-seekers and farmers to travel overland the gold fields and rich farmlands of California during the 1840s and 1850s. Today, more than 1,000 miles of trail ruts and traces can still be seen in the vast undeveloped lands between Casper Wyoming and the West Coast, reminders of the sacrifices, struggles, and triumphs of early American travelers and settlers. More than 240 historic sites along the trail will eventually be available for public use and interpretation.
Early emigrants once called the California Trail an elephant, due to the difficult journey. If you wanted to get to California in pre-railroad times, you were guaranteed an arduous trek. California emigrants faced the greatest challenges of all the pioneer emigrants of the mid-19th century. In addition to the Rockies, these emigrants faced the barren deserts of Nevada and the imposing Sierra Nevada Range. The travelers of the California Trail often quipped that if you had "seen the elephant," then you had hit some hard traveling.
Mormon Trail[edit]
Main article: Mormon Trail
The Mormon Trail was created by pioneer members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, called "Mormons," who settled in what is now the Great Salt Lake in Utah. The Mormon Trail followed part of the Oregon Trail and then branched off at the fur trading post called Fort Bridger, founded by famed mountain man Jim Bridger. Heading south and following river valleys southwestward to the valley of the Great Salt Lake, Brigham Young led the first Mormons into present-day Utah during 1847. The Mormon Trail is 1,300 miles long and extends from Nauvoo, Illinois to Salt Lake City, Utah. The Mormon Trail was used for more than 20 years after the Mormons used it and has been reserved for sightseeing. The initial movement of the Mormons from Nauvoo, Illinois to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake occurred in two segments: one in 1846 and one in 1847. The first segment, across Iowa to the Missouri River, covered around 265 miles. The second segment, from the Missouri River to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake, covered about 1,032 miles.
From 1846 to 1869, more than 4,600 Mormons traveled along an integral part of the road west, the Mormon Pioneer Trail. The trail started in Nauvoo, Illinois, traveled across Iowa, connected with the Great Platte River Road at the Missouri River, and ended near the Great Salt Lake in Utah. Generally following pre-existing routes, the trail carried tens of thousands of Mormon emigrants to a new home and refuge in the Great Basin. From their labors arose the State of Deseret, later to become the Utah Territory, and finally the State of Utah.
The Mormon pioneers shared similar experiences with others traveling west: the drudgery of walking hundreds of miles, suffocating dust, violent thunderstorms, mud, temperature extremes, bad water, poor forage, sickness, and death. They recorded their experiences in journals, diaries, and letters. The Mormons, however, were a unique part of this migration. Their move to the Valley of the Great Salt Lake was a response to their violent expulsion from Missouri and Illinois.[2] As it was also motivated by a desire to maintain a religious and cultural identity it was necessary to find an isolated area where they could permanently settle and practice their religion in peace.
Southern Emigrant Trail[edit]
Main article: Southern Emigrant Trail
The Southern Emigrant Trail was a major land route for immigration into California from the eastern United States that followed the Santa Fe Trail to New Mexico during the California Gold Rush. Unlike the more northern routes, pioneer wagons could travel year round, mountain passes not being blocked by snows, however it had the disadvantage of summer heat and lack of water in the desert regions through which it passed in New Mexico Territory and the Colorado Desert of California. Subsequently, it was a route of travel and commerce between the eastern United States and California. Many herds of cattle and sheep were driven along this route and it was followed by the San Antonio-San Diego Mail Line in 1857–1858 and then the Butterfield Overland Mail from 1858–1861.
In 1846, General Stephen Watts Kearny and his dragoons with their scout Kit Carson found the route. One year later, Colonel Philip St. George Cooke and the Mormon Battalion followed Kearny’s route establishing the first wagon road. This wagon road became known as Cooke's Wagon Road, or Sonora Road, until the discovery of gold brought a flood of Americans westward in 1849. The discovery of the Tucson Cutoff later that year shortened the route bringing it fully within the territory of the United States. From this date on, the route was called the Southern Emigrant Trail.
Tied in with the Santa Fe Trail and the San Antonio-El Paso Road, by the El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro the Southern Emigrant Trail route in 1849 ran from westward from the El Camino Real to San Diego Crossing and after 1855 Mesilla, New Mexico, westward to Tucson, Arizona, then followed the Gila River to the ferries on the Colorado River near what became Fort Yuma, crossed the Colorado Desert to Vallecito, then up to Warner's Ranch. From Warner's the road then ran either northwest to Los Angeles or west southwest to San Diego.[3][4][5] From either of these towns the traveler could continue north by land to the gold fields on the coast via the El Camino Real or over the Tejon Pass into the San Joaquin Valley by what would become the Stockton – Los Angeles Road or El Camino Viejo. Alternatively they could take ships to San Francisco from San Diego or San Pedro.
See also[edit]
Emigrant Trail in Wyoming
Great Platte River Road
Donner Party
Westward the Women
Applegate-Lassen Trail
References[edit]
Jump up ^ Marcy, Randolph (1859). "The Prairie Traveler: A Hand-book for Overland Expeditions, with Maps, Illustrations, and Itineraries of the Principal Routes Between the Mississippi and the Pacific.". United States Department of War.
Jump up ^ History of Nauvoo, Illinois#The .22Mormon War in Illinois.22 and the Mormon Exodus
Jump up ^ Randolph B. Marcy, Captain U. S. Army, The Prairie Traveler. A Hand-Book For Overland Expeditions. With maps, illustrations, and itineraries of the Principal Routes between the Mississippi and the Pacific, Published by Authority of the War Department, New York, Harper & Brothers, Publishers, Franklin Square, 1859. List of Itineraries, XIV.—Wagon-road from San Antonia, Texas, to El Paso, N. M., and Fort Yuma, Cal.
Jump up ^ Marcy, The Prairie Traveler…, List of Itineraries, XV.—From Fort Yuma to San Diego, California.
Jump up ^ Marcy, The Prairie Traveler…, List of Itineraries, XXI.—From Fort Yuma to Benicia, California
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Westward_Expansion_Trails&oldid=794242071"
Categories:
History of the Rocky Mountains
California Trail
Mormon Trail
National Historic Trails of the United States
National Forest Scenic Byways
Oregon Trail
Trails and roads in the American Old West
Hidden categories:
Articles needing additional references from March 2013
All articles needing additional references
Navigation menu
Personal tools
Not logged in
Talk
Contributions
Create account
Log in
Namespaces
Article
Talk
Variants
Views
Read
Edit
View history
More
Search
Navigation
Main page
Contents
Featured content
Current events
Random article
Donate to Wikipedia
Wikipedia store
Interaction
Help
About Wikipedia
Community portal
Recent changes
Contact page
Tools
What links here
Related changes
Upload file
Special pages
Permanent link
Page information
Wikidata item
Cite this page
Print/export
Create a book
Download as PDF
Printable version
Languages
Add links
This page was last edited on 6 August 2017, at 20:11.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.
Privacy policy
About Wikipedia
Disclaimers
Contact Wikipedia
Developers
Cookie statement
Mobile view

key: html

type: local

value: div

attrs: id class

values: mw-page-base noprint

values: mw-head-base noprint

attrs: id class style

value: a

attrs: id class lang

values: firstHeading firstHeading en

values: siteSub noprint

values: jump-to-nav mw-jump

value: img

attrs: href class

value: td

attrs: href title

attrs: class href

values: Help:Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/1

value: span

value: i

value: small

values: plainlinks metadata ambox ambox-content ambox-Refimprove

values:
/wiki/American_Old_West
mw-redirect
American Old West

values:
/wiki/Infectious_disease
mw-redirect
Infectious disease

values:
/wiki/El_Camino_Real_de_Tierra_Adentro
mw-redirect
El Camino Real de Tierra Adentro

values:
/wiki/Chihuahua,_Chihuahua
mw-redirect
Chihuahua, Chihuahua

values:
/wiki/Juarez,_Mexico
mw-redirect
Juarez, Mexico

values:
/wiki/Los_Angeles,_California
mw-redirect
Los Angeles, California

values:
/wiki/Sutters_Fort
mw-redirect
Sutters Fort

values:
/wiki/Salt_Lake_City,_Utah
mw-redirect
Salt Lake City, Utah

values:
/wiki/Saint_Joseph,_Missouri
mw-redirect
Saint Joseph, Missouri

values:
/wiki/Fort_Kearney
mw-redirect
Fort Kearney

values:
/wiki/Buffalo_chip
mw-redirect
Buffalo chip

values:
/wiki/Sonora,_Mexico
mw-redirect
Sonora, Mexico

values: Old Las Vegas Mormon Fort State Historic Park

values:
/wiki/San_Gabriel_Mission
mw-redirect
San Gabriel Mission

values:
/wiki/Blue_Mountains_(Oregon)
mw-redirect
Blue Mountains (Oregon)

values:
/wiki/Methodist_Mission
mw-redirect
Methodist Mission

values:
/wiki/Pacific_Coast
mw-redirect
Pacific Coast

values: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

values:
/wiki/Territory_of_Oregon
mw-redirect
Territory of Oregon

values: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

values:
/wiki/Stephen_Watts_Kearny
mw-redirect
Stephen Watts Kearny

values:
/wiki/Applegate-Lassen_Trail
mw-redirect
Applegate-Lassen Trail

values:
nofollow
http://www.kancoll.org/books/marcy/
external text

values:
reflist mw-references-wrap
list-style-type: decimal;

values: Category:National Historic Trails of the United States

values: Category:Trails and roads in the American Old West

values: Category:Articles needing additional references from March 2013

values: Category:All articles needing additional references

values: Discussion about edits from this IP address [ctrl-alt-n]

values: A list of edits made from this IP address [ctrl-alt-y]

values: You are encouraged to create an account and log in; however, it is not mandatory

values: You're encouraged to log in; however, it's not mandatory. [ctrl-alt-o]

values:
/wiki/Westward_Expansion_Trails
View the content page [ctrl-alt-c]
c

values: Discussion about the content page [ctrl-alt-t]

values: p-namespaces navigation vectorTabs p-namespaces-label

values:
p-variants
navigation
vectorMenu emptyPortlet
p-variants-label

values: Past revisions of this page [ctrl-alt-h]

values: Recent changes in pages linked from this page [ctrl-alt-k]

values:
/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard
Upload files [ctrl-alt-u]
u

values: A list of all special pages [ctrl-alt-q]

values: Permanent link to this revision of the page

values: Link to connected data repository item [ctrl-alt-g]

values: Printable version of this page [ctrl-alt-p]

values:
uls-settings-trigger
Language settings
0
button
true

values: /static/images/wikimedia-button-1.5x.png 1.5x, /static/images/wikimedia-button-2x.png 2x

values: /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_132x47.png 1.5x, /static/images/poweredby_mediawiki_176x62.png 2x

values:
suggestions
display: none; font-size: 13px;

values: mediawiki ltr sitedir-ltr mw-hide-empty-elt ns-0 ns-subject page-Westward_Expansion_Trails rootpage-Westward_Expansion_Trails skin-vector action-view