The recent bandh in Bengaluru, called by farmers and pro-Kannada organisations, and supported by political parties like the BJP and JD(S), to protest the release of Cauvery river water to Tamil Nadu has once again brought the Cauvery water dispute into the limelight. While the Tuesday bandh evoked a partial response, the Karnataka-based Kannada Okkuta, led by Kannada activist Vatal Nagaraj, has called for a statewide shutdown on September 29, further highlighting the intensity of the issue. The Cauvery water dispute is a complex and long-standing conflict among the Indian states of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry, dating back almost 200 years to the 19th century when agreements were made between British colonial authorities and princely states on this front. Despite gaining independence in 1947, the dispute has persisted and even taken on newer dimensions. The early 1990s saw the issue gain an emotional dimension, leading to tragic consequences with the loss of around two dozen lives in 1991. While the intensity of tensions has declined over the years due to certain modifications in the agricultural landscape of the state, the Cauvery water-sharing issue still remains highly emotive. What makes the ongoing conflict particularly disheartening is that it has come despite a clear-cut water-sharing arrangement established through a Supreme Court order in 2018. The order stipulated that out of the 740 TMC (Thousand Million Cubic Feet) of Cauvery water to be shared annually, 404.25 TMC should be allocated to Tamil Nadu, 284.75 TMC to Karnataka, 30 TMC to Kerala, 7 TMC to Puducherry, and 14 TMC for environmental protection and wastage into the sea. Additionally, the Supreme Court directed the establishment of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and the Cauvery Water Regulatory Committee (CWRC) to adjudicate disputes between the states within the framework of the final court orders. It is distressing to observe that the Supreme Court's intervention in 2018 has not proven to be a reliable and enduring solution to the water-sharing dispute. The primary reason for this is that the court's order was based on the assumption of a normal monsoon and did not adequately account for the complexities of a rainfall-deficit year, such as the present one, which has witnessed over 30 per cent below-normal rainfall. Significantly, the rainfall in August and September has been the lowest in the last 123 years for Karnataka. The state is grappling to meet even the reduced targets set by the CWMA, citing the shortage of drinking and irrigation water. When Tamil Nadu approached the CWMA in August, the committee noted that Karnataka had only released 30.252 TMC of water from June 1 to August 28, compared to the stipulated 80.451 TMC in a normal year. Karnataka contends that Tamil Nadu is yet to receive its share of rainfall during the monsoon retreat, whereas Karnataka has already received its allocated rainfall during the southwest monsoon. While the Karnataka government reportedly requires 112 TMC of water till June 2024, it has a meagre 51.1 TMC of water in the four reservoirs of the Cauvery basin. Given the severity of the situation, there is an urgent need for constructive dialogue between the two states to find a resolution to the ongoing contestations. In the long run, it is imperative to develop a well-defined water-sharing formula that can be applied during deficit-rainfall years. Such a formula should account for the variations in monsoon patterns and ensure equitable distribution of water resources among the riparian states. The Cauvery water dispute is a reminder of the complex challenges associated with river water sharing in India. While legal interventions have been made, a collaborative and adaptable approach that considers changing climatic conditions is essential to prevent recurring conflicts and ensure the sustainable utilisation of this precious resource. The time has come for stakeholders to come together, engage in meaningful dialogue, and seek long-term solutions that benefit all parties involved. Constructive dialogue among states, coupled with experts-led research and formulations, can lead to a sustainable solution to this pestering problem.