PANJIM: The hearing on the water sharing of River Mhadei before the Mhadei Water Dispute Tribunal has strengthened Goa’s case with State witness, environmentalist Rajendra Kerkar, giving accurate replies to the cross examination on environment, forest and wildlife for the State. Kerkar was cross examined by Karnataka and was posed a pointed question on the difference between ‘environment’ and ‘ecology’ wherein he answered that ‘environment’ is larger and ‘ecology’ is a part of it. The witness was also asked questions such as since when is land a concern for environmentalists to which he answered saying, “Land has been a matter of concern for human beings since the Neolithic age when human beings began doing agriculture.” Thereafter the witness was asked as to whether land would turn saline if a huge quantum of water was given and turn barren on scarcity of water. Kerkar, who has several environment-related researches to his credit, denied the suggestions and clarified that if forests are destroyed on account of diversion of water then the land would turn saline. Thereafter, the Maharashtra counsel cross examined Kerkar, putting forth the suggestion the diversion by Maharashtra would not cause an effect on the environment. Kerkar denied the suggestion. The next witness for Goa, Water Resources Department Chief Engineer S T Nadkarni deposed on the availability of water for Goa’s use and demands but even before the examination-in-chief commenced, the Karnataka counsel objected to the former’s affidavit stating that the same is an affidavit on the aspect of hydrology and cannot be permitted in view of the hydrology evidence being closed. He argued it was in violation and transgression of the Tribunal’s earlier orders. This objection was countered by Additional Solicitor General of India, Atmaram Nadkarni, who is appearing for Goa, by stating that the affidavit is purely on the aspect of Goa’s water demands. The Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, passed a detailed order, wherein it overruled the objections raised by Karnataka. The Tribunal also held that it is of the view that the deposition of the second witness deserves to be taken into consideration as a whole and cannot be said to be in contravention of any of the earlier orders passed by this Tribunal. The cross examination will continue on Friday.