document_title: Kaveri River water dispute

question_text: who has been appointed the new chairman of cauvery water dispute tribunal

question_tokens: who has been appointed the new chairman of cauvery water dispute tribunal

text: Kaveri River water dispute

text: History of the dispute[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Post-Independence developments[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Indian Government notifies Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal[edit]

text: 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.

text: The water sharing criteria is based on two situations:

text:
When water availability is above the normal water year flows.
When water availability is equal or below the normal water year flows

text: 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.

text: 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]

text: Above normal water year[edit]

text: 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).

text: 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]

text: Below normal water year[edit]

text: 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.

text: limitations for water use[edit]

text: 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.

text: Interim Supervisory Committee[edit]

text: 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]

text: Timeline[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text:
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.

text: The constitution of the tribunal[edit]

text: 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.

text: The four states presented their demands to the tribunal as under

text:
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).

text: Interim award and the riots[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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)

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: The crisis of 1995–1996[edit]

text: 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.

text: Constitution of the CRA[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Events during 2002[edit]

text: 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]

text: CRA meeting and the Supreme Court order[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Demonstrations[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text:
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.
,

text: 2007 tribunal verdict[edit]

text: 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]

text: 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.

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text:
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]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: 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]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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]

text:
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]

text: 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]

text: Criticism on SC verdict[edit]

text: 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]

text: 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.

text: Cauvery Management Board - Govt Gazette[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Final Verdict 2018[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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]

text:
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

text: 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.

text: Around 10 tmcft groundwater from the Cauvery delta is to be preserved for safe use by Tamil Nadu

text: 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.

text: 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]

text: Highlights of the key observations of SC and its implications[73][edit]

text:
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:

text:
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.

text:
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 :-

text:
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.

text:
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.

text: Draft Scheme by Center 2018[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) 2018[edit]

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.

text: 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.


document_title: Game score

question_text: what is the highest score ever in an mlb game

root

text: Game score

text: Maximum score[edit]

text: The maximum possible game score in a nine-inning game while allowing no baserunners is 114, possible only if a pitcher goes nine innings while striking out every batter he faces and facing three batters per inning.  The pitcher receives 50 to begin with, and loses no points because there are no hits, walks, or runs of any kind. He receives 27 points for the 27 outs, and 10 points for five innings completed after the fourth inning, for a total of 87. In this "perfect score" scenario, the pitcher would have to strike out every hitter he faced, netting him an additional 27 points, for a grand total of 114.

tag: p

text: The absolute maximum possible score requires the extremely unlikely scenario in which three base runners reach base each inning on wild pitches or passed balls on third strikes.  If this were to happen such that no one scored, and the pitcher recorded all outs by strikeout, a pitcher could theoretically record six strikeouts per inning, and thus 54 for the game, netting him 54 points in addition to the 87 he would have received as described above, for a total of 141.

text: Highest achieved scores[edit]

text: The highest game score for a nine-inning game in the history of baseball is Kerry Wood's one-hit, no walk, 20-strikeout shutout performance for the Chicago Cubs against the Houston Astros on May 6, 1998. His game score was 105 (50 + 27 + 10 + 20 – 2).

text: The highest game score for a no-hitter occurred on October 3, 2015, when Max Scherzer of the Washington Nationals allowed no hits and no walks, striking out 17, against the New York Mets.  This is also the second-highest nine-inning game score in Major League Baseball history at 104 (50 + 27 + 10 + 17).

text: The 100th game score[citation needed] of 100 points or higher was pitched by Matt Cain in June 2012.  Of the 100 such games, only ten of them were a regulation nine innings.  Higher scores have been accomplished in extra-inning games. The two highest game scores ever recorded both occurred in the same game: the famous 26-inning duel from 1920, Joe Oeschger scored 153 and Leon Cadore scored 140.  Oeschger had earlier scored a 102 in a 14-inning game in 1917 against Jeff Pfeffer, who scored 114.  Oeschger's record in these games was 0-0, because both ended in ties and were called by darkness.  In all, there have been nine games in which both starting pitchers scored 100 points; all required extra innings and none has occurred since 1971.  Juan Marichal and Warren Spahn scored 112 and 97, respectively, during a complete game 16-inning match up; Spahn's score fell below 100 because of Willie Mays' game-winning home run in the bottom of the 16th.

text: 21 pitchers with 100 or more game score points did so in losing games, including Harvey Haddix, who scored a 107 for the game in which he took a perfect game into the 13th inning. The highest-ever losing game score was 118, from Art Nehf, who outlasted the opposing starter by six innings but lost in the 21st inning.  17 of the 100+ game scores came in suspended tie games.  Only seven of the 100 highest game scores were no-hitters.

text: Walter Johnson and Nolan Ryan had the most 100-point game scores with four apiece.  Johnson had two in 1918, one in 1919, and a fourth in 1926; Ryan's came in 1972, 1973, 1990 and 1991.  Warren Spahn had three 100-point game scores, in 1948, 1952 and 1960.  Juan Marichal had three 100-point game scores, in 1963, 1966 and 1969.  Eight pitchers had two 100-point game scores:  Art Nehf (1917 and 1918), Joe Oeschger (1917 and 1920), Burleigh Grimes (1918 and 1920), Eric Erickson (1918 and 1921), Herb Pennock (1923 and 1925), Jim Maloney (1964 and 1965),  Frank Tanana (1975 and 1976), and Max Scherzer  (both 2015).[1]

text: Corey Kluber's game score of 98 in an eight-inning, no-run, one-hit, no-walk, 18-strikeout performance against the St. Louis Cardinals on May 13, 2015, is the highest by any pitcher in MLB history in a non-complete game. Indians bench coach Brad Mills removed him after the eighth inning, and Cody Allen pitched the ninth inning to seal a 2-0 win.[2] The previous holder of the record was Matt Harvey, who achieved a game score of 97 for a nine-inning non-complete game against the Chicago White Sox. (Harvey's New York Mets won in ten innings.)[3][4]

text: On June 18, 2014, Clayton Kershaw posted the 2nd highest ever game score for a 9-inning, no-hit effort. Kershaw struck out 15 while walking none, and the only baserunner was the result of a throwing error. His game score of 102 is the third-highest for a 9-inning game in MLB history (50 + 27 +10 + 15).[5]

text: The lowest game score in baseball history was Allan Travers' 26-hit, 24-run start for the Detroit Tigers on May 18, 1912. His game score was a −52. This performance only came about because the regular Tiger players staged a strike in protest of Ty Cobb's suspension. To avoid a forfeit, local college players (including Travers) were enlisted as impromptu fill-ins. The lowest game score since 1957 was Oakland pitcher Mike Oquist's, who allowed 16 hits and 14 earned runs in five innings on August 3, 1998, for a −21.

text: The game score concept expands on Major League Baseball's official definition of a quality start. MLB defines a quality start as six or more innings pitched while allowing three or fewer earned runs. The game score system defines a quality start as a game score at or above 60 hypothetically (50 base + 18 for outs recorded + 4 for the 5th/6th inning - 12 for three earned runs), but as it is rare that an earned run occurs with no walks/hits, the true game score for a baseline quality start would be somewhere between 50-60. Furthermore, the game score rewards pitchers for going deeper into the game, even if they give up more earned runs. A baseline quality start would be lost if, after going into deeper innings than the 6th, a pitcher gives up more earned runs.

text: The advantage that the system has over the official definition is that it allows a statistician a better view of the degree of quality in a pitcher's performance. Game scores can be quantified, and a pitcher's performance tracked over time. It is also possible to compare different pitchers. If one averages a 60 and another averages 55, presumably the first pitcher has had a better season.

text: In terms of high scores, the system favors current pitchers. It is difficult to achieve a very high score in a game without amassing a substantial number of strikeouts. In earlier eras, even for the very best pitchers, strikeouts were less plentiful. For instance, Cy Young's two no-hitters earned scores of just 90 and 88 due to their low strikeout totals (three and two, respectively).  However, most of the all-time high game scores occurred in baseball's earlier era, when starting pitchers were permitted to remain in games longer than today; four of the top six all-time game scores were accomplished in stints of 21 innings or more.

text: Game scores of 100 in a 9-inning game[edit]

text: Fourteen times in Major League Baseball history, a pitcher has achieved a game score of 100 or higher in a 9-inning game,[6] as detailed here. Also included in the table is the game score according to version 2.0, which is described below. Results from this formula tend to be higher and must not be confused with those from the original Bill James formula.

text:
Pitcher

Team

Opposing team

Date

Game result

Game score

Game score 2.0

Line

Notes

H

W

K

Warren Spahn

Milwaukee Braves

Philadelphia Phillies

September 16, 1960

W 4-0

100

105

0

2

15

No-hitter

Sandy Koufax

Los Angeles Dodgers

Chicago Cubs

September 9, 1965

W 1-0

101

108

0

0

14

Perfect game

Nolan Ryan

California Angels

Boston Red Sox

July 9, 1972

W 3-0

100

105

1

2

17

Nolan Ryan

California Angels

Detroit Tigers

July 15, 1973

W 6-0

100

103

0

4

17

No-hitter

Nolan Ryan

Texas Rangers

Toronto Blue Jays

May 1, 1991

W 3-0

101

106

0

2

16

No-hitter; Ryan's seventh and final no-hitter, a Major League Baseball record.

Kerry Wood

Chicago Cubs

Houston Astros

May 6, 1998

W, 2-0

105

112

1

0

20

Highest Game Score in a 9-inning game.  Tied for the Major League Baseball record for most strikeouts in a 9-inning game.

Curt Schilling

Arizona Diamondbacks

Milwaukee Brewers

April 7, 2002

W 2-0

100

105

1

2

17

Randy Johnson

Arizona Diamondbacks

Atlanta Braves

May 18, 2004

W 2-0

100

107

0

0

13

Perfect game.

Brandon Morrow

Toronto Blue Jays

Tampa Bay Rays

August 8, 2010

W 1-0

100

105

1

2

17

Matt Cain

San Francisco Giants

Houston Astros

June 13, 2012

W 10-0

101

108

0

0

14

Perfect game.

Clayton Kershaw

Los Angeles Dodgers

Colorado Rockies

June 18, 2014

W, 8-0

102

109

0

0

15

No-hitter; Only batter to reach base was on a fielding error.

Max Scherzer

Washington Nationals

Milwaukee Brewers

June 14, 2015

W 4-0

100

106

1

1

16

Max Scherzer

Washington Nationals

New York Mets

October 3, 2015

W 2-0

104

111

0

0

17

No-hitter; highest game score achieved in a no-hitter. Only batter to reach base was on a throwing error in 6th inning. First occurrence of two 100-score games in a season by a pitcher.

Gerrit Cole

Houston Astros

Arizona Diamondbacks

May 4,  2018

W 8-0

100

106

1

1

16

Cole's first career shutout

tag: table

text: Career totals for some pitchers[edit]

text: The total number of game scores listed for each pitcher are starts in which he reached 90 points or higher. The parenthetical totals represent the highest score in the pitcher's career, and the number of game scores equal to or greater than 100 (if any). This is not a complete list and includes only pitchers with five or more games of 90 or higher (through 10/9/2015).[6]

text:
Nolan Ryan      31  (101, 4)
Randy Johnson      20  (100, 1)
Sandy Koufax    18  (101, 1)
Tom Seaver    16  (106, 1)
Bob Gibson    14  (100, 1)
Gaylord Perry  13  (112, 1)
Roger Clemens   13  (99)
Jim Maloney  12  (106, 2)
Pedro Martínez     12  (98)
Sam McDowell   11  (100, 1)
Steve Carlton   11  (98)
Bert Blyleven  11  (97)
Jim Bunning    10  (97)
Bob Feller 10
Walter Johnson 10
Warren Spahn  9 (102, 3)
Mike Mussina   9  (98)
Dean Chance   8  (116, 3)
Carl Hubbell 8
Juan Marichal   8  (112, 3)
Clayton Kershaw  8  (102, 1)
Dennis Eckersley   8  (98)
Mickey Lolich   8  (92)
Frank Tanana     7  (105, 2)
Bill Singer     7  (97)
Joe Coleman     7  (93)
Johnny Vander Meer 7
Dazzy Vance 7
Billy Pierce    7  (100, 1)
Hal Newhouser  7  (92)
Madison Bumgarner 6 (98)
Virgil Trucks     6  (103, 1)
Curt Schilling    6  (100, 1)
Don Drysdale    6  (100, 1)
David Cone       6  (99)
Hideo Nomo       6  (99)
Don Sutton     6  (98)
Mike Scott     6  (98)
Roy Halladay  6 (98)
Bob Veale  6 (97)
Jerry Koosman  6 (97)
Justin Verlander    6 (95)
Chris Carpenter 6 (94)
John Smoltz  6 (93)
Juan Pizarro  6 (92)
Mike Cuellar  5  (101, 1)
Gary Peters    5  (98)
Jason Schmidt    5  (97)
Robin Roberts     5  (96)
Curt Simmons     5  (95)
Ray Culp     5  (95)
Ron Guidry     5  (95)
Aníbal Sánchez  5 (94)
Ferguson Jenkins 5 (94)
Kevin Brown    5   (94)
Milt Pappas 5 (94)
Dwight Gooden 5  (93)
Jim Palmer     5  (93)
Camilo Pascual     5  (92)
Dave Stieb     5  (92)
Pete Harnisch     5  (92)
James Shields 5 (94)
Allie Reynolds 5 (92)
Dolf Luque 5
Bullet Joe Bush 5
Grover Cleveland Alexander 5

tag: ul

text: Game Score Version 2.0[edit]

text: On December 14, 2014, Tom Tango introduced Game Score Version 2.0[7] in an attempt to, as he demonstrates, "fix the gaps" in the original Game Score calculation devised by James more than thirty years previously.[8] Key changes made by Tango to the original formula included applying a base of 40 points to starting pitchers' game scores (instead of 50); equalizing the penalty for giving up a walk with that of giving up a hit; and introducing home runs given up into the equation.[8]

text: The new 2.0 formula is:

text:
Start with 40 points
Add two points for each out
Add one point for each strikeout
Subtract two points for each walk
Subtract two points for each hit
Subtract three points for each run (both earned and unearned)
Subtract six points for each home run

text: Tango subsequently published his new formula on April 11, 2016 on FanGraphs.com,[8] a well-known and respected baseball analysis and statistics website, which at the same time also began including the new measure on their game log pages for individual pitchers for whom the building block data are available.


document_title: Organizational structure of the United States Department of Defense

question_text: is the principal assistant to the president in all matters relating to the dod

text: Chain of Command[edit]

text: The President of the United States is, according to the Constitution, the Commander-in-Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces and Chief Executive of the Federal Government. The Secretary of Defense is the "Principal Assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense", and is vested with statutory authority (10 U.S.C. § 113) to lead the Department and all of its component agencies, including military command authority second only to the President.

text: The President and the Secretary of Defense exercise authority and control of the Armed Forces through two distinct branches of the chain of command. One branch (10 U.S.C. § 162) runs from the President, through the Secretary of Defense, to the Combatant Commanders for missions and forces assigned to their commands. The other branch, used for purposes other than operational direction of forces assigned to the combatant commands, runs from the President through the Secretary of Defense to the Secretaries of the Military Departments, i.e., the Secretary of the Army (10 U.S.C. § 3013), the Secretary of the Navy (10 U.S.C. § 5013), and the Secretary of the Air Force (10 U.S.C. § 8013). The Military Departments, organized separately within the Department, operate under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of that Military Department. The Secretaries of the Military Departments exercise authority through their respective Service Chiefs (i.e., Chief of Staff of the Army, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Chief of Naval Operations, and Chief of Staff of the Air Force) over forces not assigned to a Combatant Command. The Service Chiefs, except as otherwise prescribed by law, perform their duties under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretaries of their respective Military Departments, to whom they are directly responsible.

text: In the Goldwater-Nichols Department of Defense Reorganization Act of 1986, Congress clarified the command line to the combatant commanders and preserved civilian control of the military. The Act states that the operational chain of command runs from the President to the Secretary of Defense to the Combatant Commanders. The Act permits the President to direct that communications pass through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff from the Secretary of Defense, and to the Combatant Commanders. This authority places the Chairman in the communications chain. Further, the Act gives the Secretary of Defense wide latitude to assign the Chairman oversight responsibilities for the activities of the Combatant Commanders.

text: Civilian control[edit]

text:
Article II Section 2 of the Constitution designates the President as "Commander in Chief" of the Army, Navy and state militias.[2]
The President exercises this supreme command authority through the civilian Secretary of Defense, who by federal law is the head of the department, has authority direction, and control over the Department of Defense, and is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense.[3] The Secretary's principal deputy is the equally civilian Deputy Secretary of Defense who is delegated full powers to act for the Secretary of Defense. The Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) is the Secretary and Deputy Secretary's civilian staff, which includes several Under Secretaries and Assistant Secretaries of Defense with functional oversight responsibilities. The Secretaries of the Military Departments (i.e. Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, and Secretary of the Air Force) are subordinate to the Secretary of Defense. They have the authority under Title 10 of the United States Code to conduct all the affairs of their respective departments (Department of the Army, Department of the Navy, and Department of the Air Force) within which the military services are organized.[4]

text: Historically, there have been challenges to civilian control. Most notably, during the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur ignored civilian instructions regarding advancing troops toward the Yalu River, which triggered an introduction of massive forces from China. Also, on April 5, 1950, Representative Joseph William Martin, Jr., the Minority Leader of the United States House of Representatives, released copies of a letter from MacArthur critical of President Harry S. Truman's limited-war strategy to the press and read it aloud on the floor of the house.[5] President Truman relieved MacArthur of command, and MacArthur then explored political options against Truman.[6] The Revolt of the Admirals is another example in the same era of a challenge to civilian control.

text: DoD policies and directives protect the policy of civilian control by establishing strict limitations on the political activities of members of the military. For example, DoD Directive 1344.10 prohibits active-duty members of the military from running for office or making political appearances in uniform.[7] However, enforcing this strict separation between the military and politics has been problematic. For example, over the years, many elected officials, including members of Congress, continued serving in the reserves while holding elected office. As another example, at a September 14, 2007, rally for Republican Presidential candidate John McCain in New Hampshire, seven on-duty uniformed Army personnel addressed the gathering.[8] As another example, although DOD Directive 1344.10 prohibits political appearances by active-duty military members in uniform, Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell invited a uniformed Army Staff Sergeant to stand behind him during his televised Republican response to the 2010 State of the Union Address.[9][10]

text: Components of the Department of Defense[edit]

text:
Program

Secretary of Defense

Deputy Secretary of Defense*Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization

Chief Management Officer

Acquisition and SustainmentUnder Secretary of Defense for Acquisition and SustainmentOperational Test and Evaluation Directorate

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Acquisition)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manufacturing and Industrial Base Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Policy, Planning, Resources, and Performance)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Warfare Systems Support)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Defense Procurement)*Defense Acquisition University

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Sustainment)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Material Readiness)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Program Support and Logistics Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Transportation Policy)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Nuclear, Chemical & Biological Defense Programs)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Nuclear Matters)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Chemical and Biological Defense Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Threat Reduction and Arms Control)

Defense Logistics Agency

Defense Contract Management Agency

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

Research and EngineeringUnder Secretary of Defense for Research and Engineering

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Research and Engineering)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Technology)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Research and Technology Investment)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Laboratories and Personnel)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Advanced Capabilities)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Mission Engineering and Integration)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Prototyping and Experimentation)*Defense Technical Information Center*Test Resource Management Center

Defense Science Board

Strategic Intelligence Analysis Cell

Missile Defense Agency

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DARPA

Strategic Capabilities Office

Defense Innovation Unit-Experimental

PolicyUnder Secretary of Defense for Policy

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Strategy, Plans, and Capabilities)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Strategy and Force Development)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Plans)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Nuclear and Missile Defense Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Security Cooperation)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Security Affairs)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (African Affairs)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Middle East)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Europe and NATO)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Russia, Ukraine, and Eurasia)*Secretary of Defense Representative in the United States Mission to NATO*Secretary of Defense Representative to the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Homeland Defense) and Global Strategic Affairs*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Cyber Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Space Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Homeland Defense Integration and Defense Support of Civil Authorities*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Defense Continuity and Mission Assurance)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations and Low-Intensity Conflict)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Counternarcotics and Global Threats)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Stability and Humanitarian Affairs)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Special Operations and Combatting Terrorism)

Assistant Secretary of Defense  (Asian and Pacific Security Affairs)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (East Asia)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (South and Southeast Asia)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Central Asia)

Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

Defense Prisoner of War/Missing Personnel Office

Defense Technology Security Administration

ComptrollerUnder Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Defense Contract Audit Agency

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

Personnel and ReadinessUnder Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)*Joint Advertising Marketing Research & Studies (JAMRS)[11]

Military Deputy to the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)*Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity**Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute*Defense Suicide Prevention Office*Personnel Risk Reduction Office

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Health Affairs)*Military Health System[12]**TRICARE Management Activity[13]*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Wounded Warrior Care & Transition Policy)

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Manpower and Reserve Affairs)*Defense Commissary Agency*Department of Defense Education Activity**Department of Defense Dependents Schools*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Civilian Personnel Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Personnel Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Military Community and Family Policy)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Readiness)*Office of Total Force Planning & Requirements*Transition to Veterans Program Office

Defense Human Resources Activity

DoD/VA Collaboration Office

Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences

Office of the Chancellor for Education and Professional Development

IntelligenceUnder Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Intelligence)

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks and Information Integration*Defense Information Systems Agency

Director for Defense Intelligence (Warfighter Support)

Director for Defense Intelligence (Intelligence & Security)

Director for Defense Intelligence (Technical Collection & Special Programs)

Director for Defense Intelligence (Intelligence Strategy, Programs & Resources)

Defense Security Service

Defense Intelligence Agency

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

National Security Agency

Central Security Service

National Reconnaissance Office

Other

Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs)*Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Internal Communications)*Defense Media Activity

Director of Administration and Management*Pentagon Force Protection Agency*Washington Headquarters Services

Director of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation*Office of Net Assessment

General Counsel of Defense*Defense Legal Services Agency

text: Defense Agencies[edit]

text: Defense Agencies are established as DoD Components by law, the President, or the Secretary of Defense to provide for the performance, on a DoD-wide basis, of a supply or service activity that is common to more than one Military Department when it is determined to be more effective, economical, or efficient to do so, pursuant to sections 101, 191(a), and 192 of Title 10 of the United States Code or when a responsibility or function is more appropriately assigned to a Defense Agency. Pursuant to section 191(b) Title 10, such organizations are designated as Defense Agencies. Each Defense Agency operates under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, through a Principal Staff Assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

text:
Seal or Logo
Name
Acronym
Charter
Under the Authority of
Headquarters

Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency

DARPA

DoDD 5134.10

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Arlington, VA

Defense Commissary Agency

DeCA

DoDD 5105.55

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Fort Lee, VA

Defense Contract Audit Agency

DCAA

DoDD 5105.36

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Fort Belvoir, VA

Defense Contract Management Agency

DCMA

DoDD 5105.64

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Fort Lee, VA

Defense Finance and Accounting Service

DFAS

DoDD 5118.05

Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller)

Arlington, VA

Defense Information Systems Agency

DISA

DoDD 5105.19

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Networks & Information Integration

Arlington, VA

Defense Intelligence Agency

DIA

DoDD 5105.21

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling, DC

Defense Legal Services Agency

DLSA

DoDD 5145.04

General Counsel of the Department of Defense

The Pentagon

Defense Logistics Agency

DLA

DoDD 5105.22

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Fort Belvoir, VA

Defense Security Cooperation Agency

DSCA

DoDD 5105.65

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

The Pentagon

Defense Security Service

DSS

DoDD 5105.42

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Alexandria, VA

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

DTRA

DoDD 5105.62

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Fort Belvoir, VA

Missile Defense Agency

MDA

DoDD 5134.09

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

The Pentagon

National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency

NGA

DoDD 5105.60

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Springfield, VA

National Reconnaissance Office

NRO

DoDD 5105.23

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Chantilly, VA

National Security AgencyCentral Security Service

NSA/CSS

DoDD 5100.20

Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence

Fort George G. Meade, MD

Pentagon Force Protection Agency

PFPA

DoDD 5105.68

Director of Administration and Management

The Pentagon

text: Department of Defense Field Activities[edit]

text: Department of Defense Field Activities are established as DoD Components by law, the President, or the Secretary of Defense to provide for the performance, on a DoD-wide basis, of a supply or service activity that is common to more than one Military Department when it is determined to be more effective, economical, or efficient to do so, pursuant to sections 101, 191(a), and 192 of Title 10 of the United States Code. Pursuant to section 191(b) of Title 10, such organizations are designated as DoD Field Activities. Each DoD Field Activity operates under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretary of Defense, through a Principal Staff Assistant in the Office of the Secretary of Defense.

text:
Seal or Logo
Name
Acronym
Charter
Under the Authority of
Headquarters

Defense Media Activity

DMA

DoDD 5105.74

Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs

Fort Meade, MD

Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency

DPAA

DoDD 5110.10

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

The Pentagon

Defense Technical Information Center

DTIC

DoDD 5105.73

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Fort Belvoir, VA

Defense Technology Security Administration

DTSA

DoDD 5105.72

Under Secretary of Defense for Policy

The Pentagon

Department of Defense Education Activity

DoDEA

DoDD 1342.20

Principal Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Arlington, VA

Department of Defense Human Resources Activity

DoDHRA

DoDD 5100.87

Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness

Arlington, VA

Department of Defense Test Resource Management Center

TRMC

DoDD 5105.71

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Office of Economic Adjustment

OEA

DoDD 3030.01

Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology and Logistics

Arlington, VA

Washington Headquarters Services

WHS

DoDD 5110.04

Director of Administration and Management

The Pentagon

text: Military Departments[edit]

text: Department of the Army[edit]

text: The Department of the Army includes all elements of the U.S. Army

text: Secretary of the Army

text: Headquarters, Department of the Army[edit]

text:
Office of the Secretary of the Army
Chief of Staff of the Army

text: Army Field Organizations[edit]

text:
Army Commands
Army Component Commands
Field Operating Agencies
Direct Reporting Units

text: Department of the Navy[edit]

text: The Department of the Navy includes all elements of the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps

text: Secretary of the Navy

text: Navy Department[edit]

text:
Office of the Secretary of the Navy
Office of the Chief of Naval Operations
Headquarters Marine Corps (See also: Organization of the United States Marine Corps)

text: Department of the Air Force[edit]

text: The Department of the Air Force includes all elements of the U.S. Air Force

text: Secretary of the Air Force

text: Headquarters Air Force[edit]

text:
Office of the Secretary of the Air Force
Under Secretary of the Air Force
The Air Staff
Chief of Staff of the Air Force

text: Air Force Field Organizations[edit]

text:
Major Commands
Direct Reporting Units
Field Operating Agencies

text: Organization of the Joint Chiefs of Staff[edit]

text:
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Joint Requirements Oversight Council
Joint Chiefs of Staff
The Joint Staff
Director of the Joint Staff
DOM- Directorate of Management
J1 - Personnel and Manpower
J2 - Intelligence
J3 - Operations
National Military Command Center
Alternate National Military Command Center
National Airborne Operations Center
J4 - Logistics
J5 - Strategic Plans and Policy
J6 - Command, Control, Communications and Computer Systems
J7 - Operational Plans and Joint Force Development
J8 - Force Structure, Resources, and Assessment
National Defense University
College of International Security Affairs
Industrial College of the Armed Forces
Information Resources Management College
Joint Forces Staff College
National War College
U.S. Delegation to the Inter-American Defense Board
U.S. Delegation to the United Nations Military Staff Committee
U.S. Representative at the NATO Military Committee
U.S. Section, Joint Mexico-U.S. Defense Commission

text: Unified Combatant Commands[edit]

text: There are nine Unified Combatant Commands; six regional and three functional. Africa Command became initially operational in October 2007, while Joint Forces Command was officially disestablished on August 4, 2011.

text:
Seal
Name
Acronym
Headquarters
Area of Responsibility
Other Role of CCDR

United States Africa Command

AFRICOM

Kelley Barracks, Stuttgart, Germany; to be relocated to African continent or other location TBD

Africa excluding Egypt

United States Central Command

CENTCOM

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

Egypt through the Persian Gulf region, into Central Asia, excluding Israel

United States European Command

EUCOM

Stuttgart, Germany

Europe, including Turkey, and Israel

Also Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR)

United States Northern Command

NORTHCOM

Peterson Air Force Base, Colorado

North American homeland defense and coordinating homeland defense with federal and state civil authorities.

Also Commander of North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD)(bilateral U.S.-Canadian military command)

United States Pacific Command

PACOM

Camp H. M. Smith, Oahu, Hawaii

The Asia-Pacific region including Hawaii.

United States Southern Command

SOUTHCOM

Miami, Florida

South, Central America and the surrounding waters

U.S. Special Operations Command

SOCOM

MacDill Air Force Base, Florida

Provides special operations for the Army, Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force.

United States Strategic Command

STRATCOM

Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska

Covers the strategic deterrent force and coordinates the use of space assets.

United States Transportation Command

TRANSCOM

Scott Air Force Base, Illinois

Covers global mobility of all military assets for all regional commands.

text: The Geographic Commands

text: In 2007, a new geographical command for Africa was authorized. This proposed significant changes to the areas of responsibility for other adjacent geographical commands as shown in the accompanying graphic.

text: Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Defense[edit]

text: The Office of the Inspector General is an independent and objective unit within the Department of Defense that conducts and supervises audits and investigations relating to the programs and operations of the Department of Defense, pursuant to the responsibilities specified in title 5, U.S.C. Appendix and DoDD 5106.01.

text:
Inspector General of the Department of Defense
Defense Criminal Investigative Service

text: National Guard Bureau[edit]

text: The National Guard Bureau (NGB) is a joint activity of the Department of Defense. The Chief of the National Guard Bureau is a principal advisor to the Secretary of Defense, through the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on matters involving non-federalized National Guard forces, and other matters as determined by the Secretary of Defense. For NGB matters pertaining to the responsibilities of the Departments of the Army and Air Force in law or DoD policy, the Secretary of Defense normally exercises authority, direction, and control over the NGB through the Secretaries of the Army and the Air Force. The NGB is the focal point at the strategic level for National Guard matters that are not under the authority, direction, and control of the Secretaries of the Army or Air Force, including joint, interagency, and intergovernmental matters where the NGB acts through other DoD officials as specified in DoDD 5105.77.

text: Chief of the National Guard Bureau

text: Other[edit]

text: The United States Naval Observatory falls under the Chief of Naval Operations. In 2003 the National Communications System was moved to the Department of Homeland Security, but only for executive purposes; it still centralizes its activities within the Department of Defense, since the human resources required by NCS (example: Military Departments) still reside within the Department of Defense, or for retention of practical maintenance.


document_title: Maddox (given name)

question_text: what does the name maddox mean urban dictionary

text: Maddox (given name)

text:
MaddoxGender
masculineOriginWord/name
WelshMeaning
"fortunate", son of Madoc.Region of origin
WalesOther namesRelated names
Madoc

text: Maddox is a mainly male name in use in English speaking countries derived from a Welsh surname meaning "son of Madoc." Madoc or Madog was a legendary Welsh prince who in Welsh folklore sailed to the New World three hundred years before Christopher Columbus. The name means "fortunate" and is derived from the Welsh word "mad". The name has increased in popularity in the United States, where it was ranked at No. 180 for baby boys born in the United States in 2010, having jumped 402 places since 2003, when it was ranked at No. 533.[1]

text: The name increased in popularity after the naming of Maddox Jolie-Pitt, the son of actors Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie. Another well-known name holder is the Internet celebrity Maddox.

text: Notes[edit]

text: Jump up ^ Behind the Name

tag: ol

text: English given namesMasculine given names


document_title: Set It Up

question_text: who does zoey deutch play in set it up

question_tokens: who does zoey deutch play in set it up

text: Set It Up

text: Plot[edit]

text: Harper (Zoey Deutch) is the 25-year-old assistant to Kirsten (Lucy Liu) a former journalist and now editor of an online sports journalism empire. Charlie (Glen Powell) is a 28-year-old assistant to the high-strung venture capitalist Rick (Taye Diggs). Both work in the same building and meet one night when their bosses need dinner. Harper has ordered dinner for herself and Kirsten but has no money to pay for it and Charlie, who was not able to order dinner for his boss because all the restaurants are closed, pays for it to give to Rick. After Harper tells him she will be fired if she doesn't return with food Charlie reluctantly allows her to take one of the meals.

text: Meeting Charlie the next day to reimburse him for the cost of the food, Harper expresses surprise that Charlie would work for such an abrasive and demanding boss. Charlie reveals that Rick is well-connected and a recommendation from him would guarantee his financial success. Harper expresses her deep admiration of Kirsten and her desire to write the sort of sports journalism that would make people cry. After complaining that they have no time for personal lives, Charlie jokes that both of their bosses need to get laid. Harper is initially disgusted by the comment, but after some thought agrees that she and Charlie should "Cyrano" their bosses, reasoning if they are dating each other they would have less time to overwork them. Charlie reluctantly joins in on the plan.

text: Their initial plot to have Rick and Kirsten "meet-cute" in a stalled elevator goes awry when they are joined by a delivery man suffering from claustrophobia who strips the second the elevator is stalled. Charlie and Harper then arrange for their bosses to sit beside each other at a baseball game, bribing the operator of the kiss-cam to pressure them into kissing. After three attempts, Rick and Kirsten kiss. They begin dating, leaving Charlie time to spend with his model girlfriend Suze, and Harper time to date.

text: However things between Rick and Kirsten quickly become bumpy causing Harper and Charlie to realize they must work hard to keep their bosses together. They plan dates, write apology notes, and manipulate the dates to coincide with events that Charlie and Harper want to attend. After organizing a weekend getaway for Rick and Kirsten, Harper is able to attend her best friend Becca's engagement party. When her date ditches her, Charlie goes with her and the two have an enjoyable night dancing and eating pizza.

text: After their vacation, Rick and Kirsten return and inform their assistants they are engaged. Harper and Charlie are thrilled by the news, but Charlie quickly learns that Rick proposed to Kirsten to aggravate his ex-wife whom he is still sleeping with. Charlie doesn't share the news with Harper, but she discovers it after accidentally hearing Rick having phone sex with his ex. She confronts Charlie with Rick's cheating and is disappointed to learn that he knew about it and that he plans to help manage Kirsten and Rick's marriage so the cheating remains a secret.

text: Harper goes to Kirsten and explains that she and Charlie manipulated them into dating. Harper tries to say that Rick is cheating with his ex-wife, but is unable to say this because Kirsten promptly fires her and plans to go on with the wedding.

text: Charlie takes Suze to an expensive restaurant and realizes they don't love each other. He breaks up with her and runs to the airport where he quits his job and tells Kirsten that Rick doesn't love her and doesn't know her at all. Kirsten realizes it's true and breaks up with Rick.

text: Harper goes through a crisis but eventually decides to start writing again. Charlie is approached by Rick who asks for his help reuniting with his ex-wife whom he actually still cares for. Charlie turns over a folder he has on Rick's ex-wife.

text: Kirsten calls Harper back to her office and offers to hire her back, but Harper refuses, telling her she needs to focus on her writing. Kirsten offers to help edit her article.

text: As she is leaving, Harper sees Charlie who has been called there by Kirsten. They realize that Kirsten is attempting to set them up. Charlie reveals that he quit his job and now works as a temp. The two of them realize they have many reasons to dislike each other and yet they are still attracted to each other. The film ends with the two sharing a kiss, after realizing how much they care for each other.

text: Cast[edit]

text:
Zoey Deutch as Harper Moore, Kirsten's assistant
Glen Powell as Charlie Young, Rick's assistant
Lucy Liu as Kirsten Stevens, Harper's boss
Taye Diggs as Richard "Rick" Otis, Charlie's boss
Joan Smalls as Suze, Charlie's girlfriend
Meredith Hagner as Becca, Harper's engaged roommate
Pete Davidson as Duncan, Charlie's roommate
Jon Rudnitsky as Mike, Becca's fiance
Titus Burgess as Creepy Tim, Janitor
Noah Robbins as Intern Bo
Jaboukie Young-White as Assistant Alex

text: Production[edit]

text: In February 2016, it was announced Emilia Clarke had been cast in the film, with Katie Silberman writing the film, while Justin Nappi and Juliet Berman producing the film under their TreeHouse Pictures banner, while Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer was originally set to distribute the film.[1] In March 2017, it was announced Zoey Deutch and Glen Powell had joined the cast of the film, with Deutch replacing Clarke, Claire Scanlon directing from a screenplay written by Katie Silberman. Netflix eventually replaced Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer as the film's distributor.[2] In June 2017, Taye Diggs, Lucy Liu and Joan Smalls joined the cast of the film.[3][4][5]

text: Filming[edit]

text: Principal photography began in June 2017 in New York City.[6]

text: Release[edit]

text: The film was released on June 15, 2018.[7]

text: Reception[edit]

text: On review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, the film holds an approval rating of 94% based on 33 reviews, and an average rating of 7.3/10. The site's critical consensus reads, "Set It Up follows the long-established outlines of the rom-com template -- and in the process, proves there's still substantial pleasure to be wrought from familiar formulas."[8] On Metacritic, the film has a weighted average score of 61 out of 100, based on 13 critics, indicating "generally favorable reviews".[9]

text: Possible sequel[edit]

text: Scanlon had said in interviews that she has ideas for a possible sequel should Netflix schedule one.[10]