Welcome summer, with deepening water crisis

How good are grandpas?

SUMMER is round the corner. So are the perennial water disputes between states. If Tamil Nadu has its hands full with fighting over river waters with Karnataka and Kerala, Punjab has a problem with Haryana. And Andhra Pradesh faces some angry questions from its neighbour, Tamil Nadu.

One cannot dismiss the quarrels entirely as political. There are genuine concerns about the interests of farmers on all sides because of perceived water shortages affecting crops. There is no denying the importance of water for the existence of animal, human and plant life. Indeed, great civilisations have risen where water was plentiful and have perished with the drying up of this essential liquid.

In the Indian context, over 85 per cent of the territory lies within its major and medium inter-state rivers. India has 14 major rivers, which are all inter-state rivers. There are 44 medium rivers, of which nine are inter-state rivers.

A major river is one with catchments area of 20,000 square kms or more and a medium river is one with catchments area of between 200 and 20,000 square kms.

The disputes between states that are now being witnessed are not new. In fact, even the Government of India Act, 1919, when diarchy was introduced in the provinces (in British India), irrigation was a provincial but "reserved" subject, implying that before any provincial government could take up any project involving the interests of more than one province, the prior approval of the Secretary of State had to be obtained.

In the post-Independence context, the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, in the main provides that when a state government has a water dispute with another, it may request the Central Government to refer the dispute to a tribunal of three members nominated from among the sitting Supreme Court judges by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and other courts in respect of the dispute referred to the Tribunal is barred.

Though broadly the rights of States in an inter-state water are determined by applying the rule of equitable apportionment, it has been agreed by experts that the concept cannot be written into a code that can be applied to all situations and at all times. The standard of equitable apportionment requires an adaptation of the formula to the necessity of the particular situation.

Because of the nature of the problem, there has been no satisfactory or fool-proof solution to any dispute. However, some common features have been discerned – there is always acrimonious tension between the parties; overall delay in completion of the adjudication due to various factors and one or more parties to the dispute invariably remain aggrieved by the decision handed down by the Tribunal.

The Constitution Review Commission has noted that past experience in India in connection with the resolution of inter-State disputes relating to waters has not been very happy. It is not easy to say whether this is due to the nature of the disputes, political factors or inadequacy of the constitutional provisions on the subject.

Let us first look at the current spate of problems before addressing their solution. First, there is the Narmada Dam, which has been immersed in controversy. The problem revolves around the resettlement of displaced persons but an offshoot is the quarrel over raising the height of the dam. Maharashtra, one of the four Narmada Valley States (the others are Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Rajasthan) is opposed to the raising of the dam from the present level of 100 metres to 110.64 metres till all the displaced were rehabilitated and resettled.

The Punjab Chief Minister, Amarinder Singh, wants the Union Government to protect the rights of his State by setting up a new tribunal in place of the Eradi Tribunal set up to resolve the river water dispute between Punjab and Haryana. According to him, the Eradi Tribunal had lost its relevance over the past 17 years due to a consistent, continuous and constant decline in the Ravi-Beas water level. Punjab’s contention has been that the Indus basin covering Punjab was deficit whereas the Yamuna basin covering Haryana was surplus and water cannot be transferred from a deficit to a surplus states. It has also maintained that Haryana, in any case, is not a riparian state as the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej do not flow through its territory.

The waters of the Krishna river are the cause of another conflict of interest between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. Krishna is the second largest river in Peninsular India and flows down a length of 139 km through Maharashtra, Mysore and Andhra. Karnataka has raised serious objections to the construction of five major river water projects by Andhra.

Tamil Nadu is perpetually aggrieved by the "denial" of its share of water of the Cauvery river by Karnataka which, in its defense, says that it is unable to release the stipulated 205 Tme water in summer because of insufficient rainfall. Tamil Nadu complains its farmers find their crops destroyed because of lack of water flows from the Karnataka side while Karnataka complains that its farmers are committing suicide since already it is facing scanty rainfall and insufficient water for its crops in summer. Ideally, river water disputes, as most other disputes, are best settled through negotiations. If negotiations fail, the remedy available at present is the appointment and adjudication by a Tribunal. But experience of the working of Tribunals so far shows that they are time-consuming, the awards are often bulky and long-winding and agreements endorsed by the Tribunal have been found to be more satisfactory. One of the solutions suggested by the Constitution Review Panel which takes closer scrutiny without political baggage, is for the Central Government to appoint a Commission to deal with a particular inter-state dispute on water with the stipulation that if the Commission’s report is not submitted within three months, it shall be dissolved and Parliament enact appropriate legislation to resolve the controversy. And when the Commission’s report is available it should be given sanctity through Parliamentary sanction after effective and meaningful consultations with all states.