River Water Disputes – Conflict Resolution
By
Prof. R. Ramesh Reddy
Principal, College of Engineering
Osmania University, Hyderabad.
1. Introduction
Water is a
precious gift of nature to mankind and is one of the essential elements to
sustain life and an important input in socioeconomic development of a country.
Agriculture, power, industry, livelihood, social welfare and recreation all
depend upon this input. Availability of water and development of water resource
facilitates the development of different regions. Regions lacking such
development remained underdeveloped and in-fact have degraded their natural
resources. With more fallow lands brought under irrigation, extracting ground
water has increased agricultural activity, industrial activity and continuous
pollution resulted in reduced water availability. At present a combination of factors such
as failed rainfall and over-tapping of ground water resulted in fall in water
levels by 3.00 mts. to 25 mts. at many places.
Thus in many
places, regions, states and nations, water has become the bone of contention for
disputes. In India there are innumerable disputes between the states and within
the states for river water sharing. It is high time to address the problem of
water scarcity before it threatens the national integrity. There is every need
to attend to this priority item. As it is there are a number of cases pending in
the Supreme Court awaiting decision. Therefore, there is a need to create a
proper forum and methodology of sharing river
water.
2. Review of River Water Disputes: (As on
14.06.2001)
There are a number of disputes
relating to river water between various states and within the states. Some of
the disputes pending in the Supreme Court and other courts are listed
below.
|
S.
No. |
Matter No. &
C/T |
Subject
Matter |
Present
Statues |
|
1. |
OS 2/96 State of H.P. Vs. Union
of India |
Dispute between the State of
Himachal Pradesh and Union of India, Punjab, Haryana and Chandigarh and
Rajasthan with regard to the Plaintiffs share in Bhakra Nangal and Beas
Projects. |
The Hon’ble Court vide its Order
dt. 20.11.2000 directed to list the matter after 24 weeks to be listed
after summer vacation. |
|
2. |
OS 6/96 State of Haryana Vs.
State of Punjab & ANR. |
Dispute between the State of
Haryana and Punjab with regard to re-starting and completion of STL Canal
Project by the State of Punjab and to enable the State of Haryana to
receive its share in Ravi and Beas Waters.
|
Shown in TL 1/2001. Page 32/Item 22 of TL
2001 |
|
3. |
OS 1/99 State of M.P. Vs. Union
of India & ORS. |
Dispute between the State of
M.P. and Union of India, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Rajasthan with regard to
utilization of Narmada Water. |
The Ld. Registrar vide his Order
dt. 25.4.2001 directed to send the file to him after summer vacation.
|
|
4. |
OS ……… /2001 State of Karnataka
Vs. State of A.P. |
Krishna Water
Dispute. |
Defective matter (Filed on
6/3/2001) |
|
5. |
W.P.No: 4694/2003 Pulla Reddy
Vs. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh |
R.D.S. water for Mahaboobnagar
District |
Matter posted to 7th
July, 2003 |
|
6. |
W.P. No: 24882/2002 Chittapu
Narsi Reddy Vs Chief Secretary, State of Andhra
Pradesh |
Bhima lift irrigation for
Mahaboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh |
State Govt. has submitted
counter affidavit in July
2003 |
3. Available Mechanism for Settlement of Inter- State River water
Disputes
At present the National Commission
on inter state disputes on river water is governed by Article 262. The existing
provisions of Article 262 have not addressed the disputes within the state. At
present Regional River water sharing is at the mercy of states. Therefore there
may be every possibility of discrimination or partisan approach to the regional
water development. The short sighted and self-centered approach of the
governments has caused regional unrest and hence seeking separate status for
self-governance
As per Article 262 the Inter-State
disputes are tackled as stated below.
Disputes relating to waters
The Constitution makes a special
provision regarding disputes relating to inter-State waters.
Article 262. Adjudication of disputes
relating to waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys.
(1) Parliament may by law provide for the
adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution
or control of the waters of, or in, any inter-State river or river valley.
(2) Notwithstanding anything in this
Constitution, neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise
jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute as is referred to in clause
(1).
Legislation
The Inter-State Water Disputes Act,
1956 (33 of 1956) has been enacted to implement article 262. Its principal features are as follows.
(a) The Central Government is empowered to
constitute a Tribunal, on a complaint received from a State Government that a
water dispute has arisen (or is likely to arise) in relation to the waters of an
inter-state river or river-valley. [Section 3]
(b) The Tribunal consists of a Chairman
and two other members, nominated in this behalf by the Chief justice of India,
from judges of the Supreme Court or of a High Court. [Section 4, as amended
1980].
(c) The decision of the Tribunal is final
and binding on the parties. The
parties must give effect to it.
(d) Jurisdiction of other courts is
barred.
Separate
study
The Commission proposes to prepare a
separate study of such disputes, having regard to their importance.
Thus, taking into account the
inadequacy of the provisions of water sharing, National Water Resource Council,
Government of India, Ministry of Water resources met on April 3, 2000 at New
Delhi and updated the existing provisions. The updated provisions are
Ø
Water should be
made available to water short areas by transfer from other areas including
transfers from one river basin to another, based on national perspective, after
taking into account the requirements of the areas /basins (Page 10,
3.4).
Ø
The
responsibilities in regard to the regulation and development of inter-state
rivers to the extent it is declared by Parliament by law to be in public
interest lie with the central Government.
Necessary steps may be taken to facilitate development and management of
inter-state river basins (Page 11, 4.2).
Ø
Appropriate River
Basin Organizations should be established for the planning, development and
management of a river basin or sub-basin, wherever necessary. It should
be multidisciplinary in nature and prepare comprehensive plans taking into
account the needs of diverse uses of water according to the priorities of the
states, so that the available water resources are determined and put to optimum
and harmonious use; having regard to existing Agreements Awards of Tribunals
under the relevant laws (Page 11, 4.3).
Ø
Adequate drinking
water facilities should be provided to the entire population both in urban and
in rural areas. Irrigation and
multipurpose projects should invariably include a drinking water component,
wherever there is no alternative source of drinking water. Drinking water needs of human beings and
animals should be the first charge on any available water (Page 13, 8).
Ø
Water sharing
amongst the state. The water sharing amongst the states should be guided by a
national perspective with due regard to water resources availability and within
the river basin. Necessary
guidelines may be formulated accordingly for allocation of waters amongst the
basin states (Page 18, 21.1).
Ø
The Inter-State
Water Disputes Act of 1956 may be suitably reviewed and amended for timely
adjudication of water dispute referred to the Tribunal (Page 18,
21.2).
Ø
Performance
improvement: There is an urgent need of paradigm shift in the emphasis in the
management of water resources sector.
From the present emphasis on the creation and expansion of water
resources infrastructures for diverse uses, there is now a need to give greater
emphasis on the improvement of the performance of the existing water resource
facilities. Therefore allocation of funds under water resource sector should be
re-prioritized to ensure that the needs for development as well as operation and
maintenance of the facilities are met, along with the funds allocated to other
activities under sector (Page 19, 22).
4. River
Water Disputes – A Case Study
Government of India has setup a
commission to resolve the river water disputes of Godavari and Krishna River
basin areas i.e., Andhra Pradesh, Maharasthra and Karnataka states. It is well
known as Justice Bachawat Commission. Accordingly the commission has resolved a
number of disputes relating to the river water sharing amicably after listening
to the arguments put forth by the respective states and award was finalized in
the year 1972. However, there are a number of disputes due to adamant attitude
of either of the aforesaid states that remained unresolved. Here is a typical
case of Mahaboobnagar district in Andhra Pradesh, which requires immediate
attention.
Mahaboobnagar District, Andhra Pradesh
Mahaboobnagar is the largest district
in Telangana region and is among the top three larger districts in Andhra
Pradesh in terms of the spread, with geographical area of 18.4 Lakh
hectares. The entire district is
covered under Krishna River Basin.
The river Krishna with its tributaries Bheema and Tungabhadra enters
Andhra Pradesh in Mahaboobnagar district.
However, the percentage of irrigation potential to cultivable area is
11.4% only and to the geographical area it is less than 5%. The normal rainfall was 650mm it fell to
534 mm being among the lowest three districts in the state. At present a combination of factor of
failed rainfall alternate year and over-tapping of ground water, resulted in
ground water levels falling from 3 to 25 mts. in 97% of the area. With a string of minor irrigation
structures this district suffered from official apathy, leading to decimation of
its resources. Further irrigation
investments have not been commensurate with its area, potential and contribution
to the Krishna River. The rights of
the people in this District over the Krishna waters have not been recognized
widely. It is high time that
Mahaboobnagar, perennially in the grip of desertification and continuous
drought, is made the destination for priority Irrigation investments. There are highly conducive conditions
for such development, except that it needs political will and political will
alone.
Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal in its
report (vide page 288 para 2 & 3) expressed its concern at deprived
situation of Mahaboobnagar district in terms of water allocation on account of
reorganization of states. It is now well established fact that the district of
Mahaboobnagar is the most backward in all respects. No less a person than Justice Bachawat
in his order on sharing of Krishna water observed
so.
“That the state of Andhra Pradesh no
doubt, has been allocated enough water for historical reasons, but still
Telengana part of the State of Andhra Pradesh Stands in need of irrigation. The area of Mahaboobnagar district
formed part of Hyderabad State and had there been no division of state, there
were better chances for the residents of this area to get irrigation facilities
in Mahaboobnagar district. We are
of the opinion that this area should not be deprived of the benefits of
irrigation on account of the re-organization of
state”.
“We cannot conceive that the state of
Andhra Pradesh having put forward the claim for allocation of water for
Telangana region and having received an allocation of water for Telengana region
and having received an allocation for use in that region would use it else where
out side that region.”
(Bachawat Award 1972)
Vide page 288, para 2+3
In the circumstances explained above
the district is reeling under continuous drought conditions and is now deprived
of water even for its minimum needs of irrigation and drinking water, despite
its large contribution to the Krishna River. Though Srisailam project has displaced
many villages due to submersion, there have not been substantial benefits to the
people of the district. People of
this district have served the national interests amply and adequately but did
not get anything in turn. They had
paid the price, and are now facing the consequences of drought and
deprivation.
The present power tariff hike is yet
another slap on the face of the farmers, which forces them to stop all farming
operations. Further annual increase
of 15% on power tariff will result in dispensing with agricultural operations
and sale of lands. The present
enhanced power rate is likely to have an adverse impact on all the proposed lift
irrigation projects rendering them into non-remunerative
projects.
People of this district have a right
over the waters of the Krishna River.
Irrigation investments have to be made on priority basis to cater to the
basic minimum needs of the area.
The Government should work out the program as a
package.
Alternative
Possibility
While the contemplated three Lift
Irrigation projects involve an investment of about Rs. 2000 Crores; the Almatti
dam canal can possibly be completed with the said amount and requires no
recurring expenditure. Considering the Almatti dam elevation of +512.0 mts., it
is possible to conceive a canal at +480.0 mts. contour irrigating 65% of
Mahaboobnagar district and Integrated network of canals could also be considered
as mutually beneficial projects between Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka. This could
be in tune with Bachawat statement “that nothing is impossible with mutual
cooperation”. This could be an Inter- State project benefiting mutually and the
required canals can be completed within three years by mechanization, as the
Almatti dam is almost completed and Karnataka is having enough water. The Andhra Pradesh State can contemplate
on this suggestion. Thus this project can be cleared by CWC and can be included
in Plan budget.
Intellectual Forums’ Note on
Utilization of Krishna Water in Mahaboobnagar District
Mahaboobnagar District is a
drought-affected district of Telangana.
It is the upper most district of Telangana in which the river Krishna
enters after flowing through Karnataka.
The district lies fully in Krishna basin and it does not have any other
source to extend irrigation facilities except the river Thungabhadra / river
Krishna. The percentage of
irrigation potential to sown area in Mahaboobnagar District is quite low
(19.47%) as compared to the State average of 42.19%. This district suffered most due to
formation of A.P. State. The
benefits from the projects namely Upper Krishna, Thungabhadra Left canal and
Bhima which were to irrigate to an extent of 7 lac acres in the district were
denied by the Karnataka State.
In the words of the Tribunal “the case
of the State of A.P. is that the State of Mysore has now made changes in the
Right Bank Canal of Upper Krishna Project without extending benefits to
contiguous areas in the State of A.P. which were formerly proposed to be
irrigated ………………….. The State
of A.P. no doubt, has been allocated enough water for historical reasons, but
still Telangana part of the State of A.P. stands in need of irrigation. The area which we are considering for
irrigation formed a part of Hyderabad State and had there been no division of
that State there were better chances for the residents of this area to get
irrigation facilities in Mahaboobnagar District. We are of the opinion that this area
should not be deprived of the benefit or irrigation on account of reorganization
of States. If properly managed,
Jurala Project Stage-I can operate by utilizing about 18 TMC. We, therefore think it proper that 17.84
TMC of water at 75% dependability should be allocated for Stage-I of the
project”
Thus, it is vivid that the Tribunal
has taken a sympathetic view towards Mahaboobnagar District and allocated 17.84
TMC of Krishna waters for Jurala Project to irrigate an area of 1,05,000
acres.
Grievances
The Government of A.P. have
formulated the following three schemes for the benefit of Mahaboobnagar
District:
S. No.
Name of the
Scheme
Utilisation in
TMC Benefits
in Acres
1.
Bhima
20 TMC 2.00
lacs
2.
Kalwakurthi
25 TMC 2.50
lacs
3.
Nettampad
13.426 TMC
2.00 lacs
As mentioned earlier, though Bhima is
cleared from Centre, it has not been accorded Administrative sanction by the
State Government yet. The other two
projects which are based on utilizing the surplus flow are neither cleared from
the Centre nor started by the State Government by utilizing State
funds.
1.
While the state of
the projects to benefit the upper most riparian district i.e. Mahaboobnagar
which lies entirely in the Krishna basin is so, the Government is spending
thousands of crores on projects which are not authorized and located in down
stream reaches and most of them are situated outside Krishna basin. Telugu Ganga is one such project on
which more than Rs.1500 crores is spent by the State Government and the project
is envisaged to serve large areas outside the Krishna Basin. SLBC is another project on which around
Rs.500 crores were spent by the State Government. However, this project lies entirely in
Krishna Basin.
Apart from the above, the Government
is planning to take up more projects namely Galeru Nagari, Handri Neeva,
Veligonda, utilizing surplus flows of river Krishna to serve the areas lying
outside the Krishna basin.
As regards to the utilization of river
Krishna outside the basin, the Tribunal held that
(1) Diversion of water of the inter-State
river Krishna outside the river basin is legal.
(2) In equitable allocation, future uses
requiring diversion of water outside the basin are relevant, but more weight may
be given to uses requiring diversion of water inside the
basin.
Thus, the State Government ought to
have given more weightage to the projects requiring water inside the basin
before considering diversion to outside basin.
The national Water Policy 2002 says
that “water should be made available to water short areas by transfer from other
areas including transfer from one river basin to another, based on a national
perspective, after taking into account, the requirement of the areas
/basin”. Thus, the Statement
Government should have considered making available Krishna waters to areas
outside the basin only after taking into account the requirement of the areas
/basin.
2.
It is not out of
place to mention here that the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal categorically
rejected the claim of Rajasthan for allocating Narmada waters to it on the plea
that it is a non-basin State. Thus,
it is amply clear that any area lying outside the basin will not be eligible to
derive the benefits unless the in-basin requirements are
met.
3.
It is a matter of
natural justice that when there are no legally established uses in the basin
elsewhere, Mahaboobnagar District enjoying the upper most riparian position in
the basin should get first priority in utilizing the surplus waters than other
areas either located down stream or outside the basin. As such surplus waters of Krishna should
be allocated to Kalwakurty and Nettampad schemes in preference to other schemes
proposed in the basin.
4.
While crores of
Rupees are spent on unauthorized projects, the Government have not taken up the
Bhima Project which is a project cleared by the Central
Government.
5.
The Bachawat
Tribunal’s term is already over on 31.05.2002. Now, it is any time the new Tribunal
would be set up. There is every
possibility that the new Tribunal may allocate waters from surplus flows to
these unauthorized projects, which are already constructed or under construction
since a lot of money has already been spent on them, despite the objections
raised by the up-stream States and advice tendered by the Union Government. Thus, there is a danger that the
Mahaboobnagar District might loose the benefits of surplus Krishna waters,
permanently.
6.
Further, it is
to be appreciated that huge funds are pumped into the construction of these
unauthorized projects and these funds are from the State budget to which the
Mahaboobnagar District also contributes.
It is paradoxical that the funds and water of the Mahaboobnagar District
are utilized to promote the projects, which are detrimental to the welfare of
the District itself.
7.
Thus the die
is cast. The plight of
Mahaboobnagar District is a ripe situation for the political parties to fish in
troubled waters and who knows what will be consequences. Therefore it is high time, a proper
mechanism for inter state and intra-state disputes relating to water be
constituted. It will be more
fitting if the committee comprises not just government engineers but includes
academicians, intellectuals and voluntary organizations of the regions but keep
off politicians and bureaucrats who have neither understanding nor technical
competence to deal with the subjects.
5.
summary
Therefore it is evident that the
existing legal provisions to tackle the river water disputes requires a second
look. For there is a need to
have a mechanism to look into justifiable sharing of water within the states
without compromising the regional interests. The drinking water should be given
a top priority. Finally, any
possible misuse of river waters other then the approved projects should be taken
a serious view and if possible article 356 may be enforced.
6.
Reference
1.
A Consultation
paper on constitutional mechanisms for the settlement of inter-state disputes
conducted by National Commission to review the working of the constitution at
New Delhi, July 2001.
2.
Krishna water
dispute tribunal i.e. Bachawat award, Government of India,
1972.
3.
Development of
Irrigation in the Drought Areas in Krishna & Pennar Basins in Government of
Andhra Pradesh, 1981.
4.
Expert committee
on utilization of river water in Andhra Pradesh, Krishna River Basin Vol. 1,
July 1985, Government of Andhra Pradesh.
5.
Notes from I &
CAD Dept. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, 1998.
Appendix
Some of the extracts of the
Bachawat award of concern are:
Extract of Bachawat Award:
In the final order of Bachawat a use,
XIV (A) It is said “At any time after the 31st May, 2000, this
order (Bachawat order) may be
reviewed or revised by a competent authority or Tribunal, but such review or
revision shall not as far as possible disturb any utilization that may have been
undertaken by any state with in its limits of the allocation made to it under
the foregoing clauses.”
Chapter 15 Page 392 “Nothing in the order of this tribunal
shall impair the right of power or authority of any state to regulate with in
its boundaries the use of water, or to enjoy the benefit of water with that
state in a manner not in consistent with the order of this
tribunal”
Clause XVII page 392 “Nothing contain
hearing shall prevent the alteration, amendment or modification of all or any of
the foregoing clauses by agreement between the parties (A.P. Karnataka &
Maharastra) or by legislation by parliament.”
Bachawat order said in page 98, “The
extension of the Tungabhadra left bank canal and other projects in Mysore to
areas in Andhra Pradesh can fructify only by close cooperation.
Bachawat order further said in page
305, “ In the end so far as scheme
‘B’ (these projects depending upon surplus water not specifically permitted by
Bachawat) is conceived, we leave the questions of the enforcement of such a
scheme to the good sense of parties (A.P. Karnataka, Maharastra) or to the
wisdom of parliament.”
In the light of the above, and on the
expiry of implementation of Bachawat award on May, 31st, 2000, the
Govt. of India has to appoint a fresh Tribunal in case of any of the concerned
states contesting the award apply. Otherwise the GOI under the observations made
by the Supreme Court recently in the Almatti case could presume the Bachawat
award of 1972 as absolute and appoint Krishna valley authority for its
implementation.
Clarification No. XXIII
Karnataka prays that the following
observation at page 190 of Vol.I of the report be
expunged:-
“…, but instead of co-operative
approach and mutual agreement, there is vigorous opposition to all such
extension schemes by the State of Mysore”.
The other parties do not oppose the
deletion of the above observation. We direct that the aforesaid observation be
deleted from page 190 of Vol.I of the
Report.
