River Water Disputes in India

 ‘If the earth is a mother then rivers are her veins.’

                                                                                                                      – Amit Kalantri

 

 Today, water is considered as the core of an economy of any nation and every single financial movement rely upon it. Just as worldwide level, questions on river water are being made at the national level  in view of the persistently expanding interest for water, its diminishing accessibility, and its crumbling quality. Rivers stream in their characteristic structure as indicated by geomorphic conditions. They are not constrained by political units. A stream of water is disseminated by the help and size of the watershed zone. If a country is situated in an uneven relief and the origin of river is nearby, the distribution of water will not be proportionate though there would be an adequate amount of water. 

Krishna Water Dispute

It is an east-flowing river whose mouth is at Mahabaleshwar(Maharashtra) and converges with the Bay of Bengal, via Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

  What is this dispute about?

Under the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act(1956), the Krishna Water Dispute was set up in 1969 introducing its report in 1973.

It is an east-streaming river which starts at Mahabaleshwar in Maharashtra and converges with the Bay of Bengal, coursing through Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. . The report, which was presented in 1976, distributed the 2060 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75% dependability into three sections:

1.560 TMC for Maharashtra.

2.700 TMC for Karnataka.

3.800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh.

Modified request:

It was decided that the KWDT order would be revised by any authority after May 1, 2000. Later, the disputes continued in between the states and the second KWDT was established in 2004, which made allowance of the Krishna water at 65% dependability and for surplus flows as follows: : 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh in 2010 as per the report.

Demands of Andhra Pradesh:

Andhra Pradesh challenged the KWDT in SC in 2014. After the creation of Telangana in 2014, as per section 89, The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act, the Krishna waters be divided into four states, instead of three.

Opposition by Karnataka and Maharashtra:

Maharashtra and Karnataka said: “Telangana was created following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from the share of Andhra Pradesh which was approved by the tribunal.”

 

Yamuna River Disputes:

This dispute is associated with five states of north India, i.e., Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Delhi and Himachal Pradesh. An agreement regarding to Yamuna river was marked among Haryana and Uttar Pradesh in 1954, as indicated by which 77 percent water of Yamuna was to go to Haryana and 23 percent to Uttar Pradesh. Following 20-25 years, Delhi, Rajasthan and Himachal Pradesh additionally began requesting a share in the water of Yamuna.

On 12 May 1994, Water Resource Minister Vidya Charan Shukla arranged an agreement among all the five states. As indicated, Haryana was to get 47.82 percent water, Uttar Pradesh was to get 33.65 percent, Rajasthan to get 9.34 percent, Delhi 6.24 percent and Himachal Pradesh was to get 3.15 percent. This understanding would proceed till 2025. In the agreement it was given in Section 7(3) that at whatever point, when there is water supply in Yamuna, water flexibly would be given to Delhi on priority. Question emerged on this point ordinarily among these states, so on 22nd March 1995, the Upper Yamuna River Board was constituted.

 

Mahi River Water Disputes:

Agreement for distribution of waters of Mahi River was entered in 1996 between Rajasthan and Gujarat. According to it, part of the water of Kadana dam and all the water of Banswara dam would be released for use of Rajasthan when the area irrigated by Mahi River would be interchanged for the Narmada Project.

However, the Gujarat government is hesitating to fully implement conditions as yet. The Chief Minister of Rajasthan addressed the Gujarat Chief Minister on 16 January 1996 for an early disposal of this matter.

 

Narmada River Water Disputes:

According to the final order and decision of Narmada Water Dispute Tribunal, the share of Rajasthan is 0.50 MAF in the waters of river Narmada. This water is proposed to be brought to Rajasthan through a 460 km long canal from the Sardar Sarovar dam in Gujarat.

 

This water is proposed to benefit 74 villages of tehsil Sanchore of district Jalore and 1.35 lakh hectare area of tehsil Guda Malani of Barmer district, and also provide drinking water to 124 villages falling near the canal. The estimated cost of the project on 1989-90 price indexes was Rs 467.53 crores, out of which the cost of works to be carried out in Rajasthan was Rs 187.39 crores and share of cost payable to Gujarat was 280.14 crores. Out of the 74 km length of the canal in Rajasthan, earth excavation, bridge construction, regulator construction and other  works are in progress in the first 30 km length.

Besides it, earth work of ‘Vaak’ distributory to be dug at 8 km is also in progress. By the end of the year 1995-96, Rs 7,464 lakhs were spent on the project, which includes expenditure on the Sardar Project in Gujarat.

Conclusion: The Centre’s proposal to set up a single, permanent tribunal to adjudicate on inter-state river water disputes could be a major step towards streamlining the dispute redressal mechanism. However, this alone will not be able to address  different kinds of problems—legal, administrative, constitutional and political—that plague the overall framework.

Everyday policy concerns like water sharing and usage often receive less attention, are combined with larger security or border concerns, or are dealt with only when natural disasters occur. Yet water politics has far-reaching consequences for the prosperity and security of countries.

Disputes must be resolved by  talks and the political opportunism must be avoided. A robust and transparent institutional framework with cooperative approach is need of the hour.

 

Source: Biology Discussion

               Drishti IAS

               The Hindu

               Insights IAS

-Surbhi Yadav