MBA

Education
&

C
areers
April 2007 3
BHARAT JAIN
Waters of Woe
R
ivers, often regarded as the lifelines of
India, are its national assets. Geography
has blessed India with a very large
number of rivers. The country has substantial
water resources but their distribution over the
land is uneven. Such uneven distribution is a
result of the large variation in seasonal and
regional distribution of the rainfall. Most of the
rainfall occurs in the summer monsoon months,
the precipitation during the remainder of the year
being insignificant.
Large areas in western, central, and southeast
India receive very low rainfall leading to drought
conditions, while heavy monsoonal rains in the
northeast cause extensive floods. The
uncertainty, and of course varied, occurrence of
rainfall is marked by prolonged dry spells and
fluctuations in seasonal rainfall, which pose a
serious problem. Not a year passes without
devastating floods. So is the case with droughts.
Lack of adequate storage facilities has only meant
that large volumes of water drain into the sea. As
if these problems were not enough, bitter
squabbles over sharing of river waters have
added another dimension to the burning issue.
Since 1947, India has built several large and small
dams. The major aims, among a host of other
functions, behind the construction of hundreds
of dams, large and small, were irrigation, power
generation, flood control, and provisioning of
drinking water,
The fountains of sacred rivers flow upwards.
*
In a country where water is a scarce resource,
and thus a precious one, India has not learnt to
manage its water resources optimally. In fact, such
inability is the main reason behind the twin
scourges of floods and droughts. There is not
enough power for domestic and industrial
consumption while availability of potable water
has become a luxury, both in rural and urban areas.
Disputes over sharing of water
Bickering over the right to share the waters of a
common river has soured relations between
neighbouring states. We have seen how in the
recent past Tamil Nadu and Karnataka set the
Cauvery on fire by whipping up passions along
parochial lines.
In fact, river water disputes have come to affect
almost all states. Some of the major river water
disputes in India include the following:
Cauvery river water dispute among Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka, Puducherry, and Kerala.
Narmada river water dispute among Gujarat,
Madhya Pradesh, and Maharashtra.
Tungabhadra / Almatti water dispute
between Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh.
Ravi-Beas water dispute among Punjab,
Rajasthan, and Jammu & Kashmir.
Godavari water dispute among Maharashtra,
Andhra Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Orissa.
MBA
Education
&

C
areers
April 2007 4
INDI A A ND T HE WORL D: ESSAYS ON I MPORTANT I SSUES
Constitutional position on sharing of waters of
an inter-state river
The Constitution of India grants the states full
freedom to legislate on the use of water. Entry 17
of the States List (Seventh Schedule) states:
States have the power to legislate on water,
that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and
canals, drainage and embankments, water
storage and water power.
However, this power to legislate is not absolute.
It is subject to the provisions laid down in Entry
56 of the Union List (Seventh Schedule), which
(places) the regulation and development of
inter-state river and river
valleys, to the extent to
which such regulation and
development under the
control of the Union is
declared by Parliament by
law to be expedient to be in
the public interest.
The debate over including
water in the Concurrent List (Seventh Schedule)
by introducing a constitutional amendment crops
up each time there is a flaring up over sharing of
river waters. But constitutional experts say that
there is no need for such an act as the
Constitution of India already empowers the
Centre to adjudicate on disputes relating to waters
of inter-state rivers.
States Article 262 of the Constitution of India:
Parliament by law provides for the
adjudication of any dispute or complaint with
respect to the use, distribution or control of the
waters of any inter-state river or river valley
(Parliament) may, by law, provide that neither
the Supreme Court nor any other court shall
exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such
dispute or complaint.
Pursuant to these powers (laid down in Article
262), the Parliament enacted the Inter-State Water
Disputes Act, 1956. Under the Act, any inter-state
river water dispute can be referred by the Centre
to a tribunal. Such a tribunal consists of a chairman
and two other members nominated by the Chief
Justice of India from among persons who at the
time of such nomination are judges of the Supreme
Court or of a High Court.
The tribunal is supposed to investigate the matter
referred to it and forward a report to the Centre
giving its decision. The normal duration of the
Tribunal is three years,
though the Centre may
extend its term. Once the
Tribunal gives its finding,
the Centre is to publish the
same in the gazette and the
decision of the Tribunal
shall be final and binding on
the parties. More importantly, the Tribunals order
will have the same force as an order of the
Supreme Court.
To date, the Centre has, under the Inter-States
Water Disputes Act, 1956, constituted four such
Tribunals. The Narmada Tribunal, the Krishna
Water Disputes Tribunal, and the Godavari Water
Disputes Tribunal were set up in 1969. The Ravi-
Beas Tribunal was constituted in 1987.
All these Tribunals followed the principle of
equitable apportionment of water. The Krishna
Water Tribunal held that no state has a proprietary
interest in a particular volume of the water of an
inter-state river on the basis of its contribution
or irrigable area.
River waters are
national wealth and
hence, parochialism
should be avoided over
their sharing.
MBA
Education
&

C
areers
April 2007 5
INDI A A ND T HE WORL D: ESSAYS ON I MPORTANT I SSUES
Another, and in fact, more important ruling of the
Krishna Water Tribunal was that if there was a
central law on the subject of sharing of waters,
such law will be binding on all states which are
party to the dispute.
The Narmada Tribunal held that the diversion of
water of an inter-state river outside the river basin
is legal. The Ravi-Beas Tribunal while upholding
the legality and validity of prior water-sharing
agreements rejected the doctrine of riparian rights
and the theory of ownership rights.
In light of such previous rulings of the tribunals,
let me now bring to you a brief overview of the
Cauvery water dispute between Karnataka and
Tamil Nadu.
Cauvery water dispute: A brief history
River Cauvery has been a source of friction
between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu since the
1970s. The cause of this friction lies in the widely-
contested issue of utilisation of the waters in the
Cauvery Basin, which is spread across Karnataka,
Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry.
Tamil Nadu has accused Karnataka of violating
the provisions of two pre-Independence
agreements, signed in 1892 and 1924. These two
agreements (signed between the British and
Maharaja of Mysore) restricted Karnatakas rights
to build dams and expand agricultural lands.
However, Karnataka has contested this allegation
saying that these agreements are not binding and
hence it has a right to build dams and bring in
more land under agriculture.
Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal. In order to
resolve the contentious Cauvery issue, the
Centre set up the Cauvery Water Disputes
Tribunal in 1990. The main task before the tribunal
was to apportion water among the four riparian
parties Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and
Puducherry, and thus adjudicate the dispute to
the satisfaction of all the parties concerned.
Almost 17 years after it was set up, the Cauvery
Water Disputes Tribunal in February 2007, gave
its final verdict. The following are the highlights
of the historic verdict:
The total availability of water in the Cauvery
Basin has been estimated at 740 thousand
million cubic feet (tmcf).
Tamil Nadu will get 419 tmcf. This is against
its demand of 512 tmcf.
Karnataka gets 270 tmcf, as against its
demand of 465 tmcf.
Kerala gets 30 tmcf, while Puducherry has
been apportioned 7 tmcf.
However, this is not all. In fact, these figures do
not give the complete picture. The reader should
bear in mind the following important sidelights,
though they are central to the verdict.
The CWDT has allocated these shares based on
the total availability of water in the Cauvery Basin,
which has been estimated at 740 thousand million
cubic feet (tmcf). Apart from apportioning water
based on requirements of the parties to the
dispute, the CWDT has also determined the
amount that each state can utilize.
Simply put, Tamil Nadu will get 192 tmcf from
Karnataka and the remaining requirements will
be met by the rainfall and flows within its territory.
In fact, Tamil Nadu will have to release 7 tmcf
from its share of 192 tmcf (received from
Karnataka).
MBA
Education
&

C
areers
April 2007 6
INDI A A ND T HE WORL D: ESSAYS ON I MPORTANT I SSUES
M & C E
(The author is Deputy Editor,
MBA Education & Careers.)
In delivering this verdict, the CWDT fixed the
Billigundulu gauging station (maintained by the
Central Water Commission) as the point of release.
At this point, Karnataka will release 182 tmcf with
another 10 tmcf for environmental purposes.
When the final verdict was delivered, the
government of Tamil Nadu claimed that it will get
a little more than what was specified in the
judgment. How?
The CWDT has, in its verdict, said that an
additional 25 tmcf will be available through rainfall
in the intervening distance between Billigundulu
and Mettur within Tamil Nadu (this is apart from
the 192 tmcf released by Karnataka to TN). Thus,
Tamil Nadu gets 217 tmcf (192 tmcf + 25 tmcf).
This seemingly simple aspect of the verdict
proves that Tamil Nadus claim is based on a sound
footing.
Position in times of distress. The CWDT has
provided for a water sharing formula during times
when the rainfall is low. During such times, the
apportioned shares will be proportionately
reduced.
While Tamil Nadu has expressed satisfaction with
the CWDT verdict, Karnataka has called the
allocation inadequate and against its interests.
Can this verdict be challenged? Any party to the
dispute can challenge the verdict within 90 days.
The party concerned can also approach the
Supreme Court by a Special Leave Petition.
After long tortuous years, a resolution of the
Cauvery water dispute has emerged. Now we
should not let dissatisfaction with the verdict
become another cause for more disaffection. India
is one and its resources including inter-state
rivers, belong to the entire country. We need to
be on the guard against regional chauvinism. We
can not afford to let parochialism supervene over
the larger good of the country. Every part of the
country has an equal claim to the national wealth.
Let me conclude this essay with the profound
words of Dr. Koichiro Matsuura, Director General,
UNESCO: Water is probably the only natural
resource to touch all aspects of human
civilization from agricultural and industrial
development to cultural and religious values
embedded in society.
* Euripides, Medea
The river knows the way to the sea:
Without a pilot it runs and falls,
Blessing all lands with its charity.
Ralph Waldo Emerson