Major Inter-State Water Disputes in India (ISWD): Comprehensive Analysis
Introduction
Inter-state water disputes (ISWD) in India have been a persistent source of tension and complexity due to the country’s unique geographical and political configuration. Many of India’s rivers traverse multiple states, creating competing demands for their waters. As the population grows and water demands increase for agriculture, industry, and urban consumption, these disputes demand urgent resolution to ensure equitable water sharing and sustainable use.
Effective management of water sharing is vital for India’s economic growth, food security, and environmental sustainability. This article analyses major ISWDs, their causes, relevant legal and constitutional mechanisms, examples of prominent conflicts, challenges in dispute resolution, and recommendations for the future.
Historical Background
The seeds of India’s inter-state water disputes were sown during the colonial period when river basin boundaries were ignored for administrative convenience. The Cauvery water dispute, one of the earliest and longest-standing ISWDs, began even during British rule between the Madras Presidency and Mysore Kingdom.
After independence and the reorganisation of states along linguistic lines, new boundaries often divided river basins arbitrarily, further complicating water management. For example, the creation of Haryana out of Punjab in 1966 intensified the Ravi-Beas water dispute.
Demand for water grew exponentially due to the green revolution, industrialization, and rapid urbanization from the 1960s onwards, intensifying the conflicts.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
Article 262 of the Constitution
Article 262 empowers the Parliament of India to make laws related to adjudication of disputes pertaining to waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys. Crucially, courts are barred from intervening once Parliament enacts such laws to resolve water disputes.
Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (ISRWD Act)
This Act operationalizes Article 262, enabling states to request the Central Government to constitute a tribunal for dispute resolution. Tribunals have the authority to create binding awards on water sharing, allocation, and distribution.
River Boards Act, 1956
This law provides for setting up boards to manage and regulate river basins shared between states, though implementation remains limited.
Amendments and Reforms
Recent amendments introduced Dispute Resolution Committees (DRCs) which encourage states to settle disputes amicably before tribunal formation. The Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2019, proposes a permanent tribunal with set timelines to expedite adjudication.
Causes of Interstate Water Disputes
- Asymmetry in Access: Upstream states benefit from natural flow advantages, sometimes restricting flows downstream.
- Political Boundaries Not River Basin-Based: States often straddle multiple basins complicating integrated management.
- Increasing Water Demand: Growing agriculture, industry, and domestic needs fuel competition.
- Unilateral Infrastructure Projects: Construction of dams, reservoirs, and canals without consent triggers conflicts.
- Fragmented Governance: Water resource management is divided between Union, State governments and lacks coordination.
- Climate Variability: Erratic rainfall patterns and changing hydrological cycles exacerbate scarcity.
- Poor Data Sharing: Lack of consistent data on river flows and usage leads to disputes and mistrust.
Major Inter-State Water Disputes
1. Cauvery River Dispute
Between Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry. Originates in Karnataka and marked by periodic conflict over water allocation. Managed recently by the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) and Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) following Supreme Court orders.
2. Krishna River Dispute
Involving Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh with conflicts over water utilization and hydro projects. The Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal-II was constituted with matters ongoing in court.
3. Ravi-Beas Dispute
Between Punjab and Haryana, complicated by the incomplete Sutlej Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal project. The tribunal awarded shares but implementation faces political hurdles.
4. Mahanadi Dispute
Between Odisha and Chhattisgarh, relating to dam operations and river flows. A tribunal was constituted in 2018; states are pursuing amicable settlement.
5. Godavari Basin Dispute
Primarily among Maharashtra, Telangana, and Andhra Pradesh; major water sharing disputes have been settled through tribunal awards and agreements.
6. Mahadayi (Mandovi) Dispute
Between Karnataka, Goa, and Maharashtra concerning river diversions. A tribunal award exists but disagreements persist.
Institutional Mechanisms to Resolve ISWD
- Negotiation and Mediated Settlement: States prefer talks and political consensus as first solutions.
- Dispute Resolution Committees (DRC): Recent legal provisions encourage dispute resolution before tribunal notification.
- Tribunals: Constitutionally empowered panels delivering binding awards but often suffer delays.
- National River Linking Project (NRLP): Proposed large-scale interlinking could reduce conflict by redistributing water resources.
- Water Regulatory Authorities: Few exist at river basin level; need strengthening.
Challenges in Resolving ISWD
- Delay in Tribunal Formation and Award Delivery: Judicial and administrative delays undermine timely conflict resolution.
- Political Interference: State politics often override scientific watersharing norms.
- Non-implementation of Awards: Tribunal decisions are not always followed, leading to prolonged disputes.
- Lack of Integrated Basin Management: Fragmentation among agencies and states obstructs holistic management.
- Data Discrepancies: Conflicting hydrological data breeds mistrust.
- Environmental Concerns: Over-extraction threatens river health and dependent communities.
- Climate Change: Increasing unpredictability in water availability.
Role of Judiciary
The Supreme Court of India has adjudicated multiple disputes, emphasized tribunal award implementation, and stressed cooperative federalism. It has also highlighted the importance of abiding by constitutional provisions and tribunal verdicts.
However, Article 262 bars court intervention once disputes fall under parliamentary adjudication, limiting judiciary’s direct role.
Measures Suggested for Effective Resolution
- Strengthen Cooperative Federalism: Union government to mediate and facilitate inter-state talks.
- Establish Permanent Tribunal: Quick constitution and functioning to reduce delays.
- Implement River Basin Authorities: To manage resources holistically.
- Ensure Transparent Data Sharing: Promote open, real-time data for all riparian states.
- Promote Alternate Sources: Enhance water use efficiency, rainwater harvesting, and new reservoirs.
- Encourage Stakeholder Participation: Local communities and industries to be involved.
- Focus on Climate Adaptation: Incorporate climate resilience in water management policies.
Conclusion
Inter-state water disputes in India represent a complex challenge that blends geography, politics, and law. Sustainable, equitable, and scientifically sound solutions require coordinated efforts among states and the central government. By strengthening legal frameworks, administrative mechanisms, and inter-state cooperation, India can harness its river resources judiciously for the prosperity of its people and ecology.
