Interstate River Water Dispute
Punjab-Himachal dispute over the Shanan Hydropower Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Shanan Hydropower Project , Its Location
Mains level: Read the attached story
In the news
- A longstanding dispute between Punjab and Himachal Pradesh over the ownership of the Shanan hydropower project has escalated, leading to legal intervention by both parties.
- As the 99-year-old lease of the project expired on March 2, the Centre has issued orders to maintain status quo until a final decision is reached.
Shanan Hydropower Project and the Dispute
- Location: It is located on the Uhl River, a tributary of the Beas River, in Mandi district, Himachal Pradesh, India.
- British-era Lease: The 110-MW Shanan hydel project was leased to Punjab in 1925 by the then-ruler of Mandi, Raja Joginder Bahadur, under a 99-year lease agreement.
- Competing Claims: Himachal Pradesh contends that the project should revert to its control upon the expiry of the lease, citing historical and legal grounds for its claim.
- Economic Significance: The project has significant economic implications for both states, contributing to their power generation capacities and regional development.
Punjab’s Claims over the Project
- Historical Ownership: The project historically supplied power to undivided Punjab and Delhi before Independence, and it was allocated to Punjab during the reorganization of states in 1966.
- Legal Basis: Punjab asserts its legal control over the project under the provisions of the Punjab Reorganisation Act, 1966, reinforced by a central notification issued in 1967.
- Utilization of Resources: Punjab argues that it has invested in the maintenance and operation of the project, making it a vital component of its energy infrastructure.
Legal Proceedings and Centre’s Intervention
- Supreme Court Petition: Punjab has filed a suit in the Supreme Court, seeking a permanent injunction against Himachal Pradesh from disturbing its lawful possession of the project.
- Interim Status Quo Order: The Centre, invoking its powers under relevant laws, has ordered the status quo on the project’s functioning until a final decision is made, emphasizing the public interest in maintaining stability.
- Legal Interpretation: The interpretation of historical agreements and legislative acts will be pivotal in determining the rightful ownership of the project.
Implications and Future Course of Action
- Interim Measure: The Centre’s order is an interim measure to prevent disruption in the functioning of the Shanan Power House until the dispute is resolved.
- Legal Framework: Both parties are expected to proceed further within the legal framework to settle the dispute, ensuring adherence to due process and fairness.
- Regional Cooperation: A collaborative approach between Punjab and Himachal Pradesh, facilitated by federal authorities, could lead to a mutually beneficial resolution and promote inter-state harmony.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
In news: Mullaperiyar Dam
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mullaperiyar Dam
Mains level: Not Much
Central Idea
- Tamil Nadu cancelled the decision to open the spillway shutters of Mullaperiyar dam after a lull in rainfall and reduced inflow of water to the dam.
Do you know?
The Mullaperiyar dam is located in Kerala on the river Periyar but is operated and maintained by the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.
John Pennycuick (the architect of this dam) sold his family property in England to mobilize money to fund the project! People of the region fondly name their children under his name a remark of reverence.
Mullaperiyar Dam
- It is a masonry gravity dam on the Periyar River in Kerala.
- It is located on the Cardamom Hills of the Western Ghats in Thekkady, Idukki District.
- It was constructed between 1887 and 1895 by John Pennycuick (who was born in Pune) and also reached in an agreement to divert water eastwards to the Madras Presidency area.
- It has a height of 53.6 m (176 ft) from the foundation, and a length of 365.7 m (1,200 ft).
Operational issue
- The dam is located in Kerala but is operated and maintained by Tamil Nadu.
- The catchment area of the Mullaperiyar Dam itself lies entirely in Kerala and thus not an inter-State river.
- In November 2014, the water level hit 142 feet for first time in 35 years.
- The reservoir again hit the maximum limit of 142 feet in August 2018, following incessant rains in the state of Kerala.
- Indeed, the tendency to store water to almost the full level of reservoirs is becoming a norm among water managers across States.
Dispute: Control and safety of the dam
- Supreme court judgment came in February 2006, has allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the level of the dam to 152 ft (46 m) after strengthening it.
- Responding to it, the Mullaperiyar dam was declared an ‘endangered’ scheduled dam by the Kerala Government under the disputed Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006.
- For Tamil Nadu, the Mullaperiyar dam and the diverted Periyar waters act as a lifeline for Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga, Dindigul and Ramnad districts.
- Tamil Nadu has insisted on exercising the unfettered colonial rights to control the dam and its waters, based on the 1886 lease agreement.
Rule of Curve issue
- A rule curve or rule level specifies the storage or empty space to be maintained in a reservoir during different times of the year.
- It decides the fluctuating storage levels in a reservoir.
- The gate opening schedule of a dam is based on the rule curve. It is part of the “core safety” mechanism in a dam.
- The TN government often blames Kerala for delaying the finalization of the rule curve.
Back2Basics: Periyar River
- The Periyar is the longest river in the state of Kerala with a length of 244 km.
- It is also known as ‘Lifeline of Kerala’ as it is one of the few perennial rivers in the state.
- It originates from Sivagiri hills of Western Ghats and flows through the Periyar National Park.
- The main tributaries of Periyar are Muthirapuzha, Mullayar, Cheruthoni, Perinjankutti.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Karnataka complies with Cauvery Water Directive
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Cauvery Water Dispute
Mains level: Read the attached story
Central Idea
- Karnataka has initiated the release of water from its reservoirs to Tamil Nadu, following the directives of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).
- The outflow from the Krishnaraja Sagar (KRS) Reservoir across the Cauvery River in Mandya district has been escalated.
Also read:
Increased Outflow Details
- The current outflow rate into the river is 4,398 cubic feet per second (cusecs), whereas the inflow stands at 2,300 cusecs as of Wednesday.
- The outflow rate was 2,292 cusecs on Tuesday at 8 p.m. but was increased after 11 p.m.
- The Kabini Reservoir in Mysuru district also contributes to the outflow, currently standing at 2,000 cusecs.
- Cumulatively, both reservoirs will release around 6,398 cusecs of water.
Cauvery Water Sharing Dispute: Historical Background
- 1892 Onset: The water dispute originates from 1892 between British-ruled Madras Presidency and the princely state of Mysore (now Karnataka).
- 1924 Agreement: A 50-year agreement mediated by the British aimed to ease tensions but set the stage for future conflicts.
- Post-Independence Battles: Karnataka’s dam constructions in the 1960s-80s triggered Tamil Nadu’s Supreme Court appeal, leading to the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT).
- Interim Measures: The Cauvery River Authority (CRA) implemented interim orders in 1998. Contentious issues persisted despite CWDT’s 2013 award.
- Final Award: CWDT’s 2013 award allocated water quantities for Tamil Nadu (419 TMC), Karnataka (270 TMC), Kerala (30 TMC), and Puducherry (7 TMC).
Water Sharing Criteria
- Monthly Schedule: Karnataka, the upper riparian state, must provide Tamil Nadu a specified monthly water quantity.
- Annual Allocation: In a “normal” year, Karnataka provides 177.25 TMC to Tamil Nadu, with 123.14 TMC during the southwest monsoon.
- Challenges: Monsoon disagreements arise due to varying rainfall during this period.
Constitutional Provisions for Water Sharing
- Article 262: Empowers Parliament to address inter-State river disputes; IRWD Act, 1956 enacted under this article.
- Seventh Schedule: Defines legislative authority over water resources in Entry 17 (State List) and Entry 56 (Union List).
Resolving Cauvery Water Sharing
(A) Supreme Court’s 2018 Verdict:
- Cauvery as National Asset: The Supreme Court declared Cauvery a “national asset,” upholding inter-State river water equality.
- Allocation Adjustments: The Court noted deficiencies in CWDT’s assessment, resulting in marginal relief for Karnataka and reduced allocation for Tamil Nadu.
- Formation of CMB: The Court directed the establishment of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB) for effective implementation.
(B) Cauvery Water Management Scheme:
- CWMA Establishment: Formed to regulate water releases with CWRC’s assistance.
- Permanent and Technical Bodies: CWMA oversees regulation, while CWRC ensures data collection and award implementation.
Current Status and Future Implications:
- Ongoing Challenge: The Cauvery water dispute remains a historical and legal challenge.
- Resource Management: CWMA and CWRC aim to address the dispute through effective water management.
- Continued Struggle: The dispute underscores the complexity of water sharing in a federal system and the need for equitable solutions.
Tamil Nadu’s Contention
- CWMA’s Decision: CWMA sought 10,000 cusecs for 15 days from Karnataka, but Karnataka proposed 8,000 cusecs up to August 22.
- Previous Agreement: Karnataka’s refusal to adhere to the earlier agreement of 15,000 cusecs for 15 days at the CWRC meeting angered Tamil Nadu.
- Distress-sharing Formula: Tamil Nadu supports distress-sharing, but Karnataka hasn’t embraced it.
Karnataka’s Perspective
- Rainfall Deficit: Karnataka claims lower rainfall in Cauvery’s catchment areas, including Kerala, leading to reduced inflow.
- Challenging Situation: Karnataka cites reduced reservoir inflow as the reason for not releasing water this year.
- Lack of Consistency: Despite endorsing distress-sharing, Karnataka declined to accept the formula.
Future Scenario
- Tamil Nadu’s Concerns: Mettur reservoir’s critically low storage affects farmers and upcoming kuruvai crop.
- Water Shortage: Current water availability may last only 10 days, considering dead storage and drinking water needs.
- Awaiting Supreme Court: The case’s outcome depends on the Supreme Court’s interpretation and decision.
- Need for Resolution: The need for a mutually acceptable distress-sharing formula is evident.
Ongoing Challenges and Factors Prolonging the Dispute:
- Erratic Water Levels: Flood-drought cycles, pollution, and groundwater depletion cause unpredictable water levels.
- Idealistic Calculations: SC’s verdict relies on favorable conditions often misaligned with reality.
- Dependency and Population: Both states heavily rely on the river, causing conflicting urban and agricultural water needs.
- Inefficient Water Use: Inefficient irrigation methods lead to low crop productivity per unit of water used.
- Hydropolitics and Delays: Water disputes are used for political mobilization. Prolonged tribunal processes contribute to delays.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Inter-state Water disputes in India
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Cauvery River
Mains level: Read the attached story
Central Idea
- Tamil Nadu has urged the Supreme Court to compel Karnataka to release 24,000 cusecs of water immediately.
- The state seeks the release of 36.76 TMC for September 2023, as per the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal’s (CWDT) award.
About Cauvery River
|
Cauvery Water Dispute: Historical Background
- 1892 Onset: The water dispute dates back to 1892 between the British-ruled Madras Presidency and the princely state of Mysore (now Karnataka).
- 1924 Agreement: A 50-year agreement mediated by the British aimed to quell tensions but merely laid the groundwork for future disagreements.
- Post-Independence Battles: Karnataka’s dam constructions in the 1960s-80s sparked Tamil Nadu’s appeal to the Supreme Court. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) followed.
- Interim Measures: The Cauvery River Authority (CRA) in 1998 implemented interim orders. Contentious issues persisted despite CWDT’s 2013 award.
- Final Award: The CWDT’s award in 2013 allocated water quantities for Tamil Nadu (419 TMC), Karnataka (270 TMC), Kerala (30 TMC), and Puducherry (7 TMC).
Water Sharing Criteria
- Monthly Schedule: Karnataka, the upper riparian state, is mandated to provide Tamil Nadu with a specified water quantity each month.
- Annual Allocation: In a “normal” year, Karnataka must provide 177.25 TMC to Tamil Nadu, of which 123.14 TMC is during the southwest monsoon.
- Challenges: The contentious period is the monsoon when disagreements often arise due to varying rainfall.
Constitutional Provisions for Water Sharing
- Article 262: Empowers Parliament to address inter-State river disputes; IRWD Act, 1956 enacted under this article.
- Seventh Schedule: Defines the legislative authority over water resources in Entry 17 (State List) and Entry 56 (Union List).
Resolving Cauvery Water Sharing
(A) Supreme Court’s 2018 Verdict
- Cauvery as National Asset: The Supreme Court declared Cauvery a “national asset” and upheld inter-State river water equality.
- Allocation Adjustments: The Court noted deficiencies in CWDT’s assessment, leading to Karnataka receiving marginal relief and Tamil Nadu’s allocation reduced to 177.25 TMC.
- Formation of CMB: The Court directed the establishment of the Cauvery Management Board (CMB) for effective implementation of orders.
(B) Cauvery Water Management Scheme
- CWMA Establishment: The Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) was formed to regulate water releases with assistance from the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).
- Permanent and Technical Bodies: CWMA oversees water regulation, while CWRC ensures data collection and implementation of the final award.
Current Status and Future Implications:
- Ongoing Challenge: The Cauvery water dispute remains an ongoing challenge with historical and legal dimensions.
- Resource Management: The establishment of CWMA and CWRC aims to address the dispute through effective water management.
- Continued Struggle: The dispute underscores the complexity of water sharing in a federal system and the need for equitable solutions.
Tamil Nadu’s Contention
- CWMA’s Decision: The CWMA sought 10,000 cusecs for 15 days from Karnataka, but Karnataka proposed only 8,000 cusecs up to August 22.
- Previous Agreement: Karnataka’s refusal to adhere to the earlier agreement of 15,000 cusecs for 15 days at the CWRC meeting irked Tamil Nadu.
- Distress-sharing Formula: TN CM supports a distress-sharing formula, but Karnataka has not embraced it.
Karnataka’s Perspective
- Rainfall Deficit: Karnataka claims lower rainfall in Cauvery’s catchment areas, including Kerala, leading to reduced inflow into its reservoirs.
- Challenging Situation: Karnataka stated that it couldn’t release water as the reservoirs received less inflow this year.
- Lack of Consistency: Despite Karnataka’s endorsing distress-sharing, the state declined to accept the formula.
Future Scenario
- Tamil Nadu’s Concerns: The Mettur reservoir’s storage is critically low, impacting farmers and the upcoming kuruvai crop.
- Water Shortage: The current water availability may last only 10 days, considering dead storage and drinking water needs.
- Awaiting Supreme Court: The case’s outcome now rests with the Supreme Court’s interpretation and decision.
- Need for a Resolution: The pressing need for a mutually acceptable distress-sharing formula is evident.
Ongoing Challenges and Factors Prolonging the Dispute:
- Erratic Water Levels: Flood-drought cycles, pollution, and groundwater depletion have led to unpredictable water levels.
- Idealistic Calculations: SC’s verdict relies on favorable conditions that often do not align with reality.
- Dependency and Population: Both states rely heavily on the river, causing conflicting water needs for urban areas and agriculture.
- Inefficient Water Use: Inefficient irrigation methods lead to low crop productivity per unit of water used.
- Hydropolitics and Delays: Political parties capitalize on water disputes for mobilization. Prolonged tribunal adjudications contribute to delays.
Global Lessons
|
Conclusion
- The Cauvery River dispute is a microcosm of water-related challenges in India.
- To address this century-old struggle, collaborative efforts, sustainable practices, and empowered community involvement are essential.
- By learning from global examples and innovating locally, a future of equitable water allocation, prosperity, and harmony can be envisioned.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Row over Mekedatu Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mekedatu Project
Mains level: Interstate water disputes
Central Idea
- Announcement of dam and reservoir: The Deputy CM of Karnataka announced plans for the construction of a dam and reservoir called Mekedatu near the state’s border with Tamil Nadu.
- Objections raised by Tamil Nadu: Tamil Nadu expressed strong objections to the project, arguing that it goes against the rulings of both the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
- Warning of protests: Political parties in Tamil Nadu have warned of potential protests and opposition if the construction of the Mekedatu dam proceeds.
What is Mekedatu Project?
- Location and purpose: The Mekedatu dam project is planned to be constructed in Ramanagaram district, approximately 100 km south of Bengaluru. Its primary purpose is to address the drinking water needs of Bengaluru and replenish the regional groundwater table.
- Proposed capacity and estimated cost of the dam: The dam is proposed to have a capacity of 48 TMC (thousand million cubic) feet and is estimated to cost Rs 6,000 crore.
- Background and previous developments of the project: The idea of the Mekedatu dam has been under consideration for several years. In 2014, the Karnataka government invited expressions of interest for the project and allocated funds for a detailed project report in the following year.
Opposition to the Project
- Widespread protests and state-wide bandh in TN: When the project was initially proposed, Tamil Nadu witnessed widespread protests against it. These protests culminated in a statewide bandh, supported by various stakeholders.
- Resolutions passed by TN Assembly against the project: The Tamil Nadu Assembly, representing the voice of the people, passed unanimous resolutions expressing strong opposition to the Mekedatu project in December 2018 and January 2022.
- Political actions and legal involvement in the dispute: Various political leaders and parties in Tamil Nadu have taken actions, including raising the issue with the central government and approaching the Supreme Court to challenge the project’s legality.
Arguments against the Project
- Concerns over modification of river flow: Critics of the Mekedatu project argue that constructing reservoirs on the Cauvery River would modify its natural flow, potentially leading to adverse effects downstream.
- Violation of the final award of the water disputes tribunal: Tamil Nadu contends that the proposed dam violates the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, which determined the water-sharing arrangements between the two states.
- Impact on water flow in catchment areas: Tamil Nadu raises concerns that the project’s implementation would impound the flow in catchment areas, affecting the availability of water downstream and potentially leading to water scarcity in the state.
Justifications and proposals
- Ensuring adequate flow to TN: Karnataka argues that the construction of the Mekedatu dam will not hinder the stipulated quantum of water release to Tamil Nadu nor be utilized for irrigation purposes.
- Allocation of funds and willingness to negotiate: The Karnataka government has earmarked Rs 1,000 crore for the project, indicating its commitment. It also expresses willingness to engage in discussions and negotiations with Tamil Nadu to address concerns and find a resolution.
- Clearance of feasibility study: The Central Water Commission cleared a feasibility study for the Mekedatu project in 2018, providing additional support for Karnataka’s justifications and indicating the project’s viability.
Historical context of the dispute
- Past opposition and protests against the dam: The Mekedatu dam has been a subject of contention and opposition for several years. Tamil Nadu has witnessed widespread protests, reflecting public sentiment against the project.
- Political actions and involvement of state delegations: Political leaders from Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have been actively involved in addressing the issue. Delegations from both states have approached the central government seeking support or intervention.
- Legal challenges and the role of the Supreme Court: Tamil Nadu’s approach to the Supreme Court against the Mekedatu project highlights the legal dimension of the dispute. The involvement of the court plays a crucial role in considering the arguments and reaching a resolution.
Environmental and Economic considerations
- Potential benefits of the dam for water supply: Proponents of the Mekedatu project argue that it will address the pressing drinking water needs of Bengaluru, ensuring a stable water supply for the growing city.
- Concerns about environmental impact and ecosystem disruption: Critics raise concerns about the potential environmental impact of constructing the dam and reservoir. They highlight potential disruptions to local ecosystems and the natural flow of the river.
- Evaluating the economic viability of the project: Given the significant estimated cost of the Mekedatu project, there is a need to evaluate its cost-effectiveness and long-term economic viability, considering factors such as funding sources, returns on investment, and sustainable utilization of resources.
Way forward
- Importance of negotiation and finding common ground: The conflict surrounding the Mekedatu project emphasizes the importance of dialogue, negotiations, and finding mutually acceptable solutions that address the concerns of both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu.
- Role of the Supreme Court and other mediators in resolving conflicts: The involvement of the Supreme Court and other mediators can play a crucial role in facilitating discussions, mediating conflicts, and reaching a resolution that adheres to legal frameworks and considers the interests of both states.
- Promoting inter-state cooperation for sustainable water management: The dispute underscores the need for robust inter-state cooperation and collaboration on water management issues. It is crucial to ensure sustainable and equitable utilization of shared water resources, respect legal frameworks, and address the concerns of all stakeholders involved.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
In news: Krishna Water Dispute
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Krishna Water Dispute
Mains level: Read the attached story
Central Idea
- The dispute over the water share of the Krishna River between Andhra Pradesh (AP) and Telangana has remained unresolved for nine years since the bifurcation of the combined state.
About Krishna River
| Explanation | |
| Origin | Mahabaleshwar, Maharashtra |
| Length | Approximately 1,400 km |
| States swept | Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh |
| Tributaries | Tungabhadra, Bhima, Ghataprabha, Malaprabha, Musi |
| Significance | Irrigation, hydropower, drinking water |
| Basin | Approximately 2,59,000 sq km |
| Dams | Srisailam, Nagarjuna Sagar, Almatti, Koyna |
| Delta | Forms fertile delta in Bay of Bengal |
What is Krishna Water Dispute?
- The dispute dates back to the formation of AP in November 1956.
- Before the formation of AP, a Gentlemen’s Agreement was signed in February 1956 by four senior leaders from different regions of Andhra.
- The agreement aimed to protect Telangana’s interests and ensure equitable distribution of water resources based on global treaties.
- However, the focus on irrigation facilities favored Andhra, which had existing systems developed by the British at the expense of drought-prone areas in Telangana.
Resolution achieved till now
(1) Bachawat tribunal
- In 1969, the Bachawat Tribunal (KWDT-I) was established to settle the water share dispute among Maharashtra, Karnataka, and AP (before bifurcation).
- The Tribunal allocated 811 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of dependable water to AP.
- The water was later divided in a 512:299 tmcft ratio between Andhra and Telangana, respectively, based on the command area developed by each region.
- The Tribunal recommended diverting water from the Tungabhadra Dam to the drought-prone Mahabubnagar area of Telangana, but this recommendation was not implemented, leading to discontent.
(2) Water-sharing arrangement after bifurcation
- The AP Reorganisation Act, 2014, did not mention water shares, as the KWDT-I Award was still in force and had not specified region-wise allocations.
- In 2015, the two states agreed to an ad hoc arrangement of sharing water in a 34:66 ratio (Telangana: Andhra) during a meeting convened by the Ministry of Water Resources.
- The arrangement was supposed to be reviewed annually.
- The Act focused on the establishment of the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and the Godavari River Management Board (GRMB) for water resource management.
Claims by each state
- Telangana argues that it is entitled to a minimum of 70% share in the allocation of the 811 tmcft based on global practices and basin parameters.
- Telangana highlights how AP diverts around 300 tmcft of water from within the basin, affecting drought-prone areas in Telangana.
- AP also claims a higher share of water to protect the interests of already developed command areas.
Centre’s position
- The Centre convened two meetings of the Apex Council in 2016 and 2020, involving the Union Minister and Chief Ministers of Telangana and AP, but no substantial progress was made.
- In 2020, following a suggestion by the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS), Telangana withdrew its petition from the Supreme Court with the assurance that the matter would be referred to a Tribunal.
- However, the Centre has not taken any action on the issue for over two years, while the two states continue to engage in ongoing disputes.
Way Forward
Considering the prolonged dispute and the failure to reach a resolution, it is crucial for all stakeholders to take proactive steps. The following measures could be considered:
- Mediation: Appoint an independent body or mediator to facilitate negotiations between the two states and assist in finding a fair and mutually agreeable solution.
- Scientific assessment: Conduct a comprehensive scientific assessment of the basin parameters, water requirements, and the impact of existing water utilization practices to inform the allocation of water shares.
- Public awareness: Raise public awareness about the importance of water conservation, efficient utilization, and sustainable practices to reduce the overall demand for water resources.
- Implementation of recommendations: Act upon the recommendations of previous tribunals and committees to ensure equitable distribution of water resources and address the grievances of both states.
- More deliberations: Foster a spirit of cooperation and collaboration between AP and Telangana to jointly manage and sustainably utilize the Krishna River water resources for the benefit of both regions.
It is crucial for the central government to play an active role in facilitating dialogue, providing necessary support, and expediting the resolution process to ensure a fair and just outcome for all parties involved.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Assam- Arunachal Pradesh Border Dispute
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: NA
Mains level: Interstate border disputes
Central idea
- Ahave had a long-standing border dispute over 123 villages that are located in 12 districts of Arunachal and 8 districts of Assam.
- On April 21, 2022, an MoU was signed between the two states to resolve the dispute.
Genesis of the dispute
- The border dispute between Arunachal Pradesh and Assam has around 1,200 points of conflict along their 804 km boundary, which began in the 1970s and intensified in the 1990s.
- The issue goes back to 1873 when the British government introduced the inner-line permit, vaguely separating the plains from the frontier hills.
- In 1954, the North-East Frontier Agency (NEFA) was formed, and 3,648 sq. km of the “plain” area of Balipara and Sadiya foothills was transferred to the Darrang and Lakhimpur districts of Assam based on the 1951 report.
- Arunachal has been celebrating its statehood with an eye on China since 1987, and its people living in the transferred patches have been resentful, claiming that the transfer was done arbitrarily.
- However, their counterparts in Assam say the 1951 demarcation is constitutional and legal.
Past efforts to resolve the border issue
- Several efforts were made in the past to resolve the border dispute between Assam and Arunachal Pradesh.
- In 1979, a high-powered tripartite committee was constituted to delineate the boundary, and around 489 km of the 800 km were demarcated by 1983-84.
- Further demarcation could not take place because Arunachal Pradesh did not accept the recommendations.
- The apex court appointed a local boundary commission in 2006 to resolve the dispute. However, nothing came of it.
Process leading up to the signing of the MoU
- Assam CM and Arunachal CM commenced CM-level talks over the border issue on January 24, 2022.
- In their second meeting on April 20, 2022, they made key decisions.
- The border issues between both the states would be confined to a list of 123 villages which Arunachal Pradesh had claimed before the Local Commission in 2007.
- A boundary line delineated by the high-powered tripartite committee in 1980 would be taken as the notified boundary, and all realignment would be done in relation to it.
- Both states would set up 12 regional committees covering the 12 districts of Arunachal Pradesh and the 8 counterpart districts of Assam for joint verification of the 123 villages.
Extent to which the issue has been resolved
- The MoU has resolved the dispute over 34 villages.
- The village boundaries of 49 of the remaining villages are unresolved.
- The MoU states that in these, the Regional Committees will finalize the boundaries within a period of six months “through continuous dialogue.”
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Kalasa-Banduri Nala , Mahadayi River
Mains level: Interstate water disputes
Karnataka’s decision to go ahead with a water diversion project on river Mahadayi has escalated its long-standing dispute on the issue with neighbouring Goa.
What is the Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project?
- The Kalasa Banduri Nala project aims to divert water from Mahadayi to satisfy the drinking water needs of Belagavi, Dharwad, Bagalkot and Gadag districts.
- Though the project was first proposed in the early 1980s, it has remained on paper owing to a dispute between Karnataka, Goa and Maharashtra.
- As per plans, barrages are to be built against Kalasa and Banduri streams — tributaries of Mahadayi — and water diverted towards Karnataka’s parched districts.
The larger issue: Mahadayi dispute
- Mahadayi originates inside the Bhimgad Wildlife Sanctuary in the Belagavi district of Karnataka and flows into the Arabian Sea in Goa.
- Goa, under its then CM Manohar Parrikar, approached the Centre, urging it to assess the available resources in the river and allocate water to the three basin states — Goa, Maharashtra and Karnataka.
- Due to the protests in Goa and also due to concerns over ecological damage, the project was put on hold by the then government.
- The dispute gained steam in 2006, when Karnataka decided to start work on the project.
- Goa then approached the Supreme Court, seeking the creation of a Tribunal to settle the water sharing dispute.
- A Tribunal was finally set up by the UPA government in November 2010.
What did the Tribunal award?
- The Tribunal in 2018 awarded 13.42 TMC water from Mahadayi river basin to Karnataka, 1.33 TMC to Maharashtra and 24 TMC to Goa.
- In Karnataka’s share, 5.5 TMC was to meet drinking water needs and 8.02 TMC was for hydro-electricity generation.
- Of the 5.5 TMC, 3.8 TMC was to be diverted to Malaprabha basin through Kalasa and Banduri Nalas (canals).
- This was notified by the Central government in February 2020.
Issues raised with the Tribunals award
- After the Tribunal award, Goa filed a Special Leave Petition in the Supreme Court in July 2019, challenging the quantum of allocation.
- Subsequently, in October 2020, it filed a contempt petition before the SC, accusing Karnataka of illegally diverting water from the Mahadayi basin.
- Civil appeals were also filed by Maharashtra over the dispute.
Also read:
Click and get your FREE Copy of CURRENT AFFAIRS Micro Notes
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
In news: Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: SYL Canal
Mains level: Interstate water disputes
The Supreme Court drew an assurance from the State of Punjab that it will meet the Haryana counterpart within this month to discuss the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal which has been languishing for two decades.
Why in news?
- The observations came after the Centre complained that Punjab had “refrained” from coming to the negotiating table to engage in talks with Haryana over the issue.
- The construction of Punjab’s portion of the canal had led to militant attacks in the 1980s.
- The issue had also been a political thorn for successive governments in Punjab, so much so that it led to the State’s unilateral enactment of the controversial Punjab Termination of Water Agreements Act of 2004.
- This law was, however, struck down by a Constitution Bench in 2016, dashing the hopes of Punjab’s farmers to reclaim lands acquired for the SYL canal project.
About Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal
- Satluj Yamuna Link Canal or SYL as it is popularly known, is an under-construction 214-kilometer long canal in India to connect the Sutlej and Yamuna rivers.
What is the SYL canal issue?
- At the time of reorganization of Punjab in 1966, the issue of sharing of river waters between both the states emerged.
- Punjab refused to share waters of Ravi and Beas with Haryana stating it was against the riparian principle.
- Before the reorganization, in 1955, out of 15.85 MAF of Ravi and Beas, the Centre had allocated 8 MAF to Rajasthan, 7.20 MAF to undivided Punjab, 0.65MAF to Jammu and Kashmir.
- Out of 7.20 MAF allocated, Punjab did not want to share any water with Haryana.
- In March 1976, when the Punjab Reorganization Act was implemented, the Centre notified fresh allocations, providing 3.5 MAF To Haryana.
Inception of the canal project
- Later, in 1981, the water flowing down Beas and Ravi was revised and pegged at 17.17 MAF, out of which 4.22 MAF was allocated to Punjab, 3.5 MAF to Haryana, and 8.6 MAF to Rajasthan.
- Finally, to provide this allocated share of water to southern parts of Haryana, a canal linking the Sutlej with the Yamuna, cutting across the state, was planned.
- Finally, the construction of 214-km SYL was started in April 1982, 122 km of which was to run through Punjab and the rest through Haryana.
- Haryana has completed its side of the canal, but work in Punjab has been hanging fire for over three decades.
Why has the SYL canal come up again now?
- The issue is back on centre stage after the Supreme Court directed the CMs of Punjab and Haryana to negotiate and settle the SYL canal issue.
- The apex court asked for a meeting at the highest political level to be mediated by the Centre so that the states reach a consensus over the completion of the SYL canal.
- The meeting remained inconclusive with the Centre expressing the view that the construction of the SYL canal should be completed. But Punjab CM refused categorically.
Punjab’s resentment with the project
- The dispute is based on the bloody history around the SYL canal. The trouble-torn days of terrorism in Punjab started in the early 1980s when work on the SYL started.
- Punjab feels it utilized its precious groundwater resources to grow the crop for the entire country and should not be forced to share its waters as it faces desertification.
- It is feared that once the construction of the canal restarts, the youth may start feeling that the state has been discriminated against.
- The Punjab CM fears Pakistan and secessionist organisations could exploit this and foment trouble in the state.
Water crisis in Punjab
- Punjab is facing severe water crisis due to over-exploitation of its underground aquifers for the wheat/paddy monocycle.
- According to the Central Underground Water Authority’s report, its underground water is over-exploited to meet the agriculture requirements in about 79 per cent area of the state.
- Out of 138 blocks, 109 are “over-exploited”, two are “critical” five are “semi-critical” and only 22 blocks are in “safe” category.
Punjab expects a new tribunal
- The state wants a tribunal seeking a fresh time-bound assessment of the water availability.
- The state has been saying that till date there has been no adjudication or scientific assessment of Punjab river waters.
Try this PYQ:
Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched? (CSP 2017)
Dam/Lake River
(a) Govind Sagar: Satluj
(b) Kolleru Lake: Krishna
(c) Ukai Reservoir: Tapi
(d) Wular Lake: Jhelum
Post your answers here.
UPSC 2023 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Dam Safety Act can end disputes, says Supreme Court
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Dam Safety Act
Mains level: Resolution of Mullaperiyar Dam Row
The Supreme Court has found in the Dam Safety Act of 2021 a panacea to end the “perennial” legal battle between Tamil Nadu and Kerala over the Mullaperiyar dam.
What is the Dam Safety Act, 2021?
- The Act comprehensively postulates for surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of dams to prevent disasters.
- Its key features are as follows:
- National Committee on Dam Safety (NCDS): It will be constituted and will be chaired by the chairperson, Central Water Commission. Its’ functions will include formulating policies and regulations regarding dam safety standards and prevention of dam failures, analyzing the causes of major dam failures, and suggesting changes in dam safety practices.
- National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA): It will be headed by an officer, not below the rank of an Additional Secretary, to be appointed by the central government. The main task of this authority includes implementing the policies formulated by the NCD, resolving issues between State Dam Safety Organisations (SDSOs), or between an SDSO and any dam owner in that state, specifying regulations for inspection and investigation of dams.
- State Dam Safety Organisation (SDSO): Its functions will be to keep perpetual surveillance, inspection, monitoring the operation and maintenance of dams, keeping a database of all dams, and recommending safety measures to owners of dams.
- Dam Safety Unit: The owners of the specified dams are required to provide a dam safety unit in each dam. This unit will inspect the dams before and after the monsoon session, and during and after any calamity or sign of distress.
- Emergency Action Plan: Dam owners will be required to prepare an emergency action plan, and carry out risk assessment studies for each dam at specified regular intervals.
- Certain offences: The act provides for two types of offences – obstructing a person in the discharge of his functions, and refusing to comply with directions issued under the proposed law.
Why in news?
- Kerala and Tamil Nadu have been trading charges against each other over the safety, operation and maintenance of the Mullaperiyar dam.
- While Kerala claims the 126-year-old dam is unsafe, badly maintained and a threat to thousands of people living downstream, Tamil Nadu denies it.
- Kerala is pitching for a new dam in place of the existing one, while Tamil Nadu, which operates and maintains the reservoir, argues that the dam is well-preserved and so strong that the height water level could even be increased to 152 feet.
What did the SC say?
- A few days ago, the Supreme Court was in search of an answer to the “perennial problem” between the two neighbours over the dam.
- It had mooted the idea of extending the powers of its own supervisory committee to take over charge of the safety and maintenance of the structure and its site.
- The Bench even wondered whether the supervisory committee should now continue as the 2021 Act has made it redundant.
- However, Kerala said the Centre was yet to appoint specialists to the NDSA.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Krishna Water Allocation Dispute
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Reserviors on Krishna River
Mains level: Interstate river water disputes
The Supreme Court has asked if the States of Telangana, Andhra Pradesh, and Karnataka could amicably settle their quarrel over the allocation of the Krishna river water.
Krishna River Dispute
- The Krishna is an east-flowing river that originates at Mahabaleshwar in Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal, flowing through Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana, and AP.
- Together with its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the four states.
- A dispute over the sharing of Krishna waters has been ongoing for many decades, beginning with the erstwhile Hyderabad and Mysore states, and later continuing between successors.
Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal
- In 1969, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was set up under the Inter-State River Water Dispute Act, 1956, and presented its report in 1973.
- The report, which was published in 1976, divided the 2060 TMC (thousand million cubic feet) of Krishna water at 75 percent dependability into three parts.
- It was 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 TMC for Karnataka, and 800 TMC for Andhra Pradesh.
- At the same time, it was stipulated that the KWDT order may be reviewed or revised by a competent authority or tribunal any time after May 31, 2000.
- Afterward, as new grievances arose between the states, the second KWDT was instituted in 2004.
- It delivered its report in 2010, which made allocations of the Krishna water at 65 percent dependability and for surplus flows as follows: 81 TMC for Maharashtra, 177 TMC for Karnataka, and 190 TMC for Andhra Pradesh.
Row over the share
- Andhra Pradesh has since asked that Telangana be included as a separate party at the KWDT and that the allocation of Krishna waters be reworked among four states, instead of three.
- Maharashtra and Karnataka are now resisting this move since Telangana was created following the bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh.
- Therefore, the allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s share which was approved by the tribunal.
Duo’s stance
- It is relying on Section 89 of The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014, which reads:
- The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended with the following terms of reference, namely:
- shall make a project-wise specific allocation, if such allocation has not been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956;
- shall determine an operational protocol for project-wise release of water in the event of deficit flows.
- For the purposes of this section, it is clarified that the project-specific awards already made by the Tribunal on or before the appointed day shall be binding on the successor States.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Mekedatu Dam Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mekedatu Project
Mains level: Interstate river water disputes
The ‘Mekedatu march’ has been launched for the implementation of a project to build a reservoir on the Cauvery at Mekedatu near the Tamil Nadu border.
What is the Mekedatu Project?
- Mekedatu, meaning goat’s leap, is a deep gorge situated at the confluence of the rivers Cauvery and Arkavathi, about 100 km from Bengaluru, at the Kanakapura taluk in Karnataka’s Ramanagara district.
- In 2013, then Karnataka announced the construction of a multi-purpose balancing reservoir project.
- The project aimed to alleviate the drinking water problems of the Bengaluru and Ramanagara districts.
- It was also expected to generate hydroelectricity to meet the power needs of the state.
Issues with the project
- Soon after the project was announced TN has objected over granting of permission or environmental clearance.
- Explaining the potential for damage to the lower riparian state of TN, it said that the project was in violation of the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
- It stated that the project will affect the natural flow of the river Cauvery considerably and will severely affect the irrigation in TN.
What do the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and the Supreme Court say?
- The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, in its final order on February 2007, made allocations to all the riparian States — Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, apart from the Union Territory of Puducherry.
- It also stipulated “tentative monthly deliveries during a normal year” to be made available by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu.
- Aggrieved over the final order for different reasons, the States had appealed to the Supreme Court.
- In February 2018, the court, in its judgment, revised the water allocation and increased the share of Karnataka by 14.75 thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) at the cost of Tamil Nadu.
- The enhanced quantum comprised 4.75 tmc ft for meeting drinking water and domestic requirements of Bengaluru and surrounding areas.
What is Karnataka planning?
- Encouraged by the Supreme Court verdict, Karnataka, which sees the order as an endorsement of its stand, has set out to pursue the Mekedatu project.
- Originally proposed as a hydropower project, the revised Mekedatu dam project has more than one purpose to serve.
- A hydropower plant of nearly 400 MW has also been proposed.
- The Karnataka government has argued that the proposed reservoir will regulate the flow to Tamil Nadu on a monthly basis, as stipulated by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
- This is why Karnataka has contended that the project will not affect the interests of Tamil Nadu farmers.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Mullaperiyar Dam Issue
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mullaperiyar Dam, Periyar River
Mains level: Interstate river water disputes
The Supreme Court has told Tamil Nadu and Kerala that it was not there to “administer the dam” when a supervisory committee was already in place to examine the issue of safety of the Mullaperiyar Dam and the management of its water level.
Do you know?
The Mullaperiyar dam is located in Kerala on the river Periyar but is operated and maintained by the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.
John Pennycuick (the architect of this dam) sold his family property in England to mobilize money to fund the project! People of the region fondly name their children under his name a remark of reverence.
Mullaperiyar Dam
- It is a masonry gravity dam on the Periyar River in Kerala.
- It is located on the Cardamom Hills of the Western Ghats in Thekkady, Idukki District.
- It was constructed between 1887 and 1895 by John Pennycuick (who was born in Pune) and also reached in an agreement to divert water eastwards to the Madras Presidency area.
- It has a height of 53.6 m (176 ft) from the foundation, and a length of 365.7 m (1,200 ft).
Operational issue
- The dam is located in Kerala but is operated and maintained by Tamil Nadu.
- The catchment area of the Mullaperiyar Dam itself lies entirely in Kerala and thus not an inter-State river.
- In November 2014, the water level hit 142 feet for first time in 35 years.
- The reservoir again hit the maximum limit of 142 feet in August 2018, following incessant rains in the state of Kerala.
- Indeed, the tendency to store water to almost the full level of reservoirs is becoming a norm among water managers across States.
The dispute: Control and safety of the dam
- Supreme court judgment came in February 2006, has allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the level of the dam to 152 ft (46 m) after strengthening it.
- Responding to it, the Mullaperiyar dam was declared an ‘endangered’ scheduled dam by the Kerala Government under the disputed Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006.
- For Tamil Nadu, the Mullaperiyar dam and the diverted Periyar waters act as a lifeline for Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga, Dindigul and Ramnad districts.
- Tamil Nadu has insisted on exercising the unfettered colonial rights to control the dam and its waters, based on the 1886 lease agreement.
Rule of Curve issue
- A rule curve or rule level specifies the storage or empty space to be maintained in a reservoir during different times of the year.
- It decides the fluctuating storage levels in a reservoir.
- The gate opening schedule of a dam is based on the rule curve. It is part of the “core safety” mechanism in a dam.
- The TN government often blames Kerala for delaying the finalization of the rule curve.
Back2Basics: Periyar River
- The Periyar is the longest river in the state of Kerala with a length of 244 km.
- It is also known as ‘Lifeline of Kerala’ as it is one of the few perennial rivers in the state.
- It originates from Sivagiri hills of Western Ghats and flows through the Periyar National Park.
- The main tributaries of Periyar are Muthirapuzha, Mullayar, Cheruthoni, Perinjankutti.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Inter-State Boundary Disputes in India
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Not much
Mains level: Interstate boundry disputes in India
The Union Home Ministry (MHA) has informed that 11 States and one Union Territory have boundary disputes between them.
Why in news?
- There are disputes arising out of the demarcation of boundaries and claims and counterclaims over territories.
- Occasional protests and incidents of violence are reported from some of the disputed border areas.
Major boundary disputes include:
[1] Karnataka-Maharashtra
- The Belgaum district is arguably part of one of the biggest inter-state border disputes in India.
- The district has a large Marathi and Kannada-speaking populations and has been at the centre of a dispute for a long time.
- The area came under Karnataka in 1956 when states were reorganized and till then it was under the Bombay presidency.
[2] Assam-Mizoram
- The border dispute between Assam and Mizoram is a legacy of two British-era notifications of 1875 and 1933, when Mizoram was called Lushai Hills, a district in Assam.
- The 1875 notification differentiated Lushai Hills from the plains of Cachar and the other demarcated boundary between Lushai Hills and Manipur.
- While Mizoram became a state only in 1987 following years of insurgency, it still insists on the boundary decided in 1875.
- Assam, on the other hand, wants the boundary demarcated in 1986 (based on the 1933 notification).
- In that case, entire Mizoram was part of Assam before the Independence,” Assam Chief Minister Himanta Biswa Sarma said on July 27.
- Mizoram says the 1986 agreement is not acceptable as the Mizo civil society was not consulted at that time.
[3] Haryana-Himachal Pradesh
- The Parwanoo region has had the spotlight over the border dispute between the two states.
- It is next to the Panchkula district of Haryana and the state has claimed parts of the land in Himachal Pradesh as its own.
[4] Himachal Pradesh-Ladakh
- Himachal and Ladakh lay claim to Sarchu, an area on the route between Leh and Manali.
- It is considered a major point where travellers stop when travelling between the two cities.
- Sarchu is in between Himachal’s Lahul and Spiti district and Leh district in Ladakh.
[5] Arunachal Pradesh-Assam
- Arunachal’s grievance is that the re-organisation of North Eastern states unilaterally transferred several forested tracts in the plains that had traditionally belonged to hill tribal chiefs and communities to Assam.
- After Arunachal Pradesh achieved statehood in 1987, a tripartite committee was appointed which recommended that certain territories be transferred from Assam to Arunachal.
- Assam contested this and the matter is before the Supreme Court.
[6] Meghalaya-Assam
- The problem between Assam and Meghalaya started when the latter challenged the Assam Reorganisation Act of 1971, which gave Blocks I and II of the Mikir Hills or present-day Karbi Anglong district to Assam.
- Meghalaya contends that both these blocks formed part of the erstwhile United Khasi and Jaintia Hills district when it was notified in 1835.
- Meghalaya bases its case on survey maps of 1872 and 1929 and certain notifications of 1878 and 1951, while Assam wants to go by the rejected recommendations of the Churachand Committee.
[7] Assam-Nagaland
- The longest-running border dispute in the North East is between Assam and Nagaland, which began soon after Nagaland became a state in 1963.
- The Nagaland State Act of 1962 had defined the state’s borders according to a 1925 notification when Naga Hills and Tuensang Area (NHTA) were integrated into a new administrative unit.
- Nagaland, however, does not accept the boundary delineation and has demanded that the new state should also have all Naga-dominated areas in North Cachar and Nagaon districts.
- Since Nagaland did not accept its notified borders, tensions between Assam and Nagaland flared up soon after the latter was formed, resulting in the first border clashes in 1965.
- This was followed by major clashes between the two states along the border in 1968, 1979, 1985, 2007, 2014 and 2021.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Dam Safety Bill, 2021 introduced in RS
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Features of the Dam Safety Bill
Mains level: Dame Safety
The Dam Safety Bill 2021 was moved in the Rajya Sabha but the debate could not be held because of disruptions from the Opposition parties.
Dam Safety Bill, 2021
- The Bill provides for surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of dams to prevent disasters, and institutional mechanisms to ensure safety.
- It applies to over 5,000 dams across the country, many of which are currently in poor conditions.
- It has been met with significant opposition, particularly from several states that claim the bill oversteps the Centre’s mandate.
Which dams are covered?
- All dams in India with a height above 15 metres come under the purview of the bill.
- Dams between 10 to 15 metres of height are also covered but only if they meet certain other specifications in terms of design and structural conditions.
National Committee on Dam Safety
- The Bill provides for the constitution of a National Committee on Dam Safety (NCDS) which is to be chaired by the Central Water Commissioner (CWC).
- The other members of the NCDS will be nominated by the Centre and will include up to 10 representatives of the Centre, 7 state government representatives, and 3 experts on dam safety.
- The NCDS is to formulate policies for dam safety and to prevent dam failures.
- In the event of a dam failure, the NCDS will analyse why the failure occurred, and suggest changes in dam safety practices to ensure there aren’t any repetitions.
National Dam Safety Authority (NDSA)
- The bill provides for the formation of a NDSA which will be responsible for implementing the policies of the NCDS, and will resolve issues between State Dam Safety Organisations (or SDSOs) and dam owners.
- The NDSA will also specify regulations for the inspection of dams and will provide accreditation to the various agencies working on the structure of dams and their alteration.
State Dam Safety Organisations (SDSOs)
- The bill will also result in the establishment of SDSOs, and State Committees on Dam Safety (SCDSs).
- The jurisdiction of the SDSOs will extend to all dams in that specific state.
Cross jurisdictions
- The NDSA will, in some cases, possess this jurisdiction, for example, if a dam owned by one state is situated in another or crosses multiple states, or if a dam is owned by a central public sector undertaking.
- SDSOs will be in charge of scrutinizing dams under their jurisdiction and maintaining a database of the same.
- The SCDS will review the work of the SDSO, and will also have to assess the impact of dam-related projects on upstream and downstream states.
- The bill gives the Central government the power to amend the functions of any of the above bodies through a notification, whenever it is deemed necessary to do so.
How does Bill change the functioning of dams?
- If the bill is made into a law, then dam owners will have to provide a dam safety unit in each dam.
- The dam safety unit will be required to inspect the dam before and after the monsoon session, and also during and after natural disasters such as earthquakes and floods.
- The bill requires dam owners to prepare emergency action plans. Risk-assessment studies will also have to be undertaken by owners, regularly.
- At specified, regular intervals, and in the event of either a modification to the dam’s structure or a natural event that may impact the structure, dam owners will have to produce a comprehensive safety evaluation by experts.
Do you know?
The point of contention are four dams — Mullaperiyar, Parambikulam, Thunakkadavu and Peruvaripallam — located in Kerala but owned, operated and maintained by the Tamil Nadu Government.
Issues with bill
- The primary objection to the bill is that is unconstitutional, as water is one of the items on the State List.
- Tamil Nadu, which currently possesses four dams situated in Kerala, is opposed to the Bill as it would result in the four dams falling under the NDSA.
- This will be doing away with Tamil Nadu’s rights over the maintenance of the dam.
- The Bill states that the NCDS will be chaired by the Central Water Commissioner.
- However the Supreme Court has ruled in the past that such a scenario is prohibited, as it involves the CWC, an advisor, functioning both as a regulator and the head of the NCDS.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Mullaperiyar Dam Issue
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mullaperiyar Dam
Mains level: Interstate water disputes
The Supreme Court has directed the Supervisory Committee to take an immediate and firm decision on the maximum water level that can be maintained at Mullaperiyar dam amidst torrential rains in Kerala.
What is the news?
- A report by United Nations has stated that the Mullaperiyar dam, situated in a seismically active area, faces the risk of failure.
- Earlier this year, the Supreme Court warned the TN Chief Secretary against the failure to give information on the rule curve for dam which decides the discharge of excess water.
Mullaperiyar Dam
- It is a masonry gravity dam on the Periyar River in Kerala.
- It is located on the Cardamom Hills of the Western Ghats in Thekkady, Idukki District.
- It was constructed between 1887 and 1895 by John Pennycuick and also reached in an agreement to divert water eastwards to the Madras Presidency area.
- It has a height of 53.6 m (176 ft) from the foundation, and a length of 365.7 m (1,200 ft).
Operational issue
- The dam is located in Kerala but is operated and maintained by Tamil Nadu.
- The catchment area of the Mullaperiyar Dam itself lies entirely in Kerala and thus not an inter-State river.
- In November 2014, the water level hit 142 feet for first time in 35 years.
- The reservoir again hit the maximum limit of 142 feet in August 2018, following incessant rains in the state of Kerala.
- Indeed, the tendency to store water to almost the full level of reservoirs is becoming a norm among water managers across States.
The dispute: Control and safety of the dam
- Supreme court judgment came in February 2006, has allowed Tamil Nadu to raise the level of the dam to 152 ft (46 m) after strengthening it.
- Responding to it, the Mullaperiyar dam was declared an ‘endangered’ scheduled dam by the Kerala Government under the disputed Kerala Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006.
- For Tamil Nadu, the Mullaperiyar dam and the diverted Periyar waters act as a lifeline for Theni, Madurai, Sivaganga, Dindigul and Ramnad districts.
- Tamil Nadu has insisted on exercising the unfettered colonial rights to control the dam and its waters, based on the 1886 lease agreement.
Rule of Curve issue
- A rule curve or rule level specifies the storage or empty space to be maintained in a reservoir during different times of the year.
- It decides the fluctuating storage levels in a reservoir.
- The gate opening schedule of a dam is based on the rule curve. It is part of the “core safety” mechanism in a dam.
- The TN government often blames Kerala for delaying the finalization of the rule curve.
UPSC 2022 countdown has begun! Get your personal guidance plan now! (Click here)
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
CJI recuses himself from Andhra-Telangana Case
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Recusal of Judges
Mains level: Inter-state river disputes
The Chief Justice of India (CJI) N V Ramana (who hails from AP) recused himself from hearing Andhra Pradesh’s plea after it said “no” to the Supreme Court’s suggestion to go for mediation over a dispute with Telangana over the Krishna River dispute.
Q. Can you list down some basic principles of judicial conduct?
Independence, Impartiality, Integrity, Propriety, Competence and diligence and Equality are some of them as listed under the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct.
What is the Recusal of Judges?
- Recusal is the removal of oneself as a judge or policymaker in a particular matter, especially because of a conflict of interest.
- Recusal usually takes place when a judge has a conflict of interest or has a prior association with the parties in the case.
- For example, if the case pertains to a company in which the judge holds stakes, the apprehension would seem reasonable.
- Similarly, if the judge has, in the past, appeared for one of the parties involved in a case, the call for recusal may seem right.
- A recusal inevitably leads to delay. The case goes back to the Chief Justice, who has to constitute a fresh Bench.
Rules on Recusals
- There are no written rules on the recusal of judges from hearing cases listed before them in constitutional courts.
- It is left to the discretion of a judge.
- The reasons for recusal are not disclosed in an order of the court. Some judges orally convey to the lawyers involved in the case their reasons for recusal, many do not. Some explain the reasons in their order.
- The decision rests on the conscience of the judge. At times, parties involved raise apprehensions about a possible conflict of interest.
Issues with recusal
- Recusal is also regarded as the abdication of duty. Maintaining institutional civilities is distinct from the fiercely independent role of the judge as an adjudicator.
- In his separate opinion in the NJAC judgment in 2015, Justice Kurian Joseph highlighted the need for judges to give reasons for recusal as a measure to build transparency.
- It is the constitutional duty, as reflected in one’s oath, to be transparent and accountable, and hence, a judge is required to indicate reasons for his recusal from a particular case.
Back2Basics:
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Mekedatu Dam Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mekedatu Project
Mains level: Inter-state river disputes
Karnataka and Tamil Nadu are again at the crossroads against the Mekedatu dam project in the Cauvery River Basin.
What is the Mekedatu Project?
- Mekedatu, meaning goat’s leap, is a deep gorge situated at the confluence of the rivers Cauvery and Arkavathi, about 100 km from Bengaluru, at the Kanakapura taluk in Karnataka’s Ramanagara district.
- In 2013, then Karnataka announced the construction of a multi-purpose balancing reservoir project.
- The project aimed to alleviate the drinking water problems of the Bengaluru and Ramanagara districts.
- It was also expected to generate hydroelectricity to meet the power needs of the state.
Issues with the project
- Soon after the project was announced TN has objected over granting of permission or environmental clearance.
- Explaining the potential for damage to the lower riparian state of TN, it said that the project was in violation of the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
- It stated that the project will affect the natural flow of the river Cauvery considerably and will severely affect the irrigation in TN.
What do the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and the Supreme Court say?
- The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, in its final order on February 2007, made allocations to all the riparian States — Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu, apart from the Union Territory of Puducherry.
- It also stipulated “tentative monthly deliveries during a normal year” to be made available by Karnataka to Tamil Nadu.
- Aggrieved over the final order for different reasons, the States had appealed to the Supreme Court.
- In February 2018, the court, in its judgment, revised the water allocation and increased the share of Karnataka by 14.75 thousand million cubic feet (tmc ft) at the cost of Tamil Nadu.
- The enhanced quantum comprised 4.75 tmc ft for meeting drinking water and domestic requirements of Bengaluru and surrounding areas.
What is Karnataka planning?
- Encouraged by the Supreme Court verdict, Karnataka, which sees the order as an endorsement of its stand, has set out to pursue the Mekedatu project.
- Originally proposed as a hydropower project, the revised Mekedatu dam project has more than one purpose to serve.
- A hydropower plant of nearly 400 MW has also been proposed.
- The Karnataka government has argued that the proposed reservoir will regulate the flow to Tamil Nadu on a monthly basis, as stipulated by the Tribunal and the Supreme Court.
- This is why Karnataka has contended that the project will not affect the interests of Tamil Nadu farmers.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Water wars of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Reserviors on Krishna River
Mains level: Krishna water dispute
An ongoing jala jagadam (fight over water resources), as it has been described by regional media, once again drew the police forces of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana into a tense standoff over release of water from the Nagarjuna Sagar reservoir.
Krishna River Dispute
- Both states have disagreements over the sharing of the Krishna River water continue to shape politics in the region.
- AP alleges that Telangana has been drawing Krishna water from four projects — Jurala, Srisailam, Nagarjuna Sagar, and Pulichintala without approvals from the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB).
- The KRMB an autonomous body that was set up after the bifurcation of the state, to manage and regulate the waters in the Krishna basin.
What is the issue?
- The water that is used for power generation, Andhra says, is being wasted by releasing it into the Bay of Bengal, even as farmers in the Krishna delta ayacut are yet to begin sowing of the kharif crop.
- Telangana says it would continue with the hydropower generation to meet its requirements of power.
- At the same time, it has taken strong exception to the irrigation projects of the Andhra Pradesh government, especially the Rayalaseema Lift Irrigation Project (RLIP), which it claims is illegal.
- Telangana has called for a 50:50 allocation of water from the Krishna River.
How is the water split between the states currently?
- After Telangana was carved out of Andhra Pradesh, the two states agreed to split the water share 66:34 on an ad hoc basis until the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-2 decided the final allocation.
Why is Telangana making the big hydel push?
- The Kaleshwaram lift irrigation project that was inaugurated in 2019 requires a huge amount of power to draw water from the Godavari River.
- Also, the Telangana government says that it needs hydel energy to power its Nettempadu, Bheema, Koilsagar and Kalwakurthy lift irrigation projects.
- Despite protests by Andhra, the Telangana CM has chosen to operate all hydel power stations at full capacity because hydel power is cheaper, and imposes a smaller burden on the already stretched state budget.
What is the solution to the disagreement, then?
- Telangana wants the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-2 to permanently settle the water dispute.
- In the meantime, it wants the KRMB to convene a full-fledged board meeting on a mutually agreed date this month to address its grievances against Andhra Pradesh.
What political factors are at play behind the dispute?
- The two CMs have maintained cordial relations and have even met on several occasions to discuss long-standing issues arising out of the bifurcation of the erstwhile state of Andhra Pradesh.
- Critics have, however, alleged that the two CMs are fanning regional sentiments purely for political gains.
Back2Basics: Interstate (River) Water Disputes (ISWDs)
- These are a continuing challenge to federal water governance in India.
- Rooted in constitutional, historico-geographical, and institutional ambiguities, they tend to become prolonged conflicts between the states that share river basins.
- India has 25 major river basins, with most rivers flowing across states.
- As river basins are shared resources, a coordinated approach between the states, with adequate involvement of the Centre, is necessary for the preservation, equitable distribution and sustainable utilization of river water.
- Within India’s federal political structure, inter-state disputes require the involvement of the Union government for a federal solution at two levels: between the states involved, and between the Centre and the states.
- The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) was enacted under Article 262 of the Constitution of India on the eve of reorganization of states to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river or river valley.
- Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the Central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding inter-state rivers that arise among the state/regional governments.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Mekedatu Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mekedatu Project
Mains level: Cauvery Water Dispute
The National Green Tribunal (NGT), Southern Zone has appointed a joint committee to look into allegations of unauthorized construction activity taking place in Mekedatu, where the Karnataka government had proposed to construct a dam across the Cauvery River.
What is the Mekedatu Project?
- Mekedatu, meaning goat’s leap, is a deep gorge situated at the confluence of the rivers Cauvery and Arkavathi, about 100 km from Bengaluru, at the Kanakapura taluk in Karnataka’s Ramanagara district.
- In 2013, then Karnataka announced the construction of a multi-purpose balancing reservoir project.
- The project aimed to alleviate the drinking water problems of Bengaluru and Ramanagara district.
- It was also expected to generate hydro-electricity to meet the power needs of the state.
Issues with the project
- Soon after the project was announced TN has objected over granting of permission or environmental clearance.
- Explaining the potential for damage to the lower riparian state of TN, it said that the project was in violation of the final award of the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal.
- It stated that the project will affect the natural flow of the river Cauvery considerably and will severely affect the irrigation in TN.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
What is Rule Curve of a river?
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Mullaperiyar Dam
Mains level: Interstate river water disputes in India
The Supreme Court has warned the Tamil Nadu Chief Secretary against the failure to give information on the rule curve for Mullaperiyar dam.
Do you know?
The Mullaperiyar dam is located in Kerala on the river Periyar but is operated and maintained by the neighbouring state of Tamil Nadu.
What is the Rule Curve?
- A rule curve or rule level specifies the storage or empty space to be maintained in a reservoir during different times of the year.
- Here the implicit assumption is that a reservoir can best satisfy its purposes if the storage levels specified by the rule curve are maintained in the reservoir at different times.
- It decides the fluctuating storage levels in a reservoir.
- The gate opening schedule of a dam is based on the rule curve.
- It is part of the “core safety” mechanism in a dam.
Why such a move?
- During the high-voltage hearing, the Tamil Nadu government blamed Kerala for delaying the finalization of the rule curve for the 123-year-old dam.
- Kerala government has accused Tamil Nadu of adopting an “obsolete” gate operation schedule dating back to 1939.
About Mullaperiyar Dam
- Mullaperiyar Dam is a masonry gravity dam on the Periyar River in the Indian state of Kerala.
- It is located on the Cardamom Hills of the Western Ghats in Thekkady, Idukki District of Kerala.
- It was constructed between 1887 and 1895 by John Pennycuick and also reached an agreement to divert water eastwards to the Madras Presidency area (present-day Tamil Nadu).
- It has a height of 53.6 m from the foundation, and a length of 365.7 m.
- The Periyar National Park in Thekkady is located around the dam’s reservoir.
- The dam is built at the confluence of Mullayar and Periyar rivers.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Inter state water Sharing disputes
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Entry 56 of the Union List
Mains level: Paper 2- Challenges to water governance
The article highlights the issue of challenges facing the water governance in India, how need for more coordination between the Centre and the States.
Objectives of the two bills
- Interstate River Water Disputes Amendment Bill 2019 and the Dam Safety Bill 2019 were passed by Lok Sabha and awaits Rajya Sabha nod.
- The Interstate River Water Disputes Amendment Bill 2019 seeks to improve the inter-state water disputes resolution by setting up a permanent tribunal.
- The Dam Safety Bill 2019 aims to deal with the risks of India’s ageing dams, with the help of a comprehensive federal institutional framework comprising.
- The other pending bills also propose corresponding institutional structures and processes.
Challenges to the federal water governance
- The agenda of future federal water governance is not limited to the above cited issues.
- These include emerging concerns of long-term national water security and sustainability, the risks of climate change, and the growing environmental challenges, including river pollution.
- These challenges need systematic federal response where the Centre and the states need to work in a partnership mode.
- Greater Centre-states coordination is also crucial for pursuing the current national projects — whether Ganga river rejuvenation or inland navigation or inter-basin transfers.
Challenges to water governance
- Water governance is perceived and practiced as the states’ exclusive domain, even though their powers are subject to those of the Union under the Entry 56 about inter-state river water governance.
- The River Boards Act 1956 legislated under the Entry 56 has been in disuse.
- No river board was ever created under the law.
- The Centre’s role is largely limited to resolving inter-state river water disputes by setting up tribunals for their adjudication.
- Combined with the states’ dominant executive power, these conditions create challenges for federal water governance.
- This state of affairs puts the proposed bills at a disadvantage.
Bridging the water governance gap
- Each bill proposes their own institutional mechanisms and processes leaning on closer Centre-state coordination and deliberation.
- The disputes resolution committee and dam safety authority rely on active Centre-states participation.
- Segmented and fragmented mechanisms bear the risks of the federal water governance gap.
Way forward
- The massive central assistance (Rs 3.6 lakh crore- Centre and states together) through Jal Jeevan Mission (JJM), is an opportunity to open a dialogue with the states to address this governance gap.
- Globally, federated systems with comparable organisation of powers have used similar investments to usher key water sector reforms.
- The symbiotic phase of implementing JJM can be productively used to engage in a dialogue with the states about the larger water resources management agenda, beyond the mission’s goals.
- The Centre can work with the states in building a credible institutional architecture for gathering data and producing knowledge about water resources.
Consider the question “Water governance in the country requires greater Centre-State coordination to deal with the current issues as well as future challenges. In light of this, examine the challenges and suggest the strategies to deal with it.”
Conclusion
Bridging the governance gap between the Centre and State and creation of institutional framework is at the heart of addressing the future challenges to the federal water governance in the country.
Back2Basics: River Board Act 1956
- The act to provide for the establishment of River Boards for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys.
- It empowers the Central Government, on a request received in this behalf from a State Government to establish a River Board for advising the Governments on regulation or development of an inter-State river or river valley or any specified part thereof.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
[pib] Status of Mahanadi Tribunal
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Inter-state water dispute
Mains level: Inter-state water dispute
At present, the Mahanadi dispute is under adjudication in the Tribunal under Section 5 (2) of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956
Note the interrelation between the Article 262 and 253.They contain provisions related to international and interstate water sharing.
Mahanadi Tribunal
- The Central Government has constituted Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal in 2018 under Section 4 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956.
- It is set to adjudicate on water disputes between the riparian States of Odisha and Chhattisgarh
- The tribunal is expected to give its verdict within a period of three years.
- Provided that if the decision cannot be given for an unavoidable reason, within a period of three years, the Central Government may extend the period for a further period not exceeding two years.
What is the dispute about?
- Chhattisgarh has been constructing dams and weirs (small dams) upstream the Mahanadi. This is being allegedly carried on without consulting Odisha.
- It would affect the flow of the river downstream and affect drinking water supply. Also, it would impact the irrigation facilities in Odisha and adversely affect the interests of the farmers.
- Moreover, the weirs and other projects would impact the flow of water in the Hirakud reservoir, a multipurpose river valley project, which is a lifeline for many in the state.
Back2Basics: Water Disputes Resolution in India
- The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) is an Act of the Parliament of India enacted under Article 262 of Constitution of India on the eve of the reorganization of states on the linguistic basis to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution of an interstate river[1] or river valley.
- Article 262 of the Indian Constitution provides a role for the Central government in adjudicating conflicts surrounding inter-state rivers that arise among the state/regional governments.
- This Act further has undergone amendments subsequently and its most recent amendment took place in the year 2002.
- A/c to art 262, the 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.
- 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.
Note: Any river water sharing treaty made with other countries, has to be ratified by the Parliament as per Article 253 after deciding the share of the Indian riparian states per Article 262 to make the treaty constitutionally valid or enforceable by the judiciary. The government has signed Indus Waters Treaty with Pakistan, Ganga water-sharing treaty with Bangladesh, etc. without the ratification by the Parliament and the consent of concerned riparian states per Article 252.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Kalasa-Banduri Dam Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Kalasa-Banduri Dam Project
Mains level: Inter-state water disputes
India is on the brink of an acute water crisis, which has, to an extent, fabricated a looming threat of trans-boundary water conflicts. The conflict on the Mandovi / Mahadayi River— flowing through Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra— is one such example.
Try this PYQ:
What is common to the places known as Aliyar, Isapur and Kangsabati?
(a) Recently discovered uranium deposits
(b) Tropical rain forests
(c) Underground cave systems
(d) Water reservoirs
Kalasa-Banduri Project
- The project undertaken by the Karnataka government proposes to divert Mandovi river water from Kalasa and Banduri canals into the Malaprabha river in the state.
- The project received clearance from the Centre in 2002. It aims to construct a total of 11 dams on the river Mandovi.
- The diversion of water from Kalasa and Banduri nullahs, however, has been the point of contention between Karnataka and Goa, with the latter claiming it would strip the state of its flora and fauna.
The conflict
- The Mandovi originates from Karnataka’s Belgaum district.
- The Mandovi river basin falls into the states of Goa, Karnataka and Maharashtra.
- The river is 81 kilometres (km) in length; 35 km of which flows in Karnataka, 1 km in Maharashtra and 45 km in Goa.
- The seeds of the conflict were sowed over 40 years ago: In 1985, Karnataka initially explored a 350 megawatt-hydro-electric project to divert 50 per cent of the Mandovi river water in Karnataka for irrigation.
- The plan was also to allow a steady flow of water from the power project’s storage dam after using the water for irrigation purposes in Karnataka.
- This would have served to drinking water and irrigation purposes in Goa as well.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Sutlej Yamuna Link
Mains level: Inter-state water disputes
Opposing the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal project and staking claim to Yamuna’s waters, Punjab CM warned about the repercussions. Here is a look at the decades-old issue and why it has come up again now.
Try this PYQ:
Q. Which one of the following pairs is not correctly matched? (CSP 2017)
Dam/Lake River
(a) Govind Sagar: Satluj
(b) Kolleru Lake: Krishna
(c) Ukai Reservoir: Tapi
(d) Wular Lake: Jhelum
What is the SYL canal issue?
- At the time of reorganization of Punjab in 1966, the issue of sharing of river waters between both the states emerged.
- Punjab refused to share waters of Ravi and Beas with Haryana stating it was against the riparian principle.
- Before the reorganization, in 1955, out of 15.85 MAF of Ravi and Beas, the Centre had allocated 8 MAF to Rajasthan, 7.20 MAF to undivided Punjab, 0.65MAF to Jammu and Kashmir.
- Out of 7.20 MAF allocated, Punjab did not want to share any water with Haryana.
- In March 1976, when the Punjab Reorganization Act was implemented, the Centre notified fresh allocations, providing 3.5 MAF To Haryana.
Inception of the canal project
- Later, in 1981, the water flowing down Beas and Ravi was revised and pegged at 17.17 MAF, out of which 4.22 MAF was allocated to Punjab, 3.5 MAF to Haryana, and 8.6 MAF to Rajasthan.
- Finally, to provide this allocated share of water to southern parts of Haryana, a canal linking the Sutlej with the Yamuna, cutting across the state, was planned.
- Finally, the construction of 214-km SYL was started in April 1982, 122 km of which was to run through Punjab and the rest through Haryana.
- Haryana has completed its side of the canal, but work in Punjab has been hanging fire for over three decades.
Why has the SYL canal come up again now?
- The issue is back on centre stage after the Supreme Court directed the CMs of Punjab and Haryana to negotiate and settle the SYL canal issue.
- The apex court asked for a meeting at the highest political level to be mediated by the Centre so that the states reach a consensus over the completion of the SYL canal.
- The meeting remained inconclusive with the Centre expressing the view that the construction of the SYL canal should be completed. But Punjab CM refused categorically.
Punjab’s resentment with the project
- The dispute is based on the bloody history around the SYL canal. The trouble-torn days of terrorism in Punjab started in the early 1980s when work on the SYL started.
- Punjab feels it utilized its precious groundwater resources to grow the crop for the entire country and should not be forced to share its waters as it faces desertification.
- It is feared that once the construction of the canal restarts, the youth may start feeling that the state has been discriminated against.
- The Punjab CM fears Pakistan and secessionist organisations could exploit this and foment trouble in the state.
Water crisis in Punjab
- Punjab is facing severe water crisis due to over-exploitation of its underground aquifers for the wheat/paddy monocycle.
- According to the Central Underground Water Authority’s report, its underground water is over-exploited to meet the agriculture requirements in about 79 per cent area of the state.
- Out of 138 blocks, 109 are “over-exploited”, two are “critical” five are “semi-critical” and only 22 blocks are in “safe” category.
Punjab expects a new tribunal
- The state wants a tribunal seeking a fresh time-bound assessment of the water availability.
- The state has been saying that till date there has been no adjudication or scientific assessment of Punjab river waters.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Vamsadhara River Water Dispute
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Vamsadhara River, Inter-state water dispute
Mains level: Inter-state water dispute
Andhra Pradesh and Odisha CM recently held talks to iron out all differences with regard to the sharing of Vamsadhara River waters.
Note all major rivers over which inter-state disputes exist say Narmada, Mahadayi, Cauvery, Krishna, etc. Observe their flow and the area swept.
Also, refer your atlas to check the complicated border sharings between Chhatisgarh, AP/Telangana and Odisha.
Vamsadhara River
- River Vamsadhara is an important east-flowing river between Rushikulya and Godavari, in Odisha and Andhra Pradesh.
- The river originates in the border of Thuamul Rampur in the Kalahandi district and Kalyansinghpur in Rayagada district of Odisha.
- It runs for a distance of about 254 kilometres, where it joins the Bay of Bengal at Kalingapatnam, Andhra Pradesh.
- The total catchment area of the river basin is about 10,830 square kilometres.
The dispute
- Andhra Pradesh wants to build the Neradi bridge across the river which will be possible only after Odisha’s consent.
- Odisha argues that the flood flow canal would result in drying up the existing river bed and consequent shifting of the river affecting the groundwater table.
- Odisha also raised the issue of scientific assessment of available water in Vamsadhara at Katragada and Gotta Barrage, Andhra Pradesh and the basis for sharing the available water.
Back2Basics: Interstate River Water Disputes
- River waters use/harnessing is included in states jurisdiction. However, article 262 of the Constitution provides for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes.
- Under this, Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.
- The President of India may also establish an interstate council as per Article 263 to inquire and recommend on the dispute that has arisen between the states
- The Parliament has enacted the two laws, the River Boards Act (1956) and the Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956).
- Under this, Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.
- The Inter-State Water Disputes Act empowers the Central government to set up an ad hoc tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute between two or more states in relation to the waters of an inter-state river or river valley.
- The award of the tribunal is final and binding on the parties to the dispute.
- Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to such a tribunal under this Act.
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Interstate River Water Dispute
Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project
Note4Students
From UPSC perspective, the following things are important :
Prelims level: Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project
Mains level: Mahadayei Water Dispute
The cost of Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project on the Mahadayi River skyrockets by 1,674% since inception. It rose from about ₹94 crores (2000) to ₹1,677.30 crores (2020) due to the ongoing inter-State river water dispute.
Kalasa-Banduri Nala Project
- The project is undertaken by the Government of Karnataka to improve drinking water supply to the three districts of Belagavi, Dharwad, and Gadag.
- It was planned in 1989; Goa raised an objection to it.
- It involves building across Kalasa and Banduri, two tributaries of the Mahadayi river to divert water to the Malaprabha, a tributary of Krishna River.
- Malaprabha river supplies the drinking water to Dharwad, Belgaum, and Gadag districts.
About Mahadayi Water Dispute
- The Mahadayi river basin drains an area of 2032 square kilometres of which 375 square km lies in Karnataka, 77 sq km in Maharashtra and the remaining in Goa.
- It originates in the Belagavi district of Karnataka, briefly passes through Maharashtra and flows through Goa (where its known as Mandovi), and drains to the Arabian Sea.
- Since the eighties, Karnataka has been was contemplating linking of Mahadayi with Malaprabha river, a tributary of Krishna.
- In 2002, Karnataka gave the idea a shape in the form of the Kalasa-Bhanduri project.
- Goa strongly opposed it as Mahadayi is one of the two rivers the State is dependent on and thus Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal was set up in 2010.
Read more about the Mahadayi Dispute and award of the tribunal at:
https://www.civilsdaily.com/news/verdict-of-mahadayi-water-disputes-tribunal-comes/
Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024
Importance for Exams
- Mains : Understand the issue, why is it not resolved yet. Steps taken this year. why they are expected to yield better results compared to the past.
- Prelims : Make a note of the institutional framework(composition, functions,etc) involved : Provisions of Art. 262, ISWD Act, CRA, CMC, CSC and the newly proposed CRMB.
In News
The Kaveri River water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu(TN) has been lingering on for decades. It crops up whenever there is scanty rainfall leading to shortage of water in Kaveri.
This year, Kaveri has seen lesser monsoon rains leading to four main reservoirs in its Karnataka basin being partially full. The situation forced Karnataka to turn on it’s commitment of water sharing leading to resentment from TN.
Timeline
25 August : Citing a bad monsoon, Karnataka govt announced, it was not in a position to release the TN share of water forcing TN to approach the supreme court.
5 September : Supreme Court directs Tamil Nadu to approach the Cauvery Supervisory Committee(CSC). CSC asks for data, delays ruling.
19 September : Cauvery Supervisory Committee asked Karnataka to release 3,000 cusecs per day from September 21 to 30.
20 September : SC doubled the quantum to 6,000 cusecs from September 21 to 27. directed the centre to constitute within four weeks the Cauvery Water Management Board(CWMB) as directed by Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal(CWDT) in its 2007 award.
Riots follow.
Core Issues
Historical water use : Since the ancient times, TN had been an agrarian state with more area under agriculture than karnataka. Hence it has depended more on Kaveri. This is the reason why TN has always pushed for a lion’s share and has been awarded one by various tribunals. Karnataka is opposed to this line of thought.
Present dependence : Karnataka farmers are unhappy because their share of water allows them to grow 1 paddy crop + 2nd less water-intensive crop while their counterparts in TN grow 3 crops a year. Karnataka finds it grossly unfair to release water for Tamil Nadu farmers who want to sow their 2nd crop while its own farmers struggle with the first.
The Deadlock
The reasons for the deadlock are as follows
1. Institutional failure
– This issue raises the larger question of the effectiveness of the constitutional provisions of Art 262 relating to Inter-state river water disputes and the Inter-state Water Disputes Act, 1956. River water disputes across India suffer from deadlock.
– CRA and CMC. CRA is political body with no experts. CMC plays a supportive role to the CRA. Neither Karnataka nor Tamil Nadu has endorsed the role and function of these bodies.
Ref : http://www.frontline.in/static/html/fl1919/19190090.htm
2. Politicization of the issue
The issue has been blown out of proportion for political gains in respective states. It’s very important that the role of politicians and courts come down in deciding technical issues like these and the advice rendered by technocrats is given more importance.
The proposed Cauvery River Management Board (CRMB) tries to address this issue by having technocrats at decisions making level.
Way forward
Cauvery River Management Board (CRMB)
– The Board will take decisions on water usage and distribution.
– The Board will also see to it that states ensure proper hydraulic structures at relevant sites.
– It will determine the amount of water to be received by the states
The idea is to cut down the dependence on monsoon. The board will ensure adequate storage in the reservoirs before the monsoons till the end of May each year. in case monsoons are delayed, the stored water can help minimize distress.
In case of consecutive bad years, the Board will handle the issue appropriately by distributing water in a planned manner with minimum distress.
Ref : http://www.oneindia.com/india/explained-how-will-cauvery-management-board-work-2214962.html
Historical Developments
Only to help you understand the current issue better. Depth not required.
1892 : Agreement between Madras Presidency and Mysore.
1924 : 2nd Agreement under the supervision of GoI.
1970 : fact-finding committee appointed.
1990 : Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT)is set-up under under the Inter-state Water Disputes Act, 1956.
Interim orders passed in 1991, 1992 and 1995.
1998 : Kaveri River Water Scheme notified by the govt. consisting of Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and Cauvery Monitoring Committee (CMC).
2007 : After 16 years, it announces its award.
Its distribution is as follows
– Tamil Nadu -419 tmc ft
– Karnataka – 270 tmc ft
– Kerala – 30 tmc ft
– Puducherry – 7 tmc ft
This award is challenged by the states. Special Leave Petitions were filed and the Court granted leave.
2013 : On the direction of the Supreme Court, Govt notified the final reward as proposed by the Tribunal in 2007.