In India, during the British rule, the interstate river water disputes were settled by the central

government because the irrigation projects were virtually under the control of the Central
Government.

The Republic of India upon adopting a Constitution made irrigation a state subject. Accordingly
state governments, at present virtually exercise full control on planning, development, regulation,
distribution and control of water flowing through their territories. Under Article 262 of the
Constitution the Parliament is empowered to provide for the adjudication or control of the water
of any interstate river. Under the Voter Dispute Act, 1956 a tribunal consisting of three sitting
judges of the Supreme Court or High Court has to be constituted by the central government for
the settlement of an interstate water dispute when a request is received from a state government.

According to the Interstate Water Dispute Act, 1968 the Central Government has also been given
the responsibility of regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the
extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by
the Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.

The Parliament has also enacted the River Board Act, 1956 which authorizes the central gov-
ernment to constitute river boards in consultation with the state governments for regulation and
development of interstate rivers. The Government of India formed rules on June 30, 1959, to
settle interstate water disputes.

Among the important interstate water disputes mention may be made of the Kaveri Water dispute
between Karnataka, Kerala and Tamil Nadu; the Krishna water dispute between Maharashtra,
Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh; the Tungbhadra river water dispute between Andhra Pradesh and
Karnataka; the Parambikulam, Aliyar and Bhivani river water dispute between Tamil Nadu and
Kerala; the Godavari river water dispute between Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya
Pradesh, Karnataka and Orissa; the Narmada river water dispute between Gujarat, Madhya
Pradesh, Maharashtra and Rajasthan; the Mahi river water dispute between Gujarat, Rajasthan
and Madhya Pradesh; the Ravi and Beas river water dispute between Punjab, Haryana,
Rajasthan, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir; the Yamuna river water dispute between Uttar Pradesh,
Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan, Madhya Pradesh and Delhi; the Karmanasa river
.water dispute between Uttar Pradesh and Bihar; and the Barak river water dispute between
Assam and Manipur.

Many of these insterstate water disputes have been settled on the basis of equitable
apportionment which is the universally acceptad principle (Sukhwal, 1987, pp. 56-76). But still
there are some interstate water disputes whose final solution, acceptable to all parties, has not yet
been worked out. The Kaveri river water dispute belongs to same categories which besides
embittering the relations between Tamil Nadu and Karnataka have even threatened the stability
of the Central Government.

In a developing country like India, the interstate river water dispute must be resolved quickly so
that water resources could be utilized and harnessed properly for economic development. One of
the measures could be to declare all the major rivers as national property and national schemes
under the central assistance should he launched for the development of their total command area
with partial involvement of the concerned states. Separate corporations on the line of the
Damodar Valley Corporation may be useful in this direction.
Interstate River Water Disputes Act
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 reorganization of states on
linguistic basis to resolve the water disputes that would arise in the use, control and distribution
of an interstate river1 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.

River waters use / harnessing is included in states jurisdiction (entry 17 of state list, Schedule 7
of Indian Constitution). However, union government can make laws on regulation and
development of inter-State rivers and river valleys when expedient in the public interest (entry 56
of union list, Schedule 7 of Indian Constitution). When public interest is served, President may
also establish an interstate council as per Article 263 to inquire and recommend on the dispute
that has arisen between the states of India. IRWD Act (section 2c2) validates the previous
agreements (if any) among the basin states to harness water of an interstate river/ river valley.

Water disputes

IRWD Act is applicable only to interstate rivers / river valleys. If the action of one state affects
the interests of one or more other states, then only water dispute is deemed to have arisen under
IRWD Act (section 3).2 It can be divided into two independent parts for clarity purpose in
understanding the techno-legal application of IRWD Act

1 "River basins of India

2 "Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 - As modified up to 6th August 2002" (PDF). Government of India.
Actions of a downstream state affecting the interest of an upstream state

A downstream states action can affect the upstream state interest only in one case. I.e. when a
downstream state is building a dam / barrage near its state boundary and submerging the territory
of an upstream state on permanent / temporary basis. Other than this action, no other action of a
downstream state could affect the upstream states interest which they have been using for
economical, ecological and spiritual/ religious aspects. The meaning of the word interest in this
context is concern / importance / significance / relevance / consequence of losing the prevailing
water use or purpose..

Actions of an upstream state affecting the interest of a downstream

state

Whereas all the actions of an upstream state to use or control or distribute the water of an
interstate river can affect the downstream states in one way or other. The following are some
examples but not complete:

1. Consuming river water for any beneficial use such as irrigation, drinking water,
industrial, recreation, recharging of ground water, ground water use, enhanced
evaporation losses, enhancing rain water use efficiency, obstructing non flood flows of
the river, transferring water to outside the river basin, etc. (i.e. any man made /aided
action of converting water into water vapour & losing to atmosphere
by evapotranspiration / evaporation processes and also transferring river water outside
the river basin). This is generally done by constructing water storage reservoirs and
subsequently using water for above purposes.

2. Quality of water can also be diminished / altered/ controlled in the action of using water.
It would take place by accumulating the dissolved salts in the remaining water after its
use. The dissolved salts content of water increases due to its consumption and also
addition of more salts by anthropogenic activity. Also causing water more silt laden /
turbid is a man made water quality alteration which can be caused by mining and
 deforestation activities. Bringing water from other river basins for upstream states use
also effects water quality in downstream states.3

Generally river water is transferred to water deficit areas for use after creating the infrastructure
for its storage (water reservoirs) and distribution network (canals, pipelines, ground water
charging, etc.). All these acts fall under river water distribution and control category under IRWD
Act. All the above actions of an upstream state are legal causes of water dispute to the
downstream states since their existing interests are affected as given below:

Decrease in water availability:- When an upstream state contemplates water use, it would
block the lean season river flows initially by constructing low cost barrages and tries to store
the peak flood waters ultimately by constructing massive water storage reservoirs. In this
process the river flow regime is altered drastically converting it ephemeral / dry in most of
the time except during floods.4 It also alters the ecology of the river located in downstream
states affecting its riverine vegetation and aquatic flora & fauna. Already the delta area of
rivers are eroding / shrinking when adequate river water is not reaching sea. This process of
river water harnessing affects the downstream states interests as they are deprived of
constantly available river water which they had been using for their interests. Alternatively,
downstream state needs to store more flood water in reservoirs to cater to the existing water
use.

Deterioration in water quality:- If the water use is 75% of the total available water in the
river, the dissolved salts concentration in the river water increases by four folds. Alteration in
river water quality / alkalinity / salinity effects growth of traditionally cultivated crops as
they are not best suitable with the enhanced soil alkalinity and or soil salinity. They either
give lesser yield or consume more saline water for the same yield. Also the aquatic flora &
fauna would face survival threat / diminished growth with the enhanced water salinity and or
alkalinity. If the river is blocked to reach the Sea (i.e. basin closure) in most of the years, the

3 Godavari river water sharing accord

4 J. Keller; A. Keller; G. Davids. "River basin development phases and implications of closure
 ecology / fisheries of the surrounding Sea / river mouth area is also affected. Also there is
threat of Sea water ingress into estuaries / delta of the river contaminating ground water.

The use or control or distribution of river water in an upstream state is invariably denial of
prevailing use / purpose in the downstream state as it is altering natural flow regime of river
water with respect to quantity, quality and time of availability in downstream states. Also dam
failures in upstream states can create flash floods or further dam failures in downstream states
causing unprecedented property damage and loss of human lives. IRWD Act (section 3) clearly
stipulates that mere anticipation of a riparian state actions which can affect other riparian state
interests is enough to raise interstate water dispute.

The activities of an upstream state without effecting downstream states interests are peak flood
control measures by impounding the flood waters only (not base flows) in 100% or more
capacity storage reservoirs for use without effecting water quality appreciably and run off hydro
power generation taken up in its territory.

Constitutional tribunal

Whenever the riparian states are not able to reach amicable agreements on their own in sharing
of an interstate river waters, section 4 of IRWD Act provides dispute resolution process in the
form of Tribunal. As per section 5.2 of the Act, the tribunal shall not only adjudicate but also
investigate the matters referred to it by the central government and forward a report setting out
the facts with its decisions. It implies that the tribunal responsibility is not limited
to adjudication of issues raised by the concerned states and also investigation of other aspects
which are in public domain such as water pollution, salt export requirement, water quality
deterioration, flood control, sustainability of river basin productivity & its ecology,
environmental flow requirements, climate change effects, etc.[12] When the tribunal final verdict
issued based on the deliberations on the draft verdict is accepted by the central government and
notified in the official gazette, the verdict becomes law and binding on the states for
implementation. When pronounced in the ambit of IRWD Act, the tribunals verdict after its
publication in the official gazette is equivalent to Supreme Court verdict as per section 6 of
IRWD Act. In case the constitutional rights of states are ingressed upon by the tribunal award in
any manner, central government, for extending purview of its enactment to implement the
tribunal order, is obliged to take the consent of all riparian states under Article 252 of the
constitution before publishing the tribunal awards in the official gazette

Amendment 2002

This amendment specifically does not permit altering the prevailing tribunal verdicts issued
before the year 2002 (i.e. but not the tribunal awards issued after the year 2002). Thus this
amendment bars the tribunals to give any time period/validity for constituting a new tribunal.
This is to keep provision to resolve fresh water disputes which were not addressed by earlier
tribunals/ agreements as and when they surface.

Amendment bill 2017

A permanent water dispute tribunal with its members from sitting judges of Supreme Court or
High courts, is proposed to resolve the growing number of interstate river water disputes
expeditiously.

The tribunal awards

Till now three tribunal awards are notified in official gazette by the Government of India.
[16]
These are water dispute tribunals allocating river water use by the riparian states for Krishna
(tribunal 1),[17] Godavari[17] and Narmada[17] rivers. All these tribunal awards were issued before
the year 2002 which cannot be altered by the new tribunals. The tribunals formed on sharing
water of Ravi & Beas rivers, Cauvery / Kaveri river,[18] Vamsadhara River,
[19]
Mahadayi / Mandovi River[20] and Krishna River (tribunal 2 )[21] are either yet to pronounce
the verdicts or the issued verdicts are to be accepted by the Government of India.
Establishment of authorities to implement tribunal verdict

Under Section 6A of this Act, central government may frame a scheme or schemes to give effect
to the decision of a tribunal. Each scheme has provision to establish an authority for
implementation of a tribunal verdict. However, every scheme and all its regulations shall be
approved by parliament.

In the case of Cauvery River basin, SC directed the GoI to set up a temporary Supervisory
Committee to implement the tribunal order till the constitution of Cauvery Management Board
by GoI. GoI established the said temporary Supervisory Committee on 22 May 2013. [23] In the
case of Babli barrage dispute, SC itself constituted the Supervisory Committee to implement the
water sharing agreement between Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh in middle Godavari sub
basin.[24]

Data bank and imformation system

Under Section 9A of this Act, central government shall maintain a data bank and information
system at national level for each river basin. State governments shall provide all the data
regarding water resources, land, agriculture and matters related thereto as requested by the
central government. Central government is also vested with powers to verify the data supplied by
the state governments. However, many state governments (ex: Maharashtra,Chattishgarh, etc.)
have not been furnishing the land use data in their states and Central Water Commission of
MoWR is not pursuing the matter earnestly to get the data which is vital in water resources
planning.[

Conclusion

In Conclusion It can be seen from the above facts that almost in every case, the dispute between
states have arisen when a state goes for construction of major dam on interstate rivers. So there
was no dispute on Narmada till Gujarat decided to build Sardar Sarovar Dam. There was no
dispute on Mahadayi till Karnataka decided to build diversion structures under the Kalsa-
Bhanduri Project[ii]. At the root of a number of disputes are dams like Polavaram, Mulla Periyar
and Bhabali barrage. In Cauvery basin, the dispute started when the upstream state Karnataka
proposed dams, threatening the water availability for irrigation systems in Cauvery delta.

References