Lessons learnt from Cauvery.

Lessons learnt from Cauvery: nationalise interstate rivers

A new and acceptable mechanism in dealing with water has to be evolved in which the needs of the stakeholders will be appreciated along with their rights, and the available water will be equitably shared by the co-basin States.

THE HOLY waters of the Cauvery river are being desecrated — not by the nefarious deeds of religious fanatics, but by the despicable actions of political opportunists. Vote bank politics has succeeded in dividing the culturally united dwellers of this basin into upper and lower riparian blocks to fight each other for their water rights. These people of steeply bound traditions for generations, who were sharing the bounties of the river happily and its distress with concern for each other, are now at each other's throat fighting for their share of the same life giving waters. Similar situation is also brewing in other interstate rivers of the country. The dispute in the Krishna basin is getting ignited to explode into volcanic proportions, while simmering discontent among co-basin States in the river systems of the Indus, Mahanadi, etc., is threatening to erupt into major unrest.
The failure of the water deficit States to resolve their differences with water surplus neighbours has now resulted in demands for nationalisation of rivers, as, according to the former, such a step alone would ensure equitable and sustainable utilisation of the river flows.
The States are obliged to cooperate with each other under the principle of federalism of the polity. However, the water endowed upper riparian States who consider the waters in their rivers as their properties are opposed to the nationalisation of the rivers as, according to them, the concept is against the autonomy of the States guaranteed under the Constitution. However, these States, which zealously safeguard their autonomous status and rights, forget their obligations to cooperate with each other while practising federalism. Consequent on such contradictory positions taken by these States, many Chief Ministers of water deficit States have been forced to demand the nationalisation of rivers. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa, was frustrated to make this demand due to the failure of Karnataka to release Cauvery waters to help the farmers in the delta. Haryana made this demand due to the steadfast refusal of Punjab to release waters of the Ravi-Beas System for the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. Similarly for Goa, the waters of the Mandovi and for Chattisgarh, the Indravati waters have been contentious issues with their neighbours.
Faced by the dismal scenario, the rulers, in the meanwhile, preferred to react to the events rather than governing them; the intellectuals remained indifferent and acted disinterestedly even in spite of knowing the gravity of the situation; the politicians found the environment favourable to them to remain in the limelight, while the farmers suffered.
In this situation, the demand for nationalisation of water from States needs serious consideration. A new and acceptable mechanism in dealing with water has to be evolved in which the needs of the stakeholders will be appreciated along with their rights, and the available water will be equitably shared by the co-basin States. The approach has to be honest and sincere with a long-term vision rather than being impulsive, emotional and ad hoc.
Options
Complex legal issues are involved in matters dealing with integrated development of interstate and intrastate rivers, allocation of river waters, water rights, etc. Many including water professionals are of the view that "Water" being a "State" subject, as per the existing provisions in the Constitution, only by amending the Constitution and bringing "Water" under the "Central" or "Concurrent" List and by enacting a national framework legislation for integrated and economic use of water, it will be possible to optimise the use of the resource in the country. However, considering the present political climate, a constitutional amendment on such a sensitive matter is not likely to occur in the near future and alternatives would have to be found to solve this vexed problem. In this regard, some experts are of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are adequate to deal with the situation and the Centre has only to empower itself to regulate and develop interstate rivers, which contribute more than 85 per cent of the country's utilisable water resources.
As per the provisions in the Constitution, though the subject relating to water is contained in Entry 17 of List II (State List), this Entry is subject to the provisions of the Entry 56 of List I (Union List).
Entry 56 under Union List reads as under:
"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 Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest." Hence according to these legal experts, Parliament may, by making the requisite declaration in public interest under Entry 56 of List I, enact a law for the regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys thus taking over the control of these interstate rivers and putting a stop to the acrimonious disputes on these waters.
The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations which examined this issue in detail, opined that the scheme of the Constitution was that there was need for Union control over waters of interstate rivers and river valleys for their regulation and control but in matters of local concern as in the case of land, States should have powers in respect of waters which are not part of interstate rivers and are located within the territory of each State. As interstate rivers are not located entirely within a State but only flow through its territories, no State can lay claim to the exclusive use of such waters and/or deprive other States of their just share. Since the jurisdiction of a State by virtue of Article 245 is territorially limited, only Parliament could have powers to regulate, by law, the beneficial use and distribution of such waters among the States. Hence the Sarkaria Commission was of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are the best to deal with the issue of water and hence did not support the suggestions from different quarters to include the subject of water either in the "Union List" or in the "Concurrent List."
Needed action
The immediate step to be taken by the Centre in this regard is to empower itself under Entry 56 to control interstate rivers. However, enactment of laws to take over the regulation and development of the interstate rivers alone is not adequate to ensure the optimum utilisation of the resource. There is need for an institutional set-up backed by law to concern itself with interstate rivers. A National Water Authority and River Basin Authorities with adequate powers could be set up for this purpose. The River Board's Act (1956) could be suitably amended for this purpose to empower these authorities to deal with all matters including collection of data, major principles of water allocation among the States concerned, principles of basin development, issue of guidelines related to the projects in the basin, etc. The successful functioning of organisations like Bhakra-Beas Management Board, Damodar Valley Corporation, Tungabhadra Board, etc., in the past few decades should be an eye opener in this regard to enthuse the Centre to set up the requisite mechanisms for the interstate rivers.
Tardy development and inefficient management of the resource coupled with the never-ending disputes among the co-basin States is driving this water rich country to a hydrocide situation. In the meanwhile, increasing politics on water is necessitating ad hoc measures being taken to resolve resultant problems, thereby putting aside needed action with long-term vision. As hydro-politics is threatening the very fabric of federalism, it is time the Centre empowered itself to deal with interstate rivers and come out with a vision for action to regulate and develop them and thus save the country from the looming threat of water famine.
(The Hindu, 2nd September,2003)