Monday, June 22, 2015

Fight for Cauvery Water

10 Dec 2012
Fight for water turns bitter
MS Menon
Unless the Government puts in place institutions that can effectively handle river water disputes, instances of States fighting one another for their share of water will continue to rise. Such conflicts are dangerous
The recent breakdown of talks between the Chief Ministers of Tamil Nadu and Karnataka over the sharing of the Cauvery waters was expected, since both parties were unwilling to be politically isolated in their States by accepting the demands of the other. Water-sharing has been an emotional issue since the last many decades. Even the award given by the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal set up by the Union Government was unacceptable to the contending parties, which has sought many clarifications in this regard. Pending these clarifications, the ‘award’ is still to be notified by the Centre, and the dispute continues without any sign of resolution in the foreseeable future.
The Cauvery confrontation is not an isolated case on river water-sharing in the country. There are many other disputes between co-basin States on sharing their river waters as the demand for water, to meet the irrigation and drinking water needs of a surging population, increases. The problems are further compounded with sources of freshwater like streams, inland lakes and ground water, getting polluted much beyond ecologically safe levels due to man-made activities. In such a situation, disputes on the limited water available are bound to occur and increase.
The disputes on sharing river waters among the States did not develop overnight. The looming conflicts due to water scarcity had been evident since decades, but authorities failed to take timely action to prevent the situation from spiralling. The result was that billions of cubic metres of fresh water got emptied into the sea unutilised during the monsoons, and the haunting spectre of water famine followed in the subsequent summer months in many parts of the country.
The utter confusion prevailing among planners, academicians, intellectuals and stakeholders on the approach to be adopted in dealing with water issues, coupled with political opportunism — with politicians vetoing suggestions to improve efficiency with measures such as proper pricing of water, controlling ground water withdrawals, etc has severely affected the optimum resource development and management in the water sector.
Hence, during failure of monsoons, water disputes continue, with each State demanding right over water flowing through its territory. For want of basin level institutions which could provide a platform to encourage mutual discussions to sort out the differences, the affected parties rush at legal remedies. The dispute continues to linger, as it has happened in the Cauvery case.
The only forum presently available for discussions on water-related issues is the National Water Resources Council, chaired by the Prime Minister, with the Chief Ministers of States and Union Territories as the council’s members. However, the NWRC meetings are held rarely, and that too after a gap of many years. For want of time, decisions are seldom taken. Hence, this forum is unable to deal with the frequently occurring basin level issues.
What is needed is a River Basin Organisation that has a representation from all stakeholders and officials of the basin States. Such an institution, duly constituted with adequate authority, would enable frequent dialogues among the States to arrive at the needed consensus on critical water issues, and encourage the States to look beyond their water rights and concentrate on water needs to yield benefits to the entire basin community. It could also assist in facilitating joint ventures among the basin States in areas like hydro-power, flood control, etc. and promoting awareness among the public that their water needs are protected rather than surrendered by such actions.
For setting up such institutions, urgent action has to be taken as there are legal issues involved in dealing with the emotive issue of water flowing through a number of States. Though water is in the State list, since the jurisdiction of a State by virtue of Article 245 is territorially limited, only Parliament has the powers to regulate the beneficial use and distribution of inter-State rivers among the various States.
However, the existing River Board Act (1956), having provisions for setting up a RBO, does not automatically authorise the Centre to regulate such rivers. The Act, therefore, needs to
be amended. The Centre must empower itself to constitute the RBOs with adequate authority thereby providing the much needed platform for the co-basin states to discuss and negotiate on water issues which frequently erupt both due to abundance of water causing floods, and due to lack of it.
We have few options left. Either we put in place the necessary institutions with adequate powers to reduce the instances of water disputes, through free and frank discussions among the contending basin States, or face the increasing and endless distress of waiting for legal remedies to sort out them out.
(The writer is a former member secretary, Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage)


No comments:

Post a Comment