By Manoggnya Reddy
Published On : August 20, 2021 12:15 IST
Introduction
India is a federal democracy with its own river flows. Establishing an equitable and efficient way to distribute river flows is an important legal issue that needs to be solved. Since India gained independence, there have been many rivers water disputes. Water disputes usually arise due to the conflicting interests of various parties.
India depends on agriculture and the country’s rivers are used for maintaining irrigation. There are various irrigation projects that are being constructed across rivers to provide water for agricultural purposes. The sharing of water resources is very important for the welfare of the people.
The government of India takes care of the disputes related to the interstate water flow among the states. It forms a tribunal to resolve the issues by considering the usage of water in each state. It forms a tribunal of former Supreme Court judges to deal with the issues.
This article talks about the Krishna River water dispute.
What are Interstate Water Disputes?
The inter-state river water disputes are some of the most significant issues that confront Indian federalism. They can affect the relationship between the states. Cases of the Cauvery Water dispute and the Satluj-Yamuna Link Canal case have raised concerns about the need for more inter-state water disputes tribunals.
- The position of water in the Constitution:
The legislative powers are divided among the states and central governments. The seven lists of topics are divided into three.
Those are:
- Union list – In the subject matter of this list the parliament has more say and power;
- State list – Regarding the subject matter present in this list the state governments have more power on them, and
- Concurrent list – The Central government has the only right and power to make laws based on the subject matter that comes under this list.
Entry 17 of State List deals with water i.e. water supply, irrigation, canal, drainage, embankments, water storage and water power.
Entry 56 of the Union List gives power to the Union Government for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent declared by Parliament to be expedient in the public interest.
The Constituent Assembly was aware of the potential impact of water disputes that may arise in the future. Due to the sensitivity of disputes, a specific provision of the constitution is mentioned in case of disputes. So, in these cases Article 262 of the Constitution provides that:
- Parliament may by law provide for an adjudication of disputes or complaints concerning the use, distribution or control thereof.
- Despite anything in this Constitution, The parliament may declare by the rule of law that it does not provide for any court to exercise any jurisdiction in respect of a dispute or complaint.
There are other ways to extend the central government’s control over water resources. For instance, the entry 20 in the Concurrent List, for projects related to water resource development, such as irrigation and hydropower, the state clearance is required. These provisions also allow the center to develop and manage water resources.
These two Acts are part of the states’ reorganization act of 1956. They are also applicable to interstate water disputes. The two acts are referred to as the Inter-state Water Disputes Act and the River Boards Act. The ISDA and Article 262 were enacted to implement the provisions of the constitution. These acts were prompted by the need to resolve disputes over interstate waters.
Why do the States have water disputes?
There are many reasons why water disputes occur between the states. Some of these are due to the lack of proper planning and management of water. Some states have more rivers flowing into their areas, which can be used for irrigation and electricity production.
The uneven distribution of water resources in different states, could be because of variation of rainfall, will affect the quantity of water available for different regions. The advantage of river water usage goes to the upper stream states over the downstream ones. This will result in disputes between the upstream and downstream states.
The construction of more dams across the rivers increases the likelihood of disputes between states. Due to the lack of water supply because of these dams, downstream regions do not get sufficient water for irrigation and multi-use projects. Due to the increasing demand for river water, the disputes among the states arise.
What is the Krishna River Water Dispute?
The Krishna River is the third longest in India after Godavari and Ganges. It flows in the following states: Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh (through Hamsaladeevi empties into the Bay of Bengal). The main tributaries of Krishna are the Malaprabha, the Tungabhadra, the Ghataprabha and the Musi. The current states in dispute are:
- Maharashtra,
- Karnataka and
- Andhra Pradesh.
The Krishna River starts at Mahabaleshwar, Maharashtra and ends at Hamsaladeevi, Andhra Pradesh and then enters into the Bay of Bengal. The total length of the river is said to be around 1,400 kms. With the total Area of the river basin being 2,57,000 km2 [Maharashtra – 68,800 km2 (26.8%), Karnataka – 1,12,600 km2 (43.8%), Andhra Pradesh – 75,600 km2 (29.4%)].
Which Dams are constructed on the River?
Some of these projects are for irrigation and some for the generation of power. The names of the Dams are given below:
- Dhom Dam – Near Wai in Maharashtra, mainly for the use of irrigation.
- Basava Sagar Dam – Narayanpur in Yadgir district of Karnataka, irrigation.
- Almatti Dam – North Karnataka, Power generation for the target annual output of power 560 MU.
- The Srisailam Dam – Srisailam in Kurnool district of Andhra Pradesh, 3rd largest capacity Hydroelectric project.
- Nagarjuna Sagar Dam – A Masonry dam, Border of Guntur and Nalgonda District of Andhra pradesh. One of the earliest multipurpose irrigation and hydroelectric projects.
- Prakasham Barrage – Connects Krishna and Guntur Districts. Irrigation.
- Jurala Dam – About 10 km from Kuravpur, Mahbubnagar district, Andhra Pradesh. Irrigation.
- Pulichintala Project – Crucial irrigation facility for the districts of West Godavari, Krishna, Guntur and Prakasam. Multi-purpose irrigation, hydro power generation and flood control.
What is the history of the dispute?
For many decades, a disagreement over the sharing of Krishna water has existed between the two state governments of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka, which began between the states of Mysore with Hyderabad. The Mysore Princely State and the Madras Presidency in 1892 and the Hyderabad Princely State with the Madras presidency in 1933. Before the establishment of Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal, the agreements were in force.
After the establishment of the tribunal, members decided to modify the agreements instead of completely declaring them as void in order to protect the existing projects in the two states of Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, which were then accepted by both the state and central.
When the states of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh sent the request regarding the disputes in regard to the sharing of Krishna water to the Central Government, they set up a tribunal.
The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal was established in 1969 to resolve disputes between states over water rights under ISDA and reported in 1973. In 1976, a report divided the 2060 TMC of Krishna water supply into three parts, namely, 560 TMC for Maharashtra, 700 for Karnataka, and 800 for Andhra Pradesh. It was also stipulated that the order may be revised or reviewed by a competent authority or Tribunal after May 31, 2000.
As new grievances rose with time, the second Krishna Water Distribution Trust was set up in 2004, following the recommendations of the first one. It distributes the water from Krishna to various states at 65 percent dependability. 81, 177, and 190 TMC respectively for Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. This report was delivered in 2010.
Any Recent Developments?
After the tribunal’s 2010 report in 2011, Andhra Pradesh challenged it with a Special leave petition. The court then stopped the Centre from publishing the Gazette, which is the official document for all government agencies.
In 2013, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal issued a report on which the Andhra Pradesh challenged against it again in the Supreme Court. After the formation of Telangana in 2014, the Water Resources ministry extended the duration of KWDT. Andhra Pradesh has asked for the inclusion of Telangana as a separate party at the Krishna Water Distribution Tribunal. It has also requested that the allocation of the water be reworked among four states.
The Section 89 of The Andhra Pradesh State Reorganization Act, 2014, stated that:
“89. The term of the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal shall be extended with the following terms of reference, namely:
(a) shall make project-wise specific allocation, if such allocation has not been made by a Tribunal constituted under the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956;
(b) shall determine an operational protocol for project-wise release of water in the event of deficit flows.
Explanation –– 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.”
This statement and suggestion made by Andhra Pradesh was since then opposed by Maharashtra and Karnataka which said that:
“Telangana was created following bifurcation of Andhra Pradesh. Therefore, allocation of water should be from Andhra Pradesh’s share which was approved by the tribunal.”
On August 3rd 2021the Chief Justice of India N. V. Ramana who headed the bench for the hearing clarified that he would not deal with the legal issues involved in the case, but the bench could help in the mediation process if the states are prepared to resolve the issues through talks. And stated that:
“I belong to both the states. I don’t want to hear this matter legally. But if the matter can be settled in mediation, please do that. Otherwise, we will have to send this matter to another bench,”[i]
Where the Andhra Government filed a complaint through its petition that Telangana Government was depriving its citizens of their share of the Krishna water. Urging the Apex Court to take complete control of the reservoirs of Srisailam, Nagarjuna Sagar and also Pulichintala and regulate them according to the binding award.
But on August 5th2021 The Andhra Governments declined mediations over talks for which the CJI said the petitions will now be moved to a new bench.
Conclusion
Water conflicts are not limited to water or triggered by scarcity. They can also be seen as part of a wider social and political context. They can be multi-layered. They can be enmeshed in local struggles and power struggles. The Krishna River base has been a vital source of food, security, and culture for thousands of years. Despite multiple attempts to manage the supply, a crisis is now approaching. Integrated water management principles are needed to address the various issues that confront us all. Basin planning can help guide us towards achieving these goals.
References
- researchgate.net
- hindustantimes.com
- INDIA’S EXPERIENCE: Some Case Studies
- THE ANDHRA PRADESH REORGANISATION ACT, 2014
[i]Krishna river dispute: Andhra declines mediation, CJI recuses himself (Last visited on 18th August 2021)