• UGI USER
  • Jul 16, 2024
  • 7 Likes
  • 0 Comments

OVERVIEW OF INTERSTATE WATER DISPUTES: SUPREME COURT AND CWC OBSERVATIONS ON THE CAUVERY DISPUTE AND PRAGMATIC SOLUTIONS

Relevance:

GS 2 –

Functions and Responsibilities of the Union and the States, Issues and Challenges Pertaining to the Federal Structure, Devolution of Powers and Finances up to Local Levels and Challenges Therein.

source:wordpress

Why in the News?

The ongoing dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the release of Cauvery water has once again come to the forefront. Recently, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemned Karnataka’s refusal to release Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery water, terming it as contempt of the Supreme Court’s direction.

Background of the Cauvery Water Dispute:

The Cauvery water dispute is a long-standing conflict between the states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu over the sharing of Cauvery river water. This dispute has persisted for several decades, leading to numerous legal battles and interventions by the Supreme Court and the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA).

Historical Context:

  • Origins of the Dispute: The dispute dates back to agreements made in 1892 and 1924 between the then Madras Presidency and the Kingdom of Mysore. These agreements outlined the sharing of Cauvery water but were not satisfactory to all parties involved.
  • Post-Independence Developments: After India gained independence, the reorganisation of states led to Karnataka and Tamil Nadu becoming the primary stakeholders. Disputes over water allocation intensified, resulting in legal battles and political confrontations.

Recent Developments:

  • Chief Minister M.K. Stalin’s Condemnation: On July 16, 2024, Chief Minister M.K. Stalin condemned Karnataka for not releasing Tamil Nadu’s share of Cauvery water. He emphasised that Karnataka’s refusal is strongly condemnable and affects the welfare of Tamil Nadu farmers.
  • Legal and Political Actions: Stalin called for an all-party meeting in Chennai to decide on future actions and sought inputs from legal experts. The Tamil Nadu government had previously written to the Cauvery Water Management Authority urging it to implement the directive of the Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC).
  • Current Water Levels: As of July 15, 2024, the total storage in Karnataka’s four major reservoirs was 75.586 TMC, while the storage in the Mettur dam in Tamil Nadu was merely 13.808 TMC. Despite predictions of seasonal rains, Karnataka’s refusal to release water remains a significant issue.

Legal Framework and Key Judgments:

Resolving interstate water disputes involves a complex legal framework and significant judicial interventions. Key legal aspects and judgments include:

  • Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956: This act provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of interstate rivers and river valleys. It empowers the central government to constitute a tribunal for the resolution of such disputes.
  • Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT): Constituted in 1990 under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, the CWDT issued its final award in 2007, allocating water shares among Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Puducherry.
  • Supreme Court Judgments: The Supreme Court has been instrumental in adjudicating the Cauvery water dispute. Notable judgments include:
    • 1991 Interim Order: Directed Karnataka to release 205 TMC of water to Tamil Nadu annually.
    • 2018 Final Judgement: Modified the CWDT’s award, reducing Tamil Nadu’s share and increasing Karnataka’s share, but mandated the release of a fixed quantity of water during the lean season.
  • Contempt Proceedings: The Supreme Court has initiated contempt proceedings against states for non-compliance with its orders, emphasising the binding nature of its judgments.

Constitutional Provisions:

  • Article 262: This article provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of interstate rivers and river valleys. It empowers Parliament to enact laws to prevent and resolve such disputes. Under this provision, the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956, was enacted.
  • Seventh Schedule, List I (Union List), Entry 56: This entry empowers the Union to regulate and develop interstate rivers and river valleys to the extent that such regulation and development are declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in the public interest.
  • Seventh Schedule, List II (State List), Entry 17: This entry allows states to legislate on water, subject to the provisions of Entry 56 of the Union List.

Interstate Water Disputes Tribunal:

The concept of water tribunals is central to resolving interstate water disputes in India. The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956, is the primary legislation governing this process.

Key Features of the Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956:

  • Establishment of Tribunals: The Act allows the central government to set up a tribunal to adjudicate disputes between states over water resources. Tribunals are constituted upon the request of any state government if it feels that its rights are prejudiced by the actions of another state.
  • Composition: Each tribunal typically comprises a chairperson and two other members who are nominated by the Chief Justice of India.
  • Powers of the Tribunal: Tribunals have extensive powers, similar to those of a civil court. They can summon witnesses, require the production of documents, and call for evidence.
  • Binding Decisions: The decisions of the tribunal are final and binding on the parties involved. They hold the same weight as an order of the Supreme Court. The Act was amended in 2002 to ensure that the tribunal’s decisions are notified by the central government, making them binding and enforceable.
  • Technical Experts: Tribunals can also include technical experts to provide insights on hydrology, engineering, and other relevant fields.

Key Tribunals and Their Awards:

  • Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT): Formed in 1990, the CWDT issued its final award in 2007. The award was later modified by the Supreme Court in 2018, which is currently being implemented.
  • Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT): The KWDT I (1969) and KWDT II (2004) were set up to address disputes over the Krishna River between Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh. The KWDT II issued its final verdict in 2010.
  • Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT): Constituted in 1969, the NWDT resolved disputes between Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, and Rajasthan. Its final award was delivered in 1979.

Challenges in Resolving Interstate Water Disputes:

Resolving interstate water disputes like the Cauvery issue involves several challenges:

  • Legal Complexities: The legal framework governing water sharing agreements and the interpretation of these agreements often lead to prolonged litigation.
  • Political Pressures: Political considerations and pressures from local constituencies can influence the decisions of state governments, making it difficult to reach a consensus.
  • Varying Water Needs: The water needs of different states vary based on factors like population, agriculture, and industrial requirements, complicating the allocation process.
  • Environmental Factors: Climate change and unpredictable rainfall patterns can impact water availability, adding uncertainty to water sharing agreements.

Observations by the Supreme Court and CWRC:

The Supreme Court and CWRC have played crucial roles in mediating and resolving the Cauvery water dispute. Key observations and directives include:

  • Supreme Court Directives: The Supreme Court has consistently directed Karnataka to release a specific quantity of water to Tamil Nadu to ensure equitable distribution.
  • CWRC Guidelines: The CWRC has laid down guidelines for the release of water based on reservoir levels, rainfall, and agricultural requirements in both states.

Pragmatic Solutions to the Dispute:

Addressing the Cauvery water dispute requires a combination of legal, technological, and cooperative measures:

  1. Adherence to Legal Directives: Both states must strictly adhere to the Supreme Court’s directives and CWRC guidelines to ensure a fair and just distribution of water.
  2. Technological Interventions: Implementing advanced water management technologies, such as real-time monitoring of reservoir levels and rainfall patterns, can help optimise water release and utilisation.
  3. Interstate Cooperation: Establishing a robust framework for interstate cooperation and dialogue is essential. Regular meetings and negotiations can help resolve conflicts amicably and ensure mutual benefits.
  4. Public Awareness and Participation: Involving local communities and stakeholders in water management decisions can lead to more sustainable and acceptable solutions. Public awareness campaigns can educate farmers and citizens about efficient water usage and conservation practices.
  5. Sustainable Agricultural Practices: Promoting water-efficient agricultural practices, such as drip irrigation and crop diversification, can reduce the dependency on river water and mitigate the impact of water shortages.
  6. Alternative Water Sources: Exploring alternative water sources like rainwater harvesting, desalination, and wastewater recycling can alleviate the pressure on river water and provide supplementary water supplies.
  7. Central Government Mediation: The central government can play a pivotal role in mediating disputes and ensuring compliance with legal directives. Establishing a permanent inter-state water dispute tribunal with clear mandates can expedite the resolution process.
  8. Equitable Water Sharing Agreements: Revisiting and updating water sharing agreements to reflect current realities and future projections can help in achieving a more balanced and equitable distribution of water resources.

Conclusion:

The Cauvery water dispute underscores the complex nature of interstate water sharing in India. While legal interventions are necessary, sustainable and cooperative approaches are crucial for long-term resolution. Both Karnataka and Tamil Nadu must prioritise the welfare of their citizens and work towards an equitable and pragmatic solution to this perennial issue.

Mains Question:

Discuss the key challenges in resolving interstate water disputes in India. Suggest pragmatic solutions to ensure equitable distribution of water among states. (250 words)

Source:The Hindu