Interstate River Water Disputes

Why in the News?

Recently, Delhi Chief Minister urged the Centre to solve the long-pending Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal issue between Punjab and Haryana.

Key Points:

About

Sutlej-Yamuna Link(SYL) Canal Issue

• SYL is a 214-km long canal for sharing the waters of the Ravi and Beas rivers between Haryana and Punjab. 
• The issue first surfaced when Haryana was carved out of Punjab in 1966.
• The Central government then issued a notification asking Punjab to provide a part of the water from the two rivers to Haryana. 
• Punjab argued that it was against the riparian principle.
  •  Riparian Principle: It states that the water of a river belongs only to the State and country or States and countries through which the river in question flows.

India’s Major river Disputes:

• Cauvery dispute (Karnataka-Tamil Nadu)
• Polavaram project dispute (Andhra (Odisha & Chattisgarh)
• Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (Goa, Karnataka, Maharashtra)

River Water Disputes

• • Article 262 of the Constitution provides for the adjudication of inter-state water disputes. 
  • It makes two provisions: 
    • Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute with respect to the use, distribution, and control of waters of any inter-state river and river valley.
    • Parliament may also provide that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.

• So far, the Parliament has enacted two laws:

• •  The River Boards Act (1956): It provides for the establishment of river boards for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys.
    •  A river board is established by the Central government at the request of the state governments concerned to advise them.

• The Inter-State Water Disputes Act (1956): Empowers the Central government to set up an ad hoc tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute between two or more states in relation to the waters of an inter-state river or river valley. 

• The decision of the tribunal would be final and binding on the parties to the dispute.
• Neither the Supreme Court nor any other court is to have jurisdiction in respect of any water dispute which may be referred to such a tribunal under this Act. 

Way Forward:

• Consensus on river governance must be simultaneously achieved on two levels: federal consensus and electoral consensus (for resolution at the site of mass politics). 
• A sound solution must acknowledge that the federal dynamics in India need confidence-building, both between the Centre and states as well as amongst the states.
• Consensus-building, based on sustained political deliberation, must be carried out in an institutional environment that guarantees fair representation of the states.
• There should be a mechanism of planning at the basin level to make sustainable and ecologically viable solutions for river water usage.