Abstract

The Challenges of Interstate Water Dispute pose a complex and pressing issue in the realm of water
resource management. This abstract provides a succinct overview of the multifaceted challenges
encountered in such disputes. As water scarcity escalates and demand rises, historical precedents
underscore the critical nature of unresolved disputes, impacting regions and exacerbating geopolitical
tensions. A thorough examination of the legal framework reveals challenges in the implementation and
enforcement of existing laws and agreements.

Environmental concerns, including the ecological impact of water diversion, further complicate the
matter, necessitating a delicate balance between water needs and environmental conservation.
Technological advancements offer potential solutions, yet issues related to equitable distribution and
efficient use persist. Political dynamics play a pivotal role, influencing the negotiation and
implementation of water-sharing agreements. Economic implications reverberate across sectors, from
agriculture to industry, amplifying the stakes of such disputes.

Stakeholder involvement, including communities and non-governmental organizations, adds a layer of

complexity and potential for collaboration. Through comprehensive case studies, this abstract explores
patterns and lessons learned, contributing to an understanding of conflict resolution strategies. Looking
ahead, proactive measures are crucial to address anticipated challenges in interstate water
management. This abstract encapsulates the intricate web of challenges, urging a holistic approach to
foster sustainable water governance and international cooperation.

INTRODUCTION

In a world grappling with the critical importance of water resources for sustenance and development,
equitable access to adequate water availability remains a pressing concern.

In a diverse and populous country like India, inter-state river water disputes have been a recurring
challenge, fuelling tensions among regions and impeding progress. These disputes are not limited to
politics but also frequently spill over into social life and discourse. All this makes it necessary to find a
lasting solution to an issue that causes delays in water resources utilisation, cost overruns, and at times,
law and order problems.

The equitable sharing of river waters is not only essential for addressing the immediate needs of
communities and agriculture but also crucial for fostering harmonious interstate relations and
sustainable growth.
The term "Interstate Water Dispute" refers to conflicts that arise between two or more states over the
allocation, utilization, and management of shared water resources. These disputes are emblematic of the
complex interplay between geography, resource scarcity, and the ever-growing demands on freshwater
reservoirs. As our world grapples with increasing water stress, understanding the dynamics and
challenges of interstate water disputes is crucial.

Water, a fundamental resource for human survival and development, holds immense significance in
shaping interstate relations. Shared water bodies often transcend political boundaries, making equitable
distribution and effective management essential for fostering cooperation among neighboring states.
The strategic importance of water resources amplifies their role in geopolitical considerations,
influencing regional stability and diplomatic relations.

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

The historical context of interstate water disputes is a tapestry woven with conflicts and negotiations
over shared water resources. From the Tigris-Euphrates disputes in ancient Mesopotamia to
contemporary conflicts like the Nile River basin tensions, history showcases the enduring challenges of
managing transboundary waters. These disputes often stem from complex factors such as historical
claims, competing needs, and evolving geopolitical dynamics.

Unresolved disputes from history have left indelible marks on regions involved. Societies dependent on
shared water bodies experience heightened vulnerabilities, witnessing economic disparities and
environmental degradation. The Aral Sea crisis in Central Asia and the Mekong River tensions underscore
how unresolved disputes can lead to ecological devastation and human suffering. Diplomatic relations
strain as competing interests collide, magnifying the complexities of international water governance.

By examining the historical context, we gain insights into patterns of cooperation and conflict resolution.
The lessons learned from past interstate water disputes are crucial for devising sustainable solutions. As
the world faces growing water stress, understanding the historical dimensions of these disputes
becomes imperative to foster effective water management, international cooperation, and equitable
sharing of this vital resource.

In a world grappling with the critical importance of water resources for sustenance and development,
equitable access to adequate water availability remains a pressing concern.
In a diverse and populous country like India, inter-state river water disputes have been a recurring
challenge, fuelling tensions among regions and impeding progress. These disputes are not limited to
politics but also frequently spill over into social life and discourse. All this makes it necessary to find a
lasting solution to an issue that causes delays in water resources utilisation, cost overruns, and at times,
law and order problems.

The equitable sharing of river waters is not only essential for addressing the immediate needs of
communities and agriculture but also crucial for fostering harmonious interstate relations and
sustainable growth.

ENVIRONMENT CONCERN

Environmental concerns in interstate water disputes amplify the complexity of managing shared water
resources. The diversion and extraction of water for human needs often intersect with ecological
systems, posing challenges to environmental sustainability. The impact of these concerns extends
beyond political boundaries, affecting ecosystems, biodiversity, and the overall health of our planet.

One primary environmental challenge is the alteration of natural flow regimes. Dams, irrigation projects,
and water diversions can disrupt ecosystems, leading to habitat loss and changes in biodiversity.
Additionally, water quality degradation due to pollution from agricultural runoff or industrial discharges
further exacerbates environmental concerns.

Balancing the human need for water with ecological preservation is a delicate task. In many instances,
the over-extraction of water from rivers and aquifers results in lowered water tables, threatening
wetlands and riparian habitats. The depletion of water sources can trigger a domino effect, impacting
flora and fauna dependent on these ecosystems.

In addressing interstate water disputes, a holistic approach is essential, considering the ecological
ramifications alongside human needs. Sustainable water management practices that account for
environmental concerns are vital to ensure the long-term health of shared water bodies and the
ecosystems they support. This involves collaborative efforts, technological innovations, and policy
frameworks that prioritize both human and environmental well-being.

What is the Scenario of Inter-State Water Disputes in India?

States in Dispute and Rivers:

Recently, the Pennaiyar river dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu was in the news. This matter
was followed by the Mahadayi river dispute, a long-running water river dispute, between Karnataka and
Goa.

Many other disputes such as the Sutlej-Yamuna link canal, Krishna Water Dispute (Andhra Pradesh,
Telangana, Maharashtra and Karnataka), Mahanadi Water Dispute (Odisha and Chhattisgarh) and
Cauvery Water Dispute (TN, Kerala, Karnataka and Puducherry) can be frequently seen in the news.

Constitutional Provisions related to Water:

State List deals with water i.e., water supply, irrigation, canal, drainage, embankments, water storage
and hydro power.

Union List empowers the Union Govt to regulate/develop inter-state rivers/valleys to the extent declared
by Parliament.

As per Article 262, in case of inter-state river water disputes (ISRWD), Parliament may by law provide:

For the adjudication of any dispute

For distribution/control of waters of/in any inter-State river/valley

That no court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.

Inter-State Water Dispute (ISRWD) Act, 1956:

Under this act, the Centre constitutes a tribunal to resolve ISRWDs in case the disputed states are not
able to resolve the issue by negotiations.

It was amended in 2002 to include the major recommendations of the Sarkaria Commission.

What are the Challenges in Effective Functioning of ISRWD Tribunals?

1. Challenges in Creation:

A tribunal is constituted for adjudication of ISRWDs only if the Centre agrees.

The absence of water data that is acceptable to all parties currently makes it difficult to even set up a
baseline for adjudication.
2.Issues in Present Mechanism:

The present mechanism of these tribunals is characterised by long delays and non-compliance with the
award of an ISRWD Tribunal.

Water disputes such as the Godavari and Cauvery disputes in India have faced long delays in resolution.

Moreover, frequently, parties are not satisfied with the award and approach the Supreme Court, leading
to another round of litigation.

3. Lack of Scientific Touch: A widely held view is that adjudication is not the way to settle ISRWD. Many
such disputes don’t involve questions of law but involve matters falling in the domain of hydrology,
environment, engineering, agriculture, climate, sociology, and so on.

Therefore, another aspect that these tribunals lack is dealing with the disputes in a scientific manner.

Other challenges

There are often challenges in data sharing and discrepancies in data between disputed states.

Political parties often politicise these disputes making it difficult to approach the issue objectively and
find consensus-based solutions.

The increasing demand for water due to population growth, urbanisation, and industrialisation,
intensifies competition among states for water resources.

Water is a highly emotive issue; Protests and public demonstrations can add pressure on authorities to
take a rigid stance, hindering resolution processes.

OTHER RULES AT GLOBAL LEVEL

Helsinki Rules 1966:

Article IV of the widely followed Helsinki Rules (1966) stated on the issue of equitable utilisation of the
waters of an international drainage basin.

As per the rules, “Each basin State is entitled, within its territory, to a reasonable and equitable share in
the beneficial uses of the waters of an international drainage basin”.

The Helsinki Rules was, however, limited in their scope to international drainage basins and connected
groundwater sources.
Berlin Rules on Water Resources 2004:

These rules superseded the Helsinki Rules and emphasised appropriate management of all freshwater
sources within the nations; climate-related issues; minimisation of environmental harm; preference to
meet vital human needs, and the individual’s right of access to adequate quantity of safe drinking water,
among others.

Note:

The Supreme Court invoked the principles of the Helsinki Rules and Berlin Rules along with the
Campione Rules (recognising the surface water-groundwater connection) while passing the judgement in
2018 on the long-drawn Cauvery water dispute, arising out of Cauvery Water Tribunal Award 2007

How can Equitable Distribution of Resources Resolve ISRWDs?

Understanding Equitable Use of Resources:

A key factor in finding a lasting and acceptable solution is fair, equitable and reasonable use of natural
resources.

However, given there is no clear definition of fair, equitable and reasonable use, implementation of this
concept can be difficult.

Such a use can be typically determined by the assessment of a number of factors that depend on history,
present circumstances, and social conditions in the regions of interest.

The equitable shares are to be decided in such a way that each party derives the largest benefit by using
water and should cause the minimum harm to others.

Assistance from Helsinki Rules: The Helsinki Rules describe in detail the relevant factors to be
considered:

The first set of factors includes the drainage area within each basin state, hydrology and climate in the
basin. They will determine basin water resources within each state.

The second set of factors determines the utilisation of water by each party and covers the past and
current utilisation, and the population dependent on the waters of the basin in each basin state.

These factors are to be considered along with the relative costs of meeting the needs by alternative
means.

Adequate Water Data:

Scientific determination of equitable distribution can be difficult due to insufficient availability of data.

As embedded in Berlin Rules 2004, the openness of information related to water resources is critical to
achieving equity.
Therefore, the Government should take steps to collect all relevant water resource data, curate it, and
make it open.

Best Practices for Maximum Benefits:

States need to be incentivised and encouraged to adopt best water use practices to derive the largest
benefit of equitably using water while minimising harm to others.

Over-utilisation of groundwater should be discouraged as it leads to decline in base flows in rivers.

States should be encouraged to increase water use efficiency in agricultural, industrial and domestic
sectors.

Involvement of Local People:

At present, people, the final stakeholders, have no involvement in dispute resolution since the tribunals
hear only the official representatives of the litigating states.

A mechanism should be devised to consider inputs from civil society in a transparent way.

Good governance in sustainable water management can be best achieved by understanding gender gaps
and addressing the specific barriers.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the challenges posed by interstate water disputes are complex and multifaceted, requiring
thoughtful consideration and effective solutions. The competition for water resources among
neighboring states underscores the urgent need for a robust framework of cooperation, communication,
and conflict resolution. As the demand for water continues to rise due to population growth, industrial
expansion, and climate change, the stakes in these disputes become higher.

One major challenge lies in the legal and institutional mechanisms governing water allocation. Often,
outdated or insufficient agreements fail to address the evolving needs of the states involved. Establishing
comprehensive, flexible, and equitable frameworks that consider both current and future demands is
imperative. Additionally, mechanisms for effective implementation and enforcement of these
agreements must be in place to ensure adherence and prevent unilateral actions that exacerbate
tensions.

Environmental sustainability must be a central consideration in resolving interstate water disputes.

Striking a balance between human needs and ecological integrity is crucial to prevent irreversible
damage to ecosystems. Collaborative efforts to implement water conservation measures, promote
efficient use, and explore alternative sources are essential components of a sustainable solution.
Political will and diplomatic skills play pivotal roles in resolving interstate water disputes. Leaders must
prioritize dialogue over confrontation, seeking win-win outcomes that benefit all parties involved.
International best practices and successful case studies can serve as valuable guides in developing
effective dispute resolution strategies.

Public awareness and engagement are critical factors in addressing interstate water challenges.
Educating communities about the importance of water conservation, the complexities of interstate water
agreements, and the shared responsibility for sustainable water management fosters a sense of
collective ownership and support for equitable solutions.

In conclusion, navigating the challenges of interstate water disputes requires a holistic approach that
combines legal, environmental, diplomatic, and societal considerations. By fostering collaboration,
updating legal frameworks, embracing sustainable practices, and promoting public awareness, states can
work towards ensuring a water-secure future for all parties involved.

REFERENCE.

Hindustan Times article "An equitable and long-lasting way to resolve inter-state river water disputes”

Government of India, Ministry of Irrigation, (1980), National Perspectives for Water Resources

Development, New Delhi: Ministry of Irrigation.

Government of India, (1988), Report of the Commission on Centre-State Relations (Sarkaria

Commission), Nasik: Government of India Press.

Guhan, S., (1993), The Cauvery Dispute: Towards Conciliation, Madras: Frontline/ Kasturi &

Sons.

Iyer, R.R., (1994a) "Federalism and Water Resources", Economic and Political Weekly, March

26, 733-738.

National Water Development Agency, (1992), National Perspectives for Water Resources

Development, July, New Delhi: NWDA.

Ramana, M.V.V., (1992) Inter-State River Water Disputes in India, Madras: Orient Longman.

Shah, R.B., (1994), "Inter-state River Water Disputes: A Historical Review", Water Resources

Development, 10, 2, 175-189.

World Bank, (1993), Water Resources Management: A World Bank Policy Paper, Washington

DC: The World Bank.