Inter-State River Water Disputes in India: Institutions and Mechanisms

Abstract

India is a large country with 29 states as constituents in its federal structure. The large and growing population imposes great pressure on available natural resources. Disputes arising out of contested river water entitlements between states are common and often intractable. Laws conceived for settling such disputes were created for a particular socio-political environment characterized by strong Centre and relatively non-assertive states. The paper argues that this political configuration has changed dramatically and in turn has reduced the efficacy of the existing statutory mechanisms. A new paradigm for dispute resolution is required. The existing institutional mechanism and its political environment are examined and the structural changes identified. A set of reforms in the dispute resolution mechanism is proposed, which would reduce the friction between the statutory mechanism and its operational environment.

Sustainable urban water supply in south India: Desalination, efficiency improvement, or rainwater harvesting?

“…Unfortunately, Chennai has no local, undeveloped sources. Historically, large interbasin water transfer projects have proved challenging, taking decades to complete; even after being commissioned deliveries have remained unreliable and subject to political bargaining each season [ Briscoe and Malik , 2006; Maitra , 2007; Nikku , 2004]. Although these interbasin transfers will be needed in the long term, only policies currently under consideration aimed at water management through 2025 are addressed.…”

A hydrologic‐economic modeling approach for analysis of urban water supply dynamics in Chennai, India

“…Additionally, in drought years farmers across the state border immediately north of Chennai would pump water from the open canal and no punitive action would be taken to stop these illegal diversions. These assumptions were based on conclusions by other studies that have described how water policy in India falls under state, not federal jurisdiction and state politics in Southern India are controlled by state-specific political parties with no incentive to appease constituents across boundaries [Maitra, 2007;Nikku, 2004]. Our assumption that water deliveries to Chennai via the inter-state Telugu Ganga project would decrease in drought years is consistent with the pattern of historical deliveries.…”

Beyond water, beyond boundaries: spaces of water management in the Krishna river basin, South India

“…It depoliticises the issues by framing them in terms of equitable apportionment that technology and science could solve while, she argues, interstate water disputes are an expression of neo‐colonial development conflict pressed upon states by the federal government (D'Souza 2002). Less forcefully, it is widely admitted that tribunals are institutions characteristic of a strong ‘paternalistic’ federal government and ‘childly’ non‐assertive states (Iyer 2003; Anand 2004; Maitra 2007).…”

“…Nonetheless, coalition and regional politics are assuming an increasing importance and the push towards democratisation and decentralisation means that states are assuming an ever prominent role in Indian politics (Kohli 2001). This induces a disconnect between the dispute resolution mechanisms (the tribunals) and their operational environment (Maitra 2007). States are keeping the upper hand on their water resources.…”

“…Identity and politics define the river basin as a disputed space that states refuse to engage with. This may be due to the ‘quasi‐federal’ nature of India centred on the notions of regional distribution, central planning, and political integration (Maitra 2007). This calls for exploring alternatives to the current basin‐centred vision of dispute resolution.…”