Krishna Water Dispute

Context:

The nagging dispute over the water share of the Krishna river between Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) and Telangana remains unresolved, even nine years after the bifurcation of the combined State.

Relevance:

GS-II: Polity and Constitution (Inter-State relations, Functions & responsibilities of the Union and the States, Issues and challenges of federal structure), GS-I: Geography (Water sources)

Dimensions of the Article:

1. About Krishna River
2. Krishna Water dispute
3. Water sharing arrangements after bifurcation
4. Claims of Each State
5. Major Inter-State River Disputes in India
6. Active River Water Dispute Tribunals in India
7. Constitutional and legal provisions related to water disputes
8. Issues with Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals

Krishna River

• The Krishna is an east-flowing river.
• Originates at Mahabaleshwar in Maharashtra and merges with the Bay of Bengal 
• Flows through Maharashtra, Karnataka, Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. 
• Together with its tributaries, it forms a vast basin that covers 33% of the total area of the four states.
• The principal tributaries joining Krishna are the Ghataprabha, the Malaprabha, the Bhima, the Tungabhadra and the Musi. 
• Most of this basin comprises a rolling and undulating country, except for the western border, which is formed by an unbroken line of the Western Ghats. 
• The important soil types found in the basin are black soils, red soils, laterite and lateritic soils, alluvium, mixed soils, red and black soils and saline and alkaline soils

Krishna Water dispute

• The States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have been locked in a battle of sorts over the utilisation of Krishna water, with Andhra Pradesh proposing a few projects and in turn, Telangana coming up with half-a-dozen projects of its own.
• Both States have their own justification to pursue new water and power projects as several areas await economic development.
• Rayalaseema is a dry region and it was grievances over poor utilisation of the two rivers in then undivided Andhra Pradesh that was a factor that led to the bifurcation.
• At the same time, the two States should instead focus on water and energy conservation and improving the efficiency of irrigation schemes and hydel reservoirs.
• Telangana had held the view that the notification should flow from finalisation by a tribunal on Krishna water sharing by the two States that would enlarge the scope of reference of the existing Krishna Water Dispute Tribunal (KWDT)-II. Telangana had even moved the Supreme Court but the Centre said it would consider Telangana’s request only if it withdrew its petition which it did.

Water sharing arrangements after bifurcation:

Background:

• The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2014, did not mention specific water shares since the previous Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal-I (KWDT-I) Award, which was still in force, had not allocated water shares based on regions.
• In 2015, a meeting facilitated by the Ministry of Water Resources resulted in an ad hoc arrangement for water sharing between Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.

Ad Hoc Water Sharing Arrangement:

• The ad hoc arrangement agreed upon by Telangana and Andhra Pradesh was based on a 34:66 ratio (Telangana:A.P.).
• The minutes of the meeting explicitly stated that this ratio was to be reviewed annually.

Water Resource Management Boards:

• The Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act focused on the establishment of two river management boards to manage water resources: the Krishna River Management Board (KRMB) and the Godavari River Management Board (GRMB).

Continuation of Ratio and Opposition:

• The KRMB continued with the 34:66 water sharing ratio each year, despite opposition from Telangana.
• In October 2020, Telangana expressed its demand for an equal share until water shares were officially determined.

Referral to Ministry of Jal Shakti:

• At a recent board meeting, Telangana reiterated its stance for an equal share and declined to continue with the existing arrangement.
• As the member states could not reach an agreement, the matter has been referred to the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS) for resolution.

Claims of Each State:

Telangana:

• Telangana claims that it is entitled to at least a 70% share in the allocation of the 811 tmcft (thousand million cubic feet) of water based on basin parameters.
• It argues that international treaties and agreements on sharing river waters support its claim.
• Telangana points out that Andhra Pradesh (A.P.) has been diverting around 300 tmcft of water from fluoride-affected and drought-prone areas within the basin in Telangana to areas outside the basin.

Andhra Pradesh:

• A.P. also asserts its claim for a higher share of water to protect the interests of command areas that have already been developed.
• The state emphasizes the need to secure water resources for its existing agricultural and irrigation projects.

Stand of the Centre:

• The Centre has convened two meetings of the Apex Council, which includes the Union Minister and Chief Ministers of Telangana and A.P., in 2016 and 2020.
• However, the Centre has not made any substantial effort to address the water sharing issue.
• In 2020, the Ministry of Jal Shakti (MoJS) suggested referring the matter to a Tribunal, and Telangana withdrew its petition from the Supreme Court based on this assurance.
• Despite the passage of over two years, the Centre has not taken any decisive action, leaving the two states in continued dispute over the matter.

Major Inter-State River Disputes in India

Active River Water Dispute Tribunals in India

• Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II (2004) – Karnataka, Telangana, Andra Pradesh, Maharashtra
• Mahanadi Water Disputes Tribunal (2018) – Odisha & Chattisgarh
• Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Goa,Karnataka, Maharashtra
• Ravi & Beas Water Tribunal (1986) – Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan
• Vansadhara Water Disputes Tribunal (2010) – Andra Pradesh & Odisha.

Constitutional and legal provisions related to water disputes

• Article 262(1) provides that Parliament may by law provide for the adjudication of any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the waters of, or in, any inter State river or river valley.
• Article 262(2) empowers Parliament with the power to provide by law that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute or complaint.
• Under Article 262, two acts were enacted:
  • River Boards Act 1956: It was enacted with a declaration that centre should take control of regulation and development of Inter-state rivers and river valleys in public interest. However, not a single river board has been constituted so far.
  • The Interstate River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (IRWD Act) confers a power upon union government to constitute tribunals to resolve such disputes. It also excludes jurisdiction of Supreme Court over such disputes.
• Despite Article 262, the Supreme Court does have jurisdiction to adjudicate water disputes, provided that the parties first go to water tribunal and then if they feel that the order is not satisfactory only then they can approach supreme Court under article 136.
• The article 136 gives discretion to allow leave to appeal against order, decree, judgment passed by any Court or tribunal in India.

Issues with Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals

• Interstate Water Dispute Tribunals are riddled with Protracted proceedings and extreme delays in dispute resolution.
  • For example, the Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal, constituted in 1990, gave its final award in 2007.
• Interstate Water dispute tribunals also have opacity in the institutional framework and guidelines that define these proceedings and ensure compliance.
• There is no time limit for adjudication. In fact, delay happens at the stage of constitution of tribunals as well.
• Though award is final and beyond the jurisdiction of Courts, either States can approach Supreme Court under Article 136 (Special Leave Petition) under Article 32 linking issue with the violation of Article 21 (Right to Life). In the event the Tribunal holding against any Party, that Party is quick to seek redressal in the Supreme Court. Only three out of eight Tribunals have given awards accepted by the States.
• The composition of the tribunal is not multidisciplinary and it consists of persons only from the judiciary.
• No provision for an adequate machinery to enforce the award of the Tribunal.
• Lack of uniform standards- which could be applied in resolving such disputes.
• Lack of adequate resources- both physical and human, to objectively assess the facts of the case.
• Lack of retirement or term- mentioned for the chairman of the tribunals.
• The absence of authoritative water data that is acceptable to all parties currently makes it difficult to even set up a baseline for adjudication.
• The shift in tribunals’ approach, from deliberative to adversarial, aids extended litigation and politicisation of water-sharing disputes.
• The growing nexus between water and politics have transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank politics.

-Source: The Hindu