On water146;s edge

This month the Supreme Court is going to consider the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004, the matter of control over head-works in Punjab and the issue of the Hansi-Butana canal.

This month the Supreme Court is going to consider the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act 2004, the matter of control over head-works in Punjab and the issue of the Hansi-Butana canal. All these refer to the ongoing disputes between the states of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan over the sharing of river waters. It is not as if there is a shortage of water supply. Even conservative estimates suggest that the Ravi-Beas system has 14.37 MAF of water which, if used judiciously, is adequate for the needs of these three states.

What is needed to manage these resources well is some kind of institutional mechanism, which we lack as of now. The various versions of the Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956, have only created recriminatory conflicts between states. This act has resulted in great difficulties vis a vis the states evolving a consensus on what is appropriate sharing between them. Once such a consensus does get evolved, they routinely renege on it, much as Punjab and Karnataka have done. Approaching the courts as a last resort, despite Article 262 of the Constitution empowering Parliament to make such disputes non-justiciable, has often resulted in courts refusing to adjudicate in a timely manner. The search for a wise solution, when extended unnecessarily, is most unwise.

On balance, the government of India has no hesitation in appropriating the resources of both private individuals and various states with little thought to notions of natural justice and fair play. Yet where water resources are concerned, it prefers to merely wring its hands and bemoan its helplessness. It consistently refuses to intervene in the matter, saying that this is a conflict between states that the provincial governments will have to resolve and where the central government can only play an advisory role. Similar tactics were employed in the not so distant past by the British colonial government over conflicts between various groups in India. Does not the current method of the government of India in respect of water resources too smack of the policy of divide et impera?

What is needed is for the government to abandon its wait-on-the-sidelines policy. It must intervene effectively to set up an institutional mechanism, both to resolve disputes and to increase the efficiency of water use. Currently it is fashionable among government circles to say that one way to increase such efficiency is to privatise institutional mechanisms. But the 8220;public private partnership model8221; cannot be a panacea for all problems. Experiences such as the Cochabamba water project of Bolivia show that wholesale privatisation of water can even have dangerous results. When water bills in Cochabamba increased by 200 per cent as a result of privatisation, it sparked a civil uprising that forced the government to again put the water system under public control. Given the sensitive nature of the commodity, a public regulatory authority would be very important. Pricing mechanisms could be worked out in consultation with the users.

Maharashtra is the first state in the country to take the initiative in setting up a regulatory authority to manage waters in an integrated river basin approach. The Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act 2005 provides that Water User Entities including Water User Associations, managing water resources on behalf of a group of entitlement holders, may be issued an Aggregate Bulk Entitlement. It also provides for Individual Water Entitlements to be issued for the construction and operation of individual lift irrigation schemes from surface water sources, bore-wells, tube wells or other facilities for extraction of sub-surface water. For the first time in India, the law empowers the authority to create mechanisms for trading water entitlements.

This act has been criticised among other grounds on the fact that it talks about equity only for the landed farmers and not about water rights for the landless and also that the creation of tradeable water entitlements could work against the weaker sections of society. These points could be debated and resolved. The more important issue is the recognition that water is a resource that requires regulation at the level of the government.

Where inter-state water sharing is concerned, we need today a Federal Water Resources Authority that considers the reasonable concerns of all user states and then comes to a final decision. The tribunals of today set up under the authority of Article 262 of the Constitution have outlived their value and their unending deliberations only mean that on one hand much useable water continues to flow into the sea and on the other hand the water rich states practice newer forms of a dog in the manger policy even when excess water use is destroying the fertility of their fields.

Story continues below this ad

Rajivlochan is the author of 8216;Farmers suicide: facts and possible policy interventions8217;. He teaches contemporary Indian history at Panjab University, Chandigarh