Tribunal rejects Telangana, Andhra Pradesh demand on sharing Krishna water

• A tribunal to decide the fair allocation of waters of the river Krishna turned down the demands for redistribution among the four states served by the river.
• The rejection by the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal II came as a setback for the states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana which wanted redistribution on the basis of the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act.
• The tribunal, headed by Justice Brijesh Kumar, made it clear that the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act, which allowed for the bifurcation of the state in 2014, is applicable only to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT)

First KWDT:

• Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) is a tribunal set up by the government of India in 1969 under the Interstate River Water Disputes Act of 1956 to resolve the disputes between the states of Karnataka, Maharashtra, and Andhra Pradesh over sharing of Krishna river water. The dispute was mainly about the inter-state utilization of untapped surplus water. The Krishna Tribunal reached its decision in 1973, and the award was published in 1976. The award contended based on 75% dependability that the total quantum of water available for distribution was 2060 TMC(thousand million cubic feet). According to this Andhra Pradesh got 800 TMC of water, Karnataka 700 TMC and Maharashtra 560 TMC.

Second KWDT:

• In April 2004, the second KWDT, was constituted by the Government of India following requests by all three states. This tribunal has started its proceedings from 16.07.07.The allocation of available water was done according to 65% dependability, considering the records of flow of water for past 47 years. According to KWDT II, Andhra Pradesh got 1001 TMC of water, Karnataka 911 TMC and Maharashtra 666 TMC. Next review of water allocations will be after the year 2050.

Analysis(Why interstate water disputes are looming):

• The most prominent problem faced by interstate water dispute is that it do not have any effective authority for the implementation of the order of the tribunal. The Tribunal can only give an award but cannot enforce its implementation. It also don’t have any powers of punishment for ‘contempt’.
• The awards of these tribunals, although supposedly final and binding, have been challenged in the courts. The judicial process is essentially an long process which further delay the dispute. e.g., Cauvery water dispute.
• Concerns of environmental impacts, rehabilitation measures have not been effectively assessed.
• There are always inordinate delays in the setting up of tribunals and deciding the award. The right to have a dispute referred to a tribunal under IWSDA (Inter water state dispute act)is dependent on the opinion of the Central Government that the matter cannot be settled by negotiation.
• Center has sometimes intervened directly as well, but in the most intractable cases, such as the sharing of the Ravi-Beas waters among Haryana, Jammu and Kashmir, Rajasthan, and Punjab, central intervention, too, has been unsuccessful.

By: Vishal