send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Please specify
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
INTERSTATE WATER TRIBUNAL
Article 262(1) :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. Inter-state water tribunal Act, 1956: • Act extends to whole of India. • A State Government which has a water dispute with another State Government may request the Central Government to refer the dispute to a tribunal for adjudication. • If the Central Government thinks that the dispute cannot be settled by negotiation, it refers the dispute to a Tribunal. • The Tribunal then investigates the matter and gives its decision, which is considered final and binding on the parties. • Even the Supreme Court and other courts do not interfere with the decision.
Powers of Tribunal: • The Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a civil court. • The Tribunal may require any State Government to carry out, or permit to be carried out, such surveys and investigation as may be considered necessary for the adjudication of any water dispute pending before it. • The Tribunal may, regulate its practice and procedure.
The Sarkaria Commission Recommendations: • Once an application is received from a State, it should be mandatory for the Union Government to constitute a Tribunal within a period not exceeding one year from the date of receipt of the application of any disputant State. • The Inter-State Water Disputes Act should be amended to empower the Union Government to appoint a Tribunal, suo-moto, if necessary, when it is satisfied that such a dispute exists in fact. • There should also be a provision in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act that States shall be required to give necessary data for which purpose the Tribunal may be vested with powers of a court. • Act should be amended to ensure that the award of a Tribunal becomes effective within five years from the date of constitution of a Tribunal. The Union Government may on a reference made by the Tribunal extend its term, if the Tribunal demands for it. • Act should be amended so that a Tribunal's award has the same force and sanction behind it as an order or decree of the Supreme Court to make a Tribunal's award really binding. Problems with River dispute settlement mechanism: • Dispute handled by centre- state governments, tribunals-judiciary but there is no place for river, people and communities who depend directly on river. • Party politics. • No role for environmental, socio-cultural issues relating to the river.
Cauvery Issue:
(Related Article: Cauvery Conflict page no. 4, by R.K. Radhakrishnan)
• Cauvery basin is in 3 states and 1 UT: Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Puducherry. • Isuue went to tribunal for adjudication in 1990 and verdict was announced in 2007. According to the verdict of Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal(CWDT): a. TN to get 419 tmc ft water via 2 sources 192 tmc ft from Karnataka & rest from tributaries like Amrawathy, Bhavani. b. Karnataka – 270 tmc ft c. Kerala- 30 tmc ft d. Puducherry- 7 tmc ft • In deficit year rainfall the basin faces water shortages as major cities like Bengaluru, Mysore etc depend on Cauvery water for their needs and farmers in basin mainly plant paddy they also suffer. • This year Basin faced deficit S-W Monsoon, so Karnataka refused to release water and TN ran to SC. • SC ordered in favour of TN and asked Karnataka to release 15000 cusecs a day. • Karnataka passed resolution directing that water in reservoirs should be used to meet only drinking needs. • SC in stern action reprimanded Karnataka Government and enforced a stern action and Karnataka had to release the water i.e. 6000 cusecs till September 27. • This led to law and order situation in two states due to public outrage.
Problems for Karnataka:
(Related Article: Karnataka’s troubles, page no. 13 by Ravi Sharma)
• Karnataka despite being upper riparian state has suffered due to Historical Agreements like 1892 and 1924 in which British favored Madras Presidency over Princely state of Mysore. • This year failure of S-W monsoon and all 4 main reservoirs are facing shortages ranging from 36% to 64%. • Verdict of tribunal and further of SC. • Changing weather patterns. • Reluctance in part of farmers to switch to less water intensive crops. • Inability of farmers to switch to more judicious and efficient use of water. • Averseness of both states to engage in dialogue to share burden of shortfall. • Opposition of TN in Karnataka’s plan to construct reservoir in Ramgangaram district to meet water needs of Bengaluru. • Lack of political will of all the governments whether at centre or state. • Tribunal has directed that in distress year the states will share deficiency on pro rata basis but what if TN gets normal N-E monsoon then how Karnataka will be compensated with water.
Problems for TN:
• Main cities have complete dependence on Cauvery. • Farmers in TN mainly grow paddy crop three times a year and are dependent on Cauvery during second season. • Benefit TN has got in all verdicts and agreements so they have superiority issue and does not treat Karnataka as equal partner. • Siltation of tributaries. • Climate change and variation in monsoon.
Plight of farmers:
• Farmers in Karnataka are totally dependent on Cauvery. • Rice in TN is principle crop which is water intensive crop. • Farmers insist that they have done as much water conservation as possible. • Continuous decline in water supply has left tail end farmers completely dependent on monsoon. • Almost negligible use of traditional water harvesting techniques by Karnataka farmers. • Scholars point towards shrinking paddy coverage and further conflict will harm the interests.
Solutions for farmers: • Farmer – farmer initiative necessary i.e. revival of Cauvery family. • Regular disilting of irrigation channels, tanks etc. • Water conservation measures. • Strict enforcement of pollution norms on farmers as well. • Shifting crop patterns in tandem with other parts of basin. • Transparency of all operations in basin area. • Karnataka should follow suit of TN and AP to pass legislation on participatory irrigation management.
Towards conciliation:
(Related Article: Towards conciliation, page no. 25 by S. Guhan)
Joint efforts by basin states: • Undertake catchment treatment activities. • Control of hazards like pollution, eco degradation and environmental health hazards. • Joint exploration of possible additional shortage. • Joint action in investigation of hydroelectric projects. • Can demand for fresh tribunal and cooperate with it fully.
TN needs to do: • Come out of historic view and face present crisis. • Modernization of irrigation in old delta to effect economies and efficiency in water use. • Greater exploitation of groundwater. • Changes in cropping patterns.
By: Anuj Sharma ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources