TUGOFW ATERSSPPEECCIIAALL

Subir Ghosh ● BANGALORE

Water has a way of finding its own level. Itcan be a source of dispute, it can be a tool forcoercion; water has its own way of sustainingand destroying life, nay lives.

River valleys have been the cradle of manya civilisation around the world, and civilisationfor its part too learnt to use water for its owngood, and to exercise suzerainty over thosewho did not fall in line as well. The earliestknown use of water as a military tool, not sur-prisingly, dates back to 2500 BC when a dis-pute over the Gu’edena region, just a flat fieldin Sumer (modern-day Iraq), was sown.

Gu’edena was a fertile irrigated tract of landthat lay between the kingdoms of Umma andLagash. Urlama, king of Lagash from 2450 to2400 BC, understood the importance of waterquite well. He diverted water from this regionto boundary canals, drying up boundary ditch-es to deprive Umma of water. His son Il toocut off the water supply to Girsu, a city inUmma. Water won the war.

Civilisations that flourished along rivers,right from the Nile to the Indus, knew the im-portance of water. Hammurabi, the sixth kingof Babylon, grew up in the Mesopotamian land,bound by the Euphrates and the Tigris. Whenhe lay down his famous codes of law, Ham-murabi could not have forgotten to include wa-ter use in it. In 1790 BC, the Code of Hammurabifor the State of Sumer listed several laws per-taining to irrigation that addressed negligenceof irrigation systems and water theft.

Water has remained either a source of con-flict or a brazen military tool since then — beit the wars in Assyria circa 700 BC or the cut-ting off of Jerusalem’s water supply during thefirst Israel-Arab war of 1948. What has onlychanged since then is that water has becomea scarcer commodity — it is worth fighting anddying for, it is a good reason either to go to war,or simply let public protests rage over.

The Indian scenarioSouth Asia is a contradiction of sorts. The Hin-

du Kush-Himalayan region is reckoned to beone of the largest sources of freshwater, whatwith the Indus, Ganga and Brahmaputra all ris-ing from points barely 300 km apart. The re-gion is also highly populated and also includesvast arid and semi-arid tracts.

Since water conflicts mostly occur becausethe demand for water resources and potablewater extend far beyond the amount of wateractually available, this region had its share ofnasty water disputes. Many of these are trans-boundary; with all of India’s neighbours (Nepal,Pakistan and Bangladesh) fighting it out overthe control of a number of rivers. China andits designs on the Brahmaputra/Tsangpo is adifferent ball game altogether.

Much before rivers became a source of dis-pute between different sets of upper and low-er riparian states, Parliament had enacted alaw, the Inter-State Riverwater Disputes Act of1956, to handle such potential conflicts. Threemajor disputes of the post-Independence eracome to one’s mind: (i) the Krishna-Godavari dispute amongMaharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Odisha; (ii) the Cauvery dispute between Karnataka (old Mysore) and Tamil Nadu(the old Madras Presidency);(iii) the Ravi-Beas dispute between Punjab and Haryana

Not all disputes have been settled amicably;most keep resurfacing as rainfall and water us-age patterns change. One culminated in a hap-py ending a few years ago when the chief min-isters of Delhi, Haryana and Uttar Pradesh re-solved their conflict after the Supreme Court’sintervention in the issue failed.

Constitutional provisionsThe Indian constitution has three relevant pro-visions: entry 17 in the State List, entry 56 inthe Union List, and Article 262. Entry 17 makeswater a state subject, but is qualified by Entry56 which says, “Regulation and developmentof inter-state rivers and river valleys to the ex-tent to which such regulation and development

under the control of the Union is declared byParliament by law to be expedient in the pub-lic interest.” Article 262 takes this further andgrants Parliament the right to legislate over thematters in Entry 56, and also gives it primacyover the Supreme Court.

It is, however, states that use and share wa-ters. Tribunals and authorities haven’t alwayshelped matters since, on a number occasions,individual states have refused to abide by suchdecisions. Orders of courts too have been ig-nored. In the end, it is the political compulsionsand interests that reign supreme.

Constitutional crises can often merge fromsuch disputes and the stances of individualstates. The Sarkaria Commission that hadlooked at Centre-state relations had devotedan entire chapter to the issue. The commissiontook cognisance of the fact that section 6 of theISWD Act provided that “the Union govern-ment shall publish the decision of the Tribunalin the Official Gazette and the decision shall befinal and binding on the parties to the disputeand shall be given effect by them.”

The high-profile panel felt that the Uniongovernment could not enforce a tribunal awardif a state government refused to implement theaward. An amendment to this had been madein 1980 by inserting section 6A, which pro-vided for an agency to implement a tribunalaward. This too was not deemed sufficientsince an agency cannot function without thecooperation of the states.

The Sarkaria Commission suggested that awater tribunal’s award should have the sameforce and sanction behind it as an order or de-cree of the Supreme Court. The suggestion, ofcourse, fell on deaf ears.

It is surprising that all the while that virulentprotests raged on in Karnataka, not many re-membered the ISWD Act, which had been en-acted primarily to protect the interests of adownstream state when water resources avail-able in an upstream state are put to additionaluse. The time is ripe to take a relook at the Act,especially section 4 which provides dispute res-olution process in the form of a tribunal.

2500 BCMILITARY TOOL

After a dispute over the‘Gu’edena’ region, King

Urlama diverts water fromthis region to boundary

canals, drying up theboundary ditches to deprive

Umma of water. His son Ilcuts off the water supply to

Girsu, a city in Umma.......................................

1790 BCWATER CODE

The Code of Hammurabifor the State of Sumer lists

several laws pertaining toirrigation that address

negligence of irrigationsystems and water theft.......................................

51 BCMILITARY TARGET

Caesar attacks watersupplies during siege of

Uxellodunum by underminingone of the local springs and

placing attackers near theother. Water shortage leads

to the surrender of the Gauls.......................................

1850sDEVELOPMENT DISPUTE

In the US, residents attackedthe New Hampshire dam

that impounded water forfactories downstream.

They were unhappy over itseffect on water levels

.......................................

1870s to 1881DEVELOPMENT DISPUTE

Recurrent friction andeventual violent conflicts

over water rights in thevicinity of Tularosa, New

Mexico, involving villagers,ranchers and farmers

.......................................

1907 to 1913DEVELOPMENT DISPUTE

Pipeline of the Los AngelesValley suffers bombings in an

effort to prevent diversions of water from the Owens

Valley to Los Angeles.......................................

1947 onwardsWATER WAR

Partition divided the GangesRiver between Bangladesh

and India. Construction ofthe Farakka barrage by Indiaincreases tension, however,

short-term agreements settle disputes. A thirty-year

treaty was signed in 1996.......................................

1947–1960sWATER WAR

Similarly, partition left theIndus basin divided between

India and Pakistan anddisputes over irrigation water

erupted. An agreement wasreached in 1960 after

12 years of negotiations.......................................

1991DEVELOPMENT DISPUTE

Chinese villages spar overnew water diversion

facilities. Conflicts overexcessive water withdrawals

and subsequent shortagesfrom Zhang River worsened

TTHHEE HHIISSTTOORRYY AA NN DDEEVVOOLLUUTTIIOONN OO FFWW AA TT EE RR CCOONNFFLLIICCTTSS

2002VIOLENCE OVER CAUVERYViolence over the allocationof the Cauvery River betweenKarnataka and Tamil Naduerupted. Riots, propertydestruction, injuries andarrests were reportedthrough September-October.......................................

2002DEVELOPMENT ISSUEBotswana’s president FestusMogae sent troops to theKalahari Desert to destroywells and empty watersources of indigenousKhoisan (also known asBushmen), ostensibly in aneffort to remove them fromtheir ancestral lands andassimilate them into modernsociety. Critics blame thegovernment of taking awaywater rights in favour ofmining interests and labelled the government’sactions a ‘siege’; Botswana is condemned by international observers.......................................

2003–2007CIVIL WARThe ongoing civil war in theSudan included violenceagainst water resources. In2003, villagers from aroundTina said that bombings haddestroyed water wells. InKhasan Basao they allegedthat water wells werepoisoned. In 2004, wells inDarfur were intentionallycontaminated as part of astrategy of harassmentagainst displaced populations.......................................

2007DEVELOPMENT DISPUTEThousands of Indian farmersbreached security andstormed the area of Hirakuddam to protest allocation ofwater to industry. Minorinjuries were reported duringthe conflict between thefarmers and police.......................................

2008DEVELOPMENT DISPUTEChina launched a politicalcrackdown on Tibet. At leastsome observers have notedthe importance of Tibet forthe water resources of China,though the politicalcomplications between Tibetand China extend far beyondwater. Tibet is referred to insome circles as the ‘world’swater tower’; the Tibetanplateau is home to vastreserves of glaciated water,the sources of 10 of thelargest rivers in Asia,including the Yellow, Yangtze,Mekong, Brahmaputra,Salween and Sutlej.......................................

2009DEVELOPMENT DISPUTEChina claims a part ofhistorical Tibet that is nowunder Indian control as partof the state of ArunachalPradesh. To influence thisterritorial dispute, China triesto block a $2.9 billion loan toIndia from the AsianDevelopment Bank on thegrounds that part of this loanwas destined for waterprojects in the disputed area

Quality over quantity

Most of the river waterdisputes are overquantity, whereas animportant issue of qualityis seldom recognised andraised. Unplannedutilisation of water in theAustralian Murray-Darling river basin hadincreased the salinity orTDS of water beyond safelimits. An authority wasestablished for damage-control. It then asstipulated that the TDSlimit should not exceed500 mg/litre

Want another example?Take the case of ColoradoRiver flowing in the USand Mexico. A 1944treaty allotted to Mexicoa guaranteed quantity ofwater from the river. Butthe treaty had failed tolook at the quality issue.In the late 1950s, due torapid economicdevelopment andincreased agriculturalwater use in the UnitedStates, the quality ofwater reaching Mexicocame down to alarminglevels. Mexico protested.In 1974, negotiationsresulted in aninternational agreementthat guaranteed Mexicowater of the same qualityas that being used in theUnited States, resolvingthe salinity issue

Krishna CRISISSalinity is becoming anissue, with the Krishnariver basin nearing theupper limit constrainingthe salt export to theSea. A minimum amountof water flow is neededfor salt export to the sea.India should learn fromthe bad experiences ofMurray-Darling andColorado. Ignoring thesalinity issue could haveserious effects on theproductivity of theregion, besides posingenvironmental and

l i l h

4Mullaiperiyar Dam on thePeriyar river is located inThekkady, Idukki district ofKerala. It was constructedbetween 1887 and 1895 by theBritish to divert watereastwards to the MadrasPresidency area (present-dayTamil Nadu). Though located inKerala, the dam is controlledand operated under a periodlease by Tamil Nadu. Althoughthe Periyar river has a totalcatchment area of 5,398 sq kmwith 114 sq km in Tamil Nadu,the catchment area of theMullaiperiyar dam lies entirelyin Kerala. The control andsafety of the dam and thevalidity and fairness of thelease agreement have beenpoints of dispute. A 2006 SCjudgment allowed TN to raisethe level of the dam to 152 ftafter strengthening it. In reply,Kerala declared the dam‘endangered’ scheduled damunder the disputed KeralaIrrigation and WaterConservation (Amendment)Act, 2006. This act bypasses thejudgment and it prescribes thelevel of water in 22 dams

The Cauvery water dispute between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu is not anisolated one. Water has been the cause of umpteen conflicts across the

world over the centuries. It remains a scarce commodity worth fightingand dying for. A look at some water feuds, past and present

10BANGALORE FRIDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2012

Sources: www.worldwater.org & Wikipedia

42% IN KARNATAKA 54% IN TAMIL NADUBASIN AREA 3.5% IN KERALA, BELOW 1% IN PONDYAROUND 53% FROM KARNATAKA 30-32% FROM TNCONTRIBUTION 14-17% FROM KERALA, BELOW 1% IN PONDY

303KM IN MAHA 480 KM IN KARNATAKALENGTH 1300 KM JOURNEY IN ANDHRA PRADESH26.8% IN MAHA 43.8% IN KARNATAKABASIN AREA 29.4% IN ANDHRA PRADESH

The sharing of waters of the river Cauvery has been the source of a serious conflict between Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. Thegenesis of this conflict rests in two controversial agreements—one signed in 1892 and another in 1924—between the erstwhileMadras Presidency and princely state of Mysore. Karnataka contends that it does not receive its due share of water from the

river as Tamil Nadu. Karnataka claims that these agreements were skewed heavily in favour of the Madras Presidency, and has demanded a renegotiatedsettlement based on “equitable sharing of the waters”. Tamil Nadu pleads that it has already developed almost 3,000,000 acres (12,000 sq km) of land andas a result has come to depend heavily on the existing pattern of usage. Any change in this pattern, it says, will adversely affect the livelihood of millionsof farmers in the state. Decades of negotiations between the parties bore no fruit. The central government constituted a tribunal in 1990 to look into thematter. The tribunal delivered its final verdict in February 2007. In its verdict, the tribunal allocated 419 billion ft³ (12 km³) of water annually to TamilNadu and 270 billion ft³ (7.6 km³) to Karnataka; 30 billion ft³ (0.8 km³) of Cauvery river water to Kerala and 7 billion ft³ (0.2 km³) to Puducherry. But thedispute appears not to have concluded, with all four states deciding to file review petitions seeking clarifications and possible renegotiation of the order

The second biggest river in peninsular India originates in Maharashtra. Due to the inter-state nature of the river and the multipleparties concerned, disputes arose between Karnataka, Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh over sharing of the waters. The Centreconstituted the Krishna Waters Disputes Tribunal in 1969 under the Inter State Water Disputes Act of 1956. The Bachawat

commission gave its final award in 1973. It outlined the exact share of water for each state: Maharashtra: 560 TMC; Karnataka: 700 TMC; AP: 800 TMC

2. CAUVERY

1. KRISHNA

Hogenakkal water disputeThis is a conflict between Tamil Nadu andKarnataka over the implementation of theHogenakkal Integrated Drinking Water Project,whose foundation stone was laid in February 2008.The Rs 1,334 crore project envisages water supplyto 40 lakh people in the fluorosis-affectedDharmapuri and Krishnagiri districts of Tamil Nadu

3

3

1

4 2Tamil Nadu

Kerala

Karnataka

Maharashtra

Andhra

CAUVERY

TTOOPP RRIIVVEERRWW AA TT EE RRDDIISSPPUUTTEESS

KRISHNA

MULLAIPERIYAR

HOGENAKKAL