This has become a season for inter-State water disputes. If northern Karnataka is on edge for not being allowed to divert the Mahadayi river (which originates in the State and for the most part flows through Goa) for drinking water purposes, a dispute is simmering between Odisha and Chhattisgarh over sharing of the Mahanadi waters. In the case of the former, the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal, which was formed in November 2010 following a plea by Goa, has issued an interim order restraining Karnataka from withdrawing 7.6 tmc ft (thousand million cubic feet) of water a year, despite the assumption that the water flow in Karnataka is 44-53 tmc ft, depending on the monsoon pattern, and the water flow for the river as a whole, including the Goa stretch, is about 200 tmc ft. With the Supreme Court saying that drinking water needs cannot be subject to inter-State wrangling, it does at first glance seem that the tribunal has been unfair to Karnataka, even as the final ruling is expected in a year’s time. Interestingly, the NDA government had, in 2000, initially acceded to Karnataka’s Kalasa-Banduri canal, but withdrew its acceptance after the BJP-led government in Goa at that time raised objections and later refused negotiations, urging that a tribunal suggest a water-sharing formula. As in 2000, the BJP is now in power both in Goa and at the Centre, with a Congress government in Karnataka — a situation that is not conducive to a negotiated settlement. However, it would be simplistic to conclude that Karnataka is a victim of political one-upmanship, or that the tribunal is wrong. River disputes assume serious proportions not only because of political opportunism, but also because politicians and advisors often display poor understanding of the problem at hand.

Whether it is Chhattisgarh or Karnataka, upper riparian States are generally at a natural advantage. Therefore, Odisha is understandably alarmed at Chhattisgarh’s plans to built 13 barrages across the Mahanadi. Goa’s concern is over the drop in the water flow in the Mahadayi in the non-monsoon months. It is not clear whether assessments of water-flow take into account the new realities of intensified drought, increasingly hot weather and a deteriorating environment in river basins. It is odd that surface and groundwater resources are not collectively evaluated. The ecological needs of a riverine system, apart from its economic and livelihood uses, are overlooked; hence the often expressed view that ‘too much water flows into the sea’. Promoting water-intensive crops does not help in a situation of climate change and rivers struggling for survival.

There are no signs that policymakers are prepared for intensified water conflicts, with rising population and urbanisation imposing added pressures on water bodies. We need river basin authorities that run as bottom-up systems so that a vibrant political process takes care of managing river waters. There should be a unified policy to manage surface and groundwater. Institutional reforms to managing water can no longer be brushed aside.

comment COMMENT NOW