Inter State Disputes

inter state water disputes in india

SUBMITTED BY

CH. SRAVYA RATNA,

SPA/NS/RP/1195,

SEMESTER-2,

M.R.P, SPA, DELHI.

CONTENTS

1. Introduction.....................................................................................................1

2. Constitutional Provisions...................................................................................1

2.1. Sarkaria commission...................................................................................1

2.2. Interstate river water disputes act, 1956....................................................3

2.2.1. Short title and extent............................................................................3

2.2.2. Complaints by state governments as to water disputes........................3

2.2.3. Constitution of tribunal..........................................................................3

2.3.4. Adjudication of water disputes..............................................................4

3. Current inter state river water disputes and Tributes.....................................5

3.1. Cauvery water dispute..............................................................................5

3.1.1. Progress in Adjudication of the Dispute before the CWDT..................5

3.1.2. Monitoring of the implementation of Interim order of CWDT..............5

3.2. Krishna River water dispute Tribune.........................................................5

3.3. Mahadayi River............................................................................................6

3.4. Vansadhara River water dispute tribune.....................................................7

3.5. Ravi and Beas water Tribune.......................................................................9

4. Other Inter state water disputes...................................................................11

4.1. Indirasagar Project (Polavaram Project)..................................................11

4.1.1. Background on Polavaram ( Interstate agreement)..........................11

4.1.2. Project in Brief..................................................................................12

4.1.3. Status of appraisal............................................................................12

4.1.4. Alternative Design Proposal..............................................................13

4.1.5. Court cases.......................................................................................13

4.1.6. Direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court.................................................14

4.1.7. Inclusion of Polavaram as National Project.......................................14

4.2. Mulla Periyar Dam Issue............................................................................15

4.3. Babhali Barrage Issue.............................................................................18

Bibliography.........................................................................................................20


INTER STATE WATER DISPUTES

1. Introduction

In India there are many inter-State rivers. The regulation and development of the

waters of these rivers and river valleys continues to be a source of inter-State

friction. Article 262(1) of the Constitution lays down that “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”.

Parliament has enacted the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956. It

provides for reference of such a dispute to Tribunals on receipt of an application

from a State, when the Union Government is satisfied that the dispute “cannot

be settled by negotiations”. This dependence of the right of the States to have a

dispute referred to a Tribunal, if the Union Government is satisfied that the

matter “cannot be settled by negotiations” has been adversely commented

upon. Most of the disputes refer to sharing of waters of inter-State rivers.

Disputes also arise in regard to the interpretation of the terms of an agreement

or the implementation of the same.

The main points of criticism against the existing arrangements are:

(a) They involve inordinate delay in securing settlement of such disputes

(b) There is no provision for an adequate machinery to enforce the award of the

Tribunal.

2. Constitutional Provisions

2.1. Sarkaria commission

It is generally observed that the tribunals set up for resolving inter-state issues

take considerable time to give decision/awards. The matter received attention of

sarkaria commission.

The sarkaria commission in its report at chapter xvii on inter-state river water

disputes has recommended that:-


Once an application under section 3 of the inter-state river water disputes

act (33 of 1956 ) is received from a state, it should be mandatory on 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 river

water disputes act may be suitably amended for this purpose.

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 be a data bank and information system at the national level and

adequate machinery should be set up for this purpose at the earliest. 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.

The inter-state water disputes 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. If, however, for some reasons, a tribunal feels that the five years

period has to be extended, the union government may on a reference made by

the tribunal extend its term.

The inter-state water disputes act, 1956 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.

These five recommendations were considered by the erstwhile sub-committee of

the inter-state council. The sub-committee accepted four out of five

recommendations. The remaining one recommendation against para 17.6.01 of

Sarkaria commission's report was accepted with a minor modification. The time

frame specified for constituting a tribunal by the union govt. Was increased from

one year to two years. The inter-state council in its meeting held on 15.10.96

generally endorsed the recommendations. However, in view of the reservations

expressed by some of the chief ministers, it was decided that they would convey

their reservations to the inter-state council secretariat so that their views could

be further considered by the standing committee of the inter-state council.

Taking into account the views of the state governments and that of the ministry

of water resources, the inter-state council secretariat prepared a consensus


paper on the recommendations of Sarkaria commission, which was deliberated

upon during fifth meeting of the standing committee of inter-state council held

on 10.11.97 under the chairmanship of the union minister of home affairs.

2.2. Interstate river water disputes act, 1956

2.2.1. Short title and extent

This act may be called the inter-state water disputes act, 1956.

It extends to the whole of India.

2.2.2. Complaints by state governments as to water disputes

If it appears to the government of any state that a water dispute with the

government of another state has arisen or is likely to arise by reason of the fact

that the interests of the state, or of any of the inhabitants thereof, in the waters

of an inter-state river or river valley have been, or are likely to be, affected

prejudicially by-

(a) Any executive action or legislation taken or passed, or proposed to be taken

or passed, by the other state; or

(b) The failure of the other state or any authority therein to exercise any of their

powers with respect to the use, distribution or control of such waters; or

(c) The failure of the other state to implement the terms of any agreement

relating to the use, distribution or control of such waters; the state government

may, in such form and manner as may be prescribed, request the central

government to refer the water dispute to a tribunal for adjudication.

2.2.3. Constitution of tribunal

1. When any request under section 3 is received from any state government in

respect of any water dispute and the central government is of opinion that the

water dispute cannot be settled by negotiations, the central government shall,

within a period not exceeding one year from the date of receipt of such

request, by notification in the official gazette, constitute a water disputes

tribunal for the adjudication of the water dispute: provided that any dispute

settled by a tribunal before the commencement of inter-state water disputes

(amendment) act, 2002 shall not be re-opened"


2. The tribunal shall consist of a chairman and two other members nominated in

this behalf by the chief justice of India from among persons who at the time of

such nomination are judges of the Supreme Court or of a high court.

3. The central government may, in consultation with the tribunal, appoint two or

more persons as assessors to advise the tribunal in the proceedings before it".

2.3.4. Adjudication of water disputes

When a tribunal has been constituted under section 4, the central government

shall, subject to the prohibition contained in section 8, refer the water dispute

and any matter appearing to be connected with, or relevant to, the water dispute

to the tribunal for adjudication.

The tribunal shall investigate the matters referred to it and forward to the

central government a report setting out the facts as found by it and giving its

decision on the matters referred to it within a period of three years.

Provided that if the decision cannot be given for unavoidable reason,

within a period of three years, the central government may extend the period for

a further period not exceeding two years.

If, upon consideration of the decision of the tribunal, the

central government or any state government is of opinion that anything

therein contained requires explanation or that guidance is needed upon any

point not originally referred to the tribunal, the central government or the state

government, as the case may be, within three months from the date of the

decision, again refer the matter to the tribunal for further consideration, and on

such reference, the tribunal may forward to the central government a further

report within one year from the date of such reference giving

such explanation or guidance as it deems fit and in such a

case, the decision of the tribunal shall be deemed to be modified

accordingly:

Provided that the period of one year within which the tribunal may forward

its report to the central government may be extended by the central

government, for such further period as it considers necessary”.

If the members of the tribunal differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be

decided according to the opinion of the majority


3. Current inter state river water disputes and

Tributes

3.1. Cauvery water dispute

3.1.1.Progress in Adjudication of the Dispute before the CWDT

The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) was constituted by the

Government of India on 2nd June 1990 to adjudicate the water dispute regarding

inter-state river Cauvery and the river valley thereof. The Tribunal had also

passed an Interim Order in June, 1991 and further Clarificatory Orders on the

Interim Order in April, 1992 and December, 1995. The Cauvery Water Disputes

Tribunal has submitted its reports and decision under Section 5 (2) of Inter-State

River Water Disputes Act, 1956 to Government on 5th February, 2007. The party

states and the Central Govt. have sought clarification and guidelines under

Section 5(3) of the Act. The terms of the tribunal has been extended upto

2.11.08 as per provisions of ISRWD Act, 1956. Further, the party states have

also filled SLPs in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against Cauvery tribunals report

and Hon’ble Supreme Court has granted leave. The matter was last heard by

Hon’ble Supreme Court on 29.7.08 and the Hon’ble court passed the order that

the matter maybe listed before a three Judge bench in Nov, 2008.

3.1.2. Monitoring of the implementation of Interim order of CWDT

Under the provisions of Section 6A of the ISWD Act, 1956, the Central

Government has notified a Scheme called Cauvery Water (implementation of the

Order of 1991 and all subsequent Related Orders of the Tribunal) Scheme, 1998,

consisting of Cauvery River Authority (CRA) and Cauvery Monitoring Committee

(CMC). The Cauvery River Authority consists of the Prime Minister as

Chairperson and Chief Ministers of the basin States as members. The Monitoring

Committee consists of Secretary, MOWR as Chairperson, Chief Secretaries and

Chief Engineers of the basin States as Members and Chairman, Central Water

Commission as Member.

3.2. Krishna River water dispute Tribune

The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT) was constituted on 2nd April,

2004 for adjudication of the dispute relating to sharing of waters of Inter-State


River Krishna and river valleys thereof. Shri Justice Brijesh Kumar, Judge of

Supreme Court of India (now retired) is the Chairman of the Tribunal and Shri

Justice S. P. Srivastava, Judge of the Allahabad High Court (now retired) and Shri

Justice D.K. Seth, Judge of the Kolkata High Court (now retired) are Members of

the Tribunal.

2. The KWDT passed orders on June 9, 2006 on the Interim Relief Application

filed by the party States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh

declining to give interim relief as sought in the application and at the same time

indicating certain norm with a view to facilitate adjudication of the dispute before

the Tribunal. Subsequently, State of Andhra Pradesh filed Interlocutory

Application under Section 5(3) of the ISRWD Act, 1956 seeking further

explanation/guidance on the Order of the Tribunal of June 9, 2006. The Tribunal

in its hearing held in September and October, 2006 has framed 29 issues for

adjudication of the dispute before it. Further hearing of the Tribunal is

continuing. The term of the Tribunal has been extended for another two years

w.e.f. 01.08.2014.

3. After examining the submissions made by the States viz. Maharashtra,

Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh KWDT gave its report on 30th December, 2010.

4. The States of Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh submitted their

references before KWDT-II under Section 5(3) of ISRWD Act,1956. These were

examined by KWDT-II and the further report has been submitted on

29th November, 2013.

5. Immediately after submission of the report by the Tribunal on 30.12.2010,

the State of Andhra Pradesh filed an SLP in March, 2011 before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, vide its order dated

16th September,2011 directed that till further orders, the decisions which may be

taken by the Tribunal on the reference petitions filed by the three States and the

Central Government shall not be published in the official Gazette in terms of

Section 6(1) of the Act. The matter of KWDT-II is sub-judice before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court.


3.3. Mahadayi River

In July, 2002, the State of Goa made a request under Section 3 of the Inter-State

River Water Disputes Act, 1956 (as amended) for constitution of the Tribunal

under the said Act and refer the matter for adjudication and decision of dispute

relating to Mandovi River. The issues mentioned in the request included the

assessment of available utilisable water resources in the basin at various points

and allocation of this water to the 3 basin States keeping in view priority of the

use of water within basin as also to decide the machinery to implement the

decision of the tribunal etc. The Act requires that Central Government shall

constitutes a tribunal if it is of the opinion that water dispute cannot be settled

by negotiation.

Therefore, actions and efforts of Central Government in MoWR since July,

2002 were basically guided by the aforesaid provision of the Act. In continuation

of this process, Hon’ble Union Minister for Water Resources convened an inter-

State meeting on 4.4.2006 at the level of Chief Ministers of the States of Goa,

Karnataka and Maharashtra. Subsequent actions of Government of Goa with

regard to follow up action on decisions taken in the inter-State meeting gave

impression that State of Goa is not ready to pursue the negotiation process

further and wants constitution of tribunal and reference of the dispute to the

Tribunal immediately. Accordingly, the Central Government in the MOWR

concluded that the dispute contained in the request of State of Goa of July, 2002

cannot be resolved by negotiation and initiated further action in the matter as

per the provisions of Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 and rules made

there under.

Meanwhile the Govt. of Goa filed a suit in the Hon’ble Supreme court in

Sept, 06 for setting up of a water dispute tribunal for adjudication of the above

river water dispute and an interlocutory Application (IA) for stay in construction

activities. The Writ Petition with the application has been listed on a number of

occasions before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Meanwhile, the Cabinet considered

in its meeting held on 10.12.2009 and approved the proposal of constitution of

Mahadayi Tribunal.

Cabinet Committee on Accommodation in its meeting dated 06.10.2010

approved proposal of locating Tribunal in New Delhi.


Central government has constituted Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal

(MWDT) vide notification dated 16th November, 2010.

3.4. Vansadhara River water dispute tribune

1) The State of Orissa in February 2006 sent a complaint to the Central

Government under Section 3 of the Inter-State River Water Disputes (ISRWD)

Act, 1956 regarding water disputes between the Government of Orissa and

Government of Andhra Pradesh pertaining to Inter-State River Vansadhara for

constitution of a Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunal for adjudication. The

main grievance of the State of Orissa in the complaint sent to the Central

Government is basically adverse effect of the executive action of Govt. of

Andhra Pradesh in undertaking the construction of a canal taking off from the

river Vamasadhara called as flood flow canal at Katragada and failure of Govt.

of Andhra Pradesh to implement the terms of inter-State agreement

understanding etc. relating to use, distribution and control of waters of inter-

State river Vansadhara and its valley. Basic contention of State of Orissa in

the complaint is that the flood flow canal would result in drying up the existing

river bed and consequent shifting of the river affecting ground water table. It

has also raised the issue of scientific assessment of available water in

Vansadhara at Katragada and Gotta Barrage and the basis for sharing the

available water.

2) As per the provision of ISRWD Act, 1956, when any request under Section

3 is received from any State Government in respect of any water dispute and

the Central Government is of opinion that the water dispute cannot be settled

by negotiations, the Central government shall, within a period of not

exceeding one year from the date of receipt of such request, by notification in

the Official Gazette, constitute a Water Disputes Tribunal for the adjudication

of the water dispute. Accordingly, Secretary (WR) convened an inter-State

meeting on 24.4.2006 at New Delhi to explore the possibility of finding out

negotiated settlement of the dispute. In the meeting, both the States agreed

that yield of the river is to be shared between Orissa and Andhra Pradesh on

50 – 50 basis. Both States also agreed that CWC will reassess the yield of the

Vansadhara basin by utilizing the yield series upto 2005 for which necessary

utilization data shall be furnished by the concerned State Government


expeditiously. Based on the conclusions reached in the meeting, Central

Government is hopeful of finding the negotiated settlement of the

dispute. The effect of flood flow canal on the river region is being investigated

through a model study in CWPRS.

3) In continuation of this process, another inter-State meeting at the level of

Addl. Secretary (WR) was convened on 5th -6th December, 2006 in which the

follow-up action taken on the decision of the previous Inter-State meeting was

reviewed. Further, Addl. Secretary (WR) convened another inter-State meeting

on 2nd March, 2007 to review the follow-up action on the conclusions reached

in the meeting taken by him on 5th & 6th December, 2006. In the meeting,

Addl. Secretary (WR) felt that it may be appropriate to request Secretary (WR)

to call another meeting at the level of Chief Secretaries of State of Orissa and

Andhra Pradesh in view of the divergent position stated by officials of

respective States in an explicit manner.

4) Meanwhile, the W.P.(C)No.443 of 2006 filed by State of Orissa came up for

hearing before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 30th April, 2007. The Hon’ble

Supreme Court was requested to adjourn the matter for a longer time so that

the Central Government can once again try for a negotiated settlement and,

therefore, the matter was adjourned. In view of that Secretary (WR) proposed

meeting with the Chief Secretaries on 18.5.06 which was rescheduled to

15.6.07 and again to 5.7.07 due to inability expressed by Chief Secretary,

Govt. of Orissa to attend the same. However the meeting finally could not be

held as Chief Secretary, Govt. of Orissa expressed inability to attend the same

as no useful purpose will be served in holding the meeting till Govt. of Andhra

Pradesh stops construction of the project.

5) Further, an inter state meeting was taken by Chairman, CWC with the

officers of CWC, CWPRS, Pune, the State of A.P. and Orissa on 17.12.07 to

discuss the model studies requested in this regard. Another meeting was held

on 22.1.08 to firm up additional studies required.

6) In the hearing dated 6.2.2009, the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed Central

Government to constitute a water dispute tribunal.


7) With the approval of the Cabinet (dated 25.06.2009) Ministry of Water

Resources has constituted Vansadhara Water Dispute Tribunal (VWDT) vide

Notification Dt.24.2.2010. The Tribunal has its Head-Quarters at New Delhi.

3.5. Ravi and Beas water Tribune

. Surplus Ravi-Beas waters refers to available Ravi-Beas waters excluding the

pre-partition utilization of 3.13 MAF by Rajasthan, the then Punjab and J&K. The

surplus Ravi-Beas waters were first allocated in a Conference of the Chief

Ministers held in January 1955, then by a Govt. of India Notification dated

24.3.1976 subsequent to the reorganization of Punjab in Nov. 1966 and later, in

an agreement dated 31.12.1981 among the Chief Ministers of Punjab, Haryana

and Rajasthan. As the issues got re-opened, there were prolonged negotiations

which culminated in signing of the Punjab Memorandum of Settlement (Rajiv-

Longowal Accord) on 24.7.1985 between the then Prime Minister of India, Shri

Rajiv Gandhi and the then President of Shiromani Akali Dal, Sant Harchand Singh

Longowal.

2. Pursuant to the Accord, the Inter State River Water Disputes Act 1956 (ISRWD

Act) was amended and a three-Member Ravi & Beas Waters Tribunal (RBWT) was

set up in April 1986, to verify and adjudicate the matters specified in paragraphs

9.1 and 9.2 respectively, of the Accord. The Tribunal gave its report on

30.1.1987, which was forwarded to the States on 20.5.1987. References under

Section 5(3) of the ISRWD Act, of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan and Central

Govt. seeking some explanation/ guidance on the report were forwarded to the

Tribunal on 19.8.1987 and are since under their consideration.

3. Hearings of the Tribunal have come to depend on the outcome of a

Presidential Reference related to constitutionality of the Punjab Termination of

Agreements Act, 2004 pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

PUNJAB TERMINATION OF AGREEMENTS ACT, 2004

Punjab Legislature on 12.07.04 enacted the Punjab Termination of Agreements

Act, 2004 (PTAA). The Act terminates all agreements relating to the Ravi Beas

waters, including the agreement dated 31.12.1981 signed by the Chief Ministers

of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan and fully discharges Government of Punjab of


any obligation arising from the agreements. The Act provides that all existing

and actual utilizations through the existing systems shall remain protected and

unaffected. A Presidential Reference regarding the PTAA has been made on

22.07.2004 under Article 143 of the Constitution of India.

4. Other Inter state water disputes

4.1. Indirasagar Project (Polavaram Project)

4.1.1.Background on Polavaram ( Interstate agreement)

Indirasagar Polavaram an interstate project on river Godavari has been

conceived as a part of recommendations of Godavari Water Disputes Tribunal

(GWDT). GWDT finalized its award in 1980 .The award identifies individual

projects that can be taken up by the co-basin states of Maharashtra, Madhya

Pradesh (including Chhattisgarh), Orissa, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh (AP) on

the main Godavari river as well as its tributaries. As a part of the award, the

states of Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Orissa executed an agreement

dated 02-04-1980 to enable clearance of Polavaram Project to be undertaken by

AP. The agreement provides for construction of the project with a Full Reservoir

Level of 150 Feet and with a spillway discharging capacity of 36 Lakh Cusecs at

pond level of 140 feet and not less than 20 Lakh Cusecs at a pond level of 130

feet. In order to protect the lands and properties above level of 150 feet, in

Orissa and Chhattisgarh, protective embankments with adequate drainage

sluices have been provided at the cost of the project. Relevant provisions of the

agreement are reproduced below.

“Polavaram project spillway shall be designed for a flood discharge capacity of

36 Lakh cusecs at the pond level of 140 feet and not less than 20 lakh cusecs at

pond level of 130 feet.

In order to protect the lands and properties above 150 feet in the territory of

Orissa likely to be affected due to construction of Polavaram project, protective

embankments with adequate drainage sluices shall be constructed and

maintained at the cost of Polavaram project. However, the state of Orissa may

exercise an option at the time of construction of Polavaram project for

compensation to land and property likely to be affected above 150 feet as

agreed in case of state of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh).


For damages or injury to lands beyond 150 feet in the territory of Madhya

Pardesh (now Chhattisgarh), in any event, the state of Andhra Pradesh shall pay

full compensation for such damage or injury as may be assessed by the District

Collector of the said district of the state of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhatisgarh).

The matter of design of the dam and its operation schedule shall be left to

Central Water Commission, which they shall decide keeping in view all the

agreements between the parties including the agreement of 2nd April 1980 filed

today, as far as practicable.”

4.1.2.Project in Brief

Indira Sagar (Polavaram) project is located on river Godavari near Ramayyapet

village of Polavaram Mandal of West Godavari district in Andhra Pradesh. The

project is multipurpose major terminal reservoir project on river Godavari for

development of Irrigation, Hydropower and drinking water facilities to East

Godavari, Vishakhapatnam, West Godavari and Krishna districts of Andhra

Pradesh. The project will provide irrigation to 2.91 Lakh Hectares(CCA) and

hydropower with installed capacity of 960 MW apart from 23.44 TMC (663.7

MCM) drinking and industrial water supply to Vishakhapatnam township and

steel plant and diversion of 80 TMC waters to river Krishna. The ultimate

irrigation potential of the project is 4.368 lakh ha and annual power generation

will be 2369.43 million units. In addition, 540 villages will also be provided with

drinking water facilities in the command area.

The project implements Godavari-Krishna link under Interlinking of rivers project.

The project envisages transfer of 80TMC of surplus Godavari water to river

Krishna which will be shared between AP, Karnataka and Maharashtra in

proportion of 45 TMC by AP and 35 TMC by Karnataka and Maharashtra as per

the decision of the GWDT award.

4.1.3.Status of appraisal

The project proposal of Indira Sagar (Polavaram) Project was considered and

accepted by the Advisory Committee of MoWR in its meeting held on 20.01.2009

for Rs. 10151.04 crores at SOR 2005-06.


Investment clearance was accorded by Planning Commission vide their letter No.

2(168)/2004-WR dated 25 Feb. 2009.

Subsequently, Project Authorities have submitted Revised Cost Estimate of

Polavaram Project on 30.08.2010. This was examined and finalized by CWC for

revised cost Rs. 16010.45 crore of SOR 2010-11. Revised Cost Estimate of

Polavaram Project for Rs. 16010.45 crore was accepted by the Advisory

Committee of MoWR in its 108th meeting held on 04.01.2011. Investment

clearance from Planning Commission is awaited. Planning Commission vide their

letter no. 25(11)/NP/S/2009-WR dated 20.6.2012 addressed to Director, Prime

Minister Office has intimated that Planning Commission has decided to wait for

further orders of Supreme Court in the case filed by Government of Orissa

against the project before taking any action as the matter is sub-judice.

4.1.4.Alternative Design Proposal

A proposal for taking up a series of barrages on Godavari river prepared by Shri

T. Hanumantha Rao, former Engineer-in-Chief, Andhra Pradesh and UN

consultant was received in Ministry of Water Resources through Shri P.

Govardhan Reddy, Hon`ble Member of Parliament in December 2009. The series

of barrages one below the other all along the river has been termed as “Step

Ladder Technology” by the author. The proposal was sent to CWC for

examination. The same was examined and the main observations of CWC were

as under.

i) Barrages are diversion structures for providing limited storage capacity

during the time when water is available in the river

ii) A barrage cannot fully meet water requirements during non-monsoon period

for Rabi irrigation and other purposes like dependable power generation,

diversion of water and supply of drinking water to a city.

iii) The command area under existing lift schemes is getting irrigation in Kharif

only. For providing irrigation supplies for Rabi and perennial crops as well, State

government of Andhra Pradesh has taken up Polavaram project.


4.1.5.Court cases

Government of Orissa has filed original Suit No. 4 of 2007 and various

Interlocutory Applications (IAs) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court against clearances

granted by various Central Agencies including MoWR and against proceeding

with the construction of Polavaram project by Andhra Pradesh Government and

making defendant no. 1 to Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, defendant no. 2 to Ministry

of Water Resources (MoWR), Government of India, defendant No. 3 to Ministry of

Environment and Forest (MoEF) and defendant No.4 to Ministry of Tribal Affairs

(MoTA). No verdict or stay-order against the construction of Polavaram project or

against declaring it National Project has been delivered by Hon'ble Supreme

Court so far.

4.1.6.Direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court

Hon’ble Supreme Court vide its order dated 11.4.2011 has nominated Mr. M.

Gopalakrishnan, Retired Member of Central Water Commission(CWC) who along

with Members of CWC make inspection of Polavaram dam and submit a report to

the Hon’ble Supreme Court separately to find out whether construction

of Polavaram dam is carried out in terms of GWDT Award.

Mr. M. Gopalakrishnan and Members of CWC have visited the Polavaram dam

during 23-24thMay, 2011 and separately submitted their report dated 14.6.2011

to the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

In both the reports of Mr. M. Gopalakrishnan and Members of CWC, it was

concluded that the planning of Polavaram project and limited construction

activities seen so far by the team at the Polavaram dam site are in tune with

approved project and GWDT provisions.

Government of Chhattisgarh has filed original Suit No. 3 of 2011 alongwith IA in

the Hon’ble Supreme Court against clearances granted by various Central

Agencies including MoWR and against proceeding with the construction of

Polavaram project by Andhra Pradesh Government and making defendant no. 1

to Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, defendant no. 2(a) to Ministry of Water Resources

(MoWR), Government of India, defendant No. 2(b) to Ministry of Environment and


Forest (MoEF), defendant No. 2(c) to Ministry of Tribal Affairs (MoTA) and

defendant no. 3 to Central Water Commission.

4.1.7.Inclusion of Polavaram as National Project

State Govt. had submitted the proposal of the project for inclusion as National

Project in April, 2009 as per guidelines for National Projects issued by the

Ministry of Water Resources, Govt. of India. The project was recommended by

the High Powered Steering Committee for inclusion as National Project in August,

2009. The EFC memorandum was discussed in the EFC meeting held on

5.3.2010 and it was decided that state govt. may work out realistic cost &

implementation programme of the project. The cost of the project has been

updated as Rs.16010.45 crore at 2010-11 price level. The revised cost of the

project for Rs 16010.45 crore (Price Level 2010-11) has been accepted by the

Advisory committee of MOWR in its 108th Meeting held on 4.1.2011. Investment

clearance from the Planning Commission for the revised cost is awaited.

4.2. Mulla Periyar Dam Issue

1. On 29-10-1886, a lease indenture for 999 years was made between

Maharaja of Travancore and Secretary of State for India for Periyar irrigation

works. By another agreement in 1970, Tamil Nadu was permitted to generate

power also. The Mullaperiyar Dam was constructed during 1887-1895. Its full

reservoir level is 152 ft and it provides water through a tunnel to Vaigai basin

in Tamil Nadu for irrigation benefits in 68558 ha area.

2. In 1979, reports appeared in Kerala Press about damage to Periyar

Dam. On 25th November, 1979 Chairman, CWC held meeting with the

officers of Irrigation and Electricity, Deptt. Of Kerala and PWD of Tamil Nadu

and some emergency medium term measures and long-term measures for

strengthening of Mullaperiyar Dam were decided. A second meeting under

the Chairmanship of Chairman, CWC was held on 29th April 1980 and it was

opined that after the completion of emergency and medium term measures,

the water level in the reservoir can be raised up to 145 ft.

3. The matter became subjudice with several petitions. On the directions of

the Supreme Court in its order dated 28.4.2000, Minister (WR) convened the


Inter-State meeting on 19.5.2000 and as decided in the meeting, an Expert

Committee under Member (D&R), CWC with representatives from both States

was constituted in June 2000 to study the safety of the dam. The Committee

in its report of March, 2001 opined that with the strengthening measures

implemented, the water level can be raised from 136 ft. To 142 ft. Without

endangering safety of the dam. Further raising of water level to 152 ft. would

be considered after balance strengthening measures are implemented.

4. The Supreme Court in its orders on 27.2.2006, permitted the

Government of Tamil Nadu to raise the water level of MullaPeriyar dam from

136 ft. To 142 ft. and to carry out the remaining strengthening measures.

After that the Government of Kerala passed the Kerala Irrigation and Water

Conservation (Amendment) Act 2006 on 18th March 2006 which prohibited the

raising of water level beyond 136 ft. in the MullaPeriyar Dam and placed it in

the Schedule of ‘Endangered Dams’. Government of Tamil Nadu filed a suit in

the Supreme Court on 31.3.2006 praying for declaration of above Act as

unconstitutional in its application to and effect on MullaPeriyar Dam and

restraining the State of Kerala from obstructing Tamil Nadu to increase the

water level to 142 feet .

5. The Union Minister (WR) convened an inter-State meeting of the Chief

Ministers of States of Tamil Nadu and Kerala on Mullaperiyar dam issue on

29.11.2006 at New Delhi. Both States reiterated their respective stand in the

meeting and no consensus could be reached regarding a solution acceptable

to both States.

6. Subsequently, Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met Prime Minister on

18.12.2007 and Prime Minister suggested him to have a meeting with Chief

Minister of Kerala on MullaPeriyar issue. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu met

Chief Minister of Kerala on 19.12.2007 in presence of Union Minister of Water

Resources. Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu vide letter dated 20.12.2007

mentioned that in the above meeting, he had suggested to oversee the

seepage measurement of the dam by engineers not belonging to either of the

two States through CWC and Chief Minister of Kerala agreed to consider this.

However a consensus of both the states on such monitoring mechanism could

not be achieved


7. In the meanwhile, Govt. of Kerala carried out hydrological review studies

through a professor of IIT, Delhi and concluded in the report that the

MullaPeriyar dam is hydrologically unsafe for passing the estimated Probable

Maximum Flood. CWC examined this report and observed that the report does

not appear to be well founded.

8. Secretary (WR) convened an interstate meeting on the MullaPeriyar Dam

on 31.7.2009. In the meeting, the representative of Kerala informed that the

Kerala Govt. visualizes construction of a new dam as the only feasible

solution. They could also consider the construction of a new dam at their own

cost. Later, Govt. of Tamil Nadu vide letter dated 14.9.2009 mentioned that

there is no need for construction of a new dam by the Kerala Government, as

the existing dam after it is strengthened, would function like a new dam.

9. The MullaPeriyar case being heard by a five member bench of Hon`ble

Supreme court, who vide order 18.2.2010 directed constitution of an

Empowered Committee. The Hon’ble Court observed :

“That apart from the legal and constitutional issues, inter alia the real

grievance that concerns the state is Tamil Nadu is of not being able to

increase the reservoir level of MullaPeriyar Dam to 142 feet. The concern

of the State of Kerala, on the other hand, appears to be relating to the

safety of the Dam.”

10. As per the said order, the terms of reference of the Empowered

Committee were to :

(i)Hear parties to the suit on all issues that will be raised before them,

without being limited to the issues that have been raised before the

Hon’ble Supreme Court, and furnish a report, as far as possible, within six

months from their constitution.

(ii)The Committee shall frame its own procedure and issue appropriate

directions as to the hearings as well as venue of its sittings.

(iii)The Committee is free to receive such further evidence as it considers

appropriate.


(iv)Legal and constitutional issues including the validity of the Kerala

Irrigation and Water Conservation (Amendment) Act, 2006 would be

considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.

4.3. Babhali Barrage Issue

The State of Andhra Pradesh in May, 2005 brought to the notice of the Central

Government that Government of Maharashtra was constructing Babhali barrage

in the submergence area of Sriram Sagar Project in violation of the GWDT

award. In this regard, Member, Central Water Commission (CWC) held two

meetings with officers of the States of Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in

2005. Besides, another meeting was held between the officers of the States of

Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra in 2005. Another interstate meeting was taken

by Union Minister of Water Resources with the Chief Ministers of concerned

States on 4.4.2006 in which following decisions were taken:-

(i)A Technical Committee headed Chairman or by a senior officer of Central

Water Commission and consisting of representatives of the States shall go

into the details of various issues involved in Babhali Barrage project. The

Technical Committee shall submit a report as early as possible but not later

than 20th May, 2006

(ii)Till the Technical Committee submits its report, the status quo in respect

of activities of the Babhali barrage project shall be maintained and further

construction work will not be done by the State of Maharashtra.

In view of above, two meetings of the Technical Committee were held in

CWC. The Technical Committee, however, could not submit the report due to non

submission of detailed proposals by the Government of Andhra Pradesh in

respect of suggestions made during the meetings.

In July 2006, the Government of Andhra Pradesh filed an Original Suit under

Article 131 of Constitution against the State of Maharashtra and Union of India in

this regard. In the Suit, the State of Andhra Pradesh has prayed to the Court to

grant a permanent injunction restraining State of Maharashtra from undertaking

or proceeding with the construction Babhali Barrage within the reservoir water

spread area of Pochampad Project.


The Hon’ble Supreme Court in their hearing dated 26th April, 2007 passed

the following order.

(i) Though the State of Maharashtra may go-ahead with the

construction of the Babhali barrage, it shall not install the proposed 13

gates until further orders;

(ii) As the state of Maharashtra is permitted to proceed with the

construction at its own risk, it will not claim any equity by reason of the

construction being carried on by it.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh vide letter dated 25.06.2009 informed that it

has been reported in the media that Maharashtra Government is going to install

the gate and impound water in Babhali Barrage. They requested that a team of

CWC officials may be deputed to inspect the barrage and submit factual

report. CWC team visited the Babhali barrage project site on 25.07.2009 and

submitted the report after visit. Report has been sent to Govt. of Andhra

Pradesh on 10.08.2009. The report mentions that fabrication and erection of

gates at pier’s top is in progress but gates have not been installed and there was

no obstruction to the natural flow of river at the time of visit.

Hon’ble Supreme Court delivered its judgement in the original suit No. 1 of 2006

on 28th February,2013 and has inter alia directed for constitution of a 3 Member

Supervisory Committee on Babhali Barrage comprising of one representative

each from the Central Water Commission and the State Governments of Andhra

Pradesh and Maharashtra respectively. The representative from the Central

Water Commission is the Chairman of the Supervisory Committee. The approval

of the Cabinet was obtained for the constitution of the Supervisory Committee on

Babhali Barrage to implement the directions of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Necessary orders were issued on 24.10.2013. The Supervisory Committee on

Babhali Barrage has held two meetings, on 02.07.2014 and 30.06.2014, so far.

Consequent to the enactment dated 04.03.2014 of Andhra Pradesh State

Reorganisation Act,2014( 6 of 2014), the hitherto State of Andhra Pradesh has

been bifurcated into two States, i.e. State of Telangana and remaining districts

as State of Andhra Pradesh. As the judgement dated 28.02.2013 of Hon’ble

Supreme Court for constitution of a Supervisory Committee on Bhabali Barrage


came much before this enactment, the nominee State of Andhra Pradesh for the

said Supervisory Committee is required to be accordingly aligned. Accordingly,

an application for seeking clarification/direction of Hon’ble Supreme Court with

reference to nomination for the Supervisory Committee on Babhali Barrage

consequent to enactment of Andhra Pradesh State Reorganisation Act,2014( 6 of

2014) has been filed in the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

BibliographyIndia, G. o., n.d. Ministry of water resources, River development and Ganga Rejenuvation. [Online] Available at: http://wrmin.nic.in/Default.aspx[Accessed 24 January 2015].

Singh, A. R. &. N., October, 2001. Inter State Water Disputes in India: Institutions and Policies, Santa Cruz CA 95064, USA: Department of Environmental Studies & Department of Economics,University of California.


Date post:	16-Jan-2016
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sravya-ratna
View:	219 times
Download:	2 times

Inter State Disputes

Documents