India has about twenty major river basins running through the nation and many of these traverse more than one state. This leads to conflicts regarding the use and distribution of water.

Reasons for rising river disputes

• Demographic factor- Increasing population in the river basin hence increased demand of river water.
• Changes in agriculture patterns as farmers are now ditching water-efficient crops such as millets and ragi and moving towards paddy and sugarcane.
• Climate and geographical factors: A study in 2011 had predicted that climate change might cause a reduction of up to 50 per cent in the waters of the Cauvery sub-basins by 2080.
• Political factors- Regional political forces have grown stronger and assertive with the growing nexus between water and politics have transformed the disputes into turfs of vote bank politics. Politics often lead to constitutional and governance crises such as Karnataka’s ordinance defying the tribunal order in 1991 or Punjab’s unilateral decision to annul water sharing agreements with Haryana in 2004.
• Uneven distribution of water resources along with increasing Rainfall variability and frequent droughts.
• Disputes due to bifurcation of states: Once Telangana came into existence in 2014, the Godavari water and the Polavaram project became the bone of contention.
• Activities taken up by upper riparian state on the rivers for instance Andhra Pradesh began constructing a flood flow canal over Vamsdhara river, and Chhattisgarh developed barrages over Mahanadi river resulted in disputes with Odisha. Similarly, Karnataka proposed to link Mahadayi river with Malprabha river resulted in dispute with Goa.

Issues in Inter-State Water Disputes

• Issues in Resolution of Water dispute

1.  Historical: The dispute over sharing Cauvery's water is over a century old. It first cropped up between the princely state of Mysore (now Karnataka) and the Madras Presidency (now Tamil Nadu). Two water-sharing agreements were signed since then, but the last one lapsed in 1974. In 1990, the Union government constituted the Cauvery Water Dispute Tribunal (CWDT) to resolve the dispute, which gave its final recommendations in 2007.
2. The Constitution, under Article 262, bars the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court over interstate water disputes. However SC using its power of Special Leave Petition (under Art. 136) accepts the petitions hence resulting in pending litigations.                                                
3. In the times of coalition politics and assertive regional political forces, the Central government’s mediation for resolution becomes difficult.
4. Non-compliance of tribunal awards by States is the critical weak link in dispute resolution, which may persist even when a permanent tribunal exists.

• Issues with the present Inter State River Water Dispute Act, 1956:

1. A separate Tribunal has to be established for each Inter State River Water Dispute.
2. Inordinate delay in securing settlement of such disputes. Tribunals like Cauvery and Ravi Beas have been in existence for over 26 and 30 years respectively without any award. There is no time limit for adjudication. In fact, delay happens at the stage of constitution of tribunals as well.
3. No provision for an adequate machinery to enforce the award of the Tribunal.
4. Issue of finality. In the event the Tribunal holding against any Party, that Party is quick to seek redressal in the Supreme Court. Only three out of eight Tribunals have given awards accepted by the States.                                                                                                                      
5. Control over water is considered a right which has to be jealously guarded. Compromise is considered a weakness which can prove politically fatal.

Steps taken by government

Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill, 2017 was introduced in Lok Sabha which proposes to streamline the adjudication of inter-state river water disputes and make the present legal and institutional architecture robust. Key

Provisions include:

• Dispute Resolution Committee (DRC), to be established by the Central Government before referring dispute to the tribunal, to resolve the dispute amicably by negotiations within a period of one year extended by 6 months.
• Single Tribunal - Bill proposes a Single Standing Tribunal instead of existing multiple tribunals.
• It provides for the appointment of Assessors to provide technical support to the tribunal. They shall be appointed from amongst experts serving in the Central Water engineering Service not below the rank of Chief Engineer.
• Composition of Tribunal- Tribunal shall have one chairperson, one vice-chairperson and not more than six other members. It limits the tenure of the chairperson to five years or till they attain the age of 70, whichever is earlier. The term of office of Vice Chairperson and other member of tribunal shall be coterminus with the adjudication of the water dispute.
• Timeline: The tribunal should settle a dispute in four-and-a-half years.
• Finality - The decision of the Tribunal shall be final and binding.
• Data Collection and maintenance of a data-bank at national level for each river basin by an agency to be appointed and authorized by central government.
• Technical Support: Provides for the appointment of Assessors to provide technical support to the tribunal. They shall be appointed from amongst experts serving in the Central Water engineering
Service.

Suggestions and way forward

• Inter-State Council (ISC) can play a useful role in facilitating dialogue and discussion towards resolving conflicts.
• For implementation purposes, River Boards Act 1956 under entry 56 of union list, the most potent law available for the purpose should be suitably amended. River Basin Organization (RBOs) can be set up under this act to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and their basins.
• Moving towards mediation: Mediation is a flexible and informal process and draws upon the multidisciplinary perspectives of the mediators. In the South Asian context, the World Bank played the role of mediator between India and Pakistan, which resulted in a successful resolution of the conflicts surrounding the rivers of the Indus basin.
• Supply Side Management: Many scholars have argued that augmenting the water supply might be one way of dealing with such issues. Thus, water resources should be utilised and harnessed properly through undertaking long-term measures towards saving water and rationalising its use.
• Declaration of Rivers as National Property: which may reduce the tendency of states which consider controlling of river waters as their right.
• Bringing water into concurrent list: as recommended by Mihir shah report where central water authority can be constituted to manage rivers. It was also supported by a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Water Resources.
• Institutional Model for inter-state water issues- The challenges of water-sharing in distress years remain because the country lacks institutional models for implementing inter-state river water awards. Thus, there is a need for a permanent mechanism to solve water disputes between states without seeking recourse to the judiciary.