what are interstate water disputes ? mention few such disputes and the steps taken to solve it ?
Answers
Answered by
2
The Inter-State River Water Disputes are one of the most contiguous issues in the Indian federalism today. In the extreme cases, it may hamper the relationship between the different states. The recent cases of the Cauvery Water Dispute and the Satluj Yamuna Link Canal case are examples.
Various Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals have been constituted so far, but it had its own problems. In this article, we analyze whether it’s time for a new mechanism.
Various Inter-State Water Disputes Tribunals have been constituted so far, but it had its own problems. In this article, we analyze whether it’s time for a new mechanism.
kranti2004:
hope you will mark me as brainliest
thnx
Answered by
0
major Inter-State water disputes
1.Godavari Water Disputes TribunalMaharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh & OdishaApril, 1969
2.Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal -IMaharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,April, 1969
3.Narmada Water Disputes TribunalRajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and MaharashtraOctober, 1969
4Ravi & Beas Water TribunalPunjab, Haryana and Rajasthan
5Cauvery Water Disputes TribunalKerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Puduchery
6.Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal -IIKarnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
7.Vansadhara Water Disputes TribunalAndhra Pradesh &Odisha
Causes of Inter-state River Water disputes
River doesn’t follow political limits
Uneven distribution of water resources
Increasing Rainfall variability and frequent draughts
Increasing demand of river water
Regionalization of the national polity
steps taken to resolve interstate water issues:
Dissolve the rights states currently have on rivers that does not pass exclusively through just one state. Any dams, reservoirs, hydro-electric projects to be built on a river that flows through two or more states is to be controlled and managed by a central government / Supreme Court -anointed body permanently.
Any disputes between states should be settled once and for all (instead of arbitration happening almost every year) and whether the water should be released or held back should be decided by the stipulated norms (which can be renewed, say, every 10 years). The control on dams and reservoirs should exclusively lie with the central government body which shall oversee everything affected by water. This will prevent states flouting SC orders, or delaying releasing water from dams and reservoirs.
The central government and the SC should do their part in generating some awareness about water disputes —even the most educated citizens of both states (KA and TN) were engaged in non-sensical debates. Specifically, a few key things should be made very clear among citizens:
(1) There is acute water shortage across the country and thus “We don’t have enough water ourselves” is not a reasonable argument. There is limited water for all of us and we have to share it. The fact that there is a shortage does not mean that one state can take it all. (2) The rules that govern water sharing are not the same as two brothers sharing a chocolate. i.e., it’s not 50–50 —how much water a state should get depends on various things such as the total drainage area of the river in the territory of the states involved.
There are just so many factors involved in analyzing who’s to get how much water that it’s better for us puny citizens with no knowledge of the law to better leave it to the courts, and abide by it. We must understand that judgements in these cases are not opinionated, like in the case of, say, homosexuality. It’s hugely data oriented and much of us don’t have access to the data that is necessary for us to arrive at a good conclusion. The states should debate where it matters the most: at the courts. Use your best lawyers, and debate all you want in the courts, and when a decision is reached, it is reached —whether or not the decision is favourable to you. There is no point protesting every year.
1.Godavari Water Disputes TribunalMaharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Madhya Pradesh & OdishaApril, 1969
2.Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal -IMaharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka,April, 1969
3.Narmada Water Disputes TribunalRajasthan, Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and MaharashtraOctober, 1969
4Ravi & Beas Water TribunalPunjab, Haryana and Rajasthan
5Cauvery Water Disputes TribunalKerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Puduchery
6.Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal -IIKarnataka, Telangana, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra
7.Vansadhara Water Disputes TribunalAndhra Pradesh &Odisha
Causes of Inter-state River Water disputes
River doesn’t follow political limits
Uneven distribution of water resources
Increasing Rainfall variability and frequent draughts
Increasing demand of river water
Regionalization of the national polity
steps taken to resolve interstate water issues:
Dissolve the rights states currently have on rivers that does not pass exclusively through just one state. Any dams, reservoirs, hydro-electric projects to be built on a river that flows through two or more states is to be controlled and managed by a central government / Supreme Court -anointed body permanently.
Any disputes between states should be settled once and for all (instead of arbitration happening almost every year) and whether the water should be released or held back should be decided by the stipulated norms (which can be renewed, say, every 10 years). The control on dams and reservoirs should exclusively lie with the central government body which shall oversee everything affected by water. This will prevent states flouting SC orders, or delaying releasing water from dams and reservoirs.
The central government and the SC should do their part in generating some awareness about water disputes —even the most educated citizens of both states (KA and TN) were engaged in non-sensical debates. Specifically, a few key things should be made very clear among citizens:
(1) There is acute water shortage across the country and thus “We don’t have enough water ourselves” is not a reasonable argument. There is limited water for all of us and we have to share it. The fact that there is a shortage does not mean that one state can take it all. (2) The rules that govern water sharing are not the same as two brothers sharing a chocolate. i.e., it’s not 50–50 —how much water a state should get depends on various things such as the total drainage area of the river in the territory of the states involved.
There are just so many factors involved in analyzing who’s to get how much water that it’s better for us puny citizens with no knowledge of the law to better leave it to the courts, and abide by it. We must understand that judgements in these cases are not opinionated, like in the case of, say, homosexuality. It’s hugely data oriented and much of us don’t have access to the data that is necessary for us to arrive at a good conclusion. The states should debate where it matters the most: at the courts. Use your best lawyers, and debate all you want in the courts, and when a decision is reached, it is reached —whether or not the decision is favourable to you. There is no point protesting every year.
Similar questions