Model Answer
0 min readIntroduction
Water, a fundamental resource, is a source of frequent contention in India due to its uneven distribution and increasing demand. The Indian Constitution designates water as a state subject (Entry 17 of List II), yet inter-state river basins necessitate cooperative management. In recent decades, the concept of establishing Water Management Boards (WMBs) – statutory bodies for the regulation and development of inter-state rivers – has gained traction, particularly following recommendations from various tribunals and committees. However, the establishment of these boards has consistently faced resistance and remains a controversial issue, stemming from concerns about erosion of state powers and equitable water sharing.
Constitutional and Legal Framework
The constitutional framework governing water resources in India is complex. While states have primary authority, Article 262 allows for Parliament to legislate on inter-state river disputes. This led to the enactment of the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956, which provides for the establishment of tribunals to adjudicate disputes. However, the tribunals often lack enforcement power, and their awards have been criticized for being slow and inconclusive.
Reasons for Controversy Surrounding Water Management Boards
1. Erosion of State Autonomy
The primary source of controversy lies in the perceived infringement upon states’ constitutional rights over water resources. States fear that WMBs, often envisioned with significant powers over planning, regulation, and dispute resolution, would effectively transfer control from state governments to a central body. This is particularly sensitive in states that perceive themselves as ‘upper riparian’ states, fearing restrictions on their water usage. The argument is that WMBs could override state-level irrigation projects and water allocation policies.
2. Composition and Representation Concerns
The composition of WMBs is another contentious issue. States often disagree on the representation formula, fearing that it won’t adequately reflect their interests. Disputes arise over the number of representatives from each state, the criteria for selecting members, and the decision-making process within the board. For example, in the case of the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA), Tamil Nadu initially expressed concerns about the representation of Karnataka.
3. Lack of Clarity on Powers and Functions
Ambiguity regarding the powers and functions of WMBs fuels mistrust. States are hesitant to cede authority to a body whose jurisdiction and decision-making powers are not clearly defined. Concerns exist about the WMBs’ ability to enforce their decisions, particularly against non-compliant states. The lack of a robust enforcement mechanism weakens the effectiveness of these boards.
4. Perceived Bias and Political Considerations
States often suspect that WMBs might be influenced by political considerations or favor certain states over others. This perception is exacerbated by the involvement of central government officials in the appointment of board members and the potential for political interference in decision-making. The fear of bias undermines the credibility of the WMBs and hinders cooperation.
5. Implementation Challenges & Existing Institutional Framework
India already has a complex institutional framework for water management, including numerous state-level departments, river basin organizations, and inter-state councils. Integrating WMBs into this existing structure poses significant challenges. Coordination issues, overlapping jurisdictions, and bureaucratic hurdles can impede the effective functioning of WMBs. The slow pace of implementation and the lack of adequate funding further exacerbate these challenges.
Examples of Controversies
- Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA): The establishment of CWMA faced strong opposition from Tamil Nadu, which raised concerns about the representation of Karnataka and the board’s ability to ensure its rightful share of water.
- Rapti-Saryu Water Management Board: Uttar Pradesh and Bihar have had disagreements over the composition and functions of this board, leading to delays in its effective operation.
- Krishna River Management Board (KRMB): Andhra Pradesh and Telangana have repeatedly clashed over the KRMB’s jurisdiction and its role in regulating water releases from projects on the Krishna River.
Potential Benefits (Acknowledging the other side)
Despite the controversies, WMBs offer potential benefits. They can facilitate a more scientific and integrated approach to water management, promote data sharing and transparency, and provide a platform for resolving inter-state disputes amicably. A well-functioning WMB can contribute to equitable water allocation, efficient water use, and sustainable development of river basins.
Conclusion
The establishment of Water Management Boards in India remains a contentious issue due to legitimate concerns about state autonomy, representation, and enforcement. While WMBs hold the potential to improve inter-state water management, their success hinges on building trust among states through transparent decision-making, equitable representation, and a clearly defined legal framework with robust enforcement mechanisms. A collaborative approach, respecting the constitutional rights of states while prioritizing national interests, is essential for overcoming the existing hurdles and realizing the full potential of these boards.
Answer Length
This is a comprehensive model answer for learning purposes and may exceed the word limit. In the exam, always adhere to the prescribed word count.