The government of India in its Water Resources Ministry has prepared a draft bill to replace the River Boards Act of 1956 in order to take control of the management of inter-State river basins, reduce conflicts and foster cooperation for sustainable management of the river basins. It has rightly brought new perspectives to river basin management, which were not available in planning domain way back in 1956, however, it still falls short in recognising some real challenges our basins face. Further, its proposals are too idealistic, and devoid of political realities of the nation, thereby having every chance to fail like the 1956 Act. The draft bill remains a draft even after two years even as our rivers face growing problems.
Welcome idea
At a time when many inter-state rivers are going through disputes between riparian states, there is an urgent need to plan river basins as ecological entities managed under participatory sustainable mechanisms. There is also an urgent need of basin states to establish “Peace and Cooperation Framework” to manage river basins and work together to conserve the rivers for the benefit of the communities of the basin and the rivers’ own ecology. The River Boards Act 1956 was supposed to do something like this, but remained a Dead Letter. The growing conflicts around rivers certainly need active intervention by the centre. So, it’s a welcome idea to bring in a law that would treat inter-state river basins as single entities and foster cooperation between all the riparian states for its conservation and management in socially inclusive and ecologically sustainable manner.
Old wine in new bottle
The River Boards Act was enacted under Entry 56 of the Union List in the Constitution to enable the central government to create River Boards in consultation with the state governments. These Boards were supposed to advise governments on integrated development of inter-state river basins for optimum use of water by facilitating inter-sectoral cooperation. The Boards were supposed to aid cooperation between sectors of water use such as irrigation, drainage, flood control and hydro-electric power. The current draft Bill talks about the same and also aims at joint action plans and cooperation between states like the previous Act. Experts who have studied the River Boards Act have the opinion that the Act intended to prevent disputes by preparation of developmental plans with joint efforts of the riparian states but it has remained unimplemented because jurisdiction of the states is different from the area under river basins. There always remained apprehensions with regard to acceptability of apportionment of water. Further, until the enactment of the National Water Policy 1987, no priorities were set for water allocations among the various sectors of use. So, the centre’s roles in taking control of prioritisation was also something that the states apprehended.
However, despite prioritisation of uses in National Water Policy 1987 as well as subsequent water policies, the Act could not be implemented because of the same reasons and growing water scarcity. The 2012 National Water Policy, that is the current one, has tactfully avoided the prioritisation of water giving thereby ample scope to the water managers to fix priorities according to their wish. Another greater danger to water resources in the last few decades has come from growing recognition of water as a ‘commodity’. Under these circumstances, the Basin Authorities as proposed by the draft Bill would plan things at will of the current incumbents and that means there is every possibility of the industrial houses and influential people getting preferred in allocations. The farmers, fisher folk and poor communities may be further deprived of their share of water. This may not only lead to disputes but also may not be agreeable to some riparian states at times of elections.
The draft Bill already puts ‘environmental needs’ after domestic, industrial and agricultural uses in its preliminary chapter. At a time when rivers are at severe distress due to degradation in their ecologies, ecological use should get a higher priority than industrial needs. If the draft Bill converts into a law without according this, it may not serve the purpose it aims to achieve.
Control approach won’t work
The bill has also been criticised for promoting the control of the central government at the cost of cooperative federalism. The bill calls for bring under the control of the central government the regulation and development of inter-State rivers and river valleys to an extent that the states might not agree. Water is a state subject in the country and the central government has roles to play in case of disputes arising out of interstate rivers. It is because of such reasons that the River Boards Act 1956 could not see the light of the day. Ignoring practicalities and current geopolitical realities won’t see the current bill succeed either.
There are also problems with the words “development” and “participation” as used in the bill. “Development” has been used more of a ‘state-controlled top-down planning to construct dams, barrages and other such activities that ‘colonise’ water and lead to more conflicts, inequitable distribution and injustice to the riparian communities directly dependent on the basin waters for their lives, livelihood and other such existential and related needs. “Development” thus cannot be a vague word. It needs to be defined in context of a River Basin, which this Bill must do.
In Chapter III, under the heading “Participation”, the draft Bill says decisions of the Basin Authority shall be binding on the states even in case any basin State fails to participate. This defies the very objective of ‘participation’ and disputes the premise under which this Bill has been drafted. ‘Participation’ in its truest sense should be built in a participatory, consultative and transparent process followed in line with the spirit of ‘cooperative federalism’ in a democracy like India. It is needless to mention that the moment any Authority tries to exercise absolute powers without bothering to build consensus, conflicts will grow between the Authority and the respective states; and even between the various basin states.
I have my own doubts about how a River Basin Authority can surpass the elected government of a basin state. This seems practically impossible. If the draft Bill aims at building cooperation, then at any point of time the absence of a state in a particular decision making process should not be taken as an opportunity to override that state.
In case of Mahanadi river conflict between Odisha and Chhattisgarh, that I have been observing and studying from close corners, the Chief Minister of the lower riparian state (Odisha) rejected formation of a negotiation committee by the central government and did never participate in that committee meetings. The central government, that wanted to delay the formation of a Tribunal under Interstate River Water Dispute Act 1956 (ISRWD Act) could not convince Odisha to be part of this committee. The
dialogue failed.
Definitions are important
I have already said how it is important to define “Development” in river basin contexts, which the draft Bill has not done yet. The draft surprisingly is silent on forests, mountains/hills as vital ecosystems that are integral part of the river basins and have a large role in keeping them alive. The draft Bill puts them all, I guess, under the term ‘related resources’ which leaves scope of misinterpretation and hence is something the draft needs to change.
In the Chapter II, in which the draft defines the terms, it says, “Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) means a process which promotes the coordinated development and management of water, land and related resources in a river basin, in order to optimize the river basin’s resultant economic and social welfare in an equitable manner without compromising the sustainability of vital ecosystems.”
The term ‘vital ecosystems’ needs to be extended to include the entire ecology of the river basin. ‘Vital ecosystems’ may be interpreted as a limited-term and with scope of defining in a way as to incorporate only a few designated ‘eco-zones’ such as ‘protected areas’. In reality, it is vital to maintain the ecological condition of the entire basin area. There should not be any compromise on the ecological systems that support (and in return get supported by the river), and where they have been compromised, must be restored/recharged/rejuvenated.
Here I would like to give an example of the wetlands/surface water bodies. While most of them have not been designated as ‘vital ecosystems’ in government terminologies, their existence and proper maintenance are vital for the river basins. The Bill, therefore, needs to clearly define the River Basin Ecology and in concrete terms talk about its protection and rejuvenation. The National Water Policy says, “Encroachments and diversion of water bodies (like rivers, lakes, tanks, ponds, etc.) and drainage channels (irrigated area as well as urban area drainage) must not be allowed, and wherever it has taken place, it should be restored to the extent feasible and maintained properly.”
The way our urban areas are now experiencing floods during monsoons (especially in extreme precipitation events) in want of natural sponges that such water bodies and green vegetative covers provide, it would be detrimental for the cause of river conservation to ignore the vital role they play in maintaining the river basin ecology.
We still don’t know what the fate of this bill is. However, the country certainly needs a law to conserve the rivers as water commons in which communities must have the primary rights. Hope the bill, if it is finalised, will give sufficient time to the people for discussion and correction of the shortcomings.
[The views expressed are the author’s own. They do not purport to reflect the views of Urban Update.]