lAlIT MOHAN MISHRA
As Odisha’s ruling BJD has begun public protests in 15 Mahanadi basin districts since July 25 against BJP ruled Chhattisgarh Government’s construction of various reservoirs and channels on the river and its tributaries, the issue is snowballing into a political storm between the State BJP and BJD, in the light of the forthcoming panchayat election in Odisha, scheduled in February next year.
By writing a protest letter to the Central Water Commission (CWC) and raising the issue in the Parliament, the Odisha Government has entered into an era of inter-State water dispute on the Mahanadi river. While the Chhatisgarh Chief Minister considers his Government’s decision correct by stating that Chhatisgarh is using less than 25 per cent of the Mahanadi river in return of giving more than 50 per cent discharge to Odisha, his counterpart in Odisha has strongly demanded stopping of all constructions by the Chattisgarh Government. The Union Water Resource Minister, however, assured in the Parliament that an amicable solution shall be found out through dialogue between the two State Governments.
Inter- State river disputes are witnessed in many States as there are many inter-State rivers. Disputes arise due to increase in demand of water owing to growth of agriculture, industry, urbanization and power generation. Some major inter-State river disputes are Cauvery dispute between Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Kerala, the Narmada water dispute between Rajastan,Gujarat, Mahrastra, Madhya Pradesh, the Barak river dispute between Assam and Manipur. last year, Punjab moved SC on sharing of Ravi-Beas water.
Odisha is already fighting an inter-State river dispute with Andhra Pradesh against Pollavaram Project on violation of agreement. Here, the issue is the dam’s height. There is no solution in sight. It is alleged by the Opposition that Odisha’s chance of winning case against Andhra Pradesh on Pollavoram dam has became bleak due to late action of the Odisha Government. The Mahanadi dispute is the second inter-State dispute which has started against Chhattisgarh on the Mahanadi water sharing. Here again, the Opposition, accuses ruling BJD State Government of making delay in objecting to the dam or barrage activities by Chhatisgarh.
Former BJP MlA Bal Gopal Mishra had raised the issue of Chhatisgarh barrage making in 2004 in the Assembly calling for urgent steps by the State Government. Mishra now thinks that if Odisha Government had taken prompt action then, the construction activities by Chattisgarh could have been checkmated.
As per a pact between the Odisha and the MP Governments in 1983, a Joint Control Board had to be set up by both States on amicable sharing of the Mahanadi water. But both States and later Odisha and Chhhatisgarh did not set up a board. The CWC clarifies its stand by saying it would have intervened, had Odisha or Chhatisgarh filedpetition but neither of them did so. In fact, both the States should keep an eye on the construction activities of each other and file objection to avoid conflicts.
As the Mahanadi is the lifeline of Odisha, the Government cannot meet the development needs of the State, if there is a fall in flow of water. On the other hand, Chhatisgarh, which expedited its development work after getting separated from Madhya Pardesh, has a huge need of water for its development. The conflict over water sharing is obvious. But the issue should be solved amicably as per guidelines and principles of settlement of inter-State water disputes, based on Cauvery and other tribunal orders. The two Governments need to engage in talk as tribunal settlement takes years and is a dilatory process.
The Odisha Government has deferred the meeting convened by the CWC to July 29. It should not delay in holding the meeting with the Chhattisgarh Government. Odisha must get all documents ready to present its case in CWC and also should create a technical team to study the situation and prepare report to counter Chhatisgarh Government’s claims.
The varieties of mechanisms available under the Constitution of India for the settlement of inter-State disputes are Article 131, 262 and 263. The River Boards Act, 1956 and The Inter-State Water Disputes Act, 1956 have been passed by the Parliament to address the issue. The Inter-State Water Dispute Act gives the meaning of water disputes and provides for complaints regarding water disputes from various States to the Central Government. It also provides for the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-State rivers and river valleys.
The act enables setting up of “tribunals” to settle disputes on inter-State water or river when the Central Government is of the view that the matter cannot be solved by negotiations. According to the act, decisions given by the tribunals so constituted will be final and binding and no appeal can lie in the Supreme Court. Under the act, though the Union Government had set up many water tribunals like the Krishna Tribunal, the Narmada Tribunal, the Godavari Tribunal, the Cauvery Tribunal, the Ravi-Beas Tribunal etc. In the present situation, if dialogue between Odisha and Chhatisgarh fails, there shall be Mahanadi Tribunal to settle the dispute.
Though the Supreme Court cannot interfere with tribunal orders, over the years, several inter-State river water disputes have come up before the SC on other issues such as the competence of the tribunal to deal with a request for an interim allocation, non-implementation of an tribunal order, failures on the environmental and rehabilitation aspect, constitutionality of an Act of a State legislature terminating all past water accords etc. While Pollavoram issue was under SC scope for intervention, the Mahanadi issue shall only lie under tribunal domain.
As Chhatisgarh is situated on the upstream, it shall be difficult to check its barrage activities which are small and medium in nature. By making projects of less than 2,000 ha coverage, it can escape law but still store water. Odisha should examine the possibilities of creating more barrages on the Mahanadi. While Hirakud Dam was constructed, there was talk of two more dams at Tikarpada and Naraj which did not come up subsequently. Manibhadra Dam project proposal was later stopped. It is time that State Government should think about projects that can increase the flow and storing capacity of the Mahanadi. The Union Government should finance such projects for Odisha. The Union Shipping Ministry that is taking up river projects for navigation of small ships should take up the Mahanadi river. By making Mahandi a waterway, mineral transport can be made easy and Paradip can become a bigger port. Therefore, Odisha and Chhatisgarh Governments should work together to resolve the conflict and make Mahanadi a river of wealth for both States and not a ‘river of sorrow.’
