Water in Concurrent List

States should support Centre's proposal to make the shift

The Centre’s move to begin discussions with states on shifting water to the Concurrent List of the Constitution needs to be welcomed as a step towards rectifying the historic error of placing this common natural resource under the control of states. Most of the country’s rivers flow over more than one state and providing each riparian state an unrestrained hold over the portion of the river running through its territory disregards the principle of equitable sharing of common property. Countless inter-state water disputes, many of which have been lingering for decades and flaring up time and again into bitter regional wrangles, are the unsavoury upshot of this flawed constitutional provision. One of the most deleterious, yet avoidable, consequences of these discords is that while the upper riparian states usually tend to use water extravagantly, or even wastefully, those down the line do not receive enough to meet even their essential needs. The case of underground water is not much different since its over-exploitation at one spot can have unwarranted repercussions in neighbouring areas.

Under the present set-up, the Centre has little locus standi in the matter of inter-state water sharing rows. It cannot intervene unless asked by the contending parties or directed by the judiciary to do so. Worse still, the states most often reject pleas by the Centre or awards of tribunals appointed by it to arbitrate on these matters. Even the judicial decrees remain unimplemented, as has been noticed recently in cases involving the sharing of Cauvery waters and the construction of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link Canal. Such defiance is mostly backed by resolutions adopted by state Assemblies, which are duly empowered to enact legislation concerning subjects within the states’ domain.

The idea of getting over these glitches by shifting water to the Concurrent List has been in the air for long but it made little headway until now. The only time it really came alive and began to be debated seriously, albeit only for a short while, was in 2011 when the Ashok Chawla Committee on rationalising the allocation of natural resources referred to it in its report. It had, notably, underscored the need for a comprehensive national legislation on water that could be enacted either by bringing water in the Concurrent List or through a legal framework for treating water as a unified common resource. Several other high-level committees, including the parliamentary standing committee on water resources and Parliament’s Public Accounts Committee, too, have favoured the shifting of water to the Concurrent List.

The states should, therefore, also co-operate and agree to move water to the Concurrent List. They should appreciate that both the Centre and the states can legislate on subjects under this list. If the states refuse to budge, the Centre should explore other options of acquiring a decisive say in issues related to water, especially the one provided in the Constitution  under the Entry 56 in the Union List. It permits the Union government to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent that such an action is declared by Parliament, by law, to be expedient in the public interest. What is needed, ultimately, is sustainable use of water from all sources and its fair distribution.