delhi's watery woes

8/6/2019 Delhi's Watery Woes

1/100

OCCASIONALPAPE

R-1 Delhis Watery Woes

A Cross-sectoral Analysis of the Water Crisis in Delhi


2/100


3/100

Dr. Arun Kumar Singh

Delhis Watery WoesA Cross-sectoral Analysis of the Water Crisis in Delhi


4/100

Published by:Centre for Trade & Development (Centad)

# 406, Bhikaiji Cama Bhavan

Bhikaiji Cama Place, New Delhi - 110066

Tel:+91 - 11 - 41459226, Fax:+91 - 11 - 41459227

Email: [email protected], Web: www.centad.org

Design and Printing by

New Concept Information Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 5, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar

New Delhi- 110 076

Tel: 26972748, 26972743

Copyright The Author, 2006

The author of this paper, Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, is a writer, researcher and

activist. A geologist by training, Dr. Singh has done his M. Tech. in Applied

Geology, Ph.D. in remote sensing and plate tectonics with a diploma in Soil and

Water Conservation Engineering. From 1977-88 he has also worked on teaching

and research assignments at Sagar University and Bhopal University. His other

published books are Interlinking of Rivers in India: A Preliminary Assessment

(2003), Privatisation of Rivers in India (2004) and Privatisation of Water Supply

in Mumbai (2006), among others. He has also published over 300 articles on

environmental and developmental issues.

Centad Occasional Papers are intended to disseminate the preliminary findings

of ongoing research both within and outside Centad on issues linked to trade and

development for the purpose of exchanging ideas and catalysing debate. The views,

analysis and conclusions are of the author/s only and may not necessarily reflect

the views or position of Centad. Readers are encouraged to quote or cite this paperwith due acknowledgement to the author and Centad.


5/100

iii

During the course of this study, author has interacted with a large number of persons who have

been kind enough to share their valuable experience, knowledge, expertise and information

for which author is thankful to them. These include officials of Delhi Jal Board, trade union

leaders of workers union of Delhi Jal Board, and Municipal Corporation of Delhi. In this

regard, I would especially like to thank Mr. S. A. Naqvi, Delhi Jal Board and Water Workers

Alliance, who has been kind enough to grant me his valuable time for a series of meetings,

often at very short notice, and had been very patient to explain everything to last meticulousdetail. I have been immensely benefited by these sessions.

Similarly author wishes to thank many officials of Delhi government posted in different

departments like, Department of Urban Development, Department of Environment and

others. Thanks are also due to officials of Central Ground Watter Board who have been

kind enough to discuss various dimensions related to the problems of water availability,

augmentation and supply in Delhi.

The author wishes to thankfully acknowledge the cooperation extended by NGOs like

Tapas, Pani Panchayat, and Parivartan, especially the last. Mr. Arvind Kejriwal of Parivartan,has been very helpful by giving me liberal access to all the documents they have obtained

from Delhi Government, under the newly introduced Delhi Right to Information Act, after

a long hassle of six months with government. The author has also been benefited by the

continuing discussions with a number of friends on this issue over a period of time and wishes

to put a few names on record. These are Mr. Anupam Mishra (Gandhi Peace Foundation),

Mr. Shubhranshu Chowdhary (T. V. Journalist), Mr. Vinod Verma (BBC, Delhi), and

Prof. Sanjai Bhatt (Delhi School of Social Works).

Author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Dr. Samar Verma, Centad, for giving him an

opportunity to carry out this study. Interactions with Mr. Robin Koshy (Centad) throughout

the study-tenure have been helpful to ensure that the study remain focused content wise.

However, any shortcoming in the text presented here should be attributed only to author and

none of the persons named above are responsible for it in any manner. Similarly, the views

expressed herein are exclusively authors own and should not be necessarily misconstrued as

the views of the Centad.

Acknowledgements


6/100

iv

Delhi, the capital city of India begins to reel under a water crisis in summer and lot of noise

is made for further augmentation of water from other sources. The phenomenon, first

experienced in the decade of seventies has aggravated with each passing year. The ever-

swelling population of Delhi, drying up of its own traditional water harvesting structures, a

number of management and administrative lapses, transformation of Yamuna literally into

a water sewer, misuse and abuse of water resources, non-recovery of secondary and tertiary

water, and host of other factors have compounded the problem manifold. The net result is

increase in the plight of common masses in summer and there seems to be no respite in near

future too. Summer of 2005 was no exception when we witnessed a drama being played in

public for demand of more water and its acceptance and immediate denials

The present study is an attempt to explore this multi-facet problem and various dimensions

related to it water disputes with neighbouring states, official structure of water supply,

policy level issues, management issues, and so on and so forth. The ongoing debate over

the privatisation of Delhi Jal Board and its implications are also been commented, including

the questionable manner in which this process is being pursued within the overall national

framework of reforms and liberalisation in water sector. Lastly options for future have been

explored.

ARUN KUMAR SINGH

Preface


7/100

v

Abbreviations

ADB : Asian Development Bank

ASI : Archaeological Survey of India

BCM : Billion Cubic Metres

CGWB : Central Groundwater Board

CPWD : Central Public Works Department

DDA : Delhi Development Authority

DGS&S : Directorate General of Supplies and Disposals

DJB : Delhi Jal Board

DWSB : Delhi Water and Sewage Board

DWSSP : Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Project

EOI : Expression of Interest

FIR : First Information Report

GATS : General Agreement on Trade in Services

GATT : General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

GEF : Global Environmental Facility

JJ : Jhuggi-Jhompri

JTUs : Jackson Turbidity UnitsLPCD : Litres Per Capita Per Day

MAF : Million Acre Feet

MCD : Municipal Corporation of Delhi

MLD : Million Litres per Day

MNC : Multi National Corporation

MOU : Memorandum of Understanding

NCT : National Capital Territory

NDMC : New Delhi Municipal Corporation

NRW : Non-Revenue Water

O&M : Operation & Maintenance

PPF : Project Preparation Facility

PRSP : Poverty Reduction Strategic Programme

PWC : Price Waterhouse Cooper

SAP : Structural Adjustment Programme

SYL : Satluj-Yamuna Link

TMC : Thousand Million Cubic Metres

TOR : Terms of ReferenceUWSS : Urban Water Supply Sewerage

WTO : World Trade Organisation


8/100

vi

Contents

Acknowledgements iii

Preface iv

Abbreviations v

1. Introduction 1

1.1 Population of Delhi 1

1.2 Physiographic Features of Delhi 1

1.3 Green Cover of Delhi 3

1.4 Delhi: Water in the Past 5

1.5 Current Sources of Water for Delhi 9

1.6 Present Water Requirements of Delhi 9

1.7 Hydro Politics of Water in Delhi 10

2. Water Rights and DelhiHaryana Water Dispute 11

2.1 What are Water Rights? 12

2.2 Evolution of Water Rights in India 12

2.3 Groundwater Rights 17

2.4 Yamuna River and Delhi-Haryana-Uttar Pradesh Triangle 18

2.5 The Ravi-Beas Water Dispute: Haryana-Punjab 19

2.6 The Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL): Haryana-Punjab 19

2.7 The Constitutional Crisis 21

2.8 Arguments put forth by Punjab and Haryana 22

3. Bottlenecks in Delhi Water Supply System 27

I. Policy/Institutional Issues 273.1 Loss of Water during Water Transportation from Haryana 27

3.2 Financial Loss Incurred during Water Transportation from Haryana 28

3.3 Faulty Site Selection of Water Treatment Plants 28

3.4 Policy of Power Tariff for Delhi Jal Board 30

3.5 Inter-Departmental Wrangling 30

3.6 Lack of Innovation in Water Supply 31

3.7 Mirage of Proposed 24X7 Scheme 31II. Distributional/Technical Issues 32

3.8 Energy and Water: Interdependency and Implications 32


9/100

vii

3.9 Faulty Water Supply Network 33

3.10 Recycling Water within Treatment Plants 34

3.11 DJBs Sewage Treatment Plants (STPs) 34

3.12 Quality of DJB Supplied Water 35

3.13 Iniquitous Distribution of Water in Delhi 35

3.14 Five Star Hotels and VIP Residences 39

3.15 Water Supply Hours per Day 39

3.16 The Non-Revenue Water (NRW) 40

3.17 Problems Related with Groundwater Exploitation and its Quality 41

3.18 Emergence of a Water Mafia 42

III. Other Technical Issues 43

3.19 Non-Enforcement of Legal Rights by DJB against Violators 43

3.20 Water Meters 43

3.21 Water Tariff Hike 44

3.22 Problems of Rainy Season 44

3.23 Plight of the Yamuna River 44

4. Privatisation of Delhi Jal Board and Its Impact 49

4.1 Current Status of Water Sector Reforms in India 49

4.2 Genesis of Privatisation of DJB 50

4.3 World Banks Loan for Delhi Water Supply and Sewage Project (DWSSP) 52

4.4 Selection of Price Waterhouse Cooper (PWC) as Consultant 53

4.5 World Bank Price Waterhouse Cooper Linkage 56

4.6 Suez-Degremont: Sonia Vihar Water Treatment Plant 57

4.7 Impacts of Privatisation 58

4.8 Groundwater of Delhi for MNCs? 61

4.9 Alternatives to Privatisation 62

4.10 World Banks Recommendations put on Hold 634.11 World Banks Policies: An Overview 64

5. The Conflict Resolution and Other Options for Delhi 81

5.1 General 81

5.2 Proposals of Pani Morcha 81

5.3 Rejuvenation of Traditional Water Harvesting Structures 84

5.4 Grey Water Reclamation Project 85

5.5 Ocean of Groundwater found on Delhis Border 85

6. Concluding Note 87


10/100

viii

List of Tables

Table 1: Different Categories of JJ Settlement in Delhi 1

Table 2: Sources of Water for Delhi 9

Table 3: Water Treatment Plants in Delhi 10

Table 4: Water Augmentation Schedule of DJB for 2021 30

Table 5: Iniquitous Water Distribution in Delhi 36

Table 6: Water Supply Structure in Delhi 39

Table 7: Average Daily Household Water Supply (hours/day) 40

Table 8: Water Consumption in Delhi 48

Table 9: List of DJB Units Transferred to MNCs 52

Table 10: Categorisation of DJB Employees 59

Table 11: PWC-Proposed Water Tariff Structure 60

Table 12: Loan from the Government to Finance the Cash Deficit 61

Table 13: Waterbodies Existing in Delhi 85

List of Maps

Map 1: The Ridge Forest in Delhi 2

Map 2: Encroachment in The Ridge Forest, Delhi 4

Map 3: Water Channels of Delhi 6

Map 4: Changing Course of Yamuna River 7

Map 5: Present Map of Delhi 8

Map 6: Location of Water Treatment Plants in Delhi 29

Map 7A: Water Zones in Delhi 37

Map 7B: Ward-wise Water Supply 38

Map 8: Drains/Nallas Meeting River Yamuna in Delhi 46

Annexure: 1

Annexure: 2 Annexure: 3

Annexure: 4

Annexure: 5

Annexure: 6

Annexure: 7

Annexure: 8


11/100

Design and Printing by

New Concept Information Systems Pvt. Ltd.

Plot No. 5, Institutional Area, Sarita Vihar

New Delhi - 110 076

Tel: 26972748, 26972743

LPCD : Litres Per Capita Per Day

I. Policy/Institutional Issues

II. Distributional/Technical Issues

Annexure: 1

Annexure: 2

Annexure: 3Annexure: 4

Annexure: 5

Annexure: 6

Annexure: 7

Annexure: 8

Legend:

1. Police camp

2. DESU Power Tower

3. Converted into a Park

4. Hindurao Hospital

5. Blasting Site

6. Ravindra Rangshala7. Gurudwara Nanak Sahib

and petrol Pump

8. Widening of Shankar Road

9. Schools (Manav Sthali,

Army Public, Springdales

and J. D. Tytler)

10. Talkatora Complex

11. Army Camp

12. Petrol Pump

13. Buddha Jayanti Park

14. Delhi Polo Ground

15. Army School Housing

Complex

16. SITE

17. Shooting Range

18. Mahavir Jayanti Park

19. Residential Colonies


12/100


13/100

Delhis Watery Woes 1

From earlier times, Delhi has been a chosen seat of power for successive dynasties Slave Dynasty, Khiljis, Tughlaqs, Sayyads and Lodis between 12th and 16thcenturies. Later the Mughals made it their capital in the 17th century and finally the

British also made Delhi their capital in the 20th century. So it was considered natural

for Delhi to be the capital of independent India in 1947. Before entering into any

discussion on the prevailing water crisis in Delhi, it would be relevant to have a birds

eye view of the city, the way its population lives, its forest cover, the Yamuna river and

some other related aspects.

1.1. Population of DelhiThe national capital city of Delhi is spread over an area of 1483 sq km inclusive of

the area falling under New Delhi Municipal Corporation (NDMC) and the Delhi

Cantonment. On the basis of the Census data, it has a population of 1.37 crores

in 2001 and as per the new Draft Master Plan of DDA, the city has a population

of 1.60 crores. The Delhi Jal Board (DJB) is the official agency responsible for the

provision of drinking water to the citizens of Delhi. A majority of the population

of Delhi, about 1.06 crores, live in Jhuggi-Jhompri (JJ) clusters while a mere 31

lakh people live in Planned Colonies. The distribution of different categories of JJcolonies is shown in Table 1.

S. No. Settlement-Type Number of Settlements

1. Unauthorised JJ Colonies 1071

2. Regularised JJ Colonies 567

3. JJ Clusters 820

4. Urban Villages 126

5. Rural Villages 135

6. Harijan Colonies 219

TABLE 1

Different Categories of JJ Settlement in Delhi

Source: NCR Fact Sheet

There are 2938 JJ clusters in Delhi, as

per the latest available official data.

1.2. Physiographic Features ofDelhiThe area under Delhi can be divided into

following physiographic features: theridge and its forest, undulating surfaces,

plains and flood plains, the Najafgarh

drain and the Yamuna River.

Ridge is a part of the Aravalli Range,

entering Delhi from the South,

bifurcating into two and finally spreading

1. Introduction

itself into a wider tableland. The ridge is divided into Northern Ridge (Delhi University),

Central Ridge, South Central Ridge (Mehrauli) and Southern Ridge (Map 1). The Northern

Ridge has an area of 87 ha, the Central Ridge has an area of 869 ha, the South Central Ridge

has an area of 626 ha and the Southern Ridge has an area of 6,200 ha including 1900 ha of the

recently notified Asola Wildlife Sanctuary.


14/100

Introduction2

MAP 1

The Ridge Forest in Delhi


15/100


The width of the Ridge varies from 50-100

meters at Wazirabad to as wide as 2.5 km near

Chanakyapuri. The total Ridge area in Delhi is

approximately 22.9 sq km. In 1912, when Delhi

became the capital of British India, the Ridge was

declared a forest under the Indian Forest Act 1913

and a similar status was extended to the Central

Ridge in 1942. Further, in 1980 the Northern

Ridge and Southern Ridge were also declared as

reserve forests. At present, only two segments of

the Ridge the Northern Ridge and the Southern

Ridge remain as green buffers.

In 1960, 48 percent of the ridge area was covered

under forest while today it is a mere eight percent.

To make matters worse MCD is using a part

of the ridge for dumping garbage. A number

of encroachment in the ridge area (Map 2),

predominantly by the rich and powerful sections

of society, have strangulated the ridge.

The Yamuna flood plains cover an area of 161 sq

km, extending up to a maximum of 14 km from the

river in the north. It has been subdivided into three

categories: new Khadar or the current flood plains,old Khadar or the earlier flood plains and Bangar or

the upper alluvial plains. Most of the river features

have been obliterated by land reclamation as well

as land leveling of the urbanisation process.

The Najafgarh drain flows in a northeast direction

and joins the Yamuna near Wazirabad. A century

ago, the Najafgarh drain reportedly covered an area

of 22,663 ha and was 4.2 meters deep. Since 1940onwards it has been drained and cultivated to the

extent that it has completely lost its sheen.

1.3. Green Cover of DelhiThough it is claimed that Delhi is the third greenest

city in the world with 33000 acres of green area

within its boundaries (first being New York with

1,10,000 acres greenery and second London with

55,000 acres, within their city-boundaries), but

the reality is far from the truth. According to

a recent report [1], only 10.2 percent of Delhis

total area is covered under forests, i.e., 111.33 sq

km, against the stipulated 33 percent for a healthy

environment.

However, a more disturbing fact is that only 38

sq km of the area falls under dense forests and is

restricted to New Delhi and South Delhi. Eastern,

Western and Northern Delhi have less than three

percent of their area under trees. In colonies like

Seelampur and posh areas like Punjabi Bagh, the

number of trees is almost negligible.

In East Delhi, much of the green area is under

illegal occupation. A major factor contributing to

deforestation is the felling of trees for widening

of roads. The New Delhi Municipal Corporation

(NDMC) has felled thousands of old trees for

widening roads. Recently in 2004, NDMC has

carried out massive tree felling near the Prime

Ministers residence at Race Course Road, for

constructing a parking place. As per the officials

of the Department of Forests and Environment,

Government of Delhi, official permission has been

granted for the felling of 15,144 trees (more than 50

year old trees) between January 2002 to July 2004.

The Public Relations Officer of NDMC has

stated that the number of trees planted are many

times more than the number of trees felled. Every

year various agencies of the Delhi Government

(NDMC, DDA, Forest Department, Horticulture

department, etc.) claim to carry out plantation of

6-7 lakh trees. The Horticulture Departments of

these agencies have an annual budget of Rs. 100

crore for this purpose. However, all this moneyis lining the pockets of the corrupt officials as

corroborated by the raids of the CBI on the

premises of Director, Horticulture Department, in

Delhi [2].

Moreover, it is an irony that no department has

any record of the survival and growth rate of these

trees. According to the Environment Secretary of

the Delhi Government, he has recently asked all

these agencies to furnish records in this regard, but

it is bound to take some time. During this period,

the official agencies will continue to take advantage


16/100

Introduction4

MAP 2

Places of Encroachment on the Ridge

Encroachment on the Ridge

In 1960, 48 percent of the area under the ridge

was covered with forests, today it is a mere 8

per cent

The MCD is using a part of the Southern Ridgefor dumping garbage

Majority of the encroachments (as shown in the

map above) are by the rich.

Legend:

1. Police camp

2. DESU Power Tower

3. Converted into a Park

4. Hindurao Hospital

5. Blasting Site

6. Ravindra Rangshala

7. Gurudwara Nanak Sahib

and Petrol Pump

8. Widening of Shankar Road

9. Schools (Manav Sthali,

Army Public, Springdales

and J. D. Tytler)

10. Talkatora Complex

11. Army Camp

12. Petrol Pump

13. Buddha Jayanti Park

14. Delhi Polo Ground

15. Army School HousingComplex

16. SITE

17. Shooting Range

18. Mahavir Jayanti Park

19. Residential Colonies

Source: Yeh Dilli Kiski Hai, Hazard Centre, November 2003, New Delhi


17/100


of this major administrative and procedural lapse.

The impact of rapidly reducing green cover on

water availability is discussed later.

1.4. Delhi: Water in the PastRivers have been the cradles of civilisation

throughout the world and the history of Delhi too

is intrinsically intertwined with the Yamuna River.

Recently, an attempt has been made to rejuvenate

the Yamuna and its surroundings[3].

Ancient and mediaeval cities were built facing the

riverfront of Yamuna. Till the reign of Jala-ud-din

Khilji (1290-96) very dense forests surrounded

Delhi, implying the presence of abundant ground

water reserves with a high water table. During the

reign of Firoz Shah Tughlaq (1351-1388) hunting

reserves and pleasure resorts were constructed along

water harvesting dams. Shahjahan used to come

from Agra to Delhi by boat. The sandy banks near

the Red Fort were used in winter for elephant fights

and kite flying. They were also used for jharokha

darshan people coming to see the king on the

terrace of the Fort. An underground flight of steps

from the Fort would touch the riverbed and peopleundertook boating during the rainy season.

That Delhi had plenty of water in the past is

corroborated by a study conducted in 2000, which

discovered 15 water harvesting dams which define a

network of 25 water structures along forty miles of

the Delhi ridge from Zamrudpur and Tughlaqabad

in the south to Wazirabad on the Yamuna.

The antique map showing the Environs of Delhi

circa 1870, published by the Survey of India, also

testifies that before the beginning of the British

rule, a number of rivers and rivulets originating

from the ridge finally culminated in Yamuna

(Map 3). In addition to this, there were hundreds

of other water-bodies like wells, talabs, babris,

kunds and others. Recently, TAPAS, a Delhi-

based NGO, has prepared a list of more than

700 such water-bodies. Even today, 10 babris of

Delhi remain under the exclusive control of the

Archaeological Survey of India.

The Yamuna River is basically migrant in nature

and has been shifting its course eastward from

ancient times. In 1989, the Geological Survey of

India redrew the migration pattern of Yamuna in

parts of Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh [4], as shown

(Map 4). The newspaper offices at ITO (Income

Tax Office), Pragati Maidan and the surrounding

areas were once the floodplains of Yamuna, before

it shifted its course.

According to Anupam Mishra, a pioneer in traditional

water management practices, Hauz Khas used to be

the biggest talab (pond) in Delhi and Talkatora was

also a huge talab. There were large ponds in Patparganj,

Khureji, Khirki and other parts of Delhi, just 100-130

years back. Two rivers existed at Connaught Place.

Humayuns Tomb, Safdarjung and Old Fort were all

located along the banks of rivers. Where have all these

water-bodies vanished?

There is strong evidence to support that massive

urbanisation has resulted in the death of rivers

including the Yamuna. On comparing Map 3 (1807)

with the present map of Delhi (Map 5), one finds

that today all the then existing green areas have beencovered by extensive concrete structures, courtesy the

ever-increasing population of the city. It has virtually

killed the natural surface and sub-surface drainage

patterns of the area. Massive deforestation has led to

gradually reducing run-in, due to which parts of the

city get flooded during monsoons. Most of the roads

have been built directly on the drainage lines which

has further aggravated the problem.

There are other aspects of urbanisation too. According

to Census 2001, Delhi has a population of 137.8 lakhs

and in March 2001 there were 34.56 lakh vehicles

registered with the Transport Department of Delhi

Government. In March 2001, the total road network

in Delhi was 28,508 km. Between 1970-2001, the

increase of vehicles in Delhi has been 16 times from

2.14 lakhs to 34.56 lakhs, but the increase in road

network during the same period has been a mere

three times. In the IX Five Year Plan, 11 flyovers were

constructed whereas 45 new flyovers and 27 bridges

have been planned and approved for the coming


18/100

Introduction6

MAP 3

Water Channels Of Delhi


19/100


MAP 4

Changing Course of Yamuna River

Present boundaries of river

Old channels of river flow

Locations of archaelogical

evidence

Change in direction of river flow

Boundaries of old river flow

channels


20/100

Introduction8

MAP 5

Present Map of Delhi


21/100


years. In addition to this, massive digging work carried

out for the Delhi Metro, covering an area of 52 km,

has further affected the remaining natural drainage.

All this has played a part in the drying up of Yamuna

as the provenance of the river has become barren,

coupled with the destruction of upstream. As a result

there has been a massive reduction in the availability

of water throughout the river stretches in all the states.

In the wake of Delhi hosting Asian Games in 2011, a

massive concretisation exercise is scheduled to begin.

1.5. Current Sources of Water for DelhiTill 1955, there was no major outer source of water

in Delhi, as by and large, Yamuna was fulfilling the

requirements. As stated earlier, with the settlement

of large number of refugees from Pakistan, the water

shortage was felt for the first time in the fifties. Around

the same time the Bhakra Nangal dam (the first

temple of modem India - Nehru) was also completed

and became an important source in providing water

to Delhi and it continues to be so even today.

Over 86 percent of Delhis water supply comes from

surface water through the Yamuna river, whose flows

are largely diverted upstream in Punjab and Haryana

for canal irrigation. Other sources are HimalayanRivers, under various inter-state agreements, and sub-

surface sources like Ranney wells and tubewells, as

shown in Table 2.

Water for Delhi is released from Bhakra Nangal dam

to the town Tajewala (near Ambala) and it reaches

Munakh (Panipat) 70 km further down. Munakh

is the receiving point for the Delhi Jal Board. From

Munakh, it is the responsibility of DJB to take this

water to Delhi. Delhi Jal Board sends this water

to its two water treatment plants - Haidarpur

(130 km from Munakh) and Wazirabad (150 km

from Munakh). This transportation is facilitated

through the old Yamuna Nagar canal and Indira

Gandhi canal. This water is eventually supplied to

all other water treatment plants of Delhi, except

Bhagirathi.

The Bhagirathi water treatment plant, since 1990,

receives its 270 cusec water from the upper Ganges

through the Muradnagar canal covering a distance

of 28 km. This water takes care of the complete

water requirement of eastern Delhi and most of the

water requirement of south Delhi.

Thus, the water from two-mega water storage

dams, namely Bhakra Nangal, built primarily

on the pretext of irrigation, is being supplied to

Delhi and soon Tehri will follow suit. It may be

recalled here that since the last decade, the farmersfrom Punjab have been agitating against water

shortages. Similarly, farmers from Uttar Pradesh

are also against supplying water from Tehri dam to

Delhi, as it will adversely affect their share of water

availability. Incidentally, 40 percent of the electricity

from the Tehri hydroelectric power plant will also

be diverted to Delhi. In such a situation one cant

escape concluding that the real aim of such mega

water projects is mostly to fulfill the requirementsof urban centers, contrary to the declared project

objectives.

1.6. Present Water Requirements of Delhi At present the total water requirement of Delhi

stands at 3830 mld (million litres per day) and

has a shortfall of 880 mld. The total quantum of

water received in Delhi is 725 cusec from Haryana

and 270 cusec from the Ganges. However, there

has never been much demand on Delhis part to

increase its share from the Ganges and over the

S.

No.

Type Source Quantity

1.Surface

Water

Upper Yamuna River

Board

404 mgd

(1835

tcmd)

2.Surface

Water

Bhakra-Beas

Management Board

267 mgd

(1213

tcmd)

3. GroundwaterYamuna River

Ranney Wells

22 mgd

(101 tcmd)

4. Groundwater Tubewells acrossDelhi

41 mgd(187 (tcmd)

TABLE 2

Sources of Water for Delhi

Source: Delhi Jal Board


22/100

Introduction10

years this share has been, more or less, stabilised.

Moreover, this share will also be increased once

the Sonia Vihar water treatment plant becomes

functional, as it will be fed with the Ganges water.

However, the share with Uttar Pradesh too has

become a bone of contention, like Haryana.

Delhi has six functional water treatment plants

(Table 3) with an installed capacity of 560

mgd (million gallons per day) though the total

requirement of the city has been estimated to be

800 mgd. In addition to these, Sonia Vihar and

Nangloi water treatment plants, though completed,

are non-functional owing to lack of water.

continued throughout 1980. But the Haryana

government has expressed its inability to do so as

it was facing difficulty in fulfilling its own water

requirement for agriculture.

During these negotiations Haryana claimed that

it could only provide surplus 200 cusec water to

Delhi, once it starts getting surplus water from

neighbouring Punjab, after the completion of

the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal. Thus, the bilateral

dispute between Delhi and Haryana, in fact, has

been transformed into a trilateral issue between

Delhi-Haryana-Punjab.

However, the scenario was further compounded

and made murkier by the constant stubborn

refusal of Punjab to complete its portion of the

Satluj-Yamuna Link canal, aimed at providing

water to Haryana from Punjab. But Punjab has

taken a stand that there is no surplus water to

be provided to Haryana and its own farmers are

facing water shortage for their agricultural fields.

Thus the stalemate has continued for about 20

years. During 1978-1997, there were many

demonstrations, rallies and dharnas in Delhi over

this issue by farmers of Haryana and Punjab.Different political parties, religious organisations

and farmers unions organised these. In both

Punjab and Haryana, this has become a major

emotive issue and has been a key subject in the

electoral politics of these states. In Punjab all the

political parties are united in the stand of not

providing water to Haryana and in Haryana all

political parties are united on getting their share

of water from Punjab.

Exasperated with the pointless negotiations,

Delhi finally filed a case in the Supreme Court

in 1994, demanding its increased share of 800-

cusec from Haryana. Subsequently, before the

matter could be decided, Delhi and Haryana

alongwith Uttar Pradesh and Rajasthan opted

for an out of court settlement, signing a

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) under

which Delhi was ensured an uninterrupted

supply of 725 cusec.

S. No. Name Capacity

1.Wazirabad 120 mgd

2.Chandrawal 95 mgd

3.Haidarpur 200 mgd

4.Nangloi 40 mgd

5. Okhla 12 mgd

6.Bhagirathi 100 mgd

7.Sonia Vihar Lying idle since Dec 1994

8.Bawana Lying idle since Dec 2000

TABLE 3

Water Treatment Plants in Delhi

Note: All the first five treatment plants receive water from the Upper YamunaCanal and Western Yamuna Canal whereas the sixth plant, Bhagirathireceives water from the Ganges and Upper Ganga CanalSource: Delhi Jal Board

1.7. Hydro Politics of Water in DelhiThe water shortages in Delhi were first witnessed

in mid-1950s, after the settlement of refugees in

large numbers from Pakistan. At that time the

shortage was overcome by the supply of water

from the Bhakra Nangal dam. As the population

of Delhi continued to swell, the second round of

crisis was faced in late 1970s. At that time Delhi

was receiving 600 cusec water from Haryana. In

late 1970s, negotiations started with Haryana for

providing additional 200 cusec water to Delhi and


23/100


On 17 July 2004, the then Chief Minister of

Haryana publicly threatened to nullify the Yamuna

Agreement in case the Central Government fails to

take stern action against Punjab [5]. Immediately

after this public pronouncement, the Chief Minister

of Delhi, addressing a press conference said that she

has approached the Prime Minister to protect the

interests of NCT of Delhi while resolving the crisis

arising out of the Punjab Assembly passing a law

terminating the 1981 trilateral agreement [6].

The Chief Minister of Delhi met with the Chief

Minister of Haryana and drew his attention to

the water crisis in Delhi. The Chief Minister of

Delhi categorically said to his counterpart that the

city needs water for domestic purposes, which is

allocated top priority in the national water policy

and hence water availability to Delhi must be

ensured. The same drama was once again enacted

in 2005 over the supply of water to Sonia Vihar

plant in Delhi and is covered in the relevant text.

To sum up, several factors have played a significant

role in precipitating a water crisis in the ever-

expanding city of Delhi vanishing forest cover,

massive urbanisation, swelling population, utter

neglect of river Yamuna, destruction of natural

surface and sub-surface drainage network, etc.

References

1. Forest Survey of India (2002). The Forest Mapping of India: 2001-2002. MOEF, Forest Survey of India,

Dehradun, Uttaranchal. 2002

2. News Item (2004). CBI raids Director Horticultures Premises in Delhi. Times of India. July 22, 2004

3. Shobha John and Rachna Subramaniam (2004). Finally a river may run through it. Times of India.

January 18, 2004

4. Arun Kumar Singh (1990). Yamuna - A Vagabond River. SROTE Science Features, August 19905. News Item (2004). Chautala threatens to nullify Yamuna Agreement. The Tribune. July 18, 2004

6. News Item (2004). CM asks PM to protect Delhis water interests. The Tribune. July 19, 2004

* * * * *


24/100

Water Rights and Delhi-Haryana Water Dispute1212

Before delving into the subject of water dispute, it will be relevant here to understandwater rights, which is an extremely complex subject involving individual rights,peoples rights, community rights, state rights and is often a bone of contention.

2.1 What are Water Rights?There are specific questions concerning the nature of rights, like:

Is it a natural (customary) right or a legal (positive) right (granted by law)?

Is it an individual right or a group right?

Is it a positive or negative right?

A natural right may arise in at least three ways:

granted by law, this would be a legal right, such as forest laws, where people are

given usufruct rights by the state to collect forest produce;

arising out of contract, such as under family laws, where both parties acquire certain

rights, in virtue of entering into a contract with one another; and

as a natural right arising out of either the very nature of human nature or society.

Traditionally, both individual and group rights over water were recognised in India.In fact, group rights of communities, castes or whole villages over tanks, ponds, wells,

streams or riverbanks were very common.

In positive rights, legally, there is an obligation on others to do something, and in

negative rights there is an obligation to refrain from doing something. Even if right to

water is assumed to be a natural right, the question still remains whether it is a positive

or negative right? Is it a positive right in which the state and other people (on whom

the corresponding duty falls) can be compelled to ensure that an individual is provided

with water? Or is it a negative kind of right in which state and other people merelyneed to keep away so that an individual can enjoy unfettered access to water? The

jurisprudential basis of negative rights has traditionally been the assumption:- that over

which (or for which) one has a negative right cannot be a subject matter for property.

Natural human life, for example, cannot be owned by anyone.

In this backdrop, a brief overview of the evolution of rights over water in India would

be relevant here.

2.2 Evolution of Water Rights in IndiaThe water law in India can be distinctly placed in four categories: ancient India,

British rule, post-independence and post WTO. A brief overview of these four periods

2. Water Rights and Delhi-Haryana Water Dispute


25/100


would be helpful in understanding the various

dimensions and complexities involved with the

water law. Obviously these customs and laws were

put in practice keeping the socio-economic realities

of the prevailing times in mind during all the four

periods.

Water in Ancient IndiaAny efficient system of management cannot be put

in practice without the sound knowledge about the

concerned area. Various processes of hydrological

cycle (evaporation, condensation, rainfall, stream-

flow etc.), as well as the fact that its conversion from

one form to another does not mean loss of water, were

well known during the Vedic period. Water intake

by plants, division of water into minute particles by

sunrays and wind, different types of clouds, their

heights, their rainfall capacities etc., along with

the prediction of rainfall quantity in advance by

observation of natural phenomena are illustrated in

the Puranas, Vrahat Samhita (550 AD),Meghmala

(900 AD) and other literature. There is reference

to rain gauges (varsha mapini) in Arthasastra of

Kautilya (also popularly known as Chanakya, 400

BC), andAstadhyayiof Panini (700 BC). Kautilya

also knew the quantity of rainfall in various partsof India. Indians were acquainted with the cyclonic

and orographic effects on rainfall, radiation and

convectional heating of earth. Various other

phenomena of infiltration, interception, stream-

flow, geomorphology, artesian wells and erosive

action of water were well understood. Ground-

water development and quality consideration were

getting sufficient attention as evidenced byVrahat

Samhita (550 AD). It was this vast knowledge, which formed the pillar of water management,

rights and cess system in ancient India.

The credit for evolving guidelines for scientific

water management and pricing system in ancient

India goes to KautilyasArthasastra. TheArthasastra

in 15 books (adhikaranas) presents 6000 verses

(slokas). The treatise also gives a vivid picture of

the water management practices of ancient India.

TheArthasastra is a treatise on statecraft, attributed

to Kautilya, the mentor of emperor Chandragupta

Maurya of India (321-297 BC). He gave

considerable importance to water management in

his work, since irrigated agriculture was one of the

main sources of revenue to the state. A critical study

of the Arthasastra brings to light the water law,

water pricing and responsibilities of the Irrigation

Department prevailing at that time in India.

It is evident from Arthasastra that the people of

ancient India have been familiar with the rainfall

distribution, soil classification and appropriate

irrigation practices for different agro-climatic

zones. The earliest mention of a rain gauge is found

in this work. It gives the details and dimensions

of the rain gauge and the locations where it has to

be installed. The rainfall data for certain locations

of the empire are furnished and depending on the

rainfall, the empire is divided into the wetlands and

dry lands. Certain principles have been prevalent

at that time to classify the land according to land

capability and land irrigability. Apart from the

traditional sources, man-made structures like tanks,

reservoirs and wells were used for irrigation. One of

Chandragupta Mauryas notable achievements was

the construction of a great irrigation lake calledSudarsana near Junagadh (Gujarat).

TheArthasastra brings out certain salient features

of the water law of the period. The upstream and

downstream water rights were well defined. For

example, a tank built downstream of an earlier

existing tank should not flood the fields irrigated

by the upper tank. A tank constructed upstream

should not deprive the downstream users. Thelaw stipulates not only fines but also emptying of

tanks for cases of violation. Exemption from tax

was given to those involved in the construction and

renovation of irrigation works. Fines were imposed

on those who let out water from dams out of turn,

and on those who obstructed the water allocated

to others. Fine was also imposed on those who

obstructed a customary watercourse.

The responsibilities of the Head of Irrigation

Department, according to theArthasastra, included


26/100


construction of irrigation systems and aiding others

involved in these activities. In waterless regions,

the government superintendents were in charge of

constructing wells and other water works.

The Arthasastra clearly talks about a water cess

over and above the normal land revenue levied

by the state on users of irrigation facilities. Even

those using their own private waterworks had to

pay some cess. The ownership of fish, ducks and

green vegetables in the irrigation works should go

to the king. It is interesting to note that the ancient

Indians had practiced scientific water management.

Their concepts pertaining to water law and pricing

have relevance even in modern times.

Subsequent rulers (from 321 BC-1857 AD), with

little alterations, followed the system of water pricing

and management devised by Kautilya, proving the

scientific basis in which they were rooted.

Water in British RuleWith the advent of British rulers, however, things

began to change, since the very nature of this rule

was different to generate revenue for the British

Empire rather the welfare of the common massesbeing ruled. An entire range of legislations over

water came into existence, like the Limitation Act of

1859, which was made explicit through easement in

water rights in its amendments in 1871, The Bengal

Canal Act 1864, The Bengal Ferries Act 1866,

The Bombay Inland Vessel Act 1868, The Punjab

Canals and Drainage Act 1871, The Northern

Indian Canal and Drainage Act 1873, The Bengal

Irrigation Act 1876, The Bombay Irrigation Act1879, Madras Rivers Conservancy Act 1884, and

many other similar acts. All these acts drastically

curtailed group rights and community rights, to a

large extent.

The coming of Easement Act 1882, made

the first radical shift in the history of Indian

Law, in both, recognising and not recognising

water rights as a negative natural right, as it has

contradictory provisions. Section 2, for the first

time, gave absolute right over rivers and lakes to

the government whereas Section 2 (6) of the same

act gives full recognition to natural and negative

customary rights, both for groups and individuals.

This act legitimises customary rights of the people

and provides two rules for recognition: by use or

prescription (Section 15) and by local customs

(Section 18). However, Section 4 of this act defines

easements for the first time as iura in re aliena, i.e.,

legal rights that can be alienated.

Similarly, riparian rights were also recognised under

the British law, in spite of these acts mentioned

above. The riparian rights as established by the

courts are as follows: A riparian owner has a right

to use the water of a stream flowing over his land

equally with other riparian owners, and to have the

water come to him undiminished in flow, quantity

or quality, and to go beyond his land without

obstruction. The existence of the fact that riparian

rights are natural rights was recognised by the Privy

Council [1] in 1932. The same fact was once again

recognised and established even after independence

by the Patna Court in 1954 [2]. Though in practice

it was difficult to implement uniformly, as not

many Indians had resources to approach the Privy

Council during the British Rule.

But in all fairness, it must be mentioned that the

Privy Council upheld no property rights of anyone,

in rivers, including the King [3].

Water in Independent IndiaIndia after independence, maintained almost the

same enactments, which were generated during

British rule. They were only amended or substitutedby newer ones, with the sole intention of further

strengthening states control over water, if needed.

Let us look at the existing provisions.

The Constitutional Rights The sovereign powers

of the state over natural water resources begin with

the Constitution. Entry 17, in the II List of the

Seventh Schedule places water at the disposal of

the states (state governments in Union of India).

This includes water supplies, irrigation, canals,

embankments, water storages and hydroelectric


27/100


power. This power is limited only by entry 56 of

List I, which gives power to the Center (Central

Government) for regulation and development of

inter-state rivers and river valleys, to the extent to

which such regulation and development under the

control of the Union is declared by the Parliament

by law to be expedient in the public interest. Entry

57, List I specifically mentions that the Union also

has the sole power to regulate fishing and fisheries

beyond territorial waters.

This control of the state over water emanates

from The Easement Act 1882, which recognises

the absolute right of the state and claims that no

perspective rights of easement can be claimed

against the government. The Preamble to this

Act does not explain why it became necessary to

vest this absolute right in the government. The

subsequent irrigation acts progressively affirmed

the states rights over water, be it in British India or

independent India.

Though technically speaking, water is a state

(government) subject and the Center has no role

except to intervene through Inter-State Water

Dispute Act by appointing a Tribunal in case ofa dispute arising between two or more states over

the use of water. However, in practical terms,

it is the Center, which decides the allocation of

development funds to different states under the

five-year plans and hence covertly controls the

development of water resources in the states. Such

an ambiguity arises primarily because of legal

position in this regard. In the face of water crisis

in many states, the Ministry of Water Resourcescame out with a proposal to withdraw water

from the concurrent list and bring it under the

exclusive fold of Center. However, preliminary

discussions with many states witnessed such fierce

opposition from all states that the proposal has

been put in cold storage.

Implied Rights There are other enactments

involving use of water, such as production of

electricity, water-ways, fisheries, food, recreation

etc. By implication, therefore, they give the

government rights over such use of water. Some of

these enactments are:

The Obstructing in Fairways Act, 1881

The Indian Ports Act, 1908

The Indian Electricity Act, 1910

The Steam Vessel Act, 1917

The Indian Forest Act [Section 26, 32(F)]

The Indian Mines Act, 1952 [Chapter V,

Section 19 (1)]

The Rajasthan Soil and Water Conservation

Act, 1964

In 1954, after the report of States Reorganisation

Committee, boundaries of most of the states were

redrawn and many new states came into existence.

With this, disputes between the riparian states

over sharing of water resources, began to surface.

Taking this into consideration, The Rivers Board

Act 1956 and Inter-State Water Dispute Act

1956 were enacted by the Parliament. The former

remained only on paper but the second act has

been in operation in resolving various disputes. In

addition to this, almost all the states have brought

in their own enactment on water resource within

their jurisdiction.

Summing up, it can be safely concluded that

practically all the rights over water for different uses

have been vested in the hands of government. The

process started with the British rule and continues

till today. In this framework, the public declaration

by the Irrigation Minister (now former minister)

that Every drop of rain belongs to the government!

Only the government has the right to collect the

rain [4] is merely a reflection of the arrogance ofthe state.

Water in the Era of Globalisation With the emergence of WTO in 1995, the

trade, economic, cultural and intellectual rights

have been redefined within the framework of

WTO legislation. It is mandatory for all WTO

members (at present 147) to reframe and re-orient

their municipal and national laws, policies and

programmes in congruence with WTO legislation.

WTO has both judicial and legislative authority, to


28/100


call for cancellation of national or municipal laws

of any country, which are not in conformity with

the WTO legislation and if they can be successfully

shown to be trade restrictive. Any failure in

compliance on this count, will lead to penalty

of cross retaliation through discriminatory trade

measures at the hands of the other members. It has

its own dispute settling mechanism alongwith an

appellate body, whose decision is final. Thus WTO

has emerged as a very powerful body the likes of

which world has never seen.

Legal foundation of trade in water was laid in 1947,

when GATT (General Agreement on Tariffs and

Trade) in its definition of tradable goods clearly lists

waters, including natural and artificial waters.

In an explanatory note, it further adds, Ordinary

natural waters of all kinds (other than sea water)

is included in this category. Article XI of GATT

Rules specifically mentioned No country is

allowed to prohibit the export of a tradable good.

WTO retained these same provisions of water in

relation to trade.

WTO also included water in its GATS (General

Agreement on Trade in Services) category and thereare various services under this regime covering

water, like, fresh water services (read supply),

sewer services, wastewater treatment, construction

of water pipes, waterways, tankers, groundwater

assessment, irrigation, dams, water transport services

and many more. This has resulted in opening the

gates for foreign companies in these areas, which

were hitherto city municipalities responsibilities.

Moreover, if water and waterbodies in natural stateare explicitly brought under the GATS regime as

the recent proposals of EU (2003) have asked, then

it would lead to the complete control of MNCs over

waterbodies. And this process will be irreversible

since under the GATS rules, once a public service

has been privatised, it must remain a commercial

utility. Still worse, it has also been proposed to bring

water under the investment category, and if done

so, MNCs will be in a position to demand funds

from the government for development activities,

like any other government department. A greater

discussion on this issue is not possible here and

those interested may refer to the authors published

work in this regard [5].

India was one of the first nations to become a member

of the WTO on 31 December 1995 itself, on its

first day of existence. It was therefore mandatory for

India to redraft its National Water Policy making it

congruent with the WTO legislation. So National

Water Policy 2002 was enacted, substituting the

earlier NWP 1987, though it has nothing new to

offer, except one point. A new para was inserted,

as follows:

Private Sector Participation. 13. Private sector

participation should be encouraged in the various

aspects of planning, development and management ofthe water resource projects for diverse uses, wherever

feasible. Private sector participation may help in

introducing innovative ideas, generating financial

resources and introducing corporate management in

improving service efficiency and accountability to

users. Depending upon specific situations, various

combinations of private sector participation, in

building, owning, operating, leasing and transferring

of water resource facilities, may be considered.(Emphasis original)

There is another angle to the inclusion of water in

WTO, where it is considered as a need. United

Nations, since its inception has been very clear

that water is a human right through its various

covenants, protocols, declarations and resolutions.

These are: Convention on the International

Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights(1966), Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

(1967); Universal Declaration on the Eradication

of Hunger and Malnutrition (1974), Declaration

on the Right to Development (1986), Convention

on the Rights of the Child (1989), to name a few. It

is very concerned over the manner in which water

is considered merely as an economic and tradable

good, overlooking social and cultural aspects related

with water. Recently, the Committee on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights (2003) has come out

with the most hard-hitting 60-point document [6]


29/100


establishing that water is a human right subject.

United Nations in many of its reports, from time to

time, has been raising its voice against the policies

of international financial institutions for violating

these rights.

It is in this larger framework that the issue of rights of

water should be perceived. It is evident that peoples

rights over water, as they stand today, are extremely

diluted and the state is the sole custodian of these

rights, in the name of the people. This continues

in spite of the fact that the Supreme Court has

explicitly reinterpreted Article 21 (a fundamental

right in Constitution, known as the right to life)

to include right to environment and hence right to

clean water, as a fundamental right. This has been

recorded in the Supreme Court judgment given in

Dehradun Valley and pollution cases and others [7,

8]. Another significant point deserving attention is

the issue of rights over groundwater, which assumes

greater significance in times of water crisis.

2.3 Groundwater RightsThe importance of groundwater can be gauged

from the fact that Groundwater accounts for more

than 95 percent of all the fresh water availableon Earth at any given moment [9]. Yet there is

no groundwater law in India at the national level

and consequently groundwater has been exploited

beyond all levels of imagination. Groundwater

rights in India are attached and linked with land

rights, i.e, whoever owns the land, owns the

groundwater too. This is a completely unscientific

way of defining groundwater right since boundaries

of a groundwater aquifer do not follow surfaceboundaries.

Groundwater is one of the most exploited resources

in the country and evidence strongly suggests that

the phenomenal growth of agriculture has been

laid on the foundation of groundwater. It is best

corroborated in the case of Punjab where it is a

common misconception that the Bhakra dam has

ushered in the green revolution but, the fact is that

except for the first decade after the construction of

the Bhakra dam, more and more farmers shifted

to groundwater use, resulting in a sharp decline

of the water table. This trend was noticed first

in mid-1980s. By 1988, out of 12 total districts

in the state, in six districts withdrawals exceeded

recharge, namely Amritsar, Sangrur, Jalandhar,

Patiala, Kapurthala and Ludhiana [10]. By 1990s,

major parts of 11 districts out of 12 fell into the

category of dark zones [11]. As per the recent

official data situation has gone from bad to worse

in 2000, out of a total of 118 Blocks in Punjab,

62 fall under over-exploited category and 8 fall

under Dark Zones [12]. Paradoxically, owing to

liberal use of water for irrigation 2.86 lakh hectare

land is waterlogged in Punjab [13].

The over-exploitation of groundwater throughout

the country is manifested by the fact that in 286

districts across 18 states in India, the water table has

fallen by four meters in the last two decades [14]

and many coastal states like Andhra Pradesh, Tamil

Nadu, Maharashtra and Gujarat are on the verge

of massive saline intrusion owing to indiscriminate

extraction of groundwater. Concerned over it,

the Central Government has prepared a Model

Groundwater (Control and Regulation) Bill and

circulated to the states to come with an Act forgroundwater development [15] since water is a

state subject. The salient features of this bill are:

Groundwater has been defined as the water,

which exists below the surface of the ground at

any particular point.

Groundwater Authority should be constituted

by the state.

The state government, on a report received

from the Groundwater Authority may declareareas as notified areas, where extraction and use

of groundwater will be regulated in the Publics

interest.

Any person desiring to sink a well in the notified

area for any purpose other than exclusive

domestic use, either on personal or community

basis, shall apply to the Groundwater Authority

for the grant of a permit for the purpose and

shall not proceed with any activity connected

with the sinking unless a permit has been

granted by the Groundwater Authority.


30/100


In granting or refusing a permit the Groundwater

Authority shall have regard to:

a) The purpose or purposes for which water is

to be used;

b)The existence of other competitive users;

c)The availability of water, and

d)Any other relevant factor.

Every existing user of groundwater in the

notified area shall apply to the Groundwater

Authority for the grant of a certificate of

registration recognising his existing use in

such forms and in such manners as may be

prescribed.

No person shall himself or by any person on his

behalf, carry on the business of sinking wells or

any other activity connected with the sinking

of wells in any notified area except under and

in accordance with a license granted in this

behalf.

Any person desiring to carry on the business of

sinking of wells or any other activity connected

with the sinking of wells in any notified area

may make an application to the Groundwater

Authority for the purpose.

The Groundwater Authority or any person

authorised by it in writing in this behalfshall have the power to enter any property

with the right to investigate and make any

measurements concerning the land or the

water located on the surface or underground,

inspect the well, sunk or being sunk, take

specimen of such solid, or other materials

or of water extracted from such wells, and

obtain such information and record as may be

required. Any user of groundwater, who contravenes

or fails to comply with any of the provisions

of the Act, will be penalised and/or punished

according to the provision of the Act.

However, most of the states have failed to introduce

an enactment on groundwater and have rather

preferred to draft their own model groundwater

bill. Let us look at the experiences of Rajasthan, a

perennially parched state, in this regard.

Experiences of Rajasthan With ModelGroundwater BillThe Rajasthan government introduced a Model

Groundwater Bill, drawn on the lines of the Model

Bill circulated by Center, more than a decade ago.

However the implementation of the bill in the state

has been pathetic, to say the least.

According to a recent report [16], Rajasthan has

4.8 lakh wells, 9 lakh bore wells, and 20,000 very

deep wells in operation. On an average, these

13,80,000 wells are over-drawing annually 950

crore cubic meter water, against an annual recharge

capacity of only 715.5 crore cubic meter water.

Thus the withdrawals exceed 33 percent more than

the recharge capacity. In spite of this, out of 237

total Blocks of Rajasthan, 177 are facing severe

water scarcity, out of which 56 Blocks have been

declared dark zones. In the last decade, successive

governments have tried to bring out legislation

to curb these practices but powerful lobbies have

thwarted all such efforts. The long-term disastrous

consequences of it are easy to visualise.

Summing up, there is an urgent need to bring

out a national legislation on groundwater as thefuture scenario looks bleak and there is an even

stronger need to reform water laws in the country

in congruence with the unfolding water crisis,

which is anticipated to worsen in the days to

come. The time has come, long overdue in fact, to

define explicitly and legally the enforceable water

entitlements, at all levels, including personal. In

this background, let us look at the water disputes

concerning Delhi.

2.4 Yamuna River and Delhi-Haryana-Uttar Pradesh TriangleThe stretch of Yamuna River from its origin to

Delhi is called the Upper Yamuna river involving

the other basin states of Himachal Pradesh,

Haryana, Delhi, Uttaranchal and Rajasthan.

However, the states of Haryana and Uttar Pradesh

play a crucial role so far as water availability in

Delhi is concerned. There have been a series of

agreements between the involving states, each newer


31/100


one nullifying the preceding one. The most recent

UP-Haryana-Rajasthan-HP-Delhi Memorandum

of Understanding (MoU) in this regard is the Upper

Yamuna Agreement on May 1994 [Annexure 1].

This agreement takes note of maximisation of use

of the surface flows of the Yamuna River by a series

of identified storage projects on Yamuna, upstream

of Tajewala, which are already existing. The Upper

Yamuna Board (established under the Yamuna River

Agreement) is already fully functional to monitor the

implementation of this agreement. An interesting fact

regarding this agreement is that the total demands of

the basin states is over three times than the quantum of

flow available in the river. Obviously, these demands

are based on political grounds.

The agreement deals with the established irrigation

needs of Uttar Pradesh and Haryana and Municipal

and Industrial needs of Delhi and Rajasthan. Uttar

Pradesh and Haryana can otherwise withdraw all

the water upstream of Delhi for irrigation. It will

be pertinent to the water related disputes among

these three states, namely, Punjab, Haryana and

Rajasthan since Haryana-Delhi water dispute is

intertwined with it.

2.5 The Ravi-Beas Water Dispute:Haryana-PunjabThe state of Haryana, bifurcated from Punjab in

1966, mainly has an agrarian economy and its water

demands are ever increasing. Haryana, as a part of

Punjab till 1966, was already receiving water from

the Bhakra dam and after coming into existence

as an independent state, it continued to receive

the same quantum of water. As the water-needsof Haryana grew, with expansion of agriculture,

Haryana started demanding more water from Ravi-

Beas rivers, giving birth to a long-standing water-

sharing dispute with Punjab. There are claims and

counter-claims of Haryana and Punjab over the

rights to water from the Bhakra Nangal dam and

Ravi-Beas rivers.

Even a 20 year long negotiation has failed to find a

satisfactory solution. It will be relevant to mention

here that at present Haryana is already getting 4.33

MAF water from the Satluj and 1.62 MAF from

the Ravi-Beas rivers at present.

On December 31, 1981, Mrs. Indira Gandhi, the

then Prime Minister, succeeded in bringing out a

trilateral Ravi-Beas Agreement between the then

Chief Ministers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan

over sharing of water from Ravi-Beas rivers. The

construction of Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL) was

proposed under this contractual obligation of

1981, in order to take water to Haryana. Under

this agreement, Bhakra-Beas Management Board

was to release 100 mgd of water from Ravi and

Bead rivers for Delhi.

In July 1985, an agreement between Rajiv Gandhi,

the then Prime Minister and H. S. Longowal,

the then Chief Minister of Punjab was signed

covering the Ravi-Beas waters. It was under this

agreement that a Tribunal was set up in April 1986

to adjudicate the claims of these two conflicting

states. Justice Balakrishna Eradi, then Supreme

Court Judge, headed this Tribunal, which after

listening to the arguments of both the parties

over the claims of Ravi-Beas waters submitted its

interim report in January 1987. The final report ofthe Tribunal, supposed to be delivered within six

months, remains to be delivered till date.

According to the interim report of the Eradi Tribunal

in 1987, from the Ravi-Beas river systems, 5 MAF

(million acre feet) water is allocated to Punjab

and 3.83 MAF to Haryana. It further reiterated

that water to Haryana will be facilitated by the

construction of a 305 km long Satluj-Yamuna Linkcanal, originally envisaged in the 1981 agreement,

out of which 91 km lies in Haryana and 214 km

in Punjab.

2.6 The Satluj-Yamuna Link (SYL):Haryana-Punjab

After the trilateral agreement of 1981, the

construction of the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal

(in Punjab) started only in 1982. However, after

some time, there was strong opposition to the

construction of the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal


32/100


in Punjab and it was stopped. Meanwhile, after

the award of the Eradi Tribunal, Haryana has

completed the construction of the portion of

the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal-falling within its

territory by 1987. Once again, after a gap of eight

years, the construction of the Satluj-Yamuna Link

in Punjab was restarted during the 1990-91, for a

very brief period, during which militancy was at its

peak in the state. The work was once again stopped

after the Chief Engineer of the Satluj-Yamuna Link

canal was assassinated. It may be recalled that many

workers of the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal have been

gunned down during the years of militancy.

Haryana, exasperated over the long delay in

the completion of the Satluj-Yamuna Link by

Punjab, in 1989, approached the Supreme Court

to expedite the completion of the Satluj-Yamuna

Link canal so that it can get water at the earliest.

Haryana claims to spend Rs. 820 crores so far on

its construction. But Punjab has refused to build

the section of the project within its territory and

so the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal carries no water.

During the past twenty years, not a days work has

been done on this.

The Supreme Court has given deadlines, seven

times to finish the completion of the Satluj-

Yamuna Link canal December 1983, August

1986, December 1987, June 1989, January 1991,

January 2002 and finally January 2003. On

January 15, 2002 the Supreme Court ordered

Punjab to finish the work on the canal within a

year, failing which, it said, the Union Government

would have to undertake the work. Punjab hasignored all these warnings, so far.

In the meantime Punjab again filed a legal

intervention in this case, giving the argument that it

has no surplus water to release to Haryana. It states

that the 1985 Rajiv Gandhi-Longowal agreement

was intended to end the terrorist activities in the

state and this is a key component for the release of

water into the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal. And so

the deadlock continues.

In this ongoing bitter litigation, the Supreme

Court, in 2003, once again, issued a directive to

the Punjab government to complete the Satluj-

Yamuna Link canal within one year but this too

failed to make any change in Punjabs position.

Repeated failure of the Punjab government in

complying with the directives of the Supreme

Court led to the passing of a stricture against the

Punjab Chief Minister by the Supreme Court

in 2003 and imposing a fine of Rs. 10,000 on

the Punjab Government. In addition, a case of

contempt of court is also ongoing against the

present Chief Minister of Punjab.

In May 2004, the Supreme Court, finally taking

note of the repeated failures of the Punjab

government to comply with its order, directed the

Central government to undertake the completion

of the Satluj-Yamuna Link canal and ensure its

completion within a year. The Supreme Court

specifically directed the Punjab government to

hand over the section of SYL falling under its

territory to the Central Public Works Department

(CPWD) of the Central government.

The Punjab government publicly declared that it would appeal to the full bench of the Supreme

Court against this decision of the 3-member

bench. The Punjab government has already made

consultations with its lawyers, including the

Constitutional expert, Mr. Fali S. Nariman.

Once again the farmers of Punjab have taken

to the roads against this verdict of the Supreme

Court. The main political party in opposition inthe state, Akali Dal, accused the ruling Congress

government of failing to present its case properly in

the Supreme Court, thereby failing to protect the

interests of the farmers of Punjab and demanded

its resignation. The President of the Akali Dal

publicly declared that he would not allow a single

drop of water to be diverted from Punjab to

Haryana. In response, the Punjab Chief Minister

too also made a public declaration that as long as

he is in power, not a drop of water will be given to

Haryana at the cost of farmers of the state.


33/100


It will be relevant to state here that all political

parties are united on the issue of not diverting

water to Haryana. To counter the directive of the

Supreme Court, just two days before the deadline

of handing over the Satluj-Yamuna Link section

to CPWD, the Punjab Chief Minister called a

special session of the state Assembly on July 12,

2004. In this session The Punjab Termination of

Agreements Bill, 2004 was passed unanimously,

thereby annulling the December 1981 Trilateral

Agreement, under which the Satluj-Yamuna Link

was planned to be constructed. All other pacts

related to Ravi-Beas water, with Haryana and

Rajasthan, also stood terminated under this Bill.

The Chief Minister, justifying the Bill, stated in

the Assembly It is a well-settled law that the

legislature is competent to remove, or take away

the basis of a judgment by law, and thereby, it does

not encroach upon the power of the judiciary.

Emphasising the necessity for such a Bill, he

stated that the terms of the 1981 Agreement

have become onerous, unfair, unreasonable and

contrary to the interests of the inhabitants of Ravi-

Beas basin. The Chief Minister of Punjab further

stated that Haryana and Rajasthan are neitherriparian nor basin states, but have been utilising

Ravi-Beas water and Punjab accepted this, as the

Clause 5 of the Bill protects the existing usage

of water from Ravi-Beas. Moreover, the Bill also

has a safeguard as it exclusively mentions - No

civil court shall have jurisdiction to entertain

any suit or proceedings in respect of any matter

arising under or connected with this Act. It will

be relevant to mention here that Punjab is yet tocomplete the work in 121 km (out of 214 km in

its territory), including Sirsa Aqueduct.

Since then, the Chief Ministers of Haryana and

Rajasthan have met the incumbent Prime Minister

demanding justice in this matter. The Central

government, on its part, has also requested the

Supreme Court to issue fresh guidelines in the wake

of this development. The Members of Parliament

from Haryana and Rajasthan have also approached

the President of India to intervene in this issue and

the President has also asked for the opinion of the

Supreme Court.

2.7 The Constitutional CrisisThe Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004,

on a cursory look, appears to be a violation of

the constitutional provisions regarding sharing of

river waters between the states. The Constitution

clearly states that the sole responsibility of

resolving all bilateral disputes in sharing water

from riparian rivers rests with the Union of India.

In such a case any concerned state, be it Punjab,

Haryana or Rajasthan, is simply not competent

to make an existing agreement null and void

unilaterally.

In this regard, the role of the Governor of Punjab

is also questionable. The Governor, by signing

an Act, contrary to the Constitutional provisions

has acted in a hurry and it would have been

more appropriate for him to send this Bill to the

President of India for reference. Incidentally, the

then incumbent Governor was an appointee of

the earlier BJP led NDA-coalition government.

So far as Rajasthans share of water from the riversof Punjab is concerned, it primarily originates

from the Indus Treaty between India and Pakistan

wherein, the Indian claim contained water for

Rajasthan. Inclusion of Rajasthan in subsequent

inter-state water agreements over rivers of Punjab

is done on this ground. If the Punjab Termination

of Agreements Act, 2004, is made applicable to

Rajasthan then it also implies the nullification of

the Indus Treaty. In such a situation, is the PunjabAssembly the competent legislative authority to

address an international agreement?

A similar development in the past with regard

to Karnataka-Tamil Nadu dispute over sharing

of water from the Cauvery river can be cited

here, as it sheds light on the line of reasoning

by the Supreme Court. In 1991, the Karnataka

government passed a legislation rejecting the

award given by the Cauvery Tribunal asking

Karnataka to release 205 TMC water to Tamil


34/100


Nadu. The Supreme Court rejected this legislation

by terming it unconstitutional. The situation

in Punjab is quite analogous, as Punjab too has

rejected diversion of water to Haryana, as per

the award of the Eradi Commission. Only time

will tell whether the Supreme Court will apply

the same principle to The Punjab Termination of

Agreements Act, 2004, held by it 13 years ago.

Though there are minority voices of sanity in

Punjab, advising the government to comply

with the directive of the Supreme Court, by and

large the political and general mood remains in

favour of non-diversion of water to Haryana.

The Punjab Termination of Agreements Act,

2004, rocked the Parliament, in both upper

and lower houses. Members of Parliament from

Haryana and Rajasthan, demanding immediate

intervention of the central government, didnt

allow any work in the Parliament, till the Prime

Minister himself made a statement on this

issue promising to protect the interests of the

concerned states.

It has been argued that perhaps the legal ambiguity

in which water rights exist is responsible for thenon-compliance of the Supreme Court order, but

it seems unlikely. It appears to be a case of populist

policies and appeasement of voters within the

state. It is corroborated by the fact that in the

wake of electricity reforms, Punjab government

has recently declared that it would continue

supplying free electricity to farmers and would

bear the bill. This would mean a loss of Rs. 1200

crores annually for the Punjab government.

2.8. Arguments put forth by Punjab andHaryanaIt will be relevant here to briefly view the arguments

given by these two states, which are at loggerheads

with each other. The Punjab government filed a

complaint with the Water Resource Ministry in

this regard on January 13 2004, in which it has

presented its position. This contains the same

points, which Punjab has presented to the Supreme

Court, as summarised below.

Punjabs rationale1. Over the last twenty years, there has been a

substantial decline in the availability of surplus.

The total quantum of water in Ravi Beas has

reduced from 17.17 MAF to 14.37 MAF

(1985-2004) and this reduction is consistent,

continuous and constant. It is corroborated by

the river flow data obtained from the Bhakra-

Beas Management Board.

2. Even without the completion of Satluj Yamuna

Link canal, Haryana is already getting 2.62

MAF through the Bhakra main line (Haryana

was receiving this quantum of water as part of

Punjab till 1966, and continued to receive the

same quantum after becoming an independent

state).

3. Punjab has contested the claim of the Center

placing the Indus basin and Yamuna basin as

analogous, in terms of being water surplus

basins. It has alleged that the Indus basin

covering Punjab is a water-deficient basin

whereas the Yamuna basin covering Haryana is

a water surplus basin. Since water can only be

transferred from a surplus basin to a deficient

basin, Punjab cant transfer water to Haryana.

4. In the meantime, Haryana faced with waterscarcity has helped itself through several

measures. It has signed MOUs with Uttar

Pradesh, Rajasthan and Delhi in May 1994 for

the allocation of Yamuna water and received

4.65 MAF out of the 9.73 MAF of Yamuna

waters.

5. Haryana will also benefit from the Sharda-

Yamuna link for which an agreement has been

signed between India and Nepal.6. If Punjab diverts water to Haryana, about 16

lakh acres of land in Muktsar, Bhatinda and

Mansa districts would be rendered barren and

infertile.

7. The constant reduction in the quantum of

water flow in Ravi-Beas has made the Eradi

Tribunal irrelevant and hence it should be

scrapped completely.

8. The Punjab-Haryana water dispute should

be addressed by appointing a fresh Tribunal

under Section 4(1) of the Inter State Water


35/100


Dispute Act 1956. Punjab has also pointed

out that Section 4(2) of the Act provides that

only existing judges of the Supreme Court or

the High Court could be nominated on the

Tribunal. Therefore this matter could not be

referred to the Eradi Tribunal. Moreover, the

Eradi Tribunal was formed for a limited purpose

for adjucating matters contained in the Rajiv-

Longowal Accord of July 24, 1985.

9. In 1984, the Punjab State Assembly declared

inter-state agreement, Reorganisation Act 1966,

invalid and also approached the Supreme Court

challenging the validity of the Reorganisation

Act 1966. It may be recalled that it was under

this Act that the water of the riparian states were

to be divided [However, Punjab withdrew this

legal intervention, after a tripartite agreement

between Punjab-Haryana-Rajasthan in 1985].

Haryanas rationaleHaryana has its own line of reasoning, as given

below.

1. Haryana is legally entitled to get water from

Satluj and Beas since the Reorganisation Act

1966 empowers the Center to divide the waterof the Satluj and Beas river systems if both the

states do not arrive at a mutually acceptable

solution.

2. Haryana is diverting 725 cusec water to Delhi,

which is affecting its agriculture. This has

aggravated since 1997 when Haryana has had to

increase its allocation to Delhi from 600 to 725

cusec. This is being done as per the Haryana-

Delhi bilateral agreement, as the bulk of watersupply for Delhi is received from Haryana (the

related agreements have been discussed latter in

this text).

3. The contention that the Yamuna basin is water

surplus basin is wrong, as the Yamuna basin too

is a water deficient basin.

4. Haryana strongly objects to the constitution of

any new Tribunal for resolving its dispute with

Punjab. It firmly believes that the issue has been

satisfactorily resolved and the only bottleneck

that remains is in the implementation of the

Eradi Tribunals decision to allocate 3.83 MAF

at the earliest. Haryana believes that Punjabs

plea to appoint a new Tribunal is merely a

delaying tactic, especially when the Eradi

Tribunal has already given its verdict in this

dispute.

5. The Sharda-Yamuna link will take a long time

to complete, if at all it is ever completed, taking

the acrimonious relations of India and Nepal in

the water sharing arrangements into account,

whereas the need for water is immediate.

Thus, both Haryana and Punjab continue to be

at loggerheads over the share of water from the

Himalayan rivers, eventually affecting the share of

water received by Delhi.

[This section on dispute is largely reconstructed

on the basis of newspaper reports, specifically

The Tribune and Punjab Kesari, as well as

meetings with lawyers representing Punjab and

Haryana Governments in the ongoing Supreme

Court litigation. Both the concerned parties have

requested that documents not be photocopied, as

the case is politically sensitive but had no objectionto relevant portions being noted down.]

delhi's watery woes

Documents