Inter-State River Water Disputes Involving Rajasthan

Introduction

Rajasthan’s river-water dependence is shaped by its arid geography and limited perennial surface water. As a lower-riparian or downstream state in several basin arrangements, it depends on inter-state agreements, tribunal awards and coordinated infrastructure for a fair share of river waters.

The disputes involving Rajasthan are mainly about allocation shares, execution of agreements, canal connectivity and compliance with tribunal directions. For Prelims, the important angle is the constitutional and statutory framework along with the specific river disputes affecting the state.

Constitutional and Legal Framework

• Entry 17, State List: Gives states control over water supplies, irrigation, canals, drainage, embankments and water storage, subject to central regulation.
• Entry 56, Union List: Empowers the Union Government to regulate and develop inter-state rivers and river valleys to the extent declared by Parliament by law.
• Article 262: Allows Parliament to provide for the adjudication of disputes relating to the use, distribution or control of waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys.
• Jurisdiction exclusion: Article 262 permits Parliament to exclude the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court or any other court over such disputes.
• Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956: Enacted under Article 262 to set up ad hoc tribunals when negotiations fail.
• River Boards Act, 1956: Provides for advisory boards to the Centre and states on regulation and development of inter-state rivers, though no independent board has been successfully established under this Act.

Ravi-Beas Water Dispute

• Background: The dispute arises from the post-partition allocation of the eastern rivers under the Indus Waters Treaty framework.
• 1955 Allocation Agreement: A Centre-convened agreement allocated 15.85 Million Acre Feet (MAF) of surplus Ravi-Beas waters among Punjab (7.20 MAF), Rajasthan (8.00 MAF) and Jammu & Kashmir (0.65 MAF).
• 1981 Agreement: Signed by the Prime Minister and the Chief Ministers of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan after the reorganisation of Punjab in 1966. Rajasthan’s share was fixed at 8.60 MAF out of 17.17 MAF surplus waters.
• Eradi Tribunal (1986): Constituted pursuant to the Punjab Accord; it raised the usable surplus water and confirmed Rajasthan’s allocation at 8.60 MAF.
• Core issue: Non-completion of the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) canal and the Punjab Termination of Agreements Act, 2004 created a deadlock in receiving Rajasthan’s full quota through the Indira Gandhi Canal system.
• Exam focus: The dispute is important because it links legal awards with the practical problem of canal connectivity and execution.

Yamuna River Water Dispute

• Basin states: Uttar Pradesh, Uttarakhand, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Delhi and Rajasthan.
• 1994 MoU: Signed on May 12, 1994, it allocated the annual usable surface flow of 11.70 Billion Cubic Meters (BCM) of the Yamuna River.
• Rajasthan’s share: 1.119 BCM annually, which is approximately 0.91 MAF.
• Upper Yamuna River Board (UYRB): Formed in 1995 to regulate and monitor water distribution among the member states.
• Regional impact: Rajasthan faces shortfalls in northeastern districts such as Jhunjhunu, Churu and Bharatpur.
• Infrastructure issue: The state has sought its share from the Hathnikund Barrage in Haryana through dedicated pipelines or canals.
• Current concern: Disputes continue over infrastructure funding, canal capacity and seasonal availability during non-monsoon months.

Mahi and Narmada Water Disputes

• Mahi River: It originates in Madhya Pradesh, flows through Rajasthan and enters Gujarat before draining into the Gulf of Khambhat.
• 1966 Agreement: Signed between Rajasthan and Gujarat for the construction of Bajaj Sagar Dam at Banswara and Kadana Dam in Gujarat.
• Mahi provision: The waters of the Mahi River impounded at Bajaj Sagar are reserved for Rajasthan’s upper areas.
• Further obligation: Once the Narmada canal system reaches Gujarat’s irrigation command areas, Gujarat is to release 40 TMC of Mahi water back to Rajasthan’s upper areas.
• Core issue: Rajasthan argues that the intended diversion and reallocation of Mahi waters to southern districts such as Dungarpur and Banswara has not been fully realised.
• Narmada context: Rajasthan is a non-riparian state on the main course of the Narmada but receives a share for arid southern districts.
• NWDT Award (1979): The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal allocated 0.50 MAF out of the total 28 MAF usable flow of the Narmada River to Rajasthan.
• Narmada Canal Project: Rajasthan built a 158 km main canal from the Sardar Sarovar Dam in Gujarat to deliver water to the Sanchore block of Jalore and Barmer districts.
• Key feature: The project pioneered mandatory micro-irrigation, including drip and sprinkler systems, throughout the command area to improve efficiency.
• Operational issues: Concerns periodically arise over maintenance, canal discharge rates at the Gujarat border and siltation.

Inter-State Water Allocation Matrix

Key Prelims Takeaways

• Article 262: Enables parliamentary adjudication of inter-state river disputes and can exclude court jurisdiction.
• Entry 56, Union List: Supports central regulation of inter-state rivers and river valleys.
• Ravi-Beas share: Rajasthan’s key allocation is 8.60 MAF under the 1981 Agreement and Eradi Tribunal.
• Yamuna share: Rajasthan received 1.119 BCM annually under the 1994 MoU.
• Upper Yamuna River Board: Set up in 1995 for distribution and monitoring among basin states.
• NWDT Award: Rajasthan received 0.50 MAF in the Narmada dispute.
• Important theme: Many disputes are about implementation, canal connectivity and infrastructure, not only about allocation on paper.

Recent Context

In February 2024, Rajasthan and Haryana signed a Memorandum of Understanding to prepare a Detailed Project Report for using Rajasthan’s allocated share of Yamuna water from Hathnikund through pipelines passing through Haryana. This is relevant because it shows that the dispute is now moving toward infrastructure-based execution rather than only allocation claims.