Shivakumar to inquire into ‘diversion’ of Bhima waters by Maharashtra

The recent announcement by Karnataka's Deputy Chief Minister, D.K. Shivakumar, to inquire into allegations of Maharashtra diverting Bhima river waters underscores a perennial challenge in Indian federalism: inter-state water disputes. This development, triggered by a question raised by member Talawar Sabanna under Rule 330 in the Legislative Council, brings to the fore complex issues of resource management, constitutional provisions, and the delicate balance of federal relations.

**Background Context and What Happened:**

The Bhima River, a major tributary of the Krishna River, flows through both Maharashtra and Karnataka. Its waters are crucial for agriculture, drinking, and industrial needs in the regions it traverses. For decades, the equitable sharing of waters from inter-state rivers has been a contentious issue in India. The current dispute stems from Karnataka's apprehension that Maharashtra, being an upstream state, is diverting more than its allocated share of Bhima river waters, especially during periods of scarcity. This alleged diversion directly impacts the downstream regions in Karnataka, particularly farmers who depend on the river for irrigation. The decision by Deputy CM Shivakumar to initiate an inquiry signifies the seriousness with which Karnataka views these allegations and its commitment to protecting its water interests. Rule 330 of the Legislative Council allows a member to raise a discussion on a matter of urgent public importance, highlighting the significant public and political concern surrounding this issue in Karnataka.

**Key Stakeholders Involved:**

Primarily, the **Governments of Karnataka and Maharashtra** are the key stakeholders, representing the interests of their respective populations. For Karnataka, the concern is ensuring adequate water supply for its agricultural sector, particularly in drought-prone regions. For Maharashtra, the challenge lies in balancing its own developmental needs and water requirements with its obligations to downstream states. **Farmers and local communities** in both states are directly impacted, their livelihoods often dependent on the availability of river water. The **Central Government** also plays a crucial, albeit often mediating, role in inter-state water disputes, as enshrined in the Constitution. The **Legislative Council** in Karnataka, where the issue was raised, acts as a platform for democratic accountability and raising public grievances.

**Historical Context and Why This Matters for India:**

This dispute is not isolated but part of the larger, long-standing **Krishna River Water Dispute**. The Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-I) was constituted in 1969 to resolve the water sharing issues among Maharashtra, Karnataka, and Andhra Pradesh (now Andhra Pradesh and Telangana). Its award came in 1973 and was reviewed by KWDT-II, constituted in 2004, which gave its report in 2010 and further clarified in 2013. These tribunals aim to allocate water shares based on various factors, including dependable flow, irrigable area, and future needs. The Bhima diversion allegation, therefore, challenges the spirit and letter of these tribunal awards. Such disputes are significant for India as they:

1. **Test Cooperative Federalism:** They often strain relations between states and sometimes between states and the Centre, impacting the spirit of cooperative federalism.

2. **Impact Agricultural Economy:** Water scarcity due to diversion can lead to significant crop losses, farmer distress, and rural economic instability.

3. **Highlight Resource Scarcity:** They underscore the increasing pressure on India's finite water resources due to population growth, urbanization, and climate change.

4. **Influence Political Dynamics:** Water disputes are highly emotive issues that can shape regional politics and electoral outcomes.

**Related Constitutional Articles, Acts, and Policies:**

The Indian Constitution provides a framework for resolving such disputes. **Article 262** specifically deals with the adjudication of disputes relating to waters of inter-state rivers or river valleys. It empowers Parliament to make laws for the adjudication of such disputes and explicitly states that neither the Supreme Court nor any other court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any such dispute. Pursuant to Article 262, Parliament enacted the **Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956**. This Act provides for the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal for the adjudication of a dispute. Furthermore, the **Seventh Schedule** of the Constitution places 'water' (Entry 17) under the State List (List II), but 'regulation and development of inter-state rivers and river valleys' (Entry 56) is under the Union List (List I), giving the Union government overriding powers in this domain. The **National Water Policy** also emphasizes integrated water resource management and equitable distribution.

**Future Implications:**

The inquiry by Karnataka's Deputy CM could lead to several outcomes. If the allegations are substantiated, Karnataka might formally approach the Central Government for intervention or even seek recourse from the existing Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal (KWDT-II) for clarification or modification of its award. This could reignite legal battles and further stress inter-state relations. Ideally, such inquiries pave the way for bilateral discussions and cooperative mechanisms between the states involved. The long-term implication for India is the continued need for robust institutional mechanisms, effective data sharing, and a spirit of mutual understanding to sustainably manage its vital water resources and uphold the principles of federalism. Climate change is likely to exacerbate these issues, making proactive water governance even more critical.