with love to indore

Saturday, October 10, 2009

Farce called narmada water tribunal

After 20-30 years when whole of India including MP will be facing an acute water crisis future generations of MP will wonder how our elders squandered maginificent heritage called Narmada.

Some excerpts from a report of commission for review of Indian constitution formed by NDA government.

5.22 Narmada Dispute-Allocation Made



(a) The Narmada Tribunal did apportion the waters among Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat. Madhya Pradesh with 97.59% of the drainage area and contributing 98.75% of the flow, was awarded 18.25 MAF (67%), while Gujarat with 0.56% of the drainage area contributing 0.26% of the flow, got 9 MAF (33%). It was also decided that excess as well as distress should be shared by the two States in the same proportion as their shares. Rajasthan’s claim for a share in the excess flow was turned dwon. However, between Rajasthan and Maharasthra, excess or scarcity was decided to be distributed in the proportion of 1/56:1/12.



(b) In deference to the wishes of the parties, the Tribunal agreed that allocations be made subject to review and modicication after the lapse of a reasonable period of time. It was decided, accordingly, that the allocations should be subject to review after a period of 45 years from the date of order of the Tribunal.



(c) The Tribunal had also to elaborately deal with intricate technical questions, such as fixing the full supply level of Navagam Canal, its bed gradient, determination of the height of Sardar Sarovar Dam, the quantum of the re-generated flow and return flow etc. it also presented an exhustive scheme to set up a machinery for implementing its decisions.


.



5.24 Narmada Tribunal Report: Significant Features



The Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal Report contained some significant features:



(a) It was held that Rajasthan, a non-riparian State, was not entitled for a share in the Narmada waters. The State was, nevertheless, favoured with an allocation, based on an agreement of Chief Ministers.



(b) The Tribunal observed that diversion of water of an inter-State river outside the river basin is legal; and the need for diversion of water to another watershed may therefore be a relevant factor on the question of equitable apportionment in the circumstances of a particular case.




(d) The Narmada Tribunal not only adjudicated the inter-State water dispute between the party States, but also directed the establishment of a machinery for operating and implementing its award, with the object of accomplishing the optimum utilization of Narmada waters. This machinery (the Narmada Control Authority), was constituted subsequently, and was authorised to frame detailed rules and regulations and to carry out water accounting.

No comments:

Post a Comment