LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WATER IN INDIA

1.1 Historical background: Statutory water law in India includes a number

of pre and post colonial enactments in various areas, irrigation being the
prominent one. Water law in India has had a long journey from the
legislations of the colonial period to the recent regulation of water quality
to the judicial recognition of human rights to water. In India water law is
closely linked with the irrigation laws and the right to water in the
property laws. Historically, irrigation laws constitute the most developed
part of the water law because the British saw irrigation as the most important
economic activity and made the classification of water accordingly.
1.2 The Existing Legal Framework: The existing legal, institutional and decision making
frame work for water law in India, both at the National and state level is embodied in the
nine major Acts at the National and state level. The National Legislations as applicable to
water are

 Water prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1974;

 Air prevention and Control of Pollution Act 1977;
 Environment Protection Act 1986;
 Forest Conservation Act 1980 and amended in 1988;
 Public Liability Insurance Act 1991;
 Environment Assessment Development of Projects, 1994;
 The Ministry of Environment and Forest is the nodal agency in the administrative
structure of the central government for planning promotion and coordination and
overseeing the implementation of environment legislation and programs and regulatory
functions like environment clearance.
 1.3 Constitutional Provisions ;The constitution defines the allocation of functions relating to water resource
development between the centre and state governments. Water is designated as a state subject to the central
intervention to regulate the development of interstate rivers and for settlement of interstate disputes on water.
The River Boards Act and the Interstate Water Disputes Act are made under these provisions. The central
government can also intervene in the interest of protecting environment and forest , and under provisions
regarding national planning for development.
 Under the Constitution of India which came into force in 1950 water is primarily a state subject. Entry 17 List II
i.e. State List 7th Schedule of the Constitution States “water that is to say water supplies, irrigation and canal,
drainage and embankments, water storage and water power subject to the provisions of entry 56 to the List I”.
States are thus free to enact the water law and frame policies in accordance with this provision. Entry 56 of List I
(Union List ) refers to above states “regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the extent
to which such regulation and development under the control of the union, is declared by parliament by law to be
expedient in the public interest.”
 1.3.1 Under Article 26224 of the Constitution, Parliament may by law
 (1) Provide for the adjudication on any dispute or complaint with respect to the use, distribution or control of the
waters of, or in, any interstate river or river valley.” And
 (2) Neither the Supreme Court or any other Court shall exercise jurisdiction in respect of any dispute or
complaint
2. EXISTING LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR WATER: PRIORITY AREAS AND WATER
RIGHTS
2.1 Ground Water law
The existing ground water law in India is close to
inappropriate. This is of major significance as the use of
ground water determines the availability of water for tanks,
wells and many other minor irrigation systems. Traditionally
ground water has been treated as a chattel to land property,
where the access is to private land owners alone. Such property
laws do not relate to hydrological, ecological or equity
concerns at all. Few attempts of less significance have been
made in the past at the state level. In the state of Gujarat
groundwater rules have been reframed by amending the
Bombay irrigation Act. Tamil Nadu water Board had framed
certain model water Bills. But these arbitrary experimentations
have proved grossly inadequate for the larger private and
common property legal regimes, nor do they take into account
the ecological and social diversities in which the laws needs to
operate. The need for conjunctive use and integration of
groundwater and surface water laws have also been
conveniently ignored by the state governments. Moreover,
success to ground water is highly inequitable, since it depends
upon land ownership and economic capacity to draw.
 2.2 Legal Framework for Ground Water Rights Existing legal frame work for ground water is as follows:
Ground water rights are under totally private legal regime. These rights belong to the land owner, since it
forms part of the dominant heritage and land ownership is governed by the tenancy laws of the state. The transfer
of property act necessitates the transfer of ground water based on heritage. Conversely, the land acquisition act,
asserts that if someone were interested in getting rights over easement (groundwater for our purposes) he would
have to possess land. There is no limit to the volume of ground water a landowner may draw. The consequence
of such a legal framework is that only landowners can own ground water in India. It leaves all landless and tribal’s,
who may have group (community Rights) over land but not private ownership. It also implies that rich land lords
can be water lords and indulge in openly selling as much water as they wish.
2.3 Recommendations
To ensure proper and equitable distribution of water it is recommended that water rights should be separated
from land rights. No national effort has been taken so far. The only state to move in this direction is the state of
Gujarat.
Areas where legal sanction is needed.
1. Where there is over exploitation of ground water.
2. Where there is dispute between two parties regarding the exploitation of water.
3. Where there is environmental degradation due to overexploitation.
2.44.Tank
Where thereBodies
Water is ground water pollution.
In many parts of India, irrigation has traditionally been tank based. Even now in terms of food production, what is
officially called “major irrigation system”, namely the irrigation canals, covers only 36% of the agricultural land. 64%
is rain fed, ground water irrigated and natural or artificial tank irrigated crop lands. Despite this crucial
dependence on tanks and wells, India has witnessed the destruction, negligence and reclamation of thousands of tanks
and gross misuse of groundwater. The realization that ground water is unsustainable in an ecological system where
forests are fully exploited, soil conservation grossly neglected and rivers have been rapidly supplemented, is reaching
the main stream concern rather slowly. That tank irrigation offers a vast potential for alternative approach to water
management, needs to be emphasized and need to complement canal irrigation.
There is need to reform the appropriate legal structure that will support local controls and provide incentives for
sustainable and equitable use of water tanks. Since traditionally tanks in India have been regulated through the
community resource management systems and customary laws, there is need to carry out extensive field studies to
examine customary methods of water management and institutional structures
Legal frame work:
There is juristic aspect associated with the existence of the tanks, which relates to the political economy of the
country. Tanks are local water resources; people have immediate access to them and are not dependant on far
off authorities for their water supply. The existence of the tanks implies decentralization of power over water
resources. The rise of modern state, which seeks centralized control over resources and the dependency on the
state or capitalistic authorities would naturally not be in favour of the technologies, or resource distribution which
would oppose it. If we are to follow constitutional mandate of economy and social justice, it is extremely
important to utilize resource in a manner, which leads to equity and freedom from dependency on others.
2.4.1 Recommendations
It is proposed to make detailed study of the customary and statutory laws of the concerning use of tank and wet
and waters in rural areas. It is known that these laws provided various strategies through which common
resources could be utilized for common good. The aim of the study would be to devise appropriate legal strategies’
for the preservation of tanks, its management and for equitable use of its resources.

2.5 Dam Construction The neglect of tank and ground water law is directly related to the emphasis on
construction of dams, since these have been conceived as the main scientific alternative for irrigation and food
production. Unless the appropriate legal framework is conceived for planning and establishment of Dams, it is
unlikely that the attention will turn to the development of tank and ground water laws.
Construction of large dams, regarded as boons of development in the first two decades after independence have
now become the reason for unfavorable questions, both in official and popular discourse. It is clear from these
trends that juristic and legal knowledge is yet to be related to it.
2.6 The legal framework The executive, more than the legislative or judicial, power is prominent in this area.
Indeed, staggeringly large, major decisions are in the realm for discretion.
For example, decisions relating to construction of dams, planning of national and international assistance,
location of sites, approval of the size of the dams, rejection of medium and small project alternatives and
planning of design and safety. The legislation intrudes in this area but not so substantially as to ensure just and
fair, and accountable uses of imperious executive discretion. In all of this the constitutional context is altogether
absent.
3. Indian National Water Policy
While water remains one of the most abundant resources on earth, but less than 1 percent of the total
supply is reliably available for human consumption. However, population growth, irrigation
development and industrialisation over the past century have come at a cost. The water sector must
adapt to changing climatic conditions by seeking alternative water resources and developing
improved water management approaches that will reduce pressure on already stressed systems.

3.1The Need for a National Water Policy

Water is a prime natural resource, a basic human need and a precious national asset Planning and development of water
resources need to be governed by national perspectives. It has been estimated that out of the total precipitation of around 400
million hectare meters in the country, the surface water availability is about 178 million hectare meters. Out of this about
50% can be put to beneficial use because of topographical and other constraints. In addition there is a ground water potential
of about 42 million hectare meters. The availability of water is highly uneven in both space and time. Precipitation is
confined to only about three of four months in the year and varies from 10 cm in the western parts of Rajasthan to over 1000
cm at Cherrapunji in Meghalaya. Further, water does not respect state boundaries. Not merely rivers but even underground
aquifers often cut across state boundaries. Water as a resources in one and indivisible : rainfall, river waters, surface ponds
and lakes and ground water are al part of one system, water is also a part of larger ecological system.
Floods and drought affected vast areas of the country, transcending state boundaries. A third of the country is drought prone.
Floods affect an average area of around 9 million hectares per year. According to the National Commission on floods, the
area susceptible to floods is around 40 million hectares. The approach to the management of drought and floods has to be
coordinated and guided at the national level. Even the planning and implementation of individual irrigation or multi purpose
projects, though done at the state level, involve a number of aspects and issues such as environmental protection,
rehabilitation of project- affected people and livestock, public health consequences of water impoundment, dam safety, etc.
On these matter common approaches and weaknesses have affected a large number of projects all over the country.. There
have been substantial time and cost overruns on projects. In some irrigation commands, problems of water logging and soil
salinity have emerged, leading to the degradation of good agricultural land. There are also complex problems of equity and
social justice in regard to water distribution.
3.2 India’s Draft National Water Policy 2012
Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India, in January 2012, released a draft National Water Policy for the consideration and
opinion of state governments and other stakeholders. The need for a holistic, national policy has its genesis in the changing patterns of
water use across India – both personal and industrial use. This includes the imperatives of providing both clean drinking water and
adequate resources for irrigation; the move to look at renewable sources of energy like hydro power; and natural disaster management
and rehabilitation following devastating floods and drought. The policy also seeks to offer economic incentives and penalties to
reduce pollution and wastage.
India has more than 17 percent of the world’s population, but has only 4 percent of world’s renewable water resources with 2.6 percent
of the world’s land area. This policy seeks – to some extent – to address these inequities. Specifically, the draft policy has references
to water pricing; the role of the state as a “facilitator” and “service provider”, and that of the private sector in water-related services;
institutional mechanisms that need to be set up to govern the responsible use of water; and its conservation and reuse.
As a note, unlike the 2002 policy which encouraged private sector participation in planning, development and management of water
resources, the emphasis on private sector participation has been dropped from the 2012 draft. Instead, the current policy seeks to
develop a public-private partnership model to effectively manage water resources. This is a result of public concern and opposition at
the possibility that the private sector may own water assets.
Water – which is currently managed by individual states – will likely become a topic of national interest after the formulation of the
legislation by the central government. The policy has been vociferously opposed by farmers in some states, as the proposed water
policy intends to impose an official control on the use of ground water – something currently unregulated in most states.
3.3 Key Items in the Draft Policy Include
● Unlike the 2002 draft, “priorities” for water allocation have been done away with. Previously policy, water allocation priorities have
broadly included drinking water; irrigation; hydro power; ecology; agro industries and non-agricultural industries; and navigation and
other uses.
● The Centre would like water budgeting and auditing to be made mandatory and for each state government to put a regulator for water
allocation, water use efficiency, and physical and financial sustainability of water resources, with a mechanism to establish a water tariff
system and fix the criteria for water charges.
● The draft is aimed to change the current attitude towards water recharging, both among the government agencies as well as the public,
especially the farming communities.
● Currently, heavy under-pricing of electricity leads to wasteful use of both electricity and water which this draft also hopes to reverse.
● The “Service Provider” role of the state has to be gradually shifted to that of a regulator of services and facilitator for strengthening the
institutions responsible for planning, implementation and management of water resources. The water related services should be
transferred to community and/or private sector with appropriate “Public Private Partnership” model.
● Even while it is recognized that States have the right to frame suitable policies, laws and regulations on water, there is a need to evolve
a broad overarching national legal framework of general principles on water.
● The cost of rehabilitation and compensation to affected families should partly be borne by project-benefited families through “adequate
pricing of water”.
● The draft policy calls for the abolition of all forms of water subsidies to the agricultural and domestic sectors, but says “subsidies and
incentives” should be provided to private industry for recycling and reusing treated effluents.
4. NATIONAL WATER LAW
Necessary
1. Water, like air, is one of the most basic requirements for life. If a national law is considered necessary on subjects such as the
environment, forests, wildlife, biological diversity, etc., a national law on water is even more necessary. Water is as basic as (if not
more basic than) those subjects.
2. Under the Indian Constitution water is primarily a State subject, but it is an increasingly important national concern in the
context of:
(a) the right to water being a part of the fundamental the right to life;
(b) the perception of a water crisis because of the mounting pressure on a finite resource;
(c) the inter-use and inter-State conflicts that this leads to, and the need for a national consensus on water-sharing principles, and on
the arrangements for minimising conflicts and settling them quickly without resort to adjudication to the extent possible;
(d) the threat to this vital resource by the massive generation of waste by various uses of water and the severe pollution and
contamination caused by it;
(d) the long-term environmental, ecological and social implications of efforts to augment the availability of water for human use;
(e) the equity implications of the distribution, use and control of water: equity as between uses; users; areas; sectors; States;
countries; and generations;
(f) the international dimensions of some of India’s rivers; and
(g) the emerging concerns about the impact of climate change on water and the need for appropriate responses at local, national,
regional, and global levels.
3. Several States are enacting laws on water and related issues. These can be quite divergent in their
perceptions of water. Again, under a number of Projects and Programmes different States are undertaking
‘water sector reforms’, and as a part of this they have formulated or are formulating State Water Policies.
Here again, significant divergences are 2 possible. Some divergences of policy and law may be inevitable
and acceptable, but they have to be within reasonable limits set by a broad national consensus on certain
basics.
4. Different State Governments tend to adopt different positions on the rights of different States over the
waters of a river basin that straddles more than one State. Such legal divergences tend to render the
resolution of inter-State river-water conflicts even more difficult than they already are. A national
statement of the general legal position and principles that should govern such cases seems desirable.
5. Finally, the idea of a national water law is not something unusual or unprecedented. Many countries in
the world have national water laws or codes, and some of them (for instance, the South African National
Water Act of 1998) are widely regarded as very enlightened. There is also the well-known European Water
Framework Directive of 2000. The considerations behind those national or supra-national documents are
relevant to India as well, although the form of a water law for India will clearly have to be guided by the
nature of the Indian Constitution and the specific needs and circumstances of this country.
6. It was the recognition of the need for a minimal national consensus on certain basic perceptions,
concepts and principles that led to the adoption of the National Water Policy of 1987 and the NWP of
2002. Currently the process of considering further revisions to the National Water Policy is in progress.
However, a national water policy has no legal status. A national water law is necessary.
 THE NATURE AND SCOPE OF A NATIONAL WATER LAW
1. The proposed national water law is not intended to centralise water management or to change the Centre-State relations in any
way. What is proposed is not a Central water management law or a command-and3 control law of the usual kind, but a framework
law, i.e., an umbrella statement of general principles governing the exercise of legislative and/or executive (or devolved) powers by
the Centre, the States and the local governance institutions.
2. No administrative machinery or institutional structure (except for a national water Information system) is envisaged at the Centre
under this framework law, and consequently no penal provisions are envisaged. This is not intended to exclude the necessary
administrative machinery, institutional structure and penal provisions in State laws within this framework.
3. However, the law is intended to be justiciable in the sense that the laws passed and the executive actions taken by the Central and
State Governments and the devolved functions exercised by PRIs will have to conform to the general principles and priorities laid
down in the framework law, and that deviations can be challenged in a court of law.

OTHER KEY ISSUES

1 LACK OF AWARENESS
Lack of awareness about the law and policy framework is still a major issue in rural India. All participants were completely
unaware of the law and policy changes happening across the country in general and in Uttar Pradesh particularly. Participants were
ignorant about the fact that Uttar Pradesh Water Management and Regulatory Commission Act, 2008 and Uttar Pradesh
Participatory Irrigation Management Act, 2009 have come into force, not to mention the awareness about the scope and
implications of these laws. Similarly, human right to water and right to sanitation still remain as ‘alien’ ideas. Therefore, there is a
strong need for vigorous and continuous dissemination of information about water sector reforms and water law reforms with
special focus on rural areas.

2 LACK OF PARTICIPATION
The lack of public participation in law and policy making process is a collateral impact of lack of general awareness. Mostly, law
and policy making process follow a top-to-bottom approach where people are at the receiving end having no role to play in the
framing of norms and regulations. This situation is worse in rural areas where significant number of people cannot read and write.
In this context, it could be said that the idea of public consultation in the law and policy making process mean hardly anything to
rural people. This means, a lot of effort needs to be put to make a bottom-to-top approach work in law and policy making process.
The idea of participation is also important from the angle of implementation of various policies. The workshop depicts that people
are unaware of implementation of various projects in their panchayat which are in fact meant to be implemented with the active
participation of all users (e.g. Swajaldhara). Hence, an immense focus has to be exerted to make public participation work
effectively.
3 GENDER AND CASTE DISCRIMINATION
• Gender and caste are two important factors to be given adequate attention in the law and policy
framework related to water and sanitation. Women and lower caste people are quite often
neglected sections. While there are plethora of studies arguing that women can play crucial and
effective role in water resource management and development, they are mostly no where in the
picture of framing and implementation of various policies and schemes.
• The emerging legal framework also by implication excludes women, for instance, the
participatory irrigation management laws allows only land owners or occupiers to become
members of water users’ associations (WUAs). Given the fact that land ownership, in majority
of cases, is in the name of male members of the family, women cannot become a member of
WUAs. Consequently, women are excluded from the key decision making process.
• Caste is also a crucial determining factor in this context because the link between caste and
land ownership is still prevalent. This means, lower caste people such as dalits still remain by
and large as landless people and therefore by implication the ongoing law and policy reforms
excludes lower caste people also. Caste is also a factor determining access to drinking water.
Even though caste discrimination has been prohibited through law, it is still de facto prevalent
in rural areas. Lower caste people usually has to wait till the higher caste people finishes
fetching water and they also have to face some times abusive language and degrading
treatment.
• Hence, more affirmative actions are needed from the side of the government to eliminate
these antique inhuman practices. Legal framework can play crucial role in this regard by de-
linking the connection between access to water and land rights. Civil society organizations
can also contribute significantly by disseminating the idea of human right to water so that
access to water shall not be denied to any one on the basis of caste, gender or economic
capacity.
IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT TRANSFER POLICIES AND ACTIVITIES
Definitions
Irrigation Management Activities and Institutions
An irrigation system is a system of physical structures, such as dams, canals, gates, pumps, and others, that capture water from a
natural source and ' distribute it to fanners to use for watering crop plants.
As argued by Uphoff (1986, cf Coward 1980) irrigation management activities are those concerned with:
• Water Distribution: Capturing and distributing water in an irrigation system (also called operations).
• Maintenance: Repairing and maintaining the physical structures of the irrigation system.
• Resource Mobilization: Raising the resources needed for operations and maintenance (O&M).
• Conflict Resolution: Resolving conflicts among users and system managers over the above three items above. Irrigation
management institutions include the rules and organizations concerned with these four activities.

Irrigation Management Policy

As used in this paper, government policy consists of the way the government wishes to carry out its functions. Government
policy exists in several forms, including statements in law, written policy statements, government agency regulations and
guidelines, and widespread beliefs among government agency personnel that things should be done in a particular fashion. In
any one government area, there may be multiple policies, each held by one or more agencies.
Government irrigation management policy includes those rules and principles that define institutions - rules and
organizations - for some or all of the four irrigation management activities. Irrigation management policies thus define:
• Water Distribution Rules: The rules defining the proper distribution of irrigation water to legitimate users (sometimes
called "allocation rules" or "water rights").
• Resource Mobilization Rules: The processes for mobilization of resources for operations and maintenance of the system,
including requirements for the payment of irrigation fees and for contributing labor.
• Conflict Resolution Rules: The rules regarding how conflicts are to be settled.
• System Managers: The persons or organizations responsible for operations and maintenance (O&M), for resource
mobilization, and for conflict resolution.
These items are defined in government policy for all government managed irrigation systems. However, the fact that they are
defined in policy does not mean that there is a single document that lists all of these clearly. In many cases, some of the more
important policy provisions are simply matters of practice rather than being documented. For example, in Tamil Nadu in
India, the law makes the Public Works Department "responsible" for operations and maintenance of all irrigation systems
larger that command more than 100 acres (40 hectares). By long held custom, however, the operation and maintenance of all
irrigation systems dependent upon "tanks" (small reservoirs), including systems that command up to 5000 hectares, are
managed by farmers.
While government policy must define these four items, the definitions are more or less vague. There is always room for local
interpretations of the government policy.
Irrigation Management Transfer
We will define irrigation management transfer (IMT) as the transfer of responsibility for some, or all irrigation management
responsibilities for an irrigation system from a government agency to one or more private (or local) persons or organizations.
Management transfer need not be total but could be limited to specific parts of irrigation systems or to specific management
functions.
An irrigation management transfer policy then is a government policy mandating irrigation management transfer and specifying
key elements of the changes to be accomplished or that accompany transfer.
Irrigation management transfer activities are the programs and individual efforts designed to implement IMT policies. However,
there have been and continue to be experimental irrigation management transfer activities that precede formulation of IMT
policy. Experimental activities are very important in that they provide models on which the policies are formulated.

Dimensions for Classifying Irrigation Management Transfer Policies and Activities

The key problem in classifying any set of things is deciding which traits should be used for classification. To decide which
items to use, let us begin by considering the implications of the definitions given in the preceding section.
First, the definition of IMT includes transfer of responsibilities from a government agency to private persons or
organizations.
This suggests that two of the needed traits are:
• Definition of the persons or organizations to whom the responsibilities are to be transferred.
• The responsibilities to be transferred from the government agency to the private person.
Most of the discussion of IMT has been about transfer of responsibilities to water user associations (WUAs) or some form or
other. The reasoning is that water users - farmers - have the proper set of motivations to handle irrigation management
activities efficiently and effectively (Kloezen and Samad 1995). The first point therefore often is reduced to a discussion of
how WUAs should be organized (Vermillion 1995).
These two traits may not be enough to differentiate among policies that have different degrees of success. Some of the
literature suggests that the rights and powers (authority) given to the WUAs or other recipients of the responsibilities are
equally important. Farmers who have been getting government service up to the present are not likely to agree to take on
additional management burdens unless they see a benefit. The key benefit for irrigation systems, in general, is better
irrigation service. Farmers cannot provide better irrigation service unless they are given greater authority over irrigation
management activities.
This argument suggests that the third needed trait is:
• The rights and powers, particularly those over water distribution in the broad sense, to be transferred.
Increased authority over water distribution is not the only possible benefit from IMT, but it is the only one that is directly and
permanently connected with the use of the system for irrigation.
Resources have to be mobilized for the operation and maintenance of any irrigation system. A key element in IMT, in addition to the
three listed above, is the change brought about in systems for resource mobilization. Since IMT involves two parties, the government
agency and the private organizations and persons, there are two issues:
• Changes in systems and requirements for resource mobilization for the government agency.
• Changes in systems and requirements for resource mobilization for the private persons or organization.
These items are particularly important since one of the main motivations for governments to adopt IMT policies is to reduce the
contribution from general government revenues to the O&M costs for irrigation systems. Conflict resolution is also an irrigation
management activity. Therefore, changes in conflict resolution systems - identification or creation of new bodies, definition of rules
for settling conflicts, etc - could also be a key part of an IMT policy.
Changes in conflict resolution institutions.
IMT is a change. If formulated into government policy, it is a deliberate change. If the policy is
translated into activities, there must be means to bring the change about. If, as in most IMT programs,
transfer of responsibilities is to be made to WUAs, generally someone has to work with farmers to
encourage them to form WUAs. Often incentives need to be offered. At the very least, the policy has to
be publicized.

The means by which IMT is to be implemented.

To summarize, our reasoning suggests the following seven elements as the key dimensions for the
classification of IMT policies and activities::
1. Persons or organizations to whom responsibilities are transferred
2. Responsibilities transferred
3. Rights and powers transferred
4. Changes in agency resource mobilization
5. Changes in resource mobilization for the private persons or organizations
6. Changes in conflict resolution institutions
7. IMT implementation As we will see, in any one case of classification, it may not be necessary to make use
of all of these dimensions.
 WATER USER ALLOCATIONS (WUAS)
Origin of WUAs
Two aspects of the origin of a WUA are particularly relevant to performance: (i) the age of the organisation, and (ii) whether the
impetus for organising was internal or external. WUAs originating from internal initiatives are often found in small-scale, farmer
managed irrigation systems. It is generally easier for irrigators to have a sense of ‘ownership’ that is, a personal stake, in a WUA
if it started spontaneously rather than if the organisations were externally induced.
Bylaws of the WUAs
Bylaws are normally required before a WUA can be registered as a legal entity, and before it can be allowed to operate. The
issues that such bylaws address include: (i) basic facts about, and objectives, of the WUA; (ii) criteria for becoming a member of
the WUA; (iii) number of farmers required for the establishments of a WUA; (iv) the WUA as a legal entity; (v) structural
organisation and internal management; (vi) operation and maintenance; (vii) water charges; (viii) rights and obligations of
members; (ix) interpreting and amending the bylaws; (x) liquidation of the WUA and (xi)establishment of a federation of WUAs

Criteria for becoming a member of the WUA

• Most bylaws restrict membership to the registered landowners in the hydraulic unit, who are
engaged on a full-time basis in farming. However, the bylaws in some countries extend the right to become a member to both
owners and tenants, such as in Nepal where membership of the WUA is open to “farmers having lands or tenancy rights.” In
some areas membership of the WUA extends beyond owners and tenants to farmers with customary rights over the land they
are farming, but who may have no registered title to this land. For example the bylaws in the Indian State of Maharashtra refer
to “any owner/cultivator/permanent tenant/protected tenant..”, which includes sharecroppers and encroachers (Salman, 1997).
In some cases multiple users of water can become members of the WUAs, e.g. not only
irrigators but also livestock owners and fishermen. This is for example the case in the small-scale dam project in Ghana (IFAD,
1998c).
• In many cases, women appear to be almost absent from water users’ groups or associations. This is partly because membership
is often confined to one member of each irrigating household, either the official landowner or the 'head' of the household. Both
criteria apply to men far more often than to women; the only women who can potentially participate in water users’ groups are
either widows or single mothers with no adult male living in the household (Zwarteveen, 1995b). Evidence from WUAs in Sri
Lanka, Nepal, Pakistan and India shows that women’s participation in these organisations is much lower than men’s. In all these
countries there is low female participation in WUAs despite high
involvement of women in irrigated agriculture and agricultural decision making (Meinzen-Dick and Zwarteveen, 1997).
• On occasion special arrangements are made to provide for the representation of the disadvantaged, such as tail-enders, female
heads of farms or small farmers. For example, Ostrom and Gardner (1993) report on several mechanisms from farmer-managed
systems in Nepal that improve equity by including representatives from the head and tail end of the irrigation system.
Role of water allocation
Water allocation is the process of sharing a limited natural resource between different regions and
competing users. It is a process made necessary when the natural distribution and availability of water
fails to meet the needs of all water users – in terms of quantity, quality, timing of availability, or
reliability. In simple terms, it is the mechanism for determining who can take water, how much they can
take, from which locations, when, and for what purpose.

Ten golden rules of basin water allocation

Rule 1: in basins where water is becoming stressed, it is important to link allocation planning to broader
social, environmental and economic development planning.
Rule2: successful basin allocation processes depend on the existence of adequate institutional capacity.
Rule 3: the degree of complexity in an allocation plan should reflect the complexity and challenges in
the basin.
Rule 4: considerable care is required in defining the amount of water available for allocation.
Rule 5: environmental water needs provide a foundation on which basin allocation planning should be
built
Rule 6: the water needs of certain priority purposes should be met before water is allocated among other
users
Rule 7: in stressed basins, water efficiency assessments and objectives should be developed in or
alongside the allocation plan
Rule 8: allocation plans need to have a clear and equitable approach for addressing variability between
years
Rule 9: allocation plans need to incorporate flexibility in recognition of uncertainty over the medium to
long term
Rule 10: a clear process is required for converting regional water shares into local and individual water
entitlements, and for clearly defining annual allocations
WATER REFORMS IN INDIA
Mihir Shah Committee Report (2016) on Water Reforms in
India: A Critique
Set-up by the government of India, the Mihir Shah Committee suggested a reform strategy for
the country’s water sector. The report, A 21st Century Institutional Architecture for India’s
Water Reforms, made several recommendations based on its diagnosis of the ailing sector. 
Amongst the reform agenda was a proposed restructuring of the Central Water Commission
(CWC) and Central Ground Water Board of India (CGWB).
However, our analysis shows that the Committee’s recommendations are not based on any
sound understanding of the federal nature of water administration in India, the performance of
the water sector and the problems confronting the sector.