The Mediation For Interstate Water Disputes - amazonia.fiocruz.br

The Mediation For Interstate Water Disputes - you

The truncated session could not get to discuss the bills, though. A common issue that the bills confront is with respect to the ways in which the Centre can work with the states to deal with the emerging challenges of inter-state water governance. The latest centrally sponsored scheme CSS , Jal Jeevan Mission JJM , too is pumping massive finances into achieving universal access to safe and secure drinking water in rural areas — otherwise a domain of the states. JJM presents an opportunity to get states on board for a dialogue towards stronger Centre-states coordination and federal water governance ecosystem. The Interstate River Water Disputes Amendment Bill seeks to improve the inter-state water disputes resolution by setting up a permanent tribunal supported by a deliberative mechanism, the dispute resolution committee. The other pending bills also propose corresponding institutional structures and processes. However, the agenda of future federal water governance is not limited to these issues alone. There are a whole set of reasons — some well-known and others new — why a coordinated response from the Centre and states is vital. The Mediation For Interstate Water Disputes

The Mediation For Interstate Water Disputes Video

The Big Picture - Single Tribunal for River Water Disputes

In August we previewed four notable interstate water rights cases that would soon be heard by the U.

Navigation menu

Supreme Court. The case of Mississippi v. Tennessee is now one step closer to a decision. Typically, disputes between states over interstate water resources are resolved by requesting an equitable apportionment of the resource from the Supreme Court.

Tennessee moved to dismiss the case on grounds that the only available relief was equitable apportionment, which Mississippi never requested. Instead of dismissing the case, on FFor August,the Special Master ordered an evidentiary hearing, which took place in Mayto resolve the issue of whether the aquifer at issue was, in fact, an interstate resource.

Recommended Content

In the most recent decision, the Special Master found that the aquifer is part of a single interconnected hydrogeological unit underneath multiple states and is therefore an interstate resource. Ultimately, the Special Master made four evidentiary findings supporting his conclusion:.

If the Court agrees with the recommendations, the ruling will confirm that groundwater must be treated like other interstate water resources. As already experienced aWter many groundwater users, curtailing groundwater use is no easy task thanks to the nature of the resource. Drawdown levels tend to occur equally across the resource, making it difficult to prioritize senior users over junior users.

And, as illustrated by Texas v. Fortunately, in tra state management methods such as aquifer authorities and conservation districts can offer insights and practical models for in ter state cooperation and allocation as the needs of industries, municipalities, agriculture, and energy continue to re-balance and evolve. Tracking day-to-day management decisions and notable legal decisions will be critical to all water users as they consider near- and long-term resource needs.]