‘Completion of SYL Canal essential to resolve water dispute between Punjab and Haryana'

The Hindu

05-05-2025

Amid the ongoing conflict between the Haryana and Punjab governments over water-sharing, former Superintending Engineer in Haryana's Irrigation and Water Resources Department (I&WRD), Shiv Singh Rawat, offers insight into the Ravi-Beas water dispute, the legal deadlock, political polarisation, and institutional shortcomings. Excerpts:
What is the current water dispute between Punjab and Haryana?
In April 2025, Haryana reported a sharp decline in its water supply from the Bhakra dam and approached the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) to raise its allocation from 4,000 cusecs to 8,500 cusecs. The BBMB's technical committee partially met the demand by approving an additional 4,500 cusecs for eight days. Punjab opposed the decision, claiming Haryana had already used 3.110 million acre-feet (MAF) — 104% of its sanctioned share for the depletion period (September 21, 2024-May 20, 2025). It argued that Bhakra and Pong dam levels were critically low and insisted on capping Haryana's supply at 4,000 cusecs to protect its own agricultural needs.
Haryana countered that water reserves were sufficient and accused Punjab of making false claims. It also pointed out that Punjab had received 22% excess water over the past two decades. As tensions escalated, the BBMB sought intervention from the Central government. The Centre advised Punjab to follow the BBMB recommendation. But the deadlock continues.
What is the significance of the Ravi-Beas water dispute?
This is a long-standing inter-State conflict over the equitable sharing of surplus waters from the rivers. The dispute affects agriculture, drinking water, regional development, and political relations in northern India.
While Haryana cites historical agreements, tribunal rulings, and Supreme Court verdicts to demand its share, Punjab argues it lacks sufficient water due to rising demand and ecological degradation.
What is the legal and historical background?
The roots of the dispute trace back to the post-Independence period. Under the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty, India retained control over the eastern rivers — Ravi, Beas, and Sutlej — while Pakistan received the western rivers. In 1955, 15.85 MAF of Ravi-Beas water was allocated among Punjab (7.2 MAF), Rajasthan (8 MAF), and Jammu & Kashmir (0.65 MAF). After Haryana's creation in 1966, it was granted 3.5 MAF. In 1976, a government order split 7.2 MAF equally between Punjab and Haryana. The 1981 agreement adjusted this, reducing Haryana's share to 45.33% and increasing Punjab's.
To facilitate this allocation, the Sutlej-Yamuna Link (SYL) Canal was proposed. The 1985 Punjab Accord reaffirmed both water-sharing and the SYL Canal. The Eradi Tribunal later fixed Haryana's share at 3.83 MAF and Punjab's at 5 MAF, stressing that the SYL Canal was essential for Haryana.
However, Punjab halted canal construction in 1982 under political pressure, and in 2004, it passed legislation terminating all earlier water agreements. The Supreme Court declared this termination unconstitutional, but implementation remains stalled.
What operational challenges does Haryana face in accessing the Ravi-Beas water?
Haryana's key challenge is the non-completion of the SYL Canal. The State relies on the Bhakra Main Line and Narwana Canal — both outdated and suffering from siltation and wear and tear. The Supreme Court directives and tribunal rulings have not been enforced.
As a result, Haryana receives only 1.62 MAF of its 3.5 MAF entitlement, losing 1.88 MAF annually. This water shortfall hits the State's southern districts hard, leaving over 3 lakh hectares of farmland uncultivated and impacting agricultural output .
What is the role of the Bhakra Beas Management Board?
Formed under the Punjab Reorganisation Act of 1966, the BBMB operates under the Ministry of Power. It manages the Bhakra-Nangal and Beas projects — reservoirs, canals, and power stations — and regulates water release based on storage, snowmelt forecasts, and inflow data. The BBMB follows a two-season cycle: depletion period (September 21-May 20) and filling period (May 21-September 20). Monthly technical committee meetings, chaired by the BBMB chairman and attended by State officials, decide allocations based on levels like Bhakra dam's critical 1,506 feet level. Following the suspension of the Indus Waters Treaty, the BBMB also plays a strategic role in ensuring surplus water does not flow into Pakistan.
How do you view BBMB's role in the April–May 2025 dispute?
The BBMB's actions were critical but controversial. It cut Haryana's allocation from 8,500 to 4,000 cusecs, citing low reservoir levels, which sparked strong protests from Haryana. The State also highlighted that its representative — Member (Irrigation), Haryana — has not been appointed, weakening its say in the BBMB decisions.
Accusations of bias towards Punjab surfaced, although the BBMB defended its actions as technically sound.
What are the broader implications of the dispute?
The unresolved dispute has significant socio-economic and environmental costs. Farmers in Haryana's Kaithal, Jind, Hisar, Fatehabad, and Sirsa districts face severe irrigation shortages. Punjab fears further losses may worsen its groundwater crisis.
Politically, the issue has polarised both States and escalated public tensions. Environmentally, poor coordination leads to unutilised monsoon water flowing into Pakistan and excessive groundwater extraction on both sides. Governance suffers from institutional gaps, including the BBMB vacancies and outdated tribunal assessments.
What solutions do you propose?
Completion of the SYL Canal is essential. Additionally, alternative water transport systems, irrigation efficiency upgrades, crop diversification, water conservation, and groundwater monitoring must be prioritised. The Centre must facilitate sustained inter-State dialogue and promote confidence-building measures. A long-term political consensus should replace short-term electoral interests.