KARACHI: Adoption of the ‘three-tier formula’ and ‘historic use’ were being preferred by Punjab to address the water shortage crisis in the country, while Sindh was opposing it, contending that it was violation of the Water Accord of 1991 and that the Indus River System Authority (Irsa) had no powers to modify the accord.

Irsa was of the view that till construction of new water reservoirs to increase water storage facility in the system up to 114 MAF (million acre feet), the existing arrangement about distribution of water among the four provinces initiated in 2003 should continue.

Balochistan complained that it was not getting due share of water and Sindh was passing on shortfall to it, while Khyber Pakhtunkhwa maintained that it was facing 34 per cent shortage of water annually as it had no infrastructure.

Irsa insists present arrangements of water sharing should continue

These were some of the contested views presented by the four provinces and Irsa before a committee appointed by the prime minister. The committee, led by Attorney General Anwar Mansoor Khan, had recently submitted its recommendations for addressing the water crisis to the Council of Common Interests (CCI).

Punjab’s views

The Punjab government contended that it was utilising over 54 MAF of water in 1977-82 out of a total usage of over 102 MAF by all the provinces and this was over 53pc of the total usage.

Under para 2 of the Water Accord (114.35 MAF), Punjab’s share increased to 55.94 MAF but the percentage reduced to 48.9pc.

“Punjab agreed to this reduced percentage if the available supply increased to 114.35 MAF to ensure planned future development of agriculture.”

It pointed out that water supplies were not increased to 114.35 MAF and it was being asked to draw 4.2pc less water.

It argued that “the proportions mentioned in para 2 of the Accord are based on volume of water which was never available and, therefore, the proportions mentioned in it (para 2) become impractical”.

It believed that if 102.73 (average system uses) were to be distributed as per para 2, Punjab would be in the ‘least advantageous position’, as it would lose 4.25 MAF of water, while Sindh would get more than the existing uses.

“The distribution of available supply according to para 2 would only be possible when the available supply is enhanced to 114.35 MAF by constructing new storage reservoirs,” argued Punjab.

Sindh’s rejoinder

Sindh maintained that the water distribution among the provinces should be made as per the shares mentioned under para 2 of the Accord instead of ‘historic uses or three-tier formula adopted by Irsa’.

It advocated that the Water Accord should be implemented in letter and spirit to ensure the due share of water and for this purpose, it had made host of demands.

The province suggested that in times of shortages and surpluses, water should be distributed as per the CCI decision dated Sept 16, 1991, where it approved 10 daily system-wise allocations, which were part and parcel of the Accord.

Besides, shortages and surpluses should be shared by all stakeholders ‘on all Pakistan basis proportionately’.

Furthermore, Sindh did not agree with Punjab that the newly calculated 10 daily statements can only be used after ‘protecting existing uses and deciding on future shortages’.

The province believed that the 1977-82 historic data acted only as the ‘guideline’ for the preparation of 10 daily average as provided by para 14 (b).

It pointed out that after formation and approval of 10 daily statements as part of the accord, the 1977-82 average system uses have been acted upon and no more available.

“It would not be appropriate to link development of future storages with this provision of the Accord,” argued Sindh, adding that this was decided by the CCI on Sept 16, 1991, which was also endorsed by the law division on Oct 16, 2000.

Sindh also believed that the jurisdiction of Irsa was limited to ‘implementation of the Accord’ and it did not have the authority to modify it (Water Accord).

The province demanded that “any deviation in the Accord by so-called majority shall be beyond the competency of Irsa and be prohibited in future”.

KP version

Khyber Pakhtunkhwa said that it had no storages and was experiencing 34pc of shortage annually by not utilising its full share of water owing to lack of infrastructure and the balance water was being utilised by other provinces.

KP had demanded compensation of Rs97.87 billion on account of utilising of its balance water by other provinces from 1992 to 2017.

It had also proposed to bring an amendment to the Accord as there was no provision for compensation of the water used by other provinces in it (Water Accord) and Irsa Act.

Balochistan stance

Balochistan said that it was not getting its due share of water and since 1992, Sindh had been passing on heavy shortages to it. Resultantly, it added, Balochistan faced shortfall of 43pc from 1992 to 1999 while during the said period Sindh faced average shortfall of 8pc and on average 46.94 MAF of water escaped below Kotri Barrage.

It maintained that “the lopsided distribution by Sindh compelled Irsa to exempt Balochistan from sharing of shortages”.

It pointed out that on account of exemption granted to it by Irsa, the province had faced an average shortfall of 28pc during 2000-2017, while Sindh faced shortfall of 19pc and on average 14.10 MAF of water escaped below Kotri Barrage.

Irsa’s views

Irsa advocated that its present arrangements for sharing of water should continue as they are ‘based on accepted water distributional principles and sound engineering judgment’.

It believed that if the water is distributed as per para 2 of the Accord without improving water availability in the system by constructing dams, the actual average system uses (of 1977-82) of Punjab could not remain protected, which was ‘against the spirit of the Accord’.

Published in Dawn, December 28th, 2019