ACCESS to WATER Rights, Obligations and the Bangalore Situation
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
ACCESS TO WATER Rights, obligations and the Bangalore situation Jenny T. Grönwall Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 439 Linköping University, Department of Water and Environmental Studies Linköping 2008 Linköping Studies in Arts and Science No. 439 At the Faculty of Arts and Science at Linköping University, research and doctoral studies are carried out within broad problem areas. Research is organized in inter- disciplinary research environments and doctoral studies mainly in graduate schools. Jointly, they publish the series Linköping Studies in Arts and Science. This thesis comes from the Department of Water and Environmental Studies at the Tema Insti- tute. Distributed by Department of Water and Environmental Studies Linköping University SE-581 83 Linköping, Sweden Also available from Linköping University Electronic Press http://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-11686 Access to water Rights, obligations and the Bangalore situation Jenny T. Grönwall Cover: Girl in Dr Ambedkar Slum, Bangalore Cover design by Valli Noghin Photograph by Jenny T. Grönwall Edition 1:1 ISSBN: 978-91-7393-870-9 ISSN: 0282-9800 Series: Linköping Studies in Arts and Sciences No. 439 Printed in Linköping by LiU-Tryck 2008 © Jenny T. Grönwall This study was made possible thanks to funding from SAREC. To Aditya for inspiring me with the story of the starfish Preface and acknowledgment When I set out on this study in 2004, a court decision hailed as a landmark within my area of interest had just been reached in the Kerala High Court. The case, which concerned important questions of groundwater depletion and a landowner’s rights to this water measured against the human right to drink- ing water, received major attention. However, the decision was modified by another court, then tried again and again. The Supreme Court undertook to deliver a verdict swiftly – the years have passed; no decision is in sight. When I left India after my final field trip in February 2007, the long over- due Final Order from the Water Disputes Tribunal on the Kaveri River was to be delivered within days. It was soon appealed against by the parties involved. The Tribunal and the Supreme Court registered the complaints, then – noth- ing. At the same time, a major jurisdictional reform of the city under study had just been enforced – on paper. At the stroke of a pen, Bangalore tripled in size geographically and the inhabitants in the metropolitan city as well as in the over 100 incorporated villages awaited instructions on voting for new ac- countable leaders. Almost one and a half years later they are still waiting. India is a dynamic country, undergoing transitional changes with major ef- fects and implications on issues of water, and related rights and obligations. Researching contemporary events means encountering unexpected results among what is established. This reflects the India of today: the climate of leading-edge technological development, business process outsourcing for large multi-national corporations. The consequent social, economic and cul- tural changes often clashes with the persistence of traditional practices. In 2003, I visited Hyderabad in Andhra Pradesh for a workshop as a pre- cursor to this study. The subsequent four field trips between 2004 and 2008 lasted for periods of two to five months each. Even from my second visit to India, it became apparent that every State displayed unique cultural, socio- economic and political features. They have often reached different levels of progress, and traditions and climate conditions are frequently incongruous. The initial plan – to make a comparative study over two States – was dis- carded: the sheer scale and diversity of the problems would be quite cumber- some. Construing one city alone was sufficient. The broader insights I gained from the time spent in India (in total, a quar- ter of the PhD-period) and from observations collected in the multiple places visited were both beneficial and key to the claims made here. My perspective on law as an instrument is forever enriched. This study would not have been successful without two women in Bangalore: Arati, with whom I could discuss every aspect of my study – her input, con- tacts and good spirit were absolutely essential – and Sumathi, who guided, translated and drove me everywhere – without the interest she took in my work and her broad knowledge, my efforts would have been much harder. Professor M.K. Ramesh at NLSIU was the initial key to Bangalore, and Savitha S., Roopa Madhav, Rahul Singh, and personnel of the NLSIU library and the CEERA made my legal research a joy. I was shown the greatest hospi- tality as well as my own desk by Svaraj/Oxfam India, where L.C. Nagaraj de- serves a particular mentioning. Salma Sadikha, Subhash Chandra, Manoj Rai, Ramesh Mukalla, M.S. Vani, P. Lakshapathi, Lawrence Surendra, Jeremy Berkhoff and Gunnar Jacks have all been very generous with their time and knowledge. Special thanks goes to people at the ALF and S. Vishwanath. Sev- eral others have also had a profound impact on the study. I remain grateful to the Ramachandrans and the Davis family for opening their homes and showing me the art of domestic water management. For their supervision and guidance, I owe a debt of gratitude to Jan Lund- qvist who took me to Tema and India, Anna Jonsson (f. Blomqvist) who in- spired and encouraged me, Julie Wilk who courageously took on the project at a later stage and especially Johan Hedrén who guided and supported myself and the study. Special thanks goes to Jonas Ebbesson whose feedback was in- valuable to the completion of my study. Current and former colleagues at Tema V in Linköping and Norrköping provided an eclectic, interdisciplinary and international background to this study, which meant a lot though I myself was infrequently present. I especially want to thank Karin and Mattias Hjerpe, Terése Sjömander Magnusson, Dana Cordell, Madde Johansson, Annika E. Nilsson, Charlotte Billgren and Anna Bratt, but also the inspiring people at Tema G and ever-helpful Ian Dickson. I am grateful to Tim Crosfield for his thorough language editing, and to Valli Noghin for the enlivened cover design. The Nordic Environmental Legal Network conferences have given much and regular food for thought, and I’ve received a range of good advice from Diana Amnéus. David Langlet and Malin Christensson who read and dis- cussed numerous drafts of my texts have been close friends and offered wise comments, support and laughter alike. I also want to thank my parents, without whose love and backing I would not be where I am or who I am today, and my dear sister and brother for re- minding me that the academic world is but a small piece of the universe. Finally, to Aditya: I promise I will not write another doctoral thesis! Thank you for your great love, patience and chocolate. Our mutual interest in India and Bangalore will be further explored and enjoyed I am sure. Stockholm in May, 2008. 6 Table of Contents Abbreviations 15 Legal terms, doctrines, and principles 16 Key concepts, definitions of administrative and technical terms, etc. 17 List of maps 18 List of figures 18 List of tables 18 List of flow charts 18 Table of Cases 19 Part 1 23 Chapter I 25 Introduction 25 1 Competition, knowledge and control 25 2 Access to water in terms of rights 26 3 Turning scarcity into safe access 28 3.1 The conceptions of ‘access’ and ‘scarcity’ 28 3.2 Goals for development – the MDGs 29 3.3 (Peri-)urbanisation processes 30 3.4 Urban poverty and water access 31 4 Setting the stage: access and supply in Bangalore 33 4.1 Development and growth in India 33 4.2 Indian water woes 34 4.2.1 Facts and figures 34 4.2.2 Strategies of access 36 4.3 Bangalore – an Indian city in transition 37 5 Aim of the study, research questions 39 6 Outline of the book 39 Chapter II 42 Methodological aspects 42 1 Researching water management 42 1.1 Interdisciplinary research 42 1.2 Taking a (mainly) qualitative approach 44 2 Methodological paths and tools 46 2.1 Presence without pretence: choosing Bangalore 46 2.2 Interviewing and observing 48 2.3 Interpreters and interpretations 51 2.4 Material from other sources 52 3 Researching law 53 3.1 Introductory remarks 53 7 3.2 Primary and secondary legal sources 55 3.3 Traditional versus empirical research in law 56 3.4 Interpretation – the essence of legal research? 58 4 (Self-) reflections and epistemological thoughts 60 4.1 Point of departure: my situated knowledge 60 4.2 Standpoint epistemology 61 Chapter III 65 Water and the City 65 1 Introduction 65 2 Geographical data 66 2.1 Introduction 66 2.2 Topography 66 2.3 Climate 67 3 Tanks, lakes and water supply 68 3.1 Water supply: the beginning 68 3.2 After the tanks: reservoirs 70 3.3 Modern times: the Cauvery Water Supply Schemes 71 3.4 Summing up 73 4 The underground reservoirs 73 4.1 From dug wells to bores 73 4.2 Geological conditions 75 4.3 Estimating groundwater resources 77 4.4 Alternative means of estimating recharge 79 4.5 Quality issues related to the groundwater resources 82 4.6 Summing up 83 5 Sharing Kaveri’s water 84 5.1 Background: a river and its Tribunal 84 5.2 Legal basis of the Tribunal 85 5.3 Final order 88 5.3.1 Some relevant details 88 5.3.2 Groundwater not to be included 89 5.3.3 Water supply to Bangalore 90 5.3.4 Domestic purposes as by consumptive use 92 5.4 After the Order 93 5.4.1 Appeal 93 5.4.2 The Order’s practical significance 95 5.4.3 Summing up 95 5.5 Alternative ways of settling the dispute 96 6 (Peri-)urbanisation and Greater Bangalore 97 6.1 Understanding