LAHORE, Nov 14: Punjab refused again on Wednesday to accept the “notification” issued by the Indus River System Authority on the grounds that under the law the Authority could not issue a notification.
A spokesman for the Irrigation and Power Department said here that when the Chief Executive’s Secretariat wrote a letter in June asking the Irsa to issue a notification to annul the 1994 interpretation of the ministerial committee of the 1991 Water Accord, the Authority had pointed out that it lacked legal power to issue a notification. Instead, it had asked the Ministry of Water and Power to notify the CE’s decision. The ministry, for its part, had then refused to issue such a notification saying that only the Council of Common Interests was competent to overturn the decision.
As far as the IRSA is concerned, the only development since then has been that the Member from Sindh has taken over its rotating chairmanship.
Another Irrigation Department official said the apparent parochial consideration indicated that the Authority had ceased to function as a federal body. This was unfortunate, to say the least, he said.
He said the department had written a letter to the Chief Executive’s Secretariat when the issue was raised last time and pointed out the legal position. There was no follow-up and the Punjab thought that its point of view had been accepted and the matter settled.
An Agriculture Department official, too, said that the Irsa seemed to make a habit of reopening settled issues.
The Irsa, he said, had failed to realize that the ministerial committee had only interpreted the 1991 Water Accord and devised a formula for sharing shortages. There was no new accord. If the interpretation had to be abandoned, a new one would be required to distribute water. Jettisoning a basis for work without replacing it might be good politics but is certainly bad management, he said.
A former Wapda Member said if accepted, the Irsa decision would lead to a new crisis for the national water managers. He said the 1991 accord provided for distribution on the basis of 114 million acre feet water which was not available in the system. He said some people in Sindh had never recognized the Indus Basin Treaty and, by extension, the operations of the Chashma-Jhelum and Taunsa-Panjnad canals that transfer water from Indus to Punjab canals. But if Sindh wanted to close down the canals that operate under the Indus Basin Treaty, could it justify drawing water from Tarbela Dam, also built under the treaty? he said. He said Sindh had been “favourably accommodated” in the 1991 Water Accord and was being selective in accepting its various clauses.
A legal expert said unless the CCI was convened, only the president, under powers given to him by the Supreme Court, could amend the Water Accord now by issuing a provisional constitutional order. He said the position was explained to the Chief Executive’s Secretariat the last time the issue was raised.
