Irrigation became increasingly important in the late s with the introduction and widespread adoption of high yielding varieties of wheat. Active bipartisan politics in both states made an ultimate solution more difficult.
In response, Punjab Assembly passed the Act according to which the land acquired for the canal would be denotified and returned to the original owners.
The matter is still sub judice under judicial consideration. The Committee will try to resolve the dispute within 1 year. It addressed three issues- The extent to which the existing uses should be protected as opposed to future or contemplated uses, Diversion of water to another watershed and rules governing the preferential uses of water.
The centre is to set up Dispute Resolution Committee having experts from the different fields in case of water disputes.
A key feature of this deficiency is the subsuming of inter-state water disputes into the general political process. Clearly, each state will prefer the process—political negotiations or a tribunal—that will favor it. The Indian inter-state river dispute settlement procedures involve either of two processes: negotiations and compulsory legal adjudication.
The problem is simply pushed back one step further, and delays occur. Politics — Models of lobbying implicitly include some political considerations for the center, beyond maximizing the joint welfare of the two parties to the dispute. The distinction between cases where there is scope of negotiation and cooperation is possible, and cases which are of pure conflict and needs to be put up in arbitration or adjudication quickly, rather than negotiation settlement, will prove to be more efficient.
Enforcement — State governments have sometimes rejected tribunal awards, as in the case of Ravi-Beas Tribunal and the Punjab government. The parties involved are Punjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan.