OCR Text |
Show -129- The principle by which the Committee was guided, and in which all its members concurred was stated as follows: ...that in allocating water, the greatest good to the greatest number must be sought without reference to political boundaries. Throughout its deliberations the Committee recognized that the 1865 order, which it cited, had established a basic principle for the sharing of waters. The allocations of water adopted by the Committee were approved in orders issued by the Government of India affirming the principle of equitable apportionment of Indus Basin waters and that allocatinn agreements and awards are binding until replaced by new agreement or awards. None of the participants in these proceedings ever protested the detailed allocations of water made by the Committee, but one State did condition its acceptance of allocations on the speedy construction of certain projects to its benefit. In 1937 authority over irrigation was transferred to the Provinces pursuant to the Government of India Act of 1935. Differences between Provinces and States were to be resolved by the central authority acting upon the advice of independent commissions. In 1939 Sind Province brought a complaint under the 1935 Act on the ground that new diversions contemplated in Punjab Province would impair existing uses in Sind. A Commission was established to hear the dispute, and other interested States and Provinces were made parties and submitted their views. This Commission, officially termed the Indus Commission, came to be known as the Rau Commission after the name of its Chairman Sir Benegal N. Rau, later a judge of the International Court of Justice. The first action of the Rau Commission was to formulate a statement of principles of law governing the rights of States and Provinces with respect to the waters. The participants were invited to comment upon these principles, and after study, all of the participants accepted them and they were again enunciated in the final report of the Commission. The principles as stated for the Commission by Sir Benegal N. Rau read as follows: Subject to correction in the light of what you may have to say, the following principles seem to emerge from the authorities:- (1) The most satisfactory settlement of disputes of this kind is by agreement, the parties adopting the same technical solution of each problem, as if they were a single community undivided by political or administrative frontiers. (Madrid Rules of 1911 and Geneva Convention, 1923, Articles 4 and 5). |
Source |
Original book: [State of Arizona, complainant v. State of California, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, California, City of San Diego, California, and County of San Diego, California, defendants, United States of America, State of Nevada, State of New Mexico, State of Utah, interveners] : |