It was first introduced in Parliament in August 2010 and was referred to a standing committee, which submitted its report in June 2011. After this, attempts to pass the Bill in the 15th and 16th Lok Sabhas failed due to opposition from the States.
What does the Bill say?
The Bill provides for surveillance, inspection, operation and maintenance of dams to prevent disasters, and institutional mechanisms to ensure safety. It is applicable to all dams across the country which are over 10 metres in height, subject to specific design and structural conditions.
The Bill enables the setting up of a National Committee on Dam Safety (NCDS) to formulate policies and regulations regarding dam safety standards and to analyse causes of major dam failures to suggest changes in safety practices. To implement these policies, a National Dam Safety Authority will be set up.
At the State level, the Bill provides for the constitution of a State Dam Safety Organisation to take care of its dams, and a State Committee on Dam Safety to review its work, among other things.
Why are the States against it?
The Bill previously failed to be passed in Lok Sabha due to opposition from numerous States. Their objections to the Bill are two-fold, one of which is that since ‘water’ comes under the State list, it is an unconstitutional move aimed at taking control of their dams.
Tamil Nadu, one of the strongest critics of the Bill through the years, opposes it because under its provisions, access and information on four of its dams, including the conflict-ridden Mullaiperiyar, would have to be shared with Kerala, where they are located.
Many States, including Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu and Odisha, have opposed the Bill because they say it encroaches upon the sovereignty of States to manage their dams, and violates the principles of federalism enshrined in the Constitution. They see it as an attempt by the Centre to consolidate power in the guise of safety concerns. Kerala MP Shashi Tharoor also pointed out a conflict of interest in the Bill — the provision to have a representative of the Central Water Commission as a member of the NCDS (a regulatory body) would mean that CWC will function as both an advisor and regulator, which is impermissible under the Constitution according to the Supreme Court.