Texas to Maharashtra: Can River Basin Orgs Actually Work?

Late Dr. Latha Anantha discussing the Chalakudy Basin in a stakeholder meeting Photo- River Research Centre via SANDRP

By SANDRP on June 15, 2025

The principles of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Integrated River Basin Management (IRBM) have been supported by  practitioners, policy makers and stakeholders across the world for a long time. While IWRM aims at integrating planning of land and water management initiatives together considering water as a resource, IRBM accepts the integrity of a river basin as an ecological unit for the same. River Basin Organizations (RBO) are basin level entities that can bring together stakeholders and coordinate, envision, plan and implement these integrated plans at the basin scale (or aquifer/subbasin/watershed scale). By implication, RBOs must be a bottom-up democratic bodies, upscaling solutions.

While IRBM and IWRM have been touted as the solution for most issues surrounding water sector by funding organizations and governments for a long time, problem is, hardly any RBO exists in India to demonstrate this. This is despite the fact that the National Water Policy 2012[1] highlights the basin as a unit of planning and State Water Policy of Maharashtra (2019) goes further to state that IWRM approach should be adopted in basins.  One of the main reasons for nonfunctioning of RBOs seems to be the reluctance of government/ formal agencies like Irrigation Departments, to devolve their power and provide actual decision-making powers and tools to other stakeholders of the basin.

Maharashtra has, under the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act 2005 and at the behest of the World Bank, supposedly converted all the Irrigation Development Corporations (IDCs) into River Basin Agencies, entrusted with holistic basin development. However, any such reconstitution has been left on the paper. An IDC which has been working only on infrastructure projects has no interest or agency in working on urban challenges, pollution, watershed management and forests, fisheries, climate change, agriculture, etc. The Maharashtra Water Resources Department (WRD) has no space or inclination for an integrated, inclusive, transparent and participatory approach which is at the heart of IWRM/IRBM. MWRRA Act (2005) has made no difference to the actual functioning of the (WRD) and the Authority is a more or less a defunct structure by now, sporadically showing signs of life around issues like water entitlements.

Need for RBOs and integrated planning

This stalemate does not negate the need for an institution like a River Basin Organization. Looking at the increasingly complex and interconnected challenges faced by rivers and aquifers in Maharashtra and India, a dedicated River Basin and or Aquifer Management Organization is sorely needed.  

For example, when rivers like Mula, Mutha, Pavana and Indrayani suffer from concretization and tree felling inside the Blue and Red Flood lines in Pune, an integration of Forest Department, Environment Department, Groundwater Board, Urban Development Department, Revenue, Municipal Corporation and Water Resources Department and, most importantly, citizens groups and people whose livelihoods are affected by such measures, need to be a part of decision making process of any RBO. Such interconnected decisions cannot be left only to one agency like the Municipal Corporation which has conflict of interest around one aspect (like awarding contracts for concretization and tree felling) and no responsibility around another aspect (like groundwater recharge or flooding in the downstream).

Pune and most Indian cities also lack dedicated Watershed Management Department/ Institution for cities with  an independent mandate to look at water supply, flood management, water quality and sanitation issues in the urban area. Several Watershed Management/ Protection Departments around the world handle water conservation, riparian zone conservation and ecological restoration effectively. See our earlier report on one such department: Watershed Protection in Austin: Governance structures we can learn from.

Some exceptions are Bangalore or Delhi which have dedicated boards like Water Supply and Sewerage Board or the Delhi Jal Board, but these too are not holistic. Mumbai, with Mumbai Metropolitan Regional Development Authority (MMRDA) or the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), too does not have such independent and dedicated institution.

While India has supposed river authorities/ corporations like the Damodar Valley Corporation, Brahmaputra Board, Narmada Control Authority, National Mission for Clean Ganga and State Ganga River Conservation Authorities, etc., none of these are functioning in a way that would be qualified as an RBO, in an integrated, participatory manner.

IRBM and Upper Bhima Basin, Maharashtra

There have been several efforts at river basin management in Bhima Basin in Maharashtra in the past few decades. Upper Bhima Partnership was initiated in 2001 under the aegis of Global Water Partnership and the leadership of Mr. V.M. Ranade, a retired Secretary, Government of Maharashtra. Despite a few workshops and detailed plans, hardly anything changed on the ground.

In 2005, Gomukh Trust for Sustainable Development, along with Dutch NGO Both Ends and 6 international civil society organizations worked on IRBM cases for 6 international basins including Upper Bhima. Focus of this effort was on Negotiated approach to Integrated River Basin Management or N-IRBM, moving away from technocentric and top heavy IWRM, being pushed by agencies like World Bank. While this was a worthwhile effort, but very little changed on ground.

Gomukh has demonstrated the potential of N-IRBM in a watershed called Kolwan Valley in the Mula Basin of Pune District, where principles like basin water balance, participatory water management planning, watershed associations with women leadership, deficit sharing, collective groundwater management, etc., was practiced. I have witnessed these efforts first hand. Similar example can be found in Chikotra Basin, a sub basin of Krishna River which includes 52 villages, under the leadership of Anandrao Patil and in Shivganga valley in Pune District. Revolutionary watershed-based development model championed by Late Vilasrao Salunkhe, known as Pani Panchayat (Council for Water) sowed the early and extremely effective seeds of change in Maharashtra.

However, currently the focus of local efforts seems to have shifted to isolated issues. The recently formed Upper Bhima Collective seems to be an interesting effort which has brought together various groups, organizations and communities working in the Bhima Basin to create a collective vision. New efforts are being initiated for Godavari and Ghod River Basins, but it is too soon to expect results.

Let us look at some functioning examples of Organizations/ Authorities across the world which integrate several issues in the upstream and downstream and work towards innovative, sustainable solutions. Being based in Texas, USA and Pune, India I have tried to discuss examples that I have visited and experienced, in addition to a few global examples. The list is not representative or exhaustive, but indicative.

Some common features of successful basin scale water management:

1. Clarity around the term “Integrated”. While definitions and scope varies wildly, aspects like water supply to various sectors, sanitation, flood control, pollution control, ground water management, recreation, river and habitat restoration/conservation and climate change need to find a mention.

2. Formal recognition, clear mandate and power to regulate and manage water decides the success and continuity of river basin management. (It is again to be highlighted here that the Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority has this mandate but it has entirely failed in implementing it.)

3. It is imperative that the functioning of the RBO is transparent, accountable and participatory with valid space for diverse stakeholders. A centralized RBO with power and control and without participation and accountability might be much more dangerous to the health of the basin and its residents.

4. Decision makers/ Directors of an RBO/ Authority/ Board need to be accountable to basin residents. In the best functioning RBOs, they are a mix of formal appointees, experts and publicly elected community representatives presenting all constituencies in the basin, for a fixed term.

5. Conservation, restoration and climate change adaptation should be an important part of basin management

6. The RBO/ Authority should have accountable and transparent source of revenue and financial dealings without conflict of interest

7. The RBO/ Authority should not be used for pushing agendas of funding organizations or governments like Water Privatization

8. Education, Outreach and Communication of the basin residents should be an integral part of RBO mandate.

Public Meeting on Water-Sensitive Urban Planning at San Antonio River Authority Photo- Parineeta Dandekar via SANDRP

Indicative examples of functioning RBOs in India and other countries

With our specific set of challenges and opportunities, it is obvious that institutional structures from other countries cannot be used entirely in India. At the same time, being aware of such institutions and the way they function will only help in our endeavor.

Chalakudy Puzha Samrakshan Samiti (CPSS), Kerala

CPSSis a community-based River Basin Organization in Kerala working for west-flowing river Chalakudy. The Samiti or Committee, spearheaded by River Research Centre and late Dr. Latha Anantha, has been working extensively on pollution control, environmental flows, water allocation for irrigation, tribal rights, etc. CPSS was instrumental in bringing Kerala State Electricity Board and Irrigation Department together on one platform, along with hydrologists and ecologists to coordinate water flows for Chalakudy through hydropower facilities on the river for the betterment of the downstream communities, farmers and the river ecosystem.

Arvari River Parliament in Alwar district of Rajasthan in 1990s was a remarkable attempt at river basin management by an elected body, but it is no longer functional in that form as we understand.

San Antonio River Authority, Texas, USA

The 240 miles long San Antonio River flowing  Texas, United State of America, is managed by a publicly elected San Antonio River Authority that was formed through a legal instrument known as San Antonio River Canal and Conservancy District In 1937.

The structure evolved through the years, initially focused on a limited area and flood control but then including the entire San Antonio River Basin and integrated function around 1961 for “conserving and protecting water resources of San Antonio River”. More than 20 independent river authorities were created in Texas during that time (1930s) which was also known as America’s dam-building era. These include Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, Lower Colorado River Authority, Nueces River Authority, etc., Their functions vary but include water supply, wastewater treatment, energy, flood control, irrigation, water quality and recreation. Other issues like conservation, restoration, etc. can differ between Authorities.

The San Antonio River Authority manages 42 dams and water supply infrastructure, wastewater treatment plants, flood control operations, water quality management programs, low impact development, stream restoration, non-native species control, etc. In short, almost all functions are related to urban (and otherwise) river management. They are funded through Property Tax, less than 2 cents per 100$ property price. Their budget for the year 2024-25 was $373.8 Million, which come to about 3,100 Crore INR. Remember that the cost of Mula Mutha Riverfront Development Project alone is more than 5500 Crore INR. Pune Municipal Corporation’s Water Supply budget is 1,665 Crore INR for 2024-25. This does not include restoration, recreation and, possibly, Waste Water Treatment, part of which is funded by external agencies. Population of San Antonio River Basin is about 2.7 million and that of Pune Municipal Corporation is approximately 3.5 million. So, while there are differences, the sheer financial differences or population size are not entirely incomparable.

All of the 12 Directors of the River Authority Board are publicly elected every 6 six years.

In addition to the basic tasks of water supply, sanitation, flood control and recreation, San Antonio River Authority has managed the largest riverine ecosystem restoration project in the United States known as the Mission Reach Restoration Project that has restored 16 miles of the river in an urban setting.

Works include erosion control, breaking channel walls and re-meandering the river, naturalizing river slope, flood control, recreating riparian corridors by planting native vegetation over 334 acres, creating 23 riffle and pool systems for habitat restoration, recreational spaces and connecting the river to the city. In a recent move, the Authority reintroduced native mussels to this reach to improve aquatic biodiversity. Every day, hundreds of people walk, run, cycle and kayak along the Mission Reach project. Students visit the place and local artists hold fairs and yoga days on the banks of the restored river. The project cost approximately 384.1 million dollars between 2013 to 2023. That is about 3285.8 Crore INR. (256.6 Crores/kms) Pune RFD cost is more than 5000 Crores (the length of rivers is more than double in Pune RFD, but the area restored is more in case of Mission Reach.)

This is not to say all of San Antonio River is restored and re-meandered. Parts of San Antonio River Walk are heavily trained, but taken together, there is a lot to learn from here.

I have attended a few training programs on rain gardens and watershed management headed by scientists from San Antonio River Authority, and they have been extremely enriching.

Edwards Aquifer Authority, Texas, USA

Just as there is a publicly elected authority for managing San Antonio River, there is a very interesting Authority that manages an entire aquifer. Edward’s Aquifer is supposed to be one of the most prolific artesian (in which water comes out without pumping or external pressure) aquifer in the world. It is a Karst aquifer in which groundwater flows through holes, caves, fissures and cracks of water-soluble rocks like dolomite and limestone. Edwards Aquifer is primarily made up of Edward’s Limestone. It encompasses over 11,300 sq kms and supplies water for drinking, irrigation, industries and recreation to more than 2.5 million people, including US’s 7th largest city San Antonio.

Edward’s Aquifer Authority ‘manages, conserves and observes’ this aquifer. The Authority was created in 1993 by the Texas Legislature, though it didn't become fully operational until 1996.

For a state like Texas which, like Maharashtra, has been aggressively operating under the “rule of capture” which essentially grants landowners the right to pump as much water as they could from beneath their property, any such regulation is revolutionary. It did not come about easily and a mix of civil society action, powerful judiciary and creative governance solutions came together to make it happen.  It was primarily driven by:

Threat of Federal Takeover under the Endangered Species Act (ESA): The Edwards Aquifer feeds the Comal and San Marcos Springs, which are home to several threatened and endangered species (like the Comal Springs salamander and the San Marcos gambusia). In the early 1990s, the Sierra Club filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, arguing that they were failing to protect these species by allowing unlimited pumping from the aquifer, which threatened the spring flows. 

A federal judge ruled in favor of the Sierra Club in 1993, ordering the Texas Water Commission to develop a plan to maintain adequate spring flows. The judge essentially told Texas to manage the aquifer or the federal government would step in and do it! The EAA was formed as a state-level response to avoid this federal intervention and manage the aquifer to ensure the protection of these species. This was the most immediate and significant catalyst for action.

Unregulated Groundwater Pumping and the "Rule of Capture": As the population grew and the demand for water from the Edwards Aquifer increased, especially in rapidly growing areas like San Antonio, unregulated pumping led to concerns about the aquifer's long-term sustainability and the potential for it to be overdrawn, particularly during droughts. The Edwards Underground Water District, formed earlier in 1959, lacked regulatory powers to address these issues effectively. The severe drought of 1950s highlighted the vulnerability of the Edwards Aquifer and the region's reliance on it. 

There was also a growing recognition of the ecological importance of the aquifer and its spring flows. The EAA was intended to create a regulatory framework that could balance these competing demands and ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource for all users and the environment. This involved developing a capped permitting system that limits withdrawals and implementing critical period management plans during droughts.

In a place where the community is extremely touchy about individual rights including right to pump as much water from underground, Edwards Aquifer Authority which can implement caps on pumping remains a solid exception. Its notable features include:

Implementation of a Capped Permitting System: The EAA established and enforces a capped permitting system that limits the total amount of water that can be pumped from the Edwards Aquifer annually. This was a revolutionary step in Texas, which traditionally adhered to the "rule of capture" for groundwater. This cap is fundamental to ensuring the aquifer's long-term sustainability and preventing over-pumping.

Protection of Endangered Species and Spring Flows (Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan - EAHCP): A major success has been the development and implementation of the Edwards Aquifer Habitat Conservation Plan (EAHCP). This science-based program, a collaborative effort with multiple partners (including San Antonio Water System, cities of San Marcos and New Braunfels, and Texas State University), aims to protect the federally listed endangered species that rely on the Comal and San Marcos Springs. 

Key measures include:

• Flow Protection Measures: Programs like the Voluntary Irrigation Suspension Program Option (VISPO) compensate farmers for voluntarily reducing or suspending irrigation during drought conditions, thereby keeping more water in the aquifer and maintaining spring flows.

• Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR): This involves storing excess water (often from the Guadalupe River) in underground reservoirs during wet periods and withdrawing it during droughts to supplement spring flows and meet demand.

• Habitat Restoration and Management: The EAHCP includes measures to restore and maintain native aquatic vegetation and remove non-native species in the spring systems, improving habitat for the endangered species.

• Refugia Programs: Establishing captive populations of endangered species in controlled environments (refugia) acts as a "safety net" in case natural populations face severe declines due to extreme drought or other events.

Effective Drought Management and Critical Period Management Plan: The EAA has developed and implemented a Critical Period Management (CPM) Plan which mandates escalating reductions in pumping as aquifer levels or spring flows decline during droughts. The system is triggered by real-time monitoring of key index wells and spring flows, ensuring timely and effective responses to dry conditions. This has helped stabilize the aquifer and maintain essential spring flows during prolonged droughts.

On the 23rd May 25, Edward’s Aquifer Authority announced 5th Stage Critical Level Drought which means about 44% restrictions on permitted withdrawals from the Aquifer. Stage 5 Critical drought threshold was reached while monitoring several aspects including spring flows and levels of indicator well, especially the J17 well which is an indicator well for the populous Bexar County. When the 10-day average of J17 reached a level of 624.5 feet above mean sea level, Stage 5 was announced.

The EAA's regulatory framework, particularly the pumping caps and drought restrictions, has incentivized significant water conservation efforts among municipalities, industries, and agricultural users. San Antonio, for instance, has become a national model for urban water conservation, largely driven by the necessity imposed by EAA regulations. This includes tiered water pricing, rebate programs for water-efficient appliances and landscaping, and public education campaigns.

Edward’s Authority Board has 17 Directors of which 15 are elected representatives and 2 are appointed non-voting Directors.

The Authority has recently set up an Education Outreach Centre which is a great place for kids and interested people to know more about water conservation practices and groundwater in general and Edward’s Aquifer in particular.  

Europe In Europe, through the Water Framework Directive, member states were required to establish river basin districts and develop river basin plans. This has led to several robust RBOs especially in countries with a history of basin management like France and Germany.

Catchment based Approach in the UK

In the UK, through the Water Act of 1973, diverse range of bodies involved in water treatment and supply, sewage disposal, land drainage, river pollution and fisheries were brought together culminating in the formation of various Water Authorities which followed hydrological limits. However, the structure was dismantled after 1989 when several of the components were privatized into companies. UK has a long history of basin planning going back to pre-1879 when constituencies were recommended to be divided based on their watershed boundaries and managed as basin units.  Currently, Water supply and Sanitation is mainly privatized in England and Wales. However, the Environment Agency oversees environmental impact, climate change impacts and conservation initiatives. This is undertaken through River Basin Management Plans. Some such plans are out for public consultations.

The Environment Agency also works with a consortium of NGOs, landowners, farmers and fisherfolk to operationalize

Source: https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#inbox/FMfcgzQbfnxmBdmfkcxCjCcSTNjWsxnF