10.1 Water Quantity Management and Water Allocation
123
Boundary Waters Treaty between the US and Canada,
7 the 1944 treaty between the
US and Mexico on the Colorado, Tijuana and Rio Grande rivers,
8 the 1996 IndianBangladeshi Ganges treaty,
9 the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty between Pakistan and
India,
10 etc. These agreements contain a large variety of the allocation schemes
referred to above.
10.1.3 Water Allocation in the European Union
As outlined in Part II, the evolution European water governance has been mainly
driven by water quality and ecological considerations (see Sects. 8.3.1–8.3.2). This
is not at all surprising in view of the fact that these instruments were originally
conceived by economically developed, environmentally conscious countries with
abundant water resources (McIntyre 2015). In other words: the collective action
problems behind transboundary water cooperation in Europe were relatively benign,
with the major international basins displaying relatively low hydropolitical complexity. As a result, the three multilateral layers of the body European water law: EU
law, the UNECE framework and the major basin treaties almost comprehensively
ignore water quantity issues, let alone allocation. Importantly, a number of bilateral
treaties do contain certain allocation mechanisms. These individual arrangements,
however,—apart from the Albufeira Convention—usually do not amount to comprehensive and sophisticated water sharing regimes that could serves as a model outside
the immediate watershed.
10.1.3.1 EU Law
The point of departure as regards water quantity management under EU law is Article
192.2, point (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
which subjects the adoption of “measures affecting the quantitative management of
water resources or affecting, directly or indirectly, the availability of those resources”
to the so-called consultation procedure. As outlined above this, on the one hand,
implies an unfettered veto-power by any member state and, on the other, excludes
any meaningful participation of the European Parliament from the legislative process.
Although the said article of the TFEU permits member states to deviate from the
unanimity rule to adopt legal acts on water quantity management by qualified majority
7 Treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating to Boundary Waters, and Questions
Arising between the United States and Canada, Washington, 11 January 1909.
8 Treaty between the United States of America and Mexico relating to the utilization of the Waters
of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Washington, 2 March 1944.
9 Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh on sharing of the Ganga/Ganges water at Fakarra, New Delhi, 12 December
1996.
10 Indus Waters Treaty, Karachi, 19 September 1960.
123
Boundary Waters Treaty between the US and Canada,
7 the 1944 treaty between the
US and Mexico on the Colorado, Tijuana and Rio Grande rivers,
8 the 1996 IndianBangladeshi Ganges treaty,
9 the 1960 Indus Waters Treaty between Pakistan and
India,
10 etc. These agreements contain a large variety of the allocation schemes
referred to above.
10.1.3 Water Allocation in the European Union
As outlined in Part II, the evolution European water governance has been mainly
driven by water quality and ecological considerations (see Sects. 8.3.1–8.3.2). This
is not at all surprising in view of the fact that these instruments were originally
conceived by economically developed, environmentally conscious countries with
abundant water resources (McIntyre 2015). In other words: the collective action
problems behind transboundary water cooperation in Europe were relatively benign,
with the major international basins displaying relatively low hydropolitical complexity. As a result, the three multilateral layers of the body European water law: EU
law, the UNECE framework and the major basin treaties almost comprehensively
ignore water quantity issues, let alone allocation. Importantly, a number of bilateral
treaties do contain certain allocation mechanisms. These individual arrangements,
however,—apart from the Albufeira Convention—usually do not amount to comprehensive and sophisticated water sharing regimes that could serves as a model outside
the immediate watershed.
10.1.3.1 EU Law
The point of departure as regards water quantity management under EU law is Article
192.2, point (b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU)
which subjects the adoption of “measures affecting the quantitative management of
water resources or affecting, directly or indirectly, the availability of those resources”
to the so-called consultation procedure. As outlined above this, on the one hand,
implies an unfettered veto-power by any member state and, on the other, excludes
any meaningful participation of the European Parliament from the legislative process.
Although the said article of the TFEU permits member states to deviate from the
unanimity rule to adopt legal acts on water quantity management by qualified majority
7 Treaty between the United States and Great Britain relating to Boundary Waters, and Questions
Arising between the United States and Canada, Washington, 11 January 1909.
8 Treaty between the United States of America and Mexico relating to the utilization of the Waters
of the Colorado and Tijuana Rivers and of the Rio Grande, Washington, 2 March 1944.
9 Treaty between the Government of the Republic of India and the Government of the People’s
Republic of Bangladesh on sharing of the Ganga/Ganges water at Fakarra, New Delhi, 12 December
1996.
10 Indus Waters Treaty, Karachi, 19 September 1960.