Groundwater laws compared: Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh

Groundwater sustains nearly 90 percent of rural domestic use and 60 percent of irrigation across India, yet the country still lacks a single national statute governing its extraction. Instead, each state frames its own rules through the powers delegated under the Constitution's Entry 17 of the State List. This patchwork matters far beyond India's borders, because aquifer depletion is now reshaping agriculture from the Murray-Darling system to the high plains of inland Australia.

Comparing three large southern states highlights how differently the same hydrological pressures can be addressed. Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh share monsoon climates, hard-rock aquifers and large irrigation economies, yet their legislative approaches diverge sharply. Policy analysts in Adelaide and Perth who study water markets often look at these jurisdictions because each offers a distinct test case on permit systems, recharge mandates and the recognition of traditional water harvesting.

Australian readers familiar with the National Water Initiative and the Basin Plan will recognise some of the same tensions. Whether the rule is a bore licence fee in regional New South Wales, a tradeable entitlement on the Murrumbidgee, or a Murray-Darling recovery target, the same operational question persists: how much water can be pumped, and under what penalty. The answers in these three Indian states provide useful reference points.

Federal versus state authority in India

The Indian Constitution places water, including groundwater, on the State List, which means state assemblies hold primary legislative power. The central government plays a coordinating role through bodies such as the Central Ground Water Board, which conducts surveys and publishes technical guidance. The National Project on Aquifer Management serves as the public-facing hub for the Board's mapping work and makes block-level data publicly searchable.

States therefore design their own permit systems, registration rules and enforcement procedures, leading to the kind of variation that researchers in Canberra frequently map when studying trans-jurisdictional reform. Without a national groundwater act, the central government relies on model bills, advisory notes and centrally sponsored schemes to nudge states toward common standards.

Maharashtra's permit system

Maharashtra was among the earliest states to recognise that borewell proliferation was outpacing recharge. The Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009 introduced a permit regime for new wells above a defined diameter threshold, with district-level authorities empowered to grant or refuse applications.

A key feature is the requirement that applicants demonstrate reasonable intended use and submit hydrogeological assessments where the local aquifer is classified as semi-critical or worse. The Act also created a framework for rainwater harvesting in new constructions in notified areas, similar in spirit to rainwater tank rebates offered by councils across Sydney and Brisbane.

Enforcement relies on district-level groundwater authority officers, who can inspect installations and levy penalties for unpermitted extraction. Like water compliance teams in regional Western Australia who chase unlicensed bores in the Perth Basin, these officers face the constant challenge of monitoring thousands of rural sites with limited staff and ageing equipment.

Karnataka's recharge and reuse mandates

Karnataka's response, the Karnataka Groundwater (Regulation for Protection of Sources of Drinking Water) Act, 1999 and later amendments, focuses sharply on protecting drinking water sources and mandating recharge structures. The state has linked building permissions to the inclusion of recharge wells, a move that Australian engineers working on stormwater injection schemes might find familiar.

Karnataka has piloted reuse requirements for industrial users and large commercial operators, asking them to recycle a defined percentage of extracted groundwater. The state's regulatory approach reflects the same pragmatic bent seen in South Australian policy, where the Goyder Line and regional water allocation plans have long shaped farming decisions in marginal country.

Andhra Pradesh's integrated districts

Andhra Pradesh took a different path by creating dedicated groundwater management districts and integrating surface water and aquifer planning under a single authority. The Andhra Pradesh Water Resources Act addresses rivers, tanks and aquifers within one legislative frame, allowing conjunctive use planning that considers both dam releases and borewell yields together.

This integrated approach has helped farmers in drought-prone Rayalaseema plan crop choices with a clearer picture of seasonal storage. Comparable thinking informs the Barwon-Darling and northern Victoria systems in Australia, where surface allocations and aquifer recharge are now debated jointly in catchment plans rather than in separate agency silos.

The state's focus on community participation through Water User Associations gives villages a voice in rationing during scarcity, somewhat similar to the local catchment groups operating along the Murray. The Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Action Group concept is still evolving, but it marks a deliberate shift toward decentralised decision-making in water governance.

Enforcement tools and penalties

None of the three states can claim a fully watertight enforcement record. Penalties for illegal borewells typically include fines, sealing of equipment and, in serious cases, criminal prosecution. Maharashtra specifies relatively higher monetary penalties for repeat offenders, while Karnataka emphasises restoration of damaged aquifers through mandatory recharge work rather than fines alone.

Andhra Pradesh's enforcement machinery is being restructured under its integrated districts, which combine staff from irrigation, geology and rural development departments. The lesson here mirrors what Queensland officers discovered during the Millennium Drought: coordinating agencies matters as much as setting rules on paper.

In Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, populist schemes offering free or subsidised borewells have at times undermined the permit regimes they were supposed to support, much like how state-funded irrigation expansion in parts of New South Wales has historically competed with sustainability goals in the Murray-Darling catchments.

Lessons for Australian state water reforms

What can Australian policymakers take from these three jurisdictions? First, clearly defined permit thresholds make it harder for new users to enter without scrutiny. Second, mandating recharge alongside extraction helps align private incentives with aquifer recovery. Third, integrating surface and groundwater planning reduces the policy fragmentation that has long frustrated Basin reviewers.

A final lesson is the value of transparent data. Public mapping portals that publish block-level assessments allow farmers, researchers and journalists to track conditions and hold agencies to account. A comparable Australian portal covering the Great Artesian Basin alongside the southern Murray-Darling would strengthen public engagement and policy debate considerably.

Groundwater law rarely excites anyone until the bore runs dry. Maharashtra, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh each demonstrate that no single template fits every state, yet every template benefits from clear permits, mandatory recharge, integrated planning and open data. Readers interested in exploring state-level aquifer assessments, hydrogeology reports and the latest block-level studies should browse the NAQUIM portal for maps, publications and district summaries.