Mapping the Legal Landscape of Himalayan Springs: Where Indian States Stand and How to Move Forward

Abstract
Springs are crucial for mountain communities but are declining due to climate change and urbanization. Communities often manage springs independently, facing significant conservation challenges. Ownership varies; some springs are private, while others are communal, which affects the state’s efforts where they exist. Administrative boundaries can hinder cooperation, as springs span multiple villages or towns. Indian Himalayan states have legal frameworks that recognise the importance of spring and regulate its management. This issue brief analyses how 12 Himalayan states and UTs govern springs, categorising regions into Northeast India, the West Bengal Hills, and the Western Himalaya. Multiple legal instruments can have the same or varying levels of engagement. The Northeast has the highest engagement, followed by the West Bengal Hills while the Western Himalaya need improvement. Legal plurality should be central to spring governance, involving state, traditional, and customary laws. Assessing legal frameworks is vital since springs are owned and governed by various entities – state, community, private – and extend beyond water to forestry, municipalities, panchayats, hydropower, and mining.

Keywords: Springs; the Himalayas; Conservation; Legal Instruments; Water Rights

Springs, the primary water sources for the mountain communities,  are decreasing in number and deteriorating in quality (Wani 2025; Agarwal et al. 2015). Impending climate change and urbanization, along with the uncertainty of their impacts, are reducing springs’ discharge volumes and their capacity for recharge. In the face of these changes, it is increasingly challenging for communities that have been managing these springs without any state support, until recently, to continue and prepare for the impending water crisis (Sharma and Khawas 2025).

Springs have diverse ownership, defined by law or by the rules and norms of communities, which acts as a barrier to establishing accountability for managing them or developing plans for conservation and sustainability. Spring aquifers often extend over large areas, sometimes covering more than one village, a ward, or even a town. These administrative boundaries influence collaboration, as the spring may be recharged in one village while its discharge benefits others. Springs can be considered private if they are located on private property, according to the law (Shah 2025). However, many community springs exist as they have been bequeathed by the landowners for public use, which the communities have mostly maintained, managed and sustained. The different perspectives of law and communities towards springs are vital in determining the effectiveness of their protection and conservation plans. Until recently, springs have received little state support for their conservation and management (Gupta and Kulkarni 2018; Government of India 2019).

The Indian Himalayan States and Union Territories (UTs) – Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Himachal Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir (J&K), Ladakh[i], Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim, Tripura, Uttarakhand and West Bengal – have several legal instruments such as acts, bills, ordinances, policies, rules, and regulations, that govern water and directly address springs. Additionally, legal instruments, such as the Forest and Municipal Acts, incorporate the protection and management of springs even though they are not the primary water-associated institutions. All of them engage with springs in various ways, ranging from recognising their importance for management and sustainability to defining ownership and explicit protection plans.

This issue brief seeks to explore how springs are regulated by law in the 12 Himalayan States and UTs by analysing the legal instruments that reference springs. The 12 states and UTs have been categorised into the following groups for regional analysis:  Northeast India (NE - Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura), the Western Himalayan States and Union Territories (WH – Himachal Pradesh, J&K, Ladakh and Uttarakhand) as well as Darjeeling and Kalimpong Districts in West Bengal (DK). The examination’s findings are presented for the Northeast Region, the West Bengal Hills, and the Western Himalaya.

How are Springs Governed across Regions?

Many of the state’s legal instruments address water resources, including water supply and taxation (Annexure 1).  Some instruments are specifically designed to monitor groundwater and water catchment areas. Instruments focused on catchments are typically customised for drinking water purposes. Additionally, springs are recognised under legislation that is not explicitly aimed at groundwater management. These include regulations and statutes from the Building, Forest, Municipality, and Irrigation departments, as well as the Hydropower Acts and Mineral Rules. The inclusion of springs in these instruments indicates awareness of both the benefits of springs and the adverse impacts of encroachment, pollution and industrial activities on springs. Forest conservation and protection help maintain the springs and their associated ecosystems. Building rules prevent encroachments on springs, and mining rules restrict alterations that could affect the flow and pollution of springs. The legal instruments of the state concerning springs were evaluated, resulting in the categorisation of the following types of engagement, which are assigned numerical codes (Table 1).

 

Table 1:  Types of Engagements

Code	Engagements
1	Recognition of concerns about springs
2	Laws for spring protection and management
3	Ownership of springs for the individual, municipality, gram panchayat and the Water Users Associations, including private ownership
4	Explicit protection plans for springs, such as recording of springs, catchment area protection and protection zones
5	Public water systems managed by the Public Health and Engineering Department, the Irrigation Department, or the Municipality.
6	Spring conservation in mining rules
7	Hydropower and springs

 

Regionally, the Northeast exhibits the highest engagement (Table 2). West Bengal Hills also shows a high level of engagement. The Western Himalayan region, however, still has much to do.

In terms of states, Mizoram leads the overall rankings with five kinds of engagement, followed by Meghalaya and West Bengal, which have four each. Sikkim, J&K, and Nagaland each have three. The others have two or fewer. It is worth noting that in some cases, a single legal instrument may have multiple engagements, and several legal instruments can share the same type of engagement, as explained below.

 

Table 2: Engagement Levels of States and Union Territories

Regions	States	Engagement Codes
Northeast	Arunachal Pradesh	1,3
	Assam	3,4
	Manipur	5
	Meghalaya	1,3,4,5
	Mizoram	1,2,3,4,5
	Nagaland	2,3,4
	Sikkim	1,3,5
	Tripura	4,6
Western Himalaya	Himachal Pradesh	2,7
	Jammu & Kashmir	2,4,5
	Ladakh	2,4,5
	Uttarakhand	2
Darjeeling and Kalimpong Districts	West Bengal	3,4,5,6

[Green indicates the highest levels (four and above), Yellow indicates three and below]. Descriptive table in Annexure 2

 

Northeast India – Making Significant Efforts        

The NE region exhibits the most engagement with springs. Six out of eight NE states have clear plans for protection, making this the most common method of engaging with springs. This is followed by establishing ownership, which recognises Water User Associations, traditional institutions, and the state. The third most popular way of engaging with springs is harnessing them for public water systems. The range of engagement varies by state and is detailed below.

Recognition – Mizoram focuses on springshed management using geology, hydrogeological, and conceptual mapping, followed by artificial rainwater harvesting. Meghalaya emphasises springs in water security, climate change, and resource efficiency, addressing them in planning, conservation, and use. Sikkim consolidates laws for forests, water courses, and springs, protecting them through legislation and project programs.

Laws for spring protection and management – The NE states have implemented laws for spring protection and management through state or community bodies. They have also decentralised planning, allowing a bottom-up approach to developing state-level plans. Under the Mizoram Water Resources (Management and Regulation) Act 2024, springs are included, along with recharge, aquifers, and the Water Users Association, with a dedicated chapter on groundwater. The Government should develop an Integrated State Water Plan based on district-level water plans. The Nagaland Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2020, covers aquifers and springs, establishing the Nagaland Groundwater Authority. According to the Arunachal Pradesh Water Supply Act 2015, a water source is defined as “a spring, stream, river, pond (whether natural or not), or any other place where water is drawn for domestic or other purposes.” 

Ownership of springs – The laws also recognise ownership under traditional regimes or under the state bodies. For instance, Mizoram has Water User Associations. In Nagaland, village-level traditional institutions protect springs. Sikkim allows for the declaration of protected watershed areas, water sources, and main water routes. These protected watersheds and water sources then fall under the jurisdiction of the Buildings, Public Health and Engineering, and Housing Department. Using them requires permission from the relevant authority, which is granted upon payment of a tax. By contrast, the Meghalaya and Assam Municipal Acts bring all public springs under the jurisdiction of the municipality board. 

Explicit protection plans for springs – Mizoram, Tripura, Nagaland, Assam, Arunachal Pradesh, and Meghalaya have developed various methods to safeguard springs. These include bringing springs under state control for conservation, banning construction, maintaining the springs, preventing pollution and waste disposal, declaring them as common property resources along with their associated ecosystems, declaring protection zones, and mapping springs and other plans for future work.  The responsibility is mainly with the state or shifted to the owners of the springs. However, the communities that have primarily managed the springs should also be taken into consideration. These communities lack the resources to manage and protect themselves, especially in the face of uncertain changes, necessitating state intervention. State intervention should, however, not overrule existing systems but instead, ease their burdens.

Public water systems – Mizoram authorises the department to develop public water systems in springs, including spring harvesting. No one, except for private water bodies, can object to this. Sikkim and Meghalaya recognise springs for waterworks. Manipur relies on springs for irrigation, water supply, and municipal waterworks properties in both rural and urban areas.

Spring conservation in mining rules – Tripura requires lessees to obtain written permission from the District Magistrate & Collector/Director before using or impounding water from springs, ensuring that this does not compromise irrigation, livestock, or livelihood needs. They should also prevent polluting them.

 

Darjeeling and Kalimpong Districts in West Bengal – Some Milestones Achieved

West Bengal engages with springs in four ways: defining ownership, establishing protection plans, developing public water systems, and conserving springs in mining areas. However, there are no water or spring-focused legal instruments. The last legal instrument which included springs was in 2006. No recent legal instruments have been developed for springs. Details of existing instruments are outlined next.

Ownership of springs – Ownership is assigned to either the municipality or the Gram Panchayat, depending on the region. Here, the power is vested in the Board of Councillors to set aside springs for drinking, bathing, washing, and culinary purposes. For rural areas, the Gram Panchayat has the authority to acquire, hold, and dispose of springs, as they serve as public channels. Akin to the case of the entire Himalayan region, here too, the communities manage the springs with minimal or negligible support from the government. The law has assigned responsibility to local bodies, but there has been no dedicated action on the ground yet. The prevalence of community-based systems is indicative of the government’s absence (Shah 2022).

Explicit protection plans for springs – The protection rules are based on the Municipality and Panchayat acts, with no specific legal instruments focused on water. The West Bengal Municipal Act of 1993 mandates a proper assessment of springs used for drinking and cooking in municipal areas. The chairman of the municipal council requires owners of springs used by the public to maintain, keep clean, and protect them from pollution. This Act implicitly acknowledges private ownership of springs. Likewise, the West Bengal Panchayat Act of 1973 authorises the Gram Panchayat to exercise powers whereby the owner of springs utilised by the public must maintain, keep clean, and safeguard them from pollution concerning contaminated water supplies.

Public water systems – The West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006, includes springs in its category of waterworks.

Spring conservation in mining rules – West Bengal permits lessees of mining rights to use water from springs. However, they must not interfere with existing communities and livelihoods. They shall not alter the navigation flow or pollute the springs in any way.

West Bengal, interestingly, has multiple legal instruments at the Municipality, Municipal Corporation, and Gram Panchayat levels. However, there is no matching groundwork being done under these bodies, except for springshed conservation using the Dhara Vikas Yojana concept that was originally launched in Sikkim. The translation of the state as the custodian of springs into effective conservation and management of springs is missing.  Most of the support has been in rural areas. The West Bengal Ground Water Resources (Management, Control, and Regulation) Act, 2005, is intended to regulate the indiscriminate extraction of groundwater. The acknowledgement of springs and the need for their recognition and regulation is missing here. The Ground Water Yearbooks of West Bengal also fail to include springs in the 2018-2019 issue (Central Ground Water Board 2019; 2017; 2014). They have no technical assessments of springs, reiterating the exclusion of springs in groundwater studies.

 

Western Himalaya – An Opportunity for Engagement

J&K, situated in the Western Himalaya, recognises springs, has plans for their protection, and designates them for public water systems, making it the most active in spring management in the WH region. Himachal acknowledges the need for the security and management of springs under the Himachal Ground Water Act. Uttarakhand only recognises the importance of springs without any further engagement. This emphasises the potential to enhance involvement with springs across the WH. Details on the existing instruments follow.

Laws for spring protection and management – Uttarakhand and Himachal Pradesh both mention springs as sources of groundwater. J&K recognises springs as a water source that requires protection and improvement.

Explicit protection plans for springs – J&K established the State Water Resources Regulatory Regulations (2019) to define critical control point zones within a 200m radius of springs. These zones are intended to be protected and appropriately developed.

Public water systems – J&K covers springs as part of its hydraulic works, and includes irrigation works within its scope.

Hydropower and Springs – Himachal Pradesh is the only state with a Hydropower Cess that recognises springs as a source of water.

All the WH states and UTs here have laws for protection, but only J&K has moved on to develop explicit protection plans and develop springs as a public water system. Uttarakhand and Himachal, meanwhile, have rich traditional and community-based water systems (Kelkar et al. 2008). However, they are neither part of nor recognised under any legal instruments. Springshed conservation using the concept of Dhara Vikas Yojana is being carried out here. Himachal Pradesh appears to be the only state in the entire Himalayan Region that has acknowledged the impacts of hydropower on springs and incorporated them into a legal instrument—something which all the Himalayan states and UTs must consider in the face of impending disasters.

Discussion

The Himalayan States and UTs have legal instruments, local customary laws, and community norms, which make it challenging to describe water rights and make it all-encompassing (Meinzen-dick and Nkonya 2007). The relationship between law and springs, along with their biophysical characteristics, makes it challenging to implement schemes like springshed management under Dhara Vikas Yojana, as most laws pertain to land boundaries and do not address groundwater. Hence, legal plurality should be at the heart of spring governance, where the state institutions, biophysical characteristics and customary laws interact (Boelens and Vos 2014).  As a step towards understanding and enabling this, an assessment of the legal frameworks of the Himalayan State and UTs is crucial, as springs are owned and governed by different entities under various property regimes, including state, community, and private owners. It also demonstrates how the legal instruments of springs are not solely water-based but can also extend to other sectors, such as forestry, municipalities, gram panchayats, hydropower, and mining.

Mizoram has led the way in defining spring governance through its laws with the latest Water Resources Act of 2024, which features a dedicated chapter on groundwater and advocates for a bottom-up approach to water planning, utilising district-level plans to develop its integrated state water plan. Its 2020 policy also includes springshed management as its key objective, which not only looks at springs but also their surrounding environment. Sikkim is the pioneer of the Dhara Vikas Yojana, despite lacking an explicit legal instrument for spring safeguarding. It is a strong example of the political will of the states, demonstrated not only through a legal mechanism but also through a significant public initiative. It is being replicated on a minor scale in Himachal Pradesh, Uttarakhand, and Nagaland, as well as in the villages of the Darjeeling Hills (Gupta and Kulkarni 2018). There may be a need to formalise this within a legal framework to ensure communities retain rights to resources for future generations.

For planning mechanisms and statutory bodies, the biophysical aspects of springs and their governing institutions have been acknowledged in some cases. Almost all states and Union Territories (UTs) have explicit plans for protecting springs, with responsibilities assigned to private owners, Gram Panchayats, Municipalities, and Forest departments through:

1. Artificial groundwater recharge,
2. Prohibition of encroachment,
3. Penalties for disposing of waste into springs and their catchment areas,
4. Restrictions in catchment areas beyond the River Conservation Zone to maintain springs, streams, and rivers,
5. Classification of catchment areas as critical, sub-critical, or non-critical,
6. Prevention of filling any spring,
7. Mapping of springs and their catchments,
8. Establishment of an advisory board,
9. Forest protection to safeguard water sources,
10. Analysis of drinking water quality.

Nearly half of the Himalayan states and UTs can utilise springs for public water systems, under state guidelines where the responsibility resides with the Public Health and Engineering Department, Irrigation Department, or the Municipality. They are permitted to establish infrastructure for waterworks and irrigation needs. Mizoram takes an additional step to dismiss any objections to the development of public water bodies by the Public Health and Engineering Department, apart from private water bodies.

The existing legal instruments could serve as a blueprint for the Himalayan states and UTs to develop their spring governance, especially for states such as Assam, Tripura, and West Bengal, which are the only states without any water-focused instruments that engage with springs. Furthermore, in the case of Assam and West Bengal, there have been no legal acknowledgements of springs since 1956 and 2006, respectively. Manipur does not recognise concerns about springs or laws for their protection. This presents opportunities for these states and others not yet engaged with springs to learn from the experiences of those that are. Many existing instruments contain strengths that could be shared to help address the weaknesses of others.

Conclusion

All Himalayan States and UTs interact with springs in at least one way, using instruments that may or may not be dedicated to water. The strengths of the current instruments include recognising rights at all levels (individual, community, state, and public), with springshed management as the cornerstone, clear instructions for protection and sustainability, and anti-encroachment protocols for buildings and industries such as mining and hydropower. This variety of approaches demonstrates how every institution values springs in different ways. Some of them are present in overarching rules, while others are focused on specific programmes. As these are spread across various instruments and states, they can be adopted and updated where necessary. Sharing lessons within the region and across the Western Himalaya, Northeast, and Darjeeling and Kalimpong districts can yield significant benefits. The strengths of these programmes can be leveraged to address the weaknesses and the lack of well-defined property rights, thereby enabling more efficient water use and reducing inequitable access.

More interdisciplinary studies on springs are imperative, as groundwater studies are expensive and still require further investigation. Due to the lack of state-led initiatives for managing and protecting springs, most work is carried out by entities and communities. In places where the drudgery related to water collection, acquisition, and low levels of water consumption already exists (Narain 2014), the lack of state support adds additional pressure on the communities to fend for themselves and preserve what little they have.

There are areas where further enhancements could be implemented.

• The possibility of private spring ownership could affect the public status of springs. This makes springs more vulnerable to privatisation, especially for profit, thereby impacting water availability and accessibility for communities.
• There has been little initiative to recognise the existence of local and traditional spring-based supply systems. Due to the absence of state-led efforts to manage and protect springs, most work has been undertaken by entities and communities other than the state. However, only the state can manage the scaling up of such interventions.
• The building and encroachment protocols can be extended to cover the effects of household-level pollution on spring water quality.
• The impacts of industrial and commercial activities on springs, which are currently focused only on heavy industries like mining and hydropower in just three states, need to be expanded to include the impact of manufacturing and small-scale industries.

Annexures

Annexure 1: Water-related Legal Instruments in Indian Himalayan States and Union Territories

1. Assam
   • Assam Municipal Act 1956
   • Assam Forest Regulation 1891
2. Arunachal Pradesh
   • The Arunachal Pradesh Protection of Drinking Water Catchment Areas Act, 2023
   • Arunachal Pradesh Water Supply Act, 2015
3. Himachal Pradesh
4. The Himachal Pradesh Water Cess on Hydropower Generation Act, 2023
5. The Himachal Pradesh Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2005
6. Jammu and Kashmir & Ladakh
   • Jammu and Kashmir State Water Policy and Plan 2017
   • Jammu and Kashmir Water Resources (Regulation and Management) Act, 2010
   • The Jammu and Kashmir Irrigation Act 1978
7. Manipur
   • The Manipur Municipalities Act, 1994
   • The Manipur Irrigation Bill, 1977
8. Meghalaya
   • Meghalaya State Water Policy 2019
   • The Meghalaya Protection of Catchment Areas Act, 1990
   • The Meghalaya Municipal Act 1973
9. Mizoram
   • The Mizoram Water Resources (Management and Regulation) Act, 2024
   • The Mizoram Ground Water (Control and Regulation) Bill, 2023
   • The Mizoram (Protection of Rivers) Ordinance, 2023
   • The Mizoram Water Supplies (Control) Rules, 2023
   • Mizoram State Water Policy 2020
   • The Mizoram Water Supplies (Control) Act 2004
10. Nagaland
    • The Nagaland Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2020
    • Nagaland Water Policy 2016
    • The Nagaland Forests Act, 1968
11. Sikkim
    • The Sikkim Forests and Water Courses (Preservation and Protection) Bill, 2007
    • The Sikkim Water Supply and Water Tax Act 1986
12. Tripura
    • Tripura Building Rules 2017
    • Tripura Minor Mineral Concessions Rules, 2014
    • Tripura Municipal Act, 1994
13. Uttarakhand
    • The Uttarakhand Ground Water (Regulation and Control of Development and Management) Act, 2016
14. West Bengal
    • The West Bengal Municipal Corporation Act, 2006
    • The West Bengal Ground Water Resources (Management, Control, and Regulation) Act, 2005
    • West Bengal Minerals (Prevention of Illegal Mining, Transportation and Storage) Rules 2002
    • The West Bengal Municipal Act, 1993
    • The West Bengal Panchayat Act 1973

Annexure 2: Engagement Levels of States and Union Territories
 

S. No	Engagements	States
1	Recognises concerns about springs	Meghalaya Mizoram Sikkim
2	Recognise springs as water sources with laws requiring their protection and management.	Arunachal Pradesh Mizoram Nagaland Ladakh Uttarakhand Himachal Pradesh Jammu and Kashmir
3	Ownership of springs is recognised at individual, municipal, gram panchayat, and Water Users Association levels. Private ownership is acknowledged, and the responsibility is passed on to the owners of the springs.	Assam Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Sikkim West Bengal
4	Explicit protection plans for springs. It includes the recording of springs, catchment area protection, and protection zones, with responsibilities vested in Gram Panchayats, Municipalities, and Forests. There is a mention of construction and building rules to prevent encroachment.	Arunachal Pradesh Assam Meghalaya Mizoram Nagaland Tripura Ladakh Jammu and Kashmir West Bengal
5	Springs are used to supply public water systems, whose responsibility lies with the Public Health and Engineering Department, Irrigation Department, or Municipality.	Manipur Mizoram Meghalaya Sikkim Ladakh Jammu & Kashmir West Bengal
6	Rules for spring conservation are also a part of the mining rules in Tripura and West Bengal.	Tripura West Bengal
7	Hydropower and springs	Himachal Pradesh

 

ENDNOTES

[i] With the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act, 2019 the J&K laws could be extended to Ladakh.

REFERENCES

Agarwal, Avinash, Nitin Agrawal, and Vinay Rathi. 2015. ‘Water Stress on Springs of Lesser Himalayan Region’. British Journal of Applied Science & Technology. 9. (3): 243–55. https://doi.org/10.9734/BJAST/2015/17140.

Boelens, Rutgerd, and Jeroen Vos. 2014. ‘Legal Pluralism, Hydraulic Property Creation and Sustainability: The Materialized Nature of Water Rights in User-Managed Systems’. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability 11: 55–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2014.10.001.

Central Ground Water Board. 2014. Ground Water Yearbook of West Bengal & Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.

Central Ground Water Board. 2017. Ground Water Yearbook of West Bengal & Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.

Central Ground Water Board. 2019. Ground Water Yearbook of West Bengal & Andaman & Nicobar Islands. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India.

Government of India. 2019. ‘Spring Rejuvenation: A Framework Document’. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Department of WR, RD & GR, National Hydrology Project. http://mowr.gov.in/.

Gupta, Akhilesh, and Himanshu Kulkarni. 2018. Report of Working Group I Inventory and Revival of Springs in the Himalayas for Water Security. NITI Aayog.

Kelkar, Ulka, Kapil Kumar, Ved Prakash, and Usha Chandna. 2008. ‘Vulnerability and Adaptation to Climate Variability and Water Stress in Uttarakhand State, India’. Global Environmental Change. 18: 564–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2008.09.003.

Meinzen-dick, Ruth, and Leticia Nkonya. 2007. ‘Understanding Legal Pluralism in Water and Land Rights: Lessons from Africa and Asia’. In Community-Based Water Law and Water Resource Management Reform in Developing Countries, edited by Barbara C P Koppen, John Butterworth, and Mark Giordano. https://doi.org/10.1079/9781845933265.0000.

Narain, Vishal. 2014. ‘Shifting the Focus From Women to Gender Relations: Assessing the Impacts of Water Supply Interventions in the Morni – Shiwalik Hills of Northwest India’. Mountain Research and Development. 34 (3): 208–13.

Shah, Rinan. 2022. ‘Laying Bare : Determinants of Informal Water Vendors for Domestic Water Supply in Himalayan Mountain Towns’. HIMALAYA, the Journal of the Association for Nepal and Himalayan Studies. 41 (1): 74–90.

Shah, Rinan. 2025. ‘Administration of Springs in India: Legal and Institutional Frameworks’. Issue Brief No. 11. Centre of Excellence for Himalayan Studies, Shiv Nadar University. https://snu.edu.in/centres/centre-of-excellence-for-himalayan-studies/research/administration-of-springs-in-india-legal-and-institutional-frameworks/.

Sharma, Kabindra, and Vimal Khawas. 2025. ‘Himalayan Springs Are Drying. It’s a Threat to India’s Ecological Stability and National Security’. The Indian Express, July 3. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/himalayan-springs-drying-ecological-stability-national-security-10103457/.

Wani, Fayaz. 2025. ‘37 out of 40 Springs in J&K’s Ganderbal Contaminated, Unfit for Drinking’. The New Indian Express. 30 January. https://www.newindianexpress.com/nation/2025/Jan/30/37-out-of-40-springs-in-jks-ganderbal-contaminated-unfit-for-drinking.

---

About the Author : Dr Rinan Shah is a Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Centre for Himalayan Studies, Shiv Nadar University, Delhi-NCR. Her work engages with the question of thinking/rethinking water governance in the mountainous landscapes in a rapidly urbanizing world with uncertain and intense ecological calamities. Her PhD thesis attempted to disentangle the drivers of domestic water scarcity in the volumetrically “water-rich” Eastern Himalayan Region.