AquaPedia Case Study Database - User contributions [en]

Submission:Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead

2026-09-21T06:08:07Z

Pilotdemo01: Case study submitted via AquaPedia contributor form

{{Case Layer A
|CaseName=Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead
|SourceAttribution=Based on the AquaPedia Case Study Database entry "Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead".
|SubmittedBy=Pilotdemo01
|SubmittedDate=2026-09-21
|Status=submitted
|ExecutiveSummary=The Colorado River Compact of 1922 apportioned 7.5 million acre-feet (MAF) per year each to the Upper and Lower Basin states, based on an estimated average annual flow of 16.4 MAF. That estimate was later shown to have relied on an unusually wet measurement period, with actual long-term average flow closer to 13.2–14.3 MAF. This structural overallocation, combined with rising demand, left the "Law of the River" without any formal criteria for managing a shortage. From 1999 to 2007, a historic drought reduced Colorado River Basin reservoir storage from 94% to 54% of capacity, and by 2005 combined storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell had fallen below 50%, raising the prospect of a formal "Compact call" that would trigger contentious legal and political disputes among the seven Basin States. In response, the Secretary of the Interior directed the states to negotiate formal shortage criteria. After nearly two years of stakeholder engagement led by the Bureau of Reclamation, including consultation with Basin States, tribes, environmental groups, and the recreation industry, the seven states signed the 2007 Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead. The Guidelines established tiered shortage allocations and a new "Intentionally Created Surplus" mechanism for flexible water storage. This case examines how the Interim Guidelines were negotiated, how they performed over roughly two decades of continued aridification, and what happened as they approached their scheduled 2026 expiration, a moment this case treats as a rare, high-stakes opportunity to redesign Colorado River governance for a drier future.
|WhatHappened=A structural mismatch between the Colorado River Compact's 1922 water allocations, based on an overestimated long-term average flow, and the river's actual, more limited supply left the Basin without formal rules for managing a shortage. A historic 1999–2007 drought pushed reservoir storage in Lake Powell and Lake Mead to dangerously low levels, prompting the Secretary of the Interior to direct the seven Colorado River Basin states to negotiate the first formal, tiered shortage-sharing framework. The result was the 2007 Interim Guidelines.
|Where=The Colorado River Basin, a 246,000-square-mile watershed spanning seven U.S. states (Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, Wyoming, Arizona, California, and Nevada) and parts of two Mexican states. It is anchored by two major reservoirs: Lake Powell (formed by the Glen Canyon Dam, completed 1963–1966) and Lake Mead (formed by the Hoover Dam, completed 1936).
|When=The foundational Colorado River Compact was signed in 1922. The critical drought period ran from 1999 to 2007, with the Interim Guidelines negotiated over nearly two years and signed on December 13, 2007. The Guidelines were designed as a 20-year framework, scheduled to expire at the end of 2026.
|WhoInvolved=The seven Colorado River Basin States (through Governors' representatives) and the U.S. Secretary of the Interior. The Bureau of Reclamation coordinated the negotiation and prepared a joint Environmental Impact Statement with the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Western Area Power Administration, and the U.S. Section of the International Boundary and Water Commission. Nearly 50 indigenous tribal governments were consulted directly. A coalition of environmental organizations, including Defenders of Wildlife, Environmental Defense Fund, National Wildlife Federation, Pacific Institute, Sierra Club, The Nature Conservancy, Rivers Foundation of the Americas, and the Sonoran Institute, proposed conservation-based mechanisms that influenced the final agreement.
|WhyImportant=The Colorado River supplies water to an estimated 17 million people across the U.S. Southwest and Mexico (more recent estimates cited elsewhere put the figure closer to 40 million), supports roughly 5.5 million acres of irrigated agriculture, and generates significant hydropower through the Glen Canyon and Hoover Dams. A formal shortage, or "Compact call," would not simply reduce water deliveries. It would halt new development along the river entirely and force existing water users to absorb any needed reductions, with major economic consequences across multiple states.
|WhyNotIgnored=By 2005, combined storage in Lake Mead and Lake Powell had fallen below 50% of capacity, and Lake Powell alone had dropped to 35%. The Upper Basin States had formally written to the Lower Basin States raising unresolved questions about Mexico treaty obligations under drought conditions. Litigation over the unaddressed shortage question was seen as the likely next step absent a negotiated resolution.
|WhyPreviousStruggled=The 1922 Compact's allocations were based on a flow estimate later understood to have relied on an anomalously wet baseline period (1905–1922), producing a structural overallocation relative to the river's actual long-term average flow. Because no subsequent agreement had ever established formal shortage-sharing criteria, the Basin States had no existing legal mechanism to manage a drought of the length and severity experienced from 1999–2007. That left the door open to contentious, ad hoc legal disputes over "illegal diversions" and water rights along tributaries.
|WhatChanged=Colorado River governance evolved from a single, static 1922 allocation formula with no drought provisions, through incremental legislative and judicial additions (the 1928 Boulder Canyon Project Act, the 1948 Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, the 1956 Colorado River Storage Project Act, and the 1964 Arizona v. California Supreme Court decision), to an explicitly adaptive, tiered shortage-sharing framework in 2007. Most recently, it moved to a further restructured decision framework adopted in 2026 after the Basin States were unable to agree on a direct successor to the 2007 Guidelines.
|TurningPoints=* 1922: The Colorado River Compact apportions 7.5 MAF/year each to the Upper and Lower Basins, based on an overestimated average flow.
* 1928–1964: A series of legislative acts and a Supreme Court ruling (Arizona v. California) refine interstate and tribal allocations but do not address drought-shortage procedures.
* 1968–1970: The Long-Range Operating Criteria establish an "equalization rule" requiring roughly equal water levels between Lake Powell and Lake Mead to preserve hydropower generation at both.
* 1999–2007: A historic drought reduces combined Basin reservoir storage from 94% to 54% of capacity, with Lake Powell dropping to 35% by 2005, triggering the Secretary of the Interior's call for formal negotiations.
* 2007: After nearly two years of stakeholder engagement and 75 public meetings, the seven Basin States sign the Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations, introducing tiered shortage levels and the Intentionally Created Surplus (ICS) mechanism.
* 2012: The U.S. and Mexico sign Minute 319, extending comparable shortage- and surplus-sharing provisions to Mexico's 1.5 MAF annual allocation, addressing an international gap left open by the 2007 Guidelines.
* 2014 and 2017: A Pilot Drought Response MOU (2014) and a Drought Contingency Plan Plus proposal (2017) introduce further voluntary conservation measures among the Lower Basin States as reservoir conditions continue to warrant additional action beyond the 2007 framework.
* 2019: The seven Basin States formally adopt Drought Contingency Plans (DCPs) supplementing the 2007 Interim Guidelines with additional conservation and operational measures for both the Upper and Lower Basins.
* 2023–2026: With the 2007 Interim Guidelines, the 2019 DCPs, and related international agreements with Mexico all scheduled to expire at the end of 2026, the Bureau of Reclamation formally initiates a multi-year NEPA process (June 2023) to develop post-2026 operating guidelines. After years of negotiation, the Upper and Lower Basin States are unable to reach consensus on a shared successor framework. The Bureau of Reclamation releases a Final Environmental Impact Statement on July 31, 2026, and issues a Record of Decision establishing an adaptive Decision Framework for a 10-year period. The framework is intended to guide the development of specific future operating guidelines given the lack of Basin State consensus and the operational necessity of having criteria in place by October 1, 2026.
|Agreements=The 1922 Colorado River Compact remains foundational. The 2007 Interim Guidelines, the 2012 Minute 319 with Mexico, the 2019 Drought Contingency Plans, and the 2026 post-2026 Record of Decision represent successive, increasingly adaptive layers built on top of it.
|Failures=Despite two decades of increasingly sophisticated shortage-management tools, the source case and subsequent reporting agree that Lake Powell and Lake Mead have continued to experience historically low elevations through a drought that, as of 2026, has persisted for over 25 years. This indicates that the 2007 Guidelines' shortage tiers and conservation incentives, while an improvement over having no framework at all, did not by themselves reverse the Basin's long-term supply-demand imbalance. Most significantly, the Basin States' inability to reach consensus on a post-2026 successor agreement, despite years of dedicated negotiation, represents a notable failure of collective action at exactly the moment the original 2007 framework's authors intended for a renegotiation based on accumulated operational experience.
|RemainingChallenges=As of the Bureau of Reclamation's July 2026 Final EIS and subsequent Record of Decision, formal operating criteria for Lake Powell and Lake Mead were established via a federally imposed adaptive Decision Framework rather than a state-consensus agreement. This reflects continued, unresolved disagreement between the Upper and Lower Basin States on how to share the burden of a river that scientific consensus now expects to deliver less water on average than even the reduced flows assumed in 2007. Climate projections cited in the original source case anticipate a 7–27% decrease in April-to-July streamflow, meaning the adaptive framework adopted in 2026 will be tested against worsening, not stabilizing, hydrological conditions over its planned 10-year horizon.
|LessonsLearned=* An allocation framework built on an overestimated long-term average flow can function adequately during wetter periods but becomes acutely destabilizing once a sustained drought reveals the underlying overallocation. Basin agreements should therefore stress-test their founding assumptions against multiple, including pessimistic, hydrological scenarios from the outset.
* Tiered, elevation-triggered shortage criteria (light, heavy, extreme) combined with a flexible storage-crediting mechanism (Intentionally Created Surplus) can give water users predictability and an incentive to conserve, without requiring users to renegotiate allocations from scratch during every drought event.
* Broad, sustained stakeholder engagement, including tribes, environmental organizations, and the recreation industry, not just the formal Basin State signatories, can meaningfully shape the substance of a final agreement. This was seen in the adoption of ICS mechanisms partly originating from conservation groups' "Conservation Before Shortage" proposals.
|UnanticipatedSurprises=* Even a carefully negotiated 20-year framework, built with scenario planning and broad stakeholder input, still failed to prevent continued historic lows in reservoir elevation over its operating life. This suggests the pace of hydrological change outstripped what the 2007 negotiators had planned for.
* Despite explicit design of the Interim Guidelines to expire in 2026 specifically to allow renegotiation based on accumulated experience, the Basin States were still unable to reach a negotiated consensus by that deadline. The federal government had to impose an adaptive framework rather than ratify a state-driven agreement, a notably different outcome from the largely consensus-based 2007 process.
|WhatShouldOthersLearn=Basins allocating a shared river based on historical average flow data should explicitly test that baseline against longer or more conservative hydrological records before finalizing allocations. They should also consider building in shorter, more frequent formal renegotiation windows (rather than a single 20-year term) so that emerging climate trends can be incorporated incrementally rather than requiring one high-stakes renegotiation under acute pressure.
|WhatWouldYouDoDifferently=Given that the 2007 Guidelines' 20-year term ultimately concluded without Basin State consensus on a successor, a basin designing a similar shortage-sharing framework today might build in interim, lower-stakes recalibration checkpoints (for example, every five years) rather than a single terminal renegotiation deadline. This would reduce the risk that a lack of consensus at expiration forces a federally imposed outcome rather than a negotiated one.
|References=* Central Arizona Project (2017). Drought Contingency Plan Plus.
* Colorado River Research Group (2015). Reporting on Intentionally Created Surplus storage and 2015–2016 shortage conditions.
* Kuhn, R. E. (2005, February 25). Future Scenarios for the Colorado River. Colorado River District.
* National Academy of Sciences (NAS) (2007). Report on Colorado River flow estimates.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (1948). Upper Colorado River Basin Compact, 1948.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2005). Process documentation for development of shortage management strategies.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2006). Stakeholder proposals including "Conservation Before Shortage."
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2007, November). Colorado River Interim Guidelines for Lower Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lakes Powell and Mead.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2009). Factsheet: The Water Conservation Initiative and Implementation of the Secure Water Act.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2012, November 20). Department of the Interior Press Release on Minute 319.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2014). Pilot Drought Response MOU documentation.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2015). Boulder Canyon Operations Office water delivery contract data.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2017). Glen Canyon Unit operational data.
* USGS (2016, December 9). Colorado River Basin Focus Area Study.
* AquaPedia Case Study Database contributors. "Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead." AquaPedia Case Study Database. Stable version checked 27 May 2017.
* U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (2026). Post-2026 Colorado River Reservoir Operations, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Record of Decision.
* DLA Piper (2026, August). New federal framework charts the Colorado River's next decade.
* National Agricultural Law Center (2026). Looking Ahead: As Guidelines on the Colorado River Set to Expire, Attention Turns to What Comes Next.
* https://engineeringdiplomacy.org/
|Figures=Figure 1. Colorado River Basin. Source: U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, as reproduced in the AquaPedia Case Study Database entry "Colorado River Basin Shortages and Coordinated Operations for Lake Powell and Lake Mead," Figure 1.

https://engineeringdiplomacy.org/
}}

Submission:Safeguarding the Sundarbans: Bringing a Shared Ecosystem into the Ganges Treaty Renewal

2026-09-21T05:48:56Z

Pilotdemo01: Case study submitted via AquaPedia contributor form

{{Case Layer A
|CaseName=Safeguarding the Sundarbans: Bringing a Shared Ecosystem into the Ganges Treaty Renewal
|SourceAttribution=Based on Rezaur Rahman, "Safeguarding the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest: A Shared Commitment for Future India–Bangladesh Water Agreements," Chapter 45, Routledge Handbook of Water Diplomacy.
|SubmittedBy=Pilotdemo01
|SubmittedDate=2026-09-21
|Status=submitted
|ExecutiveSummary=The Sundarbans, the world's largest mangrove forest, straddles the India-Bangladesh border at the mouth of the Ganges. Since India completed the Farakka Barrage in 1975 to preserve Kolkata port's navigability, reduced dry-season freshwater flow into the delta has driven rising salinity, damaging freshwater-dependent industries, agriculture, and the forest itself, including a documented decline in the Sundari tree, the ecosystem's signature species. The 1996 Ganges Water Treaty (GWT), a 30-year agreement dividing dry-season flow between Indian navigation and Bangladeshi irrigation needs, never addressed ecosystem or environmental-flow requirements. As the treaty approaches its December 2026 expiry, this case examines an opportunity already partly in motion: a 2011 India-Bangladesh conservation memorandum and a 2016 joint tiger census have built a working, lower-conflict cooperative relationship around the Sundarbans as a shared ecological and cultural asset. Both countries' Sundarbans hold UNESCO World Heritage and Ramsar status, and the tiger is the national animal of both nations. This case explores whether that existing conservation cooperation can be leveraged as an entry point to bring ecosystem flow needs into the harder, more contested water-allocation renegotiation, and what the treaty's original, narrowly framed design suggests about the risk of repeating the same exclusion for another 30 years if this opportunity is missed.
|WhatHappened=India built the Farakka Barrage to divert Ganges water into the Hooghly River, keeping Kolkata's port navigable. The diversion sharply reduced dry-season flow reaching Bangladesh, and by extension the Sundarbans, raising salinity levels and damaging the delta's freshwater-dependent ecosystem, industries, and agriculture. Bangladesh and India eventually resolved the flow dispute itself through the 1996 Ganges Water Treaty, but that treaty addressed only navigation and irrigation, never the forest's ecological needs.
|Where=The Sundarbans, a roughly 10,000 km² mangrove delta at the mouth of the Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna river system, split between southwest Bangladesh (about 60% of the forest) and West Bengal, India (about 40%). The Farakka Barrage itself sits about 18 km upstream of the India-Bangladesh border.
|When=India began planning the barrage in the early 1950s, over Pakistani objection (Bangladesh was then East Pakistan). Construction ran from 1961 to 1971, with a pilot operation beginning in 1975. Two decades of ad hoc, short-term water-sharing arrangements followed before the 30-year GWT was signed in 1996. Separately, a Sundarbans conservation MoU followed in 2011, and the treaty itself is due for renewal in December 2026.
|WhoInvolved=The Governments of India and Bangladesh as treaty parties. Bangladeshi industries and farming communities in the southwest region were directly harmed by early salinity increases, including the Khulna Newsprint Mill and the Goalpara power plant, both cited as having suffered operational damage. More than one million Bangladeshis depend on Sundarbans resources, alongside roughly 4.2 million residents of the inhabited Indian Sundarbans islands. International bodies (UNESCO, the Ramsar Convention, and IUCN) hold both national portions of the forest under shared conservation designations.
|WhyImportant=The Sundarbans is not just locally significant. It is the world's largest mangrove forest, a UNESCO World Heritage Site on both sides of the border, a Ramsar wetland of international importance, and home to the last significant wild population of the Bengal tiger, the national animal of both India and Bangladesh. Reduced freshwater flow does not just affect crop yields or industrial water supply; it threatens the long-term survival of an entire, biologically unique ecosystem shared by two nations.
|WhyNotIgnored=The damage was immediate and visible. Within a year of the barrage's 1975 pilot operation, Ganges flow through Bangladesh had dropped by roughly 45% in the driest months, and public protest followed quickly, including a well-publicized 1976 march by politician Maulana Bhasani toward the barrage itself. Industrial disruption, agricultural losses, and visibly worsening salinity kept the issue politically alive on the Bangladesh side for the two decades that followed, until the 1996 treaty was signed.
|WhyPreviousStruggled=The dispute-resolution process that eventually produced the GWT took over 20 years and addressed only the immediate, most politically pressing question: how much water each country's economic users would receive in the dry season. It succeeded at solving that narrow problem but never incorporated ecosystem or environmental-flow needs into its design, leaving the Sundarbans' freshwater requirements structurally outside the treaty for its entire 30-year life. Separately, Indian upstream states such as Bihar have raised their own grievances that the barrage worsens flooding, illustrating that even the treaty's intended beneficiaries have not been fully satisfied by its narrow framing.
|WhatChanged=The relationship moved from unilateral Indian action and unresolved dispute (1951–1996) to a formal, if narrowly scoped, bilateral treaty (1996 onward), and, separately, toward an emerging, ecosystem-focused cooperative track beginning in 2011.
|TurningPoints=* 1975–1977: The Farakka Barrage's early operation causes dramatic, visible flow reductions and public protest, keeping the dispute politically salient.
* 1996: The GWT is signed, ending two decades of ad hoc arrangements and establishing a 30-year formula for dry-season sharing at Farakka.
* 2011: India and Bangladesh sign a Memorandum of Understanding recognizing the Sundarbans as a single shared ecosystem, opening a cooperative channel entirely separate from the water treaty.
* 2016: The first joint India-Bangladesh tiger census is conducted, demonstrating the MoU's cooperative framework works in practice.
|Agreements=The 1996 GWT (dry-season flow allocation) and the 2011 Sundarbans conservation MoU (joint species monitoring and management) are the two operative bilateral instruments, but they remain institutionally separate. One is run through water-treaty negotiators, the other through forest and wildlife authorities.
|Failures=The GWT itself never incorporated environmental or ecological flow provisions. Post-treaty hydrological data cited in the source chapter (Mahmood et al., 2021) shows dry-season discharge, while improved somewhat after 1996, remains well below pre-Farakka levels, and salinity at monitoring stations such as Mongla remains elevated relative to pre-Farakka baselines. The Sundari tree, the forest's signature freshwater-dependent species, is documented as continuing to decline.
|RemainingChallenges=As of this writing, no formal step has linked the conservation-cooperation track to the water-treaty renegotiation track. With the GWT's 30-year term expiring in December 2026, ecosystem needs risk being excluded from the successor agreement exactly as they were from the original, unless deliberate effort is made to connect the two tracks during the renewal process.
|LessonsLearned=* A water treaty negotiated narrowly around specific economic uses (here, navigation and irrigation) can structurally exclude ecosystem needs for the entire life of the agreement, even when the affected resource is nominally shared and highly valued by both parties.
* A shared ecological resource with independent international recognition (UNESCO, Ramsar) and national symbolic value on both sides (the tiger) can support cooperation even when the underlying water-allocation relationship is otherwise contentious. But that cooperation does not automatically transfer into the harder negotiation unless someone deliberately builds the bridge.
* A treaty's fixed expiration date is not just a risk (uncertainty about renewal) but also an opportunity: it forces a periodic reopening of the negotiation that open-ended agreements never get, giving previously excluded stakeholders a defined moment to make their case.
|UnanticipatedSurprises=* The barrage's original justification, preserving Kolkata port's navigability, is described in the source literature as largely unfulfilled even decades later, while the ecological costs downstream have been severe and well documented. This is a striking mismatch between the intervention's intended benefit and its demonstrated cost.
* Even upstream Indian states such as Bihar have voiced grievances that the barrage worsens flooding on their side, showing that the treaty's narrow framing has not fully served the interests even of the upper riparian it was designed around.
|WhatShouldOthersLearn=Where a transboundary ecosystem carries independent international designation and shared cultural or symbolic value, basins facing a treaty renewal should actively look for cooperative precedent in adjacent domains (conservation, disaster response, trade) that could be leveraged to build trust before or alongside a harder resource-allocation negotiation, rather than treating those domains as unrelated to the water treaty.
|WhatWouldYouDoDifferently=Given the chance to design the 1996 treaty from scratch, ecological/environmental flow requirements, not just navigation and irrigation volumes, would be built into the original allocation formula from the outset, rather than left to be raised, if at all, only at the next scheduled renewal three decades later.
|References=* Ahmed, A., Aziz, A., Khan, A.N.A., Islam, M.N., Iqubal, K.F., Nazma, and Islam, M.S. (2011). Tree diversity as affected by salinity in the Sundarbans mangrove forests, Bangladesh. Bangladesh Journal of Botany, 40(2), 197–202.
* Billah, M. (2022). Investigation of Sundarbans Ecosystem Resiliency through Multi Temporal Remote Sensing Data. M.Sc. Thesis, IWFM, BUET, Dhaka.
* Chowdhury, J.U., Rahman, M.R., and Salehin, M. (1997). Flood Control in a Floodplain Country: Experiences of Bangladesh. ISESCO, Rabat.
* Crow, B., Lindquist, A., and Wilson, D. (1995). Sharing the Ganges: The Politics and Technology of River Development. University Press Limited, Dhaka.
* FAO (2011). AQUASTAT Transboundary River Basins — Ganges-Brahmaputra-Meghna River Basin. Rome.
* Forest Department (2010). Integrated Resources Management Plans for the Sundarbans. Ministry of Environment and Forests, Dhaka.
* Gopal, B. and Chauhan, M. (2006). Biodiversity and its conservation in the Sundarban mangrove ecosystem. Aquatic Science, 68, 338–354.
* Haque, M.Z. and Reza, M.I.H. (2017). Salinity intrusion affecting the ecological integrity of Sundarbans Mangrove Forests, Bangladesh. International Journal of Conservation Science, 8(1), 131–144.
* Hazra, S., Bhadra, T., Ghosh, S., and Barman, B.C. (2015). Assessing environmental flows for Indian Sundarbans: A suggested approach. River Behaviour & Control, 35, 65–74.
* Islam, N. (2017). Farakka barrage is hurting Bangladesh and India. The Daily Star, May 13, 2017.
* Islam, S.M.D. and Bhuiyan, M.A.H. (2018). Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh: causes of degradation and sustainable management options. Environmental Sustainability, 1, 113–131.
* Islam, S.N. and Gnauck, A. (2011). Water salinity investigation in the Sundarbans rivers in Bangladesh. International Journal of Water, 6(1/2), 74–91.
* Kawser, M.A. and Samad, M.A. (2016). Political history of Farakka Barrage and its effects on environment in Bangladesh. Bandung Journal of Global South, 3, 16.
* Lee, J. (2015). The governance of wetland ecosystems and the promotion of transboundary water cooperation. Water International, 40(1), 33–47.
* Mahmood, H., Ahmed, M., Islam, T., Uddin, M.Z., Ahmed, Z.U., and Saha, C. (2021). Paradigm shift in the management of the Sundarbans mangrove forest of Bangladesh: Issues and challenges. Trees, Forests and People, 5, 100094.
* Mandal, R.N., Saenger, P., Das, C.S., and Aziz, A. (2019). Current Status of Mangrove Forests in the Transboundary Sundarbans. In H.S. Sen (Ed.), The Sundarbans: A Disaster-Prone Eco-Region. Springer Nature.
* Mirza, M.M.Q. (1998). Diversion of the Ganges Water at Farakka and its effects on salinity in Bangladesh. Environmental Management, 22(5), 711–722.
* Murshed, S.B., Rahman, M.R., and Kaluarachchi, J.J. (2019). Changes in hydrology of the Ganges Delta of Bangladesh and corresponding impacts on water resources. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 55(4), 800–823.
* Pandey, P. (2014). Bangladesh, India, and fifteen years of peace. Asian Survey, 54(4), 651–673.
* Penny, G., Mondal, M.S., Biswas, S., Bolster, D., Tank, J.L., and Müller, M.F. (2020). Using natural experiments and counterfactuals for causal assessment: River salinity and the Ganges Water Agreement. Water Resources Research, 56, e2019WR026166.
* Rahman, K.S., Islam, Z., Navera, U.K., and Ludwig, F. (2019). A critical review of the Ganges Water Sharing arrangement. Water Policy, 21, 259–276.
* Rahman, M.M. (2020). Impact of increased salinity on the plant community of the Sundarbans Mangrove of Bangladesh. Community Ecology, 21, 273–284.
* Rahman, M.M. and Rahaman, M.M. (2018). Impacts of Farakka barrage on hydrological flow of Ganges River and environment in Bangladesh. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 4, 767–780.
* Rahman, R. (2026). Safeguarding the Sundarbans Mangrove Forest: A Shared Commitment for Future India–Bangladesh Water Agreements. Chapter 45 in Routledge Handbook of Water Diplomacy.
* Ramsar (2019). Ramsar Information Sheet, Sundarban Wetland, India, RIS for Site No. 2370.
* Samad, I., Kelkar, N., and Krishnaswamy, J. (2021). Life at the borderline: Responses of Ganges River dolphins to dry-season flow regulation of river and canal habitats by the Farakka barrage. Aquatic Conservation, 32(2), 294–308.
* Thomas, K.A. (2017). The Ganges water treaty: 20 years of cooperation, on India's terms. Water Policy, 19, 724–740.
* Vasilijević, M., Zunckel, K., McKinney, M., Erg, B., Schoon, M., and Rosen Michel, T. (2015). Transboundary Conservation: A Systematic and Integrated Approach. IUCN Best Practice Protected Area Guidelines Series No. 23, Gland.
* World Bank (2014). Ganges Strategic Basin Assessment: A Discussion of Regional Opportunities and Risks. Washington, DC.
|Figures=The four items below are reproduced directly from the source chapter. Each caption gives the original data source first, then the publication the graphic is reproduced from.

Figure 1. Location of the Sundarbans along with the rivers feeding the forest in the lower part of the GBM basin. Reproduced from Rahman (2026), Chapter 45 in the Routledge Handbook of Water Diplomacy, Figure 45.1.

Figure 2. Summary of impact of reduced Ganges flow in the southwest region of Bangladesh. Source: After Crow et al. (1995), as reproduced in Rahman (2026), Chapter 45 in the Routledge Handbook of Water Diplomacy, Figure 45.2.

Table 1. Average minimum discharges of the Ganges and Gorai rivers during wet and dry seasons at different periods. Source: Mahmood et al. (2021), as reproduced in Rahman (2026), Chapter 45 in the Routledge Handbook of Water Diplomacy, Table 45.1.

Figure 3. Annual maximum salinity observed at Mongla. Data courtesy of the Bangladesh Water Development Board; continuous data available only from 2001. As reproduced in Rahman (2026), Chapter 45 in the Routledge Handbook of Water Diplomacy, Figure 45.3.
}}