1.0 Executive Summary

Though Haryana has no riparian or basin rights on the rivers that flow through Panjab, in the midst of escalating hostilities between India and Pakistan, in April 2025, the state demanded extra water from the union government-controlled Bhakra Beas Management Board, which manages the rivers Satluj, Beas, and Ravi. This report looks at the issue of water sharing between the northern states of India, ongoing for close to sixty years, and discusses constructive sustainable solutions to the vexed issues.

2.0 Introduction

All the five rivers that comprise greater Panjab across India and Pakistan, and the sixth river, the Indus, originate in the Himalayas. They start from the territory of Tibet, currently under Chinese occupation, move through Indian Jammu and Kashmir (J&K) and Himachal Pradesh to Panjab and then into Pakistan. Post 1947-Partition, three of those rivers—Satluj, Beas, and Ravi—pass through Indian (East) Panjab. Through the Indus Water Treaty (IWT), 1960, India and Pakistan agreed to share the waters of these rivers. Despite two full-fledged wars in 1965 and 1971, the limited Kargil war in 1999, and India’s retaliation after the Uri attack (2016), Pulwama (2019), the IWT held well. 

On 22 Apr, a dastardly attack on tourists took place at Baisaran Valley, near Pahalgam, in Indian Kashmir. India blamed Pakistan for the attack but has not provided any proof. Instead, on 23 Apr, India imposed sanctions on Pakistan. One of the sanctions is India unilaterally announcing that the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) has been placed in ‘abeyance.’ This despite the fact that India does not have the capacity to store the water of the three western rivers that belong to Pakistan and has been releasing only 6% of the water from the three eastern rivers to Pakistan. 

The next day, 23 Apr, the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB) decided to give an extra 8.5K cusecs of water to the Indian state of Haryana on humanitarian grounds as drinking water. The BBMB regulates distribution of river waters from Bhakra, Pong, and Ranjit Sagar dams over Satluj, Beas, and Ravi rivers, among Panjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, and New Delhi. Haryana sought 8.5K cusecs of water from May 21 to 31, with the possibility that the demand may increase in peak summers. Panjab too has sought 8K cusecs, indicating the demand may go up to 23K cusecs in June. Panjab intervened and stopped BBMB from releasing extra water.

Panjab irrigation officials maintain that Haryana has exhausted its water share, utilizing 103% water, for the current accounting season (22 Sep 2024 to 20 May 2025). Giving more water to the neighboring state may hamper Panjab’s interests and considerably bring down water levels in Bhakra dam. Given that the IWT has been placed in ‘abeyance,’ Haryana’s Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini said, ‘Empty Bhakra Dam before June, else excess water will flow to Pakistan.’ This displays a short-term opportunism and a denial of the complexity of the river water sharing issue among India’s northern states.

Scope of the report: The almost sixty-year long quarrel over Panjab’s river waters is complex, the arguments are often deliberately convoluted, there are many court cases and a few agreements between Panjab and other states and the union government of India. It is not possible to cover every development over the last almost sixty years in this report. Hence, this report focuses on the recent fracas between Panjab and Haryana and the roles of courts, police and the union govt

3.0 Background

According to the Indian Constitution Article 21, water is a right inherent to the Right to Life. Since water is a finite natural resource, it has rights, duties and consequences associated with its use. There are two internationally accepted criteria for river rights: riparian and basin. Riparian rights deal with the usage of water from a natural source such as a lake, pond, river, or stream. Riparian rights determine who can and cannot use the waters. The word ‘riparian’ comes from the Latin word ‘ripa’ which means the bank of the river. As an adjective, it stands for the legal rights of the owner of the land on a riverbank, and can be used to denote owner activities like fishing or irrigation. The basin is a surface which feeds the river, from where surface water from rainfall seeps into the rivers. Those regions also have rights on the rivers. 

The Satluj flows 100  km, the Beas 150 km and the Ravi 200 km from the Haryana border and even more from Delhi and Rajasthan. No other state but Himachal Pradesh, J&K, and Panjab have riparian rights on the waters from the rivers Satluj, Beas, and Ravi. Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi do not feed the Satluj or other rivers in any way. They do not form part of the 300K plus square kilometres of the Indus, Satluj, or Beas catchment area. In fact, the altitude difference between the Himalayas, Panjab, and Haryana means that water will percolate downwards and not upwards into the Satluj. That is why, when in the last few decades floods have taken place in Panjab, neither Haryana nor Rajasthan have borne consequences. If for some reason, the 226-metre-high Bhakra crumbles and the Gobind Sagar Lake wreaks mayhem, it is Panjab that will bear the consequences, not Haryana, Delhi, or Rajasthan. That is why, neither on the riparian basis nor on the basin basis do these states have a claim on the waters of Panjab and Himachal Pradesh.

3.1 Panjab Reorganization Act, 1966 

That the rivers are riparian to Panjab should ideally sort the matter out, but it does not. Haryana claims a previous map of Panjab before 1966 trifurcation. In that map Haryana does not exist, nor do some parts of Himachal Pradesh. The entire region is Panjab. This map has the Yamuna flowing through what is now Haryana towards Delhi as the eastern border of Panjab. In 1966, when Haryana was created and parts of Panjab ceded to Himachal Pradesh, Panjab’s waters too were divided through Clauses 78, 79, and 80 of the Panjab Reorganisation Act, 1966 (PRA). However, in this division the water of the Yamuna was not considered. Until date there is no reasonable answer to why it was not considered.

Since the total quantum of water was not considered, the division too was arbitrary. The PRA sections that deal with waters are: Rights and liabilities with regard to Bhakra-Nangal and the Beas Projects (Section 78); Bhakra Management Board (Section 79); and Construction of the Beas Project (Section 80). 

Section 78 states: 

Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act but subject to the provisions of sections 79 and 80, all rights and liabilities of the existing State of Panjab in relation to Bhakra-Nangal Project and Beas Project shall, on the appointed day, be the rights and liabilities of the successor States in such proportion as may be fixed, and subject to such adjustments as may be made, by agreement entered into by the said States after consultation with the Central (union) Government or, if no such agreement is entered into within two years of the appointed day, as the Central Government may by order determine having regard to the purposes of the Projects: Provided that the order so made by the Central Government may be varied by any subsequent agreement entered into by the successor States after consultation with the Central Government.

This is legalese but the time frame was two years. We are now close to year 60, but the matter has not been resolved. There is nothing that can explain this delay except a lack of will on the part of the union govt. to solve the matter. To solve the river waters issue, one would have to answer the question: on what basis are the successor states deemed rightful stakeholders of the waters? There is no parallel to such contestation of water rights by non-riparian and non-basin successor states. On the other hand, the phenomenon of predecessor and successor is invoked over private property. When fathers divide land among children, or when they pass away, each child is a successor. Each successor gathers what they get at the time of division and begin life. It is disingenuous on the part of the union govt. to not make a clear division, ambiguously define the terms of division, not meet the time criteria set, and make the states squabble for decades. Since 1966, Panjab and Haryana have been paying the price for the union govt.’s apathy and delay. 

3.2 Water in India’s Constitution 

According to the Indian Constitution, Clause 17 in List II (State List), water is a state subject. However, this clause is tied up with Clause 56 in List I (Union List) which deals with inter-state rivers. Article 262 (1) and (2) hold that in case of conflict between states over river waters, the decision of the Parliament will overrule the court or even that of the Constitution. Clause 257(2) states that in the case of inland waterways, water becomes a central subject. When the Constitution was written, water was taken to mean river water and always referred to in terms of inter-state waters, anticipating that conflicts would be inter-state. Wells, ponds, and ground water were not considered.

The case of Panjab vis-a-vis Haryana, Rajasthan, and Delhi is different because the rivers under dispute do not flow through these states. The waterways clause is the reason for the fable which has dragged Panjab down for decades: the proposed and heavily litigated Satluj Yamuna Link (SYL) canal. Not only will SYL provide the much-needed drinking water to south Haryana, it will also eventually become a grand inland waterway on which small ships will be able to carry goods, through the Yamuna onto the Ganga and upstream to Kolkata and eastern India.

3.3 Dam Safety Act 

In December 2021, the govt. of India passed the Dam Safety Act, 2021. This was seemingly to ensure the safe operation and maintenance of dams, preventing dam failures and associated disasters. It provides institutional mechanisms at both the union and state levels. At the union level they are the National Committee on Dam Safety and National Dam Safety Authority. At state level they are State Committees on Dam Safety and the State Dam Safety Organization. The Act places responsibility on dam owners for the safe construction, operation, and maintenance of their dams. It outlines penalties for obstructing officials or failing to comply with directives, with imprisonment ranging from one to two years depending on the severity of the offense. The Act covers all specified dams, regardless of whether they are on inter-state or intra-state rivers. 

The issue is that it is not clear if the Parliament has the jurisdiction to frame a law on intra-state river dams. As per the Constitution, states can make laws on water including water storage and water power (Entry 17 of State List). However, Parliament may regulate and develop inter-state river valleys if it deems it necessary to public interest (Entry 56 of Union List).

3.4 Indus Water Treaty

Following India’s 23 Apr decision to keep the Indus Water Treaty (IWT) in abeyance, World Bank president Ajay Singh Banga said in an interview, ‘The Treaty is not suspended, it is technically called ‘abeyance’ is how the India govt. worded it. There is no provision in the Treaty to allow for suspension, the way it was drawn out. It either needs to be gone or it needs to be replaced by another one. That requires the two countries to want to agree. The World Bank’s role is as a facilitator and cannot force India to reverse its decision.’ 

This shows India has acted slyly, using a loophole in the treaty, but there is no way India can be made accountable for its action. It also leaves a wide gap about how the waters of the rivers are managed by India and Pakistan. India does not have provision to store all the water. By releasing and withholding water ad hoc, without intimation, India is weaponizing the water.

4.0 1981 Agreement

In 1976, Haryana approached the union govt., which issued a notification allocating to Haryana 3.5 MAF out of untruncated Panjab’s 7.2 MAF. As Haryana could not utilize its share without a carrier channel in the Panjab territory, it took up the matter with Panjab and paid a token amount for building the SYL canal. The same year, Panjab filed a litigation in the Supreme Court of India (SCI) challenging the validity of the Section 78 of the PRA.

While these cases were going on, in 1981 the then Indian National Congress (INC) Prime Minister Indira Gandhi pressured INC-ruled Panjab Chief Minister Darbara Singh to sign a tripartite agreement between Panjab, Haryana, and Rajasthan on 31 Dec 1981. The agreement was that Panjab would construct the SYL in its state within two years. The agreement also said that the waters would be shared with Delhi and J&K in this order: Panjab 4.22 MAF; Haryana 3.50 MAF; Rajasthan 8.60 MAF; Delhi 0.20 MAF; and J&K 0.65 MAF.

4.1 Rajasthan’s Case

Before Independence, the king of Bikaner used to pay Panjab for the water Rajasthan received from the Satluj. This is water from the earlier Ferozepur and now Harrike Barrage, where the Beas meets the Satluj before it flows to Pakistan. Per the IWT, India has the rights to use the water and it diverts the water to the Indira Gandhi canal. Over years and stages, the canal has been expanded, which has led to the Thar desert being irrigated, but the structure of the canal is such that it leads to major water retention in the soil in south-western districts of Panjab.

The excessive dampness renders the soil too wet for agriculture and small canals have been built to drain out the excess water. While that is an issue, the moot point is why has the payment for the water Rajasthan used to pay stopped since 1955 when the govt. of India promised it would be taken up separately? The irony is that through desertification in the east and dampness in the south, Panjab is helping other states become green while it perishes itself. Panjab has incurred a loss of USD 376B since it has been giving its river waters for free to the non-riparian state of Haryana, the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and the non-riparian and non-successor states of Rajasthan and Delhi.

Addressing a press conference in 2018, former Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) MP Dr Dharamvira Gandhi stated: ‘Sections 78, 79, and 80 of the PRA are violative of Articles 162 and 246(3) of the Constitution as irrigation and hydro power are the state subjects under entry 17 of the state list.’ He demanded setting up an independent authority for calculating the cost of river water in terms of its monetary value. 

In 1956, the govt. passed the Inter-state River Water Disputes Act which sought to regulate how water is shared between states but never formed the board to implement the Act. Counsel for Gandhi, advocate Rajvinder Singh Bains, said that Section 14 of the Inter-state River Water Disputes Act 1956 was unconstitutional because it was not implemented. Subsequently, a team of lawyers and Dr Gandhi, backed by the Panjab govt., filed a petition in the Panjab and Haryana High Court in 2018. They are demanding that at the symbolic rate of one paise per litre, Rajasthan pay USD 9.4B to Panjab, and terms for further use be laid out. The petition is yet to come up for hearing.

4.2 Haryana’s Recent Demand

The timing and demand of Haryana are problematic. Every year after the filling season comes to a close on 21 Sep, the total of water in the three dams is taken into account and divided as per each state’s share. In September 2024, 11.897 million acre feet (MAF) water was distributed, out of which, Panjab got 5.512 MAF, Haryana 2.987 MAF, and Rajasthan 3.398 MAF. As per BBMB’s records of 31 Apr 30, Panjab has exhausted 5 MAF, Haryana 3.11 MAF, and Rajasthan 3.73 MAF from the allocation. 

On 2 May the water level in Bhakra was at 1,555 feet—a mere 93 feet above the lowest level to be maintained. Pong was at 1,293 feet, lower than the 25-year average of 1,319 feet. The water from Pong could not be drawn as turbines were under repair. Water at Ranjit Sagar was too low to be drawn. BBMB insisted that the supply to Haryana was unavoidable, triggering sharp resistance from Panjab’s irrigation department. Panjab officials contended that the state lacks surplus water, citing peak summer demand and the ongoing winter sowing season. This created a row between Panjab and Haryana.

5.0 Panjab Assembly Session

In April 2025, when Panjab refused to provide an extra 4.5K cusecs of water to Haryana, BBMB replaced its Director of Water Regulation Panjab cadre Akashdeep Singh with Haryana cadre Sanjeev Kumar and called for a meeting with a day’s notice when its rules mandate seven days. Panjab deployed its police on the Bhakra Dam.

It must also be noted that while successive govts. in Panjab have always taken a stand, at least in public rhetoric, that they would not allow a single drop of extra water to be shared with other states, the reality paints a different picture. Data on water sharing during the past decade revealed that Panjab never utilized its full quota. In sharp contrast, Haryana’ utilization has been 89-110% and Rajasthan’s 101-130%. In contrast, Panjab’s usage was 64-91% between 2014-15 and 2024-2025. This is sheer carelessness on the part of Panjab. This also indicates that over the last decade Panjab’s neighboring states got used to extra water which was actually a kindness and benefit, not an entitlement or their right. 

On 5 May, the AAP govt. in Panjab conducted a special Legislative Assembly session to guard its rivers’ waters. In the Assembly, members of all parties vociferously defended Panjab’s rights and unanimously passed these resolutions:

1. Panjab govt. will not give a single drop of extra water to Haryana from its share. Only 4K cusecs—currently being given as a humanitarian gesture for drinking purposes—will continue. Not a drop more.
2. This House strongly condemns the illegal and unconstitutional manner in which the Bharatiya Janata Party’s (BJP) called the BBMB meeting.
3. The current BBMB functions merely as a puppet of the BJP-led union govt. Panjab’s concerns and rights are ignored in BBMB meetings. Therefore, the BBMB must be restructured to ensure Panjab’s rightful representation and protection of its interests.
4. The BBMB repeatedly violates legal requirements for proper meeting notices—often holding midnight meetings. This House directs BBMB to strictly follow the law in this regard.
5. The amount of water allocated to each state is clearly defined in the 1981 agreement. BBMB has no legal power to alter this. Any attempt by BBMB to reallocate Panjab’s share to another state through such meetings is illegal and unconstitutional.
6. The Sutlej, Ravi, and Beas rivers flow entirely through Panjab. On what basis, then, is their water being diverted to other states? The 1981 agreement that governed this water-sharing was based on river flow levels. Those levels are significantly lower today. A new agreement is needed to reflect current realities.
7. This House considers the Dam Safety Act 2021 an attack on Panjab’s rights. It gives the union govt. excessive control over state-owned dams and rivers, even those fully within state boundaries. This undermines India’s federal structure and weakens Panjab’s sovereignty over its water resources. The Act must be repealed immediately.

5.1 Questions on Resolutions

Though Panjab Assembly has repealed the Dam Safety Act, 2021, the repeal needs the union govt. appointed state Governor’s pending consent. An earlier act Punjab Termination of Agreement Act, 2004 passed by the legislative Assembly for ‘terminating and discharging the Govt. of Panjab from its obligations under the Agreement dated 31^st December, 1981 and all other agreements relating to the waters of the rivers Ravi and Beas in public interest’ got the Governor’s consent but the SCI struck down the Act saying ‘a party to the litigation cannot unilaterally act in a manner which would nullify the effect of the decree.’ The resolutions have also given rise to more questions:

1. Though Panjab is supplying 4K cusecs water to Haryana on humanitarian grounds, it is not specified until when it will continue? 
2. It is not clear why the BBMB should be restructured. Is it because each state has one vote in the BBMB? Ideally BBMB and its dams should simply belong to Panjab. This is a demand from the Anandpur Sahib Resolution, 1973. Panjab has always maintained that the rivers are riparian and that they will not enter any agreement on sharing its waters.
3. When criticizing the 1981 agreement and stating rivers are riparian to Panjab, why is a new agreement being proposed to redistribute the river waters? On what basis? Panjab has always maintained that its waters cannot be shared.
4. What is the point of repealing the Dam Safety Act when it is a union govt. Act and cannot be repealed by a state?

5.2 After the Resolutions

After the Punjab Legislative Assembly passed the resolution, on 6 May, Panjab approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court (PHHC) to review its decision to grant 4.5K cusecs extra water to Haryana. On 7 May, as Panjab geared up to protect itself from external hostilities, the PHHC restrained the Panjab govt. and its police force from interfering with the operations of the Bhakra Nangal Dam. A division bench comprising Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel expressed serious concern over the conduct of the Panjab administration, comparing the situation to actions taken against Pakistan through abeyance of the Indus Water Treaty. 'We are doing this to our enemy country. Let us not do this within our states.’ The bench said if Panjab disagrees with any decisions taken by BBMB, it should approach the union govt. under the provisions of the BBMB rules. The judges noted that no such representation had been made by the Panjab govt. so far.

On 8 May, Panjab minister Harjot Singh Bains locked BBMB Chairman Manoj Tripathi for two hours at the dam’s guest house and stopped him from releasing the water additional 4.5K cusecs of water to Haryana. However, on 10 May Panjab Chief Minister Bhagwant Singh Mann ordered release of additional water to Rajasthan to cater to the needs of the Army. In a statement, Mann said Rajasthan govt. had sought more water from the quota of Panjab as the military deployed on the Rajasthan border needed additional water.

On 11 May, Mann said: ‘on the one hand Panjab is standing to defend its borders, on the other Haryana is operating on provocation by the BJP union govt.’ The same day, Mann froze the state’s quarterly contribution to the BBMB and ordered an audit of the 60% share Panjab pays, saying no further funds or legal fees would be released until the review is complete. On 14 May, considering Panjab’s request to PHHC for a review, the court sought a response from the union govt. and Haryana by 20 May. Mann claimed this as a moral victory for Panjab. On 21 May the new water cycle started. 

6.0 Recommendations

Five recommendations proposed to solve the sixty-year long vexed river water sharing dispute between Panjab, other states, and India. 

6.1 Riparian Status

Any solution to the river waters must start with both the Indian union govt. and Panjab’s neighboring states accepting Panjab’s sovereign riparian and basin rights on the rivers that flow through the state. Just like Panjab accepts Himachal Pradesh’s upper riparian rights. Both Himachal Pradesh and Panjab are co-riparian states to rivers Satluj, Beas, and Ravi. Himachal Pradesh and J&K are co-riparian to river Chenab. Similarly, J&K is riparian to rivers Jhelum and Indus. Once these rights are established all earlier treaties and acts will cease to operate within India. After this, negotiations can begin on the river water among the north Indian states.

6.2 Water Table in Panjab

The Panjab govt. needs to learn lessons from its current water mismanagement and adopt a sustainable approach with specific performance indicators. The state faces a grave groundwater crisis. Green Revolution and growth of water guzzling crops like paddy and sugarcane have depleted Panjab’s aquifers. However, groundwater is a renewable resource. With 17 MAF water available at present, Panjab can use Managed Aquifer Recharge strategies to augment freshwater availability. These include streambed channel modification, bank filtration, water spreading, and recharge wells. This would raise Panjab’s groundwater and stop the desertification of south Panjab. However, this depends on how Panjab manages its water. 

6.3 Levy on Panjab’s Waters 

The Panjab govt. needs to adopt a policy on levy for its waters and other states need to honor it. Natural resources like coal, petroleum, gas, stones, and so on are exchanged between states. When exchanged, the state receiving the resource buys it from the state which has surplus. It is the same with water. If Panjab has enough water for its use, it can impose a levy on the resource for any state which needs water. At present Panjab’s total debt stands at USD 44.2B. The huge debt is one of the chief reasons Panjab is unable to spend enough money on infrastructure, needs of citizens, and to diversify cropping patterns. With income from water, Panjab can free itself from debt and spend money on development. Recently Himachal Pradesh has been talking about a levy on Panjab for the waters of the rivers which naturally flow between the two states before they go to Pakistan. However, Himachal Pradesh being a co-riparian state cannot charge levy on Panjab. 

6.4 Let Rivers Flow

All Indian states govts. need to agree on not reviving river Saraswati and the Indian union govt. needs to enforce it. In the long arc of history, rivers appear, change course, and even disappear. This is how nature works. However, for the last decade, Haryana has been trying to revive the lost river Saraswati mentioned in ancient texts. Haryana is doing this by making headworks on river Satluj in Himachal Pradesh. The idea is to dig a canal up to Gujarat and bring the Satluj’s water into it. The activity increases during the election period and wanes again. However, if followed through, this would mean major water depletion in river Satluj, the lifeline of Panjab. It is important to not follow up on such a misadventure and tamper with nature. If followed, the results could be disastrous. Already, the seasonal Gagghar river often floods during monsoons, it is best to not attempt to revive a lost river. 

6.5 Representation of Both Panjabs and J&K

The World Bank needs to facilitate IWT revisions to current realities. For 64 years, despite many hostilities, India and Pakistan have upheld the IWT. While its being placed in ‘abeyance’ by India is not legally valid, being upper riparian, India has started weaponizing the flow of river waters to trouble Pakistan. Also, since so much time has passed, the water flow in rivers has changed, needs of both nations have changed, the IWT must be re-looked. If that happens, representatives from both Panjabs─India and Pakistan─ and J&K must find room on the table. After all, along with the nations, these states are the rightful owners of the rivers. 

7.0 Conclusion

It is ironic that while rivers themselves are a metaphor for life, for flow, and for movement, in Panjab they are knotted up in legalities and claims which are directly an appropriation of Panjab’s waters. Panjab and J&K are critical border states of India. That was clear even during the recent escalation of hostilities with Pakistan. It was strange to see while Panjab was bearing the brunt of Pakistan’s drone and missile attacks, the ‘nationalist’ BJP govts. in Haryana and the Indian union were troubling the state for extra water over and above due to them through malintentioned treaties drawn favouring them and not Panjab. This when Panjab was already supplying Haryana 4K cusecs of drinking water on humanitarian grounds. 

A big reason why Panjab is unable to argue its case is because its elected leaders speak in a  forked tongue. In Panjab, CM Mann fought for the waters, even carried out a victory rally, his attitude on 24 May in New Delhi at the 10th Governing Council meeting of the National Institution for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog (Commission) was different. At the meeting, Mann brought up the state's clash with Haryana on river water distribution. He said, Panjab has no surplus water to share and if Haryana has claim over the water in Ravi and Beas rivers, then Panjab too should have an equal claim on the waters of river Yamuna. This contradicts his own govt.'s resolutions. The sixth resolution passed by the Panjab Legislative Assembly invoked Panjab's Riparian status on rivers Satluj, Ravi, and Beas and asked why is their water diverted to other states? Now, by again discussing Haryana’s claim and bringing up sharing of river Yamuna's waters, Mann has diluted the stand. This two steps ahead, one step backwards is what ails Panjab’s leadership. Unless that changes, the river water crisis will continue to worsen. Panjab’s elected leadership itself needs to stand firm like a dam to stop the loot of its waters.

Download as a PDF

Author(s): Liv Forum Team

External Reviewer: Sukhdev Singh

© 2025 Liv Forum.  All Rights Reserved.