The two-wave flood incident in Malaysia in 2006 has raised concerns over the economical, sociological and psychological impact on the victims. Nevertheless, many do not realize that the tragedy has been exacerbated due to the current structure of water resource management system in the country. This paper discusses the complexities of the present legal framework with regard to water resource management in Malaysia. An examination has been made to the current Federal Constitution as well as the Federal legislations. The study proves that the problem related to water resource management in Malaysia is partly due to the unclear division of power between the Federal and the State Governments and the fragmented legislation on Malaysian water. As a developing nation, Malaysia has been experiencing rapid urbanization and development. High-rise commercial buildings have become common and the number of housing estates is rising at an unimaginable rate. These developments do come with some prices. Many of its tropical rainforests, which act as its natural storm water preservation, have been cleared to make way for development. Most of the flood storage has been reduced due to developments extending into and taking over flood plains and the drainage corridor. As a result, many cities in Malaysia like its capital Kuala Lumpur and cities in industralized states like Selangor, Penang and Johore often experience occasional flooding. Although the global change in climate may have contributed to the situation, the inefficient water resource management in the country does play some part in it. This paper aims to look at the existing legal framework of water resource management in the country and identifies problems that may hinder improvement in its water resource management. THE CONSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK FOR WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT 2 IN MALAYSIA Malaysia is a federation of 13 states and three federal territories. The Federal Constitution clearly indicates that water is a state matter, and this includes rivers, lakes, streams and groundwater. This, however, is not exclusive as under the Federal List of the Constitution, the Federal Government has power over certain water-based projects in the state, such as hydropower generation, navigation within ports, marine fisheries and mining. In addition, drainage and irrigation has been stipulated under the Concurrent List, and hence fall under the jurisdiction of both Federal and State Governments. Under Article 76 of the Constitution, the Federal Government has the power to enact any law under the State List for the purpose of achieving uniformity, in compliance with an international treaty, or simply at the request of the state. Nevertheless, these regulations will not be effective unless the State Legislature approves them (1). The Federal Constitution has recently been amended in 2005 to delete the item 'water supply and services' from the State List and insert it in the Concurrent List. This will enable the Federal Govern- ment's involvement in the water services sector and to establish a regulated water services industry. Prior to the amendment, State Governments have established different types of water supply organizations, some fully privatized and some for operation and maintenance. Since privatization