Welcome to SaciWATERs

Why "Vision" now, after a full fifty years on the job? Simply because the planning, so far, had lacked vision. Planning documents keep quoting a figure of 113.5 m.ha as the ultimate irrigation potential of the country. What is sacrosanct about this number? No one knows. We ; acclaim ourselves to have achieved self-sufficiency in food grain production. That must be a , joke. The annual per capita availability is just 200 kg. We have spent Rs. 80,000 crores, and " claim to have created an irrigation potential of over 90 m.ha to produce less than 200 million" tonnes of food grains. We need to produce 500 million tonnes annually by 2050, to achieve a modicum of self sufficiency.

To a large population -both urban and rural- access to safe drinking water is a distant dream. The less said on sanitation, the better. There is an unabated pollution of water courses and underground aquifers by untreated domestic and industrial effluents, not to mention the pollution from irrigated agriculture drainage. The pollution is further accentuated due to drying up of rivers either due to construction of dams or due to uncontrolled extraction of water. People abstracting water from water courses and those polluting them ignore the basic tenet that everyone lives downstream We always criticize those living upstream for all our water problems, little realizing that someone lives downstream of us also, criticizing us for their problems.

We claim to have provided reasonable protection to a third of the flood-prone area, but the annual loss due to floods has not shown a downward trend.

We have harnessed just 15% of our hydel potential only, but our priority is for thermal stations using sub-standard coal. Besides atmospheric pollution, there is no place to dump the ash. We would rather import coal and hydro-carbons to generate electricity, but not develop hydel power. This can happen only in India. The reason touted for this is the long gestation period of hydel projects. But then, is that not exactly the reason for taking up these projects at the earliest?

Traditional water harvesting (Khandins, roof top rain water collection), watershed development (Government type and NGO -Ralegaon shidhi type), etc. are necessary, but are not sufficient to ensure sustainable food security, drinking and industrial water supply, electricity, etc. to 1.64 billion people (year 2050). They can not also ensure minimum flows in the rivers for sustainable environment. For that, water needs to be conserved on a much large scale.

That brings us to eco-terrorism against water resources development with political expediencies providing encouragement and the States acquiescing. The Government should act before it becomes a Frankenstein monster; that is, if it has not already become one.

Preparation of the theme paper is entirely to the credit of P. V. Krishnan, Director, CWC " and Jt. Secretary, IWRS and P. Padmanabhan, Director, CWC and Jt. Treasurer, IWRS, who spared no effort in putting it together. IWRS is extremely grateful to them. While also thanking the contributors of the source material and the peer reviewers, I must apologize to' , them, if the theme paper misses any points they would have liked to highlight.

The "Vision" presented here is meant to "kick start" a discussion. IWRS looks forward to concrete suggestions for improvement. We shall revisit "Water: Vision 2050" in March, 2001, the dawn of the new millennium.

New Delhi,
March 22, 1999

M.S. REDDY
President
Indian Water Resources Society

By the year 2050, the population of India is estimated to reach 1.64 billion and hopefully stabilises at that level One half of this population will be urban and the other half rural To ensure sustainable food security, domestic water supply, water supply to industries, electric power generation and above all sustainable benevolent environment by 2050, water and land resources' shall have to be developed with a vision. Water and land, which support life, are also the elements of nature that are most susceptible to degradation. It is, therefore, necessary to have a long-term plan for management of these fragile natural resources to ensure their sustainable development. The NWP initiated action towards that direction.

The NWP is just a statement of intentions. It is not supported by any legislation. There is no action plan. It does not confer any authority on, or make anybody responsible for its implementation. The NWP is also silent on the economic value of water and opportunity cost of investment in different water sectors. The constitutional provisions and legal issues have not been addressed, viz. ownership of groundwater and riparian rights of farmers in irrigated command, infirmities in Inter-State Water disputes Act, ineffectiveness of River Boards Act, etc.

It is possible that, more than a decade back, when the policy was adopted, competition for water amongst various sectors was not so acute. Otherwise, if water is considered a scare resource, if its economic value and opportunity cost of investment in various sectors cannot be overlooked. There is a need for a close look at what the NWP states and what it leaves unstated. It needs to be operationalised with an action plan to achieve the goals envisaged.

Intersectoral allocations can not be unique and based on the principle of supply- management. Allocations have to be closely related to demand-management, All sectors, nevertheless, may need minimum allocations. Beyond this minimum, economic value shall govern the allocations.

Urban Drinking Water. The fact that highest priority is given to drinking water by the NWP does not mean unlimited allocation to meet this demand. There have to be limits on per capita demand and treatment of effluent made conditional, when working out allocation. Distribution efficiency has to improve and on line leakages limited to reasonable limits. Water- scarce situation demands that the effluent is treated for reuse or partial reuse or further use downstream. Since, the quantum of effluent is large from urban areas, it could be used, after treatment, for industry and irrigated agriculture, thereby releasing corresponding quantum of water for other sectors.

Rural Drinking Water. Most of the needs are met from groundwater. With more and more groundwater being extracted for use in irrigation, it is becoming increasingly difficult to meet this demand, One option is to place selective controls on groundwater extraction. The other option is to enact laws for temporary acquisition in addition to controls on over-extraction.

Source: Dr. M.s. Reddy, President. lWRS and Shri Vidya Sagar Rao, Commissioner (ReId), MOWR

Industries. Industries must be made to recycle and reuse the water, the process tending towards minimum consumption. Basins should be zoned to exclude water-intensive and process industries from water-short regions. Allocation should be basically to meet make-up water. There should be strict enforcement of rules to ensure the quality of industrial eft1uents, so that the water can be used downstream by other sectors.

Irrigation. Over 85% of water is used by the irrigation sector. The main issues are low water-use efficiency and tendency to grow water intensive crops like rice and sugarcane. Obviously, a marginal increase in efficiency in the irrigation sector could help in releasing water to other sectors besides making water available to increase irrigated area. Water-saving technologies like drip and sprinkler systems will reduce demand for water. Cropping pattern has to be changed from water-intensive crops to less water-demanding crops. Drought resistant crops and salinity resistant crops are other options.

Environment: There are three main sources adversely affecting the environment.

The central theme (focus) of the NWP is basin-oriented, reckoning a drainage basin or sub- basin as a unit for planning, development and management. The Policy also states that appropriate organizations should be established for the development of a basin as a whole. Such development is possible only if Entry 56 (List I) is invoked, which may not be possible in our democratic polity with States demanding decentralization and autonomy. However, integrated river basin planning and management can be brought about through simple amendments in the Inter-State Water Disputes Act 1956 (IWDA) and River Boards Act 1956 (RBA) to set up an effective institutional mechanism consisting of Tribunals and River Basin Organizations (RBOs).

The Act may be amended to provide for the Centre to specify a time frame to the states of all basins to arrive at a negotiated settlement on water sharing, failing which it may, on its own, set up tribunals, suo moto. The Act should set a time frame for the award, place a limit on the age or tenure of the Chairman and Members of the Tribunal and assign the work of assessors to the RBOs, who shall also be given the authority under clause 6 ( c ) to implement the award.

The Act may be amended empowering Centre to constitute RBOs with phased functions.

Dynamic (annual rechargeable) groundwater is estimated as about two-thirds of utilizable surface water. Groundwater meets needs of over 50% of irrigated agriculture, 80% of rural drinking water and 50% urban drinking water. On a global scale, only a third of the groundwater potential has been used and only about 50% of its potential for irrigated agriculture has been exploited. Still groundwater is not integrated with surface water either in planning, development or management. In fact, the Krishna Water Disputes Tribunal treats groundwater in a basin as a resource belonging to a state within its boundaries and does not take it into account in water allocations to the basin states. Groundwater development is almost entirely in the private sector with institutional funding, unlike surface water development, which is almost entirely in public sector with Government funding.

Another area of concern is the lack of dependable authenticated data on extraction. Extent of extraction is based on one time data (information) when a groundwater structure is initially constructed. Extraction is indirectly estimated by relating it to the size and theoretical capability of the structure, rather than to its actual operational capacity. Groundwater estimates and groundwater extraction reports present a paradoxical over extraction-waterlogging syndrome. There is an urgent need for a census of groundwater structures and their monitoring through Geographical Information System (GIS). RBOs shall have a clear mandate to treat surface and groundwater as a unified resource and that for optimal results, they should be integrated in planning, development and management.

The NWP states that there should be free exchange of data among various agencies. Lack

of free access to data makes realistic planning and management impossible. The States refuse to part with hydrological and project related data. They even refuse to make project reports public. There is total lack of transparency. MOWR has drafted a "National Water Information Bill" to provide such free access to data. No time must be lost in enacting this Bill, which together with the implementation of the Hydrology Project would go a long way in documenting reliable and authenticated data, so essential for realistic planning, development and management of the water resources. The next step should be establishment of GIS.

It is high time that water is categorized as a commercial commodity, economic goods like other natural resources. There is value addition, if the water has to reach a field, a domestic tap or an industry and continue to be available for use. This value addition has to be borne by the user. The cost of development, supply and services rendered shall be paid for. Pricing of water will automatically transform the present supply management scenario to one of demand management. It will also 1;nake the beneficiary realize the scarcity value of water. Realistic pricing of water is long overdue in all water use sectors and should be implemented urgently to ensure sustained development. That brings us to the issue of operation and maintenance.

Whether it is irrigation or water supply, thousands of crores of rupees have been spent on building the infrastructure. Unfortunately, by and large, this infrastructure is not maintained and operated to function at the optimum The performance of water supply schemes in villages is not much to be proud of The urban water supply schemes operate at about fifty percent efficiency. The low efficiency of irrigation systems is legendary. The sub-optimal performance in all the sectors is invariably due to lack of maintenance and inadequacies in operation. This can not be allowed to continue indefinitely. O&M needs to get the highest priority. The negligence is generally attributed to lack of funds. The situation can be remedied by taking following actions.

Firstly, water should be priced to cover O&M expenses, depreciation cost of the infrastructure and some capital cost. Secondly, the present system of booking the collections from water charges to revenue account and expenses to expenditure account without relating them to each other should be changed. The two should form one account shown as income and expenditure which would reveal the inadequacy of the present pricing mechanism. Thirdly, participatory management is essential, at least in irrigation and rural water supply management. Finally, privatization of O&M could help, at least in the case of urban and rural water supply. O&M calls for highest priority to ensure sustainable optimum performance.

Private sector would invest only when it is sure of adequate returns. Looking at the size, time taken for construction and the poor cost recovery, no private entrepreneur would dare to invest in irrigation projects. However, it should be possible to attract private sector participation in drinking water and industrial water supply projects. There is big scope to privatize O&M in all sectors, including irrigation by splitting the system into manageable sizes. All efforts need to be made to attract private investment in water resources projects since that would lead to pricing of water which in turn would make the users realize the scarcity value of water.

Groundwater. The legal right to groundwater rests with the owner of the overlying land. There is, therefore, no control over groundwater extraction. This has resulted in undesirable excessive extraction in some areas. Indications are that such areas are gradually increasing. Uncontrolled extraction creates problems basically in respect of meeting drinking water needs, especially in rural areas. As farmers are more concerned in meeting their irrigation needs, drinking water becomes a casualty in a year of drought when the rainfall is deficient. This has often led to transmigration of rural population and their cattle. There is, thus, an urgent need for legal remedies for priority allocation of groundwater to meet minimum drinking water needs and to prevent over extraction for other uses.

A model groundwater extraction bill has been prepared by the CGWB and adopted by some States. However, the bill is yet to be enforced anywhere in the country. Right of priority to meet drinking water needs from groundwater has been upheld by the High Court of Kerala. The available legal options are:

Surface Water. All surface water is public property, whether it is natural flow in a river or storage behind a dam or a natural lake. The use of such water is subject to governmental controls. On development, Government allocates water to users. The quantum of allocation will have temporal variation depending on availability. Nevertheless, there is an assurance of water allocation every year, every season. However, in a changing scenario of water- use priorities, the issue is whether original assurances of allocation can be withdrawn in favour of new uses. This amounts to violation of an established riparian right, even if there is no legal ownership right.

This issue is expected to crop up if water, committed to irrigation, is to be diverted to meet different needs like drinking, industry, environment, etc. with better economic value and opportunity cost. Legally, the issue falls in a gray area and is yet to be tested in courts of law. An option is to confer water right on the existing user with legal provision for transfer of such right, temporarily or permanently. Whether it is groundwater or surface water, legally conferred transferable (temporary or permanent) water right may resolve the issue of ownership right. Another option may be to legalize and encourage free trade of water, a water market.

In stating the need to transfer water from surplus to deficit basins, the NWP is silent on the need for Studying development alternatives within the basin before attempting inter-basin transfer. There could be other options like technological (drip and sprinkler, recycling and reuse), agronomic (drought resistant crops, salinity resistant crops, less water intensive crops, improved seeds, changes in cropping pattern), groundwater (conjunctive use), groundwater recharge (soil conservation, afforestation, watershed management), etc. Large quantum of water can be saved by marginal increase in efficiency of irrigated agriculture.

There is a kind of euphoria that transfer of water from surplus rivers to the deficit rivers will solve both problems of allocations to the States and to sectors. The proposal envisages construction of large reservoirs to store monsoon flows for diversion. The main issues are cost economics, time frame and environmental. A more important issue is the concurrence of the States of a basin on its surplus and the extent of such surplus. Again, only integrated planning at the basin level, taking into account all sectoral demands, will reveal the extent of surplus or deficit.

In the case of a deficit basin, RBO can Study cost-effective, appropriate time-frame options, including imports from other basins. Economics of water-saving options in irrigation, agronomic options to sustain productivity without expanding crop area and recycling and reuse of municipal and industrial effluents will have to be considered aspossible options. Optimal use of groundwater, groundwater recharge, watershed management are other options. The Studies of RBOs should become inputs for National Water Development Agency to plan, inter-basin transfers of water.

There has to be administrative mechanism at the Centre and in The country's total dependence on thermal power is not in its long-term interest. The country does not have large hydro-carbon reserves. The other fossil fuel is of poor quality. Generation of thermal power is highly polluting. Disposal of ash is even a bigger problem The long term interests of the country dictate that its vast hydel potential shall be harnessed fully, in order to minimize atmospheric pollution, to conserve fossil fuel and to sustain power generation. Alternately the country must wait for a break-through in technology to harness non-conventional energy sources like solar, wind, tidal, etc. That may be a long way and then it will be too late.the States to operationalise the institutional mechanism

At the Centre.It would be stretching the imagination to assume that the future water needs of the country can be met adequately by Khandins, tanks, collection of rainwater from roof tops, water shed management, reducing wastage, increasing efficiencies, etc. These are all required but, supplemental to large storages. A storage capacity of 600 b.c.m is necessary to meet all requirements against the existing 177 b.c.m The storages under construction and those contemplated should be completed and the balance planned for execution as early as possible. The single most important impediment is R&R of reservoir displaced people. The Government of India must finalize the R&R policy at the earliest to enable construction of reservoirs proceed apace.

The Ministry of Water Resources should have a separate department with mandate and responsibility,

A vision without an action plan is redundant. An action plan, if not implemented, becomes futile. Implementation needs political will. For political will, the politicEvery State should have Department of Water Resources (DOWR), functioning independently without being attached to any sector. DOWR shall be responsible to set up SBOs and acting in tandem with them, in co-ordinating with all water-using departments to work out sectoral allocations. An effective empowered administrative mechanism is essential to operationalise the NWP and prepare action plans to achieve sustainable development envisaged in " the vision.al leadership shall be convinced.