| |
| ARCHIVES (ISSUE OF THE
MONTH) |
A Halfhearted unfocussed attempt to achieve water use efficiency
The prime minister, Atal Behari Vajpayee, has declared water conservation
as a national mission and has "exhorted every citizen to collectively
address the problem…..by conserving every drop of water and has
suggested conducting water audit for all sectors." This is an
excerpt from the Draft Guidelines for Water Audit and Water Conservation",
jointly produced by the Central Water Commission and the Central Ground
Water Board, the nodal government agencies responsible for managing
water in India. No doubt a much awaited and urgently required measure,
that was expected to lay the foundation of the country's future strategy
on water management.
So does the document address the key issues and suggest a way ahead?
Far from it. Even a cursory look at it exposes huge gaps, both in
technical and in planning aspects. We shall focus on the irrigation
sector.
Water use here is wasteful and inefficient because of 'inadequate
systems maintenance', says the draft. And money required to take care
of this will not be forthcoming unless steps are taken to fix water
charges and to set up a mechanism to ensure regular collection of
revenues. There is no flaw in this argument. But unfortunately the
draft stops at this. It does not offer any constructive proposal as
to how this can be done. Because in a country where a huge majority
of farmers hold plots of less than an acre, and groundwater irrigation
accounts for about 60% of the total 50 million hectares of land under
cultivation--measuring the actual volume of water used by each farmer
is bound to be the most challenging task in the entire process of
auditing!
A vital component here is the institutional infrastructure. But the
draft is remarkably reticent on this front. It merely mentions setting
up of Water Audit Cells, under the State Government Water Resources
Departments. The composition of these units is not discussed at all,
neither does the document propose participation of farmers' groups
in the process of distributing irrigation water or in collecting the
charges. This is a matter of serious concern, because instances of
community initiatives undertaken in various parts of the country,
prove that the actual stakeholders are the most vigilant monitors.
The success rate of Water Users Associations-- operating in states
such as Maharashtra, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh-provide ample evidence
to this.
Most significantly, there is no clarity on whether the process of
conducting Water Audit is legally enforceable on all users. If we
assume that it is not, then the significance of this document is entirely
lost. But if it is, who is responsible for enforcing it? The draft
remains silent on this.
We believe that the issue of 'water audit and conservation' demands
focussed approach and clarity of vision. We have invited some of the
country's leading water experts to comment on the draft. Our objective
is not to pick holes in it but to take the debate forward. We shall
keep you posted-and will eagerly look forward to your opinion.
Drinking water for cities: a blinkered, not shining vision
Learning lessons from past experiences has never been the strength
of the Indian government. The Interim Budget 2004-05, unveiled by
Finance Minister Jaswant Singh - leading light of the India Shining
brigade - exposes this weakness once again. The investment planned
to bring succour to the water-starved metros can be cited as a ‘shining’
example of his blinkered vision.
Chennai, Delhi, Hyderabad and Bangalore have been blessed with an
‘Accelerated Drinking Water Supply Scheme’. Undoubtedly,
this was required. A huge percentage of urban Indians are yet to be
connected to the metropolitan supply network.
For instance, 48 per cent of Delhi’s population, falls in this
category. The government must invest in upgrading the distribution
system. But only after it has addressed some of the more basic and
critical issues. Singh’s basket of goodies does not contain any
provision for sustaining and fortifying the sources that will feed
the supply network, nor does it sanction funds to improve the quality
of water that will be delivered to the consumers.
How vital are these issues? Chennai is fed by a battery of wellfields
in the Koratallaiyar basin and the Poondi reservoir. Both are deeply
silted and can barely cater to 50 per cent of Chennai’s demand.
The gap is plugged by tapping groundwater.
Water is transported to Bangalore from Cauvery at a huge cost. Yet,
more than 40 per cent of Bangaloreans depend primarily on groundwater.
60 per cent of Hyderabad’s needs are met by mining groundwater.
So where are the additional sources that can sustain Singh’s
new scheme? Interestingly, all these four cities were once dotted
with lakes, ponds and eris, that not only acted as supply sources
but also recharged groundwater, naturally. All are now in various
stages of decay. Planning investment in revival of these assets would
certainly have made Singh’s budget more meaningful and productive.
On the quality front the scenario is even grimmer. Both municipal
and groundwater in these cities can be described as a cocktail of
poisons, containing liberal doses of extremely harmful elements, chemical
and organic. But Singh’s budget plans no clean up action. In
contrast, consider this. The US budget this year, allots US$45 million,
to set up sediment remediation plants near six water sources to ‘help
keep toxics like heavy metals from entering the food chain’.
Yet, we Indians are being urged to feel good.
What do you feel should top the list of priorities in the government
agenda? Do write and tell us.
Sumita Dasgupta,
Coordinator, Jal Swaraj Campaign
sumita@cseindia.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
