Baglihar project and Pakistan's tantrums
THE RECENT developments on the Baglihar Project subsequent to the inconclusive talks between the Water Resources Secretaries of India and Pakistan have serious implications for the ongoing India-Pakistan dialogue for lasting peace in the subcontinent. Pakistan's decision to seek World Bank's arbitration on the ongoing hydro-electric project is in stark contrast to the confidence building measures being attempted by India.
Even though India had shown its willingness to be receptive on the issues of technical modifications for the project without endangering the safety of the dam and the hydropower plant under construction, it has been reported that Pakistan considers Baglihar as another dispute with India requiring solution for improvement in relations between the two countries.
Mediatory efforts
The World Bank came into the scene of dispute cropping up between India and Pakistan on the sharing of the waters of the Indus basin as a sequel to the partition of India in 1947. Mediatory efforts by the Bank resulted in the signing of Indus Waters Treaty in 1960. The treaty apportioned the entire waters of the three eastern rivers — the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi — to India except for limited domestic, non-consumptive and irrigation use by Pakistan; and the waters of the three western rivers, namely, the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum were allocated to Pakistan, less limited uses by India for domestic, agricultural and non-consumption purposes including hydro-power generation under certain conditions. Non-consumptive uses are permitted subject to the proviso that the water is returned to these rivers, exclusive of seepage and evaporation incidental to the drawal or use. The provisions in the treaty enable India to build storages with limited capacities on each of the three western rivers to be used for hydro-power generation and other purposes.
The treaty also specifies that the operations of any new run-of-river hydro plant have to be in such a way that the volume of water received in the upstream of the plant during any period of seven consecutive days shall be delivered into the river below the plant during the same seven day period and also ensuring certain minimum and maximum flows every day during such period into the river below.
The proposed Baglihar project envisages a run of the river scheme on the Chenab to facilitate hydro-power generation which would specifically benefit Jammu and Kashmir. The project has been planned as per the stipulations in the treaty and is under construction. The main objection from Pakistan is that with the project in position, India could hold the river flow to the disadvantage of Pakistan either by stopping the water supply to western Pakistan or creating flood situations downstream in that country by abrupt operations of the gated structure. However, these allegations have been made by Pakistan only with the sole objective of stopping the project construction as it is also aware that the existing Salal hydro-electric project located downstream would be severely affected to India's disadvantage with such haphazard operations.
India described these misplaced allegations as unfounded fears pointing out that the operations would be as provided for in the treaty. Further, any breach of the condition stipulated would tantamount to the breach of the treaty and India would never like to be a party to that. The country's record in this regard for the past more than four decades would clearly show that despite two wars and strained Indo-Pak relations in the past, India had honoured the treaty in letter and spirit.
Pakistan's fulminations over Baglihar have resulted in that country approaching the World Bank since in the laid down procedures, the treaty signed by the two countries provides for a role for the Bank. Though the Bank is not a "guarantor" of the treaty, it is signatory for specified purposes including settlement of differences and disputes between these countries on the interpretation of the treaty provisions. As provided for in the treaty, "differences" between them could be referred to a "neutral expert" and if the differences do not fall within the mandate of the expert or if the expert decides that the differences should be treated as a "dispute," then the Bank would be required to establish a "court of arbitration."
No logical reason
There is no logical reason for Pakistan for issuing such recriminations about Baglihar. Hence, India has to be prepared to meet Pakistan's tactics in the international media, given the fact that the treaty itself has been concluded at the instance of the World Bank ignoring the basic then existing criteria for sharing international waters as espoused in the Helsinki Rules and other precedents.
Further, India's bitter experience with the planned Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum in India should be an eye opener while dealing with Pakistan on issues connected with the treaty. This navigation project in Jammu and Kashmir was taken up for construction in 1984, but the construction has been held up due to objections from Pakistan and the work stalled for the past two decades as discussions did not make any headway.
The present stand of Pakistan on the Baglihar is unfortunate as it is a ploy to negate India's efforts to develop the hydro-potential it is eligible to harness as per the treaty. The anguishing part of the fact is that though these rivers have an assessed hydro-potential of 8,825 MW (60 per cent load factor), as of now only about 1,350 MW has been harnessed by India. Such actions are likely to create a demand even for abrogation of the treaty, a demand which has been getting support from various quarters in India in the recent past, particularly in view of the general feeling that the treaty has been to the disadvantage of the country as the water sharing formula adopted therein is not equitable as per international practices followed for decades.
So far India has been compromising on many aspects to ensure the successful functioning of the accord. But Pakistan has carried the issues beyond the realms of the international agreement. Time has passed since the signing of the treaty, but history has not stood still. A situation has now come for India to take a tough stand on the Baglihar and other projects since India has strength in its arguments that it has not violated any provisions in the treaty; halting the work at this stage after investing crores of rupees on the project would be negating the development efforts for the welfare of Jammu and Kashmir; and the Bank has not been conferred any power to suspend the work on any project.
(The Hindu, dated 1st February,2005)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Friday, November 27, 2009
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
The wasted waters
The wasted waters of the west flowing rivers in Kerala
The water rich State with an average annual precipitation of more than 3000 mm, was reeling under water scarcity conditions till recently. Many parts of this "God's own country" were facing drought and the situation was getting further grim with falling groundwater levels, shrinking wet lands, rivers running dry and frustrated farmers committing suicide to escape debt traps. When the summer of discontent reached its zenith, authorities woke up and rushed to Delhi for drought relief and got involved in taking action for getting further relief. But the action plan for development and management of water never found a place in their agenda except in some seminars and TV shows. For, they knew that by June or latest by July, the water shortage would be forgotten by the people as problems of floods would arise by then.
The situation has not developed overnight � every one knew it was coming since the signs of impending shortage had long been evident.
Mistaken belief
The reasons are not far to seek. It is the outcome of the mistaken belief that water scarcity can never occur in this water endowed land; it is the result of missed opportunities in harnessing the bountiful monsoon flows the State receives over a fairly long period every year; and it is the culmination of years of mismanagement of this precious resource.
The estimated average annual stream flow in the State is about 60 billion cubic metres (bcm), contributed by more than 40 west flowing rivers and a few east flowing rivers. Originating from the eastern highlands, the Western Ghats, most of these rivers traversing through the mid plains and lowlands of the coastal area empty their flows into the Lakshadweep sea (Arabian Sea). The river basins in Kerala are uniquely placed since they get contribution from both the Southwest monsoon (June to September) and the Northeast monsoon (October to December). About 80 per cent of the annual rainfall occurs during these months. Against such a background, normally there cannot be any convincing reason for scarcity to occur nor any compelling logic for droughts to stalk the countryside. But the shocking truth is that such a situation has happened since the authorities concerned had no time to consider the issues involved and to take remedial actions.
Politicians were busy organising "hartals" most of the days in a year to protest against the actions of the establishment and naturally water issues never got their priority; the intellectuals preferred to sermonise on aspects which got them media attention and did not find the topic of water interesting; and the stakeholders took it for granted that Kerala would never experience any water shortage. Due to this indifference, hardly about 8 bcm of the freshwater flows could be stored in the State so far, the balance going waste to the sea during the monsoons.
A decade ago, the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM), Kozhikode, in its "Water Atlas of Kerala," had brought out the water availability in these rivers and also the irrigation, and other requirements up to 2021. Almost 10 years since, the available water utilisation data on major rivers such as the Periyar and the Bharatapuzha indicate that more than 60 per cent waters have gone to the sea from these rivers. Obviously, no major and medium storages have been constructed during this period to detain the monsoon flows.
The environmental groups and many others have been vociferous against large dams and wanted only small local water harvesting structures to harness the monsoon flows. However, a rough study of the storage requirements indicates that even to hold half of the available monsoon flows (i.e. about 30 bcm), at least a million tanks would have to be in position. But, when the rains fail, these tanks submerging about two million hectares would also dry up, negating the very purpose for which they are built. Hence a combination of major, medium and minor storages have to be further constructed in the State to utilise the available monsoon flows.
Since no single approach to mitigate the water scarcity can be successful if taken up on an ad hoc basis in exclusion of the others for getting short-term benefits, what is required is an integrated water resources development and management (IWRDM) approach. In such an approach, both the concerns of supply management and demand management will be addressed. All concerned will be made aware of the roles to be played by them � the decision makers, the water professionals, the environmental activists and the user groups � to ensure the upkeep of quality and optimal utilisation of the waters.
The core problem to meet the human needs of water necessitates interference with landscape and such actions will generally have unintended ecological consequences. Humans being an evident part of the eco-system, the realisation has to come that changes and disturbances are unavoidable and are part of the natural and human dominated landscapes and social developments. This fact has to be accepted since the ability to store the monsoon flows and even out the release over the year would decide the occurrence of devastating floods and droughts, a manageable year-round supply or shortage, and adequate aquifer replenishment or depleted groundwater reservoirs. The authorities have to recognise water's role as an engine for development and create an enabling environment for this so that this water endowed State would be able to optimally use its water resources instead of wasting its abundant monsoon flows.
(The Hindu,1st June,2004)
_______________________________________
The water rich State with an average annual precipitation of more than 3000 mm, was reeling under water scarcity conditions till recently. Many parts of this "God's own country" were facing drought and the situation was getting further grim with falling groundwater levels, shrinking wet lands, rivers running dry and frustrated farmers committing suicide to escape debt traps. When the summer of discontent reached its zenith, authorities woke up and rushed to Delhi for drought relief and got involved in taking action for getting further relief. But the action plan for development and management of water never found a place in their agenda except in some seminars and TV shows. For, they knew that by June or latest by July, the water shortage would be forgotten by the people as problems of floods would arise by then.
The situation has not developed overnight � every one knew it was coming since the signs of impending shortage had long been evident.
Mistaken belief
The reasons are not far to seek. It is the outcome of the mistaken belief that water scarcity can never occur in this water endowed land; it is the result of missed opportunities in harnessing the bountiful monsoon flows the State receives over a fairly long period every year; and it is the culmination of years of mismanagement of this precious resource.
The estimated average annual stream flow in the State is about 60 billion cubic metres (bcm), contributed by more than 40 west flowing rivers and a few east flowing rivers. Originating from the eastern highlands, the Western Ghats, most of these rivers traversing through the mid plains and lowlands of the coastal area empty their flows into the Lakshadweep sea (Arabian Sea). The river basins in Kerala are uniquely placed since they get contribution from both the Southwest monsoon (June to September) and the Northeast monsoon (October to December). About 80 per cent of the annual rainfall occurs during these months. Against such a background, normally there cannot be any convincing reason for scarcity to occur nor any compelling logic for droughts to stalk the countryside. But the shocking truth is that such a situation has happened since the authorities concerned had no time to consider the issues involved and to take remedial actions.
Politicians were busy organising "hartals" most of the days in a year to protest against the actions of the establishment and naturally water issues never got their priority; the intellectuals preferred to sermonise on aspects which got them media attention and did not find the topic of water interesting; and the stakeholders took it for granted that Kerala would never experience any water shortage. Due to this indifference, hardly about 8 bcm of the freshwater flows could be stored in the State so far, the balance going waste to the sea during the monsoons.
A decade ago, the Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM), Kozhikode, in its "Water Atlas of Kerala," had brought out the water availability in these rivers and also the irrigation, and other requirements up to 2021. Almost 10 years since, the available water utilisation data on major rivers such as the Periyar and the Bharatapuzha indicate that more than 60 per cent waters have gone to the sea from these rivers. Obviously, no major and medium storages have been constructed during this period to detain the monsoon flows.
The environmental groups and many others have been vociferous against large dams and wanted only small local water harvesting structures to harness the monsoon flows. However, a rough study of the storage requirements indicates that even to hold half of the available monsoon flows (i.e. about 30 bcm), at least a million tanks would have to be in position. But, when the rains fail, these tanks submerging about two million hectares would also dry up, negating the very purpose for which they are built. Hence a combination of major, medium and minor storages have to be further constructed in the State to utilise the available monsoon flows.
Since no single approach to mitigate the water scarcity can be successful if taken up on an ad hoc basis in exclusion of the others for getting short-term benefits, what is required is an integrated water resources development and management (IWRDM) approach. In such an approach, both the concerns of supply management and demand management will be addressed. All concerned will be made aware of the roles to be played by them � the decision makers, the water professionals, the environmental activists and the user groups � to ensure the upkeep of quality and optimal utilisation of the waters.
The core problem to meet the human needs of water necessitates interference with landscape and such actions will generally have unintended ecological consequences. Humans being an evident part of the eco-system, the realisation has to come that changes and disturbances are unavoidable and are part of the natural and human dominated landscapes and social developments. This fact has to be accepted since the ability to store the monsoon flows and even out the release over the year would decide the occurrence of devastating floods and droughts, a manageable year-round supply or shortage, and adequate aquifer replenishment or depleted groundwater reservoirs. The authorities have to recognise water's role as an engine for development and create an enabling environment for this so that this water endowed State would be able to optimally use its water resources instead of wasting its abundant monsoon flows.
(The Hindu,1st June,2004)
_______________________________________
Friday, November 20, 2009
Sardar Sarovar Project
Another Perspective
The Sardar Sarovar project has been delayed far too long and needs to be allowed to yield results quickly. The debates around the numerous issues have more or less run aground.
The Sardar Sarovar Dam (SSD) is back in the news, not as a monster concealing a time bomb waiting to cause devastation but as a benefactor delivering Narmada waters to the far-flung drought-affected villages and towns of Gujarat to quench the thirst of millions of people there. Though due to the sustained efforts of anti-dam activists the dam is still far from completion, 10,000 cusecs of water from the lake formed behind the semi-completed dam could be released into the Narmada Main Canal to feed parched rivers, canals and lakes en route to facilitate drinking water supply in this year’s worst drought, thus proving wrong the forecasts of its critics.
Narmada is the fifth largest river in the country with an average annual flow of 36.5 Million Acre Feet (MAF) almost equalling the combined inflows of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. Originating in Madhya Pradesh, it has a catchment area of about a lakh square kilometres and drains large parts of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat, before emptying into the Gulf of Cambay. Though one of the largest rivers, it is also the least developed.
The history of development of the Narmada river, is the tragic story of hydro-politics hampering development and is a narration of the attempts made by those in power entrenched in the narrow confines of their limited perception working at cross purposes with co-sharers. Initial investigations for Narmada basin development were taken up by Central Water Commission (CWC) in 1947 and detailed investigations and studies were also carried out later on. Thereafter, at the initiative of the then union minister of irrigation and power, an agreement known as Bhopal Agreement was also arrived at in November 1963 by the chief ministers of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. However, this agreement remained only on paper due to the subsequent rejection of the agreement by Madhya Pradesh. This necessitated the setting up of a central committee headed by A N Khosla in 1964, but due to the disagreement among the states, the Khosla Committee Report recommending a master plan for the basin also ended up in the government archives.
The never ending disputes among the states of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra led to the setting up of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) by the government of India in 1969. Rajasthan was also made a party in the proceedings of the tribunal considering various issues. NWDT declared its award in December 1979 taking into account existing agreements, utilisation and demands made by the states, and also the voluminous studies and investigations carried out till then as also the data available on the basin. The award is unique since apart from orders on sharing the available waters among the four states, it included directions regarding the resettlement and rehabilitation (R and R) of the project affected families (PAF), time frame for construction of the SSD and Narmada Sagar Dam as also their salient features/levels; cost and benefit sharing and orders for setting up organisation like the Narmada Control Authority to monitor the implementation of the award, and Sardar Sarovar Construction Advisory Committee to guide the project construction. For reviewing the various decisions of the authority, directions were also given to set up a high powered ministerial review committee chaired by the union minister for water resources. Based on the tribunal’s directions, an overall plan was made by the states envisaging 30 major, 135 medium and more than 3,000 minor dam projects to harness the water of the Narmada basin. SSD in Gujarat is the major terminal dam on the main course of the river, the remaining 29 being in Madhya Pradesh.
The Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) envisages a 139 m high dam across the river, an underground river bed power house (1,200 MW) a canal head power house (250 MW) and 700 km long Main Canal to irrigate more than 2.5 million ha of land in Gujarat and in Rajasthan, and to provide drinking water facilities to 8,215 villages and 135 urban centres, mostly located in the Saurashtra and Kachchh areas. In addition, 881villages affected by fluoride will get potable water. Other benefits include protection against floods in the downstream villages and against the advancement of deserts like Little Rann of Kachchh. The estimated cost of the project was Rs 6,406 crore (1986 price level) envisaging an increased annual production of Rs 1,400 crore due to agriculture, domestic water supply and power generation.
Raging Controversies
The construction of the dam commenced in 1987, a full seven years after the tribunal gave the award. Initially the progress in the project construction was appreciable but later on the project got mired in controversies particularly in regard to environmental aspects and R and R.
Environmental awareness and related issues concerning SSP are developments subsequent to NWDT. This debate on the project devolves around many issues like reservoir-induced seismicity, vanishing flora and fauna, health implications, etc. Even at present, knowledge on environmental impacts is limited and those who suggest concerned studies are even unaware of the feasibility of achieving results based on these. Interference with nature is not an abomination, it has to be done with great understanding so as to mitigate the adverse impacts. The studies carried out by the project and actions taken thereon indicate the seriousness with which these issues are addressed by the project authorities. In view of the commitments already made, it can be safely assumed that as fuller understanding of the impacts emerge, timely responsive actions would also get introduced into the system.
On the R and R front it is seen that though compared to the package specified in the award for PAFs, packages offered by the state governments are better. However, according to the NGOs, the implementation is not satisfactory. This deficiency gave rise to a series of court cases right up to the Supreme Court of India. The judicial intervention at various stages did activate the authorities to set up a grievance redressal machinery in each state headed by a retired high court judge so as to ensure proper implementation of R and R. The apex court had also given adequate direction to the states in this regard. Consequently, this issue is getting fuller attention from the concerned authorities.
The self-appointed experts and do-gooders who wanted the project construction to be stopped, could not accept the verdict given by the apex court permitting further construction of the dam. These anti-dam activists had all along been parroting the project as an environmental disaster, forecasting dreadful consequences that would spell doom for the region and country at large. According to them, there are many options providing benefits equivalent to SSP, minimising population displacement and for improving the environment. The work done by Anna Hazare in Maharashtra and Tarun Bharat Sangh in Rajasthan is being quoted by them for stressing that with such localised watershed development activities, SSP would not be needed. For them, the Report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), December 2000, eulogising the option of small water harvesting structures in lieu of large dams became the guide to attack large dams in general and SSP in particular. They also advocate the alternative suggested by Subhash Paranjpe and K J Joy (the P J proposal) to get the full benefits from a restructured low SSP. The alternative of going for non-conventional energy sources is also flaunted by them claiming equivalent power benefits. Ignoring such available options, the engineer-contractor-politician nexus is clamouring, they bemoan, to complete an unproductive, risky project to fatten their pockets and to ruin the country. The dooms-day people assert that none of the so-called benefits would reach the poor and not even a drop of water would be available to the far-flung Saurashtra and Kachchh regions even years after the completion of the project. Their allegations and consequent clarifications by the authorities have left the public more confused.
The replication of a number of small storages to tap the rainfall is one of the options suggested in this context by many including WCD. To hold the equivalent storage provided in SSD, about 2 lakh ha would have to be acquired for small tanks displacing more than 1,00,000 small time farmers in the process. Land acquisition problems and large displacement of people under this option seems to have been ignored by these intellectuals. Further, when the rains fail, these tanks will get dried up negating the very purpose for which they are built. In the PJ proposal, many of the theories propounded and assumptions made are questionable and its technical feasibility to get the benefits is doubtful. The much talked about option of power generation through solar, wind, tidal and such other sources as a substitute for SSP will remain a distant dream since India’s present-day shortage in peaking capacity is more than 10,000 MW while the present capacity world over due to these sources is a measly 2,000 MW. In short, all these offered options can supplement the benefits of SSP, but none can be a substitute for the project. The critics in their blindfolded enthusiasm to stop the dam construction appears to have lost sight of these ground realities.
Needed Action
While some of the water development needs can be met by small dams and conjunctive use of aquifers, large dams like SSD cannot be wished away in the monsoonic climate condition of India to produce the foodgrains needed by the burgeoning population of the country. The seasonal nature of the rainfall and its variation from year to year cause water shortage thereby necessitating storages to be built to use the water when needed. At the same time, the environmental dimensions of water should also receive adequate attention within the irrigation sector as also the resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people. Unfortunately, instead of striving for mitigating adverse environmental impacts and facilitating the process of R and R the vested interests are only pooling their energies to stop the project construction. For this purpose, they have roped in local illiterates and a disinformed intelligentsia to malign the project and question its benefits. They have created fallacies and myths to displace logical reasoning. Ignoring the limitations of their suggested options and turning a blind eye to the facts, they have been campaigning even in the international fora against the project and its benefits. However, with the Narmada waters flowing into the distant regions of Saurashtra and Kachchh, one of their blatant lies has now been nailed and they have been exposed.
We have lost precious time and precious water. The projected benefits for SSP would have been available now but for the delays engineered by vested interests. As the water crisis is deepening particularly in the western region, a strategy has to be developed to educate the public about the project.
(Economic and Political Weekly, 27th September,2003)
Another Perspective
The Sardar Sarovar project has been delayed far too long and needs to be allowed to yield results quickly. The debates around the numerous issues have more or less run aground.
The Sardar Sarovar Dam (SSD) is back in the news, not as a monster concealing a time bomb waiting to cause devastation but as a benefactor delivering Narmada waters to the far-flung drought-affected villages and towns of Gujarat to quench the thirst of millions of people there. Though due to the sustained efforts of anti-dam activists the dam is still far from completion, 10,000 cusecs of water from the lake formed behind the semi-completed dam could be released into the Narmada Main Canal to feed parched rivers, canals and lakes en route to facilitate drinking water supply in this year’s worst drought, thus proving wrong the forecasts of its critics.
Narmada is the fifth largest river in the country with an average annual flow of 36.5 Million Acre Feet (MAF) almost equalling the combined inflows of the Ravi, Beas and Sutlej. Originating in Madhya Pradesh, it has a catchment area of about a lakh square kilometres and drains large parts of Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Gujarat, before emptying into the Gulf of Cambay. Though one of the largest rivers, it is also the least developed.
The history of development of the Narmada river, is the tragic story of hydro-politics hampering development and is a narration of the attempts made by those in power entrenched in the narrow confines of their limited perception working at cross purposes with co-sharers. Initial investigations for Narmada basin development were taken up by Central Water Commission (CWC) in 1947 and detailed investigations and studies were also carried out later on. Thereafter, at the initiative of the then union minister of irrigation and power, an agreement known as Bhopal Agreement was also arrived at in November 1963 by the chief ministers of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh. However, this agreement remained only on paper due to the subsequent rejection of the agreement by Madhya Pradesh. This necessitated the setting up of a central committee headed by A N Khosla in 1964, but due to the disagreement among the states, the Khosla Committee Report recommending a master plan for the basin also ended up in the government archives.
The never ending disputes among the states of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Maharashtra led to the setting up of the Narmada Water Disputes Tribunal (NWDT) by the government of India in 1969. Rajasthan was also made a party in the proceedings of the tribunal considering various issues. NWDT declared its award in December 1979 taking into account existing agreements, utilisation and demands made by the states, and also the voluminous studies and investigations carried out till then as also the data available on the basin. The award is unique since apart from orders on sharing the available waters among the four states, it included directions regarding the resettlement and rehabilitation (R and R) of the project affected families (PAF), time frame for construction of the SSD and Narmada Sagar Dam as also their salient features/levels; cost and benefit sharing and orders for setting up organisation like the Narmada Control Authority to monitor the implementation of the award, and Sardar Sarovar Construction Advisory Committee to guide the project construction. For reviewing the various decisions of the authority, directions were also given to set up a high powered ministerial review committee chaired by the union minister for water resources. Based on the tribunal’s directions, an overall plan was made by the states envisaging 30 major, 135 medium and more than 3,000 minor dam projects to harness the water of the Narmada basin. SSD in Gujarat is the major terminal dam on the main course of the river, the remaining 29 being in Madhya Pradesh.
The Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) envisages a 139 m high dam across the river, an underground river bed power house (1,200 MW) a canal head power house (250 MW) and 700 km long Main Canal to irrigate more than 2.5 million ha of land in Gujarat and in Rajasthan, and to provide drinking water facilities to 8,215 villages and 135 urban centres, mostly located in the Saurashtra and Kachchh areas. In addition, 881villages affected by fluoride will get potable water. Other benefits include protection against floods in the downstream villages and against the advancement of deserts like Little Rann of Kachchh. The estimated cost of the project was Rs 6,406 crore (1986 price level) envisaging an increased annual production of Rs 1,400 crore due to agriculture, domestic water supply and power generation.
Raging Controversies
The construction of the dam commenced in 1987, a full seven years after the tribunal gave the award. Initially the progress in the project construction was appreciable but later on the project got mired in controversies particularly in regard to environmental aspects and R and R.
Environmental awareness and related issues concerning SSP are developments subsequent to NWDT. This debate on the project devolves around many issues like reservoir-induced seismicity, vanishing flora and fauna, health implications, etc. Even at present, knowledge on environmental impacts is limited and those who suggest concerned studies are even unaware of the feasibility of achieving results based on these. Interference with nature is not an abomination, it has to be done with great understanding so as to mitigate the adverse impacts. The studies carried out by the project and actions taken thereon indicate the seriousness with which these issues are addressed by the project authorities. In view of the commitments already made, it can be safely assumed that as fuller understanding of the impacts emerge, timely responsive actions would also get introduced into the system.
On the R and R front it is seen that though compared to the package specified in the award for PAFs, packages offered by the state governments are better. However, according to the NGOs, the implementation is not satisfactory. This deficiency gave rise to a series of court cases right up to the Supreme Court of India. The judicial intervention at various stages did activate the authorities to set up a grievance redressal machinery in each state headed by a retired high court judge so as to ensure proper implementation of R and R. The apex court had also given adequate direction to the states in this regard. Consequently, this issue is getting fuller attention from the concerned authorities.
The self-appointed experts and do-gooders who wanted the project construction to be stopped, could not accept the verdict given by the apex court permitting further construction of the dam. These anti-dam activists had all along been parroting the project as an environmental disaster, forecasting dreadful consequences that would spell doom for the region and country at large. According to them, there are many options providing benefits equivalent to SSP, minimising population displacement and for improving the environment. The work done by Anna Hazare in Maharashtra and Tarun Bharat Sangh in Rajasthan is being quoted by them for stressing that with such localised watershed development activities, SSP would not be needed. For them, the Report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), December 2000, eulogising the option of small water harvesting structures in lieu of large dams became the guide to attack large dams in general and SSP in particular. They also advocate the alternative suggested by Subhash Paranjpe and K J Joy (the P J proposal) to get the full benefits from a restructured low SSP. The alternative of going for non-conventional energy sources is also flaunted by them claiming equivalent power benefits. Ignoring such available options, the engineer-contractor-politician nexus is clamouring, they bemoan, to complete an unproductive, risky project to fatten their pockets and to ruin the country. The dooms-day people assert that none of the so-called benefits would reach the poor and not even a drop of water would be available to the far-flung Saurashtra and Kachchh regions even years after the completion of the project. Their allegations and consequent clarifications by the authorities have left the public more confused.
The replication of a number of small storages to tap the rainfall is one of the options suggested in this context by many including WCD. To hold the equivalent storage provided in SSD, about 2 lakh ha would have to be acquired for small tanks displacing more than 1,00,000 small time farmers in the process. Land acquisition problems and large displacement of people under this option seems to have been ignored by these intellectuals. Further, when the rains fail, these tanks will get dried up negating the very purpose for which they are built. In the PJ proposal, many of the theories propounded and assumptions made are questionable and its technical feasibility to get the benefits is doubtful. The much talked about option of power generation through solar, wind, tidal and such other sources as a substitute for SSP will remain a distant dream since India’s present-day shortage in peaking capacity is more than 10,000 MW while the present capacity world over due to these sources is a measly 2,000 MW. In short, all these offered options can supplement the benefits of SSP, but none can be a substitute for the project. The critics in their blindfolded enthusiasm to stop the dam construction appears to have lost sight of these ground realities.
Needed Action
While some of the water development needs can be met by small dams and conjunctive use of aquifers, large dams like SSD cannot be wished away in the monsoonic climate condition of India to produce the foodgrains needed by the burgeoning population of the country. The seasonal nature of the rainfall and its variation from year to year cause water shortage thereby necessitating storages to be built to use the water when needed. At the same time, the environmental dimensions of water should also receive adequate attention within the irrigation sector as also the resettlement and rehabilitation of project affected people. Unfortunately, instead of striving for mitigating adverse environmental impacts and facilitating the process of R and R the vested interests are only pooling their energies to stop the project construction. For this purpose, they have roped in local illiterates and a disinformed intelligentsia to malign the project and question its benefits. They have created fallacies and myths to displace logical reasoning. Ignoring the limitations of their suggested options and turning a blind eye to the facts, they have been campaigning even in the international fora against the project and its benefits. However, with the Narmada waters flowing into the distant regions of Saurashtra and Kachchh, one of their blatant lies has now been nailed and they have been exposed.
We have lost precious time and precious water. The projected benefits for SSP would have been available now but for the delays engineered by vested interests. As the water crisis is deepening particularly in the western region, a strategy has to be developed to educate the public about the project.
(Economic and Political Weekly, 27th September,2003)
Wednesday, November 18, 2009
Lessons learnt from Cauvery.
Lessons learnt from Cauvery: nationalise interstate rivers
A new and acceptable mechanism in dealing with water has to be evolved in which the needs of the stakeholders will be appreciated along with their rights, and the available water will be equitably shared by the co-basin States.
THE HOLY waters of the Cauvery river are being desecrated — not by the nefarious deeds of religious fanatics, but by the despicable actions of political opportunists. Vote bank politics has succeeded in dividing the culturally united dwellers of this basin into upper and lower riparian blocks to fight each other for their water rights. These people of steeply bound traditions for generations, who were sharing the bounties of the river happily and its distress with concern for each other, are now at each other's throat fighting for their share of the same life giving waters. Similar situation is also brewing in other interstate rivers of the country. The dispute in the Krishna basin is getting ignited to explode into volcanic proportions, while simmering discontent among co-basin States in the river systems of the Indus, Mahanadi, etc., is threatening to erupt into major unrest.
The failure of the water deficit States to resolve their differences with water surplus neighbours has now resulted in demands for nationalisation of rivers, as, according to the former, such a step alone would ensure equitable and sustainable utilisation of the river flows.
The States are obliged to cooperate with each other under the principle of federalism of the polity. However, the water endowed upper riparian States who consider the waters in their rivers as their properties are opposed to the nationalisation of the rivers as, according to them, the concept is against the autonomy of the States guaranteed under the Constitution. However, these States, which zealously safeguard their autonomous status and rights, forget their obligations to cooperate with each other while practising federalism. Consequent on such contradictory positions taken by these States, many Chief Ministers of water deficit States have been forced to demand the nationalisation of rivers. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa, was frustrated to make this demand due to the failure of Karnataka to release Cauvery waters to help the farmers in the delta. Haryana made this demand due to the steadfast refusal of Punjab to release waters of the Ravi-Beas System for the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. Similarly for Goa, the waters of the Mandovi and for Chattisgarh, the Indravati waters have been contentious issues with their neighbours.
Faced by the dismal scenario, the rulers, in the meanwhile, preferred to react to the events rather than governing them; the intellectuals remained indifferent and acted disinterestedly even in spite of knowing the gravity of the situation; the politicians found the environment favourable to them to remain in the limelight, while the farmers suffered.
In this situation, the demand for nationalisation of water from States needs serious consideration. A new and acceptable mechanism in dealing with water has to be evolved in which the needs of the stakeholders will be appreciated along with their rights, and the available water will be equitably shared by the co-basin States. The approach has to be honest and sincere with a long-term vision rather than being impulsive, emotional and ad hoc.
Options
Complex legal issues are involved in matters dealing with integrated development of interstate and intrastate rivers, allocation of river waters, water rights, etc. Many including water professionals are of the view that "Water" being a "State" subject, as per the existing provisions in the Constitution, only by amending the Constitution and bringing "Water" under the "Central" or "Concurrent" List and by enacting a national framework legislation for integrated and economic use of water, it will be possible to optimise the use of the resource in the country. However, considering the present political climate, a constitutional amendment on such a sensitive matter is not likely to occur in the near future and alternatives would have to be found to solve this vexed problem. In this regard, some experts are of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are adequate to deal with the situation and the Centre has only to empower itself to regulate and develop interstate rivers, which contribute more than 85 per cent of the country's utilisable water resources.
As per the provisions in the Constitution, though the subject relating to water is contained in Entry 17 of List II (State List), this Entry is subject to the provisions of the Entry 56 of List I (Union List).
Entry 56 under Union List reads as under:
"Regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest." Hence according to these legal experts, Parliament may, by making the requisite declaration in public interest under Entry 56 of List I, enact a law for the regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys thus taking over the control of these interstate rivers and putting a stop to the acrimonious disputes on these waters.
The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations which examined this issue in detail, opined that the scheme of the Constitution was that there was need for Union control over waters of interstate rivers and river valleys for their regulation and control but in matters of local concern as in the case of land, States should have powers in respect of waters which are not part of interstate rivers and are located within the territory of each State. As interstate rivers are not located entirely within a State but only flow through its territories, no State can lay claim to the exclusive use of such waters and/or deprive other States of their just share. Since the jurisdiction of a State by virtue of Article 245 is territorially limited, only Parliament could have powers to regulate, by law, the beneficial use and distribution of such waters among the States. Hence the Sarkaria Commission was of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are the best to deal with the issue of water and hence did not support the suggestions from different quarters to include the subject of water either in the "Union List" or in the "Concurrent List."
Needed action
The immediate step to be taken by the Centre in this regard is to empower itself under Entry 56 to control interstate rivers. However, enactment of laws to take over the regulation and development of the interstate rivers alone is not adequate to ensure the optimum utilisation of the resource. There is need for an institutional set-up backed by law to concern itself with interstate rivers. A National Water Authority and River Basin Authorities with adequate powers could be set up for this purpose. The River Board's Act (1956) could be suitably amended for this purpose to empower these authorities to deal with all matters including collection of data, major principles of water allocation among the States concerned, principles of basin development, issue of guidelines related to the projects in the basin, etc. The successful functioning of organisations like Bhakra-Beas Management Board, Damodar Valley Corporation, Tungabhadra Board, etc., in the past few decades should be an eye opener in this regard to enthuse the Centre to set up the requisite mechanisms for the interstate rivers.
Tardy development and inefficient management of the resource coupled with the never-ending disputes among the co-basin States is driving this water rich country to a hydrocide situation. In the meanwhile, increasing politics on water is necessitating ad hoc measures being taken to resolve resultant problems, thereby putting aside needed action with long-term vision. As hydro-politics is threatening the very fabric of federalism, it is time the Centre empowered itself to deal with interstate rivers and come out with a vision for action to regulate and develop them and thus save the country from the looming threat of water famine.
(The Hindu, 2nd September,2003)
A new and acceptable mechanism in dealing with water has to be evolved in which the needs of the stakeholders will be appreciated along with their rights, and the available water will be equitably shared by the co-basin States.
THE HOLY waters of the Cauvery river are being desecrated — not by the nefarious deeds of religious fanatics, but by the despicable actions of political opportunists. Vote bank politics has succeeded in dividing the culturally united dwellers of this basin into upper and lower riparian blocks to fight each other for their water rights. These people of steeply bound traditions for generations, who were sharing the bounties of the river happily and its distress with concern for each other, are now at each other's throat fighting for their share of the same life giving waters. Similar situation is also brewing in other interstate rivers of the country. The dispute in the Krishna basin is getting ignited to explode into volcanic proportions, while simmering discontent among co-basin States in the river systems of the Indus, Mahanadi, etc., is threatening to erupt into major unrest.
The failure of the water deficit States to resolve their differences with water surplus neighbours has now resulted in demands for nationalisation of rivers, as, according to the former, such a step alone would ensure equitable and sustainable utilisation of the river flows.
The States are obliged to cooperate with each other under the principle of federalism of the polity. However, the water endowed upper riparian States who consider the waters in their rivers as their properties are opposed to the nationalisation of the rivers as, according to them, the concept is against the autonomy of the States guaranteed under the Constitution. However, these States, which zealously safeguard their autonomous status and rights, forget their obligations to cooperate with each other while practising federalism. Consequent on such contradictory positions taken by these States, many Chief Ministers of water deficit States have been forced to demand the nationalisation of rivers. The Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Jayalalithaa, was frustrated to make this demand due to the failure of Karnataka to release Cauvery waters to help the farmers in the delta. Haryana made this demand due to the steadfast refusal of Punjab to release waters of the Ravi-Beas System for the Sutlej Yamuna Link Canal. Similarly for Goa, the waters of the Mandovi and for Chattisgarh, the Indravati waters have been contentious issues with their neighbours.
Faced by the dismal scenario, the rulers, in the meanwhile, preferred to react to the events rather than governing them; the intellectuals remained indifferent and acted disinterestedly even in spite of knowing the gravity of the situation; the politicians found the environment favourable to them to remain in the limelight, while the farmers suffered.
In this situation, the demand for nationalisation of water from States needs serious consideration. A new and acceptable mechanism in dealing with water has to be evolved in which the needs of the stakeholders will be appreciated along with their rights, and the available water will be equitably shared by the co-basin States. The approach has to be honest and sincere with a long-term vision rather than being impulsive, emotional and ad hoc.
Options
Complex legal issues are involved in matters dealing with integrated development of interstate and intrastate rivers, allocation of river waters, water rights, etc. Many including water professionals are of the view that "Water" being a "State" subject, as per the existing provisions in the Constitution, only by amending the Constitution and bringing "Water" under the "Central" or "Concurrent" List and by enacting a national framework legislation for integrated and economic use of water, it will be possible to optimise the use of the resource in the country. However, considering the present political climate, a constitutional amendment on such a sensitive matter is not likely to occur in the near future and alternatives would have to be found to solve this vexed problem. In this regard, some experts are of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are adequate to deal with the situation and the Centre has only to empower itself to regulate and develop interstate rivers, which contribute more than 85 per cent of the country's utilisable water resources.
As per the provisions in the Constitution, though the subject relating to water is contained in Entry 17 of List II (State List), this Entry is subject to the provisions of the Entry 56 of List I (Union List).
Entry 56 under Union List reads as under:
"Regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys to the extent to which such regulation and development under the control of the Union is declared by Parliament by law to be expedient in public interest." Hence according to these legal experts, Parliament may, by making the requisite declaration in public interest under Entry 56 of List I, enact a law for the regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys thus taking over the control of these interstate rivers and putting a stop to the acrimonious disputes on these waters.
The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations which examined this issue in detail, opined that the scheme of the Constitution was that there was need for Union control over waters of interstate rivers and river valleys for their regulation and control but in matters of local concern as in the case of land, States should have powers in respect of waters which are not part of interstate rivers and are located within the territory of each State. As interstate rivers are not located entirely within a State but only flow through its territories, no State can lay claim to the exclusive use of such waters and/or deprive other States of their just share. Since the jurisdiction of a State by virtue of Article 245 is territorially limited, only Parliament could have powers to regulate, by law, the beneficial use and distribution of such waters among the States. Hence the Sarkaria Commission was of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are the best to deal with the issue of water and hence did not support the suggestions from different quarters to include the subject of water either in the "Union List" or in the "Concurrent List."
Needed action
The immediate step to be taken by the Centre in this regard is to empower itself under Entry 56 to control interstate rivers. However, enactment of laws to take over the regulation and development of the interstate rivers alone is not adequate to ensure the optimum utilisation of the resource. There is need for an institutional set-up backed by law to concern itself with interstate rivers. A National Water Authority and River Basin Authorities with adequate powers could be set up for this purpose. The River Board's Act (1956) could be suitably amended for this purpose to empower these authorities to deal with all matters including collection of data, major principles of water allocation among the States concerned, principles of basin development, issue of guidelines related to the projects in the basin, etc. The successful functioning of organisations like Bhakra-Beas Management Board, Damodar Valley Corporation, Tungabhadra Board, etc., in the past few decades should be an eye opener in this regard to enthuse the Centre to set up the requisite mechanisms for the interstate rivers.
Tardy development and inefficient management of the resource coupled with the never-ending disputes among the co-basin States is driving this water rich country to a hydrocide situation. In the meanwhile, increasing politics on water is necessitating ad hoc measures being taken to resolve resultant problems, thereby putting aside needed action with long-term vision. As hydro-politics is threatening the very fabric of federalism, it is time the Centre empowered itself to deal with interstate rivers and come out with a vision for action to regulate and develop them and thus save the country from the looming threat of water famine.
(The Hindu, 2nd September,2003)
Monday, November 9, 2009
Interbasin water transfer
A case for inter-basin transfer of water
The proposals for inter-basin transfer of water represent a great challenge and opportunity. They are part of a better tomorrow to free the millions from the miseries resulting from both the harmful abundance and acute scarcity of water.
OF LATE, not a day passes without reports appearing in the media of floods wreaking havoc and droughts causing distress to people in various parts of the country. The occurrence of floods and droughts had been a regular feature in the past. Billions were being spent every year to render assistance to those affected, though very little was, in effect, done to alleviate the rapidly developing critical situations.
Indian land mass receives, on an average, 4,000 billion cubic metres (BCM) of precipitation every year, 75 per cent of which is spread over three monsoon months while concentrated rainfall occurs only in a period of about 100 hours duration. After providing for the losses due to immediate evaporation and ground absorption, the estimated available water resource is about 1,900 BCM. Two-thirds of this is constributed by the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) system covering one third of the country's geographical area. Consequently, the remaining two-thirds of the country has to be satisfied with the balance resource, and face the deficiencies while the GBM basin experiences floods. Thus the main characteristic of India's water resources is its uneven distribution in space and time leading to endemic and sporadic problems of water shortages and excesses.
Frequent occurrence of floods and droughts is a reflection of our failure to develop and manage the country's water resources. Needless to say that water, a key element in our eco-system, is not getting enough attention except when droughts stalk the countryside and floods devastate large tracts of land and habitats. Even then, we remain satisfied by providing some relief to the affected people instead of learning from these failures and taking recourse to obvious and available solutions.
Many basins in the country are surplus in water resource even in the ultimate stage of development while others face serious shortages. Creation of storages and inter-basin transfer of water from surplus to deficit regions could therefore be an option for achieving more equitable distribution of our water wealth and its optimal utilisation. Hence if the resource abundant rivers like the Brahmaputra, Ganga, etc., could be linked with other rivers and a National Water Grid created, the miseries of recurring droughts and floods could be contained to a great extent.
Past experience
Projects for inter-basin transfer of water are in existence and are also being planned in countries such as the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Spain, China, et c. For India, long distance water transfer is not a new concept. The Western Yamuna Canal and Agra Canal have been carrying waters from the Himalayas to the distant plains of Punjab, U.P. and Rajasthan for the last few centuries. The Kurnool-Cuddapah Canal and the Periyar-Vaigai Canal executed in the 19th Century, the Parambikulam-Aliyar Project in the last century — all stand testimony to the sense of cooperation and good will exhibited by the people of yore to alleviate the sufferings of the water starved fellow human beings.
Suggestions for a National Water Grid were initially advocated by the late K. L. Rao, former Union Minister for Irrigation and Power, and an expert in the sector. The proposals envisaged mainly a 2,640 km. long Ganga-Cauvery link to carry, partly by gravity and partly by a maximum lift of 550m, 1,680 cumecs of Ganga flood waters near Patna for 150 days annually; and also a Brahmaputra-Ganga link to transfer 1,800-3,000 cumecs with a lift of 12-15 m. However, detailed examination of the proposal in Central Water Commission indicated the costs to be prohibitive and power needs for pumping excessively high (5-7 million KW). Hence the proposal was not further pursued.
Present proposals
The continued onslaught of floods and droughts in the intervening years in various parts of the country and the consequent loss of life and property necessitated the Government of India to review the situation and to come out with a National Perspective Plan for interlinking the rivers. The plan comprises two components:
(i) The Himalayan river component envisaging storages and interlinking canal systems to transfer surplus flows of the Kosi, Gandak and Ghagra to the west; Brahmaputra-Ganga link to augment the dry weather flows of the Ganga; Ganga-Yamuna link to serve the drought areas of Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat as also south Uttar Pradesh and south Bihar.
(ii) The Peninsular river component envisaging to divert the Mahanadi surplus to the Godavari and the surplus therefrom to the Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery, with terminal dams on the Mahanadi and the Godavari to enable irrigation in the drought areas of the South.
The Peninsular component envisages three more proposals of water transfer — (a) to divert a part of the waters of the west flowing rivers of Kerala to the arid east to meet the needs of the drought areas of Tamil Nadu; (b) to interlink the west flowing rivers north of Bombay and south of Tapi to provide irrigation to areas in Saurashtra, Kachchh and coastal Maharashtra and to augment the drinking water supplies to Mumbai; and (c) to interlink the southern tributaries of the Yamuna and provide irrigation facilities in parts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
The plan when fully implemented is estimated to bring an additional area of 35 mha under irrigation and generate additional power (installed capacity 34,000 MW) with an investment of Rs. 330,000 crores (1995-96 price level). About 30 years would be required to fully implement the scheme needing an annual budget of Rs. 11,000 crores.
Detailed field investigations carried out for various links indicated that these are technically feasible and economically sound. Still, not even a single link has been taken up for implementation so far by the authorities concerned probably due to stiff opposition from some of the States and criticism by sections of the public. The initial enthusiasm appears to be waning and needless to say that the delay is going to be suicidal for the plan. If the lack of required thrust now seen is any indication, these much studied proposals may likely end up in some dusty files stored in unmarked cupboards in the government offices. We should not allow this to happen.
Objections
The main objection from some of the water rich States is that they do not have any surplus water to transfer. Given the requisite finances they insist that it would be possible for them to utilise all their water resources. Hence they do not agree to the basic philosophy of inter-basin transfer as a method of correcting the natural imbalance of inequitable distribution of water. However through free and frank negotiations it would be possible to convince these States to share water for the purpose in the national interest by introducing a provision in the proposals for compensating the economic cost of water surplussed for inter-basin transfer. This provision would enable the donor (State/basin from where surplus water is to be transferred) to get compensated by the donee the cost of such water transferred, as may be determined on the basis of an agreed criterion, either in cash or in sharing the power generated, agricultural produce, etc.
There has also been criticism against the plan from some groups involved in the sector. According to them, if the proposals are meant only for meeting future irrigation needs, there are options to improve water availability. Better water management is economically more attractive than bringing water through a costly grid, they say; demand management by improving water use efficiency, evaporation control, recycling and reuse of water, etc., can also achieve the requisite objectives. Some of them even feel that investments in water transfers being economically less efficient compared to industrial and commercial investments for such ventures, deficiency in food can be met from imports at a cheaper cost. There are also groups advocating small water harvesting structures to reduce flood effects, improve soil moisture and recharging ground water as an alternative to long distance water transfers.
Unfortunately, the opponents to the plan appear to have conveniently forgotten the benefits reaped from the past water transfers, be it through the Western Yamuna Canal and the Agra Canal in the North or the K.C. Canal and the Periyar-Vaigai Canal in the South. They also appear to have overlooked the fact that a nation of the size of India cannot afford to be not self-sufficient in foodgrains production and that the world trade in foodgrains is not large enough to meet the needs of a large country. They also seem to have forgotten as to what happened in the country in the middle of the last century when foodgrains had to be imported under PL-480 funds. The concept of "Small is beautiful" is fine but not fully reliable for harnessing water resources when the monsoon plays hide and seek with the fortunes of farmers and drinking water becomes a rarity.
There are sceptics who doubt the feasibility of such mass transfer of waters in the present environment. It would remain only as a dream, they contend. Till recently, many could not believe that the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP) would be able to bloom the Rajasthan desert. What was once a vision is now a reality and the magic touch of water has rejuvenated many areas in the desert.
The proposals for inter-basin transfer of water represent a great challenge and opportunity. They are part of a better tomorrow to free the millions from the miseries resulting from both the harmful abundance and acute scarcity of water. The country cannot afford to go slow on these well-studied proposals considering water's role as an engine for development. Long distance transfer of water is not an end by itself but it is a means to end the human sufferings from frequent droughts and floods. Hence we should not allow these proposals to slip into the shadows of history to remain frozen in time while billions of cubic metres of fresh water go unutilised and discharged into the sea every year.
M.S. MENON
Former Chief Engineer, CWC
(The Hindu, 19th November, 2002)
The proposals for inter-basin transfer of water represent a great challenge and opportunity. They are part of a better tomorrow to free the millions from the miseries resulting from both the harmful abundance and acute scarcity of water.
OF LATE, not a day passes without reports appearing in the media of floods wreaking havoc and droughts causing distress to people in various parts of the country. The occurrence of floods and droughts had been a regular feature in the past. Billions were being spent every year to render assistance to those affected, though very little was, in effect, done to alleviate the rapidly developing critical situations.
Indian land mass receives, on an average, 4,000 billion cubic metres (BCM) of precipitation every year, 75 per cent of which is spread over three monsoon months while concentrated rainfall occurs only in a period of about 100 hours duration. After providing for the losses due to immediate evaporation and ground absorption, the estimated available water resource is about 1,900 BCM. Two-thirds of this is constributed by the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) system covering one third of the country's geographical area. Consequently, the remaining two-thirds of the country has to be satisfied with the balance resource, and face the deficiencies while the GBM basin experiences floods. Thus the main characteristic of India's water resources is its uneven distribution in space and time leading to endemic and sporadic problems of water shortages and excesses.
Frequent occurrence of floods and droughts is a reflection of our failure to develop and manage the country's water resources. Needless to say that water, a key element in our eco-system, is not getting enough attention except when droughts stalk the countryside and floods devastate large tracts of land and habitats. Even then, we remain satisfied by providing some relief to the affected people instead of learning from these failures and taking recourse to obvious and available solutions.
Many basins in the country are surplus in water resource even in the ultimate stage of development while others face serious shortages. Creation of storages and inter-basin transfer of water from surplus to deficit regions could therefore be an option for achieving more equitable distribution of our water wealth and its optimal utilisation. Hence if the resource abundant rivers like the Brahmaputra, Ganga, etc., could be linked with other rivers and a National Water Grid created, the miseries of recurring droughts and floods could be contained to a great extent.
Past experience
Projects for inter-basin transfer of water are in existence and are also being planned in countries such as the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Spain, China, et c. For India, long distance water transfer is not a new concept. The Western Yamuna Canal and Agra Canal have been carrying waters from the Himalayas to the distant plains of Punjab, U.P. and Rajasthan for the last few centuries. The Kurnool-Cuddapah Canal and the Periyar-Vaigai Canal executed in the 19th Century, the Parambikulam-Aliyar Project in the last century — all stand testimony to the sense of cooperation and good will exhibited by the people of yore to alleviate the sufferings of the water starved fellow human beings.
Suggestions for a National Water Grid were initially advocated by the late K. L. Rao, former Union Minister for Irrigation and Power, and an expert in the sector. The proposals envisaged mainly a 2,640 km. long Ganga-Cauvery link to carry, partly by gravity and partly by a maximum lift of 550m, 1,680 cumecs of Ganga flood waters near Patna for 150 days annually; and also a Brahmaputra-Ganga link to transfer 1,800-3,000 cumecs with a lift of 12-15 m. However, detailed examination of the proposal in Central Water Commission indicated the costs to be prohibitive and power needs for pumping excessively high (5-7 million KW). Hence the proposal was not further pursued.
Present proposals
The continued onslaught of floods and droughts in the intervening years in various parts of the country and the consequent loss of life and property necessitated the Government of India to review the situation and to come out with a National Perspective Plan for interlinking the rivers. The plan comprises two components:
(i) The Himalayan river component envisaging storages and interlinking canal systems to transfer surplus flows of the Kosi, Gandak and Ghagra to the west; Brahmaputra-Ganga link to augment the dry weather flows of the Ganga; Ganga-Yamuna link to serve the drought areas of Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat as also south Uttar Pradesh and south Bihar.
(ii) The Peninsular river component envisaging to divert the Mahanadi surplus to the Godavari and the surplus therefrom to the Krishna, Pennar and Cauvery, with terminal dams on the Mahanadi and the Godavari to enable irrigation in the drought areas of the South.
The Peninsular component envisages three more proposals of water transfer — (a) to divert a part of the waters of the west flowing rivers of Kerala to the arid east to meet the needs of the drought areas of Tamil Nadu; (b) to interlink the west flowing rivers north of Bombay and south of Tapi to provide irrigation to areas in Saurashtra, Kachchh and coastal Maharashtra and to augment the drinking water supplies to Mumbai; and (c) to interlink the southern tributaries of the Yamuna and provide irrigation facilities in parts of Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan.
The plan when fully implemented is estimated to bring an additional area of 35 mha under irrigation and generate additional power (installed capacity 34,000 MW) with an investment of Rs. 330,000 crores (1995-96 price level). About 30 years would be required to fully implement the scheme needing an annual budget of Rs. 11,000 crores.
Detailed field investigations carried out for various links indicated that these are technically feasible and economically sound. Still, not even a single link has been taken up for implementation so far by the authorities concerned probably due to stiff opposition from some of the States and criticism by sections of the public. The initial enthusiasm appears to be waning and needless to say that the delay is going to be suicidal for the plan. If the lack of required thrust now seen is any indication, these much studied proposals may likely end up in some dusty files stored in unmarked cupboards in the government offices. We should not allow this to happen.
Objections
The main objection from some of the water rich States is that they do not have any surplus water to transfer. Given the requisite finances they insist that it would be possible for them to utilise all their water resources. Hence they do not agree to the basic philosophy of inter-basin transfer as a method of correcting the natural imbalance of inequitable distribution of water. However through free and frank negotiations it would be possible to convince these States to share water for the purpose in the national interest by introducing a provision in the proposals for compensating the economic cost of water surplussed for inter-basin transfer. This provision would enable the donor (State/basin from where surplus water is to be transferred) to get compensated by the donee the cost of such water transferred, as may be determined on the basis of an agreed criterion, either in cash or in sharing the power generated, agricultural produce, etc.
There has also been criticism against the plan from some groups involved in the sector. According to them, if the proposals are meant only for meeting future irrigation needs, there are options to improve water availability. Better water management is economically more attractive than bringing water through a costly grid, they say; demand management by improving water use efficiency, evaporation control, recycling and reuse of water, etc., can also achieve the requisite objectives. Some of them even feel that investments in water transfers being economically less efficient compared to industrial and commercial investments for such ventures, deficiency in food can be met from imports at a cheaper cost. There are also groups advocating small water harvesting structures to reduce flood effects, improve soil moisture and recharging ground water as an alternative to long distance water transfers.
Unfortunately, the opponents to the plan appear to have conveniently forgotten the benefits reaped from the past water transfers, be it through the Western Yamuna Canal and the Agra Canal in the North or the K.C. Canal and the Periyar-Vaigai Canal in the South. They also appear to have overlooked the fact that a nation of the size of India cannot afford to be not self-sufficient in foodgrains production and that the world trade in foodgrains is not large enough to meet the needs of a large country. They also seem to have forgotten as to what happened in the country in the middle of the last century when foodgrains had to be imported under PL-480 funds. The concept of "Small is beautiful" is fine but not fully reliable for harnessing water resources when the monsoon plays hide and seek with the fortunes of farmers and drinking water becomes a rarity.
There are sceptics who doubt the feasibility of such mass transfer of waters in the present environment. It would remain only as a dream, they contend. Till recently, many could not believe that the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP) would be able to bloom the Rajasthan desert. What was once a vision is now a reality and the magic touch of water has rejuvenated many areas in the desert.
The proposals for inter-basin transfer of water represent a great challenge and opportunity. They are part of a better tomorrow to free the millions from the miseries resulting from both the harmful abundance and acute scarcity of water. The country cannot afford to go slow on these well-studied proposals considering water's role as an engine for development. Long distance transfer of water is not an end by itself but it is a means to end the human sufferings from frequent droughts and floods. Hence we should not allow these proposals to slip into the shadows of history to remain frozen in time while billions of cubic metres of fresh water go unutilised and discharged into the sea every year.
M.S. MENON
Former Chief Engineer, CWC
(The Hindu, 19th November, 2002)
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Water Wars
The gathering clouds of water wars
The scarcity of water facing many parts of the globe has been frequently projected as the likely reason to trigger wars in this century. With the burgeoning population and reduced availability of fresh water, the crisis can occur any time since international institutions like the U.N. are not adequately equipped to resolve water disputes.
"FIERCE NATIONAL competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict." Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General, had this to say in his message on the occasion of the World Water Day on March 22, 2002. Years earlier, in 1995, similar concern was also shown by Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of the World Bank while stating that "The wars of the next century will be about water." The fears expressed by these world renowned officers cannot be brushed aside lightly since fresh water is getting exhausted day by day and 26 countries around the globe are now considered to be water scarce. Further, with the projection that by the year 2025, two-thirds of the world population is likely to live in countries with moderate or severe shortage of water, these statements have to be viewed with greater concern, all the more so since conflicts over water have become more common among competing water users. A burgeoning population, misuse of water resources and poor management practices have been causing depleted supplies, falling water tables, shrinking inland lakes and stream flows diminished to ecologically unsafe levels, leading most parts of the world to the threshold of water famine.
There are about 260 international rivers covering almost one half of the land surface of the globe and an untold number of shared aquifers providing fresh water to the people settled within these basins. Unfortunately, individual perceptions on water differ as each one sees water only by its use, thus leading to a fragmented approach in managing water. Most of the beneficiaries are obsessed by the use factor — drinking, industry, irrigation, environment, etc. — as if all are competing and not part of the whole ecological system complementing each other for sustainable development. There are also those who look at the administrative boundaries as the basis for decision making when these seldom conform to the catchment and basin areas that nature prescribes as the management units of water. They overlook the fact that water does not recognise political boundaries and it eludes legal generalisations.
Conflict resolution
Many do not subscribe to the view that water could become a source for wars in this century. According to them, once the basin states conclude treaties and establish water regimes, they are resilient enough to survive conflicts between otherwise hostile riparians engaged in skirmishes over other issues. They cite the Indus Waters Treaty which survived the two wars between India and Pakistan. They argue that there are many more such treaties and agreements entered into by some of the riparian states during the last century to utilise the water resources of their common rivers, thereby averting potential threats of war. To justify their views they quote the agreement signed in 1946 between Uruguay and Argentina regarding the Salto Grande project providing for equal rights of hydel power generated; the Itaipu Treaty of Paraguay and Brazil for the hydel development of the Parana River forming the boundary between the two; the 1959 Egyptian-Sudanese Agreement on the Nile waters emphasising on the existing uses, etc.
While these treaties/agreements were entered into under certain situations, there are also such treaties/agreements signed under compulsion. For example, in 1927 the former Soviet Union forced Turkey to enter into a treaty on equal sharing of the resource base on the river streams and brooks coinciding with the line of the frontier between the two countries. The U.S. and Mexico had signed a treaty on the Rio Grande in 1909 with the U.S. holding out the "Harmon Doctrine" that its rights as an upper riparian state were unlimited irrespective of whatever effect the unbridled exercise of these rights might have on the flow of the rivers in Mexico, the lower riparian state. However, while entering into a treaty on the water of the Columbia river with Canada (the upper riparian) in 1961-62, the U.S. (the lower riparian in this case) repudiated the same doctrine, since the application of this theory in this situation would be disadvantageous to it. As the demand for fresh water in these countries increased tremendously since the last few decades of operation of these treaties, disgruntlement is brewing among the affected parties with the feeling that their rightful share on these waters has been curtailed by past treaties/agreements. Since the beneficiaries may not like to compromise on their existing rights accumulated in the course of last many years, when these documents have to be revalidated for a further period and freshly concluded in this century it may prove to be a difficult task to continue with the provisions in the existing treaties/agreements. The resulting uncertainties may lead to an environment conducive to trigger conflicts since the international law in the present form is ineffective to arrest such a situation and the international institutions are not adequately equipped to resolve water disputes.
The Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses adopted in 1997 by the U.N. General Assembly sets out many important principles for cooperation and joint management of such water courses though no practical enforcement mechanism has been provided to back up the decisions of the final arbiter — the International Court of Justice. Further, it provokes further disputes by institutionalising the two conflicting principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an International Waterway by emphasising both the "equitable use" and the "obligation not to cause significant harm." This would enable the upstream riparian to stress on the principle of "equitable use" while the downstream riparians could demand the protection of their pre-existing uses under the principle of "no significant harm." However, the Convention has been ratified by only 6 signatories so far against the requirement of 35 to make it a law.
Even within the nations, the upstream-downstream conflicts have caused embitterment among people. In India, in the case of the Cauvery river, legal battles are being fought by the upper and lower riparian States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the former insisting on the principle of "equitable use" while the latter emphasising on the principle of "no significant harm" to protect their existing rights.
With the scenario of water being a non-substitutable resource, for which legal principles are vague and contradictory, which is becoming scarce with population growth and developmental activities, there is a compelling argument that the plausibility of water war in this century is not a myth but can be a reality.
The need for action
What can we do to avert such situations? How can we improve the availability of the fresh water to prevent the likelihood of water related violence? The root cause of the conflicts is the shortage of water and the solution lies in improving its availability — through storage and conservation by reducing wastage, by recycling and reuse.
Wherever the available water resources are not fully harnessed, as in the developing countries like India, there is need for major, medium and minor storages to be created on priority to tap the billions of cubic metres of the unutilised monsoon flows, which are being discharged into the sea every year. Agriculture is not only the world's largest water user in terms of volume claiming more than two-thirds of the water withdrawn from the earth's rivers, lakes and aquifers, it is also a relatively low value, low efficient and highly subsidised water user at present. In many places, as much as 60 per cent of water diverted for irrigation does not reach the crop since losses are tremendous. Cities divert precious water for distributing through leaky systems to under-paying or non-paying customers. Industries, cities and agriculture allow water to become polluted and large quantities are lost to unrecoverable contamination.
We should not allow such wastage to occur when there are means to improve the situation. Latest management practices in the irrigation system to result in better efficiency have to be adopted to save water. These would include modernisation and rehabilitation of inefficient systems and substitution of traditional systems stemming from a past era of plenty, with systems based on modern technology. Measures like demand oriented water management, adoption of improved irrigation methods and innovative water management technologies through appropriate technology transfer will help in reducing losses and thereby improving the fresh water availability. Recycling and reuse of drainage water would add to the availability of water. Transferring water from water surplus basins to water scarce regions can also enhance the availability of water in such areas.
The present mindset of a majority of the population is that water is government's business. This needs to be replaced by a model in which all major stakeholders participate at all levels. Without this change, technology solutions will be of no use. The change could be brought about by public awareness, education, identification and dissemination of best practices and incentives for action, thereby facilitating conservation of this precious resource and equitable distribution among the needy people.
Warning signals are already visible cautioning that the limit of renewable fresh water that the hydrological cycle can yield has already reached and such a situation cannot be continued forever. We should not wait for the crisis or flash point to occur since it is possible to face the problems in conserving and managing the resource though various short and long term measures, supported by action plans. It would then be easier to overwhelm the conflict inducing characteristics of water by developing a sustainable arrangement.
M.S. MENON
Former Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission
(The Hindu, 28th May, 2002)
The scarcity of water facing many parts of the globe has been frequently projected as the likely reason to trigger wars in this century. With the burgeoning population and reduced availability of fresh water, the crisis can occur any time since international institutions like the U.N. are not adequately equipped to resolve water disputes.
"FIERCE NATIONAL competition over water resources has prompted fears that water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict." Kofi Annan, U.N. Secretary General, had this to say in his message on the occasion of the World Water Day on March 22, 2002. Years earlier, in 1995, similar concern was also shown by Ismail Serageldin, Vice-President of the World Bank while stating that "The wars of the next century will be about water." The fears expressed by these world renowned officers cannot be brushed aside lightly since fresh water is getting exhausted day by day and 26 countries around the globe are now considered to be water scarce. Further, with the projection that by the year 2025, two-thirds of the world population is likely to live in countries with moderate or severe shortage of water, these statements have to be viewed with greater concern, all the more so since conflicts over water have become more common among competing water users. A burgeoning population, misuse of water resources and poor management practices have been causing depleted supplies, falling water tables, shrinking inland lakes and stream flows diminished to ecologically unsafe levels, leading most parts of the world to the threshold of water famine.
There are about 260 international rivers covering almost one half of the land surface of the globe and an untold number of shared aquifers providing fresh water to the people settled within these basins. Unfortunately, individual perceptions on water differ as each one sees water only by its use, thus leading to a fragmented approach in managing water. Most of the beneficiaries are obsessed by the use factor — drinking, industry, irrigation, environment, etc. — as if all are competing and not part of the whole ecological system complementing each other for sustainable development. There are also those who look at the administrative boundaries as the basis for decision making when these seldom conform to the catchment and basin areas that nature prescribes as the management units of water. They overlook the fact that water does not recognise political boundaries and it eludes legal generalisations.
Conflict resolution
Many do not subscribe to the view that water could become a source for wars in this century. According to them, once the basin states conclude treaties and establish water regimes, they are resilient enough to survive conflicts between otherwise hostile riparians engaged in skirmishes over other issues. They cite the Indus Waters Treaty which survived the two wars between India and Pakistan. They argue that there are many more such treaties and agreements entered into by some of the riparian states during the last century to utilise the water resources of their common rivers, thereby averting potential threats of war. To justify their views they quote the agreement signed in 1946 between Uruguay and Argentina regarding the Salto Grande project providing for equal rights of hydel power generated; the Itaipu Treaty of Paraguay and Brazil for the hydel development of the Parana River forming the boundary between the two; the 1959 Egyptian-Sudanese Agreement on the Nile waters emphasising on the existing uses, etc.
While these treaties/agreements were entered into under certain situations, there are also such treaties/agreements signed under compulsion. For example, in 1927 the former Soviet Union forced Turkey to enter into a treaty on equal sharing of the resource base on the river streams and brooks coinciding with the line of the frontier between the two countries. The U.S. and Mexico had signed a treaty on the Rio Grande in 1909 with the U.S. holding out the "Harmon Doctrine" that its rights as an upper riparian state were unlimited irrespective of whatever effect the unbridled exercise of these rights might have on the flow of the rivers in Mexico, the lower riparian state. However, while entering into a treaty on the water of the Columbia river with Canada (the upper riparian) in 1961-62, the U.S. (the lower riparian in this case) repudiated the same doctrine, since the application of this theory in this situation would be disadvantageous to it. As the demand for fresh water in these countries increased tremendously since the last few decades of operation of these treaties, disgruntlement is brewing among the affected parties with the feeling that their rightful share on these waters has been curtailed by past treaties/agreements. Since the beneficiaries may not like to compromise on their existing rights accumulated in the course of last many years, when these documents have to be revalidated for a further period and freshly concluded in this century it may prove to be a difficult task to continue with the provisions in the existing treaties/agreements. The resulting uncertainties may lead to an environment conducive to trigger conflicts since the international law in the present form is ineffective to arrest such a situation and the international institutions are not adequately equipped to resolve water disputes.
The Convention on the Non-Navigational Uses of International Water Courses adopted in 1997 by the U.N. General Assembly sets out many important principles for cooperation and joint management of such water courses though no practical enforcement mechanism has been provided to back up the decisions of the final arbiter — the International Court of Justice. Further, it provokes further disputes by institutionalising the two conflicting principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an International Waterway by emphasising both the "equitable use" and the "obligation not to cause significant harm." This would enable the upstream riparian to stress on the principle of "equitable use" while the downstream riparians could demand the protection of their pre-existing uses under the principle of "no significant harm." However, the Convention has been ratified by only 6 signatories so far against the requirement of 35 to make it a law.
Even within the nations, the upstream-downstream conflicts have caused embitterment among people. In India, in the case of the Cauvery river, legal battles are being fought by the upper and lower riparian States of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu, the former insisting on the principle of "equitable use" while the latter emphasising on the principle of "no significant harm" to protect their existing rights.
With the scenario of water being a non-substitutable resource, for which legal principles are vague and contradictory, which is becoming scarce with population growth and developmental activities, there is a compelling argument that the plausibility of water war in this century is not a myth but can be a reality.
The need for action
What can we do to avert such situations? How can we improve the availability of the fresh water to prevent the likelihood of water related violence? The root cause of the conflicts is the shortage of water and the solution lies in improving its availability — through storage and conservation by reducing wastage, by recycling and reuse.
Wherever the available water resources are not fully harnessed, as in the developing countries like India, there is need for major, medium and minor storages to be created on priority to tap the billions of cubic metres of the unutilised monsoon flows, which are being discharged into the sea every year. Agriculture is not only the world's largest water user in terms of volume claiming more than two-thirds of the water withdrawn from the earth's rivers, lakes and aquifers, it is also a relatively low value, low efficient and highly subsidised water user at present. In many places, as much as 60 per cent of water diverted for irrigation does not reach the crop since losses are tremendous. Cities divert precious water for distributing through leaky systems to under-paying or non-paying customers. Industries, cities and agriculture allow water to become polluted and large quantities are lost to unrecoverable contamination.
We should not allow such wastage to occur when there are means to improve the situation. Latest management practices in the irrigation system to result in better efficiency have to be adopted to save water. These would include modernisation and rehabilitation of inefficient systems and substitution of traditional systems stemming from a past era of plenty, with systems based on modern technology. Measures like demand oriented water management, adoption of improved irrigation methods and innovative water management technologies through appropriate technology transfer will help in reducing losses and thereby improving the fresh water availability. Recycling and reuse of drainage water would add to the availability of water. Transferring water from water surplus basins to water scarce regions can also enhance the availability of water in such areas.
The present mindset of a majority of the population is that water is government's business. This needs to be replaced by a model in which all major stakeholders participate at all levels. Without this change, technology solutions will be of no use. The change could be brought about by public awareness, education, identification and dissemination of best practices and incentives for action, thereby facilitating conservation of this precious resource and equitable distribution among the needy people.
Warning signals are already visible cautioning that the limit of renewable fresh water that the hydrological cycle can yield has already reached and such a situation cannot be continued forever. We should not wait for the crisis or flash point to occur since it is possible to face the problems in conserving and managing the resource though various short and long term measures, supported by action plans. It would then be easier to overwhelm the conflict inducing characteristics of water by developing a sustainable arrangement.
M.S. MENON
Former Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission
(The Hindu, 28th May, 2002)
WCD Report
_______________________________________
WCD report: a framework for underdevelopment?
The World Commission on Dams (WCD) has published its final report claiming that the process has pioneered a new path for global public policy making on issues of suitable and sustainable development. However, the Commission deliberately chose data to prove its preconceived hypothesis against dams completely ignoring the compulsions of developing countries like India. The alternatives suggested to dams are impractical as stand alone options and would bring in more misery to people, particularly to the economically weaker sections of society.
THE WORLD Commission on Dams (WCD) has launched its final report in India and is trying to ensure the acceptance of its recommendations by holding public discussions. As per WCD, the dam's debate is complex as well as simple. It is complex because issues are not confined to the design, construction, and operation of dams themselves but embrace the range of social, environmental and political choices on which human aspirations to development and improved well-being depend. It is simple because behind the array of economics, statistics and engineering calculations lay a number of basic and easily understood principles. Hence, the Commission had a well cutout task to conduct a rigorous independent review of the development effectiveness of large dams, to assess alternatives and to propose practical guidelines for future decision-making.
Accordingly, the Commission initiated eight independent in-depth case studies of specific large dam projects and two country studies (India and China), undertook 17 thematic studies, conducted a comprehensive global survey of 125 dams to cross- check the findings of individual studies and examined around 1,000 dams with varying degrees of intensity. Interestingly, this exercise led the Commission to conclude that dams generally flooded rich and fertile agriculture land, displaced millions of people the world over and fragmented and transformed aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems with a range of effects that vary in duration, scale and degree of reversibility. Compared to these negative impacts, the positive impacts - benefits of the dams as brought out in the report - have not been impressive. The Commission claims that the WCD process has pioneered a new path for global public policymaking on issues of equitable and sustainable development.
A limited approach
The two objectives of the Commission were:
- Review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy development.
- Develop internationally acceptable criteria and standards where appropriate for planning, design appraisal, construction, operations, monitoring and decommissioning of dams.
In the Indian context and also of developing countries, it is essential to examine whether the Commission has carried out an unbiased review of the development effectiveness of the dams, whether the suggested options are feasible and whether the recommended guidelines are development oriented.
According to the report, the WCD created a knowledge base to start with, since a large part of the Commission's work involved a broad and independent review of the experience with large dams. The Commission also undertook a comprehensive global review of performance and impact of large dams to review the development effectiveness of such dams. However, out of the 45,000 large dams existing in the world, the knowledge base was developed with the data of only eight carefully chosen dams most of which were located in developed countries. Subsequently, just before the release of its report, the WCD disowned its knowledge base developed with special care for reasons known to it. Needless to say that the conclusions drawn by the Commission were influenced by the case studies of this unrepresentative small sample only.
The report has unique features - it has been written by experts having nodding acquaintance on the subject of water resources planning, development and management; it claims to be the outcome of transparent and participatory process but excludes the views of expert organisations on the subject; it professes to be a unanimous work but includes a dissent note; it suggests options causing displacement of millions of people but cries hoarse on the trauma of displacement by dams; and it prefers import of foodgrains to construction of dams for irrigation!
The Commission, by itself being ill-equipped to compile, analyse and study data and other relevant information on the subject, should have drawn upon the expertise available with international organisations such as the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), etc., and made use of the literature and data available with these organisations as also the Project Evaluation Reports of the World Bank. Instead, it chose to rely on the submissions and reports of NGOs and others having only cursory knowledge on the development and management of water resources, thereby affecting its credibility and casting doubts on its motives.
Further, the disclaimed knowledge base derived from a microscopic sample of eight dams has been questioned by experts dubbing it as erroneous and lacking true and comprehensive data needs. It has been contended that some of the statements made in the report are based on inadequately researched data such as the estimates of the number of people displaced by dams, contribution of dams in the production of foodgrains, etc. The very fact that such questionable information could find a place in the report is by itself indicative of the dependence of the Commission on the presentations made by the not so qualified individuals or groups having limited knowledge on the subject.
Indian efforts ignored
India's achievements in the development of its water resources have been remarkable since independence. However, very little attention has been given in the report to the many well-known benefits of dams such as Bhakra, particularly to agriculture, energy and flood control sectors. Further, the overall impact of dam on economic development and its role in employment generation and poverty alleviation has not even been touched upon effectively in the report. Similarly, the support given to sustainable, social and environmental well-being of the people in a sub-basin/basin by the construction and subsequent operation of dam projects does not find a place of importance in the report. The need for increased foodgrain production and drinking water requirements of the burgeoning population in developing countries like India seems to have been of no concern to the Commission. This is evident from the terms of reference given to India case study, which clearly indicated the direction in which the WCD wanted the study to be undertaken. Hence unjustified conclusions have been drawn that the poor, other vulnerable groups and future generations are likely to bear a disproportionate share of social and environmental costs of large dam projects without getting a commensurate share of economic benefits. Since positive aspects/contributions by the dams in the development context were never in its agenda, the WCD concentrated its efforts in outlining the negative effects in detail so as to paint a picture of gloom in the aftermath of a dam project.
Limitations
The approach to assessing alternatives for water resource development, as seen from the report, indicates that the Commission has not carried out any in-depth study or analysis of the ground realities. The options put forth by the WCD highlighting the need for demand and supply management are not new but are well known to countries like India. These are already being practised and are supplementing the efforts in augmenting the resource availability; but the progress is tardy due to many factors peculiar to the country. Similarly, the new supply side option of constructing small rainwater harvesting structures as suggested by the WCD is also not a novel idea, since the country has been engaged in the construction of such structures since time immemorial.
However, going in for such option alone in exclusion of dam projects will not provide the requisite storage capacity to harness the annual monsoon flows occurring within a short period of 3-4 months. The unevenness of rainfall distribution in space and time necessitates large storages to be built to hold the run- off to make available the water when and where required during the non-monsoon period.
The impracticality of the suggested alternative of the WCD will be evident even from a cursory study of the available hydrological data. Against the annual precipitation of 4000 billion cubic metres (BCM) occurring over the Indian landmass, the available run-off is estimated as 1953 BCM as per the report of the National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (NCIWRDP). The balance is lost to atmosphere by immediate evaporation and also to the ground as soil moisture. Of this, the utilisable flow is only 1086 BCM comprising 690 BCM of surface run-off and 396 BCM of replenishable ground water. Thus only about 25 per cent of the annual precipitation is utilisable. At present while we are merrily over-exploiting the ground water we have been able to harness only about 250 BCM of river flows through major, medium and minor storages, allowing the balance flows of more than 400 BCM to be wasted to the sea year after year. Such an enormous waste of this precious natural resource is going to have a telling effect on the lifestyle of the people of India. As indicated by NCIWRDP, with a projected population of 1500 million by the year 2050, the water requirement to meet the needs of foodgrains, drinking and a myriad of uses would just match the water availability then, provided the following actions are taken and completed within a fixed time-frame:
- harnessing the surface flows through major, medium and minor storages.
- improving water-use efficiency to the optimum levels; and
- taking necessary steps for demand and supply management.
It may thus be seen that even before WCD was formed, the Government of India had got these issues examined by a high- powered body, NCIWRDP, so as to take necessary implementable actions and that body had suggested the need for all types of storages - major, medium and small - for harnessing the limited monsoon flows, in contrast to WCD's stand-alone options. If we get carried away by WCD's suggestions, we need more than 10 million rainwater harvesting structures to be constructed within a limited period to store the 400 BCM of river flows discharged into the sea annually without being utilised. This would involve acquisition of lakhs of hectares of land mostly from small landholders, displacing millions of poor farmers, a core issue the WCD overlooked while suggesting this option. Further, with the failure of a monsoon, these water bodies get dried up resulting in crop failures, causing large-scale devastation and consequent hardship to people.
If we look into the options suggested for the energy sector, the alternatives to dams are through non-conventional energy sources like solar energy. At present, India's shortfall in peaking capacity is reportedly 10,000 MW, while the global production level from the solar alternative is indicated as 120 MW. Needless to say that it would take decades even to meet the existing shortfall through this option. The production levels of other suggested options like wind and tidal power globally are also meagre compared to the demands.
The Commission claims that it has offered viable options to avoid construction of dams. But while presenting the alternatives it has failed to recognise the present limitations to implement these in the developing countries. Either the Commission has been ignorant of these constraints or it has deliberately ignored them to push through its mandate.
The Commission was also charged with developing internationally acceptable criteria, guidelines, etc., for planning, construction and operation of dams. Here again, it failed to appreciate the water-stressed conditions prevailing in the developing countries and suggested a cumbersome negotiation process with mediation steps for development of their water resources. Such a suggested procedure would ensure that every new development project would be stalled and existing facilities jeopardised. The process has been made further complicated by introducing a provision to revisit the operational parameters of a constructed dam with all stakeholder participation at the end of every five-year period.
The hidden agenda
Developing countries like India which are still to harness their water resource potential even to meet their critical needs have to guard against the recommendations made in the report aimed at slowing down the tempo of development efforts. Instead of making the report a deeply studied, intensely researched, thoroughly analysed, widely discussed and well-thought-out document, the WCD squandered away a golden opportunity by limiting its activities only to collect data necessary to prove its preconceived hypothesis against dams. Consequently, the report turned out to be a compendium of disinformation, wrong information and information based on subjective conclusions. The report is heavily loaded against India as evident from the suggested guidelines wherein barriers have been introduced in future dam constructions. Though the era of colonialist rule is over throughout the world, a new threat to the developing world is in the offing - the danger of eco-colonialism. The advocates of this new form of colonialism are bent upon condemning these countries to a future of sustained underdevelopment by insisting on pre- implementation conditionalities on dam projects which will have the effect of preventing or seriously delaying the urgently needed water resource projects. There is need to caution the people against the trap cleverly being laid by the vested interests who want to dump their surplus foodgrains and other products into these countries in the guise of helping the latter to protect the environment. India has no alternative except to go in for a combination of major, medium and small storages to harness its water resources.
M. S. MENON
Former Chief Engineer,
Central Water Commission
(The Hindu, 14th August, 2001)
WCD report: a framework for underdevelopment?
The World Commission on Dams (WCD) has published its final report claiming that the process has pioneered a new path for global public policy making on issues of suitable and sustainable development. However, the Commission deliberately chose data to prove its preconceived hypothesis against dams completely ignoring the compulsions of developing countries like India. The alternatives suggested to dams are impractical as stand alone options and would bring in more misery to people, particularly to the economically weaker sections of society.
THE WORLD Commission on Dams (WCD) has launched its final report in India and is trying to ensure the acceptance of its recommendations by holding public discussions. As per WCD, the dam's debate is complex as well as simple. It is complex because issues are not confined to the design, construction, and operation of dams themselves but embrace the range of social, environmental and political choices on which human aspirations to development and improved well-being depend. It is simple because behind the array of economics, statistics and engineering calculations lay a number of basic and easily understood principles. Hence, the Commission had a well cutout task to conduct a rigorous independent review of the development effectiveness of large dams, to assess alternatives and to propose practical guidelines for future decision-making.
Accordingly, the Commission initiated eight independent in-depth case studies of specific large dam projects and two country studies (India and China), undertook 17 thematic studies, conducted a comprehensive global survey of 125 dams to cross- check the findings of individual studies and examined around 1,000 dams with varying degrees of intensity. Interestingly, this exercise led the Commission to conclude that dams generally flooded rich and fertile agriculture land, displaced millions of people the world over and fragmented and transformed aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems with a range of effects that vary in duration, scale and degree of reversibility. Compared to these negative impacts, the positive impacts - benefits of the dams as brought out in the report - have not been impressive. The Commission claims that the WCD process has pioneered a new path for global public policymaking on issues of equitable and sustainable development.
A limited approach
The two objectives of the Commission were:
- Review the development effectiveness of large dams and assess alternatives for water resources and energy development.
- Develop internationally acceptable criteria and standards where appropriate for planning, design appraisal, construction, operations, monitoring and decommissioning of dams.
In the Indian context and also of developing countries, it is essential to examine whether the Commission has carried out an unbiased review of the development effectiveness of the dams, whether the suggested options are feasible and whether the recommended guidelines are development oriented.
According to the report, the WCD created a knowledge base to start with, since a large part of the Commission's work involved a broad and independent review of the experience with large dams. The Commission also undertook a comprehensive global review of performance and impact of large dams to review the development effectiveness of such dams. However, out of the 45,000 large dams existing in the world, the knowledge base was developed with the data of only eight carefully chosen dams most of which were located in developed countries. Subsequently, just before the release of its report, the WCD disowned its knowledge base developed with special care for reasons known to it. Needless to say that the conclusions drawn by the Commission were influenced by the case studies of this unrepresentative small sample only.
The report has unique features - it has been written by experts having nodding acquaintance on the subject of water resources planning, development and management; it claims to be the outcome of transparent and participatory process but excludes the views of expert organisations on the subject; it professes to be a unanimous work but includes a dissent note; it suggests options causing displacement of millions of people but cries hoarse on the trauma of displacement by dams; and it prefers import of foodgrains to construction of dams for irrigation!
The Commission, by itself being ill-equipped to compile, analyse and study data and other relevant information on the subject, should have drawn upon the expertise available with international organisations such as the International Commission on Large Dams (ICOLD), International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID), etc., and made use of the literature and data available with these organisations as also the Project Evaluation Reports of the World Bank. Instead, it chose to rely on the submissions and reports of NGOs and others having only cursory knowledge on the development and management of water resources, thereby affecting its credibility and casting doubts on its motives.
Further, the disclaimed knowledge base derived from a microscopic sample of eight dams has been questioned by experts dubbing it as erroneous and lacking true and comprehensive data needs. It has been contended that some of the statements made in the report are based on inadequately researched data such as the estimates of the number of people displaced by dams, contribution of dams in the production of foodgrains, etc. The very fact that such questionable information could find a place in the report is by itself indicative of the dependence of the Commission on the presentations made by the not so qualified individuals or groups having limited knowledge on the subject.
Indian efforts ignored
India's achievements in the development of its water resources have been remarkable since independence. However, very little attention has been given in the report to the many well-known benefits of dams such as Bhakra, particularly to agriculture, energy and flood control sectors. Further, the overall impact of dam on economic development and its role in employment generation and poverty alleviation has not even been touched upon effectively in the report. Similarly, the support given to sustainable, social and environmental well-being of the people in a sub-basin/basin by the construction and subsequent operation of dam projects does not find a place of importance in the report. The need for increased foodgrain production and drinking water requirements of the burgeoning population in developing countries like India seems to have been of no concern to the Commission. This is evident from the terms of reference given to India case study, which clearly indicated the direction in which the WCD wanted the study to be undertaken. Hence unjustified conclusions have been drawn that the poor, other vulnerable groups and future generations are likely to bear a disproportionate share of social and environmental costs of large dam projects without getting a commensurate share of economic benefits. Since positive aspects/contributions by the dams in the development context were never in its agenda, the WCD concentrated its efforts in outlining the negative effects in detail so as to paint a picture of gloom in the aftermath of a dam project.
Limitations
The approach to assessing alternatives for water resource development, as seen from the report, indicates that the Commission has not carried out any in-depth study or analysis of the ground realities. The options put forth by the WCD highlighting the need for demand and supply management are not new but are well known to countries like India. These are already being practised and are supplementing the efforts in augmenting the resource availability; but the progress is tardy due to many factors peculiar to the country. Similarly, the new supply side option of constructing small rainwater harvesting structures as suggested by the WCD is also not a novel idea, since the country has been engaged in the construction of such structures since time immemorial.
However, going in for such option alone in exclusion of dam projects will not provide the requisite storage capacity to harness the annual monsoon flows occurring within a short period of 3-4 months. The unevenness of rainfall distribution in space and time necessitates large storages to be built to hold the run- off to make available the water when and where required during the non-monsoon period.
The impracticality of the suggested alternative of the WCD will be evident even from a cursory study of the available hydrological data. Against the annual precipitation of 4000 billion cubic metres (BCM) occurring over the Indian landmass, the available run-off is estimated as 1953 BCM as per the report of the National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (NCIWRDP). The balance is lost to atmosphere by immediate evaporation and also to the ground as soil moisture. Of this, the utilisable flow is only 1086 BCM comprising 690 BCM of surface run-off and 396 BCM of replenishable ground water. Thus only about 25 per cent of the annual precipitation is utilisable. At present while we are merrily over-exploiting the ground water we have been able to harness only about 250 BCM of river flows through major, medium and minor storages, allowing the balance flows of more than 400 BCM to be wasted to the sea year after year. Such an enormous waste of this precious natural resource is going to have a telling effect on the lifestyle of the people of India. As indicated by NCIWRDP, with a projected population of 1500 million by the year 2050, the water requirement to meet the needs of foodgrains, drinking and a myriad of uses would just match the water availability then, provided the following actions are taken and completed within a fixed time-frame:
- harnessing the surface flows through major, medium and minor storages.
- improving water-use efficiency to the optimum levels; and
- taking necessary steps for demand and supply management.
It may thus be seen that even before WCD was formed, the Government of India had got these issues examined by a high- powered body, NCIWRDP, so as to take necessary implementable actions and that body had suggested the need for all types of storages - major, medium and small - for harnessing the limited monsoon flows, in contrast to WCD's stand-alone options. If we get carried away by WCD's suggestions, we need more than 10 million rainwater harvesting structures to be constructed within a limited period to store the 400 BCM of river flows discharged into the sea annually without being utilised. This would involve acquisition of lakhs of hectares of land mostly from small landholders, displacing millions of poor farmers, a core issue the WCD overlooked while suggesting this option. Further, with the failure of a monsoon, these water bodies get dried up resulting in crop failures, causing large-scale devastation and consequent hardship to people.
If we look into the options suggested for the energy sector, the alternatives to dams are through non-conventional energy sources like solar energy. At present, India's shortfall in peaking capacity is reportedly 10,000 MW, while the global production level from the solar alternative is indicated as 120 MW. Needless to say that it would take decades even to meet the existing shortfall through this option. The production levels of other suggested options like wind and tidal power globally are also meagre compared to the demands.
The Commission claims that it has offered viable options to avoid construction of dams. But while presenting the alternatives it has failed to recognise the present limitations to implement these in the developing countries. Either the Commission has been ignorant of these constraints or it has deliberately ignored them to push through its mandate.
The Commission was also charged with developing internationally acceptable criteria, guidelines, etc., for planning, construction and operation of dams. Here again, it failed to appreciate the water-stressed conditions prevailing in the developing countries and suggested a cumbersome negotiation process with mediation steps for development of their water resources. Such a suggested procedure would ensure that every new development project would be stalled and existing facilities jeopardised. The process has been made further complicated by introducing a provision to revisit the operational parameters of a constructed dam with all stakeholder participation at the end of every five-year period.
The hidden agenda
Developing countries like India which are still to harness their water resource potential even to meet their critical needs have to guard against the recommendations made in the report aimed at slowing down the tempo of development efforts. Instead of making the report a deeply studied, intensely researched, thoroughly analysed, widely discussed and well-thought-out document, the WCD squandered away a golden opportunity by limiting its activities only to collect data necessary to prove its preconceived hypothesis against dams. Consequently, the report turned out to be a compendium of disinformation, wrong information and information based on subjective conclusions. The report is heavily loaded against India as evident from the suggested guidelines wherein barriers have been introduced in future dam constructions. Though the era of colonialist rule is over throughout the world, a new threat to the developing world is in the offing - the danger of eco-colonialism. The advocates of this new form of colonialism are bent upon condemning these countries to a future of sustained underdevelopment by insisting on pre- implementation conditionalities on dam projects which will have the effect of preventing or seriously delaying the urgently needed water resource projects. There is need to caution the people against the trap cleverly being laid by the vested interests who want to dump their surplus foodgrains and other products into these countries in the guise of helping the latter to protect the environment. India has no alternative except to go in for a combination of major, medium and small storages to harness its water resources.
M. S. MENON
Former Chief Engineer,
Central Water Commission
(The Hindu, 14th August, 2001)
The haunting spectre of water famine
The haunting spectre of water famine
INDIA IS at the threshold of a water scarcity situation. Six of the country's 20 major river basins are already classified as scarce with less than 1,000 cubic metres (cu.m.) water available per head per year. The availability of both surface and groundwater is further being reduced by pollution and inappropriate waste disposal, driving people to a hydrocide situation where the available water becomes unfit for any use.
At the time of independence, when the population of India stood at around 350 millions, the per capita annual water availability was more than 5,000 cu.m. at national level. Today, with the population at more than one billion, it stands at 1,950 cu.m. and is likely to fall further to less than 1,000 cu.m. in the next decade. The shortages will be more at local levels and are bound to spread to regional levels as the population grows. The situation of plentiful water resources in the past is rapidly becoming one of water scarcity. The problems of pollution from municipal sewage, industrial effluents, agro-chemicals, and pesticides have further threatened the availability of good quality water. In short, the country's fragile resources are stressed and depleting fast both in quality and in quantity. The harrowing accounts of sufferings in parts of Gujarat, Rajasthan and elsewhere in the country are the symptoms of the cancerous growth that is spreading its tentacles all over the country.
Years of mismanagement
The situation has not developed overnight - every one is aware of that. The signs of distress had long been evident. Why then pre- emptive efforts were not made by those concerned to avert the development of such crises?
The reasons are not far to seek. It is the culmination of years of mismanagement of this precious resource on the mistaken belief that India is a water-rich country and hence we can afford to overlook the susceptibility to water scarcity conditions. It is the result of missed and missing opportunities in harnessing the highly skewed seasonal and spatial distribution of monsoon flows which occur in a four months period. It is also the consequence of petty hydro-politics clouding long-term vision, thereby necessitating ad hocism to solve the resultant problems.
There are extreme variations in the availability of water over space and time and this has caused large parts in the Northwestern, Central and Southern regions to remain water stressed. The shortages in these parts are aggravating environmental degradation and human distress as well. Still we remain least concerned watching millions of cubic metres of this precious resource being wasted to the sea year after year.
According to estimates, India has abundant water resources. With an annual precipitation of 4,000 billion cubic metres (BCM), the country's average annual flow is assessed as 1,953 BCM, the balance being lost to immediate evaporation and soil moisture. The data also indicate that out of this only about 1,100 BCM of water is utilisable from surface and groundwaters together. Thus, about a quarter of the total annual precipitation only is available to provide for our irrigation, drinking water, sanitation and many other uses.
More than 90 per cent of the annual flows in the peninsular rivers and 80 per cent of such flows in the Himalayan rivers occur during the four months from June to September. Such a phenomenon explains the harmful abundance in the monsoon months and acute scarcity conditions in the summer months affecting the various parts of the country. With such a wayward and changing nature, we have to adapt or compensate for these changes to survive. Since a few months account for most of the year's rainfall, and consequent water availability, the ability to hold water in reservoirs and spread out its release over the year can mean the difference between devastating floods and droughts, adequate aquifer replenishment or depleted groundwater resources.
Shocking truths
The assessments made on the requirements for water to meet the various needs reveal shocking truths. Water requirement is closely related to population, demand for food, production of non-food agricultural and industrial items, production of energy and improvement in the quality of life and preservation of ecology and environment. Present requirements of about 600 BCM for these purposes are being met from existing storages and to a large extent from groundwater. In localities where storages/canal network are not available, ground water is being exploited to meet the entire requirement so much so that in many places aquifers have been depleted.
By the end of this decade, the country's population is expected to cross 1,200 millions and the demand for water for food production and drinking needs would reach desperate proportions since a marginal increase only can be expected in the creation of additional storage capacities. However, by the year 2025, with an expected population of 1,300 millions, the situation would be alarming with the present rate of progress in augmenting and improving the availability of water. Subsequent decades would add further demand for water and with the estimated population of 1.5 billion by the year 2050, the demand would be 1,200 BCM, double the present requirements. As of now, we have been able to hold back only a little more than 10 per cent of the annually available monsoon flows. By the end of the decade, when the population is expected to rise by more than 20 per cent of the present level, we will not be in a position to increase the existing storage capacity even by 10 per cent. As to the readiness to meet the situation by 2050, the less said the better.
Not insurmountable
True, there have been issues, environmental, socio-economic and others, coming in the way of executing projects, but these are not insurmountable. The utter confusion prevailing among the opinion makers - the planners, academicians, intellectuals and the stake holders - about the approach to be adopted in dealing with water has been the root cause impeding the progress in harnessing this resource.
On the one hand, we have experts from the World Bank urging everyone to shift the focus from resource development to resource management. We have also eminent persons advocating the revival of the traditional systems as the panacea on all the ills being experienced in the sector. `Catch the rain as it falls and do not allow even a drop to be lost', is another suggestion being floated by many intellectuals. According to the World Commission on Dams the answer to the future needs of a growing population lies in the widespread replication of these small scale storages in thousands of locations across the length and breadth of the country and there is no need to invest in large dams or long distance water transfers with all their adverse impacts, environmental, ecological, social and human. Can either of these suggestions meet the future water requirements in full?
Making a paradigm shift from resource development to management would call for improving the maintenance of the existing systems, removing structural deficiencies and other system inadequacies and tiding over a host of institutional and financial constraints. By improving the overall irrigation efficiency from the present 40 per cent to the optimal 60 per cent, to some extent additional augmentation of water above the present level can be achieved but the balance needs have to come from elsewhere.
Limitations
Revival of traditional systems and rainwater harvesting are desirable and can be of help to some extent, but they have their limitations. Of course, there are a few success stories like those of Relagaon Siddhi (Maharashtra), Alwar (Rajasthan) etc. mainly due to the dedication of those involved with these works. But failure stories of such attempts across the country can fill volumes. In the monsoonic climate of India, to store the projected requirements of more than 300 BCM, in small reservoirs will be a gigantic task. Roughly millions of tanks would have to be constructed for the purpose; by the year 2050 i.e., one such tank for a population of 250. These tanks will submerge millions of hectares of land, most of them cultivated, taking away livelihood of millions of families having small landholdings. Apart from the problems of getting the requisite lands acquired, the resettlement and rehabilitation of these families within this time-frame would be a stupendous job. Even if the work is completed within the scheduled time, in the summer months, with the failure of monsoons, these tanks would all get dried up negating all the efforts put in.
The options are, therefore, clear. What is required is to double the storage capacity now available at least within the next two decades so as to balance the seasonal supplies in an average year. Hence the thrust should continue to be primarily in creating major and medium storages till such time the capacity created will be able to absorb a major part of the utilisable flows at present getting discharged into the sea. The waters thus stored will facilitate subsequent releases as per requirements during summer and even when some monsoon failures occur. Any shift in the focus from creation of storages will cause irretrievable damage to the very purpose since:
- Suitable sites for large and medium storages are limited.
- Due to the increasing population and the consequent pressure on land, the future reservoir areas are bound to be encroached upon and it would then be difficult to construct the projects due to the human problems involved. A case in point is the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada river in Gujarat. At the time of Tribunal Award in 1978, the number of project affected families was estimated as around 8,000 and it is more than 40,000 now, a five fold increase in two decades.
- As the years roll on, the costs of construction would rise manifold, but the fund availability through budgetary support would not be comparable resulting in further delays in the implementation of projects.
The country is facing an increasingly urgent situation. Its finite and fragile water resources are stressed and depleting while its development is tardy and its management continues to be inefficient. It is necessary to take action on priority as under.
(1) The existing storage capacities in each basin be increased through a combination of large, medium and minor reservoirs for maximum utilisation of the surface run-off so that the precious monsoon flows are not wasted to the sea.
(2) A major drive should be launched to increase water use efficiency so as to improve productivity of end use.
(3) Water conservation methods and technologies have to be more rigorously employed to meet the emerging shortages.
(4) For further improvements in water use productivity, R&D efforts in areas such as water recycling and re-use have to be augmented.
(5) Institutional mechanisms need to be created or strengthened at State, grassroots and basin levels, particularly enhancing non-governmental stake holder participation as a core to all institutional initiatives.
It is time our policy makers, water managers, intellectuals and stake holders shed their obsessions and pet ideas. Let them sit together and identify projects - large, medium and small - for each of the river basins so as to take care of equity, poverty and sustainable issues. The clouded vision has to be replaced by a vision for action.
M. S. MENON
Rtd. Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission
(The Hindu, 27th February, 2001)
INDIA IS at the threshold of a water scarcity situation. Six of the country's 20 major river basins are already classified as scarce with less than 1,000 cubic metres (cu.m.) water available per head per year. The availability of both surface and groundwater is further being reduced by pollution and inappropriate waste disposal, driving people to a hydrocide situation where the available water becomes unfit for any use.
At the time of independence, when the population of India stood at around 350 millions, the per capita annual water availability was more than 5,000 cu.m. at national level. Today, with the population at more than one billion, it stands at 1,950 cu.m. and is likely to fall further to less than 1,000 cu.m. in the next decade. The shortages will be more at local levels and are bound to spread to regional levels as the population grows. The situation of plentiful water resources in the past is rapidly becoming one of water scarcity. The problems of pollution from municipal sewage, industrial effluents, agro-chemicals, and pesticides have further threatened the availability of good quality water. In short, the country's fragile resources are stressed and depleting fast both in quality and in quantity. The harrowing accounts of sufferings in parts of Gujarat, Rajasthan and elsewhere in the country are the symptoms of the cancerous growth that is spreading its tentacles all over the country.
Years of mismanagement
The situation has not developed overnight - every one is aware of that. The signs of distress had long been evident. Why then pre- emptive efforts were not made by those concerned to avert the development of such crises?
The reasons are not far to seek. It is the culmination of years of mismanagement of this precious resource on the mistaken belief that India is a water-rich country and hence we can afford to overlook the susceptibility to water scarcity conditions. It is the result of missed and missing opportunities in harnessing the highly skewed seasonal and spatial distribution of monsoon flows which occur in a four months period. It is also the consequence of petty hydro-politics clouding long-term vision, thereby necessitating ad hocism to solve the resultant problems.
There are extreme variations in the availability of water over space and time and this has caused large parts in the Northwestern, Central and Southern regions to remain water stressed. The shortages in these parts are aggravating environmental degradation and human distress as well. Still we remain least concerned watching millions of cubic metres of this precious resource being wasted to the sea year after year.
According to estimates, India has abundant water resources. With an annual precipitation of 4,000 billion cubic metres (BCM), the country's average annual flow is assessed as 1,953 BCM, the balance being lost to immediate evaporation and soil moisture. The data also indicate that out of this only about 1,100 BCM of water is utilisable from surface and groundwaters together. Thus, about a quarter of the total annual precipitation only is available to provide for our irrigation, drinking water, sanitation and many other uses.
More than 90 per cent of the annual flows in the peninsular rivers and 80 per cent of such flows in the Himalayan rivers occur during the four months from June to September. Such a phenomenon explains the harmful abundance in the monsoon months and acute scarcity conditions in the summer months affecting the various parts of the country. With such a wayward and changing nature, we have to adapt or compensate for these changes to survive. Since a few months account for most of the year's rainfall, and consequent water availability, the ability to hold water in reservoirs and spread out its release over the year can mean the difference between devastating floods and droughts, adequate aquifer replenishment or depleted groundwater resources.
Shocking truths
The assessments made on the requirements for water to meet the various needs reveal shocking truths. Water requirement is closely related to population, demand for food, production of non-food agricultural and industrial items, production of energy and improvement in the quality of life and preservation of ecology and environment. Present requirements of about 600 BCM for these purposes are being met from existing storages and to a large extent from groundwater. In localities where storages/canal network are not available, ground water is being exploited to meet the entire requirement so much so that in many places aquifers have been depleted.
By the end of this decade, the country's population is expected to cross 1,200 millions and the demand for water for food production and drinking needs would reach desperate proportions since a marginal increase only can be expected in the creation of additional storage capacities. However, by the year 2025, with an expected population of 1,300 millions, the situation would be alarming with the present rate of progress in augmenting and improving the availability of water. Subsequent decades would add further demand for water and with the estimated population of 1.5 billion by the year 2050, the demand would be 1,200 BCM, double the present requirements. As of now, we have been able to hold back only a little more than 10 per cent of the annually available monsoon flows. By the end of the decade, when the population is expected to rise by more than 20 per cent of the present level, we will not be in a position to increase the existing storage capacity even by 10 per cent. As to the readiness to meet the situation by 2050, the less said the better.
Not insurmountable
True, there have been issues, environmental, socio-economic and others, coming in the way of executing projects, but these are not insurmountable. The utter confusion prevailing among the opinion makers - the planners, academicians, intellectuals and the stake holders - about the approach to be adopted in dealing with water has been the root cause impeding the progress in harnessing this resource.
On the one hand, we have experts from the World Bank urging everyone to shift the focus from resource development to resource management. We have also eminent persons advocating the revival of the traditional systems as the panacea on all the ills being experienced in the sector. `Catch the rain as it falls and do not allow even a drop to be lost', is another suggestion being floated by many intellectuals. According to the World Commission on Dams the answer to the future needs of a growing population lies in the widespread replication of these small scale storages in thousands of locations across the length and breadth of the country and there is no need to invest in large dams or long distance water transfers with all their adverse impacts, environmental, ecological, social and human. Can either of these suggestions meet the future water requirements in full?
Making a paradigm shift from resource development to management would call for improving the maintenance of the existing systems, removing structural deficiencies and other system inadequacies and tiding over a host of institutional and financial constraints. By improving the overall irrigation efficiency from the present 40 per cent to the optimal 60 per cent, to some extent additional augmentation of water above the present level can be achieved but the balance needs have to come from elsewhere.
Limitations
Revival of traditional systems and rainwater harvesting are desirable and can be of help to some extent, but they have their limitations. Of course, there are a few success stories like those of Relagaon Siddhi (Maharashtra), Alwar (Rajasthan) etc. mainly due to the dedication of those involved with these works. But failure stories of such attempts across the country can fill volumes. In the monsoonic climate of India, to store the projected requirements of more than 300 BCM, in small reservoirs will be a gigantic task. Roughly millions of tanks would have to be constructed for the purpose; by the year 2050 i.e., one such tank for a population of 250. These tanks will submerge millions of hectares of land, most of them cultivated, taking away livelihood of millions of families having small landholdings. Apart from the problems of getting the requisite lands acquired, the resettlement and rehabilitation of these families within this time-frame would be a stupendous job. Even if the work is completed within the scheduled time, in the summer months, with the failure of monsoons, these tanks would all get dried up negating all the efforts put in.
The options are, therefore, clear. What is required is to double the storage capacity now available at least within the next two decades so as to balance the seasonal supplies in an average year. Hence the thrust should continue to be primarily in creating major and medium storages till such time the capacity created will be able to absorb a major part of the utilisable flows at present getting discharged into the sea. The waters thus stored will facilitate subsequent releases as per requirements during summer and even when some monsoon failures occur. Any shift in the focus from creation of storages will cause irretrievable damage to the very purpose since:
- Suitable sites for large and medium storages are limited.
- Due to the increasing population and the consequent pressure on land, the future reservoir areas are bound to be encroached upon and it would then be difficult to construct the projects due to the human problems involved. A case in point is the Sardar Sarovar Project on the Narmada river in Gujarat. At the time of Tribunal Award in 1978, the number of project affected families was estimated as around 8,000 and it is more than 40,000 now, a five fold increase in two decades.
- As the years roll on, the costs of construction would rise manifold, but the fund availability through budgetary support would not be comparable resulting in further delays in the implementation of projects.
The country is facing an increasingly urgent situation. Its finite and fragile water resources are stressed and depleting while its development is tardy and its management continues to be inefficient. It is necessary to take action on priority as under.
(1) The existing storage capacities in each basin be increased through a combination of large, medium and minor reservoirs for maximum utilisation of the surface run-off so that the precious monsoon flows are not wasted to the sea.
(2) A major drive should be launched to increase water use efficiency so as to improve productivity of end use.
(3) Water conservation methods and technologies have to be more rigorously employed to meet the emerging shortages.
(4) For further improvements in water use productivity, R&D efforts in areas such as water recycling and re-use have to be augmented.
(5) Institutional mechanisms need to be created or strengthened at State, grassroots and basin levels, particularly enhancing non-governmental stake holder participation as a core to all institutional initiatives.
It is time our policy makers, water managers, intellectuals and stake holders shed their obsessions and pet ideas. Let them sit together and identify projects - large, medium and small - for each of the river basins so as to take care of equity, poverty and sustainable issues. The clouded vision has to be replaced by a vision for action.
M. S. MENON
Rtd. Chief Engineer, Central Water Commission
(The Hindu, 27th February, 2001)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)