Protracted proceedings on Cauvery dispute
THE CAUVERY Water Disputes Tribunal (CWDT) is in the news for wrong reasons. The tribunal, in a majority decision, recently passed an order directing the Central government to appoint a 3-member experts committee to study the crop pattern and water requirements of the co-basin States of Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Pondicherry and submit a report to help the tribunal in making decisions.
After 16 years of its existence, the tribunal's need to seek expert opinion now shocked the contesting States as they were expecting the award by August when the present term of the tribunal would end. The States made submissions against this order pointing out that the recourse to such a step would further delay the award. Hence the tribunal on May 10 decided that the Assessors' Report would be circulated to them for their response to facilitate a final decision.
As of now, the tribunal, assisted by two technical assessors, has held over 570 days of hearings and perused hundreds of documents on the Cauvery dispute. Hence the present direction asking the States to furnish their response to the Assessors' Report is likely to create more controversies now and bad precedents for tribunals to be set up later on.
In the past, tribunals depended on assessors' reports to pronounce the awards. Further the present development would certainly protract the proceedings and delay the tribunal award.
The questions being raised now are whether the tribunal is justified in seeking responses to the Assessors' Report and whether after the receipt of States' comments, the tribunal would still need the views of an expert committee to advise it to finalise the award. Queries may also be raised as to why there are no time limits prescribed for the tribunal.
Experience of the functioning of various water dispute tribunals indicates that a long time is taken by the Central government to constitute any tribunal and even then, the award is pronounced after many days of hearings. Even after the award is announced, problems of interpretation arise and there is no mechanism to enforce the binding character of the award. The matter is also taken to courts on issues other than water allocation, further delaying for years the implementation of the award and the projects involved.
Troubled start
The history of the CWDT indicates that it had a troubled start. Though Tamil Nadu had requested the Centre to set up a tribunal in 1986 under the provisions of the Inter-State Water Disputes (ISWD) Act, 1956, it took four years and a direction of the Supreme Court to establish the CWDT in 1990 since Karnataka had serious reservations on adjudication in this case. A further dispute arose in 1991 when the tribunal gave an interim award directing Karnataka to release 205 thousand million cubic feet (tmcft) of water annually to Tamil Nadu and in response Karnataka promulgated an ordinance nullifying the interim award.
Resenting this action, Tamil Nadu approached the Supreme Court seeking its direction to implement the tribunal's orders. The apex court referred the matter to a Constitution Bench. However, before the Bench could give a ruling on the matter, the Central government, in response to queries by the apex court, came up with the "Cauvery Waters (Implementation of the Order of 1991 and all subsequent related orders of the Tribunal) Scheme, 1998" and notified it in August 1998. Consequently, Tamil Nadu withdrew the petition pending before the Constitution Bench.
The tribunal is well within its rights to seek advice or opinion on the matters referred to it and can decide the procedure needed for the purpose. However, by allowing the Assessors' Report for further scrutiny by the States, the tribunal has permitted this well studied document to be dragged into a controversy since the requirements assessed in the report are likely to be much below the demands made by the States and the States would certainly question the approach/methodology adopted in the report. Any controversy on the report would force the tribunal to get the views of an outside expert committee, thereby resulting in further delays.
(The Hindu, dated 21st May,2006)
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
Sunday, December 27, 2009
Indus Water Sharing
Indus water sharing: issues and concerns
________________________________________
There are many unreasonable provisions in the Indus Waters Treaty
______________________________________
INDIA'S HYDRO projects in Jammu and Kashmir are under threat. Citing gross violations of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) Pakistan is taking every opportunity to attack these projects to build up international opinion against India. Interestingly, the same treaty is depriving India of its legitimate share of Indus waters needed to meet the increasing demands of the co-basin States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.
Our neighbour has already been able to stall the construction of the Wular Barrage project in Jammu and Kashmir. It has been successful in getting the World Bank's approval for appointing a neutral expert and thereby delaying our Baglihar project under construction. Now it is mounting attacks on the Kishanganga project being implemented in the State misquoting the provisions in the IWT.
The development of water resources in the Indus basin is governed by the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty signed in 1960 by India and Pakistan as a sequel to the partition of the undivided India in 1947 and the consequent division of the Indus basin between the two countries resulting in a dispute on sharing of the water resources. As per the treaty, the six rivers contributing to the Indus system were equally divided whereby three eastern rivers, the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were allotted to India and three western rivers, the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum to Pakistan.
Since then the treaty brokered by the World Bank is being extolled as a model for international agreements on equitable water sharing and optimum utilisation of the water resources of common rivers. An impression has also been created internationally that due to the inbuilt resilience, the treaty has survived many wars between the countries and is still working well.
An evaluation of the treaty provisions shows that equitable allocation of Indus waters was not intended by the vested interests and optimum utilisation was never the aim, as the underlying objective was only to perpetuate the dispute. The treaty outlived the tempests of history only because India was more accommodative to the demands of Pakistan.
Any analysis of the principles of water sharing of international rivers then followed would indicate that the sharing is never based on the number of rivers in a basin but on the quantum of water carried by them. Further, while dividing the rivers equally, the treaty considered only six rivers, dropping a seventh river, the Kabul river, from the treaty, so as to create a false impression of apparently equal share distribution.
The proposals were certainly biased in favour of Pakistan since India got only about 20 per cent of the Indus flows while Pakistan got 80 per cent, even though the quantum of water contributed to the Indus basin is predominantly from India. The factors creating legal and equity rights in water sharing as per international practices such as drainage areas, lengths of the arms or riverbeds of the rivers, dependent population, culturable areas, etc., on analysis, indicate that in this distribution, India should have got more than 40 per cent of the total waters of the Indus basin.
Accommodating spirit
There are many such unreasonable provisions in the treaty to which India had agreed in the interest of peaceful neighbourly relations and early settlement of disputes with Pakistan. But the accommodating spirit with which India had been approaching Pakistan to utilise our share of Indus waters as per treaty provisions has been considered a weakness by Pakistan emboldening it to make more demands to delay our projects.
Thus, even after four decades of the signing of the treaty, India has been able to develop only less than 15 per cent of the hydropower potential till now due to Pakistan's objections to our projects. Using the ambiguity in the treaty clauses and ignoring sound engineering practices, our neighbour is using it as a handle to scuttle India's projects in the J&K part of the Indus basin.
In view of these developments, time has come for a fresh thinking on the Indus Waters Treaty to take into account the apparent inequity in water allocation, the ambiguity in its clauses, etc. Though there is no exit option in the treaty, there is an option for review. Hence India should now take the lead to initiate discussions with the World Bank for a review of the treaty. In the meantime as there is no provision in the treaty to stop construction of the projects pending resolution of Pakistan's objections, immediate action is needed to implement them.
(The Hindu. dated 19th June,2005)
________________________________________
There are many unreasonable provisions in the Indus Waters Treaty
______________________________________
INDIA'S HYDRO projects in Jammu and Kashmir are under threat. Citing gross violations of the Indus Waters Treaty (IWT) Pakistan is taking every opportunity to attack these projects to build up international opinion against India. Interestingly, the same treaty is depriving India of its legitimate share of Indus waters needed to meet the increasing demands of the co-basin States of Punjab, Haryana and Rajasthan.
Our neighbour has already been able to stall the construction of the Wular Barrage project in Jammu and Kashmir. It has been successful in getting the World Bank's approval for appointing a neutral expert and thereby delaying our Baglihar project under construction. Now it is mounting attacks on the Kishanganga project being implemented in the State misquoting the provisions in the IWT.
The development of water resources in the Indus basin is governed by the provisions of the Indus Water Treaty signed in 1960 by India and Pakistan as a sequel to the partition of the undivided India in 1947 and the consequent division of the Indus basin between the two countries resulting in a dispute on sharing of the water resources. As per the treaty, the six rivers contributing to the Indus system were equally divided whereby three eastern rivers, the Sutlej, Beas and Ravi were allotted to India and three western rivers, the Indus, Chenab and Jhelum to Pakistan.
Since then the treaty brokered by the World Bank is being extolled as a model for international agreements on equitable water sharing and optimum utilisation of the water resources of common rivers. An impression has also been created internationally that due to the inbuilt resilience, the treaty has survived many wars between the countries and is still working well.
An evaluation of the treaty provisions shows that equitable allocation of Indus waters was not intended by the vested interests and optimum utilisation was never the aim, as the underlying objective was only to perpetuate the dispute. The treaty outlived the tempests of history only because India was more accommodative to the demands of Pakistan.
Any analysis of the principles of water sharing of international rivers then followed would indicate that the sharing is never based on the number of rivers in a basin but on the quantum of water carried by them. Further, while dividing the rivers equally, the treaty considered only six rivers, dropping a seventh river, the Kabul river, from the treaty, so as to create a false impression of apparently equal share distribution.
The proposals were certainly biased in favour of Pakistan since India got only about 20 per cent of the Indus flows while Pakistan got 80 per cent, even though the quantum of water contributed to the Indus basin is predominantly from India. The factors creating legal and equity rights in water sharing as per international practices such as drainage areas, lengths of the arms or riverbeds of the rivers, dependent population, culturable areas, etc., on analysis, indicate that in this distribution, India should have got more than 40 per cent of the total waters of the Indus basin.
Accommodating spirit
There are many such unreasonable provisions in the treaty to which India had agreed in the interest of peaceful neighbourly relations and early settlement of disputes with Pakistan. But the accommodating spirit with which India had been approaching Pakistan to utilise our share of Indus waters as per treaty provisions has been considered a weakness by Pakistan emboldening it to make more demands to delay our projects.
Thus, even after four decades of the signing of the treaty, India has been able to develop only less than 15 per cent of the hydropower potential till now due to Pakistan's objections to our projects. Using the ambiguity in the treaty clauses and ignoring sound engineering practices, our neighbour is using it as a handle to scuttle India's projects in the J&K part of the Indus basin.
In view of these developments, time has come for a fresh thinking on the Indus Waters Treaty to take into account the apparent inequity in water allocation, the ambiguity in its clauses, etc. Though there is no exit option in the treaty, there is an option for review. Hence India should now take the lead to initiate discussions with the World Bank for a review of the treaty. In the meantime as there is no provision in the treaty to stop construction of the projects pending resolution of Pakistan's objections, immediate action is needed to implement them.
(The Hindu. dated 19th June,2005)
Criticisms on Bhakra Project
Why belittle Bhakra?
THE Bhakra Dam, Nehru’s temple of modern India, is under attacks from pseudo environmentalists. These self-appointed experts have been, for the past two decades, unleashing a venomous propaganda against India’s major water resource development projects within and outside the country.
They had condemned the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP) as a pipe dream, but retracted when the Rajasthan Canal started blooming parts of the Thar desert.
They had prophesied that not a single drop of water from the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) would reach the distant regions of Saurashtra, but when the Narmada waters from the semi-finished Sardar Sarovar Dam gushed to that region they chose to hide themselves ostrich like in the sands of ignorance.
In their newly acquired wisdom, they had even attributed the primary cause of terrorism in Punjab in the nineties to the Bhakra-led Green Revolution!
Though they claim that they are fighting for the sustained development of water resources, it is apparent that their crusades are aimed to ensure their own sustained development and to remain in the limelight for their continued survival.
Irresponsible criticism against such mega projects by self-appointed experts masquerading as environmental activists got a boost in the latter part of the 20th century with the media providing adequate space for such debates.
Chanting the mantra of environment, these self-avowed champions of ecology indiscriminately attacked every developmental effort in the country to get national and international recognition.
The report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), a report specially designed for the “sustained underdevelopment” of countries like India, came handy to them to oppose major water projects in the country then.
The activists have again surfaced now, this time to unravel the Bhakra, to belittle its contribution to the country and to prove that it had brought nothing but disaster to the people.
Quoting the WCD report, they have questioned the very need for the dam, since according to them, irrigation in Punjab and Haryana had begun many decades before the dam came into existence and the existing diversion schemes had met the food needs then and would still have met the needs of the nation even if the Bhakra had not been there.
As the flood-waters would have been passed over these small diversion structures, there would have been less submergence upstream as compared to the dam storage and the impact in terms of displacement, submergence of forests, etc could have been avoided with a no-dam option.
Since much of the Bhakra command was already irrigated, according to these cynics, irrigation from the Bhakra canals played a limited role in these areas as tubewell irrigation has been the overwhelming major source.
According to their present findings, the Bhakra dam has played only a limited role in the Green Revolution and hence they have suggested alternatives such as the options of local rainwater harvesting.
They have quoted the success story of Sukhomajri where they saw a large variety of crops, and greater yields. They insist that the same principles can be applied anywhere and a moderate increase in yields spread over large areas can meet our food requirements.
Unfortunately, these activists appear to be suffering from an ideology-induced myopia and afflicted by bouts of amnesia regarding the ground reality. The Bhakra Relevant District Gazetteers have documented famines occurring in the 18th, 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, thus nailing the claims of happy, pristine conditions of the countryside then.
The Bhakra came and its storage assured irrigation to 0.9 mha erratically served by the then existing diversion schemes and facilitated new irrigation to 2.6 mha. The recharge from the irrigation system helped extensive groundwater development.
The Bhakra power enabled massive industrialisation and electrification of many villages and towns. Assured drinking water from the Bhakra reached millions of households spread in villages, town and even in Delhi. The frequent flood havoc downstream from the Sutlej became a part of history with the reservoir absorbing most of the floods.
The opponents of major dams have been unduly optimistic about stand-alone local options. However, a study of the performance of these much-hyped alternatives reveal that while the success stories of such efforts are few, the failure stories can fill volumes.
For example, in Andhra Pradesh under the “Neeru Meeru” scheme many failures have been reported after sinking millions of rupees in the project by the state government.
In Gujarat, though thousands of local harvesting structures were constructed in the last decade in the Saurashtra region for providing water to the people, many failed and the Narmada waters from the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) had to quench the thirst of lakhs of people.
The yeoman’s service done by Anna Hazare of Ralegaon Siddhi in greening the area with local water harvesting structures is always quoted. But the contribution from the Kukat canal, which irrigates a major part of the area and recharges the groundwater from this irrigation system, finds, very little mention in such propaganda blitz.
The experiment with check dams in the Shivalik foothills in Haryana is yet another story of failures.
The bunch of arm-chair theorists out to prove that the Bhakra is a disaster has made a lopsided, distorted presentation of the ground reality and has suggested alternatives for future which have not been replicated successfully.
(The Tribune, dated 9th September,2005)
THE Bhakra Dam, Nehru’s temple of modern India, is under attacks from pseudo environmentalists. These self-appointed experts have been, for the past two decades, unleashing a venomous propaganda against India’s major water resource development projects within and outside the country.
They had condemned the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (IGNP) as a pipe dream, but retracted when the Rajasthan Canal started blooming parts of the Thar desert.
They had prophesied that not a single drop of water from the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) would reach the distant regions of Saurashtra, but when the Narmada waters from the semi-finished Sardar Sarovar Dam gushed to that region they chose to hide themselves ostrich like in the sands of ignorance.
In their newly acquired wisdom, they had even attributed the primary cause of terrorism in Punjab in the nineties to the Bhakra-led Green Revolution!
Though they claim that they are fighting for the sustained development of water resources, it is apparent that their crusades are aimed to ensure their own sustained development and to remain in the limelight for their continued survival.
Irresponsible criticism against such mega projects by self-appointed experts masquerading as environmental activists got a boost in the latter part of the 20th century with the media providing adequate space for such debates.
Chanting the mantra of environment, these self-avowed champions of ecology indiscriminately attacked every developmental effort in the country to get national and international recognition.
The report of the World Commission on Dams (WCD), a report specially designed for the “sustained underdevelopment” of countries like India, came handy to them to oppose major water projects in the country then.
The activists have again surfaced now, this time to unravel the Bhakra, to belittle its contribution to the country and to prove that it had brought nothing but disaster to the people.
Quoting the WCD report, they have questioned the very need for the dam, since according to them, irrigation in Punjab and Haryana had begun many decades before the dam came into existence and the existing diversion schemes had met the food needs then and would still have met the needs of the nation even if the Bhakra had not been there.
As the flood-waters would have been passed over these small diversion structures, there would have been less submergence upstream as compared to the dam storage and the impact in terms of displacement, submergence of forests, etc could have been avoided with a no-dam option.
Since much of the Bhakra command was already irrigated, according to these cynics, irrigation from the Bhakra canals played a limited role in these areas as tubewell irrigation has been the overwhelming major source.
According to their present findings, the Bhakra dam has played only a limited role in the Green Revolution and hence they have suggested alternatives such as the options of local rainwater harvesting.
They have quoted the success story of Sukhomajri where they saw a large variety of crops, and greater yields. They insist that the same principles can be applied anywhere and a moderate increase in yields spread over large areas can meet our food requirements.
Unfortunately, these activists appear to be suffering from an ideology-induced myopia and afflicted by bouts of amnesia regarding the ground reality. The Bhakra Relevant District Gazetteers have documented famines occurring in the 18th, 19th and the first half of the 20th centuries, thus nailing the claims of happy, pristine conditions of the countryside then.
The Bhakra came and its storage assured irrigation to 0.9 mha erratically served by the then existing diversion schemes and facilitated new irrigation to 2.6 mha. The recharge from the irrigation system helped extensive groundwater development.
The Bhakra power enabled massive industrialisation and electrification of many villages and towns. Assured drinking water from the Bhakra reached millions of households spread in villages, town and even in Delhi. The frequent flood havoc downstream from the Sutlej became a part of history with the reservoir absorbing most of the floods.
The opponents of major dams have been unduly optimistic about stand-alone local options. However, a study of the performance of these much-hyped alternatives reveal that while the success stories of such efforts are few, the failure stories can fill volumes.
For example, in Andhra Pradesh under the “Neeru Meeru” scheme many failures have been reported after sinking millions of rupees in the project by the state government.
In Gujarat, though thousands of local harvesting structures were constructed in the last decade in the Saurashtra region for providing water to the people, many failed and the Narmada waters from the Sardar Sarovar Project (SSP) had to quench the thirst of lakhs of people.
The yeoman’s service done by Anna Hazare of Ralegaon Siddhi in greening the area with local water harvesting structures is always quoted. But the contribution from the Kukat canal, which irrigates a major part of the area and recharges the groundwater from this irrigation system, finds, very little mention in such propaganda blitz.
The experiment with check dams in the Shivalik foothills in Haryana is yet another story of failures.
The bunch of arm-chair theorists out to prove that the Bhakra is a disaster has made a lopsided, distorted presentation of the ground reality and has suggested alternatives for future which have not been replicated successfully.
(The Tribune, dated 9th September,2005)
Saturday, December 26, 2009
The Scarce Water
Has anyone seen any water?
Come summer and the country will have to get ready for yet another water scarcity situation. Water resources are depleting while management continues to be inefficient. The availability of both surface and groundwater is further being reduced by pollution and inappropriate waste disposal. Gone are the days when the per capita water availability stood at more than 5000 cubic metres at the national level. Presently it stands around 1900 cubic metres and is likely to fall further to less than 1000 cubic metre in this decade. and the situation of plenty is threatening to become one of acute water scarcity.
The disease afflicting the water sector has not developed overnight. The signs of distress had been evident since decades, but people remained mesmerised with the thought that being a water-endowed country having adequate water sources, monsoons would bring in the needed water every year. While politicians remained occupied with vote banks,billions of cubic metres of the precious resource got emptied into the sea unutilised year after year during the monsoons.
The extreme variations in the availability of water over space and time with more than 80% of the annual flows occurring during the monsoon months of July to September, have, while causing harmful abundance in some regions, resulted in acute water scarcity conditions in many parts of the country. 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 ground water resources. As the population is expected to reach 1300 million in the year 2025, the present slow pace of progress in developing and managing the water resources of the country will lead to alarming situations if ameliorative actions on policy and institutional reforms are not taken now on a war footing. As of now, we have been able to hold back only a little more than 10% of the annually available monsoon flows and even in the next two decades not much progress can be expected with opposition from environmentalists and other activists against storage structures.
The utter confusion prevailing among planners, academicians, intellectuals and stakeholders about the approach to be adopted in dealing with water, has been the root cause impeding the progress in developing this resource. On the management side, the confusion is further compounded with political opportunism vetoing all suggestions for improving water- use efficiency with measures such as proper pricing of water, controlling groundwater withdrawals, etc.
The increasing demand on fresh water has brought up many issues in the water sector: issues of development, equity and sustainability.The problems are not beyond the present state of our knowledge and technology but what is needed is an apex organisation needed to co-ordinate the activities of harnessing and augmenting the available water to optimise its productivity. Presently such a set up does not exist.
A plethora of independent governmental institutions both at the national and state levels is presently dealing with the different aspects of water. For example, at the national level, Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) which should have been the custodian of all aspects of water as a resource, has been concerned only with the ‘‘irrigation aspects’’ of water resources. Water supply -urban and rural, soil conservation and watershed development, environment, water quality, etc. are dealt with other Ministries/Departments. True, there are constant inter-departmental references and meetings, but co-ordination is weak. Hence attempts to take holistic views have been frustrated by the institutional gaps caused due to lack of needed coordination, procedures and guidelines. Integrated water planning to identify and optimise water and complementary investment is therefore lacking and each institution follows its own interests, frequently, to the exclusion of the common good. The condition of state level institutions in this regard is also not conducive to achieving results in optimising resource utilisation. Though, the Central Water Commission (CWC), the technical arm of MOWR, with more than six decades of service to the nation in the water resources sector has played a crucial role in the planning and design of a large number of major, medium and multi-purpose projects all over the country, due to built in constraints, it has not been able to play an effective role.
The National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (NCIWRDP) set up by MOWR, in their Report (September, 1999) had suggested many institutional reforms at the central and state levels. The Commission has strongly recommended that ‘‘CWC should be restructured into a statutory high powered inter-disciplinary commission with maximum autonomy’’ to cope with the challenges of integrated water development and management.
The fact that a similar apex body, the National Dairy Development Board, was created by statute with clear mandate and large powers even though ‘‘dairying’’ is a state subject, confirms that when there is a felt need the government can create innovative organisations using parallel powers. A duly empowered CWC is the need of the hour.
While there is every possibility of vested interests resisting the creation of such an apex body, in the overall interest of the sector, such a powerful body alone can co-ordinate the needed efforts to meet the challenges of the coming decades in the water sector. With the expertise available and the powers provided, CWC would then be able to ensure that instead of working at cross-purposes, all concerned would utilise their energies to push through such projects to fruition, and that the minimum threshold is crossed within a fixed time-frame to facilitate everyone getting their basic needs of water met.
We have few options left. Either we put in place the necessary institutions with adequate powers to streamline the related activities to manage the resource or face the increasing distress with a growing population.The need of the day is to ensure that the spectre of scarcity haunting the coming decades does not become a reality.
(The Indian Express, dated 15th April, 2005)
Come summer and the country will have to get ready for yet another water scarcity situation. Water resources are depleting while management continues to be inefficient. The availability of both surface and groundwater is further being reduced by pollution and inappropriate waste disposal. Gone are the days when the per capita water availability stood at more than 5000 cubic metres at the national level. Presently it stands around 1900 cubic metres and is likely to fall further to less than 1000 cubic metre in this decade. and the situation of plenty is threatening to become one of acute water scarcity.
The disease afflicting the water sector has not developed overnight. The signs of distress had been evident since decades, but people remained mesmerised with the thought that being a water-endowed country having adequate water sources, monsoons would bring in the needed water every year. While politicians remained occupied with vote banks,billions of cubic metres of the precious resource got emptied into the sea unutilised year after year during the monsoons.
The extreme variations in the availability of water over space and time with more than 80% of the annual flows occurring during the monsoon months of July to September, have, while causing harmful abundance in some regions, resulted in acute water scarcity conditions in many parts of the country. 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 ground water resources. As the population is expected to reach 1300 million in the year 2025, the present slow pace of progress in developing and managing the water resources of the country will lead to alarming situations if ameliorative actions on policy and institutional reforms are not taken now on a war footing. As of now, we have been able to hold back only a little more than 10% of the annually available monsoon flows and even in the next two decades not much progress can be expected with opposition from environmentalists and other activists against storage structures.
The utter confusion prevailing among planners, academicians, intellectuals and stakeholders about the approach to be adopted in dealing with water, has been the root cause impeding the progress in developing this resource. On the management side, the confusion is further compounded with political opportunism vetoing all suggestions for improving water- use efficiency with measures such as proper pricing of water, controlling groundwater withdrawals, etc.
The increasing demand on fresh water has brought up many issues in the water sector: issues of development, equity and sustainability.The problems are not beyond the present state of our knowledge and technology but what is needed is an apex organisation needed to co-ordinate the activities of harnessing and augmenting the available water to optimise its productivity. Presently such a set up does not exist.
A plethora of independent governmental institutions both at the national and state levels is presently dealing with the different aspects of water. For example, at the national level, Ministry of Water Resources (MOWR) which should have been the custodian of all aspects of water as a resource, has been concerned only with the ‘‘irrigation aspects’’ of water resources. Water supply -urban and rural, soil conservation and watershed development, environment, water quality, etc. are dealt with other Ministries/Departments. True, there are constant inter-departmental references and meetings, but co-ordination is weak. Hence attempts to take holistic views have been frustrated by the institutional gaps caused due to lack of needed coordination, procedures and guidelines. Integrated water planning to identify and optimise water and complementary investment is therefore lacking and each institution follows its own interests, frequently, to the exclusion of the common good. The condition of state level institutions in this regard is also not conducive to achieving results in optimising resource utilisation. Though, the Central Water Commission (CWC), the technical arm of MOWR, with more than six decades of service to the nation in the water resources sector has played a crucial role in the planning and design of a large number of major, medium and multi-purpose projects all over the country, due to built in constraints, it has not been able to play an effective role.
The National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan (NCIWRDP) set up by MOWR, in their Report (September, 1999) had suggested many institutional reforms at the central and state levels. The Commission has strongly recommended that ‘‘CWC should be restructured into a statutory high powered inter-disciplinary commission with maximum autonomy’’ to cope with the challenges of integrated water development and management.
The fact that a similar apex body, the National Dairy Development Board, was created by statute with clear mandate and large powers even though ‘‘dairying’’ is a state subject, confirms that when there is a felt need the government can create innovative organisations using parallel powers. A duly empowered CWC is the need of the hour.
While there is every possibility of vested interests resisting the creation of such an apex body, in the overall interest of the sector, such a powerful body alone can co-ordinate the needed efforts to meet the challenges of the coming decades in the water sector. With the expertise available and the powers provided, CWC would then be able to ensure that instead of working at cross-purposes, all concerned would utilise their energies to push through such projects to fruition, and that the minimum threshold is crossed within a fixed time-frame to facilitate everyone getting their basic needs of water met.
We have few options left. Either we put in place the necessary institutions with adequate powers to streamline the related activities to manage the resource or face the increasing distress with a growing population.The need of the day is to ensure that the spectre of scarcity haunting the coming decades does not become a reality.
(The Indian Express, dated 15th April, 2005)
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Indian Rivers and Bangladesh
Rivers of no return
News from Dhaka is disturbing for India's mega project on Interlinking of Rivers (ILR). Bangladeshi Water Resources Minister Hafizuddin Ahmed is reported to have favoured international mediation to stop India from going ahead with the project saying the Indian initiative would be another death trap for Bangladesh. Citing how the World Bank had played a significant role in minimising the disputes on sharing of river water between India and Pakistan, he wanted the issue of ILR to be taken up at the SAARC Summit.
In a similar tone, the Bangladeshi Environment and Forest Minister, Taruqi Islam, is stated to have urged the civil society to raise their voice against the project, as it is feared that the project would affect Bangladesh's environment and bio-diversity and result in acute water crisis. Combining disinformation, wrong information and information based on subjective conclusions, the vituperative attacks by Bangladesh, it seems, is to draw international support against the Indian project.
The war of words with India by Bangladesh on sharing river water has been going on for many decades. However, whenever the relations improved, constructive dialogues did take place; such as India taking up works for the Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river at the request of Bangladesh during 1972-73 for finding a solution to the flood problems in its Sylhet-Dhaka plains. Likewise, issues of releasing Ganga water from Farakka could be sorted out as happened in 1996 with the signing of the treaty on sharing the lean flows of the Ganga at the barrage site.
In spite of India accommodating the claims of Bangladesh, even if that meant inconveniencing the Indian public, the latter continued to make complaints against the former on water-related issues whenever it suited that county politically. It conveniently put under wraps the assurances given by India on the Tipaimukh Dam Project and accused India of planning to divert the Barak Waters. Also, it charged India for flouting the Ganga water treaty, despite India fully honouring it. Bangladesh continues to harp on these issues claiming to be an aggrieved party.
The ILR project, planned after carrying out detailed studies by the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) of India, comprises a Peninsular component and Himalayan component for water transfer from water endowed regions to water deficit areas in India. The proposal under the Himalayan component plans to divert excess flood waters of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the arid west and of Northern tributaries of the Brahmaputra to the drought prone areas in the South and South eastern regions. Water balance studies carried out by the NWDA have established that excess flood water is available at all the diversion points planned on the Himalayan rivers. All the link proposals under the Himalayan component are at the conceptual stage of planning.
The NWDA proposals were reviewed by the Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Water Resources which subsequently submitted two Action Plans to the Government recommending priority for taking up the Peninsular component, since the Himalayan component needed understanding with neighbouring countries. Government thinking is also along these lines as evident from the CMP.
A study of the available data indicates that the average annual flows in the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) basin in India are estimated at 1200 billion cubic metres (BCM). Of this, only three per cent would be considered for diversion outside the basin in the Himalayan component plan.
Why then does Bangladesh want the project to be scrapped? The country has been encouraged by the developments in the Indus basin where Pakistan, the lower riparian, was successful in stopping India, the upper riparian, from constructing the Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum in 1987. It is now attempting to stop the construction of the Baglihar Project on the Chenab in India by taking up the issue with the World Bank. In the case of Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basin, India is the upper riparian while Bangladesh is the lower riparian. The UN Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses adopted in 1997 (though still to be ratified) has institutionalised the two principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an international waterway by emphasising both on "equitable use" and "an obligation not to cause significant harm".
Hence, being the lower riparian, Bangladesh wants the project to be stopped, staking its right under the principle of "no significant harm". It hopes to get the bilateral issue internationalised, and in the process derive maximum mileage in the bargain knowing fully well our accommodating spirit.
India must not succumb to such pressure tactics. If it does, it is bound to embolden Bangladesh into demanding its concurrence for any project planned even in the interior of the country, say, the river Chambal. India should conduct a detailed investigation for both the components of the ILR project and inform its people whether the much-talked about project is feasible or not. The Himalayan component should not be given a low priority just to please Bangladesh.
(The Pioneer, Dated 13th April, 2005)
News from Dhaka is disturbing for India's mega project on Interlinking of Rivers (ILR). Bangladeshi Water Resources Minister Hafizuddin Ahmed is reported to have favoured international mediation to stop India from going ahead with the project saying the Indian initiative would be another death trap for Bangladesh. Citing how the World Bank had played a significant role in minimising the disputes on sharing of river water between India and Pakistan, he wanted the issue of ILR to be taken up at the SAARC Summit.
In a similar tone, the Bangladeshi Environment and Forest Minister, Taruqi Islam, is stated to have urged the civil society to raise their voice against the project, as it is feared that the project would affect Bangladesh's environment and bio-diversity and result in acute water crisis. Combining disinformation, wrong information and information based on subjective conclusions, the vituperative attacks by Bangladesh, it seems, is to draw international support against the Indian project.
The war of words with India by Bangladesh on sharing river water has been going on for many decades. However, whenever the relations improved, constructive dialogues did take place; such as India taking up works for the Tipaimukh dam on the Barak river at the request of Bangladesh during 1972-73 for finding a solution to the flood problems in its Sylhet-Dhaka plains. Likewise, issues of releasing Ganga water from Farakka could be sorted out as happened in 1996 with the signing of the treaty on sharing the lean flows of the Ganga at the barrage site.
In spite of India accommodating the claims of Bangladesh, even if that meant inconveniencing the Indian public, the latter continued to make complaints against the former on water-related issues whenever it suited that county politically. It conveniently put under wraps the assurances given by India on the Tipaimukh Dam Project and accused India of planning to divert the Barak Waters. Also, it charged India for flouting the Ganga water treaty, despite India fully honouring it. Bangladesh continues to harp on these issues claiming to be an aggrieved party.
The ILR project, planned after carrying out detailed studies by the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) of India, comprises a Peninsular component and Himalayan component for water transfer from water endowed regions to water deficit areas in India. The proposal under the Himalayan component plans to divert excess flood waters of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the arid west and of Northern tributaries of the Brahmaputra to the drought prone areas in the South and South eastern regions. Water balance studies carried out by the NWDA have established that excess flood water is available at all the diversion points planned on the Himalayan rivers. All the link proposals under the Himalayan component are at the conceptual stage of planning.
The NWDA proposals were reviewed by the Task Force constituted by the Ministry of Water Resources which subsequently submitted two Action Plans to the Government recommending priority for taking up the Peninsular component, since the Himalayan component needed understanding with neighbouring countries. Government thinking is also along these lines as evident from the CMP.
A study of the available data indicates that the average annual flows in the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) basin in India are estimated at 1200 billion cubic metres (BCM). Of this, only three per cent would be considered for diversion outside the basin in the Himalayan component plan.
Why then does Bangladesh want the project to be scrapped? The country has been encouraged by the developments in the Indus basin where Pakistan, the lower riparian, was successful in stopping India, the upper riparian, from constructing the Tulbul Navigation Project on the Jhelum in 1987. It is now attempting to stop the construction of the Baglihar Project on the Chenab in India by taking up the issue with the World Bank. In the case of Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna Basin, India is the upper riparian while Bangladesh is the lower riparian. The UN Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses adopted in 1997 (though still to be ratified) has institutionalised the two principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an international waterway by emphasising both on "equitable use" and "an obligation not to cause significant harm".
Hence, being the lower riparian, Bangladesh wants the project to be stopped, staking its right under the principle of "no significant harm". It hopes to get the bilateral issue internationalised, and in the process derive maximum mileage in the bargain knowing fully well our accommodating spirit.
India must not succumb to such pressure tactics. If it does, it is bound to embolden Bangladesh into demanding its concurrence for any project planned even in the interior of the country, say, the river Chambal. India should conduct a detailed investigation for both the components of the ILR project and inform its people whether the much-talked about project is feasible or not. The Himalayan component should not be given a low priority just to please Bangladesh.
(The Pioneer, Dated 13th April, 2005)
River Linking Project
Interlink project & Bangladesh's protests
THE PROPOSED project on interlinking of rivers (ILR) is back in the news due to criticism from an unexpected source, neighbouring Bangladesh. According to reports from there, Bangladesh wants international mediation to get rid of the mega project being planned by India. Using disinformation, Bangladesh is creating an impression in the world fora that the life saving waters of the Brahmaputra and the Ganga would be diverted by India to ultimately cause water scarcity in Bangladesh. For justifying its stand, various myths have been engendered and project features distorted by excessive generalisation to get public emotions come in the way of rational judgment.
This is not the first time Bangladesh indulged in spreading canards on Indian water resources projects. Many issues on the waters of the common rivers have been under contention between the two countries for decades. However, continued negotiations in a cordial atmosphere under a favourable combination of various internal and external circumstances helped the two to promote a constructive dialogue culminating in a treaty (1996) between the two governments for sharing the lean flows of the Ganga at Farakka. Even then, off and on there have been complaints from Bangladesh that it is getting less than its share of water as provided for in the treaty. However, the data obtained through joint flow observations by the two countries confirm India's stand that it is fully honouring the provisions of the treaty.
Peninsular component
The ILR project as being planned now on the basis of studies carried out since 1980 by the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) of India envisages a peninsular rivers component for water transfer from surplus to deficit basins in the southern part of the subcontinent and a Himalayan rivers component. The plan under the Himalayan component proposes to divert excess flood waters of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the parched lands of Western India; similarly, the excess flood water of northern tributaries of the Brahmaputra i.e. Manas and Sankosh rivers, causing floods in Assam and Bangladesh, to the drought prone areas in the east and southeast parts. Water balance studies carried out have established that excess flood water (after meeting all in-basin requirements in the foreseeable future) is available at all diversion points planned on the Himalayan rivers. All the link proposals under the Himalayan component involving other countries are based on desk studies and are at a conceptual stage of planning at present.
The task force constituted by the Union Ministry of Water Resources on the ILR proposal gave priority to taking up the peninsular links since the Himalayan links require understanding with neighbouring countries. Hence, further action involving international rivers is to be taken up at a later stage in consultation with the Ministries concerned when the detailed projects are drawn up. The task force also submitted two action plans to the government of India in this regard. The ILR programme has to go through various stages before its actual implementation as at present, feasibility studies on the links of the peninsular component alone have been completed. The government thinking is also along these lines as evident from the National Common Minimum Programme.
A study of the available data indicates that the average annual flows in the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) basin in India are estimated at 1200 billion cubic metres. Of this only 3 per cent would be considered for diversion outside the basin in the Himalayan rivers component of the project.
Hidden agenda
Why then is there so much opposition to the project from Bangladesh?
It is the result of a campaign spearheaded to malign India by spreading wrong information, based on subjective conclusions; it is the hidden agenda of the powers that be to sabotage India's Herculean efforts to mitigate the ravages of floods in both the countries.
The policy of the government of India is to implement the project in a fully consultative manner and at present, only the peninsular component is being taken up, which in no way affects Bangladesh. We have been all along going out of the way to accommodate our neighbour's demands. Taking this as weakness, Bangladesh may next insist that India get clearance from it even for planning a project in the interior Madhya Pradesh on the Chambal river just because it is in the GBM basin. Why should we succumb to such pressure tactics and test the patience of our countrymen?
India has already clarified its stand on these issues. Now, instead of remaining defensive, it should act and proceed further with its plans for detailed studies on the Himalayan component even if the ILR proposals for this component are not a priority for the Government. Indians have every right to know whether the much talked about projects are feasible on the ground. Just to please Bangladesh our people should not be asked to wait for years to get this basic information. After field studies of the Himalayan component are completed by India, at the implementation stage, a dialogue with Bangladesh can be considered, if necessary.
(The Hindu, 15th March, 2005)
•
THE PROPOSED project on interlinking of rivers (ILR) is back in the news due to criticism from an unexpected source, neighbouring Bangladesh. According to reports from there, Bangladesh wants international mediation to get rid of the mega project being planned by India. Using disinformation, Bangladesh is creating an impression in the world fora that the life saving waters of the Brahmaputra and the Ganga would be diverted by India to ultimately cause water scarcity in Bangladesh. For justifying its stand, various myths have been engendered and project features distorted by excessive generalisation to get public emotions come in the way of rational judgment.
This is not the first time Bangladesh indulged in spreading canards on Indian water resources projects. Many issues on the waters of the common rivers have been under contention between the two countries for decades. However, continued negotiations in a cordial atmosphere under a favourable combination of various internal and external circumstances helped the two to promote a constructive dialogue culminating in a treaty (1996) between the two governments for sharing the lean flows of the Ganga at Farakka. Even then, off and on there have been complaints from Bangladesh that it is getting less than its share of water as provided for in the treaty. However, the data obtained through joint flow observations by the two countries confirm India's stand that it is fully honouring the provisions of the treaty.
Peninsular component
The ILR project as being planned now on the basis of studies carried out since 1980 by the National Water Development Agency (NWDA) of India envisages a peninsular rivers component for water transfer from surplus to deficit basins in the southern part of the subcontinent and a Himalayan rivers component. The plan under the Himalayan component proposes to divert excess flood waters of the eastern tributaries of the Ganga to the parched lands of Western India; similarly, the excess flood water of northern tributaries of the Brahmaputra i.e. Manas and Sankosh rivers, causing floods in Assam and Bangladesh, to the drought prone areas in the east and southeast parts. Water balance studies carried out have established that excess flood water (after meeting all in-basin requirements in the foreseeable future) is available at all diversion points planned on the Himalayan rivers. All the link proposals under the Himalayan component involving other countries are based on desk studies and are at a conceptual stage of planning at present.
The task force constituted by the Union Ministry of Water Resources on the ILR proposal gave priority to taking up the peninsular links since the Himalayan links require understanding with neighbouring countries. Hence, further action involving international rivers is to be taken up at a later stage in consultation with the Ministries concerned when the detailed projects are drawn up. The task force also submitted two action plans to the government of India in this regard. The ILR programme has to go through various stages before its actual implementation as at present, feasibility studies on the links of the peninsular component alone have been completed. The government thinking is also along these lines as evident from the National Common Minimum Programme.
A study of the available data indicates that the average annual flows in the Ganga-Brahmaputra-Meghna (GBM) basin in India are estimated at 1200 billion cubic metres. Of this only 3 per cent would be considered for diversion outside the basin in the Himalayan rivers component of the project.
Hidden agenda
Why then is there so much opposition to the project from Bangladesh?
It is the result of a campaign spearheaded to malign India by spreading wrong information, based on subjective conclusions; it is the hidden agenda of the powers that be to sabotage India's Herculean efforts to mitigate the ravages of floods in both the countries.
The policy of the government of India is to implement the project in a fully consultative manner and at present, only the peninsular component is being taken up, which in no way affects Bangladesh. We have been all along going out of the way to accommodate our neighbour's demands. Taking this as weakness, Bangladesh may next insist that India get clearance from it even for planning a project in the interior Madhya Pradesh on the Chambal river just because it is in the GBM basin. Why should we succumb to such pressure tactics and test the patience of our countrymen?
India has already clarified its stand on these issues. Now, instead of remaining defensive, it should act and proceed further with its plans for detailed studies on the Himalayan component even if the ILR proposals for this component are not a priority for the Government. Indians have every right to know whether the much talked about projects are feasible on the ground. Just to please Bangladesh our people should not be asked to wait for years to get this basic information. After field studies of the Himalayan component are completed by India, at the implementation stage, a dialogue with Bangladesh can be considered, if necessary.
(The Hindu, 15th March, 2005)
•
Monday, December 21, 2009
Tibetan Rivers
Flash floods from Tibetan rivers: need for caution
FLOODS HAVE been wreaking havoc in many parts of the country every year and the usual exercises of flood warnings, shifting population to safer places, providing flood relief, etc., have been an annual feature for decades. But this year an unusual event caught media attention — a flood warning from China about the impending failure of a lake formed by landslips in the Lang Chen Khambab (Sutlej) catchment in Tibet. The bursting of the lake would have hurtled down an enormous column of water under pressure devastating life and property in many places in Himachal Pradesh as the flood cascades down the valley.
According to reports, a landslip on the Pareechu river (Tibet), which joins the Spiti in Himachal Pradesh, a tributary of the Sutlej, blocked the river at a remote location in the Ali Prefecture of Tibet and water got headed up the lake. The blockage occurred at a place about 35 km from the India-China border. The increased rainfall and water flow from the upper reaches substantially raised water levels downstream. National Remote Sensing Agency's (NRSA) studies on imageries taken on May 10, July 16, July 26 and August 9 showed that while there was no lake observed on May 10, its size grew from 123 ha. on July 16, to 188 ha. on August 9 and to 193 ha. on August 12 with water flowing over the dam. The increase of 5 ha. in the reservoir area in just 3 days caused alarm bells ringing in Shimla and New Delhi necessitating high alert to be sounded in the areas along the river banks. By August 14 it was assessed that there was a good chance of the lake stabilising as the inflow was balanced by the outflow and since the debris wall was situated in a gorge, the water pressure from the swelling lake was being absorbed by the mountain face on either side.
Almost during the same period there were also reports of impending floods in the Brahmaputra due to landslips in the upper catchments of the river (known as Tsangpo in Tibet).
The threat from Tibet for the people and projects in India is not the first to occur. During August 2000, a flash flood occurred in the tribal district of Kinnaur (Himachal Pradesh) causing huge loss of life and property. The water level in the Sutlej rose by 15 m. in a short span of 6 hours discharging a peak flow of 5100 cumecs during the period. During the same year, a lake burst in the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra in Tibet left a trail of destruction downstream in India. Flash floods in these rivers occur due to one or a combination of many factors in the Tibetan Himalayas such as heavy rainfall, temporary blockage due to landslips, breaches in upper lakes, glacial lake outburst flows, dam construction, etc.
In the case of flash floods in 2000, as the sites concerned could not be visited, the reason, on the basis of data available, pointed to a flow triggered by a glacial lake outburst. In the latest case, the Chinese said that local landslips have created a debris wall choking the river gorge thereby forming the lake.
The landslips could be caused by natural factors or man-made due to blasting for specific purposes such as for project construction or for perfecting new dam building techniques. In this connection a news item that appeared in the Scientific American of June 1996 will be of specific interest. It was reported that Chinese engineers had assured the Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics in December 1995 of the possibility of diverting the waters of the upper Brahmaputra to the arid Northwest region and the Gobi desert using new techniques such as nuclear blasting.
The directional blasting techniques, initially pioneered by Russian engineers, help in constructing rockfill dams within a short period of time, particularly in gorges. By planned blasting of mountain slopes on either side of a gorge, the debris thrown up could be directed to fall in pre-determined locations in the gorge to dam the stream, with each layer of rockfill mass getting compacted by the subsequent heaps of debris thrown down by a series of blasts of the hill slopes. The charge required for each blasting, the direction, etc., would have to be planned carefully and technique perfected so as to design such fast construction methods. Since the Chinese have denied any construction activity in the area, the root cause for the occurrence of the slips i.e. whether due to natural causes or experimental blasting, can be confirmed only by site visits by experts.
These virtual liquid bombs ticking away in the Tibetan region pose a permanent threat and strategic concerns to the country's border areas. The risk cannot be removed entirely, but it can help set priorities. For continued vigil and preparedness to meet any eventuality, early warning systems have to be installed at our river stations on the border with state-of-the-art instruments such as Data Collection Platforms equipped with Auto-Weather Stations to monitor meteorological parameters, hydrological sites equipped with sensors to monitor water levels, etc. Instead of scrambling for damage control year after year, a centralised effective disaster management system has also to be put in place so as to address the concerns of the local residents during flash floods. Collapse of dams in the Tibetan region resulting from nature's fury or artificially created, should no more take us by surprise when we have the latest technological inputs. We have already been warned, hence let us be forearmed.
(The Hindu, 14th September,2004)
•
FLOODS HAVE been wreaking havoc in many parts of the country every year and the usual exercises of flood warnings, shifting population to safer places, providing flood relief, etc., have been an annual feature for decades. But this year an unusual event caught media attention — a flood warning from China about the impending failure of a lake formed by landslips in the Lang Chen Khambab (Sutlej) catchment in Tibet. The bursting of the lake would have hurtled down an enormous column of water under pressure devastating life and property in many places in Himachal Pradesh as the flood cascades down the valley.
According to reports, a landslip on the Pareechu river (Tibet), which joins the Spiti in Himachal Pradesh, a tributary of the Sutlej, blocked the river at a remote location in the Ali Prefecture of Tibet and water got headed up the lake. The blockage occurred at a place about 35 km from the India-China border. The increased rainfall and water flow from the upper reaches substantially raised water levels downstream. National Remote Sensing Agency's (NRSA) studies on imageries taken on May 10, July 16, July 26 and August 9 showed that while there was no lake observed on May 10, its size grew from 123 ha. on July 16, to 188 ha. on August 9 and to 193 ha. on August 12 with water flowing over the dam. The increase of 5 ha. in the reservoir area in just 3 days caused alarm bells ringing in Shimla and New Delhi necessitating high alert to be sounded in the areas along the river banks. By August 14 it was assessed that there was a good chance of the lake stabilising as the inflow was balanced by the outflow and since the debris wall was situated in a gorge, the water pressure from the swelling lake was being absorbed by the mountain face on either side.
Almost during the same period there were also reports of impending floods in the Brahmaputra due to landslips in the upper catchments of the river (known as Tsangpo in Tibet).
The threat from Tibet for the people and projects in India is not the first to occur. During August 2000, a flash flood occurred in the tribal district of Kinnaur (Himachal Pradesh) causing huge loss of life and property. The water level in the Sutlej rose by 15 m. in a short span of 6 hours discharging a peak flow of 5100 cumecs during the period. During the same year, a lake burst in the upper reaches of the Brahmaputra in Tibet left a trail of destruction downstream in India. Flash floods in these rivers occur due to one or a combination of many factors in the Tibetan Himalayas such as heavy rainfall, temporary blockage due to landslips, breaches in upper lakes, glacial lake outburst flows, dam construction, etc.
In the case of flash floods in 2000, as the sites concerned could not be visited, the reason, on the basis of data available, pointed to a flow triggered by a glacial lake outburst. In the latest case, the Chinese said that local landslips have created a debris wall choking the river gorge thereby forming the lake.
The landslips could be caused by natural factors or man-made due to blasting for specific purposes such as for project construction or for perfecting new dam building techniques. In this connection a news item that appeared in the Scientific American of June 1996 will be of specific interest. It was reported that Chinese engineers had assured the Chinese Academy of Engineering Physics in December 1995 of the possibility of diverting the waters of the upper Brahmaputra to the arid Northwest region and the Gobi desert using new techniques such as nuclear blasting.
The directional blasting techniques, initially pioneered by Russian engineers, help in constructing rockfill dams within a short period of time, particularly in gorges. By planned blasting of mountain slopes on either side of a gorge, the debris thrown up could be directed to fall in pre-determined locations in the gorge to dam the stream, with each layer of rockfill mass getting compacted by the subsequent heaps of debris thrown down by a series of blasts of the hill slopes. The charge required for each blasting, the direction, etc., would have to be planned carefully and technique perfected so as to design such fast construction methods. Since the Chinese have denied any construction activity in the area, the root cause for the occurrence of the slips i.e. whether due to natural causes or experimental blasting, can be confirmed only by site visits by experts.
These virtual liquid bombs ticking away in the Tibetan region pose a permanent threat and strategic concerns to the country's border areas. The risk cannot be removed entirely, but it can help set priorities. For continued vigil and preparedness to meet any eventuality, early warning systems have to be installed at our river stations on the border with state-of-the-art instruments such as Data Collection Platforms equipped with Auto-Weather Stations to monitor meteorological parameters, hydrological sites equipped with sensors to monitor water levels, etc. Instead of scrambling for damage control year after year, a centralised effective disaster management system has also to be put in place so as to address the concerns of the local residents during flash floods. Collapse of dams in the Tibetan region resulting from nature's fury or artificially created, should no more take us by surprise when we have the latest technological inputs. We have already been warned, hence let us be forearmed.
(The Hindu, 14th September,2004)
•
Sunday, December 20, 2009
Nationalise Rivers
nationalise the great rivers
The situation in the water sector has become alarming with water-endowed states enacting bills to prevent the sharing of river waters flowing through their territories by the neighbouring states. In the past, the Government of Karnataka had passed an ordinance on the Cauvery waters assuming the role of "a judge in its own cause".
More recently, the Kerala Assembly passed a Bill prohibiting any transfer of its waters outside the State. And now the Punjab Assembly has passed a Bill terminating all previous agreements and accords on its river waters with the neighbouring states. The acrimonious disputes among the states over their rights on the waters flowing through their territories have resulted in billions of cubic metres of fresh water flowing into the sea unutilised every year, while many parts of the country remain parched.
The country can ill afford to accept the position that politics can override the sanctity of agreements and spirit of federalism. Also the Centre should not remain a mute spectator if the water surplus states declare that the water flowing through them would remain their property and cannot be diverted and used elsewhere without their approval. The failure of the upper riparians to discuss with their lower riparians and resolve the differences among them to ensure equitable and sustainable utilisation of the river flows has naturally triggered the demand for nationalisation of these rivers which contribute more than 85 per cent of the country's utilisable water resources.
The water-endowed states claim the subject "Water" is a State subject under the Constitution and hence the Centre has no authority to interfere as the very concept is against the autonomy of the states guaranteed under the Constitution. However, the states are obliged to cooperate with each other under the principle of federalism of the polity. Thus, while on the one hand these states clamour for their rights and to safeguard their autonomous status, they forget their obligations to cooperate with each other while practicing federalism. Due to the rigid stand now taken by some of the states in the matters related to ownership of the rivers, the necessity for nationalisation of rivers needs serious consideration.
Many legal aspects are involved in dealing with the emotive issue of water - the allocation of river waters, water rights, etc. Since "Water" is listed as "State" subject under the Constitution, according to some legal pundits only a constitutional amendment, and bringing water under the "Central" or "Concurrent list" , can make the Union can take effective steps in the development and management of the water resources. However, many others, quoting the Sarkaria Commission, insist the Centre has only to empower itself to control the interstate rivers.
Though the existing provisions in the Constitution 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: "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."
The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations, which examined this issue in detail, opined that the scheme of the Constitution was 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 can have powers to regulate, by law, the beneficial use and distribution of such waters among the states. Hence the commission was of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are the best to deal with the issue of water. The commission thus did not support the suggestions from different quarters to include the subject of water either in the "Union List" or the "Concurrent List".
The Centre can still bring interstate rivers under its purview by Parliament enacting a law for the regulation and development of these rivers, thus taking over the control of these rivers. Enactment of laws in itself is not adequate to ensure their optimal development and management. We have also to set up an acceptable mechanism to deal with water issues to ensure that while appreciating the rights of the co-basin states, the needs of the stakeholders would be taken into account and the available water will be equitably shared by the concerned states. For this, institutions such as National Water Authority supported by River Basin Authorities have to be established with adequate powers. This can be done by amending the existing River Boards Act (1956).
The present tragedy in the water sector is that political opportunism has succeeded in denting the spirit of the Constitution. Unless the Centre intervenes to take over interstate rivers, hydro policies will continue to threaten federalism.
Prev | Next
.
The situation in the water sector has become alarming with water-endowed states enacting bills to prevent the sharing of river waters flowing through their territories by the neighbouring states. In the past, the Government of Karnataka had passed an ordinance on the Cauvery waters assuming the role of "a judge in its own cause".
More recently, the Kerala Assembly passed a Bill prohibiting any transfer of its waters outside the State. And now the Punjab Assembly has passed a Bill terminating all previous agreements and accords on its river waters with the neighbouring states. The acrimonious disputes among the states over their rights on the waters flowing through their territories have resulted in billions of cubic metres of fresh water flowing into the sea unutilised every year, while many parts of the country remain parched.
The country can ill afford to accept the position that politics can override the sanctity of agreements and spirit of federalism. Also the Centre should not remain a mute spectator if the water surplus states declare that the water flowing through them would remain their property and cannot be diverted and used elsewhere without their approval. The failure of the upper riparians to discuss with their lower riparians and resolve the differences among them to ensure equitable and sustainable utilisation of the river flows has naturally triggered the demand for nationalisation of these rivers which contribute more than 85 per cent of the country's utilisable water resources.
The water-endowed states claim the subject "Water" is a State subject under the Constitution and hence the Centre has no authority to interfere as the very concept is against the autonomy of the states guaranteed under the Constitution. However, the states are obliged to cooperate with each other under the principle of federalism of the polity. Thus, while on the one hand these states clamour for their rights and to safeguard their autonomous status, they forget their obligations to cooperate with each other while practicing federalism. Due to the rigid stand now taken by some of the states in the matters related to ownership of the rivers, the necessity for nationalisation of rivers needs serious consideration.
Many legal aspects are involved in dealing with the emotive issue of water - the allocation of river waters, water rights, etc. Since "Water" is listed as "State" subject under the Constitution, according to some legal pundits only a constitutional amendment, and bringing water under the "Central" or "Concurrent list" , can make the Union can take effective steps in the development and management of the water resources. However, many others, quoting the Sarkaria Commission, insist the Centre has only to empower itself to control the interstate rivers.
Though the existing provisions in the Constitution 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: "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."
The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations, which examined this issue in detail, opined that the scheme of the Constitution was 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 can have powers to regulate, by law, the beneficial use and distribution of such waters among the states. Hence the commission was of the view that the existing provisions in the Constitution are the best to deal with the issue of water. The commission thus did not support the suggestions from different quarters to include the subject of water either in the "Union List" or the "Concurrent List".
The Centre can still bring interstate rivers under its purview by Parliament enacting a law for the regulation and development of these rivers, thus taking over the control of these rivers. Enactment of laws in itself is not adequate to ensure their optimal development and management. We have also to set up an acceptable mechanism to deal with water issues to ensure that while appreciating the rights of the co-basin states, the needs of the stakeholders would be taken into account and the available water will be equitably shared by the concerned states. For this, institutions such as National Water Authority supported by River Basin Authorities have to be established with adequate powers. This can be done by amending the existing River Boards Act (1956).
The present tragedy in the water sector is that political opportunism has succeeded in denting the spirit of the Constitution. Unless the Centre intervenes to take over interstate rivers, hydro policies will continue to threaten federalism.
Prev | Next
.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
Water Wars
The Pioneer, dt.25th August,2004
Water Wars- Myth and Reality
A decade ago, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice-President of the World Bank, had expressed that "the wars of the next century will be about water". Similar sentiments were echoed by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General on the World Water Day, 2002, that "water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict". The pent up demand will cause even the smallest provocation to transform into a water war bringing the bickering countries to the battle fields.
Unfortunately, the UN would remain helpless in such disputes since the "Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses" adopted by UN in 1997 is still to be ratified. Further, the convention has institutionalised the two conflicting principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an international waterway by emphasising both on "equitable use" and "an obligation not to cause significant harm". Hence the upper riparians would stake their rights on the basis of "equitable use" while the lower riparians would clamour for protection of their existing rights under the principle of "no significant harm".
There are many who opine that wars on water are not economically viable. Many desalinisation plants can be built to meet the water needs with the cost of one day's war, they argue. Some others are of the view that once the basin countries reach agreements on their shared waters, such understandings are resilient enough to survive conflicts between hostile riparians engaged in skirmishes over other issues. They quote the example of Indus Water Treaty signed by India and Pakistan (1960) on the Indus Waters, which survived two wars in the recent past.
A perusal of the past history of wars would indicate that though there were battles over the rights on waterways, very little is documented on fights over the use of water for irrigation and other purposes. One such fight finding mention is the dispute that occurred around 2500 BC between the Sumerian city states of Lagash and Umme over the right to exploit boundary channels along the Tigris. Buddhist literature also mentions of fights between the Sakyas and Koliyas in the Himalayan Kingdom over the distribution of irrigation waters around the same period.
However, a number of fights on water have occurred in the second half of the last century. To mention a few: Between Egypt and Sudan on the Nile Waters (1958); Israel and its neighbouring Arabs on the waters of the Jordan (1967); Mauritania and Senegal on the Senegal river (1989). Tension is also mounting on the use of Chobe waters among Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe; the waters of Amu Darya and Syr Darya draining into the Aral Sea are likely to erupt into major conflicts among the countries of Central Asian Republics.
The argument that wars for water are not cost effective and hence unlikely does not carry conviction, since wars are never cost effective. Regarding the inbuilt resilience of existing agreements to prevent water wars, an examination of such treaties would reveal the one sided provisions in them causing resentment and opposition to the continuation of such agreements by the aggrieved parties.
For example, the Treaty on the Rio Grande river (1909) between the US, the upper riparian, and Mexico, the lower riparian, was based on the "Harmon Doctrine" which gave unlimited rights to the upper riparian on the waters flowing within its territory regardless to its effect on the rights of the lower riparian. It was then argued that the latter had no right to demand continued flow of water from the former. However, in the Treaty on the Columbia waters (1961-67) between Canada, the upper riparian and the US, the lower riparian, the same "Doctrine" was repudiated by the US for it was not beneficial to Americans. Hence both Mexico and Canada are not happy now in continuing with these agreements.
Similarly, many co-sharers of international water-courses are unhappy with the existing agreements forced on them under duress. While the beneficiary countries with plenty of water available since decades may not like to surrender their accrued rights, those facing scarcity would not agree to the continuance of such treaties. The ensuing tensions could explode into volcanic proportions leading to war like situations.
Many actions would be required to be taken both within and among the basin nations to avert the crisis. Supply and demand management aspects have to be analysed for an effective strategy and to provide a set of concrete solutions. These include adoption of techniques for augmenting water availability such as water conservation and pollution prevention; improving water use efficiency, recycling and reuse of drainage water, etc. Adopting more intensive water saving techniques, changing crop patterns, etc., would reduce the demand on water. Simultaneously, dialogues based on water needs rather than on water must be initiated among the basin countries.
Water Wars- Myth and Reality
A decade ago, Ismail Serageldin, then Vice-President of the World Bank, had expressed that "the wars of the next century will be about water". Similar sentiments were echoed by Kofi Annan, UN Secretary General on the World Water Day, 2002, that "water issues contain the seeds of violent conflict". The pent up demand will cause even the smallest provocation to transform into a water war bringing the bickering countries to the battle fields.
Unfortunately, the UN would remain helpless in such disputes since the "Convention on the Non-navigational Uses of International Water Courses" adopted by UN in 1997 is still to be ratified. Further, the convention has institutionalised the two conflicting principles in the upstream-downstream uses of an international waterway by emphasising both on "equitable use" and "an obligation not to cause significant harm". Hence the upper riparians would stake their rights on the basis of "equitable use" while the lower riparians would clamour for protection of their existing rights under the principle of "no significant harm".
There are many who opine that wars on water are not economically viable. Many desalinisation plants can be built to meet the water needs with the cost of one day's war, they argue. Some others are of the view that once the basin countries reach agreements on their shared waters, such understandings are resilient enough to survive conflicts between hostile riparians engaged in skirmishes over other issues. They quote the example of Indus Water Treaty signed by India and Pakistan (1960) on the Indus Waters, which survived two wars in the recent past.
A perusal of the past history of wars would indicate that though there were battles over the rights on waterways, very little is documented on fights over the use of water for irrigation and other purposes. One such fight finding mention is the dispute that occurred around 2500 BC between the Sumerian city states of Lagash and Umme over the right to exploit boundary channels along the Tigris. Buddhist literature also mentions of fights between the Sakyas and Koliyas in the Himalayan Kingdom over the distribution of irrigation waters around the same period.
However, a number of fights on water have occurred in the second half of the last century. To mention a few: Between Egypt and Sudan on the Nile Waters (1958); Israel and its neighbouring Arabs on the waters of the Jordan (1967); Mauritania and Senegal on the Senegal river (1989). Tension is also mounting on the use of Chobe waters among Mozambique, Zambia and Zimbabwe; the waters of Amu Darya and Syr Darya draining into the Aral Sea are likely to erupt into major conflicts among the countries of Central Asian Republics.
The argument that wars for water are not cost effective and hence unlikely does not carry conviction, since wars are never cost effective. Regarding the inbuilt resilience of existing agreements to prevent water wars, an examination of such treaties would reveal the one sided provisions in them causing resentment and opposition to the continuation of such agreements by the aggrieved parties.
For example, the Treaty on the Rio Grande river (1909) between the US, the upper riparian, and Mexico, the lower riparian, was based on the "Harmon Doctrine" which gave unlimited rights to the upper riparian on the waters flowing within its territory regardless to its effect on the rights of the lower riparian. It was then argued that the latter had no right to demand continued flow of water from the former. However, in the Treaty on the Columbia waters (1961-67) between Canada, the upper riparian and the US, the lower riparian, the same "Doctrine" was repudiated by the US for it was not beneficial to Americans. Hence both Mexico and Canada are not happy now in continuing with these agreements.
Similarly, many co-sharers of international water-courses are unhappy with the existing agreements forced on them under duress. While the beneficiary countries with plenty of water available since decades may not like to surrender their accrued rights, those facing scarcity would not agree to the continuance of such treaties. The ensuing tensions could explode into volcanic proportions leading to war like situations.
Many actions would be required to be taken both within and among the basin nations to avert the crisis. Supply and demand management aspects have to be analysed for an effective strategy and to provide a set of concrete solutions. These include adoption of techniques for augmenting water availability such as water conservation and pollution prevention; improving water use efficiency, recycling and reuse of drainage water, etc. Adopting more intensive water saving techniques, changing crop patterns, etc., would reduce the demand on water. Simultaneously, dialogues based on water needs rather than on water must be initiated among the basin countries.
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Rain down
Raining down on a good idea
The monsoon has left large parts of India—in the North-East and East—under floods, while Central and Western India are struggling under a drought. In the meantime, the much-talked-about mega project to link rivers, which is in an embryonic stage, is getting aborted because of political opportunists, pseudo-environmentalists and armchair theorists.
It’s clear that water is an emotive issue, and has been highly politicised in the recent past. Issues of federalism have been put to test, upstream-downstream aspects have been questioned, legal battles have been fought—all for ensuring that an individual state’s rights are not lost even if billions of cubic metres of monsoon water are lost to sea every year, unutilised.
The Indian land mass receives an average annual precipitation of 4,000 billion cubic metres (BCM), 75 per cent of it in the three-month monsoon period. But the available resource is only about 1,950 BCM, the rest being lost to immediate evaporation and soil moisture. However, due to topographical and geological constraints, the utilisable quantum of water is estimated as only about 1,100 BCM (700 BCM from surface flows and 400 BCM from groundwater). Understandably, even this is not uniformly distributed within the country as the rainfall varies from 11,000 mm in the North-East to 100 mm in the western regions.
Thus the main characteristic of India’s water resources is its uneven distribution across the land, leading to endemic and sporadic problems of floods and droughts. The creation of a national water grid, as envisaged in the mega project linking the water-rich Himalayan rivers such as the Brahmaputra with the seasonal peninsular rivers, would have helped reduce the miseries faced by millions every year.
The subject of inter-basin transfer of waters is not a new one in the country. Such transfers have already been taking place on a limited scale in various parts of India for centuries. To name a few: Ganga Canal, Western Yamuna Canal, Kurnool Cuddapah Canal etc. The projects constructed recently, or under construction, include the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (Rajasthan) and the Sardar Sarovar Project (Gujarat).
From past experience within the country and abroad, water professionals have been insisting on creation of major, medium and minor storages, and inter-basin transfer of water from surplus to deficit basins to even out the variations of water availability in space and time, and to facilitate equitable distribution and optimal utilisation of this precious resource.
Considering proposals such as the Ganga-Cauvery Link suggested by former Union minister of Irrigation and Power Dr K L Rao (1974), the Garland Canals Scheme of Captain Dastur (1976) etc, the Government of India set up a National Water Development Agency (NWDA) in 1980 to prepare a plan. After considerable studies, the NWDA came out with a scheme comprising an interlinked Himalayan rivers component—to transfer surplus flows from the Himalayan rivers to the arid west—and a peninsular rivers component for similar transfer from surplus to deficit basins in the south.
Subsequently, a task force under the chairmanship of Suresh Prabhu was appointed by the Government of India to prepare a timeframe for the implementation of the project. However, nothing much could be achieved on the ground due to the incessant attack on the project concept by self-appointed experts, cynics and activists, taking advantage of the political confusion in the country. hey condemned all the earlier studies done, claiming that small, local harvesting structures are the panacea for all water-related problems.
Slogans like ‘‘Catch the rain where it falls’’, ‘‘Small is beautiful’’ etc were raised by these wise men in national and international fora to ingratiate themselves to a class of people inside and outside the country. Weapons of mass disinformation were launched to attack Nehru’s ‘‘temples of modern India’’, charging them as monsters concealing time bombs waiting to cause devastation. According to them, the engineer-contractor-politician nexus was interested only in mega projects due to ‘‘other reasons’’ and not in small environment-friendly projects like in Ralegaon Siddhi.
The local water-harvesting experience of Ralegaon Siddhi, spearheaded by Anna Hazare, is an excellent example of how a dedicated selfless leader like Anna Hazare can put his vision into practice to green his countryside. The area has been irrigated with water from a small storage and supplemented by pumping from a canal, thus facilitating a small-scale inter-basin transfer of water to ensure availability even when monsoon fails. While talking about this project, the critics of large projects—being largely uninformed on the subject—make it evident that they don’t know about the feature of using canal waters in the area. They also seem to be unaware of the fact that in a scenario of undependable and irregular monsoon, of limited duration, small storages would dry up unless supplemented by major/medium projects. The sceptics are also forgetting that long-distance water transfer is a means to end human sufferings from frequent droughts and floods.
If the critics succeed in stalling this project, the well-studied proposals of the NWDA are likely to slip into the shadows of history. Future generations would then have a cause to blame us for wasting too much of time in analysis, resulting in paralysis of needed action, thereby leaving a trail of water-scarcity problems for them to solve. Let us not allow this to happen and instead, hasten to implement the proposals, which are harbingers of hope to those millions whose lives hang slenderly on the recurring ravages of floods and starkness of drought and hunger.
(The Indian Express, dt. 16th August, 2004)
The monsoon has left large parts of India—in the North-East and East—under floods, while Central and Western India are struggling under a drought. In the meantime, the much-talked-about mega project to link rivers, which is in an embryonic stage, is getting aborted because of political opportunists, pseudo-environmentalists and armchair theorists.
It’s clear that water is an emotive issue, and has been highly politicised in the recent past. Issues of federalism have been put to test, upstream-downstream aspects have been questioned, legal battles have been fought—all for ensuring that an individual state’s rights are not lost even if billions of cubic metres of monsoon water are lost to sea every year, unutilised.
The Indian land mass receives an average annual precipitation of 4,000 billion cubic metres (BCM), 75 per cent of it in the three-month monsoon period. But the available resource is only about 1,950 BCM, the rest being lost to immediate evaporation and soil moisture. However, due to topographical and geological constraints, the utilisable quantum of water is estimated as only about 1,100 BCM (700 BCM from surface flows and 400 BCM from groundwater). Understandably, even this is not uniformly distributed within the country as the rainfall varies from 11,000 mm in the North-East to 100 mm in the western regions.
Thus the main characteristic of India’s water resources is its uneven distribution across the land, leading to endemic and sporadic problems of floods and droughts. The creation of a national water grid, as envisaged in the mega project linking the water-rich Himalayan rivers such as the Brahmaputra with the seasonal peninsular rivers, would have helped reduce the miseries faced by millions every year.
The subject of inter-basin transfer of waters is not a new one in the country. Such transfers have already been taking place on a limited scale in various parts of India for centuries. To name a few: Ganga Canal, Western Yamuna Canal, Kurnool Cuddapah Canal etc. The projects constructed recently, or under construction, include the Indira Gandhi Nahar Project (Rajasthan) and the Sardar Sarovar Project (Gujarat).
From past experience within the country and abroad, water professionals have been insisting on creation of major, medium and minor storages, and inter-basin transfer of water from surplus to deficit basins to even out the variations of water availability in space and time, and to facilitate equitable distribution and optimal utilisation of this precious resource.
Considering proposals such as the Ganga-Cauvery Link suggested by former Union minister of Irrigation and Power Dr K L Rao (1974), the Garland Canals Scheme of Captain Dastur (1976) etc, the Government of India set up a National Water Development Agency (NWDA) in 1980 to prepare a plan. After considerable studies, the NWDA came out with a scheme comprising an interlinked Himalayan rivers component—to transfer surplus flows from the Himalayan rivers to the arid west—and a peninsular rivers component for similar transfer from surplus to deficit basins in the south.
Subsequently, a task force under the chairmanship of Suresh Prabhu was appointed by the Government of India to prepare a timeframe for the implementation of the project. However, nothing much could be achieved on the ground due to the incessant attack on the project concept by self-appointed experts, cynics and activists, taking advantage of the political confusion in the country. hey condemned all the earlier studies done, claiming that small, local harvesting structures are the panacea for all water-related problems.
Slogans like ‘‘Catch the rain where it falls’’, ‘‘Small is beautiful’’ etc were raised by these wise men in national and international fora to ingratiate themselves to a class of people inside and outside the country. Weapons of mass disinformation were launched to attack Nehru’s ‘‘temples of modern India’’, charging them as monsters concealing time bombs waiting to cause devastation. According to them, the engineer-contractor-politician nexus was interested only in mega projects due to ‘‘other reasons’’ and not in small environment-friendly projects like in Ralegaon Siddhi.
The local water-harvesting experience of Ralegaon Siddhi, spearheaded by Anna Hazare, is an excellent example of how a dedicated selfless leader like Anna Hazare can put his vision into practice to green his countryside. The area has been irrigated with water from a small storage and supplemented by pumping from a canal, thus facilitating a small-scale inter-basin transfer of water to ensure availability even when monsoon fails. While talking about this project, the critics of large projects—being largely uninformed on the subject—make it evident that they don’t know about the feature of using canal waters in the area. They also seem to be unaware of the fact that in a scenario of undependable and irregular monsoon, of limited duration, small storages would dry up unless supplemented by major/medium projects. The sceptics are also forgetting that long-distance water transfer is a means to end human sufferings from frequent droughts and floods.
If the critics succeed in stalling this project, the well-studied proposals of the NWDA are likely to slip into the shadows of history. Future generations would then have a cause to blame us for wasting too much of time in analysis, resulting in paralysis of needed action, thereby leaving a trail of water-scarcity problems for them to solve. Let us not allow this to happen and instead, hasten to implement the proposals, which are harbingers of hope to those millions whose lives hang slenderly on the recurring ravages of floods and starkness of drought and hunger.
(The Indian Express, dt. 16th August, 2004)
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Rivers- Nationalisation
Nationalise interstate rivers
THE PRESENT scenario in the country's water resources sector is alarmingly dismal. While floods are wreaking havoc in the Northeast and Eastern regions and drought is looming large in many parts of the Indian land mass, many States continue opposing the interbasin transfer of waters from surplus to deficit basins. Punjab has gone one step ahead by passing unilaterally a Bill terminating all previous agreements and accords on river waters thereby vitally affecting irrigation and drinking water supply in the neighbouring States. Punjab's action has triggered a whirlwind of protest and has raised a core issue of national importance, the solution to which would determine the future course of action on such issues.
Conflict of interest is the normal state of affairs in a reality where river flows physically link upstream and downstream users and uses. The issues are complex and linkages are many. But instead of sorting out the differences, of late, water endowed States have been resorting to legal gimmickry while playing to the political galleries, in their bid to prevent use of waters flowing through their territories by their water deficit neighbours. Kerala has passed a Bill in this regard recently and Karnataka had issued an ordinance on the Cauvery waters some time back. In all these cases reference has been made to the sovereign rights of the States as enshrined in the Constitution. If other water surplus States take the cue from these instances and act as arbitrarily, the consequences of such developments in terms of India's unity and integrity would be disastrous. Hence the demand has been gaining momentum in the last few years for the Central government to transfer the subject of "Water" from the "State List" to the "Union List" or "Concurrent List" to arrest further deterioration in water related issues.
In the Constitution, "Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power," is a matter contained in Entry 17, List II (State List). Hence the State legislatures have full powers to legislate under this provision, all water related matters including their regulation and development. However, this Entry is subject to the provision of Entry 56, List I (Union List) which authorises Parliament to enact laws for the regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys.
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."
In the past, the Centre had enacted over-riding laws using constitutional powers on many subjects such as industry and business, which are included in the State List. However, at present any constitutional amendment particularly in the emotive issue of water does not seem possible considering the current political scenario.
Another view which has gained currency is that without any constitutional amendment, the Centre can deal with interstate rivers by empowering itself under the available provisions (Entry 56, List I). The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations which examined this question in detail was also of the view that Parliament could enact laws to regulate the beneficial use and distribution of interstate river waters among the States.
Against the above background, any change in the scheme of the Constitution has to be ruled out and instead the Centre has to pass laws to deal with interstate rivers more effectively as they contribute more than 85 per cent of the water resources of the country. The National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan had also recommended such an approach (September, 1999).
Consultative mechanism
Apart from enacting laws to empower itself for the control and regulation of interstate rivers, there is also a need for the Centre to set up Centre-State consultative mechanisms for effectively sorting out water related concerns. The purpose is to secure a proper tie between problems and their main causes on the one hand and technology and governance perspectives of problem solving on the other. Further, a National Water Authority (NWA) as an apex body to concern itself with the development and management of interstate rivers supported by a River Basin Organisation for each interstate river needs to be set up on similar lines as in Australia, France, etc. The River Boards Act (1956) has to be suitably amended to create these institutions.
The tragedy in the water resources sector today is that the politicians, NGOs and intellectuals have failed in their expected roles to optimally improve the sector as they were concerned only with the furtherance of their own respective goals — politicians to impress their vote banks, NGOs to ensure their sustainability and the intellectuals to remain in the limelight. It was forgotten by them that the development of effective solutions to water problems depends less on theatrics but more on governance. Hence it is essential for the Centre to empower itself to take over the interstate rivers for providing better regulation and management of the water resources available in the country and put a stop to the bouts of fissiparous tendencies recently demonstrated by some States.
(The Hindu, 27th July, 2004)
________________________________________
________________________________________
THE PRESENT scenario in the country's water resources sector is alarmingly dismal. While floods are wreaking havoc in the Northeast and Eastern regions and drought is looming large in many parts of the Indian land mass, many States continue opposing the interbasin transfer of waters from surplus to deficit basins. Punjab has gone one step ahead by passing unilaterally a Bill terminating all previous agreements and accords on river waters thereby vitally affecting irrigation and drinking water supply in the neighbouring States. Punjab's action has triggered a whirlwind of protest and has raised a core issue of national importance, the solution to which would determine the future course of action on such issues.
Conflict of interest is the normal state of affairs in a reality where river flows physically link upstream and downstream users and uses. The issues are complex and linkages are many. But instead of sorting out the differences, of late, water endowed States have been resorting to legal gimmickry while playing to the political galleries, in their bid to prevent use of waters flowing through their territories by their water deficit neighbours. Kerala has passed a Bill in this regard recently and Karnataka had issued an ordinance on the Cauvery waters some time back. In all these cases reference has been made to the sovereign rights of the States as enshrined in the Constitution. If other water surplus States take the cue from these instances and act as arbitrarily, the consequences of such developments in terms of India's unity and integrity would be disastrous. Hence the demand has been gaining momentum in the last few years for the Central government to transfer the subject of "Water" from the "State List" to the "Union List" or "Concurrent List" to arrest further deterioration in water related issues.
In the Constitution, "Water, that is to say, water supplies, irrigation and canals, drainage and embankments, water storage and water power," is a matter contained in Entry 17, List II (State List). Hence the State legislatures have full powers to legislate under this provision, all water related matters including their regulation and development. However, this Entry is subject to the provision of Entry 56, List I (Union List) which authorises Parliament to enact laws for the regulation and development of interstate rivers and river valleys.
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."
In the past, the Centre had enacted over-riding laws using constitutional powers on many subjects such as industry and business, which are included in the State List. However, at present any constitutional amendment particularly in the emotive issue of water does not seem possible considering the current political scenario.
Another view which has gained currency is that without any constitutional amendment, the Centre can deal with interstate rivers by empowering itself under the available provisions (Entry 56, List I). The Sarkaria Commission on Centre-State relations which examined this question in detail was also of the view that Parliament could enact laws to regulate the beneficial use and distribution of interstate river waters among the States.
Against the above background, any change in the scheme of the Constitution has to be ruled out and instead the Centre has to pass laws to deal with interstate rivers more effectively as they contribute more than 85 per cent of the water resources of the country. The National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development Plan had also recommended such an approach (September, 1999).
Consultative mechanism
Apart from enacting laws to empower itself for the control and regulation of interstate rivers, there is also a need for the Centre to set up Centre-State consultative mechanisms for effectively sorting out water related concerns. The purpose is to secure a proper tie between problems and their main causes on the one hand and technology and governance perspectives of problem solving on the other. Further, a National Water Authority (NWA) as an apex body to concern itself with the development and management of interstate rivers supported by a River Basin Organisation for each interstate river needs to be set up on similar lines as in Australia, France, etc. The River Boards Act (1956) has to be suitably amended to create these institutions.
The tragedy in the water resources sector today is that the politicians, NGOs and intellectuals have failed in their expected roles to optimally improve the sector as they were concerned only with the furtherance of their own respective goals — politicians to impress their vote banks, NGOs to ensure their sustainability and the intellectuals to remain in the limelight. It was forgotten by them that the development of effective solutions to water problems depends less on theatrics but more on governance. Hence it is essential for the Centre to empower itself to take over the interstate rivers for providing better regulation and management of the water resources available in the country and put a stop to the bouts of fissiparous tendencies recently demonstrated by some States.
(The Hindu, 27th July, 2004)
________________________________________
________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)