Kerala Waters

Does Kerala lack water?

M.S.Menon illuminates the complexities behind water-surplus issues related to the ILR.

In the 11th National Water Convention inaugurated last year, President APJ Abdul Kalam had voiced his concerns regarding India’s water sector and the need for interlinking of rivers to mitigate sufferings from the recurring floods and droughts.
The main problem of taking the Interlinking (ILR) Project, beyond the drawing board stage, is the opposition of water-rich States in sparing their surplus waters. This aspect has only recently received needed attention. Hence in the National Convention, the topic of consensus building measures in ILR project was discussed and the outcome is of special interest to Kerala.
The data for most of the river basins in the country indicates that there is surplus water in many States. But ‘water’ has become an emotive issue and no political leadership in a water-rich State would agree to spare its present surplus to a deficit State for fear of facing political oblivion.
In this regard, the proposal brought out in the convention is for compensating water-surplus. The basic principle is that by releasing part of the surplus to the deficit State, the donor State will have to be compensated either in cash or in kind (like food grains produced, power generated etc.) by the donee State.
Such principles are being followed within the country and also abroad for water transfers. For example, the agreement between Kerala and Tamil Nadu(1970) for utilising the Periyar river waters of Kerala for power generation has a provision for compensation based on the units of power generated due to the scheme. Abroad, in Spain, the donor regions are compensated for regional development after assessing the losses that transferred water would cause to the regional economy.
In view of such existing practices, there should not be any objection for compensating the water surplus of a donor State. The compensation would enable it to plan the use of the remaining unutilised water optimally by reprioriitising and implementing the required projects expeditiously with the available finances. The done State would be able to provide more water for irrigation, hydel power generation, etc., thus affording a win-win situation for both the parties. The acceptance of this concept would encourage water saving in the donor State to facilitate more water to be spared in lieu of the compensation.
Kerala has been objecting to the ILR project, pointing out that, in the summer months, many parts in the State face acute water scarcity even for drinking purposes though there is harmful abundance in the monsoon months. The State, then has to take the blame since, due to limited fund allocations, executable projects continue at snail pace, If at all. In 1995, Kerala’s Centre for Water Resources Development and Management (CWRDM) had brought out the “Water Atlas of Kerala’ covering all the rivers of the State and indicating the possible utilisation of resources. A decade thereafter, of the estimated water resources of about 60 billion cubic metres (BCM), less than 20% only has been harnessed so far, mainly due to resource crunch, though environmental and social issues too have contributed to the slow progress.
All along, tactical concerns in the electoral policies had impelled State leadership to turn down suggestions on water transfers. Implicit in the justification was the mystical belief that within a foreseeable future, the State would be able to utilise all its water and, hence, if the water right is given away now, it would be a loss for ever. Even while billions of cubic metres of fresh water get discharged into the sea unutilised every year, the State continues to be engaged in its fanciful aspirations, blissfully lacking any feasible programme to achieve the optimum utilisation of its waters.
Past data indicate that every year many important river systems of the state, like, Bharatapuzha, Periyar, Chaliar, Valapatnam, etc., have discharged on an average more than 60% of the monsoon flows into the Arabian sea. This would not have happened if storages- major, medium and minor – were constructed to hold back river flows. The lakes thus formed would have helped conserve water, recharge ground water and even checked salinity intrusion, similar to the storages constructed successfully on the west flowing rivers in the Saurashtra and Kutch regions (Gujarat). Where suitable sites for constructing solid structures are not available, even installation of rubber dams as done in the Jhanjhavathi Project (A.P.) could be attempted.
Unless concrete action is planned, new initiatives launched and considerable ground work done by the Kerala Government, the proposals for optimum use of its waters would remain only a pipe dream for want of funds and the CWRDM studies would end up in the time –worn pages of Government files, ultimately consigned to the dustbins of history. Hence approaches are needed to enable the fruition of planned projects of Kerala.
An assessment to determine the extent of surplus water able to be spared for the ILR Project on a long term basis is needed. This assessment must contain the nature and compensation to be sought, formula for water transfer during deficit flow periods and frame work for new drinking water projects, and irrigation and hydro schemes on the basis of compensation to be received from surplus water.
It is time Kerala got active in discussions on the ILR project and staked its claims for compensation of its surplus waters.

(The Pioneer, dt. 15th March, 2006)