• PAGE ONE
• INDEX
• HOME

Insecurity about water

IT IS DISAPPOINTING that the conference of State Chief Ministers made little headway last week discussing the draft National Water Policy that seeks to evolve a mechanism to ensure a better distribution of water resources. Even the moderating presence of the Prime Minister seemed to make no difference to the State ministers, who continued to speak with traditional, shrill voices on how the States must continue to control their water resources. Water is a State subject, but the Centre, in a paternal way, has been showing a new keenness to take a more active role than in the past. The fruitless New Delhi meeting indicates that the States are unwilling to give the Centre much room.

It is a stand that is not going to do the States much good. Those ruling the States are still to wake up to the reality as far as water is concerned. Water resources are not equally distributed across the country: One half of the country's land is arable , but over one third of the land is drought-prone, and another one-sixth susceptible to floods. Over 60 per cent of the nation's water runs through the Ganga-Brahmaputra basins leaving the peninsular basins thinly endowed and wanting for many months in t he year. Most rivers in the peninsula, save the Mahanadi and Narmada, are intensively used. In the Cauvery, Pennar and Sabarmati basins, the per capita availability is less than 1,000 cubic metres, a threshold that is drawn internationally to define scar city. Transferring water from a surplus basin to one in deficit, as logical a solution as any, was only a subject of dreams through the past century. Planners simply baulked at the investments called for, and allocated no money for any of those ideas. Th e consequence of that inaction is a majority of agricultural land is left to grapple with the uncertainty of the monsoon. Secure, dependable irrigation is still an endowment for only a small fraction of farmers. And when the rains go wayward, the scarce waters are what riparian States fight shamelessly over.

It is understandable that the Water Ministers of some of the deficient peninsular States are over-protective of what little water runs through their lands, and defensive whenever they are called to discuss a sharing formula that is different from what is current. They only reflect the possessive nature of their farmers who believe they must have their full entitlement of the river water regardless of the vagaries of the monsoon rain. Most farmers pay a fixed rate for their water -- it is another matter that it might be very low -- that is linked not to the value or volume of water but usually to the cost of the project. In many States the rate is even collected as part of land revenue, and resembles a tax rather than a fee. In practice, there is no lin k perceived between the volume of water made available and its cost. That is where problems spring from, and that is where solutions must be found.

Water needs to be treated as an economic good. When the first Irrigation Commission was set up a century ago, famine prevention was the high goal for any irrigation project. Fifty years ago, the accent was on creating irrigation assets that would help pr ovide for basic food production. Now, increasingly, assured water supply is being seen as one that confers competitive advantage on agri-producers. An economic price can and must be set on it with reference to assured availability, quantity and quality. Water has merely to follow the electricity model. Inter-State transfer of electricity, once a highly contentious issue between States, is slowly but surely becoming decided on pure economic grounds. Grids connecting States are being laid with very clear cost and revenue implications. All this is taking place without the States or their Electricity Boards losing sovereignty either over their power plants or their consumers.

When individuals pay the economic price for water, the States have a clear idea of revenue streams and can take valid decisions on whether to invest in new irrigation assets. A farmer in a drought-prone district might surely be willing to pay a higher pr ice if dependable supplies can be bought from another district or State. The Centre only has to egg the States on to adopt the mechanisms to price water right. A new market will arise as a result for inter-district or even inter-basin transfers of water. It will be able to address the issue of equitable distribution of water across the country as no other model has.