India’s water sector has entered a stressed phase, and is likely to move into scarcity mode in the near future. It is projected that the country’s water demand by 2030 will be twice the available supply, implying severe water scarcity for hundreds of millions of people and an eventual loss of about 6 per cent of the country’s gross domestic product. The water quality is unsatisfactory as about 70 per cent of ground and surface water are contaminated. Overexploitation and depletion of groundwater are also rampant. Further, the annual per capita water availability has been sharply declining over the years.

The NITI Aayog’s initiative to frame a composite water management index has, for the first time, brought into public domain the status of water in 24 States for 2016-17, and compares the same with the previous year in terms of nine thematic parameters. These are: restoration of water bodies; groundwater situation; major and medium irrigation; watershed development; participatory irrigation practices; ‘on farm’ water use practices; rural drinking water; urban water supply and sanitation; and governance.

State ranking

Gujarat tops the list of best water-managed States and Meghalaya is at the bottom. The notable achievements in Gujarat are: agricultural power supply has been de-linked from the main supply; 35 per cent of irrigated area has been brought under micro-irrigation; 100 per cent access to water supply in rural and urban habitations; and 87 per cent of population charged for water supply in urban area.

In contrast, the gaps are as follows: the State is yet to formulate a groundwater regulatory framework, and the water user association’s role in operation and management of irrigation facilities is currently limited to only 15 per cent of command area.

In Meghalaya, the rural drinking water access is only 17 per cent, and no waste-water treatment facilities exist in the State. Also, the State has not enacted any water conservation legislation.

The water-management initiative of the Centre does not follow a well-reasoned methodology. First, weightage has been given to each of the nine thematic indicators to arrive at a consolidated score. For example, the ‘Policy and governance’ indicator has a weight of 15, while the ‘Watershed development’ indicator has 10. The rationale for assigning arbitrary weightage to these indicators is not clear. Further, these indicators are incompatible, and should not have been aggregated at the macro level.

Second, the water index is stated to achieve ‘competitive and cooperative federalism’ goals by ‘naming and shaming’ the concerned States. This will, no doubt, bring close collaboration between Centre and States on creation and annual updating of index by providing useful water data. It is, however, not clear as to what are the incentives of the States to improve the water sector’s performance.

For example, if the ‘policy and governance’ parameter in some State is weak as it has not enacted a legislation on protection of water bodies, what is the mechanism by which the State may be incentivised to undertake the same. This aspect is missing in the whole exercise.

Third, the preparation of water index will put additional burden on States in collating and collecting water data. The Water Resources Ministry, in October 2017, came out with a draft ‘State-specific action plan’ on water and impressed upon States to collect a voluminous different set of water data on parameters such as land-use pattern, drinking water, farming system, infrastructure, industries, urbanisation, traditional water structures, etc. In fact, the two wings of the Central government ( NITI Aayog and Water Resources Ministry) should have come out with a common set of data requirements from States.

Achieving sustainable goals

For achieving sustainable goals in water sector by 2030, States’ participation is extremely essential. The water index deals with data collection and wide dissemination. These are not enough. There is a need to look at the whole issue beyond data. First, the enabling legislative framework at the Central and State levels, which are pending for years for enactment, should be expedited.

For example, there is no Central legislation which can promote a coherent and common approach on water management in various States. The ‘Draft Water Framework Bill 2016’, as proposed by the Water Resources Ministry, and pending for enactment, should be urgently finalised.

Second, there is a need to examine the status of institutional framework in the water sector at the State or at the Central level. The water institutions are very important to deliver results. For example, at the Central level, other than various ministries, there is the Central Ground Water Board and the Central Water Commission. A somewhat similar institutions exist at the State level too. These institutions are engineering-centric and have little expertise in participatory management. There is a need to reform these institutions to meet the challenges of the 21st century in the water sector.

Participation of local bodies

Third, the Constitution envisages the need for participation of local bodies (Article 243 G) in water management. Hardly any State has delegated this power to such bodies. As a result, the water sector is managed through a top-down approach, and the local bodies hardly have any say in planning and managing their water resources. There is thus an urgent need to ensure participation of local bodies in effective water management in the State.

Finally, capacity building in water management is a much-neglected subject. Water sector in both States and the Centre are dominated by engineers. There are also other stakeholders working in this sector. They have hardly any experience to manage water on a participatory basis.

Exposure to equitable and universal access to safe drinking water, adequate sanitation and hygiene, improving water quality, water reuse efficiency across all sectors, integrated water resource management at all levels, restoring water-related ecosystem, and participation of local communities are some of the areas where expertise of current water managers and policy-makers should be developed.

The States and the local bodies should be adequately empowered to, among other things, manage the scarce water resources, make possible universal access to safe water, improve annual per capita water availability, and meet the increasing water demand in the near future. Only then would the purpose of having a composite water management index for the States can be fulfilled.

The writer, a former Secretary in the Ministry of Water Resources, is a Distinguished Fellow and Senior Director, Natural Resources and Climate, TERI, New Delhi.

comment COMMENT NOW