A New National Water Policy for India?

M. Dinesh Kumar, MVK Sivamohan and Mahendra Singh Verma

The recent move of the government of India to come up with a new National Water Policy has surprised many. The enthusiasm shown by the civil society, academics and water professionals shown in the earlier attempts of NWPs is missing. Instead, it has raised many eyebrows. One major reason could be that probably India will be the only country which has labored to produce three versions of National Water Policy in a span of 25 years, starting from the first NWP of 1987! Thereafter, the second one in 2002 and the third in 2012. The question being raised by water professionals is: Is there a real need for a new national water policy, that too when the state governments have so far not seriously looked at any of the pointers contained in the earlier NWPs while framing their state water policies and programmes/projects? 

Similar apprehensions were made in a recent article titled "India's National Water Policy: 'Feel Good' Document, Nothing More" (published in the Int. Journal of Water Resources Development, March 2019) by two highly distinguished scholars Chetan Pandit and Asit K Biswas, the latter a world-renowned academician, who argued that India’s National Water Policy (2012) was nothing but a ‘feel good’ document with no clear cut goal (as to what is expected to be achieved by implementing the policy) and total ambiguity on who should implement what and how.

Apart from these issues, what bewilders one is that the Committee constituted to draft the new policy is dominated by a bunch of individuals who had taken control of every committee worth the name formed by their representation during the past 15 years on water management and rural development. All these committee reports had invited ample criticism for their professional bias in addition to lack of rigour in the analysis that formed the basis for their recommendations. While this should not be a matter of concern for the common man, the real issue is that their knowledge and expertise do not add up to make it adequate to have a comprehensive look at India’s water sector. What is even more alarming is the fact that the group is antagonistic to many of the landmark steps India had taken during the past 70 + years since Independence to make it a water-secure nation. The stand of the Chairman of the new Committee on large dams, for instance, is amply clear. Some members of the Committee believe that India can do away with surface water projects involving large dams, be it for irrigation or domestic water supply, and think that India only needs to manage its groundwater, which according to them, had helped the country become food and water secure. That being the case, under normal circumstances, one cannot expect anything more than a wish list of ideas that were pampered by this group as India’s forthcoming National Water Policy.

The Committee will do justice if it decides to look at what has really gone wrong with the earlier policies, particularly the lack of willingness on the part of the state governments to accept the ideas and concepts listed in the 2012 policy document. The challenge is to identify the areas where ambiguities, inconsistencies and lack of conceptual clarity exist, and tighten the document to make it meaningful. Further, it is important to avoid utopian ideas in a policy document. When everyone knows that such ideas cannot be implemented, it is better to leave them aside, rather than mentioning about them as a ritual which only make people not to attach any seriousness to other aspects of such documents. We will highlight some of them for the benefit of the new drafting Committee.

Inconsistency

The NWP document of 2012 lists the basic principles that should govern framing of public policies on water. One is that planning, development and management of water resources should be based on an integrated perspective considering local, regional, state and national context. The other is equity and social justice.

But the policies pursued by the states do not follow these principles. To give an example is the policy regarding promoting decentralized water harvesting. Such schemes do not take cognizance of the interests of the downstream parties and therefore the regional interests. The policies followed for pricing of irrigation water and electricity for groundwater pumping largely benefits rich land owners.

Lack of Conceptual Clarity

According to the National Water Policy 2012, economic principles need to guide pricing of water. But no state is willing to charge for irrigation water on the basis of either the cost of supplying or the marginal returns from crop production. This is applicable to pricing of electricity for the agricultural groundwater pumping.

Further, mere use of economic principles does not address the issue of water allocation across different sectors, and this would lead to compromising on equity and social justice, water for environment etc. The document is silent on water allocation priorities, an important aspect of policy framing.

The use of economic principles suggests that net marginal returns from the use should be a basis for its price when used for “production”, if supply has to be affordable’.

Since the marginal returns from the use of water in manufacturing are much higher than that of crop production, that sector can afford much higher prices than what irrigators can. So, if we blindly follow this “affordability” criterion without rules and mechanisms for water allocation, industries might be able to walk away with all the water in some basins.

This problem can be addressed only through clearly spelling out water allocation priorities in the policy document. That done, actual allocation in different basins will have to be decided on the basis of the overall availability, the competing demands, but using the policy goals. Pricing can then be used to encourage efficient use.

Also, the criteria for pricing of water for domestic uses, which are “non-economic” need to be spelt out. If we go by “long-term marginal cost” pricing, the resource cost and environmental degradation will have to be considered along with the cost of production and supply of water. In that case, how do we ensure that the poor get adequate access?

The Water Policy document only mentions about access to safe water for drinking & sanitation, as top priority use. But it is important to make allocations in volumetric terms from the utilizable renewable water resources in each basin.

There is a need to make distinction between price of water (“resource”) and charges for water-related services. While the first should consider the resource cost, the second should consider the cost of production & supply. How application of these concepts affects the pricing of water from different sources and in different sectors need to be spelt out.

The policy talks about following economic principles in the allocation and pricing of the water that is available after meeting drinking, food security and livelihood needs. But how do we decide whether a particular use is for subsistence? A policy document should steer clear of such ambiguities. In reality, no water will be left for allocation in water-scarce basins, after diversion for domestic use & food production.

Utopian Ideas

The NWP 2012 talks about community-based management of aquifers, an idea which was propagated some professionals who are in the present Committee. But we might require higher-level institutions that are legitimate and that recognize the community rights over water. The policy document doesn’t delve into these complex and vexed issues. That said, how will the community allocate water rights amongst the users? The Committee should look into these earnestly.

Lack of Mechanisms for achieving the goals

The NWP 2012 is unclear about the mechanisms for achieving drinking water security, equity in access to water, water demand management etc. For instance, if we depend on groundwater for drinking water supplies, we are unlikely to be able to achieve drinking water security. Similarly, how do we restrict water use by different sectors for demand management, as improving water use efficiency alone will not be sufficient?

Similarly, it talks about using economic incentives and penalties to reduce pollution and wastage. Currently, there is no agency which monitors water use in any of the sectors. Which agency is to offer this incentives and disincentives? In the absence of such agencies, the policy prescriptions remain as ‘wish list’. Such tendencies should be avoided.

Last and not the least, the drafting Committee should keep in mind the fact that water is largely a state subject in India, and every Indian state is different when it comes to water situation. There are many states in India which do not face physical scarcity of water, but faced with problem of monsoon floods. There are states where availability of arable land for expanding crop cultivation is a constraint, while water scarcity might be a constraint for large regions for agricultural expansion. A policy which works for Gujarat will not work for Kerala. A policy which works for arid Rajasthan will not work for sub-humid West Bengal. The current and projected future demand patterns, the physical environment (hydrology, geology, topography and climate) socioeconomic features and a host of other factors vary from state to state. Given this scenario, a National Water Policy should avoid being prescriptive; should be free from prejudices and bias; and be supported by scientific evidence. More importantly, should we not leave more space to states in formulating policies regarding water, based on their water needs and priorities?  

M. Dinesh Kumar, MVK Sivamohan and Mahendra Singh Verma are Executive Director, Principal Consultant and Adviser-Projects & Partnership, respectively, of Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy (IRAP), Hyderabad, INDIA. The views expressed in the article are personal and not of IRAP. Email: [email protected]