Wanted: rule of law
0 Comments
Author(s): Pradeep Purandare
Issue Date: May 31, 2013
What plagues Maharashtra’s irrigation sector
Pradeep PurandareIt is simple, true and bitter. Maharashtra’s
irrigation sector is going from bad to worse. First an irrigation scam and now
a drought.
The
state’s irrigation statistics (see box: 'Status of canal irrigation in
Maharashtra) speak volumes. Maharashtra consciously opted for large scale
public sector irrigation projects in a very big way. However, it could not get
the desired success. Bad planning and design, substandard construction, poor
physical status of canals and distribution network, bandobast or jugad (improvisation)
in the name of operation and management (O&M), criminal negligence in
maintenance and repairs (M&R), only lip service to participatory irrigation
management (PIM), poor recovery of water tariff, inequitable distribution and
inefficient use of water, and virtual absence of the rule of law are some of
the well known reasons for the dismal performance of Maharashtra’s irrigation
sector. This article focuses only on rule of law because its operative details
are generally not reported and discussed even if water conflicts of all types
(see box: 'Water conflicts') are increasing both in numbers and severity at all
levels within the state. Drought has only further worsened the situation.
|
|
Processes matter
Maharashtra
has enacted several irrigation Acts (see box: 'Irrigation acts in force') to
provide for various aspects of canal irrigation like construction, O&M,
M&R, PIM, water tariff, compensation and, most important of all, control of
water theft and unauthorised irrigation. It is needless to emphasize that all
these processes are of vital importance to achieve the objectives of successful
irrigation. The non-implementation of irrigation Acts means non-implementation
of those processes too. That’s what has actually happened in Maharashtra.
Failure to scrupulously adhere to the inherent processes has led to ad hoc
decisions. Complete anarchy is the end result. It is, in fact, the genesis of
the irrigation scam. The scam, in turn, has significantly contributed to
virtually inviting the drought. Inordinate delays in completing irrigation
projects and cultivation of sugarcane in drought-hit tanker-fed areas perhaps
explain the unfortunate phenomenon.
The parent Act
Maharashtra
Irrigation Act of 1976 (MIA 76) is a parent Act because it provides for
foundation, frame and structure of water management in the State. Irrigation
Development Corporation Acts (IDC), Maharashtra Management of Irrigation
Systems by Farmers Act (MMISF) and Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory
Authority (MWRRA) Act (See box: 'Irrigation Acts in force') take it for granted
that MIA 76 is in force and refer to the same time and again. It is hence needless
to say that the implementation of IDC, MMISF and MWRRA Acts heavily depends
upon the implementation of MIA 76. Let us examine some details – first in
theory and then in practice.
|
|
MIA
76, being a parent Act, amply provides for the following:
1.
Preparation of Rules
(Section 114) to provide for the operative part of the Act and give details of
day to day implementation of the Act.
2.
Issuance of River (and
its tributaries) Notification (Sec 11) to bring river water under the legal
jurisdiction of Water Resources Department (WRD).
3.
Issuance of Command
Notification (Sec 3) to legally intimate the beneficiaries that Act and Rules
of WRD shall be applicable in the notified command area.
4.
Issuance of Notification
regarding appointment of canal officers (Sec 8) to specify their jurisdiction
5.
Allotment of Duties to
canal officers (Section 10) and their empowerment through delegation of powers
to them under Sec 110
A
serious and in-depth review of the actual implementation of MIA76, however,
would reveal the following failures which are inconsistent with the progressive
image of Maharashtra:
1.
Rules of MIA76 have not
been prepared in the past 37 years from the time of enactment of the law. The
Old Rules, namely Bombay Canal Rules, 1934, and Central Provinces and Berar
[CPand B] Rules are still being followed. These old rules are based on old
Acts, namely Bombay Irrigation Act, 1879 and CP and B Act respectively. Old
rules are, of course, not compatible with MIA76 as water management practices
have naturally changed tremendously with time. The old Acts have been repealed
by MIA76 way back in 1976. Not having the rules of MIA76 is the single most
serious crime against water management in the state. It makes irrigation in
Maharashtra vulnerable in many respects. An unprecedented legal crisis appears
to be in the offing.
2.
Legal procedure
regarding issuance of notifications with respect to rivers, commands,
appointment of canal officers and delegation of powers is also reportedly not complete
in many irrigation projects in the state. The magnitude of incompleteness can
only be known if the Water Resources Department releases a white paper on the
subject.
3.
The absence of rules and
pending notifications has obviously taken its toll. In absence of rule of law,
a “free for all” situation exists in the state. Bandobast or Jugad
(improvisation) has superseded efficient and equitable water management.
Conveyance losses have crossed generally accepted limits. Theft of water has
become a rule in itself. Those who somehow get water seldom get it in time and
in required quantity. Regular and timely canal maintenance is conspicuous by
its absence. Arrears of water tariff are increasing. Diversion of water from
irrigation to non-irrigation has increased. The situation is alarming. It is in
fact explosive and could probably trigger the proverbial “third world war on
issues related to water”.
|
|
PIM and water entitlement
With
this background, can Maharashtra hope to implement MMISF Act and MWRRA Act,
which provides for PIM, bulk water supply on volumetric basis and water
entitlement? Is the state “legally” ready for such a basic change? If the
parent Act itself is not implemented, it is only to be expected that all other
Acts would also only remain on paper. Following facts substantiate the
argument:
1.
Integrated State Water
Plan [ISWP] was supposed to be ready within six months from the date of enactment
of MWRRA Act. However it is not ready even after eight years. In the meantime,
MWRR authority is taking far-reaching decisions which are supposed to be taken
within the framework of the ISWP.
2.
The State Water Board
(chairperson – chief secretary) and State Water Council (chairperson – chief
minister) were constituted way back in 2005 through notifications in the
official gazette as per MWRRA Act. But even after eight years, both the board
and council have yet to officially begin their “historic” work. Not even a
single meeting has been held so far.
3.
The proposed Lift
Irrigation Water Users Association has not been formed as per the MMISF Act
even after eight years.
4.
Non-profit Society for
Promoting Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM) and Lokabhimukh Pani
Dhoran Sangharsh Manch, a coalition of groups working for water rights in the
state, have on several occasions pointed out that water users' associations
(WUA) mostly exists only on paper. They have demanded joint inspection of WUAs.
There has been no response from the authorities.
5.
MWRRA is not functioning
like an independent regulatory authority. In the context of drought, in
general, and release of water for Jayakwadi project from upstream reservoirs,
in particular, MWRRA - the so called first independent regulatory authority in
India’s water sector—has been a silent spectator for all practical purposes.
Water governance
In
view of above facts it is clear that there is hardly any water governance in
Maharashtra’s irrigation sector. There is an urgent need to go back to basics.
Things need to be streamlined and disciplined on war footing in the larger
interests of the water sector. Equitable distribution, efficient use of water
and resolution of water conflicts demand rule of law. Vested interests obviously
do not want it. Will civil society act and act decisively and fast?
Pradeep Purandare was associate professor,
irrigation management, at Water And Land Management Institute in Aurangabad
till 2011
More on This Story
RELATED ARTICLES
Tags: Crosscurrents, 1976 (MIA76), 2005, Crosscurrents, Down to earth, Government of
Maharashtra (GoM), Irrigation Development
Corporation Acts (IDC), Maharashtra drought,Maharashtra Irrigation
Act, Maharashtra irrigation
scam, Maharashtra Management
of Irrigation Systems by Farmers (MMISF) Act, Maharashtra Water
Resources Regulatory Authority (MWRRA ) Act, Society for Promoting
Participative Ecosystem Management (SOPPECOM) and Lokabhimukh Pani Dhoran
Sangharsh Manch, Water resources
department (WRD)
AddThis
DTE
MUST READ
CLOSE
Recent Supreme Court
order in Vedanta case holds hope for tribal community life
Butterflies on the roof
of the world is a vivid and engaging narrative of the author's rendezvous with
the butterflies and moths in particular, and nature in general
No comments:
Post a Comment