Sectoral Water Conflict regarding Drinking Water
Supply to Pune City
Towards Strengthening Water Regulation
in Maharashtra
Pradeep Purandare*
1.0
Introduction:
1.1
The water conflict regarding drinking water
supply to Pune City has many techno-socio-economic linkages and institutional
& legal dimensions. This paper is an
attempt to understand those linkages & dimensions in order to strengthen
the water regulation in Maharashtra.
1.2
The problem of drinking water supply
to Pune City as perceived by (i) the
original complainant Sh Jarad, (ii) Primary Dispute Resolution Officer (PDRO),(iii)
Water Resources Department (WRD), (iv) Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) & (v)
Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority (MWRRA) is presented in
Annex-1: “Pune Water Conflict at a
glance”.
1.3
Sh. Vithhal D Jarad,
Undwadi,Tal.Baramati, in a way, informally represents the irrigators who feel
that water for irrigation is being increasingly diverted to non-irrigation
purposes. He demands that PMC should use water economically & switch over
to metered water supply.
1.4
PDRO declares PMC’s annual water
entitlement on the basis of population & “reasonable use norms” decided by
MWRRA. His colleagues from WRD points out that PMC is already using water far more
than that provided for in water planning, sectoral water allocation, &
agreement. WRD officials further reveal that PMC is not paying water charges
regularly & is, in fact, a defaulter whose water supply can be stopped for
breach of an agreement.
1.5 PMC has its own problems like ever increasing
population, issue of floating population, actual system losses, commercial, industrial
& institutional water requirements and PMC, in fact, demands further increase
in its water allocation.
1.6
MWRRA takes into consideration all
above arguments & gives directions (Annex-2) based on the affidavits
submitted by all concerned, whatever transpired during the hearing before MWRRA
& the provisions in MWRRA Act. The
order, prima facie, appears to be a reasonable one in given situation &
time frame. However, it is surprising that the vexed issues of measurement of
water & its reliable authentic documentation and equitable distribution of
water within Pune city are conspicuous by their absence. MWRRA’s directions, inter
alia, include generally acceptable points such as water entitlement, water
budget, water audit, revised water supply agreement, water tariff, protection
of water bodies, pollution control, sewage treatment, etc References to
constitutional provisions regarding water, concepts like `Right to Water an integral
part of Right to Live’, ’Water as a Community Resource’, “Public Doctrine” and
especially, “ mistake regarding Bombay Canal Rules 1934” make MWRRA’s order rather special & increase expectations
about MWRRA as a quasi-judicial Independent Regulatory Authority.
1.7
A process of Water Regulation has begun in
Maharashtra. It needs to be
strengthened. MWRRA has recently issued, suo motu, following important
order which is a small but important step in right direction.
Directions u/s 13 read with
Section 11(r), 12 & 26 of MWRRA Act 2005 regarding outstanding dues payable
to WRD by various utilities & water
supply agreements between the said utilities & WRD.
It also needs to be noted that
Jayakwadi project is getting water from upstream reservoirs only because of the
MWRRA’s order as per the relevant provision in MWRRA Act. Tail-enders &
politically weaker regions now have at least one reference which they can use
in their struggle for equitable distribution of water.
1.8 This
paper, therefore, makes an attempt to bring out several important points
regarding Water Management, Governance & Regulation(WMGR). It deals with (i)
Systemic Constraints & Performance of Khadakwasla Complex KC, (ii) Water
Use Planning submitted to Canal Advisory Committee, (iv) Water Behaviour of PMC
and (v) Institutional & Legal Dimensions.
[
Note: After discussing every issue, its
summary in simple language avoiding technical jargon, is given in a box.
Readers interested in the water problem but not having necessary technical
background may find this arrangement useful].
2.0 Systemic Constraints of Khadakwasla complex:
2.1 The original water planning of KC provides 68%
water for Irrigation (22.55 TMC) & 24.6 % water for domestic purposes
(8.3TMC) out of total 33.37 TMC. (Table -1) Water planning, however, is silent about
water supply for industrial purposes.
2..2 Out of total 22.55 TMC water for irrigation, the season-wise water allocated at canal head
(Table-2) is as follows - 41 % (9.22
TMC) each in Kharif & Rabi, and 18.5 % (4.17 TMC) in Hot Weather.
2.3 The sectoral allocation of water (Table-3) in
KC as per GR is 5.07 TMC (15%) for drinking, 3.38 TMC (10%) for industries
and 25.32 TMC (75%) for irrigation.
2.4 However, the actual reservations done, so far,
for drinking & industrial purposes (Table-4) are respectively 13.69 TMC for
drinking (as against 5.07TMC) & 0.88 TMC (as against NIL)
2.5 Actual
cropping pattern of KC is far different from the project cropping pattern. (Table-5) There is increase in area under
perennials (from 5% to 51%)& reduction in area under Kharif (40 to 16 %)
& Rabi crops (from 50 to 26% ).That explains inequitable distribution of water.
2.6 Actual carrying capacity of New Mutha Right
Bank Canal is 39.67 cumec (85%) as against the design capacity (46.72
cumec). Less carrying capacity &
increased conveyance losses lead to increase in flow period of canal &
hence, less number of rotations (Table-6)
2.7 Sanctioned
Water Use Entitlement [1259 cum per ha i.e. 126 mm depth of application at
distributary head) is too less. It is sufficient for just one rotation by
conventional flow irrigation
2.8
There are genuine practical difficulties
in Operation & Management due to inadequate management staff.
Box 1: Systemic Constraints of Khadakwasla
complex:
·
No provision of water for industrial purposes in original planning
·
Actual reservation for drinking purposes is already 2.7 times of
sectoral allocation
·
Inequitable distribution & inefficient use of water
·
Significant increase in area
under perennial crops
·
Reduction in actual carrying capacity of canals & distribution
network
·
Increase in conveyance losses, flow period & rotation period
·
Decrease in number of rotations
·
Very less Sanctioned Water Use Entitlement
·
Inadequate staff for O & M
|
3.0 Performance of Khadakwasla Complex:
In order to get a glimpse of performance
of KC, information & data available in following is presented here.
1.
Reports of Water Audit (Table 7 & 8),
2.
Benchmarking (Table 9)
3.
Water Use Planning for Kharif & Rabi
2018-19.( (Table – 10 & 11) submitted to Canal Advisory Committee(CAC)
Gist of above reports is as follows:
3.1 Water
Audit:
3.11
The situation in most of the years of period under consideration (2012-13 to
2015-16) here, appears to be normal / within limits regarding Water Availability & Evaporation
as per following indicators
I . Water Availability in Reservoir on 15th Oct
(% Live Storage)
II Percentage
of Actual Evaporation to Gross Storage
II (A) Percentage
of Actual Evaporation to Projected Evaporation
3.12
Achievement of Irrigation Potential
(Indicator III) appears to be doubtful (80 to
180%) if following indicators are
considered together
(i) Water
Use Pattern (Indicator IV) is dominated by Non-Irrigation (Av
59%) & crops requiring more water
(ii) Irrigation
System Performance (Indicator V) in terms of ha / M cum is too less in some years if compared with State Target 130 ha/Mcum in Rabi & 110 ha
in HW
(iii) Percentage
of Planned & Actual Non-Irrigation (Indicator VI):
One can understand if the percentage with respect to project report is more
because in earlier period NI provisions used to be less. But how come actual Non
Irrigation is more even with respect to Preliminary Irrigation Program (PIP)? Assumptions in PIP should be closer to the
reality.
3.13 Conveyance
Efficiency of main canal (Indicator VIII) Data reported is absurd. If
efficiency of main canal itself is in the range of 20 to 40 % only, then what
would be the Overall Project Efficiency?
3.14 Water
Use Pattern (Indicator IV): It is dominated by non-irrigation
3.2 Benchmarking:
Following indicators in respect of engineering
aspects, if read with indicators of water
Audit, raise question marks about the
performance of Khadakwasla project
3.21 Annual
Irrigation Water Supply per Unit Irrigated Area (Indicator I);
FY Average (12011cum/ha) is 1.6 times
of State Target (7692 cum/ha)
3.22
Annual Area Irrigated per unit of water
supplied (Indicator I A):
FY Average (83 ha/M cum)) far less than
State Target (130ha/M cum)
3.23 Potential Created and Utilized: (Indicator
II)
Doubtful.
Pl see Para 3.12 above
3.24 Total O&M Cost Per Unit Area (Indicator VI):
FY Average (Rs 4305 / ha) is far greater than
State Target (Rs 1250/ha)
3.25
Equity Performance (Indicator
XI)
The canal reach-wise ratio of actual
irrigated area to projected area is too small
Box-2: Performance of Khadakwasla Complex:
·
Resolution of water conflicts, inter alia, demands compatible
irrigation system which is amenable to modern concepts of Water Management.KC does not have
such system
·
Water Audit & Benchmarking reports amply indicate that there is
tremendous scope for improvements in water management
·
Improved water management may reduce conveyance losses & thereby,
keep the water use within the limits of sectoral allocation
·
Increasing sectoral allocation is not THE solution.
|
3.3
Water Use Planning submitted to CAC:
3.31 Water Use Planning in Kharif & Rabi 2018-19
as submitted to Canal Advisory Committee (CAC) for its meeting on 4th
Oct 2018 by WRD is presented here in Table 10 & Table 11 respectively. Gist
of that planning is given below
3.32 In Kharif 2018-19, only one rotation was
planned for a flow period of almost two months (from 15.7.2018 to 17.9.2018).
In this rotation 12.65 TMC water was used for both irrigation & non-irrigation
purposes. From 17.9.2018 to 14.10.2018 (for almost a month)1.84 TMC water
was proposed to be used only for
non-irrigation(Table 10)
3.33 For Rabi & HW 2018-19, three alternatives were proposed for water
supply to both irrigation as well as non-irrigation assuming three different criteria for water
supply to PMC, [1350 MLD / 892 MLD /
1150 MLD] for 273days (up to 15.7.2019).Maximum 2 rotations in Rabi & one
rotation in HW were proposed for irrigation (Table11)
3.34 Planning as finally approved by CAC & its
implementation by WRD from 4th Oct 2018 onwards need to be studied
before drawing any conclusion
3.35 However, following facts appear to defy the
whole logic of scientific Irrigation
Management & indicate that a
disaster is in making
·
Maximum only two rotations in Rabi &
hardly one rotation in HW,
·
Too large a flow period & hence, too
large irrigation interval and
·
Virtually continuous running of canal without
closure period i.e. without any canal maintenance (latest canal breach in Pune
is a warning given by the system)
3.36
The weird logic behind all this is
further explained in Box-3 ‘Flow,
closure & Rotation Periods: Theory & Practice’
Box-3: Flow, closure & Rotation Periods:
Theory & Practice
(This is just an illustration for explaining the concept. Such details wrt to KC needs to studied)
|
||
Rotation Period = 14 days
|
Remarks
|
|
Flow
period =7days
|
Closure
period = 7days
|
This
design is called as `7days ON-7days OFF’
|
15
Oct 21 Oct 28 Oct
|
||
·
Canal opened on 15th Oct is closed on 21st
Oct i.e after 7 days. This period is called as Flow Period
·
Canal remains closed from 21st Oct to
28th Oct i.e. for7days. This period is called as Closure Period
which is supposed to be used for canal maintenance. Hence, its importance!
·
Rotation Period means Flow Period plus Closure
Period.i.e.14days.
·
Rotation Period of 14 days means a farmer who gets
first turn of water on 15th Oct will get next turn of water on 28th
Oct i.e. after an interval of 14 days. Therefore, this 14 days interval is
also called as Irrigation Interval.
This
logic of 7days ON-7days Off works in practice, if the assumptions made become
true. Some of the important assumptions can be as follows – actual carrying
capacity of canal is more or less equal to the design capacity and all concerned
strictly implement the irrigation schedule .This is easier said than done.
In
actual practice, it seldom happens. What happens in practice is as follows –
flow period increases & closure period decreases. On many canals, the flow period is more
than rotation period. Or the canals run continuously for months together
without closure & hence, without canal maintenance. Those who have wells
give one or two supplemental irrigations between two canal irrigations. And
those who are close to canal literally get water at will.
|
4.0
Water behaviour of Pune Municipal
Corporation:
4.1 Water
behaviour of Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) is clearly seen from
Table-12
The Average Actual Use
of Water (17.4 TMC) by PMC is already
(a) 3.4
times of Sectoral Allocation for domestic use
(b) 2.1times
of Drinking water provision in water
planning of KC
(c) 1.5
times of Water Entitlement (reservation ) of PMC
(d) 2..1
times of Permissible Water Use as per MWRRA’s criteria
4.2
Moreover, PMC is a defaulter in respect
of water tariff. Amount due is Rs 226.41.
Crores
4.3
MWRRA in its Order No.19 /2018 dt Dec 1,
2018 has passed many strictures on PMC. For example, In “Findings of
Authority”( Para 28, Pages 22 to 26) MWRRA has made following statements
(indicative list & not exhaustive)
4.31 As per the data on record it is a fact that PMC
is using water far in excess
4.32
PMC ought to have submitted its water budget to the River Basin Agency
(RBA) ....PMC has shown negligence in this regard.
4.33 This desirable limit of UFW (Unaccounted For
Water) has been fixed by this Authority in consultation with the stakeholders.
The Appellant - PMC opted not to participate in this consultation in spite
of invitation from the Authority.
4.34 PMC has not carried out Water Audit
of its distribution system
4.35 PMC must strive to reduce the distribution
losses within prescribed limits.
(Emphasis added by the Author)
Box 4: Water behaviour of PMC
·
Using
water far in excess
·
Defaulter in respect of water
tariff. Amount due is Rs 226.41Croress
·
Shown negligence in submitting
water budget to RBA
·
No participation in stakeholders’ consultation
·
Water Audit not done
·
Efforts required to reduce distribution losses
|
5.0
Institutional & Legal Dimensions:
5.1 Khadakwasla Project is in Krishna River
Basin & as such, from governance point of view, it comes under Maharashtra
Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC).
5.2 MKVDC is supposed to be a River Basin Agency
(RBA) as per Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority (MWRRA) Act 2005.
However, it’s not a “true” RBA. MWRRA Act has taken a short cut. As per Section
2 (1) (u) of MWRRA Act, existing Irrigation Development Corporations (IDC) are
only the RBAs. But IDCs cannot be the RBAs in the truest sense of the term.
Conversion of IDCs into RBAs is a must because of the following difference
between IDCs & RBAs.
IDCs
|
RBAs
|
Mono-disciplinary
(only Civil Engineers)
Emphasis
on
- Project-wise development (i.e. only
construction),
- Surface water,
-
Irrigation & Hydropower
|
Inter-disciplinary
( representation to all categories of water users)
Emphasis
on
- Integrated river basin/ sub basin-
wise development & management
-
Surface & ground water
-
Irrigation & Non-Irrigation
-
Permission to water use & issuance of water entitlements u/s 14
|
5.3 Actually, RBA is an accepted principle!
State Water Policy envisages RBAs. MWRRA Act provides for RBAs. GR on
Restructuring of WRD lays emphasis on RBAs. SIT (Chitale committee) recommends
RBAs. Integrated State Water Plan (ISWP) & RBAs together form the strategy
of Reforms. Suresh Kumar Committee (31 Jan 2016) has also recommended
conversion of IDCs into RBAs. Maharashtra Krisna River Basin Agency (MKRBA)
bill has already been prepared by WRD but the same is not being processed.
Box-
5: Necessity of True RBA
Had
there been a true RBA in place, the representatives of domestic water sector
(& even that of industrial sector also)
would have been in decision making along with representatives of
irrigation sector. The conflict could have been avoided or handled in a
different manner.
|
5.4 Following irrigation related Acts are in force
simultaneously in the Krishna Valley and are applicable to KC
— Maharashtra
Irrigation Act (MIA) 1976
— Maharashtra
Krishna Valley development Corporation Act (MKVDC) 1996
— Maharashtra
Management of Irrigation System by the Farmers (MMISF) Act 2005
— Maharashtra
Water resources Regulatory Authority (MWRRA) Act 2005
— Maharashtra Ground Water ( Development & Management) Act,
2009 (MGW)
5.5 It needs to be
seriously noted that barring the exception of MMISF Act, all
other Acts don’t have rules.
5.6
MKVDC
came in existence by the enactment of MKVDC Act, 1996
5.7 In
absence of Rules of MKVDC Act, Bombay Canal Rules, 1934 (BCR1934) are being
used.
5.8 BCR
1934 are based on Bombay Irrigation Act, 1879 which has been repealed by
Maharashtra Irrigation Act 1976.
Box
6: Rules of Irrigation Acts
Had there been Rules of all Water Laws in
force, the chances of water conflict would have been less. At least there
would have been Prescribed Procedures for resolution of the conflict.
|
5.9 Decisions taken in absence of Rules make the
decision makers vulnerable; element of discretion being more. As such their
decisions may be challenged on the ground of arbitrariness.
5.10 Barring the exception
of MGW Act, all other Acts are based on MIA & refer to the same as MIA is
the Parent Act.
5.11 MIA provides for basic foundation & frame
work of the Water Management, Governance & Regulation (WMGR) in the State
through following provisions.
Section
|
Provision
|
Purpose
|
11
|
Notification when water
supply to be applied for purposes of canal or for regulation, supply or
storage of water..
|
To provide WRD locus standi for WMGR
|
3
|
Lands under irrigable command of canal.
|
|
5
|
Division of State into
irrigation areas
|
To provide administrative structure to
WMGR
|
8
|
Appointment of Canal
Officers.
|
To appoint officers for implementation
of the Act & fix their respective jurisdictions
|
80
|
Notice as to claims for
compensation in certain cases.
|
To provide compensation to farmers if
water is not supplied as per declared program (conditions apply)
|
116
|
Application
of certain provisions of Act to Lift Irrigation Works of Co-operative
Societies.
|
To bring LIS under the purview of the
Act.
|
5.12 Role of MIA in water regulation has been
recognized in Amendments to MWRRA Act
in 2011. The preamble of MWRRA (Amendment & Continuance) Act 2011 reads as
follows:
Whereas the Maharashtra
Irrigation Act, 1976 regulates the supply of water for irrigation & non-irrigation
purposes;
And Whereas the Maharashtra
Irrigation Act, 1976 provides for the regulation of water resources &
determination of tariff by the authorities thereunder;
5.13
MMISF Act has also saved (Sec 78)
most of the provisions under MIA 76 barring certain sections which have been
repealed (Sec 77).
5.14 Since, MIA is a parent Act, the Canal Officers
appointed & empowered under MIA are only supposed to implement IDC, MMISF
& MWRRA Acts.
5.15 Appointment
of Canal Officers, their suitable empowerment & notification of their
jurisdiction would create an institutional framework.
5.16 Since, MIA is
a parent Act, the Canal Officers appointed & empowered under MIA are only
supposed to implement IDC, MMISF & MWRRA Acts. In fact, they have been appointed
& empowered under MMISF Act also (Notification –II dt 18 Feb 2006 (No. CDA
1006/(35/2006)/Lakshevi(works). Role of Canal Officers in implementation of
MMISF & MWRRA Act is made clear in a table below
MMISF Act
|
MWRRA Act
|
|||
Section
|
Role of Canal Officer as
|
Section
|
Role of Canal Officer as
|
|
5,6,10,
13,16,42
|
For all purposes
MLA, DLA & CLA: EEs
PLA: SEs
|
For appeals
MLA, DLA & CLA: SEs
PLA: CEs
|
Powers, Functions & Duties
of
Regulators*
|
As Regulators
Maj & Med Projects: SDEs
Minor Projects: AE II / Sectional Engineers
*Ref: MWRRA publication
|
13 & 22
|
As PDROs: CE to SDE
(as appointed by govt)
Ref: MWRRA’s Technical Manual, 2015
|
|||
38
|
As Competent Authority: AE I, SDE, EE, SE at MLA,DLA,CLA& PLA
respectively
|
|||
MLA, DLA, CLA & PLA mean respectively Minor, Distributory, Canal
& Project Level Associations
AE-I: Assistant Engineer –I, SDE: Sub Divisional Engineer, EE: Executive
Engineer, SE: Superintending Engineering, PDRO: Primary Dispute Resolution
Officer
5.17 Whenever a utility wants water for
Non-Irrigation (NI) purposes, it has to execute an agreement with Water
Resources Department (WRD) in prescribed draft of the same. There are two
separate drafts – one for Domestic & another for Industrial purposes.
Though these drafts are very good drafts & serve the purpose, those are
quite old finalized way back in 2003. As such, these drafts still refer to Maharashtra
Irrigation Act, 1976 (MIA) & Bombay Canal Rules 1934 (BCR) only.
Water
Supply Agreements – Old prescribed drafts
• शासन निर्णय क्र संकीर्ण-1001/(154/01)/सिं. व्य.(धो) दि. 21 जानेवारी 2003.
• शासन परिपत्रक क्र. बिपापु-1000/
(713/2001)/ सिं
व्य
(धो)
दि.11.6.2003
व
7/4/2003
• शा प क्र. पापव-2015/(प्रक्र400/2015/ सिंव्य (म) दि. 15.12.2015
|
5.18 MIA is
an “Irrigation” Act. Obviously, it does not have specific / exclusive
provisions for Non-Irrigation. It does not provide adequate legal support to
Non-Irrigation.
5.19
Bhingare
committee (2002), constituted to amend MIA & prepare its rules, had
incorporated two separate chapters on NI in its draft Amendment to MIA.
Unfortunately, nothing happened.(This author was member of Bhingare Committee)
5.20 It is necessary to urgently revise these
drafts giving due thought to State Water Policy (2003) & amendment in year
2011; MMISF Act 2005 & its Rules 2006; MWRRA Act 2005 and Amendments to
MWRRA Act in 2011 & 2016 and of course, MWRRA’s Criteria dated September
22, 2017
Box
7: Maximum Governance, Minimum Government?
·
No RBA in truest sense
·
No Rules of MIA 1976, MKVDC Act, 1996 & MWRRA 2005
·
No Appointment & Empowerment
of Canal Officers in prescribed manner
·
No Revised Draft of Agreements
for supply of water for Non-Irrigation
·
No Adequate legal support to Non-Irrigation
|
5.21 On
this background it is necessary to check following points in respect of the
conflict between RBA & PMC.
·
Whether PDROs appointed as per MWRRA Act
are first Canal Officers as per MIA 1976
·
Whether Chief Engineer (WRD), who is
responsible for supplying water to PMC,
has also been appointed as a Primary Dispute Resolution Officer (PDRO)
u/s 22 (1) of MWRRA Act to resolve the dispute.
5.22 In view of points summarised in a box `Maximum
Governance, Minimum Government?’ and in Para 5.21, it is sincerely felt that present
status of Institutional & Legal Arrangement is not conducive for resolution
of water conflicts.
Box- 8: Reality Check
Appointment
& Empowerment of PDROs?
Can
a interested party be a PDRO?
|
6.0 Conclusions:
Khadakwasla Complex:
·
Resolution
of water conflicts, inter alia, demands compatible irrigation system which is
amenable to modern concepts of Water Management.Khadakwasla Project does not have such system
·
Water
Audit & Benchmarking reports amply indicate that there is tremendous scope
for improvements in water management
·
Improved
water management may reduce conveyance losses & thereby, keep the water use
within the limits of sectoral allocation
·
Increasing
sectoral allocation is not THE solution.
·
PMC
- Water
Audit not done. Efforts required to
reduce distribution losses
Water Resources Department:
·
No RBA in truest sense
·
No Rules of MIA 1976, MKVDC Act, 1996 & MWRRA 2005
·
No Appointment & Empowerment of
Canal Officers in prescribed manner
·
No Revised Draft of Agreements for
supply of water for Non-Irrigation
· No Adequate legal support to Non-Irrigation
·
Had there been a true RBA in place, the
representatives of domestic water sector (& even that of industrial sector
also) would have been in decision making along with representatives of
irrigation sector. The conflict could have been avoided or handled in a
different manner.
·
Had there been Rules of all Water Laws in
force, the chances of water conflict would have been less. At least there would
have been Prescribed Procedures for resolution of the conflict.
Recommendations
·
Operative part of Irrigation Acts ,
namely, Rules, Notifications, Agreements may be completed on war footing
·
Suitable improvements /modernisation
needs to be done in Khadakwasla complex (in other projects too) to make it
amenable to modern concepts of WMGR
·
Water Sector Reforms (RBAs, WUAs,
Volumetric Supply, etc) initiated under Maharashtra Water Sector Improvement
Program may be taken to their logical conclusion.
REFERENCES
1. Maharashtra
Irrigation Act (MIA) 1976
2. Maharashtra
Krishna Valley development Corporation Act (MKVDC) 1996
3. Maharashtra
Management of Irrigation System by the Farmers (MMISF) Act 2005
4. Maharashtra
Management of Irrigation System by the Farmers (MMISF) Rules 2006
5. Maharashtra
Water resources Regulatory Authority (MWRRA) Act 2005
6. Maharashtra Ground Water ( Development & Management)
Act, 2009 (MGW)
7. Maharashtra Water resources Regulatory
Authority (MWRRA) Act (Amendment and
Continuance) Act, 2011
8. GOM,
Govt. Resolution (शासन निर्णय क्र. संकीर्ण२०१५/(४४/१५)सिंव्य(धोरण) दि१ॠनोव्हेंबर २०१६)
9. MWRRA,
The Criteria For Distribution of Surface Water Entitlements To Be Given By
River Basin Agencies for Domestic & Industrial Uses on September 22, 2017
10. MWRRA,
Outstanding dues payable to WRD by Municipal Corporations, Industrial
Townships, etc ,MWRRA’s Order dt 15 May 2018
11. Note prepared by Khadakwasla Irrigation
Division for a meeting of Canal
Advisory Committee held on 4 Oct 2018
12.
MWRRA’s Order 19/2018, dt Dec 17, 2018
Annex- 1: Pune
Water Conflict at a glance
Sh.Jarad’s application (1)
|
PDRO’s order (2)
|
PMC’s appeal (3)
|
WRD / RBA (4)
|
MWRRA’s Order (5)
|
Prayer to restrict the water consumption of the PMC
to norm based population requirement
Release water for agriculture as per the quota
allocated for agriculture.
Direct PMC to use water economically with water
meters both at supply & consumer ends
|
Annual entitlement for PMC
- 8.19 TMC - on the basis of population data submitted by PMC and the
reasonable use norms decided by MWRRA by its Order dated September 22, 2017.
|
Population
including newly added villages – 48,10,283
Non-domestic
consumption 99.22 MLD
PMC
entitled to get 11.5 TMC as per Agreement
Floating
population
Actual
system losses
Leakage
-20 %, NRW 15%, Total 35%
Commercial,
industrial & institutional Water requirements
Water
supply to areas outside PMC
jurisdiction
Demanded
1230 MLD (15.85 TMC) based on CPHEEO norms
|
Provision
for PMC
(Fig.
In TMC (MLD)
Water
planning 8.3 (644 )
Sectoral
allocation 5.07 (395)
Agreement 11.5 (892)
Av.
Actual water use
17.4 (1350)
Per
capita use 235 Lpcd (as against 150)
PMC
– defaulter
(
Amt Rs 226.41 Cr)
|
CPHEEO norms are for design
purpose only.
PDRO is duty bound to
follow Criteria For Distribution of Surface Water Entitlements To Be Given By
River Basin Agencies [September 22, 2017] after extensive stakeholder
consultation.
For MWRRA’s directions pl see Annex- 2
|
(1) Appellant in the Original Application in
Case No 1/2017 before PDRO and
Respondent No.4 in Case No.14 of 2018
(2) PDRO’s order dt 23 Oct
2017 on Jarad’s application
(3) PMC’s appeal dt 26 Sept 2018 before MWRRA
u/s 22(3) of MWRRA Act ,
(4) Respondents No.: 1.Chief Engineer, WRD , 2- Superintending
Engineering, Pune Irrigation Circle, Pune , Executive Engineer, Khadakwasla
Irrigation Division, Pune
(5) No. 19/ 2018 dt 13 Dec 2018
.
Annex-2: MWRRA’s
DIRECTIONS
1.
PMC
as well as CE (WRD) & SE, PIC,Pune are duty bound to supply adequate drinking
water to all its citizens
2.
Reasonable
use norms must be followed and water supplied must be used efficiently
minimising its wastage.
3.
Diversion
of more and more water for domestic use by reducing the rights of
agriculture sector is not sustainable.
4.
Considering
the provisions in Section 31(B) of the MWRRA (Amendment and Continuance) Act
2011, the Water Entitlement of 11.5 TMC shall prevail over the Order passed by
the PDRO on October 23, 2017.
5.
Appellant shall prepare the Water Budget,
strictly as per norms provided in the Criteria, issued by this Authority on
September 22, 2017
6.
The
fresh, Water Supply Agreement shall be signed by the Appellant and the
Respondent based on the Entitlement so determined.
7.
PMC
must carry out Water Audit of its Water Distribution System within three months
from the date of issue of this Order and take all necessary remedial measures
on war footing to reduce the UFW (distribution losses + Non-Revenue Water).
8.
PMC must strictly implement, the long term
strategy specified by this Authority in Clause 11.1 of the Criteria dated
September 22, 2017 to reduce the burden on fresh water.
9.
Water
being community resource, PMC is duty bound to protect the water bodies in its
jurisdiction from encroachment and to preserve the quality of its water from
pollution..
10. PMC is duty bound to treat all
sewage that it creates,
11. PMC, must make available treated
water for agriculture to the extent of its water use over and above 8.3 TMC.
12. Water being Community Resource under Public
Trust Doctrine, both PMC and the EE,KID, Pune must mandatorily keep all the data /
information related to water in public domain.
13. PMC must pay the water charges
regularly to the WRD as per the provisions in the Agreement.
14. PMC as well as CE & SE shall
submit the compliance of the directions issued herein above before April 15,
2019.
Table -1: Water
Planning
Use
|
Volume (TMC)
|
Irrigation
(IP
76981
ha)
|
22.55
|
Evaporation
Losses
|
2.92
|
Drinking
Water (PMC)
|
8.3
|
Total
|
33.37
|
Ref:
MWRRA, Page 11, Order No.19/2018, Dec 17,2018
Table-2:
Seasonwise Water Allocated at canal head (TMC)
Component
|
Irrigable Area(ha)
|
Water allocated at canal head (TMC)
|
|||
Kharif
|
Rabi
|
HW
|
Total
|
||
Khadakwasla*
|
62146
|
7.61
|
7.6
|
3.43
|
18.64
|
J
S LIS
|
13835
|
1.47
|
1.47
|
0.66
|
3.6
|
Temghar
|
1000
|
0.14
|
0.09
|
0.08
|
0.31
|
Total
|
9.22
|
9.16
|
4.17
|
22.55
|
|
Evaporation
|
2.92
|
||||
PMC
|
8.3
|
||||
Total
|
33.37
|
||||
*including
Sansar Jod Kalva
Source:
Note prepared by KID for a meeting of CAC
held on 4 Oct 2018
Table
-3: Sectoral Allocation
U Use
|
Provison (TMC)
|
Drinking
|
5.07 (15)
|
Industry
|
3.38 (10)
|
Irrigation
|
25.32 (75)
|
Total
|
33.77
|
Ref:
MWRRA, Order No.19/2018, Page 11, Dec 17,2018
Table 4: Actual
Non-Irrigation Reservations
Use
|
Consumers
|
Sanctions (TMC)
|
Drinking
|
56
|
13.69
|
23
|
0.88
|
|
Total
|
14.57
|
Table
-5: Cropping Pattern: Design Vs Actual
Crops
|
Design
ha
(%)
|
Actual
ha
(%)
|
Perennial
|
3107
(5)
|
31695(51)
|
Kharif
|
24859 (40)
|
9945
(16)
|
Rabi
|
31073
(50)
|
16156(26)
|
HW
|
3107
(5)
|
4350(7)
|
Sub
Total
|
62146
(100)
|
62146
(100)
|
Source:
Note prepared by KID for a meeting of CAC held on 4 Oct 2018
Table
–6: Constraints of Khadakwasla Project
SN
|
Description
|
Plan /Design
|
Actual
|
Comments
|
1
|
Carrying
capacity of New Mutha Right Bank Canal
(cumec)
|
46.72
|
39.67
(85%)
|
Canal
flow period
increases
(40-45 days)
|
2
|
Perennials ha (%)
|
3107 (5%)
|
31695
(51%)
|
Other
crops don’t get water
|
3
|
Water
Entitlement in Cum/ha (mm)
|
Entitlement
is too less. Depth of application is sufficient just for one irrigation
|
||
at canal head
|
2929
(293)
|
|||
at distributory head
|
1259
(126)
|
|||
4
|
No.
of vacant posts
|
SDE-1,SO-9 & CI-81
|
Difficulties
in O & M due to inadequate
management staff
|
Source:
Note prepared by KID for a meeting of CAC held on 4 Oct 2018
Table
– 7: Water Audit of Khadakwasla Project
[2012-13 to 2015-16]
Indicator
|
2012-13
|
2013-14
|
2014-15
|
2015-16
|
Comments
|
||||
I Water Availability in Reservoir on 15th Oct
(% Live Storage )
|
96
|
99
|
98
|
55
|
No
problem
|
||||
II
Percentage of Actual Evaporation to Gross Storage
|
6
|
8
|
7
|
10
|
Within
limits
|
||||
II
(A)Percentage
of Actual Evaporation to Projected Evaporation
|
66
|
81
|
75
|
65
|
Within
limits
|
||||
III (%)
Achievement of Irrigation Potential
|
91
|
85
|
80
|
180
|
Doubtful
|
||||
IV
Water
Use Pattern1
|
See
Table 2
|
||||||||
V
Irrigation
System Performance (Canals) ha/M cum
|
Too
less to be believed [in years 2013-14 & 2014-15]
|
||||||||
Kharif
|
88
|
20
|
13
|
37
|
|||||
Rabi
|
138
|
41
|
58
|
108
|
|||||
HW
|
150
|
33
|
34
|
128
|
|||||
VI
Percentage of Planned & Actual Non Irrigation Use –
|
|||||||||
% wrt Project Report
|
347
|
339
|
352
|
394
|
Expected
|
||||
% wrt to PIP
|
133
|
139
|
120
|
135
|
Not
expected
|
||||
VII
Percentage of Unutilized water to Live Storage
|
5
|
3
|
6
|
6
|
|||||
VIII
Conveyance Efficiency of Main Canals ( %)
|
60
|
19 to 26
|
17 to 24
|
?
|
Absurd
|
||||
IX
Actual
Cropping Pattern (%)
|
Significant
increase in HW crops & perennials
|
||||||||
Kharif
|
34
|
33
|
28
|
40
|
|||||
Rabi
|
37
|
30
|
35
|
27
|
|||||
HW
|
23
|
16
|
17
|
09
|
|||||
Perennials
|
7
|
22
|
21
|
24
|
|||||
Ref:
GoM, WRD, Report on Water Auditing of Irrigation Projects in Maharashtra State,
2012-13 (Sept 2018), 2013-14 (Oct 2018), 2014-15 (Oct 2018), 2015-16 (Nov 2018)
Table
-8: Water Use Pattern (Indicator - IV)
SN
|
Year
|
On canals
|
Reservoir LI
|
River LI
|
NI Use
|
Evapo
ration
|
Total
|
||
Kharif
|
Rabi
|
HW
|
|||||||
1
|
2012-13
|
40
|
57
|
22
|
12
|
19
|
491
|
54
|
694
|
2
|
2013-14
|
170
|
166
|
182
|
9
|
00
|
480
|
66
|
1073
|
3
|
2014-15
|
108
|
18
|
179
|
9
|
1
|
498
|
62
|
995
|
4
|
2015-16
|
155
|
6
|
6
|
8
|
1
|
558
|
50
|
783
|
Ref:
GoM, WRD, Report on Water Auditing of Irrigation Projects in Maharashtra State,
2012-13 (Sept 2018), 2013-14 (Oct 2018), 2014-15 (Oct 2018), 2015-16 (Nov 2018)
Table-9:
Benchmarking of Khadakwasla Project, 2015 – 16
[Published in Nov 2018]
Indicator
|
State Target
|
FY Average
|
Past Max
|
Past Min
|
Comments
|
I
Annual Irrigation Water Supply Per Unit Irrigated Area (Cum/ha)
|
7692
|
12011
|
30000
|
4640
|
Excessive
|
I
A
Annual Area Irrigated per unit of water supplied (ha / M cum)
|
130
|
83
|
216
|
33
|
Too less
|
II
Potential Created and Utilized
|
1
|
1.04
|
1.13
|
0.92
|
Doubtful
|
III
Output (Agricultural
Production) Per Unit Irrigated Area (Rs / ha)
|
26000
|
79449
|
114367
|
42765
|
|
IV Output (Agricultural Production) Per Unit
Irrigation Water Supply (Rs/ cum)
|
3.38
|
13.58
|
29.14
|
6.64
|
|
V Cost Recovery Ratio
|
1
|
1.38
|
1.82
|
1.05
|
|
VI
Total O&M Cost Per Unit
Area (Rs/ha)
|
1250
|
4305
|
5878
|
3227
|
Too high
|
VII
Total O&M Cost Per Unit Volume Of Water Supplied
(Rs / cum)
|
0.16
|
0.29
|
0.04
|
0.02
|
|
VIII
Revenue
Per Unit Volume Of Water Supplied (Rs / cum)
|
0.18
|
0.40
|
o.47
|
0.35
|
|
IX
Assessment Recovery Ratio
(Irrigation)
|
1
|
0.89
|
1.0
|
0.65
|
|
X
Assessment Recovery Ratio
(Non-Irrigation)
|
1
|
0.89
|
1.0
|
0.81
|
|
XI
Equity
Performance (Ratio)
|
1,1,1
|
Head 0.11, Middle 0.11,
Tail 0.11
|
Doubtful
|
||
Ref: GoM, WRD, Report
on Benchmarking of Irrigation Projects in Maharashtra State, 2015-16(Published
in Nov2018)
FY= Five years
Table-10
: Water Use Planning – Kharif 2018-19
Details
|
Area
proposed to be irrigated (ha)
|
Water
use permissible at canal head
(TMC)
|
Water
used
in
Rotation1
(15.7.2018 to 17.9.2018)
|
Water
reqd for a period from (17.9.2018 to
14.10.2018)
|
Khadakwasla*
|
25000
|
7.61
|
5.64
|
-
|
J-S
LIS
|
1.47
|
1.68
|
-
|
|
Evaporation
|
0.58
|
0.43
|
0.15
|
|
PMC
|
2.82
|
4.27
|
1.29
|
|
Daund
|
0.14
|
0.13
|
||
Mundhava...
|
1.0
|
0.50
|
0.40
|
|
Total
|
13.62
|
12.65
|
1.84
|
*With Sansar Jod Kalva)
Source:
Note prepared by KID for a meeting of CAC held on 4 Oct 2018
Table-11 : Water Use Planning – Rabi & HW, 2018-19
Description
|
Alt - A
|
Alt - B
|
Alt - C
|
Water
available on 15.10.2018
|
25.47
|
25.47
|
25.47
|
Evaporation
|
2.34
|
2.34
|
2.34
|
Daund
& Gram Panchayets
|
0.85
|
0.85
|
0.85
|
PMC(up
to 15.7.2019)
[@
------ MLD for273 days]
|
13.01
[1350]
|
8.59
[892]
|
11.08
[1150]
|
Net
Water available for I / NI
|
10.12
|
13.69
|
11.19
|
Reserved
for emergency
|
0.62
|
0.69
|
0.19
|
Rotations
in Rabi
|
|||
First
|
5.0TMC
1.11 to 15.12.18
(45 days}
|
4.5 TMC
15.10 to 23.11.18
(40 days)
|
4.0 TMC
15.10 to 23.11.18
(40 days)
|
Second
|
NIL
|
4.5 TMC
10.12 to 29.1.19
(50 days)
|
3.5 TMC
10.12 to 29.1.19
(50 days)
|
Rotation
in HW
|
|||
First
|
4.5
15.3- 25.04. 19 (42days)
|
4.0
1.4 to 10.5.19
(40 days)
|
3.5TMC
1.4 to 10.5.19
(40 days)
|
Source:
Note prepared by KID for a meeting of CAC held on 4 Oct 2018
Population:
40.76 Lakh, MWRRA’s
criteria: 135 lpcd + 15% conveyance losses =155 lpcd
Sr.No.
|
Description
|
Water use per
year in different units of water measurement
|
||
TMC
|
Mcum
|
MLD
|
||
1
|
Sectoral
Allocation for domestic use
|
5.07
|
144
|
395
|
2
|
Drinking water provision in water
planning of Khadakwasla complex
-
5 TMC from Khadakwasla dam &
-
3.3 TMC from Temghar dam
|
8.3
|
235
|
644
|
3
|
Water Entitlement (reservation ) of
PMC
-
Approved by High Power Committee
on March 10, 2005
-
11 TMC for domestic use & 0.5
TMC for commercial use
-
Signed an Agreement (Period 6
years) with WRD on March 1, 2013
|
11.5
|
326
|
892
|
4
|
Permissible
water use as per MWRRA’s criteria
|
8.16
|
231
|
632
|
5
|
Actual
Use at present
|
17.4
|
493
|
1350
|
The Average Actual Use of Water (17.4
TMC) by PMC is
(a) 3.4
times of Sectoral Allocation for domestic use
(b) 2.1times
of Drinking water provision in water
planning of Khadakwasla complex
(c) 1.5
times of Water Entitlement (reservation ) of PMC
(d) 2..1
times of Permissible Water Use as per MWRRA’s criteria
PMC
is a defaulter. It has not paid water tariff. The amount pending is Rs 226.41
Crores
|
||||
Lpcd = Litres per
capita per day, MLD = Million litres per day, 1 TMC = 28.31M cum
