By
e-mail
Pradeep Purandare,
Former Associate Professor,
WALMI, Aurangabad
B-12, Pride Towers,
Vedantnagar,
Aurangabad
28 April 2019
To,
The
Chief Auditor,
Water
& Irrigation, Maharashtra State,
WALMI
Campus, Aurangabad
Sub: Comments on
Statements made in the Executive Summary
Ref: Report
on Water Auditing of Irrigation Projects in Maharashtra State 2016-17
Dear
Sir,
With
reference to above, please find attached herewith my Comments on Statements
made in the
Executive Summary of Report on Water Auditing of Irrigation
Projects in Maharashtra State 2016-17. Based on those detailed comments, I,
hereby, submit following points for your consideration please.
1. . Reasons
for not publishing Water Audit, Irrigation Status and Bench Marking Reports in
the period 2012 to 2016 may be made public officially
2.
Disciplinary action may be taken against
the concerned officers who
(i)
did not prepare the water audit reports
on time in the period 2012 to 2016
(ii) did
not furnish PIP figures to complete the Water Audit data template
(iii) are
responsible for “Lapses in discharge measurement on account of
non-functioning of SWF, non-installation of water meter on Lift Irrigation
Schemes/NI schemes, along with unmeasured accumulated silt,”
(iv) are officially supposed to monitor, streamline
& discipline the irrigation system
3. Water
theft & unauthorised use of water is rampant in the State. If that is not
considered in water audit, then the report loses itscredibility. In fact, it
becomes an exercisein futility because the very purpose of water audit –
accounting every drop of water – gets defeated. Moreover, it leads to
manipulation of all other data.For example, “Increase evaporation to adjust the
water theft” is the usual trick! Internal contradictions, too, crop up because
on one hand the canal officers frame number of “panchnama” but on the other
hand theydo not report corresponding volume of water.
4. If
one reads between the lines, it is crystal clear that water budget (Preliminary
Irrigation Program, PIP) is not prepared in most of the projects. And wherever
PIP is prepared, it is prepared mechanically to finish off an annual ritual.
Instead of stating this well- known fact, the water audit report states that “in
spite of constant persuasion the field officers have not mentioned PIP figures
in WA template”
5.
Water Audit at present has become a farce in
absence of (i) Water Budget, (ii) Measurement of water, area irrigated &
other relevant parameters and (iii) Water Account at Irrigation Division.Points
(i) & (ii) are self-explanatory. However, point (iii) needs to be
explained. Executive Engineers (EE) of Irrigation Management Divisions (IMD)
are supposed to keep water account at division level. Chief Auditor is
entrusted with the responsibility of doing water audit of those water
accounts. To the best of my knowledge
most of the EE, IMDs simply don’t keep water accounts & the system does not
compel them to do so. Somebody at junior level prepares something under the
name of water audit & the same goes directly to Chief Auditor without any
scrutiny & application of mind at any level. Chief Auditor’s office raises
remarks on that substandard submission but those are seldom complied with.
Ultimately, in order to adhere to the dead line the report is published with
whatever is available. Hence, the water audit report is generally described as
“garbage in & garbage out”.
6.
Irrigation System Performance [ISP]in
terms of ha /MCM is not a scientific criterion because it does
not consider crop, crop-wise irrigation requirement, Irrigation
Interval, Depth of Water Application & number of rotations.
Conclusions drawn & suggestions
given in the report have been given time &again. Those have not been
implemented in letter & spirit. There is no concrete plan, whatsoever,
giving details (quantity, type, standard specifications, cost, maintenance,
etc)regarding providing evaporimeters, measuring devices, water meters, etc.
Thanks,
Encl:
As above
With regards,
Yours sincerely,
(Pradeep Purandare
