Water is a subject that deserves more attention today than it has ever received in the past.
Issues such as India’s high population density, population growth, stressed ecological systems, and vulnerability to climate change are so complex and interrelated, as well as changing so rapidly, that nothing short of an entirely new approach to water management can assuage the crisis. It is important to begin with the caveat that most data in this field is non-existent or made up, and if it does exist it never sees the light of day. In the process, policymakers cannot benefit from a robust scientific analysis.
FARMING PRACTICES
There is, however, some data which is difficult to disprove. I believe that more than two-thirds of non-age-related fatal illnesses and deaths in India are due to water-related diseases, a result of inadequate wastewater infrastructure. We all know that water is a source of life, but we should also view it as a potential cause of sickness and death, if not managed properly and ethically.
With no more than 30 per cent of urban India having access to networked sanitation facilities, and a negligible number in rural India, are we causing our own demise? It begs the question as to why our budgets on health and sewerage infrastructure are not combined. But, of course, water is a local issue — it is not even on the concurrent list, and local bodies are not able to address the problem. Is it an issue of empowerment or capability? I think it is both.
I believe that the World Economic Forum can play a key role in highlighting the issues that plague water management and in finding solutions to these problems. There are many stakeholders in the water economy. From a user perspective, you have agriculture, industry, domestic users and the environment. It is estimated that 85 per cent of freshwater drawals are from the agricultural sector, with the rest evenly distributed among industry and domestic users. To say that we are running out of water is an exaggeration, as our water usage in irrigation is at least twice or thrice the global average.
Let me give you an example: the company that I run engages with over 300,000 farmers who cover 250,000 hectares of sugarcane cultivation. On an 18 month crop cycle, the average water usage under the prevalent practice of flood-irrigation is over 6,000 million litres per day (MLD).
By moving from flood to furrow irrigation, the availability of water can improve by over 2,500 MLD. Not only will the availability of water increase, but due to increased row spacing to allow for the furrow, the farmers get an intercrop (some may get 2 to 3), increase their yield on the current crop (as C3 and C4 crops get more sunlight) and reduce their marginal input cost (as fertiliser and pesticide are delivered proportionately to the water dilution).
So, why hasn’t this been adopted? In agriculture, as with most other sectors of the economy, we tend to look for capital-intensive solutions. This, coupled with weak farmer extension systems for capacity building and an unwillingness of users to change their practices, has led to a high degree of inefficiency in the usage of water. There is, of course, the primary reason — that there is no charge for it!
PAYING FOR WATER
I have been told that power is free for farmers, so that the cost of water as an input could be kept constant around the country, and therefore their cost of production. By doing so, not only does the State encourage overuse of water but also an ever-increasing energy subsidy bill. After all, more than 90 per cent of the cost of delivered water is power! The State bears a large cost on unfunded electricity bills for irrigation and other water distribution schemes.
This disincentive prevents a logical structure for water management, which should be on a completely decentralised basis. There is a need for integrated water-energy reforms that incentivise a user to adopt simple and economic practices. The vicious circle needs to be converted into a virtuous one.
Decentralisation for water management for all classes of users is imperative, along with the regulation that empowers and incentivises these users and decision-makers. Greater training and capacity-building of these empowered stakeholders will result in a less conflict-driven water management approach. This should help us in improving our attitude towards water -- and ultimately improved availability of freshwater.
This approach should also allow local bodies to improve accessibility by finally allowing all types of users to be charged for their water consumption so that infrastructure can be built. Even if it’s not acceptable to bill the true cost of freshwater to the users, maybe local empowerment could get users to pay for their waste.
(The author is Chairman, Triveni Group.)