Scribbles

The crisis: reality or myth?


A crisis means supply of water is inadequate to meet the requirement of water necessary to run the day to day activities.  Let us check the data:

Data : National commission on integrated water resources development plan report (1)
Central Water commission (2)
The Pocket book on Water Data 2005 (3)
BCM = billion cubic metres, cum = cubic metres

Supply side:
Average annual Precipitation (1,2,3)
4000 BCM

Avg. precipitation during Monsoon (Jun-Sept) (2)
3000 BCM

Available surface water resources (1)
1953 BCM

Available groundwater resources (1)
432 BCM

utilizable surface water resources (1,2,3)
690 BCM
1086 BCM (1)
utilizable ground water resources (1)
396 BCM
Average Annual Potential in Rivers (3)
1869 BCM

Natural Runoff (2)
1986.5 BCM

Estimated utilizable surface water resources (1,2,3)
690 BCM
1123 BCM (2)
Total utilizable ground water resources (2)
433 BCM
Per capita water availability (2)
1720.29 cum

Per capita water availability (3) as on 1.3.2005
1703.6 cum

utilizable surface water resources (1,2,3)
690 BCM
1122 BCM (3)
utilizable ground water resources (3)
432 BCM
Per Capita Utilizable Water (3)
1022.7 cum



Demand side: 
Projected Water Demand BCM (3)
2000
2025
2050
Domestic (3)
42
73
102
Irrigation (3)
541
910
1072
Industry (3)
8
23
63
Energy (3)
2
15
130
Others (3)
41
72
80
Total (3)
634
1093
1447
According to NCIWRDP (1)


970 -1180


Problems related to data:
    1)      There was a controversy related to the calculation of available surface water resources. Some say it includes a part or all of the groundwater resources. Therefore there is a double counting of groundwater. http://waterandrights.blogspot.com/2010/07/govt-overestimated-water-availability.html
    2)      Water can be reused for several purposes. Calculation methodology does not capture the reuse aspect of water. As a result required water could be much less.

If we are interested in community level water management then these how do these aggregate level figures matter?


Some standard definitions and measures:



Virtual water: the amount of water that is needed for the production of, and therefore, embedded in food or other products. If we import or export those products we may be said to be importing or exporting the water that had gone into its production. Implications:
  • Water short countries should not produce water intensive crops.
  • Water short countries should not produce water intensive crops for export purposes.
Water stress: measure of annual water resource availability per capita. Water resource endowment divided by population. Available water resource (AWR) per capita is not same as basic water requirement (BWR) per capita.
AWR of 1700 cum : occasional and local stress , less than 1000 cum : stress, less than 500 cum: threat to life.
BWR: According to Peter gleick’s estimate 50 lpcd, according to falkenmark 100 lpcd. If we double or triple it it does not go beyond 36.5 cum or 54.75 cum annually.
Therefore the stress of a country is not equivalent to stress of an individual. Water stress is neither necessary nor sufficient for violation of fundamental rights.
A poor country with low AWR may not be able to import enough water to meet the need of the people. But then it is not clear whether the cause of that stress is low AWR or the poverty of the country. A low AWR country is not necessarily a poor country. E.g., oil rich gulf countries.

Water storage: dividing the total water storage by population. Problem: can this be reasonable norm? Storage should be more if population is more. This is again an engineering soln. two countries with similar population should have similar storage capacity. What if the countries are on different terrains? Can we apply a standard norm for India, Bangladesh and Nepal? 








National water policy

  • Pvt sector participation has been encouraged wherever possible. Focus on corporate management to improve service efficiency. Pvt owning of water has been considered.. .. goes against the basic principle that water is not a pvt good.  
Ques: whether pvt supply is possible without ownership of resource.


  • It has not talked about a market explicitly.
  • In constitution the word groundwater was conspicuously missing. From that respect it is a better and more informed document.
  • It does not talk about ‘rights’. But gives priority to drinking water. The issues of property right and use right is not addressed. Therefore the current understanding prevails.
  •  It has not elaborated on what kind of relationship is there b/w land owner and the groundwater. No mention whether it is use right or ownership right.
  •  In a crisis situation it gives a broad direction about what to do, but says nothing about how to do. 
  •  Does not talk about sharing of interstate rivers. Does not formulate a principle.
  •  Tries to allocate some water to ecology. Water cannot be allocated to ecology; rather it is a complete system. Everything we do with water, every use of water is a part of that system. 
  •  Emphasis on storage and therefore projects.
  •  It talks about participation of people but related to projects.
  •  Does not give community management a chance.