Content uploaded by Pallavi Kulkarni
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Pallavi Kulkarni on Nov 25, 2022
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
Challenging Today’s Water Threats for a Tenable Tomorrow:
A Review of Policies and
Programs in the Water Sector of Maharashtra
AUTHORS
Eshwer Kale and Pallavi Kulkarni
March 2022
2
Acknowledgments
Ankita Yadav and Sarita Chemburkar, researchers at W-CReS, contributed to conducting many
interviews and compiling the data for this study. Dr. Marcella D’Souza, Director, WOTR Centre
of Resilience Studies (W-CReS) provided her rich inputs in different phases of this study. HSBC
Software Development (India) Private Limited provided the financial support to conduct this
research. We sincerely acknowledge all of them for their valued contribution to this report.
Recommended Citation
Kale, E. & Kulkarni, P. (2022). Challenging Today’s Water Threats for Tenable Tomorrow: A
Review of Policies and Programs in the Water sector of Maharashtra, research report,
Watershed Organisation Trust, Pune, India
Authors Association
Dr. Eshwer Kale is Associate Thematic Lead (Water Resources Development & Governance)
at W-CReS, Pune, and Pallavi Kulkarni is a freelance researcher.
3
Table of Content
Executive Summery……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….………......4
1. Key Burning Issues in the Water Sector and Need for the Policy Review ...................................5
1.1 Key burning issues in the water sector of Maharashtra ............................................................... 5
1.1.1 Water insecurity for drinking and irrigation and growing groundwater depletion: ............. 6
1.1.2 Water guzzling crops and virtual water export: ................................................................... 7
1.1.3 Implications of Climate Variability: ....................................................................................... 7
1.1.4 Water quality and pollution-sewage and industries ............................................................. 8
1.1.5 Privatization of Water and growing Water Conflicts: ........................................................... 9
1.1.6 Poor or absence of Governance .......................................................................................... 10
2. The Need for Policy Review and Methodology ....................................................................... 11
2.1 Policy Initiatives at the National level ......................................................................................... 11
2.2 Policy Initiatives in Maharashtra ................................................................................................. 11
2.3 Rationale of the study-wide gap in governance objectives and their implementation ............. 13
2.4. Research Approach and Methodology ....................................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Theoretical and conceptual frame ........................................................................................... 13
2.4.2 Analytical framework applied for policy review ........................................................................ 15
2.4.3 Data sources and methods of data collection .......................................................................... 17
3. Analysis of selected Policies and Programs ............................................................................ 17
3.1 Sensitivity analysis of the selected policies and programs ......................................................... 17
3.2 Analysis of the policies and programs ........................................................................................ 26
3.2.1 Analysis of the policies and programs at the state level .................................................... 26
3.2.2 Analysis of the policies and programs at the national level ...................................................... 74
4. Challenges Today, Threats for Tomorrow: Ways Forward ....................................................... 88
4.1 Equity and co-benefits ................................................................................................................ 88
4.2 Participatory and inclusive governance ...................................................................................... 89
4.3 Mainstreaming gender in the water sector ................................................................................ 89
4.4 Capacity and knowledge building ............................................................................................... 90
4.5 Environmental and ecosystem sustainability and rapidly changing groundwater dynamics ..... 91
4.5.1 Shift from dug wells to Farm ponds: ................................................................................... 91
4.5.2 Dangers in Shirpur pattern not considered ........................................................................ 91
4.5.3 Basic principle of Ridge to Valley is neglected .................................................................... 92
4.5.4 Changing economy ............................................................................................................. 92
4.6 Crop selection and market link underestimated ........................................................................ 93
4.7 Delays in making operational rules of the Laws and Acts ........................................................... 93
4.8 More focus is needed on demand-side measures for water management ............................... 93
4.9 Promoting conjunctive use of surface and groundwater ........................................................... 94
4.10 Need for extensive piloting of proposed strategies in laws and acts ......................................... 94
4.11 Need to apply a multi-sectoral approach ....................................................................................... 95
4.12 Concluding statement ..................................................................................................................... 95
References ....................................................................................................................................... 96
4
Executive Summary
The Composite Water Management Index 2019 declared
by NITI Aayog is alarming and compels policymakers and
practitioners in Maharashtra to reflect seriously on their
efforts. Maharashtra was at the fourth rank in 2015-16
when the index was first developed for all Indian states.
However, it declined in 2017-18 by three positions and
came to the eighth rank (NITI Aayog, 2019). The highest
decline in Maharashtra’s water management index in
the country, after Chhattisgarh, compared to all Indian
states is a terrible concern for all actors in the water
sector in the state. This situation is alarming considering
the highest number of dams, rich history of participatory
watershed management, pioneering initiatives of
community-initiated water management, numerous
policies and programs in the water sector, and years of
interventions by NGOs and civil societies and corporates.
However, despite these interventions, water scarcity
and groundwater depletion in many parts of the state
continue, and the environmental and equity issues are
under severe threat. Apart from these anthropogenic
issues, the state has seen several years of low rainfall
and drought, heavy rain and flood, and unseasonal rain,
resulting in crop failures and farmers’ distress in the last
two decades. In this context, mainly based on secondary
literature and a few expert interviews, this report
analyzes key policies and programs in the water sector
of Maharashtra. We have developed a ‘Policy Sensitivity
Index’ to rank the policies and programs based on their
potential and strengths in meeting the normative
concerns. The selected key policies and programs in the
water sector are rated accordingly.
The report highlights the urgent need for making the policy
and program environment more nature-friendly (so that it
doesn’t damage the environment), making it more equity
sensitive (so that resource-poor also get equal opportunities
in participation and benefits), and incentive oriented (to
enable stakeholders to take proactive steps for water
management). The law-making process needs to be more
transparent, accountable, and participatory, with clear
operational rules for laws that have passed. Before making
the key provisions of policies and laws mandatory, they
need to be thoroughly piloted at a small scale to assess their
practicality.
5
1. Key Burning Issues in the Water Sector and Need for
the Policy Review
For Maharashtra, The Composite Water Management Index 2019 declared by NITI
Aayog is alarming and compels policy makers and practitioners in Maharashtra to reflect
on their efforts seriously. This index assesses key indicators based on the states' supply
and demand-side management of water and governance efforts. According to the
report, Maharashtra’s present water management index for 2017-18 has declined by
three compared to 2016-17. Maharashtra, which was at the fourth rank in 2015-16
when the index was first developed for all Indian states, declined by one position and
came at fifth rank in 2016-17 and further declined in 2017-18 by three positions and
declared at the eighth rank (NITI Aayog, 2019). The highest decline in Maharashtra’s
water management index in the country, after Chhattisgarh, compared to all Indian
states is a severe and terrible concern for concerned actors in the water sector in the
state. This situation is more alarming considering the highest number of dams, rich
history of participatory watershed management, and pioneering initiatives of
community-initiated water management, coupled with numerous laws and policies in
the water sector, and continuous interventions for many years by NGOs, civil societies,
corporates, as well as internationally acknowledged leadership in the water sector in the
state. Irrespective of these, water scarcity and groundwater depletion in many regions
continue. The last two decades have also seen several continuous years of acute water
scarcity, heavy rains, floods, crop failures, and farmers’ distress. In this context, this
report presents the analysis of existing key policies and programs in the water sector of
Maharashtra. It brings forward clear recommendations to improve the effectiveness of
these policies and programs to achieve their targets at the ground level.
1.1 Key burning issues in the water sector of Maharashtra
Maharashtra occupies India's western and central parts and has a long coastline of
about 720 km along the Arabian Sea. With a population of 112.4 million, as per the
population Census 2011 and a geographical area of 0.308 million sq. km, Maharashtra is
ranked 2nd by population and 3rd in terms of geographical area (GoM, 2022).
Maharashtra is highly urbanized, with 45.2 % population residing in the urban area
(ibid). The State enjoys a tropical monsoon climate and is semi-arid (ibid). There exists
an extreme spatial and temporal variation in the rainfall pattern in the State. The
average annual rainfall in the State ranges from 400 to 6000 mm. The State witnesses
frequent drought conditions, whereas almost 52% area of the State is drought-prone,
and about 84% of the total area under agriculture is rainfed and dependent only on the
monsoon.
Half of the State’s population is dependent upon agriculture for their livelihood. The
area of the State is covered by five major river basins, namely Godavari, Krishna, Tapi,
Narmada, and West flowing river basins. Also, a tiny area of the North-Eastern part of
the State comes under the Mahanadi basin. The estimated annual availability of water
resources in the State is 198 Billion cubic meters (BCM), which consists of 164 BCM of
surface water and 34 BCM of groundwater, with more than 21 lakh wells in the state. As
the state has the highest number of dams in the country, the storage capacity created
6
through State Sector water resources projects is 42.85 BCM as of June 2017 (GoI,
2020a).
This section discusses the burning issues in Maharashtra's water sector with their scope
and implications on wider stakeholders, including people and ecosystems. This
discussion highlights why there is an urgent need to do a detailed analysis of policies
and programs, as the level of their implementation closely determines the scope and
impacts of the burning issues.
1.1.1 Water insecurity for drinking and irrigation and growing groundwater
depletion:
More than 50% of Maharashtra's total area (52%) is drought-prone. Most of the state has deep
layers of hard basalt rock called the Deccan Trap (H. Kulkarni et al., n.d.). These conditions make
this belt highly susceptible to groundwater stress. As a result, drinking water scarcity is a
recurring phenomenon in many parts of the Western Maharashtra and Marathwada regions.
Central Groundwater Board (CGWB), based on data from 1487 monitoring wells in the state,
reported that the water levels declined in 70% of observation wells in the state in the year 2017
when compared with the decadal mean for the period 2006-2015 (Shaikh, 2017). However, all
these data do not adequately reflect the precarious conditions on the ground, having large
diversity at the local level in hydrogeology and an insufficient sample of wells. In the summer of
2015, for the first time in the state's history, the government was forced to run special water
trains over 300 km to supply potable water to water-scarce areas of the Latur district (Kale,
2017).
Further, the Groundwater Survey and Development Agency (GSDA) reports that out of 353
talukas in Maharashtra, water levels have dropped from 1 to 3 meters in villages across 245
talukas between 2014 and 2019 (GSDA, 2019). This situation increased the drinking water
dependency of the large population on the public water tankers. The data shows that from 2014
to 2019, the number of tanker-fed villages and hamlets have been drastically increased (please
refer to table 1.1). As water is also required to meet the WASH (Sanitation and Health) services,
in the years of the COVID-19 pandemic, in many pockets of the state, cases of the scarcity of
water for frequently washing hands with soaps as well as growing stress on local water
resources were reported (UNICEF, 2020).
Table 1: Increasing Tanker-dependency in Maharashtra
Week Month/Year
Villages
Hamlets
Total
villages and
hamlets
Govt.
tankers
Private
Tankers
Total
Tankers
2014-May 1st week
451
986
1437
-
-
-
2015-May 1st week
1471
1777
3248
281
1533
1814
2016-May 1st week
3798
6217
10015
311
4572
4883
2017-May 1st week
1018
2768
3786
159
639
798
2018-May 1st week
937
481
1418
153
784
937
2019-May 1st week
4054
8993
13047
197
4977
5174
(Data Source: https://wsso.in/tanker.html)
Similar to drinking water challenges, the agriculture sector is facing water scarcity for
irrigation due to depleting groundwater and, at the same time, increasing erraticness in
the rainfall pattern and unexpected weather events. In the drought years of 2012-2013,
many orchard plots (sweet lemons, orange) dried up, and farmers were forced to cut
7
down these plots. Even due to the late arrival of the monsoon, the long dry spells and
flash floods, many farmers are losing their farm produce. Moreover, during the years of
low rainfall and droughts, we have seen increased migration of rural populations to
towns and cities searching for livelihoods.
1.1.2 Water guzzling crops and virtual water export:
The state's cropping pattern and water use practices are unsustainable. The single
largest fact about India’s water use is that 90% of it is consumed in farming, and 80% of
this irrigation is for three water-guzzling crops, rice, wheat, and sugarcane (M. Shah &
Vijayshankar, 2021). The area under sugarcane and cotton in Maharashtra, mainly the
Marathwada region's drought-prone belts, is increasing. Maharashtra's share in total
sugarcane production at the country level is 22%. This is next to Uttar Pradesh (47%),
and sugarcane in Maharashtra is on 4% of cropped area but consumes 70% of irrigation
water (Lee et al., 2020). However, in 2021-22 Maharashtra’s share in India's sugarcane
production broke all the records with an increased share of 51%, the highest sugar-
producing state (Loksatta, 2022). Many authors have already indicated that the growing
area under sugarcane cultivation is one of the important reasons for desertification in
the Marathwada region (Banerjee, 2019). This is coupled with increasing virtual water
exports in the form of water-intensive crops, fruits, and food grains. For example,
producing 1 kg of sugarcane takes around 250 litres of water (and 1500 liters for refined
1kg sugar), and producing 1kg of wheat requires more than 1000 litres of water. Even
though the waste of food grains, vegetables, and fruits, in harvesting, packaging,
transporting, and delivery is enormous, few estimates show that one-third of produced
food gets wasted in India (CSR Journal, 2018).
1.1.3 Implications of Climate Variability:
Since 2010, the state has witnessed frequent floods, droughts, hailstorms, cold and hot
waves, and cyclones. Floods in Kolhapur and Sangali (in 2019), Chipalun in Konkan
(2021), as well as Mumbai (in 2017, 2019, and 2021), and Pune (2019) badly disturbed
human life and resulted in substantial financial losses. We have seen that during the last
five years, many farmers in the state either did not timely sow or harvest due to
delayed monsoon, dry spells, droughts, unseasonal rains, and floods, and cold as well as
heat waves, and as a result lost their crops and produce. In 2021, heavy rain in the form
of a returns monsoon made Kharif crops flooded thousands of hectares of land in many
regions of Maharashtra, resulting in heavy crop loss. In the state, horticulture farmers
(grapes, bananas, orange, sweet lemons and other fruit growers) have frequently lost
their produce due to cyclones, heavy rain, and mainly hailstorms (in 2014, 2019, 2020,
and 2021). Surprisingly, certain districts in the state are witnessing floods while others
witness droughts during the same season. Many regions of the state faced a severe
drought in 2008, 2012, 2013, 2016, and 2020. In the monsoon season of 2019, we have
seen over 1,000 instances of heavy and extreme rain events in India; many places have
had 1,000-3,000% more rain in a single day than their average (Hindustan Times, 2019).
The statistics show that Maharashtra has witnessed a seven-fold increase in drought
events and a six-fold rise in the frequency of flood events in the last 50 years (1970-
2020), according to a recent CEEW report (Chaterjee, 2020). The state also has one of
the highest numbers of districts vulnerable to extreme weather events, according to a
8
recent study by the Indian Council of Agricultural Research (The Hindu, 2021). The
Maharashtra State Action Plan on Climate Change (SAPCC) predicts that temperature
and rainfall will increase all over the state though there will be regional variations in
2050.
As discussed, the climate change phenomenon is directly related to patterns of
monsoon behaviour and change in temperature, as global warming is likely to intensify,
accelerate or enhance the global hydrological cycle. Therefore, in the rain-dependent
drylands of India, in which much of Maharashtra falls, erratic rainfall and drought will
result in a drastic fall in agricultural production and acute water scarcity for drinking and
livelihood purposes. Even the changes in the proper functioning of ecosystems will
increase the loss of biodiversity and damage ecosystem services; these changes are
already being witnessed in many regions of the state. However, as rightly mentioned by
K.J.Joy, we need to be careful while relating all changes or depletion of natural
resources to climate change impacts or ‘climatization of issues,’ as human or
anthropogenic interventions are making the situation worse (Joy & Srinivasan, 2021).
1.1.4 Water quality and pollution-sewage and industries:
The water quality in the state is affected by various pollutants. The major causes are
faulty sewage and waste disposal, the release of industrial pollutants, fertilizer runoff,
and coastal influxes of saltwater into aquifers as groundwater is depleted. The major
concern is increasing incidences of fluoride and arsenic cases in the state. Even at the
country level, about 66 million Indians are at risk due to excess fluoride and 10 million
due to excess arsenic in groundwater (Khurana & Sen, 2008). The health burden due to
poor water quality is enormous. Around 37.7 million Indians are affected by waterborne
diseases annually, of which 1.5 million children die of diarrhoea alone. Data for three
years (2009 to 2011) collected by WOTR from 6 villages in the Sangamner block show
that there were 856 episodes of diarrhoea, 424 vomiting, and 47 cases of hepatitis A. All
these are generally water-borne diseases. In a study conducted by WOTR in 2006 in 44
villages representing four regions of Maharashtra, 20 villages had a total hardness over
300 (mg/l); 24 had Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) over 500 mg/l; 42 villages had coliform
bacteria, and 42 of 44 had E.coli present, these were above the permissible limits.
In urban areas, the water used for construction, domestic, and luxury is increasing with
the improving standard of living and lifestyles. Therefore, it is observed that in Indian
cities greater the water use, the more sewage and water pollution is. Besides, cities
don’t have the full capacity to treat wastewater and sewage water. A study by the
Centre for Science and Environment (CSE) in 2012 found that Indian cities can treat an
average of 30% of sewage water, whereas 20-25% of water sewage gets treated.
According to a recent study by the Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB), 70% of the
total municipal sewage and effluent from cities and towns are being discharged
untreated into rivers, a major source of drinking water (Mallapur, 2016). According to
the CPCB report in 2017, Maharashtra has the most polluted rivers in India, with 49 of
the 315 river stretches running through the state. The report also points out that
polluted rivers such as Mithi, Godavari, Bhima, Krishna, Tapi, Kundalika, Panchganga,
Mula-Mutha, Pelhar, Penganga, and Vaitarnariver. The Ulhas river in Raigad and her
tributary Waldhuni is Maharashtra's most polluted river. According to Maharashtra
Pollution Control Board (MPCP), household waste in cities and towns is responsible for
9
95% of river pollution; the rest is industrial pollution (Dutta & Goel, 2021). As the rate of
urbanization and industrial zones are speedily increasing in Maharashtra, unless the
waste water is strictly regulated and treated, the situation of pollution of rivers in the
state will be more difficult.
Even increased use of fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture is an important cause of
water pollution in the state. In a study conducted by WOTR in village Sarole Pather in
Ahmednagar district, it was noted that farmers used 625 kg of fertilizers:
superphosphate, for one acre of the onion crop potash, urea, 20:20:0, 18:46:0, and
18:18:10., and 6 litres of pesticides. With the expanding area coming under agriculture
and irrigation in Maharashtra, and with the spread of chemicals used in agriculture
(fertilizers and pesticides), groundwater quality will worsen the already scarce
freshwater sources.
1.1.5 Privatization of Water and growing Water Conflicts:
As water becomes scarce and required for development (i.e., urbanization and
industry), water privatisation is considered the means to meet these ends. In the wake
of the Dublin Principles (Joy et al., 2011), a raging polarized debate about water's ‘social
vs economic goods’ character has been discussed.
In the name of PPP (Public-Private Partnership), two main types of privatisation are
introduced: privatization of water sources and privatization of water delivery service
systems. Both kinds of privatisation are attempted in various states of the country,
coupled with a policy push towards the economical pricing of water. Many
multinationals and corporate players have keenly interested in investing in water
sources (rivers, streams, dams, and tanks) to make them ‘private’ (Gleick et al., 2002). In
addition, water has been brought under the purview of global trade by including it in
the General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS) (ibid). These and many other
developments within and outside the water sector indicate that the sector is being
impacted significantly by the Liberalization, Privatisation, and Globalisation (LPG)
regime unleashed in the country since the early 1990s.
Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act-2005 (MWRRA) extensively
talks about the economical use of water and pricing of bulk water, where the role of the
service provider is highlighted. The move towards privatization of water is seen in the
construction of the Neera-Deodhar dam in Bhor taluka of Pune district to spread the
canal network, which has been given to a private developer on the BOT (Build-Operate-
Transfer) basis by Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (Jamwal,
2009). Even for Aurangabad city, the water supply from the Jayakwadi dam is proposed
through a private company.
As the water is being diverted, reallocated, and reprioritized in the state, ignoring the
rights of people in the catchment and dependent on the catchment water, these
processes result in conflicts at different levels and scales in the state. The incident in the
Maval block on August 9, 2011, was notable in the state where on the Pune-Mumbai
Expressway, whole villages got together and agitated against the acquisition of their
land for a water pipeline to the city. As a result, three farmers lost their lives in police
firing. There are many water disputes on water sharing at a regional level. The well-
discussed conflicts between Marathwada and Western Maharashtra on the Jayakwadi
dam water sharing and water from Ujanai dam by Baramati, Solapur and Indapur are a
10
few prominent. Even the effect of water privatization through farm pond construction
(by pulling groundwater to store) is being felt by the farming communities as a problem.
The farm pond owners are storing huge amounts of groundwater (Eshwer Kale, 2017).
In short, rich and better-off people in society can purchase and access an ample amount
of water, even during a scarcity period. Therefore, the privatisation of water sources
has greater linkages with water availability, accessibility, and affordability. Even though
there are pre-existing inequities in India's socio-economic, political, cultural, and legal
structures, the ownership of land carries with it the ownership of the water above and
under it. It has been said that water is attached, like a chattel, to land property (R. Iyer,
2003). Due to this rule, the landless and resource-poor are denied access to and
benefits of water.
In the context of the basin, sub-basin, cluster, and watershed, the location of
households determined the benefits of water availability. However, a household's
location does not wholly determine water availability in a given place. The ability to pay
is also a major factor. The farmers who can pay for irrigation facilities can divert water
to any place in the watershed or basin area. People in the American west have an
appropriate old saying, ‘water usually runs downhill, but it always runs uphill to money
(Rogers, 2008); this is very relevant to the current water dynamics in Maharashtra.
1.1.6 Poor or absence of Governance:
Maharashtra is seen as the pioneering state in the country in water policy reforms and
law-making and has the highest number of irrigation dams in the country. Even the
state has been fortunate enough to have the Groundwater Survey and Development
Agency (GSDA) for decades to provide technical support for groundwater management.
Apart from this, the tragedy of groundwater depletion continues. Many experts
highlighted the lack of implementing capabilities/resources required for implementing
laws, flaws in water policy and laws, and the absence of groundwater regulation at the
local level. One can see the globally appreciated water management models of Ralegan
Siddhi and Hiware Bazar and pilots by a few NGOs and civil society organisations (such
as WOTR, MSSM, Samaj Parivartan Kendra, ACWADAM, BAIF, GSDA, and a few others).
Still, these are a handful. In most villages, water governance is either very poor or non-
existent, which has serious implications for sustainable, efficient, and judicious water
use. This also pointed out that the decision-making and water resource development
and management institutions are still dominated by resource-rich, with very less or no
influence of marginal groups and women in participation and benefits of water, a
common property.
As a composite result of these diverse issues, mainly caused by water issues linked with
agriculture and livelihoods, the state has seen growing agrarian crises and growing
cases of farmers’ suicide in the state, mainly in Marathwada and Vidarbha regions.
Moreover, during the drought years, the state has witnessed the climate-induced
migration of a huge number of rural population to cities and towns in search of
livelihoods as ecological refugees. The situation also made the state and administration
respond quickly and in a better manner; for example, for water security for rural
people, we have witnessed the drastic shift from watershed development projects to
Aplae Paani and Jal Swarajya, and Jalyukt Shivar to the present well debated
Marathwada Water Grid project and Jal Jeevan Mission.
11
2. The Need for Policy Review and Methodology
Here we discuss the policy initiative at both levels, National and Maharashtra state, in
the water sector and put the rationale by presenting why the policy analysis is urgently
required through this study. While analyzing the state policies, reflections on national
policies are also necessary as it is expected that the state follows the national policies
and makes its laws according to the national policies and model bills.
2.1 Policy Initiatives at the National level
In India, the need for reforms in groundwater governance has been felt for decades
and, at the very least, since the widespread introduction of mechanized pumping
devices, rapidly increasing groundwater use, and lowering water tables. This led the
Government of India to acknowledge the need for a statutory framework governing
groundwater (Cullet, 2012). Water and thus groundwater are under the state
government’s purview in India’s federated system (R. Iyer, 2003). As the first formal
legal step, in 1970, the Government of India put forward the ‘Model Bill to Regulate and
Control the Development and Management of Groundwater for adoption by the states.
The ‘Model Bill’ has been revised several times (in 1992, 1996, 2005, and 2011) and is in
revised form in 2017. At the same time (in 1972) Central Groundwater Board (CGWB), a
devoted institution to managing and developing groundwater resources, was
established in India. ‘National Water Policy” was made in 1987, and it was revised in
2002 and 2012 and is under revision at present. However, though the policy has few
proactive prescriptions, it has no statutory status and thus cannot be legally enforced.
At the Centre level, the National Water Framework Law was proposed, and it was
drafted in 2013 and revised in 2016. On the program level, watershed development
programs are implemented at a large scale in India. All earlier different watershed
programs were brought under the common guideline in 2008 known as Integrated
Watershed Development Program (IWMP). This guideline has been modified very
recently to make it inclusive and effective. In recent years, the government launched the
National Aquifer Mapping and Management program (NAQUIM) in 2012 to map India’s
aquifer systems and Atal Bhujal Yojana in 2019 in 7 Indian states for groundwater
recharge and management. Apart from this, to ensure drinking water availability to
each household and provide safe and adequate drinking water through individual
household tap connections by 2024 to all households in rural India, the Centre has come
up with Jal Jeevan Mission in August 2019.
2.2 Policy Initiatives in Maharashtra
As in Maharashtra, groundwater depleting trends and their consequences on the
availability of drinking water were visible from the early seventies (1970); State was
compelled to initiate mechanisms to address this issue. Initially, intending to
systematically and efficiently assess groundwater, the state formed Groundwater Survey
and Development Agency (GSDA) in 1972. This agency primarily helps local self-
government institutions (Gram Panchayats, Municipal Boards, Zila Parishads) in
surveying groundwater for locating public drinking water wells and providing scientific
advice on groundwater resource development. As the groundwater conditions
12
continued to deteriorate, the state decided to discourage the creation of new wells and
bore wells (Phansalkar & Kher, 2006). It asked the GSDA to assess different parts of the
state for the groundwater situations. Simultaneously, the second step of the State in
discouraging groundwater exploitation was to declare that the banking sector would not
lend any farm credit for sinking wells/bore wells and installation of pumps in black
(over-exploited) zones. However, these moves were ineffective, making the state
develop firm policy initiatives.
As the first step in this direction, the state formulated Maharashtra Groundwater
(Regulation for Drinking Water Purposes) Act, 1993. The Act's main purpose was to
regulate groundwater exploitation to protect public drinking water sources. The Act
prohibits the sinking of a well by any person or community for any purpose without
prior permission within 500 meters of a public water source. The 1993 Act was very
poorly implemented and was inadequate mainly due to the absence of a participatory
framework and leaving out water regulation for irrigation purposes. The state adopted
its first water policy in 2003. The objective of the policy was to ensure the sustainable
development, optimal use, and management of the state’s water resource to provide
the greatest economic and social benefits to people in a manner that maintains
important ecological values. The policy was recently revised in 2019. In 2005, the policy
move culminated in the State passing ‘Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory
Authority Act, 2005’ (MWRRA) with wider ramifications and stronger teeth for
establishing an independent regulatory authority, the first of its kind in the country to
regulate the water resource. In the same year, the Government also enacted an Act
titled ‘Maharashtra Farmers Management of Irrigation Systems Act 2005’ for giving legal
status to Water Users Associations (WUAs). Although the 1993 Act, State Water Policy-
2003, and MWRRA 2005 were enacted, in the absence of groundwater-specific law and
strict and clear regulatory measures, the concern of groundwater depletion was growing
and was not adequately addressed by existing laws. With these limitations and to strike
a balance between the regulatory and developmental measures, the State Government
passed the Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act in 2009,
enacted in 2013.
Along with these legal interventions, many programs and schemes were designed and
implemented in the state. Along with IWMP, in 2016 state came with Jalyukt Shivar
Abhiyan (JYS), the flagship program aiming to bring water empowerment to 25,000
drought-affected villages in Maharashtra in the next five years. With the slogan of
“Water for All”, the target was set for “Drought-free Maharashtra” by 2019. The
Maharashtra Government, through MGNREGA, started supporting farmers for
constructing the farm ponds in 2009 and then in 2016 came up with a special program
on promoting farm ponds, well known as ‘magel tyala shet-tale’ in 2016 with a target of
constructing 1,11,111 farm pond in the state (Magel Tyala Shetatale, 2016). In 2017, the
state designed and implemented a specific program for desiltation water tanks known
as ‘Gaalmukt Dharan, Gaalyukt Shivar Yojana.’ This scheme has been actively
implemented through the different NGOs and CSR initiatives. With the support of the
World Bank, in 2018, the state started the Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture
(PoCRA) to be implemented in 15 districts in Maharashtra, covering about 5,142 villages.
Along with promoting climate-smart agriculture practices, the project aims to achieve
supply and demand-side water management practices.
13
2.3 Rationale of the study-wide gap in governance objectives and their
implementation
Despite numerous policy interventions in Maharashtra and at the centre level,
groundwater resource is continuously depleted. This is because these policy
interventions have not achieved the goal of efficient, judicious, and sustainable water
resources. Thus the present condition shows that these policy instruments and agencies
have not effectively addressed the critical problem of groundwater depletion. The
growing depletion and scarcity of water resources show that these policy reforms and
programs do not tackle the existing over-exploitation rather, they are largely
grandfathering existing groundwater uses. (Cullet, 2012). As a result, groundwater
resources remain either ungoverned or misgoverned (Kale, 2018); Ramaswamy Iyer
(2008) rightly describes this deadlock as ‘governance seems non-existent.’ In this
relation, the title of a comprehensive account of groundwater use in South Asia aptly
refers to the current situation as ‘anarchy’ (T. Shah, 2010). Even in policies and
programs, surface water and groundwater as well as water for drinking and irrigation,
are not seen as integrated or complementary. There are separate policies, governing
agencies, and programs for managing and developing these resources. Mihir Shah had
rightly described this situation as ‘hydro-schizophrenia’ in the water sector, where the
right hand of surface water doesn’t know what the left hand of groundwater is doing
(M. Shah & Vijayshankar, 2022).
In this context, it is essential to diagnose existing governance instruments (policies and
programs) by identifying lacunas and loopholes and prescribing adequate and efficient
policy measures to make them more effective and robust. The present study finds policy
gaps and lacunas in these policy instruments and proposes clear recommendations to
revise and make them more appropriate, effective, and implementable.
2.4. Research Approach and Methodology
This section presents the theoretical and conceptual framework followed in the study
and the analytical framework applied for the analysis. Finally, the section concludes with
the data sources and data collection methodology adopted for the study.
2.4.1 Theoretical and conceptual frame
In any sector, social or environmental, policy instruments (policies, laws, and programs)
are created by the state and deployed by governing agencies to achieve specific
governance objectives around an issue. These governance objectives differ from sector
to sector and resource to resource, mainly around protecting the interests of the larger
society, protecting the environment, regulating services and uses of resources, and
promoting human behaviour in a ‘good or expected’ value-based direction (E. B. Kale,
2018). Therefore, the overall goal of the policy instrument is to protect and promote
broader public interests in a particular sector or around a specific issue (ibid). Once such
policy instruments are created, the responsibility to operationalize and deploy (or
implement) these instruments fully or partly is given to certain governing agencies. This
is how the policies and programs are being created and executed on the ground. But in
real life, we often observe that these governing agencies do not meet or fail at a
14
different level to achieve the governing objectives or result in unintended outcomes, as
the actors targeted in these policy instruments did not follow or violet the expected
behaviour. The key question for the policy analyst is ‘based on what type of information
can better policy decisions be made?’ Answering the question requires discussing the
adequate and appropriate use of the currently in-use social, economic, and
environmental indicators, social beliefs, and norms in use (Parto, 2005). Therefore while
analyzing policy effectiveness, answers to how various stakeholders, actors, or resource
users take rational (or irrational) decisions or select choices and which factors
essentially decide the direction of their behaviour for taking decisions are of key
importance. Most policy analysis and review frameworks answer these questions with
different approaches and perspectives. In this light, the study uses the below different
frameworks to see the issues in the larger picture.
Stakeholder Analysis and Political Economy Analysis are widely used frameworks for
analyzing and reviewing policies and programs. The stakeholder analysis categorizes the
different actors and stakeholding groups at different levels of interest and power, which
influence and therefore impact particular policies. Political scientists have viewed
decision-making and implementation as determined by how power is structured among
different groups in the resource user communities (Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000).
Political Economy Analysis has a long tradition in social science research. There is
increasing recognition across academic and aid literature that development is
fundamentally a political process in key respects (Fritz et al., 2009). The political
economy analysis is concerned with the interaction of political and economic processes
in a society, the distribution of power and wealth between different groups and
individuals, and the processes that create, sustain, and transform these relationships
over time (Jamil et al., 2013). These processes are closely interrelated and part of a
unified set of dynamics (Harris, 2013). Political economy analysis helps understand how
incentives, institutions, and ideas shape political action and development outcomes
(Duncan & Williams, 2012); this can be extremely useful when considering the feasibility
of policy reform and institutional change. Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD)
framework developed by Prof. Elinor Ostrom (Ostrom, 2011) is applied in a range of
situations to analyze the structure of situations individuals face systematically. IAD
explains how rules, the nature of events, and the attributes of the surrounding
environment and local community affect these situations over time (Smajgl et al., 2009).
IAD utilizes assumptions of public choice theory but adds that rational individuals are
acting and making decisions in real-world institutional settings. While this theory
acknowledges that individuals may act rationally in simple situations, it posits that in
complex circumstances, individuals lack complete knowledge and the ability to act in an
entirely economically rational manner (Polski & Ostrom, 1999). The Governance
Dynamics Framework (GDF) developed by Subodh Wagle (Subodh Wagle, 2011) is based
on the central premise that there is a misalignment between the preparedness of the
actors/stakeholders. Therefore, the goals of policy instruments and the actors are not
well prepared due to inadequate awareness, vision, willingness, and abilities to take
appropriate actions.
Another important perspective to understand and analyze the failure of groundwater-
related policies is derived from David Mosse’s work and Marxian theory. David Mosse
suggests that development agencies selectively endorse particular social theories in
constructing a manageable rural society in terms of present policy goals and
15
administrative constraints (Mosse, 1999). He further explains the contemporary policy
discourse as selective representations of a rural society that this generates. The Marxian
theory also supports this argument. It advocates that every type of state is a
powerful institution of the ruling class, and the state is an instrument that one class uses
to secure its rule and enforce its preferred production relations (and its exploitation)
onto society (Althusser, 2006).
Having a detailed review of these different frameworks, we found that the framework of
normative concerns is more suitable for the present study. Normative concerns lie at
the heart of development analysis and policy. Public policies are normative or based on
value judgment in that they are trying to clarify how policies ought to be set (Alkire &
Deneulin 2009). It allows us to assess at what level the policy initiatives are aligned with
the normative concerns set for the analysis. The normative concerns are value-based
concerns accepted by large actors and stakeholders in the specific sector. They are
drivers to design the process and reach a collectively seen vision. These normative
concerns are mainly inclusiveness, equity, gender, participation, and sustainability.
Although the framework of normative concerns drives the analysis for the study, all the
above-discussed frameworks are applied in analysis at appropriate places to see the
larger picture from different perspectives.
2.4.2 Analytical framework applied for policy review
From a large pool of existing governance instruments (policies and programs) in the
water sector, the most relevant and important policies and programs are identified
based on the level of their significance, geographical scale, level of influence on the
water resource, and resources allocated. Although this policy review is at the level of
Maharashtra state, as discussed earlier, key policies and programs at the national level
have been taken for analysis as they have important influences and impacts on the
development and management of state water resources and policies. The selected
policies and programs for this review are listed below,
Table 2: Selected Policies and Programs
Levels
Policies
Programs
State-
level
1) Maharashtra Groundwater
(Development and Management) Act,
2009
1) Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan (JSA)
2) Maharashtra Water Resource
Regulatory Act, 2005
2) Magel Tyala Shet-tale (Farm pond Scheme)
3) Maharashtra State Water Policy, 2019
3) Integrated Watershed Development Program
4) Maharashtra Management of Irrigation
Systems by Farmers, 2005-MMISF
4) Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture
(PoCRA)
5) Marathwada Water Grid Project
6) Gaalmukt Dharan and Gaalyukt Shivar
7) Solar Irrigation- Mukhyamantri Saur Krushi
Pump Yojana
National
level
1) National Water Policy, 2012
1) National Aquifer Management Program
(NAQUIM)
2) Composite Water Management Index
by NITI Aayog, 2016
2) Atal Bhujal Yojna (Atal Jal)
16
Each of the selected policies and programs has been analyzed in terms of the
background in which it has been designed, its core provisions and strengths, and the
gaps and weaknesses at a different level. Having analyzed these components, necessary
recommendations are made to make it more effective and robust. The unique analytical
approach this review provides is the Policy Sensitivity Index to assess the level of
sensitivity or association of policies and programs to the different normative concerns.
As the below figure depicts, the Policy Sensitivity Index is developed to assess six key
normative concerns of selected policies and programs, 1) Environment and ecosystem
sustainability they ensure, 2) by applying Participatory and inclusive governance, 3) for
Vulnerability reduction to climate change, 4) and ensure Production enhancement and
resilient income of local communities, 5) and their Capacity and knowledge building, 6)
with fulfilling the concerns of Equity and societal co-benefits.
Figure 1: Normative concerns covered in the Policy Sensitivity Index
For each of these six indicators, 4 points are allotted based on the level of measure
(Very high=4, High=3 Medium=2 Low=1, No=0). Thus for each selected policy and
program maximum of 24 points (6 indicators X 4 points) are allotted. Depending on the
level of impact and significance, a score is given to the policy and program to
understand its sensitivity and relevance to the six key indicators.
17
2.4.3 Data sources and methods of data collection
This desk review is primarily based on the secondary literature; however, interviews of
selected water experts and a few field visits have also been conducted to receive first-
hand data and observations on important programs in the state.
a) Secondary sources: Existing books, reports, papers (printed as well as online), blogs,
webinar recordings, videos available of water experts on social media, and content
available on websites are the important secondary sources used for this review.
However, this also contains the published and unpublished reports and papers
developed by WOTR during the last few years related to water resources.
b) Primary data: 18 in-depth interviews of renowned water experts on the policies and
programs have been conducted. The 18 experts at the state and national levels have
been purposively selected, keeping in mind their rich experience in designing and
executing programs or researching the selected policies or programs. At the same time,
to understand the different aspects of the application and implementation of a few
major government programs, a few on-ground short studies/assessments have been
conducted. On-ground short studies of Jalyukt Shivar and farm ponds (under MGNREGA,
Magel Tyala Shet–tale, and National Horticulture Mission) are made, which are crucial
and largely implemented programs in Maharashtra over the last few years. A multi-
disciplinary approach has studied the implementation and its consequences on different
aspects. These assessments have complemented the analysis and made the study more
evidence-based.
3. Analysis of selected Policies and Programs
This section is distributed in three subsections. In the first section, we present the
analysis of selected policies and programs on the sensitivity index, the scoring matrix we
have developed to understand the sensitivity of these policies and programs to the
normative concerns. After that, each selected policy and program is analysed at the
state and national levels regarding its strengths, advantages, and lacunas in its
provisions or strategies and the recommendations needed for removing these gaps and
making them more efficient, relevant, effective, and practical for implementation.
3.1 Sensitivity analysis of the selected policies and programs
As discussed in the methodology sections, we have developed an index of six indicators
to assess the sensitivity of selected policies and programs (normative concerns). A
maximum of 4 points (Very high=4, High=3 Medium=2 Low=1, No=0) is allotted to each
of the six indicators based on the level of the potential, performance, and practical and
feasible correlation of each policy and program with the normative concerns. Thus
depending on the potential, performance, and practical and feasible correlation with
normative concerns, the selected policies and programs are allotted 24 points. The final
score (24 points) assigned to each policy and program is categorised as policy or
program Highly sensitive (18 to 24 points), Medium sensitive (12 to 18 points), Low
sensitive (6 to 12 points), and Very low sensitive (points less than 6). This analysis by
applying the sensitivity index is relevant to assess and see where the important policies
and programs fall or stand in achieving the current key priorities in terms of normative
18
concerns of 1) Environment and ecosystem sustainability, 2) Participatory and inclusive
governance, 3) Vulnerability reduction to climate change, 4) Production
enhancementand resilient income, 5) Capacity and knowledge building, and 6) Equity
and Societal Co-benefits. The analysis of the sensitivity index is presented in table 3.
19
Table 3: Sensitivity index of selected Policies and Programs to Normative concerns
Proposed Policy/
program
Measures for
Equity and
Societal co-
benefits
Relevance
to
indicator
(out of 4
points)
Measure for
Environment
and ecosystem
sustainability
Relevance
to
indicator
(out of 4
points)
Measures for
Production
enhancement
and resilient
income
Relevance
to
indicator
(out of 4
points)
Measures for
Participatory
and inclusive
governance
Relevance
to
indicator
(out of 4
points)
Measures for
Vulnerability
reduction to
climate change
Relevance
to
indicator
(out of 4
points)
Measures for
Capacity Building
Relevance
to
indicator
(out of 4
points)
Total
Score (out
of 24
points)
State-level Policy
Maharashtra State
Water Policy-2019
Highlights the
aim of
achieving
equity, social
justice, and
sustainability
in water
resource
-Water as
common
property and
public trust
3
-Ecosystems
considered in
priorities of
water allocation
-protection of
ecosystems
-Adoption of
ridge to valley
approach
-River basin and
sub-basin level
management.
- Water
resources
planning,
development,
and
management in
guided by
Integrated State
Water Plan
(ISWP)
4
-Increase
productivity
and efficiency
of water use
and make the
systematic
transition
from the
water
resources
development
to an IWRM
-Second
priority to
agriculture in
water supply,
-Promotion
of micro-
irrigation,
etc.
2
-Emphasis on
community
participation in
drinking water
supply,
ecosystem
management,
watershed
management,
etc.
- Aims to apprise
all the line
departments,
local bodies, and
agencies
working for the
water sector,
industries, and
water users.
3
-Building
resilience to water
scarcity and
drought, ensuring
judicious and
strategic sectoral
allocation of
water among
different water
use sectors, -
Emphasis on flood
and drought
forecasting,
-Promotion of
micro-irrigation,
Hydro-
meteorological
data collection,
-Direction for
water quality
management
4
Provision for
creation of
'Centre of
Excellence for
capacity building,
research and
policy
evaluations
2
18
Medium
sensitive
State-level Policy
Maharashtra
-Regulations
on drilling
wells and
limiting the
2
-Ensuring
drinking water
security,
Negatively
2
Reducing
groundwater
depletion
and
3
-Provision of
Watershed
Water resource
Committee and
2
Aquifer
management is a
proposed strategy
for dealing with
2
Regular meetings
of WWRC and
MWRRA have
given the
2
13
Medium
20
Groundwater
(Development and
Management) Act 2009
depth of bore
wells, crop
planning, and
safeguarding
drinking water
wells but with
very command
and
punishment
provisions
affecting
potential water
users
(permission
required for
wells)
-Present
dynamics of
farm ponds and
Shirpur pattern
not addressed
proposing
appropriate
crop plans
role to
Grampanchat
-Crop water
budgeting will
be discussed in
Gramsabha
-Highly
bureaucratic
and political
nature of
proposed
institutions
(WWRC)
low rainfall
function of
spreading water
literacy and legal
awareness of the
Act
sensitive
State-level Policy
Maharashtra Water
Resource Regulatory
Act-2005 (MWRRA)
-Farmers can
put forward
their issues
regarding
water
distribution
- Power to
take decisions
on equitable
water sharing
on sub-basin
and river-
basin water
allocation and
transfers
2
Power to
authorize the
water resources
project-based
environmental
and hydrological
viability
2
No measures
0
-Provision of five
special invitees
in MWRRA
-Process
adopted of
public
consultations
and hearing in
fixing bulk water
tariff
-Quasi-judicial
status to
Authority to
hear the cases
and give the
judgments
3
No measures
1
No measures
0
8
Very low
sensitive
State-level Policy
Maharashtra
Management of
Irrigation Systems by
Farmers, Act 2005
(MMISF)
-Reservation
for SC-ST
community
and women in
the WUAs -All
landowners
and occupiers
1
No measures
0
Legal
entitlement
for assured
water.
Freedom of
selecting
1
-Transition in
central decision-
making by WRD
and bureaucrats
towards a
participatory
approach by
3
-Entitlement of
water
-Guarantees
assured supply of
water
-Provision of
water supply
3
-Training
regarding water
management is
to be given to
both the
management
committee and
3
11
Low
sensitive
21
becomes a
member of the
General Body
crops
engaging
farmers through
water user
associations
(PIM)
-Making
Provision for a
periodic
meeting of the
Management
Committee and
General Body
during deficit year
the members of
the General Body
-However, on the
ground, the
expectations are
not met
State-level Program
Integrated Watershed
Management Program
(IWMP)
Securing
livelihood
activities for
asset-less
people is an
indirect object
of the policy
1
Adoption of
Ridge to valley
treatment helps
in ecosystem
restoration
1
Promotion of
micro-
enterprise
includes
livelihood
activities
Promotion of
production
Systems
4
Formation of
Watershed
Committee at
village level
Gram
Panchayat, NGO
can become PIA
3
Improve
groundwater
quantity will
increase the
climate resilience
1
Provision for the
preparatory
phase of 1 to 2
years for capacity
building
4
14
Medium
sensitive
State level Program
Farm Ponds (Magel
Tyala Shetatale)
-Heavy budget
in subsidy
form for
selected
beneficiaries.
-Water
security for
horticulture
farmers, cost
benefits ratio
mixed,
groundwater
mining
2
No measures
0
-Water use of
stored water
in the most
efficient
manner,
protective for
cash crops
and
vegetables
for assured
and more
income
4
The beneficiary-
centric scheme,
no control of
villagers/pancha
yat on selecting
numbers and
size and number
of farm ponds in
the village
1
-Water available
when required, -
Water security for
irrigation,
-Assured crop
production,
addresses rainfall
variability and
water scarcity
4
No measures,
individual
farmers are
making efforts to
make the most
efficient use of
technology and
maintenance of
farm ponds
1
12
Medium
sensitive
22
State level Program
Jal Yukta Shivar
No measures
0
No measures
0
Improved
water supply
through Nala
deepening
and other
construction
of other
water
harvesting
structures
2
Village level
Action Plan to
be approved by
the Gram
Panchayat
Desiltation
measures,
executed with
the help of
people's
participation
1
-Watershed
treatment, Nala
deepening, tree
plantation,
rejuvenation of
water bodies, etc.
help in increasing
water supply,
thereby assuring
the climate
resilience
3
Capacity building
for preparation of
water budgets
2
8
Very low
sensitive
State-level Program
Marathwada Water Grid
Project
Change in
water
allocations
and imports
from Konkan
and Krishna
2
No measures
0
Provision for
assured
supply of
water
throughout
the year
2
No measures
1
Provision for
assured supply of
water to the
water-scarce
region
3
No measures
0
8
Very low
sensitive
State level Program
Gaalmukta Dhahran
Galyukta Shivar
More area
under
irrigation,
crops, and
more income
1
No measures
0
The
application of
silt from the
dams
improves the
fertility of the
soil, thereby
improving
the
production
3
Provision for the
formation of
Village Level
Monitoring
Committee
1
Results in
increased storage
capacity of the
reservoirs and
also improved soil
characteristics
2
No measures
0
7
Very low
sensitive
23
State-level Program
PoCRA
-Formation of
Gram Krushi
Sanjeevani
Samitee
includes 2/3 of
women and
SC/ST
members
-Priority is
given to SC/ST
people and
women while
selecting
beneficiaries
-Promotion of
women's self-
help groups
and Farmer
Producer
Companies
3
Afforestation.
Soil and water
conservation.
Promotion of
organic farming.
3
-
Encourageme
nt to
women's self-
help groups
and Farmer
Producer
Companies
-
Development
of saline
areas
-Training
regarding
BBA
plantation,
-Provision for
strengthenin
g the value-
chains
-Provision for
improving
water supply
by watershed
treatment.
4
-Resource
mapping to be
done on a
participatory
basis,
-Formation of
constitutional
sub-committee
of Gram
Panchayat,
including
women and
SC/ST members
for planning,
selection of
beneficiaries,
etc.
2
-Farm ponds
promotion in
saline areas
-Encouragement
in micro-irrigation,
-Promotion of
climate-resilient
seeds, crops, and
supply-chain
management,
-Watershed
development,
-Water budgeting
using the latest
technology
4
Capacity building
at three levels :
1. Institutional
level,
2. Farmer level,
3. Women and
youth,
Training in
organic farming
3
19
Highly
sensitive
State-level Program
Mukhyamantri Saur
Krushi Pump Yojana
More
subsidies to
the SC-ST
community
2
Promotion of
clean energy
3
-
Uninterrupte
d supply of
electricity
without
fluctuations
2
No
0
No
0
No
0
7
Very low
sensitive
24
National level Policy
National Water Policy
Promotes the
principle of
social justice
and equity
2
-Directions for
the avoidance of
evapotranspirati
on,
aquifer
mapping,
-Water is
recognised as
sustained life
and ecology,
Incorporates the
ecological needs
of water and
environmental
flows
3
Improved
water supply.
Better
agricultural
practices.
Inter-basin
water
transfer.
2
-Consideration
of Public Trust
Doctrine.
Institutional
arrangements
for public
participation
-Stakeholder
participation in
land-soil-water
management.
Participatory
aquifer mapping
-Water
conservation
and
management
through public
participation
3
-Emphasis on
understanding the
local geo-
hydrological
conditions
-Decisions to be
taken considering
the impact of
climate change on
water resources,
-Strengthening the
water
infrastructure,
Sensitization of
people about
climate change
and resilience
4
-Proposal for a
national
campaign for
water literacy,
-A re-training and
quality
improvement
program for
water
planners,
-Regular training
and academic
courses in water
management
3
17
Medium
sensitive
National level Policy
Composite Water
Management Index
Assurance of
drinking water
for the rural
and urban
populations
2
-Considered the
change in the
groundwater
levels
-No. of exploited
watersheds and
identification of
recharge sites
3
Examines the
variation in
irrigation
potential
created and
utilized
2
-Role of WUAs
in PIM
-Transfer of
irrigation project
to WUAs
2
-Appropriate crop
plans
Micro-irrigation
-Separation of
energy feeders
-Deals with
measures like
groundwater
recharge,
watershed
treatment,
wastewater
treatment
3
No measures
0
11
Low
sensitive
25
National level Program
Atal Bhujal Yojana
Selection of
groundwater
depleted 78
districts in 7
states
2
-Groundwater
protection and
development
-Water security
plans
3
No measures
0
-Strengthening
of WUAs.
Empowering
Water and
Sanitation
-Committee as
WUA.
Involvement of
Gram Panchayat
2
-Preparation of
Water Security
Plans at the village
level,
-Aquifer
management,
Crop
diversification
includes the
promotion of rain-
fed horticulture.
3
Provision of
capacity building
at a different
level with an
allocation of
considerable
funds for bringing
the behavioral
change
3
13
Medium
sensitive
National level Program
National Aquifer
Management Program
(NAQUIM)
Aquifer
delineation
useful for
drinking water
source
strengthening
2
Protection and
recharge of
groundwater
1
No measures
0
-
Strengthening
WUAs
-Formation of
Groundwater
Management
Associations
2
Groundwater
protection
through recharge
and aquifer
management
2
-Selection of
Para-
Hydrogeologist
(PHGs)’ or ‘Jal
Surakshakas -
Training
individuals
regarding
groundwater
management,
participatory
management,
etc.
-Stakeholder
engagement
3
10
Low
sensitive
26
3.2 Analysis of the policies and programs
In the light of the above analysis of the sensitivity index, the further qualitative
analysis of selected policies and programs is made at the level of strengths they carry
and gaps and lacunas in them. Then recommendations are made to remove these
gaps and lacunas and make them more effective, relevant, and practical. The overall
analysis of selected policies and programs is distributed in two subsections, at the
state and national levels.
3.2.1 Analysis of the policies and programs at the state level
We discuss this section in two subsections, an analysis of the policies and programs
at the state level.
3.2.1.1 Analysis of the state-level policies:
For the analysis, we club the policies and laws/acts in the water sector together. We
understand that policy and law have fundamental differences. Policies and bills are
model guidelines and principles to guide the sector, and their violation by actor/s
cannot be challenged in the judiciary. In contrast, laws/acts and government
resolutions (GRs) are mandatory to be executed by state governing agencies. Their
violation can be challenged in the judiciary or relevant governing agencies can
enforce punishment and penalties on their violations. In other words, laws, Acts and
GRs are means of translating the policies into actionable form. Oxford English
Dictionary defines policy as a ‘course or principle adopted or proposed by an
organization.’ The Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO, n.d.) defines policy as ‘a
definite course or method of action selected (by government, institution, group or
individual) from among alternatives and in the light of given conditions to guide and,
usually, to determine present and future decisions.’ It further notes that a policy is a
set of coherent decisions with a common long-term purpose (Pandit & Biswas,
2019). Here we present the analysis of important policies and acts in the water
sector of Maharashtra.
3.2.1.1.1 Maharashtra State Water Policy 2019 (MSWP-2019)
a) Background and objectives of MSWP-2019: Maharashtra formulated its first water
policy in 2003, which was later revised in 2012. The government of India has also
revised the national water policy made in 2003 and released the revised policy in
2012, with the intent that the states should align their respective state water policies
in accordance with it. Therefore, the State of Maharashtra also revised the earlier
version of 2012 and came up with the State Water Policy in 2019 to align it with
national water policy, international frameworks (mainly water-related SDGs), and
speedily changing water concerns and dynamics. The aim of MSWP-2019 is to inform
and build cooperation in all the line departments, local bodies, and agencies working
for the water sector, industries, and water users regarding their rights, roles, and
responsibilities to achieve specific objectives (GoM, 2019). As mentioned in the
policy, it intends to build resilience to water scarcity and drought, ensure judicious
and strategic sectoral allocation of water among different water use sectors, protect
27
ecosystems, increase productivity and efficiency of water use, and make the
systematic transition from the water resources development to an integrated water
resources management.
b) Strengths of MSWP-2019: MSWP-19 is basically a vision document, and long-term
goals are set to be achieved. It put forward an essential framework for transforming
overall water governance in the state by engaging different stakeholders, strategic
planning, and prioritizing investments. In the policy, groundwater is seen as a
common property of society held in public trust, and protecting ecosystems is at the
policy's centre. Stakeholders' involvement and engagement are considered an
important strategy for building a certain degree of consensus among water users and
stakeholders for achieving a long-term sustainable change. The community is
expected to be effectively involved in planning and managing drinking water supply
and sanitation facilities in urban and rural areas. The significant focus in the policy is
also given to demand management, improving water use efficiency in all water use
sectors, and achieving the objectives of equity, social justice, and sustainability.
Flood management, decision support systems, and forecasting through advanced
scientific tools and ridge to valley watershed development with a scientific approach
are adopted as major interventions. Integrated Water Resource Management
(IWRM), considering the management unit as a basin or sub-basin, is adopted as a
major principle. At the institutional level, the policy also proposes creating the
‘Center of Excellence’ as an autonomous centre with international collaborations to
promote soft skills, research water issues, and evaluate policy decisions.
c) Gaps and deficiencies in the program and recommendations for modification:
Here, we analyze the key provisions in terms of gaps and deficiencies and provide
recommendations to modify them.
Provision 1: The water will be primarily allocated for drinking water purposes
(including domestic water demand), followed by agriculture and agro-based
industries, industries, ecosystems, and recreational and religious purposes [8.2
(ii)].
To achieve the State's economic development, maximizing the value of water and
enhancing the water use efficiency is a must; however, this should not push water
for ecosystems at least priority. ‘Water for ecosystems’ must be the second priority,
next to drinking water. Since the ecosystem is essential for providing the ‘ecosystem
services’ for our survival, unless water for ecosystems and environmental flows is
given priority, there is the danger of collapsing the overall local ecosystem and
threatening the survival of the local inhabitants. This is particularly important in a
climate change context and rising global temperatures, for which Maharashtra is a
hotspot. Therefore, meeting water needs for ecosystems should be given second
priority. This policy prescription needs to be backed by sound scientific evidence and
adequate research to arrive at the water requirements of the ecosystem needs and
environmental flows for landscapes and rivers. Even the priorities of sectoral water
allocation should be flexible enough to decide based on water availability (annual
rainfall may be a deficit, average, or surplus) because fixing it for all time will not be
appropriate as it has to be decided and prioritized on the basis of changing dynamic
water situation in a particular year, such as CGWB and GSDA are issuing the
28
notification for notified areas for groundwater regulations in deficit year. In addition
to this, the rapidly changing political economy in the state, in terms of water
required for the growing area under sugarcane in drought-prone areas of the state,
rapid urbanisation (estimating 50% population soon in India will reside in cities and
town) and growing tertiary sector (IT and service sector, education and hospital
services, which provides huge employment and livelihoods, significantly contributing
to GDP), needs to be kept mind while reprioritising the water priorities.
Provision 2: Water resources planning, development, and management in the State
will be guided by Integrated State Water Plan (ISWP) (8.3), and the water
resources of the State must be planned, developed, and managed with a river
basin and/or sub-basin as the unit, adopting Integrated Water Resources
Management (IWRM) approach (8.4).
IWRM is a universally adopted principle that water resource development and
management needs to be promoted with the integration of soil moisture, surface
water, and groundwater. However, for management purposes, the estimation of
groundwater available has always remained challenging. There are different
methodologies of groundwater estimations, but its precise estimation at the local or
micro scale is challenging. For example, the existing Gravity Recovery and Climate
Experiment (GRACE) tool developed by NASA, estimate the data at the regional level,
and the scale used in the CGWB method for NAQUIM is 1:50000; (CGWB, 2012).
These scales are useful for the larger scenarios but don’t contribute to the program
or smaller scales for actual planning and management purpose. Even the committee
that formulated the Integrated State Water Plan (ISWP) has acknowledged in its
report that ‘despite its best efforts, we could not satisfactorily resolve issues like a
revision of geographical areas of sub-basins & groundwater assessment and
validation of hydrological data’ (GoM, 2017). Hence, groundwater estimation
methodologies must be brought to a smaller scale to make groundwater
management the reality on the ground (for management at implementation) in ISWP
and IWRM. There is a critique of ISWP that it is prepared after the strong push and
follow-up at a legal level by civil society organisations and water experts
(Deshpande, A, 2016); therefore, it has been prepared for the sake of the name,
without its serious cognizance in the state water planning. However, the ISWP has to
be taken seriously by the state.
Provision 3: River Basin Agencies (RBA) shall distribute the bulk water entitlements
to various users within the project-wise sectoral allocation [8.2 (iv)].
Although setting the river basin management is the agenda of the state water policy
since the first version of MSWP-2003, this is not yet in practice. Different existing
Irrigation Development Corporations (IDCs) have been considered river basin
agencies for preparing the ISWP. However, for planning and management purposes,
the basins of the rivers in Maharashtra, such as the Godavari, are so big, and they
flow for hundreds of kilometers throughout the state. Therefore, to make the river
basin management feasible, at a primary level treating a collection of smaller
catchment areas along sub-basins of rivers and also linkages with their aquifers need
to be recognized, and appropriate actions need to be planned. Civil society
organizations have already gained an experience and expertise in micro catchment
29
development, groundwater management, and governance, and hence their role
should be recognized.
Provision 4: To ensure water resources don’t get polluted, the polluter pays
principle shall be adopted [8.5.4)].
To reduce the freshwater demand, the policy proposes that a minimum of 30 % of
the recycled water be reused in the next five years, which is certainly a welcome
move. However, there is enough evidence to show that the ‘polluter's pay principle’
is insufficient to control groundwater contamination from urban sewage and
industrial effluent; instead, it allows industries to first ‘pollute and pay.’ (Sahu, 2020)
Therefore, groundwater contamination should be treated as a punishable offense
(with the provision of imprisonment), and such provisions need to be followed
stringently.
The focus of the provision is on controlling contamination of water bodies and
groundwater from urban sewage and industrial effluent; however, the provision
needs to extend to controlling groundwater contamination by application of heavy
use of chemical fertilizers in agriculture. As since years, fertilizer, mainly for cash
crops, has been applied in huge quantities in the state. This practice is resulting in
many places increasing the amount of nitrate in groundwater sources; therefore, this
issue needs to be addressed in the provision as this will get more severe in the
coming year with increasing commercialized and intensive farming.
Provision 5: The JalYukta Shivar Abhiyan (JSA), Magetl Tyala Shettale (farm ponds),
and Gal Mukta Dharan and Gal Yukta Shivar (GDGS) schemes are to continue to
increase drought resilience.
This is a problematic provision made. These schemes have received a high level of
criticism from water experts and research organisations for the unscientific nature of
their implementation, environmental consequences, and equity issues. Experience
shows the performance of JSA was mainly confined to promoting the deepening and
widening of Nalas and rivers and constructing plastic-lined farm ponds. Many studies
show the negative impacts on local hydrogeology and changing overall water
allocation and equity concerns (SANDRP, 2016). Most importantly, a water expert
filed the PIL on the unscientific nature of JSA a few years ago. The high court
accepted it by appointing the commission for its investigation. Even the present
government (Thackeray government) has ordered an inquiry into the scheme's
implementation and stopped it, claiming irregularities in its implementation
(Hindustan Times, n.d.). Many studies show that the present nature of the farm
pond scheme is problematic in light of the lack of regulation of its number in the
village, size and depth, pulling groundwater to store, and rate of evaporation of
stored groundwater. Thus, few resource-rich farmers privatize groundwater stored
in farm ponds (Bendapudi et al., 2020; Eshwer Kale, 2017). About GDGS, few studies
show that change is required in the scheme to understand the groundwater
recharge potential of the tank before desiltation and ensure that poor farmers
benefit from the desilted soil (Zade et al., 2020). Therefore, scientific studies are
required before promoting these schemes, and clear guidelines have to be
developed to avoid the ill consequences of their implementation to the
environment, hydrogeology, water allocation, and equitable water distribution,
considering water as a ‘public trust.’
30
Provision 6: In watershed development, works/schemes, entitlement/right on the
augmented groundwater recharge will be treated as a common right of
beneficiaries in the watershed [12(vii)].
As the major expenditure on watershed interventions and projects comes from
public money, the increased groundwater, as a benefit of such projects, needs to be
treated as a common right. Therefore, the proposed provision is welcome and
appreciable. Further, the provision mentioned that beneficiaries should provide an
undertaking stating clearly that they would share the benefits obtained from the
watershed development works, and such undertaking must be taken before
selecting the watershed for the development. Certainly, this is a required approach,
but receiving such an undertaking from the community and ensuring that villagers,
mainly large irrigators, follow it is challenging, given the mindset of people treating
groundwater as private property. This challenging provision has to be piloted on a
small scale only after the lesson learned from this pilot should be applied at the state
level. Otherwise, this may hamper and delay the state's watershed development
process. Most importantly, this provision should be a part of the Integrated
Watershed Development Program (IWMP) guidelines, as this is the umbrella
program in watershed development in the country and, thus, in Maharashtra.
Provision 7: Flood management strategies and an emergency plan to mitigate and
manage each flood-prone area will be developed (13).
The detailed provision discusses developing the decision support system (DSS) for
flood forecasting in flood-prone areas and an SMS-based flood alert system. Still,
flood prevention and risk-reduction measures must be taken at different levels. In
the background of the recent massive and devastating floods in the Sangli and
Kolhapur (in 2019 and 2021) districts of Maharashtra, the management of dams
(their systematic and regular supervision and maintenance) was noted as a serious
concern that needs improvement. Most importantly, a focus on treating the entire
catchment area of dams is necessary. This ensures that on days of heavy rainfall,
these catchments hold enough surface water and recharge the groundwater (aquifer
storage) in the catchments of dams. Moreover, in the background of climate change,
as changes in precipitation behaviour are projected in terms of erratic and heavy
rains in a short period in a few regions, the catchment development of dams for
flood control becomes more relevant.
c) Additional Provision and measures required in MSWP-2019
Provision 1: Appreciation and incentivization for villages for making good efforts to
improve local water governance: In MSWP-2019, no provision has been made, or a
framework adopted for intensive the village communities for making good efforts for
overall water resource development and management and improve the level of
water governance towards sustainable and judicious water use in their villages. Lack
of appreciation and incentivization results in lower interest or no motivation for
taking the initiative to villagers and their negligence towards maintaining the
structures created. For a similar purpose, the central government has already come
up with the Composite Water Management Index (CWMI), developed by NITI Aayog
for states that assess the supply and demand side of water management and cover
governance aspects resulting in an index of state-wise performance. MSWP-19
should take cognizance of this, and the CWMI, which assesses the state-level
31
performance, needs to be further customized and tested at the district level for
greater applicability. The periodic assessment of this index at the district level will
help decide the investment priorities for water resource development and
management. In a similar line, at the village level system of appreciation for villages
performing better in water governance has to be established. For this purpose,
WOTR has developed a ‘Water Governance Standard and Certification System’ to
incentivize villagers to adopt good behaviour and better water management
practices. Based on the village performance, the certificates get issued to the villages
(Yadav & Kale, 2020). Such an incentivization framework for villages to do better
needs to be adopted in the MSWP-2019.
d) Concluding comment: Although the framework put forward in MSWP-2019 is an
important vision and destination to be reached, the how-to strategies to
operationalize the set objectives and time-bounded process for achieving them are
not presented and discussed. Even though the violation of provisions mentioned in
the policy cannot be challenged in the judiciary similar to law, and there is no
obligation on the state to implement provisions of MSWP-2019, setting such policy
or long-term goal is vital to lead the present course of actions of different actors.
However, to reach the set goal, some guidelines on ‘who’ and how’ (fixing or
allocating clear responsibilities and functions to agencies and detailed procedures)
need to be clearly specified. This is important because a look at the history of water
resource development and management in the state reveals that despite having
earlier versions of MSWP-2019 (such as 2003 and 2012), the result and outcomes of
the policy document are not very encouraging.
3.1.2.1.2 Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009
(MGDMA-2009)
a) Background and objectives of MGDMA-2009: Intending to address the gaps in
earlier Maharashtra Groundwater Act-1993 (MGA-1993), in the year 2013,
Maharashtra brought into force a new groundwater law, MGDMA-2009, with a
broader scope, covering an entire spectrum of functions related to development and
management of groundwater resource. While removing the lacunas in MGA-1993
and protecting drinking water sources on the one hand and promoting optimum
utilization of groundwater for irrigation in a sustainable manner, the State
Government rebuilt this Act and formulated the MGDMA-2009. The specific policy
objectives mentioned in the Act are (i) ensuring a sustainable and adequate supply of
groundwater for different needs, (ii) ensuring the balance between the groundwater
recharge and its exploitation, (iii) making the regulatory mechanism more effective
in managing groundwater in over-exploited and critical watershed areas, and (iv)
provide an institutional framework to ensure community participation which was
absent in MGA-1993 (GoM, 2013).
b) Strengths of the MGDMA-2009, several policy provisions are made into the
MGDMA-2009 To achieve these objectives and align the behaviour of groundwater
users. The key policy provisions proposed in the Act are (i) ban on construction of
the deep well, and applying cess on groundwater withdrawal from existing deep
wells, (ii) Prohibition on sinking new wells in the area of influence of public drinking
32
water sources, (iii) Implementation of aquifer based groundwater use plan, (iv)
Registration of all owners and drilling agencies, (v) Mandatory permission for sinking
a new well, and (vi) Mandatory crop planning based on sustainable groundwater use.
Thus, the Act has come with very strong teeth of strict regulations where many
experts realized the need for such a command and control Act to control
groundwater use behaviour in the state. The important strength of the Act is seen in
its participatory institutional framework, which was absent in earlier laws. To plan
and enforce these provisions on the ground, the MGDMA-2009 has proposed a few
new Governing Agencies (GAs) and empowered and strengthened a few existing
agencies to carry out delegated responsibilities. Through this Act, for the first time in
Maharashtra, a state-level groundwater authority is created, and this role is assigned
to MWRRA. The provision is also made for taking additional members in MWRRA for
this purpose. For the priority of regulation, the overall area is distributed in notified
and non-notified areas (depending on the level of groundwater depletion). The State
Groundwater Authority is responsible for implementing the Act, and the District
Authority has given the overall regulatory functions. Watershed Water Resource
Committee (WWRC) and Gram panchayat are proposed to prepare and implement
prospective crop plans based on groundwater availability. The function of granting or
refusing permission for sinking new wells in their jurisdiction is given to WWRC or
Gram panchayat, the local level institutions.
c) Gaps and deficiencies in the Act and recommendations for modification
Provision 1: Construction of well below 60 meters for agriculture and industrial
usage is banned in notified as well as non-notified areas [8 (1)]: The factor of high
variation in elevation is important within and between villages, micro and macro
watersheds, and different regions as Maharashtra have a diverse typology. Given this
fact, what level (elevation) the depth of wells will be considered to measure (up to
60 meters) is not clarified in the provision because, with this provision, farmers in
the upper reach would have a natural disadvantage. In contrast, farmers in the lower
reach or valley portion would get more advantage to go much deeper (Kale, 2018).
Even limiting the depth of the well is unfair and unjust to small and marginal farmers
and potentially new groundwater users because the deep bore wells are seen as an
easy, quick, and less expensive option by farmers. In contrast, the provision does the
grandfathering of existing deep well owners by restricting potential new farmers.
Therefore, to control groundwater extraction, we suggest limiting the area under
irrigation and groundwater use by different management, and technological
measures should be adopted as the key strategy. If the state finds the current
provision as non-negotiable, then written permission of Gram Panchayat should be
mandatory to take permission to drilling agencies for drilling bore wells in the village
administrative boundary, and it should be treated as a punishable offence for drilling
agencies to drill below than proposed depth in the Act, and not simply targeting
farmers.
Provision 2: In non-notified areas, there is a provision for enforcing the levy of cess
on groundwater withdrawal from deep wells (more than 60 meters) [8 (3)]: In the
Deccan trap of Maharashtra, in many villages, there are a handful of borewells that
yield water for 24 hours daily with full pressure; hence the water yield of such
33
borewells is very low (Kale, 2018). Therefore, it will be unfair and unfeasible to
uniformly apply this rule to all bore wells that extract groundwater below 60 meters.
Moreover, there is no clarity on why this provision is made applicable for only the
non-notified area and not for notified areas, where it is more required. As discussed
above, the issues related to the elevation of borewells are also applicable here,
where borewell owners in the upper reaches get forced to extract groundwater from
much deeper than borewell owners in the valley portion. The biggest challenge in
applying this provision is monitoring its violation. The concerned agency/authority
has to practically ensure the depth of bore wells because there is less possibility that
bore well owners will share the details of the exact depth of their bore wells. Hence,
the application of the provision is problematic and unfair. Therefore, this provision
needs to be canceled. In case the authorities find the application of this provision
non-negotiable, the low-yielding bore wells should be exempted from the levy of
cess irrespective of their depth. As an alternative, the levy of cess should be based
on the area under irrigation by the deep wells (and not just based on the depth of
bore wells).
Provision 3: Watershed Water Resource Committee (WWRC) will be formed in
notified areas, and it will comprise more than 11 villages [29 (1)]: The uniform logic
behind arriving at the number of more than 11 villages as geographical jurisdiction
for WWRC is not clear and justified in the Act. The Act mentions that the
groundwater will be managed at the aquifer level by making groundwater-use plans,
the villages that fall in the common aquifer can differ in numbers, and the number
varies depending on local hydrogeology. As WWRC will be comprised mainly of
bureaucrats and elected political leaders, there will be less possibility of active
community participation and their role in decision-making. No active involvement of
local people in WWRC will hamper the preparation and implementation of the
proposed prospective crop plans and regulate the local groundwater resource. Even
though there are no experiences and evidence where such a governing agency
comprising multiple villages has successfully regulated even the surface water
resource, managing invisible groundwater resources shared by multiple villages, will
be challenging. Even the Water Users Associations (WUAs), which have been
aggressively promoted since 2005 in the state through a special Act in Maharashtra
to manage water for irrigation from canals by farmers, have not had very
encouraging experiences, despite a few handfuls of cases. Given this reality, the
proposed bureaucratization and politicization of WWRC should be avoided by
limiting the number of officials and political representatives in it. Along with this,
village-level members should get chances for WWRC office bearers, such as the
chairperson and secretary.
Provision 4: In notified areas, prospective crop plans based on the groundwater
use plan will be made by WWRC. Non-observance of these plans by farmers shall
be deemed a cognizable offense. In the non-notified areas, preparation and
implementation of water accounts, water budgets, and aquifer-based groundwater
plans will be made by Gram panchayats [10]: There are no extensive and successful
pilots of the prospective plans at the aquifer level, which is shared by multiple
villages where people can visit and get motivated (E. B. Kale, 2018). There is less
possibility of estimating the precise amount of groundwater availability in a shared
34
aquifer for planning purposes. As such plans have to come with strategies for
reducing the groundwater use of large groundwater users or farmers who irrigate
perineal crops, there is less possibility that such farmers will come forward and
cooperate with such plans. Experiences show that even in a village, few powerful
farmers do not follow crop plans made by the village and extract more groundwater,
affecting the interest of farmers who sincerely follow the plans. The possible danger
in proposed aquifer mapping is how communities will apply and utilize newly
generated knowledge of identified aquifers and groundwater stock. This exercise
may disclose the hidden sources of groundwater stocks to resource-hungry people.
Village level committees cannot avoid groundwater mining and monopoly in
proposed identified aquifers by resource-rich persons (Eshwer Kale, 2013). Hence,
pilot-level implementation of prospective crop plans based on groundwater
availability is necessary at an extensive scale to showcase its practicability on the
ground. To ensure equitable share to each family in the villages/watersheds, clear
criteria should be developed and specified for proposed crop plans to allow area
under specific crops and irrigation, irrespective of families' land ownership.
Therefore, all water use in the village-it may be surface or groundwater-should be
treated as equal and should come under the purview of this provision. Practically,
prospective crop plans should be made and proposed on the scale of micro-
watershed (1000 to 1500 hectares), which is more feasible. In practice, aquifer
mapping exercises of villages and institutional and capacity building of people for
sustainable use of these aquifers must go hand in hand.
d) Additional provisions and measures required in MGDMA-2009: Along with the
above-discussed modifications in existing provisions in the MGDMA-2009, the
ground level water dynamics indicate an important need for following new
additional policy provisions of the Act, which are either missed or not fully
understood while framing the Act.
Provision 1: Nala and river deepening: Activities of Shirpur or Khanapurkar pattern
of deepening, widening, and straightening existing streams and rivers to store and
recharge more rainwater to increase groundwater availability are promoted and
under promotion in many villages and streams. Even such work is being taken
aggressively by the state and many NGOs, CSRs, and religious/spiritual organisations.
However, many experts have raised concerns about the dangers of applying this
pattern, which changes the local hydro-geology of the surrounding area and changes
in water allocation in downstream villages (Joy, 2015). Hence, the activities of the
Shirpur or Khanapurkar pattern in the proposed areas should be taken only after the
detailed environmental (and specifically hydro-geological) assessment of
interventions in the area, along with an assessment of changes in water allocation in
downstream areas and the provision for the same needs to be made in MGDMA-
2009.
Provision 2: Storing groundwater in farm ponds should be banned: To achieve the
conjunctive use of surface and groundwater to deal with water shortage and more
income, farm ponds are seen as a popular strategy by farmers (Prasad et al., 2022).
The state aggressively promotes the construction farm pond strategy under the
‘Magel Tyala Shet-tale’ scheme and the employment guarantee scheme (EGS).
35
However, in practice, large farm ponds are being constructed rapidly everywhere,
even in water-stressed areas. For storing water in them, pond users are extracting
huge amounts of groundwater, resulting in almost empty aquifers and allowing
pravastatin of groundwater (Eshwer Kale, 2017). Farm ponds' rapidly changing
groundwater dynamics must be adequately understood as a new irrigation source.
Hence, storing water in farm ponds by extracting groundwater should be prohibited
in notified areas and overexploited zones, declared by GSDA, and regulated its size
and numbers. In addition, as a provision in the Act is made to register all wells in the
state, all farm ponds also need to be registered under the Act.
Provision 3. Need for regulating the area under sugarcane in drought-prone areas:
Although sugarcane is a very water-intensive crop, the area under sugarcane
cultivation is steadily increasing in even water-scarce areas, such as the Marathwada
region, in the state. As a result, although more than 50% of the state is drought-
prone, Maharashtra is one of the highest sugarcane-producing states. There are
certain pockets in the state where sugarcane is being cultivated through
groundwater, supplemented by canal irrigation. Hence, in MGDMA-2009, a provision
has to be made that sugarcane cultivation should be strictly prohibited in declared
over-exploited watersheds/areas and notified areas for groundwater use.
Provision 4: Incentives for groundwater saving and efficiency: The overall
framework of the Act is based on the regulation of groundwater by commands,
punishment, and penalties. Few groundwater-using farmers expressed their
willingness to reduce their groundwater use, but they don’t find any incentives for
reducing their use, which discourages them. Hence, there should be some type of
economic incentives/mechanisms of payments for ‘ecosystem services’ for less
groundwater use, encouraging such users to use less groundwater. Such incentives
may be from good market rates to fewer water incentives for crops, lowering seed
and fertilizers costs for such crops, concession in or rationing of electricity for less
groundwater using farmers (metered electricity supply for irrigation), etc.
Provision 5: The interpectoral approach needed: Managing groundwater has been
seen in silos (‘hydro-schizophrenia’) in the MGDMA-2009, and its important link with
water-food-energy-land-market-climate is not addressed. Many experts have the
consensus that unless these links are appropriately addressed, the objective of
sustainable groundwater use cannot be achieved. Therefore, the Act must adopt an
inter-sectoral approach to reduce extraction of groundwater for irrigation which
should precisely focus on a) good MSP to rainfed or non-irrigated crops, b)
promotion and subsidy for increasing soil health practices, and maintaining the
primary productivity of the soil, c) ensuring that promotion of energy subsidies and
promotion of solar pumps does not negatively affect on the aquifers by extracting
more groundwater, and d) balancing supply-side interventions, focusing mainly
managed aquifer recharge (MAR), recognizing that the aquifers will be an essential
buffer for communities to deal with changing monsoon pattern in the context of
climate change.
e) Concluding comment: Overall, the MGDMA-2009 may be more robust if it regulates
all water use in an integrated manner and adopts an inter-sectoral approach. Even
36
important provisions proposed in the Act need an extensive pilot to assure that
these provisions are suitable for all agro-climatic and hydro-geological regions and
will provide an opportunity for appropriate changes in them. More importantly, the
Act needs to be essentially assured that it truly addresses the issues related to the
normative concerns of equity and justice, gender, participation, sustainability, and
ecosystem integration with the added concern of climate change. Considering the
importance and urgency of implementing MGDMA-2009, there is an urgent need to
approve and notify the Act's operational rules, as they have been in draft mode for
more than seven years since the Act was passed in 2013. If the operative part is not
in place, the Acts and Laws remain on paper; thus, as rightly mentioned by Pradeep
Purandare (Purandare, 2015), incomplete legal processes make regulation
impossible, finally helping free-riders.
3.2.1.1.3 The Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Authority Act-2005 (MWRRA-
2005)
a) Background and objectives of the Act: The Maharashtra Water Resources
Regulatory Authority is formed under the MWRRA-2005. It was the first-ever quasi-
judicial Independent Regulatory Authority (IRA) in India’s water sector, and many
Indian states adopted this model after that. The formation of MWRRA was mainly
influenced by the guidelines given by the World Bank, where the fundamental
principles laid down were of collecting a water-use fee or tariff for meeting the cost
of operation and maintenance of the irrigation projects. In addition, the principles
promoted water as an economic good by ensuring more tradable water rights and
entitlements to water users (Dandekar, 2016). As mentioned in the MWRRA-2005,
the regulatory authority created under this Act is set to fulfil the objectives of (i)
Regulation of Maharashtra's water resources, (ii) facilitating and ensuring the
judicious, equitable, and sustainable management, allocation, and utilization of
water resources, (iii) deriving the rates for water utilization for drinking, agricultural,
industrial and other purposes. The 2005 Act was amended in 2016.
b) Strengths of the Act: During the different political regimes in the state for the last
one and a half-decade, the MWRRA as an independent authority has been sustained,
and functioning is a very positive sign as this was the first effort to introduce ILR in
the water sector in the country. With the introduction of MWRRA for the first time in
the state, wider participation and discussion were seen in public hearings and
consultations on setting the bulk water tariffs where earlier such processes were
taken behind closed doors. The composition of the authority is also expert-centric. It
has been delegated significant powers of regulating the water sector and project
approvals; this authority's important power, which makes it unique, is its quasi-
judicial status. The Authority has the power to hear the different cases, appeals, and
petitions on water issues in the state, such as a regional imbalance in water
allocation or water deprivation to tail-enders in the canal system, etc., and give the
judgments. At the same time, the authority can decide on equitable water sharing on
sub-basin and river-basin water allocation and transfers. Although water is a very
sensitive and politicized resource, and there is a popular mindset against its pricing,
whatever progress the MWRRA has made in developing a framework for setting
water tariff and pushing it by reviewing and modifying roughly after every three
37
years is an appreciable task and achievement. Although authorities gave few
judgments, such as mandatory drip irrigation for cash crops, which are not fully
implemented, they have captured the significant attention of different actors in the
water sector.
c) Gaps and deficiencies in the Act and recommendations for modification: Following
gaps and weaknesses are necessary for improving the effectiveness of MWRRA.
Provision 1: Dependence of MWRRA on Water Resource Department (WRD) for its
composition and funding: As the MWRRA is expected to be independent regularity
authority and function independently, its structural and composition aspects also
should be independent in true nature. More importantly, as WRD is one of the
important departments and agencies in the state regarding water resources,
MWRRA should have the independence to evaluate and regulate decisions taken by
WRD. However, MWRRA is highly dependent on WRD for different reasons. WRD has
a decisive role in the appointments of the Secretary, Members, and Chairman of
MWRRA. Even after the closure of initial support by the World Bank, government
funds to MWRRA are channelised through WRD. Even the amended MWRRA Act in
2016, says ‘when the Authority cannot be reconstituted for whatsoever reason, the
powers, functions, and duties of the Authority may be exercised, performed, and
discharged by a Committee to be appointed by the Government.’ This committee
will consist of persons holding the post of the Additional Chief Secretary or
equivalent who shall act as a Chairperson and the Secretary from Water Resources
Management and Command Area Development and Water WRD. For the last few
years, the chairperson position of the Authority and member for groundwater
resources have been vacant, and at present out of 10 directors (at different levels),
six positions are vacant. The lack of adequate members on board affects the
independent and active functioning of MWRRA. Thus, the above dependence of
MWRRA on WRD is a severe lacuna as it results in a paradox of who is regulating
whom? Whether MWRRA regulates the WRD and state water resources or WRD
regulates MWRRA by selecting members on authority and providing funding. To
improve this functioning, MWRRA needs to be delinked from WRD, and should be
linked with either State Water Board or State Water Council. In addition, MWRRA
should receive some percentage of funds directly from the annual state budget to
ensure that it functions independently.
Provision 2: Apart from the chairperson and four members, there will be five
special invitees, each one from 5 river basins [4.1 (D)]: According to this provision,
in authority, in addition to four members, five invitees from different river basins (
with a woman member) will be appointed. However, even after one and half
decades, no such invitees are selected as part of the authority. Hence, there is a
significant need to improve and address the delays in selecting members of the
authority and invitee members to make the authority fully functional.
Provision 3: To review and clear water resources projects proposed at the sub-
basin and river basin level, the Authority has to ensure that a proposal conforms
with Integrated State Water Plan (ISWP) [11 (F)]: The provision in the Act is made
that within one year of the formation of Authority, ISWP will be made, and the state
38
water board and the state water council will initiate this process of preparing ISWP.
This plan was very important because the provision made is that MWRRA will clear
the irrigation projects at basin and sub-basin levels with the conformity of the ISWP.
Practically, it took almost 14 years to prepare and finalize the ISWP as it was
completed and formally released in 2019. Even there was a strong push by the
judiciary to complete the ISWP in response to public interest litigation (PIL) filed by
Prof Pradeep Purandare in the Aurangabad bench of the Bombay high court in
October 2014. In response to the PIL, the high court declared 191 projects illegal,
which MWRRA cleared in the absence of ISWP (Purohit, 2016; Deshpande, 2016).
The court has also ordered that no administrative approval should be given to new
projects till the preparation of ISWP. This move expedited the preparation of the
ISWP process. To avoid such a problematic situation and not get it repeated, the
authority has to function transparently and professionally to deliver the time-
bounded outcomes.
Provision 4: Water charges shall be based on the full recovery of the cost of the
irrigation management, administration, operation, and maintenance of the water
resources project [11 (D)], and quotas of water determined to entitlement by
authority may be transferred, bartered, bought or sold on the annual or seasonal,
basis within a market system [11 (i)]: The concept of water entitlement applied in
the Act is market-driven, rather than considering it as a human right and
fundamental right orientated. Water is seen as a fundamental right by the Indian
constitution under the right to life under article 21 (Narain, 2009; S Wagle et al.,
2009). Once this precious and life-giving resource gets treated as an economic and
tradeable community, certainly the resource-poor and those whose purchasing
capacity is low get disadvantaged in access to adequate water. Even as canal water
access is linked to operational ownership land, the tribal cultivating lands for years
but not with land titles get disadvantaged in access to water. The biggest victims of
promoting the water market are the ecosystems, flora, and fauna; these are silent
actors, and water for their sustenance is perceived as uneconomic. Therefore while
fixing tariffs, a certain quota of water for all should be allowed for free, ensuring
water for basic livelihoods and ecosystem needs. After that, it should be charged on
a pro-rata basis, similar to electricity charges (minimal charges for certain units and
then increased charge per unit).
Provision 5: Authority and Dispute Resolution Officer have the “powers as are
vested in a civil court, under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (13), and it has been
categorically mentioned that “No Court shall take cognizance of an offense
punishable under this Act except upon a complaint, in writing made by the
Authority or by any other officer duly authorized by the Authority for this purpose”
(29): With this provision, MWRRA, as an authority, has given independent power to
give judgments and orders to regulate the overall water resource in the state. Using
this provision, the data on the MWRRA website shows that the authority has passed
a few orders and notifications on complaints raised before it. However, the data
shows that the nature of judgments and orders is mostly confined to the issues
related to managing irrigation projects and transferring the water from one project
to another. The observations show that MWRRA has not exercised this important
power as a quasi-judicial authority to transform the water sector in the state. It was
39
evident that cropping patterns in groundwater stress regions (such as sugarcane in
Marathwada) is one of the reasons for water scarcity and desertification. There are
numerous suggestions to bring all sugarcane cultivation under drips. Still, MWRRA
has not taken any radical measures on this. Even in water scarcity and drought years,
transferring water from one basin to another and one project to another becomes
crucial for drinking and livelihood purposes. If these decisions are not taken
smoothly, it creates conflict in different regions, but Authority has not actively taken
the initiative to address the equity issues (Purandare, 2013). With Maharashtra
Groundwater (Development and Management) Act-2009, MWRRA has been given
the additional responsibility of ‘State Groundwater Authority’; however, except few
notifications, no serious efforts have been seen from MWRRA to operationalize and
implement the Act. Even the operational rules of the 2009 Act are not yet finalized,
and they are still in draft mode. No doubt, MWRRA has numerous challenges to
execute its power of quasi-judicial authority, such as the less political will of state
leadership to transform the water sector or take favorable decisions or not to take
decisions as well as interdepartmental dynamics, but the authority has to find ways
and means to improve its performance and put the right path for other states, as this
was the first initiative in the country to set independent regularity authority (IRA) in
the water sector.
c) Concluding statement: Being a first-ever quasi-judicial IRA in India’s water sector,
MWRRA has certainly made remarkable progress. The feedback mechanism available
through public hearings and its quasi-judicial status make MWRRA a unique policy
intervention. However, to make it more independent in its functioning, it has to
delink from WRD, with the provision of the fund in the annual state budget. Even the
political will to strengthen the authority is crucial as its members and chairperson
posts have been vacant for many years. If the MWRRA receives independence in its
functioning, it certainly has the huge potential to transform the state water sector,
but the situation indicates that it has to go a long way to achieve this.
3.2.1.1.4 Maharashtra Management of Irrigation Systems by Farmers Act-2005 (MMISF-
2005)
a) Background and objectives of Act: The practice of participatory irrigation
management (PIM) is not new to Maharashtra. It can be traced back to the 16th
century, when the Phad system was prevalent in North-Western Maharashtra (Singh
et al., 2018). Later, several cooperatives emerged to manage irrigation water with
the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 and Maharashtra Irrigation Act,
1976. However, the concept of ‘Water Users Associations (WUA)’ reflecting the
participatory irrigation management (PIM) did not penetrate at a large scale. Hence
the demand for a new Act promoting the PIM was slowly growing. Besides, around
2005, the Maharashtra State got a loan from the World Bank for Maharashtra Water
Sector Improvement Project (World Bank, n.d.). However, the key condition for this
loan was the introduction of reforms in the irrigation sector of Maharashtra. In this
background, the Government of Maharashtra enacted the MMISF-2005 to provide a
legal framework for the existing and forthcoming WUAs. The MMISF-2005 was
modified in May 2013. The broad objectives set for the act, as mentioned in MMISF-
2005, are (i) to increase the actual utilization of irrigation water; (ii) better utilization
40
of surface and groundwater by effectively managing the distribution, deliver
application, and drainage irrigation systems; and (iii) increase the farmers'
participation by giving them the statutory recognition and thereby improving the
agricultural productivity.
b) Strengths of MMISF Act: MMISF Act provides a legal framework and statutory status
to the WUAs; thus, the Act has made a valuable provision for farmers' participation
in PIM. The PIM framework promoted by the Act has been an important transition in
central decision-making by WRD and full power to bureaucrats, mainly irrigation
engineers, towards a participatory approach by engaging farmer communities in
managing irrigation projects and water service delivery. Although there are many
difficulties, few successful WUAs have shown that the Act supports systematically
making irrigation available to farmers and overall transfer or handing over of
irrigation projects to WUAs for operation & maintenance, and management. The
positive open space in the Act of establishing widespread operational ownership by
farming communities over local water reservoirs is one of the biggest strengths of
the framework provided by this Act, along with space for farmers and WRD officials
to work together and build trust among each other. The Act has also resulted in
better recovery of water use charges by farmers in command areas through WUAs.
c) Gaps and deficiencies in the Act and modifications recommendations: According to
a recent study by TISS, until 2021, Maharashtra has 2880 WUAs, covering around
23% developed command area (Tiwale, Kale & Bhasme, 2021). This indicates there is
still a long way to go to bring the remaining 87% of the command area in the state
under participatory irrigation management (PIM) through the governance and
regulation of WUAs.
Provision 1: All the landowners and occupiers become a member once the WUA
command area of the WUA is notified [Section 8 (1)].
The basic difference between the Cooperative Society’s Act 1960 and MMISF Act-
2005 is that in the 1960 Act, the membership of the WUA was voluntary, whereas, in
the MMISF-2005, it has become compulsory. This mandatory membership and thus
formed General Body lacks the motivation for participation. Members generally
hesitate to take up the responsibility as they don’t have empathy towards the
association. Therefore, the WUAs failed to emerge as an organisation representing
all farmers. In the case of the Cooperative Act-1960, as the membership was
voluntary, the process of formation of WUA generally involved the coming together
of like-minded people who used to motivate others, and thus there was a sense of
belongingness leading to the active participation of people. Even after one and a half
decades of enacting the MMISF Act-2005, as per the data of the Directorate of
Irrigation Research and Development (DIRD), around 25% WUAs registered under
the Cooperative Societies Act-1960 are not yet registered under MMISF Act-2005
(Tiwale S et al., 2021). The same study also shows that most farmers involved were
not made aware of the concept of PIM and the role, authorities, and responsibilities
of WUAs and their member farmers.
Provision 2: Appropriate representation should be given to the women members
of the Managing Committee [Section 9 (3)]: The Act clearly mentions the
representation of women in the Managing Committee of WUAs. However, in reality,
41
the ownership or the occupancy of the land in Maharashtra is in the name of the
male member of the family. As a result, though actively involved in agriculture, the
women cannot become part of the WUA (S. Kulkarni, 2011). A recent study by the
Tata Institute of Social Sciences reveals that, in 7% of cases, the managing committee
did not have any women representation, and around 60% of the handed-over WUAs
did not have any women chairperson, despite the MMISF Act reserves a two-year
term for women chairperson in the six-year tenure of the managing committee
(Tiwale S et al., 2021). To improve the women's participation, it is recommended
that anyone from the family of the landowner or occupier can become a member of
the WUA, or the automatic membership to one of the women of the family should
be given if the family has land ownership. Even wider observations show that only
appointing women to the managing committee of WUA was not enough; the
capacities of women farmers need to be built (S. Kulkarni, 2011). Additionally, the
WUA and the relevant WRD staff need to be sensitized about the role of women
farmers in this process, ensuring adequate gender balance while appointing staff for
executing PIM in WRD.
Provision 3: The WUA should be provided with a functional measuring device, and
the water should be provided to the WUA based on a volumetric basis [23 (1) and
26 (1)]: The WUAs are expected to take full charge of irrigation service delivery,
including distributing water, collecting water tariffs, and maintaining canal
infrastructure. The study made by TISS indicates that 35% of handed-over WUAs
were not performing their given task of irrigation management. The act clearly
mentions that every WUA should be provided with functional measuring devices to
ensure the volumetric water supply. However, the quality of water measuring
devices was observed very poor (Tiwale S et al., 2021). Few water experts rightly
shared that the state has a very poor canal network and capable devices in the
command area (PTI, 2019). As a result, the proposed volumetric water supply to
many of the WUAs remains on paper. Therefore, as WUAs depend heavily on the
WRD for these functions, and WRD controls sources, canal water flow, and a large
part of the infrastructure, WRD has to invest resources to repair and improve canal
instruments and infrastructure for better canal water management.
Provision 4: The Lift Irrigation WUA shall not lift water directly from the main
canal, and it shall be made available by flow under gravity through an arrangement
in the intake well built by the Lift Irrigation WUA at their own cost [Section 46]:
For farmers residing at higher elevations where gravity flow from the canal is not
possible, the provision of forming lift irrigation WUA is provided in the Act. However,
such lift irrigation WUAs are expected to invest on a very higher side. It is expected
that the provision of intake well should be made by lift irrigation WUA at their own
cost; besides, WUAs are expected to provide, install, maintain and calibrate water
meters for flow measurement at their own cost. Even all expenditure for installation,
organisation, and maintenance of the overall lift irrigation scheme (including heavy
electricity bills) is expected to be borne by these WUAs. These conditions discourage
such WUAs and therefore require huge support from WRD for taking loans from the
private sector for installing such lift irrigation schemes and encouraging subsidy
mechanisms in loans.
42
d) Additional Provisions and Measures required in MMISF Act-2005
Following two sets of additional policies, measures are recommended in the Act.
Provision 1: Approach and mechanism of integrated water management: As per the
MMISF Act- 2005, the WRD is supposed to provide irrigation service following the
principle of volumetric measurement to improve water use efficiency. However, the
ground situation is that a significant number of farmers in the command use
percolated canal water, i, e, groundwater, and these farmers and the corresponding
irrigated area remain unaccounted for. Experiences show that more than two-thirds
of farmers are accessing groundwater recharged through canals and minors.
Although the Act says the WUA has the right to levy the charges on the use of
groundwater, no specifications and further detailing regarding this is mentioned in
Act, the same is in the case of large size farm ponds where its owners are lifting
water from canal water to store it in ponds. Hence, there is a specific need for
guidelines for deciding the groundwater charges and conjunctively managing canal
water and groundwater.
At the institutional level, the ‘water and sanitation committee’ roles at the village
level and the WUA function separately. In many villages, even there are ‘Village
Watershed Management Committee’ formed under the IWMP and other watershed
programs; therefore, there is the possibility of multiple organisations working in the
same village to solve the common problem of water resource management. Hence,
there is a need for integration of all these committees and organizations and make a
single integrated committee to look after the drinking and irrigation water; surface
and groundwater; as well as aquifer recharge and watershed treatment, because
these issues can’t be seen and addressed in silos and the WUA could very well fit in
this role. Incidentally, in Atal Bhujal Yojana, the WUA as an institution is promoted by
strengthening existing water supply and sanitation committees in villages. The
overall concept of WUA in the Act as well the practice is made centric on water
access for irrigation and water use efficiency, but as a water resource is one of the
vital connectors of ecosystem health, the WUA members should be trained and
empowered to manage and adapt the practices suitable for their local environment,
promoting the healthy local ecosystems.
Provision 2: More emphasis is needed on capacity building: More emphasis should
be given to capacity building at different levels. The training should start right from
the notification of the WUA’s in the command area so that the people will be well
informed about the detailed process of WUA formation & functioning and also they
will be technically sound to measure their water supply on a volumetric basis right
on the day of handover of irrigation project to the WUA. Thus, the WUAs need to be
empowered such that it becomes the sole organisation that manages the canal
water, groundwater, and other water resources (ponds and streams) within the
command area. Equitable access to farmers of canal water is not well addressed. The
Act just mentions it as a function of WUA to ensure equitable water distribution to
farmers, but no further checks and details have been made in the Act. To ensure
institutional sustainability, the WUA needs to move beyond irrigation service
delivery and engage in activities providing additional agricultural-related services.
These activities need to include agro-advisories, access to credit, inputs, advanced
technology, processing of farm produce, and market linkage.
43
For meaningful participation of the WUA, office bearers and the member farmers in
the PIM process, significant efforts are required towards their capacity building. The
WRD needs to empanel professional organisations, including NGOs, to support
WUAs for the initial phase. For efficient implementation of PIM, WRD needs to
change its staffing policy. WRD requires professionals trained in the interdisciplinary
disciplines belonging to the domain of agriculture, geohydrology, agricultural
engineering, social sciences, data management, GIS, and instrumentation to manage
irrigation systems and successful implementation of PIM efficiently.
e) Concluding comments: The MMISF Act-2005 is important in promoting PIM and
farmers’ involvement, and the few successful cases have shown its limited success.
However, significant modifications are required in the Act to increase the knowledge
and capacity of farmers as well as WRD officials on the ground at different levels,
address the village water issue in an integrated manner, and create a more inclusive
composition of WUAs with improving canal infrastructure before handing over
irrigation project to the WUAs. At the same time, delays or non-execution of
agreements with WUAs by project authorities needs to be well addressed. As rightly
agreed in Maharashtra State Water Policy 2019, the process of delineation and
handing over command areas to WUAs is very slow due to a lack of funds for
carrying out restoration & rehabilitation of the distribution system, canals and
minors (GoM, 2019), which need to be improved on a priority basis. Given these
facts, there is also a growing concern in water experts and activists that WRD is
purposefully putting a poor focus on the capacity building and strengthening of
WUAs because by showcasing the existing model of WUAs is least viable or weak,
WRD intends to push the contractors (private service providers) in supplying canal
water to farmers.
3.2.1.1 Analysis of the state-level programs
Government programs provide an important medium for the state to translate
policies and priorities into actions. Therefore, the objective diagnosis of different
government programs in the state's water sector is crucial to review. The analysis
provides shades of their benefits, strengths, unintended consequences, gaps, and
recommendations to make them more appropriate.
3.2.1.1.1 Integrated Watershed Management Program (IWMP)
a) Background and Objectives: Integrated and participatory watershed development
and management emerged as the cornerstone of rural development in India's dry
and semi-arid regions. These programs initially focused on arresting soil erosion in
catchments of large and medium reservoirs but gradually grew in scope. As a result,
watershed development became one of the largest interventions in the country in
terms of scale, resource allocation, and agencies (Eshwer Kale, 2020). To remove the
gaps in earlier Programs, such as Drought Prone Area Program (DPAP) and Desert
Development Program (DDP), Hanumantha Rao Committee guidelines came in 1994,
and in 2001 and 2003, the Ministry of Rural Development revised these guidelines
under the nomenclature 'Hariyali Guidelines.' After that, the Integrated Watershed
Management Program (IWMP) was launched in 2009-10, which incorporated the
44
DPAP, DPP, and Integrated Watershed Development Program (IWDP). Later three
programs of the Ministry of Agriculture, 1) National Watershed Development Project
for Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA), 2) River Valley Project & Flood Prone River Project
(RVP&FPR), and 3) Watershed Development Project in Shifting Cultivation Areas
(WDPSCA), were terminated, and IWMP remained a single national program for the
development of watershed development. In 2008, the 'Common Guidelines for
Watershed Development Projects' were developed and revised in 2011. Currently
(2021), these guidelines are under further revision by the National Rainfed Area
Authority (NRAA).
In 2015, with the sanctioning of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY),
the IWMP was merged into it, and from then, it has been treated as the Watershed
Development Component of PMKSY (WDC-PMKSY). The main objectives of IWMP are
to restore the ecological balance by harnessing, developing, and conserving
depleting natural resources such as soil, vegetative cover, and water. Vasundhara
Watershed Development Agency is the State Level Nodal Agency in Maharashtra
responsible for the overall watershed work in the state.
b) Strengths of IWMP: The main strength of IWMP is its umbrella nature, where the
different isolated watershed programs are merged and brought under a single
guideline. Furthermore, IWMP emphasizes the convergence of various schemes for
fundraising for watershed development. On one side, it uses advanced technology
for planning and implementation; on the other, it seeks people's participation in the
entire appraisal of the watershed initiative.
The common guideline 2011 for watershed development projects is based on the
principles of 1) equity and gender sensitivity, ensuring inclusiveness at all levels, 2)
decentralization to improve delegation and professionalism, 3) social mobilization,
community organization, building capacities of communities, 4) centrality of
community participation, 5) a participatory, outcome and impact-oriented and user-
focused monitoring, evaluation, and learning system, 6) and organizational
restructuring by establishing appropriate technical and professional support
structures. A few important strengths of the IWMP are provisions of additional
financial assistance for strengthening institutions, the enhanced duration of projects-
ranging 4 years to 7 years, the adoption of a cluster approach with a broader vision
of geo-hydrological units (average size of 1,000 to 5,000 hectares), and a multitier
ridge to valley sequenced approach. Along with the soil, water, and land
conservation, as this mainly benefits landowners, the IWMP specifically priorities
livelihood promotion. Along with the soil and land development, the new approach
systematically integrates livestock and fisheries management as a central
intervention and encourages the dairying and marketing of dairy products. The
provision of a watershed development fund (WDF) for post-project repair and
maintenance and a revolving fund for women SHGs are positive sides of the
guideline. These 'watersheds plus’ provisions are more relevant as only landed
families benefited from the huge public investment in watershed development.
c) Gaps, Lacunas, and Deficiencies in the existing Key provisions and
recommendations
45
Point 1: Less focus on groundwater and aquifers in watershed planning: The policy
aptly incorporates the ridge to valley development of watershed management and
talks about the assessment of periodic changes in geo-hydrological potential, soil
and crop cover, runoff and selecting the structure at appropriate locations by
applying latest remote sensing techniques. This needs to be supported by detailed
hydro-geological mapping of the watershed to know the potential groundwater
zones (recharge and discharge zones). As artificial groundwater recharge and
increased groundwater storage in aquifers are seen as an important strategies for
building the resilience of communities to the increasing droughts and low rainfall,
more concentrated efforts in the scientific delineation of aquifers and recharge
measures need to be incorporated. While doing this, the water quality at the surface
and groundwater should also be checked before the actual construction of water
harvesting structures. In this regard, IWMP projects can benefit more from the
aquifer maps generated through the NAQUIM project and village-wise Groundwater
recharge and discharge maps developed by GSDA in Maharashtra. These maps will
be very useful for selecting the locations for rights structures. Therefore, rather than
simply focusing on the hydrologic unit for sections (of around 1000 to 5000-hectare
areas), the criteria of geological or aquifer delineation also should be incorporated
into the guideline.
Point 2: Lack of provision for demand-side management and appropriate
governance: The overall component of demand-side management and water
governance is not well addressed in the guideline, which is equally important. The
tragedy of successful watershed projects in history taught us that the watershed
benefits did not result in sustainability due to the lack of the above efforts. Hence, to
avoid such tragedy, the approach, and strategies of demand-side measures and
governance of water, addressing farmers' behaviour of water-use and crop practices,
is essential to be incorporated into the guideline. This objective can be achieved by
adopting the water stewardship approach and practices developed and tested by
WOTR in more than 200 villages in different states in India. WOTR has documented
this initiative's key learnings and processes in the book 'A Step Towards Quenching
Rural India's Thirst Experiences and Learnings from the Water Stewardship Initiative
in Maharashtra' published by WOTR (D’Souza et al., 2019).
Preparation and adoption of a water stewardship plan is the key strategy in the
water stewardship initiative. The plan consists mainly of the water budgeting plan
and its follow-up sub-plans to meet the deficiency in the water budget. These follow-
up plans consist of 1) the supply-side plan- maintenance and repair of existing
structures, 2) the water-saving plan- adopting efficient water use practices, and 3)
making village-level rules on water use and crop selections. IEC tool, such as the
Village Water Health Chart, plays a trigger to motivate villagers to follow these
practices. Water budgeting requires building a cadre of water stewards to follow
water saving and conservation practices, with an approach of water as a public trust.
Such a comprehensive demand-side management approach must be incorporated
into the guidelines to make the impacts of watershed interventions sustainable.
Point 3: Ignorance of ecosystem management: The overall ecosystem perspective is
lacking in the present guidelines. The watershed does not only represent the land,
water, and people, but it also incorporates the ecosystem sustaining it. Hence, while
46
considering watershed development, due attention should be given to managing
ecosystems sustainably. Efforts should also be made to maintain agroecology, which
could be achieved by promoting crop diversity. These efforts will help better manage
the ecology and improve food and nutrient security. In addition to agricultural areas,
the existing forest areas and newly afforested areas should also be focused on
ecosystem management. Therefore, there is an urgent need to transform the
program in line with ecosystem-based mitigation and adaptation. This will help
design the development, mitigation, and adaptation components in a continuum.
Point 4: Need to reconsider social fencing in the watershed: The issues of social
fencing (community control and rule-making for sustainable and equitable use of
natural resources) should be applied strategically and effectively, and the concept
needs to be widened. At present, rule-making in popular watershed programs is only
confined to the ban on open grazing and tree-felling and a limitation on water-
intensive crops. However, no convincing mechanisms or rules exist to prevent
powerful individuals from drilling deep wells when the water table has risen, and the
project has ended. Social and public control is required to avoid such exploitive
behaviour by well-to-do farmers. The PIA has to play a significant role in achieving
this by convincing the watershed community.
Point 5: Land capability classification, soil analysis, agro-biodiversity (LDN Targets):
Before implementing the project, during the preparatory phase, the land capability
classification of the watershed should be done. This classification will ensure the
land's capacity for various uses and even derive its suitability for multiple crops and
afforestation areas. Analysis of soil's physical and chemical qualities should be an
integral part of this assessment. Besides, the characteristics of agro-biodiversity can
also be included in such an examination of the land. Such keen observation and land
evaluation will help achieve the Land Neutrality Targets (LND Targets).
Point 6: Climate change adaptation, resilience building, and climate-proofing of
watersheds: Keeping in mind the increasing climate variations (such as excess
rainfall in short), watershed structures may need redesigning to accommodate these
changes. There is also a need to include biodiversity conservation in watershed
development, particularly climate change adaptation. Essential components of
watershed development where biodiversity concerns can easily and immediately be
integrated are afforestation, drainage line and area treatments.
More productive and more resilient agriculture requires a major shift in how land,
water, soil nutrients and genetic resources are managed to ensure these resources
are used more efficiently (Thrupp, 2000). There is also a need for innovations in
developing crops tolerant of multiple climatic stresses which can withstand drought
and flood/water logging in the same season as we have been witnessing in several
parts of the country. Finally, there is a need to promote innovative low-cost products
for agricultural inputs that are more effective with favourable environmental
impacts to ensure higher returns to the farmers. In this regard, more focus should be
given to long-term reliable weather forecasts down to the micro-level
(village/mandal) and effective dissemination of location-specific farm advisories for
the benefit of the farming community. With the advancement of mobile technology
and the availability of Android mobiles, most farmers are well equipped to receive
47
crop-weather advisories using mobile applications such as FarmPrecise (developed
by WOTR) (WOTR, 2020). Realizing climate change is inevitable, it is necessary to
mitigate the risks, reduce losses, and enhance agricultural communities' resilience
and adaptive capacities. Promoting eco-friendly climate-resilient agricultural
practices which increase the yield sustainably, conserve natural resources, and
improve the overall agricultural productivity is the need of time. Studies showed that
climate-resilient agriculture (CRA) practices, such as soil test-based integrated
nutrient management (INM) and integrated pest-disease management (IPM)
techniques to manage crop infestations, could help farmers reduce input costs and
increase the crop yield (Gholkar et al., 2022).
To achieve these objectives, the devoted institutional arrangement needs to be
factored into the program to incorporate the climate change adaptation, mitigation,
and resilience-building angles in watershed development. Along with the proposed
watershed committee or sub-committee of the watershed committee, such a
devoted committee on climate adaptation should be capable of assessing different
climatic vulnerabilities in the watershed, coupled with the follow-up of climate
adaptation and resilience plan in the main watershed development plan or DPR.
Point 7: Per Hecate Unit cost: The provision of unit cost for watershed development
in the guideline is Rs.12,000/ha in plains and Rs.15,000/ ha in difficult/hilly areas in
2011. Now more than ten years have passed, and the rising cost of labour and
material has increased by about 3 to 4 times since then. Due to climatic trends, these
norms are much below the minimum investment requirement with the increased
work intensity. Therefore, we recommend the per hectare cost norm of Rs.25,000
for plain areas, and for hilly areas requiring springshed management, it should be Rs.
35,000. The state should be flexible in deciding costs based on local conditions, not
exceeding the upper limits.
Point 8: Significant institutional restructuring required: In the guideline for the
IWMP, different institutional arrangements are made at differing levels. For
example, at the Ministry level, a Steering Committee is formed, chaired by the
Department of Land Resources secretary, to sanction the projects proposed by the
states. At the state level, a State Level Nodal Agency (SLNA) facilitates the projects'
implementation in Maharashtra's Vasundhara Watershed Development Agency'
which plays the role of SLNA. The Watershed Cell-cum-Data Centre (WCDC) is
created at the district level for supervising and coordinating the projects. The Project
Implementation Agency (PIA) provision is made for selecting the panchayats,
government, and non-governmental agencies. At the village level, a Watershed
Committee (WC) of 10 members is proposed to be formed to implement the project
at the field level, with the provision of half of its members of representatives of SHGs
and User Groups, SC/ST community, women and landless persons in the village. One
member of the Watershed Development Team (WDT) is also given representation in
the WC.
Watersheds are inhabited by different categories of people in terms of land
ownership, caste and class affiliation, occupation, financial status, and gender. In
rainfed areas, small and marginal farmers are a significant segment of the farming
community. Besides, many inhabitants are either landless or dependent on small
enterprises/occupations. People residing along the forest fringe (mainly scheduled
48
tribes), mostly in the watershed's upper reach, depend on primary forest produce
and small ruminants. Rich farmers with larger landholdings in the lower watershed
normally access a larger share of the developed natural resources. These complex
situations demand inclusive benefits of watershed development in economic gain
and participation. Although guidelines talk about good representation for different
groups, selecting these members is vital for ensuring appropriate, active, and
capable members in WC. Studies found that the provision of plain representation for
women and resource-poor groups in the WC does not rectify the prevailing gender
bias or socio-economic and political relations (Eshwer Kale, 2020). Other innovative
and courageous participatory mechanisms need to be experimented with for this
purpose. The selection of members by applying the wealth ranking method, based
on villagers' set parameters, was very useful by WOTR while forming WC. The wealth
ranking method ensures differentiated contributions and opportunities for equity in
watershed processes (more on wealth ranking at https://bit.ly/2s24GO2). Even
various sub-committees of the WC could be formed for women, landless people, and
SC/ST/OBCs, with predefined equal powers in WC decision-making for these
subcommittees. Such an approach may strengthen the bargaining position of
resource-poor groups within the village much better than the nominal participation
in the current VWC.
In IWMP projects, it has been seen that the village Sarpanch is the president of the
WC and his or her follower or close person at the secretariat post, which is a salaried
position in the project. This institutional structure is more favourable for project
management and easy follow-up for PIA (taluka level agriculture office). There is
enough evidence in this background that substantiates that the development
projects have been highly successful if one or more knowledgeable and self-
motivated leaders have taken the lead role in the development. These are
committed to the cause and are independent of political or social gains. Therefore,
the watershed development process needs to identify a few youths (men and
women) from the villages that are inclined to devote their time and energy to the
village. There should be, if possible, separate persons taking care of different
thematic like Jal Sevaks, Krushi Sevaks, Pashu Sevaks, etc. The SLNA should develop
specialized training modules for the development of this cadre. The state-level
training agency should conduct training programs for this cadre to maintain the
program objectives' spirit, message, and motivation.
Point 9: Project period and post-project sustainability: In the IWMP guideline, the
major activities of the watershed development projects are sequenced into (I)
Preparatory, (ii) Works, and (iii) Consolidation and withdrawal Phase. Given the
expanded scope and expectations under the watershed development program, the
project duration is four to seven years, depending upon the activities and
Ministries/Departments.
As the project period of up to 7 years is too long, and it became challenging to keep
villagers focused on intervention, we propose restructuring the project phases and
making the project period shorter (for a period of 4 years to 5 years). However, an
additional 2-3 years period may be provided as a 'Sustainability Phase' wherein
government agencies and village institutions track the sustainability of interventions,
including crop plants based on water budgeting, agriculture's resilience, and people
49
to climate variations. Furthermore, in the sustainability phase, WC needs to be more
empowered to use the Watershed Development Fund (WDF) appropriately and
effectively; this is more relevant in the background that this fund is found in many
watershed villages unutilized or disputes in WC on its utilization. Furthermore, the
creation and strengthening of the Farmer Producers Organisation (FPO) for small and
marginal farmers and establishing their market linkages should be prioritized to
stabilize farmers' income. These measures will certainly help to make watershed
impacts more sustainable.
d) Conclusion: On a technical level, the IWMP approach needs a significant shift to
modify its measures in line with a changing climate and the need to address the
overall ecosystem approach. It also requires a paradigm shift in making the approach
pro-people, especially for marginalized and excluded groups. However, incorporating
strategies on groundwater-focused interventions, climate-resilient agriculture,
demand-side water management, and provision of the sustainability phase in the
project period can undoubtedly increase the success opportunities of watershed
impacts and their sustainability of IWMP guidelines.
3.2.1.1.2 Magel Tyala Shet-tale- Promotion of farm pond scheme
a) Background of the scheme: In the last few decades, many parts of Maharashtra
started facing recurrent droughts, erratic rainfall, and groundwater depletion.
Therefore, agriculture and crop were more valuable due to the lack of water for
crops at the right time. To deal with this precarious condition, the government of
Maharashtra 2016-17 formally launched the farm pond scheme known as ‘Magel
Tyala Shet-tale’ by providing subsidies to farmers for constructing farm ponds. The
main objective of promoting the farm pond strategy was to support farmers in
providing protective irrigation to crops in drought-prone regions by harvesting the
rainwater and allowing water to recharge. Soon, constructing farm ponds to arrest or
store water and irrigating cash crops (mainly horticulture and vegetables) was seen
as a miracle strategy for irrigating farmers and the state. The state took more
interest in promoting farm ponds as it found it complementary to increasing farmers'
income through the reliable water supply. Farm ponds have been promoted on a
large scale by the State government of Maharashtra, even since 2010 (GR under
various schemes, namely Jalyukt Shivar, and then came ‘Magel Tyala shet-tale’ and
now (Magel Tyala Shetatale, 2016), it is also getting promoted through PoCRA
project. Construction of farm ponds is also promoted through Central government
programs like National Horticulture Mission (NHM 2014), Pradhan Mantri Krishi
Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY), and Rashtriya Krishi Vikas Yojana (RKVY). There was a
subsidy or financial support of Rs. 50,000 for farmers for constructing the farm
ponds, and a few schemes (NHM) also supported plastic linings for these ponds. Each
year state government is putting an ambitious target of constructing ponds. For
example, for 2016-17 state's target of farm ponds was 1,11,111 lakh ponds (Magel
Tyala Shetatale, 2016) and received around 3.5 lakh applications, and the target set
for 2020-21 is constructing 51369 farm ponds. Even recently, in the state budget
speech (2022), the state's finance minister announced an increase in the subsidy
amount to Rs.75000 in Maharashtra.
50
b) Strengths of Scheme: Studies find that the farm ponds benefit farmers from drought
effects and increase farm productivity (Prasad et al., 2022). The benefits of farm ponds
are seen as extremely useful by increasing farm income by ensuring water supply for
cash crops and vegetables. Hence, farmers have increasing demand and attraction for
constructing farm ponds. As the farm pond strategy is found very useful for ‘doubling
or tripling the farm income as it fulfils the farmers’ aspirations and addresses
groundwater vulnerability (Prasad et al., 2022), the state has come with generous
financial assistance to farmers and budget allocation for the scheme. The main
advantage of the farm pond is the reliable water source for farmers in drought-prone
regions (mainly Marathwada and part of western Maharashtra) to grow or irrigate
cash crops and protect horticulture. This is much necessary in the context of uncertain
and erratic rainfall and groundwater vulnerability. Moreover, as in the summer
season, wells and borewells either get dried or yield less water. Farm ponds help
farmers irrigate horticulture crops and vegetables, which get very good market rates
in summer. Thus there are several success stories of individual farmers and villages,
for example, Ajnale village in Sangola taluka of Solapur district
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3woBF9pZbPA) and Kadvanchi Village in Jalna
district (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RchKnSq8EMg) have transformed their
agriculture economy and income of farmers highly increased with reliable water
supply from farm ponds.
c) Gaps, lacunas, and problems in the existing provisions of the program and
recommendations
Point 1: Clear deviation from the objective: Wide observations of farm pond
construction practices and water use show the clear contradiction between the main
objectives set behind the scheme and the actual practices of farm pond owning
farmers. Although rainwater harvesting is one of the main objectives behind the
farm pond strategy, we can hardly find functioning farm ponds where rainwater gets
collected and stored. In contrast, almost farm pond owners extract groundwater
from dug wells and bore wells to store it in farm ponds. Thus, farm ponds have
become the new way of groundwater extraction and competition. As a result, such
extraction is causing further depletion in groundwater levels in these regions. On
another front, a farm pond is an important strategy for groundwater recharge
through percolation. However, in practice, in almost functional farm ponds, high-
micron plastic paper is being applied to stop the seepage of stored water from it;
even the state is promoting the use of plastic lining by providing subsidies. Hence,
there is almost no possibility of adding anything to groundwater through the
percolation of water from the ponds. Moreover, in no functional farm ponds, in-late
and outlet are mandatory by design to receive the rainwater and discharge the
additional water. This illustrates that although the term ‘farm pond’ is widely used at
the policy level, farm ponds result in big storage tanks of extracted groundwater.
Point 2: Absence of regulation on number and dimension of farm ponds: Although
the GR (dated 22 February 2016) on fam ponds allow a maximum dimension of 30 X
30 X 3 meter, literally, there is an absence of regulation on whether sanctioned
dimension get followed during its actual construction. Even the GR is vague,
allowing farmers to invest an extra amount from their pockets and increase the
51
dimensions of farm pond at any level, and there is no control over this. The same is
true with the number of farm ponds constructed in a watershed or a village. While
sanctioning farm ponds in a village or watershed, integrated and sustainable
planning of overall water resources, the carrying capacity of that area to supply the
amount of water for different uses and structures need to be seriously considered.
Ideally, depending on the area's carrying capacity, the number of farm ponds should
be planned to construct in the specific village or watershed area. But, there is a lack
of clarity on this at the policy level and functionaries involved in different farm pond
schemes. There are many villages in the state where farm ponds are enormous in
number. For example, in Kadvanachi village in Jalna, having a micro-watershed of
1810 hectares, there are 650 large-sized farm ponds (Nitnaware H, 2021), and Ajnale
village in Solapur has more than 500 farm ponds. Therefore, the size and number of
farm ponds need to be regulated. Fortunately, with the lessons learned on violation
of farm pond size and numbers, the state's agriculture department has had
discussions and initiated the process to set a methodology and guideline to decide
the number of farm ponds for given geography (village or watershed). This process
should soon reach a logical conclusion before it gets too late.
Point 3: High level of evaporation of precious groundwater resource: Groundwater
is a precious resource and safe underground to fulfil human needs. As most plastic-
lined big-sized farm ponds are getting stored by extracting groundwater, this
precious resource is exposed to evaporation. Moreover, in many pockets of arid and
semi-arid Maharashtra, the maximum temperature in summer reaches up to 40 to
45 degrees Celsius; in such weather conditions, the evaporation rate increases. In
the background of the drastically increasing number of farm ponds, a huge amount
of groundwater extraction to store water in the farm ponds, and changing climate,
the evaporation of water from farm ponds becomes a more severe and alarming
concern.
Point 4: Privatisation of a shared or common resource: The right to water has been
protected as a fundamental human right by the Indian Supreme Court as part of the
Right to Life guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian constitution (Narain, 2009).
Even Maharashtra Groundwater Act-2009 and central policies treat groundwater as
a public trust. However, the farm pond strategy mainly resulted in resource-rich
farmers privatising the groundwater, who can invest in extracting groundwater and
storing it in the farm ponds. This problem has become severe as there is no control
over the size and depth of farm ponds, and rich farmers have built the farm ponds
Olympic-sized swimming pools. This has severe equity consequences, as these farm
pond owners are not only extracting groundwater below their land but from the
surrounding area where there is a number of well owners; thus, WOTR’s recent
study finds surrounding farmers get negatively affected as they come into the zone
of influence of groundwater (as they share the same aquifer) where the farm pond
owner extract to store. This also has severe consequences on water sharing in
downstream villages. Even studies also show that in drought years, the carrying
capacity of water resources falls significantly, so even a low level of extraction may
result in a tragedy of the commons (Prasad et al., 2022). As the number of farm
ponds is mushrooming in the villages beyond the carrying capacity of the village
catchment, downstream villages are getting deprived of water availability. Therefore
52
we propose to speed up the methodology and guidelines by the state government to
decide the number of farm ponds allowed in the village/watershed-based on
carrying capacity and following the water-sharing principle. At least in already waters
stressed regions, specifically declared semi-critical, critical and over-exploited
watersheds/ zones (declared by GSDA and CGWB), groundwater extraction to store
it in farm ponds should be strictly prohibited. In such regions, it should be mandatory
to farm pond owners to store the rainwater or runoff in the farm ponds.
Point 5: Water stored in farm ponds is a free gift: MWRRA has the mandate and is
responsible for fixing the bulk water tariff for different uses in the state. The
authority revises the water tariffs every three years for drinking, irrigation, and
industrial use. The past experiences show that the Authority has focused mainly on
irrigation projects and canal irrigation by water user associations. However, the
changing dynamics of farm ponds have not been considered by Authority. Farm pond
owners in the command area are filling the huge farm ponds by pumping water from
canals and minors, and at the same time at other places pulling a huge amount of
groundwater resource (which is a shared resource). Till now, there is no provision or
thought by MWRRA to pricing the water in farm ponds, and we propose unless the
stored water in farm ponds is not priced, there will be no change in the existing
practices by farmers to extract a huge amount of water in farm ponds and making it
private.
Point 6: Dealing with contractor lobby: As mentioned in the GR on farm ponds,
payment of subsidy for construction cannot be made in advance or before the
completion of construction work. This provision allows contractors/JCB and
machinery owners to take the lead and wasted interest in constructing farm ponds
on farmers’ land. Most of the small and marginal farmers (for whom this scheme is
made) find it difficult to invest money to construct farm ponds, so the contractors
are interested in getting the work done. In many cases, they pay the even farmers’
contribution for subsidy on the condition that farmers will pay the amount of subsidy
once it gets transferred to the farmer’s account. Although this sounds good, many
farm ponds can be seen either incomplete or plastic unlined in practice. One can see
many incomplete, unlined and non-functional farm ponds without use in many
villages, as the contractor and farmer intend to benefit from the scheme's
government subsidy. Such practices are a challenge for the government official to
avoid in such cases; for this, more accountability has to be brought by farmers by
clearly assessing the farmer’s and farm’s feasibility while sanctioning the farm pond.
Point 7: Addressing the drinking water issue through common farm pond: Looking
at its utility to secure water in scarce periods, the farm pond strategy has proved
very useful for protective irrigation. This strategy can also be used to secure the
domestic and drinking water needs of all villagers and animals throughout the year.
The basic consideration behind this is that if an individual farmer can secure water
for his irrigation needs throughout the year by using farm ponds, then it is also
possible and feasible to secure the villagers' domestic and drinking water needs by
using the same strategy. Keeping this in mind, WOTR has experimented with one of
the villages in the Marathwada region. In the village, a common farm pond is
constructed to provide water for at least three months of scarcity (Eshwer Kale,
53
2017). This experiment has come up with many possibilities and learning where
there is enough potential to replicate it in small, scarce villages to secure drinking
water needs. However, this idea needs to be further researched and tested on a
large scale.
d) Concluding Remark: The farm pond strategy and the scheme have huge potential
and resulted in a key strategy in addressing the drought and increasing farm income
for farmers. The state’s efforts and intention to promote it are also applicable.
However, with the lessons learned and different studies found, there is an urgent
need to make corrections to the schemes. The scheme activities must be truly
regulated, ensuring that farmers follow the specified standards and dimensions. The
methodology for deciding the number of farm ponds in a village/watershed gets
prepared and followed. More importantly, there is a need for a strict monitoring
system to control the practice of groundwater extraction to fill the farm ponds by
not allowing groundwater extraction in overexploited zones. These changes in the
scheme will ascertain that farm ponds are used as well-adapted drought mitigation
measures.
3.2.1.1.3 Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan (JSA)
a) Background of JSA: With the slogan of 'Water For All and drought-free Maharashtra
2019', Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan (JSA) was launched in Maharashtra in 2014 by the
Fadanvis Government of Shiv Sena and BJP alliance. According to GR on JSA (dated 5
December 2014), the Abhiyan (campaign) was launched in the background of severe
droughts in the state (during 2012-13 and 2015-16) and depleting groundwater
resources. Same time the Shirpur pattern was gaining momentum in the state. As
nearly 82% of the state falls in the rainfed sector and 52% area is drought-prone, the
objective set for JSA was to make 5,000 villages free of water scarcity every year and
bring water empowerment to 25,000 drought-hit villages. From 2015 until 2019, the
campaign spent INR 96.3 billion on 630,000 completed water conservation
interventions in 22,586 villages (CAG, 2020).
Under the JSA, although 14 soil and water conservation activities work, reviewing
irrigation projects, and groundwater augmentation were proposed, more focus was
seen on constructing a chain of cement Nala bandhs, deepening and widening Nalas,
and desiltation of water bodies. The state government claimed that during the
campaign till 2019, a total of 24 TCM of water storage was created with an irrigation
potential of 3.4 million hectares. The state's Soil and Water Conservation
Department was designated as the nodal department to implement this project. The
government schemes (IWMP, MGNREGA, NHM, VIIDP, Adarsh Gaon Yojana,
Koradvahu Sheti Abhiyan, ZP cess fund, MP/MLA fund, and NGO /CSR fund) were
converged to achieve the objective set for Abhiyan.
b) The strengths of JSA: The set of JSA activities was proposed with a good combination
of increasing surface water potential, allowing groundwater recharge, strengthening
drinking water sources and capacity building of water user associations, and
implementing of groundwater act. For implementing the JSA, a well-coordinated
network of government officials was set at state, district, and taluka levels, and
funds from various schemes launched by the center and state governments were
54
pulled together for drought management with mobilising support from different
CSRs and NGOs. Another strength of the JSA was the adoption of a water budgeting
tool at the village level, and it was made mandatory to get village action plans
approved by Gram Sabha. In the guideline, the provisions are made for third-party
evaluation of the work, uploading the digital GIS-friendly photos before, during, and
after the project completion, and clearance of bills of work only after the Gram
Sabha has approved them. Thus provisions were made to ensure accountability and
transparency in the JSA work. The state government claims that water storage of
24,000 million cubic feet was created in the JSA implementation in the state.
c) The progress and present status of the JSA: JSA has been criticized for its inceptions
by water experts and scientists on different grounds. Prof. Pradeep Purandare
argued that even the inception of the JSA was in the background of a highly
discussed 'irrigation scam' in the state and a strong push for the Shirpur pattern
(Purandare, 2021). In 2011, the Government of Maharashtra appointed an expert
committee to look into the Shirpur pattern, headed by the late Dr. Mukund Ghare.
The Committee found that many interventions were scientifically, technically wrong,
and highly expensive (Joy, 2015). However, the government rejected this report,
commissioning another study by its own officials. The second report was more
favourable to the Shirpur pattern. In 2017, Dr. H.M. Desarda, a well-known
economist and former state planning commission member, filed a PIL in Bombay
High court on the unscientific and non-environment friendly nature of JSA, resulting
in affecting the overall ecosystem. After hearing the petition by Dr. Desarda, High
Court gave the order for the enquiry of the JSA through an independent committee,
and thus Johny Josef committee was formed. The Josef Committee gave the
assignment for studying the selected JSA villages to CTARA at IIT Bombay, and this
committee came up with a few minor corrections to the JSA. Still, many experts
found that the committee has not studied the larger ill effects of JSA on the
environment. Many water experts, civil society groups, and research organisations
continued raising concerns about JSA interventions' unscientific nature. In 2019,
there was a shift in state government, and the Thackeray government (Alliance of
Shiv Sena, Congress, and Nationalist Congress Party) took charge of the earlier
Fadanvis Government. In the first year of government, the Thakeray government
ordered a probe of JSA on financial irregularities and appointed an SIT for the probe
(Hindustan Times, n.d.). Soon, in 2020, the CAG randomly selected 120 villages from
6 districts (two talukas from each selected district) having the highest expenditure)
for the audit. The report found that in 83 out of 120 selected villages, the storage
created was insufficient to meet the water requirement indicated in the village plan
for drinking and cultivation. The report also found that, in 17 out of these 83 villages,
water tankers were deployed to meet the water requirements of villages. The report
concluded that Jalyukt Shivar "had little impact in achieving water neutrality and
increasing groundwater level" (CAG, 2020). On this ground, Thakeray Government
gave the STOP on the ambitious but highly debated JSA in February 2020
(Deshpande, 2020). In February 2021, Thakeray Government announced a three-
year program with a provision of Rs. 1,340 crores, with the title ‘Chief Minister
Water Conservation Programme (CMWCP)’ (Hindustan Times, n.d.). However,
nothing progressed on it due to a shortage of funds and COVID-19 constraints. The
55
recent shift (July 2022) in state government (formation of Shinde government with
BJP-Sena alliance) may again boost or revive JSA, a pet scheme of the earlier
Fadanvis government.
d) Gaps, lacunas, and problems in the JSA and recommendations
Point 1: Lack of ridge to valley approach and delay in modification in priority work: The
JSA program considered the village the primary implementation unit. As a result, it
more or less lacked the ridge-to-valley approach of watershed management, with
the balance of soil and water conservation measures. The overall JSA interventions
dominated the construction of surface waterbodies (blue water) (Shah, Harris,
Johnson, Mark & Wittman, 2021). It is observed that the desilted tanks and Nalas,
whose depth had been increased later in a few years, got silted as soil conservation
measures were not taken at the appropriate time. In 2017, the government decided
that micro-watersheds should be a unit of implementation for water conservation
and a group of micro-watersheds for river rejuvenation rather than a village. It also
increased weightage for soil conservation. However, it was a late beginning. Later in
2018, just a year before the program's due date, the government accepted the
methodology of water budgeting developed by CTARA, IIT Bombay.
Point 2: Targeted work versus lack of community participation: The program
targeted making 5000 villages drought-free every year. Although the state
government claimed that 24,000 million cubic feet of water storage were created,
water exerts raised questions about these figures. No detailed statistics were made
available for this irrigation potential. In addition, there is no clarity on whether the
additional increased irrigated area is in command of the existing irrigation project
(Purandare, 2021)) or whether this is additional irrigation potential created.
This was an ambitious target considering the time required for capacity building,
awareness spreading, and actively involving people (E. Kale et al., 2019). As a result,
the lack of participation of farmers and involvement of Gram Sabhas in the works of
JSA is observed (Bhadbhade et al., 2019). To improve the people's participation, the
program should have continued at least for two years in a single village (E. Kale et al.,
2019).
While implementing works under the JSA, preparation of a detailed project report
(DPR) for the village, including a water budget and treatment maps, was mandatory.
The DPR was made compulsory to be approved by Gram Sabha. However, the
findings of the study made by Bhadbhade and the team show that DPRs were neither
available at the Gram Panchayat office nor the government offices in their study
villages (Bhadbhade et al., 2019). The study also found that most of the villagers
were unaware of the scheme and the implementation process, and their
participation was poor, where most of the farmers opted for sugar cane.
In the above background, the Gram Sabha members should be trained to assess the
quality of the structures being created and their impact on overall water availability.
Also, they should be intensely trained regarding the ideal nature of the action plan
so that they can evaluate the same before sanctioning any such plan. Besides, efforts
should be made to improve people's participation in soil and water conservation
activities. For this, social mobilization is needed, which requires more time. Hence,
56
rather than deciding the target period, such programs should also be checked on
people's degrees and nature of involvement.
Point 3: Quality of work and Repair and maintenance: Studies found very poor quality
of JSA interventions (Bhadbhade et al., 2019; CAG, 2020). Even after the construction,
no attention was paid to these works' repair and maintenance (R & M). The Gram Sabha
was expected to raise the fund to repair and maintain the water harvesting structures
through cess, and the state government was to put an equivalent share for R & M as
generated by the Gram Sabha. However, none of the Gram Sabhas visited by CAG had
raised any funds for R & M, and as a result, no financial support was provided by the
state government for this purpose (CAG, 2020). Due to this, the report found many of
the structures were filled with earthen material. At the same time, farmers also had not
hesitated to reclaim their land earlier given for water conservation work. Due to all
these reasons, the expected water storage capacity of the village was not achieved or
was reduced over a period which became the hurdle in making the village drought-free.
Point 4: Lack of demand-side management: Apart from the above issues of supply-side
management, concerns were stated in the demand-side management component of
JSA. One of the major concerns was that it was expected that the Gram Panchayat would
restrict the digging of wells for drinking water only and also decide the cropping pattern
in consultation with Agriculture Department / Agriculture University based on water
availability. However, none of this happened. As the rules of the Maharashtra
Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009 were not published, the
restriction on the digging of the well was not put. Besides, in the investigation region of
the CAG in 65 out of 120 villages, the area under the cash crop was found increased
(CAG, 2020). The number of water tankers raised from 3,368 in 2017 to 67,948 in 2019.
Both these findings indicate that though the program was very well written on paper, its
implementation had many flaws that restricted this program's success.
The water budgeting tool (developed by the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay) is
adopted in the JSA; however, government officials use it to quantify the additional water
harvested without spreading water literacy to the village. In addition, political
interference in selecting villages for the JSA and issues regarding e-tendering for
machine contractors are major areas of concern. Sugar cane, a water-guzzling crop, has
mushroomed even in the drought-prone regions of Maharashtra (Marathwada).
Although the Government of Maharashtra has mandated drip irrigation for sugar cane
cultivation, this strategy has not resulted useful as water saved through drip irrigation is
getting used by farmers to expand the area under irrigation and not water saving in
absolute term.
Point 5: No clarity over decentralized storage: One of the primary aims of the JYS is to
create decentralized storage in rain-fed areas. However, considering the water balance
of the area, the added decentralized storage only redistributes the water in the
watershed and does not provide an increased water supply (Bhadbhade et al., 2019).
This means that if the water were not stored in the sub-surface, it would have joined the
stream or a small dam downstream that could have been used for various purposes. In
addition, there is no doubt that the sub-surface storages prevent evaporative losses.
Still, the increased area under agriculture and groundwater extraction for the same does
lead to more evaporation and transpiration. Thus the premise that the decentralized
storages make more water available is not true, as it only reallocates water.
Unfortunately, it seems in JSA interventions, this approach is not fully considered.
57
Point 6: Lack of scientific approach in Nala deepening: The width of the Nala should not
be increased more than its base width to maintain the hydraulic geometry of the Nala.
Besides, the Nala should not be straightened for the same purpose. Also, the deepening
should not be done in rocky areas or in wetlands. The Nala with the sand should also not
be considered for deepening. However, these basic scientific principles were not
followed while implementing the Nala deepening component of the JSA. Also, the
deepening of the Nala should be done to increase the groundwater recharge and not
increase the surface storage. However, in reality, vice-a-versa had happened. Besides
this, it has been observed that after the deepening of the Nala, the debris of the
excavation is piled up on the bank of the Nala, resulting in an increasing the height of
the Nala to the surrounding region. Because of this, the overland flow generated from
the surrounding region cannot reach the Nala, and waterlogging occurs alongside the
Nala. As a result, the crops are lost, and the land is lost to a certain extent.
Point 7: Equity issue: As less focus of the Abhiyan was on soil moisture conservation, it
did not benefit rainfed farmers substantially. The activities done under Abhiyan are
mainly the construction of cement Nala bandh, chain cement concrete Nala bandh,
earthen dam, recharge shaft, repair of percolation tank, storage tank, Kolhapur type
weir, are made to add water in surface structure and sub-surface, benefiting to farmers
who have irrigation infrastructure. Even the activities of individual benefits (for example,
construction of farm ponds) were promoted. The observations show that the farm
ponds are resulted in the privatization of groundwater in Maharashtra, as in most cases,
the groundwater is being stored in them, lifting through dug wells and bore wells (Kale,
2017). The CAG report also mentions the increase in the number of dugwell (by 10%)
and borewells (by 9%) in the investigated 120 villages (CAG, 2020). A recent study made
by researchers at The University of British Columbia also points out that 'the JYS
excluded residents, including members of historically disadvantaged groups, who did not
possess the key endowments and entitlements needed to acquire the benefits
associated with drought-relief initiative' (Shah, Harris, Johnson, Mark & Wittman, 2021,
p, 586).
e) Conclusion: Since its inception, the JSA has been criticized by different water experts on
different grounds, including the unscientific nature of treatments and their impacts on
the environment. As a huge administrative structure backed the JSA to implement and
enough budget allocated, it could be more fruitful if the accountability, transparency,
and social audit are made more meaningful, balancing soil and water conservation
implementation on the ground. However, the reports and observations show the
continuation of water tankers, a decrease in groundwater levels, and an increase in cash
crops in a few JSA villages (CAG, 2020). There is enough ground to show that there was a
political impulsion to announce the JSA villages as drought-free ((Shah, Harris, Johnson,
Mark & Wittman, 2021) to justify how the Abhiyan was successful in achieving its
objective. However, later the strong push for the Marathwada Water Grid project to
meet the drinking water needs of villages in the Marathwada region by the same
government that launched and backed JSA substantiated the limited success of JSA in
making the village drought-free.
3.2.1.1.4 Marathwada Water Grid Project (MWGP)
58
a) Background and Objectives of MWGP: MWGP can be seen as the smaller version of
the Inter-linking of Rivers (ILR) project. MGWP proposes that 11 dams in the
Marathwada region be connected through the piped network to ensure the water
supply for drinking, irrigation, and industrial utilization throughout the year. The
main idea behind this project is that transfer the water from the dams having water
to the dams running out of it using the loop technology. The seeds of this project
were planted during the drought of 2016 when the water had to be supplied by the
railway wagons to the town of Latur. Besides, in the same year, more than 4000
tankers were deployed to quench the region's thrust (Parth, 2020). To avoid such a
situation in the future, the Marathwada Water Grid Project was announced by the
Fadanvis government (earlier BJP-Sena government). As a part of this project, the
Jayakwadi, Ujani, Yeldari, Siddhedhwar, Majalgaon, Manhajra, Lower Terana, Lower
Manad, Isapur, and Sina Kolegaon, and Painganga dams are to be connected along
with the other three dams. The project is divided into 10 phases. The first 8 phases
are related to connecting the 11 dams of Marathwada, while the rest two deal with
bringing the water from the Konkan region and the Krishna River Basin. It is expected
that around 76 towns of 79 talukas and more than 12000 Marathwada region's
villages will benefit from this project (K. Iyer, 2019). This project will be implemented
by the Mekorot Development and Enterprise (MDE), a national water company of
Israel, based on the Hybrid Annuity Model (HAM). As a part of this model, the MDE
will invest 60% of the project's cost, while the remaining 40% will be invested by the
state government (ibid). The project's total cost includes the main (1330 km) and
subsidiary pipeline network (3220 km), and the water purification systems are
expected to be Rs. 25000 crores. During 2018-19, the Fadnavis government
sanctioned Rs. 4293 crores for the first phase for Aurangabad and Jalna districts and
Rs.4802 crores for Beed district (The Economic Times, 2019). Thackeray government
(Mahavikas Allies) initially showed few reservations about the scheme and decided
to review it; however, it recently approved Rs.285 crore for the Jaikwadi dam in
Aurangabad's Paithan taluka sub-scheme under MWGP (The Indian Express, 2021).
The scheme was initially built to supply drinking water to villages, later adding the
water supply component for irrigation.
b) Strength of the policy: The history of the last two decades shows that less rainfall
and droughts in many parts of Marathwada are recurrent phenomena. With climate
change projections, it is predicted that the frequency of such events will increase.
Even the projections are that gap in two drought years will increase in Maharashtra's
regions. Therefore, the tanker dependency in this region steadily increases to meet
drinking water during summer. During the summer of 2016, 4883 tankers supplied
drinking water to more than 10 thousand villages and hamlets, and in 2019 total of
5174 tankers were deployed to serve the drinking water to more than 13 thousand
villages (GoM, 2020). According to one of the estimates, a 2,000-litre private water
tanker costs five hundred rupees during peak summer. Major cities, towns, and
periphery of the region like Aurangabad mainly depend on tankers. According to
Sanjeev Unhale, a senior journalist and activist based in Aurangabad, the daily trade
of water tankers in Aurangabad during April, May, and June varies between Rs. 30-35
lakh (Parth, 2020). Thus, in a scarcity period, water is mainly accessible in adequate
quantity to those who can pay or purchase it. Others have to struggle for a minimum
59
amount of potable water. Therefore, although challenging, the MWGP is the hope
for the people of Marathwada to address the water scarcity they have been facing
for decades. Although there are few valid critics of the MWGP, the water grid
projects in two Indian states, Telangana and Gujrat, and Srilanka and Israel have
shown their applicability and usefulness. Few experts believe that a water diversion
strategy to the water hit Marathwada region can be an excellent strategy to address
regional imbalance and inequity in water allocation by diverting water from the
Konkan and Krishna rivers. Marathwada has been a disadvantage, and we have seen
growing conflicts between western Maharashtra, mainly Ahmednagar and Jaikwadi
dam in Marathwada, on water allocation.
c) Gaps, Lacunas, and Deficiencies in the MWGP and recommendations
Point 1: Dams do not always reach their maximum storage capacity: The entire
Marathwada region falls under drought-prone areas and the low rainfall region. As a
result, many dams in the region do not get filled to their total capacity, even during
the monsoon season. For example, the long-term data of the Jaikwadi dam (1975 to
2017) shows that around 56 % of the time, the Jaikwadi dam does not adequately fill
the water demand during the Rabi season (Parth, 2020). Therefore, besides being
located in the same climatic region, all the dams will face a water shortage during
the same year. Hence, connecting the dams will not solve the issue of water scarcity
in the Marathwada region unless the strengthening of local water resources and
decentralized manner with the adoption of the scientific ridge to valley watershed
approach.
Point 2: Potential disputes and conflicts on water sharing at the basin or project
level: The reservoirs of the dams and the command areas are designed based on the
capacity of the dam's catchment to collect the rainfall. There is no clear answer to
how this balance will be maintained once the dams are connected or whether the
dams can fulfil the demands of the allotted command area of the dams. That can
create another type of conflict and disputes among different water users. If the
scheme has to be implemented, the existing irrigation department has undoubtedly
to go through a drastic transformation; whether the irrigation department is positive
for this scheme is unclear. Therefore, rather than solving the issue of water scarcity,
this system of connected dams might aggravate the inter-basin water conflict. For
example, in 2015, the water conflict arose between the Nashik, Ahmednagar, and
Aurangabad districts over the issue of water sharing of the Jaikwadi dam. The
possibility of such situations within the Marathwada region or even the sectoral
conflicts (e.g., agricultural and industrial sectors) over sharing of reservoir water
cannot be ignored. In addition, this can also trigger political rivalry within different
districts of Marathwada. In such a situation, the minimum water flow of the river,
i.e., the environmental flow, will hardly be considered by any region or sector.
Therefore, many experts and even government officials agree that the primary cause
of frequent droughts in the Marathwada region is the lack of rainfall and the
environmentally unsustainable cropping pattern. The region only receives around
700 mm of average annual rainfall, yet water-intensive crops like sugarcane are
abundant here (Purandare, 2013). Unless this practice changes, there will not be a
60
balance between the demand and supply of water, no matter how much additional
water is supplied or imported.
Point 3: Ignorance of easy local solutions: The proposal of creating a water grid has
come before the entire assessment of the existing local alternatives to manage
water supply. Before investing in such a vast project, it is essential to check cost-
effective local substitutes like watershed treatment, farm ponds, etc. This will save
money and help save the local ecosystems and environmental flows. Besides, this
entire exercise is inclined towards water supply management. The groundwater and
aquifer recharge has received the least priority in the state, which has a huge
potential to hold the water in good rainfall years and compensate during the low
rainfall years. Therefore, along with the ridge to valley approach of watershed
development, a system of Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR), the worldwide
accepted approach for aquifer recharge, and even the Shirpur pattern (by following
the scientific approach) is more viable local solutions. In several villages, these
experiments show that villages gained drinking water security throughout the years
by following these measures.
In addition to this, as pointed out by Prof. Pradeep Purandare, we also need to be
cautious about the huge burden of increased water tariffs or charges this scheme
may force to pay to different users. As the MWGP is based on the Hybrid Annuity
Model (HAM), the private company will invest 60% of the project's cost. This
indirectly means that the cost of the water will be higher for the end-users as the
company will try to generate revenue to cover the cost and earn the benefits. Thus
the water supply from the grid will be more expensive than the locally saved and
judicially used water.
Point 4: Side-lining the agenda of demand-side water management: Drinking water
scarcity and increasing irrigation efficiency is an essential motives for bringing the
demand side measure (water-saving by micro-irrigation, better soil health practices,
and selection of appropriate crops) by village communities and authorities. Thus,
reducing groundwater extraction and agricultural water application is at the center
of demand-side measures. The main motive for the community to take these
measures is to protect the drinking water sources of villages. However, once the
drinking water is secured, the groundwater in this region will get further exploited
for irrigation. In this situation, no idea how and at what level implementation of
present related laws and policies, for example, Maharashtra Groundwater
(Development and Management) Act- 2009, will be affected or will be worked out
because regulating groundwater extraction is the prime policy objective of these
laws for ensuring drinking water. Moreover, the proposed implementation of MWGP
by the prime focus on importing water (water supply) will surely hamper the region's
local water demand-side water management efforts.
Point 5: Rights and responsibilities of Gram Panchayats may get affected: For
decades, for drinking water supply, participation, involvement, and coordination of
three tire systems (Zilha Parishad, Panchayat Samiti, and Gram Panchyat) in drinking
water supply and management have been the important mechanism. Suppose the
MWGP significantly contributes to village drinking water for villages. In that case, the
existing system of Panchayati raj will be highly affected. The fund received for Gram
61
Panchayat for drinking water supply and maintenance may be transferred to the
contractors/regulators of MWGP. The regulators will determine even water charges.
Therefore, how will existing drinking water infrastructure at the village level will be
merged into the MWGP is unclear.
Point 6: No mention of responsible authority and end-user unit: The MWGP is a
huge project at the level of scale and cost, and hence it will require a responsible
authority to make the key decisions on water access, re-allocation, re-prioritization,
and water to be realized and diverted. These are socially and politically sensitive
decisions requiring a transparent and independent administratively capable agency
or authority. Unfortunately, there is no clarity on MWGP on who (whether Water
Resource Department, Drinking Water supply Department, or MWRRA). Without a
clear administrative framework, the entire system will turn into chaos and become a
central point of conflict.
Similar to the administration gap, the end-user unit in MWGP is also not clear.
Whether the water will be provided to the WUA and Gram Panchayat for agricultural
and drinking water management or any other stakeholder/agency will be further
introduced in water distribution is not mentioned and is clear in the existing
framework.
Point 7: Possible losses in piped water network: As a part of this project, the main
pipeline of 1300 km and a subsidy pipeline network of 3220 km are proposed in the
Marathwada region. This massive pipeline network will require regular maintenance
to avoid the loss of water, which will add to the project's cost. Besides, the network
needs to be continuously monitored to check for the theft of water. Installing meters
at the household or community level is also necessary to ensure an adequate and
equitable water supply. These measures are also capital intensive and difficult to
implement in the current state governance situation. The existing pipeline project
for water supply in the Marathwada region is not very encouraging. The existing 40-
kilometer pipeline- from Jaikwadi to Aurangabad - operates only at 50% capacity,
triggering criminal wastage, leakages, and illegal water connections (TOI, 2020). Even
though the piped water supply from Jaikwadi to Jalna city is not very different,
looking at these conditions to reduce the water losses and theft will be a real
challenge to reduce water losses and theft.
Point 8: Challenges in transplanting the Israel model to Indian conditions: The
concept of a water grid is based on Israel's model. However, there is a need to
understand the primary difference between the Indian (mainly in Marathwada) and
Israel's conditions. First of all, Israel does not face the issues of power supply and
capital investment. But in the case of India, specifically in Marathwada, the
electricity supply is still a significant issue leaving apart the monitory issues. The high
voltage electricity supply for lifting the water from the dam is required to implement
the project, though the gravity flow model can be applied in a few cases (Parth,
2020). It is unclear whether the non-conventional energy resources will generate so
much power and, if not, the alternative mechanism considered in the shadow of
climate change. Another issue is the size of the project. In Israel, the sizes of the
water grid are smaller in expansion. However, the grid is to be created connecting
eight districts of the Marathwada region that is later to be connected to the Krishna
62
Basin and the Konkan region. The economic viability of such a huge project is still
unsure.
Point 9: No public and expert consultation in design: The most prominent criticism
of the MWGP is that no open public, civil society experts and consultations were
arranged or invited while designing the MWGP. Many Civil Society organisations
(CSOs), NGOs, and experts are working on the issue of drinking water security and
addressing water supply, demand, and water quality issues with improving the level
of water governance. Therefore, the state went on with this proposal without
consulting these diverse and experienced actors, which could give a more
economically viable, practical, and local solution to secure drinking water or could
give the useful suggestion to modify the existing scheme while translating the Israel
model into Marathwada region. Unfortunately, all the rich experiences and views of
civil societies, NGOs, and experts were bypassed in the MWGP.
d) Conclusion: Although the MGWP has raised many hopes in the people of the
Marathwada region, there is a long way to get this entire scheme a reality. Many
experts even question its practical, economical, and technical viability. The scheme's
important critique is ignorance of the alternative solutions of strengthening and
taking local level measures and side-lining the demand-side measures. Even if the
scheme gets implemented, it has many implications for changing overall water
allocation in the dams' different basins and command areas. Also, the objective and
implementation of relevant laws, such as the groundwater Act of 2009, to regulate
groundwater and secure drinking water will not be very relevant.
The scheme's success depends mainly on the last two phases of importing the water
from the Konkan region and the Krishna River Basin to the Marathwada region,
which is a mammoth task and involves many technical and environmental
challenges. This has been seen as a challenging task. Even Pandurang Todakar, an
irrigation engineer, proposed a technical plan long ago to divert water from Konkan
to Godavari, Bhima and Krishna rivers covering all of Maharashtra
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--XxIpUoNXE), but this was questioned on
different ground. Also, there is enough ground to say that MGWP has a hidden
intention to secure the water requirements of increasing water needs of growing
industrial zones (Delhi Mumbai Industrial Corridor and other industries-DMIC). In
short, the design of the overall MGWP shows that “small is not beautiful” (local
solutions). Moreover, we have seen the high-level politicization of important
schemes in the water sector during the last few years. It is important to note here
that this huge scheme can be unimplemented or uncompleted, as new governments
are putting many schemes of earlier governments on halt or giving STOP.
3.2.1.1.5 Gaalmukt Dharan, Gaalyukt Shivar Yojana (GDGS)
a) Background and objectives: In India, tank development and management have a
long tradition. Intending to revitalise the tank system, the state governments took
many steps from time to time. In Maharashtra, through the Employment Guarantee
Scheme (which was later converted into Mahatma Gandhi National Rural
Employment Guarantee Act and taken at the national level), work on tank
construction and silt removal during drought years and repair and maintenance was
63
taken on a large scale. Even under Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan (JSA), desilting and
rejuvenating different water bodies have been taken on a large scale. At the
culmination of these programs, the state launched a specific scheme for desilting
water bodies known as ‘Gaalmukt Dharan, Gaalyukt Shivar Yojana’ (literally, silt-free
water-reservoirs and silt-rich fields) in 2017. It has set up a ‘Desilting Policy
Committee, which recommended that 31,459 small dams and water tanks be
desilted in the state (Zade et al., 2020). The government of Maharashtra issued two
GRs in 2017 to promote the scheme. The key objective of this scheme is, based on
age, quality, and irrigation capacity of water bodies, excavation of silt from water
bodies, to make more water holding capacity of the water body and apply this fertile
soil in farms for increasing the farm productivity. The cost of excavation of the silt is
borne by the government (through government and CSR support), while transfer and
levelling of the silt in the farm are to be incurred by the beneficiary farmer. Since the
last few years, many CSRs, NGOs, and private donors have aggressively initiated
desiltation activities in the state, mostly in the Marathwada region, where drought is
a common phenomenon. According to Kushire (Kushire, 2019), 100.63 lakh cubic
meter of silt was removed from approximately 2535 water bodies and used by
farmers on their farms under this campaign. Later in 2019, the program is also
recommended in the revised State Water Policy-2019 as a strategy for drought
mitigation.
b) Strengths: The key strength of this scheme is that it helps combat the drought
situation, first by increasing the tank's storage capacity and second by making farm
soil fertile with the application of excavated silt which can support more crops.
Besides, silt application also results in less chemical fertiliser requirement, leading to
better economic benefits. Evidence shows that many silt-free structures revived
their storage potential, and nutrient-rich silt improved soil fertility, resulting in
higher agricultural production and reducing the cost of input like chemical fertilizers,
thereby increasing the net income of farmers (Zade et al., 2020). A study made by
WOTR of 3 desilted percolation tanks in Marathwada shows that the area under
intercropping and perennial irrigation is increased by 300% and 112%, respectively.
Rainfed areas and wastelands are reduced by 7% and 11%, respectively. The cotton,
soybean, and wheat yield increased by 63%, 56, and 40%, respectively. The gross
annual income for farmers cultivating on silt-applied land increased from INR 37,489
to INR 92,855. Farmlands with added silt have a higher water holding capacity and
improved organic carbon in the soil as compared to control farmlands without the
added silt. Thus the average benefit-cost ratio (of three tanks) is 1.31, indicating that
desiltation tanks are an economically viable strategy, with a win-win situation for
both a village by increasing water availability and for farmers with improved soil
(ibid).
c) Lacunas and gaps and recommendations to improve
Point 1: Selection criteria of the tank for desiltation: GR 1 mentions the tank's
selection criteria, which cover the age of the tank and its command area. In addition
to this, the groundwater recharge potential of the water holding area should also be
considered before its desiltation. If it is not considered, the excess water stored after
desiltation works will be exposed to evaporation leading to water losses. There are
64
certain situations where the GR prohibits undertaking or selecting the tanks for
desiltation work, such as tanks with irrigation potential of 0 to 100 hectares, tank
areas under private ownership of a farmer, or when there is no clarity about land
ownership. Here, we propose that along with the irrigation potential of the tank, the
amount of silt deposited should also be considered an important criterion for
selecting the tank. If tanks are silted to around 75% of their total water storage
capacity, the government should consider desiltation. Tanks under private or
encroached land should also be considered for desiltation, resulting in groundwater
percolation benefits and silt availability. For approval purposes, the Gram Panchayat
may take written permission from the land owners before submitting the proposal to
the Tahsildar. The GR made a positive provision that tanks with more quantity of
sand will not be considered for desiltation.
Further, a list of tanks constructed by the Revenue Department should be prepared
where there is a presence of sand in the structures. It should be made available in
the public domain to be accessible to all stakeholders and ensure that the provision
is provided and not violated. In addition to these criteria, we propose that the
quality of silt in the tank should be tested by a responsible NGO/Agency in case it is
planned to be applied on farmlands. This is to ensure that it does not negatively
affect the existing quality of soil and crop production.
Point 2: Modifications required on the institutional front: The GR-2 has suggested
the formation of a Village-level Monitoring Committee (VMC) and has mentioned the
proposed structure of the committee and its responsibilities. The composition of the
committee proposed as i) Village Sarpanch-as President, ii) Gram Panchayat member
(One)- as Member, iii) Farmers Representative- as Member, iv) NGO representative-
as Member, v) Talathi/Gramsevak- as Member, vi) related Section Engineer- as
Member and Secretary. Besides these, we recommend that the VMC may also have
representation of women SHG, women farmers, landless households, and minority
communities (SC/ST/OBCs). All village-level members of VMC should be selected
through Gram Sabha. Along with forming VMC, there should be explicit provisions
about conducting periodic meetings and documenting the procedure of meetings
during the project. As suggested by the WOTR study, in addition to the existing
responsibilities mentioned in the GR, the VMC should have assigned the additional
tasks of undertaking awareness activities in the village regarding the desiltation plan,
displaying and updating information about the plan and execution of the desilting
activity daily at public places during the work in progress, so that people are well
informed, and finding ways and means for compensating the farmers getting
affected by temporary roads/approach road, as it affects the farmland of farmers
(Zade et al., 2020).
Point 3: Planning, approval, execution, and monitoring for implementation of the
activities: The GR-1 states that the Sub-Divisional Officer (SDO-Prant) from the
Revenue Department will be the implementing officer of this scheme. In cases where
the farmers or NGOs submit a proposal for transporting silt, the Tahsildar, after
technical scrutiny, must send the proposal for administrative sanction to the SDO. In
cases where the farmer/NGO spends its funds to excavate and transport silt, prior
notice related to tank desiltation activity should be given to Tahsildar/
Talathi/Deputy Engineer (Dams) along with the schedule of work by farmers or NGO.
65
We strongly recommend that the concerned Gram Panchayat be the central
decision-making body in project implementation along with the VMC. The SDO
should be the project sanctioning authority, and Gram Panchayat should work
closely with him for project implementation. WOTR study proposes that initially
interested farmers or NGOs should approach the respective Gram Panchayat,
expressing their interest in tank desiltation, and then NGOs prepare a detailed
proposal of the desiltation work and present it to Gram Sabha for approval. For
preparing the proposal, they need to take the support of engineers to estimate the
tank’s suitability for desiltation and the quantity of silt available. After that, the VMC
gets formed in Gram Sabha, and it coordinates the overall activities of desiltation by
ensuring the benefits of desiltation are inclusive.
Point 4: Inclusive Benefits As a precondition of participation: The GR-1 specifies
that the farmers will bear the expenses required for transportation of silt from the
percolation tank to their farm. Studies show that the most silt benefits are taken by
large farmers as they imported and applied large amounts of silt compared to
medium and smallholding farmers (Zade et al., 2020). Therefore, it is suggested that
partial grant/support or interest-free loans be provided to small and marginal
farmers to ensure the equitable benefits of public money on tank desiltation to all
community sections. The temporary approach road made from the tank to the
existing public road, which passes through the private land of many farmers, must be
demarcated by the VMC with the help of the Talathi, and if required, the Tahsildar as
it is one of the issues of dispute among farmers. Also, there should be a financial
provision in the project that once the tanks' desiltation is completed, the temporary
approach road made in the farmers' fields should be cleared as it affects agricultural
farms severely.
Point 5: Ensuring the Ecosystem Health: The GR-1 specifies precautions to be taken
while work is in progress, such as a ban on the excavation of murum and sand and
not restricting desiltation to a certain distance from the walls depending on the tank
size. To make this provision stronger and ensure its effective implementation, we
propose that there should be a provision for canceling the license or imposing a
penalty on machine operators, implementing NGOs, and the Engineers responsible
for monitoring. Furthermore, only that quantity of silt should be excavated, which
would help restore the tank's original water storage capacity. Along with this, while
deciding the depth for desiltation, the hydro-geology in terms of groundwater
recharge capacity of the submerged area needs to be factored in. These precautions
are essential because changes in the topography and hydrology of the area around
the tank due to its desiltation may impact the sustainability of downstream flows
affecting the biodiversity and ecosystem; hence care must be taken that
downstream flows don’t get affected negatively.
d) Conclusion: Given the huge potential of the GDGS in increasing resilience to drought
in the semi-arid regions, we propose a significant restructuring to address and
enhance the important concerns of community participation, equitable benefits,
accountability, and transparency as environmental sustainability. Expecting that
GDGS, a stand-alone program, will deliver or be sustainable in the long run does not
seem feasible. There are already enough observations that programs such as Jalyukt
Shivar Abhiyan (JSA), whose focus is on specific activities of desilting and deepening
66
streams and rivers, have not resulted in a sustainable and judicious outcome.
Therefore, since there is no provision for treatments of the catchments in GDGS, as
in the case of a comprehensive watershed development and management program,
the tanks would get filled up with silt in no time. So, we propose the need to make
GDGS a part of an Integrated Watershed Management Programme (IWMP) at the
national level. As in the last few years, desiltation of tanks and lakes, as well as rivers
and streams, under GDGS and Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan have become the central issue
of concern; there is a need for a special comprehensive law devoted to the
desiltation matters (rather than issuing periodic GRs). Such law is essential to
regulate the overall desiltation planning and execution activities, which on the one
hand, will be beneficial to the diverse set of stakeholders engaged in these activities
and will ensure that desilting activities don’t affect the ecosystem services and
integrity in the long run at the other.
3.2.1.1.6 Project on Climate Resilient Agriculture (PoCRA)
a) Background and Objectives: The PoCRA was initiated by the Government of
Maharashtra in partnership with the World Bank in May 2018. The project is also
known as the 'Nanaji Deshmukh Krushi Sanjeevani Prakalp.' As the many states
started facing climate challenges and increasing weather events affecting agriculture
and crops, at the national level, National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture
(NICRA) project was designed and at a state level in Maharashtra to contribute to
increasing climate resilience in the agriculture sector PoCRA was initiated in selected
districts of Maharashtra. As mentioned in the project documents, the project's
objective is to enhance the adaptive capacity of smallholder farmers, develop the
absorptive capacity of stakeholders in the selected value chains, and enhance the
transformative capacity of institutions and stakeholders (GoM, 2021). The project
has four main components, namely, a) promoting climate-resilient agriculture
systems, b) post-harvest management and value chain promotion, c) institutional
development, knowledge, and policies for climate-resilient agriculture, and d)
project management. The project's total cost is INR 4,000 crores, out of which the
share of the Government of Maharashtra is INR 1,200 Crore (30%), and that of the
World Bank is INR 2,800 crore (70 %). As a part of this project total of 5142 villages
were selected, which belonged to the 15 districts in Marathwada (Aurangabad,
Nanded, Latur, Parbhani, Jalna, Beed, Hingoli, Osmanabad districts), Vidarbha (Akola,
Amravati, Buldana, Yavatmal, Washim, Wardha district) and Jalgaon district of
Nashik Division (GoM, 2021). Although the PoCRA has more components of
agriculture, we have purposefully selected it for this review as it has many
components of water supply and demand management, and agriculture is not seen
in silos but is more connected to the water resources.
b) Strengths: The village selection process for the project is well defined based on the
scientific approach. The villages are selected by applying the climate sensitivity index
by giving respective weightage to a) climate exposure, b) climate sensitivity, and c)
adaptive capacity (25%, 40%, and 35%, respectively). The activities for climate-
resilient agriculture were then implemented at these cluster levels rather than at the
single village level. The best part of the project is that it not only focuses on
promoting the climate-resilient agricultural practices but post-harvest marketing and
67
value chain as well as institutional building by the formation of 'Village Climate
Resilient Agriculture Management Committee' (VCRMC) in each village and network
of farmer producers companies (FPCs) for this purpose. Thus this provides a
comprehensive framework of climate resilience and income security for farmers,
mainly small and marginal farmers. The positive and innovative strategies adopted in
the project are Krushi Tais (Female Mobilizers) designated to reach out to especially
female farmers, farmer field schools, promotion of carbon sequestration through
horticulture, integrated farming system, soil health practices, water supply measures
(farm ponds and dug wells), and demand-side measures (micro-irrigation and water
budge tinging practices). At the front of post-harvest management is the value chain
promotion, promotion of FPCs, improving the Seed Supply Chain's performance by
creating a supply chain of seeds with climate resilience features, and providing
agreement services to farmers. Institutional and knowledge development by training
and capacity building of VCRMC members through training, workshops, and
exposure visits has given considerable focus to the project. Even the IEC material
prepared for awareness and promoting climate-resilient crop and agriculture
practices is in easy language but powerful. The program's unique features are the
adoption and use of different technological tools developed and applied for
beneficiary selection, mobile-based applications and portals, GIS and Remote
Sensing technology, water budgeting, training management app, etc., for quick and
transparent planning and its execution. Thus at the package level, the project has an
extensive set of interventions with adequate financial allocation for making the
agriculture climate resilient.
c) Lacunas and gaps and recommendations
Point 1: Need for a broader systematic vision to address climate change: Central
focus of the PoCRA is on making agriculture climate-resilient. Therefore,
interventions are mainly designed around crop and soil health practices and ensuring
assured income for farmers. However, there is a larger agreement among scientists
and experts that the climate change challenge cannot be addressed in isolation and
need a holistic and integrated approach of all three continuums, climate change
adaption, mitigation, and resilience building. Focusing on these three pillars, actions
are needed on different fronts, such as agriculture and water management, reviving
the local ecosystem and ecosystem services, biodiversity, powerful policy
regulations, and restructuring the overall marketing system and political economy
around agriculture. Therefore, without such a comprehensive framework, the output
of making agriculture climate resilient will not sustain the long term. For example,
suppose we don't address the mushrooming of sugarcane areas in the water-scarce
Marathwada region by strict regulations and marketing intensive to other crops. In
that case, we cannot expect a change in the cropping pattern. The crop insurance
system is a great support mechanism for farmers to deal with increasing crop losses
and failure incidences due to sudden weather changes and climate variations.
However, there is no mention of this useful climate resilient strategy for farmers in
the PoCRA. Even the way water infrastructure development (Farm ponds, river/Nala
deepening) is being promoted through PoCRA, and non-PoCRA projects and other
sources has many implications for overall water resource management, considering
sustainability and equity. For building climate resilience, the community as a whole
68
should be at the center rather than individuals. Therefore, strategies should be more
community-focused and less for induvial benefits. This integrated and holistic
approach to addressing climate change is missing in PoCRA, a precondition for
resilience building that needs to be adopted in the project.
Point 2: Lack of system of local-level weather monitoring and its application:
Although the prime objective of the project is to make the agriculture climate-
resilient, this cannot be achieved until the local level weather data is monitored and
used for the planning process. As we can see in these days of climate change, the
weather conditions, such as rainfall, vary from village to village or even within the
village. Therefore, the application of weather data collected at the block or district
level is not very relevant for local planning. In PoCRA, the district-wise weekly
weather forecast is made available on the project website and to farmers. This
system needs significant transformation to make the system more precise, relevant,
and useful for farmers. Crop/weather advisories to farmers need to be based on
local weather conditions and specific to their crops. Therefore, a network of weather
stations has to be significantly increased in the project with the effective data
monitoring and advisory generation process. In this regard, the FarmPrecise tool
developed and the system put on the ground by WOTR, in collaboration with IMD
(ref), can provide a useful opportunity to project to collaborate or build upon. Even
the watershed or village level rainfall data is the prerequisite for making the crop
water budget more precise and relevant to the village because the application of
block-level or district-level data for the village water budget results in a much-
distorted scenario. Therefore, if the agriculture and water management in the
project village have to make climate-resilient truly, the project needs a significant
transformation in its approach and practices on weather monitoring system and its
application.
Point 3: More focus on individual benefits rather than community-building: An
appropriate governance mechanism is essential to ensure the project impacts are
sustainable and judicious. Although the project has the provision of a three-tier
structure, representing the district, sub-division, and a 'Village Climate Resilient
Agriculture Management Committee' (VCRAMC) at village levels, the project adopts
the beneficiary approach. There are fewer or no incentives for the community (for
example, the larger water bodies, addressing drinking water issues, weather
stations, groundwater recharge measures, maintenance funds, etc.). In contrast, the
nature of benefits is very individual-centric (dug wells, farm ponds, micro-irrigation,
diesel engines, electric pumps, etc.). The good part is the formation and promotion
of farmer producer companies (FPCs), which is a group activity, and more farmers
can benefit from it. Unless the community-centric approach is adopted, the demand
side water management, mainly water budgeting, changes in crop pattern, and
security of drinking water for the village, which is essential for resilience building,
can be achieved fully. Therefore, the project needs to change its focus from
individual beneficiary centric to the community. As a result, they take more interest
in the project and sustain the benefits.
Point 4: Equity issues and judicious benefits to vulnerable groups: The mentioned
in the project documents, the aim is to enhance climate resilience and profitability of
69
700,000 small (1-2 ha) and 10,00,000 marginal (less than 1ha) farmers across 15
districts in the State. However, we could not find the land ownership segregated
beneficiary data in the public domain to verify how small and marginal farmers
benefited from the project. Moreover, although the agriculture in selected districts is
predominately rainfed, most of the interventions in the project package are
irrigation centric, with little focus on rainfed area development and building their
resilience. Similarly, the landless population and landless agriculture labourers are
also the most vulnerable sections of the community, with no focus on improvements
in their livelihood and resilience building. Therefore, the project needs to ensure that
the interests of rainfed farmers and landless populations also get addressed. Small
and marginal farmers are supported more by taking project benefits, increasing the
subsidy amount, or providing soft loans to enable them to pay their contribution to
availing the benefits.
Point 5: Issues regarding sustainable use of water resources: To enhance
sustainable water use, in-situ and off-situ water conservation is promoted, including
constructing new water harvesting structures (dug wells and farm ponds, well
recharge) and rejuvenating the existing structure, promoting micro and protective
irrigation. Also, support is being provided for diesel and electrical pumps and pipes
for irrigation purposes. As there are growing concerns about the increasing number
of farm ponds and their ill effects on groundwater depletion, groundwater sharing
(as it allows privatizing the groundwater), and increased evaporation of stored
groundwater, the provision of farm pond construction needs to be very carefully
promoted. PoCRA documents talk about the guiding principle for allowing the
number of farm ponds, for example, the criteria of net-withdrawal capacity in the
cluster, calculated by GSDA; however, in practice, at what level this is followed is not
clear as largely there is no control and regulations and monitoring system in the
State on several farm ponds in village, their size, and depth (ref). Given these facts, it
must be noted here that the villages selected under the PoCRA project are
vulnerable to climate change. In such a situation, additional infrastructure promotion
like pumps, pipes, wells, and farm ponds that encourage more water extraction
might lead to a further decrease in groundwater levels rather than improving climate
resilience. Crosschecking whether these interventions align with the goal and
objective of existing key laws and policies (for example, Maharashtra groundwater
Act-2009) on water management is also necessary. This current approach to
infrastructure support has to be revisited in the project.
Point 6: Crop water budget- good on paper but very less on the ground: In the
PoCRA, the water budget framework is developed by implementing partners (IIT
Bombay and GSDA), and based on it, the Water Budgeting app has been developed.
The documents also mention that village-wise water budget charts are prepared and
displayed at the village level to create awareness about water balance. However,
unless village committees understand and get familiar with the water budgeting
process, they don't get attached to the process, and there is a rare possibility of
getting it adopted by villagers. Water budgeting apps are useful to facilitate the
process. Still, there is no alternative to the manual calculation villagers do; thus,
ownership of the water budgeting process and outcome is created. The biggest
challenge in PoCRA in acceptance and adopting a crop water budget is the
70
beneficiary approach adopted in the project without putting the community at the
centre. For this purpose, we suggest adopting the water stewardship approach
promoted by WOTR, where villagers are as seen the custodian of water resources
with the approach of water as a public resource, and a cadre of water stewards
promoted in villages take the overall responsibility of preparation of water budget
and its serious follow-up (D’Souza et al., 2019).
Point 7: Overburdening and workload of the officers: The present status of the
position and human personnel shows a shortage of staff at higher levels like Project
Management Units (PMU), District, and sub-division levels. At the PMU level, only
65% of staff is available, while at the district and sub-division level, 86% of staff is
available (GoM, 2021). This is also substantiated by a key informant at the top level,
as according to him, the hierarchy of agricultural officers was reduced for the speedy
implementation of the scheme. However, this resulted in overburdening of
Agricultural assistants. Besides, many posts of the supporting officers to SDO are
vacant. As a single officer has to look after multiple projects and work on a targeted
basis, it is challenging to devote complete attention to PoCRA. To address the issue
of the high workload of project staff, we suggest limiting the area of Agricultural
Assistants based on criteria like population and accessibility of the villages. Also,
suppose the project aims to make water budgeting a reality in project villages. In
that case, experts in mobilizing the communities in water budgeting have to be
appointed, or the skills of existing staff have to be developed.
d) Conclusion: The PoCRA is innovative in many terms, with an approach of building
climate-resilient agriculture and water infrastructure development, and thus raising
farmers’ income, mainly small and marginal farmers. However, the project can be
modified and made more relevant in several ways. For example, the weather data
network can be made dense for appropriate plans and water budgeting. At the same
time, the beneficiary approach adopted needs to modify to make this initiative
community-centric for better sustainability of the impacts.
3.2.1.1.7 Mukhyamantri Saur Krushi Pump Yojana, 2019 (MSKPY-2019)
a) Background of MSKPY-2019: Interpreting the nexus of water-food-energy is
essential because, in silos, we cannot analyze these issues as they have casual
relationships. In recent decades, groundwater extraction has been supported by
access to highly subsidized (almost free) and unmetered power supply for irrigation
purposes. There are around 25 lakh wells in Maharashtra, with most electric-
powered pumps. Thus, the state pays a heavy subsidy to power companies per year,
mainly to Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited (MSEDCL). On
electricity subsidy for irrigation, there is no accurate data available. However, it is
estimated at the national level around Rs. 50,000 crores per annum (Bhushan et al.,
2019). To avoid this increasing burden of subsidies, Central and state governments in
India have been aggressively promoting solar-powered pumps. In this effort, in
February 2019, the Centre government launched the Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja
Suraksha Evam Utthaan Mahaabhiyan (KUSUM) scheme that provides a grid-based
and off-grid solar pumps to farmers. For this, the target was set to bring one-third to
one-fourth of all irrigation pumps in the country to be converted into solar-powered
71
pumps in about three years (GoI, 2022). In this effort, in Maharashtra, the
‘Mukhtamantri Saur Krushi Pump Yojana’ (MSKPY) was launched in 2019. As a part of
the scheme, 100,000 solar pumps were planned to be distributed and installed in
three phases, with solar pumps of 3 HP, 5 HP, and 7.5 HP. This goal was set to be
achieved by 2021. These pumps are being deployed as off-grid agricultural pumps.
For any power of the solar pump, the state government provides a 90% subsidy to
the general category farmer and a 95% subsidy to SC/ST farmers (MahaVitaran,
2019).
b) Key provisions and strategies of the MSKPY-2019: The Steering Committee (Sukanu
Committee) has been formed to monitor and implement the scheme. The Chief
Secretary (Energy Department) is the chairperson of this committee, and the
managing director of the Mahavitaran Company limited is the member secretary.
The farmers must have an assured water source to benefit from a solar pump set.
Farmers who have farmland of 5 acres are eligible for the 3 HP pump, while those
with more than 5 acres of land can apply for a 5 HP or 7.5 HP pump. However, if the
area comes under the over-exploited, exploited, or partially exploited watershed
category of GSDA, then the solar pumps of 7.5 HP are not allowed. The depth of the
water source is also considered while checking the eligibility. While selecting the
beneficiaries, farmers receiving power supply from any other scheme are not eligible
for having a 3 and 5 HP solar pump. Farmers who had paid for the new electricity
connection but have not yet received the connection are also eligible. The solar
pumps will be sanctioned in only 'safe watersheds', i.e., where the groundwater
extraction is less than 60% in the case of solar pumps of 7.5HP. Most importantly,
solar pumps will not be granted for wells of farmers where water is being extracted
below 60 meters. The subsidy amount for farmers to take the solar pumps through
the scheme is huge, 90% for farmers from the general category and 95% for farmers
from the SC/ST category.
c) Strength MSKPY-2019: This primary strength of the scheme is that it assures the
uninterrupted daytime power supply for irrigation at a convenient time for farmers.
The major strength of promoting solar-powered pumps is reducing the huge cross-
subsidy burden, i.e., the implication of additional charges on commercial and
industrial electricity consumers to compensate for the subsidies given to the
agricultural sector. Even though solar is green and clean (renewable) energy, it
reduces the use of diesel pumps and coal-generated electricity, and thus pollution.
Besides, the selection criteria of beneficiaries by excluding the groundwater
exploited, overexploited, and semi-exploited watersheds make the scheme more
environment friendly and socially concerned by allowing more subsidies and priority
to remote and tribal areas besides more subsidies to the SC-ST population. Even the
provision made in the scheme for not granting the solar pump to farmers who
extract water below 60 meters is in line with the Maharashtra Groundwater
(Development and Management) Act, 2009.
d) Gaps, Lacunas, and Deficiencies in the existing provisions and recommendations
Point 1: Beneficiary selection criteria: Medium-sized and large farmers are more
advantageous for buying solar pumps. Farmers have to pay only 10% of the cost of
72
purchasing solar pumps as there is a 90% government subsidy on purchasing solar
pump units. However, studies find that large farmers are primary beneficiaries of
solar pump schemes implemented by various states due to the inability of poor
farmers to pay even 10% of the cost (Bhushan et al., 2019). No further clarity was
provided on the scheme's benefits to tribal communities. The legal landholding is the
main criterion for scheme benefits. The triable population is the most vulnerable,
and mostly the electricity has not reached in those areas. The challenge they have is
the very small land holding, and many do not have the legal documents (cultivating
land as patta). Although the intent of not allowing benefits to farmers extracting
water below 60 meters is appreciable for a 7.5 HP pump, the uniform application of
this provision across different geologies and land typology is not very appropriate.
The provision made under 'Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and
Management) Act, 2009' of limiting the depth of the well below 60 meters is
challenged on different ground, mainly the huge diversity in terms of slopes,
biophysical conditions, and geology and aquifer systems in different regions, farmers
in upper reaches and high elevation certainly get disadvantaged and farmers in
downstream with the added advantage of water availability at very early depth.
Therefore, excluding the overexploited and semi-exploited watershed is a wiser
criterion than 60 meters of depth for solar pump benefits.
Point 2: High possibility of excess groundwater withdrawal: The scheme is being
implemented to provide uninterrupted daytime power to the farmers, which is
actually a good intention. However, the continuous power supply might change the
cropping pattern and, thus, more water extraction. In areas with shallow aquifers
and a low recharge rate, this might lead to overexploitation of groundwater. It has
already been established that ‘free/subsidized electricity often leads to over-
exploitation of water’ (Bhushan et al., 2019). Therefore, the scheme needs careful
attention. The large-scale distribution of solar pumps could result in excessive water
withdrawal and significantly impact the already depleting water table, particularly
with fast depleting aquifers in regions (Marathwada and Western Maharashtra). A
handful of studies assess the impact of free/subsidized electricity on groundwater
exploitation and agricultural production. As mentioned by Badiani and Jessoe, a 10%
decrease in the average electricity subsidy leads to a 6.7 % decrease in groundwater
extraction (Badiani & Jessoe, 2013). Even under this scheme, the distributed solar
pumps are not connected to the grid; as a result, the farmers will not get the
monetary benefits from the excess power generated. This might encourage farmers
to extract more water in a rush to use the excess power generated.
Therefore, the current provision for not granting 7.5 HP in exploited, semi-exploited,
overexploited villages should be applied to all areas. Also, micro-irrigation should be
made mandatory for solar pump beneficiaries, or the scheme should be linked with a
subsidy scheme for availing micro-irrigation.
Point 3: Less possibility of saving the capital through solar pump subsidy: Another
lacuna of this model is that the state is counting on the money saved from giving
subsidized electricity. However, the priority areas for distribution of the solar pumps
are those where the electricity supply is not yet provided. The scheme's document
clearly mentions that for 3 and 5 HP pumps, only those farmers can apply who have
not yet connected to Mahavitaran feeders or those who have applied for electricity
73
supply for pumps but have not yet connected. In such a situation, the state will not
save the subsidy in the real term (Bhushan et al., 2019). Also, as the pumps are off-
grid pumps, neither farmer nor state can earn extra money by selling the electricity
or reducing the cost of network generation for the distribution of electricity.
Another issue with the off-grid pumps is that the lifecycle cost of these pumps is
higher than other models of solar pumps, i.e., on-greed pumps or solar feeders
(ibid). In 2017, the Maharashtra government did a solar feeder scheme pilot project
in two villages, namely Ralegan Siddhi and Kolambi, in Ahmednagar and Yawatmal
districts. This was done under the scheme 'Mukhyamantri Saur Krishi Vahini Yojana,'
i.e., 'Chief Minister Solar Agriculture feeder scheme' (ET, 2018). Later in 2018, this
scheme was launched across the state. This scheme is still in continuation. As stated
earlier, as the off-grid solar pumps are less beneficial than the feeder model, more
efforts should be put into implementing the 'Mukhyamantri Saur Krishi Vahini
Yojana' wherever possible.
Point 4: Fluctuation in power supply provided by solar panels: In the summer
season, due to adequate heat from the sun, the solar panels can generate a fair
amount of power for pumping; however, on cloudy days (mainly rainy and winter
season), the plant may face the high fluctuation due to insufficient heat by sun. As
there is no storage facility available, the issues of changes might not be fully resolved
in off-grid solar pumps.
Point 5: Horse Power of the solar pump: In most cases in Maharashtra, bore wells
are not yielding a high amount of water. There are very few bore wells whose water
yield is compatible for 3 HP and more; in most cases, the water yield of bore wells
ranges from 1 to 3 HP. Even the study done by Sawant (Sawant et al., 2018) in
Buldhana and Akola region found that many of the small and marginal farmers in the
region require low-power solar pumps ranging from 1 to 2 HP. This could be the
situation in many parts of Maharashtra. Hence, there is a need to revise the
provision of HP-wise subsidies for solar pumps according to the region or need of the
farmer, benefiting more farmers with less groundwater yield and extraction.
Points 6: Maintenance issues: The scheme prioritizes the remote and tribal areas for
installing solar pumps. However, it has not been mentioned how the maintenance of
these solar pumps will be taken care of. Besides, the parts of the solar pumps are
expensive to be replaced by the small and marginal farmers. In addition to this, local
youth should be trained to solve the technical issues related to solar pumps. This will
not only solve the regular maintenance issues of solar pumps but also will generate
more employment.
e) Conclusion: Solar-powered pumps through the scheme certainly benefit farmers
and the state by reducing the state's high subsidy amount. However, these options
cannot be generalized to the entire state. They must consider local characteristics
such as level of groundwater development, level of groundwater depletion and the
yield of bore wells, cropping patterns, etc. Even the Jyotigram scheme in Gujrat has
come with an integrated solar energy model, making available 24 hours three-phase
power supply for domestic uses and 8 hours/day of full voltage power for farmers to
irrigate. Such an integrated approach needs think to modify the scheme. The areas
74
where solar pumps are installed should be monitored and informed about their
groundwater conditions. Otherwise, the safe and not-exploited watersheds might
become vulnerable to water scarcity. The effectiveness of this scheme should also be
checked in the face of climate change and rainfall variability, and even with more
research into whether and at what level big units of solar power increase the
atmospheric temperature.
3.2.2 Analysis of the policies and programs at the national level
Having analysed policies and programs at the state level, we present the national
level policies and programs at the national level. The national-level policies and
programs are made as guiding principles and procedures, and states are expected to
take cognizance of it and modify their water governance. Therefore, we discuss this
section in two subsections, an analysis of the policies and an analysis of programs at
the national level.
3.2.2.1 Analysis of the policies at the national level
This section presents the analysis of key policies and frameworks in the water sector
available at the national level.
3.2.2.1.1 National Water Policy, 2012 (NWP-2012)
a) Background and objectives of NWP-2012: India adopted the first NWP in 1987; since
then, the NWP has been revised twice, in 2002 and 2012. As the water resource has
been facing different challenges in many Indian states for the last few decades,
NWP-2012 was formulated to propose a framework for the creation of a system of
laws and institutions and a plan of action with a unified national perspective, and
hence it is expected in the policy that the State Water Policies may need to be
drafted/revised in accordance with this policy keeping in mind the basic concerns
and principles. The overall framework of NWP-2012 adopts the principle of equity,
social justice, sustainability, and good governance through transparent, informed
decision-making. It also promotes water resources to be managed as a common pool
community resource held, by the state, under the public trust doctrine. In November
2019, the Ministry of Jal Shakti constituted a drafting committee to revise the
existing NWP-2012 under the chairmanship of Dr. Mihir Shah, a renowned water
expert. As the new policy may take a year or more, we have analysed the NWP-2012
for the present review.
b) Strengths of the NWP-2012: The national-level framework and perspective put by
NWP-2012 are comprehensive and valuable to promote principles of equity, social
justice, sustainability, and climate change. NWP-2012 has proposed many useful
recommendations and suggestions to build and increase the adaptive capacities of
communities to climate change. Principles of water supply-side management and
improving participatory governance at different levels have been adopted in the
policy. To meet the increasing water demands and traditional structures of water
harvestings, desalination methods and avoidance of inadvertent evapotranspiration
from water bodies are proposed. In addition, a need for mapping the aquifers to
75
know the quantum and quality of groundwater resources is also acknowledged. For
demand management, a system of evolving benchmarks for water use for different
purposes, i.e., water footprints and water auditing, is indorsed. Declining
groundwater levels in over-exploited areas are expected to be arrested by
introducing improved water use technologies, incentivizing efficient water use, and
encouraging community-based management of aquifers. At an institutional level,
arrangements for promotion, regulation, and evolving mechanisms for efficient
water use at the basin/sub-basin level are proposed to be established at the national
level. Water pricing is promoted to ensure its efficient use and reward for
conservation. An independent statutory Water Regulatory Authority is proposed to
be set up by each State for equitable access to water for all and setting fair water
pricing for drinking and other uses. The policy's important contribution is pushing
the need for the Water National Framework Law as an umbrella law for the water
sector. This framework law is expected to lead the way for essential legislation on
water governance in every State and the Union and the devolution of necessary
authority to the lower tiers of government to deal with the local water situation. It is
assured in the policy that the framework law must need to recognize water not only
as a scarce resource but also as a sustainer of life and ecology. Therefore, water,
particularly groundwater, is expected to be managed as a community resource held,
by the state, under the public trust doctrine to achieve food security, livelihood, and
equitable and sustainable development for all. Thus, the NWP-2012 provides a
comprehensive framework to guide the country's water resource development and
management process.
c) Gaps and deficiencies in the policy and recommendations for modification
Provision 1: Safe Water for drinking and sanitation should be considered as pre-
emptive needs, followed by high priority allocation for other basic domestic needs,
achieving food security, supporting sustenance agriculture, and minimum eco-
system needs [1.1 (vi)].
The NWP 2002 prioritizes water allocations for purposes of drinking, irrigation,
hydropower, ecology, industries, navigation, and other uses in that order. In
contrast, the NWP 2012 prioritizes water for drinking and domestic needs, irrigation,
and “minimum ecological needs” as an equal and ‘high priority (National Water
Policy, 2012, 2012). The NWP 2012 introduced the concept of minimum ecological
needs and stipulated that these were to be given a “high priority” allocation. We
propose that after water for drinking and domestic needs, ‘water for ecology and the
environment must be the second most important priority. The environment and its
ecology provide the essential and crucial ecosystem services- such as water, food,
fuel, wood, and fiber, as well as balancing the climate - on which the survival,
sustenance, and progress of the human race and civilization itself, depend. Securing
these ecosystem services is of utmost importance, especially given climate change
and rising global temperatures, which will adversely affect India.
Provision 2: As demand-side management, methods like aligning cropping patterns
with natural resource endowments, micro-irrigation (drip, sprinkler, etc.),
automated irrigation operation, evaporation-transpiration reduction, etc., should
be encouraged and incentivized [6 (5)]
76
Wide observations show that, although water use-efficiency devices, such as micro-
irrigation and automated irrigation devices, reduce crop water requirement, in real
terms, farmers' overall water use doesn’t get reduced as they increase the area
under irrigation (Grafton et al., 2018; Perry et al., 2017). Given that around 90% of
India’s water is used for agriculture (Qazi, 2017), we can never hope to meet India’s
drinking and domestic water needs without reducing water for agriculture. Just three
water-intensive crops - rice, wheat, and sugarcane - consume almost 80% of
irrigation water (M. Shah et al., 2021). Along with promoting micro-irrigation, a
reduction in the area under these crops and crop diversification can significantly
alleviate water scarcity and make available additional water resources for other
needs, especially in rainfed and drought-prone regions of the country. To reduce
water-guzzling crops and increase the area under “water-lite” crops such as millets,
pulses, and oilseeds, these and similar crops' minimum support prices (MSP) should
be further increased. Such procured crops as millets (jowar, bajra, etc.), pulses, and
locally grown crops should be introduced into the public distribution system (PDS),
the Anganwadi-ICDS program, and mid-day meal schemes for school-going children
while simultaneously reducing the procurement of wheat and rice. The NWP should
set a clear roadmap for this.
Provision 3: To meet equity, efficiency, and economic principles, the water charges
should be determined on a volumetric basis [7(2)]
The interconnectedness of surface and groundwater hydrology has to be recognized,
as both are forms of the same resource. Hence, it is not logical to price only surface/
canal water while making groundwater a free gift for the few better-endowed
farmers. Wider observations show that the absence of groundwater pricing causes
indiscriminate extraction and depletion of groundwater resources in many regions.
Therefore, a system of groundwater pricing based on the area under irrigation,
similar to canal water, should be introduced. To make this legally tenable in the case
of groundwater, it is necessary to revise and modify the Indian Easement Act, 1882,
which confers exclusive private domain over what is essentially a common property.
Provision 4: The over-withdrawal of groundwater should be minimised by
regulating the use of electricity for its extraction; for this, separate electric feeders
for pumping groundwater for agricultural use should be considered [7 (6)].
This provision is mainly based on the limited success of the Jyotigram scheme in
Gujarat state. Farmers in Gujarat are receiving 8 hours/day of uninterrupted, high-
quality 3-phase power. The advocates of Jyotigram Yojana and separating power
feeders claim that it has reduced the aggregate groundwater withdrawals without
massive negative impacts on production, and it has reduced the wastage of power
and groundwater and generated some incentive for efficiency in their use (Mukherji
et al., 2012). However, few studies mention that this mechanism has increased
groundwater extraction because the cost per unit of electricity remained unchanged
or no substantial increases in tariff. The power supplied became more effective and
reliable with improved quality (Chindarkar & Grafton, 2019).
On the other hand, challenges such as farmers stealing power by hooking on village
feeders, which have 3- phase power all day long, and even many farmers using larger
submersible motors than earlier are observed. Even there is evidence that limited
hours of electricity supply for irrigation have negatively affected water-sharing
77
practices, and water markets negatively impacted poor farmers. Therefore, although
feeder separation is a useful provision, it is certainly not adequate for reducing
groundwater use. Unless the fundamental problem of cropping pattern by
incentivizing appropriate crops doesn’t get well addressed through the market
mechanism, electricity regulations in isolation will not be sufficient to address the
core issue of groundwater depletion.
Provision 5: For flood management, appropriate safety measures, including
downstream flood management, for each dam should be undertaken on top
priority [8(8)].
In addition to flood management measures downstream, emphasis on the treatment
of the catchment areas of dams through soil and water conservation measures is
necessary. This will ensure that these catchments absorb more water in days of
heavy rainfall, reduce run-off velocity, recharge groundwater aquifers, and ensure
warning and safe discharge of excess water in the dams. Considering the increasing
events of erratic rainfall and changing overall monsoon patterns due to climate
change, this needs priority attention in the NWP.
Provision 6: Water is essential for the sustenance of the ecosystem, and therefore,
minimum ecological needs should be given due consideration [1.1 (v)]. Even
artificial recharging projects would be allowed to ensure aquifers provide base
flows to the surface system and maintain ecology.
The NWP-2012 is vocal about ensuring the water requirement for ecosystem needs
and environmental flows. Even the policy talk about keeping aside the portion of the
river flows to meet ecological needs ensuring that the low and high flow releases are
proportional to the natural flow regime, including base flow [1.3(v)]. However, there
is a dearth of evidence-based studies with respect to optimum water needs of
ecological niches, ecosystems, and environmental flows for landscapes and rivers. As
the agro-ecological and climatic zones and subzones differ, policy formulation needs
to be backed by sound geo-ecologically representative research and scientific
evidence to arrive at the optimal water requirements of these natural systems, also
including under conditions of a changing climate. This is also urgently necessary as
many policy documents, projects, and civil society actors are promoting tools for
water auditing and water budgeting at different scales in the absence of clarity on
the amount of water to be allocated to maintain local ecological functions and
environmental flows. Therefore, NWP should prioritize this as an important area for
in-depth study in the Indian context.
Provision 7: There is a need to evolve a National Framework Law as an umbrella
statement of general principles to lead the way for essential legislation on water
governance in every State of the Union (2.1)
Certainly, National Water Framework Law is essential to guide the mechanisms to
address the interstate water sharing issues and provide an overall framework to
guide the states. However, the critical constraint in dealing with inter-state eater
conflicts on water sharing is that water is treated as a state subject; hence we
propose that it should be brought under the concurrent list of subjects to deal with
by the centre and states. In addition, there are different policy instruments and
programs in India, either under-drafting or implementation. These are mainly the
78
River Basin Management Bill, the Model Bill to regulate and control the development
and management of the groundwater, Jal Jeevan Mission, Atal Bhujal Yojana,
NAQUIM, and state-specific programs on desiltation of reservoirs, river deepening
and straightening, water harvesting, etc. The National Water Framework Law should
ensure that the approach and interventions under these extant policies and
programs are harmonized with and aligned to the goals and outcomes envisaged in
the law to realize synergies and minimize conflicts.
d) Additional Provisions and Measures required in NWP-2012
Provision 1: Need for appreciation and incentivization at different levels to
villagers for making good efforts to improve local water governance: In NWP-2012,
no provision or framework has been adopted for incentivizing the village
communities to make reasonable efforts for overall water resource development
and management. Lack of appreciation and incentivization results in lower interest
or no motivation for taking the initiative to villagers and their negligence towards
maintaining the structures created. For a similar purpose, the centre has already
developed the Composite Water Management Index (CWMI), developed by NITI
Aayog, for states that assess the supply and demand side of water management and
cover governance aspects present state-wise performance. NWP-2012 should take
cognizance of this, and the CWMI, which assesses the state-level performance,
needs to be further customized and tested at the district level for greater
applicability. In a similar line, at the village level system of appreciation for villages
performing better in water governance has to be established. For this purpose,
WOTR has developed a ‘Water Governance Standard and Certification System’ to
incentivize villagers to adopt good behaviour and better water management
practices; based on the village performance, the certificates get issued to the villages
(Sathe, 2018). Such an incentivization framework needs to be adopted in the MSWP-
2019.
Provision 2: A special component for rainfed farming or rainfed areas should be
added to the policy: The NWP-2012 mostly focuses on storing water in reservoirs
and groundwater; thus, it is mostly water or irrigation centric. Even with current
national-level policies and programs, the most investment made in agriculture is
irrigation-centric, through subsidized electricity for groundwater use and promotion
of micro-irrigation. However, the scope and contribution of rainfed agriculture in
India are huge. About 197 districts spread across the country in different rainfall
regions are categorized as drought-prone districts, and another 115 districts, though
they have more than 40% irrigated area in each of the districts, have more than
100,000 ha of rainfed area (RRAN, 2019). Thus, these 312 districts out of 672 districts
constitute important rainfed systems. Therefore, over half of the country does not
figure in the NWP-2012 as the policy is very irrigation-centric. NWP-2012 needs to
seriously reflect on this and incorporate strategies for a rainfed area or rainfed
agriculture development.
Provision 3: Solar energy for pumps needs to be promoted: Solar as clean and
renewable energy is being promoted at different levels, at the centre and states, and
at present, there is no mention of this as an important strategy for irrigation pumps.
79
Therefore this should be seen as a vital strategy in NWP-2012. However, while doing
so, care has to be taken so that solar pump promotion does not negatively impact
the groundwater resource leading to further depletion, mainly in hard rock basalt
aquifers.
e) Concluding remark: Although the NWP-2012 is comprehensive, it should spell out a
clear roadmap with a clear responsibility and accountability structure at all levels.
The policy should include a separate section on strategies for promoting rainfed area
development, promoting the strategy of Water Governance Standard, and
incentivizing farmers to cultivate rainfed or less water-required crops. These
provisions have an immense potential to shift the “use narrative” in the water sector
in India. As the National Water Framework Law, proposed in NWP-2012, is essential
for India, a clear roadmap and timeline should be put to formulate and pass this
important policy instrument.
3.2.2.1.2 The Composite Water Management Index (CWMI) by NITI Aayog
a) Background and objectives of CWMI: To encourage ‘competitive and cooperative
federalism’ in the country’s water governance and management, the National
Institute for Transforming India (NITI) Aayog developed the framework of the
Composite Water Management Index (CWMI). NITI Aayog came up with the first
state-wide CWMI for 2015-2016 (NITI Aayog, 2018b). The primary aim of the index is
to create a data-based system for improving the country's water resource
management level. The other broad objectives behind applying the index system are
(i) establishing the baseline for analysing the performance of a state in the water
sector based on key indicators, (ii) benchmarking the performance of states, (iii)
evaluating the performance of states over the period, and (iv) identification of the
areas in which there is need of investment and deeper engagement by the states to
improve the overall water management. In the Index. Maharashtra state was at 4th
rank in 2015-16, which later slipped to 5th rank in 2016-17; in 2017-18, its position
further declined to 8th. On the other hand, the state of Gujrat remained in the top
position during all these three years (NITI Aayog, 2019).
The indicators for assessment in CWMI have been grouped into nine broad themes,
and the scoring scheme of these themes is as below (NITI Aayog, 2019),
Table 4: Indicator themes and weights
No.
Indicator theme
Weights
1
Source augmentation and restoration of water bodies
5
2
Source augmentation (Groundwater)
15
3
Major and medium irrigation-Supply side management
15
4
Watershed development-Supply side management,
10
5
Participatory irrigation practices-Demand side management
10
6
Sustainable on-farm water use practices-Demand side management
10
7
Rural drinking water
10
8
Urban water supply and sanitation
10
9
Policy and governance
15
Total
100
80
NITI Aayog claims that the CWMI is a first-of-its-kind, comprehensive scorecard for
identifying, targeting, and solving problems in the water sector across the country.
b) Strengths of the CWMI: The primary strength of the CWMI is that it provides space
for creating a competitive environment for the states to improve water resource
development and management efforts. Although governance indicators are not
sufficiently comprehensive, the Index gives importance to both, water supply-side
and demand-side measures and, more importantly, recognizes the need to focus on
groundwater augmentation. The Index is also helpful for states to obtain an
objective analysis of their performance and take necessary steps to improve their
level of water management. The method and review process for preparing the Index
is also made more objective as provision has been made for an Independent
Validation Agency (IVA) to review, validate and approve the data of indicators and
sub-indicators related to the performance of states. Fieldworks are also conducted
to verify the data and understand the reporting methodology used by the states and
union territories (UTs) to collect, collate, and present data against specific indicators.
Thus, it seems serious efforts are being taken to make the process of preparing the
CWMIs more transparent.
c) Gaps, lacunas, and deficiencies in the CWMI and recommendations for
improvement
Point 1: The assessment is based on PIM policies formulated and not on their level
of implementation: As governance indicators, the assessment of CWMI is confined
mainly to only those policies regarding Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM),
mainly the Water User Associations (WUAs) made for command areas of irrigation
projects. There are two major lacunae in this provision. First, the assessment is
confined to only the laws on paper or targets achieved in terms of the number of
WUAs formed. However, many studies show that most registered WUAs are non-
functional and inactive, and very few are performing well (Tiwale, Kale & Bhasme,
2021). Hence, along with just passing the law, the level of its implementation also
matters a lot. At another level, in the governance aspect, groundwater governance
has been completely missed in the assessment of the Index. Groundwater is the
backbone of Indian agriculture and drinking water security and a vital resource in
many states in the western, eastern, central, and southern parts of India. There are
many policies and agencies at the central and state levels (such as GSDA in
Maharashtra). Therefore, groundwater-related policies and the effectiveness of
related policies and agencies must be assessed while preparing the CWMI. More
importantly, the extent of their execution, adoption, and efforts made by states for
their execution needs to be weighted.
Point 2: Community efforts on water management not considered: India has a rich
history of community-based natural resource management (CBNRM), and numerous
examples of community-led water management practices exist in different states.
These ideas are echoed in experiments by social entrepreneurs like Anna Hazare and
his disciple Popat Rao Pawar, Hardevsingh Jadeja in Rajkoat, Rajendra Singh of Tarun
Bharat Sangh in Rajasthan, Hermann Bacher of WOTR with design and wide
implementation of IGWDP in many watershed villages, and the late Vilasrao
81
Salunke’s Gram Gaurav Pratishthan at Pune. Many spiritual organizations and civil
society organisations like Swaminarayan Sampraday and Swadhyaya Pariwar in
Saurashtra, Gujarat, Art of Living, Isha Foundation, Paani Foundation in Maharashtra,
and many more NGOs working in different parts of India. The immense contribution
of these initiatives in water resource development and management and
Participatory Groundwater Management (PGWM) has not been reflected in the
present assessment of the CWMI. Thus, the present set of indicators of CWMI is
more technical and engineering-oriented, focused on water augmentation and
supply-side management. To make the CWMI comprehensive, the key social and
behavioural aspects of institutions and participation need to be incorporated into
the Index.
Point 3: CWMI is more irrigation and blue water-centric: The set of indicators of
CWMI is mainly irrigation-centric and deals with blue water (surface water and
groundwater). However, the scope and contribution of rainfed agriculture (where
green water in the form of soil moisture plays a crucial role) in India are huge. A total
of 312 districts out of 672 districts in India comprise important rainfed systems
(RRAN, 2019), and three fourth of the total geographical area in India is drought-
prone with arid (19.6%), semi-arid (37%), and dry, sub-humid (21%) (GoI, 2009).
Therefore, over half of the country does not reflect in the assessment of CWMI;
there is no reference to soil health and quality practices in the CWMI. Therefore,
CWMI must incorporate strategies and indicators for assessing rainfed agriculture
development and green water management.
Point 3: Equity issues and judicious water management not valued in CWMI:
Equitable and judicious use of water is a key concern because water is seen as a
public trust, and access to this precious resource is considered a fundamental right
under the right to life in India. However, CWMI does not include the approaches and
practices of water sharing, violation of water rights, efforts to bring more rainfed
farmers under irrigation, efficient water allocation and use, and provisioning for
ecosystem needs and biodiversity. Therefore, CWMI must include the concerns of
equity, water-use efficiency, and judicious use to encourage states to promote these
fundamental principles and practices.
Point 4: Inadequate indicators on groundwater depletion and water quality: The
change in overexploited and critical units for groundwater use, based on
measurement of pre-and post-monsoon water levels, in selected observation wells
by the State and CGWB (piezometers installed for the purpose), is considered as a
significant indicator for assessing the CWMI. Many researchers have already found
that, as the number of observation wells is very insignificant in India (less than 1% of
total wells) and there is huge diversity in hydrogeology in India, the findings of
groundwater depletion in a vast country like India do not reflect the true scale of
groundwater depletion. Therefore these observations on groundwater depletion are
more indicative rather than representative. A few researchers even argue that
findings from observation wells don’t match the results of the GRACE methodology
of NASA and ground observations of wells (Hora et al., 2019). Therefore, more
credible indicators such as the change in percentage of tanker-dependent villages in
82
the states and changes in the area under water-guzzling crops need to be added to
the CWMI assessment.
Although NITI Aayog’s CWMI report highlights that around 2 lakh people in India die
each year because of the poor quality of drinking water, CWMI has not given
adequate weightage to water quality. The index only assesses the percentage of
reduction in rural habitations affected by water quality problems. The assessment of
the index does not cover the larger water quality issues in agricultural water use, its
status, and states’ efforts in regulating industrial water pollution and treatment, use,
and disposal of sewage from cities and towns into rivers, etc.
d) Concluding comments: While improving the CWMI, the government should
accelerate the impact of the Index by developing a common platform that can be
accessed by researchers, academicians, NGOs, entrepreneurs, opinion makers, and
policy makers. This open platform will enable to incorporate the further
development and innovation insights into the broader water ecosystem in the index.
Furthermore, incentivization by way of additional grants or financing on preferential
terms to states that achieve significant improvements in their ranks should be done
to make computing the Index really competitive, change-driving, and
transformational. Even at the second level, there is huge potential to bring this
Index to the regional districts, sub-districts, and even the village level. WOTR has
already started working in this direction and developed a robust ‘Water Governance
Standard and Certification System’ to assess the village-level status of water
governance and incentivize different actors working on water issues (Yadav & Kale,
2020). While the practice of preparing the CWMI on an annual basis was started five
years back, it is now time to incorporate new elements as proposed and evaluate
how successful it has been in achieving its goal of encouraging ‘competitive and
cooperative federalism’ in Indian states and UTs.
3.2.2.2 Analysis of the programs at the national level
This section presents an analysis of two important programs at the national level,
Atal Bhujal, and the National Aquifer Management Program.
3.2.2.2.1 Atal Bhujal Yojana
a) Background and objectives of the program: On the 95th birth anniversary of India's
former prime minister, Mr. Atal Bihari Vajpayee, the Atal Bhujal Yojana, also known
as Atal Jal, was launched in 2019. This central sector program is planned to be
implemented in identified priority areas of 7 states: Gujrat, Haryana, Karnataka,
Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, and Uttar Pradesh. A total of 78 districts
comprising 193 blocks and 8353 Gram Panchayats having water stress are identified
for implementing this program. Out of 8353 Gram Panchayats, 1339 Gram
Panchayats represent 35 blocks, and 13 districts belong to Maharashtra (GOI, 2020).
The program's primary objective is to improve the groundwater condition through
participatory groundwater management. The five-year implementation of the
program started in 2020-2021 and will continue till 2024-2025. For the
implementation of this program, Rs. 6000 crores has been allocated. Out of this, Rs
3000 crores will be provided by the World Bank as a loan, while the central
83
government will give the remaining Rs. 3000 crores to the states as a grant-in-aid
(GOI, 2020).
b) Strengths of the program: The policy's primary strength is allocating funds based on
achievements regarding Disbursement Linked Indicators (DLIs) or, in simple words,
the progress achieved. This provision will ensure the states' wholehearted
performance; otherwise, further funds cannot be availed. Besides, the convergence
of different central schemes, such as Jal Jeevan Mission, the Swachh Bharat Mission,
MGNREGS, etc., for sustainable management of the groundwater with the help of
public participation is another advantage program. This approach will certainly
contribute to achieving the objectives of each other; for example, increased water
availability through Atal Jal will ensure the drinking water availability through Jal
Jeevan Mission. The program's activity of preparing Water Security Plans and water
budgets at Gram Panchyat level and implementing various interventions at the
village level is also a much more necessary process in a given time of growing
groundwater depletion. These plans prepared under the program will be an essential
component of the Gram Panchayat Development Plans; thus, they may get serious
attention. Another logical and relevant provision made in the program is the
flexibility in deciding the area or scale of interventions; for matching the boundaries
of program implementation with the watershed and aquifer boundaries, the 20%
variation in terms of the number of Gram Panchayats is allowed in selected blocks.
One of the program's important plus points is the provision for extensive training
and capacity building as well as awareness activities at different levels on
groundwater management issues. The focus is on increasing the skills and capacities
of officials and teams engaged on one side and the overall behavioural change of
communities through IEC strategies.
c) Gaps and deficiencies in the program and recommendations for modification
Below are gaps and deficiencies in the Atal Jal and recommendations to address
them.
Point 1: The water supply and demand-side interventions will be an important
strategy of the program: The program involves interventions related to both the
demand side and supply-side water management. As part of the demand side
management, the project promotes micro-irrigation, recycled/reused water for
irrigation, crop diversification, promotion of rainfed horticulture, underground
pipelines, feeder separation for irrigation power supply, and pressurized irrigation in
canal command areas. The supply-side interventions include the construction of
check dams, percolation ponds, contour bunds, drainage line treatment, recharge
trenches or wells, sub-surface dykes, farm ponds, etc. In fact, no innovation is found
in this proposed set of interventions. Through PMKSY, IWMP, and other state-level
schemes (Jalyukt Shivar and PoCRA), most of these interventions are promoted at a
huge level, even in groundwater-stressed regions. In demand-side management,
more focus should be on addressing and promoting the suitable cropping pattern
and regulating it through incentives in these regions, as water-guzzling crops, and
thus export of virtual water is huge in these groundwater depleted regions and that
is one of the reasons for the depletion. Even promoting subsurface dykes as an
84
intervention needs to be reconsidered, given that impacts of this may go against the
principle of water as common property and change the overall groundwater flow
regime and thus the overall water allocations in the area. A subsurface dyke is a
structure built in an aquifer to obstruct the natural flow of groundwater (Sonkar,
2016), thereby raising the groundwater level and increasing the amount of water
stored in the aquifer. This structure may also lead to the privatization of
groundwater for a few handfuls of irrigated farmers, ignoring the value of base flows
and groundwater rights of downstream people. We are already experiencing such ill
effects of the widely promoted farm pond strategy, resulting in the tool for
groundwater mining and privatizing this by recourse wealthy farmers. Such
interventions towards privatizing the groundwater should be avoided or very
carefully implemented.
Point 2: Grampanchayat level Water Security Plans (WSPs) will be prepared based
on water budgets: WSPs are expected to be prepared based on water budgets at the
Gram Panchyat level, and the WSPs will be made for five years. These plans will
specify investments and interventions to meet the anticipated demands and will be
customized to meet the specific challenges in the GP and include any water-related
investments/interventions. Water budgeting has become the general practice in
many government programs and civil society initiatives. This tool is more useful for
awareness generation and sensitizing the people on water use; however, the tool
has many challenges and does not fully fit for precisely measuring and calculating
available water stock for management purposes. Therefore, aquifer-based
groundwater management is seen as a more technical and scientific tool for effective
groundwater management, and it has been proposed by progressive policy initiatives
such as Maharashtra Groundwater (Development management) Act, 2009.
However, the present National Aquifer Mapping and Management
Programme (NAQUIM) will not be able to provide anything useful to the Atal Jal in
terms of mapping groundwater at the Gram Panchayat scale as the scale of NAQUIM
for the aquifer mapping is huge (1: 50,000). Therefore, groundwater recharge
potential maps made for villages by GSDA or practically delineating aquifers at a
micro-scale will be the more suitable strategy for the program. Thus, the aquifer-
based groundwater management and managed aquifer recharge (MAR) approach,
adopted worldwide for sustainable aquifer management, needs to be adopted in the
program.
Point 3: Institutional arrangements at a different level: The program has made very
useful provisions for the Water User Association (WUA), empowering the village
water and sanitation committee as WUA. Adequate flexibility is provided in the
formation of WUA to make it inclusive and capable. However, at higher levels, in
National Inter-Departmental Steering Committee (NISC) and State Inter-
Departmental Steering Committee (SISC), only government officials, mainly principal
secretaries of different departments, are proposed to be members. Thus, no space
for the representation of NGOs working in water management and water experts
who bring valuable knowledge and experiences in this sector is made in the program,
and this should be well addressed.
85
Point 4: Convergence of Jal Jeevan Mission, the Swachh Bharat Mission, MGNREGS,
etc., are proposed at different levels in Atal Jal: The provision is made for the
integration of supply and demand-side interventions as well as training, capacity
building, and IEC activities of Atal Jal will be aligned with the Jal Jeevan Mission, the
Swachh Bharat Mission, MGNREGA, etc., so that resources are used optimally, and
there is a holistic approach to water use and management at all levels. However, this
approach may dilute the core objective of groundwater management, and the
emphasis of actors may be confined to popular activities of individual benefits. For
example, in the convergence approach in Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan, we have seen that
the central focus was on activities of Nala and river deepening and widening and
constructing farm ponds, keeping aside other relevant interventions. Therefore,
while mutually benefiting the objectives of relevant schemes, in Atal Jal, care has to
be taken that groundwater management's core principle and objective don’t get
diluted or distorted by adopting the convergence approach or adding other
components.
d) Additional Provisions and Measures required in the program
Point 1: Water stewardship approach missing in the program: The approach or
framework to be adopted in conceptualising any schemes and programs is very
important to understand and realize how we see the different actors and
stakeholders and their association with each other as well as their rights and
responsibilities. The water stewardship approach, tested and proven its usefulness,
is missing in the program. This approach brings diverse stakeholders together, builds
their sense of stewardship of local water resources, and makes them realize their
responsibility for efficiently, judiciously, and sustainably using the water resource.
Here, water users are not seen as passive beneficiaries or culprits for groundwater
depletion, but if their skills and capacities are developed with behavioural change,
they are seen as good water managers. WOTR has done extensive work in designing
and promoting this approach (D’Souza et al., 2019). At the approach level, adopting
the water stewardship framework will certainly help achieve the objectives set by
Atal Jal.
Point 2: Adoption of CDVI tool for aquifer literacy: For achieving behaviour change
of villagers and mainly groundwater users, they must understand the shared nature
of groundwater and it as a public trust. WOTR has developed and applied an
innovative tool called CoDriVE – Visual Integrator (CDVI) to sensitise communities
about the groundwater's common-pool nature. This science-based tool develops 3D
models of the aquifer's surface (land topography) and subsurface (aquifer thickness).
It has been seen that this tool is immensely useful to sensitize the village on the
common –pool nature of groundwater (E. Kale et al., 2022). Such valuable and
scientific tools should be included in the IEC toolkit in the Atal Jal.
Point 3: The program interventions should be made in line with existing
groundwater policies: The experiences have shown that IEC and awareness
generation components and adoption of water budgeting tools have certainly the
limited success. The strict regulatory measures to control farmers' water use and
crop practices are more important because economic interests mainly trigger them.
86
For this purpose and sustainable groundwater management, Maharashtra has
already come up with Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management)
Act, 2009, and at the Center level, the Model Groundwater bill. The principles of
these policies are not reflected in the interventions and strategies of Atal Jal; for
example, according to Maharashtra groundwater Act 2009, there is a ban on sinking
well more than 60 meters deep, wherein Atal Jal, there is no reference for sinking
deep wells. Therefore, the package of interventions of Atal Jal should be in line with
the existing policies in the water sector.
Point 4: Measures for ensuring groundwater quality need to be focused: In Atal Jal
interventions, the adequate focus is given to supply and demand-side management;
however, the growing concern of groundwater quality and pollution are not
adequately focused on. According to Niti Aayog, yearly, 200000 people die due to
water quality problems (NITI Aayog, 2018a); given this fact, serious efforts have to
be taken in Atal Jal to prevent groundwater pollution.
e) Concluding statement: Capacity and awareness building on water management are
given adequate focus in the program; however, the common pool nature of the
groundwater has to be promoted, and the program has to be made in line with
existing policies and legislations. The adoption of water budgeting and water security
plans must get well-regulated with incentives and strict regulations. More
importantly, the water stewardship approach needs to be incorporated into the Atal
Jal.
National Project on Aquifer Management (NAQUIM)
a) Background and objectives of Act: In 2011, the Working Group on Sustainable
Ground Water Management (WGSWM), Planning Commission, presented its reports
highlighting that for better management and governance of groundwater at a local
level, understanding the present aquifer is essential. WGSGWM made three key
recommendations in its report: better database management, alternative
methodologies to be adopted for assessing the recharge estimates where existing
methods fall short of matching the ground realities, and effective mapping of
aquifers. Based on these recommendations, in 2012, CGWB initiated the National
Project on Aquifer Management (NAQUIM) to map the aquifers and quantify
available groundwater. With the initiation of NAQUIM, the CGWB is shifting towards
the new water management paradigm from the old water development paradigm
(CGWB, 2012). The principal objectives of NAQUIM are – i) To detect and prepare a
map of an aquifer, ii) To estimate the available groundwater potential, iii) To
propose an aquifer management plan based on the demand for water, nature of
aquifer, and institutional arrangements. The primary outcome of this project is
stakeholder engagement for the sustainable management of the aquifer. Its motto
‘Know your Aquifer, Manage your aquifer’ rightly reflects this expected outcome
(CGWB, 2012).
b) Strengths of NAQUIM: The primary strength of the NAQUIM project is that the
project is not limited only to the delineation of the aquifer, but it tries to achieve
groundwater management by the community. For this purpose, a component of
87
Participatory Ground Water Management (PGWM) is also included in this program,
which thieves for capacity building of farmers and groundwater users to monitor
groundwater, improve water use efficiency, and plan cropping patterns for efficient
use of groundwater. Besides, adopting a groundwater management approach rather
than groundwater management itself is one of the program's positives. Provision of
strengthening of Water User Associations (WUA) or the formation of Ground Water
Management Associations (GWMA) as in charge of groundwater management also
ensures the participation of local people. Such WUAs and GWMA will also be
responsible for deriving the cropping pattern based on water availability. Besides,
the PGWM Groups (monitoring) will also be formed. The training will be given to
selected persons regarding shared groundwater management and the collection of
primary hydro-climatological data. These trained persons will be called ‘Para-
Hydrogeologist (PHGs)’ or ‘Jal Surakshakas.’ Such steps will help gather the local
data, which could be used for effective water management and even for hydro-
climatological predictions. Another peculiar aspect of this program is that along with
an assessment of the quantity of groundwater, an analysis of the variation in
groundwater quality is incorporated into it. The data collected and processed will be
made available in the standard format suggested by the Technical Support Group
(TSG). This homogeneity of data format will make interpretation easy.
c) Gaps and deficiencies in the Act and recommendations for modification
Point 1: Awareness and capacity building on groundwater resources: The main
objective behind the aquifer mapping is to develop sustainable groundwater
management plans for each aquifer through GWMA. Though this exercise may help
know the groundwater availability in the specific aquifer for better groundwater
management, we need to be very cautious about the hidden dangers in this process.
The aquifer mapping is expected to develop the knowledge of the local communities
about the aquifers and groundwater issues. In other words, by this exercise,
communities will be literate about the source of groundwater stocks in their areas
(Kale, 2013). The hidden danger in this process is how communities will apply and
utilize this newly generated knowledge about the groundwater, which is a precious
source now. Communities must be well aware through the behavioural change of
the common property nature of groundwater to avoid the blind race of
‘groundwater-mining’ by resource-rich farmers.
Point 2: Remuneration or incentives ‘Para-Hydrogeologist (PHGs)’ or ‘Jal
Surakshakas’: Though Para-Hydrogeologist is made, there is no mention of the
provision remuneration or incentives to be given to this Para-Hydrologist. The
experience shows that a lack of incentives or monitory benefits fails to keep
practitioners motivated for a long time. Hence, for the successful implementation of
this program, incentives are essential.
Point 3: Scale of the aquifer maps (1:50,000): The aquifer maps are to be generated
at the scale of 1:50,000 (CGWB, 2012). This scale is particularly unsuitable for making
a scientific and social intervention at a village level. Hence, with the advent of
technology and the participation of academicians, individual researchers, and NGOs,
attempts should be made to reduce the scale of the maps.
88
d) Additional Provisions and Measures required in NAQUIM
Point 1: Formation of Ground Water Management Associations (GWMA): Like the
WUA, the members of the GWMA should belong to both the recharge and discharge
regions of an aquifer. Also, similar to the provision of the Secretary of WUA, the
Para-Hydrogeologist should be appointed for each GWMA. Besides, in the initial
phases of the functioning of GWMA, they should be encouraged to be associated
with an NGO for better technical guidance and participatory management. Also,
there should be monitoring of the functioning of the GWMA, which should not only
be restricted to the audit of GWMA if, like WUA, they are also empowered to collect
groundwater charges. For evaluating the performance of the GWMA, like Composite
Water Management Index developed by NITI Aayog for states. Various competitions
can be organized to increase the competitive spirit of the GWMAs, and raise the
cooperative spirit, and exposure visits can be organized to GWMAs, which are
functioning successfully.
e) Concluding comment: NAQUIM is certainly a good move for identifying
groundwater's dynamic nature through the delineation of aquifers. This data and
knowledge can be used to manage supply and demand-side groundwater, design
and implement managed aquifer recharge projects, and strengthen drinking water
sources. However, this needs to be coupled with the spreading of groundwater and
aquifer literacy in communities so that they apply this importation knowledge for the
sustainable use of aquifers. Although at present, for the initial scale level, the scale is
used very wide for delineation, it needs to be narrowed down significantly in the
second round to make the rich knowledge of aquifers for local communities for
actual groundwater planning.
4. Challenges Today, Threats for Tomorrow: Ways
Forward
While presenting the detailed analysis of the selected policies and programs, this
section points out the broader issues in terms of gaps, lacunas, and challenges in the
overall water governance in Maharashtra. In the discussion, the focus has been
pointed out broad challenges and gaps related to the normative concerns, and
recommendations are made to address them.
4.1 Equity and co-benefits
Existing rules of access to and control over groundwater based on the common law
doctrine are continued in the selected policies. This gives the landowners the right to
take as much groundwater as they desire from wells dug on their land. Even the
amount of water to be extracted does not legally depend on the area of land owned
by the individual; any landowner can abstract any amount of water. Such a legal
framework leads to indiscriminate access to groundwater and also implies that only
the landowners own groundwater. Consequently, the landless, who constitute more
than 30 % of the rural farm population in India, do not enjoy private ownership of
groundwater or other water rights. This association between groundwater use and
89
land ownership is not delinked in selected policy measures and is further continued.
Selected policies (mainly MGDMA-2009) largely rely on control and command
mechanisms (a permit system). These reforms propose mandatory permits for
sinking new wells and other groundwater uses from the State and restrictions on the
depth of wells. Thus, these policies bestow the right to use groundwater on those
who have already sunk a well, excluding others who have not benefited from
groundwater resources. Therefore, although challenging, delinking groundwater
rights from land rights is the necessary measure that puts the overall water resource
in the domain of public trust in a true manner.
4.2 Participatory and inclusive governance
It is widely proposed that Hardin’s ‘tragedy of the common's and the ‘collective-
action’ problems can be overcome through proper institutional and governance
design. However, the capacity to overcome these problems appears limited when
individuals have no expectation of mutual trust and no means of building trust.
Participants lack the authority to create their self-governing institutions. Young
rightly shared that there is no universally shared concept of ‘community’ (Young,
1986). Mostly the powerful in the community represent the community and become
the channel for developmental programs. These people make every effort to
strengthen or keep their group interests alive. It seems the structures of governing
agencies in the selected policies and programs are also confined to such superficial
understanding of the ‘community.’ Hence, it has less potential to achieve the policy
or program goal. The representatives of resource-rich people, local political leaders,
dummy members (for the namesake only), and the bureaucratisation of institutions
and committees (more government officials at key positions) are key barriers to the
existing and proposed institutions and committers in the selected policies and
programs. This arrangement allows little space for the active participation of local
people in the design and implementation of the project interventions. Hence, unless
governance reforms are embedded in considerations of equity and justice, they
cannot address the larger community's interest. These lacunas are clearly observed
in the proposed composition of the Watershed Water Resource Committee (WWRC)
under MGDMA 2009, Village-level Monitoring Committee (VMC) in the GDGS
project, current membership on MWRRA, WUAs, and Village Climate Resilient
Agriculture management Committee VCRMC in PoCRA. Unless we restructure the
composition of these committees and lay down a more transparent process of
selecting its members, the meaningful participation of local communities and their
ownership of interventions (community as a whole) cannot be truly expected.
4.3 Mainstreaming gender in the water sector
On the issue of gender, provision is made for women's participation in governing
institutions and committees in almost policies and programs. However, grouping
women as a homogenous category for institutional participation is a fallacy that
needs to be tackled. It is important to understand that women are not an abstract
homogenous category and come with large differences across class, caste, and tribe
in the Indian context. The gendering of identities and roles allows men to dominate
decision-making processes and create social taboos and stigma barriers to women’s
90
mobility and participation in public places. These and gender-based divisions of
labour are key barriers to women’s effective participation in water management.
The findings of this review highlight that serious attention has to be paid while
designing the policies and programs on water management. A gender-balanced team
is necessary to incorporate concerns, views, and subjective perspectives of women
members at different levels in the program. Hence, gender-equal outcomes will not
materialise without appointing female staff and team members. In addition to
involving women in sufficient numbers, fostering an environment of respecting and
valuing their views and ideas with gender sensitivity is equally important. While
selecting active women from the community as representatives on local water
management committees, it is challenging to avoid dummy or proxy women
representatives (with the power being exercised by men from their families). Due to
village-level dynamics, project staff and teams face enormous difficulties and
pressure. Finding and selecting active women from village self-help groups and
organising special Gram Sabhas, which can select and nominate representatives of
women from weaker sections, may be more useful strategies to ensure their true
representation.
4.4 Capacity and knowledge building
Capacity and knowledge building is crucial at both level, members of responsible
institutions and authorities, program/project personnel, and the larger community
or specific target groups. The awareness, better clarity, development of skills and
capacities, and appropriate and sufficient information and knowledge are essential
factors for effectively performing the role and responsibilities of target groups and
actors. This allows target populations to meet the expectations of policies and
programs. It has been clearly seen that this area of policies and programs has
received very low weightage in terms of devoted resources, and this s coupled with
unclear procedures put in process. For example, we don’t have an effective practice
or system for promoting legal literacy at a larger level for the common audience.
Hardly a few villagers and CBOs are well aware of the groundwater laws and MWRRA
and GSDA and their few provisions and functions. Given this situation, how can one
expect that they follow the law and do not violate it. On the other side, there is an
urgent need to build the multidisciplinary skillset of functionaries in the water
sector. Water management is a technical and engineering issue, but its social,
economic, and governance dimensions need to be well acknowledged. We can see
that largely the officials at these agencies are technically very sound. Still,
behavioural change experts, economists and market experts, and agriculture
scientists have a useful role in promoting better water management practices. Even
though it is necessary to drop the beneficiary approach; it resulted in PoCRA, GDGS,
Farm Pond schemes, and community needs to be put at the centre. Most
importantly, villagers’ and mainly irrigated farmers’ approaches and perceptions
have to be transformed by sensitizing them about the public property nature of
water, the water budgeting practices, and collective actions for managing local water
resources. These are process-oriented goals and require serious and continued
efforts. Therefore, resource allocation (human resources) is essential. Considering
this, the adoption and promotion of well-designed behavioural change
communication (BCC) strategies need to be re-designed and seriously promoted,
91
which are the prerequisite for achieving the change in behavioural practices of water
users.
4.5 Environmental and ecosystem sustainability and rapidly changing
groundwater dynamics
Water access and use dynamics are changing rapidly, and many vital issues that
highly affect the water resource, overall environment, and ecosystem are not
addressed and considered in existing policies and programs.
4.5.1 Shift from dug wells to Farm ponds: Realizing the advantages of the farm pond
strategy, the state and the central government are promoting it on a large scale
through various schemes and subsidies. However, the overall ground-level picture of
farm pond usage and practices is very dismal. There is a clear contradiction between
the main objectives of the farm ponds mentioned in policies and how farmers are
actually using these ponds. Although rainwater harvesting is one of the main
objectives behind the farm pond strategy, it is almost impossible to find a
functioning farm pond where rainwater is being harvested and stored. In fact, in
direct contradiction to the purpose of building such ponds, most farm pond owners
extract groundwater from dug wells and bore wells and then store it in the same
farm ponds. Therefore, farm ponds have become the new way for groundwater
extraction and increase the competition amongst farmers for further groundwater
extraction, resulting in groundwater privatization by affecting nearby farmers'
groundwater availability. Even at the administrative level, there is no guideline on
sanctioning and constructing a number of farm ponds in the village. Even the
practice of pumping large amounts of groundwater from shallow and deep aquifers
may affect the water groundwater availability of neighbouring farmers and flows in
streams and drains, creating another threat to the already diminishing ecosystem.
These dynamics in regard to farm pond practices are not considered and well
addressed in the existing governance instruments. Farm ponds are not considered
for registration, while provision is made to register all villages' water groundwater
structures and sources. To effectively address the issue, specifically in semi-critical
and overexploited zones, the extraction of groundwater to store it in farm ponds
should be strictly prohibited. It should be mandatory for farm pond owners to store
the rainwater or run-off in the farm ponds in such regions. At the same time,
considering the overall sustainability of the water resource and the area's carrying
capacity in any village or watershed area, the total number of farm ponds that can
be constructed should be determined.
4.5.2 Dangers in Shirpur pattern not considered: Nala (stream) and river deepening,
widening, and straightening - popularly known as Shirpur or Khanapurkar pattern-
are rapidly implemented in many parts of Maharashtra, particularly in the
Marathwada region. Considering its advantages to storing and recharging more
rainwater quickly, many farmers and village leaders in almost villages are deeply
interested in implementing this pattern. Simultaneously, there is a huge support and
push from corporates and funding agenesis to implement this pattern, pushing many
NGOs to implement these interventions. However, many experts have raised their
92
concerns about possible dangers in changing the overall hydro-geology of the
surrounding area with these treatments. Here, the threat also affects judicious
access to groundwater and ecosystems. In many study villages, these structures have
made the huge canals of streams and Nalas. These interventions, which have the
potential to highly affect the overall hydrogeology of the villages and watershed, are
not addressed and understood in the selected policy instruments in the study.
Hence, it is important that only after environmental (and specifically hydro-
geological) assessment of interventions of Shirpur or Khanapurkar pattern decisions
of such work should be taken in the proposed areas.
4.5.3 Basic principle of Ridge to Valley is neglected: IWMP, JSY, and GDGS are
important programs of the state. However, mainly resulted in water augmentation
or increased surface or ‘visible water.’ Although these programs have provisions for
a number of soil and water harvesting structures and groundwater recharge
treatments, the programs are mainly confined, benefiting the small patches of areas
by ignoring the holistic watershed approach with a ridge to valley principle. This
creates negative implications for the landscape; for example, as the upper
catchments are not developed with adequate soil and water conservation, increasing
soil erosion adds to silt deposition in downstream water bodies. And therefore,
GDGS came into existence to desilt the downstream structures and applied this silt
again in farmland. Therefore ridge to valley approach is a must for regenerating the
watershed and sustainable and judicious use of water resources. Therefore schemes
like GDGS, JYS, approach, farm ponds, Nala widening should be integrated with
IWMI, with the sound package with scientific modification in them.
4.5.4 Changing economy: The rapidly changing political economy in the state is not truly
addressed in existing water policies and programs. There are various burning
political economy issues in the state, for example, more promotion for specific crops
like sugarcane, grapes, and banana, speedily growing urbanisation, a tertiary sector
highly contributing to GDP, and thus increasing water needs, flourishing water
markets in terms of private tankers and packed water bottles, etc. With the growing
rate of urbanisation, cities and towns will grow speedily. Considering this, cities will
have to learn waste and sewage management by recycling and reusing every drop of
the sewage they generate. This is very important because the polluted water of
rivers adds to freshwater sources downstream and makes more freshwater unsafe.
Hence, today, the challenge is implementing watershed projects efficiently in a
participatory, equitable, comprehensive, and integrated manner and achieving this
by adopting a larger eco-systems approach that includes diversified livelihoods. This
is necessary because human well-being today is critically dependent upon our ability
to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, build resilience, reduce risk, adapt to
change, and reduce poverty. Regenerating, enhancing, conserving, and sustainably
and equitably managing watersheds can significantly contribute to climate change
mitigation, adaptation, and overall development goals. Putting these issues at the
centre, the existing policies and programs need to be revisited to ensure that they
meet the goal of sustainability and equity in the larger context of ecosystem
integrity.
93
4.6 Crop selection and market link underestimated
Crop choices of farmers mainly get determined by the market. Market rates
stimulate and, even at a certain level, pressure farmers to select high water-
intensive crops with higher market value than less water-intensive crops. Different
tools and strategies are proposed in existing policies and programs; for example,
sustainable groundwater-use plans, water security plans, water budges, and
prospective plans are supposed to motivate farmers to shift from high water-
intensive crops to low water-intensive crops and achieve water-use efficiency.
However, there is no provision for incentives for farmers and communities to adopt
these strategies. Assurance of good market rates by state for rainfed crops and less
water-intensive crops may change the farming community's overall water-use game.
Still, this crop selection and the market link are not precisely reflected at the
practical level in the existing water policies. Many experts have already proposed
prioritising the procurement of crops that are water prudent, like millets as against
rice, and introducing cereals and millets in public distribution systems and mid-day
scheme for school children, and these needs to be seriously taken.
4.7 Delays in making operational rules of the Laws and Acts
Rules for the laws and acts are the prerequisite for their implementation on the
ground. Therefore, only sanctioning policy instruments are not sufficient. The
operative part, which includes rules, notifications, agreements, government
resolutions, orders, and circulars, is equally important for the laws and policies. If an
operative part is not in place, the policy instruments remain on paper. Thus,
incomplete legal processes make regulation impossible which finally helps free-
riders. In the absence of rules for the last 20 years and the non-issuance of basic
notifications, MGDWA 1993, which is supposed to be the parent Act, has remained
mostly on paper. Under Maharashtra Water Resources Regulatory Act, 2005
(MWRRA), Maharashtra established an Independent Regulatory Authority in the
water sector (also State Groundwater Authority under MGDMA 2009). This is
undoubtedly a pioneering effort, but the actual implementation of this Act is
frustrating. MWRRA Rules were prepared seven years after its enactment, and that
too only after an order by the High Court. In the case of MGDMA 2009, the rules for
operation are not yet formed even after seven years of the inaction of the law, yet
they are just in ‘draft’ mode. Therefore, rules for the selected policy instruments and
required operational processes need to be laid down soon to make the policy
instruments workable at the grass-root.
4.8 More focus is needed on demand-side measures for water
management
Demand-side measures significantly reduce consumptive use of groundwater. These
measures mainly cover tools of micro-irrigation and soil-health practices. Although
there is a subsidy available for micro-irrigation from the state, farmers have less
publicity and motivation to adopt practices that increase the soil health or the
primary productivity of soil by increasing its soil content and moisture-holding
capacity. The present review shows that most irrigated farmers are aware and willing
to adopt micro-irrigation (drips and sprinklers). However, due to delays in receiving
subsidies and the current mechanism of investing 100% amount at a time, farmers
are discouraged from going for micro-irrigation. Hence, an urgent step to improving
94
the subsidy delivery mechanism for micro-irrigation is required; low-cost (non-ISI)
drip systems must be subsidized and promoted. However, care has to be taken at
the regulatory level that the application of micro-irrigation by farmers in real sense
results in a ‘saving’ amount of water which can be further used in scarcity period or
transferred to other users. The larger observations are that farmers who save water
by applying micro irrigations expand their own area under irrigation to utilize the
saved water. Hence, in practice, water is not saved, and only it gets used
inefficiently. Therefore, all measures have to be taken to achieve ‘saving water’ and
its efficient use. Thus, there are enough opportunities and an urgent need to make
the micro-irrigation schemes effective and responsive.
4.9 Promoting conjunctive use of surface and groundwater
At the level of administrative governance, for decades, planning and management of
surface water and groundwater resources have been treated separately. However,
there is an inseparable link between both of them. Mihir Shah has rightly noted this
situation as ‘hydro-schizophrenia’ in the water sector, where the right hand of
surface water does not know what the left hand of groundwater is doing (M. Shah &
Vijayshankar, 2022). For decades, participatory watershed development programs,
particularly with a ridge-to-valley approach, have delivered increasing surface and
groundwater resources, which benefited larger groups in farming communities.
However, the ridge to valley principle will be bypassed in a few years, and soil and
water conservation activities will be implemented in isolation. The government has
come up with different major schemes and activities, such as farm ponds, Jalyukt
Shivar, River and Nala deepening, and others, and separate governing agencies
manage these tasks. Unfortunately, there is no integration of these interventions. All
these interventions increase only visible water, i.e., surface water, and contribute
less to recharging groundwater. Hence, integration and synergy at different levels
are much required in surface and groundwater management, bringing governing
agencies and their interventions complementary.
4.10 Need for extensive piloting of proposed strategies in laws and acts
Water-related challenges in the state provide diverse living laboratories to pilot
different policy strategies and test their practical utility. Before proposing any
important measures at a large scale, it must get well piloted at an adequate scale to
understand its potential in practical implementation. Many strategies and provisions
may be ideal but practically not implementable. Different key policy strategies
proposed in selected policy instruments, such as aquifer management, groundwater-
based prospective crop plans, restrictions on the depth of wells, formation of
WWRC, etc., need to be extensively piloted on a large scale in a controlled manner.
This will provide gain lessons about its technical feasibility and socio-institutional
effectiveness. Even the complex environment and regional variation within
groundwater management hinder ideal models' development. Hence pilots must get
implemented in different agro-climatic settings. This piloting type is important
because villagers mostly learn through ‘doing by seeing.’ People get motivated and
convinced to adopt it only after successful models or villages. Hence, extensive
piloting of lead policy remedies is a prerequisite for its effective application on a
larger scale.
95
4.11 Need to apply a multi-sectoral approach
Because water serves different important purposes, it is essential to address linkages
with other sectoral policies and programs on agricultural practices, market, energy,
fertilizer industry, soil health, industrial development, water transport to cities, and
technologies that have a large impact on groundwater resource use. Thus, water
governance essentially goes far beyond water-resource itself. Groundwater-specific
management goals must look beyond straightjacket regulatory mechanisms and
develop alternative niches in livelihoods, energy use, and opportunities offered
under adaptation and coping strategies that focus on events such as droughts,
floods, economic drivers, and climate change. Therefore, there is a need to integrate
science, technology, sociology, economics, and different sectors where there is a link
to groundwater. This is necessary because, in isolation, targeting regulations on
water use for agriculture will not serve the purpose of reducing groundwater
extraction. Unfortunately, such an integrated multi-sectoral approach is lacking in
overall water governance.
4.12 Concluding statement
Undoubtedly, the governance of water resources, mainly groundwater resources, in
many aspects, is a challenging endeavor. This is primarily challenging because of its
unseen or invisible nature, and as being a common pool resource, there is increasing
competition to tap it. Along with its hidden nature and below-ground features, it is
superimposed by a complex web of above-ground socioeconomic and governance
factors that determine the dynamics of groundwater extraction. These dynamics
have created anarchy in the groundwater sector; efforts are needed at different
levels to avoid this. However, priority is required to make the existing policy and
programs appropriate, adequate, and practically feasible, addressing the key
normative concerns of equity, gender, participation, ecosystems, sustainable
incomes, climate change, etc. In addition, in layman's language, water users and
mainly groundwater-using farmers need to be well informed about the groundwater
science, crop-water requirements, and policy issues.
More importantly, there is a need to adopt the multi-sectoral approach for
governing the water resource by taking appropriate measures in each related sector
linked to water. Harmony and dialogue between actors and stakeholders at different
levels, from policy makers to practitioners (water users), is much required. For this
purpose, water policy and governance call for a true multi-disciplinarily nature where
science, technology, and sociology come together to find solutions. The policy-
making process in the water sector needs me to be more participatory and
accountable, not just by asking for comments to revise but by engaging stakeholders
during the policy formulation phase. This set of policies must be thoroughly piloted
before proposing on a large scale. Therefore, adequate space in the policy
environment needs to be created to hear the policy critic, analysis, and
recommendations on relevant issues. Unless today we challenge the burning issues,
changing dynamics, and failure of policy and program in appropriate spaces and
make conscious efforts to rectify them, we cannot see a realistic tenable tomorrow
in the governance of precarious water resources in Maharashtra.
96
References
Alkire, S., & Deneulin, S. (2009). A normative framework for development. In An introduction
to the human development and capability approach (pp. 25-35). Routledge.
Althusser, L. (2006). Ideology and ideological state apparatuses (notes towards an
investigation). The Anthropology of the State: A Reader, 9(1), 86–98.
Badiani, R., & Jessoe, K. (2013). The impact of electricity subsidies on groundwater
extraction and agricultural production. Department of Agriculture and Resource
Economics Working Paper, University of California Davis. Retrieved.
Banerjee, S. (2019, May). Water experts warn of the ‘desertification’ of Marathwada. THE
HINDU.
Bendapudi, R., Yadav, A., Chemburkar, S., & D’Souza, M. (2020). Adaptation Strategy or
Maladaptation–The conversion of FarmTher ponds into surface storage tanks in Semi-
Arid regions of Maharashtra.
Bhadbhade, N., Bhagat, S., Joy, K. J., Samuel, A., Lohakare, K., & Adagale, R. (2019). Can
Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan prevent drought in Maharashtra? Economic & Political Weekly,
54(25), 13.
Bhushan, C., Bhati, P., Singh, M., & Jhawar, P. (2019). Silver Bullet: Redesigning Solar Pump
Programme for Water and Energy Security.
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy and
Planning, 15(3), 239–246.
CAG. (2020). Chapter II: Audit of Transactions (Implementation of Jalyukta Shivar Abhiyan).
Comptroller and Auditor General of India. https://cag.gov.in/en/audit-
report/details/110871
CGWB. (2012). Manual of Aquifer Mapping. Ministry of Water Resources,
Indiahttp://cgwb.gov.in/AQM/documents/Manual on Aquifer Mapping.pdf.%0A
Chaterjee, B. (2020). Seven-fold increase in drought events, six-fold rise in frequency of
extreme flood events in Maharashtra over 50 years: Study. Hindustan Times.
Chindarkar, N., & Grafton, R. Q. (2019). India’s depleting groundwater: When science meets
policy. Asia & the Pacific Policy Studies, 6(1), 108–124.
CSR Journal. (2018). Food Wastage In India, And What You Can Do About It. CSR Journal.
https://thecsrjournal.in/food-wastage-in-india-a-serious-concern/
Cullet, P. (2012). The groundwater model bill: Rethinking regulation for the primary source
of water. Economic and Political Weekly, 40–47.
D’Souza, M., Kale, E., & Pinjan, H. (2019). A Step towards Quenching Rural India’s Thirst,
Experiences and Learnings from the Water Stewardship Initiative in Maharashtra.
Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Pune.
Dandekar, P. (2016). MWRRA Ordinance 2016: More vulnerable to WRD meddling? SANDRP.
Deshpande, A. (2016). Irrigation projects between 2007 and 2013 will be reviewed: State.
The Hindu, dated 12 February 2016,
https://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/mumbai/Irrigation-projects-between-2007-
and-2013-will-be-reviewed-State/article15618948.ece
Deshpande, T. (2020, February). MVA govt. discontinues Fadnavis’s pet project Jalyukt
Shivar Abhiyan. The Hindu.
Duncan, A., & Williams, G. (2012). Making development assistance more effective through
using political‐economy analysis: What has been done and what have we learned?
Development Policy Review, 30(2), 133–148.
97
Dutta, D., & Goel, S. (2021). Understanding the gap between formal and informal e-waste
recycling facilities in India. Waste Management, 125, 163–171.
ET. (2018, November). Maha to extend CM’s agri solar scheme across the state. Economic
Times. https://energy.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/renewable/maha-to-
extend-cms-agri-solar-scheme-across-the-state/66802709
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (n.d.). Definition of Policy. Retrieved from
http://www.fao. org/wairdocs/ilri/x5547e/x5547e05.htm
Fritz, V., Kaiser, K., & Levy, B. (2009). Problem-driven governance and political economy
analysis: good practice framework. World Bank, Washington, DC
Gholkar, M., Thombare, P., Koli, U., & Kumbhar, N. (2022). Techno-economic assessment of
agricultural land remediation measures through nutrient management practices to
achieve sustainable agricultural production. Environmental Challenges, 7, 100492.
Gleick, P. H., Wolff, G., Chalecki, E. L., & Reyes, R. (2002). The new economy of water. Pacific
Institute.
GoI. (2012). National Water Policy. Department of Water Resource, Jalshakti Ministry,
Government of India. http://jalshakti-
dowr.gov.in/sites/default/files/NWP2012Eng6495132651_1.pdf
GoI. (2020). ATAL BHUJAL YOJANA (ATAL JAL): Program Guidelines (Version 1.1). Ministry of
Jal Shakti Department of Water Resources, River Development & Ganga Rejuvenation,
Government of India.
GoI. (2020a). Extraction of Groundwater. Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India,
Available at https://pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=1602634
GoM. (2013). Maharashtra Groundwater (Development and Management) Act, 2009.
Government of Maharashtra. https://mwrra.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/09/6-
Maharashtra-Groundwater-Development-Management-Act-2009.pdf
GoM. (2014). Water for all - Drought-free Maharashtra 2019 Regarding the implementation
of the Jalyukta Shivar Campaign to permanently overcome the internal drought
situation. GR No. JaLaA-2014/Case No.203/JaLa-7. Water Conservation Department,
Government of Maharashtra
Magel Tyala Shetatale, (2016). GR No. 201610131131096816, Government of Maharashtra,
https://egs.mahaonline.gov.in/PDF/Shetatle.pdf
GR 1 on Gaalmukt Dharan Gaalyukt Shivar, (2017). GR No. 201704101302368426.
Government of Maharashtra,
https://www.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/Government
Resolutions/English/201712061616303426.pdf
GR 2 on Gaalmukt Dharan Gaalyukt Shivar, (2017). GR No. 201712061616303426.
Government of Maharashtra.
GoI. (2022). Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthan Mahabhiyan (PM-KUSUM.
https://pmkusum.mnre.gov.in/landing-about.html
GoM. (2017). Integrated State Water Plan. Water Resource Department, Government of
Maharashtra, https://wrd.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/PDF/Godawari-Khand2.pdf
GoM (2019). State water Policy-2019. Government of Maharashtra.
https://wrd.maharashtra.gov.in/Site/Upload/PDF/State Water Policy 05092019.pdf
GoM. (2020). Weekly Tanker Report. Government of Maharashtra.
https://wsso.in/tanker.html
GoM. (2021). PoCRA project implementation status report-2021.Government of
Maharashtra.
98
GoM. (2022). Economic Survey of Maharashtra 2021-22. Directorate of Economics and
Statistics, Government of Maharashtra, the report available at
http://mls.org.in/pdf2022/budget/ESM_2021_22/Economic%20Survey%20of%20%20
Maharashtra%202021-22.pdf
Grafton, R. Q., Williams, J., Perry, C. J., Molle, F., Ringler, C., Steduto, P., Udall, B., Wheeler,
S. A., Wang, Y., & Garrick, D. (2018). The paradox of irrigation efficiency. Science,
361(6404), 748–750.
GSDA. (2019). Report of Predicted Water Scarcity for Drinking Water for 2019–2020.
https://gsda.maharashtra.gov.in/english/admin/PDF_Files/1572946768_Scarcity_Repo
rt-Oct_2019.pdf
Harris, D. (2013). Applied political economy analysis. A Problem-Driven Framework. London:
Overseas Development Institute.
Hindustan Times. (n.d.). SIT to probe irregularities in Maharashtra’s Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan
scheme: State home minister Anil Deshmukh. Hindustan Times. Dated, 16 October
2020.
Hindustan Times. (n.d.). Maharashtra govt replaces Jalyukt Shivar with 3-year water
conservation scheme. Hindustan Times. Dated, 05 February 2021.
Hora, T., Srinivasan, V., & Basu, N. B. (2019). The groundwater recovery paradox in South
India. Geophysical Research Letters, 46(16), 9602–9611.
Iyer, K. (2019, August). Marathwada Water Grid: Maharashtra government invites global
tenders for project. The Indian Express.
Iyer, R. (2003). Water: Perspectives, Issues and Concerns. Sage Publication, Delhi.
Jamil, I., Askvik, S., & Dhakal, T. N. (2013). In search of better governance in South Asia and
beyond. Springer.
Jamwal, N. (2009). Inordinate delay. Down to Earth.
Jamwal, N. (2018). India’s criteria for classifying drought-hit regions are causing many cases
to go unreported. Scroll.
Joy, K. J. (2015). The much talked about Shirpur Model in Maharashtra. Down to Earth.
Joy, K. J., Sangameswaran, P., Latha, A., Dharmadhikary, S., Prasad, M. K., & Soma, K. P.
(2011). Life, Livelihoods, Ecosystems, Culture: Entitlements and Allocation of Water for
Competing Uses. Position Paper by the Thematic Sub-Group on Water Entitlements and
Allocations for Livelihood Needs and Ecosystem Needs, Forum for Policy Dialogue on
Water Conflicts in India, Pune: SOPPECOM.
Joy, K. J., & Srinivasan, V. (2021). Climate change and rural water security. In The Crisis of
Climate Change (pp. 149–163). Routledge India.
Kale, E. B. (2018). Governing The Misgoverned: Understanding The Failure of Policy
Measures to Address Groundwater Extraction in Maharashtra.
Kale, E., D’Souza, M., & Chemburkar, S. (2022). Making the invisible, visible: 3D aquifer
models as an effective tool for building water stewardship in Maharashtra, India. Water
Policy.
Kale, E., Rajapure, G., Kavthekar, A., & Pavar, J. (2019). Practitioner’s Perspective on the JSA-
Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan,. Economic & Political Weekly, 54(29).
Kale, Eshwer. (2013). Dangers in Participatory Aquifer Mapping. Economic and Political
Weekly, 48(7), 4–5.
Kale, Eshwer. (2017). Problematic uses and practices of farm ponds in Maharashtra.
Economic and Political Weekly, 52(3), 20–22.
Kale, Eshwer. (2020). Patterns of Social Exclusion in Watershed Development in India.
99
Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
Khurana, I., & Sen, R. (2008). Drinking water quality in rural India: Issues and approaches.
WaterAid India, 89(3), 1–23.
Kulkarni, H., Badarayani, U., & Upasani, D. (n.d.). Groundwater management–typology of
challenges, opportunities and approaches. Arghyam-ACWADAM Publ. ACWA H-09-2.
Compilation of Papers from the Groundwater Conference, Pune, May 2009.
Kulkarni, S. (2011). Women and decentralised water governance: Issues, challenges and the
way forward. Economic and Political Weekly, 64–72.
Kushire, S. (2019). Small scale Irrigation (Water Conservation): “Present Scenario of Water
Conservation and Small Scale Irrigation Schemes in Maharashtra. In Suresh. Kulkarni
(Ed.), Conservation and Saving in Agriculture, Initiatives, Achievement and Challenges in
Maharashtra,. Water Resources Department, 2019.
Lee, J. Y., Naylor, R. L., Figueroa, A. J., & Gorelick, S. M. (2020). Water-food-energy
challenges in India: political economy of the sugar industry. Environmental Research
Letters, 15(8), 84020.
Loksatta (2022), Article on sugarcane cultivation in Maharashtra, by Padamkar Kamble,
dated 5 July 2022, available at
https://www.loksatta.com/sampadkiya/features/farmers-are-more-dependent-on-the-
sugarcane-pkd-83-3005439/
MahaVitaran. (2019). Beneficiary Selection Criteria for Solar Pumps. Maharashtra State
Electricity Distribution Company Limited.
Mallapur, C. (2016). 70% Of Urban India’s Sewage Is Untreated. IndiaSpend.
Mosse, D. (1999). Colonial and contemporary ideologies of ‘community management’: the
case of tank irrigation development in South India. Modern Asian Studies, 33(2), 303–
338.
Narain, V. (2009). Water as a fundamental right: A perspective from India. Vt. L. Rev., 34,
917.
NITI Aayog. (2018a). Composite water management index: A tool for water management.
NITI Aayog. (2018b). Composite Water Management Index (p. 180). Government of India.
NITI Aayog. (2019). Composite Water Management Index 2019.
Nitnaware H. (2021, June). Once Parched, Maharashtra Village Becomes Drought-Free &
Earns Rs 72 Crores/Year. The Better India.
Ostrom, E. (2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework.
Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27.
Pandit, C., & Biswas, A. K. (2019). India’s National Water Policy:‘feel good' document,
nothing more. International Journal of Water Resources Development.
Parth, M. (2020, March). Maharashtra’s ambitious Rs 25,000 crore Marathwada Water Grid
project a waste of money, say experts. First Post.
Parto, S. (2005). “ Good” Governance and Policy Analysis: What of Institutions?
Perry, C., Steduto, P., & Karajeh, F. (2017). Does improved irrigation technology save water?
A review of the evidence. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations,
Cairo, 42.
Phansalkar, S., & Kher, V. (2006). A decade of Maharashtra groundwater legislation: Analysis
of the implementation process. Law Env’t & Dev. J., 2, 67.
Polski, M. M., & Ostrom, E. (1999). An institutional framework for policy analysis and design.
1999.
Prasad, P., Damani, O. P., & Sohoni, M. (2022). How can resource-level thresholds guide
100
sustainable intensification of agriculture at farm level? A system dynamics study of
farm-pond based intensification. Agricultural Water Management, 264, 107385.
PTI. (2019). Worn canals causing leakage of Jayakwadi water in transit. Press Trust of India.,
https://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/worn-canals-causing-leakage-
of-jayakwadi-water-in-transit-119121800895_1.html
Purandare, P. (2013). Water governance and droughts in Marathwada. Economic and
Political Weekly, 18–21.
Purandare, P. (2021). Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan. A blog available at https://bit.ly/3yPwV1P
Purandare, P. (2015), blog available at http://jaagalyaa-
thewhistleblower.blogspot.com/2015/12/mwrra-catch-22-situation-pradeep.html
Purohit, M. (2016). Water for everyone. India Water Portal.
https://www.indiawaterportal.org/articles/water-everyone
Qazi, M. (2017). India’s Thirsty Crops Are Draining the Country Dry. The Diplomat.
Rogers, P. (2008). Facing the freshwater crisis. Scientific American, 299(2), 46–53.
RRAN. (2019). Water Policy for Rainfed Areas. Revitalising Rainfed Agriculture Network.
SANDRP. (2016). Concerns about unplanned River Widening, Deepening and Straightening
Works being undertaken under Jal Yukta Shivar and other projects. South Asian
Network on Dams Rivers and People.
Sahu, S. (2020). The concept of polluter pays and its potential in India, blog at
https://blog.ipleaders.in/the-concept-of-polluter-pays-and-its-potential-in-india/
Sathe, M. (2018). A Case for Water Governance Standard and Certification System In Rural
Areas. Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Pune.
Sawant, N., Sharma, P., & Jadhav, P. (2018). SOLAR PHOTOVOLTAIC PUMPS FOR IRRIGATION
IN MAHARASHTRA – APPROPRIATE SIZING.
Shah, Sameer & Harris, Leila & Johnson, Mark & Wittman, Hannah. (2021). A "Drought-Free"
Maharashtra? Politicising Water Conservation for Rain-Dependent Agriculture. Water
Alternatives. 14. 573-596.
Shah, M., & Vijayshankar, P. S. (2022). Symbiosis of Water and Agricultural Transformation
in India. In Indian Agriculture Towards 2030 (pp. 109–152). Springer, Singapore.
Shah, M., Vijayshankar, P. S., & Harris, F. (2021). Water and Agricultural Transformation in
India: A Symbiotic Relationship-I. Economic and Political Weekly, 56(29).
Shah, T. (2010). Taming the anarchy: Groundwater governance in South Asia. Routledge.
Shaikh, Z. (2017, June). Ground water levels declining fast in Maharashtra. The Indian
Express.
Singh, D., Chopde, S. K., Raghuvanshi, S. S., Gupta, A. K., & Guleria, S. (2018). Climate
resilient disaster risk management: Best practices compendium. Department of Relief
and Rehabilitation, Govt of Maharashtra and Climate Change Innovation Programme-
Action on Climate Today (ACT). P, 62(1), 5.
Smajgl, A., Leitch, A., & Lynam, T. (2009). Outback Institutions: An application of the
Institutional Analysis and Development (IAD) framework to four case studies in
Australia’s outback. DKCRC Report, 31.
Sonkar, P. (2016). GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT BY THE APPLICATION OF SUBSURFACE
DYKE AND ITS FUTURE SCENARIO IN CHHATTISGARH USING MODFLOW (Doctoral
dissertation).
The Economic Times. (2019, August). State cabinet approves Rs 4,802 crore water grid for
Beed. The Economic Times. Dated, 21 August 2019.
The Hindu. (2021, August). 11 districts in Maharashtra highly vulnerable to extreme weather
101
events: study. THE HINDU. Dated, 6 August 2021.
The Indian Express. (2021, June). Maharashtra: Govt nods to Marathwada water grid in
Phases. The Indian Express. Dated, 24 June 2021.
Tiwale S, Kale S, & Bhasme S. (2021). Reviving Participatory Irrigation Management in
Maharashtra: Moving towards Member-Centric Water Users Associations.
TOI. (2020). Jayakwadi overflowing but Aurangabadstill thirsty. Times of India. Dated, 19
Septeber 2020.
Thrupp, L. A. (2000). Linking agricultural biodiversity and food security: the valuable role of
agrobiodiversity for sustainable agriculture. International affairs, 76(2), 265-281
UNICEF. (2020). FACT SHEET: Lack of handwashing with soap puts millions at increased risk
to COVID-19 and other infectious diseases.
Wagle, S, Warghade, S., & Dixit, K. (2009). Independent Water Regulatory Authorities in
India: Analysis and Interventions (p. 157). Resources and Livelihoods Group, PRAYAS,
Pune.
Wagle, Subodh. (2011). Policy and Governance: Perspective and Analytical Framework for
Management of Urban Sewage. Gangapedia.
WOTR. (2020). FARMPRECISE: ‘PRECISELY’ WHAT OUR FARMERS WANT, NOW IN AN APP.
Watershed Organisation Trust (WOTR), Pune.
World Bank. https://bit.ly/3nWcQki, assessed on 25 July 2021.
Yadav, A., & Kale, E. (2020). Incentivizing water governance by applying the water
governance standard and certification system toolkit. Watershed Organisation Trust
(WOTR), Pune.
Young, I. M. (1986). The ideal of community and the politics of difference. Social Theory and
Practice, 12(1), 1–26.
Zade, D., Kale, E., Sood, A., Jadhav, S., & Shinde, A. (2020). Gallmukt Dharan, Gaalyukt Shivar
(Tank Desiltation) Scheme in Maharashtra, India: Policy Concerns and the Way
Forward. Law Env’t & Dev. J., 16, 134.
102
