CPR OCCASIONAL PAPER SERIES 2004-05

OCCASIONAL PAPER NO. 10

Water: Towards a Transformation

A Critique and a Declaration

RAMASWAMY R. IYER

CENTRE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

Dharma Marg, Chanakyapuri
New Delhi-110021
 About the Author

RAMASWAMY R. IYER, currently Honorary Research Professor, Centre

for Policy Research, New Delhi, was formerly Secretary, Water Resources
in the Government of India. For almost ten years from May 1990, as a
professor at CPR, he was engaged in a collaborative hree-institution study
on possibilities of cooperation by India, Nepal and Bangladesh on the
utilization of the Ganga, Brahmaputra and Meghna Rivers for the benefit of
all three countries. He has been a member or chairman of many government
committees and commissions, including his membership of the National
Commission on Integrated Water Resource Planning (1996-1999) and of the
Vision 2020 Committee of Indias Planning Commission (2000-2001). He
was a Consultant to the World Bank in a review of water sector strategy
(April-May, 2000, May 2002), and to the World Commission on Dams for a
study of Indias experience with large dams (1999-2000). His books include:
A Grammar of Publ;ic Enterprises, Rawat, Jaipur, 1991; WATER: Perspectives,
Issues, Concerns, Sage Publications, 2003. His edited/co-edited books include:
Harnessing the Eastern Himalayan Rivers (co-editor), Konark, 1993; Converting
Water into Wealth (co-editor), Konark 1994. He was the editor of Mid-Year
Review of the Economy 1993-94, Konark in association with IIC, New Delhi.
He has contributed several papers/chapters to several edited books. He has
also contributed numerous articles and papers in newspapers and various
journals.

May 2004

Copyright c Centre for Policy Research, 2004

The views presented in this Paper are solely of the author and not of the Centre for
Policy Research.

Copies of this Publication can be obtained on request by e-mail from Mr. Kamal Jit
Kumar, Chief Librarian and Programme Officer.

e-mail: cprindia@vsnl.com
Website: www.cprindia.org
 Foreword

The first lecture in 2004 in the CPR Lecture Series was delivered by
Prof. Ramaswamy R. Iyer at CPR on 19 January 2004 on Water: Towards A
Transformation A Critique and a Declaration. Shri I. K. Gujral, former
Prime Minister of India, was in the Chair. Prof. Kanchan Chopra and Prof.
Biswanath Goldar of the Institute of Economic Growth, as also Prof. R.
Rangachari of CPR, were the Discussants. There was a lively discussion
after the lecture, and Prof. Iyer has taken all the comments, written and
oral, into account and made such additions and amendments to his text as
he considered necessary.

In this lecture, Prof. Iyer has called for a transformation in our thinking
on water. He sets forth the different aspects, dimensions and complexities
that need to be kept in mind in thinking about water, refers to various
current formulations and prescriptions and critiques them, and proceeds
to outline his own perspective in the form of a declaration consisting of a
set of basic propositions or guiding principles. There may be varying
degrees of agreement or disagreement with those propositions, but there
is no doubt that Prof. Iyer has raised a number of very important issues for
consideration and appropriate action by the concerned policymakers.

I have great pleasure in circulating the text of Prof. Iyers Lecture in its
revised form to reach a wider audience.

Centre for Policy Research, New Delhi Charan Wadhva

May 2004 President
 WATER: TOWARDS A TRANSFORMATION
A Critique and a Declaration
RAMASWAMY R. IYER

Abstract

Water occurs in many forms, is extremely variable in its occurrence, has

multiple aspects or dimensions, is perceived very differently by different people
and at different times, and is used or dealt with by a multiplicity of people and
agencies in many different ways, at several levels, and on different scales. Some of
these complexities are known to all, but others are not so well understood. These
complexities lead to a series of partial or imperfect or half-baked formulations or
recommendations for future action. The paper sets forth briefly the aspects,
dimensions, and complexities of water; expounds and criticizes some of the
formulations and prescriptions currently in vogue; and then draws the threads
together in a fairly full but terse declaratory statement. Though the statement is
essentially a personal declaration, it is the authors hope that governments, civil
society organizations, international bodies such as the World Bank, World Water
Council and Global Water Partnership, and others, will find it useful as the point
of departure for a re-examination of their ideas and approaches, and perhaps the
re-formulation of their concepts, policies and prescriptions. The declaration is offered
as a draft manifesto for consideration by all concerned.

I. Introductory

It is fashionable to talk about de-mystifying a subject, meaning that it

is in fact simpler than it is made out to be. The present paper is an effort in
the opposite direction; its thesis is that water, a familiar enough
phenomenon, is in fact far from simple. An effort to think about water
soon draws us the analyst, the planner, the policy-maker, the ordinary
citizen with an interest in public affairs, NGOs and social activists - into
unsuspected dimensions, complexities and depths. The reason for this is
that water occurs in many forms, is extremely variable in its occurrence,
has multiple aspects or dimensions, is perceived very differently by different
people and at different times, and is used or dealt with by a multiplicity of
people and agencies in many different ways, at several levels, and on
4
different scales. Some of these complexities are known to all, but others are
not so well understood. This paper will set forth briefly the aspects,
dimensions, and complexities of water; expound and criticize some of the
formulations and prescriptions currently in vogue; and then draw the
threads together in a fairly full but terse declaratory statement. If it brings
about some much-needed re-thinking on water on the part of all, the author
will be gratified.

II. Complexities

This Section sets forth the aspects, dimensions and complexities that
need to be taken into account in thinking about water. The challenge is to
build a coherent whole out of these.

Variability:

The variability in the occurrence of precipitation is well-known and is

frequently referred to. In so far as India is concerned, it is common
knowledge that most of the water that the landmass receives by way of
rainfall comes down in a relatively short period in the year, and that even
within that period, the intensity is concentrated within a few weeks. We
also know that precipitation varies widely over the landmass, ranging from
100 mm in some parts of Rajasthan to 11000 mm in the Northeast
(Cherrapunji). These variations, along with other factors, contribute to the
phenomena of floods and drought. All this is familiar ground over which
we need not tarry, except to note that it leads to certain prescriptions; but
we shall come to them later.

Forms:

Water occurs in many forms: precipitation (snow, sleet and rain),

snowmelt, glaciers, rivers, streams, lakes, ponds and other surface water
bodies, groundwater aquifers (shallow and deep; active, trapped and fossil),
springs, wetlands, soil moisture and atmospheric moisture (leaving aside
the oceans). That all these are manifestations of water is not common
knowledge, though it may seem self-evident when pointed out. Even less
common is the knowledge of the concepts of hydrospherei, hydrological cycle,ii
hydrological unityiii and the finiteiv nature of the quantum of water on earth;
these terms are mostly used by specialists. Though all water constitutes a
unity, different forms of water have distinct characteristics; give rise to
5
different issues in the context of utilization and management; and the
governing laws are different.

Aspects, Dimensions:

Turning to the many aspects or dimensions of water, there is first

drinking water (including within that term water essential for cooking and
washing): this is water as life-support. (Access to sources of water is
therefore an essential means of life-support for all human beings, but
especially so for certain communities - particularly tribal ones - with a vital
relationship to rivers and/or forests. Similarly, water is also life-support
for livestock, wildlife and aquatic life.) Water for irrigation and water for
industrial uses (process, cooling, steam generation) are inputs into economic
activities.v Water for the generation of hydroelectric power is a special
category; in a sense it is a raw material, but it does not get consumed in the
process: it is a special variant of water for industrial use. Water is also a
medium for navigation; here again it does not get consumed, but a certain
level of flow has to be maintained, and this may limit the availability for
other uses. With the growing salience of environmental and ecological
concerns (including concerns about the control of pollution), the phrases
minimum flows, environmental flows and water for nature have gained
currency, but these (as we shall see later) reflect fundamental
misperceptions of the relationship between nature and water. Lastly, in
many cultures, water has ritual and sacramental functions. Though the
quantum of water needed for such purposes may be small, this constitutes
an important aspect or dimension of water; and apart from ritual uses,
water itself is often regarded as sacred, or as a divinity. Even where the
religious dimension is absent, rivers and lakes are important elements in
the social and cultural lives of countries; civilizations are associated (indeed,
identified) with them; and people tend to develop strong emotional
attachments to them.

In passing, we must take note of the common tendency to regard river

water as used only when it is taken out of the river, and to think of water
flowing past in a river or stream, and particularly water flowing into the
sea, as wasted. Flowing water, including what flows into the sea, serves
important purposes and is therefore used and not wasted water.
Adapting Miltons words,vi we can say Water also serves when it only
flows.
6
Perceptions:

Corresponding to (but not identical with) the multiple dimensions and

aspects of water are the diverse ways in which water is perceived by people:
as private property, as a tradable commodity, as a basic, fundamental or
human right (and animal right), as the domain of the state, as a common
pool resource belonging to the community, as a symbol of a civilization
and as a sacred resource or divinity; and there are different views as to the
ownership of water. These differences in perception lead to important
differences in policy prescriptions (state control, community management,
private ownership, property rights, water markets, etc).

Some Linkages:

At this stage, three inextricable linkages need to be taken note of. First,
water-use and land-use are linked and the formulation of policy for the
one cannot be done in isolation from policy for the other. Secondly, water
is an integral part of the natural environment; each sustains and is sustained
by the other. To talk about balancing water resource development and
environmental concerns is to betray flawed thinking; this will be
elaborated later. Thirdly, water supply and sanitation are the obverse and
reverse of the same coin. We cannot talk about water without talking about
sanitation.vii

Levels, Scales:

Next the different levels at which water is used or dealt with must be
noted. (This can also be described as scales.) Ponds, tanks and lakes (except
where these are very large) are used locally; historically, they were also
managed locally, though that may not be the case in all places today. There
is a history of community-management of such traditional water-harvesting
and management systems in India, and that history is not entirely dead.
The more recent NGO-inspired initiatives in rainwater-harvesting and
watershed development are also local, small-scale and community-led. The
use of groundwater for drinking or for irrigation is also largely a local matter,
though with power-operated borewells and a network of pipelines the water
can be transported over a certain distance. These are mostly instances of
investment and management by relatively more affluent farmers or
industrial units, i.e., private initiatives, though there are also instances of
municipal extraction of groundwater for urban water-supply. Major and
7
medium structuresviii on rivers and streams are larger enterprises generally
undertaken by the state, though there is now much advocacy of a private
sector role in such projects. Going beyond such individual projects, the
next level or scale is the river-basin or sub-basin. As we proceed from
small, local activities at the micro-watershed or village level to clusters
of watersheds and then to sub-basins and basins and beyond basins to
links or transfers between basins, we are not merely traversing the
hydrological domain but also moving to larger social, organizational,
management and political levels: from villages or clusters of villages to
districts, to provinces or States (in a federal set-up), to inter-State
relationships, to the national level and then to the inter-country or
regional level.

There are three complexities here: first, hydrological units and divisions
(mini and micro watersheds, sub-basins, basins, configurations of aquifers)
do not always - in fact rarely correspond to political or administrative
divisions;ix secondly, political boundaries running across or along rivers,
whether within a country or between countries, tend to become emotionally
charged and conflict-prone; and thirdly, social groupings, institutions and
organizations in relation to water do not necessarily correspond to (or relate
well with) official formations and structures. To reconcile the logic of
political divisions with that of hydrological (or ecological) unities; to
establish a cooperative, constructive, working relationship between civil
society institutions (watershed committees, village bodies undertaking
water-harvesting activities, facilitating NGOs, etc) and official formations
(governments at the Central, State and district levels, panchayati raj or local
self-government institutions at the village or city level); and to ensure that
their (governments and civil societys) water-related activities are in
harmony (or at least not in conflict) with the facts and imperatives of the
ecological system, is a formidable task.

Conflicts:

Conflicts relating to water resources can occur at different levels and

between different sets of parties, take diverse forms, involve a wide range
of issues and have many dimensions (legal, institutional, socio-cultural,
ethical, and so on). Conflictsx can arise, for instance:

! between drinking water needs and the demands of agriculture;

8
 ! between agricultural and industrial demands for water;
! between rural and urban needs;
! between farms or communities or villages or districts sharing a
water-source;
! between different groups or sections within an irrigation command
(e.g., head-reach and tail-end farms);
! between those who are displaced or otherwise adversely affected
by a dam or barrage projectxi and those who benefit from it;
! between the latter and those who suffer the consequences of reduced
flows in the river downstream of a dam or barrage;
! and so on.

The reference to the adversely affected categories covers not only people
but also livestock, wildlife, aquatic life, and natural systems including
estuarine areas. However, it is misleading to use the word conflict in this
context, as wildlife and nature cannot actively engage in conflict but can
only show the results of human interventions; human beings have to speak
for them, as also for future generations whose water endowment may be
compromised by present activities.

In the design and operation of a large dam project, conflicts (seemingly

technical but in fact conflicts of interests) can arise between the demands
of irrigation and power generation (both of which would require the water-
level in the reservoir to be kept high) on the one hand, and the
considerations of flood management (which would call for space to be left
in the reservoir for the accommodation of floods) or navigation or the
maintenance of the downstream river regime (which may call for more
releases from the reservoir), on the other.

Conflicts can also arise between community initiatives and the states
perception of its own role. The interaction of water-users associations or
watershed committees on the one hand and panchayati raj (local self-
government) institutions on the other could also give rise to conflicts; this
will be a subset of the conflict between civil society and the state. And of
course there can be conflicts between the development objectives of the
state and the people who suffer the social costs of such development, the
Narmada and Tehri cases being well-known examples.
9
 Lastly, there can be conflicts between countries on the sharing of rivers
or aquifers and on water-quality issues; and as already pointed out, these
tend to become the foci of chauvinistic sentiments that quickly get heavily
politicized.

Laws:

Turning to laws, there are three sets of complexities in the Indian context.
At the level of the Constitution of India, the nature of the constitutional
provisions relating to water, the (imperfect) understanding of water that
they embody, the (not wholly satisfactory) allocation of responsibilities
between the Centre and the States, the (creaking but recently repaired)
machinery for resolving inter-State conflicts, and the future role of the third
tier (i.e., that of local self-government at the village and city level) introduced
by the 73rd and 74th Amendments to the Constitution, present several
problems. Secondly, in the domain of the laws, there are asymmetries
between surface water and groundwater and ambiguities in relation to
surface water itself; and there are complex inter-relationships between
water-related laws and other laws such as those relating to the environment,
wildlife, tribal areas, and so on. Thirdly, there is the question of the
relationship between the formal law of the statute books and customary
law as embodied in centuries-old traditions and conventions.xii

III. Current Formulations: A Critique

Those complexities, not all of which are fully or always taken note of,
lead to a series of partial or imperfect or half-baked formulations or
recommendations for future action. The following paragraphs enumerate
them, and offer brief critiques.

Looming Crisis, Water Wars:

The finite nature of the supply of water on earth and the mounting
pressure on it because of the forces of population- growth, urbanization
and economic development lead to predictions of a crisis and of water
wars. The water wars thesis is based on a misleading analogy between
water and oil, and overlooks the evidence of inter-country cooperation
through treaties and agreements; we need not spend more time on that
thesis. However, the forecast of a crisis cannot be lightly dismissed.
Undoubtedly the pressure on water will be acute and conflicts may arise,

10
but will there in fact be a crisis, and will it be as severe as is feared? There
could be a difference of views on this. Demand projections are generally
based on current patterns of water-use with some modest adjustments for
improvements in efficiency and resource-conservation. Those projections
need to be re-examined stringently. In every kind of use, major economies
are desirable and possible. Substantial improvements in efficiency in water-
use in agriculture (in conveyance systems, crop-water requirements,
irrigation techniques, yieldsxiii) are needed, and if achieved, will release
large quantities of water for other uses. In rural and urban water supply,
the tendency is to project future needs on the basis of per capita norms
which are fairly high and which are sought to be raised further. However,
instead of improving the norms for supply from the current figures to higher
levels, it might be more appropriate to maintain (or perhaps even reducexiv)
current norms, enforce economies on those, whether in rural or urban areas, that
use too much water, and improve availability to groups or areas that receive
too little. The substantial incidence of waste in urban water-supply systems
is also a matter that calls for concerted action. In industrial use of water,
multiple recycling and re-use needs to be insisted upon, allowing minimal
make-up water. Strenuous efforts need to be made to promote
improvements in efficiency and technological innovations in every kind of
water-use to maximize what we get out of each drop of water. Apart from
minimizing waste, it needs to be recognized that domestic and municipal
waste is also a source from which water for some uses needs to be extracted.
If we do all this, the demand picture will not remain the same. The pressure
on the resource will not disappear but may well be less severe than now
feared; a crisis may still emerge, but it may not be unmanageable. A critical
examination of projections of future water demand, or rather of the assumptions
and methods involved, ought therefore be an important area of study.

Water Resource Development (WRD) Projects:

In India, and perhaps elsewhere, the term water resource development

or WRD has acquired a specialized meaning: it has become synonymous
with large dam-and-reservoir projects. The Government of India, in its
response to the Report of the World Commission on Dams (which it
rejected), declared its intention of constructing additional storage (i.e.,
dams-and-reservoirs on rivers) of 200 billion cubic metres (BCM) within a
period of 25 years. More recently, it has announced a mega river-linking

11
project. We are not concerned here with the details of those projects. They
are mentioned only as examples of a particular kind of approach. There
are three difficulties here.

First, as with industrial or consumer goods, the implicit assumption is

that from a projected future demand we should proceed to a supply-side
answer, i.e., production, to meet that demand. However, such an approach,
which is simply unsustainable in the long run even with industrial and
consumer goods, is particularly so in the case of water. With water we
have to reverse the approach: we must proceed from the recognition of a
finite supply to the management of demand. This has already been urged
in an earlier paragraph.

Secondly, granting that the storing of water in reservoirs behind dams

may make more of the resource available for use, we have to note that this
has certain consequences. The approach of taming or harnessing rivers
(the equestrian metaphors are significant) was unchallenged until recently,
but in the last three or four decades it has come under severe questioning.
There is much disenchantment with large WRD projects, and there are
movements against them in several countries. The reasons for the mounting
opposition to such projects are the following: they have serious impacts
and consequences,xv environmental, social and human, not all of which
can be remedied or mitigated or compensated for, or even foreseen fully;xvi
Environmental Impact Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analyses are highly
flawed as the basis for project decisions; the balance between total costs
and total benefits (financial, economic, ecological, social and human; direct
and indirect; immediate and distant; primary and secondary / tertiary;
quantifiable and non-quantifiable) is difficult to ascertain; the costs will be
definitely incurred and may turn out to be higher than foreseen, whereas
the benefits are uncertain and may fall short of expectations; the financing
of such projects presents formidable budgetary and debt-service problems;
and so on.xvii

Thirdly, even from a supply-side perspective, large-dam projects are

not the only answer; there are other possibilities. We must shake ourselves
free of the usual engineering conventions of defining available water
resources in terms of flows in rivers, and usable water resources in terms
of what is stored behind a dam. What is available in nature is rainfall, not
just river-flows; and while storing river waters behind a dam doubtless
12
converts available water into usable water, so does in situ rainwater
harvesting (i.e., catching the raindrop as it falls) and local watershed
development. These are also part of the supply-side answers to the demand.
Fortunately, many successful examples of such initiatives are available. If
these examples could be replicated wherever feasible - in forms that are
appropriate to each location, and with due regard to the hydrological aspects
- they could be far more significant components in national water planning
than we can now imagine.

It is not being argued that large WRD projects should be ruled out;
the intention is merely to stress the need for caution in undertaking them:
the proposition is that we should be wary of them and choose them only if they
emerge (after a consideration of all possibilities and after a stringent scrutiny) as
the unique possibility or the best option in a given case.

Water Infrastructure

A related term is water infrastructure. In itself, it is an innocuous term,

and could include even small local check-dams and contour trenches, but
it is generally used (particularly in World Bank documents) in the sense of
large structures. The implicit stress is on project construction, and on supply-
side solutions. In that sense it is akin to Water Resource Development.

Paradox of Flood and Drought

This is a formulation often heard in India. The topography of the land

and the pattern of rainfall result in the incidence of floods in some places
and droughts in other areas, and sometimes they can occur (in different
areas of course) at the same time. There is neither paradox nor irony
here: these are merely facts of geography that govern our lives. Area-specific
ways of coping with these features of nature that impinge on our lives
have to be, and can be, worked out. This is where the challenge lies.
Unfortunately, the wrong perception of a paradox or irony here leads to
the wrong answer: the inter-linking of rivers to divert flood-waters to
arid areas.

Inter-Linking of Rivers

A detailed critique of the Government of Indias ambitious river-linking

project cannot be attempted here.xviii Each such link proposal must of
course be examined carefully to establish need, feasibility, techno-economic
13
viability, acceptability from environmental and human points of view, and
so on, and some may be found worthy of approval. The objection is to a
general theoretical conceptualization of river-linking. The fallacy involved
in it is particularly evident in the expression national water-grid on the
misleading analogy of a power-grid or a highways-grid. In a power-grid
or a highway-link, the movement can be in both directions, but that is not
the case with a river-link; water will flow only in one direction. Apart from
that, highways and power lines are human creations and can be
manipulated by humans. Rivers are not human artefacts; they are natural
phenomena, integral components of ecological systems, and inextricable
parts of the cultural, social, economic, spiritual lives of the communities
concerned. They are not pipelines to be cut, turned around, welded and
rejoined. (Even from a purely scientific point of view, it is necessary to
comprehend the special attributes of the earth and biological systems.
Science here should mean earth science, not water engineering.)

Flood Control

The initial response to flood damage was to try to control floods

through structural means such as dams or embankments. It was found
through experience these efforts were ineffective or even harmful. Without
going into the matter in detail it can be said that while dams may moderate
flood flows to a limited extent under normal conditions (provided they are
planned and operated for that purpose among others), they may aggravate
the position if (in the absence of a flood cushion) water has to be suddenly
released in the interest of the safety of structures. As for embankments,
there is serious doubt about their efficacy as flood-control measures. They
have often proved a remedy worse than the disease. It is increasingly
recognized that what we must learn to do is not so much to control floods
as to cope with them when they occur and minimize damage, partly through
flood-plain zoning (i.e., regulation of settlement and activity in the natural
flood plains of rivers) and partly through disaster-preparedness. However,
the notion of flood control continues to hold some sway over peoples minds.
(This is no doubt part of the approach of controlling or subduing nature.)

Integrated Water Resource Management:

The phrase Integrated Water Resource Management or IWRM has

come into extensive use in recent years, particularly in the Global Water
14
Partnership (GWP) and World Water Council (WWC) circles and at the
World Water Forums. The idea of IWRM seems unexceptionable, but the
question arises: what is meant by integration? It can mean many things.
We can talk of integration of

! different uses of water (irrigation, industrial, municipal, domestic,

navigational, etc), i.e., demand-side integration;
! different forms of water (precipitation, rivers, other surface water
bodies, groundwater, soil moisture, atmospheric moisture, etc), i.e.,
supply-side integration;
! land-use and water-use;
! water availability, use and quality;
! water supply and sanitation;
! the interests of different users of water (rural / urban, upper
riparians / lower riparians within and beyond political boundaries,
head-reach vs tail-end, etc);
! the extraction, equitable use, conservation and protection of
groundwater resources;
! different aspects of a large WRD project (irrigation, power
generation, flood control, navigation, etc);

! different disciplines involved in planning and implementing a WRD

project (hydrology, geology, civil and structural engineering,
earthquake engineering, agricultural sciences, social sciences,
economics, financial analysis, etc);

! diverse concerns in planning such projects (efficiency and economy

in construction, maximization of benefits, environmental /
ecological and human concerns, equity and social justice, etc);

! a cluster of large projects;

! different scales (large projects, medium schemes, and small local

schemes or activities in a basin or sub-basin);

! the interests of different stakeholders (project-affected people,

project-beneficiaries, etc); and so on.

The word integrated is often used, but rarely in all the senses outlined
15
above. Integrated planning often means no more than planning a cluster
of large projects. A truly integrated, holistic planning would mean inter-
disciplinary planning, with a consciousness of the hydrological cycle, guided by
earth science, marrying land-use and water-use, harmonizing diverse water uses
on the demand side and integrating all development from local rainwater-
harvesting and micro watershed development to mega projects (and surface water
and groundwater) on the supply side, while at the same time fully integrating
environmental, ecological, human, inter-generational, social, and water-quality
concerns, and fully associating the people concerned (stakeholders) at all
stages. That kind of holistic planning goes beyond IWRM as currently
understood.

Basin Planning:

There is much advocacy of basin planning. This arises from a

recognition of the limitations and dangers of isolated project planning.
Discrete project planning is undoubtedly inferior to project-planning within
a larger framework. However, this is still a limited vision for two reasons.

The first is that while widening our vision from a point on the river to
the river as a whole we are still thinking only of the river, and not of the
ecological system of which it is a part by which it is sustained and which
it in turn sustains. Moreover, a river-basin approach does not ipso facto
take groundwater aquifers into account; and basin boundaries and aquifer
boundaries may not necessarily coincide.

Secondly, as the discrete and fragmented planning of projects is

unsatisfactory we wish to plan in a larger context, but we are still thinking
in terms of projects. The engineer wants to build better and larger projects.
When he thinks of the basin as a whole, he thinks in terms of what from an
engineering or economic point of view might seem optimal locations. For
instance, techno-economic optimality might suggest the concentration of
agriculture in one part of the basin, industry in another, power generation
in a third, and so on. There could be some merit in such an approach, but it
is essentially a centralizing tendency. That tendency is reinforced by the
addition of the adjective integrated.

Thus, the idea of integrated basin planning and management, which prima
facie seems eminently sound, contains within itself the seeds of centralization and
gigantism. That may not be a necessary consequence of the idea, but we need to be
16
aware of and on our guard against such tendencies. (Institutional and
organizational safeguards against centralization do exist elsewhere.)

If by sustainability we mean the long-term maintenance of an

ecological balance and thus the survival of planet earth and with it
humanity; if we approach this in a positive spirit of fostering a harmonious
relationship with nature rather than merely limiting the harm that we do;
if we think of rivers as deities to be worshipped and not as horses to be
harnessed and ridden; if we think of them not as separate entities but as
integral parts of larger ecological systems; then our planning might take
different forms from the conventional. On the one hand we might look at a
larger framework than a river basin, and on the other, we might focus on
smaller land-and-water complexes such as micro-watersheds as well as
the enormous possibilities of local rainwater-harvesting. We would also
learn to think not merely of human need but also of the needs and rights of
other species and forms of life - birds, animals, aquatic life, vegetation,
indeed the river itself. We could still plan projects but with reference to a
much wider and more complex framework; there could still be room and
need for river-basin commissions or authorities but they will cooperate
and live with the river, not manage or harness it.xix

Subject to that caution, it is certainly necessary to take a comprehensive

view of a river system as a whole. The initiatives that are taken at the
micro-watershed level have eventually to be built into a harmonious,
holistic, integrated basin-wide (or sub-basin-wide) total picture.
Contrariwise, a broad basin-wide master plan can provide pointers to
local initiatives.

Regional Planning, Cooperation:

From the idea of basin planning it is easy to proceed to that of regional

planning or regional cooperation, particularly as many rivers run through
or along several countries. There are also strong and persuasive political
and economic reasons for regional cooperation.xx However, such cooperation
need not be identified (as is often the case) with a clutch of big projects or confined
to the sphere of governments. Such efforts may be necessary and important, but
there are many other possibilities and compulsions of cooperation. The protection
of water sources (rivers, lakes, mountains, forests, aquifers) from pollution,
degradation or denudation; the preservation and regeneration of

17
deteriorating wetlands (e.g., the Sunderbans in the India-Bangladesh
context); improving and maintaining water quality; dealing with common
problems such as drainage in the Indus basin in both India and Pakistan,
or the occurrence of arsenic in aquifers in both India and Bangladesh; coping
with floods and minimizing damage; sharing experiences in local water-
harvesting and watershed development and in the related social
mobilization and transformation: these are among the areas in which inter-
country cooperation will be very fruitful, and in some instances very
necessary. Such cooperation can be at the level of governments, NGOs,
academic institutions or think tanks, or people-to-people.

Water Security:

Water security has been the subject of many seminars and conferences
in recent years. This writer has some reservations about the growing
tendency to stretch the term security to cover an ever-widening range of
concerns, and to bring practically every concern that any of us might feel
about anything under the rubric of security. However, one cannot hope
to change current usage; people do tend to speak of food security, water
security, environmental security, and so on. Confining ourselves to water,
what can security mean in this context? It means essentially a concern about
adequacy, availability, reliability and quality of supplies. These matters can be
discussed without bringing in the language of security.

Water security concerns are offered as the justification for the

undertaking of large WRD projects, but if we forget for a moment the
questionable calculus of supply and demand and look at security from
the point of view of protecting the ecological system and planet earth, we
must consider the possibility that by building a series of large WRD projects
we may not be ensuring security but endangering it. That leads us to
environmental concerns. The subject is discussed in the next two
paragraphs.xxi

Environmental Flows, Water for Nature, Minimum Flows:

These expressions are reflections of wrong ways of thinking.

Environmental flows and water for nature carry the implication that in
allocating water for various purposes, an allocation must be made for
environmental purposes or for nature. This is to turn things upside down.
We receive water from nature as a bounty; we cannot presume to allocate water to
18
nature. Water itself is a part of nature, and sound ecological balance will
determine the continued availability of water. Ecology, then, is anterior to
all water-uses, and it is absurd to make an allocation of water for ecology.
Ecological considerations may impose restraints on the various uses of water,
and on the draft that we make on nature: ecology itself cannot be treated as
being among the competing recipients of allocations of water. Instead,
ecological imperatives must guide our water-use.

As for the idea of a minimum flow in streams, this is welcome in so far as

some flow is better than no flow (i.e., total abstraction leaving a dry bed).
However, there is a danger here. To those who regard water flowing in the
stream as wasted and only water abstracted as used, the idea of a minimum
flow may carry the sanction for the obverse, i.e., maximum abstraction. It
will be disastrous if the concept is understood to mean that heavy diversions
or abstractions are all right so long as a minimum is left in the river. We ought
to be concerned, not with the minimum that should be grudgingly allowed to flow, but
with what is needed for maintaining the integrity of the river regime. What needs to be
minimized is the interference with the natural regime.

Environment and Development:

In this context, we must take note of three fairly common statements

that are often advanced with a degree of plausibility in discussions and
arguments.

(i) Environmental concerns are all right, but they should not be
allowed to come in the way of development.

(ii) Economic development and environmental concerns need not

be assumed to be in mutual conflict; both are important and can
be harmonized.

(iii) Without human beings the very word `environment makes no

sense; human needs come first and must be given priority over
concerns about flora and fauna.

These remarks reflect profoundly wrong ways of thinking. Without

entering into an elaborate discussion of the fallacies involved, the following
responses are offered (taking the above statements in the reverse order):

(i) The postulation of a dichotomy between humanity on the one

19
 hand and flora and fauna on the other shows a failure to
understand the ineluctable relatedness of all of nature. (In John
Donnes famous observation that every man is a piece of the
continent, a part of the main, the word man needs to be
understood to include all forms of life.)

(ii) It would be right to say that there is no conflict between economic

development and the environment if and only if our understanding
of what constitutes development undergoes a radical change.
Between development as at present understood and the health
of the natural environment, conflict is not merely possible but
inevitable.

(iii) It is foolish to imagine that environmental (or to be more precise,

ecological) concerns can be ignored and development somehow
achieved.xxii

The argument that the environmental and human consequences and

impacts of developmental planning can be taken care of through
Environmental Impact Assessments and Cost-Benefit Analyses is, as
pointed out earlier, open to serious doubt.

(Incidentally, environmental / ecological / social consequences need

to be taken note of not merely in relation to large WRD projects, but also in
relation to groundwater-exploitation and even in the context of rainwater-
harvesting.)

Stakeholder Consultation, Participation:

These have become fashionable terms and are frequently used

sanctimoniously, but what do they mean?

Participation can vary from the full involvement of the people from
the earliest stages of planning (putting people at the centre) to the mere
formality of asking for comments on a plan, programme or project prepared
entirely within the governmental machinery, with no serious intentions of
making any significant changes.

As for the term stakeholder it is a flawed word that has great potential
for misuse. First, it is a notion drawn by analogy from prospecting for oil
or minerals and carries a connotation of an individualistic claim with an
20
underlying implication of contestation. Secondly, it is an ethically neutral
concept that lumps together every person or party having any kind of
connection or concern with the project. Not only those who are likely to be
adversely affected by the project or expect to enjoy the benefits that it will
bring, but a wide range of others who are concerned with it in one form or
another come within the ambit of the term. Thus, politicians, bureaucrats,
engineers, donor agencies, consultants and contractors are all stakeholders.
The interests and concerns of these diverse categories may not in all cases
be benign and legitimate, and some may have a more vital stake than
others, but the term stakeholder makes no distinctions: it legitimizes and
levels all kinds of stakeholding. Everyone is a stakeholder, and the primacy
of those whose lands and habitats are taken away and who suffer a
traumatic uprooting is not recognized by the term.

Even taking only two categories (in relation to a water resource

development project), namely, project-affected people and prospective
beneficiaries, the vital difference between the two tends to get blurred by
the bland assimilating term stakeholders. There is a cruel irony in
describing the involuntary and helpless victims of a project as
stakeholders, and this is compounded when they are put on the same
footing as those who stand to benefit from the project. Let us not forget
that while in the case of the former existing rights (i.e., natural and often
centuries-old rights of access and livelihoods) are taken away, in the case
of the latter the project, by diverting river waters through canals, confers
new rights not earlier enjoyed. The former are stake-losers, whereas the latter
are stake-gainers. While it is fashionable to refer to project-affected persons
as partners in development, that sanctimonious formulation bears little
resemblance to reality. Efforts to involve them in decision-making and to
give them their rightful share in the benefits of the projects that impose
hardships on them have either not been seriously pursued or been
unsuccessful.

Water Policies of Governments:

Both the World Bank and GWP often ask governments to adopt national
water policies. These are undoubtedly important. However, there are other
agencies and instruments of equal importance. In relation to water, which
must be regarded (primarily, or at any rate, importantly) as a Common
Pool Resource, the community or civil society has an important role to
21
play as important as that of the government. National water policies need
to recognize and incorporate this. By the same token, non-statutory law,
i.e., customary law (the cluster of traditions and conventions that have
acquired a normative force and have social sanctions attached) is as
important as statutory law or government policy. The latter needs to take
note of and incorporate the former, and where the two do not converge, an
effort at harmonization is necessary.

Private Sector Participation:

The advocacy of privatization in relation to water is part of the

prevailing economic philosophy. In the case of consumer or industrial goods
say, soap, steel, fertilizer, machinery the argument is that it is not the
business of the state to produce or market these things, that they should be
left to the play of market forces (subject to regulation), and that if there are
state-owned enterprises producing these things they should be privatized,
i.e., their ownership should be transferred to private hands. By analogy,
the same argument is extended to water. However, there are some
difficulties with that analogy.

First, in the case of consumer or industrial goods, if the price is too

high, or if the supply fails for commercial reasons, we can at a pinch do
without them or look for substitutes; we cannot do without water and there
are no substitutes for it. We cannot reduce our intake of water (for drinking,
cooking and washing) below a certain level. The supply cannot be allowed
to fail. And rationing by price has only a partial application to water because
the pricing out of any individuals or groups is unacceptable. While the
pricing of water has to be generally based on certain obvious considerations
(viz., it must sustain the supply, discourage wasteful use and promote
economy and conservation), no one should be denied this basic need merely
because he or she cannot afford the price. How are we to resolve this
conundrum? It is clear that the analogy with consumer and industrial goods
is imperfect.

Secondly, soap or steel or fertilizer can indeed be wholly left to the

market; there is no obligation on the part of the state to provide these
commodities, though it may have to regulate the market. However, if water
is a basic need and therefore a basic right, the state does have a responsibility
to ensure that no one is denied it. Even if the supply is entrusted to a private
22
agency, the responsibility of the state does not disappear: in the event of a
failure on the part of the private agency, the responsibility will revert to
the state.

Thirdly, water is a vital and scarce natural resource of the community

and the country, and a finite resource. It has to be protected from pollution,
contamination and depletion, and conserved for future generations.

It follows that the privatization argument cannot forthwith be

transferred from consumer or industrial goods to water. Keeping that in
mind, let us consider what privatization can mean in relation to water.

It can mean the transfer of the water supply function in a rural or urban
area from the local municipality or corporation or other agency of the state
to a private agency. The state can earmark a certain quantum of water
from a specified source and ask a private party to distribute it in a certain
area. The private body is then an agent or a contractor or a licensee or a
concessionaire. It may invest in purification systems, storages, pipelines,
pumping systems, quality control, etc., collect charges from the consumers
for the service, and pay certain charges to the state. What this means is that
a service that was being performed by a state agency will in future be
performed by a private agency. (Under those circumstances the question
of ownership of water, i.e., whether the state earlier owned the water and
whether that ownership stands transferred to the private agency, need not
arise.)

Alternatively, privatization can mean the entrustment of a water

resource development (WRD) project to a private body, or the authorization
of such a body to undertake a WRD project, i.e., build dams, reservoirs,
canal systems, etc., on a river, or install plant and equipment for the
extraction of water from a river or river-bed or lake or aquifer. This may
involve serious questions of control over natural resources, resource-
conservation and sustainability, equity and social justice, and so on.

A simplistic proposition might be to say that the privatization of a

service is acceptable subject to regulation, but that we must be wary of
privatizing the resource itself. However, such a distinction is difficult to
maintain. The privatization of the water supply service may sooner or later
lead to the transfer of control over the resource. A private agency is unlikely
to undertake the responsibility for water supply to a certain area without
23
some degree of control over the source of supply (a stretch of the river or a
lake or an aquifer or whatever). Even if it is not formally given the
ownership of the water source, the transfer of control structures (a dam or
a barrage or a borewell or a pumping station) to it (or the building of such
structures) gives it a position of power which cannot easily be undone,
and which can have serious implications.

There are difficulties even with the privatization of a water supply

service. In the first place, there may be competitive bidding for the selection
of a party, but the selected party, once it is in place and in control of systems,
assets and structures, acquires a virtually monopolistic position and (as
mentioned above) a power that is not easily regulated by regulatory
authorities, if any. Secondly, the prime motive the raison dtre - of the
private corporate sector is profit. The accountability of the management
is primarily to the shareholder, not to the customer or to the community. If
considerations of profitability come into conflict with other considerations,
profitability will prevail.xxiii How can such an approach be brought into the
sphere of a basic life-support resource? Can profitability really be allowed
to prevail over other considerations, when these include the protection
and conservation of the resource, ecological sustainability, assurance of
basic need, social justice and equity? Can these considerations be
adequately taken care of through regulation?

These difficulties get compounded when privatization goes beyond the

provision of a service. The doctrinaire call for privatization includes
allowing the corporate private sector to build and operate dams across rivers
for hydro-electric power and/or for irrigation. Assuming that the private
sector is interested in investing in such capital-intensive, long-gestation,
modest-return projects, how are the environmental and social impacts
(which have presented serious difficulties to the state in past projects) going
to be handled by the private entrepreneur and manager? Supply may match
demand but resource conservation may receive scant consideration;
resettlement and rehabilitation aspects are likely to be given grudging attention
only to the extent that resistance by those affected and public opinion compel
such attention; and it is nave to imagine that market forces will obviate conflicts
or provide a magical route to their resolution. (That does not mean that one is
arguing for a dominant role for the state; but merely that the alternative to the
state is not necessarily the corporate sector.)
24
 One important question that will need consideration in this context is
whether allowing the domestic private sector to exploit national natural
resources, particularly water, will make it difficult to deny a similar right
to foreign investors in terms of the WTO regime and the principle of
national treatment of foreign investors, and if so, whether there is a danger
of countries (particularly the smaller and weaker ones) losing control over
their own natural resources. Some fear this, while others regard the fear as
exaggerated. This needs to be gone into carefully.

Water Markets:

That leads us to the question of water markets. It would be unrealistic

to rule out water markets on theoretical grounds. In any case, they already
exist and are unlikely to disappear. Many would say that we need more of
them, not less, and that the future lies in that direction. The question has to
be discussed in relation to both surface water and groundwater.

However, we must first take note of two basic pre-requisites without

which there cannot be markets: there has to be a tradable commodity, and
that commodity has to be owned by someone. Is water a commodity? We
have to answer that question with a Yes and No: water used in agriculture
or industry is a commodity and water as a basic life-support means is not;xxiv
and the latter aspect of water is the primary one and must prevail over the
former. Thus, the first pre-requisite for a market, namely the existence of a
tradable commodity, is present only in a highly qualified sense. The second,
namely, ownership, is even more problematic.

The advocates of water markets recommend: Define property rights

and allow trading, and they may add: Other countries have done so.
The state in India does accord or recognize land titles and titles (pattas) to
trees. Can it similarly define property rights in respect of water?

Consider domestic water supply first. We may say that the citizen (or
the household) has a right in this regard, but what kind of a right is it? Can
the individual or the household be allowed to sell that right to someone
else? If the right to water (for drinking, cooking and washing) is a part of
the right to life, how can it be regarded as a property right and made
tradable? That objection seems unanswerable.

Are the water rights of a farmer for irrigation, or those of an industry

25
for industrial uses, property rights, and can they be made tradable? (We
may ignore cases of purely contractual rights, such as those where a farmer
or an industrial unit buys water from a private source, and confine ourselves
to the context of surface water and public systems.) The water needs of a
farmer for irrigation purposes may be determined with reference to the
area of land in question or the crops to be grown or a combination of the
two factors. In a situation of scarcity limited quantities of water may be
arbitrarily allocated by the state or other agency (e.g., water users
association, if any) responsible for providing irrigation water. The important
point is that the water is provided for irrigation. Similarly, an industrial unit
gets an allocation of water from a state or municipal agency for certain uses
(process, steam-generation, cooling, and so on). In both these cases, the
entitlement to water is essentially linked to use. These water rights, if we
wish to use that language, are use rights. They may be customary rights,
rights of long standing, contractual rights or statutory rights, but they are
(to repeat the point) use rights. How then can they be made into tradable
property rights as is often advocated? How can any individual or group
or institution or corporate body be given a right to water unrelated to use?
If the use ceases, the entitlement should surely cease.

Temporarily, a possibility of trading in water may arise. A farmer may

for certain reasons decide not to cultivate his or her land for a year or two,
or may temporarily change to crops demanding less water. He or she may
then have surplus water for sale during that period. An industrial house
may decide to suspend operations for a certain period for various reasons,
and may have water to spare. However, these are temporary situations. If
the industry closes down for good, or if the farmer makes a long-term
change to crops that need much less water, or decides to move out of
agriculture altogether, should the old water entitlements still hold and be
allowed to be traded in?

That line of argument seems to lead to the conclusion that the

prescription define water rights and allow trading is untenable and
cannot be followed. And yet, this has been done in certain countries. Farmers
have been allowed to sell their water to industries or for urban water supply.
States (having a `surplus of water) in a federal structure have been allowed
to sell water to other States (which are short of water). Both those examples
are taken from the United States of America. It is sometimes argued that
26
water markets are the answer to conflicts over water, whether between
uses (e.g., agriculture and industry) or between administrative or political
units (e.g., States or provinces). This is a dangerous and pernicious principle,
and the mere fact that it seems to have worked in some instances in certain
countries should not blind us to the dangers.

As already pointed out, farmers or industries may have temporary

surpluses to spare, but a permanent surplus should entail a loss of the water
right and a reallocation of it by the state or the community. As for water-
sharing by States in a federal structure or by countries, the general principle
has been that the lower riparian has certain rights and the upper riparian a
certain obligation towards the lower riparian. To say that the upper riparian
can sell water to the lower riparian would be to negate that well-established
principle or stand it on its head. Apart from the denial of the rights of the
lower riparian, it would introduce a commercial motivation into the
thinking of the upper riparian and might lead to an unsustainable exploitation
of the resource. (That applies also to the sale of water by farmers to industry or
by rural communities to urban areas. This too may lead to an over-exploitation
of the resource for commercial reasons.) Further, the upper riparian province
or State or country can sell water to the lower riparian only by acquiring control
over the waters through structures: in other words, the upper riparian will
first stop the water from flowing to the lower riparian, and then sell the water
so blocked to the lower riparian. The preposterousness of the proposition is
obvious and does not need to be laboured. Upper and lower riparians (or
riparians and non-riparians) must share waters (where necessary) through
the routes of agreement, treaty, conciliation, mediation, arbitration or
adjudication, and not by a sale-and-purchase contract.

The supply of water by private tankers in urban areas and the

burgeoning bottled-water tradexxv are also instances of water markets. These
ought not to be necessary at all. They become necessary and possible only
because of the failure of public systems in terms of the duration, regularity
and dependability of supply and the quality of the water provided. If the
public system provided an adequate, reliable and safe supply, the demand
for tankers or for bottled water may disappear. Apart from that, these
supplies (and the soft drinks business) have necessarily to draw raw water
from somewhere, and that draft may be an unsustainable or inequitable
one. The instances of the borewells of the Cocal Cola company reportedly

27
depriving an entire area in Kerala of its water, and of the Chhattisgarh
State handing over a 20-km stretch of a river to a private concessionaire for
water supply, are well-known. In both these cases, there has been a public
outcry, and the stories are as yet unfinished.

Water markets tend to emerge particularly in the context of groundwater

extraction through tubewells and borewells, and they serve some useful
purposes. They make possible the practice of irrigated agriculture by the
poorer or less affluent farmers through the purchase of water from those
who can afford to invest in tubewells or borewells. However, there are
dangers of unsustainable extraction as also of inequitable relationships
between sellers and buyers. Under Indian law, only those owning land
can have rights over groundwater; the landless (including communities,
tribal and other, who may have been using certain natural resources for
centuries) can have no such rights. Further, this legal position leads to
inequities of various kinds: a rich farmer can install power-driven tubewells
or borewells in his land and their operation can make dugwells in the
neighbourhood run dry; he (she) can sell water so extracted to his poorer
neighbours even though the water may come from a common aquifer
running under their lands; and he (she) can deplete the aquifer through
excessive exploitation.

Thus, the idea of water markets presents us with the following problem: in the
domestic context, how to allow limited and regulated water markets to function
without inequity and injustice, and without danger to the resource; and in the
international sphere, how to protect the rights of the poorer and weaker countries
over their own natural resources from predatory corporate giants.

Virtual Water Trade:

In the context of water markets, we must also take note of another term
that has come into use, namely virtual water trade. A water-abundant
country can grow and export things such as rice or wheat or fruit and
vegetables needing much water to produce, and a water-deficient country
can import them. This is taken as equivalent to exporting / importing water.
It is argued that developing countries that face growing pressure on their
water resources need not use their water to grow such water-demanding
produce, but could import their requirements from water-rich countries
(thus virtually importing water). However, many would argue that a
28
distinction needs to be drawn here between imports of essential food and
imports of other things such as fruits and vegetables; that a vulnerable
dependence on food imports is not desirable; and that a measure of self-
reliance in this regard is necessary. It seems to this writer that there is much
force in that argument, and that the concept of virtual water trade is an
obfuscation.

Every import or export can be re-described as something else. Exports

of rice and wheat can be treated as exports of water (among other things);
exports of aluminium can be regarded as exports of electric power; exports
of iron and steel originate in iron ore and can be regarded as exports of the
soil of the country; and so on. This can serve the purpose of drawing our
attention to the implications of certain kinds of trade. For instance, a water-
stressed country or area within a country can be cautioned against
producing, say, paddy for markets outside its borders. However, in
international conferences and forums the concept of virtual water trade
tends often to be used as one more means of persuasion directed at
developing countries, extolling the virtues of markets and imports as against
domestic production. We need to be wary of this insidious theory.

Common Pool Resource, Community Management:

At the opposite pole from privatization and markets is the view that
water is commons or a common pool resource (CPR) to be managed by
the community. That is an attractive and persuasive view, but there are
difficulties here too, and they must be noted. First, the notion of commons
(as distinguished from private ownership) is of easy application in the
context of a small lake or pond or tank or other water body on common
land; we can think of it as owned by the community. With larger water
bodies and with streams and rivers difficulties begin to arise in the form of
upstream versus downstream issues, riparian rights, and so on. However,
we can still argue that the water-source belongs to the community as a
whole, or to civil society, and that the conflicts that arise can be resolved
within that overall framework (though that benign formulation comes
under stress when rivers cross national boundaries or even political
divisions within a country). The notion of commons also runs into
difficulties in the context of urban water supply systems (where an agency,
whether public or private, supplies water to the citizens by a network of
pipelines from its storages), or in that of the supply of irrigation water
29
through canals from large reservoirs, whether state-owned or privately
owned.

However, the notion of commons has a value even in such contexts;

what we are trying to do is to deny the private or state ownership of water
and to vest that ownership in civil society. Even civil society, however,
cannot be said to own water; it would be better to talk about management by
civil society. An alternative or complementary view might be to regard the
state as holding water and other natural resources in trust for the community
and for future generations.

It must be noted that there need be or should be no confrontation

between the state and civil society. Both have their roles to play, and what
is needed is a constructive, cooperative relationship between the two.

Water-Harvesting, Watershed Development:

There is now a widely held view that local rainwater-harvesting and

community-led watershed-development should be extensively undertaken,
and this writer supports that proposition, and believes that this approach
holds much promise for the future. However, (leaving aside the institutional
aspects, which are important), what will be the hydrological consequences
of extensive rainwater-harvesting in all catchments? Will this reduce run-
off and therefore river-flows, as some argue? Or, given the fact that estimates
of available and usable water resources are much lower than the quantum
of precipitation, can we hold as seems very plausible - that there is
considerable scope for adding significantly to the latter through local
interceptions in the upper catchments without affecting river-flows? On a
national scale how much will this add to the available (usable) water? No
clear answer is available to this question, though there are numbers in some
studies. This is a subject that calls for careful scientific study.

IV. Towards a Transformation: A Declaration

The partial views and imperfect formulations set forth in the previous
section cannot be dismissed lightly; most of them contain important
elements or components. We need to take note of those elements and
components and attempt a more complete and nuanced formulation. One
is tempted to talk about fitting the jigsaw puzzle together but that is a
somewhat misleading metaphor as it suggests one unique, right answer.
30
The reality is untidy, and not all the perceptions, views and perspectives
can be neatly fitted together. However, a workable, sensible, reasonably
coherent way of organizing the complexities and multiplicities into a near-
total view, minimizing contradictions and loose ends, can be adumbrated.
Any such effort is likely to be implicitly guided by certain perceptions or
views or assumptions that are regarded as basic, and these may vary from
person to person. The present writer has his own fundamentals. They are
partly made explicit and are partly implicit in the following statement which
may be regarded as a kind of personal declaration on water:

(1) Water is primarily a life-supporting substance and only secondarily

anything else.
(2) Water for life xxvi is a basic need and right and must take
precedence over water as commodity (economic good). In
between comes water as social good (e.g., water for firefighting,
hospital use, use in schools and public institutions, etc). In so far
as water for life is a basic need and right, the state has a
responsibility to ensure (through whatever means may be
appropriate) that no citizen is denied that right.
(3) That threefold categorization (water for life, water as social good
and water as commodity or economic good) is also an indication
of relative priorities. Within the last category of water as
commodity, relative priorities as between different uses (water
for commercial agriculture, industry, etc) cannot be pre-
determined and rigid; they will depend on the specificities of a
given case.
(4) The principle of full cost recovery in pricing, which is an
important part of the economic reform prescriptions, will be
applicable to water as commodity but not to water for life. The
latter will have to be reasonably priced according to some
principles, including full economic pricing to the non-poor,
subsidized pricing to the poor, and perhaps some free supply to
the very poor. No one should be denied drinking water because
he or she is not able to pay for it.
(5) Activities or projects in relation to water as commodity, say, for
irrigation or industrial use, by whatever agency undertaken,

31
 should not be allowed to jeopardize or threaten any groups water
for life (including access to it).
(6) Water policy and planning should be guided by an awareness of
how water plays its role in the earth.xxvii Water is an integral part
of nature (i.e., the ecological system) sustaining it and being
sustained by it. Limits on our draft on natural resources,
particularly water, set by ecological imperatives and the health of
planet earth (encapsulated in the expression sustainability) must
not be exceeded.
(7) Water is a finite resource. Unlike industrial and consumer goods,
water cannot be produced in response to projections of demand.
Reversing that approach, demand must be restrained and
managedxxviii with reference to the finite availability. To some extent
the usable component of available water resources can be
augmented, but this whether in relation to surface water or
groundwater, and whatever the scale or the agency - must be done
with due regard to the impacts and consequences of such activities:
see (17) to (20) below. (It is of course necessary to minimize
reductions in the availability of water through pollution and
contamination; and to retrieve as much water for use from waste
as possible.)
(8) An adversarial relationship between humanity and nature - the
legacy of the Western legend of Prometheus (who brought fire to
earth in defiance of the gods), and reflected in expressions such as
conquest of nature, subduing nature, and harnessing natural
resources - must yield place to a relationship of harmony (cf., the
Indian legend of Bhagiratha who is said to have brought water -
the river Ganga - to earth in a prayerful spirit).
(9) Water has to be shared by humans with livestock, wildlife, aquatic
life, nature in general, and future generations.
(10) Water has also to be shared by humans with fellow humans,
whether within political/national borders or across them. Conflicts
in such contexts arise from greed in Mahatma Gandhis sense,xxix
i.e., consumption in excess of need, the need being conceived of
by him on austere lines. Conflicts can be avoided or resolved only
through the principle of equitable sharing in some form. (This
32
 needs to be spelt out in terms of criteria and institutional
arrangements.)
(11) However, we cannot learn to live in harmony with our neighbours
until we have learnt to live in harmony with nature. Learning to
live in harmony with nature would involve a radical re-
examination of the meaning of development.
(12) In addition to harmony with nature, a concern for equity and social
justice - in particular, justice to and empowerment of the poor
and the politically and socially weak - must be the governing
consideration in whatever we plan or do in relation to water.
(13) The role played by women in relation to water in the household
and in the field and their special difficulties need to be recognized.
Giving women their rightful place in whatever water-governance
structures and institutions are devised is of great importance. The
fact that the adverse impacts of large projects, water markets and
the processes of globalization tend to impinge with particular
severity on women must be noted and appropriate correctives
devised.
(14) Water developmentxxx and management has to be primarily local,
decentralized and community-based, but nested and integrated in a
wider, multi-tiered network of institutions and organizations. (This
brings in the idea of basin planning, but the tendency towards
centralization and gigantism needs to be guarded against.)
(15) In relation to water, the state has certain roles: seeing that the
fundamental right to water is not denied, regulating the draft on
the resource, ensuring the protection of the resource, promoting
economy in resource-use and conservation, resolving conflicts or
facilitating resolution, intervening to correct inequity or injustice,
entering into treaties or understandings with other countries, and
so on. In playing these roles, the state should take care to facilitate
and not hinder the role of the community. There has to be a
constructive, cooperative relationship between the state and civil
society. (Where large physical works become necessary, the state
may have to undertake them: see (17) below.)
(16) Traditional systems and practices of water conservation and

33
 management that have fallen into decline or disuse, and the related
institutions, need to be re-activated with such modifications and
improvements as may be necessary. Customary law needs to be
given due recognition and respect, and a constructive and
harmonious relationship established between it and formal law.
(17) Small is not necessarily beautiful, but big is problem-ridden
and must be undertaken with great care. Big centralized projects
and long-distance water transfers (from big reservoirs and through
canals and links) may be unavoidable in some cases, but they
must be undertaken as projects of the last resort xxxi after a
consideration of all possibilities and options, and after a stringent
scrutiny of the proposed project to ensure that in itself it is a good
proposition and that it is the only option or the best of available
options. (The criteria for selection must include among others the
principles of least displacement or disturbance of communities and
minimum environmental impact.)
(18) Individual projects and activities must be part of an overall
framework. The Integrated Water Resource Management (IWRM)
approach, which is much advocated, must be deepened and
widened, and made truly holistic. Such an approach should give
centrality to people and not be primarily technology-driven.
(19) Those who are likely to be displaced or otherwise affected by a
WRD project must be consulted and fully involved in the processes
of planning and decision-making right from the earliest stages.xxxii
The rights and risks approach and the principle of free, informed,
prior consent recommended by the World Commission on Dams
need to be kept in view as guidelines to be operationalized in
appropriate ways. They should have the first claim on the benefits
arising from the project.
(20) Environmental Impact Assessments should be distanced from and
independent of those responsible for the planning and approval
of projects. The conventional cost-benefit analysis should be
transformed into a comprehensive (techno-socio-economic-
financial-environmental-ecological) multi-criteria analysis,
supplemented by a qualitative analysis of non-quantifiable
aspects.
34
 (21) In allowing the private corporate sector to play a role in relation
to water supply (or development) care must be taken not to
jeopardize water sources or the communitys access to them; or
put the ecological system at risk; or impair social justice or deprive
any individuals or groups of their fundamental right to water; or
compromise national control over the countrys natural resources.
(Similar remarks apply mutatis mutandis to the exploitation of
groundwater by private individuals or institutions or corporate
bodies.) In such cases, the state must see itself as the guardian of
the natural resources of the country as also of the vital interests
and rights of the community.

(22) The doctrine Define property rights in water and allow trading
(part of the prevailing economic philosophy) is seriously flawed.
There can be use rights but not property rights in relation to water.
Use rights can be made tradable only to a limited extent.

(23) We need to be wary of water markets. They can perform some

useful functions, but must be under the watchful eyes of the state
and civil society from the point of view of protecting the natural
environment and the resource itself, and ensuring equity.

(24) We need also to be wary of the emerging concept of virtual water

trade. It may serve the limited purpose of sounding a caution
regarding the water content of certain crops, but may also be
insidiously used to persuade developing countries to meet their
food needs through imports in preference to domestic
production.

Though the above declaratory statement is based partly on Indian

experience, it is the authors hope and belief that it (and the detailed
argument preceding it) will be found to have wider application. It is
essentially a personal declaration, but the author hopes that governments,
civil society organizations, and international bodies such as the World Bank,
World Water Council and Global Water Partnership, and others, will find
it useful as the point of departure for a re-examination of their ideas and
perhaps the re-formulation of their concepts, policies and prescriptions. It
is offered as a draft manifesto for consideration and adoption (with such
modifications as may be found necessary) by all concerned.
35
Note: In writing this paper the author has drawn upon his book WATER:
Perspectives, Issues, Concerns, Sage Publications, New Delhi, London,
Thousand Oaks, 2003, but the paper represents further thinking. References
have not been cited because this is an exercise in conceptual thinking and
discussion and not meant to be a work of scholarship. However, a select
bibiliography has been added. Detailed comments on an earlier draft,
received from Dr. T. N. Narasimhan, Dr. A. Vaidyanathan and Himanshu
Thakkar, are gratefully acknowledged, but they bear no responsibility for
the facts or views contained in the paper.

Further Note: Comments, oral and written, following the delivery of the
Lecture, have been taken into account, and such amendments and additions
as seemed necessary have been made.

36
 END NOTES

i
All water on earth.
ii
Precipitation > water retained in the atmosphere or the soil; surface runoff; seepage
or percolation underground > evaporation from land (including transpiration by
plants) and from sea > precipitation.
iii
The source of all freshwater on earth is precipitation (rainfall and snowfall); water
may take the form of ice on mountains and in glaciers, atmospheric or soil moisture,
groundwater, surface water bodies, rivers and streams, wetlands, and so on, but it
is all water and constitutes a unity.
iv
Given the hydrological cycle, the quantum of water on earth remains the same for
millennia and does not change. We cannot create new water, nor can we destroy
water: all consumed or used water reappears in another (though not always usable)
form, and whatever evaporates comes down later as rain or snow.
v
Water for livestock is both life-support (if one looks at livestock as animals needing
water) and an input into economic activity (if one looks at livestock as part of the
assets maintained for agriculture, dairying, etc).
vi
They also serve who only stand and wait(Miltons Sonnet on his blindness).
vii
Water needed for hygiene is as basic as water needed for drinking or cooking. If
the right to water is a human right, so is the right to sanitation. It is also very
important from the point of view of public health. Further, every drop of water
provided for drinking or cooking or washing will return to plague us as sewage of
one kind or another, creating problems of disposal. (Similarly, every drop of water
provided for irrigation or industrial use will re-appear as agricultural waste-water
or as industrial effluent.) Thus, the greater the supply of water, the greater the
problem of disposal of waste. And the more waste-water (of any kind) we generate,
the greater the danger of pollution or contamination of fresh water, and therefore
of a reduction in the available supply of usable water. Apart from minimizing
waste, it needs to be recognized that waste-water is also water and efforts must be
made to bring it back into use. It follows that sanitation and waste-water should
be essential components of the I in IWRM (Integrated Water Resource
Management). This is insufficiently appreciated. But we shall return to IWRM.
viii
In India, irrigation schemes and projects are classified as major, medium and
minor in terms of culturable command area covered (major: having more than
10000 hectares of CCA; medium: 2000 to 10000 hectares of CCA; minor: below
2000 hectares of CCA).
ix
Incidentally, it cannot be presumed that hydrological divisions below the ground
will necessarily correspond to those above the ground.
x
This is merely an enumeration of conflicts of different kinds; questions of priority
(for instance, the primacy of drinking water) or of equity (for instance, between
head-reach and tail-end farms or between people affected by projects and those
benefiting from them) are not gone into here.
xi
This includes those living on or moving to the higher areas of the catchment who
can see the reservoir below them but get neither water nor electricity from the
project, and come to entertain a sense of deprivation.

37
xii
These Indian complexities are not elaborated here. Doubtless there are similar or
different complexities in other countries.
xiii
All these (crop water requirements, timing of watering, maximizing of yields per
unit of water) call for much more research than has been done so far. Again,
government policies that have an influence on cropping patterns and result in
encouraging excessive water-use need to be reviewed.
xiv
The reference is essentially to (Indian) urban norms. Rural norms are lower and
perhaps cannot be reduced; however, raising them to bring them close to or on
par with existing or proposed urban norms may need reconsideration.
xv
Diversion structures such as weirs or barrages may seem relatively less problematic
than dams, but even these can have significant impacts.
xvi
For a fuller account of these matters, see Iyer (2003), chapter 11.
xvii
We may ignore the phenomenon of time and cost over-runs on such projects; the
extent of corruption often associated with large public investments; and the vicious
circle of poor revenues arising from low water rates, leading to poor operation
and maintenance and to poor service, and therefore to poor revenue collections
and resistance to increases in tariffs. These are either managerial or political
economy problems not necessarily attributable to the projects.
xviii
See Iyer (2003), Chapter 26.
xix
The following observations by Dr. T. N. Narasimhan, Professor of Environmental
Science at the University of California at Berkeley, in a personal communication,
are relevant:
The finiteness of the earth and the delicate balance among hydrological, nutritional
and erosional cycles constitutes the logical framework within which water
development strategies need to be developed.The mindset that technology
will continue to solve all problems.is being challenged by earth and biological
systems. Physical scientists (many of them) do not appreciate the special attributes
of earth and biological systems that lie beyond the scope of physical sciences.
Consequently, adapting to finite water resourcesis far outside the thinking of
economists and technologists.
xx
On this, as on many other subjects, pragmatism is preferable to dogmatism. Some
issues are essentially bilateral, some call for tripartite or multilateral discussion,
and some would benefit by a regional approach.
xxi
Dr. A. Vaidyanathan, in a personal communication, says: Water security can be
meaningful only for requirements essential for life. There can be no guaranteed
rights for irrigation and other uses.
xxii
A digression: environmental consequences of economic activities are often referred
to as externalities. That term is one of the concepts, along with others such as
rent-seeking, contributed by the science of economics to intellectual discourse.
In this writers view, it is an unfortunate contribution, one which we could have
done without. The intention is to take certain aspects into account, but the very
term betrays wrong ways of thinking: it externalizes important considerations and
then attempts to internalize them. Unconsciously, centrality is assigned to economic
considerations, and other considerations are regarded as external or secondary,
doubtless needing to be taken into account but (in this way of thinking) not central
to economics. We need to get away from that kind of thinking.

38
xxiii
The problems of privatization of water supply and sanitation services the vitiation
of the bidding process by collusion and corruption, the failure of the successful
bidder to fulfill the promises made, profitability over-riding other considerations,
re-negotiations of the contract, steep increases in tariffs, large-scale disconnections
of the poor who could not pay the increased tariffs, the cooption, subversion or
neutralization of the regulators, and so on have been well documented in The
Water Barons by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, Center
for Public Integrity, Washington DC, USA, 2003.
xxiv
Economic good is another way of saying commodity. In the formulation that
one often comes across, this is softened by adding social (water is an economic
and social good), but even social good, while it may be appropriate in the context
of water for sanitation or firefighting or use in hospitals, seems not quite adequate
or right in relation to drinking water or water as life-support.
xxv
Once again, the reference is to what has been happening in India.
xxvi
The reference is to drinking water, defined so as to include water for essential
domestic cooking and washing. Sanitation is also a part of this (but not necessarily
in the form of flushing toilets). Access to rivers and forests that are sources of
sustenance to certain communities would fall within the category of life-support.
Water for food, i.e., irrigation, is also part of water for life, but only in the context
of food for family consumption; food for the market is part of economic activity.
Even domestic use beyond basic need must fall within the category of water as
commodity. The provision of water in hotels must also be so classified.
xxvii
Dr. T. N. Narasimhan, in a personal communication, draws attention to how
water plays its role in the earth through the hydrological cycle, and its strong links
to erosional and nutritional cycles. Ultimately, these natural phenomena dictate
how we should go about patterning our societies.
xxviii
The idea of restraining and managing demand applies to water as commodity
and not to water for life, but waste in all uses needs to be minimized and profligate
use by the affluent needs to be discouraged. (Urban centres, and in particular, the
megalopolises, draw huge quantities of water from the rural hinterland or even
from distant sources, and then use them in a wasteful manner; the rich do this to a
much greater extent than the poor. Besides, a great deal of good water is used only
to flush out human waste. Radical changes are needed here.)
xxix
Cf. Gandhis remark The world has enough for everyones need but not for
anyones greed.
xxx
The expression Water Resource Development is generally used in the sense of
increasing the supply of water, i.e., making more water available for use, or to be
more precise, increasing the usable component of available water resources.
xxxi
The expression last resort is used in a logical and not a sequential sense. The
intention is not that every possibility must be tried out before a large project is
undertaken, but that all possibilities must be examined before deciding upon a
large project.
xxxii
The rights and risks approach and the principle of free, informed, prior consent
recommended by the World Commission on Dams need to be kept in view as
guidelines to be operationalized in appropriate ways.

39
 SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bryan Randolph Bruns and Ruth S. Meinzen-Dick, Eds: Negotiating Water Rights ,
International Food Research Policy Institute, Vistaar Publications, February 2000.
Centre for Science and Environment, New Delhi
Dying Wisdom: Rise, Fall and Potential of Indias Traditional Water Harvesting Systems,
1997.
Making Water Everybodys Business: Practice and Policy of Water Harvesting, Eds. Anil
Agarwal, Sunita Narain and Indira Khurana, March 2001.
Dubash, Navroz, Tubewell Capitalism: Groundwater Development and Agrarian
Change in Gujarat, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 2002.
Farrington John, Turton Cathryn, and James A J, Eds. (1999), Participatory Watershed
Development: Challenges for the 21st Century, Oxford University Press.
Gleick, Peter (1996): Basic Water Requirments for Human Activities: Meeting
Basic Needs, Water International 21 (1996), International Water Resources Association.
(1998): The Human Right to Water, Water Policy I (1998), Elsevier Science Ltd 1999.
Government of India: National Water Policy, Ministry of Water Resources, 1987.
Integrated Water Resources Development A Plan for Action , the Report of the National
Commission on Integrated Water Resources Development Plan, Ministry of Water Resources,
September 1999.
Reply to the World Commission on Dams, letter No.2/WCD/2001/DT (PR) Vol.-III dated
1-2-2001 addressed to the Secretary General of the WCD (see WCDs website
www.dams.org
National Water Policy 2002, Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi.
International Conference on Water and Environment: Dublin Statement, Dublin 1992.
International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, 2003: The Water Barons, Center
for Public Integrity, Washington DC, USA.
International Law Association (1966): Helsinki Rules on the Uses of the Waters of
International Rivers (London, International Law Association).
Iyer, Ramaswamy R. (2003): WATER: Perspectives, Issues, Concerns, Sage Publications, New
Delhi, London, Thousand Oaks, 2003.
Water: Some Crucial Questions, Indian Journal of Public Administration, , Vol. XLIX No.3,
July-September 2003 (Special Number on Water Resources Management).
Towards a Re-Ordering of Water Law in India, Indian Juridical Review , Kolkata, Vol. 1,
2004.
Jnch-Clausen, Torkil, Jan Hassing, Palle Lindgaard Jrgensen (2003): Integrated
Water Resources Management (IWRM) and Water Efficiency Plans by 2005: Why, What
and How? - Preliminary Discussion Draft, Global Water Partnership (GWP), Technical
Committee (TEC), October 2003.

40
McCully, Patrick (1998): Silenced Rivers: The Ecology and Politics of Large Dams, Orient
Longman (India).
Petrella, Ricardo: The Water Manifesto, Zed books, London, and Books for Change,
Bangalore, 2001.
Postel, Sandra: Pillar of Sand: Can the Irrigation Miracle Last?, (1999), New York, Norton.
Shah, Tushar (1993): Groundwater Markets and Irrigation Development, Oxford University
Press, Bombay.
Shiva, Vandana: Water Wars: Privatization, Pollution and Profit, India Research Press,
New Delhi, 2002.
Singh, Chattrapati (1991): Water Rights and Principles of Water Resources Management ,
Tripathi (for the Indian Law Institute), Bombay. (1992): Ed. Water Law in India, The
Indian Law Institute 1992.
Stockholm Water Symposium, August 2003: Papers, Stockholm International Water
Institute, Stockholm.
United Nations: UN Convention on the Non-Navigable Uses of International Water Courses,
(passed by the General Assembly, 1997).
Vaidyanathan, A: 1999: Water Resources Management: Institutions and Irrigation
Development, Oxford University Press, New Delhi, 1999.
World Bank: Water Resources Management- A World Bank Policy Paper, 1993. Water
Resources Sector Strategy Review Draft March 2002.
World Commission on Dams, Report: Dams and Development: A New Framework for
Decision-Making, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London and Sterling, VA, November 2000.
World Water Forum (Second, The Hague, March 2000) Papers: World Water Vision
Commission Report - A Water Secure World- Vision for Water, Life and Environment, World
Water Council 2000.
Ministerial Declaration of The Hague: Water Security in the 21st Century, March 2000.
World Water Forum (Third, Kyoto, Osaka, Shiga, March 2003): The 3rd World Water
Forum Final Report, Secretariat of the 3rd WWF and the World Water Council, 2003.

41