The Index rightly identifies the issues with water data in the country and should be lauded for the same. However, at the core of the water crisis is the disruption of the normal functioning of the hydrological cycle of the country and the need for restoring this cycle. The index has failed to identify this critical issue. Although the index is targeted at instilling a sense of competitiveness in states for better water use and management outcomes by incentivizing such outcomes, the index doesn’t mention what these incentives are/will be and if they will be tangible. In the absence of tangible incentives for better performances, how can one expect the states to improve water management practices when we see the state of things as of now? Irrigation potential statistics provided at the time of project approval doesn’t hold good for long. It does not help in measuring the actual irrigation achieved. It will be better to compare the net irrigated area with the gross irrigated area to incentivize further improvement. One of the indicators asks the states whether any regulatory framework for groundwater has been passed. This is a simple yes or no question. It will not yield any information on the implementation of such acts. Such questions need to be reframed. Creating new projects for filling up the gap between IPC and IPU will not be helpful as stated above. It would be better to find out why this gap exists in the first place. Farmer Producer Societies with 30-50 hectare land area should be encouraged to reduce input costs, increase mechanization, expand area under micro-irrigation, and improve water-use efficiency. To improve water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture, the distribution to farmers from canals should be modified and integrated with groundwater. Moreover, existing structures should be maintained properly. A possible incentive for states is increased allotment of funds for O&M of irrigation assets. These funds should be provided in the form of reimbursement to the states after the selected works have been completed. Incentives can also be provided in cases where there has been an increase in area cultivated after adoption of cropping patterns suited to agro-climatic zones. The spread of micro-irrigation should also be incentivized by allocation of more funds for the same. Again, the allocation of funds should be in the form of reimbursement after a stated target for a particular FY has been achieved. Subsidies for micro-irrigation and other farm equipment should be provided to the farmer societies and not to the manufacturers of such equipment. Similarly, subsidies provided on electricity and water should be withdrawn to avoid over-use and wastage of water. Desalinization has now become cheaper with improved technology and desalinized water is now being used by the heavy industries in coastal areas. It would help in reducing the use of groundwater. This should be added to the water availability statistics. The focus of NITI aayog should be on the following: The regulation of water and land resources based on primary requirements of domestic use and food security for the year 2050 when the population is expected to reach 1600 million. The regulation of resources for livelihood security for which the key sectors are services, industry, and agriculture. The Index rightly identifies the issues with water data in the country and should be lauded for the same. However, at the core of the water crisis is the disruption of the normal functioning of the hydrological cycle of the country and the need for restoring this cycle. The index has failed to identify this critical issue. Although the index is targeted at instilling a sense of competitiveness in states for better water use and management outcomes by incentivizing such outcomes, the index doesn’t mention what these incentives are/will be and if they will be tangible. In the absence of tangible incentives for better performances, how can one expect the states to improve water management practices when we see the state of things as of now? Irrigation potential statistics provided at the time of project approval doesn’t hold good for long. It does not help in measuring the actual irrigation achieved. It will be better to compare the net irrigated area with the gross irrigated area to incentivize further improvement. One of the indicators asks the states whether any regulatory framework for groundwater has been passed. This is a simple yes or no question. It will not yield any information on the implementation of such acts. Such questions need to be reframed. Creating new projects for filling up the gap between IPC and IPU will not be helpful as stated above. It would be better to find out why this gap exists in the first place. Farmer Producer Societies with 30-50 hectare land area should be encouraged to reduce input costs, increase mechanization, expand area under micro-irrigation, and improve water-use efficiency. To improve water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture, the distribution to farmers from canals should be modified and integrated with groundwater. Moreover, existing structures should be maintained properly. A possible incentive for states is increased allotment of funds for O&M of irrigation assets. These funds should be provided in the form of reimbursement to the states after the selected works have been completed. Incentives can also be provided in cases where there has been an increase in area cultivated after adoption of cropping patterns suited to agro-climatic zones. The spread of micro-irrigation should also be incentivized by allocation of more funds for the same. Again, the allocation of funds should be in the form of reimbursement after a stated target for a particular FY has been achieved. Subsidies for micro-irrigation and other farm equipment should be provided to the farmer societies and not to the manufacturers of such equipment. Similarly, subsidies provided on electricity and water should be withdrawn to avoid over-use and wastage of water. Desalinization has now become cheaper with improved technology and desalinized water is now being used by the heavy industries in coastal areas. It would help in reducing the use of groundwater. This should be added to the water availability statistics. The focus of NITI aayog should be on the following: The regulation of water and land resources based on primary requirements of domestic use and food security for the year 2050 when the population is expected to reach 1600 million. The regulation of resources for livelihood security for which the key sectors are services, industry, and agriculture. Survey and identification of land and water for each sector with suitable environment should be done with the help of the states so that whenever a project comes, it can be quickly looked into.
Published by G N Kathpalia, Chairman, Alternative Futures
The Index rightly identifies the issues with water data in the country and should be lauded for the same. However, at the core of the water crisis is the disruption of the normal functioning of the hydrological cycle of the country and the need for restoring this cycle. The index has failed to identify this critical issue.
Although the index is targeted at instilling a sense of competitiveness in states for better water use and management outcomes by incentivizing such outcomes, the index doesn’t mention what these incentives are/will be and if they will be tangible. In the absence of tangible incentives for better performances, how can one expect the states to improve water management practices when we see the state of things as of now?
Irrigation potential statistics provided at the time of project approval doesn’t hold good for long. It does not help in measuring the actual irrigation achieved. It will be better to compare the net irrigated area with the gross irrigated area to incentivize further improvement.
One of the indicators asks the states whether any regulatory framework for groundwater has been passed. This is a simple yes or no question. It will not yield any information on the implementation of such acts. Such questions need to be reframed.
Creating new projects for filling up the gap between IPC and IPU will not be helpful as stated above. It would be better to find out why this gap exists in the first place.
Farmer Producer Societies with 30-50 hectare land area should be encouraged to reduce input costs, increase mechanization, expand area under micro-irrigation, and improve water-use efficiency.
To improve water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture, the distribution to farmers from canals should be modified and integrated with groundwater. Moreover, existing structures should be maintained properly.
A possible incentive for states is increased allotment of funds for O&M of irrigation assets. These funds should be provided in the form of reimbursement to the states after the selected works have been completed.
Incentives can also be provided in cases where there has been an increase in area cultivated after adoption of cropping patterns suited to agro-climatic zones.
The spread of micro-irrigation should also be incentivized by allocation of more funds for the same. Again, the allocation of funds should be in the form of reimbursement after a stated target for a particular FY has been achieved.
Subsidies for micro-irrigation and other farm equipment should be provided to the farmer societies and not to the manufacturers of such equipment. Similarly, subsidies provided on electricity and water should be withdrawn to avoid over-use and wastage of water.
Desalinization has now become cheaper with improved technology and desalinized water is now being used by the heavy industries in coastal areas. It would help in reducing the use of groundwater. This should be added to the water availability statistics.
The focus of NITI aayog should be on the following:
The regulation of water and land resources based on primary requirements of domestic use and food security for the year 2050 when the population is expected to reach 1600 million.
The regulation of resources for livelihood security for which the key sectors are services, industry, and agriculture.
The Index rightly identifies the issues with water data in the country and should be lauded for the same. However, at the core of the water crisis is the disruption of the normal functioning of the hydrological cycle of the country and the need for restoring this cycle. The index has failed to identify this critical issue.
Although the index is targeted at instilling a sense of competitiveness in states for better water use and management outcomes by incentivizing such outcomes, the index doesn’t mention what these incentives are/will be and if they will be tangible. In the absence of tangible incentives for better performances, how can one expect the states to improve water management practices when we see the state of things as of now?
Irrigation potential statistics provided at the time of project approval doesn’t hold good for long. It does not help in measuring the actual irrigation achieved. It will be better to compare the net irrigated area with the gross irrigated area to incentivize further improvement.
One of the indicators asks the states whether any regulatory framework for groundwater has been passed. This is a simple yes or no question. It will not yield any information on the implementation of such acts. Such questions need to be reframed.
Creating new projects for filling up the gap between IPC and IPU will not be helpful as stated above. It would be better to find out why this gap exists in the first place.
Farmer Producer Societies with 30-50 hectare land area should be encouraged to reduce input costs, increase mechanization, expand area under micro-irrigation, and improve water-use efficiency.
To improve water use efficiency in irrigated agriculture, the distribution to farmers from canals should be modified and integrated with groundwater. Moreover, existing structures should be maintained properly.
A possible incentive for states is increased allotment of funds for O&M of irrigation assets. These funds should be provided in the form of reimbursement to the states after the selected works have been completed.
Incentives can also be provided in cases where there has been an increase in area cultivated after adoption of cropping patterns suited to agro-climatic zones.
The spread of micro-irrigation should also be incentivized by allocation of more funds for the same. Again, the allocation of funds should be in the form of reimbursement after a stated target for a particular FY has been achieved.
Subsidies for micro-irrigation and other farm equipment should be provided to the farmer societies and not to the manufacturers of such equipment. Similarly, subsidies provided on electricity and water should be withdrawn to avoid over-use and wastage of water.
Desalinization has now become cheaper with improved technology and desalinized water is now being used by the heavy industries in coastal areas. It would help in reducing the use of groundwater. This should be added to the water availability statistics.
The focus of NITI aayog should be on the following:
The regulation of water and land resources based on primary requirements of domestic use and food security for the year 2050 when the population is expected to reach 1600 million.
The regulation of resources for livelihood security for which the key sectors are services, industry, and agriculture.
Survey and identification of land and water for each sector with suitable environment should be done with the help of the states so that whenever a project comes, it can be quickly looked into.