Maharashtra’s water crisis

Although Maharashtra is one of India’s most developed states, a large part of its population suffers severe and chronic water scarcity. The problem is not generally experienced or even realised in upper middle class enclaves of cities like Mumbai and Pune. However, as you move away from these privileged areas, women walking or standing in queue to collect water is a familiar sight across the state.
In nearly 70% of the state’s villages (around 27,600 villages), water is either not available within 500 metres or is not available 15 metres below the ground. Or it is not potable (World Bank, Promoting Agricultural Growth in Maharashtra, Volume 1, 2003, henceforth WB-AGM).
Around a fourth of the state’s rural households do not have secure access to drinking water (NSSO 1999), and nearly half the rural households in the state do not get safe drinking water (Human Development Report Maharashtra 2002).
Household surveys for World Bank projects indicate that average time spent in collecting water by rural households in Maharashtra is two hours a day; using ‘opportunity cost’ principles that translates to Rs 12 per household per day. During summer, the time and cost increases as sources dry up. Every year the state government spends around Rs 100 crore on supplying water on an emergency basis to severely water-starved villages.
The water problem causes enormous daily hardship to women and, coupled with poor sanitation facilities, leads to three kinds of health problems: ‘water wash’ ailments like conjunctivitis, caused by contact with poor quality water; diseases like dengue caused by water stagnation; and waterborne diseases like diarrhoea, which is the leading cause of infant deaths.
While India’s Millennium Development Goal Infant Mortality Rate (IMR) target is 28 per 1,000 by the year 2015, in many districts of Maharashtra such as Nashik, Jalna, Yavatmal, Buldhana, Chandrapur and Gadchiroli, the IMR is above 75 per 1,000.
Shortage of water directly impacts livelihoods. Although Maharashtra is among India’s most urbanised states, around 60% of its population still lives in rural areas. Even this figure is misleading, for urbanisation is heavily skewed towards the Mumbai region. In western Maharashtra and Vidarbha, around three-fourths of the population lives in rural areas; in Marathwada, 85% of the population is rural.
Hence, agriculture remains the main source of livelihood in the state. While it accounts for roughly 55% of overall employment in the state, in rural areas, 80% of the population is dependent on agriculture, either as cultivators (42%) or labourers (38%).
There can be no agriculture without water, and adequate access to this resource has been crippled by various factors in Maharashtra.
Limited irrigation potential
Rainfall in Maharashtra is uneven. While the Sahyadris (Western Ghats) and Konkan receive heavy rainfall (around 2,000 mm), most of this water, which accounts for nearly half the total water available in the state, flows into the Arabian Sea; only 5% of it is used. To the east of the Sahyadris, the rainfall drops drastically to 600 or even 500 mm; it then increases as one moves towards Vidarbha, where rainfall of around 1,400 mm is reported.
Due to this uneven rainfall pattern and geological conditions, the First Irrigation Commission of Maharashtra, constituted in 1962, estimated that only 30% of the state’s total cultivable area can be brought under surface and groundwater irrigation.
Until recent years, successive governments have been lethargic in working towards realising even this potential. The percentage of gross irrigated area to gross cropped area in Maharashtra in 2002-03 was only 16.4, substantially lower than the all-India ratio of 38.7. The percentage was about the same a decade earlier.
Poor surface irrigation
The Maharashtra Water and Irrigation Commission constituted by the Government of Maharashtra (GoM) in 1995 estimated that out of the state’s total cultivable land area of 22.54 million hectares, 8.5 million hectares can be brought under surface irrigation.
However, at an aggregate investment of Rs 269 trillion since 1950, at current prices (WB-AGM), the area brought under surface irrigation in Maharashtra is only 3.86 million hectares. Even this achievement is an exaggeration. Only 1.23 million hectares, or around a third of the potential created, is actually irrigated by canals; another 0.44 million hectares was irrigated by wells in command areas of irrigation projects.
Among other reasons, the GoM’s Report on Benchmarking of Irrigation Projects in Maharashtra 2003-04 lists the following as causes for poor realisation of surface irrigation potential:
“Taking more percentage of crops that require more water like paddy and sugarcane.”
Thin and scattered irrigation resulting in low efficiency.
Reduction in storage capacity due to silting.
Poor maintenance of infrastructure due to financial constraints.
Non-participation of beneficiaries.
In recent years, investments in major and medium irrigation structures (excluding market borrowing by corporations like the Maharashtra Krishna Development Corporation) account, on average, for about 28% of the state government’s annual capital expenditure. However, the investment does not and will not translate into a proportionate increase in area covered by surface irrigation. There are three main reasons for this.
Firstly, its record of executing irrigation works on time is poor. The GoM’s financial position is poor; the situation demands close monitoring of ongoing works rather than heavy new investments. However, for political reasons, the emphasis is on inaugurating new projects rather than completing ongoing ones. As a result, funds are thinly spread and delays are inevitable.
The 2001-02 Comptroller and Auditor General of India ( CAG) civil audit report for Maharashtra noted that, as of March 31, 2002, there were 117 incomplete irrigation projects in the state, in which around Rs 3,250 crore was blocked. Of these projects, six had remained incomplete for five to 10 years, two projects had remained incomplete for 15 to 20 years, and two projects had remained incomplete for over 20 years! The total amount blocked in projects delayed by over five years was around Rs 140 crore. In the case of 15 projects, involving around Rs 190 crore, details were not even made available.
CAG civil audit reports listed several bizarre states of incompletion, such as dams without canals, canals without dams, and dams incomplete even after actual expenditure incurred was 10 times the estimated expenditure. The worst part was that in 14 major, 24 medium, and 67 minor irrigation projects work had been abandoned after an expenditure of around Rs 27 billion, simply because the projects had become unviable due to cost escalation -- the only people to gain from this criminal waste of public money were the contractors.
Secondly, irrigation projects are not often designed to extract maximum irrigation returns. Apart from sheer incompetence at the planning stage, lobbying can play a big negative role. A classic example is the Jayakwadi project in Phaltan, which is often considered the pride of Maharashtra. There is no village by that name near the dam. The project gets its name because it was originally supposed to be located at a village called Jaykuchiwadi in Majalgaon taluka of Beed. The location to which it has been shifted is remarkably unsuitable for a dam -- the terrain is flat. As a result, the dam spans an extraordinary distance of over 10 km; its height above the ground is just 40 feet. The length of the Majalgaon right bank canal had to be reduced from the originally estimated 148 km to 84 km. Accordingly, the potential area to be brought under irrigation was reduced by half.
Thirdly, irrigation projects are meeting rising demand for water from residential and industrial sectors. In most of the major and medium irrigation projects, water reserved for domestic and industrial use varies from between 15% and 25%. In years of poor rainfall, this goes up to 50%. In 2003-04, out of the total water made available from irrigation projects, 31% was used for non-irrigation purposes -- to meet drinking water demand in cities and the needs of industries.
Significantly, while agriculture is directly related to life and livelihood of the majority of the state’s population, allocation of water resources to agriculture is accorded third priority in the GoM’s Maharashtra State Water Policy (2003), below the allocation for industrial and commercial use. This prioritisation calls into question the sense of using the term ‘irrigation’ in connection with these projects. It also reflects the government’s interest in strengthening the agriculture sector vis-à-vis the industrial sector.
Groundwater exploitation
As in the rest of the country, groundwater is the main source of water for irrigation in Maharashtra. While surface water from canals and tanks accounts for around 21% and 14% respectively of the state’s net irrigated area, groundwater primarily drawn from borewells using pumps accounts for around 60% of the net irrigated area.
The Groundwater Survey and Development Agency (GSDA) of the GoM has identified 2,841 watershed units in the state (GSDA had earlier arrived at a figure of 1,505 watersheds. This figure, which continues to be routinely quoted, was revised following new methodology recommended by the Groundwater Estimation Committee constituted by the Government of India in 1997. The new method involves delineation of sub-units based on irrigated and non-irrigated areas).
Of these 2,841 units, in 1997, 132 watershed units were declared ‘overexploited’ -- extraction exceeded recharge; 275 were in a ‘critical’ state, and another 64 were in a ‘semi-critical’ state. These numbers probably do not reflect the true picture. As banks are not allowed to advance loans for borewells in ‘overexploited’ watersheds, there are strong political compulsions not to declare an area ‘overexploited’. In any case, the GSDA estimate presents a macro-level picture. The micro or village-level picture (see ‘ Rampant overuse of groundwater in drought-prone parts of Maharashtra’) shows rampant overexploitation of groundwater.
Groundwater extraction and lifting of surface water from tanks is encouraged by subsidies for electricity used to run irrigation pump sets (IPS). Obviously, these subsidies can be enjoyed only by relatively well-to-do farmers, who can afford to buy IPS and pipes in the first place.
Of the total number of farmers in the state, only 13% have IPS, and the main beneficiaries of both groundwater resources as well as electricity subsidies are 3% of the total number of farmers in the state who have IPS and grow cash crops like sugarcane and banana. Medium and large farmers with large holdings above two hectares buy several pump sets and account for nearly 80% of the area under groundwater irrigation.
Groundwater extraction by this creamy layer of farmers has multiplied indiscriminately, with little or absolutely no concern for drinking and agriculture water needs of other people living in the same village or the needs of the state as a whole. The number of IPS in the state increased by nearly 30% in less than a decade -- from 1.6 million in 1990-91 to 2.2 million in 1998-99. While consumption of electricity by all sectors in the state grew in the 1990s by around 7% per annum, IPS consumption increased by over 13% per annum.
The subsidised consumption cost the Maharashtra State Electricity Board (MSEB) over Rs 1,000 crore in 1993-94 -- equivalent to the capital cost of about half the power-generation capacity addition required in that year. According to latest GoM figures, the number of IPS is estimated at 2.4 million; they account for 25% to 30% of the state’s total power consumption and cost the exchequer Rs 1,600 crore in subsidies.
Maharashtra was among the first states in the country to introduce legislation to check groundwater exploitation, but the law is violated with impunity and has done little good. Generally, cash crop-growing IPS users suffer only one check: power cuts. IPS are not put off; whenever there is power they are working, pumping out water for an average of seven to eight hours a day, irrespective of the crop’s actual water needs.
Unchecked by law and enjoying social sanction, groundwater extraction has crossed the danger mark in many districts of the state and caused enormous hardship to the poor. Many drinking water wells, most of which are 90 to 150 feet deep, have dried up. Due to increasing ‘competition’ for groundwater, the watertable has dropped by over 300 feet in many villages, especially in the sugarcane-growing areas of Sangli, Satara, Nashik, Latur, Beed, Osmanabad and Solapur districts (Maharashtra Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Project II Environmental Analysis Study for the World Bank, 2003).
Over-extraction of groundwater has several grave implications:
The poor are hit first and hardest. While large farmers are able to dig new wells or deepen existing wells, small and marginal farmers suffer poor quality water and falling well yields.
Groundwater sources can become polluted by pesticides, fertilisers and industrial waste. The toxins damage the health of people who use groundwater as drinking water and can also be taken up by crops, which will contaminate food supplies. High concentrations of nitrate in groundwater, a result of excessive use of chemical fertiliser, is already reported in Sangli, Solapur, Satara, Nagpur, Yavatmal, Bhandara, Beed, Osmanabad, Thane and Parbhani districts.
Underground layers of rock or soil that transmit water, known as aquifers, naturally discharge into rivers and other waterbodies during dry periods, thereby sustaining natural vegetation. Over-extraction empties aquifers and causes springs to dry up. In arid and semi-arid regions, such as drought-prone areas of Maharashtra, these springs feed wild vegetation, serve as drinking water sources in extreme dry periods, and are a stopping point for birds. Empty aquifers will lead to a collapse of the ecosystem. The land will become a desert, unable to sustain any significant amount of human, plant or animal life.
If overexploitation of groundwater resources continues unchecked, the future is clear:
Groundwater-based agriculture will collapse.
Water quality will drop.
Many villages will be depopulated.
Importantly, these impacts -- which are already being felt, in varying degrees -- will be the result of pandering to the needs of a minority of farmers. A World Bank report, Maharashtra: Reorienting Government to Facilitate Growth and Reduce Poverty, Vol I, (2002), presents an accurate picture of the state’s skewed irrigation policies:
‘Over 75% of the irrigation (from sources including canals and electricity-operated bore- and tubewells) benefits accrue to farmers with average farm holdings of more than two hectares. On the other hand, less than 10% of the irrigation benefits accrue to farmers whose average farm size is less than one hectare.’
The spectre of drought
Due to inherent geographical factors, aggravated by skewed irrigation policies, about 84% of the total cultivated area in Maharashtra is directly and entirely dependent on the monsoons. The odds are heavily stacked against many of these farmers. Around a third of the state receives scanty and erratic rainfall and hence is drought-prone.
Three GoM committees have, at different times, estimated the number of drought-prone talukas (tehsils) in the state and arrived at different figures, using different criteria like quantum of rainfall, soil moisture content, and gap between two consecutive rains.
Most recently, in July 2007, in the process of constituting a ‘dushkal mahamandal’, or ‘drought corporation’, the GoM listed 166 of the state’s 355 talukas as ‘drought-prone’ and hence eligible for whatever assistance the mahamandal might offer.
The list includes all 13 talukas of Ahmednagar, all 11 talukas of Solapur, and 13 of the 14 talukas in Nashik. There are no talukas from Bhandara and Gondia in Vidarbha and Thane, Raigad, Ratnagiri and Sindhudurg from Konkan in the list. Much political heat was generated by the listing. The GoM had earlier proposed a list of only 90 talukas. After discussions during the 2006-07 budget session of the state assembly, the list was expanded. Ironically, the debate over the listing preceded the constitution of the mahamandal; till September 2007, there was no announcement about what the mahamandal would or wouldn’t do.
The political controversy overshadows a basic fact: a contiguous region, covering parts of western Maharashtra, much of Marathwada, and parts of Vidarbha, and extending to southern Madhya Pradesh and Gujarat and northern Karnataka, is prone to drought. Every year, some or the other part of this region is affected by severe water scarcity. GoM figures for scarcity-affected villages over a 20-year period (between 1960 and 1982) show that the number of villages affected in a year varies from around 600 to over 14,000, out of a total of around 40,000 villages. In the historic 1972-73 drought, nearly 30,000 villages were affected.
Further, severe drought is experienced over large parts of the state every three to four years. Most recently, drought affected 11 districts of the state from 2000 onwards; in 2003-04, 71 talukas were declared to be affected by ‘severe drought’ (see box).
Severely drought-affected talukas in Maharashtra (2003-04)
District
Talukas
Solapur
Barshi, Karmala, Madha, Malshiras,Mangalvedha,Mohol, Pandharpur, Uttar Solapur,Sangola, Dakshin Solapur, Akkalkot
Sangli
Jat, Kavatemahankal, Tasgaon, Miraj, Khanapur,Atpadi, Kadegaon
Pune
Baramati, Daund, Indapur, Purandar, Shirur
Satara
Maan, Khatav, Khandala, Phaltan, Koregaon
Ahmednagar
Sangamner, Kopargaon, Shrirampur, Akola,Pathardi,Parner, Shrigonda, Ahmednagar,Rahata,Jamkhed, Shevgaon, Rahuri, Nevasa,Karjat
Nashik
Yevala, Sinner, Nandgaon, Chandvad, Devla,Malegaon
Beed
Parli, Kaij, Ashti, Patoda, Beed, Shirur, Wadvani
Osmanabad
Osmanabad, Tuljapur, Umarga, Lohara,Kalamb,Vashi, Bhum, Paranda
Aurangabad
Vaijapur, Gangapur
Latur
Latur, Renapur, Ausa, Nilanga
Jalna
Ambad, Ghansawangi
Source: GoM, Revenue and Forests Department, Revised Memorandum to the Government of India on Drought Relief and Mitigation in Maharashtra (2003-04)
As ascertained and reported by the GoM, drought had the following impacts:
In 6,742 villages, the paisewari (estimation of crop output) was less than 50% of the normal amount. Most of the villages were in Ahmednagar, Solapur, Osmanabad and Beed.
The kharif crop was estimated to be 50% of normal yields.
There was an overall drop in the state’s per hectare productivity of all major crop categories. Thus, while foodgrain productivity was expected to be 1,058 kg per hectare in 2002-03, it was actually 797 kg/ha.
Households above the poverty line were also affected, even people from relatively affluent families were working in Employment Guarantee Scheme (EGS) relief works. In November 2003, 3.50 lakh people chose to work under the EGS in the 11 affected districts. While the GoM spends Rs 650 to Rs 700 crore on the EGS in a ‘normal year’, it expected to spend Rs 1,600 crore in 2003-04, till June 2004.
While the government deployed 238 tankers across the state in November 2002, to supply drinking water, in November 2003 it deployed 1,616 tankers.
Till November 2003, the government had opened 400 cattle camps in drought-affected districts to feed 3.8 lakh animals.
The GoM added that the measures it had taken did not “reveal the endemic vulnerability, which has been part of the landscape”. The situation on the ground was “far too grim to be captured by the statistics”.
Civil society response
It was in response to this grim situation, which has not yet been addressed by a long-term drought mitigation policy, that a network of civil society organisations working in Maharashtra formed a drought forum called Dushkal Hatavu Manus Jagavu (DHMJ) (to read more about the DHMJ click here).
While the forum’s immediate priorities were ascertaining the multi-faced impacts of drought, and mobilising government relief, it also has the long-term vision of eradicating drought. This is not an impossible dream. While what is known as meteorological drought, characterised by low rainfall, is an unalterable reality, there is great scope for minimising the impact of meteorological drought.
Further, if rural poverty in Maharashtra is to be addressed, equitable and rational use of water and appropriate agriculture practices have to become the main item on the agenda of state policy.
The policy will have to include several innovative and bold measures, which can be implemented only with true people’s involvement. Civil society organisations (CSOs) and networks like the DHMJ can provide the necessary bridge between people and the government.