Tryst with rain

In our January 15, 2000 issue, Down To Earth had highlighted the situation in drought-struck areas of Gujarat. The conclusion was that villages with structures to harvest rainwater were faring much better than villages which had forgotten the value of rain (see: 'Standing the test of drought', Vol 8, No 16). They had enough water to drink; some had enough for irrigation, too. By April, as the effects of drought became more apparent, the media discovered what the Indian subcontinent has known and practised for millennia: that the only source of water is rain, and the monsoonal bounty has to be stored through apt means for use through the rest of the year. There was widespread acknowledgement of the fact that large water supply schemes of governments would never be able to solve India's water crisis by themselves. There had to be a paradigm shift in our management of water.

Two drought-hit states, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh (ap), came up with crash programmes that encouraged rural communities to build new water harvesting structures and revive old ones. The reason for these responses remains unclear; some say it is political, some say it is motivation from the civil society, some say it was the need of the hour. But the fact remains that

• the Gujarat government launched the Sardar Patel Participatory Water Conservation Programme (sppwcp) in January 2000; and

• the ap government launched the Neeru Meeru (Water and You) programme in May 2000.

No matter what their motive, the two state governments have to be congratulated for venturing into uncharted territory, into something essential that governments in independent India have consistently ignored. It becomes essential to assess the performance of these schemes. While it is certain that community-based water management, based on water harvesting, is essential to deal with drought, the future of this potential depends on how the Indian administrative establishment takes to it. If water harvesting falls victim to corruption and bureaucratic incompetence, India's future would be so much poorer.

To look into all these issues, the New Delhi-based Centre for Science and Environment (cse), which actively promotes community-based water management and the seminal importance of water harvesting, sent two researchers from its Campaign to Make Water Everybody's Business. For about one month, they travelled to several parts of Gujarat and ap, visiting villages, panchayats (village councils), government departments, civil society groups, technical experts, research institutions, religious outfits, and what have you. Their experiences led to some conclusions.

In Gujarat's drought-prone Saurashtra and Kachchh regions, there were clear indicators that the government programme has made a significant difference. Despite the fact that the rains were very poor in the year 2000 monsoon, there are claims that water overflowed in more than three-fourths of the 10,500 check dams built under the government programme over the last few months. In several villages which have built check dams, the groundwater table had improved and dugwells have water. The Indian media -- at the regional as well as the national level -- reported quite a few success stories of villages which are confident about facing drought in the future. The fact that the media took note of these stories is itself a good indicator, because the Indian media, biased as it is towards urban centres, regularly ignores the problems and successes of our villages.

Not only did the Gujarat government learn from its past mistakes in water management, but it also learned from the successes of villages led by civil society groups. The sppwcp was formulated in a way that bureaucratic wrangling would be sidelined. The people responded with enthusiasm, submitting proposals for more than 25,000 check dams. This again proves that India's problem is its governments, not its people. Another factor worth noting is that the success rate of the programme was seen to be better where civil society groups were involved. This gave fewer opportunities of siphoning funds to corrupt government engineers and contractors. It also helped in mobilisation of villagers. But, apart from some cases of exceptional effort by villages on their own accord, the programme actually led to corruption in several places where civil society groups were not involved. So much so that the government resorted to withholding of funds in some cases, again revealing a willingness to learn from mistakes and rectify them.

AP was more of a disappointment. Although the Neeru Meeru programme was initiated only a few months ago and it is early days for judging its impact, the initial indicators do not bode well. While the programme covers several aspects of water harvesting, one of the major thrusts in the initial stages has been to desilt old tanks, which has been carried out in 3,348 villages. But the way the programme has been planned, has left a lot of room for contractors and engineers to exploit poor villagers. The programme does not encourage employment of the rural poor in desilting operations, relying on the machines and corruption of contractors. Some exceptional success stories apart, there are numerous allegations of corruption and nepotism. Let aside the opposition political parties, even neutral groups and technical experts are critical of the ruling Telugu Desam Party for using the community-based programme to build up its own cadres and political base, rather than finding a lasting solution to the water crisis. Several villagers complain of exploitation at the hands of local politicians, bureaucrats, government engineers and contractors.

In the following pages, we present two reports, one from each state, to assess which way these programmes are headed. It is crucial to do this at present, because the spectre of drought is looming large over several parts of western and central India after the monsoon failed the states again this year. The story of villages and governments that have made sound investments in water harvesting need to be publicised far and wide. Only after they get due credit and attention can their examples be replicated.

The lesson is clear. While harvesting rainwater is the right direction, the bureaucracy and petty politicking will ensure that instead of solving the water crisis, it becomes another excuse for mismanagement and corruption. This would be a real shame, because it might close the last door for a developing country like India to sustainably manage its water needs. It would be an even greater shame if it were to prove that Indians have little to hope for a better tommorrow.

Too many cooks
Innumerable committees have been formed at every level, leaving the common person confused. M S Kodarkar, zoologist with the Vivek Vardhini College in Hyderabad, who has a special interest in lakes and waterbodies, says, "There are already multiple government departments which are controlling one single aspect: water. There is the metro water supply department, the irrigation department and now various WUAs are sprouting all over. Various authorities control different aspects of water right from supply to treatment of water to its use. There are a number of laws. Creating one more authority, in this case the WCM, the administrative structure has become vague."

Siphoning of funds
The project funds are handled by WUAs, and there are allegations of corruption in this area. While it is very difficult to prove how it is done, a government official, speaking on condition of anonymity, revealed how funds are swindled. "I can personally tell you what has happened in a particular case. A watershed committee president received some Rs 7,000. When I enquired about the source, he told me that he received it for signing a cheque for Rs 28,000." Such stories are quite common.

The WUA president is responsible for signing cheques to release money to contractors. Even when half the work is done, the contractors claim the money for the work in connivance with the WUA president, who gets a cut. The projects suffer extensively due to this. "A lot of corruption is going on, though no one comes forward to point it out," says Rukmini Rao of the Deccan Development Society, Hyderabad, who is working on watershed projects in Rayalaseema district. "Small NGOs are forced to give money. After the work has been taken up with the community, the government funds do not reach and these NGOs have to bribe to get the money released. It could be as small an amount as Rs 2,000-5,000."

This was reflected in Mahabubnagar, where a handful of elite farmers formed a watershed committee which released all the goodies to their relatives. One beneficiary got Rs 72,000 for horticulture. Clearly, the distribution is biased against the landless as well as people from the schedule castes. When asked about what they received, they say most have not even been called for work. Those who were called for work had their wages deducted and contributed to the fund as part of the 10 per cent contribution to the wua fund. The wage employment aspect of watershed-related works suffered tremendously. Instead of the schedule of rates, local wage rates were followed. These were discriminatory to women. So, if the schedule of rates in Mahabubnagar is Rs 9 per cubic metre of silt removed, this got reduced to Rs 7. The members demanding a reduction are invariably landholders.

"Money from the village development fund is taken for the watershed fund. When government officials come visiting, they are received using the watershed funds. They have to make a tent for the dignitaries, put a few chairs and give them tea and snacks. All the money comes from the fund. After the rains, tanks have breached. But there are no funds for repair," says Rukmini Rao. The watershed fund is there, but cannot be used for a period of four years due to a faulty policy.

Employment degeneration
While the Neeru Meeru programme clearly lays down the importance of keeping contractors at bay, this has not been the case. "Because of the contractors, the money has been involved more than the people. There is a vast humanpower in the villages. People could have gained employment if the private contractors were not involved," says B N Chetty, who works on vss watershed development with Jan Vikas Sangh in Kurnool district.

Poclains have been used on a large-scale to desilt tanks. People commonly point out that the poclain contractors are connected to political parties. "They immediately put the poclains to work and the money goes to the political boss and the work is not executed properly," alleges Ramakrishna Reddy. "The problem of migration could have been addressed if the local villagers had been employed," says Ramesh Reddy, head of the department of civil engineering at the Osmania University.

Rajendra Singh, secretary Alwar-based Tarun Bharat Sangh, which has transformed the ecology of the Rajasthan district through water harvesting, visited some parts of the state. "AP waterworks are not in accordance with people's vision," he points out. "It is technocratic and work has been done at a very fast pace."

The Neeru Meeru programme is fast becoming a problem bigger than the one it was meant to solve. It is clear that the crash programme won't take the state anywhere. It is of utmost importance that the government does a serious review of the programme and looks into all the irregularities. The current approach is to become technology-friendly and contractor-friendly. The only group to which it is unfriendly is the poor and the downtrodden, for whom the programme was formulated in the first place.