Parineeta Dandekar's earlier post on environmental flows, triggered several responses and we have initiated a discussion forum post on the topic. Mr. Chetan Pandit of the National Water Academy, Pune, has a detailed note on it, critiquing the original post, and adding several new points to take the discussion forward.

Apropos Ms. Parineeta Dandekar's post on environmental flows I fully agree with her very last observation "where is the water"[for environmental flows]. Had she addressed that in the beginning of her post, then her post should have taken an entirely different direction, and this longish reply wouldn't have been necessary.

Before I proceed, I must record my strong protest with her giving credence to WWF statement, "over-extraction for agriculture in the Ganga Basin has caused the reduction in surface water resources". There is no agreed definition of what is "over extraction"and WWF is no one to define that. They themselves do not claim to be experts in basin management, irrigated agriculture, and development economics, and so we need not confer such expertise on them.

Another issue is, Ganga system is shared by more than one countries. You never find a citizen of any of these other countries admitting that their nation is using/demanding too much water from Ganga system, and certainly not on the say so of a foreign party. And the same holds true for more than a billion of ordinary Indians. Our environmentalists need to be a little more circumspect.

Estimating EFR

The global debate on environmental flows now uses the term Environmental Flow Requirements, or EFR. The EFR concept enlarges the scope beyond only the quantity of water, to include a certain water quality, temperature, velocity, penetration of sunlight, cyclic changes - in short the complete flow regime. There are two ways to estimate the EFR. The so called "rational method"seeks to do so by mapping the life cycles and aquatic environmental requirements of all the aquatic flora and fauna in a given reach of the river. But this is an extremely complex exercise that demands a huge amount of efforts and resources. Such an exercise has not been completed for any river in India, and to the best of my knowledge not any where else in the world either.

Some researchers have proposed empirical guidelines, which correlate a descriptive status of the habitat to some % of the Mean Annual Flow (MAF, also called MAR , Mean Annual Runoff) in the river. The most often quoted empirical method is Modified Tennant's method (click here and scroll down to Table-1 on page 4). Tennant indicates that EFR 100% of the MAF would result in an "Outstanding"habitat, and EFR < 10% of MAF would result in "Severely Degraded"habitat, and various other gradations in between.

Water Budget of India

Total freshwater water resources of India are estimated at 1869 BCM, out of which utilizable resource is estimated at 1123 BCM. Most of the remaining 1869-1123 = 746 BCM flows out in a few flood events, as under ground flow, and some evaporation. Consumptive water requirements for domestic use, agriculture, industry, and other uses have been estimated, and all estimates say the 1123 BCM utilizable quantity may be just barely adequate, or even inadequate.

No matter what method is used to estimate EFR, there is no escape from the fact that the sum total of all water requirements (environment+domestic+irrigation+industrial+others) will always far exceed the water availability in almost all the basins in India. Which is why we consider every drop of water so precious.

For a "Good"habitat, Tennant's table suggests 60% of MAF to be allocated for EFR, 20% in the lean season. (note : in peninsular Indian rivers, the total lean season flow is < 20% of MAF) I have no arguments with any one who thinks 60% of MAF can be allocated for EFR.

"Cost"of EFR

Ms. Dandekar says EFR is being restored in the Murray-Darling basin. She either forgot or omitted to mention how it is done. This is what Murray-Darling basin commission says "In the last 100 years life in the Murray-Darling Basin has been transformed by the construction of major water storages on the rivers. . . . These storages have made it possible to store water during wet periods and release it as needed during summer or in droughts." [see here] In Murray-Darling basin they have created a storage capacity 146% of its MAF. (MAF 24 BCM. Storage capacity 35 BCM). (if we were to do the same in Narmada, it would require construction of 12 Sardar Sarovar size reservoirs !!)

See? That is how they have restored some EFR. There is no free lunch. We can not have that much storage capacity in our basins, because the topography doesn't support that. But whatever storage capacity the topography permits, the basin managers in India are being prevented from constructing even that. Only those who support construction of storages a-la Murray-Darling, have any moral authority to quote Murray-Darling.

Status of Analysis in India

IWMI paper mentions a "Working Group on Minimum Flows". Present author was a member of this working group. But professional ethics require that one doesn't discuss it in a public forum, before the report is published. As for Civil Society, they are stuck with lamenting the state of environment, and giving sermons on importance of environment, (as if the Executive didn't know it) and are yet to make any clear and realistic suggestion. Personally, I do not think Civil society will ever take a stand on EFR, and there are several reasons for it.

First, recommending any EFR less than 100% of MAF amounts to accepting an upper limit on the state of environment. e.g. accepting/suggesting an EFR 60% of MAF which corresponds to a "Good"habitat, amounts to being satisfied with a "Good"habitat, rather than aim for "Excellent"or "Outstanding". And it would be professional hara-kiri to do so. As a result, although everyone knows EFR can not be 100% of MAF, no one is prepared to say so; no one takes a position on how much it should be.

Second, demanding more water for EFR automatically means taking away some from other users. Unfortunately, the major "other user"is farmers. And Civil Society does not want to be the one to recommend taking away water from farmers. There is a very interesting line in Ms. Dandekar's post. Describing the impasse in Keoladeo (Bharatpur) she says "political leaders have instigated the local farmers to stage demonstrations and protests against releasing waters to the Park". Reading that one would think farmers had no use for water, never wanted any of it, and if there wasn't the instigation by political leaders they would have merrily allowed all the water to flow to the park.

And a third and a fourth reason why Civil Society doesn't take a clear stand are; it requires considerable analytical efforts to arrive at some number-based conclusion, whereas wordy articles can be written in less than a day. And why make these efforts and why risk taking a stand when there is no need to do so?

Finally, it is no secret that "saving the environment"is a multi-billion $ industry. At stake are huge $ funding, travel packages to international seminars, and some international awards. This inevitably attracts some who have no genuine concern for the environment, and see it merely as a gravy train.

Unfortunately, the more sincere ones amongst the Civil Society make no efforts to weed them out. In fact, quite often these "posture-ists"hijack the agenda and prevent any serious discussions. For all these reasons, discussion in the Civil Society continues in "beating about the bush"mode.

My comments may be seen as being harsh on the Civil Society. Apart from the fact that Civil Society never has any qualms alleging Executive with being incompetent, vested interests, and driven by assorted lobbies, if my comments provokes the Civil Society in doing some introspection and taking a more sagacious stand, the brickbats I am bound to receive would be well worth it.

The Road Ahead

Ms Dandekar ends her post with "So how are we going to trade off with nature? Where are the spaces, or rather, where is the water?"Good question. And as of today I do not think any one has any answers. As pointed out in the foregoing, in a water short country it isn't going to be easy to find water for EFR. However, the discussion may lead to some meaningful result, if the discussion follows in a certain framework, as below.

1. All participants in the debate need to learn a bit of hydrology. Discussing basin management without studying hydrology, is like discussing surgery without studying anatomy.
2. Factor in India's water budget. Without referring to how much water we have and how much is required for other uses, the discussion becomes merely philosophical.
3. Talk in the language of numbers, rather than words. Say exactly how much water you want for EFR, and why - in quantifiable terms.
4. Now say from which user this water will be taken away, how to compensate that other user, and that other use. i.e. if you take away some water from agriculture (inevitable), you not only have to compensate the farmer, but you also have to procure from someplace the lost food production.
5. Towards that end, make realistic suggestions. It is quite possible to suggest no abstraction from the river; end surface water irrigation; ban on sugar cane and paddy; ban on HYV seeds also because these need more water; etc. The choice is between improving the state of environment versus improving one's standing as a renowned environmentalist.
6. Any advocacy for EFR will have to openly support enabling actions. e.g. construction of storages (a-la Murray-Darling); GM foods that give more crop per drop; trans-basin transfer, etc. Remember, there is no free lunch.
7. I am of the opinion that those who care for aquatic environment should first focus on improving and protecting water quality, rather than securing more quantity for environment.
8. Finally, do not allow the discussion to be hijacked by those for whom a discussion on EFR is an end in itself.