Cement Energy and Environment

( earlier Act. "The most important transparency provision in the Act was the public hearing before diversion, which has been cancelled in the new amendment," says Bharat Patankar, convenor, Lokabhimukh Pani Dhoran Sangharsh Manch. "The only mode of protest left for farmers is post-facto court action against a diversion, which is a difficult and expensive option ." People's groups vehemently oppose the provision in the new amendment that makes earlier water diversions from agriculture to non-agricultural uses immune from challenge in court. An analysis of water diversion from dams since 2003 by Prayas, a non-profit in Pune, based on documents accessed through RTI, shows 54 per cent of the diverted water has gone to industry (see 'Unfair diversion'). "The loss to farmers is an estimated Rs 5,300 crore per year," says Sachin Wargade of Prayas. Unfair diversion Prayas study shows water diversion favoured industry • 2,886 mcm of water fr om 43 dams in Maharashtra was diverted for non– agriculture purpo ses between 2003 and January 2011 • Diversion deprived 3,57,620 ha of agricultural land of irrigation • 54 per cent of diverted water allotted to industry and 46 per cent for domestic use • Of the water diverted to industry, 61 per cent went to coal-based power plants • 96 per cent of water diverted for domestic use given to urban municipalities • Western Maharashtra has highest share (54 per cent) of diversion Granting immunity against court action to these diversions is unfair given that court cases are pending against some diversions. The most important of these is the case filed by former MLA and activist B T Deshmukh against diversion of 88 million cubic meter (mcm) water from the Upper Wardha dam in Amravati district to India Bulls's coal-based power plant at Nandgaopeth, depriving 24,000 hectare (ha) land of irrigation. "This is an obvious attempt by the government to wriggle out of legal tangles ," says Sanjay Kolhe of Pani Bachao Samiti, Amravati. "We want the government to reinstate the farmer-friendly provisions of the original Act, and to return the illegally diverted water to farmers," says Patankar, threatening an agitation by Lokabhimukh Pani Dhoran Sangharsh Manch, under which groups working for water rights in the state are organised . Water rights and farmers' groups will meet in May in Pune to plan the agitation . Courtesy: Down To Earth, 1-15 May, 2011, P 10 WATER UNDER CENTRE: BEING SUGGESTED BY THE ASHOK CHAWLA COMMITTEE Water resources and planning may shift from the State to the Concurrent List of the Constitution . The Ashok Chawla committee will make this suggestion when it tables its report before the Cabinet in June this year, sources say. The committee was set up in February this year to draw a roadmap for distribution of natural resources. The Ministry of Water Resources has long held that presence of the subject in the State List is not appropriate as it limits the Centre's role. It should , therefore, be shifted to the Concurrent List (see 'Water in the Constitution'). The ministry's secretary, Dhruv Vijai Singh, is a member of the Ashok Chawla committee. Bringing water under Central control was discussed at a Planning Commission meet in April to formulate the 12th Five– Year Plan . It suggested water law on the lines of the European Union where water is under one directive. In India, Parliament can legislate on 97 subjects of the Union List, 47 subjects of the Concurrent List and in times of national and state emergency, make laws on the 66 subjects of the State List. Since water falls in the State List, all Acts and Bills regarding its use and monitoring lie with the state. Government requires two– thirds majority in Parliament to sh.ift a subject from the State to the Concurrent List. "It would qe politically difficu lt, if not impossible, to enact such a Constitutional amendment," thinks Ramaswamy lyer, former secretary at the ministry of water resources. "It is also not necessary because the Centre can legislate on water even now," he adds. The Constitution provides for Union interference only in inter-state water disputes. In the past some subjects have been shifted from the State to the Concurrent List when it was understood that they were not being addressed appropriately, says P K Bakshi, a constitutional expert who is exploring the concurrent powers of the legislation of the Constitution. II