Living in Kanakanala I: Garajenal: 50 new bore wells per year, all to be banned next season? Garajenal is a village in the lower reaches of Kanakanala. Thus the watershed development measures in Kanakanala should have its effects on Garajenal. It is also blessed with a narrow groundwater bearing valley of a few hundred meters wide. What anyone can observe in the last few years is bore wells shoot out of the ground like mushrooms. Driving at dawn along the dirt road that connects the village with the main Tavargera - Lingasugur road reveals the many light bulbs, each marking one pump set. Where does this water come from? It is the water what accumulates in the whole watershed and slowly drains from upper to lower reaches, to small valley depressions like this. An aquifer is a water holding body of gravel, sand or rocks. In Garajenal's case the aquifer probably consists of basalt layers, a volcanic rock which forms the vast Deccan plateau. In cracks and fractures water slowly flows after the laws of gravity. It is water collected by the water harvesting measures upstream, where it infiltrates into the soil and thus recharges this groundwater aquifer beneath Garajenal. Many questions arise: Whose water is this? How much water is there? If drought continues and every farmer pumps, will there be enough drinking water left? Will the hand pumps in Garajenal not go dry? Indian law and policy doesn't help. There are no clear laws, and so far ground water is not treated as common goods like rivers but as a private resource. Water beneath your land is yours: you are free to dig and use it. Unnecessary to say that such an "open access regime" is bound for over-exploitation and thus doomed to fail. However, in a recent edition of the Deccan Herald (13.11.03) the (literate) public was informed that "STATE BANS USE OF BORE WELL WATER" "In order to conserve ground water for drinking purpose for the next summer, the State government has banned the use of bore well water to grow water-intense crops such as paddy and sugarcane." […] The farmers have been advised to switch over to other crops which require minimal water. […] electricity supply will be cut to all those farmers who violate the Government order […]" So does that mean that all the farmers in Garajenal were "advised"? Of course not. And no one comes to turn off the electricity (for which no farmer is ever officially billed anyway). And no farmer is thinking twice about not drilling. In fact, it is even vain to ask them if they heard about the order: I did anyway. They said they never heard of such discussions held in the Vidhana Soudha (the fancy Legislative Assembly "Palace" in Bangalore). Hydro-geology raises the second very obvious point: Excessive pumping of groundwater will drain the aquifer. The bore wells are drilled down to 40 meters and the water table may be of 10 meters maximum "thickness" in some areas. And with an average rainfall of less than 600mm per year, a degraded vegetative cover and a poor to medium groundwater potential it would take good rainfall years to recharge the small narrow valley which may seem to be blessed with abundant water. So have the farmers lost their mind? Are they doing irrational things? No, definitely not. Other than being honest and hard working these farmers have another virtue: they apply economic rationale for their actions. We stopped near their fields and had a chat with 6-7 farmers. Gangamma, a farming woman from Garajenal, told us: "a good harvest is almost guaranteed with a bore well and a pump set. Water is there, obviously". "But how do you locate the exact drilling spot?" I asked them. "A Swamiji (a local religious elder) comes and shows us". This man, operating on the edge of science, normally succeeds in finding water. But some wells dry up, and some fail. One unlucky fellow suffered from 5 failures, and tried for the 6th time, as the programme officer in sustainable agriculture of SAMUHA told me. That means he has spent around Rs 1.5 Lakhs (Rs 150'000)! The villages are dirt poor, they struggle to get enough food on their table. During drought years like the last three they are forced to go for migration part of the year and sell their cattle. Thus the obstacles (the law, the high investment costs and nature itself) do not outweigh the promised blessings, even if short-lived. Obstacles can be removed or postponed. Credit is given to them by local moneylenders (at high interests, 3-5% per month) who also consult the farmers and further convince them. It takes Rs 40 to 50000 for a bore well, some two years' income for a medium farming family. Electricity connections are "self made": they just tap the power lines, as we were told by a farmer in his field. The electricity people come to collect their bribes regularly, while the aquifer is sucked empty by over hundred 6 horse power pumps for a few years. Come rain, go problems: aquifer filled, water flows, harvest good, food on the tables. Come drought, come catastrophes: no water, no harvest, high debts, total dependency on moneylenders. As happened for too many farmers in Karnataka, who were probably in similar situations: more than 300 cases of suicides were registered, most of them not able to repay their debts. The prevailing alcoholism did not really help in such cases, either. The farmers are also aware that this situation will last only a few years. "what to do? We are exploiting for a few years, then we will pay the price". When asked what the coming watershed development measures will hold in store for them, they replied "it is good for us. The structures will help recharge the groundwater". Which is true, but are other villages ready to pay for these farmers' blessings? And is SAMUHA fully aware of what is happening? After some discussions with the watershed engineers I was convinced that they are, but the problem is complex and at present they are concentrating on implementing the measures in Sasvihal, Advibhavi and Mydardokki. Garajenal is next year's task and there is little space and room for such a debate. But can the farmers and the watershed afford any delay in dealing with such important matters? Is the water- and thus groundwater cycle not central to planning any intervention in a watershed? The newspaper article above simply shows how great that gap between urban desktops and Garajenal's rocky soil is, how ridiculous politics and journalism can sound when switching the perspective into a farmer's world out here in Kushtagi Taluk, Koppal District. Or anywhere else in India where two thirds of the population are struggling to make a living off "Bharat", Mother Earth India.

This was a simple story based on field observation. Of course, there is more to the issue, thus a short excursion into the matter may be necessary. The same issue was raised already in the authors' field report (p. 8) dating April 2003 (submitted to SAMUHA and PSMU). However, the current assignment was to assess the livelihood interventions by MUNJAVU, and in Kanakanala watershed livelihoods are as closely linked to water as to land, except for very few service providers. Thus any watershed development has an affect on peoples' livelihoods. Any water conflict holds negative consequences for the villagers. The first concern raised in this section is a hydro-geological, the second legal, the third socio-political and the fourth economical:

How long do the pumps deliver water? The third drought year raises fears of worse to come. Some bore wells have already gone dry. To the authors knowledge, a water balance calculating the water reserves, current water extractions and water recharge has not been attempted. Thus the question is not to be answered without doing some research. The farmers predict 2-3 years. One more difficulty is the spacing between bore wells. Natural laws are not respected (not to speak of state laws), which do not allow bore wells closer than a certain distance, which is definitely greater than in the present cases. Two adjacent bore wells have an effect on each other if they are too close. The aquifer can not feed all wells if minimal spacing is not respected. A local depletion occurs, leading to one or both wells going dry. It depends on the rock properties, how long it takes to find the equilibrium state to feed the wells again. If both farmers keep pumping, not enough water will come up. A Hydrogeologist can calculate the minimum space required between bore wells.

Can we replenish the groundwater? How long does that take? Again, only geological research could provide answers. Aquifers are rechargeable, the extraction is not irreversible, these are the good news. The bad news are that it takes time. Water harvesting structures as implemented by GoK / SAMUHA are active contributions to speed up recharge, but there are natural limits (precipitation amounts and soil / rock conditions) and equity issues (why would upstream dwellers want to recharge downstream bore wells?).
[note: the author is not suggesting these studies have to be initiated. The debate should be increased, that's all. Then, if such questions want to be answered, further assessments are unavoidable. Watershed development is difficult without scientific planning and analysis.

Each Indian state regulates water issues separately. There was a National Policy on groundwater formulated by the Union Government in the 70s, but very few states implemented their laws according to it. Legally it would be simple to regulate it, there are plenty of successful policies globally. But there seem to be social, political and economic reasons that prevent any progress. The main flaw in Indian groundwater policy is that it treats groundwater as private resource, as groundwater belongs to the landowner. Of course that does not make any sense. Why should this water be treated differently than river water or lake water? Why is groundwater not considered a common property resource? The answers can only be given by lawyers and politicians. The newspaper extract illustrates how effective state policy is.

Political economists predict what happens to such "open access regime" where anyone can draw from a resource which is shared by all. The "tragedy of the commons" has been described thoroughly. Our atmosphere (climate change due to greenhouse gases), our oceans (over-fishing) and our forests (degradation in Indian forests) could tell a tale. Which effect does a depletion of groundwater have? First of all, the farmers will have to shift back to dry land crops, which do not give sufficient income to repay the loans. The farmers enter into the debt spiral. The drinking water supply is cut off and has to be arranged with outside water transports.

Should the harvested water not be brought to the surface then, for the farmers' benefits? Yes it should, but taking equity and sustainability issues into consideration. Drilling bore wells as it happens brings short-term benefits to a handful of farmers and long-term tragedy for all. Water has to flow in the future too, for drinking and irrigation purpose. Benefits from tapping the groundwater resources have to be ensured for all, including the vulnerable groups, such as the landless who have no access to this water, since law does not grant it to them. Drinking water supply must be ensured. It can not be tolerated that intensive irrigation leads to thirst and dependency on an evolving water market, which unlikely takes equity into consideration.

It may certainly seem so. WOTR, a watershed development agency in Maharashtra, has tried to ban bore wells in one of their watersheds, but had little success due to a lack of state legislation (see Iyer, p. 339). SAMUHA has also discussed a similar approach, without success. Of course, the Indian or Karnataka Government could step up their efforts to find solutions, but as it is they won't. Another option as proposed by the World Bank is introducing a water market. Water as a tradable good with a market price should raise awareness about water's preciousness and regulate access, in the same way as food, for example. Both food and water are fundamental human rights after all, enshrined in the Indian Constitution. One is considered free of cost (water), the other a normal economic good. So why not treat water like milk or potatoes? The answer would be provided by this pot-bellied little boy: Because some people go hungry in a capitalistic market system. In the same way the market would not protect the same people from going thirsty. Dubash provides insight in such a water market, which evolved in Gujarat. Exploitation of groundwater led to drastic increases of agricultural productivity, created prosperity unequally, led to the emergence of water

markets and ultimately to a commercialisation of the village economies. Unfortunately this development had two side-effects: 1. The landless, small and marginal farmers were adversely affected and climbed down further in their economical and social scale. 2. An alarming depletion of the aquifer was observed (see reference list Dubash, or Iyer p. 106).

Garajenal is set to follow the same path, unless the issue is brought on the table soon. The very successes of watershed development (a recharged aquifer) are threatening to undermine the efforts and may increase the socio economic inequalities. Unequal distribution of benefits bear a high conflict potential. A local regime including various stakeholders would be required, with the ability to manage the water in a sustainable, equity-oriented manner. Local participation is a prerequisite, and the capacity of ISPWDK, SAMUHA and a future local governing body should be built in groundwater issues and common property management.

Already, in 1993, Reddy et.al (see reference) wrote: "The extensive exploitation of groundwater has resulted in scarcity of drinking water, declining groundwater levels, drying up of shallow open wells, reduced efficiency of pumps, increased power consumption, increased unit costs of wells and transgression of saline waters in the coastal areas. This situation highlights the urgent need for taking up steps to conserve precious groundwater through better management of available resources. The authors suggest promoting water harvesting structures in geologically favourable zones making use of remote sensing data and field information. […] The authors suggest the need to increase public education about the ill effects of excessive use of groundwater, without which all efforts for conservation and management will go to waste" (p.130/131).

It is emphasized here that SAMUHA can not be held responsible for such a development. First of all, it is a side-effect which was not foreseen. The farmers' economic rationale and adaptability was simply underestimated or miscalculated. The project design has not taken such a development into consideration. And second of all, if the law is so flawed and awareness so low, action can hardly be taken yet. Awareness and capacity building would be a starting option for now, before water for people and their animals becomes scarce [then action will be taken by locals, and that does not always happen peacefully, as plenty of examples elsewhere prove…]. In such a case, the project's aims and approaches have to be re-assessed and adapted.

Next>>