THE Punjab government moves, yet again, to deal with the perennial problem of irrigation water theft and improve its income from the water sale. It has amended Canal and Drainage Act in second week of February to exclude defaulting farmers from canal supplies.
A sub-committee for suggesting ways and means to deal with the festering problem and improve the overall system, has been formed. It comprises former departmental secretaries, technocrats and public representatives.
Punjab has regularly been taking such steps for the last three decades, only to lose to the farmers lobby mid-way. During this period the collection of water service charges has stayed within the vicinity of 30pc of the target and water theft cases have only multiplied.
No one can report the theft of irrigation water without risking social consequences. Local departmental officials, in most cases, are involved
In current season alone, over 40,000 theft cases were reported, the unreported numbers being much higher owing to a combination of local social influence, corruption and weak administration. The current loss of the department (the difference between its operational cost and income) stands at a staggering Rs7.7bn a year.
No one can report the theft without risking social consequences. Local departmental officials, in most cases, are involved. The Revenue Department, which collects water service charge, is perfunctory most of the time because the income goes to another department. What makes the matter worse is non-recovery of fines imposed on water thieves; it hardly crosses 2-3pc of total fines imposed every year. There is hardly any deterrent — administrative or legal — to stop stealing water. These factors provide the context of problem that the Punjab is planning to deal with, once again.
The remedies suggested by the government have traditionally been faulty and it seems to be operating from the same groove this time as well. Every time it plans to deal with the issues, a committee — consisting of bureaucrats, politicians and technocrats — is formed, as done this time as well.
As soon as the stage for recommendation arrives, the division in such committees become deeper and steeper; on the one hand are bureaucrats and technocrats suggesting harsher measures and an increase in the rate of abayana and, on the other hand, are politicians pressuring the government to go slow and soft. Probably, the fate of current sub-committee would not be any different because terms of reference are almost the same as was in the case of previously gatherings.
The problem with irrigation water cannot be dealt with as a standalone issue. The farmers can only be asked to pay more if two basic conditions are met: fully recovery of current charges and fair price for farmers’ produce.
There is a case of rates revision if this water cost is compared with alternative sources — diesel driven tubewells or pumping out with electricity. The current rate is dirt cheap; it costs only Rs2.5 per acre per week. But the government should also realise that its problems lie in the effective recovery, not the rates. If the department starts recovering the full amount, it can increase its income three times, according to experts.
Another issue is that under pressure from foreign lenders, the successive governments have loaded all other farm inputs with taxes, even when cost of outputs slumped in local and world markets, squeezing life earnings of the growers.
The only area where the governments have resisted lenders’ pressure was water, where it has kept the rate of Rs135 per acre, per year for the last 13 years. This rate is now under pressure. The government would only invite more trouble if it goes to increase water rates without taking care of the marketing side of the agricultural produce.
