said Agency shall also provide value added products and services to all stake
holders for its management and sustainable development.
It is, however, found with concern that position in respect of the availability of
consistent and reliable data through a single window is far from satisfactory. In this
regard, the observations of the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal are quite relevant
and are reproduced hereunder.
“1405. The experience of Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal is that there was no
single source for supply of necessary data required for assessment of water availability. On the basis of information provided by the States of Goa, Karnataka and
Maharashtra, the position in respect of source of related data is as under.
Observed gauge and discharge data.
a. Observed discharge data at Ganjim and Collem Gauging Stations for the period
from 1979 to 2012 by Central Water Commission
b. Observed discharge data at Khadki, Daucond, Kudchire and Paikul for varying
period from 2009 to 2013 by the Water Resources Department of the State of Goa
c. Observed discharge data at Chapoli for the period from 1985 to 1991 and from
2000 to 2013 by the Water Resources Department of the State of Karnataka
d. Observed discharge data at Virdi for the period from 1986 to 2004 and 2006 to
2011 by the Water Resources Department of the State of Maharashtra”.
The Tribunal has also noted that the data in respect of rainfall, sediment,
evaporation, infiltration, etc., was also not at all available through a “single window”. The Tribunal has, further, expressed serious concern about the consistency of
the data collected by various State Governments and made available to the Tribunal.
Relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced hereunder.
“1406. On examination of the data provided by the party States, the Tribunal found
serious issues relating to variations in the data of same station for the same period
reported in documents filed by two States, or reported in two different documents of
the same State, particularly in respect of rainfall data. Further, the Tribunal noticed
that consistency of the data was a serious issue. It was found by the Tribunal that
proper consistency checks were not carried out by any agency which led to varying
conclusions about the quality of data.”
The situation in respect of access to consistent water utilization data is more
precarious. No reliable data is available even in case of actual water use for agriculture from various sources from year to year. Very high degree of inconsistency
prevails in the information from different sources. Even the basic information about
irrigated area varies from one source to other, say, the irrigated area as per the
revenue record or the irrigated area as per the information available from Irrigation/
Water Resources Departments or the irrigated area assessed through remote sensing. Obviously, a lot more is required to be done to improve the position in respect
of availability of water-related information/data.
Data Usage for Development, Management of Water Resources
153
holders for its management and sustainable development.
It is, however, found with concern that position in respect of the availability of
consistent and reliable data through a single window is far from satisfactory. In this
regard, the observations of the Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal are quite relevant
and are reproduced hereunder.
“1405. The experience of Mahadayi Water Disputes Tribunal is that there was no
single source for supply of necessary data required for assessment of water availability. On the basis of information provided by the States of Goa, Karnataka and
Maharashtra, the position in respect of source of related data is as under.
Observed gauge and discharge data.
a. Observed discharge data at Ganjim and Collem Gauging Stations for the period
from 1979 to 2012 by Central Water Commission
b. Observed discharge data at Khadki, Daucond, Kudchire and Paikul for varying
period from 2009 to 2013 by the Water Resources Department of the State of Goa
c. Observed discharge data at Chapoli for the period from 1985 to 1991 and from
2000 to 2013 by the Water Resources Department of the State of Karnataka
d. Observed discharge data at Virdi for the period from 1986 to 2004 and 2006 to
2011 by the Water Resources Department of the State of Maharashtra”.
The Tribunal has also noted that the data in respect of rainfall, sediment,
evaporation, infiltration, etc., was also not at all available through a “single window”. The Tribunal has, further, expressed serious concern about the consistency of
the data collected by various State Governments and made available to the Tribunal.
Relevant observations of the Tribunal are reproduced hereunder.
“1406. On examination of the data provided by the party States, the Tribunal found
serious issues relating to variations in the data of same station for the same period
reported in documents filed by two States, or reported in two different documents of
the same State, particularly in respect of rainfall data. Further, the Tribunal noticed
that consistency of the data was a serious issue. It was found by the Tribunal that
proper consistency checks were not carried out by any agency which led to varying
conclusions about the quality of data.”
The situation in respect of access to consistent water utilization data is more
precarious. No reliable data is available even in case of actual water use for agriculture from various sources from year to year. Very high degree of inconsistency
prevails in the information from different sources. Even the basic information about
irrigated area varies from one source to other, say, the irrigated area as per the
revenue record or the irrigated area as per the information available from Irrigation/
Water Resources Departments or the irrigated area assessed through remote sensing. Obviously, a lot more is required to be done to improve the position in respect
of availability of water-related information/data.
Data Usage for Development, Management of Water Resources
153