implemented. Often, water governance becomes a paradigm that must be developed
centrally. In other words, it becomes synonymous with policy making.
However, given the granular nature of the problem itself, setting down a centralized process of governance will only widen the divide between groundwater
management and governance. South Asia’s groundwater problem, for instance,
requires groundwater governance that deals with a clear integration of conjunctive
management of rain-surface water-groundwater, addressing the energy-irrigation
nexus, participatory groundwater recharge, conveying water through pipes rather
than channels, but most significantly dealing with externality (Shah 2009).
The paradox of pushing for participatory forms of groundwater management in
India while attempting to deal with governance through stringent instruments of
legislation represents a clear dichotomy between thinking on groundwater management and governance. Table 3 highlights the differential context of groundwater
management and governance and attempts to identify gaps that require a fresh
approach from the current paradigms of water governance, based on experiences on
PGWM by ACWADAM in Maharashtra (Aslekar et al. 2013; Rangan 2016).
Hence, the meaning and relevance of groundwater governance in India can be
culled out as the process that enables institutional support to help sustain
aquifer-based, decentralized participatory groundwater management bearing in
mind the objectives of efficiency, equity and sustainability.
While developing the framework for institutions around groundwater management and governance, one fundamental question that arises out of the current
dichotomy between groundwater management and governance is: ‘Why legislate if
people participate in the management of groundwater’? There are two fundamental
reasons for an institutional reform on groundwater in India, including a large
overhaul to legislation. But before getting to this point, it is important to answer the
question of why legislation, as part of the larger institutional reform, is necessary.
Firstly, the quantitative and qualitative change in the significance of groundwater
resources and the growing dependency of India’s population on these resources
requires an institutional overhaul, including major changes in water laws in India.
The regulatory framework governing groundwater has not been updated since the
nineteenth century and is based on a mistaken understanding of hydrogeology and
the present legal regime gives precedence to individual interests of landowners
precluding the basis for aquifer-wide protection measures (Cullet 2019).
A new paradigm to overcome the gaps between the practice of participatory
groundwater management and policies of water governance is to bring these two as
close to each other as possible. Rather than making governance the sole responsibility of governments, we need to craft a carefully designed architecture of
partnerships, where all primary stakeholders get deeply involved in the collective
endeavour of participatory water governance. Such partnerships are even more
relevant when we think about participatory groundwater governance because the
concept of command-and-control regulation and established institutions of governance become irrelevant when millions of users now control the usage of
groundwater. Rather than disciplining the users through formal processes of regulation, it is more sensible to gain their confidence through a variety of participative
Catalysing Groundwater Governance Through People’s …
13
centrally. In other words, it becomes synonymous with policy making.
However, given the granular nature of the problem itself, setting down a centralized process of governance will only widen the divide between groundwater
management and governance. South Asia’s groundwater problem, for instance,
requires groundwater governance that deals with a clear integration of conjunctive
management of rain-surface water-groundwater, addressing the energy-irrigation
nexus, participatory groundwater recharge, conveying water through pipes rather
than channels, but most significantly dealing with externality (Shah 2009).
The paradox of pushing for participatory forms of groundwater management in
India while attempting to deal with governance through stringent instruments of
legislation represents a clear dichotomy between thinking on groundwater management and governance. Table 3 highlights the differential context of groundwater
management and governance and attempts to identify gaps that require a fresh
approach from the current paradigms of water governance, based on experiences on
PGWM by ACWADAM in Maharashtra (Aslekar et al. 2013; Rangan 2016).
Hence, the meaning and relevance of groundwater governance in India can be
culled out as the process that enables institutional support to help sustain
aquifer-based, decentralized participatory groundwater management bearing in
mind the objectives of efficiency, equity and sustainability.
While developing the framework for institutions around groundwater management and governance, one fundamental question that arises out of the current
dichotomy between groundwater management and governance is: ‘Why legislate if
people participate in the management of groundwater’? There are two fundamental
reasons for an institutional reform on groundwater in India, including a large
overhaul to legislation. But before getting to this point, it is important to answer the
question of why legislation, as part of the larger institutional reform, is necessary.
Firstly, the quantitative and qualitative change in the significance of groundwater
resources and the growing dependency of India’s population on these resources
requires an institutional overhaul, including major changes in water laws in India.
The regulatory framework governing groundwater has not been updated since the
nineteenth century and is based on a mistaken understanding of hydrogeology and
the present legal regime gives precedence to individual interests of landowners
precluding the basis for aquifer-wide protection measures (Cullet 2019).
A new paradigm to overcome the gaps between the practice of participatory
groundwater management and policies of water governance is to bring these two as
close to each other as possible. Rather than making governance the sole responsibility of governments, we need to craft a carefully designed architecture of
partnerships, where all primary stakeholders get deeply involved in the collective
endeavour of participatory water governance. Such partnerships are even more
relevant when we think about participatory groundwater governance because the
concept of command-and-control regulation and established institutions of governance become irrelevant when millions of users now control the usage of
groundwater. Rather than disciplining the users through formal processes of regulation, it is more sensible to gain their confidence through a variety of participative
Catalysing Groundwater Governance Through People’s …
13