Editor,
In the concluding part of her article “Water -The looming crises in Meghalaya”(ST 26th July 2013) Patricia Mukhim calls for tougher measures to protect our water resources after dwelling much on the indifferent and inconsiderate attitude of the different concerned agencies , traditional institutions and individuals to appreciate the value of this vital resource and I may also add for the lack of visions of our lawmakers to foresee the looming crisis of unimaginable proportion. The article seems to spell of frustration throughout. Some years back in my published article “Meghalaya Water Resources at Risk” I have pointed out that the efficient utilisation and management of water is the core issue in the State and not so much of water availability and have also indicated the directions, innovations and strategies for harnessing actions . Much water has flown under the bridge and the situation is worse today than it was a few years back. As an avid angler for close to four decades now, I have explored most of the rivers and streams in the State and it is really painful to see the deterioration of our rivers even deep in the interior areas in the last few years because of detrimental activities in the catchments for which I do not foresee an end in the near future. It appears that we have already started to destroy our future reserves of water while we continue to care less for our existing sources of supply. Over all this and in spite of a plethora of agencies dealing with water in the State , none has the specific mandate to protect our water resources . In as far as the District Councils are concerned, the less said the better as it appears that day by day they are far removed from their obligations to the people that they even go to the extent of selling our common property resources. No doubt there is no dearth of measures to protect our water resources and we can even introduce tougher ones if need be. The present Deputy Commissioner of West Jaintia Hills District recently banned stone quarrying which has been going on for many years close to the river Myntdu. A courageous step indeed! It remains to be seen as to whether his successor will do likewise. I have not seen any report of such a ban elsewhere or closer home, for example ,in areas around the Umtyngar stream. Nor have I heard of such action being taken in the coal mining areas . This therefore points to the lack of consistency in imposing the law and to sustain its force everywhere unless the Government takes a courageous decision to make it mandatory to impose such laws and to ensure their continuity for years to come. On the other side, the absolute right of individuals over the use of their private land would be tricky to dispute and there are always loopholes for litigation if disturbed. The prospect of many of our rivers suffering the same fate as that of the Umkhrah river in the near future therefore cannot be ruled out. The river Myntdu near Jowai will be the next casualty as up until now there does not seem to be any political will to seriously consider preserving it . The fact is that we can go on writing or have seminars, conferences and workshops on the issue but unless the people in authority seriously stop to ponder and has the vision on what lies ahead and boldly or courageously take steps in the right direction we are heading nowhere . Really frustrating for now!
Yours etc.,
K L Tariang,
Via email
Citizens’ Conference on environmental governance
Editor,
We attended the Citizen’s conference on Environmental Governance organized by ICARE on the 25th July at Pinewood Hotel where senior Officials of the Pollution Control Board, PHE, Forest Dept also attended and exchanged knowledge and ideas with the audience. The discussions revealed many things, the most important being lack of engagement between government and the stakeholder communities. The second was that the Single Window Agency headed by top politicians grants permission for setting up cement plants, ferro alloy industries etc., after which the concerned government departments and boards have to toe the line and give clearances. The third was about making coal mining a ‘no go’ zone (thanks to our ‘traditional rights’ which care two hoots about laws and general good).
A few contradictory statements were also made. The Forest Officials had explained that besides looking after Reserved Forests and Sanctuaries they were helping the District Councils in formulating Working Plans for managing their forests and the Social Forestry and Wildlife Sectors function mainly in community and private lands. However the Chief Minister stated in the press conference that the Department is only looking after 4% forest area. Which are these forests?
The Principal Secretary in charge of Mining then stated that the responsibility for Minor Minerals is of the Forest Department. Why is this extra responsibility not taken by the Mining Department to avoid unnecessary burden and a confusing overlap of responsibilities?
Will someone please clarify?
Yours etc.
K Lyngdoh and others,
Via email