Working Paper No. 147

AUGMENTING OR DIVIDING? SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE WATER SCARCE RIVER

BASIN OF SABARMATI

M. Dinesh Kumar, Vishwa Ballabh and Jayesh Talati

Institute of Rural Management Anand Post Box. No. 60, Anand, Gujarat (India)

Phones: (02692) 60 181, 60 186, 60246, 60 391, 61 502 Fax: 02692- 60 188. Email: corpas@fac.irm.ernet.in

Website:http://irma.irm.ernet.in

May 2000

List of Abbreviations AID Ahmedabad Irrigation Division AIPC Ahmedabad Irrigation Project Circle AMC Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation CAD Command Area Development CPCB Central Pollution Control Board Cusecs Cubic Feet per Second GOG Government of Gujarat GPIC Gandhinagar Panchayat Irrigation Circle HID Himmatnagar Irrigation Division HIPC Himmatnagar Irrigation Project Circle ICA Irrigable Command Area MCM Million Cubic Metre MI Minor Irrigation NWRWSD Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply

Department PIPC Palanpur Irrigation Project Circle

AUGMENTING OR DIVIDING?

SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE WATER SCARCE RIVER BASIN OF SABARMATI

M. Dinesh Kumar, Vishwa Ballabh and Jayesh Talati1

Abstract

The paper is based on a study of irrigation system governance in Sabarmati River Basin in Gujarat, Western India. The paper argues that the basin’s surface water resources had been grossly over-estimated due to lack of adequate scientific data on the dependable yields. Also, the basin’s storage and diversion schemes have been built to capture the “variable runoff”, having very low probability of occurrence. This has not only inflated the irrigation benefits from the schemes planned, but also led to increase in cost per unit volume of water captured and over-appropriation of the basin’s runoff, with major ecological and environmental consequences. The lack of basin approach to water development planning results in reallocation of the available water rather than adding to the aggregate supplies, leading to conflicts between the traditional users. The irrigation governance in Sabarmati basin is based on ad hoc and age-old norms, rather than hydrologic system considerations, making efficient planning and management an impossible task. Further, the co-ordination structure established to plan, build, operate and manage the irrigation schemes in the basin is not in congruence with the type of human relations and interactions demanded by the configuration of the existing physical systems, leading to sub-optimal utilisation of irrigation water. For efficient and optimum water allocation planning and water management, the authors suggest, the various levels in the organisational hierarchy need to be re-constituted on the basis of hydrologic units –rivers to rivers systems to sub-basins to basin. Further, the new governance structure should encourage co-ordination between operational units within and across levels in the organisational hierarchy, as demanded by the interaction existing between the physical/ hydraulic systems being managed by them.

1

AUGMENTING OR DIVIDING? SURFACE WATER MANAGEMENT IN THE WATER SCARCE RIVER BASIN OF

SABARMATI

1.0 INTRODUCTION The Sabarmati River basin, one of the inter-state river basins in Gujarat, has a total area of 21,085 sq. km. It is also one of the 18 major river basins in India. The total annual surface runoff in the basin is estimated to be 3.7 billion cubic metres (Chaturvedi 1976). The basin supports a population of 9.28 million people, 48.5 percent of which is in urban areas, and is the citadel of many economic activities. Its water resources are appropriated for irrigation, providing drinking water supplies for rural and urban areas and for industrial uses, while the in-stream uses of river flows as washing, bathing, sanitation, and effluent disposal are quite significant. Therefore, it plays an important role in the socio-economic development of the region. It is one of the water scarce basins in India and is characterised by a number of competing uses--rural domestic and irrigation, urban domestic and industrial (Ballabh and Singh 1997; Kumar et al. 1999). Surface water forms an important component of the basin’s fresh water, the most important source of which is the Sabarmati River system consisting of a trunk river, six main tributaries and several small sub-tributaries (GOG 1994). Demographic and other socio-economic trends such as growing population, mainly urban population, rapid industrialisation and expansion in irrigated agriculture are causing ever-increasing demand for fresh water, putting increasing pressure on the limited surface water resources in the basin along with groundwater (Ballabh and Singh 1997; Kumar et al. 1999). To cope with these demands, the basin’s runoff had been harnessed to the fullest extent through 2 major, 11 medium and many hundreds of small water harvesting structures, leading to over-appropriation of surface water. Increasing pollution of surface water bodies cause sharp reduction in the availability of freshwater in the basin. Excessive development of groundwater has led to falling groundwater levels, seasonal drops in water levels, and deterioration of groundwater quality, resulting in scarcity of groundwater in many areas in the basin. As demand continues to grow from competing use sectors, water scarcity is emerging as a major water management challenge in the basin (Kumar et al. 1999). Water resource development projects are presumably planned and implemented on the basis of scientific analysis of historical data of rainfall and runoff to arrive at the dependable yields. Often, planning is carried out in the absence of adequate data on the historical runoff and dependable yields. In some cases, the yield estimates are carried out for particular catchments within a basin, not considering the factors that affect the overall water availability within the water system.

2

The present paper is an attempt to study the consequences of such an approach on the overall water governance. The paper analyses the complex water systems of Sabarmati Basin and the historical runoff data for the sub-basins falling within. The paper also studies the governance system created for managing irrigation and water supplies in the basin, and analyses the irrigation and water supply performance of the systems. The paper argues that unscientific planning of reservoirs and diversion schemes led to inflated irrigation and economic benefits, enhancements in cost per unit volume of water. It also shows that piecemeal approach to water development leads to over-appropriation of the basin’s runoff and reallocation of available water in the basin, resulting in social and ecological crisis. The paper also shows that governance of irrigation systems is based on norms rather than hydrologic and hydraulic system considerations, making efficient planning an impossible task. Further, the co-ordination structure established to plan, build, operate and manage the irrigation schemes is not in congruence with the type of human relations and interactions demanded by the configuration of the physical systems.

2.0 WATER SYSTEMS IN SABARMATI RIVER BASIN 2

A map of Sabarmati River Basin, with sub-basins, is shown in Figure 1. The 419 km-long trunk-river Sabarmati, originating from the Aravalli hills of Rajasthan near the popular shrine of Amba Bhavani, with its 6 main tributaries namely Sei, Wakal, Harnav, Hathmati, Watrak and Bhogavo, several sub-tributaries and small rivers, constitute the surface water system of Sabarmati Basin. The first two tributaries namely Sei and Wakal join the main river before it enters Gujarat and is within the Rajasthan part of the Basin. The confluence point of Harnav River with the Sabarmati is located just upstream of the Dharoi Dam situated in village Dharoi of Kheralu taluka in Mehsana district of Gujarat State. Dhamni, one of the two east flowing rivers in Sabarmati Basin, merges with the river upstream of Dharoi dam. Hathmati tributary that joins the main river downstream of Dharoi dam has three sub-tributaries namely Hathmati, Indrasi and Guhai. This river system of Hathmati, Guhai, Indrasi and Khari constitute the Hathmati sub-basin. The Watrak tributary joins the main river a few kilometres downstream of Wasna barrage situated downstream of Ahmedabad City. It emerges out of the confluence of Shedhi, Watrak, Meshvo and Mazam. These four rivers constitute the Watrak river system and the sub-basin, which make the largest contribution to surface water flow in the basin. The River Bhogavo joins the trunk a few kilometres upstream of the river mouth. The basin has three sub-basins namely Dharoi, Hathmati and Watrak. The estimated runoff for the Dharoi sub-basin based on the historical rainfall data (1951-1991) and the rainfall-runoff relation established for the sub-basin are available from the Government of Gujarat. The actual runoff measured for the sub-basin upstream of Dharoi dam is also available. As per the records, the maximum runoff of 3677.38 MCM was observed during the year 1973, against an estimated runoff of 3946.86 MCM and a minimum of 58.8 MCM during 1987, against an estimated runoff of 15.88 MCM. This corresponds to the year with the maximum rainfall of 127.84 cm (1973) and a minimum rainfall of 14.77 cm in 1987 (GOG 1994). Figure 2 shows the graphic representation of the estimated and actual runoff with respect to time for Dharoi sub-basin.

3

4

In the case of Hathmati sub-basin, the estimated runoff based on the historical rainfall data (for the period from 1951 to 1991) and the rainfall-runoff relation established for the sub-basin are available. The maximum estimated annual runoff is 1812. 24 MCM for the year 1976 corresponding to the rainfall of 122.31 cm and minimum estimated annual runoff is 51.202 MCM for the year corresponding to the rainfall of 20.96 cm observed during the year 1987 (GOG 1994). Figure 3 shows the graphic representation of the estimated yield with respect to time for Dharoi sub-basin.

Several large, medium and small storage and diversion structures that cut across the big and small rivers and drainage lines make significant alterations in the natural flows in Sabarmati Basin. They are unique by virtue of the hydraulic interactions they establish between various rivers, and in a few instances between sub-basins. They make the water system of Sabarmati basin one of the most fascinating water systems for researchers dealing with governance of water systems as well as for hydrologists.

2.1 Water Systems on Sabarmati River

The Dharoi Reservoir scheme, the largest storage scheme in Sabarmati basin, is located in village Dharoi in Kheralu taluka of Mehsana district. The dam had an initial dead storage of 89.941 MCM and a live storage of 775.89 MCM. Water was first released for drinking in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar in 1976 and irrigation in 1980. The reservoir was planned to provide irrigation to a total command of 45,548 ha in Mehsana district and 11,130 ha in

Figure 3 Total Estimated Dependable Yield of Hatmati Sub Basin in MCM

0

500

1000

1500

2000

1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990

F ig u r e 2 E s t im a te d a n d O b s e r v e d R u n o f fo f D h a r o i S u b B a s in in M C M

05 0 0

1 0 0 01 5 0 02 0 0 02 5 0 03 0 0 03 5 0 04 0 0 04 5 0 0

1 9 5 0 1 9 5 5 1 9 6 0 1 9 6 5 1 9 7 0 1 9 7 5 1 9 8 0 1 9 8 5 1 9 9 0

T o ta l a n n u a l r u n o f f T o ta l o b s e r v e d ru n o f f

5

Sabarkantha district, and provide water to Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar at a rate of 150 mgd and 11 mgd respectively for municipal water supplies and power generation. The Fatehwadi irrigation project involved the construction of a barrage at Wasna and a feeder canal for feeding water to the already existing canal system. The Wasna barrage was meant to divert the runoff available in the free catchment of the basin starting from Dharoi dam and the excess runoff released from the dam. Another source of water for the Fatehwadi canal system is the urban sewage from Ahmedabad City, estimated to be around 330 thousand cubic metres daily. During the kharif season, a mix of river runoff and the effluents make up for the supplementary irrigation requirements, while in the winter season, the effluent alone is used to meet the crop water requirements.

2.2 Harnav Water System The river system of Harnav has one medium dam (known as Harnav Phase II) and three weirs. Two of the weirs were constructed during the pre-independence period by the former princely state and are located downstream of Harnav dam. The third weir, Chhapra weir, was built in 1958. The Harnav dam was built upstream of Chhapra weir in the year 1988. The water released from the Harnav dam is used to meet the water requirement of the 3 weirs. The spill over from the weirs enters the Dharoi reservoir as inflow.

2.3 Hathmati Reservoir System The Hathmati reservoir project on the Hathmati river system has three medium dams, namely, Hathmati, Indrasi and Guhai and a pick-up weir. The Hathmati reservoir has a live storage of 149.02 MCM and dead storage of 3.51 MCM. The Indrasi dam, located on the Indrasi River has live storage and dead storage of 0.39 MCM and 18.8 MCM respectively. The Hathmati canal system is one of the oldest irrigation systems in Gujarat. It has four zones A, B, C and D. The zone A of the command area receives water from the main canal off-taking from the Hathmati dam. An escape has been provided in the Hathmati main canal to release water from the reservoir in to the Hathmati River. The Himmatnagar (Hathmati) pick-up weir would pick up this water for releasing to zone B, C and D. The Zone B receives water through the main canal off-taking from the Hathmati weir. During floods, water is released in zone B canal, which is diverted and stored in Limli reservoir-- through “Bokh” feeder canal off-taking from zone B canal —and Karol reservoir—through Hathmati main canal and Karol feeder. The stored water in the dams is released in Khari River. Water is also released from the Hathmati zone B canal into the Khari River through an escape canal, “Bhujwa”. The Raipur weir picks up the water for irrigation in zone D under the Kharicut canal system. Guhai dam, the most recently built dam in the Hathmati system, is located upstream of the Himmatnagar pick-up weir on the Guhai River.

6

2.4 Kharicut Canal System The Kharicut canal system, started in 1880 with the construction of a weir on the Khari River in Raipur village of Ahmedabad, is one of the oldest irrigation schemes in Gujarat. In the earlier days, flows in the Khari River were sufficient to divert for irrigation of the large tracts of paddy fields. But, after the construction of Limli and Karol dams in the upstream, water had to be released from the Hathmati and Indrasi reservoirs to maintain kharif irrigation in Kharicut command. 2.5 Irrigation Projects in Watrak River System The reservoir projects in the Watrak river system are Waidy, Meshvo, Mazam, Waidy and Watrak. The only river diversion project is the Meshvo Canal System. The Watrak reservoir scheme, located on Watrak River, is the oldest of all. The dead storage and live storage capacities of the reservoir are 8.49 MCM and 134.25 MCM respectively. The project envisaged bringing an area of 16,874 ha in Bayad and Malpur talukas of Sabarkantha district and Kapadvanj taluka of Kheda district under irrigation. The Meshvo canal system, older than Meshvo reservoir project, is a river diversion scheme consisting of a pick-up weir located at a village named Raska in Memdabad taluka of Kheda district and a canal system. The canal system helps in irrigating the areas under the direct command of 10,320 ha and feeding water to the several existing storage tanks located in the command areas during floods. The tanks have a total capacity of 15.64 MCM and could irrigate a total area of 2928 ha. The storage is helpful in reducing the service area under direct command during lean flow periods. Meshvo reservoir scheme is located on Meshvo River, a tributary of the Watrak River. The dead storage and live storage of the dam are 4.87 MCM and 77.20 MCM respectively. Situated on the upstream of the Raska pick-up weir, the Meshvo reservoir has a command area of 7972 ha. The Mazam irrigation scheme is located on Mazam River, a tributary of Watrak River. The dam had a dead storage of 3.37 MCM and a live storage of 34.76 MCM respectively. The reservoir project has a cultivable command area of 4717 ha. The Waidy reservoir scheme is situated on Waidy River, a tributary of Watrak River, near village Bhempur in Meghraj taluka of Sabarkantha district. The dead storage and live storage of the reservoir are 1.33 MCM and 12.27 MCM respectively.

3.0 GOVERNANCE OF WATER SUPPLY SYSTEMS IN SABARMATI BASIN

3.1 Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department The Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department (NWRWSD) is concerned with survey, planning, investigation and development of water resources in the State of Gujarat. The department’s mandate is to create irrigation facilities for the development of agriculture in the State, provide drainage facilities in the command areas, irrigation

7

governance and creating drinking water supply facilities for thousands of villages and several hundreds of towns based around water from Sardar Sarovar project. The department has 4 corporations: 1) Sardar Sarovar Project, Narmada Corporation, headed by Secretary; 2) Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation; 3) Command Area Development Commission for Ukai-Kakrapar, headed by a Commissioner; and, 4) Command Area Development for Kadana, headed by a Commissioner. The NWRWSD has 33 circles of which two are Water Resources Investigation Circles (WRICs) dealing with survey and investigation of water resources in the state. They are the Ahmedabad Water Resources Investigation Circle and the Rajkot Water Resources Investigation Circle. The Ahmedabad Water Resources Investigation Circle carries out survey, investigation and preparation of preliminary report for large, medium and minor level irrigation projects of 12 districts, namely, Ahmedabad, Baroda, Valsad, Dang, Surat, Bharuch, Kheda, Panchmahal, Sabarkantha, Banaskantha, Gandhinagar and Mehsana. It is headed by a Superintending Engineer and has 8 divisions and 33 sub-divisions. The NWRWSD is the largest State government agency in Gujarat with technical staff strength of more than 12,000 persons.

3.2 The Organisational Structure and Governance System Focusing on irrigation management requires one to view irrigation management not only as a socio-technical enterprise, but also as organisational or managerial one. It is important to know what are the human relationships associated with management of irrigation systems. The socio-technical system sets new constraints as well as opportunities in water management (Uphoff et al. 1991). Since there is an explicit relationship between organisational structure and functions, it is important to analyse the organisational structure, its composition and functioning before one looks at the performance of the irrigation bureaucracy. Whereas structure does not guarantee performance, inappropriate structure is a virtual guarantee for sub-standard performance (Hunter District Water Board 1982:24) The organisation has a pyramid-like structure created by a multi-layer hierarchy of officials with powers and responsibilities reducing from top to bottom. The head office is at the State capital, Gandhinagar. The senior technical officers, including the Secretary and the Chief Engineers, operate from the head office. Under the head office, there are circle offices, which are headed by and under the direct supervision of a Superintending Engineer. Normally, there is one circle office functioning under a Chief Engineer, while in a few cases there are two. Normally, there are 3-4 divisions under each circle office and each division is headed by an Executive Engineer. Each division has normally 60,000-100,000 ha of command under its jurisdiction. Functionally, there are two types of divisional offices. The first one looks after the construction of head works and canals and is known as Project Headwork Division. The second type looks after irrigation management and is known as Irrigation Project Division. The total command area of the irrigation schemes, including those which are being executed and managed by the circle office, would determine the number of divisions functioning under it.

8

Under each division, there are 5-6 sub-divisions. Depending on the stage of implementation of schemes, different sub-divisional offices can be looking after different types of functions such as headwork, network, quality control, canal systems and irrigation management. As per the norms of the department, there should be one sub-divisional office to deal with irrigation management aspects alone, for a total design command of 15,000-20,000 ha. Due to this reason, many a time, there is more than one sub-divisional office dealing with one irrigation system, depending upon the total Irrigable Command Area (ICA) under the system. Again, as per the norms, each division should be handling around 1lakh hectares of irrigation command. The sub-divisional offices are directly concerned with execution of irrigation projects, irrigation system governance and water management and therefore are the backbone of the department. A Deputy Executive Engineer heads the sub-divisional office. The Deputy Executive Engineer with the technical support of other staff including Section Officers (in the rank of Assistant Engineer), and Beat Karkuns (Work Assistants) perform the day to day affairs of the sub-division. Next in the hierarchy after a Deputy Executive Engineer is a Section Officer, who is in charge of a command of 4000-5000 ha. There are Beat Karkuns under each Section Officer and Chaukidars (Beat Guards) work under them. According to the department norms, there shall be 84 staff in each sub-division, which looks after the irrigation management functions for a total designated command area of 15,000 ha. There are a total of 8 levels in the organisational hierarchy starting from Secretary to Chief Engineer, Superintending Engineer, Executive Engineer, Deputy Executive Engineer, Section Officer, Beat Karkun to Chaukidar. The job responsibilities of both office functionaries (Secretary to Deputy Executive Engineer) and field functionaries (starting from Section Officer to Chaukidar) are clearly defined. The minimum qualification for all positions from Secretary to Deputy Executive Engineer is a graduation in Civil Engineering. A Section Officer is either a degree or diploma holder in Civil Engineering. A degree holder in any discipline is eligible for the post of Beat Karkun (source: Gulati, undated). The irrigation management in Gujarat is governed by the Bombay Irrigation Act, 1879 and Gujarat Canal Rule, 1962 as amended from time to time. The distribution system is Shejpali, which is basically a demand based supply system in which each irrigator has to apply to the irrigation agency before the beginning of each season. The Section Officer receives the applications from the farmers through the Beat Karkun. Sanction of application for irrigation is conveyed to the farmer by the Section Officer through the Beat Karkun in the form of an irrigation pass. Every time the farmer avails off irrigation, he/she has to obtain the signature of the Chaukidar in the irrigation pass and similarly he has to sign in the duplicate copy of the irrigation pass kept with the beat guard (source: Gulati, undated). The financial powers vested with different levels are as follows. The Secretary and Chief Engineers have powers to sanction funds for scheme costing more than 15 lac rupees. The Superintending Engineer sanctions funds for schemes costing above 5 lacs and up to 15 lacs. The Executive Engineer can sanction works costing 0.50-5.0 lac rupees. The Deputy Executive Engineer has power to sanction works costing up to 50,000 rupees. Thus, the lowest office in the organisational hierarchy has the least financial powers, while the key

9

financial powers are vested with the senior most officials such as Secretary and Chief Engineers. The Deputy Executive Engineers are, nevertheless, vested with powers to carry out repairs and maintenance depending on the availability of grants. The Administrative powers related transfer of technical staff is only vested with Secretary, while the powers for recruitment of all technical and non-technical staff, including the ad hoc and temporary staff are vested with the government. It is important to note here that the transfer of all technical and non-technical staff in the department is subject to political interference.

4.0 IRRIGATION GOVERNANCE IN SABARMATI BASIN Irrigation governance broadly refers to planning, building, operation and maintenance of irrigation infrastructure starting from storage and diversion head works to distribution systems up to the outlet level; water allocation planning; water distribution; preparation of schedules for water release to individual farmers; water delivery services; recovery of water charges; and resolving conflicts and disputes related to water releases (Uphoff et al. 1991). The total number of major and medium irrigation schemes in the basin is 13 and the design command area of all these systems put together comes to 1,72,538 ha. The Circle-wise break up of technical and non-technical staff in the department is given in the Table below.

Table 1: Circle-wise Staffing Pattern for Sabarmati River Basin

Name of Circle Technical Staff (Approved/ Filled)

Non-technical Staff (Approved/Filled)

Total Staff (Approved/Filled)

PIPC GPIC HIPC AIPC

351/N.A 331/223 181/175 216/314

272/N.A 363/261 227/222 239/225

623/N.A 694/484 408/397 455/539

The total staff strength of the department covering all the circles, divisions and sub-divisions looking after the irrigation schemes in the Basin is estimated to be around 2000.

4.1 Governance Structure The governance structure for the irrigation systems falling under the Sabarmati basin is as follows. There are 3 chief engineers, who are responsible for the irrigation and water supply schemes in Sabarmati River Basin, Chief Engineer -Command Area Development, Chief Engineer-Irrigation Projects and Chief Engineer-Minor Irrigation. There are 4 irrigation project circles under the jurisdiction of these 3 Chief Engineers and directly concerned with the schemes in Sabarmati Basin. They are Ahmedabad Irrigation Project Circle (AIPC), Himmatnagar Irrigation Project Circle (HIPC), Palanpur Irrigation Project Circle (PIPC) and Gandhinagar Panchayat Irrigation Project Circle (GPIC).

10

The AIPC is under the Jurisdiction of the Chief Engineer –Command Area Development. The Chief Engineer- Irrigation Projects has two Project Circles namely HIPC and PIPC under his jurisdiction. The GPIC is under the jurisdiction of Chief Engineer-Minor Irrigation. The governance structure below the Circle Level is discussed in the following section. 4.1.1 Ahmedabad Irrigation Project Circle (AIPC) The AIPC has 2 divisions concerned with the Sabarmati Basin: Ahmedabad Irrigation Division (AID) and Himmatnagar Irrigation Division (HID). The Ahmedabad Irrigation Division has 7 subdivisions. Of these, the Ahmedabad Irrigation Subdivision looks after Hathmati Zone- D command area, and the Sanand Irrigation Subdivision looks after nearly 40 percent of Fatehwadi Command. The Bavla Irrigation Sub-division looks after the rest of Fatehwadi command. The Bareja Irrigation Subdivision looks after Meshvo Canal System command. The HID has 4 sub-divisions. Of these, the Himmatnagar Irrigation Subdivision looks after Hathmati Zone- A and Harnav Stage I. The Prantij Irrigation Subdivision looks after Hathmati Zone B and C of command areas. The Modasa Irrigation Subdivision looks after Meshvo and Waidy commands. The Dharoi Irrigation Subdivision looks after Dharoi Left Bank Canal commands. 4.1.2 Himmatnagar Irrigation Projects Circle (HIPC) The HIPC has four completed schemes under it, namely, Watrak, Guhai, Harnav and Mazam. In addition, there are 5 ongoing schemes, namely, Khedva, Lank, Varanasi, Pal and Rolla. The HIPC has four divisions under its jurisdiction, these are Project Construction Division-1 & 3, both located in Himmatnagar, and Irrigation Project Division and Watrak Project Canal Division at Modasa. The Project Construction Division-1 at Himmatnagar has five sub-divisions. All the five are engaged in construction on the ongoing schemes. Project Construction Division No.3, Himmatnagar also has 5 sub-divisions. Of these five, Harnav Sub-division –2 looks after the irrigation management of Harnav Stage II command. The Irrigation Projects Division has 6 sub-divisions each. Of these, Mazam Subdivision-4 looks after irrigation management under Mazam project. The Watrak Subdivision–11, looks after irrigation management under Watrak Right Bank Canal. Of the 6 sub-divisions of Watrak project Canal Division, Watrak Canal Subdivision–2 looks after irrigation management in the Watrak Left Bank Canal command areas. 4.1.3 Gandhinagar Panchayat Irrigation Circle (GPIC) The GPIC is concerned with all minor irrigation and recharge schemes falling within the Sabarmati Basin. It has 3 divisions known as Panchayat Irrigation Divisions, at Palanpur, Ahmedabad and Himmatnagar. The Palanpur Panchayat Irrigation Division has only one sub-division named Minor Irrigation Construction Sub-division, which looks after the MI

11

schemes. The Ahmedabad Panchayat Irrigation Division has three sub-divisions: Check dams sub-division located at Ahmedabad, Panchayat Irrigation Sub-division at Dholka, and Panchayat Irrigation Sub-division at Gandhinagar. The Himmatnagar Panchayat Irrigation Division has 6 sub-divisions located in Himmatnagar, Idar, Modasa, Prantij, Khedabrahma and Bhiloda. Table 2 shows the total number of MI schemes under GPIC in the districts of Sabarkantha, Ahmedabad and Banaskantha.

Table 2: The MI schemes under Panchayat Irrigation Circle in 3 Districts

Name of District

Existing Schemes Ongoing Schemes Number Ultimate Irrigation

Potential (Ha)3 Number Ultimate Irrigation

Potential (Ha) Ahmedabad Sabarkantha Banaskantha

108 626 252

7057.00 18631.00 11725.00

7 117 37

120.00 1040.00 1067.00

As Table 2 indicates, the largest number of MI schemes (626) are in Sabarkantha district and all these fall in the Sabarmati River Basin being the fact that 98 percent of the district’s geographical area falls in the basin area. Since only 27 percent of Ahmedabad district and 6.77 percent of Banaskantha district fall in the basin, we can safely assume that the number of MI schemes from that district falling in the basin is quite insignificant. Though almost the entire area of Gandhinagar falls in the Sabarmati Basin, there are no MI schemes in the district. 4.1.4 Palanpur Irrigation Project Circle (PIPC) The PIPC looks after the head-works, and irrigation management in Right Bank Canal command of Dharoi scheme. There are 3 divisions under the PIPC: Dharoi head-works division, Dharoi Canal Division No.2, and Dharoi Canal Division No.3. The sub-divisions of Dharoi Canal Division No.2 and 3 look after the Right Bank Canal commands of Dharoi scheme. To summarise, putting all the four Circles together, there are 13 Divisions and 60 Sub-divisions of the NWRWSD directly concerned about the irrigation, water supply and water harvesting systems in the Sabarmati River Basin.

4.2 Water Allocation Normally, the concerned Superintending Engineer takes all decisions related to allocation of water from irrigation schemes. However, for schemes that have committed to supplying drinking water to cities and towns, the allocation decisions are taken at the higher level and the concerned Chief Engineer or the Secretary are involved due to the politically sensitive nature of the decisions. But, often such decisions also come under severe scrutiny by the people’s representatives, and the political leaders of the regions concerned. In the Sabarmati basin, 3 of the irrigation schemes are also committed to provision of urban water supplies. While the Dharoi reservoir has to reserve water for Ahmedabad City, Watrak and Mazam schemes are committed to supplying water for Kapadvanj town and Modasa town

12

respectively. In the years of poor rainfall and droughts, water allocation decisions for all the irrigation schemes are left to ministerial levels and are subject to strong political interference. 4.3 Command Area Development The slow pace of utilisation of irrigation potential created with the general lack of preparedness on the part of farmers and official agencies to ensure optimal use of available water, led to the Irrigation Commission ((1972) to recommend the formation of Command Area Development (CAD) Authority (Varghese 1990). The authority came into existence in 1974-75. The CAD Authority is charged with operation and maintenance of canal system below the 1-cusec outlet commanding 40 hectares of irrigated land; on-farm development such as construction and maintenance of field channels, field drains and farm roads; land shaping and consolidation; organising warabandi or rotational water supply; devising suitable cropping patterns with adaptive trials; developing groundwater; marketing and processing facilities for agricultural produce; soil conservation; and planning market centres. The extent to which irrigation management objectives can be realised, therefore, depends on the success in implementing CAD programmes, once the scheme is completed. Funding for command area development programme is through State and Central Contributions and institutional financing. Currently, there is only one Chief Engineer to look after the CAD programmes in the Sabarmati Basin. Many irrigation schemes, in spite of being completed, are still not turned over to the CAD Authority. There are only four irrigation command areas that are under the jurisdiction of the CAD Authority namely Dharoi Left Bank Command, Fatehwadi Commands, Meshvo Canal System Command, and Hathmati Command. The rest of the commands are not able to take the advantage of funds earmarked for CAD programme by the State and the Centre. Though, at the conceptual level, the programme has very broad objectives, it is reduced to field channel construction at the field level. Further, the overall progress in CAD programme has been very poor. Out of the total irrigation command of 1,78,000 ha in Sabarmati basin, the programme has so far covered only 3,082 ha (source: GOG 2000).

4.5 Irrigation Performance One of the indicators of the performance of the irrigation systems is the actual area served by the systems. Hence, the key variables needed are the actual irrigated area and the design command area. The variable termed Irrigated Area Ratio4 can be used to express the performance of the irrigation systems (Pitana 1991) which also reflects upon the performance of the irrigation department. The actual irrigated area in a particular year is a function of the rainfall in the catchments and therefore, the irrigation performance is a function of time and space, other factors remaining constant. The irrigation performance can, thus, vary from scheme to scheme within the same year and can also vary from year to year for the same scheme. Here, the irrigation performance of all the schemes falling within the Sabarmati Basin is studied for a single year (1996-97). This is sufficient to capture the spatial variations in the rainfall across the basin. Table 3 indicates that for most of the reservoir and canal

13

diversion schemes, the actual area irrigated is much less than the design command area, which ranges from 0.14 to 0.89 percent (for one scheme).

Table 3 Design Command Area, Actual Irrigated Area and Irrigated Area Ratio

Name of project Design Command Area (Ha)

Irrigated Command Area (1996-97) (Ha)

Irrigated Area Ratio

Dharoi 56678 9469 0.167 Watrak 18341 7801 0.43 Mazam 4717 3334 0.71 Guhai 7111 4030 0.57 Harnav Stage-II 3440 213 0.62 Fatehwadi Canal System 33600 30060 0.89 Hathmati dam 5666 3319 0.195 Hathmati weir 11334 Kharicut canal 10200 1455 0.14 Meshvo Dam 7972 11353 0.62 Meshvo Canal System 10320 Harnav stage-I 1923 981 0.51 Waidy 1236 635 0.51 Total 172538 72650 0.42 In order to capture the effect of the inter-annual variability in rainfalls and runoff on irrigation water supplies, historical data on irrigation are analysed for two schemes namely Dharoi and Hathmati. 4.5.1 Historical Performance of Hathmati Reservoir and Canal System Table 4 provides the historical data on actual irrigated area and irrigated area ratio for the Hathmati reservoir and diversion systems. The design command area was 17,000 ha till 1979. In 1980, it was increased to 27,200 ha. Table 4 Design Command Area, Gross Irrigated Area and Irrigated Area Ratio Year Gross Irrigated Area in

Zone A, B, C and D (Ha)

Irrigated Area Ratio

1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979

2883 6911 1888 1676 6935 8764 5063 2356

0.170 0.407 0.110 0.091 0.408 0.516 0.298 0.139

14

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998

10833 10302 10002 15509 15322 326 232 0

7760 1889 6745 8686 2423 6321 9161 3289 3593 6085 3210

0.398 0.379 0.368 0.570 0.563 0.012 0.009 0.000 0.285 0.069 0.248 0.319 0.143 0.372 0.539 0.193 0.211 0.358 0.189

4.5.2 Historical Performance of Dharoi Reservoir Project Table 5 provides the data regarding the area irrigated under the Right Bank Main Canal (RBMC) and Left Bank Main Canal (LBMC) of Dharoi reservoir project. The design command of RBMC in Mehsana and LBMC in Sabarkantha districts were 45,548 ha and 11,130 ha respectively. Out of 21 years of operation, the full design command area could be irrigated only in three years (1993, 1994 and 1995) in the RBMC command and two years (1989 and 1993) in the LBMC (Puri and Vermani 1997). But, it was expected at the time of planning of the irrigation scheme that the full design command could be irrigated in 3 out of every 4 years.

15

Table 5 Area Irrigated by RBMC and LBMC of Dharoi Reservoir Scheme

Year

Area Irrigated by the RBMC (Ha)

Area Irrigated By the LBMC (Ha)

1976 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996

0 0 0

294 1097 3586 2255 15360 30046 34001 12593

0 6681 27822 16781 40957 43817 51684 45254 49034 3657

0 0 0

629 581 1013 4256 9188 12131 8966 2773

0 3641 11206 5439 10261 10285 12931 9944 7267 1906

Source: Dharoi Project Works, Irrigation Department, Government of Gujarat. One of the reasons for the low irrigation performance has been in the gradual increase in water allocation for Ahmedabad. The historical data shows that the volumetric release of water for Ahmedabad steadily went up from 148.145 MCM in 1971-72 to 225.56 MCM in 1996-97 (Puri and Vermani 1997). From 1976-77 to 1996-97, water allocation for urban uses varied from year to year from a minimum of 7 per cent to 100 per cent of the water stored in the reservoir. In the drought years of 1986-87 and 1987-88, almost all the water stored in the reservoir was allocated to the urban centres of Gandhinagar and Ahmedabad (Shunmugam and Ballabh 1998).

5.0 ISSUES IN IRRIGATION GOVERNANCE IN SABARMATI BASIN

5.1 Poor System Efficiencies Water supplies for irrigation and drinking from the surface water reserves in the Sabarmati River Basin are managed through a complex network of reservoirs, canals and natural drainage lines such as rivers, as evident from the description of the natural and artificial water supply systems in the Basin. Due to the complex network, the system losses are enormously high. This ultimately affects the irrigation performance.

16

Water for municipal uses in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar and for thermal power stations in the two cities is released from Dharoi reservoir. This water traverses a distance of 165 km along the riverbed. Only 40 percent of the water is available for pumping through the French wells established in the riverbed. The remaining water is lost in conveyance to the system through infiltration, percolation, evaporation, and due to pilferage. The total loss in conveyance is estimated to be around 60 percent. If the storage in the reservoir is below 585 MCM, the entire water is reserved for water supplies for municipal use in Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar and no water is released for irrigation.

The excess water from the Hathmati dam enters the river downstream through an escape provided in the Hathmati main canal. The Himmatnagar (Hathmati) pick-up weir would pick up this water for releasing to zone B, C and D. The excess water in Hathmati weir is stored in Limli and Karol dams to be used later to meet the irrigation demands of zone B, C and D. Nowadays, water is directly released from the Hathmati main canal into the Khari River through two escape channels provided in the main canal. It is found that in order to maintain a supply level of just 250 Cusecs in the Kharicut canal system for irrigating Hathmati zone D, a minimum flow of 800 Cusecs needs to be maintained in the main canal off-taking from Hathmati dam. This means that the system loss is to the tune of 70 percent or more.

Kalambandhi villages in Matar taluka of Kheda district used to divert water from the Khari River for irrigation. After the construction of two dams in the upstream, Meshvo River became the source of irrigation water for the Khari River. With the construction of Meshvo dam, irrigation water supply for Kalambandhi is being managed from Mahisagar reservoir on Mahi River, outside the Sabarmati River Basin. The losses in conveyance are again huge.

5.2 Weak Scientific Basis for Planning Irrigation Schemes An important hydrological feature of the Sabarmati River Basin is the very high inter-annual variability in the rainfall. Hence, realistic estimate of dependable flow is essential for planning sustainable water use in the basin. But, comparative analyses of the historical runoff and the runoff data used for planning irrigation schemes in the basin shows that the estimates of dependable runoff are inflated and that many of the storage and diversion projects of the basin have been designed to capture the variable runoff. An important issue emerging from the analysis is the gross inadequacy of the data used for planning the schemes, which had major bearing on the overall performance of the schemes. For instance, the Dharoi reservoir (1972) provided a live storage of 775.89 MCM. According to the water allocation plan, a design command area of 56,678 ha was to be served with 75 percent dependability. The volume of water needed for this is 472 MCM. The reservoir was also to supply water to the cities of Ahmedabad and Gandhinagar for drinking and to the thermal power stations with 98 percent dependability at a rate of 161 gallons per day. The volume of water required for this is 220 MCM. Therefore, the actual reservoir storage required to realise the planning objectives is 782 MCM, including a dead storage of 90 MCM, with a dependability of 75 percent. According to the 1969 estimates of the Central Water Commission, the runoff available at Dharoi in Sabarmati River with 75 percent dependability is 359 MCM (GOG 1994). This

17

means that in 3 out of every 4 years, the storage in the dam can assure a minimum level of 30 percent of the planned allocation for irrigation against 100 percent, if 220 MCM of water is to be supplied for drinking almost every year. Therefore, even according to the 1969 estimates of dependable runoff in Dharoi sub-basin, the storage and distribution systems of the scheme were built for over capacity. Now in order to have a deeper understanding of the issue, we need to look at the historical runoff at Dharoi dam site. According to the historical data of runoff for the period from 1951 to 1991, the portion of the runoff corresponding to 75 percent dependability, which is allowable to Gujarat from Dharoi sub-basin, is only 262.39 MCM (GOG 1994). This is far less than 359 MCM estimated in 1969. Now, more than 359 MCM of runoff (allowable to Gujarat) occurred in 25 out of the 41 years and therefore the actual dependability is 61 percent. This means, there has been a gross over-assessment of the surface flows in the Dharoi sub-basin due to inadequate runoff data. Further, more than 782 MCM runoff, essential to meet the irrigation and water supply obligations, was obtained only in 13 out of the 42 years (31 percent of the years). This shows the extent of over-designing of the irrigation system. Similar planning flaws are found in the case of many other schemes. For instance, the Wasna barrage (1978) was meant to capture the surplus flows from Dharoi reservoir during floods and the runoff available in the free catchment below the Dharoi, Vekri, and Hathmati weir and up to the Wasna barrage. In 1976, the Central Water Commission estimated the dependable runoff in the free catchment on the basis of a 17-year rainfall record (since 1959) as 189.96 MCM. The yield estimates for the Hathmati sub-basin-- based on the rainfall-runoff relationship established at Hathmati dam site using a 41-year record in 1991 (GOG 1994)-- show that the dependable yield of the sub-basin is 272.18 MCM. Since there is no spillover from the Hathmati weir into the river and no water is released into Sabarmati from the Dharoi reservoir in normal years, the water for Fatehwadi command has to come from the free catchment. The dependable yield (runoff) in the 3494 sq. km. free catchment is only 168 MCM, indicating over-estimation at the time of planning. Now, the canal had been built to irrigate an area of 30,000 ha in Fatehwadi command, and was designed for a capacity of 28.60 cumecs. At the time of planning, it was assumed that the flow in the river would be sufficient to run the canal full for 3 and a half weeks and half during the rest of the monsoon period (GOG 1994). Looking at the design command and the canal capacity, it appears that a minimum flow of 262 MCM was anticipated. Now, a minimum flow of 44 MCM needs to be maintained in the riverbed during the Months of August and September, for pumping for Municipal water supplies in Ahmedabad. Hence, a total flow of 306 MCM is required to be maintained in the river. The probability of occurrence of this runoff is just 58 percent. In 42 out of hundred years, the river flow will be less than sufficient to meet the irrigation needs and no water could be allowed to flow in the downstream of Wasna barrage in those years. Maintaining flows downstream of the barrage will be very essential to flush out the effluents disposed by industries and the urban population. But, the pressure on the department has been mounting to increase the allocation of water for irrigation in the Fatehwadi command area. Due to this reason, virtually no water

18

flows into the river downstream of Wasna barrage. This has major ecological and environmental consequences. In the ultimate analysis, it appears that the storage schemes in the basin were designed for “variable flows”, which had very low probability of occurrence leading to over-appropriation of the basin’s water during years of normal and below normal rainfall. This has major social and ecological consequences as some water is needed to meet the in-stream uses of water such as washing, bathing and sanitation by the communities living on the fringes and for ecosystem management. This also raises two other important issues. The first is of designing a system for the low dependability runoff as it has serious negative implications for the cost of the scheme. The second issue is of inflating the irrigation benefits to stand the scrutiny for economic viability. This is a much larger and serious issue to be looked into. We have seen that the actual irrigation benefits from the reservoir and diversion scheme is much lower than what the project has anticipated to achieve.

5.3 Piecemeal Approach to Water Development: Sources of Conflict Over-appropriation of water has been a frequent source of regional and international conflicts in river basins (Ambler 1991). The reason being that over-appropriation only helps reallocation of the available supplies rather than increasing the aggregate supplies (Frederick 1993). In the earlier section, we have seen that unscientific planning had led to over-appropriation of the basin’s water. Now, the approach used in developing water in the basin is, by and large, “segmented”. Storage and diversion systems were built in different parts of the Basin without taking into account the hydraulic inter-dependencies between various physical systems that affect the spatial and temporal availability of water. This has led to reallocation of the available surface water. Several new schemes have been built and are being planned in different locations in the basin, predominantly on political considerations. In fact, the new schemes are only manifestations of how influential are the localities concerned “politically”. The planning of these schemes did not seem to have considered the overall surface water availability and the changes in the storage of existing reservoirs due to the new ones. This, in turn had resulted in the reallocation of water, completely undermining the traditional uses of the basin’s water at various locations. Eventually, many storage systems--which were built over a period of time-- made many formerly “wet” areas “dry” and “dry” areas “wet”. For instance, the total dependable flows in the Hathmati river system up to the pick-up weir with a total catchment of 1952 sq. km. was estimated to be 93.87 MCM. The total volume of water required to meet the irrigation water supply requirements in the four command areas is worked out in the Table below.

Table 6 Irrigated Command Area and Estimated Volumetric Water Requirement of Hathmati Canal System

Zone Irrigated Command Area

Assumed Depth of Watering Including

Volume of Water needed for release

19

losses in Conveyance (m)

( MCM)

Zone A Zone B Zone C Zone D Total

5667 3238 8095

10200 27200

0.75* 0.66**

0.66** 0.66**

42.50 21.60 53.40 67.30

184.80 * A depth of 0.45 metre & conveyance loss of 40 percent was assumed. ** A depth of 0.20 metre and conveyance loss of 70 percent was assumed. As Table 6 indicates, a total runoff of 184.80 MCM is required to meet the irrigation obligations in the four zones and the Hathmati reservoir was built for a storage capacity of 152.53 MCM. Nevertheless, the probability of occurrence of such a high run-off (184.80 MCM) within the catchment is only 48 percent. In the remaining years, even if the entire flow in the catchment is diverted for irrigation, it will be far less than sufficient for meeting the irrigation requirements. The poor irrigation performance of the Hathmati system during the 27 years itself is a testimony to this When a new irrigation reservoir was built on Guhai River, a tributary of Hathmati, its catchment had intercepted the catchment of Hathmati weir by more than 50 percent (i. e around 220 sq. km. area). The reservoir has storage capacity of 62.34 MCM, just sufficient to meet the irrigation obligation of 53.33 MCM for a 7111 ha command. The probability of occurrence of such a high runoff is only 14 out of 42 years (as per the runoff estimates provided in GOG, 1994), the reservoir will have excess flows only in 36 out of 100 years. Theoretically speaking, the reduction in the flows into the Hathmati weir would be a minimum of 1.98 MCM and a maximum of 70.50 MCM (based on the runoff estimates for Hathmati sub-basin provided in GOG, 1994). But, in practice, the reduction will be much higher and will be a minimum of 3.96 MCM (in the year of least rainfall) to a maximum of 62.34 MCM5 in 13 out of every 41 years6. Due to the modified run off at the Hathmati pick-up weir due to Guhai dam, following official estimates, a runoff higher than 184.80 MCM would occur only in only 39 out of 100 years. In the remaining years, water will be inadequate to meet the irrigation obligations. Now, the runoff corresponding to the average rainfall (estimated to be 697.24 cm) is 162.48 MCM. The Hathmati sub-basin is therefore a “closed basin”, with no water flowing out of its boundaries even in the years of normal rainfall. Another good example is the Fatehwadi canal system. Though the runoff in the free catchment downstream of Dharoi and Hathmati pick-up weir up to Wasna barrage was over-estimated as per our estimates, the flows in Sabarmati river trunk was sufficient to meet the diversion requirements for irrigation at Wasna barrage in the early years (GOG 1994), due to flood flows from the Dharoi reservoir and the Hathmati pick-up weir. However, since then, new storage and diversions schemes had come up upstream of the Hathmati pick-up weir (Guhai dam and diversion of water from Hathmati to Kharicut canal system), drastically reducing the flows in Sabarmati River. Today, effluents constitute a significant proportion of the water diverted from Wasna barrage to the Fatehwadi canal system (CPCB 1989).

20

In addition to the major and medium irrigation schemes, there are several hundreds of small structures being built throughout the basin. They are basically meant to serve as water harvesting and groundwater recharge schemes. Though the storage and recharge capacity of individual schemes is very low, put together they make a significant reduction in the available surface water, which could be tapped by other schemes. But, the planning of large reservoir and diversions schemes in the basin do not consider the impact made by these small structures on the available runoff for capturing, which were planned and built by the Panchayat Irrigation Circle on demand from villages. Increasing reallocation of the basin’s surface water has also become the recipe for many a conflict in the basin. The story of Kalambandhi provides another classic example of the increasing conflicts resulting from the over-appropriation of water. Kalambandhi is a group of 10 villages in Dehgam taluka in Ahmedabad district. The area boasts of having one of the oldest canal irrigation systems in India which dates back to the late 17th Century. The area, located on both sides of Khari River, in its flood plains, was endowed with highly fertile soils and used to grow some of the best rice varieties in the country. During the rainy season, the farmers used to build large bunds across the Khari River, diverting the flood water in the river to irrigate their paddy fields through well-laid out canals. The conflicts had their genesis in the construction of a weir on Khari River in Raipur village of Gandhinagar district during 1880 and 1884. The weir diverted the floodwaters of Khari River to a pond excavated in Chandola village and then took water through an 83 km long canal for irrigating paddy fields in Daskroi and Dehgam taluka of Ahmedabad district in an area of around 10,200 ha. This denied the Kalambandhi farmers their share of irrigation water. Again, in 1900, another dam named Limli dam was built on Khari River in Prantij by the then King of Idar. This further damaged the agricultural prospects in Kalambandhi area as the monsoon flows in Khari River drastically reduced. But the farmers in Kalambandhi decided to litigate to protect their riparian rights over the natural flows in the river and won a case in the Bombay High Court in 1926. Subsequently, the water supply was resumed. However, after independence, another reservoir named Karol reservoir was built just 6 km downstream of Limli dam during the first five-year plan. This caused further cuts in the flows in Khari that could be diverted for Kalambandhi area. In 1951, the government started releasing water to Khari River from the Raska pick-up weir on Meshvo River, through the Meshvo canal system, which was to irrigate an area of around 10, 200 ha in Kheda district. In 1968, a dam was built on Meshvo River, upstream of Raska pick-up weir on Meshvo River, to divert water for irrigation in around 7970 ha in Sabarkantha district. The canal construction was completed in 1972. Subsequently, as the farmers from the upper catchment of Meshvo in Sabarkantha started raising objections, the release of water into Khari from Meshvo had to be stopped. This was another blow to the farmers of Kalambandhi, as due to this new reservoir project, the releases from Meshvo River into Khari River had stopped. Over the years, river pollution has become an added dimension to the water scarcity problems facing the farmers in the area. During the last 50 years, many hundreds of small and large industries --mostly dyeing and chemical industries-- have come up in and around

21

Vatva, Odhav and Narole. These industries are disposing toxic effluents into Khari River, flouting the pollution control norms. As the natural flows in the Khari River had drastically reduced in the early seventies, especially after the construction of Meshvo dam, the pollution levels in Khari River have acquired serious propositions. As farmers in Kalambandhi continued irrigation with the severely polluted water, their lands were getting degraded, spelling doom for agriculture. In 1995, the villagers filed a petition in the Gujarat High Court. In the recent years, the farmers of Kalambandhi are receiving their due share of irrigation water from Mahisagar dam, on Mahi River. Water from Mahisagar is being taken through Shedhi branch canal and put into Khari River. The release from Mahisagar is, however, not sufficient to assimilate pollution from industrial effluents which are discharged at a rate of approximately 30 cusecs. The farmers of Kalambandhi farmers are now demanding release of 200 cusecs of water from Mahisagar into Khari instead of the current level of 70-80 cusecs to reduce the pollution levels.

5.4 Ad hoc Governance of Irrigation Systems 5.4.1 Mismatch between Hydrologic Boundaries and Agency Jurisdiction The various components of the physical systems affecting water availability and supplies at different places in the basin such as reservoirs and rivers are naturally integrated at the level of hydrologic units such as river systems, and then at the sub-basins and basin level. But, the various operational units of the department for managing these systems like the sub-divisions of the department are not integrated at the level of these river systems. They are integrated at the division level, the jurisdiction of which is not in conformation with the river system boundaries. Again, the jurisdiction of the Circles, under which various divisions function, is not in conformation with the hydrologic boundaries such as sub-basin. They often cut across boundaries of sub-basins, and even basin itself. The governance is based on ad hoc norms of minimum design command area--for Circles, Divisions and Sub-divisions--rather than hydrologic system considerations such as basin boundaries. The net result is that different Circles are looking after the irrigation schemes falling in one sub-basin (for example: Waidy and Meshvo schemes are looked after by sub-divisions of AIPC, while the rest of the schemes in Watrak sub-basin are looked after by various sub-divisions of HIPC. AIPC manages part of Dharoi reservoir scheme, while PIPC manages the rest). Similarly, the same Circle is looking after irrigation schemes in different sub-basins (for example: HIPC is looking after irrigation schemes in Hathmati sub-basin (Guhai reservoir project) as well as Watrak sub-basin (Watrak, Mazam etc.). The fact that there is no co-ordination among different circles working in the same sub-basin greatly reduces the ability to take into account the hydrological system considerations in planning water systems leading to piecemeal approach to developing water resources. The consequence is that, water in the basin gets over-appropriated (Hathmati sub-basin).

22

5.4.2 Lack of Interface between Hydraulic Configurations and Governance Structure The existing co-ordination structure created for governance and management of irrigation schemes is not in congruence with the configuration of the water systems existing. This, in a way, determines the types of human relations and interactions needed for efficient governance and management. Many storage and diversion systems in the basin, including those falling in hydrologically independent units, are hydraulically interconnected. Examples are hydraulic inter-dependencies between: a) reservoirs on Watrak River system such as Meshvo reservoir, Meshvo canal system, Waidy reservoir, and Mazam reservoir; b) Hathmati Reservoir and Weir and Khari River and Kharicut canal system. For efficient and optimum water allocation planning, and water management, the operation and management of these schemes should be synchronised. But, there is virtually no co-ordination among the individual sub-divisions that manage these schemes, irrespective of whether they are under same divisions and circle offices or not. Again, there is virtually no co-ordination at the circle level, where allocation decisions are taken. This makes managing the resource for optimal utilisation almost an impossible task. The following examples illustrate this. The amount of water that will be made available for release in Hathmati zone D under Kharicut canal system depends on the amount of water released into Hathmati River from Hathmati reservoir. Any amount of water released from Hathmati reservoir into the river will reduce the volume of water that could be released for Hathmati zone A command and vice versa. For achieving the optimal use of the flows for irrigation, effective co-ordination is required between the two sub-divisions looking after Hathmati Zone A and D. But, Hathmati zone D command is managed by Ahmedabad Irrigation Sub-division of AID. At the same time, Hathmati zone-A command is managed by Himmatnagar Irrigation Sub-division of HID. Similarly, the proportion of water available for diversion in Fatehwadi during the monsoon season --from that occurring in the free catchment of Hathmati River-- depends on the pumping by AMC at Dudheshwar water works during these months as no water is released from Dharoi for Ahmedabad during these Months. Therefore, co-ordination is also required between AMC and the sub-divisions looking after Fatehwadi command area. But, this co-ordination is not forthcoming due to the reason that the water allocation decisions are taken at the level of the Chief Engineer and above. 5.4.3 Staffing Patterns A major factor influencing the performance of the department is the staffing pattern. As earlier indicated, it is the lower level offices of the department that are performing some of the most crucial roles such as water delivery services, irrigation management and recovery of water charges, that ultimately influence the bureaucracy’s performance. The staffing (see Table 7) for irrigation sub-divisions is based on certain norms7. The fixation of these norms involved many assumptions. One of them was that farmers would grow water intensive crops such as rice and sugarcane. But, in many command areas, farmers are now growing oilseeds, which increases the frequency of shifting turns among the farmers. These assumptions lead to gross underestimation of water delivery service and supervision requirements in the present

23

context. Many irrigation sub-divisions are falling short of staff, even as per the old norms. The example of Watrak Canal Subdivision located in Bayad, Sabarkantha, which looks after irrigation in Watrak Left Bank Canal, illustrates this. Table 7 Staffing Pattern at Watrak Irrigation Sub-division Staff Position

No. of Personnel as per norms

Actual No. of Personnel

Deputy Executive Engineer 1 1 Junior Engineer 1 2 Supervisor 1 2 Overseer 3 1 Technical Assistant 2 2 Senior Clerk 1 1 Junior Clerk 2 2 Tracer 1 1 Beat Karkun 32 28 Driver 1 2 Attendant 2 2 Watchman 1 1 Chaukidar 36 53 Total 84 97 Note: The Junior Engineer, Supervisor and Overseer are at the same level in the functional hierarchy (Section Officer), but given different designations and remuneration as per the personnel policy of the department. Though, there are 53 Chaukidars, 33 of them are actually looking after functions like guarding the shed and factories. Actually, there are only 11 Chaukidars for providing irrigation services in the field. Previously, the department used to provide 1 Chaukidar for every 4 watercourses (one watercourse commands 70 hectares). Nowadays, this has come down to just 1 watchman for every 15 watercourses. Again, according to the norms, there should be one Beat Karkun for every 500-800 ha of irrigated command. The responsibility of the Beat Karkun is to supervise irrigation services and monitor water delivery. He has to ensure that water allocation is as per the rotation fixed, no thefts take place, and full supply level is maintained in the canals. Due to the shortage of staff to provide water delivery services and to supervise it, unauthorised irrigation has become very common. 5.4.4 Water Distribution Planning Problems are also encountered in proper water distribution planning. In Gujarat, the irrigation water distribution practice followed is by inviting and sanctioning applications known as “Shejpali”. As the distribution system is basically a demand based supply system, the farmers are required to apply for their requisite quantities of water well in advance of the crop season. Irrigation availed from the canal system without prior and timely sanction is to be dealt with as unauthorised irrigation and for which, defaulter has to pay penal rates. However, this never happens. Farmers wait for the rains, and in situations when the rains are delayed, they approach the department with requests for water release. This often upsets the water

24

distribution planning and water scheduling made by the official agency. Often, the farmers adopt cropping patterns, deviating heavily from what had been planned. 5.4.5 Recovery of Water Charges The rate of recovery of water charges has been extremely poor. In Watrak sub-division, for instance, the dues in water charges has totalled to 32 lac rupees so far. The same is the case with Dharoi scheme. But, in the case of Dharoi, there are multiple users of water, the largest being the Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation (AMC) and the farmers in the command areas. The water charges due to the irrigation department from AMC (59.06 crore rupees) are much higher than from the farmers (27.30 lac rupees). Though water allocation for Ahmedabad has been done on the highest priority, the department has not taken any concrete steps to recover these compounding dues from the AMC. This is in addition to the share in the capital cost of building the reservoir, which AMC had promised to bear at the time of planning the irrigation system8. As a result, the total dues to be collected by the Irrigation Department has gone up to a mind-boggling sum of 168 crores. In lieu of the poor recovery of water charges from the canal command and the increasing financial burden on the Irrigation Department, the Government of Gujarat had changed its policy for collecting water charges with effect from March 01, 1994. According to the new policy, advance payment is to be made for release of water into the farmers’ fields. However, the department has not been able to enforce this successfully.

6.0 SUMMARY OF THE EMERGING ISSUES The emerging issues can be summarised as follows: 1. The water systems built to harness, storage, divert and distribute the surface water in

Sabarmati River Basin for managing water supplies for irrigation and drinking water supplies are complex.

2. Analyses of historical data on runoff show that the dependable runoff has been grossly

over-estimated, largely due to the lack of scientific data. 3. The analyses also show that the irrigation systems were built to capture the variable

flows, which have very low dependability. This enormously increases the cost per unit volume of water captured and over-appropriation of the basin’s runoff during years of normal and below normal rainfall years.

4. Analyses of historical data shows that the actual irrigation benefits accrued from these

schemes are much lower than envisaged. The irrigation benefits seem to have been inflated as a result of the dependable runoff not being taken into account. The rate of recovery of water charges has also been low.

5. The piecemeal and segmented approach to planning the water development projects in

the Basin has led to reallocation of water among the existing uses, making previously

25

“wet” areas “dry” and previously “dry” areas “wet”. This has become a major source of conflicts among the user groups within the sector.

6. The governance system for managing surface water in the Sabarmati basin is based on ad

hoc norms rather than hydrologic system considerations. This reduces the effectiveness of planning of water systems in the basin.

7. The governance structure for managing the irrigation schemes is not in congruence with

the types of human interaction/co-ordination demanded by the interaction between various hydraulic systems. The inappropriate structure leads to sub-optimal level of utilisation of water.

8. The norms used for deciding the staffing pattern at various levels are ad hoc and have

also become outdated. The staffing is not adequate to address the field-based issues related to irrigation management.

9. Most of the financial and administrative powers are centralised at the level of Chief

Engineers and Superintending Engineers at the circle level. While, the administrative powers are vested with the government.

7.0 CONCLUDING REMARKS The Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply department has adopted a “top down” and “centralised” approach for planning, execution, operation and management of the irrigation systems. The governance system is not appropriate for effective planning of water resources in the basin and is, at best, suited to operate individual schemes that are hydraulically independent. The governance structure does not encourage human interactions as demanded by the interaction between the hydraulic systems being governed. In view of this, the different levels in the organisational hierarchy –Circles, Divisions, Sub-divisions--of Narmada Water Resources and Water Supply Department need to be re-constituted at the level of the hydrological units--the basin, sub-basin, river systems and individual schemes. The interaction/co-ordination between different operational units (that are within and across levels in the hierarchy), which manage physical systems that are hydraulically inter-related should be accepted as a basic principle in deciding the governance structure. Acknowledgement We gratefully acknowledge the financial support provided by the Ford Foundation, New Delhi for the research on which this paper is based.

Endnotes 1 Consultant, Professor and Research Associate, respectively, Institute of Rural

Management Anand 388 001. The email addresses of the authors, in order of

26

occurrence, are dkumar@fac.irm.ernet.in, vb@fac.irm.ernet.in and jay@mdp.irm.ernet.in).

2 This section draws heavily on the report titled “Integrated Plan of Sabarmati River Basin,” Draft Report, Narmada Water Resources Department, Government of Gujarat, Gandhinagar, 1994.

3 Ultimate irrigation potential includes the additional irrigation from groundwater due to increased recharge, relevant in the case of check dams and percolation tanks.

4 Irrigated Area Ratio is the ratio of the actual area irrigated to the planned (here design) irrigated area.

5 Though the maximum inflow from 440 sq. km catchment is estimated to be 140

MCM, as the storage of dam is only 62.34 MCM, the remaining water will overflow the dam and can contribute to the Hathmati river flows.

6 Given the fact that the flows in Guhai catchment has been contributing to the inflows

into Hathmati River, upstream of the pick-up weir prior to the building of Guhai reservoir, the actual reduction in the inflows would be equal to the volume of water stored in the Guhai reservoir.

7 Four Chaukidars are provided for one watercourse, which commands 70 ha. Likewise, 1 Beat Karkun is provided for a command of 500-800 ha.

8 AMC had agreed to share 52.10 percent of the capital cost at the time of planning, which had now accumulated to 181.86 crores. Similarly, the AMC had agreed to share 1.72 percent of the cost which had now accumulated to 8.64 crores.

References Ambler, John (1991) “Bounding the System: Precursors to Measuring Performance in

Networks of Farmer-Managed Irrigation System,” in Shaul Manor and Jorge Chambouleyron (ed.) Performance Measurement in Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems, Proceedings of an International Workshop of the Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Network. Colombo: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Ballabh, V. and Katar Singh (1997) “Competing Demands of Water in Sabarmati Basin:

Potential and Future Conflicts,” paper presented at the seminar on ‘Managing Water Scarcity: Experiences and Prospects,’ organised by the Indo-Dutch Programme on Alternatives in Development, Amersfort, The Netherlands, October 11-17.

Central Pollution Control Board (1989) “Basin Sub Basin: Sabarmati Basin Report,” Central

Pollution Control Board, Government of India, New Delhi.

27

Chaturvedi, M. C. (1976) Second India Visited: Water. Bombay: Macmillan Publishing Company Limited.

Frederick, K.D. (1993) Balancing Water Demand with Supplies: The Role of Management in

a World of Increasing Scarcity. Technical Paper No. 189, Washington D.C: The World Bank.

Government of Gujarat (1994) “Integrated Plan of Sabarmati River Basin,” Draft Report,

Gujarat State Water Resources Planning Group,” Gandhinagar, Gujarat, India. Government of Gujarat (2000) “Work Budget 1999-2000,” Narmada Water Resources and

Water Supply Department, Gandhinagar, Gujarat. Gulati, O. T. “Main System Management Processes in Large Irrigation Projects Including

Farmer Participation,” Project Report, Water and Land Management Institute & Institute of Rural Management Anand (IRMA) Anand, undated.

Hunter District Water Board (1982) Annual Report 1981-82. Hunter District Water Board, New

Castle New South Wales, Australia. Kumar, M. D. Shashikant Chopde, Srinivas Mudrakartha and Anjal Prakash (1999)

“Addressing Water Scarcity and Pollution Problems in Sabarmati Basin, Gujarat: Local Strategies for Water Supply and Conservation Management,” in Marcus Moench, Elisabeth Caspari and Ajaya Dixit (eds.) Rethinking the Mosaic: Investigations into Local Water Management. Kathmandu and Boulder: Nepal Water Conservation Foundation and Institute for Social and Environmental Transition.

Pitana, I. Gde (1991) “Performance Indicators: A Case of Newly –Developed FMIS in Bali,

Indonesia,” in Shaul Manor and Jorge Chambouleyron (ed.) Performance Measurement in Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems, Proceedings of an International Workshop of the Farmer Managed Irrigation Systems Network. Colombo: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Puri, V. and Amit Vermani (1997) “Changing Priorities: Increasing Conflicts Between Rural

and Urban Water User,” MTS report submitted by PRM students as part of the Management Training Segment of PGDRM, Institute of Rural Management Anand.

Shunmugam, S. and V. Ballabh (1998) “Sharing Responsibilities in Basin Management- A

Paradisiacal Denouement?” paper presented at the International workshop on ‘Shared Resource Management in South Asia: The Next Step,’ Institute of Rural Management, Anand, Gujarat, India, 17-19 February.

Uphoff, N., Priti Ramamurthy and Roy Steiner (1991) Managing Irrigation: Analysing and

Improving the Performance of Bureaucracies. New Delhi: Sage Publications.

28

Varghese, B. G. (1990) Water of Hope: Himalaya-Ganga Development and Cupertino for a Billion People. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing Company Private Ltd.