chp 6 past present and the future of canal irrigation

7/28/2019 Chp 6 Past Present and the Future of Canal Irrigation

1/21

IntroductionAt the beginning of the eighteenth century, Iniws the irrigtion chmpion of the worl. While thecolonil government initilly neglecte the minte-nnce n upkeep of the numerous but mostly smllirrigtion structures, it soon spotte the potentil forlrge-scle cnl irrigtion s n economic enterprisen took to cnl builing s business on mssivescle. In those ys, there ws much isstisfction withirrigtion mngement mong observers n inves-

tors who expecte much higher finncil return onirrigtion investments. Yet, in retrospect, roun ad1900, cnl irrigtion systems in Ini were rgublyin fr better stte thn toy in terms of their oper-tion n mintennce (O&M), prouctivity impcts,n finncil returns. If we look t the sitution tenyers go, roun 2000, while the new welfre stteh kept live the colonil trition of big time cnlconstruction, the mngement of cnl irrigtion hbecome pthetic in terms of ll the criteri on which itexcelle century go. Te ominnt view bout thewy out is tht frmer mngement through wter user

ssocitions cn restore cnl irrigtion to its ol glory.However, this my not be the correct thinking. Tischpter rgues tht the lrger socio-technicl fun-mentls in which cnl irrigtion cn thrive in smll-holer grrin setting were ll mostly present roun1900 n re ll mostly bsent toy. Te motives forirrigtion builing hve chnge, s hs the politics

P, P, F C I I

S

6

roun it s well s the nture of the Inin stte nsociety. Most of ll, the veritble n pervsive groun-wter boom in Inin griculture uring recent ecesrises questions bout the relevnce of tritionl cnlirrigtion for Inin frmers who wnt on-emnirrigtion, ll roun the yer. Cnl irrigtion policycn chrt severl lternte courses in the future, ofwhich four re explore in this chpter: (i) continuein business-s-usul moe, keep throwing goo

money fter b, n ecline into irrelevnce; (ii)mximize the rel extent of conjunctive use of surfcen grounwter by truly functioning s extensiveirrigtion systems s they were originlly esigne;(iii) reform the irrigtion bureucrcies for greterprofessionlism, ccountbility, n performnce ori-enttion; (iv) reconfigure public irrigtion systems shybri systems in which the irrigtion eprtments reresponsible for relible bulk wter eliveries n pri-vte irrigtion service proviers (ISPs) retil the wterto irrigtors. Some of (iii) n (iv) is lrey hppen-ing, but by sheer efult, rther thn by esign. Public

irrigtion cn serve the country fr better if consierestrtegy of reinventing the role of reservoirs n cnlistribution is pursue in toys chnge context. Forthis to hppen, the first step is to estblish creibleinformtion n monitoring system to ssess publicirrigtion performnce ginst its esign n currentobjectives.


2/21

70 Ini Infrstructure Report 2011

Canal Irrigation in IndiaC. 1900

Grvity flow irrigtion is centrl to Inin socil his-

tory. Accoring to Alfre Dekin (Te Age, 1891), ur-ing the lte 1900s, the region h 12 million hectres(h) of irrigte ln compre with 3 million h in theUnite Sttes, 2 million h in Egypt, 1.5 million h inItly, n few hunre thousn h ech in Ceylon,Frnce, Spin, n Victori (Austrli). Cnl irrigtionexperience its most rpi expnsion in Ini uringthe lst yers of the nineteenth century.

In its big-time irrigtion construction, the Britishirrigtion enterprise revive, rehbilitte, n builtupon the irrigtion cnls tht ly in isrepir ur-ing the erly eces of the Compny rule. Colonilinvestment in cnl irrigtion consistently yiele810 per cent return on investment right until 1945(Whitcombe 2005). Whitcombe estimte tht be-tween 191213 n 19456, irrigtion investments ofthe Government of British Ini returne net profit,incresing from 8.3 per cent on prouctive works n4.5 per cent on ll mjor works in 191213 to 12.8per cent on prouctive works n 7.2 per cent on llmjor works in 19456. Tis clcultion, bse onlyon wter chrges collecte, i not inclue the higherrevenue ssessment on irrigte ln.

Te key ws intensive revenue mngement throughn elborte but low-cost irrigtion ministrtion

pproprite for lrge irrigtion systems but useless formyri smll, community-bse wter hrvesting nirrigtion structures. For government schemes, to col-lect irrigtion fees n mnge wter istribution tthe villge level n bove, the colonil governmentmintine lrge irrigtion bureucrcy. Even with nelborte ministrtive pprtus, wherever possible,the government outsource wter istribution to lrgeln holers who receive wter from public systemsin their privte istribution cnls. Privte cnls were substntil source of irrigtion in the irrigte rein colonil north-western Ini. In 19434, nerly500,000 cres in British Punjb were irrigte by pri-vte cnls cptive to one or few frmers. In Shhpuristrict, where the government encourge construc-tion of privte cnls, ll the cnls were owne by justtwo fmilies, Noon n iwn (Islm 1997: 36). Aprtfrom these super-size frm holings, even orinryirrigtors h much lrger holings of 50 to 540 cres

(Ibi.: 83). Tese reltively lrge lnholings meirrigtion mngement below the outlet esier thn itis toy.

Te colonil irrigtion mngement ws thus high-input-high-output ffir. A vst uthoritrinbureucrcy reching own to the villge level useforce lbour to mintin cnl network, mngewter istribution, n unertook ruthless wter feerecovery on ll lns deemed to be irrigte. In thecnl commns, the cnl wter tx h to be piregrless of whether or not use ws me of thecnl in prticulr yer or whether or not there ws relible supply from the cnl (Hrimn 2002:114). Tis, ccoring to Hrimn, encourge, evenforce, frmers to grow vluble commercil crops

to generte csh. It lso resulte in much litigtionfrom isstisfie zamindarswho put pressure on cnlmngers to ensure wter elivery n mintin cnls.Te mounts provie for O&M were substntil sotht eferre mintennce ws miniml.

A hunre yers lter, the finnces of cnl irrig-tion in post-colonil Ini stoo in strk contrst ssummrize in ble 6.1. Aroun 2006, Inis CentrlWter Commission (CWC) reporte tht the wter feerelize by ll mjor n meium irrigtion projectsws ll of 8.8 per cent of the working expenses ur-ing 19937 n the rtio h ecline further to 6.2per cent uring 19982002 (CWC 2006) compre to

2.5 to 3 times of wter expenses roun 1900. During19612001, the cpitl outly on mjor n meiumirrigtion schemes t 2000 prices ws pproximtely Rs295,000 crore (Amrsinghe n Xenrios 2009). In2005, the Worl Bnk estimte tht some Rs 19,000crores shoul be provie for mintennce of irrig-tion infrstructure but only Rs 2820 crore (0.1 per centof cpitl cost) ws spent on mintining these publicirrigtion ssets; wter fee recovere from irrigtors wsll of Rs 652 crore, less thn 10 per cent of the workingexpenses of Rs 8250 crore (CWC 2006: ble A1).

As commercil venture, the performnce of cnl

irrigtion hs eciely ecline over the pst 100 yers.D.R. Ggil, the pioneer of Inin economic plnning,h rgue tht, in poor grrin economy like Ini,public irrigtion investments shoul be juge on theirsocil n economic returns rther thn their finncilreturns. As if on cue, soon fter Inepenence, irrig-tion chrges were rsticlly reuce; n even these


3/21

Pst, Present, n the Future of Cnl Irrigtion in Ini 71

remine incresingly uncollecte. Aroun 1930,irrigtion fees were the lrgest source of governmentrevenue in Punjb, higher thn even income tx (Islm1997); but these ecline rpily fter 1950. By 1960,the scenrio throughout the country h chnge rs-

ticlly for the worse. In stuy of Bihr, Bhti (1991)showe tht irrigtion ues in 1960 were so smll thtit me eminent sense to relocte the 5000-strong forceeploye in collection elsewhere n bolish the irrig-tion fees ltogether. Tis tren continue in other stteswhere irrigtion fees remine stgnnt for eces;n the proportion of totl emn ctully collecte

ecline to smll frction. Hve public irrigtioninvestments in free Ini elivere the irrigtionnthe socio-economic returnsthey were esigne for sGgil h hope?

Unfortuntely, the nswer to the question is No;

n there lies the hert of the problem. Te finncil rotws the hrbinger of much eeper crisis of stgntionn ecline in public irrigtion systems whose sociln economic returns turne out to be fr smller thnimgine. In one of the erliest reviews in the mi-1980s, Dines n Pwr (1987: 2) note tht mostinvestments in existing lrge public surfce irrigtion

able 6.1 Deteriorting Finnces of Inin Cnl Irrigtion, AD 1900 compre with AD 2000

Major and Major, medium, and multi- Major and mediummedium systems purpose irrigation Projects irrigation

in British India, in India systems in19023 19778 19867 India, 2001

1 Cpitl investment in mjor n meium 30 million Rs 3004 Rs 26014 Rs 295,000projects (nominl) crore crore crore

2 Are irrigte by ll government schemes 7.4 18.75 25.33 18(m h)

3 Wter fees collecte s per cent of cpitl 10 per cent 1.43 per cent 0.3# 0.2 per centinvestment

4 Vlue of crops irrigte s per cent of 87 per cent n N 18.3 per cent*cpitl investment

5 Wter fees collecte s per cent of vlue of 11 per cent N 2 per centY 1.2 per cent

crops irrigte6 Wter fee collecte s per cent of 280 per cent 45 per cent 20 per cent 7.9 per cent

Working Expenses

7 Mintennce expeniture s per cent of 53 per cent 42 per cent 38 per cent 34 per centworking expeniture

8 Mintennce expeniture s per cent of 2.6 per cent n N 0.95 per centcpitl investment

Source: Dt for 19023 from Buckley (1905); for 19778 n 19867 from Government of Ini [GoI] (1992); for 2001 fromCWG (2006).Notes: GoI (1992: Annexure 1.5).Tis inclues roun 215 BCM of reservoir storge, n roun 80 BCM in run-off the riversystem plus thousns of lrge irrigtion tnks n ahar-pynesystems. GoI (1992: Annexure 1.7-A).

#

Compute using irrigtion chrges collecte (s in GoI 1992: ble 2.6) s percentge of cpitl investment (in row 3). * Assuming 18 million h of cnl irrigte re growing crops worth Rs 30,000/h t 20001 prices. Y GoI (1992: 2.25). Te Irrigtion Commission h suggeste tht wter rtes shoul be fixe t roun 5 per cent of grossincome for foo crops n 12 per cent for csh crops. At present, the ctul gross receipts per h of re irrigte by mjor nmeium projects is brely 2 per cent of the estimte gross output per h of irrigte re, n less thn 4 per cent of the ifferencebetween output per h of irrigte n unirrigte res. Compute from GoI (1992: ble 2.6).


4/21


systems hve h rther low economic rtes of returnin the rnge of 412 per cent. Mny fctors explinthis ecline, but four re the most importnt: first,

ll-roun eteriortion in plnning n mngementof public irrigtion t ll levels; secon, filure to n-ticipte n pt to the rising tie of pump irrigtionfrom surfce n grounwter, within n outsie thecommn res; thir, the resultnt reorgniztion ofInis irrigtion economy; n fourth, the chllenge ofperformnce mngement of public irrigtion systemsin the new irrigtion economy.

D P I MP

Reserchers writing uring the 1980s note tht sur-

fce irrigtion systems tene to lwys be perennillyunerutilize, n typiclly only frction of the e-signe commn ws ctully irrigte soon fter thecompletion (Dines n Pwr 1987). Te key problem,mny observers note, ws poor mintennce n sys-tem mngement, especilly below the outlet. Repetto(1986: 4) foresw the problem when he wrote thtpublic irrigtion systems themselves re sinking unertheir mngeril, economic n environmentl prob-lems. An Dvi Seckler, nother keen observer of theInin irrigtion scene, wrote: As the rug of irrigtionevelopment is rolle out he through constructionof new fcilities, it will roll up behin through poor

mintennce n mngement of existing fcilities(cite in We 1984: 286). Without unerstningthe lrger mlise, onors pumpe in lrge volumes offuns in the nme of rehbilittion n moerniz-tion which le to throwing goo money fter b. Tecolonil irrigtions ethos of builmngegenertesurplusesmintin gve wy to builneglectrebuil synrome.

Te relity of n Inin irrigtion system is thtit never seems to conform to its esign. Most wereoveresigne to pss the costbenefit test; n onceconstructe, nrchy followe in the commn res.

Everywhere, the centrl problem is unuthorizeover-pproprition of wter by he-rech frmersfor growing crops tht irrigtion plnners h never

expecte them to grow. Most Inin irrigtion systemswere mostly esigne for protective irrigtion overlrge res; moreover, they ssume tht frmers will

stick to subsistence prouction of foo crops, whensupplementry irrigtion is me vilble to them(Jurriens et l. 1996). But relity never conforme tothis pln. Systems esigne for irrigte ry cropssin Krntks ungbhr cnlcollpse into riceirrigtion systems. As result, the originl gol ofproviing protective irrigtion over lrge res ws e-fete (Molling 2003). In the north-western systems,s in Hryn, reserchers foun the much-celebrtewarabandi(rottionl wter supply)systemesigneto minimize hetil inequityeroe beyonreemption; the sme hs been foun for the Inus

system in Pkistn (Jurriens et l. 1996; vn Hlsem2002) n elsewhere in monsoon Asi where it hsbeen trie (Rice 1996). Tere re still some regions inIni, where such system is still opertionl but it isincresingly being thretene. Uner the warabandi,every frmer is suppose to get equl number of wterturns, for equl time, per unit of ln. Shh (2003)foun high levels of flow irrigtion eprivtion t thetil-ens uring monsoon s well s winter sesons inwarabandires (ble 6.2).1 As result, the peripheryof the esign commn incresingly begn to rely ongrounwter for irrigtion.

A number of stuies bse on micro-level t in-

icte tht ecline in the performnce of the irrigtionministrtion, strong construction orienttion nlow O&M orienttion of the irrigtion bureucrcy,politicl influence on esign n mngement, insti-tutionl vcuum below the minor cnls hve con-tribute to the ecline in cnl irrigtion. Even moreimportnt thn these is the emergence of vst pumpirrigtion economy in which scvenging wter fromny proximte sourcegroun or surfcehs tkenpreceence over orerly grvity flow irrigtion.

R W SI Ey

When cnl irrigtion first strte in the Ino-Gngeticbsin, lrge number of wells fell into isuse. Dhwn

1 Te Hryn stuy efine flow irrigtion eprivtion s 50 per cent or less of cnl irrigtion receive by the best-off frmer in wtercourse.


5/21


(1996: 537) clle this the substitutionl effect of

public irrigtion works which cuse mongst frmers,well-plce in new commn res, isinclintioneven to mintin their own sources of irrigtion of pre-cnl vintge, not to mention tht they rsticlly cutbck on new investments in such mens of irrigtion.

However, toy, pump irrigtion from grounwterwells s well s irectly from cnls is rmpnt in Ininsystems, leving surfce irrigtion systems reconfiguren their commn res rerwn. Where grvityflow once crowe out wells, the opposite is the csetoy; prolifertion of irrigtion wells in mny cnlcommns hs turne wht were irrigtion cnls intorechrge cnls. In the course of fiel visit to the

Guhai irrigtion system in North Gujrt, we fountht most frmers irrigte 3545 times in yer, butthe cnl releses re vilble only 34 times. TeGuhi system meets only smll frction of the irectirrigtion emn; yet it is highly vlue by commnre frmers becuse it contributes more rechrge thnthe rinfll (Shh 2010). Flow irrigtion from tnks,use for centuries to grow rice, especilly in southernIni, is rpily shrinking with the growing profusionof wells in tnk commns. Accoring to Selvrjn(2002), Anhr Presh, mil Nu, Krntk, nOriss, which together ccounte for 60 per cent of

Inis tnk-irrigte re, lost bout 37 per cent of thetnk-irrigte re from 1965 to 2000.Wells replcing tnks n ahar-pynestructures ws

unerstnble. But uring the 1990s, they begn to

o the sme to mjor n meium cnl irrigtion

systems. In the Bhkr commn in North-west Ini,cnl irrigtion t first rove out wells. However, sincethe 1990s, the tren hs been reverse (Dhrmhikri2005), n now, 75 per cent of ll irrigte resin Inin Punjb epen upon well n tube wellirrigtion (Singh 2006, citing Government of Punjb2005 ocument). Tis is hppening t the ntionl scletoo (Selvrjn 2002; Tkkr 1999: 19). Compringln-use sttistics for Ini, Jnkrjn n Moench(2006) note tht between 19967 n 20023, there uner cnl irrigtion ecline by 2.4 million h(13.8 per cent), the re uner tnk irrigtion fell by1.4 million h (42.4 per cent), n the re irrigte by

ll other sources ecline by 1 million h (28 per cent).Te only irrigtion source tht increse its shre wsgrounwter wells, by 2.8 million h (more thn 9per cent). Compring the minor irrigtion census tfor 19934 n for 20001 suggests tht in the sevenintervening yers in those sttes common to both thecensuses,2 surfce irrigtion systems lost 4.6 millionh (29.4 per cent) from their commn, roughly tthe rte of 0.65 million h per yer. Grounwter-irrigte res grew uring the sme perio by 4.35million h.

o reverse the ecelertion in cnl irrigte res,

the Government of Ini institute the AccelerteIrrigtion Benefits Progrmme to step up theinvestment in the lst-mile projects. More thn US$ 7.5billion hs been investe in these projects since 1997.

able 6.2 Extent of Irrigtion Deprivtion Levels of il-eners in Selecte Grvity Flow Irrigtion Projects in Ini

States Names and type of systems studied Extent of flow irrigationdeprivation (FID) (per cent)

Gujrt Dhroi-Mjor; Mhi Right Bnk-Mjor; 737

Hryn Western Ymun-Mjor; Bhkr-Mjor 5684

Krntk ungbhr system-Mjor; Vnivils, Meium; wo tnks-Minor 4091

Mhrshtr Mul-Mjor; Wlen tnk-Minor 2970

Oriss Hirku-Mjor 3572

milnu Prmbikulm Aliyr-Mjor; wo rinfe tnks-Minor 2455

Source: Shh (2003).

2 Anhr Presh, Arunchl, Bihr n Jhrkhn, Go, Himchl Presh, Mhy Presh n Chhttisgrh, Oriss, Punjb,Rjsthn, Uttr Presh n Uttrnchl, West Bengl, Gujrt, n Mhrshtr.


6/21


However, inste of ccelertion, public irrigtioncommn res hve continue to ecelerte uringthis perio. A recent stuy of 210 mjor n meium

irrigtion projects by Delhi NGO use t from theMinistry of Agriculture to show tht fter investingRs 130,000 crore, these projects elivere 2.4 millionh less irrigtion uring 199001 to 20067. Similrresults were obtine by compring the t fromthree minor irrigtion censuses. Te public irrigtionpolicy seems unhelpful s governments hve to investtwice s fst in cnl irrigtion projects every yerjust to keep their commn res from shrinking, sFigure 6.1 suggests.

C Oz II Ey

All this suggests tht Inis irrigtion economy is in thethroes of mssive trnsformtion; n public irrigtionsystems re losing their position of ominnce in thischnging plying fiel. Wllch, writing bout theNgrjunsgr project in Anhr Presh uring the

1980s spoke of the Inin relity tht ms n cnlsre spleni monuments, but s wter istributionsystems they re rrely ble to eliver wter to more

thn hlf of their commns.3In contrst, the pump irrigtion economy is spre-

ing fster thn previously imgine, especilly since1990. Fifty yers go, rurl Ini h cler wter-ivie: most irrigte re ws concentrte withincnl commns n there ws little irrigtion outsie.But tht is not so ny longer. An ll-Ini NtionlSmple Survey (NSS) survey of 78,990 frm house-hols in 1998 showe hrly ny ifference in the ver-ge gross re irrigte per smple househol in villgeswith government cnls (1.8 h) n those withoutgovernment cnls (1.69 h). It foun: mrke rise

in privtely owne irrigtion fcilities (n tht )lrge prt of the cultivte ln toy is irrigte byhiring pumpsets (Ntionl Smple Survey Orgniz-tion, NSSO 1999: 39). A 20023 survey of 51,770frm househols from 6638 villges roun Inishowe tht 69 per cent of the smple re irrigte

Figure 6.1 Accelerting Investment n Decelerting Irrigtion Benefits

Source: IWMI (2009).

Trends of public expenditure in major and medium irrigation

and net irrigated area under different sources in India

Expen

diture

(billion

US$

,in

2000p

rices)

Net

irrigated

area

(million

ha

)

1960 1970 1980 1990 2000

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

42

36

30

24

18

12

6

0

Expenditure Tanks Canals Groundwater

3 http://gs.ou.eu/~bwllch/ocuments/Krishn%20Bsin.pf lst ccesse on 30 October 2009.


7/21


in kharifn 76.5 per cent in rabiws serve by wellsn tube wells (NSSO 2005). Yet nother lrge-scleNSSO (2003) survey foun tht in 2002, 76 per cent

of the 4646 villges surveye h irrigtion fcilities,but mostly in the form of tube wells. Of villges thtreporte hving irrigtion fcilities, 76.2 per cent wereirrigte by tube wells. Te CWC clims tht over 30million h re irrigte by cnls. All other sources sug-gest tht this figure is roun 15 million h; n thtthe pump irrigtion economy reches supplementlirrigtion to n unetermine re nywhere between30 n 90 million h, epening upon the t source(see ble 6.3).

P P M

Finlly, mjor river of the eclining performnce ofpublic irrigtion projects is the iffi culty in ssessingtheir performnce. During colonil times, when wter

rtes were high n vigorously collecte, totl irrigtionfee collection n finncil returns offere robustsurrogte of performnce. But toy, irrigtion fee

collection tells us nothing bout the performnce ofthe irrigtion mngement. Ln use survey t rechllenge by irrigtion mngers on the pretext thtfrmers uner-report cnl irrigte re to voi pyingwter chrges. Remote sensing mps cn help ssesstotl irrigte re in commn but not by source.Te iffi culty of mesuring the performnce of publicirrigtion mngement poses formible obstcle inthe chllenge of performnce improvement.

o unerstn the persistently poor performnceof mjor n meium projects, the Government ofIni commissione the four Inin Institutes of

Mngement (IIMs) to unertke n in-epth stuyof the issues involve. Te question they pose ws:why is the gp between irrigtion potentil crete n

able 6.3 Vrious Estimtes of Are Irrigte by Cnls n Wells in Ini, C. 2000

Data for year Major and Groundwater OtherMedium sourcesSchemes

1 Minor Irrigtion Census, October 2005, 20001 10.23 m h 30.5 m h 5.71 m hNet re irrigte

2 NSSO 59th Roun JnuryDecember 2003

2 Percentge of net re sown in khrif irrigte by: 7.75 per cent 28.95 per cent 5.55 per centEstimte khrif re irrigte by:# 8.37 m h 31.3 m h 5.99 m h

2b Percentge of net re sown in rbi irrigte by: 7.68 per cent 42.86 per cent 5.79Estimte rbi re irrigte by: 7.83 m h 43.7 m h 5.91 m hEstimte gross re irrigte by: 16.2 m h 75 m h 11.9 m h

3 Ministry of Agriculture, GoINet re irrigte by 20012 15.9 m h 35.04 m h 7.59 m hifferent sources

4 CWC 20012 31.3 m h 35 m h

5 IWMI globl irrigte re mp using remote 20045 55 m hY 91 m h sensing t (gross re irrigte)*

Notes: From the Abstrct of informtion from GoI (2005), Villge Scheule, ble 6.1, p. 321.

GoI (2005: ble 3.4.1). Tis survey covere 51,770 frming househols from 6638 villges roun Ini. # Khrif croppe re in 20023 ws 108 million h n rbi croppe re ws 102 million h. See (NSSO 2005) http://www.mospi.gov.in/press_note_nsso_31ugust06.htm * Tenkbil et l. (2006). Y Conjunctive use res in commn of mjor n meium irrigtion systems.

Gross re irrigte by grounwter structures, smll tnks, n other sources outsie the commn res of mjor n meiumirrigtion systems.


8/21


the re ctully irrigte by public systems wiening?4Regrettbly, the question itself ws trivil n prouce trivil nswer. Te question is trivil becuse the

irrigtion potentil is efine simply s the presumevolume of wter expecte in the reservoir ivie by presume irrigtion elt require for presumecropping pttern, totlly overlooking the groun relityof Inin cnl irrigtion. In no Inin irrigtionsystem o the rel vlues of these vribles pprochtheir presume vlues which in ny cse re rgublythe numbers chosen to justify project investment rtherthn honestly consiere estimtes. Te gp betweenpotentil crete n re irrigte is thus gooinictor of poor plnning of irrigtion projects rtherthn of cnl irrigtion performnce. Reserchers relly

intereste in the performnce of public irrigtionprojects sk ifferent questions n, therefore, getifferent, often more insightful nswers.

From the viewpoint of irrigtors, the performnceof n irrigtion system is juge by the level of wtercontrol it offers to frmers within the esign commn(Boyce 1988). Freemn et l. (1989) efine wtercontrol s the cpcity to pply the proper quntityn qulity of wter t the optimum time to the croproot zone to meet crop consumptive nees n soilleching requirements. Te performnce gp betweenthe level of wter control tht commn re frmersexpect n wht they ctully receive is the sum of

three component gps:

Gp I: Gp between the re (n frmers) esigneto be serve by grvity irrigtion n the re (nfrmers) ctully serve fter the system beginsopertion;

Gp II: Gp between the level of wter controlpromise t the plnning stge n the level of wtercontrol ctully elivere fter the beginning of theopertion;

Gp III: Gp between the level of wter controlemne by frmers t the present point in timen the level of wter control ctully offere by

the system.

Gp I often rises becuse irrigtion systems reover-esigne to mke them pper more vible nbeneficil thn they cn ctully become. Irrigtion

elt ssume is lower thn relistic so tht lrgeresign commn cn be shown. Once the system iscommissione, the gp tens to expn becuse ofthe cts of omission n commission tht subvert theobjectives of system mngement. Acts of commissioninclue wter thefts, vnlism, violtion of wteristribution norms, n unuthorize iversion orlifting of wter from cnls by he-rech frmers. Actsof omission inclue frmers own filure to coopertein mintennce n repir, to py irrigtion chrges,n so forth (Burt n Styles 1999; Prhn 1989: 18;Oorthuizen 2003: 207).

Gp II generlly rises becuse of inept system mn-gement s well s physicl eteriortion of the systemn reengineering by frmers (Oorthuizen 2003). Alsoimportnt re operting rules for reservoir n minsystem mngement. In multi-purpose projects, thehyro-electric plnts often etermine the protocol nscheule for relesing wter from reservoirs withoutmuch regr for the irrigtors nees.

Gp III rises from the chnging pttern of irrig-tion emn, mostly ue to iversifiction of frmingtowrs high vlue crops. Irrigtion systems esignefor rice/whet rottions or for extensive irrigtion cnmeet only smll frction of the wter control nees

tht iversifie frming systems require, which impose ifferent irrigtion scheule. Depening only on publicirrigtion systems woul thus rsticlly reuce the op-portunity set of frmers who then turn to grounwterirrigtion to provie them the high level of wter controlthey nee for their iversifie cropping ptterns.

For long, poor performnce ws blme on the physi-cl eteriortion of systems n poor mintennce, nnumerous progrmmes were lunche to rehbilittesurfce irrigtion systems. But s Boyce (1988: A-9)pointe out, Te socil iffi culties of chieving jointwter use mong mny irrigtors my excee the

technicl iffi culties of constructing lrge-scle systems.

4 Different eprtments mesure irrigtion potentil crete n utilize ifferently. Te Irrigtion Deprtment estimtes theycut by the volume of wter relese n n ssume uty of wter. Te Revenue Deprtment estimtes re irrigte bse on the

wter cess ctully collecte. It lso uses the previous recors of loc liz tion orers issue erlier. Te Agriculture Deprtmentgoes by the re in which crops re rise uner irrigtion. All these estimtes iffer wiely n no ttempt is me for reconcilitiont ny stge.


9/21


As result, evlutions repetely foun tht physiclrehbilittion ws not silver bullet. ypiclly, visibleperformnce jump following the immeite physicl re-

hbilittion enlrge the commn re n improvefee collection, wter flowe unimpee to the til-en,n users expresse stisfction. A few yers lter, wterfee collection woul lnguish, n nrchy levels rise.Mintennce woul be eferre; egrtion of thesystem woul begin slowly n then ccelerte, cus-ing hetil imblnce n prompting nother rounof rehbilittion. In South Inin tnks, the cycle hsbeen so short tht new rehbilittion plns re footeven before the lst pln is fully implemente. Mohnty(2005) clls this the buildneglectrebuildsynrome.Recent thinking bout improving performnce of sur-

fce systems therefore fvours moerniztion, efine sthe process of technicl n mngeril upgring of irrigtion schemes combine with institutionlreforms, with the objective to improve resource utiliz-tion n wter elivery service to frms (Renult1998: 8). Involving frmers in irrigtion mngementthrough prticiptory irrigtion mngement (PIM) is key component of moerniztion. But cn PIM helpto close performnce gps I, II, n III?

Improving Public IrrigationPerformance: Can PIM Do It?Unfortuntely, PIMn its sibling, irrigtion mn-

gement trnsfer (IM)hve prove ineffectivein revitlizing cnl n tnk irrigtion not only inIni but in much of Asi (Mukherji et l. 2009). Teie of PIM goes bck to tritionl Frmer MngeIrrigtion Systems (FMIS), in whose cse istinctirrigtion culture psse over genertions of irrig-tion communities. However, the logic of trnsformingtritionl irrigtion communities into PIM throughWUAs in government-run irrigtion system hs itselfbeen questione (Hunt 1989; Nrin 2004). Cowr(1983) rgues tht:

Te bsic point is to unerstn tht the funmentl processes

of investment now being me by the Stte [in lrge irrigtionprojects] fil to crete property reltionships mong the wter

users, n thus re unble to support the cretion of socil

bsis for ction mong locl people.

Wht is extrorinry bout PIM (n IM, which iss yet untrie in South Asi) is the wy it hs continue

to hol on the irrigtion mngement iscourse espitevirtully no evience of its hving succeee nywherein the eveloping worl except on n experimentl

bsis, n only with fcilittion of un-replicble qulityn scle. Tt system mngers wnt frmers to mn-ge irrigtion cnls is not new; the British trie hr inlte nineteenth century to get frmers from the Ino-Gngetic bsin to prticipte in irrigtion mngementbut without much success, except in warabandi in theInus cnls (Whitcombe 2005). Since Inepenence,frmers orgniztions for irrigtion mngement hvebeen regulrly trie, with uniformly isppointingresults. In the erly 1960s, Uttr Presh trie SinchaiSamitis(irrigtion committees) on irrigtion tnks nreservoirs; lter, Mhy Presh trie it on thousns

of its minor irrigtion tnks. Other sttes hve beenstruggling to mke Pani Panchayats(wter ssemblies)work. However, the Sinchi Smitisof Mhy Preshn Uttr Presh hve isppere without trce, nso hve Pni Pnchyts in Gujrt n elsewhere.Gujrt introuce its Joint Irrigtion MngementProgrmme in 1983, but the 17 irrigtion cooper-tives lost money n were isbne. In 1991, it menother ttempt, this time with ssistnce from loclnon-governmentl orgniztions (NGOs), n 144irrigtion coopertives were forme to cover 45,000h of irrigte re (Shukl 2004). However, thesecoopertives never functione, n it is iffi cult to

see precisely how PIM res were better off thn othercommn res.

In sum, it is rre circumstnce in which WUAshve improve the performnce of public irrigtionsystems on lrge scle in South Asi. An tht tooonly when mi-size NGO invests yers of effortn resources in orgnizing WUAs n using mensto reuce trnsction costs tht frmers on their ownwoul normlly not possess. Some of the best knownexmples of successful PIM/IM on lrge government-run surfce irrigtion systems in Ini re Ozr onWgh project in Nshik, Mhrshtr, Dhroi

in North Gujrt, Pingot n few more meiumschemes in Bhruch istrict. Te success of frmermngement in ll thesen its beneficil impctisunispute. In ech of these, however, there ws levelof investment of motivtion, skill, time, effort, nmoney which is unlikely to be replicte on lrgescle. In ctlyzing Ozr coopertives, Bpu Uphye,


10/21


Bhrt Kwle, two populr locl leers n theirNGO Smj Prgti Kenr, n senior reserchersof SOPPEKOM, locl reserch group, investe yers

of effort to mke PIM work (Prnjpye et l. 2003).In Gujrt, the Ag Khn Rurl Support Progrmmen Development Support Centre investe t lest 30professionl fiel stff for over 1015 yers to orgnizesy 20,00030,000 flow irrigtors into functionlWUAs. However, no government gency in Ini hsthe qulity n scle of humn n other resources,ny the motivtion levels, neee to implement ninstitutionl intervention tht cn sustinbly rise theprouctivity of the 3540 million h of flow irrigtere, over sy 15 yers.

Nevertheless, the fscintion with the ie continues

s governments n onors seek to rejuvente irrigtionsystems with the mgic wn of PIM. An the recentf is to o it with big bng. Oriss recently psse lw tht trnsferre ll its minor irrigtion systems toinstntly crete Pni Pnchyts. An Anhr Preshcrete more thn 10,000 WUAs by stroke of its chiefministers pen. Te Anhr Presh reform is lue bysome observers s gret exmple, even though ozensof institutionl big bngs of this genre hve quietlyene s whimpers. An if the 250,000 h ecline insurfce irrigte re in Anhr Presh between the19934 n 20001 minor irrigtion censuses is nyiniction, Anhr Preshs reforms re lrey

whimper. Te Worl Bnk lon spent, fiel reserch-ers in Anhr Presh too re beginning to wonerprecisely wht the WUAs re oing better thn before(Jirth 2001; Rey 2003; Mhv 2007). Chpter9 of this Reportiscusses the effectiveness of WUAs inselecte sttes in Ini.

Inee, primry purpose of the commn reevelopment gencies (CADAs) forme by the Govern-ment of Ini in the erly 1980s ws to involve frmersorgniztions in the mngement of irrigtion projects.However, there is no trce of CADAs or their benefi-ciry frmers ssocitions (BFAs). In Kerl, thousns

of such orgniztions were forme in 1986. An ssess-ment by Joseph (2001) in the lte 1990s suggeste thteven in Kerl, with strong tritions of locl gover-nnce, high euction, n high levels of prticiptionin public ffirs, the beneficiry frmers ssocitionswere mp squib. Some rnom excerpts from Joseph(2001) bse on his stuy of the Mlmpuzh Project:

It is the CADA offi cils who took the inititive in their for-

mtion n not the frmer groups. In most cses, membership

fee of Rs 5 ws not pi by the frmers concerne; pyment

ws me on their behlf by prospective offi ce berers, or thepotentil contrctors of fiel chnnel lining or the lrge frmers

in the ayacut 86 per cent (of the BFAs) were forme in these

two yers (1986 n 1987) for mking possible the utiliz-

tion of funs. Only 57 meetings were hel by the 8 Cnl

Committees uring spn of 10 yers 43 of them were hel

without quorum n 35 with zero ttennce of non-offi cil

members Te level of knowlege bout Cnl Commit-

tees n there structure n functions is very low.

Te ction of PIM is riven by the ie thtWUAs cn mnge irrigtion systems better thnremote bureucrcies n tht they woul be better tcontrolling nrchy, improving wter service, collectingfees, n mintining the system. Tis woul risewter n ln prouctivity n improve the economicconitions of the frmers. Democrtic governncesie, PIM progrmmes hve belie mny of the lesserexpecttions even where they re wiely consieresuccessful, s in urkey, Mexico (Kloezen 2002; Rp2004), n the Philippines (Oorthuizen 2003). As result, expecttions hve been incresingly moerte nprticiptory mngement is now consiere successfuleven if it just sves the government money, improvescost effectiveness of opertion n mintennce whileimproving, or t lest not wekening, the prouctivity

of irrigte griculture (Vermillion 1996: 153). Teiscussion, in recent times, hs been more boutshifting responsibility wy from governments thnbout improving the lot of frmersthe originl goltowrs which most of the public irrigtion investmenths been irecte over the pst 50 yers.

Te lesson lernt is tht the benefits of rehbilittionn upgrtion re trnsitory without the cpcityto control nrchy, n when it comes to controllingnrchy, the ie of grvity flow irrigtion itself is upginst some hr questions in Ini.

Socio-technical Pre-conditions forCanal IrrigationCn Inis publicly mnge cnl irrigtion systemsreprouce some of the prouctivity, socio-economic,n finncil outcomes in the twenty-first century thtthey emonstrte t the en of the nineteenth? A likelynswer is no becuse the socio-technicl conitions


11/21


in which cnl irrigtion cn thrive were ll presentthen n re ll bsent now. ble 6.4 summrizes bro-brush selection of the socio-technicl conitions

prevlent uring pre-colonil, colonil, n post-colonil ers in mny Asin countries incluing Mughln British Ini. Our hypothesis is tht prticulr

forms of irrigtion orgniztion tht we fin in theseers were in sync with the socio-technicl funmentlsof those times. Irrigtion communities thrive uring

pre-colonil times when: () there ws no lterntiveto sustine collective ction in eveloping irrigtion;(b) strong locl uthority structures, such s zminrs

able 6.4 Socio-technicl Context of Surfce Irrigtion in Different Ers

Pre-Colonial Colonial Post-Colonial(Adaptive Irrigation) (Constructive Imperialism) (Atomistic Irrigation)

Unit of irrigtion Irrigtion Community Centrlly mnge irrigtion system Iniviul frmerorgniztion

Nture of Strong locl uthority; Strong locl uthority; ln txes Wek stte n weker loclthe stte stte n people live off key source of stte income; force uthority; ln txes insignificnt;

the ln; force lbour; lbour; mximizing ln revenue poverty reuction, foo security,mximizing ln revenue n export to home-mrkets chief n onor funing key motiveschief motive for irrigtion motive for irrigtion investments; for irrigtion investments; forceinvestments. stte use irrigtion for lbour impossible; electorl politics

exportble crops. interfere with orerly mngement.

Nture of No privte property in ln. No property rights in ln. Ownership or secure ln use rightsAgrrin society Subsistence frming, high Subsistence frming n high for frmers; subsistence plus high

txes, n poor ccess to txes; ccess to cpitl n mrket vlue crops for mrkets; growingcpitl n mrket key key constrints to growth; escpe opportunities for off-frmconstrints to growth; from frming iffi cult; tenuril livelihoos; intensive iversifictionescpe from frming iffi cult; insecurity; most commn re of ln use; commn res witnessmost commn re frmers frmers grew uniform crops, wie vriety of crops grown, withgrew rice. mjorly rice. ifferent irrigtion scheuling

requirements.Demogrphics bunnt ln going bunnt ln going begging for Popultion explosion fter 1950

begging for cultivtion; cultivtion; irrigble ln use by n slow pce of inustriliztionirrigble ln use by feul lors to ttrct tennts promote ghettoiztion offeul lors to ttrct griculture in South n South-esttennts Asi n Chin.

Stte of irrigtion Lifting of wter s well s Lifting of wter s well s its Smll mechnicl pumps, cheptechnology its trnsport highly lbour trnsport highly lbour intensive boring rigs, n low cost rubber/

intensive n costly;* n costly; PVC pipes rsticlly reuce costn iffi culty of lifting ntrnsporting wter from surfcen grounwter.

Source: Shh (2009).

Note:* Assuming tht pir of bullocks pulling 100 litre lether bucket o 100 turns y for sy 100 ys per yer, lifting5 km3 of wter from wells woul require 10 million bullocks working on wells. Tis work is one toy in the Gng bsin by roun300,000 five-horse power (hp) iesel pumps oing 8 hours/y for 100 ys. In Gorkhpur, Jmes Buchnn estimte tht 10 mencoul wter from itch 3000 to 5000 squre feet/y using swing-bskets. A 1 hp pump cn o this work now in less thn n hour.Besies the rugery, the finncil cost ws n issue, too. Te cost figures for those ys given by the Agriculture Commission wereRs 720 per h for cnl irrigtion n Rs 54 per h from well. In view of such lrge ifference in cost, it ws not surprising tht

wells were supersee by cnls s the source of wter supply in res supplie by cnls (Rnhw 1983: 291).


12/21


in Mughl Ini, promoteeven coercecollectivection to enhnce ln revenue through irrigtion; (c)exit from frming ws iffi cult; n () irrigting with

wells, where possible, ws highly lborious, costly, ntime-consuming.

Similrly, lrge-scle irrigtion systems uring colo-nil times kept the three performnce gps (iscussebove) uner control becuse: () ln revenue ws thechief source of income for n uthoritrin govern-ment, n enhncing it ws the chief motive behinirrigtion investments;5 s result, irrigtion mngersh strong stke in ensuring tht the minsystemswere well mnge n mintine; (b) the stte h eep grrin presence n use its uthority to extrctirrigtion surplus n impose iscipline in irrigtion

commns; (c) the frmers in cnl commns hno prcticl lterntives to either subsistence frminglivelihoos or to grvity flow irrigtion since well irrig-tion remine costly n lborious; n () popultionpressure on frm lns ws nowhere s severe s fountoy. Tese socio-technicl conitions crete n in-stitutionl lock-in tht ensure tht public irrigtionsystems performe in terms of criteri relevnt to theirmngers t those times.

Post-colonil Ini is confronte with wholly newrry of socio-technicl conitions in which neitherirrigtion communities nor iscipline commnres re ble to thrive. Te Welfre Sttes revenue

interests in griculture re miniml; the prime motivefor irrigtion investments is foo security n povertyreuction, n not mximizing government income.Governments hve neither the presence n uthor-ity nor the will to collect even miniml irrigtion feestht re neee to mintin the systems.6Also, grrineconomies re in the throes of mssive chnge. Frmerscnn oexit griculture with greter ese thnever before. Growing popultion pressure hs mesmll-holer frming unvible except when they cn

intensify ln use n iversify into high-vlue cropsfor the growing urbn n export mrkets. In nycse, to sustin surfce irrigtion seems to require n

optiml popultion ensity; t very low popultionensity, it is not worthwhile; but beyon threshol,ln becomes so vluble tht using it for wter storgen trnsport comes uner severe pressure (von Oppenn Ro 1987: 36).

Finlly, grvity flow irrigtion systems re hit bythe mss-vilbility of smll pumps, pipes, n bor-ing technologies tht hve me the irrigtion com-munity reunnt; these hve lso me the irrigtorimpervious to the progressive wiening of the threeperformnce gps, n reuce his/her stke in theirperformnce. But for the rise of pump irrigtion, cnl

irrigtors woul hve proteste non-performnceby voice; now they hve the esier option of exit(Hirschmn 1965).

Apting system esign n mngement to thephenomenl expnsion in pump irrigtion is rgubly,by fr, the most formible chllenge to governmentcnl irrigtion systems n their mngers. One wyto pt, mny rgue, is by moernizing Inin irrig-tion systems to mke them more emn-oriente, sin Austrli or the commercil frming sector in SouthAfric where they cter to smll number of lrge us-ers n provie ech with level of wter control thtthe Inin smll frmer seeks from his own borehole

n pump. But this my be vin hope. Moreover,such moerniztion will work only to the extenttht it resses the rpily chnging socio-techniclfunmentls of the cnl irrigtion context of Ini.Rther thn improving cnl irrigtion performnce byreformsinstitutionl reform (like PIM/IM), bu-reucrtic reform, reform of min system mngement(We n Chmbers 1980)Ini my be better offmorphing its cnl systems to fit the chnging socio-technicl context of its grrin economy in trnsition.

5 Ln revenue constitute 60 per cent of the Est Ini Compnys totl income in the 1840s (Bnerjee n Iyer 2002); thoughits shre ecline somewht, it stye t roun 50 per cent throughout the nineteenth century. 6 As Wllch sys of the Ngrjunsgr project: Te problem is prtly engineering one; more funmentlly, however, theproblem is politicl, for the government is unble to prevent frmers t the upper or he ens from tking so much wtertht the til ens run ry Little hs been publishe on the subject, perhps becuse Ini hs put so much money, profes-sionl prie, n rems of prosperity investe in the projects. Yet, mny irrigtion engineers in Ini will mit privtely tht the

wste of evelopment fins is stggering, vilble t http://gs.ou.eu/~bwllch/ocuments/Krishn% 20Bsin.pf lst ccesseon 30 October 2009.


13/21


Future of Canal Irrigation:Reform or Morph

Wht is the pth tht cnl irrigtion willor cnfollow in the future, over sy 25-yer time horizon?Mny scenrios re possible; but four re explorebelow.

B-A-U S

Tis is the most likely scenrio n ssumes tht con-struction n mngement of cnl irrigtion projectswill continue in business-s-usul moe. Tis willimply, mong other things, tht: (i) governments t thecentrl n stte levels will continue to construct lrgepublic irrigtion projects espite their poor perfor-mnce trck recor n without unerstning how toimprove their performnce; (ii) similrly, multi-lterlleners will continue to fin new irrigtion projects swell s rehbilittion/moerniztion projects tht rettrctive for mking lrge lons tht governments rehppy to receive regrless of the pst experience withthe performnce of such lons n their future pros-pects; (iii) poor performnce of irrigtion systems willcontinue to be blme on the nrchy below the outlet;n espite lck of evience of lrge-scle success, PIM/IM will continue to be pele s blnket solutionsfor improving system performnce; (iv) since the bestsites hve lrey been use up, new projects will be

incresingly costly n unvible, like the mssive liftirrigtion projects uner construction on the GovriRiver in Anhr Presh whose energy cost of pump-ing the wter itself is estimte t Rs 17500/h; (v) tojustify unvible projects, plnners will continue to over-estimte the esign commn re7 n ssume unrel-istic irrigtion uty; once commissione, the he-rechfrmers will mke hbit of irrigting wter-intensivecrops ensuring tht the ctul re commne is hlfor thir of the originl pln; (vi) politicl leers willcontinue to score electorl brownie points in inititingn constructing grniose projects, without pyingmuch ttention to the stringent institutionl n mn-gement requirements to chieve the performnce gols

of these systems; irrigtion projects will lso be ttrc-tive to politicins for the opportunities these proviein fvouring supporters with construction contrcts;

(vii) irrigtion eprtments will continue to reminconstruction-oriente with engineers hving little in-terest or incentive or cpcity in effi cient mngementof systems so tht they chieve their full performncepotentil; (viii) even if bureucrcies were motivten cpcitte, cnl irrigtion performnce is iffi cultto mesure n monitor when ln revenue n wterfee collection hve been trivilize; (ix) in some sttes,irrigtion eprtments will continue to stgnte or evenshrink in size; sttes like Gujrt hve not hire n irri-gtion engineer in 20 yers, n by 2015, ll engineersre expecte to hve retire; this will leve little org-

niztion to mnge these lrge irrigtion cpitl ssets;(x) where irrigtion eprtments re growing, with risinggovernment slries n stgnnt irrigtion fee collec-tion, estblishment costs, s shre of working expenses,will increse with little left to repir n mintin thesystems; (xi) in overll terms, the low-level equilibriumin which public irrigtion in Ini is comfortblyensconce toy will continue; governments will keepthrowing goo money fter b; multi-lterl lenerswill keep finncing unvible rehbilittion projects;n overll, more n more money investe will keepgiving Ini less n less cnl irrigtion s hs hp-pene since 1991; (xii) the key socio-economic benefits

of such projectsoften more thn grvity fe irrigtereswill be in terms of rechrging the quifers in theres where they cn rech wter by grvity flow nfeeing urbn wter supply schemes.

Ex A CjM S Gw

Te simplest step tht cnl irrigtion mngement inIni cn tke to significntly enhnce its impct is tomximize res uner conjunctive use of groun nsurfce wter. Presently, this is not hppening becuseInis irrigtion systems irrigte only frction of the

re they were esigne to n they cn with tightermngement of the min system. Inis cnl systems

7 For exmple, the Srr Srovr Project (SSP) is plnne to irrigte 1.8 million h on the ssumption tht the project will rtioncnl wter t elt of 53 cm/yer. If we tke the totl wter circulting in Inin cnl systems t 300 BCM n ivie it by the17 m h tht this irrigtes, the storge per net h irrigte comes to 17,640 m3. As project representtive of Inin cnl irrigtionsector, then SSP cnnot commn more thn 0.55 million h.


14/21


re esigne to mobilize n move roun some 300billion cubic metre (BCM) of wter8 in norml yer.Accoring to the CWC, these irrigte some 30 million

out of totl of 37 million h tht cn be potentillyirrigte. Accoring to the ln-use survey t s wells the minor irrigtion census t, however, only bout1415 million h re irrigte by mjor n meiumpublic irrigtion projects. Accoring to the CWC,the volume of storge neee to irrigte hectre isroun 10,000 m3/h. Te Ln Use Survey (LUS)t suggest tht the volume of wter storge oftenincreses to 20,000 m3/h, goo el of which eithercretes wter-logging or evportes without proucingny benefit. In comprison, 230 BCM of grounwterstorge gives Ini gross irrigte re of 35.2 m h.

Tus, the grounwter storge tht Ini nees tosupport n irrigte h is between 4300 to 6600 m3/h,much lower thn tht require for surfce irrigtion.

A potentilly gigntic opportunity for unlockingvlue out of Inis cnl systems is by spreing theirwters on much lrger res to expn the res unerconjunctive mngement of surfce n grounwter.Aroun the worl, key problem in chieving suchconjunctive use is the reluctnce of commn refrmers to invest in grounwter irrigtion structures.In Pkistn uring the 1950s, the Worl Bnk h toinvest in the Slinity Control n Reclmtion Pro-grmme (SCARP) tube well progrmme to stimulte

conjunctive use. In Ini, this is no longer problemsince irrigtion wells ot the entire lnscpe of thecountry. Mny Inin systems were esigne s exten-sive (or protective) irrigtion systems to support irri-gte ry crops tht cn be mture with reltively lowelt. However, ue to poor system mngement npoliticl intrnsigence, most systems hve egenerteinto intensive irrigtion systems where frction of theesign commn uses 10,00015,000 m3 of wter/hto grow wter-intensive crops.

It is possible to rgue tht cnl systems cn be trns-forme into extensive systems s they were plnne,

without much investment simply by improving themngement of the min system. Most rehbilittionn moerniztion projects ime t oing precisely

this. However, these projects ene up spening hugesums on construction n little on mngement im-provement n cpcity builing. Improving the mn-

gement of min systems hols the key to unlockingvlue in Inis public irrigtion (We n Chmbers1980). Doing this, however, requires reform n revi-tliztion of irrigtion bureucrcies more thn PIM/IM n spening billions on reconstruction.

I A R T

Irrigtion bureucrcies cn reinvent themselves pro-vie there exist certin prerequisites in their internln externl tsk environment.

Unbunling of the monolithic irrigtion bureucrcyis one possible wy ( successful exmple of improve-

ment in performnce through unbunling exists inthe electricity sector in some sttes in Ini, which hssome prllels to the irrigtion sector). Tere re no esynswers to this question. Te ie of unbunling hslrey been trie in Gujrts Srr Srovr NrmNigm Limite (SSNNL), specil purpose vehiclecrete outsie the Irrigtion Deprtment to constructn mnge the Srr Srovr Project. However, thereseems little evience to suggest tht SSNNL hs onebetter thn the Irrigtion Deprtment s either profitcentre or responsibility centre. A pre-conition forny mngement turnroun is relible informtionbout orgniztionl performnce. In cnl irrig-

tion, this preconition is not stisfie toy; even onbsic vriblessuch s, the re wette by cnls in systemifferent government sources provie vstlyifferent numbers. Becuse irrigtion chrges rehrly collecte, even wter fee reliztion is poorinictor of re irrigte. Finlly, unlike uring colo-nil times when irrigtion fees commne one-thircrop shre, cnl irrigtion is inherently unvible s business toy. Despite these issues, the performnce ofirrigtion gencies woul improve if: (i) relible ntrnsprent Mngement Informtion System wereestblishe to monitor the performnce of ech irrigtion

system; (ii) the monolithic eprtment ws unbunleinto inepenent mngement units for ech systemwith opertionl utonomy, freeom from politicl

8 Tis inclues roun 215 BCM of reservoir storge, n roun 80 BCM in run-off the river system plus thousns of lrgeirrigtion tnks n ahar-pynesystems.


15/21


influences, gree mngement gols, n performnce-bse rewr system; n (iii) trnsfer pricing schemewere evolve to trnslte system performnce into

performnce mngement system for the gency.

M Hy Sy wP P P

A thir scenrio of where Inin cnl irrigtion mightgo in the future is for the irrigtion gencies to enlistthe wter scvenging nrchy s prtner n lever-ge it to enhnce their rech n performnce. A gooexmple is provie by evelopments in the upper-Krishn bsin in Mhrshtr. In 1976, the BchhwtAwr llocte 560 MC of wter to Mhrshtrwhich the stte h to evelop by the yer 2000.

Mhrshtr ws not in position to buil reservoirsn cnl networks neee to use this wter n by1996, it h constructe only 385 MC of storge nlittle h been one by wy of estblishing cnl net-work in the Krishn bsin. Terefore, the governmentfirst begn llowing frmers to lift wter from Krishnn its tributries. Tis encourge smll-scle privtelift schemes most of which coul not convey wterto longer thn 11.5 km istnce. In 1972, only 200privte n co-opertive lift schemes were operting inMhrshtr. As pressure to utilize the wter mounte,the government opte fr more proctive posturetowrs lift irrigtion schemes. It introuce cpitl

cost subsiy for irrigtion coopertives n lso fcili-tte bnk finnce from ntionlize n coopertivebnks. Most importntly, the Irrigtion Deprtment(ID) constructe series of Kolhpur ype (K) weirscross mny tributries of Krishn to use them s stor-ges for lift irrigtion schemes. Ech scheme hs tobe pprove by the ID, whereupon it qulifies for nelectricity connection n bnk finnce. Ech schemelso hs to py irrigtion fees to the ID for the ctulre irrigte; it lso hs to py electricity chrges to theStte Electricity Bor t previling rtes for gricul-turl use. Between December n June ech yer, the

ID implements fortnightly scheule of wter relesesto fill up the ykes, strting with the lst yke first. Tisensures tht lift schemes hve ccess to relible wtersupply uring the irrigtion seson.

A goo exmple of the kin of prtnership thtMhrshtrs policies hve spontneously promotebetween the ID n irrigtion coopertives is the

Rhngri project (constructe by Shhuji Mhrjin 1916) tht serves 91 villges in Kolhpur istrict(stuie by Chouhury n Kher 2006; Phiri 2006;

n Chnr n Suhir 2010). Te m never h nycnls; wter is relese from the m into BhogvtiRiver on which the ID hs constructe series of Kweirs. Te ID hs three roles: (i) to pprove proposlsfor new schemes; (ii) to relese wter into Bhogvtiriver every 15 ys to fill up ll the K weirs; n (iii)to collect irrigtion fees from ll lift schemes bse oncrop n re irrigte. Wter lifting, conveynce, nistribution re ll one by some 500 ISPs in privten coopertive sectors.

Rhngris performnce over the pst twoeces hs been very goo compre to surfce

irrigtion systems nywhere in Ini. Aginst esigncommn of 26,560 h, the verge re irrigte byISPs uring 20016 ws 30,341 h. Te ID mngeto collect only 58 per cent of the irrigtion chrges thtwere ue; however, ginst the nnul O&M cost ofRs 79 lkh, irrigtion chrges collecte in 20056 wereRs 179 lkh. In terms of the re irrigte s well sirrigtion chrges recovere, til-en res were founno worse off compre to he; the prctice of fillingup K weirs lst to first seems to ress the hetilinequity. An informl survey suggeste tht the numberof irrigtions the project provies is 80 to 90 per centof the number neee n tht over 80 per cent of the

frmers interviewe were hppy with irrigtion provieby the ISPs (Chouhury n Kher 2006). In terms ofoffering irrigtion-on-emn, Rhngri comesclose to tube well irrigtion. Chouhury n Kher(2006) interviewe eight privte n nine coopertiveISPs tht irrigte little over 1000 h in Rhngriproject. Tese hve together investe nerly Rs 22crore in systems tht inclue 2280 hp of pumps n41 km of burie pipe network n employ 92 stffto mnge wter. ypiclly, every system hs risingminsometimes, multi-stgeto chmber fromwhere wter is conveye by burie pipes to fiels. Tese

ISPs thus investe Rs 2.2 lkh/h in the system, use 2.3hp/h of power lo, employ wter mnger for every12 h irrigte n collect n irrigtion chrge tht ishigh enough to py off ebt, py electricity chrges tothe Electricity Bor, irrigtion chrges to the ID, nslry to employees, n sve enough for prompt repirn mintennce.


16/21


Rhngri is not the only exception. Accoringto the GoIs Minor Irrigtion Census III, in 20001,Mhrshtr h some 100,000 such schemes in op-

ertion for lifting n pipe istribution of surfcewter, mostly in the Upper Krishn bsin. Over 20,000of these were owne n operte by frmer groupsn Co-opertives. Tese lifte wter from rivers nstrems n trnsporte it mostly by burie pipelinesto res up-to 30 km from the source. Remrkbly,none of these ws operte by government gency.Over 90 per cent of Mhrshtrs lift schemes wereconstructe by frmers from their own funs n bnkfinnce, with the present vlue of ggregte investmentof roun Rs 5000 crore. Over 90 per cent schemesuse electric pumps to lift wter n 70 per cent h

burie pipeline networks for wter istribution. otlhorse power of pumps instlle in these schemes wsroun 590,000, equivlent to 440 MW, even thoughll the schemes involve sizeble lift rnging from 20meters to 185 meters. Tese irrigte gross re ofsome 350,000 h (incluing sugr-cne re of over100,000 h). Mhrshtrs lift irrigtion schemesemploye over 100,000 workers s pankhyas (wtermngers), if we count the fct tht the 80,000 fmiliesoperting privte lift schemes h t lest one fmilymember ech evote fulltime to work on the schemeopertion.

Where-ever cnls offer relible wter supply, privte

investors hve investe in turning wter into n irri-gtion service tht mimics on-emn grounwterirrigtion. A smple of the mny wys in which frm-ers hve moifie n pte cnl systems to theirnees is liste in ble 6.5. If we were to lern from thisexperience, vriety of mngement moels emerge inwhich the irrigtion gency hs new, more limite roleof elivering bulk wter t pre-esignte points in thecommn re n vriety of privte rrngementsre llowe to provie n irrigtion service. Regrlessof whether governments support these or not, they reemerging n plying mjor role in wter istribution

in mny systems. Tis is the closest tht cnl irrig-tion cn come to mimicking the flexible, on-emngrounwter irrigtion.

At present, such privte pump n pipe systems oncnls re consiere illegl, However, these systems cnlso be integrte with cnl systems s hybri systemsin which the gency promises to eliver bulk-wter

t, sy, minor-level long preetermine scheulen license ISPs, pying volumetric wter chrgessume the responsibility of istributing wter to their

frmer-customers through burie pipe network.Such hybri systems involving pipe istribution hveseverl vntges over the conventionl grvity flowsystems: (i) privte prtners tke up lrge prt of thecpitl investment of cnl system by constructingthe istribution system; (ii) burie pipe istributionsystem fces much less right-of-the-wy problems thtcnls fce; (iii) pipe istribution sves ln use upfor sub-minors n fiel-chnnels; (iv) it minimizeswter-logging tht is rmpnt in cnl-bse istributionsystems; (v) pipe istribution is consiere too costlyin comprison to erthen cnls but is ctully quite

cost-effective if the ln require for cnls is vlue tmrket price; (vi) cnl network is vst evportionpn especilly t the level of the istribution systemwhere surfce re to epth rtio of chnnels is low;pipe istribution cn sve some of this non-beneficilevportion loss; (vii) pipe wter elivery from cnlsmimics tube well irrigtion n rises prouctivity ofirrigtion wter pplie even more so becuse users py high price for the irrigtion service; (viii) one right,pipe istribution cn help spre cnl wter over much lrger re thn surfce cnls cn; (ix) it cnput into plce regime of conjunctive use of grounn surfce wter tht my tckle the cute problem

of grounwter epletion; (x) while pipelining is moreenergy-intensive compre to grvity cnls, if mngewell, it cn significntly improve the overll frm energyblnce of the country by spreing surfce wter on lrger re, reucing the nee for grounwter pump-ing, by integrting micro-irrigtion technologies, nenhncing rechrge from cnl wters thereby reucingthe energy use for grounwter pumping; (xi) whilefrmer prticiption in cnl irrigtion mngemenths been hr to come by, uner such hybri PPPmoel, frmer prticiption in irrigtion mngementbegins t the construction stge itself.

If the Mhrshtr experience is ny guie, invitingfrmers to prticipte in creting such hybri systemsis not iffi cult. o promote frmer investments inpipe istribution in plnne n systemtic mn-ner, ll tht the gencies nee to o is the following:(i) not only recognize n leglize but lso register nincentivize lifting of wter from cnl systems n its


17/21


able 6.5 Frmer Moifictions n Apttions of Cnl Systems to Serve their Nees

# System modification and Examples How Extent of Precondition Presence of adaptation widespread farmer for farmer Irrigation

is this in India? enterprise and enterprise and Serviceinvestment investment institutions

1 Clssicl Cnl Irrigtion: Mhi commn Not t ll Negtive NilTe system opertes s in erly 1970s;

esigne; wells re riven Bhkr commnout by grvity flow irrigtion in the 1950s

2 Min system elivers wter Inir Gnhi cnl, Not very Low; Regulr wter Nilin frm pons (iggis) Rjsthnb iniviul supply tofortnightly frm pons

3 Min system elivers wter in Srr Srovr; Some Low; nks Some presencevillge pons s intermeite System tnks in iniviul replenishe of Irrigtionstorges; frmers irrigte by South Ini regulrly Service Mrkets

grvity or lift (ISMs)4 Min system elivers wter Mhi system;c Very Substntil; Perennil or High to very

into cnls; frmers/groups Upper Krishn; wiespre privte n full seson high presencelift n irrigte Srr Srovr throughout coopertive cnls t run of ISMs

commne Ini t FSL

5 Min system elivers wter Severl systems Tis moel is Substntil, Perennil or High presenceto villge contrctor on in Chinf spreing privte full seson of ISMsvolumetric bsis n he in Chin cnls t runlloctes wter to frmers t FSLn collects wter fees

6 Min system rechrges the Bhkr;gMhi;h Very, very Substntil, None; lluvil High to veryquifers in the commn; Upper Krishn bsin;i wiespre mostly quifers, high presencemuch irrigtion surplus mil Nuj privte; unline of ISMs

results from tube well cnls helpirrigtion

7 Irrigtion tnks support mil Nu;kAP;l Very, very Substntil, None Some presencewell irrigtion in their Krntk; Estern wiespre mostly privte of ISMscommn Rjsthnm

8 Irrigtion tnks converte Much of mil Nu;n Not very, Substntil, Consensus Some, to highinto percoltion tnks Rylseemo in but gining mostly privte mong presence of

Anhr Presh tnk irrigtors ISMs

Notes: Shh (1993); bAmrsinghe et l. (2008); cChouhury n Shh (2005); Lohr et l. (2006); Birri et l. (2003); Chouhuryn Kher (2006); Phiri (2006); e lti n Shh (2004); lti n Pny (2007); n Singhl n Ptwri (2009); f Shhet l. (2004); Wng et l. (2003); gDhrmhikri (2005); Down to Earth (2005); h Shh (1993); Shh (2009); n Kolvlli (1986);i Venot (2008); Biggs et l. (2007); j Sivsubrmniyn (2008); kPlnismi n Ester (1991); Plnismi n Blsubrmnin(1998); l Ro (2003); m Shh n Rju (2001); n Plnismi (1995, 2005); o Ro (2003).

pipe istribution; (ii) mke firm commitmentsuring the irrigtion seson ech yerof weeklywter eliveries in ech istributry/minor ccor-ing to strict scheule, s in the Rhngri system

escribe bove; (iii) existing tube well owners shoulbe encourge to convert their electricity connectionsto cnl lift; (iv) electricity connections shoul be pro-vie to pprove pipe istribution schemes plnne


18/21


by frmers, coopertives, n proucer compnies;(v) institutionl finncil gencies shoul be involvein proviing finnce to support frmer coopertives

for their investments in pumps n pipeline systems;(vi) government shoul provie 25 per cent subsiyon cpitl costs of pprove projects; (vii) ech pipe-line system shoul be registere with the IrrigtionDeprtment n be require to py irrigtion fee forll the ln irrigte with cnl wter; (viii) the ie ofirrigtion commn shoul be moifie to inclue nyfrming community tht is willing to invest in pipeistribution n py volumetric wter chrge.

ConclusionAccoring to Kurt Levins force-fiel nlysis, Inis

public irrigtion mngement will begin to chngefor the better when rivers of chnge will outweigh

the forces tht restrin chnge. For the moment, theltter fr outweigh the former n will mke Business-s-Usul (outline bove) the most likely option.

Inee, one cn fin hrly ny notble river thtwoul crete pressure for mjor chnge progrmmein the public irrigtion sector. Governments nonors hve been throwing goo money fter b;n they will keep oing so regrless of wht the pstinvestments elivere or file to eliver. If btteryof chnge rivers were to be crete, the work woulnee to begin by creting creible informtion nmonitoring system bout how public irrigtion systemsre performing ginst their originl esigns, theircurrent objectives, n vis--vis ech other. In business,mesuring performnce is generlly consiere essentil

to mnging it. Tis seems nowhere more true thn inthe public irrigtion business in Ini toy.

References

Amrsinghe, U., S. Bhuri, O.P. Singh, n B.K. Ann(2008), Mnging Unrelibility of Cnl Wter: CseStuy of Diggis in Rjsthn, Interntionl WterMngement Institute, Colombo, Sri Lnk.

Amrsinghe, U. n S. Xenrios (2009), Strtegic Issuesin Inin Irrigtion: Overview of the Proceeings, inInterntionl Wter Mngement Institute (IWMI),Strategic Analyses of the National River Linking Project(NRLP) of India Series 5, Proceeings of the SeconNtionl Workshop on Strtegic Issues in Inin Irrig-tion, New Delhi, Ini, 89 April 2009. Colombo, SriLnk: Interntionl Wter Mngement Institute.

Bnerjee, A. n L. Iyer (2002), History, Institutions nEconomic Performnce: Te Legcy of Colonil Lnenure Systems in Ini, Working Pper 0227, MI,Boston.

Bhti, R. (1991), Irrigtion Finncing n Cost RecoveryPolicy in Ini: Cse Stuies from Bihr n Hryn,in R. Meinzen n M. Svensen (es) Future Directionsfor Indian Irrigation: Research and Policy Issues Inter-

ntionl Foo Policy Reserch Institute, Wshington,DC., pp. 168213.

Biggs, .W., A. Gur, C.A. Scott, P. Tenkbil, P.G. Ro,M. Krishn Gumm, S.K. Achry, n H. urrl,(2007), Closing of the Krishn Bsin: Irrigtion,Stremflow Depletion n Mcroscle Hyrology,Reserch Report 111, IWMI, Colombo.

Birri, K.S., D.S. Nvkr, D.V. Ksr, n M.S. Yv(2003), Coopertive Lift Irrigtion Schemes for Sus-tinble Use of Wter, Indian Journal of AgriculturalEconomics, July, Vol. 56, No. 3.

Boyce, J.K. (1988), echnologicl n Institutionl Alter-ntives in Asin Rice Irrigtion, Economic and PoliticalWeekly,Vol.23, No. 13, pp. A6A22.

Buckley, R.B. (1905), Te Irrigation Works of India. E. &F.N. Spon Lt., Lonon.

Burt, C. n S. Styles (1999), Moern Wter Control nMngement Prctices in Irrigtion: Impct on Perfor-mnce, in D. Renult (e.), Modernization of IrrigationSystem Operations, Proceeings of the Fifth InterntionlIIS Network Meeting, Aurngb, Ini, 2830October 1998, Foo n Agriculture Orgniztion,Bngkok, RAP Publiction: 99/43 pp. 93114.

Centrl Wter Commission [CWC] (2006), FinncilAspects of Meium n Mjor Projects, vilble thttp://cwc.gov.in/min/webpges/publictions.htmllst ccesse on 30 Jnury 2008.

Chnr, A. n C. Suhir (2010), A Stuy of KolhpurLift Irrigtion Co-opertives, MS Report, Institute ofRurl Mngement, Ann.

Chouhury, N. n V. Kher, (2006), Public Privte Prtner-ship in Surfce Wter Irrigtion: A Cse of Kolhpur,IWMIt Wter Policy Progrm (unpublishe re-port), Ann, Ini.


19/21


Chouhury, N. n Z. Shh (2005), Long erm Socio-Economic Impcts of Displcement: Cse Stuy ofMhi Bjj Sgr Dm, IWMIt Wter Policy

Progrm (unpublishe report), Ann, Ini.Cowr, E.W. (1983), Property in Action: Alterntives for

Irrigtion Investment, Pper presente t Workshop onWter Mngement n Policy t Khon Ken University,Khon Ken, Tiln, September.

Dines, S.R. n J.R. Pwr (1987), Economic Returns toIrrigtion in Ini, SDR Reserch Groups Inc. & De-velopment Group Inc. Report prepre for US Agencyfor Interntionl Development Mission to Ini, NewDelhi.

Dhrmhikri, S. (2005), Unravelling Bhakra: Assessing theemple of Resurgent India, Mnthn Ahyyn Kenr,Bhopl, Ini.

Dhwn, B.D. (1996), rens n Determinnts of Cpitl

Investments in Agriculture, Indian Journal of Agricul-tural Economics,Vol.541, No. 4, pp. 52942.

Down to Earth (2005), Te Lie of the Ln, 31 My, pp.368.

Freemn, D.M., V. Bhnrkr, E. Shinn, J. Wilkins-Wells,n P. Wilkins-Wells (1989), Local Organizations forSocial Development: Concepts and Cases of IrrigationOrganizations, Westview Press, Bouler, Coloro.

Government of Ini (1992), Report of the Committee onPricing of Irrigation Water, Plnning Commission ofIni, New Delhi.

(2005), Report on Tird Census of Minor IrrigationSchemes (20001), Ministry of Wter Resources, Minor

Irrigtion Division, New Delhi.Hrimn, D. (2002), Te Politics of Wter in ColonilIni, in South Asia, Journal of South Asian Studies,Vol.25, No. 2, pp. 11120.

Hirschmn, A. (1965), Exit, Voice and Loyalty: Responses toDecline in Firms, Organizations and States, HrvrUniversity Press, Boston.

Hunt, R.C. (1989), Approprite Socil Orgniztion? WterUser Associtions in Bureucrtic Cnl IrrigtionSystems, Human Organization, Vol. 48, No. 1 (Spring),pp. 7989.

Interntionl Wter Mngement Institute [IWMI] (2009),Strategic Analyses of the National River Linking Project(NRLP) of India Series 5. Proceeings of the Secon

Ntionl Workshop on Strtegic Issues in Inin Irri-gtion, New Delhi, Ini, 89, April 2009. Colombo,Sri Lnk: Interntionl Wter Mngement Institute,p. 359.

Islm, M.M. (1997), Irrigation Agriculture and the Raj,Punjab, 18871947, Mnohr Books, New Delhi.

Jirth, J. (2001), Water User Associations in Andhra Pradesh:Initial Feedback, Concept Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Jnkrjn, S. n M. Moench (2006), Are Wells Potentil

Tret to Frmers Well-Being? Cse of DeteriortingGrounwter Irrigtion in mil Nu, Economic andPolitical Weekly,Vol.41, No. 37, pp. 397787.

Joseph, C.J. (2001), Beneficiry Prticiption in IrrigtionWter Mngement: Te Kerl Experience, DiscussionPper 36, Centre for Development Stuies, Tiruvnn-thpurm, Ini.

Jurriens, M., P. Molling, n P. Wester (1996), Scrcityby Design: Protective Irrigtion in Ini n Pkistn,Liqui Gol 1996, Pper 1,Wgeningen University,Netherlns.

Kloezen, W.H. (2002), Accounting for Wter: InstitutionlVibility n Impcts of Mrket- Oriente IrrigtionInterventions in Centrl Mexico, PhD Tesis, Rurl

Development Sociology Group, Wgeningen University,Netherlns.

Kolvlli, S. (1986), Economic Anlysis of Conjunctive Useof Wter: Te Cse of MhiKn Irrigtion Projectin Gujrt Ini, PhD Tesis, University of Illinois,Urbn, IL, Chpter 6, pp. 10024.

Lohr, N.S., R.R. Mne, S.N. Ptil, n M.B. Nichit (2006),Comprtive Economics of Lift Irrigtion SchemesOperte in Kolhpur District of Western Mhrshtr,Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 1 July.

Mhv, R. (2007), Irrigtion Reforms in Anhr Presh:Whither the rjectory of Legl Chnges?, InterntionlWter Lw Reserch Centre, Working Pper 200704,

Genev, vilble t http://www.ielrc.org/content/w0704.pf, lst ccesse 30 Jnury 2008.Mohnty, N. (2005), Moving to Scle, Bckgroun Pper

for Inis Wter Economy: Brcing for urbulentFuture, Report 34750-IN, Agriculture n RurlDevelopment Unit, South Asi Region, Worl Bnk,Wshington DC.

Molling, P. (2003), On the Water Front: Water Distribution,echnology and Agrarian Change in a South Indian CanalIrrigation System, Orient Longmn, New Delhi.

Mukherji, A., . Fcon, J. Burke, C. e Friture, J.M. Fures,B. Fuleki, M. Giorno, D. Molen, n . Shh(2009), Revitalizing Asias Irrigation to Sustainably Meetomorrows Food Needs, IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lnk n

FAO, Rome, Itly, p. 39.Nrin, V. (2004), Crfting Institutions for Collective

Action in Cnl Irrigtion: Cn We Brek the De-locks?, Pper presente t Silver Jubilee Symposium onGovernnce Issues in Wter Institute of Rurl Mnge-ment, Ann, Ini, December.


20/21


Ntionl Smple Survey Orgniztion [NSSO] (2005),Seasonal Variation in the Operational Land Holdings inIndia, 20023, 59th Roun, JnuryDecember 2003,

Report 494(59/18.1/2). Deprtment of Sttistics, Gov-ernment of Ini, New Delhi.

(2003), Report on Village Facilities, NSS 58throun, JulyDecember 2002, Report 487(58/3.1/1),Deprtment of Sttistics, Government of Ini, NewDelhi.

(1999), Cultivation Practices in India, NSS 54thRoun, JnuryJune 1998, Report 451, Deprtmentof Sttistics, Government of Ini, New Delhi.

(2005), Situation Assessment Survey of Farmers: SomeAspects of Farming. 59th Roun, JnuryDecember2003, Report 496(59/33/3), Deprtment of Sttistics,Government of Ini, New Delhi.

Oorthuizen, J. (2003), Water, Works and Wages: Te Everyday

Politics of Irrigation Management Reform in the Philip-pines,Orient Longmn, New Delhi.

Phiri, H.K. (2006), Wter Service Mrkets in SurfceIrrigtion Systems: Institutions n Socio-EconomicImpct, Pper presente t the IWMIt AnnulPrtners Meet, Februry 2005.

Plnismi, K. (1995), Hyro-economic Integrtion nConversion of nks into Percoltion Pons, CGWBProject Report, mil Nu Agriculturl University,Coimbtore.

(2005), Sustinble Mngement of nk Irri-gtion Systems in South Ini, Working Pper SeriesNo. 2, Afrsin Centre for Pece n Development

Stuies, Kyoto, Jpn.Plnismi, K. n K.W. Ester (1991), Hyro-economicInterction in nk Irrigtion Systems, Indian Journalof Agricultural Economics, Vol. 46, No. 2 (AprilJune).

Plnismi, K. n R. Blsubrmnin (1998), Commonproperty n Privte Prosperity: nks vs. Privte Wellsin mil Nu, Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics,Vol. 53, No. 4 (OctoberDecember).

Prnjpye, S., K.J. Joy, n C. Scott (2003), Te OzrWter User Societies: Impct of Society Formtion nCo-mngement of Surfce Wter n Grounwter,Pper presente t the Ntionl Seminr on Wter, Pune,Ini, July, vilble t http://www.cess.c.in/cesshome/wp/VUMURHJ1.pf lst ccesse 30 Jnury 2008.

Prhn, P. (1989), Patterns of Irrigation Organization inNepal: A Comparative Study of 21 Farmer Managed Irri-gation Systems, Interntionl Irrigtion MngementInstitute, Colombo.

Rnhw, M.S. (1983), A History of Agriculture in India,Vol. III, Inin Council of Agriculturl Reserch, NewDelhi.

Ro, G.B. (2003), Oses of Rylseem: SPWDs nkRestortion Progrm in Southern Anhr Presh,Wastelands News, Vol. 19, No. 1, pp. 6472.

Rp, E.R. (2004), Te Success of Policy Moel: IrrigtionMngement rnsfer in Mexico, PhD Tesis, RurlDevelopment Sociology Group, Wgeningen Univer-sity, Netherlns.

Rey, V.R. (2003), Irrigtion: Development n Reforms,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 38, Nos. 1213,pp. 117889.

Renult, D. (1998), Moerniztion of Irrigtion Systems: AContinuing Process, in D. Renult (e.)Modernizationof Irrigation System Operations, Proceeings of the FifthInterntionl I IS Network Meeting, Aurngb,Ini, 2830 October, FAO, RAP Publiction, Bngkok,Vol. 99, No. 43, pp. 712.

Repetto, R. (1986), Skimming the Wter: Rent, Seeking n

the Performnce of Public Irrigtion Systems,ReserchReport 4, Worl Resources Institute, Wshington, DC.

Rice, E.B. (1996), Paddy Irrigation and Water Management inSoutheast Asia, Worl Bnk, Wshington, DC.

Selvrjn, S. (2002), Sustaining Indias Irrigation Infrastruc-ture, Policy Brief 15, Ntionl Centre for AgriculturlEconomics n Policy Reserch, New Delhi.

Shh, A. (2003), il-Eners n Other Deprive in CnlIrrigtion Systems: Gujrt, Pper presente t NtionlWorkshop on il-Eners n Other Deprive in CnlIrrigtion Systems, Ahmeb, Ini, November.

Shh, . (1993), Groundwater Markets and Irrigation Devel-opment: Political Economy and Practical Policy,Oxfor

University Press, Bomby. (2010), Guhi, Sbrknth: Chnging Relity ofn Irrigtion System, Fiel Note.

Shh, ., M. Giorno, n J. Wng (2004), IrrigtionInstitutions in Dynmic Economy: Wht Is ChinDoing Differently from Ini?, Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Vol. 39, No. 31, pp. 345261.

(2009), aming the Anarchy? Groundwater Gover-nance in South Asia, RFF Press, Wshington DC.

Shh, . n K.V. Rju (2001), Rethinking Rehbilittion:Socio-ecology of nks in Rjsthn, Ini, WaterPolicy,Vol. 3, No. 6, pp. 52136.

Shukl, P. (2004), Exposure cum rining Visit to Prticip-tory Irrigtion Mngement (PIM) Project Ahmeb,

Gujrt, Letters, Vol.1, No. 3, pp. 1214.Singh, S. (2006), Creit, Inebteness n Frmer Suicies

in Punjb: Some Missing Links, Economic and PoliticalWeekly, Vol.41, No. 3, pp. 33301.

Singhl, N. n V. Ptwri (2009), Evolving Arrangementsfor Local Water Diversion-Delivery in SSP, MS Report,Institute of Rurl Mngement, Ann.


21/21


Sivsubrmniyn, K. (2008), Irrigtion Mngement nits Effect on Prouctivity uner Prmbikulm AliyrProject in mil Nu, in Managing Water in the Face

of Growing Scarcity, Inequity and Declining Returns:Exploring Fresh Approaches, Proceeings of the SeventhAnnul Prtners Meet, IWMI-t Wter Policy Re-serch Progrm, Vol. 2, Interntionl Wter Mnge-ment Institute, Hyerb, Ini, pp. 81949.

lti, J. n D. Pny (2007), Issues in Cnl Infr-structure: Development n Cnl Irrigtion Mnge-ment, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.42, No. 33,pp. 34229.

lti, J. n . Shh (2004), Institutionl Vcuum inSrr Srovr Project: Frming Rules-of-the-Gme,Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 39, No. 31, pp.35049.

Tkkr, H. (1999), Assessment of Irrigtion in Ini,

Contributing Pper for Worl Commission on Dms(WCD), Temtic Review IV. 2, Irrigtion Options,vilble t http://www.ms.org/ocs/kbse/contrib/opt161.pf, lst ccesse on 1 November 2006.

Te Age (1891), Dekin on Irrigtion, 7 Februry 1891,vilble t http://insie.thege.com.u/view_bestofr-ticle.php?strction=upte&inttype=1&inti=437 lstccesse on 1 November 2009.

Tenkbil, P.S., C.M. Birr, H. urrl, P. Noojipy,Y.J. Li, J. Vithnge, V. Dheervth, M. Velpuri, M.Schull, X.L. Ci, n R. Dutt (2006), An IrrigteAre Mp of the Worl (1999) erive from RemoteSensing, Reserch Report # 105, Interntionl Wter

Mngement Institute, p. 74.

vn Hlsem, G.E. (2002), ril n Retril: Te Evolutionof Irrigtion Moerniztion in NWFP, Pkistn,PhDTesis, Wgeningen University, Netherlns.

Venot, J.P. (2008), Why n Where re the Krishn WtersDisppering?, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 43,No. 6, pp. 1517.

Vermillion, D. (1996), Te Privatization and Self-Managementof Irrigation: Final Report, Interntionl IrrigtionMngement Institute, Colombo.

Von Oppen, M. n S.K.V. Ro (1987), ank Irrigationin Semi-Arid ropical India: Economic Evaluation andAlternatives for Improvement, Reserch Bulletin 10,ICRISA, Hyerb, Ini.

We, R. (1984), Irrigtion Reform in Conitions of Popu-list Anrchy: An Inin Cse, Journal of DevelopmentStudies, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 285303.

We, R. n R. Chmbers (1980), Mnging the Min

System: Cnl Irrigtions Blin Spot, Economic andPolitical Weekly, Vol. 15, No. 39, pp. A107A112.

Wng, J., Z. Xu, J. Hung, n S. Rozelle (2003), Incentivesin Wter Mngement Reform: Assessing the Effect onWter Use, Prouction n Poverty in the Yellow RiverBsin, Chinese Council for Agriculturl Policy (rftpper), Beijing.

Whitcombe, E. (2005), Irrigtion, in D. Kumr n M.Desi (es) Te Cambridge Economic History of India,c. 17571970, Vol. 2, Orient Longmn, Hyerb,Ini, pp. 677737.

chp 6 past present and the future of canal irrigation

Documents