| |
The Society for Promoting
Participative Eco-system Management (SOPPECOM) has been raising
the issue of deprivation in the command areas of irrigation projects.
Moreover, we always found that there was a dearth of studies focusing
on the issue. Hence, when Shri Anil Shah of Development Support
Centre (DSC) invited us to take up this study in Maharashtra as
part of an all India effort to understand the issue of deprivation
in irrigation commands, we were very happy because it gave us the
opportunity to address this issue systematically. As part of this
study SOPPECOM took up three projects – one major, one medium
and one minor – in Maharashtra. Our overall feeling after
the study could very well be paraphrased by what K. R. Datye, senior
member of SOPPECOM, often says -- `what irrigation (especially major
projects) could have done, but could not do’ – this
expresses both the problems and potential of irrigation sector today.
While irrigation and irrigated agriculture have played a significant
role in creating self-reliance in food, especially in terms of production
at a national level, many problems continue to plague the irrigation
sector. They range from under-utilisation of potential created,
the mismatch between actual and potential productivity of irrigated
agriculture, increasing gap in cost recovery, poor quality of services,
deterioration of the physical system because of lack of adequate
maintenance, lack of control and participation of the users, etc.
One of the most important problems is that of tail-enders and other
deprived sections within the irrigation service areas -- a problem
which is universal in its presence as it cuts across regions and
size and type of projects.
This is even more important in the case of Maharashtra. Though Maharashtra
has the largest number of large projects, only about 17% of the
cropped area is irrigated while the all India average is about 26%.
It is estimated that even if Maharashtra develops all its water
potential it would be sufficient to irrigate at most about 30% of
the total cropped area. In view of this the question of tail-enders
and the deprived in the command forms an important issue if irrigation
is to benefit the largest number of people.
Scope and Methodology
The central research question explored by the study is the issue
of deprivation or non-access to irrigation water in major, medium
and minor surface irrigation systems in the northern, eastern, southern
and western regions of India. It includes the problem of the `tail-enders'.
This may then be broken down into the following sub-questions:
 |
identifying who the deprived are |
|
how deprived they are |
|
why they are so deprived |
|
what is the impact of this deprivation |
|
what they have tried to do to overcome this
deprivation; and |
|
how others have reacted to the issue and efforts
to resolve the issue |
The Maharashtra study focused on deprivation
in the following projects: Major project – Mula in
Ahmednagar district; Medium project – Mangi in Solapur district;
and Minor project – Walen in Pune district. In the Mula major
project we selected 10 minor-level sub-commands, 2, 4 and 4, respectively
from the head reach, middle reach and tail reach for the field work.
Sub-commands were selected to capture the variations within the
zones in terms of head and tail reach. In the case of Mangi medium
project we selected 8 sub-commands of which 5 are located on the
Right Bank Canal (RBC) and 3 on Left Bank Canal (LBC) covering the
head, middle and tail reach of both RBC and LBC. Since Walen minor
project mostly serves only one village, we have included the entire
command in the sample.
In the light of the discussions at the Hyderabad meeting and the
whole project design (both in terms of time and resource available
for the study), it was decided not to use individual, questionnaire-based,
quantitative data collection tools. The emphasis was on qualitative
and participatory methods. The primary data collection was more
directed towards exploration of issues and a qualitative understanding
of the issues. Most of the quantitative data have come from secondary
sources. We conducted a series of participative discussions and
appraisals in the form of walk through surveys (WTSs) and focussed
group discussions (FGDs) as part of the primary data collection
in the villages. In addition we had a series of discussions with
the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC) and
Marathwada Godavari Irrigation Development Corporation (MGIDC) officials.
Profile of the Projects and Selected
Sub-commands
The Major Project: Mula Irrigation Project
The Mula Project is located on the Mula river, a sub-tributary of
the Godavari. The dam has a gross storage capacity of 767 Mcum and
a live storage of 609 Mcum and has a planned capacity to irrigate
80,800 ha in 149 drought prone villages in Ahmednagar district.
The project serves the command area through two main canals, the
MLBC (Mula Left Bank Canal) and the MRBC (Mula Right Bank Canal)
and their branch canals serving an area of 10,100 ha and 70,700
ha respectively. The MLBC was mainly intended to strengthen and
stabilise the command of Pravara right bank canal and so the study
concentrates on the MRBC.
The minors and direct outlets taking off from the MRBC itself serve
an area of 28,075 ha. The first two branch canals taking off from
the MRBC serve an area of 33,215 ha. The third branch, known as
the Pathardi branch, takes off at the tail end of the MRBC and runs
for 53 km serving an area of 11,400 ha, but only for eight months
(July to February). The command area of the MRBC is divided into
5 sub-divisions known as Rahuri, Newasa, Ghodegaon, Kukana and Amarapur
sub-divisions and we may take Rahuri sub-division as comprising
the head reach, Newasa and Ghodegaon as comprising the middle reach
and Kukana and Amrapur as comprising the tail reach of the project.
The approved design crop pattern comprises 5% area under perennials
(mostly sugarcane), 20% two-seasonals, 30% Kharif seasonals, 42%
Rabi seasonals and 3% Hot Weather (HW) seasonals. The rainfall in
the command area is scanty, the average rainfall being below 600
mm. It is not uniformly distributed over the monsoon period. The
formation of Water Users' Associations (WUAs) has proceeded to a
relatively much larger degree within the Mula system -- 61 WUAs
have been registered so far and about 56 have started functioning.
About 14 WUAs are in the process of getting their registration.
Medium Project: Mangi Irrigation Project
The Mangi medium irrigation project is located at Mangi village
in Karmala Taluka of Solapur district. It is constructed on Kanoli
river which drains into the Sina river and forms part of the Bhima
sub-basin of Krishna basin. The construction work started on the
site in 1897 as a scarcity relief work but was subsequently abandoned.
It was again taken up and in the drought year of 1926 and later
abandoned. Another drought year 1952 saw the construction being
restarted, and this time the work was continued and construction
of the tank was completed by 1955. The Left Bank and Right Bank
canal systems were completed in 1966. The total ICA is 3,117 ha.
The main cropping season is Rabi and accounts for about 2,500 ha
of the total ICA. The length of RBC and LBC is 29 km and 9 km and
the ICA under them 2,307 ha and 809 ha respectively. Lifting of
about 20% is allowed from the dam storage – 6% under the regular
quota and 14% under the drip scheme. So far no WUAs have come up
on the Mangi project. However efforts are on to form the WUAs and
at least 2 WUAs are under different stages of formation.
Minor irrigation project : Walen
Walen Minor Irrigation Tank is located in Mulshi taluka of Pune
district. The project consists of an earthen dam across Walki river
which is a tributary of the Mula river in the Krishna basin. Originally
planned to irrigate 270 ha, the tank is now designed to store 5.11
Mcum and irrigating 918 ha. It has a mixed cropping pattern of Kharif
and Rabi. The single canal on the left bank is 3.10 km long, has
11 outlets and a discharge capacity of 10.47 cusecs. The command
area mostly falls in Walen village. The water users have already
decided to form a WUA to take over the management of the system.
They have constituted the promoters body and are in the process
of completing the necessary procedures and documentation required
for registration.
The Selected Sub-commands
Ten sub-commands were selected from the command of the Mula Project.
Of the 10 selected sub-commands, the first two are in the head reach,
the next four are in the middle reach and the last four are in the
tail reach of the project. Within a reach, care was taken to cover
head and tail portions. Two sub-commands with WUAs were also included.
Eight sub-commands were selected from the Mangi Project. And for
Walen, the entire command area was included.
Main Findings
A summary of the main findings for all the sub-commands for all
the projects is given in the table comprising Annexure 1. Some of
the broader trends are summarised below.
Inflows at the dam site
Decennial averages for the last forty years for the Mula project
indicate a distinct trend towards reduced inflows at the dam site,
though they fall significantly below the designed storage capacity
in only a few years. However, it should be noted that a) the trend
exists, b) that it is more pronounced in the last 20 years (in 9
out of 20 years the inflows fell below the design capacity), and
c) though this may not have substantial impact on Mula storage,
its overall impact, especially downstream, needs to be taken into
account.
A lot of catchment protection and watershed development work has
taken place upstream of Mangi. Inflows at the Mangi site show a
peculiar behaviour. In good rainfall years inflows are not greatly
affected, but in bad years inflows are drastically reduced in the
recent years, which indicates that though the impact of upstream
activity may not be of much significance in good years, it needs
to be taken into account in bad years.
Walen, being situated in a high rainfall area does not show significant
problems in availability of inflows at dam site.
Physical state of the system
In both Mula and Mangi, the state of disrepair of the system is
significant and reportedly the degree has risen significantly since
the formation of the GMIDC and MKVDC. The degree of disrepair is
generally the higher the more we move towards the tail reach of
the project, or the distributary or the minor. In Walen, the main
problem faced is that of waterlogging and canal seepage due to crab
damage, a common problem in the Konkan. The problem is so severe
that the Walen farmers have come together to demand that no water
should be released from the dam until this problem is rectified.
Field channels are not well maintained and this has often caused
deprivation. The minor has been breached in many places and farmers
draw water from the breach. Many farmers in the head reach of the
minors (especially, minors lying in the tail reach of the project)
draw water through pumps or take it directly into wells in an unregulated
fashion.
Degree of deprivation
The issue of quantification of deprivation in different ways is
taken up separately below. Here we may have a look at the degree
of deprivation expressed as percentage of planned area not receiving
canal water and as corresponding percentage of area receiving neither
canal nor well water.
We may see that even at project level, the degree off deprivation
is significant, except in the hot weather. If we take into account
the indirect delivery of project water through wells on an equal
footing, the figures are modified somewhat and degree of deprivation
decreases. However, there is significant variation between head,
middle and tail reach of a project and the proportion not served
by canal or wells increases. This may be seen from the tables in
the following section on quantifying deprivation. Significant tail-ender
deprivation is therefore present in all these projects.
|
Table ES.1: Percentage of area not receiving canal
or well water |
Project
|
Period
|
Season |
Percentage of planned seasonal irrigated
area |
|
|
|
Not receiving canal water
|
Receiving neither canal
nor well water |
| Mula |
1995-96 to
2000-2001 |
Kharif |
80 |
52 |
| Rabi |
70 |
39 |
| Hot weather |
-16 |
-163 |
| Mangi |
1998-99 to
2000-2001 |
Kharif |
70 |
-7 |
| Rabi |
67 |
47 |
| Hot weather |
24 |
-14 |
| Walen |
1998-99 to
2000-2001 |
Kharif |
67 |
N. Ap. |
| Rabi |
29 |
N. Ap. |
There is a clear trend in shift towards hot weather crops in a big
way. This creates significant departures and even though the hot
weather irrigated area is often in excess of the area planned, the
water supplied by the project is often not sufficient to meet crop
requirement.
Reasons for deprivation
Some of the important reasons of deprivation are as follows:
|
The state of the physical system.
In many places, especially towards the tail of the sub-commands,
the system has lost capacity and water cannot reach further. |
|
Field channels have not been maintained.
|
|
Heavy and unregulated drawals in the head and
middle reach. Installation of pumps in the channel. |
|
In the Mula system head reach, well water has
turned saline and this has restricted the number of crops
that can be taken. |
|
Reduction in number of rotations |
|
Shift in crop pattern towards water intensive
crops like sugarcane and other perennials and towards hot
weather crops |
|
Reduction in inflow at dam site |
|
After experiencing deprivation, or becoming
defaulters, farmers tend not to apply for water. |
|
Many of these factors combine to form a vicious
circle. Since water does not reach, field channels are not
maintained, system falls into disrepair, because of which
water does not reach, etc. This deprivation reinforcing effect
is one of the most formidable barriers to system improvement. |
|
Generally, conditions were found to be more
favourable in sub-commands where WUAs were present. Shortages
were there but were shared more equitably. |
Quantifying Deprivation within the Command
The issue of deprivation is here contextualised to a) the farmers
who have been designated as beneficiaries of irrigation within the
command and also, b) deprivation in terms of access to irrigation
water. The next problem is that of quantifying deprivation.
The problem about quantifying deprivation is that there is no natural
measure of deprivation. Different methods and criteria will measure
different quantities. There also need not be a single measure of
deprivation and many different types of quantification may be needed
to explore different aspects of deprivation. There is also the issue
of how we take into account the water indirectly delivered through
canal seepage and recharge of wells in the command. In the following
we have made an attempt to explore different types of quantification
for the Mula project sub-commands for which there is much more detailed
information available and see how they affect the issue.
The following quantitative norms were explored for comparison:
| Norm
1 |
Deprivation seen simply as number
of farmers not receiving water. |
| Norm
2 |
Deprivation seen as the area not
receiving canal water in a season as a proportion of the area
planned to be irrigated. |
| Norm
3 |
Deprivation seen as the area neither
receiving canal water directly nor indirectly as well irrigation
expressed as a proportion of the area planned to be irrigated. |
| Norm
4 |
Same as norm 2 except that we now
take into account the actual number of rotations and the number
of rotations planned as part of project design. |
| Norm
5 |
Same as norm 3 except that we now
take into account the actual number of rotations and the number
of rotations planned as part of project design. |
| Norm
6 |
Same as norm 2 except that we now
take into account the actual number of rotations and a `pragmatic'
number of rotations possible in the present state of affairs. |
| Norm 7 |
Same as norm 2 except that we now take into
account the actual number of rotations and a `pragmatic' number
of rotations possible in the present state of affairs. |
On this basis the comparison of these different kinds of norms is
given below.
| Table ES.2: Deprivation
by different norms compared |
| Sub-command
|
Location
within Project |
Location
within Reach |
Location
on Dist. |
Norm
used for deprivation |
|
Farmers |
Only canal water |
Canal water and well water |
|
Norm 1 |
Norm 2 |
Norm 4 |
Norm 6 |
Norm 3 |
Norm 5 |
Norm 7 |
| Dy1M1 |
Head |
Head |
Middle |
83.09 |
69.37 |
84.99 |
69.98 |
-43.87 |
28.07 |
-43.86 |
| Dy2Tail |
Head |
Middle |
Tail |
95.06 |
92.53 |
96.22 |
92.44 |
40.54 |
70.77 |
41.53 |
| SDyM3L |
Middle |
Head |
Middle |
75.56 |
73.76 |
87.49 |
74.98 |
16.22 |
64.87 |
29.74 |
| Dy5M1 |
Middle |
Tail |
Middle |
91.50 |
84.26 |
92.64 |
85.28 |
65.58 |
83.13 |
66.27 |
| Dy1M9 |
Middle |
Middle |
Tail |
98.78 |
95.97 |
98.24 |
96.47 |
79.11 |
90.85 |
81.70 |
| Dy4M1 |
Middle |
Tail |
Head |
58.90 |
65.33 |
82.59 |
65.18 |
45.17 |
72.00 |
44.01 |
| Dy1M3 |
Tail |
Head |
Head |
98.14 |
96.80 |
98.22 |
96.43 |
-4.97 |
45.89 |
-8.22 |
| Dy3M5-WUA |
Tail |
Tail |
Tail |
64.27 |
90.45 |
94.73 |
89.46 |
86.81 |
92.58 |
85.16 |
| Dy3M5-D |
Tail |
Tail |
Tail |
N.Av. |
85.02 |
92.29 |
84.57 |
66.26 |
82.52 |
65.04 |
| TDyM4 |
Tail |
Middle |
Middle |
88.80 |
70.24 |
84.10 |
68.20 |
33.01 |
66.11 |
32.22 |
| PBCDM10 |
Tail |
Tail |
Tail |
62.34 |
92.68 |
96.74 |
93.48 |
87.41 |
94.37 |
88.73 |
|
In our opinion Norm 5 gives the closest correlation with tail-ender
deprivation.
Broad conclusions and emerging issues
1. Reduced Inflows
The study indicates a trend towards reduced inflows at the dam site
for two out of the three projects under consideration. The existence
of the trend itself is not so much related to the size of the project
but has more to do with the characteristics of the agro-climatic
zones where the projects are located, the stability of the rainfall
regimes, and the type and extent of upstream development of new
storages like percolation tanks, minor irrigation tanks, nallah
bunds and other soil and water conservation measures. This factor
has an impact on deprivation since a fixed and expected schedule
cannot be followed, even for a sizeable component of water. The
large project shows a greater resilience in face of this trend,
so that only in very bad years does it result in a substantial shortfall.
For the medium project, however, its sensitivity to low rainfall
years seems to have increased as upstream development has taken
place in the catchment. The study also points to the need for an
integrated planning of water resources at the basin level in the
long run in which watershed development works and surface storages
of different sizes are planned together. In the short term, what
immediately needs to be taken up and can be taken up as part of
conventional command management, is to re-assess the present inflow
after giving due allowance for catchment area development and redesign
the service according to this assessment.
2. The issue of groundwater and
wells
The other aspect of integration is the integration of surface and
ground water. The study clearly brings out that the degree and character
of deprivation radically changes with access to well water within
the command. It is quite well known that wells in the command areas
are primarily recharged with the percolation from canals and irrigated
areas. However, in present practice, canal water and well water
are both treated and managed separately – the canal water
falls in the public domain and well water is treated as a private
property. There is a need to bring in well water in the command
areas under the public domain.
In fact, in Maharashtra, till recently there was an explicit understanding
against integration of wells and canal water, under what is known
as breaking the paat-mot sambandh (the paat, that is, canal and
mot, that is, the traditional device that lifted water from the
wells, relationship). Ironically, actual developments today, implicitly
accept and even assert this relationship! As we have seen earlier,
in the Mula project, when announcements are made inviting farmers
to fill in forms for water demand, for the last few years the announcement
is generally that `all those who have access to well water would
be given two rotations during rabi’. This effectively means
that only those who have access to well need to apply for canal
water. Though it does not say so, all those who do not have access
to water are discouraged from applying. This is a device the ID
has come up with to forestall legal actions like those in the past
where users have gone to court against the ID demanding crop loss
compensation because they did not get sufficient water to raise
their crops and had to incur crop losses. It is tantamount to shirking
the responsibility of providing sufficient water for farmer's crops.
Moreover, the announcements do not remedy the situation –
they only accentuate deprivation as access to canal water gets restricted
to those who have wells or those who can gain access to well water.
This, in a way, institutionalises deprivation.
In the absence of such integration, even the data that is available
on irrigation gives a very distorted picture of the impact of irrigation
projects. In the case of Maharashtra, irrigation on wells account
for more than 50% of the total irrigation and as Maharashtra Water
and Irrigation Commission (1999) reports about 40% of the reported
area under well irrigation is in the irrigation command itself.
Similarly, the degree of deprivation is likely to be overstated
if we do not take wells in the command decisively into account.
3. The physical state of the system
The study brings out very clearly that the physical status of the
system is a factor contributing to deprivation. It would be an understatement
simply to say that the distribution systems have not been maintained
properly. None of the distributaries and minors has the capacity
to carry water as per the design capacity. No financial allocations
have been made for repair, maintenance and improvement. It is reported
by the people and admitted by ID officials, that the situation has
worsened in the last 5 years after the formation of the different
corporations like MKVDC, GMIDC, etc. Even field channels are not
maintained properly by farmers. While at one end of the spectrum
we have lack of maintenance, on the other we have things such as
active modification of the system like pumping of water from the
canals directly to the fields or into wells, siphoning off canal
water through pipes into wells, making pits within the canals on
the lines of intake wells to facilitate lifting water directly from
the canal, blocking of minors and breaching of channel banks to
divert water to their fields. Here the study shows that WUAs do
make difference as the physical system is relatively in better condition
in WUAs areas as compared to non-WUAs areas.
4. The crop pattern: need to shift
to volumetric quotas
Another important issue which needs serious consideration is the
crop pattern as it exists today in the command areas. The study
clearly brings out the disproportionate shift towards HW utilisation
– in fact many times more than planned or as envisaged in
the approved cropping pattern. In effect this means that a much
larger proportion of the actual water is used in the HW and similarly
a much larger proportion is used for sugarcane and this is bound
to deprive certain portions of the command of access to water. Here
the best way is to decide on water quotas rather than crop patterns,
shift to volumetric supply and leave it to the users to decide what
crops they want to take, provided they operate within the water
quota allotted to them in the different seasons. This will simplify
management issues between the department and the farmers. The WUAs
can be an instrument to bring this about. Efficient project management
requires the management of variable supplies, especially, shortages.
Today shortages lead to intense unregulated, individual competition
that accentuates deprivation.
5. `Why apply?' -- the tail-enders'
mental block
The study also brings out that there are many people in the designated
commands, who do not bother to apply for water and their proportion
is much higher in the tail end of the project command as well as
of the sub-commands. Since year after year they have not been getting
water they have got into a mental state where they do not even demand
their due share. Here being at the physical tail end matters very
much. Another reason for this mental block is that once they apply
for water and the application is sanctioned then they are often
forced to pay the water charges, whether they get water or not,
or however much they get. Here again forming WUAs can help them
in getting their due share as once the WUA is formed, the ID has
to fix the water quota for the WUA and also give them a share proportionate
to the availability of water.
6. Waterlogging, salinity and other related problems
Apart from not getting access to water, there are other types of
deprivation. For example not getting enough water or rotations for
the requirements of different crops in different seasons is one
of such types. The second example is of timeliness of water delivery.
The third aspect is waterlogging and salinity which is more prevalent
in the upper reach of the commands. Along with land even the wells
have been affected. In new projects care should be taken to see
that water is applied much more scientifically taking the soil characteristics,
etc., into account. Canal seepage is something which needs to be
tackled as lot of areas close to the canals are getting waterlogged
because of percolation. Also sufficient emphasis is not given for
constructing and maintaining proper drainage. In many parts of the
commands natural drains have disappeared after the projects have
come up and the gradients are flat and so there is no outfall from
where the water can flow out.
7. Tail to head not sufficient
Very often it is suggested that tail to head irrigation can take
care of the tail-end problem. This is only partially true. The study
shows, the need to strictly follow any one of the methods; otherwise
it creates deprivation in other reach, especially in the middle
reach, as seen in the case of Mangi project. Here the lesson learnt
is: whatever system is followed, it should be well understood by
both the supplier and the user and both should follow a common discipline
in its implementation.
| Certain simple measures,
as discussed below, could address some of these issues: |
|
To avoid
excess supply or use of water, especially in the upper reach
of the system, water quotas be allocated equitably and adhered
to in all sub-commands. |
|
Once
the quantity of water available for irrigation is assessed,
the supply or distribution needs to be decided by the ID and
the farmers together, especially the number of rotations,
the opening and closing of canal seasons. WUAs would greatly
facilitate this process. |
|
More
number of rotations are always good for light and medium soils
in the command. However, farmers need to control their water
use to between 40 and 60 mm at a time if more rotations are
to be possible with the same amount of water. WUAs could motivate
the farmers to do this and initiate a dialogue between the
farmers and the officials. |
8. WUAs are an important part of
the solution
Finally, the formation of WUAs is an important component of the
solution to the problem of deprivation. Experience in Maharashtra
does show that participatory irrigation management through WUAs
can be an institutional way to take care of many aspects of deprivation.
This is corroborated by the experience of the WUAs in this study
as well. However, we also need to emphasise that WUAs can perform
better only if both the parties, that is the ID and the WUA, are
willing to respect their responsibilities and discharge them seriously.
The Government of Maharashtra has taken a policy decision of bringing
the entire irrigation in the state under participatory management
and has also declared that farmers would not get water if they do
not form WUAs by 2003. However, if this initiative has to be successful
as well as meaningful, we have to address the following issues and
take appropriate steps:
|
There
is a need for training and capability building of both the
ID officials and the irrigators. |
|
There
is also a need for the government to collaborate with experienced
NGOs in this field. |
|
There
is a need to distinguish between turnover and acquiring permanent
water rights over present quantum of water use and to treat
present water use as a provisional right subject to later
study and negotiation. |
|
There is a need to
go for successively higher levels of organisation like a distributary
level federation of minor level WUAs and so on, ultimately
forming an apex body at the level of the project itself to
tackle problems like scheduling of rotations, resolution of
conflicts between WUAs in upper and tail reach, or between
farmers who are dependent on direct lifts from the backwaters
of the dam and farmers who are dependent on the canals, etc. |
|
There is a need to
bring wells in the irrigation commands under the jurisdiction
of the WUAs. |
It is true that the formation of WUAs and turn over of the system
after system rehabilitation and improvement goes a long way towards
tackling deprivation within the command. However, to tackle the
issue of deprivation in the full sense, as something which goes
beyond the existing designated commands, then the WUAs have to become
instruments for the integration of water sources, sustainable use
and equitable access. This is an issue outside the purview of the
present study; but important enough to be taken up as a separate
study.
|
|
