Search

Irrigation tanks in India are common property resources. Tanks provide not only for irrigation, but also forestry, fishing, domestic water supply, livestock, and other uses. Using empirical results from a study of tank performance from 80 tanks in Tamil Nadu, South India in two time period: 1996-97 and 2009-10, this paper evaluates tank irrigation system performance in terms of economic output and revenue generation forirrigation and other uses. The results indicate that irrigation and other productive uses put together raised the total value of output at tank level by 12 % in 1996-97 and just 6 % in 2009-10. This may suggest that tank multiple use values are small and getting smaller, and therefore not worth consideration. However, it was also found that, while declining in absolute terms, non-irrigation uses provided the majority of tax revenues and still more than cover government's operation and maintenance expenditure (O&M) budget. This finding provides another reason to consider multiple use values and their linkage with overall system viability.

Irrigation tanks in India are common property resources. Theland and water resources of tanks provide not only forirrigation, but also trees, fishing, domestic water supply,livestock, and a number of minor uses. Using empirical resultsfrom a study of tank performance from 80 tanks in Tamil Nadu,South India, this paper evaluates tank irrigation systemperformance both in terms of irrigation as well as irrigationand other multiple benefits. Ranking of tanks' performancechanges substantially, depending on which measure is used. Theresults indicate that taking other productive uses (excludingdomestic and livestock) into account, raises the total valueof output by approximately 13%, and increases the totalrevenue mobilized from tanks by 213%. Taking all revenue intoaccount tanks are not subsidized by the government, butcurrently fees are not channeled back to support tankoperations and maintenance.

Although irrigation systems have long been evaluated andmanaged as though they existed only to produce irrigatedcrops, in fact many irrigation systems also provide water forother uses, especially in much of Asia. The quantities ofwater used in these activities may be small, but these useshave high value in terms of household income, nutrition, andhealth. Recognizing the multiple uses of water in irrigationsystems is critical for better water allocation policy. First,the value of water in irrigation systems has been undervaluedbecause of a failure to recognize the many uses. A moreaccurate assessment that includes all uses will better informdecisions about allocating water (and financial resources)between irrigation and other uses. Second, even withinirrigation systems, taking all uses into account can lead tomore productive and environmentally sustainable use of water.Third, recognizing the rights of all users of water can leadto more equitable and socially sustainable outcomes ofmanagement, rehabilitation, and any proposed reallocation ofwater resources. Recognizing all uses of water makes watermanagement and economic and institutional analyses morecomplex. Because many of the interactions between uses areaffected by water quality at least as much as quantity, italso brings environmental and health issues to the fore. Thisarticle reviews these issues, drawing upon the case studyarticles from Sri Lanka and India, which are presented in thisspecial issue.

The growing attention to water rights inrecent years reflects the increasingscarcity and competition for this vitalresource. Because rights are at the heartof any water allocation system, they arealso critical for any reallocation. Notonly efficiency, but also fundamentalissues of equity are at stake. Tounderstand water rights requires goingbeyond formal statutory law (which may ormay not be followed), to look at the manybases for claiming water. Because of thevital nature of this resource, state law,religious law, customary law and localnorms all have something to say in definingwater rights. Delineating water rights isfurther complicated when we take intoconsideration multiple uses (irrigation,domestic, fishing, livestock, industries,etc.) as well as multiple users (differentvillages, groups of farmers in the head andtail, fishermen, cattle owners, etc.) ofthe resource. These overlapping uses bringin different government agencies, as wellas different sets of norms and rulesrelated to water. This paper provides a framework forexamining the statutory and customary waterrights of multiple users of water andapplies it in the Kirindi Oya irrigationsystem in Sri Lanka, based on amultidisciplinary study conducted in1997–1998. It demonstrates that thestakeholders of an irrigation system go farbeyond the owners and cultivators ofirrigated fields. These groups are notonly claimants on the ongoing management ofwater resource systems, but also need to beincluded in any considerations oftransferring water from irrigation to otheruses.

The paper explores current dissatisfaction withpast irrigation improvement approaches and examines reasonssuch dissatisfaction is so widespread. It reviews past andcurrent efforts to improve irrigation management in developingcountries and deduces themes with implications for the future. Finally it builds on these themes to speculate on directions inwhich both public irrigation agencies and local levelmanagement institutions will evolve in the future.

This article examines trends in the understandingof and policies toward farmer participation in irrigationmanagement over the past 20 years, with special attention toexperiences with induced participation and management transferprograms in the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Senegal,Columbia Basin USA, and Mexico. Key lessons relate to the valueof social organizers as catalysts; the role of the irrigationagency as partner; and the enabling conditions for participation.As levels of income and infrastructure rise, we can expect moreformal organizations that enable farmers to deal with bankaccounts, service contracts, water rights, water markets, andadvanced technology in irrigation systems. The impact ofparticipation on irrigation performance needs to be evaluated notjust in terms of reductions in government costs, but by whetherimprovement in physical structures and farmers‘ control overwater are great enough to offset the farmers‘ costs ofparticipating.

Despite considerable discussion of the importance of timeliness as a key dimension of irrigation performance, few studies have assessed how well irrigation systems deliver timely water supplies, nor the magnitude of the effect on agricultural production. This paper lays out indicators of timeliness of irrigation supply which distinguish between deliveries which meet crop needs, and surplus water supplies which cannot be used by crops. These indicators are then applied to empirical data from the Sone Irrigation System of Bihar, India. Using these indicators in an analysis of the contribution of irrigation to rice production shows that incorporating measures of timeliness explains much more of the variability in agricultural production than do simple measures of total water applications over a season. Results of production functions show that if water deliveries cannot be matched with crop requirements, they have a negative, rather than a positive, impact on yields. Water scarcity has the greatest adverse impact in production in the middle of the season, while surpluses are most damaging at the beginning and end of the season. Temporal redistribution from surplus periods to times of water scarcity therefore offers considerable scope to increase productivity without increasing water use.