International E-mail Conference on

Irrigation Management Transfer

June – October 2001

IMT Country Profiles: KARNAKATA (India)

Informant: K.V. Raju

Irrigation and Agriculture

Area irrigated: 2,300,000 ha
Surface irrigation: 930,000 ha
Lift irrigation: 1,370,000 ha
Main crops irrigated: Rice, sugarcane, and oilseeds
Farmers: 85% landowners, 15% tenants
Farm sizes: 67%<2 ha, 20%=2-4ha, 11%=4-10ha, 2%>10ha

IMT Policy
Top factors that motivated IMT (listed by priority):
1. Shortage of government funds to allocate to O&M
2. Poor maintenance of irrigation systems
3. Poor operation of irrigation systems
4. Government could not collect enough fees from water users
5. Pressure from donor agency
6. Pressure from central department
7. Part of general liberalization policies of government

Main sources of support for IMT:

• Highest level of government
• Irrigation agency
• Farmers

Type of policy issuance: Act of parliament and policy statement by sectoral department

Irrigation systems included in IMT: All irrigation and drainage infrastructure under
government control including major irrigation schemes (above 10,000 ha). However,
WUAs will form at minor level, each having an average command area of 500 ha

Hydraulic levels transferred:

• Distributary canal level and below

Full responsibility and authority devolved for:

• Developing cooperative businesses

Partial responsibility and authority devolved for:

• Operation and maintenance
 • Financing operation and maintenance
• Enforcing sanctions and resolving disputes

Management transferred to:

Water Users' Associations

Policy/legal framework for IMT:

• WUA right to use and maintain irrigation infrastructure
• WUA legal right to enforce sanctions, obtain credit and make contracts
• WUA legal right to develop businesses and make profits
• Policy to reorient the mandate of the irrigation agency

IMT Program
Year IMT began: 1987

Target area to be transferred: No target fixed

Area transferred by 2000: 15,000 ha have WUAs formed, not all necessarily
transferred yet

IMT financed: Mainly from national funds, except for the case of minor
irrigation tanks where funds come from a World Bank
loan

Included in IMT implementation process:

• IMT steering committee
• Farmer participation in planning /review
• Formation of WUAs
• Democratic selection of WUA leaders
• Farmer participation in repairs/improvements
• Farmers paid part of cost of repairs/improvements

Results of IMT
Cost of irrigation: Same for farmers and decreased for government
Efficiency of fee collection: Increased
Quality of maintenance: Increased
Timeliness of water delivery: Increased
Equity of water delivery: Increased
Area irrigated: Increased
Crop yields: Increased
Farm income: Increased

Key Lessons Learned

Policy/legal framework: An IMT program has not been prepared and efforts have been
sparsely spread out in the state. There is a need to develop a legal framework to clarify roles
and responsibilities of the WUAs and irrigation staff involved in IMT. State policy should
support comprehensive IMT rather than merely transfer of responsibilities. It is necessary to
compel WUAs and WUA board members to remain detached from any political party. All
financial allocations and auditing should be made taking into account WUA performance in
water acquisition, distribution and system management.

Implementation process: Government officers, usually from the cooperative wing of the
Command Area Development Authority, work on the creation of the WUAs. In most cases,
these government officers do not have clear guidelines to undertake the creation of WUAs.
Therefore, there are many problems faced by the WUAs including lack of proper consultation
for their formation and lack of training programs. Both government officers and WUAs are
unclear about their roles and responsibilities. Many water users are not aware that there is a
WUA in their village.

Support services: Appropriate financial allocations should be planned for O&M and
repairs. WUA need technical support and training on a regular basis.

Reorientation of irrigation agency: IMT requires restructuring of the water resources

department to suit the future requirements of WUAs with higher their level of responsibilities.
However, in Karnataka, there has not yet been any institutional change in water sector
agencies.