Science and Technology Mailing List Archive

["Dick Tinsley" <<address removed>>]

Again I would like to endorse the comments on irrigation renovation and even 
development of new irrigation schemes when water is available. Irrigation 
represents the only means of enhancing the physical environment and thus 
promoitng substantial economic development. In endorsing irrigaiton I would 
like to add a couple points to consider.

1. When rehabilitating old schemes or constructing new ones it is time to 
emphasis the brick, mortar and rebar to put in as many control structures and 
outlets for controlling the water as possible.  The more physical structures 
the less the reliance on farmers and water users associations to manage the 
water.  The donor funds are normally more readily available for control 
structures during construction and rehabilitation then later while trying to 
operate the schemes.

2. Make certain the field layout are convenient to the farmers more than the 
irrigation engineers. That may mean long narrow strips (perhaps 10 m x 1000m) 
running from canal to drain providing each farmer direct access to both.  
Central Luzon in the Philippine is a good example.

3. Bring the water rights as close to the Western US as is administratively 
possible and cost effective without getting involved in the extensive water 
laws backed up by courts and extensive litigation. What is really needed but I 
have rarely seen is:
    
    a. Clear statement of entitlement to the water;
    b. Right of individual farmer to intervention above their outlet and 
adjacent to their neighbors fields to assure their entitlement.
    c. Some form of recourse back to management to resolve disputes.

Don't just turn the irrigation system over to some WUA and expect them to start 
supervising their neighbors, and keeping the canals maintained.

4. And perhaps a novel approach of contracting with an international NGO to 
manage the scheme after construction.  My example is a new irrigation scheme in 
Tanzania in a community that had a 100 year old catholic mission with an 
agriculture development mandate including some equipment and training 
facilities.  I would have loved to see Catholic Relief come in an manage the 
scheme after construction.  I would like to think they would have keep the 
overhead down by only involving a couple outsiders and locally recruiting most 
of the support staff.  This might have brought the overhead cost of managing 
the scheme to what could be reasonable charged to the farmers in access fees. 
They would also have assured less land was diverted for personal use of the 
staff and thus more for the intended beneficiaries.


Dick Tinsley