Transcript WORKSHOP: Lessons Learned in Developing Sustainable WUAs and Forming WUA Federations Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan October 1-6, 2007

WORKSHOP:
Lessons Learned in Developing Sustainable
WUAs and Forming WUA Federations
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
October 1-6, 2007
1
Vast amount of irrigation development has occurred since the
early 1900s
1900—40 million irrigated ha
2000—280 million irrigated ha
New irrigation land was developed by irrigation agencies using
Government funds and external funding organizations. Irrigation
changed from being a local activity to responsibility of the State.
Users became passive recipients of irrigation services.
2
1950s and 1960s—public irrigation development followed this
model that excluded users from active involvement.
1970s—this model of irrigation development had created
irrigation systems that were difficult to operate and maintain
and were becoming less sustainable.
1980s—Governments were forced to minimize public subsidies
for irrigation systems which led to programs to transfer O&M of
public water systems to user associations and federations of
user associations.
3
IMT accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s. Today most irrigation
systems in the world have an active element of local management.
Table 1 Locally Managed Irrigation Area for Selected Countries
Country
Irrigated Area
(ha)1
Area Locally
Managed (ha)2
Argentina
1,700,000
1,700,000
Indonesia
7,300,000
5,100,000
Bangladesh
3,725,000
3,225,000
Brazil
3,169,000
3,169,000
Mexico
6,100,000
6,002,000
Turkey
4,200,200
3,615,000
India
54,000,000
35,500,000
Philippines
1,580,000
1,050,000
Colombia
1,051,000
938,000
Uzbekistan
4,300,000
3,000,000+
Kyrgyzstan
1,040,900
850,0003
21, 000,000
21,000,000
United States
1
Data taken from FAOSTAT Database; adjusted with more recent field data.
Includes IMT public systems, joint management, private irrigation systems, communal irrigation systems, private
and group wells, lift irrigation schemes, etc.
3 Includes mountainous lands and land irrigated by wells and other local sources.
2
4
1940s--irrigated area in CARs and S. Caucasus expanded rapidly,
including expansion of irrigated area for cotton, wheat and rice
production. By late 1980s--in excess of 12 million ha of irrigated land.
Table 2 Irrigated Land in Central Asia and S. Caucasus Regions
Total
Cultivated
Cropland
Irrigated
Cropland
Percent of
Cropland
(1,000 ha)
(1,000 ha)
(%)
Kazakhstan
30,135
2,313
7
Kyrgyz Republic
1,435
1,077
75
860
719
84
Turkmenistan
1,750
1,744
99
Uzbekistan
4,850
4,300
89
408
286
70
Azerbaijan
1,800
1,450
81
Georgia
1,060
469
44
Tajikistan
Armenia
Source: FAO Aquastat
5
Stage One-Initial WUA Formation
1980s -- countries with vastly different economic
systems started to establish Water User Associations
(WUAs) to reduce the financial burden required to
operate and maintain their irrigation systems.
6
This included WUAs in countries with a tradition of
farmer-based communal irrigation such as:
Indonesia
Chile
Mexico
Philippines
Peru
In contrast WUAs were established in countries with
large Government irrigation systems such as:
China
Turkey
India
Former Soviet Republics
In all countries WUAs were primarily established to reduce
the financial burden on the State budget for irrigation O&M.
7
In the former Soviet Union State Irrigation Departments
were reluctant to transfer authority to farmer
organizations.
1. Instead of detailed laws for WUA establishment and
management many WUAs were formed under Presidential
decrees.
2. As former collective and State farms were broken up, the
on-farm irrigation system was left without an owner.
3. In particular, transfer of on-farm irrigation infrastructure to
WUAs was resisted by local government as well as
irrigation departments.
4. Thus there was uncertainty about legal responsibility for
managing irrigation water and supplying individual farms.
8
Under pressure from donors and Ministries of Finance,
countries formed WUAs to take over on-farm O&M
responsibility. Yet, it soon was apparent that most
countries really had limited understanding how WUAs
actually function.
WUAs formed during the first stage of management
transfer programs were usually controlled by irrigation
agencies and powerful rural leaders. This was due to:
• Little understanding about the concept of participatory
farmer associations;
• Lack of laws to specify organization structure and rights
and responsibility of members;
• Fear of loss of power and control; and
• Limited, if any, budget to invest in WUA strengthening.
9
WUA establishment and formation:
1. One major problem large vested public irrigation
organization that viewed user participation as a challenge
to their authority and power;
2. Government agencies were reluctant give up some of their
authority;
3. As a result Agencies resisted passage of a WUA Law that
transferred power and responsibility to WUAs;
4. Consequently, countries formed WUAs that had no legal
standing or specific legal structure that protected rights of
WUAs and WUA members.
10
As a result during Stage One:
 In the case of the former Soviet Union WUAs were
often modeled after collective or State Farms with the
Director the former head of the State Farm or Collective.
 In China farm associations are usually controlled by
the Communist Party with Village and Party officials
managing the association.
 In Turkey WUA Directors and Board members are
usually local government officials and farmers have
limited power to establish policy.
11
A typical Stage One WUA where instead of a WUA Board
representing farmers the WUA is dominated by the President and
the Board is subsidiary to the President.
Figure 1 President Controlled Stage One WUA
General
Assembly
President
Audit
Committee
Board
Technical/Econ Staff
Secretary
Hydro
Engr
Accountant
12
This arrangement is very typical for Stage One WUAs,
especially where there is no WUA Law that defines the
roles of members, hired staff and management
committees.
13
This Stage One WUA has a Management Committee made up of hired
staff. Members of the WUA have no control over policy decisions.
Figure 2 Stage One WUA Organizational Structure
General Assembly
Of
Water Users
Policy
Making
Implementation
Management Committee
-Chairman
-Accountant
-Engineer
-Field Agents
Chairman
FA
FA
Accountant
FA
14
Farmers quickly began to question the management
structure of Stage One WUAs as they were often organized
the same as State and collective farms that had just been
disbanded.
Farmers indicated their unhappiness by refusing to pay
irrigation service fees as long as they had no voice in
determination of the amount and use of their fees.
15
Stage One WUAs demonstrated:
1. WUAs formed by the Government to carry out tasks the
Government wishes done will never be sustainable;
2. Farmers will only form a sustainable WUA for
management activities they believe will be profitable for
them;
3. Farmers will only participate when they will get more out
of the activity than what they put into the organizational
effort; and
4. Members of the WUA refuse to pay fees when they have
no control over the amount to be paid and the use of the
funds.
5. WUAs must be a legal association with clear rights and
responsibilities.
16
Formalization of Legal Basis for WUAs
A separate presentation at this Workshop will focus
directly on legal issues so this section will only address
this briefly. Experience with WUAs, especially those that
have proven successful, have demonstrated the country
must have a WUA law that clearly defines the roles and
responsibilities of WUAs as well as the water supplier.
In many countries, such as the Kyrgyz Republic, this law
replaced a Government Resolution on Water Users’
Associations as Governmental or Presidential decrees are
an inadequate basis for the establishment of complex
organizations such as WUAs.
17
Stage Two-WUA Restructuring and Re-registration of WUAs
Once WUA laws are passed and approved by the Government,
forming a WUA requires the organization to:
1. Write a Charter of Association, or to rewrite their Charter if they
were already formed, to be in compliance with the new law.
2. WUAs have to restructure their organization in order to meet the
terms of the law.
3. WUAs then must register or re-register with the Ministry of Justice.
18
Under WUA Laws WUAs are organized with a clear
separation between governance and management.
• Responsibility for policy making decisions rests with the
General Assembly of Farmers (or Representative
Assembly) and WUA Management Board.
• The President’s powers are subsidiary to that of the
Board.
• Day-to-day management is the responsibility of a hired
Manager and other hired staff.
19
Figure 3—WUA Restructuring
General Assembly
Of
Farmers
Policy
Making
WUA
Council
Chairman
Implementation
Engineer
Accountant
20
Figure 4 Stage Two WUA Organizational Structure—Separating
Governance and Management
Members of WUA
Audit
Committee
Representative Assembly
Policy
Making
WUA Executive Board
------------------
President
Implementation
Chief of
Operations
General
Manager
Maintenance
Staff
Admin
Fee
Collection
21
Irrigators
WUA Executive Board discussing WUA policy
22
Figure 5 Schematic of SPP Water User Groups (WUGs)
WUA With 4 SPPs
SPP 8
1053 ha
SPP 9
786 ha
SPP 10
807 ha
SPP 11
1120 ha
23
24
25
SPP 11
Reps.
SPP 10
Reps.
SPP 9
Reps.
SPP 8
Reps.
Policy
Setting and
Decision
Making
Members of WUA
Implementation
WUA Administrative Council
-----------------Chairman
Secretary
Director
Accountant
Electro-Mechanic
Hydro-Engineer
Cashier
Bookkeeper
26
Figure 7 WUA with Multiple Terraces
F
175 m
145 m
115 m
85 m
0m
SPP
SPP
PU
PU
MPI
MPI
NG
NG
First
Terrace
STA
STA
TIO
TIO
N
N
SPP
SPP
PU
PU
MPI
MPI
Second
NG
NG Terrace
STA
STA
TIO
Relift Pumping TIO
N
N
Station
Main Pumping
Station
Schematic of Lift in Romania Irrigation System
27
A number of countries were very concerned about the
re-registration process but it has not proven to be
that difficult. The main lesson learned was that:
1. Project and WUA Support staff must work closely with the
Ministry of Justice to establish a clear, step-by-step process for
registration;
2. In turn the Ministry needs inform all of their regional offices and
ensure that they understand the process, and follow it; and
3. Project and WUA Support staff members must instruct WUA
leaders on the steps of the process and help them complete all
paperwork as required.
28
Third Stage-Strengthening WUAs
WUA formation and legal registration is not the final step but
only one of many steps in a long process. WUA Support and
Training are critical to ensure WUAs grow and mature!
At this stage it is critical that Water Resources Departments
encourage and support WUAs.
Examples:
In Mexico WUA and CNA staff members jointly managed WUA
service areas for 6 months to ensure WUA can operate and
maintain the system after transfer.
In Azerbaijan and Kyrgyzstan as well as some Oblast Irrigation
Departments in Uzbekistan WUA support units are an integral
part of the Irrigation Department staffing and operations.
29
Irrigation Department encouraging WUA development.
In order to have successful WUAs, irrigation officials have
to deal with WUAs and their members as clients.
Successful WUAs, and the members that use the water, are
not beneficiaries but clients that are buying a service.
Irrigation Departments provide a service and farmers pay
for that service in a business-like relationship--this fosters
a climate of respect between farmers and irrigation
officials.
30
With limited experience with participatory associations
countries must establish a support system for WUAs.
In the US, Canada, Latin American countries, and Europe
support is through specialized institutes, technical and
agricultural colleges and universities.
In many Republics support system are usually organized
directly through the Irrigation Department as it has a
vested interest in viable WUAs. This is particularly true
when a large percentage of the Department’s budget
comes from ISF paid by WUAs.
In Mexico in excess of 80% of the overall budget comes
from ISF paid by WUAs while in the Kyrgyz Republic in
excess of 25% of the Department budget is from ISF.
31
Figure 8 Central WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
Central WUA Support Unit
In Water Resources Dept
Engineer
Training Specialist
WUA Support Specialist
Legal Specialist
MIS Specialist
Oblast WUA
Support Unit
Oblast WUA
Support Unit
Oblast WUA
Support Unit
Oblast WUA
Support Unit
32
WUA
rt Unit
Figure 9 Oblast WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
Oblast WUA Support Unit
In Oblast Water Resources Dept
Engineer
Water Management Specialist
WUA Support Specialist
Raion WUA
Support Unit
Raion WUA
Support Unit
Raion WUA
Support Unit
Raion WUA
Support Unit
Raion
Suppor
33
Oblast WUA Support Unit Office
34
Figure 10 Raion WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
Raion WUA Support Unit
In Raion Water Resources Dept
Engineer
Water Management Specialist
WUA Support Specialist
WUA
WUA
WUA
WUA
WUA
WUA
35
Raion WUA Support Unit Office in Batken Oblast
36
Table 3 Staffing of WUA SUs and Number of Offices
Location
Central
WUA SU
Provincial
WUA SUs
No. of staff
No.
offices
Bishkek
No.
staff
District SUs
No.
offices
No. staff
in offices
Total No.
Staff
No. with
Coordinators
only
7
7
Osh
1
JalalAbad
1
Batken
1
Issyk-Kul
4
12
3
18
5
15
3
21
3
2
6
1
10
1
3
3
9
2
14
Naryn
1
3
3
9
2
14
Talas
1
3
3
9
1
13
Chui
1
3
7
21
1
25
7
21
27
81
13
122
Total
7
3
3
Source: OIP Third Quarterly Report, 2006
37
Training
Farmers and irrigation officials in many countries
including the Republics have not had previous
experience with participatory farmer associations.
An intensive training program is a critical requirement
to ensure success of WUAs.
In most countries consultants have worked with
Central WUA SU staff to assess training needs and
develop training courses.
In turn Central SU staff trained Oblast and Raion SU
staff to provide training courses for strengthening
WUAs.
38
Training Required Included the Following Courses:
 WUA Formation and Registration
 WUA Governance and Leadership
 Irrigation Service Fee Establishment
 WUA Financial Management and Accounting
 Irrigation Water Allocation and System Operation
 Responsibilities of Representatives
 Irrigation System Management
 Maintenance Planning
39
Table 5 Estimated Training Course Days for 500
WUAs Serving 1 Million ha.
Trainee
No.
Per
WUA
No. Per
million
ha
No. Courses
Days Per
Trainee
Total
Training
Days
Board Members
7
3500
2
7,000
Accountant
1
500
3
1,500
Engineer
1
500
3
1,500
Director/Manager
1
500
4
2,000
Hydro-Tech/Main.
1
500
2
1,000
Irrigators
8
4000
2
8,000
Representatives
40
20000
1
20,000
Total
59
29,500
17
41,000
Assumes 2,000 ha per WUA and 50 ha per Representative
40
Figure 11 WUA with Seven Village-Based Service Areas
WUA--Service Area
Village 6
265 ha
Village 7
250 ha
Canal
Village 1
340 ha
Village 2
300 ha
WUG4
SPPVillage
3 WUG3
255 ha
Canal
Village 5
240 ha
WUG3
Village 4
410 ha
41
WUA serves 2,060 ha and, with one Representative for
each 50 ha, has 41 Representatives.
Table 6 Area (ha) and Number of Representatives
Villages
No. 1 No. 2
Area
(ha)
Reps.
No. 3
No. 4
No. 5 No. 6
No. 7
Total
340
300
255
410
240
265
250
2,060
7
6
5
8
5
5
5
41
42
Figure 12 Administrative Council Member-Links to Representative Zones
Representative
Zone
Representative
Zone
Representative
Zone
Representative
Zone
Village Service Area
Village Service Area
Representative
Zone
Representative
Zone
Representative
Zone
Administrative Council
Member
Village 4
Representative
Zone
43
Figure 13 WUA Organizational Structure with Village-Based Zones
Village 7
Village 6
Village 5
Village 4
Village 3
Village 2
Village 1
Members of WUA
WUA Administrative Council
-----------------Chairman
Director
Engineer
Accountant
Field Based Staff
44
Training Program Requirements
 Developing training materials
 Training trainers
 Establishing training facilities
 Organizing training courses
 Identifying trainees
 Transportation for trainers and trainees
 Funding training courses
 Monitoring and evaluating training progress
 Permanent continuing training cycle
45
46
47
48
49
50
Table 7 KR Participants Days of Training--2002 to Dec 2006
Level
Trainees
Central,
Central,
Province & Province,
District
& District
Sus
WUA
TOTAL
WUAs
2002
2003
2004
2005
Dec 2006
Totals
669
829
946
345
396
3,185
4,052
10,126
8,915
10,655
13,453
47,201
4,726
10,955
9,861
11,000
13,849
50,386
Source: OIP Annual Reports and Third Quarterly Report, 2006
51
Advanced Training
As WUAs mature advanced training courses are required.
Based on requests from WUAs, second generation
training courses in the following areas are required.
 Practical irrigation management for Hydro-Techs and
irrigators
 Asset management, maintenance assessment and
maintenance activities
 Legal issues – Asset registration, taxation, labor
contracts, etc.
 Advanced training for WUA accountants;
 Computerized system for budgeting, accounting and
tracking ISF billing and collections
52
As WUAs are expected to last as long as the irrigation
system, it is important that countries establish a training
system that can train new staff as well as providing existing
staff with new skills as required.
Training can be provided by WUA SUs, WUA Associations,
WUA Federations, technical institutes, Irrigation Department
or Training consultants.
The critical issue is developing a set of trainers and
establishing a budgetary mechanism to pay for training.
53
Irrigation Service Fees and Agricultural Returns
Irrigation Service Fees
WUA members must pay sufficient fees to maintain their
WUA as well as pay the water supplier for water delivered
to the WUA.
There is a direct relationship between Agricultural Returns
and the ability of WUA members to support the WUA and
pay for water supplies. Low profitability for their crops
prevents members from paying required irrigation service
fees.
54
In order to properly operate and maintain irrigation
infrastructure there is a minimum service fee that is required.
For most WUAs this normally varies from $25 to $100/ha:
1998—Colombia: Coello WUA the ISF was $53.86/ha
1996—China: Bayi Irrigation District the ISF was $41.50/ha
2000—China: JiaoKou Irrigation District the ISF was $54.50/ha
2000—China: Luohuiqu Irrigation District the ISF was $80/ha for
grains
1995—Indonesia: E.Java WUAs using pumps the ISF was $52.40/ha
55
Table 8a Typical Irrigation Charges for WUAs in the Western US
Irrigation Districts
Names and States
Fixed
Charge
Typical
Delivery
1st Block
Cost
2nd Block
Cost
Total
Costs
($/ha)
(m3/ha)
($/m3)
($/m3)
($/ha)
Firebaugh Canal--CA
54.34
7,617
0.0113
0.0113
$137.39
Farwell—NE
64.22
4,570
0.0000
0.0138
$85.22
0.00
7,617
0.0089
0.0162
$79.79
44.49
6,093
0.0024
0.0024
$59.11
Central CCID-CA
0.00
9,811
0.0056
0.0162
$62.04
Delores—CO
0.00
5,972
0.0214
0.0278
$127.80
Greenfields--MT
41.15
6,398
0.0000
0.0067
$43.19
Twin Loop--NE
65.21
3,047
0.0000
0.0170
$65.21
Casper-Alcova--WY
Glasgow--MT
56
Table 8b Turkey Range of O&M Fees ($/ha) for Irrigation Associations-April 2006
Irrigation
Assoc.
2005 Tariff
Total Area
(ha)
Total Owed
(YTL)
O&M Fee ($/ha)
Sarkiz IA
120 YTL/ha
11,500
1,391,657
$92/ha
Menemen
120 YTL/ha
14,200
1,700,000
$92/ha
Daphan IA
4.5-12.5 YTL/hda
14,000
230,000
$34.61/ha-$96.15/ha
Tercan IA
Grv 40-18.5 YTL/hda
Pmp 70-430 YTL/hda
5,150 ha
244,911
Grav $30.77/ha-$118.64/ha
Pump $53.85/ha-$330.77/ha
Erzincan
Grv 8.8.5-14.3.5 YTL/hda
Pmp 8.8.5-22.3.5 YTL/hda
11,030
670,000
Grav $68.08/ha-$110.38/ha
Pump $68.08/ha-$171.92/ha
Demirdoven
30-70 YTL/dha
4,679
94,000
$23.08/ha-$53.85/ha
Data Source: Collected on field visits-April 2-5 in Region II and April 10-13, 2006 in Region VIII
57
Table 9 Approved ISF for Armenia WUAs - 2003
WUA
Marz
Kotayk
Kotayk
Masis
Area
(ha)
Irrigated(ha) 2003
Members
Average ISF
(US$)
5,662
5,000?
9,131
$45-$85/ha
Ararat
6,000
4,000
17,329
$64/ha
Mkhchian
Ararat
5,900
3,924
11,016
$65/ha
Vedi
Ararat
6,300
5,100
8,700
$55-$81/ha
Artashat
Ararat
5,800
5,800
12,800
$62-$117/ha
Getik
Lori
3,300
1,500
5,500
$30/ha
Kasakh
Ararat
3,325
2,700
2,206
$53/ha
Sevjour-A
Armavir
3,003
2,850
2,500
$80/ha
58
In contrast ISF rates for many WUAs in the countries at the
Workshop are less $15/ha. This amount is insufficient to
properly operate and maintain WUA’s irrigation infrastructure.
Table 10 Example WUA Established ISF For Five Countries
Country
WUA
Area
(ha)
ISF ($/ha) WUA O&M Water
($/ha)
Supplier ($/ha)
Azerbaijan
Zardabi
2,000
$11.50
$9.20
$2.30
Azerbaijan
Qarartepe
1,800
$6.90
$4.60
$2.30
Georgia
Alazani 2002
826
$5.50
$2.20
$3.30
Georgia
Pirvell Mertskh
1.124
$5.50
$2.20
$3.30
Uzbekistan
Shirin Suv YY
2,969
$4.82-$7.02
$4.82-$7.02
$0.00
Uzbekistan
Gurumsaroy
2,858
$5.62-$7.72
$5.62-$7.72
$0.00
Tajikistan
Majro
121
$9.43
Tajikistan
Sainaki G
85
$14.15
$1.07
$13.08
Kyrgyzstan
Taimonku
1,317
$7.32
$3.27
$4.05
Kyrgyzstan
Sakhi-Dari
1,092
$10.46
$3.17
$7.29
Kyrgyzstan
Kyzyr-Abad
434
$9.22
$4.17
$5.05
59
Agricultural Returns
The major problem faced by most WUAs in the CARs and the
S. Caucasus Region is that Agricultural Returns are too low to
allow farmers to pay the required ISF. Low returns are due to:
 Poor seed and dated technology
 Lack of credit and limited use of agricultural chemicals
 Shortage of agricultural machinery
 Monopoly control of markets
 State crops and Government control of crop prices
 Irrigation techniques and poor water management
 Insufficient drainage
 Need to rehabilitate and modernize irrigation systems
60
Table 11 Comparison Gross Margins for Cotton and Wheat (2005)
Gross Margins-Uzbekistan
WUA Info.
Nayman
Kanal Suv
Yoli
Khojaboston
Suv Tarmgi
Shirin Suv
Yangi Yer
Gurumsaroy
Oblast
Namangn
Jizak
Samarkand
Namangan
Namangan
Cotton ($/ha)
142
13-145
9
103
219
Wheat ($/ha)
-3 to 12
-126 to 117
-5 to 353
46
24
Gross Margins-Kyrgyzstan
WUA Info
Taimonku
Kara-Dobo-
Isa-Mariam
Sakhi-Dar.
Kyzyr-Abad
Oblast
Jalal-abad
Batken
Batken
Osh
Osh
Cotton ($/ha)
415 to 537
659
427
Wheat ($/ha)
195 to 220
293
185
459
195
Gross Margins-Tajikistan
WUA Info
Abdullojo
Majro
Sainaki G.
Aivaj
Shokh
Oblast
DRS
DRS
DRS
Khatlon
Khatlon
Cotton ($/ha)
136
126
109
80 to 100
50 to 100
Wheat ($/ha)
406
153
211 to 383
241 to 319
211 to 241
61
Even if Indonesian farmers must pay international prices for
inputs they still earn a higher profit if they receive international
prices for their rice crop
Table 12 Cost and Returns for Indonesian Rice Farmers
Inputs and Outputs
Costs/Returns in Local
Market Prices ($/ha)
Costs and Returns in Intl
Market Prices ($/ha)
Fertilizer
$8.50
$30.00
Water
$5.00
$25.00
Other costs1
$75.00
$158.00
TOTAL
$88.50
$213.00
Gross Return2
$320.00
$522.50
Net Return
$231.50
$309.50
1 Includes
2
fuel, pesticides and herbicides, seeds, land preparation and field labor.
Yields are 5.5 tons/ha and Rp. 12,000 = US$1.
62
Farmers in Turkey and Mexico pay market prices for inputs
including water, yet they still earn a 20 time higher profit when
they receive international prices for their cotton.
Table 13 Comparison of Gross Returns for Cotton (1999)
Costs and
Returns
Turkey-Cotton
Mexico-Cotton
(US$/ha)
(US$/ha)
(US$/ha)
Fee Share (US$/ha)
(%)
65.00
2.40
Irrigation
Service Fee
Fee Share
(%)
46.87
TurkmenistanCotton
Fee Share
(%)
Gross
Returns
2231.25
2.1%
2220.40
2.9%
78.98
3.0%
Variable
Costs
1395.31
3.4%
1287.10
5.15
39.09
6.1%
Gross
Margin
835.94
5.6%
933.30
6.9%
39.89
6.0%
Sources: data from Izmir, Turkey, data from Lagunera, Torreon,
Mexico, data from Department of Statistics and Forecasting,
Government of Turkmenistan
63
Table 14 Before and After Agricultural Reforms--Returns for Wheat
(1994/95 and 1995/96), Yaqui Valley, Mexico
Input Factors
1994/95
Wheat
($/ha)
Irrigation
Fee Share
(%)
1995/96
Wheat
($/ha)
Irrigation
Fee Share
(%)
Season
Season
Land Preparation
81
53
Planting
59
57
Fertilization
124
160
Irrigation
23
46
Insect/Weed Control
42
37
Harvest
37
70
Other Costs
407
240
TOTAL
773
2.9%
663
6.9%
Gross Revenue
1022
2.2%
1300
3.5%
Returns to Management
(after income tax)
249
9.2%
637
7.2%
64
WUA Federations
Once WUAs are functioning and providing good O&M service
to their members a number of countries have encouraged
them to federate and take over O&M of the off-farm system.
Benefits of Federations include:
 Better coordination of water supplies with WUAs served by
the same source
 Reduced conflict with other WUAs
 Better maintenance of off-farm and primary canals
 Reduced payments to Water Departments
 Economies of scale for Technical Machinery
 Increased ability to provide needed training courses
 Stronger voice with respect to Water Resources
Management
65
WUA E
WUA Federation-9 WUAs
WUA H
WUA C
Main Canal
WUA A
WUA I
WUA F
WUA D
WUA B
WUA G
66
Figure 14 Relationship Between Water Department, Federation and WUAs
Water Department Responsibility
Water
Source
Managed by WUA Federation
Main Canals
WUA Responsibility
WUA A
WUA B
WUA C
WUA D
Area
Area
Area
Area
WUA Responsibility
Tertiary Canals
Water Users
Tertiary Canals
Water Users
Tertiary Canals
Water Users
67
Water Users Individual Responsibilities
Figure 15 Distribution of Water Fees in Mexican WUA Federations
100% Water Fees
10%
CNA
O&M
Headworks
15%
Federation
O&M
Main Canals
75%
Water User Assoc.
O&M
Secondary Network
Users
68
Figure 16 Association/Federation of 33 WUAs on Lower Rio Grande
Amistad Dam
United States
State of Texas
Drain
Falcon Dam
33 Irrigation Associations
Rio Bravo
Pumping
Plant
San Juan ID
Republic of Mexico
Rio Bravo
Rio Bravo ID
State of Nuevo Leon
Cuchillo Dam
San Juan
Martes R.
Gomez
Dam
Republic of Mexico
State of Tamaulipas
69
Critical Considerations for Establishing WUA Federations
 Federations must have a firm legal basis
 Federation is based on hydrologic area not administrative
boundaries
 Off-farm and main canals management legally transferred to
control of Federation
 Federations belongs to all member WUAs
 Federation Management Board represents all member WUAs
 Federation Director reports to Federation Management Board
 Schedule for utilizing and sharing Technical Machinery is clear
and understood by all member WUAs
 Federation budget comes from WUA fees and is transparent
 Federation has an active Dispute Resolution Committee as
well as an Audit Committee
70