Water is an indispensable factor of production in agriculture. Participatory irrigation management (PIM), adhering to the rules and norms of community-based natural resource management, gained salience by receiving thrust in the National Water Policy 2002. The PIM Act aims to monitor the equitable distribution of water resources between beneficiary farmers through Water Users’ Associations (WUAs).

WUAs, as a user-based participatory group of farmers, are responsible for water distribution and conflict management. Some 84,779 WUAs are operational in several States, and the performance of WUAs is skewed across States. For example, the performance of the 802 WUAs in the Uttar Pradesh, one of the largest States contributing to agricultural production, appears to be dismal. In other words, a key question arises: How participatory is participatory irrigation management through WUAs in Uttar Pradesh?

Parameters like adequacy equity, utility, cropping intensity, productivity, sustainability, and farmers’ satisfaction were used to assess the performance of WUAs. Primary data from the seven irrigation divisions of Uttar Pradesh, where WUAs have been in existence since 2010–11, were collected. As many as 432 beneficiary farmers associated with older WUAs, and 36 non-beneficiaries related to the newer WUAs promoted in 2019–20 were part of the survey. Also, representatives of 52 WUAs (48 older and four contemporary) and officials of the irrigation department were approached to record their responses concerning the governance and management of WUAs. 

Findings from the survey

First, most WUAs surveyed meet regularly, maintain their internal records and hold timely elections for WUA executives, which indicate a positive stroke of governance of such WUAs

Second, while more than 79 per cent of member-farmers located at the head reach stated the increase in canal water availability post the formation of WUAs, only about 38 per cent of the farmers at the tail reach indicated an increase. However, equitable distribution of water remains a distant reality. About 41 per cent of farmers located at the tail reach of the canal agreed that water distribution is more equitable than earlier, compared to 63 per cent and 81 per cent of farmers situated in the middle reach and head reach, respectively. Unauthorised use of water and canal offences are also reported.

Third, about 23 per cent of WUA respondents indicated satisfaction in drawing the support of the irrigation department, while about 42 per cent were dissatisfied as they could not get support.

Fourth, there is a provision of a definite financial grant to functional WUAs in the UP-PIM Act, 2009. However, WUAs do not get any funding from the department for operations and maintenance. What they receive is merely a temporary departmental fund on an ad-hoc basis for desilting canals. But there is no flexibility given to the WUA management committee for fund utilisation. This defeats the very purpose of the participatory approach to managing water resources. WUAs do not collect membership fees to manage their administrative and conveyance expenses. This has raised concerns about the sustainability of such WUAs.

Fifth, beneficiary farmers predominantly grow wheat and paddy crops. They agreed that there has been no significant change in cropping patterns over the last few years. WUAs have not been very active in motivating farmers to adopt crop diversification for more profitable or less water-guzzling crops. The average agricultural profits for the farmers interviewed have increased from ₹70,085 per acre in 2017-18 to ₹99,244/acre in 2019-20.

Sixth, potential factors and their relative importance in influencing the performance of WUAs were identified (see Figure).

The prioritised factors based on farmers’ responses include: (1) increased water availability at farm level post the formation of WUAs, (2) operation and maintenance quality, (3) tail reach water availability, (4) level of physical, financial resource mobilisation, (5) leadership quality, (6) equitable distribution of water after the formation of WUAs, (7) orderly meeting, and (8) prevention of unauthorised use of water.

Way forward

The irrigation departments concerned should make a provision of utilising physical, technical and financial resources for the operation and maintenance of WUAs. Devolution of powers to performing WUAs and corpus management through their self-governance are critical to sustain the management of common property resources.

Canal offences, acting as a major disincentive to rule-abiding farmers, should be prevented through peer pressure, negotiation and sanctions infractions.

Grant, incentives to users and adequate infrastructure such as office space can have crucial implications for institutional efficiency, transparency and sustainability. 

The overall performance of older WUAs, which started functioning about 10 years ago, has been better than the newer ones established in 2019–20. In other words, WUAs require a stipulated period to realise their full potential as functional, user-based and participatory institutions.

Gupta and Dey are faculty of CFAM, IIM Lucknow. Views are personal

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW