2. Motores alternativos a ciclo de Joule-Brayton: estado del arte
2.5 Los trabajos al LaTEP
2.5.1 Los primeros trabajos de modelización
This is an extensively practiced traditional water supply method in irrigation systems, including the tanks in south India. This system has been practiced over generations. The word ‘vant’ connotes both ‘share’ and ‘turn’. The turns for irrigation of each farmer’s holding is decided and the full share of water proportionate to the full extent of holding is ensured in this system. Generally, the areas covered are those cultivating paddy or sugar cane crops; most of these irrigation systems are water abundant in nature. In the times of scarcity, the shortage is shared among farmers with a perfect understanding, by reducing the area to be irrigated. Under some tank irrigation systems when the water could not reach tail ends, the owners of these lands are compensated by the farmers who utilize the water. In yet some other systems, water is distributed only when it is sufficiently available in the tank.
This is not a rigid system like warabandi where the turn and time are fixed, or like the shejpali where the farmers have to apply to the irrigation department in advance for irrigation during each season. It is flexible. Farmers can adjust turns among themselves by bipartite or tripartite agreements. Thus, specific fields and crops under water stress are provided with irrigation first if they are in the vicinity of their turns.
This system calls for the backing of a tradition as is observed for example in the old irrigation systems of the Vijayanagar Channels (Sivamohan 1991) in south India, where one finds minimal number of water disputes compared to the adjacent Tungabhadra new irrigation canals network. In the vant system irrigation proceeds in a sequence, from one field to the other. This system has in it both the concepts of ‘turn’ and ‘share’. However, this is not explicit in the present management, wherever it is practiced. When the system becomes water-deficient several problems come to the surface.
112
2.5.
IRRIGATION FINANCING: WATER CHARGES AND COST RECOVERY
With the objective of increasing food grains production the government, for several years, followed the policy of providing large subsidies to all inputs including irrigation. Though one of the essential requirements for according approval for the construction of an irrigation project was its financial viability, this was virtually overlooked in the interests of providing ‘protective irrigation’. As a result, the aspect of revenue generation of irrigation projects was completely neglected and the losses continued to accumulate over the years. In 1977-78, gross revenue from irrigation accounted for about a fifth of the estimated total cost (including full capital charges) of providing the irrigation. By 1993-94 the recovery rate further deteriorated. Losses on irrigation were are also responsible for the mounting fiscal deficits of the state. A study conducted by the CWC in 1992 showed that between 1974-75 and 1986-87 the average gross receipts from irrigation projects in 16 major states was Rs.12,184 lakhs which was around 52 percent of the total average working expenses of Rs. 23,375 lakhs, for maintaining irrigation infrastructure over the period (IRMED 2001). This study under-pinned the need for a critical review of water rates for meeting minimum requirements of covering annual O&M expenses, and a specified percentage of interest on capital invested from gross receipts of the irrigation projects. The 1987 National Water Policy, the national conference of states’ ministers’ of irrigation and water resources also endorsed this view.
In 1992, the Planning Commission appointed a 17-member committee (GoI 1992) headed by Vaidyanathan to examine afresh the question of water rate revision. Endorsing the commonly held view that the revision should cover O&M costs and modest capital charge in the short run, the committee held the view that eventually it should cover recurring and capital costs fully. The committee further asserted that the fixation of rates should not be based on those expenditures incurred by the government (which are always on the high side due to inefficient management and ‘leakages’). They suggested that the cost revision should be based on season-specific area rates instead of the current practice of crop-specific area rates. This is expected to lead to volumetric pricing in the future (Vaidyanathan 1998). The Vaidyanathan committee on water pricing opined that given the poor state of government finance, the possibility of extending the benefits of irrigation to new and wider areas will be severely constrained if those who are benefiting from public investment in irrigation do not bear the cost of services they receive. So, the irrigation charges should be Rs. 50/hectare (basic levy) and working costs along one percent interest on capital expenditure (Khuspe and Sawant 1998).
The prevailing fiscal conditions of the states would soon compel them to take steps to reduce irrigation losses and subsidies and will prepare the ground for imminent reforms. The World Bank (1999), felt that “inadequate financial flows (cost recovery) and lack of direct linkages between revenue and expenditure and between client and service agency are the root of all these problems”. Hence, it was suggested that a substantial increase of water be charged to cover O&M. The Water Users Associations (WUAs) that are created to collect the water charges (working along with the irrigation agency) have to maintain records and utilize the share in the collections as stipulated for O&M activities. The other recommendations for implementation were – i) improving collection rates ii) generating additional resources through commercial rates for bulk supplies to other users like municipalities, fisheries, industries, power plants etc., iii) introducing volumetric pricing in the place of existing area-based charging system, iv) improving cost-effectiveness of O&M, v) undertaking client-driven service
113
improvements and vi) establishing systems for price regulation, capacity building and transparent billing and cost monitoring.
The World Bank emphasized that the setting for water charges should be removed from the ‘political arena’ and an independent Water Tariff Board be established. Water pricing is also gaining importance among the states as an effective measure of public policy for the effective use of water and sustainability.
The IRMED (2001), in their study on impact of increasing irrigation charges on production costs found that:
i) The cost of cultivation, by and large, varied inversely with the size of the farm; larger farms had lower costs and smaller farms had higher costs. Apart from the economics of scale that operated, the small farmers in order to increase the output used proportionately larger doses of inputs. This could be further substantiated by the observation that per hectare yield of small farms was higher.
ii) Farmers from all categories were able to earn profit from irrigated agriculture for most of the selected crops.
iii) The quality of irrigation provided from surface irrigation is far from satisfactory in most cases. iv) Increases in irrigation rates would not adversely affect the profit of even farmers having smaller
holding sizes.
The study while recommending the extent of increase in irrigation rates that are feasible in different states, stressed the need for developing standard annual O&M expenses of the projects to facilitate periodic review. Further, the study emphasized that assured water supply to the farmers by the agency in time was vital as a precondition, for increases in water rates.
114
Figure 2.5.1. Structure of the irrigation department – Andhra Pradesh.
Structure of the Irrigation Department – Andhra Pradesh
Minister
Major & Medium Irrigation
Minister Minor Irrigation
Principal Secretary
Irrigation and Command Area Department
Secretary Command Secretary Irrigation Secretary Projects
Deputy/Joint Secretary & Secretarial Staff
State Level
Commissioner Commissionerate of Tenders Commissioner CADA Chief Engineer Director General WALAMTARI Director Ground Water Board CE Major CE Medium CE Minor CEInvestigation DesignsCE Mechanical CE
CE
Projects
Head of
Department level
Superintending Engineer (SE)
Executive Engineer Executive Engineer Executive Engineer
D.E.E D.E.E D.E.E D.E.E
AE AE AE AE
Work inspectors & lascars
District or Fi