1 workshop: lessons learned in developing sustainable wuas and forming wua federations bishkek,...
TRANSCRIPT
1
WORKSHOP:Lessons Learned in Developing Sustainable
WUAs and Forming WUA Federations
Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan
October 1-6, 2007
2
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.
3
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.
4
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
United States 21, 000,000 21,000,0001 Data taken from FAOSTAT Database; adjusted with more recent field data.2 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.
Table 1 Locally Managed Irrigation Area for Selected Countries
IMT accelerated in the 1990s and 2000s. Today most irrigation systems in the world have an active element of local management.
5
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 CultivatedCropland
Irrigated Cropland
Percent of Cropland
(1,000 ha) (1,000 ha) (%)
Kazakhstan 30,135 2,313 7
Kyrgyz Republic 1,435 1,077 75
Tajikistan 860 719 84
Turkmenistan 1,750 1,744 99
Uzbekistan 4,850 4,300 89
Armenia 408 286 70
Azerbaijan 1,800 1,450 81
Georgia 1,060 469 44
Source: FAO Aquastat
6
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.
7
This included WUAs in countries with a tradition of farmer-based communal irrigation such as:Indonesia PhilippinesChile Peru Mexico
In contrast WUAs were established in countries with large Government irrigation systems such as:China IndiaTurkey Former Soviet Republics
In all countries WUAs were primarily established to reduce the financial burden on the State budget for irrigation O&M.
8
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.
9
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.
10
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.
11
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.
12
President
GeneralAssembly
BoardAuditCommittee
Technical/Econ Staff
HydroEngr
Secretary Accountant
Figure 1 President Controlled Stage One WUA
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.
13
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.
14
General AssemblyOf
Water Users
Management Committee-Chairman
-Accountant-Engineer
-Field Agents
AccountantChairman
FA FAFA
Policy Making
Implementation
Figure 2 Stage One WUA Organizational Structure
This Stage One WUA has a Management Committee made up of hired staff. Members of the WUA have no control over policy decisions.
15
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.
16
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.
17
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.
18
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.
19
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.
20
General AssemblyOf
Farmers
WUA Council
Chairman
AccountantEngineer
Policy Making
Implementation
Figure 3—WUA Restructuring
21
Figure 4 Stage Two WUA Organizational Structure—Separating Governance and Management
Members of WUA
WUA Executive Board------------------
President
GeneralManager
Irrigators
Representative Assembly AuditCommittee
Chief ofOperations
Maintenance Staff
Admin FeeCollection
Policy Making
Implementation
22WUA Executive Board discussing WUA policy
23
SPP 10807 ha
SPP 9786 ha
SPP 111120 ha
SPP 81053 ha
WUA With 4 SPPs
Figure 5 Schematic of SPP Water User Groups (WUGs)
24
25
26
WUA Administrative Council------------------
Chairman
Director
Accountant
Electro-Mechanic Hydro-Engineer
Cashier Bookkeeper
Pol
icy
Set
tin
g an
dD
ecis
ion
M
akin
g
Impl
emen
tati
onMembers of WUA
SP
P 8
R
eps.
SP
P 9
R
eps.
SP
P 1
0 R
eps.
SP
P 1
1 R
eps.
Secretary
27
F
Second Terrace
Relift Pumping Station
0 m
85 m
115 m
Schematic of Lift in Romania Irrigation System
First Terrace
Main Pumping Station
SPP PU
MPING STATION
SPP PU
MPING STATION
SPP PU
MPING STATION
SPP PU
MPING STATION
145 m
175 m
Figure 7 WUA with Multiple Terraces
28
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.
29
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.
30
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.
31
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.
32
Central WUA Support UnitIn Water Resources Dept
EngineerTraining Specialist
WUA Support SpecialistLegal SpecialistMIS Specialist
Oblast WUASupport Unit
Oblast WUASupport Unit
Oblast WUASupport Unit
Oblast WUASupport Unit
Figure 8 Central WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
33
Oblast WUA Support UnitIn Oblast Water Resources Dept
EngineerWater Management Specialist
WUA Support Specialist
Raion WUASupport Unit
Raion WUASupport Unit
Raion WUASupport Unit
Raion WUASupport Unit
Raion WUASupport Unit
Raion WUASupport Unit
Figure 9 Oblast WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
34Oblast WUA Support Unit Office
35
Raion WUA Support UnitIn Raion Water Resources Dept
EngineerWater Management Specialist
WUA Support Specialist
WUAWUA WUA WUAWUA WUA
Figure 10 Raion WUA SU in Kyrgyzstan
36
Raion WUA Support Unit Office in Batken Oblast
37
Table 3 Staffing of WUA SUs and Number of Offices
Location Central
WUA SU Provincial WUA SUs
District SUs Total No. Staff
No. of staffNo.
offices
No. staff
No. offices No. staff
in offices
No. with Coordinators
only
Bishkek 7 7
Osh 1 3 4 12 3 18
Jalal-Abad
13
5 15 3 21
Batken 1 3 2 6 1 10
Issyk-Kul 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
Total 7 7 21 27 81 13 122
Source: OIP Third Quarterly Report, 2006
38
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.
39
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
40
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
Table 5 Estimated Training Course Days for 500 WUAs Serving 1 Million ha.
Assumes 2,000 ha per WUA and 50 ha per Representative
41
WUG3
WUG4
Canal
Canal Village 2300 ha
Village 1340 ha
SPP 3 WUG
Village 5240 ha
WUA--Service Area
Village 4410 ha
Village 6265 ha
Village 7250 ha
Village 3255 ha
Figure 11 WUA with Seven Village-Based Service Areas
42
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 No. 3 No. 4 No. 5 No. 6 No. 7 Total
Area (ha)
340 300 255 410 240 265 250 2,060
Reps. 7 6 5 8 5 5 5 41
43
Administrative Council Member Village 4
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Representative Zone
Village Service Area
Village Service Area
Figure 12 Administrative Council Member-Links to Representative Zones
44
Members of WUA
Vil
lage
1
Vil
lage
2
Vil
lage
3
Vil
lage
4
Vil
lage
5
Vil
lage
6
Vil
lage
7
WUA Administrative Council------------------
Chairman
Director
Engineer Accountant
Field Based Staff
Figure 13 WUA Organizational Structure with Village-Based Zones
45
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
46
47
48
49
50
51
Table 7 KR Participants Days of Training--2002 to Dec 2006
Level Trainees 2002 2003 2004 2005 Dec 2006 Totals
Central, Province & District
Central, Province, & District Sus
669 829 946 345 396 3,185
WUA WUAs 4,052 10,126 8,915 10,655 13,453 47,201
TOTAL 4,726 10,955 9,861 11,000 13,849 50,386
Source: OIP Annual Reports and Third Quarterly Report, 2006
52
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
53
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.
54
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.
55
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 $52.40/ha
56
Table 8a Typical Irrigation Charges for WUAs in the Western US
Irrigation DistrictsNames and States
Fixed Charg
e
Typical Delivery
1st Block Cost
2nd Block Cost
Total Costs
($/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
Casper‑Alcova‑‑WY
0.00 7,617 0.0089 0.0162 $79.79
Glasgow‑‑MT 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 $65.21
57
Table 8b Turkey Range of O&M Fees ($/ha) for Irrigation Associations-April 2006
IrrigationAssoc.
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/hdaPmp 70-430 YTL/hda
5,150 ha 244,911 Grav $30.77/ha-$118.64/haPump $53.85/ha-$330.77/ha
Erzincan Grv 8.8.5-14.3.5 YTL/hdaPmp 8.8.5-22.3.5 YTL/hda
11,030 670,000 Grav $68.08/ha-$110.38/haPump $68.08/ha-$171.92/ha
Demirdoven 30-70 YTL/dha 4,679 94,000 $23.08/ha-$53.85/ha
Data Source: Collected on field visits-April 2-5 in Region II and April 10-13, 2006 in Region VIII
58
Table 9 Approved ISF for Armenia WUAs - 2003
WUA Marz Area (ha)
Irrigated-(ha) 2003
Members Average ISF(US$)
Kotayk Kotayk 5,662 5,000? 9,131 $45-$85/ha
Masis 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 $80/ha
59
Country WUA Area (ha)
ISF ($/ha) WUA O&M ($/ha)
Water Supplier ($/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
Table 10 Example WUA Established ISF For Five Countries
In contrast ISF rates for many WUAs in the countries at the Workshop are less $15/ha. This amount is insufficient to properly operate and maintain WUA’s irrigation infrastructure.
60
Agricultural Returns
The major problem faced by most WUAs in the CARs and the S. Caucasus Region is that Agricultural Returns are too low to allow farmers to pay the required ISF. Low returns are due to:
Poor seed and dated technology
Lack of credit and limited use of agricultural chemicals
Shortage of agricultural machinery
Monopoly control of markets
State crops and Government control of crop prices
Irrigation techniques and poor water management
Insufficient drainage
Need to rehabilitate and modernize irrigation systems
61
Table 11 Comparison Gross Margins for Cotton and Wheat (2005)
Gross Margins-Uzbekistan
WUA Info. Nayman Kanal Suv Yoli
Khojaboston Suv Tarmgi
Shirin Suv Yangi Yer
Gurumsaroy
Oblast Namangn Jizak Samarkand Namangan Namangan
Cotton ($/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 ($/ha) 406 153 211 to 383 241 to 319 211 to 241
62
Table 12 Cost and Returns for Indonesian Rice Farmers
Inputs and Outputs Costs/Returns in Local Market Prices ($/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 fuel, pesticides and herbicides, seeds, land preparation and field labor.2 Yields are 5.5 tons/ha and Rp. 12,000 = US$1.
Even if Indonesian farmers must pay international prices for inputs they still earn a higher profit if they receive international prices for their rice crop
63
Table 13 Comparison of Gross Returns for Cotton (1999)
Costs and Returns
Turkey-Cotton Mexico-Cotton Turkmenistan-Cotton
(US$/ha) (US$/ha) Fee Share(%)
(US$/ha) Fee Share(%)
(US$/ha) Fee Share(%)
Irrigation Service Fee
46.87 65.00 2.40
Gross Returns
2231.25 2.1% 2220.40 2.9% 78.98 3.0%
Variable Costs
1395.31 3.4% 1287.10 5.15 39.09 6.1%
Gross Margin
835.94 5.6% 933.30 6.9% 39.89 6.0%
Sources: data from Izmir, Turkey, data from Lagunera, Torreon, Mexico, data from Department of Statistics and Forecasting, Government of Turkmenistan
Farmers in Turkey and Mexico pay market prices for inputs including water, yet they still earn a 20 time higher profit when they receive international prices for their cotton.
64
Table 14 Before and After Agricultural Reforms--Returns for Wheat (1994/95 and 1995/96), Yaqui Valley, Mexico
Input Factors 1994/95 Wheat($/ha)
IrrigationFee Share(%)
1995/96 Wheat ($/ha)
IrrigationFee 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%
65
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
66
WUA A
WUA B
WUA C
WUA D
WUA E
WUA F
WUA G
WUA I
Main Canal
WUA HWUA Federation-9 WUAs
67
WaterSource
Main Canals
Tertiary CanalsTertiary Canals Tertiary Canals
Water Users Water Users Water Users
Water Users Individual Responsibilities
Water Department Responsibility
WUA Responsibility
WUA Responsibility
Managed by WUA Federation
WUA A
Area
WUA B
Area
WUA C
Area
WUA D
Area
Figure 14 Relationship Between Water Department, Federation and WUAs
68
100% Water Fees
10%
CNA
15%
Federation
75%
Water User Assoc.
O&M
Headworks
O&M
Main Canals
O&M
Secondary Network
Users
Figure 15 Distribution of Water Fees in Mexican WUA Federations
69
San Juan ID Rio Bravo ID
United States
State of Texas
Republic of Mexico
State of Tamaulipas
Drain
Rio Bravo
33 Irrigation Associations
Rio Bravo
Amistad Dam
Falcon Dam
Martes R. Gomez DamCuchillo Dam
Republic of MexicoState of Nuevo Leon
San Juan
Pumping Plant
Figure 16 Association/Federation of 33 WUAs on Lower Rio Grande
70
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