D.Murali

Chennai: Starting with the Taxation Enquiry Commission (1953) to the Committee on Pricing of Irrigation Water (1992) we have routinely heard discussions on improving the management of irrigation systems. However, no progress is possible unless these systems are de-bureaucratised, and distanced from political interference argues an essay included in ‘Governance of Water’ edited by Vishwa Ballabh (www.sagepublications.com).

For instance, pricing of canal waters is a state subject, as in the case of power, and hence there is wide variation among states, the authors write. “In addition, prices also vary across crops within the same state and across the seasons for the same crop.”

The Fifth, the Sixth, and the Seventh Finance Commissions had recommended that the pricing of canal irrigation water should recover 2.5 per cent of the capital invested besides the working expenses. “But given the poor financial performance of canal irrigation, the subsequent Finance Commissions, the Eighth and the Ninth, recommended only the recovery of O&M (operation and maintenance) expenses. However, the Tenth Finance Commission did reiterate the need to recover at least 1 per cent of the capital cost besides the working expenses.”

The pricing of canal waters does not cover even a fourth of the O&M costs. Over years the capacity of the farmers to pay for higher irrigation charges has increased due to spread of HYV (high-yielding variety) seeds, commercial and high-value crops coming in the commands of canals and higher productivity through better cropping operations, the book notes.

“As against the generally-accepted principle of appropriating as water charges between 25 to 40 per cent of the additional net income generated per hectare on account of irrigation, only about 2 to 5 per cent of such income is being collected as water rates.” Therefore, the authors suggest, a five-fold increase in existing water rates. A tough call, that can be, for politicians to take.

Important read.