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