Ots 24 Sm-Oac Finalrep

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING
STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN
1. ABOUT SEVA MANDIR
Seva Mandir started its work on adult education in 1969 in the rural areas of Udaipur district in
Rajasthan. The guiding philosophy behind its work was that educating the poor would lead to
their empowerment. However, in the beginning of the 1970s it was realized that the major
concern of its target group- the poor and the marginalized was livelihood. Thus livelihood related
works such as well deepening and agricultural extension were taken up on a small scale in its
work area. Over the years the work of the organization has expanded to include areas such as
education, natural resource development, health, women and child development etc. From the
mid 90s Seva Mandir has consolidated its work along three broad lines – livelihood programme,
capabilities programme, and the institution building programme. The activities in Natural
Resource Department of Seva Mandir are linked to the livelihood development programme. The
various NRD interventions of the organization include forestry, JFM, water resource
development, agricultural extension etc.
Seva Mandir's work has now expanded to 583 villages in Udaipur and Rajsamand districts of
Rajasthan influencing the lives of 70,000 households covering 360,000 people.
2. ABOUT THE PROJECT1
In the year 2002, the NRD department of Seva Mandir came up with a proposal for construction
of lift irrigation systems and anicuts to be funded under the Sustainable Communities
Programme (SCP) of Shell Foundation. The project was named Water and Livelihood Security as
Empowerment (WLSE), 2002-2005. The objectives and key features of the project are
summarized as follows:
The project is designed with the goal of strengthening the livelihoods of small and marginal
farmers in rural areas by providing them with access to irrigation from the water resource
development activities.
The project activities proposed to be undertaken to achieve the stated goals are:
1
Taken from the project proposal submitted to Shell Foundation by Seva Mandir
1
1. Construction of small ware harvesting structures to impound rainwater

2. Installation of irrigation systems to provide irrigation benefits to small and marginal
farmers
3. Providing agricultural extension inputs in the form of horticulture, vegetable cultivation
and cultivation of improved cereal crops to augment incomes of small and marginal
farmers
4. Enhancing the capabilities of village-based people’s institutions for operation and
management of the irrigation assets created under the project.
Thus the objective of the project has been to follow an integrated approach towards improving
agriculture by combining extension activities along with irrigation facilities and to build capacity
among the village institutions so that they are able to manage the asset on their own.
3. PROJECT AREA
Udaipur lies in the Southern part of Rajasthan and is surrounded by the Aravalli range of
mountains. The topography of the entire Udaipur region is characterized by highly undulating
land, vast stretches of wasteland. The average rainfall is 625 mm and the average number of
rainy days is 31 with July being the wettest month. The irrigation projects have been undertaken
in 3 villages namely Ranpur, Amarpura and Deopur. Ranpur village is located in the Jhadol block
which lies 80 kilometres (Km) south west of Udaipur. The other two villages of study Amarpura
and Deopur lie under the Kherwada block which is located on the Udaipur- Ahmedabad road.
In 2002-03 a lift irrigation system (LIS) was installed at village Ranpur on the perennial river
Wakal. In Amarpura two LIS were installed on the river Som flowing through the village. While
in the neighbouring village Deopur the LIS installed by District Rural Development Agency
(DRDA) had become non functional due to the collapse of the anicut which had been constructed
on the river Som. An anicut was constructed by Seva Mandir at the same site as the previous
anicut which made the LIS made by the DRDA functional once again.
2
4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
As at the time this study was undertaken, around one year had passed since the LIS became
operational and due to the anicut the benefits of the DRDA LIS could be availed off, it was
necessary to find out whether there have been actually any changes in the direction envisaged.
The study would bring to light any discrepancies between the envisaged and the real benefits so
that corrective action may be undertaken in these project areas and also incorporate these
findings in the planning and implementation of such irrigation projects in other areas.
The study was undertaken with the following objectives:

1. To perform the cost benefit analysis of the lift irrigation system (LIS) and water
harvesting structure (WHS) installed at three villages. The cost benefit analysis would be
carried out at two levels:
i. At the beneficiary level: This would take into account the costs being incurred by
the beneficiaries of each project in utilizing the irrigation facilities from the
project and the consecutive benefits, both direct and derived, at the individual
level.
ii. At the project level: This would involve the cost benefit analysis of the project as
a whole and assessment of the financial vibility of the each project.
2. To determine the other impacts of the lift irrigation system (LIS) and water harvesting
structure (WHS) installed at three villages.
3. The analysis of the management systems was divided in to two parts:
i. To study the existing systems of management of the lift irrigation system (LIS) in
each village
ii. To identify the conflicts and issues associated with each system and to suggest
strategies for resolving the same.
3
5. SCOPE
1. The cost benefit analysis undertaken at both the beneficiary and the project level
pertains to private costs and benefits. No attempt has been made to quantify and
include the social costs and benefits involved in the process.
2. The study has been conducted for one LIS in village Ranpur (Jhadol block), two LIS
in village Amarpura (Kherwara block) and the WHS in village Deopur (Kherwara
block). In village Deopur, as mentioned earlier, the anicut had been constructed to
restart DRDA installed LIS. Hence in our study at Deopur the focus has been on the
benefits to the beneficiaries due to the LIS becoming operational.
3. Since the major objective of the entire project is to provide access to irrigation
facilities and as mentioned above the purpose of anicut construction had been to
make existing LIS operational, other benefits due to the anicut such as well recharge
and availability of drinking water for cattle have not been taken into account.
4. All the LIS considered for the study have been constructed on perennial water
sources, the benefit cost ratio and other impacts may not be applicable to other LIS
installed on other sources of water such as tubewells.
5. The suggestions for resolving the conflicts and issues are village specific and may
not be applicable in other villages.
6. METHODOLOGY
6.1. Sources of Data
6.1.1. Primary sources
6.1.1.1 Questionnaire: In order to collect data regarding the costs and benefits at the beneficiary
level, questionnaires were prepared in consultation with the unit team and were administered to
the sample of beneficiaries as well as non beneficiaries.
4
6.1.1.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs):

To collect information regarding the existing management systems and the conflicts and issues
associated with each LIS, FGDs were held with groups of beneficiaries.
6.1.1.3 Key Informant Interviews: Personal interviews were held with the other stakeholders such
as office bearers namely the President, Secretary and Treasurer of the Lift management
committees, President of the Gram Vikas Committee, pump operators etc.
6.1.2. Secondary sources
Preliminary information regarding the project area and the project in each village was provided
by the NRD team at the unit and the block level. Reports, journals and books on the concerned
subject in the Documentation Centre of Seva Mandir and the library at IRMA were also
consulted to get a better understanding of the project.
5
7. SAMPLING PLAN
From the field visits to the lift irrigation and anicut sites in the three villages, namely Ranpur
( Jhadol block), Amarpura and Deopur ( Kherwara block) we found that the fields of
beneficiaries are quite dispersed, while some beneficiaries have field located at different heights
as compared to the water source. Similarly some fields are located closer to the water source
while others are relatively far off. These result in varying consumption of fuel (diesel) for the
same amount of irrigation and hence the cost of irrigation for fields located far way from each
other is different. In addition, the soils of fields located at different places may also differ in the
fertility.
For the purpose of supplying water to the fields from the water source, chambers have been
constructed at such points in the middle of fields of different beneficiaries so as to supply water
to the surrounding fields. In order to draw a representative sample of beneficiaries keeping in
mind the above mentioned differences, we took chambers within the lift irrigation/anicut
command area as the sampling variable that is, first stratification of beneficiaries was done on
the basis of chamber from which their fields receive water and then random samples of
beneficiaries were drawn from each chamber.
The sampling plan for each of the three villages is as follows:

1. Ranpur: There are 19 beneficiaries of the lift irrigation system installed by Seva Mandir.
Since the number of beneficiaries is relatively small, we conducted a census survey to cover
all the 19 beneficiaries in the survey.
2. Amarpura: Under the project, Seva Mandir has installed 2 lift irrigation systems at
different sites to draw water from the river Som. Each lift irrigation system had been
envisaged to provide water to 52 beneficiaries (Agriculture survey- Amarpura). For the
purpose of data collection from beneficiaries of one of the operational lift irrigation system in
the village, we drew chamber wise samples of fields of beneficiaries according to the
procedure discussed earlier in the section.
6
3. Deopur: In Deopur, Seva Mandir has constructed an anicut to harvest water and to make
functional the lift irrigation system installed by DRDA which was non functional before
the project. Since only 21 beneficiaries were drawing water, we have conducted a census
survey of all the beneficiaries who are drawing water for irrigation from the lift irrigation
system made functional by the anicut.
8. LIMITATIONS
1. Since in all the three projects under study only one year has passed since the irrigation
systems became functional, the costs incurred at the beneficiary level and the benefits at
both the beneficiary and the project level are likely to change over time.
2. Changes observed such as in cropping pattern, use of other agricultural inputs such as
fertilizers etc. as observed during the first year may differ over time.
3. Many impacts such as increase in milk yield, which have not been observed, now may
become visible after certain years.
7
9. COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS
9.1. Introduction
In accordance with our first objective, we have done cost benefit analysis in three villages. The
cost benefit analysis can be interpreted as what expenditure has been incurred on something and
what are the benefits from it. The cost benefit analysis has been done in purely private terms and
we have not included social costs and benefits accrued as it was beyond the scope of our study.
The social cost and benefits have not been taken into consideration as it was difficult to quantify
social costs and benefits attached solely to these projects. We have done cost benefit analysis at
two levels:
9.1.1. At the level of Beneficiaries: At this level, we have taken all the running costs of
farmers they have incurred in the farming and all the benefits they have got from it.
Here, all the benefits to farmers, which have been accrued due to installation of these
projects, have been taken into consideration. In other words, only incremental
benefits and incremental costs have been taken into account.
The main costs and benefits, which we included at this level, are as follows:
9.1.1.1 Costs: The costs, which we took in our calculations, are:
•Cost of Seeds
•Cost of Fertilizers
•Cost of Pesticides
•Cost of Irrigation: It includes the cost of diesel and payment made towards the
operation and maintenance expenses.
•Cost of Transportation: Incurred in purchasing of diesel.
•Cost of using Tractor
•Cost of using Thresher
8
•Cost of Labour: As farmers have started taking additional crop, number of

migration days have decreased and the loss of income that they have incurred due to
this has been included in our calculations of cost of production as the cost of labour.
9.1.1.2 Benefits: The benefits, which we took in our calculations, are:

Sale value of the crop grown: For calculating this figure, we have taken the total production and
not the marketable surplus.
Sale value of By-product (Fodder): Due to increased farming and increased number of crops, the
amount of fodder grown has increased and its sale value has also been included in the calculation
of benefits.
9.1.2. At the level of Project: We have also done cost benefit analysis at the level of project. In
this analysis, we have included all the costs, which were incurred in the installation of lift
irrigation systems and constructing anicut. The benefits, we included are the net benefits which
accrued to all the planned beneficiaries after deducting all their costs. These benefits have been
projected over the estimated life of these lift irrigation schemes and anicut.
We have calculated the benefit-cost ratio (BC Ratio), net benefit cost ratio and the pay back
period of these projects. Despite the limitations of pay back period in failing to consider the time
value of money, we have calculated it as it conveys information about the rate at which the
uncertainity associated with the project is resolved. The shorter the pay back period, the faster
the uncertainity associated with the project is resolved. The longer the pay back period, the
slower the uncertainity is resolved. Decision makers, it may be noted, prefer an early resolution
of uncertainity as an early resolution of uncertainity enables them to take prompt corrective
action and modify/change other investment decisions.
9
9.2. Assumptions of Cost Benefit Analysis
We have taken several assumptions while performing the cost benefit analysis. These are as
following:
1. Life of LIS has been assumed as ten (10) years and for Anicut, it has been taken as
twenty (20) years: A normal lift is supposed to work for ten (10) years, if it is provided
proper maintenance and for anicut, it is twenty (20) years.
2. Discounting rate has been taken at eight percent (8%): Since the infrastructure projects
are financed at the rate of eight percent (8%), hence, we have taken the same for
discounting the benefits for doing cost-benefit analysis at the project level.
3. Family labour has not been included while computing cost of production.
4. Net benefits are assumed to remain constant over the life of the projects: Since the
projects were installed just one year ago, so we didn’t have any means to predict the trend
of cost and benefits for future years. Hence, we have taken the figures of only that one
year and projected them for rest of the life of the projects.
5. For our study, we have projected the benefits to the identified number of beneficiaries to
find out the benefits that this project would have generated over its estimated working
life, had all the planned beneficiaries taken water.
6. Salvage value of these projects has been assumed as nil.
10. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LIS IN VILLAGE RANPUR
In this village, the lift irrigation system was installed in the year 2003 before the kharif season.
The village is situated on the banks of the Wakal River and the lift has been constructed on this
river under the Shell Foundation’s project. In this village, the beneficiaries who were identified
to take water from this lift were twenty-eight (28) but the number of beneficiaries who took
water during the first year was nineteen (19) only. It has been mutually decided by the
beneficiaries that every one will get water to irrigate only two (2) bighas of land. Therefore the
total land irrigated with the water taken from the lift was thirty-eight (38) bighas only.
10
10.1. At the beneficiaries’ level:
The incremental costs that the nineteen (19) farmers incurred while irrigating the stipulated two
(2) bighas of their land with the help of the lift during the Rabi season have been arrived at by
deducting the total cost they incurred on that piece of land in that particular season prior to the
installation of the LIS from the total cost they incurred after the installation of the LIS.
The costs are as follows:
Table 1
Total incremental costs
Cost of Seeds Rs.10, 290
Cost of Irrigation Rs.9, 666
Cost of Fertilizers Rs.5, 825
Cost of Pesticides Rs.2, 400
Cost of Tractor/Thresher Rs.850
Cost of Labour Rs.15, 382.5
Total Rs.44, 413.5
The incremental benefits are as follows:
Table 2
Total incremental benefits
Sale value of Production Rs. 70, 385
Sale value of By-product (Fodder) Rs.4, 700
Total Rs.75, 085
10.1.1. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BC Ratio)

The benefit cost ratio has been computed as follows:
Total Benefits/Total Cost
= Rs.75, 085 / Rs.44, 413.5
= 1.69
11
By this we can interpret that on an average each beneficiary is getting Rs.1.69 for every Rs. 1
invested. So, we can see that nineteen (19) farmers incurred a total cost of Rupees forty four
thousand four hundred and thirteen point five (Rs.44, 413.5) and got benefits worth Rupees
seventy five thousand and eighty five (Rs. 75, 085), so it is a good sign as it is for only nineteen
(19) beneficiaries who are currently taking water and if this number increase in future years, it
will be more beneficial for the farmers. Except these monetary benefits, farmers also got benefits
like due to reduction in migration they were able to live with their families for more number of
days in the year.
10.2. At the project level
10.2.1. Costs
The costs incurred to install the lift are as follows:
Table 3
Total project cost
Project Cost
Materials:
Pipe& Fitting Rs. 2, 07, 959

Pump Rs. 41, 603
Cement Rs. 9, 790
Swinpan Rs. 6, 500
Painting Rs. 1, 000
Roof sheet Rs. 3, 000
Total Cost of Material Rs. 2, 69, 852
Labour:
Excavation Rs. 15, 297

Pump & Chamber Rs. 26, 182
Total Cost of Labour Rs. 41, 479
Total Cost Rs. 3, 11, 331
12
Farmers’ contribution is in the form of labour and the labour cost stated above has been paid to
them.
10.2.2. Benefits
The total costs incurred by the farmers during the year while irrigating their two (2) bighas of
land were Rupees forty four thousand four hundred and thirteen point five (Rs. 44, 413.5) and
the benefits which accrued to them were Rupees seventy five thousand and eighty five (Rs. 75,
085), therefore the annual net benefits accrued to them were Rupees thirty thousand six hundred
and seventy one point five (Rs. 30, 671.5), which is the difference between total cost incurred
and total benefits accrued to the farmers.
We have then projected the data for twenty-eight (28) farmers (Assumption 5), which is the
actual number of planned beneficiaries. The net benefit for twenty-eight (28) was computed as
follows:
Net benefits for 19 farmers: Rs. 30, 671.5
Annual net benefits for 28 farmers: Rs. (30, 671.5 / 19)*28
= Rs. 45, 200.11
We have projected the benefits for the estimated life of the lift irrigation system taking it as ten
years (10). This was done as follows:
Table 4
Net cash flows
Net Cash Flows
Year 1 45200.11
Year 2 45200.11
Year 3 45200.11
Year 4 45200.11
Year 5 45200.11
Year 6 45200.11
Year 7 45200.11
Year 8 45200.11
Year 9 45200.11
13
Year 10 45200.11
PV of Cash Inflows 303296.39

NPV -8034.61
BC Ratio (PV/I) 0.97

NBC Ratio (NPV/I) -0.03
Pay Back Period 6.89
The net present value (NPV) of the project comes to negative Rupees eight thousand thirty four
(Rs.-8, 034), which means that the present value of all the inflows after discounting at the rate of
eight percent (8%) comes to negative.
The benefit cost ratio comes to zero point nine seven (0.97). This explains that the project will
yield 0.97 times its cost over its estimated life.
Pay-Back period comes to six point eight nine (6.89) years, which means that the project will
recover its cost in six point eight nine (6.89) years.
11. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LIS IN VILLAGE AMARPURA
In this village, the lift irrigation system was installed in the year 2002.The village is situated on
the banks of the Som River and the lift has been constructed on this river under the Shell
Foundation’s project. There were two lifts constructed in this village but only one is functioning,
other one is non-functional in the sense that only one farmer took water from it, so we are taking
only one lift which is functioning. The reason for the non-functioning of one lift has been
explained in another section of this report.
In this village, the beneficiaries who were identified to take water from these lifts were one
hundred and five (105) but the number of beneficiaries who took water during the first year was
twenty-eight (28) only from the functional lift. The command area is approximately seventy-five
(75) bighas.
14
The incremental costs that the twenty (20) farmers incurred while irrigating their stipulated lands
with the help of the lift during the Rabi season have been arrived at by deducting the total cost
they incurred on that piece of land in that particular season prior to the installation of the LIS
from the total cost they incurred after the installation of the LIS.
Table 5
Cost of Seeds Rs. 13, 896
Cost of Irrigation Rs. 23, 420.63
Cost of Fertilizers Rs. 3, 950
Cost of Thresher Rs. 3, 960
Cost of Tractor Rs. 7, 400
Cost of Labour Rs. 15, 050
Total Rs. 67, 676.63
Table 6
Sale value of By-product (Fodder) Rs. 6, 850
Total Rs. 89, 757
The benefit-cost ratio has been computed as follows:

= Rs.89, 757 / Rs.67, 676.63
= 1.33
invested. So, we can see that twenty (20) farmers incurred a total cost of Rupees sixty seven
thousand six hundred and seventy six point six three (Rs. 67, 676.63) and got benefits worth
Rupees eighty nine thousand seven hundred and fifty seven (Rs. 89, 757), so it is a good sign as
it is for only twenty (20) beneficiaries who are currently taking water and if this number increase
15
in future years, it will be more beneficial for the farmers. Except these monetary benefits,
farmers also got benefits like due to reduction in migration they were able to live with their
families for more number of days in the year.
11.2. At the project level
11.2.1 Costs
The costs incurred to install the lift are as follows:

Table 7
Total project cost
Project Cost
Store cum pump house Rs. 37, 852

Chambers (Rs. 2044*4) Rs. 8, 176
Canal excavation Rs. 2, 525
Construction of Platforms Rs. 5, 055
Pipelines etc. Rs. 1, 87, 238
Diesel Pump Set Rs. 45, 000
5% Site Variability Rs. 14, 292.3
Total Rs. 3, 00, 138.3
Approx cost Rs. 3, 00, 000
Farmers’ contribution is in the form of labour and the same has been included above stated
project cost.
11.2.2 Benefits
The total costs incurred by the twenty (20) farmers during the year while irrigating their land
with the lift were Rupees sixty seven thousand six hundred and seventy six point six three (Rs.
67, 676.63) and the benefits which accrued to them were Rupees eighty nine thousand seven
hundred and fifty seven (Rs. 89, 757), therefore the annual net benefits accrued to them were
Rupees twenty two thousand and eighty point three seven (Rs. 22, 080.37), which is the
difference between total cost incurred and total benefits accrued to the farmers.
16
We have then projected the data for fifty-two (52) (assumption 5) farmers, which is the actual
number of planned beneficiaries for this LIS. The net benefit for fifty-two (52) was computed as
follows:
Net benefits for twenty (20) farmers: Rs. 22, 080.37
Annual net benefits for fifty-two (52) farmers: Rs. (22, 080.37 / 20)*52
= Rs. 57, 408.96
We have projected the benefits for the estimated life of the lift irrigation system taking it as ten
years (10). This was done as follows:
Table 8
Net cash flows
Net Cash Flows
Yr 1 57408.96
Yr 2 57408.96
Yr 3 57408.96
Yr 4 57408.96
Yr 5 57408.96
Yr 6 57408.96
Yr 7 57408.96
Yr 8 57408.96
Yr 9 57408.96
Yr 10 57408.96
PV of Cash inflows 385218.81

NPV 85218.81
BC Ratio (PV/I) 1.28

NBC Ratio (NPV/I) 0.28
Pay back period 5.23
The net present value (NPV) of the project comes to Rupees eighty five thousand two hundred
and eighteen approximately (Rs.85, 218.81), which means that the present value of all the
inflows after discounting at the rate of eight percent (8%) comes to positive
17
The benefit-cost ratio comes one point two eight (1.28). This explains that the project will yield
one point two eight (1.28) times its cost over its estimated life.
Payback period comes to five point two three (5.23) years, which means that project will recover
its cost in five point two three (5.23) years.
12. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ANICUT IN VILLAGE DEOPUR
In this village, Seva Mandir constructed Anicut in the year 2002-2003. There was a lift
constructed by District Rural Development Agency (DRDA), but it was not functioning till the
time of construction of Anicut. The Anicut has been constructed on Bhoot wala Nala. The
planned numbers of beneficiaries were forty-five (45) but the actual number taking water is only
twenty one (21), out of which nine (9) took water on rent.
The incremental costs that the twenty-one (21) farmers incurred while irrigating their stipulated
lands with the help of the lift during the Rabi season have been arrived at by deducting the total
cost they incurred on that piece of land in that particular season prior to the installation of the
LIS from the total cost they incurred after the installation of the LIS.
Table 9
Cost of Seeds Rs. 10, 750
Cost of Irrigation Rs. 14, 080
Cost of Fertilizers Rs. 5, 360
Cost of Thresher Rs.9, 610
Cost of Tractor Rs. 7, 570
Cost of Labour Rs. 11, 462.5
Total Rs. 58, 832.5
18
Table 10
Sale value of By-product (Fodder) Rs.8, 455
Total Rs. 86, 005
The benefit-cost ratio has been computed as follows:

= Rs.86, 005/ Rs.58, 832.5
= 1.46
invested. So, we can see that twenty-one (21) farmers incurred a total expenditure of Rupees fifty
eight thousand eight hundred and thirty two point five (Rs. 58, 832.5) and got benefits worth
Rupees eighty six thousand and five (Rs. 86, 005), so it is a good sign as it is for only twenty-one
(21) beneficiaries who are currently taking water and if this number increase in future years, it
will be more beneficial for the farmers.
12.2. At the Project Level
12.2.1. Cost
The total costs incurred in the construction of Anicut were as follows:
19
Table 11
Net project cost
Cost of Anicut Rs. 6, 72, 000
Cost of Apron Rs. 58, 000.00
Cost of Wingwall Rs. 24, 000.00
Total Rs. 7, 54, 000.00
12.2.2 Benefits
As the lift was not functioning in this village and it started due to the construction of Anicut, so
we have taken all the benefits accruing from the lift as the benefits due to construction of Anicut.
The gross benefits of twenty-one (21) farmers due to lift were Rupees eighty six thousand and
five (Rs.86, 005) and the gross costs which they incurred while irrigating their land came to
Rupees fifty eight thousand eight hundred and thirty two point five (Rs. 58, 832.5), therefore, the
net benefits for twenty one (21) farmers came to Rupees twenty seven thousand one hundred and
seventy two point five (Rs.27, 172.5).
We have then projected the data for forty-five (45) (assumption 5) farmers, which is the actual
number of planned beneficiaries. The net benefit for forty-five (45) was computed as follows:
Net benefits for twenty-one (21) farmers: Rs. 27, 172.5

Annual net benefits for forty-five (45) farmers: Rs. (27, 172.5/ 21)*45
= Rs. 58,226.5
20
We then projected the benefits for the estimated life of Anicut (20 years), which was done as
follows:
Table 12
Net cash flows
Net Cash Flow
Year 1 58226.79
Year 2 58226.79
Year 3 58226.79
Year 4 58226.79
Year 5 58226.79
Year 6 58226.79
Year 7 58226.79
Year 8 58226.79
Year 9 58226.79
Year 10 58226.79
Year 11 58226.79
Year 12 58226.79
Year 13 58226.79
Year 14 58226.79
Year 15 58226.79
Year 16 58226.79
Year 17 58226.79
Year 18 58226.79
Year 19 58226.79
Year 20 58226.79
PV of cash flows 571679.17

NPV -182320.83
BC Ratio 0.76
NBC Ratio -0.24
Pay back period 12.95
The net present value of the project comes to negative Rupees one lakh eighty two thousand
three hundred and twenty point eight three (Rs. –1, 82,320.83). Benefit-cost ratio comes to zero
point seven six (0.76). It is less than one (1) as the initial investment is quite high.
21
Payback period comes to approximately thirteen years (12.95), so we can say that we will
recover our investment in thirteen (12.95) years.
13. CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, we can say that LIS and Anicut have proved very beneficial for the farmers, as it is
evident from the figures we have calculated and shown below. But as the figures are for only one
season, these benefits may increase in future years and also if many other farmers start taking
water. Rajasthan is a drought prone region and these schemes have proved a boon for the under
privileged farmers of this area as they are completely dependent on rain water for their
agriculture and they were able to take crop in only Kharif season, now they can take additional
crop in other seasons also with the help of water because of these schemes.
22
14. IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The direct impact of the irrigation facilities has been on agriculture both in terms of production,
productivity, cropping pattern etc. The second objective of our study is to consider other impacts
of these irrigation facilities that could not have been included in the cost benefit analysis but are
nevertheless important as they affect other important aspects of the livelihoods of the
beneficiaries. The cost benefit analysis along with the impact together should be considered to
decide the true effect of the intervention.
14.1. RANPUR
14.1.1. Usage of the LIS
Out of the 19 beneficiary households who have contributed partly or fully towards the 20 percent
of the project cost to be deposited in the GVK, 17 beneficiary households have made use of
irrigation facilities provided by the LIS since the system became functional after its installation
in March 2003 i.e. before the beginning of the Kharif cropping season. While 2 beneficiaries
took irrigation during Kharif for vegetable cultivation- turmeric and arbi, none of them were
required to use the irrigation facility for the major Kharif crop- maize due to sufficient rains
during monsoon. During the following cropping season of Rabi 17 out of the 19 beneficiaries
took the wheat crop with the help of the irrigation water provided by the lift. 4 out of these 17
beneficiaries in addition took garlic crop as well. None of the beneficiaries took any Zaid crop
during the past year.
Though the cost benefit analysis being undertaken takes in to account the changes during the first
year of operations of the LIS, it is important to note that during the ongoing Kharif season 10-11
beneficiaries have sown turmeric and arbi and are taking irrigation through the LIS, which
indicates the growing usage of the LIS during the different cropping seasons.
23
14.1.2. Increase in irrigated area
The 19 beneficiaries of the LIS together own a total of 114 bigha of cultivable land. Prior to the
LIS, only 11 bigha of this land that is approximately 10 percent was under some form of
irrigation. Though 3 of the beneficiaries have private wells, the well water is not used for the
purpose of irrigation and all the 11 bigha of the irrigated landholding received irrigation from the
Ramakunda canal.
During the first year of operations, the lift irrigation management committee decided to allow
each beneficiary to irrigate a maximum of 2 bigha of land holding from the lift. Hence the total
increase in area under irrigation has been 2 bigha for each beneficiary. Thus the area under
irrigation has increased from 10 percent to 42 percent. The 2 beneficiaries who prior to the LIS
used to irrigate their land during Rabi from the water from the Ramakunda canal have also
preferred to irrigate 2 bigha of their earlier irrigated land holding from the water available from
the LIS while the remaining portion of the irrigated land holding is still under canal irrigation.
Figure 1
Increase in irrigated area
Land irrigated before LI Land irrigated after LI
10% Irrigated area Irrigated area after

before LI 42% LI
Unirrigated area 58% Unirrigated area
before LI after LI
90%
14.1.3. Net sown area and cropping intensity
After the LIS the net sown area (N.S.A.) has shown an increase of nearly 31 percent from 98
bigha to 128 bighas. The break up of the increase according to cropping season shows that there
has been a marginal increase in the N.S.A. This slight increase has been on account of 2 farmers
24
undertaking vegetable cultivation from the water available from the LIS. The percentage increase
in N.S.A. in Rabi has been significant. This is due to the fact that 17 out of the 19 beneficiaries
that is, 90 percent of the current beneficiaries were not able to take the Rabi crop prior to the
LIS. Thus the overall cropping intensity has increased from 0.86 percent to 1.125 % post LIS.
Figure 2
Gross sown area
Gross Sown Area

Gross Sown Area (bighas)
150 128.25
98
100 87 87.5 Total
Kharif
40.75
50 Rabi
11
0
N.S.A. before LI N.S.A.after LI
Figure 3
Cropping intensity
Change in cropping intensity

Cropping intensity
2
1.4657143
1.5 1.12
1
0.5
0
Before LI After LI
14.1.4. Cropping Pattern
Maize accounts for the maximum area under cultivation among all Kharif crops. Before the LIS,
apart from maize, the other crops being cultivated by the beneficiaries included urad and paddy
(local variety). However these varieties were being cultivated by only a few beneficiaries. The
cropping pattern during Kharif has remained more or less the same with a slight decline in maize
25
and other crops due to introduction of vegetable cultivation. Turmeric and haldi are the
vegetables which were cultivated during Kharif.
While before the LIS, wheat cultivation was restricted to only 6 percent of the total cultivable
land belonging to the beneficiaries, a total of 36 bigha land has now come under wheat
cultivation which is 32 percent of the total cultivable land. Apart from wheat, mustard was also
grown during Rabi. Post LIS, the area under mustard cultivation has decreased and vegetable
(garlic) has been introduced. 4 out of the 19 beneficiaries that is 20 percent have grown
vegetables on some portion of the total 2 bigha land apart from wheat. For wheat cultivation all
the beneficiaries have taken water from the LIS, while one beneficiary could manage to get 1for
the wheat crop from the canal water.
Figure 4
Cropping Pattern – Kharif and Rabi
Cropping Pattern: Kharif Cropping Pattern: Rabi
100% 100%
80% 80%
Vegetables
Vegetables
60% Urad 60%
% area
% area
Mustard
40% Paddy 40%
Wheat
20% Maize 20%
0% 0%
Before LI After LI Before LI After LI
14.1.5. Range of yield
For the beneficiaries who cultivated wheat before the LIS, the average yield was 200 kg per
bigha. However, post LIS, the average yield of wheat has risen to 295 kg with the range of yield
varying from 200 kg to as much as 350 kg per bigha. Even the beneficiaries who used to
cultivate wheat crop prior to the LIS could manage 3 irrigations to the crop on an average.
However after the LIS, the average number of irrigations provided to the wheat crop has
increased from 3 to 4.
26
14.1.6. Cost of cultivation
The costs calculated are incremental in the sense that the cultivation costs of all the crops for
which water from the lift had been used, have been considered.Among the Kharif crops, maize
requires no irrigation as it is rainfed hence of the total cost of cultivation of maize, seeds and
fertilizers form the major component. In case of Kharif vegetables such as turmeric seeds form
the major portion of the cost of cultivation. In addition 2 more irrigations are required for the
crop, apart from rainfall. In case of wheat, irrigation accounts for the highest proportion of cost
among all other components. The cost of irrigation to the beneficiaries has shown a variation
from Rs 240 to Rs 650 for 4 irrigations for the 2 bighas of land. In case of the vegetables grown
in Rabi, which is garlic, seeds account for as high as 64 percent of the total cost followed by
irrigation. On an average the garlic crop requires 10 to 12 irrigations.
Figure 5
Cost of cultivation – Kharif and Rabi
Cost of cultivation:Vegetable (Kharif)

Cost of cultivation: Maize: (Before LI) 0%
Seeds 0% Seeds
0%
1% Irrigation 5% 0% Irrigation
47% Fertilizers
Fertilizers
52%
Pesticides Pesticides
0% 95%
Tractor/Thresher
Tractor/Thresher
Cost of cultivation: Rabi (After LI) Cost of cultivation: Vegetable (Rabi)
Seeds 0% Seeds
5%
10% 4% 26% Irrigation 0% Irrigation
31%
Fertilizers Fertilizers
24% 64%
Pesticides
36% Pesticides
Tractor/Thresher
Tractor/Thre
sher
27
14.1.7. Food Security
Maize forms the staple diet in the Mewar region and like other villages maize is cultivated by all
farmers in the village and on the maximum area of land. The produce is for subsistence purpose
and the surplus if any is kept for seeds and for selling later in the market if the need for cash
arises. Even in case of families which are below food security level, distress sales of the crop
take place if there is any immediate requirement for cash. Out of the 6 beneficiaries who took
the Rabi crop and who were below the food security level before the LIS, in terms of cereal
requirement of the household, 5 achieved self sufficiency with the additional cereal crop
available during Rabi and 1 moved closer to food security.
Though in terms of pulses requirement, the beneficiaries are not self sufficient as the cultivation
of pulses is very less. Similar is the case of vegetables. However, after the LIS vegetable crop
has been taken by the beneficiaries both during Kharif and Rabi season but all the crops taken
namely turmeric, arbi and garlic have mainly been cultivated for sale in the market and only a
small portion has been cultivated for home use. Besides these, 1-2 farmers grew other vegetables
such as ginger, chilli and brinjal on small patches of land for home consumption.
Though the data available regarding surplus foodgrains sold does not indicate any clear trends it
is likely that over the years, increase in food security and availability of cash income from sale of
vegetables would reduce distress sale of food grains and the prices realized by the farmers in
case of sale of surplus would be better.
14.1.8. Decrease in migration
The average family size in the village is about 5 members. From among the beneficiary
households 1-2 members migrate to Udaipur for wage labour for 10-15 days per month. Women
members do not migrate. Most of the migrants work as wage laboureres at construction sites and,
the wage rate varies from Rs 40 for unskilled labour to as high as Rs 85 per day for masons. The
average wage rate is Rs 60 per day. Income from migration is one of the major sources of cash
income for the beneficiary households. It is used not only to buy food items but for other
28
expenses incurred on marriages and other social functions, sickness etc. Post LIS, migration
among beneficiary households has reduced from 6 months on an average to 4 months as the
members were engaged in the fields for Rabi crop for around 20 days during the cropping season
and the increase in food grain availability form the Rabi crop has reduced the dependence on
migration income for food grains.
14.1.9. Reduction in fodder scarcity & increase in livestock
The average livestock profile of the beneficiary households consists of a pair of bullocks and 1-2
milch animals. The fodder requirements are fulfilled from the crop residue of the Kharif crop and
from the forests. Around 3-4 beneficiaries also cultivate fodder on around 1-1.5 bigha land.
However, before the LIS almost all of the beneficiaries had to purchase green fodder for the
cattle worth Rs 150 to Rs 700. However, with the crop residue of wheat crop now available the
amount spent on purchasing fodder has reduced considerably and around 9 beneficiaries who
earlier had to purchase fodder from the market did not have to spend on fodder purchase this
time. However, none of the beneficiaries have grown fodder from the water available from the
lift.
14.1.10. Reduction in indebtedness & asset creation
All the beneficiary households have debts to clear. Debts have been taken mainly for non
productive purposes such as marriages and sickness. Though no significant changes could be
observed in the debt situation before and after LIS which can be traced to the implementation of
the LIS, however some beneficiaries have undertaken activities such as house repair and
purchase of livestock after the harvesting of the Rabi crop. Around 4 beneficiaries reported to
have purchased livestock mainly bullocks and 2 have undertaken house repair with the savings
on food grains and fodder after LIS and from their previous savings. Apart from this around 6-7
beneficiaries who are undertaking vegetable cultivation this Kharif season also reported to have
purchased seeds and diesel (for irrigation) from such savings, Thus there are certain trends of
reinvestment of the returns from the LIS in agriculture.
29
14.1.11. Changes in agricultural practices
Since there has been no use of LI water for maize during the Kharif season and wheat was being
cultivated by majority of the beneficiaries for the first time, there is no reference data available to
compare with for any visible changes such as increase in fertilizer consumption, pesticides,
mechanization etc. Vegetable cultivation during Kharif and Rabi has resulted in introduction of
cash crops. In addition, the beneficiaries have grown a new variety of wheat namely Pharmi
instead of Kalyan Sona grown earlier by those who used to cultivate wheat before the LIS as
well. However, the cause of change could not be ascertained. All the 17 beneficiaries have
applied vermicompost for the wheat crop. Seva Mandir had provided it as part of its extension
activities in water resource development areas.
30
14.2. AMARPURA
14.2.1. Increase in irrigated area
The twenty (20) farmers surveyed who take water from LIFT 1 in this village together own about
one hundred and fourteen (114) bighas of land. Prior to the installation of the lift they were able
to irrigate only about seven (7) bighas of their land from the canal emanating from the Kagdar
dam and the remaining one hundred and seven (107) bighas of their land remained unirrigated.
After the installation of the lift the land that was irrigated increased steeply to about fifty one
(51) bighas with a consequent decrease in unirrigated land to about sixty three (63) bighas.
Percentage wise the increase in irrigated land is about six hundred and twenty eight percent
(628%). Initially only six percent (6%) of the land was being irrigated but it has now climbed to
forty five percent (45%).
Figure 6
Irrigated area before LI Irrigated area afterLI
Irrigated
6% area before Irrigated area
LI after LI
45%
Unirrigated 55% Unirrigated
94% area before area after LI
LI
14.2.2. Change in Gross Sown Area
The total Gross Sown Area before installation of LIS was ninety-nine (99) bighas comprising of
ninety five (95) bighas in Kharif and four (4) bighas in Rabi season while there was no crop
taken in Zaid season.
31
After the installation of LIS the Gross Sown Area increased to about one hundred and fifty (150)
bighas. The increase was mainly attributed to increase in net sown area in the rabi season and a
slight increase in the net sown area in the Zaid season also. The net sown area in the Rabi season
went up to about forty-six (46) bighas from the earlier figure of four (4) bighas. Farmers also
started taking crops in the Zaid season due to availability of irrigation and as a result the net
sown area in this season increased to about nine (9) bighas.
Percentage wise the increase in total gross sown area was about fifty two percent (52%).
Figure 7
Change in Gross Sown Area
Gross Sown Area

160 150.25
Gross Sown Area (bighas)
140
120
99 95 95 Kharif Rabi
100
80
60 46.5
Zaid
40
20 4 8.75
0
0
N.S.A. before LI N.S.A.after LI
14.2.3. Cropping Intensity
As a result of an increase in the Gross Sown Area the cropping intensity has increased from one
point zero five (1.05) before the installation of LIS to about one point five nine (1.59) after the
installation of LIS.
32
Figure 8
Cropping intensity
Cropping intensity
Cropping intensity
2
1.58994709
1.5
1.047619048
1 Cropping intensity
0.5
0
before LI after LI
Prior to the installation of the LIS farmers were taking mainly the crop of Maize in the Kharif
season. Only a few farmers were taking wheat in the Rabi season. After the installation of the
LIS the number of farmers taking wheat crop in the Rabi season increased in a considerable
manner. In addition the a few farmers also started taking Moong crop in the Zaid season. Hence
we can see that irrigation has resulted in diversification of agriculture with farmers taking newer
crops like wheat and moong. Moreover, a number of farmers are planning to grow vegetables
etc. also.
Figure 9
Cropping pattern
33
After LI (in Bighas)

Before LI (in Bighas)
40 Maize 8.75 Maize

Wheat 46.5 Wheat
Moong 95 Moong
95
14.2.5. Change in Productivity
Before the introduction of LIS the average productivity of wheat was about one hundred (100)
kilograms per bigha of land. After the installation of LIS the average productivity of wheat has
increased to about three hundred and twenty eight (328) kilograms per bigha of land.Percentage
wise the increase is about two hundred and twenty eight (228) percent.The average productivity
of moong is about nine kilograms per bigha of land.
14.2.6. Cost of Cultivation
In case of wheat, irrigation accounts for the highest proportion of cost among all other
components. It accounts for as high as thirty eight percent (38%) of the total cost of cultivation.
Figure 10
Cost of cultivation: Wheat
Cost of cultivation: Wheat
Seeds
26% 28% Irrigation
Fertilizers
0% Pesticides
Tractor/Thresher
8% 38%
34
In case of Moong - the Zaid crop - also the cost of irrigation is the highest. Here also it accounts
for a staggering seventy seven percent (77%) of the total cost of cultivation of this crop. This
necessitates the need of bringing the cost of irrigation down.
Figure 11
Cost of cultivation: Moong
Cost of cultivation: Moong
7% 0% 16% Seeds
Irrigation
Fertilizers
Pesticides
77%
14.2.7. Decrease in Migration
Before the installation of LIS, an individual beneficiary migrated for about one hundred and fifty
seven days on an average. But after the installation of the LIS, the average number of days a
family migrates has reduced to one hundred and twenty (120) only. Due to this decrease in
migration the total income earned from migration has also reduced from Rs One lakh seventy
five thousand (Rs 175000) to Rs One lakh thirty two thousand (Rs 132000) only ( for all 19
beneficiaries). Decrease in migration can be attributed to the fact that farmer took the Rabi crop
as well as Zaid crop. Despite taking two (2) additional crops, the migration days did not reduce
in equivalence to the number of days required to take these crops as the farmers - to compensate
for the lost migration income - migrated in those days when they used to be in the village during
normal years.
35
The average livestock profile of the beneficiary households consists of a pair of bullocks and 1-2
milch animals and some small ruminants like sheep and goats. The fodder requirements are
fulfilled from the crop residue of the Kharif crop and from the forests and pasture land available
in the village. But it did not fulfill the demand of total fodder required in a year. Hence people
used to purchase the additional fodder from the market to fill the gap between demand and
supply. But after installation of lift beneficiary started taking additional crop like wheat and in
turn they also got the fodder in terms of wheat residue. Hence with the crop residue of wheat
crop now available, the amount spent on purchasing fodder has reduced considerably. There is a
steep decrease in the amount beneficiary used to spend on fodder. On an average it has been
decreased from three hundred and sixty five to twenty five only. it comes to around a decrease of
ninety four percent.
People took loans mainly in the Amarpura for non-productive purposes such as marriages and
sickness and sometimes even to support their daily needs. We could not observe any change
regarding the debt situation in Amarpura after the lift irrigation. Presently beneficiary families
have the average outstanding of around two thousand and nine hundred rupees. Beneficiaries
also have not created any significant asset after the installation of lift except one who has bought
a bullock for the agriculture purposes. As from the lift beneficiaries have taken only one or two
crops hence we cannot expect any change regarding these situation. We can except some changes
in these in near future.
14.2.10. Changes in agricultural practices
Before the lift irrigation beneficiaries generally took the crop of maize in kharif season but after
installation of lift they also started taking the crop of wheat in rabi and there are some farmers
who took the crop of moong in Zaid season. This is because of the availability of irrigation after
the installation of the lift.
36
If we see the cost incurred by the farmer in different activities in order to take wheat crop, we
find that irrigation constitutes the maximum up to thirty eight percent after that seeds and
tractor/thresher respectively twenty eight percent and twenty six percent. The cost incurred on
fertilizer is very less as it is only eight percent of the total cost.
For the maize crop, forty seven percent of the cost is of seeds and fifty three percent is for
fertilizers. In maize, these are only the two major cost components.
Figure 12
Cost of cultivation: Maize
Cost of cultivation: Maize (Before LI)

1% 0%
Seeds
Irrigation
52% 47% Fertilizers
Pesticides
Tractor/Thresher
0%
Since there has been no use of LI water for maize during the Kharif season and wheat was being
cultivated by majority of the beneficiaries for the first time, hence we cannot compare it in terms
of change such as increase in fertilizer consumption, pesticides, mechanization etc. before and
after lift irrigation.
14.3. DEOPUR
14.3.1 Increase in irrigated area
The 21 beneficiaries of the LIS together own around 131 bigha of cultivable land. Prior to the
LIS, only 4 bigha of this land that is approximately 3 percent was under some form of irrigation.
37
This was mainly due to the availability of some private wells and the lift present in the village.
But beneficiaries are not able to take the full benefit of lift because of unavailability of water
sources in the village (after the anicuts was broken). After the construction of the anicuts again
by Sevamandir people started exploiting the lift and taking irrigation. The total irrigated area
after the construction of the anicuts has increased to the fifty-two bighas of land. It is around
forty percent of the total land of the beneficiaries.
Figure 13
Land Irrigated Before LI Land Irrigated after LI
3%
Irrigated area 40% Irrigated area

before LI after LI
Unirrigated area Unirrigated area
60%
before LI after LI
97%
14.3.2. Gross sown area and cropping intensity
After the LIS the Gross sown area (G.S.A.) has shown an increase of nearly 51 percent from 94
bigha to 142 bighas. The gross sown area prior to the introduction of lift was consisted of around
90 bighas of maize crop in the kharif season and around 4 percent of the wheat crop in rabi
season. The increase in the total gross sown area after the lift irrigation is due to an increase in
net sown area in wheat crop. For the wheat crop there is an increase of 48 bighas of land
resulting in to total net sown area of 52 bighas. If we see it in terms of percentage the increase is
around 1312%. This increase can be directly attributed to the availability of irrigation as
beneficiaries earlier were not able to take Rabi crop because of that.
38
Figure 14
Change in gross sown area
Gross Sown area

GrossSown Area ( I n
142.75
150
94.25 90.25 90.25
Bighas)
100
52.5 Kharif
50
4 Rabi
0
N.S.A. before N.S.A.after LI
LI
If we see in terms of cropping intensity it has also been increased. It has notched up to the figure
of 1.085 from earlier of 0.716.
Figure 15

Cropping intensity
2 1.58
1.5 1.044
1
0.5
0
1
Before LI After LI
By looking at the figure we can say that there have been significant improvements in these two
parameters. It has the potential to increase even more in near future as beneficiaries are planning
to take some crops during Zaid season. Also there are some farmers who have not taken the
wheat crop this year planning to take it next year, as they got motivated after seeing the benefit
drawn by their other mates.
39
Prior to the installation of the LIS farmers were taking mainly the crop of Maize in the Kharif
season. Only a few farmers were taking wheat in the Rabi season. It was after the installation of
the LIS the number of farmers taking wheat crop in the Rabi season increased in a considerable
manner. Although there was not considerable change in the cropping pattern of beneficiaries
family in Deopur but there is a bright chance of it as people have now availability of irrigation.
The beneficiaries earlier were taking only one crop (maize) because of the unavailability of the
irrigation. As the irrigation now available they can take different crop.
Figure 16
Cropping pattern – before and after LI
Cropping Pattern Before LI Cropping Pattern After LI
4
52.5
Maize Maize
Wheat Wheat
90.25
90.25
There are some farmers in the village planning to take moong, vegetables, etc in the coming year.
Hence we hope that the agriculture in deopur would move from the practice of monocropping to
multiple cropping and it would more diverse in near future.
14.3.4. Change in Productivity
Before the introduction of LIS wheat crop was being taken only in four bighas of land but after
the introduction of lift the total land under wheat increased to around 52 bighas, not only that the
average productivity of land also increased. There is an increase of 61% in the productivity of the
40
land. In real term it has gone up to 290 kilogram of wheat per bigha from 180 kilogram per
bigha.
14.3.4.1. Change in productivity (avg. yield in Kg. / bigha)

Before LI After LI change % increase
Wheat 180 290 110 61.11111
14.3.5. Cost of Cultivation
In case of wheat, the cost of cultivation in Deopur comes to around on average of 1120 rupees
per bigha. The cost of tractor/thresher accounts for the highest proportion of cost among all other
components. It accounts for as high as thirty six percent (36%) of the total cost of cultivation.
After that it is the irrigation that constitutes the major cost of around thirty percent (30%).
Figure 17
Cost of cultivation: Rabi
Cost of Cultivation (Rabi)
23% Seeds
36% Irrigation
Fertilizers
0% Pesticides
30%
11% Tractor/Thresher
The cost of cultivation of maize is very less in Deopur it comes to around only one hundred and
eighty rupees per bigha. It may be because of the fact that farmers do not have to incur irrigation
cost and also they incur very less cost on other items. If we see the cost breakage then we find
that cost of seeds is the highest. Here it accounts for nearly fifty percent of the total cost percent
(50%) of the total cost of cultivation of this crop. After that fertilizer is the major cost item which
is around thirty eight percent(38%) of the total cost. The cost of irrigation in the maize crop is
41
zero because of the fact that people do not take irrigation for maize. Mostly they rely on
rainwater for maize crop.
Figure 18
Cost of cultivation (Maize)
12%
Seeds
0% Irrigation
Fertilizers
50%
38% Pesticides
0% Tractor/Thresher
14.3.6. Decrease in Migration
Before the installation of LIS, a family used to migrate for an average of one hundred and forty
nine (149) days. But after the installation of the LIS, the average number of days a family
migrates has reduced to one hundred and twenty (120) only. Due to this decrease in migration the
total income earned from migration has also reduced from Rs fifty four thousand nine hundred
fifty (Rs 54950) to Rs forty three thousand four hundred and eighty seven (Rs 43487) only (for
all 21 beneficiaries). Decrease in migration can be attributed to the fact that farmer took the Rabi
crop. Despite taking one additional crops, the migration days did not reduce in equivalence to the
number of days required to take this crop as the farmers - to compensate for the lost migration
income - migrated in those days when they used to be in the village during normal years.
The average livestock profiles of the beneficiary households in deopur also are same as
Amarpura. It consists of a pair of bullocks and 1-2 milch animals and some small ruminants like
sheep and goats. The fodder requirements are fulfilled from the crop residue of the Kharif crop
and pasture land available in the village. But it did not fulfill the demand of total fodder required
42
in a year. Hence people used to purchase the additional fodder from the market to fill the gap
between demand and supply. But after installation of lift beneficiaries started taking additional
crop like wheat and in turn they also got the fodder in terms of wheat residue. Hence with the
crop residue of wheat crop now available the amount spent on purchasing fodder has reduced
considerably. There is a steep decrease in the amount beneficiary used to spend on fodder. On an
average it has been decreased from four hundred and two to nil. This year beneficiaries do not
have to purchase any fodder from the market. There demand of fodder is fulfilled by their self-
production only. Although we could not trace any sign of people taking water for producing
fodder.
If we see the total number of live stocks owned by the beneficiary families, we find that there is a
slight increase in number of total live stocks. There is one family in Deopur who bought a pair of
bullocks to fulfill his requirement in farming. There is also an increase in total number of cow
and goat. Although the increase is very small, for both it is one each.
Just like Amarpura in Deopur to People generally took loans for non-productive purposes such as
marriages and sickness and sometimes even to support their daily needs. In case of Deopur also
there is no change regarding debt situation of the beneficiaries. Presently beneficiary families
have the average outstanding of around one thousand and twenty three rupees. Beneficiaries also
have not created any significant asset after the installation of lift except one who has bought a
pair bullock for the agriculture purposes. There are also two families who have bought a cow and
a goat each. As there was an increase in total income of the beneficiaries' household we can
expect some changes in near future.
14.3.9. Changes in cultivation costs
The pattern of cultivation costs in Deopur is also more or less same as Amarpura before the lift
irrigation and after it. The only difference is that farmers did not take the Zaid crop in Deopur.
Beneficiaries generally took the crop of maize in kharif season but after installation of lift they
43
also started taking the crop of wheat in Rabi. If we see the cost incurred by the farmer in
different activity in order to take wheat crop then we find that tractor/thresher constitute the
maximum up to thirty six percent of the total cost. Other major cost items are irrigation seeds and
fertilizers.
Figure 19
Cost of cultivation: Rabi
Cost of Cultivation (Rabi)
23% Seeds
36% Irrigation
Fertilizers
0% Pesticides
30%
11% Tractor/Thresher
For the maize it is fifty percent (50%) for seeds that constitute the maximum cost and other
major cost item are fertilizers and irrigation.
Figure 20
Cost of cultivation (Maize)
12%
Seeds
0% Irrigation
Fertilizers
50%
38% Pesticides
0% Tractor/Thresher
In case of Deopur also, we cannot compare it in terms of any change such as increase in fertilizer
consumption, pesticides, mechanization etc. before and after lift irrigation, as there has been no
44
use of LI water for maize during the Kharif season and wheat was being cultivated by majority
of the beneficiaries for the first time.
45
15. MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SYSTEM
The main issues involved in management of lift irrigation are:
15.1. Technical Issues
• Method of irrigation (tube well, drip, lift etc.)

• Distribution method (open or underground)
• Pump capacity
• Numbers of pump required
• Type of pumps required
• Number of distribution chambers required and their location
• Estimation or potential area to be covered by the lift irrigation
• Nature of the water resource and capacity to supply (amount of Water)
• With limited water resource available, possible area that can be covered or possible crop
that can be grown
• Distribution to tail end farmers
• Mechanism by which water can be taken from different distribution chambers to different
farmers field (keeping in view the conveyance losses)
• Maximum hours of pump operation/ day and their maintenance etc.
• The level upto which cropping intensity can be increased i.e. should we restrict only to
Rabi or extend it to Zaid also.
• Any backup in case of failure at the time of peak irrigation requirement.
15.2. Operational Issues
 Amount of water to be distributed to different fields of farmers.

 Total time required for one farmer.
 Scheduling of water distribution.
46
 Pricing of Irrigation water.

 Proper recovery mechanism.
 Managing the water distribution at:
- Peak time
- Deficit in water supply
 Recording the type of crop grown by farmers.
15.3. Governance Structure for the group irrigation scheme
 Criterion should be equality in distributing water to the member beneficiaries.

 Clearly defining the roles of the governance body, operating system and the members.
 Formation of rules and norms for all the beneficiaries.
 Deciding the ratio of the total project cost that should be taken from the members and
amount of loan, if required.
 Preparation of schedule.
 Inspection of crop sown.
47
16. RANPUR
16.1. Project profile
A lift irrigation system has been installed during March 2003 at village Ranpur in Jhadol block
on the river Wakal which is a perennial water source. The LI system had been initially planned to
provide irrigation to an area of 18 ha belonging to 28 beneficiary households, however due to the
dispersed location and highly undulating terrain of the village it was observed that for around 20
proposed beneficiaries whose fields are located relatively far away and at a considerable height
from the proposed site of installation it would be economically unviable to draw water from the
lift owing to very high diesel consumption. Finally, 19 beneficiaries are making use of the
irrigation facility provided by the LI system for irrigating their fields in the command area.
16.2. Sources of irrigation before LI
Before the LI was installed the other sources of irrigation included the Ramakunda canal and
water from private wells. Farmers from many adjoining villages including Ranpur can access the
water from Ramakunda canal by paying water charges amounting to Rs 14 per bigha to the
irrigation department. While the majority of the farmers in the village take only the Kharif crop
which is rainfed, some farmers take the Rabi crop with the irrigation water from the canal.
However, the number of such farmers is very less due to the fact that there is always uncertainty
about the supply of water from the canal owing to various problems such as irregular supply and
water theft etc. Even the 2 beneficiaries of the existing LI system who had taken the Rabi crop
from the canal water in the previous year of the commencement of the LI system had preferred to
take the water from the LI system despite the fact that the water charges for canal water are
considerably low ( Rs 14 per bigha) as compared to the irrigation cost from the LI system (which
is around Rs 125 per irrigation for a 2 bigha land holding). Though some farmers in the village
own wells, however, the use of well water for irrigation is quite less. Out of the 3 beneficiaries
who have their private wells none was using the well water for irrigation purpose.
48
16.3. LI description
• Planned command area: 18 ha

• Planned no. of beneficiaries: 28
• Actual command area: 38 bighas
• Actual area under irrigation at present: 37 bighas
• No. of beneficiary households: 19
• Pump capacity: 14 H.P.
• Project cost: 3.11 lakhs
• GVK contribution (@20%of project cost): Rs 61876 (20% of 311331)
• GVK contribution (current status): Rs 39756
16.4. Criteria of water distribution and water charges:
The LI management committee decided that during the first year of operation each beneficiary
household will be allowed to irrigate 2 bighas of land from the water made available from the LI.
There is no restriction on the type of crop to be cultivated or the maximum number of hours for
which a beneficiary can draw water from the lift in a cropping season. Each beneficiary has to
provide diesel for running the pump for irrigating his fields.
16.5. Maintenance
There are 2 pump operators who take turns to operate the LIS and undertake care and
maintenance work. Both these pump operators have been chosen form among the 19
beneficiaries. They perform the function of maintaining record of hours of pump operation,
collecting hourly charges from the beneficiaries. However neither of the 2 pump operators is
trained to take care of any major breakdowns in the LIS for which the committee has to hire
mechanics from outside the village.
49
16.6. Maintenance Fund
During the first year of operation of the LI system, all the expenses incurred on repairs and
maintenance was borne by Seva Mandir. This included replacement of a broken pulley and other
minor expenses. As the first year of operations is now over, the maintenance has to be carries out
by the beneficiaries. The LI management committee had decided that all the beneficiaries would
deposit Rs 100 towards the maintenance fund after harvesting of the Rabi crop; however not all
the beneficiaries have done so. However, two rupees have been collected per hours of pump
operation from the beneficiaries for engine oil.
16.7. Scheduling of water distribution
For the purpose of scheduling, lot is drawn and then the beneficiaries take water according to the
lot number. Since only 2 beneficiaries had taken water during Kharif last year (for vegetables)
and during Rabi all the beneficiaries had taken wheat and only 4 had grown vegetables on some
part of the 2 bigha land which can be irrigated by the LI water. For those beneficiaries who had
grown vegetables, there was no set procedure for scheduling of water distribution to these
farmers and water was provided to them as and when required by making adjustments with other
farmers regarding the timing of irrigation for these farmers. Hence the scheduling relies more on
informal mutual agreements among the beneficiaries.
16.8. Meetings
The meeting of the LI committee is held on the 25th of each month. The majority of the
beneficiaries attend the meetings and matters related to scheduling of water distribution,
maintenance fund, payment to operators etc are discussed.
16.9. Reasons for some identified beneficiaries not taking water
Though the LI committee has decided that all the beneficiaries would be allowed to irrigate 2
bigha of land from the LI water, one of the beneficiaries is able to irrigate only one bigha of his
50
land as the remaining one bigha lies on the other side of the road where it is not possible to
provide irrigation form the LI. Apart from this 2 more beneficiaries did not take water from the
lift as they did not plan to grow the Rabi crop last year. Both of them however, plan to take water
from the LI system to cultivate Rabi crop in the current year.
16.10. Gram Vikas Kosh
The beneficiaries who are drawing water from the LI have each deposited some part of their
share of the GVK and they plan to deposit the remaining contribution in installments. However,
the LI management committee has not decided upon any time frame for the collection of the
remaining dues from the beneficiaries.
16.11. Conflicts and conflict resolving mechanism
All conflicts relating to water distribution, water charges and other management aspects of the LI
system are to be resolved by the LI management committee. However, since the LI became
operational there have been no conflicts related to the LI system.
16.12. Suggestions for efficient management of LIS in Ranpur
At present there are 19 beneficiaries who are drawing water from the LI system. However, 8
more farmers have approached the LI management committee to become members of the LI
system. The LI management committee is yet to submit a proposal to the zone office for the
same. For this purpose one of the existing distribution pipelines may have to be extended and
new chambers constructed to carry water to the fields of these 8 new proposed beneficiaries.
For the first year of operations, each beneficiary had been allowed to irrigate only 2 bighas from
the LI system. However, after the successful operation of the Li system during the past 2
cropping seasons and considering the fact that the LI pump can easily be utilized for more
number of hours per cropping season, the management committee is planning to increase the
area which can be irrigated by each beneficiary. There are no plans to change the criteria of
distribution.
51
16.13. Major concerns of the beneficiaries
1. Since the water charges have been fixed on an hourly basis, the system is more
advantageous to beneficiaries whose fields are located close to the LI system.
Beneficiaries whose fields are located at a comparatively greater distance or at a greater
height suffer from dual disadvantage because the longer time required for irrigating per
bigha of land results in more diesel consumption.
2. Three main distribution lines have been constructed to take water from the water source
to the 9 distribution chambers located in the fields. From each distribution chamber, the
water is taken to the surrounding fields through kutcha drains. In case of the beneficiaries
whose fields are relatively far off from the distribution chamber assigned to them, the
seepage losses in the drain result in consumption of 0.5 to 1.5 litre more diesel
consumption than the farmers whose fields are adjacent or close to the distribution
chamber. Since the water charges do not take into account the actual water reaching the
fields in a given time. The irrigation costs of these beneficiaries are higher.
3. As mentioned earlier there are 3 main distribution lines to take water to the fields. Valves
are located at the distribution chambers to close and open the water supply. No valve is
located at the main distribution point before the 3 lines. Hence in case of one of the
distribution lines, water first gets filled in the other 2 lines till the valve located at the first
distribution chamber in the line and then starts filling in the other line. Thus even before
water reaches the field around 1.5 litre diesel is already consumed.
4. It had been decided that all the beneficiaries would give 15 kg wheat to the 2 lift
operators after wheat crop has been harvested but most of the beneficiaries have not
fulfilled the commitment.
52
16.14. Other observations
Though the water charges are not equitable and many of the beneficiaries have raised concern
about their relatively higher irrigation costs there have been no conflicts regarding the issue. The
two operators take keen interest in the operation and maintenance of the LI system. However, in
the absence of sufficient remuneration (due to non payment) their interest may not be sustained
for long.
Though all the beneficiaries have paid the GVK, the one time heavy contribution left many with
little or no cash to purchase seeds for vegetable cultivation. The beneficiaries have not made the
pre decided contribution to the maintenance fund, which may result in cash crunch in case of
requirement for repairs and maintenance. The beneficiaries feel that in order to avoid high fees of
mechanic in case of pump repairing, 2 persons from the beneficiary group (preferably the pump
operators) should be provided training to repair the pump.
The beneficiary group is a cohesive group. The members have so far shown their willingness to
consider the needs of each other as has been demonstrated by the peaceful manner in which the
scheduling of water distribution has been done in the past. The beneficiaries are satisfied with
Seva Mandir’s work in the village and more of the beneficiaries plan to take up vegetable
cultivation now that they are assured about the satisfactory performance of the LI system.
53
17. AMARPURA
17.1. Project Profile
The number of target beneficiaries under the Shell funded 'lift irrigation scheme' was originally
105. These beneficiaries belong to Lift 1 (Badaliwala) and Lift 2 (Batkiwala). The total land
estimated to be irrigated through the two lifts was 30 hectares. (Approximately 15 hectares for
each lift). This project is purely target based under which Seva Mandir has to install seven lift
irrigation projects in one year according to the norms of Shell. A proposal was submitted to Seva
Mandir by GVC Committee (President, Secretary and other 25 villagers) on November 5, 2002.
It was stated that a total of 139 farmers would be benefited from the Scheme. Later on, after
conducting PRAs and other meetings, GVC President Hukmichand and 7 villagers submitted
another proposal to install the lift irrigation where 105 villagers agreed to pay Rs. 500 in the first
installment. The proposal was passed by the General Secretary sanctioning Rs 5.29 lakh. Since
the benefit due to the lift would accrue to only a few villagers and not the whole village, it was
decided that 20% of the project cost (Rs. 5.29 lakh) would be deposited by the beneficiaries in
the Gram Vikas Kosh.
The major cost for the project was the material cost, i.e. Rs. 4,64,476 and it was not possible to
collect 20% of the project cost through labour provided in this scheme. The pump capacity is 14
hp for each lift and is more than enough according to the design considerations. The number of
chambers in lift 1 and lift 2 is 4 and 3 respectively.
In our field visits, we observed that the chambers are closely spaced and most of the
beneficiaries have to take water from the earthen canal. We also found out that in these earthen
canals, water takes about 15-30 minutes to reach to the farmer's field 100 meters away.
17.2. Gram Vikas Kosh
The total number of beneficiaries was estimated to be 105. Earlier the GVK contribution was
calculated to be Rs. 1000 per bigha for each farmer. However, upon revision, the actual GVK
54
contribution came out to be Rs. 600 per bigha for each farmer. Out of a total of 105 beneficiaries,
number of members who deposited their GVK contribution fully is16 and number of members
having their GVK contribution due is 89. Out of these 89 members, number of members who
paid GVK contribution partially is 45 and the number of members who did not pay any
installment is 44.
From the above figures, it can be assumed that number of members who are seriously interested
in lift irrigation is 60 (44+16).
17.3. Percentage utilization of project
The number of members who irrigated their fields through the lift for wheat crop is 26.
The number of members who irrigated their fields through the lift for moong crop is19.
Thus, only 24% and 18% of the total beneficiaries have taken water for wheat and moong
respectively.
Out of 16 members who deposited GVK contribution in full, only 10 have been taking the
benefit from lift irrigation. The 19 members taking water for moong are from the same 26
members who have taken water for wheat crop.
Figure 21
GVK status: Amarpura
GVK status of 26 farmers taking water

from lift 1 Paid fully
Paid partially
3
1
10
Due fully
12 Unidentified
55
17.4. Criteria for distribution
From the above statistics, it is obvious that members have been taking water form the lift
irrespective of their GVK contribution. Often, the lift operator is unaware about the GVK deposit
status of farmer beneficiaries taking water. The distribution criterion for Amarpura is on hourly
basis unlike Ranpur where it is on the basis of bighas of land irrigated. The rate for water
utilisation is Rs. 20 per hour exclusive of the diesel cost. Another important observation is that
all 26 farmers currently taking water from the lift have their fields located near the chambers
where water reaches in no time.
17.5. Scheduling of water distribution
The scheduling of water is based on the proximity of the chambers to the pump. The water is
provided to the first chamber (nearest to the pump) and after all the farmers have taken water
through the first chamber, it is brought to the second chamber. Among the farmers irrigating their
fields through the same chamber, the priority is given to farmer who brings the diesel first and
the same order is followed for other chambers.
56
Table 13
Scheduling of water distribution: Amarpura
Total hours used per
Date Number of farmers No of days Total hours used day
42 ` 63.75
24/11/03 to 1/1/04
1 24 55 2.29
2 11 43 3.9
3 12 72.58 6.04
4 1 5.91 5.91
5 1 3.5 3.5
6 1 6.76 6.76
1/1/04 to 14/03/04 (wheat) 7 1 7.5 7.5
Total 51 194.25 avg = 3.8
1 20 39.58 1.97
2 21 100.83 4.8
3 1 4.75 4.75
18/03/04 to 04/06/04 (moong) 4 4 31.66 7.91
Total 46 176.82 avg = 3.85
From the above table, it is clear that most of the days only one farmer came to the lift for
irrigation. No proper scheduling is being practically followed at Amarpura. The range of number
of hours used varies from 1 hour to 23 hours at a stretch on a single day which violates the norm
of using the pump for a maximum of 10 hours a day.
17.6. Governing body
No separate pump committee exists at Amarpura. The GVK committee performs the functions of
pump committee. It is interesting to note that the President of the GVK committee belongs to the
lift 2, which is not operating. During our field visits, we could not see any evidence that the
GVK President has been taking interest in making the lift functional. The operator of lift 1
57
(Bhanwar) is paid Rs. 600 per month for four months and finance records are submitted to
another GVK member Ramlal.
The operator is not satisfied with the system because of large opportunity costs. The reason is
that operating the lift even for 1 hour makes him devoid of his daily wage of Rs. 50. The operator
for lift 2 is a mason and has a high opportunity cost. He does not take any interest in mobilizing
the farmers to take water from the lift. Even for lift 1, the payment for the pump utilisation is due
as shown below:
Table 14
Water charges recovery status
Total bill Recovered Due
6515 1989 4526
Thus, it is obvious that a large amount is still due and no compliance mechanism has been
adopted for recovering the due amount.
17.7. Conflicts
After discussions with the farmers, we observed a number of conflicts in the village. There are
three irrigation providers existing in Amarpura.
1. Government irrigation scheme
2. Private pump operators
3. Seva Mandir's lift irrigation scheme
• The people associated with the lift 2 are politically very active. They are involved
with local MLA who promised them to rejuvenate the Government canal (Kagdar
canal). This made them disinterested in the Seva Mandir Lift Scheme.
• The money lender Shankar has great influence on the farmers in lift 2. One of the
three chambers of lift 2 opens up in his field and the other two chambers lie in
the vicinity of his fields. Thus, the real proposed beneficiaries (small farmers) do
not get benefit and the already well-off farmer goes away with large benefits.
58
• The farmers having their lands near the river are more interested in private
pumps because of two reasons: Firstly, the farmers have a tradition of making an
irrigation contract for the whole season, so they find it difficult to switch over
from private pump to that of Seva Mandir's. Secondly, the farmers who have not
deposited their GVK contribution consider it an obligation to deposit their due
amount after taking the crop.
17.8. Management Issues
The issues that we identified in the management of lift irrigation in Amarpura village are as
follows:
(1). In Amarpura, while identifying the beneficiaries, the beneficiary family was not taken as
one unit. If this had been the case, the number of real beneficiaries would have been only 25.
(2). In 105 beneficiaries, some are having land at upland slope or at the corner distance and some
are having near the river Som, so they are at unequal distance and slope from the lift.
(3). There are two irrigation facilities existing in the village, i.e. Government canal and private
pump operator. So, up to what area one lift is economical to them as compared to two other
sources of irrigation because we assume that, " Each farmer is a rational person and tries to
maximise his benefit and minimize his cost and in case when they have choices in front of them,
they will prefer the better option".
(4). There do not exist separate pump committees for both the lifts and GVC committee is taking
care of both. The GVC Committee performs the role of pump committee irrespective of whether
they are the beneficiaries of either lift or not.
(5). All those farmers who are near to the river can take water from private pump operators and
all those farmers having land at distance from distribution chambers are either not interested in
59
taking water, keeping in view the huge conveyances losses and time and money loss. All farmers
of lift 1 are politically involved and interested in government canals.
(6). Giving water at 20 Rs./hour consumes 1.2 –1.3litre/ hour to near field and 1.5 litres or more
to distance farmers.
(7). In absence of fencing, lots of farmers are not utilizing their lands. The farmers are worried
that if they go for a crop, the cattle would spoil their fields.
(8). The number of chamber is less and they are located very closely, which prevents users to use
irrigation due to high transaction cost.
17.9. Management Suggestions
17.9.1. Technical:
1. At present, water for irrigation is being given by 4 chambers and 2 open outlets. These
chambers are closely spaced and are not sufficient for the whole command area. So, the
questions here arise:
• How many chambers are required?
• What should be the location so that maximum beneficiaries can avail the facility
of irrigation?
Farmers are interested in availing the irrigation facility which is reflected in the assurance given
by farmers that they would take the water from the lift in this season, but they might not take the
water if the cost of irrigation is more to them compared to the present private pump operator
service or if the government canal is started. So, our aim here is to reduce the cost of irrigation
on the farmer.
One of the ways is to suggest the location and number of chambers through which we can
minimize the conveyance loss and maximize the irrigation efficiency. For this the earthen
60
channels should not be more then 100 meters and at least 3or 4 members should be able to take
water from a single chamber. Moreover, the chambers should be on the contours and their plinth
level should be high so that water can flow under gravity to the earthen cannels. These chambers
should be open from the all four side with flip gates provided on them.
Observing the soil type and discussing with the farmers, we learnt that nearly 15 to 30 minutes
are required to reach the water from the chamber to the farmer's field. This costs them nearly
Rs.10/-(for half hour of pump charges) plus Rs. 20(diesel charges for half an hour), thus in total,
approximately they pay Rs. 30 extra whenever they take water from the lift. If the farmer's
field is near to the lift chamber, then this cost reduces to a great extent but when the farmer's
field is near to the river Som then they prefer to take water from the private operator to minimize
their cost. In this case, they have to pay Rs. 40 and can save Rs.10 per hour. Thus, by suggesting
location criteria, we can minimize these time and money losses to the farmers.
Another criterion to be taken into account for proper functioning of lift irrigation is the number
of holdings. From field observations and discussions with the farmers, we came to know that
nearly 30 minutes are required to switch from one field to another field. This time is required for
filling and emptying the diesel from the diesel set. This time can be much greater if the next field
is far from the previous field. This point is highly relevant when farmers require water at a time
in the peak time and there is a great pressure on the pump to supply water to all the farmers who
make a demand.
The cost of irrigation to tail enders which are at distance from the lift as well as from the
chamber is high as they are required to pay high cost for irrigation per hours and all the farmers
who are near the lift get water at ease (they get irrigation first in scheduling) and at low cost.(less
requirement of diesel and less time loss).
According to the lift operator, the close end generally requires 1.3 litres of diesel per hour and
the tail end requires 1.5 litres of diesel per hour. So, question here is to suggest a mechanism so
that Seva Mandir's mission of providing irrigation facilities to all those needy and poor farmers
gets accomplished.
61
Here we propose two criteria:

1. More time should be given to tail end farmers to compensate the time loss but even in
this case the cost of diesel will be born by the farmer so it may go up to one hour diesel
cost.
2. There should be fixed charges for all the farmers in which the farmers are required to pay
Rs. 58 + 1, in total, Rs. 59. In this case, the operator will have to keep diesel with him and
farmers need not to supply diesel to the operator. Farmers have to give the diesel price to
operator before starting pump. In this the operator will be given Re 1 incentive per hour
for bringing the diesel.
17.9.1.1 Advantages of this mechanism

1. Being an incentive for the operator, he will encourage more farmers to take water from
the lift.
2. The irrigation cost for the close end and tail end farmers will be subsidized, thus it can
bring equity among the farmers.
3. In this system, the operator need not to shut the pump and refuel it for next farmers but
keep on going by giving irrigation to just next field.
17.9.1.2 Limitations
1. Agreement on the farmers on this scheme is difficult to achieve.
2. The operator needs to collect some amount from the farmers beforehand, in order to
bring the diesel in advance.
17.9.2. Operating Issues
As far as scheduling of irrigation is concerned, there is no proper mechanism but at the same
time, there is no problem existing in distribution as the farmers are few and currently, their
requirement can be met without any difficulty. At present farmers perceive water resources to be
unlimited but scheduling becomes important when
62
 Water is in short supply (may be drought year)

 When number of actual beneficiaries goes up
 At the peak crop requirement
In these cases, the questions, which arise are:

 How to schedule the irrigation so that possible conflict can be minimized?
 For which crop, irrigation should be given so that water resources can be utilized
judicially?
 What will be the number of irrigation or hours of irrigation that can be provided
to each farmer?
So, the operator has to determine when the load on pump will be high? Also, is it possible to give
irrigation in all the three seasons, i.e., Rabi, kharif and zaid? This can be decided in the meeting
of the governing committee whether there is significant water available in river or not, when will
the members grow the crop and which crop they will grow. For this, we can follow the
mentioned table:
Table 15
Scheduling pattern of crops
Week Serial no. Mustard Wheat Gram Pea
Oct.1-7 1 * * *
Oct.7-15 2
Oct.15-22 3
Oct23-30 4 * * * *
5
6 * *
7
8 * * * *
63
9
10 * *
11
12 * *
13
14 *
15
16 *
Total 4 7 3 5
irrigation
Now, next problem is to decide the number of hours the pump will operate so that the norm of
operating the pump for 10 hours a day is not violated. Henceforth, a sample-scheduling chart has
been presented below through which we can get an idea of maximum operation hours under
different crops and the week in which load will be maximum.
Firstly, if total land within the command area of lift1 is 75 bigha and assuming that in 50 bigha,
they grow wheat and in remaining 25 bigha, they grow mustard (10), gram (10), pea (5), then the
hours of operation can be obtained from the following table:
Table 16
Proposed Scheduling Mechanism
*Per bigha on an average 3 hours required
Week No. Mustard Wheat Gram Pea Total
Land(bigha) 10 50 10 5
75 bigha
1 30 - 30 15 75
4 30 150 30 15 225
6 150 15 165
8 30 150 30 15 225
10 150 15 165
12 30 150 180
14 150 150
16 150 150
18 150 150
Total 1485
hours
64
From the table, we observe that the motor will operate for a total of 1485 hours in the season but
the peak time required is 225 hours in the 4th and 8th week. But in one week maximum operating
time available is 10*7=70 hours and even if it works for 20 hours per day, it runs for 140 hours
but is still not able to cater to the requirement of 225 hours. We can balance these problems,
either by introducing different sowing time for early or late growing crop, which may or may not
be the problem. But, in this case by governance body meeting, we can restrict the area to be
sown so that available water resources can be utilized properly.
17.9.3. Pricing mechanism
Here it is an assumption that we are operating in an irrigation market where we have three
competitors:
1.Government-operated cannel
2.Private pump operators
3.Seva Mandir lift irrigation scheme.
Also, the farmers are rational and behave as consumers who strive to obtain the greatest value for
their money. If the price charged is too high, he may switch over to other schemes, which are
more profitable to him. At the same time, neither can we go beyond a certain level in fixing price
nor are we under any competition. But this aspect lets us know whether our irrigation is need
based or if our irrigation get closed down, what would be the losses to the Amarpura villagers.
Moreover, if there is no loss, what is the significance of such scheme.
While fixing price, the prime focus is on certain aspects:

• We are able to cover our operating expenses like pulley belt,oil,and some minor
maintenance.
• Price should be such that every body is able to pay.
• Price should be such that no farmer has an incentive to waste the water or utilize it
excessively.
65
• Price should be such that every farmer whether at close end or tail end, is treated equally.
At present, water charge in Amarpura is Rs.20/- per hour excluding the diesel charge, which is
given by the farmer at the time of irrigation.
The other possible pricing mechanisms may be:
1. Land based i.e., price for using water will be charged on the basis of bighas. (on an
average 3 hours are required to irrigate the land of one bigha), but under this
mechanism, we can not monitor when the whole field gets irrigated and at what level
(wilting stage to field capacity stage require different amount of water) of saturation is
achieved. Secondly all those farmers who sow water intensive crops will demand more
water and those who sow less water intensive crop may be given low priority.
2. On the basis of amount of water, i.e., we can include the conveyance losses in each
farmer's account. Under this mechanism, if at close end, the amount of water reached to
the field is 1000 litres and charge is Rs. 50, then at the 100 meter if amount of water
reached is 60% of the 1000 litres, then charges will have to be paid @ 60% of Rs. 50.
3. Another way is to take part of the crop as an irrigation charge but what if the crop fail or
production is so low that it is not possible to submit the crop as a water charge.
17.9.4. Price recovery mechanism
In the village, we observed that large proportion of water charges is due. Often, the farmers are
not able to pay money. In this case, it is difficult to operate the lift side by side minimizing the
default rate. For farmers, we can have provision to pay
1. At the time of second irrigation, they have to pay for previous irrigation.
2. They can pay after the crop is grown and sold but in this case they have to pay the
interest i.e., principal amount plus interest for the period in which crop is harvested.
In this case, the possible action is

1. To fine the person to 1.5 times of the irrigation bill to be paid in cash or kind.
2. To terminate the membership with simple majority (50%) and allow him after paying
irrigation charge and membership fee.
66
17.9.5. Maintenance Fund
In the initial stage, pump doesn’t require huge expenses on the maintenance but in later years,
due to high operating hours and increasing wear and tear, it might require huge expenditure say
around Rs.5000/-. So for this we propose that out of Rs.20 charge, we separate Rs. 10 for the
maintenance fund which can accumulate over a year and be used in frequent maintenance
Remaining Rs. 10 can be used for the salary of the operator.
17.9.6. Lift irrigation cooperative:
Figure 22
Governance structure
Governing
body
Operating
staff
Members
17.9.7. Governance system
For the better working of the lift irrigation, it should be free from any group dynamics which
exist in most of the villages and we believe that the actual beneficiaries can take care better if
they are given the responsibility of the lift irrigation because these beneficiaries form a common
interest. But it is a threat that these small groups of common interest can hijack the lift and can
privatize it. As per the policy of the Seva Mandir lift irrigation pump is a property of the village
and this can be ensured by giving due representation to all villagers in the pump committee
67
through the gram vikas committee. Reason behind giving due representation to villagers is to
keep check on pump committees member and prevent them from privatizing the lift or if they
prevent any new member, Committee can interfere into the matter. Committee can check the
arbitrary decisions, if any.
This lift committee will work independently from the GVC because it was observed that
although the lift project was initiated by the GVC committee but when their president and other
officials do not belong to the beneficiary list they don’t take interest in the lift management and
some time even oppose it as happened in Amarpura where officials either belong to another lift
which is not operational or are not in the beneficiary list2. But for proper representation of the
village, 10 members will be included in the pump governance committee in which president,
treasurer and the secretary will be from the lift irrigation beneficiary. The role of representative
from the GVC will be to put a check on the lift committee so that they cannot privatize the lift to
themselves or restrict the entry of any new comer.
We propose existing lift irrigation committee on cooperative principles in which there will be
 Governing body
 Operating staff
 Members
17.9.7.1 Governing body

From beneficiaries:
1. President
2. Tresurer
3. Secretary
And 2 beneficiaries as members. From the GVC, 5 persons will be included in the governance
body as members in which the president of GVC will be ex-officio member of the pump
committee. The purpose of including the members from GVC is that it will keep a check on the
monopoly of LI members as two-third majority will be required to take any decision related to
2
Amarpura GVC president hukimi chand belong to lift 2 and treasurer is not in the beneficiary list.
68
the LIS. Another non-voting member will be the zonal level worker, who can provide the
guidance to the committee.
17.9.7.2 Operating staff
1. Operator
Operator will be from the beneficiary and should not be a mason who can sideline the pump
work if other option is available to him. He should be literate and have good image in the village.
The governance body will select the operator.
17.9.7.3 Members
Membership criteria
For successful management of irrigation, we have to distinguish between members and non-
members and simultaneously identify the users and non-users or potential users. Again the
question is who the members are and what is their eligibility criterion. After Amarpura field
observation, it seems that there is no clear cut distinction made between members and non-
members.
Those who deposited GVC are the members;

Or those who partially deposited the GVC but taking water from the lift;
Or those who did not deposit the GVC but though came under the command area and taking
water from the lift.
GVC is the part of Seva Mandir policy, which is required to be implemented in an efficient way.
So, we suggest that all those farmers who either deposited GVC fully or partially are eligible for
the lift irrigation (if this can be implemented in Amarpura, then eligible members are near about
60). For this minimum fees of say Rs. 50 is required, but the member will be given right to vote
only when he has fully deposited the GVC.
69
17.9.8. Compliance mechanism
All those farmers who deposited GVC partially will be given chance to deposit the remaining
amount in easy installments of Rs. 100 to Rs. 500 after each crop. All those farmers who are
willing to join the lift membership, are required to deposit GVC and membership fee, if not fully,
then in installments.
17.9.9. Rules and regulations
It is preferred that the committee decides the rules and norms under which it will work. But in
order to help its proper functioning, we suggest some rules and regulations, which can be altered
by the committee as and when required.
Water should be distributed equally among all the beneficiary families irrespective of the
ownership of land, which implies that small as well as large landholders are eligible for equal
share of the irrigation water.
1. Water will be distributed according to the rules decided by the committee.
2. As far as possible, people having their fields in the tail end or at the extremes should be
given extra time to reach water at their fields. All farmers shall have to deposit their share
in GVK. The cashier shall keep money for the running expenses and rest shall be put into
the bank. For monitoring purpose, a zonal officer will be designated as signatory in the
bank account.
3. The group members will elect the committee members and assign them their duties.
70
4. In case of conflict, members shall submit their grievances to the committee president and
not deal directly with the operator. If any case of misbehavior is found against any
member, the committee will decide the required measures of penalty.
17.9.10. Responsibility
The pump committee will be formed under the principles of people participation. The purpose of
introducing the election and voting right is to make them able to actively participate in the
meetings. While electing the committee, members should keep in mind that the skills of record
keeping are expected from their representatives. (Later on, this training can also be provided by
the implementing agency, if required.). They should call meeting once in a month or before
sowing any crop or season. One zonal worker will be a non-voting member of the committee and
will inform the developments to Seva Mandir and guide the committee members.
We here suggest some responsibilities of the office bearers:
17.9.10.1 President
1. He will have the full responsibility of the pump committee and will take care of the pump
and its machinery.
2. He reserves the right to call the meeting of the members anytime, if there is an urgent
requirement.
3. He, as a President reserves the right to coordinate and instruct the office bearers and can
question them about the pump performance.
4. He shall hold the office till the date he has confidence of the members or a maximum of
three years whichever is earlier. However, he can be impeached if minimum 10% of the
members duly sign and proposed by at least one member from the beneficiary and one
member from GVK committee.
71
5. He will be responsible for sorting out any conflicts between the beneficiaries.
6. He will decide the scheduling and criteria for allocation of irrigation water to different
crops when water is insufficient.
17.9.10.2 Secretary cum Cashier
1. He shall be responsible for record keeping related to water distribution.
2. He shall take the minutes of all the meetings held.
3. He shall be responsible for all cash transactions in the system including the deposit and
withdrawal of money from the maintenance fund.
4. He shall keep ready cash for current expenses.
5. He will issue the passbook to each member, which they will have to produce before
operator for entry.
17.9.10.4 Operator
1. He will be responsible for the maintenance of the pump and its parts.
2. He will be responsible for minor repair works.
3. He will monitor the water distribution and schedule it as per the rules decided by the
committee.
4. He will maintain the log book in which he has to mention the number of hours for which
pump operated, number of hours for which water was taken by the farmer and amount
paid and due in that log book.
72
73
18. DEOPUR
18.1. Project profile
Seva Mandir built an anicut over a village stream (bootwala nala) to increase water availability
and to support lift irrigation scheme already installed in village in 1986 by DRDA. The lift was
not used after the collapse of the weir structure in 1995. This lift as stated above was installed in
1986 with the help of DRDA and the effort of then Sarpanch Moti Singh. About 12 families were
taking water from the lift before 1995 (collapse of structure). Meanwhile (between 1986 to 1995)
Moti Singh took over the lift and almost virtually privatized it and started lending it to other
farmers after eliminating the stake of the other 11 participants. However, the villagers did not
deposit the electricity bill in time. As a result, electricity connection was cut–off, thus making the
lift dysfunctional.
In PRA report, it was stated that through this anicut 29 families within the radius of 1 Km up and
down the stream would be able to irrigate their land, which is approximately 22 Ha. In a report
prepared by an engineer, it was stated that 6 wells within the 300-meter range of the proposed
site would be recharged. Around 15 households of the village Deopur expected to take one
additional crop if anicut was constructed on that site, but it is not clear that those 15 households
are the same as of 22 families. A proposal was sent to Seva Mandir on 30/9/2002,signed by only
19 villagers including President (GVC) Devilal and Secretary (GVC) Sevaram before installing
lift irrigation scheme at the ‘UDARA’(place of anicut) Deopur.
Villagers according to the records were taking water from the Som river through electricity
motor at the baskaria and gamnara locations.3 Another proposal came from GVC on 20/1/2003 to
build an anicut. It was stated that 37 families (earlier the number was 29) would take water from
the anicut and contribute 10% of the project cost in GVC. Thus, in this project, beneficiaries
would contribute Rs. 45,000/- and Rs. 30,000/- would be contributed from labor, in total Rs.
75,000. This amount was to be deposited in GVC and it was the responsibility of the GVC
3
it is to be noted that this village (Deopur) has three GVC committees of three different fala
namely nichla fala,uppra fala and dungri fala and this work was proposed in nichla fala)
74
committee to collect the money from the beneficiaries. At the time of visit, the president of the
GVC committee was Mr. Prem Shanker / Kuber who was not a beneficiary of the life irrigation
scheme. He owned three private water pumps and gave them on rent to the farmers. The
villagers removed Gattu Singh from this post, who is now the operator of the lift scheme.
18.2. GVC
In Deopur, total number of beneficiaries who would be benefitted by the lift that would become
functional after construction of the anicut, as identified by Seva Mandir is 45. Out of these 45
members, the number of members having total amount of contribution due is 5, number of
members who have completely deposited their GVC contribution is 30 and number of members
who have partially deposited their GVC contribution is10.
Figure 23
GVK status: Deopur
GVK status of the identified beneficiaries

Paid fully
5
Paid partially
10
30 Due fully
Total GVK contribution to be collected from the 45 identified beneficiaries was Rs. 44,525.
However, whole of the amount has not yet been recovered and the l amount still due is Rs.
12075. The GVK rate to be contributed by each beneficiary has been calculated as Rs. 500 per
bigha.
75
At present, in village nichla fala, only 12 beneficiaries are taking water from the lift and giving it
on rent to other 8 farmers at @ Rs.120 per hour. Out of these 12 beneficiaries, 8 have
completely deposited their GVK contribution, 4 still have some amount due (includes pump
committee president Kamji and his brother Savji). Out of the 8 farmers who take water on rent @
Rs. 120 per hour, only one has deposited his GVK in full, three have deposited only a partial
amount and the remaining four have not deposited any amount in GVK.
It is worth mentioning that when anicut was built, all the old beneficiaries (those who were
taking water between 1986 to 1995) came together to start the lift again. For recommencing the
lift, they had to deposit Rs.26, 000. On this amount, the government gave a rebate of Rs. 13000.
But according to the pump operator Gattu Singh, a total amount of Rs. 28,000 was spent on the
lift including electricity charges, penalty and pipeline cost and all the 12 beneficiaries shared this
cost equally. Thus, each of these 12 beneficiaries contributed about Rs. 2500. It was reported that
they (all 12 beneficiaries of the lift) invited other identified beneficiaries to share the cost and
become the member of the lift committee but none of them came forward. Out of these twelve
beneficiaries, one has not deposited his GVK contribution.
After discussion with the farmers, we came to know that the lift connection was cut off because
the beneficiaries using the lift earlier were not able to deposit electricity bill in time. Only, the
twelve beneficiaries deposited the electricity bill. For the rabi (wheat) crop, the bill came out to
be Rs.7000, which is to be deposited by the all the twelve farmers equally.
18.3. Distribution and scheduling criteria:
There are three chambers built by DRDA from where water goes to the fields through earthen
canals. The scheduling of water is based on the proximity of the chambers to the pump. The
water is provided to the first chamber (nearest to the pump) and after all the farmers have taken
water through the first chamber, it is brought to the second chamber. All 12 beneficiaries utilize
water according to the need irrespective of the number of hours or the area of the landholdings.
76
There is no proper scheduling mechanism. The water charges in Deopur are not based on a per
bigha basis. There are two systems prevailing for collection of water charges.
The twelve committee members pay the electricity bill equally irrespective of the number of
hours of utilization. Thus, the farmers owning large amount of cultivable lands within the
command area derive greater benefits than the small ones. Under this system one can take as
much water he can from the anicut. This we think would also lead to over exploitation of the
water resources because it is the tendency of farmers to take as much water as he can.
These twelve members have decided a rate of Rs. 120 per hour for all those beneficiaries who
did not deposit the electricity bill and want to take water on rent. There was no proper basis or
criterion of deciding the rate of Rs. 120 per hour as rent. After some defaults in payment, they
stopped giving water to others and presently they are adamant on not giving water to any other
farmer.
There is no clearly defined membership pattern in the pump committee. Whether one has
deposited his GVK contribution or not, if he deposits the electricity bill, he can become the
member of the lift irrigation committee.
So, broadly there are three groups existing in Deopur:

1. The twelve members of the pump committee.
2. The ones who are among the beneficiaries and taking water on rent.
3. The ones who may or may not lie in the beneficiary list but making a claim to utilize the
water from the anicut (it being a common property resource)
18.4. Maintenance Fund
There does not exist a separate maintenance fund apart from GVK. Also, there is no record or
book-keeping of the operation and maintenance expenses incurred till now. In this year, it was
reported that motor winding burnt thrice and it cost Rs.1500 each time. Thus, the total amount of
Rs. 4,500 was deposited by the 12 committee members equally and paid for the operation and
77
maintenance. We also came to know that one of these 12 members, Savji, used 42 hours of
irrigation and it can be inferred that that machine is often operated continuously for more than 12
hours a day. This may be a possible reason for burning of motor winding thrice in a year. We can
thus infer that they use water excessively for their farms which can lead to depletion of stored
water very soon and fall in water recharging capacity of the anicut.
18.5. Conflicts
1. The purpose of the Seva Mandir to build anicut is to provide water for cattle drinking and
recharging the nearby water bodies and simultaneously to support the existing lift
irrigation system in the village. But a great chunk of benefit has been captured by few
beneficiaries only as some beneficiaries are taking water at a greater rate and some are
not taking any benefit. Whether the main purpose of the anicut to provide water for the
cattle drinking has been fulfilled or not, is also under question as most of the water is
being used in supporting lift irrigation. Another lacuna of the system is that the lift
irrigation is being used by very few beneficiaries.
2. Most of the farmers near the anicut (just above the anicut) and at the down stream are not
able to reap the benefits from the anicut because it stores most of the water at the
upstream and releases very less water into the downstream. This has created a severe
conflict in the village and also has somewhat maligned the image of Seva Mandir. The
farmers having their landholdings in this area are not happy with Seva Mandir as they are
at the disadvantaged position after the anicut has been rebuilt. This led to violent outcome
in one of the meetings of Seva Mandir when one sufferer cut the finger of one of the
beneficiaries.
3. There are three different groups existing in the village (as already mentioned). Upon
discussions with the farmers and our observations, we came to know that some influential
person (presently taking benefits from the lift) of the village has virtually 'privatized' the
lift. They hold power to include any one in the group. This power imbalance in the lift
78
irrigation system is due to the fact that Seva Mandir does not have any stake in the lift
and the advantaged group has captured the lift after paying the old electricity bill.
4. There is no effort put up by the GVC president to resolve the matter or to take the
corrective steps, as he does not have any incentive to do this. His land is at the bank of
the river and he also owns a water pump. He can fulfill his need with the help of his
pump, so he has no incentive in resolving the matter. Because of this situation, most of
the listed beneficiaries in the scheme are not able to take the benefits of the lift.
Moreover, there is no provision of supplying water from the anicut to the farmers having
their fields just near the anicut on the upstream
It puts big question mark on Seva Mandir's mission to help the most needy section of the
society where few influential persons are reaping a major chunk of the benefits. Deopura
and it has been diverted towards the richer person of the village. It is following the
principle of "the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer".
5. The chamber carrying water from the lift opens up in the fields of Moti Singh from where
water is diverted to the fields of Gattu Singh. There is no cemented or pakka pipeline
carrying water to the fields of other farmers. Most of the beneficiaries get water through
the earthen canals.
18.6. Problems
In Deopura some beneficiaries are gaining at the expense of others. As we have discussed, some
beneficiaries have virtually privatized the existing lift irrigation scheme for their use and have
reserved the right to include others. Thus, it has become the case of commonized cost privatized
benefits. In Deopura, the situation has come to this stage due to lack of intervention by Seva
Mandir at the time of its restarting. This lift was established long ago by DRDA and it was not
feasible for Seva Mandir to intervene in the lift at that moment but when we talk about the gram
vikas then it was the need of the time to include all the possible beneficiaries to increase the
stake in the lift.
79
The lift has again come into operation due to construction of the anicut in the village at the
previous site where old weir structure collapsed. Since both the activities - construction of anicut
and commencement of lift happened simultaneously; the villagers perceived that it was due to
Seva Mandir that lift had come into operation. At the same time when the benefits are not taken
up by the majority of marginal farmers who come under the command area and also deposited
GVC, it has increased frustration and anger among them which surfaced in one of the Seva
Mandir meetings in the village.
Now, the issue here is how to break the monopoly of those 12 beneficiaries who captured the lift
for their own use. After analyzing Deopur case, we suggest some alternatives:
1. We do not intervene in this case because after the construction of the anicut, Seva
Mandir's image has maligned to some extent. This is evident from the reactions by some
farmers who didn’t get the water and had their landholdings in the downstream part of
anicut. After the construction of the anicut, water is released to them at restricted quantity
and they are not able to use private pumps to irrigate their fields. At the same time, their
cattle require water from the anicut for drinking. These two group of farmers stand
against the intervention of the Seva Mandir and if we intervene, there is a possibility that
we can face violent outburst.
2. For breaking the monopoly of those twelve farmers, we suggest the GVC to intervene in
the matter by giving a loan to all possible beneficiaries who come under the command
area and currently not taking water but have shown interest in taking water from the lift.
For this propose, we have computed the amount to be given to each beneficiary:
Total payment by the 12 beneficiaries currently utilizing the lift is Rs. 35000.
It includes bill payments, penalty and pipeline costs of Rs. 28000.
Electricity bill for the Rabi season is Rs. 7000.
So, it is required that Rs. 28,000 be paid to the farmers by the GVC to take over the lift.
Henceforth, we need to determine the number of farmers that would fall under the new
80
proposed beneficiary list. Out of total 45 listed beneficiaries in the command area, 12 are
presently taking water from the lift. The number of remaining beneficiaries is 33.
In these 33, we need to determine the number of beneficiaries who would be interested in joining
the new lift system. Also, 5 members out of 45 have not deposited any amount in GVK, so they
are not eligible for loan. Thus, the number of left out beneficiaries is 28. If we distribute the total
cost of Rs. 28000 in all 40 farmers (28+12), it comes out to nearly Rs. 700.
But 12 farmers have already paid Rs. 2333 (28000/12) each. After deducting Rs. 700 form
Rs.2333, we get an amount of Rs.1567 paid in excess by each of the 12 farmers. So, total amount
paid in excess by all 12 farmers is Rs.18804 (1567 *12). Amount collected from 28 farmers is
Rs. 19600 (28*700). The amount left after paying to the 12 beneficiaries is Rs. 796 (19600-
18804).
It shows that if we get 27 farmers, we can breakeven the amount required to restart the lift under
new setup. If the number of farmers goes below 27, the amount required to be collected
increases. The assumption here is that individually we cannot collect more than Rs. 1000 from
each farmer.
A Sample table showing possible amount to be collected from each farmer for varying number of
total farmers is as follows:
Table 17
Calculation of loan amount
Actual Possible TOTAL Amount
beneficiaries newcomers FARMERS required to be
A B N=A+B collected per
farmer
(28000/N)
12 27 39 717
12 26 38 736
12 25 37 756
81
12 24 36 777
12 23 35 800
12 22 34 823
12 21 33 848
12 20 32 875
12 19 31 903
3. Another alternative is to invest the whole amount of Rs.28000 by Seva Mandir GVC
committee. In this case, the existing membership will be abolished and fresh member
ship will be issued to all potential beneficiaries. (Shall be mentioned in the governance
structure). This amount of Rs. 28000 will be reimbursed to all 12 beneficiaries so that
their claim over the lift ceases. After the new membership is issued, the electricity bill
shall be shared by all the beneficiaries in proportion to the number of hours of utilization.
This would prevent the over utilization of water resource and at the same time, it would
also lead to an equity and efficiency.
4. One more feasible but costly alternative is to install a new lift (by Seva Mandir) for those
marginalized farmers who are not getting the benefit even after the construction of the
anicut and fall under the command area. But, constructing a lift with all accessories
requires an amount of about Rs.3 lakh. This may not be a practical solution because after
installing another lift on the same location, it may lead to conflicts dividing the
community into two groups - lift1 beneficiaries (DRDA) and lift 2 beneficiaries (Seva
Mandir) which may further spoil the village harmony.
But by working upon alternatives 2 and 3, we find that investigation for the feasible solution
would depend upon the GVC initiative whether it wants to give loan or wants to take over the lift
by paying Rs. 28000. On further analysis, we suggest that alternative 2 in which we talk about
giving loans to the potential beneficiaries may not end up giving the best results because in this
case we are paying the amount to actual beneficiaries (12) and even after receiving the claim, it
may happen that these 12 beneficiaries may be treated as primary on account of the fact that they
were the ones who restarted the lift and the newcomer farmers may face secondary treatment.
82
Thus, possible solution we suggest is to make all 12 beneficiaries realize that the lift irrigation
scheme installed by DRDA belongs to the whole village and in every possible manner; it should
cater to the needs of the whole village and not few beneficiaries. For this, GVC needs to take full
control over the lift scheme by paying them Rs. 28000, which can be recovered later by the
members in installments. But the need of the hour is to break the monopoly of the few
beneficiaries. The above activities, if undertaken, would improve the image of Seva Mandir in
the eyes of villagers and they would be able to understand the real benefits of keeping the Gram
Vikas Kosh in the village.
19. TRAINING
83
19.1. Training for proper management of lift irrigation
Providing training to the beneficiaries as well as the Seva Mandir workers regarding such
projects is an important realization that occurred to us while we were undertaking the study on
costs and benefits analysis and management of lift irrigation. Training is required at different
stage of project that is during formulation to implementation stage and then after training for
proper maintenance of the system.
The project aims to make use of perennial water sources such as streams, which are a common
good. For this apart from the engineers, which are professionally qualified, we need to train the
zonal worker in identification of such sites and the potential beneficiaries. The project seeks to
intervene in areas where the agriculture is mostly rain fed and the target groups of beneficiaries
have little or no access to other irrigation sources. This implies introducing the concept of
collective ownership of irrigation, which may be non-existent in selected site, or village and
irrigation was largely associated with individual ownership.
While addressing the technical issues in training we focused on the management aspects which
involves orientation on various issues such as equity and efficiency in water distribution, the
need for scheduling, rationing of time during peak hours, incentive system for the operators,
importance of timely payments and a corpus for proper maintenance as well as for replacement
in the future.
Side by side identify the criteria which can be used in finding the location of chambers and their
required number so that we can maximize the irrigation efficiency and able to provide irrigation
to all beneficiary under the principal of equity.
19.1.1. Training at the formulation stage
84
The implementing team of Seva Mandir should prepare a pre feasibility report for each proposed
site of intervention. This should include report on social, technical and economical feasibility of
the projects.
19.1.1.1 Technical
1. More training for PRA team in identification of the boundaries. For example
through transact across the village gave an idea of physical and social dimension
of command area and its beneficiaries.
2. It includes the identification of chambers to be required and their location so that
maximum beneficiaries can get irrigation at minimum cost. For this we can train
them by using the operation research method like PERT or CPM. This would
suggest the possible routes through which if we construct the pipeline we would
be able to reach maximum beneficiaries.
3. Before implementing the project we must have the counter maps of the site, which
help in avoiding that location, which are at height and on which construction of
chamber would lead to negative results. Contour map also helps in designing the
canal on the contour over which water can flow through gravity.
4. Main focus of this report is to study how many poor and marginalized farmers
would get benefits from the projects. In this feasibility should not be on the basis
of the numbers of the beneficiary but on the number of land holding exist in the
command area to ensure that the target group of poor and the marginalized is
given priority.
5. Record keeping for such project is required like standard format for the auditing
the cost of the projects if possible on computer, which can be used by the different
block engineers. This help in comparing the different projects.
6. There is lack of coordination between the technical person and the person dealing
with the social aspect of the village lack of coordination lead some time
inefficiency in the project like improper location of chambers. In this case they
require training for better coordination between them before going into the filed.
85
19.1.1.2 Economical
1. What should be the optimum size of beneficiary will be require with respect to the
cost of project which can categorize the economical feasible.
2. For this team should conduct the financial analysis of the project with respect to the
beneficiaries and with respect to the project. Through this the economical size
required can be determined.
19.1.1.3 Social
1. Project appraisal training: What percentage of the signatory are require before
sanction of the project say absolute majority (2/3 of total) or simple majority (1/2 of
total) apart from knowing the fact that these project are target based but if we ensure
before implementing the project about the beneficiary then we would not end up in
the messing the project which happen in amarpura (lift 2 which is not operational)
2. For efficient management and smooth running of the lift projects both the workers
and the villagers are required to train to find out possible mechanism under which the
lift management committee will work. This could prevent the privatization of lift by
few beneficiaries, which happen in the devpura case. In this more training is required
to field workers to assist the villagers in finding such solution.
19.1.2. During Implementation
19.1.2.1 Technical
This includes the technical suggestion given to the farmers about the irrigation method they used.
For example at presently due to uneven slope of the land irrigation do not reach to whole fields
evenly so providing them (beneficiary) the different type of method like furrow irrigation, border
irrigation or the check basin methods depending upon the size and shape and the soil type of the
filed. This could be part of the extension program.
19.1.2.2 Social
86
1. Training given on the collective action and cooperation to zonal workers

2. Formation of the committee, which includes proper representation of the
beneficiaries.
3. Define the membership criteria, in this the worker will be given training to work
with community and help in finding the solution in getting good committee and
their rule and norms.
4. The proposal from the group of beneficiaries should also include the details of the
management system, which they would like to put in place.
19.1.2.3 Economical
Training on the project appraisal: Project can be revised as per the actual beneficiary
amendments or addition in any part of the project through which project efficiency can be
increase this will possible if workers are given training to take decision in the filed situation only
if the incremental cost of the project is less then incremental benefits.
19.1.3. After project implementation
After the implementation, the training will be required for the committee and the operator for the
smooth function of the project. This includes
19.1.3.1 Technical
1. For proper maintenance of the system operator is required to give training on the
repair and maintenance of pump, which during the peak time when the pump under
maximum load and there will chance of failure of pulley belt, pump part or the diesel
set. This will reduce the dependency on the external agency (private mechanics) to
come and repair
2. Maintaining the record for the day-to-day operation of the life according to date wise,
hour wise, farmers wise.
87
3. Maintain the scheduling chart week wise for different crop and season. This will
mention the hours of use in particular crop, season and by the each farmers.
4. In case the water availability is less then direct them to use less water requirement
crop .for this workers are required to train in crop water management.
19.1.3.2 Economical
1. Maintain the expenditure record season wise and crop wise which mention the major and
minor maintenance record. This will help in tracking the performance of the pump so that
the committee and the operator for smooth functioning of lift can take preventive
maintenance.
2. Issue the casebook to each individual and entry the hours of use, amount paid and due in
that. This will help in cross checking and monitoring the system.
3. Given a guidance for the proper recovery of the water charges by the workers which can
be alter as per the suitability of the committee and the operator
19.1.3.3 Social
Form the committee and clear the rule and norms through which the committee can take the
measure for equitable distribution of water to the farmers.
The preliminary orientation of the proposed beneficiaries would serve the following purposes:
1. Each farmer would be able to judge for himself/herself what would be the actual cost of
irrigation for him/her including running costs, payment towards maintenance fund, GVK
etc. It would help each beneficiary to be able to choose the best option of irrigation for
himself if other alternatives such as private pumps exist in the area. Thus it would prevent
backing out of beneficiaries after the implementation of the irrigation system when they
find the cost of irrigation to their fields uneconomical.
2. The beneficiaries would be able to realize the importance of mutual cooperation for
achieving sustainability of the system and economy in water distribution. Consequently
88
the importance of electing a man agent committee who would be able to do justice to the
task entrusted to them would be realized.
3. There would be an effort to set up the entire governing and management system with all
rules and regulations regarding criteria of water distribution, scheduling, payments,
contribution etc in place before the proposal is accepted. Thus becoming a member of the
beneficiary group is am informed decision for each of the beneficiary. This would also
help in preventing any vested interests to devise s system, which is more advantageous to
them.
89
20. CONCLUSION
The project provided us an opportunity to understand the various aspects concerned with the
planning, designing and implementation of water resource development activities particularly
irrigation projects. During the course of study for the project our main focus was on the project
title and hence some of our learnings could not be incorporated in the project but a mention of
these may provide some useful insights about such programmes.
First of all, the irrigation projects such as the lift irrigation systems and water harvesting
structures are the most apt examples of programmes, which address the core need of the target
group. Given the drought proneness of the region and the water scarcity no amount of
technological innovations in agriculture can make as significant a difference as irrigation. This is
obvious even from the findings of the study which indicate a two to three fold increase in
productivity without any other change in application of other agricultural inputs. Thus the
importance of irrigation for improving the returns from agriculture cannot be overlooked.
Besides agriculture the impact on other aspects of livelihood has also been significant. This
conforms the need-based nature of the programme. Thus it becomes important to ensure that
such projects are implemented in a manner which not only ensures full utilization of its potential
but also equity in its use. The experience in the 3 villages under study are an example how the
lack of proper management system can become the major problem in achieving the envisaged
objectives of the project namely strengthening the livelihoods of the poor and the marginalized,
creating sustainable village institutions etc. and even raise questions on the utility of such big
investments when the objectives are not being realized. Herein comes the importance of a
properly designed management system which has inbuilt mechanism to ensure that the interests
of the poor and the marginalized are protected and the facilities created remain a public property
of the village and are not privatized by an individual or a group.
Thus the focus in planning and designing of all such water resource development activities which
envisage collective usage by only a particular group but at the same time are meant to be a public
asset should not only include the technical aspects of the construction and usage of the facilities
created but also pay equal importance to ensure that a fair and sustainable management system is
90
designed and put in place. This would mean that the organization’s role should not be limited to
the creation and transfer of these facilities to the beneficiaries but should now be expanded to
include setting up of proper institutions to manage these.
The long years of experience in natural resource development particularly water resource
development activities and the technical competence in the form of experienced and qualified
staff are the strength of the NRD unit and Seva Mandir, however, the challenge would now be to
devise effective management systems which are simple and comprehensive and which also take
into account the unique socio- political situation in each village. The process may be a long
drawn one and may involve unforeseen difficulties but if such management systems come into
force they can serve as a model for replication in the respective villages for management and use
of collective goods.
91

Ots 24 Sm-Oac Finalrep

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ots 24 Sm-Oac Finalrep

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES AND WATER HARVESTING

STRUCTURES OF SEVA MANDIR IN RAJASTHAN

1. ABOUT SEVA MANDIR

2. ABOUT THE PROJECT1

1. Construction of small ware harvesting structures to impound rainwater

4. OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY

The study was undertaken with the following objectives:

6.1. Sources of Data

6.1.1. Primary sources

6.1.1.2 Focus Group Discussions (FGDs):

6.1.2. Secondary sources

The sampling plan for each of the three villages is as follows:

9.1.1.1 Costs: The costs, which we took in our calculations, are:

•Cost of Labour: As farmers have started taking additional crop, number of

9.1.1.2 Benefits: The benefits, which we took in our calculations, are:

9.2. Assumptions of Cost Benefit Analysis

10. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF LIS IN VILLAGE RANPUR

10.1. At the beneficiaries’ level:

The incremental benefits are as follows:

10.1.1. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BC Ratio)

10.2. At the project level

The costs incurred to install the lift are as follows:

Pipe& Fitting Rs. 2, 07, 959

Excavation Rs. 15, 297

Total Cost Rs. 3, 11, 331

PV of Cash Inflows 303296.39

BC Ratio (PV/I) 0.97

11.1. At the beneficiaries’ level:

The incremental benefits are as follows:

11.1.1. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BC Ratio)

The benefit-cost ratio has been computed as follows:

11.2. At the project level

The costs incurred to install the lift are as follows:

Store cum pump house Rs. 37, 852

PV of Cash inflows 385218.81

BC Ratio (PV/I) 1.28

12. COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF ANICUT IN VILLAGE DEOPUR

12.1. At the beneficiaries’ level:

The incremental benefits are as follows:

12.1.1. Benefit-Cost Ratio (BC Ratio)

The benefit-cost ratio has been computed as follows:

12.2. At the Project Level

The total costs incurred in the construction of Anicut were as follows:

Cost of Anicut Rs. 6, 72, 000

Cost of Apron Rs. 58, 000.00

Cost of Wingwall Rs. 24, 000.00

Total Rs. 7, 54, 000.00

Net benefits for twenty-one (21) farmers: Rs. 27, 172.5

PV of cash flows 571679.17

Pay back period 12.95

14. IMPACT ASSESSMENT

14.1.1. Usage of the LIS

14.1.2. Increase in irrigated area

Land irrigated before LI Land irrigated after LI

10% Irrigated area Irrigated area after

14.1.3. Net sown area and cropping intensity

Gross Sown Area

Change in cropping intensity

14.1.4. Cropping Pattern

Cropping Pattern: Kharif Cropping Pattern: Rabi

14.1.5. Range of yield

14.1.6. Cost of cultivation