Multiple uses of water in irrigated areas : a case study from Sri Lanka

63038 SWIM Paper Multiple Uses of Water in Irrigated Areas: A Case Study from Sri Lanka Editors: Margaretha Bakker Randolph Barker Ruth Meinzen-Dick Flemming Konradsen D 04 .7 • 1 85 1<)1')9 IFPRI IW System-Wide ~Initiative on Water Management SWIM Papers In an environment of growing scarcity and competition for water, increasing the productivity of water lies at the heart of the CGIAR goals of increasing agricultural productivity, protecting the environment, and alleviating poverty. TAC designated IWMI, the lead CGIAR institute for research on irrigation and water management, as the convening center for the System-Wide Initiative on Water Management (SWIM). Improving water management requires dealing with a range of policy, institutional, and technical issues. For many of these issues to be addressed, no single center has the range of expertise required. IWMI focuses on the management of water at the system or basin level while the commodity centers are concerned with water at the farm and field plot levels. IFPRI focuses on policy issues related to water. As the NARS are becoming increasingly involved in water management issues related to crop production, there is strong complementarity between their work and many of the CGIAR centers that encourages strong collaborative research ties among CGIAR centers, NARS, and NGOs. The initial publications in this series cover state-of-the-art and methodology papers that assisted the identification of the research and methodology gaps in the priority project areas of SWIM. The later papers will report on results of SWIM studies, including intersectoral water allocation in river basins, productivity of water, improved water utilization and on-farm water use efficiency, and multiple uses of water for agriculture. The papers are published and distributed both in hard copy and electronically. They may be copied freely and cited with due acknowledgment. Randolph Barker SWIM Coordinator SWIM Paper 8 Multiple Uses of Water in Irrigated Areas: A Case Study from Sri Lanka Editors: Margaretha Bakker Randolph Barker Ruth Meinzen-Dick Flemming Konradsen International Water Management Institute P.O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka The editors: Margaretha Bakker is Associate Expert in the Health and Environment Program at the International Water Management Institute (IWMI); Randolph Barker is SWIM Coordinator and Senior Advisor to the Director General at IWMI; Ruth Meinzen­ Dick is Research Fellow in the Environment and Production Technology Division at International Food Policy Research Institute; and Flemming Konradsen is Environmental Health Biologist at IWMI. The authors: Rekha Mehra is Director of Economic Analysis at the International Center for Research on Women (ICRW); Anneke Van Eijk is Hydrologist at the Government Service for Land and Water Management, the Netherlands; Fuard Marikkar is Consultant, Yutaka Matsuno is Irrigation Engineer, David Molden is Research Leader of the Performance and Impact Assessment Program, R. Sakthivadivel is Senior Irrigation SpeCialist, Wim Van der Hoek is Research Leader of the Health and Environment Program, and Parakrama Weligama is Consultant! Agricultural Economist, all at IWMI. The editors Margaretha Bakker, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, and Flemming Konradsen are the other authors. This work was undertaken with funds specifically allocated to the System-Wide Initiative for Water Management (SWIM) by the Ford Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the governments of Australia, Denmark, France, Germany, and the Netherlands. Bakker, M., R. Barker, R. Meinzen-Dick, and F. Konradsen, eds. 1999. Multiple uses of water in irrigated areas: A case study from Sri Lanka. SWIM Paper 8. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. / water management / water allocation / water use efficiency / irrigated farming / water resources development / water policy / water quality / domestic water / water user associations / water rights / gender / case studies / households / pricing / water costs / Sri Lanka! Kirindi Oya / ISBN 92-9090-380-5 ISSN 1028-6705 © IWMI, 1999. All rights reserved. Responsibility for the contents of this paper rests with the editors. The International Irrigation Management Institute, one of sixteen centers supported by the Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), was incorporated by an Act of Parliament in Sri Lanka. The Act is currently under amendment to read as International Water Management Institute. Contents Abstract vii 1. Introduction 1 Ruth Meinzen-Dick'and Flemming Konradsen 2. Description of the Study Area 3 Fuard Marikkar 3. Water Uses in the Kirindi Oya Subbasin 6 Anneke van Eljk, David Molden, and R. Sakthivadivel 4. Water Quality Issues 13 Yutaka Matsuno 5. The Institutional Environment 16 Margaretha Bakker and Ruth Meinzen-Dick 6. Household Uses of Water 21 Flemming Kondradsen, Rekha Mehra, and Parakrama We/igamape 7. Valuing the Multiple Uses of Water 26 Margaretha Bakker 8. Complementarities, Competition, and Conflicts 31 Ruth Meinzen-Dick and Margaretha Bakker 9. Future Directions for Research 35 Wim van der Hoek 10. Conclusions: Implications for Policy and Management 38 Ruth Meinzen-Dick Annex 1 Water flow chart 42 Annex 2 Other valuation techniques 43 Literature Cited 45 iii Figures, Tables, and Boxes Figure 1 Map of the study area 4 Figure 2 Water accounting for Kirindi Oya subbasin, 1995-96 and 1996-97 11 Table Area cultivated with paddy and OFCs in Kirindi Oya Irrigation System (average from maha 1990 to yala 1997) 7 Table 2 Pjped water supply schemes in the study area 9 Table 3 Classification and quantification of the water uses served by the irrigation and domestic service in the Kirindi Oya subbasin in MCM for 1995-96 and 1996-97 12 Table 4 Water quality measurements and standards in the Kirindi Oya System (September 1997) 14 Table 5 Classification of irrigation water salinity 15 Table 6 Water allocation pattern in Kirindi Oya Irrigation System 17 Table 7 Government agencies and user groups representing different types of water uses 20 Table 8 The importance of irrigation water as first priority water source in comparison to other sources of water for a variety of uses 22 Table 9 Results of ranking exercise for domestic water uses and sources 25 Table 10 Value added per m3 of water for different productive water uses (in 1997 rupees) 30 Table 11 Conflicts, competition, and complementarity of water uses in Kirindi Oya 32 Box Water accounting categories 10 Box 2 Formula to calculate the value added of water 28 Box 3 Value added of volume of water consumed, diverted, and total water supply 29 iv Acronyms BWMC Bundala Wetland Management Committee COFO Cattle Owners' Farmer Organization cumecs cubic meter per second DCO Distributary Channel Organization DWLC Department of Wildlife Conservation EC Electrical Conductivity ET Evapotranspiration FAO Food and Agriculture Organization FCG Field Channel Group FCS Fisheries Cooperative Society FO Farmer Organization GVO Gross Value of Output ID Irrigation Department ha hectare ICRW International Center for Research on Women IMD Irrigation Management Division INMAS Integrated Management of Major Irrigation Systems IWRM Integrated Water Resources Management kg kilogram km kilometer KOISP Kirindi Oya Irrigation and Settlement Project LB Left Bank MCM Million Cubic Meters mg/l milligram! liter mm millimeter mS/cm milliSiemensl centimeter MSL Mean Sea Level mt metric ton NGO Non-Governmental Organization NVO Net Value of Output NWS&DB National Water Supply & Drainage Board OFC Other Field Crops O&M Operation and Maintenance PMC Project Management Committee PPM Parts Per Million RB Right Bank Rs Sri Lankan Rupees, at time of the study US$1.00 = Rs 58.80 SPC Subproject Committee TDS Total Dissolved Solids WHO World Health Organization v CGIAR Centers CIAT Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical CIFOR Center for International Forestry Research CIMMYT Centro Internacional de Mejoramiento de Maize y Trigo CIP Centro Internacional de la Papa ICARDA International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas ICLARM International Center for Living Aquatic Resources Management ICRAF Intemational Council for Research in Agroforestry ICRISAT International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics IFPRI International Food Policy Research Institute IWMI International Water Management Institute IITA International Institute of Tropical Agriculture ILRI International Livestock Research Institute IPGRI International Plant Genetic Resources Institute IRRI International Rice Research Institute ISNAR International Service for National Agricultural Research WARDA West Africa Rice Development Association vi Abstract Water is being transferred out of agriculture to Among the various management issues and meet the g rowing demand in other areas, often the problem areas identified, the allocation of without an agreement of or compensation to irrigation water particularly in periods of scarcity, is farmers with irrigated land and water rights. perhaps the most critical decision and one that has Furthermore, there is a failure to recognize that provoked considerable conl'licts in the past. The irrigation systems supply water not only for the most appropriate water level to be maintained in main fields, but also for domestic uses, home the tanks is another critical decision, with evidence gardens, trees and other permanent vegetation, to suggest that improved management Of the tank and livestock. Other productive uses include systems in the wet season could lead to savings fishing, harvesting of aquatic plants and animals, of water and expansion of irrigated area in the dry and a variety of other enterprises such as brick season. Finally, the study highlights the importance making. In addition, irrigation systems can have a of water quality not only for domestic use but also positive or negative effect on wildlife habitats. for fishing and wildlife. Thus, the withdrawal of water affects the rural Because of the complexity of the issues household, rural economy, and the environment in involved, however, the results of this study must a number of ways. be seen as a first step towards the development of This paper argues that to ensure efficient, a suitable methodology for studying the range of equitable, and sustainable water use, to reduce uses and interactions among them. While the poverty and improve the well-being of the exact uses and users of water and their relative community, irrigation and water resources policies importance will vary from one irrigation system to need to take into account all uses and users of another, the issues identified in this pilot study of water within the irrigation system. The multiple Kirindi Oya have broader implications for water uses of water in the Kirindi Oya irrigation system management policies in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. are examined in this paper. An interdisCiplinary These relate to the allocation of water between group of scientists has investigated a number of irrigation and other sectors; measures of water areas including water accounting, water quality, quality and efficiency of use; and mechanisms to household water use, the valuing of water for involve all stakeholders in negotiations over water alternative uses, and the complementarities, allocation and use. competition, and conflicts among uses and users. vii Multiple Uses of Water in Irrigated Areas: A case Study from Sri Lanka Margaretha Bakker, Randolph Barker, Ruth Meinzen-Dick and Flemming Konradsen 1. Introduction The 1990s have witnessed a dramatic shift in the supply, and can have important environmental priorities for water resource allocations and functions in supporting plants, birds, and animals. development. Irrigation, which was once seen as Within some systems, especially in semiarid the essential factor for securing sufficient food areas, irrigation water may be the only source of production, is now seen as a "low-value" use of domestic water available to the households. water compared to its municipal, industrial, and Recognizing the importance of this source to the even the environmental uses. Irrigation no longer health and the social well being of the community receives priority either in the allocation of funds is essential and a more holistic approach to for project developments or in the allocation of irrigation water management may provide water itself. In a growing number of cases, water SUbstantial health benefits. In certain areas, is transferred out of agriculture to meet the irrigation water may substantially increase the per growing demand in other areas, sometimes with capita availability of water throughout the year, compensation for the farmers with irrigated land with an impact of decreasing the prevalence of and water rights, sometimes without their skin and eye diseases and the incidence of agreement or compensation. hygiene-related diseases. Hence, it is misleading Irrigated agriculture is the biggest consumer to equate irrigation only with the agriculture of world's fresh water resources. On a global sector, just as it is misleading to equate level, irrigation comprises 72 percent of the municipal consumption with domestic water use, average per capita diversions, with industrial and since much of municipal water goes for domestic sector accounting for 19 percent and 9 productive enterprises, even gardens and lawns. percent, respectively, of the average per capita Whether or not multiple uses and users have water diversions (Seckler et al. 1998). However, been considered in ex ante project assessments, these figures are misleading since irrigation they are generally not included explicitly in the systems often provide water for many other ongoing management of irrigation systems. One purposes besides irrigated agriculture. Even reason for this is that most agencies dealing with within the agriculture sector, irrigation systems water resources have only sectoral responsibility supply water not only for the main fields, but also to deal with either irrigation or drinking water or for home gardens, trees, and other permanent industry, or environment. The government as a vegetation through elevated water tables, and whole has the responsibility for overall water use, provide water for livestock. Other productive uses but the implementing agencies have neither the include fishing, harvesting of aquatic plants and mandate nor the incentive to balance the needs animals, and a variety of other enterprises such of various users (Yoder 1983; IIMI 1995a). as brick making. Furthermore, irrigation systems Taking all uses and users into account, water are generally a major source of domestic water management could contribute to higher total  productivity of irrigation systems. Currently, many only the Irrigation Department (10), nor even just irrigation systems are being "modernized" to the farmers who playa role in water management, improve water use efficiency. Measures such as but a much broader range of stakeholders: men lining canals or implementing rotational water and women, different occupations, and different supplies may increase the efficiency of irrigation government departments. Because of the at the farm or system level, but if the availability complexity of the research issues involved, it is a of (ground)water is reduced elsewhere, it may challenge to develop a suitable methodology to reduce the overall output, and hence the study the range of uses and the interactions efficiency at the system or basin level. In some among them. This study has developed a set of cases, complementarities between uses may be methodological tools to define and value multiple found, but in many other cases there will be uses of water. The objective of this paper is not to trade-offs between different uses, in present a complete assessment of multiple uses either quantity or quality of water, or both in Kirindi Oya, but rather to layout the issues and (Konrad sen et al. 1997). present a pilot study to test the methodology. This This paper argues that recognizing the methodology should be refined, adapted, and multiple uses of water in irrigation systems is applied more completely in a range of sites critical for better water allocation policy. The main before conclusive statements can be made about research hypothesis is that the value of irrigation the management of irrigation systems as water for non-crop purposes will be of significant multiple-use water resources. magnitude when compared with the value for use in field crop production. There are four research issues examined in Outline of the Paper this report, drawing on evidence from multiple uses of water in the Kirindi Oya irrigation system The following chapter gives a description of the in Sri Lanka. The first issue focuses on a more irrigation infrastructure and the physical and accurate assessment of all the uses and users of socioeconomic characteristics of the study area. water in an irrigation system since water in The information in this chapter is based on an irrigation systems has been undervalued because earlier research done by IIMI as well as on the of the failure to recognize the different uses. This research done during this study. Chapter 3 accurate assessment will better inform decisions describes the present water use pattern and about allocating water (and financial resources) quantifies the uses of different sectors by using a between irrigation and other uses. Second, an water accounting procedure. After the endeavor is made to value these different uses quantification of water use, chapter 4 deals with of water. Third, the interactions and conflicts water quality issues and requirements for among different sectors and users of irrigation irrigation, drinking, and the environmental uses of water are identified. For instance, the water. Chapter 5 describes the institutional rehabilitation efforts of irrigation systems will environment in the Kirindi Oya irrigation system, affect the other uses and users of water as well. focusing on water-related institutions, land and This raises the question of how to cope with the water rights, and a variety of governmental and rising competition for water between multiple water user organizations. The description and kinds of users and allocate the water in ways analysis of the institutional framework go beyond that are equitable, efficient, and sustainable. the formal, state-defined rights and organizations, Fourth, the fact that the full spectrum of uses of and also consider the customary rights and a irrigation water changes the institutional picture of variety of formal and informal user organizations. water management is recognized. It is no longer In chapter 6, the findings of a household water 2 use survey are presented. A description is given complementarities, competition, and conflicts of the different water sources used for various between different uses and users are examined. purposes, with an emphasis on the domestic uses The major types of interactions between uses are of water. Also, an attempt is made to assess the also presented. The penultimate chapter importance of irrigation water and nonirrigation describes the future directions for research in a water sources for various household water uses planned follow-on study and the last chapter, by gender of the primary users. Chapter 7 chapter 10, gives the conclusions and discusses aspects of water pricing, economic implications for water policy and water value, and other values of water. The gross value management when multiple uses of water are and the net value added per m3 of water for recognized. different productive uses are calculated using primary and secondary data. In chapter 8, 2. Description of the Study Area Location and Physical Characteristics almost entirely within the slightly uplifted flat alluvial plain. The newly developed areas of the The Kirindi Oya Irrigation and Settlement Project irrigation system are situated around the old (KOISP) is located in the southeastern dry zone areas and have slopes of about 2-6 percent. The of Sri Lanka, about 260 km from Colombo various sub-catchment valleys slope into the river (figure 1) and is the largest irrigation and and the tanks. The alluvial plain has an incised settlement scheme in the south of Sri Lanka. The river, the Kirindi Oya cutting through it, and as a Kirindi Oya river is 118 km long and is fed by a result, little or no river erosion hazards are catchment area of 1,203 km2. The irrigation encountered. The soils in the new area are more system is an expansion of the old Ellagala suited for non-paddy crops while soils in the old system, which comprised 5 ancient tanks. In the area are equally suited for paddy and for other 1970s, plans were formulated to rehabilitate and crops. augment the old Ellagala system. The The climate of the area is tropical and is implementation started in 1979, and in 1987, the characterized by nearly constant year-round first water supply was issued from the newly built temperatures (26-28 DC). Evaporation is uniform Lunuganwehera reservoir through the new Left throughout the year, with an annual average Bank (LB) and the Right Bank (RB) canals. The approximating 2,000 mm. Mean annual rainfall is study area is an important tourist destination with 1,000 mm with the maha (wet) season rainfall the Bundala National Park situated downstream (October-March) approximately three times that of the KOISP and the Yala National Park further of the ya/a (dry) season (April-September) (IIMI away. Also, many pilgrims visit the area on the 1995a). way to the shrines in Kataragama. The study area falls within the low-country dry zone and is situated within 125 meters Socioeconomic Characteristics elevation above sea level (Cooray 1984). It lies within the broad, shallow valley of the Kirindi The population of the old area, including the Oya, with the old Ellagala irrigation system falling Badagiriya irrigation scheme is estimated as 3 FIGURE 1. Map of the study area. ~ Newarea n>:::::{{i Old area ~ Fresh water bodies ~ Brackish water bodies ~ Park boundary SAl LANKA '-8 Iff.<ili-J 0 2 4 I.'_ _- ' - '_ _- , -_ _ 6 ..:i km C'~ . ! I ,,~/ .... \ INDIAN OCEAN 4 56,222 and that of the new area as 31,528 giving of income, since livelihoods obtained from the a total population of 87,750 for the entire study irrigated production alone were insecure. area. The ethno-religious make up of the Although it is not formally allowed, some settlers population is predominantly Sinhalese (98%,). The gave the opportunity to someone else to cultivate average household size estimated from field their land. surveys is 4.8 persons per household in the old Under the irrigation development project, area and 5.1 persons in the new area. there has been a considerable government The social composition of the population investment in the infrastructure and subsidies for reflects the old system/new settlement phases of housing. Literacy rates are high in both areas: irrigation development in the area. Most residents 97.7 percent for men and 94.5 percent for in the old area are from families that have lived women in the old area, and 96.7 percent for men in the area for generations, as would be and 93.4 percent for women in the new area. expected in an area with a thousand years of There has been a declining trend in dependence irrigation history. Therefore, 62 percent of the on agriculture and a rise in salaried employment residents in the old area live in permanent (including 2% involved in foreign employment). houses compared with 15 percent of the Formal sector employment, especially in the residents in the new area. People in the old area government sector, is higher in the old area have bigger houses, more consumer durables, because of better transport facilities (IIMI 1995a). and transport (bicycles, two- and four-wheeled In 1994, average annual household income in the vehicles) than those in the new settlement area. old area was Rs 66,800 and in the new area, Furthermore, homesteads in the old area are well Rs 36,072 (ibid\. landscaped with vegetables, fruit trees, and other permanent vegetation (IIMI 1995a). Residents in the new irrigated areas are Irrigation Infrastructure settlers who acquired land either after being displaced from old holdings (alternate settlers, The Lunuganwehera reservoir, the construction of 55%), or under a government program to allocate which was completed in 1987, provides irrigation new irrigated land to the landless from other water to 5,400 hectares of the newly developed parts of the country (open settlers, 45%). Many lands, about 4,200 hectares of the eXisting of the latter reported that political connections in irrigated lands under the old Ellagala system, and their place of origin had helped them to acquire to 850 hectares under the Sadagiriya system. land. In addition to the 0.2 hectare highland, The tanks under the Ellagala system have been each settler was to be allocated 1 hectare of built over a thousand years ago. The old system irrigated land (Stanbury 1989). The poorly was restored in 1877 by the construction of a developed physical and social infrastructure when new diversion structure (anicut) in the Kirindi Oya the project began, combined with the need to river at Ellagala. The Ellagala anicut diverts water develop their land and homestead sites, made to 5 ancient and previously independent tanks: life difficult for the settlers. For example, for Debara Wewa, Tissa Wewa, Weerawila Wewa, several years, the only source of drinking water Pannegamuwa Wewa, and Yoda Wewa (see also was bowser trucks that delivered water at points figure 1). along the roadside. Further distress was caused The catchment area of the Lunuganwehera by a lower water availability than was expected reservoir is 914 km2. The reservoir has a gross at the time of the project design. Many families storage capacity of 227 million m3 (MCM) and an were forced to migrate seasonally to cities or to active storage of 200 MCM. The RS main canal their places of origin and diversify their sources of the reservoir is 32 km long ending at the 5 Badagiriya tank, with a discharge capacity of 13 is an inland lagoon with no direct outfall to the cumecs and a command area of 3,500 hectares. sea, while Malala has a direct outfall to the sea. The LB main canal is 17 km long with a An incised canal connects the two lagoons. discharge capacity of 12 cumecs and a Drainage water from old tanks in the upper command area of 1,900 hectares. reaches (Pannegamuwa Wewa, Debera Wewa, The Lunuganwehera reservoir is built a short and Tissa Wewa) flows back to the old tanks in distance upstream of the Ellagala Anicut. A the lower reaches (Weerawila Wewa and Yoda feeder canal from the LB main canal takes water Wewa) and to the Kirindi Oya river or to other to the Ellagala diversion. The newly developed outlets to the ocean. areas surround the old irrigated area and drain The Badagiriya tank, which is built across the into the old tanks. About 30 percent of the inflow adjoining Malala Ara river basin has its own into the old system is received directly from the independent catchment of 350 km2, and a Lunuganwehera reservoir and the rest from the storage capacity of 11.2 MeM, providing irrigation rainfall runoff from the catchments of the old water to 850 hectares of land. The Badagiriya tanks and return flow from the water diverted to tank has been included in the study as it is the new area. augmented by the RB main canal of The areas south of the LB drain into the old Lunuganwehera reservoir with a fixed volume of tanks: Debera Wewa, Tissa Wewa, and Yoda water annually. The augmentation had been Wewa. Areas east of the RB canal drain into the necessitated because the water supply to the Weerawila Wewa and Pannegamuwa Wewa and Badagiriya tank has been reduced considerably areas south of the RB canal drain into the by the construction of many small tanks Embilikala and Malala lagoons. These lagoons upstream. The drainage water of Badagiriya are part of the Bundala National Park. Embilikala flows into the Malala lagoon. 3. Water Uses in the Kirindi Oya Subbasin Methodology Water accounting classifies water balance components into uses by the different sectors. Water users in the Kirindi Oya study area are all Water flowing into the subbasin from the Kirindi dependent on the same water from the network Oya river flows to the Lunuganwehera reservoir of reservoirs, canals, and rainfall in the providing the main source of water in addition to catchment area. They are highly dependent on rainfall. The water is put to a beneficial use­ each other to obtain adequate water with good drinking water for people, crop consumptive use, quality. The allocation rules, the means of and habitat for fish. As a result of the diversion distributing water, and the designs for to the use, the water either depletes from the improvement require a better understanding of subbasin, or returns to the subbasin, where there the present water use pattern. To understand the is a chance that it gets used again. There is water use pattern in Kirindi Oya, a water considerable reuse of return flows in the area, accounting procedure is used (Molden 1997). especially within the irrigation sector. For This procedure quantifies the different uses of example, return flows from the new area are water and gives a better understanding of the readily recaptured by the tanks in the old areas relative quantities used by different sectors. It and again diverted for agricultural use. also gives an indication of the performance of It is useful to study water at three levels: subbasin water management. macro or subbasin, mezzo or service, and micro 6 or use level. A macro point of view gives an together with rainfall provides water for crop understanding of the overall water resource growth. Within the irrigation service area, two main availability. At a finer level of detail, studying interest groups can be distinguished: the new irrigation services gives us an indication of how irrigated area, which can be further classified as well water is being managed. When considering the RB and the LB, and the old irrigated area. the use level, we get a better picture of how Most of the supply of the new area is served by farmers irrigate fields, or how households use the water remaining after supplying the old area. water. It is estimated that there are about 300-400 agro-wells in the area, providing supplementary water for cultivating other field crops (OFCs) and Water Services and Uses to a lesser extent, paddy. Traditionally, rice is grown in the maha and In the Kirindi Oya subbasin, two water services the yala seasons if water is available. New are distinguished: irrigation service and domestic improved varieties of rice are cultivated in service. The domestic service provides treated majority of the area. The rice is broadcast. The and piped drinking water to some of the most important OFCs cultivated in the system inhabitants in the area. The irrigation service are chili, onion, green gram, cow pea, groundnut, mainly intends to meet the needs of crops, but it and vegetables like brinjal. snakegourd, and also provides domestic water. The paths of water tomato. Over the last few years, banana flow in the study area are shown in annex 1. cultivation has been more popular with bananas planted in paddy fields and areas closer to canals or other water sources. The average area Irrigation Service cultivated with paddy and OFCs and their yields Irrigated field crop production are given in table 1. The sources of water for the irrigation service are the water releases from Lunuganwehera that, TABLE 1. Area cultivated with paddy and OFCs in the Kirindi Oya irrigation system (average from maha 1990 to yala 1997). Irrigable area Maha (average) Yala (average) Area cultivated with paddy........ald area (ha) 4,200 4,092 3,415 Area cultivated with paddy-new area (hal 5,400 3,703 1,694 Total area cultivated with paddy (ha) 9,600 7,795 5,109 Paddy yield (mtlha) 4.22 4.38 Area cultivated with OFCs (ha) 1,240 881 Total area cultivated in Kirindi Oya Scheme (ha) 9,600 9,035 5,990 Area cultivated in Badagiriya Scheme (ha) 850 665 333 Total area cultivated in KOISP and Badagiriya Scheme (ha) 10,450 9,700 6,323 Sources: Irrigation Department, Department of Agriculture, Irrigation Management Division and Agrarian Services Centers. 7 Domestic use down during the dry months (April-September) In dry periods when there is no cultivation, the ID when fish get concentrated in the shallow water issues water for 48 hours once in every two and are easier to catch. There are no scheduled weeks to the LB and the RB to provide water for water diversions for fisheries. Only the dead washing and bathing purposes. In 1995-1996, 1.4 storage or the balance remaining after the MCM was supplied through canals for this irrigation reqUirements are met can be used as purpose, while in the dry year (1996-1997), 11 habitat for fish. MCM was supplied. A second source of water for domestic use, supplied indirectly by the irrigation Forest, scrubs and grasses, and chena service, is well water. Approximately, 2,800 Within the study area, there is a Significant area homestead wells for domestic purposes are covered with natural vegetation, homesteads, and mainly located in the old area. These wells are chena (slash and burn) cultivation. These land recharged by water issued to the irrigated fields use types benefit from the increase of soil and rainfall. moisture and groundwater levels due to percolation and seepage from paddy fields and Livestock canals. Much of this use can be considered The main water sources for livestock to drink and beneficial, because the people use the wood as bathe are smaWtanks that obtain their water from fuel for cooking, the forest conserves the land, rainfall and the irrigation service. In the dry and the grasses and scrubs are used for grazing periods, these water sources dry up, and the of cattle. animals are brought back to the KOISP area mainly to meet their requirements of water from Domestic Service the major tanks in the area and for grazing on paddy stubble. Currently, it is estimated that In 1997, about 95 percent of the population of there are over 50,000 cattle and buffaloes, 3,000 the new area and 48 percent of the population in goats, and 5,000 poultry in the area. Average the old area had access to piped water milk yields are low, between 1-2 liters/day/animal. (household survey 1997). This water is treated The highest yields are obtained during the wet and comes from different sources as shown in months when food and fodder are available. table 2. In 1996, about 1 MCM of piped water There are no specific water sources or scheduled was supplied. diversions for livestock. Domestic and stand post connections use As a consequence of the milk-based curd about 75 percent of the total supply. The industry, there are also a lot of small curd pot construction and industry sector consumes 0.1 making enterprises. Mud from the tank beds is percent, tourist hotels 0.05 percent, the used to make these pots used for holding curd. commercial sector 4.6 percent, religious Bricks are also made from tank bed mud. institutions 3.2 percent, and the government institutions including schools and hospitals 17 Fisheries percent. Inland fishing is undertaken in almost all the The National Water Supply and Drainage major tanks and in the Lunuganwehera reservoir. Board (NWS&DB) estimated the total annual Depending on the availability, fingerlings are demand for domestic water at 1.7 MCM. The introduced once a year or once a season. domestic water service provides about 1 MCM of Fingerlings are produced in the fish farms of the the demand. The remaining 0.7 MCM is met by Department of Fisheries or the NGOs. Fish catch the irrigation service either directly when canal is high when the water levels in the tanks go water is issued, or indirectly when it is pumped 8 TABLE 2. Piped water supply schemes in the study area. Scheme Source Supply area Treatment Amount supplied in 1996 (x1000 mal year) Lunuganwehera Lunuganwehera New area, Badagiriya Erosion + sand reservoir scheme filtration + chlorination 570' Tissamaharamal Kirindi Oya Tissamaharamai Debera Wewa Debera towns Chlorination 247 Kirinda Groundwater Kirinda area Chlorination 154 Total 971 'Not all of this goes to the piped water supply system. Project bowsers supply 19 percent of the people in the new area. This water comes from the Lunuganwehera drinking water supply scheme. Source: (National Water Supply and Drainage Board). from wells. Especially people in the old area rely should be further studied to understand how much more on wells for their domestic water uses. water should be committed to the area to sustain About 50 percent of the population in the old the park and how much of drainage outflow can be area use well water as their main source of allowed. drinking water compared to 5 percent of the population in the new area (household survey 1997). Water Accounting Chena Cultivation For water accounting, a water balance is constructed that considers inflows and outflows Within the subbasin, the practice of chena or from an identified domain of interest, specifying shifting cultivation exists on 3,700 hectares. spatial and temporal boundaries. For this study, Chena cultivation relies almost entirely on rain, the Lunuganwehera reservoir is the Northern and does not benefit from the irrigation or the boundary (the reservoir itself is not included in domestic services. the study) and the other boundaries coincide with the Kirindi Oya river basin boundaries. Some Environmental Uses definitions required for the analysis are given in box 1. The wetland system of the Bundala National The accounting categories are derived from a Park receives drainage flows from the KOISP. water balance for the study period. Any change Water outflow from tracts 5, 6, and 7 drains into in the groundwater or the surface water storage the Bundala Park and may affect the ecosystem is equal to the volume of rainfall plus (see figure 1). A proper analysis of the situation Lunuganwehera reservoir releases minus the would require further water accounting studies for . sum of evaporation and surface water outflows. the adjacent river basins. At this moment there As is commonly the case, this amount of data are no regulations about the amount of water to was not available, and estimates had to be be drained into the Bundala National Park. The made. The change in storage over a one-year minimum or the maximum amount of water time period was assumed to be negligible. required to sustain the ecosystem of the park Rainfall and reservoir releases were measured. 9 BOX 1. Water accounting categories. <;···.·.·.··~~~Q·~~;;ot;ternovifOffiai~f.from a.wat~t~iri·~<r.~~~twavailibl&•.iQl'~i~::; U&I~PlijtJ~~ij:.~:;. . . .• •. . .} ./<·2:"·\~".<>~.A .................> ........... ·.+'<2~ .~~. teila~~P<xi~~p!Qs . 9f~~SS dePI~ti()ft~.r$·e~anspi~ti~rl··Qf·.pr(),$wttft/w~r#efivere(jtiJ •.·•·• the.rrlgatiOI'\S$~.·~.d~iletion()fdomesltQwC!lferproVidedbythetforn_iC}"rvrC$~ . " _' ~ "'''' _ /" N" ""_ _ __ ' , , ' ,_ _ ',' ____ ", ",', _,' ," _ _" " _ ~ _ _ ,','­ . .Non-pi~ . d~PJ9uon.··(N~};• •·W~t$r~4e~tlted,. but••notby•.the·.•proceSs ..•••was·•.ln1e~•. fbt.• Th,$.·i befUJth6i'.dMsified..• as.. beneflOl~rl(){l.,prOC&$$~epJ~ij()nor'·~?n;be~efiC~I.•non-process.·depletfOn.E» .C!lrnpl~~fnon*processdepl,ti~.areevapo~at!p~·.~(olll.• ~e~ • at'I.d.SON9s•.. evaporatiOn 'fro~Jtfalf9w ---:- ano Jamfst-",:, . -:-- ':',',evaporation,,: ofwatertijat , ---- .;. --- ''; -: ---- '- . : ',' '.' ~ ·was••·delivered.bYimgatronSEIrvicesfordomeSticuses. - - -' --- . - .>,< :. : ' "" '. : .:: -",'"- "," ,':',., . ,,' --':-, ' '-': '_.' " ,-.::- ," " / .·i.~~tit1.W'8leJ'.(f$J! • ThatPC!lrt·ot••ttW·•. inntJw••U1at.iS'.·Comll1i~.~.·~• •9~~~~¥.• Ao.• e.le·..i$.!I~r·Com; •. ·• ··fJ.eatQQthel'lJSe.·Olrt$fde thElrlvetbaSln.or water'con1p1ittedtQd()Wn~$)vil'ql1rttental~ suCh··· ';piag®n$, . '. . ' . ...... . .. . . . ~lIt6p.oIJtfIiNf.~G);~.",at~c~trs .neither..depleteQ.;noJ',,¢Onlrhltt~d..~dtblls·.·avairaqie.·fl?r.p!.·Withifi ·aibaSinorforexpott,olo~~r~ns..Dutflows·outduEJ.toJacKofstQ~~.o1'o~rationalmQ8Sijfe$.Th$ ·l.Incommittedolitflow at.thEl . ~bba~in Jevel is the .~aterthat flotNsout .oftnaJ(irindfaya lntOlhEtocean, Nondep/tJtive .U$9 (NQ)fAfJseofW~er thatc;foesnotcause any depletion. FisheriesJ$QnQl'ldepletiveuse Otwatef'unlessth$JeserVoirSo.r Channels are kept at a minimum leveltokeep the fishaliv8. Water is evaporated from crops, trees and be recognized that there is a potentially large shrubs, bare soils, and free water surfaces. source of error in the estimation of evaporation Standard methods (FAO 1992) were used to obtain from trees and shrubs, and thus there is a large crop evapotranspiration. Evaporation of bare soils degree of uncertainty around the drainage beyond the amount included in evapotranspiration outflow estimation. Measurements of drainage was assumed negligible. Free water surface outflow started in October 1997 and will be evaporation was estimated by pan available in the future. measurements. The water balance is made for 12 months, This leaves two major unknowns; evaporation starting in the yala season (April) and ending at from trees and drainage outflows. As a rough the end of the maha season (March). The years estimation, a study from Huruluwewa, also in the of 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 were considered dry zone of Sri Lanka (Munasinghe and Somasiri in this study. Average rainfall in 1995-1996 was 1992) was used as an estimate of evaporation 1,142 mm and in 1996-1997, only 709 mm from trees and shrubs. The estimates of (average rainfall over the last 50 years was evaporation from trees, shrubs, and homesteads 1,025 mm). In 1995-1996, the total inflow from in the dry year were reduced from the wet year rain and the reservoir releases was 607 MCM by taking into consideration the amount of rainfall (figure 2). Process consumption by irrigated available (Sakthivadivel, Molden, and De Fraiture, crops was 98 MCM and for domestic and forthcoming). Finally, drainage outflows were industrial uses 2 MCM (table 3). Beneficial non­ estimated by closing the water balance. It should process depletion includes evaporation from 10 FIGURE 2. Water accounting for Kirindi Oya subbasin, 1995-1996 and 1998-1997. -I Process (138) Process (78) Reservoir Releases (305) il &:1 Reservoir Releases (168) . +. . . Rainfall (302) Rainfall (188) 1995-1996 1996-1997 trees, shrubs, and homesteads (149 MCM), and A water accounting classification and domestic consumption from well water (1 MCM). quantification for the Kirindi Oya subbasin is Well water is considered a non-process use of shown in table 3. Each water use is classified as the irrigation service because the water was process depletion, beneficial non-process unintentionally derived from the irrigation system. depletion and non-beneficial non-process Non-beneficial, non-process depletion is ET from depletion, non-depletive uses, committed, or fallow land and water surface (23 MCM). The uncommitted water. outflow to RB tracts 5, 6, and 7 and the Badagiriya tank is considered as committed water (78 MCM). Finally, the outflow of water to Discussion the ocean, which during this year was estimated at 219 MCM is considered as uncommitted water The results of the water balance should only be and thus available for a use within the basin or considered as an indication of the order of for export to other basins. magnitude of the different water accounting For 1995-1996, the depleted fraction (OF), processes in the Kirindi Oya subbasin as many i.e., the amount depleted divided by the total water balance data are based on rough inflow, was 0.51. This indicates that 51 percent of estimates or assumptions. In particular, data are the water entering the area is depleted. The missing for drainage outflow, ET from the forest, process fraction of depleted water, defined as the and scrubs and chen a, and could only be roughly process depletion divided by total depletion, is approximated. However, often first order 0.45. This indicates that only 45 percent of the estimates provide the basis for more in-depth amount of water that was depleted went to analysis that provides important clues on intended processes and this shows scope for increasing water productivity (Molden 1997), At considerable water savings. Most of these the end of 1997, IIMI started measuring drainage savings could be obtained by decreasing outflows and at this moment a study is going on drainage outflow to the ocean. to calculate the ET of different types of land use 11 TABLE 3. Classification and quantification of the water uses served by the irrigation and domestic service in the Kirindi Oya subbasin in MCM for 1995-1996 and 1996-1997. Year 1995-1996 1996-1997 Unit MCM MCM Inflow Precipitation 302 188 Reservoir water issues 305 168 Gross inflow 607 356 Process depletion Irrigation service ET paddy (irrigated) 96 45 Irrigation service ET OFC (irrigated) 2 7 Irrigation service Domestic use (canal water) Domestic service Domestic use (piped water) Rainfall ET chena 38 24 Total 138 78 Beneficial non-process depletion Met indirectly through irrigation service and rainfall Domestic use (wells) ET forest 28 19 ET scrub/grassland 96 60 ET homestead 24 15 Total 149 95 Non-beneficial, non- process ET fallow land 4 9 depletion ET water surface 19 12 Total 23 21 Non-depletive uses Livestock Fishing Committed Badagiriya tank RB tracts 5,6, and 7 77 35 Total 78 36 Uncommitted Drainal19 outflow 219 126 in the area using remotely sensed imagery. In the should be a consideration in the management of future, the water balance can be updated and the area. adjusted with more accurate data. By far, the major user and consumer of water It is important to notice the order of is irrigated agriculture. Except for a relatively dry magnitude of the drainage outflow. The Kirindi year as 1996-1997, water diverted and depleted Oya system is known as a water-short system, by domestic and industrial uses is very small in but in a relatively wet year like 1995-1996, a lot comparison to the quantities used by crops. of water is flowing to the ocean without being Certain important uses such as fisheries and reused. In contrast, 1996-1997 was a relatively livestock deplete only a minimum amount of dry year. There was no cultivation during the water, but add an important economic value. It yala season and only little cultivation during the would appear that at least on an annual basis, maha season in the new area. During this dry there is no shortage of water supplies, and year, it appeared that only a small amount of hence there is a large scope to improve irrigation water was drained. The variability of water supply services to obtain more crop consumptive use. 12 4. Water Quality Issues Although the quantity of water for domestic use is average EC of the wells was 2.1 miliiSiemens per a small proportion of the total water depleted in an centimeter (mS/cm) with a standard deviation of 1 irrigated area, the quality requirements for 1.8 mS/cm. Further, household interviews on domestic water use are considered to be higher water quality perceptions were carried out among than the irrigation water quality requirements. the households using the 85 wells for domestic Satisfying the irrigation water quality requirements purposes. Of the 10 parameters in table 4, only does not mean satisfying the domestic and the the first four are discussed in the following environmental water quality requirements. For sections. example, nutrient-rich water benefits irrigated agriculture, but it is a concern for domestic use because of the possible negative health effects of Irrigation high nitrogen, phosphorus, and bacterial content. The availability and quality of shallow During most of the year, evaporation is higher than groundwater in Kirindi Oya is influenced by precipitation, which may cause salinity problems if irrigation water supply. The groundwater is excess salts are not leached out of the plant root recharged with water from the fields, tanks, and zone. In fact, a salinity problem was reported in canals as seepage water in addition to the direct the RB command area after the construction of percolation of precipitation. During this process, the Lunuganwehera reservoir, which resulted in a soil minerals and other chemicals get dissolved in reduction of rice production (IIMI 1995a). A the water. Many shallow wells are constructed salinity-affected area of approximately 200 adjacent to the field canals and rivers because hectares is also recorded in the lower parts of the water tables in those locations are expected to be command area, caused by improper drainage, high. The water table depth is often less than 1m, which resulted in the accumulation of salts. but fluctuates greatly depending on the time of the The quality of water in the reservoir, tanks, year. and the main canals when used for irrigation In September 1997, the water quality of the purposes falls into the Class 2 category (tables 4 Lunuganwehera reservoir, 6 major tanks, the and 5). This means that there is a moderate Embilikala lagoon, 2 sites in the Kirindi Oya river, salinity hazard and the water can be used for 2 main drainage canals, and 8 dug wells in the irrigation with moderate leaching for most crops. study area was measured for 10 selected The lowest EC value 0.33 mS/cm was observed parameters. The water quality analysis followed in the Lunuganwehera reservoir. The EC of the the sampling procedure and analysis methods downstream tanks was higher than that in the recommended by the Laboratory Service of the upstream tanks, indicating an entry of elements NWS&DB. Table 4 shows the results of the along the watercourses. measurements. Additionally, the electrical conductivity (EC) of 85 shallow wells was measured during late December 1997 to early Domestic Use January 1998 using a portable conductivity meter. The EC is commonly used to estimate the soluble Besides the water quality measurements for salt content in solution, in this case water. The irrigation, table 4 also shows the drinking water 'Minimum EC measured was 0.2 mS/cm and the maximum, 10.4 mS/cm; skewness of the measurements was 2.4 mS/cm, and the median was 1.5 mS/cm. 13 quality standards for Sri Lanka. For all sources, measurements in table 4, TOS can be calculated color exceeded the maximum desired levels, applying the formula: especially for surface water. Color is known to be TDS (mgJI) = 640 x EC (mSlem) (Tanji 1996). This an important criterion on which people base the results in a TOS of 1,459 mg/l for shallow wells, choice of their drinking water source (WHO 1984). 448 mgll for irrigation water, and 570 mg/l for The shallow ground water, Kirindi Oya river, Kirindi Oya water. Therefore, as far as TOS is and drainage water had high levels of hardness concerned, well water is unsuitable for drinking, and alkalinity. Like the Kirindi Oya river, drainage while the irrigation water and river water are water exceeded the maximum desirable levels of suitable. The EC measurements and household alkalinity and hardness (see table 4). The high interviews showed that 22 percent of the 85 level of hardness can result in scale deposition, shallow wells were not preferred for drinking, and particularly when heating the water, and can lead 40 percent of the wells used for drinking had a to an increased incidence of urolithiasis (kidney saline taste. stones) (WHO 1984 and 1993). It was reported Even though the results of the measurements that the people have sticky hair when well water is indicate that surface water is better for drinking used for bathing. Prevalence of urolithiasis in than groundwater in terms of chemical quality, goats in the area has been reported. surface water is more likely to be contaminated Water is not suitable for drinking when it has total with fecal material. There is a concern of dissolved solids (TOS) of more than 1,000 mg/l increasing public health risks due to the usage of (WHO 1993). A TOS below 600 mg/l is considered untreated tank water (CEA 1994). People use the to be good drinking water while water becomes tanks and canals for bathing and washing clothes, increasingly unpalatable when the concentration is while livestock also use them for drinking and greater than 1,200 mgtl. Based on the EC bathing. TABLE 4. Water quality measurements and standards in the Kirindi Oya System (September 1997). Water quality in the Kirindi Oya system Drinking water quality standards of Sri Lanka Measurement Units Irrigation Kirindi Drainage Shallow Embilikala Maximum Maximum water Oya well lagoon desirable permissible water level level Electrical mS/cm 0.70 0.89 1.67 2.28 1.80 0.75 3.5 Conductivi!y~~_ Color TCU· 7.7 7.5 7.6 7.5 8.0 5 30 . AlkCilir1ity(as CaCoJ mgll 211.3 338.0 265.0 497.1 190.0 200 400 Hardness.(l'ls CaCos) mgll 192.3 240.0 400.0 650.3 450.0 250 600 Temperl'lture C 29.6 30.0 33.1 29.0 33.0 Nitra~e:jCls.N2 ... . ~ ... f!1~ 0.56 0.70 0.75 0.43 0.50 10 ~!~t~JCl~~L 0.13 0.01 0.12 0.Q1 0.06 0.1 .. f'~os.p'~atejl'l~PQ4L 0.23 0.15 0.38 0.17 2.0 ~~Iphate(as S(),) .f!1QII 36.3 50.0 45.0 72.1 NA 200 400 Chloride 93.5 78.0 320.0 416.9 380.0 200 1200 *True Color Units (WHO 1984). 14 TABLE 5. Classification of irrigation water salinity. Class EC (mS/cm) TDS in PPM Characteristics C1 0.1-0.25 60-160 Low salinity hazard; water can be used f()r most crops on most soils. C2 0.25-Q.75 16()'-480 Moderate salinity hazard; water can be used with moderate leaching for most crops. C3 0.75-2.25 480-1,440 Medium-high salinity hazard; water for use on soils with moderate good salt tolerance, leaching is required. • " n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , , " " " ' ' ' ' ' , ••.•.••• C4 2.25-4.00 1,440-2,560 High salinity hazard; water for use on well-permeable soils with salt ._... _.~~.~ __..~ ..t.o~lerant cr()p~!~~~aL!e~~hinj;!!~q.u.~!'1€l'2t~._rrl~.st ....be m ......•.___................... ..............e._.t. C5 4.00-6.00 2,560-3,840 Very high salinity hazard; water generally undesirable for irrigation; to be used only on highly permeable soils with frequent leaching and with highlysoil-tolerant crops ... C6 Above 6 Above 3,840 Excessive salinity hazard; water unsuitable for irrigation unless under conditions. Source: International Land Development Consultants (ILACO) 1981. Environment the Lunuganwehera reservoir, in addition to the drainage water from the RB tracts. The Kirindi Oya irrigation system includes the The Bundala National Park is located Weerawila-Tissa Wildlife Sanctuary which contains downstream of the Kirindi Oya scheme. It covers 4 tanks with a total surface area of 1,590 6,216 hectares and encloses 5 brackish lagoons of hectares. The tanks are defined as wetland and 2,250 hectares (CEA 1993). The drainage water recognized as a refuge for ducks and waterbirds. from the RB tracts 5, 6, and 7 and the Badagiriya The CEA (1994) reported possible effects of Irrigation Scheme flows into Embilikala and Malala changes in water levels in the tanks and water lagoons, respectively. Over the past years, it has quality on the ecology and wildlife of the become clear that the ecosystem of those two sanctuary as follows: lagoons has been severely affected by the drainage water coming from the Kirindi Oya scheme. Natural Negative impact on fish population and fluctuations in salinity levels have disappeared and diversity caused by reduced water levels, the two lagoons have become freshwater lakes. especially in the yala season. The change in salinity levels influences the Negative impact of extreme water levels on population of water birds as it affects the quality resident and migratory birds, when tanks are and quantity of their food supply (CEA 1993). Prawn dry or when the water level is too high for farming requires brackish water conditions and waders, dabbling birds, etc. previously it sustained several hundred families, Risk of eutrophication of tanks resulting from but it has now almost disappeared from the area. dung and urine from livestock, discharge of Eutrophication is also a problem in the lagoons. domestic effluents, and fertilizer runoff. Water has a greenish color due to the accumUlation of nutrients and increase in green algae. This might There is no doubt that the quantity and quality be caused by overgrazing with direct deposit of of water in the sanctuary are greatly influenced by animal feces in surface water as well as high irrigation and human activities within the Kirindi fertilizer runoff from the irrigated area. On the other Oya scheme as the hydrology of the sanctuary is hand, an increase of drainage flow may benefit the directly related to the irrigation management. The other wildlife and livestock in the national park as tanks receive water through the LB main canal of more fresh water becomes available. 15 5. The Institutional Environment The Government of Sri Lanka claims legal Water Rights and Institutions in Kirindi ownership of all surface water and does not Oya recognize any system of individual or group water rights. Water use rights are allocated to land in The KOISP falls within the Southern Province, but designated irrigated areas through a process of the main reservoir and the catchment area are seasonal planning or allocation (Brewer, within the Uva Province. Therefore, the Central forthcoming). The Irrigation Ordinance defines Government has legislative and executive powers mechanisms for seasonal water allocations but over the entire system. The Kirindi Oya river basin adds that all decisions are subject to review and falls within 3 districts and 7 divisions while the change by the government. The final authority is KOISP falls within 2 districts and 4 divisions. the Minister in charge of irrigation (IIMI 1995b). In addition to these administrative jurisdictions, The negotiation processes for water are influenced there is a Project Management Committee (PMC) by the structure of the government and the user that coordinates the activities of various organizations. Even within the government, government agencies related to irrigated different agencies' regulations (or the interpretation agriculture and makes decisions for seasonal of different officials within an agency) may vary. water allocation. Another complication with the definition of water rights is the overlap of various hydrologic Field Crop Production units and administrative boundaries (Hoogendam 1995). Water rights tied to irrigated land constitute one of There is no comprehensive water resources the most widely recognized forms of water rights policy, but several institutions at different levels in Sri Lanka, particularly in Kirindi Oya. Generally, formulate water policies relating to their respective farmers in the old area own their homesteads and sectors (e.g., Irrigation Department and irrigated land, while settlers in the new area have 2 NWS&DB). Until April 1996, there was no been allotted management and use rights by the institutional mechanism to coordinate the activities government. Alienation rights to land for settlers of these institutions, so that there were are limited: they cannot legally sell or lease it, and considerable duplications of efforts. In April 1996, while it can be inherited by a successor the establishment of a Water Resources Council nominated by the original allottee, the land cannot was officially approved. This council is be subdivided between heirs (Stanbury 1989). coordinating the implementation of the action plan In developing the KOISP, the government for comprehensive water resources management. recognized the seniority of the existing water The Water Resources Council is only an advisory rights of farmers in the old area. Those farmers body and is part of a temporary arrangement were assured that their water use would not be aimed at coordinating activities in the water reduced by the project, and in fact, they were able sector, including the formulation of water to increase their cropping intensity due to more resources policies and legislation. reliable water supplies from the new reservoir. 'The lollowing analysis 01 rights uses a hierarchy 01 bundles 01 rights identilied by Schlager and Ostrom (1992) : access and withdrawal (use rights). management, exclusion, and alienation (control rights). 16 TABLE 6. Water allocation pattern in the Kirindi Oya Irrigation System. Area Maha season (wet season) Yala season (dry season) Old area Enough water to cultivate 100% command Enough water to CUltivate 70% command area with area with paddy. paddy. New area 213 command area with paddy; others are Areas that did not get water for paddy during Maha encouraged to plant OFC. If there is have priority. sufficient rainfall they can cultivate a late paddy crop. Source: Brewer. forthcoming. Based on this guarantee, the lands in the old area meetings. In developing the plans it is assisted by were given priority for water, even if it meant that the SPCs for Ellagala, new area LB, new area RB, the new area did not get any water. The general and Badagiriya. The seasonal planning is flexible basis for water allocation to the old and the new in the sense that it adjusts water allocation to areas is given in table 6. water availability. Until 1991, allocation decisions Since 1978, various experiments giving were made by the officials without direct input greater responsibilities to farmers in irrigation from the farmers. The seasonal decisions made management were carried out in Sri Lanka (Brewer by the PMC were more acceptable since the 1994). Kirindi Oya was brought under the farmers had some input. The PMC authority was Integrated Management of Major Irrigation also accepted by the government officials Systems (INMAS) program in 1986. In the KOISP, because of the govemment's participatory this program included the creation of 690 Field management policy. Channel Groups, 59 Distributary Channel Water distribution-the delivery of water to Organizations (FCGs and DCOs), 4 Sub-Project execute the water allocation plan-is the Committees (SPCs), and 1 PMC. The Farmer responsibility of the 10 at the reservoir and the Organizations (FOs) were created to assist the main canal levels. and the responsibility of FOs management of the irrigation system, while the below the distributary level. In addition to water Project Committees (SPCs and PMC) give distribution. the FOs are responsible for farmers a voice in allocation decisions. maintenance of the distributary and field channels. The PMC is the main organization involved in If they wish to, the FOs can take on other water allocation in Kirindi Oya. This is a joint functions. Their performance in maintenance government-user group entity composed of farmer seems to be satisfactory and, clearly, they have representatives from various parts of the system helped improve water distribution, at least at the along with representatives from a range of field channel level (IIMI 1995a). Above that level, government agencies (e.g., Irrigation Department, most FOs are weak and do not playa significant Department of Agriculture. and Department of role in system operation. The FOs in the new area Agrarian Services). In addition to water allocation are weak because many farmers do not reside the decisions for irrigation, the PMC attempts to whole year round or lease their lands to others. resolve other problems brought to them, Another problem in the new area is that one FO particularly problems that require the assistance of can include farmers from different hamlets. This one of the govemment agencies. social division hampers the functioning of the FOs The PMC allocates water for agricultural (ibid). purposes by negotiated seasonal planning 17  As individual water users, farmers with land in These organizations are working together with irrigated areas have use and alienation rights to the government agenCies to find alternative water on their fields. Through partiCipation in the grazing for the herds. The leaders try to work with FOs and the PMC, farmers have also acquired the FO leaders to resolve disputes about crop some management rights. The strength of these damage. Even though livestock owners are rights depends on the degree of partiCipation of represented on the PMC, their partiCipation in that the individual farmers in the FOs and on the forum is primarily related to crop damage and strength of farmer representative's voices on the does not involve water management decisions, PMC. Nevertheless, farmers' interests in water for and therefore they are not granted management field (especially paddy) crop production are better rights. represented than any other type of use in water allocation decisions. Fisheries There are a variety of government, NGO, and user Garden Crop Production organizations involved in fisheries, but there is no There is no recognized water right for homestead coherent policy towards water use for fishing. gardens. On the contrary, taking water from either There are Fisheries Cooperative Societies (FCS) the irrigation canals or the piped water supply for for each tank and reservoir, and tank fishing rights gardens is prohibited (NWS&DB 1997a). Taking are legally restricted to these cooperatives groundwater from private wells, however, is not (Steele, Konradsen, and Imbulana 1997). regulated and the development of agro-wells is Government assistance to fishermen is channeled even promoted by the Agricultural Development through the cooperatives, that are responsible for Authority. Informally, a certain amount of watering checking whether the fishermen stick to the rules gardens from canals or domestic supply systems (e.g., size of holes in the nets). Access rights to may be tolerated, and runoff or wastewater from water and the right to withdraw fish are regulated domestic use is certainly applied to gardens. through the FCSs to their members. Because However, garden production is treated as an fishermen do not have a voice on the PMC for individual use, and there is no user group to regulating water levels, they do not have represent these interests. management rights over water. However, the fishermen do not seem to make an issue of this because most have agricultural land. They Livestock consider fishing as a secondary activity, a Water is not especially issued for livestock uses subsidiary use of water, while the first and most like drinking and bathing. The water use rights of important activity is agriculture. livestock are informal and not clearly defined. The fact that customary lands for cattle grazing and Domestic watering places were not recognized in the development of the Kirindi Oya system indicates Although the ID was nominally responsible for the relatively weak water rights for livestock. This construction of the domestic water supply increased the contact between herds and fields, scheme, responsibilities were surrendered to the which causes crop damage and conflict between NWS&DB, and it continues to be responsible for livestock and crop production. To solve this the piped water supply system (IIMI 1995a). When problem, three Cattle Owners' Farmer there is no irrigation, the ID supplies water in the Organizations (COFOs) were formed in 1991. canals once in 14 days for domestic purposes. 18  A certain amount of the Lunuganwehera The formal rules grant members of the reservoir water is set aside for the NWS&DB to standpipe committees limited use rights, and provide water for the piped water supply system. rights (which they mayor may not exercise) to When the water is above the dead storage level, exclude other users, or users who do not pay. Le., 45.5 meters above the mean sea level (MSL), However, the rules are specified by the NWS&DB, 3 the NWS&DB has a water right to extract 5,000m so that users have no formal management rights. of water per day. When the water level is at or Informally, however, each group decides what below 47.5 meter above MSL, only the NWS&DB uses will be tolerated or even considered has the right to pump water from the legitimate, so there are some de facto Lunuganwehera reservoir. Further, a water right to management rights. Those who draw their 3 abstract 600m from two tube wells at Kirinda is domestic supplies from sources other than the granted to the NWS&DB to supply the old area. NWS&DB system have acknowledged rights to The NWS&DB also has a right to abstract water water through reservoir releases even when there from Tissa Wewa to provide water for domestic is no irrigation. Beyond this, there is much less purposes. During the 1992 yala season, water regulation of use. issues from the reservoir for irrigation were even stopped in early July to protect the domestic Other water supply (Brewer, forthcoming). This is an indication of the priority given to the domestic No special water rights and allocation are recorded water supply. It is noteworthy that the NWS&DB is for recreation, wildlife, and the environment. The not represented on the PMC. Air Force has a water right of 2,OOOm3 per month On the users' side, standpipe committees of from the NWS&DB. As far as industrial water use approximately 15-20 households are established is concerned, there is one garment factory in under the supervision of the NWS&DB to manage Kirindi Oya, which has a water right for 1,300m3 stand posts for piped water supply. These per month from the NWS&DB. According to the associations are informal, Le., no authority is 10, a number of hotels have requested water, but vested in them under the existing legislation, have been denied permission to take water from although they are responsible for collecting user tanks and other surface sources. They therefore charges from the households who make use of turn to groundwater abstraction, which is regulated the standposts. User charge for one household is less (although the 10 notes that this water Rs 11 per month. It is also the responsibility of ultimately comes from the irrigation system). the members of the standpipe committee to Hotels have also turned to groundwater because safeguard the water stand, and the committee is the NWS&DB charges for hotels (Rs 271m3) have liable for the misuse of water by the standpipe tripled since 1984, and are considerably above the users. If the users do not stick to the rules and charges for household use, schools, and religious regulations set by the NWS&DB, the water is institutions (NWS&DB 1997b). Water is not disconnected and a reconnection fee of Rs 250 allocated to small-scale enterprises like curd pot has to be paid by the committee (NWS&DB making and brick making. People make use of the 1997a). Although the NWS&DB does not allow for available water, which has been allocated for other uses other uses than drinking (ibid), the water purposes like irrigation and drinking. No user from standpipes serves a variety of uses e.g., groups were encountered representing the water bathing, laundering, and brick making. The users interests of industrial or micro-enterprise water allow each other to use standpipe water for these users. kinds of purposes because there is no other water source nearby. 19 Institutional Structure for Multiple Water reflecting the autonomous (and sometimes even Use atomized) production. While wildlife does not have a user organization, the interests of wildlife are Many of the use and management rights of represented, to some extent, by the environmental different categories of water users are negotiated NGOs, both national and international. However, and mediated by a range of formal and informal these do not make their presence felt at the local organizations. Table 7 gives an overview of the level. There is a district-level Bundala Wetland range of organizations found in Kirindi Oya that Management Committee (BWMC) that includes relate to a type of water use. representatives from government agencies (e.g., In many cases, there are parallel government Department of Wildlife Conservation, Irrigation agencies and user groups for each type of water Department) as well as from user groups (e.g., use. In some cases, there are even multiple salt farm). Although user groups' representatives government departments related to a type of water are included on this committee, it does not use. However, effective coordination among provide a forum to deal with problems related to departments is very difficult. In Sri Lanka, multiple uses of water because it is not on the government organizations are strongly hierarchical irrigation system level. There is no linkage with clear lines of authority. Officers are generally between the BWMC and the PMC, nor is the not rewarded for the effort put to coordinate with Department of Wild Life Conservation represented other departments and are sometimes punished on the PMC. for it (11M I 1995a). The negotiations over water allocation between We were not able to identify any user group different uses take place not only among user representing homestead gardens, perhaps groups, or between user groups and the TABLE 7. Government agencies and user groups representing different types of water uses. Type of water use Government agency Us~r group Field crops Irrigation Department' Farmer Organizations' Irrigation Management Division' (distributary as well as field-channel level) Land Commissioner Department' Agrarian Services Department' Department of Agriculture' Divisional Secretaries' Garden Agricultural Development Authority Not represented -------"--~--'-"--~ ~-----~~------~---"---~--~- ---~-~------~"---.------.----.-------------.--------------_.. __ . Fisheries Aquaculture Development Division of the Fisheries Cooperative Societies of Fisheries Livestock National Livestock Development Board Cattle Owners' Farmer Organizations' __ _-._- Department of Animal Production and Health ....----------_._. ----..... ------ ._-_._._----_.__. .... --_._.- -- --.- .._---._---_ ...._-_.--_._..--_. ---------------­ Domestic National Water Supply and Drainage Board Local standpipe committees Local Government Authorities ----­ --------------- Industryl small-scale National Water Supply and Drainage Board Not represented Local Government Authorities Wildlifel environment Department of Wild Life Conservation National/international NGOs Central Environmental Authority • Represented on the Project Management Committee_ 20 government, but also among government provides a first step in this direction, by including agencies. Of these, the ID is seen as the various government departments as well as farmer strongest, with the greatest control over water representatives from each command area. To releases. For example, the Department of Wildlife resolve disputes due to damage of crops by Conservation has requested changes in water cattle, representatives of COFOs also attend flowing to the Bundala sanctuary to preserve the these meetings. Domestic water allocation issues salinity balance in the wetlands, but it does not can also be raised and considered at these feel it can direct the ID. The ID feels it is meetings, but they do not cover other types of responsive in allocating domestic water from the water use. Seasonal planning meetings might give reservoir, but the NWS&DB does not always think scope for dealing with other types of water uses this is the case. and issues when representatives of relevant user Traditionally, water allocation has been carried groups and agencies can partiCipate. For this to out by the ID under the Irrigation Ordinance. The be effective, representatives of different user recent development with many subsectors groups must not only be included on the PMC, but competing for water stresses the need to create a also have a strong enough voice to raise their own new institutional setup to handle water sector water-related issues. Further coordination, between coordination problems (Rasmussen 1994). This government agencies and user representatives is kind of organizational framework that needed if the Kirindi Oya system is to encompasses all water uses and users is lacking, accommodate the needs of all water users, and even within the government. The PMC and its deal with the potential complementarities as well seasonal planning meetings before every season as trade-offs involved in multiple water use. 6. Household Uses of Water The information presented in this chapter relates random selection was based on the "voter's list" to the findings from the household water use generated for the local elections in Sri Lanka in survey among 156 families in the study area. The 1996. The information collected is believed to be objective of this household survey was to identify representative of the whole Kirindi Oya system but the variety of agricultural and nonagricultural uses the data presented below do not consider of irrigation water. At the same time, an attempt seasonal differences. The survey was carried out was made to assess the importance of irrigation over a 7-month period from May to November water when compared with non irrigation sources. 1997. Quantitative information collected through a questionnaire presented to each household was supplemented with qualitative information collected Methodology from repeated visits to the same households and via informal or formal group discussions in the 10 The surveyed households were located in 10 selected clusters. With regard to questions relating clusters with 5 each in the new and the old areas to the water used in agriculture, the information of the Kirindi Oya system. The households were collected represents the last season when the selected at random from the total number in the fields were cultivated. The qualitative information clusters from the old and the new areas at a fixed was collected to provide more in-depth information percentage of 0.70 and 1.30, respectively. The to explain why a certain source was used and who 21 was the person responsible within the household the reservoir and irrigation tanks. The small for providing labor in relation to a certain water number of families involved in home industries is use activity. In the description given below, the almost equally divided as families dependent on different water sources used by the households for irrigation and non irrigation sources. Of the most various purposes are given with an emphasis on important income-generating activities for the the domestic uses of water. households, only raising livestock and shifting cultivation are dependent on non irrigation sources to any significant extent, mainly rainfall. Close to Household Uses of Water by Sector half the households prefer or are dependent on irrigation water as a source for laundering, bathing, or Irrigation water is defined as water from tanks and recreational uses. But hardly any household makes irrigation or drainage canals. Nonirrigation water use of irrigation water for drinking and cooking. comes from the piped water supply system, homestead wells, the Kirindi Oya River, or rainfall. It should, of course be acknowledged as Water-Related Labor Input for mentioned before, that a large proportion of the Fisheries, Agriculture, and Livestock groundwater used from the homestead wells is in fact, seepage from the irrigated areas. Also, part In the vast· majority of households, a male was of the piped water system has its origin at the the main person responsible for water-related Lunuganwehera reservoir. However, the water no activities in rice farming (86%). In the remaining longer flows via irrigation structures and is in one households it was a shared activity between men way or other treated and possibly pumped. and women. For overall labor input into rice The first priority water source for a range of production, the male members were principally activities is given in table 8. Rice cultivation responsible in 67 percent of the households, with obtains water exclusively through the irrigation the responsibility being shared in the remaining canal system and all inland fisheries take place in households. In homegarden production, a female TABLE 8. The importance of irrigation water as first priority water source in comparison to other sources of water for a variety of uses. Uses Number of Use of different sources ('Yo) respondents Nonirrigation water Irrigation water Irrigated agriculture Rice 93 0 100 Other fieldcr()ps(e'!:l:' onion) ... 17 0 100 Shiftin!:lc:ultivation 30 100' 0 ... '::I0me!:lar~en 54 87' 13 Cattl.e~.. ~~~al~~. I;ln~goat 20 45 55 Inland fisheries 9 0 100 Domestic Laundering. bathing, and recreational 156 96 4 Drinking, cooking, sanitation, and washing utE3~~Hs 156 53 47 Home industries 17 41 59 'Including water from rain faiL 22 member of the household was the main person source some distance away from the house, the responsible for providing irrigation water in 52 males were often involved in fetching water in percent of the households and it was in only 37 large buckets that they transport on bicycles or percent that a male member was the main person tractors. Only two households included in the responsible. However, as indicated in table 8, study mentioned that they purchased water from most of the homegarden production was water vendors. dependent on rainfall and the additional water from irrigation was limited. In 44 percent of the households, the women provided most of the Drinking and Cooking overall labor into homegarden cultivation while only 32 percent of the males provided most of the Respondents stated that they obtained water for labor, with the responsibilities being shared in the drinking and cooking from either a tap (70%) or a rest of the households. Precipitation was the only well (30%) because these sources were perceived source of water for shifting cultivation and as clean. Convenience was another important therefore, there is no gender differentiation in factor as the taps and the wells were generally water-related labor input. In shifting cultivation, the located close to the homes. Some people work is shared almost equally among the preferred using well water because, unlike piped household members but some gender differences water, there was no fee for its use. Some families, are associated with the different tasks. The type especially those living close to the sea, preferred of inland fisheries practiced depended on the tap water because the groundwater is saline. availability of water in the irrigation tanks and the Water for cooking was mainly used by females of households provided no water management or the household (69%). Virtually all members of the water-related labor input. In the case of home household were involved in fetching water. But in industries, the types of production were so diverse 44 percent of the households, women provided that no general conclusions could be drawn. most of the labor to fetch water for drinking and cooking, whereas, men were mainly responsible for this task in only 18 percent of the households. Domestic Uses of Water Only a few families mentioned that they boiled water before drinking, often only for children and A very heavy burden was placed on the sick people. households, where the source of domestic water was distant from the homestead. Clearly, a reliable water supply close to the settlement is a very Washing of Utensils high priority for the community. In some of the households, the time spent fetching domestic The tap was the preferred source of water for water could amount to 'several' hours a day and washing of utensils, (64%) followed by well water an individual from the household sometimes had (30%), and the canal (3%). As in the case of to go to the standpipe as early as 4 or 5 o'clock water for cooking and drinking, these were the in the morning to wait in a queue for water. At preferred sources for reasons of hygiene and times of the year when the homestead well runs convenience. Easy accessibility was given as an dry and water is not available, more time is spent important reason for the use of well water (45%) fetching water in the irrigation canals. Fetching and tap water (30%). For about 20 percent of the water for domestic use was mainly done by households, the tap was the only source available women or children (male and female). However, to wash utensils. Women were primarily where the household is dependent on a water responsible for washing utensils in 70 percent of 23 households and in the rest, the task was recreational purposes were the canals (35%), taps performed by children, men, and in some cases, (31 %), wells (14%), and the river (8%). Fifty-six by "all members" of the household. percent of respondents claimed they used canal water for bathing and recreational purposes at some time and almost a fourth made use of the Laundering tanks at some point in time. In 80 percent of the households, all members were said to be involved Canal water was used by 38 percent of the in fetching water for this purpose. In approximately households for laundering, followed by tap water 10 percent of the households, a female was said (30%), wells (15%), tanks (10%), and the river to be the main provider of the labor input into (7%). Fifty-seven percent of the respondents these activities. The reason to prefer the canal as claimed they used canal water for laundering at the main source of water for bathing and one time or another (as compared to the 38% who recreational use was because of the large used it as their main source). The free availability amounts of water easily available at no cost ("ad of canal water appeared to be the main lib use" 55%, "source is easy to use" 24%, and consideration in the preference displayed in its "close to household" 13%). From the qualitative use (60% of respondents). It also appeared to be information collected from the households, an the reason for the use of tanks (32%) and the additional reason for preference was given as river (33%) for laundering. Convenience was also "water quality." Canal water was perceived as of a a factor, as indicated by one-fourth of the quality ideal for bathing and recreation purposes. respondents who used the river and those who Similar reasons of cost and accessibility were used canals (22%), and tanks (19%). cited as the reasons for tank water use although Respondents stated that these sources were 13 percent of the respondents indicated that they "easy 'to use" probably because there were no used tanks because they were the only available waiting times, nor did users have to fetch the sources. Tap water was used because it was the water in a bucket, and the availability of large only source available (34%), "easy to use" (28%), amounts of water made washing easier. and clean (19%); among its main users, well water Thirty-one percent of those using tap water for was also regarded as "easy to use" (36%) and "a laundering said it was either because no other clean source" (27%). Convenience was cited as source was available or "it is easy to use" (25%) the most important determinant of the use of river (convenience). and finally. because it was clean water (77%), probably because these respondents (16%). Similar reasons were cited for the use of lived close by the Kirindi Oya river. well water. In 65 percent of the households all members Household Cleaning of the household claimed they participated in washing clothes and fetching water. It was not The main source of water used to clean the house clear from the survey as to who was primarily is tap water in 57 percent of the households and responsible for laundering, but the qualitative data well water in 12 percent. Water from canals, indicated that the senior woman in the household tanks, and the river only plays a minor role for has much of the responsibility for this chore. this activity, with around 3 percent of the households indicating one of these sources as the most important. The question of water being used Bathing and Recreational Use of Water for cleaning of the house was answered by 78 The main sources of water used by the percent of the households and only 30 percent households for bathing (personal hygiene) and gave any additional information on labor input or 24 reasons for preference. However, in the Preferred Water Sources in the New households that did respond, this activity seems and the Old Areas to be mainly a female responsibility. Sixty percent of the responding households claimed that this The sources of water available to the households activity is exclusively done by women followed by differed substantially between the old and the new 26 percent of the households stating that this was areas. This affected the selection and prioritization an activity carried out by both the male head of of water sources for different purposes. In the old the household and his spouse. Tap water and well area, wells were more prevalent than taps, while water are used mainly because it is seen as a the reverse was true for the new area. Also, in the clean source and 'easy to use.' old area, tanks and the river were an important source of water for some purposes. A Wilcoxon Sanitation paired sign rank test was conducted for all sources and not just for the first priority source. Tap water was the main source for sanitary uses Water sources, which contributed less than 5 (59%); followed by the wells (28%) and canals, percent of the total water used by the household, tanks, and the river (13%). The majority of the were eliminated. The results are summarized in household members are involved in using and table 9. fetching water for sanitary purposes. Twenty Interestingly, in the new area, tap water is the percent of the households reported that the senior preferred source for all purposes. Wells are also woman in the house was mainly responsible for used for all purposes and there is an equal this activity, probably because she, in addition to preference between wells and canals for her own sanitation, takes care of the children's laundering, bathing, recreation, and sanitation. In needs. Convenience was the main reason cited for the old area, the sources and preferences are the reliance on tap water and well water. Tap water more varied with wells being either preferred or and well water were not used out of quality equal to all other sources. considerations but mainly since this was the water that was brought to the house anyway. TABLE 9. Results of ranking exercise for domestic water uses and sources. Purpose Order of Old area New area Drinking and cooking Well = tap Tap> well Washing of utensils Well > tap Tap> well Laundry Well =canal> tap =tank Tap> well = canal Bathing and recreation Well = canal> tap = tank Tap> well canal Sanitation Well> tap> canal:: tank:: river Tap> well = canal 25 7. Valuing the Multiple Uses of Water Irrigation water is used for many purposes other questionable who should pay for the water. The than irrigating field crops, as is shown in the general consensus is that farmers should pay the previous chapters. The importance and value of operation and maintenance (O&M) costs. However, multiple uses of irrigation water are often the construction of government irrigation schemes underestimated. According to Bhatia (1997), direct and expansion of irrigation has resulted in lower economic benefits to the farmer (from crop output) cereal grain prices. Consumers have been the major reflect only a small proportion of the total benefits beneficiaries. Thus it seems unreasonable to charge to the community of using water in irrigated farmers the cost for construction or rehabilitation. agriculture. An irrigation infrastructure provides In Sri Lanka, farmers enjoy irrigation facilities nonirrigation benefits to other user sectors and that are provided by the government free of ignoring these benefits will result in a serious charge. The government has invested money in underestimation of the benefits available from the construction and maintenance of the irrigation volume of water that is diverted for irrigation. The schemes and it offered free O&M of the schemes valuing of water for multiple uses should ensure in addition to free land to settlers (Upasena and that the full range of values placed on water in Abeygunawardena 1993). In 1984, the government competing uses is observed (Pigram 1997) and imposed an irrigation fee in major irrigation taken into account when water allocation decisions schemes. At first, farmers were to be charged half are being made. of the O&M cost (then estimated Rs 495 per hectare) but the charge would eventually rise to the full cost (Brewer 1994). In 1988, the fee The Value of Water collection scheme collapsed. In turn, full responsibility for resource mobilization and the While talking about valuing the water, it is good to O&M of the field and distributary channels of the distinguish different concepts: water pricing, major irrigation systems was turned over to the economic value of water, and other values of FOs. water. The NWS&DB which supplies part of the domestic water in Kirindi Oya, makes use of quantity-based prices which vary according to the Water Pricing user. For example, religious institutions pay Rs 21 Water pricing (water use fee) is meant to collect m3 and industries pay Rs 251m 3 for water (during money from the users in such a way that all or a the study period US$1.00 = Rs 58.80) (NWS&DB portion of the construction, operation, and 1997b). To discourage the waste of water by maintenance costs of the system are recovered. domestic consumers, the tariff increases Hence, users pay a price to use a certain service. progressively by stages, depending on the amount either the irrigation or the domestic service. There of water consumed. For instance, for the first 10 is, in fact, a considerable debate among m3 Rs 0.60/m3 and for all cubic meters above 50, professionals regarding the amount to charge for Rs 32.50/m3. The NWS&DB (1985) estimated the the use of irrigation. Further, in a multiple user cost of supplying 1 m3 of water in 1995 at Rs 0.95. context this leads to questions of who should pay for the water service: the irrigators, livestock Economic Value of Water owners, fishermen, domestic users, or brick makers? Even when an irrigation system is Briscoe (1996) argues that there is an emerging considered as a single purpose unit, it is consensus that effective water resources 26 management includes the management of water resources, whether or not market prices are as an economic resource. A way to do this is to available. The economic value of any good or establish water markets. Several conditions need service is generally measured in terms of the to be met for establishing a water market. Among willingness to pay for the commodity, minus what others, Meinzen-Oick and Rosegrant (1997), Perry, it costs to supply it. Where a resource simply Rock, and Seckler (1997), and Reidinger (1994) all exists and provides us with products and services give a set of preconditions for the beneficial at no cost, it is our willingness to pay alone which introduction of water markets. It is argued that reflects the value of the resource in providing markets increase economic efficiency by such commodities, whether or not we actually allocating resources to their more valuable uses make the payment (Barbier, Acreman, and (Bauer 1997). However, there are strong social Knowler 1997). The value of water, i.e., the norms that argue against water being treated as a desirability and scarcity, can vary considerably simple marketable commodity because it is a across seasons and regions. In Kirindi Oya, water basic need"PI)f,sl..Iing efficiency through market will have a different value for farmers in the new allocation may not be politically or socially and the old areas, during the maha and the yala acceptable if equity considerations are not met seasons, and in wet and dry years. On a historic (Perry, Rock, and Seckler 1997; Meinzen-Oick and basis, the old area farmers claim that they have Rosegrant 1997). Besides the fact that water is an more rights on irrigation water than the new area essential, life-supporting commodity with no farmers. The 10 recognizes these rights and the substitute, water has some other complicating old area farmers receive more water than the features, which make it more difficult to estatSlish farmers in the new area. In this case, the value of a market for it. water is influenced by the historical users' rights, which determine the access and control over Water is water, and this, in turn, influences the scarcity of a 'fugitive,' reusable good water for certain users and uses. Hence, maintaining a constant value of water does not a common property or object of shared rights reflect the reality of changing water supply and demand conditions through time and region. subject to economies of scale in provision Therefore, information on economic values of water must always be indicative rather than associated with many non-market, absolute (Pigram 1997). environmental qualities (Morris et al. 1997; Caldas, .Sousa, and Pereira 1997) Other Values of Water Since there is no developed water market in Besides the economic value of water, it is also Sri Lanka, the value of water cannot be derived important to take other values into account when from the marginal value reflected on that particular water allocation decisions are made. If only market. economic considerations and values would Water has an economic value because it has determine water allocation, the poor of the world two qualities: desirability and scarcity could be very much worse off. For instance, (Abeygunawardena n.d.). In economics, the term willingness to pay depends largely on the ability to "value" refers to monetary measures of changes in pay. Thus even with the same basic need or value economic welfare (Young 1996). Economic of water, the rich will get more than the poor valuation can be defined as the attempt to (Perry, Rock, and Seckler 1997). quantify goods and services provided by natural 27  Irrigation water has a social value in the benefits. Respondents of the household survey in sense that it creates opportunities for Kirindi Oya mentioned that there is a higher development. Without irrigation these opportunities incidence of eye diseases and skin problems in do not exist. Consider, for instance, the the dry season due to shortage of water. Unfortu­ employment generated by irrigated agriculture. It nately, there were no data available to confirm creates direct job opportunities in the field as well these statements and the relationship between the as indirect jobs that are linked with agricultural availability and the accessibility of irrigation water businesses and services. In Kirindi Oya, between and the incidence of these illnesses. 1986 and 1994 there was a decrease in Besides this, irrigation water has an agriculture-related employment opportunities due to environmental value. Examples include the the perSisting drought and the consequent recharge of groundwater table and preservation of inadequate water supply (IIMI 1995a). Further, a the ecology of wetlands. This environmental use decline of irrigation could also increase the trend of water is especially hard to value because one of migration from rural to urban areas, which could has to deal with intangible aspects and some enhance social conflicts. Besides employment benefits only show in the long run. generation and social consistency, irrigated agriculture contributes to food security. According to Fereres and Cena (1997) the risk of not Valuing the Productive Uses of Water maintaining a productive agriculture is a strategic mistake. A substantial decline in irrigated To value the productive uses of water like crop agriculture would make dry areas very vulnerable production, livestock, fisheries, and industries, the in the long run, regardless of the level of value added of water can be calculated. This is economic development. the so-called factor productivity of water and is The availability and the accessibility of defined in box 2. irrigation water for domestic uses generate health BOX 2. Formula to calculate the value added of water. PI .. ',', '.,,'. :" '" '.: -­ --." ij = qUantityoffnPutsn~tO This is one way to measure the productivity of The value added for water can be calculated water for its different productive uses. The for three different levels: numerator shows the net value of output (NVO). Although it is harder to get data on the net value 1. Private farmers' viewpoint: shows the impact than on the gross value of output (GVO), it is of water uses on a farm level and uses worth the effort because if inputs are not financial prices or those paid and received by deducted, all the value added is attributed to farmers. water, which doesn't reflect reality. 28 2. National viewpoint: shows the impact of itself. This could refer to irrigation diversions, crop different water uses from the national point of evaporation and application, all having different view, uses economic prices. Shadow prices or meanings and implications. If the denominator opportunity costs should be used when an reflects the water diverted, all the value added is environmental externality like damage to attributed to irrigation water while rainwater also wetlands is included. It is possible to make a contributes to production. Furthermore, the amount division into sectors like irrigation, municipal diverted may be reused elsewhere. By taking the and domestic, industries, and the crop evaporation as the denominator, rainwater is environment. included, so the value added is attributed to rain as well as irrigation water while the problem of 3. Global viewpoint: shows impact from the reuse is eliminated. In box 3, different formulas international point of view. For instance, are shown to calculate the value added per impacts of water uses on maintenance of volume of water consumed, diverted, and the total biodiversity, migratory birds, etc. It is hard to water supply. value those impacts. One way to value those Unfortunately, there enough data were not impacts is the Contingent Valuation method available on small-scale industrial activities, like (see annex 2). curd pot making and brick making, and therefore could not be included in the third formula in box 3. Going from level 1 to 3, it is necessary to Results of value added calculations for make more assumptions related to prices and productive uses of water in Kirindi Oya are given in impacts. For level 1, net values are essential, but table 10. The gross value and the net value added for levels 2 and 3, societal perspective, gross of water are calculated from the farmers' point of values are suitable. view. Therefore, no cost is imputed for the use of It can be hard to get an accurate measure of land and family labor. The data used for the the volume of water used (denominator) by calculations come from different sources. The different uses especially when these uses include, values of the denominator come from the chapter for instance, reuse and non-consumptive uses of on water uses in the Kirindi Oya subbasin water. Another difficulty is the term "water use" (chapter 3). With regard to the numerator. primary 1. Value added per tn3 of water ~onsumed refers to evapotranspirati~ (ET) and can be calculated for paddy and for OEe Separate/y:· . (a) 'NO paddy. ha paddy (b) NVO OFC • ha OEC volume of ET volume of ET 2. Irrigation water Is diverted to paddy and OFCcultivation. value added of volume of water diverted is: (NYQ paddy' hal + (NVO OEC • hal volume of water diverted to irrigation 3. Total water supply includes Irrigation water diverted and precipitation. and the different water uses are paddy, OFC. homestead. chena cultivation. livestock. and fiSheries. Value added per ma of total water supply: . (NYO paddY'hW+(N'{O QEQ'!JI);t(NYQ ·!JQmestead·hW+(NYQ phenl'!JI)+NVQ livmcx:k+NYQ fi§h VOlume of water diverted and precipitation To Calculate Gross Value of Output per volume of water, replace NVO with GVO in the three formulas. 29 TABLE 10. Value added per rn3 of water for different productive water uses (in 1997 rupees). 1995-1996 1996-1997 Gross value (Rs! rn3) Net value (Rs! rn3 ) Gross value (Rs! rn 3 ) Net value (Rs! m3 ) ET Paddy 7.2 3.7 7.1 3.6 ET OFC 38.9 30.7 46.9 37.1 Diverted water 3.4 1.8 4.9 3.2 Total water 1.7 1.0 2.4 1.6 and secondary sources were used. For paddy, it Compared to the value added per m3 ET, the was possible to use the data from our household gross value and the net value added per m3 water use survey, although the survey was not diverted water and total water supply are quite designed for this purpose. Secondary data sources small. As shown in box 3, the numerator of the are used for OFC, homestead, chena cultivation, formulas include more uses and are thus higher and livestock calculations (IIM11990 and 1995a; than the numerator of the first formula in box 3. EA 1P 1997). The key informant interviews provided However, the denominators of formulas 2 and 3 supplementary data for livestock and fisheries. It is have much higher values. In the dry year striking that data on homestead and chena (1996-1997), when there were less water inflow cultivation, especially related to water use, are very and rainfall, people were able to obtain higher scarce. To find the differences between wet and dry value added per m3 of diverted water and m3 of years, the calculations are made for 1995-1996 total water supply than during the wet year (wet) and 1996-1997 (dry). The values are all (1995-1996). This shows that people have the expressed in constant 1997 Sri Lankan Rupees tendency to use water more efficiently when there (US$1.00 = Rs 58.80 in 1997) and calculated per is less water available. Since the calculations are m3 0fwater. based on first order estimates and only for a As shown in table 10, for ET, a distinction 2-year period, we have to be careful with our could be made for paddy and OFC. Since there are conclusions. no separate scheduled water diversions for paddy or OFC and other uses like fisheries, it was not possible to distinguish the m3 diverted water for the Valuing the Nonproductive Uses of specific uses. Consequently, also the total water Water supply has to be taken as one figure. In this case, OFC refers to a mixed cropping system of chili, A main hypothesis of this study is that the value groundnut, big onion, bananas, and vegetables. of water for non-crop purposes will be of a Paddy, as a high water-consuming crop, has much significant magnitude when compared with the lower gross value and net value added per m3 ET value for use in crop production, and it therefore than OFC. The OFCs cultivated in Kirindi Oya, follows that non-crop uses must be taken into especially onion and chili are high-valued crops. account in the management of irrigation water Hence, this results in higher gross value and net resources. The limited literature and data value added per m3 ET for OFC than for paddy. The availability on the subject of valuing water for differences between the values of a dry and a wet other productive uses than crop uses give us the year are negligible for paddy but not for OFC. A impression that these other productive uses are possible explanation is that the composition of the often overlooked and, therefore, hardly taken into OFCs is different for the dry and the wet years. account in water management decisions. 30  Moreover, we are not able to give a value for into account other information than only the the domestic and the environmental uses of water, quantitative values of water. though for classification purposes we consider them as nonproductive uses. Hence, we cannot determine if the research hypothesis is accepted Conclusions or rejected. These uses of water are not traded in markets and are therefore difficult to value. As Values presented in this chapter are based on first shown before, the value of water for productive order estimates of water accounting. Because of uses is assessed through the productivity factor this, together with the lack of data available on of water for different goods. To value, and thus other productive uses of water than crop quantify the domestic and the environmental production and data on domestic and the services of water, other methodologies have to be environmental values of water, the values in this used (see annex 2). However, there are still chapter should be seen as a first indication and problems and concems related to the not as absolute values of water. Further, quantification of these services. One of the substantial productivity gains should be expected problems is the risk of missing the qualitative if ways could be found to save and utilize the essence of uses (e.g., recreation) if intangible water lost to the ocean (see chapter 3). values and benefits of water are to be accounted With the value-added method, we are only for quantitively (Seckler 1966). Second, the able to calculate the value of water for productive willingness to pay is a function of the ability to uses, where water is consumed. To value the pay. The value reflected by the willingness to pay domestic and environmental uses of water, other is higher for people with a higher income. So it methodologies should be used. The next step is appears that people with a lower income attach a to look for suitable methodologies and to lower value to a certain service. This doesn't operationalize and apply these for the Kirindi Oya necessarily have to be the case. Third, according case study. Supplementary data should be to conventional economic theory, monetary terms collected, for example, data on positive and are used to analyze the efficiency of resource negative impacts of irrigation water on the use. Efficient allocation of the resource, in this wetlands and the time spent in fetching water from case water, does not have to be compatible with different sources for domestic purposes. We will sustainable use and equitable distribution be able to test our main hypothesis, only if we are (Bingham et al. 1995). Therefore, it is important able to calculate the value for the domestic and that water allocation decision makers do also take the environmental uses of water. 8. Complementarities, Competition, and Conflicts Agriculture remains the largest consumer of water Because they draw their water directly from the in the Kirindi Oya system, particularly paddy. irrigation system (canals and tanks) or indirectly Many of the other uses such as fishing or bathing (from wells through groundwater recharge), there is are nonconsumptive, while others such as a complementarity between these uses and field drinking, watering livestOCk, collecting lotuses or irrigation. When water is available in the tanks and reeds, and brick making consume relatively small canals for paddy fields, it is also available for amounts of water compared to field irrigation. gardens, fishing, lotus production, bathing, 31 TABLE 11. Conflicts, competition, and complementarity of water uses in Kirindi Oya. Irrigated Live- Fishing Laundering Drinking Home Home Environ­ crops stock and bathing industry gardens ment Irrigated crops Livestock - -1+ x Fishing -1+ - x Drinking Laundry bathing -1+ + x • x x x • - Home industry -1+ x x x ./+ x Home gardens -/+ x x x • x x Environment ./+ • • x x x x • • conflicts and competition x no conflicts and competition + complementarity livestock production, curd pot making and brick water user, and holds the strongest rights to water, making. Moreover, when water is abundant, water the relationship between each use and irrigated quality problems are also reduced. When there is crop production is the most important form of no water for irrigation, agro-wells dry up, fish interaction. However, the potential positive and stocks are depleted, milk production decreases, negative interactions between other uses may also lotus stems must be removed, domestic water is be significant, as indicated below. unavailable from the canals, wells fall dry, and the pollution and salinity concentrations of the Irrigated Crop Production remaining water increase. When water becomes scarce, there is more The chief competition and conflict in Kirindi Oya competition, and even conflicts over water. From an are not between the different types of uses, but analytical perspective, the different types of uses regarding irrigating fields in the old and the new compete. However, from the households' perspec­ areas. There is an ongoing tension between the tive, this competition is not so much between demands of the Ellagala area for full paddy sectorally defined uses, because all households irrigation in two seasons, based on their historical engage in multiple activities involving water. Within claim to water, and those of the different parts of the household, some members may be more the new area to receive water for paddy in at least affected by the shortage (or benefit from abundance) one season. Although broad priorities have been of water for certain uses than others. The overall set, fluctuating weather and hence water perception of competition is between users­ availability require renegotiation of the areas that particularly between the old and the new areas. can receive water in each season. Despite the seasonal allocation process through the PMC, there have been tension and conflict, particularly Competition, Complementarity, and in years of low rainfall and reservoir inflow. Even Conflict between Uses within the old or the new area, there may be competition between the fields that get irrigated, The major types of interactions between different especially when water supplies are short. types of uses are summarized in table 11. In terms of water quality, there are also Because irrigation of field crops is the largest significant negative interactions between irrigated 32 fields at the local level. The salinity problem due Drinking to poor drainage is becoming more evident in In terms of water quantities, there is a Kirindi Oya, as discussed in the chapter on water complementarity between irrigation and drinking quality issues (chapter 4). water, especially in the old area, where wells and seepage from surface irrigation sources provide Livestock the main source of drinking water. However, in dry When the Kirindi Oya system was expanded, it years, irrigation and drinking compete for water. displaced a considerable number of livestock that The biggest conflict is generally over the right of had been using the area for grazing and watering. the NWS&DB to keep the water in the reservoir at Much of the ongoing competition between irrigated a certain level to guarantee domestic water needs crops and animals relates primarily to grazing, through the piped water supply system. Irrigation rather than to water per se. Crop damage from supply was stopped to safeguard domestic needs cattle is a recurring tension. While the volumes of in 1992 which led to serious conflicts. Farmers water consumed by the animals are not a demanded for more water releases for irrigation, significant source of competition, conflicts over and politicians got involved in trying to settle the watering animals arise because cattle damage the disputes (Brewer, forthcoming). These issues irrigation infrastructure. resurfaced in 1995 and 1997. At the household level there is some There is more conflict between irrigation and complementarity between crops and livestock, drinking uses when it comes to water quality. because water in the irrigation system makes Agrochemical runoff and leaching of minerals as water more available for animals as well. The water seeps and percolates from paddy fields farming system includes both crops and animals, have contaminated both surface sources and with crops providing fodder, and animals providing groundwater within the Kirindi Oya system, making draft power and manure. Use of irrigation facilities well water unsuitable for drinking. by livestock is tolerated, as long as they do not damage crops. Laundering and bathing Irrigation and bathing and laundering are largely Fisheries complementary, because canals and tanks are At one level there is considerable complementarity very important sources and locations for these between irrigation and fishing. The reservoir, domestic water uses. When irrigated crop tanks, and canals of the irrigation system provide production takes place, there is more water the environment for fish production, and fishing available for bathing and laundering, and since the provides a fallback occupation for some agricul­ latter are in-stream uses, they do not take water tural households during difficult times. However, away from field crops. There can be, however, the pesticides used for paddy and other irrigated conflicts over water quality, as high salinity levels crops flow into the water. Fish and other aquatic make the water less suitable for laundering and animals are very susceptible to changes in water bathing. quality. Furthermore, low tank water levels reduce the number and diversity of fish species. "Optimiz­ Home industry and home gardens ing" the use of tank water for irrigation purposes The interaction between field irrigation and home by reducing the level of dead storage or the gardens (household industries) is largely amount of water stored in lower tanks during the complementary. The latter use relatively small season (to take advantage of retum flows from amounts of water, which usually come from rainfall upper irrigated fields) may reduce the potential for or the irrigation system (either through pumping of fishing. water from canals or recharge of wells). In some 33 instances, there can be a conflict if people at the tanks and canals to bathe and launder, the dung head of the canal use the water for home gardens and urine from livestock can cause a public health or home industries and thereby reduce the water risk. The negative effect on bathing and laundering availability for the tail enders' fields. is especially pronounced when the water level is low. Environment Environment The availability of water in the irrigation system Conflicts between livestock and the environmental has provided a habitat for wildlife, especially birds. interests over access to tank areas and land have The Weerawila tank was designated as a bird led to a number of disputes between the COFO and sanctuary before the expansion of the irrigation the Wildlife Department. In terms of water quality, system, and despite predictions that birds would there are further conflicts because overgrazing and be displaced, their population has actually deposits of dung and urine in the water can cause increased. However, eutrophication of the tank is eutrophication, especially in the Bundala lagoons. becoming a problem for wildlife--caused in part by fertilizers, and also by livestock. While wading Fisheries birds do not cause much conflict with crop production, intrusions by elephants from nearby Environment wildlife areas looking for water cause conflicts In some of the tanks and the Lunuganwehera resulting in crop damage. reservoir, conflicts arise between the Department Water quality issues are even more important of Wildlife Conservation and the Fishermen in the neighboring Bundala National Park. In Cooperative Societies. These conflicts relate to addition to eutrophication causing excessive access to the tank areas in the evening (and thus growth of algae, there are problems maintaining disturbing wildlife) which is the preferred time to fish. the salinity balance in the lagoons if there is too much discharge from the irrigation system. Two Drinking brackish lagoons have been converted into freshwater lakes. This has had a negative impact Although the total amount of water for drinking and not only on water birds, but also on the hundreds cooking is relatively small, this water is very of families that were formerly engaged in prawn important to satisfy basic human needs, and there is fishing in the lagoons. not always enough available at the standposts. Thus, conflicts between different users arise at the tap. Livestock Laundering and bathing Fisheries When there is no water available in the canals, Since neither livestock nor fisheries consume people use the tap water also for laundering and much water, the interactions with respect to bathing. This is prohibited by the NWS&DB quantity are negligible. However, livestock pollutes (NWS&DB 1997a), and causes conflicts because the water with dung and urine. This can cause if some take water for bathing, there is less eutrophication, which can have a negative available for others at the standpipe, and the influence on the fish (although some species additional costs are borne by all. thrive under such conditions). Home industry and home gardens Laundering and Bathing As in the case of interaction between drinking and As in the case of interactions with fisheries, bathing, when the tap water is used for gardens or livestock pollutes water. Since people enter the home-based industries, conflicts arise because 34 people use more than they are supposed to, which uses. However, the potential complementarity leads to longer queues and higher costs for others between irrigation and other uses should not be at the standpost. However, there is also a strong overlooked. When water is released in the canals complementarity between drinking (and especially and tanks in an area to supply crops, it is also cooking) water and home gardens, because available for livestock, fishing, gardens, bathing, wastewater is used as a source for gardens. and other enterprises. Not all members of a Surplus water spilled at the standpipes is also household have an equal interest in all types of often channeled into nearby gardens. water use. Men, women, and children have different responsibilities related to each type of water use, and derive different benefits. Environment While water quantity issues continue to be the Salinity in paddy fields has become a significant most prominent, there is considerable awareness environmental problem in certain parts of the of water quality problems, particularly for drinking command area. But mitigating this problem and bathing. People complain not only of the through leaching and drainage displaces the palatability of water, but also of its hardness. They minerals and solids, which can cause problems in are also aware of the role of agricultural chemicals other areas, including domestic wells and the and seepage in contributing to water quality wildlife sanctuary. problems. However, this does not prevent them from using chemicals on their own fields. Since runoff upstream is what affects each area's water Interaction between Users: The quality, a family would not benefit, in terms of Household Perspective water quality, from refraining from chemical use. Because the problem is not localized, local Paddy production is the primary source of collective action is also unlikely to have an effect. livelihood for many people. Thus, most people Addressing the water quality problems-for the (especially those in households with at least some benefit of both household use and the paddy fields) are more concerned with the environment-would require more widespread allocation of water between different areas regulation. (primarily for irrigation) than between different 9. Future Directions for Research Introduction more and more replaced by the concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (lWRM). In the classical sectoral approach to irrigated While the theoretical concept is still developing, it agriculture, the irrigation infrastructure, seems that IWRM takes water as a natural management, and institutional arrangements serve resource as the starting point and then analyzes the objective of efficient use of water for food how this resource can be managed in an production. In this report we have argued that integrated and sustainable way by building such a sectoral view that does not take into institutional capacities to satisfy human needs, account water uses pertaining to other sectors is promote food security, and protect the too limited in scope. The sectoral approach is environment. Our approach of looking at the 35 multiple uses of water differs from IWRM in the studies should be the validity of interview-based sense that it is more anthropocentric, Le., it starts data. To quantify use and users at the household with the question: who are the users of water and level, direct observations could provide more what are their uses? It puts the people, the reliable data than household interviews, but at a multiple users of water at the fore while greater cost. Methodologies for direct observations appreciating that people operate in a certain could be obtained from the extensive literature that physical and institutional environment. It is available on human water contact studies in documents why certain sources are preferred relation to schistosomiasis (see for example Kloos above others, how people cope with periods of et at. 1983). Provided a valid sampling frame is drought, and analyzes how far the tasks in relation used, such studies can also give a better idea of to water are gender-specific. Finally, it tries to gender-based water use than the household estimate the value of different uses of water. We interviews. Group discussions, when used at the think that such an analysis of the multiple users beginning of a case study, can be a useful and uses of water should precede any attempt for exploratory process when little is known about the implementing IWRM. study population. They make it easier to compile a questionnaire for collecting quantitative data or recording sheets for water contact observations. Research Methodology This would prevent the gathering of exhaustive, irrelevant information. However, the quantitative A combination of qualitative and quantitative data collected through household interviews can methods as used in the present case study will still be difficult to interpret, owing to the complexity remain the best option to describe the different or ambiguities they contain. A second round of water uses at the sectoral and the household group discussions at the end of the case studies levels. While certain patterns are likely to be can then provide a fuller understanding of the representative for other areas of Sri Lanka, numerical results, and provide relevant feedback to variations between countries will be considerable. people in the study community. The methodology for the systematic documentation of multiple uses of water has to be refined further and applied elsewhere. While most Research Priorities of the information required to describe multiple uses and users of water could be obtained with Measuring Water Use and Economic Values the methodologies used in this case study, the procedures were rather labor-intensive and time­ In the discussion on competition for scarce water consuming, especially the household interview resources in water basins with multiple uses, it is survey. More efficient research methods should be very important to be able to assign economic considered. Ideally, these would be rapid values to the different uses. While techniques assessment and even participatory appraisal (see annex 2) exist for valuing water for economic procedures that can validly describe sectoral and uses, as seen in this study, they are often household level water uses and users (Gosselink cumbersome and expensive to apply. Simpler, but and Thompson 1997; Chambers 1994; Gosselink robust techniques are needed, not only for and Strosser 1995; Pretty et at. 1995). research purposes, but to ensure that the In reviewing the output of the present study, a valuation methods are understood by system lot of descriptive information was available through managers and policy makers. Further, there is a key informant interviews and direct observations in lack of data regarding the inputs and outputs of the field. Another point of attention in further production for water uses other than the main field 36 crop (e.g., chena cultivation, fisheries, etc.) and it Water to Sustain Aquatic Ecosystems is recommended that more time and effort are put The environmental functions of irrigation water will in gathering this kind of data. be addressed in a follow-up to the present Kirindi One common feature of all types of economic Oya case study. Irrigation drainage water affects valuation is the denominator: water use. Getting the important wet/and ecosystem of the Bundala an accurate measure of water use by different National Park. The aim is to develop a sectors can be difficult (if not impossible), methodology that could be applied elsewhere and especially when the uses include return flows, that could address the following questions: reuse, and nonconsumptive use. Adding to this complexity, the term "water use" has different How does irrigation water management affect meanings to different people and could refer to the ecology of downstream wetlands? (irrigation) diversions, application, or evaporative What are the water management options that use, all having different implications. This study could conserve wetlands? has suggested a means to account for water What are the water use options that will best use by different users in a consistent manner. It serve the interests of different users, would be useful to refine and adapt this method to especially those of poor rural communities? other situations so that it can have broader applicability. Water as a Basic Human Need Valuing the Nonproductive Uses ofIrrigation A case study similar to the one in Kirindi Oya was Water completed in Pakistan (Jehangir et al. 1998). The main objective of that study was to get an accurate As complicated as it is to estimate the value of assessment of all the uses and users of water in water used for productive purposes, it is much the irrigation system. In the study area, people more difficult for the nonproductive uses; domestic depend on irrigation water for all their domestic and the environmental uses. In fact, reqUirements, even for drinking. Therefore, in methodologies for valuing nonproductive water Pakistan, health impacts are more important issues uses are existing but they are applied only in than in Sri Lanka. To bridge the gap between relation to a Single sector or use of water, either irrigation and the domestic water supply sector, a the domestic use (Altaf, Jamal, and Whittington detailed epidemiological and water quality study 1992; Whittington and Swarna 1994) or the has now been started. In Pakistan and elsewhere, environmental use (Barbier, Acreman, and Knowler we want to address the following questions with 1997). Further development and testing of such respect to water as a basic human need: methodologies and developing a framework for valuing water in an integrated water resource To what extent is irrigation water used for system are priorities for further research. Like with domestic purposes? all aspects of multiple use, this should be an What is the health impact of these domestic interdisciplinary effort. A lot of useful information uses of irrigation water? on the value of uses in a particular sector might • What adaptations in irrigation system deSign be available in the specialized literature. An and operation are needed to make domestic example is the cost-of-illness methodologies use of irrigation water a safe option? developed for water-related diseases. An extensive interdisciplinary literature review is How will more efficient irrigation and therefore needed, including less traditional "improved" irrigation water management literature sources, before designing new practices affect the quantity and quality of studies. water available for domestic purposes? 37 10. Conclusions: Implications for Policy and Management Introduction When water is scarce, cutting back on irrigation to reserve water in the reservoir and providing Disciplinary and subsectoral emphases have too special water releases in the canal and river for long focused the attention of researchers, policy domestic supply become critical decisions that makers, and agency staff involved with water have provoked considerable conflicts in the past. resources on only one of the following water The issue of the water level that should be uses-irrigation, domestic use, fishing, or maintained in the tanks is another management livestock-when in fact, people have been using decision, which illustrates some of the potential water in irrigation systems for many purposes. trade-offs between different uses. Keeping the Going beyond the disciplinary and sectoral tank levels high during the maha season causes blinders changes our picture of irrigation systems considerable spillage, which is not recaptured, and and allows us to see the full spectrum of water water flows out of the system to the ocean. If the uses. It also expands the view of water users tank levels were kept lower, more of the rainfall beyond those (primarily male) farmers in the fields and drainage from the new area could be or those (primarily women and children) drawing recaptured. This would be more efficient from the water at the standpipe. In this study, we have standpoint of irrigation, because the same area seen how fishermen, livestock herders, and curd could be irrigated with less reservoir releases, pot makers, and even the birds and animals are saving water for other areas or for the next water users who depend on the irrigation system season. However, the lower tank levels would for their livelihoods. reduce the availability of water for bathing, Recognizing the full spectrum of uses is far washing, livestock, and fishing in the tanks. more than an academic exercise. It has important Moreover, reducing the y{ater levels in the tanks implications for the management of water within and relying more on recycling would increase the the irrigation system, and also for a broader water concentration of various contaminants (including resource policy. The present study has been only agrochemicals and fecal coliform bacteria). On the a pilot activity, and could not explore and quantify other hand, conserving water would reduce the all the water uses and their values. Nevertheless, problems in getting water for domestic and other it points to critical issues to be addressed. This uses in the yala season, when water is usually concluding chapter identifies a number of these very scarce, and the reduction in drainage would issues, within Kirindi Oya, and then addresses allow the Bundala lagoons to remain brackish for policies such as intersectoral allocation and prawns and other fauna that depend on the original infrastructure development. brackish conditions. Considering all the uses of water complicates the deciSion-making process because it shows that maximizing the efficiency Management Issues within Kirindi Oya for irrigation may not be the same as "optimizing" for all uses. The allocation of irrigation water between different From a household perspective, it is unlikely parts of the Kirindi Oya system continues to be that a reduced quantity of irrigation water allocated the single most important management issue, to the system has a major impact on the even if multiple uses are taken into account. It is household supplies of water for drinking, cooking, not so much that a rising tide lifts all ships, but sanitation, and the washing of utensils. However, that an irrigation release fills all pots, meets most in the long term, reduced seepage of irrigation other water needs, and dilutes the contaminants. water may have an impact on the availability of 38 water in the homestead wells and thereby affect the tank are too low or too high. Thus, although water availability, for instance, for sanitary fishing is a nonconsumptive water use, fishermen purposes. A reduced availability of water in the have a strong interest in the management of tank canals and tanks will have a significant impact on water levels, and in the interactions with other the availability of water for personal hygiene, uses. However, the rights and coordination laundering, and recreational use. The impact will mechanisms to deal with such issues are not differ throughout the system, where some families defined at present. will be able to shift their priority to other sources, Finally, considering the interactions among the while many families living in areas with poor piped multiple water uses highlights the issues of water water supply will definitely feel an impact on their quality. These are critical not only for domestic households. The impact of a reduced irrigation use, but also for fishing and the wildlife. At water supply will increase the pressure on the present, there is virtually no attention given to piped water supply throughout the system, water quality. Measures to handle sewage and especially in the areas where the groundwater is livestock wastes are ineffective, and there are no brackish. This is likely to lead to increased measures to limit contamination from conflicts between the users of the standpipes. agrochemicals. Experience in industrialized Another possible general impact is a reduced countries has shown that it is difficult to handle overall per capita use oJ water for hygiene such nonpoint source pollution. However, raising practices. awareness and discussing the issues are Water rights in Kirindi Oya are not clearly necessary if the water of Kirindi Oya is to defined, especially for uses other than irrigation continue to support multiple uses. and domestic supply. The PMC has the responsibility for water allocation, but despite the range of government and user organizations Implications for Water Management represented, it has not recognized the range of Policies water uses, or the challenge of managing water to meet all needs. While the exact uses and users of water and their Because many of the water uses are relative importance vary from one irrigation system non consumptive (e.g., fishing), or require relatively to another, the issues identified in this pilot study smal.1 amounts of water (e.g., curd pot making), in Kirindi Oya have broader implications for water they do not compete with other uses in terms of management policies in Sri Lanka and elsewhere. the volume of water, and as long as water is These relate to the allocation of water and relatively abundant, it is not worthwhile to define a financial resources between irrigation and other quantitative right. Although many of these uses sectors; measures of water quality and efficiency may not directly conflict with one another, when of use; and mechanisms to involve all water demand increases, or when water supply stakeholders in negotiations over water use. decreases, competition for water resources With the growth of cities and industries and follows. For many uses, quality issues are often the relative decline of agriculture in economies more important than quantity (e.g., domestic around the world, inter-sectoral competition for water, fishing, or wildlife). Hence, the critical rights water has become a major issue, and irrigation are not for withdrawal, but for management of the systems often lose out relative to municipal and resource (and potentially for exclusion of other industrial uses. Inter-sectoral water allocation is users that pollute). For example, fish is highly generally viewed as a process of determining how sensitive to salinity and agrochemical pollution, much water goes into a municipal system, a and its production is reduced when water levels in factory intake, an irrigation system, or natural 39 reserve-implicitly or explicitly equating domestic domestic uses, may not deplete water supplies as use with municipal systems, industrial use with much as agriculture, they create wastes that can (licensed) factories, agriculture with irrigation contaminate downstream water. Currently, the 10 systems, and biodiversity or environment with has denied requests for surface water allocations wetlands and reserves. This study has to hotels, but there has been no effective demonstrated that water in the Kirindi Oya restriction on groundwater abstractions. irrigation system is used for much more than Mechanisms for monitoring such abstractions and simply producing the field crops, which is often the impact of their uses on water quality are attributed to irrigation. Although an exact currently weak. Dealing with these aspects of quantification is extremely difficult, the social and water resource management requires going far economic value of water within the irrigation beyond the existing sectoral approaches to system is much higher when we account for all developing irrigation or domestic water supplies. uses, than is recognized in many conventional As water resources become more fully analyses of inter-sectoral water uses. developed, countries often turn from investments Because of Kirindi Oya's distance from major in new systems for water capture and storage to urban centers, municipal and industrial uses have improve the efficiency of existing water supply not been major competitors with irrigation for the systems (particularly irrigation systems). Canal water resources available in the system. There are lining, sprinkler or drip application systems, and plans to build an oil refinery on the coast, which rotational irrigation schedules are common means would require substantial allotments of water every of increasing the proportion of water in the system day from the Kirindi Oya system. Recognizing the that is used for crop evapotranspiration. The water multiple uses of water changes the analysis of "saved" through these measures is then seen as inter-sectoral water allocation, especially for available for reallocation to other uses or users reallocation out of irrigation. A simplistic analysis (e.g., expanding the area irrigated or supplying to might suggest that the water needed for the municipal systems). But reducing the seepage and refinery could be met by improving the "efficiency" percolation through canal lining or sprinkler and: of irrigation deliveries, taking a certain area out of drip systems often lowers water tables, affecting paddy production, or a combination of these the wells for drinking and gardens. In places like approaches. A more comprehensive view would Kirindi Oya, where permanent vegetation relies on recognize that changing the quantity and timing of high water tables recharged by irrigation seepage, water deliveries to supply such a major industry such measures could also threaten quite a bit of would not only affect system managers or the high-value horticultural production (e.g., coconut, farmers who have to switch crops but also the mango). Rotational water deliveries could also other users of water. It would have ripple effects create problems for livestock and bathing; the throughout the system, affecting groundwater crops may be able to go on for days or even levels and hence water availability for drinking and weeks between waterings, but people and animals homegardens; tank levels and hence fish who depend on the canals as sources of bathing production; runoff and hence concentration of or drinking water need the water on a daily basis. chemicals; and salinity entering the wetlands, This is to conclude that when measures are taken among other factors. to improve irrigation efficiency, the impact it may Water for hotels to meet a growing tourist have on other water users also needs to be taken industry is also a serious current issue of water into account. allocation within Kirindi Oya, and illustrates Recognising the various uses and users of another aspect of inter-sectoral water use: the water is an important step toward managing the impact on water quality. Although hotels, like other system to accommodate all needs. However, 40 trade-offs between different uses are inevitable. In dominated by males (Meinzen-Dick and such instances, decisions can be externally made Zwarteveen 1998). Even though the interests of (e.g., by a government agency), or can be men and women are often complementary, there negotiated among various stakeholders. The latter are important differences in priorities for water use has the potential to reach decisions that are more (Zwarteveen 1994). Thus, the significant barriers acceptable to a range of parties, but it requires to gender equity in participation should be some form of platform for negotiation (Roling addressed for effective overall management of all 1994; Steins and Edwards 1998). The government water uses. has been striving to devolve management and The twelfth century Sinhala King Parakrama­ increase user involvement, and the establishment bahu I is quoted as saying: of a range of formally recognized user organizations (e.g., the hierarchy of FOs, COFOs, Let not even a small quantity of water and FCSs) can be seen as a step toward that comes from the rain flow into the ocean establishing a platform for negotiation within a without being made useful to man. single use sector. Institutions such as the PMC, which bring together farmer representatives from If we recognize the multiple uses of water, we various parts of the system along with see that, while some water still runs to the sea, representatives from a range of government much of it is used by men and women, several agencies, can provide a platform for negotiation times over. This undoubtedly increases the value over the use of water for irrigating field crops. It of water use, and it needs to be taken into may be possible to expand the PMC, which account when evaluating irrigation system currently includes government representatives performance. But in the process of being used for from a number of agencies, as well as farmers so many purposes, the water picks up a variety of and livestock owners' user groups, to represent contaminants, such as fertilizers, pesticides, other interests such as fisheries, domestic water, salinity from the fields, soap residues, bacteria and the environment. Bringing in representatives from domestic and livestock uses, and other of other categories of users can be done through types of chemicals. Recognizing the interactions public meetings to discuss water management between uses and users may also provide scope plans, either on a seasonal basis, or especially to better accommodate the various uses, thereby whenever management plans are suggested. to increase the efficiency of water use. But to To the extent that the members of the FOs increase the total value of productive and non­ also use water for domestic purposes, gardens, productive uses within irrigation systems, more and even fishing, it might appear that these other attention should be focussed on water quality types of uses could be represented by the farmer issues, as well. Unfortunately, as difficult as it is representatives. However, experiences from Kirindi to develop accurate empirical measures of Oya in 1992, 1995, and 1997 show that at critical quantitative efficiency or system performance, it is times, the farmers give priority to water for even more difficult to measure and incorporate irrigating the field crop instead of giving priority to measures of water quality. On the output side, the water for domestic purposes. While farm uses that are particularly susceptible to water households may be involved in all of these uses, quality (especially drinking water and wildlife uses) there are important intra-household differences in are very difficult to place quantitative values on. responsibility for these various types of uses. This remains a critical area for further research as Membership in the FOs at all levels is heavily well as for action in water management. 41 it ANNEX 1 Water flow chart C ·-~ Left bank [--­ Spill ~- ~"~ I ~- clfLkJ [_c~ L ~1_u~n~J [K~. I r Malala Oya -f~~11 IFiS~ CW~,--_~ delivery retumflow K.O. Kirindl Oya drainage outflow ANNEX 2 Other Valuation Techniques Alternative Costs! Opportunity Costs queue, walking home, plus the price paid for tap facilities. The total costs will vary among If a given water allocation with specified output households, as the opportunity cost of the time costs less than the next water allocation which spent for collecting water will be different can achieve the same output, then the cost of the depending on the distance from the water source. next-best option can be considered as the benefit This will result in different water values for water to the water allocation under consideration. This from different sources. method may be a solution when estimations of a In addition, this method can be useful to value direct demand schedule prove to be difficult the water for agricultural crop and non-crop because of lack of data or other reasons. This is production like fisheries, industrial use, and the similar to the opportunity costs calculation, which environmental use (recharging groundwater table). calculates the benefit foregone by using a scarce resource for one purpose instead of its next-best alternative use. The benefits foregone can be Contingent Valuation Method used to value the water for that purpose. An aspect which can be taken into account when Another way to value water, often applied when using this methodology is the quality of water services are improved is the Contingent Valuation because this influences the suitability of the water Method. This method determines the market value for other purposes and thus affects the number of by trying to get people to reveal what they would (next-best) alternative uses. This is important to be willing to pay for water and services in note because water quality issues are often hypothetical markets. Individuals are surveyed to ignored. determine their willingness to pay for a specified This method can be used to value the change in the quality or quantity of water. The domestic water use from different sources. In the mean value of the willingness to pay across all villages in Kirindi Oya, there are several water bids (including valid zero bids) is then used to sources that are used for domestic uses. Each provide an indication of the economic value of the water source has its own characteristics (distance specified change. The quality of the results of this from the house, quality perceived, reliability, etc.) method depends on how well-informed people are; and is selected for different uses (see also it does not adequately incorporate long-term goals chapter 6). According to Whittington and Swarna since it excludes future generations from bidding (1994), water from different sources is a different in the markets. It is also difficult to induce good in terms of quality and service individuals to reveal their true willingness to pay characteristics. Water from different sources is a for natural resources when the question is put close but not a perfect substitute. The costs directly (Erskine 1997). Potentially, serious biases consist of resource costs plus a money price of could arise from the use of this method and the obtaining water fr<?m that source. For a public tap, estimates derived should be viewed as broadly for instance, this includes the opportunity cost of indicative, rather than "nowledge-based (Pig ram time spent walking to the tap, waiting in the 1997). 43  This method can be used to reveal the the price of some marketed good is a function of willingness to pay for improved water quality from its different characteristics, and an implicit price the wells or reliable water supply from the exists for each of the characteristics (Young standpipes in Kirindi Oya. Altaf, Jamal, and 1996). So, it is necessary that active and Whittington (1992) applied the Contingent Valuation competitive agricultural land and real estate Method in the Punjab, Pakistan. They used the markets are in place to use the Hedonic Pricing methodology to determine the willingness of the Method. In Kirindi Oya, agriculture and real estate households to pay for improved service levels. It markets are not active and competitive. If these is also possible to apply the Contingent Valuation preconditions are there, land values can be Method for agricultural crop production. Farmers, derived from samples of land sales representing especially in the new area can be asked what irrigated and nonirrigated land. A comparison of they are willing to pay for a more reliable irrigation the irrigated and the nonirrigated land values can water supply. Further, this methodology is provide a useful and relatively convincing applicable to agricultural non-crop production, information about the revealed preference for industrial, and recreation/environmental water use. irrigated land. The difference between the value of For instance, people can be asked what they are irrigated and non irrigated land represents the value willing to pay for preserving the wetlands in of irrigation water. Bundala or for having a bath in one of the tanks. Ttavel Cost Method Hedonic Pricing Method This method is based on the concept that people This method is based on the concept that the spend time and money traveling to recreational price paid for a complementary good (e.g., a sites and that these expenditures, or costs, can residential property) reflects the buyer's be treated as revealing the demand for the site. willingness to pay for a particular environmental Surveys of site visitors are undertaken to good (e.g., adjoining a river). Application of this determine the demand for a site. Visit rates are a method requires the use of regression analysis to function of travel expenditure, income, entry fees, determine the relationship between the market environmental characteristics and the availability price of the property and its attributes, of which of substitute sites (Postle, Berry, and Westscott one (set) relates to associated environmental 1997). characteristics. From this, the implicit price for the The Travel Cost Method might be useful to associated environmental characteristics is value the Bundala National Park which is part of derived. This method rests on the assumption that the research area. However, t~ money spent on Suitability of valuation techniques in the Kirindi Oya case study. Agriculture Fisheries Domestic Industry Recrea- Environ- Crop Non-crop lion ment Alternative cost! opportunity cost t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ Contingent valuation t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ t/ Hedonic pricing Travel cost t/ t/ 44 traveling and entrance fees reflects the value of The table below gives an overview of the the recreational site as a whole and not just the methodologies described in this annex, and the value of the water that it contains. So, when using suitability to apply those on the different water this methodology to value the water in Bundala uses in Kirindi Oya. National Park, the water will be overvalued (Burrill 1997). Literature Cited Abeygunawardena, P. n.d. Total economic value of forests: The case of Sinharaja Reserve in Sri Lanka. Sri Lanka: Faculty of Agriculture, University of Peradeniya. Altaf, A., H. Jamal, and D. Whittington. 1992. Willingness to pay for water in rural Punjab, Pakistan. UNDP-World Bank Water and Sanitation Program. Water and Sanitation Report No.4. Washington, D.C., USA: The World Bank. Barbier, E. B., M. Acreman, and D. Knowler. 1997. Economic valuation of wetlands. A guide for policy makers and planners. Gland, Switzerland: Ramsar Convention Bureau. Bauer, C. J. 1997. Bringing water markets down to earth: The political economy of water rights in Chile, 1976-95. World Development 25(5):639-656. Bhatia, R. 1997. Food security implications of raising irrigation charges in developing countries. In Water: Econom­ ics, management and demand, eds. M. Kay, T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E & FN Spon. Bingham, G., R. Bishop, M. Brody, D. Bromley, E. Clark, W. Cooper, R. Constanza, T. Hale, G. Hayden, S. Kellert, R. Norgaard, B. Norton, J. Payne, C. Russell, and G. Suter. 1995. Issues in ecosystem valuation: Improving informa­ tion for decision making. Ecological Economics 14(1995):73-90. Brewer, J. D. 1994. The partiCipatory irrigation system management policy in Sri Lanka. Economic Review 20 (6):4­ 6,8-9. Brewer, J. D. Forthcoming. Negotiating water allocation rules in a government managed irrigation system: Conflicts in Kirindi Oya. In Negotiating water rights, eds. B. Bruns, and R. S. Meinzen-Dick. New Dehli: Sage. Briscoe, J. 1996. Water as an economic good: The idea and what it means in practice. Special Session R 11, Six­ teenth Session. Cairo, Egypt: International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage. Burrill, A. 1997. Assessing the societal value of water in its uses. Sevilla, Spain: Institute for Prospective Technologi­ cal Studies, Joint Research Centre of the European Commission. Caldas, J. C., P. L. Sousa, and L. S. Pereira. 1997. Need for new approaches in valuing water: Learning from a less successful case. In Water: Economics, management and demand, eds. M. Kay, T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E & FN Spon. CEA (Central Environmental Authority). 1994. Wirawi/a- Tissa sanctuary & Yodawewa. Wetland site report & conser­ vation management plan. Sri Lanka: Central Environmental Authority/Euroconsult, Ministry of Transport, Highways, Environment and Women's Affairs. CEA. 1993. Bundala national park. Wetland site report & conservation management plan. Sri Lanka: Central Envi­ ronmental Authority/Euroconsult, Ministry of Environment and Parliamentary Affairs. Chambers, R. 1994. Participatory rural appraisal (PRA): Analysis of experience. World Development 22(9):1253-1268. 45 Cooray, P. G. 1984. The geology of Sri Lanka (Ceylon). Colombo: National Museum Publication, Department of Gov­ ernment Printing. EA 1 P (Environment Action 1 Project). 1997. Economic and environment linkages in land use for irrigated versus rainfed farming in the dry zone. Colombo: Ministry of Forestry and Environment and The World Bank. Erskine, J. M. 1997. Sustain ability measures for natural resources. In People and participation in sustainable devel­ opment. Understanding the dynamics of natural resource systems, eds. G. Shivakoti, G. Varughese, E. Ostrom, A. Shukla, and G. Thapa. Proceedings of an International Conference held at the Institute of Agriculture and Animal Science, Rampur, Chitwan, Nepal, 17-21 March 1996. Bloomington, Indiana, USA: Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis, Indiana University. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1992. CROPWAT, a computer program for irrigation planning and man­ agement. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 46. Rome, Italy: FAO. Fereres, E., and F. Cena. 1997. Social benefits and environmental constraints of irrigation in an era of water scar­ city. In Water: Economics, management and demand, eds. M. Kay, T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E & FN Spon. Gosselink, P., and P. Strosser. 1995. Participatory rural appraisal for irrigation management research: Lessons from "Ml's experience. Working Paper No. 38. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. Gosselink, P., and J. Thompson. 1997. Application of participatory rural appraisal methods of action research on water management. Short report series on locally managed irrigation No. 18. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irriga­ tion Management Institute. Hoogendam. P. 1995. Water rights in irrigation management: The property issue. Unpublished lecture notes, Wageningen Agriculture University. IIMI (International Irrigation Management Institute). 1990. Irrigation management and crop diversification. Volume II, final report on the Technical Assistance Study. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. IIMI. 1995a. Kirindi Oya Irrigation and Settlement Project. Project Impact Evaluation Study. Volume II: Annexes (final report). Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. IIMI. 1995b. Irrigation management and crop diversification. Volume II, final report on the Technical Assistance Study, phase II. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. ILACO (International Land Development Consultants). 1981. Agricultural compendium for rural development in the tropics and the subtropics. International Land Development Consultants, Arnhem, The Netherlands: Elsevier Sci­ entific Publishing Company. Jehangir, W. A., M. Mudasser, Mahmood-ul-Hassan, and Z. AIL 1998. Multiple uses of irrigation water in the Hakra 6-R distibutary command area, Punjab, Pakistan. Report No. R-61. Lahore, Pakistan: International Irrigation Man­ agement Institute. Kloos, H., G. I. Higashi, J. A. Cattani, V. D. Schlinski, N. S. Mansour, and K. D. Murrell. 1983. Water contact behavior and schistosomiasis in an upper Egyptian village. Social Science and Medicine 17:545-562. Konradsen. F., W. van der Hoek. C. Perry, and D. Renault. 1997. Water: Where from. and for whom? World Health Forum 18(1 ):41-43. Meinzen-Dick, R., and M. W. Rosegrant. 1997. Water as an economic good: Incentives. institutions, and infrastruc­ ture. In Water: Economics, management and demand, eds. M. Kay, T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E & FN Spon. Meinzen-Dick, R., and M. Zwarteveen. 1998. Gendered participation in water management: Issues and illustrations from water users' associations in South Asia. In Gender analysis and reform of irrigation management: Concepts, cases and gaps in knowledge. Proceedings of the international Workshop on Gender and Water. September 1997, eds. D. J. Merrey, and S. Baviskar. Colombo: International Water Management Institute. Molden, D. 1997. Accounting for water use and productivity. SWIM Paper 1. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irri­ gation Management Institute. 46 Morris, J., E. K. Weatherhead, J. A. L. Dunderdale, C. Green, and S. Tunstall. 1997. The feasibility of tradeable per­ mits for water abstraction in England and Wales. In Water: EconomiCS, management and demand, eds. M. Kay, T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E & FN Spon. Munasinghe, M. A. K., and S. Somasiri. 1992. Moisture consumption by dominant vegetation types in the dry zone of Sri Lanka and its influence on the hydrological cycle. Tropical Agriculturist 148. Peradeniya, Sri Lanka: Land and Water Management Research Centre. National Water Supply and Drainage Board (NWS&DB). 1985. Feasibility study on water supply to new towns & settle­ ment areas under Kirindi Oya project. Sri Lanka: National Water Supply and Drainage Board. NWS&DB. 1997a. National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Notice to all consumers of water. Sri Lanka: National Water Supply and Drainage Board. NWS&DB. 1997b. Water tariff structures. Colombo, Sri Lanka: National Water Supply and Drainage Board, Ministry of Housing and Construction. Perry, C. J., M. Rock, and D. Seckler. 1997. Water as an economic good: A solution, or a problem? Research Report 14. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. Pigram, J. J. 1997. The value of water in competing uses. In Water: Economics, management and demand, eds. M. Kay, T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E & FN Spon. Postle, M. G., N. Berry, and R. Westcott. 1997. The economics of low flow rivers. In Water: Economics, management and demand, eds. M. Kay, T. Franks, and L. Smith. London: E & FN Spon. Pretty, J. N., I. Guijt, I. Scoones, and J. Thompson. 1995. A trainer's guide for participatory learning and action. Lon­ don: International Institute for Environment and Development. Rasmussen, L. 1994. Comprehensive water resources management. In Water resources management in Sri Lanka. Draft strategic framework and action plan, Volume 2: Annexes. Working paper prepared under Technical Assis­ tance Project. TA 1918-SK1, with the Asian Development Bank and USA1D. Reidinger, R. 1994. Observations on water markets for irrigation systems. In Water policy and water markets: Selected papers and proceedings for the World Bank's ninth annual irrigation and drainage seminar, Annapolis, Maryland: December 8-10, 1992, eds. G. Le Moigne, KW. Easter, w.J. Ochs, and S. Giltner. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Roling, N. G. 1994. Communication support for sustainable natural resource management. IDS Bulletin 25:125-133. Sakthivadivel, R., D. J. Molden, and C. De Fraiture. Forthcoming. Water accounting for use and productivity of basin water: Some examples. Research Report. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. Schlager, E., and E. Ostrom. 1992. Property-rights regimes and natural resources: A conceptual analysiS. Land Eco­ nomics 68(3):249-262. Seckler, D.W. 1966. On the uses and abuses of economic science in evaluating public outdoor recreation. Land Eco­ nomics X L11(4):485-494. Seckler, D., U. Amarasinghe, D. Molden, R. de Silva, and R. Barker. 1998. World water demand and supply, 1990­ 2025: Scenarios and issues. Research Report 19. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water Management Institute. Stanbury, P. 1989. Land settlement planning for improved irrigation management: A case study of the Kirindi Oya Ir­ rigation and Settlement Project. IIMI Country Paper Sri Lanka 4. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Man­ agement Institute. Steele, P., F. Konradsen, and K. A. U. S. Imbulana. 1997. Irrigation, health, and the environment: A literature review with examples from Sri Lanka. Discussion Paper No. 42. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute. Steins, N. A., and V. M. Edwards. 1998. Platforms for collective action in multiple-use CPRs. Paper presented at the 7th Conference of the International Association for the Study of Common Property, June 10-14 1998, Vancouver. 47 Tanji, K. K. (ed). 1996. Agricultural salinity assessment and management. ASCE manuals and reports on engineer­ ing practice NO.71. New York: American Society of Civil Engineers. Upasena, J., and P. Abeygunawardena. 1993. Economic value of irrigation water in Dewahuwa irrigation scheme. In Tropical agricultural research. Vol. 5, 1993: Proceedings of the 5th Annual Congress of the Post Graduate Insti­ tute of Agriculture, 4-5 November 1993, ed, A. A. Jayasekera. Peradeniya, Sri Lanka: Post Graduate Institute of Agriculture. Whittington, D., and V. Swarna. 1994. The economic benefits of potable water supply projects to households in de­ veloping countries. Economic Staff Paper No. 53, Manila: The Asian Development Bank. WHO (World Health Organization). 1993. Guidelines for drinking water quality. Volume 1: Recommendations. Sec­ ond edition. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. WHO. 1984. Guidelines for drinking water quality. Volume 2: Health criteria and other supporting information. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO. Yoder, R. 1983. Non-agricultural uses of irrigation systems: Past experiences and implications for planning and de­ sign. London: OVerseas Development Institute. Young, R. A. 1996. Measuring economic benefits for water investments and policies. World Bank Technical Paper No.338. Washington, D.C.: The World Bank. Zwarteveen, M. 1994. Gender issues, water issues. Working Paper No. 32. Colombo, Sri Lanka: Internationallrriga­ tion Management Institute. 48 SWIM Papers 1. Accounting for Water Use and Productivity. David Molden, 1997. 2. How to Manage Salinity in Irrigated Lands: A Selective Review with . Particular Reference to Irrigation in Developing Countries. Jacob W. Kijne, S. A. Prathapar, M. C. S. Wopereis, and K. L. Sahrawat, 1998. 3. Water-Resource and Land-Use Issues. I. R. Calder, 1998. 4. Improving Water Utilization from a Catchment Perspective. Charles Batchelor, Jeremy Cain, Frank Farquharson, and John Roberts, 1998. 5. Producing More Rice with Less Water from Irrigated Systems. L. C . Guerra, S. I. Bhuiyan, T. P. Tuong, and R. Barker, 1998. 6. Modeling Water Resources Management at the Basin Level: Review and Future Directions. Daene C. McKinney, Ximing Cai, Mark W. Rosegrant, Claudia Ringler, and Christopher A. Scott, 1999. 7. Water Harvesting and Supplemental Irrigation for Improved Water Use Efficiency in Dry Areas. Theib Oweis, Ahmed Hachum, and Jacob Kijne, 1999. 8. Multiple Uses of Water in Irrigated Areas: A Case Study from Sri Lanka. Margaretha Bakker, Randolph Barker, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Flemming Konradsen, 1999. IWMI INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTE POBox 2075 Colombo, Sri Lanka ~ CGIAR Tel (94-1) 867404' Fax (94-1) 866854' E-mail iwmi@cgiar.org Internet Home Page http://www.cgiar.org/iwmi ISBN 92-9090-380-5 ISSN: 1028-6705 PRINTED BY SUMATHI BOOK PRINTING (PV1) LIMITED