WE THE PEOPLE
Non-formation of State level Committees has defeated Monitoring of Irrigation Schemes in J&K
Hence People demand implementation of Central Govt., guidelines to achieve targets
By: MNS/M. Shirjeel
Srinagar: In our last seven eight series, we have stated that by ignoring the basic principles, the officials of J&K Irrigation & Flood Control Department have caused unfruitful expenditure of Rs. 2.72 crore besides non-extension of irrigation facilities to 849 hectare. It has also been pointed out that twenty three per cent of the 240 tube wells drilled in Jammu Province have remained non-functional during 2004-09. As a result, only 41 per cent of the irrigation potential created was utilized.
It needs to be reminded to our Readers that the Irrigation and Flood Control Department was created in 1959 by the State government with the objective of providing assured irrigation facilities to cultivable/cultivated land in the State by renovation/modernization of the existing canals and construction of new canals. Out of the total cultivable area of 3.12 lakh hectares, 2.89 lakh hectares of land (93 per cent) is irrigated through gravity canals and the remaining 0.23 lakh hectares (7 per cent) through lift irrigation schemes, tube wells, tanks, etc.
It may also be stated that the irrigation potential utilized at the end of 10th Plan was 83 per cent in case of major/medium irrigation schemes while as it was 87 per cent in case of minor irrigation schemes. However, the overall irrigation potential utilized was encouraging, the irrigation potential created was only 89 per cent and 41 per cent in case of major/medium and minor irrigation schemes respectively.
For economic viability of an irrigation scheme, cost benefit ratio (CBR) of the scheme should be more than unity. To ensure that a scheme has actually come up to the desired level in respect of creation of irrigation potential and utilization thereof, it is essential for the Department to work out the cost benefit ratio on actuals after completion of the schemes. It has, however, been seen during detailed scrutiny that no such exercise had ever been conducted by the Department to ascertain the cost benefit ratio actually achieved in respect of completed schemes to identify bottlenecks, if any, for its non-achievement for taking remedial action.
Besides the AIBP guidelines stipulate that major/medium irrigation schemes should be monitored at least twice a year and minor schemes monitored periodically on sample basis by Central Water Commission. It has been noticed that the Commission had been monitoring the major, medium and minor irrigation schemes under AIBP regularly and making recommendations on issues needing attention. But the implementing agencies at the scheme level had been implementing the recommendations in varying degrees in respect of major/medium schemes only and not in respect of minor schemes.
The Chief Engineer, Irrigation and Flood Control Department, Jammu has stated that the irrigation schemes were monitored by the concerned District Development Commissioners. The Monitoring reports were, however, not on record at any level. No reply from CE, Kashmir was received and no such records were also found by the Inspecting Agency. No State/Scheme level committees had been constituted to carry out monitoring of the schemes nor any independent agency engaged at any level for the purpose. The State Government/CWC/MOWR had also not conducted any study to evaluate the crop yield, cost benefit ratio, measuring of discharge of water, etc. of schemes. Remote Sensing Technology was also not used by the Department to monitor the progress of works.
The objective of speedy development of irrigation potential and its eventual utilization for the benefit of the farmer has not been achieved to the desired extent in the State due to inherent deficiencies in planning, execution and monitoring. Implementation of the schemes was affected due to delay in release/diversion of funds, delays in execution and non-fulfillment of pre-requisites. In the absence of a time bound strategy for systematic harnessing of estimated irrigation potential, there was shortfall in the creation of irrigation potential. Even the irrigation potential created under various schemes was not utilized optimally. Thirty two per cent of the 39 completed schemes could not provide adequate irrigation due to land disputes and non-restoration of damages. Consequently, the ultimate cost benefit ratio achieved of some schemes was less than unity. .....................................................(To be continued)
More 
