Beneficiary Participation in Irrigation Water Management: The Kerala

planning and crop-pattern changes, one each from the Committees Kannadi-Odannur,
Kannannur-Pulinelli, and Kinavalloor-Mankara. Eight out of 29 decisions came from the
Kinavalloor-Mankara and Kunnissery committees of the Right Bank Canal established in
1994. The Committees met only thrice but every time with the necessary quorum. This is
in clear contrast with the experience of the Kottayi-Peigottukurissi, the first to be constituted
in the Malampuzha project in 1987 which took only five decisions over a period of 10
years.
It is seen, however, that only three out of the 29 decisions taken on crop planning and
cropping pattern were pertinent and related to the carrying out of their assigned functions.
All others were of a general nature such as request for a change in duty timings,
commencement of water supply, extension in water supply to more areas, rectification of
structural defects, and elimination of malpractices. Decisions which would involve the coordination
of the activities of different BFAs or concerning equitable distribution of irrigation
water among the BFAs were found absent. The Canal Committees did really fail to undertake
the major tasks expected of them.
In sum, canal committees were formed at an inordinately slow pace. Fifty-seven meetings
were held without quorum and more than 60 per cent with zero attendance of non-official
members. This fact is indicative of the indifference or even aversion with which the nonofficial
members viewed such meetings. The majority of decisions of the committees, taken
during the span of 10 years, were broadly of a routine nature, not innovative or concerning
the major functions of the canal committee as envisaged in the CADA Act.
Level of awareness
The level of awareness about the duties and responsibilities of the various committees, even
about their existence, is found to be incredibly low among members of BFAs, including
their office-bearers. Two office-bearers resolutely denied that any canal committee existed;
11ordinary members also shared this view. Another 18 OBs and 323 OMs forming fourfifths
of the membership pleaded ignorance. Only two office-bearers and eight ordinary
members knew about the structure and composition of canal committees. Knowledge of
both OBs and OMs about the persons who hold the offices of Canal Committees was
extremely poor. So, also of the modus operandi of taking decisions and implementing them.
The knowledge level of the respondents from the upper reaches of the canal is found to be
fairly good about the status of water supply; but it is higher among respondents from the
middle and the lower reaches. Thus, the significance of BFAs appears to be less in areas in
which water scarcity does not exist.
The level of understanding of the sample respondents about the Project Advisory Committee
(PAC), such as its structure, composition and functions, is extremely low. About three-fifths
of the office-bearers and more than one-fourth of the ordinary members know about the
existence and the working of the PAC. Even canal committees were not adequately aware of
the PACs. The official explanation for this sorry state of affairs was that PAC decisions on
the dates of opening of the reservoir for supply of irrigation water and the dates of closing
the studies were implemented straight away and all farmers keenly followed up the decisions
39