During the last three and half decades the government of Andhra Pradesh has constructed 1068 Lift Irrigation Schemes investing about Rs.123 crores. Despite the huge public investments, the performance of LI Schemes in the State has been quite dismal. While nearly 50 % of these schemes have become defunct and the remaining are also operating at sub optimal level. The huge cost on the maintenance of the schemes had become a big problem for the government. Keeping this in view the government in 1995 had decided to hand over the LI Schemes to the beneficiary farmers. It was assumed that the management transfer would increase the performance of the schemes and farmers would be happy to take it over since the schemes are given to them at free of cost. Contrary to this expectation, in some places farmers did not come forward at

all to takeover the schemes. In some places where schemes were handed over either they had soon become completely defunct or working at less than optimal level.  

Why have farmers failed to manage the schemes? What are the reasons for schemes going defunct? Answers to these questions are crucial particularly in the context of growing recognition all over of the need for user- participation in irrigation management for enhancing the efficiency of irrigation systems. The present study is an attempt to address these questions. 

The present study has selected 16 L.I. schemes out of a total of 39 Schemes in Mahaboobnagar and Kurnool districts of Andhra Pradesh.   Out of these 16 Schemes, 14 defunct and two working schemes have been randomly selected for the study.  Data has been collected through structured questionnaire, semi-structured interviews with knowledgeable ‘key informants’, focused group and case studies.

The study has noted that a number of complex and inter-related factors have contributed for failure of the LI Schemes. For analytical purpose these factors are broadly categorized as institutional, financial and technical.

The study has identified that the primary reason responsible for the failure of most schemes is institutional in nature. Institutional failures such as lack of effective farmers committees, strong leadership, cooperation and participation of farmers, conflict resolution mechanisms, procedural systems, both financial and management and lack of general awareness about participatory methods in running the schemes etc., have contributed for the failure of the schemes.

The main problem began with the way APSIDC transferred schemes to the farmers and the manner in which committees were originally constituted. Either before or after the transfer of the schemes, proper efforts were not made to motivate and convince the farmers, and build the capacities of farmers committees in running the schemes. This has resulted in the poor performance of these committees in maintaining the schemes. The failure to maintain the schemes in proper running condition reflected in conflicts over water sharing and poor water tax recoveries. Poor water tax collections in turn constrained the committees to clear electricity bills and attend technical problems in time ultimately leading to the closing down of the schemes.

Although institutional failure is the primary reason for most schemes, there are some instances where technical and financial factors played a major role for failure of the schemes. In few cases the technical problems like the very design of the scheme, frequent motor repairs, low voltage, and breakdown of intake and feeder channels etc. have mainly contributed for the failure of the schemes. At the time of handing over itself these schemes had some of these problems. They were handed over to the farmers without attending to these technical problems.  

Financial factors are quite important since they have direct bearing on the functioning of the schemes. After the transfer of the schemes to the farmers, self-reliance has become the key element for their sustainability. Unless water tax is paid by the farmers and collected by the committees regularly and fully, the schemes run into problems. In fact, non-payment leads to a chain of problems like delays in clearing electricity bills, delays in repair works etc., which in turn leads to the failure of the schemes. Although institutional and technical factors are important for the overall performance of most schemes, the immediate cause for their failure, however, in majority of the cases, has been the financial problem of lack of funds to pay electricity bills resulting in disconnection of power to the schemes.

The failure on the part of government in handling the whole issue of management transfer in LI Schemes is clearly evident. It is difficult to understand why the same government which recognised the need for proper legal frame work, motivation and capacity building while transferring the management to farmers committees in canal and tank irrigation systems failed to do the same in case of LI schemes. The LI Schemes actually require greater attention because of huge recurring costs and complex nature of problems associated with their maintenance compared to canal and tank irrigation systems.

In view of the above findings, it is suggested that a multi-pronged approach of stakeholder capacity building in institutional, technical and financial aspects is necessary with the active coordination between the different governmental agencies like APSIDC, A.P Transco, etc., on the one hand and cooperation between the farmers committees and the governmental departments on the other. It is here that the NGOs have a proactive role to play in strengthening farmers committees as well as act as an interface between the government and the farmers’ committees.