metadata: authors: 0: author: Plusquellec,Herve Louis Paul
count: Colombia
docna: 0: docna: Two irrigation systems in Colombia : their
            performance and transfer of management to users' associations
docty: Policy Research Working Paper
subtopic: Climate Change and Agriculture,Water Resources Management,Crops and Crop Management Systems,Agricultural Irrigation and Drainage,Water and Food Supply,Hydrology,Irrigation and Drainage
teratopic: Water Resources
abstracts: cdata!: Two Colombian irrigation projects are
            studied in this report, the Coello and RUT projects.
            Management of the RUT project is going to be transfered soon
            from public managers to farmers. The Coello project has been
            farmer managed for about 13 years. The keys to its success
            have been: 1) the dynamism of the private farming sector and
            support services in Colombia, 2) the high level of farmer
            training, 3) patterns of land tenure - with farms an average
            size of 15 hectares, 4) regular maintenance, 5) continuity
            of medium and low level staff, 6) availability of
            communication and transportation facilities, and 7) some use
            of hydraulic engineering in the design of irrigation
            facilities, to simplify operations and reduce maintenance costs.
geo_reg_key: 119228,517191
repnme: repnme: Two irrigation systems in Colombia : their
            performance and transfer of management to users' associations
display_title: Two irrigation systems in Colombia :
            their performance and transfer of management to users' associations
listing_relative_url: /research/1989/09/700448/two-irrigation-systems-colombia-performance-transfer-management-users-associations
topicv3: Drainage m1326419 990,Water m1326522 137,Crop Production m1326627 174,Irrigation and Drainage m1504475 3676,Main Canals m1505246 2973
publishtoextweb_dt: 2010-07-01T00:00:00Z
historic_topic: Water Resources
origu: Policy Plan & Prog Review Dept
no_of_pages: 85
author_keys: 0: author_key: 98325
model_extractions: **Polac,Pnnlng, and Research**

**Aricultre Production and Services**

Two Colombian iffigation projects are studied in this report, the Coello and RUT projects. Management or the RUT project is going to be transfered soon from public managers to fanrers. The Coello project has been farmer-managed for about 13 years.

* The continuity of medium- and low-level staff, many of whom have been employed '0 to 15 years by the district.

* The availability of communication and transportation facilitics.

The keys to its success have been:

* The dynamism of the private farming sector and support services in Colombia.

* The high level of farmer training.

* Pattems of land tenure - with farms an average size of 15 hectares.

* Regular maintenance.

* Some use of hydraulic engineering in the design of irrigation facilities, to simplify operations and reduce maintenance costs.

This study is part of a series of case studies on the interaction between design and performance of irrigation systems in selected countries. This series of studies is carried out in coilaboration with the Bank Operations Evaluation Department and the Intemational Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI), Kandy, Sri Lanka.

This paper is a product of the Agriculture Production and Services Division, Agriculture and Rural Development Department. Copies are available free from the World Bank, 1818 H Street NW, Washington DC 20433. Please contact Herve Plusquellec, room N-8067, extension 30348 (75 pages with tables).

The PPR Working Paper Series disseminates the findings of work under way in the Bank's Policy, Planning, and Research Complex. An objective of the series is to get these findings out quickly, even if presentations are less than fully polished. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions in these papers do not necessarily represent official policy of the Bank.

Produced at the PPR Dissemination Cente,-
CASE STUDIES **OF TWO** lRRIGATION SYSTDHS IN **COLOMBIA**

# Their Performance and Transfer of Manaxement to Users' Assuciations

# Table of Contents

# Pase No.

|Foreword|..........................................|1|
|---|---|---|
|Swaary|and Conclusions.<br>.<br>......|3|
|I.|IRRIGATION IN COLOMBIA....<br>....|7|
||Institutional Framework<br>.<br>.|8|
||WaterCharges..<br>............................|.....<br>11|
|II.|COELLO IRRIGATION DISTRICT ........................|12|
||The Irrigation System ......<br>...................|..<br>13|
||Control Structures ......<br>.....................|...<br>14|
||Design Efficiencies ......<br>....................|...<br>14|
||Agricultural Production .....<br>..................|..<br>15|
||USOCoello Water Users' Associations .......... ...|15|
|III.|ROLDANILLO-UNION-TORO (RUT) IRRIGATION DISTRICT ......|17|
||The Irrigation System ................ ...|8........<br>i|
||ControlStructures ......<br>.....................|...<br>19|
||Agricultural Production .....<br>.................|....<br>20|
|IV.|PERFORMANCE AND ANA&GEMENT ...........................|<br>21|
||System of Water Allocation and Distribution<br>....|. 21|
||Operations and Maintenance..<br>...............|.....<br>24|
||Staffing<br>...................<br>...................|..<br>24|
||Equipment<br>................... ..................|..<br>25|
||Condition of Facilities.<br>...................|.....<br>26|
||Annual Costs .................<br>................|...<br>26|
||Cost Recovery .......<br>........................|....<br>27|
||Rehabilitation and Modernization .......<br>.......|..<br>29|
|TABLES|1.<br>Average Monthly Rainfall in Coello||
||and RUT Irrigation Districts (Mm) .........|<br>31|
||2.<br>Land Tenure in the Coello and||
||RUT Irrigation Districts ............... ...|<br>32|
||3.|Cropping Pattern, Irrigation, and Yields<br>in the Coello District (1987) .....<br>.......|. 33|
|---|---|---|---|
||4.|Cropping Pattern, Irrigation, and<br>Yields in the RUT Irrigation<br>District (1987) ...........................|<br>34|
||5.|Efficiency of Conveyance and<br>Distribution in Coello and RUT||
|||Irrigation Districts ......................|<br>35|
||6.|A Breakdown of the Coello Irrigation<br>District Staff ...................... .....|<br>36|
||7.|Budget for Coello Irrigation<br>District (1987) ...........................|<br>37|
||8.|Budget for Coello Irrigation<br>District (1988) ...........................|<br>38|
||9.|Actual Expenses for RUT Irrigation<br>Districts (1987) ..........................|<br>39|
||10.|Projected Revenues from Water<br>Charges in the Coello Irrigation<br>District (1988) ..........<br>..............|...<br>40|
|APPENDIX 1|Chief<br>Irrig|Characteristics of Coello and RUT<br>ation Districts ........<br>.................|...<br>41|
|APPENDIX 2|Agree<br>the I<br>is De|ment No. 41: General Regulations for<br>rrigation Districts whose Management<br>legated to Water Users Associations ........|<br>45|
|MAPS|IBRD<br>Ir<br>IBRD<br>IBRD|No. 21534- Roldanillo-Unioni-Toro (RUT)<br>rigation District<br>No. 21535-<br>Irrigation Districts<br>No. 21536- Coello Irrigation District||
# CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

US$1 - 300 Col$ (1988) Colombian peso (COl$) = 0.0033 USS

# WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

1 acre (ac) = 0.405 hectares (ha) 1 mile (mi) = 1.609 kilometers (km)

# GLOSSARY OF ABBREVIATIONS

- CHO - constant-head orifice ha - hectare

- HIMAT - Instituto Colombiana de Hidrologia, Meterologia y Adecuacion de Tierras (Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Land Improvement)

IIMI - International Irrigation Management Institute INCORA - Instituto Colombiano de la Reforma Agraria (Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform) Mm3 - Million cubic meters m<sup>3</sup> /sec - Cubic meter per second RUT - Roldanillo-Union-Toro

- WUA - Water User Association
# FOREWORD

This report is part of a series of case studies of irrigation systems in different countries. These studies focus on:

- the extent to which the design of the irrigation system fosters effective water management and provides equitable, reliable, timely water distribution to farms (analyzes water efficiencies, the effectiveness of maintenance, and cost

recovery), and

- the extent to which the farmers' organization have taken responsibility for operating and maintaining the system and helping to recover costs.

Case studies are being prepared by the Bank's Operations Evaluation Department in cooperation with the Agriculture and Rural Development Department (AGR) in two semi-arid countries, Mexico and Morocco, and two tropical countries, Thailand and the Philippines. Other case studies in South East Asia will be prepared by the International Irrigation Management Institute (IIMI). The report on the case study of the Gezira Irrigation Scheme in Sudan is under preparation by AGR.

This working paper describes the design and management of two irrigation districts in Colombia: the Roldanillo-Union-Toro (RUT) district (9,700 ha) in the Cauca Valley and the Coello district (27,180 ha) in the Magdalena Valley.
-2-

The Coello project is one of the two publicly built projects in Colombia for which management responsibility was transferred to the Water User Association when HIMATl/ was created in 1976. There are few such examples in developing countries.

In the RUT project, the system of water conveyance is first through open canals to individual farms where it is then pumped into pressure systems for delivery to sprinkler. HIMAT plans to transfer management responsibility for this project to the Water User Association in June 1989. It will be interesting to see whether the RUT is as successful in this transfer as the Coello district has been.

On account of the short time available for data collection and field visits, this report in no way presents the level of details and analysis found in reports of the Operations Evaluation Department. It should however, provide some useful information on irrigation projects in a humid tropical country where the farmers' involvement in management of irrigation schemes is institutionalized, and on two specific projects where water has been distributed to the satisfaction of the farmers and irrigated agriculture has been sustained for more than 20 years without major rehabilitation programs.

1, HIMAT: Instituto Colombiano de Hidrologia, Meteorologia y Adecuacion de Tierras. (Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Land Improvement).
-3-

## **CASE** STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN **COLOMBIA**

# Their Performance and Transfer of Man'iaemen **t** o Users' Associations

# **SUMMARY** AND CONCLUSIONS

The two Colombian districts selected for this study -- Coello and RUT -- are suitable for year-round culUivation because they enjoy a humid tropical climate with two rainy seasons. The average farm in RUT (5 ha) is a third the size of the average farm in Coello (15 ha), but is still large compared to farms in irrigated areas in most developing countries. Coello district benefits from certain physical advantages: The compact shape of the irrigable area and natural drainage. The flat lands of the RUT are difficult to drain and suffer from a high water table.

Water is delivered and applied by gravity methods in Coello. In RUT, water is first lifted from the Cauca River and then distributed through open-channel distribution systems to the farmers who use their diesel pumps for pressurized application. Both systems are operated manually, although at Coello a number of simple control structures and desilting devices were designed to simplify operation and reduce the cost of maintenance.

In both districts, water is distributed under a pre-arranged demand system. Water distribution is equitable, timely, and reliable although there are only few measuring devices and the systems are generally operated and water delivered based on the experience and instincts of district staff. Although irrigation service is satisfactory to water users, overall efficiency in the Coello district, estimated at 30 percent,
-4-

is relatively low. The main problem, common to all rice districts in Colombia, is that rice is grown not on leveled lands (as in all other major -- rice producing countries) but on sloping fields with low contour bunds which wastes water and uses the abundant rainfall inefficiently. The higher overall efficiency in RUT, estimated at about 402, is attributable to the water-saving presstrized method of application. Rice is the predominant crop in Coello, followed by cotton and sorghum, so average water consumption there is much higher than in RUT, where rice cultivation is not authorized and the cropping pattern is more diversified. Crop yields -- especially rice (6 ton/ha) and cotton (3 ton/ha) -- are high by both national and international standards.

The irrigation system in Coello district (and to a lesser extent in RUT) has been well maintained since its construction 35 years ago, so the requirements for rehabilitation are modest and largely confined to the replacement of maintenance plant and equipment.

As in other Colombian districts, operation and maintenance (O&M) costs are recovered through two direct water charges, by application of a fixed and volumetric rate. The fixed rate, payable before each growing season, covers approximately 50Z of the O&M costs. The average O&M cost per ha in RUT is equivalent to US$55 in 1988 dollars. It is much higher than in Coello (US$35), reflecting the costs in RUT of energy for primary pumping, the cost of maintenance of pumping facilities, and the greater development of main and distribution canal systems, the drainage system, and the network of access roads. Collection rates on water charges are excellent (100Z) in both districts, but only 75? of annual budget e7r,enses are recovered in RUT; HIMAT contributes the rest. The Coello district gets no help in financing its annual O&M expenses.
-5-

The annual O&M cost per hectare in Coello is probably typical, and a good basis for estimating the costs of managing, maintaining and operating a medium size project in a humid tropical environment under sustainable conditions.

Coello district has been well managed by its Water User Association, USOCOELLO, since HIMAT2/ was created in 1976.

The farmer-managed Coello district has succeeded for several reasons: Chief among them tae dynamism of the private farming sector and supporting service activities in Colombia, the high level of farmer training and the relatively large size of farm holdings. Other factors relevant to this comparative study have also played a role in this success: o the continuity of medium - and low - level staff (most of the operations personnel in both RUT and Coello districts have been employed at least 10 years and some more than 15 years);

- regular maintenance, and the availability of communication and transportation facilities; and

- some use of hydraulic engineering in the design of irrigation facilities, to simplify operations and reduce maintenance costs.

These two Colombian projects have shown that a conventional design project in a developing country can perform reasonably well if certain conditions are present: highly motivated and trained personnel, good management, and adequate transportation an. :ommunication facilities.

- 2/ HIMAT: In4tituto Colombiano de Hidrologia, Meteorologia y Adecuacion de Tierras. (Colombian Institute of Hydrology, Meteorology and Land Improvenent).
-6-

Coello represents an interesting case of successfully turning management of a publicly administered large irrigation scheme over to farmers. It is the Colombian government's objective to progressively turn the management of all irrigation districts over to water user associations. The question is whether the successful experience in Coello can be repeated in other districts. Transfer of management responsibilities to the RUT water association, scheduled for 1989, should be instructive. The RUT district presents more physical and managerial disadvantages than Coello:

- higher O&M costs, to which the costs of individual pumping for pressurized application should be added;

- smaller average farm size; and

- unfavorable drainage conditions and the risk of

flooding from the hill streams and the Cauca River.

Will the small farm holders in RUT be able to pay their share of O&M costs? Will the Water User Association be able to sustain maintenance of the irrigation facilities well enough to prevent deterioration of the facilities?

In a wider context, the question arises whether the same approach to irrigation design and management would work with the very small holdings found in most developing countries. This question will be examined in similar studies of irrigation projects in A 'a and Africa.
-7-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IERIGATION SYSTEHS IN COLOMBIA

Their Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations

# I. IRRIGATION IN COLOMBIA

1. Of the 810,000 ha under irrigation in Colombia, 347,000 ha are irrigated in public projects managed by HIMAT and 463,000 ha are irrigated by the private, sector.

2. Little information is available on private irrigation because there is no agency concerned with its promotion and coordination. About half of the private irrigation systems are located in the fertile soils of the Cauca River valley. Most of these systems were developed by private individuals with financial assistance from the state in the form of development loans. Conservation of these systems is the farmers' responsibility. By and large, private irrigation is well equipp d and effectively managed -- vertically integrated to processing facilities for sugar cane, cotton, and feed grains. Private irrigated agriculture mainly uses sophisticated technology. Water is pumped from river or tubewells and applied to the land by sprinklers or efficient surface methods. The water is carefully controlled and irrigation highly efficient. Yields are relatively high: an average 80-120 tons/ha for sugar cane, 2.6 tons/ha for soybean, and 2.6 tons/ha for cotton). Cropping patterns are determined by the farmers according to price incentives and the relative profitability of various crops.

3. The public irrigation/drainage subsector in Colombia comprises 24 districts, of which 16 are essentially for irrigation. The remaining eight
B-8 are classified as drainage schemes. The total physical area for the 24 districts (which average 14,000 ha each) is 343,000 ha -- of which 120,000 ha have irrigation and drainage infrastructure and 113,800 ha have only drainage infrastructure.

4. Designed during the 1960s, most of the public districts are based on simple designs. Two have storage dams, eight are supplied from direct river diversions, and seven from river pumping stations.

# Institutional Framework and Farmer MHawement Structure

HIMAT was est4blished in 1976 as an autonomous public entity attached to the Ministry of Agriculture. It took over public sector irrigation and drainage investments from another organization, INCORA, which previously had established them in conjunction with land reform. The Colombian Institute for Agrarian Reform, INCORA, established in 1961 to reform the agrarian social structure of Colombia, initially concentrated on land reform. In later years, INCORA diversified its operations considerably, and undertook land and water development projects. The transfer of technical responsibility from INCOPA to HIMAT in 1976 reflects the decline of agrar4an reform as a national priority.

HIMAT is governed by a board of directors from several public institutions, and presided over by the Ministry of Agriculture. Thirteen regional directors are responsible for managing HIMAT's activities. HIMAT has a total staff of nearly 2,000, of which half are in the irrigation and drainage Sub-directorate (1,950 in the regional offices, and 50 at the central office).

A Water Users' Association (WUA) was established for each of the 24 irrigation and drainage districts. The government attaches great
-9-

importance to the need to strengthen the Water Users Associations so that management of irrigation and drainage facilities can eventually be transferred to them. A program to rehabilitate and complete the existing districts begun in 1981, is being implemented with the help of the World Bank. Once a reliable irrigation service has been established, the recovery of O&M costs is expected to gradually improve eliminating the need for further budget allocations. Once O&M costs are fully recoverable the district management is to be transferred to Water Users Associations. Management of two districts, Coello (27,187 ha) and Saldana (13,985 ha) in the Magdalena Valley, was transferred to their Water Users Associations when HIMAT was created in 1976. Plans are to transfer management of the RUT district to the Water User Association in June 1989.

Regulations were established in 1977 to provide guidelinei for the running of districts where management had been handed over from HIMAT to Users' Associations (see Appendix 2: Translation of Acuerdi No. 41 dated November 16, 1977).

The main points of interest in this document deal with:

- 3 Responsibilities of the Office of the District Chief,

- The Definition of water users,

- Rights and obligations of water users,

- Constitution and elections of the Board of Directors,

- Powers of the Board of Directors,

- Preparation of irrigation plans,

- Water distribution,

- Eligibility requirements for water use entitlement,

- Individual farm turnouts,

- Water charges, fixed and volumetric rate, and

- Offences and fines.
-10-

The board of each association is composed of seven members, four representing minor farm holdings (of less than 20 hectares) and three representing major holdings. The board members are elected for two years, but can be re-appointed indefinitely.

The seasonal cultivation and irrigation program is submitted for approval to a consultative committee composed of representatives of the large and small farm holdings, regional directors of HIMAT and representatives of other agricultural institutions (credit, extension services) at the discretion of the water users'associations.

Acuerdo No.41 also defines the book-keeping responsibi'Lties of the district management as including:

- Master list of users,

- Record and file of works and procurement contracts,

- Updated inventory of the District's works and equipment,

- Hydrological and meteorological records,

- Records of rainfed and irrigated crops,

- Record of irrigation distribution orders,

- Record of volumetric consumption,

- Books of inventories, materials, equipment control, unit costs, yields, etc.

- O Accounting and cash books,

- Correspondence files,

- Files of channel and on-farm water measurement records and topographical records,

- Personnel records,

- Book of minutes of the meetings of the Coordination

Commitee, meetings with users, Users' Associations, etc.,
-11-

o Any other information needed to ensure the District's smooth operation.

# Water **CharRes**

Under Colombian law all beneficiaries of public works must pay a land appreciation surcharge proportionate to the value of the government's investment. Beneficiaries of land improvement districts are also liable for the cost of operations and maintenance (O&M). Operations and maintenance costs are recovered through (i) a fixed water charge (per hectare, per year) and (ii) a variable water charge based on the volume of water delivered for irrigation. The law does not state what proportion of these two charges are to meet O&M costs. Water rates are fixed once a year by HIHAT's Board of Directors before the first planting season starts, at the time of budget preparation.

In setting the fixed and volumetric water rates, HIMAT determines the users'contribution to O&M costs, the government pays the difference. Fixed charges are paid in advance, regardless of land use. Their payment is a pre-requisite for receiving the irrigation service. The volumetric water charges are paid at the end of each season. The collection rate is generally high.

Volumetric payments depend on how much water is actually delivered to the farmers. Rainfall varies markedly, which affects demand for supplementary irrigation water. Total water charges covered only 34.9Z O&M costs in 1980 and 28.5Z in 1987. Only a few districts, including RUT, approach self-sufficiency for operations and maintenance.
-12-

# **II.** COELLO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

The Coello irrigation district is located about 150 kilometers from the capital, Bogota on the left bank of the Magdalena River in the Department of Tolima, at an elevation of between 200 and 300 meters. The project covers part of a large alluvial fan with a regular but relatively steep slope (a few meters per kilometer). The Magdalena River, which borders the project area on its east side, cuts deeply into the alluvial valley soils. The river and a number of deep gullies that dissect the project area ensuring the lower part of the project of adequate natural drainage. The Bogota-Cali highway crosses the project area. District headquarters are located in the town of Espinal, at the center of the area. The gross area of the Coello district is about 44,100 ha, of which only 27,187 ha are currently registered. The rest are not yet developed or completed. The climate is tropical with an average monthly temperature ranging between 25°C and 30<sup>0</sup> C. Mean annual precipitation is about 1350 mm equally distributed between the two rainy seasons, from March to May and September to December (see table 1).

In the project area, the alluvial soils, of volcanic origin, are medium texture, suitable for both paddy and nonpaddy crops.

The only source of water for the project is the Rio Coello, a tributary of the Magdalena River, that drains the east side of the central Andean ridge. The flow of the Rio Coello is not regulated and floods are common at the headworks of the project after heavy rainfall in the upper catchment. Average annual inflow volume is about 450 Mm<sup>3</sup> . Average monthly discharges vary from 10.4 m<sup>3</sup> /s in March to 18.3 m<sup>3</sup> /s in November. Suspended load and bed load are particularly high.
-13-

About 99Z of the lands of the Coello project belong to private owners and only 12 (270 ha) to beneficiaries of agrarian reform. About 56Z of the farms in the district are smaller than 10 ha, occupying a total of only 142 of the land area. Another 262 of the farms occupy more than 20 ha each or a total of 712 of the land. The average size of the 1,681 farms is 16.2 ha (Table 2).

# The Irrigation System

The Coello irrigation system was built between 1950 and 1953 with the assistance of a consulting firm from the U.S.A. This system consists of:

- Ci) an intake on the bank of the Rio Coello with no permanent structure across the river.

|(ii) an 8km-|long unline|d conveyanc|e canal of 25 m<sup>3</sup>/sec capacity,|
|---|---|---|---|
|(iii) a small|hydropower|plant, 'La|Ventana," that takes advantage|
|of a 20|meter drop,|||

|(iv)|a network of unl|ined main canals (83 km) and secondary and|
|---|---|---|
||tertiary canals|(160 km) delivering water to the farms|
||through 990 far|m outlets.|

Most of the drainage system consists of natural channels deeply cut in alluvial soils. Diversion weirs have been built on some of these channels to capture the water drained from the upper part of the district and to reuse it through irrigation systems supplying the lower areas of the district.

The land slopes too much to avoid scouring in unlined channels of same slope, so the main canals have been designed with non-erosive, gentle slopes and deep-cut sections. Vortex-type drop structures built at the end
-14-

of each section effectively dissipate the energy and create minimal erosion downstream.

The headworks consist of a diversion bund made of boulders that direct the water through a short channel to the main canal intake. One interesting feature is that the flow into the main canal is controlled by stoplogs instead of through undershot gates. The head on the stoplogs is controlled by adjusting the desilting gate. By skimming the water from the diversion channel, the volume of silt introduced into the distribution system is minimized. Along the conveyance canal four desilting structures (consisting of two wing weirs) trap the silt upstream. The silt is drained back into the Rio Coello at appropriate times through radial gates associated with the wing weirs.

## Control Structures

The major cross-regulators on the main canals are the composite type -- a long crest section with gates -- which allow them to maintain a nearly constant level upstream for reasonable periods without readjusting the gates. All other structures are simply sliding gates. A number of "Phallophet" flow measuring devices (which operate on the principle of the Parshall flume) have been installed recently to measure flows to individual farms.

# Design Efficiencies

The values of on-farm efficiencies adopted in the feasibility study for the extension of Coello District were as follows:
-15-

|paddy:|land preparation by puddling|s<br>55Z|
|---|---|---|
||sloping fields|:<br>45Z|
|non-paddy crops:|furrow irrigation|:<br>62Z|
||sprinkler|s<br>70Z|

# Agricultural Production

Rice, cotton and sorghum are the three main crops in the Coello district. Table 3 shows the cropping pattern, yields, and production in 1987. During the two growing seasons, 22,300 ha and 19,000 ha were - cultivated on the 27,187 registered hectares of this total of 41,300 ha under cultivation. Only 34,000 ha were irrigated, so cropping intensity was 152Z and irrigation cropping intensity was 125Z. Yields of rice paddy (6 tons/ha) and seed cotton (3 tons/ha) are high by international standards. Rice farmers are authorized to grow rice during only one of the two growing seasons and have to stay with the season they select in the early years of the project.

Farmers use advanced farming technology, including planes to apply some farm inputs.

# USOCOELLO Water Users' Associations

The management of the Coello district was transferred to the Water Users' Association (known as USOCOELLO) when HIHAT was created in 1976. The general conditions of transfer were defined in an agreement between HIMAT and USOCOELLO.

USOCOELLO's regulations defining the rights and obligations of the association members, and the functions of the General Assembly, Board, and General Manager are set out in a document issued on October 31, 1986
-16-

(Estatutas De La Associacion de Usuarios de Aguas del Districto de Riego del Rio Coello). Any owner, farmer or tenant farmer in the area can be a member of USOCOELLO and submit a request for registration. The district is well-managed and members of the Association participate actively in the annual meetings.
-17-

# III. THE ROLDANILLO-UNION-TORO (RUT) IRRIGATION DISTRICT

The RUT project is located at about 1,000 meters elevation in the northern part of the province of Valle on the left bank of the Cauca River about halfway between the main cities of Cali and Medellin. The project area is connected by paved roads with the main North-South highway that follows the Cauca valley north to the seapo-t of Carthagena. The gross area of the RUT district is about 10,750 ha, of which 9,742 ha are "registered" lands.

As in Coello, the climate is tropical and farms benefit from two rainy seasons. The mean annual rainfall (1,123 mm) is slightly lower than in Coello and the second rainy season is less intense (see table 1).

The RUT project area has a relatively narrow configuration, bounded by low hills on the west and the Cauca River on the east. The lowlands in between were swampy before the project was implemented. The soils are suitable to all crops but in some areas contain harmful salts that affect the lower lands, which are difficult to drain.

The main source of water for the RUT district is the Cauca River, one of the two main rivers draining Colombia inter-Andean valleys. At the project level, the Cauca drains a catchment of 16,500 km2 and its flow, averaging 320 m<sup>3</sup> /sec by far exceeds project needs. The Cauca water is pumped to supply the project distribution system. A secondary source of water comes from the hill flows intercepted by one of the main canals running along the foot of the eastern hills. At times, when the Cauca River is high, the drained water is pumped back into the main irrigation system. Silt content of the Cauca water is high.
-18-

About 951 of the lands in the RUT district belong to private owners and 5Z to beneficiaries of agrarian reform. The size of the average farm (5.6 ha) is about one-third of that in the Coello district. However, 75? of the farms have an average area of 1.37 ha (see table 2).

HIMAT is in the process of transferring the management of RUT district to the Water Users' Association. Apparently the large and small holders have different views on the advantages and disadvantages of this transfer, the former ones being in favor of the transfer.

# The IrriRation System

Construction of the RUT irrigation system was undertaken by the Autonomous Corporation of Cauca Valley in 1958. First irrigation started in 1967 after the completion of the pumping station Tierrablanca. This system consists of two subsystems. One is supplied by the 31 km-long unlined "Interceptor" canal that runs along the eastern hills and the other is supplied by the 41km-long "Marginal" canal running along the left bank of the Cauca River. These two systems are supplied by the common pumping station Tierrablanca with a capacity of 6.8 m<sup>3</sup> /sec. The Interceptor canal has been designed to collect the torrents flowing from the hills. Its transit capacity (100 m<sup>3</sup> /sec) far exceeds irrigation needs. Located halfway along the Marginal canal is a second pumping station, to supplement the main station, and to pump drained water back into the Cauca River or the Marginal canal. A network of 75 km of secondary canals -- about half of them lined with concrete -- supply water through 350 farm turnouts. The drainage system consists of the 26km-long main collector draining into the Cauca River and 75 km of secondary drains. A flood protection dike was built between the Cauca River and the Marginal canal. The project was
-19-

originally designed for gravity application but most of the farmers have adopted pressurized application, mostly sprinklers, and use mobile motor pumps. This may be the consequence of the government's decision in the 1960s to leave the on-farm works, including land leveling, to the individual farmers. Most farmers use individual diesel pumps although a few farmers have recently converted to surface irrigation to reduce production costE. At present, only 102 of the area is gravity irrigated.

# Control Structures

The two main Interceptor and Marginal canals are equipped with cross-regulators -- two radial gates -- every 10 km. An automatic constant upstream level gate was installed on the first section of the interceptor canal, but is now used as a conventional radial gate adjusted manually.3/ The offtake structures for the secondary canals are equipped with constanthead orifice (CHO) gates. (As happens in virtually all projects in developing countries, the operations staff do not use the CHO gates for water measurements because of the relative complexity cf operation of these devices.). Farm turnouts are single-gate structures. I new type of structure has been built in the areas recently rehabilitated: The secondary canals are equipped with composite regulators -- long-crested

- 3/ The failure to use this gate as an upstream constant level gate demonstrates the risk of installing isolated automatic devices in an conventionally designed irrigation system for the purpose of testing this equipment. In tnis particular case, a modern approach would have been to design the entire Marginal canal for operation under downstream control by installing a series of automatic downstream constant level gates associated with constant-flow distributors.
-20-

weir and a small sliding gate. The secondary system has a few measuring devices of Parshall-type but there is no measurement of water delivered to the farms. The delivered volume is calculated based on the capacity of the individual pumping stations.

# Atricultural Production

Cultivation in the RUT district is more diversified than in Coello. Cotton, sorghum, and soybeans are the three main crops. Grapes and passion fruit trees cover together cover nearly 1,000 ha. The cultivation of rice is not authorized (see table 4).

About 122 of the area is rainfed pasture. Overall cropping intensity is about 175Z (excluding pasture) and the annual irrigation cropping intensity is about 1202. Crop yields are high even under rainfed conditions, as shown below (for growing season I):

|||Yields||
|---|---|---|---|
|Crom|Rainfed|Irrigated<br>|Increase|
|||Ton/ha-----|(X)|
|Cotton|2.4|2.8|17|
|Maize|3.5|4.8|37|
|Sorghum|3.6|4.3|19|
|Soybeans|1.8|2.2|22|

Yield increases due to irrigation ranging from 172 for cotton to 372 for maize are relatively modest, reflecting the good distribution of rainfall.
-21-

# IV. PERFORMANCE AND MANAGEMENT

# **System of Water Allocation and Distribution**

Water in both districts is distributed by pre-arranged demand. Individual farmers order water one day in advance in Coello district and two to three days in RUT. Standard order forms are submitted to the "ditchridersn ("Canaleros") of the Coello district during daily motorcycle tours they make at fixed schedules known by the farmers. The procedure for ordering water is established at informal meetings with farmers in the RUT district. Before the growing season, each farmer must submit a cultivation and irrigation plan to the districts for approval. To get irrigation service, farmers must have paid arrears on their water charges and their farm distribution systems must be in adequate condition. Water is released day and night. In the RUT district, there is no strict method for calculating the flows to be pumped or for taking losses into account. The two water masters have long experience in the hydraulic behavior of the two main canals and operate the entire system intuitively on the basis of dynamic controlled volume, and not on the basis of controlled flows. They trust to experience, taking virtually no measurements except the number of hours the main and individual pumping stations run. Table 5 shows the total volume of water diverted and delivered at farm turnouts in both districts for five growing seasons between 1985 and 1987. The average annual volumes used per district and per hectare and the conveyance/ distribution efficiency are summarized below: COELLO RUT Average annual volume diverted (Mm<sup>3</sup> ) 432 37.5 Average annual volume delivered (Mm<sup>3</sup> ) 282 25.3 Average Annual volume delivered (m<sup>3</sup> /ha) 10,360 2,600 Conveyance/distribution Efficiency (Z) 65.1 67.6
-22-

The reason for the high water use in Coello is that about 17.000 ha of rice per year are cultivated.

The conveyance/distribution efficiencies of 65Z and 67Z calculated by the districts are relatively high for unlined systems and, given the lack of systematic water measurement, may be questionable. However, they seem acceptable as estimates since some drained water is reused in both districts and water collected by the interceptor canal in RUT district is not counted in the supply estimate.

Sprinkler application in the RUT district is affected by strong winds during the dry months. Field application efficiency is estimated at only 60-70Z. Field efficiency of gravity irrigation, estimated at 40-502, is also relatively low. Overall efficiency would be in the order of 43Z.

Important amounts of water are lost in the paddy fields of the Coello district. As in other Colombian districts, rice paddy lands are not leveled and few farmers use the method of preparation by puddling commonly used in rice-growing Asian countries. However, water consumption in Coello is lower than in other districts. Water use per hectare per crop for example, reaches about 25,000 cubic meters in the nearby Rio Recio district. Taking into account seepage, evapotranspiration, and effective rainfall, field efficiency is roughly 452, so overall project efficiency is about 30Z. To introduce puddling techniques would certainly reduce water consumption but would also make it more difficult to rotate between paddy and nonpaddy crops.

Water use per hectare for nonpaddy crops is low. In RUT where annual water use per hectare is 2,600 cubic meters, many farmers seldom irrigate sorghum and cotton crops and in some seasons there is enough
-23-

rainfall to produce high yields without irrigation. In Coello, the historic annual volume of water delivered at farm turnouts in two seasons is 22 million cubic meters for a total cultivated area of 24,000 ha of nonpaddy crops (cotton, sorghum) in two seasons. This low water use illustrates the supplemental nature of irrigation for dry-foot crops in this district.

Water distribution in both Coello and RUT is timely, reliable and equitable. The pre-arranged demand system is not as flexible or convenient as pressurized systems under pure demand, but it meets the farmers' needs for the crops grown in those districts.

Groundwater tables have gradually risen in Coello district from over 20 meters before irrigation started in the 1950s to a few meters now. In some areas, the groundwater level is now less than one meter from the surface. The highest levels are observed during the rainy months of April and May, and in September and October. Rice cultivation in the Coello area, where the semi-pervious soils are suitable for both paddy and nonpaddy crops, has contributed to the present situation. However, the sloping topography and the natural drainage conditions have contributed to maintain the groundwater table at a level not detrimental to most crops with the exception of some areas located too far from a natural drain.

The swampy lowlands of the RUJT district occupying the central part of the project have been drained and reclaimed as part of the project, but because of the flat topography and salts present in the groundwater, there is a risk of waterlogging and salinization of the lowest areas. The district has been able to control water tables in the high risk areas through pumping, however.
-24-

# Operations and Maintenance

## Staffing

As in other districts, operation and maintenance (O&M) activities in Coello and RUT districts are the responsibilities oG two district departments, one for operation and one for maintenance. In addition, there is a small staff for the administration and overall management of the district. The management structure is much the same for both public or farmer-managed system. The total staff of each district is distributed as follows: <!-- Start of picture text --> Coello RUT<br>(No.) (No.)<br>Administration 18 10<br>Operation 19 20<br>Maintenance 60 54<br>97 84<br><!-- End of picture text --> Table 6 gives a breakdown on the Coello staff.

Although the registered area in Coello district is nearly three times that in the RUT district, its total staff is only 15Z larger and the operations staff in the two districts is about the same size.

For purposes of comparison, the following ratios including irrigation projects in other countries, may be of interest:

|||Colombia<br>Coello|RUT|Morocco<br>Doukkala|<br>Mexico<br> <br>Sinaloa|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Irrigable area|(ha)|27,187|9,742|<br>18,645|90,050|
|Net area per O&M employee|(ha)|345|131|<br>148|660|
|Net area per ditchrider|(ha)|4,531|1,623|<br>478|2751|
|Number of farms per<br>ditchrider|(no)|280|309|<br>195|218|
-25-

The sharp differences in the area each ditchrider is responsible for reflects the average size of farms (2.6 ha in Morocco versus 16.2 in Coello and 5.7 ha in RUT).

The reason for the small difference between the number of maintenance staff in Coello and RUT districts is probably related to the lengch of irrigation canals, drains, and service roads that need maintaining (see below) and to the effects of scale.

|Length of|Co<br>(km)|ello<br>(m/ha)|R<br>(km)|UT<br>(m/ha)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Irrigation canals|250|9.2|127|13.0|
|Drains|21.5|0.8|144|14.8|
|Service roads|177|6.5|350|35.9|

# Equipment

Maintenance equipment available in Coello and RUT is listed below:

||COELLO|RUT|
|---|---|---|
|Excavators/Dragliners|5|7|
|Tractors|4|2|
|Motorgraders|2|2|
|Loaders|1|4|
|Dump Trucks|8|7|
|Various|1|7|
|TOTAL|21|29|

Again, RUT district's relatively greater need for equipment reflects the greater length canals, drains, and roads to be maintained.
-26-

# Condition of Facilities

The Coello district's irrigation and drainage facilities are generally in good condition. Mechanical equipment at the control gates is well maintained. Most of the farm gates have been replaced in recent years at the farmers' expensa. The main canals are cleaned regularly despite the difficulties created by their deep-cut design. Access roads are in excellent condition, as are farm ditcbes and drains, which the farmers maintained. A bulldozer stand permanently near the headworks to rebuild the boulder bund immediately after each flood.

Conditions are not as good in the RUT district. Some sections of the Interceptor canal are infested with hyacinths, and the water is polluted by human waste. Several unlined secondary canals are infested with weeds and weeds are growing even in the recently lined sections. Protection works have been built in the sections of the Cauca River where erosion is a risk for the project land and facilities.

# Annual Costs

Of the total budget for the Coello district for 1987 (US$844,000). 20.22 was allocated to administration, 13.2? to operations and 66.6Z to maintenance (see table 7). Personnel expenses -- including salaries, -- fringe benefits, and personnel overhead (social security, etc.) represent about 50? of total expenses. The annual budget expressed in Colombian pesos was increased 37? for the year 1988 (see table 8). The annual O&M cost per hectare increased from Col$7,765 in 1987 (US$31.06) to Col$10,693 (US$35.64) in 1988. Considering how well maintained the Coello district facilities are, US$35 per hectare can be considered a good estimate for O&M costs for a medium-size irrigation project supplied by gravity in a humid tropical environment.
-27-

Table 9 shows actual expenses for the RUT project, based on information provided by the District. It does not include administrative expenses of the regional office that are charged to the district.

Operating expenses represent 372 and maintenance 63Z of the total budget of US$531,000. The average cost per hectare (Col$13,635, or US$54.5) is 75Z higher than in the Coello district because of:

- the cost of energy for pumping (US$7.1 per ha),

- the relative higher maintenance costs (because of the more intensive system of canals, drains, and access roads in the RUT district),

- the O&M costs of three pumping stations, and

- possibly greater staff efficiency in the privately managed Coello district.

# Cost Recovery

The fixed and volumetric water charges for Coello and RUT are determined every year before the first growing season. For Coello these rates are calculated to cover nearly 852 of expenses. Other income (for equipment rentals, bank interest, and extraordinary charges) provide the other 13-152 revenues (table 10). For RUT, these rates have been progressively increased with the objective of attaining full cost recovery by the time responsibility is transferred to the Water Users' Association.
-28-

For the year 1988, fixed and volumetric charges were set as follows:

||COELLO|RUT|
|---|---|---|
|Fixed Rate<br>(ColS/ha)|2,300-2,500a/|10,00|
|(US$/ha)|7.7-8.3|33.3|
|Volumetric Rate (ol$/m<sup>3</sup>)|0.52|1.68|
|(US$/100lm<br>3 )|1.73|5.6|
|Average fixed rate/O&M costs (Z) (1988)|42|55|

The higher rates in RUT (about four times the Coello district's fixed rate and three times the volumetric rate) reflect the higher O&M costs and lower water consumption in RUT district. The fixed rate charges represent about 42? and 552 of the annual average expenses in Coello and RUT respectively. All of the charges are fully collected in both districts.

a/ Different fixed rates are applied in Coello district, depending on the size of the holdings and the nature of the crops. For the year 1988 the rates per season were as follows:

||Paddy<br>|<br>|Nonpaddy<br>|
|---|---|---|---|
||-------|--Col$/ha|--|
|Farms of 20 ha or less|2,3C0||2,500|
|Farms above 20 ha|2,500||2,500|
-29-

# Rehabilitation and Modemnization

RUT district was included in the first irrigation rehabilitation project started in 1981, and Coello in the second project, started in 1986. Six irrigation districts were included in each of these two projects. The objectives of these two projects are to: i) halt deterioration of existing irrigation infrastructures through rehabilitation, and ii) construct new infrastructu:es to modernize use of available water and land resources. An important part of the work carried out in the RUT district and planned for Coello is to complete the existing facilities or expand the irrigated area. Rehabilitation will be limited. Work completed in the RUT district includes:

- strengthering and raising the protection dike along the Cauca River, and

- rehabilitation of existing infrastructure on about 1200 ha -- lining of secondary canals and construction of new control structures.

Host of the RUT maintenance equipment was also replaced. The planned construction of infrastructure to serve an additional 600 hectares on the left bank of the interceptor canal through a 30 metres lift was not executed.

Work to be undertaken at Coello includes:

- (i) a fusable intake on the Rio Cucuana, a tributary of the Magdalena River south of the rio Coello,

- (ii) A 1.8 km-long tunnel and a 30 km main canal,

- (iii) a distribution system to serve an additional 12,000 ha,
-30-

- (iv) tele-information system on water levels,

- (v) replacement of maintenance equipment, vehicles, and

motorcycles, and

- (vi) minor work on existing control structures.

Although the RUT and Coello projects are 20 to 35 years old respectively, the irrigation and drainage facilities have been reasonably well maintained and there is no need for major rehabilitation. Replacement of the original obsolete maintenance equipment is the most important item on the rehabilitation agenda.
-31-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA

# Their Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations

Table 1: Averais Monthly Rainfall in Coello and RUT Irrigation Districts (Millimeters)

||COELLO|RUT|
|---|---|---|
|January|60|46|
|February|79|61|
|March|118|102|
|April|188|142|
|May|216|141|
|June|63|90|
|July|30|61|
|August|60|72|
|September|121|111|
|October|208|146|
|November|114|92|
|December|93|59|
|Annual|1350|1123|
-32-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA

# Their Performance and Transfer of ManaRement to Users' Associations

# Table 2: Land Tenure in the Coello and RUT Irrigation Districts

||||RUT|||CO|ELLO||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Farm Size|F|arms|Are|a|Far|ms|Area||
|(ha)|No.|(2)|<br>ha|_(X)_|No.|(Z)|ha|_(Z)_|
|0-<br>5|1,380|75|1,892|19|587|35|1,445|5|
|5-<br>10|194|10|1,317|13|350|21|2,448|9|
|10 -<br>20|133|7|1,816|18|300|18|4,204|15|
|20-<br>50|131|7|3,888|38|321|19|10,213|38|
|50-<br>100|19|1|1,197|12|110|6|7,110|26|
|Above 100|-||-||13|1|1,767|7|
||1,857||10,110||1,681||27,187||
|Private<br>farms|1,606||9,236||1,656||26,917||
|Agrarian|||||||||
|reform|106||506||25||270||
|farms|1,712||9,732||1,681||27,187||
|Average farm|size:||5.7 ha||||16.2 ha||
-33-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA

Their Performance and Transfer of ManaRement to Users' Associations Table 3: CroPPing Pattern. Irrigation, and Yields in the Coello District (1987) **a/**

||Areas<br>Cultivated|Areas<br> <br>Irrigated<br>(ha)|Production<br>(tons)|Yield<br>(tons/ha)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Season I|||||
|Rice|7,638|7,638|48,043|6.29|
|Cotton|10,758|7,297|32,274|3.0|
|Sorghum|3,915<br>22,311a/|1,805<br> <br>16,740|12,920|3.3|
|Season II|||||
|Rice|9,708|9,708|57,714|5.95|
|Sorghum|9.307<br>19,015"t|7.513<br> <br>17,221|26,060|2.8|
|Total|41,326|33,961|||
|Cropping intensity<br>(over 27,187 ha)|1.52||||
|Irrigation intensity|1.25||||

a/ Major crops only.

b/ Of the 27,187 ha that are registered.
-34-

CAS SlIDI WY lTh D>X0T!4 SYS7B f1. aiuS6

**Th-ir. Perfor_neend** Transfer **otf HInemAmt i ' Aseocltim**

Table **4: Cromelne Pattern,.** Iriation, end Yiel **the** _sn_ **IfT Irrination Dlitrict (19871**

|**Aree**|**a at**|**P.oduetlm**|**%**|**Yie**|**ds**||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|C-O|||||||
|Irite|Non-<br>leri|,tret<br>Irrite|Nan-<br>X<br>rrim|ti1;a*|**Non-**<br>Irri_ae||
|-___-_-------------|-----|_____------tons--|<br>--------<br>~|---------<br>ton/he|- ---------|--<br>8h-|
|Campairn<br>1987/I:|||||||
|Cotton<br>1719|199|4813|477|2.8|2.4|3500|
|Maize<br>335|264|1608|924|4.8|3.6|2100|
|Sorghum<br>973|1614|4135|5450|4.3|3.6|1700|
|Soya<br>1904|467|4188|840|2.2|1.8|1800|
|Tomatoes<br>11|6|275|132|28|22|3100|
|Passion<br>Fruit<br>460|166|6900|2158|18|13|3000|
|Pastures<br>51|1205|117|1052|2.3|0.9|1500|
|Crepes<br>352|-|6582|-|18.7|-|3700|
|Various<br>l16|_|290|-|2.8|-|2400|
|5921|3821||||||
|Campaign 1987/I,:|||||||
|Maize<br>14|103|391|204|8.8|3.0|2100|
|Sorghum<br>2062|1859|8886|7064|4.3|3.8|1700|
|Soys<br>2653|865|7428|1816|2.8|2.1|1800|
|Tomatoes<br>8|-|300|-|37.5|-|3100|
|Passion<br>Fruit<br>626|-|9890||15|-|3000|
|Pasture<br>16|1115|-|-|-|-|1500|
|Grapes<br>352<br>5745|3942|5984||17|-|**3800**|

Water Consumption Campaign **I: 14,68.000** a3 Campaign II: 11.757.10 3 26,593.700 .3 Average Consumption (m 3/e): 2730 (a) Of **the** 9742 **ha** that **are registered.**
-35-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA

# Their Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations

Table 5a Efficiency of Conveyance and Distribution in Coello and RUT Irrigation Districts

||COELLO<br>(Mm<sup>3</sup>)|Efficiency<br>_(O)_|<br>RUT<br>(MiT|Efficiency<br>_(2)_|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|1985|||||
|Semester I|||||
|Total volume diverted|231.9||21.6||
|Total volume delivered|157.9||15.0||
|Efficiency||18.1||69.3|
|Semester II|||||
|Total volume diverted|249.0||20.0||
|Total volume delivered|157.8||12.9||
|Efficiency||63.4||64.3|
|1986|||||
|Semester I|||||
|Total volume diverted|210.8||16.4||
|Total volume delivered|127.5||11.3||
|Efficiency||60.5||68.9|
|Semester II|||||
|Total volume diverted|182.7||16.0||
|Total volume delivered|108.7||9.9||
|Efficiency||59.5||62.3|
|1987|||||
|Semeter I|||||
|Total volume diverted|206.7||19.6||
|Total volume delivered|152.3||14.2||
|Efficiency||73.7||72.3|
|Average Efficiency||65.1||67.6|
-36-

## CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA

Their Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations

# Table 6: A Breakdown of the Coello Irrigation District Staff

(Category)

# (No. of Personnel)

# ADMINISTRATION

General Manager 1 Chief of personnel 1 Accountants 3 Cashier 1 Procurement chief 1 Internal auditor 1 Clerks 3 Secretaries 2 Typists 2 Messenger, cleaners 4 19

## OPERATIONS

Department 1 Assistant chief 1 Secretary 1 Registry clerk 1 Water master 2 Ditchriders 6 Water measurement staff 4 Headworks staff 3 19

# MAINTENANCE

Chief of department 1 Assistant chief 1 Cost estimator 1 Secretary 1 Inspector 1 Topographers 2 Laborers 10 Mechanics 5 Workshop personnel 5 Foremen, masons 2 Guards 10 Drivers 11 Heavy equipment operators 11 61
-37-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA

Their Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations Table 7: Budget for Coello Irrigation District (1987)

|Admi|nistration|Operations|Maintenance|Total||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|----|----(thous|ands of Colum|bian pesos)--|------|_(Z)_|
|Salaries and other benefits|23,647|19,792|64,970|108,409|51.0|
|Insurance|2,608|||2,608||
|Consultant fees|866|||866||
|Travel|125|113|100|338||
|Materials & supplies|2,609|822|17,706|21,137|10.0|
|Maintenance and|708|1,030|22,050|23,788|11.3|
|spare parts||||||
|Rent (houses, cars)|2,400|1,001|1,920|5,321||
|Public services|640|||640||
|Advertising|550|||550||
|Administrative charges|4,688|||4,688||
|Maintenance of civil works|||26,870|26,870|12.7|
|Contingencies|1,151|753|7,070|8,973|4.2|
|Guards|1,317|||1,317||
|Investments|1,300|700||2,000||
|M-iscellaneous||3,600||3,600||
|Total|42,610|27,811|140,687|211,108||
|(Z)|20.2|13.2|66.6|100||

Average O&M cost/ha: Col$7,765/ha (US$31.06/ha).
-38-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN COLOMBIA

Their Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations Table 8. Budget for Coello Irrigation District (1988)

||Administration<br>--------(Thousa|Operation<br>nds of Colu|Maintenan<br>mbian pesos)|ce Total<br>----------|(C)|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Salaries and other<br>Benefits|30,007|23,234|93,302|146,544|50.0|
|Insurance|3,228|-|-|3,228||
|Consultant fees|3,761|-|-|3,761||
|Travel|190|113|165|468||
|Materials & supplies|3,149|1,054|25,628|29,831|10.0|
|Maintenance and|1,001|1,230|33,450|35,681|12.0|
|spare parts||||||
|Renting|3,000|1,232|2,760|6,992||
|Publicservices|800|-|-|800||
|Advertising|660||-|660||
|Admin. charges|5,625|-|-|5,625||
|Repairs& maintenance|<br>-|-|28,500|28,500|9.8|
|Contingencies|4,017|2,180|14,706|20,904|7.1|
|Surveillance guards|1,647|-|-|1,647||
|Investments|1,800|1,290|-|3,090||
|Miscellaneous|-|3,000|-|3,000||
|Total|58,887|33,334|198,511|290,733||
|(Z)|20.3|11.4|68.3|100||

Average O&M cost/ha: Col$10,693/ha (US$35.64)
-39-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEHS IN COLOMBIA

Their Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations Table 9: Actual Expenses for RUT Irrigation Districts (1987)

||Operations<br>--(thousands|Mainten,nce<br>of Columbian|<br>Total<br>pesos)--|(Z)|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|Salaries and other payroll<br>costs including social<br>security)|19,847|38,230|58,077|43.7|
|General costs, repairs,<br>travel, soare parts,<br>and materials|12,112|39,806|51,918|39.1|
|Maintenance contracts|-|5,584|5,584|4.2|
|Pumping energya!|17,255|-|17,255|13.0|
|Total|49,214|83,630|132,834||
|(Z)|(37Z)|(63Z)|||
|Total (US$ thousands)|196.8|334.5|531.3||
|Total O&M cost per ha<br>(US$/ha)|20.2|34.3|54.5||

a/ Energy cost US$7.1 per hectare
-40-

# CASE STUDIES OF TWO IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN **COLOMBIA**

**Their** Performance and Transfer of Management to Users' Associations

Table 10: Proiected Revenues from Water Charges in the Coello Irrigation District (1988) Fixed Rate

|SemesterA|No. of<br>ha|Rate/ha|Revenues|
|---|---|---|---|
|Rice||(Col pesos)|<br>(Col$OOO)|
|farms of 20 ha or less|2,252|2,300|5,179|
|Farms above 20 ha|5,331|2,500|13,327|
|Other crops|17,782|2,500|44,455|
||||62,962|
|Semester B||||
|Rice||||
|Rice farms of 20 ha or smaller|4,186|2,300|9,627|
|Farms above 20 ha|5,086|2,500|12,715|
|Other crops|16,093|2,500|40,232|
||||62,575|
|II. Volumetric rate||||
||Mm<sup>3</sup>|Rate/m<sup>3</sup><br>(Col. pesos)||
|Rice (16,855 ha x 14,000 m<sup>3</sup>)|235|0.48|113,265|
|Other crops|22|0.48|10,560|
|Total|||249,362|
|Other income|||41,370|
|(for equipment rentals<br>bank interest, and||||
|extraordinary charges)||||
||||290,733|