Mr Harbhajan’s criticism of No.52-74 Water Users Association is unfounded

Please allow us to respond to the news item that appeared in Stabroek News 18th January, 2021, under the headline `Water Users Associations should be dissolved – Harbhajan’. First, Mr. Harbhajan is quoted as saying that the No. 52-74 Water Users Association is “Duplicating functions of other bodies and should be dissolved.” As an example, he says, “What they do is to call the Regional Chairman or the CEO [Chief Executive Officer] of the National Drainage and Irrigation Authority (NDIA) when farmers encounter difficulties and need attention.” It is uncertain what Harbhajan means by “difficulties”. We will, however, give him the benefit of the doubt, and that he is speaking to and about the water system that has been in place when the Second Depth lands, Nos. 52-74 villages, were empoldered and brought into cultivation in 1952.

A few things about this and why we have occasional need for the Regional Chairman. The agreement signed between the Water Users’ Associations (WUAs) and the NDIA, 2006, states that the management of the water pump located at the Manarabissi Canal is to be shared by the NDIA and the Regional Chairman’s office. Unfortunately, easier said than done. First, the water system was originally designed to provide water to between 15,000 - 18,000 acres of rice cultivation. Over the years an “undeclared area” of some 5,000 - 8,000 acres has emerged and has grown large enough to make its own demands, which no one can ignore. Third, there is another category called the “dual purpose” users, who simply drill a hole through the dam, either on the Manaribissi or the Canje Creek side: fix a 12 inch pipe that accesses the water at high tides (Manarabissi or Canje Creek), while reversing the process at low tides. It is now estimated that there are anywhere between 50-100 such operators. These are readily visible any day on a brief trip down the Manarabissi Canal and/or a quick turn west along the Canje Creek. Fourth, the Nos. 52-74 NDC is a combination of two older village councils, prior to 1994 (Nos. 52-66 and nos. 67-74). It appears that when the Seaford Cross was dug in 1952 it was done separately between the village councils, or at least, so it seems, because the present system, Seaford Cross, appears in an undulated manner, in which the Nos. 52-66 portion is lower than the Nos. 67-74 section. Consequently, when the intake from the Canje Creek enters the Manarabissi Canal and then flows into the Seaford Cross it takes at least one and one half days for the water to rise in the 52-66 portion of the Canal and then flow into the Nos. 67-74 section and then provide farmers in that area. The situation can only get worse, if and when, everyone is requesting water at the same time while regular users in the southern villages, Nos. 70-74, are left stranded and lose significant portions of their frontland crops because water was not available on time.

Anyone familiar with the system will agree that it needs significant overhaul to bring it in line with its original purpose and new demands. ‘’NDCs,” he (Harbhajan) says, “are democratic bodies whereas the WUAs are run by farmers. Under the format which the WUAs were implemented, each village should have two representatives. However, that is not the case with the three bodies,” he said. There is an interesting comparison here: since the WUA is a farmer’s organization, it is not democratic? Hmm. Those who have taken the time and made the effort know that the WUA has had at least six chairpersons and accompanying executives since its formation in 2006. At the moment, it is in the process of a seventh. This is the result of a procedural statute that requires elections every two years. On such occasions, each village, in the 24-village organization, 52-74,

elects a person to belong to the general assembly of the organization. On an appointed day, a week after the last village meeting, the general assembly of the 24 members, meet to elect the executive from (Chair, Vice-Chair, Secretary, and Treasurer) and a board of eight drawn from the 24-member assembly. That meeting is usually chaired/supervised by the Coordinator from the NDIA. Mr. Harbhajan does not think this is democratic. Or, perhaps more to the point, he does not know that it exists, and did not take the time to find out.

“He (Harbhajan) noted that under the current system, on many occasions farmers are forced to repair damaged dams with their own resources while the farmers who were contracted by the WUA to repair those dams submit bills and are paid”. It is unfortunate that there is no evidence for this, nor did the reporter think it necessary to ask. “The Water User Association does not have the legitimate power and do not collect enough finances to manage the system.” It is uncertain what is at stake here. It seems to be nothing more than senseless rambling. “Many of these land owners (Nos. 52-74) would have paid their land taxes to the respective NDCs and to the Guyana Lands and Surveys Commission. This points to a duplication of services offered by the WUAs since the NDCs, the RDCs (Regional Democratic Councils) and the NDIA would have been giving subsidies to these associations. It is a fact they have been doing the same work in the areas where these associations exist,” he said. There seems to be some confusion. Harbhajan does not seem to be able to distinguish between and among different government agencies and their varied functions. Moreover, where is the evidence that the NDIA has been giving subsidies to anybody?

“He (Harbhajan) noted that under the current system, on many occasions farmers are forced to repair damaged dams with their own resources while the farmers who were contracted by the WUA to repair those dams submit bills and are paid”. Should there not be evidence for this? When? Where? Whom? WUAs, he further argued, undertake the same projects and the same description and responsibilities as that of the RDCs and NDCs. “Because of the undemocratic nature of Water Users Associations many farmers are denied water when they need it. The same applies when they need to have the water level dropped,” he charged. Where is the proof that the WUAs undertake the same projects and have the same descriptions and responsibilities as that of the RDCs and NDCs? And pray do tell where/when “farmers are denied water when they need it. The same applies when they need to have the water level dropped”.

Yours Sincerely,

Jewan Persaud and other members of the Nos. 52-74 Water Users’ Association