A New Water Governance Model Aimed at Supply–Demand Management for Irrigation and Land Development in the Mendoza River Basin, Argentina
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
Two comments, one formal and the second on the structure and content of the results presented.
First, I do not understand the scale of the maps presented. This error puzzles me.
I also do not understand the range of colors (tens) used in the figure 3.
These errore should be resolved.
Figure 1. Mendoza river basin; Figure 3. Administrative Management Units in the Mendoza river basin; Figure 6. Main land uses. Mendoza river basin
Secondly, in my opinion, the original core of the paper is the combination of hydrological-hydraulic modeling approaches with social and institutional contents, which provide the governance models.
However, I do not see an adequate interconnection, articulation of these various elements throughout the study. And especially when presenting the results, I observe three excessively simple scenarios, in which the factors derived from the societal dimensions are basically reduced to aspects of technological improvements and increase of efficiency:
"[scenario Sc1] That improvement is likely due to higher global efficiency, 59% vs. 51%, and to an optimized operation of reservoirs and diversion dams, which are expected to contribute to decrease failures and improve the water supply distribution service, thus resulting in an increased guarantee of irrigation water availability [...] [scenario Sc2] An increase in annual gross demand occurs, while the base water supply remains the same. An improved supply is considered due to improvements in water distribution and global efficiency, which are expected to keep failures, demand coverage and global annual coverage at levels similar to Sc1
I do not see the presence of complexity or socio-ecological uncertainty in the scenarios considered. The effects of climate change seem perhaps overly friendly. Other factors, such as the well known accelerated clogging of the Los Potrillos dam, are absent (when the reservoir was built in 2003, its capacity was estimated at 627 hm3, which has decreased since then, reaching 420,000 hm3), which makes us suspect that there could be several others ignored.
I am particularly concerned about the absence of considerations on a key factor in the current debates on resource management, and notably, on water management in irrigated areas, when technological factors are granted excessive operability and autonomy. I refer to the rebound effect, or Javons paradox that is very present in the international analyzes on the evolution of agrarian demands, the hydrological balances at the scale of the river basin and the role in relation to all this of the increase in efficiency. In this literature, after two decade debates, the conclusions are clear: irrigation efficiency increases production and productivity (at the expense of increased energy and other inputs costs), but also increases water stress and social conflictivity at the hydrographic basin scale.
In my opinion, the manuscript should be reread with the critical perspective that we try to transmit in these brief lines.
Perhaps the problem, or part of the problem, comes from the fact that the extensive work (possibly much more complex) which the paper is based on, could not be adequately synthesized in the short extension that its publication as an article requires.
If this were so, the suggested revision would not be difficult for the authors.
My recommendation would be between minor and major revision: may be it is not minor but I do not consider that the criticism is so hard as to demand 'major revision'.
Author Response
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
The following comments are presented below:
Reviewer #1:
Two comments, one formal and the second on the structure and content of the results presented.
1) First, I do not understand the scale of the maps presented. This error puzzles me.
Reply: Due size of Mendoza River Basin (aprox. 200.000 km2), and according to our needs, we decide 1:1.500.000 scale in Figure 1, and 1:1.000.000 for figures 2 and 3.
2) I also do not understand the range of colors (tens) used in the figure 3.
Reply: In order to identify each Management Administrative Unit (MAU) we use the range of colours automatically generated by our software, whith the only criteria to facilitate a clear visual distinction among them (according with general criteria defined in sources as Instituto Geográfico Nacional. Ministerio de Fomento del Gobierno de España. Variables Visuales y Símbolos Cartográficos, 2012).
Secondly, in my opinion, the original core of the paper is the combination of hydrological-hydraulic modeling approaches with social and institutional contents, which provide the governance models.
3) However, I do not see an adequate interconnection, articulation of these various elements throughout the study. And especially when presenting the results, I observe three excessively simple scenarios, in which the factors derived from the societal dimensions are basically reduced to aspects of technological improvements and increase of efficiency:
Reply: Suggested link between social-institutional and hydrological-hydraulic approaches is developed through the formulation of an organizational model. This organizational model makes explicit these relationships through the strategic map, by proposing alternative scenarios depending on relationships between inducers and results. Special attention is paid to the hydric management perspective in order to better coordinate hydric and institutional issues for new governance practices in a context of decentralisation of Administrative Management Units (AMUs). This paper was thinking to interconnect the approaches referred to the adequate water management from the modeling of the current water balance.
4) And especially when presenting the results, I observe three excessively simple scenarios, in which the factors derived from the societal dimensions are basically reduced to aspects of technological improvements and increase of efficiency:
Reply: Despite its apparent simplicity, these scenarios are closely linked (as binding) to constitutional regulation of Mendoza Province. It explicitely regulates the way in which water should be managed, and establishes that, once water balance is formally carried out, it must be determined if granted rights after definitive rights would be 100% guaranteed or not (only till 80% of needs). Alternative scenario is of contrasted nature, and provides that all registered rights will make use of water simultaneously.
5) "[scenario Sc1] That improvement is likely due to higher global efficiency, 59% vs. 51%, and to an optimized operation of reservoirs and diversion dams, which are expected to contribute to decrease failures and improve the water supply distribution service, thus resulting in an increased guarantee of irrigation water availability [...]
Reply: It is an improved efficiency (59%) of water application in farm (Farm application efficiency) as way to achieve better overall efficiency of the system.
6) [scenario Sc2] An increase in annual gross demand occurs, while the base water supply remains the same. An improved supply is considered due to improvements in water distribution and global efficiency, which are expected to keep failures, demand coverage and global annual coverage at levels similar to Sc1
Reply: Improvements are mainly due to a better management of demand through non-structural actions
7) I do not see the presence of complexity or socio-ecological uncertainty in the scenarios considered. The effects of climate change seem perhaps overly friendly. Other factors, such as the well known accelerated clogging of the Los Potrerillos dam, are absent (when the reservoir was built in 2003, its capacity was estimated at 627 hm3, which has decreased since then, reaching 420,000 hm3), which makes us suspect that there could be several others ignored.
Reply: Projected initial capacity of Potrerillos Dam was 450 hm3. Hydrological modeling foresee an annual decrease of 1.4 hm3 (according with siltation and sediments deposition modelisation).
On the other hand, with the formulation of the organizational model, the proposed perspectives and objectives defined were ‘soft’, by strengthening governance as way to achieve greater water use efficiency and effectiveness as strategy to mitigate climate change effects.
8) I am particularly concerned about the absence of considerations on a key factor in the current debates on resource management, and notably, on water management in irrigated areas, when technological factors are granted excessive operability and autonomy. I refer to the rebound effect, or Jevons paradox that is very present in the international analyzes on the evolution of agrarian demands, the hydrological balances at the scale of the river basin and the role in relation to all this of the increase in efficiency. In this literature, after two decade debates, the conclusions are clear: irrigation efficiency increases production and productivity (at the expense of increased energy and other inputs costs), but also increases water stress and social conflictivity at the hydrographic basin scale.
Reply: Authors are grateful and valuates comment about Jevons paradox. When defining our organizational and governance model, these principles were taken into account. Concrete proposals were presented in the "Water Management" perspective, foreseeing for a sustainable use of water resources as well as defining performance indicators in order to avoid wastefulness and inadequate consumption. In the case of "Users and Community" perspective concrete actions are defined to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness avoiding a greater global water consumption looking for a sustainable and balanced productive development.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
The full document should be proofreading in order to better understand what it is said. Example in line 35: … this model’s 19th century view…. for … this 19th century model view …..
Please check spaces after . or ,
Equation (2) must be clarify. Is it a product of all those terms?
Table 3. change pills for spills
Line 201, change, massif(Figure 4) for massif (Figure 4)
Change hm3 for hm3 in y*axis left side of figure 4, and m3 for m3 in right side of same figure. The daily scale in the x-axis does not match the numbers of days from July 1, 2006 till June 30 2015 which total 10 years… check this please.
Line 206, change pills at Potrerillos for spills at Potrerillos
Line 233 change [38].Interactions for [38]. Interactions
Line 246, change up on for upon
Line 252, change uses(Figure 6) for uses (Figure 6)
Line 272, change100%of for 100% of
Line 364 change UOs for WUOs
Line 368, check: failure totals or total failures, as in line 369
Line 371 Table5 for Table 5
Line 396 change tonew for to new
Lines 411/412 please list previous studies
Author Response
Reviewer #2:
Comments and Suggestions for Authors
1) The full document should be proofreading in order to better understand what it is said. Example in line 35: … this model’s 19th century view…. for … this 19th century model view …..
Reply: Paper’s authors argue traditional model of water public management in Mendoza province is not adjusted to current demands. In order to give appropriate replay to reviewer’s comments, the introduction section has been completed as follows:
The water management model emerged in the nineteenth century, derived progressively very top-down and technocratic, but functional to the corporate external as well as internal interests. As result, hierarchical-high centralized power of decisions does not comply with the principle of accountability. Improved control would be feasible trough an administrative decentralization process by watersheds and subareas.
The primal social contract for the water administration in Mendoza implemented by the traditional and conservative elite in 1884, in a time of great and rapid agricultural expansion, does not fit well in current conditions; besides it has caused very negative consequences, difficult to correct, into the territorial-hydrological system.
As emblematic cases, demonstrating such trend: a) despite having passed a century since then, it still lacks the implementation of water balances as well as legislative changes facitilating reallocation of water rights; b) lost of water rights in productive areas because use changes from agricultural to recreational ones, affecting the functioning of the system as a whole; c) groundwater sobre-explotation and speculative use of water resources for more than 40 years, what has caused the loss of the aquifer productivity and quality; and d) failure to consolidate autonomous water organizations for productive local units, according with appropriate monitoring processes.
2.Please check spaces after . or ,
Reply: Changes have been done.3.Equation (2) must be clarify. Is it a product of all those terms?
Reply: Equation (2) GD = Σ (RA RC ETc Ef) is linear or first degreeGD is equal to the total gross demand per AMU (Administrative Unit of Management)
where: RA use is the registered area having water rigths per type of use in the AMU, DCo is the distribution coefficient according to category of the granted right, ETc is crop evapotranspiration per type of land use, en Ef is the current irrigation efficiency,
the result is the sum of these products of the member of the equation.
4) Table 3. change pills for spills
Reply: Table 3 shows the suggested changes.
5) Line 201, change, massif (Figure 4) for massif (Figure 4)
Reply: Change has been done.
6) Change hm3 for hm3 in y*axis left side of figure 4, and m3 for m3 in right side of same figure.
Reply: Suggested corrections are made for the hm3 and m3 units and figure 4 is replaced with a corrected7) The daily scale in the x-axis does not match the numbers of days from July 1, 2006 till June 30 2015 which total 10 years… check this please.
Reply: Figure 4 shows the average daily sharing out curve and the cumulative sharing out curve. The sharing out daily expenditure is calculated as the average of the sharing out, on a daily basis, of each registered year, from July 1st, 2006 to June 30th, 2015. Then, for this daily sharing out average, has been calculated the apportionment and the accumulated amount. The average daily sharing out and its accumulated volume are represented graphically according to the number of days of the hydrological year (start on July 1st).8) Line 206, change pills at Potrerillos for spills at Potrerillos
Reply: It replaces pills for spills
9) Line 233 change [38].Interactions for [38]. Interactions
Reply: The suggested modification is made
10) Line 246, change up on for upon
Reply: The suggested change is made11) Line 252, change uses (Figure 6) for uses (Figure 6)
Reply: The suggested change is made12) Line 272, change100% of for 100% of
Reply: The suggested change is made13) Line 364 change UOs for WUOs
Reply: UOs are changed by WUOs14) Line 368, check: failure totals or total failures, as in line 369
Reply: The suggested change is made15) Line 371 Table5 for Table 5
Reply: The suggested change is made
16) Line 396 change tonew for to new
Reply: The suggested change is made
17) Lines 411/412 please list previous studies
Reply: Previous studies using FAO 56 methodology to estimate water demand into Mendoza River are the following:1. Morábito, J. Desempeño del riego por superficie en el área de riego del Río Mendoza: eficiencia actual y potencial: parámetros de riego y recomendaciones para un mejor aprovechamiento agrícola en un marco sustentable. Mendoza, Universidad Nacional de Cuyo. Facultad de Ciencias Agrarias. 97 p., 2003.
2. FAO-PNUD. Planes Directores de Ordenamiento de los Recursos Hídricos de la Provincia de Mendoza. Informe Principal Plan Cuenca Río Mendoza. Argentina, Proyecto PNUD/FAO/ARG/00/008, 2004.
3. Sánchez, C.; Salomón, M.; Pereira, L. Evaluación del desempeño de los sistemas de distribución de riego tradicionales mediante uso del modelo ISAREG en Mendoza (Argentina), In Pereira, L.; Brea Victoria, F.; Paredes, P.; García, M.; Palacios E.; Torrecillas, A. (eds.). Tecnologías para o uso sustentável da água em regadió. Lisboa, Portugal: Edições Colibri, 2008, Capítulo 5.5, pp.114-1174. Salomón M.A., Sánchez C.M., Pereira L.S., Estimación del balance hídrico mediante aplicación del modelo ISAREG en el Canal Segundo Vistalba, Lujan de Cuyo, Mendoza (Argentina). En: Modernización de Riegos y Uso de Tecnologías de Información, E. Ruz and L.S. Pereira (eds.). CYTED and PROCISUR/IICA, Montevideo, 2008, 4.5, pp. 115-117.
5. Morábito J.; Hernández, J.; Martinis; N. Fornero, L. Modelación hidrológica de la Cuenca norte de Mendoza. IT Nº 146 - Centro Regional Andino (CRA). Provincia de Mendoza, 2012.
6. Satlari, G.; Cúneo, G, N. Mustoni. El balance hídrico como herramienta de planificación. Congreso Nacional del Agua. Paraná. Argentina CONAGUA: 10.416, 2015
7. Álvarez, J.; Pina, J.; Sánchez, C.; Salomón, M. Hydrological Balance Implementation in Mendoza’s Province. Decision support and modeling tool for integrated management of water resources. The Scientific Committee of the 3rd Inter-Regional CIGR Conference on Land and Water Challenges, to be held from 28th to 30th September 2015 at INIA Special Number of
8. Satlari, G.; Cúneo, G. La asignación del agua, a definir en el balance hídrico, requiere una mejor eficiencia de riego. Congreso Nacional del Agua. Paraná. Argentina, CONAGUA 5.230, 2015.
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Reviewer 3 Report
Line 62. Write in the past tense
In the introduction section (Line 28 to 84), substantiate the scenarios used
In the Formulation of the organization model section (Line 99 to 163) comment about social conflicts that occurred or that would be generated by irrigation water,
Uniformize the number of decimals used (Table 2,3,4 and 5)
Line 207. More justification is required regarding the historical series of data used (only 2006 - 2015)
Line 355 to 357. Greater justification is required regarding the value of efficiency of water use (95%)
Line 360 ... increase in evapotranspiration and demand for water. But what about the reduction of the crop cycle due to the rise in temperature.
Line 371 and 372 separates with a space the word table of number 5
Table 5 Table 5 requires more analysis and discussion, since it shows the main results of the work
Author Response
Reviewer#3：
Comments and Suggestions for Authors：
1) Line 62. Write in the past tense
Reply: Verbal time is modified
The main objective of this paper was the formulation of a participatory organizational model consistent with current requirements of users, as well as with the water supply-demand balance modeling, in order to reach an equitable and sustainable water resources availability and use in the Mendoza river basin
2) In the introduction section (Line 28 to 84), substantiate the scenarios used
Reply: The substantiate of the scenarios is attach in the introduction.
Has been completed as follows:
Based on the constitutional law of Mendoza that previse do the water balance and assess for the reallocation of rights, three scenarios have been considered in water modeling: i) trend, which is to continue with the allocation of water without changing the category of agricultural rights in use and with the current efficiencies; ii) Possible, which is to equate the agricultural rights in use and delivery of 100% of the endowment improving the efficiencies, and iii) contrasted, which is to distribute the water with 100% to all the rights registered whatever the use and improving the efficiencies
3) In the Formulation of the organization model section (Line 99 to 163) comment about social conflicts that occurred or that would be generated by irrigation water,
Reply: The social conflicts are detail in point 3
Social conflicts in the irrigated areas are manifested in: territorial transformations without planning and regulation, poor service to the irrigator, imbalances and inequities in water distribution, soil, water and plant degradation, centralization in organizations, affecting territorial, economics and productive competitiveness, with lack of profitability and investments in rural areas under irrigation and exodus of the peasant population to urban areas.
4) Uniformize the number of decimals used (Table 2,3,4 and 5)
Reply: The number of decimal were standarized in tables 2 and 5
5) Line 207. More justification is required regarding the historical series of data used (only 2006 - 2015)
Reply: Justification is add in the text in the selected series
The series of hydrologic years considered for modeling corresponds to the 2006 – 2015period, which has been considered highly representative, includes data on precipitation, operation and spills. Yearly data of that period includes that varies from rich to poor in terms of flow. In addition, for the same period, real-time nival and meteorological data from the Horcones and Toscas stations in the High Cordillera are made available to increase the integral hydrological knowledge of the basin. There is also information for this period about the operation of the Potrerillos dam and reservoir, the stabilization of management and the calibration of hydro-mechanical equipment. Average historical volumes were computed from daily records, the average historical spills were assessed and the average historical discharges were estimated with monthly frequencies for the Cipolletti Dam [5].
6) Line 355 to 357. Greater justification is required regarding the value of efficiency of water use (95%)
Reply: The farm application efficiency value adopted in water modeling for the irrigated area of the Mendoza River is 59%. In order to reach this value, basic management changes must be made in non-structural water. It includes improvements in land leveling, uniformity of application, adequate design of irrigation units, adequate control of delivery times, flow modulation, evaluation of edaphic factors and drainage management (Balairón Pérez, 2002). With this changes achieves a possible value that is higher than the current efficiency, being intermediate between it and the potential efficiency that provides for greater technology and investments in infrastructure and equipment (Satlari and Cuneo, 2015).
7) Line 360 ... increase in evapotranspiration and demand for water. But what about the reduction of the crop cycle due to the rise in temperature.
Reply: The reduction of the crop cycle must be monitored for the effects of its adaptability due to climate change, especially in horticultural crops (8.5% of the cultivated area). For this, in the formulation of the organizational model and in the learning and knowledge perspective, the measurement of parameters has been foreseen through technological innovation and an adequate management of the water-soil-plant-atmosphere relationship.
8) Line 371 and 372 separates with a space the word table of number 5
Reply: The suggested correction is made
9) Table 5 requires more analysis and discussion, since it shows the main results of the work
Reply: The results and conclusions of Table 5 are extended
The current balance (Sc0) does not include the abandoned old lands, but does take into account the factors of the current climate and the existing efficiency in the farm, which reaches an average value of 51.4%.Analyzing the indicators produced when modeling with scenario Sc1 (temporary water rights and RC=0.8), it was observed that indicators are generally better than those obtained for the current condition (Table 5) despite global change influenced climate and hydrologic variables for the 2030 horizon, resulting increased demand and more varied water supply. That improvement is likely due to higher farm application efficiency, 59% vs. 51%, and to an optimized operation of reservoirs and diversion dams, which are expected to contribute to decrease failures and improve the water supply distribution service, thus resulting in an increased guarantee of irrigation water availability.
For Sc2 (temporary water rights and RC=1.0) there is a larger registered cropped area due to transformation of temporary into permanent water rights. An increase in annual gross demand occurs in order to 73.21 hm3 and there is a negligible increase of 1.51 hm3 in the sum of failures, while the base water supply remains the same. An improved supply is considered due to improvements in water distribution and global efficiency, which are expected to keep failures, demand coverage and global annual coverage at levels similar to Sc1. However, the global annual balance diminishes. Notwithstanding, analyzed in general, this difference continues to be positive for average years.
The modality Sc3 is for a scenario where the whole of the granted area in the basin is predicted to have irrigation, thus including all abandoned lands, recently or not. The sum of failures reaches then a high value of 170, 74 hm3, particularly important in due to high demand when river runoff is low. Demand coverage falls to 85% while the gross demand increases about 215 hm3 and the global annual coverage reaches 86%. But even so, these values are above the regional reference value of the irrigation water guarantee percentage Thus, that scenario Sc3 requires adopting additional measures not considered in this study.Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
I understand the logic and racionality of authors answers. Just I would insist in correction of graphic scale of some maps. Good job.
