Managing Irrigation Water Shortage: a Comparison Between Five Allocation Rules Based on Crop Benefit Functions

In this work the efficiency of five allocation rules of irrigation water is analyzed and compared. We define the most efficient rule as the one that minimizes the economic losses arising from a reduction in water availability. The first allocation rule is an equal quota granted to all irrigators. The second one is based on proportional reductions. By means of the third rule all losses of income per hectare are matched, while the fourth makes that all relative losses to the reference incomes are matched. Lastly the fifth rule seeks to maximize private benefit and economic efficiency. We prove that this one would likely be preferred by farmers growing more than one crop. The fundamentals of these rules are included, showing the analytical deduction of the crop‐specific reallocations from any prescribed water reduction rule within an irrigation district, as well as the losses of income ensuing from reduced water deliveries. The methodology used herein to compare the efficiency of all these rules is dependent on the relations between allocations and yields. To estimate them, a simple and practical procedure is presented. The five allocation rules are applied to an irrigation community and compared to each other in terms of economic efficiency. Differences in economic losses arising from one rule or another will be sharper the more heterogeneous communities are. Different losses across rules will also be related to the level of water shortage.