The Gewog Irrigation Dispute at Harvest Time
A gewog extension officer in a dry southern gewog must allocate a limited irrigation channel across three villages during a two-week window before the paddy harvest. Upper village (42 households) has historically drawn water first; middle village (28 households) now reports that its fields dry out for three consecutive days each week; lower village (19 households) has already lodged a written complaint with the Dzongkhag. The channel's total flow is fixed and cannot be expanded this season. The Gup is away at a Dzongkhag meeting for six days. Two households in the upper village have threatened to block the channel if their turn is shortened. The extension officer has no budget for compensation and must act within 48 hours to avoid crop loss.
1. Identify the key stakeholders and the competing interests the officer must balance, and explain why a purely technical allocation formula alone would not resolve the dispute.
Read the worked answer
Stakeholders: upper village households (customary priority plus fear of crop loss), middle village (recurring three-day dry spells), lower village (formal complaint, downstream dependence), the Gup (absent authority), and the Dzongkhag administration (accountability channel).
Competing interests are not merely volumetric. They include customary water rights, perceived fairness, legal exposure from the lodged complaint, and social cohesion. A technical formula - for example, allocating by irrigated area or household count - addresses volume but not legitimacy. The upper village's threat to block the channel shows the constraint is enforcement and consent, not arithmetic. The officer needs a transparent, participatory rule that the villages themselves validate, combined with a temporary emergency measure and a clear escalation to the Gup and Dzongkhag. Without procedural fairness, any formula will be resisted regardless of its technical merit.
2. Recommend a 48-hour action plan that is lawful, fair, and enforceable, and justify each step.
Read the worked answer
Step 1 (immediate, hours 0–6): Notify all three villages in writing of a temporary rotation and convene an on-site meeting of village representatives, including the two upper-village households, to make the rule public.
Step 2 (hours 6–24): Adopt a time-based rotation rather than a fixed customary order, with the middle village receiving a guaranteed minimum flow each day to end the three-day dry spells. Publish the schedule at the channel head.
Step 3 (hours 24–36): Document the emergency measure and formally inform the Gup and Dzongkhag, framing it as an interim arrangement pending the Gup's return, so the officer does not usurp local authority.
Step 4 (hours 36–48): Arrange voluntary monitoring by rotating village volunteers and record any obstruction. If blocking occurs, escalate to law enforcement rather than retaliating.
Justification: transparency builds legitimacy, the minimum-flow guarantee addresses the documented harm, and escalation preserves the officer's mandate and the Gup's authority.