Document of The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Public Disclosure Authorized FILE CO?"

Report No. 2454-ME

M'EXICO

Public Disclosure Authorized STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

OF THE

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINáLOA IRRIGATION PROJECT Public Disclosure Authorized

May 7, 1979 Public Disclosure Authorized

Regional Projects Department Latin America and the Caribbean Regional Office

This document has a restrieted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be diselosed without W'orid Bank authorization. CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

US$1 = Mex $22.5

Mex$1 = US$0.04

Mex$1 million = US$44,444

WEIGHT AND MEASURES

2 1 hectare (ha) = 10,000 m = 2.47 acres 1 kilometer (km) 2 = 0.62 miles 1 square kilometer (km ) = 0.39 sq. miles = 100 ha 1 kilogram (kg) = 2.2 pounds 1 liter (1) = 0.26 gallons 1 metric ton (mt) = 1,000 kg = 0.98 long ton

ABBREVIATIONS

ANAGSA National Agriculture and Livestock Insurance Company BNCR National Bank for Rural Credit CIAPAN Agricultural Research Center for the North-West CIMMYT International Center for Improvement of Maize and Wheat CONASUPO : National Marketing Cooperation DITA : District Integrated Technical Assistance Program FERTIMEX : National Fertilizer Company FIRA : Agriculture Trust Funds of the Bank of Mexico INIA : National Institute for Crop Research MHIP : Major Hydraulic Infrastructure Program PLAMEPA : On farm Improvement Plan in Irrigation Districts PLINO : Plan for Irrigation Investments in the North West PRONASE National Seed Production Company SARH Ministry of Agriculture and Hydraulic Resources MEXICO FOROFFICIAL USE ONLY APPRAISAL OF THE RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Table of Contents

Page No.

I. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR ...... 1

The Resource Base ...... 1 Agricultural Production ...... 1 Rural Population, Employment and Income ...... 2 Government Policies ...... 3 Bank Participation ...... 4

II. THE PROJECT AREA ...... 5

Location ...... 5 Soils, Topography and Drainage ...... 5 Climate .6...... Irrigation Systems ...... 6 Present Use of Project Lands ...... 7 Population ...... 7 Land Tenure ...... 7...... 7 Credit and Crop Insurance ...... 8 Agricultural Inputs.. 8 Research and Extension .10

III. THE ONGOING SINALOA PROJECT .11

Original Project Description .11 Project Execution, 1974-1977 .11 The Revised Sinaloa Project .12 Revised Project Benefits and Economic Justification .... 13

IV. THE PROJECT ...... 14

Project Concept ...... 14 Project Description ...... 14 Water Supply and Demand .16 Water Quality .17 Construction Schedule and Status of Engineering 18 Cost Estimates .18 Financing Plan .18 Procurement ...... 20 Disbursements ...... 20 Accounts and Audit .21 Environmental Impact .21

This report is based on the findings of an appraisal mission consisting of Messrs. E. Gazit, T. Kimura, D. Myren and Messrs. A. Feinstein, M. Fireman and M. Zohar (consultants) in September 1978 and a follow up mission comprising Messrs. M. Raczynski, R. Milford, L. Moscoso and Mr. C. Houston (consultant) in February 1979.

This document has a restricteddistribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance of their official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disciosed without WoirldBank authorization. TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Page No.

V. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ...... 22

General ...... 22 Major Hydraulic Infrastructure Programs ...... 22 Irrigation Districts ...... 22 Monitoring and Evaluation ...... 24

VI. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCTION, MARKETS, MARKETING AND PRICES . 25 Ir

Area, Cropping Patterns, Yields ...... 25 Production ...... 28 Markets and Prices ...... 28

VII. PROJECT BENEFICIARIES, FARM INCOMES AND COST RECOVERY .. 29

VIII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION ...... 31

Benefits ...... 31 Risk and Sensitivity ...... 31

IX. RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 33

Tables

Annex 1. Selected Documents and Data Available in the Project File.

Charts No. 20103

Map No. IBRD 13953R I. THE AGRICIJLTURAL SECTOR

The Resource Base

1.01 Mexico has a land area of some 2 million km and a population of 62 million (in 1976), growing at an annual rate of over 3%. Some 40% of the total population, or about 24 million people, gain their livelihood from agriculture. Agriculture is also an important foreign exchange earner: it had a share of 23% of the total value of exports in 1976. The wide range of latitudes and altitudes results in a great diversity of crop and livestock output; but the extent of arid and mountainous lands is such, however, that only about 18% of the total land area, some 35 million ha, is considered cultivable. Of this, an estimated 15 million ha are harvested of which an estimated 5 million ha under irrigation; Mexico is presently the sixth largest country in the world in expanse of irrigated lands.

Agricultural Production

1.02 Crop Production. Until the early 1940s, total cultivated area in Mexico was about 7.5 million ha, located mainly in the central highlands where maize, beans and other food crops were grown under rainfed conditions together with small irrigated areas under fruits and vegetables. Since, the development of irrigation in the arid regions along the Pacific coast, and in the Northern States (combined with successful research efforts to develop irrigated crop technologies) both cropped areas and yields increased substantially and output of wheat, sorghum, oilseeds, cotton, fruits and vegetables and alfalfa grew rapidly.

1.03 Notwithstanding the growth and diversification of crop output over the years, maize is still the most widely grown crop in the country, accounting for about 8 million ha, or over half the country's cultivated area. Most of it is cultivated together with smal]er areas of beans, under rainfed conditions by small farmers and concentrated in the central and southern highlands, along the Gulf coast and in the Chiapas region. In the humid tropical regions along the southern Gulf coast and Chiapas, sugarcane, bananas, cocoa and coffee are also grown. Table 1.01, presents the production of main crops grown in Mexico over the 1960-1976 period.

1.04 Livestock Production. In the past, most of the commercial livestock output used to come from extensive cattle breeding on the arid and semi-arid rangelands of the North with income derived from the sale of feeder cattle, mainly to the U.S. market. Milk, hogs and poultry were produced in small quantities, mostly in the central highlands and for subsistence. The increase in domestic demand has, however, caused a rapid expansion of output country wide. It has enabled the opening up of new cattle producing areas along the Gulf coast where better rainfall and good pasture quality has enabled much higher stocking rate. The growth of Mexico City has also accounted for a rapid increase in milk, pork and polultry meat production iinthe central plateau region. Table 1.02, presents the production of main livestock products in Mexico over the 1960-1976 period. - 2 -

1.05 Production Trends. The table below compares the growth of GDP with the growth in the crop and livestock sector, on an average 10-year basis, in the 1945-1975 period:

Average Rate of Growth per Annum

Period GDP Crops Livestock C + L

1945-55 5.8 7.3 3.7 6.0 1955-65 6.7 4.4 3.7 4.2 1965-75 6.2 0.9 4.2 2.1

1.06 As can be seen above, growth of crop production was most impressive in the first decade, good in the second, but less satisfactory in the third. The early increases were due mainly to large scale irrigation development which commenced about 1945. However since the middle sixties crop production growth almost stagnated in spite of continued high investments in irrigation. This decline and finally the stagnation in production growth came about because: (a) Irrigation projects became increasingly complex and more costly to prepare and carry out and as a result the area under irrigation grew less rapidly; (b) excessive water use and inadequate drainage and maintenance on irrigated lands caused extensive salinization which reduced cropped areas and yields; (c) crop specific problems such as cotton (disease), fruits and vegetables (export limitations) or sugar (production organization) had a dampening effect on output; and (d) in later years, more land in newly irrigated areas were allocated to small farmers and "ejidatarios" rather than to private medium and large scale farmers; the small farmers and ejidatarios needed more and better extension services to insure production increases in line with those being obtained by medium to large size farmers but until recently extension services made available have not been of the extent and quality required to achieve this.

1.07 It also became evident since 1965 that performance in the rainfed subsector had always been poor relative to the irrigation subsector but had also received much less support. It has now become better recognized that with relatively smaller investments than those required for successful irriga- tion development, substantial increases in rainfed production can be achieved, which has caused government to shift its development strategy towards a more balanced program including both subsectors (paras. 1.10-1.11).

1.08 Contrary to the crop sector, the livestock sector has maintained, and in later years even somewhat increased its growth over the 1945-75 period. This was made possible mainly because the rapid demand growth for livestock products (para 1.04), which even outstripped the supply capabilities in some areas: Mexico has had to import increased quantities of powdered milk to satisfy internal consumption since the mid-1970s.

Rural Population, Employment and Income

1.09 The agricultural sector provides the livelihood for a rural popula- tion of some 4 million families scattered over 95,000 villages. Unemployment _ 3 -

and/or under-employment is a serious problem of the agricultural sector. With a rural labor force between 8 and 12 million people and a harvested area fluctuating around 15 million ha, the ratio of cropped area to potential active population is between 1.3 and 2.0 ha per person, very low when the land use pattern (about two-thirds of the croppecl area devoted to grains) is considered. This is one of the major causes determining the level of income in the agricultural sector, lower than that of other sectors, as the following table illustrates.

GDP per Worker (19-75) /a

US$ Index

Agriculture 120 1(0 National Average 384 320 Industry and Services 504 420

/a Based on data of "Prontuario Estadistico de la Secretaria de Recursos Hidraulicos" (SRH) Mexico, D.F., 1976.

Moreover, the income distribution pattern within the agricultural sector is skewed, as 50% of the rural families account for about 20%' of the agricultural output while the upper 10% of the agricultural population provides 50% of it.

Government Policies

1.10 Within the agricultural sector, Government policies aim primarily at increasing production for domestic consumption, particularly basic food crops so as to attain self-sufficiency by 1982, and to increase income levels and generate rural employment. Moreover, with favorable prospects for in- creased petroleum production and export earnings, coupled with an easier bud- getary situation, Mexico has the means to diversify its agricultural develop- ment strategy, enable more of its farmers to reach higher levels of produc- tivity and return to the higher sector growth rates of earlier periods.

1.11 To meet these objectives, Government is pursuing the following strategies: (a) In the irrigation subsector, various large-scale projects are still planned to be developed in areas where an unused hydraulic poten- tial exists; attention, however, will be focused on an expansion of irrigated lands through small scale irrigation and an improved performance in presently irrigated areas through rehabilitation of old conveyance systems, reclamation of saline lands and more efficient use of available water; (b) a major effort will be made to expand rainfed cult:ivation in previously utilized or under- utilized lands, mostly along the Gu:Lf coast. The latter will require invest- ments in drainage and flood control, but it will also necessitate a strong effort by research services to deveíop adequate crop technologies and by extension services to promote improved cultivation methods; (c) to improve productivity in existing rainfed agriculture, extension services need to be - 4 -

further expanded and made more effective; towards this end, the Government has recently created "distritos de temporal" or rainfed districts, next to already existing irrigation districts; and (d) Government is using its mini- mum price support system to induce changes in cropping patterns towards increased production of food crops.

1.12 The Bank's lending program to Mexico's agricultural sector, ongoing or under preparation, contains a mix of projects that respond to the policies of the Government as outlined above. The proposed project which would expand irrigated lands and, at the same time rehabilitate old irrigation systems and reclaim saline lands, would correspond well with Government strategies in this field.

Bank Participation

1.13 In the past five years (FY1974-78) Bank participation in the agri- cultural sector amounted to US$835 million distributed over ten projects as follows: Irrigation (Panuco, Sinaloa and Bajo Bravo/Bajo San Juan), US$174 million; rural development (PIDER I and II and Papaloapan Basin), US$280 mil- lion; credit (Fifth and Sixth projects), US$325 million; area development (Tropical Agriculture), US$56 million; and small-scale agriculture infrastruc- ture development, US$44 million. Implementation of irrigation projects were delayed, mainly because of budgetary constraints. These delays were further accentuated by high price increases unforseen at appraisal. As a result Government and Bank agreed that the projects should be financed over a longer period of time. These circumstances led to the reformulation of Bajo Bravo/ Bajo San Juan project with subsequent cancellation of US$100 millíon (from an original loan of US$150 million) and to a supplementary loan of US$25 million, approved by the Bank on July 11, 1978, to assist financing cost overruns of the Panuco project. With these actions, implementation of the above projects is now progressing satisfactorily. PIDER I and II are multi-sectoral projects designed for improving living conditions and increasing productivity in localized areas of rural poverty ("micro-regions"). After some difficulties inherent to their nature, overall progress of these projects is improving along with steps taken to decentralize the decision-making process, although the success in carrying out the different components of the project varies with the implementation capacity of the agencies involved. The Papaloapan project had also a slow start due to a severe shortage of budgetary allocations, a situation that now is being corrected with recently increased appropriations of funds. The disbursement pace of the Fifth Credit project was faster than projected, although lately has slowed down with respect to funds earmarked for low-income producers; the project is however expected to be completed about six months before closing date (January 1, 1980). The Sixth Credit project, the Tropical Agriculture project and the Small Scale Agricultural Infrastruc- ture project became effective on January 12, 1979.

1.14 A Project Performance Audit (OED's Report 1573, April 27, 1977) on the Third Credit Project (Loan 747-ME) pointed out that the Project made a significant contribution to improve financial assistance to commercial farmers, but noted that technical aspects at farm level needed to be improved; to this end, specífic actions for monitoring agricultural development were introduced in the Fifth and Sixth Credit projects. 1-5 -

II. THE PROJECT AREA

Location

2.01 The proposed project is located in the area of two irrigation dis- triets, Rio Sinaloa and Rio Fuerte, in the northern part of the State of Sinaloa on Mexico's Pacific coast (mnap IBRD 13953R). The two districts together have a net irrigable area of 315,000 ha (105,000 ha in Sinaloa and 210,000 ha in Fuerte), all in the coastal plains below the Sierra Madre mountain range.

2.02 The region has good transportation links to national and inter- national markets. The international highway linking Mexico City with Nogales, Arizona, passes through the project area, and combined with other paved roads, provides a basic road network suitable for distributing farm inputs and for moving produce to other parts of Mexico or for export. Tle Pacific railway, linking Mexico City with Nogales, also bisects the project-area, while marine transportation is available at Topolabambo and at the major west coast port of Mazatlan. Four small airports within the project area serve local needs, and regularly scheduled air service is available at Culiacan.

Soils, Topography and Drainage

2.03 Soils in the Sinaloa district are derived largely from recent alluvial deposits of volcanic origin. About 70% of the soils are clay loams and clays and the remainder, mostly adjacent to stream beds, are of a lighter sandier texture. The soils are moderately fertile, of good depth and water- holding capacity. About 80% of the lands are Class I and II (highly suitable for irrigation) under a five-class system developed by the Ministry of Agricul- ture and Hydraulic Resources (SARH) and based on US Bureau of Reclamation suitability standards. The area lies between 5 m and 55 in above sea level and has a gradient of about 2 m to 6 m per km to the sea. As a result, natural drainage conditions are generally satisfactory and except for a limited area of 800 ha lying at low elevation, salinity problems do not occur.

2.04 Soils in Fuerte district are also mainly recent alluvial deposits of volcanic origin. They form extensive flat areas between 3.5 m and 35 m above sea level, intersected by shallow drain ways. As drainage is inefficient the area suffers from high water tables (between one and two meters), and the combination of high water tables, low rainfall and moderately high evaporation has resulted in salt accumulation over much of the area. The soils have good physical properties; they are more than two meters deep, medium to light tex- tured and have good infiltration rates and permeabilities. The pH values range mostly between 7 and 8.5. The content of organic matter is low and crops in the area respond well to nitrogen aindphosphate fertilizers. The potash con- tent is moderate to high. In accordance with the Mexican irrigation capability classification (para. 2.03), close to 70% of all soils are in the Class 1 and II categories.

2.05 Salinization affects about 60,000 ha or 50% of the proposed project area in Fuerte district. Of this, an estimated 12,000 ha are saline-alkali soils. The table below indicates the extent of the salt-affected land in the three units of Fuerte district which are included in the proposed project: Salt-Affected Lands

Unit Irrigable Area Saline Land Saline-Sodic Land Total Salt Affected (ha) (ha) (%) (ha) (%) (ha) (%)

1 43,690 15,000 34.3 2,000 4.6 17,000 38.9 4 48,018 18,500 38.5 5,500 11.5 24,000 50.0 5 27,922 14,500 51.9 4,500 16.1 19,000 68.0

Total 119,630 48,000 40.1 12,000 10.0 60,000 50.2

2.06 Extensive field investigations and previous experiences in the proj- ect area have shown, however, that with an expanded drainage network, deeper main drains and better water applícation and distribution, the saline soils can be reclaimed and sustain permanent irrigated agriculture. Saline-sodie soils would require applications of gypsum, which is locally available.

Climate

2.07 Climate in the project area is classified as desertic with an aver- age annual precipitation of 347 mm, and pan evaporation of 2,299 mm per annum. Monthly average temperatures vary from 18.2 C (Jaunary) to 30.9%C (July-August), and light frosts may occur occasionally in January and February. About 80% of the precipitation falls between July and October.

Irrigation Systems

2.08 Irrigation systems have been built in the two districts over a period of some 30 years, covering altogether about 264,000 ha. In the Sinaloa district, some 54,000 ha now have access to irrigation water from wells and from direct diversion of waters from the Sinaloa River but are not necessarily irrigated fully. In the Fuerte district, some 210,000 ha have access to water from an upstream dam. However, because of poor water distribution systems many areas have been only partly irrigated and inadequate drainage has caused growing salinity levels. As a result of salinization, in Fuerte district about 150,000 ha either suffered from declining production or were completely abandoned. In one of its earliest loans to Mexico for irrigation development (275-ME in 1961) the Bank assisted in the succesful reclamation of saline lands in two of the five units in Fuerte district, covering about 77,000 ha. In addition farmers reclaimed about 13,000 ha. In 1974, the Bank helped to finance the Sinaloa project (970-ME) which will now establish a storage dam, headworks and the distribution system for 29,000 ha in Sinaloa district (see Chapter III). The proposed project would expand the distribution system for the Sinaloa district to cover the remaining irrigable area of 76,000 ha and rehabilitate and reclaim the 120,000 ha in the three remaining units of Fuerte district to provide coverage to all the 210,000 ha of irrigated land. The two proposed actions would thus realize the full irrigation poten- tial of the two districts. Past and proposed irrigation developments in the two distriets are summarized in Table 2.01. 7-

Present Use of Project Lands

2.09 Land use is similar in the Sinaloa and Fuerte districts. The main winter crops are wheat, safflower, vegetables, cotton, maize and beans. The main summer crops are soybeans, sorghum, rice, vegetables and maize.

2.10 Sinaloa. Of the 76,000 ha in the Sinaloa part of the proposed proj- ect, some 33,000 ha are currently cuJtivated. Of these, about 28,000 ha have some type of irrigation, either through surface water diversions, extraction of groundwater, or a combination of the two, with about 5,000 ha cultivated under dry farming conditions. The 43,000 ha balance (mostly on the right bank), is still under brush. In the portion of Sinaloa district irrigated only by surface water diversion, water availability is restricted to summer and early fall, and cropping is restricted mainly to rice and soybeans with safflower and beans grown on residua:Lmoisture in late fall. Where there is also pumping of groundwater, cropping is more diversified and cropping inten- sity is high, reflecting year-round availability of water. The mean cropping intensities in the district reach only about 122%.

2.11 Of the 120,000 ha to be rehabilitated in Fuerte ¿listrict,only about 80,000 ha can be cropped because of an inadequate distribution system (10,000 ha) and of excessive salinization of the remaining 30,000 tia. The area planted varies from year to year according to water availability, but the mean cropping intensity for the 80,000 ha is about 109%.

Population

2.12 Overall population of the three municipios (counlies)--Ahome, Guasave and Sinaloa--in which the project area lies, is about 550,000. There are about 96,000 households with some 154,000 economically active members of which nearly 50% are employed in agriculture. Annual population growth in the region is estimated at 6% of which about 2.5% is attributed to immigration of people attracted by employment opportunities opened up by development of irrigated agriculture, agro-business and secondary economic activities. The literacy rate is about 76%.

Land Tenure

2.13 Table 2.02 shows the farm size distribution for the area of Sinaloa distriet and Units 1, 4 and 5 of Fuerte distriet which together comprise the proposed project area. About 70% of the area belongs to "ejidos" a legal entity which, in essence, consists of the right of rural communities to enjoy the usufruct of lands whose ownership remains with the Fed,erationand defines the rights of individual members (ejidatarios) to share the usufruct right of their community. The average share per family in the project's ejido area is about eight ha and ranges from less than five to a maximum of 20 ha. The remaining land is of private ownership with 66% of the farmers holding less than 20 ha units.

2.14 Under the Agrarian Reform Law all single-owner holdings in excess of 100 ha of irrigated land are subject to expropriation for redistribution to ejidos. The new Federal Water Law 1/ carries this further by specifying that

1/ Ley Federal de Aguas, January ]1, 1972. - 8 - when a Federal Irrigation Distriet is established, the maximum size holding of newly irrigated land is 20 ha.

2.15 In practice, however, it is expected that the applicability of

these laws will be minimal and few changes will occur in i-' pre<^- 1-1 tenure situation since the Agrarian Reform Law would apply to only about 2% of the proposed project area. Furthermore the Federal Water Law gives no legal authority to intervene where lands are already irrigated, i.e. covered by irrigation systems; this excludes all of Fuerte district and most of Sinaloa district as in the latter, it is mostly the larger farms that possess privately developed wells and irrigation systems. Thus it is estimated that in the legal sense, lands liable to expropriation under the existing laws do not exceed 4,000 to 5,000 ha in both districts. The authorities are in the process of purchasing part of these lands for the settlement of farmers whose lands will be covered by the lake behind the Bacurato storage dam.

Credit and Crop Insurance

2.16 Credit is provided by more than a dozen private banks as well as five branches of the official Banco Nacional de Credito Rural (BNCR) in the Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa area. BNCR lending for the 1977-78 crop year by its Los Mochis (Fuerte) and Guasave (Sinaloa) branches was, respectively: Mex $417 million for 69,389 ha and Mex $113 million for 26,977 ha. Nearly 98% of the BNCR lending was to the ejido sector for which it is the primary supplier of short- term credit. All of the above banks are able to use the Fondo de Garantia of the Bank of Mexico (FIRA) for rediscounting long term loan paper. The avail- ability of short- and long-term credit has not been a limiting factor in the project area. A government-sponsored crop insurance program, the Aseguradora Nacional Agricola and Ganadera S.A. (ANAGSA), operates in close cooperation with the lending programs, with the insurance covering on average about 70% of the cost of inputs for irrigated production.

Agricultural Inputs

2.17 In addition to commercial firms, associations of private farmers and unions of ejidos are involved in supplying seeds, fertilizers, pest con- trol and custom machine operations.

2.18 Seeds. Most of the improved seed used in the project area is selec- ted and introduced by the local experimental stations (para 2.23). Multipli- cation is carried out either by the government-operated Productora Nacional de Semillas (PRONASE) or under supervision of the National Service for Inspection and Seed Certification. The farmer's associations also produce seeds of the improved varieties for their members.

2.19 Fertilizer. Production, import and distribution of fertilizers on the national scale is handled by the government owned firm, Fertilizantes Mexicanos (FERTIMEX). Local distribution in the Fuerte/Sinaloa area is handled effectively by a combination of public, private and farmer organizations. Sinaloa state is one of the heaviest users of fertilizers in the nation, particularly nitrogen where the average application under irrigated conditions such as the project area is about 105 kg/ha in terms of elemental N. However, in spite of this high use of N there is a need to improve use efficiency and for research development of more fertilizer responsive varieties. Phosphorus responses are common and there is a continuous need to maintain adequate phosphorus levels which are drawn dosm by high output resulting from irriga- tion and heavy nitrogen applications.

2.20 Custom Machine Operations. Hiring of machinery for certain farm operations is a well established practice in the project area. Most of the ejidos and small private farmers make use of custom operators for heavy tractor work, harvesting and aerial applications. Most of the operators are private but services are also provided by two large unions of ejidos. 1/ Large private farmers and ejidos have their own tractors and implements and are generally independent for land preparation and cultivation purposes. On the whole the system functions efficiently and the capacity of the operators is such that they are able to perform the farming operations in a timely manner. Price guidelines for each custom operation are set annually through negotiation between representative of the various farmer groups and the union of private custom machine operators (maquileros). These prices then serve as the basis for bank lending for the upcoming season. This system is flexible and more than adequate to meet the needs of any proposed expansion in the area provided that the custom operators are assured adequate access to long term credit for the purchase of additional machinery which to date has been the case (para. 2.16).

2.21 Plant Protection. Adequate control of plant pests and diseases is essential to both present and future development of irrigated agriculture in the project area. The present regional infrastructure provides adequate plant protection programs for the state's irrigation districts and consists of: (a) the SARH offices in charge of plant protection, which have insect, disease and rat control responsibilities and provide leadership in biological control of important pests; (b) custom operators who apply insecticides by tractor or plane; and (c) product distribution points operated by farmer's associa- tions and private farms. Financial support for area-wide programs of biolo- gical control is provided in part by farmer's associations.

2.22 Processing and Marketing. The project area is well served by basic processing and storage facilities for grains and cotton, and has developed specialized and efficient procedures for handling some 10,000 ha of vegetable production for export and internal markets. The agro-industries located within the area include cotton gins, rice millls, a sugar mill, gas distribution, fer- tilizer and insecticide mixing, seed processing, and, of major economic value, vegetable packing and cold storage facilities for export via refrigerated vans and railroad cars, and a local canning industry.

1/ These Unions operate ejido-owned businesses, municipio-wide in their coverage. The first is controlled by and serves 38 ejidos in Ahome; the second, 116 ejidos in Guasave. - 10 -

Research and Extension

2.23 Research. Research activity in the project area has been limited by modest annual budgets, however, giving the need for expanding this activity, the quality of ongoing programs is generally high. A positive aspect of the research structure is that a mechanism has been developed during the past 12 years for local support of research in the form of a statewide (Sinaloa) permanent Commission for Agricultural Research and Experimentation. Of a total research budget of Mex$32.5 million for Sinaloa in 1977, private farmers and ejidatorios contributed Mex$6.2 million through a special tax on production. The National Institute of Agricultural Research (INIA) has one experiment station located in the project area, between Los Mochis and Guasave (CIAPAN) but has had little budget for off-station trials. CIAPAN's main activities include testing for local adaptability of the improved varieties of rice, sorghum and soybeans developed at international centers, as well as the new wheat varieties emanating from the research conducted cooperatively by INIA and the International Center for Maize and Wheat Improvement (CIMMYT) at Obregon, Sonora. The main deficiency of the station's program is in the need to expand its program for: (a) disease resistant varieties with greater production potential, especially of beans and maize; (b) better advice on water management and fertilizer use taking into account rotations which are most efficient in production per unit of water as well as unit area.

2.24 Extension. Extension services are provided by (i) the technical staff of FIRA and BNCR; and (ii) SAPH extension staff which is numerically the most important. Extension Services in already established districts have been particularly effective. However, recently, the SARH extension effort has been organized and consolidated as part of each district's integrated technical program in line with a countrywide reorganization in all irrigation districts. A main feature of the new approach is its similarity to the training and visit system being used in a number of Bank financed projects in other countries. The irrigation districts in Northern Sinaloa have had no problem in recruiting agricultural graduates and technical staff for this new program: most come from the Agricultural faculties of the University of Sinaloa at Culiacan or from local schools offering agricultural courses at a technical level. However, recruits lack experience and inservice training and supervision is needed to ensure their effective use. - 11 -

III. THE ONGOING SINALOA PROJECT

Original Project Description

3.01 The original Sinaloa Irrigation Project (Loan 970-ME for US$47 mil- lion, approved February 19, 1974) was intended to develop intensive irrigated agriculture on about 105,000 ha on both banks of the Sinaloa river. Project works wers to consist of: (a) the Bacurato dam and storage reservoir (2,900 Mm ); (b) the Sinaloa de Leyva diversion dam; (c) a concrete-lined irrigation coveyance and distribution system; (d) 60 new wells to complement the surface water supply; (e) a system of primary and seccndary drains; (f) land clearing and leveling; (g) an intensive four year farm extension program; and (h) ancillary items such as operation and maintenance equipment, roads, ditchrider houses, a communications system and project headquarters offices. The construction period was estimated to be five years.

3.02 The total project cost amounted to US$145.6 million, inclusive of interest on the Bank loan during the construction period. The Bank loan of US$47.0 million was to finance the foreign exchange component of the project (US$46.3 million) and one-half of thLeestimated cost of the four year exten- sion program (US$0.7 million).

3.03 The net value of agricultural production expressed in 1972 prices was expected to increase from about US$3.5 million to about US$29.5 million in an eight year period, which corresponds to a net incremental value of production expressed in 1978 prices of about US$65 million. The rate of return to the economy was estimated at about 17%.

3.04 In the project area about 651,300 ha were occupied by 10,900 families in 74 ejidos (or 5.6 ha per family) and about 39,600 ha were held by 1,170 private producers (or 33.8 ha per family). With the project, it was expected that an ejidatarios' on-farm income would increase 10 times to about US$2,000 1/ equivalent, while the income of a private farmer would increase at least six times to about US$15,000 equivalent.

Project Execution, 1974-1977

3.05 The project got off to a s]ow start. Insufficient budget allocations caused delays in project implementation and the budgetary situation became extremely critical during 1976-1977 when Mexico, facing rapid inflation and a severe financial disequilibrium, launched a stringent stabilization program. By mid 1977, little progress in execution had been made and the cost estimate for the original project had more than doubled to US$300 million.

3.06 Government reviewed the situation and consulted with the Bank on how to proceed with the project. The following alternative options were discussed. Firstly, to continue loan disbursements at the rate foreseen in the Loan Contract (e.g., 38% for civil works). This would liaveexhausted

1/ Expressed in 1972 prices. - 12 -

the loan amount well before project completion and was not acceptable to either party. Secondly to reduce the loan disbursement percentage to about 15% so that disbursements could be made during the full construction period. This too was rejected by both parties. Thirdly, to redefine the scope of the original Sinaloa project, limiting it to the works underway or those intimately related to them, with the remaining works being rescheduled and financed under a follow-up project. A President's Memorandum containing this proposal was approved by the Board on March 27, 1979.

The Revised Sinaloa Project

3.07 The project as now redefined includes the main civil works originally contemplated (dam, diversion structures and main canals) but reduces the irri- gation and drainage network considerably. It consists of (a) Bacurato dam and storage reservoir; (b) Sinaloa de Leyva diversion dam; (c) 94 km of lined main irrigation canals on the left bank and 47 km lined main canals on the right bank of the Sinaloa river; (d) an irrigation and drainage network covering 29,250 ha 1/; (e) land clearing and leveling on about 12,000 ha; (f) a farm extension program; and (g) ancillary items such as O&Mequipment. The Rio Sinaloa irrigation network has been connected by two canals to the adjacent Rio Fuerte irrigation distriet. The total cost of the revised project expressed in 1978 prices including price contingencies and interest during construction is estimated to amount to US$137.3 million with a foreign exchange component of US$44.71 million as outlined in the table below.

Revised Cost Estimate /a (US$ million)

ítem Local Foreign Total

Civil Works 57.8 28.9 86.7 Materíals and Equipment 5.1 4.7 9.8 Engineering 12.8 - 12.8 Technical Assistance 3.6 - 3.6

Base Cost 79.3 33.6 112.9 Physical Contingencies 4.2 2.9 7.1 Price Contingencies 7.4 3.9 11.3 Interest During Construction - 6.0 6.0

Total Cost 90.9 46.4 137.3

/a Exchange rate of US$ = Mex$22.5.

1/ A further area of 15,750 ha on the left bank will partially benefit from this infrastructure, but will achieve full development levels only with the infrastructure and services to be provided under the proposed Fuerte/Sinaloa Project. - 13 -

3.08 The problems, which initially delayed project implementation (para. 3.05) have been resolved; budget allocations have substantially increased and ít is expected that Government will now execute the remaining items of the revised Sinaloa Project in a timnelymanner. Bacurato dam and reservoir will be completed and fully operational by July 1981. The Sinaloa de Leyva diversion structure was completed in 1976. The main canals, irrigation and drainage networks and land clearing and leveling will be completed and opera- tional by the end of 1979. The extension service has already initiated its activities in the project area and by the end of 1978 about 40% of works under the revised project had been completed. Disbursements have been slow, mainly due to delays in preparation of corresponding requests; about 15% of the Bank loan was disbursed by December 1978. It is expected, however, that execution of the revised project would be completed in December 1981, and disbursements by July 1982.

Revised Project Benefits and Economic Justification

3.09 With the reduction in irrigated area to 29,250 ha, Bacurato storage reservoir capacity would be well in excess of maximum irrigation water require- ments in Sinaloa distriet, even supposing that high croppirng intensities will be reached on the newly irrigated lands. Assuming, for purposes of calculation that no follow-up project would be carried out, the excess storage could then be used to channel water through interconnecting canals to Fuerte district, where water shortages also exist and cropping intensities on existing irrigated lands could be raised with water froni Bacurato dam.

3.10 Benefits under the revised project would therefore consist of (a) incremental production on 29,250 ha of newly rehabilitated lands in Sínaloa, with an estimated cropping i.ntensityof 140% at full development; (b) incremental production on an additional 16,000 ha of existing irrigated lands in Sinaloa, which would produce only 60% of benefits assumed under (a) due to deficient water distribution and drainage facilities; and (c) water releases to Fuerte district which would enable raising cropping intensities on 70,000 ha in the Fuerte district from 110 to 120%. The rate of return of the revised project is estimated at 12%. - 14 -

IV. THE PROJECT

Project Concept

4.01 On first appearance the concept for the proposed project was to follow the design of the original Sinaloa project and complete the field distribution system on the entire area, i.e. on an additional 76,000 ha. This would, however, have entailed a serious disadvantage: it would take about four years to complete the field distribution system while during this time the Bacurato storage reservoir would have considerable excess capacity. Although these waters could in theory be released to Fuerte district during that period, they could not be used where they would be most urgently needed, i.e. for the leaching of saline lands; without simultaneous improvements in the Fuerte drainage system, leaching would lead to waterlogging and increase salinity levels even further.

4.02 These considerations prompted the Mexican authorities to propose a different concept for a follow-up project under which (a) the field distri- bution system in Sinaloa would be completed in four years, covering 76,000 ha; (b) meanwhile, excess water from Bacurato reservoir would be channeled to Fuerte district and used for leaching saline lands, which would also take about four years to complete; (c) concurrent with the leaching program in Fuerte, improvements in the drainage network and installation of control structures to avoid excessive water use, covering about 120,000 ha would be carried out; and (d) after completion of leaching in Fuerte, water releases from Bacurato dam would all revert to Sinaloa district and be put to productive use there since by this time the distribution system would have been built.

4.03 This concept is acceptable to the Bank as it would spread the bene- fits of irrigation over a larger area and more equitably over a larger number of farmers; it would provide water for leaching which could otherwise have been provided only by reducing cropping intensities (and possibly cropped areas) in Fuerte district; and it would implement a project - the rehabilita- tion of Fuerte district - which was already foreseen by the Mexican authorities as the next stage in the overall Plan for Irrigation Investment in the North- west (PLINO).

Project Description

4.04 The Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa Project would inerease agriculture pro- duction productivity and farm incomes of 196,000 ha through rehabilitation and extension of irrigation and drainage networks, and reclamation of saline soils. Project works include:

(a) rehabilitation of about 1.7 km of lined main canal, 130 km of unlined main irrigation canals, about 600 km of unlined irrigation laterals, and 154 km of open drains in the Fuerte district;

(b) construction of about 375 km of lined irrigation laterals and, 171 km of open drains, in the Fuerte district; - 15 -

(c) construction of about 16 km of lined main canal, 313 km of lined and 280 km of unlined irrigation laterals, 510 km of open drains, and 170 km of feeder roads in the Sinaloa dístriet;

(d) reclamation of about 60,000 ha of saline and saline-sodie soils in the Fuerte district;

(e) land clearing and leveling;

(f) telecommunication and other works;

(g) expansion of the district agricultural extension and research programs; and

(h) execution of drainage and other studies within the Sinaloa and Fuerte river basins.

4.05 The irrigation works would be designed for water delivery to 60 ha blocks. Water control and measuring structures would be part of the canal network and permit monitoring of water use down to the 60 ha block turnouts. Drainage works comprise rehabilitation and deepening of existing drains and construction of new drains. Drain depth would vary from two to four meters and the overall drain density would be about 12 rn/ha. Feeder roads would be 6 m wide. In addition service roads would run along the main drains and canals.

4.06 On-farn development includes leveling of about 60,000 ha in Fuerte a9d 40,000 ha in Sinaloa district. Earth movements would average about 400 m /ha and be generally below 700 m /ha. In Fuerte's district the project would also reclaim 48,000 ha of saline lands, of which 18,000 ha are presently unpro- ductíve and 30,000 ha produce about 35% of normal yield in the region. In addition about 12,000 ha of unproductive saline-sodic lands require gypsum applications (15 tons/ha) and leaching for their reclamation. Although most of the water for leaching in Fuerte would come from Bacuratc reservoir (para. 4.02) Fuerte drainage water would also be used for leaching and is recommended for rehabilitation of saline-sodic solls. Reclamation would require about one and a half meters of water for saline soils and about two meters for saline-sodic soils including half and one meter respectively for evaporation losses. Rice would be grown during reclamation.

4.07 Other civil works include 2915km of telephone línes to link Guasave, Los Mochis and Bacurato dam (Map IBRD 13953), 50 ditch rider houses, and build- ings for supporting services. In addition the project would supply equipment for operation and maintenance of project facilities (Table 4.01). Intensive programs for supporting agricultural services would involve provision for buildings and equipment, incremental salaries and incremental recurrent costs for expanding the agricultural extension and research servic,esin the area. Further details are discussed in Chapter V.

4.08 The project would also provide for expansion of the groundwater observation well network and monitoring of the water table (para 5.10) and for studies on drain spacing, use of tubewells for drainage, draínage materials - 16 - etc. This is considered necessary as there is a danger that, with time, after the completion of Bacurato reservoir, groundwater tables could rise to undesirable shallow levels in Sinaloa district and those parts of Fuerte district near to Sinaloa River. Levels of possible future drainage investments cannot be provided at this time, but some allowances for this purpose have been made in the project analysis (para 8.02). In addition Covernment agreed to provide credit for ejidos and private farmers for on-farm drainage as required.

Water Supply and Demand

4.09 Sinaloa Irrigation District. The district will derive its water from Bacurato dam and from the 3underground aquifer. Bacurato dam will have a maximum capacity of 2,900 Mm and a normal irrigation capacity of 1,800 Mm The average reservoir inflow b sed on 37 continuous years of hydrologic records has been estimated at 1,330 Mm . Water requirements were determined by the modified Blaney-Criddle method and assuming conveyance and field efficients of 70% each (overall efficiency 50%); the results compare with actual water use in the neighboring fully developed El Carriso district. Between 1978 and 1982 the Sinaloa district could supply 1,065 Mm to the Fuerte district for leaching purposes. Details on water availability and requirements are sum- marized below and shown in more detail in Tables 4.02 and 4.03.

Water Balance Sinaloa District

A. Availability _m3

Inflow Bacurato reservoir 1,330 Evaporation and seepage losses - 44 Spillway discharges - 200 Regulated outflow 1,086 Conveyance and operational losses (30%) - 326 Water pumped from wells /a + 230

Total Availability 990

B. Requirements

Area upstream Leyva diversion (5,000 ha) 43.5 Sinaloa I area (29,000 ha) 252.3 Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa project (76,000 ha) 659.9 Domestic and industrial requirements 34.3

Total requirements 990.0

/a Well yields presently estimated at 250 Mm but an ongoing hydrological study may reduce safe yields by approximately 10%. - 17 -

4.10 Fuerte Irrigation District. The district covers an area of 210,000 ha and receives its water from (a) Miguel Hidalgo dam; (b) the underground aquifer; and (c) rediversion of return flows at Camayeca/Porvenir and Guamu- chilera. The Miguel Hidalgo dam regulates the streamflow of the river for the five units of the Fuerte district and for the Josefa Ortiz dam which regulates the availabilities for the Carrizo district. In accordance with hydrolog cal records the average rese 5voir inflow at Miguel Hidalgo is 4,400 Mm and the outflow is 3,093 Mn with a probability of shortage of 3.73%. Water availabilities and requireiments are summarized below and in more detail shown in Tables 4.04 and 4.05.

Water Balance Fuerte District

A. Availability Mm3

Net outflow from Miguel Hidalgo to Fuerte district /a 3,093.0 River and canal conveyance and operation losses 30% - 928.0 2,165.0 Return flow from Camayeca-Porvenir 80% + 80.0 Return flow from Guamuchilera 80% + 14.4 110 wells /b 80% + 150.0 Pumping water from Sinaloa river 80% + 64.0

Total Availability 2,473.4

B. Requirements

Irrigation Fuerte district units 2 and 3 1,260.0 Irrigation Fuerte district units 1, 4 and 5 982.0 Leaching requirements (annual) 80.0 Domestic and industrial use 138.0

Total requirements 2,460.0

la After deduction of releases to the Josefa Ortiz reservoir.

/b Yields presently estimatedl at 200 Mm but an ongoing hydro- logical survey may reduce safe yields by approximately 25%.

Water Quality

4.11 The quality of water available for the project is excellent for irrigation use, the impurities carried by the water in solution or in sus- pension are very few. During the dry season from November to May, the dis- solved solid contents rarely exceed 200 ppm at the inlets of Bacurato and - 18 -

Miguel Hidalgo and the pH factor ranges from neutral to slightly acid. Contamination of quality of irrigation water may be caused by use of return flow or drainage recoveries. At the present, the irrigation water contains no toxic or harmful elements and there is no evidence of water borne diseases.

Construction Schedule and Status of Engineering

4.12 Implementation Schedule. Project implementation would begin in January 1980 and be completed in December 1985. Although civil works would be constructed in a four year period (1980-1983), the project would support studies, agricultural research and extension activities during a six year period. This would ensure timely realization of potential benefits from the project. Table 4.06 summarizes the project implementation schedule.

4.13 Status of Engineering. Feasibility level designs for the irriga- tion and drainage networks have been satisfactorily completed. Detailed designs of the project works would be carried out under the project by the Office of Hydraulic Infrastructure for Northern Sinaloa in Los Mochis (Chart No. 20103) which has sufficient qualified staff and experience for this pur- pose. The same staff has designed the irrigation and drainage networks for Sinaloa I in a most satisfactory manner.

Cost Estimates

4.14 Total project cost expressed in December 1978 prices amount to US$249.7 million (Mex$5,620 million) including price and physical contingen- cies. There are no identifiable taxes. The foreign exchange component is estimated at US$84.6 million (Mex$1,904 million) or 34% of total costs. Cost estimates for civil works and major equipment are based on unit rates obtained in contracts for the ongoing Sinaloa I irrigation project (Loan 970-H1E). Physical contingencies for civil works and equipment were taken at 15% and for engineering at 10% of civil works in view of recent experience with similar work in the area. Total price contingencies amount to US$65.5 million or 26% of total project cost and were compounded at 7% annually for the foreign exchange component of civil works, at 6% annually for the foreign exchange component of equipment between 1979 and 1985, and for local cost at 15%, 10% and 6.5% in 1979, 1980 and from 1981 to 1985 respectively. These price contingencies are based on projected price inflation in Mexico's civil works industry. Cost estimates are summarized below and shown in detail in Table 4.07. Table 4.08 shows the schedule of expenditures.

Financing Plan

4.15 The proposed Bank loan of US$92 million would finance the estimated foreign exchange requirements of the project (US$84.6 million) plus 50% of studies and incremental operational costs of agricultural extension and research services (US$7.4 million). The Government would finance the re- mainder of project costs amounting to US$157.7 equivalent or 63% of total project costs. The Bank loan would be for a period of 17 years including four years of grace. Interest and commitment charges on the Bank loan during the construction period would be paid by Government. Cost Estimate

Foreign Item Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Exchange -- Mex$ Million ------US$ MillionL ----- %

I. Fuerte Irrigation District

Civil Works 467.5 324.8 792.3 20.8 14.4 35.2 41 On-Farm Development 265.0 184.1 449.1 11.7 8.2 19.9 41 Equipment 10.0 89.7 99.7 0.4 4.0 4.4 90 Engineering 124.1 - 124.1 5.5 - 5.5 0 Indemnization 28.4 - 28.4 1.2 - 1.2 0

Subtotal 895.0 598.6 1,493.6 39.6 26.6 66.2 40

II. Sinaloa Irrigation District

Civil Works 784.2 544.9 1,329.1 34.9 24.2 59.1 41 On-Farm Development 131.5 91.3 222.8 5.8 4.1 9.9 41 Equipment 6.3 56.5 62.8 0.3 2.5 2.8 90 Engineering 155.2 - 155.2 6.9 - 6.9 0 Indemnization 53.3 - 53.3 2.3 - 2.3 0

Subtotal 1,130.5 692.7 1,823.2 50.2 30.8 81.0 38

III. Agriculture Extension Program 186.5 15.5 202.0 8.2 0.7 8.9 8

IV. Agricultural Research and Studies 129.8 28.0 157.8 5.8 1.2 7.0 17

Total 2,337.7 b334.8 3,672.5 103.8 59.3 163.1

Physical Contingencies 279. 0 198,0 477,0 12,3 8,8 21,1

Price Contingencies 1,100.2 371.3 1>471.5 49.0 16.5 65.5

GRAND TOTAL 3715.9 1,904.1 5,620.0 165.1 84.6 249.7 34

May 7, 1979 - 20 -

Procurement

4.16 Contracts for principal irrigation and drainage works amounting to about US$108 million would be procured on the basis of international competitive bidding in accordance with the Bank's Guidelines for Procurement. Mexico has a well developed and competent contracting industry, capable of doing all type of civil works at competitive prices, and only rarely is a bid submitted from a non Mexican firm. However to facilitate the participation of international contractors, civil works would, insofar as possible be grouped into contracts having a minimum value of US$2.0 million.

4.17 On-farm development works (US$22 million) would be procured under local competitive bidding or through negotiated contracts on the basis of Government procedures which are satisfactory to the Bank. Most frequently in the project region farmers organize themselves into partnerships to contract land clearing and leveling on small tracts up to 100 ha in size using their own machinery. The work provides income to the farmers pending completion of the rehabilitation works, but more importantly, it trains them in proper leveling procedures and prepares them to maintain their fields in good condition for irrigation. SARH provides engineering services and supervises such contracts.

4.18 To expedite the construction of civil works under international competitive bidding, small jobs (telecommunications, buildings, houses) whicli, because of timing or nature of the work, could be better handled if they were not included in major contracts, would be contracted out under ordinary Government procedures, up to a maximum value per contract of US$0.22 million.

4.19 The estimated cost of vehicles, farm machinery and equipment is about US$8.8 million, out of which US$6 million would be subject to inter- national competitive bidding according to Bank Guidelines for Procurement (March 1977). For bid evaluation a 15% margin of preference or the prevailing custom duties if lower would be allowed for equipment and vehicles produced in Mexico. About US$2.8 million worth of minor equipment are not suitable for international competitive bidding would be purchased through normal local procurement procedures. Government agreed to follow procurement procedures outlined above.

Disbursements

4.20 The proposed Bank loan would disburse against itemized categories as outlined below. In the case of incremental staff salaries, the appropriate documentation would be a summary of those staff salaries applicable to the project and based on positions incremental to the staff list at June 30, 1979. Other disbursements would be made against normal documentation. The estimated disbursement schedule is presented in Table 4.09. - 21 -

Category Item Cost (US$ m)

I Selected civil works comprising irrigation and drainage infrastruc- ture, feeder roads, telecommunication facilities, on farm development, build- ings and houses; 43% of total costs 59.0

II Equipment for operation and maintenance and for agricultural extension and r,esearch services and studies; 90% of total costs 8.0

III Incremental operational costs of agricul- tural extension and studies; 50% of total costs 7.5

IV Unallocated 17.5

The percentage under category I reflects the non financing of retention monies under civil works contracts.

Accounts and Audit

4.21 SARH would maintain separate accounts to reflect the financial situation of the project. Such accounts are subject to periodical internal audits conducted by a special audit division of SARH. Government agreed to (a) maintain or cause to be maintained separate accounts adequate to reflect in accordance with constantly maintained sound accounting practices, resources and expenditures in respect of the project of the departments and agencies of the Government responsible for carrying out the project or any part thereof, (b) annually furnish to the Bank a summary statement of such accounts, and (c) furnish to the Bank such other pertinent information concerning such accounts as the Bank shall reasonably request from time to time.

Environmental Impact

4.22 The project would not adversely affect the environment: better irrigation water management, drainage and reclamation would in fact improve environmental conditions in the project area. Monitoring of the water table would permit immediate action to avoid possible waterlogging in the future. There are no water borne diseases in the project area. - 22 -

V. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

General

5.01 The project would be administered by SARH through its established channels; no changes to existing arrangements are considered necessary under the proposed project. Thus the nominal responsibility for the project would rest with SARH's representative for the state of Sinaloa, with headquarters in Culiacan, which in turn would be passed to his representative in Los Mlochis, the SARH Coordinator for Northern Sinaloa. This coordinator is responsible for all SARH activities in the northern part of the state. Under the coordinator operate (a) the office of Major Hydraulic Infrastructure Prograns (MHIP) which is the lead office for execution of the ongoing project (970-ME) and would also fulfill this role for the proposed project; and (b) the three irrigation districts of Sinaloa, Fuerte and Carrizo organized along similar lines and responsible for on-farm development operations and main- tenance, and extension services. Chart 20103 shows the organization of the proposed project within the framework of the SARH organization in Northern Sinaloa.

Major Hydraulic Infrastructure Programs

5.02 The organizational structure of this office has been in existence since the establishment of the first irrigation district in Northern Sinaloa in 1963. It is currently headed by an experienced and competent engineer with management teams assigned for specific activities such as rehabilitation of Fuerte, construction of Bacurato dam, etc. These teams are supported by a headquarter administration and technical staff. The chief of MHIP is res- ponsible for engineering design, field planning, and specifications, for supervision of construction and for the preparation of annual budgets. While the annual budgets have to be approved by the SARH state representative, approval of the engineering design, planning and specification aspects is the responsibility of the SARH Subsecretary of Infrastructure in Mexico City. These arrangements are operating satisfactorily and it is considered that the existing organization and staffing are adequate and could well handle the proposed project without major changes or additions.

Irrigation Districts

5.03 Each irrigation district is assisted at the executive level by a steering committee to ensure the participation of non-SARH public and private organizations, and has three departments for its day to day operations - Conservation and Maintenance, Operations and Development, and Administrative Services.

5.04 Conservation and Maintenance is responsible for all major repairs for which it operates its own machinery pool and workshop. Details and costs of additional maintenance equipment needed under the proposed project are shown in table 4.01 while operation and maintenance costs, estimated to total Mex$183.6 million (US$8.2 million) annually, are detailed in table 5.01. - 23 -

5.05 Operations and Development is responsible for the daily operation of the irrigation system, for extension servíces and for the collection of water charges. The basic unit for operating the irrigation system is the zone covering about 6,000 ha each and employing one zone chief and a team of seven ditch riders. Extension services have been recently reorganized into a newly created District IntegratedTechnical Assistance Program,(DITA).

5.06 DITA replaces the services that were províded under the umbrella of PLAMEPA and involves two main activities: agriculturalextension, and water management/distribution,with procedures similar to the training and visit system which has been supported in a number of Bank financed projects, particularlyin Asia (Chart 20103). At farm level, extension activities are handled by separate teams assigned to specific areas. In addition to regulating water supply over these areas the team advises farmers on on-farm leveling prograns. Regarding extension a field extension officer at graduate level is assigned to an area of about 3,000 ha, with responsibilityfor about 300 to 500 families. Depending on work load the field extensionofficer may be assisted by an agriculturaltechnician. Farm visits are nmadeon a regular basis in the course of 10 to 14 days. At each visit the extension officer gives written recommendationsto the farmer or ejido management keeping a copy for his own records. Field extension officers meetings are held regularly at weekly intervals at either the zone or area levels to discuss problems and fíx field work programs. Meetings are also held at 2-3 weekly intervals at the unit or district level for more formal training and technicaldiscussions.

5.07 Field techniciansare supportedby special units attached to the office of the Chief of Operations and Development (e.g. hydrology; deep wells; water use; applied research). Of particular importance is the unit for applied research which works on selected farmer sites to orient the field extension officers who in turn use the sites for field days for farmer demonstrations. Also, in this unit are located some six to nine subject matter specialists who work closely in training and problem solving with the field extension workers through their respective zone, area and unit coordinators.

5.08 With the DITA system, the overall quality of extension services has become quite satisfactoryand is among the best available in Mexico; it has also sufficient flexibilityto meet additional demands under the proposed project. New staff would be recruitedgradually as the need arises and new irrigationunits are initiated. In this regard no problemusare anticipatedin recruiting the 68 professional,66 sub-professionaland 46 support staff for the DITA component of the proposed project. However these staff will need further training before they can be considered effectiveextension workers. Thus in service training will be an important feature of the extension activi- ties provided under the project. Total investmentcosts for the proposed extension program amounts to Mex$7.3 inillion(US$325,000) and incremental operationalcosts for a six year period to Mex$194.7 million (US$8.7million) and are detailed in table 5.02.

5.09 Research. The research being carried out by the -[NIAstaff at the CIAPAN research center is generally well executed and no changes in exist- ing administrativearrangements are envisaged for the small research component - 24 - under the project. However, under the project research programs will be organized to study water management and plant yield improvement at the farmer level rather than at the research station as at present. For this purpose no major expansion in the existing physical facilities will be needed. The main requirement will be additional 15 research staff with appropr4ate supPrct -' clerical staff. Thus total investment cost for agricultural research amount to Mex$9.8 million (US$436,000) and incremental operational costs for a six year period to Mex$74.2 million (US$3.3 million) and are outlined in table 5.03.

Monitoring and Evaluation

5.10 Monitoring and evaluation of the proposed project forms an integral part of the existing operation. Basic data collection is carried out routinely within the system, the most important of which are cropped areas, cropping pat- terns, water use, yields, prices, marketing and handling, operation and main- tenance activities, extension activities, ground water levels, progress of works and reservoir storage. With the exception of expanding the grid for measuring ground water levels (para 4.08) no significant changes in current procedures are envisaged. These procedures will also be applied under the proposed project. - 25 -

VI. AGRICULTURALPRODUCTION, MARKETS, MARKETING AND PRICES

Area, Cropping Patterns, Yields

6.01 Total cropped acreage in the project area totals about 128,000 ha at present (paras 2.10-2.11and table 6.01). Without the project, this area in the future would be reduced as in Fuerte District, land would go out of productiondue to increasing salinity levels: estimated on the basis of past experience at about 10,000 ha over 10 years. Cropping intensitieswould increase as additional water becomes available from Bacurato dam to 120% in Fuerte and 140% in the in the Sinaloa area. With the project, this process would be reversed,more land would be brought under production and cropping intensitywould only be slightly above present levels as detailed in table 6.01 and summarizedbelow:

Cropping Physical Cropped Intensity ------ha------%

1. Present Situation

Sinaloa 33,000 40,400 122 Fuerte 80,000 87,550 109

Total 113,000 127,950 113

II. Future Without Project

Sinaloa 33,000 46,500 140 Fuerte 70,000 84,000 120

Total 103,000 130,500 127

III. Future With Project

Sinaloa 76,000 94,000 124 Fuerte 120,000 132,000 110

Total 196,000 226,000 115

6.02 Although with the project th,esame crops would be grown as at pre- sent, some crops would increase their share of total area while others would be reduced. Changes in cropping patterns are predieted due to the need to: (a) minimize areas of high water constunptioncrops (rice, sugar) and to maxi- mize areas of more efficientwater usi.ngcrops (beans, sorghum, safflower);(b) maximize areas for crops with good market prospectsboth domestically(feed - 26 - grains, oil seeds) and for export (cotton);and (c) maintain vegetable produc- tion to about the present level in spite of its high returns because of con- straints in both the domestic and the internationalmarkets. Yield projections are based on average yields presently obtained on fully irrigated lands in both the project area and neighboringareas. Overall yield increases are relatively small compared to many new irrigation districts in Mexico, due to the existing high level of applied technologieson lands where water is available; projected increases would mainly be due to more efficientwater use and better drainage and leaching brought about by the project. The following table shows present, projected with and without project status regarding areas and yields for the main crops. - 27 -

Present and Future

Yields and Production

Future Future Present Without Project With Project Net Net Net Cropped Cropped Cropped Area Yield Area Yield Area Yield (ha) (mt/ha) (ha) (mt/ha) (ha) (mt/ha)

Soybean 15,000 1.9 18,300 1.9 40,000 2.5

Sorghum 19,600 4.0 22,000 4.0 30,000 5.0

Rice 9,900 3.4 10,000 3.4 2,500 4.0

Pulses 20,100 0.8 17,700 0.8 50,000 1.5

Maize 7,400 1.8 6,100 1.8 2,500 3.5

Vegetables 10,000 12.0 10,300 12.0 11,000 17.0

Other 4,500 1.3 4,600 1.3 4,000 2.0

Cotton 7,600 2.4 7,100 2.4 22,000 3.0

Safflower 21,000 1.8 22,200 1.8 50,000 2.2

Wheat 7,400 3.6 7,200 3.6 5,000 4.5

Alfalfa/Pasture 1,990 12.0 2,000 12.0 4,000 15.0

Fruit Trees 1,560 12.0 1,600 12.0 3,600 15.0

Sugar 1,400 60.0 1,400 60.0 1,400 90.0

Total Net 128,000 130,500 226,000 Cropped Area(ha)

Cropping 113 127 115 Intensity (%)

Physically 113,000 103,500 196,000 Cropped Area (ha)

April 9, 1979 - 28 -

Production

6.03 Based upon the above yields, cropping patterns and cropping inten- sities, incremental production for the main crops would be: (a) soybean 71,500 mt; (b) sorghum 71,600 mt; (c) vegetables 57,000 mt; (d) seed cotton 47,800 mt; (e) safflower 72,200 mt; (f) alfalfa/pasture 36,160 mt; (g) fruit 35,300 mt; and (h) sugar 42,000 mt. Production of maize, rice and wheat is projected to decline; although yield increases are projected for these crops, these increases would not be sufficient to compensate for the reduction in areas predicted under the project, as the net return on these crops would be decidedly lower than for others such as oil seeds and cotton. With the exception of cotton and vegetables which would be mainly exported, the remainder of the crops would be for local consumption.

Markets and Prices

6.04 No marketing problems are foreseen for project produce. Farmers in the project area have in the past shown a strong flexibility to cope with changes in demand for their products, and marketing facilities are operating efficiently and able to cope with additional supplies from the proposed project. At full development, incremental output would be less than 8% of local demand in the State of Sinaloa, Chihuahua and Durango, and less than 2% of the require- ments of Mexico City, and no market disruptions due to oversupply are expected.

6.05 The National Marketing Corporation (CONASUPO) purchases agricultural commodities on the basis of official support prices. These prices are generally in line with free market prices except for commodities for which there is a national shortage and/or imports are increasing, such as maize or soybeans, in which case support prices are perceptibly higher. Sales to CONASUPO, however, are on a voluntary basis and CONASUPO purchases nationwide seldom exceed 25-30% of total market production. In northern Sinaloa CONASUPO purchases are mostly limited to beans; most marketing is done by producer organizations or private firms at farm gate prices generally above those fixed by Government. While farm prices have been used in the farm budgets, present and future economic prices converted to farmgate levels have been used to calculate the value of production for purposes of economic analysis; calculations of economic prices are based on Bank projections. Farmgate and economic prices are summarized below:

Farm Prices Economic Prices (at farmgate) Present Present Future …------in Mex$ per ton…

Cotton 7,650 8,670 10,745 Maize 2,900 2,760 3,600 Pulses 5,250 5,850 5,250 Rice (Paddy) 2,750 2,900 4,610 Safflower 4,250 4,140 4,850 Sorghum 2,030 2,550 3,170 Soybeans 5,500 5,200 7,175 Vegetables 2,320 2,320 2,320 Wheat 2,050 2,890 3,820 Alfalfa 1,080 1,080 1,080 Fruits 2,000 2,000 2,000 Sugarcane 220 240 450 - 29 -

VII. PROJECT BENEFICIARIES FARM INCOMES AND COST RECOVERY

7.01 IThe proposed project would through increased production directly benefit 19,700 families comprising 17,250 ejidatarios and 2,450 private farmers. It would also decrease on-farm underemployment, through provision of additional 3.3 million man-days of labor per year at full development. More than 9C0%of the beneficiaries wou]d be from the lowest income group of farmers in the area with average farm sizes of less than 13 ha representing about 73% of the farm area of the proposed project. The present weighted net farm incomes 1/ before charges and taxes for this group would vary from Mex$12,000 to Mex$38,000 for average farm sizes within the range of 4-13 ha. At full development net farm incomes before charges and taxes for the same range would be Mex$42,000 to Mex$135,000, A detailed breakdown by average farm size showing present status of land use and present and projected NVP values per farm with and without the proposed project are shown in Table 7.01. Representative farm models for the proposed project are shown in Table 7.02 and 7.03. Production costs are sunmmarizedin table 7.04. The FRR's for the models of 23% for the farm unaffected by salinization and 25% for the farm affected by salinization is considered conservative and in most instances, particularly amongst the small landholder group will probably be somewhat higher.

7.02 Tle recovery of project costs through water charges has been the subject of a continuing dialogue betweien the Government and the Bank. Government has recently stated that its aim is to eventually recover all operation and maintenance costs plus those capital investment costs that producers can afford. However, no timoe schedule has been set to achieve these objectives except that changes should be increased gradually on a country wide basis. Under the ongoing Rio Sinaloa Irrigation Project (Loan 970-ME) Govern- rment agreed to "charge and collect wat,er charges on the basis of the ability of water users to pay and the need to obtain an incentive for them to make best use of the land and water available to them as shall be necessary to recover all operation and maintenance costs of irrigation facilities included in the projoect and as much as practicable of their investment costs".

7.03 7te Government proposes to recover for the proposed Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa project total operation and maintenance costs plus a proportion of investment costs. Government would carry out a socio-economic study in the Sinaloa and Fuerte irrigation districts to determine farmnersability to pay. The study is important as even with the project, part of the farming population would remain below or close to the poverty level and should in any

1/ Weighted to include: (a) farms on which the present yields and cropping patterns are similar to those from the better developed units/districts in the region; (b) farms on which present production is on average about 35% of (a) because of the scarcity of water, salinity or poor drainage; and (c) those areas that have not yet been developed for irrigation. - 30 - case be exempt from any additional charge or levy. Government would in addition recover about Mex$70.7 million per annum of incremental income tax which is directly related to crop grown in the area.

7.04 Assuming full recovery of operation and maintenance costs for the time being, Government would have to raise the water charge from about 70 pesos to about 90 pesos per thousand cubic meters of water. On a per hectare basis this means an average increase from about 430 pesos to about 560 pesos. Water would be levied per ha and kind of crop grown.

7.05 The incremental water charges plus returns from incremental income tax would result in rent recovery indices of 17% for farms of less than 13 ha, and 73% for farms of more than 13 ha; the cost recovery index would amount to 19% (table 7.05). Total charges and taxes would represent 13% of the incremental cash income of small holders and 62% of large landholders. During negotiations Government agreed to: (a) recover full operation and maintenance cost of irrigation and drainage works provided under the proposed project; (b) carry out a study in the Fuerte and Sinaloa project areas to determine the farmers ability to pay for investment costs; (c) not later than December 31, 1984 submit this study to the Bank together with a proposal for recovery of investment costs; and (d) review this study periodically with the view to revising such charges if appropriate. - 31 -

VIII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION

Benefits

8.01 Execution of the project would entail significant benefits for both the participating project farmers and the Northern Sinaloa area as a whole. The project would (a) increase agricultural production by providing irrigation water to previously part irrigated or non-irrigated areas and by reclaiming saline lands; and (b) prevent salinizaton on presently non-saline lands which, without drainage improvements, would become affected in th,efuture. The project would also have significant social effects: 87% of farm families and 70% of the land are in ejidos with holdings of 20 ha or less, and as it is presently the larger individual farmnerswho have the better irrigated lands, the share of smallholders in total net value of production would increase (from 57% at present to 71% at full project development for farmers with eight ha or less). Indirect benefits would also be important: not only would small farmers that now mainly depend on seasonal off-farm employment revert to full time employment on the farm, thus increasing total family income and thus liberating employmeritopportunities in the services and industries sector, but increased agricultural production would itself generate more employment in other sectors, as demonstrated by the net influx of people into the area of between 2% and 3% per year.

8.02 The economic rate of return of the project, counting direct benefits alone, has been calculated at 17.9% (table 8.01). The assumptions for this calculation have been (a) the treatmientof investments under the ongoing Sinaloa project - as revised - as stnk cost; (b) the area under crops and crop yields assumptions as given in paras 6.01 and 6.02; (c) economic prices converted to farmgate as specified in para 6.05. An estimate on future drainage investments (para 4.08) has been made at the rate of 1,500 ha per year starting from 1985 onwards, ancl its costs taken into account in the economic cost benefit analysis. Finally, all labor including farmily labor, has been costed at current wage rates for the area. As the project is the completion of an ongoing program in which major infrastructure investments (dam, main canals) will already have been carried out before, however, an integrated analysis of the ongoing -- revised - Sinaloa prc.jectand the Fuerte/ Sinaloa project gives a better indication of its profitability. The rate of return on the integrated project, again counting only direct benefits, is 13.4% (table 8.01).

Risk and Sensitivity

8.03 The project carries no major risks. The quality and performance of the project organization in the area is well above average even for Mexican standards, and experience has shown that it is able to carry out infrastructure works, operate the irrigation system and provide extension services in a satisfactory manner. Moreover, farmers are well established, employ modern technology and improved production mnethods, and are open to advice from extension workers; the chances that yield levels on newly irrigated land would not reach predicted levels are remote. Reclamation of saline lands would follow the same principles as those successfully applied in the area in the - 32 - past. The only risks would be that, in view of the many ongoing activities, project execution might be slightly delayed or that, with more rapid inflation, costs might be higher than estimated.

8.04 Sensitivity tests for the proposed project are summarized below and show a range of 14% to 18% for the economic rate of return; in view of the above, the critical parameters are (2), (3) and (6).

ERR %

(1) Expected 17.9 (2) Investment costs 10% higher, crop yields 10% lower 14.5 (3) Costs 10% higher 16.3 (4) Costs 10% lower 19.7 (5) Crop yields 10% lower 16.1 (6) Benefits delayed by one year 15.5

8.05 Sensitivity tests for the combined Sinaloa I Irrigation project and the Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa Irrigation Project have shown, that a one year delay in project execution would reduce the rate of return from 13.4% to 11.9% and a 10% increase of overall costs would reduce it to 12.1%. A 10% decrease in benefits would result in a rate of return of 12%. - :33-

IX. RECODNiENDATIONS

9.01 During negotiations agreement was reached that Government would:

(a) provide credit for ejidos and private farmers for on-farm drainage as required (para 4.08);

(b) follow procurement procedures outlined in paras 4.16 to 4.19;

(c) (i) maintain or cause to be maintained separate accounts adequate to reflect in accordance with constantly maintairLed sound accounting practices the resources and expenditures in respect of the project of the departments or agencies of the Government responsible for carrying out the project or any part thereof, (ii) annually furnish to the Bank a summary statement of such accounts, and (iii) furnish to the Bank such other peritinent information conc:erning such accounts as the Bank shall reasonably request from time to time (para 4.21); and

(d) (i) recover full operaton and maintenance costs of irrigation and drainage works provided under the project; (ii) carry out socio- economic studies in the Fuerte/Sinaloa project areas to determine the farmers ability to pay for investment costs; (iii) not later than December 31, 1984, submit this study together with a proposal to recover investment costs; and (iv) review the study periodically with the view to revising such charges if appropriate (para 7.05).

9.02 With the agreements above the proposed project would be suitable for Bank :Loan of US$92 million on standard terms and conditions.

May 7, 1979 MEXICO RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Production of Ten Maior Crops, 1960-1976 (Thousand m tons)

Maize Beans Sorghum Wheat Cotton Sugar Soya Beans Rice (Paddy) Safflower Alfalfa

1960 5,420 528 209 1,190 1,344 1,498 5 328 32 4,240 1961 6,246 723 291 1,402 1,285 1,388 20 333 41 4,230 1962 6,331 656 296 1,455 1,388 1,428 57 289 47 5,090 1963 6,870 677 402 1,703 1,530 1,618 56 296 47 5,132 1964 8,454 892 526 2,203 1,615 1,816 60 274 47 5,531 1965 8,936 860 747 2,150 1,650 1,983 58 378 80 5,685 1966 9,271 1,013 1,411 1,647 1,489 2,011 95 372 236 5,727 1967 8,603 980 1,667 2,122 1,413 2,327 131 418 149 7,645 1968 9,061 857 2,133 2,081 1,691 2,196 275 347 102 7,645 1969 8,410 835 2,456 2,326 1,134 2,394 287 395 209 8,312 1970 8,879 925 2,747 2,149 953 2,208 215 405 288 9,240 1971 9,786 954 2,516 1,831 624 2,393 256 369 412 9,689 1972 9,222 870 2,612 1,809 670 2,359 377 403 271 10,434 1973 8,609 1,009 3,270 2,091 595 2,592 586 451 298 11,158 1974 7,847 972 3,499 2,786 826 2,649 574 508 275 11,901 1975 8,458 1,027 5,589 2,798 613 2,500 699 787 514 13,200 1976 8,945 1,149 4,194 3,358 605 2,704 565 510 240 13,542

March 21, 1979

,- 35 Table 1.02

MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Production Main Lívestock Commodities, 1960-1976 (Thousands m tons)

Beef Milk Mutton Pork Poultry

1960 328 - 35 12 31

1965 421 - 35 18 39

1970 463 3,800 33 22 67

1971 457 3,900 36 21 72

1972 465 3,400 40 21 81

1973 486 4,100 42 22 81

1974 548 4,400 44 23 72

1975 596 4,800 44 24 78

1976 601 5,200 47 24 80

March 21, 1979 36

MEXICO Table 2.01

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Irrigated Areas Sinaloa Fuerte Total

------ha

Total irrigable area: 105,000 210,000 315,000

Area originally irrigated: 54,000 210,000 264,000

of which:affected by salinity: 150,000 150,000

A. Saline lands reclaimed by farmers: - 13,000 13,000

B. Areas reclaimed under 275-ME: -moderately salíne lands: - 56,000 56,000 -severely salmne lands: - 21,000 2I,O sub-total - 77,000 77,000

C. Areas covered under 970-ME: -uncultivated lands: 8,000 - 8,000 -cultivated lands: 21,000 - 21,000 sub-total 29,000 - 29,000

D. Areas covered under proposed project: -uncultivated lands: 43,000 40,000 -' 83,000 -cultivated lands: 33,000 80,000 113,000 of which affected by salinity: (60,000) (60,000) sub-total 76,000 120,000 196,000

Total 105 000 210 000 315 000

a/ Of which 30,000 are salíne

March 21, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Land Tenure

R í o F u e r t e a/ R i o S i n a 1 o a T o t a 1 Area Families Area Families Area Families (ha) (ha) (ha)_ Ejido Land/Family

5.0 ha or less 7,400 1,883 5,300 1,090 12,700 2,973 5.1 ha to 10.0 ha 68,300 8,654 49,100 5,023 117,400 13,677 10.1 ha to 20.0 ha 4,300 375 3,100 219 7,400 594

Sub-total 80,000 10,912 57,500 6,332 137,500 17,244

Private Land/Family

10.0 ha or less 5,000 992 2,313 426 7,313 1,418 10.1 ha to 20.0 ha 3,400 214 1,572 92 4,972 306 20.1 ha to 50.0 ha 13,200 384 6,105 163 19,305 547 50.1 ha to 100.0 ha 15,600 228 7,215 94 22,815 325 More than 100.0 ha 2,800 21 1,295 9 4,095 30

Sub-total 40,000 1,839 18,500 787 58,500 2,626

Total 120,000 12,751 76,000 7,119 196,000 19,870

a/ Units 1, 4 and 5. Source: SARH, Rio Fuerte Commission and Sinaloa District 63.

March 21, 1979 H

o- o 38

MEXICO Table 4.01

RIO FUERTEIRIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Operation and Maintenance Equipment

Sinaloa Fuerte Item No. Cost, Mex$1,000 No. Cost Mex$1,000

Dragline 6 19,000 10 33,900 Hydraulic Excavator - - 3 5,300 Backhoe 7 9,500 - - Track-type Loader 1 1,250 6 10,600 Bulldozer 5 10,900 10 23,100 Motor-grader 4 6,600 7 12,600 Canal Trimmer 2 1,700 Watering Truck 6 3,900 5 1,800 Dump Truck 4 1,800 26 8,600 Flatbed Truck 1 1,400 - - Delivery Truck 5 970 - - Pickup Truck 14 2,100 - - Truck Crane 1 550 Centrifugal Pump 7 1,000 - - Welding Machine 2 300 14 1,700 Air Compressor 2 100 - - Pneumatic Hammer 1 520 - - Compressor Compressor and - - 3 1,600 Sandblaster Concrete Mixer 2 50 14 500

Concrete Vibrator 2 30 - Compactor 2 100

Miscellaneous Tools lot 1,000 _-

Total 62,770 99,700

March 12, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Sinaloa Project Water Availability and Supply 3 Million m Evapo. & Convey. Expected Sinaloa Reserve Seepage Spíllway Regulated and Oper. Wells Supply to Supply to Jan. 1 Inflow Losses Discharge Outflow Lossesal usable W: Fuerte Scheme

1978 1,330 600 180 250 110 560 Non-regulated 19 79 1, 330 760 228 250 242 540 1980 1,330 800 240 250 280 530 78-81 1981 1,330 800 240 250 280 530 Bacurato Dam Construction 1982 530 1,330 10 925 277 250 153 745 1983 925 1,330 30 200 1,000 300 250 950 First Spillway Dischxrge W 1984 1,025 1, 330 44 200 1,000 300 250 950 1985 1, 111 1,330 44 200 1,000 300 250 950 1986 1,197 1,330 44 200 1,086 326 250 1,010 1,065 fD

a/Conveyance efficiency 70% o

April 9, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Sinaloa II Irrigation Water Reguirement Cropp&d ci (XT NOV DEC l al 11 bArea Wtaer Req. JAN FEB MAR APR MAy JUN JUL AUG SEP H.. 106 m3 ------___-_ ------__ -_ ___--______------Annuals ------cm. 100.3 10,000 100.300 16.7 5.0 5.0 70.2 Cotton 6.3 8.7 13.3 15.2 4.525 5.0 11.0 16.1 14.8 10.1 63.4 90.5 500 Maize 6.4 5.0 13.3 6.6 24.9 35.6 20,000 71.200 Pulses 500 10.885 37.8 49.5 39.0 18.9 7.2 152.4 217.7 Rice 5.0 49.0 70.0 20,000 140.000 6.4 9.3 14.5 13.8 Safflower 93.3 5,000 46.650 18.0 11.8 65.3 Sorghum 5.0 12.1 18.4 23,000 148.580 5.7 9.1 12.6 12.6 5.2 45.2 64.6 Soybeans 5.0 34.5 49.3 7,000 34.510 8.0 9.6 11.9 Vegetables 5.0 55.7 79.6 2,000 15.920 6.5 10.4 16.8 17.0 Wheat 65.3 93.,3 2,000 18.660 Others 5.0 12.1 18.4 18.0 11.8

Perennials 42.400 16.0 13.6 11,3 7.3 5.0 148.4 212.0 2,000 Alfalfa 5.0 5.4 9.5 13.3 18.7 3.1 20.2 7.8 7.6 7.9 5.6 5.0 92.0 131.4 2,000 26.280 Fruit Trees 5.0 5.0 5.6 7.3 10,3 13.1 1U.8 14.2 15.9 15.6 13.3 150.8 215.4 Sugar Cane 11.6 10,1 9.2 10.6 12.4 14,2 12.4 11.3 94,000 6 Total

a/ 1 = Net depth of water cm. b/ II = Depth of water at farm gate cm. - Irrigation efficieney = 70'h. e/ Cropping intensity 94.000 = 1.236 76,000 = 87 cm. d/ Average wster requirement ín depth for cropping area = 70 cm. - for physical area

March 13, 1979 a lo.ln¡e 0a1 0 . - D DlO

0. rog D4 00 0 .4.4 w~ ~ ~ n« ~ ~ oooo ' ~

orno o4O

oeeo _S. @>* .4S |t4 laS *@P S S +40.0 0.n4.440'.4.4-414.4.4.4-4-4.4.4.4.4.4e.4.4 0.48 G

3 +4 . 004..-.-0444a. o 0 O W4~ e^ ~ ~ 1 0..O4444 -04444 .O.a. O 0-..-. CI .4 .4 _4a4a44 aC Cc .. o a o O.4S.4.4 b X.4WsWWNsswW o _4 aa.e-a.COCO)Cg@OtO .uo.oo ase 0 , + Ow 000.0..0000 000.....0..00 0 0 0 0 .4S o 0 0 oE 8888Y o8x >w88.

oa ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o H ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ W .

~M 08 ~ o 0e E .4 o14 OW

ea- .4 e-004 a..4.4. a-1..0 04eO4a4a.. -0 t

_44a...- C °S ' t F ~ ° N° .4-4 g O4 ao.4 n _.4-4-40000O w-_a-w4.4COO >OSwnu

000~ ~0(. ~~100' 3C- . 0~~~~~~~~ ¡00 l0-. l_ .0O0 :4a g00 -4.4.4OlaOO.440~ ~~~.44 ~00 ~ 000.~ ~ a IC I4O OW030^ 0~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ -. - . 0 4 4 4 g4 C4 Wa4-,044

Illll,lll¡0l lll* 1010 0.¡.,01 01000

O Cig *> S urwHi Oo s8~ « >H nW NO nX lat 0: $ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o o,0e-w_N nsSw_~ssOON rnwww loe> x r . . . 4444- .... .4. .4 . . W¡.1.40»: á - tNbU> »wi;»°oroO

$- .4 $OC .0$444444440...0O $c n 0 ¡

_~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~. rl ° o

n n5 .c . . 00.4WO0Ow0wS~wnvP 001004ah° S~w8Oa--0..0 ]0.4~ 0 O o o10 o .. 0.O eO4.4.o °°°°° | a e

.4 . .4 0 0.4.4O . . .4o-0000-'.4 '0.4C0000. 00~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~D

n 5 0 0 0 0 5 & a .4 -- . 5 5 ~ -~_55 O o .0 OOCO5OOOgHCOOOOv . Or0.4 o $$ $$$c .$C o$4o>$cc

O.400 00 000000000 0.400S0 > 0S.oOSewO o 00 w . e>cS c>9Nnccgc| 0 1 3 Ooo O0 O o O C OO O .0..0 00 0 0 0 w¡0 0 w0nr

@ S * e Sj S F ~ S s° 55 w 4 .4.- w .4 - e 0

w n ,., n4._.40.00.40- . . .4.,c Y c4 w -.. aaoc 10 0040.44c

.00.4.eoaeooo MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Fuerte Irrigation Distriet - Units 1, 4 and 5 - Water Reguirements

CroppingE/ Crops Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec la/ IIb/ Area Water Reo.

Annuals ------cm------Ha. 10 3

Cotton 6.5 8.9 13.4 15.0 16.7 - - - - - 5.0 5.0 70.5 100.7 12,000 120.84 Maize 6.4 ------5.0 11.0 16.1 14.8 10.1 63.4 90.6 2,000 18.12 Pulses (bean) ------5.0 13.3 6.6 - 24.9 35.6 30,000 106.80 Rice ------37.8 49.5 39.0 18.9 7.2 - 152.4 217.7 2,000 43.54 Safflower 6.6 9.5 14.6 13.6 ------5.0 49.3 70.4 30,000 211.20 Sorghum - - 5.0 10.0 17.1 15.5 10.4 - - - - - 59.0 84.3 25,000 210.75 Soybeans - - - - - 6.1 10.3 12.4 13.1 6.2 - - 48.1 68.7 17,000 116.79 Vegetables (tom) 8.0 9.6 11.9 ------5.0 34.5 49.3 4,000 19.72 Wheat 6.5 10.4 16.8 17.0 ------5.0 55.7 79.6 3,000 23.88 Others (sorghum) 5.0 10.0 17.1 15.5 11.4 ------59.0 84.3 2,000 16.86

Perennials

Alfalfa and Pastures 5.0 5.4 9.5 13.3 18.7 23.1 20.2 16.0 13.6 11.3 7.3 5.0 148.4 212.0 2,000 42.40 Fruit Trees 5.0 5.0 5.6 7.3 10.3 13.1 11.8 7.8 7.6 7.9 5.6 5.0 92.0 131.4 1,600 21.02 Sugar Cane 11.6 10.1 9.2 10.6 12.4 14.2 12.4 11.3 14.2 15.9 15.6 13.3 150.8 215.4 1,400 30.16

132,000 92&08 d/

a/ I = Net depth of water cm. b/ II = Depth of water at farm gate c. - irrigation efficiency = 70% c/ Cropping intensity = 132,000 120,000 d/ Average water requirement in depth for cropping area = 74.4 cm. - for physical area 81.8 cm.

March 20, 1979 43 Table 4.06

mico

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

lmplementation Schedule

Unot Total 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985

I. Fuerte Irrigation Distritc

(a) Civil Works

Unit 1

Rehabilitation: Lloed Main Canals km 1.7 (1.7) - _ _ Urllined Maín Canals km 37.1 (19.7) (17.4) UClined Laterals k. 187.6 (26.8) (37.0) (61.5) (62.3) Draba. km 45.0 (22.5) (22.5) -- Construction: NDw insed ateral km 283.3 (41.5) (74.7) (87.0) (80.1) N.sw Drains km 98.1 49.1 49.0 R.ad. ka 10.0 (2.0) (4.0) (4.0)

Unit IV

Rehabilitation: Unlined Main Canals k. 47.1 (16.8) - (9.3) (21.0) Unlined Laterals km 177.9 - (55.2) (75.9) (46.8) Drains k. 62.0 (24.3) (37.7) - - Construction: New Lined Laterals klo 38.7 - (7.9) (25.0) (5.8) ¡NewDrains km 25.9 (8.1) (17.8) - - roads km 22.0 (6.0) (8.0) (8.0) -

Unít V

Rehabilitat.ot : Uolined Majn Canals k. 46.2 (7.6) (23,4) (6.2) (9.0) Unlioed Lateral. k. 235.8 (17.7) (35.5) (100.2) (82.4) Drains km 47.0 (35.,7) (11.3) _ Coostructioon; Sw Lined Laterals k. 52.7 (4.0) (18.5) (26.3) (3.9) New Drains km 47.0 (35.7) (11.3 Roads km 16.0 (3.0) (5.0) (5.0) (3.0)

(b) On Farm Development

Land Leveliog ha 60,000 (10,000) (15,000) (20,000) (15,000) Reclamation Sal.íe (presently productive) Land ha 30 000 (4.000) (8,000) (10 000) (8 000) Reclamation Salinte (presently unproductive) Land ha 18,000 (2,000) (4,000) (8.O000 (4'000) Reclamation Salir-s/Sodic Land ha 12,000 (1,000) (3,000) (5,000) (3,000)

(c) Total Area Recla:imed or Rehabilitated (accumulated) ha - 17,000 47,000 90,000 120,000

II. Sinaloa Irrigation District

(a) Civil Works

Left Bank

Constructioo: Lined Laterals km 79.2 (6.0) (33.2) (40.0) - Uolined Laterals km 140.0 (14.7) (25.3) (25.0) (75.0) Maon Drains km 77.8 (5.0) (29.0) (29.2) 14.6) Secondary Draina km 105.2 (6.0) (31.3) (40.0) - (27.9): Roads k. 70.0 (14.0) (14.0) (30.0) (12.0)

Right Bank

Construction: Lined Main Caoels km 16.0 - (1.5) (6.9) (7.6) Lined Laterals km 233.5 (14.5) (60.8) (97.2) (61.0) Unlined Laterals km 140.0 (15.0) (54.0) (54.0) (12.0) Maji Drains km 140.0 (12.5) (48.5) (55.0) (24.0) Secondary Drains km 186.9 (73.0) (57.4) (80.5) (36.0) Ra,ad k. 100.0 - (31.4) (54.6) (14.2)

(b) On Faro Development - Lawd Clearíng ard Leveling km 40,000 (3,040) (15,080) (11,12D) (10,760)

(c) Total Ares Under Production (accumulative) ha - 0 18,375 52,070 76,000

III. Agri ultural Extent.ion Program

IV. Agricultural Research and Studíes

May 4, 1979 4abla 4.07

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION FROJECT

Detalled Cost EL.stlle!/

Local Foreig Total Local Fori 9 Total. Foretgn _------_ ----- US$ M------Exchange

1. Faente Irriatio- Distriet

(a) Civil Wonk

Ir-igation Network 364.9 253.5 618.4 16.2 11.2 27.4 Measaring Flomes 6.3 4.3 10.6 0.2 0.2 0.4 Draoiagoa Ntwork 84.8 59.0 143.8 3.7 2.7 6.4 Hlosas fon Ditchriders 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 Feeder Roads 10.5 7.2 17.7 0.5 0.3 0.8 Telecoee,eo,lcatloc 0.5 0.4 0.9 0.1 0.0 0.1 Subtotal 467.5 324.8 792.3 20.8 14.4 35.2 41

(b) Oc Far,o Decelopreot

Load L-eli"s 166.4 115.5 281.9 7.4 5.1 12.5 Load Rclaoation 98.6 6r5.6 167.2 4.3 3.1 7.4 S.btot.1 265.0 184.1 449.1 11.7 8.2 19.9 41

(o) Equipment fon Operation and Mainte--ace 10.0 89.7 99.7 0.4 4.0 4.4 90

(d) Eogi.eeiíg-el 170.1 - 170.1 5.5 - 5.5 0

(e) IOde-oieatioc 28.4 - 28.4 1.2 - 1.2 0

Total Foerte Distriit 890.9 598.6 1,489.5 39.6 26.6 66.2 40

II. Sicalca Itrígatios District

(a) Civil Works

Laft Bok ------Irrigation and Drainaga NBetork 289.3 201.0 490.3 12.9 8.9 21.8 Right Bnk - Malo Canal 42.9 29.8 72.7 1.9 1.3 3.2 Irrgation od Driage Net-rk 452.0 314.1 766.1 20.1 14,0 34.1 ubtotal a 784.2 544.9 1,329.1 34.9 24.2 59.1 41

(b) On Farr D-velpoaP-t

Load Clearisg 20.7 14.3 35.0 0.9 0.7 1.6 41 - Lod Levelisg 110.8 77.0 187.8 4.9 3.4 8.3 41 Subtotal 131.5 91.3 222.8 5.8 4.1 9.9 41

(o) Equipment for Operatio and Masntleoace 6.3 56.5 62.8 0.3 2.5 2.8 90

(d) Engineering-/ 155.2 - 155.2 6.9 - 6.9 0

(a) Indeonizatios 53.3 - 53.3 2.3 - 2.3 0

Total Sinabla District 1,130.5 692.7 1,823.2 50.2 30.8 81.0 38

III. Agricultlral Elteosio Pro-ra-

(a) BuildinSsdl 1.8 1.2 3.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 41 (b) Eqipmdnt-a 0.4 3.9 4.3 0.0 0.2 0.2 90 (c) Iacrea..ala Salaries xteasto-- taff- 152.4 - 152.4 6.8 - 6.8 0 (d) Incre-eatal Mobilizatioa Cosat- f 7.0 10.6 17.9 0.3 0.5 0.8 59 (e) Agricultíral Deo-nstration Pogra- 5.4 - 5.4 0.2 - 0.2 0 (f) Misoellaneo- s Costo 19.5 - 19.0 0.8 - 0.8 0

Total Agriccltaral Exteasion Program 186.5 15.5 202.0 8.2 0.7 8,9 8

IV. Agnicult-ral Research oad StIdios

(a) Buildings 1.5 1.0 2.5 0,1 0.0 0.1 41 (b)Eqi.g.81 2.3 27.0 29.3 0.1 1.2 1.3 90 Ibquipo--t- (e) 1a-ren..ta1 lalala Ras-h Stcfft!l 47.5 - 47.5 2.i - 2.1 0 26.7 - 26.7 1.2 1.2 0 (d) MIsc.llan-o-- lCos1 (e) Toebhícal Studiís- 51.8 _ 51.8 2.3 - 2.3 0

Total Agrioclt-ral Rese-cnh ad Stodies 1Z9.8 i8.0 151.8 5 L1.2 7.0 17

V. Costiagoacie

(a) PhysicaI Contiageey 1s 279.0 198.0 477.0 12.3 8.8 21.1 (b) Price Coati.geaccia- 1,100.2 377.3 1,471.5 49.0 16.5 65.5

Total Cotiagoacias 1,379.2 569.3 1,948.5 61.2 25.3 8b.6 29

GRABD TOTAL 3,715.9 1,904.1 5,620.0 165.1 84.6 249.7 34

al Di-arrpencies d. tlo nousdiag - c--t es.i. ate expressed i December 1978 pricee. b/ US$1.0 = Me.$22.5. El lagiíoen-ia esti.atad at 10% cf civil works, dl IncOadas drilling rigs, oshicíes, faro eqolpralt, scte-íioa aad deer atralios--- facilitiea. el Prcject aould fisance d-aric ai year paraid .acremeatale .tase.ia staff end po-eating cost. T/ Basad oc as-ual d-o--stratios plot areca cf about 600 ha. /Iscldeo vahiclea, faro equip-ent, 1aboratory and office eqoipaest. h/ Projact -o-ld fin-ace iacremeatal re--arch staff salaries durlíg ala year periad. TlIclude. d-v-lop-ant cf additi-oal water .e.corcos, dra-iaga study -and tile dríai tests. PiFhysical coatiag-aciea estiiated at 157. cf civil works and eqsip-eat ad 107. of eagí...ring cosía. k/ Prico coatisgatccis esciraled as follows, 1979 1980 1981-85

Fareiga Escha,ge Civil works 77. 7r. 77. Fcorign E-sehoge Eqoip-ot 67. 67. 61 Lo-a Cosía 05% 107. 6.5'4

May 4, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Schedule of Expenditure-/

1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 Total US$S MM$ Mex M US Mex$ US$S$ MexSSMM UUSMM M 51ex M US$ Mex$ M Mex$US$ M

1. Fuerte Irrigation District

(a) Civil Works

Irrigation Infrastructure 5.5 124.4 8,8 197.5 8.3 187.0 5.3 121.0 _- - 28.0 629.9 Drainage Infrastrueture 1.0 22.6 2.6 57.9 2.0 44.0 0.9 19.3 - - 6.4 143.8 Roads and Telecommunication 0.3 7.0 0.3 7.6 0.2 4.0 ------0.8 18.6 Subtotal 6.8 154.0 11.7 263.0 10.5 235.0 6.2 140.3 35.2 792.3

(b) On Farm Development 2.9 65.0 5.8 132.0 7.2 162.0 4.0 89.7 - 19.9 449.1

(e) Equipxnt for Operation and Maintenance 2.2 50.8 2.2 48.9 ------4.4 99.7

(d) Engineering 0.9 21.9 1.8 39.5 1.8 39.7 1.0 23.0 - - - - 5.5 124.1

(e) Indemnization 0.3 8.1 0.3 8.1 0.4 8.8 0.2 3.4 - - - - 1.2 28.4

Total Fuerte District 13.1 299.8 21.8 491.5 19.9 445.5 11.4 256.4 - - - - 66.2 1,493.6

II. Sinaloa Irrigation District

(a) Civil Works

Irrigation/Drainage Infrastructure Left Bank 2.1 46.2 8.7 195.9 7.1 159.9 3.9 88.3 - - - -2 2l8 490.3 Right Bank 4,5 103.9 13.5 302.6 13.2 295.8 6.1 136.5 - - - - 37.3 838.8 Subtotal 6.6 150.1 22.2 498.5 20.3 455.7 10.0 224.8 59.1 1,329.1

(b) On Farm Develop-mnt 0.7 17.0 3.7 83.8 2.8 62.0 2.7 60.0 - 9.9 222.8

(c) Equipment for Operation and Maintenance 0.9 21.0 0.4 10.0 0.6 12.9 0.9 18.9 - - - - 2.8 62.8

(d) Engineering 0.7 16.7 2.6 58.2 2.3 51.8 1.3 28.5 - 6.9 155.2

(e) Indemnization 0.1 2.0 0.8 17.3 0.7 17.0 0.7 17.0 - 2.3 53.3

Total Sinaloa District 9.0 206.8 29.7 667.8 26.7 599.4 15.6 349.2 _ _ _ - 81.0 1,823.2

111. Agricultural Extension Program 0.8 18.5 1.1 24.7 1.2 29.0 1.6 37.0 2.1 47.7 2.1 47.3 8.9 202.0

IV. Agricultural Research and Studies 1.1 24.7 1.3 29.3 1.5 34.3 1.1 24.7 0.9 20.3 1.1 24.7 7.0 157.8

Total 24.0 540.0 53.9 1,212.8 49.3 1,109.3 29.7 668.3 3.0 68.0 3.2 72.0 163.1 3,670.4

Physical Contingencies 3.4 76.5 7.4 166.5 6.6 148.5 3.8 85.3 - _ - - 21.1 477.0 Pri-e Contingencies 5.7 128.3 18.3 411.8 21.2 477.0 15.8 355.5 2.0 45.0 2.4 54.0 65.5 1,471.5

GRANDTOTAL 33.1 744.8 79.6 1,792.1 77.1 1,734.8 49.3 1,109.1 5.0 113.0 5.6 126.0 249.7 5,620.0

a/ Discrepancies due to rounding.

May 4, 1979 46 MEXICO Table 4.09

RIO FUERTE/RIOSINALOA IRRIGATIONPROJECT

DisbursementSchedule

AccumulativeDisbursements IBRD Fiscal Year and Quarter at End of Quarter US$ Million

1980

September30, 1979 December 31, 1979 March 31, 1980 _ June 30, 1980 2

1981

September30, 1980 6 December 31, 1980 8 March 31, 1981 10 June 30, 1981 14

1982

September30, 1981 20 December 31, 1981 28 March 31, 1982 35 June 30, 1982 42

1983

September30, 1982 50 December 31, 1982 57 March 31, 1983 64 June 30, 1983 70

1984

September30, 1983 75 December 31, 1983 79 March 31, 1984 82 June 30, 1984 84

1985

September30, 1984 85 December 31, 1984 86 March 31, 1985 87 June 30, 1985 88

1986

September30, 1985 89 December 31, 1985 90 March 31, 1986 91 June 30, 1986 92

March 9, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATIONPROJECT

Operatíon and Maintenance Costs (Mex$11,000ma)

Fuerte Sinaloa Gravity Water Gravity Diverted Water Pumped Pumped From Diverted Water Pumped Water From Wells Fuerte River Water From Wells Irrigationand Drainage Works Operation 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 13.70 Maintenance 26.35 26.35 26.35 26.35 26.35 Operation and Maintenance of Pumps - 47.00 23.00 - 56.00 Management and Administration 7.25 7.25 7.25 7.25 7.25 Miscellaneous 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 5.25 Total 52.55 99.55 75.55 52.55 108.55

March 12, 1979

(D

¿4'

1-' MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Extension Program

Phased Incremental Program Costs (Mex$ '000)

1. Investments Costs PY-1 PY-2 PY-3 PY-4 PY-5 PY-6 Total

Buildings and Office Equipment 1,500 1,500 3,000 Vehicles (pick-up) at 160,000 800 - - - - - 800 Tractor and Implementation 950 450 500 - - - 1,900 Information and Demonstration Equipment 300 600 300 200 100 100 1,600

Subtotal Investments Costs 3,550 2,550 800 200 100 100 7,300

II. Operational Costs

A. Incremental Salariesal

Agriculturalists at 300,000 5,400 8,100 10,500 15,000 20,400 20,400 79,800 Intermediate Technicians at 200,000 3,400 5,200 6,800 10,000 13,200 13,200 51,800 > Support Staff at 85,000 1,955 3,145 3,910 3,910 3,910 3,910 20,740

B. Incremental Vehicle Costs

Pick-up Rental at 43,000/unit 989 1,376 1,720 2,365 3,139 3,139 12,728 Motorcycle Rental at 12,500/unit 212 250 425 625 825 825 3,162 Operation Official Vehicles 300 350 350 350 350 350 2,050

C. CIAPAN Demonstration Programs 900 900 900 900 900 900 5,400 (600 ha/year)

D. Other Operational Costs 1,800 2,800 3,600 3,600 3,600 3,600 19,000

Sub-total Operational Costs 14,956 22,121 28,205 36,750 46,324 46,324 194,680

III. Total 18,506 24,671 29,005 36,950 46,424 46,424 201,980

a/ Salary plus related costs for social security, lfe insurance, leave allowance, etc.

March 22, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Research Program and Technical Studies

Phased Incremental Program Costs (Mex$000)

PY-5 PY-6 Total I. Research Investment Costs PY-1 PY-2 PY-3 PY-4 2,500 Buildings and Office Equipment 1,000 1,000 500 - - - 23,000 Equipment 11,500 11,500 - - - - 3,200 Vehicles (pick-up) 1,280 800 640 480 - - - 700 Scientific Instruments 400 300 - - - - - 600 Office and Laboratory Equipment 300 300 - - 200 200 1,800 Information and Documentation, Equipment 600 400 200 200 and Supplies 200 200 31,800 Subtotal Research Investment Costs 15080 14,300 1,340 680

II. Research Operational Costs 9,646 47,541 Incremental Salaries 4,134 6,201 8,268 9,646 9,646 5,418 5,418 26,703 Other Operational Costs 2,322 3,483 4,644 5,418 15,064 74,244 Subtotal Research Operational Costs 6,456 9,684 12,912 15,064 15,064 10,000 3,600 17,800 III. Technical Studies 4,200 4,000 20,000 10,000 25,264 18,864 157,844 IV. Total 25,736 27,984 34,252 25,744

May 2, 1979

o..

C> 50

MEXICO Table 6.01

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Cropping Pattern, Production, Gross and Net Value of Production

Areas Production Crops Sinaloa Fuerte Total Yielde Production GPV Cost NPV (-ha) 7(ha) ha tonelha tons Mex$ '000 Mex$ '000 Mex$ '000 A. Present Situation

Cotton 1,800 5,800 7,600 2.4 18,240 158,140 96,596 61,544 Maize 500 6,900 7,400 1.8 13,320 39,877 38,320 1,557 Pulses 1,000 19,100 20,100 0.8 16,080 94,068 70,350 23,718 Rice (Paddy) 4,000 5,900 9,900 3.4 33,660 97,614 66,231 31,383 Safflower 11,500 9,500 21,000 1.8 37,800 156,492 83,580 72,912 Sorghum 1,700 17,900 19,600 4.0 78,400 199,920 87,416 112,504 Soybeans 7,200 8,300 15,500 1.9 29,450 153,140 89,745 63,395 Vegetables 6,400 3,600 10,000 12.0 120,000 278,400 176,500 101,900 Wheat 3,600 3,800 7,400 3.6 26,640 76,990 35,007 41,988 Alfalfa 240 1,750 1,990 12.0 23,880 25,790 12,617 13,173 Mangos 160 1,400 1,540 12.0 18,720 37,440 15,595 121,535 Sugarcane - 1,400 1,400 60.0 84,000 20,160 11,984 8,176 Others 2,300 2,200 4,500 1.3 5,850 20,475 14,175 6,300

Total 40,400 87,550 127.950 - - 1.358,506 798,121 5603 8

Total Physical Area 33,000 80,000 113,000 - - - - -

Cropping Intensity 122%' 1097% 113% - -

Possible Additional Area 43,000 40,000 83,000 - - - - -

B. Future Without Project

Cotton 2,100 5,000 7,100 2.4 17,040 183,095 90,241 92,854 Maize 600 5,500 6,100 1.8 10,980 39,528 31,598 7,930 Pulses 1,200 16,500 17,700 0.8 14,160 74,340 61,950 12,390 Rice (Paddy) 4,500 5,500 10,000 3.4 34,000 156,740 66,900 89,840 Safflower 13,200 9,000 22,200 1.8 39,960 193,806 88,356 105,450 Sorghum 2,000 20,000 22,000 4.0 88,000 278,960 98,120 180,840 Soybeans 8,300 10,000 18,300 1.9 34,770 249,475 105,957 143,518 Vegetables 7,400 2,900 10,300 12.0 123,600 286,752 181,795 104,957 Wheat 4,100 3,100 7,200 3.6 25,920 99,014 34,056 64,958 Alfalfa 300 1,700 2,000 12.0 24,000 27,153 12,680 14,473 Mangos 200 1,400 1,600 12.0 19,200 38,400 16,208 22,192 Sugarcane - 1,400 1,400 60.0 84,000 37,800 11,954 25,816 Others 2.600 2,000 4,600 1.3 5,980 20,930 14,490 6,440

Total 46,500 84,000 130,500 - - 1,685,993 871.658

Total Physical Area 33,000 70,000 103,000 - - - -

Cropping Intensity 140% 120% 127% - -

Possible Additional Area 43,000 50,000 93,000 - - - - -

C. Future With Proiect

Cotton 10,000 12,000 22,000 3.0 66,000 709,170 325,820 383,350 Maize 500 2,000 2,500 3.5 8,750 31,500 17,450 14,050 Pulses 20,000 30,000 50,000 1.5 75,000 393,750 301,500 92,250 Rice (Paddy) 500 2,000 2,500 4.0 10,000 46,100 20,700 25,400 Safflower 20,000 30,000 50,000 2.2 110,000 533,500 251,000 282,500 Sorghum 5,000 25,000 30,000 5.0 150,000 475,500 175,500 300,000 Soybeans 23,000 17,000 40,000 2.5 100,000 717,500 284,800 432,700 Vegetables 7,000 4,000 11,000 17.0 187,000 433,840 243,760 190,080 Wheat 2,000 3,000 5,000 4.5 22,500 85,950 28,100 57,850 Alfalfa 2,000 2,000 4,000 15.0 60,000 64,800 30,240 34,560 Mangos 2,000 1,600 3,600 15.0 54,000 108,000 42,840 65,160 Sugarcane - 1,400 1,400 90.0 126,000 56,700 13,146 43,554 Others 2,000 2.000 4 000 2.0 8,000 28,000 16,480 11.520

Total 94,000 132,000 226,000 - - 3.684.310 1.751.336 1927

Total Physical Area 76,000 120,000 196,000 -

Cropping Intensity 124% 110% 115%

Possible Additional Area

March 22, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Profict Sa-aflofar-as

Futura Status of Ltsd Ose (FU..lítaa StAtus f L nd Ose (Fmulles) (Wlthout Proiect) PtesentSo P Futura NVP pat Faro (Ma$ O-O)1W-t Prolect) PsIS Reveltpaesa NutVP

A-a-g Produ-t-oi st 35% af Prud-- tíoa at 35% of P-odaotIou st 35% o Total Produti t 35% f Total Total Fara st Aertc Aostage So st A--toaN A rg So Avaag No Waltad NVP All Faras st Aoats*a AvstagB, No Rlghtled NVP All Fa--m Par Pror AS Faras Sita (ha) O.lO- Oisls- Itodoation Osl-s-OYs.ld Y ls - Praduotis-el-s Yi,.sls Y -ie oduotloa Pst Paro CAso-?) irIOs- OílOs-' Ptoduotlo Par FPat (AraM) (NrsS'000) (MAIs )

4 R80 1,500 620 580 1,500 920 28.0 10.0 0 16.0 49.0 34.0 12.0 0 12.0 36.0 42.0 126.0

8 4,650 7,350 3,000 3,720 7,350 3,930 50.0 20.0 0 33.0 496.0 68.0 24.0 0 29.0 435.0 83.0 1,245.0

03 250 440 100 150 440 280 92.0 32.0 0 43.0 37.0 109.0 38.0 0 37.0 32.0 135.0 117.4

35 50 - 50 - - 177.0 - - 177.0 88.0 211.0 - - 211.0 106.0 264.0 132.0

70 300 - - 300 - - 354.0 - _ 354.0 106.0 423.0 - - 423.0 126.0 529.0 159.0

130 30 - - 30 - - 657.0 _ - 657.0 20.0 785.0 - - 785.0 24.0 962.0 29.0

A/ 'ovarsoo ytalds" mesas ttst on tOIs atea, ctoppíag p-ttar- s sod ylíld= ore st s. alar lavels .s lar atOar lattr. o b/P-oose si sstC9 rOsaaalabolo,y, l _.. -

Aptol 0, 1579 PEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Development Model (10 ha Farm) a/

Investment Programi (000' Mex$)

Item Unit --- Year----- 1 2 3 Tractor/Implements 0.2 90 - Land Leveling (ha) 5 25 20

Production Data

------Present Situation ------Future Without Project------With Project at Full Development---- Cropped Cost Cropped Cost Cropped Cost Area (ha) GVP Production NVP Area (ha) GVP Production NVP Area (ha) GVP Production NVP

Soybean 1.5 21,750 6,940 14,810 1.8 26,100 8,330 17,770 2.0 28,600 11,070 17,530

Sorghum 1.8 16,070 6,500 9,570 2.2 19,280 7,800 11,480 1.5 17,050 5,870 11,180

Rice 1.0 8,750 5,310 3,440 1.0 8,750 5,310 3,440 0.1 1,800 650 1,150

Pulses 1.7 4,140 3,790 3,350 1.7 7,140 3,790 3,350 2.6 24,570 10,450 14,120

Maize 0.6 3,650 2,150 1,500 0.6 3,650 2,150 1,500 0.1 1,020 540 480

Vegetables 0.8 22,270 8,000 14,270 1.0 27,840 10,000 17,840 0.6 23,660 7,220 16,440

Other 0.4 2,370 820 1,550 0.4 2,370 830 1,540 0.2 1,540 470 1,070

Cotton 0.6 12,290 4,710 7,580 0.7 14,380 5,510 8,870 1.1 27,770 8,480 19,290

Safflower 1.9 13,730 6,360 7,370 2.2 15,900 7,360 8,540 2.6 24,310 11,180 13,130

Wheat 0.7 4,880 2,570 2,310 0.7 4,880 2,570 2,310 0.3 2,770 1,270 1,500

Alfalfa/Pasture 0.2 3,240 1,014 2,226 0.2 3,240 1,014 2,226 0.2 4,200 1,100 3,010

Fruit Trees 0.1 3,000 380 2,620 0.2 6,000 760 5,240 0.2 6,000 900 5,100

11.3 119,140 48,544 70,596 12.7 139,530 55,424 84,106 11.5 163,290 59,290 104,000

a/ This model assumed a before development situation ín which all of the land js in production and in which present yields are average for those areas in the El Carrizo, Rio Fuerte and Rio Sinaloa Districts which are not affected adversely by poor drainage and salt accumulation aud for which the supply of irrigation water js generally adequate. The FRR is 23%. No models are presented to reflect those present situations in which (i) the lands are affected by salination or poor drainage and from which production is only about 35% of the non-affected areas; or (ii) the laude are not yet in production due to no irrigation. The majority of farmers in these latter two situations own 10 ha or less aud it can be safely assumed that the FRR on their investrents will be even higher than that for the above. MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Development Model (10 ha Farm) a/

Investment Program (000' Mex$)

Item Unit ------Year-- 1 2 3 4 Tractor/Implements 0.2 90 42 42 42 Land Leveling (ha) 9 Production Data

------Present Situation ------Future Without Project------With Project at Full Development--- Cropped Cost Cropped Cost Cropped Cost Area (ha) GVP Production NVP Area (ha) GVP Production NVP Area (ha) GVP Production NVP

Soybean 0.5 3,660 2,310 1,350 - - - - 2.0 28,600 11,070 17,530

Sorghum 0.5 4,660 1,800 2,660 0.5 4,460 1,800 2,660 1.5 17,050 5,870 11,180

Rice 3.5 27,560 9,290 18,270 3.0 23,620 7,965 15,655 0.1 1,800 650 1,150

Pulses 1.0 3,290 2,230 1,060 0.5 1,650 1,120 530 2.6 24,570 10,450 14,120

Maize 0.5 3,040 1,780 1,260 0.5 1,780 1,520 260 0.1 1,020 540 480

Vegetables ------0.6 23,660 7,220 16,440

1,540 470 1,070 Other ------0.2

Cotton ------1.1 27,770 8,480 19,290

Safflower 1.0 7,220 3,345 3,875 0.5 3,610 1,670 1,940 2.6 24,310 11,180 13,130

Wheat 1.0 6,970 3,670 3,300 0.5 3,440 1,840 1,600 0.3 2,770 1,270 1,500

Alfalfa/Pasture 0.5 8,100 3,325 4,775 0.5 8,100 3,325 4,775 0.2 4,200 1,190 3,010

900 5,100 Fruit Trees ------0.2 6,000

8.5 64,300 27,750 36,550 6.0 46,660 19,240 27,420 11.5 163,290 59,290 4

a/ Model for an "average" farm ín salíne area. The FRR is 25%. uD MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Detailed Labor Reguirements and Production Costs-a

Labor Reguirements (man days/ha)

Pulses Maize Sorghum Wheat Soybeans Safflower Rice Other Cotton tables Alfalfa Mango Cane

Without Project 12 15 8 10 11 6 13 13 55 75 12 60 30 With Project 19 20 11 13 15 9 17 17 65 105 15 70 33

Incremental 7 5 3 3 4 3 4 4 10 30 3 10 3 pesos per hectare------

Production Costs Without Project, Y'resent/Future Situation

Custom Operations 1,020 2,250 1,960 1,950 2,450 2,050 2,610 990 3,200 1,300 2,400 800 2,200 Seeds 450 300 400 400 760 180 700 50 350 450 950 300 390 Fertilizers 100 300 420 460 200 310 600 200 780 1,700 600 350 950 Pesticides and Herbicides 150 100 60 50 210 - 60 - 790 1,450 200 700 330 Implements and Tools 60 60 60 60 60 60 250 60 120 1,800 120 120 120 Harvesting Supplies 150 180 90 80 80 80 90 90 100 2,100 200 300 100 Labor b/ 1,270 1,590 850 1,060 1,165 635 1,380 1,380 5,830 7,950 1,270 6,360 3,180 Miscellaneous 300 400 620 670 865 665 1,000 380 1,540 900 6;0 1,200 1,290

Total 3,500 5,180 4,460 4,730 5,790 3,980 6,690 3,150 12,710 17,650 6,340 10,130 8,56C Witb Project, Full Developnient Custom Operations 1,550 2,500 2,350 2,250 2,800 2,300 2,930 1,200 3,750 1,560 2,750 800 2,450 Seeds 950 400 700 420 840 220 840 90 460 500 l,0S0 300 390 Fertílizers 300 500 620 560 400 500 770 400 1,000 1,850 8i'0 450 1,100 Pesticides and Herbicides 280 200 80 50 250 50 465 50 790 1,800 2i0 850 350 Implements and Tools 90 100 90 80 80 80 320 60 120 2,000 1í:0 120 120 Harvesting Supplies 250 360 120 120 120 115 130 110 140 2,300 2.0 400 110 Labor b/ 2,010 2,120 1,170 1,380 1,590 955 1,805 1,760 6,890 11,130 1,530 7,420 3,500 Miscellaneous 600 800 720 760 1,040 800 1,020 450 1,660 1,02(0 8t0 1,560 1,370

Total 6,030 6,980 5,850 5,62C 7,120 5,020 8,280 4,120 14,810 22,160 7,5f3 11,900 9,390 Incremental Prod. Cost 2,530 1,800 1,390 890 1,330 1,040 1,590 970 2,100 4,510 l,220 1,770 830

Yield Assumptíons (tons per ha)

Wjthout Project 0.8 1.8 4.0 3.6 1. 9 1.8 3.4 1.3 2.4 12.0 12 0 10.0 60.0i With Project 1.5 3.5 5.0 4.5 2.5 2.2 4.0 2.0 3.[0 17.0 1l 15.0 90.0

|/ Data used il analysis úf farm budgets. u b/ Labor figures include family labor but excíLude the machine operators who are included in custor cúerati- S. ;

April 5, 1979 MEXICO

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRIGATION PROJECT

Proposed Rent and Recovery Indices-/

3,000 15-000 870 500 300 30 Total 19, 700 4 ha farms 8 ha farns 13 ha farms 35 ha farms Ue 0 ha farms 130 ha farras Farms ------Mex$ miliort------

1. Net cash income with project 661.5 6,536.3 616.9 693.0 833.2 154.8 9,495.7 2. Net cash income without project 189.0 2,283.8 169.1 553.8 666.2 123.9 3,985.8

3. Incremental cash income (1-2) 472.5 4,252.5 447.8 139.2 167.0 30.9 5,509.9 less: 4. Imputed value of family labor 73.5 684.6 69.3 - - - 827.4 5. Imputed value for management - - - 6.8 8.4 1.6 16.8 6. Imputed return to capital and risk 47.3 425.3 44.6 14.2 16.8 3.1 551.3

7. Rent 351.7 3,142.6 333.9 118.2 141.8 26.2 4,114.4

8. Rent as percentage of incrsmental cash income 74% 74% 74% 85% 85% 85% 75%

9O Water charges 35.2 352.8 33.0 51.5 61.9 11.6 546.0 10. Benefit taxes 24.2 239.4 22.6 35.2 42.0 7.8 371.2

11. Total direct charges/taxes (9+10) 59.4 592.2 55.6 86.7 103.9 n.4. 917.2

12. Rent recovery index 177o 17% 17% 737. 73% 737. 227.

13. Public sector outlays 315.1 3,131.7 295.7 455.7 547.8 101.8 4,847.8

14. Cost recovery index 19% 19% 19% 197h 19'h 197. 197.

15. Annual income per family at full development (Mex$) 38,240 75,480 122,770 231,100 463,200 855,100 82,944

16. Annual per capita income at full development (Mex$) 6,709 13,242 21,539 40,543 81,263 150,018 14,552

17- Estimated per capita poverty level (Mex$) 7,762

al Discounted at 11% over 40 years. b/ Unless indicated otherwise.

April 6, 1979

a) MEX 1C(

RIO FUERTE/RIO SINALOA IRRI(A1 (N PROJECT

Econoisic Costs and Benefits (Mex$ mi~llion)

Sinaloa lrrigation Fro.jct (Loan 970-ME) Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa irrigation Pro ject Comh. Sinaloa Irrig and Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa Pr Investment Operation and Total Incremental Investment Operation and Total Increment.] Investment Operation and Total Incremental Year Costs Maintenance Costs Costs Benefito Costs Maintenance Costs Costs Beneiits Costa Maintenance Costs Costs Benefits

1974 215.9 - 215.9 0.0 - - - - 215.9 - 215.9 1975 116.3 - 116.3 0.0 - - 1]6.3 - 116.3 - 1976 130.9 - 130.9 6.9 - - - - 130.9 - 130.9 6.9 1977 157.1 - 157.1 14.1 - - - - 157.1 - 157.1 14.1 1978 530.3 - 530.3 61.2 - - - - 530.3 - 530.3 34.5 1979 971.7 - 971,7 135.5 - - - - 971.7 - 971.7 82.1 1980 314.8 - 314.8 233.8 613.1 - 613.1 - 928.7 - 928.7 178.2 1981 114.6 - 114.6 284.2 1,366.9 - 1,366.9 47.7 1,481 5 - 1,481.5 275.2 1982 15.7 68.9 84.6 269.9 1,256.7 - 1,256.7 135.7 1,272.4 68.9 1,341.3 408.4 1983 - 68.9 68.9 424.9 753.6 - 753.6 366.6 753.6 68.9 822.5 720.7 1984 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 61.7 69.0 130.7 692.1 61.7 137.9 199.6 964.0 1985 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 61.7 82.5 144.2 870.9 61.7 151.4 213,1 1,142.8 1986 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 966.4 - 198.4 198.4 1,290.4 1987 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,013.4 - 198.4 198.4 1,323.8 1988 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 12935 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1989 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1990 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 292.0 292.0 1,061.3 - 360.9 360.9 1,357.3 1991 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1992 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1993 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1994 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1995 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1996 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1997 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 292.0 292.0 1,061.3 - 360.9 360.9 1,357.3 1998 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 1999 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2000 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2001 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2002 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2003 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2004 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 292.0 292.0 1,061.3 - 360.9 360.9 1,357.3 2005 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2006 - 68.9 68.9 467.] - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2007 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198&4 1,357.3 2008 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198A4 1,357.3 2009 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2010 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 198.4 1,357.3 2011 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 292.0 292.0 1,061.3 - 360.9 360.9 1,357.3 2012 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129.5 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.1 198.1 1,357.3 2013 - 68.9 68.9 467.1 - 129UM 129.5 1,061.3 - 198.4 19M4 1,357.3

ERR 127. FRR 17.9% ERR 13.47.

H a/ The incremental benefits on the Sinaloa project and the Rio Fuerte/Rio Sinaloa project exceed the incresental bnefilto of the combined (íntegrated) project as the incremental benefits on the Sinaloa project have been calculated on the basis that the proposed Sinaloa/Fuerte project would not be carried out. Consequently, the already irrigated o ar-as -o,ld achiese hígher cropping iL.ensiLies than could be reached when the water has been distributed over a larger area. April 6, 1979 57 ANNEX 1

MEXICO

SELECTED DOCUMENTSAND DATA AVAILABLE IN THE PROJECT FILE

A - Economic Evaluation of the Project Components

1. Proyecto de Rehabilitación - Distrito de Riego N°75 - Rio Fuerte. Datos Generales. SARH, Los Mochís, 8/78 2. Proyecto Rio Sinaloa, Sin - Actualizaciónde la Evaluacíón Económica. SARH, D. G. de Planeaci6n,8/78 3. Proyecto de Rehabilitaciónde la la., 4a. y 5a - Unidades del Distrito de Riego N°75, Valle del Fuerte, Sin - Evaluación Econ6mica y Análisis Financieros.SARH, D.G. de Planeación,8/78 4. Proyectos Rio Sinaloa, Sin y de Rehabilitaciónde la la,, 4a. y 5a. Un,idadesdel Distrito de Riego Valle del Fuerte, Sin - Análisis Económicosy FinancierosAdicionales. SARH, D.G. de Planeacio6n,10/78 5. Estimación de la Componente Extetrnade los costos Directos de Inversión, SAR, D.G. de Planeacíin, (segun datos de 1975)

B - Engineering Data

1. Proyecto Sinaloa - Mapas de la Margen Izquierda. SARR, Los Mochís, 6/78 2. Proyecto Sinaloa - Mapas de la Margen Derecha. SARH" Los Mochis, 6/78 3. Rio Fuerte - Mapas de Trabajos dleIrrigación y Drenaje de la Rehabilitación la., 4a. y 5a. unidades. SAEJR,Los Mochis, 9/78 4. Río Fuerte - Maps of works, tenure, soíls and tabulatíons.SARH, Los MoDchis, 9/78 5. Río Fuerte - Background material. SARH, Los Mochis 6. Marg,enIzquierda - Rio Sinaloa - Pozos de observación del Monto Freático SARR, Los Mochis, 9/78 7. Sinaloa and Fuerte Components- Mapas de pozos. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78 8. Programa - Cantidadesde Obra Proyecto Rio Sinaloa. SARH, Los Mochis, 6/78 9. Salinity Problems in Rio Fuerte. Banks Mission, M. Fireman, 9/78 10. Drainage Problems in Rio Fuerte. Banks Mission, Mr.Houston, 2/79 11. Estudio de la FactibilidadHidrológica del Proyecto de Rehabilitación. SARH, 10/78 12. Sinaloa/Fuerte- Bacurato Dam - Maps and Background Material, SARH, Los M[ochis,6/78 13. Fuerte - Land Leveling - Maps and Evaluation.SARH, Los Mochis, 8/78 14. Sinaloa/Fuerte- Standard Structures- Plans. SARH, Los Mochis, 6/78 15. Sinaloa/Fuerte- Historical Expendituresin the Project Area. SARH, Los Mochis, 1975-78 16. Sinaloa/Fuerte- Operation and Maíntenance.SARH, Los Mochis, 1975-77 17. Programa de Actividades durante el año 1978. SARN, Lcs Mochis 18. Maps of the 3 units of Rio Fuerte. SARH, Los Mochis

C - Agriculture Data

1. Demanda de los PrincipalesPro,ductos Agropecuarios. SARH, D.G.de Planeación,1978 2. Consumos Aparentes. S.A.G. y D.G.E.A., 1971-75 3. Salarios Mínimos. Comisi6n Nacional de los Salarios Mínimos, 1977-78 4. Informe - Distrito de Riego N°63 - Sector Campesino,Banco de Crédito Rural, Asociacionesde Agricultuores.SARH, Los Mochis, 10/78 5. Fuentes de Crédito. SARH, Los Mochis, 10/78 - 58 -

6. Relaciones de Bodega de Almacenamiento.SARH, Los Mochis, 10/78 7. Relación de Insumos Proporcionadosdurante el ciclo 1977-78. SARH, Los Mochis, 10/78 8. Localizaciónde Industrias Establecidasen el Valle del Fuerte. SARE, Los Mochis, 10/78= 9. Asoc. de Agricultoresdel Rio Fuerte - Informe de Actividades Desarrolla- das durante el bienio 1975-76 10. CONASUPO 1976 - México D.F., 12/75 11. Programa de CapacitaciónPermanente - El Carrizo. SARH, 6/78 12. Tecnología y Rentabilidaddel Cultivo del Maíz en el Valle de Culican, Sin. SARH, 12/77 13. Análisis de Costos de Producción Agrocpecuaria (Computada).SARH, D.G. de Planeación, 1978 14. Estudio Agrol6gico Detallado - la. Unidad Distrito Riego N°75. SARH, D.G. de Planeación, 1978 15. Residencia en Culiacan, Sin - 4a. unidad N°75. SARH, D.G.de Planeacinn,1973 16. Residenciaen Culiacan, Sin - 52. unidad N°75. SARH, D.G.de Planeación, 1972 17. Plano Predial la. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978 18. Plano Predial 2a. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978 19. Plano Predial 3a. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978 20. Rio Fuerte - Rehabílitaciónla., 4a. y 5a. Unidad. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78 21. Cuadro Analítico de supercicies sembradas- Fuerte. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78 22. Varios cuadros de superficie,producción y valor de las cosechas en el ciclo Agrícola. SARH, Los Mochis, 1978 23. Evaluacióneconómica y Social de la SubestaciónAgrc'iola Experimental para los Municipios de San Ignacio, Cosala y Elota en el Estado de Sinaloa. Chiapan-Guasave,1978 24. Informe de Producción Agrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1972-73. SARH, Los Mochis 25. Informe de Producción Agrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1973-74. SARH, Los Mochis 26. Informe de Producción Agrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1974-75. SARH, Los Mochis 27. Informe de Producción Agrícola por Unidades Ciclo 1975-76. SARH, Los Mochis 28. Informe de ProducciónAgrc'iola por Unidades Ciclo 1976-77. SARH, Los Mochis 29. EstadísticaAgrícola de los Distritos de Riego Ciclo 1975-75. SARH, 10/76 30. EstadísticaAgrícola de los Distritos de Riego Ciclo 1975-76. SAHN, 8/77

D - Technical Assistance

1. Programa de Asistencia Técnica - Proyecto de Rehabilítacióndel Distrito N°75 - Rio Fuerte. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78 2. Programa de Asistencia Técnica - Integral e InvestigaciónAgrícola. Distrito N°63 - Rio Sinaloa. SARH, Los Mochis, 9/78 MEXICO RIO FUERTE/RIOSINALOAIRRIGATION PROJECT OrganizationChart

SARH Rnpreseraasíe SinaloaState .

SARH Coordinator Northe-r Sinaloa r Chnf-s lgatio- Chief Major Hydrauli Dmstrarctsanad Loecotí | Infrastr`cutre Programs Directors of StenningCorniatees NortheinSinaloa 1 Rio S.inaloa 2. Rio Fuerte Steertng l ~~~~~~~~~~~~~3.El Carrizo -| Chief Admínínstrator Comm,ittaaee

esresenratives of | Unit for Economíc Credit, Rasnotr, Plarat M.ana.e nent Teams for 1 Epjos end Comuneros Suíes and Pubcaon on n , ara1 Rehabit n Rio F t 2 Smiall Holders ad Colono. Fertiliner Supplv eto. 2 Construction Bacurato Dan 3 State Gonernmert 3. Construction Rio Sinaloa let Bank 4 AgraraR- 4. Con_trnt Rer Sinaloa R.ght Bank 5 BNCR S. LeOd Le---Irra 6 Pr-vatr banks 6 . De"gn and Planning 7 ANAGASA Ch.et Consernaaron dCtaín Operatons and ChíeS Admmnístnl;tíoe 7. A-ea Populatían and Rasettiemnt 8. CONASUPO Maintenan-t Dea,lopireasa, Lrganmdnua 9 PRONASE rLanc Tenure ard Indennaton 10. Guanosv- Feniizartes 0. Oetn aad Mainte-e HVdrgv 11 INIA Research Certer n CIAPAN 1 Macainera Po..í Supportina Unas lo, 2 Finld OHyecoves 1 Hvdroo_gy 2. Statiansos 3 Denp Wells 4 Wa-er Use- Records 5 ar-gatsonDavelopm ent Rekoblostíion and Drainage 6. Apphied Resear.ch CIAPAN) -ard Subínnt Matter Specialists

Operation and Developmena Units of alent 50,000 ha 1 Ag-onomí-t ICoodinatorl

Operatiaons.d Deoelopmena Areas of ebout 25,000 ha 1 Agronomast Aseo CoA-dínator

Op,en,tes anrdDlevelopment Zones of about 6 .000na 1 Agrororeíst (Zone Chíefí

oEtensionOpererlots nr n Che" t2 Areasí 12 or 3 Seotionsl

l2Anort 31000 h. each Agr'u tura Tealnícoan 27 A9,---Dct.hf1-1 Ríanis Tnchni.íans

World Ba~nl - 20103

_ B R D139553

e e;: \, {@i6DAto@q&D;LGO lt |, X ~~~~MEXICO:

". '.".\ . ^ 42"wMS ..... 6 k/} ZRIO SINALOA/RIO FUERTEIRRIGATION PROJECT

,| ' i: P V 0 * "~~F EL CAJON

DAM a RESROR0 \fl f2

| i 3\\ u : / l 0 .; >, ~~~~~~~~~~~CABRERA ~ ~ ~~~DE

v oI ~~~~~~~~~~{~~~~ A L¡,, A/

\ lr , 1,''r4r , - Fin*nDnc

H' 0. M ES9>-éc2z

\9 5 çeX~MO

xG ., & f , > ,>,-,.: Uf q4/1 . / ogr.ExYtf.-L;0Ra\fQEL= e. Ee>555rsr5~~~EL

t ; » ;1ó >-i > 0r000i i i9 i 1i&<32S-wl5i«$~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~H