One of the biggest problems agricultural farms of Armavir marz face is irrigation water. Due to the quantity of downfalls the issue can be large or small, sometimes even unsolvable. As a rule, disputes between supplier and consumer are always resolved in favor of the supplier. There was no single case when a farmer, who suffered losses because of the irrigation water, could protect its interests in courts to get compensation. To understand the phenomenon, it is necessary to examine thoroughly the provisions of the contract between supplier and consumer.
The chapter on the subject of the contract says that the company is obliged to deliver water for each irrigation season in accordance with the water consume schedule, accordingly, water consumer is obliged to accept and pay for the water.
The first chapter of the contract shows that the supplier may start or complete the irrigation season whenever it wants. In many cases, some suppliers start the irrigation season from May 1, according to villagers it is very late. In November 1, 2011, water suppliers announced that the irrigation season was over together with the drying up of Akhuryan well. The fact that farmers should carry out autumn sowing or irrigate vineyards to protect from freezing in winter was not taken into consideration.
The third point is the most ridiculous part of the contract, where the company’s or supplier’s commitments are noted. According to the point 3 (a), the company should serve the irrigation system delivering water to users plots with the exception of the water user’s water-pipe that is directly closer to its plot. The supplier does not care about the length of the above-mentioned water-pipe or water losses in those parts. He repeatedly states that water is a commodity. Thereby, why the supplier avoids giving it to the peasants just in the land entrance. For example, the peasants may get 1000 cubic meters of water from the deep well, and only half of it will reach the plot.
Due to the point 3 (c) the contract becomes like a commitment for the farmers. The point says that, if the company provides water less than that in the water consume schedule, the latter should deliver it within the next ten days. Even people who are not aware of agriculture know that, for example, if cucumber is not irrigated for 3 – 4 days during the harvest, farmers will be deprived of the whole crop. The same can be said about other melons and gourds.
Nevertheless, all notable provisions are not over here. For example, the last point of the water user commitments says if the water user does not pay its accumulated debts within 3 months after the end of the irrigation season, it has to hand over its plot to the supplier on the company’s order. Even the most experienced lawyer cannot put this provision in the current legislation of Republic of Armenia.
Thus, the list of ridiculous points is numerous. They can be left out, but one cannot ignore the absurdity of the given rights. Due to the contract, the company defends its rights in accordance with the legislation of Republic of Armenia, but the water user, who has suffered damages, according to the Company’s Council.
Hence, a question arises why the villagers sign under such contract. The point is that the supplier signs the contracts during the irrigation season, and the farmers cannot get irrigation water without a contract.