The development of irrigation design schools or how history structures human action

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION DESIGN SCHOOLSOR HOW HISTORY STRUCTURES HUMAN ACTIONy

MAURITS W. ERTSEN*

Water Resources/Water Management Group, Department of Civil Engineering and Geosciences,

Delft University of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands

ABSTRACT

Several approaches (‘‘schools’’) of irrigation development and design have developed in the last 200 years. Three

important schools developed in the context of colonies: the Dutch in the former Netherlands East Indies, the British

in former British India and Africa, the French in north-western Africa. Although circumstances for irrigation

changed from colonial to post-colonial times, irrigation design and management practices in the post-colonial

period remained largely based on colonial approaches. Engineering education is an important mechanism in this

process of preference-guided selection of design solutions. In this contribution irrigation schools are conceptu-

alized as technological regimes, which consist of explicit and implicit rules for irrigation design. The main

conclusion is that design options available to modern engineers are the product of a contextualized development

and selection process within a colonial context. This does not imply that artefacts from a certain context cannot be a

welcome solution for a design problem in another context. A regime conceptualization emphasizes the importance

of daily practice and routines as structuring factors in technological development. Recognizing such routine-based

decision-making processes may not immediately lead to improvements in irrigation system design, but under-

standing irrigation design processes is a necessary first step to take for such improvement. Copyright # 2007

John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

key words: irrigation; design; colonies; decision routines; history

Received 30 August 2006; Revised 26 September 2006; Accepted 28 September 2006

RESUME

Plusieurs approches (ou ‘ecoles’) de developpement et de conception d’irrigation se sont developpees au cours des

deux derniers siecles, dont des plus importantes dans un contextes colonial: l’ecole hollandaise en Indonesie,

l’ecole britannique en Inde et en Afrique, et l’ecole Francaise en Afrique du Nord-Ouest. Bien que l’environnement

de l’irrigation ait beaucoup change depuis ce temps, les pratiques post-coloniales sont restees essentiellement

basees sur ces approches coloniales. L’enseignement de l’ingenierie est un mecanisme important dans ce procede

de selection preferentielle de solutions de conception: les ecoles d’irrigation sont pensees comme des ‘regimes

technologiques’, composes de regles explicites et implicites pour la conception de l’irrigation. La conclusion

principale est que les options de conception dont disposent les ingenieurs modernes sont le produit d’un

developpement et d’une selection appartenant a un contexte colonial. Ceci ne signifie pas que les objets venant

d’un certain contexte ne sont pas les bienvenus pour resoudre un probleme de conception dans un autre contexte.

Une conceptualisation de regime accentue l’importance de la pratique et des routines quotidiennes comme autant

de facteurs structurants dans le developpement technologique. La reconnaissance des processus de prise de

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE

Irrig. and Drain. 56: 1–19 (2007)

Published online in Wiley InterScience (www.interscience.wiley.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.281

*Correspondence to: M. W. Ertsen, Water Resources/Water Management Group, Department of Civil Engineering and Geosciences, DelftUniversity of Technology, P.O. Box 5048, 2600 GA Delft, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected] developpement des ecoles de conception de l’irrigation ou comment l’histoire structure l’action de l’homme.

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

decision sur la base de routines peut ne pas conduire immediatement a des ameliorations dans la conception de

systemes d’irrigation, mais leur comprehension en est une premiere etape indispensable. Copyright # 2007 John

Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

mots cles: irrigation; conception; colonies; prises de decision routinieres; histoire

ONCE UPON A TIME THERE WAS A GATE

As a part of the 1992 rehabilitation project of the Punggur Utara irrigation scheme (Lampung, Sumatra, Indonesia),

automatic cross-regulators of the Begemann type were introduced (Figure 1). The original Punggur Utara scheme

was equipped with cross-regulators operated by stop logs in the main system for water level control. The consultant

had gained experience with Begemann gates in the Kano River project in the 1970s (Figure 2). In this project some

24 000 ha were irrigated from a reservoir in the Kano River in northern Nigeria. How to arrange water distribution,

both in water management and physical terms, was one of the key questions (Brouwer, 1987). The area showed

quite some variability in soils and crops, also within tertiary units, resulting in a variable water demand in time and

place. The irrigation system needed to be able to deal with this variability without being able to count on a reliable

organizational infrastructure. Night irrigation was to be avoided, requiring storage facilities in which the water

collected at night could be kept to be used during the day. This storage would also play a key role in adapting to

variability. Applying Begemann gates for water level control was proposed. The Begemann gate was to ensure that

the water level upstream from the weir would not fluctuate too much.

To determine which type of water distribution structure would be suitable, candidate structures were tested on

site at the project’s experimental station. Three combinations of structures were tested: (1) a so-called meter-gate as

offtake, with a fixed weir in the secondary canal, (2) a Crump weir as offtake, with a control structure operated

through stop logs in the secondary canal and (3) an undershot gate as offtake with a Begemann structure in the

secondary canal (Brouwer, 1987). The Begemann combination was ultimately selected and applied in the Kano

system. AWorld Bank publication on successful approaches and examples in irrigation water management refers to

Kano as ‘‘particularly interesting. Using only simple hydraulic principles and control structures, good control of

water levels and flows throughout the system has been achieved and inefficient night irrigation has been avoided’’

(Plusquellec et al., 1994). Furthermore, the installation of automatic water control devices (Begemann gates) was to

have contributed to lower levels of conflicts among water users. Begemann-type structures have also been applied

in irrigation districts in California (Burt et al., 2001).

Originally, automatic gates like the Begemann typewere introduced to replace the stop log gates often used in the

former Netherlands East Indies for water level control. These stop logs required manual labour on the part of the

(lower Javanese) irrigation personnel, a reason for considering the option of an automatic gate–‘‘to be independent

from the alertness of the operating personnel’’ (Beauchez, 1921). Begemann described several types of gates, but

the one his name has been connected with was a simple hook-type gate with a counterweight on top. The first

exemplar of this type was ‘‘made by my young sons out of meccano based on a sketch made by me. [. . .] The littleholes in the meccano bars make it easy to replace weights and enlarge the lever arm’’ (Begemann, 1926). This short

story shows how a structure, originally developed in the former Netherlands East Indies, found its way back to its

source environment in Indonesia, albeit following a slight detour through Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION: TECHNOLOGICAL PERSISTENCY

Similar accounts of persistency of colonial irrigation practices have been reported by several authors. Van Halsema

(2002), Mollinga (1998) and Bolding et al. (1995) clearly show that colonial British irrigation design and water

management concepts still shape daily irrigation practice and discourse in Pakistan and India to a large extent.

Others label this phenomenon of persistency as the existence of different ‘‘schools’’ of irrigation development

(Horst, 1996; Dahmen, 1997). Most of these schools have developed in the context of colonies: the Dutch in the

Copyright # 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 56: 1–19 (2007)

DOI: 10.1002/ird

2 M. W. ERTSEN

former Netherlands East Indies, the British in former British India and Africa, the French in north-western Africa.

The American school may be the only one without a colonial connection, although elements of Spanish influence

can be detected (see for example Glick, 1972). In addition to pointing out the existence of these different schools,

Dahmen adds an important aspect when he discusses activities of irrigation engineers in the 1960s and 1970s. These

engineers developed irrigation schemes applying the well-known design practices of their respective schools,

which were treated as ‘‘the best possible method’’ (Dahmen, 1997).

But at the same time many engineers had forgotten the ‘‘design criteria’’–as we now call them–which formed the basis for the

planning and design. The whole process of design and operation had come to be based on empirical rules, standards and

regulations, which were perfectly geared to the local social and economic circumstances–whatever these were at the time

these rules had been established. (Dahmen, 1997).

Dahmen argues that although circumstances for irrigation changed from colonial to post-colonial times,

irrigation design and management practices in the post-colonial period remained largely based on colonial

approaches. For an observer, modern irrigation science appears to be an international, homogeneous body of

knowledge. There seem to be no different schools of thought; one could speak of the modern paradigm of irrigation

(promoted by the World Bank (as in Plusquellec et al., 1994), the International Commission on Irrigation and

Drainage (ICID) and other international organizations). It is sometimes assumed that this international paradigm is

dominated by American irrigation science. However, at second glance, a somewhat more complex picture showing

different approaches to irrigation and its problems replaces the picture of uniformity. Within irrigation

Figure 1. Begemann automatic gate in the Punggur Utara system, Lampung (photograph: Robert Brouwer). This figure is available in colouronline at www.wiley.com/journal/ird


DOI: 10.1002/ird

THE DEVELOPMENT OF IRRIGATION DESIGN SCHOOLS 3

modernization discussions one could at the very least distinguish between the French (downstream-controlled

demand management) and the American (upstream-controlled arranged management) approach. Closer to home,

the Romijn is not the only example of a Dutch approach to irrigation. The irrigation department at Delft University

of Technology did not adapt its (East Indian) irrigation definition dating from 1898 (which includes drainage) to the

international standard (which distinguishes between irrigation and drainage) until 1997.

The idea of persistence in engineering practice is not new.

Technological knowledge comprises traditions of practice, which are properties of communities of technological

practitioners. Technological traditions of practice comprise complex information physically embodied in a community of

practitioners and in the hardware and software of which they are masters. Such traditions define an accepted mode of

technical operation, the conventional system for accomplishing a specified technical task. Such traditions encompass aspects

of relevant scientific theory, engineering design formulae, accepted procedures and methods, specialised instrumentation,

and, often, elements of ideological rationale. (Constant, 1980).

Engineering education is an important mechanism in this process of preference-guided selection of design

solutions. Obtaining an engineering degree is much like passing the preparatory requirements for community

membership. The question of continuity is at the heart of the concept of ‘‘technological tradition’’ (as in Constant,

1980) or ‘‘technological regime’’ (as in Van de Poel, 2003). The regime concept recognizes that ‘‘invention and

innovation are conditioned by such factors as earlier innovations, the search heuristics of engineers in an industry,

available technical knowledge, market demand and industrial structure’’ (Van de Poel, 2003). The intermediate

know-how, the rules structuring ‘what to do and how to do it’, are included in the regime concept. The development

of irrigation regimes, consisting of explicit and implicit rules for irrigation design, is the central subject of this

paper. I will analyse the development process of irrigation regimes and discuss several design rules that structured

Figure 2. Begemann automatic gate in the Kano River system, Nigeria (photograph: Robert Brouwer)


DOI: 10.1002/ird

4 M. W. ERTSEN

the activities of actors involved in its development. The starting point of my contribution is that different irrigation

artefacts still applied today can be understood as resulting from underlying, historically grown and in many cases

colonial, approaches to irrigation.

COMPARING NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES AND BRITISH INDIA

Figure 3 is based on the popular game in which one has to spot the differences between two images. In this case, the

two images are identical except for one small, but highly important detail. The figure shows two discharge

measurement structures: (a) a Crump adjustable proportional module (APM) from former British India and (b) a

Crump-De Gruyter structure from the former Netherlands East Indies. As the names suggest, the structures are

related. The British engineer Crump drafted the original design in the Punjab irrigation works (Crump, 1922; Van

Halsema, 2002). The Dutch engineer De Gruyter adapted the Crump structure and introduced what has become

known as the Crump-de Gruyter. The difference between the structures is found in the ability for daily regulation;

this is expressed in the presence of an adjustable gate in the Crump-de Gruyter design in contrast with the Crump

structure. The roof-block of the Crump structure could be moved with some effort to allow for seasonal differences

in water requirements; adjusting the structure daily was not intended. Its design was intended for constant

(seasonal) flow. The Dutch engineer De Gruyter replaced the roof-block with an adjustable sliding gate

(De Gruyter, 1925, 1926/1927; Bos, 1990). The result was an adjustable structure that could be used for discharge

measurement and regulation. De Gruyter’s adaptation highlights the differences between irrigation strategies in

former British India and the former Netherlands East Indies. The agrarian policies of the colonial powers appear to

be of utmost importance in explaining these differences.

Dutch colonial water distribution policies contrast with policies of British colonial power in India. Irrigation

systems in British India were primarily aimed at maximizing economic profit through an increased land tax on

irrigated land as opposed to dry land; actual harvests were not taken into account. After 1860, in response to severe

famines, the British introduced the concept of protective irrigation. Schemes were designed to provide small

amounts of water to large numbers of acres, enough to save food crops during drought. The British irrigation

approach employed the principle that ‘‘water follows irrigated surface’’. In contrast, the Dutch colonial power

levied taxes on actual harvests per unit of land. This coincided with the general Dutch colonial exploitation policy,

which depended on labour instead of land (Djuliati Suroyo, 1987). The general guiding principle of Dutch irrigation

was that ‘‘water follows irrigated crop’’: the right amount of water should be distributed when the standing crop

needed it. These policies were translated into specific design requirements for water distribution. In East India these

were (1) adjustability of structures to manipulate water flows and (2) the possibility of measuring water flows. The

British, however, were interested in a discharge structure, which could deliver a known, fixed flow to a known area

without the need for regular adjustment. They called this structure a ‘‘module’’.

The irrigation systems on the subcontinent were large, with long canals and many outlets. ‘‘On an extensive canal

system the irrigation officer has to arrange for delivering a certain volume of water at a point which may be more

than 200 miles away from the source of supply’ (MacKenzie, 1910). With British colonial rule relying on market

forces rather than governmental planning, operation of the large irrigation systems had to be simple, run by as few

people as possible and cheap. What the British were looking for was an irrigation system that would function

without active management. The (non-modular) existing division structures (mainly gated pipes) were considered

inadequate. Adapting water gifts to changing demands in order to increase harvests was not desired; providing

water to the land in many different situations was. After all, even in a colony, levying taxes without some

guaranteed delivery of water was not done! With artefacts (discharge and/or measurement structures) the desired

water distribution was to be realized.

The functioning of a module is not to measure the quantity of water supplied, but to control it. A module gives a certain

volume of water, and the action of the module keeps that volume constant, whatever may be the fluctuations of water level in

the supply channel–this, of course, within certain limits. It is therefore possible to charge a rate for the module based on the

supply which it discharges, whether the full discharge be utilised or not. The cultivator can lessen the discharge from the

module, or he can shut it off altogether; he cannot increase the discharge (MacKenzie, 1910, emphasis in original).


DOI: 10.1002/ird


This general idea for a module was translated differently in different local contexts in the immense Indian colony.

In the Bombay Agency, British engineers developed artefacts discharging a constant volume independent of

changes in canal flow (Bolding et al., 1995); in the Punjab they developed an artefact delivering a fixed proportion

of the canal flow (Van Halsema, 2002). In 1922 Crump introduced two new outlets in the Punjab: the open flume

and the adjustable proportional module (APM), basically similar structures consisting of a narrow throat with a

sloping sill. The APM has a rounded roof-block on top of the throat to create an orifice. Crump took into account the

Figure 3. Crump and Crump-De Gruyter structures (lower figure from Nippen Koei, 1986)


DOI: 10.1002/ird

6 M. W. ERTSEN

issues of fluctuations in supply levels (intrinsic to run of the river systems) and the gradual rise and fall of water

levels due to silting or scouring of canal beds (Van Halsema, 2002). Both issues required a device that functioned

relatively independent of water levels.

By placing the APM and Open Flume outlets at an exact hydraulically specified depth, the allocated discharge can be cast in

bricks for each outlet by setting the width and height according to the stage–discharge relationship. Once thus built, a

‘‘Crump canal’’ would be self-acting in its water distribution between flow fluctuations of 70 to 120 percent of full supply (or

design) discharge. Within this range, the Open Flumes deliver (when installed correctly) the exact proportion of their design

discharge as on which the distributary is operated, while the APM function proportionally for small fluctuations around full

supply, while delivering closer to design discharge under larger fluctuations (Van Halsema, 2002).

In 1944, open flume and APM outlets covered 67% of all outlets in the Punjab (Van Halsema, 2002);

the simple and robust devices could be constructed at relatively low cost and required a minimal hydraulic

head.

This last property made them highly suitable in the flat areas of Punjab and Sindh and may have been a reason

why De Gruyter selected the Crump APM; engineering systems on Java were mainly located in the flat coastal

plains. De Gruyter was one of the actors in the Javanese debate on water distribution and ways to achieve it. Around

1900 the contours of a highly centralized water management system with engineers in key positions materialized.

Although the position of the engineers was contested throughout the colonial period, their position in water

management was strong. It was within the group of engineers that water distribution structures were selected. The

engineers looked for an adjustable structure combining the two main functions of measurement and discharge

control with a small head loss. This ‘‘quest for the perfect discharge measurement structure’’ has not been an

organized research programme, with well-set goals and a fixed budget, but rather a gradual evolution of individual

attempts, discussed in engineering periodicals and other publications. The performance of a structure had to be

shown in irrigation practice. Before the 1930s, engineers did not agree on what structure performed best in the

Netherlands East Indies. Basically, engineers proposed and designed their own structures, although Cipoletti

measuring weirs were widely used. Engineering handbooks described the main works, like intakes and larger

canals, but rarely the smaller (division) structures. In the late 1920s and early 1930s specific (hydraulic) research

became an instrument for standardization of irrigation structures. Finally, in the 1930s, the engineer Romijn

proposed an adjustable, broad-crested weir, which still bears his name today. As discussed elsewhere, the

foundation on which structures like the Romijn or Crump-de Gruyter could be developed in the Netherlands East

Indies was already laid in the early decades of colonial rule. It was not until the period from 1885 and 1900 that the

founding ideas were translated into the contours of a water management policy; these contours have been developed

and specified ever since.

Irrigation management on Java typically differed between the dry East Monsoon and the wet West Monsoon,

although the tasks to be performed were comparable (including discharge measurements in supply and drainage

canals, rainfall measurements, experiments on water use, determining water losses in canals, etc.). As to the

irrigation infrastructure, regulating, operating and guarding irrigation and drainage works as well as canals had to

be carried out. Occasionally management of rivers and embankments was needed; in some areas even shipping

business was looked after, as long as it affected irrigation and drainage. A remaining task was conducting research

on waterworks to be constructed for irrigation and drainage, both for government systems and private actors. In my

view, the coexistence of peasant crops (rice and in the East Monsoon the non-irrigated crops known as polowidjo)

and the commercial sugar cane crop in the Javanese irrigated areas has been a guiding principle in Dutch colonial

water management. Sugar cane was an important irrigated crop since the Cultivation System (the policy in the

mid-nineteenth century which required that a portion of agricultural production in the former Netherlands East

Indies must be devoted to export goods). Sugar estates were the sugar producers in the East Indies. The estates did

not own the land on which the sugar cane needed to produce sugar grew, but they rented the land for a period of three

years from the peasant owner. Normally, rice was grown on these lands in the West Monsoon. As sugar factories

leased/rented new land every year, each year different sawahs (irrigated rice fields) were planted with sugar cane.

Rice and sugar canewere irrigated, but not with the same rhythm; rice needed irrigation water in theWestMonsoon,

whereas sugar cane had its highest irrigation water demand in the East Monsoon. Details on water distribution

patterns differed in each system, but what matters is that (1) in general the irrigation infrastructure on Java had to


DOI: 10.1002/ird


irrigate both sugar cane and rice; and (2) the relative amount and location of sawahs planted with these crops

changed over the years. Water was distributed to rice and sugar cane at separate times, but through the same canal

system. Apparently, the custom to allow sugar cane to be irrigated during the day in the East Monsoon, which meant

that peasant crops had to be irrigated at night (or from late afternoon onwards), originates from the Cultivation

System. Water distributed for sugar cane was measured just before the water entered the field(s) with movable

measuring weirs. This general description already reveals the two pillars of East Indian water management: (1)

water measurement (although in the beginning only for sugar cane) and (2) the need to adjust water distribution

over the years. In summary, the main difference between Dutch and British approaches regarding discharge

structures in irrigation is found in adjustability (Table I). Table II gives those management features relevant to

understanding the differences between the Netherlands East Indies and British India. In the next section a more

detailed account of what happened in the East Indies is developed.

DISCHARGE MEASUREMENT IN THE FORMER NETHERLANDS EAST INDIES

Shortly after he had proposed it, De Gruyter was given the opportunity to experiment with the new structure in the

Irrigation Department in Tjimanoek. He provided an extensive description of the structure, especially of its hydraulic

behaviour; the experiments had shown De Gruyter that the structure was even better than he had thought before!

Nevertheless, the apple of his eyewas never considered as the breakthrough for colonial irrigation on Java by his peers

in civil engineering. It is very likely that the way the structure was introduced in the debate influenced its success. De

Gruyter proposed a structure based on theoretical considerations and not on results from irrigation practice on Java.

This ‘‘experimental status’’ was hard to overcome in the practice-oriented network of civil irrigation engineers, as De

Gruyter himself acknowledges: ‘‘The writer fully acknowledges the need, before importing new constructions, in

general not to make changes, not to ban the old before the new has sufficiently proven in practice to possess greater

Table I. Requirements for structures (Bolding et al., 1995; Van Maanen, 1931)

Netherlands East Indies British India

(Adjustable) It must be possible to divide differentcanals and still maintain accuracy.

The module must provide a constant (proportion of the)discharge under varying upstream and downstreamwater levels (different ‘‘heads’’).

The established division must not be changeable byunauthorized persons.

The module must be so designed that it cannot easily betampered with.

Changes in canal flows must result in as few changesas possible in the set division between the canals, in orderto minimize gate changes.

‘‘[C]lockwork and similar complications must be regardedas out of the question.’’

All flows ranging needed–from smallest to highest–mustbe measurable with sufficient accuracy.

The module will have to work with a very small and oftenhardly appreciable head.

Table II. The ‘‘quest’’ for the perfect structure in the two Indies

Netherlands East Indies British India

Maximizing value per unit of landSeparate water allocation of sugar and rice

Guidingprinciples

Maximizing value per unit of waterWater allocation to land, regardless of crops

Centralized and daily control by colonial officialsAdjustability and measurement

Designrequirements

Central, but distant control by colonial officialsModularity with highly variable canal flows

Small allowable head lossHead loss the most important imperfection Imperfections Modularity the most important imperfectionThe Romijn discharge measurement structure:small head loss and large modular limit

Artefacts Crump open flume and APM in the PunjabSemi-modules and pipe-outlets remain standard inother areas


DOI: 10.1002/ird

8 M. W. ERTSEN

advantages than the old’’ (De Gruyter, 1926/1927). However, he adds somewhat disappointedly that ‘‘[n]evertheless

one should still give the new a chance and this can only be achieved by constructing it’’ (De Gruyter, 1926).

Unfortunately for him, the introduction of the Venturimeter, which was the first breakthrough in terms of

standardization of discharge measurement structures in the Netherlands East Indies, prevented his proposal from

gaining support. Begemann introduced the Venturi structure in the East Indies in the Penewon area (Brantas region) in

1923 (Figure 4) (VanMaanen, 1931; Begemann, 1924). The Venturis became quite popular on Java, as they combined

discharge and measurement in one structure. Furthermore, a Venturi structure was accurate and required only a small

head loss. From the second half of the 1920s onward, Venturi structures appear to have become a popular discharge

measurement structure in new irrigation systems, sometimes in existing schemes as well. Furthermore, Venturi

structures gradually replaced existing structures.

The popularity of the Venturi did not mean that experiments stopped. AVenturi structure had two major drawbacks

directly related to Javanese irrigation circumstances. First, it had a relatively small measuring range: the structure could

only measure a relatively small range of flows accurately. The engineer Verweij was less diplomatic: ‘‘For smaller

discharges readings become completely unreliable.’’1 The small measuring range was a problem on Java, with its large

differences in water flows and requirements between East andWest Monsoons. For Venturis, the range was even more

problematic as readings were in millimetres (instead of centimetres for other devices). This caused an increase of ‘‘the

unavoidable casual reading error for decreasing discharges in a more pronounced way [. . .] than for Cipoletti

measuring weirs [. . .].’’2 To overcome the small measuring range, the option of constructing two small Venturis next to

each other instead of one bigger one was discussed. This provided an option of closing one of the structures when low

discharges were passing (Verwoerd, 1930). This brought satisfactory results, but it also made the structure more

expensive. The second disadvantage received more attention: a Venturimeter is not a modular structure; the water flow

through the structure depends on the tail (or downstream) water level. In other words, activities below the structure are

of importance. ‘‘Once the sluice has been set at a certain discharge, an interested party can enlarge the passing discharge

considerably by lowering the level in the tertiary canal’’ (Van Maanen, 1931).

This potential influence of interested persons (farmers and sugar factories) was not acceptable. Vlugter proposed

application of a metal flap with its rotating point close to the bottom of the canal at the tail of the Venturi.

Figure 4. Venturi structure (Van Maanen, 1931)


DOI: 10.1002/ird


Experiments in controlled laboratory circumstances showed that constructing the flap did improve the modularity

of the structure, as long as ‘one does not give the concept modularity too narrow a meaning’ (Van Maanen, 1931,

emphasis in original; the same quote is found in Verwoerd, 1930, without emphasis). The flap was moved with a

chain: ‘‘A chain is deliberately applied instead of a cable, because there is grounded fear that the malevolent desa

inhabitant would cut the cable thread by thread, for which a chain gives no opportunity.’’3 The construction had

been applied for smaller Venturis, as water loads on the chain would probably become too high for bigger ones.

Other disadvantages included high maintenance requirements (with a rotating point under water) and the possibility

of the Javanese farmers manipulating the flap with the chain.4 These reasons must have been sufficient for the

Director of Public Works in those days to consider the improved Venturi not suitable (Van Maanen, 1931;

Verwoerd, 1930). Another potential improvement of the Venturi, however, was better received. Verwoerd proposed

to fit the Venturi with an overflow gate at the downstream side (Figure 5) (Verwoerd, 1930). The gate consisted of

two parts: a lower part (a flat gate) that could be opened to flush sediments, and an upper part (which included a

Figure 5. The overflow weir attached to the Venturi (Romijn, 1938, p. 19)


DOI: 10.1002/ird

10 M. W. ERTSEN

broad-crested weir) that was used to regulate the flow. A measuring report from 19315 was too early to include

measurement results of the gate, but it already included a clear perspective on the applicability of the structure:

‘‘The curious thing is, however, that applying overflow gates makes the complete Venturi meter obsolete, as one can

measure with these overflow gates at the same time [. . .].’’6 Applying just the weir promised to give a better

measuring range with a lower head loss! A handwritten comment7 already points to the successful tests which

Romijn would present in the Dutch journal Waterstaatsingenieur in 1932. The same comment concludes

enthusiastically that ‘‘[t]his measuring device promises much success, because it is simple, cheap and sufficiently

accurate!’’8

In 1932, Romijn presented the results of a series of tests with the overflow structure proposed by Verwoerd

(Romijn, 1932). Romijn had adapted the Verwoerd gate slightly, but did not mention or refer to Verwoerd directly.

The biggest advantage of the new gate was that only one variable had to be determined: the water level above the

crest of the weir H (strictly speaking, H represents the energy level). Furthermore, using the structure daily was a

relatively easy task. It was just a matter of moving the top gate with the weir attached to it up or down. Romijn

considered the structure as the appropriate answer for technical irrigation systems and he is not alone. The structure

was generally considered as the answer to the most important design demands for a new structure (see for example

Hens, 1934) because it could discharge and measure water, had a small head loss and a good sensitivity, it was

relatively easy to construct and easy to manage. An added advantage was that even in situations in which upstream

and downstream water levels are almost equal (drowned situation) the structure functioned quite well. In practice

this means that downstream effects on water levels hardly influence the structure’s discharge, which makes it

semi-modular. In irrigation systems of the late 1930s, Romijn weirs were the standard division structure. The

Romijn weir has become one of the symbols of Dutch irrigation technology under the name of its researcher

Romijn; its proposer Verwoerd is forgotten. It fitted perfectly within the broader goals set earlier and it also

performed convincingly in practice: ‘The sluices always perform well’ (Steneker, 1935).

COLONIAL IRRIGATION IN AFRICA

At the time that British and Dutch engineers were already working full speed ahead in developing irrigation in their

Asian territories, colonial Africa was still relatively untouched by irrigation engineers. At the Berlin Conference in

November 1884, colonial powers like France, Great Britain and Germany first met to settle their spheres of

influence in Africa. After territorial disputes were settled, the British colonial power created one of its most famous

irrigation efforts in the Sudan: the immense Gezira Scheme, nowadays covering an area of some 2.1 million feddans

(one feddan¼ 0.42 ha) fed principally by gravity irrigation. Gezira is an Arabic word, meaning ‘‘island’’ or

‘‘peninsula’’. It is not just used in the Sudan, but in this region, and probably in most of the world nowadays, the

Gezira refers to one thing only: the vast triangle of land south of Khartoum between the Blue and White Nile. The

Gezira Irrigation Scheme has become a kind of legend. Following his visit to the Gezira in 1946, SayedMohammed

Afzal, Director of Research of the Pakistan Central Committee, remarked:

The Gezira Scheme is one of those outstanding experiments on socio-economic problems of the current century and its

success is so great that it deserves to go down in history as a great romance of creative achievement. . . The rich fields and thesmiling faces of the workers on the land, who were till recently nomads of the deserts, going back and forth eking out a

miserable existence from an inhospitable country, are a running commentary on the success of this great experiment, and

anybody who visits the Scheme cannot but be strongly impressed with the success of the experiment (Gezira, 1959).

This ‘‘outstanding experiment’’ is located in one of the flattest areas to be found. ‘‘It would be difficult to imagine

anything flatter than the great Gezira plain, two hundred miles long and eighty miles across’’ (Gaitskell, 1959).

Covering an area of some 5 million feddans sloping gradually from south to north, its most outstanding feature is

‘‘its crushing monotony’’ (Barnett, 1977). The erratic rainfall decreases towards the north and cannot guarantee a

crop year after year. Nevertheless, the plain was once the granary of Khartoum. In good rain years, the cereal crops

in the plain would provide good harvests. In bad years, waterwheels in the river provided water for narrow strips on

the banks.


DOI: 10.1002/ird


However, for all its monotony and even hostility, this land has one remarkable advantage; it is relatively cheap to irrigate.

[. . .] Other properties of the Gezira plain make it admirably suited to the development of gravity irrigation. From the Blue

Nile, the entire area slopes gently downwards towards the north and west. This made the siting of the canal system relatively

easy, the mean slopes varying between 1:5,000 and 1:10,000. Further, a slight ridge runs from Hag ‘Abdalla to Masid along

the eastern edge of the Scheme. The main canal from the dam at Sennar follows the line of this ridge, thus giving good

command over the whole area. (Barnett, 1977)

The intake of the Gezira system at Sennar dam is situated on the Blue Nile, about 260 km south-west of

Khartoum. Main canals convey water continuously day and night. The farmers were expected to handle their water

ration efficiently whenever it came, even at night. The first plan for Gezira irrigation was designed accordingly.

Finally, the Gezira tenants, who ‘‘had already accepted immense changes in daylight farming’’ (Gaitskell, 1959),

were no longer expected to be able or willing to irrigate during the night. Therefore, minor canals were designed for

night storage. British irrigation engineers in India and Egypt had maintained stability of discharge in their canal

systems by keeping the water flowing day and night too. Cutting off water during the night, however, was not an

option in a system the size of the Gezira. Uncontrolled water flows at night were not desirable either.

To meet this human difficulty an ingenious solution was invented by A.D. Butcher, an outstanding engineer in the Egyptian

Irrigation Service. Stability of discharge was maintained in the main and major canals and at the minor canal heads. But in

each reach of the minor canals a simpleweir was built in front of each regulator. A regulator was simply an earth bridge over a

canal with a pipe through it. A door on this pipe controlled the discharge through it. The purpose of a regulator was to hold the

water level high enough in each reach to command all the field outlet-pipes. The number of regulators, and so of reaches, on

any canal would depend on the downward gradient of the canal from contour to contour. During the day the field outlet-pipes

were opened and water taken on the land, leaving the minor canal empty by sunset. During the night the field outlet-pipes

were closed but the constant discharge from the head of the canal continued, quietly filling the first reach and then spilling

over theweir into the second reach and so on, until at dawn the canal was at full supply level, ready for the opening of the field

outlet-pipes again (Gaitskell, 1959).

Disadvantages of this system are the higher costs of construction and maintenance, as silting occurs more easily.

In newer additions, night irrigation is practised (Plusquellec, 1990; Gaitskell, 1959).

In the early Gezira system, balancing one field outlet against another was essential to maintain stable discharges

in the canal system. Without a strict timetable the immense volume of water discharged into the main canal could

not be evenly distributed over the whole network of canals. Therefore a detailed water distribution schedule

including crop rotation was designed (Figure 6). Cotton was the main crop in the Gezira, but other crops were

cultivated too. Dura was the staple food crop; lubia was grown as animal fodder. From 1925 onward, inhabitants of

the area became tenants of the Syndicate on an annual basis. Agriculture in the system began with a three-step

rotation: cotton, followed by dura and lubia (each taking half of the field) in the next season and then fallow. The

dura and the lubia changed sides at regular intervals to maintain fertility. Grain and fodder were–like

cotton–irrigated free of charge and designated for the tenant’s use; marketing the cotton crop was the responsibility

of the systemmanagement (Holt and Daly, 1988). The irrigated area was divided into blocks, varying in size as their

boundaries reflected the canal system. An average block consisted of 15 000 feddans (about 6000 ha). Each had a

block inspector and two junior field officers, who already had gathered experience at the pilot stations. A group

inspector supervised 6–10 blocks. The field personnel were ‘‘superimposed like the canal system itself on the life of

the Gezira’’ (Gaitskell, 1959), in its authoritarian approach differing considerably from British indirect rule in

India.

FRENCH NORTH AFRICA

Like the British, their French colleagues were actively involved in colonial irrigation matters in Africa. The French

colonizers developed factory-type irrigation schemes both in West Africa (Senegal, but mainly Mali) and northern

Africa (Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria). The French engineers did not reserve flooding technology just for Senegal;

they planned to introduce it in one of their most challenging plans for irrigation: equipping about 1 million ha in the

central Delta of the Niger River in Mali with irrigation facilities. This plan has become known as the Office du


DOI: 10.1002/ird

12 M. W. ERTSEN

Niger, which officially refers only to the French public enterprise created in 1932, which was responsible for

irrigation development and settlement of the population in the area. By 1945, about 20 000 people had ‘‘colonized’’

some 22 000 ha in two different regions of the central Delta of the Niger (De Wilde, 1967). In 1957, the irrigated

area in the Office du Niger comprised 47 259 ha (Schreyger, 1984). By independence in 1960, 54 000 ha had been

developed (Van Beusekom, 1989). That year its administration was turned over to Mali. Even if it did not fulfil its

high expectations, the Office had become an enterprise with a comprehensive jurisdiction extending to commercial

as well as administrative and agricultural questions. Although the irrigation debates and developments in Senegal

and especially the Niger Delta appear to be more impressive than in the French colonies in North Africa, at least in

terms of planned acreages, it was in the northern African territories that the French colonizers developed their

irrigation technique of raised concrete canals put on an area in a fixed grid (Figure 7).

These systems not only reflected colonial control over the population, but also over the landscape. A landscape of

many irregular sized and shaped holdings was transformed into a geometric landscape; redistributing holdings in

regular rectangular parcels shaped the contours of the new irrigation reality in the French colonial territories in the

northern part of Africa, which include the present-day countries of Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia. The area had

been exposed to irrigation for ages. Technologies like spate irrigation, oasis irrigation using waterwheels,

underground reservoirs and terraces are widespread. Morocco’s irrigation history seems to provide the best

documentation. Sources on Algeria and Tunisia suggest that the Moroccan case represents irrigation development

in the region quite well, remarking only that the potential for larger-scale, reservoir-based irrigation was less

Figure 6. Irrigation scheduling in the Gezira Scheme (Gaitskell, 1959)


DOI: 10.1002/ird


prominent in Tunisia than in Morocco (Poncet, 1961). A common issue in the region, precisely because of its long

history of irrigation, was the existing pattern of water rights. Existing rights were unclear for the French

administration, as they were rarely written down or quantitative. The concept of ‘‘turns’’ was generally used

(Swearingen, 1984), but written proof of water rights was non-existent and water shares were adapted each year.

Colonial administration could not function well under these circumstances. In 1914 the French colonial

government decreed that surface waters were public domain and in 1919 groundwater and marshlands were

included. The gradual move to state control was further strengthened in 1925 when irrigation development was

officially declared to be a state-led initiative and private initiative was forbidden (Swearingen, 1984).

One main issue influencing the development of irrigation in the twentieth century was based on who the target

group for irrigation should be: French or native settlers? In the first three decades of the twentieth century, French

irrigation policy aimed at stimulating French settlement in new irrigation systems. If an area was suited for

irrigation, and the native population was small in number, the population would have to make room for the new

colonists. In an area with many natives, irrigation facilities would not be developed at all. The (political) shift came

Figure 7. Concrete irrigation canals (Boelee, 2000, pp. 38–39)


DOI: 10.1002/ird

14 M. W. ERTSEN

in the 1930s, due to a growing population, droughts and a more nationalistic colonial government (Swearingen,

1984). Irrigation for native farmers became an important instrument in French colonial policy in the region.

Disputes over which groups and sectors should be supported by irrigation and which department should lead the

irrigation programme (Agriculture or Public Works), caused a delay in actual construction of irrigation schemes

(Swearingen, 1984). In Tunisia, a special service within the Public Works department did realize two pumping

centres using water from the Medjerda River (Poncet, 1961). Other projects, however, notably for larger weirs,

failed because of technical problems (Swearingen, 1984). With the governmental decree of 1925, the development

process accelerated. The background of the 1925 decreewas the perceived growing necessity to colonize new lands.

The most readily available water and land resources were already taken; new land was needed for settlers from the

region itself. The new governor in Morocco advocated settlement and put less emphasis on exploitation. In 1927, a

central fund to finance irrigation was founded with a starting loan from the French government (Swearingen, 1984).

Around 1930, ‘‘la politique des grands barrages’’ was formulated, Morocco’s–and indeed North Africa’s–first

irrigation development program (Swearingen, 1984, Marie, 1984). Another crucial decision by the colonial

government was to focus on developing high-value crops like fruits (citrus) and vegetables. After Rome, ‘‘EI

Dorado’’ and Egypt, the rapidly developing irrigated agriculture of California in the USA served as the final

development model (Swearingen, 1984). The idea to work on a master plan for Morocco’s waters was inspired by

the California model (Swearingen, 1984). Tunisia and Algeria sent delegations and invited experts from California.

By the mid 1930s, colonial French agriculture based on irrigating citrus fruit and vegetables had been established in

North Africa. In 1938, a comprehensive irrigation plan for Morocco was defined (Swearingen, 1984) in an attempt

to respond to a number of issues like drought, the rise of a national movement and a growing population. An

irrigated area of 1 million ha was proposed; implementing the plan would last until the year 2000! A new Irrigation

Office was to execute the plans, but between 1939 and 1956 (Morocco’s independence) only a few of he many plans

were realized.

Having a vision is one thing, but creating irrigation systems within that vision is something else. Both

Swearingen (1984) and Prefol (1986) discuss the Beni Amir irrigation scheme, one of the most important colonial

irrigation schemes for the native population. The scheme was the major test area for the French. The Kasbah Tadla

dam, with a potential to feed a system of 45 000 ha, and the main canal were constructed in 1930. The combination

of new technology from California, a colonial policy strongly focusing on control and a striving for efficient new

irrigation schemes resulted in a highly regular irrigation landscape, consisting of a series of long strips planted with

different crops (about 80m wide and 1000–1500m in length). The strips were perpendicular to secondary and

parallel to tertiary canals. A process called remembrement (‘‘land consolidation’’) (Swearingen, 1984) transformed

the pattern of small, dispersed holdings of irregular size and shape, created by population pressure and inheritance,

into a geometric landscape. Expropriating existing holdings and redistributing these in rectangular parcels shaped

the contours of the new canal network. The procedure had been introduced by Tallec in 1935 in the Oulad Ziane

experiment at Kasbah Tadla and was extended to the Beni Amir irrigation perimeter in 1937 (Swearingen, 1984).

Consolidation was an important instrument for the French to reach their goal ‘‘to make an occasional farmer an

‘intensive farmer’ ’’ (Prefol, 1986).

It was a vision of a ‘‘rationalized’’ landscape composed of the lush, rearranged, privately owned parcels of peasant small

farmers–semi-nomads rooted to the soil through water development–who would grow crops required by the state according

to a rigid, predetermined production plan and adhering to strict rotation schedules. These settled people would be given total

supervision and assistance by the government, but they would be fully charged for water and aid to ensure the economic

viability of the development scheme (Swearingen, 1984).

Within a highly regulated irrigation landscape, water delivery to the field cannot but be regulated too. The

earthen/dirt canals of the 1930s did not perform according to standards: water losses were considered too high,

flows were occasionally blocked and canals were long in relation to the irrigated area (Prefol, 1986). Although

attempts were made to modify the canal system, the real breakthrough (from the engineering point of view) came

after the Second World War. In that period of renewed modernization in Morocco, Algeria and Tunisia, the Beni

Amir system included approximately 18 000 ha served by earthen canals. In 1947, 1600 ha were irrigated through a

type of canal that made French irrigation engineering famous: concrete, semicircular raised canals. This area

increased to 2800 ha in 1949 (Prefol, 1986). The availability of prefabricated, reinforced concrete elements with a


DOI: 10.1002/ird


length of 6.80m and a 30–185 cm diameter (Prefol, 1986) enabled French engineers to restructure the landscape

completely. The canal system became virtually independent of available slopes and landscapes, as the canal

supports could be adjusted in height to arrive at the optimal slope and layout. Prefol, a former irrigation engineer

who worked in Morocco, describes the French irrigation model in North Africa as follows: ‘‘It represents the ideal

network, perfectly rational, like a fish-bone; it is the dream of every hydraulic engineer in charge of developing an

irrigation system’’ (Prefol, 1986). Table III gives a summary of the main features of the French irrigation regime.

In 1956, when Morocco gained independence, the country possessed about 36 000 ha with modern perennial

irrigation (Swearingen, 1984), with a potential area served by existing dams of 250 000 ha. The National Irrigation

Office, successor of the Irrigation Office, adapted the system of remembrement in 1964. Nevertheless.

[p]olitically and economically, what is most conspicuous in Morocco today is continuity with the colonial period.

Present-day agricultural development is essentially the implementation of French colonial policies. The colonial ‘‘million

hectare’’ vision is today being fulfilled. [. . .] Since independence, two dozen new dams have been constructed, and the

perennially irrigated area has increased from roughly 36,000 hectares in 1956, to over 500,000 hectares in 1980. However,

nearly all the present dam and irrigation projects were originally drafted by protectorate technicians. In addition, nearly all

the elements of the present agricultural development formula were pioneered during the protectorate period. (Swearingen,

1984)

LESSONS TO BE LEARNED?

I have provided the historical background on the existence of different schools of thought with regional

backgrounds, a phenomenon which is recognized within irrigation engineering circles. In general, a number of

reasons can be put forward as to why historical research on irrigation science and engineering would be relevant.

Problems in irrigation development in former times appear to have been comparable with present issues. ‘‘History

does not repeat itself in detail, but drawing analogies between past and present allows us to see similarities. For this

reason, generals study military history, diplomats the history of foreign affairs, and politicians recall past

campaigns. As creatures in a human-built world, we should better understand its evolution’’ (Hughes, 2004).

Present-day problems have historical roots, as earlier decisions cast their shadows over the present. ‘‘[. . .]knowledge of the past is necessary to understand the fundamental structures of, and the background to, established

patterns of water use. Knowledge of how the past weighs on the present is a precondition for escaping the power of

history’’ (Tvedt, 2004). The historical perspective may help us think more creatively about these issues, even if it is

not immediately clear to what extent creative thinking will take us from merely understanding present designs to

actually changing them. Finally, historical work could provide good case studies for some of the theoretical

concerns within the social sciences. Cases can be studied from beginning to end, which is different from studying

present-day cases which are still in the making. In the colonial period several irrigation approaches were

simultaneously developing in different colonial regions. Colonies may therefore offer useful contexts for

comparative research on technological development.

Table III. The French irrigation regime

Guiding principles Irrigation development for intensive agriculture (with high-value crops like vegetables) for settlersMaximizing value per unit of crop

Design requirements Central water controlImperfections Unclear water rights

Water losses and blocked flows in earthen canalsLength of canals related to irrigated area

Artefacts Concrete, semicircular canal systems independent from topographyStandard grid of irrigation and drainage canals and fields (remembrement)


DOI: 10.1002/ird

16 M. W. ERTSEN

What can be learned from the material discussed in this contribution? First of all, it has become clear that the

artefacts available to engineers, for example the discharge measurement structures, are not neutral (I have shown

elsewhere that this statement is generally valid for irrigation engineering design tools (Ertsen, 2006b)). The

design approaches and tools are deliberate attempts to fulfil certain goals. The fact that they are still applied

suggests that some of the attempts were successful, but that has been the result of a contextualized development

and selection process. The development of colonial irrigation, whether in the Netherlands East Indies, India,

North Africa or Sudan, coincides with a change in colonial policy from mere exploitation to a policy of

productive imperialism, in which the colonies’ productive capacities should be improved. For the Gezira and

Office du Niger systems stimulating production for the international market (particularly cotton) was one key

target. In the Netherlands East Indies, supporting the growth of sugar cane was one reason for the colonial

government to develop irrigation facilities; supporting and stimulating the population’s food crop rice was

another. The desire to develop the colonies (and by extension the mother countries) through irrigation can be

perceived as goals shared by all European colonial powers. The guiding principles for irrigation development,

however, seem to differ between different colonial areas. I have argued elsewhere that African colonial irrigation

systems appear to have many characteristics of an imposed production regime (factory-like, as proposed by

Diemer, 1990) (Ertsen, 2006a): farmers were settlers and tenants, definitely not landowners. They were expected

(or forced) to cultivate exactly what the colonial management decided and use their methods. The factory

resemblance is also reflected in the mathematical layout of systems with straight canals and square plots.

Although Netherlands East Indies colonial irrigation also applied several rather strict management principles and

systems, irrigation management was mostly restricted to water management and did not attempt to manage the

whole production process as in the colonial irrigation systems in Africa. Indian farmers in general were

landowners and not tenants of the irrigation agency. However, even in the African territories a quote from British

India is relevant, as ‘‘the degree of control exercised by the central irrigation authorities, and their manipulative

powers with respect to agricultural improvement, were effectively very limited. This has to do with the technical

aspects of the canal schemes and the broader administrative framework in which they operated’’ (Stone, 1984, p.

8). Although the French probably developed the most factory-like irrigation technology with its concrete,

standardized canals in North Africa, even they had considerable trouble before the local farmers adapted to

French colonial efforts.

The idea that artefacts have a design history, and thus cannot be regarded as neutral objects, does not imply that

artefacts from one context cannot be applied in another. The case starting this article shows that designs from other

areas can be a welcome solution for a design problem in another context. This contribution has made clear,

however, that there is indeed a relation between politics and design; next to artefacts and systems useful for the

fulfilment of needs, engineers (designers) bring along a new societal reality. Engineers change society with their

designs, sometimes not deliberately, but often on purpose. The Dutch irrigation engineers in the Netherlands East

Indies knew that they were changing society and intended to do so. On the other hand, daily engineering practice is

not always guided by political considerations. It is probably much more influenced than we usually recognize (or

like) by what engineering predecessors defined as ‘‘good practice’’ and not by societal debates. A regime

conceptualization emphasizes the importance of daily practice and routines as structuring factors in technological

development. Recognizing this would include recognizing the need to clarify relations between irrigation

engineering practices, societal discourse on irrigation development and irrigation designs.

Even if political and social factors play key roles, they are indeed intertwined with technological determinations. Despite

what its name suggests, the so-called ‘‘Social Construction of Technology’’ has shown that, while technology is socially

constructed, technological organizations and objects often shape society and sociability. What may appear as purely political

and social factors is often linked to technological determinations (Picon, 2004; cf. Bijker, 1995).

I hope that I have contributed to the acknowledgement within engineering circles that a concept like a

‘technological regime’ helps us to understand engineering design practice. As in other networks of interaction,

irrigation engineering communities show a degree of relative stability, which both guides and restricts engineers in

their actions. Recognizing stability may not immediately lead to improvements in irrigation system design, but I

would say that understanding processes which bring about designs, including influences on decisions, is a necessary

first step to take to improve such designs in the first place.


DOI: 10.1002/ird


NOTES

1. National Archives Collection Haringhuizen-Schoemaker (nr. 2.22.07); Inventaris van een verzameling stukken

betreffende openbare werken in Nederlands-Indie en Suriname afkomstig van het Instituut voor Water-

bouwkunde in Delft over de jaren 1872–1970 (verzameling Haringhuizen – Schoemaker). Inventory Number

53 Dossier XLVIII. Dossier Venturimeters. 1926–1931. (Verwey Bezwaren tegen de Venturimeter) (in Dutch).

2. NA’2.22.07 Invnr 53 (Verwey) (in Dutch).

3. NA’2.22.07 Invnr 53 (Meetinrichtingen in de Irrigatie-afdeling Pemali-Tjomal; 6) (in Dutch).

4. NA’2.22.07 Invnr 53 (Meetinrichtingen) (in Dutch).

5. NA’2.22.07 Invnr 53 (Romijn, 1931 Verslag 1931 over de ervaring, opgedaan bij de exploitatie van meet-

inrichtingen in de Sectie Demak der Provinciale Irrigatieafdeeling ‘‘Serang’’) (in Dutch).

6. NA’2.22.07 Invnr 53 (Romijn, 1931; 14/15) (in Dutch).

7. NA’2.22.07 Invnr 53 in Romijn (1931) (in Dutch).

8. NA’2.22.07 Invnr 53 (Handwritten comment in Romijn, 1931; opposite 15) (in Dutch).

REFERENCES

Barnett T. 1977. The Gezira Scheme. An Illusion of Development. Cass: London and Cambridge.

Beauchez AJ. 1921. Automatische stuwkleppen (in Dutch). De Waterstaatsingenieur 9(9): 286–289.

Begemann SHA. 1924. Toepassing van Venturimeters voor bevloeiıngsleidingen met gebruik van differentiaal peilschalen (in Dutch).

De Waterstaatsingenieur 12(11): 325–330.

Begemann SHA. 1926. Ontwikkeling automatische stuwkleppen type Doell-Beauchez in de sectie Modjokerto van de Irrigatie-Afdeling

‘‘Brantas’’ (in Dutch). De Waterstaatsingenieur 14(9): 301–310.

Bijker WE. 1995. Of Bicycles, Bakelites, and Bulbs. Towards a Theory of Sociotechnical Change. MIT Press: London and Cambridge.

Bolding A, Mollinga PP, Van Straaten K. 1995. Modules for modernisation: colonial irrigation in India and the technological dimension of

agrarian change. Journal of Development Studies 31(6): 805–844.

Bos MG (ed.). 1990. Discharge Measurement Structures. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement, Publication 20:

Wageningen.

Brouwer R. 1987. Design and Application of Automatic Check Gate for Tertiary Turnout. In 13th International Congress on Irrigation and

Drainage, International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage: Rabat; 671–683.

Burt CM, Angold R, Lehmkuhl M, Styles S. 2001. Flap gate design for automatic upstream canal water level control. Journal of Irrigation and

Drainage Engineering 127(2): 84–91.

Constant EW II. 1980. The Origins of the Turbojet Revolution. Johns Hopkins University: Baltimore.

Crump ES. 1922. A note. Dated 15th of June 1922, by Mr. E.S. Crump, executive engineer, on the moduling of irrigation channels Typescript.

Dahmen ER. 1997. 40 years land and water development, a personal overview by an irrigation engineer. In Financial Aspects of Water

Management. Van Hofwegen P, Schultz B. (eds). Proceedings of the 3rd Netherlands National ICID Day. A.A. Balkema: Rotterdam; 97–112.

De Gruyter P. 1925. Beschouwingen over aftapsluizen en meetinrichtingen voor bevloeiingswerken (in Dutch). De Waterstaatsingenieur 13(2):

17–37 and 13(3): 53–74.

De Gruyter P. 1926/1927. Een nieuwe aftap- tevens meetsluis en de resultaten van een proef met een dergelijk kunstwerk (in Dutch).

De Waterstaatsingenieur 14(12): 391–408, 15(1): 1–15, and 15(2): 25–34.

De Wilde JC. 1967. Experiences with Agricultural Development in Tropical Africa. Vol II. The Case Studies. Johns Hopkins Press: Baltimore.

Diemer G. 1990. Irrigatie in Afrika. Boeren en ingenieurs, techniek en kultuur (in Dutch). Thesis Publishers: Amsterdam.

Djuliati Suroyo AM. 1987. Conditions and systems of exploitation. Some preliminary remarks on colonial exploitation systems in Java and India

in the nineteenth century. In India and Indonesia from the 1830s to 1914: The Heyday of Colonial Rule. Comparative History of India and

Indonesia vol. 2. Brill: Leiden.

Ertsen MW. 2006a. Colonial irrigation: myths of emptiness. Landscape Research 31(2): 147–168.

Ertsen MW. 2006b. Aspects of irrigation development in the Netherlands East Indies. Journal for Transdisciplinary Research 2(1): 47–72.

Gaitskell A. 1959. Gezira. A Story of Development in the Sudan. Faber and Faber: London.

Gezira. 1959. The Gezira Scheme from within: A Collection of Articles by Heads of Departments, Khartoum.

Glick TL. 1972. The Old World Background of the Irrigation System of San Antonio, Texas. Texas Western Press: El Paso.

Hens EE. 1934. De aanwijsinrichting van den regelbaren meetoverlaat (in Dutch). De Ingenieur in Nederlands-Indie 1(12 VI): 129–131.

Holt PM, Daly MW. 1988. The History of the Sudan from the Coming of Islam to the Present Day, 3rd edn. Weidenfeld and Nicolson: London.

Horst L. 1996. Irrigation Water Division Technology in Indonesia. A Case of Ambivalent Development. Liquid Gold Paper 2, ILRI Special

Report.

Hughes TP. 2004. Human-Built World: How to Think About Technology and Culture. University of Chicago Press.

MacKenzie NF. 1910. Notes on Irrigation Works. Constable & Company Ltd: London.


DOI: 10.1002/ird

18 M. W. ERTSEN

Mollinga PP. 1998. On the waterfront. Water distribution, technology and agrarian change in a South Indian canal irrigation system. PhD thesis,

Wageningen University.

Nippon Koei. 1996.Way Sekampung Irrigation Project Irrigation Scheme. Design Report on Bekri and West Rumbia Irrigation Systems. Vol. I

Main Report.

Picon A. 2004. Engineers and engineering history: problems and perspectives. History and Technology 20(4): 421–436.

Plusquellec H. 1990. The Gezira Irrigation Scheme in Sudan. Objectives, Design, and Performance, World Bank Technical Paper No. 120.

Plusquellec H, Burt C, Wolter W. 1994. Modern Water Control in Irrigation. Concepts, Issues, and Applications, World Bank Technical Paper

246, Irrigation and Drainage Series.

Poncet J. 1961. La colonization et l’agriculture europeennes en Tunisie depuis 1881. Paris.

Prefol P. 1986. Prodige de l’irrigation au Maroc. Le developpement exemplaire du TADLA 1936–1985. Nouvelle Editions Latines: Paris.

Romijn DG. 1932. Een regelbare meetoverlaat als tertiaire aftapsluis (in Dutch). De Waterstaatsingenieur 209.

Romijn DG. 1938. Meetsluizen ten behoeve van irrigatiewerken. Handleiding voor het ontwerpen en exploiteeren, ten dienste van practici en

studeerenden (in Dutch).

Schreyger E. 1984. L’Office du Niger au Mali 1931 a 1982. La problematique d’une grande enterprise agricole dans la zone du Sahe. Steiner:

Wiesbaden.

Steneker P. 1935. Overzicht van met verschillende meetinrichtingen verkregen uitkomsten. De Ingenieur in Nederlands Indie 2(6) VI. 83–85.

Stone I. 1984. Canal Irrigation in British India: Perspectives on Technological Change in a Peasant Economy. Cambridge University Press.

Swearingen WD. 1984. In search of the granary of Rome: irrigation and agricultural development in Morocco, 1912–1982 Dissertation

University of Texas, Austin, Texas, USA.

Tvedt T. 2004. The River Nile in the Age of the British. Political Ecology and the Quest for Economic Power. I.B. Taurus: London.

Van Beusekom MM. 1989. Colonial rural development: French policy and African response at the Office du Niger, Soudan Francais (Mali),

1920–1960 PhD thesis, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore.

Van de Poel I. 2003. The transformation of technological regimes. Research Policy 32: 49–68.

Van Halsema GE. 2002. Trial and re-trial; the evolution of irrigation modernization in NWFP, Pakistan Dissertation, Wageningen University, the

Netherlands.

Van Maanen ThD. 1931. Irrigatie in Nederlandsch-Indie. Een handleiding bij het ontwerpen van irrigatiewerken ten dienste van studeerenden en

practici (in Dutch) Boekhandel Visser en Co: Batavia (1st edn 1924).

Verwoerd AL. 1930. Ontwerp van een module venturimeterinlaatsluis met groot meetbereik (in Dutch). De Waterstaatsingenieur 184.


DOI: 10.1002/ird


Documents

The development of irrigation design schools or how history structures human action