Entry Instance

HTTP 200 OK
Allow: GET, PUT, PATCH, DELETE, HEAD, OPTIONS
Content-Type: application/json
Vary: Accept

{
    "id": 814991,
    "url": "https://info.mzalendo.com/api/v0.1/hansard/entries/814991/?format=api",
    "text_counter": 136,
    "type": "other",
    "speaker_name": "",
    "speaker_title": "",
    "speaker": null,
    "content": "country are concerned. If we consider diversity of the country, we should also look at diversity as far as agricultural zones of this country are concerned. It means that each county will have different agricultural priorities. Some will want to do irrigation, while others will be interested in afforestation. The ecological diversity of the country dictates what we should be doing. As far as I am concerned, these were some of the diversities that we were looking at when we were giving the powers to counties to promote themselves and foster their own development based on their diversity. Some counties are very good in mining and others are producing petroleum. Those are diversities that we must recognize and irrigation is one of them. Some counties will take irrigation extremely seriously and they must be supported as much in the devolved unit. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, Part II of this Bill talks about the development, management and regulation of irrigation. Under Clause 6(1), the Cabinet Secretary has been given the powers to develop, manage and regulate irrigation. If we are talking of development and management of irrigation, in fact, that is not what a policy maker should be doing. This is execution of irrigation itself. If that is what this Bill is going to give the CS, it means that counties and even farmers will not have the ability to do anything without being regulated at the national Government level by a CS who does not have powers to deal with agriculture, except at the policy level. If this Bill is to pass, we must change it completely. It must rest under the current Constitution which has devolution and leave out what is not under devolution. Otherwise, a lot of functions that had been given to the counties will be returned to the CS at this level. It is not practical for the CS to develop irrigation systems. I agree with those who have said a National Irrigation Authority is already past our Constitution. The Constitution cannot allow that in the current set-up. If agriculture has been devolved, this should be a county irrigation board. Counties that will embrace irrigation must have their own boards that will regulate the water. For example, we cannot regulate the water in River Tana the same way as the water in Kerio Valley. Mr. Deputy Speaker, Sir, this Bill also forgets that irrigation is going on now. As my colleague, Sen. (Prof.) Ongeri has said, drip irrigation is going on. We have a lot of it currently going in flower farms, vegetable farms and farms that grow herbs for export. The Bill does not recognize the fact that it is already going on. We need regulation within the county itself on how to apply irrigation. This is because it is at the county level that we know the usage of our water according to our streams. The source area of the water that is being used by downstream communities does not necessarily come from the same county. It, therefore, demands an inter-county relationship. In Uasin Gishu County, for example, we do irrigation to grow flowers, vegetables and other crops. Our source of water is Elgeyo-Marakwet County. Therefore, there has to be relationship between Uasin Gishu County and Elgeyo-Marakwet County, where most of the waters spring from. Are we saying that the national Government will move around the country to do what it failed to do before devolution came? The failure in the irrigation sector was nothing but the massiveness of the jobs we were doing. If we want efficiency, then we The electronic version of the Senate Hansard Report is for information purposes only. A certified version of this Report can be obtained from the Hansard Editor, Senate."
}