DYNAMICS OF ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCES - A RESOURCE ECONOMICS STUDY OF THE WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM IN KARNATAKA
RESEARCH PROPOSAL
PREAMBLE
The physical and economic access to water resources are crucial in shaping efficiency, equity and sustainability of farming in Karnataka with a meager 22 percent of the net area sown under irrigation. There are eight districts (out of 20) in Karnataka with their net area irrigated above 22 percent and their total net area irrigated (14,98,996 ha) forms 64 percent of the State's total (23,27,193 ha), while the remaining 12 districts have below 22 percent of their net area sown under irrigation (Table 1). Among them, seven districts receive low rainfall and have a large percentage of area irrigated by surface water projects, except Dakshina Kannada district which is naturally endowed with the highest rainfall of 4029 mm. It is crucial to appreciate the differential access to water resources especially in those areas fraught with low rainfall, low surface water and low groundwater irrigation. The districts of Bidar, Gulbarga, Tumkur, Bangalore (Rural), Dharwad, Chitradurga, Kolar and Bangalore (Urban)receive low rainfall and do not have adequate surface water projects with the exception of Gulbarga and to some extent Dharwar and Chitradurga. Here, with the scarcity of surface water resources groundwater exploitation is increasing in leaps and bounds. In Bidar for instance, 94 percent of area irrigated is from groundwater, followed by Bangalore (Urban) (75 percent), Kolar (72 percent), Bangalore (Rural) (65 percent), Tumkur (62 percent) and others.
RATIONALE FOR THE WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Considering the relatively poor access to water resources in dry lands in Karnataka, the average cost of watershed treatment per hectare (Rs. 4000) and the incremental yield increase of 50 percent, the cost of providing major irrigation (Rs. 1 lakh) and the incremental yield increase of 400 percent, the cost is in the ratio of 25:1 while the returns are in the ratio of 8:1, between irrigation and watershed treatment (KNR Sastry, Development of natural resources: A solution to environmental problems, in Anil Agarwal (ed) The Challenge of the Balance, Center for Science and Environment, New Delhi, 1994, p.125). This provides the economic rationale for watershed development program. In addition, undertaking watershed development program in drylands where more than 50 percent of our population eke out their living, itself addresses equity concerns.
WHY IS THE PROGRAM BEING IMPLEMENTED
The rainfed areas support 40 percent of India's population, contribute to 9 percent of GDP, 36 percent of India's agricultural exports, 44 percent of food production, 91 percent of coarse cereals, 80 percent of oil seeds and 65 percent of cotton, (quoted in Arunkumar, YS, 1998, Economic Evaluation of Watershed Development, Unpublished Ph.D thesis, Dept of Agri Economics, UAS, Bangalore). These areas are fraught with problems of erosion, land degradation and loss of productivity, which have serious equity implications as they affect the very subsistence of dry land farmers, where more than 80 percent of precipitation is lost through runoff. This situation is not different for Karnataka. Thus, the watershed development program is implemented for in situ moisture conservation to improve productivity of dry land through judicious use of soil and water, agronomic practices, dry land horticulture, forestry, and other soil and water conservation measures. These result in restoration of ecological balance and improve the socio economic conditions of dry land farmers.
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH
In areas where access to surface water is limited and where access to groundwater is significantly a function of recharge, watershed development programs on dry lands provide rich opportunities for augmenting (ground) water resources. Preliminary studies have indicated that area irrigated from wells has increased after the watershed development program in a few watersheds in Karnataka (Table 2). Considering the groundwater recharge for instance, there have been programs like desiltation of irrigation tanks and construction of percolation tanks being undertaken with State funding. In such programs, largely the farmers who possess irrigation wells in the tank command and who perceive the benefits of tank desiltation, are likely to participate. But in the watershed development program, there is an organic link among (i) different watershed treatments and (ii) different locations in the watershed providing for potential synergies.In this proposal synergy refers to increased access to water resources due to interaction of watershed development treatments undertaken on farm, common and public lands in a sequence.
Unlike the tank desiltation programs mentioned earlier, here the clientele consist of farmers located in the upstream, middlestream and downstream of the watershed, where there are synergies among different treatments and clientele in the watershed. For instance, unless the upstreamers cooperate in soil and water conservation programs and in protection of tree species planted in the upstreams on the common property lands, the downstreamers will not be able to harness the water resources. Hence success of the watershed approach is largely a function of the (i) direct contribution of each of the treatments and the clienteles'willingness to preserve the structures and the (ii) contribution due to interaction of treatments and the clientele. The challenges for research are :
BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF UAS, OUTLINING ITS ACTIVITIES
The University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore is a non-profit public institution established under the UAS Act-22 of 1063 of the Karnataka State Legislature with the mandates of teaching, research and extension activities in the field of agriculture, animal husbandry and allied sciences. UASB is patterned after the Land Grant Colleges of USA acclaimed as an innovation in institutional development for transforming Indian agriculture. It has close working linkages with other institutions (Public and NGOs) in academic endeavors as well as transfer of technology. The UASB has teaching campuses at Bangalore, Mangalore, Shimoga, Mandya, Mudigere, Ponnampet, Chintamani. It follows semester system of education. There are 22 research stations in 12 districts in six agroclimatic zones. The mandate of extension is transfer of technology in association with the State Department of Agriculture. The University has six Extension Education Units along with National Agricultural Extension Project. The State Government provides funds to University under non-plan grants. In addition the University receives funds from ICAR, for development and coordinated research projects. In addition, the University receives grants from GOI, Ford Foundation, University of Scotland, International Soil Reference and Information Center, Karnataka Silk Marketing Board, CADA, Hindustan Levers, Karnataka State Council for Science and Technology, NABARD and so on. The finances received and spent by the University is accounted as per established financial codes and regulations is being regularly audited by the State Accounts Department.
LINKAGES BETWEEN EARLIER FORD FOUNDATION SUPPORTED RESEARCH AND THE PROPOSED RESEARCH
Earlier grant from the Ford Foundation (1994-1998) to the University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore (MG Chandrakanth, B Shivakumaraswamy, MS Shyamasundar, KM Sathisha, G Basavaraj and Sushma Adya, 1998, Equity issues in groundwater development - An institutional analysis of failed irrigation wells in Karnataka (Grant No. 920-0753), Department of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore 65, Final report submitted to The Ford Foundation, New Delhi, March 1998),in the dry agro climatic zones of Karnataka was to study the equity implications of the predicament of cumulative well interference in the hard rock areas of Karnataka. In the study conducted in Eastern Dry Zone, it was found that the effect of cumulative well interference dampened due to improved recharge of groundwater in the irrigation tanks in proximity. The improved recharge was due to desiltation of tanks in proximity. This resulted in reduced cost of groundwater, increased life of irrigation wells. This forms the basis for this proposal to study the synergies responsible for improved access to water resources in dry lands in watersheds. Before a review of the studies in different dry agroclimatic zones of Karnataka, the understanding of the concept of cumulative interference is in order.
CUMULATIVE INTERFERENCE
Cumulative interference among wells refers to the phenomenon where a well fails or goes dry, loses its yield, or requires deepening, because of interactive effects of pumping in neighboring wells or new wells coming in, but not because of low rainfall or technical deficiency in drilling, construction, pump size and so on. As the demand for groundwater is increasing, the number of wells is increasing (at a rate of compound growth rate of 10 percent per year in the Eastern Dry Zone of Karnataka). Since there are no regulations on well drilling and groundwater use, wells are drilled without regard to the degree of recharge and the recommended isolation distance (of 600 feet between two open wells and 850 feet between two borewells). This is resulting in cumulative well interference in general in all areas where intensity of groundwater use in relation to recharge is higher. In the watershed development program, reduction in the predicament of cumulative well interference is a crucial criteria for valuation. The zone wise presentation of results of earlier Ford grant follows:
(i)EASTERN DRY ZONE:
In High Well Interference Villages of Devanahalli taluk, the influence of irrigation tank in
recharging groundwater as reflected in terms of irrigation cost is conspicuous in both water intensive and water saving crops. In Paddy, the irrigation cost in non-tank command is 85 percent of the total cost of cultivation, while that in tank command is around 40 percent. In ragi crop, the irrigation cost is around 73 percent in non tank command area and 48 percent in tank command.
In areas of high well interference which have irrigation tank in proximity and where groundwater recharge due to desiltation is apparent, farmers realized rich benefits from desiltation of
irrigation tank and experienced longer lives of irrigation wells and larger yields of groundwater. Thus, savings in the cost of irrigation to the extent of Rs. 107 per acre inch of groundwater was possible, even with the existence of high well interference. Small farmers could realize a net return of Rs. 3067 per acre of gross area irrigated as an additional income (over and above Rs. 6970) if the village irrigation tank is desilted and aids in groundwater recharge.
Thus, even after internalizing the desiltation cost (per acre of Rs. 6000; per
well of Rs. 4000) and the groundwater irrigation cost (per acre of Rs. 5956; per
well of Rs. 6006), positive net returns (to the extent of Rs. 2650 per acre; Rs.
8031 per well) were still realized.
In Mutur (Kolar district), by silt application, net returns increased by 24 percent in grapes; 17 percent savings was achieved in the cost of cultivation of ragi; 20 percent savings was
achieved in the cost of cultivation of maize. The desiltation of Mutur
irrigation tank, increased the groundwater yield in open wells by 300 gallons
per hour; in bore wells by 350 gallons per hour. The IRR on investment in tank
desiltation varied from 14 to 30 percent, and NPV from Rs. 2 to Rs. 8 lakhs.
CENTRAL DRY ZONE
In Madhugiri taluk, irrigation tanks which facilitated in groundwater recharge reduced the negative externality by Rs. 25,000 per farm of five acres of gross irrigated area. The
economic loss due to cumulative well interference for small farmers in high well
interference villages was Rs. 5814 per acre of gross irrigated area. And it was
found that, this loss could be reduced to an extent of 84 percent (Rs. 918), if
the groundwater recharge were to be facilitated by an irrigation tank in the
vicinity.
SOUTHERN TRANSITIONAL ZONE
In Channagiri taluk, in areas of high well interference, even though groundwater saving technologies(like drip irrigation for perennial crops like arecanut) were not adopted, due
to the influence of irrigation tanks in augmenting groundwater recharge, the net
returns per acre increased by Rs. 20,918. As a consequence of the improved water
saving technology, the drip irrigation farms used (9 acre inches per acre =) 33
percent of groundwater used by flow irrigation farms (27 acre inches per acre)
for arecanut crop. Due to the influence of irrigation tank on groundwater
recharge, the cost of groundwater reduced by Rs. 2091 per acre inch (from Rs.
2509 to Rs. 418).
Another research sponsored by the Ford Foundation (1990-1993) for a historical survey of tank irrigation in Karnataka indicated that restoration of all irrigation tanks which are silted up
is necessary to improve the water table in the wells in the villages, develop
fisheries, and increase agricultural output, with minimum investment. Towards
this endeavor, irrigation panchayats be constituted to work with the guidance of
the Mandal Panchayath. The Mandal panchayath needs to maintain one or two bullock carts and a tractor, with the help of the contribution from irrigators and other villagers. considering the size of the tank(s) [GS Dikshit, GR Kuppuswamy and SK Mohan, 1993, Tank irrigation in Karnataka - A historical survey, Gandhi Sahitya Sangha, Malleshwaram, Bangalore, p.222-234. ]
LINKAGES BETWEEN PREVIOUS FORD SUPPORTED RESEARCH AND THE PROPOSED RESEARCH
In the previous Ford grant, the equity implications of cumulative well interference have been analyzed. Here the sample included the taluks and villages in each of the dry agroclimatic
zones where the number of irrigation wells per million cubic meter of groundwater is the largest, representing the index of cumulative well interference. In this process, the sample taluks and villages were selected without regard to watershed program. In the proposed project, the contribution of watershed program in reducing the predicament of cumulative well interference will receive priority. Here too PRA will be used in the choice of sample areas
within watershed.
SYNERGISTIC RELATIONSHIP AMONG WATERSHED TREATMENTS
The earlier Ford grant helped to assess the value of negative externality due to cumulative well
interference. It was learnt that even with high interference situation, if the
irrigation tank/s in proximity augmented the groundwater recharge, it dampened
the negative externality considerably and farmers realized rich benefits.
However, the study of the role of irrigation tanks in augmenting groundwater
recharge in comparison with the role of watershed development program in
augmenting recharge presents greater opportunities and challenges for research.
However, desiltation of irrigation tanks is one measure to improve groundwater
recharge undertaken independently without any reference to a 'watershed'. In the
watershed program, the number of clients / stakeholders is large and in addition
are located in different locations of the watershed (upstream, downstream). In
watersheds with 80 percent of rainfall lost through runoff, 20 percent of
rainfall is proposed to be captured with the help of ravine reclamation
structures like nala bunds, gully checks, contour bunds, contour tillage and
percolation tanks, where farmers in different locations of watershed capture the
synergies. Especially watershed development will be strong with involvement of
farmers and their commitment, where farmers can be involved right from the
planning stage. This will improve their economic returns and social well being
and serves the purpose of overall watershed development.
WHY DO SYNERGISTIC RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN SURFACE AND GROUNDWATER NEED TO BE VALUED
Watershed development in drylands has the aim of in situ moisture conservation through organic linkages among different locations, different farmers and different types of appropriate
watershed treatments suitable to different agro-climatic conditions. Hence the
synergies among these locations, farmers and treatments are inter alia the key
factors in determining the effectiveness of the watershed program. Valuation of
the contribution of watershed treatments and efforts of the farmers in different
locations singularly and in combination is crucial to appreciate the role of
synergistic relation in watershed program. Thus, the synergistic relations are
of a great relevance in situ moisture conservation in watershed program since
this involves:
Thus, valuation of synergistic relationship is crucial in sustenance of the watershed development program. In this regard, the synergistic relationship between watershed
development treatments and the community institution building activity is also
vital.
CRITERIA FOR VALUATION (variables for successful watershed development program)
Following variables are considered as criteria for valuation:
What class, gender and number of farmers located in upstream, middlestream and downstream have received the different benefits inter alia
WHAT IS THE SYNERGISTIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WATERSHED DEVELOPMENT TREATMENTS
As mentioned above, the effectiveness of watershed programs is a function of the number, quality and appropriateness of watershed treatments undertaken on farm lands, public lands
and common property lands. These activities singularly and in combination determine the nature and magnitude of benefits to different classes of farmers. The interaction of watershed treatments, their sequencing, the cooperation of farmers in maintaining watershed treatments, and the role of the community institution building - like the "Watershed Sangha", "Self Help Groups" for example, are the synergies responsible for determining access
to water resources in the watershed program.
WHAT IS ACCESS TO WATER RESOURCES
Social settlement mapping of watershed farmers and superimposing this on watershed treatment map will provide information on what class, gender and number of farmers can have physical and
economic access to water resources. For instance, it is possible that a marginal
farmer located in the command of a 'nala bund' can have physical access to
groundwater, but may not have economic access, if he/she can't afford to
construct an irrigation well. On the other hand, it is possible that a large
farmer located farther away from 'nala bund' has economic access, but no
physical access to groundwater. Such dynamics of access to water resources by
different groups of farmers will be studied.
WATERSHED PROGRAM IN KARNATAKA
In Karnataka, currently there are 20 watershed development programs with a coverage of 6.5 lakh
hectares, with a cumulative investment of Rs. 5255 million (upto 1996-97), amounting to Rs. 8000 per hectare. From the earlier FORD grant (920-0753) to UASB, we learnt that synergistic relationships between surface and groundwater resources exist which need to be valued in the context of Watershed Development programs in hard rock areas. Capture of synergies is directly proportional to the degree of involvement and perception of farmers regarding the close
relationship between watershed treatments and access to water in a watershed.
This proposal addresses the synergistic relationships between watershed development treatments, the role of community institution building and the distribution of water resources in the watershed development programs. These programs are in vogue in hard rock areas devoid of perennial rivers and with low rainfall. Karnataka has a rich history of peoples' involvement in management of traditional water resources as evident from the traditional institutions of 'Bittu
vatta' / 'Kattu kodige' which meant a 'commitment' on the part of the villagers
to manage the irrigation tank. With the advent of new technologies of water
development, new institutional and neo-classical economic solutions are
desirable to restore the earlier synergy.
Earlier synergy refers to (the recognition of the fact that) access to (ground) water by proper
maintenance of irrigation tanks, including silt fertilization (application of
silt as manure) which improves groundwater recharge in irrigation wells in the
downstream. This practice is fading away in the rainfed dry lands in the plains
due to factors inter alia advent of the fertilizer technology, increase in the
labor wages, sharp decline in draft animals. In addition, the advent of deep
tube well technology has also created confusion in the minds of farmers who tend
to think that deeper groundwater from tube wells is independent of recharge.
Barring a few exceptions, the traditional institution of tank maintenance by
village people has completely declined with decline in 'sense of belongingness'
and the associated problems of 'tragedy of the commons'.
LINKAGES BETWEEN OLD AND NEW INSTITUTIONS
The formation of 'Self Help Group' by a few NGOs is a new institution which basically is a spend thrift group, is being used for watershed management. The availability of consumption
loan, the informal nature of operation and the flexibility offered seem to
attract farmers towards SHGs. The link between old and new institution needs to
be examined in the watershed program framework.
OBJECTIVES OF THIS STUDY
The first Ford grant provided us experience in the resource economics analysis of groundwater
resource in areas fraught with cumulative interference. Having gained this experience, as a sequel, in this proposal, the synergistic relationship among watershed treatments, locations, community institution building and in situ conservation of moisture will be analyzed with the following specific objectives / issues:
METHODOLOGY
The watershed development in Karnataka is broadly undertaken by (i) the State Department of Agriculture, (ii) the Dry Land Development Board, (iii) Maidan Development Board and (iv) the Non Governmental Organizations. There may also be instances of voluntary initiatives
called People Lead Watershed Management (PWSM) efforts. The funding for
watershed development is made by (i) the National Watershed Development Program
in Rainfed Areas (NWDPRA) by the Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India;
(ii) Ministry of Rural Areas and Employment, Govt of India, (iii) World Bank,
and (iv) the State Department of Agriculture. The watershed development programs
undertaken by government and non-governmental organizations will be chosen in
the five dry agroclimatic zones where the bunch of five earlier studies were
undertaken with the first Ford grant. It will be in order to study which type of
watershed will sustain and under what conditions. The watershed development
through the pre-project phase (PPP), concurrent phase (CP) and post
implementation phase (PIP) will be considered.
DYNAMICS AND LINKAGES BETWEEN SWDC, NGOS, PWSM
The State Watershed Development Cell, which developed the watershed technologies for watersheds
located in different agroclimatic conditions offers technical help to
initiatives for watershed development. Usually the SWDC watersheds will be of
larger size when compared with NGO and PWSM initiatives. Obviously the nature
and type of community institutions, cohesiveness and their sustainability
markedly differ between these initiatives.
PRA AND SCHEDULES
PRA techniques willdeveloped and used to understand and map the social settlement and superimpose them over the resource maps to capture different dimensions of equity. In
addition, PRA techniques will be developed to understand the nature of access to
different water resources in the watershed programs. In addition to PRA
techniques, structured schedules will be prepared to assess the relevant
variables mentioned in the "criteria for valuation". After the social
mapping of farmers in the watershed and superimposing this on the map of
watershed treatments, farmers belonging to marginal, small and large categories
with due consideration to gender, will be sampled for conducting interviews using structured schedules and for group interviews.
EXPECTED OUTPUTS OF THE PROJECT
As the proposed project will be attached to the Post graduate Department of Agricultural Economics, the emphasis once again will be on human resource development of the PG students and in the process strengthening of both research and teaching endeavors. At least six post graduate students will be involved in this project who will receive research fellowships for their research and dissertation work. These students will be trained in PRA, in the analysis of equity issues in the access to water resources. It is proposed to bring out at least two working papers every year per student which will be presented in the seminars in the Department where researchers and other stakeholders (like watershed project officials, officials of State Electricity Board, State Groundwater Department, other researchers from ISEC, TNAU) will be invited. In addition, it is proposed to give a series of six talks in the All India Radio in the program exclusively for farmers regarding the results of the project. The results of the study will be presented in one international seminar. In the end, it is proposed to bring out the results in a book form to be presented in the last seminar.
OBJECTIVES AND IMPLICATIONS OF RESEARCH IN TERMS OF IMPROVING WATER RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO WATER FOR DISADVANTAGED GROUPS
In the watershed program, the improved access to water for small and marginal farmers and women farmers due to watershed treatments, will motivate them to participate in maintenance of the watershed treatments, as these will improve their water rights. In addition, wherever there is the predicament of cumulative well interference, the impact of the watershed development program through their committed participation, will help reduce the effect of interference which is crucial for small and marginal farmers who cannot bear the increased cost of extraction of groundwater due to interference.
TEAM LEADER
Dr MG Chandrakanth, Professor & Head, Dept of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, GKVK, Bangalore 56005.
TIME FRAME FOR THE PROGRAM: Three years from the date of sanction
GENDER DIVERSITY TABLE FOR UAS
|
|
Female |
Male |
Total |
|
1. Directors / Governing Body 2. Professional staff 3. Senior Administrative Staff 4. Other supporting staff |
1 67 0 286 |
11 818 16 1085 |
12 885 16 1371 |
Though research opportunities do not distinguish between male and female students in the University, the number of female students pursuing the PG program is small. Efforts will be made to provide adequate opportunities for them in this project.
JUSTIFICATION
Watershed development program has an egalitarian approach as it addresses (i) watersheds in dry land (low rainfall) areas with an intent of in situ moisture conservation (ii) is ecofriendly as vegetative treatments are undertaken and (iii) is cost effective in conservation and utilization of water resources. For instance at present in order to provide surface irrigation for one hectare of land it costs around Rs.80,000, while treatment of one hectare of land in watershed costs around Rs.4,000. Thus the focus on rainfed areas through watershed development in itself addresses equity concerns in Karnataka, where only 20 percent of the area is irrigated.
In addition, in the absence of knit distribution of perennial rivers in Karnataka, watershed development programs launched in low rainfall areas of the State have pervasive positive externalities through in situ moisture conservation and by groundwater recharge benefitting the small and marginal farmers. For instance, the area under water bodies in the watershed has increased by around 20 percent in some of the watersheds after treatment. Peoples' involvement in watershed programs is indispensable for success of watershed program. The dynamics of access to groundwater development in the overall framework of watershed is a 'grey area' as it has not caught the serious attention of researchers. Thus, the measurement and socio economic analysis of the impact of watershed programs on groundwater development is crucial and needs a through investigation.
LINKAGES WITH OTHER INSTITUTIONS:
Department of Agricultural Economics, UAS Bangalore will be the lead institution for this study. The academic collaboration with the following institutions is envisaged:
In addition, within the UAS, Bangalore, and the State Department of Agriculture, Bangalore, it is envisaged to have intensive interaction with different subject matter specialists dealing with watershed development programs.
Table 1: Irrigation by different sources in Karnataka, in the ascending order of the percentage the percentage of net area irrigated to net area sown (1993-94)
|
DISTRICT |
ANNUAL NORMAL RAINFALL IN MM |
NET AREA IRRG BY SURFACE WATER (HA) |
PERCENT |
NET AREA IRRG BY GROUND WATER (BY ALL WELLS (HA) |
PERCENT |
NET TOTAL AREA IRRG (NAI) |
NET AREA IRRG TO NET AREA SOWN (PERCENT) |
|
KODAGU BIDAR CHICKMAGALUR GULBARGA TUMKUR BANGALORE(RURAL) DHARWAD HASSAN CHITRADURGA UTTARA KANNADA KOLAR BANGALORE(URBAN) BIJAPUR MYSORE RAICHUR BELGAUM BELLARY MANDYA DAKSHINA KANNADA SHIMOGA TOTAL MINIMUM MAXIMUM |
2718 847 1925 777 688 817 717 1031 578 2736 744 867 569 769 600 808 639 700 4029 1554 569 4029 |
3714 2097 21781 92260 30957 23566 115571 57346 71108 18635 21501 3602 174667 97856 199778 183045 132480 96350 60757 141756 1548827 2097 199778 |
99.44 6.36 79.23 75.27 37.66 35.26 65.04 82.21 55.24 78.59 27.57 24.83 56.64 73.18 82.46 64.85 74.70 92.67 62.76 91.89 66.55 6.36 99.44 |
21 30892 5711 30308 51245 43275 62125 12408 57607 5076 56485 10906 133691 35871 42482 99217 44870 7619 36049 12508 778366 21 133691 |
0.56 93.64 20.77 24.73 62.34 64.74 34.96 17.79 44.76 21.41 72.43 75.17 43.36 26.82 17.54 35.15 25.30 7.33 37.24 8.11 33.45 0.56 93.64 |
3735 32989 27492 122568 82202 66841 177696 69754 128715 23711 77986 14508 308358 133727 242260 282262 177350 103969 96806 154264 2327193 3735 308358 |
2.53 8.87 9.51 10.2 13.64 15.4 16.15 18.46 20.01 20.23 20.28 21.11 22.81 25.08 25.32 31.05 31.15 41.65 43.58 43.97 21.57 2.53 43.97 |
Note:
Source: Brochure on irrigation statistics in Karnataka, 1980-81 TO 93-94, Directorate of economics and statistics, Govt. of Karnataka, 1995
TABLE 2: Augmented irrigated area due to recharge in irrigation wells due to the watershed program.
|
Watersheds in Karnataka |
District where located |
Area irrigated from wells (ha) |
||
|
|
|
Area irrigated from wells before the Watershed program (hectares) |
Area irrigated from wells after the Watershed program (hectares) |
Percentage increase in groundwater area irrigated |
|
1. Seethanadi 2. Chandakavathe 3. Mugalikatte 4. Hirehalla 5. Tattihalla 6. Doddahalla 7. Asundinala |
Dakshina Kannada Bijapur Chikmagalur Belgaum Uttara Kannada Bidar Dharwar |
316 31 95 225 2 42 177 |
371 35 122 379 14 67 213 |
17 13 28 68 600 60 20 |
Source: KN Ninan, Economic and environmental benefits of watershed based dry land development programs in India, in Anil Agarwal (Ed): The Challenge of the Balance, Center for Science and Environment, New Delhi, 1997, p.114.