The focus of the study is to analyse the dynamics of physical and economic access to water resources in the watershed development programs in Karnataka with particular focus on groundwater. The focus is on access to water resources in the up, middle and down streams considering the property grid and the irrigation wells proximity to water harvesting structures. The physical access to groundwater resource is considered as, the volume of groundwater used per acre of gross irrigated area; or the volume of groundwater used per farm. The economic access to groundwater resource refers to the volume of groundwater extracted per rupee of amortized investment on groundwater irrigation. This amortized investment on irrigation includes the amortized investment on groundwater irrigation plus the amortized investment of watershed development program. The sample of farmers is drawn from the rainfed land watersheds located in the drought prone area of Karnataka. Wherever possible, a sample of ‘control’ farmers has also been analyzed for contrast.
The farmers in the sampled watershed village are chosen after social mapping of (i) the location of different types of wells in the up stream and down stream (both functional and non functional), (ii) well depth, (iii) location of different types of watershed structures, (iv) distance between wells, (v) distance between wells and water harvesting structures, (vi) farm size and (vii) farmers name using the participatory rural appraisal approach. In the first year of study, with this sampling frame, Basavapura micro-watershed from Gauribidanur Taluk in Eastern Dry Agro climatic Zone, Haikal watershed from Chitradurga taluk in Central Dry Agro climatic Zone and sample watersheds from Kollegal taluk in Southern Transitional Zone are being studied.
TITLE OF THE STUDY: Access to water resource for irrigation: Economics of watershed development in a drought prone area of Karnataka.
POST GRADUATE STUDENT INVOLVED:
Bisrat Alemu Mengesha (from Ethiopia)
Head, Planning and Programming Service,
Commission for Sustainable Agriculture and
Environmental Rehabilitation in Amhara Region (CO-SAERAR),
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia, P.O.Box-970
Telephone: 00251 8 202043/202044
email: bisrat767@hotmail.com
Preamble
The contribution of irrigation to growth
in agricultural production in India is 60 per cent. At present, 56 percent of
the area irrigated in India is contributed by groundwater irrigation. About
40 percent of the area irrigated bore wells, 30 percent of the area irrigated
by open wells, 40 percent of the area irrigated by canals and 50 percent of
the area irrigated by irrigation tanks are with marginal and small farmers.
The contribution of irrigation to equity and food security in general is insurmountable
and that of groundwater irrigation in particular is impressive. With the inherent
economic, institutional, and environmental limitations associated with surface
irrigation, groundwater irrigation is emerging as an indispensable resource
motivating private investment. On the flip side of the coin, due to increasing
demand for groundwater, area under cultivation of water intensive crops is increasing
and in some pockets this is leading to cumulative interference of irrigation
wells leading to physical and economic scarcity of groundwater. Expecially,
in areas where access to surface water is limited and where access to groundwater
is significantly a function of recharge, watershed development programs in rainfed
lands are providing opportunities for augmenting (ground) water resources. The
major focus of this study is to analyze the contribution of watershed development
projects in reducing the predicament due to cumulative well interference.
Objectives of the study
- Social mapping of watershed for equity implication of benefit distribution.
- Economic analysis of watershed treatment through groundwater recharge.
- Analysis of physical and economic access to groundwater resources for irrigation.
In consonance with the main objective of
the study, Basavapura micro-watershed in Kolar district of the Karnataka state
has been purposively selected to assess the dynamics of access to water resource
for irrigation in the context of watershed treatment. The field data were collected
for the year 1999-2000. This watershed was developed by Central Groundwater
Board with main objective of improving recharge.
Major Findings of the study
- After watershed development program (WDP) in 1994, in Basavapura micro-watershed,
the net irrigated area increased per farm by 26 per cent from 4.94 to 6.24
acres. Outside WDP area, the net irrigated area decreased marginally by four
per cent.
- In the WDP area, the proportion of functional wells increased from 71 per
cent to 85 per cent (the proportion of failed wells declined from 29 per cent
to 15 per cent). Outside WDP, the irrigation wells were functional before
1994. Here, the proportion of failed wells is 38 per cent currently due to
the scarcity and effect of cumulative well interference.
- Due to the influence of water harvesting structures constructed for groundwater
recharge, the life of dug wells, bore wells, dug cum bore wells and filter
point wells increased by 4, 5, 3 and 6 years respectively in Basavapura micro-watershed.
- In the WDP area, yield of dug wells increased by 70 per cent. Among the
nine dug wells, which completely dried up before the program, four wells got
recharged. The yield of bore wells was 1150 Gallons Per Hour (GPH) and increased
by 24 per cent to 1426 GPH after project implementation. Dug well yield for
wells outside WDP was 1008 GPH before WDP (1994), but cumulative well interference
lead to groundwater depletion and all dug wells were totally abandoned as
they totally failed.
- The groundwater extraction by farmers in the up stream whose wells are located
closer to the structures at an average distance of 168 meters, was 84 acre
inches and is 33 per cent higher than the groundwater extraction by farmers
in the up stream whose wells are located away from the structures at a distance
of 353 meters. Farmers in the down stream whose wells are located closer to
the structures at a distance of 171 meters extracted 49 per cent higher groundwater
than farmers whose wells are located away from the structures at a distance
of 442 meters.
- The gross irrigated area devoted to water intensive crops like paddy and
sugar cane increased from 33 acres to 114 acres in the WDP area, while it
declined from 30 to 26 acres by 13 per cent outside WDP area.
- The amortized watershed investment per acre-inch of groundwater extracted
is Rs.9.53 in Basavapura micro-watershed. The largest volume of groundwater
(9.4 acre inches per acre of Gross irrigated area) is extracted by farmers
in the down stream whose wells are located closer to the water harvesting
structures. Farmers in the down stream whose wells are located near the water
harvesting structures are earning the highest net returns per acre of GIA
(Rs.14,287) compared with farmers in the up stream whose wells are located
away from the structures (earning Rs.8,693).
- Considering the situation before and after WDP, water use and net returns
per acre of Gross Irrigated Area (GIA) for farmers in the up stream increased
from 5 to 8.4 acre inches (68 %) and from Rs.6508 to Rs.10810 (66%), respectively.
For farmers in the down stream, water use per acre of GIA increased from 6.2
to 9.2 acre inches (48%) and net returns per acre of GIA increased by 110
per cent from Rs.6508 to Rs.13672.
- The cost of irrigation (or price) per acre-inch of groundwater decreased
from Rs.168 to Rs.87 by 48 per cent after WDP implementation in Basavapura
micro-watershed. The cost incurred by farmers outside WDP area is Rs.112 and
is 22 per cent higher than farmers in the micro-watershed.
- The irrigation intensity and cropping intensity in Basavapura micro-watershed
increased by 8 and 19 per cent, respectively, after WDP because of recharge
effect of water harvest structures.
Implications
- Construction of water harvesting structures through watershed development
approach enhances the groundwater recharge in hydro-geological situations
even if there is cumulative interference effect among irrigation wells.
- The net return per acre of gross irrigated area can increase by Rs. 6,250
(96 %) and the cost of irrigation can fall by Rs. 81 (48 %) by constructing
the groundwater augmenting structures through watershed approach.
- Proximity of irrigation wells to water harvesting structure influences the
physical and economic access to water resource for irrigation. The groundwater
used and the net return per acre of gross irrigated area is higher for farmers
whose wells are located closer to the water harvesting structures (<250 meters)
compared with farmers whose wells are located away from the water harvesting
structures (>250 meters).
- The physical and economic access to groundwater resources largely determines
the economics of irrigation both within and outside watershed development
program areas.
This research paper is published in Economic and Political
Weekley.
Click here to Download this paper, Chandrakanth, M.G., Bisrat Alemu and Mahadev
G. Bhat (2004), Combating Negative Externalities of Drought: A Study of Groundwater
Recharge Through Watershed, Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (11): 1164-1170,
(March 13, 2004), (special article).
B. RESEARCH CONDUCTED IN CENTRAL DRY ZONE, KARNATAKA STATE,
INDIA
TITLE OF THE STUDY: Synergistic effects
of watershed treatments on farm economy through groundwater recharge-A resource
economic analysis
POST GRADUATE STUDENT INVOLVED:
H. Diwakara
email: hdeevu@rediffmail.com
Preamble
In this study synergistic effects of watershed
treatment are estimated, as they play a crucial role in enhancing the groundwater
through recharge to meet the water requirement of farmers who do not have the
access to groundwater for irrigation. Watershed development program results
in positive externalities through enhancing the groundwater recharge by reducing
the negative externalities due to well interference. Watershed development aims
at in situ moisture conservation to augment groundwater recharge. Water harvesting
structures like nalabunds, checkdams, percolation tanks and other practices
such as bench terracing, gully plugging, rubble field checks are augmenting
the in situ moisture conservation by rendering the running water to walk, walking
water to crawl and crawling water to infiltrate there by enhancing the groundwater
recharge.
Objectives of the study
- Economic analysis of contribution of watershed structures to ground water
recharge.
- Economics of crop production on farms using groundwater for irrigation in
the watershed.
- Equity implications in benefit-cost sharing in watershed through PRA-Social
mapping.
Haikal watershed located in drought prone
area of Chitradurga taluk is selected for this study. Farmers are sampled after
an intensive participatory rural appraisal (PRA) mapping of irrigation wells.
For this study farmers having irrigation wells are considered. The population
of all the 65 farmers in Haikal watershed having irrigation wells have been
considered in this study. Hence this is a population study. After the preliminary
survey and pre testing the farmers are interviewed with a structured schedule
and feild data were collected during April month of 2000.
Major Findings of the study
- Considering the low water intensive (ragi, jowar, groundnut, sunflower,
wheat) and high water intensive crops (onion, maize, jasmine), the marginal
farmers devoted around 70 percent of their Gross Cropped Area (GCA) to low
water crops, small farmers devoted 50 percent, while large farmers devoted
57 percent of their GCA to low water crops. Large farmers are irrigating a
big chunk of area as they have access to 70 percent of gross cropped area,
64 percent of gross irrigated area, 60 percent of net irrigated area and 64
percent of the total water.
- There is a lopsided distribution of gross irrigated area in favour of large
farmers, as 75 percent of Gross Irrigated Area (GIA) is with large farmers,
23 percent of GIA are with small farmers and marginal farmers have a meager
2 percent.
- Considering the different groundwater accessibility regimes, large farmers
in all the three groundwater accessibility regimes namely, low water (< 4.4
acre inches), medium water (4.41 to 6 acre inches) and high water (> 6 acre
inches) per acre of gross irrigated area have the largest access to groundwater
ranging from 65 percent to 81 percent. This indicates that large farmers are
using more than 60 percent of volume of groundwater for irrigation.
- The distribution of groundwater recharge is unrelated to the distance and
depth, since irrespective of the depth of well and distance of wells to the
water harvesting structures in the watershed area, the yield from the wells
is around 2000 gallons per hour.
- Physical access to groundwater for irrigation in the watershed area indicates
that the large farmers in all the three water use classes have the larger
share of the total water used on the farm.
- In the watershed, large farmers have greater physical (in terms of water
used on farm and GIA) access to groundwater for irrigation as compared to
marginal and small farmers. The overall well failure is a meager 11 percent
and this indicates that recharge in the watershed has dampened the well failure.
- The net returns per farm in the watershed area are higher for large farmers
followed by small and marginal farmers. Large farmers are reaping larger net
returns by virtue of larger gross irrigated area.
- The economic access to groundwater is reflected in terms of extent of water
extracted per rupee of amortized investment in groundwater irrigation. Large
farmers have the benefit of scale economy with respect to the water extracted
per rupee of investment, which is relatively lower for marginal and small
farmers. The economic access is relatively low for the marginal and small
farmers who use groundwater for irrigation ranging from 4.4 acre-inches to
6 acre-inches, as compared with large farmers.
- A careful examination of the economic access to groundwater in greater proximity
area, indicates that economic access varies across physical access for all
types of farmers irrespective of location of their irrigation wells with respect
to the water harvesting structures.
- Considering the greater proximity of irrigation wells to water harvesting
structures in the watershed, the annual net returns per farm are Rs.66256
for marginal farmers, Rs. 151308 for small and Rs.396677 for large farmers.
- Considering the lower proximity of irrigation wells to water harvesting
structures in the watershed area the net returns for marginal farmers is Rs.70445,
where as the small farmers received Rs.156745. This can be attributed to the
larger GIA for small farmers compared to marginal farmers.
- Considering the equity in access to groundwater, large farmers are using
at least 60 percent of the total water use as they posses at least 60 percent
of the gross irrigated area in all the three water use classes. Large farmers,
have at least 50 percent of the total net irrigated area (NIA) with an irrigation
intensity of at least 300 percent in each water use class. All these are indications
of inequity in access to groundwater for small and marginal farmers in terms
of total water used on the farm, GIA and NIA.
Implications
- The cost per acre-inch of groundwater is lower in the watershed area due
to synergistic effects of watershed treatments. It is imperative that the
watershed development program has promoted groundwater recharge, and dampened
the groundwater cost.
- Contribution of watershed treatments to groundwater recharge dampens the
negative economic externality, due to well interference. The watershed development
with an emphasis on groundwater recharge is recommended.
- As the watershed treatments contribute to groundwater recharge, considering
the sustainability of watershed, farmers are to be educated in the management
of water harvesting structures like, checkdams (CD), ravine reclamation structures
(RRS), rubble field checks (RFC) etc.
- Even though the well yields is almost the same for marginal, small and large
farmers in the watershed; farmers are not growing water intensive crop except
onion crop. Thus, the farmers’ are choosing “reasonable use” strategy rather
than “beneficial use” in their sustainable use of groundwater.
- The cost per acre-inch of groundwater inclusive of the amortized cost of
watershed project investment per acre inch (Rs.64) and the amortized cost
of groundwater (of Rs. 90 per acre inch) is Rs. 154. As the water extracted
increases in the watershed, the amortized cost of watershed investment per
acre inch of water reduces, and due to synergistic effects the amortized cost
of groundwater would be less than or equal to Rs. 90 per acre. Hence this
will further reduce the cost of groundwater for irrigation in the watershed
area due to synergistic effects of watershed treatments. It is imperative
that the watershed development program has promoted groundwater recharge,
enhanced the life of irrigation wells and dampened the groundwater cost.
II. WHAT PROBLEMS DID YOU ENCOUNTER, WHY DID THEY OCCUR
AND HOW DO YOU PLAN TO ADDRESS THEM ?
| Problems encountered |
Why they occurred |
How do I address
them |
| 1. Location of wells and
their proximity to water harvesting structures was studied without any regard
to the upstream/downstream location of wells |
No study has attempted to
incorporate the direction of the location of wells with respect to the water
harvesting structures in the watershed development programs areas. This
is indicated as a limitation of the study.
are standardized. |
The
present studies attempted to test the hypothesis that "access to
groundwater resource is enhanced by having proximity of the irrigation wells
to water harvesting structures" by taking the average distance
of irrigation wells (each farmer owns) from the nearest water harvesting
structures as a proxy indicator. This can also be considered as a future
line of study. |
| 2.
Study in Southern Transitional Zone could not be completed |
The
delay is in tabulation of field data due to indisposition of the concerned
JRF |
Steps
are being taken to complete the tabulation and analysis during the I semester
of 2000-2001 |
III. PROCESS FOR EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF THE GRANT?
Following are our process of evaluation and
assessment of the grant.
(i) How the grant has helped the Institution ?
This grant (0995-1103) has further contributed
to strengthening the historical academic linkages of the University of Agricultural
Sciences, Bangalore with the Ford Foundation, which was responsible for establishing
the Plant Protection unit at the UAS during 1966.
This time (1999-2000) at least 19 students
(6 from Ethiopia and 13 from India) doing their Masters degree in Agricultural
Economics were richly benefited by the guidance available through the Ford Foundation
sponsored research project - by way of academic expertise developed in natural
resource and environmental economics in general and in the field of groundwater
resource economics in particular. This grant has helped two Junior Research
fellows working in the Ford Foundation Project in getting trained in Participatory
Rural Appraisal (PRA) from MYRADA. Which , further helped in their research
work. The services of Sri.H.Diwakara regarding developing infrastructure facility
are appreciated. The students were richly benefited due to their access to personal
computer facility and Internet services with respect to data collection, tabulation
and analysis, and the elegance in academic presentations of results and in group
discussions.
(ii) Human Resource Development
With assistance from the Ford Foundation
grant, Sri Bisrat Alemu, became the first Ethiopian student to conduct his research
based on primary data. Bisrat, the Head of Planning and Programming service
in “Commission for Sustainable Agriculture and Environmental Rehabilitation
in Amhara Region (CO-SAERAR), Government of Ethiopia, did the study in Basavapura
micro watershed, where the major focus was on augmenting groundwater recharge
using watershed approach. This student richly benefited from the grant, as this
was the field of interest and a topical issue in Ethiopia. He further intends
to establish research and academic links with the Ford Foundation in his home
country and is extremely grateful to the Ford Foundation and the Department
of Agricultural Economics, University of Agricultural Sciences, for the support
he received during the course of his research work in the university.
Two more students Sri. Diwakara H and Kum.
KP. Shobharani have also been benefited from the research fellowship obtained
from the Ford Grant. These students have been exposed to the concept of dynamics
of access to water resources for irrigation in the context of watershed development
program area in the drought prone areas of Karnataka.
The Foundation will be pleased to know that
this grant provided opportunities for the principal Investigator to provide
academic support to Government Departments of Irrigation, Agriculture and Horticulture.
As this project was attached to the Department of Agricultural Economics in
the University it has greatly benefited the students of the Department. One
of the chief benefits from this grant is the use of results from the study in
teaching post graduate cource in (i) Production Economics (ii) Natural Resource
Economics and (iii) Mathematical Economics and in teaching the undergraduate
course - Introduction to Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics and in
providing practical hands on exercises for these students. This experience has
also been useful in helping the students to write their dissertation, seminar
reports and research articles.
The Systems Analyst of the Ford grant through
his abilities in designing web sites was able to launch two new web sites (i)
www.antarjala.com and (iii) www. toenre.com, the former one for highlighting
the results of research on groundwater economics and watershed economics and
the latter for highlighting the activities in natural resource economics. This
way the project is having a cascading effect spilling over the Department’s
teaching and research endeavors. The positive externalities have been substantial
and the Foundation’s timely grant will be remembered with gratitude. The students
have expressed their satisfaction in graduate classes, as it was possible to
arrange field visits on topical issues clubbing both the project activity and
students’ interest.
(iii) Plan of action for the next
year
Even though, the two initial studies have
proven the contribution of watershed development to groundwater recharge, the
dynamics of issues involved in different watersheds are crucial and need to
be examined. The transaction costs of watershed leadership, motivation, and
commitment for instance have not yet been covered. In addition, the work on
social mapping of beneficiaries needs to be strengthened. This year, it is proposed
to work on a watershed, which has around 300 farm ponds constructed for in situ
moisture conservation. In addition case studies will be conducted to meet the
objectives of the study.
