Goundwater management report

3,524 views
3,420 views

Published on

An important document on community based groundwater management, semiarid areas, andhra pradesh, India

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
3,524
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
124
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Goundwater management report

  1. 1. A SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT OF COMMUNITY BASED GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCES IN ANDHRA PRADESH By Action for Food Production (AFPRO) Field Unit 6, Hyderabad December 2006 Irrigation & Command Area Development Department Government of Andhra Pradesh CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 1 of 74
  2. 2. Contents Chapter 1 Introduction....................................................................................................... 4 1. 1 Background and Rationale of the Study.............................................................. 4 1. 2 Structure of the Report.......................................................................................... 5 Chapter 2 Objectives and Methodology of the Study ................................................... 6 2. 1 Objectives of the Study ......................................................................................... 6 2. 2 The Study Area ........................................................................................................ 6 2. 3 The Methodology of the Study............................................................................ 12 Chapter 3 Groundwater Management in AP ................................................................. 15 3.1 Groundwater Contribution to the AP Economy................................................. 15 3.2 Agriculture and Groundwater Based Irrigation ................................................. 16 3.3 Groundwater Estimates, 2004-05 ........................................................................ 17 3.4 Groundwater Development in AP ........................................................................ 18 3.5 APWELL Project ...................................................................................................... 19 3.6 APFAMGS Project.................................................................................................... 27 3. 7 Social Regulations in Water Management......................................................... 30 Chapter 4 Objective Wise Presentation of Findings ................................................... 32 4. 1 Sustainable and Adaptive Resource Use ........................................................... 32 4. 2 Communication Strategy ..................................................................................... 43 4. 3 Community Awareness and Institution Development.................................... 49 4. 4 Community Decision Making................................................................................ 52 4. 5 Improvement in Income and Livelihoods .......................................................... 54 Chapter 5 Lessons & Recommendations ....................................................................... 60 5. 1 Lessons from CBGWM Experiences in AP........................................................... 60 5. 2 Recommendations for community based water management...................... 65 5. 3 Summary of findings and recommendations .................................................... 71 Tables Table 2. 1 Profile of 30 sample study villages ................................................... 7 Table 2. 2 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater status (2005) ................ 8 Table 2. 3 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater typology ..................... 8 Table 3. 1 Area Developed and Gross Value of Minor Irrigation Sources (2003-04) .......16 Table 3. 2 Area irrigated under different sources in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05............16 Table 3. 3 Groundwater estimation and stage of development in AP, 2002 ...............17 Table 3. 4 Status of groundwater development in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 ..............18 Table 3. 5 APWELL Project coverage on completion (per March 2003) .....................21 Table 4. 1 Groundwater cost and risks involved ............................................................ 34 Table 4. 2 Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) ............................................ 42 Table 4. 3 Communication media and tools used .......................................................... 44 Table 4. 4 Awareness & Communication tools impact .................................................. 44 Table 4. 5 Project Outcome Indicators............................................................................ 58 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 2 of 74
  3. 3. Figures Figure 2. 1 Location Map of Study Areas ........................................................................ 9 Figure 2. 2 Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the agro-climatic zones 10 Figure 2. 3 Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology .................. 11 Figure 2. 4 Normal Rainfall Pattern: Observations from the nearest rain gauge station ......................................................................................................................... 12 Figure 3. 1 Irrigated Areas by Source and Gross Value (2005-06) ............................ 15 Figure 4.1 Trends in groundwater development: Dug wells vs Borewells .............. 33 Figure 4. 2 Percentage of borewells functioning in sample villages ....................... 34 Figure 4.3 Irrigated area in acres per borewell .......................................................... 35 Figure 4.4 Borewell Problems reported in 30 sample villages.................................. 37 Figure 4.5 Borewell Problems category wise ............................................................... 37 Figure 4.6 Sharing ratios of farmers per borewell ...................................................... 38 Figure 4.7 Land use percentage in 30 sample villages............................................... 39 Figure 4.8 Percentage of paddy grown per season ..................................................... 40 Figure 4.9 Percentage of farmers opting for not growing paddy ............................. 41 Figure 4.10 Percentage of irrigated crops in 30 sample villages ............................. 41 Figure 4.11Income per acre of gross irrigated land (in Rs) ....................................... 42 Figure 4.12 Cost of paddy cultivation as percentage of total cost of cultivation. 43 Figure 4.13 Participation of women and men in meetings in APFAMGS villages.. 52 Figure 4.14 Decisions taken by community in APFAMGS Villages: Frequency of topics discussed......................................................................................................... 54 Figure 4. 15 Overall impact of the project interventions ........................................ 55 Figure 4. 16 Total Land value/Agriculture income ratio ........................................... 56 Figure 4.17 Total income per annum/debt (cumulative) ratio ................................ 57 Figure 4.18 Total asset value/debt (cumulative) ratio.............................................. 57 Figure 5. 1 Traditional Community knowledge............................................................ 67 Figure 5. 2 Community Knowledge with external factors ......................................... 68 Figure 5. 3 Community Knowledge developed through interventions..................... 68 Figure 5. 4 Sustainable aspects of APWELL/APFAMGS Project................................. 70 Figure 5. 5 Institutional options ..................................................................................... 71 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 3 of 74
  4. 4. Chapter 1 Introduction Water is an important natural resource crucial to life supporting systems. Access to water is crucial for sustainable livelihoods. In India 69% of the people in non-irrigated areas are poor while it is only 2% in irrigated areas. Thus, there is a clear and direct link between poverty and access to irrigation. While 76% of the operational land holdings are held by small and marginal farmers (<2 ha.), they operate only 29% of the area. Small farmers constitute 38% of the net area irrigated by wells and account for 35% of the bore wells fitted with electric pump sets. The incidents of regular farmer suicides in India have often been directly attributed to groundwater-based farming in non-command areas. The National Sample Survey 59th Round 2003 found that nearly half (48.6%) of the farmer households were reported to be in debt. 1. 1 Background and Rationale of the Study Groundwater availability, utilization, issues and management options vary widely across the different typologies in Andhra Pradesh1. Unsustainable groundwater development is becoming critical in many places, especially in the hardrock areas. Options for sustainable management of groundwater must include technical and socio-economic dimensions. In the last two decades, Community Based Groundwater Management (CBGWM) has been implemented in Andhra Pradesh through bilateral projects such as the APWELL Project and its successor, the APFAMGS Project. There have also been some limited experiences in social regulation sponsored by NGOs such as CWS and its partners. From a partial assessment undertaken by AP–I&CAD and limited GW-MATE field visits, it was found that the APWELL and APFAMGS Projects represented the most significant steps in integrated groundwater resource management (using a participative approach) in Andhra Pradesh and neighboring states with similar weathered ‘hard-rock’ aquifers. GoAP envisages taking up the revival and restoration of about 3000 minor irrigation projects in the state with World Bank assistance through the SMIP. In this context it is also proposed to include CBGWM as a sub-component of this project. Lessons are to be learned from the APWELL and APFAMGS projects as well as from CWS initiatives for contributing to their sustainability and ensuring effective replication in the proposed groundwater sub-component. GoAP is also considering following up the WB-supported Andhra Pradesh Drought Adaptation & Impact (APDAI) Project through community-based implementation in about 15 pilot villages. It is likely that in some of these villages, water management (either tank rehabilitation/surface water management or GW management or both) will be identified as a priority drought adaptation measure that the community wants to invest in. In such cases, the outcomes of this assessment could inform the APDAI pilots on CBGWM management options that are being designed/implemented in other projects. 1 For details see, “Availability, Use and Strategies for Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh: A Status Report” by Pradeep Raj, APCBTM Project Preparatory Note. 2006. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 4 of 74
  5. 5. A systematic assessment of CBGWM interventions in APWELL/APFAMGS/CWS projects was found necessary to guide the GoAP on future policy, and in particular to build a stronger case for the CBGWM components to be included in SMIP and APDAI. For this assessment a representative selection of 30 APWELL/APFAMGS/CWS villages is included to cover the range of main aquifer typologies and socio-agronomic situations. Action for Food Production (AFPRO), a multidisciplinary professional agency extending support to grassroots level Non-Governmental Agencies (NGOs) on diverse matters pertaining to land and water resources and rural development was delegated the responsibility to carry out the study. The Terms of Reference (ToR) for the study is given in Annex 1.1. The study comprised the following steps: o A literature survey2 on CBGWM as it is emerging in AP in the context of three projects, APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS o Visits to 30 sample villages selected according to the detailed methodology provided in the ToR o Interviewing farmers and officials of various relevant departments of the GoAP o A sample survey of 15 groundwater users from each of the 30 villages to obtain primary data to quantify important socio-economic parameters for the assessment of effectiveness of interventions as per the ToR. 1. 2 Structure of the Report This Report is divided into 5 chapters. Chapter 1 covers the background and rationale of the study. Chapter 2 discusses the objectives and methodology of the study. Chapter 3 provides an overview of the groundwater development and management scenario in AP with special focus on the projects being studied. Chapter 4 presents the findings of the study according to the two main objectives and sub-objectives. Chapter 5 gives a summary of the findings and recommendations. 2 See Annex 1.2 for a list of documents consulted for this study. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 5 of 74
  6. 6. Chapter 2 Objectives and Methodology of the Study 2. 1 Objectives of the Study The study objectives as provided in the ToR are to: Assess systematically how far the CBGWM interventions in APWELL/ APFAMGS/ CWS are contributing to achieving the long-term goal of sustainable and adaptive resource use – and in effect whether they are moving towards long-term stabilization of the water-table in the local groundwater bodies involved and improving their quality as regards use for rural domestic water-supply. Review the design and institutional structure of the CBGWM interventions that have been or are being implemented in the state, and evaluate, through parameters/approaches as quantifiable and verifiable as possible, the effectiveness of these interventions. The four dimensions for assessment of effectiveness are the following: ♦ Relevance of communication strategy regarding realistic approaches to GW management. ♦ Community awareness and level of community mobilization achieved with regards to groundwater management issues. ♦ Community decision making and collective action achieved towards sustainable groundwater management. ♦ Improvement in income and livelihoods of the farmers involved, as a result of the above. 2. 2 The Study Area The area of APEWELL and APFAMGS Projects under this study is spread across the vast geographic tracts of seven drought prone districts occupying the southern semi-arid regions of Andhra Pradesh. The socio-economic and agro-climatic situations too are varied. It was hence decided to select 30 representative villages from across these seven districts to identify the common elements in the institutional arrangement and the processes that may be common and relevant for future. The details of these villages identified for the study are given in Table 2.1 and the location of the study area is shown in Fig.2.1. The sample was selected to represent villages: 8 Villages where the APWELL Project was implemented but and APFAMGS Project did not continue groundwater interventions 6 Villages covered under the APWELL and APFAMGS has continued its activities 10 Villages newly selected for APFAMGS activities CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 6 of 74
  7. 7. 1 Village where CWS has been implementing its “Social Regulations in Water Management” project; a second (MC Thanda) has been an APWELL-APFAMGS village 5 Control villages with substantial groundwater use but not under any groundwater management programme Table 2. 1 Profile of 30 sample study villages # District Project category Village Mandal GW GW status typology 1 Anantapur APW Kalvapalli Beluguppa OE BS 2 Chittoor APW SS Puram K V B Puram OE BC 3 Chittoor APW Bandarlapalli Ramakuppam C BS 4 Kadapa APW Mudireddypalli Mydukur OE A OE 5 Kurnool APW Uyyalawada Orvakal OE AC 6 Mahbubnagar APW Kollampally Narayanpet SC A OE 7 Nalgonda APW Thimmaipalem Peddavoora SAFE B SC 8 Prakasam APW Regumanupalli Peddaraveedu OE AC 9 Kadapa APW-APF R Papireddypalli Kasinayana SC A OE 10 Kurnool APW-APF RK Puram Allagadda OE A OE 11 Mahbubnagar APW-APF Mannanur Amrabad SAFE A OE 12 Nalgonda APW-APF Dudiya thanda Damarcherla SAFE BS 13 Prakasam APW-APF Thaticherla Komarolu OE A OE 14 Anantapur APW-APF-CMS M C Thanda Tanakallu SAFE A SC 15 Anantapur APF Yengilibanda Gooty OE BS 16 Chittoor APF Nariganipalli Ramasamudram OE B SC 17 Kadapa APF Siddamurthipalli Kalasapadu OE A OE 18 Kurnool APF Muthaluru Rudravaram OE A OE 19 Mahbubnagar APF Uppunuthala Uppunuthala OE A SC 20 Nalgonda APF Ramnagar Nidmanor SAFE BS 21 Prakasam APF Vemulakota Markapur OE AC 22 Prakasam APF Akkapalli R Racherla OE BS 23 Prakasam APF Nekunambad Bestavaripeta OE A OE 24 Prakasam APF Chinna Kandukur Ardhaveedu OE A OE 25 Anantapur CONTROL Hampapuram Raptadu OE A OE 26 Kadapa CONTROL Buggaletipalli Kadapa OE BS 27 Kurnool CONTROL Thammarajupalli Panyam OE AC 28 Mahbubnagar CONTROL Appanapally Mahabubnagar SC A OE 29 Nalgonda CONTROL Haliya Anumula SAFE BS 30 Anantapur CWS Madirepally Singanamala C BS CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 7 of 74
  8. 8. The 30 villages fall in four agro-climatic regions. According to the groundwater status, 19 fall in over-exploited, 2 in critical, 3 in Semi-critical, and 6 in safe areas. (See Table 2.2 for details). Table 2. 2 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater status (2005) Groundwater APWELL APWELL+APF APFAMGS Control+ Total status AMGS CWS Over-exploited 5 2 9 3 19 Critical 1 0 0 1 2 Semi-Critical 1 1 0 1 3 Safe 1 3 1 1 6 TOTAL 8 6 10 6 30 Based on groundwater typology the distribution is slightly different with only 12 falling in overexploited typology and 9 come under safe category (See Table 2.3 for details). Table 2. 3 Distribution of 30 sample villages on groundwater typology Groundwater typology APWELL APWELL+ APFAMGS Control+CWS Total APFAMGS AOE Over-exploited 2 4 4 2 12 AC Critical 2 1 1 4 ASC Semi-Critical 1 1 2 AS Safe 0 BOE Over-exploited 0 BC Critical 1 1 BSC Semi-Critical 1 1 2 BS Safe 2 1 3 3 9 TOTAL 8 6 10 6 30 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 8 of 74
  9. 9. Figure 2. 1 Location Map of Study Areas CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 9 of 74
  10. 10. 7 1 2 6 3 High Altitude & Tribal Areas 5 Krishna-Godavari Zone North Coastal Zone Northern Telangana Zone 4 Scarce Rainfall Zone Southern Telangana Zone Southern Zone Figure 2. 2 Andhra Pradesh: Location of Study Areas in the agro-climatic zones CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 10 of 74
  11. 11. Alluvial Command E2 Hard rock Command E1 Hard rock Command New D Coastal Alluvium C2 Soft rock falling Wt C1 Soft rock Type A + Safe Type A + Semi Critical Type A + Critical Type A + Over Exploited Type B + Safe Type B + Semi Critical Type B + Critical Type B + Over Exploited Typology Selected A OE 10 AC 4 A SC 3 BC 2 B SC 2 BS 4 Total 25 Figure 2. 3 Location Map of Study Areas in the groundwater typology CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 11 of 74
  12. 12. 1200 1000 800 (in mm) 600 400 200 0 Buggaletipalli (CONTROL) Kollampalli (APWELL) Siddamurthy Palli (APFAMGS) Bandarlapalli (APWELL) Regumanipalli (APWELL) Nariganipalli (APFAMGS) Thammarajupalli (CONTROL) Kalvapalli (APWELL) R.Papi Reddy palli (APWELL+APFAMGS) Mudireddypalli (APWELL) Appanapalli (CONTROL) Thimmaipalem (APWELL) Madiraepalli (CWS) Taticherla (APWELL+APFAMGS) Vemulakota (APFAMGS) Halia (CONTROL) Akkapalli (APFAMGS) Yengilibanda (APFAMGS) Sadasivapuram (APWELL) Muttalur (APFAMGS) Uppunuthala (APFAMGS) Dudiyathanda (APWELL+APFAMGS) Uyyalawada (APWELL) Chinna kandukuru (APFAMGS) Hampapuram (CONTROL) R.K.Puram (APWELL+APFAMGS) Nekunambad (APFAMGS) Ramnagar (APFAMGS) Mannanoor (APWELL+APFAMGS) M.C.Thanda (APWELL+APFAMGS+CWS) Figure 2. 4 Normal Rainfall Pattern: Observations from the nearest rain gauge station3 The normal rainfall pattern in the 30 sample study villages shows that these villages have a good range representing various climatic regions of the state. Most of the villages are have low rainfall. For 21 of these villages, it is in the range of 600-800 mm, while for 6 villages it is below 600 mm. Beluguppa in Anantapur district receives the least average annual rainfall of 489 mm and Sadasivapuram village, KVB Puram Mandal, Chittoor district receives the highest average annual rainfall of 1097 mm. Three villages have above 800 mm rainfall. 2. 3 The Methodology of the Study The study team4 held discussions with key professionals involved in APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS SR projects for broader understanding on the objectives and processes involved in the design and implementation of the respective projects.5 The study team also 3 Respective District Hand Book of Statistics 4 List of team members involved in the study is given in Annex 2.2. 5 List of persons with whom the study team interacted is given in Annex 2.3. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 12 of 74
  13. 13. interacted with officers and consultants of the State I&CAD and the Ground Water Department both at Hyderabad and at the district level. During the field visits the team had discussions with the staff of APFAMGS and its partner NGOs. For the field visits the study team was divided into groups, each comprising three professionals with varied backgrounds (social sciences, agriculture science, and natural sciences including geography, hydro geology and engineering). Officers of the Ground Water department accompanied the team to most of the villages. The study was done in two phases from 19 Sep to 16 Nov 2006. On an average two days were spent in each village. In the first phase (26-30 Sep 06 and 6-14 Oct 2006) APWELL, CWS and Control villages were covered. In the second phase (8 -16 Nov 2006)– APFAMGS, APWELL + APFAMGS and APWELL + APFAMGS + CWS villages were covered.6 Pilot Study An orientation workshop was conducted for the team members where the objectives of the project were discussed. Draft data collection instruments were prepared during the workshop. All the team members together visited two villages in Mahabubnagar district to test the data collection formats and for common learning about the methodology of the study. After this field trip, the data collection process was reviewed by sharing the experiences and difficulties encountered. The team members were briefed about the purpose and limitations of the field study. Data collection The topics covered in the data collection formats7 included information on the following subjects covering quantitative, qualitative and descriptive aspects: Communication and awareness strategy Women’s participation Community participation Community Based Organization (CBO) Water resources management Time line analysis Ground water management by community Individual stakeholder formats Watershed implementation Case studies Agriculture Quantitative data Quantitative data were collected from primary and secondary sources from the village. Qualitative data All the qualitative data were quantified. Two types of scales are used for quantifying the qualitative data: Scale: Against the question posed based on a qualitative rating to measure on a 1- 4 scale. Rank: Based on the priority the parameters are ranked. 6 List of villages with dates of field visits is given in Annex 2.4 7 See Annex 2.5 for data collection formats used in the study. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 13 of 74
  14. 14. Four qualitative key indicators have been identified for quantifying primary data collected through focus group discussions (FD) and secondary data from the Minutes of GMCs and other process documents8. Community decision making Community resolving conflicts/constraints Water sharing mechanisms Agriculture and productivity Descriptive data All the other information pertaining to the village observed during the field visit is noted down, including case studies. Survey Strategy at Village Level Information on the purpose of the study and the schedule of visit by the study team were communicated in advance to key persons in the select villages. The study team followed a set process of conducting situation analysis in each village: It was ensured that all the villagers were informed in advance about the field visit through the local facilitating NGOs. Information was collected through focus group discussions using a participatory approach. Key persons in the village representing BUA/GMC/ WUGs, watershed committee, women’s groups, VAO, Anganwadi and school teachers, etc. participated in the discussions. Representatives of the poorest and other interested villagers also freely participated in the open discussions. In each village families of 15 farmers with groundwater irrigation were interviewed. After collecting the required information the team visited selected sites and fields in the village. At the end of the field visit, the gist of the information collected was shared with the villagers for triangulation and corrections. Data Compilation and Analysis Soon after field visits, the data collected were scrutinized for errors and data cleaning was done. Wherever certain information was needed field level NGOs and District Officials were contacted and the data gathered. The data were entered into a data bank. Microsoft excel was used for basic data processing, analyzing and creation of aggregate tables. The graphs were generated using Amado and Microsoft Excel software packages. 8 The records/true copies of the APFAMGS/APWELL documents were accessed for this purpose during the field visit. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 14 of 74
  15. 15. Chapter 3 Groundwater Management in AP 3.1 Groundwater Contribution to the AP Economy Andhra Pradesh’s State Domestic Product (SDP) has risen from Rs. 578.67 billions in 1993-94 to Rs 1056.73 billions in 2004-05 at constant (1993-94) prices. Contribution of agriculture sector to the SDP has decreased from 24.62% in 1993-94 to 13.14% in 2005. About 40% of area under agriculture in AP is irrigated through various sources both under rain fed and irrigated conditions. Irrigation under borewells has been growing at a rapid pace and presently more or less equals the area under surface irrigation in major commands. About 49.0 per cent (19.03 lakh hectares) is being irrigated by groundwater (2005) when compared to surface water irrigation of 34.7 per cent (13.46 lakh hectares) in Major and Medium Irrigation commands, and 12.3 per cent (4.77 lakh hectares) in Minor Irrigation. Based on the area irrigated at State level, the contribution of groundwater based irrigation to the State’s GDP was estimated to be about Rs.70.00 billion in 2004-05. Besides catering to the irrigation needs, groundwater is an important resource to meet the drinking water needs in the rural areas (estimated to be about 80%), industries and other domestic needs. (See Figure 3.1 and Table 3.1 for details) 70 Surface Irri Area 19000 65 19337 18000 18405 17000 GW Area 18083 60 17339 16000 17386 Surface Value 15000 55 14000 14043 GW Value 13000 50 12000 Un irrigated 45 11000 Value Area in Lakh Ha. 10000 Total Value 40 9000 8000 Livestock 35 7000 6000 30 Value (Rs.in Crores 5000 25 4000 3000 20 2000 1000 15 0 -1000 10 -2000 5 -3000 -4000 0 -5000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 Figure 3. 1 Irrigated Areas by Source and Gross Value (2005-06) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 15 of 74
  16. 16. Table 3. 1 Area Developed and Gross Value of Minor Irrigation Sources (2003-04) Major Basin Area Developed Actual Area Value (Rs. in Lakhs) Ground Water * (2003-04) (1998-99 Prices) (Lakh Ha) (1998-99 Prices) (Lakh Ha) Minor** PR** Total Area Actual Area * Values (2003- Developed 2003-04 (2003-04) 04) (Rs. in (ha) (ha) (lakh Ha) Lakhs) Upper Godavari 2.25 0.40 2.65 1.03 57,322 22,280 5.82 125,892 Lower Godavari 2.96 0.82 3.78 2.46 81,765 53,216 2.56 54,684 Upper Krishna 1.74 0.39 2.13 0.19 41,074 4,110 4.32 93,446 Lower Krishna 1.22 0.16 1.38 0.71 29,851 15,358 4.61 99,719 Pennar 3.05 0.45 3.50 0.87 75,709 18,819 6.92 149,687 Total 11.22 2.22 13.44 5.26 285,721 113,783 24.23 523,428 3.2 Agriculture and Groundwater Based Irrigation In AP, 51.4 percent of cultivated area is under groundwater and 48.6 percent under surface water irrigation. Crop wise area irrigated under groundwater shows that irrigated dry crops are the main crops cultivated under groundwater, though individual crop figures show that paddy is the main crop under groundwater accounting for about 30 percent. However, it should be noted that 90 percent of surface water is used for paddy cultivation only (See Table 3.2 for details). Table 3. 2 Area irrigated under different sources in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 Year 2004-05 Irrigated area under different sources (lakh ha) S. Type of Crop Bore well Dug well Groundwater Surface All sources No water (Groundwater & Surface water) Area % Area % Area % Area % Area % 1 Paddy 5.58 31.9 1.99 24.5 7.57 29.5 21.81 90.0 29.38 58.9 2 Groundnut 1.51 8.6 0.87 10.7 2.38 9.3 0.18 0.7 2.56 5.1 3 Maize 1.04 5.9 0.98 12.1 2.02 7.9 0.1 0.4 2.12 4.3 4 Sugarcane 2.25 12.9 0.42 5.2 2.67 10.4 0.86 3.5 3.53 7.1 5 Cotton 0.73 4.2 1.22 15.0 1.95 7.6 0.17 0.7 2.12 4.3 Sub-total (1- 11.11 63.5 5.48 67.4 16.59 64.7 23.12 95.4 39.71 79.6 5) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 16 of 74
  17. 17. Year 2004-05 Irrigated area under different sources (lakh ha) 6 Other crops 6.39 36.5 2.65 32.6 9.04 35.3 1.12 4.6 10.16 20.4 7 All crops 17.5 100.0 8.13 100.0 25.63 100.0 24.24 100.0 49.87 100.0 As % of total area 35.1 16.3 51.4 48.6 Source: Director of Economics and Statistics, GoAP 3.3 Groundwater Estimates, 2004-05 Net annual groundwater availability, its usage (groundwater draft under all uses ) and balance or what is referred to as availability for future use in all the assessment units has been made using a spreadsheet developed for this purpose, adhering to GEC, 1997 norms. The computations are made separately for command, non-command and poor groundwater quality areas. The watershed boundaries are revised and now they number 1229. The estimates show groundwater availability is 32.8 BCM, usage is 14.9 BCM and balance is 17.9 BCM per annum. This resource includes 1.3 BCM of net annual groundwater availability in poor quality and saline areas. The usage in saline areas is about 0.21 BCM. These results are summarized in Table 3.3. The district wise details are presented in the statements that fallow this text. A definite increase in groundwater use of about 13 percent under all sectors is seen in district wise comparison of the results with those obtained in 2002. This is corroborated by the steep decline in the mean water levels almost everywhere in the state. In many areas water level stands in fractured formation, rather than in weathered formation, as shown by the network of existing piezometers and drying up of traditional OB Wells. Table 3. 3 Groundwater estimation and stage of development in AP, 2002 Poor ground SL. Non- Description Command water Total NO command quality area 1 Area considered for recharge in Sq.kms 56,018 1,92,092 (4114) 2,48,110 2 Net annual groundwater availability in 14,964 17,794 (1307) 32,758 MCM 3 Current gross annual groundwater draft 3,330 11,525 (20.8) 14,855 for all uses in MCM 4 Current gross annual groundwater draft 3,026 10,716 - 13,742 for irrigation in MCM 5 Allocation for domestic and industrial 630 1,927 - 2,557 needs in MCM 6 Net annual groundwater availability for 11,634 6,269 - 17,903 future use in MCM 7 Stage of development (%) 22 65 - 45 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 17 of 74
  18. 18. The Estimates of 2002 were made mainly using the year 2000 database and in some cases, data for 1993 was used along with a projected growth of wells. So effectively this assessment done using 2004-05 data reflects a change that has taken place in last 5 years after 2000. The assessment shows that the districts of AP can be placed in four groups as in Table 3.4. Table 3. 4 Status of groundwater development in Andhra Pradesh, 2004-05 Stage of No of % of Districts development districts development 1 Very high 7 >70% 1. Ranga Reddy 5. Anantapur usage 2. Hyderabad 6. Kadapa 3. Medak 7. Chittoor 4. Nizamabad 2 High usage 5 >50% to <70% 8. Warangal 11. Karimnagar 9. Mahabubnagar 12. Nalgonda 10. Prakasam 3 Moderate 6 >30% to <50%) 13. West Godavari 16. Visakhapatnam usage 14. Nellore 17. Adilabad 15. Kurnool 18. East Godavari 4 Low usage 5 <30% 19. Vizianagaram 22. Guntur 20. Krishna 23. Srikakulam 21. Khammam Source: Water Resource 2004-05: Andhra Pradesh, Ground water department, AP, 2005 3.4 Groundwater Development in AP9 About 80% of Andhra Pradesh is underlain by hard rock10, wherein occurrence of groundwater is under unconfined to semi-confined conditions. The yields from such hard rock areas are generally moderate to poor (below 10,000 Gallons Per Hour - GPH). The agricultural sector in these regions is characterized by smallholdings11, making it difficult for farmers to obtain an adequate income through agriculture. With a view to disseminate the technology for higher benefits, the Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (APSIDC) has been formed as a State Government undertaking in 1974 with an authorized share capital of Rs. 10 crores which was subsequently enhanced to Rs. 125.00 crores. The objective of the APSIDC is construction of tLift Irrigation schemes to provide irrigation facility to the people placed in topographically disadvantageous upland areas and creation of irrigation potential through development of groundwater by constructing 9 The following discussion is based on Ben Witjes, David W. van Raalten, and Joseph L. Plakkoottam, Farmer Managed Borewell Irrigation 10 Mainly crystallines (like Granites, Peninsular Gneiss) which form the base rock and others like Cuddapah group, Kurnool group, basalts, laterites, etc. 11 In Andhra Pradesh those who own less than 1 ha (2.5 acres) are defined as marginal farmers, and those who own between 1 and 2 ha (2.5-5 acres) of dryland are considered small farmers. In some drought prone areas, farmers who own up to 3 ha of dryland qualify as small farmers. In AP the average holding of a marginal farmer is 1.25 acres (0.5 ha) and that of small farmers is 3.75 acres (1.5 ha). CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 18 of 74
  19. 19. Borewells, Tubewells, or Infiltration wells for the benefit of small and marginal farmers, and other weaker sections such as SCs and STs in upland and drought prone areas to raise their socio– economic status. Upto 2006, the APSIDC has created irrigation potential of 774,498 acres through 1,236 lift irrigation schemes at a cost of Rs.508. 02 crores. APSIDC has also commissioned 20,040 Ground water schemes creating an irrigation potential of 334,800 acres at a cost of Rs. 244.00 crores. To alleviate the situation of poor returns from agriculture, the Government of Andhra Pradesh has promoted the exploitation of groundwater on a large scale in the last three decades. This trend started with shallow dug wells for drinking water. Well digging for irrigation was promoted by the SC Corporation in the mid-1980’s. The advent of the India Mark II hand pump resulted in a large number of borewells, in almost every village of the state. This was followed by the arrival of the submersible pump and deep drilling technology. The Water Development Society (WDS) manufactured an indigenous drilling rig (with DTH technology) which became popular overnight. Agencies like the APSIDC and the ITDA have drilled about 25,000 borewells during 1975-1999. Drilling borewells thus blossomed into a profitable business and continues to be so even today. Groundwater development in non-command areas is highest in the dry Rayalaseema, reaching 72% with 52 over-exploited assessment units, 57% in Telangana and 50% in Coastal Andhra respectively. The Andhra Pradesh Water, Land and Tree Act 2002 has been legislated to control over exploitation of groundwater, and to safeguard drinking water resources.12 3.5 APWELL Project In 1987, the Government of India submitted a preliminary proposal to the Netherlands Government to fund a number of minor irrigation schemes in Andhra Pradesh. After several missions from the Netherlands, a final project document was submitted in February 1993. In line with the procedures of the Netherlands Government, a Gender Impact Study and an Environmental Impact Assessment were conducted. The APWELL Project was approved for financing by the Netherlands Government in June 1994. From April 1995 to March 2003, the APWELL Project was implemented in seven districts of Andhra Pradesh: Mahbubnagar, Kurnool, Anantapur, Prakasam, Nalgonda, Chittoor and Cuddapah. The original project document estimated that 5,400 wells could be established in a six-year period.13 In 1997, this was revised to 4,400 drilled wells, of which 3,300 were expected to be successful, with a discharge of more than 1,500 GPH (i.e. nearly 2 litres per second). The project was also expected to rehabilitate 500 sick wells and establish a network of observation wells. The project took care to see that environmental problems were properly addressed. Environment viability assessments (EVAs) were undertaken and borewells were approved 12 See Draft Andhra Pradesh Water Vision Volume 1, Chapter 2, Sectoral overview of water and water management. 13 Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Bore Well Irrigation Schemes (APWELL Project): Project Document. NEWORC, February 1993. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 19 of 74
  20. 20. only in areas where groundwater was assessed to be sufficient and was not overdeveloped. Soil and water quality analysis was conducted for every farm and borewell crop plans were made for sustainable land and water use. Land and soil management methods were taught, and the Borewell Users Association (BUA) was expected to take responsibility for overall water management including recharge measures. Physical activities such as groundwater prospecting, drilling, yield testing, and construction of the distribution systems, are done through the AP State Irrigation Development Corporation (APSIDC), with its technical staff under the Executive Engineer in each district. A technical assistance team, consisting of national and international experts on various disciplines, based in Hyderabad, advised and coordinated project activities in the field. The expatriate consultants were organised through ARCADIS Euroconsult and BKH, and the Indian consultants through IRDAS and subsequently through Priyum. In each district local NGOs were contracted to implement the social, institutional, gender, agricultural, and watershed aspects of the project. For this the NGOs appointed a dedicated team consisting of Agricultural Production Trainers (APTs), Gender Development Organisers (GDOs), Watershed Development Facilitators (WDFs), and Community Organisers (COs). A District Field Coordinator (DFC), who was part of the consultant’s team, supervised the work in each district. In the APWELL project, farmers own and maintain the groundwater borewell irrigation systems constructed as part of the project. They formed water user groups (WUGs) for construction, operation, and maintenance of the borewell systems. Women WUG members formed self-help groups for thrift and credit activities and gradually initiated land and water based agricultural and other supplementary income generating activities. Clusters of WUGs formed borewell user associations (BUAs), which in due course were legally registered, for training, conflict resolution, procuring agricultural inputs, marketing, agro-processing, and groundwater management. Important components of the project included: Groundwater resources development where feasible, land-and-water management by the users, extension and training, activities for gender integration, environment management, and monitoring and evaluation. During the Pilot Phase of the APWELL Project, the Nalgonda Pilot Project, a sub-project, prepared a detailed groundwater management plan for that district as an example of possible replication in other districts of the state. It looked at the groundwater potential village-wise and suggested means for local water resource management, in close collaboration with the State Groundwater Department and other agencies. The final report of this sub-project, published in 1997, offers several relevant suggestions on groundwater management and merits a revisit.14 In 1997, the position paper prepared for the Mid Term Review mission ,15 while strongly supporting watershed development for sustainable groundwater management, had warned that “the ultimate effect of ‘total’ watershed development, that surface water run-off to down-stream areas has ceased; the consequences for irrigation reservoirs located down-stream, the bigger ones not excluded, may be disastrous!” 14 Nalgonda District Groundwater Management Plan, Euroconsult, BKH, and IRDAS, May 1997. For a list of publications on the Nalgonda Pilot Project, see APWELL Final Report, ARCADIS Euroconsult, 2003. Pp. 69-70. 15 See “APWELL Positioned: Position Paper,” Euroconsult, May 1997. p.41 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 20 of 74
  21. 21. The Mid Term Review mission16 recommended that the APWELL Project pay greater attention to water conservation strategies especially to watershed management. In response to this APWELL gradually started a number of pilot activities related to water conservation including watershed development in two villages, participatory hydrological monitoring in all clusters with more than 10 successful groundwater irrigations systems, an experiment with people-controlled groundwater system in upper Gundlakamma sub-basin in Prakasam district, artificial recharge measures in two watersheds (with technical inputs from NGRI), introduction of drip and sprinkler irrigation, and eco-farming through application of low cost bio-fertilizers and bio- pesticides. The APWELL Project also conducted water quality testing in fluoride endemic areas. A total of 4,480 bore wells were drilled in the 7 districts under the APWELL project. Of these, 3,462 were successful with yield above 1,500 gph, at 77percent success rate whereas 75 percent is the acceptable success rate. In the 15 APWELL villages selected for this study, 329 of the 393 wells drilled under the project were successful (84%). On an average, one well would serve a command area of about 10 acres to irrigate the land owned by about 4 families for irrigated dry crops. This was a co-financing project with 15% (of total cost excluding establishment costs) being contributed by the farmers and the rest as a grant by the Royal Netherlands Government. The establishment costs and part of the cost of electricity infrastructure were borne by the GoI/GoAP17. Table 3. 5 APWELL Project coverage on completion (per March 2003) Av. Av. Ayacut Av cost Av. Total Ayacut per Av. per Av. WUG Total Fam/ ayacut per WUG family Yield borewell contribu District Villages WUGs Families WUG (acres) (acre) (acre) (GPH) (Rs) tion (Rs) Anantapur 39 415 1,396 3.4 4,410 10.6 3.2 4,009 131,724 16,159 Chittoor 110 419 2,076 5.0 3,481 8.3 1.7 3,109 141,242 17,171 Kadapa 59 415 2,160 5.2 3,978 9.6 1.8 2,995 150,625 18,167 Kurnool 78 518 2,013 3.9 5,299 10.2 2.6 4,557 143,036 16,765 Mahbubnagar 55 821 2,741 3.3 8,605 10.5 3.1 2,604 129,987 15,610 Nalgonda 42 299 1,439 4.8 3,018 10.1 2.1 3,569 153,300 18,796 Prakasam 87 575 2,053 3.6 5,698 9.9 2.8 3,523 142,660 16,635 TOTAL 470 3,462 13,878 4.0 34,489 10.0 2.5 3,523 140,102 19,790 Source: APWELL Project: Final Report. ARCADIS EUROCONSULT. 2003. pp.76-77. The implementation process followed by the APWELL Project achieved certain important results which are good lessons for future projects: 16 Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Bore Well Irrigation Schemes (APWELL): Mid-term review mission report. Netherlands Economic Institute, 1997. 17 For details on funding pattern, see APWELL Final Report. ARCADIS Euroconsult, 2003. Pp. 45-50. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 21 of 74
  22. 22. The intense community organization efforts to form and nurture Water User Groups (WUGs) assured the involvement of the farmers from the very inception of the project activities within the village. Compulsory inclusion of women as members of WUGs and forming self help groups helped to mainstream women into farmer management of groundwater systems. At the end of project implementation, the assets created were handed over to WUGs. Thus, the project had a distinct exit policy woven into its concept. The WUGs contributed 15% of the cost (excluding administrative charges). This ensured greater sense of ownership among the WUGs. Every member of the WUG was given a pipe outlet on his/her land, assuring equity in water distribution and reducing water conveyance loss. Intensive capacity building through training, exposure visits, and demonstrations assured quick adoption of sustainable water management and agricultural practices. The main lessons from the APWELL Project18 may be summarised as follows: Access to water by small and marginal farmers improves their productivity and they rise above poverty line. Small and marginal land holdings (as small as one acre) can become productive with availability of water and proper inputs. Enhancing productivity of land and water requires substantial inputs in terms of financial and capacity building inputs. Participatory groundwater management is a viable concept if introduced in conjunction with groundwater development, agricultural production, institutional development, and capacity building of farming communities. All stakeholders and water users need to be involved in participatory groundwater management. Government and non-government agencies need to work in collaboration for achieving sustainable results in participatory groundwater management. Role of facilitating agencies should not stop at the end of a project. Post project support is essential for sustainability of any promising intervention. Well trained and strongly motivated staff of government and non-government agencies working closely with farmers is necessary for the successful implementation of participatory groundwater management. 18 “Participatory groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh: Scope for Upscaling,” Joseph Plakkoottam and Jillilla Prasad, Development Management Network, 2006 CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 22 of 74
  23. 23. Water quality display at Irrigation bore well at Regumanipalli (APWELL) 8-Feb-07 AFPRO, Hyd 9 Photo 3.1 Irrigation borewell with excess fluoride unfit for drinking water purposes are marked with warning signs in APWELL (Regumanupalli) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 23 of 74
  24. 24. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 24 of 74
  25. 25. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 25 of 74
  26. 26. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 26 of 74
  27. 27. APWELL and beyond During the final year of APWELL Project, it was decided that the Indo-Dutch development assistance agreements were not to be extended to new projects. Dutch assistance to new projects, if at all, was to be through multi-lateral agencies. Thus the “APWELL and beyond” proposal to continue and extend the project into a second phase, submitted by the GoAP to the GoI was not taken forward. Instead, the Dutch government approved a far smaller capacity building initiative to support farmer managed groundwater systems for implementation through a network of NGOs in the seven APWELL districts. This was called the Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems Project (APFAMGS), for which funding was provided directly by the Royal Netherlands Embassy (RNE) till June 2004, after which it has been transferred to the Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO). Photo 3.1 Community Raingauge set up under APWELL at Mudireddypalli: Still functioning 3.6 APFAMGS Project The APFAMGS Project is operational in the same seven drought prone districts as that of APWELL. The project is ongoing, covering 650 habitations in 66 hydrological units. It works in partnership with groundwater dependent farmers. It empowers farmers with knowledge and skills to monitor groundwater system and take up appropriate interventions towards its management. The APFAMGS Project has adopted a sub-basin approach for selection of habitations unlike APWELL which selected villages with exploitable surplus of groundwater. The philosophy of APFAMGS Project is: “farmers’ understanding of groundwater dynamics makes the difference.” This is achieved through the process of enabling CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 27 of 74
  28. 28. primary stakeholders imbibe a field tested Participatory Hydrological Monitoring methodology for sustainable use of groundwater resources. APFAMGS Project is implemented through a network of community based organisations including nine field level partner NGOs and two international resource agencies. Objectives of APFAMGS The objectives of the APFAMGS Project are to: Create a band of skilled human resources to take up task of groundwater management Make farmers vigilant to groundwater dynamics and consequences of over exploitation Share concerns of farmers affected by ground water over exploitation and ensure appropriate remedial action Extend popular concept of participatory management of water resources to groundwater users Institutionalize community management of groundwater for dealing with issues related to sustainable groundwater management Facilitate formation of Groundwater Management Committees (GMC) made up of well owners to monitor groundwater levels, rainfall and discharge. Promote Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) as a tool to empower farmers for deciding appropriate crop system matching the available groundwater. Adopt Farmers Field School (FFS) approach for promoting eco friendly farming system Empower community to take up appropriate initiatives in groundwater recharge measures. Project Activities The APFAMGS Project has developed a comprehensive sequence of activities to achieve the objectives. These are Introduction of community approaches towards observing rainfall trends, this is done through daily rainfall measurement and recording it systematically Monitoring of wells (yield and water levels) properly in the identified wells across the village Crop water budgeting (CWB) promoted through water balance studies on the specific micro-watersheds Daily Rainfall monitoring with rain gauge devices installed in Hydrological Units (HU) Women empowerment and gender sensitization by having equal representation for women in Community Based Institutions (CBIs) and by full participation of women in all project activities Display boards to record rainfall and water level trends in a bid to communicate among the entire village Process documentation, Recording minutes of meetings and other organizational tasks. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 28 of 74
  29. 29. Achievements of APFAMGS19 APFAMGS Project, now in its fourth year has already exceeded its original targets of creating a band of 3000 men and women farmers to understand groundwater systems and 6500 farm families enabled for adoption of alternative agricultural practices suiting the availability of groundwater. More specific achievements reported are: 6,882 men and women farmers in a position to understand groundwater systems 7,029 farm families enabled for adoption of alternative agricultural practices suiting the availability of groundwater 574 community based institutions established for alternative management of groundwater resources with equal representation and participation of women and men covering 650 habitations. Several water use efficiency initiatives like mulching, bunding, improved irrigation methods, large scale promotion of water saving devices etc. have been taken up by farmers. Photo 3.3 Capacity building: Staff and PHM volunteer training session at Dudiya Thanda 19 The following summaries are based on documents of APFAMGS Project such as its most recent “Half Yearly Report (January-June 2006),” September 2006 and various brochures. All these documents are available on its website http://www.apfamgs.org CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 29 of 74
  30. 30. Impact of APFAMGS Several impacts, on expected lines, are reported by the Project. These are: Empowerment of community to collect, Reduced losses from irrigated crops and analyse and use data and knowledge increased profits from rainfed or less related to water water intensive cash crops Change in perception of groundwater as Reduced groundwater draft private property to that of a common Increased groundwater recharge good Reduced use of chemical inputs Shift from cultivation of irrigated water Increased use of organic methods of intensive crops to less water intensive, farming rainfed crops Reduced migration 3. 7 Social Regulations in Water Management20 The Social Regulation in water management is a traditional concept. Communities came up with various ways to regulate and share water resources. Madirepally habitation, a hamlet of Akuledu village in Singanamala mandal of Ananthapur district, AP, represents mixed communities and diversified culture representing various castes. The area is drought prone with scarce rainfall (yearly average rainfall is 485 mm). Agriculture is the major source of economy in the village. Livestock rearing plays a secondary role in supplementing village economy, wage employment at near by towns and cities provides secondary source of income. The village has a history of sharing surface water resource through ‘Gonchi System’. In this system, stream water is diverted and used equally by different land owners. They work collectively for its maintenance, usage and management. In Madirepally Gonchi covers 50 acres of paddy crop owned by 40 families, with land size varying between 0.5 to 2.0 acres. To maintain and manage Gonchi, all land owners have come together to form a water users association. In every season a representative is selected (not elected). He will be treated as the elderly person for that season and will be responsible to give a final verdict. Members form norms and regulations that need to be followed by every one without exception. The responsibility of regulating water to different fields is handled to a person called Neeruganti. One of the regulations that bind all stake holders or members is to contribute labour towards desiltation and repair works of the channel to enable easy flow of water. They block water flow by constructing a temporary structure to raise water level and divert water from the main stream. This allows repairing of the channel up to five km 20 Excerpted from: “Social Regulation in Water Management: Towards Water as a Common Property,” Centre for World Solidarity (CWS), Hyderabad and Rural Integrated Development Society (RIDS), Garladinne CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 30 of 74
  31. 31. distance. This is recurring process that needs attention almost every year. At times there is additional labour demand towards its repair and other maintenance works. The norm fixed is one day labour contribution for every half an acre of land held. If somebody misses or avoids he will be punished or will pay the stipulated money, decided by the elder or the collective. Other norms are: Not using more water than the stipulated share and not changing the system of irrigation or the schedule. The process of distributing water equally is managed through a mechanism of putting gates made out of wood ‘antham’, to allow only specified amount of water for each plot/field or set of fields. This will be monitored by the ‘Neeruganti’. For doing this job, the Neeruganti will be given a specific share out of the crop yield in a unit area of cultivation which will be decided by the group. When water flow in the stream is less, people prepare a few pits locally called ‘Talipiri’ from which water will be diverted to the channel for irrigation. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 31 of 74
  32. 32. Chapter 4 Objective Wise Presentation of Findings This chapter discusses the findings of the study linking them to the two objectives and the four sub-objectives. Wherever possible, data are grouped according to the projects that are represented in the sample. The primary objective of the present study is to: Assess systematically how far the CBGWM interventions in APWELL/ APFAMGS/ CWS are contributing to achieving the long-term goal of sustainable and adaptive resource use – and in effect whether they are moving towards long- term stabilization of the water-table in the local groundwater bodies involved and improving their quality as regards use for rural domestic water-supply. The second objective of the present study is: To review the design and institutional structure of the CBGWM interventions that have been or are being implemented in the state and assess, through parameters/approaches as quantifiable and verifiable as possible, the effectiveness of these interventions. The four dimensions for assessment of effectiveness are the following: 1. Relevance of communication strategy regarding realistic approaches to GW management. 2. Community awareness and level of community mobilization achieved with regards to groundwater management issues 3. Community decision making and collective action achieved towards sustainable groundwater management 4. Improvement in income and livelihoods of the farmers involved, as a result of the above. 4. 1 Sustainable and Adaptive Resource Use From dugwells to borewells From a trend analysis of groundwater development in the 30 sample villages some revealing findings emerge. There is a strong inverse correlation between the number of dug wells and borewells in the study areas especially in the last two decades. The number of functional open wells has declined concurrent to the increase in the number of borewells. Open wells being shallow wells are functional only when the groundwater table is shallow. Deep borewell technology which became popular in the last 25 years has made it possible to tap deep aquifers. The result of supply driven groundwater exploitation has resulted in the falling of groundwater levels as seen in Figure 4.1. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 32 of 74
  33. 33. 600 600 500 500 400 400 300 300 200 200 100 100 0 0 1986 1996 2006 1986 1996 2006 DUGWELLS BOREWELLS Figure 4.1 Trends in groundwater development: Dug wells vs Borewells Cost of groundwater development Drilling technology has become easily accessible leading to groundwater drilling becoming quite common. The cost of drilling is also manageable if drilling success is fairly certain. Table 4.1 gives an overview of costs involved based on the sample survey data. Most individual farmers tend to avail of credit for drilling wells. If a well is successful, the farmer recovers the cost in 1-4 years, while it takes 3-10 years for a farmer to recover costs if the drilling fails. This explains the fatal link between drilling failure and farmer suicides. One of the critical elements in this drastic scenario is that the services professional geologist is not easily accessible as the professional charges are high compared to the local water diviners; farmers are forced to engage water diviners, an indigenous practice, continued to this day by 90 percent of the farmers in the sample villages. This practice needs to be discouraged to reduce risk of failure of borewells. The APWELL Project had achieved a sound success rate of 78 percent through rigorous site selection procedures before drilling wells, followed by yield tests before appropriate pumps were designed. APWELL Project had also established norms to extract only sufficient water to grow irrigated dry crops in the designed ayacut. Where high yielding wells were drilled, WUGs were encouraged to share water with those without access to water. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 33 of 74
  34. 34. Table 4. 1 Groundwater cost and risks involved Drilling cost and Installation cost (drilling Rs. 30,000 – 80,000 + pump+ motor + pipes) Drilling cost of (successful borewell) 1-4 years recovery period (if on credit) Drilling cost alone Rs. 10,000 – 35,000 If failure recovery period for the drilling 3 – 10 years cost (if on credit) Groundwater Price Rs. 400-500 per wetting (On an average cost of irrigation for one crop is Rs. 3000 – 4000 per acre for 7 to 8 wettings) Identification of potential Drilling sites Water Diviners (90%) Informal groundwater markets exist in rural areas. The average rate is between Rs. 400- 500 per wetting amounting to Rs. 3000-4000 per acre per season. Therefore, water sharing among neighbours and kin has been the secret of the high productivity and groundwater use efficiency. Functioning of borewells It was interesting to study whether the borewells commissioned under the APWELL Project were functioning or not as sustainability of groundwater sources is a major issue. It was found that about 88 percent of the wells were still in use indicating that the technical quality maintained in borewell development in APWELL has contributed to this success. It may also be noted that seasonal low groundwater yield was felt across the state during 2002-2004 due to severe droughts which changed dramatically in 2005-2006 due good monsoons. Figure 4. 2 Percentage of borewells functioning in sample villages APW+APF The percentage of borewell is Control APW APF seasonal and all the time is high under APFAMGS villages, this is because: Minimum acreage under each borewell as compared seasonal to APWELL villages. Percentage of gross cultivable area is less (see Fig 4.2) All_time Incidentally, the selected APFAMGS sample villages are located in high rain fall Not_Funct areas. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 34 of 74
  35. 35. Borewell yields and average ayacut In the APWELL Project, a borewell yielding 2500 GPH was designed to irrigate 10 acres of irrigated dry crops. Depending on the yield and willingness of the farmers to share water, the ayacut was fixed. No farmer was given higher HP pumps, despite requests, to extract all the potential yield of a well. In the sample survey, It is observed that the current average area irrigated in the APWELL project villages is more than 8 acres. In APFAMGS and Control villages the average area irrigated is about 5.5 acres (See Fig 4.3). The average ayacut is more for the following reasons: Effective sharing of water resources Consideration of small and marginal farmers for each borewell project with land holdings ranging from 1 to 5 acres Among the sharing farmers, the farmer with maximum area will irrigate less area and share the meager groundwater resources with partner farmers who have less land Also some times all the sharing farmers desist from cultivating a part of their land during shortage of groundwater, power shortages etc. The farmers in who share water jointly decide the type of crop (Paddy/ID/Dry) to be sown based on potential risks. Increasing irrigated area 9 APWELL and APFAMGS 8.4 8.06 promote the concept of 8 maximizing the irrigable area 7 by bringing in efficient Avg.no. of acres 6 5.36 5.44 technologies (Micro 5 irrigation), agronomic practices (Irrigated Dry 4 crops, seed production, SRI 3 paddy etc), trainings on 2 water sharing and PHM. 1 0 APW APW+APF APF CON Figure 4.3 Irrigated area in acres per borewell In APFAMGS and control villages, average irrigated area under each borewell is 5.5 acres. This is because: No. of farmers are relatively less under each borewell There is no role for APFAMGS in the individual/group of farmers’ decision when they are going for a new borewell No infrastructure is provided under APFAMGS project (except select water harvesting structures) CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 35 of 74
  36. 36. PHM and Crop Water Budgeting PHM and Crop Water Budgeting (CWB), introduced by the APWELL, has been up scaled in all APFAMGS villages. As APFAMGS project is implemented on Hydrological Unit Network (HUN) basis, awareness on these two important concepts are being imparted during FFS, GMC and HUN meetings. (See Annexure 4). The GMC members, FFS participants and stake holders are mobilized towards groundwater management. CWS initiative in MC Thanda had been through watershed approach. It has created awareness and mobilized community for water recharging, soil and moisture conservation and development or natural regeneration of common pool resources in the catchment area. It also created intensive awareness to the community on social regulations for discouraging over exploitation of groundwater resources through drilling excess no. of borewells by individuals. In this regard, it has helped community to understand other sustainable cropping practices with less water for irrigation and groundwater management systems. Community awareness and level of mobilization as adopted by APWELL, APFAMGS and CWS are leading the community towards participatory groundwater management systems. However, such awareness and mobilization should be continued and followed up till the community internalizes the concepts and begin social regulations on their own. These awareness and mobilization activities should be carried out using the latest social and technical tools. In APWELL villages, the introduction of borewell technologies, provision of infrastructure like electricity poles and motivation of other farmers having seen the success of APWELL farmers led to many farmers going for new borewells on their own. Bringing all such farmers into participatory groundwater management is required for groundwater sustainability. Problems and constraints of groundwater use The problems identified with regard to borewells are given in descending order: 1. Limited Hours of Power Supply (presently only 7 hours 2. Over exploitation of groundwater in the respective villages 3. Failure of pumping motors 4. Irregular timings of Power Supply 5. Low Voltage power supply 6. Insufficient recharge structures 7. Insufficiency of Water in the aquifers 8. Low Rain fall Groundwater usage problems and borewell yields are assessed in FGD and ranked the problems on a 1 to 8 scale. The aggregated number is taken to rank for each parameter. Lower number indicates the major problem and higher one indicates low problem (See Figure 4.4). Limited hours of power supply, over exploitation of groundwater and failure of pumps are the most serious problems faced by groundwater dependent farmers. CBGWM Study – AFPRO – Report (final draft) 36 of 74

×