Goundwater management report

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

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


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


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.


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.


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


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


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


Figure 2. 1 Location Map of Study Areas


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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)


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)


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


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).


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.


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


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.


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


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)


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


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.


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


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


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.


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.


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.


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.


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)


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.


Goundwater management report

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Goundwater management report

Similar to Goundwater management report (20)

More from Sai Bhaskar Reddy Nakka

More from Sai Bhaskar Reddy Nakka (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Goundwater management report