DISCUSSION

Analysis of Indias Minor Irrigation Statistics

Faulty Analysis, Wrong Inferences
M Dinesh Kumar, V Ratna Reddy, A Narayanamoorthy, M V K Sivamohan

his note is in response to the article Major Insights from Indias Minor Irrigation Censuses: 1986-87 to 2006-07 (EPW, 29 June 2013) by Mukherji, Rawat and Shah. The authors claim to offer an understanding of the evolution of groundwater irrigation in India. The authors have taken the initiative of painstakingly comparing the minor irrigation (MI) censuses spanning over three decades. The authors open up a debate on irrigation in India, but this is done with a mere comparison of the number of groundwater abstraction structures across time and space. The analysis does not consider the most important indicator of performance of the irrigation structures, i e, the irrigated area. Oversimplifying the Complexity It is well established that groundwater hydrology in India is too heterogeneous to be amenable to any simple regional comparison. They are deep and extensive alluvial formations in India, and they extend over the entire IndoGangetic plain. But, two-thirds of the geographical area is underlain by hard rocks. While a well yield of 25 litres per second is quite common in the Gangetic plains, in the hard rock often it is as low as 1-2 litres per second. While a deep tube well in Gangetic plains can irrigate 30-40 hectares (ha) of land, the borewell in the hard rock areas can hardly irrigate 1-2 ha, even with same quality of power supply. Though the authors recognise this at times, they ignore this while analysing the crude statistics of groundwater structures. It is also well known that in the same locality, the geo-hydrological environment changes remarkably over time. In the
76

alluvial areas, it can change from shallow water table conditions in phreatic aquifers to deep piezometric levels in high-yielding conned aquifers. In hard rock, the change can be from shallow water table in large open wells to deep water table in bore wells. Accordingly, the irrigation potential of wells also could change drastically. While the shallow open wells in the alluvium irrigate 1-2 ha of land, the irrigation potential of deep tube wells could be as high as 30-40 ha. In the case of hard rock area, just the opposite usually happens. While the large open wells could irrigate 2 ha, the bore wells will hardly be able to irrigate 1 ha. Also, their life is very short. Drawing Wrong Conclusions The rst conclusion from the paper, as claimed by the authors, is that MI is all about groundwater. To make this point, they compare the number of groundwater abstraction structures against other MI structures. While it is true that the aggregate area irrigated by wells far exceeds area irrigated by other MI sources (tanks and river lift schemes), the authors concern with the number of groundwater structures to prove the point is difcult to comprehend. From the point that the surface MI structures account for only 6% of the total MI structures in the country, it is not correct to conclude that we can ignore the surface structure. Many tanks irrigate hundreds of hectares of land, often 50-100 times the land irrigated by wells. The second conclusion from the study, in the authors own words: is that the rate of growth of Indias groundwater structures is slowing down...and it seemed that the groundwater juggernaut
november 16, 2013

was unstoppable (Mukherji et al 2013: 122). One wonders how this was visualised. In states like Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Rajasthan, Andhra Pradesh and Gujarat, water is a major constraint in expanding well irrigation. In contrast to this, in states such as West Bengal, Bihar and Assam, land is a constraint in irrigated area expansion. In fact, nowhere in the paper does the problem of arable land availability nds a mention, while the issue of poor growth in groundwater abstraction structures is dealt with. The authors should have further investigated the issue by taking the regional scenarios with respect to availability of arable land and land lying fallow due to lack of water in the high and very high rainfall regions. The fact is that in some areas, particularly in eastern India, land scarcity limits further expansion in number of wells, though groundwater is available in plenty. Either the land is under irrigation or it receives such high rainfall that crops can be grown under rain-fed conditions. To elaborate, small landholdings and their fragmentation make it economically unviable to have individual wells to irrigate the land parcels, and cultivators instead buy water from neighbouring well owners. While this does not explain the decline in the absolute number of wells in states like West Bengal, what the authors ignore is the fact that with increased adoption of higher-capacity pump sets by well owners and drilling of deeper tube wells, the irrigation potential of individual tube wells had increased in the alluvial areas of this state. The same or even more area under irrigation can be managed with a smaller number of wells. Interestingly, the determinants of groundwater demand for irrigation never appear in the scheme of things for the researchers. Over and above this, the cropping pattern has also been shifting to high value cash crops in recent years, though only marginally. The analysis of state-wise data on ownership of pump sets, and cropping pattern could have thrown light
EPW Economic & Political Weekly

vol xlviII nos 45 & 46

DISCUSSION

on this. But instead of doing that, the authors try to attribute the phenomenon of declining well numbers to the deteriorating power supply condition and the price of diesel. While it is true that the growth rate in well numbers has fallen in northern and southern India, the reasons attributed to it are not correct. The authors contention is that the already high density of wells in these areas explains the slow growth during 2000-01 to 2006-07 and the groundwater over-exploitation had taken a further toll on the growth in the number of wells. This is an untenable proposition. In fact, the maps provided by the authors clearly show that major changes in groundwater environment occurred in the northern region (during 1987-94 and thereafter), and yet well numbers grew remarkably in this region beyond 1993-94. This does not mean that things are rosy in the south Indian peninsula. There are problems of widespread well failures due to well interference, which the ofcial estimates do not capture (Kumar et al 2012). The problem is that neither is the data used by the authors adequate to draw any useful inference about the growth prospects in groundwater irrigation nor is the methodology employed by them useful. First of all, the methodology employed for groundwater resource estimation suffers from some inadequacies, particularly when used in the hard rock areas of central and south India. Second, the crude statistics of well numbers are not an indicator of the intensity of use of groundwater (Kumar 2007; Kumar et al 2012). A clear example is Andhra Pradesh. Though the number of wells recorded a quantum jump between 2000-01 and 2003-04, the area irrigated by wells in the state did not increase at all. It is important to mention here that most of the rise in well numbers came from the large number of bore wells drilled in the hard rock areas, in response to rampant well failures. Wrong Inferences The authors recommendation, based on the data on capacity utilisation of wells, is untenable. They argue that in Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Gujarat,
Economic & Political Weekly EPW

Maharashtra, Rajasthan and Chhattisgarh, farmers should not drill new wells, as capacity utilisation is very poor in these regions (p 122). Such a conclusion ignores the fact that more than 90% of the small and marginal farmers still do not own wells and pump sets, and the investment in these regions would help achieve distributional equity, with the available water in the aquifers getting distributed among larger number of users tapping the resource. What we need to control is the amount of abstraction, and not the number of wells as suggested by the authors, especially
Landholding Category Total No of Holders Total holding (Ha)

have used the total number of wells owned by each category of farmers against the total number of operational holders under that category. What the authors forget is the fact that around 80% of the farmers in India belong to small and marginal category (see Table 1) and a very small fraction of them own wells and pump sets (Figure 1, based on Kumar 2007). Against this, less than 1% of the farmers are large holders and around 69% of the large farmers own wells and pump sets. So there exists a large inequity in access to groundwater abstraction structures.
% of Farmers Owing Wells OW STW DTW Estimated Net Area under Well Irrigation (ha) and % of Total Area (%)

Table 1: Calculation of Well Irrigated Area for Different Landholding Classes

Average Holding (Ha)

Marginal Small Medium Large Total

8,36,94,372 3,20,25,970 2,39,29,627 3,31,00,790 2,05,02,460 7,44,81,092 10,95,778 1,87,15,131 13,55,97,577 15,83,22,983

0.4 1.4 2.8 17.1 1.16

2.5 10.0 13.4 20.4

3.5 12.0 13.2 16.5

0.01 0.02 0.09 0.40

19,21,559 (6.0) 72,82,174 (22.0) 1,98,86,452 (26.7) 69,05,883 (36.9) 3,59,96,067 (22.7)

OW= open well; STW =shallow tube well; DTW =deep tube well. Source: Authors own estimates based on agricultural census (2005-06) and data from minor irrigation census on well ownership in India (Kumar 2007).

Figure 1: Class-wise Ownership of Different Types of Wells

% holders owning dug wells and STW % holders owning DTW

25 20 15 10 5 0

Shallow tube wells Deep tube wells

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 0.00

Dug wells

(0-1 ha) Marginal Source: MI Census 2000-01.

(1-2 ha) Small

(2-10 ha) Medium

> 10 ha) Big

Landholding classes

when it is a private investment. What needs to be understood here is that the problem is of over-design and that even with lower pumping capacity of wells and pumps, a larger area can be irrigated using MI systems. Even when such data can offer some useful insights, the authors falter, by resorting to the wrong method of analysis, to make weak arguments. A case in point is the ownership of wells. The authors argue that Indias groundwater structures are mostly owned (66.5%) by small and marginal farmers (Table 13). The error made by the authors lies in using the wrong denominator for ascertaining who controls the groundwater economy. Ideally the authors should
vol xlviII nos 45 & 46

The authors extend the argument further by saying:

that small and marginal farmers own a major share of Indias groundwater resources, and that the eastern Indian states are not very prosperous makes this (read it as free power connection and high diesel subsidy) a pro-poor strategy... (p 123, last paragraph).

It does not take much effort for one to realise that the groundwater economy in India is controlled by medium and large farmers and all these benets would end up with rich farmers who are running wells using diesel pumps. The fallacy in the authors argument can be understood from Table 1 and Figure 1. Table 1 shows that India had nearly 83.6 million marginal and 23.9 million
77

november 16, 2013

DISCUSSION

small farmers, while there are 1.05 million large and 20.5 million medium farmers, as per the agricultural census of 2005-06. As per our estimates, the 107.5 million small and marginal farmers together irrigate only 9.1 mha of land (net) from wells, against 21.55 million medium and large farmers irrigating 26.8 mha of land (net). The average well irrigated area of small and marginal farmers is 0.09 ha, while that of a large farmer is around 6.8 ha, which is about 80 times higher than that of the former. When we consider medium farmers as well, the average per farmer (for medium and large farmers) becomes 1.24 ha. In terms of the proportion of area irrigated, it is hardly 14% of the total area for small and marginal farmers, against 29% for medium and large farmers. So, undoubtedly, Indias groundwater economy is controlled by medium and large farmers. The paper also has statements like
While dependence on diesel pumps was not particularly detrimental to farmers in the 1980s and even 1990s, the rapid rise in diesel pumps since the mid-1990s, has far outstripped increases in paddy prices. As a result, irrigating with diesel pumps has proved to be uneconomical for most farmers in eastern India (pp 118-19).

(1) the actual cost of irrigation has gone up drastically, with rising diesel prices; (2) farmers would continue with their old irrigation practices, even under higher cost of irrigation water; and (3) returns from farming are only dependent on irrigation costs as farmers would stick to the same cropping system under higher cost of irrigation water. Studies in eastern India clearly show that even with higher prices for diesel (though slightly higher in real terms), the cost of irrigation has not increased signicantly. Second, the irrigation use efciencies have improved for farmers who pay more for irrigation water. Third, farmers who are confronted with higher irrigation costs are willing take a lot of risk, and modify their farming systems with a higher proportion of area under high value crops, with the result that they are able to sustain their income (Kumar et al 2010). Indias irrigation scenario is changing fast, we, as researchers, need to acknowledge this. Conclusions There are complex considerations involved in understanding the performance of groundwater irrigation systems, and our understanding cannot be based on the simple criteria of well numbers, and how many of them are electried. It is important to know where these wells are located (the aquifer characteristics, particularly the geological and geo-hydrological environment), the well characteristics, the quality of power

supply, the amount of land available for cultivation, and, nally, the amount of land irrigated and the cropping system adopted by the irrigators. In the research on irrigation and rural poverty, the question that needs to be posed is, what proportion of the small and marginal farmers own wells, against medium and large farmers. The abysmally low number here is the primary factor responsible for the inequity in access to groundwater resources in the country. This inequity is alarming and is growing. How to address this inequity should be the concern of researchers and policymakers.
M Dinesh Kumar (dinesh@irapindia.org) is executive director, Institute for Resource Analysis and Policy, Hyderabad; V Ratna Reddy is director, Livelihoods and Natural Resources Management Institute, Hyderabad; A Narayanamoorthy is head of the Department of Economics and Rural Development, Alagappa University, Karaikudi, Tamil Nadu and M V K Sivamohan is principal consultant, IRAP.

References
Kumar, M Dinesh (2007): Groundwater Management in India: Physical, Institutional and Policy Alternatives (New Delhi: Sage Publications). Kumar, M Dinesh, O P Singh and M V K Sivamohan (2010): Have Diesel Price Hikes Actually Led to Farmer Distress in India?, Water International, 35 (3): 270-84. Kumar, M Dinesh, M V K Sivamohan and A Narayanamoorthy (2012): The Food Security Challenge of the Food-Land-Water Nexus in India, Food Security Journal, 4 (4): 539-56. Mukherji, Aditi, Stuti Rawat and Tushaar Shah (2013): Major Insights from Indias Minor Irrigation Censuses: 1986-87 to 2006-07, Economic & Political Weekly, Vol XLVIII (28 & 29): 115-24.

If this statement is correct, how is it that millions of farmers in eastern India (around four million in total) use diesel engines for irrigating their crops? There is a problem of perception here that follows from the assumptions that

REVIEW OF URBAN AFFAIRS

March 30, 2013
(Un)Settling the City: Analysing Displacement in Delhi from 1990 to 2007 Revitalising Economies of Disassembly: Informal Recyclers, Development Experts and E-Waste Reforms in Bangalore Biometric Marginality: UID and the Shaping of Homeless Identities in the City Protest, Politics, and the Middle Class in Varanasi Revisiting the 74th Constitutional Amendment for Better Metropolitan Governance Governing Indias Megacities: Governing Indias Megacities Gautam Bhan, Swathi Shivanand Rajyashree N Reddy Ursula Rao Jolie M F Wood K C Sivaramakrishnan Ashima Sood

For copies write to: Circulation Manager, Economic and Political Weekly, 320-321, A to Z Industrial Estate, Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai 400 013. email: circulation@epw.in
78
november 16, 2013 vol xlviII nos 45 & 46
EPW Economic & Political Weekly