drip nabard

8/6/2019 Drip Nabard

1/128


2/128

meeceefeke efveyevOeOccasional Paper - 45

efmeeeb.& keer - ef[^He meeeb.& kesmeobYe& ceW DeOeeve

EFFICIENCY OF IRRIGATION:A CASE OF DRIP IRRIGATION

DeeefLe&ke efJeMues


3/128


4/128

iii

PREFACE

Though the area under irrigation has increased significantly since

independence, the share of i r r igated area to gross cropped area in

Indian agriculture is only about 40 percent as of today. One of themain reasons fo r the l imi ted expans ion o f i r r iga t ion i s the p redo-

minant use of flood method of irrigation. The efficiency of water use

under flood method of irrigation is extremely low mainly due to huge

losses through the evaporation and distribution. Considering the fast

decline of available water potential and growing needs for irrigation

w a t e r , v a r i o u s m e a s u r e s h a v e b e e n i n t r o d u c e d t o i n c r e a s e t h e

efficiency of water use under flood method of irrigation. However,

these measures could not br ing any substant ial improvement in the

exis t ing water use eff iciency. Drip method of i r r igat ion int roduced

somewhat recent ly in Indian agricul ture proved to be an effect ive

method in increas ing the ef f i c iency o f water use . Dr ip method of i r r i g a t i o n s u p p l i e s w a t e r d i r ec t l y a t t h e ro o t zo n e o f t h e c ro p s

th rough a ne twork o f p ipes and therefore , i t subs tan t i a l ly reduces

the evaporat ion and dis t r ibut ion losses of water . Apart f rom water

s a v i n g , d r i p m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n a l s o s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n c r e a s e s

productivity of crops and that too with reduced cost of cult ivation.

Although drip method of irrigation has been commercially practiced

s i n ce mi d -e i g h t i e s i n In d i a , n o t man y co mp reh en s i v e s t u d i e s a r e

av a i l ab l e fo cu s i n g o n t h e i mp ac t o f i t o n v a r i o u s p a rame t e r s o f

crops . In th is s tudy, us ing both secondary and f ield level data, an

a t t e m p t i s m a d e t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e c o v e r a g e o f d r i p m e t h o d o f

i r r i g a t i o n an d i t s i mp ac t o n co s t o f cu l t i v a t i o n , p ro d u c t i o n an d

productivity of different crops, water saving and water use efficiencya s w e l l a s e c o n o m i c v i a b i l i t y o f d r i p i n v e s t m e n t i n d i f f e r e n t

c r o p s . An a t t e m p t is a l s o m a d e t o e s t im a t e t h e t ot a l p ot e n t i a l

area for dr ip method of i r r igat ion and water saving for the country

as a whole.

The resu l t s o f the s tudy show tha t water sav ing and water use

efficiency of different crops cultivated under drip method of irrigation

is significantly higher when compared with those under flood method

of irrigation. Productivity as well as profit of different crops is also

found to be higher wi th the crops cul t ivated under drip method of

i r r igat ion. This new i rr igat ion technology also helps to save consi-

derable amount of electrical energy used for lifting water from wells.

Benefi t -cost rat ios wi th di fferent discount rates indicate that dr ip

i n v es t men t i n s u g a rcan e , b an an a an d g rap es cu l t i v a t i o n r ema i n s

economically viable even without subsidy. The findings as well as the


5/128

iv

pol icy recommendat ions of the s tudy are expected to be useful for

promoting the drip method of irrigation in India.

This paper is the outcome my research on drip i rr igat ion that I

have been undertaking s ince 1995, when I f i rs t carr ied out a f ieldd a t a b a s e d s t u d y on Eva l u a t i o n o f Dr i p I r r i g a t i o n S ys t em i n

Maharashtra for the Minis t ry of Agricul ture, Government of India,

N ew D e l h i . A t t h e o u t s e t , I w o u l d l i k e t h an k t h e D ep a r t men t o f

Economic Analysis and Research, National Bank for Agriculture and

Rural Development (NABARD), Mumbai for extending an invitation to

write this paper. Over the last ten years, I have had opportunit ies to

d i scuss wi th var ious scho lars abou t the i s sues per ta in ing to d r ip

irrigation at different t ime points, which helped to refine my know-

ledge on this subject . Particularly, I would l ike to express my grati-

tu de to th e following sch olar s/ ad m inistra tors: Prof. R.S. Desh pa nd e

(Head , Agr icu l tu ra l Development and Rura l Trans format ion Uni t ,

Ins t i tu te fo r Socia l and Economic Change , Bangalore) , Prof . V .S.Chitre (former Director, Gokhale Institute of Politics and Economics,

Pune and cur ren t ly Di rec to r , Ind ian School o f Po l i t i ca l Economy,

P u n e ) , P r o f . R . M a r i a S a l e t h ( S e n i o r I n s t i t u t i o n a l E c o n o m i s t ,

International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka), Prof.

B.D. Dhawan (former Professor, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi),

Dr. M.A. Chi tale (former Secretary, Minis t ry of Water Resources ,

G o v ern men t o f In d i a , N ew D e l h i an d fo rmer Sec re t a ry G en e ra l ,

Internat ional Commission on Irr igat ion and Drainage, New Delhi) ,

Shr i V .M. Ranade ( fo rmer Secre tary o f I r r iga t ion , Government o f

Maharashtra, Mumbai) , Prof . C. Ramasamy (Vice-Chancel lor , Tamil

Nadu Agr icu l tu ra l Univers i ty , Coimbatore , Tami l Nadu) , Prof . K .

Palanisami (Director, Water Technology Centre, Tamil Nadu Agricul-

t u ra l U n i v e r s i t y , Co i mb a t o re , T ami l N ad u ) , P ro f . T u s h aa r Sh ah ,

(Theme Leader, Sustainable Groundwater Management, International

Water Management Ins t i tu te , V.V. Nagar, Gujarat , India) , Dr. N.A.

M u j u m d a r ( E d i t o r , I n d i a n J o u r n a l o f A g r i c u l t u r a l E c o n o m i c s ,

M u m b a i ) a n d S h r i Ajit B . J a i n (J o in t M a n a g in g D ir e c t o r , J a i n

Irrigation Systems Lim ited, J algaon , Maha ra sh tra ).

I have also benefited from many officials from the office of the

Commissionerate of Agriculture, Government of Maharashtra, Pune,

while carrying out the studies on drip method of irrigation over the

y e a r s i n M a h a r a s h t r a . I e x p r e s s m y s i n c e r e t h a n k s t o a l l t h o s eofficials who have helped in my research endeavour.

T h an k s a r e a l s o d u e t o Sh r i B i p i n K D eo k a r , Sh r i Mu k u n d N

D e s h p a n d e a n d S h r i M a h e n d r a H B h a l e r a o f o r p r o c e s s i n g a n d


6/128

v

analys ing the da ta us ing computer and Shr i S .S . Dete , Shr i V .B.

Lokare and Shr i V .G. Kasbe fo r co l l ec t ing da ta f rom the f i e ld a t

di fferent t ime points . However, none of the individuals and ins t i -

tutions mentioned above are responsible for errors remaining in the

study report .

Profess & Director A. Narayanamoorthy

Centre for Rural Development

Alagappa University

Karrikut i - 630 003

Tamil Nadu


7/128

vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

Pre fac e iii - v

Lis t o f Abbre vat ions vii - viii

Lis t o f Table s ix - x i

Exe c ut ive Sum m ary xii i - xx

Ch a p ter 1 In t rodu ct ion 1-1 1

Ch a pter 2 Need for Drip Meth od of Ir r iga t ion 13 -26

Ch a pter 3 Developm en t of Drip Ir r iga t ion in In d ia 27 -4 6

Ch a p ter 4 Wa ter a n d Electr icity Sa vin g 47-58

Ch a pter 5 Cos t of Cu lt iva t ion a n d Produ ctivity Ga in s 59-68

Ch a p ter 6 Ben efit -Cos t An a lys is 69 -81

Ch apter 7 Poten t ia l a n d Prospects for Drip Ir r iga t ion in In dia 83 -88

Ch a pter 8 Ma jor Fin d in gs a n d Policy Recom m en da tion s 89-102

Referen ces 10 3-110


8/128

vii

Abbreviations

AFC Agricu ltu ra l Fin an ce Corpora tion

BCR Ben efit-Cos t Ra t io

CACP Com m is s ion for Agr icu lt u ra l Cos ts an d Pr ices

CBIP Cen tra l Boa rd of Irr iga tion an d Power

CGWB Cen tra l Grou n dwa ter Boa rd

CMIE Cen tr e for Mon itorin g In dia n Econ om y

CI Cropp in g In ten s ity

CM Cen t im eter

CWC Cen tra l Wa ter Com mis s ion

DMI Drip Meth od of Irr iga t ion

DSI Decca n Su ga r In s t itu te

FMI Flood Meth od of Ir r iga tion

FAI Fert ilis er As s ocia tion of In dia

GCA Gros s Cropped Area

GWA Grou n dwa ter Area

GIA Gros s Irr iga ted Area

GOI Govern m en t of In d ia

GOM Govern m en t of Ma h a ras h tra

HP Hors e Power

ICID In ter n at ion a l Com m is sion on Ir riga tion a n d Dr ain a ge

INCID In d ia n Na t ion a l Com m it tee on Ir riga t ion a n d D r ain a ge

IWMI In tern a tion a l Wa ter Ma n agem en t In s t itu te

J ISL J a in Ir r iga tion Sys tem s Lim ited

MI Min or Ir r iga t ion

MMI Ma jor an d Mediu m Ir r iga tion

MOWR Min is tr y of Wa ter Res ou r cesNABARD Nat ional Ban k fo r Agr icu l tu re a nd Ru ra l Development

NAT New Agricu ltu ra l Tech nology


9/128

viii

NCPA Na t io n a l C o m m i t t e e o n t h e U s e o f P la s t ic s in

Agriculture

NCPAH Na t io n a l C om m it t ee o n Pla s t ic u lt u r e Ap p lic a t io n s in

Horticulture

NHB Na tion al Hor ticu ltu re Boa rd

NPW Net Pres en t Worth

NIA Net Ir r iga ted Area

PFDC Pr ecis ion F arm in g Develop in g Cen tr e

PIM Pa rticipa tory Ir r iga tion Man agem en t

TFMI Ta sk Force on Micro Ir r iga tion

VSI Va s a n tda da Su ga r In s t itu te

WEM Wa ter Extra ct ion Ma ch in ery

WUE Wa ter Us e Efficien cy


10/128

ix

List of Tables

Ta ble Pa ge

No. No.

2 .1 Ma gn itu de an d Com pos it ion of In ves tm en t th rou gh 14

Plan Periods in Irrigation and Flood Control Sectors

2 .2 Ir riga tion Efficien cies u n der Differ en t Meth od s of 1 5

of Irrigation

2 .3 Ir r iga t ion Poten t ia l a n d Utiliza t ion in In d ia : 1 6

Up to 1999-2000

2 .4 S ta t ewis e Pos it ion of Ir riga t ion Pot en t ia l Cr a te d a n d 1 6

Util ised upto the Ninth Plan

2 .5 Sta tewis e Grou n dwa ter Poten tia l a nd Developm en t 17

2 .6 Develop m en t of Irr iga tion Poten tia l (cu m ula tive) 18

through Plan periods

2 .7 Com pou n d Growth -Ra te of Area , Produ ct ion an d 22

Yield of Principle Crops in India

(Base: TE 1981-82=100)

2 .8 Com pa ra t ive Ad va n ta ges of Dr ip Ir r iga t ion over 25

Flood Irrigation

3 .1 Sta tewis e Area u n der Drip Meth od of Ir r iga t ion 313 .2 Crop-wis e Area un der Dr ip Meth od of Irr iga t ion 32

in India : 1997-98

3 .3 S ch em e-wis e Ar ea u n der Dr ip Met hod of Ir riga tion : 3 3

1997-98

3 .4 Divis ion -wis e Area u n der Dr ip Irr iga t ion , it s 35

Proport ion and Growth Rate: Central and State

Schemes : 1999-2000

3 .5 Divis ion -wis e Area u n der Drip Ir riga tion a n d Tota l 3 7

Subsidy Dis t r ibuted Upto 1999-2000

3 .6 Crop -wis e S ha re of Dr ip Ar ea in Ma h ara sh tr a u p to 3 9

1999-2000


11/128

x

3 .7 Divis ion -wis e s h are of Dr ip Area in Ma ha ra sh tra 40

Up to 1999-2000

3 .8 Dis tr ict wis e F ac tor s De te rm in in g Dr ip Ir riga t ed Ar ea 4 3

in Maharash t ra : 1998-99

3 .9 Res u lts of Lin ea r Regr es sion : Fa ctor s Deter min in g 4 5

Area under Drip Irrigation

4 .1 Wa ter Sa vin g th rou gh Dr ip Meth od of Ir r iga tion 4 8

Experimental Results

4 .2 Res u lts of Stu dies on Micro-irr iga tion by PFDCs 49

4 .3 Pa ttern of Wa ter Us e in Drip a nd Flood Ir r iga ted 51Crops

4 .4 Wa ter Con s u m ption by Drip a n d Non -Drip 53

Irrigated Crops

4 .5 Wa ter Us e Efficien cy in Dr ip a n d Non -Drip 54

Irrigated Crops

4 .6 Es tim ates of E lect r icity Con su m ption by Dr ip a nd 57

Non-Drip Irrigated Crops

4 .7 E st im a tes of E lect ricit y Us e E fficien cy in Dr ip a n d 5 7

Non-Drip Irrigated Crops

5 .1 Pr od u c tivit y G a in s t h r ou g h D rip M et h od o f Ir r iga t ion 6 0

Experimental Results

5 .2 Yield a n d Wa ter Us e Efficien cy u nd er Dr ip a n d 61

Flood Method of Irrigation

5 .3 Cos t of Cu lt iva tion in cu rred by th e Adopters an d 65

the Non-Adopters of Drip Method of Irrigation

5 .4 Pr od u ct ivit y of Cr op s u n d er Dr ip a n d Flood Ir riga t ed 6 7

Condition

5 .5 Expen ditu re In cu rred to Produ ce on e Qu in ta l of 68

Output under Drip and Non-Drip Irrigated Condition

6 .1 Ben efit -Cos t Ra t io of Differ en t Dr ip Ir riga t ed Cr op s 7 0

Ta ble Pa ge

No. No.


12/128

xi

Ta ble Pa ge

No. No.

6 .2 Cos t-Ben efit of Differ en t Cr op s u n der DMI a n d FMI 7 1

6 .2 A Cos t-Ben efit of Differ en t Cr op s u n d er DMI a n d FMI 7 2

6 .3 AFC Dis tr ict Level E st im a tes of Ben efit -Cos t Ra tio 7 3

6 .4 Ca pita l Cos t , Prod u ct ion Cos t , Gros s In com e, 78

Subsidy among Drip and non-Drip Irr igated Crops

6 .5 Net Pres en t Wor th a nd Ben efit Cos t Ra tio for Dr ip 7 9

Irr igated Sugarcane under With and Without

Subsidy Condition

6 .6 Net Pres en t Wor th a nd Ben efit Cos t Ra tio for Dr ip 8 0

Ir r iga ted Grapes and Banana under Wi th and

Without Subsidy Condition

7 .1 Crops Grown u n der Drip Meth od of Ir r iga tion 84

7 .2 Dr ip Ir riga tion Poten tia l a n d Ca pita l Requ ir em en t- 8 5

India

7 .3 Es tim a te of Poten tia l Wa ter S avin g a n d Ad dit ion a l 8 8

Irrigated Area by Drip Irrigation: India

8 .1 S u m m a r y Res u lt s of Dr ip Met h od of Ir riga t ion : F ield 9 3

Survey


13/128

xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1 . Recog n is in g t h e fa s t d ec lin e o f ir r iga t i on w a t e r p ot en t ia l an d

g r o w i n g d e m a n d f o r w a t e r f r o m d i f f e r e n t s e c t o r s , a n u m b e r o f

d eman d cu r t a i l i n g s t r a t eg i e s h av e b een i n t ro d u ced s i n ce t h e l a t eseventies to increase the water use efficiency especially in the use of

surface irrigation water. However, the net impact of these strategies

in increasing the water use eff iciency is not very impress ive as of

t o d ay . O n e o f t h e t ech n i ca l mean s i n t ro d u ced r ecen t l y i n In d i an

agr icu l tu re to improve the water use e f f i c iency i s d r ip method of

irrigation (DMI). Unlike flood method of irrigation (FMI), under drip

me t h o d , w a t e r i s d i r ec t l y s u p p l i ed t o t h e ro o t zo n e o f t h e c ro p s

t h r o u g h a n e t w or k o f p ip e s u s i n g d r ip p e r s / e m i t t e r s . Th e d i r e c t

supp ly o f water th rough the p ipe ne twork reduces the subs tan t i a l

a m o u n t o f w a t e r l o s s e s t h a t t a k e p l a c e u s u a l l y u n d e r s u r f a c e

method of irrigation. As a result , the water use efficiency increases

upto 100 percent in a properly designed and managed drip irrigation

sys tem. Dr ip method of i r r iga t ion a l so he lps to reduce the over -

exploitation of groundwater that partly occurs because of inefficient

use of water under surface method of irrigation. This new method of

i r r igat ion also increases the product ivi ty of crops and reduces the

c o s t o f c u l t i v a t i o n e s p e c i a l l y i n l a b o u r - i n t e n s i v e o p e r a t i o n s .

E n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o b l e m s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e s u r f a c e m e t h o d o f

i r r iga t ion namely water logg ing and sa l in i ty a re a l so comple te ly

absent under drip method of i r r igat ion.

2 . Th o u g h d r i p m e t h o d o f ir r iga t io n c a n b e e ffic ie n t ly u s e d fo r

various crops in water scarce countr ies l ike India, the coverage of area under DMI is very limited as of today. While studies have been

carr ied out to f ind out the reasons for the s low growth of DMI as

w e l l a s i t s i m p a c t o n v a r i o u s p a r a m e t e r s , m o s t o f t h e s t u d i e s

available in the Indian context are either based on experimental data

or individual farmer case s tudies . Since the farm level s i tuat ion is

totally different from that of the experimental station, one requires a

detailed study using data from properly designed survey for making

any firm conclusion about its water use efficiency. The other issue of

d r ip i r r iga t ion i s re la ted to i t s economic v iab i l i ty , as fa rmers a re

often reluctant to adopt this technology fearing that the technology

may not be economically viable. Keeping in view the l imitations of

the exis t ing s tudies , in th is s tudy, an at tempt is made to s tudy theimpact of dr ip method of i r r igat ion on different parameters as wel l

a s i t s p o t e n t i a l a n d p r o s p e c t s i n I n d i a u s i n g b o t h s e c o n d a r y

(experimental) and field level data.


14/128

xiv

3 . Due to var ious p romotional schemes in t roduced by the Govern-

m e n t o f I n d i a a n d S t a t e s l i k e M a h a r a s h t r a , t h e a r e a u n d e r d r i p

m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n h a s i n c r e a s e d f r o m 1 5 0 0 h a i n 1 9 8 5 - 8 6 t o

70589 ha in 1991-92 and fu r ther to 4 .50 l akh hec tares a t the end

o f M a r c h 2 0 0 3 . T h o u g h d r i p m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n h a s b e e n i noperation over the last two decades, i t is essentially considered as a

scheme of government . As of 1997-98, area under DMI other than

government schemes (without subsidy) accounted for only about 18

percen t of In dias total drip irrigated ar ea.

4 . Over the las t t en years , s ign ifican t growth h as been ach ieved in

a r e a u n d e r d r i p m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n i n a b s o l u t e t e r m i n m a n y

S t a t e s . H o w e v e r , d r i p i r r i g a t e d a r e a c o n s t i t u t e s a v e r y m e a g r e

percen tage in re la t ion to g ross i r r iga ted area in a l l the Sta tes in

In d i a . D u r i n g 2 0 0 0 -0 1 , t h e s h a re o f d r i p - i r r i g a t ed a r ea t o g ro s s

i r r i g a t e d a r e a w a s j u s t 0 . 4 8 p e r c e n t a n d a b o u t 1 . 0 9 p e r c e n t i n

relation to total groundwater irrigated area of the country.

5 . S t a t e- wis e a r e a u n d e r d r ip m e t h o d of ir r iga t io n p e rt a in i n g t o

th ree t ime po in t s namely 1991-92 , 1997-98 and 2000-01 shows a

s u b s t a n t i a l i m p r o v e m e n t i n t h e a d o p t i o n o f t h i s n e w i r r i g a t i o n

t ech n o l o g y ac ro s s t h e S t a t e s . H o w ev er , t h e d ev e l o p men t o f d r i p

method of i r r iga t ion i s no t un i fo rm across d i f fe ren t s t a tes . In a l l

three t ime points , Maharashtra State alone accounted for nearly 50

percen t of th e Indias t otal drip irrigated a rea followed b y Kar n ata ka ,

Tami l Nadu and Andhra Pradesh . There a re many reasons fo r the

rap i d d ev e l o p men t o f d r i p i r r i g a t i o n i n Mah aras h t r a . F i r s t , S t a t e

government is very keen in promoting drip irrigation on a large scale

b y p r o v i d i n g s u b s i d y , t e c h n i c a l a n d e x t e n s i o n s e r v i c e s t o t h e

farmers . Maharashtra government has been providing subsidy s ince

1 9 8 6 - 8 7 o n w a r d s t h r o u g h S t a t e s c h e m e s . S e c o n d , a r e a u n d e r

irrigation from both surface and groundwater is quite low and hence,

many farmers have adopted drip method of irrigation to avoid water

scarcity largely in divisions l ike Nashik, Pune, etc. Third, owing to

c o n t i n u o u s d e p l e t i o n o f g r o u n d w a t e r , f a r m e r s w e r e n o t a b l e t o

cult ivate wide spaced and more lucrative crops l ike grapes, banana,

pomegranate, orange, mango, etc. using surface method of irrigation

in many regions. As a result , farmers had to adopt drip irrigation as

t h e s e c r o p s a r e m o s t s u i t a b l e f o r d r i p m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n .

Impor tan t ly , the fa rmers who adopted d r ip i r r iga t ion in i t i a l ly fo rce r t a i n c ro p s h av e r ea l i s ed t h e i mp o r t an ce o f d r i p i r r i g a t i o n i n

i n c reas i n g t h e w a t e r s av i n g an d p ro d u c t i v i t y o f c ro p s . T h i s h as

further induced many farmers to adopt dr ip method in some of the

regions in Maharashtra.


15/128

xv

6 . Wa t e r s a vin g a n d im p r o ve d wa t e r u s e effic ie n c y a r e t h e t wo

important advantages of drip method of irrigation. According to the

experimental data from different research s tat ions located in India,

water saving due to drip method of irrigation varies from 12 to 84

percent over the conventional method of irrigation in vegetable crops.In frui t crops , water saving varies 45 to 81 percent . In sugarcane,

which is a water-intensive crop, water saving is estimated to be over

65 percent due to drip method of irrigation.

7 . The resu l t s of fie ld leve l da ta per ta in ing to th ree crops nam ely

s u g a r c a n e , b a n a n a a n d g r a p e s a r e s o m e w h a t d i f f e r e n t f r o m t h e

experimental resul ts . The pat tern of water use for crops is to tal ly

different between the two methods of i r r igat ion. The drip adopters

have appl ied more number of i r r igat ion per hectare when compared

to the non-dr ip adopters in a l l the th ree crops cons idered fo r the

an a l y s i s . H o w ev er , h o u r s r eq u i r ed p e r i r r i g a t i o n t o i r r i g a t e p e r

hec tare o f sugarcane , g rapes and banana are s ign i f i can t ly l ess fo rthe drip adopters as compared to the non-drip adopters .

8 . Water consu mpt ion (in quan t ity) per hectare is mu ch less under

drip method of irrigation as compared to flood method of irrigation

in all the three crops. Water saving in sugarcane due to drip method

of irrigation is about 44 percent, while the same is estimated to be

about 37 percen t in g rapes and 29 percen t in the case o f banana .

9 . Ad d it io n a l a r ea can a ls o b e b rou g h t u n d e r ir r iga t io n from t h e

s av i n g o f w a t e r r ea l i s ed t h ro u g h t h e ad o p t i o n o f d r i p me t h o d o f

irrigation. The additional irrigated area possible from the saving of

w a t e r i s e s t i ma t ed t o b e 0 .8 0 (1 .9 8 ac re s ) i n s u g a rcan e , 0 .6 0 h a(1.48 acres) in grapes and 0 .41 ha (1 .01 acres) in banana.

10. Water us e efficiency (i.e ., water cons u m ed to produ ce one un it

of crop output) i s also s ignif icant ly higher in drip-i rr igated crops

w h e n c o m p a r e d t o t h e s a m e c r o p s c u l t i v a t e d u n d e r n o n - d r i p

i r r i g a t e d c o n d i t i o n . S u g a r c a n e c u l t i v a t e d u n d e r d r i p m e t h o d o f

i r r igat ion consumes only 1 .28 horse power (HP) hours of water to

produce one quintal of sugarcane as against 2.83 HP hours of water

u n d e r f l o o d m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n , i . e . , a b o u t 1 . 5 5 H P h o u r s o f

add i t ional water i s consumed to p roduce one qu in ta l o f sugarcane

under flood method of irrigation. Banana crop under DMI consumes

only 11.60 HP hours of water to produce one quintal of output asagainst the use of 21.14 HP hours of water under non-drip irrigated

condition. In grapes, each quintal of output involves the use of just

1 3 . 6 0 H P h o u r s o f w a t e r u n d e r D M I a s c o m p a r e d t o t h e u s e o f

25.84 HP hours of water under non-drip i rr igated condi t ion.


16/128

xvi

11 . Saving in electrical energy u se (u sed for lifting water from wells)

i s o n e o f t h e i mp o r t an t ad v an t ag es o f d r i p me t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n .

While the researchers have not es t imated the saving of elect r ici ty

using experimental data, we have estimated electricity consumption

using the field level data for both the drip and the non-drip irrigatedcrops. Consumption of electricity per hectare is quite low for drip-

i r r iga ted crops when compared to the same crops cu l t iva ted wi th

flood method of irrigation. Farmers cult ivating sugarcane under drip

method of i r r igat ion could save about 1059 kwh of elect r ici ty per

h ec t a r e a s co mp ared t o t h o s e f a rmer s cu l t i v a t i n g t h e s ame c ro p

u n d e r f l o o d m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n . S i m i l a r l y , w h i l e t h e f a r m e r s

cu l t iva t ing grapes cou ld sa ve about 1476 kwh/ ha du e to DMI, the

s a m e is e s t im a t e d t o b e a b o u t 2 4 3 4 k w h / h a in b a n a n a o ve r t h e

farmers who have cul t ivated these crops under FMI.

1 2 . E ffic ie n c y in e l ec t r ic it y u s e , w h ic h i s m e a s u r e d in t e r m s o f

r eq u i r emen t o f e l ec t r i c i t y t o p ro d u ce o n e u n i t o f o u t p u t , i s a l s osignificantly less under drip method of irrigation in all three crops

cons idered fo r the ana lys i s . On an average , sugarcane cu l t iva to rs

under d r ip method of i r r iga t ion used about 0 .958 kwh to p roduce

one quintal of sugarcane as against the non-drip crop consumption

of 2.121 kwh. While grapes cult ivators under DMI have used about

10.21 kwh to produce one quintal of output , the non-drip adopters

ha ve u sed about 19 .37 kwh. Simi lar t rend is observed in ban an a

crop as well.

13. Electr icity saving from drip meth od of ir r igat ion a lso helps the

farmers to reduce electricity bil l to be paid. Our estimate based on

t h e c u r r e n t a v e r a g e c o s t o f e l e c t r i c i t y s u p p l y i n M a h a r a s h t r a

(Rs . 3 .26 / kwh) sh ows tha t , on a n a verage , abou t Rs . 3454/ ha can

be saved on electricity bill alone by cultivating sugarcane crop under

drip method of irrigation. Similarly, farmers cult ivating grapes and

ban ana u nder DMI can a lso save Rs. 4811 an d Rs. 7934/ ha respec-

tively on account of electricity.

1 4. B e s id e s w a t e r a n d e le c tr ic it y s a vin g , r e d u c t io n i n c o s t o f

c u l t i v a t i o n a n d i m p r o v e m e n t i n p r o d u c t i v i t y a r e t h e t w o o t h e r

advantages of drip method of irrigation. Since the cost of cultivation

deta i l s fo r d i f fe ren t c rops cu l t iva ted under DMI are no t ava i l ab le

from experimental data, the s tudy ut i l i sed only the f ield level datapertaining to three above-mentioned crops. Cost of cult ivation (cost

A2) per hectare of the adopters is found to be relat ively less when

compared to the non-adopters of dr ip i rr igat ion in al l three crops .

The cost saving in sugarcane crop due to DMI is nearly 14 percent


17/128

xvii

(in a bsolu te term Rs. 6550/ ha ). Farm ers who cul t ivated grapes an d

banana under DMI have incurred relatively lower cost of cultivation.

In case of banana, drip irrigation reduces the total cost of cultivation

b y ab o u t Rs . 1 3 0 0 / h a (2 .4 7 p e rcen t ) a s comp ared t o t h e fa rm er s

who cul t ivated the same crop under f lood method of i r r igat ion. Incase of grapes, cost saving du e to DMI is fou nd to be Rs. 13408/ ha

(about 9 percen t ) . Though the reduct ion in cos t o f cu l t iva t ion in

terms of percentage is relatively less, cost saving is found to be very

high in operations l ike irrigation, weeding and interculture, furrows

and bunding and fer t i l i sers .

15. Produ ct ivity of crops cul t ivated u nd er drip method of ir r igat ion

is s ignif icant ly higher than the same crops cul t ivated under f lood

m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n . E x p e r i m e n t a l d a t a s h o w t h a t p r o d u c t i v i t y

increase due to DMI is over 40 percent in vegetable crops such as

bottle gourd, potato, onion, tomato and chillies. Productivity increase

d u e t o D M I i s n o t i c e d o v e r 7 0 p e r c e n t i n m a n y f r u i t c r o p s . I nsugarcane, the productivity gain is estimated to be over 33 percent.

Similar kind of productivity gains is also noticed in different crops

cultivated under experimental condition.

16. Similar to experimenta l resul ts , considerable amoun t of produc-

t ivi ty gain is also noted from the analysis of farm level data. The

product ivi ty di fference in absolute term between the adopters and

the non-adopters of dr ip method of i r r igat ion comes to nearly 259

quintals per hectare for sugarcane, i . e . , product ivi ty of sugarcane

cu l t iva ted under d r ip method of i r r iga t ion i s h igher by about 23

percent. In case of grapes, the productivity difference between DMI

a n d F M I i r r i g a t e d c r o p s c o m e s t o a b o u t 1 9 p e r c e n t ( a b o u t 3 9

quintals) and the same comes to 29 percent (about 153 quintals) in

cas e o f b an an a c ro p . In s p i t e o f i n cu r r i n g h i g h e r co s t o n y i e l d

i n c reas i n g i n p u t s , p ro d u c t i v i t y o f c ro p s cu l t i v a t ed u n d e r FMI i s

s ignif icant ly lower than that of DMI. There are three main reasons

f o r h i g h e r y i e l d i n d r i p - i r r i g a t e d c r o p s . F i r s t , b e c a u s e o f l e s s

m o i s t u r e s t r e s s , t h e g r o w t h o f c r o p w a s g o o d w h i c h u l t i m a t e l y

helped to increase the productivity of crops. Second, unlike surface

method of i r r igat ion, dr ip does not encourage any growth of weed

e s p e c i a l l y i n t h e n o n - c r o p z o n e . W e e d s c o n s u m e c o n s i d e r a b l e

amount of yield increasing inputs and reduce the yield of crops in

s u r f a c e m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n . T h i r d , u n l i k e s u r f a c e m e t h o d o f irrigation, fertiliser losses occurring through evaporation and leaching

through water are less under drip method of irrigation as i t supplies

water only for crop and not for the land.


18/128

xviii

17. Cost efficiency (i.e., cost incurred to produce one un it of outpu t)

is also found to be s ignif icant ly higher for the drip adopters when

compared to the non-drip adopters in al l three crops . The non-drip

adopters have incurred nearly three rupees over the adopters of drip

m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n t o p r o d u c e e v e r y q u i n t a l o f s u g a r c a n e . I ngrapes , the non-adopters have incurred over Rs. 171 per quintal of

output over the adopters. In banana, the non-adopters have incurred

nearly Rs. 30 to produce one quintal of output over the counterpart .

This higher cost efficiency is possible mainly because of significant

increase in productivity of crops due to drip method of irrigation.

18 . The un d iscounted p rofit per hec tare (g ross income minus cos t

A2) of the drip adopters is significantly higher than that of the non-

drip adopters in al l three crops analysed ut i l i s ing f ield level data.

Profit of the ad opters in s u garcane is Rs. 27424/ ha higher th an tha t

o f t h e n o n -d r i p ad o p t e r s . I n g rap es , t h e p ro f i t l ev e l o f t h e d r i p

adopters i s Rs . 50187/ ha h igher than tha t o f the non-adopters an dfor banan a , the sam e is abou t Rs . 32400/ ha . The s tu dy a lso no ted

t h a t t h e h u g e p ro f i t f ro m d r i p i r r i g a t i o n i s n o t b ecau s e o f p r i ce

effect, but only due to the yield effect in all three crops.

1 9 . Th e c a p it a l co s t r e q u i r e d fo r in s t a l lin g d r i p in v e s t m e n t fo r

different crops has been increasing over the years due to increase in

t h e c o s t o f m a t e r i a l s u s e d f o r m a n u f a c t u r i n g d r i p s y s t e m . T h ecapi tal cost of dr ip system largely depends upon the type of crop

(narrow or wide spaced crops), spacing followed for cultivating crops,

proximity to water source (distance between the field and source of

water ) and the mater ia l s used fo r the sys tem. Wide spaced crops

g en e ra l l y r eq u i r e l e s s cap i t a l w h en co mp ared t o t h e c ro p s w i t hnar row space , as the l a t t e r c rops would requ i re more l a te ra l s and

drippers per hectare. Data available in INCID (1994) shows that the

requirement of capi tal cost i s much higher for banana (Rs. 33765/

ha ) as comp ared to the sam e requ ired fo r man go (Rs . 11053/ ha ),

which is a wide spaced crop.

2 0 . F ie ld le ve l d a t a p e r t a in i n g t o s u ga r c a n e , b a n a n a a n d gr a p e s

also shows variat ion in the requirement of capi tal cost needed for

drip irrigation system. While the capital cost without subsidy comes

to Rs. 52811/ ha for sugarcane, the sa me comes to Rs. 32721/ ha for

grapes and Rs . 33595/ ha fo r bana na . The average cap i ta l su bs idy

comes to Rs. 19263/ ha for su garcan e, Rs. 11359/ ha for grapes an dRs. 12620/ ha for ban an a. As a proportion of the total capital cost of

d r i p s e t , s u b s i d y a m o u n t a c c o u n t s f o r a b o u t 3 5 t o 3 7 p e r c e n t ,

which i s wi th in a l imi t o f p rov i s ion made by the Government o f

Mah aras h t r a .


19/128

xix

21. As regards Ben efit -Cost (B-C) ra t io , th e resu lts avai lab le from

INCID (1994) show that investment in drip method of i r r igat ion is

eco n o mi ca l l y v i ab l e , ev en i f i t i s e s t i ma t ed w i t h o u t t ak i n g i n t o

account subsidy given to farmers. The B-C ratio estimated excluding

water saving varies from 1.31 in sugarcane to 13.35 in grapes. TheB-C rat io increases s ignif icant ly further , when i t i s es t imated af ter

including water saving. Sivanappan (1995) also estimated B-C ratio

for different crops cultivated under DMI using data pertaining to the

year 1993. It also indicates that the investment in drip irrigation is

economically viable, as B-C ratio estimated for different crop comes

to more than one. While the B-C ratio for pomegranate is estimated

to be 5 .16, the same is es t imated to be 1 .83 for cot ton, which is a

less-water in tensive as wel l as a narrow spaced crop. However, i t

was no t c lear whether the B-C ra t io ava i l ab le f rom the s tud ies o f

IN CID an d S i v an ap p an i s e s t i ma t ed u s i n g d i s co u n t ed cas h f l o w

technique.

22. The economic viabi lity of dr ip investmen t is also s tudied us ing

d i s co u n t ed cas h f l o w t ech n i q u e u n d e r w i t h an d w i t h o u t s u b s i d y

conditions, using field level data pertaining to three crops. Different

d i scount ra tes cons idered fo r ana lys i s a re 10 , 12 and 15 percen t .

The estimated results show that the Net Present Worth (NPW) of the

inves tmen t with s u bs idy is m arg ina lly h igher tha n th a t u nd er no

su bs idy option in a ll th ree crop s. The year -wise ca lculation of NPW

also shows that dr ip adopters can real ise the whole capi tal cost of

drip-set from the profit of the very first year itself.

23 . Under d i ffe ren t d i scou nt ra tes , th e benefit -cos t ra t io (BCR) is

computed to know whether the d r ip inves tment fo r th ree c rops i s

economical ly v iab le o r o therwise . The benef i t -cos t ra t io i s much

higher than one under different discount rates even without subsidy.

While the B-C rat io in sugarcane varies from 1.909 to 2 .095 under

w i t h o u t s u b s i d y co n d i t i o n , t h e s ame v a r i e s f ro m 2 .0 9 8 t o 2 .2 8 9

under with subsidy condition. In case of banana, the B-C ratio varies

from 2.228 to 2 .253 under wi thout subsidy condi t ion and 2 .343 to

2.361 under wi th subsidy condi t ion. Similar ly , in grapes , the B-C

ratio without subsidy varies from 1.767 to 1.778 and from 1.795 to

1 . 8 0 2 w i t h s u b s i d y . T h e h i g h e r B C R u n d e r s u b s i d y c o n d i t i o n

s u g g e s t s t h e p o s i t i v e r o l e t h a t s u b s i d y p l a y s i n i m p r o v i n g t h e

economic viability of drip method of irrigation.

24. India ha s enormous potent ial for dr ip m ethod of ir r igat ion. Our

at tempt made in th is s tudy to es t imate the potent ial and prospects

fo r d r i p me t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n s h o w s t h a t w h i l e co re p o t en t i a l


20/128

xx

(sui table crops that are cul t ivated under i r r igated and non-i rr igated

conditions) comes to 51.42 mha, the net potential (suitable crops

that are cul t ivated only under i r r igated condi t ions) comes to 21.27

mh a fo r t h e co u n t ry a s a w h o l e . T h e r eq u i r emen t fo r cap i t a l t o

uti l ise the core and net potential areas is estimated to be aboutRs . 1 8 3 5 0 8 c ro re an d Rs . 7 6 4 3 4 c ro re r e s p ec t i v e l y . T h a t i s , t h e

requirement of capital per hectare comes to about Rs. 35688 for net

potential and Rs. 35935 for core potential. By uti l ising the net

potent ial area of DMI, an amount of about 11.271 mil l ion-hectare

meter of water can be saved. The addi t ional i r r igated area possible

from the saving of water is estimated to be 11.22 mha under FMI or

about 24 .12 mha under DMI.


21/128

1

Chapter 1

Introduction

1 .1 An Ove rvie w

I t has been cor robora ted by var ious s tud ies car r i ed ou t across

different countries including India that irrigation plays a paramount

role in increasing the use of yield increasing inputs and enhancing

cropping intensi ty as wel l as product ivi ty of crops (Dhawan, 1988;

V a i d y an a t h an , e t a l . , 1 9 9 4 ) . A p ar t f ro m b en e f i t i n g t h e f a rmer s ,

i r r i g a t i o n d e v e l o p m e n t a l s o h e l p s t o i n c r e a s e t h e e m p l o y m e n t

opportuni t ies and wage rate of the agricul tural landless labourers ,

both of which are essential to reduce the poverty among the landless

labour households (Saleth, 2004; Narayanamoorthy, 2001a; Bhattarai

a n d N a r a y a n a m o o r t h y , 2 0 0 3 ; N a r a y a n a m o o r t h y a n d D e s h p a n d e ,2003). However, water is becoming increasingly scarce worldwide due

to various reasons (Rosegrant, et al . , 2002). With the fast decline of

irrigation water potential and continued expansion of population and

economic activity in most of the countries located in arid and semi-

a r i d r e g i o n s , t h e p r o b l e m s o f w a t e r s c a r c i t y i s e x p e c t e d t o b e

aggravated fu r ther ( see , Biswas , 1993 and 2001; Rosegran t , 1997;

Rosegran t , e t a l . , 2002) . Macro- leve l es t imate car r i ed ou t by the

International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo, indicates

tha t one- th i rd o f the wor ld popula t ion would face abso lu te water

s ca rc i t y b y t h e y ea r 2 0 2 5 (Seck l e r , e t a l . , 1 9 9 8 ; Seck l e r , e t a l . ,

1999). As per th is es t imate, the worst affected areas would be the

semi-arid regions of Asia, the Middle-East and Sub-Saharan Africa,al l of which are al ready having heavy concentrat ion of populat ion

living below poverty line.

Despi te having the largest i r r igated area in the world , India too

has started facing sever water scarcity in different regions. Owing to

v a r i o u s r eas o n s t h e d eman d fo r w a t e r fo r d i f f e r en t p u rp o s es h as

b e e n c o n t i n u o u s l y i n c r e a s i n g i n I n d i a , b u t t h e p o t e n t i a l w a t e r

avai lable for future use has been decl ining at a fas ter rate (Saleth ,

1996). The agricultural sector (irrigation), which currently consumes

over 80 percent of the available water in India, continues to be the

major water-consuming sector due to the intensi f icat ion of agricul-ture (see, Saleth, 1996; MOWR, 1999, Iyer, 2003). Though India has

the largest irrigated area in the world, the coverage of irrigation is

only ab out 38 percen t of th e gross cropped ar ea as of today. One of

the main reasons for the low coverage of irrigation is poor water use


22/128

2

efficiency under the flood (conventional) method of irrigation, which

is predominantly practised in Indian agriculture. Available estimates

indicate that water use efficiency under flood method of irrigation is

o n l y ab o u t 3 5 t o 4 0 p e rcen t (Ro s eg ran t , 1 9 9 7 ) . Co n s i d e r i n g t h e

water availability for future use and the increasing demand for waterfrom different sectors, a number of demand and supply management

s t rategies have been int roduced in India to augment the supply as

wel l as to control the demand for water . One of the demand mana-

gement s t rategies in t roduced recent ly to control water consumption

in Indian agriculture is drip method of irrigation (DMI). Unlike flood

method of irrigation, drip method supplies water directly to the root

z o n e o f t h e c r o p t h r o u g h a n e t w o r k o f p i p e s w i t h t h e h e l p o f

emitters (see, Figure 1.1). Since it supplies water directly to the crop,

ins tead of land, as fol lowed in the f lood method of i r r igat ion, the

w a t e r l o s s es o ccu r r i n g t h ro u g h ev ap o ra t i o n an d d i s t r i b u t i o n a r e

co mp l e t e l y ab s en t ( IN CID , 1 9 9 4 , N aray an amo o r t h y , 1 9 9 5 ; 1 9 9 7 ;

Dhawan, 2002). The on-farm irrigation efficiency of properly designedan d man ag ed d r i p i r r i g a t i o n s y s t em i s e s t i ma t ed t o b e ab o u t 9 0

percent , whi le the same is only about 35 to 40 percent for surface

method of irrigation (INCID, 1994).

The development of drip method of irrigation has a long history.

Whi le the bas ic exper iments has s t a r t ed way back in Germany in

1860s, an important breakthrough was achieved in Germany during

1920 when perforated pipe drip i rr igat ion was int roduced (INCID,

Figure 1 .1 : Typical Drip Irrigation Sys te m


23/128

3

1 9 9 4 ) . E x p e r i men t s ca r r i ed o u t i n t h e d es e r t a r eas o f N eg e r an d

Arava in I s rae l dur ing ear ly 1960s showed a spec tacu lar resu l t s .

T h e d r i p s y s t e m w i t h p i p e s b e g a n t o b e s o l d o u t s i d e I s r a e l o n

commercial bas is in 1969. By the mid-1970s, farmers belonging to

count r i es l ike Aus t ra l i a , I s rae l , Mexico , New Zealand and SouthAfrica started using this new method of irrigation in crop cultivation

(Postal, 1999). As per the worldwide survey carried out by the ICID,

a rea u n d e r d r i p me t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n h as i n c reas ed f ro m j u s t 4 0

h ec t a r e s (h a ) i n 1 9 6 0 t o ab o u t 5 4 ,6 0 0 h a i n 1 9 7 5 an d fu r t h e r t o

about 1.78 mill ion hectares in 1991 (INCID, 1994). According to a

recent estimate, the global area under drip method of irrigation has

likely expanded by 75 percent since 1991, which would be approxi-

mately 2.8 mill ion hectares (Postal et al . , 2001). While drip method

of i r r iga t ion i s cur ren t ly p rac t i ced over 35 count r i es , the Uni ted

States of America alone accounts for over 35 percent of the world's

t o t a l d r i p i r r i g a t ed a r eas ( s ee , D h aw an , 2 0 0 2 ) . Su rp r i s i n g l y , i n

countries like Israel, Austria and Germany, all the irrigated areas arebrought under micro- i r r iga t ion t echnology , due to i t s compara t ive

advantages over FMI. Whereas micro-irrigation accounts for over 21

percent of the USA's total irrigated area, it accounts just 1.6 percent

of India's total irrigated area. The significant growth of drip method

of i rr igat ion is at t r ibutable to higher crops product ivi ty and water

use ef f i c iency inc lud ing reduct ion in cos t o f cu l t iva t ion . S tud ies

ca r r i ed o u t i n co u n t r ie s l ik e Is r a e l, J o rd an , U SA an d In d i a h av e

shown that drip method of irrigation increases crop productivity by

20-90 percent and reduces water use by 30-70 percent for di fferent

crops (Narayanamoorthy, 1997; Postal , 2001).

In India, though indigenous methods such as perforated earthen-ware pipes, perforated bamboo pipes, etc., were in practice for a long

t ime, the modern drip system was int roduced only during the early

s e v e n t i e s a t t h e A g r i c u l t u r a l U n i v e r s i t i e s a n d o t h e r R e s e a r c h

Inst i tu tes . However, an appreciable improvement in the adopt ion of

D MI h as t ak en p l ace o n l y f ro m t h e e i g h t i e s , ma i n l y b ecau s e o f

various promotional programmes introduced by the Central and State

governments . The area under DMI has increased from a mere 1500

ha in 1985 to 70 ,859 ha in 1991-92 and fu r ther to 5 ,00 ,000 ha as

of March 2003 (INCID, 1994; GOI, 2004). India has enormous poten-

tial for DMI. INCID (1994) report, which presents an overview about

the development of drip irrigation in India, indicates that about 80crops , bo th nar row and widely spaced crops , can be g rown under

DMI. Al though DMI i s cons idered to be h igh ly su i t ab le fo r wide

spaced and high value commercial crops , i t i s also being used for

cult ivating oilseeds, pulses, cotton and even for wheat crop (INCID,


24/128

4

1994). Importantly, research suggests that DMI is not only suitable

for those areas that are present ly under cul t ivat ion but i t can also

be operated efficiently in undulating terrain, rolling topography, hilly

areas , barren land and areas which have shal low soi ls (Sivanappan,

1994).

Drip irrigation technology is introduced primarily to increase the

water use eff iciency in agricul ture. However, i t a lso del ivers many

other economic and social benefits to the society. Reduction in water

c o n s u m p t i o n d u e t o d r i p m e t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n o v e r t h e s u r f a c e

method of irrigation varies from 30 to 70 percent for different crops

(INCID, 1994, Narayanamoorthy, 1997; Postal , 2001). According to

data avai lable from research s tat ions , product ivi ty gain due to drip

method of i r r iga t ion i s es t imated to be in the range o f 20 to 90

percent for different crops (see, INCID, 1994). While increasing the

productivity of crops significantly, it also reduces the cost of cultiva-

t i o n s u b s t an t i a l l y e s p ec i a l l y i n l ab o u r - i n t en s i v e o p e ra t i o n s . T h ereduct ion in water consumpt ion in d r ip method of i r r iga t ion a l so

reduces the energy use (electricity) that is required to l ift the water

from irrigation wells (see, Narayanamoorthy, 1995, 2001).

Over the l as t t en years o r so , a few s tud ies have been car r i ed

out focusing on the impact of dr ip method of i r r igat ion on various

parameters in di fferent crops . Studies , by and large, have focused

mainly on the impact of dr ip method of i r r igat ion on water saving

inc lud ing water use e f f i c iency , p roduct iv i ty o f c rops and cos t o f

cultivation. While some have studied the impact of DMI on electricity

saving, others have studied i ts economic viabil i ty in different crops,

using both experimental and field survey data. Let us briefly discuss

a b o u t t h e r e s u l t s t h a t a r e e m e r g i n g o u t f r o m v a r i o u s s t u d i e s .

Resu l t s o f exper imenta l da ta repor ted in INCID (1994) show tha t

water saving in DMI over the method of FMI varies from 12 to 84

percent in di fferent vegetable crops . In the case of frui t crops , the

l o w es t w a t e r s av i n g w as fo u n d t o b e 4 5 p e rcen t (p o meg ran a t e ) ,

whereas the highest water saving is es t imated to be 81 percent in

the case of lemon. Water saving was also found to be 65 percent in

sugarcane and about 60 percen t in the case o f coconut . As in the

case of INCID resul ts , various s tudies reported in CBIP (1998 and

2001) also indicate similar level of water saving in different crops.

Simi lar to exper imenta l da ta , s tud ies car r i ed ou t us ing f i e ld l eve ldata in Maharashtra also show that the water saving due to DMI is

a b o u t 2 9 p e r c e n t i n b a n a n a , 3 7 p e r c e n t i n g r a p e s a n d a b o u t 4 4

percent in sugarcane (Narayanamoorthy, 1996; 1997 and 2001).


25/128

5

Apart f rom water saving, which is the principal benefi t of dr ip

method of i r r iga t ion , i t a l so he lps to increase the p roduct iv i ty o f

crops mainly by reducing moisture stress for crops (see, Figure 1.2).

S t u d i e s ca r r i ed o u t b as ed o n ex p e r i men t a l d a t a s u g g es t t h a t t h e

productivity of crops cultivated under DMI can be increased by 40 to50 percent over the crops cult ivated under FMI, especially in crops

l ike bot t le gourd, sweet potato , potato , tomato and chi l l ies . Signi-

f icant improvement in product ivi ty of papaya (77 percent) , banana

( 5 2 p e r c e n t ) , g r a p e s ( 2 3 p e r c e n t ) , m o s a m b i ( 5 0 p e r c e n t ) a n d

pomegranate (98 percent) has also been reported by INCID (1994)

and Sivanappan (1994).

Simi lar to vegetab les and f ru i t c rops , qu i t e a few s tud ies a re

avai lable focusing on sugarcane crop, which is an important water-in tens ive crop . Mos t o f the ava i l ab le s tud ies in th i s respec t have

b e e n c a r r i e d o u t u s i n g t h e d a t a s u p p l i e d b y t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l

research stations. Through the analysis of experimental data, studies

have found a substantial water saving and productivity gains due to

drip method of irrigation in sugarcane cult ivation (Batta and Singh,

1 9 9 8 ; D as h , 1 9 9 8 ; D es h mu k h , e t a l . , 1 9 9 8 ; D h o n d e an d Ban g e r ,

1 9 9 8 ; H ap as e , e t a l . , 1 9 9 2 ; Pa r i k h e t a l . , 1 9 9 3 ; San k p a l , e t a l . ,

1998). Single cane weight, cane girth, cane length, number of inter-

nodes , l eaf l eng th and l eaf b read th were a l so found to be h igher

w i t h s u g a rcan e cu l t i v a t ed u n d e r d r i p me t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n w h en

compared to the same cu l t iva ted under f lood method of i r r iga t ion(Venugopal and Rajkumar , 1998) . Because o f l ess mois tu re s t ress

under DMI, the recovery rate of sugarcane cultivated under DMI was

found to be higher when compared to the crop cult ivated using FMI

(Sankpal , e t a l . , 1998 ; Dhonde and Banger , 1998; Banger , 1998) .


26/128

6

I m p o r t a n t l y , a s t u d y c a r r i e d o u t o n h e a v y s o i l s a n d s u b - h u m i d

cl imat ic cond i t ions o f Sou th Gujara t reg ion sugges t s tha t a l a rge

sca le adopt ion o f d r ip method of i r r iga t ion in sugarcane in South

Gujara t a rea can he lp to so lve the p rob lem of water logg ing and

secondary salinization, which are increasing in this region (Parikh, etal . , 1993).

T h o u g h D M I i n c r e a s e s t h e c r o p p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d s a v e s

s u b s t a n t i a l a m o u n t o f w a t e r , i t r e q u i r e s r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e r f i x e d

investment to install the system in the field. Therefore, some studies

have attempted to find out whether the investment in drip irrigation

is economical ly viable or not in di fferent crops . While some have

e s t i m a t e d b e n e f i t - c o s t r a t i o i n c l u d i n g w a t e r s a v i n g a s w e l l a s

excluding water saving (INCID, 1994), others have estimated benefit-

co s t r a t i o an d n e t p r e s en t w o r t h u n d e r w i t h an d w i t h o u t s u b s i d y

c o n d i t i o n ( N a r a y a n a m o o r t h y , 1 9 9 6 ; 1 9 9 7 ; 2 0 0 1 a n d 2 0 0 4 ) . T h e

b en e f i t - co s t r a t i o s p ro v i d ed fo r d i f f e r en t c ro p s i n IN CID (1 9 9 4 )ind ica te tha t inves tment in d r ip i r r iga t ion i s economical ly v iab le ,

even after excluding water saving from the calculation. The estimated

benefi t -cost rat io comes to 13.35 in crops l ike grapes and 1 .41 in

the case of coconut. However, i t is not clear whether the B-C ratios

presented in INCID (1994) are estimated using discounted cash flow

techn ique o r no t . Unl ike INCID es t imates , us ing d i scounted cash

flow technique and that too utilising field survey data covering three

c r o p s n a m e l y g r a p e s , b a n a n a a n d s u g a r c a n e , N a r a y a n a m o o r t h y

(1997, 2001 and 2004) es t imated B-C rat io and net present worth .

T h e r e s u l t s o f t h es e s t u d i e s s u g g es t t h a t t h e i n v es t men t i n d r i p

method of i r r igat ion is economical ly viable even without subsidy.

Obviously , the B-C rat io and NPW improves further when subsidy

amount is taken for calculat ion.

However, in spite of having many economic advantages over the

method of flood irrigation, the coverage of area under drip method of

i r r igat ion is not appreciable in India except for a few s tates as of

today. Among the various reasons for the slow progress of adoption

of this new technology, i ts capital-intensive nature seems to be one

of the main de ter ren t fac to rs . Dr ip i r r iga t ion t echnology requ i res

f i x ed i n v es t men t t h a t v a r i e s f ro m Rs . 2 0 ,0 0 0 t o Rs . 5 5 ,0 0 0 p e r

hectare depending upon the nature of crops (wide or narrow spaced)

and the material to be used for the system. Since the Indian farmersh av e b een g e t t i n g w a t e r fo r l o w co s t f ro m t h e p u b l i c i r r i g a t i o n

system and also from well irrigation (because of the introduction of

flat-rate electricity tariff), there is less incentive to them to adopt this

capital-intensive technology unless it is necessary. Moreover, since it


27/128

7

involves fixed investment farmers, often ask questions like what will

be the water saving and product ivi ty gains? Is investment on drip

irrigation economically viable? What will be the pay back period of

the drip investment? These issues are raised because of the following

t w o r e a s o n s . F i r s t , t h e a w a r e n e s s o f t h e f a r m e r s a b o u t t h i stechnology is very low due to poor extension service. Second, most of

the studies available on drip irrigation in India is based on experi-

mental data collected from different regions, which generally do not

present the field level posit ion (see, Verma and Rao, 1998; INCID,

1 9 9 4 ; D h aw an , 2 0 0 2 ) . So me o f t h e s t u d i e s h av e s h o w n t h a t t h e

results derived from research station data are substantially different

f r o m t h a t o f s u r v e y d a t a ( s e e , N a r a y a n a m o o r t h y , 2 0 0 1 ) . I n t h e

absence of rel iable f ield s tudies , i t i s d i ff icul t to judge the actual

economic viability of drip method of irrigation. It is in this context,

an a t t empt i s made in th i s paper to b r ing ou t the impact o f d r ip

me t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n o n d i f f e r en t eco n o mi c p a rame t e r s i n c l u d i n g

economic viability using both secondary (experimental data) and fieldlevel da ta/ informa tion.

1.2 Objectives

1 . To h i gh lig h t t h e n eed fo r d r i p me t h o d o f i r r ig a t io n i n In d ian

agriculture.

2. To stu dy the coverage of drip meth od of irrigation across different

s tates in India.

3 . To ana lyse the impact of dr ip i rr igat ion on water use pat tern an d

water use efficiency in different crops.

4. To estima te the electricity saving du e to drip m ethod of irrigation

in different crops.

5. To fin d out th e econ omic viabili ty of drip in vestm ent u nd er with

and without subsidy condi t ion using different discount rates .

6 . To es t ima te the m acro potent ial area available for dr ip m ethod of

i r r igat ion and the potent ial gains from the same for India as a

whole.

7 . To su gges t po lic ies to increas e the widespread adopt ion o f d r ip

irrigation technology in India.


28/128

8

1.3 Data and Method

Drip method of irrigation is a new method of irrigation introduced

r e l a t i v e l y r e c e n t l y i n I n d i a n a g r i c u l t u r e . T h o u g h s i g n i f i c a n t

d ev e l o p men t h as t ak en p l ace i n t h e ad o p t i o n o f d r i p me t h o d o f irrigation since early 1990s, not many studies are available based on

field survey data on different crops. Most of the available studies are

either based on experimental data or on the experience of one or few

farmers adopting DMI. Therefore, the present study uti l ises both the

secondary and primary level information on drip method of irrigation.

The secondary information have been mainly collected from sources

s u c h a s Drip Irrigation in India (pub l i shed by the INCID, 1994) ,

Evaluation of Drip Irrigation System (pub l i shed by AFC,1998) , the

Report of the Task Force on Micro Irrigation (published by the Ministry

of Agricul ture, Government of India, 2004) and from the Commis-

s i o n e r a t e o f A g r i c u l t u r e , G o v e r n m e n t o f M a h a r a s h t r a , P u n e . I n

addi t ion to th is , informat ion also col lected from various publ ishedand unpubl ished sources wherever necessary.

The field level data pertaining to three crops namely sugarcane,

b an an a an d g rap es h av e b een t ak en f ro m t h e au t h o r ' s o w n s t u d y

c a r r i e d o u t i n M a h a r a s h t r a ( N a r a y a n a m o o r t h y , 1 9 9 6 , 1 9 9 7 a n d

Narayanamoor thy , 2001) . In o rder to s tudy the impact o f DMI on

different parameters in sugarcane cult ivation, the study area and the

sample select ion has been selected using the fol lowing procedure.

Since the adoption of drip irrigation technology is not uniform across

the dis t r icts of Maharashtra, two important d is t r icts from the s tate

w h e r e d r i p i r r i g a t i o n i s b e i n g e x t e n s i v e l y u s e d f o r c u l t i v a t i n g

s u g a r c a n e h a v e b e e n s e l e c t e d w i t h t h e h e l p o f s e c o n d a r y d a t a

collected from Drip Irrigation Cell , Commissionerate of Agriculture,

G o v e r n m e n t o f M a h a r a s h t r a , P u n e . D i s t r i c t - w i s e d a t a o n d r i p -

irrigated area pertaining to the year 1998-99 was used for selecting

two important districts. The two selected districts as per this method

are Pune and Ahmednagar . In 1998-99 , Pune (23 .30 percen t ) and

A h m e d n a g a r ( 1 9 . 4 3 p e r c e n t ) t o g e t h e r h a v e a c c o u n t e d f o r 4 2 . 7 3

percent (398.29 ha) of to tal area under drip i rr igated sugarcane in

M a h a r a s h t r a . S i m i l a r t o t h e m e t h o d f o l l o w e d f o r s e l e c t i n g t h e

dis t r icts , two important b locks , one from each dis t r ict , where area

under drip i rr igated sugarcane is h igher , have been selected using

the information supplied by the respective Agricultural Officer of ther e s p e c t i v e d i s t r i c t . T h e t w o b l o c k s s e l e c t e d i n t h i s m e t h o d a r e

B a r a m a t i f r o m P u n e d i s t r i c t a n d S h r i r a m p u r f r o m A h m e d n a g a r

district .


29/128

9

A s r eg a rd s s e l ec t i o n o f f a rmer s , i n each d i s t r i c t , 5 0 f a rmer s

consis t ing of 25 adopters and 25 non-adopters have been selected.

Thus, a to tal of 100 sample farmers , 50 drip adopters and 50 non-

drip adopters have been selected from the two selected dis t r icts to

co n d u c t d e t a i l ed f i e l d s u rv ey . In Mah aras h t r a , f a rmer s w h o a reh a v i n g o w n w e l l ( g r o u n d w a t e r ) a r e o n l y u s i n g d r i p m e t h o d o f

i r r iga t ion . Therefore , on ly those fa rmers who cu l t iva te sugarcane

us ing g roundwater source o f i r r iga t ion under bo th d r ip and f lood

irr igated condi t ion are considered for th is s tudy. This is fol lowed

specifically to avoid the differential impact of source of irrigation on

productivity of sugarcane. Since the state has structured scheme for

promoting drip irrigation, the list of name of drip adopters pertaining

to the year 1998-99 have been used for selecting the drip adopters.

W h i l e t h e d r i p a d o p t e r s w e r e s e l e c t e d o n t h e b a s i s o f r a n d o m

sampling method, the farmers who cul t ivate sugarcane using f lood

method of irrigation (groundwater as source) nearest to the field of

dr ip adopters have been selected purposively as non-drip adopters .This is followed specifically to reduce the differences in soil quality

a n d o t h e r a g r o - e c o n o m i c f a c t o r s b e t w e e n t h e t w o c a t e g o r i e s o f

farmers . The f ield level informat ion from the sample farmers who

have cul t ivated sugarcane has been col lected pertaining to the year

1998-99 .

In the case of grapes and banana crops, the sample for the study

is designed as follows. First , based on the secondary data collected

from the drip irrigation cell, Commissionerate of Agriculture, Govern-

men t o f Mah aras h t r a , Pu n e , t w o d i s t r i c t s w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y mo re

extensive use of DMI were selected. The two districts selected are:

Nashik and Jalgaon. Notably, these dis t r icts are dominant in termsof the a rea under DMI (about 27 per cen t o f the s t a te to ta l DMI

area in 1994-95) since the introduction of the state scheme in 1986-

87. Second, s ince the economic impact of dr ip i rr igat ion varies by

c ro p , t w o d o mi n an t c ro p s i n t e rms o f t h e a r ea u n d e r D MI - o n e

f rom each sample d i s t r i c t - were se lec ted . Based on the crop and

block-wise distribution of the area under DMI as obtained from the

A g r i cu l t u ra l O f f i ce r s o f t h e r e s p ec t i v e d i s t r i c t s , t w o c ro p s , i . e . ,

b a n an a fo r J a l gao n d is t r ic t an d g rap es for Nas h i k d i s t r i ct w ere

selected. Third, having identified the crops, two blocks - Niphad from

Nas hik dis t r ict a nd Raver from J algaon dis t r ict - with an extens ive

cultivation of these sample crops were selected for a detailed fieldsurvey. And, finally, with the help of the adopters' list available for

1992-93, 50 farmers consis t ing of 25 adopters and 25 non-adopters

of DMI were se lec ted fo r each d i s t r i c t . Whi le the adopters were

s e l e c t e d u s i n g r a n d o m s a m p l i n g p r o c e d u r e , n o n - a d o p t e r s w e r e


30/128

1 0

selected rather purposively . Thus, i t i s th is sample of 100 farmers

for whom the relevant data on the economics of DMI were collected

d u r i n g t h e y ea r 1 9 9 3 -9 4 t h a t fo rms t h e b as i s fo r t h e f i e l d l ev e l

evaluation of DMI.

As under l ined in the ob jec t ives , the impact o f d r ip method of

i r r igat ion on parameters such as water use pat tern including water

sav ing , p roduct iv i ty o f c rops , e lec t r i c i ty sav ing , e tc . , have been

studied by comparing the same with the flood method of irrigation.

How far the results of experimental data are different from the same

d e r i v e d f r o m s a m p l e s u r v e y d a t a i s a n i s s u e i n d r i p m e t h o d o f

i r r i g a t i o n . T h i s i s s u e h as b een s t u d i ed b y co mp ar i n g t h e ex p e r i -

mental data with the field level data, especially in parameters such

a s p r o d u c t i v i t y a n d w a t e r s a v i n g . O n e o f t h e i m p o r t a n t i s s u e s

per ta in ing to d r ip method of i r r iga t ion i s whether o r no t the d r ip

investment is economically viable. This question arises because DMI

involves relatively large fixed investment. The past studies on thiss u b j e c t h a v e c o n d u c t e d b e n e f i t - c o s t a n a l y s i s w i t h o u t p r o p e r

methodology, ei ther rel ied on one or few farmers adopt ing DMI or

estimated output-input ratio without considering l ife period of drip

set , opportunity cost , depreciation factor, subsidy, etc. Therefore, in

order to evaluate the economic viabil i ty of drip investment in three

s p e c i f i c c r o p s n a m e l y g r a p e s , b a n a n a a n d s u g a r c a n e , w e h a v e

computed the net present worth (NPW) and benefit cost ratio (BCR)

b y u t i l i s i n g t h e d i s c o u n t e d c a s h f l o w t e c h n i q u e 1 . T h o u g h d r i p

method of i r r igat ion has been fol lowed in Indian agricul ture s ince

early 1980s, there seem to be no reliable information about the total

potential area that is available for drip method of irrigation as well

as the gross benefits that is possible from the drip method of irriga-

tion for India as a whole. An attempt has been made to estimate the

po ten t i a l a rea fo r d r ip method of i r r iga t ion and benef i t s f rom the

same using available secondary level information.

1.4 Organisation of the Study

T h e s t u d y h as e i g h t ch ap t e r s i n c l u d i n g i n t ro d u c t o ry ch ap t e r .

T h e n eed fo r t h e d r i p me t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n i s h i g h l i g h t ed u s i n g

mainly secondary information in chapter two. A detailed discussion

on the development of drip irrigation across different States in India

as wel l as i t s coverage in d i f fe ren t c rops i s p resen ted in chap tert h ree . S i n ce Mah aras h t r a S t a t e acco u n t s fo r n ea r l y 5 0 p e rcen t o f

1. The methodology and assu mptions used for est imating the net present worth an d

the benefit-cost ratio are explained in detail in chapter six, where the subject of

economic viability of drip investment is discussed elaborately.


31/128

1 1

India ' s dr ip i rr igated area, an overview about i t s development has

also been presented in the same third chapter. An analysis focusing

on water saving and electricity saving due to drip method of irrigation

is presented in chapter four. The impact of drip method of irrigation

on cost of cul t ivat ion and product ivi ty of di fferent crops has beenanalysed using both experimental and field level data in chapter five.

While chapter s ix presents a detai led analysis about the economic

viability of drip investment under with and without subsidy condition

us ing d i f feren t d i scount ra tes , an es t imate on the macro po ten t i a l

a r ea fo r t h e d r i p me t h o d o f i r r i g a t i o n i n c l u d i n g p o t en t i a l w a t e r

saving for India as whole is presented in chapter seven. The last and

f i n a l c h a p t e r p r o v i d e s s u m m a r y o f t h e s t u d y a s w e l l a s p o l i c y

r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f o r e x p a n d i n g t h e a d o p t i o n o f d r i p m e t h o d o f

irrigation in India.


32/128

1 3

Chapter 2

Need for Drip Method of Irrigation

2.1 Introduction

The main object ive of th is chapter i s to highl ight the need for

widespread adopt ion of dr ip method of i r r igat ion in the context of

Indian agriculture. As mentioned earlier, the discussion presented in

this chapter is mainly based on secondary level information collected

from different sources. Besides water saving and productivity gains,

t h e re a r e man y j u s t i f i ab l e r ea s o n s fo r p ro mo t i n g d r i p me t h o d o f

irrigation in countries l ike India, where available potential of water

for i r r igat ion has been decl ining at a fas ter rate . Broadly, we have

identified six major reasons for adopting drip method of irrigation,

which are associated with (a) water availability and management; (b)capital cost of irrigation; (c) production and productivity of crops; (d)

electricity consumption; (e) environmental reasons and (f) extension

of area under cult ivation. Let us now discuss each of the reasons in

detail.

2.2 Water Availabil ity and Management

Considering the importance of i r r igat ion in agricul tural growth,

p r ime a t t en t ion has been g iven fo r the development o f i r r iga t ion

s i n ce i n d ep en d en ce i n In d i a . U p t o 2 0 0 1 -0 2 , ab o u t Rs . 1 3 6 0 .6 5

b i l l i o n ( i n c u r r e n t p r i c e s ) h a v e b e e n s p e n t e x c l u s i v e l y f o r t h e

development of irrigation by the government sector alone (see, Table2.1) . As a resul t of th is , area under i r r igat ion has increased from

2 6 . 6 1 m h a i n 1 9 5 0 - 5 1 t o 8 6 . 6 7 m h a i n 1 9 9 6 - 9 7 , a n i n c r e a s e o f

2 .60 percent per annum. Despi te substant ial increase of area under

i rr igat ion, the share of i r r igated area to gross cropped area is only

a b o u t 4 0 p e r c e n t a s o f t o d a y . O n e o f t h e m a i n r e a s o n s f o r t h e

limited expansion of area under irrigation is the predominant use of

f lood method of i r r iga t ion fo r cu l t iva t ing crops , where water use

efficiency is very low due to various reasons.

In India, the water use efficiency under flood method of irrigation

is estimated to be only around 40 percent mainly due to huge losses

through evaporation, conveyance and distribution (Sivanappan, 1994;Rosegrant , 1997; Rosegrant and Meinzen-Dick, 1996). Unl ike FMI,

water use eff iciency can be achieved over 90 percent in DMI (see,

Table 2.2). Since water is supplied directly to the root zone of the

crops using pipe network under DMI, the evaporation and distribution


33/128

1 4

losses a re comple te ly absen t under th i s method . Though FMI has

been followed predominantly all over the world for cultivating crops,

i t i s n o l o n g e r d es i r ab l e fo r co u n t r i e s l i k e In d i a ma i n l y d u e t o

limited availability of water resources and growing demand for water

for irrigation and other purposes. Therefore, for achieving sustainableagricultural development, it is essential to increase the existing water

use efficiency for which drip method of irrigation can be one of the

viable options (Narayanamoorthy, 1997b).

Table 2 .1 : Magnitude and Composit ion of Investment through

Plan Periods in Irrigation and Flood Control Sectors

(Rs. Crore)

Pla n Min or Ir r iga tion

MMI Pu b lic In s t itu - Tota l C.A.D. Flood Tota l

t ion a l Con trol

Firs t 37 6.24 65.62 Neg.(1951-56)

Secon d 380 .00 14 2.23 19.35 161.58 48 .06 589.6 4

(1956-61)

Th ird 57 6.00 32 7.73 1 15.37 443.10 8 2.09 110 1.19

(1961-66)

An n u a l 429.81 3 26.1 9 234.74 56 0.93 41.96 1032 .70

(1966-69)

Fou r th 1242.30 512.28 661.06 1173.34 162.04 2 577.68

(1969-74)

Fifth 2516.18 630.83 778.76 1409.58 298.61 4 224.38

(1974-78)

An n u a l 20 78.5 8 5 01.5 0 480.40 9 81.9 0 362.96 3 29.9 6 375 3.40

(1978-80)

Sixth 73 68.8 3 1979.26 1437.56 3416.82 7 43.05 786.85 12315 .55

(1980-85)

Seven th 1 1107.29 3118 .35 3060.95 6179 .30 1447 .50 941.58 19675.67

(1985-90)

An n u a l 5459.15 1680 .48 1349.59 3030 .07 619.45 460.64 95 69.31

(1990-92)

Eigh th 2 1071 .87 6408.36 5 331.0 0 11739.36 21 45.92 1 691.68 36648.83

(1992-97)

Nin th Pla n 482 59.08 8615.07 2 659.0 0 11274.07 15 19.17 2 629.23 63681.55

(1997-02)*

Tota l 100 865.33 24 307.90 1612 7.7 8 404 35.67 6838.05 7485.91 1 55624.97

Note : * - anticipated: MMI - Major and Medium Irrigation; CAD - Command Area Development

S ou r ce : G O I (2 0 0 2 ), Ten th F ive Year P lan : 2002 -2007 , V o l . I I , P l a n n i n g C o m m i s s i o n ,

Government of India, New Delhi.


34/128

1 5

Table 2.2 : Irrigation Efficiencies under

Different Methods of Irrigation

(Percent)

Ir r iga t ion Efficien cies Meth ods of Ir r iga t ion

Su rfa ce Sprin k ler Drip

Con veya n ce efficien cy 40 -5 0 (ca n a l) 100 10 0

60-70 (well)

Ap plica t ion efficien cy 60 -70 70-80 9 0

Su rfa ce wa ter m ois tu re eva pora t ion 30-4 0 30-40 20-25

Overa ll efficien cy 30-35 5 0-60 80-90

Source : Sivanappan (1998).

Ind ia has the l a rges t i r r iga ted area in the wor ld , bu t i t s water

potential available for the future use of irrigation has been declining

at a rapid pace since independence owing to various reasons (Saleth,

1996). As per the estimate of the Central Water Commission (CWC,1996), India ' s to tal i r r igat ion potent ial i s 139.9 mha. Of this to tal ,

a b o u t 5 8 m h a ( 4 1 . 4 6 p e r c e n t ) c a n b e u t i l i s e d f r o m m a j o r a n d

m e d i u m i r r i g a t i o n ( M M I ) s o u r c e s a n d a b o u t 8 1 . 4 0 m h a ( 5 8 . 5 4

percent) can be ut i l i sed from minor i rr igat ion (MI) sources . Up to

1 9 9 9 - 2 0 0 0 , w e h a v e c r e a t e d a b o u t 9 4 . 7 3 m h a o f i r r i g a t e d a r e a ,

which accounts for about 67 percent of to tal potent ial (see, Table

2.3) . Researchers have been caut ioning that any addi t ional creat ion

of i rr igat ion faci l i ty by construct ing new major i r r igat ion projects

w o u l d n o t o n l y r eq u i r e h u g e co s t b u t w o u l d a l s o c r ea t e ad v e r s e

env i ronmenta l p rob lems (Singh , 1997) . However , cons ider ing the

g ro w t h o f p o p u l a t i o n an d t h e r eq u i r emen t s o f fo o d g ra i n s i n t h e

future2 , there is a need to increase the area under irrigation. One ofthe options available before us is increasing the existing water use

efficiency in all sources of irrigation. Though many programmes have

been int roduced to improve the exis t ing water use eff iciency under

FMI, they cou ld no t b r ing des i rab le resu l t s so fa r 3 . I t i s poss ible

to increase the exis t ing water use eff iciency as wel l as area under

i r r iga t ion th rough dr ip method of i r r iga t ion as the requ i rement o f

water per hectare of cult ivation is much less under this technology.

2. The Report of National Commission for Integrated Water Resources Developmen t

(1999) points out that India will require 320 million tonnes of foodgrains to feed

133.3 crore of populat ion in the year 2025 and 494 mil l ion tonnes of foodgrains

to feed 158.1 crore of populat ion in the year 2050 (ci ted in Navalawala, 2001).

3. Dur ing the fifth five-year plan , Comm an d Area Developmen t Program me was in-

troduced with the aim to reduce the gap between the i rrigat ion potent ial created

and ut i l i sed. However , th i s programme could not make any s igni f icant break-

through in achieving i ts object ives and the gap between irrigat ion potent ial cre-

a ted and ut i l i sed has been increas ing.


35/128

1 6

Table 2.3 : Irrigation Potential and Util ization in India:

up to 1 9 9 9 -2 0 0 0

Pa rt icu la r s Poten t ia l Crea ted Utilis ed (3 )/ (2 )x100 (4 )/ (3 )x100

(1 ) (2 ) (3 ) (4 ) (5 ) (6 )

MMI 58 .50 (4 1 .82) 3 5 .35 30 .4 7 6 0 .43 86 .20MI :

(a ) Su r fa ce 17 .4 0 (12 .44) 12 .26 10 .8 6 70 .46 88 .59

(b) Grou n d wa ter 64 .00 (45 .7 5) 45 .59 41 .93 71 .23 91 .97

(c) Tota l 81 .40 (58 .18) 59 .3 8 54 .23 72 .95 91 .33

Tota l (MMI + MI) 139 .90 (1 00 .0 ) 94 .7 3 84 .70 67 .71 8 9 .42

Notes : Figures in bra ckets are p ercentage to total; , MMI - Major an d Mediu m Irri -

gation; MI - Minor Irrigation Sources: CWC (1998 and 2002); GOI (2001).

Table 2.4 : Statewise Position of Irrigation Potential

Created and Util ised upto the Ninth Plan

Sr. Na me of Sta te Ult im ate MMI MMI Percen t Ult im ate MI MI Percen tNo. & UTs Ir riga tion Pot en tia l Pot en tia l of Ir riga tion Pot en tia l Pot en tia l of

Poten t ia l : Crea ted u t i lised Column Poten t ia l : Crea ted Uti lised Column

MMI t ill e n d t ill e n d (4 ) t o (3 ) MI t ill e nd t ill e n d (7 ) t o (6 )

of IX of IX of IX of IX

Pla n Plan Plan Plan

(1) (2) (3 ) (4) (5) (6) (7 ) (8) (9) (10)

1 An d hr a Pr ad es h 5 00 0.0 0 3 30 3.2 2 3 05 1.5 9 6 6. 06 6 26 0. 00 3 01 9. 46 2 78 1. 22 4 8. 23

3 Assam 970 .00 243.92 174 .37 25.15 1900 .00 603 .62 494.11 31.77

4 Bih ar 5223.50 2680.00 1714.83 51.31 5663.50 4716.44 3759.46 83.28

5 J a rkh an d 1276.50 354.47 230.45 27.77 1183.50 588 .87 471.09 49.76

6 Goa 62.00 21 .17 15 .33 34.15 54 .00 19 .14 20.00 35.44

7 Gu ja ra t 30 00 .0 0 14 30 .3 7 13 00 .8 3 4 7.6 8 3 10 3.00 1 99 8.92 1 87 6.1 4 6 4.42

8 Ha rya na 30 00 .0 0 2 09 9.49 184 9.97 69 .98 15 12 .00 16 30 .95 15 78 .12 10 7.87

9 Him ach al Pra des h 50 .0 0 1 3.3 5 7 .51 26 .70 3 03.00 16 1.00 1 38 .3 0 53 .1 4

1 0 J a mm u & Ka sh m ir 2 50 .0 0 1 79 .6 9 1 68 .7 5 7 1.8 8 1 10 8.0 0 3 82 .4 5 3 66 .7 7 3 4.5 2

1 1 Ka rn at ak a 2 50 0.0 0 2 12 1.1 2 1 84 4.8 2 8 4.8 4 3 47 4.0 0 1 58 5.4 0 1 54 1.7 4 4 5.6 4

12 Kera la 1000.00 609 .49 558.87 60.95 1679 .00 640 .02 603.76 38.12

1 3 Ma dh ya Pr ad es h 4 85 3.0 7 1 38 6.9 0 8 75 .6 3 2 8. 58 1 13 61 .0 0 2 25 6.1 3 2 14 9.4 8 1 9. 86

1 4 Ch att is ga rh 11 46.93 9 22 .50 76 0.74 8 0.43 57 1.0 0 4 87.70 322 .8 6 85 .41

1 5 Ma ha ra sh tr a 4 10 0.0 0 32 39 .0 0 21 47 .2 4 7 9.0 0 4 85 2.0 0 29 42 .6 0 25 57 .7 2 6 0.6 5

2 0 Oris sa 360 0.00 1 82 6.56 1 79 4.17 5 0.74 52 03.00 1 47 4.12 1 33 7.55 2 8.33

2 1 Pu nja b 300 0.00 2 54 2.48 2 48 5.99 84 .7 5 29 67 .0 0 34 27 .5 6 33 67 .8 2 1 15.52

2 2 Ra ja sth an 2 75 0.0 0 2 48 2.1 5 2 31 3.8 7 9 0.2 6 2 37 8.0 0 2 44 7.1 0 2 36 1.8 0 1 02 .9 1

2 4 Ta m il Na du 1 50 0. 00 1 54 9. 31 1 54 9. 29 1 03 .2 9 4 03 2. 00 2 12 3. 38 2 11 9.5 2 5 2. 66

2 6 Ut ta r P ra d es h 1 2 15 4 .0 0 79 10 .0 9 6 3 34 .0 0 6 5 .0 8 1 7 48 1 .0 0 2 1 59 9 .4 0 1 7 27 9 .6 2 1 2 3. 56

27 Utta ran ch al 346.00 280 .30 185.41 81.01 518 .00 500.98 400 .80 96 .712 8 Wes t Ben ga l 2 30 0. 00 1 68 3. 29 1 52 7. 12 7 3.1 9 4 61 8. 00 3 79 2.5 2 30 98 .1 2 8 2. 12

UTs . 98.00 6 .51 3.94 6.64 46 .00 43.71 35 .41 95.02

Tot al 5 81 80 .0 0 3 68 85 .3 8 3 08 94 .7 2 6 3. 40 8 02 67 .0 0 5 64 41 .4 7 4 86 61 .4 1 7 0. 32

Source: Same as in Table 2.1.


36/128

1 7

Th e ir r i ga t i o n p o t en t i a l ava i lab l e fo r fu t u re u s e h as a l s o b een

d e c lin i n g i n m a n y s t a t e s . In fa c t , t h e c o n d i t io n i s p r e c a r i ou s i n

agricul tural ly advanced s tates l ike Punjab, Haryana and Tamil Nadu

(see, Table 2.4). The irrigation potential created to the total potential of

MMI up to the ninth plan ranges from 69 to 103 percent in states likeHaryana, Punjab and Tamil Nadu. Similar ly , the i rr igat ion potent ial

created to the total potential of MI also varies from about 53 percent

to 123 percen t in s t a tes l ike Haryana , Pun jab , Rajas than , Gujara t ,

Maharashtra, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh (see, Narayanamoorthy,

2002) . Fur ther exp lo i t a t ion o f water th rough MMI and MI sources

f r o m t h e s e s t a t e s c e r t a i n l y w o u l d c r e a t e a d v e r s e e n v i r o n m e n t a l

p rob lems . Therefore , cu l t iva t ing crops wi th the p resen t method of

i r r iga t ion , i .e . , f lood method of i r r iga t ion , i s no longer des i rab le .

Besides solving the problem of over-exploi tat ion of water , the drip

method of i r r iga t ion he lps to increase the a rea under i r r iga t ion by

saving su bsta nt ial amou nt of water (Nara yanam oorthy, 1997 ).

Table 2 .5 : Statewise Groundwater Potential and Development

(cubic km/ year)

Sr . Sta tes Tota l Provis ion Ava ila b le Net Ba la n ce Level of

No. Replen i- for Do- Grou n d

drip nabard

Documents