Upload
nguyenbao
View
218
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Government of Andhra Pradesh
Irrigation & CAD Department
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) i
Final Report
Contents Page
Acknowledgements iii
List of Abbreviations iv
Executive Summary v
Background 1
Chapter 1 Participatory Groundwater Management in APCBTMP 11
Chapter 2 PGM Impact Assessment Study 24
Chapter 3 Findings of the PGM Impact Assessment Study 29
Chapter 4 PGM: The Way Forward 66
Chapter 5 Summary of Findings and Conclusions 72
Annexes 75
References 85
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) ii
The Andhra Pradesh State Government and the World Bank have been the principal guiding
spirits behind implementing the innovative Participatory Groundwater Management
component as part of the APCBTMP in the groundwater stress area, located in 13 selected
districts of the State.
The study was conducted under the guidance of the following senior officers:
Mr Ajoyendra Pyal, IAS Spl Chief Secretary I&CAD and Project Coordinator
Mr Vinay Kumar, IFS State Project Director, APCBTMP
Mr B M Murali Krishna Director, Ground Water Department
Dr K Venugopal Joint Director, Ground Water Department
Dr P Prasad Deputy Director & State Nodal Officer, GWD
The following World Bank officials and consultants provided valuable suggestions and
feedback right from the formulation of the study to the final report.
Dr Deepak Ahluwalia Technical Task Leader (till November 2013)
Dr Ranjan Samantaray Technical Task Leader (from December 2013)
Dr S Selvarajan M&E Expert
Smt K Kandula Environment and Groundwater Expert
The following experts designed, coordinated and prepared the final report of the “Impact
Assessment of Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) in APCBMTMP.”
Dr. S. N. Nagaraja Sharma External Consultant
Dr. Joseph Plakkoottam MLE Expert, PMU, APCBTMP
Mr. Suhas Raje Deputy Director, GW, PMU, APCBTMP
Mr N. Eswara Reddy PGM Capacity Building Expert, PMU, APCBTMP
At the district level, the following team coordinated and participated in the data collection
for the study.
District Deputy Director Nodal Officer Training Resource Persons
Anantapur P. Purushottam Reddy J. Sankaraiah K. Sambasivudu
R.Rajashekar
K. Adinarayana Reddy
Kadapa M. Ramprasad M. Muralidhar Akhtar Sahahjad
B. Rosamma Kurnool K. Laxma V. Nagaraju
Mahabubnagar Suhas Raje Ramadevi M. Sreedevi
V. R. Sanjeeva Reddy
M. Laxmaiah
Medak M. John Sathya Raj M.Pramila K. Rajendra Prasad
N. Sundara Ramaiah
Nalgonda Md. Shereef S. Jitendhar K. Rajendra Prasad
Y. Prasada Rao
A.Yadagiri
Prakasam K. E.Vijaya Kumar K.E.Vijaya Kumar E.Raghunath
T.Venkataih
Ranga Reddy K. Dhananjaiah N. Raja Reddy E.Raghunath
T.Venkataih
Md. Maqsood
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) iii
AMOR Aquifer Management Organization
APCBTMP Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project
APD Assistant Project Director
APFAMGS Project Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems Project
APSIDC Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation
APWELL Project Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Borewell Irrigation Schemes Project
CWB Crop Water Budgeting
DD Deputy Director
DLIC District Level Implementation Committee
DNO District Nodal Officer
DPD District Project Director
DPU District Project Unit
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GMIS Geographical Management Information Systems
GW Ground Water
GWD Ground Water Department
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HMR Hydrological Monitoring Record
ID Crops Irrigated Dry Crops
IWMT Irrigation Water Management Techniques
MIS Management Information System
Non-PHM Farmers Groundwater users in the ZOI of PGM tanks other than PHM Farmers
NSO Nodal Support Organizations
O&M Operation and Maintenance
PGM Farmers Groundwater users in the ZOI of PGM tanks (PHM and Non-PHM
farmers)
PGM tanks Tanks with Participatory Groundwater Management activities
PGM Participatory Groundwater Management
PHM farmers Farmers Collecting PHM data
PHM Participatory Hydrological Monitoring
PMU Project Management Unit
SEMF Social and Environmental Management Framework
SRI System of Rice Intensification
TIMP Tank Improvement and Management Plan
TRP Training Resource Person
WDS Water Development Society
WUAs Water Users Associations
WUE Water Use Efficiency
WUGs Water Users Groups
ZoI Groundwater Zone of Influence
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) iv
Executive Summary
In India, groundwater development has followed the pattern seen in most developing
countries: rapid development followed by over exploitation of aquifers in several parts
of the country. Various macro-economic policy interventions have been attempted to
encourage sustainable groundwater stabilization.
During the last two decades several important local level measures in groundwater
development and management were implemented in India. The experiences and lessons
from participatory groundwater management projects provided the strategic directions
for making future investments in sustainable groundwater management. The
Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component of the Andhra Pradesh
Community Based Tank Management Project (APCBTMP) was designed taking into
account the pioneering efforts of these projects.
Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM)
The PGM component aims at empowering groundwater users in the tank influence zone
to wisely manage the dynamic groundwater resources, replenished through rainfall,
surface water resources and return circulation from irrigated areas: The AP State Ground
Water Department is the implementing agency of the PGM component. This component
is currently being implemented in 314 select project tanks falling within 157 over-
exploited and critical groundwater basins as identified by the state Ground Water
Department, covering 138 mandals in 13 districts.
All Groundwater (GW) Users in the Zone of Influence (ZoI) including the command
area of the tank selected for PGM interventions under the APCBTMP will be organized
into PGM Groups, each group consisting of a maximum of TEN (10) GW user families.
Two persons from each GW user family, of whom one must be a woman, become
members of a PGM Group.
PGM proposes to establish the Participatory Hydrological Monitoring Network and
build the capacity of the community for collection, analysis and management of data on
rainfall, groundwater recharge, and extraction leading to groundwater balance
estimation. This would in turn facilitate crop planning and crop water budgeting by the
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) v
community to arrive at decisions to balance recharge and draft. Over a few years, when
the community would have generated reliable time series data, it will be feasible to do
crop water budgeting more precisely and take precautionary measures for drought
proofing.
These exercises will provide the community with knowledge and motivation for social
regulation on groundwater and natural resources management. Improving water use
efficiency and diversifying livelihoods are important strategies for sustainable
groundwater management and adaptation to climate change. Issues of equity and
vulnerability will be better addressed by an informed community, which controls and
manages its own groundwater and other natural resources.
Capacity Building of PGM groups is carried out by qualified Training Resource Persons
(TRP) through specially designed training modules.
Crop Water Budgeting is a crucial exercise in PGM addressing the problem and shifts
the focus from supply side to demand side management. The purpose of capacity
building is to help participants analyse the groundwater situation and understand the
relationship between the crops and water requirement based on the PHM data collected
and analysed by them. Farmers do crop plans and are sensitized to change their cropping
pattern according to the water balance.
Sharing of groundwater from the incremental recharge to the aquifer would ultimately
result in increase in the irrigated ayacut in the zone of influence, with social regulation
leading to reduction in drilling of new borewells resulting in fiscal savings.
PGM Impact Assessment Study
When the PGM component completed five years in 2012, it was decided to conduct a
study to assess its impact and find options for way forward during the remaining period
of the project and beyond.
The study was carried out by collecting data from 20 select sample tanks out of the 314
PGM tanks. Five non PGM-APCBTMP as well as five non-APCBTMP tanks were
selected as a control set.
Two types of control tanks were selected: (i) APCBTMP-Non PGM and (ii) Non-
APCBTMP. The control tanks were selected from a similar hydrological situation
(rainfall, surface and groundwater) in the vicinity of the sampled PGM tank.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) vi
The tank level data required for the study were collected by the Training Resource
Persons (TRPs), drafted from other districts. Data were collected using appropriate data
collection instruments and methods.
Findings of the PGM Impact Assessment Study
PGM intervention has shown good impact on CWB in the field. Understanding
of CWB is more pronounced in the case of PHM farmers (88%), followed by
non-PHM farmers (66%), and the farmers (60%).
Success of the PGM processes is reflected in that in 83% cases the PHM
equipment worked well, without any problem. Because of this trouble free
equipment, 82.7% PHM data is obtained without any gaps giving a good data
base for the CWB workshops. When the equipment was not working the
problems were rectified within 15 days in most cases. Overall affirmative
response given by farmers: 56.4%.
PGM intervention has been very useful in that almost all farmers (95%) changed
the extent of their irrigated land based on the PHM data. And most of the farmers
(69%) are aware that the PHM data are displayed and have used it to adopt field
irrigation methods such as drip and sprinkler systems.
The tank rehabilitation works taken up under the project (improvements to
irrigation channels, arresting leakages from bund, sluices, and surplus weirs)
which have direct bearing on enhanced groundwater recharge are showing
positive impact on groundwater scenario in the Zone of Influence of PGM tanks.
A high percentage of farmers have made use of the PHM data for water
management – (78.6% PHM farmers, 62.7% Non-PHM farmers, and 57.8% all
farmers). Most of the the groundwater users (in 18 out of 20 PGM tanks) have
used CWB for crop planning at individual and community level. When all the
farmers are brought under CWB the process will be fully effective.
Crop planning for surface water irrigation is practiced more in non-Project tanks
(36%), but very less in non-PGM tanks (12%). But in case of Groundwater
irrigation, crop planning is negligible in both cases (6%, in Non-PGM tanks and
2% in Non-Project tanks). Here again, it is clear that implementing decisions at
community level is very difficult, and needs more awareness among the farmer
community.
PHM data has given confidence to PHM and Non-PHM farmers to share their
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) vii
borewell water with fellow farmers (92.5%), which is a positive outcome of the
PGM intervention.
Land productivity of groundwater users during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM
tanks is greater by 37.6 per cent (Rs 90,322/Ha) compared to APCBTMP non-
PGM tanks (Rs 65,623/Ha) and 35.9 per cent more compared to non-APCBTMP
tanks (Rs 66,468/ Ha) at constant prices (2008-09).
Groundwater productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks has
increased by 19.4 per cent from Rs 59,920/Ha-m to Rs 71,524/Ha-m as
compared to productivity during 2008-09.
Farmers are willing to continue PGM activities even if Project/Government
support is not available, though they feel that Government support would PGM
more vibrant and effective.
Conclusion
This PGM impact assessment study is a useful in providing insights into stakeholder
participation and sustainability. The PGM experience in APCBTMP can be used as a
‘Model Module’ to initiate PGM in ‘Critical’ and ‘Over-exploited’ watersheds in other
states of India with locally relevant modifications.
Final Report
Background
Over 2000 million people worldwide, mostly farmers and industries, depend on groundwater
for their various water needs. Accelerated development of groundwater over the past few
decades has resulted in great social and economic benefits, by providing low-cost, drought-
reliable and mainly high-quality water supplies for both the urban and rural population and
for irrigation of potentially high-value crops. Though further use of groundwater will be vital
for achievement of the ‘UN Millennium Development Goals’, investment in management
and protection of the resource base has been seriously neglected.
Sustainability of groundwater is closely linked to a range of micro and macro-policy issues
influencing water and land use, and represents one of the major challenges in natural
resource management. Practical advances are urgently needed; there is no simple blueprint
for action, due to the inherent variability of groundwater systems and related socioeconomic
situations, but it is always feasible to make incremental improvements. Many developing
nations need to appreciate their socio-economic dependency on groundwater, and invest in
strengthening institutional provisions and building institutional capacity for its improved
management before it is too late.
Sustainable groundwater utilization requires actions to be taken at two different
administrative levels:
• macro-economic policy interventions—because groundwater demand is strongly
influenced by national subsidies (on water well drilling, electrical energy, diesel fuel,
food crops) and they affect the size of existing groundwater-based agriculture and the
rate of transition to less water-dependent livelihoods.
• local-level management measures — to create effective institutional arrangements
(empowered government agency, adequate legal framework, user awareness/
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 2
participation, groundwater abstraction charging, land-use constraints) to regulate,
protect and monitor groundwater resources.1
Groundwater development in India
In India, groundwater development has followed the pattern seen in most developing
countries: rapid development followed by over exploitation of aquifers in several parts of the
country. Various macro-economic policy interventions have been attempted to encourage
sustainable groundwater stabilization.
During the last two decades several important local level measures in groundwater
development and management were implemented in India. The most prominent among these
were in Andhra Pradesh (APWELL Project, 1995-2003, APFAMGS, 2003-2010), Kerala
(KCIP 1994-2000), West Bengal (North Bengal Terai Project, 1995-2003). Projects such as
the Indo-Dutch APWELL (1995-2003) piloted community participation in groundwater
sharing and (local) aquifer management. Empowering groundwater users to collect, record
and analyse hydrological data was a pioneering effort of APWELL Project and its successor,
the APFAMGS Project. Successful engagement of local non-government organizations for
community mobilizing and capacity building was also an important feature of these projects.
Participatory Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh2
About 80 percent of Andhra Pradesh is underlain by hard rock3, wherein occurrence of
groundwater is under unconfined to semi-confined conditions. The yields from such hard
rock areas are generally moderate to poor (below 10,000 Gallons per Hour - GPH). The
agricultural sector in these regions is characterized by smallholdings4, which makes it
difficult for farmers to earn an adequate income from agriculture.
To alleviate the situation of poor returns from agriculture, the Government of Andhra
Pradesh has been promoting the development of groundwater resources on a large scale in
the last three decades. This trend started with shallow dug wells for drinking water. Well
1 “Sustainable Groundwater Management: Concepts and Tools Series Overview,” (Briefing Note 0), by Stephen
Foster & Karin Kemper (Editors), 2002-2005. 2
Ben Witjes, David W. van Raalten, and Joseph L. Plakkoottam (eds.), Farmer Managed Borewell Irrigation
Systems: Lessons from APWELL Project. ARCADIS Euroconsult, BKH, IRDAS, 1999.
3 Mainly crystallines (like Granites, Peninsular Gneiss) which form the base rock and others like Cuddapah
group, Kurnool group, basalts, laterites, etc.
4 In Andhra Pradesh those who own less than 1 ha (2.5 acres) are defined as marginal farmers, and those who
own between 1 and 2 ha (2.5-5 acres) of dryland are considered small farmers. In some drought prone areas,
farmers who own up to 3 ha of dryland qualify as small farmers. In AP the average holding of a marginal farmer
is 1.25 acres (0.5 ha) and that of small farmers is 3.75 acres (1.5 ha).
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 3
digging for irrigation was promoted by the SC Corporation in the mid-1980s. The advent of
the India Mark II hand pump resulted in a large number of borewells, in almost every village
of the state. This was followed by the arrival of the submersible pump and deep drilling
technology. The Water Development Society (WDS) manufactured an indigenous drilling rig
(with DTH technology) which became popular overnight.
With a view to disseminate the borewell technology for higher benefits, the Andhra Pradesh
State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (APSIDC) was formed as a State
Government undertaking in 1974. The main objective of the APSIDC is construction of Lift
Irrigation schemes to provide irrigation facility to the people placed in topographically
disadvantageous upland areas. APSIDC was also mandated to create irrigation potential
through groundwater development by constructing borewells, tubewells, or infiltration wells
for the benefit of small and marginal farmers, and other weaker sections such as SCs and STs
in upland and drought prone areas. Upto 2006, the APSIDC has created irrigation potential of
774,498 acres through 1,236 lift irrigation schemes at a cost of Rs.508.02 crores. APSIDC
had also commissioned 20,040 Ground water schemes creating an irrigation potential of
334,800 acres at a cost of Rs. 244.00 crores. Of these about 3500 wells were commissioned
under the APWELL Project. In 2005, groundwater development in the state has been
excluded from APSIDC mandate.
Participatory Groundwater Management Experiences
Several important local level measures in groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh were
funded through Dutch assistance were projects such as the Indo-Dutch — APWELL (1995-
2003)5 and its successor the APFAMGS (2003-2010)
6,
7, .
The main lessons from the APWELL Project are summarized as follows:
Access to water by small and marginal farmers improves their productivity and they
rise above poverty line.
5 For a detailed discussion, see Joseph L Plakkoottam, Jan W K van der Wal, N Sai Bhaskar Reddy, and Jillilla
Prasad, “Groundwater Management Experiences in Andhra Pradesh: Strategies and Prospects: Report for the
Irrigation and Command Area Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2007.
6 For a detailed discussion on APFAMGS, see Samala Venkata Govardhan Das and Jacob Burke, Small Holders
and Sustainable Wells: A Retrospect – Participatory Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh (India),
FAO of UN, 2013.
7 For a critical assessment of the sustainability of the the APFAMGS model, see Verma, S., Krishnan. S.,
Reddy., V. A., and Reddy, K. R. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS): A
reality check,” Highlight 37, IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program, Gujarat, India., 2012.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 4
Small and marginal land holdings (as small as one acre) can become productive with
availability of water and proper inputs.
Enhancing productivity of land and water requires substantial inputs in terms of
financial and capacity building inputs.
Participatory groundwater management is a viable concept if introduced in
conjunction with groundwater development, agricultural production, institutional
development, and capacity building of farming communities.
All stakeholders and water users need to be involved in participatory groundwater
management.
Government and non-government agencies need to work in collaboration for
achieving sustainable results in participatory groundwater management.
Role of facilitating agencies should not stop at the end of a project. Post project
support is essential for sustainability of any promising intervention.
Well trained and strongly motivated staff of government and non-government
agencies working closely with farmers is necessary for the successful implementation
of participatory groundwater management.
Design principles adopted for the PGM Component in APCBTMP
The experiences and lessons from participatory groundwater management projects provided
the strategic directions for making future investments in sustainable groundwater
management. The Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component of the AP
Community Based Tank Management Project (APCBTMP) was designed taking into account
the pioneering efforts of these two projects. The following discussion places these lessons in
a broader context using the framework provided by the GW-MATE Core Group of the World
Bank.8 Garduño et al’s framework has four aspects: (a) Benefits of stakeholder
participation, (b) Institutional arrangements in groundwater management, (c) Role of
government in participatory groundwater management, and (d) Indirect Groundwater Pricing
through Energy Tariffs. The following discussion summarizes how these aspects have been
addressed in the groundwater experiences which guided the design principles of the PGM
component in APCTMP.
(a) Benefits of stakeholder participation
According to Garduño et al, “groundwater management decisions taken with the
participation of stakeholders should help to bring:
social benefits, because they tend to promote equity among users
8 Héctor Garduño, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars, “Stakeholder
Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer management organizations,” Briefing Note 6.
GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 5
economic benefits, because they tend to optimize pumping and reduce energy costs
technical benefits, because they usually lead to better estimates of water abstraction.
On the other hand, participatory management of highly-stressed aquifers should help
take some otherwise unpopular decisions where—at least in the short run—benefits to a
number of stakeholder groups are decreased because they agree to reduce pumping in
the longer-term communal interest.”
These principles are valid in the case of the APWELL Project in three main aspects:
i. APWELL Project has brought about social benefits with equity among small and
marginal farmers who continue to share water judiciously (about 90 percent).
ii. APWELL Water Users Groups (WUGs) have reaped economic benefits through
sustainable farming practices as well as by optimizing pumping and reducing energy
costs. The decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2004 to provide free
power to small and marginal farmers is giving the WUGs about Rs 3000 per annum
which is a substantial savings.
iii. Technical benefits of better estimate of water abstraction are seen in the Andhra
Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS) Project due to the
introduction of Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM) and Crop Water
Budgeting (CWB) where water abstraction and crop water budgeting data are
collected by farmers themselves.
(b) Institutional arrangements in groundwater management
In the case of groundwater resources, there is definite need of a system for higher-level user
and stakeholder participation, called here an aquifer management organization (AMOR).
Such organizations must be established more widely as the institutional mechanism for
resource management at the aquifer (or sub-aquifer) level, in which all WUAs and other
main categories of stakeholder should be represented. AMORs should also include
representatives of national or local agencies involved in groundwater management and of the
corresponding local government authorities. In some circumstances AMORs can (and
should) be formed at the initiative of the water administration, when zones with critical
groundwater status are declared.
APFAMGS Project had developed a structure of organising groundwater users at the
hydrological unit (aquifer) level. The APCBTMP envisages organising groundwater
users in the influence zone of the tanks. These approaches need to be standardized.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 6
All stakeholders for a given aquifer management unit need to be identified, and provision
made to ensure their equitable representation in the institutional mechanism defined for
aquifer management. Difficulties can arise where there are large numbers of individual
stakeholders whose interests need to be represented in an AMOR. In this case it is necessary
to provide for the formation of federations representative of each stakeholder category, and to
vest these federations with the authority to appoint their representatives.
Stakeholders may be unwilling to participate in the groundwater management process unless
this develops within a solid legal and institutional framework providing clarity as to:
o The rights and duties of representatives
o Procedures to those who are reluctant to cooperate.
A finely-tuned balance of regulations and incentives is required to bring stakeholders into
groundwater management. However, regulations should not be imposed from the outside, but
negotiated by consensus. Incentives will often be needed to help groundwater users make
more efficient use of groundwater and thus to make it easier to achieve agreements to reduce
abstraction.
A solid legal and institutional framework for participatory groundwater management
needs to be formulated. This would provide legitimacy to the informal social regulations
in vogue among groundwater users.
(c) Role of government in participatory groundwater management
Stakeholders have first to be made aware of the importance of participation in groundwater
resource management and this is a key government function. It is normally achieved initially
through periodic issuing of bulletins on the status of groundwater resources and quality;
together with prognostic information on the consequences of not taking some form of
management action, using both local communication routes and the mass media to spread the
message.
The APWELL and the APFAMGS Projects had developed communication methods and
strategies for stakeholder participation in PGM. These are easily adoptable.
But this is not generally enough, and education (as distinct from awareness) programs need
to be developed and promoted at various levels. Most importantly social scientists should be
engaged to map the existing communication network amongst the various ‘message senders’
and ‘message receivers’ involved in the management and use of a specific aquifer.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 7
Most groundwater management proposals9 recommend awareness generation through
mass media and campaigns as the solution for people’s participation. APWELL and
APFAMGS had developed a comprehensive education strategy for participatory
hydrological monitoring and crop-water budgeting.
When shaping the role for the local government water resources agency in participatory
groundwater management it is advisable to adopt the following approaches:
(i) Make complex groundwater situations understandable: by providing clear
information on the groundwater balance of the aquifer concerned and using modern
software with user-friendly visual interfaces to share understanding of system behavior
under differing management scenarios—stakeholders will usually then be willing to
consider management interventions and to accept advice to be sure that their own ideas
are technically and economically sound.
APWELL and APFAMGS had successfully used communication methods using both
modern software and traditional media to “demystify the science of groundwater” to
groundwater user communities. These can be adapted for statewide interventions.
(ii) Empower stakeholder organizations: a patronizing (‘officials know best’) attitude
should be avoided and it must be recognized that stakeholders must be the main actors in
the practical management process with the government role being mainly to assist in
identifying strategic issues and implementable solutions.
The Groundwater Management Committees and the Hydrological Unit Networks under
the APFAMGS Project are empowered and capable of collecting hydrological data and
conducting crop water budgeting exercises regularly. The State Groundwater
Department in its new role as the Groundwater Management Agency can play facilitating
role.
iv. The global water partnership associate program
(iii) Ensure all stakeholders are properly represented: this irrespective of their individual
weight in land or water rights tenure, or their economic and political influence.
APWELL and APFAMGS have developed inclusive methodologies in participatory
groundwater management. The Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management
9 See various papers in Saleem Romani, K D Sharma, N C Ghosh and Y B Kaushik (eds.), Groundwater
Governance: Ownership of Groundwater and its Pricing (Proceedings of the 12th
National Symposium on
Hydrology, November 14-15, 2006), New Delhi. Capital Publishing Company: New Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 8
Project has also ensured participation and representation of all stakeholders including
non-land owners.
(iv) Establish a sound groundwater rights system: so that the interests of stakeholders are
reasonably protected with third party and environmental concerns also being taken into
account, but flexible enough to make feasible water reallocation to more socially,
economically or environmentally beneficial uses.10
PHM pioneered by APWELL and upscaled by APFAMGS envisages social regulation
based on a sound groundwater rights system.
Additionally, while conflict amongst users is generally best settled by the parties
themselves, situations may arise in which the users in conflict prefer to have an external
party (such as a government agency) involved in seeking a settlement, so that they do not
have to confront each other directly.
Present experience suggests that communities are capable of solving most of their
conflicts locally. Facilitation by external agencies is sometimes necessary and useful.
Where excessive groundwater abstraction from an aquifer drives a number of farmers
out of agriculture because of increasing costs of access to groundwater supply, wealthier
farmers usually consolidate their agricultural production, causing migration of the
displaced smaller farmers to urban areas. Public policy must anticipate such phenomena
as these in order to make timely interventions.
The experience of APWELL suggests that proper site selection and borewell development
will lead to sustainable groundwater use. This in turn increases local employment
opportunities and arrests seasonal migration even of marginal farmers.
Excessive groundwater exploitation will lead not only to migration but even to farmer
suicides as has been the case in several states in India including Andhra Pradesh.
(d) Indirect Groundwater Pricing through Energy Tariffs
Garduño et al,11
argue that the major cost in groundwater abstraction (once a well is installed)
is the energy required to lift water. This cost will depend not only on water table depth,
aquifer characteristics and well efficiency, but also on the unit cost of energy for pumping.
10
Hector Garduño, Stephen Foster, Charles Dumars, Karin Kemper, Albert Tuinhof, Marcella Nanni. “Groundwater
Abstraction Rights from theory to practice”, Briefing Note 5 GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.
11 Héctor Garduño, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars, “Stakeholder
Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer management organizations,” Briefing Note 6.
GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 9
Thus, energy (electricity or diesel fuel) pricing can be a powerful tool to influence
groundwater pumping trends. Paradoxically, in many areas of the world, energy prices are
used in the opposite way, with large subsidies in place to decrease farming costs. While it can
be legitimate to subsidize poor farmers to improve their livelihood, subsidizing groundwater
abstraction in general may not be the best vehicle to do so, because excessive groundwater
abstraction can erode the same farmers’ resource availability in the longer term. Other
measures need to be defined which have a neutral effect on the resource, such as lump-sum
payments to poor farmers at the beginning of the year to cover their estimated energy bill. In
this way, they would have an incentive to use water more efficiently and consume less,
maybe through a shift to higher-value crops. Since they receive lump sum payments to offset
their increased energy bills, they can actually gain twice by being more efficient, and thus
improve their livelihoods.
Though metered energy for groundwater use was successfully introduced in the APWELL
Project, it was discontinued in the wake of change in government and subsequent policy
change. The impact of subsidized power on aquifer stabilization needs to be studied.
Related issues of water and land productivity also need systematic study.
Being the first attempt of its kind to integrate surface water management with groundwater
management, the PGM component in APCBTMP was designed with only limited scope of
involving groundwater users in the immediate influence zone of the minor irrigation tanks.
The processes, methods and procedures developed under the APWELL and the APFAMGS
projects were incorporated while designing the PGM component in APCBTMP.
There has been acceptance of the APWELL pilot initiatives, expanded by APFAMGS as
useful for upscaling.12
However, more recent discussions have been more critical of the
APFAMGS model about its sustainability having been anchored in the non-government
sector.13
,14
The Participatory Groundwater Management component, introduced in APCBTMP and
implemented by the Government of Andhra Padesh through a World Bank funded project in
12
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Deep Wells and Prudence:
Towards Pragmatic Action for Addressing Groundwater Overexploitation in India. 2010. URL:
www.worldbank.org
13 For a critical assessment of the sustainability of the the APFAMGS model, see Verma, S., Krishnan. S.,
Reddy., V. A., and Reddy, K. R. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS): A
reality check,” Highlight 37, IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program, Gujarat, India., 2012.
14 Shah, Tushar. Groundwater Governance and Irrigated Agriculture. Global Partnership Technical Committee.
2014.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 10
2007, and recognized as the 2nd ranked finalist for ‘Water for Life’ UN-Water Best Practices
Award 2014 edition, has been getting some well deserved attention and needs closer study.15
The Participatory
Groundwater Management
(PGM) component of
APCBTMP was declared as
the 2nd ranked finalist for
‘Water for Life’ UN-Water
Best Practices Award 2014
edition, announced at the
UNU Headquarters, Tokyo
on 21 March 2014 the eve
of the World Water Day.
Frank van Steenbergen16
reports about an interesting an innovative case to address one of the
biggest challenges facing global agriculture: the over-pumping of ground water in the
world’s two largest countries, China and India.
“The Qinxu Groundwater Management System. This system, masterminded by
Professor Fan Guishang from Taiyuan University of Technology University,
regulates all groundwater usage in the Qinxu, one of the counties in Shanxi Province.
It took five years to set it up, but this is a short time for a system that has all the
features of a dream coming true.
What the Qinxu Groundwater System has done is equipped all 1473 wells in the
county with an automatic operating system that farmers operate with individual swipe
cards. The amount of water that can be used is based on a quota that is allocated
annually.
There are many innovative attempts around the world to address this crucial area of
sustainale groundwater aquifer management. PGM is one such attempt and can be modified
to the emerging needs. The newly created states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana will be
well advised to incorporate PGM in their integrated water management plans.
15
Paul, Stella, “And Not a Drop to Waste.” IPS-Inter Press Service, 2014. ttp://www.ipsnews.net/2014/05/drop-
waste; Paul, Stella, “Rural India looks to past and present to meet growing water needs.” Thomson Reuters
Foundation - Wed, 23 Apr 2014.
16 Frank van Steenbergen “A Brave New Groundwater World” posted in The Water Channel, October
22, 2012.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 11
Introduction
AP Community Based Tank Management Project (APCBTMP) has been designed to
rehabilitate 3000 traditional minor irrigation tanks covering an area of about 2.5 lakh ha on a
sustainable basis.
1.1 Objective of APCBTMP
The development objective of APCBTMP is: “Tank based producers improve agricultural
productivity and water user associations manage tank systems effectively.” The scope of the
project covers minor irrigation tank systems – consisting of tanks with command area
between 40-2000 ha. The strategy adopted to achieve this objective is to:
Strengthen community based institutions for participatory irrigation management and
sustainable use of water resources including water distribution;
Facilitate participatory planning and implementation;
Focus on improving agricultural livelihoods options of tank system users;
Revive, restore and manage minor irrigation systems (both surface and ground water)
through participatory processes;
Promote water use efficiency through conjunctive water use and adoption of modern
techniques (SRI paddy, improved technologies for enhanced WUE);
Understand water resource management from a holistic perspective at tank system
level to resolve the issues in relation to water management, groundwater recharge and
tank storage; and
Ensure financial sustainability to WUAs through mobilization of resources for
effecting operation and maintenance (O&M).
1.2. APCBTM Project Components
The project is being implemented in 2157 tanks of 21 districts of Andhra Pradesh covering
an ayacut of about 2.55 lakh ha. The four components of the Project are:
A. Strengthening community based institutions to assume responsibility for tank
system improvement and management. This includes, streamlining functioning of
Water User Associations in promoting participatory planning and implementation of
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 12
water distribution, O&M, demand raising and assistance in collection of Water
charges by WUAs.
B1. Undertaking tank systems improvements includes physical investments in tank
systems with command area of 40 ha and above. The actual rehabilitation work
required is determined for each tank system individually with an upfront ‘tank
improvement and management plan’ prepared in consultation with tank users prior to
undertaking any investments. Such plans include treatments to feeder channels,
foreshore area, tank bed, tank bund, sluices, weir, draft channel, distribution channels
and command area.
B2. Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component aims at empowering
groundwater users in the tank influence zone to wisely manage the dynamic
groundwater resources, replenished through rainfall, surface water resources and
return circulation from irrigated areas: The AP State Ground Water Department is the
implementing agency of the PGM component. This component is currently being
implemented in 13 districts in 314 tanks.
C. Agricultural Livelihood Support Services for tank system users includes
agricultural extension support through public agencies and private service providers
and facilitation of market linkages for farmers/groups (including fisheries). Line
departments are involved in planning, implementation and monitoring of the relevant
interventions proposed under the component.
D. Project Management: Includes Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation, as well as
MIS, GMIS, SEMF and Procurement and adopting a Results Framework involving an
External Monitoring Agency in addition to internal input-output monitoring systems.
Procurement of works, goods and services, financial management, proactive
disclosure and grievance redressal are also part of the component.
A State level Project Steering Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to GoAP
coordinates at state level and provides overall guidance. Principal Secretary,
Irrigation and Commissioner, CAD is the Project Coordinator. There is a Project
Management Unit (PMU) with a multidisciplinary Team, headed by the State Project
Director. The District Level Implementation Committee (DLIC) with the District
Collector as Chairperson coordinates the implementation of project at district level.
The District Project Unit (DPU) is a multi-disciplinary team headed by the District
Project Director (Executive Engineer) to plan, implement and monitor the project at
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 13
district level. Services of Nodal Support Organizations (NSO) are procured to
facilitate the process at grass roots in about 30-40 tanks. The Water Users
Associations (WUAs) formed as per the APFMIS Act with an elected body of
Managing Committee implements the project at tank level. The Gram Panchayat and
other Community Based Organizations like the Fishermen Cooperative Societies and
Commodity Interest Groups work with the WUAs in implementing the project
interventions.
1.3 Participatory Groundwater Management
Objective: Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component of APCBTMP aims
at empowering groundwater users in the tank influence zone to wisely manage the dynamic
groundwater resources, replenished through rainfall, surface water sources and return
circulation from irrigated areas.
Operational area:
The 314 selected project tanks are falling with in 157 over exploited and critical groundwater
basins as identified by the Ground Water Department, covering 138 mandals in 13 districts.
The selected tanks generally have deeper water levels in their vicinity, high density of
extraction structures, underlain by hard rocks with good and moderate yields.
Map 1.1: Location of 314 tanks selected for PGM interventions
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 14
Selection criteria for PGM interventions:
Tank village to fall in Typology A&B
Identification of Tanks in assessment units based on category & stage of GW development
Reconnoitery investigations:
to study structural controls
density of bore wells showing 15-20 wells per sq km
effect of tank water on groundwater for taking up groundwater interventions
Demarcation of zone of Influence
Inventory of 20% wells existing in the command and zone of influence of the selected
tank area
Selection of 5 representative wells
for Participatory Hydrological
Monitoring (PHM) whose owners
are willing to make physical
modifications to their well and
volunteer to collect hydrological
data fortnightly.
Zone of influence (ZoI)
As part of PGM component, the Groundwater Department is responsible for selection of
tanks, demarcating the zone of influence, identification of 5 farmers for Participatory
Hydrological Monitoring (PHM), installation of the PHM equipment, and selection of sites,
and drilling of additional piezometers. The concept of delineating the zone of influence (ZoI)
is the unique contribution of APCBTM Project.
PGM group formation
All Groundwater (GW) Users in the Zone of Influence (ZoI) including the command area of
the tank selected for PGM interventions under the APCBTMP will be organized into PGM
Groups, each group consisting of a maximum of TEN (10) GW user families. Two persons
from each GW user family, of whom one must be a woman, shall become members of a
PGM Group.
PGM groups shall be organized around a PHM well, comprising groundwater users from
contiguous or nearby plots. Where there are more than 10 user families around a PHM well,
more than ONE PGM group will be formed.
Participatory delineation of the tanks groundwater
zone of influence using PRA
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 15
Table 1.1: PGM groups in APCBTMP (March 2014)
Sl District
PGM Groups formed
Tanks Functional
Groups Men Women Total
1 Anantapur 74 524 4182 3861 8043
2 Chittoor 28 181 1601 1374 2975
3 Kadapa 7 47 341 341 682
4 Karimnagar 9 113 936 778 1714
5 Kurnool 9 56 458 438 896
6 Mahabubnagar 46 274 2267 2132 4399
7 Medak 42 321 3413 3208 6621
8 Nalgonda 22 211 1823 1823 3646
9 Nellore 11 66 479 487 966
10 Nizamabad 18 99 654 581 1235
11 Prakasam 13 93 824 846 1670
12 Ranga Reddy 18 153 1240 1173 2413
13 Warangal 17 122 701 506 1207
Total 314 2260 18,919 17,548 36,467
Co-option of groundwater users into WUA
GO MS No 160 dated 24-09-2008 facilitates cooption of groundwater users into WUA:
“Government after careful examination of the issue, it is ordered that the District Collectors
co-opt such of the members having customary rights like fishermen, people engaged in
making pottery, washer men, Ground Water users outside the command area but within the
demarcated zone of tanks selected for the Participatory Ground Water Management (PGM)
activities under projects who are dependent on the water source for their livelihood into the
respective Water Users Associations.”
PGM process
PGM proposes to establish the Participatory Hydrological Monitoring Network and build the
capacity of the community for collection, analysis and management of data on rainfall,
groundwater recharge, and extraction leading to groundwater balance estimation. This would
in turn facilitate crop planning and crop water budgeting by the community to arrive at
decisions to balance recharge and draft. Over a few years, when the community would have
generated reliable time series data, it will be feasible to do crop water budgeting more
precisely and take precautionary measures for drought proofing.
These exercises will provide the community with knowledge and motivation for social
regulation on groundwater and natural resources management. Improving water use
efficiency and diversifying livelihoods are important strategies for sustainable groundwater
management and adaptation to climate change. Issues of equity and vulnerability will be
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 16
better addressed by an informed community, which controls and manages its own
groundwater and other natural resources.
For PHM data collection, the necessary equipment and installation are procured by the
Ground Water Department for each tank at a unit cost of Rs. 1.20 lakhs. These are: (a) Water
level measurement equipment, (b) Water discharge measurement equipment, and (c) Rain
gauge stations. The districtwise details of are shown in Table1.2.
Table 1.2: Participatory Hydrological Monitoring Network (March 2014)
Capacity Building:
Capacity Building of PGM group is carried out by Training Resource Persons (TRP) through
specially designed training modules. Besides the PHM farmers, the trainings seek to build the
capacities of the identified para workers to make a community initiative PGM.
Three training modules are developed (English and Telugu) to carry out the capacity building
tasks at tank level.
Module 1: Orientation on PGM
Purpose
Focus on demand side rather than supply side
management of groundwater resources by the
primary stakeholders is the main aim of the
# District Tanks
Hydrological Monitoring Network
Water level & discharge
measurement equipment Rain gauge stations
1 Anantapur 74 368 67
2 Chittoor 28 140 20
3 Kadapa 7 35 7
4 Karimnagar 9 45 8
5 Kurnool 9 45 8
6 Mahabubnagar 46 228 45
7 Medak 42 188 42
8 Nalgonda 22 109 10
9 Nellore 11 49 17
10 Nizamabad 18 88 12
11 Prakasam 13 65 13
12 Ranga Reddy 18 86 16
13 Warangal 17 84 16
Total 314 1530 281
TRP providing orientation on PGM to PHM
farmers and other select WUA members
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 17
orientation module. The need for PGM is being recognized of late. It is now realized that
demand side management of groundwater at micro-watershed or tank influence zone level is
more likely to show results. For this, all the primary stakeholders in the tank influence zone
have to own up and manage the groundwater and other natural resources.
Objectives
Need for Participatory Hydrological Monitoring
Understand the concept of Groundwater Zone of Influence(ZOI) of a tank
Balancing groundwater draft with recharge
Participatory Groundwater Management
Improving water productivity with efficient irrigation
Sustainable agriculture by increasing land productivity
Equity in groundwater usage
Social regulation on groundwater development
Contents
History of groundwater development
Hydrological cycle
Understanding the present groundwater situation
Participatory Hydrological Monitoring
Institutions involved in water management case studies
Crop water budgeting
Methodology
Participatory approach, group discussions, Visual aids such as charts and games are some of
the tools that can be used in the sessions. Live models can also be used to demonstrate data
interpretation. Role-play will help easily understand the concept of PGM. The sessions are
mostly interactive with introduction of pictures and initiating discussions.
Output
The farmers are able to understand the
groundwater situation. It is expected that the
stakeholders will have a thorough
understanding of the concept of
participatory groundwater management,
water balance estimation and internalize the
need and methodology of participatory
groundwater resource estimation in the tank
influence zone. Groundwater users learning to use
PHM equipment
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 18
Module 2: Participatory Hydrological Monitoring
Purpose
PHM emphasizes the need for monitoring the changes in aquifer systems. For motivating the
communities to manage groundwater usage, it is essential that they understand the
hydrological regime in which they are operating. The main purpose of the module is to
familiarize the PHM farmers (volunteers) and groundwater users with the concept of PHM.
This makes them understand the annual changes in their groundwater system and prepare
them how to regulate the use of groundwater in tune with the annual hydrological cycle.
Collecting and analyzing the relevant data is the first step to understand PHM and use them
for their benefit.
Objectives
Creating awareness on groundwater availability
Establishing the local micro-catchment (Zone of Influence) level rainfall and its
relationship with recharge
Data collection by PHM farmer
Contents
Handling of instruments
Facilitating the data collection
Recording the data
Display and dissemination
Allocating responsibilities
Methodology
Use live models of water level indicator, stopwatch, rain gauge and discharge measurement
material to demonstrate the function of and methodology of data collection. This training
should be very interactive with visual aids, participatory approach and group discussions.
Output
Farmers will get a better understanding of the utility of measuring the rainfall and borewell
water level and discharge at least for comparing the performance of wells–location and
season wise. Farmer volunteers will be able to describe the importance of hydrological cycle
and acquire the expertise in handling the PHM equipment, and data collection, recording,
display and dissemination.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 19
Participatory Hydrological Monitoring
PHM volunteers and Para workers in the tank influence zone have come forward to spare
their bore wells to make the necessary modifications for data collection. They are collecting
and recording the PHM data regularly on a voluntary basis.
PGM data generation
Central to PGM is generating awareness about the need to manage the resource among the
primary stakeholders. This can be best achieved by their active involvement through
collection of the data on rainfall, water levels and discharges from their own bore wells.
PHM volunteers record these data systematically and analyse them with the assistance of
TRPs. The collection of data ultimately leads to resource estimation in the zone of influence
and crop water budgeting.
Module 3: Crop Water Budgeting
Purpose
Crop Water Budgeting is a crucial exercise in PGM addressing the problem and shift the
focus from supply side to demand side management. The purpose of this training module is
to help participants analyse the groundwater situation and to understand the relationship
between the crops and water requirement based on the PHM data collected and analysed by
them. Farmers have to do crop plans and be sensitized to change their cropping pattern
according to the water balance.
Farmers engaged in crop water budgeting training
Objectives
Preparation of crop plans
Calculation and water balance estimations
Plan for groundwater conservation and recharge
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 20
In case of deficit balance, change the cropping pattern from high to low water
requiring crops
Contents
Estimation of groundwater recharge
Estimation of groundwater draft
Estimation of groundwater balance
Crop plans
Crop water requirements
Projected groundwater balance
Presenting the results to the Water
Users Association (WUA) general
body
Plans for change in cropping pattern
Social regulation
Training output from the participants
Methodology
Participatory approach, group discussions, visual aids such as charts and, games can be used
in these sessions. Live models are also used to demonstrate data interpretation. Role-play
will also be used. The sessions are mostly interactive with introduction of a picture and
initiating discussion.
Output
Charts and tables summarizing crop plans, water budget, water balance and changes
in cropping pattern that may be required will be prepared.
Triggering discussion in WUA to facilitate better water management practices in the
groundwater Zone of Influence of a tank.
Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) Workshop
The ultimate objective of the PGM initiative in a tank is to enable the groundwater user
community to understand the resource position in the zone of influence through the data
collected and analyzed by themselves. This would enable them to plan for appropriate crops
in the ensuing RABI season. The process involves the following activities:
Collection of the data from the Zone of Influence of the tank
Collection of PHM data using the equipment supplied
Resource estimation using the analyzed PHM data and presenting them to the
community
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 21
Preparation of crop plans for the ensuing RABI season and revisions based on
consensus in CWB workshop
Crop plan adoption by the community
Promotion of social regulation, efficient water use, water sharing leading to wise
water use.
By the end of the hydrological year 2012-13, CWB workshops were organized in 238 PGM
tanks. The analysis of data on crop plans based on the availability water resources for the
ensuing Rabi seasons available in the Groundwater Zone of Influence for four consecutive
years presented in Figure 1.1
Figure 1.1 Crop Water Budgeting: Rabi crop plan in GW ZoI in PGM Tanks
(2009-10 to 2012-13)
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 22
The following observations can be made from Figure 1.1:
The percentage of Non-Paddy plan for Rabi has been increasing over years in ZOI
of PGM tanks except during 2010-11.
Farmers in the groundwater zone of influence of PGM tanks are adjusting their
Rabi crop plans based on the PHM data and CWB results. Particularly during
2010-11, the percentage of Non-Paddy plan for Rabi has decreased as that was a
good monsoon year and available water resources were more as compared to
hydrological year 2009-10.
Paddy plan is less in area outside tank ayacut as compared to plan in the ayacut. The
reasons are higher degree of soil suitability for irrigated dry crops and controlled
irrigation possibilities in outside tank ayacut as compared to tank ayacut.
Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) – Field day Workshop:
The three training modules, crop water budgeting workshops are followed by CWB Field day
workshops for all PGM group members.
CWB Field day workshops were organized to let groundwater users to:
Know the changes adopted
Calculate the balance at the end of water year
Share the results of the crop adoptions
Disseminate the outcomes among the groundwater users through CWB field day
workshops based on adoption.
As part of the preparation for conducting CWB Filed day workshops in the PGM tanks, the
TRPs were oriented on the methodology for organizing the workshops. The PGM experts
from PMU made intensive tours to the PGM districts to oversee the preparations by the TRPs
for collection and analysis of the necessary data for organizing the CWB field day
workshops.
The PMU oriented the Nodal Officers of the GWD from the PGM districts which enabled the
latter to scrutinize the data and consolidate the processes to be adopted by the TRPs during
the course of CWB Field day workshops. At the end hydrological year 2012-13, a total of
189 CWB Field day workshops were organized, where CWB workshops were organized at
the end of Hydrological Year.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 23
Groundwater Sharing
Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) aims at empowering groundwater users in
the tank influence zone to wisely manage the dynamic groundwater resources, replenished
through rainfall, surface water sources, return circulation from irrigated areas. The restoration
of the tank system has been found to result in incremental recharge to groundwater which
again needs to be managed wisely. In the context of management of the groundwater through
the participation of the groundwater users in particular and the WUA in general, groundwater
sharing acquires immense importance.
Sharing of groundwater from the incremental recharge to the aquifer would ultimately result
in increase in the irrigated ayacut in the zone of influence, with social regulation leading to
reduction in drilling of new borewells resulting in savings in precious monetary resources.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 24
Chapter 2
Impact Assessment Study on PGM
The PGM component having completed five years in the project, it was considered
appropriate to conduct a study to assess its impact and find options for way forward during
the remaining period of the project and beyond.
Objectives of the Impact Assessment of PGM Study
The primary objective of this study is to assess the impact of the PGM sub-component. The
sub-objectives are as follows:
To assess the effectiveness of the following PGM processes: training of PHM farmers,
crop water budgeting (CWB) workshops, CWB field days, support by Training Resource
Persons (TRPs), and PHM equipment.
To assess the impact of the PGM on the following aspects:
o Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers
o Availability of hydrological information (rainfall, groundwater, surface water) to
farmers through formal and informal channels.
o Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through formal and
informal channels.
o Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at the individual
and collective levels for crop planning (extent and type), social regulations on
groundwater use, groundwater sharing, adoption of efficient irrigation practices and
cultivation practices
To identify indicators affecting sustainability of the PGM at the tank level (regularity of
PHM data collection and sharing, perception of use the of PHM data collection and
sharing, experience of collective decision making on PGM, etc.).
To identify critical inputs (technical, hand-holding, institutional, etc.) necessary for the
sustainability of PGM at the tank level.
To assess the land and Groundwater productivity.
To assess the impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM
To identify the ‘way-forward’ strategy for the PGM intervention.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 25
Sample for the Study
The study was carried out by collecting data from 20 select sample tanks (Annexure: 2.1) out
of the 314 PGM tanks. Five non PGM-APCBTMP as well as five non-APCBTMP tanks
were selected as a control set. Details of the sample drawn are given in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2: PGM Impact Assessment: Study Sample
PGM / Non-PGM Year of initiation of
CWB workshops
No. of
tanks
Sample
N
size
(% )
APCBTMP – PGM 2009-10 62 14 22%
APCBTMP – PGM 2010-11 49 6 12%
APCBTMP-Non PGM (Control) NA NA 5 NA
Non- APCBTMP (Control) NA NA 5 NA
Total 30
Two types of control tanks were selected: (i) APCBTMP-Non PGM and (ii) Non-
APCBTMP. The control tanks were selected from a similar hydrological situation (rainfall,
surface and groundwater) in the vicinity of the sampled PGM tank. The geographical
distribution of the tanks selected for the impact assessment study is given in Map 2.1.
Map 2.1 Locations of PGM Impact Study Tanks
Data collection for the PGM Impact Assessment Study
The tank level data required for the study were collected by the Training Resource Persons
(TRPs), drafted from other districts. Data were collected using appropriate data collection
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 26
instruments and methods. Table 2.1 summarizes the data collection plans, methods and
sources of verification used in this study
Focus Group Discussion Personal interview
Table 2.1: Tasks and objective-wise data collection method and source of verification
Task Objective Item Data collected on Method of data
collection
Source of
verification
1
Assess the
effectiveness of
the PGM
processes
Training of PHM
farmers
Skills, Knowledge
and Attitude
Demonstration by
PHM farmers
Hydrological
monitoring records
Crop Water
Budgeting (CWB)
workshops, CWB
field days
Ability to
Collect, compile,
analyze and
disseminate to
community
Focus group
discussions with
PGM group farmers
Process book,
PHM Para worker
book (ZoI level
book)
Support by Training
Resource Persons
(TRPs)
Frequency of TRPs
field visits
Level of handholding
FGD with PGM
group farmers
Process book,
PHM Para worker
book (ZoI level
book) HMR
Books, WUA
minutes book
PHM equipment
Functioning and
O & M of the
equipment
Focus group
discussions with
PHM farmers
Process book
2
Assess the
impact of the
PGM
intervention
Adoption of PHM by
farmer volunteers
Change in crop
extent, area and
methods irrigation.
Changes pump
placement & any
other
Individual interviews
with PHM farmers
Process book,
PHM Para worker
book (ZoI level
book)
Availability of
hydrological
information on
rainfall, groundwater,
surface water to
farmers through
formal and informal
channels.
Updation of HMR
books & display
boards, availability of
information with
WUA.
Focus group
discussions with
PGM group farmers,
and control tank
farmers & WUA
members
Process book,
PHM Para worker
book (ZoI level
book) & PHM data
display boards
Availability of CWB workshops FGD with PGM Process book,
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 27
Task Objective Item Data collected on Method of data
collection
Source of
verification
information on crop
water demand to
farmers through
formal and informal
channels.
organized, CWB data
and PGM group
farmers’ perception.
group farmers &
control tank farmers
PHM Para worker
book (ZoI level
book) HMR
Books, WUA
minutes book.
Use of hydrological
and crop water
demand information
by farmers at
individual and
collective level for
crop planning (extent
and type), social
regulations on ground
water use, ground
water sharing,
adoption of efficient
irrigation practices,
etc.
Year wise
consolidated crop
plans and adoption
Crop plan at
individual and
collective level,
Community level
decisions towards
social regulation,
willing ness of
farmers to share
groundwater and
efficient irrigation
practices adopted.
Personal interviews
and focus group
discussions with
PHM farmers &
control tank farmers.
Process book,
PHM Para worker
book (ZoI level
book) HMR
Books, WUA
minutes book.
Responsiveness of
the PGM intervention
to felt need
The need to have
PGM interventions
for better
management of
groundwater
resources.
Personal interviews
and focus group
discussions with
PHM farmers &
control tank farmers.
-
3
Assess the
sustainability
of the PGM
initiative.
Regularity of PHM
data collection and
sharing,
Change in frequency
of data collection,
upkeep of the PHM
equipment, felt need
for seeking data from
PHM farmers.
Focus group
discussions with
groundwater users in
PGM tanks, WUAs,
village opinion
leaders
Process book,
PHM Para worker
book (ZoI level
book) HMR Books
Perception on use of
PHM data collection
& sharing
Usage of PHM data
by individual PHM
farmer and the act of
sharing the same with
the fellow farmers.
Focus group
discussions with
PHM farmers
PHM process book
Experience of
collective decision
making based on
PGM
Collective decisions
taken and
implementation.
Focus group
discussion with key
PGM implementation
stakeholders like
ground water users in
PGM tanks, WUAs,
village opinion
leaders
PHM process book
Opinion on key PGM
implementation
stakeholders.
Strengths and
weaknesses of the
PGM interventions.
Focus group
discussion with key
PGM implementation
stake holders. TRPs,
DNO-GWD, DD-
GWD, PMU
-
4
To identify
critical inputs
(technical,
hand-holding,
institutional)
necessary for
sustainability
of the PGM at
Technical inputs
Validation of PHM
data, sharing of
inferences with
dissemination and
periodicity.
Focus group
discussions with
groundwater users in
PGM tanks, WUAs,
village opinion
leaders &
implementers like
TRPs and DNOs
-
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 28
Task Objective Item Data collected on Method of data
collection
Source of
verification
the tank level
Hand holding
No of TRP,
DNOs/NSO visits,
Facilitation during
data collection,
organizing meetings
and workshops.
Focus group
discussions with
groundwater users in
PGM tanks, WUAs,
village opinion
leaders
-
Institutional Inputs
Level of
preparedness of PGM
group farmers and
areas needing
strengthening.
Focus group
discussion with key
PGM implementation
stakeholders - TRPs,
DNO-GWD.
-
Comparative analysis
of PGM impact
across the 2 sets of
PGM tanks (based on
year of initiation of
CWB workshops)
CWB based
discussions and
decisions
Segregation of data
across the 2 sets of
PGM tanks.
PHM process book
Material Inputs
On critical material
inputs like drips/
sprinklers, seed
varieties, IWMT
equipment/material
Focus group
discussions with
groundwater users in
PGM
tanks,WUAs,Village
opinion leaders and
TRPs,DNO-GWD.
-
SO/NSO support
services
Opinion of PGM
farmers and WUA
Focus group
discussions -
FGD with gw users
in PGM tanks,
WUAs, village
opinion leaders; FGD
with key PGM
implementation
stakeholders - TRPs,
DNO-GWD, DD-
GWD, PMU.
Comparative analysis
of PGM impact
across the 2 sets of
PGM tanks (based on
year of initiation of
CWB workshops).
- -
5
To assess the
land and
Groundwater
productivity
Area Irrigated and
Groundwater used
Cropwise area
irrigated in Project
and control tank
farmers and
groundwater use data
from PHM farmers
Personal interviews
and focus group
discussions with
PHM farmers &
control tank
farmers.
PHM Paraworker
book and HMR
Books
6
To assess the
impact of tank
rehabilitation
on PGM
Rehabilitation works
to tank and PHM data
Tank rehabilitation
works completed,
Water spread area,
Groundwater levels
and rainfall
Culling out of
information from
TIMP Completion
document and PHM
Books
TIMP Completion
document and
PHM Books
7
To identify the
‘way-forward’
strategy for the
PGM
intervention.
Analysis based on the
preceding tasks.
Consultation
workshop on the
‘way-forward’
strategy
Key PGM
implementation
stakeholders – PMU,
GWD, organizations
with experience in
PGM, World Bank,
etc.
-
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 29
Chapter 3
Impact Assessment of PGM
Introduction
The impact assessment study has seven sub-objectives, which are:
i. To assess the effectiveness of the PGM processes
ii. To assess the impact of the PGM aspects
iii. To assess the sustainability of the PGM initiative
iv. To identify critical inputs (technical, hand-holding, institutional, etc.) necessary for
sustainability of the PGM at the tank level
v. To assess groundwater productivity
vi. To assess the impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM and
vii. To identify the ‘way-forward’ strategy for the PGM intervention.
This report will discuss the findings of the study taking each sub-objective into account.
Quantifiable data collected are summarized and presented in tabular form for easier analysis
and interpretation.
3.1 Objective 1: Assess the effectiveness of the PGM processes
In order to facilitate the groundwater users in the groundwater zone of influence of a tank
system to achieve the goal of PGM .The farmers are provided knowledge and material inputs,
such as training of PHM farmers, providing knowledge and skills to organize CWB
workshops and Field days, support of Training Resource Persons and establishing the PHM
equipment. In order the assess the effectiveness of these information was collected from the
users through focus groups and personal interviews. The taskwise results are presented here
under:
A. Training of PHM farmers:
As part of capacity Building of PHM farmers is carried out by Training Resource Persons
(TRP) through specially designed three training modules. Besides the PHM farmers, the
trainings seek to build the capacities of the identified Para workers to make a community
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 30
initiative PGM. Information was collected on skills, knowledge and attitude from the PHM
farmers, Para workers and from Non-PHM farmers in 20 PGM tanks, to understand the
effectiveness of training and its spread effect. The findings are presented in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 Impact of capacity building in PGM
Parameter
PHM Farmers Non-PHM Farmers
Sample
Size (N) Yes % No %
Sample
Size (N) Yes % No %
Ability to collect the PHM data on
their own 61 57 93.4 4 6.6 40 20 50.0 20 50.0
Demonstrated the process of
monitoring PHM data 61 50 82.0 11 18.0 40 16 40.0 24 60.0
Capable to explain to PGM group
members why PHM data are collected 61 55 90.2 6 9.8 40 20 50.0 20 50.0
Ability to share the knowledge gained
through the trainings with PGM
group members
61 54 88.5 7 11.5 40 20 50.0 20 50.0
Data Source: PGM Tanks_ Interview guide
From the data one can infer that:
Overall a minimum of 82% of PHM farmers have grasped the contents of the training
and are able to collect, demonstrate and share information/knowledge on the PHM
parameters.
In case of Non-PHM farmers, it is close to 50-50 understanding on PHM data
collection and sharing.
B. Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) workshops, CWB field days:
Capacity building to the to the groundwater users in the groundwater zone of influence of
tank by three training modules are followed by a crop water budgeting workshop for all PGM
group members. The PGM team from PMU oriented the TRPs and in turn the PGM group
members for collecting and analyzing the necessary data for organizing the CWB
workshop/field days. In order to assess the ability to collect, compile, analyze and disseminate to
community data was collected from 20 select PGM tanks through focus group discussions. The
results are presented in Table 3.2.
Table 3.2 Knowledge on crop water budgeting and field days
Parameter Sample Size
Respondents
(N)
Yes % No %
PGM farmers know the parameters required for CWB
i. Area of Zone of influence (ZOI) 569 310 54.5 259 45.5
ii. Rainfall 536 360 67.2 176 32.8
iii. Crops planned vs crops sown 558 359 64.3 199 35.7
iv. Availability of water in the tank 563 371 65.9 192 34.1
v. Number of functional borewells in the ZOI 543 448 82.5 95 17.5
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 31
Parameter Sample Size
Respondents
(N)
Yes % No %
vi. Number of hours pumping 537 411 76.5 126 23.5
Para worker/volunteer is collecting the required data for
CWB 547 322 58.9 225 41.1
PGM farmers confident that the trained persons are
capable of compiling and analyzing the data for CWB 542 261 48.2 281 51.9
Felt that it is necessary to disseminate the results of the
CWB? 542 355 65.5 187 34.5
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD
From the responses it is clear that nearly 2/3rds
of respondents (64.75%) have given yes
response and remaining 34% respondents have given no response. These responses are based
on their degree of involvement in PGM activities.
C. Support by Training Resource Persons (TRPs)
As part of the PGM capacity building strategy, Training Resource Persons (TRPs) were
involved in imparting training and handholding the groundwater users on various aspects of
PGM at tank level. Each TRP is responsible for facilitating all the PGM related activities in
about 20 PGM tanks. TRPs carried out PGM Group formation, identification and cooption of
PGM members into the WUA, training PHM volunteers in groundwater resource estimation,
handling of PHM equipment, PHM data recording and analysis, conducting crop water
budgeting workshops, crop water budget field days for sharing the crop adoptions and
promoting groundwater sharing in the Zone of Influence.
In translating the PGM tasks into actions frequency of TRP field visits and Level of
handholding plays a vital role. The data collected from both PHM and Non-PHM farmers
from PGM tanks is shown in Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Support of the Training Resource Persons
Parameter
PHM Farmers Non-PHM Farmers
Sample
Size
(N)
Twice a
month
Once a
month
Once in
two
months
Once in
three/more
months
Sample
Size
(N)
Twice a
month
Once a
month
Once in
two
months
Once in
three/more
months
N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %
TRP visit
to the
PHM well 61 22 36.1 31 50.8 5 8.2 3 4.9 40 14 35.0 15 37.5 6 15.0 5
12.5
TRP
organize
meetings
& explain
the results
of PHM
monitoring
61 13 21.3 30 49.2 14 23.0 4 6.6 39 8 20.5 14 35.9 10 25.6 7
17.9
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ Interview guide
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 32
From the analysis it is clear that the TRPs are:
Able to visit 50.8% of PHM farmers and 37.5% of Non-PHM farmers in a month.
Able to organize meetings & explain the results of PHM monitoring with 49.2% of
PHM farmers and 35.9% of Non-PHM farmers in a month.
For effective facilitation and implementation of the PGM activities by reducing the number
of tanks for each TRP to about 10 to12 will provide room for frequent visits to PGM tanks.
D. PHM equipment
After the selection of the tanks for PGM interventions, the Ground Water Department took
up well inventory of representative sample of the existing wells in the command area and the
zone of influence of the tank. A full inventory of the remaining wells in the tank area was
conducted with the help of Para-Workers. Based on detailed well inventory, about 4-5 wells
were selected for PHM.
The PHM equipment under use by the
farmers is being removed at times due
to malfunctioning of the submersible
pumps and has to be reinserted to
ensure regular and periodical data
collection. Whenever the PGM team
encounters such situations during its
field visits to the PGM tanks, the team
converts them into opportunity to
demonstrate the methodology of the
reinsertion of the equipment into the
bore well so that the farmers and the TRPs can cope up on their own with such issues in
future and ensure regular data collection.
To understand the functioning, O & M of the PHM equipment by PHM farmers’ data was
collected from PGM tanks through personal interviews. The results are shown in Table 3.4.
Groundwater users practising repair of PHM
equipment
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 33
Table 3.4 Functioning and O&M of PHM equipment by PHM farmers
Parameter
PHM Farmers
Sample
Size (N)
No problem during
entire period
Under repair for
less than one
month
Under repair
upto 2-3
months
Under repair for
more than 3
month
N % N % N % N %
Status of equipment on PHM wells in functioning condition on the day of survey
HDPE PIPE 60 43 71.7 10 16.7 3 5.0 4 6.7
W L Indicator 60 50 83.3 8 13.3 -- -- 2 3.3
Discharge Measurement
fittings 60 47 78.3 7 11.7 3 5.0 3 5.0
Discharge Measurement
equipment (Drum) 60 58 96.7 -- -- -- -- 2 3.3
Discharge Measurement
equipment (Stop watch) 60 55 91.7 3 5.0 -- -- 2 3.3
Rain gauge equipment 59 49 83.1 7 11.9 -- -- 3 5.1
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ Interview guide
Table 3.4 Functioning and O&M of PHM equipment by PHM farmers (contd..)
Parameter
PHM Farmers
Sample
Size s
(N)
Attended to
within 15 days
Attended to
within 30 days
Attended to
after more
than 30 days
Not at all
attended
N % N % N % N %
PHM equipment (HDPE pipe, WLI, Stopwatch, Drum) maintained
HDPE pipe lowered back after
fixing problem 17 10 58.8 - - 1 5.9 6 35.3
Water level indicator 10 6 60.0 2 20.0 2 20.0 - -
Discharge Measurement fittings 13 6 46.2 1 7.6 2 15.4 4 30.8
Discharge Measurement
equipment (drum) 2 - - - - 2 100.0 - -
Discharge Measurement
equipment (stop watch) 5 3 60.0 - - - - 2 40.0
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks Interview guide
From the data obtained it is clear that:
A majority of the farmers 84.12% farmers have faced no problem regarding all PHM
equipment during the entire period of 2 years of PGM activities. For less than 10% of
farmers the equipment was under repair for less than a month. Very small % of
farmers faced problems for more than two months.
In the remaining 15.88% the repair was attended in 15 days to a month’s time. In a
small number of cases the repair was not at all attended.
In cases wherein other pumping equipment is in order and HDPE pipe is not lowered after
repair, it is not a good indicator. The farmers need intensive interaction to educate on the loss
of field data required for CWB and no chance of retrieving.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 34
The books maintained PHM data recording was observed by the survey team and the reasons
for gaps in data were captured. They are presented in Table 3.5.
Table 3.5 Reasons for gaps in PHM data
Sample Size
PHM Farmers
(N)
Yes % If Yes, What are the reasons
61 12 27.3
Busy in agriculture operations
Busy in with works (other field workers)
Low yield, pumping gap (Non-pumping period)
Non PHM farmer/PGM group member assigned to measure data from PHM
well in case on non-proactive PHM farmers.
Not interested in initial days of project, but at present water level and drum
data being regularly measured from Jun-2010 onwards
When the motor is under repairs
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ Interview guide
From the table it is evident that:
Most (72.7%) of the data has no gaps during the recording period. In 27.3 % cases
there were data gaps due to different reasons like equipment not functioning, no
power supply, or farmer was not able to record etc.
Attention is required in this aspect. Regular Monitoring by TRPs -Physical or through
Phone call - should be in place and to be checked at District level offices.
Awareness level on PGM in control tanks:
In order to have a comparison on awareness levels simple questions were asked by way of
organizing FGD and personal interviews in Non–APCBTMP tanks and in APCBTMP Non-
PGM tanks the responses are presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Awareness levels in non-PGM tanks
Parameter Data
collection
Method
Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP Non-PGM
Sample Size
Respondents
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample Size
Respondents
(N)
Yes % No %
Groundwater
level in the
borewell can
be measured
FGD 156 35 22.4 55 35.3 104 49 47.1 55 52.9
Interview 25 2 8.0 23 92.0 25 2 8.0 23 92.0
Quantity of
water from
the borewell
can be
measured
FGD 156 33 21.1 123 78.8 104 37 35.6 67 64.4
Interview 25 4 16.0 21 84.0 25 4 16.0 21 84.0
Seen a rain
gauge station
FGD 156 15 9.6 141 90.4 117 33 28.2 84 71.8
Interview 25 4 16.0 2 84.0 25 2 8.0 23 92.0
know how
much rainfall
is received in
your village
FGD 156 0 - 156 100.0 117 1 0.9 116 99.1
Interview 25 2 8.0 23 92.0 24 2 8.3 22 91.7
Data Source: APCBTMP Non-PGM/ Non-APCBTMP Tanks_ FGD & Interview guide
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 35
From Table 3.6 and analysis in respect PGM tanks reveals that:
76.2% PGM group members’ are able to collect the groundwater levels in the
borewells in APCBTMP PGM tanks, where it was not the case with Non–APCBTMP
tanks and in APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks.
In APCBTMP PGM tanks 24% and Non–APCBTMP tanks 13.12 % groundwater
users are aware that groundwater level in the borewell can be measured.
Non-PGM tanks, 13.32% in FGDs and 12% in personal interviews have given yes
response in respect for the questions asked to understand awareness levels in PHM
data collection.
3.2 Objective 2: Assess the impact of the PGM aspects
Understanding and degree of usage of the PHM data collected by PGM group members for
their day to day operations is one of the key indicators to assess the impact of various PGM
aspects. Data was collected from the PGM tanks on Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers,
Availability of hydrological information on rainfall, groundwater, surface water to farmers through
formal and informal channels, Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through
formal and informal channels, Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at
individual and collective level for crop planning (extent and type), social regulations on ground water
use, ground water sharing, adoption of efficient irrigation practices, etc and Responsiveness of the
PGM intervention to felt need to understand the adoption by PGM farmers. Aspectwise findings are
discussed in the following sections.
A. Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers:
To assess the comparative adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers (PHM farmers) and Non-PHM
farmers (PGM group members) in PGM tanks data was collected on change in crop extent, area and
methods irrigation and changes in pump placement . The responses are presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers
Parameter
PHM Farmers Non-PHM Farmers
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Change in extent of irrigated area based on PHM data
i. Not changed 61 3 4.9 58 95.1 37 4 10.8 33 89.2
ii. Changed by 10% 61 17 27.9 44 72.1 37 16 43.2 21 56.8
iii. Changed upto 20% 61 17 27.9 44 72.1 37 6 16.2 31 83.8
iv. More than 20% 61 24 39.3 37 60.7 37 11 29.7 26 70.3
Field irrigation methods adopted Based on PHM data
I. Drip 58 7 12.1 35 2 5.7
II.Sprinkler 57 5 8.8 34 5 14.7
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 36
Parameter
PHM Farmers Non-PHM Farmers
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
III.Alternate furrow 56 10 17.9 34 7 20.6
IV.Others (if any) 54 18 29.5 35 8 20.0
Pump placement in borewell
changed based on Pumping
Water Level
59 8 13.6 51 86.4 34 7 20.6 27 79.4
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ Interview guide
From the data one can infer that:
PHM farmers who are collecting the data, planned their crops based on the PHM data
and hence 95.1% of them have not changed (increase or decrease) the extent of
irrigated area, whereas only 10.8% of Non–PHM farmers not changed. This clearly
indicates that spread effect of PHM data adoption by farmers was started. Needs
intensive sharing among group members.
68.9% of PHM farmers and 62.8% Non-PHM farmers have adopted water efficient
irrigation methods based on the PHM data which is a very positive outcome of the
study.
15 PGM group members out of 93 (16.1%) has changed (lifted/lowered) the pump
placement based on the Pumping water level, which increases pump efficiency as well
as saves power consumption. This indicates the healthy groundwater management
aspect.
B. Availability of hydrological information on rainfall, groundwater, surface water to farmers
through formal and informal channels.
Apart from participatory generation of PHM data community level availability and knowing the
persons collecting data and display are the fore most steps in Participatory Groundwater
Management. To assess the impact on these aspects data was collected in PGM tanks on Updation of
HMR books & display boards, availability of information with WUA. The output is presented in Table
3.7.
Table 3.7 Reasons for gaps in PHM data
Parameter Sample Size
Respondents (N) Yes % No %
Knows what PHM data being displayed
I. Rainfall 537 408 76.0 129 24.0
II. Groundwater level in PHM borewells 531 376 70.8 155 29.2
III. Groundwater discharge from PHM wells 531 368 69.3 163 30.7
Average 533 384 72.0 149 28.0
Know that the Para worker is maintaining a PHM
Data record book 524 337 64.3 187 35.7
PHM data accessibility to WUA 461 304 65.9 157 34.1
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 37
From the above data it is clear that:
64.3% of the farmers know that the PHM data is recorded, 72% know the display and
65.9% farmers said that it is available for WUA. It shows the PHM data reachability
to community.
C. Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through formal and informal
channels.
Crop Water Budgeting is crucial stage in groundwater management to assess PGM group members
understanding on CWB , data availability, participation in CWB workshops data was collected on
farmers’ perception in the select PGM tanks. The results presented in Table 3.8.
From this it is understood that:
The awareness level on the components of CWB varies from 91.4% in case of PHM
farmers, who are intensively involved in PGM activities to 61.6% in case of
community response in FGD.
90.6% PHM farmers are aware that what type of PGM data is available with WUA,
whereas 61.6% of the participants in FGD know it.
78.6% of PHM farmers utilized the PHM data available with WUA, whereas 57.8%
farmers participated in FGD utilized the data.
PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 38
Table 3.8 Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through formal and informal channels
Parameter
PGM Tanks FGD PGM Tanks interview guide
PHM Farmers Non-PHM Farmers
Sample Size
Respondents
(N)
Yes % No % Sample
Size (N) Yes % No %
Sample
Size (N) Yes % No %
Knows about what is Crop Water Budgeting (CWB)
i. Estimation of groundwater recharge 510 307 60.2 203 39.8 61 59 96.7 2 3.3 40 29 72.5 11 27.5
ii. Estimation of groundwater draft 510 312 61.2 198 38.8 61 59 96.7 2 3.3 40 30 75.0 10 25.0
iii. Estimation of groundwater balance 508 303 59.6 205 40.4 60 59 98.3 1 1.7 40 27 67.5 13 32.5
iv. Crop plans for rabi season 479 314 65.6 165 34.4 59 55 93.2 4 6.8 39 29 74.4 10 25.6
v. Crop plan adoption based on groundwater
availability 454 287 63.2 167 36.8 61 53 86.9 8 13.1 40 24 60.0 16 40.0
vi. Actual groundwater balance at the end of the
hydrological year based on crop adoption 503 302 60.0 201 40.0 59 45 76.3 14 23.7 39 18 46.2 21 53.8
Average 494 304 61.6 190 38.4 60 55 91.4 5 8.6 40 26 65.9 14 34.1
Participated in CWB workshops 457 265 58.0 192 42.0 51 42 82.4 9 17.6 29 15 51.7 14 48.3
Know about what PGM data are available with the WUA
i. Estimation of groundwater recharge 494 292 59.1 202 40.9 61 58 95.1 3 4.9 40 35 87.5 5 12.5
ii. Estimation of groundwater draft 486 303 62.3 183 37.7 60 56 93.3 4 6.7 40 35 87.5 5 12.5
iii. Estimation of groundwater balance 496 301 60.7 195 39.3 60 56 93.3 4 6.7 40 34 85.0 6 15.0
v. Crop plans for rabi season 495 321 64.8 174 35.2 60 57 95.0 3 5.0 40 35 87.5 5 12.5
vi. Crop plan adoption based on groundwater
availability 495 315 63.6 180 36.4 60 55 91.7 5 8.3 38 29 76.3 9 23.7
vii. Actual groundwater balance at the end of the
hydrological year based on crop adoption 495 292 59.0 203 41.0 60 45 75.0 15 25.0 40 25 62.5 15 37.5
Average 494 304 61.6 190 38.4 60 54 90.6 6 9.4 40 32 81.1 8 18.9
Utilized the PHM data available with the WUA for water management
I. Estimation of groundwater recharge 471 262 55.6 209 44.4 61 51 83.6 10 16.4 40 27 67.5 13 32.5
II. Estimation of groundwater draft 471 273 58.0 198 42.0 61 50 82.0 11 18.0 40 26 65.0 14 35.0
III. Estimation of groundwater balance 470 267 56.8 203 43.2 61 50 82.0 11 18.0 40 25 62.5 15 37.5
IV. Crop plans for rabi season 475 291 61.3 184 38.7 60 47 78.3 13 21.7 40 26 65.0 14 35.0
V. Crop plan adoption based on groundwater availability
446 272 61.0 174 39.0 59 45 76.3 14 23.7 40 24 60.0 16 40.0
VI. Actual groundwater balance at the end of the
hydrological year based on crop adoption 465 251 54.0 214 46.0 59 41 69.5 18 30.5 39 22 56.4 17 43.6
Average 466 269 57.8 197 42.2 60 47 78.6 13 21.4 40 25 62.7 15 37.3
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD and Interview guide
PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 39
D) Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at individual and collective
level for crop planning (extent and type), social regulations on ground water use, ground water
sharing, adoption of efficient irrigation practices, etc.
Data was collected on year wise consolidated crop plans and adoption Crop plan at individual and
collective level, Community level decisions towards social regulation, willing ness of farmers to share
groundwater and efficient irrigation practices adopted to understand collective and individual level
decisions. The outcome of the information is presented in Table 3.9.
Table 3.9 Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at individual
and collective level
Parameter Data of
collection
Method
Sample
Size (N
Tanks)
Yes % Result
PHM data -
consolidated crop
plans and adoption of
crop plan at
individual and
collective level -
helped in
groundwater
management
PGM
Tanks
FGD
20 18 90.0
Helped in Know about ground water
availability for rabi season crops.
Understand the crop water
requirement for different crops.
Choose crops based on available
water quantity.
Change towards low water
requirement crops.
Change from paddy to ID crops like
Castor, Cotton, Jowar etc during rabi
by knowing the water balance.
Change cropping pattern d from
paddy to ID crops.
Desilting in the tank bed.
Crop plan changes
been made at the
community level
based on farmer wise
data presented in
CWB
PGM
Tanks
FGD
20 18 90.0
Changes made
Alternate crops sowed
Used sprinklers for id crops
Decreased crop extent area in rabi
season
Change from Paddy to ID crops like
Castrol, Cotton, Jowar in Rabi
Decrease in paddy crop extension.
To go for low water required crops
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 40
Observation:
Crop plan changes based on PHM data has been adopted in 18 out of 20 tanks. Table 3.10
presents the statements of farmers on changes made and how the process of CWB has helped.
Table 3.10 Crop plan changes based on PHM data
Parameter
Data of
collection
Method
Sample
Size (N
Tanks)
Yes % Farmers’ Statements
Modification
made to their
own crop plan
based on
experience of
the previous
years crop plan
and adoption?
PGM
Tanks
PHM
farmers -
Interview
60 53 88.3
Before the project, we did not know the level of
water in the borewell.
If the water level is low, reduced the extent of
irrigated area even by half of planned area
Choose crop based on availability of
groundwater.
Change to ID crops & low irrigation of paddy
Planned ID crops during rabi season
Change from Paddy to ID crop such as:
Maize, Vegetables, Groundnut, Jowar, Onion,
Green gram, Cotton, Castor, Sun-flower,
Fodder (grass)
PGM
Tanks Non
PHM
farmers -
Interview
40 33 82.5
Adoption of good irrigation methods like
sprinkler and piped irrigation.
Change from Paddy to ID Crops such as:
Maize, Vegetables, Groundnut, Jowar, Onion,
Green gram, Cotton, Castor, Sun-flower,
Fodder (grass)Vegetables, Chilly
Change from Maize to other crops such as:
Red gram, Castor, Chick pea
Before PGM
was introduced,
crop water
management
practices in
PGM tanks
PGM FGD
Only paddy irrigation with tank water
No crop change During Kharif
Continued paddy crop sowing
Assessed the water availability based on previous year water
availability
Irrigating cotton crop only when there is less water
After PGM was
introduced,
crop water
management
practices
adopted in
PGM tanks
PGMFGD
Assessed the water level status in my borewell by using the
instruments
Groundwater recharge Estimation
Groundwater use measurements possible
Crops based on water availability
Rabi crops changed based on CWB Calculation
ID crops during Rabi
Change to ID Crops
Low paddy irrigation & change to ID Crops
Reduced paddy crop under low yielding bore wells
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD& Interview guide
From the above information and statements from respondents one can safely infer that:
More than 80% of the farmers in PGM tanks are modifying their own crop plans and management
practices after the PGM interventions by the project which is not the particularly in case of
groundwater use.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 41
Crop water Budgeting – Status in Control tanks (Non-PGM tanks)
In order to understand the community and individual level crop plans and adoption based on water
availability simple question were asked in Non-PGM (APCBTMP Non-PGM & Non-APCBTMP)
tanks. The responses received both in FGDs and personal interviews are shown in Table 3.11.
Table 3.11 Crop water budgeting status in control tanks
Parameter Data
collection
Method
Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP Non-PGM
Sample Size
(FGD tanks ,
Interview
Respondents)
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample Size
(FGD tanks ,
Interview
Respondents)
(N)
Yes % No %
Was the community
level crop
planning done for
the surface water
based irrigation in
your village?
FGD 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 5 - - 5 100.0
Interview 25 8 32.0 17 68.0 25 6 24.0 19 76.0
Was any community level
crop planning done any time for the groundwater
based irrigation in
your village?
FGD 5 - - 5 100.0 5 - - 5 100.0
Interview 25 1 4.0 24 96.0 25 3 12.0 22 88.0
Table 3.12 Responses from FGDs and personal interviews on crop water budgeting (control
tanks)
Category of
tank
Community level crop planning done for the
surface water based irrigation in your village?
Community level crop planning done any time for the
groundwater based irrigation in your village?
If Yes_ Statements If No_ Statements If Yes _
Statements If No _ Statements
Non-
APCBTMP
Whenever the tank is full.
WUA & Ayacut
farmers together decide (Taibandhi) to
release water to the
ayacut based on previous experience.
Decisions will be
taken in the meeting
Unable to measure the tank water
available.
No unity among the tank water users.
Only individually
decision
No idea about it Lack of unity
No trainings providing
Individually decisions are being taken for ground water irrigation
Individually planning
Lack of awareness Nobody is facilitating meetings for
community level crop planning.
Don’t know the ground water scenario
APCBTMP
Non-PGM
During rainy(Kharif)
season
If Tank is full crop planning is being
done by involvement
of ayacutdars in
village.
No insufficient
inflows to the tank
during recent past.
Crops
planned
individually based on
water flow
from
borewell.
Don’t know about the ground water
available in the bore well hence no crop
planning. Nobody tell about it
There is no Estimation of ground water
balance
No idea to do so
No such project was implemented
Nobody knows about it No meetings for ground water
management, hence no crop plan
Don’t know about planning of crops based on ground water
Based on water flow from borewell
We don't know crop planning for ground water irrigation.
We don't know the water quantity from
borewell from time to time, hence no planning in groundwater irrigation
Data Source: APCBTMP Non-PGM/ Non-APCBTMP Tanks_ FGD & Interview guide
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 42
From the information prepented in Table 3.12, one can broadly conclude that:
Community level crop planning based on surface water availability is being rarely
happening.
Groundwater based crop planning and crop water budgeting is not happening due to
lack of understanding and knowledge.
Groundwater Sharing and Pricing:
Groundwater sharing and basis for sharing are important aspects in wise water management.
In order to assess the degree of sharing and method of sharing in PGM and in control tanks
information was collected through personal interviews and FGDs. The responses are
presented in Table 3.13:
Table 3.13 Groundwater sharing and pricing
Groundwater sharing
PGM Tanks
FGD Guide Interview Guide – PHM
Farmers
Interview Guide Non-
PHM Farmers
Sample Size
Respondents
(N)
Yes %
Sample Size
Respondents
(N))
Yes %
Sample Size
Respondents
(N)
Yes %
Sharing borewell water with
any of the fellow farmers 393 204 51.9 61 38
62.
3 40 25 62.5
If Yes on what basis
Free of Cost 204 76 37.3
38 20 52.
6 25 10 40.0
Labour compensation 204 40 19.6 38 3 7.9 25 3 12.0
Contribution to Maintenance
of Borewell
204 25
12.3 38 2 5.3
25 1 4.0
Crop Sharing 204 28 13.7 38 3 7.9 25 2 8.0
On Payment 204 35 17.2
38 10 26.
3
25 9 36.0
Total 204 38 25
Groundwater
sharing
Non – APCBTMP Tanks APCBTMP Non – PGM Tanks
FGD Guide Interview Guide FGD Guide Interview Guide
Sample
Size
Respond
ents (N)
Yes %
Sample
Size
Responde
nts (N)
Yes %
Sample
Size
Respond
ents (N)
Ye
s %
Sample
Size
Respond
ents (N)
Yes %
Sharing borewell
water with any of the fellow farmers
77 26 33.
7 25 6 24.0 64 25 39.0 25 6 24.0
If Yes on what basis
Free of Cost 26 10 38.
4 6 6 100.0 25 10 40.0 6 5 83.3
Labour
compensation 25 9 36.0
Contribution to
Maintenance of Borewell
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Crop Sharing
On Payment 26 16 61.
5 25 6 24.0 6 1 16.6
Total 26 6 25 6
PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 43
From the FGD responses it is clear that:
In PGM tanks 51.9% of the participants are sharing groundwater to their fellow farmers mostly
(37.3%) on free of cost. Whereas it is 39% and 33.7% in case of control tanks i.e., APCBTMP
Non –PGM and Non-APCBTMP tanks.
Water sharing, water pricing – PHM Based:
Information was gathered from both the PHM and Non-PHM farmers to understand whether
the groundwater is being shared based on the understanding on PHM data being collected in
the PGM tanks. The responses received are shown in Table 3.14:
Table 3.14 Water sharing and water pricing
Parameter
APCBTMP PGM Tanks
Interview Guide – PHM
Farmers
Interview Guide
Non-PHM Farmers
Sample
Size (N) Yes %
Sample
Size (N) Yes %
Sharing Borewell water based on the
understanding of the PHM data 61 38 62.3 40 25 62.5
Willing (in future also) to share your borewell
water (Furthermore farmers) with your fellow
farmers
61 34 55.7 40 19 47.5
If Yes on what basis
Free of Cost 34 17 50.0 19 6 31.58
Labour compensation 34 1 2.9 19 1 5.263
Contribution to Maintenance of Borewell 34 3 8.8 19 2 10.53
Crop Sharing 34 2 5.9 19 3 15.79
On Payment 34 11 32.4 19 7 36.84
From the data obtained it is clear that
Majority of farmers (62.3% & 62.5%) in PGM tanks are sharing their groundwater based on the
understanding on PHM data.
55.7% of PHM farmers and 47.5 % of Non-PHM farmers are willing to share groundwater in
future also mostly on free cost basis.
Efficient irrigation practices adopted
As major portion of groundwater is being used for irrigation, there is no groundwater management
without Irrigation water management. Effective and Efficient management depends on the method of
irrigation. Information was captured both in PGM and control tanks. The responses are presented in
Table 3.14.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 44
Table 3.14 Efficient water management practices adopted
Method of
Irrigation
PGM Tanks – Interview guide Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP
Non-PGM
PHM Farmers Non-PHM farmers Interview Guide Interview Guide
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % Sample
Size (N)
Ye
s %
Sample
Size (N) Yes %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes %
Adopting Efficient water use methods in the ZOI /Tank ayacut
I. Drip irrigation 61 6 9.8 40 2 5.0 25 2 8.0 25 3 12.0
II. Sprinkler 61 17 27.8 40 11 27.5 25 2 8.0 25 - -
III. Mulching 61 9 14.7 40 8 20.0 25 - - 25 - -
IV. Furrow
Irrigation
61 7 11.4
40 6 15.0
25 4 16.0
25 3 12.0
V. Alternate
Furrow
irrigation
61
4 6.5
40
2 5.0
25
0 0.0
25
1 4.0
VI. SRI 61 10 16.3 40 4 10.0 25 - - 25 - -
VII. Any other
(piped, Check
basin --)
61 - - 40 - 25 9 36.0 25 5 20.0
Total 61 53 86.8 40 33 82.5 25 17 68.0 25 12 48.0
From the data it can be inferred that:
Advanced WUE Methods followed (Other than pipeline) % is more in PGM tanks – less in Non
APCBTMP & APCBTMP Non –PGM is less
85.14% of the Farmers in PGM tanks are adopting one or the other efficient water use methods
like drip, sprinkler etc., where as it is 48% in case of APCBTMP Non – PGM and 68% in case
of Non-APCBTMP tanks.
The higher % of efficient water use methods in Non-APCBTP tanks may be attributed to i)
high Piped water irrigation and Non rehabilitation of the tank system in turn low paddy
irrigation when compared to APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks.
Efficient irrigation practices adopted – area irrigated in Rabi, 2011-12
Area irrigated by employing efficient water use methods during the 2011-12 Rabi season in the ZOI/
Tank ayacut was collected from project (PGM& Non-PGM) and Non-APCBTMP tanks. The details are
shown in Table 3.15.
Table 3.14 Area under efficient water management practices adopted
Method of
Irrigation
PGM Tanks Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP - Non-PGM
FGD Guide FGD Guide FGD Guide
Sample Size
(N
tanks)
Area
irrigated (Acres)
Area
irrigated
(Acres) Average Per
tank
Sample Size
(N
tanks)
Area irrigate
d
(Acres)
Area
irrigated
(Acres) Average
Per tank
Sample Size
(N
/tank)
Area
irrigated (Acres)
Area
irrigated
(Acres) Average
Per tank
I. Drip irrigation 20 337.0 16.85 5 25.0 5.0 5 21.0 4.3
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 45
Method of
Irrigation
PGM Tanks Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP - Non-PGM
FGD Guide FGD Guide FGD Guide
Sample
Size
(N tanks)
Area irrigated
(Acres)
Area
irrigated (Acres)
Average Per
tank
Sample
Size
(N tanks)
Area
irrigate
d (Acres)
Area
irrigated (Acres)
Average
Per tank
Sample
Size
(N /tank)
Area irrigated
(Acres)
Area
irrigated (Acres)
Average
Per tank
II. Sprinkler 20 308.0 15.4 5 12.0 2.4 5 25.0 5.0
III. Mulching 20 94.0 4.7 5 0 0 5 0.0 0.0
IV. Furrow
Irrigation
20 178.0 8.9 5 0 0 5 50.0 10.0
V. Alternate
Furrow
irrigation
20 170.0 8.5
5 0 0
5 40.0 8.0
VI. SRI 20 16.0 0.5 5 2.0 0.4 5 1.0 0.2
VII. Any other
(piped, Check
basin --)
20 321.0 16.5
5 13.0 2.6
5 50.0 10.0
Total 20 1424.0 71.2 5 52.0 10.4 5 187.5 37.5
From data in the Table it is clear that:
71.2 Acres per tank was irrigated by adopting one or the other efficient water use
method, where as it is 37.5 acres and 10.4 acres in APCBTMP Non-PGM and Non –
APCBTMP tanks respectively.
The higher rate of using efficient water use methods may be attributed to awareness
level inputs by the project in PGM tanks compared to other category of tanks.
Impact of PGM on social regulation
Community level decisions and its implementation in the form of social regulations are the
crucial aspects in participatory groundwater management. To understand this information was
gathered from project and control tanks by posing two crucial questions and the responses are
presented in Table 3.15.
Table 3.15 Area under efficient water management practices adopted
Category of tank
FGD/ Interview
Has any community level decision been taken leading to
social regulations for groundwater management? YES / NO
Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective decisions taken towards better management of
groundwater resources?
YES/ NO?
Sample Size
YES % NO %
No
Respo
nse
% Sample
Size YES % NO %
No
Respon
se
%
APCBTMP
PGM Tanks
FGD
(Tanks) 20 7 35.0 9 45.0 4 20.0 20 19 95.0 1 5.0 - -
Interview
(Responde
nts)
Not covered in Schedule 101 72 71.0 23 23.0 6 5.9
Non-
APCBTMP
FGD
(Tanks) 5 - - 5 100.0 - 0.0 5 3 60.0 2 40 - -
Interview
(Responde
nts)
25 - - 24 96.0 1 4.0 25 16 64.0 4 16.0 5 20.0
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 46
Category of
tank
FGD/
Interview
Has any community level decision been taken leading to
social regulations for groundwater management? YES / NO
Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective
decisions taken towards better management of groundwater resources?
YES/ NO?
Sampl
e Size YES % NO %
No Respo
nse
% Sample
Size YES % NO %
No
Res
ponse
%
APCBTMP
Non-PGM
FGD
(Tanks) 5 - - 3 60.0 2 40.0 5 3 60.0 1 20.0 1 20.0
Interview
(Responde
nts)
25 1 4.0 18 72.0 6 24.0 25 18 72.0 7 28.0 - -
Further probing was done if the answer is yes for the question, has any community level
decision been taken leading to social regulations for groundwater management? The
respondents are asked to describe the decisions.
In the same manner respondents are asked to spell out how is it possible to implement
collective decisions taken towards better management of groundwater resources or else why?
The responses are presented in Table 3.16.
Table 3.16 Community level decisions on social regulation of groundwater
Category of
tank
FGD/
Has any community level decision been
taken leading to social regulations for
groundwater management?
Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective decisions taken towards better management of groundwater resources?
Interview If Yes, describe the decisions IF YES, How? If NO, why?
APCBTMP
PGM Tanks
FGD
No new borewells should be drilled.
ID crops based on water availability
--
Removal of silt from tank. Change to ID crops in rabi
season
Maintaining minimum distance from borewell to borewell.
Follow the micro irrigation methods like drip and sprinklers
Restricting the drilling depth to 300 feet.
Reduce the number of
pumping hours based on
groundwater levels
Change the cropping pattern form
Paddy to ID crops like Maize, Jowar,
Groundnut etc.
Sharing groundwater to fellow farmers
Interview
Balanced water utilization -
Irrigating crops based on tank
water and ground water.
All are
sowing paddy
---- Change to low water
requirement crops Not attended CWBs
Two more years support
required for learning CWB
Unable to have drip
irrigation equipment
Irrigating through pipe lines
Non-
APCBTMP
FGD ----
Paddy control
Group meetings
By having awareness on ground
water___
Interview ----
If we know the water levels,
we grow the crops accordingly Unable to take up any steps to drill another
drinking water borewell.
Controlled Paddy irrigation.
Growing dry crops like jowar,
vegetables, Cotton.
APCBTMP FGD -- Paddy control No group meetings on
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 47
Category of
tank
FGD/
Has any community level decision been
taken leading to social regulations for groundwater management?
Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective decisions
taken towards better management of groundwater resources?
Interview If Yes, describe the decisions IF YES, How? If NO, why?
Non-PGM Sowing dry crops like jowar,
vegetables
Ground water usage
Interview ---
By undergoing trainings and
organizing meetings. It helps to understand ground water levels.
So far they did not take any steps.
By conducting group meetings
Ground water saving methods can be implemented by all
Paddy control, sowing vegetables and ID crops
Crops can be grown based on ground water level
From data it can be inferred that
Community level decisions have been taken leading to social regulations for
groundwater management in 35% of the PGM tanks, while in control tanks the answer
is NO in most (100 to 60%) of the tanks.
In 95% of the PGM tanks they felt that it is possible to implement collective decisions
taken towards better management of groundwater resources, whereas it is 60% in case
of control tanks.
This shows the confidence level of farmers in the PGM tanks towards community level
decisions and social regulation.
Participation in WUA Meetings
Groundwater use has become integral part in majority of the tank systems. Involvement and
participation of groundwater users in WUA meetings is essential to have a better water resource
management. To achieve this, in PGM tanks groundwater users in the zone of influence of tank are
formed in PGM groups. To understand the involvement level of groundwater users, information was
collected in project and control tanks through Focus Group discussions. The output is presented in
Table 3.17.
Table 3.17 Participation of groundwater uers in WUA meetings
Category of
tank
Groundwater users participating in WUA meetings
Sample
Size Yes % Issues discussed No %
No
Respon
se
%
APCBTMP
PGM Tanks
20 12 60.0
Sharing water levels,
rainfall with WUA
members.
CWB results discussion.
Discussions on water
3 15.0 5 25.0
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 48
Category of
tank
Groundwater users participating in WUA meetings
Sample
Size Yes % Issues discussed No %
No
Respon
se
%
balance.
Ground water availability.
Possibilities to Change to
ID crop.
Cropping pattern change
& ID crops issues
Tank Water availability
issues discussion
About groundwater
sharing
Non-
APCBTMP 5 - 0.0 - 2 40.0 3 60.0
APCBTMP
Non-PGM 5 2 40.0
Low water levels in bore
wells
Tank desilting in tank bed
Surface water sharing for
irrigations (Taibandi)
2 40.0 1 20.0
Data Source: APCBTMP PGM TANKS, APCBTMP Non-PGM& Non-APCBTMP Tanks_ FGD
It is observed from the data that
Groundwater users level of participation and issues discussion is happening in 60% of PGM
tanks, where as it is 40% in APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks and not at all happening Non-
APCBTMP tanks.
Responsiveness of the PGM intervention to felt need
From the project conceptualization stage onwards it was stated that it is felt need based. To assess it
further, information was collected from the respondents’ on five important as aspects in the context of
PGM from APCBTMP Non- PGM AND Non-APCBTMP tanks after explain the PGM concept and its
implementation in APCBTMP. The level of responses is presented in Table 3.18.
Table 3.18 Responsiveness of the PGM intervention to felt need (project tanks)
Parameter Data
collection
Method
Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP Non-PGM
Sample
Size (N) Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Willing to understand
the water balance and
make crop plans
accordingly
FGD 156 82 52.6 74 45.4 135 67 49.6 68 50.3
Interview 25 7 28.0 18 72.0 24 7 29.2 17 70.8
Willing to volunteer to
collect , record and
share PHM data for
planning
FGD 150 49 32.7 101 67.3 128 47 36.72 81 63.2
Interview 23 21 91.3 2 8.7 25 19 76.0 6 24.0
Realized the need to
have PGM
interventions for better
management of
groundwater resources
FGD 151 75 49.7 76 50.3 125 85 68.00 40 32.0
Interview 25 24 96.0 1 4.0 25 25 100.0 - -
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 49
Parameter Data
collection
Method
Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP Non-PGM
Sample
Size (N) Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Willing to donate your
site required for
construction of a Rain
gauge station
FGD 151 39 25.8 112 74.1 128 22 17.19 106 82.8
Interview 25 19 76.0 6 24.0 25 14 56.0 11 44.0
Willing to spare your
borewells for
groundwater
levels/quantity
monitoring
FGD 156 65 41.7 91 58.3 135 65 48.15 70 51.8
Interview 24 19 79.2 5 20.8 25 13 52.0 12 48.0
Total 886 400 45.1% 775 364 46.9
From the responses it is clear that:
46.9% of participants in APCBTMP Non-PGM and 45.1% in Non-APCBTMP tanks
felt the need to have participatory groundwater management.
Surprisingly response to come forward is high in case of individuals than in FGDs.
The responses of the farmers from Non-PGM tanks in respect of need for community level
interventions are captured. The outcome is presented in Table 3.18:
Table 3.18 Responsiveness of the PGM intervention to felt need (control tanks)
Parameter
Non-APCBTMP
Interview
APCBTMP Non-PGM
Interview
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Felt that regular data collection and
sharing it with the group members
will benefit individually
25 20 80.0 5 20.0 25 23 92.0 2 8.0
Felt that regular data collection and
sharing it with the group members
will benefit collectively
25 21 84.0 4 16.0 24 22 91.7 2 8.3
Agreed that the groundwater users be
formed in groups for better
management of groundwater
resources
25 24 96.0 1 4.0 25 25 100.0 - -
Felt that it is necessary that the
details of the PHM data collected by
the volunteer be known by all the
group members
25 23 92.0 2 8.0 24 21 87.5 3 12.5
Felt that a project or support from the
Government is essential to
understand and for effective
Participatory
Groundwater Management
25 24 96.0 1 4.0 24 24 100.0 - -
Felt trainings/Exposure visits are
necessary for PHM data monitoring
and management
25 24 96.0 1 4.0 24 24 100.0 - -
Total 150 136 90.6 146 139 95.2
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 50
From the responses it is clear that
95.2% and 90.6% of farmers from APCBTMP Non-PGM and Non-APCBTMP tanks
felt that community level PGM interventions and capacity building activities like
trainings are essential, these responses are in conformity with PGM activities in the
project.
3.3 Objective 3: Indicators affecting the sustainability of the PGM initiative
Post project sustainability is the measure of various interventions of a project. To have an idea on the
key indicators affecting or responsible for sustainability of PGM interventions, an attempt was made to
cull out the opinions of farmers in the select tanks on three main aspects. They are
Regularity of PHM data collection and sharing , Perception on use of PHM data collection &
sharing
Experience of collective decision making based on PGM
Opinion of key implementation stakeholders
The findings are presented in the following sections:
A. Regularity of PHM data collection and sharing & Perception on use of PHM data collection &
sharing
Data was collected on change in frequency of data collection, upkeep of the PHM equipment,
felt need for seeking data from PHM farmers.& Usage of PHM data by individual PHM farmer
and the act of sharing the same with the fellow farmers . The findings ate shown in Table 3.19.
Table 3.19 Regularity of PHM data collection and sharing & Perception on use of PHM data
collection & sharing
Parameter
PGM Tanks FGD Non-APCBTMP
FGD APCBTMP Non-PGM FGD
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Regular data collection
and sharing it with the
group members will
benefit individually
432 302 69.9 130 30.1 142 56 39.4 86 60.6 118 58 49.2 60 50.9
Groundwater users be
formed in groups for
better management of groundwater resources
Not applicable 144 63 43.8 81 56.3 126 81 64.3 45 35.7
Regular data collection
and sharing it with the
group members will
benefit collectively
432 282 65.3 150 34.7 132 64 48.5 68 51.5 118 62 52.5 56 47.5
As a PGM Group
member, it is felt necessary to know the
453 284 62.7 169 37.3 132 71 53.8 61 46.2 114 65 57.0 49 43.0
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 51
Parameter
PGM Tanks FGD Non-APCBTMP
FGD APCBTMP Non-PGM FGD
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
details of the PHM data collected by the
PHM farmer?/
volunteer be known by all the group members
From the data it can inferred that 65.9% , 55.8% and 46.1% of participants from PGM ,
APCBTMP Non – PGM AND Non-APCBTMP tanks has expressed positive response
towards individual and collective benefits from PGM interventions, Hence possibility of
sustainability is expected.
Post project sustainability – groundwater users’ perception:
In order to understand the PGM farmers’ perception towards post project sustainability
information was collected. 93 out of the 100 farmers’ interviewed expressed their willingness
and confidence in continuing the PGM activities even after support is withdrawn. The common
reasons expressed are:
We can know the Groundwater level measurement and status , so we will continue
I can discuss the water measurements with others
I am capable to inform to farmers around us about my water level in the borewell
By knowing groundwater availability, we are able to growing crops
At the same time PGM farmers in the PGM tanks expressed the support needed in certain areas
during this project period itself for effective continuation of the PGM interventions. They are:
Support for CWB work shop to involve all ayacut farmers
At the time of actual conduct of CWB workshop
Two more years support required for organizing CWB on our own
Need further trainings and exposure visits
Link PGM activities with drip & sprinklers distribution
Explain the PHM data to community regularly
Have Trainings & exposure on water using methods
Two to three years PGM team support needed to establish linkages with allied
institutions
Strengthen PGM group members
Disseminate PHM data to nearby villages also
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 52
B. Experience of collective decision making based on PGM
Degree of implementation of community level decisions is one of the key indicators affecting
the sustainability of project interventions. The response from the pgm farmers is shown in
Table 3.20:
Table 3.20 Experience of collective decision making based on PGM
Parameter
PGM FGD PGM Tanks
Interview of PHM Farmers
PGM Tanks
Interview of Non - PHM
Farmers
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Sample
Size
(N)
Yes % No %
Felt that
collective
decisions taken
based on CWB
results are being
implemented
263 161 61.2 102 38.8 59 50 84.7 9 15.3 36 22 61.1 14 38.9
From the data it is evident that more than 61% farmers in PGM tanks confirmed that collective
decisions taken are being implemented, which is good indicator and key factor of sustainability.
The collective decisions implemented as per the statements of respondents are:
Change to ID crops in rabi season
Adoption of low water requirement crops
Followed micro irrigation method like sprinklers, drip, etc.,
ID crops based on water availability
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 53
Reduced paddy crop and grown ID crops like ground nut, vegetables, Castrol crops
Excess water sharing to follow farmers
Reduce the pumping hours for paddy
Irrigation through pipe lines
Alternative crops sown
Based on water level we choose the crops
Change to low water requirement crops
Short duration crops
Sharing the data on decrease /increase of groundwater water levels
The collective decisions not implemented are:
Not able to get sprinklers on subsidy through line departments
All farmers gathering for community level decisions
Drip & sprinklers not able to purchase
Unable to attended all the CWB's as agreed
No unity among all the farmers during crop planning
Lack of comprehensive awareness on GW resource
Lack of dissemination of CWB based decisions to all water users
C. Opinion of key implementation stakeholders
Data collected on strengths and weaknesses of the PGM interventions from PGM farmers in
PGM tanks through FGD interview are presented in Table 3.21:
Table 3.21 Strengths and weaknesses of PGM interventions
Strengths Weaknesses
Ability to collect PHM data and
dissemination
Able to share ground water level
fluctuation using the farmer collected
PHM Data
Crops plans based on PHM data
Estimation ground water recharge and
balance
Knowledge on CWB
Adoption of water saving methods
Usage of sprinklers and drip irrigation
methods helped in irrigating additional
ayacut
Reduced Crop losses and debts in
groundwater irrigation by going for wise
crop planning based on available water
resources
Lack of periodical dissemination of
PHM data to PGM group members
Farmers felt difficulty in
understanding and CWB calculations
Some members are not yet adopting
changes in crops planned in rabi
season as decided during CWB
Non coverage of water harvesting
structures and desilting in tank beds as
part of PGM interventions
No financial support for drips and
sprinklers
Less attendance in PGM group
meetings
Less number of TRP visit to tanks
Confining PGM activity to the tank
and its souring farmers
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 54
The strengths and weaknesses expressed by farmers from APCBTMP Non-PGM and Non-
APCBTMP tanks, for the question: “If the PGM interventions are introduced in their tank?”
are shown in Table 3.22.
Table 3.22 Strengths and weaknesses of PGM (Non-PGM Tanks)
Strengths Weaknesses
Understanding ground water resources
WUA involvement in PGM activities
Useful to change the cropping pattern
Crop planning based on water level
measurements.
Crop change from Paddy to ID crops
based on water availability.
Community level decisions will be
possible for both surface and ground
water
Irrigation through pipeline
Ground water measurement is complex
Ayacut belongs to different villages
Making the all users to understand
ground water importance
Doing water balance exercise
involving the community is difficult.
So far no social regulation on ground
water saving was implemented
Work load will increase
Certain valid points are raised under weaknesses. In addition to social togetherness, there is
need to simplify the technicalities involved in estimation of GW recharge, balance. Unlike
surface water/tank water, groundwater is not seen but it is hidden under ground. With a long-
term exercise on Pre and Post CWB data, a pattern could be evolved. When this is explained, it
would be easy to understand, and all farmers can follow. Adhering to CWB decisions should
be made mandatory to all farmers. Farmer attendance to CWB should made mandatory for
claiming any type of subsidy related to irrigation. Positive results from the PGM tanks should
be given publicity.
3.4 Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM
Responses of Key Secondary Stakeholders to a questionnaire on their opinions on various
critical inputs of PGM interventions so far and required for sustainability of PGM are
summarized in Table 3.23.
Table 3.23 Critical inputs required for sustaining PGM (key secondary stakeholders)
Critical Inputs So far implemented To be improved/To be incorporated
A. Technical inputs
Validation of PHM
data
Monthly twice, documented in
farmer’s hand book and display
board
Being validated by TRP
Occasionally verified with field data
whenever DNO visits tank villages
Not being validated regularly
Validate periodically.
Analysis of data is to be improved by
incorporating more easy techniques.
Vehicle to be allotted for frequent field
visits for each district
Extend to other groundwater users.
Practice data analysis with farmers
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 55
Critical Inputs So far implemented To be improved/To be incorporated
Periodical Sharing
of inferences of
PHM data
PHM farmer share PHM data only
PGM group farmers.
Inferences of PHM data shared with
all farmers once in 6 months in
CWB& Field day workshops.
In WUA meetings discussing about
PHM Data and sharing of their
opinions and suggestions in a
limited way.
The PHM data are to be shared in a water
users’ committee meeting periodically.
The nodal officer must take proactive
role in ensuring collection & analysis of
data by TRP s and arrange for sharing
with primary stakeholders.
Sharing the results of PHM data analysis
with all borewell farmers, at least once a
month
Local techniques and methods to be
evolved and facilitated.
Dissemination of the
Analysis of PHM
data
The PHM data is mainly analysed
and disseminated during Crop
Water Budgeting workshops
where farmers share the data with
other farmers
Dissemination through PHM data
display boards
Monthly dissemination of the
analysis of PHM data is done for
few ZOI farmers.
Year wise crops planned and
adopted data
To be done more frequently at WUA
assemblies.
Number of tanks villages allotted to each
TRP should be reduced to 8 to 10 tanks
for regular monitoring
Regular meeting to be organized
Integration with
Assessment Unit
level PHM data
So far this is not done at field level.
It is essential to integrate with Piezometer
data at AU level for preparing
perspective plans.
Integration of the PHM data with
Assessment Unit is crucial, as it directly
influences the estimation of ground water
in the Assessment unit.
Scope to implement at Somandepalli,
Assessment level in Anantapur district as
10 tanks are covered under APCBTMP
Any other Technical
inputs
PHM equipment are properly not
working in some cases
Study newer methods to interact with
primary stakeholders
The Quality aspect of ground water is
also to be discussed during trainings /
meetings.
Provisions to be made for maintenance of
PHM equipment.
B. Handholding in data collection, organizing & CWB workshops
Need based
trainings and
Exposures to PGM
group members
At present need based training
provided only to PHM farmers
and a few PGM group members.
Exposure visits organized in a
limited way .
Should be made mandatory for all GW
users
Refresher trainings with more data thru
innovative methods.
More exposure visits to be organised
A system is to be developed for training
other farmers in the village.
DNO’s field visits Rarely Visiting.
Field visits should be made
mandatory for every month.
In general, regularly DNOs are
visiting the fields whenever there
are trainings /meetings.
More intensive visits required
Minimum no of days of visit by DNO
should be made mandatory and provision
of vehicle is essential.
NSO involvement Limited. Not on a regular basis.
Only at the time of CWB, and
Field day workshops.
NSO is the right person to create more
awareness in the farmer or public.
Hence, they must extend all their efforts
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 56
Critical Inputs So far implemented To be improved/To be incorporated
to create awareness in the public on
conservation and protection of ground
water for future.
Non Formal
Education methods
& techniques to
make the
community
understand the
situation
Yes in limited -Participatory mode
Adopted need based methods at
times
Non Formal Education methods &
Techniques are not followed so far
to make the community
understand the situation.
The Non Formal Education methods &
Techniques are to be followed to make
the community understand the situation
in an easy and better way.
C. Institutional Inputs
Integration with
WUA
Good
Actively involved
Implemented
Happening with President &
paraworkers only
Supportive in conducting
meetings, training and CWBs
Closer interaction with other members of
the WUA is needed
Have a convergence meeting at village
level with T.C and Neerugantees.
Integration with
Gram Panchayats
Involvements of GP Members is
Poor
Attending CWB workshops and
Field days only
Incorporate the convergence meeting
with village level institutions
Integration with
Assessment Unit
level Institutions
Not happening
Happening at tank Level
Needed to involve all farmers.
Monthly PGM
group meetings
Monthly PGM group meetings are
conducted in some villages.
Happening only 10%
tanks.Quarterly once
Monthly PGM group meetings must be
conducted in all villages regularly.
Involvement of
WOMEN groups.
Only when the women happen to
be PHM farmer. Upto 10%
Should be promoted on a larger scale,at
least 50 %
Active involvement
of Co-opted GW
users in WUA
Co-opted members are getting
involved only in only in 20 - 30
% of tanks
To be Improved to 100 %
Needs to meetings to conduct at Village
organization levels (SHG).
More efforts to be made for better
involvement.
D. Material Inputs
Critical inputs like/
(sprinklers, seed
varieties, IWMT
equipment
etc.)through Project
Presently pipelines are under
water sharing programme
Huge demand for sprinklers and
Drip irrigation
Convergence is minimum with
other departments
Promotion of MIP & Training on IWMT
would go a long by way in conserving the
fast depleting groundwater resources
Much effort is needed to provide subsidy
to Micro irrigation system of Drips,
Sprinklers, Seed varieties, IWMT
equipment etc. through Project and
linkages with line departments.
E. SO/NSO Support Services
Support Services NSOs support and participation
inadequate
Their activity confined to
mobilization of people to official
visits.
Improve NSO involvement and support
services
Support services are required throughout
the project period
Work out gradual withdrawal strategy
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 57
The strengths of the PGM initiative and weaknesses/Needs Improvement the PGM initiative as
expressed by secondary are:
Strengths Weaknesses/Needs Improvement
The ripened need for the management of the
groundwater resource owing to over exploiting
conditions.
Training Resource Persons, are making all efforts
in taking forward PGM by farmers
Good training programme structure.
Organizing CWB workshops and Field days
Crops planning for Rabi season based on CWB
Results
Existence and involvement of WUA's and co-
option of GW users to WUA.
Water sharing programme
The involvement of the state Governmental agency
at the apex level to oversee the implementation
process
Less TRPs than required
Lack of dedicated personnel at the department
level leading to delays in responding to time bound
issues
No support services such as sprinklers, seed
varieties, IWMT equipment
Unable to organize PGM groups for monthly
meetings effectively
Lack of ownership on the part of the departmental
staff to issues related to empowering the primary
stakeholders
Providing water sharing pipe line to limited
number of persons only
The APDs are not considering that PHM activity is
one of the major parts of APCBTMP. Their
contribution for PGM is almost negligible.
Women participation is low
All farmers in the village are not aware of water
level & rainfall data collection and related aspects
Objective 5: Assess Land and groundwater productivity in PGM tanks
The rationale for the PGM sub-component lies in the fact that (restored) tank systems are an
important source of groundwater recharge. The objective of PGM therefore is promoting
efficient groundwater use in the tank influence zone.
To understand the impact of the project interventions on groundwater productivity and efficient
water management practices, relevant data were collected for the year 2011 -12 from 20
APCBTMP-PGM tanks, 5 APCBTMP non-PGM tanks and 5 non-APCBTMP tanks. Land
productivity was compared in terms of value of output in Rs/Ha., whereas groundwater
productivity was compared in terms of value of output in Rs/Ha-m. at constant prices of year
2008-09. The results of analysis is shown the Figure 3.1.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 58
Figure 3.1: Land & groundwater productivity in APCBTMP-PGM tanks, APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks &
Non -APCBTMP tanks
Land Productivity: The results indicate that the value of land productivity in APCBTMP PGM
tanks is higher by 37.6 per cent (Rs 90,322/Ha) as compared to APCBTMP non-PGM tanks
(Rs 65,623/Ha) and 35.9 % higher as compared to non-APCBTMP tanks (Rs 66,468/ Ha)
during 2011-12.
The reason for the slightly higher land productivity, i.e., Rs 845/Ha in case of non-APCBTMP
tanks as compared to APCBTMP non-PGM tanks may be attributed to the higher percentage of
commercial irrigated crops. Details of area irrigated is shown in the Table 3.24.
Table 3.24 Area irrigated season-wise for PGM, non-PGM and control tanks
Category Season
Area Irrigated (acres)
% Non-
Paddy
Irrigated
% of
Commercial
Crops
Irrigated
Paddy
(Rice)
Non -Paddy
(Including
Commercial crops )
Total Commercial
crops
APCBTMP
PGM
Tanks
Kharif 100.55 134.36 234.91 65.11 57.2 27.7
Rabi 38.60 102.20 140.80 24.25 72.6 17.2
Total 139.15 236.56 375.71 89.36 63.0 23.8
APCBTMP
Non-PGM
Tanks
Kharif 41.30 61.70 103.00 17.00 59.9 16.5
Rabi 4.00 33.20 37.20 3.00 89.2 8.1
Total 45.30 94.90 140.20 20.00 67.7 14.3
Non -
APCBTMP
Tanks
Kharif 53.60 30.10 83.70 19.40 36.0 23.2
Rabi 13.40 20.90 34.30 3.40 60.9 9.9
Total 67.00 51.00 118.00 22.80 43.2 19.3
90,322
71,524 65,623 66,468
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
LandProductivity
Rs/Ha
LandProductivity
Rs/Ha
GroundwaterProductivity
Rs/Ha-m
LandProductivity
Rs/Ha
GroundwaterProductivity
Rs/Ha-m
APCBTMP-PGM tanks(N=61 Farmers)
APCBTMP-Non PGM tanks(N=25 Farmers)
Non APCBTMP tanks(N=25 Farmers)
Ru
pe
es
Groundwater Productivity
Rs/Ha-m
No GW use
quantification
in Non -
APCBTMP
Tanks
No GW use
quantification
in APCBTMP
Non – PGM
Tanks
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 59
A correlation analysis revealing the relationship of land productivity as dependent variable
with commercial crops, PGM tank and ayacut as independent variables is depicted in Figure
3.2.
Type X Y V4
categorical 0.127 3 Crop_type new =Commercial
categorical 0.127 2 Type_transformed =APCBTMP PGM Tank
categorical 1.3542 1 Source_loc_new=Ayacut
Figure 3.2 Correlation of Land productivity in APCBTMP-PGM tanks, APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks &
Non-APCBTMP tanks
The correlational analysis indicates that:
The location of the irrigation source, within or outside the tank ayacut has negative
correlation on land productivity.
APCBTMP –PGM tanks is positively correlated with land productivity.
Commercial crop has strong positive correlation on land productivity.
Groundwater Productivity
The increase in the value realized by farmers for every unit groundwater used is the key
performance indicator in understanding the effectiveness of PGM interventions. Groundwater
use data is the key factor to calculate groundwater productivity. These data are available only
from APCBTMP PGM tanks, where trained PHM farmers are collecting and recording the data
every fortnight. Such data are not available for APCBTMP non-PGM and non-APCBTMP tank
users.
Based on data collected from 61 PHM famers from 20 APCBMTP PGM tanks during the year
2011-12, groundwater productivity realized is Rs 71,524/Ha-m. at constant prices of 2008-09.
To understand the change in land and groundwater productivity of APCBTMP PGM tanks over
the project period, time series data captured by the External Monitoring Agency during half
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 60
yearly concurrent monitoring surveys. These data and those collected during this PGM Impact
Assessment Study are presented in the Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 APCBTMP PGM Tanks Land & groundwater productivity - time series data
The following conclusions emerge from the analysis of the time series data:
Land productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks is greater by 37.6 per
cent (Rs 90,322/Ha) as compared to APCBTMP non-PGM tanks (Rs 65,623/Ha)
and 35.9 % more as compared to non-APCBTMP tanks (Rs 66,468/ Ha) at constant
prices of 2008-09.
Land productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks has increased by 21
per cent is from Rs 74,648/Ha to Rs 90,322/Ha in 2011-12 as compared to
productivity during 2008-09.
Groundwater productivity assessment is possible only for APCBTMP tanks where
the PHM farmers are collecting the data on groundwater use.
Groundwater productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks has increased
by 19.4 per cent from Rs 59,920/Ha-m to Rs 71,524/Ha-m as compared to
productivity during 2008-09.
Sustainabilty of Land and Groundwater Productivity
The primary concern of the various project interventions is to bring about sustainable income
levels for the stakeholders in a tank system. To understand this aspect with reference to PGM
interventions, relevant data were collected on three primary indicatiors, viz., area irrigated,
74,648 75,173 79,293 80,003
90,322
59
,92
0
65
,86
3
67
,97
0 70
,72
2
71
,52
4
-
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
90,000
100,000
2008-09MTR
2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2011-12PGM IAS
Ru
pe
es
GW Based Irrigation Land & Groundwater Producitvity - Time line
Land Productivity Rs/Ha Groundwater Productivity Rs/Ha-m
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 61
ranfall, and functional bore well from the 20 PGM tanks selected. Tankwise details are
tabulated in the Annex 3. Summary of the findings of are shown in Table 3.25.
Table 3.25 Land and groundwater productivity of PGM tanks at constant prices (2008-09)
Indicator Unit
Base Year
2009-10/ 2010-
11
Impact Year
2011-12
Change
N %
Area irrigated Ha 883.29 898.49 15.20 1.72
Rainfall mm 721.55 532.52 -189.03 -26.20
Functional borewells N 1169 1232 63 5.39
Area irrigated per
borewell Ha 0.756 0.729 -0.03
-3.97
Land productivity Rs 6,63,99,409 6,75,42,038 1,42,630 0.21
Groundwater
productivity Rs 5,81,75,998 5,91,77,115 10,01,118
1.72
From the data analysed it was observed that even though there is a rainfall deficit of 189.03
mm (-26.2%) during the impact year, area irrigated per borewell has gone up by 3.97 per cent,
land productivity by 0.21 per cent, and groundwater productivity by 1.72 per cent. Thus it can
be concluded that the PGM interventions have helped the groundwater dependent farmers have
not only been able to cope with a drought year, but maintain the area irrigated and increase
land and groundwater productivity.
Objective 6: Impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM
Impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM
Minor irrigation systems improvement by undertaking repairs and renovations to the tank
components is the primary concern of the Project. There are a few constraints to be considered
while analysing the impact of tank restoration to the impact of PGM. These are:
Change in groundwater dynamics like water levels depends on Rainfall received,
groundwater quantity available and usage in the entire Hydrological unit (Basin).
PGM tank is only one among the several water storage structures in a Hydrological
unit.
PGM interventions are limited to a few tanks in a Hydrological unit.
Changes in Groundwater levels in the Groundwater Zone of Influence of a PGM tank
area are not independent.
In the project groundwater users are capacitated to plan the usage based on annual
groundwater recharge and balance conditions but not on the aspects of rising water
levels.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 62
Effect of tank rehabilitation works on groundwater levels:
An attempt was made to understand the groundwater dynamics in the select tanks in relation to
change in groundwater levels with respect to tank rehabilitation works taken up.
Change in Groundwater levels
To assess change in groundwater levels in PGM tanks, Post monsoon Static Water level data
with respect to Change in Rainfall was analysed. The post monsoon Static Water level in 2011-
12 was compared with the base year (2009-10 for 12 tanks & 2010-11 for 8 tanks). Tankwise
details of change in groundwater levels are tabulated in Annex 4.
The results are shown in Figure 3.5.
Figure 3.5 Change in Groundwater levels with respect to Rainfall Compared to Base Year
From the analysis it was observed that:
Six out of the 20 tanks show positive change in Static Water levels even though
there is less rainfall as compared to the base year.
Seven out of the 20 tanks show negative change in Static Water levels ranging
from -0.3 to -3.9 Mts, even though there is less rainfall (except in two cases) as
compared to the base year.
Seven out of the 20 tanks show negative change in Static Water levels ranging
from -6.6 to -11.2 Mts, even though there is less rainfall (except in two cases)
when compared to base year.
From the observations one can safely infer that
Change in rainfall has direct bearing on groundwater levels
13.9
7.4
4.4 2.9
1.9 1.4 -0.3 -0.6
-1.6 -2.2 -2.3 -2.9 -3.9
-6.6 -7.1 -7.1 -7.6 -9.6 -10.1
-11.2 -15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
20-600
-500
-400
-300
-200
-100
0
100
200
Ban
dak
oth
a P
alle
Rev
ally
Mu
dd
apu
kun
ta
Au
solo
nip
ally
Dan
dlo
pal
le
Ap
pir
edd
ipal
le
Kh
ajip
eta
Rav
elli
Met
tup
alle
Mu
dir
edd
ipal
li
Ko
du
r
Yava
pu
r
Julu
kun
ta
Ko
lth
ur
Som
aram
Po
sep
alli
Edu
lab
alla
pu
ram
Laks
ham
apu
r
Ch
ina
Do
rnal
a
Ch
alak
ur
Ch
ange
Gro
un
dw
ate
r le
vel (
Mts
)
Ch
ange
in R
ain
fall
(mm
)
Change in Rainfall and Groundwater level Compared to Base Year
Change in Rainfall + Change in Groundwater level - ve Change in Groundwater level
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 63
Hydrological unit level groundwater use has more influence on change in
groundwater levels when compared to groundwater zone of influence of a tank.
Up scaling of PGM interventions from tank level to Hydrological unit level are
essential for better groundwater management
The tank rehabilitation works (improvements to Irrigation channels, arresting leakages from
bund, sluices, surplus weirs) which has direct bearing on enhanced groundwater recharge
taken up under the project are showing positive impact on groundwater scenario in
Groundwater Zone of Influence of a PGM tank. The following are a few examples:
Tirumaladevunicheruvu, Appireddipalli (V), Narayanapet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District
Tank Rehabilitation works completed for this tank by May 2010 were: Repairs and renovations
to the tank bund, irrigation channels, and the surplus weir. Impact of tank rehabilitation works
on water spread area and water level is shown in Figure 3.6.
Figure 3.6 Composite Hydrograph - Tirumaladevunicheruvu, Appireddipalli (V) Narayanapet
Mandal, Mahabubnagar District
The composite hydrograph shows that the minor irrigation systems improvement works
undertaken by APCBTMP have positive impact on water availability in the Zone of Influence
of this tank.
Khajipeta MI tank Tank, Khajipeta (V), Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District:
Tank Rehabilitation works completed for this tank by June 2009 were: Repairs and renovations
to the surplus weir, tank bund, irrigation channels, and the sluice. Impact of tank rehabilitation
works on water spread area and water level is shown in Figure 3.7.
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
SWL
(Mts
.Bgl
)
Rai
nfa
ll (m
m)
/ Ta
nk
Wat
er S
pre
ad a
rea
(Acr
es)
Month
Composite Hydrograph - Tirumaladevunicheruvu, Appireddipalli(V) Narayanapet Mandal,.Mahabubnagar District.
Tank waterspread (Acres) Rainfall(mm)
Tank Rehabilitation Works completed SWL (Mts.bgl)
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 64
Figure 3.7 Composite Hydrograph - Khajipeta MI tank Tank, Khajipeta (V), Midthur Mandal,
Kurnool District
The hydrological data is as follows:
Year Rainfall
(mm)
Water
Spread area
(Acres)
SWL
(Mts) in
June
Change in
SWL
(Mts)
2009-10 730.0 75 -6.14 -
2010-11 963.2 270 -9.84 -3.70
2011-12 615.2 73 -9.21 +0.63
2012-13 865.4 29 -13.71 -4.51
During the year 2012-13, run off might have not generated, in view of existence of unsaturated
zone of 4.5 Mts during June, which is more when compared to previous years. Hence, less
water spread area in the tank bed during 2012-13 even though there is 250.20 mm more rainfall
when compared to 2011-12.
From this it may be infer that, Minor irrigation systems Improvements to this tank have the
positive impact on water availability in the Zone of Influence of tank, However there is overall
decline in Static water level, which may be due to the influence of overall groundwater usage
in the basin.
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
SWL
(Mts
.Bgl
)
Rai
nfa
ll (m
m)
/ Ta
nk
Wat
er
Spre
ad a
rea
(Acr
es)
Month
Composite Hydrograph - Khajipeta MI tank Tank, Khajipeta(V), Midthur Mandal,Kurnool District.
Tank waterspread (Acres) Rainfall(mm)
Tank Rehabilitation Works completed SWL (Mts.bgl)
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 65
Posupalli (V),Thimmarajupalli Tank, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District:
Tank Rehabilitation work completed to this tank during Sept 2011 is repairs and renovations to
Tank Bund only. Effect of tank rehabilitation works on water spread area and water level is
shown in Figure 3.8.
Figure 3.8 Composite Hydrograph – Posupalli (V), Thimmarajupalli Tank, Komarole Mandal,
Prakasam District.
From the hydrograph it is clear that repair and renovation works undertaken only to the tank
bund does not lead to increase in water spread area or the groundwater level.
Conclusions
The 20 select PGM tank studies allow us to make the following inferences:
Tank rehabilitation works (improvements to irrigation channels, arresting leakages
from bund, sluices, and surplus weirs) has positive impact on tank water spread area
and groundwater levels.
Assessment Unit level interventions and studies are required for better understanding
the impact of rehabilitation works on groundwater scenario.
-30
-25
-20
-15
-10
-5
0
5
10
15
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
Sep
-10
No
v-1
0
Jan
-11
Mar
-11
May
-11
Jul-
11
Sep
-11
No
v-1
1
Jan
-12
Mar
-12
May
-12
Jul-
12
Sep
-12
No
v-1
2
Jan
-13
Mar
-13
May
-13
SWL
(Mts
.Bgl
)
Rai
nfa
ll (m
m)
/ Ta
nk
Wat
er
Spre
ad a
rea
(Acr
es)
Month
Composite Hydrograph - Posupalli (V),Thimmarajupalli Tank, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District.
Tank water spread (Acres) Rainfall(mm)
Tank Rehabilitation Works completed SWL (Mts.bgl)
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 66
Chapter 4
The Way Forward
Objective 1: Assess the effectiveness of the PGM processes
Key Observations The Way forward
Overall 52 out of 61 PHM farmers (85%) have
grasped the contents of the training and are able
to record and share info/knowledge on the PHM
parameters.
There is a need to explore the possibilities
of imparting knowledge and understanding
on PHM to all GW users in the entire unit
rather than confining it to the groundwater
Zone of Influence (ZOI.)
In case of Non-PHM farmers, it is close to 50-
50 understanding. It seems farmers in proximity
to PHM farmers know about the parameters and
farmers located at a distance from the PHM
farmers do not know much about the PGM
process.
Nearly 2/3s of respondents (62.4%) have some
understanding of the CWB parameters and their
applicability.
Attention is required to reduce data gaps.
Regular monitoring by TRPs - physical or
through phone calls - should be in place
and be checked at the district level offices
periodically.
Majority of farmers both PHM and Non PHM,
have noticed TRPs visiting once in a month.
50 out of 60 (83%) farmers have faced no
problem regarding all PHM equipment during
the entire period of 2 years PGM activities.
In 27% cases there were data gaps due to
different reasons like equipment not
functioning, no power supply, or farmer unable
to record etc.
In case of Non project tanks 13.3% FGD
participants and 12% individuals have an
understanding of PHM data parameters but 76%
of FGD participants and 68% individuals have
no understanding
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 67
Objective 2: Assess the impact of the PGM intervention
Key Observations The Way-forward
95% of PHM farmers adopted changes in the extent
of irrigated area and 4.91% farmers did not. In case
of Non-PHM farmers, 89% farmers adopted
changes.
With the continued involvement in the PHM
farmers, awareness on PGM can be created
among the remaining farmers also.
The change in extent of irrigated area could be
either +ve or –ve (Increase in area OR decrease in
area) depending on the understanding of the PHM
data by the Para worker/community and cropping
pattern.
Essential to prepare all farmers to adopt
efficient water use methods for obtaining
optimum returns from available water.
69% of PHM farmers and 63% Non-PHM farmers
have adopted water efficient irrigation methods
based on the PHM data which is a very positive
outcome of the study.
Big investment is required to promote WUE
methods like Drip and Sprinkler installation.
2/3s of the farmers (ie 72%) know that the PHM
data is recorded, displayed and is available for
WUA.
Well interference studies are to be conducted
in PGM tanks and farmers in the ZOI should
be shown the effect of more number of bore
wells and heavy groundwater extraction.
Only then the farmers in the ZOI can come
together to make a group decision.
Majority of the farmers PHM or Non-PHM farmers
(86.8%) are adopting efficient water use methods.
In case of Non-project tanks (68%) the number is
less.
Enhanced community level facilitation is
required.
There seems to be a wide gap in the extent of
irrigated area/acre - PGM tanks 71.2 Acre/Tank;
Non-PGM tank 37.50 Acres/Tank; and Non-project
Tanks 10.40 Acre/Tank. This may indicate lack of
awareness.
Farmers should be advised to accept
community level decisions and there should
be some controls to stop them from violation
of decisions.
Majority of farmers express that it is difficult to
bring on community level decision for social
regulation for GWM. This is another area which
needs further field study.
The decisions given under ‘Yes’ responses in
respect of community level decisions taken are
welcome decisions. Their opinion is based on their
experience after PGM intervention.
The three reasons given (All are sowing paddy, Not
attended CWBs & Unable to have drip irrigation
equipment) for NO response in respect of
community level decisions taken are realistic and
valid.
Surprisingly high percentages (79.2 %) of farmers
from Non-Project Tanks are willing to be part of
the PGM study.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 68
Objective 3: Identify the Indicators affecting the sustainability of the PGM initiative
Key Observations The Way-forward
Willing to continue with , PGM even after
the Project because:
Support needed to continue PGM
We can know the Groundwater level and
status measurements, so we will continue
Create awareness as groundwater
availability is decreasing day by day
I can discuss with others how water
measurements are taken and what it means
Support for CWB workshop to involve all
ayacut farmers
I am capable to inform other farmers around
me about my water level in the borewell
Two more years support is required for
organizing CWB on our own
By knowing borewell water availability, we
are able to grow suitable crops
Promote Irrigation of crops based on PHM
data and to disseminate to all users
Link PGM activities with drip & sprinklers
distribution
Explain the PHM data to community
regularly
Two to three years PGM team support need
to establish linkages with allied institutions
Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM
A. TECHNICAL INPUTS
Key Observations The Way-forward
PHM Data Validation : Validate periodically
PHM (water levels and discharges of bore
wells) data has been recorded
Improve analysis of data by incorporating
more easy techniques.
Not being validated regularly. Practice analysing data with farmers
Occasionally verified with field data whenever
tank villages are visited.
Periodical Sharing of inferences of PHM
data
Improve data analysis by evolving local
techniques and facilitated.
PHM farmer sharing the PHM data only with
the dearest farmers. They are not able to share
the data with others.
The nodal officer must take proactive role
in ensuring collection & analysis of data
by TRP s and arrange for sharing with
primary stakeholders.
Inferences of PHM data shared to farmers all
once in 6months in CWB& Field day
workshops.
The PHM data is to be shared in a water
users’ committee meeting held
periodically.
Dissemination of the Analysis of PHM
data Regular meeting to be organised
The PHM data is mainly analysed and
disseminated during Crop Water Budgeting and
when the farmers shared the data with other
farmers.
The APDs and NSO staff must take
interest to disseminate the data more
frequently on important occasions / WUA
meetings
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 69
Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM
A. TECHNICAL INPUTS
Key Observations The Way-forward
The number of tank villages allotted to
each TRP should be reduced to 8 to 10
tanks to monitor and concentrate well on
PGM activities.
Integration with Assessment Unit level PHM
data This exercise need to be done.
So far this is not done at field level. Integration of the PHM data with
Assessment Unit level data is needed.
This will directly influence the estimation
of groundwater in the Assessment unit
The Quality aspect of groundwater is also
to be discussed during trainings /meetings.
Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM
B. INSTITUTIONAL INPUTS
Key Observations The Way-forward
Integration with WUA
Happening with President & paraworkers
only.
More close interaction with other
members of the WUA need to be
achieved.
Supportive in conducting meetings, training
and CWBs
To achieve convergence, have meeting at
village level with TC members and
Neerugantees.
Integration with Gram Panchayats Grampanchayat and Panchayat Raj
institutions may be involved for
sustainability. To strengthen the PGM
concept, educate the farmers in PHM data
analysis.
Attending CWBs only
Satisfactorily.
Integration with Assessment Unit level
Institutions
Assessment Unit level PGM
implementation is the way forward
Presently only WUA & PHM. Needs to be taken up at the earliest
Only Tank Level implementation at present
To improve the PGM concept to educate
the Ayacutdars and larger area villages
around in PHM data analysis.
Monthly PGM group meetings
Monthly PGM group meetings are conducted
in some villages.
Monthly PGM group meetings must be
conducted in all villages regularly
Conducting Quarterly once/Bi monthly. Monthly PGM group meetings must be
conducted in all villages regularly
Involvement of WOMEN groups To be improved.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 70
Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM
B. INSTITUTIONAL INPUTS
Key Observations The Way-forward
So far 10 to 20% of women in PGM groups
are attending To be Improved to at least 50%
Low to no involvement in some tanks. Women groups must be involved.
Needs to conduct meetings at Village
Organization levels (SHG).
Active involvement of Co-opted GW users
in WUA To be Improved at least to 60 -70 %
Co-opted members are involving in only in
20 % to 30 % tanks
Co-opted members of all tanks must be
involved in WUA activities also
Comparative analysis of PGM impact across the 2 sets of PGM tanks (based on year
of initiation of CWB workshops)
Minimum number of CWB workshops
required to take forward the activity by the
users themselves At least 5-6 CWB workshops are needed
for better understanding and taking
forward the activity by the users
themselves.
Presently only two CWB meetings are
conducting yearly. More workshops should be
conducted to create better awareness on
groundwater resources and water balance –
irrigated dry crops etc
Material Inputs
Critical inputs like/ (sprinklers, seed
varieties, IWMT equipment etc.) through
Project
Training on water saving techniques ,
exposures & critical inputs must be given
through project.
Presently pipelines are provided to select
farmers under water sharing programme
Greater effort is needed to provide
subsidy for Micro irrigation system of
Drips, Sprinklers, Seed varieties, IWMT
equipment etc. through Project and
linkages with line departments.
Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM
Key Observations The Way-forward
C. HANDHOLDING IN DATA COLLECTION, ORGANIZING & CWB
WORKSHOPS
Need based trainings and
Exposures to PGM group members
The trained farmers are not confident enough to
provide training to others.
At present need based training is
provided only to PHM farmers and few
PGM group members.
A system is to be developed for training other
farmers in the village.
Exposure completed to PGM members
on water saving methods in some tanks
for a few farmers..
All farmers to be taken on exposure visits
Support of the TRPs TRPs must regularly visit the PHM wells and
the Rain gauge station at least once a month and
discuss with farmers innovative ideas such as to
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 71
Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM
take up ID crops and conserve of groundwater.
Supporting the Para Workers & PHM
farmers while collecting data and PGM
related tasks
Regular discussion on innovative ideas with
farmers to promote better management of
groundwater resource
Over loaded. At present TRPs are
visiting the village once in a month or
once in two months
District Nodal Officer’s field visits
Provide vehicle for regular visits by DNO to
PGM groups
Rarely Visiting.
In general, regularly DNOs are visiting
the fields whenever there are trainings
or meetings.
NSO involvement Need to be institutionalised
Presently NSO are not much involved
in PGM activities.
NSO staff ideal to create more awareness
among all farmers and other water users.
Need based -occasionally attending PMU to instruct NSOs to monitor PGM
programmes regularly
Non Formal Education methods &
techniques to make the community
understand the situation
Non-formal education methods & techniques to
be adopted to make the community understand
PGM principles better.
Not yet implemented. The older generation understood the
relationship between rain, dry weather, wind
drought and other natural factors and
agriculture. They can be used for experience
sharing and awareness generation in the
younger generation.
Skilled and Technical staff to support TRPs
during field level execution of job assigned.
Objective 5: Groundwater Productivity
Productivity in sample PGM Tanks during
2011-12
Apart from creating awareness and knowledge
there is a need to mobilize GW users towards
more efficient demand side GW management
Land Productivity : Rs 81.170/ Ha
GW Productivity : Rs 76,504/Ha-m
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 72
Chapter 5
Summary of findings and conclusions
Summary of findings
Effectiveness of PGM Processes
The objective of the study is to know how far the trainings given to the farmers were
effective in PHM data monitoring. As could be expected, PHM and Non-PHM farmers are
on top in understanding the PHM parameters and the training has been useful. Farmers
from Non-PGM tanks come next.
The understanding on CWB is clearer in Non-PGM tank farmers followed by PHM farmers
and lastly Non-PHM farmers. More support from TRPs is expected in this section.
Success of the PGM processes is also reflected in that in 83% cases the PHM equipment
worked well, without any problems. Because of this trouble free equipment, 82.7% PHM
data is obtained without any gaps giving a good base for the CWB workshops. Also, in
most of the cases when the equipment was not working the problems were set right within
15 days. Overall affirmative response given by farmers: 56.4%.
Impact of the PGM intervention
PGM intervention has been very useful in that 95% farmers could change the extent of their
irrigated land based on the PHM data. 69% farmers are aware that the PHM data is
available on display and have used it to adopt field irrigation methods such as Drip,
Sprinklers etc.
PGM intervention has shown a good impact on CWB in the field. The response to
understanding of CWB is more pronounced in case of PHM farmers (88.1%), next come
Non-PHM farmers (66.1%), and lastly FGDs with 60.4%.
A high percentage of farmers have made use of the PHM data for water management –
78.6% PHM farmers, 62.7% Non-PHM farmers, and 57.80 FGDs. But interestingly 18 out
of 20 PGM tanks have used CWB for crop planning at individual and community level.
When all the farmers are brought under CWB the process will be fully effective.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 73
Crop planning for surface water irrigation is practiced more in Non-project tanks (36%),
but very less in Non-PGM tanks (12%). But in case of Groundwater irrigation, crop
planning is very poor in both cases - 6%, in Non-PGM tanks and 2% in Non-Project tanks.
Here again it is clear that implementing decisions at community level is very difficult, and
needs more awareness among the farmer community.
PHM data has given confidence to PHM and Non-PHM farmers to share their Bore well
water with fellow farmers (92.5%), which is a positive outcome of the PGM intervention.
Sharing water free of cost tops the list. Non-PHM farmers prefer to share the water against
payment.
Response to community level decisions for GW management is very poor. But they sound
optimistic for collective Groundwater management. The inconsistency in the responses
may be due to lack of understanding on GW management.
Another important impact is that high % of farmers are willing to understand CWB, are
ready to collect PHM data, and ready to donate site for installing PHM equipment.
Overall affirmative response given by the farmers: 52.83%
Sustainability of PGM activities
Farmers are willing to continue PGM activities even after Project/Govt support is
withdrawn. But at the same time they feel Govt support is essential for effective PGM.
They need training/exposure visits to understand PHM better.
The response ‘Yes’ for collective decision on CWB is implemented in this section is not in
line with their response for questions in the above section for community level GW
management. Overall affirmative response given by the farmers: 85.8%.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 74
Conclusions
The PGM interventions undertaken by the project is very unique and in the initial years it
has created awareness and interest among farmers. Groundwater is used for irrigation for
many decades, but the farmers had no idea about PHM parameters and Crop Water
Budgeting.
After four years of PGM intervention in the field, the following are some of the important
outcomes observed:
i. Farmers are introduced to PHM, CWB and PGM and they have received it and
responded positively.
ii. Farmers have become more confident to share Borewell water based on
interpretation of PHM data.
iii. Sharing Borewell water ‘free of cost’ tops the list of basis for water sharing. This is
an outcome of the understanding of GW Recharge, Draft, and Balance. They have
realised the benefit of stopping new Borewells coming close to their field which may
otherwise affect their Borewell performance.
iv. Farmers have realised the usefulness of PHM data and CWB. This has enabled them
to come forward to continue the PGM even after project/Govt. support is withdrawn.
However they need Trainings and exposure visits.
This PGM study is unique and can be used as a ‘Model Module’ for other states
willing to initiate PGM in ‘Critical’ and ‘Over-exploited’ watersheds.
PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 75
Annexes
Annex 1: List of Tanks selected for PGM Impact Assessment Study
Annex 2: Land and Groundwater Productivity by type of tanks
Annex 3: Land and groundwater productivity of 20 select PGM tanks
Annex 4: Effect of tank rehabilitation works on groundwater levels
Annex 5: “Experiments in budgeting water” in Down to Earth, 2010.
Annex 6: “And Not a Drop to Waste” Article by Stella Paul in Inter Press Service, 2014
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 76
Annexure 1: List of Tanks selected for PGM Impact Assessment Study
Sl District Mandal Village Tank Name Ayacut
(Acre)
Category of tank
Selected for
PGM IA study
TRPs
Collecting data
(Sri/Smt)
1 Anantapur Somandepalle Chalakur Chelakuru Tank 206.00 PGM 2009-10
K. Sambasivudu
& R. Rajashekar
2 Anantapur Somandepalle Challapalli Challapalli Tank 582.00 APCBTMP Non
PGM
3 Anantapur Somandepalle Edulaballap
uram
Edulaballapuram
Tank 170.00 PGM 2009-10
4 Anantapur Somandepalle Julukunta Julekunta Tank 108.00 PGM 2009-10
5 Anantapur Somandepalle Magecheruv
u Magecheruvu 107.14 Non APCBTMP
6 Anantapur Somandepalle Muddapuku
nta
Muddappakunta
Tank 122.00 PGM 2009-10
7 Kadapa Kalasapadu Mudireddip
alli
Muddireddi Palli
Tank 237.12 PGM 2010-11
I. Akhtar
Sahajad &
B. Rosamma
8 Kadapa Pullampeta Dandlopalle Dondlapalli Tank 151.26 PGM 2010-11
9 Kadapa Pullampeta Kottapalli
Agraharam
Kottapalli
Agraharam Tank 170.00 Non APCBTMP
10 Kurnool Midthur Khajipeta Khajipet Mi Tank 220.00 PGM 2009-10
11 Kurnool Owk Mettupalle Balikuntla Kalva 136.00 PGM 2009-10
12 Kurnool Owk Sangapatna
m
Sangapatnam
MITank (Kotavari
Cheruvu)
126.00 APCBTMP Non
PGM
13 Mahabubnagar Bijinepalli Vattem Ramamma Cheruvu 225.37 APCBTMP Non
PGM
M. Sreedevi &
V. R. Sanjeeva
Reddy
14 Mahabubnagar Ghanpur Appareddyp
alli Marri Chervu 250.00 Non APCBTMP
15 Mahabubnagar Gopalpeta Revally Ooracheruvu 159.20 PGM 2009-10
16 Kadapa Mahbubnagar Kodur Maisammacheruvu 161.05 PGM 2009-10
17 Mahabubnagar Narayanpet Appireddipa
lle
Thimmaladevuni
Cheruvu 156.00 PGM 2009-10
18 Mahabubnagar Utkoor Ausolonipal
ly Gunta Chervu 158.55 PGM 2009-10
19 Medak Tupran Allapur Timmayya Chruvu 218.00 APCBTMP Non
PGM K. Rajendra
Prasad &
N. Sundara
Ramaiah
20 Medak Tupran Nagulapally Nagulapalli
Cheruvu 147.30 Non APCBTMP
21 Medak Tupran Ravelli Oora Cheru 135.00 PGM 2009-10
22 Medak Tupran Yavapur Pedda Cheru 212.00 PGM 2009-10
23 Nalgonda Gundala Bandakotha
Palle Pedda Cheruvu 128.31 PGM 2010-11
K. Rajendra
Prasad &
Y. Prasada Rao
24 Nalgonda Rajapet Dudivenkat
apur Vura Cheruvu 106.00 Non APCBTMP
25 Nalgonda Rajapet Somaram Pedda Cheruvu &
F.C 101.00 PGM 2010-11
26 Prakasam Dornala China
Dornala Chinnagudipadu 324.06 PGM 2010-11
E. Raghunath &
T. Venkataiah
27 Prakasam Komarole Posepalli Thimmaraju Tank 104.00 PGM 2010-11
28 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Kolthur Pedda Cheruvu 128.02 PGM 2009-10
29 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Lakshamap
ur Pedda Cheruvu 145.05 PGM 2009-10
30 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Turkapalli Ratnabai Cheruvu 137.35 APCBTMP Non
PGM
PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 77
Annexure 2: Land and Groundwater Productivity by Type of Tanks
Annexure 2.1 Land Productivity in APCBTMP-PGM tanks
# Acres Ha Value of
Production (Rs)
Land Productivity
Rs/Ha
Kharif 234.91 93.96 56,66,640.80 60,306.51
Rabi 140.8 56.32 28,20,401.40 50,078.15
Total 375.71 150.28 84,87,042.20 90,322.27
Annexure 2.2 Land Productivity in APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks
# Acres Ha Value of
Production (Rs)
Land Productivity
Rs/Ha
Kharif 103.00 41.20 19,17,442.85 46,539.88
Rabi 37.20 14.88 7,86,212.00 52,836.83
Total 140.20 56.08 27,03,654.85 65,622.69
Annex 2.3 Land Productivity in Non - APCBTMP tanks
# Acres Ha Value of
Production (Rs)
Land Productivity
Rs/Ha
Kharif 83.74 33.496 17,28,382.32 51,599.66
Rabi 34.30 13.720 4,98,044.54 36,300.62
Total 118.04 47.216 22,26,426.86 66,468.44
Annex 2.4 Land & Groundwater Productivity in PGM tanks during 2011-12
2011-12
Hydrological
Year
APCBTMP-PGM tanks
Area
Irrigated
Ha
Value of
Production (Rs)
GW Used
ha-m
Land
Productivity
Value of GW use
Rs/ha-m
Kharif 2011-12 93.96 56,66,640.80 75.16 60,306.51 75,394.37
Rabi 2011-12 56.32 28,20,401.40 43.50 50,078.15 64,836.81
Total 150.28 84,87,042.20 118.66 90,322.27 71,524.04
PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 78
Annex 3: Land and groundwater productivity of 20 select PGM tanks
Sl District Mandal Village Tank Name
Base Year 2009-10/2010-11
Impact Year 2011-12 Land Productivity (Rs) Groundwater
Productivity Rs Rainfall (mm)
Area Irrigated
(Ac)
Functional
BWs
No of Acres /
BW
Area Irrigated
(Ac)
Functional BWs
No of Acres /
BW
Baseline Year
2009-10
Impact Year 2011-12
Baseline Year
2009-10
Impact Year
2011-12
Baseline Year
2009-10
Impact Year
2011-12
1 Anantapur Somandepalle Chalakur Chelakuru Tank 88.9 63 1.41 78.43 30 2.61 2673151.9 2358327.4 2342088.3 2066254 663.2 565.4
2 Anantapur Somandepalle Edulaballapuram
Edulaballapuram Tank
74.95 27 2.78 63.8 31 2.06 2253686.5 1918415 1974572.7 1680823.8 663.2 565.4
3 Anantapur Somandepalle Julukunta Julekunta Tank 39.5 16 2.47 35 20 1.75 1187733.4 1052422 1040635.4 922082 663.2 565.4
4 Anantapur Somandepalle Muddapukunta Muddappakunta Tank
35.8 24 1.49 40.75 25 1.63 1076477.4 1225319.9 943158.2 1073566.9 663.2 565.4
5 Kadapa Kalasapadu Mudireddipalli Muddireddi Palli Tank
198 99 2 128.25 107 1.2 5953701.6 3856374.9 5216349.6 3378771.9 1033.0 584.2
6 Kadapa Pullampeta Dandlopalle Dondlapalli Tank 128.2 27 4.75 85.01 37 2.3 3854871.4 2556182.7 3377454.6 2239605.5 765.2 775.4
7 Kurnool Midthur Khajipeta Khajipet Mi Tank 159.36 45 3.54 137.56 51 2.7 4791827.7 4136319.2 4198371.1 3624045.7 730.0 615.2
8 Kurnool Owk Mettupalle Balikuntla Kalva 154.62 30 5.15 83.96 57 1.47 4649299.7 2524610 4073494.8 2211943 464.4 614.6
9 Mahabubnagar Gopalpeta Revally Ooracheruvu 216 60 3.6 198.75 62 3.21 6494947.2 5976253.5 5690563.2 5236108.5 643.0 414.8
10 Mahabubnagar Mahbubnagar Kodur Maisammacheruvu
41.6 48 0.87 31.5 46 0.68 1250878.7 947179.8 1095960.3 829873.8 814.0 866.4
11 Mahabubnagar Narayanpet Appireddipalle Thimmaladevuni Cheruvu
44.1 72 0.61 20.5 92 0.22 1326051.7 616418.6 1161823.3 540076.6 902.4 449.9
12 Mahabubnagar Utkoor Ausolonipally Gunta Chervu 140.6 84 1.67 158 78 2.03 4227729.5 4750933.6 3704135.1 4162541.6 698.7 487.0
13 Medak Tupran Ravelli Oora Cheru 75 55 1.36 100 80 1.25 2255190 3006920 1975890 2634520 599.0 417.2
14 Medak Tupran Yavapur Pedda Cheru 88.5 36 2.46 202 56 3.61 2661124.2 6073978.4 2331550.2 5321730.4 599.0 417.2
15 Nalgonda Gundala Bandakotha Palle
Pedda Cheruvu 151.5 101 1.5 173.5 84 2.07 4555483.8 5217006.2 3991297.8 4570892.2 855.4 551.8
16 Nalgonda Rajapet Somaram Pedda Cheruvu & F.C
136 80 1.7 97.5 66 1.48 4089411.2 2931747 3582947.2 2568657 886.6 369.4
17 Prakasam Dornala China Dornala Chinnagudipadu 155.84 49 3.18 191.83 49 3.91 4685984.1 5768174.6 4105636 5053799.7 752.0 500.6
18 Prakasam Komarole Posepalli Thimmaraju Tank 161.1 33 4.88 105.64 33 3.2 4844148.1 3176510.3 4244211.7 2783106.9 862.0 661.4
19 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Kolthur Pedda Cheruvu 53.25 134 0.4 213.54 120 1.78 1601184.9 6420977 1402881.9 5625754 586.7 331.8
20 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Lakshamapur Pedda Cheruvu 65.4 86 0.76 100.7 108 0.93 1966525.7 3027968.4 1722976.1 2652961.6 586.7 331.8
Total 2208.22 1169 1.89 2246.22 1232 1.82 66399409 67542038 58175998 59177115 721.55 532.52
Note: Land and groundwater productivity calculated using constant price of 2008-09
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 79
Annex 4: Effect of tank rehabilitation works on groundwater levels
Sl District Mandal Village
Tank rehabilitation works Date of Completion
Works completed (Order is based on value of itemwise
expenditure)
Base Year 2009-10/2010-11
2011-12 Change
Rainfall (mm)
SWL In Mts bgl during November
Rainfall (mm)
SWL In Mts bgl during November
Rainfall (mm)
SWL In Mts bgl during November
1 Anantapur Somandepalle Chalakur 13-Jan-10 Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,Sluice,, 663.20 9.27 565.40 20.48 -97.80 -11.21
2 Anantapur Somandepalle Edulaballapuram 12-Nov-09 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,, 663.20 3.29 565.40 10.88 -97.80 -7.59
3 Anantapur Somandepalle Julukunta 24-Sep-10 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,,, 663.20 9.43 565.40 13.33 -97.80 -3.90
4 Anantapur Somandepalle Muddapukunta 06-Jul-09 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Sluice,, 663.20 13.56 565.40 9.14 -97.80 4.42
5 Kadapa Kalasapadu Mudireddipalli 17-Jul-09 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,, 1033.00 12.57 584.20 14.75 -448.80 -2.18
6 Kadapa Pullampeta Dandlopalle 25-Mar-10 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,Sluice,
765.20 17.45 775.40 15.52 10.20 1.93
7 Kurnool Midthur Khajipeta 10-Dec-08 Surplus Weir,Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Sluice,
730.00 5.29 615.20 5.62 -114.80 -0.33
8 Kurnool Owk Mettupalle 13-Sep-08 Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,,, 464.40 7.97 614.60 9.54 150.20 -1.57
9 Mahabubnagar Gopalpeta Revally 23-Mar-09 Tank Bund,Feeder channels,Sluice,Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels
643.00 15.25 414.80 7.89 -228.20 7.36
10 Mahabubnagar Mahbubnagar Kodur 10-Mar-11 Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels,Sluice,
814.00 2.37 866.40 4.65 52.40 -2.28
11 Mahabubnagar Narayanpet Appireddipalle 30-May-10 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,, 902.40 6.16 449.90 4.80 -452.50 1.36
12 Mahabubnagar Utkoor Ausolonipally 20-Apr-10 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,, 698.70 15.10 487.00 12.17 -211.70 2.93
13 Medak Tupran Ravelli On-going Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,,, 599.00 14.02 417.20 14.65 -181.80 -0.63
14 Medak Tupran Yavapur 20-06-2011 Feeder channels,Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels,
599.00 10.40 417.20 13.25 -181.80 -2.85
15 Nalgonda Gundala Bandakotha Palle On-going Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,,, 855.40 27.63 551.80 13.76 -303.60 13.87
16 Nalgonda Rajapet Somaram On-going Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels,,, 886.60 9.00 369.40 16.09 -517.20 -7.09
17 Prakasam Dornala China Dornala 12-Jul-12 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,, 752.00 10.44 500.60 20.50 -251.40 -10.06
18 Prakasam Komarole Posepalli 23-Sep-11 Tank Bund,,,, 862.00 5.28 661.40 12.42 -200.60 -7.14
19 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Kolthur 17-Jan-09 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Sluice,, 586.70 13.15 331.80 19.76 -254.90 -6.61
20 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Lakshamapur 09-Aug-08 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,Sluice,, 586.70 3.54 331.80 13.16 -254.90 -9.62
PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 80
Annex 5
\
Experiments in budgeting water
Jul 31, 2010 |
State is trying to get farmers to budget water
The million-odd users of groundwater in Andhra Pradesh need a new form of regulation,
everybody agrees. The system based on permits—under WALTA—only adds to the transaction
cost of farmers. The fact is there is a desperation to dig and then dig deeper.
There is no estimation
how much the farmers—
private entrepreneurs—of
the state have invested
into building the
irrigation system. This
investment is critical for
farmers, but they must
also ensure its
sustainability. The state
is beginning to look for
new answers to the
groundwater challenge:
how can it involve the
farmers—the individual decision makers—in taking better and informed decisions about this
collective wealth, which is not easily seen or estimated?
In 1996, work began through the Dutch government-funded Andhra Pradesh wells project, which
focused on funding farmers to drill borewells. The project linked the wells to building tanks in
the village, promoting recharge. In 2004, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)-funded
Andhra Pradesh Farmer-Managed Groundwater System was launched. It looked at training
farmers on understanding groundwater regimes and exploring how this learning could influence
communities to change their use of groundwater by switching crops. In 2008, a World Bank-
funded project started in collaboration with the groundwater department, with a tank component
called AP Community Based Tank Management programme and a small component on
groundwater called Participatory Groundwater Management.
T N Reddy of MANAGE, a non-profit in Hyderabad involved with the FAOfunded project, said
it is important to get farmers to take note of the common water system. According to him, the
FAO project was also aimed at explaining to farmers the seasonal changes and distribution of
groundwater so that they estimate and use it accordingly. “But the project was limited in its
spread and did not have the desired impact,” he said. His evaluation is that in the 600-odd
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 81
villages covered under the project, roughly half the farmers changed their cropping patterns to
less water-consuming crops. “There is a long way to go before we can improve groundwater
levels across the state,” said Reddy. Groundwater irrigation is linked to what farmers can earn
from crops. “You cannot expect farmers to shift crops or reduce their water consumption without
providing alternatives or giving them market support,” said Palla Narendra of the Tata Institute
of Social Sciences in Hyderabad.
NREGS non-connection
In addition, the state is making investments under the Centre’s employment programme,
NREGS. Between 2009 and 2010 the government undertook 850,000 works, of which 75 per
cent were categorised under water conservation. These works included desilting of tanks, soil
moisture conservation and construction of water harvesting structures. This investment should
have improved groundwater regimes. But there is little evidence of that.
The problem is the lack of data. No government department takes charge of looking at the impact
of the public works on the water system. C Suvarna, special commissioner in the state rural
development department, explained, “Groundwater is a difficult issue. The state government has
projects going on all over the state. But groundwater levels are falling. The departments involved
with regulation, management or policymaking seem to be working piecemeal.”
Involving farmers
The ongoing World Bank-funded project of the irrigation department requires the community to
identify borewells that fall within the command area of the village’s biggest tank and record the
groundwater level over a period of time. Under this project, spread mostly in dry and drought
affected areas of the state, some 315 tanks were selected in 13 of the total 23 districts. These
tanks fall under the 161 over exploited and critical groundwater basins in the state. Till July
2010, farmers in 20 per cent of the villages were discussing crop water budgeting after
monitoring their groundwater for two years. “The actual change in cropping patterns has not yet
been seen. But with debate, farmers’ awareness increases. This is the first step to the big
change,” said Eswara Reddy, capacity building expert with the project.
The idea is catching on in Yavapur village in Medak district, some 100 km from the state capital.
Here the project started in 2008 and villagers now record water levels every 15 days in the four
borewells in the command area of the village tank. The department has provided people with
equipment, including a groundwater gauge. The deal is they will measure and record data in
registers kept at the panchayat office.
In this water-starved region, villagers grew paddy and sugarcane during monsoon, and maize in
winter. Farmers explained things were changing fast and that water table was falling. Borewells
were drying up or giving less water each season. The Peddachevru tank, the village pride, with a
catchment of 68 ha and irrigating 87 ha had gone dry this year—the first time in their recorded
memory. The groundwater level in the village was already between 76 and 91 metres.
Under the project, the village has mapped its water systems: the village with 409 households has
some 600 functional bores. In addition, it has three big water tanks and many small tanks, which
are used for irrigation and recharge of groundwater.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 82
P Laxma Reddy, president of the village water association, believes people will shift to crops
that require less water. “Since we started recording groundwater we know how much water
we are consuming. We can now calculate how much water and power we need to grow a
particular crop,” he said. According to him, if paddy requires 50 litres of water, sugarcane
needs 30 litres and maize 15 litres. Now based on this rough estimation, budgeting has to be
done.
But as yet, people in the village seem unconvinced. The groundwater monitoring is showing an
overall decline— some 0.5 metres over the last season—in the four monitored wells. People say
this is because of poor rainfall last year. As yet, the declining water levels have not deterred them
from digging for more liquid gold—in just last year, Yavapur has dug another 50 borewells, of
which they struck gold in 10.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 83
Annex 6
And Not a Drop to Waste
By Stella Paul
MAHBUBNAGAR, India, May 6 2014
Copyright © 2014 IPS. All rights reserved
As the mercury soars above 40 degrees Celsius,
ground water level across India is dropping,
making it difficult for farmers to cultivate their
fields. This is the season when farmers make a
special effort to save their crops from wilting.
Failure would see them migrate to the city to
search alternative livelihood.
In Appireddypally village 169 km south-west of
the southern Indian city Hyderabad, 38-year-old
farmer Prabhavati Reddy stands next to a borewell,
trying to measure the groundwater level. Her tape
shows the level of water 17 metres from the top.
Getting the measure of water in a southern Indian village [Credit: Stella Paul/IPS].
Barely literate they might be, but the farmers of Mahbubnagar are now sought by many for their expertise
in water budgeting.
Last week, the level was 16 metres below the top. “The level of water is falling fast. We must plan
cropping that won’t require much water,” Reddy tells fellow villagers.
“Water budgeting basically means taking stock of the existing amount of water for irrigation and planning
one’s cropping accordingly,” hydrologist Ishwar Reddy tells IPS.
Under a World Bank funded water management initiative called the Andhra Pradesh Community Based
Tank Management project Eswar Reddy oversees training of farmers like Prabhavati Reddy in
groundwater monitoring. The training is crucial for people in Appireddypalli village, which is in
Mahbubnagar district that receives only about 600 mm rainfall in a year – far below India’s national
average of 1,183 mm.
“Knowing how much groundwater is available each season for irrigation helps the farmers plan their
cropping and ensure a profit, even in the face of adverse climatic conditions,” Eswar Reddy adds.
Teaching villagers how to monitor groundwater is important, says project consultant Joseph
Plakkoottam. The project was a finalist at this year’s Water for Life award presented by the UN on World
Water Day for best water management practices.
“Monitoring the water situation is the most important skill a farmer who lives in a dry area can acquire. If
used wisely, it can help him significantly minimise the chances of a crop failure,” Plakkoottam tells IPS.
Prabhavati and her husband Subban Reddy are a fine example of this. The Reddy couple own an eight-
acre farm, previously grew only rice and peanuts, but now grow a mix of crops.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 84
“For past two years, we have been growing rice and peanuts only in the monsoon when the water level is
high. For the rest of the year, we grow vegetables like brinjal, tomatoes, okra and onion which require
very little water and have good demand in the market,” Subban Reddy tells IPS.
Earlier, the couple made profits only in monsoon. But now they make a profit of about 400 dollars from
each crop.
Across the 276 villages of Mahbubnagar, hundreds of farmers have been learning water budgeting. Many
of these villages have a mini weather station. So, besides groundwater mapping, villagers also learn how
to monitor rainfall. They then collect and collate such data for crop planning.
Appireddypalli has a community hall. On Sundays, it is used as a makeshift school for farmers. They sit
on the floor, listening intently to their teachers – the first of the villagers trained in water budgeting. The
teachers use a bundle of posters that has all the rainfall and groundwater data they collected earlier.
Using these posters as their main tool of communication, the teachers suggest crops the farmers can
comfortably grow in the current season. Millet, tomatoes, onions and corns are highly recommended,
while rice is not.
Chenna Chinna Reddy can’t read or write. But he has no problems in understanding his teachers. “There
isn’t a lot of water under the earth here. So, if I sow rice, tomorrow it will wither and I will lose all my
money. I must also not grow crops that will require a lot of pesticide because that will also require lots of
water,” he tells IPS.
Besides choosing less water-intensive crops, the water savers are also minimising water extraction.
Farmer Avetti Kalappa, 42, owns a borewell and a two-acre farm. Shallow tunnels criss-cross his fields.
Instead of flooding his field, Kalappa releases water from the well at one end of a tunnel. The water flows
quickly through the tunnels, wetting the field from all sides.
The simple method also enables Kalappa to share water with his neighbouring farms.
“Since the rainfall here is insufficient, everybody extracts groundwater for farming,” Suhas Raje, deputy
director at the state groundwater department tells IPS. “But if a few farmers share water, every farmer
need not drill an individual bore well. That way, not only can they control the depletion of groundwater,
but also save electricity which is used to run a well.”
To encourage water sharing, the project has been providing farmers in each village pipelines that connect
multiple farms, and a portable water mapping device, says Raje.
Barely literate they might be, but the farmers of Mahbubnagar are now sought by many for their expertise
in water budgeting. Kalappa and Subban Reddy recently travelled to neighbouring Tamil Nadu state and
presented their model before a group of farming experts and engineers.
“People ask us if we were nervous. A farmer feels nervous only when he is at the mercy of others. Here,
we have the knowledge to control the situation around us,” says Subban Reddy.
IPS is an international communication institution with a global news agency at its core, raising the
voices of the South and civil society on issues of development, globalisation, human rights and the
environment Copyright © 2014 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.
PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 85
REFERENCES
Das, Samala Venkata Govardhan and Jacob Burke, Small Holders and Sustainable Wells: A Retrospect –
Participatory Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh (India), FAO of UN, 2013.
Foster, Stephen & Karin Kemper (Editors), “Sustainable Groundwater Management: Concepts and
Tools Series Overview,” (Briefing Note 0), by 2002-2005.
Garduño, Héctor, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars,
“Stakeholder Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer
management organizations,” Briefing Note 6. GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-
2005.
Garduño, Héctor, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars,
“Stakeholder Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer
management organizations,” Briefing Note 6. GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-
2005.
Garduño, Hector, Stephen Foster, Charles Dumars, Karin Kemper, Albert Tuinhof, Marcella Nanni.
“Groundwater Abstraction Rights from theory to practice”, Briefing Note 5 GW-MATE Core
Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.
International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Deep Wells and Prudence:
Towards Pragmatic Action for Addressing Groundwater Overexploitation in India. 2010.
Irrigation & CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Participatory Groundwater
Management in Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project. 2008. URL: www.apmitanks.in
Paul, Stella, “And Not a Drop to Waste.” IPS-Inter Press Service, 2014. http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/05/drop-waste
Paul, Stella, “Rural India looks to past and present to meet growing water needs.” Thomson Reuters
Foundation - Wed, 23 Apr 2014
Plakkoottam, Joseph L, Jan W K van der Wal, N Sai Bhaskar Reddy, and Jillilla Prasad, “Groundwater
Management Experiences in Andhra Pradesh: Strategies and Prospects: Report for the Irrigation
and Command Area Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2007.
Romani, Saleem, K D Sharma, N C Ghosh and Y B Kaushik (eds.), Groundwater Governance:
Ownership of Groundwater and its Pricing (Proceedings of the 12th National Symposium on
Hydrology, November 14-15, 2006), New Delhi. Capital Publishing Company: New Delhi,
Kolkata, Bangalore.
Shah, Tushar. Groundwater Governance and Irrigated Agriculture. Global Partnership Technical
Committee. 2014.
van Steenbergen, Frank “A Brave New Groundwater World” posted in The Water Channel, October 22,
2012.
Verma, S., Krishnan. S., Reddy, V. A., and Reddy, K. R. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed
Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS): A reality check,” Highlight 37, IWMI-Tata Water Policy
Program, Gujarat, India., 2012.
Witjes, Ben, David W. van Raalten, and Joseph L. Plakkoottam (eds.), Farmer Managed Borewell
Irrigation Systems: Lessons from APWELL Project. ARCADIS Euroconsult, BKH, IRDAS, 1999.