IWMI-Tata Water Policy Paper (June 2016)

IWMI-TATA

POLICY PAPER JUNE 2016

HAR KHET KO PANI (Water to Every Farm) Rethinking Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)

Tushaar Shah Shilp Verma Neha Durga Abhishek Rajan Alankrita Goswami Alka Palrecha

*Corresponding author email: [email protected]

Contents Execu ve Summary

1

1.

Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana

5

2.

Type I and Type II Irriga on

7

3.

The Geography of Irriga on Depriva on in India

10

3.1

The most irriga on deprived districts in India

10

3.2

Irriga on depriva on of India's Adivasi farmers

12

4.

Water Resources of 'Irriga on-deprived' Geography

13

5.

Accelerated Irriga on Benefits in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh post-2000

15

6.

New Opportuni es for Type II Irriga on: The Promise of the Solar Pump

21

7.

New Opportuni es for Type II Irriga on: Peri-urban Wastewater Irriga on

23

7.1

Addressing public health and soil quality concerns

24

7.2

Opportuni es for PMKSY

24

7.3

Agenda for Ac on

25

8.

PMKSY: Prac cal Ways Forward

27

8.1

Reality of Indian Irriga on

27

8.2

Objec ves PMKSY should pursue and their Contextual Fit

28

8.3

PMKSY Interven ons

29

8.4

PMKSY: Prac cal Ways Forward

31

8.5

PMKSY: Implementa on, Monitoring and Evalua on

32

References

33

ANNEXURE A1: Clustering of Districts

34

Cluster #01: Most Deprived, Groundwater Surplus Districts (112)

35

Cluster #02: Groundwater Surplus; High Pump Density; Type II Irriga on Constrained by High Energy Cost (36)

35

Cluster #03: Groundwater Surplus; High Pump Density; Type II Irriga on Constrained by Inadequate Electricity Supply (24)

36

Cluster #04: Groundwater Deficit Alluvial Districts (103)

36

Cluster #05: Groundwater Deficit hard-rock Districts (27)

37

Cluster #06: Districts with Dense MMM Network (114)

37

Cluster #07: Districts with High Density of Irriga on Tanks and WHS (161)

38

Cluster #08: Districts with Class I and II Towns

38

Cluster #09: Hill Districts in Eastern and Western Himalayas (100)

39

Cluster #10: Districts with High Irriga on Incidence and High Produc vity (54)

39

Cluster #11: Districts with High Irriga on Incidence but Low Produc vity (41)

40

Cluster #12: Urban and UT Districts (25)

40

ANNEXURE A2: District-wise Database

42

HAR KHET KO PANI Rethinking Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)

Execu ve Summary Har Khet Ko Pani? In its manifesto for 2014 parliamentary elec ons, Bhara ya Janata Party gave pride of place to universalizing irriga on access by including Har Hath Ko Kam, Har Khet Ko Pani as one of its commitments. A er the NDA government came to power, this commitment took the form of Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana with an alloca on of ₹ 50,000 crore over 2015-2020 period with an addi onal ₹ 20,000 crore placed at the disposal of NABARD. As currently designed, PMKSY has four components: Accelerated Irriga on Benefits Program (₹ 11,060 crore), 'per drop, more crop' component (₹ 16,300 crore) to support micro-irriga on, watershed program (₹ 13,590 crore) and a new component called Har Khet Ko Pani (₹ 9,050 crore) to construct one water harves ng structure per village by 2020. The implementa on of PMKSY was to be kicked off with the prepara on of District Irriga on Plans (DIPs) by state governments using a format provided by Government of India. Some 240 district plans are apparently ready although only Chha sgarh and Nagaland have placed their DIPs in public domain. Is PMKSY on the right path? Does it have the poten al to deliver Har Khet Ko Pani? Does it reflect the current irriga on reality of India? Is there a be er way to design and implement PMKSY to target effort and resources where it ma ers most? This IWMI-Tata Policy Paper offers an early analysis to help implement a be er PMKSY with greater poten al for socio-economic and livelihood impacts.

Infirmi es in current design This policy paper highlights several infirmi es with the current strategy as well as implementa on roadmap for PMKSY. 1. The promise of Har Khet Ko Pani had invoked expecta ons about bold new irriga on thinking; but PMKSY's current avtar is a hotchpotch of pre-exis ng schemes such as AIBP and micro-irriga on subsidies with an indifferent track record. The only new component, Har Khet Ko Pani, is neither clear in objec ves nor is adequately funded. 2. As BJP chief ministers of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh, Prime Minister Modi and Shivraj Singh Chauhan had created veritable irriga on miracles in their states with their irrigated area as well as agricultural GDP growing at double-digit rates post-2000. The expecta on was that PMKSY will replicate these sterling achievements on the na onal scale by learning from irriga on strategies these states followed; in its current design, PMKSY betrays no such learning. 3. PMKSY also overlooks that especially since 1990: [a] the gap between Irriga on Poten al Created (IPC) and Irriga on Poten al U lised (IPU) under government-managed Major, Medium and Minor Irriga on Projects (MMMIPs), the so-called Type I irriga on, steadily increased, resul ng in li le or no benefits from public irriga on investments to Indian agriculture; [b] that the bulk of the 40 million hectares (mha) of new irriga on has come from wells/tubewells and private li irriga on (Type II irriga on); [c] that farmers prefer Type II irriga on because it can be created quickly, cost-effec vely, by private investment and offers year-round on-farm water control; [d] government ac on can sustain Type II irriga on importantly by inves ng in groundwater recharge and by improving the Management, Opera on and Maintenance (MO&M) of public and community structures such as watersheds, irriga on tanks, canals — all of which sustain Type II irriga on. 4. The irriga on strategies of Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh were built on this reality. Under Modi, Gujarat targeted half a million electricity connec ons for tubewells to SC/ST farmers; gave a fillip to irriga on by improving the quality of farm power supply; invested in groundwater recharge and began desil ng 5,000 reservoirs/tanks every year; increased area under micro-irriga on from less than 50,000 ha in 2002 to 13 lakh ha in 2015, and began 1


Figure ES.1: Percentage Adivasi holdings and access to Type II irriga on in 112 districts

ST Holdings (%) and Access to Type II Irriga on Less than 10% 10 - 30% 30 - 50% More than 50%

#

Percentage of holdings having access to Type II Irriga on

Figure ES.2: Poten al for 10,000 m³/year wells (in lakhs) from available surplus groundwater resources

Overexploited (more than 100% GWD) Cri cal (90-100% GWD) Semi-cri cal (70-90% GWD) Safe (Less than 70% GWD)

#

Poten al number of wells (in lakhs) per district

2


laying buried pipelines to take Narmada water close to farms. Under Chauhan, similarly, Madhya Pradesh began issuing a million temporary winter season electricity connec ons for wheat irriga on, subsidized farm ponds, revived 4,000 defunct minor irriga on projects and introduced major reforms in canal irriga on management. Both the states implemented a broad-based mul -pronged irriga on development strategy that maximized farm holdings under Type II irriga on. 5. The 30-odd DIPs available on the internet show no such urgency to provide year-round on-farm water control to farm holdings as Gujarat and MP strove for. DIPs are variable in quality; most are comprehensive, long term water resource plans rather than plans for ensuring Har Khet Ko Pani with urgency. They vary also in ambi on level; the DIP for Raipur in Chha sgarh demands only ₹ 352 crore; Bargarh's indent is for ₹ 2,800 crore; and Rajnandgaon in Chhat sgarh wants ₹ 4,900 crore. If we go by DIPs, Chha sgarh alone requires over ₹ 45,000 crore over 2015-2020 period for PMKSY, with li le le for other states from the total alloca on of ₹ 50,000 crore.

Recommended Strategy 1. Instead of spreading resources thin, PMKSY should focus on the unirrigated half of India's agrarian landscape. Leave alone ensuring Har Khet Ko Pani, the current design of PMKSY will add no more than 5 mha of new assured irriga on. The 23 priority AIBP projects bypass most irriga on-deprived districts of the country. Micro-irriga on subsidies will go only to geographies that already have Type II irriga on. Watershed programs might benefit the deprived geography; but past experience shows that the watershed benefit that farmers value most is in improved groundwater recharge; in districts with few irriga on wells, watershed programs will stabilize kharif crop but offer no irriga on for rabi and summer crops. PMKSY interven ons must be sequen al: first expand access to affordable Type II irriga on from wells, pumps and pipes; then promote micro-irriga on; and support this irriga on economy by inves ng in watershed treatment, groundwater recharge, and conjunc ve management of groundwater and surface water from tanks and canals. 2. Within the unirrigated half, PMKSY should priori se Irriga on Deprived Districts. In 170 best irrigated districts of India, 70 per cent or more of farm holdings have Type II irriga on access from one source or the other. Those without a cap ve source here benefit from vibrant decentralised markets for irriga on service. These have to be contrasted with 112 districts of the country where less than 30 per cent of farm holdings have access to irriga on. Here, irriga on service markets are primi ve or non-existent; and not having cap ve irriga on source condemns a farmer to vagaries of rainfed farming. Before all else, PMKSY should focus on these districts and increase the propor on of holdings with cap ve source of Type II irriga on. 3. Even within these districts, PMKSY should proac vely target Adivasi farm holdings which are more irriga ondeprived than the rest. As Figure ES.1 shows, even within irriga on deprived districts, o en less than 10 per cent of Adivasi farms have irriga on compared to the district average of up to 30 per cent. 4. The quickest and most cost-effec ve way of providing Type II irriga on to these holdings is by helping them aquire a well/borewell and a pump with 500 meters of distribu on pipe. Since most of these districts have poor electricity grid development, a major challenge is of providing affordable energy. PMKSY should design a loansubsidy scheme to enable Adivasi farmers to own a dug well, a 3.5-5 kWp solar pump and 500 meters of flexible distribu on pipe. Each such system can be purchased for ₹ 4.5-5 lakh and can provide high quality supplemental irriga on to a gross area of 3-5 hectares. 5. All 105 out of the 112 irriga on deprived districts are cleared by the Central Groundwater Board as 'safe' (59

Agricultural Produc vity per ha (₹) ('000)

Poli cians in India with their ear to the ground are more alive to Type II irriga on than irriga on planners. This is why state leaders like in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh (MP) allocate large funds to provide farmers electricity connec ons, to fill up irriga on tanks, to increase groundwater recharge, to offer piped water supply for irriga on rather than in open channels. They realise that even a er inves ng billions in Type I structures, farmers will s ll crave for Type II irriga on. For example, consider Gujarat's 2016-17 budget whose alloca on for providing on-farm water control is more in tune with the Har Khet Ko Pani ambi on: ₹ 9,050 crore for Sardar Sarovar piped distribu on, ₹ 5,244 crore for canal maintenance, li irriga on schemes, check dams and pipelines for filling up tanks; ₹ 2,000 crore for filling up 215 reservoirs in Saurashtra with Narmada water; ₹ 765 crore for micro-irriga on on 3 lakh ha; ₹ 4,010 crore towards farm power subsidies; ₹ 1,643 crore for 1 lakh new tubewell connec ons, all of which add up to ₹ 22,700 crore for a single year³.

³h p://anandibenpatel.com/wp-content/uploads/FM-Speech-Forma ed1.pdf

9


3. The Geography of Irriga on Depriva on in India Nobody has done the sums but since Independence, India's central and state governments together would have easily invested ₹ 800-900 lakh crore (at current prices) in public (Type I) irriga on projects of various sizes. These investments have produced vast benefits; deserts of Punjab, Haryana, western Rajasthan which earlier could support nothing but nomadic livestock economy have transformed into lush green, highly produc ve agrarian economies in our north-west. In the southern region, too, many MMMIP have created pockets of agrarian riches. During recent decades, a silent groundwater irriga on revolu on has taken irriga on to regions outside the command areas, too. But a er all these investments, our agrarian economy today is s ll characterised by 'irriga on-have' and 'irriga onhave-not' districts and farm-holdings. According to 2011 Agricultural Census, 48 per cent of our farm holdings do not have irriga on from any source; while 52 per cent benefit from one or more sources. Our 'irriga on deprived districts' fall in two categories. The first comprises hill farming systems — in Kashmir, Himachal, U arakhand, North-eastern states, and districts like Darjeeling, Coorg, Nilgiris, Idukki, Wayanad — where the value-produc vity of farming is already among the highest in the country. Here, irriga on is not a binding constraint on produc vity increase and there seems no urgent need for irriga on expansion although these systems may benefit from other development interven ons. The second category is of semi-arid and arid districts of the plains in peninsular India—Maharashtra, parts of Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Gujarat, MP, Chhat sgarh, Jharkhand and Orissa. Some water-rich humid districts—in North Bihar, Assam, coastal Orissa—too suffer high level of irriga on depriva on.

3.1 The most irriga on deprived districts in India Figure 3 highlights the geography of severe irriga on depriva on in the country. As outlined earlier, in Hill districts, irriga on-depriva on is not a produc vity-depressant and therefore less of a problem. However, it is in the central Indian tribal highlands, Tribal Rajasthan and in the Deccan region that India's real irriga on have-not districts and farm holdings are concentrated. Indeed, according to the 2011 Agricultural Census, more than 60 per cent of India's totally 'irriga on-deprived' farm holdings are concentrated in the states of Assam, Bihar, Chhat sgarh, Jharkhand, Maharashtra, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh (especially, Rayalaseema), Telangana and Orissa. Figure 3: The most irriga on deprived districts with propor on of unirrigated holdings

Figure 4: Groundwater availability in India's 126 most irriga on deprived districts

GW Availability (%) NA nega ve 0-20 20-50 50-100

10


Of the 126 most irriga on deprived districts, 14 districts (mostly in Rajasthan and some in Peninsular India) are already u lizing more than 80 per cent of their annual renewable groundwater resource (see Figure 4). This leaves 112 most deprived districts that have surplus groundwater available for future irriga on development (Cluster #01⁴). The chart in Figure 5 compares 100 best-off and 126 worst-off districts in terms of irriga on access. The la er are substan ally worse off in terms of both access to irriga on from MMMIP as well as from private groundwater wells and li irriga on systems. Figure 5: Differences in irriga on access in India's best-off and worst-off districts

Number of districts

80 70

100 most irrigated districts

60

126 most irriga on deprived districts All districts (average)

50 40 30 20 10 0 %served by MMMIP

%served by private wells

There are other markers of 'irriga on depriva on' too. Table 4 uses the 2003-04 and 2004-05 data set compiled by Ramesh Chand and others (2011) and data from the 4th Minor Irriga on Census (2006-07; GoI 2014) to examine differences in irriga on access in these two classes of "Irriga on Have" and “Irriga on Have-not” districts. The Irriga on have-not districts have 1/3rd the agricultural output/ha, 25 per cent lower cropping intensity, a quarter of energy use in agriculture and 1/5th of the groundwater irriga on pumping capacity compared to the 'Irriga on have' districts. Table 4: How disadvantaged really are irriga on-deprived districts? Parameters

100 most irrigated districts 126 most irriga on deprived (average) (average)

Agricultural Produc vity (₹ per hectare)

Na onal (average)

47,142

17,837

27,500

Cropping Intensity (%)

170

125

136

Energy consump on (kWh)/Net Sown Area (NSA)

1134

278

513

Groundwater wells per 1000 opera onal holdings

247

107

143

Groundwater pump horse power (HP) per 100 ha NSA

206

40

90

3.2 Irriga on depriva on of India's Adivasi farmers Apart from this spa al concentra on, there is also a social dimension to irriga on depriva on as outlined in Table 5 which again draws upon data sets from the Agricultural Census 2011. Of India's 138 million farm holdings, 12 million are owned and operated by Adivasi farmers; these are bigger in size than our average farm holdings but are seriously deficient in irriga on access. Indeed, Adivasi farm holdings are substan ally more 'irriga on-deprived' than Dalitoperated farm holdings.

⁴For a detailed discussion on clustering of districts for PMKSY, see Annexure A1.

11


Table 5: Adivasi farm-holdings are most 'irriga on-deprived’ ALL

SC

ST

Number of farm holdings (million)

138.3

17.1

12.0

Average size of farm holding (hectares)

1.15

0.80

1.52

Percentage holdings receiving any irriga on

52

54

30

Percentage of land under irriga on

52

40

19

Percentage holdings irrigated by canals and tanks

16

18

10

Percentage holdings irrigated by wells, tubewells and other sources

38

36

23

All in all, the social and spa al dimensions of 'irriga on depriva on' come together in 126 districts we have iden fied in Figure 3. These should ideally be top priority districts for PMKSY because, without targe ng them, there is no way to reach Har Khet Ko Pani. Under its present design, PMKSY has li le to offer to these districts. Its large outlay on micro-irriga on under Per-drop-more-crop is of li le benefit to these districts because access to pump irriga on, which is a pre-condi on for adop ng micro-irriga on, has limited spread in these districts. The micro-irriga on program will have most impact in districts which are already densely populated by tubewells. There is a gradual move to introduce micro-irriga on in canal commands too; however, this requires reconfiguring the distribu on systems, replacing open channel water transport by piped transport under pressure. If and when this is done, it is likely that pre-exis ng command areas will be the first to benefit from such technologies. Similarly, the AIBP component of PMKSY has li le to offer to the 'most irriga on-deprived' districts. The chart in Figure 6 shows that 23 priority AIBP projects which will receive 1/5th of PMKSY funds during 2015-2020 period will offer li le to Jharkhand, Chhat sgarh, Assam, Bihar, Karnataka, Tribal Rajasthan, and tribal Gujarat which have bulk of the irriga on-deprived districts of the country. In effect, then, the only components which will offer some support to these districts are Har Khet Ko Pani and watershed development. India's irriga on experience shows that produc vity and livelihood impacts of watershed development and water harves ng structures is much greater in areas where these support intensive groundwater irriga on through recharge rather than in areas where such structures are used for direct irriga on or soil moisture management. Indeed if tank irriga on were so much of a draw for farmers, peninsular India's 600,000 irriga on tanks would not have fallen into disrepair as they have during recent years. And if their value as groundwater recharge structures were not a big draw for farmers, we would not see such an upsurge of interest in desil ng tanks as for example, Telangana's Mission Kaka ya signifies Figure 6: Mismatch between AIBP alloca on (23 priority projects) and irriga on depriva on of states 50 45

State's share in India's unirrigated farm holdings (%)

40

State's share in 23 AIBP schemes (%)

35 30 25 20 15 10 5

12

DELHI

CHANDIGARH

DAMAN & DIU

PONDICHERRY

LAKSHADWEEP

PUNJAB

GOA

D & N HAVELI

SIKKIM

ARUNACHAL

MANIPUR

MIZORAM

HARYANA

NAGALAND

MEGHALAYA

TRIPURA

UTTARAKHAND

JAMMU & KASHMIR

JHARKHAND

HIMACHAL PRADESH

TAMIL NADU

WEST BENGAL

CHHATTIGARH

ASSAM

ORISSA

GUJARAT

KERALA

RAJASTHAN

UTTAR PRADESH

MADHYA PRADESH

KARNATAKA

BIHAR

ANDHRA PRADESH

MAHARASHTRA

0


4. Water Resources of 'Irriga on-deprived' Geography Type I irriga on poten al takes a long gesta on period extending in some large projects to 30-40 years. The investment required too is large at ₹ 5-7 lakh/hectare. Finally, India (and many other countries) are increasingly realising that the area actually benefited by Type I irriga on structures turns out to be considerably smaller than planned, partly because of erroneous assump ons about future farmers behaviour but equally because of complex irriga on management challenges these projects present. The best thing about Type II irriga on is that its poten al can be easily expanded, quickly, at a much lower capital cost than Type I irriga on. A Type II system can be commissioned in a week, if not a day. Because they are owned and operated by farmers or their groups, they are easier to manage and perform to their poten al. Poli cal leaders like Devi Lal with an earthy sense of what farmers want recognised the poten al of shallow tubewells (STWs) in expanding Type II irriga on in the Ganga basin. His Million Wells Scheme launched during the 1980's provided borewells and diesel pumps to hundreds of thousands of farmers in the Ganga plains and explains why density of groundwater structures is so high in that region. Such a program would be ideal for India's 'irriga on-deprived' geography, too; but does this geography have the water resource, especially groundwater to support expansion on groundwater-based Type II irriga on? Our irriga on deprived geography does not have the abundant groundwater resources that the Ganga basin has; but only a small por on of the water resource it has is developed; and it has significant scope to augment groundwater recharge that is not yet recognized. None of India's 58 'dark' or 89 'over-exploited' groundwater districts is in the irriga on-deprived geography. These are mostly in Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan and Tamil Nadu, all of which are outside the target geography. True, in these danger zones, further expansion of groundwater use for Type II irriga on will only aggravate groundwater deple on. If anything, our focus here should be on enhancing water use efficiency and produc vity, improving aquifer recharge, and enlarging areas under conjunc ve management of groundwater and surface water where possible. CGWB's 2011 es mates of dynamic groundwater resources, however, show that the 112 districts of India's irriga on-deprived geography, where more than 70 per cent of the farm holdings are un-irrigated, have substan al scope for expanding Type II irriga on without posing any threat of resource over-exploita on even without Managed Aquifer Recharge (MAR) works. Half or more of the es mated groundwater poten al in these districts is available for development. Moreover, many of these districts receive more precipita on than India's driest districts leaving room for augmen ng groundwater resource through MAR interven ons. If these districts have so large unu lized groundwater resource, why do they suffer irriga on depriva on on such a large scale anyways? In our analysis, four factors get implicated: ·

Scarcity of pump capital: Many of these districts have much lower density of energized wells/ borewells at less than 9 structures per 100 hectares of net sown area compared to India's average of 14; the difference becomes even larger if we compare installed horsepower (HP) per net sown area.

·

Prohibi ve energy costs: India's Type II irriga on economy is marked by an energy divide (see Figure 7). In India's western states, Type II irriga on is energized by subsidized electricity supply as the main driver. In eastern India too, all states bar West Bengal offer farm power subsidies; however, these have li le electricity to offer and no grid network to reach it to farmers. Type II irriga on in eastern India is thus run on diesel which, when efficiency differences are factored in, costs ₹ 8-10/kWh compared to ₹ 0-1/kWh that farmers in western India pay. High energy costs not only deepen 'irriga on depriva on' in 126 pump-capital-scarce districts but also some 36 districts where pump-density is comparable to the na onal average but u liza on rate of pumps-borewells is low.

·

Energy scarcity: Then there are 24 odd districts which have high pump density, subsidized electricity and comfortable groundwater balance, and quite high 'irriga on depriva on' simply because they get too li le power 13


supply, of very poor quality (frequent interrup on, low voltage), mostly during the night on a schedule neither predictable nor reliable. Parts of Karnataka, Vidarbha, Rayalaseema are illustra ve of this condi on. ·

Figure 7: The energy divide in India's Type II irriga on economy

Dry Season Recharge Scarcity: Finally, especially in hard-rock peninsular India, Type II irriga on depriva on is caused by insufficient groundwater recharge rela ve to demand. Many of these are based on shallow fractured aquifer systems with limited storage and infiltra on rates that circulate monsoonal recharge in an annual cycle. A er a good monsoon, wells and bores come alive during winter and, at mes, even summer; a er a bad monsoon, wells become dry.

Energy Divide (2006-07) Propor on of Electric Structures

Less than 20% 20-40% 40-60% 60-80% More than 80% No MI structures

When the focus of policy is only on Type II irriga on expansion based on groundwater, much of India's hardrock geography is bound to experience periodic (not permanent) recharge-scarcity. However, the experience of Saurashtra region in Gujarat over the past two decades has shown that, pari passu with groundwater development, investments in storing rainwater and accelera ng groundwater recharge can contribute greatly to reducing aquifer stress. Saurashtra's recharge movement was based on construc ng large number of new check dams, percola on ponds, and such other rainwater harves ng and recharge structures. However, the 'Irriga on-deprived geography' of India already has hundreds of thousands of tradi onal irriga on tanks, each much larger than a typical Saurashtra check-dam. Figure 8 shows massive concentra on of irriga on tanks in the irriga on-deprived geography of India. Each dot represents surface storage of 10 million Figure 8: Es mated net storage capacity of irriga on tanks and surface water bodies in PMKSY target districts cubic meters. In a good monsoon, these can have more than one fillings and, if prepared for enhanced percola on and infiltra on, these can contribute much to enhanced groundwater resource. As a result, tankgroundwater conjunc ve management can offer many possibili es of sustainable Type II irriga on development that are yet to be fully explored. The import of this discussion is that achieving the ambi on of Har Khet Ko Pani in the irriga on-deprived geography will require a broad-based, mul -pronged strategy of achieving fuller u lisa on of Type I irriga on investments, rapid expansion of Type II irriga on structures, and a variety of interven ons that make Type I and II irriga on expansion sustainable. And nobody knows this be er than BJP governments. During recent years, BJP governments in Gujarat and MP have set new records in accelera ng irriga on benefits by pursuing such broad-based, mul -pronged strategy which arguably ought to be the template for PMKSY.

Tank Density 1 dot - 10 MCM Tank storage capacity (CCA*5000m³)

14


5. Accelerated Irriga on Benefits in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh post-2000 Post-2000, India has witnessed some glorious irriga on successes and disastrous failures. Poli cs has played a part in both. Throughout history, India's rulers and overlords have used irriga on to consolidate poli cal power. In contemporary poli cs, BJP and UPA governments too have been doing it but in sharply different ways. Post-2000, UPA governments used irriga on to create a spoils system. In 2004, the UPA government in Andhra Pradesh launched ₹ 1.86 lakh crore Jala Yagnam to irrigate 12 million acres. Eight years later, however, a scathing CAG audit concluded that there was not much to show for ₹ 72,000 crore spent un l then on Jala Yagnam and pronounced that its 'benefits are illusory'. The scheme got notoriety as chief minister's Dhana Yagnam. In Maharashtra, similarly, the Congress-NCP government got mired in a ₹ 70,000 crore irriga on scam in drought-prone Vidarbha that produced no new irrigated area. Top ministers and their cronies were accused of swindling half the funds spent in the name of irriga on. In Gujarat and MP, BJP chief ministers Narendra Modi and Shivraj Singh Chauhan also used irriga on as a poli cal strategy. But neither is accused of an irriga on scam. Both Modi and Chauhan directly drove the irriga on-agriculture growth agenda. Both their governments ran massive media campaigns claiming personal credit for double-digit agricultural growth under their stewardship. Both won three successive presiden al-style assembly elec ons largely with support from the agrarian classes. During 2001-2014, they spent nothing like the massive sums blown up on irriga on by Maharashtra and Andhra Pradesh. Yet, their index of net irrigated area soared while it remained flat for the two UPA states and for India as a whole (see the chart in Figure 9). Figure 9: Rapid increase in the index of net area irrigated in Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh a er 2000 Index of Net Area Irrigated from all Sources (2000-01=100)

Index of Canal Irrigated area (2000-01=100)

240

Gujarat

220 Madhya Pradesh

200 180

Madhya Pradesh

160

100

Andhra Pradesh

Madhya Pradesh

Maharashtra

India

Gujarat

Madhya Pradesh India

2012-13

2013-14

2010-11

2008-09

2009-10

2007-08

2005-06

2006-07

2004-05

2002-03

2003-04

2000-01

Andhra Pradesh Maharashtra

2011-12

Maharashtra

Andhra Pradesh 2001-02

2012-13

80

2013-14

2011-12

2010-11

2008-09

2009-10

2007-08

2006-07

2004-05

2005-06

2002-03

Andhra Pradesh 2003-04

India

120

India 2000-01

Gujarat

140

Maharashtra

2001-02

240 220 200 180 160 140 120 100 80 60

Gujarat

The accuracy of land use data on irrigated area is o en ques oned but Figure 10 presents remote sensing assessment by Gourav Misra of areas cropped in kharif, rabi and summer seasons in Gujarat during 2003-04 and 2010-11. These also show clear evidence of increased cropping intensity, even a er allowing for some pockets of higher rainfall in the la er period. Thanks to accelerated irriga on, gross cropped area in Gujarat increased by over 30 per cent in 7 years. Similar was the impact of accelerated irriga on development in MP too as is evident in Gourav Misra's remote sensing maps of land cover 'greenness' in the winter of 2009 and 2014 (Figure 11). How did Modi and Chauhan accelerate irriga on so successfully in their states? By devising a broad-based mul pronged strategy with single-minded focus on reaching irriga on to as many farm holdings as possible. Both realised that big dams and canals are no use unless farmers have year-round, on-farm water control. In improving these, both also realised the cri cality of groundwater and quality farm power supply. Under his famous Jyo gram Yojana, Modi invested ₹ 1,250 crore in rural feeder separa on to ensure full-voltage, uninterrupted farm power supply for 8 hours daily to farmers. In power-deficit MP, Chauhan began forward-contrac ng power purchase from the na onal grid for winter season and issued hundreds of thousands of winter-season, 110-day pump connec ons per year for wheat irriga on, MP's main winter crop. These farm power innova ons alone did much to accelerate irriga on. Modi (and his successor chief minister Anandiben Patel) also supported village communi es to construct 166,000 Check-dams, 15


261,785 farm ponds and 122,035 Bori Bunds for irriga on and groundwater recharge. Gujarat government has ensured that 2,5000 irriga on tanks and reservoirs were desilted and deepened over the past decade; and thousands of tanks have been connected with Sardar Sarovar canals to create a mellon-on-a-wine irriga on regime. In her two year rule, Anandiben Patel issued 2.10 lakh farm power connec ons, brought 4.02 lakh hectares under microirriga on on 2.51 lakh farm holdings, completed 332 km long Sujalam Sufalam Recharge canal, began piped distribu on of Sardar Sarovar canal command in 3.64 lakh ha, and ini ated 1,150 km SAUNI pipeline project to fill 115 medium-scale reservoirs of Saurastra with surplus Narmada water⁵. In sum, their strategy for Har Khet Ko Pani is: get water close to the farmer, give her Type II irriga on structures, and irriga on benefits will accelerate. Figure 10: Remote sensing assessment of changes in single, double and triple cropped areas in Gujarat between 2003-04 and 2010-11 Cropped Area 2003-04

Cropped Area 2010-11

MONSOON NDVI-2003

Seasonal Cropped Area No Crop SUMMER NDVI-2004 Cropped

No Crop 1 season 2 seasons 3 seasons

RABI NDVI-2011

MONSOON NDVI-2010

RABI NDVI-2004

No Crop 1 season PDCI (all year) 2010-11 2 seasons 37.57 150 225 300 3 seasons Kilometer

Seasonal Cropped Area

PCDI (all year) 2003-04

No Crop Croped

37.57 150 225 300 Kilometer

SUMMER NDVI-2011

Annual Rainfall Gujarat

Gujarat: RS es mates of increase in cropped area: 2003-04 to 2010-11

14

Area cropped 2003-04 (Million hectares) Area cropped 2010-11 (Million hectares)

12.50 12

11.10

10

9.00

8 5.50

6 4

586-900 901-1300 1301-1700

1701-2100 2101-2500

2.20

2

Legend (Rainfall in mm)

0

Kilometers 0 70 140

280

1.40

Monsoon

Rabi

Summer

Both Modi and Chauhan used improved governance to accelerate irriga on. Modi revitalised DISCOMs while Chauhan rejuvenated the irriga on bureaucracy. Chauhan realised that government canals operate at a quarter of their poten al, thanks to poor maintenance and management. He energized his irriga on department to radically improve their management. A tough IAS officer as irriga on secretary and CM's personal handling of local poli cal interference helped to tame the anarchy in canal commands. A er years of decline, government canals began to operate as they should and water reached tail-ends like it had never done before. Irrigated area in MP's canal commands increased from less than 1.0 million hectare (mha) in 2010 to 1.56 mha in 2011, to 2.02 mha in 2012, and 2.33 mha in 2013 and 2.83 mha in 2014, which was a drought year! ⁵h p://gujara nforma on.net/downloads/farmers_agri_201617.pdf

16


Figure 11: Remote-sensing images of increase in land-cover 'greenness' in MP between winter 2009 and winter 2014 Jan 2009

Feb 2009

Mar 2009

Jan 2014

Feb 2014

Mar 2014

< 0.2

0.2 - 0.4

0.4 - 0.6

0.6 - 0.8

> 0.8

Government of India's Accelerated Irriga on Benefits Program (AIBP) needs to take a leaf out of Madhya Pradesh's book. During Chauhan's first decade, MP government spent a total of ₹ 36,689 crore on irriga on, far less than Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra had done in that period; yet, MP tripled irrigated area in canal commands (from all sources) from 0.808 mha in 2006 to 2.5 mha in 2012-13. One might suspect that large increase in canal irriga on resulted from new projects commissioned on Narmada. However, as Figure 12 shows, canal irrigated area increased in all of MP's river basins rather than just Narmada. Figures from MP irriga on department would be expected to show rapid increase; but even LUS figures show the rapidly increasing trend in canal irriga on (Figure 11). Figure 13 compares the irriga on data for MP compiled by NSSO round #59 for 2002-03 and round #70 for 2012-13. These too show near doubling of rabi irrigated area from all sources and a near 6-fold increase in canal irriga on for the farmers sampled. Figure 12: Area reported irrigated by public canals in different river basins of MP (2011-12 to 2013-14) 2011-12

2012-13

450000 400000 350000 300000 250000 200000 150000 100000 50000 0

17

2013-14


Figure 13: Increase in percentage of cul vated area under irriga on by different sources in MP; comparing NSSO Round #59 (2002-3) with NSSO Round #70 (2012-13)

Kharif 2003

100

Kharif 2013

Rabi 2003

Rabi 2013 88.00

90 80 70

63.36

60 50

46.71

40

34.73

24.00

21.12

20

16.56

10 0

34.35

28.13

30

6.48 1.13

Govt. canals

8.20

5.09

3.78

0.96 Wells and tubewells

Other sources

3.52 All sources

In 2003, government canals in MP irrigated around 0.65 mha. Under Chauhan's prodding, irriga on inched up. In 2008 assembly elec ons, Chauhan reaped rich electoral dividends from farmers for his irriga on policies. So in 2010, a er sacking a corrupt irriga on secretary, Chauhan brought an upright and pushy officer to run the irriga on department, with promise of stable tenure and total support in stamping out poli cal interference in running canals. This move delivered. The area irrigated by government canals jumped from less than 1.00 mha in 2010 to 1.56 mha in 2011, to 2.02 mha in 2012, and 2.33 mha in 2013. In 2014, despite being a poor monsoon year, MP expects the state will have 3.00 mha irrigated in canal commands (by all sources), more than even the poten al created of 2.83 mha. How did MP achieve such miraculous expansion in canal irrigated area? Sheerly by improving irriga on management involving Principal Secretary and Superintending Engineers down to 'chawkidars'. The top poli cal and administra ve leadership implemented reforms by making performance-linked demands (PLD) on the bureaucracy and offered performance-linked supports (PLS) so that the department could rise to the challenge. The PLD-PLS strategy involved six components: [1] Restoring canal management protocol: MP restored the primacy and insisted on full enforcement of four forgo en

rules of effec ve canal system opera on viz., ra onalized irriga on schedules, tail-to-head irriga on, osarabandi (opera ng canals by strict rota on) and opera ng canals at full-supply level (FSL). Obsolete irriga on schedules were revised. Water allowances were adjusted to reflect new cropping pa erns. Areas served by li irriga on from surface and groundwater in command areas began to get counted as canal irrigated areas. Irriga ng tail-end first removed the head-tail inequity endemic to canal irriga on. FSL canal opera on meant that water reached tail-ends and could be distributed in an orderly manner. Enforcing osarabandi ensured that distributaries could be operated at FSL during their rota ons. The most difficult of all, in early years, was enforcing the 'tail-end first' rule because it challenged the long-entrenched power rela ons. In some projects, tail-end farmers were asked to complete land prepara on a week or so in advance so that water could be released in advance when head-end farmers were not ready. Restoring the primacy of 'tail-end-first' required a massive thrust but once it got accepted, things began to fall in place; farmers adjusted plan ng schedules; water demand in head began lagging that in tail. Earlier, when canals ran non-stop at low-supply, it was a winner-take-all game for head-end farmers who had no pressure to me plan ng or save water. Now, osarabandi delivers full-supply for specific predetermined me slots that drives farmers to manage water be er. Over me, there is greater apprecia on among 18


farmers for the discipline of 'tail-end-first' irriga on and osarabandi since with greater discharge of water, the fields are irrigated faster saving the farmer me and labour. [2] Last mile investments: To enforce the three core-rules requires that systems are well-maintained and in good

repair. A World Bank loan and internal resources were found to priori se and quickly complete last-mile projects with high poten al. Lining big earthen canals on old systems helped reach water to tail ends quickly. Small investments in rehabilita ng over 4000 Minor Irriga on Schemes doubled the area served by them in just two years from 367,000 hectares to 7,60,000 hectares. [3] Reducing deferred maintenance: Canals can be operated at FSL only if they are regularly maintained and will not

breach. In most states, a er salaries are paid, irriga on departments are le with no resources for Management, Opera on and Maintenance (MO&M). In MP, the department was provided resources to undertake proper MO&M. Two months ahead of every irriga on season, the department would be mobilized to desilt and clean all main canals while Water User Associa ons (WUAs) cleaned sub-minors and field channels. Even then, in older systems, risks of canal breach remained. Engineers were enjoined to run FSL and, if they occurred, fix the breaches within a stringent me limit; in doing so, they were backed by the department bosses. [4] Constant Monitoring: The hallmark of new management was relentless monitoring. Poten al created was taken as

the target for irriga on. Regular weekly video-conferences taken by the Secretary and newly introduced ICT systems created pressure for performance. The long abandoned prac ce of engineers overseeing irriga on opera ons in the field got revived with the secretary and chief engineer themselves frequently heading out in the field. Irriga ng tail-end areas became an obsession and from the Secretary down, the key variable monitored was whether tail-end fields were watered. In a masterful innova on, the Engineer-in-Chief would randomly call any of the 4000 odd mobile numbers of tail end farmers to enquire if water reached her/his field. [5] Anima ng the irriga on bureaucracy: Uns nted support of the chief minister empowered the irriga on

bureaucracy to establish order and rule of law in canal commands. Local poli cal interference was firmly crushed, when needed with direct interven on from the chief minister. This had magical effect on the department's morale which was further enhanced by a new system that recognized and felicitated high performing staff. The Chief Minister's backing also made coordina on with agriculture, forest, revenue departments and district collectors easier, quicker and result-oriented. Time-consuming peripheral issues were declu ered. An invigorated irriga on bureaucracy was focused on the core task of delivering water to as many farmers as possible especially in the tail-ends. [6] Vitalizing farmer organisa ons: Under a new law made in 1999, some 2000 WUAs were formed but mostly lay

defunct. WUAs' had li le role when poorly managed main system failed to deliver water to many parts of the command for years. Now that the MO&M of the main system improved, water began reaching the tail-ends and defunct WUAs sprung to life. By involving them in pre-rabi desil ng of minors and sub-minors, the department enhanced its outreach and WUAs became cri cal partners in irriga on scheduling, maintenance below outlets and orderly water distribu on. Type I irriga on development strategy of central and state governments has all along emphasized only construc on to the total neglect of Management, Opera ons and Maintenance (MO&M) of MMMIPs. This is the key reason for the widening gulf between Irriga on Poten al Created (IPC) and Irriga on Poten al U lised (IPU). Central share in MMMIP is just around 15 per cent of total investment in MMMIP, with states contribu ng 85 per cent. Given that central government has no means to compel state governments to devote greater energy and funds to improve MO&M of MMMIPs, it makes much greater sense for PMKSY to devote central funds only to incen vize state governments for MO&M improvements in public irriga on systems and leave it to states to find resources for

19


construc on, especially with greater devolu on of funds to states under XIV Finance Commission report. Many states with large MMMIPs have starved their irriga on departments of funds, professional staff and capacity building even as they spend massive sums in new construc on. This is an old syndrome of India's MMMIP. David Seckler had remarked 40 years ago that, “As the rug of irriga on development is rolled out ahead through construc on of new facili es, it will roll up behind through poor maintenance and management of exis ng facili es” (cited in Wade 1984, 286). There is li le the Central Government can do to fight this syndrome because MMMIPs are managed by state Irriga on Departments. However, what it can do is encourage and incen vize irriga on management improvements by spreading word about innova ons and best prac ces that have succeeded elsewhere. The abandoned XII Five Year Plan had created a NIMF under which central government had offered to reimburse state irriga on departments for all Irriga on Service Fee (ISF) they collected from farmers on a 1:1 basis, and for ISF collected through WUAs on a 1: 1.3 basis provided resources so mobilised were made available to respec ve irriga on systems and WUAs for improving MO&M and level of irriga on service. The underlying thinking was that such an incen ve scheme would restore the accountability loop between farmers and irriga on department staff that have got eroded due to free or subsidized irriga on policies that have taken root in all states. NIMF needs to be the core of AIBP in PMKSY.

20


6. New Opportuni es for Type II Irriga on: The Promise of the Solar Pump A major opportunity for expanding and sustaining Type II irriga on in our target geography that PMKSY has ignored is the promise of solar irriga on pumps. For a long me, solar pump has been tried on research farms; but now, the falling costs of panels are mainstreaming the technology. Un l 2012, India had less than 1000 solar pumps; but at the end of 2015, we already had 35,000. The numbers are expected to grow in geometric progression because solar pumps overcome key pi all of diesel pumps, viz., high fuel cost, and of subsidized grid power, viz., frequent interrup ons, low voltage and 6-7 hours of mostly nightly supply. Solar pumps, in contrast enjoy 7-9 hours of uninterrupted, reliable, day me power free of opera ng cost (Figure 14). Being off-grid, they are also easier to install and require li le maintenance. As panel prices fall with market expansion, solar pumps can be expected to make deeper inroads in our Type II irriga on economy. Solar pumps can be a boon for our energy-scarce districts which have ground and surface water available for Type II irriga on development. Most of these districts have low grid-penetra on; as a result, prospects of reaching grid power for Type II irriga on any me soon are small and distant. Even when villages are connected to the grid, connec ng individual tubewells/wells with grid entails capital investment of the order of ₹ 2.0-2.5 lakh. Even though solar panels are expensive in absolute terms, a solar pump is a cost-effec ve alterna ve to a grid-connected pump if connec on costs are included in the cost of energizing a structure. Districts in Bihar, Chha sgarh, eastern U ar Pradesh, Orissa, Assam, MP and Jharkhand—in sum, much of the irriga on-deprived geography—have 153 pumpsets per 1000 ha of net sown area, most suffer from low opera ng factor because of high cost of diesel and fuel that drive 88 per cent of them. Farmers here use only 500-600 kWh (equivalent)/ hectare of energy in pump irriga on compared to 2000 kWh/hectare in districts with subsidized electricity. No wonder farm worker produc vity and cropping intensi es are low in these districts.

Figure 14: Global solar radia on in India (kWh/m2)

5.4

5.8

Srinagar

5.6-5.8 Jammu Shimla Chandigarh

5.4

5.4-5.6

5.4

New Delhi Gantok

6.4 6.0-6.2 6.2-6.4

Jaipur

5.0-5.2

Lucknow

5.4

5.0-5.2 Agartala

Bhopal Ahmedabad

5.2-5.4 Kohima

Imphal

Patana

5.8-6.0

Itanagar

4.6-4.8 4.6 4.8-5.0

Aizawl

5.4 5.4

Kolkata

5.4-5.6

5.6-5.8 Bhubaneshwar

Mumbai

Hyderabad

5.4-5.6 Panaji

5.4-5.6 5.4

Bangalore

5.8 5.6-5.8 Thiruvananthapuram

Chennai

Global solar radia on in india KWh(m2) daily KWh(m2) annual 4.6 4.6-4.8 4.8-5.0 5.0-5.4 5.4 5.4-5.6 5.6-5.8 5.8 5.8-6.0 6.0-6.2 6.2-6.4 6.4

1600 1700 1800 1850 1900 1950 2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2300 2305

Source: h p://www.tnsea.in/solar-energy-in-india.html

As solar pump numbers swell, a major threat is that their owners will mimic the economic behavior of grid connected pumps with ra oned free power, but with the addi onal benefit of be er quality, day- me power for 2500-2800 hours/year. The legi mate fear is that as solar pumps numbers grow, the pressure on groundwater resources will increase enormously. Governments try to counter this danger by limi ng subsidy to small-size solar pumps and making it condi onal to farmer buying micro-irriga on system. In Rajasthan, with the largest number of solar pumps, these condi ons have already been watered down: under pressure from farmers, solar pump subsidy has been raised from 2 kWp to 3 kWp and now to 5 kWp. As panel costs fall making solar pumps affordable without subsidy, these condi onali es will any way not alleviate the groundwater threat of solar pumps.

21


PMKSY needs to respond to the solar pump's mixed bundle of opportunity and threat in a foresigh ul manner. The only way to ensure sustainable water use under solar pumps is to incen vize farmers to conserve free solar power and groundwater. This can be done by connec ng solar pumps to the grid and giving farmers long-term buy-back guarantee for surplus solar energy at an a rac ve feed in tariff. Electricity companies will resist having to buy small amounts of solar power from individual farmers due to the high transac on and vigilance costs involved. However, a cluster of solar pump irrigators brought together in a coopera ve-owned micro-grid can overcome this resistance. This concept has been piloted in village Dhundi in Gujarat through a Solar Pump Irrigators' Coopera ve Enterprise (SPICE). Such a SPICE presents a win-win game for farmers, for power sector and for sustainable groundwater management. Farmers get quality power for irriga on and a stable, remunera ve market for their surplus solar energy. DISCOMs can use SPICE to do away with power subsidies and create a smart grid. The groundwater economy can become more sustainable by doing away with perverse power subsidies and incen vizing farmers for conserva on of energy and water. In groundwater-rich eastern India, solar pumps can help create compe ve irriga on service markets if young farmers in every village are supported to acquire a 6-8 kWp solar pump and a 1,000 meter buried pipe distribu on system to operate as entrepreneurial Irriga on Service Providers (ISPs). Such ISPs having diesel pumps are already playing a dominant role in the irriga on economy of the region but their high water prices put water buyers in a seriously disadvantageous posi on. The same ISPs would slash their water prices down if their diesel pumps were replaced by solar pumps with comparable water output. By expanding a compe ve market for irriga on services, the solar ISP model can accelerate Type II irriga on development but in some areas result in groundwater overdevelopment by increasing demand for irriga on. The SPICE model has relevance in groundwater-rich districts as well as groundwater-stressed districts. The surplus energy buy-back guarantee gives solar pump irrigators two op ons: use it to sell irriga on service to neighboring farmers or evacuate it to the grid. In groundwater rich-districts, a low feed-in tariff will strengthen incen ve to sell irriga on service, intensify compe on on solar ISPs and make irriga on service available to buyers at affordable prices. In groundwater stressed districts, a high feed-in tariff for power buy back will raise the opportunity cost of using solar energy to pump water for own use as well as for selling to others, raise water prices, and force all water users to conserve water. In sum, the feed-in tariff offered for solar power buy-back will act as a surrogate water price to signal the scarcity value of water. All perverse impacts that the country has witnessed all these years due to invidious energy-irriga on nexus can, in principle, be neutralized by proper promo on and governance of solar pumps through SPICE pa ern.

22


7. New Opportuni es for Type II Irriga on: Peri-urban Wastewater Irriga on Municipal wastewater has been used world over for irriga on, for a long me. Around the mid nineteenth century, 'sewage farms' were common in many parts of Europe and United States. For decades, the wastewater (WW) from Paris was transported in canals for spreading on a 5,000 ha plot which developed into a highly produc ve vegetable growing area. The large size and superb quality of the vegetable produce a racted great interest among farmers and ci zens. In India too, evidence of sewage farms exists in and around several ci es including Amritsar, Delhi, Hyderabad, Ahmedabad, Jamshedpur and Trivandrum. Twenty-five years ago, Strauss and Blumenthal (1990) es mated that 73,000 Ha in peri-urban India was subject to wastewater irriga on; the number is likely to be manyfold today. IWMI studies in 17 loca ons es mate that more than 57,000 hectares of area is being irrigated with wastewater in that sample of loca ons alone (see Table 6). Table 6: Extent of wastewater irriga on in the periphery of urban centers Net Wastewater Irrigated Area (Ha)

Loca on 01.

Ahmedabad

9,450

02.

Vadodara

3,875

03.

Rajkot

3,252

04.

Gandhinagar

769

05.

Bhuj

248

06.

Bhavnagar

195

07.

Surat

70

08.

Purandhar LI Scheme

25,498

Pune

5,580

Jalgaon

1,232

Srinagar

4,227

Jammu

1,817

09.

Gujarat

Maharashtra

10. 11. Jammu & Kashmir 12. 13.

Tiruchirapalli

260

14.

Salem

240

15.

Dharwad

210

Hubli

186

Vijaypura

35

17.

Karnataka

Palrecha et al. (2012)

Ramola et al. (2016)

Shaheen (2016)

Tamil Nadu

16.

Source

Leaf Society (2016)

TOTAL

Gupta et al. (2016)

57,144

Several municipali es have devised formal and informal arrangements with peri-urban farmers for requisi oning their freshwater for municipal use and supplying them wastewater for irriga on. Rajkot Municipal Corpora on, for instance, has been supplying water to two registered wastewater coopera ves since 1962. Smaller municipali es like Unjha in north Gujarat are auc oning their wastewater to entrepreneurs who then deliver it to farmers. Thus, wastewater irriga on is not just common, it is happening everywhere. Driven by freshwater scarcity, growing compe on from domes c and industrial users and rapid urbaniza on, farmers around the country are embracing wastewater and benefi ng from its reliability and nutrient content. 23


A 2008 es mate of sewage generated by class I and class II Indian ci es (CPCB 2009) shows that more than 38,000 million litres of wastewater is generated every day; annually, this amounts to nearly 14 billion cubic meters (BCM). This is sufficient to irrigate 2 mha of land, equivalent to 200 medium irriga on schemes. Unlike canal irriga on, this mode of irriga on does not require any kind of storage; and there are hardly any evapora on or conveyance losses. However, to recognize wastewater irriga on and promote it further, it is essen al to take cognizance of some per nent public health and soil quality concerns.

7.1 Addressing public health and soil quality concerns Irriga on with untreated wastewater has raised some public health and soil quality concerns. In wastewater irriga on literature and during our fieldwork, we encountered two types of health concerns: [a] direct exposure to untreated sewage may cause rashes, irrita on and skin problems for wastewater farmers; and [b] it is widely suspected that contaminants in wastewater may enter the food chain, especially when farmers use wastewater to grow food crops, in par cular leafy vegetables. Concerns pertaining to direct exposure can be addressed rela vely easily through awareness campaigns and basic precau ons. Farmers using wastewater should be encouraged to implement sieving and se ling protocols; and should be advised to wear safety boots and gloves while on the field. For minimizing the indirect exposure risks, several steps can be taken: [a] The municipal administra on should make sure that domes c wastewater is not mixed with industrial wastewater; [b] To be completely safe, farmers may be asked to grow only non-food crops using wastewater; [c] In cases where food crops are being grown, leafy vegetables and crops that grow close to the ground should be avoided; and finally, [d] A systema c study of the long-term health impacts of consuming wastewater irrigated food crops should be undertaken. Our field studies indicate that farmers do not perceive the health risks or risks to soil quality to be very severe. Despite decades of wastewater irriga on, few cases of the harmful effects of direct or indirect exposure have been reported. All farmers unanimously report significant increase in yield and reduc on in fer liser costs with chemical free wastewater use for irriga on.

7.2 Opportuni es for PMKSY How an economy manages its wastewater correlates strongly with its stage of economic development. A global bird's eye view suggests a ladder of techno-economic op ons in wastewater treatment; management and reuse (see Figure 15). In most villages of South Asia and Sub-Saharan Africa, there is hardly any infrastructure for collec on, aggrega on and treatment of wastewater; disposal is without any treatment and at the household level. As villages grow into towns, rudimentary infrastructure begins to come up for collec on and aggrega on of wastewater and disposal outside the se lement. However, in many towns and ci es of the developing world, the infrastructure for collec on, aggrega on and transporta on is unable to keep up with the rapid growth of the se lement area. In these communi es, wastewater is a huge threat to the environment as well as to peri-urban quality of life. If managed well, however, wastewater can be a great resource while also minimizing its nega ve ecological impact. In very high-income socie es, urban wastewater is totally recycled by intensive, mul -stage treatment that low-income socie es can illafford.

24


Figure 15: Techno-Economic Ladder of Urban Wastewater Management

Ter ary treated WW recycled or stored or released into nature to enhance ecological flows

$500

6

Cost per Household (US$ / annum)

$400 5 In-situ collec on / absorp on of WW at household level; No sewerage system Treated WW used for industry or other economic uses

$300

Ter ary treated wastewater blended with fresh water to supply homes

Untreated WW aggregated and released into rivers / natural water bodies

$200

4 $100 3 1

Untreated or moderately treated WW used for irriga on, industry or recharge

2

$000 Level of Techno-Economic Management

The current discourse on municipal water management in India envisages leapfrogging from the current highly ra oned public urban water supply to 24/7 supply; from near-zero tariff to a metered tariff regime; from minimal wastewater treatment to 100 per cent treated wastewater being released into rivers. The discussion is about crea ng a world-class, Europe-like systems (where the average household pays about US $1000 per annum for water supply and sanita on) for a popula on where more than 80 per cent cannot even afford to pay 10 per cent of that as service fee. A more realis c scenario is that India will go through a long intermediate phase before it reaches this ideal state. It seems very likely that self-provision, informal markets, and wastewater irriga on will con nue to grow in this phase. The challenge is to create governance regimes that meaningfully integrate the informal economy and public provisioning into a viable and sustainable system.

7.3 Agenda for Ac on Our current wastewater treatment capacity is less than a third of wastewater generated. Further, most treatment plants do not operate at full capacity owing to poor opera on and maintenance (O&M) and high running costs. It is therefore very likely that ter ary treatment of wastewater for reuse within ci es will not happen any me soon. Land applica on of wastewater is a well-recognised treatment process which needs to be embraced in policies and urban development plans. In the medium run, this might also allow us to manage municipal wastewater without inves ng in capital and energy intensive treatment plants. Properly managed wastewater irriga on in peri-urban India offers to: [1]

Add irrigated areas without adding pressure on scarce freshwater resources;

[2]

Provide reliable and nutrient rich irriga on water to farmers, especially during drought years or where groundwater is of poor quality; 25


[3]

Improve farm incomes by reducing expenditure on fer lizers and enhancing crop yields;

[4]

Co-manage the water and nutrient cycles by returning them to their source;

[5]

Alleviate the need for capital and energy intensive wastewater treatment plants;

[6]

Reduce environmental pollu on caused by releasing untreated wastewater into freshwater streams; and

[7]

Convert a disposal headache for municipali es into a valuable resource.

Thus, over the next several decades, wastewater reuse in agriculture offers the best op on for ci es to act as smart, high performance irriga on systems for peri-urban farmers. A pre-requisite for wastewater irriga on is that the ci es / municipali es should have effec ve wastewater collec on and aggrega on systems. Several field pilots can be taken up as part of PMKSY (see Table 7) to arrive at the best alterna ves for achieving har khet ko pani. Table 7: Op ons for wastewater irriga on pilots under PMKSY Wastewater Pilot

1a. Auc on; on-demand delivery

Treatment

Management

Primary treatment: Sieving and Se lement / Stabilisa on / Aera on Pond

Wastewater entrepreneur responsible for conveyance and delivery

Primary treatment: Sieving and Se lement / Stabiliza on / Aera on Pond

ULB manages both treatment and delivery

1b. Auc on; rota onal scheduling of wastewater supply 2a. Reverse Auc on; on-demand delivery 2b. Reverse Auc on; rota onal scheduling for wastewater supply

3. Horizontal flow constructed wetland (High land-footprint)

DEWATS model

4. Ver cal flow constructed wetland (Low land footprint)

IARI-model⁵

5. Planned drainage and plumbing for op mal wastewater irriga on

ULB or private en ty owns, maintains and manages the treatment facility; treated wastewater is supplied to farmers for irriga on

Delivery On-demand; through open channels / pipes Wastewater and freshwater supplied on a rota on schedule On-demand; through open channels / pipes Wastewater and freshwater supplied on a rota on schedule

On-demand; through open channels / pipes


Separa on of grey and black water leading to minimal treatment requirement


⁵IARI has developed an “eco-friendly wastewater treatment facility” that uses wetland plants and engineered microorganisms to treat up to 2.2 million liters per day while enjoying low land and energy footprints vis-à-vis conven onal wastewater treatment plants (See IARI nd.).

26


8. PMKSY: Prac cal Ways Forward 8.1 Reality of Indian Irriga on When the BJP manifesto for 2014 parliamentary elec on assured Har Khet Ko Pani, it was widely expected that the new NDA government will make a fresh start in India's irriga on thinking based on the sterling experience of BJPruled Gujarat and MP in rapidly expanding irriga on coverage on a scale that was unprecedented. However, as conceived now, the Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana focuses mostly on converging pre-exis ng schemes rather than envisioning a bold new program appropriate to our needs and challenges. To scale out the irriga on success of Gujarat and MP post-2000, PMKSY needs to respond to the following aspects of our irriga on reality: 1. Target Irriga on-deprived Farm-holdings: A er 67 years of aggressive planning of irriga on projects, 48.2 per cent of our farm holdings are totally deprived of irriga on from any source. There are spa al as well as social imbalances in irriga on access; our adivasi farmers and adivasi-dominated districts are our irriga on have-nots. PMKSY needs to priori ze rainfed farm holdings' in India's Irriga on Deprived Geographies and social groups. 2. Focus on Irriga on-deprived districts: But the bulk of our 'Irriga on Deprived' holdings are concentrated in 126 districts of the country where less than 30 per cent of farm-holdings have any source of irriga on. These contrast with 170 top districts where over 70 per cent of farm holdings benefit from irriga on from one source or another. PMKSY needs to target energies and resources to these districts. In the current design, it does not. Lion's share of PMKSY allocated to 23 AIBP priority projects, for instance, have nothing for Assam. Bihar, Karnataka, UP, Rajasthan, Chha sgarh, Jharkhand, West Bengal which together have a large chunk of our rainfed farm-holdings. 3. Recognise Changing Role of Type I and Type II Irriga on: India's irriga on strategy has so far targeted expansion of IPC in pockets which can be turned into command areas of MMMIP. These, however, deliver Type I irriga on for which there is li le or no demand. All evidence available shows that since 1990, over 95 per cent of new irrigated farm holdings have been delivered through Type II Irriga on from privately owned groundwater wells or li irriga on schemes powered by electricity or diesel. The role of Type I public and community irriga on schemes is increasingly to support Type II irriga on. The year-round, on-demand water control offered by Type II irriga on makes small farms far more produc ve and resilient compared to Type I irriga on. 4. Recognise the Game-Changing Poten al of Solar Pumps: With rapidly falling solar panel prices and growing acceptance among farmers, solar pumps are certain to be a game-changer in India's near-term irriga on future. The Modi government has already set ambi ous targets for renewable energy genera on; the ques on is whether it will also recognize how solar irriga on pumps can play a cri cal role in achieving those targets while at the same me: [a] incen vize efficient use of groundwater in water-scarce regions; [b] significantly reduce irriga on depriva on in groundwater-abundant, energy-scarce regions; [c] bring addi onal, climate-proof income to farmers; [d] reduce the carbon footprint of India's groundwater irriga on; [e] reduce the land footprint of India's solar ambi ons; and [f] reduce India's farm power subsidy burden. 5. Develop Peri-urban Wastewater Irriga on Poten al: As India urbanizes, towns and ci es are emerging as reservoirs that release constant, year-round wastewater supply to sustain Type II irriga on of high value crops on a perennial basis. According to Central Pollu on Control Board, our ci es already release some 14 BCM of wastewater annually, nearly twice the storage of Sardar Sarovar dam. A lot of this is already in use for irriga on with uncertain health impacts for irrigators as well as consumers. With minimal investment in primary treatment of urban wastewater, it is possible to eliminate these health risks and create a win-win irriga on economy. Our target irriga on-deprived geography is also lowest in urbaniza on rates; many of its growing towns and ci es have yet not begun inves ng heavily on drainage and treatment. PMKSY needs to be proac ve in pilo ng 27


drainage investments designed to support in a planned manner treated wastewater irriga on rather than retrofi ng pre-exis ng drainage systems or allowing unplanned wastewater irriga on by default. 6. Emphasize Scale, Speed, Cost-effec veness: Type I irriga on is costly (₹ 10 lakh/ha) in terms of capital investment, takes 20-30 years to commission, is increasingly fraught with land acquisi on problems and suffers from severe MO&M problems. In contrast, Type II irriga on requires lower investment (₹ 0.5-2.0 lakh/ha), can be commissioned quickly, needs no land acquisi on, and can be owned and managed by farmers. It therefore makes great sense for PMKSY to target rapid expansion of Type II irriga on. Table 8: Clustering of Districts for PMKSY Interven ons Geographies

Defining aspect

Number of Districts

Cri cal Objec ve/s

Cluster #01

Groundwater surplus districts with high share of farm holdings without any source of Type I or Type II irriga on

112

1

Cluster #02

Groundwater-surplus districts where Type II irriga on is constrained by high energy cost

36

1

Cluster #03

Groundwater surplus districts where Type II irriga on is constrained by inadequate electricity supply

24

1

Cluster #04

Groundwater-deficit alluvial districts where Type II irriga on will further deplete aquifers

103

2, 3

Cluster #05

Groundwater deficit hard-rock districts with excessive groundwater deple on (dark or over-exploited zones)

27

2, 3

Cluster #06

Districts with dense network of MMM systems and large canal irriga on areas

114

2, 5

Cluster #07

Districts with high density of irriga on tanks, check-dams, and water harves ng structures

161

2, 5

Cluster #08

Districts with Class I or II towns

-

4

Cluster #09

Hill districts, mostly in Himalayas, where agro-clima c condi ons are not conducive for conven onal irriga on

100

6

Cluster #10

Districts with high irriga on incidence and high agricultural produc vity

54

-

Cluster #11

Districts with high irriga on incidence and low agricultural produc vity

41

-

Cluster #12

Urban and UT districts with li le agriculture and missing or patchy data

25

-

8.2 Objec ves PMKSY should pursue and their Contextual Fit Given this reality, PMKSY should be designed to achieve following six objec ves, in that order of priority: 1. Provide affordable Type II irriga on access to irriga on-deprived farm holdings in the country's irriga ondeprived geographies; 2. Maximise areal spread of conjunc ve management of ground water and surface water in command areas of MMMIP, irriga on tanks and large water harves ng structures such as check dams; 3. Enhance efficiency and produc vity of irriga on water use especially in groundwater-stressed geographies through micro-irriga on and piped-conveyance; 4. Develop integrated peri-urban irriga on to promote planned wastewater irriga on as a major Type II irriga on solu on; 5. Improve the financial and ins tu onal sustainability of public and community irriga on systems; and 6. Promote tradi onal and innova ve water harves ng and diversion systems and support spring-shed development especially in hill agro-ecologies. 28


Different district-clusters face different irriga on-water challenges and require differen ated program strategies (see Table 8). There are scores of districts which already have high coverage of Type II irriga on but face threat of serious resource deple on and deteriora on. These need one kind of response. But there is also a large number of districts where the spread of Type II irriga on is s ll minimal. For example, many districts in Jharkhand or western Orissa fall in cluster #01 which needs a cri cal PMKSY interven on very different from what most districts in Punjab and Haryana in cluster #04 need. Likewise, irriga on access in Telangana, Rayalaseema, Karnataka is constrained by an en rely different set of factors that need targeted response. Table 8 a empts a clustering of India's districts according to their irriga on challenges and suggest cri cal objec ves PMKSY should follow in each cluster.

8.3 PMKSY Interven ons Un l now, conven onal irriga on planning has focused mostly on large surface water development projects that are capital and land intensive and have long gesta on periods. Moreover, farmers are increasingly lukewarm to these because these offer Type I irriga on while farmers demand Type II. To cater to these differen ated needs of different geographies, PMKSY needs to deploy a broader and diversified repertoire of programma c instruments. We suggest 15 ac on items as instruments in this repertoire as outlined in Table 9. Not all these have equal relevance to different clusters; for each cluster of districts, some are cri cal but others can play a suppor ve role. In some of the best irrigated districts of the country, 60-70 per cent of farm holdings have their own wells, pumps and pipe distribu on systems or have private or shared li systems drawing water from a perennial source for Type II irriga on. Irriga on deprived districts, 112 in our Cluster #01, are characterized by a majority of farm holdings lacking such apparatus for Type II irriga on. We propose that this cluster be targeted as the primary beneficiary of PMKSY (see Box 8a). Box 8a: Special Focus on Cluster #01 During the 1980's and early 1990's, GoI's Million Wells Scheme offered liberal subsidies and bank loans to small farmers to develop groundwater-based Type II irriga on. U ar Pradesh's “Free Boring Scheme” of the 1980's is the reason eastern and central UP have high density of shallow tubewells today. The same strategy has also worked to expand irriga on access in tribal districts of Gujarat where over the past decade over half a million new power connec ons were issued specifically to Adivasi and SC groups. The quickest and most cost-effec ve way to expand irriga on in these Cluster #01 districts is through a program to provide Type II irriga on assets to poor farm households (Ac on Item #1). Our analysis shows that in the 112 most irriga on deprived districts, there is poten al for 5.67 million new irriga on wells with an annual yield of 10,000 m3/year (see Figure ES.2). Doing this can bring an addi onal 11.34 mha under irriga on without in any way threatening the sustainability of groundwater resources. This would also wipe away the irriga on depriva on in these districts, taking irrigated area from the current 11.6 per cent to 43.3 per cent, making the region at par with the na onal average. However, at an average cost of ₹ 50,000 per well, 5.67 million new irriga on wells would cost ₹ 28,350 crores; an unlikely alloca on in the current PMKSY. As a first step, a more realis c plan would be to budget for 1.0-1.5 million new irriga on wells in Cluster #01 under PMKSY by 2020. Jharkhand has used MGNREGA funds to dig nearly 100,000 wells on Adivasi holdings in recent years. The constraint however is that they all have diesel pumps; and diesel is expensive and troublesome to procure. PMKSY can leverage exis ng efforts by the Ministry of Energy and the Rural Electrifica on Corpora on to bring electrifica on to these villages and energize pumps. Complete electrifica on is a long-term goal and requires substan al resources, especially providing electricity connec ons to remote irriga on wells. In contrast, there are opportuni es to fulfil at least part of future pump electrifica on demand by subsidizing solar-powered irriga on pumps in lieu of electric connec ons. PMKSY needs to ini ate a special subsidy-cum-loan solar pump promo on program for Adivasi farmers in these districts. Such a program should support off-grid individual solar pumps, grid-connected solar pumps under the SPICE model, as well as solar ISPs, as discussed in sec on 6. Together the million wells and solar promo on package will add 5.0-7.5 mha to the region's gross irrigated area; and will li millions of Adivasi farmers out of poverty. In the short run, such public investments can be reinforced with CSR and philanthropic interven ons. Over me, these will also trigger hundreds, if not thousands, of crores of private investments in Type II irriga on; reduce distress migra on and cause improvements on various socio-economic parameters.

29


In cluster #02 and #03 districts, irriga on access is constrained by affordability and availability of energy. Bihar, Assam, Eastern U ar Pradesh, Coastal Orissa, North Bengal are all flush with groundwater but have significant Type II irriga on depriva on mostly because these are dependent on expensive diesel which delivers power at an effec ve cost of ₹ 8-10/kWh. This obliges small holders either to avoid irriga on or to use it sparingly. In Vidarbha, Telangana, Marathawada, Rayalaseema, much of Karnataka, there is a fairly high density of Type II irriga on structures connected to the grid. However, irriga on here is constrained by erra c, low-voltage electricity supply. Table 9: Proposed PMKSY interven ons #

Ac on Item

Details of ac vi es

1

Support for Groundwater/ Li Irriga on

Targeted support to Irriga on-deprived farm households to make wells/ borewells and install irriga on pumps with 500 meters of piped distribu on system on the lines of Million Wells Scheme during early 1990's

2

Affordable, assured power for peak season irriga on

7-8 hours of assured, uninterrupted, full voltage power supply to irriga on wells; supply of single season power connec ons for li or well irriga on

3

Support to Solar Pump Irrigators' Coopera ves

Promote grid-connected solar farmers coopera ves with a rac ve power-purchase guarantee in grid-networked areas with high tubewell density and groundwater deple on

4

Support to Solar Pump-based ISP

ISP in groundwater-rich but energy-scarce villages (as in Bihar), promote in each village a group of solar pump-based ISP with a 6-8 kWp solar pump with 1000 meters of buried pipe network

5 Support to Micro-irriga on 6

GGRC-pa ern in micro-irriga on promo on especially in groundwater-stressed districts

Support for annual pre-monsoon desil ng of minor and sub-minor canals; lining of main Closing IPC-IPU gap in exis ng and branch canals; desil ng of minor and medium reservoirs; last-mile investment in MMM irriga on systems comple ng incomplete distribu on system

Suppor ng conversion to lastDelivering canal supplies to individual or common sumps for piped irriga on (à la Indira 7 mile piped-canal water Gandhi Nahar) or through buried pipe network as in Sardar Sarovar project supplies

8

Regular desil ng of irriga on tanks (as in Telangana's Mission Kaka ya); removal of Tank-groundwater conjunc ve encroachment on tank-beds and supply channels; buried pipe supply channels; linking tanks management with canals; recharge-sha s and percola on tanks

9

Water harves ng and groundwater recharge

Centralized: Sujalam Sufalam, recharge sha s, recharge tubewells, infiltra on wells Decentralized: Anicuts, ny check dams, farm ponds, well-recharge

Watershed treatment with 10 accent on groundwater recharge

Shi focus from stabilizing kharif crop through improved soil-moisture regime to enhanced groundwater recharge for rabi and summer irriga on by inves ng in nala-plugs, check dams, percola on ponds, well-recharge

Support improved 11 management of main system in MMM projects

Establish tail-end-first irriga on protocol; operate the canal system at full-supply level; announce irriga on schedule in advance; enforce rota onal water supply

12 Opera onalise NIMF

Incen vize WUA's to vigorously collect Irriga on Service Fee (ISF); provide resources to Irriga on Department for regular opera ons and maintenance of the main system

Peri-urban wastewater irriga on

Support pilot projects for safe peri-urban wastewater irriga on based on primary, ecofriendly treatment

14 Spring-shed Management

Support ini a ves such as Government of Sikkim's Dhara Vikas program for revival and improved management of mountain springs

13

15

Tradi onal land and water management systems

Support revival of tradi onal hill water management prac ces such as rainwater harves ng, diversion irriga on, ice stupas / ar ficial glaciers etc.

30


Clusters #04 and #05 present altogether different challenges; these are already among the best-endowed with Type II irriga on structures but growing water scarcity and groundwater deple on is reducing their u liza on factor. In Clusters #06 and #07, there is massive opportunity for conjunc ve management of canal networks and irriga on tanks that can greatly expand Type II irriga on. Cluster #08 offers opportuni es for systema c development of wastewater irriga on. India's hill districts in Cluster #09 have unique agro-clima c condi ons where conven onal irriga on development might not be prac cal. In these districts, tradi onal land and water management prac ces, innova ons like ice stupas in Leh and spring-shed management need to be promoted. Clusters #10 consists of 54 districts that have high irriga on coverage and high agricultural produc vity. These districts have li le to gain from PMKSY in terms of irriga on expansion but they highlight the poten al contribu on that irriga on can make in boos ng a district's agrarian economy. Cluster #11, on the other hand, consists of 41 districts that too have high irriga on coverage but have agricultural produc vity below na onal average. These districts too probably cannot benefit much from PMKSY but they underscore the fact that irriga on alone cannot guarantee high produc vity. Cluster #12 is the residual cluster and includes city districts (like Hyderabad, Mumbai etc.), urban / UT districts (like Daman, Diu, Chandigarh etc.) and island districts (such as Lakshadweep, Andaman and Nicobar).

8.4 PMKSY: Prac cal Ways Forward Table 9 outlines the contours of a PMKSY strategy designed to make significant progress along all six objec ves in a 5-7 year me horizon. Indeed, the most cri cal objec ve of providing basic Type II irriga on access to a majority of India's irriga on-deprived farm holdings can be achieved in 2-3 years in a campaign mode. More difficult and meconsuming may be objec ves 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6. Table 10 iden fies from our 15 ac on items those which are most cri cal for each cluster of districts. In addi on, it also suggests suppor ve ac on items that will enhance the effec veness and sustainability of the cri cal ac on items for each cluster. Table 10: PMKSY clusters of districts and interven ons Geographies

Cri cal PMKSY Interven ons (Ac on Item #)

Suppor ve Interven ons (Ac on Item #)

Cluster #01

①④

②③⑧

Cluster #02

②④

①③⑤

Cluster #03

②③

⑤⑧⑨⑩

Cluster #04

③⑤

⑦⑧⑨

Cluster #05

③⑤

⑧⑨⑩

Cluster #06

⑥⑦

⑪⑫

Cluster #07

⑧⑨

⑩⑪

Cluster #08

⑬

Cluster #09

⑭⑮

⑨⑩

In conclusion, then PMKSY as designed now is unlikely to ensure Har Khet Ko Pani, leave alone double farm incomes in five years. Many pre-exis ng schemes such as AIBP that the current design converges had doub ul track record during the UPA regime. In contrast, the current design learns nothing from the outstanding irriga on successes post 2000 of BJP governments especially in Gujarat and MP where irrigated farm holdings grew at double digit growth rates. 31


In order to ensure Har Khet Ko Pani, PMKSY should stop chasing irriga on poten al crea on under Type I irriga on projects. Since states contribute over 85 per cent of capital investment in MMMIP and neglects their MO&M, it makes sense for the PMKSY to use the central funds primarily to improve MO&M of MMMIP. Moreover, the biggest near term priority for PMKSY should be to accelerate provision of Type II irriga on access to some 67 million of India's 138.5 million farm holdings that have no irriga on from any source. Even among these, we need to first concentrate on reaching out to rainfed farm holdings in pre-dominantly rainfed districts. Rainfed farm holdings in irrigated districts can generally purchase Type II irriga on and save their crops. But rainfed farmers in predominantly rainfed districts do not even have that op on. This calls for focussing energy and resources in 112 cluster #01 districts. This priority can be met in a 3-5 year campaign to provide Type II irriga on assets to these. However, these households are mostly Adivasi, are concentrated in tribal-dominated states, and have not coalesced into vocal demand systems. It is important to remember that even in 112 cluster #01 districts, what type II irriga on systems are there at present are owned mostly by non-adivasi farmers. These can get Type II irriga on access only if their state governments can implement boldly targeted plans to implement a strategy to provide them year-round, on-farm water control quickly. There is also need to rethink where to make investments if the idea is to target irriga on have-nots. Quick results for Har Khet Ko Pani are possible only by targe ng farm holdings rather than dams and canal systems. Again, Gujarat and MP have exemplified how to target farm holdings for immediate water control rather than mega–schemes with distant and uncertain irriga on benefits. If PMKSY remains driven by AIBP and 'per-drop-more-crop', it is certain that India's irriga on-deprived geography will be le with only watershed development programs. Doing these well will help stabilize kharif crops; but it will leave Adivasi farmers deprived of the full benefits of year-round, on-farm water control. For that, PMKSY must rapidly expand Type II irriga on in clusters #01, #02 and #03 with groundwater development, solar pumps, wastewater irriga on, MAR, piped water delivery, micro-irriga on and conjunc ve management of water from rain, canals, tanks and groundwater. 8.5 PMKSY: Implementa on, Monitoring and Evalua on As with any program of this size, implemen ng PMKSY will be a managerial challenge. If the district irriga on plans are any indica on, states and districts are likely to draw up unrealis c plans which will be impossible to implement with the given resources and within the 2015-2020 me frame. The central administra on of PMKSY will have to make some hard choices in priori zing investments and giving a realis c shape to district plans. There is also a real danger of mul ple levels of overlaps with on-going central and state schemes as well as other donor-driven programs. For instance, as PMKSY district plans are being prepared, the GoI is also developing an ambi ous US$ 1 billion Na onal Groundwater Management Improvement Program (NGMIP) in partnership with the World Bank. Given that NGMIP will focus on groundwater over-exploited regions and focus on community-based demand management, it might be be er to link the 'per drop, more crop' component with NGMIP, rather than PMKSY. Likewise, the Bharat Rural Livelihood Founda on (BRLF), set up in 2013 with the objec ve to “foster and facilitate civil society ac on in partnership with government for transforming the livelihoods and lives of people in areas such as the Central Indian Adivasi belt”, can be a useful partner for targe ng Cluster #01 under PMKSY. Emphasis on scale, speed and cost-effec veness will require transparency in transac ons and opera onal flexibility in implementa on at the ground level. Involvement of donors, CSR, CSOs and grassroots NGOs can help in effec ve program implementa on, monitoring, review and evalua on. For instance, in Cluster #01 districts of central India, the Tata Trusts have set up CInI (Collec ves for Integrated livelihood Ini a ves) which works with a large network of grassroots organisa ons to promote agriculture-based tribal livelihoods. Similarly, Arghyam, a public charitable founda on set up by the Nilekanis is working with a large network of NGOs and CSOs in the hill districts of India (Cluster #09) on an ini a ve to revive Springs. Partnerships between PMKSY and such ins tu ons can leverage useful synergies with their programs. 32

References Chand, R., Raju, S.S., Garg, S. and Pandey, L.M. 2011. Instability and regional varia on in Indian agriculture. New Delhi: Na onal Centre for Agricultural Economics and Policy Research (NCAEPR). CPCB. 2009. Status of water supply, wastewater genera on and treatment in Class-I ci es and Class-II towns of India. Central for Pollu on Control Board (CPCB), Ministry of Environment and Forests, Government of India. GoI. 2014. Fourth Census of Minor Irriga on Schemes Report. November, 411p. New Delhi: Minor Irriga on (Sta s cs) Wing, Ministry of Water Resources, River Development and Ganga Rejuvena on, Government of India (GoI). Gupta, M., Ravindra, V. and Palrecha, A. 2016. Wastewater irriga on in Karnataka: An explora on. IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Highlight, 4. IARI. nd. Engineered wetland technology based eco-friendly wastewater treatment and re-use. Water Technology Center, Indian Agricultural Research Ins tute (IARI). Jagadeesan, S. and Kumar, M.D. 2015. The Sardar Sarovar Project: Assessing Economic and Social Impacts. New Delhi: SAGE Publica ons. Leaf Society 2016. Wastewater irriga on in Tamil Nadu. Unpublished dra report, Anand: IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program. Palrecha, A., Kapoor, D. and Maladi, T. 2012. Wastewater irriga on in Gujarat: An explora on. IWMI-Tata Water Policy Research Highlight #30, Anand: IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program. Ramola M., Palrecha, A. and Gupta, M. 2016. Wastewater irriga on in Maharashtra. Unpublished dra report, Anand: IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program. Shaheen, F. 2016. Wastewater irriga on in J & K. Unpublished dra report, Anand: IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program. Strauss, M and Blumenthal, U J. 1990. Human waste use in agriculture and aquaculture: U liza on prac ces and health perspec ves. Interna onal Reference Centre for Waste Disposal, Duebendorf, Switzerland. Wade, R. 1984. Irriga on Reform in Condi ons of Populist Anarchy: An Indian Case. Journal of Development Studies 14(2): 285–303.

33


ANNEXURE A1: Clustering of Districts With its diverse geography, hydrogeology and socio-economic condi ons, different parts of the country face different problems in sustainably accessing water resources for produc ve uses in agriculture. This means that a 'one-size-fit-all' design cannot work for any na onwide program. Based on data from the 9th Agricultural Census (2010-11) and the Minor Irriga on Census (2006-07), we have compiled a list of 590 districts and divided them into 12 clusters as shows in Table A.1. Table A.1: Clustering of Districts for PMKSY Interven ons Geographies

Defining aspect

Number of Districts

Cluster #01

Groundwater surplus districts with high share of farm holdings without any source of Type I or Type II irriga on

112

Cluster #02

Groundwater-surplus districts where Type II irriga on is constrained by high energy cost

36

Cluster #03

Groundwater surplus districts where Type II irriga on is constrained by inadequate electricity supply

24

Cluster #04

Groundwater-deficit alluvial districts where Type II irriga on will further deplete aquifers

103

Cluster #05

Groundwater deficit hard-rock districts with excessive groundwater deple on (dark or overexploited zones)

27

Cluster #06

Districts with dense network of MMM systems and large canal irriga on areas

114

Cluster #07

Districts with high density of irriga on tanks, check-dams, and water harves ng structures

161

Cluster #08

Districts with Class I or II towns

Cluster #09

Hill districts, mostly in Himalayas, where agro-clima c condi ons are not conducive for conven onal irriga on

100

Cluster #10

Districts with high irriga on incidence and high agricultural produc vity

54

Cluster #11

Districts with high irriga on incidence and low agricultural produc vity

41

Cluster #12

Urban and UT districts with li le agriculture and missing or patchy data

25

-

Each cluster represents a set of districts that exhibit a par cular characteris c. In this sec on, we explain how we have iden fied districts in each cluster.

34


Cluster #01: Most Deprived, Groundwater Surplus Districts (112) The agricultural census (2010-11) provides data on irrigated and unirrigated holdings in each district. From the 590 districts in the country, we first picked out the 192 most irriga on deprived districts, i.e. districts which have the least propor on of holdings with access to any irriga on – Type I or Type II. Among these districts, none have more than 30 per cent of their holdings as irrigated.

Figure A.1: Cluster #01 (112 Districts)

Since hill ecosystems might not be conducive for conven onal irriga on development programs, we decided to separate them into a different cluster (see Cluster #09). A few others among the 192 were urban districts, islands or union territories that have limited agriculture and patchy or missing data (Cluster #12). A er removing these, we arrived at 126 most irriga on deprived districts. Of the 126, we further excluded 14 districts where groundwater development is already more than 80 per cent and where further development of groundwater-based irriga on would lead to deple on. The remaining 112 districts form this cluster as “most irriga on-deprived, groundwater surplus districts”.

Cluster #02: Groundwater Surplus; High Pump Density; Type II Irriga on Constrained by High Energy Cost (36) Much of the irriga on-deprived districts in Cluster #01 have sparse irriga on infrastructure. However, there are also districts that have abundant groundwater and rela vely high density of groundwater structures but li le Type II irriga on. Irriga on development in these districts is constrained not by physical resource scarcity but by the high cost of energy. One would expect to find such districts in eastern India where rural electricity grids are o en missing and farmers are forced to rely on expensive diesel to operate their irriga on pumps.


For reasons discussed above, we excluded Cluster #09 and Cluster #12 districts from the 590 district dataset; we then selected districts that have more than 12 groundwater structures per 100 hectares of NSA (na onal average: 14); less than 20 per cent electric pumps; and less than 50 per cent irrigated farm holdings. The cluster of 36 districts thus formed is Cluster #02. The districts in this cluster can benefit most through interven ons that ensure a reasonably priced and reliable energy source for irriga on. 35


Cluster #03: Groundwater Surplus; High Pump Density; Type II Irriga on Constrained by Inadequate Electricity Supply (24) Figure A.3: Cluster #03 (24 Districts) Like in the case of Cluster #02, there are districts in peninsular India that have high density of groundwater structures and the poten al to further develop groundwater (Type II) irriga on but less than 50 per cent of their farm holdings are irrigated. These districts are constrained due to inadequate hours of electricity supply or due to the poor and erra c farm power delivery regime. As earlier, we begin by removing mountain and urban districts (Clusters #09 and #12) . We then selected districts that have more than 12 groundwater structures per 100 hectares of NSA); more than 80 per cent electric pumps; and less than 50 per cent irrigated farm holdings. The cluster of 24 districts thus formed is Cluster #03. These districts would immensely benefit if the rural power supply environment was to improve or if they had access to be er quality and quan ty of farm power.

Cluster #04: Groundwater Deficit Alluvial Districts (103) Several districts in the western Indo-Gange c basin are Figure A.4: Cluster #04 (103 Districts) using deep, fossil groundwater. These districts are characterised by low to medium rainfall, free or highly subsidized farm power supply, moderate to high density of deep tubewells and nega ve or near-nega ve groundwater balance. As earlier, we begin by removing mountain and urban districts (Clusters #09 and #12) . We then selected districts that have more than 80 per cent groundwater development. From these, we select alluvial districts in the north and north-western states of Punjab, Haryana, western UP, Rajasthan, MP and Gujarat. The cluster of 103 districts so formed is Cluster #04. Any Type II irriga on development in these districts will lead to further groundwater deple on. Thus, the focus of interven ons here needs to be on improving water use efficiency and making groundwater irriga on more sustainable.

36


Cluster #05: Groundwater Deficit hard-rock Districts (27) Figure A.5: Cluster #05 (27 Districts) Like in Cluster #04, there are similarly characterised districts in hard-rock districts of peninsular India too that have nega ve groundwater balance.

As earlier, we begin by removing mountain and urban districts (Clusters #09 and #12) . We then select districts that have more than 80 per cent groundwater development. From these, we select hard rock districts in the peninsular Indian states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The cluster of 27 districts so formed is Cluster #05. The focus of interven ons here too needs to be sustainable groundwater management.

Cluster #06: Districts with Dense MMM Network (114) As we discussed, much of India's public irriga on investments have gone in crea ng Type I irriga on infrastructure. Type I irriga on is concentrated in small pockets of canal command area and there are very few districts outside Punjab and Haryana where more than 50 per cent of the farm holdings receive canal irriga on.


In order to capture districts with dense network of MMM network, we begin by removing mountain and urban districts (Clusters #09 and #12). We then select districts that have more than 20 per cent farm holdings receiving canal irriga on. The cluster of 114 districts thus formed is Cluster #06. These districts have immense scope for improving the gap between IPC and IPU as well as interven ons that would improve conjunc ve management of surface and groundwater resources.

37


Cluster #07: Districts with High Density of Irriga on Tanks and WHS (161) Peninsular India is well-known for its dense network of cascading irriga on tanks. The combined culturable command area (CCA) of India's irriga on tanks adds up to nearly 7 mha; of these, nearly 6 mha is concentrated in 150 districts.


As earlier, we begin by removing mountain and urban districts (Clusters #09 and #12). We then arranged the districts in descending order of tank CCA and selected the top 150 districts. To these, we added the districts of Kerala that were not already included in the top 150. We did so because Kerala has a dense network of mul purpose ponds and village water bodies that are not designated specifically for irriga on. The cluster of 161 districts thus formed is Cluster #07. These districts have immense poten al for interven ons to improve tankgroundwater conjunc ve management.

Cluster #08: Districts with Class I and II Towns

Figure A.8: Cluster #08 Districts having poten al for WW use (175)

India already has more than 50 million+ ci es and rapidly urbanizing. As villages become towns; and towns turn into ci es, India's wastewater genera on – already es mated to be around 15 BCM will con nue to grow. Wastewater irriga on is already happening by default on a large scale and millions of farmers are benefi ng from nutrient-rich, reliable supplies. With minimal, smart investments, it is possible to convert municipal wastewater into a nutrient-rich, year-round reliable source of irriga on for peri-urban farms. It is difficult to quan fy the poten al for wastewater irriga on at the district level; hence, we do not define Cluster #08 by selec ng specific districts.

38


Cluster #09: Hill Districts in Eastern and Western Himalayas (100) India's mountain geographies have a unique agroecosystem characterised by tradi onal water management prac ces, decentralized water harves ng, diversion-based irriga on and community management of land and water resources including springs and water bodies. These regions, especially in eastern and peninsular India have high value planta on agriculture that is mostly dependent on rain water but requires some irriga on in cri cal moisture stress period.


We iden fy the districts in this cluster by including the en re hill states of Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh, U arakhand, Sikkim, Arunachal Pradesh, Manipur, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland and Tripura. To these, we add 3 hill districts in Assam (Chachr, N.C Hills and Karbi Anglong), Darjeeling (West Bengal), Idukki and Wayanad (Kerala) and Coorg (Karnataka). The cluster of 100 districts thus formed is Cluster #09.

Cluster #10: Districts with High Irriga on Incidence and High Produc vity (54) Figure A.10: Cluster #10 (54 Districts) Taking Type I and Type II irriga on together, there are only about 150 districts in India where more than 70 per cent of the farm holdings are irrigated.

We define Cluster #10 as the group of 54 such districts where more than 70 per cent farm holdings are irrigated and where agricultural produc vity per hectare exceeds ₹ 50,000 (na onal average: ₹ 27,522).

39


Cluster #11: Districts with High Irriga on Incidence but Low Produc vity (41) Similarly, there are about 40 districts where agricultural Figure A.11: Cluster #11 (41 Districts) produc vity per hectare is low despite high incidence of irriga on. These districts are unlikely to improve their agricultural produc vity by adding more farm holdings under irriga on but may benefit from other development programs. Like in Cluster #10, for Cluster #11, we select districts with more than 70 per cent irrigated farm holdings but agricultural produc vity per hectare less than ₹ 30,000 (na onal average: ₹ 27,522).

Cluster #12: Urban and UT Districts (25) Finally, we classify 25 urban districts, islands and union territories under Cluster #12. These districts have li le or no agriculture and agriculture and irriga on data for these districts is either missing or very patchy.

40

26.85 m

Number of Holdings

4.05% 3.32%

Percentage Canal Irrigated Holdings

Percentage Canal Irrigated Area

41 8.94

18.35

0.79 m

Rs. 27,273

0.45 mha

0.39

5.05%

5.85%

17.71%

28.24%

4.31 mha

8.02 m

18.18

2.16 m

Rs. 21,674

0.57 mha

0.60

5.43%

7.43%

23.08%

32.09%

11.90 mha

10.89 m

15.15

5.39 m

Rs. 27,368

0.24 mha

1.31

10.98%

13.86%

53.43%

70.39%

35.57 mha

18.95 m

103

Alluvial aquifer GW_Devt ≥ 80% ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Cluster #04

Percentage irrigated holdings [Source: 9th Agricultural Census 2010-11] Irr_A Percentage irrigated area [Source: 9th Agricultural Census 2010-11] C_Irr_H Percentage canal irrigated holdings [Source: 9th Agricultural Census 2010-11] C_Irr_A Percentage canal irrigated area [Source: 9th Agricultural Census 2010-11 GW_Devt Level of Groundwater Development [Source: CGWB] T_CCA Culturable Command Area of Irriga on Tanks [Source: 4th Minor Irriga on Census] Prod_Ha Agricultural Produc vity per Hectare [Source: Chand et al. 2011]

Irr_H

Abbrevia ons

2.73 m

Groundwater Structures per 100 Ha of Net Sown Area

Rs. 19,160

Agricultural Produc vity (Rs/Ha)

Number of Groundwater Structures

1.76 mha

Total Tank Irriga on CCA

0.32

11.55%

Percentage Irrigated Area

Level of Groundwater Development

15.35%

Percentage Irrigated Holdings

30.57 mha

112

Number of Districts

Net Sown Area (million hectares)

Irr_H < 30% ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Clustering Criteria

24

Irr_H < 50% GW_Devt < 80% Elec_W > 80% GWS/NSA > 0.12 ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Irr_H < 50% GW_Devt < 80% Elec_W < 20% GWS/NSA > 0.12 ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

36

Cluster #03

Cluster #02

Cluster #01

Parameter

Table A.2: Comparison across 10 main district clusters

Comparison across Clusters

15.07

4.51 m

Rs. 37,376

1.35 mha

0.67

34.17%

36.76%

66.71%

72.22%

29.94 mha

29.72 m

114

C_Irr_H ≥ 20% ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Cluster #06

14.86

6.79 m

Rs. 28,030

5.98 mha

0.45

9.58%

13.17%

32.66%

47.30%

45.67 mha

49.84 m

161

Top 150 T_CCA + Kerala districts ≠ Cluster #12

Cluster #07

1.75

0.07 m

Rs. 39.670

0.87 mha

0.16

5.59%

12.75%

19.52%

39.79%

4.26 mha

5.17 m

100

Hill states + Hill districts ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Cluster #09

19.50

2.46 m

Rs. 64,153

0.18 mha

0.99

22.39%

20.61%

84.40%

83.89%

12.62 mha

12.62 m

54

Irr_H ≥ 70% Prod_Ha ≥ 50,000 ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Cluster #10

17.83

1.68 m

Rs. 24,705

0.36 mha

0.62

28.19%

26.95%

74.81%

80.41%

9.44 mha

11.58 m

41

Irr_H ≥ 70% Prod_Ha ≤ 30,000 ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Cluster #11

Percentage Electric Wells and Tubewells [Source: 4th Minor Irriga on Census] Diesel_W Percentage Diesel Wells and Tubewells [Source: 4th Minor Irriga on Census] Oth_W Percentage Other Wells and Tubewells [Source: 4th Minor Irriga on Census] NSA Net Sown Area [Source: 9th Agricultural Census 2010-11] kWh-equiv Energy Consump on measured in kilo-wa -hour equivalent units [Source: 4th Minor Irriga on Census] GWS Number of Groundwater Structures [Source: 4th Minor Irriga on Census]

Elec_W

25.12

2.37 m

Rs. 28,965

0.41 mha

0.99

7.15%

8.98%

33.91%

46.02%

9.42 mha

9.21 m

27

Hard rock aquifer GW_Devt ≥ 80% ≠ Cluster #09 ≠ Cluster #12

Cluster #05

Rethinking Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchai Yojana (PMKSY)

HAR KHET KO PANI

ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDHRA PRADESH ANDMAN & NIKOBAR ANDMAN & NIKOBAR ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL ARUNACHAL

State

ADILABAD ANANTPUR CHITTOOR CUDDAPAH E.GODAVARI GUNTUR HYDERABAD KARIMNAGAR KHAMMAM KRISHNA KURNOOL MAHBUBNAGAR MEDAK NALGONDA NELLORE NIZAMABAD PRAKASAM RANGAREDDI SRIKAKULAM VISAKHAPATNAM VIZIANAGARAM WARANGAL W.GODAVARI ANDAMAN NICOBARS CHANGLANG DIBANGVALLEY EASTKAMENG EASTSIANG LOHIT LOWERSUBANSIRI PARUMPARE TAWANG TIRAP UPPERSIANG UPPERSUBANSIRI WESTKAMEND

District 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

S_No 1 and 7 1 and 7 3 and 7 7 6, 7 and 10 6 12 6 and 7 7 6 and 7 7 1, 3 and 7 5 and 7 3 and 7 6 and 7 6 and 7 3 and 7 1 and 3 6, 7 and 11 6 and 7 7 7 6, 7 and 10 12 12 9 9 9 7 and 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9

Clusters

Table A.3: District-wise database with key variables used for clustering of districts

ANNEXURE A2: District-wise Database

0.11 0.13 0.28 0.28 0.62 0.62 0.66 0.42 0.67 0.22 0.23 0.26 0.35 0.59 0.53 0.24 0.16 0.66 0.43 0.45 0.53 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.23 0.11 0.28 0.27 0.08 0.02 0.11 0.04 0.03

0.69 0.51 0.76 0.31 0.28 0.35 0.49 0.76 0.60 0.32 0.27 0.74 0.67 0.64 0.63 0.93 0.00 0.01 0.30 0.48 0.21 0.56 0.26 0.70 0.73 0.12 0.02 0.39 0.24 0.12

Irr_A

0.17 0.20 0.38 0.43 0.73 0.67

Irr_H 0.36 0.79 0.71 0.59 0.25 0.19 0.00 0.64 0.29 0.36 0.28 0.45 0.83 0.59 0.27 0.69 0.28 0.70 0.25 0.22 0.19 0.62 0.36 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

GW_Devt 23495 30250 71641 14894 47093 6180 0 41542 62902 39022 17902 19191 38706 37194 97871 40433 45763 6885 94333 95699 103632 95848 41670 208 0 3363 5263 851 22019 7970 6809 11310 821 2643 9380 3772 1211

T_CCA

42

15396 18702 33754 13767 31194 25485 8196 16159 14431 16008

18945

34577 36108 44069 22115 15704 24232 26876 37897 42167 28885 27508 28711 31855 31851 33895 64600

19436 16477 32794 28315 61517 54937

Prod_Ha

0.25

0.07

0.99 0.91 0.88 0.90 0.81 0.95 0.98 0.89 0.99 0.91 0.93 0.28 0.55 0.36 0.92 0.94 0.12 0.01 0.00 1.00

0.95 0.83 0.84 0.76 0.73 0.77

Elec_W

NSA 582886 1101744 379268 403320 419909 637963 0 511714 479345 469737 889427 830805 451668 562410 309347 672970 236138 367339 314282 302535 295740 528164 439756 14067 463 27640 6340 5894 21538 16214 22422 13685 3185 15227 9435 15573 6061

155778909 290498899 527253526 472208189 159764064 91566517 0 351707445 219630963 117823535 175934560 742973757 889068717 1159383602 286327405 640606368 244607048 233603355 41870851 65554173 58363060 578655279 604723864 0 0 27800 189600 0 12667 62500 0 0 1500 16800 1500 1500 1500

kWh-equiv.

GWS 45761 111566 179536 89758 35280 48013 0 234948 62864 49153 61449 179726 148590 185995 79476 138583 77642 78702 45987 36934 44686 207761 57141 1278 94 6 10 0 0 15 0 0 0 4 0 0 0


HAR KHET KO PANI

State

ARUNACHAL ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM ASSAM BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR

District

WESTSIANG BARPETA BONGAIGAON CACHAR DARRANG DHEMAJI DHUBRI DIBRUGARH GOALPARA GOLAGHAT HAILAKANDI JORHAT KAMRUP KARBI ANGLONG KARIMGANJ KOKRAJHAR LAKHIMPUR MARIGAON NAGAON NORTH CACHER HILS SIBSAGAR SONITPUR TINSUKIA ARARIA AURANGABAD_B BANKA BEGUSARAI BHAGALPUR BHOJPUR BUXAR DARBHANGA GAYA GOPALGANJ JAMUI JEHANABAD KAIMPUR KATIHAR KHAGARIA KISHANGANJ LAKHISARAI MADHEPURA

38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78

S_No 9 1 and 7 1 and 7 9 1 and 7 1 1 and 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 and 9 1 1 1 1 1 9 1 1 1 11 6, 7 and 11 None 1 and 2 None 6 and 11 6 1 2 11 1 and 2 None 6 and 11 None 1 and 2 None None 1

Clusters 0.58 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.19 0.03 0.18 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.19 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.86 0.80 0.57 0.24 0.54 0.73 0.64 0.03 0.41 0.83 0.21 0.52 0.74 0.55 0.26 0.45 0.41 0.17

Irr_H 0.21 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.02 0.11 0.08 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.09 0.18 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.07 0.00 0.86 0.78 0.39 0.16 0.45 0.74 0.65 0.05 0.39 0.76 0.23 0.45 0.78 0.61 0.32 0.29 0.38 0.19

Irr_A 0.00 0.31 0.11 0.05 0.18 0.03 0.46 0.12 0.16 0.06 0.06 0.07 0.23 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.25 0.23 0.13 0.07 0.06 0.07 0.34 0.24 0.37 0.62 0.34 0.45 0.36 0.52 0.49 0.58 0.39 0.58 0.32 0.55 0.46 0.28 0.43 0.57

GW_Devt 9269 16415 14681 805 36372 0 1439 0 8923 198 4 2314 7661 28631 465 3897 720 2302 1297 1970 226 4613 0 0 40491 5412 0 16 60 0 0 11539 1220 5914 230 5901 0 30 0 4 0

T_CCA

43

16776 42908

9969 25073 24856 29728 23248 20099 23955 24931 26513 33595 34515 29632 25674 24433 29037 25176 22188 19645 31306 43726 26683 26405 27805 17399 25023 22787 41743 30944 23144 23632 33639 20364 26178 17640 23288 28537 35215 39959

Prod_Ha

0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00

Elec_W

NSA 22296 331720 67635 115386 103833 67506 134349 139498 80753 119046 50294 120240 199721 126399 76035 86556 100169 92011 235626 28171 136822 165141 104714 200463 218187 82295 61813 128271 167554 108733 165534 218143 128165 157927 55496 148355 168457 95364 97578 60394 114651

4600 31274809 7376157 479356 23541919 1705051 36678290 8209826 12473664 3614451 302911 4348220 17210421 172665 376570 2448748 2365404 12649608 973424 13500 3007319 3932881 4801844 20556605 25078657 8653126 42326596 19175512 48227880 21418742 15965589 56434505 46626622 16908704 36770523 40428923 42904404 25574876 15630917 11373126 29267432

kWh-equiv.

0 17939 5808 12 8938 1493 17120 5056 5220 1927 12 2435 9599 46 61 1769 1730 5219 12069 0 2584 2461 2814 6762 12312 8021 14757 11828 23675 18723 10776 27048 38689 24714 8222 20999 19653 24886 7621 6887 6645

GWS


HAR KHET KO PANI

District

MADHUBANI MUNGER MUZAFFARPUR NALANDA NAWADA PASCHIM CHAMPARAN PATNA PURAB CHAMPARAN PURNIA ROHTAS SAHARSA SAMASTIPUR SARAN SHEIKHPURA SHEOHAR SITAMARHI SIWAN SUPAUL VAISHALI CHANDIGARH BASTAR BILASPUR_C DANTEWADA DHAMTARI DURG JANJGIR-CHAMPA JASHPUR KANKER KAWARDHA KORBA KORIYA MAHASAMUND RAIGARH_C RAIPUR RAJNANDGAON SURGUJA DADRA AND NAGAR HAVELI DAMAN DIU CENTRAL EAST_D

State

BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR BIHAR CHANDIGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH CHHATTISGARH DADRA & NAGAR HAVELI DAMAN AND DIU DAMAN AND DIU DELHI DELHI

79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119

S_No 6 6 None None 2 and 7 6 and 11 2 11 1 None 2 1 and 2 None None 10 None None 2 10 12 1 and 7 6 and 7 1 6 and 11 6 and 7 6, 7 and 11 1 1 1 and 7 1 and 7 1 and 2 1 and 7 1, 2 and 7 6 and 7 1 and 7 1, 2 and 7 12 12 12 12 12

Clusters 0.38 0.55 0.63 0.96 0.49 0.83 0.38 0.71 0.03 0.42 0.31 0.13 0.60 0.59 0.78 0.53 0.47 0.49 0.73 0.98 0.04 0.43 0.03 0.79 0.46 0.83 0.10 0.24 0.12 0.07 0.17 0.25 0.15 0.57 0.25 0.18 0.07 0.00 0.05

Irr_H 0.29 0.48 0.54 0.93 0.39 0.76 0.30 0.56 0.08 0.46 0.33 0.08 0.57 0.57 0.69 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.57 0.97 0.02 0.39 0.01 0.72 0.44 0.81 0.02 0.31 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.25 0.12 0.53 0.22 0.07 0.08 0.00 0.03

Irr_A 0.34 0.29 0.56 0.66 0.43 0.27 0.55 0.42 0.47 0.35 0.38 0.53 0.56 0.54 0.60 0.46 0.59 0.36 0.57 0.00 0.10 0.47 0.04 0.78 0.69 0.42 0.35 0.21 0.66 0.32 0.23 0.47 0.53 0.43 0.58 0.26 0.22 0.89 1.17 0.84 1.79

GW_Devt 1009 3869 0 102 18273 2398 3735 4 0 901 72 24 339 725 0 1 189 0 384 0 17518 20270 6289 1082 19764 44644 8102 7096 16892 170052 9969 16007 63469 20065 17220 12410 15 0 0 0 0

T_CCA

44

11970 23524 9017 26627 22068 15406 11108 16349 11358 15900 15071 13277 16094 13247 13334 14244

55682 33042 21261 22631 53003

18270 36570 41428 33303 27160 25112 32367 23708 24008 32321 40025 30554 26790

Prod_Ha

0.00

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.90 0.21 0.36 0.10 0.64 0.67 0.21 0.02 0.28 0.71 0.08 0.09 0.54 0.15 0.44 0.62 0.15 0.82

Elec_W

NSA 219100 24092 167607 175156 92547 296091 237096 269815 183564 232944 101847 163783 144374 44628 28819 107318 126719 113090 112096 892 343599 368325 278112 137551 555880 260652 253755 193013 209808 135498 103526 268824 271620 539823 370899 461916 19882 2226 50 0 0

22838098 14254406 44043742 77881696 36623298 24082934 76210821 0 52476102 45171704 12607737 76232056 58873733 9594267 6058113 20705998 48813033 25866546 35702524 0 10120872 4986523 2151116 1068623 56494509 90502599 30873198 22794859 18620940 13227032 8310896 10618580 38548847 1519627 88862500 63597983 25446162 94231052 0 0 0

kWh-equiv.

GWS

277

12879 17885 8400 35341 35119 16823 29930 24322 12627 5829 31899 29505 4115 3988 10490 26857 9405 26933 16677 91 6717 28097 1108 16883 27210 27741 29017 8927 5748 8088 19439 10155 40774 27722 10831 63833 645


HAR KHET KO PANI

DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI DELHI GOA GOA GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT GUJARAT HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA

State

District

NEW DELHI NORTH EAST NORTH WEST SOUTH WEST SOUTH_D WEST_D NORTH GOA SOUTH GOA AHMEDABAD AMRELI ANAND BANASKANTHA BHARUCH BHAVNAGAR DAHOD GANDHINAGAR JAMNAGAR JUNAGAD KACHCHH KHEDA MAHESANA NARMADA NAVSARI PANCH MAHALS PATAN PORBANDAR RAJKOT SABARKANTHA SURAT SURENDRANAGAR THE DANGS VADODARA VALSAD AMBALA BHIWANI FARIDABAD FATEHABAD GURGAON HISAR JHAJJAR JIND

120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160

S_No 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 12 6 1 10 4 6 7 1 and 7 4 7 None None 6 4 None 6 1 4 3 7 7 6 1 1 6 1 4 and 10 4 and 6 4, 6 and 10 4, 6 and 10 4 4 and 6 4, 6 and 11 4

Clusters 0.01 0.01 0.81 0.85 0.93 0.92 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.25 0.85 0.59 0.40 0.39 0.10 0.72 0.36 0.45 0.31 0.69 0.60 0.34 0.47 0.15 0.46 0.45 0.41 0.53 0.69 0.18 0.03 0.64 0.24 0.80 0.90 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.99 0.99 0.91

Irr_H 0.17 0.02 0.79 0.80 0.69 0.87 0.41 0.39 0.46 0.26 0.81 0.52 0.35 0.35 0.06 0.72 0.37 0.42 0.32 0.68 0.56 0.34 0.48 0.12 0.36 0.42 0.41 0.55 0.64 0.18 0.02 0.61 0.24 0.81 0.87 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.89

Irr_A 0.90 0.89 1.12 1.40 1.95 1.53 0.30 0.26 0.78 0.64 0.52 1.07 0.47 0.64 0.50 1.20 0.64 0.62 0.79 0.64 1.16 0.30 0.48 0.41 1.22 0.72 0.65 0.73 0.45 0.60 0.17 0.54 0.42 0.86 1.15 0.89 1.74 2.26 0.94 1.00 1.12

GW_Devt 0 0 0 0 17 71 2102 1628 2602 1648 0 3845 60 14324 35165 0 41189 3840 1855 377 3634 1597 0 1384 1423 5923 94572 14831 0 745 5 7863 0 0 72 12 0 0 0 0 0

T_CCA

19301 24327 50857 27577 32827 28001 14933 31739 32233 44403 17569 29243 26424 37723 52950 11538 14263 34721 38607 23600 62395 21618 11759 25405 31832 54168 32936 53120 61787 39511 49688 29143 49691

Prod_Ha 0.43 0.92 0.95 0.99 0.99 0.58 0.69 0.40 0.47 0.88 0.61 0.73 0.54 0.00 0.99 0.76 0.79 0.78 0.67 0.91 0.28 0.70 0.26 1.00 0.89 0.43 0.83 0.98 0.47 0.00 0.44 0.64 0.00 0.62 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.09 0.01

Elec_W 0 177 10300 10756 736 1264 50179 37035 573474 548597 207559 735875 277935 511824 208679 157718 619935 506583 788947 288172 325450 117966 134651 299229 373832 129075 711268 427223 364280 697822 44174 460243 146646 102267 391765 168266 202316 218891 220405 111217 148879

NSA

0 0 20634251 7189341 1854886 735855 4304818 3420933 72613353 206447136 52673799 1070928968 27116359 209858292 38033786 133907073 302854780 320072232 157672834 94130611 256617218 15122193 21772043 46974971 89138208 42940163 484783985 306990128 74921361 234053963 2202733 156074143 11076735 123910200 193629055 249570211 169833600 37281955 139290000 117646576 195172800

kWh-equiv.

54 4422 3923 765 383 2995 1428 18946 72755 8599 79019 6216 84919 36165 8634 97437 144510 28741 27119 19589 4900 20609 42295 6807 27881 152838 95581 37329 53091 1519 29862 12974 19041 27475 32482 22124 11646 23204 20995 34590

GWS


HAR KHET KO PANI

45

State

HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HARYANA HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL HIMACHAL JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JAMMU & KASHMIR JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND

District

KAITHAL KARNAL KURUKSHETRA MAHENDRAGARH PANCHKULA PANIPAT REWARI ROHTAK SIRSA SONIPAT YAMUNANAGAR BILASPUR_H CHAMBA HAMIRPUR_H KANGRA KINNAUR KULLU LAHUL AND SPITI MANDI SHIMLA SIRMAUR SOLAN UNA ANANTNAG BADGAM BARAMULA DODA JAMMU JAMMU & KASHMIR KARGIL KATHUA KUPWARA LEH PULWAMA PUNCH RAJAURI SRINAGAR UDHAMPUR BOKARO CHATRA DEOGHAR

161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201

S_No 4 and 10 4 and 10 4 and 10 4 4 4, 6 and 10 4 and 11 6 4, 6 and 10 4, 6 and 10 4, 6 and 10 9 9 9 7 and 9 9 9 9 9 7 and 9 9 9 9 7 and 9 7 and 9 7 and 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 and 9 9 9 7 and 9 9 7 and 9 9 1 and 2 1 and 2 1 and 2

Clusters 0.95 0.82 1.00 0.82 0.46 0.86 0.74 1.00 1.00 0.73 0.88 0.06 0.09 0.03 0.18 0.50 0.01 0.55 0.10 0.03 0.13 0.12 0.14 0.58 0.72 0.52 0.31 0.58 0.82 0.28 0.26 0.69 0.68 0.09 0.05 0.84 0.12 0.03 0.04 0.04

1.00 0.28 0.24 1.00 0.81 0.24 0.15 0.95 0.19 0.26 0.02 0.14

Irr_A

0.96 0.84 1.00 0.84 0.56 0.89 0.72 1.00 1.00 0.82 0.88 0.14 0.17 0.08 0.38 0.77 0.04 1.00 0.32 0.09 0.49 0.51 0.21 0.63 0.82 0.74 0.33 0.63

Irr_H 2.14 1.48 2.20 1.02 0.81 1.63 1.13 0.70 1.76 1.39 1.38 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.00 0.35 0.55 1.23 0.11 0.27 0.10 0.20 0.18 0.00 0.09 0.18 0.26 0.01 0.29 0.40 0.31 0.66 0.48 0.34 0.36 0.35

GW_Devt 0 123 0 0 403 0 28 0 0 0 0 2095 3941 530 30682 5787 1971 3579 11641 15704 9542 6990 123 45278 24042 30451 10466 244 0 9580 3735 20000 10058 3174 33264 5236 12997 3531 5894 10674 11754

T_CCA

0.77

44401

46

8473 29922 12406 15367 38220 21689 27782 75936 19385 54310 37014 27229

78552 95329 40568 28630 27617 20562 11034 29191

0.00

0.92 0.20 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00

1.00

0.99

0.00 0.96

0.93 0.89 0.75

0.91 0.88

0.00 0.00 0.01 0.93 0.03 0.02 0.51 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.01 0.89

Elec_W

53401 67825 69196 30652 51350 64742 26501 35230 54333 53740 65998 53740 33030 36719 43128 97104 102052

Prod_Ha

NSA 159372 191996 116805 50294 17492 127098 69680 57035 943638 205021 94658 33400 43524 37725 114644 9986 31912 3709 92297 70772 39169 34647 36425 70624 44400 81123 78078 93656 0 10479 99513 44426 10016 61715 27378 54475 25127 78413 20782 25289 31488

206910000 176073224 262902000 130831660 10279900 75360600 72143224 87680400 218427200 202069900 114416400 44975179 52500 785412 10934941 0 89147 4500 219588 33682 3261585 9751210 13300388 1167 18700 42160 700 5156094 0 2000 3173336 0 0 10500 0 0 94000 32416 3608175 8698067 14139733

kWh-equiv.

GWS

0 1185 0 0 2 0 13 25 26 5030 13195 5835

36660 46801 32540 20418 1934 19243 19200 13746 27756 37487 20504 107 0 175 1095 0 1 0 13 0 619 988 2083 0 0 0 2 1904


HAR KHET KO PANI

State

JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND JHARKHAND KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA KARNATAKA

District

DHANBAD DUMKA GARHWA GIRIDIH GODDA GUMLA HAZARIBAG KODARMA LOHARDAGA PAKAUR PALAMU PASCHIMI SINGBHUM PURBI SINGHBHUM RANCHI SAHIBGANJ BAGALKOT BANGLORE BANGLORE RURAL BELGAUN BELLARY BIDAR BIJAPUR CHAMARAJANAGAR CHIKMAGALUR CHITRADURGA DAKSHINA KANNADA DAVANAGERE DHARWAD GADAG GULBARGA HASSAN HAVERI KODAGU KOLAR KOPPAL MANDYA MYSORE RAICHUR SHIMOGA TUMKUR UDUPI

202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242

S_No 1 and 2 1, 2 and 7 1 1 and 2 1 and 7 1 and 7 1 and 2 2 2 1 1, 2 and 7 1 and 7 1 1 and 2 1 5 12 5 None 6 1 None 5 1 5 10 5 1 5 1 1 and 7 1 and 7 9 5 and 7 6 3 and 6 6 None 6 and 7 5 and 7 None

Clusters 0.19 0.16 0.15 0.27 0.14 0.13 0.19 0.37 0.38 0.15 0.13 0.03 0.03 0.23 0.06 0.51 0.15 0.16 0.56 0.38 0.12 0.34 0.24 0.24 0.19 0.77 0.42 0.16 0.16 0.19 0.29 0.21 0.02 0.21 0.37 0.42 0.48 0.34 0.70 0.28 0.61

Irr_H 0.02 0.04 0.08 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.02 0.06 0.00 0.01 0.04 0.03 0.46 0.17 0.19 0.49 0.34 0.09 0.26 0.23 0.20 0.15 0.54 0.37 0.15 0.14 0.15 0.27 0.16 0.01 0.17 0.30 0.39 0.43 0.26 0.57 0.21 0.34

Irr_A 0.56 0.28 0.36 0.37 0.45 0.28 0.41 0.36 0.41 0.15 0.32 0.14 0.23 0.42 0.23 0.91 1.41 1.17 0.78 0.42 0.57 0.75 0.80 0.43 1.02 0.69 0.89 0.59 0.89 0.30 0.55 0.64 0.21 1.67 0.43 0.47 0.43 0.31 0.27 1.00 0.37

GW_Devt 5610 36097 5474 5905 101099 14612 2327 2544 1020 2970 37060 21992 3818 3802 2471 3626 1360 4211 2054 5139 6025 4510 1233 11607 5540 663 3541 1614 1495 3155 27963 12412 2642 15283 3878 6072 6094 2814 59687 12144 4730

T_CCA

19801 18510 13494 8664 23067 27846 18205 69707 26574 10492 8466 11183 23471 17878 73239 53122 15246 44446 35957 11073 44492 19500 47718

62954 32201 27776 26211 21633 33423 29817 30103 14628 52839

48468 28783 27448 40076 31070 14752

Prod_Ha 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.01 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.17 0.02 0.00 0.99 0.94 0.92 0.95 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.94 0.95 0.98 0.73 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.74 0.98 0.96 0.99 0.95 0.85 0.97 0.97 0.98 0.92 0.90 0.93

Elec_W

NSA 6268 100659 47381 49213 42031 199927 28338 7554 27402 34511 93186 154252 30442 150733 29699 450144 60532 319144 901145 485381 401112 856161 194096 302603 187248 145043 892885 321356 378565 1300572 436412 360945 160787 203536 409762 281259 357502 638358 245069 559738 103116

2607813 33318766 2375946 8740499 5853676 9491599 1300153 3590448 2751351 1554290 7528574 2669491 6337118 15275240 2062924 240089360 94311013 334776747 427424594 85113064 69081146 1106433 68944427 56441376 198474770 121080465 231864704 17465090 26316717 108592557 135550273 57346768 9047718 554306775 55325603 136759535 79983413 22624346 68416637 787203558 50485617

kWh-equiv.

3357 32252 2710 6263 4659 14407 6287 3394 4356 1848 12182 2673 1636 20524 1939 38189 13980 46701 100318 23369 26990 54314 26007 24638 50099 41278 43226 9433 9915 33653 47344 24584 1383 61526 28407 38828 26901 11673 26408 111718 29804

GWS


HAR KHET KO PANI

47

State

KARNATAKA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA KERLA LAKSHADWEEP MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH

District

UTTARA KANNADA ALAPPUZHA ERNAKULAM IDUKKI KANNUR KASARAGOD KOLLAM KOTTAYAM KOZHIKODE MALAPPURAM PALAKKAD PATHANAMTHITTA THIRUVANANTHAPURAM TRISSUR WAYANAD LAKSHADWEEP BALAGHAT BARWANI BETUL BHIND BHOPAL CHHATARPUR CHHINDWARA DAMOH DATIA DEWAS DHAR DINDORI KHANDWA GUNA GWALIOR HARDA HOSHANGABAD INDORE JABALPUR JHABUA KATNI MANDLA MANDSAUR MORENA NARSIMHAPUR

243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283

S_No 7 7 and 10 3 and 7 7 and 9 7 7 and 10 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 and 9 12 6 and 7 3 3 None 11 7 3 None 6 and 11 4 4 and 7 1 3 None 6 6 and 11 6 and 11 4 None 7 7 1 4 6 and 11 None

Clusters 0.56 0.73 0.46 0.63 0.53 0.79 0.35 0.34 0.36 0.65 0.56 0.58 0.62 0.66 0.50 0.00 0.42 0.41 0.42 0.42 0.70 0.68 0.46 0.69 0.98 0.51 0.55 0.01 0.38 0.67 0.62 0.85 0.86 0.75 0.55 0.46 0.37 0.21 0.61 0.81 0.63

Irr_H 0.24 0.36 0.17 0.25 0.12 0.36 0.03 0.11 0.08 0.26 0.42 0.07 0.11 0.43 0.28 0.00 0.37 0.30 0.30 0.33 0.73 0.57 0.30 0.48 0.94 0.47 0.49 0.01 0.28 0.65 0.61 0.80 0.86 0.79 0.51 0.22 0.33 0.15 0.40 0.77 0.55

Irr_A 0.37 0.29 0.42 0.43 0.46 0.71 0.38 0.29 0.56 0.57 0.62 0.37 0.53 0.53 0.18 0.67 0.14 0.72 0.52 0.41 0.75 0.67 0.53 0.62 0.48 0.82 0.82 0.08 0.66 0.53 0.43 0.29 0.19 1.20 0.49 0.38 0.41 0.15 0.96 0.41 0.76

GW_Devt 12462 782 2501 4030 11715 12811 4332 1035 2283 11301 11308 3223 14563 12839 4298 0 31672 2931 7410 40 1831 18928 822 6431 12 3203 32944 462 215 4832 1281 1226 10760 3 682 17147 53039 3236 7664 1444 1835

T_CCA

48

0.87 1.00 0.88 0.55 0.99 0.66 0.92 0.86 0.73 0.92 0.95 0.31 0.99 0.54 0.88 0.86 0.98 1.00 0.99 0.77 0.87 0.88 0.98 0.73 0.97

14817 12001 13898 16021 21219 15058 21210 13707 17263 25763 20151 7701 27330 12520 24288 25269 33077 20541 9769 12393 8801 21412 22755 24634

0.95 0.79 0.98 0.82 0.94 0.87 0.74 0.83 0.94 0.97 0.92 0.64 0.82 0.99 0.75

Elec_W

32732 50147 52478 71546 46336 53476 79182 58143 60376 66022 60175 77809 70845 59129 82604

Prod_Ha

NSA 128546 50232 97523 152519 110522 72164 76758 107457 95938 109478 119909 55666 72213 79576 82800 2409 282040 230817 444363 325253 144403 444321 488216 280700 212259 413033 488710 224132 410841 588807 202439 172621 308434 241918 283615 357547 216633 259341 345044 268355 298479

25077823 1860043 20405276 7770883 10480183 16189212 2361260 2911529 4278515 15965815 26874837 3245638 8373410 41119913 3240723 0 17263952 59183448 83197268 162248885 39774557 27748909 72729199 38005262 34486267 108461914 119462846 339560 63758987 51222134 52835371 34887384 57651619 176784318 51418600 40008005 20566044 1498531 91656573 103012100 169519171

kWh-equiv.

GWS

10464 27368 63013 15254 20527 12225 84733 22052 24031 55438 80997 332 66249 50266 21613 15669 31420 40955 23128 23082 13217 2369 99266 23007 46743

27016 6216 18951 5780 19232 8477 7636 6116 9003 13896 11380 7583 6589 48057 873


HAR KHET KO PANI

State

MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MADHYA PRADESH MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA

District

NEEMUCH PANNA RAISEN RAJGARH RATLAM REWA SAGAR SATNA SEHORE SEONI SHAHDOL SHAJAPUR SHEOPUR SHIVPURI SIDHI TIKAMGARH UJJAIN UMARIYA VIDISHA WEST NIMAR AHMADNAGAR AKOLA AMRAVATI AURANGABAD_M BHANDARA BID BULDANA CHANDRAPUR DHULE GADCHIROLI GONDIYA HINGOLI JALGAON JALNA KOLHAPUR LATUR MUMBAI MUMBAI(SUBURBAN) NAGPUR NANDED NANDURBAR

284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324

S_No 4 1 and 7 None 4 4 7 None 7 None 7 1 4 and 7 6 and 11 7 7 None 4 and 7 1 None 3 5 1 1, 3 and 7 1, 3 and 7 7 1 1 and 7 1 and 7 1, 3 and 7 7 6 and 7 1 5 and 7 1 and 3 6 1 12 12 1, 3 and 7 1 1 and 7

Clusters 0.53 0.22 0.45 0.52 0.35 0.32 0.46 0.32 0.51 0.36 0.05 0.38 0.77 0.49 0.26 0.55 0.57 0.13 0.58 0.30 0.29 0.10 0.16 0.10 0.40 0.07 0.13 0.16 0.16 0.31 0.37 0.01 0.19 0.07 0.35 0.04

0.20 0.01 0.18

0.25 0.01 0.19

Irr_A

0.69 0.25 0.51 0.65 0.43 0.37 0.52 0.37 0.58 0.45 0.10 0.36 0.81 0.54 0.42 0.61 0.68 0.22 0.55 0.41 0.32 0.11 0.17 0.12 0.39 0.07 0.13 0.26 0.18 0.42 0.38 0.02 0.19 0.07 0.50 0.07

Irr_H 0.83 0.26 0.45 0.83 1.26 0.54 0.59 0.74 0.77 0.29 0.06 0.98 0.37 0.68 0.34 0.72 0.95 0.11 0.54 0.75 0.82 0.45 0.68 0.72 0.33 0.51 0.70 0.16 0.52 0.25 0.20 0.37 0.81 0.53 0.41 0.75 0.00 0.00 0.52 0.35 0.50

GW_Devt 4856 14746 8640 2454 2348 81615 13 12965 11430 275032 9979 16787 5137 13390 25050 3852 13290 6380 7327 258 7079 1208 41235 127367 92567 9340 35770 40557 54275 22774 66820 5121 22522 4454 774 3745 0 0 86892 937 48239

T_CCA

49

24590 23111 12357

47868 12661 34446 13139

27190 8556 14230 18644 25030 11718 15399 12701 23051 13062 7269 20239 23165 18397 9336 20891 22654 7084 15478 14751 9921 1266 20903 11076 25893 9796 12364 16986 11921 13644

Prod_Ha

0.94 0.99 0.95

1.00 0.46 0.85 0.96 0.96 0.90 0.77 0.90 0.97 0.71 0.69 0.99 0.90 0.02 0.88 0.49 0.98 0.77 0.32 0.99 0.85 0.96 0.97 0.99 0.90 0.98 0.84 0.63 0.92 0.50 0.64 0.99 0.97 0.96 0.84 0.99

Elec_W

NSA 174782 288176 418148 443482 319746 355658 514024 348903 395184 417964 372489 464700 168081 447927 375143 205877 499412 120522 522750 400966 1151049 409628 693406 650008 196540 738653 655052 523169 396154 199491 196650 344967 764937 570756 397900 584054 0 0 482990 767533 277913

76748557 14720198 38344459 106529319 67708691 40954395 87277115 60429237 162589373 20362052 2690030 121405909 42157140 122760763 26869429 60479815 142087032 7176318 70305652 2711791 242775408 18824071 114530679 25078657 21885223 86192704 75193181 30351069 122180848 22734645 10023022 32720533 263304073 81765470 124336449 67674008 0 0 77301278 51195682 63361179

kWh-equiv.

GWS

69822 41090 29635

51023 12279 20902 76794 59404 25166 65453 32022 48477 18810 5389 59809 9325 51595 21656 44822 83104 3501 35996 67404 196928 21880 82650 103521 18074 49627 73414 22577 67106 13217 9788 32389 135448 72464 47088 53784


HAR KHET KO PANI

District

NASHIK OSMANABAD PARBHANI PUNE RAIGARH_M RATNAGIRI SANGLI SATARA SINDHUDURG SOLAPUR THANE WARDHA WASHIM YAVATMAL BISHNUPUR CHANDEL CHURACHANDPUR IMPHALEAST IMPHALWEST SENAPATI TAMENGLONG THOUBAL UKHRUL EASTGAROHILLS EASTKHASIHILLS JAINTIAHILLS RIBHOI SOUTHGAROHILLS WESTGAROHILLS WESTKHASIHILLS AIZAWL CHAMPHAI KOLASIB LAWNGTLAI LUNGLEI MAMIT SAIHA SERCHHIP DIMAPUR KOHIMA MOKOKCHUNG

State

MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MAHARASHTRA MANIPUR MANIPUR MANIPUR MANIPUR MANIPUR MANIPUR MANIPUR MANIPUR MANIPUR MEGHALAYA MEGHALAYA MEGHALAYA MEGHALAYA MEGHALAYA MEGHALAYA MEGHALAYA MIZORAM MIZORAM MIZORAM MIZORAM MIZORAM MIZORAM MIZORAM MIZORAM NAGALAND NAGALAND NAGALAND

325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365

S_No 3 and 7 1 and 3 1 1, 3 and 7 1 1 5 and 7 3 1 3 1 1 and 3 1 and 7 1 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 and 9 7 and 9 7 and 9 7 and 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 7 and 9 7 and 9 9

Clusters 0.37 0.18 0.02 0.25 0.20 0.28 0.37 0.36 0.00 0.39 0.01 0.10 0.03 0.18 0.66 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.93 0.00 0.29 0.26 0.27 0.44 0.14 0.64 0.24 0.09 0.09 0.12 0.04 0.02 0.26 0.01 0.19 0.79 0.56 0.11

Irr_H 0.27 0.11 0.02 0.24 0.18 0.24 0.25 0.27 0.00 0.27 0.00 0.05 0.02 0.17 0.42 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.63 0.00 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.15 0.08 0.38 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.21 0.01 0.19 0.35 0.09 0.01

Irr_A 0.58 0.72 0.45 0.73 0.13 0.11 0.83 0.73 0.37 0.77 0.13 0.46 0.38 0.19 0.01 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.12 0.02 0.01 0.05 0.04 0.13 0.05

GW_Devt 12876 7017 10732 23385 1522 2832 41917 5325 2041 265 1246 1699 16520 2511 1128 778 774 1834 7092 2517 753 5709 1545 5050 7958 14644 18749 1506 28729 14522 2167 3743 1834 760 1044 1166 378 2132 21731 15824 5037

T_CCA

50

21377 18836 14333

18658 20315 17004

18802 23443 21190

23013 45669 23381 34485 17375 22942

33750 9391 15125 28935 28952 46345 23091 21327 36378 14677 30163 23779 11950 13601

Prod_Ha

0.03

0.01 0.00

0.00

0.97 0.98 0.99 0.97 0.72 0.71 0.97 0.92 0.83 0.97 0.72 0.96 0.98 0.94

Elec_W

NSA 819665 470484 510036 926781 291864 349806 609000 593433 152191 1033729 230916 407673 344675 787666 19239 9670 13706 20414 21136 22210 16020 34022 15225 29455 32114 33307 18813 19222 88176 36999 15234 22274 11584 9671 15772 17400 3910 8945 58346 58194 30930

296776610 84747778 48259964 1947609709 3873587 3612972 189439283 82798882 7359500 421654604 9862741 76970859 26538596 45811674 21000 0 0 27000 40500 0 0 19500 0 0 0 7900 0 0 267376 6400 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 358823 0 0

kWh-equiv.

GWS 189721 63816 34413 137733 5033 3478 110928 72650 7528 161628 10412 47364 27069 41750 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 209 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 103 0 0


HAR KHET KO PANI

District

MON PHEK TUENSANG WOKHA ZUNHEBOTO ANUGUL BALANGIR BALESHWAR BARGARH BAUDH BHADRAK CUTTACK DEBAGARH DHENKANAL GAJAPATI GANJAM JAGATSINGHAPUR JAJAPUR JHARSUGUDA KALAHANDI KANDHAMAL KENDRAPARA KENDUJHAR KHORDHA KORAPUT MALKANGIRI MAYURBHANJ NABARANGAPUR NAYAGARH NUAPADA PURI RAYAGADA SAMBALPUR SONAPUR SUNDARGARH KARAIKAL MAHE PONDICHERRY YANAM AMRITSAR BATHINDA

State

NAGALAND NAGALAND NAGALAND NAGALAND NAGALAND ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA ORISSA PONDICHERRY PONDICHERRY PONDICHERRY PONDICHERRY PUNJAB PUNJAB

366 367 368 369 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406

S_No 9 7 and 9 7 and 9 9 9 2 and 7 1, 2 and 7 None 6 and 7 2, 6 and 7 6 6 and 7 2 1, 2 and 7 7 6 and 7 6 6 1 6 and 7 1, 2 and 7 6 1 and 7 1, 2, 6 and 7 7 1 1 and 7 1 1, 2 and 7 1, 2 and 7 6 and 10 7 2 and 7 6 and 7 1 and 7 6 12 12 6 4 4, 6 and 10

Clusters 0.07 0.85 0.18 0.06 0.07 0.38 0.17 0.49 0.43 0.45 0.51 0.72 0.39 0.26 0.42 0.76 0.66 0.34 0.21 0.35 0.23 0.54 0.28 0.29 0.55 0.11 0.27 0.09 0.20 0.15 0.77 0.52 0.39 0.53 0.20 0.94 0.12 0.84 0.62 1.00 1.00

Irr_H 0.01 0.25 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.10 0.09 0.29 0.40 0.33 0.40 0.50 0.15 0.12 0.29 0.67 0.61 0.20 0.11 0.26 0.06 0.44 0.10 0.27 0.24 0.09 0.18 0.10 0.13 0.10 0.63 0.28 0.19 0.47 0.08 0.83 0.05 0.70 0.41 1.00 1.00

Irr_A 0.14 0.08 0.06 0.05 0.09 0.34 0.23 0.53 0.26 0.20 0.59 0.38 0.16 0.26 0.27 0.30 0.52 0.49 0.31 0.20 0.13 0.57 0.29 0.33 0.10 0.09 0.30 0.15 0.24 0.21 0.21 0.15 0.16 0.20 0.22 0.14 0.62 1.39 0.00 1.81 1.19

GW_Devt 2700 13115 11774 3491 8590 25109 41344 5777 45753 12639 3519 18314 8452 25863 25648 164250 1912 9342 6739 28006 18283 53 24093 18956 31167 1139 40940 3430 13399 13731 5351 63050 22259 12886 19132 10105 0 0 356 0 0

T_CCA

51

48385 57613

16096 17191 14354 17715 18771 41929 21428 28711 20960 41681 33815 41344 26474 42838 35115 35128 51722 32404 25763 23493 53537 39031 42945 44206 25820 33121 23774 22396 31994 21892 52270 31709 27985 33005 22143

Prod_Ha

0.96 0.67

0.99

0.09 0.03 0.41 0.14 0.01 0.27 0.08 0.08 0.16 0.02 0.06 0.20 0.17 0.17 0.02 0.01 0.23 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.11 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.17 0.08 0.10 0.04 0.06

Elec_W

NSA 44786 31383 66666 18232 21717 133007 266820 219246 254299 72096 169006 142287 41947 77811 54521 272622 93751 146230 60996 240493 81065 124750 239009 105382 233465 118785 342058 187048 92091 117659 132216 147441 132293 88337 255536 5227 521 12151 500 407329 272343

0 0 0 0 6500 13583958 23671587 0 21190706 5041612 13952576 16779490 2772676 5565595 1727252 18656413 7511354 10927389 3258734 7231431 3473716 5095080 10500841 5365335 3005515 993750 8659586 8659586 7623932 5833015 13703147 2181923 10038882 7903394 12337409 0 0 32123140 76646 1287933185 310277679

kWh-equiv.

4133 0 145251 46772

0 0 0 0 0 32074 59415 21683 26499 12877 6113 22349 7703 12508 4558 34738 7386 9109 6956 21594 9390 2157 25346 16138 5452 2228 16765 11717 16800 14598 7714 2913 17991 13431 24241 0

GWS


HAR KHET KO PANI

State

PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB PUNJAB RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN

District

FARIDKOT FATEHGARHAHIB FIROZPUR GURDASPUR HOSHIARPUR JALANDHAR KAPURTHALA LUDHIANA MANSA MOGA MUKTSAR NAWANSHAHR PATIALA RUPNAGAR SANGRUR AJMER ALWAR BANSWARA BARAN BARMER BHARATPUR BHILWARA BIKANER BUNDI CHITTAURGARH CHURU DAUSA DHAULPUR DUNGARPUR GANGANAGAR HANUMANGARH JAIPUR JAISALMER JALOR JHALAWAR JHUNJHUNUN JODHPUR KARAULI KOTA NAGAUR PALI

407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416 417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430 431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444 445 446 447

S_No

Clusters 4, 6 and 10 4 and 10 4, 6 and 10 4 4 4 and 10 4 and 10 4 and 10 4, 6 and 10 4, 6 and 10 6 and 10 4 and 10 4 and 10 4 4, 6 and 10 4 4 and 11 6 4 and 7 4 4 and 11 4 and 7 4 4 and 6 4 and 7 4 4 and 11 4 and 11 None 6 and 11 4 and 6 4 4 and 6 4 4 and 11 4 4 4 and 11 4 and 6 4 4 and 7

1.00 1.00 1.00 0.97 0.93 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.92 1.00 0.35 0.92 0.57 0.85 0.15 0.87 0.53 0.38 0.81 0.63 0.09 0.76 0.72 0.38 0.81 0.64 0.64 0.28 0.50 0.70 0.58 0.21 0.75 0.85 0.22 0.23

Irr_H 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.97 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 0.96 1.00 0.18 0.88 0.42 0.85 0.09 0.83 0.31 0.13 0.77 0.46 0.07 0.70 0.69 0.21 0.69 0.47 0.44 0.14 0.35 0.56 0.51 0.15 0.57 0.82 0.16 0.14

Irr_A 1.60 2.10 1.47 1.27 1.02 2.31 2.34 1.67 2.08 2.02 0.69 1.15 1.96 1.07 2.58 1.44 1.79 0.49 1.20 1.24 1.16 1.29 1.43 1.00 1.40 0.88 1.70 1.28 0.72 0.44 0.81 2.07 1.99 1.94 1.19 2.26 2.16 1.37 0.92 1.89 1.15

GW_Devt

52

1645 70 2039 35 21077

0 0 0 1112 1226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 120 0 11051 422 11121 13861 167 0 38118 0 2293 12018 0 0 1592 3736 0 0 925 0 1549 1722

T_CCA

23232 4770 21843 23796 12708 23091 18127 18463 3317 9200 25361 16027 6616 26091 32925 9085 7965

58046 63515 58604 45015 45722 53572 61381 69145 58906 62821 60394 56807 60818 44593 65002 7364 27727 14383 31054 2909 25350 14604 8075

Prod_Ha 0.93 0.95 0.85 0.90 0.67 0.99 0.88 0.84 0.59 0.99 0.42 0.78 0.98 0.74 0.95 0.14 0.41 0.16 0.32 0.74 0.18 0.23 0.98 0.28 0.60 0.86 0.47 0.13 0.22 0.85 0.07 0.61 0.96 0.55 0.34 0.88 0.77 0.39 0.42 0.75 0.37

Elec_W

NSA 135107 100690 434230 228996 212283 218221 116952 313285 201583 168859 233652 81116 248224 129474 463606 456311 507171 225704 338497 1792429 396466 443433 1646822 261376 313347 1172489 229493 156473 131617 769860 832429 684431 725685 699335 327958 424576 1371703 202933 270112 1329398 648728

163773588 397297250 559561482 317550035 255654825 456637287 404077260 740304149 330036971 384309957 198230396 143882567 889051025 127580444 1271953833 80576668 948693633 24691123 150259727 252030378 499751478 140410014 454712009 104504851 218106858 227614917 290040791 123386676 25885792 2415268 15887384 643363074 78777733 355173473 103105588 793473870 638223284 166553587 67520831 467518061 143655881

kWh-equiv.

GWS 37566 35814 96269 85028 58445 78312 54164 119521 44680 64233 29127 26291 80034 36796 139969 77112 115198 11465 38735 24977 51525 122047 9331 35941 114046 9445 50079 16532 18363 106 4440 132323 2414 59726 75291 45364 30091 37428 31893 45011 50219


HAR KHET KO PANI

State

RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN RAJASTHAN SIKKIM SIKKIM SIKKIM SIKKIM TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TAMILNADU TRIPURA TRIPURA

District

RAJSAMAND SAWAI MADHOPUR SIKAR SIROHI TONK UDAIPUR EAST NORTH SOUTH WEST CHENNAI COIMBATORE CUDDALORE DHARMAPURI DINDIGUL ERODE KANCHEEPURAM KANNIYAKUMARI KARUR MADURAI NAGAPATTINAM NAMAKKAL PERAMBALUR PUDUKKOTTAI RAMANATHAPURAM SALEM SIVAGANGA THANJAVUR THE NILGIRIS THENI THIRUVALLUR THIRUVARUR TIRUCHIRAPPALLI TIRUNELVELI TIRUVANAMALAI TUTICORIN VELLORE VILUPPURAM VIRUDHUNAGAR DHALAI NORTHTRIPURA

448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488

S_No 4 4 4 4 4 4 and 7 9 9 9 9 12 5 and 11 5 and 6 5 5 5 and 6 7 6 and 7 5 6 and 7 5, 6 and 11 5 and 10 5 7 7 5 7 and 11 5, 6 and 7 9 5 7 6 and 11 6 7 5. 7 and 11 7 5 and 7 5 and 7 7 9 9

Clusters 0.23 0.64 0.42 0.42 0.37 0.18 0.22 0.08 0.10 0.21 0.43 0.65 0.29 0.37 0.52 0.75 0.41 0.24 0.59 0.75 0.45 0.25 0.66 0.52 0.45 0.65 0.86 0.00 0.44 0.76 0.99 0.54 0.45 0.60 0.20 0.46 0.67 0.41 0.08 0.13

0.70 0.68 0.40 0.58 0.77 0.94 0.38 0.36 0.75 0.70 0.71 0.27 0.88 0.64 0.59 0.84 0.86 0.01 0.50 0.78 0.99 0.72 0.70 0.75 0.40 0.65 0.76 0.63 0.10 0.28

Irr_A

0.57 0.65 0.52 0.47 0.53 0.45 0.42 0.41 0.23 0.41

Irr_H 1.10 1.26 1.47 1.13 0.99 1.11 0.61 0.38 0.22 0.13 2.26 1.21 0.86 1.33 1.19 0.94 0.66 0.19 0.92 0.58 1.02 0.89 0.85 0.22 0.12 1.64 0.16 1.04 0.10 0.86 0.68 0.71 0.79 0.58 0.85 0.43 1.05 1.03 0.69 0.02 0.04

GW_Devt 3509 120 0 9383 2995 14426 6893 1267 5229 3877 0 186 2444 2578 2554 1645 82631 12374 1192 44804 278 1517 2869 81854 62341 94 55741 14863 0 9894 17956 0 8113 185349 84956 15519 34834 97189 12793 466 118

T_CCA

29511 53872 40312 39712 46276 39781 67432 23071 34797 19436 54250 32197 35130 11353 43227 21772 42398 98679 56960 48468 18405 42680 47243 29616 34045 40064 40846 19725

9338 18686 14157 13718 13538 14091

Prod_Ha

0.85 0.91 0.67 0.91 0.81 0.95 0.87 0.82 0.86 0.94 0.97 0.80 0.85 0.75 0.87 0.67 0.88 0.62 0.98 0.93 0.86 0.85 0.77 0.93 0.75 0.86 0.92 0.67 0.63 1.00

0.18 0.23 0.84 0.57 0.12 0.34

Elec_W

NSA 94697 290621 535678 167928 484964 584587 21697 10448 21969 23065 0 370256 210393 335083 235062 199353 113544 79354 92524 147195 139238 154977 206554 171989 235218 219027 128038 190930 79718 99448 104573 140106 186638 137585 250565 180147 193780 365559 132764 34613 44076

47510804 162997195 607968471 89647020 112749193 80297649 0 0 0 0 0 247456675 814841559 466706392 178380366 816118844 137192480 5255895 135111313 88960528 203865928 268579929 317259724 127225740 23264371 245387222 49366658 363608167 213656 86347918 107729355 93560951 246318510 139176161 417768624 43533631 435665062 1068781301 68550800 1374978 1584557

kWh-equiv.

GWS

121774 46801 131710 97607 137163 62642 2634 44303 55336 20081 70310 52897 41305 6134 115383 22287 50058 902 28671 31950 16819 84296 88580 170849 26591 120884 179579 38756 8 15

54720 39986 58748 20286 53007 63597 0 0 0 0


HAR KHET KO PANI

53

State

TRIPURA TRIPURA UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH

District

SOUTHTRIPURA WESTTRIPURA AGRA ALIGARH ALLHABAD AMBEDKARNAGAR AURAIYA AZAMGARH BAGHPAT BAHRAICH BALLIA BALRAMPUR BANDA BARABANKI BAREILLY BASTI BIJNOR BUDAUN BULANDSHAHR CHANDAULI CHITRAKOOT DEORIA ETAH ETAWAH FAIZABAD FARRUKHABAD FATEHPUR FIROZABAD GAUTAMBUDDHANAGAR GHAZIABAD GHAZIPUR GONDA GORAKHPUR HAMIRPUR_U HARDOI HATHRAS JALAUN JAUNPUR JHANSI JYOTIBAPHULENAGAR KANNAUJ

489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529

S_No 9 9 4 4 4 6 None 6 4 and 10 None 2 2 None 6 None 6 6 and 10 4 4 6 and 11 1 11 4 6 6 4 and 10 4 4 and 6 4, 6 and 11 4 and 10 11 None 6 and 11 None None 4 and 10 None 4 and 11 None 4 and 10 None

Clusters 0.24 0.39 0.90 0.97 0.52 0.89 0.89 0.86 0.97 0.54 0.36 0.34 0.49 0.86 0.87 0.85 0.88 0.89 0.90 0.94 0.27 0.86 0.98 0.83 0.96 0.80 0.56 0.96 0.99 0.93 0.89 0.80 0.80 0.37 0.82 0.98 0.64 0.75 0.69 0.91 0.79

Irr_H 0.23 0.29 0.87 0.97 0.63 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.97 0.46 0.68 0.31 0.40 0.86 0.91 0.70 0.87 0.89 0.90 0.95 0.23 0.80 0.95 0.79 0.95 0.88 0.61 0.96 0.99 0.95 0.73 0.79 0.81 0.37 0.85 0.98 0.53 0.78 0.62 0.70 0.88

Irr_A 0.05 0.12 1.14 0.82 0.81 0.57 0.69 0.65 0.98 0.55 0.66 0.50 0.55 0.64 0.60 0.79 0.67 0.85 0.82 0.38 0.66 0.78 0.88 0.46 0.62 0.80 0.95 1.17 0.93 1.05 0.68 0.71 0.55 0.64 0.69 0.85 0.29 0.89 0.68 1.08 0.67

GW_Devt 1765 821 0 5 1682 0 0 157 0 12 1279 153 140 0 789 0 0 0 55 315 1314 27 0 0 0 0 368 0 0 1242 0 0 0 907 0 0 2108 77 1543 0 27

T_CCA

78106 26451 24411 31807 15431 45443 41946 32321 61005 33420 48865 28711 14959 29589 35419 35477 38005 55906 26024 41525 23613 69057 27208 31215 26897 16239 31498 50460 26499 27171 20677 58028 48129

37879 37008 25144 38301 30232

Prod_Ha 0.72 0.89 0.17 0.28 0.27 0.09 0.03 0.20 0.82 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.29 0.01 0.53 0.19 0.14 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.05 0.11 0.21 0.16 0.04 0.42 0.29 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.01 0.25 0.07 0.22 0.01 0.01 0.09

Elec_W

NSA 79476 97860 282657 293706 315628 167756 144887 301393 111506 327672 220709 217192 344693 259273 326827 200138 341988 418646 287031 132523 173399 195670 322763 145441 156547 147460 285918 181941 71355 129862 256471 297835 249721 257006 431956 148665 355350 280108 323628 173644 138499

7278769 8905514 375729370 431727219 254230346 162758847 196590268 237702589 109523610 146253883 166333809 130529109 66326591 244657914 285783579 158217501 353606375 245812254 320765079 52021114 26717196 149820101 277954627 256863298 418811189 150404359 309099433 295681393 59898342 172696975 437599524 246804883 156802378 20673410 226116929 0 59392244 287234058 99633839 154015953 326804995

kWh-equiv.

885 1183 70514 66643 43639 60090 37292 72866 25950 76404 45367 47673 16141 93988 125184 75811 92679 113531 64023 13045 8007 90785 96660 34907 70901 40695 43243 46189 25027 36128 78921 107350 88691 18114 87998 53050 16284 78362 44209 78690 31803

GWS


HAR KHET KO PANI

54

State

UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTAR PRADESH UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL

District

KANPURDEHAT KANPURNAGAR KAUSHAMBI KHERI KUSHINAGAR LALITPUR LUCKNOW MAHOBA MAHARAJGANJ MAINPURI MATHURA MAU MEERUT MIRZAPUR MORADABAD MUZAFFARNAGAR PILIBHIT PRATAPGARH RAEBARELI RAMPUR SAHARANPUR SANTKABIRNAGAR SANTRAVIDASNAGAR SHAHJAHANPUR SHRAWASTI SIDDHARTHNAGAR SITAPUR SONBHADRA SULTANPUR UNNAO VARANASI ALMORA BAGESHWAR CHAMOLI CHAMPAWAT DEHRADUN HARDWAR NAINITAL PITHORAGARH RUDRAPRAYAG TEHRI GARHWAL

530 531 532 533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563 564 565 566 567 568 569 570

S_No 11 4 4 None 6 11 6 and 10 4 None 4 and 6 4 and 6 None 10 6 4 6 and 10 None 4 and 6 6 and 11 4 and 6 4 and 10 6 4 6 None 6 and 11 None 1 6 None 4 and 11 9 9 9 9 7 and 9 9 7 and 9 9 9 7 and 9

Clusters 0.72 0.88 0.52 0.70 0.81 0.86 0.88 0.41 0.75 0.83 0.97 0.60 0.98 0.66 0.89 0.98 0.84 0.61 0.89 0.98 0.85 0.87 0.55 0.95 0.51 0.77 0.73 0.15 0.77 0.86 0.75 0.28 0.57 0.18 0.18 0.73 0.88 0.51 0.23 0.38 0.51

Irr_H 0.73 0.77 0.69 0.81 0.77 0.85 0.91 0.41 0.83 0.86 0.96 0.71 0.98 0.46 0.74 0.98 0.90 0.65 0.79 0.99 0.85 0.81 0.65 0.96 0.45 0.69 0.78 0.15 0.81 0.84 0.77 0.06 0.20 0.04 0.11 0.50 0.89 0.47 0.08 0.11 0.09

Irr_A 0.68 0.85 0.91 0.62 0.47 0.62 0.69 1.12 0.62 0.86 0.92 0.70 0.70 0.62 0.85 0.66 0.65 1.41 0.73 1.07 1.33 0.67 0.93 0.59 0.70 0.64 0.70 0.43 0.73 0.65 0.86 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.56 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00

GW_Devt 0 623 32 0 0 5443 0 392 438 0 0 0 13 241 23 5 0 15 0 106 1 23 63 0 0 789 0 5439 246 0 0 11747 7473 8915 3395 18851 5303 22073 9081 4366 25084

T_CCA 27742 42990 24838 46379 41922 19342 53651 15218 39709 35942 32772 28610 81855 20768 48056 77353 44853 25428 27658 46369 63311 33039 20978 39377 22391 23122 37101 14575 33241 32861 27091 32064 30924 43958 28700 39831 60561 51483 29135 26151 19424

Prod_Ha

55

0.00

0.00 0.66 0.70 0.26 0.33

0.05 0.09 0.16 0.04 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.04 0.03 0.36 0.48 0.18 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.06 0.09 0.01 0.30 0.01 0.87 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.11 0.05 0.01 0.79

Elec_W

NSA 221263 179574 125885 484127 224026 292610 136507 228350 203242 177832 263981 125750 197202 194342 310490 315437 223062 217324 197874 184380 287808 121779 69528 350718 131854 235546 431176 168844 176841 308843 94104 78950 23786 31071 21464 43670 109608 46033 38173 19947 127142

198620122 214133697 124640629 367670088 137881430 126532427 118615833 50538210 126326304 447227410 556190904 86613184 192556051 77192778 330781602 567005412 365815895 448737257 364252766 224380060 453258001 83910296 56460824 218019908 148963361 97899620 288772643 42971163 485252260 365882211 94903849 158606 6200 11300 3209260 4284393 222859958 4973419 59350 0 3200

kWh-equiv.

GWS 33176 36890 22542 126820 71156 30971 39047 19441 72175 59964 62422 27332 53667 25958 119690 92801 86179 107022 79331 80920 87381 42024 8111 83897 38452 53551 131752 15137 140769 72422 15401 0 0 1 644 405 25776 749 0 0 16


HAR KHET KO PANI

State

UTTARANCHAL UTTARANCHAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL WEST BENGAL

District

UDHAM SINGH NAGAR UTTARKASHI BANKURA BARDDHAMAN BIRBHUM DAKSHIN DINAJPUR DARJILING HAORA HUGLI JALPAIGURI KOCH BIHAR KOLKATA MALDAH MEDINIPUR MURSHIDABAD NADIA NORTH 24 PARGANAS PURULIYA SOUTH 24 PARGANAS UTTAR DINAJPUR

571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590

S_No 7 and 9 9 7 6, 7 and 10 6 and 10 10 9 6 and 10 6 and 10 7 10 12 None 7 and 10 10 4 and 10 10 1 and 7 7 10

Clusters 0.93 0.13 0.43 0.88 0.63 0.71 0.12 0.67 0.90 0.44 0.61 0.64 0.58 0.86 0.91 0.69 0.10 0.32 0.86

0.65 0.70 0.92 0.94 0.73 0.19 0.50 0.90

Irr_A

0.90 0.57 0.52 0.90 0.77 0.80 0.41 0.73 0.94 0.42 0.78

Irr_H

56 0.40 0.32 0.79 0.92 0.62 0.09 0.00 0.46

0.79 0.00 0.40 0.36 0.34 0.46 0.05 0.25 0.45 0.04 0.17

GW_Devt

1721 22838 2425 1678 1573 55544 36661 351

80585 6772 107862 23597 5875 137 4867 6951 7502 22766 50

T_CCA

75069 62671 87826 88997 73991 34794 54009 75599

49185 42286 53966 59664 67497 63143 81617 114815 75915 72160 69965

Prod_Ha

0.10 0.28 0.18 0.13 0.11 0.00 0.06 0.03

0.21 0.47 0.68 0.13 0.02 0.53 0.66 0.05 0.04

0.02

Elec_W

NSA

282094 775569 433487 335984 264478 210617 359543 245183

135959 27665 282061 465984 291158 189077 102551 95459 214412 302206 258737

112532307 230897281 249781962 292736815 189773398 2725128 38108275 141822967

86387796 26067 50955327 167127780 65829911 65360783 3739715 25688970 97192071 20228925 54946869

kWh-equiv.

GWS

26140 61185 68711 95163 52472 3626 6942 44795

25907 0 19119 34641 11282 24096 1268 791 16082 10731 42395


HAR KHET KO PANI

Recent IWMI-Tata Publica ons 2016 Water Policy Research Highlight #01

Har Khet Ko Pani? (Water to Every Farm?) Emulate Madhya Pradesh's Irriga on Reform

2016 Water Policy Research Highlight #02

Pipe assisted underground taming of surface floods

Tushaar Shah Gourav Mishra Pankaj Kela Pennan Chinnasamy

Jonas Bunsen Rahul Rathod

The experience with Holiyas in north Gujarat


Can solar pumps energize Bihar's agriculture?


Wastewater Irriga on in Karnataka

Neha Durga Shilp Verma Nishita Gupta Ravi Kiran Ananta Pathak

Mahima Gupta Vandana Ravindra Alka Palrecha

An explora on


MEASURING THE INVISIBLE

Angèle Cauchois

Exploi ng the water-energy nexus to es mate private, urban groundwater dra


Tushaar Shah

FARMER PRODUCER COMPANIES Fermen ng New Wine for New Bo les


PROSOPIS JULIFLORA IN THE IRRIGATION TANKS OF TAMIL NADU These Highlights can be downloaded from h p://iwmi-tata.blogspot.in

R. Sakthivadivel

About IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program The IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program (ITP) was launched in 2000 as a co-equal partnership between the Interna onal Water Management Ins tute (IWMI), Colombo and Sir Ratan Tata Trusts (SRTT), Mumbai. The program presents new perspec ves and prac cal solu ons derived from the wealth of research done in India on water resource management. Its objec ve is to help policy makers at the central, state and local levels address their water challenges – in areas such as Sustainable groundwater management, water scarcity, and rural poverty – by transla ng research findings into prac cal policy recommenda ons. Through this program, IWMI collaborates with a range of partners across India to iden fy, analyse and document relevant water management approaches and current prac ces. These prac ces are assessed and synthesized for maximum policy impact and published as IWMI-Tata Policy Papers, Water Policy Research Highlights and IWMI-Tata Comments. The research underlying these publica ons was funded with support from IWMI, Tata Trusts, CGIAR Research Program on Water, Land and Ecosystems (WLE) and CGIAR Research Program on Climate Change, Agriculture and Food Security (CCAFS). The views expressed in the publica ons are of the author/s alone and not of ITP's funding partners. All IWMI-Tata publica ons are open access and freely downloadable from the Program's blog: h p://iwmi-tata.blogspot.com

IWMI Headquarters

IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program

127 Sunil Mawatha, Pelawa e, Ba aramulla, Colombo, Sri Lanka Mailing Address P. O. Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka Tel: +94 11 2880000, 2784080 Fax: +94 11 2786854 Email: [email protected] Website: www.iwmi.org

“Jal Tarang” Near Smru Apartments, Behind IRMA Gate Mangalpura, Anand 388001, Gujarat, India Tel: +91 2692 263816, 263817 Email: [email protected] Blog: h p://iwmi-tata.blogspot.in

IWMI is a member of the CGIAR Consortium and leads the:

RESEARCH PROGRA ON

Water, Land and Ecos stems