Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation & CAD Departmentapmitanks.in/Templates/APCBTMP PGM IAS Report.pdf · PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) ii The

Government of Andhra Pradesh

Irrigation & CAD Department

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) i

Final Report

Contents Page

Acknowledgements iii

List of Abbreviations iv

Executive Summary v

Background 1

Chapter 1 Participatory Groundwater Management in APCBTMP 11

Chapter 2 PGM Impact Assessment Study 24

Chapter 3 Findings of the PGM Impact Assessment Study 29

Chapter 4 PGM: The Way Forward 66

Chapter 5 Summary of Findings and Conclusions 72

Annexes 75

References 85

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) ii

The Andhra Pradesh State Government and the World Bank have been the principal guiding

spirits behind implementing the innovative Participatory Groundwater Management

component as part of the APCBTMP in the groundwater stress area, located in 13 selected

districts of the State.

The study was conducted under the guidance of the following senior officers:

Mr Ajoyendra Pyal, IAS Spl Chief Secretary I&CAD and Project Coordinator

Mr Vinay Kumar, IFS State Project Director, APCBTMP

Mr B M Murali Krishna Director, Ground Water Department

Dr K Venugopal Joint Director, Ground Water Department

Dr P Prasad Deputy Director & State Nodal Officer, GWD

The following World Bank officials and consultants provided valuable suggestions and

feedback right from the formulation of the study to the final report.

Dr Deepak Ahluwalia Technical Task Leader (till November 2013)

Dr Ranjan Samantaray Technical Task Leader (from December 2013)

Dr S Selvarajan M&E Expert

Smt K Kandula Environment and Groundwater Expert

The following experts designed, coordinated and prepared the final report of the “Impact

Assessment of Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) in APCBMTMP.”

Dr. S. N. Nagaraja Sharma External Consultant

Dr. Joseph Plakkoottam MLE Expert, PMU, APCBTMP

Mr. Suhas Raje Deputy Director, GW, PMU, APCBTMP

Mr N. Eswara Reddy PGM Capacity Building Expert, PMU, APCBTMP

At the district level, the following team coordinated and participated in the data collection

for the study.

District Deputy Director Nodal Officer Training Resource Persons

Anantapur P. Purushottam Reddy J. Sankaraiah K. Sambasivudu

R.Rajashekar

K. Adinarayana Reddy

Kadapa M. Ramprasad M. Muralidhar Akhtar Sahahjad

B. Rosamma Kurnool K. Laxma V. Nagaraju

Mahabubnagar Suhas Raje Ramadevi M. Sreedevi

V. R. Sanjeeva Reddy

M. Laxmaiah

Medak M. John Sathya Raj M.Pramila K. Rajendra Prasad

N. Sundara Ramaiah

Nalgonda Md. Shereef S. Jitendhar K. Rajendra Prasad

Y. Prasada Rao

A.Yadagiri

Prakasam K. E.Vijaya Kumar K.E.Vijaya Kumar E.Raghunath

T.Venkataih

Ranga Reddy K. Dhananjaiah N. Raja Reddy E.Raghunath

T.Venkataih

Md. Maqsood

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) iii

AMOR Aquifer Management Organization

APCBTMP Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project

APD Assistant Project Director

APFAMGS Project Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems Project

APSIDC Andhra Pradesh State Irrigation Development Corporation

APWELL Project Andhra Pradesh Groundwater Borewell Irrigation Schemes Project

CWB Crop Water Budgeting

DD Deputy Director

DLIC District Level Implementation Committee

DNO District Nodal Officer

DPD District Project Director

DPU District Project Unit

FGD Focus Group Discussion

GMIS Geographical Management Information Systems

GW Ground Water

GWD Ground Water Department

HDPE High Density Polyethylene

HMR Hydrological Monitoring Record

ID Crops Irrigated Dry Crops

IWMT Irrigation Water Management Techniques

MIS Management Information System

Non-PHM Farmers Groundwater users in the ZOI of PGM tanks other than PHM Farmers

NSO Nodal Support Organizations

O&M Operation and Maintenance

PGM Farmers Groundwater users in the ZOI of PGM tanks (PHM and Non-PHM

farmers)

PGM tanks Tanks with Participatory Groundwater Management activities

PGM Participatory Groundwater Management

PHM farmers Farmers Collecting PHM data

PHM Participatory Hydrological Monitoring

PMU Project Management Unit

SEMF Social and Environmental Management Framework

SRI System of Rice Intensification

TIMP Tank Improvement and Management Plan

TRP Training Resource Person

WDS Water Development Society

WUAs Water Users Associations

WUE Water Use Efficiency

WUGs Water Users Groups

ZoI Groundwater Zone of Influence

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) iv

Executive Summary

In India, groundwater development has followed the pattern seen in most developing

countries: rapid development followed by over exploitation of aquifers in several parts

of the country. Various macro-economic policy interventions have been attempted to

encourage sustainable groundwater stabilization.

During the last two decades several important local level measures in groundwater

development and management were implemented in India. The experiences and lessons

from participatory groundwater management projects provided the strategic directions

for making future investments in sustainable groundwater management. The

Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component of the Andhra Pradesh

Community Based Tank Management Project (APCBTMP) was designed taking into

account the pioneering efforts of these projects.

Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM)

The PGM component aims at empowering groundwater users in the tank influence zone

to wisely manage the dynamic groundwater resources, replenished through rainfall,

surface water resources and return circulation from irrigated areas: The AP State Ground

Water Department is the implementing agency of the PGM component. This component

is currently being implemented in 314 select project tanks falling within 157 over-

exploited and critical groundwater basins as identified by the state Ground Water

Department, covering 138 mandals in 13 districts.

All Groundwater (GW) Users in the Zone of Influence (ZoI) including the command

area of the tank selected for PGM interventions under the APCBTMP will be organized

into PGM Groups, each group consisting of a maximum of TEN (10) GW user families.

Two persons from each GW user family, of whom one must be a woman, become

members of a PGM Group.

PGM proposes to establish the Participatory Hydrological Monitoring Network and

build the capacity of the community for collection, analysis and management of data on

rainfall, groundwater recharge, and extraction leading to groundwater balance

estimation. This would in turn facilitate crop planning and crop water budgeting by the

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) v

community to arrive at decisions to balance recharge and draft. Over a few years, when

the community would have generated reliable time series data, it will be feasible to do

crop water budgeting more precisely and take precautionary measures for drought

proofing.

These exercises will provide the community with knowledge and motivation for social

regulation on groundwater and natural resources management. Improving water use

efficiency and diversifying livelihoods are important strategies for sustainable

groundwater management and adaptation to climate change. Issues of equity and

vulnerability will be better addressed by an informed community, which controls and

manages its own groundwater and other natural resources.

Capacity Building of PGM groups is carried out by qualified Training Resource Persons

(TRP) through specially designed training modules.

Crop Water Budgeting is a crucial exercise in PGM addressing the problem and shifts

the focus from supply side to demand side management. The purpose of capacity

building is to help participants analyse the groundwater situation and understand the

relationship between the crops and water requirement based on the PHM data collected

and analysed by them. Farmers do crop plans and are sensitized to change their cropping

pattern according to the water balance.

Sharing of groundwater from the incremental recharge to the aquifer would ultimately

result in increase in the irrigated ayacut in the zone of influence, with social regulation

leading to reduction in drilling of new borewells resulting in fiscal savings.

PGM Impact Assessment Study

When the PGM component completed five years in 2012, it was decided to conduct a

study to assess its impact and find options for way forward during the remaining period

of the project and beyond.

The study was carried out by collecting data from 20 select sample tanks out of the 314

PGM tanks. Five non PGM-APCBTMP as well as five non-APCBTMP tanks were

selected as a control set.

Two types of control tanks were selected: (i) APCBTMP-Non PGM and (ii) Non-

APCBTMP. The control tanks were selected from a similar hydrological situation

(rainfall, surface and groundwater) in the vicinity of the sampled PGM tank.

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) vi

The tank level data required for the study were collected by the Training Resource

Persons (TRPs), drafted from other districts. Data were collected using appropriate data

collection instruments and methods.

Findings of the PGM Impact Assessment Study

PGM intervention has shown good impact on CWB in the field. Understanding

of CWB is more pronounced in the case of PHM farmers (88%), followed by

non-PHM farmers (66%), and the farmers (60%).

Success of the PGM processes is reflected in that in 83% cases the PHM

equipment worked well, without any problem. Because of this trouble free

equipment, 82.7% PHM data is obtained without any gaps giving a good data

base for the CWB workshops. When the equipment was not working the

problems were rectified within 15 days in most cases. Overall affirmative

response given by farmers: 56.4%.

PGM intervention has been very useful in that almost all farmers (95%) changed

the extent of their irrigated land based on the PHM data. And most of the farmers

(69%) are aware that the PHM data are displayed and have used it to adopt field

irrigation methods such as drip and sprinkler systems.

The tank rehabilitation works taken up under the project (improvements to

irrigation channels, arresting leakages from bund, sluices, and surplus weirs)

which have direct bearing on enhanced groundwater recharge are showing

positive impact on groundwater scenario in the Zone of Influence of PGM tanks.

A high percentage of farmers have made use of the PHM data for water

management – (78.6% PHM farmers, 62.7% Non-PHM farmers, and 57.8% all

farmers). Most of the the groundwater users (in 18 out of 20 PGM tanks) have

used CWB for crop planning at individual and community level. When all the

farmers are brought under CWB the process will be fully effective.

Crop planning for surface water irrigation is practiced more in non-Project tanks

(36%), but very less in non-PGM tanks (12%). But in case of Groundwater

irrigation, crop planning is negligible in both cases (6%, in Non-PGM tanks and

2% in Non-Project tanks). Here again, it is clear that implementing decisions at

community level is very difficult, and needs more awareness among the farmer

community.

PHM data has given confidence to PHM and Non-PHM farmers to share their

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) vii

borewell water with fellow farmers (92.5%), which is a positive outcome of the

PGM intervention.

Land productivity of groundwater users during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM

tanks is greater by 37.6 per cent (Rs 90,322/Ha) compared to APCBTMP non-

PGM tanks (Rs 65,623/Ha) and 35.9 per cent more compared to non-APCBTMP

tanks (Rs 66,468/ Ha) at constant prices (2008-09).

Groundwater productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks has

increased by 19.4 per cent from Rs 59,920/Ha-m to Rs 71,524/Ha-m as

compared to productivity during 2008-09.

Farmers are willing to continue PGM activities even if Project/Government

support is not available, though they feel that Government support would PGM

more vibrant and effective.

Conclusion

This PGM impact assessment study is a useful in providing insights into stakeholder

participation and sustainability. The PGM experience in APCBTMP can be used as a

‘Model Module’ to initiate PGM in ‘Critical’ and ‘Over-exploited’ watersheds in other

states of India with locally relevant modifications.

Final Report

Background

Over 2000 million people worldwide, mostly farmers and industries, depend on groundwater

for their various water needs. Accelerated development of groundwater over the past few

decades has resulted in great social and economic benefits, by providing low-cost, drought-

reliable and mainly high-quality water supplies for both the urban and rural population and

for irrigation of potentially high-value crops. Though further use of groundwater will be vital

for achievement of the ‘UN Millennium Development Goals’, investment in management

and protection of the resource base has been seriously neglected.

Sustainability of groundwater is closely linked to a range of micro and macro-policy issues

influencing water and land use, and represents one of the major challenges in natural

resource management. Practical advances are urgently needed; there is no simple blueprint

for action, due to the inherent variability of groundwater systems and related socioeconomic

situations, but it is always feasible to make incremental improvements. Many developing

nations need to appreciate their socio-economic dependency on groundwater, and invest in

strengthening institutional provisions and building institutional capacity for its improved

management before it is too late.

Sustainable groundwater utilization requires actions to be taken at two different

administrative levels:

• macro-economic policy interventions—because groundwater demand is strongly

influenced by national subsidies (on water well drilling, electrical energy, diesel fuel,

food crops) and they affect the size of existing groundwater-based agriculture and the

rate of transition to less water-dependent livelihoods.

• local-level management measures — to create effective institutional arrangements

(empowered government agency, adequate legal framework, user awareness/

PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) 2

participation, groundwater abstraction charging, land-use constraints) to regulate,

protect and monitor groundwater resources.1

Groundwater development in India

In India, groundwater development has followed the pattern seen in most developing

countries: rapid development followed by over exploitation of aquifers in several parts of the

country. Various macro-economic policy interventions have been attempted to encourage

sustainable groundwater stabilization.

During the last two decades several important local level measures in groundwater

development and management were implemented in India. The most prominent among these

were in Andhra Pradesh (APWELL Project, 1995-2003, APFAMGS, 2003-2010), Kerala

(KCIP 1994-2000), West Bengal (North Bengal Terai Project, 1995-2003). Projects such as

the Indo-Dutch APWELL (1995-2003) piloted community participation in groundwater

sharing and (local) aquifer management. Empowering groundwater users to collect, record

and analyse hydrological data was a pioneering effort of APWELL Project and its successor,

the APFAMGS Project. Successful engagement of local non-government organizations for

community mobilizing and capacity building was also an important feature of these projects.

Participatory Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh2

About 80 percent of Andhra Pradesh is underlain by hard rock3, wherein occurrence of

groundwater is under unconfined to semi-confined conditions. The yields from such hard

rock areas are generally moderate to poor (below 10,000 Gallons per Hour - GPH). The

agricultural sector in these regions is characterized by smallholdings4, which makes it

difficult for farmers to earn an adequate income from agriculture.

To alleviate the situation of poor returns from agriculture, the Government of Andhra

Pradesh has been promoting the development of groundwater resources on a large scale in

the last three decades. This trend started with shallow dug wells for drinking water. Well

1 “Sustainable Groundwater Management: Concepts and Tools Series Overview,” (Briefing Note 0), by Stephen

Foster & Karin Kemper (Editors), 2002-2005. 2

Ben Witjes, David W. van Raalten, and Joseph L. Plakkoottam (eds.), Farmer Managed Borewell Irrigation

Systems: Lessons from APWELL Project. ARCADIS Euroconsult, BKH, IRDAS, 1999.

3 Mainly crystallines (like Granites, Peninsular Gneiss) which form the base rock and others like Cuddapah

group, Kurnool group, basalts, laterites, etc.

4 In Andhra Pradesh those who own less than 1 ha (2.5 acres) are defined as marginal farmers, and those who

own between 1 and 2 ha (2.5-5 acres) of dryland are considered small farmers. In some drought prone areas,

farmers who own up to 3 ha of dryland qualify as small farmers. In AP the average holding of a marginal farmer

is 1.25 acres (0.5 ha) and that of small farmers is 3.75 acres (1.5 ha).


digging for irrigation was promoted by the SC Corporation in the mid-1980s. The advent of

the India Mark II hand pump resulted in a large number of borewells, in almost every village

of the state. This was followed by the arrival of the submersible pump and deep drilling

technology. The Water Development Society (WDS) manufactured an indigenous drilling rig

(with DTH technology) which became popular overnight.

With a view to disseminate the borewell technology for higher benefits, the Andhra Pradesh

State Irrigation Development Corporation Limited (APSIDC) was formed as a State

Government undertaking in 1974. The main objective of the APSIDC is construction of Lift

Irrigation schemes to provide irrigation facility to the people placed in topographically

disadvantageous upland areas. APSIDC was also mandated to create irrigation potential

through groundwater development by constructing borewells, tubewells, or infiltration wells

for the benefit of small and marginal farmers, and other weaker sections such as SCs and STs

in upland and drought prone areas. Upto 2006, the APSIDC has created irrigation potential of

774,498 acres through 1,236 lift irrigation schemes at a cost of Rs.508.02 crores. APSIDC

had also commissioned 20,040 Ground water schemes creating an irrigation potential of

334,800 acres at a cost of Rs. 244.00 crores. Of these about 3500 wells were commissioned

under the APWELL Project. In 2005, groundwater development in the state has been

excluded from APSIDC mandate.

Participatory Groundwater Management Experiences

Several important local level measures in groundwater management in Andhra Pradesh were

funded through Dutch assistance were projects such as the Indo-Dutch — APWELL (1995-

2003)5 and its successor the APFAMGS (2003-2010)

6,

7, .

The main lessons from the APWELL Project are summarized as follows:

Access to water by small and marginal farmers improves their productivity and they

rise above poverty line.

5 For a detailed discussion, see Joseph L Plakkoottam, Jan W K van der Wal, N Sai Bhaskar Reddy, and Jillilla

Prasad, “Groundwater Management Experiences in Andhra Pradesh: Strategies and Prospects: Report for the

Irrigation and Command Area Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2007.

6 For a detailed discussion on APFAMGS, see Samala Venkata Govardhan Das and Jacob Burke, Small Holders

and Sustainable Wells: A Retrospect – Participatory Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh (India),

FAO of UN, 2013.

7 For a critical assessment of the sustainability of the the APFAMGS model, see Verma, S., Krishnan. S.,

Reddy., V. A., and Reddy, K. R. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS): A

reality check,” Highlight 37, IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program, Gujarat, India., 2012.


Small and marginal land holdings (as small as one acre) can become productive with

availability of water and proper inputs.

Enhancing productivity of land and water requires substantial inputs in terms of

financial and capacity building inputs.

Participatory groundwater management is a viable concept if introduced in

conjunction with groundwater development, agricultural production, institutional

development, and capacity building of farming communities.

All stakeholders and water users need to be involved in participatory groundwater

management.

Government and non-government agencies need to work in collaboration for

achieving sustainable results in participatory groundwater management.

Role of facilitating agencies should not stop at the end of a project. Post project

support is essential for sustainability of any promising intervention.

Well trained and strongly motivated staff of government and non-government

agencies working closely with farmers is necessary for the successful implementation

of participatory groundwater management.

Design principles adopted for the PGM Component in APCBTMP

The experiences and lessons from participatory groundwater management projects provided

the strategic directions for making future investments in sustainable groundwater

management. The Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component of the AP

Community Based Tank Management Project (APCBTMP) was designed taking into account

the pioneering efforts of these two projects. The following discussion places these lessons in

a broader context using the framework provided by the GW-MATE Core Group of the World

Bank.8 Garduño et al’s framework has four aspects: (a) Benefits of stakeholder

participation, (b) Institutional arrangements in groundwater management, (c) Role of

government in participatory groundwater management, and (d) Indirect Groundwater Pricing

through Energy Tariffs. The following discussion summarizes how these aspects have been

addressed in the groundwater experiences which guided the design principles of the PGM

component in APCTMP.

(a) Benefits of stakeholder participation

According to Garduño et al, “groundwater management decisions taken with the

participation of stakeholders should help to bring:

social benefits, because they tend to promote equity among users

8 Héctor Garduño, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars, “Stakeholder

Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer management organizations,” Briefing Note 6.

GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.


economic benefits, because they tend to optimize pumping and reduce energy costs

technical benefits, because they usually lead to better estimates of water abstraction.

On the other hand, participatory management of highly-stressed aquifers should help

take some otherwise unpopular decisions where—at least in the short run—benefits to a

number of stakeholder groups are decreased because they agree to reduce pumping in

the longer-term communal interest.”

These principles are valid in the case of the APWELL Project in three main aspects:

i. APWELL Project has brought about social benefits with equity among small and

marginal farmers who continue to share water judiciously (about 90 percent).

ii. APWELL Water Users Groups (WUGs) have reaped economic benefits through

sustainable farming practices as well as by optimizing pumping and reducing energy

costs. The decision of the Government of Andhra Pradesh in 2004 to provide free

power to small and marginal farmers is giving the WUGs about Rs 3000 per annum

which is a substantial savings.

iii. Technical benefits of better estimate of water abstraction are seen in the Andhra

Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS) Project due to the

introduction of Participatory Hydrological Monitoring (PHM) and Crop Water

Budgeting (CWB) where water abstraction and crop water budgeting data are

collected by farmers themselves.

(b) Institutional arrangements in groundwater management

In the case of groundwater resources, there is definite need of a system for higher-level user

and stakeholder participation, called here an aquifer management organization (AMOR).

Such organizations must be established more widely as the institutional mechanism for

resource management at the aquifer (or sub-aquifer) level, in which all WUAs and other

main categories of stakeholder should be represented. AMORs should also include

representatives of national or local agencies involved in groundwater management and of the

corresponding local government authorities. In some circumstances AMORs can (and

should) be formed at the initiative of the water administration, when zones with critical

groundwater status are declared.

APFAMGS Project had developed a structure of organising groundwater users at the

hydrological unit (aquifer) level. The APCBTMP envisages organising groundwater

users in the influence zone of the tanks. These approaches need to be standardized.


All stakeholders for a given aquifer management unit need to be identified, and provision

made to ensure their equitable representation in the institutional mechanism defined for

aquifer management. Difficulties can arise where there are large numbers of individual

stakeholders whose interests need to be represented in an AMOR. In this case it is necessary

to provide for the formation of federations representative of each stakeholder category, and to

vest these federations with the authority to appoint their representatives.

Stakeholders may be unwilling to participate in the groundwater management process unless

this develops within a solid legal and institutional framework providing clarity as to:

o The rights and duties of representatives

o Procedures to those who are reluctant to cooperate.

A finely-tuned balance of regulations and incentives is required to bring stakeholders into

groundwater management. However, regulations should not be imposed from the outside, but

negotiated by consensus. Incentives will often be needed to help groundwater users make

more efficient use of groundwater and thus to make it easier to achieve agreements to reduce

abstraction.

A solid legal and institutional framework for participatory groundwater management

needs to be formulated. This would provide legitimacy to the informal social regulations

in vogue among groundwater users.

(c) Role of government in participatory groundwater management

Stakeholders have first to be made aware of the importance of participation in groundwater

resource management and this is a key government function. It is normally achieved initially

through periodic issuing of bulletins on the status of groundwater resources and quality;

together with prognostic information on the consequences of not taking some form of

management action, using both local communication routes and the mass media to spread the

message.

The APWELL and the APFAMGS Projects had developed communication methods and

strategies for stakeholder participation in PGM. These are easily adoptable.

But this is not generally enough, and education (as distinct from awareness) programs need

to be developed and promoted at various levels. Most importantly social scientists should be

engaged to map the existing communication network amongst the various ‘message senders’

and ‘message receivers’ involved in the management and use of a specific aquifer.


Most groundwater management proposals9 recommend awareness generation through

mass media and campaigns as the solution for people’s participation. APWELL and

APFAMGS had developed a comprehensive education strategy for participatory

hydrological monitoring and crop-water budgeting.

When shaping the role for the local government water resources agency in participatory

groundwater management it is advisable to adopt the following approaches:

(i) Make complex groundwater situations understandable: by providing clear

information on the groundwater balance of the aquifer concerned and using modern

software with user-friendly visual interfaces to share understanding of system behavior

under differing management scenarios—stakeholders will usually then be willing to

consider management interventions and to accept advice to be sure that their own ideas

are technically and economically sound.

APWELL and APFAMGS had successfully used communication methods using both

modern software and traditional media to “demystify the science of groundwater” to

groundwater user communities. These can be adapted for statewide interventions.

(ii) Empower stakeholder organizations: a patronizing (‘officials know best’) attitude

should be avoided and it must be recognized that stakeholders must be the main actors in

the practical management process with the government role being mainly to assist in

identifying strategic issues and implementable solutions.

The Groundwater Management Committees and the Hydrological Unit Networks under

the APFAMGS Project are empowered and capable of collecting hydrological data and

conducting crop water budgeting exercises regularly. The State Groundwater

Department in its new role as the Groundwater Management Agency can play facilitating

role.

iv. The global water partnership associate program

(iii) Ensure all stakeholders are properly represented: this irrespective of their individual

weight in land or water rights tenure, or their economic and political influence.

APWELL and APFAMGS have developed inclusive methodologies in participatory

groundwater management. The Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management

9 See various papers in Saleem Romani, K D Sharma, N C Ghosh and Y B Kaushik (eds.), Groundwater

Governance: Ownership of Groundwater and its Pricing (Proceedings of the 12th

National Symposium on

Hydrology, November 14-15, 2006), New Delhi. Capital Publishing Company: New Delhi, Kolkata, Bangalore.


Project has also ensured participation and representation of all stakeholders including

non-land owners.

(iv) Establish a sound groundwater rights system: so that the interests of stakeholders are

reasonably protected with third party and environmental concerns also being taken into

account, but flexible enough to make feasible water reallocation to more socially,

economically or environmentally beneficial uses.10

PHM pioneered by APWELL and upscaled by APFAMGS envisages social regulation

based on a sound groundwater rights system.

Additionally, while conflict amongst users is generally best settled by the parties

themselves, situations may arise in which the users in conflict prefer to have an external

party (such as a government agency) involved in seeking a settlement, so that they do not

have to confront each other directly.

Present experience suggests that communities are capable of solving most of their

conflicts locally. Facilitation by external agencies is sometimes necessary and useful.

Where excessive groundwater abstraction from an aquifer drives a number of farmers

out of agriculture because of increasing costs of access to groundwater supply, wealthier

farmers usually consolidate their agricultural production, causing migration of the

displaced smaller farmers to urban areas. Public policy must anticipate such phenomena

as these in order to make timely interventions.

The experience of APWELL suggests that proper site selection and borewell development

will lead to sustainable groundwater use. This in turn increases local employment

opportunities and arrests seasonal migration even of marginal farmers.

Excessive groundwater exploitation will lead not only to migration but even to farmer

suicides as has been the case in several states in India including Andhra Pradesh.

(d) Indirect Groundwater Pricing through Energy Tariffs

Garduño et al,11

argue that the major cost in groundwater abstraction (once a well is installed)

is the energy required to lift water. This cost will depend not only on water table depth,

aquifer characteristics and well efficiency, but also on the unit cost of energy for pumping.

10

Hector Garduño, Stephen Foster, Charles Dumars, Karin Kemper, Albert Tuinhof, Marcella Nanni. “Groundwater

Abstraction Rights from theory to practice”, Briefing Note 5 GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.

11 Héctor Garduño, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars, “Stakeholder

Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer management organizations,” Briefing Note 6.

GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.


Thus, energy (electricity or diesel fuel) pricing can be a powerful tool to influence

groundwater pumping trends. Paradoxically, in many areas of the world, energy prices are

used in the opposite way, with large subsidies in place to decrease farming costs. While it can

be legitimate to subsidize poor farmers to improve their livelihood, subsidizing groundwater

abstraction in general may not be the best vehicle to do so, because excessive groundwater

abstraction can erode the same farmers’ resource availability in the longer term. Other

measures need to be defined which have a neutral effect on the resource, such as lump-sum

payments to poor farmers at the beginning of the year to cover their estimated energy bill. In

this way, they would have an incentive to use water more efficiently and consume less,

maybe through a shift to higher-value crops. Since they receive lump sum payments to offset

their increased energy bills, they can actually gain twice by being more efficient, and thus

improve their livelihoods.

Though metered energy for groundwater use was successfully introduced in the APWELL

Project, it was discontinued in the wake of change in government and subsequent policy

change. The impact of subsidized power on aquifer stabilization needs to be studied.

Related issues of water and land productivity also need systematic study.

Being the first attempt of its kind to integrate surface water management with groundwater

management, the PGM component in APCBTMP was designed with only limited scope of

involving groundwater users in the immediate influence zone of the minor irrigation tanks.

The processes, methods and procedures developed under the APWELL and the APFAMGS

projects were incorporated while designing the PGM component in APCBTMP.

There has been acceptance of the APWELL pilot initiatives, expanded by APFAMGS as

useful for upscaling.12

However, more recent discussions have been more critical of the

APFAMGS model about its sustainability having been anchored in the non-government

sector.13

,14

The Participatory Groundwater Management component, introduced in APCBTMP and

implemented by the Government of Andhra Padesh through a World Bank funded project in

12

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Deep Wells and Prudence:

Towards Pragmatic Action for Addressing Groundwater Overexploitation in India. 2010. URL:

www.worldbank.org

13 For a critical assessment of the sustainability of the the APFAMGS model, see Verma, S., Krishnan. S.,

Reddy., V. A., and Reddy, K. R. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS): A

reality check,” Highlight 37, IWMI-Tata Water Policy Program, Gujarat, India., 2012.

14 Shah, Tushar. Groundwater Governance and Irrigated Agriculture. Global Partnership Technical Committee.

2014.

http://www.worldbank.org/


2007, and recognized as the 2nd ranked finalist for ‘Water for Life’ UN-Water Best Practices

Award 2014 edition, has been getting some well deserved attention and needs closer study.15

The Participatory

Groundwater Management

(PGM) component of

APCBTMP was declared as

the 2nd ranked finalist for

‘Water for Life’ UN-Water

Best Practices Award 2014

edition, announced at the

UNU Headquarters, Tokyo

on 21 March 2014 the eve

of the World Water Day.

Frank van Steenbergen16

reports about an interesting an innovative case to address one of the

biggest challenges facing global agriculture: the over-pumping of ground water in the

world’s two largest countries, China and India.

“The Qinxu Groundwater Management System. This system, masterminded by

Professor Fan Guishang from Taiyuan University of Technology University,

regulates all groundwater usage in the Qinxu, one of the counties in Shanxi Province.

It took five years to set it up, but this is a short time for a system that has all the

features of a dream coming true.

What the Qinxu Groundwater System has done is equipped all 1473 wells in the

county with an automatic operating system that farmers operate with individual swipe

cards. The amount of water that can be used is based on a quota that is allocated

annually.

There are many innovative attempts around the world to address this crucial area of

sustainale groundwater aquifer management. PGM is one such attempt and can be modified

to the emerging needs. The newly created states of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana will be

well advised to incorporate PGM in their integrated water management plans.

15

Paul, Stella, “And Not a Drop to Waste.” IPS-Inter Press Service, 2014. ttp://www.ipsnews.net/2014/05/drop-

waste; Paul, Stella, “Rural India looks to past and present to meet growing water needs.” Thomson Reuters

Foundation - Wed, 23 Apr 2014.

16 Frank van Steenbergen “A Brave New Groundwater World” posted in The Water Channel, October

22, 2012.

http://www.trust.org/profile/?id=003D000001BGCJGIA5



Introduction

AP Community Based Tank Management Project (APCBTMP) has been designed to

rehabilitate 3000 traditional minor irrigation tanks covering an area of about 2.5 lakh ha on a

sustainable basis.

1.1 Objective of APCBTMP

The development objective of APCBTMP is: “Tank based producers improve agricultural

productivity and water user associations manage tank systems effectively.” The scope of the

project covers minor irrigation tank systems – consisting of tanks with command area

between 40-2000 ha. The strategy adopted to achieve this objective is to:

Strengthen community based institutions for participatory irrigation management and

sustainable use of water resources including water distribution;

Facilitate participatory planning and implementation;

Focus on improving agricultural livelihoods options of tank system users;

Revive, restore and manage minor irrigation systems (both surface and ground water)

through participatory processes;

Promote water use efficiency through conjunctive water use and adoption of modern

techniques (SRI paddy, improved technologies for enhanced WUE);

Understand water resource management from a holistic perspective at tank system

level to resolve the issues in relation to water management, groundwater recharge and

tank storage; and

Ensure financial sustainability to WUAs through mobilization of resources for

effecting operation and maintenance (O&M).

1.2. APCBTM Project Components

The project is being implemented in 2157 tanks of 21 districts of Andhra Pradesh covering

an ayacut of about 2.55 lakh ha. The four components of the Project are:

A. Strengthening community based institutions to assume responsibility for tank

system improvement and management. This includes, streamlining functioning of

Water User Associations in promoting participatory planning and implementation of


water distribution, O&M, demand raising and assistance in collection of Water

charges by WUAs.

B1. Undertaking tank systems improvements includes physical investments in tank

systems with command area of 40 ha and above. The actual rehabilitation work

required is determined for each tank system individually with an upfront ‘tank

improvement and management plan’ prepared in consultation with tank users prior to

undertaking any investments. Such plans include treatments to feeder channels,

foreshore area, tank bed, tank bund, sluices, weir, draft channel, distribution channels

and command area.

B2. Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component aims at empowering

groundwater users in the tank influence zone to wisely manage the dynamic

groundwater resources, replenished through rainfall, surface water resources and

return circulation from irrigated areas: The AP State Ground Water Department is the

implementing agency of the PGM component. This component is currently being

implemented in 13 districts in 314 tanks.

C. Agricultural Livelihood Support Services for tank system users includes

agricultural extension support through public agencies and private service providers

and facilitation of market linkages for farmers/groups (including fisheries). Line

departments are involved in planning, implementation and monitoring of the relevant

interventions proposed under the component.

D. Project Management: Includes Monitoring, Learning and Evaluation, as well as

MIS, GMIS, SEMF and Procurement and adopting a Results Framework involving an

External Monitoring Agency in addition to internal input-output monitoring systems.

Procurement of works, goods and services, financial management, proactive

disclosure and grievance redressal are also part of the component.

A State level Project Steering Committee headed by the Chief Secretary to GoAP

coordinates at state level and provides overall guidance. Principal Secretary,

Irrigation and Commissioner, CAD is the Project Coordinator. There is a Project

Management Unit (PMU) with a multidisciplinary Team, headed by the State Project

Director. The District Level Implementation Committee (DLIC) with the District

Collector as Chairperson coordinates the implementation of project at district level.

The District Project Unit (DPU) is a multi-disciplinary team headed by the District

Project Director (Executive Engineer) to plan, implement and monitor the project at


district level. Services of Nodal Support Organizations (NSO) are procured to

facilitate the process at grass roots in about 30-40 tanks. The Water Users

Associations (WUAs) formed as per the APFMIS Act with an elected body of

Managing Committee implements the project at tank level. The Gram Panchayat and

other Community Based Organizations like the Fishermen Cooperative Societies and

Commodity Interest Groups work with the WUAs in implementing the project

interventions.

1.3 Participatory Groundwater Management

Objective: Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) component of APCBTMP aims

at empowering groundwater users in the tank influence zone to wisely manage the dynamic

groundwater resources, replenished through rainfall, surface water sources and return

circulation from irrigated areas.

Operational area:

The 314 selected project tanks are falling with in 157 over exploited and critical groundwater

basins as identified by the Ground Water Department, covering 138 mandals in 13 districts.

The selected tanks generally have deeper water levels in their vicinity, high density of

extraction structures, underlain by hard rocks with good and moderate yields.

Map 1.1: Location of 314 tanks selected for PGM interventions


Selection criteria for PGM interventions:

Tank village to fall in Typology A&B

Identification of Tanks in assessment units based on category & stage of GW development

Reconnoitery investigations:

to study structural controls

density of bore wells showing 15-20 wells per sq km

effect of tank water on groundwater for taking up groundwater interventions

Demarcation of zone of Influence

Inventory of 20% wells existing in the command and zone of influence of the selected

tank area

Selection of 5 representative wells

for Participatory Hydrological

Monitoring (PHM) whose owners

are willing to make physical

modifications to their well and

volunteer to collect hydrological

data fortnightly.

Zone of influence (ZoI)

As part of PGM component, the Groundwater Department is responsible for selection of

tanks, demarcating the zone of influence, identification of 5 farmers for Participatory

Hydrological Monitoring (PHM), installation of the PHM equipment, and selection of sites,

and drilling of additional piezometers. The concept of delineating the zone of influence (ZoI)

is the unique contribution of APCBTM Project.

PGM group formation

All Groundwater (GW) Users in the Zone of Influence (ZoI) including the command area of

the tank selected for PGM interventions under the APCBTMP will be organized into PGM

Groups, each group consisting of a maximum of TEN (10) GW user families. Two persons

from each GW user family, of whom one must be a woman, shall become members of a

PGM Group.

PGM groups shall be organized around a PHM well, comprising groundwater users from

contiguous or nearby plots. Where there are more than 10 user families around a PHM well,

more than ONE PGM group will be formed.

Participatory delineation of the tanks groundwater

zone of influence using PRA


Table 1.1: PGM groups in APCBTMP (March 2014)

Sl District

PGM Groups formed

Tanks Functional

Groups Men Women Total

1 Anantapur 74 524 4182 3861 8043

2 Chittoor 28 181 1601 1374 2975

3 Kadapa 7 47 341 341 682

4 Karimnagar 9 113 936 778 1714

5 Kurnool 9 56 458 438 896

6 Mahabubnagar 46 274 2267 2132 4399

7 Medak 42 321 3413 3208 6621

8 Nalgonda 22 211 1823 1823 3646

9 Nellore 11 66 479 487 966

10 Nizamabad 18 99 654 581 1235

11 Prakasam 13 93 824 846 1670

12 Ranga Reddy 18 153 1240 1173 2413

13 Warangal 17 122 701 506 1207

Total 314 2260 18,919 17,548 36,467

Co-option of groundwater users into WUA

GO MS No 160 dated 24-09-2008 facilitates cooption of groundwater users into WUA:

“Government after careful examination of the issue, it is ordered that the District Collectors

co-opt such of the members having customary rights like fishermen, people engaged in

making pottery, washer men, Ground Water users outside the command area but within the

demarcated zone of tanks selected for the Participatory Ground Water Management (PGM)

activities under projects who are dependent on the water source for their livelihood into the

respective Water Users Associations.”

PGM process

PGM proposes to establish the Participatory Hydrological Monitoring Network and build the

capacity of the community for collection, analysis and management of data on rainfall,

groundwater recharge, and extraction leading to groundwater balance estimation. This would

in turn facilitate crop planning and crop water budgeting by the community to arrive at

decisions to balance recharge and draft. Over a few years, when the community would have

generated reliable time series data, it will be feasible to do crop water budgeting more

precisely and take precautionary measures for drought proofing.

These exercises will provide the community with knowledge and motivation for social

regulation on groundwater and natural resources management. Improving water use

efficiency and diversifying livelihoods are important strategies for sustainable groundwater

management and adaptation to climate change. Issues of equity and vulnerability will be


better addressed by an informed community, which controls and manages its own

groundwater and other natural resources.

For PHM data collection, the necessary equipment and installation are procured by the

Ground Water Department for each tank at a unit cost of Rs. 1.20 lakhs. These are: (a) Water

level measurement equipment, (b) Water discharge measurement equipment, and (c) Rain

gauge stations. The districtwise details of are shown in Table1.2.

Table 1.2: Participatory Hydrological Monitoring Network (March 2014)

Capacity Building:

Capacity Building of PGM group is carried out by Training Resource Persons (TRP) through

specially designed training modules. Besides the PHM farmers, the trainings seek to build the

capacities of the identified para workers to make a community initiative PGM.

Three training modules are developed (English and Telugu) to carry out the capacity building

tasks at tank level.

Module 1: Orientation on PGM

Purpose

Focus on demand side rather than supply side

management of groundwater resources by the

primary stakeholders is the main aim of the

# District Tanks

Hydrological Monitoring Network

Water level & discharge

measurement equipment Rain gauge stations

1 Anantapur 74 368 67

2 Chittoor 28 140 20

3 Kadapa 7 35 7

4 Karimnagar 9 45 8

5 Kurnool 9 45 8

6 Mahabubnagar 46 228 45

7 Medak 42 188 42

8 Nalgonda 22 109 10

9 Nellore 11 49 17

10 Nizamabad 18 88 12

11 Prakasam 13 65 13

12 Ranga Reddy 18 86 16

13 Warangal 17 84 16

Total 314 1530 281

TRP providing orientation on PGM to PHM

farmers and other select WUA members


orientation module. The need for PGM is being recognized of late. It is now realized that

demand side management of groundwater at micro-watershed or tank influence zone level is

more likely to show results. For this, all the primary stakeholders in the tank influence zone

have to own up and manage the groundwater and other natural resources.

Objectives

Need for Participatory Hydrological Monitoring

Understand the concept of Groundwater Zone of Influence(ZOI) of a tank

Balancing groundwater draft with recharge

Participatory Groundwater Management

Improving water productivity with efficient irrigation

Sustainable agriculture by increasing land productivity

Equity in groundwater usage

Social regulation on groundwater development

Contents

History of groundwater development

Hydrological cycle

Understanding the present groundwater situation

Participatory Hydrological Monitoring

Institutions involved in water management case studies

Crop water budgeting

Methodology

Participatory approach, group discussions, Visual aids such as charts and games are some of

the tools that can be used in the sessions. Live models can also be used to demonstrate data

interpretation. Role-play will help easily understand the concept of PGM. The sessions are

mostly interactive with introduction of pictures and initiating discussions.

Output

The farmers are able to understand the

groundwater situation. It is expected that the

stakeholders will have a thorough

understanding of the concept of

participatory groundwater management,

water balance estimation and internalize the

need and methodology of participatory

groundwater resource estimation in the tank

influence zone. Groundwater users learning to use

PHM equipment


Module 2: Participatory Hydrological Monitoring

Purpose

PHM emphasizes the need for monitoring the changes in aquifer systems. For motivating the

communities to manage groundwater usage, it is essential that they understand the

hydrological regime in which they are operating. The main purpose of the module is to

familiarize the PHM farmers (volunteers) and groundwater users with the concept of PHM.

This makes them understand the annual changes in their groundwater system and prepare

them how to regulate the use of groundwater in tune with the annual hydrological cycle.

Collecting and analyzing the relevant data is the first step to understand PHM and use them

for their benefit.

Objectives

Creating awareness on groundwater availability

Establishing the local micro-catchment (Zone of Influence) level rainfall and its

relationship with recharge

Data collection by PHM farmer

Contents

Handling of instruments

Facilitating the data collection

Recording the data

Display and dissemination

Allocating responsibilities

Methodology

Use live models of water level indicator, stopwatch, rain gauge and discharge measurement

material to demonstrate the function of and methodology of data collection. This training

should be very interactive with visual aids, participatory approach and group discussions.

Output

Farmers will get a better understanding of the utility of measuring the rainfall and borewell

water level and discharge at least for comparing the performance of wells–location and

season wise. Farmer volunteers will be able to describe the importance of hydrological cycle

and acquire the expertise in handling the PHM equipment, and data collection, recording,

display and dissemination.


Participatory Hydrological Monitoring

PHM volunteers and Para workers in the tank influence zone have come forward to spare

their bore wells to make the necessary modifications for data collection. They are collecting

and recording the PHM data regularly on a voluntary basis.

PGM data generation

Central to PGM is generating awareness about the need to manage the resource among the

primary stakeholders. This can be best achieved by their active involvement through

collection of the data on rainfall, water levels and discharges from their own bore wells.

PHM volunteers record these data systematically and analyse them with the assistance of

TRPs. The collection of data ultimately leads to resource estimation in the zone of influence

and crop water budgeting.

Module 3: Crop Water Budgeting

Purpose

Crop Water Budgeting is a crucial exercise in PGM addressing the problem and shift the

focus from supply side to demand side management. The purpose of this training module is

to help participants analyse the groundwater situation and to understand the relationship

between the crops and water requirement based on the PHM data collected and analysed by

them. Farmers have to do crop plans and be sensitized to change their cropping pattern

according to the water balance.

Farmers engaged in crop water budgeting training

Objectives

Preparation of crop plans

Calculation and water balance estimations

Plan for groundwater conservation and recharge


In case of deficit balance, change the cropping pattern from high to low water

requiring crops

Contents

Estimation of groundwater recharge

Estimation of groundwater draft

Estimation of groundwater balance

Crop plans

Crop water requirements

Projected groundwater balance

Presenting the results to the Water

Users Association (WUA) general

body

Plans for change in cropping pattern

Social regulation

Training output from the participants

Methodology

Participatory approach, group discussions, visual aids such as charts and, games can be used

in these sessions. Live models are also used to demonstrate data interpretation. Role-play

will also be used. The sessions are mostly interactive with introduction of a picture and

initiating discussion.

Output

Charts and tables summarizing crop plans, water budget, water balance and changes

in cropping pattern that may be required will be prepared.

Triggering discussion in WUA to facilitate better water management practices in the

groundwater Zone of Influence of a tank.

Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) Workshop

The ultimate objective of the PGM initiative in a tank is to enable the groundwater user

community to understand the resource position in the zone of influence through the data

collected and analyzed by themselves. This would enable them to plan for appropriate crops

in the ensuing RABI season. The process involves the following activities:

Collection of the data from the Zone of Influence of the tank

Collection of PHM data using the equipment supplied

Resource estimation using the analyzed PHM data and presenting them to the

community


Preparation of crop plans for the ensuing RABI season and revisions based on

consensus in CWB workshop

Crop plan adoption by the community

Promotion of social regulation, efficient water use, water sharing leading to wise

water use.

By the end of the hydrological year 2012-13, CWB workshops were organized in 238 PGM

tanks. The analysis of data on crop plans based on the availability water resources for the

ensuing Rabi seasons available in the Groundwater Zone of Influence for four consecutive

years presented in Figure 1.1

Figure 1.1 Crop Water Budgeting: Rabi crop plan in GW ZoI in PGM Tanks

(2009-10 to 2012-13)


The following observations can be made from Figure 1.1:

The percentage of Non-Paddy plan for Rabi has been increasing over years in ZOI

of PGM tanks except during 2010-11.

Farmers in the groundwater zone of influence of PGM tanks are adjusting their

Rabi crop plans based on the PHM data and CWB results. Particularly during

2010-11, the percentage of Non-Paddy plan for Rabi has decreased as that was a

good monsoon year and available water resources were more as compared to

hydrological year 2009-10.

Paddy plan is less in area outside tank ayacut as compared to plan in the ayacut. The

reasons are higher degree of soil suitability for irrigated dry crops and controlled

irrigation possibilities in outside tank ayacut as compared to tank ayacut.

Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) – Field day Workshop:

The three training modules, crop water budgeting workshops are followed by CWB Field day

workshops for all PGM group members.

CWB Field day workshops were organized to let groundwater users to:

Know the changes adopted

Calculate the balance at the end of water year

Share the results of the crop adoptions

Disseminate the outcomes among the groundwater users through CWB field day

workshops based on adoption.

As part of the preparation for conducting CWB Filed day workshops in the PGM tanks, the

TRPs were oriented on the methodology for organizing the workshops. The PGM experts

from PMU made intensive tours to the PGM districts to oversee the preparations by the TRPs

for collection and analysis of the necessary data for organizing the CWB field day

workshops.

The PMU oriented the Nodal Officers of the GWD from the PGM districts which enabled the

latter to scrutinize the data and consolidate the processes to be adopted by the TRPs during

the course of CWB Field day workshops. At the end hydrological year 2012-13, a total of

189 CWB Field day workshops were organized, where CWB workshops were organized at

the end of Hydrological Year.


Groundwater Sharing

Participatory Groundwater Management (PGM) aims at empowering groundwater users in

the tank influence zone to wisely manage the dynamic groundwater resources, replenished

through rainfall, surface water sources, return circulation from irrigated areas. The restoration

of the tank system has been found to result in incremental recharge to groundwater which

again needs to be managed wisely. In the context of management of the groundwater through

the participation of the groundwater users in particular and the WUA in general, groundwater

sharing acquires immense importance.

Sharing of groundwater from the incremental recharge to the aquifer would ultimately result

in increase in the irrigated ayacut in the zone of influence, with social regulation leading to

reduction in drilling of new borewells resulting in savings in precious monetary resources.


Chapter 2

Impact Assessment Study on PGM

The PGM component having completed five years in the project, it was considered

appropriate to conduct a study to assess its impact and find options for way forward during

the remaining period of the project and beyond.

Objectives of the Impact Assessment of PGM Study

The primary objective of this study is to assess the impact of the PGM sub-component. The

sub-objectives are as follows:

To assess the effectiveness of the following PGM processes: training of PHM farmers,

crop water budgeting (CWB) workshops, CWB field days, support by Training Resource

Persons (TRPs), and PHM equipment.

To assess the impact of the PGM on the following aspects:

o Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers

o Availability of hydrological information (rainfall, groundwater, surface water) to

farmers through formal and informal channels.

o Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through formal and

informal channels.

o Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at the individual

and collective levels for crop planning (extent and type), social regulations on

groundwater use, groundwater sharing, adoption of efficient irrigation practices and

cultivation practices

To identify indicators affecting sustainability of the PGM at the tank level (regularity of

PHM data collection and sharing, perception of use the of PHM data collection and

sharing, experience of collective decision making on PGM, etc.).

To identify critical inputs (technical, hand-holding, institutional, etc.) necessary for the

sustainability of PGM at the tank level.

To assess the land and Groundwater productivity.

To assess the impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM

To identify the ‘way-forward’ strategy for the PGM intervention.


Sample for the Study

The study was carried out by collecting data from 20 select sample tanks (Annexure: 2.1) out

of the 314 PGM tanks. Five non PGM-APCBTMP as well as five non-APCBTMP tanks

were selected as a control set. Details of the sample drawn are given in Table 2.2.

Table 2.2: PGM Impact Assessment: Study Sample

PGM / Non-PGM Year of initiation of

CWB workshops

No. of

tanks

Sample

N

size

(% )

APCBTMP – PGM 2009-10 62 14 22%

APCBTMP – PGM 2010-11 49 6 12%

APCBTMP-Non PGM (Control) NA NA 5 NA

Non- APCBTMP (Control) NA NA 5 NA

Total 30

Two types of control tanks were selected: (i) APCBTMP-Non PGM and (ii) Non-

APCBTMP. The control tanks were selected from a similar hydrological situation (rainfall,

surface and groundwater) in the vicinity of the sampled PGM tank. The geographical

distribution of the tanks selected for the impact assessment study is given in Map 2.1.

Map 2.1 Locations of PGM Impact Study Tanks

Data collection for the PGM Impact Assessment Study

The tank level data required for the study were collected by the Training Resource Persons

(TRPs), drafted from other districts. Data were collected using appropriate data collection


instruments and methods. Table 2.1 summarizes the data collection plans, methods and

sources of verification used in this study

Focus Group Discussion Personal interview

Table 2.1: Tasks and objective-wise data collection method and source of verification

Task Objective Item Data collected on Method of data

collection

Source of

verification

1

Assess the

effectiveness of

the PGM

processes

Training of PHM

farmers

Skills, Knowledge

and Attitude

Demonstration by

PHM farmers

Hydrological

monitoring records

Crop Water

Budgeting (CWB)

workshops, CWB

field days

Ability to

Collect, compile,

analyze and

disseminate to

community

Focus group

discussions with

PGM group farmers

Process book,

PHM Para worker

book (ZoI level

book)

Support by Training

Resource Persons

(TRPs)

Frequency of TRPs

field visits

Level of handholding

FGD with PGM

group farmers

Process book,

PHM Para worker

book (ZoI level

book) HMR

Books, WUA

minutes book

PHM equipment

Functioning and

O & M of the

equipment

Focus group

discussions with

PHM farmers

Process book

2

Assess the

impact of the

PGM

intervention

Adoption of PHM by

farmer volunteers

Change in crop

extent, area and

methods irrigation.

Changes pump

placement & any

other

Individual interviews

with PHM farmers

Process book,

PHM Para worker

book (ZoI level

book)

Availability of

hydrological

information on

rainfall, groundwater,

surface water to

farmers through

formal and informal

channels.

Updation of HMR

books & display

boards, availability of

information with

WUA.

Focus group

discussions with

PGM group farmers,

and control tank

farmers & WUA

members

Process book,

PHM Para worker

book (ZoI level

book) & PHM data

display boards

Availability of CWB workshops FGD with PGM Process book,



collection

Source of

verification

information on crop

water demand to

farmers through

formal and informal

channels.

organized, CWB data

and PGM group

farmers’ perception.

group farmers &

control tank farmers

PHM Para worker

book (ZoI level

book) HMR

Books, WUA

minutes book.

Use of hydrological

and crop water

demand information

by farmers at

individual and

collective level for

crop planning (extent

and type), social

regulations on ground

water use, ground

water sharing,

adoption of efficient

irrigation practices,

etc.

Year wise

consolidated crop

plans and adoption

Crop plan at

individual and

collective level,

Community level

decisions towards

social regulation,

willing ness of

farmers to share

groundwater and

efficient irrigation

practices adopted.

Personal interviews

and focus group

discussions with

PHM farmers &

control tank farmers.

Process book,

PHM Para worker

book (ZoI level

book) HMR

Books, WUA

minutes book.

Responsiveness of

the PGM intervention

to felt need

The need to have

PGM interventions

for better

management of

groundwater

resources.

Personal interviews

and focus group

discussions with

PHM farmers &

control tank farmers.

-

3

Assess the

sustainability

of the PGM

initiative.

Regularity of PHM

data collection and

sharing,

Change in frequency

of data collection,

upkeep of the PHM

equipment, felt need

for seeking data from

PHM farmers.

Focus group

discussions with

groundwater users in

PGM tanks, WUAs,

village opinion

leaders

Process book,

PHM Para worker

book (ZoI level

book) HMR Books

Perception on use of

PHM data collection

& sharing

Usage of PHM data

by individual PHM

farmer and the act of

sharing the same with

the fellow farmers.

Focus group

discussions with

PHM farmers

PHM process book

Experience of

collective decision

making based on

PGM

Collective decisions

taken and

implementation.

Focus group

discussion with key

PGM implementation

stakeholders like

ground water users in

PGM tanks, WUAs,

village opinion

leaders

PHM process book

Opinion on key PGM

implementation

stakeholders.

Strengths and

weaknesses of the

PGM interventions.

Focus group

discussion with key

PGM implementation

stake holders. TRPs,

DNO-GWD, DD-

GWD, PMU

-

4

To identify

critical inputs

(technical,

hand-holding,

institutional)

necessary for

sustainability

of the PGM at

Technical inputs

Validation of PHM

data, sharing of

inferences with

dissemination and

periodicity.

Focus group

discussions with


PGM tanks, WUAs,

village opinion

leaders &

implementers like

TRPs and DNOs

-



collection

Source of

verification

the tank level

Hand holding

No of TRP,

DNOs/NSO visits,

Facilitation during

data collection,

organizing meetings

and workshops.

Focus group

discussions with


PGM tanks, WUAs,

village opinion

leaders

-

Institutional Inputs

Level of

preparedness of PGM

group farmers and

areas needing

strengthening.

Focus group

discussion with key

PGM implementation

stakeholders - TRPs,

DNO-GWD.

-

Comparative analysis

of PGM impact

across the 2 sets of

PGM tanks (based on

year of initiation of

CWB workshops)

CWB based

discussions and

decisions

Segregation of data


PGM tanks.

PHM process book

Material Inputs

On critical material

inputs like drips/

sprinklers, seed

varieties, IWMT

equipment/material

Focus group

discussions with


PGM

tanks,WUAs,Village

opinion leaders and

TRPs,DNO-GWD.

-

SO/NSO support

services

Opinion of PGM

farmers and WUA

Focus group

discussions -

FGD with gw users

in PGM tanks,

WUAs, village

opinion leaders; FGD

with key PGM

implementation

stakeholders - TRPs,

DNO-GWD, DD-

GWD, PMU.

Comparative analysis

of PGM impact


PGM tanks (based on

year of initiation of

CWB workshops).

- -

5

To assess the

land and

Groundwater

productivity

Area Irrigated and

Groundwater used

Cropwise area

irrigated in Project

and control tank

farmers and

groundwater use data

from PHM farmers

Personal interviews

and focus group

discussions with

PHM farmers &

control tank

farmers.

PHM Paraworker

book and HMR

Books

6

To assess the

impact of tank

rehabilitation

on PGM

Rehabilitation works

to tank and PHM data

Tank rehabilitation

works completed,

Water spread area,

Groundwater levels

and rainfall

Culling out of

information from

TIMP Completion

document and PHM

Books

TIMP Completion

document and

PHM Books

7

To identify the

‘way-forward’

strategy for the

PGM

intervention.

Analysis based on the

preceding tasks.

Consultation

workshop on the

‘way-forward’

strategy

Key PGM

implementation

stakeholders – PMU,

GWD, organizations

with experience in

PGM, World Bank,

etc.

-


Chapter 3

Impact Assessment of PGM

Introduction

The impact assessment study has seven sub-objectives, which are:

i. To assess the effectiveness of the PGM processes

ii. To assess the impact of the PGM aspects

iii. To assess the sustainability of the PGM initiative

iv. To identify critical inputs (technical, hand-holding, institutional, etc.) necessary for

sustainability of the PGM at the tank level

v. To assess groundwater productivity

vi. To assess the impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM and

vii. To identify the ‘way-forward’ strategy for the PGM intervention.

This report will discuss the findings of the study taking each sub-objective into account.

Quantifiable data collected are summarized and presented in tabular form for easier analysis

and interpretation.

3.1 Objective 1: Assess the effectiveness of the PGM processes

In order to facilitate the groundwater users in the groundwater zone of influence of a tank

system to achieve the goal of PGM .The farmers are provided knowledge and material inputs,

such as training of PHM farmers, providing knowledge and skills to organize CWB

workshops and Field days, support of Training Resource Persons and establishing the PHM

equipment. In order the assess the effectiveness of these information was collected from the

users through focus groups and personal interviews. The taskwise results are presented here

under:

A. Training of PHM farmers:

As part of capacity Building of PHM farmers is carried out by Training Resource Persons

(TRP) through specially designed three training modules. Besides the PHM farmers, the

trainings seek to build the capacities of the identified Para workers to make a community


initiative PGM. Information was collected on skills, knowledge and attitude from the PHM

farmers, Para workers and from Non-PHM farmers in 20 PGM tanks, to understand the

effectiveness of training and its spread effect. The findings are presented in Table 3.1.

Table 3.1 Impact of capacity building in PGM

Parameter

PHM Farmers Non-PHM Farmers

Sample

Size (N) Yes % No %

Sample

Size (N) Yes % No %

Ability to collect the PHM data on

their own 61 57 93.4 4 6.6 40 20 50.0 20 50.0

Demonstrated the process of

monitoring PHM data 61 50 82.0 11 18.0 40 16 40.0 24 60.0

Capable to explain to PGM group

members why PHM data are collected 61 55 90.2 6 9.8 40 20 50.0 20 50.0

Ability to share the knowledge gained

through the trainings with PGM

group members

61 54 88.5 7 11.5 40 20 50.0 20 50.0

Data Source: PGM Tanks_ Interview guide

From the data one can infer that:

Overall a minimum of 82% of PHM farmers have grasped the contents of the training

and are able to collect, demonstrate and share information/knowledge on the PHM

parameters.

In case of Non-PHM farmers, it is close to 50-50 understanding on PHM data

collection and sharing.

B. Crop Water Budgeting (CWB) workshops, CWB field days:

Capacity building to the to the groundwater users in the groundwater zone of influence of

tank by three training modules are followed by a crop water budgeting workshop for all PGM

group members. The PGM team from PMU oriented the TRPs and in turn the PGM group

members for collecting and analyzing the necessary data for organizing the CWB

workshop/field days. In order to assess the ability to collect, compile, analyze and disseminate to

community data was collected from 20 select PGM tanks through focus group discussions. The

results are presented in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 Knowledge on crop water budgeting and field days

Parameter Sample Size

Respondents

(N)

Yes % No %

PGM farmers know the parameters required for CWB

i. Area of Zone of influence (ZOI) 569 310 54.5 259 45.5

ii. Rainfall 536 360 67.2 176 32.8

iii. Crops planned vs crops sown 558 359 64.3 199 35.7

iv. Availability of water in the tank 563 371 65.9 192 34.1

v. Number of functional borewells in the ZOI 543 448 82.5 95 17.5



Respondents

(N)

Yes % No %

vi. Number of hours pumping 537 411 76.5 126 23.5

Para worker/volunteer is collecting the required data for

CWB 547 322 58.9 225 41.1

PGM farmers confident that the trained persons are

capable of compiling and analyzing the data for CWB 542 261 48.2 281 51.9

Felt that it is necessary to disseminate the results of the

CWB? 542 355 65.5 187 34.5

Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD

From the responses it is clear that nearly 2/3rds

of respondents (64.75%) have given yes

response and remaining 34% respondents have given no response. These responses are based

on their degree of involvement in PGM activities.

C. Support by Training Resource Persons (TRPs)

As part of the PGM capacity building strategy, Training Resource Persons (TRPs) were

involved in imparting training and handholding the groundwater users on various aspects of

PGM at tank level. Each TRP is responsible for facilitating all the PGM related activities in

about 20 PGM tanks. TRPs carried out PGM Group formation, identification and cooption of

PGM members into the WUA, training PHM volunteers in groundwater resource estimation,

handling of PHM equipment, PHM data recording and analysis, conducting crop water

budgeting workshops, crop water budget field days for sharing the crop adoptions and

promoting groundwater sharing in the Zone of Influence.

In translating the PGM tasks into actions frequency of TRP field visits and Level of

handholding plays a vital role. The data collected from both PHM and Non-PHM farmers

from PGM tanks is shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3 Support of the Training Resource Persons

Parameter


Sample

Size

(N)

Twice a

month

Once a

month

Once in

two

months

Once in

three/more

months

Sample

Size

(N)

Twice a

month

Once a

month

Once in

two

months

Once in

three/more

months

N % N % N % N % N % N % N % N %

TRP visit

to the

PHM well 61 22 36.1 31 50.8 5 8.2 3 4.9 40 14 35.0 15 37.5 6 15.0 5

12.5

TRP

organize

meetings

& explain

the results

of PHM

monitoring

61 13 21.3 30 49.2 14 23.0 4 6.6 39 8 20.5 14 35.9 10 25.6 7

17.9

Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ Interview guide


From the analysis it is clear that the TRPs are:

Able to visit 50.8% of PHM farmers and 37.5% of Non-PHM farmers in a month.

Able to organize meetings & explain the results of PHM monitoring with 49.2% of

PHM farmers and 35.9% of Non-PHM farmers in a month.

For effective facilitation and implementation of the PGM activities by reducing the number

of tanks for each TRP to about 10 to12 will provide room for frequent visits to PGM tanks.

D. PHM equipment

After the selection of the tanks for PGM interventions, the Ground Water Department took

up well inventory of representative sample of the existing wells in the command area and the

zone of influence of the tank. A full inventory of the remaining wells in the tank area was

conducted with the help of Para-Workers. Based on detailed well inventory, about 4-5 wells

were selected for PHM.

The PHM equipment under use by the

farmers is being removed at times due

to malfunctioning of the submersible

pumps and has to be reinserted to

ensure regular and periodical data

collection. Whenever the PGM team

encounters such situations during its

field visits to the PGM tanks, the team

converts them into opportunity to

demonstrate the methodology of the

reinsertion of the equipment into the

bore well so that the farmers and the TRPs can cope up on their own with such issues in

future and ensure regular data collection.

To understand the functioning, O & M of the PHM equipment by PHM farmers’ data was

collected from PGM tanks through personal interviews. The results are shown in Table 3.4.

Groundwater users practising repair of PHM

equipment


Table 3.4 Functioning and O&M of PHM equipment by PHM farmers

Parameter

PHM Farmers

Sample

Size (N)

No problem during

entire period

Under repair for

less than one

month

Under repair

upto 2-3

months

Under repair for

more than 3

month

N % N % N % N %

Status of equipment on PHM wells in functioning condition on the day of survey

HDPE PIPE 60 43 71.7 10 16.7 3 5.0 4 6.7

W L Indicator 60 50 83.3 8 13.3 -- -- 2 3.3

Discharge Measurement

fittings 60 47 78.3 7 11.7 3 5.0 3 5.0


equipment (Drum) 60 58 96.7 -- -- -- -- 2 3.3


equipment (Stop watch) 60 55 91.7 3 5.0 -- -- 2 3.3

Rain gauge equipment 59 49 83.1 7 11.9 -- -- 3 5.1


Table 3.4 Functioning and O&M of PHM equipment by PHM farmers (contd..)

Parameter

PHM Farmers

Sample

Size s

(N)

Attended to

within 15 days

Attended to

within 30 days

Attended to

after more

than 30 days

Not at all

attended

N % N % N % N %

PHM equipment (HDPE pipe, WLI, Stopwatch, Drum) maintained

HDPE pipe lowered back after

fixing problem 17 10 58.8 - - 1 5.9 6 35.3

Water level indicator 10 6 60.0 2 20.0 2 20.0 - -

Discharge Measurement fittings 13 6 46.2 1 7.6 2 15.4 4 30.8


equipment (drum) 2 - - - - 2 100.0 - -


equipment (stop watch) 5 3 60.0 - - - - 2 40.0

Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks Interview guide

From the data obtained it is clear that:

A majority of the farmers 84.12% farmers have faced no problem regarding all PHM

equipment during the entire period of 2 years of PGM activities. For less than 10% of

farmers the equipment was under repair for less than a month. Very small % of

farmers faced problems for more than two months.

In the remaining 15.88% the repair was attended in 15 days to a month’s time. In a

small number of cases the repair was not at all attended.

In cases wherein other pumping equipment is in order and HDPE pipe is not lowered after

repair, it is not a good indicator. The farmers need intensive interaction to educate on the loss

of field data required for CWB and no chance of retrieving.


The books maintained PHM data recording was observed by the survey team and the reasons

for gaps in data were captured. They are presented in Table 3.5.

Table 3.5 Reasons for gaps in PHM data

Sample Size

PHM Farmers

(N)

Yes % If Yes, What are the reasons

61 12 27.3

Busy in agriculture operations

Busy in with works (other field workers)

Low yield, pumping gap (Non-pumping period)

Non PHM farmer/PGM group member assigned to measure data from PHM

well in case on non-proactive PHM farmers.

Not interested in initial days of project, but at present water level and drum

data being regularly measured from Jun-2010 onwards

When the motor is under repairs


From the table it is evident that:

Most (72.7%) of the data has no gaps during the recording period. In 27.3 % cases

there were data gaps due to different reasons like equipment not functioning, no

power supply, or farmer was not able to record etc.

Attention is required in this aspect. Regular Monitoring by TRPs -Physical or through

Phone call - should be in place and to be checked at District level offices.

Awareness level on PGM in control tanks:

In order to have a comparison on awareness levels simple questions were asked by way of

organizing FGD and personal interviews in Non–APCBTMP tanks and in APCBTMP Non-

PGM tanks the responses are presented in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Awareness levels in non-PGM tanks

Parameter Data

collection

Method

Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP Non-PGM

Sample Size

Respondents

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample Size

Respondents

(N)

Yes % No %

Groundwater

level in the

borewell can

be measured

FGD 156 35 22.4 55 35.3 104 49 47.1 55 52.9

Interview 25 2 8.0 23 92.0 25 2 8.0 23 92.0

Quantity of

water from

the borewell

can be

measured

FGD 156 33 21.1 123 78.8 104 37 35.6 67 64.4

Interview 25 4 16.0 21 84.0 25 4 16.0 21 84.0

Seen a rain

gauge station

FGD 156 15 9.6 141 90.4 117 33 28.2 84 71.8

Interview 25 4 16.0 2 84.0 25 2 8.0 23 92.0

know how

much rainfall

is received in

your village

FGD 156 0 - 156 100.0 117 1 0.9 116 99.1

Interview 25 2 8.0 23 92.0 24 2 8.3 22 91.7

Data Source: APCBTMP Non-PGM/ Non-APCBTMP Tanks_ FGD & Interview guide


From Table 3.6 and analysis in respect PGM tanks reveals that:

76.2% PGM group members’ are able to collect the groundwater levels in the

borewells in APCBTMP PGM tanks, where it was not the case with Non–APCBTMP

tanks and in APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks.

In APCBTMP PGM tanks 24% and Non–APCBTMP tanks 13.12 % groundwater

users are aware that groundwater level in the borewell can be measured.

Non-PGM tanks, 13.32% in FGDs and 12% in personal interviews have given yes

response in respect for the questions asked to understand awareness levels in PHM

data collection.

3.2 Objective 2: Assess the impact of the PGM aspects

Understanding and degree of usage of the PHM data collected by PGM group members for

their day to day operations is one of the key indicators to assess the impact of various PGM

aspects. Data was collected from the PGM tanks on Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers,

Availability of hydrological information on rainfall, groundwater, surface water to farmers through

formal and informal channels, Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through

formal and informal channels, Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at

individual and collective level for crop planning (extent and type), social regulations on ground water

use, ground water sharing, adoption of efficient irrigation practices, etc and Responsiveness of the

PGM intervention to felt need to understand the adoption by PGM farmers. Aspectwise findings are

discussed in the following sections.

A. Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers:

To assess the comparative adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers (PHM farmers) and Non-PHM

farmers (PGM group members) in PGM tanks data was collected on change in crop extent, area and

methods irrigation and changes in pump placement . The responses are presented in Table 3.6.

Table 3.6 Adoption of PHM by farmer volunteers

Parameter


Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Change in extent of irrigated area based on PHM data

i. Not changed 61 3 4.9 58 95.1 37 4 10.8 33 89.2

ii. Changed by 10% 61 17 27.9 44 72.1 37 16 43.2 21 56.8

iii. Changed upto 20% 61 17 27.9 44 72.1 37 6 16.2 31 83.8

iv. More than 20% 61 24 39.3 37 60.7 37 11 29.7 26 70.3

Field irrigation methods adopted Based on PHM data

I. Drip 58 7 12.1 35 2 5.7

II.Sprinkler 57 5 8.8 34 5 14.7


Parameter


Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

III.Alternate furrow 56 10 17.9 34 7 20.6

IV.Others (if any) 54 18 29.5 35 8 20.0

Pump placement in borewell

changed based on Pumping

Water Level

59 8 13.6 51 86.4 34 7 20.6 27 79.4


From the data one can infer that:

PHM farmers who are collecting the data, planned their crops based on the PHM data

and hence 95.1% of them have not changed (increase or decrease) the extent of

irrigated area, whereas only 10.8% of Non–PHM farmers not changed. This clearly

indicates that spread effect of PHM data adoption by farmers was started. Needs

intensive sharing among group members.

68.9% of PHM farmers and 62.8% Non-PHM farmers have adopted water efficient

irrigation methods based on the PHM data which is a very positive outcome of the

study.

15 PGM group members out of 93 (16.1%) has changed (lifted/lowered) the pump

placement based on the Pumping water level, which increases pump efficiency as well

as saves power consumption. This indicates the healthy groundwater management

aspect.

B. Availability of hydrological information on rainfall, groundwater, surface water to farmers

through formal and informal channels.

Apart from participatory generation of PHM data community level availability and knowing the

persons collecting data and display are the fore most steps in Participatory Groundwater

Management. To assess the impact on these aspects data was collected in PGM tanks on Updation of

HMR books & display boards, availability of information with WUA. The output is presented in Table

3.7.

Table 3.7 Reasons for gaps in PHM data


Respondents (N) Yes % No %

Knows what PHM data being displayed

I. Rainfall 537 408 76.0 129 24.0

II. Groundwater level in PHM borewells 531 376 70.8 155 29.2

III. Groundwater discharge from PHM wells 531 368 69.3 163 30.7

Average 533 384 72.0 149 28.0

Know that the Para worker is maintaining a PHM

Data record book 524 337 64.3 187 35.7

PHM data accessibility to WUA 461 304 65.9 157 34.1

Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD


From the above data it is clear that:

64.3% of the farmers know that the PHM data is recorded, 72% know the display and

65.9% farmers said that it is available for WUA. It shows the PHM data reachability

to community.

C. Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through formal and informal

channels.

Crop Water Budgeting is crucial stage in groundwater management to assess PGM group members

understanding on CWB , data availability, participation in CWB workshops data was collected on

farmers’ perception in the select PGM tanks. The results presented in Table 3.8.

From this it is understood that:

The awareness level on the components of CWB varies from 91.4% in case of PHM

farmers, who are intensively involved in PGM activities to 61.6% in case of

community response in FGD.

90.6% PHM farmers are aware that what type of PGM data is available with WUA,

whereas 61.6% of the participants in FGD know it.

78.6% of PHM farmers utilized the PHM data available with WUA, whereas 57.8%

farmers participated in FGD utilized the data.

PGM in APCBTMP Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) Page 38

Table 3.8 Availability of information on crop water demand to farmers through formal and informal channels

Parameter

PGM Tanks FGD PGM Tanks interview guide


Sample Size

Respondents

(N)

Yes % No % Sample

Size (N) Yes % No %

Sample

Size (N) Yes % No %

Knows about what is Crop Water Budgeting (CWB)

i. Estimation of groundwater recharge 510 307 60.2 203 39.8 61 59 96.7 2 3.3 40 29 72.5 11 27.5

ii. Estimation of groundwater draft 510 312 61.2 198 38.8 61 59 96.7 2 3.3 40 30 75.0 10 25.0

iii. Estimation of groundwater balance 508 303 59.6 205 40.4 60 59 98.3 1 1.7 40 27 67.5 13 32.5

iv. Crop plans for rabi season 479 314 65.6 165 34.4 59 55 93.2 4 6.8 39 29 74.4 10 25.6

v. Crop plan adoption based on groundwater

availability 454 287 63.2 167 36.8 61 53 86.9 8 13.1 40 24 60.0 16 40.0

vi. Actual groundwater balance at the end of the

hydrological year based on crop adoption 503 302 60.0 201 40.0 59 45 76.3 14 23.7 39 18 46.2 21 53.8

Average 494 304 61.6 190 38.4 60 55 91.4 5 8.6 40 26 65.9 14 34.1

Participated in CWB workshops 457 265 58.0 192 42.0 51 42 82.4 9 17.6 29 15 51.7 14 48.3

Know about what PGM data are available with the WUA

i. Estimation of groundwater recharge 494 292 59.1 202 40.9 61 58 95.1 3 4.9 40 35 87.5 5 12.5

ii. Estimation of groundwater draft 486 303 62.3 183 37.7 60 56 93.3 4 6.7 40 35 87.5 5 12.5

iii. Estimation of groundwater balance 496 301 60.7 195 39.3 60 56 93.3 4 6.7 40 34 85.0 6 15.0

v. Crop plans for rabi season 495 321 64.8 174 35.2 60 57 95.0 3 5.0 40 35 87.5 5 12.5

vi. Crop plan adoption based on groundwater

availability 495 315 63.6 180 36.4 60 55 91.7 5 8.3 38 29 76.3 9 23.7

vii. Actual groundwater balance at the end of the


Average 494 304 61.6 190 38.4 60 54 90.6 6 9.4 40 32 81.1 8 18.9

Utilized the PHM data available with the WUA for water management

I. Estimation of groundwater recharge 471 262 55.6 209 44.4 61 51 83.6 10 16.4 40 27 67.5 13 32.5

II. Estimation of groundwater draft 471 273 58.0 198 42.0 61 50 82.0 11 18.0 40 26 65.0 14 35.0

III. Estimation of groundwater balance 470 267 56.8 203 43.2 61 50 82.0 11 18.0 40 25 62.5 15 37.5

IV. Crop plans for rabi season 475 291 61.3 184 38.7 60 47 78.3 13 21.7 40 26 65.0 14 35.0

V. Crop plan adoption based on groundwater availability

446 272 61.0 174 39.0 59 45 76.3 14 23.7 40 24 60.0 16 40.0

VI. Actual groundwater balance at the end of the


Average 466 269 57.8 197 42.2 60 47 78.6 13 21.4 40 25 62.7 15 37.3

Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD and Interview guide


D) Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at individual and collective

level for crop planning (extent and type), social regulations on ground water use, ground water

sharing, adoption of efficient irrigation practices, etc.

Data was collected on year wise consolidated crop plans and adoption Crop plan at individual and

collective level, Community level decisions towards social regulation, willing ness of farmers to share

groundwater and efficient irrigation practices adopted to understand collective and individual level

decisions. The outcome of the information is presented in Table 3.9.

Table 3.9 Use of hydrological and crop water demand information by farmers at individual

and collective level

Parameter Data of

collection

Method

Sample

Size (N

Tanks)

Yes % Result

PHM data -

consolidated crop

plans and adoption of

crop plan at

individual and

collective level -

helped in

groundwater

management

PGM

Tanks

FGD

20 18 90.0

Helped in Know about ground water

availability for rabi season crops.

Understand the crop water

requirement for different crops.

Choose crops based on available

water quantity.

Change towards low water

requirement crops.

Change from paddy to ID crops like

Castor, Cotton, Jowar etc during rabi

by knowing the water balance.

Change cropping pattern d from

paddy to ID crops.

Desilting in the tank bed.

Crop plan changes

been made at the

community level

based on farmer wise

data presented in

CWB

PGM

Tanks

FGD

20 18 90.0

Changes made

Alternate crops sowed

Used sprinklers for id crops

Decreased crop extent area in rabi

season

Change from Paddy to ID crops like

Castrol, Cotton, Jowar in Rabi

Decrease in paddy crop extension.

To go for low water required crops


Observation:

Crop plan changes based on PHM data has been adopted in 18 out of 20 tanks. Table 3.10

presents the statements of farmers on changes made and how the process of CWB has helped.

Table 3.10 Crop plan changes based on PHM data

Parameter

Data of

collection

Method

Sample

Size (N

Tanks)

Yes % Farmers’ Statements

Modification

made to their

own crop plan

based on

experience of

the previous

years crop plan

and adoption?

PGM

Tanks

PHM

farmers -

Interview

60 53 88.3

Before the project, we did not know the level of

water in the borewell.

If the water level is low, reduced the extent of

irrigated area even by half of planned area

Choose crop based on availability of

groundwater.

Change to ID crops & low irrigation of paddy

Planned ID crops during rabi season

Change from Paddy to ID crop such as:

Maize, Vegetables, Groundnut, Jowar, Onion,

Green gram, Cotton, Castor, Sun-flower,

Fodder (grass)

PGM

Tanks Non

PHM

farmers -

Interview

40 33 82.5

Adoption of good irrigation methods like

sprinkler and piped irrigation.

Change from Paddy to ID Crops such as:

Maize, Vegetables, Groundnut, Jowar, Onion,

Green gram, Cotton, Castor, Sun-flower,

Fodder (grass)Vegetables, Chilly

Change from Maize to other crops such as:

Red gram, Castor, Chick pea

Before PGM

was introduced,

crop water

management

practices in

PGM tanks

PGM FGD

Only paddy irrigation with tank water

No crop change During Kharif

Continued paddy crop sowing

Assessed the water availability based on previous year water

availability

Irrigating cotton crop only when there is less water

After PGM was

introduced,

crop water

management

practices

adopted in

PGM tanks

PGMFGD

Assessed the water level status in my borewell by using the

instruments

Groundwater recharge Estimation

Groundwater use measurements possible

Crops based on water availability

Rabi crops changed based on CWB Calculation

ID crops during Rabi

Change to ID Crops

Low paddy irrigation & change to ID Crops

Reduced paddy crop under low yielding bore wells

Data Source: APCBTMP PGM Tanks_ FGD& Interview guide

From the above information and statements from respondents one can safely infer that:

More than 80% of the farmers in PGM tanks are modifying their own crop plans and management

practices after the PGM interventions by the project which is not the particularly in case of

groundwater use.


Crop water Budgeting – Status in Control tanks (Non-PGM tanks)

In order to understand the community and individual level crop plans and adoption based on water

availability simple question were asked in Non-PGM (APCBTMP Non-PGM & Non-APCBTMP)

tanks. The responses received both in FGDs and personal interviews are shown in Table 3.11.

Table 3.11 Crop water budgeting status in control tanks

Parameter Data

collection

Method


Sample Size

(FGD tanks ,

Interview

Respondents)

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample Size

(FGD tanks ,

Interview

Respondents)

(N)

Yes % No %

Was the community

level crop

planning done for

the surface water

based irrigation in

your village?

FGD 5 2 40.0 3 60.0 5 - - 5 100.0

Interview 25 8 32.0 17 68.0 25 6 24.0 19 76.0

Was any community level

crop planning done any time for the groundwater

based irrigation in

your village?

FGD 5 - - 5 100.0 5 - - 5 100.0

Interview 25 1 4.0 24 96.0 25 3 12.0 22 88.0

Table 3.12 Responses from FGDs and personal interviews on crop water budgeting (control

tanks)

Category of

tank

Community level crop planning done for the

surface water based irrigation in your village?

Community level crop planning done any time for the

groundwater based irrigation in your village?

If Yes_ Statements If No_ Statements If Yes _

Statements If No _ Statements

Non-

APCBTMP

Whenever the tank is full.

WUA & Ayacut

farmers together decide (Taibandhi) to

release water to the

ayacut based on previous experience.

Decisions will be

taken in the meeting

Unable to measure the tank water

available.

No unity among the tank water users.

Only individually

decision

No idea about it Lack of unity

No trainings providing

Individually decisions are being taken for ground water irrigation

Individually planning

Lack of awareness Nobody is facilitating meetings for

community level crop planning.

Don’t know the ground water scenario

APCBTMP

Non-PGM

During rainy(Kharif)

season

If Tank is full crop planning is being

done by involvement

of ayacutdars in

village.

No insufficient

inflows to the tank

during recent past.

Crops

planned

individually based on

water flow

from

borewell.

Don’t know about the ground water

available in the bore well hence no crop

planning. Nobody tell about it

There is no Estimation of ground water

balance

No idea to do so

No such project was implemented

Nobody knows about it No meetings for ground water

management, hence no crop plan

Don’t know about planning of crops based on ground water

Based on water flow from borewell

We don't know crop planning for ground water irrigation.

We don't know the water quantity from

borewell from time to time, hence no planning in groundwater irrigation

Data Source: APCBTMP Non-PGM/ Non-APCBTMP Tanks_ FGD & Interview guide


From the information prepented in Table 3.12, one can broadly conclude that:

Community level crop planning based on surface water availability is being rarely

happening.

Groundwater based crop planning and crop water budgeting is not happening due to

lack of understanding and knowledge.

Groundwater Sharing and Pricing:

Groundwater sharing and basis for sharing are important aspects in wise water management.

In order to assess the degree of sharing and method of sharing in PGM and in control tanks

information was collected through personal interviews and FGDs. The responses are

presented in Table 3.13:

Table 3.13 Groundwater sharing and pricing

Groundwater sharing

PGM Tanks

FGD Guide Interview Guide – PHM

Farmers

Interview Guide Non-

PHM Farmers

Sample Size

Respondents

(N)

Yes %

Sample Size

Respondents

(N))

Yes %

Sample Size

Respondents

(N)

Yes %

Sharing borewell water with

any of the fellow farmers 393 204 51.9 61 38

62.

3 40 25 62.5

If Yes on what basis

Free of Cost 204 76 37.3

38 20 52.

6 25 10 40.0

Labour compensation 204 40 19.6 38 3 7.9 25 3 12.0

Contribution to Maintenance

of Borewell

204 25

12.3 38 2 5.3

25 1 4.0

Crop Sharing 204 28 13.7 38 3 7.9 25 2 8.0

On Payment 204 35 17.2

38 10 26.

3

25 9 36.0

Total 204 38 25

Groundwater

sharing

Non – APCBTMP Tanks APCBTMP Non – PGM Tanks

FGD Guide Interview Guide FGD Guide Interview Guide

Sample

Size

Respond

ents (N)

Yes %

Sample

Size

Responde

nts (N)

Yes %

Sample

Size

Respond

ents (N)

Ye

s %

Sample

Size

Respond

ents (N)

Yes %

Sharing borewell

water with any of the fellow farmers

77 26 33.

7 25 6 24.0 64 25 39.0 25 6 24.0


Free of Cost 26 10 38.

4 6 6 100.0 25 10 40.0 6 5 83.3

Labour

compensation 25 9 36.0

Contribution to

Maintenance of Borewell

- - - - - - - - - - - -

Crop Sharing

On Payment 26 16 61.

5 25 6 24.0 6 1 16.6

Total 26 6 25 6


From the FGD responses it is clear that:

In PGM tanks 51.9% of the participants are sharing groundwater to their fellow farmers mostly

(37.3%) on free of cost. Whereas it is 39% and 33.7% in case of control tanks i.e., APCBTMP

Non –PGM and Non-APCBTMP tanks.

Water sharing, water pricing – PHM Based:

Information was gathered from both the PHM and Non-PHM farmers to understand whether

the groundwater is being shared based on the understanding on PHM data being collected in

the PGM tanks. The responses received are shown in Table 3.14:

Table 3.14 Water sharing and water pricing

Parameter

APCBTMP PGM Tanks

Interview Guide – PHM

Farmers

Interview Guide

Non-PHM Farmers

Sample

Size (N) Yes %

Sample

Size (N) Yes %

Sharing Borewell water based on the

understanding of the PHM data 61 38 62.3 40 25 62.5

Willing (in future also) to share your borewell

water (Furthermore farmers) with your fellow

farmers

61 34 55.7 40 19 47.5


Free of Cost 34 17 50.0 19 6 31.58

Labour compensation 34 1 2.9 19 1 5.263

Contribution to Maintenance of Borewell 34 3 8.8 19 2 10.53

Crop Sharing 34 2 5.9 19 3 15.79

On Payment 34 11 32.4 19 7 36.84

From the data obtained it is clear that

Majority of farmers (62.3% & 62.5%) in PGM tanks are sharing their groundwater based on the

understanding on PHM data.

55.7% of PHM farmers and 47.5 % of Non-PHM farmers are willing to share groundwater in

future also mostly on free cost basis.

Efficient irrigation practices adopted

As major portion of groundwater is being used for irrigation, there is no groundwater management

without Irrigation water management. Effective and Efficient management depends on the method of

irrigation. Information was captured both in PGM and control tanks. The responses are presented in

Table 3.14.


Table 3.14 Efficient water management practices adopted

Method of

Irrigation

PGM Tanks – Interview guide Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP

Non-PGM

PHM Farmers Non-PHM farmers Interview Guide Interview Guide

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % Sample

Size (N)

Ye

s %

Sample

Size (N) Yes %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes %

Adopting Efficient water use methods in the ZOI /Tank ayacut

I. Drip irrigation 61 6 9.8 40 2 5.0 25 2 8.0 25 3 12.0

II. Sprinkler 61 17 27.8 40 11 27.5 25 2 8.0 25 - -

III. Mulching 61 9 14.7 40 8 20.0 25 - - 25 - -

IV. Furrow

Irrigation

61 7 11.4

40 6 15.0

25 4 16.0

25 3 12.0

V. Alternate

Furrow

irrigation

61

4 6.5

40

2 5.0

25

0 0.0

25

1 4.0

VI. SRI 61 10 16.3 40 4 10.0 25 - - 25 - -

VII. Any other

(piped, Check

basin --)

61 - - 40 - 25 9 36.0 25 5 20.0

Total 61 53 86.8 40 33 82.5 25 17 68.0 25 12 48.0

From the data it can be inferred that:

Advanced WUE Methods followed (Other than pipeline) % is more in PGM tanks – less in Non

APCBTMP & APCBTMP Non –PGM is less

85.14% of the Farmers in PGM tanks are adopting one or the other efficient water use methods

like drip, sprinkler etc., where as it is 48% in case of APCBTMP Non – PGM and 68% in case

of Non-APCBTMP tanks.

The higher % of efficient water use methods in Non-APCBTP tanks may be attributed to i)

high Piped water irrigation and Non rehabilitation of the tank system in turn low paddy

irrigation when compared to APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks.

Efficient irrigation practices adopted – area irrigated in Rabi, 2011-12

Area irrigated by employing efficient water use methods during the 2011-12 Rabi season in the ZOI/

Tank ayacut was collected from project (PGM& Non-PGM) and Non-APCBTMP tanks. The details are

shown in Table 3.15.

Table 3.14 Area under efficient water management practices adopted

Method of

Irrigation

PGM Tanks Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP - Non-PGM

FGD Guide FGD Guide FGD Guide

Sample Size

(N

tanks)

Area

irrigated (Acres)

Area

irrigated

(Acres) Average Per

tank

Sample Size

(N

tanks)

Area irrigate

d

(Acres)

Area

irrigated

(Acres) Average

Per tank

Sample Size

(N

/tank)

Area

irrigated (Acres)

Area

irrigated

(Acres) Average

Per tank

I. Drip irrigation 20 337.0 16.85 5 25.0 5.0 5 21.0 4.3


Method of

Irrigation

PGM Tanks Non-APCBTMP APCBTMP - Non-PGM

FGD Guide FGD Guide FGD Guide

Sample

Size

(N tanks)

Area irrigated

(Acres)

Area

irrigated (Acres)

Average Per

tank

Sample

Size

(N tanks)

Area

irrigate

d (Acres)

Area

irrigated (Acres)

Average

Per tank

Sample

Size

(N /tank)

Area irrigated

(Acres)

Area

irrigated (Acres)

Average

Per tank

II. Sprinkler 20 308.0 15.4 5 12.0 2.4 5 25.0 5.0

III. Mulching 20 94.0 4.7 5 0 0 5 0.0 0.0

IV. Furrow

Irrigation

20 178.0 8.9 5 0 0 5 50.0 10.0

V. Alternate

Furrow

irrigation

20 170.0 8.5

5 0 0

5 40.0 8.0

VI. SRI 20 16.0 0.5 5 2.0 0.4 5 1.0 0.2

VII. Any other

(piped, Check

basin --)

20 321.0 16.5

5 13.0 2.6

5 50.0 10.0

Total 20 1424.0 71.2 5 52.0 10.4 5 187.5 37.5

From data in the Table it is clear that:

71.2 Acres per tank was irrigated by adopting one or the other efficient water use

method, where as it is 37.5 acres and 10.4 acres in APCBTMP Non-PGM and Non –

APCBTMP tanks respectively.

The higher rate of using efficient water use methods may be attributed to awareness

level inputs by the project in PGM tanks compared to other category of tanks.

Impact of PGM on social regulation

Community level decisions and its implementation in the form of social regulations are the

crucial aspects in participatory groundwater management. To understand this information was

gathered from project and control tanks by posing two crucial questions and the responses are

presented in Table 3.15.

Table 3.15 Area under efficient water management practices adopted

Category of tank

FGD/ Interview

Has any community level decision been taken leading to

social regulations for groundwater management? YES / NO

Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective decisions taken towards better management of

groundwater resources?

YES/ NO?

Sample Size

YES % NO %

No

Respo

nse

% Sample

Size YES % NO %

No

Respon

se

%

APCBTMP

PGM Tanks

FGD

(Tanks) 20 7 35.0 9 45.0 4 20.0 20 19 95.0 1 5.0 - -

Interview

(Responde

nts)

Not covered in Schedule 101 72 71.0 23 23.0 6 5.9

Non-

APCBTMP

FGD

(Tanks) 5 - - 5 100.0 - 0.0 5 3 60.0 2 40 - -

Interview

(Responde

nts)

25 - - 24 96.0 1 4.0 25 16 64.0 4 16.0 5 20.0


Category of

tank

FGD/

Interview

Has any community level decision been taken leading to

social regulations for groundwater management? YES / NO

Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective

decisions taken towards better management of groundwater resources?

YES/ NO?

Sampl

e Size YES % NO %

No Respo

nse

% Sample

Size YES % NO %

No

Res

ponse

%

APCBTMP

Non-PGM

FGD

(Tanks) 5 - - 3 60.0 2 40.0 5 3 60.0 1 20.0 1 20.0

Interview

(Responde

nts)

25 1 4.0 18 72.0 6 24.0 25 18 72.0 7 28.0 - -

Further probing was done if the answer is yes for the question, has any community level

decision been taken leading to social regulations for groundwater management? The

respondents are asked to describe the decisions.

In the same manner respondents are asked to spell out how is it possible to implement

collective decisions taken towards better management of groundwater resources or else why?

The responses are presented in Table 3.16.

Table 3.16 Community level decisions on social regulation of groundwater

Category of

tank

FGD/

Has any community level decision been

taken leading to social regulations for

groundwater management?

Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective decisions taken towards better management of groundwater resources?

Interview If Yes, describe the decisions IF YES, How? If NO, why?

APCBTMP

PGM Tanks

FGD

No new borewells should be drilled.

ID crops based on water availability

--

Removal of silt from tank. Change to ID crops in rabi

season

Maintaining minimum distance from borewell to borewell.

Follow the micro irrigation methods like drip and sprinklers

Restricting the drilling depth to 300 feet.

Reduce the number of

pumping hours based on

groundwater levels

Change the cropping pattern form

Paddy to ID crops like Maize, Jowar,

Groundnut etc.

Sharing groundwater to fellow farmers

Interview

Balanced water utilization -

Irrigating crops based on tank

water and ground water.

All are

sowing paddy

---- Change to low water

requirement crops Not attended CWBs

Two more years support

required for learning CWB

Unable to have drip

irrigation equipment

Irrigating through pipe lines

Non-

APCBTMP

FGD ----

Paddy control

Group meetings

By having awareness on ground

water___

Interview ----

If we know the water levels,

we grow the crops accordingly Unable to take up any steps to drill another

drinking water borewell.

Controlled Paddy irrigation.

Growing dry crops like jowar,

vegetables, Cotton.

APCBTMP FGD -- Paddy control No group meetings on


Category of

tank

FGD/

Has any community level decision been

taken leading to social regulations for groundwater management?

Do you feel that it is possible to implement collective decisions

taken towards better management of groundwater resources?

Interview If Yes, describe the decisions IF YES, How? If NO, why?

Non-PGM Sowing dry crops like jowar,

vegetables

Ground water usage

Interview ---

By undergoing trainings and

organizing meetings. It helps to understand ground water levels.

So far they did not take any steps.

By conducting group meetings

Ground water saving methods can be implemented by all

Paddy control, sowing vegetables and ID crops

Crops can be grown based on ground water level

From data it can be inferred that

Community level decisions have been taken leading to social regulations for

groundwater management in 35% of the PGM tanks, while in control tanks the answer

is NO in most (100 to 60%) of the tanks.

In 95% of the PGM tanks they felt that it is possible to implement collective decisions

taken towards better management of groundwater resources, whereas it is 60% in case

of control tanks.

This shows the confidence level of farmers in the PGM tanks towards community level

decisions and social regulation.

Participation in WUA Meetings

Groundwater use has become integral part in majority of the tank systems. Involvement and

participation of groundwater users in WUA meetings is essential to have a better water resource

management. To achieve this, in PGM tanks groundwater users in the zone of influence of tank are

formed in PGM groups. To understand the involvement level of groundwater users, information was

collected in project and control tanks through Focus Group discussions. The output is presented in

Table 3.17.

Table 3.17 Participation of groundwater uers in WUA meetings

Category of

tank

Groundwater users participating in WUA meetings

Sample

Size Yes % Issues discussed No %

No

Respon

se

%

APCBTMP

PGM Tanks

20 12 60.0

Sharing water levels,

rainfall with WUA

members.

CWB results discussion.

Discussions on water

3 15.0 5 25.0


Category of

tank

Groundwater users participating in WUA meetings

Sample

Size Yes % Issues discussed No %

No

Respon

se

%

balance.

Ground water availability.

Possibilities to Change to

ID crop.

Cropping pattern change

& ID crops issues

Tank Water availability

issues discussion

About groundwater

sharing

Non-

APCBTMP 5 - 0.0 - 2 40.0 3 60.0

APCBTMP

Non-PGM 5 2 40.0

Low water levels in bore

wells

Tank desilting in tank bed

Surface water sharing for

irrigations (Taibandi)

2 40.0 1 20.0

Data Source: APCBTMP PGM TANKS, APCBTMP Non-PGM& Non-APCBTMP Tanks_ FGD

It is observed from the data that

Groundwater users level of participation and issues discussion is happening in 60% of PGM

tanks, where as it is 40% in APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks and not at all happening Non-

APCBTMP tanks.

Responsiveness of the PGM intervention to felt need

From the project conceptualization stage onwards it was stated that it is felt need based. To assess it

further, information was collected from the respondents’ on five important as aspects in the context of

PGM from APCBTMP Non- PGM AND Non-APCBTMP tanks after explain the PGM concept and its

implementation in APCBTMP. The level of responses is presented in Table 3.18.

Table 3.18 Responsiveness of the PGM intervention to felt need (project tanks)

Parameter Data

collection

Method


Sample

Size (N) Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Willing to understand

the water balance and

make crop plans

accordingly

FGD 156 82 52.6 74 45.4 135 67 49.6 68 50.3

Interview 25 7 28.0 18 72.0 24 7 29.2 17 70.8

Willing to volunteer to

collect , record and

share PHM data for

planning

FGD 150 49 32.7 101 67.3 128 47 36.72 81 63.2

Interview 23 21 91.3 2 8.7 25 19 76.0 6 24.0

Realized the need to

have PGM

interventions for better

management of

groundwater resources

FGD 151 75 49.7 76 50.3 125 85 68.00 40 32.0

Interview 25 24 96.0 1 4.0 25 25 100.0 - -


Parameter Data

collection

Method


Sample

Size (N) Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Willing to donate your

site required for

construction of a Rain

gauge station

FGD 151 39 25.8 112 74.1 128 22 17.19 106 82.8

Interview 25 19 76.0 6 24.0 25 14 56.0 11 44.0

Willing to spare your

borewells for

groundwater

levels/quantity

monitoring

FGD 156 65 41.7 91 58.3 135 65 48.15 70 51.8

Interview 24 19 79.2 5 20.8 25 13 52.0 12 48.0

Total 886 400 45.1% 775 364 46.9

From the responses it is clear that:

46.9% of participants in APCBTMP Non-PGM and 45.1% in Non-APCBTMP tanks

felt the need to have participatory groundwater management.

Surprisingly response to come forward is high in case of individuals than in FGDs.

The responses of the farmers from Non-PGM tanks in respect of need for community level

interventions are captured. The outcome is presented in Table 3.18:

Table 3.18 Responsiveness of the PGM intervention to felt need (control tanks)

Parameter

Non-APCBTMP

Interview

APCBTMP Non-PGM

Interview

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Felt that regular data collection and

sharing it with the group members

will benefit individually

25 20 80.0 5 20.0 25 23 92.0 2 8.0

Felt that regular data collection and

sharing it with the group members

will benefit collectively

25 21 84.0 4 16.0 24 22 91.7 2 8.3

Agreed that the groundwater users be

formed in groups for better

management of groundwater

resources

25 24 96.0 1 4.0 25 25 100.0 - -

Felt that it is necessary that the

details of the PHM data collected by

the volunteer be known by all the

group members

25 23 92.0 2 8.0 24 21 87.5 3 12.5

Felt that a project or support from the

Government is essential to

understand and for effective

Participatory

Groundwater Management

25 24 96.0 1 4.0 24 24 100.0 - -

Felt trainings/Exposure visits are

necessary for PHM data monitoring

and management

25 24 96.0 1 4.0 24 24 100.0 - -

Total 150 136 90.6 146 139 95.2


From the responses it is clear that

95.2% and 90.6% of farmers from APCBTMP Non-PGM and Non-APCBTMP tanks

felt that community level PGM interventions and capacity building activities like

trainings are essential, these responses are in conformity with PGM activities in the

project.

3.3 Objective 3: Indicators affecting the sustainability of the PGM initiative

Post project sustainability is the measure of various interventions of a project. To have an idea on the

key indicators affecting or responsible for sustainability of PGM interventions, an attempt was made to

cull out the opinions of farmers in the select tanks on three main aspects. They are

Regularity of PHM data collection and sharing , Perception on use of PHM data collection &

sharing

Experience of collective decision making based on PGM

Opinion of key implementation stakeholders

The findings are presented in the following sections:

A. Regularity of PHM data collection and sharing & Perception on use of PHM data collection &

sharing

Data was collected on change in frequency of data collection, upkeep of the PHM equipment,

felt need for seeking data from PHM farmers.& Usage of PHM data by individual PHM farmer

and the act of sharing the same with the fellow farmers . The findings ate shown in Table 3.19.

Table 3.19 Regularity of PHM data collection and sharing & Perception on use of PHM data

collection & sharing

Parameter

PGM Tanks FGD Non-APCBTMP

FGD APCBTMP Non-PGM FGD

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Regular data collection

and sharing it with the

group members will

benefit individually

432 302 69.9 130 30.1 142 56 39.4 86 60.6 118 58 49.2 60 50.9

Groundwater users be

formed in groups for

better management of groundwater resources

Not applicable 144 63 43.8 81 56.3 126 81 64.3 45 35.7

Regular data collection

and sharing it with the

group members will

benefit collectively

432 282 65.3 150 34.7 132 64 48.5 68 51.5 118 62 52.5 56 47.5

As a PGM Group

member, it is felt necessary to know the

453 284 62.7 169 37.3 132 71 53.8 61 46.2 114 65 57.0 49 43.0


Parameter

PGM Tanks FGD Non-APCBTMP

FGD APCBTMP Non-PGM FGD

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

details of the PHM data collected by the

PHM farmer?/

volunteer be known by all the group members

From the data it can inferred that 65.9% , 55.8% and 46.1% of participants from PGM ,

APCBTMP Non – PGM AND Non-APCBTMP tanks has expressed positive response

towards individual and collective benefits from PGM interventions, Hence possibility of

sustainability is expected.

Post project sustainability – groundwater users’ perception:

In order to understand the PGM farmers’ perception towards post project sustainability

information was collected. 93 out of the 100 farmers’ interviewed expressed their willingness

and confidence in continuing the PGM activities even after support is withdrawn. The common

reasons expressed are:

We can know the Groundwater level measurement and status , so we will continue

I can discuss the water measurements with others

I am capable to inform to farmers around us about my water level in the borewell

By knowing groundwater availability, we are able to growing crops

At the same time PGM farmers in the PGM tanks expressed the support needed in certain areas

during this project period itself for effective continuation of the PGM interventions. They are:

Support for CWB work shop to involve all ayacut farmers

At the time of actual conduct of CWB workshop

Two more years support required for organizing CWB on our own

Need further trainings and exposure visits

Link PGM activities with drip & sprinklers distribution

Explain the PHM data to community regularly

Have Trainings & exposure on water using methods

Two to three years PGM team support needed to establish linkages with allied

institutions

Strengthen PGM group members

Disseminate PHM data to nearby villages also


B. Experience of collective decision making based on PGM

Degree of implementation of community level decisions is one of the key indicators affecting

the sustainability of project interventions. The response from the pgm farmers is shown in

Table 3.20:

Table 3.20 Experience of collective decision making based on PGM

Parameter

PGM FGD PGM Tanks

Interview of PHM Farmers

PGM Tanks

Interview of Non - PHM

Farmers

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Sample

Size

(N)

Yes % No %

Felt that

collective

decisions taken

based on CWB

results are being

implemented

263 161 61.2 102 38.8 59 50 84.7 9 15.3 36 22 61.1 14 38.9

From the data it is evident that more than 61% farmers in PGM tanks confirmed that collective

decisions taken are being implemented, which is good indicator and key factor of sustainability.

The collective decisions implemented as per the statements of respondents are:

Change to ID crops in rabi season

Adoption of low water requirement crops

Followed micro irrigation method like sprinklers, drip, etc.,

ID crops based on water availability


Reduced paddy crop and grown ID crops like ground nut, vegetables, Castrol crops

Excess water sharing to follow farmers

Reduce the pumping hours for paddy

Irrigation through pipe lines

Alternative crops sown

Based on water level we choose the crops

Change to low water requirement crops

Short duration crops

Sharing the data on decrease /increase of groundwater water levels

The collective decisions not implemented are:

Not able to get sprinklers on subsidy through line departments

All farmers gathering for community level decisions

Drip & sprinklers not able to purchase

Unable to attended all the CWB's as agreed

No unity among all the farmers during crop planning

Lack of comprehensive awareness on GW resource

Lack of dissemination of CWB based decisions to all water users

C. Opinion of key implementation stakeholders

Data collected on strengths and weaknesses of the PGM interventions from PGM farmers in

PGM tanks through FGD interview are presented in Table 3.21:

Table 3.21 Strengths and weaknesses of PGM interventions

Strengths Weaknesses

Ability to collect PHM data and

dissemination

Able to share ground water level

fluctuation using the farmer collected

PHM Data

Crops plans based on PHM data

Estimation ground water recharge and

balance

Knowledge on CWB

Adoption of water saving methods

Usage of sprinklers and drip irrigation

methods helped in irrigating additional

ayacut

Reduced Crop losses and debts in

groundwater irrigation by going for wise

crop planning based on available water

resources

Lack of periodical dissemination of

PHM data to PGM group members

Farmers felt difficulty in

understanding and CWB calculations

Some members are not yet adopting

changes in crops planned in rabi

season as decided during CWB

Non coverage of water harvesting

structures and desilting in tank beds as

part of PGM interventions

No financial support for drips and

sprinklers

Less attendance in PGM group

meetings

Less number of TRP visit to tanks

Confining PGM activity to the tank

and its souring farmers


The strengths and weaknesses expressed by farmers from APCBTMP Non-PGM and Non-

APCBTMP tanks, for the question: “If the PGM interventions are introduced in their tank?”

are shown in Table 3.22.

Table 3.22 Strengths and weaknesses of PGM (Non-PGM Tanks)

Strengths Weaknesses

Understanding ground water resources

WUA involvement in PGM activities

Useful to change the cropping pattern

Crop planning based on water level

measurements.

Crop change from Paddy to ID crops

based on water availability.

Community level decisions will be

possible for both surface and ground

water

Irrigation through pipeline

Ground water measurement is complex

Ayacut belongs to different villages

Making the all users to understand

ground water importance

Doing water balance exercise

involving the community is difficult.

So far no social regulation on ground

water saving was implemented

Work load will increase

Certain valid points are raised under weaknesses. In addition to social togetherness, there is

need to simplify the technicalities involved in estimation of GW recharge, balance. Unlike

surface water/tank water, groundwater is not seen but it is hidden under ground. With a long-

term exercise on Pre and Post CWB data, a pattern could be evolved. When this is explained, it

would be easy to understand, and all farmers can follow. Adhering to CWB decisions should

be made mandatory to all farmers. Farmer attendance to CWB should made mandatory for

claiming any type of subsidy related to irrigation. Positive results from the PGM tanks should

be given publicity.

3.4 Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM

Responses of Key Secondary Stakeholders to a questionnaire on their opinions on various

critical inputs of PGM interventions so far and required for sustainability of PGM are

summarized in Table 3.23.

Table 3.23 Critical inputs required for sustaining PGM (key secondary stakeholders)

Critical Inputs So far implemented To be improved/To be incorporated

A. Technical inputs

Validation of PHM

data

Monthly twice, documented in

farmer’s hand book and display

board

Being validated by TRP

Occasionally verified with field data

whenever DNO visits tank villages

Not being validated regularly

Validate periodically.

Analysis of data is to be improved by

incorporating more easy techniques.

Vehicle to be allotted for frequent field

visits for each district

Extend to other groundwater users.

Practice data analysis with farmers



Periodical Sharing

of inferences of

PHM data

PHM farmer share PHM data only

PGM group farmers.

Inferences of PHM data shared with

all farmers once in 6 months in

CWB& Field day workshops.

In WUA meetings discussing about

PHM Data and sharing of their

opinions and suggestions in a

limited way.

The PHM data are to be shared in a water

users’ committee meeting periodically.

The nodal officer must take proactive

role in ensuring collection & analysis of

data by TRP s and arrange for sharing

with primary stakeholders.

Sharing the results of PHM data analysis

with all borewell farmers, at least once a

month

Local techniques and methods to be

evolved and facilitated.

Dissemination of the

Analysis of PHM

data

The PHM data is mainly analysed

and disseminated during Crop

Water Budgeting workshops

where farmers share the data with

other farmers

Dissemination through PHM data

display boards

Monthly dissemination of the

analysis of PHM data is done for

few ZOI farmers.

Year wise crops planned and

adopted data

To be done more frequently at WUA

assemblies.

Number of tanks villages allotted to each

TRP should be reduced to 8 to 10 tanks

for regular monitoring

Regular meeting to be organized

Integration with

Assessment Unit

level PHM data

So far this is not done at field level.

It is essential to integrate with Piezometer

data at AU level for preparing

perspective plans.

Integration of the PHM data with

Assessment Unit is crucial, as it directly

influences the estimation of ground water

in the Assessment unit.

Scope to implement at Somandepalli,

Assessment level in Anantapur district as

10 tanks are covered under APCBTMP

Any other Technical

inputs

PHM equipment are properly not

working in some cases

Study newer methods to interact with

primary stakeholders

The Quality aspect of ground water is

also to be discussed during trainings /

meetings.

Provisions to be made for maintenance of

PHM equipment.

B. Handholding in data collection, organizing & CWB workshops

Need based

trainings and

Exposures to PGM

group members

At present need based training

provided only to PHM farmers

and a few PGM group members.

Exposure visits organized in a

limited way .

Should be made mandatory for all GW

users

Refresher trainings with more data thru

innovative methods.

More exposure visits to be organised

A system is to be developed for training

other farmers in the village.

DNO’s field visits Rarely Visiting.

Field visits should be made

mandatory for every month.

In general, regularly DNOs are

visiting the fields whenever there

are trainings /meetings.

More intensive visits required

Minimum no of days of visit by DNO

should be made mandatory and provision

of vehicle is essential.

NSO involvement Limited. Not on a regular basis.

Only at the time of CWB, and

Field day workshops.

NSO is the right person to create more

awareness in the farmer or public.

Hence, they must extend all their efforts



to create awareness in the public on

conservation and protection of ground

water for future.

Non Formal

Education methods

& techniques to

make the

community

understand the

situation

Yes in limited -Participatory mode

Adopted need based methods at

times

Non Formal Education methods &

Techniques are not followed so far

to make the community

understand the situation.

The Non Formal Education methods &

Techniques are to be followed to make

the community understand the situation

in an easy and better way.

C. Institutional Inputs

Integration with

WUA

Good

Actively involved

Implemented

Happening with President &

paraworkers only

Supportive in conducting

meetings, training and CWBs

Closer interaction with other members of

the WUA is needed

Have a convergence meeting at village

level with T.C and Neerugantees.

Integration with

Gram Panchayats

Involvements of GP Members is

Poor

Attending CWB workshops and

Field days only

Incorporate the convergence meeting

with village level institutions

Integration with

Assessment Unit

level Institutions

Not happening

Happening at tank Level

Needed to involve all farmers.

Monthly PGM

group meetings

Monthly PGM group meetings are

conducted in some villages.

Happening only 10%

tanks.Quarterly once

Monthly PGM group meetings must be

conducted in all villages regularly.

Involvement of

WOMEN groups.

Only when the women happen to

be PHM farmer. Upto 10%

Should be promoted on a larger scale,at

least 50 %

Active involvement

of Co-opted GW

users in WUA

Co-opted members are getting

involved only in only in 20 - 30

% of tanks

To be Improved to 100 %

Needs to meetings to conduct at Village

organization levels (SHG).

More efforts to be made for better

involvement.

D. Material Inputs

Critical inputs like/

(sprinklers, seed

varieties, IWMT

equipment

etc.)through Project

Presently pipelines are under

water sharing programme

Huge demand for sprinklers and

Drip irrigation

Convergence is minimum with

other departments

Promotion of MIP & Training on IWMT

would go a long by way in conserving the

fast depleting groundwater resources

Much effort is needed to provide subsidy

to Micro irrigation system of Drips,

Sprinklers, Seed varieties, IWMT

equipment etc. through Project and

linkages with line departments.

E. SO/NSO Support Services

Support Services NSOs support and participation

inadequate

Their activity confined to

mobilization of people to official

visits.

Improve NSO involvement and support

services

Support services are required throughout

the project period

Work out gradual withdrawal strategy


The strengths of the PGM initiative and weaknesses/Needs Improvement the PGM initiative as

expressed by secondary are:

Strengths Weaknesses/Needs Improvement

The ripened need for the management of the

groundwater resource owing to over exploiting

conditions.

Training Resource Persons, are making all efforts

in taking forward PGM by farmers

Good training programme structure.

Organizing CWB workshops and Field days

Crops planning for Rabi season based on CWB

Results

Existence and involvement of WUA's and co-

option of GW users to WUA.

Water sharing programme

The involvement of the state Governmental agency

at the apex level to oversee the implementation

process

Less TRPs than required

Lack of dedicated personnel at the department

level leading to delays in responding to time bound

issues

No support services such as sprinklers, seed

varieties, IWMT equipment

Unable to organize PGM groups for monthly

meetings effectively

Lack of ownership on the part of the departmental

staff to issues related to empowering the primary

stakeholders

Providing water sharing pipe line to limited

number of persons only

The APDs are not considering that PHM activity is

one of the major parts of APCBTMP. Their

contribution for PGM is almost negligible.

Women participation is low

All farmers in the village are not aware of water

level & rainfall data collection and related aspects

Objective 5: Assess Land and groundwater productivity in PGM tanks

The rationale for the PGM sub-component lies in the fact that (restored) tank systems are an

important source of groundwater recharge. The objective of PGM therefore is promoting

efficient groundwater use in the tank influence zone.

To understand the impact of the project interventions on groundwater productivity and efficient

water management practices, relevant data were collected for the year 2011 -12 from 20

APCBTMP-PGM tanks, 5 APCBTMP non-PGM tanks and 5 non-APCBTMP tanks. Land

productivity was compared in terms of value of output in Rs/Ha., whereas groundwater

productivity was compared in terms of value of output in Rs/Ha-m. at constant prices of year

2008-09. The results of analysis is shown the Figure 3.1.


Figure 3.1: Land & groundwater productivity in APCBTMP-PGM tanks, APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks &

Non -APCBTMP tanks

Land Productivity: The results indicate that the value of land productivity in APCBTMP PGM

tanks is higher by 37.6 per cent (Rs 90,322/Ha) as compared to APCBTMP non-PGM tanks

(Rs 65,623/Ha) and 35.9 % higher as compared to non-APCBTMP tanks (Rs 66,468/ Ha)

during 2011-12.

The reason for the slightly higher land productivity, i.e., Rs 845/Ha in case of non-APCBTMP

tanks as compared to APCBTMP non-PGM tanks may be attributed to the higher percentage of

commercial irrigated crops. Details of area irrigated is shown in the Table 3.24.

Table 3.24 Area irrigated season-wise for PGM, non-PGM and control tanks

Category Season

Area Irrigated (acres)

% Non-

Paddy

Irrigated

% of

Commercial

Crops

Irrigated

Paddy

(Rice)

Non -Paddy

(Including

Commercial crops )

Total Commercial

crops

APCBTMP

PGM

Tanks

Kharif 100.55 134.36 234.91 65.11 57.2 27.7

Rabi 38.60 102.20 140.80 24.25 72.6 17.2

Total 139.15 236.56 375.71 89.36 63.0 23.8

APCBTMP

Non-PGM

Tanks

Kharif 41.30 61.70 103.00 17.00 59.9 16.5

Rabi 4.00 33.20 37.20 3.00 89.2 8.1

Total 45.30 94.90 140.20 20.00 67.7 14.3

Non -

APCBTMP

Tanks

Kharif 53.60 30.10 83.70 19.40 36.0 23.2

Rabi 13.40 20.90 34.30 3.40 60.9 9.9

Total 67.00 51.00 118.00 22.80 43.2 19.3

90,322

71,524 65,623 66,468

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

LandProductivity

Rs/Ha

LandProductivity

Rs/Ha

GroundwaterProductivity

Rs/Ha-m

LandProductivity

Rs/Ha

GroundwaterProductivity

Rs/Ha-m

APCBTMP-PGM tanks(N=61 Farmers)

APCBTMP-Non PGM tanks(N=25 Farmers)

Non APCBTMP tanks(N=25 Farmers)

Ru

pe

es

Groundwater Productivity

Rs/Ha-m

No GW use

quantification

in Non -

APCBTMP

Tanks

No GW use

quantification

in APCBTMP

Non – PGM

Tanks


A correlation analysis revealing the relationship of land productivity as dependent variable

with commercial crops, PGM tank and ayacut as independent variables is depicted in Figure

3.2.

Type X Y V4

categorical 0.127 3 Crop_type new =Commercial

categorical 0.127 2 Type_transformed =APCBTMP PGM Tank

categorical 1.3542 1 Source_loc_new=Ayacut

Figure 3.2 Correlation of Land productivity in APCBTMP-PGM tanks, APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks &

Non-APCBTMP tanks

The correlational analysis indicates that:

The location of the irrigation source, within or outside the tank ayacut has negative

correlation on land productivity.

APCBTMP –PGM tanks is positively correlated with land productivity.

Commercial crop has strong positive correlation on land productivity.

Groundwater Productivity

The increase in the value realized by farmers for every unit groundwater used is the key

performance indicator in understanding the effectiveness of PGM interventions. Groundwater

use data is the key factor to calculate groundwater productivity. These data are available only

from APCBTMP PGM tanks, where trained PHM farmers are collecting and recording the data

every fortnight. Such data are not available for APCBTMP non-PGM and non-APCBTMP tank

users.

Based on data collected from 61 PHM famers from 20 APCBMTP PGM tanks during the year

2011-12, groundwater productivity realized is Rs 71,524/Ha-m. at constant prices of 2008-09.

To understand the change in land and groundwater productivity of APCBTMP PGM tanks over

the project period, time series data captured by the External Monitoring Agency during half


yearly concurrent monitoring surveys. These data and those collected during this PGM Impact

Assessment Study are presented in the Figure 3.3.

Figure 3.3 APCBTMP PGM Tanks Land & groundwater productivity - time series data

The following conclusions emerge from the analysis of the time series data:

Land productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks is greater by 37.6 per

cent (Rs 90,322/Ha) as compared to APCBTMP non-PGM tanks (Rs 65,623/Ha)

and 35.9 % more as compared to non-APCBTMP tanks (Rs 66,468/ Ha) at constant

prices of 2008-09.

Land productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks has increased by 21

per cent is from Rs 74,648/Ha to Rs 90,322/Ha in 2011-12 as compared to

productivity during 2008-09.

Groundwater productivity assessment is possible only for APCBTMP tanks where

the PHM farmers are collecting the data on groundwater use.

Groundwater productivity during 2011-12 in APCBTMP PGM tanks has increased

by 19.4 per cent from Rs 59,920/Ha-m to Rs 71,524/Ha-m as compared to

productivity during 2008-09.

Sustainabilty of Land and Groundwater Productivity

The primary concern of the various project interventions is to bring about sustainable income

levels for the stakeholders in a tank system. To understand this aspect with reference to PGM

interventions, relevant data were collected on three primary indicatiors, viz., area irrigated,

74,648 75,173 79,293 80,003

90,322

59

,92

0

65

,86

3

67

,97

0 70

,72

2

71

,52

4

-

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

2008-09MTR

2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2011-12PGM IAS

Ru

pe

es

GW Based Irrigation Land & Groundwater Producitvity - Time line

Land Productivity Rs/Ha Groundwater Productivity Rs/Ha-m


ranfall, and functional bore well from the 20 PGM tanks selected. Tankwise details are

tabulated in the Annex 3. Summary of the findings of are shown in Table 3.25.

Table 3.25 Land and groundwater productivity of PGM tanks at constant prices (2008-09)

Indicator Unit

Base Year

2009-10/ 2010-

11

Impact Year

2011-12

Change

N %

Area irrigated Ha 883.29 898.49 15.20 1.72

Rainfall mm 721.55 532.52 -189.03 -26.20

Functional borewells N 1169 1232 63 5.39

Area irrigated per

borewell Ha 0.756 0.729 -0.03

-3.97

Land productivity Rs 6,63,99,409 6,75,42,038 1,42,630 0.21

Groundwater

productivity Rs 5,81,75,998 5,91,77,115 10,01,118

1.72

From the data analysed it was observed that even though there is a rainfall deficit of 189.03

mm (-26.2%) during the impact year, area irrigated per borewell has gone up by 3.97 per cent,

land productivity by 0.21 per cent, and groundwater productivity by 1.72 per cent. Thus it can

be concluded that the PGM interventions have helped the groundwater dependent farmers have

not only been able to cope with a drought year, but maintain the area irrigated and increase

land and groundwater productivity.

Objective 6: Impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM

Impact of tank rehabilitation on PGM

Minor irrigation systems improvement by undertaking repairs and renovations to the tank

components is the primary concern of the Project. There are a few constraints to be considered

while analysing the impact of tank restoration to the impact of PGM. These are:

Change in groundwater dynamics like water levels depends on Rainfall received,

groundwater quantity available and usage in the entire Hydrological unit (Basin).

PGM tank is only one among the several water storage structures in a Hydrological

unit.

PGM interventions are limited to a few tanks in a Hydrological unit.

Changes in Groundwater levels in the Groundwater Zone of Influence of a PGM tank

area are not independent.

In the project groundwater users are capacitated to plan the usage based on annual

groundwater recharge and balance conditions but not on the aspects of rising water

levels.


Effect of tank rehabilitation works on groundwater levels:

An attempt was made to understand the groundwater dynamics in the select tanks in relation to

change in groundwater levels with respect to tank rehabilitation works taken up.

Change in Groundwater levels

To assess change in groundwater levels in PGM tanks, Post monsoon Static Water level data

with respect to Change in Rainfall was analysed. The post monsoon Static Water level in 2011-

12 was compared with the base year (2009-10 for 12 tanks & 2010-11 for 8 tanks). Tankwise

details of change in groundwater levels are tabulated in Annex 4.

The results are shown in Figure 3.5.

Figure 3.5 Change in Groundwater levels with respect to Rainfall Compared to Base Year

From the analysis it was observed that:

Six out of the 20 tanks show positive change in Static Water levels even though

there is less rainfall as compared to the base year.

Seven out of the 20 tanks show negative change in Static Water levels ranging

from -0.3 to -3.9 Mts, even though there is less rainfall (except in two cases) as

compared to the base year.

Seven out of the 20 tanks show negative change in Static Water levels ranging

from -6.6 to -11.2 Mts, even though there is less rainfall (except in two cases)

when compared to base year.

From the observations one can safely infer that

Change in rainfall has direct bearing on groundwater levels

13.9

7.4

4.4 2.9

1.9 1.4 -0.3 -0.6

-1.6 -2.2 -2.3 -2.9 -3.9

-6.6 -7.1 -7.1 -7.6 -9.6 -10.1

-11.2 -15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

20-600

-500

-400

-300

-200

-100

0

100

200

Ban

dak

oth

a P

alle

Rev

ally

Mu

dd

apu

kun

ta

Au

solo

nip

ally

Dan

dlo

pal

le

Ap

pir

edd

ipal

le

Kh

ajip

eta

Rav

elli

Met

tup

alle

Mu

dir

edd

ipal

li

Ko

du

r

Yava

pu

r

Julu

kun

ta

Ko

lth

ur

Som

aram

Po

sep

alli

Edu

lab

alla

pu

ram

Laks

ham

apu

r

Ch

ina

Do

rnal

a

Ch

alak

ur

Ch

ange

Gro

un

dw

ate

r le

vel (

Mts

)

Ch

ange

in R

ain

fall

(mm

)

Change in Rainfall and Groundwater level Compared to Base Year

Change in Rainfall + Change in Groundwater level - ve Change in Groundwater level


Hydrological unit level groundwater use has more influence on change in

groundwater levels when compared to groundwater zone of influence of a tank.

Up scaling of PGM interventions from tank level to Hydrological unit level are

essential for better groundwater management

The tank rehabilitation works (improvements to Irrigation channels, arresting leakages from

bund, sluices, surplus weirs) which has direct bearing on enhanced groundwater recharge

taken up under the project are showing positive impact on groundwater scenario in

Groundwater Zone of Influence of a PGM tank. The following are a few examples:

Tirumaladevunicheruvu, Appireddipalli (V), Narayanapet Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

Tank Rehabilitation works completed for this tank by May 2010 were: Repairs and renovations

to the tank bund, irrigation channels, and the surplus weir. Impact of tank rehabilitation works

on water spread area and water level is shown in Figure 3.6.

Figure 3.6 Composite Hydrograph - Tirumaladevunicheruvu, Appireddipalli (V) Narayanapet

Mandal, Mahabubnagar District

The composite hydrograph shows that the minor irrigation systems improvement works

undertaken by APCBTMP have positive impact on water availability in the Zone of Influence

of this tank.

Khajipeta MI tank Tank, Khajipeta (V), Midthur Mandal, Kurnool District:

Tank Rehabilitation works completed for this tank by June 2009 were: Repairs and renovations

to the surplus weir, tank bund, irrigation channels, and the sluice. Impact of tank rehabilitation

works on water spread area and water level is shown in Figure 3.7.

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

SWL

(Mts

.Bgl

)

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

/ Ta

nk

Wat

er S

pre

ad a

rea

(Acr

es)

Month

Composite Hydrograph - Tirumaladevunicheruvu, Appireddipalli(V) Narayanapet Mandal,.Mahabubnagar District.

Tank waterspread (Acres) Rainfall(mm)

Tank Rehabilitation Works completed SWL (Mts.bgl)


Figure 3.7 Composite Hydrograph - Khajipeta MI tank Tank, Khajipeta (V), Midthur Mandal,

Kurnool District

The hydrological data is as follows:

Year Rainfall

(mm)

Water

Spread area

(Acres)

SWL

(Mts) in

June

Change in

SWL

(Mts)

2009-10 730.0 75 -6.14 -

2010-11 963.2 270 -9.84 -3.70

2011-12 615.2 73 -9.21 +0.63

2012-13 865.4 29 -13.71 -4.51

During the year 2012-13, run off might have not generated, in view of existence of unsaturated

zone of 4.5 Mts during June, which is more when compared to previous years. Hence, less

water spread area in the tank bed during 2012-13 even though there is 250.20 mm more rainfall

when compared to 2011-12.

From this it may be infer that, Minor irrigation systems Improvements to this tank have the

positive impact on water availability in the Zone of Influence of tank, However there is overall

decline in Static water level, which may be due to the influence of overall groundwater usage

in the basin.

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

SWL

(Mts

.Bgl

)

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

/ Ta

nk

Wat

er

Spre

ad a

rea

(Acr

es)

Month

Composite Hydrograph - Khajipeta MI tank Tank, Khajipeta(V), Midthur Mandal,Kurnool District.

Tank waterspread (Acres) Rainfall(mm)



Posupalli (V),Thimmarajupalli Tank, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District:

Tank Rehabilitation work completed to this tank during Sept 2011 is repairs and renovations to

Tank Bund only. Effect of tank rehabilitation works on water spread area and water level is

shown in Figure 3.8.

Figure 3.8 Composite Hydrograph – Posupalli (V), Thimmarajupalli Tank, Komarole Mandal,

Prakasam District.

From the hydrograph it is clear that repair and renovation works undertaken only to the tank

bund does not lead to increase in water spread area or the groundwater level.

Conclusions

The 20 select PGM tank studies allow us to make the following inferences:

Tank rehabilitation works (improvements to irrigation channels, arresting leakages

from bund, sluices, and surplus weirs) has positive impact on tank water spread area

and groundwater levels.

Assessment Unit level interventions and studies are required for better understanding

the impact of rehabilitation works on groundwater scenario.

-30

-25

-20

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Sep

-10

No

v-1

0

Jan

-11

Mar

-11

May

-11

Jul-

11

Sep

-11

No

v-1

1

Jan

-12

Mar

-12

May

-12

Jul-

12

Sep

-12

No

v-1

2

Jan

-13

Mar

-13

May

-13

SWL

(Mts

.Bgl

)

Rai

nfa

ll (m

m)

/ Ta

nk

Wat

er

Spre

ad a

rea

(Acr

es)

Month

Composite Hydrograph - Posupalli (V),Thimmarajupalli Tank, Komarole Mandal, Prakasam District.

Tank water spread (Acres) Rainfall(mm)



Chapter 4

The Way Forward

Objective 1: Assess the effectiveness of the PGM processes

Key Observations The Way forward

Overall 52 out of 61 PHM farmers (85%) have

grasped the contents of the training and are able

to record and share info/knowledge on the PHM

parameters.

There is a need to explore the possibilities

of imparting knowledge and understanding

on PHM to all GW users in the entire unit

rather than confining it to the groundwater

Zone of Influence (ZOI.)

In case of Non-PHM farmers, it is close to 50-

50 understanding. It seems farmers in proximity

to PHM farmers know about the parameters and

farmers located at a distance from the PHM

farmers do not know much about the PGM

process.

Nearly 2/3s of respondents (62.4%) have some

understanding of the CWB parameters and their

applicability.

Attention is required to reduce data gaps.

Regular monitoring by TRPs - physical or

through phone calls - should be in place

and be checked at the district level offices

periodically.

Majority of farmers both PHM and Non PHM,

have noticed TRPs visiting once in a month.

50 out of 60 (83%) farmers have faced no

problem regarding all PHM equipment during

the entire period of 2 years PGM activities.

In 27% cases there were data gaps due to

different reasons like equipment not

functioning, no power supply, or farmer unable

to record etc.

In case of Non project tanks 13.3% FGD

participants and 12% individuals have an

understanding of PHM data parameters but 76%

of FGD participants and 68% individuals have

no understanding


Objective 2: Assess the impact of the PGM intervention

Key Observations The Way-forward

95% of PHM farmers adopted changes in the extent

of irrigated area and 4.91% farmers did not. In case

of Non-PHM farmers, 89% farmers adopted

changes.

With the continued involvement in the PHM

farmers, awareness on PGM can be created

among the remaining farmers also.

The change in extent of irrigated area could be

either +ve or –ve (Increase in area OR decrease in

area) depending on the understanding of the PHM

data by the Para worker/community and cropping

pattern.

Essential to prepare all farmers to adopt

efficient water use methods for obtaining

optimum returns from available water.

69% of PHM farmers and 63% Non-PHM farmers

have adopted water efficient irrigation methods

based on the PHM data which is a very positive

outcome of the study.

Big investment is required to promote WUE

methods like Drip and Sprinkler installation.

2/3s of the farmers (ie 72%) know that the PHM

data is recorded, displayed and is available for

WUA.

Well interference studies are to be conducted

in PGM tanks and farmers in the ZOI should

be shown the effect of more number of bore

wells and heavy groundwater extraction.

Only then the farmers in the ZOI can come

together to make a group decision.

Majority of the farmers PHM or Non-PHM farmers

(86.8%) are adopting efficient water use methods.

In case of Non-project tanks (68%) the number is

less.

Enhanced community level facilitation is

required.

There seems to be a wide gap in the extent of

irrigated area/acre - PGM tanks 71.2 Acre/Tank;

Non-PGM tank 37.50 Acres/Tank; and Non-project

Tanks 10.40 Acre/Tank. This may indicate lack of

awareness.

Farmers should be advised to accept

community level decisions and there should

be some controls to stop them from violation

of decisions.

Majority of farmers express that it is difficult to

bring on community level decision for social

regulation for GWM. This is another area which

needs further field study.

The decisions given under ‘Yes’ responses in

respect of community level decisions taken are

welcome decisions. Their opinion is based on their

experience after PGM intervention.

The three reasons given (All are sowing paddy, Not

attended CWBs & Unable to have drip irrigation

equipment) for NO response in respect of

community level decisions taken are realistic and

valid.

Surprisingly high percentages (79.2 %) of farmers

from Non-Project Tanks are willing to be part of

the PGM study.


Objective 3: Identify the Indicators affecting the sustainability of the PGM initiative


Willing to continue with , PGM even after

the Project because:

Support needed to continue PGM

We can know the Groundwater level and

status measurements, so we will continue

Create awareness as groundwater

availability is decreasing day by day

I can discuss with others how water

measurements are taken and what it means

Support for CWB workshop to involve all

ayacut farmers

I am capable to inform other farmers around

me about my water level in the borewell

Two more years support is required for

organizing CWB on our own

By knowing borewell water availability, we

are able to grow suitable crops

Promote Irrigation of crops based on PHM

data and to disseminate to all users

Link PGM activities with drip & sprinklers

distribution

Explain the PHM data to community

regularly

Two to three years PGM team support need

to establish linkages with allied institutions

Objective 4: Identify critical inputs required for sustainability of PGM

A. TECHNICAL INPUTS


PHM Data Validation : Validate periodically

PHM (water levels and discharges of bore

wells) data has been recorded

Improve analysis of data by incorporating

more easy techniques.

Not being validated regularly. Practice analysing data with farmers

Occasionally verified with field data whenever

tank villages are visited.

Periodical Sharing of inferences of PHM

data

Improve data analysis by evolving local

techniques and facilitated.

PHM farmer sharing the PHM data only with

the dearest farmers. They are not able to share

the data with others.

The nodal officer must take proactive role

in ensuring collection & analysis of data

by TRP s and arrange for sharing with

primary stakeholders.

Inferences of PHM data shared to farmers all

once in 6months in CWB& Field day

workshops.

The PHM data is to be shared in a water

users’ committee meeting held

periodically.

Dissemination of the Analysis of PHM

data Regular meeting to be organised

The PHM data is mainly analysed and

disseminated during Crop Water Budgeting and

when the farmers shared the data with other

farmers.

The APDs and NSO staff must take

interest to disseminate the data more

frequently on important occasions / WUA

meetings



A. TECHNICAL INPUTS


The number of tank villages allotted to

each TRP should be reduced to 8 to 10

tanks to monitor and concentrate well on

PGM activities.

Integration with Assessment Unit level PHM

data This exercise need to be done.

So far this is not done at field level. Integration of the PHM data with

Assessment Unit level data is needed.

This will directly influence the estimation

of groundwater in the Assessment unit

The Quality aspect of groundwater is also

to be discussed during trainings /meetings.


B. INSTITUTIONAL INPUTS


Integration with WUA

Happening with President & paraworkers

only.

More close interaction with other

members of the WUA need to be

achieved.

Supportive in conducting meetings, training

and CWBs

To achieve convergence, have meeting at

village level with TC members and

Neerugantees.

Integration with Gram Panchayats Grampanchayat and Panchayat Raj

institutions may be involved for

sustainability. To strengthen the PGM

concept, educate the farmers in PHM data

analysis.

Attending CWBs only

Satisfactorily.

Integration with Assessment Unit level

Institutions

Assessment Unit level PGM

implementation is the way forward

Presently only WUA & PHM. Needs to be taken up at the earliest

Only Tank Level implementation at present

To improve the PGM concept to educate

the Ayacutdars and larger area villages

around in PHM data analysis.

Monthly PGM group meetings

Monthly PGM group meetings are conducted

in some villages.

Monthly PGM group meetings must be

conducted in all villages regularly

Conducting Quarterly once/Bi monthly. Monthly PGM group meetings must be

conducted in all villages regularly

Involvement of WOMEN groups To be improved.



B. INSTITUTIONAL INPUTS


So far 10 to 20% of women in PGM groups

are attending To be Improved to at least 50%

Low to no involvement in some tanks. Women groups must be involved.

Needs to conduct meetings at Village

Organization levels (SHG).

Active involvement of Co-opted GW users

in WUA To be Improved at least to 60 -70 %

Co-opted members are involving in only in

20 % to 30 % tanks

Co-opted members of all tanks must be

involved in WUA activities also

Comparative analysis of PGM impact across the 2 sets of PGM tanks (based on year

of initiation of CWB workshops)

Minimum number of CWB workshops

required to take forward the activity by the

users themselves At least 5-6 CWB workshops are needed

for better understanding and taking

forward the activity by the users

themselves.

Presently only two CWB meetings are

conducting yearly. More workshops should be

conducted to create better awareness on

groundwater resources and water balance –

irrigated dry crops etc

Material Inputs

Critical inputs like/ (sprinklers, seed

varieties, IWMT equipment etc.) through

Project

Training on water saving techniques ,

exposures & critical inputs must be given

through project.

Presently pipelines are provided to select

farmers under water sharing programme

Greater effort is needed to provide

subsidy for Micro irrigation system of

Drips, Sprinklers, Seed varieties, IWMT

equipment etc. through Project and

linkages with line departments.



C. HANDHOLDING IN DATA COLLECTION, ORGANIZING & CWB

WORKSHOPS

Need based trainings and

Exposures to PGM group members

The trained farmers are not confident enough to

provide training to others.

At present need based training is

provided only to PHM farmers and few

PGM group members.

A system is to be developed for training other

farmers in the village.

Exposure completed to PGM members

on water saving methods in some tanks

for a few farmers..

All farmers to be taken on exposure visits

Support of the TRPs TRPs must regularly visit the PHM wells and

the Rain gauge station at least once a month and

discuss with farmers innovative ideas such as to



take up ID crops and conserve of groundwater.

Supporting the Para Workers & PHM

farmers while collecting data and PGM

related tasks

Regular discussion on innovative ideas with

farmers to promote better management of

groundwater resource

Over loaded. At present TRPs are

visiting the village once in a month or

once in two months

District Nodal Officer’s field visits

Provide vehicle for regular visits by DNO to

PGM groups

Rarely Visiting.

In general, regularly DNOs are visiting

the fields whenever there are trainings

or meetings.

NSO involvement Need to be institutionalised

Presently NSO are not much involved

in PGM activities.

NSO staff ideal to create more awareness

among all farmers and other water users.

Need based -occasionally attending PMU to instruct NSOs to monitor PGM

programmes regularly

Non Formal Education methods &

techniques to make the community

understand the situation

Non-formal education methods & techniques to

be adopted to make the community understand

PGM principles better.

Not yet implemented. The older generation understood the

relationship between rain, dry weather, wind

drought and other natural factors and

agriculture. They can be used for experience

sharing and awareness generation in the

younger generation.

Skilled and Technical staff to support TRPs

during field level execution of job assigned.

Objective 5: Groundwater Productivity

Productivity in sample PGM Tanks during

2011-12

Apart from creating awareness and knowledge

there is a need to mobilize GW users towards

more efficient demand side GW management

Land Productivity : Rs 81.170/ Ha

GW Productivity : Rs 76,504/Ha-m


Chapter 5

Summary of findings and conclusions

Summary of findings

Effectiveness of PGM Processes

The objective of the study is to know how far the trainings given to the farmers were

effective in PHM data monitoring. As could be expected, PHM and Non-PHM farmers are

on top in understanding the PHM parameters and the training has been useful. Farmers

from Non-PGM tanks come next.

The understanding on CWB is clearer in Non-PGM tank farmers followed by PHM farmers

and lastly Non-PHM farmers. More support from TRPs is expected in this section.

Success of the PGM processes is also reflected in that in 83% cases the PHM equipment

worked well, without any problems. Because of this trouble free equipment, 82.7% PHM

data is obtained without any gaps giving a good base for the CWB workshops. Also, in

most of the cases when the equipment was not working the problems were set right within

15 days. Overall affirmative response given by farmers: 56.4%.

Impact of the PGM intervention

PGM intervention has been very useful in that 95% farmers could change the extent of their

irrigated land based on the PHM data. 69% farmers are aware that the PHM data is

available on display and have used it to adopt field irrigation methods such as Drip,

Sprinklers etc.

PGM intervention has shown a good impact on CWB in the field. The response to

understanding of CWB is more pronounced in case of PHM farmers (88.1%), next come

Non-PHM farmers (66.1%), and lastly FGDs with 60.4%.

A high percentage of farmers have made use of the PHM data for water management –

78.6% PHM farmers, 62.7% Non-PHM farmers, and 57.80 FGDs. But interestingly 18 out

of 20 PGM tanks have used CWB for crop planning at individual and community level.

When all the farmers are brought under CWB the process will be fully effective.


Crop planning for surface water irrigation is practiced more in Non-project tanks (36%),

but very less in Non-PGM tanks (12%). But in case of Groundwater irrigation, crop

planning is very poor in both cases - 6%, in Non-PGM tanks and 2% in Non-Project tanks.

Here again it is clear that implementing decisions at community level is very difficult, and

needs more awareness among the farmer community.

PHM data has given confidence to PHM and Non-PHM farmers to share their Bore well

water with fellow farmers (92.5%), which is a positive outcome of the PGM intervention.

Sharing water free of cost tops the list. Non-PHM farmers prefer to share the water against

payment.

Response to community level decisions for GW management is very poor. But they sound

optimistic for collective Groundwater management. The inconsistency in the responses

may be due to lack of understanding on GW management.

Another important impact is that high % of farmers are willing to understand CWB, are

ready to collect PHM data, and ready to donate site for installing PHM equipment.

Overall affirmative response given by the farmers: 52.83%

Sustainability of PGM activities

Farmers are willing to continue PGM activities even after Project/Govt support is

withdrawn. But at the same time they feel Govt support is essential for effective PGM.

They need training/exposure visits to understand PHM better.

The response ‘Yes’ for collective decision on CWB is implemented in this section is not in

line with their response for questions in the above section for community level GW

management. Overall affirmative response given by the farmers: 85.8%.


Conclusions

The PGM interventions undertaken by the project is very unique and in the initial years it

has created awareness and interest among farmers. Groundwater is used for irrigation for

many decades, but the farmers had no idea about PHM parameters and Crop Water

Budgeting.

After four years of PGM intervention in the field, the following are some of the important

outcomes observed:

i. Farmers are introduced to PHM, CWB and PGM and they have received it and

responded positively.

ii. Farmers have become more confident to share Borewell water based on

interpretation of PHM data.

iii. Sharing Borewell water ‘free of cost’ tops the list of basis for water sharing. This is

an outcome of the understanding of GW Recharge, Draft, and Balance. They have

realised the benefit of stopping new Borewells coming close to their field which may

otherwise affect their Borewell performance.

iv. Farmers have realised the usefulness of PHM data and CWB. This has enabled them

to come forward to continue the PGM even after project/Govt. support is withdrawn.

However they need Trainings and exposure visits.

This PGM study is unique and can be used as a ‘Model Module’ for other states

willing to initiate PGM in ‘Critical’ and ‘Over-exploited’ watersheds.


Annexes

Annex 1: List of Tanks selected for PGM Impact Assessment Study

Annex 2: Land and Groundwater Productivity by type of tanks

Annex 3: Land and groundwater productivity of 20 select PGM tanks

Annex 4: Effect of tank rehabilitation works on groundwater levels

Annex 5: “Experiments in budgeting water” in Down to Earth, 2010.

Annex 6: “And Not a Drop to Waste” Article by Stella Paul in Inter Press Service, 2014

http://www.ipsnews.net/author/stella-paul/


Annexure 1: List of Tanks selected for PGM Impact Assessment Study

Sl District Mandal Village Tank Name Ayacut

(Acre)

Category of tank

Selected for

PGM IA study

TRPs

Collecting data

(Sri/Smt)

1 Anantapur Somandepalle Chalakur Chelakuru Tank 206.00 PGM 2009-10

K. Sambasivudu

& R. Rajashekar

2 Anantapur Somandepalle Challapalli Challapalli Tank 582.00 APCBTMP Non

PGM

3 Anantapur Somandepalle Edulaballap

uram

Edulaballapuram

Tank 170.00 PGM 2009-10

4 Anantapur Somandepalle Julukunta Julekunta Tank 108.00 PGM 2009-10

5 Anantapur Somandepalle Magecheruv

u Magecheruvu 107.14 Non APCBTMP

6 Anantapur Somandepalle Muddapuku

nta

Muddappakunta

Tank 122.00 PGM 2009-10

7 Kadapa Kalasapadu Mudireddip

alli

Muddireddi Palli

Tank 237.12 PGM 2010-11

I. Akhtar

Sahajad &

B. Rosamma

8 Kadapa Pullampeta Dandlopalle Dondlapalli Tank 151.26 PGM 2010-11

9 Kadapa Pullampeta Kottapalli

Agraharam

Kottapalli

Agraharam Tank 170.00 Non APCBTMP

10 Kurnool Midthur Khajipeta Khajipet Mi Tank 220.00 PGM 2009-10

11 Kurnool Owk Mettupalle Balikuntla Kalva 136.00 PGM 2009-10

12 Kurnool Owk Sangapatna

m

Sangapatnam

MITank (Kotavari

Cheruvu)

126.00 APCBTMP Non

PGM

13 Mahabubnagar Bijinepalli Vattem Ramamma Cheruvu 225.37 APCBTMP Non

PGM

M. Sreedevi &

V. R. Sanjeeva

Reddy

14 Mahabubnagar Ghanpur Appareddyp

alli Marri Chervu 250.00 Non APCBTMP

15 Mahabubnagar Gopalpeta Revally Ooracheruvu 159.20 PGM 2009-10

16 Kadapa Mahbubnagar Kodur Maisammacheruvu 161.05 PGM 2009-10

17 Mahabubnagar Narayanpet Appireddipa

lle

Thimmaladevuni

Cheruvu 156.00 PGM 2009-10

18 Mahabubnagar Utkoor Ausolonipal

ly Gunta Chervu 158.55 PGM 2009-10

19 Medak Tupran Allapur Timmayya Chruvu 218.00 APCBTMP Non

PGM K. Rajendra

Prasad &

N. Sundara

Ramaiah

20 Medak Tupran Nagulapally Nagulapalli

Cheruvu 147.30 Non APCBTMP

21 Medak Tupran Ravelli Oora Cheru 135.00 PGM 2009-10

22 Medak Tupran Yavapur Pedda Cheru 212.00 PGM 2009-10

23 Nalgonda Gundala Bandakotha

Palle Pedda Cheruvu 128.31 PGM 2010-11

K. Rajendra

Prasad &

Y. Prasada Rao

24 Nalgonda Rajapet Dudivenkat

apur Vura Cheruvu 106.00 Non APCBTMP

25 Nalgonda Rajapet Somaram Pedda Cheruvu &

F.C 101.00 PGM 2010-11

26 Prakasam Dornala China

Dornala Chinnagudipadu 324.06 PGM 2010-11

E. Raghunath &

T. Venkataiah

27 Prakasam Komarole Posepalli Thimmaraju Tank 104.00 PGM 2010-11

28 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Kolthur Pedda Cheruvu 128.02 PGM 2009-10

29 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Lakshamap

ur Pedda Cheruvu 145.05 PGM 2009-10

30 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Turkapalli Ratnabai Cheruvu 137.35 APCBTMP Non

PGM


Annexure 2: Land and Groundwater Productivity by Type of Tanks

Annexure 2.1 Land Productivity in APCBTMP-PGM tanks

# Acres Ha Value of

Production (Rs)

Land Productivity

Rs/Ha

Kharif 234.91 93.96 56,66,640.80 60,306.51

Rabi 140.8 56.32 28,20,401.40 50,078.15

Total 375.71 150.28 84,87,042.20 90,322.27

Annexure 2.2 Land Productivity in APCBTMP Non-PGM tanks

# Acres Ha Value of

Production (Rs)

Land Productivity

Rs/Ha

Kharif 103.00 41.20 19,17,442.85 46,539.88

Rabi 37.20 14.88 7,86,212.00 52,836.83

Total 140.20 56.08 27,03,654.85 65,622.69

Annex 2.3 Land Productivity in Non - APCBTMP tanks

# Acres Ha Value of

Production (Rs)

Land Productivity

Rs/Ha

Kharif 83.74 33.496 17,28,382.32 51,599.66

Rabi 34.30 13.720 4,98,044.54 36,300.62

Total 118.04 47.216 22,26,426.86 66,468.44

Annex 2.4 Land & Groundwater Productivity in PGM tanks during 2011-12

2011-12

Hydrological

Year

APCBTMP-PGM tanks

Area

Irrigated

Ha

Value of

Production (Rs)

GW Used

ha-m

Land

Productivity

Value of GW use

Rs/ha-m

Kharif 2011-12 93.96 56,66,640.80 75.16 60,306.51 75,394.37

Rabi 2011-12 56.32 28,20,401.40 43.50 50,078.15 64,836.81

Total 150.28 84,87,042.20 118.66 90,322.27 71,524.04


Annex 3: Land and groundwater productivity of 20 select PGM tanks

Sl District Mandal Village Tank Name

Base Year 2009-10/2010-11

Impact Year 2011-12 Land Productivity (Rs) Groundwater

Productivity Rs Rainfall (mm)

Area Irrigated

(Ac)

Functional

BWs

No of Acres /

BW

Area Irrigated

(Ac)

Functional BWs

No of Acres /

BW

Baseline Year

2009-10

Impact Year 2011-12

Baseline Year

2009-10

Impact Year

2011-12

Baseline Year

2009-10

Impact Year

2011-12

1 Anantapur Somandepalle Chalakur Chelakuru Tank 88.9 63 1.41 78.43 30 2.61 2673151.9 2358327.4 2342088.3 2066254 663.2 565.4

2 Anantapur Somandepalle Edulaballapuram

Edulaballapuram Tank

74.95 27 2.78 63.8 31 2.06 2253686.5 1918415 1974572.7 1680823.8 663.2 565.4

3 Anantapur Somandepalle Julukunta Julekunta Tank 39.5 16 2.47 35 20 1.75 1187733.4 1052422 1040635.4 922082 663.2 565.4

4 Anantapur Somandepalle Muddapukunta Muddappakunta Tank

35.8 24 1.49 40.75 25 1.63 1076477.4 1225319.9 943158.2 1073566.9 663.2 565.4

5 Kadapa Kalasapadu Mudireddipalli Muddireddi Palli Tank

198 99 2 128.25 107 1.2 5953701.6 3856374.9 5216349.6 3378771.9 1033.0 584.2

6 Kadapa Pullampeta Dandlopalle Dondlapalli Tank 128.2 27 4.75 85.01 37 2.3 3854871.4 2556182.7 3377454.6 2239605.5 765.2 775.4

7 Kurnool Midthur Khajipeta Khajipet Mi Tank 159.36 45 3.54 137.56 51 2.7 4791827.7 4136319.2 4198371.1 3624045.7 730.0 615.2

8 Kurnool Owk Mettupalle Balikuntla Kalva 154.62 30 5.15 83.96 57 1.47 4649299.7 2524610 4073494.8 2211943 464.4 614.6

9 Mahabubnagar Gopalpeta Revally Ooracheruvu 216 60 3.6 198.75 62 3.21 6494947.2 5976253.5 5690563.2 5236108.5 643.0 414.8

10 Mahabubnagar Mahbubnagar Kodur Maisammacheruvu

41.6 48 0.87 31.5 46 0.68 1250878.7 947179.8 1095960.3 829873.8 814.0 866.4

11 Mahabubnagar Narayanpet Appireddipalle Thimmaladevuni Cheruvu

44.1 72 0.61 20.5 92 0.22 1326051.7 616418.6 1161823.3 540076.6 902.4 449.9

12 Mahabubnagar Utkoor Ausolonipally Gunta Chervu 140.6 84 1.67 158 78 2.03 4227729.5 4750933.6 3704135.1 4162541.6 698.7 487.0

13 Medak Tupran Ravelli Oora Cheru 75 55 1.36 100 80 1.25 2255190 3006920 1975890 2634520 599.0 417.2

14 Medak Tupran Yavapur Pedda Cheru 88.5 36 2.46 202 56 3.61 2661124.2 6073978.4 2331550.2 5321730.4 599.0 417.2

15 Nalgonda Gundala Bandakotha Palle

Pedda Cheruvu 151.5 101 1.5 173.5 84 2.07 4555483.8 5217006.2 3991297.8 4570892.2 855.4 551.8

16 Nalgonda Rajapet Somaram Pedda Cheruvu & F.C

136 80 1.7 97.5 66 1.48 4089411.2 2931747 3582947.2 2568657 886.6 369.4

17 Prakasam Dornala China Dornala Chinnagudipadu 155.84 49 3.18 191.83 49 3.91 4685984.1 5768174.6 4105636 5053799.7 752.0 500.6

18 Prakasam Komarole Posepalli Thimmaraju Tank 161.1 33 4.88 105.64 33 3.2 4844148.1 3176510.3 4244211.7 2783106.9 862.0 661.4

19 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Kolthur Pedda Cheruvu 53.25 134 0.4 213.54 120 1.78 1601184.9 6420977 1402881.9 5625754 586.7 331.8

20 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Lakshamapur Pedda Cheruvu 65.4 86 0.76 100.7 108 0.93 1966525.7 3027968.4 1722976.1 2652961.6 586.7 331.8

Total 2208.22 1169 1.89 2246.22 1232 1.82 66399409 67542038 58175998 59177115 721.55 532.52

Note: Land and groundwater productivity calculated using constant price of 2008-09


Annex 4: Effect of tank rehabilitation works on groundwater levels

Sl District Mandal Village

Tank rehabilitation works Date of Completion

Works completed (Order is based on value of itemwise

expenditure)

Base Year 2009-10/2010-11

2011-12 Change

Rainfall (mm)

SWL In Mts bgl during November

Rainfall (mm)


Rainfall (mm)


1 Anantapur Somandepalle Chalakur 13-Jan-10 Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,Sluice,, 663.20 9.27 565.40 20.48 -97.80 -11.21

2 Anantapur Somandepalle Edulaballapuram 12-Nov-09 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,, 663.20 3.29 565.40 10.88 -97.80 -7.59

3 Anantapur Somandepalle Julukunta 24-Sep-10 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,,, 663.20 9.43 565.40 13.33 -97.80 -3.90

4 Anantapur Somandepalle Muddapukunta 06-Jul-09 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Sluice,, 663.20 13.56 565.40 9.14 -97.80 4.42

5 Kadapa Kalasapadu Mudireddipalli 17-Jul-09 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,, 1033.00 12.57 584.20 14.75 -448.80 -2.18

6 Kadapa Pullampeta Dandlopalle 25-Mar-10 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,Sluice,

765.20 17.45 775.40 15.52 10.20 1.93

7 Kurnool Midthur Khajipeta 10-Dec-08 Surplus Weir,Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Sluice,

730.00 5.29 615.20 5.62 -114.80 -0.33

8 Kurnool Owk Mettupalle 13-Sep-08 Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,,, 464.40 7.97 614.60 9.54 150.20 -1.57

9 Mahabubnagar Gopalpeta Revally 23-Mar-09 Tank Bund,Feeder channels,Sluice,Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels

643.00 15.25 414.80 7.89 -228.20 7.36

10 Mahabubnagar Mahbubnagar Kodur 10-Mar-11 Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels,Sluice,

814.00 2.37 866.40 4.65 52.40 -2.28

11 Mahabubnagar Narayanpet Appireddipalle 30-May-10 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,, 902.40 6.16 449.90 4.80 -452.50 1.36

12 Mahabubnagar Utkoor Ausolonipally 20-Apr-10 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,, 698.70 15.10 487.00 12.17 -211.70 2.93

13 Medak Tupran Ravelli On-going Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,,, 599.00 14.02 417.20 14.65 -181.80 -0.63

14 Medak Tupran Yavapur 20-06-2011 Feeder channels,Tank Bund,Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels,

599.00 10.40 417.20 13.25 -181.80 -2.85

15 Nalgonda Gundala Bandakotha Palle On-going Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,,, 855.40 27.63 551.80 13.76 -303.60 13.87

16 Nalgonda Rajapet Somaram On-going Surplus Weir,Irrigation channels,,, 886.60 9.00 369.40 16.09 -517.20 -7.09

17 Prakasam Dornala China Dornala 12-Jul-12 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Surplus Weir,, 752.00 10.44 500.60 20.50 -251.40 -10.06

18 Prakasam Komarole Posepalli 23-Sep-11 Tank Bund,,,, 862.00 5.28 661.40 12.42 -200.60 -7.14

19 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Kolthur 17-Jan-09 Tank Bund,Irrigation channels,Sluice,, 586.70 13.15 331.80 19.76 -254.90 -6.61

20 Ranga Reddy Shamirpet Lakshamapur 09-Aug-08 Irrigation channels,Tank Bund,Sluice,, 586.70 3.54 331.80 13.16 -254.90 -9.62


Annex 5

\

Experiments in budgeting water

Jul 31, 2010 |

State is trying to get farmers to budget water

The million-odd users of groundwater in Andhra Pradesh need a new form of regulation,

everybody agrees. The system based on permits—under WALTA—only adds to the transaction

cost of farmers. The fact is there is a desperation to dig and then dig deeper.

There is no estimation

how much the farmers—

private entrepreneurs—of

the state have invested

into building the

irrigation system. This

investment is critical for

farmers, but they must

also ensure its

sustainability. The state

is beginning to look for

new answers to the

groundwater challenge:

how can it involve the

farmers—the individual decision makers—in taking better and informed decisions about this

collective wealth, which is not easily seen or estimated?

In 1996, work began through the Dutch government-funded Andhra Pradesh wells project, which

focused on funding farmers to drill borewells. The project linked the wells to building tanks in

the village, promoting recharge. In 2004, the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO)-funded

Andhra Pradesh Farmer-Managed Groundwater System was launched. It looked at training

farmers on understanding groundwater regimes and exploring how this learning could influence

communities to change their use of groundwater by switching crops. In 2008, a World Bank-

funded project started in collaboration with the groundwater department, with a tank component

called AP Community Based Tank Management programme and a small component on

groundwater called Participatory Groundwater Management.

T N Reddy of MANAGE, a non-profit in Hyderabad involved with the FAOfunded project, said

it is important to get farmers to take note of the common water system. According to him, the

FAO project was also aimed at explaining to farmers the seasonal changes and distribution of

groundwater so that they estimate and use it accordingly. “But the project was limited in its

spread and did not have the desired impact,” he said. His evaluation is that in the 600-odd

http://www.downtoearth.org.in/


villages covered under the project, roughly half the farmers changed their cropping patterns to

less water-consuming crops. “There is a long way to go before we can improve groundwater

levels across the state,” said Reddy. Groundwater irrigation is linked to what farmers can earn

from crops. “You cannot expect farmers to shift crops or reduce their water consumption without

providing alternatives or giving them market support,” said Palla Narendra of the Tata Institute

of Social Sciences in Hyderabad.

NREGS non-connection

In addition, the state is making investments under the Centre’s employment programme,

NREGS. Between 2009 and 2010 the government undertook 850,000 works, of which 75 per

cent were categorised under water conservation. These works included desilting of tanks, soil

moisture conservation and construction of water harvesting structures. This investment should

have improved groundwater regimes. But there is little evidence of that.

The problem is the lack of data. No government department takes charge of looking at the impact

of the public works on the water system. C Suvarna, special commissioner in the state rural

development department, explained, “Groundwater is a difficult issue. The state government has

projects going on all over the state. But groundwater levels are falling. The departments involved

with regulation, management or policymaking seem to be working piecemeal.”

Involving farmers

The ongoing World Bank-funded project of the irrigation department requires the community to

identify borewells that fall within the command area of the village’s biggest tank and record the

groundwater level over a period of time. Under this project, spread mostly in dry and drought

affected areas of the state, some 315 tanks were selected in 13 of the total 23 districts. These

tanks fall under the 161 over exploited and critical groundwater basins in the state. Till July

2010, farmers in 20 per cent of the villages were discussing crop water budgeting after

monitoring their groundwater for two years. “The actual change in cropping patterns has not yet

been seen. But with debate, farmers’ awareness increases. This is the first step to the big

change,” said Eswara Reddy, capacity building expert with the project.

The idea is catching on in Yavapur village in Medak district, some 100 km from the state capital.

Here the project started in 2008 and villagers now record water levels every 15 days in the four

borewells in the command area of the village tank. The department has provided people with

equipment, including a groundwater gauge. The deal is they will measure and record data in

registers kept at the panchayat office.

In this water-starved region, villagers grew paddy and sugarcane during monsoon, and maize in

winter. Farmers explained things were changing fast and that water table was falling. Borewells

were drying up or giving less water each season. The Peddachevru tank, the village pride, with a

catchment of 68 ha and irrigating 87 ha had gone dry this year—the first time in their recorded

memory. The groundwater level in the village was already between 76 and 91 metres.

Under the project, the village has mapped its water systems: the village with 409 households has

some 600 functional bores. In addition, it has three big water tanks and many small tanks, which

are used for irrigation and recharge of groundwater.


P Laxma Reddy, president of the village water association, believes people will shift to crops

that require less water. “Since we started recording groundwater we know how much water

we are consuming. We can now calculate how much water and power we need to grow a

particular crop,” he said. According to him, if paddy requires 50 litres of water, sugarcane

needs 30 litres and maize 15 litres. Now based on this rough estimation, budgeting has to be

done.

But as yet, people in the village seem unconvinced. The groundwater monitoring is showing an

overall decline— some 0.5 metres over the last season—in the four monitored wells. People say

this is because of poor rainfall last year. As yet, the declining water levels have not deterred them

from digging for more liquid gold—in just last year, Yavapur has dug another 50 borewells, of

which they struck gold in 10.


Annex 6

And Not a Drop to Waste

By Stella Paul

MAHBUBNAGAR, India, May 6 2014

Copyright © 2014 IPS. All rights reserved

As the mercury soars above 40 degrees Celsius,

ground water level across India is dropping,

making it difficult for farmers to cultivate their

fields. This is the season when farmers make a

special effort to save their crops from wilting.

Failure would see them migrate to the city to

search alternative livelihood.

In Appireddypally village 169 km south-west of

the southern Indian city Hyderabad, 38-year-old

farmer Prabhavati Reddy stands next to a borewell,

trying to measure the groundwater level. Her tape

shows the level of water 17 metres from the top.

Getting the measure of water in a southern Indian village [Credit: Stella Paul/IPS].

Barely literate they might be, but the farmers of Mahbubnagar are now sought by many for their expertise

in water budgeting.

Last week, the level was 16 metres below the top. “The level of water is falling fast. We must plan

cropping that won’t require much water,” Reddy tells fellow villagers.

“Water budgeting basically means taking stock of the existing amount of water for irrigation and planning

one’s cropping accordingly,” hydrologist Ishwar Reddy tells IPS.

Under a World Bank funded water management initiative called the Andhra Pradesh Community Based

Tank Management project Eswar Reddy oversees training of farmers like Prabhavati Reddy in

groundwater monitoring. The training is crucial for people in Appireddypalli village, which is in

Mahbubnagar district that receives only about 600 mm rainfall in a year – far below India’s national

average of 1,183 mm.

“Knowing how much groundwater is available each season for irrigation helps the farmers plan their

cropping and ensure a profit, even in the face of adverse climatic conditions,” Eswar Reddy adds.

Teaching villagers how to monitor groundwater is important, says project consultant Joseph

Plakkoottam. The project was a finalist at this year’s Water for Life award presented by the UN on World

Water Day for best water management practices.

“Monitoring the water situation is the most important skill a farmer who lives in a dry area can acquire. If

used wisely, it can help him significantly minimise the chances of a crop failure,” Plakkoottam tells IPS.

Prabhavati and her husband Subban Reddy are a fine example of this. The Reddy couple own an eight-

acre farm, previously grew only rice and peanuts, but now grow a mix of crops.

http://www.ipsnews.net/author/stella-paul/

http://www.apmitanks.in/


http://www.imd.gov.in/doc/climate_profile.pdf

http://www.imd.gov.in/doc/climate_profile.pdf


“For past two years, we have been growing rice and peanuts only in the monsoon when the water level is

high. For the rest of the year, we grow vegetables like brinjal, tomatoes, okra and onion which require

very little water and have good demand in the market,” Subban Reddy tells IPS.

Earlier, the couple made profits only in monsoon. But now they make a profit of about 400 dollars from

each crop.

Across the 276 villages of Mahbubnagar, hundreds of farmers have been learning water budgeting. Many

of these villages have a mini weather station. So, besides groundwater mapping, villagers also learn how

to monitor rainfall. They then collect and collate such data for crop planning.

Appireddypalli has a community hall. On Sundays, it is used as a makeshift school for farmers. They sit

on the floor, listening intently to their teachers – the first of the villagers trained in water budgeting. The

teachers use a bundle of posters that has all the rainfall and groundwater data they collected earlier.

Using these posters as their main tool of communication, the teachers suggest crops the farmers can

comfortably grow in the current season. Millet, tomatoes, onions and corns are highly recommended,

while rice is not.

Chenna Chinna Reddy can’t read or write. But he has no problems in understanding his teachers. “There

isn’t a lot of water under the earth here. So, if I sow rice, tomorrow it will wither and I will lose all my

money. I must also not grow crops that will require a lot of pesticide because that will also require lots of

water,” he tells IPS.

Besides choosing less water-intensive crops, the water savers are also minimising water extraction.

Farmer Avetti Kalappa, 42, owns a borewell and a two-acre farm. Shallow tunnels criss-cross his fields.

Instead of flooding his field, Kalappa releases water from the well at one end of a tunnel. The water flows

quickly through the tunnels, wetting the field from all sides.

The simple method also enables Kalappa to share water with his neighbouring farms.

“Since the rainfall here is insufficient, everybody extracts groundwater for farming,” Suhas Raje, deputy

director at the state groundwater department tells IPS. “But if a few farmers share water, every farmer

need not drill an individual bore well. That way, not only can they control the depletion of groundwater,

but also save electricity which is used to run a well.”

To encourage water sharing, the project has been providing farmers in each village pipelines that connect

multiple farms, and a portable water mapping device, says Raje.

Barely literate they might be, but the farmers of Mahbubnagar are now sought by many for their expertise

in water budgeting. Kalappa and Subban Reddy recently travelled to neighbouring Tamil Nadu state and

presented their model before a group of farming experts and engineers.

“People ask us if we were nervous. A farmer feels nervous only when he is at the mercy of others. Here,

we have the knowledge to control the situation around us,” says Subban Reddy.

IPS is an international communication institution with a global news agency at its core, raising the

voices of the South and civil society on issues of development, globalisation, human rights and the

environment Copyright © 2014 IPS-Inter Press Service. All rights reserved.


REFERENCES

Das, Samala Venkata Govardhan and Jacob Burke, Small Holders and Sustainable Wells: A Retrospect –

Participatory Groundwater Management in Andhra Pradesh (India), FAO of UN, 2013.

Foster, Stephen & Karin Kemper (Editors), “Sustainable Groundwater Management: Concepts and

Tools Series Overview,” (Briefing Note 0), by 2002-2005.

Garduño, Héctor, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars,

“Stakeholder Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer

management organizations,” Briefing Note 6. GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-

2005.

Garduño, Héctor, Marcella Nanni, Stephen Foster, Albert Tuinhof, Karin Kemper, Charles Dumars,

“Stakeholder Participation in Groundwater Management mobilizing and sustaining aquifer

management organizations,” Briefing Note 6. GW-MATE Core Group. The World Bank. 2002-

2005.

Garduño, Hector, Stephen Foster, Charles Dumars, Karin Kemper, Albert Tuinhof, Marcella Nanni.

“Groundwater Abstraction Rights from theory to practice”, Briefing Note 5 GW-MATE Core

Group. The World Bank. 2002-2005.

International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/The World Bank. Deep Wells and Prudence:

Towards Pragmatic Action for Addressing Groundwater Overexploitation in India. 2010.

Irrigation & CAD Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh. Participatory Groundwater

Management in Andhra Pradesh Community Based Tank Management Project. 2008. URL: www.apmitanks.in

Paul, Stella, “And Not a Drop to Waste.” IPS-Inter Press Service, 2014. http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/05/drop-waste

Paul, Stella, “Rural India looks to past and present to meet growing water needs.” Thomson Reuters

Foundation - Wed, 23 Apr 2014

Plakkoottam, Joseph L, Jan W K van der Wal, N Sai Bhaskar Reddy, and Jillilla Prasad, “Groundwater

Management Experiences in Andhra Pradesh: Strategies and Prospects: Report for the Irrigation

and Command Area Department, Government of Andhra Pradesh, 2007.

Romani, Saleem, K D Sharma, N C Ghosh and Y B Kaushik (eds.), Groundwater Governance:

Ownership of Groundwater and its Pricing (Proceedings of the 12th National Symposium on

Hydrology, November 14-15, 2006), New Delhi. Capital Publishing Company: New Delhi,

Kolkata, Bangalore.

Shah, Tushar. Groundwater Governance and Irrigated Agriculture. Global Partnership Technical

Committee. 2014.

van Steenbergen, Frank “A Brave New Groundwater World” posted in The Water Channel, October 22,

2012.

Verma, S., Krishnan. S., Reddy, V. A., and Reddy, K. R. “Andhra Pradesh Farmer Managed

Groundwater Systems (APFAMGS): A reality check,” Highlight 37, IWMI-Tata Water Policy

Program, Gujarat, India., 2012.

Witjes, Ben, David W. van Raalten, and Joseph L. Plakkoottam (eds.), Farmer Managed Borewell

Irrigation Systems: Lessons from APWELL Project. ARCADIS Euroconsult, BKH, IRDAS, 1999.




Government of Andhra Pradesh Irrigation & CAD Departmentapmitanks.in/Templates/APCBTMP PGM IAS Report.pdf · PGM in APCBTMP: Impact Assessment Study – Final Report (2014) ii The

Documents