There has never been a more appropriate time to ask if irrigation works in India, as monsoon?s caprice provokes fear this year. The Budget allocated Rs 1,000 crore for the Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP) whose focus is traditionally on less productive states like Orissa and Bihar; richer states like Tamil Nadu, Punjab and Haryana already have most of the infrastructure in place for irrigation. But do high productivity states use a limited resource like water efficiently? An analysis of groundwater usage for one of India?s major foodgrains, rice, suggests this is not necessarily the case.
Given that rice is a water-intensive crop, it is significant that Karnataka is the only state that receives high rainfall and also has a high rice yield. States in which higher productivity is observed?Haryana, Punjab and AP? do not receive great amounts of rainfall, unlike other rice producing regions that have lower productivity: Assam, West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar. This could mean that states with higher productivity but less rainfall are more adept at harvesting whatever water resources they can access to grow a water-intensive crop like rice. Efficient water harvesting techniques would have a direct impact on groundwater levels, as they would ensure a more or less steady or higher groundwater level over time.
We use data from the 2nd and 3rd Minor Irrigation Census carried out in 1993-94 and 2000-01 to find some trends. Average levels of groundwater of rice producing states over the period reveal that wells are becoming increasingly deep. What the accompanying table shows is that that the largest percentage fall in the groundwater level was for Karnataka, followed by Assam, Punjab, Tamil Nadu and Haryana. This would be understandable if the fall in average groundwater levels was due to deeper wells being dug to expand irrigation facilities. But the two states?Tamil Nadu and Karnataka?that underwent maximum expansion in irrigation facilities saw rice yields slipping (3% and 8% respectively). What this suggests is that they are pumping more water into fields anticipating sagging rice yields?that?s despite bringing more area under irrigation. Accordingly, these states also show a decrease in shallow wells and an increase in deep wells.
This could be on account of a) more shallow wells being abandoned or b) more shallow wells being converted to deep wells, to tap more groundwater. The same is the case in Haryana, where rice yields fell by 5% even as deep wells demonstrated a steep 107% growth. Other states like AP and Punjab showed an increase in yield, but also a significant growth in the number of deep wells. All these numbers suggest that the groundwater level in high productivity states is receding at an alarming rate. Yet, they continue to produce crops that are largely
water-intensive.
If we investigate who is responsible for this, all evidence points to policymakers and the governments that do not encourage farmers in these states to shift production to less water-intensive crops. After all, why should well-established farmers shift to another cropping pattern if the current setup is profitable for them? After all, water is priced low and rice has a minimum support price. Not surprisingly, the Punjab government web site proudly proclaims that it is prioritising production of sugarcane, known to be extremely water-intensive.
The second rung of rice producers?West Bengal, Orissa and Bihar?tell a different story. Their average groundwater levels showed increases of up to 20%, with Orissa and West Bengal also showing an increasing growth rate in the number of shallow wells. All three states showed consistent increase of about 13% in their overall rice production. These states therefore show great potential in terms of promised yields.
However, West Bengal showed an overall decrease in its irrigated area and a negative growth of deep wells. It would be interesting to check if the reduction in irrigated land was in the same regions that experienced the abandoning of deep wells. If this was indeed the case, then expansion of groundwater irrigation through more shallow wells in these regions is the right way to proceed (as AIBP plans to do); else it is indicative of groundwater being inexpensively priced.
What?s clear is that giving impetus to rice and water-intensive crops in these regions makes more economic and environmental sense. Governments must therefore not only improve irrigation, but also introduce incentives that allow these eastern states to concentrate on producing rice. Additionally, research must be encouraged to suggest water-efficient yet comparably profitable alternatives to water-intensive crops in states that produce rice at enormous costs in terms of groundwater depletion.