Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

An Empirical Assessment of On-Farm Water Productivity using Groundwater in a Semi-Arid Indian Watershed

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Realistic estimation of irrigation volume applied to any crop at farm level generally requires information on event based discharge rates and corresponding periods of irrigation application. Use of mean seasonal discharge rates leads to erroneous estimation of volume due to unaccounted seasonal fluctuations in the water table, upon which the discharge rate of tube well is dependent. In the absence of such information, an alternative approach of estimating farm level water application based upon water table fluctuation data has been adopted in this study. The total actual water extracted during each irrigation event from the watershed was distributed among the farms irrigating crops in proportion to the product of irrigation time and the pump capacity (hp). Volume of water withdrawal concurrent to an irrigation event was computed based on the water level fluctuations in the wells in conjunction with potential recharge contribution from the surface storage structures to the groundwater aquifer. A production function approach was used to estimate the marginal productivity of water for selected crops at various stages of plant growth. Water, as an input in the production function, encompassed either in-situ soil moisture storage from rainfall or irrigation from groundwater or both. The inter-season as well as intra-season groundwater use, and the consequent groundwater withdrawals were analyzed based on the marginal value and output elasticity of water at different crop growth stages during the season. The cotton crop realized marginal value product of water, ranging from Rs. 1.03/m3 to Rs. 10.43/m3 at different crop growth stages in cotton. Castor crop had the marginal value product ranging from Rs. 2.89/m3 to Rs. 6.81/m3. The availability and use of water, including soil moisture, in the two seasons, coupled with the local harvest prices received, yielded the differential marginal values of water.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

\( {\text{W}}_{\text{ij}}^{\text{k}} \) :

Groundwater applied on ith farm to jth crop at kth stage (m3)

σ :

Marginal value product of water (Rs-m−3)

\( {\text{V}}_{\text{wij}}^{\text{k}} \) :

Water received from rainfall and used by the jth crop on ith farm at kth crop growth stage (m3)

A:

Area of watershed (m2)

a:

Constant term of the production function (.)

bi :

Coefficient of parameters associated with log value of the variable ‘i’ in the production function (.)

ci :

Coefficient of parameters associated with squared log value of the variable ‘i’ (.)

di :

Coefficient of parameters associated with interaction of log values of the variable ‘i’ and ‘j’ (.)

AMC:

Antecedent Moisture Condition (.)

CN:

Weighted curve number for the watershed (.)

Ep :

Elasticity of output (.)

f(.):

Functional attribute of the independent variables to the production function (Kg)

H:

Head of operation (m)

hp :

Horse power of motor (hp)

hpi :

Horse power of motor on ith farm (hp)

ht :

Depth to water table at any day ‘t’ (m)

ht’:

Depth to water table at any day ‘t’ in absence of any withdrawal or potential recharge (m)

ht−1 :

Depth to water table at any day ‘t-1’ (m)

i:

Subscript indicating individual farm (.)

j:

Subscript indicating individual crop (.)

k:

Subscript indicating crop growth stage (.)

Nf :

Number of farms applying irrigation on any irrigation event (No.)

P:

Rainfall (mm)

PY :

Farm harvest price of final output (Rs- kg−1)

Q:

Discharge rate (m3-sec−1)

Qi :

Discharge rate of the pump on ith farm (m3-sec−1)

Re :

Potential recharge from the water storage structures (m3)

Ro :

Runoff from the field (mm)

S:

Storativity of the aquifer (.)

SGVP:

Standardized Gross Value Production (Kg)

ST :

Maximum potential storage of the watershed (mm)

t:

Irrigation event date (day)

ti :

Irrigation event date of ith farm (day)

TL :

Lag time for potential recharge from surface storage structures to reach the groundwater table (day)

TW:

Total water applied in irrigation from rainfall and groundwater sources (m3)

TWk :

Vector input of water applied at stage ‘k’ of crop growth (m3)

TWij k :

Total water applied to a crop ‘j’ grown on farm ‘i’ at growth stage ‘k’ (m3)

TWG :

Total volume of water withdrawal from groundwater sources (m3)

TWt1 :

Actual total groundwater withdrawal under case 1 (m3)

TWt2 :

Actual total groundwater withdrawal under case 2 (m3)

Vwj :

Rainfall volume added to soil profile (m3)

W1,W2, W3, W4 :

Water applied at crop growth stages 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively (m3)

X1 :

Variable ‘Energy’ (KWh)

X2 :

Variable ‘Land’ (acres)

X3 :

Variable ‘Input’ (kg)

Xs :

Input vector other than water (.)

Y:

Yield output vector (Kg)

γ:

Specific gravity (kg-m−3)

η:

Pump hydraulic efficiency (.)

α:

Constant (m2-kg−1)

δ:

Marginal physical product of water (Kg-m−3)

References

  • Altaf MA (1994) Household demand for improved water and sanitation in a large secondary city: findings from a study in Gujranwala, Pakistan. Habitat Int 18(1):45–55

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berbel J, Mesa-Jurado MA, Pistón JM (2011) Value of irrigation water in Guadalquivir Basin (Spain) by residual value method. Water Resour Manag J. doi:10.1007/s11269-010-9761-2

  • Committee on Valuing Groundwater (1997) Valuing groundwater: economic concepts and approaches. Water Science and Technology Board, Commission on Geosciences, Environment and Resources, Natural Research Council. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 203 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • de Groen MM, Savenije HHG (2006) A monthly interception equation based on the statistical characteristics of daily rainfall. Water Resour Res 42:W12417. doi:10.1029/2006WR005013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dhruvanarayana VV (1993) Soil and water conservation research in India. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Krishi Anusandhan Bhavan, Pusa, New Delhi, 449 pp

  • Food and Agriculture Organization (2002) Crop water management—crop information. http://www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/cropwater/cwinform.stm

  • Griffin RC, Montgomery JM, Rister ME (1987) Selecting functional form in production function analysis. West J Agric Econ 12:216–227

    Google Scholar 

  • Gujarati DN (2006) Basic econometrics, 4th edn. The Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, 979 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Heady EO, Dillon JL (1961) Agricultural production functions. The Iowa State University Press, Iowa

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar MD, Singhal L, Rath P (2004a) Value of groundwater: case studies in Banaskantha. Econ Polit Wkly 31:3498–3503

    Google Scholar 

  • Kumar V, Kurothe RS, Singh HB, Tiwari SP, Nambiar KTN, Pande VC, Bagdi GL, Sena DR, Samarth RM, Damor CN (2004b) Participatory Watershed Management for Sustainable Development in Antisar Watershed, Kheda, Gujarat under Integrated Wastelands Development Programme, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India, New Delhi. Central Soil & Water Conservation Research & Training Institute, Research Centre, Vasad-388 306, Gujarat, 97 pp

  • Lall U, Modi V, Narula K, Fishman R, Polycarpou L (2011) Addressing the water crisis in Gujarat, India. Colombia Water Centre White paper, Earth Institute, Columbia University

  • McPhail AA (1994) Why don’t households connect to the piped water system? Observations from Tunis, Tunisia. Land Econ 70(2):189–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Molden D, Sakthivadivel R, Habib Z (2001) Basin-level use and productivity of water: Examples from South Asia. International Water Management Institute Research Report 49, Colombo, Sri Lanka

  • Nagabhushaniah HS (2001) Groundwater in hydrosphere (Groundwater hydrology). CBS Publishers & Distributors, New Delhi, 387 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner HM (1990) Applied linear statistical models. Irwin, Sydney, Australia

    Google Scholar 

  • Nimah MN, Moukarzel SN, Darwish MR, Farajalla N, Bashour I (2006) Water productivity: a basic tool for sustainable irrigation. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment Vol 96

  • Pazvakawambwa GT, Van der Zaag P (2000) The value of irrigation water in Nyanyadzi small hoder irrigation scheme, Zimbabwe. 1st WARFSA/ WaterNet Symposium, Maputo (November)

  • Postel S (1999) The pillar of sand: Can the irrigation miracle last? The World Watch Institute, Washington, D.C., 313 pp

    Google Scholar 

  • Randhir OT, Krishnamoorthy S (1989) Productivity variation and water use in farms of Madurantakam tankfed area of Chengalpattu district, Tamil Nadu. Indian J Agr Econ 45(1):56–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Renwick ME (2001) Valuing water in irrigated agriculture and reservoir fisheries: a multiple-use irrigation system in Sri Lanka. International Water Management Institute Research Report 51, Colombo, Sri Lanka

  • Rosegrant MW, Cai X, Cline SA (2002) World water and food to 2025: dealing with Scarcity. International Food Policy Research Institute, Washington, D.C

    Google Scholar 

  • SCS (1972) National Engineering Handbook. Section 4: Hydrology. Soil Conservation Service, USDA, Washington, D.C.

  • Shah T, Deb Roy A, Qureshi AA, Wang J (2001) Sustaining Asia’s groundwater boom: an overview of issues and evidence. International water Management Institute, Colombo

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah T, Gulati A, Hemant P, Shreedhar G, Jain RC (2009) Secret of Gujarat’s Agrarian Miracle after 2000. Economic & Political Weekly, Vol. xliv no. 52

  • Sharda VN, Kurothe RS, Sena DR, Pande VC, Tiwari SP (2006) Estimation of groundwater recharge from water storage structures in a semi-arid climate of India. J Hydrol 329(1–2):224–243

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh RP, Srinivas N (1989) Production responses of rice farmers in different locations of canal irrigation system. Indian J Agr Econ 45(1):266–267

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh OP, Sharma A, Singh R, Shah T (2004) Virtual water trade in dairy economy irrigation: water productivity in Gujarat. Econ Polit Wkly 31:3492–3497

    Google Scholar 

  • Somanathan E, Ravindranath R (2006) Measuring the marginal value of water and elasticity of demand for water in Agriculture. Econ Polit Wkly 30:2712–2715

    Google Scholar 

  • Thakur J, Kumar P (1989) Measurement of relative efficiency under different systems of irrigation: a profit function approach. Indian J Agr Econ 45(1):302–303

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsur Y, Dinar A (1995) Efficiency and equity considerations in pricing and allocating irrigation water. Policy Research Working Paper 1460, Agriculture and Natural Resources Department, Agricultural Policies Division, The World Bank

  • Wang H, Lall S (1999) Valuing water for Chinese Industries: A marginal productivity assessment. The World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 2236, Washington, DC

  • Whittington D (1991) Contingent valuation: estimating the willingness to pay for housing services: a case study of water supply in Southern Haiti. Econ Dev Cult Change 38(2):293–311

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winsemius HC, Schaefli B, Montanari BA, Savenije HHG (2009) On the calibration of hydrological models in ungauged basins: a framework for integrating hard and soft hydrological information. Water Resour Res 45:W12422. doi:10.1029/2009WR007706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zwart SJ, Bastiaanssen WGM (2004) Review of measured crop water productivity values for irrigated wheat, rice, cotton and maize. Agr Water Manag 69(2):115–133

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The fund provided by the Department of Land Resources, Ministry of Rural Development, Government of India for the execution of various interventions in the study watershed is thankfully acknowledged. Thanks are also due to the scientists of the Research Centre who assisted in the analysis of voluminous data. The authors thank Sh. C.N. Damor and Mr. M. J. Baraiya, Technical officers of CS&WCR&TI, Research Centre, Vasad for their assistance in collection of data during the study period.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Central Soil & Water Conservation Research & Training Institute, Research Centre, Vasad, 388306, Gujarat, India

    V. C. Pande, R. S. Kurothe, D. R. Sena & S. P. Tiwari

  2. Central Soil & Water Conservation Research & Training Institute, 218, Kaulagarh Road, Dehradun, 248 195, Uttarakhand, India

    V. N. Sharda

Authors
  1. V. C. Pande
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. V. N. Sharda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. R. S. Kurothe
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. D. R. Sena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. S. P. Tiwari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to V. C. Pande.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pande, V.C., Sharda, V.N., Kurothe, R.S. et al. An Empirical Assessment of On-Farm Water Productivity using Groundwater in a Semi-Arid Indian Watershed. Water Resour Manage 26, 475–498 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9927-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9927-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation