Groundwater Development in Ch Reddy District, Andhra Pradesh, Dwater

Research Article

Groundwater development in chevella basin, Ranga reddy district, Andhra Pradesh, India

Penumaka Ramesh 1*, Srinu Naik 2, P Sankara Pitchaiah 3

1Training Coordinator, Rural Development Institute, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA. {2Research scholar, 3Professor, Department of Geology}, Acharya Nagarjuna University, Nagarjunanagar, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA. Email: [email protected]

Abstract Groundwater is one of the fresh water sources which are neither unlimited nor protected deterioration. In most of the times due to excess usage of groundwater resulted in drying up of the open and tubular wells, increasing the salt concentration, causing sea water intrusion near coastal areas and depletion of the water resource. Now a days most of the people recognized water quality as one of the important aspect in their life as its quantity. Present study is an attempt to anal yse the impact of rainwater harvesting structures on groundwater quality in the Chevella basin . pH, TDS, Hardness, Bicarbonates, Chlorides, Sulphates, Nitrates, Fluorides, Calcium, Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium and Iron are measured/estimated for the years 2010-2013 (Pre and Post-monsoon periods) using standard analytical techniques. The study supports that the rainwater harvesting has improved the quality of groundwater in Chevella basin. Keywords: Groundwater, Andhra Pradesh .

*Address for Correspondence: Dr. Penumaka Ramesh, Training Coordinator, Rural Development Institute, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh, INDIA. Email: [email protected] Received Date: 22/11/2014 Accepted Date: 02 /12 /2014

Access this article online

Quick Response Code:

Website:

www.statperson.com

DOI: 02 December 2014

INTRODUCTION Groundwater, which is in aquifers below the surface of Figure 1: Location of Chevella Basin and Sampling points the Earth, is one of the Nation's most important natural resource (Revelle et. al. 2004). Groundwater is the source About 23 percent of the freshwater used in Chevella basin of about 33 percent of the water that county and city came from groundwater source and remaining 77 percent water departments supply to households and businesses. came from surface water. Water table has depleted to an It provides drinking water for more than 90 percent of the extent of 8-13m. Due to depletion the water quality gets rural population (Brown et. al. 1983). RangaReddy deteriorated. Hence, the presen t study is aimed at district is one of the ten districts of Telangana Region of studying the impact of existing RHS on water quality in Andhra Pradesh with ageographical area of 7,565sq.km. the Chevella basin. It for msa part of Deccan Plateau under Musi river basin and lies between North Latitudes 160 54’ and170 48’and OBJECTIVES Eastlongitudes770 21’ and780 51’ falling intopographical The objectives of the present study are; sheetnos.56G,H, K and L of Survey of India. The 1. Analysis of the water samples for quality Chevella basin has an area of 7565sq.km (Fig. 1). Most of parameters and the villages within the Chevella basin depend on 2. Study of impact of existing RHS on water qualit y groundwater for all their needs. About 42 percent of the in the Chevella basin for the period 2010 to 2013. water used for irrigation co mes from groundwater (Singh et. al., 2004).

How to site this article: Penumaka Ramesh, Srinu Naik, P Sankara Pitchaiah . Groundwater development in chevella basin, Ranga reddy district, Andhra Pradesh, India. International Journ al of Recent Trends in Science and Technology December 2014; 13(2): 269 -274 http://www.statperson.com (accessed 03 December 2014). International Journal of Recent Trends in Science And Technology, ISSN 2277-2812 E-ISSN 2249-8109, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2014 pp 269-274

METHODOLOGY All the groundwater quality test results of the Chevella Around 402 rain water harvesting structures (earthen are compiled and comparative study is done to reveal the bunding, loose boulders, check dams, percolation tanks, overall impact of RHS on groundwater quality of the mini percolation tanks, sunken pits and farm ponds) were Chevella Basin. constructed in the basin from ridge to valley with the RESULTS public participation in the Chevella basin. For the The minimum and maximum values of water quality assessment of groundwater quality, 198 groundwater parameters analysed during the years 2010 and 2013 are samples were collected from different locations of the presented in table 1. pH varies (Table 1 and Fig.2) in each village (6 to 15 samples from each village) during between 7.22 and 7.24 (minimum) and 8.31 and 8.15 pre and post-monsoons of 2010 – 2013. The samples are (maximum). There is no much variation from 2013. collected from dug wells, bore wells and hand pumps However, there is a lot of change in TDS values, i.e., distributed throughout the Chevella Basin. A weighted 1300 to 406 and1796 to 808mg/l (Fig.3). Similar results sample bottle or sampler was used to collect sample from are observed in the case of Total Hardness, Bicarbonates, an open well. Samples from the tube wells were collected Chlorides, Sulphates, Nitrates, Fluorides, Calcium, after running the well for about 5 minutes. The bottle is Magnesium, Sodium, Potassium and Iron (Table 1 and rinsed to avoid any possible contamination in bottling and Figs. 4 to11). 43.4% groundwater samples are fresh every other precautionary measure has been taken. All the quality but the brackish water is dominating on the parameters were analyzed within a week. The precise Chevella Basin in 2010. But due to the heavy rainfall and locations of the sampling points were determined in the construction of RHS in the Chevella Basin, the quality of field through the development of the GARMIN 12 groundwater is considerably improved and the Channel Instrument, based on the principles of Global brackishness is reduced to 0% of groundwater samples. It Positioning System (GPS). The location of the sampling means that 56.6% of brackish water becomes fresh water. points is shown in Figure 1.The standard methods APHA (1985) adopted for each parametric analysis of samples.

Table 1: Variation between 2010 and 2013 Post-monsoon minimum and maximum values (Post-monsoon period) Sr. No Parameter 2010 2013 Minimum Maximum Minimum Maximum 1 Ph 7.22 8.3 7.24 8.15 2 TDS 1300.72 1796.50 406.50 808.33 3 Hardness 358.55 761.87 222.00 352.89 4 Calcium 66.33 121.33 35.16 56.21 5 Magnesium 52.90 112.40 32.90 52.06 6 Bicarbonates 180.12 570.15 75.50 180.56 7 Chlorides 157.83 335.37 38.00 175.22 8 Sodium 104.38 221.79 55.80 121.31 9 Potassium 3.26 6.93 1.75 3.53 10 Sulphates 63.97 117.03 17.44 93.46 11 Nitrates 18.90 34.54 3.57 19.83 12 Fluorides 0.780 1.27 0.60 1.32 13 Iron 0.03 0.08 0.02 0.4 pH Malkapur Kesaram 8.6 Mudimyal Kum m era 8.4 Devunierravally Gollapally 8.2 Kam m eta Yenkapally 8.0 Earlapally 7.8 Urella Nyalata 7.6 Ibrahimpalli Ravulapally 7.4 Proddutur Elverthy 7.2 Tangatoor Ramanthapur 7.0 Chandippa 6.8 Masaniguda Yervaguda 6.6 Kothapalli Hussainpur -- 2013-post monsoon2012-post monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2011-post monsoon 2010-post monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-pre monsoon Parveda Year

International Journal of Recent Trends in Science And Technology, ISSN 2277-2812 E-ISSN 2249-8109, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2014 Page 270 Penumaka Ramesh, Srinu Naik, P Sankara Pitchaiah

Figure 2: pH variation during 2010-2013 DS

Malkapur Kesaram 1900 Mudimyal 1800 Kummera Devunierravally 1700 Gollapally 1600 Kammeta 1500 Yenkapally 1400 Earlapally 1300 Urella Nyalata 1200 Ibrahimpalli 1100 Ravulapally TDS 1000 Proddutur 900 Elverthy 800 Tangatoor Ramanthapur 700 Chandippa 600 Masaniguda 500 Yervaguda 400 Kothapalli Hussainpur -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon2013-post monsoon Parveda Year

Figure 3: TDS variation during 2010-2013 Hardness Malkapur Kesaram 800 Mudimyal 750 Kummera Devunierravally 700 Gollapally Kammeta 650 Yenkapally 600 Earlapally Urella 550 Nyalata 500 Ibrahimpalli Ravulapally

mg/l 450 Proddutur 400 Elverthy Tangatoor 350 Ramanthapur 300 Chandippa Masaniguda 250 Yervaguda 200 Kothapalli Hussainpur -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon 2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon 2013-post monsoon Parveda Year

Figure 4: Hardness variation during 2010-2013 Calcium and Magnesium

Malkapur 120 Kesaram Mudimyal 110 Kummera Devunierravally 100 Gollapally Kammeta 90 Yenkapally Earlapally 80 Urella Nyalata 70

mg/l Ibrahimpalli Ravulapally 60 Proddutur Elverthy 50 Tangatoor Ramanthapur 40 Chandippa Masaniguda 30 Yervaguda -- 2010-pre monsoon2011-pre monsoon2010-post monsoon2011-post monsoon2012-pre monsoon2013-pre monsoon2012-post monsoon2013-post monsoon Kothapalli Hussainpur Year Parveda

Figure 4: Hardness variation during 2010-2013

Copyright © 2014, Statperson Publications, International Journal of Recent Trends in Science And Technology, ISSN 2277-2812 E-ISSN 2249-8109, Volume 13, Issue 2 2014 International Journal of Recent Trends in Science And Technology, ISSN 2277-2812 E-ISSN 2249-8109, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2014 pp 269-274

Bicarbonates Malkapur Kesaram 600 Mudimyal Kummera 550 Devunierravally Gollapally 500 Kammeta 450 Yenkapally Earlapally 400 Urella Nyalata 350 Ibrahimpalli 300 Ravulapally mg/l Proddutur 250 Elverthy Tangatoor 200 Ramanthapur 150 Chandippa Masaniguda 100 Yervaguda Kothapalli 50 Hussainpur -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon 2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon 2013-post monsoon Parveda Year

Figure 5: Bicarbonates variation during 2010-2013 Chlorides

Malkapur Kesaram 360 Mudimyal 340 Kummera 320 Devunierravally 300 Gollapally 280 Kammeta Yenkapally 260 Earlapally 240 Urella 220 Nyalata 200 Ibrahimpalli 180 Ravulapally mg/l 160 Proddutur 140 Elverthy 120 Tangatoor 100 Ramanthapur Chandippa 80 Masaniguda 60 Yervaguda 40 Kothapalli 20 Hussainpur -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon 2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon 2013-post monsoon Parveda Year

Figure 6: Chlorides variation during 2010-2013 Sodium and Potassium

Malkapur Kesaram Mudimyal 220 Kummera Devunierravally 200 Gollapally Kammeta 180 Yenkapally Earlapally 160 Urella Nyalata 140 Ibrahimpalli

mg/l Ravulapally 120 Proddutur Elverthy 100 Tangatoor Ramanthapur 80 Chandippa Masaniguda Yervaguda 60 Kothapalli -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon2013-post monsoon Hussainpur Parveda Year

Figure 7: Sodium and Potassium variation during 2010-2013 Sulphates

International Journal of Recent Trends in Science And Technology, ISSN 2277-2812 E-ISSN 2249-8109, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2014 Page 272 Penumaka Ramesh, Srinu Naik, P Sankara Pitchaiah

Malkapur Kesaram Mudimyal 120 Kummera 110 Devunierravally Gollapally 100 Kammeta Yenkapally 90 Earlapally 80 Urella Nyalata 70 Ibrahimpalli Ravulapally mg/l 60 Proddutur 50 Elverthy Tangatoor 40 Ramanthapur Chandippa 30 Masaniguda 20 Yervaguda Kothapalli 10 Hussainpur -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon 2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon 2013-post monsoon Parveda Year

Figure 8: Sulphate variation during 2010-2013 Nitrates

Malkapur Kesaram 36 Mudimyal 34 Kummera 32 Devunierravally Gollapally 30 Kammeta 28 Yenkapally 26 Earlapally 24 Urella 22 Nyalata 20 Ibrahimpalli 18 Ravulapally mg/l 16 Proddutur 14 Elverthy 12 Tangatoor 10 Ramanthapur 8 Chandippa 6 Masaniguda 4 Yervaguda 2 Kothapalli Hussainpur -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon2013-post monsoon Parveda Year

Figure 9: Nitrate variation during 2010-2013 Fluorides

Malkapur 1.8 Kesaram Mudimyal 1.7 Kummera 1.6 Devunierravally Gollapally 1.5 Kammeta 1.4 Yenkapally Earlapally 1.3 Urella 1.2 Nyalata Ibrahimpalli 1.1 mg/l Ravulapally 1.0 Proddutur Elverthy 0.9 Tangatoor 0.8 Ramanthapur 0.7 Chandippa Masaniguda 0.6 Yervaguda 0.5 Kothapalli -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon2013-post monsoon Hussainpur Year Parveda

Figure 10: Fluoride variation during 2010-2013 Iron

Malkapur 0.8 Kesaram Mudimyal Kummera 0.7 Devunierravally Gollapally 0.6 Kammeta Yenkapally 0.5 Earlapally Urella Nyalata 0.4 Ibrahimpalli

mg/l Ravulapally 0.3 Proddutur Elverthy 0.2 Tangatoor Ramanthapur Chandippa 0.1 Masaniguda Yervaguda 0.0 Kothapalli -- 2010-pre monsoon 2011-pre monsoon 2010-post monsoon2011-post monsoon 2012-pre monsoon 2013-pre monsoon 2012-post monsoon2013-post monsoon Hussainpur Year Parveda

Figure 11: Iron variation during 2010-2013

DISTANCE FROM RHS AND and found that the concentrations are low near the CONCENTRATION structure and increase with the distance from RHS (Table pH, TDS, Nitrates, Fluorides concentrations are studied 2). with reference to distance from RHS and concentration Table 2: Quality of ground water from RHS, during June 2010 – October 2013 Distance from well from RHS (m) pH EC Total Hardness Nitrates Fluorides 0-100 8.28 734 202.33 9.18 0.456 100-300 8.24 985 271.52 12.33 0.586 300-800 8.36 1348 371.59 16.87 0.986

CONCLUSION 2. Brown E, Skougstad MW, Fishmen MJ (1983) Method Almost all the water quality parameters are decreased for collection and analyzing of water samples for dissolved minerals and gases. US Govt. Printing Office, from 2010 to 2013, i.e. after creation of Rain water Washington, DC, p 75. harvesting structures. It is also evident from the table.2, 3. Revelle R (2004) Criteria for recognizing seawater in where the concentrations are more away from the RHS. groundwater. Am Geophys Union Trans 22:593–597. So, it is conclude that RHS dilute the concentration and 4. Singh VS, Saxena VK, Prakash BA, Mondal NC, Jain SC change the water quality poor to good. (2004) Augmentation of groundwater resources in saline ingress coastal deltaic area. NGRI-Tech. Report. No. REFERENCES NGRI-2004-GW-422, pp 1–61. 1. APHA (1985) Standard methods for the examination of water and waste. 16th ed. Am pub Health Assoc. Source of Support: None Declared Washington, DC, p 100. Conflict of Interest: None Declared

International Journal of Recent Trends in Science And Technology, ISSN 2277-2812 E-ISSN 2249-8109, Volume 13, Issue 2, 2014 Page 274