Working Paper No. 102
The extent and impact of ground water irrigation in Tamil Nadu: Some macro and micro evidences
by S. Jankarajan
Madras Institute of Development Studies 79, Second Main Road, Gandhi Nagar Adyar, Chennai 600 020
March 1991 . , .
'
The Extent and Impact of Ground Water Irrigation in Tamil Nadu: Some Macro and Micro Evidences.
• By ... S.Janakar"ajan* 1. Introduction
The ground water development in the country has been quite impressive (share of gr�und water irrigation in India is about
40% in 1984). This is more pronounced in the state of Tamilnadu where almost all the possible surface sources have been tapped
1.. , 1· 1· ., .1, �r p- : · _,. 1 ...c: "1 • P o r r ,,. t .;. n <- T ';.-,_..:1 , ,.1, , ,.. <. _ � .:I In fact, over a period of past three decades, area under sur·face sources of irrigation in the state
has declined and it is rather steep in the case of tanks. The • percentage share of canals in the total net irrigated area . 34¾ in 1984-85; in the case of tanks r the percentage share of NIA dropped sharply from 38¼ to 27% during the same period. However, there is a sharp i�crease in the perentage share of NIA by wells from 24% in 1960-61 to little over 38% in 1984-85. Thus, it may be seen that the decline in ar�a irrigated by surface sources 1S more than compensated by sharp increase in the area. irrigated by sub-surface water. This pattern is clearly seen in the c�se of several districts of Tamil Nadu State. (See Table-1 and Graphs>. The points plotted on the graphs (separately for each district) and information provided in the.Table-1 have been the l ------*This is a revised version of the paper presented in a. workshop on 'Policies and Management Strategies for ground water Development in Low�Rainfall Hard R�ck Area 1 TNAU, Coimba.tore, October 4-6 1 1989. .!' . ·- __ ... -- ·-- _____:_L_I i-,1""";l ...... ii- 2 OV 1-··t · I '"J outcorne of ,.,r I l,.,"' for the years 1950-51 to 1984- 85; hut.. the rest1l t·;; are re,9r\ied in the table on.ly: f'o.� different .. ,. points of time. It may b� se�n from the table and graphs th�t J. n all the districts except Thanjavur and Kanyakumari, NIA has gona up atlease by 20 J:•Efrcent if one takes ·1952--53 as the base year. In most of the distrit:t� a't · t't-,e sa1r1e area surf'ace tirr,e 1 u,1der s.ources of irrigation have somewhat steeply come down (see for insta11ce in tiistricts such as Chen,1alpa\tu, South Arcot, N()rth · Arcot, Madurai� Ti ruchi, Tirunelvel i and Salem). Thu.s • in a.J. l thes.e t:iistri cts increase in the NIA is basically dlie to sharp increase in the area irrigated by w�lls in particular, ITt i (1 ·1960s. The cas·e of Coimbatore district is quite dis�inct where well' irrigation has been a dominant source right from the beginning of this century. NIA in this district has gone up quite sharply by ·SO per cent, but are� under well irrigation has 1n Since come down from 68½ of NIA in 1952-53 to 56¾ 1983-84:• area under tank irrigat'ioh is insignificant in this dis,trict, additian to 'the NIA·is b1iically due to th� new canal irr.i•aation .. projects started during 1950s and 1960s� The percentage .share of canals.in this district has gone up from 25% in 1952-53 to 37% in ·1983-·84. The case of Ramanathapur•m district is quite fascinating, where area under canal irrigation is quite insignificant and the only m4jor source of irrigation has been tanks. one finds �nly a marginal decline in the area irrigated by tanks .. ; I < i e • ,. from 82% to 78¾) and a small increase in the area irrigted • ··-·- . ··-··--- ·--···---··- -- -·. -·--····-·- ...... ··- --··- . - ·· .... ·--· ·----�---- ·---· 3 by wells (from 16X ta 21%). It is interesting to note that area under well irrigation remains. at a low level despite the fact that the stage of ground water development in this district was ·1 only 19¾ as on ·1984--85. One possible reason for such a low level of gr·ound water development in this district could be the problem . of ·�alinity. The studies carried out by the Central Ground Water Board in this district reveal the fact that the saline aquifers occur in several parts, and in particular coastal tracts upto 80 meters from ground level. In fact, the studies carried out ·in the south-western parts of the district have revealed the occurrence of saline aquifers upto a depth of 300 meters thereby ruling out the possibility of ground water development. Although the exploratory drilling conducted in this district has revealed tt,e occurrence of fresh water aquifers beneath saline ones, it might be a too expensive proposition for an individual farmer tci reach freshwater at that depth. In the case of Thanjavur and Kanyakumari districts where well irrigation is insignificant, NIA also remains more or less .. • ------1 •. For details on the district wise ground· water ptitential in Tamil Nadu see, 'Report of the Group on the Estimation Ground of Water Resource and !rigation Potential from Ground Water in· Tamil Nadu', Chief Engineer (Ground wat er ) r • , G ov t f.o Tamil Nadu,. 1988. PWD · a b 1 e --:: .. r · . . :. bv 5 Years Moving Averages of NIA Sources Across Districts of Tamil Nadu, 1950-51 - 1984-65 �Area in �oo hectares> .. -·------� _ ..------..... ______...... -, .. - _...... _, ··--··-···--..---·---- -...- ---- · - · ...... _. ··- , ·vear ½ P.i. are� .i,,. r j._g_ated .QY '1/. of surface Dist. NIA irr·iqated. Ind e :{ tanal ·rank Well Other area sources supplerr,ented by . well irrigation -�------·------��------. ------Cher1 Jal 1 ·19. 4. '1578 ·1c,o 8 ..,:.} ..� ·12. 0 ·1 • 8 pattu 1952-53 2.9 r'f ,..,. ·15. 7 ·1956-·57 ·1797 ·1 ··14 2 .. 5 ·12. 3 2.2 83 .. 0 ·13 � ., ·19l:,0-6·1 2445 ·155 1 ..c, "JB. ·1 ·17 .2 2.8t:." ·14. 9 2. ,. :> 2(). 0 ·1'?64-65 2·158 ·137 '::>c...'- �1 80.3 ·10. 5 ·1968-69 225,6 143 2.7 76.2 ·18 .. 6 2.5 ·1972-73 2283 145 3 .. ·1 70.3 23.8 2.8 1 ·1 • 4. ,. ·14. 7 1976-7'7 2606 ·165 3.4 3 ·1. 4 ..I")_. a_, 62.4 ·14 .. ·1980·-81 ,�300 ·146 2. ·1 55.0 4 ·1 • ·1 ·1 • 8 5 • 2474 ·157 1. 8 ·1. 7 1 :) • 2 ------1983-84------52.2------44.3------�------0. 1 South 1952-53 228·1 ·100 32.6 45.0 22.3 5 ..2 ·1956-57 2406 ·105 3 ·1 • 0 45.0 19.6 4.4 �,.:.. t:• ::> Arcot . 6. ·1 / ..2 1960-6 ·1 2709 119 26.4 46.0 21. 5 . 7 . � ... ·1964-65 2620· ·1 ·t '.5 �-�5 • -+J' 49.0.... 22.4 3.2 2871 126 27 .. 2 ...:>�..... 0 30.9 3.9 ·12. 7 1968-69 ·1 -, • 4 ·1972-73 3087 ·135 25"� 7 32.0 38.2 4. ·1 1976-77 3315 ·145 24.2 28�0 45.0 2.8 ·13.3 ,.. I.r:;• I..J 1980-8·1 2620 24 24u7 . ,., V Q 53.3· ··2 .. 0 ·1 ·1 • 0 2761 ·12 ·1 ,., L.' ,.. ·1. 4 ·1983·-84 23.7 C.1·.t} 50.9 8.9 _ - · - ----.....------_------·· -·- - -··- ...... - · -· �-- ..__ ------�-- ... -· ..._ -.. - -- ·--·------...... -.._ . .. -- - _.... - r·o. e .*\ .... · 3 .., u ·1 North. .1 9 _}c,-.:), "'i, ·j l182 100 20.3 ..,. 5.7 60 .. 0 ., 2.9 :, ·1. C/ �_:;; .... 7"'I .•·,.. , {) 1. 8 ·18. 2 ·195(-,-·5 ·1·15 :>7. 0 ..::; . " Arcot 6.4 '"; ·19t:;0-6·1 ·123 7.0 52.0 37.7 3.4 ·18. 6 2075 · . ·1 !.]64··-t.:>5 2S64 152 6.0 55.0 35.2 3.7 1 , • 4 ·1r:; 68�-·69 245·1 ·146 5.3 4-8.0 45.3 ·1 .. 5 20.4 1 1") 'I 072-' .:) ·162 5 ,. 6 . -� , . 2733 40.0 53.4 0.8 .._.?3 9 ·197t.1-77 263t:> ·157 '·7.2 39.0 52.2 ·1. 5 20.3 ,...,Q ·1980·-8 ·1 ;:?.044 ·i...... '=>2 . c.. ' • 0 65 .. 0 {). 6 ·17.6 ..' 5.3 1 c;83-84 2·127 · 'i26 , 33 .. 0 -.. _ 3.8 62.7 0.4 -9�8 -·-·---�-·-· · ------· -- _.,- •I Co i rnba�- �i952-53 ·100 4 ·1. 9 ., c· 2006 ,-,.c:•c.. • .> • 4.4 68.4 0.6 • ·191::/:. · ..., ·1 ·1 �) r, tor(? :> :> -::.} / 2·197 38.9 � • ,..,,=. 56�9 ·1. 0 1 � 3 ' i: • ·1960-�6 ·1 ·129 4. ·1 •., .. 2583 2.8 55.4 0.8.. , 2.4 • ·1964-65 2382 ·1 ·19 • -...'j6 .. i::;_, .. 0 ; , . 2.5 60.0 4.4 ,I 'I ,I ·i968·-69 238t, ·1 ·19 45.6 c; ·1 ? j 2.0 ..., . - G.9 8.4 " ' ·155 ·1972-73 3 ·1 ·1 i' · 45.2 ·1 • 7 52. ·1 0.9 8.4 I 1976-7"7 ·152 42.8 1 • 5 55.5 7.6 .1 3046 0.3 c:· :�1 ·1980-8 ·1 3144 15·7 42 .. 4 ·t • 8 55.7 0.2 :::> .(. • w ------1983-·84------299·1- ----149------3c:>� ---7 ------�--1. 5 56.0------5 .. 8 7.5 I ,I . � ,. 5 MadL1rai 1952-53 ·1722 ·100 32.0 30.1 36.0 ·1 • 9 B. 1 f ·1956-57 ·1826 106 3·1. 0 1. 5 7 .. 6 ,. 30.2 37. 3 1960-6·1 1874 109 33 .. 6 28. 9 36.0 1. 5 6.5 • ·1964-65 ·1896 ·1 ·10 35 ..4 26.3 37.2 ·t • ·1 5.7 ·1968-69 203·1 118 3·1.5 25.8 4 ·1. 6 1 • ·1 6.0 ' 19:72-73 2067 120 29.0 23.8 46.3 0 .. 9 s.o ·1976�77 2·164 ·126 24.4 25 .. t., 49. 1 0.9 4. 6 t'l ·1980-8 1 .. ·- •..1 lr � .. 53u3 2?7� ·132 24. ·1 22 . 0.·6 3. 7 ·1983--84 · 2·143 ·124 25.3 19 u <;,\ 54.2 0.6 2. 9 ------...----- ··------... -·•l--·--.. ---·.... ·--·------·------ 1 Rarr«ana- 1c;·s2-- 53 ·1 ...,.I •.. J.,'l ·100 16.2 ·1. 4 1.3 · r:: 0.2.. 82.2 . ·1956·-57 ·1 7 I 124 0 .. ·1 · thapu- '::J!.... , ··r 86.6 13 .. ·1 0.2 0.3 r arn ·196<)-c> ·1 · 4 ··�,:- 139 ·10. 4 0. ·1 1.4 ,..':.? ,..,.,:S 0.1 89.4 ·19t..>4�-·65 r..�,...,..� ...... ·. 1 C/ ·132 ·1 ·1 • 3 0.2 0.6 ...> 0.0 88.5 1968-69 C.,,3 °2 1:16 o. ·14 .. 2 '1 1 85 .. 5 0.2 3.0 ·1972·-73 2249 1.28 0 .. 2 83.1 ·16. 6 0. ·1 6.6 ·1976-w77 2376 .·135 o. 1 0. ·1 o 82.3 17.5 6. 6 ·1980-8·1 237·1 ·135 o· .. 79.9 ·19. 5 0.6 7.0 ·1983-84 22·19 7.0 ------·------·-----··-·-·----·--··127--·------o.o ____78.2.. _____ 2·1. ..______0 0.8 ·rirliChi ·1952-53 ·1857 ·100 37.2 2 ·1. 0 3.0 · 39.8 2.0 ·195c:>-57 2036 ·1 ·10 35.5 37.5 22.9 -4.·1 2.6 ·1960- ·61 · 2076 1 ·12 41.3 :13 ..4 23.2 2. ·1 5.6 ·t. 5 '1964-65 2·152 1 ·16 38.2 35.3 25.0 9.1 1968-69 2330 ·125 34.8 34.0 29.3 1. 9 8.5 1972-73 2656 ·1 43 34 ..·1 35.4 28.4 2. 1 4. 4 197(;,-77 284·1 ·153 31.3 38.3 29.4 1.0 2.9 ·1980-81 2656 ·143 '32.5 35.1· 3·1. 8 0.6 ·1.9 1983-84 234 .., 126 ·33 ., 6 32.6 33.7 0.4 ·1.5 --·------·------·------·..... ------.:----- ,..; Thanj a 1952-53 4806 100 95.0 4.6 0. 4 o.o 0.5 vur 1956-57 4847 10 ·1 95.0 5.0 0.0 ·1. 3 7'4 .. 0 o.o 0.4 1960-6 ·1 5009 ·1 Q,:;. 5.3 0.7 0 .. 0 0 .. 3 1964-65 5048 105 93.0 5.8 1. 2 o.o ·1968-69 5093 ·106 93 .. 0 5.8 ·1 • 2 0.9 ·1 o.o ·1972-73 -!1-824 100 Q ·1. 4 2. 7 ·1. 4 - 94.0 1' I ·1r-176-(;,so-s77. 4586 95 96 ..0 ·1 .. 4 ·1. 8 0 .. 8 2.4 ·1 ·1 l�-86 ·1 ·10 ·1 2.0 ·1 • 8 ,-1 94.0 2 ..2 2.6 ·1983- 84 4,7 ,.,_. 7! I 0�._, ·1 • 6 · · C:• . ,,.� 9·1. 0 5.2 2.2 2. 3 --....-- _ --·- ...... ·�--·· _.. ·- -· ·-· ...... _., - ··--·-- -·------'""1 1i ,-.,•7 T 1. U TI ··- .19r." ,:.'}1.:::·w·"'> :} ...·- ., ,., L7..8 ·'I QC) ·16. 6 C.. • .. 8 1 • ·1 r· e 1 'lI .t.•. 54.8 0.8 •"I M :>o·-C: . . · t;_,..,'°"" I ·1,..�·3o.. ::i. ., ·104 ·15. 6 3·1 .. 2 1. 1 veli ''l 52.5 0.8 �. ·11:;5 7 ·1? ·1 ·1960-i, ·1 �J I .... 0.7 1. 3 .-t t'.'*. T '"> 14.3 55.7 29.3 ·1 ·::; tJ4-l:> 5 I_}/ c:.. ·122 ·13. 4 53.4 32.2 1.0 1.1 ·1968-69 ·1 tJ:29 ·127 13.4 48.2 37.2 0.2 3.5 .. � ·1972-73 ·"1622 126 ·14 .. 5 45.2 39.7 0.6 3.4 - 159 ·1 ·124 39 ..·1 ·1 � • ·1976· 77 ·13.6 45.7 "wJ 6.4 1657 . · ,... 6 1980-8·1 ·129 13. 5 48.6 37.3 \J • 4.3 1983-84 t\lA NA t'\JA NA NA NA ------..- --·--·--NA------ • ' . 6 NA t{anya- ·1 952-53 N?'i f'..tA NA NA t,J A NA k urr,ar i. 1956-57 297 ·100 53.8 45.2 0.6 0.4 0.2 ·1960-61 286 96 74.7 24.8 0. ·1 0.4 0.2 ·1964-65 302 ·102 64 . ·1 33.5 0.7 ·1 • 7 1.8 ·1968-69 320 108 60 .9"' 36.2 0.6 2.3 • 0.8 ·1972-73 3·15 ·106 59. i 37 .& 0.9 1.. 6 o.o:·1 I 1976-77 286 96 47 .7 48. 4. ,1 . 0 2.9 " · ·1980-8 ·1 286 .. 96 41.7 1.3 1.6 () .. 0 55.4 0 .. ·1 ------�----1983-84 273 ------92 42 .6 56.5 ------1.0 0.0------6 .. 6 ·16 . �: Salem 1952-53 ·1 211 100 .• ·1 0.6 27.0 55.8 1956-57 1360 ·1 12 13.2 2·1.0 57. 1 8.7 8.7 3. ·1 ·1 () .. 2 ·1960-61 · 1435 ·1 ·18 17.7 19.0 60.2 1964-65 ·1680 139 ·16.3 ·1 7. 0 62.2 4.5 ·19 .. 3 •'1 968-69 ·. . 182t.) 15 ·1 16.2 ·1 8 .. 0 64 .8· 1.0 ·14. 3 :1 972-'73 . 1980 ·164 12.3 ·1 7. 0 69 .. 7 ·1 . 0 ·i 4. 9 -, ·1852 ·1 5·3 12.4 I 2 ·-y ·1 9.9 12.0 ._ ., i 0.9 1976-77 .. · 'j . I 1 'l 7... .,,·.. . !'"\"I' ,..> ...... •; .... ·1980-8·1 . 158 1t 9.0 .. ;. , 4.3 18 .. S I \-· ·1l.... 4A'' ·1 983-·84 '-,1!,Jl.) ·1 3<;> ·1 0 .. 0 _) .. ,) ·l • 0 16. 1 ...... _ · ··- -· ...... 13.4 -,/ I:" t...... ,. _ ----..------. ..- ·· -· ·- ,. ... ·· ---· ------..... ·------· ------ Note: c·hengalpattu distri ct is at �resent called Chengai-Anna district ; North Arcot dis.t rict includes Ti ruvannamala i Sambuvarayar and North Arcot Ambedkar districts; Coimbatore includes Periyar distr·ict; Madura i includes Guaide-Milletl� district; Rarnanathapura.m includes . l" asumpon Muthurarr,a lingarr,l' Kdmarajar atid Ramanathapuram districts� · Thanj avur includes Pudukotta.1 district; Ti runelveli includes Cil idambaranar and Nellai Kattibomman distr icts; Salem i,1cludes Dharmapuri district. NA - Not Available · . . ., • • ·---·. ··-·-·- .. • 7 ·FIVE YEAR A:VERAGE OF AREA IRRIGATED BY SOURCES IN CHENGAL.PAmJ OT. 2.6 .. 2.4 2.2 . ,- ·• 1.8 ,,. , 1.6 /' Vl• r . w 11 � ft: u 1.4 ,JY e�0 1,2 w :I l: � z ,_,, - � 0.8 0 . .6 0.,4 0.2 t I I I 0 83 53 sg, 62 65 1, n 80 YEARS. 0 NI". . + CANAL. <> TANK• d WELL. • • • i:,. ...._ . .. ---· - . --... -- · 1 1 --, I -; ;; li 8 - FIVE. YEAR AVERAGE OF AREA IRRIG. ATED s·y SOURCES tN SOUTH ARCOT OT, 3.4 3 . .2 3· 2.8 2.6 ,a ... 2.4 .. 2 U) ...-... , ,L. r.ti � �oft: C 2 ) " w 1.8 ()::J .r. f= � .._. 1.6 .� > �, 1.4 ,, t .2 1 o.a --.... r-1--t-- -...-,��� :---0,..--r-- a,-di +--+-� ��-t--.....-....,. � 0,6 � �� 0.4 ...--..---.----...--'t"-""'0...--..---,-______,...--.....,.______T"""-1�------4 ___ -+--r--...... • • 56 7t 77 80 YEARS. 0 NIA, -t CANAL. � TANK, WEli.. • , • . _.. -·------9 Fl\/E YEAR A\/ERAGE OF AREA IRRtGATED B'Y SOURCES IN NORTH ARCOT OT. 2.e 2.6 .. 2.4 2.2 ,. 2 1,8 13� 1.6 It: V ii , .4 w� 0:::, �t 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0,2 u s.3 56 59 71 74 77 80 YEARS. 0 NIA . CANAL. <> TANK. A WEU.. • • • .. ...• . { :, . ; •· " . . . •,i..·.·, . \�. ··-· ...... ·- ··-..· -. ·----·-- ·-·---,-; -.- ...,,,..11 ,,..,....H : - ·-- I -,i � . 10 FIVE YEAR AVERAGE OF AREA IRRIGATED BY SOURCES fN COIMBATORE OT. 3.2 .3 2.8 2.6 2.• 2.2 • • �- , .8 - It V 1 .$ ��,) ! W o 1. r. f- 4 � ,_ 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0,4, • 0.2 0 53 56 59 62 65 71 74 n 80 YEARS. 0 NIA. -+ CANAL.. <> TANK. WEU.. • •·r . . , • ., · 1 '. ·. .1. ··� .·/• • • ·- - . ·--· .. . . . -· - . ·-····-· . , ...... --·--· ···------·· ------·-··-· -·----. . 11 . . ARE. A lRRIGATED BY FIVE. YEAR AVERAGE OF · SOURCES IN MADURAf OT. 2.4- 2.3 2.2 2.1 � 2 1.9 1 ,8 1.7 , 1.6 w(I)" " . It 1 .5 'trC · 1.4 � � w& 1.3 'I. F � .. .,, 1.2 1.1 t 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 u.-· �I n eo 5.3 56 59 71 74 YEARS. 0 NIA. CANAL.. · � TANK. WELL • .a.a. fr !i I li.i i, ! I 12 FtVE 'r1EAR A\/ERA\GE OF AREA IRRIGATED BY SOURCE'S iN RAMAN.ATHAPURAM OT. 2.6 2. 4 ... 2.2 ..• f) -- 2 $...... ,.__,_� .� 1.8 1.6 wU)' r.,. It "0'C , ,4 ;! 0 () ., IJ • I: :I 0 1.2 -zt 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 I) 53 56 59· 62 65 71 74 77 80 83 YEARS. NJA, CANAL TNiK. + Qi WELL J 13 ... FIVE YE.�R A\/ERAGE C) F AREA IRRIGATED BY SOURCES fN TIRUCHfP.APAUJ OT. 2.8 2.6 2.4 2.2 f3-;;- 1.8 ·oi !" \,6 liJ:t :J() it 1.4 1.2 ' 0.8 0• ..t) 0.4 0 • £_.... 77 83 53 65 71 74 eo YEARS. . 9 TANK, A WELL. ,, • --····· .. ·------· -· · i.f. !! .:. :JI:.. ,, .. If . ,.. 14 B Frv'E )·'EAR AVERAGE OF AREA IRRIGATED 8)1 SOURCE'S IN THANJAvUP. OT. \ ··"· 4 ·' �-(J'J .r. I 3 ew :)! l: " z .....,� • i i 53 62 71 74 77 so 0 NJA. + CANAL WELL • :, .. ' ·--·- ...... - 15 CB FrVE YEAR AV ERAGE () f- AREA IRRIGATED B''( SOURCES IN T!RLINELVEL! OT. - . 8 -r--··- ·-··--...-.------··------, . ····----·· ··- --·--··· 1.7 -� • .... 1 .6 e e o- i s e e 1.5 ...a 1,4 1.3 • 1.2 tl� a: ..,., 1.' �� :r:w :,0 zE 0.9 0,8' ... . � 0.7 A A ��, A ---d �� 0.6 .ta. , 0.5 0.4 0,3 0.2 53 56 62 71 74 77 80 83 YEARS. 0 · �IA. CANAL i> TAHK. WELL. • J ... ---- . ·-· ---·. 16 FIVE Y'EAR AVERAGE OF AREA . IRRIGATED . . ' BY SOURCES JN ft)\.f'!YAKU. ' M.A.�f or.. 340 -----·- -·-----�---······--·------S:20 300 280 26t) 240 220 200 180 ,eo z 1-10 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 58 61 67 70 7.3 76 19 e1 , 0 NIA. YEARS. + CANAL . � TANK. WELL. • • ) 1. 7 F'I\/E YEAR A\/ERA(]E OF AREA IRRIGATEC, BY SOURCES IN SALEM OT. 1.! 1 1.8 1.7 1.$ 1.5 , .-4 1.3 1.2 1.1 1 .0.9 0.8 0.,7 0.6 I 0.5 0.4 0.3 .. '::t:--., .. 0.2 o. 1 • 5.3 68 71 74 77 80 83 YEARS. 0 �.,,.,, + CNIAL.. 'C> TM�K. WELL -· -··· ·--···-----··----. -·· -· . - ... -· . -. -. ·-·--·-. -. ----�.- -d -i --i i.- -d1:�--- . , ·1 8 . ... Overall ,, t h e i n t e r·-e s t i n g po 1n"' ·that err,erges is that wherever· area under we ll irrigat ion has gone up quite sharply, area under surface irrigation has come down rather steeply wh ich .. clearly indicates that sub-surface irrigation has become an important source much more than the conventional source like • tanks in some parts of the state. This also gives an indication that there is a greater scope for conj unctiv.e use of surf�ce and sub-surface waters in the command areas of tanks and canlas. Data presented in Table-1 r relating to we lls supplementing surface sources, is gros�ly understated; but it certainly indi cates that conj un ctive use of surface and �round water lS gainin� significan ce in several parts of the State. In this context this paper atempts at a modest level , · discussion on the pattern of ground water utilisation 1n the State. In particular, the interest is to examine the phenomenon of conjunctive use of surface and ground water: The extet1t of its prevalence in the selected command areas of Tamil Nadu and its impact on crop pattern, cropping intensity and productivity. The selected command areas are Palar Anicut System (PAS > and Parambikulam-Aliyar Project (PAP>. The PAS is an age old system irrigating an. estimated ayacut of 81000 acres through series of tanks (about 317 tanks > mostly in North Arcot and to small extent in Chengalpattu districts. Fo r the pur.poses of detailed 2 survey . 15 tanks have been selected somewhat purposively to -----·----...... --- 2. The survey was a part of the project funded Ly the Central Plann ing Comrnissiori , Govt.of India and was carried out in Madras Institute of Development Studies under the overall guidance of ProfvA.Vaidyanathan . l"he survey was carried out in different phases during 1986� 87 . • ·------·1 9 caver various reaches across main/branch channels as well as to capture various characteristics of tanks such as size, sources of .. and ,. I supply 1 so on� • ·r he PAP :t s >!." fa. :i. r 1 y new cana 1 irrigat ion system irrigat ing of 2400�0 acres through the net work of main/branch canals and distributar1es. The PAP came i�to operation during late 1960s and irrigates the dry tracts of Coimbatore and Periyar districts .. This Proj ect wes designed mainly fo r rai si..ng dry irrigated crops and we t crops (like paddy ) were permitted only in low-lying areas or in the areas wh ich pose serious drainage problems. Thus . as per the original design, 80% of the ayacut was devoted to dry irrigated cropg and 20% to wet crops. For the purposes of detailed survey 12 distributa�ies from two rr1a 1n canals have been selected viz. 1 Parambikulam Main Canal (PMC > an d 3 Udumalpet Canal (UPC) • The paper is orga,,ized in the following manner : Section-2 C d i '$ u s s e �� l'l'I;..:;, i r1 1 )I t h e ::: C) n e p t O f' C O n j tl n C i V . i1 ,;;;. ;::.... its : C t C• ... .. '1 significance in Indian agriculture and so on; sections 3 & 4 are devoted to .... analyse the impact of conj unctive use - the evidences from PAS Li and PAP respectively an sect ic>n-5 pl"ovides the concludin•J observat ions .. -----..---�---- 3. For d@tails on these t�o systems and methodology adopted see Vaid�yanathan .A, and SuJanakarajan (1989 > . · • . . 1 ;: . m.:;·,.1, . ' ••• .....';:'Q :, There are two ways of utilising ground water for irr igation: One , as the sole well irrigation, and two, as supplementing ... surface sources of irrigation. While the former may be seen ., -· generally in dry lands (�here there are no sur(ace sources of i r r i ga t i 011 ) , the latter may be .four1d 1n cartal or tank comn1ands . The crop pattern and. productivity in the are�s where wells serve . .. , ,, as the only source of irri,gat i or1 Ci.e • ., in the so called 'dry· ' lands) �ill be completely different from canal or tank irrigated areas . Unless and otherwise ground water is available 1n plenty,. the generally observed crop pattern in su �h dry tracts would be coarse cereals such as ragi r maize, bajra, pt.a 1 s e s ,et c • and oil seeds such as groundnu't and so on .. · Un less ground w..=:tter • extraction matches recharge , even in the areas where ground water is available in plenty, the tonstant use of ground water and overcrowding of wells may result in de pletion of ground water source .. Ult in1ately, due to ov�r exploitation 1 ground water table i:1 0 of rr,ay ., down very Jeep �tiich may result ir� higt) cost ground water extract ion. This has infact been the case in several parts of Salem, Periyar , and Coimbatore districts in Tamil nadu, where the extraction rate is much more than the recharge. In . Coimbator· e district r which has a long history of ground water • irrigation, water table dur ing the 40 years preceding 1969 1s 4 estimated to be lowered by as much as 16.5 metres. .., ------4. See for a detai !ed discussion on this issue Palmgren and Jakobson (1982 >. .1 ---··- -· ---- \ N�vertheless, 9round .water use in associa t ion with adequate 0 and r· e charg 'I.;" may be extremely conducive des irable for c ro c, The r �.- '.. .. ,to 1 IC';" ._, production . 11atural l O , .... ,.,,. r 9"" thro ugh rainfall may be helpful, in part icular, for those wells located in the dry lands . But due to the frequent fa ilure of monsoon recharge 1s very often found to be less than the ex t ract ion r�teu the natural recharge thr ough rainfall is unpredictable. Bu t the recharging .. - 1· .; £ .· ... .; • . *! ·1 ,,. c:\ f (, .f. I .f. I� .,. (;)!. •• "11 .,, ," through 1 I\:: -:: .. I / ;,1 such as percolation ponds, tanks, canals, may serve a useful purpose, but may be re stricted on ly to respective command areas. However, 1 rt s orr1e canal comn�ands results in wa terlogging causing dra inage and ·1988) . Hence a proper mariagemen t of surfa ce and sub-surface water is needed in the canal and tank commands taking into accoun t the fa c tors such as the ava ilab ility of ground water potential, pun\p1ng rate, extent of recharging desirable and actual exten t of recharging, drainage conditions, soil .t)lpe an d so on . • ThlJS the techn ique of conj unct ive use of surface water and - ... . . •"\ 1 94' oJ "•• \.. ground water has becorne a very serious ...... 1; ... in the recent times precisely b�cause of the strong ��lt need fo r an i. ntegra ted Oi� approach w• ci-"', ,t.. \.o:3" • · the lnd�an aur... arian con,.:i i \,ions. i The Irr igat ion Commission (1972 ) clearly indicated the t eed for = conjunctive use and infact emphasised the importance of takirtg into account the ground wat er position while ittempt ing on river- bas in plan�:; . Thus the Irr igat ion Commission stated: 22 11 Surface and •;I round water resour t: es are i nte r-1 inked• The refore, integrated studies are needed to cover both .. s 11 the re s our c e < pS 11 v o 1 • j > Seventh Five Year Plan also emphasised so much on this issue an d strongly recommended that the existing irrigation facilities could be put to the best use if ground water irrigation is encouraged in the command areas • The Nat ional Water Policy confirms the views of the Planning Commission and the Irria- ation Commission. "I.ntegrated and co-orai.nated development of' surface water ' . and ground water and their conj unctive use should be envi saged right from the proj ect planning stage and should 6 11 form an essential part of the project • What does mean by conjunctive method of irrigation? The Irrigation· Commission interpreted the conjunctive use as follows : 11 1 t c a 1, take t he f o r m o f f u 1 l u t i 1 i sati on of' s u r f'a c e wa t e r supplies supplemented by ground water or the direct use of ground water during the periods of low canal supplies or canal closures. --·-·.------.. 1 5. 1 The conj unctive use progratTtme under the various development sectors would be co-ordinated so that the existing irrigation facilities are put to the best use and the gestation period of irrigation utilisation under maj or and medium irrigat ion schemes is reduced". Seventh fi�e Year Plan, 1985-90, Vol .II, p.80- 6. Govt.of India, Ministry of Water Resources, Nat ional Water Policy, New Delhi , 1987 � P.9. " " ... -·-· .. _ .. ______,, It can al so take the form of irrigating pockets exclusi vel y with ground w1·•a ter· -�- t t � ,r.:, r�... ,.:� r, r-� ..1 C OITlfflc.1TId r especially where the te rrain is (q �/ ...,�13 '1''1 uneven 11 !- "70 :- • \..! . ,..J . .- ., Schol a�s who have been working in this look i�t the conj 1..1n ctive t1 se in al rr1ost s imila.r an•]le. ,..,t Tushaar �;'\"' ( ·1988 ) wa.ys · of �-'"\ ·, conjl1nctive use : First. supplementing wel l water wh�n either canal water or tank water is inadequate and/or un rel iable; second , purr,ping the we ll t wate r into the canal to augmeit t·he canal water resources; Th ird 7 the ca11al system itsel f should be designed in such a .way to prov ide e: irrigation and thereby inducing farmers to go in tor well irrigation as a supplementary source . Palanisamy (1988 ) and Venkata Reddy (1988 ) conf irm the superior nature of conj un ctive use in crop production in ti,eir studies of use of well irrigation ,? · �v • in tank commands and cana l cc> rr,rr,a n d s r e s [,I c: t i v e 1 Dhawan (1988 ) 1 n fact goes a ste p ahead to argue that the wall i r r i •J a t ion in the C G fl1ff1 -:::..:. i'l (l farmers during drought years also. Thus , he s t��tes ... ,. ,, . ' ·1-'" a·t gr·ound water availability is substantially enhanced the nf canal/tar,k water we ll Consequently, dugwells Lnd tube wells benefitting f' rorrt such ... -1::\..,. .. ,., e are n1uc:h less affected by drought · than ·:., ,-: L t-' d � those located •. outside the commands of canal s and tanks . . � ...... Fa rmers can substitute more costly ground water for low cost (f rom ttleir private angle) surface water whenever surface suppl iei diminish due to drought • Such conj l1nct ive �se �s of ground) and surface . . ... --- ..-- --··- ... ,_ 24 waters are best placed to withstand effectively the adverse output impact of a droUhgt•• CP. 187 Dhawan. , 1988). On the whole, from our foregoing discussion, the following points emer ge: 1. The surface and ground water s ar·e interl inked and they tomplem�nt each other . P�ecisel y for th is reason the price of ground water or the cost of water extraction will be more when the sur face sources are depleted and vice-versa. Moreover, the use of ground water constantl y for a long period of time may prove dangerous and may resul t �n ecological imbalances. 2. The use of surface water along with grou11d water protects farmers in the co1omand areas to a great extent from the vagaries of uncertainity of su rface sources. lneffect, the conjunctive use helps farmers to overcome the chronic drawbacks ol surf.ace irrigation such as i�regul ar and inadequate supply. 3. The constant use ol canal or tank water over a per iod of time in areas where the re are inadequate drainage facilities , the problen1s of water logginQ and $Oil salinity will surface. Both - yield. sal inity and waterlog·ging may drastical ly reduce the. cr op I But the proper management of ground water in the command areas may minimise these problems to a great extent. 4. Wasteful use of precious surface water may be conserved if well water is also used along with surface water. Moreover ; by the conjunctive method of i��igation , larger ar ea coul d be brought under cultivation or in other words , extensive rather 25 • ' thi.lll in tensivu cultivatinn is p0ssible . if surface irriBati�n or•'.'\ �·, 1 systems ,- .i, V (ri3ht from the �rQjcct i· ' ... ann;� n,t:>.., ...... takin� into �ccount the availability .·�, f of cxistin� wells in the �ye.cut, ir.46, C:�.� h \.�·- numhcr .I tho ' . av�ilablo ground w�ter r0tential �nd so on o . t� which farmers can sust�in C')O(litil'lS , irr ir�a t ion in c:)u1m,:incl araas " ... , ..., .. • • (1988) ,.,... .·.- ·,::9 •', •. ·-- ··-···-- - ··· -·-··· ' ------·-· .• ------·--·· ···-···· - -- - .. ···-··- -·- ----· ·-., ·- 26 3.Impact of Conjunctiv� Use ...The Case of Palar Anicut Systcm(I?1\S) As it has been menti1Jnei �arlier , 15 tanks fe1 ty PAS h3ve �een selected for the detailed survey. Of these, one is a .. t�nk having an ayacut of 6500 acres irrigating 14 villages . So, for the purpose of our analysis we have solected ayacuts in the doe�est sluice and in the olevated sluica. In the d�cpest sluice ' · ()f a herJ1 roach vil lat.:;� an(l frr)1n a tail cn.1 villac:e. Since most ()thcr t3nks are sin:�lo villa��o tanks 9 ·sample plos t1ave been so.lccted from th� entire tnnk ayc1cut. In effect si s11.mple pl "Jts have �,e,., C·::ln Size �f the s�mple is 40 l)t· t.h l) lcts fr•om each ayacut si which 5 are plots wi wells . Such a sampling procedure was adQpted with the expectation th�t only those plots which have walls would receive well irri3ati�n o access to well irrigation from tha ad jacent wells-either own �r purchsed . Tabl�-2 gives informatin on the �:xtcnt of conjunctive use in the sample nnn�wcll plots during 1985-86 � which was a normal year ., In terms of the extant or Lonjunctivc use in �he sclact�d ,,)n(":l :t -:.ts Fir·stly j tank ayacuts � . ...,, '. ··' \; ..,. quito a varied picture : observe two extrame situati�ns� (a) there are two tanks (Paranthur and Neervalur ) where well irrigation is nil or insignificant and the only source of irrig3tion J.S tanko In thosG two tanks � perccntasa of area r,3porting tank irrigation is of the order of 92oOJ arid 89 o0% respectively o ( l) ) On the c>th�r ·--·-· -·- - . _,.. . :! . · ...... "i' . ,,. . . .. �.. ..·�·, . .. "� . , , 27 Table 2 Eroport.io:u of Area 11nder Conjunctive uae. < in :Rercentagesl . in the Sample. lion--Well Plote and Well Pex� Acre, 1985-66 ------.. ------..,_-- ·· ---·------Sl Tanks W only (T+W)+W T R/ Total Well No .. only only· Not per ..... culti acre ------�------vated------1 KVP-LS-H 42 . C• 0 42 .. 0 24.0 34 ..0 100.0· 0.26* 2 KVP-LS-T 3�0 8 .. 0 11.0 0 89.0 100 .. 0 0.26* 3 KVP-Gafoor 0 50.0 50 .. 0 () 50.0 100.0 0.26* 4 Peruvalayam 37 .. 0 14.0 51 � () 42 .0 'l . 0 100.0 0.04 5 Agavalam 70 ..0 9.0 79 .0 13.0 8.0 100 .0 0.14 6 0 · Thaklto lam 58 ..0 38.0 96.0 4 .. 0 100.0 0.18 1 Karive,iu 8.0 10 .0 18 .. 0 52 .. 0 30 .0 100.0 0 ..01 .8 Perumbuli- ·pakkam 3.0 66_0 69 .. 0 0 31 .. 0 100 ..0 0.25 9 Poigai nallur 0 39 .0 39.0 0 61.0 100.0 0.16 1.0 T iruppu"""!. kuzhi 0 66.0 66.0 0 34.0 100.0 0.07 11 Pudup pakkam 30 .0 0 30 .0 62 .0 8.0 100.0 0.02 12 Paranthur 3.0 0 3.0 92 .0 5.0 100.0 0.1 13 Neervalur 0 0 0 89 .0 11.0 100.0 0.00 14 Velur 18.0 42 .0 60.0 5.0 35 .0 100.0 0.20 15 Vembi 0 89 .0 89.0 () 11 .. 0 100.0 0.28 16 Sirun- gattur '"/6. 0 .. 1.0 80 .0 7.0 13 ..0 100 .. 0 0 ..33 )' 0 0 i) 17 Kali:,ru_r ,• ., ..L - 67 . 12.0 100 ..0 0.21 --- ...... ·- . .. ·-- 21 .. 0 -..----_ -----· - . .. -·--- . . -- - -- ·------KVP-LS-H = Kaveripakkam - Lion Sluice - Head KVP-LS--T = Kaveripakkam - Lion Sluice - Tail KVP-Gafoor = Kaveripa.k.ka.m - Gafoor sluice .. Notes: * For t�e entire Kaveripakkam tank ayacut T+W = Atleast once in a year a plot should have received tank plus well irrigation. It also includes Tank only in one season and well only in the second season in the same year . T only : It will be either tank only and Tank plus Rainfall W only : It �ill be either Well only or Well plus Rainfall R : Rainfali (Sotirce: Surv�y) • b ------·-·--·------· ··- ·-.. · -··--·--··-· · - ----..------I H l:i� - .;, . .i oxtreme 9 there are five tdnks (Gafoor sluice� Perumbulipakkam i l?oigainall ur 9 Ti;.·11ppukk 1:·'? 1J :i ::i1d Ven1b i) where it is ins i�nit' ican t or absolutely no tank irrigat ion . !n these tanks 1 perce . ' ntng� reporting well irrigation is of the order of 501� 66% , 39% 9 66% and 89% respcctive lyo In betweer1 f there are 10 tanks where oaly tr.1nk j_rrig.�tion and only Wl:ll vnrios from Oto 67%� Secondly, if ono goes by the strict interpretation of the conju�c tive use as plots racoi ving • 4,. both tank and well waters 1 J_ t, in seen that only in few tanks such r0porting of co!1junctive use J.3 · • . • r.-, I significant ..r. or .1.1..s (n... .nc\;., .., (See Tablo- ,. �Y\ KVP,... l,Ii lf2% 2) o t 9 ·r ... \, in is Peruvalayam 37%j Agav� lam 70% i Thnkkolam 58% and Sirunga. th11r In all othe tanks it v�rics from Oto 30%0 :i.t. m,1 kes u lot of diff'er·cnce t�f w.:i sligt1tly rel£lX the de:f' i11i tioi:, Of'.. • conjunctive use as the t. j_ or1 plots reporting • ... •..• • i' well irrigrt C• • 11 l ,:- 'I a. s j ') well as tf.tnk plus welJ o r·�... ;-1.�a tion � 1 hc rationB.le for -� tich tio r·elaxation of defin:ition t1 ld coi. e be nmar1d ·=i ·� . . that i'-1ells in the ·. -4 J.· SC:::. . a. of tsnks are recl')argc�d from tanks ::-::··� � h�3nc� even thoso olots• which received only well water ina 8 ffcot usc,J tha surfaao water to some extent., Wo will seo th3 t from lablo-? under che changed definition -?.�.r�)a repDrting conjtlncti tis..-.:: (if�,, area v· o 9 ii reporting + (t+w) w) only is quite si gnificant in several tanks such as KVP--..Gaf oor ( 5 1 % ) ., ( 79 Th�kkola !) • • - %)� m (96%) 1 PerumbulipAl 01gaina.t 1.. ur :k�m (691), 1. Bo For a detail0d discussion surface on ground water recharge from sources and its impact on prodt Dhawan (1988) 1ctivity sac 29 (39%) , Tiruppukkuzhi (66%) � Volur (60%) i Vambi (89%) Sirungattur (80%)o It is low or insignificant only in tanks such 9 .. as KVP-L-T, Karivedu, Pudupakkam Paranthur i Necrvalur 1 nnd Kaliyur where it r3nges from Oto 30�� This is precisely because in these tanks , �ell density is very low er nil exoapt in Kaliyur · .l .. t·.. ·. � .J.. • t'!l�c• nk... 7 w· n· ,,....,c 'fl1I,_,. \�. ..._ .-.L ry:.. ···r � . \..4 •""· . ., ...... O n 21 � (' i'' (:'.\ ; s but still araa reporting {t+w ) ' "" ·, ) 1 ..,.., � .J.y. · .1.... 04• ,.. p .. This is b8causo 1 this tank r�ccivcs almost ragul�r l and assured supply from two other systems other than PAS 9 wh ish i" ac ili t:-1 t. ��s f armt:r to grow '..; et crops with tank t-1�ter . Thirdly s; it is interesting to note that in so• me of thos� tanks (ParurobulipRkkam , P0igainnl lur· , Tiruppukhuzhi and Vembi) ta11l< is basically as a percolation pond for recharging purposes into wells in the command araaw It was in f1ct u 1· .-. ,:. � ta11k Wh ,.:: ,n,·, CJ •1 • lriJ -..,,..... �pocj_fically mentioned in the case of Vembi ',;;• .L ....., C, have been permanently cJ os0d o Moreover in these tanks farmers . +- • t a k e a b so 1 u�t o l y no in��r-I• "'\ esv in th.e main, t enance cf channel� distributaries , fi�ld ch�nnals and so on o l.n oth0r �r·e defunct these tanks ? -�-:b..i. le it rof·lects on t, itc i11t(Jnsity· of conj11nctive it cJ f ·those \·! 1 do h�; ,1s0 9 irec tly af ::?c ts 10 not ve r:tccess to . grour1d wa t(�r � in partiC;ular r'(;S�" :lurce poor farm�rs o In Table ..... 3 area benefiting :t:rom. \1cll ir.rig:.1tion h2ve be,:r1 cst.in1ated for the total aycc:1t and .f or ttto GC1l of t.�nk t-:. y"1cut us ing the sampla wo• ll plotso Thin d�ta very much confirms our a2mple data an,1lysis rGpcrted in TeblG-2� ---.------··---··· --· - ·--· ·- ·· ·-·· J 1 ,_n ....a:i f; -�o Havins seen the extent of c�njunc·tive uso in the ayacuts of .. selected tank irri�ated areas 9 I shall now turn to Jiscuss its iz11p9.ctD Table-4 1emJnstr�tes difforcncos in intensity amr,n 'i' c:: ,· ... "-··..- ... [)lots 3.n,1 nJ well The variati�n is clearly seen bctwaon normal vea• r r·,,·, ( 1986... ,87 } 1 . . .. i•<- (1985-86) and drought year 0 The followin::; nts e1nerr.��-· (1 from o - this ·tabla . • • ------···· ...... 31 Table 3 Estimated Ar·ea under Total .b��.7acut of Selected Benefj.tinP. from Well Irri�e.t�icn 1985-86 ------�------ .. Tanks -- --.. _ --· ---Ar·ea.---- of-- ave.cut------__ J_ ------rp.: ... t () l 0 .. r ..J... % reportin� well ir·rililatior.:. "·'-� e ,.. 1 ...... ; ,,.y.". � - D�"-'· ro.,,..e � YI... ") �ation ------".. KVP-LS-H 736_6 17 .9 !�A .. tA 0.26* ...l.l ..b � ..., ...., �!A f\ ....':>A� ..· KVP-LS-T 385 .9 9.9 , 7r:, "' KVP-Gafoor 59 .0 52.5 81 .1 . �.� Peruvalayam NA t-tA �JA NA 0.01 • >.T·"·.A t-!A 0.11 Ae..avalam NA 1'1A () 1 A Thakkolam · 411 .. 4 97 .2 AA..., ...... ,,� " ...... _, ) Kar· i v· edu 480 .. 1 18 .. 7 117 ..·1 23.5 0.01 p·erumbu li- ,q�? A pakkam 159 .. 5 72.2 ..,....,...... 1.AQ 1 "...,. .. 1. P..., � •w • � Poiaainallur 132 .9 41.4 01A () 01 () r\7 ""'�.. .., f\ ., . ..., . TiruP-Pukuzhi 538.4 67 .4 ""4-•V .. .1.A1A ...... ,.,,, .... ? ..1 A .... ? ()"·" f'\?-- PuduPPakkam 709.9 30 .8 ..., (\ ()1 ..1 ,1. ....,....,':l(). ()" .., . .. Par·anthur 759.1 2,8 1.Ar:.'7 (\ 0.0 ...,; .• + ·"" • • .., ('\.., . .., () Neervalur 730.4 0 .. 0 (\0 .. ?()00 �,,....,.... (\...,, .., . 933 .. 6 �..,; Velur 483.3 70 .8 AAI=; A 7P. · A ?A n•,; •....\J .. Vembi 214.2 89 ..9 .,,. •V • • t 'f/J •• Sirunaattur 200.1 83.8 251 ") .70 ()0.3 ?13 ------Kalivur 497 .9------27 .5 ------...�. � ------...... -----� *·Estimated for the entire Kaveri'Pakk.e.m tank a·v·acut . tiotes: Eetirnated t ., . .... ------· · -· _ . - ·- _ ·- -- ··-· - -·· - - - _,,_ . - · . ·-,, - ----r-. :..-1 -( :, ,-'1-i, ---- T.able-4 .Cropping Ir1tent:ii!� ..in N.on.··:JYell E.lat.s b..!l Mode cl Accs�ss t.Q We.J.. l w.a.ter, 1985-86 ,. 196.6::81 • ------...... ------· ------0 .· -. ·: rtl Tanks Own- Well Water· Purchased Well Water No well Water No. ------�------·------·----1985-86------·--1966-87------1985------86 l.986-----87 ------1985---86-· ---- 1986-87------') "?. 1 KVP-LS-H 1. 74 ...... 8 2.15 1.46 0.50. 0 2 "1 '!6 0 0 KVP-LS-T l.62 2.03 � • J.. 1.59 3 !.91 c..28 KVP-Gafoor 2.11 ,;.!.. '4 ... �7 1.00 0.06 4 .:...') . Peruvala·yam 42 1.57 1.58 1.00 ; .. 0.81 0.55 5 Agavalam 2.60 2.19 1.·19 1.35 0.89 0 6 Thakkolarn 2.28 • 1.86 . 1 .. 07 1.00 1.00 0 7 Karivedu 2 ..03 1. .38 1.00 3.00 t) . 64 0 8 Perumbu li- pakkam 1.99 1.55 2.12. 1.86 0. 5() 0.19 9 Poigai- nallttr 2.47 2.24 1.63 l.70 · 0 0 10 T irui:,•puk- kuzhi 2.37 ....? ....."4 l.E33 1.70 0 0 11 .... ("7· Velur 2.16 1.96 1 ..26 1.09 i.J • •-·, I 0.53 12 Vembi 1�72 1.96 2.00 1.00 0.13 0.04 13 S irunga t, tur 2.09 1.12 Nil 1.00 1.26 0.13 14 Kaliyur 2 .. 19 1.33 Nil Nil 1.69 0.43· ------· ·--· ---· ------ Note: This table excludes three of the selected tanks viz. , F·uclupakltam, Paranthur and Ne.ervalur· where the well irrigation is either insignificant or ni. Source : (Survey) . ------····· ·-· ··-· ·-·· 33 Firstly, i.t �an been seen from the t�ble that the croppin� intensity is much higher for those plots which rece ive well irrigation - awn or purchased - than t�ose plots which receive no well irriaat.. ion • i i e r i i Se· con (1 1 \/ 'i i t, n 1:l cat s that the c o pp ing r, tens t y i s h i g he r ·for those plots which received own well irrigtion than tho se plots which received purchased well irrigation . In 1985-86 ,in KVP - most of · the 14 tank ayacuts except three Gafoor , and Ve�bi) cropping intensity was highe r in those' plots which rece ived o�n well irrigation and 10 1986-87 , th i$ was seen in all but one tank (KVP-LS-H). Thi rdlv- , it is clear that those plots which had access to well irrigation in the command area sustained the severe drought . of 1986-67 .. Th is is amply demonstrated by the fact that cropping intens ity in 1986-87 differed very little from 1985-86 in those plots which had access to well irrii;.:1ation ; whereas it was very low · and infact . zero in 7 out of 14 tanks for those plots which rece ived no well irrigat ion. Thus it re inforc�s the po int that we 11f• l. T., hfJ • n command area serve a good purpose of insurance against drought condi 'tions. 1 Huwe 1e r, one gets a doubt whether cropping ititens ity is a corre ct indicator at all to judge the impact of conj unctive use. Very often it may mislead because mere re port ing of crops plot for two or even three sea$ons may not mean much for the simple reason that there are possibilities for either �omplete crop fa ilure or a farmer would have grown rainfed cr ops due to inadequate or uncerain water supply conditions . In other words , i I: ,. ; 111 I ...... 3.4 cr_opping intensity could be two or ev�n three, but the fa ct tl1at it dbes not take in to accou�t the crop failure or very poor· yield .. would not reflect on the conditions or quality of i r r i ,;iatic n. Productivity may prove to be an useful indicator which over c omes the drawbacks stated above. Table-5 gives both the indicators Qf cropping intensity and product ivity (in value terms) for all sample non-wel l plots. It may be seen from the table that 1n Gafoor sluice cropping • i11tensity i$ as low as 1.15, but productivity is as high as 3880 ; but i n Pucl u pa k k am c r o ppi n g iTi t en s i t y i s ·1 • 5.6 , but p r o du c t i v i t y 1 s only 2641; - again 1n velur cropping intensity 1s ·'i.. 44 but productivity is only 1530. 1·hus it J. s clear t�1at c:ro pp1ng •J a intensity and productivity need not a1ways _, in the sa1ne di rection. Nevertheless ., it is apparent from the table that s Wtt ,1 .:1o:'ve grea er · i� 1 several of the t�n�QI .- ...�y - at..--ut ·� 1·c� �� t 1nc1· ct en ct:" o · 1,1.,e 11 irrigation performed better in terms of productivity and to some cropping intensity (see for instan ce, KVP-Gafoor .. Per uvalaya.m, Agavalam ,. Thakkolam, Perumbulipakkam, Thiruppukkuzhi � Vembi , and Sirungattur)� This rnay be to a large e�tent the effect of conj unctive use irrigation. .. • • .. ·- ...... ·-. ···- ··· -···- --··· ·-- ·-- ·-· . .. -··-· ··------· --..... ,-·--···------' - ·---· - ··- 35 • T�.ble--5 .Q..r_Q:.QJ�• ing_ .J....D teu_�i tx_ <��nd Productivity .Qf Al 1 SamQlft Non-Wel 1 E...l oli in the Selected Tanks, ·1 985-Bq - ·-- .... -- .....---- -·------·--·----- ,. ------·---· -·------'l. Sl . Tanks CI GVO/ of Sample Plots t\J o. Sample getting well Plot area ..--· ------·------·------·------irrigati------on -·- 42 KVP-LS-H . ·1 .23 2 Kvp·-1 0.23 395 11 .... c::,_1·w . 'j · 50 •...> J-(.. .. \,,.;.. - ..... ("-,:ia .. t " ... 4 P E' li v . ....::.i v .. ff: ·1 . 51 3433 51 r· . a ] .. _ ;:·:\. 5 Aga va 1 arr, 2.02 5028 ;9 6 Thakko l an-, 2. 0·1 5<.':,82 96 ·1647 18 7- Karivedu 0.86 8 Perumbul i·-· pakkarr, ·1 . 93 4889 .. 69 9 Poigainallur 1 ..00 2·179 39 ·10 T i r rJ J:i p u k k u z h i 1.64 4177 66 1 ·1 Pudupakkarr, ·1 . 56 264·1 30 "- ·12 Paranthur 1.84 3767 3 .. •'J ...•-,, ., Neervalur 1.89 3290 0 ·14 Velur ·1 . 44 .1530 60 ·15 Vembi 1.57 2675 89 ·1 6 S i r u n ,Ja u r ·1 ..67 ·-· t t 3880 80 • • • • 1 ·17 \I' e.•\<: 3_ l ..l 1 \.}'.. /" 1.64 2359 2 ·1 ------�---�--�------�------�---��-�---- Ci V() t\J o t e s : Gross Value of Output Cl Cr�ppin� Intensity ...... -·- -·· ·-i ·, i Ul 11 . -. _--.-.J .-. 36 ' �prij�n ctive � Jn·q:·.L�f-t. of Use = I.h.� f:asft. .Pf° �� atnb ikula.m = !:: U:..Y a rr P oj e c� It has been already ' pointed out that 12 distrlbutarites (from two main cana ls, viz. , Parambikulam Main Canal - PMC, and Udu�alpet Canai - UPC ) h�ve been selected rather pu rposively Ol.1S with a view to cover vari reaches with J. n a 1nain/ br �n et, canal .. Ultimate sampling Ltr1 it within a selected distributary was a block (the ayacut of a block or pipe point ranges from 25 to 45 acres ) and the entire land fall ing under each selected block has been surveyed.. Al together ·1 04 blocks f'rorn ·1 2 distribut.aries have b,?en selected .fandomly fo� the deta iled survey and the tot�l numbe r of sample farmers interviewed was 630. For the sake of analytical tonvenience sample farmers �ave been divided into two broad •J roups ., viz. , those w'ho have atces5 td Jt"Otlr: d w,�. t. er (denoted by WW> and tho�e who have not water repres ents only own well water (eithe r sole or joint well) and rules out completely purchased well water. The results are quite fascinating and different from that of the tank irrigat ion system discussed in the previous section. of has First a 11., it been noticed that the incidence of . l Tl area is •=1 uite hi1 1h 1S \�e 11 this which clear from the fact that • . the propo rtion of area owned b}' WW farmer s is over 70% 1 n e s • maj ority of the selected dist r· i buta r i < i e. , 1n 8 out of ·1 �.,.._ :, distr·ibutar ies) (See Table-6>. Pa rt of the reason for such high incidence of wells in the command araa is that many of them we re . , ...... ·-·-·------·---- -·- ·-···· ··· · .f· . ;. . ' ' • . , 37 Table-6 Area owned b, 8V and W Jar1ers and Weli Per Acre in the Selected Distributaries ------·------Sl. Zone Hain/ Distribuiar, Total Pro,ortion of Area owned bJ Weil �er Ho. Bran�h t1ileaie) Plot lfW Jar•ers W Faraers acr� in Canal area of · the DY ihe D,. ------(acree------l ------1 I PKC 2.6.000 153.18 . 31.2 62.8 0.10 2 I PNC 13.5.i63 129.60 3.0 97.0 0.23 3 I lPBC 0.2.640 284.SO 16.6 83.4 0.19 4 I . ' KPBC 6.5.600 213.37 26.6 73.4 0.13 5 I OPC 3.7.330 189.08 17. f .. 82.6 0.17 6 I UPC 19.0.15 309.06 34.1 65.9 0.12 II PMC 3.4.500 186.19 31.3 68.7 f.13 8 II PPBC 0.1.180 118.39 100.0 NIL NIL 9 II PPBC 8.0.220 190.20 12.8 87.2 0.19 10 III PIIC 31.4.440 187.48 6.7 93.3 0�28 . ·11 III PtlC 50.4.4•5 218.37 7.9 92.1 0.28 12 III PKC 68.0.000 152.49 2.7 97.3 0.26 ·------·------�---·-----��------�------· .,. Note; PKC - Para1bikulan Kain Canal IPBC- lovi1 Paiava1 Branch Canal taiina off froa PMC PPBC- PuduPalavam Branch Canal takina off fro1 PMC OPC - Udumai�et Canal �ource: Survey ' ,,. )' ... . -·- -�--� .I . . iJ}i, 38 9 du,:J long before the commencement of PAP . However, sever�l them were deepened in due course, and also new wells have come up • s1nce the construction of• this .Pt'Oject .. . Bu.t as a result of hi1Jh conc·entration of wells and due to frequent fai lure of monsoon, the ground water table has gone down very cteep (�t-present the �epth of wells range from 40 to 100 feet in this area.) . The yie ld of water ircm Wells. is also reduced to Co,1seot,entl.t , only a lin,ited ar�a cou ld be cropped with the a\'a.:i.lable water in several parts of th i-:; comn-1ancl area. Thanks to "' h . the introduct ion of the canal irrig�tion system 1 n " l s area which has ma.de a big change partly b�cause , several wells in the command area. of the system get recharged from canal water. I shall discuss th is aspect in detail in the following pages � Table-6 gives information on the pr�portion of area owned by WW and NW farmers and well per a.ere. This dat� certainly helps to get an idea on the magnitude o, well irri,gat ion 1 n the ' . se i ecti:.'d comrr1e.n d. area. However, this d.uta. tr1c.1.y of'ten rr,islea,d for r o .... .,, l,J- n simple "<,-; C\. ;;> that hiaher�. incidence of well need not r,ecessarily mea,·1 thclt higher· prop�rtion of area is . ', . ,. For instance we found that the average size of holding 1s larger i in thP. Zone-I, of PMC and it declines in other Zones, in particular Zone-Ill (see Table-7) . ln other words , it implies .. that although the inc idence of well is low in Zone-I., irrigated by each well is larger and vice-versa . Moreo ver, data. ------9. About 70% of the wells located in the· command areas of the s�lected distri butari�s were dug before PAP came into operation. t • , __, __,,,,, ··- ... .. ·------·------39 Table-7 Averase Size af Holding .a.I 5amPle Farmers in the Selected Distributaries ------�------. ------Sl. Zone Main/ Diatributary Ayerase Size cl holdine for • Ne .. Branch (mileage ) NW WW All -�---�------.Canal ------farmers----- farmers------farme-----rs---- ·. 1 1 PMC 2.6.000 3.35 6 ..01 4.14 2 I PMC 13.5.263 0.98 4.19 3.81 3 I KPBC 0.2.640 2.62 4.48 4.01 4 I KPBC 6.5.600 4.37 5 .. 59 5.20 5. I UPC 3.7.330 2 ..35 4.73 4.02 6 I UPC 19 .0.. 15 2 .. 70 5.36 4.01 7 II PMC 3.4.500 2.33 5.12 3.72 8 II 0.1.180 3.24 NIL 3' ..24 9 II PPBC 8.0.220 2.06 4.60 3.96 10 III PMC 31.4.440 1.57 3 .. 30 3.07 11 III PMC 50 .4.445 2.47 3.30. 3.21 12 · III PMC .68.0.000 1.20 3.66 3 .. 39 ------..------· . . Source : Survey .. i 1' 11,1 i . 'j . a,,. to supply of wate< from w�lls cle�rly indicates that only in Zone-I of PMC adequate and regular �upply is available and in ot�er zones r 1n particular Zon�-1II , �upply of water from �·,,,.:,",CO, ...1 .. s and .I. is unre liable inadequate. In fact 1T1an y o f' th� wel ls Jocetted in the ayacut of Zone-I of PMC supply water almost both dur n i 1J spel l and non-spe ll years .. . no· · <:�-·.:;""· 'L !·,4J. ... P that t 1 nta.t 11 ·:. y b -=� cause of the fact c�nstant and adequate reC::l;arge is poss ible from canal supplies to we lls 1n the ayacut of t h is Z '.J r, e .. Moreover· T since Zone-I of PMC is located in the 1 upper reac:h o1' the systerr1 :- even \A. hen water 1s stopp�d for this water keeps flowing 1n the main canal for other zones. l"h i ·:, enables several we lls to get recharge almPst throughout year .. This is in fact -ref l�cted in high�r· crapping intensity and productivity in th� ayacut of this zone. Before •J- o1n,-::i into the detai ls on this aspe Lt1 let us pay atte .ntion to ·rabl e-7 to dis CL!S s f urth,er on the issue of size of holding between irrigated and un irrigated lands. une would find tt1at the avere ne :ii;!e of holding 1s rru Jch s1nal ler the wet lands Cie� yin the command area of tanks and canals ) than in the dry lands . The t1otion is that greate� the inten-::i i ty of irrigation and cultivation, larger would be the nurr1ber of • • cultiv�to rs and nun)b�r of fragmentation. r1oweve( , durin,...;:1 the past three decades area ur,der well irrigation has up tremendously both in the so cal led wet and dry lands . f-lence it l � necessary to classifv�- the total cultivable area in more meaningful way 1 in paticular , the areas where we ll irrigation is ···-- ··-·· . - -·- ·--····· -·-····--··. ·-··· - - · ------·--- ··-----·-· ·-·- - ' .. ,f dorr, i nan t. If classification is done on the basis of access to well irriqat- ion with regard to the aveage size of holding . One can see from Table-? that the average size of holding is much larger in the WW category (i�. , those who have access to well irrigation) than 1n the NW category Cie. , those who have no access to well 10 irrigation > • This has the implication that only those who have greater access to land would be in a position to have private source of irrigation . This perhaps is manifested in the larger average size of holding for th�se who have wells than .... those who have not. This leads us to two important conclusions: (i) The conventional cl�ssificatian of land into wet and dry { pa. I"t i <: u 1 a r· l .Y 1n t- !··, t. s ll r f'a. c e 1S '::1 source either inadequate or uncertain) will mislaad to a great extent mainly be cause wells have emerged as an im portant source of irrigation in the so called wet lands also. And those who own wells in the ayacut are in a better position in terms of having adequate rechar•Je in\o ·their we lls from surf'ace sources. (ii) Privitisa.tion of irrigation water is very much linked . to the higher degree of land ownership • • .. With this background 1 shall now turn to the discussion of • extent of conj unctive use in t'h- selected dis tributaries • .------·------10. Similar results were found in an another study carried out by the presen t author in No r�t1 Arcot Distri�t. See for details 1 Janaka.raj an 7 s. (1986 ) . • ··-· - ·-· --- ··------,-- l!I.. 42 ·, e:� Table 8,9, and 10 provide information on the proportion o� ... net area irrigated to total p1ot area, proportion of 11ross irrigated area to total plot area and area irrigated by different sources, for each selected distributary for three years, viz ., 1986-87 , 1985-86 and 1984-85 res pectively. 1986-87 was a spell year only for Zone - II 1 1985-86 was a spell year for all zones except Zane-II , and 1984-85 was a spell year for all zones except. Zone-III. We shall analyse data presented in these tables keeping in mind general drought conditions that prevailed during 1986-87. Following points emerge from these tables: Fi'rst of ·all it is generally observed that the performance in terms of proportion, of NIA to total plot area Zone-II (Table-a � where almost 100X ol the PA was irrigated in 3.4.500 distri butary and at,out 85'¾ in 8. 0.• 220 distributary. The · proportions . of GIA to PA was also of the order of 1�44 and 1. 26 respecti�ely f'or these two distributaries which is higher . than other distributaries �xcept one in Zone-I. Similarly 1985-86 was • a spel l year for Zone-I and Zone�III which is reflected 1n the --�L------11. In this year <1986-87 ) farmers of 0. 1. 1�0 distributary (of Zone-II ) did not utilise canal water for, it was supplied in early September instead of June. ln the season starting lrom September to December farmers of this distributary preferred to grow :·ainfed red gram crop which requires very less irrigation, in particul�r this area , where black soil is found � • ·-··-· - .. ·-·--· ··------·-·· . ····--···· . -·· . ,.. ': l � : 43 • Table l Iccicotion Iatenaiti ladSovrcea a.f. Irrisation Acroeo Dip\fih1kriee, 1986-87 ... ,,. .. . , . -� ...... · · ' . . :�···� , _.,, ;�...... ------·�--�. -.. :- . .�·------·-·---· , . . ------. ------�. .. : ,: ':' . Sl. ·zone Main/ .. Tota1···· GIA RIA/ ':· G1A/ . ·; :Wh,ther Dl .. RIA Area-. . .. lrrigated. .. lo. bf' : ._�i;. <.. �pell {S) Branch Plot . . ... PA · PA sources t.. . ··. Canals Area or f P� l. ' . non .. C w R . spell(HS) -·------·-----·------. ------�----··------�----�-·�-----·------�-CtW----#------·-----·--· < 1 I PHC 2. 6.·OOO.. . 1�3.16 11.f.40 58 ..65 · · ·· 0. 38 0 �75 HIL HIL 114. 40 86. 37 HS ., . · 2 I PMC l.3��.263 ·-129.60, 291.61 11i.03 · .. 0.66 : 2.25 RIL NIL 291.61 6.90 MS '.\ . : ,: . 3 I O.S8 1.65 • . IPBC. . NIL NIL 468.43 82.45 IS 4 I 0.42· 1.07 NIL HIL 227.31 46.63 RS . . .: ,· .. ·upc 3.7.3�- 122.83 69.86 5 I : ••') 89,08 o.�7 0.65 YIL NIL 122.83 39.20 MS 6 r OPC . 1&..0�15. . 309.05 . 195.33 f. 114�67 ,.. 0.31 0.63 HIL HIL . .L · 195.83 88.73 HS . 1 . f · 7 II ·PHC ; 3 ..t.s oo-:. 186.19 268 .. 80 184.91 0.99 . 84�18 · 3�50 . ' · 1.44 65.12 118.90 s t. {31.3) ;: (24;.4) (44.2) 8 II _;- PPBC. 0.1.180 178.39 0.90 0.30 HIL 0.04 RIL HIL 0.90 168.58 s 9 II :', PPBC ,, 8.Q�.220 i90.20 238.75 161.58 'i,�.85 1.26 23.25 156.41 59.� . NIL s ,,. (65.5) , · (9.?) (24.7) 10 III PHC 3L.4.440 187.48 84.4? ·,·at.87 :·-· 0.17 0.45 NIL HIL , 84.47 NIL HS 11 III" 0.55 0.84 NIL NIL 183-.61 llL RS , 12 III 68�0.000 151�A9. . . 21.50 1.50 0 .. 05 0.14 MlL NIL --21.50 5.50 - IS -P.HC. . : . · . . . . . : . �. . ------�. -- ....------: ..-:-----. ------. · ------.------, - .·: : . . . . Note: Area in acres.. Figur�B in brackets are percentage& to GiA Source: Survey r; • ' . ' 44 Table a Irrication lnteoait, 11d.Sonuos AiIrriaotigp Across Dili.ribJt.aries, 1988-87 ------·------·------Total· Area Irriga\ed Whether Sl. Zone Hain/ DY GIA IIA NIA/ GIA/ epell (S) lo. · Branch Plot PA PA bJ aoorces Canals Area or (PA) non C CtV If R epell{HS) ------·------�------ l I 153.18 222.00 114.70 0.75 1.45 38.75 75.25 108.00 44.56 s PHC 2.6.000 (17 .5} (33.9) (48.6) 5.10 122. 74 (,90 s 2 I PKC 13.5.263 129.60 215.30 125.81 0.91 2.12 141.46 (1.9) (44.6) (53.6) ·0.84 36.41 · 211.04 s 3 I IPBC 0.2.6(0 284.60 565.33 240.05 1.99 311.88 45.00 (6.4) (31.3) (5b.2) 31.49 s 4 I IPBC 6.5.600 213.37 347.23 14? . 62 0.69 1.63 86.29 228.85 33.21 (9.1) {25.0) (6S.9) . 41.69 s 5 I ·opc 3.1.330 189.08 293.73 177 .33 0.94 1.55 138.14 115.90 20.71 (14.2) 185.19(46.3) (39.5) 6 I 19 ..0.1 5 309.05 272.12 0.88 1.'40 94.22 151.41 17.40 s UPC 431.32 {21.8) (43.1) (35.1) 42.48 7 II PHC 3.4.500 186, 19 ,114.36. 84.42 0.45 0.61 RIL .. IIL 114.36 IS 8 II PPBC 0. 1�180 178.39 HIL NIL IIL BIL Hlt RIL HIL 175.49 IS . r 9 II PPBC . 8.0.. 220 190.20 38.82 11.94 0.09 0.20 NIL HIL 38.82 RIL IS III PltC 187 .48 303.49 3189.21 0.90 1.62 12:44 160.77 130.28 BIL s ' 10 31.4.t40 (42.9) I. (4.1) (53.0) # s 11 III PHC 50.4.445 218 ..37 337.43 110.56 0.78 1.55 12.93 165.00 159.50 O.?O (\ (3.8) (48.9) (47�3} s 12 III PKC 68.0�000 152.49 113.25 130.99 0.86 1.14 5.50 124.89 42.86 3.00 (3.2) (72.1) (24.T) ..... • -----�------�------·-----�------�--- Mote: Area in acres Figures in brackets are percentages to GIA Source: Sur,ey ., • • ·-···-·· ···-· ------45 Table 10 Irriration IntensitJ and Sources of Irritation Across Distributaries, 1986-8? ------Zone- · ------·------·------Sl. Kain/ DY Total GIA YIA NIA/ GIA/ !rea !rrii!ated Whether lo. Branch Plot PA PA bv sources spell !S} Canals Area n-...... {PA) .."'nn ., .. 'O ('" C+W V.. ... sre!l!MS} ------··------1 I PHC 2.6.000 153.18 0 .. 51 ?fl 1A .. 139.99 78.24 0.91 28.�9 46.25 65.25 UV• Va. ! 20. 4 ) ! 33. 0 } !�6.Sl 2 I PMC · 262. 39 t�Ci '1A .. 13.5.263 129.60 99.03 0.16 2.02 3.10 93.53 •vw . • v ..? ,vv J;1 t 1. 2} f 35 ..S} !63.2} 3 I 1Q 1� '.IA'J ?O '),: A� � IPBC 0.2.640 28�.60 562.47 241.89 0.85 1.98 w11• •v �v • • .,., 316.03 w"'• •v .. {?.Ol I !36.9}A'1 ?J; !58.21 C IPBC 6.5.600 213.37 174.86 115.66 0.5� 0.79 2�.61 a, I • WV !0�.00 19.36 .. !14.!! (2?.0} '"A\VVeVt Q\ ·'· ' 5 I UPC At 1Q 11� tA .c nn C: · • ••• •v 6,\ofV 6 a. ••ti1•11A '" f.•V V ., 3.T.330 189.08 302.28 172.51 0.91 1.60 &V (!3.9} !�5.0} !�0.0} I � 6 UPC 19.0.15 309.05 462.08 302.03 0.98 1.50 106.39t'J:, ii\ 19�.9IA? ?,0 160.79 32.�� ,lJ...... , • ' ...... t'tA A\ ,.,,... .,1 7 II 1 ,,, �A �A 1011 I;� i;1 �, � PHC 3.4.500 186.19 230.50 176.07 0.95 .. .. � y..,• '-' & ,1,,'lil\il• Y\., l,IV I V'\,I MIL .. t 111 0 \ I A'i ! \ ,.,,, 1\ tVVeVt t•l••t 1M'V••I 8 II 0.1.180 urr. � 178.39 1.20.31 LI.&.., PPBC 11Q.. ., 'Al .... "AVV • '1'1 I I ., 119.71 0.67 0.0� IQCl ?�\ 0.90 ,v..1· • ..,.__t ,n,-�" An\"' 9 II n 'IA !!t ..C: PPBC 8.0.220 190.20 V •IV 167.86 1�3.98 0.75 11,t28.15 A\ 137.�1tA1 Q\ 2.30 i•V•"• '"••Vt 11 A\ 10 III PKC MTr. , nc;\.a.• 7'1. , I ITT. 3i.4.440 187. 48. 105.77 5i.67 0.29 0.56 ..... !!L & Ill Ve I I ..... HS 11 III SO.-i.445 IITL 1? 91.�l I'sV • V t A'1 MTl...... •iJ? • • •VV10 A1 .... PHC 218.37 147.39 o.�5 ....vv -� 12 III I\?( 38.00 0.1� W'VeV,t PHC 68.0.000 152.49 21.50 "·"" .�UJJ. .... !!L ,A M ,,' ... ?Qv MS ------·------:.------·------�-�---�-�-.;,.------�------' ' • Note: Are� in acres Firmres in brackets are �ercentaaes io GIA ; Smee: Sune, ...... ·-·····-· ... - . ··--··· - -· ..··- ·-" ·- -· ·-- -· - -· --·-· -·----...... 46 higher proporti�nt of NIA to PA and GIA to PA. seen in the distributaries of. Zone I .and I. I for which it i.,.•as spell year (se� Table-10) . Secondly1 whi l� us ing the same irrigation indices (ie., �IA/P� and GIA/PA> to compar� between spell and non-spell years "for .each zone, one fi11ds that in non-spell years it is very poor PMC . · non-s,::,el ��cep.t in. Zon.e-I of' In Zone-I of PMC, even in the l .. year C ·1986�87 > , the irrigation inten sity was f'ound to be high ·. < ie., 0.75 1 2. 25, ·1 . 44 and 1.07 respectivey for four ... distributa.ries) and the entire area reported was irrigated by wel ls. This is because, as it has b�en indicated earl ier, wells located in the a.yacut of Zone-I of PMC get regular and adequate recharge from canals almost throughout a year. On· the other hand, well dens ity is quite high in Zone-III, but supply of water . ·, frorrt · i..a.• el ls is extremely poor and in fact the supply is almost ceased during nol·t-spell years. Th is 1s because no regular recharge is pos s ible in this Zone from canals. Thus it rei nforces the point that high well dens ity does not mean much, as wells would serve an useful purpose only when there is regular 1 and sufficient recharge from surface sources. ' Th irdly, the distributaries which have distinct locational advantage _ " . --·-- - __,__ ,.,, " .. ·-· . ,,_____ ,, . ------·... - - - _,, -·-·- - --· __ ·- 47 ca11c:1l • In ..I·,,.,. "' ·t i'-. 1 these rria 111 canal J. s . lS re charged adj acent to the �vaJ cut .' enormous extent of water "· into the we lls arid in fact in the case of former distributary some wells o�erflow whenever· water flows 1n the main canal. the exte,1t af conj unctive use of surface ana ground water is conside rably high 1n all the di�tributaries. If . . :: :· one goes by· the str·ict definit ion of conjunctive use as "canal ·+- . . . . f 1JJ ·· · r e e r e l 1 w. a t e r " � t h en t h e propo r t ion o .P a r ea po r t i ng C ·+-W ran 1J <:1 :n 30'¼ 70'Y. . bas i c a 11y fro1n to Ho�ever, sin�e 7 wells get re charge surface sourc•s one could relax the defin-ition of conj unctive use as area reporting both (C+W )+W. In which case , in majority of the distributaries ., over 80¾ of gross irrigated area reports conjunctive use . In fact in many ·distribtJtaFies (See Tables 8,9 & 10) area reporting pure canal irrigation ls insignificant. Th is 1s partict1larly true .i r1 the case of Zone-III, where availability . 1 .c., ; > of can.:i ,· : i. (regular dnd inadequate and hence to use we ll water as a supp l·ementing sour·ce to cana l wate r .. Fif'thly, one can observe from these tables that area unae• ,. rainfed crops in the non-spell �ear is higher �han in the spell years . But �hen, what is puzzlin� �o note is that in th� Zone- . III, where neither canal wate r nor wel l water lS area under rainfed crops is insignificant (particularly when soi l type is quite suitable under rainfed conditions). Las.tly, whil� looking across reaches of main/branch canal , at the tai l end distributaries, the proportions of NIA to PA and . . .. - .. - ··---- . -· ·---....,....- i . ill ' 48 GIA to PA are lower than what it is · for upper reach distributaries within a zone. While looking across Zones also, - proportion of ar.ea irrigated is lower in the Zone-II and Zon�-III than in Zone-I. One can straight away ,at tribute for such low proportion ot area irrigated in the tail reach distributaries to the irregular and inadequate supply of canal water , which also implies that wells yield poor supply �d ue to poor recharge fr'om surface sources .. On the whole, it is apparent that the conj unctive use of surface and ground water has �merged as a we ll recognised and widely prevalent method of irrig�tion in the PAP command area . Perhaps the rotational sy� tem of irriation that is in vogue in this �rea induces farmers to µse well water as supplementary sou�ce to canal water in particular, during the periods of short supply . lm�act �f �onJunctive Use Access to and the qual ity of irrigation have significant bearing on the crop pattern r ,roppin·g intensity and productivity. As it has been mentioned earlier, the type of crops grown and productivity vary a great deal according to sources of irrigation that is avai:.a.ble. It is now an established fact that productivity is higher in the area which receives we ll irrigation for the simple reason that it is more assured and controllable. .been Let us see in this context what has the effect of • conjunctive use irrigation with particulaar reference to the selected distributaries . ...... ···----·· ·-· ... . - ···- . . . ------· ----···---·-- - 49 First let us look at the crop pattern in the selected • distributaries for three years viz., 1986-87, 1985-86 and 1984-85 fo r the £ake of conven ience crops have been divided into four categories = Paddy ; Fodder , Chillies and Vegetables : irrigated dry crops ; and . annual ·� nd perennial crops • •;J r o u n d nu , cho 1 i.·UTI , IrFigated� dry crops include cotton , onion 7 t tr,a i :.!e r baj ra, grams, gingilly, tobacco and other coarse cereals and pulses. Annual and perennial crops . incll1df sugarcane, turmeric1 banana and coconut. Of the categories mentioned above except dry irrigated crops , all others are wet c�ops and infact annua l and perennial crops need year round supply of water. In other wo rds r these wet crdps cannot be grown without assur�d irrigation facilities. It was &lready indi cated that as per the original plan the PAP was intended mainly for dfy irri gated crops and wet crop cultivation was allowed only to the extent ol about 20% of the total command area of th� system; area demarcated for wet crop cultivation was basically low lying areas or areas which have chronic drainage problems. However , the official statistic$ as well as our own survey confirm the fact that wet crop c�ltivatioh is far more than the envisaged and in some areas almost entire area is under wet crop cultivation dl1ring spell . F..·· o':;.t ··t·ti.l '· �� period. � .... j.. .:,• � the most crucial facto r that t:l etermines wet L. Cl'"Op • , -.LI ] . t J.. v,;;,. i , . •1 on • . : 1n the command area is the availability of ground wate1··· . Let us now have a close look at Table-11. First of al l it 1s generally found that during spell years WW farmers do better -- , -··-· _,,. .. .. I . I" ., • 51 ' ; ! hill·- u CmP,ttcr, ia DIArm\t 11$clccte4 Jiatti)Jakrics, tit-as, 1985:86 l 11H7 • ..._. ••--·--•- --•-•--·�----·----- · - {le\ Area i• acm) I � ------·-----4••-----•------•••-- -• ! - �••-----•-----•--•---•--•------••-----•�••-•••-••---v••-•--••------••--•---•------•-•---•--•••••••---• I I iI ------�------4·- - 1985-86 1984-85 ' ------·------¥------·------·------··------I • ,.t Aeeat I ' fodm hml fodder ' Annual cnlliea [mpW amt chiliiea Irrigatec and mllin and • . lrricated I I Si, ilidri· Mi, al Pmmial Perennial ,_ "' ., Total h'b and Dry Pernaial Toki P..W, od DrJ Total lr, • "-8la CtfJIII Vegetables Cropa Jqetulea Crops .., � ------·------·------·----·------�---·4-·------·------·------·------C?ope ·-�------·---··--·-----·�------�Cropa------·------· l .C., .. fil 71 .. 7 23.1 110 .. T 11.5 121. 7 19.0 HIC-t ,; ,. • !.. t '"·;. J ' lil lil 5.8 11.0 156.0 7.8 16.5 57.3 ,. • lil M.. l 64.4 5 ..5 lil 88.6 lil 94. 1 Iii lil til 12 .. 3 D.. O ll.O 3.5 5$.2 16.5 51.T ALL Mt.I 115 ..t 5.8 210.3 17.0 250.1 17.5 7.8 74.2 116.0 t.. 2 fll!-l 13.5�263 11.3 31..3 ...2 121.. 8 18.2 lt.5 19.2 79.1 • fit lil • 43.2 81.7 157.6 7.0 11.5 116.8 -, fil a.s lil lil lil lil 3.7 Iii • lil 3.9 0.7 7.1 1.8 0.7 4.4 r ALL lt.l ...2 l».T 18.9 50 .. 3 79.1 • J 12 14.5 81.7 165.t 19.9 1.0 15.2 121.2 ,. . •�tlil 31..9 151.9 193·.. l 244.6 33.3 15T.2 22&.l ! RE·l • fil l.3 lil lil Iii8.8 13.5 69.3 155 .. 0 22.8 12.8 59.1 • .... lil 49.9 1.1 72.8 lil 13.9 lil lil lil 59.1 A£L lil l2 .. 151.9 243.0 tt.6 155.0 318.5 12.8 92.4 285.2 4 £9:·l 2-5 .. 6.8 142.1 22.8 20.3 157.2 · t.)••. • • 1.. 5 29.2 69.4 101.1 5.5 18.3 58.1 76.7 150.8 3.5 1.1 44.3 15.8 ii Iii fl.. 2 lil 41,2 Iii lil 80.6 lil lil Iii lit,; 2.5 78.1 Sl.331.0 31.0 AU. t.. 5 -2... Tt .. t i.�'A?. 3 12.8 3.5 106,8 ·-· 5.5 136.2 76.7 231.2 44.3 "' .. T.7 5 .i 'l iilC 4.. ,.� .. , •.-i' II !I,& ,. r c;r,. l ' 9 �-�-o: Iii t.. 7 20.! !Lt t.'.a . !lJ.2 "'4.1 86.2 41.4 192.2 76.8 18.0 37.2 .,; ' i. !I Iii Iii 27.4 lil 2·; . i .ill,. 36.1 lil lil 33.8 •" 46.3 18.9 lt.P P.:i.l !.di Iii 1.1 88.1 21.3 118.5 1'1' 1 (,1 , 121.3 238.5 r' tl 2f:3.'i . 41.0 95.7 10.0 S2.1 �._,· .. .! 6 19 ·,.... );; 3 .. l 114.. f .. 11.. 6 2�",.� ffC .. � r·A lil 28.2 14!1.; ".(\. �...- J ")1r .� ,. 1�.5 . -;· . 3 13.3 . 45.7 257.6 88.6 \ l 74.t . ,}. i i) � Iii •••l!_ .. 7 · . �t:.J... . . 60.1 1.1 ...'.;,a ... .. fil 4.� 2.6 143.3 70.3 o , 'J P.il lGG.8 te9,0 28 r. 22r.:J tJ.5 u; ,. '1i1 . i !!:".t. lil 3.. 1 , .. . ,} 23 • (J ·i.4.3 ;.. . 45.7 42t.t 149.3 12.7 11S.8 �- • �..., 0ntd ...... . , ' • ., Table 11 contd••••• I ----··------·------�------4�------·------·------�------··------I 1916-81 1585-86 1984-85 ! ------··�------4·�---·------·------Joaier hettal Jodder h1ual fodder Ammal e1illiu ]rrir.tti * chillies Irrigated and c�illies Irritated and Sl, Jou iistr!- WI P-, ai .,. hteouiil T��al Paddy ud Drr Perewial Total Paddy and Dry Perennial Total k. liltu! W W.tnln Croes C-ro,s iegetahlts Crops Crops ,e,etables Crops Crops ------�·------·------·------�------·------·------�·-·--�-�------ , ' '.11 ��...... 90.3 21.3 , • :I i1 3.f.* 6.9 ,. 0 ...... i:l "--:t . ,· !IC • 2.! il.6 1St.f 2�.j 2.1 49. l 13.8 66.8 1.S 121.4 II 4i.9 G.I .1i.5 ij.l 62.� 4.8 Bil 35.7 0.1 41.2 40.9 0.4 16.l lil 57.t • 3&.1 til, 91.i i,4 .:filil.S . 32.l 212.8 lil2.1 84.8 14.ft 131.S 107.1 1.9 47.9 21.J 118.8 t.i.lli Ii] Ii! lil lil lil lil lil lil lil lil lil lil lil - 8 ffle-l • lil lil ... II lil 169.l t.3 1,0.& lil lil 118.4 0.3 178.7 38.8 109.9 0.3 149.@ &Li, Ii} lil i6t.7 t.3 ll8.& lil lil 118.f 0.3 118.7 2.8 lil 109.9 0.3 149.0 -� !... 22u t.� J�.i lil lil lil �J· 186.5 3.3 9.1 17.t 58•• 51.7 10.9 121.0 , . 0 • 41 4.. 11.4lil lil lil lil lil lil ii ).0 •••ll ll.� 2i.5 lil lil lil 24.7 24.7 AU, ti.4 4.i Jt,.7 11,4 212.0 lil lil 8.3 9.1 17.4 58.4 lil 76.4 1&.9 145.1 .. . .., # ;; lil M.1 �-� < •• ii ....;J i.i 26.8 60.7 10 JJ 44· lil 2.9 30.3 59.6 10.5 137.1 22.2 229.4 2.0 24.0 II lil lil lil lil 0.5 lil 14.0 lil 14.S lil lil 0.9 lil 0.9 Ill '6 • \I lil AU, !.� .. , 26.8 ,· 30. 1 61.l 10.!J 151.1 �2.2 243.9 2.0 35.6 24.0 61.6 ��� �.4,tf:i Ii 31.t 21.9 . !82.& 17&.0 16.0 120.6 2.5 31!>�1 24,3 27.4 91.8 2.5 146.0 · 11 lil 111.a 2.i lil •. l lil H Iii 3,1 lil ;,., .... t d.3 lil &.7 !.O 1_ 1.S 6.5 8.0 ,. 1 .AU, lf.f 28.S 1]9.9 2.!l 151.1 164.3 16.0 121.3 2.� 324.1 24.3 28.9 98.3 lj s 154.0 l� Ii ill 6.i lil 7.0 lil lil 23.4 7.0 30.4 M;-3 6&.i.• li1 ·. 6.0 �3.31 l.. 9.6 88.4 158.8 lil lil lil 1.:.,. � lil i. iil t lil lil lil lil 1.0 5 .11 5.5 1.0 • lil li1 lil lil 31.� AU, 6.0 lil 6.0 5�.6 9.6 93.9 7.0 164.3 24.t 7.0 ------�------·------• {ii) low , cubut crass, gingillr, tobacco and others . Annual andPerennial Crops inclode sugarcane, turteric. {il •.lrrip!d ' .,.,aoes iaeladecotta, oai•, crouavt, doln, aai:e,bajra • lri..JUa eotON". • Soffle: rield Sme,, 1986-87. in terms of wet crop cultivation than NW farm�rs; dur ing non spell years also WW farmers grow wet crops but to a lesser e: limited extent during- spell years and it 1S practically ni l during non-spell years. The NW farmers during non-spell periods j us t go in for . uni r r i gated dry cr op s and in fact 1 n so1ne distibutaries even area under rainfed cultivation is nil or • insig* nificant distri butar ies of Zone-111 & S. 0.220 distr i butary of Zone-II). Secondly ,. it has been mentioned earlier that wells located in the Zone-I of PMC yield almost year round supply and average area irrigated by each well in that zone is much higher. In fact its impact 1s clearly seen i� the crop pattern . For • instancealthough 1986-87 was a non-spell year for Zone-I, wet crop cultivation was �ides pread and was found in a large extent of area. It was the case in this Zone for WW farmers despite the fact that 1986-87 was a severe drought year. For Zone-Ill a.1s• o 1986-87 was a non-s pell year but the performance of WW farmers, was extremely poor the WW farmers of head distri butary (3. 4. 500) only performed somewhat better and the performacne of tail distributary (8. 0. 220 � was poor and no better than the distributar ies of Zone III. 0. 1. 180 distributary �f this Zone is not taken into account for discussion because of the fact that area rece iving well 52 irrigation is practical ly nil • Tt-t i rdly, while looking _, across distributaries one finds si9nif i ca.nt variation. The performance of WW farmers is relati�ely poor at the t�il end of each zone and more so at the tail end syste� itself. This is basically because of poor recharge ·from stt rface tc, wells. However., this is not always true sine� the problf.�111 :i.s also one of more 'location specific'. For i·n s tan ce 1 the wells located in the first distributary of Zone-I < 2.6. 00() > �hich is also the first distributary of Parambikulam Main Canal receives very little recharge f�om canals probably· be c:au s-e of .a •.;J i v en g eo 1 ·o •J i ea 1 f'o rrr,a t ions. It lS because of this reason area under wet crop cultivation 15 relatively sma11 · i� this distributary both du�ing spell and non- spell years. On the other hand, farmers (in particular WW f arrrters) of 50 .4.445 distributary perlorms much better , despite the fact that it is located at the tail end of the system � h pr� tlsely because of its favDurahle location. T e command area �u· of this di�tributary is encompassed with the shaped main canal. Hence wells located in this ayacut by virtue of its advantageoL1s ca1,a 1 • Thus wet crop cultivation is quite commGnly seen in this distributary� more so during spell years . ,. t t t Cr o �.! .E' i n9. .I n er, s it Y.. an d P r o duc; i vi Y. Table-12 give.s information on Cropping Intensity Gross Vaiue of Output (GVO ) per un it of Plot Area CPA) and Gross Cropped Area ·,. • ...... ·--·-- .. ··-.. ... ·····--· -·. - -· -···-·-- i ; iii:! 53 years, viz., 1986-87 , 1985-86, and 1984-85 , separately for WW, NW and for ·' ALL � farmers. First of all one find$ a glaring difference in the Cl and productivity· between the area which has access ta well irrigation (WW> and which does not have. In particular, the difference 15 much more gtriking during the non-spell years than spell years. Let us take for instance, Zone-I, of PMC . We will notice from Table-12 that in the year 1986-87, which was a non-$pell year for this Zone, the Cl for NW group (for the Zone •s a whole> was 0.99, where as for WW group it was 1.95. Similarly, in the same year, one can notice difference in the productivity per acre of GCA between these two groups of farmers. The average productivity per acre of GCA for PMC Zone-I was Rs. 184 for NW group, where as fer WW g r oup it was as high as Rs . 1600, which 1S little less than 9 times the productivity of NW group. While '" r,l . �...... lool<:ing t I, ... •.. ••1 ...... "'· .1 ,' find4i .. I . ,. v ·:1 ua 1 distributaries also one str�king difference in Cl and productivity. However, the performance of Udumalpet Can a l <3.7.330 and 19.0.15> is not as good as the distributarie� of PMC Zone-I despite the fact that both of them fall under the same irrigation spell period. However� the difference in terms of Cl and productivity between NW and WW groups 15• narrowed down to a great e} ' n down to other zones of the system precisely for the reason that • wells located in the ayacut OT Zone-II and Zone-I• ll do not get as much recharge (fr om canals> as they get 1n• the Zone-I. This 1S• the point which wa5 discussed at length in an earlier section . r a Fo instance, 1985-86 w s a non-spe)l year for Zone-II� but the . • i': I I •f f • J .. ·. " - �--·-· ···- ·--·--···--·-·-· • I · t8d f I� 54 TABLI 12 CroJ1>iU I1teui\J ud Pronc\i,iiY. 1986-81, 1985-86 I 1984-� ------··------�-----4--�------�----·------··---·-·-----·-----�------198&-lt ltlS-86 :'I 1984-85 �- __4 ______.. ______---··-··------·------CI 0 0 0 0 Cl111ifii- 0 Cl Cl ---0 Sl.80. lane Diatri- c1ti01 of ------fanen CCA O.! GCA CCl ------·-Wan-·------·-�------··----·------··--·---4------·----Pl ------�----Pl 1 PE-1 2.6.000 Ill 1.68 878 1411 1.98 1155 2283 0.95 2521 2� Ill !.13 166 189 1.65 MS 1066 1.03 191 at� ALL 1.48 6T� 99T 1.86 986 1130 1.i1 1141 218� NC-1 13.�.263 w 2.31 1982 4701 2.(JI 2700 5564 2.19 1841 4040 1H 1.00 2588 2292 2,33 1')5�.i65I 265 2.00 1294 1.13 2031 ALL �SST 2.53 21iT �4TS 2.80 1850 (817 3 NC--1 WM 2.03 1846 3861. 4860 0.6.24G i}" 2.33 2082 2.28 2119 4823 fi 1.14 i.'l 129 1.51 S80 910 1.25 1356 lTOO ilJ. 1.93 16TB 32t5 2.21 190i 4206 2.21 2844 4510 4 1'C-1 6.5.600 w 1.S4 1109 1112 1.94 1508 2ffl 1.05 2882 · 3029 II 0.73 296 215 1.42 362 514 o.� 1&04 ST� ALL 1.33 991 1313 1.83 1246 2284 1.13 2s,9 3034 w 982 1.7T 1364 358� UPC 3.,.330 O.IG 848 · 2411 1.7& 2009 Ill 0.83 211 230 1.11 3SO 388 1.03 22�1 2301 ALL 0.86 &63 T41 1.65 1246 2059 1.85 2035 3360 6 UPC 1S.0.1S w 0.99 1128 1123 1.11 1307 2241 1. 74 1622 2823 II O.Tl 412 291 1.58 433 . 681 1.li 2506 3142 ALL 0.90 936 840 1.67 1024 1711 1.�T 1867 2931 1 IIC-2 3.4.500 II 1.69 3657 2164 0.92 2529 2336 1.28 17M 2251 II 1.07 3275 3502 0.66 35� 233 0.98 97t 960 lLL 1.50 2412 3806 0.84 1996 1677 1.19 1m 1846 8 PltC-2 0.1.180 w IIL IIL IIL llL IU, IIL IIL IIL . llL II 6.96 789 TSS 1.00 S43 847 0.84 S43 .4S5 &1' 0.9& 789 155 1.00 843 847 0.84 543 4SS g rte-2 8.0.220 II 1.28 2059 2633 0.22 17( 3T 0.86 751 649 II 0.14 1125 1S27 IIL IIL llL 1.00 46a 463 ALI, 1.23 2018 2W 0.19 174 33 0.81 709 62S 10 fflC-3 31.4.440 If 0.&4 fO 22 1.57 247) 3886 0.62 T14 444 II IIL IU1 ilL 1. li 1&209 . 22161 0.01 t24i · 317 w. 0.50 42 . 21 1.S4 3314 511t 0.61 T� t�?..., .. 11 �3 50.4.445 w 0.93 6039 5630 1.59 56M 89T6 0.88 5S80 4�63 Ii 0.11 i10 56 0.52 .�6 2805 0.46 3696 1711 ALL 0.61 59�� 5193 1.S1 5573 848S 0.9& 5491 i2G7 12 Mr3 68.0.000 w O.�( 13S 6 1.18 3096 3652 0.30 1T3 � II IIL II� Iii; . 0.92 1871 1120 , 0.12 IIL IIL ALL 0.04 135 s 1.17 305& :1?6 0.30 170 so ------•------�------lotes: CI-CrwPi1l I1tn1it1: 0-0atwt; GC&-Gro11 C!o•d Area; PA-Plot Ai-ea •Su11le Janers 1it� Well; 11-S&Dle l1?1tr1 1itkm leil. Oltwt in hNeB · for \ie Diatrit.tariea 2.6.000. 13.5.213.0.2.6 46. 6.5.606. 31.4.440 l 50.4.44S t�e fiiare1 ai,e1 for IIaid NII are nbiect to comctioa of ao1-re,ortiu famra 'bi\ , · · ior ·,11· fanera. the fimes an conec\ed. !. Soiree: field SuneJ Da,a. 1986-81. ,. ', •'. ,/ 55 oroductivity per acre of GCA in the WW group was only about 2 1/2 times the productivity of the NW group. For Zone-III� ·1986-87 was a non-spell year and one can notice that the CI and in the NW group were Zero for two dist ributaries (viz ., 31 . 4.440 and 68. 0.000) and shows oh ly a ma rginal improvement in the case of WW group (for the�e. two dist ributaries> - The 50.4.445 is an unique distributary of this zone about which 1 have already indicated . Since 1985-86 was a spell year for this zo�e� the wells located 1n the ayacJt of thi� dist ributary supplied good water the year 1986-87 also . For instance, there are 61 wells in the ayacut of this dist ributary, of which 40 wells supply water upto 9 months (1 of them supplying throughout)during the immediate non-spell year1 and during the spell year 50 wells supply water ·1 2 upto 9 months of which 43 wells �upply throughout . Whereas, the wells located in the ayacut of other distributaries of this Zone (31.4.440 and 68.0.000) yield very poor supply and most of them remained dry throughout th� non-spell year . For instance, there are 93 wells in these 2 dist ributari�s , out of which as rr,any as 88 remain dry througho�t; t well supplies water upto 6 months; and 4 wells supply upto 3 months during the non-spell year. During the spell year �lso , 63 wells remain dry throughout ; 6 t1 pto and (See supply 6 months 24 �ells supp ly upta 3 months. .. ------�------·12. Enormous recharge takes plece from canals to wells despite the face that can•l net wo rk (main/branch canals p distributaies and upto pipe points) of the PAP is a lined one . Th is is mainly because of extensive damages found in the lining net work of canals which is partly due to deliberate attempts of farmers and aprtly due to tresspassing of cat tle. The poor quality of maintenance work undertaken by the PWD h�s also contributed to this state of condition. ' ' .. 56 ·rable- ·13). Precisely for this reason , one notices · a strik ing difference in the productivity Het�een NW and WW gioups 1n the 50. 4. 445 distributary, but not much of a difference in the other two distributaries of this zone. The productivity per acre of GCA fo r NW group in 50. 4.445 distribuary was Rs' �310, where as it �as as higt1 as Rs. 6039 fo r WW group. At the same time, the productivity per acre of GCA for the other two distributaries of Zone-III (i.e. � 3·1. 4.440 and 68 . 0.000 ) was O for NW group and only Rs .47 for �W group. In other words th� fact of the matter is that there exists a gr·eat deal of disparity in the Cl and productivity between the areas which has access to well irriaa- tion and which does not have; but the deg ree at which they vary very much depend up�n ttle is als.o of water from the wells " It necessarv"' here to point out the ..fact that the general drought conditions prevailed • in the state would have contributed for such big difference in the productivty between the NW and WW areas ; but one shoul·d also acknowledge the fact that wells (with adequate recharge from surface sources ) !(jca.ted in the comrnand areas· pr'"ovided a 900c. insurance dur ing the drought year. I.t 15 a matter of interest to note here that the ., dis parity in prbductivity and Cl between these two areas • ------· --· · UI,; ··· . ··-- --· ---· 57 Jmuen, Distribttin of lella Acconiu to Dar1t.ion of later Sawl, ------·------·------'Dari•• S,e\lod 1ot-S111Il·Je1r1. ------. . . . ' ' Dlr1iion of Nater S..1, WiU Stell Jear ------·------·-----·------··�------laberof NellaJieldi11 hlMr of hlls Yitldiu 10 its 6to9 3io6 · Lesa tlm DnihNIO- 10 ata Sto9 3to6 Leu the On t� Sl. l!ain/Zou/ Distri . Its. 3 ate. eut ntr lo. ntan to IODtb8 aonths 3 toltU out th JtU \o its. t� • b?ane� 1 ,ear .1JIU' eanala - -�------·------�------·--- --·------�------. ,· -----· � - - ,.. 1 PIC-1 8 2 6 - 3 .....llJ. 3 2.6.000 ( I. H[L ' 2 Pl!C--1 i HH1 27 3 lfJ.... IIC-1 13.5.263 25 liL IIL IIL IIL,,r. 3 0.2.640 50 3 NIL IIL IIL 48 2 1,, ..... ![t PltC-I 20 6 2 18 3 1 • • -----··----·--·---··-·---6.5.600 ------IIL ------�·-----·-�------IIL 5 ··------.. . . . · 106 ( 99 14 1 • - TOTAL 15 2 Q • -·-·------�·----·------·------PIE I IIL -----�------5 5 3.7.330 IIL 6 18 4 HIL 3 ....'JA ...tA 6 UPC 1 27 4 II�IIL 24 UPC------19.0.15 IIL -4------IIL IIL lli,------14 ------6 32 3 UPC TOTAi. IIL 25 8 IIL IIL a, 34 9 6 5 7 IIC-II 3.4.500 10 IIL l!L 2 11 7 l!L 8 Pie-II 0.1.180 . IIL liL IIL3 IIL 9 IIL IIL .. IIL IIL IIL IILa; 9 PIIC-11 8.0.220 IIL 8 16 IIL IIL 2 .... ------·------·------·------..------PlfC-11 !OfiL 9 1 ''..... 29 ------·------13 ------15 8 18 ·------Iii 5 13 ------10 !It !!L ffle-III. • · 31.4.. 440 2 Z3 28 IIL 3 IIL IIL1 11 29 6 11 PftC-III 50.4.445 43 8 3 IIL • i'HC-IIl 68.0.000 35 t 1 'Ut . IIL IIL 4 1 · IIL l!L • • ""' -----··------·------·------.------·------·-----·... ·------43 11 '' 93 PHC-111 TOTAL 1 14 27 63 29 7• •• Rote; llllber of ,ells morled nwesent 0111 mbtr of 111Ple fUH?t de10ted b, 'MM. ll the tm: nlti'Ple wells (ie •. havina well) maot in t�le ae da.ta fanera ION tha ou iicluded the for tkose wells are not a,ailable .. . Swrce: Suno. •• I r 1· • .. -- -·--·-·-· ···---·· -----. ···-·-... --· ·--·------...... -·· ·-. ·- . - ... .. 58 1-lowever,·· · on,e finds always .h i.gher. product-ivity and Cl in the · WW z.one- a.r e a :than·· in NW area...... · I 11 \l.• h e.r. t�.· :produ etiv i;t y : is f'ound t.o: be even hi ghe.r in. the NW ar.e. a 1c:i S ,than.· WW ar·e a in the year ·1985-86� which \l. ,a spel l year f'or .this Zoti e. ·. ,1·-hi s only· ·r··einfo·rces the f-' l>in.t. that has been made earlier 1 that:.,. . \A.ells · s�r�ve, :.·a 900d pu·rpos� o:nly when . there is ade,�uat_e r: echarg·e. f' rom· surface. source� . Otherwise ., one .finds v. e,·y li.t t.le . � . ' Secondly, it appears 1n gene·ral that the CI and productiv ity per. acre of·· GCA are h:i gher in ..zone-I !' 'in particular dur ing spe 11 years :, than .i·n other zones an.d. Udurnalp�t Canal (e: 50. 4 ..445 distributary ,of Zone.... !! ,, which has an ·t.tn i,�ue lo-;c·i¾. tiona.l , advantage.) . Th is ·. i s mainl y be cause.. -of the . fac t . tha ·t · the ,distributaries of Zorte�I have easy access to canal water as thev ·are · located .i n the upper r.ea.ch o. f the system. Hence farmers of ·Zone-I of PMC are in a pos ition to raise one ful l cr op with canal water ; af'ter; c-anal w.1.ter is stopped, large rr,aj ority of them in this Zcne use well water (. wt-.ich are by . then sufficien.tly recha.r·qeti t::.anal.\· ,,.i.a ter ) f,or . another 2 or �{ . , ; crops. ,-h is lS possible be c:�\use ·e ven· w·.1-1.er, water· 'is· stopped for zone-I , w�ter ,. will keep flowing in the main canal for other two zones so •· s.evera-1· wel 1 s . get rechar. ged in the dyacut · of' Zo.ne-1. For instan ce, water . was rele .ased : :for , · ZcnP.-1 fr om ·1 5. 2. ·1986 to 20. 6. ·1986 ;. but after a. smal l -.J·ap .,. a,�ain. water was let in the main canal . for Zflne-II . from 1-9-1986 to 30- 1-1987 . The case · of . e , e e a b u,r� da.n t · r har '1 e .P r·.o m s ur fa ce so u r c s · t ci . we I 1 s 1 ocat d i n · .· t. he a.yacut of Zone-I is clearl y seen from Ta.ble-13, which gives ...... ,_., .,., ,.,. . __ _ ...... __ . ------·------" _ _ - · · I · i " 59 • details on number of months for which wells yield water durir1g spell and non-spell years for each ione . For instance, out of ... 127 wells located in the ayacut or Zone-I, 106 yield water (i.e.83¾ ) fo r ·1 0 rr,onths to ··1 ye11 r dur ing spel 1 year and durin·� non-spell year 99 wells (i.e.SOX > yield water for 10 months to 1 yea r • . Most of the remaining wells al so supply water upto 6 months. In other zones, the picture is completely different. Most of the wells either remain dry through out or supply only upto 3 months both during spell and non-spell years • . Thirdly, one ,finds the and intere�tingly too t variation 1n productivity . across distributaries withir1 a Zone higher in WW area than in NW area during non-s p:, 11 year$, and during s pe 11 years, ·variation is found to be higher in NW area than in WW area. As it has ·been indi cated earl ier, during the non-spell years , there i s- abs o 1 u te l y no s cope .f o r any i r r- i g ati on i n the NW area and since crops ve ry much depend upon = rainfall , one finds not much of a variation in the produ�tivity across distributaries with in a zone . •�owever, in the � area .. since 1S• . ,, • ' productivity influenced by the well irrigation, -one finds a great deal of variation .=a cro�s distributaries with in zone an d the productivity va�iation is caused by the specific local factors such . as well dens ity, locat ional advantage of wells, avai lability .... of water in the well s, extent· of recharge poss ible from surface :to sub-surface and so on. During the spell years, however, productivity variation across distributaries (within a zone ) 1$• be found to higher in the NW area than WW area•• for the main . ' . I r. . 60 . . .• ' ·, . , . �--. .. . . ' ...·, ., reason that the producf� ivity in ,t he . former area v.ery much depends upon. the vagaries oi: ·ca�al water supply , wherea� in the WW area, �armers ,hav� the optic� to supplement �ell �ater whenever supply inadequate. · In :. ,.,' .. ; fr.Qmr ; canas is ir'rigulaf and other words , since · . . far.mer;s in the WW area 'have supplementary source of irrigation < t.\l e. t lJ ;. p ro duc t i i.v t y v a r ati i on a cr o s s d i s tr i buta r i e s i s f o u rtd t o be le:s � during spell years ; in contrast 1 in the NW area, since .f'arrner.s . h.:ive to rf�ly entirely upon canai water , 5 £_,q_ n cluding .Qbser"vat(.Q.'ll On the whole while looking at the ��ttern of ground water ut ilisat ion in these two systems ; the following issoes become clear. ,.· . ( i ) Th� extent of conjunctive use bf ground and surface · w21te rs is quite signific�nt :in bcith the systems, which perhAps ., . .. , 1T1,-akes it obvious that the . officia l statistics pertaining to conjunctive us e irri•1ation ,is· in gross understated. (.ll . . ) The e :< ten t of' are a un der co r, j u n c ti v e use i r ri g at i on i n general was found ta be higher in the head reach .. of both the syste1r1s precise ly because of adequate an4.. regular ,·echarge from surface sources to the wells located in the ayacuts. However no systematic patte rn in terms of extent of area. un de t· coryjunctive use irrigation and it varies across tanks, across zones of PAP and across distributaries. In fact ., it verv-· much deper,ds ··. upon specifi c: l�cal condi t.ion s �uch as the o·ccu.ra11 ce of grount.i · water aquifers, suitable g�olo�ical formations. regul�r ------·· , ···-�-�------i · · illi I soutces for r·echarge by way of tanks, canals and percolation ponds (in addition to rainfall> and so on. c.anal water. In fact, a large nulber of wells , in particular zone-I of' PMC ,, heavily depend upon flows in the canals. The rotational method of irrigation that is in vogue in this system induces farmers to use well water as a suppl ementary source. Moreover, it was widely reported (official statistics on dates of water re 1 ease al so conf'i rm this point). that the dates of water release rarely coincides with agricul tural seasons of the area. . . Therefore 1 wells located in the command area serves more u� eful pu rpose . Fot':, instance , th�se who have wells start their cultivation ri.•Jht at the beginning of' a season using well water and use canal water when it is released fo r the rest of the crop _period . Since the first crop is harveste� well before the end of a spell period, a large numbet of those who are favourably pl aced (in terms of getting access to canal �ater ) raise second crop using canal water atleast for a part of the season, and resort to well wat jr aqain. ·- till the harvest • Above all , Coimbatore district has a long history ol well irrigation and fo r a long time area irrigated by surface sources was very iimited . Hence at the time of introduction of. new canal .. . 1n irrigation proj e�ts large number of wel ls. were al ready found the · proposed ayac�ts. This wa• perhaps an initial conducive fac·tor which enabled farmers to adopt conjunctive irrigation management techniq ue. ·-· ... ______·---,,,_,,., .. . . . �, "• 62 (iv ) The impact of conjun ctive use is clearly seen in terms ,' of · .. we t crop cultivation , higher cropping intensity and ' productivity. But thfs again varies across tanl-t:s/distributaries and also across segments of a particJJlar ayacut.. The study shows that the ayacuts closer to the system/distributary/tank (which are likely to have better access to water ) pe rformed better than the tail end avacuts. However , access to ground water has been . , the ma in factor which influences the variation in productivity • also has some negative effects. For instan ce, over crcwding of reduces wells in the head reach of a system 1 flow of surface water to the tail ends. This is in particu�ar true of PAP. The developm-nt of well irri:gation on a massive �cale in the tank ' . ayacutp (the·•case of PAS > poses an altogether different problem. Its direct effects are as follows : The traditional irrigatio� institut ions which hithertu too�: care . : -o·f' the tnai ntenan ce and water dist r i b.ut ion network, lost interest, and as a result, tanks have been in disuse in several · .. In our survey of 15 tanks 1n PAS P in ·six of them · . i irr].•;Jtition t.rad.i ' . , t onal institutions are defunct. in si:< of' therr, . . . . and y:illage repor·ted . in fact· in one .. as· earlier, sluices he-lve been closed permanently. (see, Janakarajan 1989 ) In effect, the tank.. me rely purpose a . se rves the of' . percolatic,n pond. While it 1S i desirable in prin • c.. ple to use the tank wate..- f.o r recha rging purpo�e� into sub-st.frface, there· is another dimension to this Who have taken such a decision of closing the sluices . ' ·� --·-- ·---·--- ·------�---- i .. 1,L : 6·3 of tank? Although we have not probed into this aspect, there 1S e-very reason to be lieve thdt the· decision would have been taken by the leading land owners who have greater access ·to ground wate r and who benefit · a grea� deal by way of getting regular recharge of water into their wells. For them, the well irrigat ion serves better since it is much more assured and control lc":\t,J.e.� However, in such tanks, t�, e section that is wor-st hit 1$ that of resource poor farmers who do not have we lls or those whose cultivation is enti rely depending upon tank water. Such farmers, ultimately resort to purchase of well water from resource rich farmers who have greater access to land and ground 13 f wate r. (Vi ) It is interesting to note that wl,ile in PAS command water sales is prevalent and absolute ly not in prevalence in PAP · command area . This is- because the conditions are favourable for • water sales in PAS and .no so in PAP. In the case of PAS command there 1s a possibility foF regular res�arch from tanks: ground water table relatively is not very deep; and holding$ are very rriuch f ragm·e n ted" Whereas in PAP r holdings are large; incidence of wells 1s high; ground water table has gone down very deep there 1s no possibi lity for re9ular recharge into the wells except in Zone-I and so most of the wells yield poor water supply wh ich may not be ·adequte even for self cultivation. Although 1n -� ___ .,.______13. For detai ls on the socio-economic impli cations of ope rations of grund water market, see, Janakaraj an , S 1986) .which results in high cost of water extraction; , .. --·----...- t ' '.,l 'II, I I'�- ,J' , 1 · " ,: f "� , ,, I • ,'ilfl,, 64 Zone-I ground water supply is quite �dequate water sales dbes not take place fo r the reason that about 80% of the area receives own well irrigation. important to r·ecognise the fact that a proper regulation is necess�-ary· in its utilisation in order to main tain the g�ound water b.a lat1ce ar,cl to avoid any ecolo,1i cal and environmental consequences. The existing legislative measures (for regulatiM g '1 round wa t e ·r u t i 1 i sat i on ) . are in the nature of stopping institutional finance to thpse wh� dig wells in a prohibited area or to th�s� who do n�t maintain the minimum spacing imposed bv th� · g6�t. between the existing well and new well or denying the . ..: . . electricity s•�vice connection to those who �iolate government· . . ,. : regulations. However r such rest rictions imposed by the governmerlt poor fa r· mers affect only. resource (who depend· upon institutional lending agencies for funds> and the we1·1 to do self-finan cing farmers are in no way affe cted. Such self- financing farmers can still go ahe�d in digging a new well ana instal diesel eng ine as a water extracting mec hanism instead of · ele ctt ic motor. Moreover ., such rich farmers7 us ing thei r pol itic:al . ' influence , resort to the backdoor method of obtaining necessary funds and licenses from gove rnment agencies , violating thereby al l the government regulations. Perhaps, quite contrary to ones expectation , such government regul�tions may result 1 n the err1er,3en ce of "new ine•�uality" among well owners pose any threat on rich self-financing farmers, they dig a new well in a restricted area and �ince they keep on deepening it� e: farmers (who have resource constra int> may have to abandon their we lls and may join the camp of \no well group' '( Viii ) Finallyr it is import�nt to note that the surface irrigation proj ects in general are always designed with the bas ic assumption. that th.e entire com�and area of a system is one homo��neous unit. But as a matter of fact, it is far from reality: There exists a great d�al of variations within command area . of a system in so far as agro-climatic and soil moisture conditio.n s, th• rate of ev�potranspiration, the existing practice of crop · pattern, the occurrance pf ground water aquifers :.. 14 etc. :&re concerned • Our own survey in· the command area showed .. wide variations in soil types and soil moisture conditions as well as in the availability of ground �ater even within the _.,______14. See also , Alooh... <1990) - ·-· . ,, ,_, ··--· .. . -···�------. ,_,__ . -··· ' ' ' . • t . · t,. I ' , . 66