ISSN (Print) - 0012-9976 | ISSN (Online) - 2349-8846

A+| A| A-

Upstream vs Downstream

No alternative to rainwater harvesting may be available for ensuring rural livelihood in a state like Rajasthan that faces frequent droughts. But it is imperative to examine whether these traditional methods lead to uneven recharge of groundwater between the upstream and downstream. This paper analyses the status of groundwater availability in three villages of Alwar district, which are located in the upstream and downstream of the Arwari basin, where a large number of communities have constructed numerous rainwater harvesting structures.

Upstream vs Downstream

Groundwater Management and Rainwater Harvesting

No alternative to rainwater harvesting may be available for ensuring rural livelihood in a state like Rajasthan that faces frequent droughts. But it is imperative to examine whether these traditional methods lead to uneven recharge of groundwater between the upstream and downstream. This paper analyses the status of groundwater availability in three villages of Alwar district, which are located in the upstream and downstream of the Arwari basin, where a large number of communities have constructed numerous rainwater harvesting structures.

SUNIL RAY, MAHENDRA BIJARNIA

T
he rationale that one seeks to justify revival of traditional practices of rainwater harvesting in a drought-prone area, needless to mention, may override other development initiatives. The practices are simple, ecologically sensitive, peoplefriendly and proven through century-old tradition. However, the colonial legacy that had a remarkable impact on designing development intervention pushed this tradition to the periphery [Shresth and Devidas 2001]. What underlies this powerful tradition is that it is based on the fundamental law of hydrology. It views the hydrological cycle in its entirety in that no superficial distinction is made between ground and surface water [Chopra and Kadekodi 2002]. It recharges underground aquifers and makes groundwater reserve possible depending upon the nature of the former. Therefore, it is a “dynamic resource” strictly from the viewpoint of a hydrologist (ibid). One may argue that the approach to development and management of water, as followed after independence, failed to appreciate this basic principle of hydrology. In its absence, forces of economic change in the drought-prone area turned retrogressive as a sequel to a repetitive ecological backlash. The synergy that existed earlier between ecology and economy broke down and water was a significant component of the former.

While one acclaims traditional practices of rainwater harvesting as a step in the right direction, it is imperative to examine whether such a practice results in uneven recharge of groundwater between the upstream and downstream. In other words, does the recharge of groundwater justify an equitable allocation of groundwater between the upstream and downstream when rainwater is harvested in the upstream of a river? Or, is it the “law of the water jungle” that says, “he who is upstream is allowed anything; whosoever is downstream better get used to it” [Kelman and Kelman 2002].

It is in this context that the present study examines what happens to the status of groundwater availability through recharge in the downstream vis-a-vis upstream villages in the same river basin when rainwater is harvested simultaneously in both locations. Equally important is to examine its development implications especially for agriculture through intensification of irrigation in both locations. At the initiative of the Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), an NGO, communities of a large number of villages located in the upstream and downstream of the Arwari river basin in Thanagazi block of Alwar district brought back their traditional practices of rainwater harvesting. As many as 700 villages in 12 districts of Rajasthan were covered for conservation and management of water resources, which it was claimed, resulted in the regeneration of 6,500 sq km of land and an increase in forest cover [Pangre 2003]. Bhanwata (upstream) and Samra (downstream) are two such villages of Alwar district where village communities have constructed a large number of rainwater harvesting structures besides repairing the old ones during last one and a half decades or so. The present exercise concentrates on these two upstream and downstream villages and examines how the revival of traditional practices of rainwater harvesting affected the groundwater recharge and brought about changes in agriculture in the respective villages.

The paper is divided into five parts. While the first part of the paper briefly describes the physiography of the villages under study and the drainage system of the Arwari river, the second part is devoted to the estimation of groundwater recharge and its availability. The third part of the paper examines the fluctuating trend of the groundwater level of both the upstream and downstream villages. The fourth part analyses its development implications for agriculture, mainly in terms of intensification of groundwater-based irrigation and agricultural yield and the fifth part presents a few conclusions.

IIIII
Physiography and Drainage SystemPhysiography and Drainage SystemPhysiography and Drainage SystemPhysiography and Drainage SystemPhysiography and Drainage System

One of the most influential factors that determines groundwater recharge is the hydrogeological formation (rock structure), given the rainfall of the area. The villages of Thanagazi block including the ones under study are covered by the Aravalli Hills that run north to south and range in height from 300 m to 600 m. The region has more or less flat-topped hills with fertile valleys. Apart from topographical differences, the formation of the rock structures is dissimilar between the villages. While it is slate in Bhanwata, Samra has quartzite structure. No significant difference is discernible between the specific yield of these rock structures. However, differences might occur in case fault in the rock develops. In such a situation, the groundwater recharge increases while it never happens when no such fault occurs. The upstream village like Bhanwata has had the privilege of having small faults in its rock structure and its dips

Drainage Pattern of Arwari River BasinDrainage Pattern of Arwari River BasinDrainage Pattern of Arwari River BasinDrainage Pattern of Arwari River BasinDrainage Pattern of Arwari River Basin

Legend Stream Channel Waterbody Watershed Boundary District Boundary Study Village Bhanwata-Kolyala Arwari River Samra Bidila River Arwari River Santhalsagar Khyar Bandh Rayatwala Bandh

Source: Survey of India, 54 A/4,7,8.

were more inclined towards the village. There was no fault in the rock structure of Samra [GoR 1999]. In other words, the capacity to recharge groundwater was “naturally” under favourable conditions in the upstream as compared to downstream.

Soil in both upstream and downstream villages was primarily brown light loam that varied between reddish brown to dark reddish brown. Bhanwata, a tiny village with a total number of households of 55 is located nearer to one of the sources from where Arwari river originates. The downstream village Samra was with a total number of 291 households.

Besides repairing the old ones, different types of structures were constructed at different points of time since the late 1980s in both villages. They included ‘johads’, ‘bunds’, ‘anicuts’, ‘paal’/‘medbandi’, ‘talai’, ‘talab’, etc. Within an area of 3.39 sq kms, Bhanwata-Kolyala had 30 such structures, while Samra had 46 structures in an area of 20.57 sq kms. These structures were owned both by private and village community. One of the major sources of the river, as the drainage system shows, originates near Bhanwata and flows from north to south where it joins Santhalsagar (see the map). The other source of the river originates near the village Agar. There are many tributaries of Arwari river joining in Samra. However, two of them are main tributaries – one which flows from Jhiri side (north of Samra) and the other one was that flows from Piplai Jagannathpura side on the east of Samra. The mainstream of the river stretches for 45 kms covering a catchment area of 503 sq kms. The river is not a perennial one. It flows only during the rainy season. All 70 villages, 35 villages each of Thanagazi and Jamwa Ramgarh blocks of Alwar district settled down in the catchment area of this river for last several centuries.

IIIIIIIIII
Estimation of Groundwater RechargeEstimation of Groundwater RechargeEstimation of Groundwater RechargeEstimation of Groundwater RechargeEstimation of Groundwater Recharge
and Its Availabilityand Its Availabilityand Its Availabilityand Its Availabilityand Its Availability

In order to estimate groundwater recharge in both villages under study, the guidelines recommended by the groundwater estimation committee appointed by the ministry of water resources, government of India, during 1997 were followed.1 This was a revised version of the one recommended by the same during 1984. The revised version is illustrated briefly in the following model.

ModelModelModelModelModel

Several factors were taken into consideration for estimation of groundwater recharge in each year from 1988 to 2001. These included the geographical area of the village, fluctuations in the groundwater level, crop yield, drafting of groundwater (agriculture + domestic) and rainfall during monsoon and non-monsoon periods etc.2 Data on specific yield of groundwater with the given underground rock structure of both villages were collected from groundwater department, government of Rajasthan. It was 0.03 mcm (million cubic metre) per sq km of the area in both villages. Besides, new variables were generated from the basic data as mentioned above and incorporated into the model.

One must bear in mind that the recharge of groundwater of any year is assessed based on the data available on each factor pertaining to previous five years. This is done in order to normalise recharge of groundwater of that concerned year as per the Groundwater Estimation Committee. Hence, the groundwater recharge in both villages after 1989-90 might be treated more as an outcome of the efforts made for harvesting rainwater given the same rainfall. The method for estimating total annual groundwater recharge for any assessment year is as follows TGWR = TRM + TRNM ...(i) (TGWR = Total normal groundwater recharge, TRM=Total recharge during monsoon season,TRNM = Total recharge in nonmonsoon season.) While, TRM = ANMR + TRS ...(ii) (ANMR= Accepted value of normal monsoon rainfall recharge, TRS = Total recharge from other sources.) Accepted value of normal monsoon rainfall recharge is obtained by rainfall infiltration factor (RIF), which is constant. MRIF= PA * NMRA * R I Factor ...(iii) (MRIF = Monsoon recharge by R I Factor, PA = Potential area, NMRA = Normal monsoon rainfall of the assessment year, R I F = Rainfall infiltration factor) Rainfall infiltration factor is 0.08, which is constant for Thanagazi block (government of Rajasthan, groundwater department, 2001). The following linear regression equation is used in order to estimate normal recharge of groundwater during monsoon Normal recharge = A* Normal monsoon rainfall + B ...(iv) (Where A and B are the coefficient in the regression analysis.) While estimating the accepted value of normal monsoon rainfall recharge, RIF, as mentioned earlier, assumes an important role.

Figure 1b: Groundwater Recharge Per Square Km in TwoFigure 1b: Groundwater Recharge Per Square Km in TwoFigure 1b: Groundwater Recharge Per Square Km in TwoFigure 1b: Groundwater Recharge Per Square Km in TwoFigure 1b: Groundwater Recharge Per Square Km in TwoFigure 1a: Groundwater Recharge Per Square KmFigure 1a: Groundwater Recharge Per Square KmFigure 1a: Groundwater Recharge Per Square KmFigure 1a: Groundwater Recharge Per Square KmFigure 1a: Groundwater Recharge Per Square Km
Villages during the Non-MonsoonVillages during the Non-MonsoonVillages during the Non-MonsoonVillages during the Non-MonsoonVillages during the Non-Monsoonin Two Villages during the Monsoonin Two Villages during the Monsoonin Two Villages during the Monsoonin Two Villages during the Monsoonin Two Villages during the Monsoon

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 mcm 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Samra Bhanwata

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year Samra

Bhanwata

(NRRNM = Normal recharge from rainfall during non-monsoon season, RFOS = Recharge from other, Rgw = Monsoon recharge from groundwater irrigation, Rt = Monsoon recharge from tank and pond, Rsw=Monsoon recharge from surface water irrigation.) As per the Estimation Committee, if normal non-monsoon rainfall is equal to or more than 10 per cent of normal annual rainfall of the assessment year, then TRNM = R I F * PA * NNMR ...(v)

mcm

(NNMR = Normal non-monsoon rainfall)

mcm

Year

Figure 1c: Annual Groundwater RechargeFigure 1c: Annual Groundwater RechargeFigure 1c: Annual Groundwater RechargeFigure 1c: Annual Groundwater RechargeFigure 1c: Annual Groundwater Recharge
Per Square KM in Two VillagesPer Square KM in Two VillagesPer Square KM in Two VillagesPer Square KM in Two VillagesPer Square KM in Two Villages

0.10

0.09

0.08

0.07

0.06

0.05

0.04

0.03

0.02

0.01

0.00

19881989199019911992199319941995199619971998199920002001

Year

Samra

Bhanwata

As per the Estimation Committee, normally there is a deviation between normal recharge and recharge by RIF. However, if percentage deviation of recharge by RIF from normal recharge lies between ± 20, recharge by RIF may be accepted. And, if percentage deviation is less than –20, then 80 per cent of recharge by RIF is acceptable. However, if it is more than +20, then 120 per cent of recharge by RIF may be taken into consideration.

Similarly, for groundwater recharge during non-monsoon period, TRNM (Pre-monsoon + Post-monsoon) = NRRNM + RFOS (Rgw + Rt + Rsw)

Table 1: Annual Groundwater Recharge Including Monsoon,Table 1: Annual Groundwater Recharge Including Monsoon,Table 1: Annual Groundwater Recharge Including Monsoon,Table 1: Annual Groundwater Recharge Including Monsoon,Table 1: Annual Groundwater Recharge Including Monsoon,
Non-Monsoon in Upstream and DownstreamNon-Monsoon in Upstream and DownstreamNon-Monsoon in Upstream and DownstreamNon-Monsoon in Upstream and DownstreamNon-Monsoon in Upstream and Downstream
(1988-2001)(1988-2001)(1988-2001)(1988-2001)(1988-2001)

Upstream (Bhanwata) Downstream (Samra)

Year Recharge in Recharge Total Recharge in Recharge Total
Monsoon in Non-Recharge Monsoon in Non-Recharge
Per Sq Km Monsoon Per Per Sq Km Monsoon Per
(mcm) Per Sq Km Sq Km (mcm) Per Sq Km Sq Km
(mcm) (mcm) (mcm) (mcm)
1988 0.0691 0.0042 0.0733 0.0685 0.0023 0.0708
1989 0.0691 0.0042 0.0733 0.0685 0.0023 0.0708
1990 0.0685 0.0153 0.0838 0.0457 0.0146 0.0604
1991 0.0691 0.0042 0.0733 0.0457 0.0018 0.0475
1992 0.0691 0.0155 0.0846 0.0457 0.0131 0.0589
1993 0.0703 0.0077 0.0780 0.0460 0.0026 0.0486
1994 0.0702 0.0165 0.0868 0.0454 0.0098 0.0552
1995 0.0697 0.0130 0.0828 0.0461 0.0097 0.0558
1996 0.0697 0.0127 0.0825 0.0461 0.0093 0.0554
1997 0.0702 0.0324 0.1025 0.0511 0.0278 0.0789
1998 0.0706 0.0164 0.0870 0.0571 0.0104 0.0676
1999 0.0714 0.0111 0.0826 0.0572 0.0029 0.0600
2000 0.0711 0.0101 0.0812 0.0686 0.0027 0.0713
2001 0.0707 0.0287 0.0994 0.0686 0.0222 0.0908

Source: Estimation based on the data collected respectively from groundwater and irrigation departments, government of Rajasthan.

If normal non-monsoon rainfall is less than 10 per cent of normal annual rainfall of the assessment year, it may be assumed that there is no recharge during non-monsoon season. NGWA = TGWR – NDNM ...(vi) SGWD = NAV – TD ...(vii) (NGWA = Net groundwater availability, NDNM = Natural discharge during non-monsoon season, SGWD = Stage of groundwater development, NAV = Net availability, TD = Total draft for all uses.)

Based on the methodology, as explained above, the total annual groundwater recharge per square km including during the monsoon and non-monsoon periods, is estimated in respect of both the upstream and downstream villages under study and shown in Table 1. Interventions made by TBS in these villages took place during 1987-88. Hence, the status of the annual groundwater recharge roughly before 1990 and after, can fairly explain the differences made in the improvement in groundwater recharge. The estimated results are shown in respect of each year from 1988 to 2001 for both villages in Table 1.

Table 1 shows that groundwater recharge during monsoon and non-monsoon months and the total annual recharge was almost same for both villages before 1990. The total annual recharge of groundwater was 0.0733 mcm (million cubic metre) per sq km in Bhanwata during 1988 and 1989, while it was 0.0708 mcm in Samra. However, after 1989, the volume of groundwater recharge differed widely between both villages in that it declined in Samra much below the level of that of Bhanwata. One can make out its trend clearly from Figures 1a, 1b and 1c that depict the same estimated results of monsoon, non-monsoon and annual groundwater recharge respectively.

Figure 1c shows that the gap in the volume of groundwater recharge per sq km started increasing between upstream and downstream villages after 1989 when the water-harvesting structure made an impact. It widened further in the following years as the revival of rainwater harvesting intensified in the upstream. It may be noted that new impounding structures were also constructed downstream after 1988. Despite this, the scale of recharge of groundwater in this area was much lower than that

Figure 2a: GroundwaterFigure 2a: GroundwaterFigure 2a: GroundwaterFigure 2a: GroundwaterFigure 2a: Groundwater
Figure 2b: GroundwaterFigure 2b: GroundwaterFigure 2b: GroundwaterFigure 2b: GroundwaterFigure 2b: GroundwaterLevel (Pre-Monsoon)Level (Pre-Monsoon)Level (Pre-Monsoon)Level (Pre-Monsoon)Level (Pre-Monsoon)
Level (Post-Monsoon)Level (Post-Monsoon)Level (Post-Monsoon)Level (Post-Monsoon)Level (Post-Monsoon)

5 0

-5

-5

-10

-10

-15

1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Bhanwata

Samra

metre 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Bhanwata

Samra

metre

-20

-20

-25

-25

-30

-30

-35

-35

Source: State groundwater department, government of Rajasthan.

of upstream village. Interestingly, the gap between them narrowed during 2000 and 2001. One may see it in Figure 1c. This seemed to have happened firstly because these villages received more than average rainfall during the previous years that were taken into consideration, while estimating groundwater recharge in these years. Secondly, there was no question of arresting run-off water during the drought years of 1999 and 2000 in the upstream that could have raised its groundwater recharge more as compared to the downstream. The all-pervading drought conditions did not allow such a gap to aggravate further especially after 2000. This seems to indicate that the status of recharge of groundwater remained unaffected in both the upstream and downstream villages when they were affected by drought equally. Almost a similar condition existed before 1990, which was why, as Figure 1c shows, the recharge of groundwater during this period was almost same in both locations.

The downstream villages were likely to encounter three scenarios after 2001. The first one was the decline of recharge of groundwater in case drought continued to pervade these villages after 2001. In such a situation, the question of run-off rainwater flowing towards the downstream from the upstream would never arise. The condition of recharge in the upstream would be the same as in the downstream. The second one, however, would be different from the first one if rainfall was normal (not exceeding average rainfall) and no adequate quantity of run-off rainwater was allowed to flow towards the downstream. In such a situation, the recharge of groundwater in the upstream might go up while it might go down in the downstream leading to a further widening of the gap between the two. The third scenario was the one that might be an outcome of excessive rainfall (more than average) in the area. This was a favourable condition for increasing the scale of recharge of groundwater in the downstream. For, it was only under such conditions that run-off rainwater could flow from upstream to downstream.

Hence, it is not only a question of how many water-harvesting structures are constructed in downstream. Their importance can hardly be overstated, and, therefore, they do fulfil necessary conditions for recharging groundwater. However, the sufficient condition for groundwater recharge in the context of the same river basin with the same physiography is how much run-off rainwater is allowed to flow from upstream to downstream. Figure 1a shows that groundwater recharge in monsoon per sq km was the same in respect of both upstream and downstream villages before 1990. However, after 1990 recharge of groundwater per sq km during the monsoon in the upstream area was much higher than that downstream. It was around 0.07 mcm in Bhanwata, while 0.04 to 0.05 mcm in Samra although both villages received same rainfall. The status continued to remain almost same in both locations until 1999.

It was only after 1999 that the downstream areas could witness a rise of groundwater along with the upstream due to excessive rainfall, as mentioned above, in the previous years. Bhanwata, however, did not exhibit any noticeable change in the status of groundwater recharge during monsoon (although its level was higher than that of Samra). The normal rainfall of Thanagazi block is 705.4 mm. However, as Table 2 shows, the actual rainfall received during 1993 was 845.0 mm, 797.0 mm in 1994, 1016.0 mm in 1995, 1194.0 mm in 1996, 810.0 mm in 1997 and

711.0 mm in1998. The rise of recharge of groundwater in the downstream village may be explained more in terms of cumulative effect of excessive rainfall (more than average) during these years.

A downstream village like that of Samra had reasons to benefit from excessive rainfall. For, excess run-off water is naturally let off towards the downstream once the maximum capacity of the existing structures to harvest rainwater was filled up upstream. This explains why groundwater recharge in Bhanwata was almost the same throughout 1990 and early 2000. This also explains why groundwater recharge in Samra rose steeply in late 1990s. One may note that average rainfall before 1993 was lower than normal rainfall (Table 2). It means that there was no excessive run-off rainwater to flow down during this period and therefore, no positive impact was made on groundwater recharge in Samra.

Table 2: Pre-Monsoon, Monsoon and Post-Monsoon RainfallTable 2: Pre-Monsoon, Monsoon and Post-Monsoon RainfallTable 2: Pre-Monsoon, Monsoon and Post-Monsoon RainfallTable 2: Pre-Monsoon, Monsoon and Post-Monsoon RainfallTable 2: Pre-Monsoon, Monsoon and Post-Monsoon Rainfall
(mm) of Thanagazi Block, 1984 -2001(mm) of Thanagazi Block, 1984 -2001(mm) of Thanagazi Block, 1984 -2001(mm) of Thanagazi Block, 1984 -2001(mm) of Thanagazi Block, 1984 -2001

Year Pre-Monsoon Monsoon Post-Monsoon

1984 0.0 703.0 0.0 1985 0.0 650.0 76.0 1986 37.0 178.0 11.0 1987 143.0 331.0 17.0 1988 46.0 510.0 5.0 1989 6.0 418.0 0.0 1990 124.0 587.6 37.0 1991 5.0 279.0 38.0 1992 115.2 621.8 26.0 1993 73.0 845.0 0.0 1994 112.0 797.0 0.0 1995 86.0 1016.0 0.0 1996 75.0 1194.0 7.0 1997 27.0 810.0 286.0 1998 63.0 711.0 33.0 1999 49.0 629.0 0.0 2000 66.0 499.0 0.0 2001 220.0 334.0 24.0

Note: Normal rainfall for Thanagazi Block is 705.4 mm. Source: Irrigation department (hydrology), Rajasthan.

Figure 3: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 3: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 3: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 3: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 3: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of Groundwater
Figure 4: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 4: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 4: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 4: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of GroundwaterFigure 4: Net Annual Recharge and Draft of Groundwater
in Upstream Villagein Upstream Villagein Upstream Villagein Upstream Villagein Upstream Village
in Downstream Villagein Downstream Villagein Downstream Villagein Downstream Villagein Downstream Village

2.00

0.25

1.80

1.60

0.20

1.40

1.20

metremetre

1.00

0.80

0.60

0.05

0.00

1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Year

f

t

Net Annual Recharge of Groundwater

Net Annual Draft of Groundwater Source: Same as for Table 1.

However, it did not make any serious difference to Bhanwata. For, it could harvest rainwater to whatever extent it could do so, depending upon the number and type of structures no matter what the rainfall was.

Figure 1b shows no significant difference in groundwater recharge during the non-monsoon period between the upstream and downstream villages. However, even at a lower level, recharge in the downstream village was consistently below upstream. The volume of recharge in both villages that was comparatively higher during 1997 and 2001 may be explained by the fact that non-monsoon rainfall received during those years was much higher than 10 per cent of the normal rainfall (as explained in the model).

In order to gain more insights into the changing status of availability of groundwater, it may be equally important to examine the water level and its fluctuations during the same period corresponding to recharge of groundwater, because they have a significant bearing on agro-ecological change.

IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Groundwater Level and Its FluctuationsGroundwater Level and Its FluctuationsGroundwater Level and Its FluctuationsGroundwater Level and Its FluctuationsGroundwater Level and Its Fluctuations

One reads the groundwater level based on the depth from the surface that it is available. It provides an appropriate condition for recharge of underground aquifers. In other words, deeper the level of groundwater, higher is the capacity of the aquifers to recharge through higher degree of infiltration of rainwater, if there exist favourable hydrological conditions. The higher recharge of groundwater, in turn, contributes to the enhancement of the groundwater level. Apart from water being recharged, other hydrological factors contribute to the enhancement of the level of groundwater. In order to examine the fluctuations of water level of both upstream and downstream areas and its status before and after water harvesting structures were constructed, data on water level were collected from hydrographic stations located in the respective places. For upstream villages, data were collected from hydrographic station located at Agar ki Dhani, which was half a km away from Bhanwata, and for downstream, the same were collected from the hydrographic station, which was located inside the village under study. Data were collected on water level during pre- and post-monsoon season in respect of both villages.

The seasonal (pre- and post-monsoon) fluctuations of groundwater levels for almost last two decades are shown in Figures 2a and 2b. It appears from these figures that the groundwater level of Samra, the downstream village, during both pre- and

0.40

0.20

0.00 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Year

Net Annual Draft of Groundwater

Net Annual Recharge of Groundwater

Source: Same as for Table 1.

post-monsoon sessions, was higher than that of Bhanwata, the upstream village, until 1988-89 when water-harvesting structures were constructed and began to prevent a run-off rainwater from flowing downstream. However, after 1990 the groundwater level of the same was much lower than that of Bhanwata and continuously declined until 1994. As seen earlier, this part of the state received more than average rainfall consecutively for five years from 1994 to 1998. This might be the reason why the groundwater level exhibited a rise in both villages, although the level at which it increased the downstream was lower than that of the upstream. Perpetual drought may be the reason for the decline of groundwater level in the following years.

In other words, had the flow of water in the Arwari river basin remained the same (in the absence of human intervention for harvesting rainwater upstream), the groundwater level of the downstream village would have been “naturally” above that of the upstream village. However, the reversal of the trend of the level of groundwater of both villages, as Figures 2a and 2b show, seemed to have pushed the downstream village into having the inferior status of the level of groundwater consequent upon the arrest of run-off water upstream. The statistical results as shown in Table 3 indicate that fluctuation of groundwater before intervention was not significant while it turned out to be significant at 1 per cent level of confidence after rainwater harvesting structures were constructed.

Such a fluctuating trend indicated a better situation related to the availability of groundwater in the upstream areas. For, increasing availability of groundwater due to recharge definitely contributed immensely to agriculture in terms of expansion of area under irrigation, agricultural production and livestock development. However, the rise in agricultural activity, it seemed, did not comply with the quantum of recharge of groundwater under the given hydrological conditions. This might lead one to doubt whether such a positive change is sustainable.

As per the Groundwater Estimate Committee, if the rate of utilisation of groundwater as a percentage of the available

Table 3: Results of the Significance Test of Fluctuation ofTable 3: Results of the Significance Test of Fluctuation ofTable 3: Results of the Significance Test of Fluctuation ofTable 3: Results of the Significance Test of Fluctuation ofTable 3: Results of the Significance Test of Fluctuation of
Groundwater Before and After InterventionGroundwater Before and After InterventionGroundwater Before and After InterventionGroundwater Before and After InterventionGroundwater Before and After Intervention

Lower CI# Upper Significance (2-tailed)
Before intervention After intervention -3.57 -6.47 0.97 -1.37 0.211 0.007*

Notes: # 95 per cent Confidence Interval; * Significant at 1 per cent.

Figure 5: Irrigated Area as a Percentage of Total CroppedFigure 5: Irrigated Area as a Percentage of Total CroppedFigure 5: Irrigated Area as a Percentage of Total CroppedFigure 5: Irrigated Area as a Percentage of Total CroppedFigure 5: Irrigated Area as a Percentage of Total Cropped
AreaAreaAreaAreaArea
in Bhanwata and Samrain Bhanwata and Samrain Bhanwata and Samrain Bhanwata and Samrain Bhanwata and Samra

100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10

This might be the reason why almost 90 per cent of the sample respondents of Bhanwata observed that there had been a rise in the groundwater level while only 15 per cent in Samra felt so. However, one must note that, as the field survey revealed, the villagers of Bhanwata-Kolyala could gain access to that level of groundwater by deepening more than 50 per cent of the existing wells in this village. For, water level in this village, as shown in Figures 2a and 2b, continuously declined after 1997 in the pre-monsoon period and in 1996 in the post-monsoon period. So long as deepening of wells remains cost-effective, farmers will continue to make their efforts to reach this level of ground-

Percentage 1988-891989-901990-911992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-022002-03

water. If more cropped area is brought under irrigation than what it is at present, it is quite likely that the farmers of the upstream village may be pushed into the situation where farmers of the downstream village are living at present.

In the case of Samra, the downstream village, the drafting of groundwater was less cost-effective due to the water level being much lower accompanied by lower recharge. It was so low that it hardly, as Figure 4 shows, exceeded 0.50 mcm. This seemed to be the reason why the annual recharge of groundwater remained above its annual draft. Figure 4 shows that the volume of recharge

remained almost constant within the range between 1.0 mcm and

1.5 mcm throughout the period under study.

The inequitable status of the availability of groundwater in two

villages is also discernible based on the availability of rainwater harvesting structure. Table 5 shows that one structure was available in each 11.3 hectares in Bhanwata-Kolyala, while the same was available at around 45 hectares of land in Samra. It also shows that the density of wells was much less in Samra as compared to that of Bhanwata-Kolyala. While one well was constructed on each 10 hectares of land in Bhanwata-Kolyala, the same was done on each 18 hectares of land in Samra. Bhanwata-Kolyala had 35 wells spread over 339 hectares of land, while Samra had

Year

Samra Source: Calculated on the basis of data available from tehsil office, revenue department, government of Rajasthan.

Bhanwata

Figure 6: Percentage Share of Irrigated AreaFigure 6: Percentage Share of Irrigated AreaFigure 6: Percentage Share of Irrigated AreaFigure 6: Percentage Share of Irrigated AreaFigure 6: Percentage Share of Irrigated Area
to Total Cropped Areato Total Cropped Areato Total Cropped Areato Total Cropped Areato Total Cropped Area

100

Irrigated area as a

per cent of cropped area

1986-87 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1999-2000 2000-01 2002-03 Year

90

80

70

60 50 40 30 20 10 0

Upstream

Downstream

Irrigated Area = 1.99* (Year) + 46.48; Irrigated Area = 0.65* (Year) + 45.36.

116 wells in 2,057 hectares of land.

groundwater is above 70 per cent, the regeneration (recharge) of groundwater becomes unsustainable. In view of this, one may see a reversal of the present trend of availability of groundwater in the upstream area in future. In such a situation, one is not certain how agricultural development will be adversely affected in Bhanwata. Figure 3 shows that the gap between annual recharge and draft was quite comfortable until 1993, in that annual draft was much lower than recharge in Bhanwata. However, subsequently after 1993, the gap between the two narrowed down implying thereby that the draft of groundwater increased steadily. So much so, the draft exceeded recharge of groundwater after 1998.

It may be noted that the draft of groundwater in the upstream village went beyond 70 per cent of the recharge in almost all years after 1993. In other words, the upstream village became vulnerable to shortage of groundwater after this year and reached a critical stage of its augmentation during 1998 when the draft was more than recharge. The results of the trend analysis show that groundwater was drafted annually at the rate of 0.0108 mcm against an annual recharge of 0.0027 mcm upstream during 1988-2001 (Table 4).

Samra, however, presents a different scenario altogether. Here, consumption of groundwater never exceeded 70 per cent of its availability. It was mainly because the groundwater level went down by 30 metres after 1991 (Figures 2a and 2b). However, it was available in Bhanwata at a depth of 25 metres during the same year and much less than 25 metres in the subsequent years.

IVIVIVIVIV
Changing Agricultural ScenarioChanging Agricultural ScenarioChanging Agricultural ScenarioChanging Agricultural ScenarioChanging Agricultural Scenario

The inequitable status of the availability of groundwater after water-harvesting structures were constructed appeared to have led to the emergence of disparity in agricultural prospects between the upstream and downstream villages under study. If we examine it from the point of view of bringing more land under irrigation, Bhanwata, the upstream village, may be considered as the one that benefited by it immensely. This is analysed on the basis of data collected from secondary sources and field survey.

Figure 5 shows that the share of irrigated area of total cropped area of Samra, the downstream village, was little more than 60 per cent before 1990-91, roughly the year before intervention was scaled up. However, in the subsequent years, the area under

Table 4: Results of the Trend Analysis of Annual RechargeTable 4: Results of the Trend Analysis of Annual RechargeTable 4: Results of the Trend Analysis of Annual RechargeTable 4: Results of the Trend Analysis of Annual RechargeTable 4: Results of the Trend Analysis of Annual Recharge
and Draft of Groundwater in Both Upstreamand Draft of Groundwater in Both Upstreamand Draft of Groundwater in Both Upstreamand Draft of Groundwater in Both Upstreamand Draft of Groundwater in Both Upstream
and Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villages

Upstream Downstream

Annual recharge = 0.0027* (Year) + 0.1495 Annualrecharge=0.0217*(Year) + 1.0428

Annual draft = 0.0108 * (Year) + 0.0527 Annual draft = 0.013*(Year) + 0.3649

Source: Same as for Table 1.

Figure 7: Percentage Increase of Yield Per Bigha in BothFigure 7: Percentage Increase of Yield Per Bigha in BothFigure 7: Percentage Increase of Yield Per Bigha in BothFigure 7: Percentage Increase of Yield Per Bigha in BothFigure 7: Percentage Increase of Yield Per Bigha in Both
Upstream and DownstreamUpstream and DownstreamUpstream and DownstreamUpstream and DownstreamUpstream and Downstream

Per cent increase of yield -1 0 -5 0 5 10 15 20 BajraBajra Maize Wheat Barley Mustard Crops Bhanwata Samra Source: Field Survey.

irrigation of the downstream village declined and continuously remained lower as compared to that of Bhanwata, the upstream village, until 2002-03. Figure 5 shows that more than 75 to 80 per cent of the total cropped area was under irrigation in Bhanwata during three years of drought from 2000 to 2003, while it was around 40-50 per cent in Samra during the same period. Such a large percentage of area was brought under irrigation in Bhanwata even when the water level witnessed a declining trend during these years as shown earlier in Figures 2a and 2b. The analysis at the household level in this regard substantially supports these observations. Table 6 shows that each sample household in Bhanwata-Koliyala increased irrigated land by around 44 per cent during 2002-03, one of the drought years, as compared to what it was during the initial years of intervention (roughly around 1988-89). However, it steeply declined by 27 per cent in Samra during the same period.

In order to examine it further, data were collected from secondary sources randomly from a sample of 14 other villages from upstream and downstream of Arwari river, respectively. The selected sample villages were the following: Upstream (Thanagazi block): (1) Bhanwata, (2) Bhuriyawas, (3) Jagannathpura, (4) Chausala, (5) Jhiri, (6) Dumoli, (7) Khardata,

(8) Sanwatsar, and (9) Chandpura. Downstream (Jamwa Ramgarh block): (1) Nimla (2) Hingawala (3) Kaljpuri (4) Shri Ramgopalpura, and (5) Ramyawala.

These villages were located closer to Arwari river and around five km away from it. The analysis of growth of irrigated area based on these data shows that the percentage of irrigated area to the cropped area was higher in downstream villages than in upstream ones before the practice of rainwater harvesting was revived in the late 1980s (Figure 6). It was 50 per cent of the total cropped area in the case of the former, while less than 50 per cent in the case of the latter. However, in the following years, as Figure 6 shows, the area under irrigation in all downstream villages declined and that of the upstream expanded. It had fallen below 50 per cent of the cropped area downstream and continued to be so until 1997-98. However, it increased in the following years with being less steep than the upstream villages that witnessed a rise in the irrigated area more than 70 per cent of the cropped area during the same period. It was possible to increase the irrigated area to such an extent even in drought conditions due to, as mentioned earlier, rise of groundwater recharge, which in turn, was a result of excessive rainfall in the previous years. The decline of the irrigated area during 2002-03 in both upstream and downstream villages can be said to be an outcome of decline in the groundwater level associated with low recharge. It was quite likely in the event of perpetual drought. Under such conditions, the rise of irrigated area in the upstream village like Bhanwata, as shown earlier, might prove unsustainable. In any case, the area under irrigation differed significantly between the upstream and the downstream villages even during drought years. The sample villages in the upstream had 46 per cent of the cropped area under irrigation, while it was 35 per cent of the same in the downstream villages during 2002-03 (Figure 6).

The trend analysis of the growth of area under irrigation also shows that the latter had grown annually by 0.65 per cent in the case of the downstream village, while it increased by 1.99 per cent in the upstream villages. This was three times more than that of the downstream village.

Table 5: Availability of Rainwater Harvesting StructureTable 5: Availability of Rainwater Harvesting StructureTable 5: Availability of Rainwater Harvesting StructureTable 5: Availability of Rainwater Harvesting StructureTable 5: Availability of Rainwater Harvesting Structure
and Wells in Upstream and Downstream Villagesand Wells in Upstream and Downstream Villagesand Wells in Upstream and Downstream Villagesand Wells in Upstream and Downstream Villagesand Wells in Upstream and Downstream Villages

Village Bhanwata-Kolyala Samra

Hectares of land per structure 11.3 44.72 Hectares of land per well 9.69 17.73

Source: Field survey.

Table 6:Table 6:Table 6:Table 6:Table 6:
Irrigated Land Per Sample Households in BothIrrigated Land Per Sample Households in BothIrrigated Land Per Sample Households in BothIrrigated Land Per Sample Households in BothIrrigated Land Per Sample Households in Both
Upstream and Downstream Villages during Rabi SeasonUpstream and Downstream Villages during Rabi SeasonUpstream and Downstream Villages during Rabi SeasonUpstream and Downstream Villages during Rabi SeasonUpstream and Downstream Villages during Rabi Season

(land in bigha)

Bhanwata-Kolyala Samra

Initial years of intervention (1988-89) 2.52 6.00 During field survey

(2002-03) 3.62 4.37 Increase (per cent) 43.65 -27.17

Source: Field survey.

Table 7: Area under Different Crops in UpstreamTable 7: Area under Different Crops in UpstreamTable 7: Area under Different Crops in UpstreamTable 7: Area under Different Crops in UpstreamTable 7: Area under Different Crops in Upstream
and Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villagesand Downstream Villages

(In hectare)

Bhanwata Samra Crops 1988-89 1995-96 2002-03 1988-89 1995-96 2002-03

Kharif

Maize 18 22 22 83 78 110 Bajra 8 7 11 36 42 27 Gawar 00 0 600 Jawar 92 1 100 Till 20 010 80 Jawar chari 00 0 4 8 0 Kalijiri 00 0 743 Vegetables 00 2 1 0 0 Groundnut 00 0 0 2 0 San 00 0030 Tobacco 00 0 010 Total kharif 37 31 36 148 146 140

Rabi

Wheat 614 13 38 62 28 Barley 610 9 33 30 27 Gram 44 0 6710 Mustard 612 9 31 39 7 Methi 00 0 230 Taramira 0 0 0 110 0 Dhaniya 00 0 500 Jeera 00 0 100 Chari 10 0 000 Total rabi 23 40 31 117 215 62

Source: Tehsil Office, Thanagazi (Alwar district).

Cropping Pattern and Crop YieldCropping Pattern and Crop YieldCropping Pattern and Crop YieldCropping Pattern and Crop YieldCropping Pattern and Crop Yield

The preceding analysis shows that Samra, the downstream village, witnessed a steady decline of area under irrigation. Such a decline seemed to have largely contributed to the low generation of income from agriculture as compared to that of Bhanwata. The analysis of cropping pattern and crop yield of both the upstream and downstream villages presents an extremely different status of agricultural development between them. In order to examine whether the area under each crop changed over the years after rainwater harvesting began in both locations, data were collected for 1988-89, the initial years of intervention, 1995-96, when rainfall received was much above normal and 2002-03, the year when rainfall received was very low. The results of the analysis are shown in Table 7.

The significant observation that one makes from Table 7 is that area under almost all crops except maize declined in the downstream village during 2002-03. Maize is a rain-fed crop that saw an expansion of its area over the years. However, the noticeable feature of the cropping pattern was that the area under all rabi crops, including wheat, barley and mustard that are normally cultivated through irrigation, declined in the downstream village in this poor rainfall year, while the upstream village could gain by expanding the area under cultivation of these crops between 1988-89 and 2002-03. In other words, the area under rabi crops in the downstream village declined by 45.61 per cent, while the same increased by 40.90 per cent in the upstream village. Table 7 further shows that during 1995-96 when normal rainfall was much above average, the area under cultivation of almost all these crops in the downstream village increased like that of the upstream village. The only exception was barley, the area under which declined marginally during the same year.

However, the issue is whether agriculture could perform well even during the poor rainfall year due to construction of rainwater harvesting structures. It was in this context that one finds, as it appears from Table 7, the downstream village failed to perform better in agriculture in terms of expansion of the area under cultivation especially under rabi crops. The total area under rabi crops in the downstream village declined sharply from 215 hectares in 1995-96 to 62 hectares in 2002-03, while the same declined marginally from 40 hectares to 31 hectares in the upstream village during the same period.

The upstream village could afford to resist such sharp decline of area under irrigation even under perpetual drought conditions by way of, as observed in the preceding section, exploiting groundwater over and above the volume of its recharge. However, this was not possible for the downstream village to achieve. For, the water level was beyond the reach of an average farmer.

The scenario of agricultural yields was equally disappointing for the downstream village. The yield of five major crops as reported by the sample households located both in the upstream and downstream villages were taken into consideration for analysis. The crops included bajra and maize, which were grown in kharif season and wheat, barley and mustard that were grown during rabi season. Response of the households on yield pertained to 1988-89 and 2002-03. In the absence of the data from secondary sources on yield rate of these crops in these villages, interviews were held with the members of the sample households. Questions were asked about the respective crop yield per bigha during the initial years of intervention and 2002-03 (a year before this field survey was conducted).

Yield rate in terms of crop output per bigha of the sample households is estimated and shown in Table 8. Results are plotted in Figure 7. It shows that the yield rate of all rabi crops witnessed a decline in the downstream village, while the same increased in the upstream village. It is important to note that the decline of yield rate was maximum in respect of mustard crop in the downstream. It was –4.68 per cent. However, the upstream village witnessed a maximum rise of the same crop by 16.45 per cent. Of all crops, mustard turned out to be a major source of gains in agriculture in terms of increased yield in Bhanwata after rainwater harvesting began. Table 8 shows that, although the yield rate of rain-fed crops such as bajra and maize increased by 1.13 per cent and 2.49 per cent, respectively in Samra, the rise was much more in respect of the same crop in the upstream village. It was 13.82 per cent and 4.65 per cent for bajra and maize, respectively.

While other factors such as use of fertiliser had a role to play in enhancing crop yield, the availability of water for irrigation was the primary consideration that one could hardly ignore. The field survey revealed that the sample households of the downstream village used less than half of the quantity of fertiliser that was used in the upstream village during 2002-03. It was estimated to be 9.05 kg (DAP+urea together) per bigha on an average taking all crops together in the upstream village, while it was 4.01 kg in the case of the downstream village. In other words, the agricultural scenario even in respect of improvement in crop yield seemed to be more encouraging for upstream than downstream areas. The relative disparity in agricultural performance associated with the intensification of irrigation and improvement in the crop yield between upstream and downstream areas in the same river basin fairly indicates a sort of development dichotomy in agriculture in that one grew at the expense of the other.

If development gains were to be assessed based on valuing agriculture crops and by-products in market prices, Samra, the downstream village, had no reason to see why agriculture could prosper like that upstream under the present situation.

VVVVV
ConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusionsConclusions

No alternative may be discernible to rainwater harvesting for ensuring rural livelihood in a state like Rajasthan that faces frequent droughts. The revival of its traditional practices may improve agro-ecology interaction, which an interventionist seeks to achieve. However, the operational moorings that shape the nature of intervention have much to do with the sustenance of

Table 8: Yield Rate of Main Agricultural Crops of SampleTable 8: Yield Rate of Main Agricultural Crops of SampleTable 8: Yield Rate of Main Agricultural Crops of SampleTable 8: Yield Rate of Main Agricultural Crops of SampleTable 8: Yield Rate of Main Agricultural Crops of Sample
Households of Bhanwata-Kolyala and SamraHouseholds of Bhanwata-Kolyala and SamraHouseholds of Bhanwata-Kolyala and SamraHouseholds of Bhanwata-Kolyala and SamraHouseholds of Bhanwata-Kolyala and Samra

(per bigha)

Crop Bhanwata-Kolyala Samra Initial During Field Percentage Initial At the Time Percen-Years of Survey Increase Years of of Field tage Inter-(2002-03) Intervention Survey Increase vention (1989-90) (2002-03) (1988-89)

Bajra 2.46 2.80 13.82 2.65 2.68 1.13
Maize 4.30 4.50 4.65 3.61 3.70 2.49
Wheat 7.20 7.59 5.42 5.39 5.30 -1.67
Barley 5.20 5.75 10.58 4.41 4.31 -2.27
Mustard 3.10 3.61 16.45 1.71 1.63 -4.68

Source: Field Survey.

conflicts. One does not know whether such gramsabhas can ever

such practices. One may, therefore, be curious to know, in the present context, whether an integrative and comprehensive land and water management of the complete catchment area was ever considered [Pangre 2002]. For, it is a single watercourse system in that natural resources such as soil, water and vegetation are interconnected. Impacts of intervention on one resource affect the status of others suggesting non-separability of their externalities [White and Runge 1994]. Besides, it suggests a coordination between landholders of both upstream and downstream. In the absence of the latter, the land productivity of downstream farmers declines [White and Runge 1994].

Without giving our explicit recognition to the need for integrated management as explained above, the revival strategy of rainwater harvesting is bound to be discrete and village-centric, no matter whether the village is located upstream or downstream. The present study shows that the approach that was followed by the intervening agency towards land and water management was essentially village-centric. The social cost that it entailed in terms of development gains being unequal between the upstream and downstream area might go unnoticed in the immediate term. Even the upstream village like Bhanwata might fail to escape from such eventuality because of a mismatch between production and consumption of groundwater despite achieving a comparatively higher level of groundwater recharge. The present study shows that the village gradually entered into an unsustainable zone in late 1990s, when the draft of groundwater far exceeded its recharge.

It exemplifies a case of “induced” expectation of the village community of the upstream for more agricultural gains without having its roots in sustainability. The availability of groundwater at a manageable depth (in terms of costs incurred) upstream stood out to be the principal source of generation of such an individual rational expectation. However, the intensification of irrigation purely guided by private gains beyond a point and its consequence for an increasing requirement of groundwater might push the village community back in the immediate future to a state of underdevelopment where they lived some years ago. The potential social hazards are invincible in such situation especially when the gramsabha, the local institution as initially developed by the villagers at the initiative of Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS), was practically found to be inoperational and riddled with host of conflicts. One does not know whether such gramsabhas can ever be revived when private initiative for rainwater harvesting gained an overriding importance at the sponsorship of the intervening agency. Inequality may then have sufficient ground to breed even in the upstream, not to talk about it between upstream vs downstream alone.

This, however, must not reduce the importance of rainwater harvesting through revival of traditional practices. Then, one must have a clear understanding about the extent of the availability of irrigation in the area concerned before intervention is sought. The present paper shows that irrigated area as a percentage of the total cropped area was 50 per cent and 60 per cent in the upstream and downstream villages, respectively during the starting points of intervention (late 1980s, the initial years of intervention). These do not go well with the guidelines as stipulated by the government for planning watershed interventions. Hence, the selection of areas for intervention is questioned especially when one recognises the national priorities clearly.

In other words, one must recognise that the starting points of intervention are critical in that resource allocation in terms of public energy and funds must not be utilised in the areas, which are relatively well off. However, in the present context, since resources are already allocated in these selected areas and rainwater is harvested, the discourse on water harvesting programme centres on moving towards sustainability of water use rather than greater exploitation on groundwater. This is essentially a problem of demand management, which is no less important than supply augmentation of groundwater. One can address such problem by way of following a basin-level perspective as explained earlier. Such a perspective might help in avoiding conflict, if any, across the stream.

rr;

Email: sunil@idsj.org

NotesNotesNotesNotesNotes

[This is a part of a large study sponsored by the Ford Foundation. It was presented in the review workshop held at Institute of Development Studies, Jaipur on March 15,2005. We are indebted to hydrologists and geohydrologist of the state groundwater department, government of Rajasthan and central groundwater board, Jaipur for their valuable comments. We are also thankful to V S Vyas, Ganesh Pangare, Katar Singh, Sarthi Acharya, Ajay Mehta and M S Rathore for their valuable comments on the draft. This is a revised version of the paper submitted earlier. Thanks are due to the anonymous referee for making insightful comments on the paper. Usual disclaimers apply. Needless to mention, without the support of my other colleagues working on the project, this work would have remained incomplete.]

1 Guidelines were collected from the groundwater department, government of Rajasthan. It was followed by a series of discussion with the hydrologists and geohydrologists of this department and central groundwater board, Jaipur.

2 In the absence of the data on rainfall in the respective villages under study, the same was collected for the block to which these villages belonged.

ReferencesReferencesReferencesReferencesReferences

Chopra, K and G Kadekodi (1999): Operationalising Sustainable Development: Economic-Ecological Modelling for Developing Countries, Sage Publication, New Delhi.

GoR (1999): Groundwater Atlas of Rajasthan, State Remote Sensing Application Centre, Department of Science and Technology, Jodhpur, in collaboration with Groundwater Department, Government of Rajasthan.

Kelman, R and J Kelman (2002): ‘Water Allocation for Economic Production in a Semi-arid Region’, Water Resource Development, Vol 18, No 3.

Pangre,Ganesh, T Jamal and R Hooja (2002): Community-based Rainwater Harvesting-process Documentation of the Activities and Approach of TBS, Indian Network in Participatory Irrigation Management (India NIPM), unpublished.

Shresth, S and S Devidas (2001): Forest Revival and Water Harvesting Community-based Conservation at Bhanwata-Kolyala, Rajasthan, Kalpavriksh, Pune.

White, T Anderson and Ford Runge (1994): ‘Common Property and Collective Action: Lessons from Cooperative Watershed Management in Haiti’, Economic Development and Cultural Change.

Economic and Political WeeklyEconomic and Political WeeklyEconomic and Political WeeklyEconomic and Political WeeklyEconomic and Political Weekly

available at

Alter Media BookshopAlter Media BookshopAlter Media BookshopAlter Media BookshopAlter Media Bookshop

Brahmaswom Madom Bldg, M G Road, Trissur 680 001 Kerala Email: info@altermediaindia.com

Dear reader,

To continue reading, become a subscriber.

Explore our attractive subscription offers.

Click here

Comments

(-) Hide

EPW looks forward to your comments. Please note that comments are moderated as per our comments policy. They may take some time to appear. A comment, if suitable, may be selected for publication in the Letters pages of EPW.

Back to Top