Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Can the Water Rate be the only Criteria to Assess the Viability of a Canal Irrigation System? A Case of Eastern Yamuna Canal, India


Affiliations
1 ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India
2 Division of Agricultural Economics, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
 

Canal irrigation system, besides providing irrigation, generate many ecosystem services for command areas, viz. lesser groundwater extraction and carbon emissions, energy savings, groundwater recharge, recreational services for inhabitants, etc. However, existing studies primarily emphasize irrigation services provided by canals while overlooking other ecosystem services. Therefore, this study monetizes key ecosystem services rendered by the Eastern Yamuna Canal (EYC) and collates government expenditures incurred. The result shows that the ecosystem services delivered by EYC are worth Rs 1122.86 million, nearly 48.27% more than working expenses. Further, the result highlights that anchoring only on revenue generated to exchequer with water rates, to compare the performance of any canal will not be sufficient. The present study suggests that if the government facilitates the timely availability of canal water to the farms and collects water charges equal to working expenses from the water users, it could be a much better trade-off for the stakeholders.

Keywords

Carbon Emission, Ecosystem Services, Energy, Groundwater, Shapley Value.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Shah, T., Past, present, and the future of canal irrigation in India. In India Infrastructure Report, Water: Policy and Performance for Sustainable Development. Infrastructure Development Finance Company, Oxford University Press, 2011, pp. 69–89.

  • Banerjee, A. and Iyer, L., History, institutions, and economic performance: the legacy of colonial land tenure systems in India. Am. Econ. Rev., 2005, 95(4), 1190–1213.

  • ADB, Exploring Public–Private Partnership in the Irrigation and Drainage Sector in India. Asian Development Bank, Philippines, 2013.

  • Amarasinghe, U. A., Shah, T., Turral, H. and Anand, B. K., India’s water future to 2025–2050: business as-usual scenario and deviations, Research Report 123, International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2007.

  • GoI, Report of the Working Group on Water Resources for the XI Five-year Plan (2002–2007), Ministry of Water Resources, 2006.

  • Bhattarai, N., Pollack, A., Lobell, D. B., Fishman, R., Singh, B., Dar, A. and Jain, M., The impact of groundwater depletion on agricultural production in India. Environ. Res. Lett., 2021, 16, 085003.

  • Fishman, R., Groundwater depletion limits the scope for adaptation to increased rainfall variability in India. Clim. Change, 2018, 147, 195–209.

  • GoI, Agricultural Statistics 2019, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Department of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, 2019.

  • Siyal, A. W., Gerbens-Leenes, P. W. and Nonhebel, S., Energy and carbon footprints for irrigation water in the lower Indus basin in Pakistan, comparing water supply by gravity fed canal networks and groundwater pumping. J. Clean. Prod., 2021, 286, 125489.

  • Siddiqi, A. and Wescoat, J. L., Energy use in large-scale irrigated agriculture in the Punjab province of Pakistan. Water Int., 2013, 38(5), 571–586.

  • Alam, M. F., Pavelic, P., Sharma, N. and Sikka, A., Managed aquifer recharge of monsoon runoff using village ponds: performance assessment of a pilot trial in the Ramganga Basin, India. Water, 2020, 12(4), 1028.

  • Meredith, E. and Blais, N., Quantifying irrigation recharge sources using groundwater modelling. Agric. Water Manage., 2019, 214, 9–16.

  • CGWB, Report of the Groundwater Resource Estimation Committee on Groundwater Resource Estimation Methodology, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, 2009.

  • IWMI, Innovation in groundwater recharge, Water Policy Briefing, International Water Management Institute – Tata Water Policy Program, 2002.

  • Yadav, B., Pandey, V., Yadav, S., Singh, Y., Kumar, V. and Sirohi, R., Effect of misting and wallowing cooling systems on milk yield, blood and physiological variables during heat stress in lactating Murrah buffalo. J. Anim. Sci. Technol., 2016, 58(2), 1–10; https://doi.org/10.1186/s40781-015-0082-0.

  • Gupta, J. P., Kumar, P., Kaswan, S., Chakravarty, A. K., Singh, A. and Lathwal, S. S., Effect of management practices on monthly test day milk yield in Murrah buffaloes in field condition. Indian J. Anim. Res., 2013, 47(6), 504–508.

  • Chowdhury, K. and Behera, B., Institutional dynamics and water resource management: the case of traditional water bodies in West Bengal, India. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev., 2021, 38(5), 836–860.

  • Chowdhury, K. and Behera, B., Economic significance of provisioning ecosystem services of traditional water bodies: empirical evidences from West Bengal, India. Resour. Environ. Sustain., 2021, 5, 100033.

  • Reddy, V. R., Reddy, M. S. and Palanisami, K., Tank rehabilitation in India: Review of experiences and strategies. Agric. Water Manage., 2018, 209, 32–43.

  • GoUP, Irrigation and Water Resource Department, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of Uttar Pradesh.

  • GoI, Land Use Statistics, 2017–18, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2017.

  • GoI, Cost of Cultivation, 2008–16, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2019.

  • GoI, Farm Harvest Prices of Principal Crops in India, 2016–17, Directorate of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare, Government of India, 2019.

  • CGWB, National Compilation on Dynamic Ground Water Resources of India, 2017, Ministry of Jal Shakti, 2019.

  • GoI, Upper Yamuna River Board, Ministry of Jal Shakti, Government of India, 2019.

  • GoI, Manual on Artificial Recharge of Groundwater, Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources, 2007.

  • Nelson, G. C., Robertson, R., Msangi, S., Zhu, T., Liao, X. and Jawajar, P., Greenhouse gas mitigation: issues for Indian agriculture. IFPRI Discussion Paper 900, International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI), 2009.

  • Wang, J., Rothausen, S. G. S. A., Conway, D., Zhang, L., Xiong, W., Holman, I. P. and Li, Y., China’s water–energy nexus: greenhouse-gas emissions from groundwater use for agriculture. Environ. Res. Lett., 2012, 7(1), 014035.

  • Patle, G. T., Singh, D. K., Sarangi, A. and Khanna, M., Managing CO2 emission from groundwater pumping for irrigating major crops in trans Indo-Gangetic Plains of India. Clim. Change, 2016, 136(2), 265–279.

  • CEA, CO2 Baseline Database for the Indian Power Sector, Central Electricity Authority, Ministry of Power, Government of India, New Delhi, 2018.

  • Shearer, C., Fofrich, R. and Davis, S. J., Future CO2 emissions and electricity generation from proposed coal‐fired power plants in India. Earth’s Fut., 2017, 5, 408–416.

  • Pradhan, B. K. and Ghosh, J., A computable general equilibrium (CGE) assessment of technological progress and carbon pricing in India’s green energy transition via furthering its renewable capacity. Energy Econ., 2022, 106, 105788.


Abstract Views: 91

PDF Views: 59




  • Can the Water Rate be the only Criteria to Assess the Viability of a Canal Irrigation System? A Case of Eastern Yamuna Canal, India

Abstract Views: 91  |  PDF Views: 59

Authors

Prabhat Kishore
ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India
Dharam Raj Singh
Division of Agricultural Economics, ICAR-Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
Shivendra K. Srivastava
ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India
Dinesh Chand Meena
ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India
Bangara Raju Tatipudi
ICAR-National Institute of Agricultural Economics and Policy Research, New Delhi 110 012, India

Abstract


Canal irrigation system, besides providing irrigation, generate many ecosystem services for command areas, viz. lesser groundwater extraction and carbon emissions, energy savings, groundwater recharge, recreational services for inhabitants, etc. However, existing studies primarily emphasize irrigation services provided by canals while overlooking other ecosystem services. Therefore, this study monetizes key ecosystem services rendered by the Eastern Yamuna Canal (EYC) and collates government expenditures incurred. The result shows that the ecosystem services delivered by EYC are worth Rs 1122.86 million, nearly 48.27% more than working expenses. Further, the result highlights that anchoring only on revenue generated to exchequer with water rates, to compare the performance of any canal will not be sufficient. The present study suggests that if the government facilitates the timely availability of canal water to the farms and collects water charges equal to working expenses from the water users, it could be a much better trade-off for the stakeholders.

Keywords


Carbon Emission, Ecosystem Services, Energy, Groundwater, Shapley Value.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv125%2Fi1%2F34-42