💥Join UPSC 2027,2028 Mentorship (August Batch) + XFactor Notes & Microthemes PDF
Talk to Mentor

Civilsdaily

Login

Subject: Irrigation

  • A dry spell along the Cauvery river

    A dry spell along the Cauvery river

    Why in the News

    Karnataka appealed to the Cauvery Water Management Authority (CWMA) on 11 August to cut its daily release to Tamil Nadu from 12,000 cusecs to 10,000 cusecs. It warned of a severe drinking water shortage if more water were released for crops in the Cauvery basin. Tamil Nadu had already chosen not to open the Mettur dam for irrigation on the customary date of 12 June, given a poor south-west monsoon forecast attributed to a super El Nino. Large tracts of the Cauvery delta consequently remain barren in a season that normally carries two crops. The dispute is no longer only between an upper and a lower riparian State, because Karnataka is simultaneously rationing its own canal irrigation and committing reservoir water to Bengaluru’s drinking supply.

    What is the Cauvery water-sharing arrangement?

    1. The dispute predates the States: The sharing of the Cauvery is a vexed issue going back more than 130 years, to agreements between the Mysore Kingdom and the Madras Presidency that were drawn without regard to any future State boundary.
    2. The award fixes an annual quota and a monsoon share: The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal and the Supreme Court provided for Karnataka to release 123.14 thousand million cubic feet of the 177.25 thousand million cubic feet annual quota during the south-west monsoon. That share is mostly meant to support paddy cultivation in the Samba season.
    3. A central authority administers the sharing: The CWMA was set up in June 2018 by the Union government to handle water-sharing from the Cauvery among Karnataka, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Puducherry.
    4. A technical committee advises it: The Cauvery Water Regulation Committee (CWRC) assesses storage and crop requirement and recommends releases to the CWMA, and both bodies sit under the Supreme Court’s continuing supervision.

    What is a cusec?

    1. A cusec measures flow, not volume: A cusec is one cubic foot per second, so a release order of 12,000 cusecs fixes the rate at which water must cross the inter-State point rather than a total quantity.

    What is a TMC?

    1. A TMC measures volume: A thousand million cubic feet (TMC) is a stock of water, roughly 28.3 million cubic metres. Reservoir capacity and annual quotas are stated in TMC rather than in the cusecs used for daily obligations.

    Why does the delta’s cropping calendar depend on a single dam opening date?

    1. One release date sets the whole season: Water released from the Mettur dam, built in Salem district across the Cauvery, on 12 June for irrigation ordinarily reaches Tiruvarur about 300 km downstream by 23 or 24 June. This year nothing reached it.
    2. Two seasons run off that release: Paddy is ordinarily cultivated across 5.3 lakh acres in the delta during the short-term Kuruvai season, followed by 12.9 lakh acres during the longer Samba-Thaladi season.
    3. Samba is the season that matters: Samba transplantation begins in late July or early August and the harvest ends in mid-January, and the crop is both a food security crop and the mainstay of the delta’s rural economy.
    4. Kuruvai is the higher-yield gamble: The shorter-duration Kuruvai crop can offer higher yields and is largely dependent on groundwater drawn through energised pumpsets rather than on canal water.
    5. The acreage has already collapsed: Tamil Nadu government data put the area under paddy cultivation this year at 4.5 lakh acres, against the 5.3 lakh acres the Kuruvai season alone normally covers.

    How is Karnataka rationing its own irrigation?

    1. Farmers sowed against official advice: Farmers across Karnataka’s Cauvery basin defied advice against sowing water-intensive crops such as paddy and sugarcane this season, amid a predicted deficient monsoon and inadequate inflows into the basin’s reservoirs.
    2. A brief August revival encouraged them: The Krishna Raja Sagara (KRS) reservoir has a full level of 124.8 feet. It rose from 93 to 94 feet to over 100 feet within days in the first week of August before stagnating at 109 feet.
    3. The canal system runs off that reservoir: The Visvesvaraya canal system draws water from the KRS reservoir, located across the Cauvery near Mysuru, and serves the Mandya belt.
    4. Releases were cut to four rotational cycles: The Cauvery Irrigation Advisory Committee, a regional body chaired by the Karnataka Water Resources Minister, met in Bengaluru on 19 August and decided to release canal water in only four rotational cycles during the crop season instead of continuously.
    5. The stated purpose is storage, not irrigation: The decision was taken to conserve reservoir storage and ensure water availability for other needs, including drinking water.
    6. Rotation does not sustain a standing crop: A pattern of about 15 days of release followed by 15 days without will not provide enough water for paddy and sugarcane, and leaves farmers able to grow only dry crops.

    What are farmers at the canal’s tail end facing?

    1. The tail end gets water last or not at all: A farmer in Kuntanahalli village of Maddur taluk in Mandya district has raised a paddy nursery on a two-acre plot lying at the tail end of the Visvesvaraya canal system.
    2. The window is measured in days: Without water in the next 7 to 10 days he loses both the sowing season and the Rs 8,000 already spent on raising the nursery.
    3. Switching crops is not a safe alternative: Semi-dry crops such as ragi, pulses and oilseeds are the fallback, and heavy rain arriving late can damage a ragi crop just as its absence damages paddy.
    4. Position on the canal decides outcomes: Paddy transplantation is nearly complete in Karekura and Hosahalli, close to the KRS reservoir, and even there farmers who normally take two crops a year doubt the second.
    5. Losing a crop means becoming a labourer: Most agricultural labourers in the region earn Rs 400 to Rs 500 for a day’s work from 7 a.m. to noon, which is the fallback income for a farmer whose second crop fails.
    6. Sugarcane is exposed for longer: A standing sugarcane crop in Pandavapura taluk needs another nine months before harvest, and without timely rain may not even be fit for use as cattle fodder.
    7. Debt is the binding constraint: Farmers have taken interest-free short-term loans from primary agricultural cooperative credit societies and high-interest loans from microfinance companies, and are seeking a waiver and restraint on aggressive recovery agents.

    Does Bengaluru’s drinking water come at the cost of the Cauvery’s irrigators?

    1. A new drinking water stage is already sanctioned: The Cauvery Stage VI drinking water project is a Rs 6,939 crore initiative approved by the Karnataka government this February.
    2. It adds a fixed annual claim on the river: The project requires an additional 6 thousand million cubic feet of Cauvery water every year, which is a permanent first charge rather than a seasonal allocation.
    3. The service area extends beyond the city: It will supply 500 million litres per day to roughly 30 lakh residents in Bengaluru and the adjoining towns of Bidadi, Hoskote, Anekal, Devanahalli and Nelamangala.
    4. The diversion is from the same reservoir: Farmers in Maddur taluk are bracing for confrontation with the State government over the proposed diversion of KRS water. Their canal draws from the same reservoir.
    5. The competing claim is now internal: The canal rationing decision was justified by the need to protect drinking water, so the same argument that limits releases to Tamil Nadu also limits releases to Karnataka’s own irrigators.

    Why has farmer protest stayed muted this year?

    1. Mobilisation has fallen flat: Protests over poor rainfall and releases to Tamil Nadu have remained muted compared with previous years, and a Karnataka bandh called by a Kannada activist on 13 August drew a lukewarm response outside parts of Maddur taluk.
    2. Farm bodies cannot bring out their own members: The organising secretary of the Mandya District Raithara Hitharakashana Samithi, a farmers’ welfare committee, records that farmers who are the main stakeholders are not responding to calls for struggle.
    3. Ruling party leaders are discouraging the streets: Cultivators say ruling party leaders are warning them against joining what they call an “Opposition trap”, and against the police stations and court appearances that follow a protest.
    4. The Chief Minister has publicly discouraged it: The Karnataka Chief Minister has chastised activists for staging Cauvery protests “for the sake of publicity”, and warned against wading into the river after the Water Resources Department issued a flood alert over releases from the near-brimming Kabini reservoir.
    5. The State’s own position is two-sided: The Chief Minister has acknowledged that Karnataka’s dams are not yet full and vowed to protect farmers’ interests. The same statement emphasised compliance with directions on releasing water to Tamil Nadu.
    6. Farmers question the State’s legal effort: The president of the State Sugarcane Farmers’ Association questions whether the government and its legal team have made a strong enough case before the CWRC, the CWMA and the Supreme Court about the water crisis inside Karnataka.

    What positions have the two States taken?

    1. Tamil Nadu blames storage and shortfall in releases: Low storage at the Mettur dam and Karnataka’s failure to release a sufficient share of the water it received in June and July are the two grounds Tamil Nadu cites for the barren delta.
    2. The reservoir is far below the release threshold: The Mettur dam level is now about 85 feet against a full capacity of 120 feet, and farmer bodies argue that no water should be released until the level reaches at least 100 feet.
    3. The opening date is still unannounced: The Tamil Nadu government has not announced when the Mettur dam will be opened, and it continues its legal battle with Karnataka to secure the State’s share.
    4. It is contesting the reduction in court: Tamil Nadu has strongly opposed Karnataka’s push to reduce releases and is pressing the Supreme Court to ensure strict adherence to the mandated 12,000 cusecs daily flow.
    5. The position is framed as a rights claim: The Tamil Nadu Chief Minister has said the legitimate rights of lower riparian States and the livelihoods dependent on assured river flows must be fully protected.

    What does the delta contribute and what is it losing?

    1. The delta is the State’s rice bowl: Located along the eastern coast and spanning Thanjavur, Tiruvarur, Mayiladuthurai and Nagapattinam, it is characterised by fertile alluvial soil and a tropical climate carried by the Cauvery’s flow.
    2. It supplies most of the State’s procured paddy: During the 2025-26 procurement year, from 1 September 2025 to 31 July 2026, the region contributed 39.5 lakh tonnes of paddy out of a Statewide procurement of 57.5 lakh tonnes.
    3. The failure is visible across districts: A drive of over 200 km from Tiruchi through Thanjavur, Thiruvaiyaru, Tiruvarur and Mannargudi shows largely barren paddy fields where the previous year showed continuous green.
    4. The official acreage may overstate the crop: Some agriculturists dispute the reported figure, citing stunted growth and crops showing signs of withering, which make an area-sown count unreliable as a measure of what will be harvested.
    5. The loss spreads beyond the fields: Economic activity in the region is crippled by the erosion of livelihood opportunities, and shops and other businesses in Mannargudi now down their shutters by 7 p.m.
    6. The poorest bear it first: Much of the zone remains economically backward with a majority dependent on agriculture, and Scheduled Castes, who live there in large numbers, constitute the dominant segment of landless agricultural labourers.

    Why is groundwater not a fallback for the delta?

    1. The water table is falling even between two rivers: In Peramur, about 10 km from Thiruvaiyaru and located between the Cauvery and its branch the Coleroon, the water level is going down.
    2. Extraction technology has migrated to the delta: Submersible pumpsets, once more common in the dry districts of Coimbatore and Dharmapuri, have become commonplace in the delta.
    3. Over-extraction has damaged the resource permanently: Excess withdrawal has led to salinity ingress in many areas, which removes land from cultivation rather than merely reducing a season’s yield.
    4. The Kuruvai fallback is therefore closing: The shorter crop that depends on pumped groundwater is becoming harder to raise in the very years when canal water fails, so the two sources fail together rather than covering for each other.

    What do farmers want, and what will they get?

    1. Compensation demands have begun: Several farmers’ groups have started demanding compensation for crop losses across the delta.
    2. The announced waiver is considered inadequate: Farmers are unhappy with the crop loan waiver scheme announced by the Tamil Nadu Chief Minister and are seeking a full, unconditional waiver of up to Rs 1 lakh for every farmer who has taken a crop loan.
    3. Relief is conditional on a disaster classification: Any compensation will be subject to the Union and State governments’ norms for natural disasters and to a survey by the departments concerned.
    4. Officials are still counting on the monsoon: With about a month left in the season, officials continue to hope for a revival that would allow at least a partial Samba crop.

    Challenges to Cauvery water sharing

    1. The award has no distress-year formula: The allocation assumes a normal monsoon and offers no proportionate sharing rule for a deficit year, so every shortfall becomes a fresh contest. Eg. Karnataka’s request to cut releases from 12,000 to 10,000 cusecs has to be argued case by case rather than settled by a rule. Fix. Notify a pro-rata distress sharing schedule tied to measured basin inflow, so releases fall automatically and equally in a deficit year.
    2. Drinking water and irrigation are not ranked: The award prioritises drinking water in principle without capping how much a growing city may draw, so urban demand expands against a fixed river. Eg. Delhi’s drinking water share of the Yamuna has been litigated against upstream States in the Supreme Court for over two decades. Fix. Fix an audited ceiling on urban drawal from the basin, conditional on the city reusing a notified share of its treated wastewater.
    3. The Article 262 bar is routinely circumvented: Article 262 lets Parliament exclude the courts from water disputes, and States nonetheless reach the Supreme Court through special leave petitions under Article 136. Eg. The Cauvery allocation has been litigated in the Supreme Court repeatedly after the Tribunal’s award. Fix. Amend the Inter-State River Water Disputes Act, 1956 to make a tribunal award final on quantum, leaving only implementation questions justiciable.
    4. Tribunals take decades to decide: Article 262 sets no time limit, so an award arrives after the cropping economy it was meant to govern has already changed. Eg. The Cauvery Water Disputes Tribunal took 17 years to deliver its decision. Fix. Enact the pending Inter-State River Water Disputes (Amendment) Bill and apply its timelines to disputes already before a tribunal.
    5. Flow data is contested rather than shared: Each State measures inflow and utilisation on its own gauges, so the basic facts of a deficit year are disputed before the sharing question is reached. Eg. Karnataka and Tamil Nadu differ on how much of the June and July inflow was actually released downstream. Fix. Operate a single telemetered gauge network under the CWMA with readings published in real time and binding on both States.
    6. The dispute pays politically: Regional parties gain from an unresolved conflict, so neither an implementation habit nor a negotiated settlement is rewarded at the ballot. Eg. A bandh call and a protest ban were both issued in the same fortnight in Karnataka this month. Fix. Route inter-State negotiation through the Inter-State Council under Article 263, where a recorded agreement carries a political cost to abandon.

    Conclusion

    A deficient monsoon has converted the Cauvery allocation from a sharing arrangement into a distress-year contest that the award was never designed to settle. Karnataka is rationing its own canal command to four rotational cycles and committing an additional annual volume to Bengaluru’s drinking supply. Tamil Nadu’s delta has lost a season because the Mettur dam was never opened. The immediate decisions rest with the Cauvery Water Management Authority on the daily release rate and with the Tamil Nadu government on the dam opening date. Neither will be settled this season without a rule for sharing a shortfall, which is exactly what the existing award does not contain.

    “[2024, GS3, 15 marks] What are the major challenges faced by Indian irrigation system in recent times? State the measures taken by the government for efficient irrigation management.”

  • Groundwater risk from solar irrigation is a property of the model, not of solar power

    Why in the News

    India’s agricultural solar programme has installed over 2.5 million solar pumps in five years, and the government is now preparing PM-KUSUM 2.0. The standard objection is that free solar power removes every incentive to limit pumping and will therefore deepen the groundwater crisis. That objection treats solar irrigation as a single model, when the groundwater outcome is determined by ownership structure, pricing incentive and local hydrogeology.

    What is PM-KUSUM?

    1. About: The Pradhan Mantri Kisan Urja Suraksha evam Utthan Mahabhiyan (PM-KUSUM) is India’s agricultural solar programme, administered by the Ministry of New and Renewable Energy.
    2. Delivery so far: It has installed over 2.5 million solar pumps over the past five years, made affordable for smallholder farmers through subsidies.
    3. Three routes: It supports decentralised grid connected solar plants on barren land, standalone off grid solar pumps, and the solarisation of existing grid connected agricultural pumps.
    4. Next stage: The government is preparing PM-KUSUM 2.0, whose design challenge is to advance the clean energy transition without worsening an already over exploited groundwater base.

    What is a feed in tariff?

    1. About: A feed in tariff is a guaranteed per unit price at which a distribution utility buys electricity that a small generator exports to the grid.
    2. Why it matters here: A high enough tariff converts every unit of electricity not used for pumping into cash income, so saving water becomes profitable rather than merely virtuous.

    Why is the standard objection to solar irrigation incomplete?

    1. The objection itself: Heavily subsidised or free electricity has driven unsustainable groundwater abstraction, falling water tables, depleting aquifers and growing fiscal burdens on energy utilities, and solar is assumed to extend that pattern.
    2. First gap, the single model assumption: The debate treats solar irrigation as one model, typically a farmer running a standalone pump with no incentive to conserve water, when models differ by design, ownership structure and pricing incentive.
    3. Second gap, energy as the only variable: The debate discounts local hydrogeology, cropping patterns, marginal returns to irrigation and soil type, all of which shape irrigation behaviour independently of the energy source.
    4. Third gap, evaluation in a silo: Solar irrigation is judged as either a water intervention or an energy intervention, when its consequences span water, energy and food together.
    5. The reframed question: The question is not whether solar irrigation is inherently good or bad for groundwater, but what kind of model is deployed, where, and with what incentives.

    How do ownership and pricing change the groundwater outcome?

    1. Grid connected models create a price for restraint: Models that let farmers sell surplus solar electricity back to the grid give a direct financial reward for using less water.
    2. Gujarat’s Suryashakti Kisan Yojana: Around 100 agricultural feeders were transitioned to solar energy under the scheme.
    3. Measured behaviour change: Solar farmers showed significantly slower growth in energy consumption and in irrigation application than non solar farmers, indicating more sustainable water use.
    4. The tariff that produced it: The scheme offered around Rs 7 per unit as a feed in tariff, a meaningful incentive to conserve electricity and export energy.
    5. Income effect: By exporting energy, farmers earned an average of roughly Rs 21,900 annually, converting them from energy consumers into energy producers.
    6. Standalone pumps vary too: Even for standalone off grid pumps under PM-KUSUM, utilisation and the extent to which the pump replaces diesel rather than grid electricity vary widely with installed capacity, the depth of the water table and years of operating experience.

    What does the Bangladesh model show about pricing solar water?

    1. The dominant model there: Bangladesh’s most common arrangement is the fee for service centralised solar model, in which a pump owner supplies water to multiple farmers within a fixed command area.
    2. The revenue logic: The owner earns from selling water, so the pump is operated as a business rather than as a private convenience.
    3. The measured result: Farmers using solar irrigation did not apply more water than farmers using diesel, even though solar irrigation was 20 to 30 percent cheaper.
    4. The mechanism behind it: Excessive irrigation by one farmer reduces the operator’s ability to serve others, so efficient and equitable groundwater use becomes a condition of the business remaining financially sustainable.
    5. What the case demonstrates: A cheaper energy source did not raise water use once the water itself carried a price and a rationing constraint.

    Why does the same pump produce different outcomes across regions?

    1. Hard rock aquifer regions: Where storage capacity is limited and cropping is rainfed, each additional unit of irrigation water yields high marginal benefit, and water use changed little between solar and non solar users regardless of the energy source.
    2. Punjab and Haryana: Irrigation is already widespread and dominated by water intensive rice and wheat, leaving little scope to expand irrigated area, so solar is unlikely to drive further over exploitation.
    3. The real question in those States: Whether solar can make water, energy and food systems more sustainable by replacing subsidised fossil fuel electricity with grid connected solar, cutting subsidy costs and emissions together.
    4. Eastern India: Irrigation expansion has been constrained by access to energy rather than to water, with large rainfed areas, high diesel costs and unreliable power.
    5. Policy consequence: Solar irrigation policy must follow a differentiated regional approach with context specific model choice, paired with stronger groundwater monitoring and adaptive management to catch emerging stress early.

    What does solar irrigation change beyond groundwater?

    1. Emissions from pumping: Groundwater irrigation in India is estimated to generate between 45 and 62 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year.
    2. Fiscal burden: Agricultural electricity subsidies across States amount to over Rs 1 lakh crore a year.
    3. Per farmer mitigation: Estimates from Gujarat suggest each grid connected solar farmer offsets approximately 12.3 tonnes of carbon dioxide annually through on farm solar use and electricity exported to the grid.
    4. Payback on public money: Subsidies covered nearly one fourth of government investments within the first two years.
    5. Scale of the opportunity: Applied across India’s more than 25 million agricultural pumps, the mitigation and fiscal implications are substantial.

    Should policy prioritise saving water or expanding access?

    1. The case for saving water: In water stressed regions, grid connected solar can be expanded through individual pumps or by taking entire agricultural feeders solar, with both models rewarding farmers for saving water.
    2. The case for expanding access: Where farmers still lack reliable irrigation, the priority is expanding access rather than saving water.
    3. The instrument each case needs: Standalone solar pumps remain the preferred option in areas with limited irrigation, poor grid access and low groundwater risk.
    4. The distributional point: Emphasis should shift from individual ownership to scaling through water user associations, water selling entrepreneurs and farmer cooperatives in India’s most irrigation deprived regions.
    5. Why the tension is real: A single national design cannot simultaneously suppress pumping in Punjab and expand it in Bihar, so the same programme must carry two opposite incentive structures.

    Why has the current design of both models underperformed?

    1. Weak uptake of surplus sale: The approach of paying farmers to save water by selling surplus electricity to the grid has seen limited uptake.
    2. Feeder transitions do not change behaviour: Feeder level transitions to solar have performed better on delivery, but in their current form do little to change pumping behaviour.
    3. What individual pumps need: Simpler grid connection procedures and attractive buyback prices that reflect the local value of water and crops.
    4. What distribution companies need: Distribution companies (DISCOMs), which buy and supply the power, must themselves be incentivised to support the individual pump model.
    5. What feeder solarisation needs: Pairing with water saving incentives such as support for micro irrigation and direct cash payments for reduced pumping, on the model of Punjab’s Pani Bachao Paisa Kamao and Haryana’s Mera Pani Meri Virasat schemes, so the gain is not confined to the distribution company.

    Challenges to PM-KUSUM

    1. Farmer contribution barrier: Even after central and State subsidy, the residual farmer share blocks the poorest applicants. e.g. smallholders in Bihar and Jharkhand, where the same pump costs a larger share of annual income than in Gujarat.
    2. Slow solarisation of existing pumps: Retrofitting grid connected pumps depends on a distribution company agreeing to buy the surplus at a workable price. e.g. the limited uptake of the surplus sale route recorded in the current programme.
    3. Feeder solarisation without behavioural conditions: Solarising a feeder cuts the utility’s power purchase cost without altering how much a farmer pumps. e.g. feeder transitions that improved supply economics while leaving abstraction unchanged.
    4. Unmetered farm supply: Without metering, neither pumping nor saving can be measured, so a water saving payment has no basis. e.g. Punjab, where agricultural supply is largely flat rate and unmetered.
    5. Land availability for decentralised plants: Barren and fallow land near substations is scarce in densely cultivated districts. e.g. canal command areas of western Uttar Pradesh with almost no uncultivated parcels.
    6. After sales service: A solar pump with no local technician becomes a stranded asset. e.g. standalone pumps idling in remote blocks for want of repair and spare parts.
    7. Equity of ownership: Individual ownership concentrates the benefit in farmers who already own a borewell and a landholding. e.g. tenant cultivators and landless water buyers, who gain nothing from a pump subsidy tied to land title.

    Conclusion

    The groundwater question about solar irrigation has been asked at the wrong level, because the outcome is set by ownership structure, pricing incentive and local hydrogeology rather than by the energy source. Gujarat’s feed in tariff and Bangladesh’s fee for service model both show that water use falls once restraint carries a price, while standalone pumps in energy constrained Eastern India are correctly an access instrument rather than a conservation one. PM-KUSUM 2.0 therefore has to carry two opposite incentive structures within one programme, tightened in water stressed States and loosened where irrigation is scarce. The unresolved condition is measurement, since no water saving payment can operate on a farm supply that is neither metered nor monitored.

    “[2025, GS3, 15 marks] Examine the factors responsible for depleting groundwater in India. What are the steps taken by the government to mitigate such depletion of groundwater?”

  • Suggest measures to improve water storage and irrigation system to make its judicious use under depleting scenario.

    India has 18% of the world’s population but only 4% of the freshwater resources. As per NITI Aayog “Composite Water Management Index”, 60 Cr people are experiencing high to extreme water stress.

    ~85% of India’s freshwater is used in agriculture (FAO).

    Groundwater depletion:

    1,006 blocks are over-exploited or critical (CGWB, 2023).

    Punjab and Haryana – ~1 metre annual groundwater decline.

    Per capita water availability fell from 1,820 m³ (2001)1,486 m³ (2025).

    “Day Zero” in cities like Chennai, Bengaluru, and Shimla

    By 2030, water demand could outstrip supply by twofold. (NITI Aayog)

    21 cities could exhaust groundwater by 2030. (NITI Aayog)

    The World Resources Institute ranks India 13th among the 17 most water-stressed nations globally

    2024 Annual Groundwater Quality Report – that 70% of India’s water sources are contaminated

    World Bank projects that climate-induced water scarcity could reduce India’s GDP by up to 12% by 2050

    Measures to improve water management

    Enhancing Water Storage Infrastructure

    Renovation Traditional Water Bodies – Example: Mission Kakatiya (Telangana) and Kudimaramath (Tamil Nadu).

    Farm-Level Storage – Promote farm ponds, percolation tanks, check dams, and contour bunds through MGNREGA. Eg- jalyukta Shivar of Maharashtra

    Rainwater Harvesting – Mandatory rooftop harvesting in water-stressed cities. Eg- Chennai Model

    Interlinking of Rivers – Eg- Projects like Ken-Betwa Link can ease water shortages in Bundelkhand.

    Use recharge wells to replenish aquifers through Atal Bhujal Yojana

    Dam Modernisation to enhance water storage capacity

    Improving Irrigation Efficiency

    Micro-Irrigation Expansion through PMKSY-PDMC. Eg- Drip saves 30-50% water; sprinkler saves 25-35%.

    Canal Modernisation- Improves efficiency from .

    Precision Farming – Use of sensors, fertigation, controlled irrigation for sustainable agriculture and optimal water use.

    Remote Sensing & GIS for Water Accounting – Monitor aquifers, rainfall-runoff, and canal leakages.

    Increase Capital Investment in Irrigation Systems and Fast-track AIBP projects

    Strengthening Community-Led Measures – Eg- Pani Panchayats in Odisha.

    Demand-Side Management

    Crop Diversification – Shift from water-intensive crops (paddy, sugarcane) to millets, pulses, oilseeds, horticulture. Example: Haryana’s Mera Pani Meri Virasat.

    Water Budgeting at Village Level through Gram Sabhas. Eg- Pani Foundation villages in Maharashtra.

    Water Pricing – Rational, volumetric pricing to reduce wastage.

    Water Users Associations (WUAs) – Participatory Irrigation Management for equitable distribution and canal maintenance.

    Incentivise Water Saving – Eg- Punjab’s Pani Bachao Paise Kamao for reducing groundwater usage.

    Implementing Mihir Shah Committee recommendations of One Water Approach by merging CGWB and CWC into a National Water Commission (NWC) is essential to achieve a water-secure economy.

  • What are the major challenges faced by Indian irrigation system in recent times? State the measures taken by the government for efficient irrigation management.

    The agriculture sector utilizes approximately 78% of India’s total usable water resources. However, 45% of agricultural land is rainfed.

    Major challenges faced by Indian Irrigation system

    P – Political Factors

    Political populism – Eg- power and irrigation subsidies in Punjab

    Inter-State Water Disputes – Conflicts such as the Cauvery Water Dispute and the Satluj Yamuna Link Canal hinder efficient water distribution and irrigation planning.

    Prioritization of Large-Scale Projects – Political support often favors large-scale projects that benefit influential farmers and regions.

    E – Economic Factors

    Declining Public Investment since the 1980s, with a shift toward input subsidies rather than capital investment. (Economic Survey)

    High Cost of Irrigation Infrastructure

    85% farmers have <2 ha, making modern irrigation systems uneconomical

    S – Social Factors

    Weak Water Users Associations (WUAs) – lack capacity and resources.

    Uneven Irrigation Distribution – Northern & coastal regions have better irrigation, while central and western India suffer inadequate supply.

    T – Technological Factors

    Low Water Use Efficiency (WUE) – Flood irrigation (~70%) leads to evaporation, runoff, and seepage losses.

    Aging & Poorly Maintained Canal Systems – Unlined canals cause 40-50% seepage losses.

    Low adoption of technology – Eg- micro-irrigation covers only 7.6% of the net sown area

    L – Legal / Governance Factors

    Weak Enforcement of Water Governance Rules (Mihir Shah Committee)

    E – Environmental Factors

    Groundwater Depletion – Eg- Punjab’s water table declines by ~1 meter annually.

    Poor drainage leads to salinization and reduced soil fertility, especially in canal-irrigated regions.

    Climate Change Impact – Eg- glacial retreat in the Himalayas threatens long-term river flows.

    Government Measures for Efficient Irrigation Management

    PM Krishi Sinchayee Yojana (PMKSY) – Promotes micro-irrigation (drip/sprinkler) through subsidies.

    Components: Har Khet Ko Pani, Per Drop More Crop, Watershed Development.

    Micro-Irrigation Fund (NABARD) – Dedicated fund of to expand drip and sprinkler systems.

    Atal Bhujal Yojana (Atal Jal) – Focus on groundwater management in water-stressed districts through community participation.

    Accelerated Irrigation Benefits Programme (AIBP) – Financial assistance for completion of long-pending major and medium irrigation projects.

    Participatory Irrigation Management (PIM) by strengthening Water Users Associations (WUAs).

    Bureau of Water Use Efficiency under Ministry of Jal Shakti – To improve water use efficiency by 20%

    State level initiatives

    Mission Kakatiya, Telangana – Restoration of 46,531 minor irrigation tanks

    Jalyukt Shivar Abhiyan, Maharashtra – watershed development, farm ponds, desilting of streams.

    Crop Diversification Initiatives

    Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture (MIDH)

    Increase in MSP for Pulses and Millets. Eg- 60% for Ragi

    PM KUSUM: Promotes the use of solar-powered pumps for micro-irrigation

    Timely and efficient implementations of government programmes is essential for achieving equitable, efficient and sustainable irrigation management. (“Vision for Sujalam Bharat”)