CHAPTER-V

ECONOMIC BENEFITS OF THE MINOR IRRIGATION PROJECTS

IN SATARA DISTRICT
5.1 Introduction
Construction activities of irrigation projects of modern times (nineteenth
and twentieth century) has basically begun, during the British period under the
pretext of providing employment to people, for mitigating famine hardships. Some
of the existing major projects (for example Neera, Parvara, Godavari, and
Asolamendha) were constructed before independence. During that period,
irrigation projects were taken up with a limited objective of obviating hunger tolls
in society, major unrest among masses leading to problems of maintenance of law
& order and financial loss; and to ensure reasonable economic returns to the
Government. The broad policy of development of farmers and the country came up
only after independence and accordingly commissioning of irrigation projects with
newly defined objectives started with rapid pace. The concept of transforming the
agriculture sector which is solely dependent on rain; with adoption of new
agricultural technology; so as to achieve increased production is of a recent origin.
It has, therefore, become necessary to go into the details of project benefits along
with their formulations. It was realised that, an irrigation project is not merely a
means of providing water to crops, but a system of transforming an agricultural
pattern which is dependent on scanty, untimely, uncertain rainfall and which least
ensures income into a broad-based structure by providing a dependable facility of
irrigation and providing an opportunity of evolving a modern agricultural practice
assuring mass production. Even investment made in construction of projects also
began to be looked into from that angle.
Irrigation is essential to increase production and productivity. If there is no
irrigation, crops will have to survive only on rainwater, and hence bringing
limitations on productivity. Fertilizers are not applied much to rain fed crops and
because of moisture stress; the applied fertilizers may not be available many-a-
times. The average productivity in Maharashtra is low and the main reason is non-
availability of irrigation for large area. The climate in the state is favourable for

143
many crops; because of clear sunshine (Kharif, Rabi and Summer) crops can be
cultivated round the year, provided water is available for irrigation. Wherever,
water is not available only single season crop is cultivated. Out of 365 days of a
year, crops occupy land, for only 105 to 120 days. If there is residual moisture, a
short duration crop canbe cultivated during another 60 to 80 days. Farmers do not
have much work to do during the slack period. The land use efficiency in
Maharashtra is only 48 per cent. By increasing irrigation facilities; land use
efficiency, production and productivity can be increased to a great extent.
5.2Irrigation Multiplier
Irrigation project involves huge construction activity which includes;
construction of reservoirs, canals, control structures, roads, bridges, and cross-
drainage structures. Such an activity will bring a positive impact on the industries
supplying inputs for construction. This in turn, will increase employment and
demand for goods and services. The growth of other sectors will depend on the
strength of the backward linkages (sectors supplying inputs to construction sector)
and forward linkages (sectors which are using output of construction sector as
input) of the construction sector, with the rest of the economy. This would
certainly have a multiplier effect on the economy.
The Irrigation multiplier is estimated to be 4.5(returns per ha. per season)
and 3.15(returns per ha per year). In either case, farmer’stotal share of marginal
benefits from irrigationto the society is between 22 to 32 per cent. This means that
the economy wide benefits of irrigation are much higher thanwhat a farmer gets in
terms of increased crop output, in a cropseason or a year. However, it should be
noted that, while, there is a strong correlation between increased irrigation and
reduction in poverty in India, the ultimate impact of irrigation on reduction in
poverty depends on other factors, such as the structures of agriculture production,
rural institution, the consumption feedback and labour mobility.
5.2.1 Beneficiaries of Irrigation
A major concern regarding the irrigation systems, especially, provided by
large dams, is that; it benefits only large farmers. Many studies on irrigation
projects in India, have shown that 40 per cent of the beneficiaries of major

144
irrigation systems are small and marginal farmers, while remaining 60%, are large
farmers. Large farmers form only 12 per cent of the command area of the major
irrigation schemes. In addition, the increased income of labourers who are not
direct beneficiaries of the irrigation system; is substantial. Besides, with the
increased number of working days, the wage rate is also likely to increase, once
there is provision of irrigation. These are main the benefits of implementing
irrigation, especially, for the landless; who have to migrate every year to urban
areas to get employment during the non-monsoon period, leading to fragmentation
of families. Many studies show that villages with intensive year round irrigation
attract landless population from the surrounding villages who then settle down
permanently. Groundwater-based irrigation largely has the same benefits as
surface irrigation. However, groundwater brings greater benefits for small and
marginal farmers.
5.3 Returns from Irrigation Project

While considering the proposals of irrigation projects in the State, the

benefit cost ratio should be worked out. If this ratio is more than one, then only
such projects should be approved, as they are economically viable. While working
out the benefit cost ratio relating to such projects, the benefits considered are
mainly from the additional production due to irrigation facility created. In this
calculation, benefits from supply of water for domestic use, industries, generation
of electricity, etc., are not considered, but should be considered. Because, as
mentioned earlier, while undertaking irrigation project, no survey is carried out to
ascertain the demand for other purposes except that for the requirement of
irrigation water within the project area. It means planning is restricted only to
expenditure, but there is no planning about the Inherits. As of today, the priority
being given to the allocation of water available from irrigation projects is as
follows:
1. Allocation of water for domestic use.
2. Supply of water for irrigation.
3. Supply of water for industries.

145
 Detailed information about the requirement of water for irrigation is
collected and estimates of the water requirement are arrived at. However, the
requirement of water for domestic and industrial use is very broadly worked out.
Water available from irrigation projects is used for different purposes and income
accrued therefrom is classified as shown hereunder:
1. For the purpose of irrigation (sale of water for irrigation).
2. Sale of water for domestic use.
3. Sale of water for other purposes.
4. Income from sale of production from canal cultivation.
5. Revenue receipts from navigation.
6. Hydro-electricity.
7. Sale of electricity.
8. Indirect revenue receipts - receipts of land revenue accruable due to
irrigation.
9. Irrigation cess.
10. Betterment levy.
11. Deduction on account of expenditure on recovery, in urban areas.
12. Other revenue receipts.
13. Local cess on water charges.
14. Revenue receipts from auction of fishery rights.
Income from irrigation projects is derived under the aforementioned
fourteen sub-heads.
5.4Expenditure Pattern of Sample farmers
The expenditure pattern highlights the living standards of the farmers. Table
No.5.1 indicates the level of expenses made for various items at current
prices,during the period under study.
Consumption of food includes money spent by the farmers family, on
yearly purchase of food stock like sorghum, pearl millet, wheat, and
rice.Expenditure on groceryitemsare exclusive of all the food items mentioned in
the yearly food expenditure.

146
 Table No.5.1
Yearly Expenses of Sample farmers
Respondents from Respondents from Irrigated
Un-irrigated Area Area
(Outside the Command Area (Command Area of MIP)
Sr.No Particulars of MIP) (N=100) (N=200)
Average Amount % Average Amount %
spent at Current spent at Current
Prices(inRs.) Prices(inRs.)
1 Food grain 12700 12.47 17621.12 10.68
2 Grocery 17224 16.91 26930 16.32
3 Clothing 7780 7.64 10830 6.56
4 Education 12880 12.64 19420 11.77
5 Health 12207.5 11.98 17374 10.53
6 Religious events,
Festivals, 9440 9.27 15337.5 9.29
Marriages etc.
7 Social Function
Contribution 1894 1.86 3520 2.13
8 Traveling 5147 5.05 8556 5.18
9 Petrol 5308 5.21 14808 8.97
10 Telephone
Communication 1921 1.89 4019 2.43
11 Entertainment 1811 1.78 2195.45 1.33
12 Bad Habits
(Tobacco,
Smoking, Liquor 1044 1.02 2468.5 1.50
etc.)
13 Other 12506 12.28 21980 13.32
Total 107029 100% 159893.07 100%
Source: Primary Data.

147
 Graph No.5.1
Comparison of the Expenditure Pattern ofUn-irrigated Areas Respondents
with Irrigated Areas Respondents (Expe. in Rs.)

Average Expenditure by the Respondents from Un-irrigated Area

30000
Average Expenditure by the Respondents from Irrigated Area

25000

20000

15000

10000

5000

Table No.5.1 gives details of annual expenditure on items such as food-

grain and groceries,clothes, education, health, religious events, traveling and
entertainment, etc. It is seen from the table, that on an average a family from un-
irrigated region spends Rs.1,07,029per year, on items enlisted in the table, whereas
in irrigated areas family expenditure is Rs.1,59,893.07 per year. The average per
family annual expenditure in irrigated area is 49.39% more, than the average per
family annual expenditure in un-irrigated area. Major expenditure incurred for a
family ismainly onfood-grain&groceries; which is more than 1/4th of the total
expenditure. Expenditure on educationis near about 12% in both un-irrigated and
irrigated region, followed by theexpenditure on health which is more than 10% of
total expenditure,while 9.29% expenditure ison religious events, festivals and
marriages, etc.

148
5.5 Borrowing Pattern of the Respondents
Borrowing pattern here refers to the money borrowed by the farmers
through banks and credit societies. Money is borrowedby the farmers for a variety
of purposes, from a variety of sourcesand at various rate of interest.
5.5.1Availability of Loan
The available evidence indicates a strong positive relationship
betweenagricultural growth and availability of credit. Credit in the agricultural
sector,broadly speaking, takes two forms, viz., short-term crop loans in order to
meet theoutlay on inputs, and medium or long-term investment loans to facilitate
theacquisition of fixed farm assets. Conceptually, the crop loan is expected
tobridge the gap in the short-term resources, for the borrowers.
Table No.5.2
Availability of loan
Sr.No Particular No. of Farmers Percentage (%)

1 Timely and Adequately 250 83.33

2 Not in Time and Inadequately 50 16.67

Total 300 100.0%

Source: Primary Data.

As per the Table No.5.2 Out of the total respondents, 83.33% farmers
received loans timely and adequately, but 16.67% respondentsdidn’t receive loans
timely and adequately. This shows, that the agricultural credit facilities are good in
position but they shouldextend their reach in order to serve the remote sections, in
the rural area.
5.5.2Sourcesof Loan
Timely, adequate and low interestloans play a significant role in the
development of agriculture. The role of institutional credit is important in order to
supply subsidized credit to agriculture sector. Commercial banks under priority
sector lending participate in shouldering the burden of agricultural credit. Co-
operative credit is much favoured by the agricultural class, and the growth in
agriculture; particularly irrigation & technology directly depends upon the
availability of credit.

149
 The share of Primary Agricultural Co-operative Societies (PACS) in loan
borrowing by sampled farmers is42%, borrowing of loan from District Central Co-
operative Bank (DCCB)isnear about 7%.8.33% farmers borrowed loan from both
PACS and DCCB, 7% farmers borrowed loan from nationalized banks,6% farmers
borrowed from both PACSand nationalized banks. Moreover,1.33% farmers
borrowed from other sources such as private money lenders and 1.67% farmers
borrowed from relatives. Almost, 26% respondents didn’t receive loans from any
of the financial institution.
Table No.5.3
Sources of Loan
Sr.No Particulars No. of Farmers Percentage (%)
1 No Loan 80 26.67
2 PACS 126 42.00
3 DCCB 21 7.00
4 PACS + DCCB 25 8.33
5 Nationalized Bank 21 7.00
6 PACS + Nationalized Bank 18 6.00
7 Money lenders 4 1.33
8 Other 5 1.67
Total 300 100.0%
Source: Primary Data.
5.5.3 Purposes of Loan
The true nature of the problems in agricultural finance can be understood
only by considering the credit requirements of the sector, along with the various
sources from which these requirements are met.
A farmer needs loan for diverse purposes which include both production
and consumption.
It can be seen from Table no.5.4 that, out of the total respondents
80(26.67%) have not loaned any amount. Majority of the farmers i.e. 165(55%)
have received loans for purchase seeds, fertilizer etc, used for the crop
production,while 18(6%),5(1.67),12(4%),12(4%),8(2.67%) farmers have received
loans for various purposes such asbuildinghouse,ancillary and allied
businesses,purchase vehicles,to dug well andother purposes.

150
 Table No.5.4
Purposes of Loan
Sr.No Purposes of loan Beneficiaries Percentage (%)

1 Not Taken 80 26.67

2 Crop Loan 165 55.00
3 To Build House 18 6.00
4 For Ancillary Business 5 1.67
5 To Purchase Vehicle 12 4.00
6 To Dug Well 12 4.00
7 Other 8 2.67
Total 300 100.00
Source: Primary Data.
5.5.4 Loan Amount
Table No.4.19 indicates the amount of loan taken by respondents. Majority
of farmerstook loans in excess of Rs.1 lakh, followed by 21% farmers who took
loans ranged from Rs.25 to 50 thousand, followed by 11% farmers who took
loansupto Rs.25 thousand, followedby 6.67% farmers who took loans ranged from
Rs.50 to 75 thousand and only 5.67% farmers took loans in amounts ranged from
Rs.75 thousand to 1 lakh.
Table No.5.5
Loan Amount
Sr.No Loan Amount No. of Farmers Percentage (%)
( inRs.)
1 Not Taken 80 26.67
2 Up to Rs. 25,000 33 11.00
3 Rs.25,001 50,000 63 21.00
4 Rs.50,001 75,000 20 6.67

5 Rs.75,000 1,00,000 17 5.67

6 More than Rs.1,00,000 87 29.00

Total 300 100.00%
Source: Primary Data.

151
 5.6.1 Benefits received due to Minor Irrigation Project
Table No.5.6 indicates that out of 200 farmers,20(10%)farmers reported
that they did not receive any benefits from the MIP. 47 farmers (23%) reported
that they benefited by MIP’s canal water. 58 farmers (29%)reported that water
level of their wells and tubewells has increased due to MIP. 75 farmers (37.5%)
benefitted due to the implementation of lift irrigation in minor irrigation projects.
Table No.5.6
Benefit Received Due to Minor Irrigation Project
Sr.No Particular No. of Farmers Percentage
(N=200) (%)
1 No Benefit 20 10.0

2 Benefited by Canal Water 47 23.5

3 Increase in Water Level of Well and 58 29.0

Tubewell
4 Water Available for Lift Irrigation 75 37.5

Total 200 100.0%

Source: Primary Data.

5.6.2 Increase in Water Availability of Wells and Tubewells due to MIP
Construction of irrigation projects and providing water from canal is not
possible for the entire drought prone area. In such a situation, it is essential to
increase the groundwater storage and to provide irrigation to agriculture;
construction of percolation tanks and other water conservation structures include
village tanks, storage tanks, nullabunding, cement bunds, underground bandharas,
etc.,on a very large scale.
Wherever flow irrigation cannot reach, groundwater is theonly source of
meeting the water needs, while the percolation tank is an effective way of
increasing the goundwater storage. The numbers of wells and tubewells in the
influence area of a percolation tank have increased.
In command area of percolation tanks, cash crops are cultivated. The
observations have shown that sugarcane, vegetables and fruit crops are grown in
river basin. The farmers appeared to have enjoyed the freedom of crops. Wherever

152
percolation tanks were built in command area of MIP, no drinking water
problemsarise.
Table No.5.7
Increase in Water Availability ofWells and Tubewells of the Sample Farmers
Due to MIP
(in months)
Sr.No Increase in Water Availability ofWells and No. of Percentage
Farmers (%)
Tube wells (in months)
(N=200)
1 No Change 8 4
2 0 to 2 month 4 2
3 2 to 4 months 57 28.5
4 4 to 6 months 22 11
5 6 to 8 months 10 5
6 8 to 10 months 4 2
7 10 to 12 months 95 47.5
Total 200 100.0%

Table No.5.7 shows that, due to the implementation of MIP’s in the

command area, the availability of water for irrigation purposes have significantly
increased. Irrigation capacity of wells and tubewell in the study region has
increased because of water harvesting and water percolation from the MIP’s. Out
of the total 200 farmers only 4% farmers reported that there is no change in the
water level of wells and tubewells, while28.5% farmer reported that the capacity of
irrigation of their wells and tubewells has increased from 2 to 4 months and 47.5%
farmers reported that the capacity of irrigation of their wells and tubewells has
increased from 10 to 12 months.
5.7 Area under Principal Crops of Sample Farmers
Table No.5.8 presents the comparison between area under principal crops
from un-irrigated region and irrigated region. As for crop patterns, it is seen from
the table that majority of dry crops were grown in the area outside the command
area of MIPs. Crops were grown depending on whims of the monsoon, either in

153
 kharif and rabi season. Multiple and inter-cropping was very rarely practiced in
un-irrigated region.
Table No.5.8
Area under Principal Crops
(Comparison of Un-irrigated with Irrigated Area)

Sr. No. Crops On Un-irrigated Area On Irrigated Area Difference

(Outside the Command (Command Area of in % of area
Area of MIP) (N=100) MIP) (N=200)
Area % Area % %
( in acres) (in acres) (+,-)
1 Sorghum (Kharif) 9 4.03 19.15 1.83 -2.2
2 Sorghum (Rabi) 19.25 8.61 130.85 12.51 +3.9
3 Wheat 8.5 3.80 106.45 10.18 +6.38
4 Rice 16 7.16 15.75 1.51 -5.65
5 Beans 12.25 5.48 27.75 2.65 -2.83
6 Pearl Millet 40.5 18.12 65.5 6.26 -11.86
7 Gram 13.5 6.04 44.5 4.26 -1.78
8 Sugarcane 3.5 1.57 270.5 25.87 +24.3
9 Turmeric 0 0.00 25.25 2.41 +2.41
10 Ginger 2 0.89 28.5 2.73 +1.84
11 Groundnut (Kharif) 16 7.16 27 2.58 -4.58
12 Groundnut (HW) 2.5 1.12 50.65 4.84 +3.72
13 Soybean 41.25 18.46 132.5 12.67 -5.79
14 Onion 10.25 4.59 42 4.02 -0.57
15 Fruits 1.5 0.67 38.5 3.68 +3.01
16 Vegetables 12 5.37 77.25 7.39 +2.02
17 Fodder Crops 8.25 3.69 14.75 1.41 -2.28
18 Other 7.25 3.24 13.4 1.28 -1.96
Total 223.5 100.00 1130.25 100%

Source: Primary Data

Soybean, pearl millet,sorghum (Rabi),rice andgroundnut (Kharif) are the

five major crops, grown in un-irrigated region. Areas under these crops are
41.25acres(18.46%), 40.5 acres(18.12%), 19.25 acres(8.61%), 16 acres(7.16%)
and 16 acres(7.16%), respectively. Since, double, multiple and perennial cropping
is possible in irrigated area due to the implementation of MIPs.sugarcane,sorghum
(Rabi),soybean,wheat andvegetables are major crops grown in irrigated region of
154
MIPs. Areas under these crops are 270.5acres(25.87%), 130.85acres(12.51%),
132.5acres(12.67%), 106.45acres(10.18%) and 77.25acres(7.39%), respectively
Graph No.5.2
Area under Principal Crops of the Respondents

Area under Principal Crops

30

Crop on Un-irrigated Area

25

Crop on Irrigated Area

20

15

10

5.8Net Income from various crops in Un- Irrigated land

Table no.5.9 shows that net income accrued from various crops in un-
irrigated region. From thecropping pattern shown below,we can calculate total net
income from the production of various crops in un-irrigated region. The total value
of the crop shown inRs.(column no.10), while the total associated costs of the
production works out in Rs.(column no.11). If the total associated cost is deducted

155
from the gross value of crop production, we get the total net income with
irrigation(column no.12).
To measurethe total cost of productionfor each crop produced, the total
expenditure incurred by the respective respondents isincluded; which consists of
expenses such as, expenditure of land preparation before sowing, seeds or
plants,various fertilisers, weed management, pesticides, labour charges and
harvesting, etc.
To calculate gross income from the crops, the total gross production is
multiplied by the current market prices; in gross income it also included income
from by-product of crops.
As per the data shown in the table, Onion, Rice, Potato, Beans, Grams are
the major income generating crops compared to the other crops in un-irrigated
region. These crops are mostprofitable ones compared to the other cropsand, they
generate more income per acre compared to other less profitable crops such as
jowarkharif and rabi,pearl millet and soybean.

156
 Table No.5.9
Net Income from the various Crops in the Un-Irrigatedland (Outside the Command Area) of MIP in theSatara District
Total Main Price per Value of By- Price Value of Value of Associated Net
Area in Produce in quintal main product (inRs.) by- gross Costs Income
Sr.No Crops Acre quintals (inRs.) produce product Produce (inRs.) Cals.
(per acre) cols. Cols. cols. (inRs.)
(4x5) (7x8) (6+9) (10-11)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 Jowar (Kharif) 9 54 1400 75600 36* 1000 36000 111600 10000 101600
2 Jowar (Rabi) 19.25 96.25 2000 192500 77* 1500 115500 308000 12250 295750
3 Bajra 40.5 275.4 1800 495720 121.5* 700 85050 580770 10000 570770
4 Wheat 8.5 38.25 2000 76500 ---- ---- ---- 76500 9000 67500
5 Beans 12.25 73.5 5000 367500 36.75** 500 18375 385875 12800 373075
6 Soybean 41.25 206.25 3200 660000 ---- ---- 660000 10000 650000
7 Groundnut(Kharif) 16 51.2 5000 256000 64** 500 32000 288000 11000 277000
8 Groundnut(HW) 2.5 10 5500 55000 10** 500 5000 60000 13500 46500
9 Gram 13.5 60.75 5000 303750 ---- ---- ---- 303750 10000 293750
10 Sugarcane 3.5*** 87.5*** 2122 185675 ---- ---- ---- 185675 30000 155675
11 Rice 16 160 3000 480000 64* 500 32000 512000 16000 496000
12 Onion 10.25 717.5 1500 1076250 ---- ---- ---- 1076250 35000 1041250
13 Pomegranate 4*** 32*** 7000 224000 ---- ---- ---- 224000 45000 179000

*In bundles of hundred Stalks.**Cart loads.

***Sugarcane and Pomegranate Production in tonnes and their prices are per tonne.
Source: Primary Data.

157
5.9Net Income from various crops in Irrigated land
It is a well-recognized fact, among public as well as policy makers, that
adequate and appropriate availability of water plays fundamental role in the
economic development of farmers.
As per the data shown in the table No.5.10, sugarcane, onion, ginger,
soybean, JowarRabi are major income generating crops in the irrigated region.
These crops aremost profitable ones compared to the other crops and generate
more income per acre than the other less profitable crops such as JowarKharif and
Rabi, Pearl millet and Soybean.
Per acre net income from Strawberry, Ginger, Pomegranate, Sugarcane and
Turmeric is high than the other irrigated crops, in this region.
The study found that, there issignificant increase in income due to
irrigation. On an average, the income of irrigated farmers was 2 to 4 times more
than the income of un-irrigated farmers.

158
 Table No.5.10
Net Income from the Different Crops in the Irrigated Land (In the Command Area) of MIP in the Satara District
Total Main Price Value of By- Price Value of Value of gross Associated Net
Area in Produce in per main product by-product Produce cols. Costs Income
Sr.No Crops Acre quintals quintal produce Cols. (6+9) Cols.
(per acre) cols. (4x5) (7x8) (10-11)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) (11) (12)
1 Jowar (Kharif) 19.15 268.1 1400 375340 76.6* 1000 76600 451940 10000 441940

2 Jowar (Rabi) 130.85 1504.775 2000 3009550 523.4* 1500 785100 3794650 14250 3780400
3 Bajra 65.5 786 1800 1414800 262* 700 183400 1598200 10000 1588200
4 Wheat 106.45 1362.56 2000 2725120 ---- ---- ---- 2725120 14000 2711120
5 Beans 27.75 222 5000 1110000 83.25** 500 41625 1151625 12800 1138825
6 Soyabeans 132.5 1205.75 3200 3858400 ---- ---- ---- 3858400 12800 3845600
7 Groundnut 27 151.2 5000 756000 108** 500 54000 810000 12500 797500
(Kharif)
8 Groundnut (HW) 50.65 430.525 5500 2367887. 202.6** 500 101300 2469188 13500 2455688
9 Gram 44.5 344.43 5000 17221505 ---- ---- ---- 1722150 11500 1710650
10 Rice 15.75 236.25 3500 826875 63* 500 31500 858375 20000 838375
11 Sugarcane 270.5*** 9467.5*** 2122 20090035 ---- ---- ---- 20090035 35000 2005503
12 Turmeric 25.25 505 7500 3787500 ---- ---- ---- 3787500 65000 37225005
13 Onion 28.5 2850 3600 10260000 ---- 10260000 165000 1009500
14 Ginger 42 3780 1500 5670000 ---- ---- ---- 5670000 40000 56300000
15 Pomegranate 16.5*** 41.25*** 70000 2887500 ---- ---- ---- 2887500 50000 2837500
16 Strawberry 7*** 56*** 50000 2800000 ---- ---- ---- 2800000 200000 2600000
*In bundles of hundred Stalks.**Cart loads.
***Sugarcane, Pomegranate and Strawberry Production in tonnes and their priceare per tonne.

159
 5.10Farm Income without Irrigation and with Irrigation
Table No.5.11
Comparison ofAverage Net IncomePer Acre ofVarious Crops on
Un-irrigated Area and Irrigated Area
Per Acre Net Per Acre Net Net Percentage
Income on Un- Income on Difference in (%) of
Sr.No Crops irrigated Land Irrigated Land Income Increase in
(Rs.) (Rs.) Level Net Income
(Rs.)
1 Sorghum(Kharif) 2400 13600 11200 466.67
2 Sorghum (Rabi) 4630 14750 10120 218.57
3 Pearl Millet 4340 14400 10060 231.80
4 Wheat 9000 11600 2600 28.89
5 Beans 18700 28700 10000 53.48
6 Soybean 6000 16320 10320 172.00
7 Groundnut (Kharif) 11000 17500 6500 59.09
8 Gram 13000 27200 14200 109.23
9 Rice 78000 102000 24000 30.77
10 Onion 70000 95000 25000 35.71
11 Potato 40000 92000 52000 130.00
Source: Primary Data.
Table no.5.11 indicatesthe average net income per acre from same crops.If
we calculate farm income; without irrigation and withirrigation (in un-irrigated
area and irrigated area)than, on an average; the net income per acre from same
crops is higher in irrigated area than the un-irrigated region. It is observed that the
net income per acre from various crops is increased due to the irrigation facilities.
The percentage of increase in net income per acre for Sorghum (Kharif) is
466.67%, Sorghum (Rabi) 218.57%, Pearl Millet 231.80%, Beans 53.48%,
Soybean 172%, Gram 109.23%, and Potato 130%. These crops were found to be
more sensitive to the irrigation in terms of net income generation compared to
onion, rice, wheat, beans, groundnut (Kharif) etc.

160
5.11 Comparison of Income Level of the Respondents from Un-irrigated
Area with Irrigated Area
Respondents with irrigation facility and respondents without irrigation
facility are selected. Average total annual income of the farmers of un-
irrigatedregion are calculated and compared with average total annual income of
the farmers of the irrigated region. The study indicated that irrigation causes rise,
not only in terms of agriculture income, but alsoseveral non-agricultural work
opportunities are generated due to availability of irrigation. Income from such non-
agricultural sources of work results in supplementary and stabilization effect to the
agricultural income.
If we compare an average income from different crops, in between
respondents of un-irrigated and irrigated regions,then it is found to have a
significant increase in income level of farmers in irrigated region than the farmers
in un-irrigated region.
Table No.5.12
Comparison of Income Level of the Respondents
Sr.No Annual Net Agricultural Income from Un-irrigated Income from Irrigated
Income of the Respondents land (N=100) land (N=200)
(inRs.) No. of Percentage No. of Percentage
Farmers (%) Farmers (%)
1 Up to 25000 29 29 16 8

2 Rs.25001 to 50000 41 41 44 22

3 Rs.50001 to 75000 6 6 12 6

4 Rs.75001 to1,00,000 8 8 20 10

5 Rs.1,00,001to 1,25,000 1 1 4 2

6 Rs. 1,25,001 to 150,000 2 2 14 7

7 150,001 to 175,000 4 4 11 5.5

8 175,001 to 2,00,000 5 5 20 10

9 More than Rs. 2,00,000 4 4 59 29.5

Total 100 100.0% 200 100.0%

Source: Primary Data.

161
 It can be seen from the Table No.5.12 that the annual net agricultural
income of the respondents in un-irrigated region and irrigated regiondiffer.Out of
the total 100 respondents in un-irrigated region, 70% farmers have annual net
income of less than Rs.50,000; while only 4% farmers income is more than Rs.2
lakh. On the contrary, out of total 200 farmers from irrigated region,only 30%
farmers annual net income is less than Rs.50,000; whereas 29.5% farmers have
income more than Rs.2 lakh. It is also found thatmost of the farmers in un-irrigated
region are in low income range, whereas most of the farmers in irrigated region
fall under high incomebracket.
5.12Modern Methods of Irrigation
In traditional irrigation method, water required for crop growth is applied,
by free flow. While it may be possible to supply water to the fieldby lift or through
wells for the interval of 5 to 7 days or less; the canal water is ordinarily supplied
only for 14 days or longer interval. Considering this limitations, water supplied to
the field in one rotation percolates 7 to 10cm. deep. It is not practically possible to
supply water which percolates to a depth lower than 10cm during a particular
rotation period and therefore the actual crop water requirement is less (during
initial and final growth stages, of the crop) through a conventional, flow method.
5.12.1Water Supply in Prevailing Irrigation System and Water
Requirements for Crops
Considerable research is conducted in the discipline of Agricultural Science
on actual water requirement for the growth of various crops and its dependency on
various climatic parameters and soil characteristics. It is seen from
manyresearches, that actual crop water requirement depends mainly on
temperature, atmospheric humidity, sunshine wind velocity and stage of crop
growth.
In conventional flow method, entire water required by the crop for 15-20
days is applied together and in one application, which adversely affects the crop
growth. Water is available for crop in excess of its actual requirement during the
first 4-6 days after rotation and over the next 10-15 days the water availability goes
on diminishing as compared to its requirement. Moreover, during the last 3-4 days
the crop has to survive stress which has an adverse effect on the crop growth and

162
its yield. After rotation, the water in excess of its holding capacity percolates to the
lower strata. Water percolated beyond root zone cannot be used by the crop and is
wasted, as far as the farm crop is concerned.
Considerable wastage of water occurs in applying fixed water quantum
during 3-4 weeks period from sowing until the root are developed and also during
2-3 weeks before harvesting,even when the water requirement by the crop, is less.
5.12.2Necessity of Modern Irrigation Method
Under these circumstances, if by some mechanism, we are able to apply
water to meet our day to day water requirements of the crop, then not only the
requirement of water is less,compared to conventional flow method; but also, the
crop is not subjected to water stress at any given time. As a result, sound growth
takes place, production increases and quality too improves. Further, the
agricultural produce of improved quality fetches better market price. Increase in
yield and water savings is clearly observed, from the following Table No.5.13
Table No.5.13
Yields and Water Use for Selected Crops under Conventional
and Drip Irrigation Systems in India
Yield (Quintal/Ha) Water Supplied (cm)
Crop Conventional Drip Increase Conventional Drip Saving

Banana 575.00 875.00 52% 176.00 97.00 45%

Grapes 264.00 325.00 23% 53.20 27.80 48%
Sugarcane 1280.00 1700.00 33% 215.00 94.00 65%
Tomato 320.00 480.00 50% 30.00 18.40 39%
Watermelon 240.00 450.00 88% 33.00 21.00 36%
Cotton 23.30 29.50 27% 89.53 42.00 53%
Chillies 42.33 60.88 44% 109.71 41.77 62%
Papaya 13.40 23.48 75% 228.00 73.30 68%
Source: Handbook on Agriculture (2014).
We can conclude from tables above that:
The increase in yield for different crops range from 27 per cent to 88 per
cent and water savings range from 36 per cent to 68 per cent vis-à-vis,
conventional flow irrigation systems.

163
 It enables farmers to grow crops which would not be possible under
conventional systems since it can irrigate adequately with lower water quantity.
It saves costs of hired labour and other inputs like fertilizers.
Table No.5.14
Advantages of Drip Irrigation System over Conventional Method of
Irrigation
Performance Flood method Drip method
indicator
Water saving Wasteful of water, losses occur 40-100% of water can be saved
due to percolation, runoff and over flood method. Runoff and
evaporation deep percolation losses are nil or
negligible
Water use 30%-50% because losses are very 90%-95%
efficiency high
Saving in labour Labour engaged per irrigation is Labour required only to start or
higher than drip stop the system
Reduced weeds Weeds infestation is very high Less wetting of soil, weeds
problem infestation is very less or almost nil

Use of saline water Concentration of salts increases Frequent irrigation keeps the salt
and adversely affects plant concentration within root zone soil
growth. Saline water cannot be below harmful level
used for irrigation
Diseases and pests High Relatively less because of less
problems atmospheric humidity
Suitability under Deep percolation is more in light Suitable under various soil physical
physical soil soil and with limited soil depths. constraints as flow rate can be
constraints Runoff loss is more in heavy soil controlled
Water control Inadequate Very precise, high and easy
Efficiency of Efficiency is low because of Very high due to reduced loss of
fertilizer use heavy losses due to leaching and nutrients through leaching and
runoff runoff water
Soil erosion Soil erosion is high because of Partial and controlling the wetting
large stream sizes used for of soil surface eliminates any
irrigation possibility of soil erosion
Increase in crop Non-uniformity of available Frequent watering eliminates
yield moisture reduced the crop yield moisture stress and yield can be
increased up to 20-100% as
compared to flood
Source: Maharashtra Irrigation Commission Report,1997.
It reduces the energy needs for pumping, thus reducing energy per ha of
irrigation because of its reduced water needs. However, overall energy needs of the

164
agriculture sector may not get reduced because most farmers increase water
efficiency to bring more area under irrigation.Based on research conducted using
various options available; the following two methods have finally been accepted
worldwide as modern irrigation methods: 1)Drip irrigation method and,
2)Sprinkler irrigation method.
5.13 Increase in Irrigated Area Due to Modern Irrigation System
Table No.5.15
Increase in Irrigated Area Due to Modern Irrigation System
(Drip Irrigation)
Flow Irrigation Drip Irrigation
Water Total water Irrigable Water Total water Irrigable
requireme Requirement Area* requirement* Requirement Area*
nt* (mm) at Property *per (mm) at Property *per
Crops Head (m3) Mm3 of Head (m3) Mm3 of
water at water at
Property Property
Head Head
(ha.) (ha.)
Banana 2620 34933 1320 ----28.6
13884 72
Pomegranate 2180 29066 34.4 1210 12736 78.5
Sugarcane(suru) 1950 26000 38.5 740 7789 128.4
Cotton 870 11600 86.2 430 4526 220.9
Brinjal 900 12000 83.3 380 4000 250
Ladies finger 420 5600 178.6 230 2421 413
Groundnut(HW) 900 12000 83.3 620 7294 137.1
Wheat 350 4666 214.3 200 2352 425
Rabi Sunflower 300 4000 250 200 2352 425
Onion HW 780 10400 96.2 520 6117 163.5
Garlic 900 12000 83.3 600 7058 141.7
Kh.Chillies 390 5200 192.3 260 3058 326.9
Kh.Sorghum 180 2400 416.7 120 1411 708.3
Kh.Groundnut 210 2800 357.1 140 1647 607.1
Cauliflower 420 5600 178.6 310 3647 274.2
Note: Water requirement at root Zone.
*Field Irrigation efficiency is 75% in flow Irrigation, 95% in Drip Irrigation,
85% in Sprinkler Irrigation.
Source: Bankar and Pol, Shetkari Magazine March, (1996)
Table No.5.15 reveals that, in flow irrigation method, 1 Mm3 irrigates 38.5
ha sugarcane (suru) area. With the samequantum of water, by drip irrigation
method 128.4 ha area is irrigated. Similarly, 83.3ha.area under hot weather

165
groundnut, is irrigated with 1 Mm3 with flow irrigation wheresprinkler irrigation, if
adopted, caters to 137.1 ha area.
In irrigated region if drip irrigation method is adopted instead of flow
irrigation method for growing crops like banana, pomegranate, cotton,brinjal,
ladies finger, wheat and Kharif. Groundnut, than; more than double area will be
irrigated by same quantum of water.
This leads the commission to suggestthat only modern irrigation methods be
practised in case water is obtained from well and that lifted from reservoirs or
river. This will increase area under irrigation andmore number of farmers can reap
benefits of irrigation water. Drip and sprinkler methods entail saving in water.
Saving in water is as good as making water available. Modern irrigationpractices,
therefore, should be promoted.
5.14 Irrigtion and Employment Generation
Research study shows that at village level, irrigation provides higher and
more stable employment and the poor are the major beneficiaries. In fact, the
contribution of irrigation to employment is greater than even high yielding
varieties. Studiesshow that there is an increase in number of days work required
per ha.with irrigation compared with rainfed condition rangingfrom 60 per cent to
more than 150 per cent.
Table no. 5.16 reveals that due to implementation of MIP’s, cropping
pattern has changed in the study region. It is found during the survey that
foodgrain and traditional crops are replaced by the cash crop. Farmers are growing
more viable, capital intensive,labour intensive crops and due to this, the demand
for labour hasincreased. It can be seen from the table,
thatfruits,sugarcane,ginger,turmeric,and rice are crops which have more
employment generation capacity than the traditional crops like sorghum, pearl
millet, groundnut, beans, grams, onion etc.Before implementation of MIP’s, a
totalof 81228 man-days were generated, but after project implementation, this has
increased to 111651 man-days.The total employment level has increased by
37.45% in the study region.Cash crop played a vital role in employment creation in
the study region.

166
 Table No.5.16
Employment Level
Labour Required for Different Crops in the Study Region Before and After the MIP’s
(Employment potential,Labour: Man-days)
Before MIP After MIP
Labour Total Total % of increase or
Sr.No Crops Requirement (in Area Employment Area Employment Decline in
Man-days Per (acres) Created in Man- (acres) Created in Employment Level
Acre) days Man-days
1 Sorghum (Kharif) 72 52.5 3780 19.15 1379 -63.52
2 Sorghum (Rabi) 70 263.25 18428 130.85 9160 -50.29
3 Wheat 51 34 1734 106.45 5429 213.09
4 Rice 180 77.25 13905 15.75 2835 -79.61
5 Beans 45 117.25 5276 27.75 1249 -76.33
6 Pearl Millet 49 163 7987 65.5 3210 -59.82
7 Gram 43 94.5 4064 44.5 1914 -52.91
8 Sugarcane 180 37 6660 270.5 48690 631.08
9 Turmeric 225 9 2025 25.25 5681 180.56
10 Ginger 200 7 1400 28.5 5700 307.14
11 Groundnut (Kharif) 49 89.55 4388 27 1323 -69.85
12 Groundnut (HW) 56 9 504 50.65 2836 462.78
13 Soya bean 49 26.2 1284 132.5 6493 405.73
14 Onion 72 84.5 6084 42 3024 -50.30
15 Fruits 300 4.5 1350 38.5 11550 755.56
16 Fodder Crops 80 29.5 2360 14.75 1180 -50.00
Total 1721 1098 81228 1039.6 111651 37.45

Source:Primary Data and Maharashtra Irrigation Commission II report,1997.

167
 The Government is promoting fruit cultivation and, due to this, there is an
increase in fruit production along with the generation of employment
opportunities; so that farmers get work after harvests and they do not migrate to
other places. More employment opportunities are created due to fruit cultivation;
for seasonal crops 80 to 120 man-days per ha are sufficient, whereas for fruit
cultivation 250 to 350 man-days are required. This is exclusive of processing and
export. The fruits sold or exported after processing; fetch higher price and create
work opportunities. Processing in co-operative sector has been proved more
beneficial. These fruits require cold-storage facilities and therefore processing
should be given priority.
5.15 Expenditure on Labour Wages by the Respondent
Table No.5.17
Expenditure on Labour Wages by the Respondents
(Comparision of Un-irrigated area with Irrigated area)
(Annual Expenditure)
Sr. Expenditure on labour Income from Income from Irrigated
No Charges by the Un-irrigated land land (N=200)
Respondents (N=100)
(Annually in Rs.) No. of Percentage No. of Percentage
Farmers (%) Farmers (%)
1 No Expenditure 27 27 13 6.5
2 Up to 5,000 37 37 33 16.5
3 Rs.5,001 to 10,000 11 11 40 20
4 Rs.10,001 to 15,000 5 5 23 11.5
5 Rs.15,001 to 20,000 7 7 19 9.5
6 Rs.20,001 to 25,000 4 4 23 11.5
5 More than Rs. 25,000 9 9 49 24.5
Total 100 100% 200 100.0%
Source:Primary Data
Table No. 5.17 shows the expenditure on labour wage by the respondents in study
region.Out of the total 100 respondents from un-irrigated region;27% respondents
have no expenditure on agricultural labour, while 37% have incurred expenditure
upto Rs.5000 on labour wages;whereas only 9% respondent incurred expenditure
ofmore than Rs.25000 on labour wages. On the contrary, in irrigated region out of
the total 200 respondents; 6.5% respondents have not spent on labour wages,while

168
16.5% have incurred expenditureof upto Rs.5000 and 36% respondents reported
that they incurred expenditureof more than Rs.20,000 on labour wages.
It shows that the requirement of labour in irrigated region is greater than the un-
irrigated region and also the farmers incur more expenditure on labour due to
double, multiple and mixed cropping system. Moreover, the employment
generation capacity of irrigated region is more than the un-irrigated region.
5.16 Information about Barren land of the Respondents
Table No5.18
Information about Barren land of the Respondents
Sr.No Reason of Keeping Barren Un-irrigated Irrigated land (by MIP’s)
Land by the Respondents (Rainfed land) (N=100) (N=200)
No. of Percentage No. of Percentage
Farmers (%) Farmers (%)
1 No Barren Land 70 70 159 79.5

2 Lack of Irrigation Facility 22 22 10 5

3 Water logging and Salinity 0 0 9 4.5

4 Inferior Land 8 8 22 11

Total 100 100% 200 100.0%

Source: Primary Data.

The table no.5.18 illustrates that 30% farmers from un-irrigated region
havesome barren land left. Researcherenquired about the reasons for the barren
land being kept by the respondents. Out of that, 22% farmers replied that they have
noirrigationfacilities and 8% have inferior land. On the contrary, the reasons
behind barren land in irrigated region; out of the total 200, only 5% farmers replied
that they have no irrigation facilities and 11% farmers gave the reason of inferior
land and remaining 4.5% are facing the problem of water logging and salinity.
During the field survey, it was found that the major reason behind keeping
barren land in un-irrigated region is lack of irrigation facilities; whereas in
irrigated region, the reason isover irrigation bywild flooding method and inferior
land.

169
 5.17Attitude of the Respondents about insuring their Crops
Farming is vulnerable against the unpredictability of nature, the impact of
natural disasters and other risks, which cannot be taken lightly. In case of natural
calamities, farmers bear the loss of their crop produce crop and face debt defaults.
Hence, the interests and investments of farmers need to be safeguarded by
crop insurance.Agricultural insurance is one method by which farmers can
stabilise farm income and investment and guard against disastrous effects of losses
due to natural hazards or low market prices. Crop insurance not only stabilises the
farm income but also helps the farmers to initiate production activity after an
uncertain and unfavourable agricultural year. It cushions the shock of crop losses
by providing farmers with a minimum amount of protection. It spreads the crop
losses over space and time and helps farmers make more investments in
agriculture.
Table No.5.19
Attitude of the Respondents about insuring their Crops
Sr.No Particulars No. of Farmers Percentage
Reported (%)
( N = 200 )
1 Not taking Crop Insurance 277 92.33
2 SometimesTaking Crop Insurance 16 5.33
3 Regularly taking Crop Insurance 7 2.33
Total 300 100.00%
Source: Primary Data.
It can be seen from the Table No.5.19 above, that out of the total 300
farmers, only 7(2.33%) farmers have insured their crops on regular basis and
5.33% farmers replied that insure their crops occasionally. This shows that, the
farmers are not aware about,theimportance of crop insurance.
5.18Various Sourcesused by the Respondents to Get New Agricultural
Information
Introduction:
Information on agriculture, both crop and livestock has been communicated
among farmers, from ancient times. However, with the development in agricultural

170
research, need arises to transfer new information and technologies to the users i.e.
farmers. To fulfil this need, mass media like newspapers, magazines, radio, TV,
film and internet play a vital role. The major objective of mass media in
agriculture development is to communicate the feasible farm technologies in a
manner; so as to attract the attention of farmers, help them understand and
remember the message and ultimately facilitate them to take appropriate decisions.
Print media plays a vital role in the communication of Agricultural
Information among the literate farmers on improved agricultural practices and also
to inform the public in general. Technical information needs to be provided to the
farmers at a right time and in a right way, so as to increase the productivity.
Information is provided via mobile phones to farmers and extension agents
about good practices, improved crop varieties, and pest or disease management,
commodity prices and prices in regional markets to assist decision making
throughout the entire agricultural process.
Table No.5.20
Sources used by the Respondents to get New Agricultural Information
Sr. No. Types of Source No.of Farmers Percentage
Reported ( N = 300 ) (%)
1 Magazines 143 47.67
2 Newspapers 230 76.67
3 Radio 53 17.67
4 Television 117 39.00
5 Telephone Kissan Call Centre (1551) 90 30.00
6 Internet 20 6.67
7 Agricultural Exhibition 177 59.00
8 Study Tour 18 6.00
9 Expert Lectures 8 2.67
10 Practical’s 8 2.67
11 Field Visit 31 10.33
12 Agri. Science Centre 17 5.67
Source: Primary Data.
Table No.5.20,illustrates the sources of information about new agricultural
practices, to the farmers.Out of the total 300 farmers; 59% reported that they use
agricultural exhibitions as their source of information for their new agricultural

171
practice, followed by 76.67%who reported Newspapers, 47.67% Magazines,
39%Television, 30% Telephone Kissan Call Centre (1551) and17.67% Radio as
their main sources of information. Whereas, internet, expert lectures, practical, agri
science centre are seen to be of less importance to the farmers, in the study region.
5.19Farmers expectations from the Government for his own andagricultural
development.
The role of State in agriculture is changing quickly, while the private sector
and civil society are gaining importance. Investment in infrastructures such as
roads, energy, small scale irrigation, water management, finance, support price
policy, agricultural marketing and warehousing facilities; strengthen the
agriculture system so that small producers can gain access to better seeds,
fertilisers and pesticides.

These are the actions that Government supports and which contribute to the
higher crop yields and better revenue.

Improving access of small producers to gain their know-how about

innovative techniques in farming; remains an important challenge. There is already
a hugedemand for natural resources such as, land and water, which needs
resourceful allocation in order to utilize those, usingbetter and more sustainable
techniques. Civil society and the private sector must be involved in agricultural
policy. Not only, the co-ordination between the private sector, civil society and the
government is important, but also the co-ordination between different ministries
will play an important role in agriculture and rural development in the near future.

Table No.5.21 indicates the expectations of farmers from the

government,for the overall development of farming community and rural area. Out
of the total 100 sampled farmers from un-irrigated region, 32% farmers replied
that they expect the government to provide subsidy on agricultural inputs like
seeds, fertilizer, pesticides etc., while 13% farmers replied that they need fair
prices of their produce; 64% replied that they want assured irrigation facilities for
their land; 4% farmers replied that they need 24 hours electricity supply and 10%

172
expect exemption for their loan, from the government. It is found that majority of
farmers i.e. 64% needassured irrigation facilities for their farm land.
Table No.5.21
Farmers Expectations from the Government (on priority basis)
Sr. Farmers Expectations from the From Un-irrigated From Irrigated Area
No. Government Area (N=100) (N=200)
No. of Percentage No. of Percentage
Farmers (%) Farmers (%)
1 Provide Subsidy on Agricultural 32 32 61 30.5
Inputs
2 Fair Prices of their Produce 13 13 78 39

3 Assured water availability 64 64 56 28

4 24 hours Electricity supply 4 4 26 13

5 Loan Exemption 10 10 45 22.5

Source: Primary Data.

On the contrary, in irrigated region; out of the 200 farmers,30.5% farmers
replied that they expect subsidy on agricultural inputs by the government; 39%
farmers require fair prices for the agricultural produce; 28% farmers replied that
they require assured irrigation facilities,13% replied that they want continues
electricity supply.It was found during the field survey that there is non-availability
of timely and assured power supply (Load Shading Problem). Also, electric power
for pumps and agriculture purposes is either not available onregular basis or not
ofcorrect voltage. Moreover, 22.5% farmers desire that their loan amount be
relieved bythe government.Hence, we can conclude,that most of the farmers from
irrigated region expect the government to providesubsidy on inputs and offer fair
prices for their produce.
5.20 Awareness of Contract Farming to the Respondents
Contract farming can be defined as agricultural production carried out
according to an agreement between a buyer and a farmer, which establishes
conditions for the production and marketing of a farm product or products.
Typically, the farmer agrees to provide agreed quantities of a specific agricultural
product. These should meet the quality standards of the purchaser and be supplied
at the time, determined by the purchaser. In turn, the buyer commits to purchase

173
the product and, in some cases, to support through the production process with, the
supply of farm inputs, land preparation and the provision of technical advice.
Both partners engaged in contract farming can benefit each other. Farmers
have a guaranteed market outlet which reduces the uncertainty concerning prices
and often are supplied with loans, for the provision of farming inputs such as seeds
and fertilizers. Purchasing firms benefit from having a guaranteed supply of
agricultural products that meet their specifications regarding quality, quantity and
time of delivery.
It can be seen from Table no.5.22 that, most of the farmers i.e. 94% are not
aware of the concept of contract farming and only 6% knew about it.
Table No.5.22
Awareness of Contract Farming to the Respondents
Sr.No Awareness about Contract No. of Farmers Percentage
Reported ( N = 300 )
Farming (%)
1 They Don’t Know 282 94
2 They Knew 18 6
Total 300 100.0%
Source: Primary Data.
5.21 Opinionof the farmers letting their children continue with their
farming business.
Farmers have no fixed or variable returns;till the product is marketed,
whereas over dependence on the nature makes it difficult for farmers whennatural
calamity strikes and they incur financial losses and fall in debt-trap. Suchsufferings
have made them insecure about their children’s occupationand arehence not ready
to let their children work in farms.Additionally, the agricultural business is less
profitable and therefore, the young generationtoo, are not interested to work in
agriculture sector.

Being highly educated with advanced degrees in hand, the younger

generation feels that they are fit for corporate jobs or are interested in being
entrepreneur which they feel is better than working in agriculture.

174
 Table No.5.23
Opinion of the farmers letting their children continue with their
Farming business.
Sr.No Opinion about doing Agriculture No. of Farmers Percentage
(%)
1 Don’t do 214 71.33

2 Always do 86 28.67

Total 300 100.00%

Source: Primary Data

According to the opinion of the respondents,when asked about passing their

farming profession to the next generation, 71.33% farmers are not in favour of this
practice. While, only 28.67% farmers are in favour of letting their children succeed
with their farming business.
5.22 Information about Various Government Subsidies and Financial
Aid Taken by the Respondents
An agricultural subsidy is a governmental subsidy paid to the farmers
and agribusinesses to supplement their income, manage the supplyof
agricultural commodities, and influence the cost and supply of such commodities.
Payments are paid by the central government to producers of agricultural
products; for the purpose of stabilizing food prices, ensuring plentiful food
production, guaranteeing farmers basic incomes and generally strengthening the
agricultural segment of the national economy.
Proponents of agriculture subsidies point to several reasons, why
they are necessary. They claim that the country’s food supply is too critical to the
nation’s wellbeing to be governed by uncontrolled market forces. They also
contend that in order to keep a steady food supply, farmer’s incomes must be
somewhat stable, or many farms would go out of business during difficult
economic times.
Table No.5.24 illustrates that out of the total 300 farmers only 29.33%
farmers received subsidy or financial aid by government; out of which 5.33%
farmers received it for loan exemption, 4.33% by subsidy on horticulture, 4.67%
by subsidy on farm implements, 1.33% for land leveling, 6.67% for the purchase

175
 of animal husbandry, 5.33% received subsidy to adopt drip irrigation method and
1.67% farmers received subsidy for other purposes. We can conclude that majority
of farmers received subsidy to purchase animal husbandry, loan exemption and
subsidy for drip irrigation.
Table No.5.24
Information about Various Subsidies and Financial AidTaken from
Government by the Respondents

Sr.No Information onreceived Subsidy No. of Farmers Percentage

(%)
1 Not received Subsidy and Financial Aid 212 70.67
by the Government
2 Loan Exemption 16 5.33
3 Subsidy for Horticulture 13 4.33
4 Subsidy for Implements 14 4.67
5 Subsidy for Land leveling 4 1.33
6 To Purchase Animal Husbandry 20 6.67
7 Subsidy on Drip 16 5.33
8 Other 5 1.67
Total 300 100.00%
Source: Primary Data
5.23 Problem of Siltation in India.
HimanshuThakkar&Swarup Bhattacharyya recently obtained siltation
studies of 27 reservoirs in India from the Central Water Commission (CWC), the
technical arm of the Government of India's Ministry of Water Resources,
throughthe Right to Information Act.. These studies were done through Satellite
Remote Sensing (SRS) technology, but they also give information about the
findings of previous siltation studies for the respective reservoir done through
more traditional hydrographic method. Some of the major findings from these
studies are given below.
Out of the 27 reservoirs, 23 incurred annual losses in live storage capacity
of about 214.2 MCM, that is 0.912 per cent (or nearly 1 per cent per year) of the
original live storage capacity. These 23 reservoirs have already lost 23.11 per cent
of LS by 2006. 13 of these reservoirs have already lost 20 per cent or more of their

176
capacities. (A cubic meter is 1000 litres. A million cubic meters is 100 crorelitres
and a billion cubic meters is 100,000 crorelitres).
The annual loss figure arrived at by the Govt. of India's National
Commission for Integrated Water Resources Development is 1.3 BCM. This may
prove to be an underestimate; considering, that we now have about 214 BCM of
live storage capacity through large reservoirs and if we apply the same loss rate
(since the reservoirs in this sample are well distributed geographically and
represent both small and large and also low and high siltation rate reservoirs, we
may not be too much off the mark), we are losing about 1.95 BCM capacity
annually.
This should alarm everyone, for what this means is that firstly, we have
already lost about a quarter of the live storage capacities of just the 23 reservoirs,
due to siltation. The proportion of capacity lost from reservoirs all over India could
easily be of a similar order of magnitude. In turn, this implies a significant
reduction in benefits from the reservoirs in terms of hydropower generation,
irrigation, water supply and flood management.
Also, in economic terms, creation of 1.95 BCM of capacity would at today's
costs require at least Rs.2017 crores. This means that we are daily losing reservoir
capacity, worth Rs.5.53 crores. Even if we go by the 1.3 BCM estimate of annual
storage capacity loss, that should be alarming enough for everyone, because each
day we are losing Rs.4 crores worth of storage capacity through siltation.
5.24Minor Projects, Major Problems
The minor irrigation sector is plagued by a number of problems. Officials
claim that there are no funds for operation and maintenance of these projects.
Many of the projects are silting up and leaking. Officials passing the buck from
one department to another - Minor Irrigation to ZillaParishad to Water Resources
to Agricultural Department - are common, leaving farmers clueless about utilising
these projects and reporting complaints.
Community participation is lacking in these schemes. There is no audit of
their performance, making these projects dens of corruption. Some say that
corruption in minor irrigation is at par with the kind present of the irrigation scams

177
involving large dams in Maharashtra, but more difficult to unearth as there are no
checks and balances or transparency requirements for these projects. In places,
where community participation has been the backbone of small irrigation and
watershed projects, like in Ralegan Siddhi, Hiware Bazaar, Bhandara, Chandrapur,
Gadchiroli, and Mann-Khatav in recent times, projects have visibly been more
successful and lived up to their full potential, but these are the exceptions.
The storing capacity of Minor Irrigation Projects in the district reservoirs is
decreasing steadily, and the availability of water will consequentially continue to
decrease. With the addition of silt in every rainy season, the volume of water in the
irrigation projects would continue to reduce.
The other reason for low return from the project is that several irrigation
projects are started by the Government simultaneously. Hence funds fall short for
completion of incomplete works which are in progress and, therefore, there is
delay in getting benefits. In such a situation, the annual losses from the irrigation
project goes on increasing. Considering this, the Government while undertaking
new irrigation projects, should make available necessary funds for completion of
incomplete irrigation projects.
5.25 Problems of Minor Irrigation Projects in Study Area.
Introduction
Minor Irrigation Projects has been prevalent in district;however, their
maintenance has always been neglected by the irrigation department. Many of the
irrigation tanks in the rural areas have lost their capacity due to silting,choked up
feeder channels,leaking and weak bund, water leakage,leaky sluices,lack of proper
monitoring and maintenance, weed growth and structural erosion, etc. Feeder
channels are not functioning due to encroachment and distribution network has
been disrupted.
A) Problemof Silt Deposition
In any dam, silting is a natural hydrological and sedimentary process by
which sediments flowing from the upstream catchment area in the river water
deposits in the reservoir.

178
 Most parts of India being monsoon dependent, reservoirs are built to store
water for use in non-monsoon months. The reservoirs, created by dams, silt up due
to the river water; a significant proportion of the silt settles down in the reservoir
itself, thus reducing the space available for storage of water. Studies over the years
have shown that the silt gets deposited in both the dead storage (the storage at the
bottom, below the Minimum Draw down Level, which is not used under normal
circumstances) and in the live storage (LS). (See figure below).
This process of accumulation of silt in the reservoirs is called siltation.
Siltation reduces benefits from dams, constructed at huge costs to the nation.
Siltation of reservoirs can also have a number of other impacts, including
increased evaporation losses, increased backwater flooding and also could damage
the power house turbines due to siltation. Water Leakage Problem

Graph No.5.3
Conceptual Sketch of Density Currents and sediment Deposits in
Reservoir

Continued water leakages would hamper the life of a dam and the risk of
damage would increase. During the field survey, it was found that the construction

179
of project and canals were of sub-standard nature because of the nexus among
contractors and government officials which has led to gross corruption.
Many respondents in field survey reported that, the projects suffer with
tremendouswater leakages. Due to the leakage of waterfrom the reservoir, farmers
do not get adequate water supply in summer season.
The gateof K. T. weirs, is the principal component of this project and
require timely placing and removal of the gates. However, this problem of placing
gates after the monsoon and removing them before the monsoon still demonstrates
difficulty in many such weirs, in the study region. Due to the lack of proper
supervision and maintenance of the KT weirs gates, irrigation capacity has reduced
extremely.
B) Lack of Maintains of Canals
It was observed during the field work, that many places in the main canal
have cracked and leakages are found due to lack of maintenance, and grass, bushes
grown on bothsides of the canal. The cement plaster on the sides of canals may get
damaged periodically due to the grazing of cattle.Also, the growth of grassat the
bottom of the canal during the dry period makes it easy for cattle to run down the
sidesand damage the canal walls.
C) Lack of Transparency and Accountability
The lack of transparency, accountability and participation in the minor
irrigation sector lead to disasters like the one, at Chinchave. Such problems may
not be limited to Maharashtra. For instance, a new irrigation reservoir was
constructed on 28th July, 2013, at a cost of Rs 8.8 crores in Lodha village in
Sarguja district of Chhattisgarh; which washed away this year in its first filling,
wreaking havoc in the downstream area. Local villagers there alleged serious
irregularities, in the constructionof this project.
Following this tragic accident at the Chinchave,Deola block, Nashik; such
Minor Irrigation Projects in Maharashtra bring into focus, the long-simmering
questions over the quality of minor irrigation works as well as the nexus between
engineers and contractors.

180
D) Tail-ender Deprivation

Farmers who have farm land located at the end of a canal system are called
tail-enders. This includes farmers in the tail reach as well as those at the end of the
upper and middle reaches of the canal system. It’s been never known, whether
these famers get enough or timely water.
Major impacts of this being lower agricultural productivity of tail-end
farmers, their movement to low-value crops or few farmers resulting in
abandoning their land to fallow.
The major causes of deprivation to tail-enders is, excessive use by head-
reach farmers, poor maintenance, fewer funds allotted to tail regions for
maintenance, poor construction, and design faults.
E)Water-logging
The water-logging of areas because of excessive irrigation and
consequently rendered, saline and alkaline, is a major problem. The Ministry of
Water Resource shows the total area waterlogged, saline and alkaline, as 6 million
ha. Considering the fact that, surface irrigation projects have only irrigated 38
million ha so far, this is a substantial loss of cultivated area. The other negative
effects relate to increased water-borne diseases such as malaria, etc., because of
increased waterbodies.
Surface waterlogged land is that land, where the water is logged at or near
any surface and water stands still for most of the year. However, land with surface
waterlike lakes, ponds and tanks do not fall under this category. Irrigationsystem
built by an inexpert can cause extensive damage to the land. It can lead to the
saturation of land which is a result of toomuch watering without adequate drainage
facility. Surface flooding also leads to water-logging, thereby turning fertile land
into a wet desert like situation.
It is observed during the fieldwork, that about 10 hectares of land is affected
by this very problem. Here, the intensity of irrigation is above 25 per cent and the
proportion of sugarcane to the total irrigated area, is significantly high. Cultivation
of sugarcane without following crop rotation,heavy doses of fertilizers, excessive
use of irrigation water and inadequatedrainage have led to this problem.

181
 F) Saline and Alkaline Soils
Saline soils may be defined as those which contain excess of salts and pH
content of 8.5,whereas soils which contain more exchangeable sodium and pH
from 8 to 10 are called alkaline soils. Such type of land problem was observed in
the command area ofVenegaon KTW, in Satarataluka. Under the irrigated area of
this project, sugarcane is produced at a large extent, with near about 13ha.of land
affected at village,Venegaon.
5.26 Remedial Measures to Solve the Problems MIP’s
A)ForSilting
1. Periodical capacity surveys of reservoirs help in assertingthe rate of silting and
reduction in storage capacity of reservoirs. This information is necessary for
efficient management of the reservoir. Periodical surveys are also necessary to
arrive at a realistic silting index which can further be used in the planning and
development of future reservoir projects in the basin.
2. While it is not possible to avoid or stop siltation completely, though one way to
reduce the silt up of reservoirs is to do Catchment Area Treatment (CAT). CAT
applies various techniques like plantation, gully plugging, checking the dams,
etc., in the degraded portions of the catchments to reduce the silting in the
reservoirs. CAT plans are expected to getimplemented before the construction of
project is over, so that there is minimum silting of the reservoirs, once reservoirs
start storing water.
3. Silt acts as a natural manure and increases water-holding capacity of the soil and
is ideal for farms and gardens. Amidst high cost of fertilizers, the farmers in and
around irrigation project would be more than happy to use silt in their farm land.
Revenue Department may collect royalty for the silt considering it as a mineral.
This amount can be used to fund regular maintenance of lakes.
4. Farmers utilizealluvial silt in orderto fertilize their lands, organically. The silt in
the tanks accumulated over a period, is rich with micro nutrients beneficial for
cultivation. But usually, farmers don't get permission easily, to usethe
accumulated silt from their tanks.

182
5. Agricultural Sciences have shown that, silt has a very high content of nitrogen,
phosphorus and potassium and is free from pathogens and toxins. Irrigation
department has asked farmers to get their own vehicles and transport silt from the
tank bed.
6. The authorities can offer this silt for free to those farmers, who are willing to
transport it to their fields, in order to enrich the soil. This exercise can also be
aimed for de-silting of the dam, thereby increasing storage space for water.
An Ideal example of public participation in de-silting, the reservoirs, in the
district.
Villagers of Jakhanwadi village of Sataradistrict, have proved that if
there's a will, there's a way. Without depending on the government to solve their
drinking and irrigation water problem, farmers from this small village have set an
example for others by initiating pond de-silting work on their own.
Villagers pooled in money to a tune of Rs.5 lakhs, to carry out de-silting work of
the pond. The pond which once supplied drinking water to the whole village a
few years back dried up due to scanty rainfall.When their efforts to get it de-
silted by the government turned futile, they decided to de-silt the lake with their
own money. Within few days, villagers successfully collected Rs.5 lakhs
including Rs.1.60 lakhs from the members of Gram-panchayat. More than 200
villagers engaged in the work of de-silting using, JCB’s. Each family contributed
an amount of Rs.400 to 5000, for this purpose.
Shri.Sachin Pole, sirpanch of this village; who took initiative in this work,
and other villagers; said, in the light of scarcity of drinking water in the village, we
wanted the government to de-silt the pond but when the government failed to do
so, we decided to de-silt the pond on our own.
B) Technical Improvements
The poor quality of design, construction and management of system,
operations and maintenance, and inefficient water delivery systems have
contributed to water losses. Inadequate, unreliable and inequitable distribution of
water to the farmershas reduced the area under irrigation and agricultural
productivity, below potential. Hence, there is anurgent need for improving

183
operation management in the system. In particular, measures are needed to
improve operational efficiency, upgrade and maintain the system, use latest
management techniques available. Moreover, utilizing the full funding levels for
maintenance and rehabilitating schemes for areas which are heavily silted up, weed
infested and left with broken structures and outlets; would improve deliveries and
reduce losses in the supply.
C)Need for Institutional Reform
The poor performance of irrigation systems and poor quality of
infrastructure is assumed to be the result of inadequate funding. It is assumed that
low rates result with inadequate funding for Operations and Maintenance(O&M)
which in turn cause poor quality of services leading to farmer dissatisfaction and
consequently, poor recoveries. This vicious cycle is unbroken in most of the states
and, therefore, the irrigation infrastructure and services are of a poor quality.
Figure below, describes the political economy analysis of the irrigation
system and recommends that only a comprehensive reform process will help in
order to improve the performance of the irrigation sector. Water rates for surface
irrigation systems are decided by the state government. Most states have an
Irrigation or Water Resource Department.
Graph No.5.4
Political Economy of Irrigation System
Political Economy of Irrigation System

184
 The irrigation departments have little accountability to the farmers whom,
they serve. Farmers have little say over the works carried out on their irrigation
system and cannot influence the quality of the work and therefore, the system
performance is of substandard quality. Because of such weak institutional linkages,
merely increasing water rates will do little in order to improve O&M rates.
Increased O&M rates do not necessarily mean a proportionate improvement in
quality of the work and system performance. Besides, since O&M budgets are
largely spent on staff costs in the irrigation institutions, it would be difficult for the
farmers to understand why they should pay more, even when water rate recovery
was linked to the O&M costs, budgeted by the irrigation institutions. All this has
led to lack of funds for repairs and maintenance, leading to a decline in the quality
of infrastructure and poor irrigation service to the farmers. Therefore, the story of
the surface irrigation sector has largely been ‘Build-Neglect-Rebuild’ and
furthermore, pouring more funds will only improve things, partially.

5.27Conclusion
1. India's reservoir capacities are created at a cost of thousands of crores of
rupees and we continue to spend huge sums each year for creating
additional storage capacities. Enormous social and environmental costs
have been paid in the creation of these capacities. However, practically,
nothing is been done in order to stop the destruction of these capacities
created with such massive investments.
2. As per our current analysis noted earlier in this article, we are losing at least
1.95 BCM storage capacity each year, through silting, valued at about
Rs.2017 crores, at replacement costs. The losses are alarming and the
consequences far reaching. And yet the blind and reckless pursuit for more
continues. The upgraded power generation capacity of 15 MW, atGumti
Dam in Tripura is so low; that, the World Bank strategy paper for the North
East (dated June 28, 2006) recommended exploration of decommissioning
of the dam.

185
 Meanwhile, by the time you wake up tomorrow morning, we would
have lost storage capacity worth Rs.5.53 crores, and by all accounts, we are
doing nothing to stop this.
5.28 Problems of Minor Irrigation Project from the respondent’s point of
view.
Table No.5.25
Problems of Minor Irrigation Projectsin theStudy Region
Sr. No. Problems No.of Farmers Percentage
Reported (N=200) (%)
1 No Problem 17 8.5
2 Silt up 82 41
3 Leakage in Reservoir 36 18
4 Poor condition of field channels 24 12
5 Lack of proper supervision and maintenance 10 5
of the KT weirs gates
6 Inadequate Water supply to Tail-ender 14 7
7 Mismanagement of Irrigation Department 12 6

8 Other 5 2.5
Total 200 100.0%
Source: Primary Data.
Table No 5.25 demonstrated that, out of 200 respondents,8.5% reported
that, they have not observed any problem of MIP’s; while, 41% farmers reported
that,major problem arises due to the silting up in the irrigation reservoir;18%
farmers reported the problems of leakages in the reservoir; 12% reported poor
condition of field channels; 5% farmers reported problems related to improper
supervision and maintenance of the KT weirs gates; 7% farmers reported problems
of inadequate water supply to tail-ender and 6% reported mismanagement of
Irrigation Department. Hence, we can see, that major problem if of silt up in
reservoirs, which should be managed on regular basis.

186
5.29Remedial Measures Suggested by the Respondents to Solve the
Problems of MIP in the Study Region

Table No.5.26
Remedial Measures Suggested by Respondents
Sr. No. Particulars No.of Farmers Percentage
Reported (%)
( N = 200 )
1 De-siltthe Project 70 35
2 Stop Water Leakages 60 30
3 Improve the Condition of Field Channels 25 12.5

4 Improve the Management of Irrigation 25 12.5

Department
5 Make Canal Water Available on Time 9 4.5
6 Other 11 5.5
Total 200 100.0%
Source: Primary Data.
During the field survey, farmers suggested few remedial measures to solve
the problems of MIPs. As we can see from the table below, out of the total
respondents, 35% farmers suggested that there is an urgent need to de-silt the
reservoir; while 30% respondents suggested the need to stop water leakages from
the reservoir systems;12.5% farmers suggested improving the condition of field
channels and same proportion of respondents suggested the need of improvement
in the management of irrigation department.

187