Você está na página 1de 32

Emerging issues in irrigation sector

of Andhra Pradesh

Dr M Devender Reddy
Director
Director,
Water Technology Centre,
ANGRAU Rajendranagar, Hyderabad
metukudevender@gmail.com
@g

Presented in 18th Annual conference of AERA Special seminar on Reshaping trajectory of Agricultural
1 growth in Andhra Pradesh, held at NAARM, Hyderabad. Nov 18-20, 2010
Andhra Pradesh – Agriculture & Water Profile
Average Annual Rainfall 500 mm from SE monsoon
1100 mm from NW monsoon
Estimated ground and surface 108 15 BCM
108.15
water
Ground and surface water 62.29 BCM
utilized
Total geographical area 27.5 m ha
Gross cropped
pp area 13.2 m ha
Net cropped area 11.5 m ha
Gross irrigated area 5.77 m ha
Net irrigated area 3.88 m ha
Sources of irrigation Canals – 34.7%
Tanks – 12.3%
Tube wells & others – 53.0%
2
AP - Surface water resources
River Availability Utilized
basin BCM (TMC) BCM (TMC)
Godavari 41.90 (1480) 20.39 (720)
Krishna 22.96 (811) 22.96 (811)
Pennar 2.77 (98) 2.77 (98)
Others 10.12 (357) 3.51 (124)
Total 77 75 (2746) 49
77.75 49.63
63 (1753)
3
Water requirement for various sectors
(Milli C
(Million Cubic
bi MMeters)
t )
Sector Present Need by
Utilization (2000) 2025
Drinking Water 601 3468
Irrigation 64252 108050
Industries 288 1445
Power Generation 28 56
Total 65169 114101

Source:Water Conservation Mission –WaterVision


4
Quantity of Water consumed by different crops
Area irrigated (ha) Water required Total water
Crop (m3ha-11) Requirement in TMC
(Mm3/28.32)
kharif rabi Total kharif rabi kharif rabi Total

Rice 2151227 1075614 3226841 12000 15000 912 570 1481

Maize - 185726 185726 2000 4500 - 30 30


Chillies 152896 - 152896 4500 - 24 - 24
Groundnut - 259940 259940 1500 4500 - 41 41
Cotton 193206 - 193206 5500 - 38 - 38
Sunflower - 141000 141000 - 3000 0 15 15
973 655 1629

5 Source:WTC, ANGRAU, 2009


Irrigation Performance of Nagarjunasagar left canal (Rabi)
and Jurala project (Kharif), WTC , ANGRAU 2010
Mudimanikyam  Jurala Project
Janpahad Major
major (Kharif 2009)
2009 2010 2009 2010 Right Left
Irrigation Intensity 92.39 93.17 116.38 123.19 67.92 87.61
Water Utilization Index     
121.65 86.04 148.96 117.78 72.27 48.98
(ha Mcum­1)
Water Utilization Index  (ha  1387.1
3445.13 2436.65 4218.54 3335.53 2046.68
TMC­1)
1) 1
Depth of water applied (m) 0.82 1.16 0.67 0.85 1.38 2.04
Overall consumption rate 
0.68  0.40 0.80 0.52 0.16 0.12
(efficiency)
Relative water supply 0.513 0.753 0.419 0.540 2.17 3.20
Output per cropped area     3.78 3.02
685 748 1673 1855
($ ha­1) (t/ha) (t/ha)
Output per command area      2.57 2.65
633 697 1947 2285
($ ha­1) (t/ha) (t/ha)
Water Productivity(kgm­3) 
(Volume of irrigation water  0.286 0.196 0.433 0.335 0.273 0.148
supplied)
6
¾ AP – surface, lift irrigation projects on Godavari
and
d Krishna
ih
¾ Investment of more than Rs one lakh crores
¾ Irrigation 2.0 – 2.4 million ha additionally

7
Current Scenario of AP – Water
M
Management
g t
™ Surface Water
¾20-25% gap between irrigation potential created
(
(the planned command area)) and utilized ((actual
p
irrigated area).
™The Govt.
Govt is taking up
¾The renovation of canals, distributions and field
channels to bridge gap.
gap
¾WUAs for administrative mechanism to improve
water
t use efficiency
ffi i and
d productivity
d ti it
8
Rotational water supply
y Rotational water supply
pp y at wider intervals ((5-15
days) at less critical stage and adequate water
supply at critical stages improve irrigation water
use

y The success stories include


y crisis management of 1986 in Nizam sagar,
y 1987 in Krishna delta,
y 2000 – 01and 2008-09, 09-10 in Godavari delta,
y 1995 under Sri Ram Sagar Project and
y 2001
2001-02
02 under Uppermanair project.
9
Project irrigation efficiency (PIE) of
selected
l t d projects
j t ini A
Andhra
dh Pradesh
P d h
Project*
j Water Total net Project
j
released irrigation irrigation
(Mcm) requirement efficiency
(Mcm) (%)
Nagarjunasagar (NSRC) 5715 1291 23
Nagarjunasagar (NSLC) 5180 1718 33
Sriramsagar
g ((SRSP)) 1600 270 17
Tungabhadra (TBP LLC) 730 337 46
Tungabhadra 545 260 48
(TBP HLC Stage I)
Rajolibanda (RDS) 395 125 32
Kadam 285 131 46

Source : AP Water Vision, 2003


10
Assessment of MI use and perceptions by
farmers about it under AMR lift irrigation project
The observations of the farmers
y Create awareness among the farmers
y Regular maintenance and proper water
supply is needed and to avoid misuse of
water in the head reach
y Need technical suggestions as and when
needed
y Provision of maintenance cost and
maintenance b y the ggovernment
11
Tanks
™1960s and the 1970s Major source of irrigation
™In 1980s and 1990s, share of irrigation by tanks gone
down.
™In areas not suitable for well irrigation, severe
g in mid-sixties contributed to g
drought growth of
well irrigation (2.4 million)
™Gradual disappearance of water tanks, ponds and
groves including mangroves lead to decline in
water resources.
resources
12
Minor irrigation (Tanks / Lakes)
y Andhra Pradesh - 80,000 tanks filled once in 5-10
years. Due to lack of sufficient inflows/ rains
y Inadequate supply of water from tanks results in
y Mono cropping
pp g with emphasis
p on rice,
y Salinity and alkalinity in the command area
y Farmers wait for the rains and filling of the tank
ffor raising
i i rice
i instead
i t d cultivation
lti ti off ID crops.
y In and around the big cities and towns the tanks /
lakes are getting polluted due to release of feacal,
organic and inorganic pollutants.
y Further, eutrofication is also observed in most of
the lakes and reservoirs.
13
Irrigation management issues in Andhra
Pradesh – Surface irrigation
Nagarjuna Sagar, Sri Ram Sagar , Tungabhadra, and Srisailam
P bl
Problems identified
id tifi d
y gap in irrigation potential created and utilized
y Growing g of rice in place
p of ID crops
p
y water logging and Salinity
y Poor maintenance of distributaries and tail end problems
y Low pproject
j efficiencies and Silting
g
Needs studies
y Reservoir siltation and canal irrigated area loss
y Gap between potential and actual irrigated area
y Potential artificial recharge from thousands of AP tanks
y Implications of water demand due to cropping pattern changes
y Implications of crop diversification on the livestock economy
y Water demand of domestic, industrial, environmental sectors
14
Ground water resources
™Over exploitation and depletion
• Frequent poor and erratic rainfall
• Indiscriminate tapping
• Unregulated pumping of wells
• Depth to water level fell by 2.97 M during 1998-2002
• Increase in no. of wells (2.4 million) and increase in area
irrigated (2.6
(2 6 m ha) – exploitation of 56% of annual
ground water resources
™Important source of drinking water - Polluted with
waste generated from industries, agriculture &
domestic sectors – Fluoride problem
15
Ground water basins in A.P
¾1229 ground water basins
¾Project area
¾Utili d 20%
¾Utilized
¾having 60% ground water resources
¾Non project area
¾Utilized 80%
¾Having 40% ground water

16
Ground
G ou d Water
ate Exploitation
p o tat o

Level of gground water No.of gground Percent of


exploitation % water basins state area

> 100 Over exploited 187 9

90-100 Critical 82 6

70-90 Semi critical 203 15

< 70 Safe 757 70


7 7 0

17
Disadvantages with ground water
irrigation

y Costly to develop and to maintain


y Area cannot be extended beyond its
capacity
p y
y Cropped area gets limited and the
irrigation cost is high

18
Cropped Area under Wells in A
A.P.(
P ( lakh ha)

Crop Tube well/ Open dug Total


bore wells wells
Paddy 5.49 4.92 10.41
Maize 0.48 0.66 1.14
Chillies 0.39 0.72 1.11
Turmeric 0.20 0.33 0.53
Sugarcane 1 89
1.89 0 79
0.79 2 65
2.65
Cotton 0.53 1.19 1.72
Groundnut 1.45 1.73 3.18
Vegetable 2.99 2.71 5.70
and others
Sss
Total 13.42 13.02 26.44

19
y Water quality deterioration due to increased depth of
water
y Floride in 83 wells out of 83 wells tested in a watershed
area of 512 ha
0.00
Mean Ground water level (m)
-5.00
m)
Water taable level (m

-10.00

-15.00

-20.00

-25.00

-30.00
Mar,09

Mar,10
Seept,08

Nov,08

May,09

Nov,09

May,10
Aug,08

n,2009

Apl,09

n,2010

Apl,10
Oct,08

Dec,08

FFeb,09

une,09
JJul,09
Aug,09
SSep,09
Oct,09

Dec,09

FFeb,10

une,10
M

M
O

O
M

M
A

A
Jan

Jan
N

N
D

D
Ju

Ju
A

20
Month/Year
Source: WTC, annual report, 2010
Comparison of Incomes from Ground water
and Surface water irrigated areas
Gross income generated
y Rs
R 49,323/ha
49 323/h under ground water
y Rs 47,506/ha SRSP canal command with
conjunctive use of ground and surface water
productivityy ((Rs/ m3)
Water p
y Higher with cotton and maize over rice during
Kharif (rainy season) and potato and flora bean than
rice in Rabi (rain free period) with groundwater.
y Higher with turmeric and maize over rice in
kharif
kh if and
d groundnut
d d i rabi
during bi and
d sesame in
i
21 summer over rice under canal command.
W t h
Water harvesting
ti
y Most of the water availability assessments are
based on the assumption of 30% run-off

y Several conservation practices and watershed


p g
programmes besides non-receipt p of run-off
causing rains resulted in low run-off thereby non-
filling of the irrigation projects and tanks

y Scientific assessment of run-off yield in basins in


relation to water conservation techniques

22
Land and Water Management Programs
taken up in Andhra Pradesh
9Watershed management
9Neeru-Meeru program
9Andhra Pradesh Economic Restructuring
Project – Tank command areas
9Andhra Pradesh Micro Irrigation Project
9AP Well
9JalaYagnam
9Rainwater conservation through Farm
23 ponds
People’ss institutions
People
The Govt. promoted
p
- Water Users Associations
– Watershed
W t h d Associations
A i ti
– Vana Samrakshana Samitis
– Water Conservation and Utilization
Committee
To achieve a sustainable use of water
resources
24
Wet lands
y Andhra Pradesh contains 259 coastal wetlands covering an
area of 18,552 km2 out of which 88 are manmade.
y The principal threat is the continued expansion of
agricultural activities in wetland areas.
y A spurt in the volume of agricultural and industrial
effluents entering in a lake is causing rapid
eutrophication, and pollution with pesticides is
becoming a serious problem
y Conservation
C ti measures were taken
t k up are Kolleru
K ll
lake, Pakhala lake, Neelapattu tank, Krishna
mangroves Hussain sagar lake and Srisailam reservoir
mangroves,
25
etc.
Water Quality
y Musi, Krishna, Godavari rivers and their tributaries are
Polluted with faecal/toxins
y Godavari river water quality is within the safe limits
until Manchiryal
y but ppolluted further down stream.
y Most Polluted is Musi River (upto 100 Km)
y Industries in and around Hyderabad and other major cities are
polluting the drinking water sources causing health problems
to human beings, livestock and agricultural crops.
y Main reason for using wastewater
y Only water source available during the short and
unpredictable
p monsoon season.
y Decreasing groundwater levels due to drought and low
26 rainfall.
Water quality
¾ Ground
G d water
t (GW)
™GW in 0.5 M ha is of poor quality - due to geological salts
and in coast due to marine influence and pollution
(industries & aquaculture farms)
™In Krishna and Godavari delta,
delta in shallow zone it is within
the potable limits, but deteriorates rapidly with depth
™In 36 mandals (East Godavari 6, West Godavari 17, and
Krishna 13) of the State, GW quality is unsuitable even for
irrigation
™Localized poor GW quality areas are found in
Anantapur, Cuddapah, Kurnool, Nellore, Guntur and
Visakhapatnam districts when considering the drinking
27
water.
The problems identified and issues
with waste water irrigation
y Degradation of soil - accumulation of salts, micro
nutrients, toxic metal ions and change g in microbial
activity
y Ground water contamination besides public health
problems
y Health hazards due to human contamination with
wastewater and agricultural produce
y Meager database on different livelihood activities with
use of wastewater in the river belt area
y A
Assessing
i the
th quality
lit off waste
t water
t and d Suggestions
S ti f
for
its improvement and reuse for agriculture and allied
activities
y Quantification of salinity ingression due to restriction of
28
water flow in the rivers and rivulets in coastal areas.
In equal development of water resources -
(Political & Economic scarcity)

29
Drought Management
y In Andhra Pradesh,
Pradesh the rainfall deficiency
during SW monsoon season cause severe crop
loss or total crop
p failure
y Analysis of data
y To develop p indices to forewarn and monitor
the drought
y To minimise its effect by using the approaches
and drought indices
y To develop long-term drought proofing
strategies
i
30
Critical areas that require immediate
attention
™Water
W t resource managementt
™Water infrastructure
™Water efficient technologies
™Crop
p research
™Education and enhancement of skills
™Training of scientific personnel at various
levels in the use of latest tools
(GIS Remote Sensing
(GIS, Sensing, and Micro
31 irrigation)
32
Thank you