Master of Science - ETD | Electronic Theses and Dissertations of ...

AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF RAIN WATER HARVESTING
STRUCTURES – A CASE STUDY OF FARM-PONDS
Thesis submitted to the
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the
Degree of
Master of Science
in
AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
By
RAJESHWARI DESAI
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURAL ECONOMICS
COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE, DHARWAD
UNIVERSITY OF AGRICULTURAL SCIENCES,
DHARWAD - 580 005
AUGUST, 2005

ADVISORY COMMITTEE
DHARWAD ( B. L. PATIL )
AUGUST, 2005 MAJOR ADVISOR
Approved by :
Chairman : ____________________________
(B. L. PATIL)
Members : 1. __________________________
(L. B. KUNNAL)
2. __________________________
(H. BASAVARAJA)
3. __________________________
(S. B. MAHAJANASHETTI)
4. __________________________
(Y. N. HAWALDAR)

Chapter
No.
C O N T E N T S
Title Page
No.
I INTRODUCTION 1
II REVIEW OF LITERATURE 11
III METHODOLOGY 33
IV RESULTS 54
V DISCUSSION 82
VI SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS 92
VII REFERENCES 99
APPENDICES 111

Table
No.
LIST OF TABLES
Title Page
No.
3.1 Land utilization pattern of Dharwad district and selected taluks
(2001-02)
3.2 Irrigation status of Dharwad district (2001-03) 37
3.3 Demographic information of Dharwad district and selected taluks
2001 census
3.4 Number of sub-watersheds in Dharwad district under different
schemes
3.5 Total area covered by each SWS in Dharwad district under Sujala
Watershed Development Scheme
3.6 Number of sample farmers selected for the study 44
4.1 Age and education status of the sample farmers 56
4.2 Family type and size of sample farmers 58
4.3 Classification of sample farmers according to their land holdings 59
4.4 Extent of use of RWHS in selected micro-watersheds 61
4.5 Investment on RWHS through watershed project 63
4.6 Impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern on sample farms 64
4.7 Impact of farm-ponds on cropping intensity on sample farms 66
4.8 Impact of farm-ponds on productivities of major crops 67
4.9 Cost and returns profile of paddy and jowar 69
4.10 Cost and returns profile of soybean and maize in with and without
farm-pond areas
4.11 Comparison of cost and returns profile of cotton and groundnut 72
4.12 Cost and returns profile of Rabi jowar and green gram in with and
without farm-pond areas
4.13 Comparison of average net incomes from different sources of the
sample farmers
4.14 Employment levels in different sources of the sample farmers in with
farm-pond and without farm-pond areas
4.15 Financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds 78
4.16 Farmers perception about the benefits of the RWHS 80
4.17 Constraints for non-adoption of RWHS 81
36
37
40
41
71
74
75
77

Figure
No.
LIST OF FIGURES
Title Between
pages
1. Showing selected study district and taluks in Karnataka 34-35
2. Showing districts covered under World Bank assisted Sujala
Watershed Scheme in Karnataka state
40-41
3. Age status of the sample farmers 56-57
4. Education level of the sample farmers 56-57
5. Categories of selected sample farmers 61-62
6. Extent of use of RWHS in Managundi MWS 61-62
7. Extent of use of RWHS in Tumari-koppa MWS 61-62
8. Investment on various RWHS (Rs. per ha) 64-65
9. Impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern 64-65
10 Impact of farm-ponds on cropping intensity 67-68
11. Impact of farm-ponds on crop yields 67-68
12. Impact of farm-ponds on net income 75-76
13. Average net income generation from different sectors 75-76

Plate
No.
LIST OF PLATES
Title Between
pages
1. Farm pond 53-54
2. Contour bunding 53-54
3. Check dam 53-54
4. Nala bunding 53-54
5. Researcher collecting data from respondents 53-54
6. Diversion channel 53-54

Appendi
x No.
LIST OF APPENDICES
Title Page
No.
I. Schedule 111
II. Area under different crops in Dharwad district and in selected
taluks during 2001-02
III. Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in with
farm-pond area
IV. Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in with
farm-pond area
V. Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in without
farm-pond area
VI. Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in without
farm-pond area
119
120
121
122
123

INTRODUCTION
Complex and extreme climatic events such as aridity, drought, heat wave, flood,
cyclone, and stormy rainfall were expected to leave an impact on human society. They are
also expected to generate wide spread response to adapt and mitigate the sufferings
associated with these extremes. Societal and cultural responses attached to prolonged water
scarcity leads to the population dislocation, dwelling abandonment, wide spread migration
and societal collapse. A typical response to local aridity is the human migration to safer and
productive areas. However, climate and culture can interact in numerous ways. People may
resort to modify dwelling and field environments by adopting new strategies to optimize the
utility of available water and by harvesting the very vital natural resource like rainwater (rather
then migrating to newer area).
Water, that magical substance form which all life springs forth, is essential to the very
existence of every life, which forms on earth. The role of water in the living organism has not
changed since life’s first creation in salt water billions of years ago and the water supports life,
as we know it, giving our earth the name “Living Planet”. Our earth is also called the “Blue
Planet” because of the large quantities of water. The Water is indispensable for life and is
wonder liquid which is so useful in every one’s life as it provides food from the sea, means of
trade and transport, source of salt, minerals, oil and natural gas, energy generation etc. Thus
“WATER is considered as AN ELIXIR OF LIFE”.
Water is an essential and precious resource upon which our ecosystems and
agricultural production depend. However, water a natural resource of the world constitutes,
1,384 million cubic kilometers of which around 97.39 per cent (i.e 1,348 million cubic
kilometers) of water is in the oceans, which is salty in nature. Another 2.61 per cent (i.e., 36
million km 3 ) is fresh water of this 77.23 per cent (27.82 million km 3 ) is in the polar ice caps,
icebergs and glaciers. Only small fraction of water resources (0.59% or 8.2 million KM 3 ) of the
earth present I the ground, lakes, rivers and atmosphere and is useful to mankind. Where as,
more than 99 per cent of water present on the earth is not useful to mankind (Anonymous,
2003).
Fresh potable water is poorly distributed across countries (Canada has 1.20 lakh
cubic meter per capita per year, Kenya has 600 m 3 per capita per year), India has adequate
average water availability of 2200 m 3 per capita per year and global average per capita
availability of water is about 7400 m 3 /year. Per capita availability is highest in Latin America
and North America and lower in Africa, Asia and Europe indicating the huge variability of
water availability.
Generally, if the water availability in the region or state is less or equal to 1700 m 3 /
person / year it experiences periodic water stress and if the availability is 1000 m 3 / person /
year the state of region will be under water scarcity. The above norms reveal that northern
pert of India comes under water stress and southern parts of India experience water scarcity.
In India, out of the total geographical area of 329 million hectares, 143 million
hectares is under cultivation, of which 108 million hectares area is confined to rainfed (75%).
Rainfed agriculture contributes about 44 per cent of the total food grain production in the
country and supports 40 per cent of the population. Bulk of pulses, oilseeds, coarse cereals
and commercial crop like cotton etc. are accounted by the rainfed agriculture. Thus, dry lands
hold greater prospect of contributing substantially to the country’s food production and unless
the production increases form theses areas, the real break through in agriculture cannot be
achieved (Sridhara, 2002).
Karnataka has 19 million hectares of cultivable land of which 15 million hectare
depends on rainfall for cultivation. It is estimated that even after, all the water resources
including ground water are fully tapped, hardly 35 per cent of cultivated land will enjoy
irrigation facilities leaving 65 per cent of cultivated land to rainfed agriculture. Scanty rainfall
on one hand and high density of rainfall on the other are the two major threats to the dry land

agriculture. An improved crop production technology with an efficient utilization of available
rainwater plays an important role in increasing the dry land crop yields.
A brief history of Rain Water Harvesting Structures
The history of rainwater harvesting in Asia can be traced back of about the 9 th or 10 th
Century and the small-scale collection of rainwater from roofs and simple dam constructions
in the rural areas of south and south-east Asia. Rainwater collection from the space of roofs
or via simple gutters into traditional jars and pots has been traced back almost 2000 years in
Thailand and 4000 years in India.
The Kuhals of Jammu, Kuls of Himachal Pradesh, Parts of Maharashtra, Tankas,
Kandis, Bawdis, Jhalaras, etc. of Rajasthan are a few of the traditional rain water harvesting
system, which existed in India, but now, dying a slow death.
World Day for water is celebrated each year on March 22, as designated by United
Nations General Assembly resolution. This day was first formally proposed in Agenda 21 of
the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) in Rio de
Janereio, Brazil. Observance was expected to begin in 1993 and has grown significantly ever
since.
World Water Day (WWD) 2005 was guided by the water decade’s theme ‘Water for
Life’. 22 March 2005 was the starting day for this International Decade for Action, ‘Water for
Life’ 2005-2015, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in its resolution.
Similarly previous year’s themes were Water and Disasters in 2004, Water for Future in 2003,
Water for Development in 2002, Water for health in 2001 and Water for the Twenty-first
Century in 2000.
Watershed approach for Rain Water Harvesting
Rainwater harvesting (RWH) acts as an important measure to conserve, to develop
and to utilize the natural resources. An efficient conservation and scientific management of
harvested water is crucial for optimum utilization of water for crop production, domestic use
and industrial purposes.
Watershed Development Approach is the way to make efficient and judicious use of
harvested rainwater and to build and strengthen the basic resources in the watershed, so as
to enable the establishment of sustainable life support. This is an integrated approach on a
natural hydrologic unit called “a watershed”. Hence Rainwater harvesting structure [RWHS] or
soil and water conservation structures in rural areas at farmers field are taken up on the basis
of watershed approach.
Watershed is the piece of land from where all the rainwater drains out to a common
outlet. Naidu (2005) has defined watershed as a dynamic and integrated social, economic
and biophysical system that may contain people of urban and rural communities, agriculture
and forestry, primary and secondary industry, communications, services and recreational
facility.
This watershed management has recognized internationally as an important holistic
approach to natural resource management, which seeks to promote the concept of
sustainable development. Watershed management involves the co-ordinated use and
management of land, water, vegetation and other biophysical resources within the entire
watershed with the objective of ensuring minimal land degradation, erosion and also to
manage and utilize the runoff for useful purposes in order to enhance the ground water
recharge.
Technically speaking, water harvesting means capturing the rain from where it falls or
capturing the runoff in one’s own field or house. Thus RWH is defined as collecting the

ainwater falling on housetops, collection in ponds, lakes and checking the RW that gets
wasted as runoff and also conserving it by recharging the ground water or by storing it.
Experts suggest the following various ways of harvesting rainwater.
Capturing run-off from local catchments and roof-tops
Conserving water through watershed management
The major works of RWHS adopted in the watershed are check dams, farm-ponds,
nalabunds, contour bunds, vegetative covers etc., which play major role in managing
and conserving the soil and water resources.
Broadly there are five different watershed programmes operating in the country,
which differ in terms of techniques, administration, and planning and system composition. The
first group consists of operation research projects (ORP) taken up by ICAR at different
locations. Secondly World Bank financed watershed projects viz., Sujala Watershed Project,
thirdly, the State Government sponsored watershed projects. Fourthly, Central Government
assisted NWDPRA implemented by each State Government and the fifth is watershed
projects under taken by the NGO’s.
The Managundi and Galagi sub-watersheds of Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks of
Dharwad district are coming under the World Bank assisted Sujala Watershed Development
Project. The total area covered under the project of World Bank in Karnataka itself is 4.27
lakh hectares of which 49,840 hectares falls under Dharwad district alone. This World Bank
assisted watershed development programme is implemented in all the 5 taluks of the district.
This scheme is under implementation for the last three years, out of the total five and half
years, i.e., from September 2001 to March 2007. The watershed work has been taken up in a
phased manner. The major objective of the project is to improve and conserve the soil and
water for efficient and sustained production through improved techniques with the purpose to
increase production and productivity of agriculture land or to improve the status of natural
resource base in the project area.
There is a considerable scope to find out the impact of the RWHS under watershed
development programme on cropping pattern, production, productivity, and income of the
farmers. Since such an attempt has not been made on Sujala Watershed so far, hence the
present study was designed with the following specific objectives.
1. To identify the extend of use of Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RWHS) in the
study area.
2. To study the cost involved in construction of various RWHS.
3. To examine the impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern, productivity,
employment and income of the farmers.
4. To examine the feasibility of investment in farm-ponds.
HYPOTHESES
1. There exists more number of rainwater harvesting structures in the study area.
2. Construction of RWHS requires considerably huge investments.
3. Farm-ponds have positive impact on cropping pattern, productivity, employment
and income of farmers.
4. Investment in farm-ponds is financially feasible.
SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The present study attempts to examine the impact of rainwater harvesting structures
though a comparative analysis between, “with farm-pond” area and “without farm-pond” area.
This study highlights the performance of farm ponds in agriculture through various parameters
like cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop yield, income pattern etc. The economics of arm
ponds were also analysed and the end results of the research helps in analysing the
economic viability of the structure.

Therefore, the results of the study will study will help to the policy makers, planners
and researchers to assess the performance of various RWHS under watershed development
programme and generate suitable policy for its effective utilization.
LIMTATION OF THE STUDY
The present study had the limitations of time and resources usually faced by a
student investigator, However, considerable care has been taken in making the study as
systematic as possible.
Before and after Farm-Pond (FP) methods have been more ideal for evaluating
impact of farm-ponds. As it would not be possible to collect the data relating to preimplementation
of farm ponds form farmers through survey method, therefore separate data
have been collected from with and without farm-pond farmers in the watershed area for
comparing performance in watershed area. The results of the study concluded in Managundi
and Galagi SWS in Dharwad district may not be generalized beyond the boundaries of the
area under investigation and such other areas having similar agro-climatic and socio-cultural
conditions.
ORGANIZATION OF THE THESIS
The presentation of this study is organized under the following seven chapters.
Chapter I: Introduction
study
Deals with the background of the problem, objective, scope and limitations of the
Chapter II: Review of literature.
Attempts to review the past studies, those relevant to the current problem.
Chapter III: Methodology
used.
Contains the description of the study area, sampling design and the analytical tools
Chapter IV: Results
Contain the results obtained after analysis of various economic indicators.
Chapter V: Discussion
Encompasses, the results obtained and discussed for their relevance and
significance.
Chapter VI: Summary and policy implications
The results are summarized and conclusions are drawn to make necessary policy
suggestions of r large-scale adoption by the end users.
Chapter VII: References
References of related reviews and appendices are presented in this chapter.

II. REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Review of related issues of earlier studies helps to comprehend, adopt, modify and to develop
the framework and provide a link with the past approaches. The reviews are arranged under the
following major sections.
2.1 Watershed approach and rainwater harvesting
2.2 Impact of various RWHS on cropping pattern, cropping intensity, employment, returns and
groundwater recharge
2.3 Feasibility of investment on various RWHS including farm ponds
2.4 Constraints in adoption of RWHS
2.1 Watershed approach and Rainwater harvesting
Anonymous (1977) reported that since water is the first limiting natural factor for crop
production in arid and semi-arid tracts, improving the management of soil and water for increased
crop production becomes the primary aim of the watershed based resource utilization research. In
rainfed agriculture, only the rain which falls in a given area is used, thus the watershed or catchement
is the natural focus for studies of watershed management in relation to crop production, resource
conservation and utilization.
Mann and Singh (1981) viewed that conservation programmes till recently used to be carried
out on an individual pieces of land holding which used to be fertile, it appear reaches of the catchment
were left untreated. They were of the opinion that every single piece of land on a small watershed was
hydrologically interrelated and water availability potential at different points of the watershed was
diverged due to relief of geohydrological and soil factors.
Sharma and Hooja (1981) stated that the term watershed is an area which has ridgeline on
three sides and whose surplus run-off is drained from a drainage point. Watersheds could be as small
as 50 hectares in hilly areas and also as large at 500 to 1000 hectares or even more. The size of
watershed to be chosen for land development depends upon the objectives of land development
planning.
Jaiswal and Singh (1982) stated that in order to obtain maximum benefits from technological
developments, it was imperative that the natural resources like soil. Vegetation and water were to be
properly protected and judiciously utilized to improve productivity constantly. A watershed is supposed
to be the most scientific unit for efficient management of land and water resources.
Sekar (1990) reported that stability in crop production and sustainability of farm income in
drylands can be brought about by land treatment, construction of farm ponds, percolation tanks, gully
checks, agro-forestry, improved agricultural practices, integrating crop husbandry with animal
husbandry. The future course of action for allocating the sufferings of dryland farmers a development
of dryland farming should direct at development of dryland agriculture on ‘watershed basis’.
Chaurasia and Singh (1991) viewed Watershed as the most appropriate unit for land use and
crop planning, particularly in hilly areas all over the world.
Ramanna (1991) described the watershed approach as a “Panacea for dry land agriculture”. He
stated that land should be tackled for development keeping in mind the organic boundary rather than
administrative or ownership boundaries. He desired a comprehensive plan for use of the land wherein
both arable and non-arable lands could be utilized on the basis of their capability to result in better
productivity.
Vidyanathan (1991) was of the opinion that the programme of watershed development to be
planned, implemented and managed by democratically constituted Panchayatraj institutions with
technical support from the government and the non-governmental organisations. But these institutions
are not existing every where and the programme is still in experimental stage, the government
agencies and non-governmental organizations will have to play a significant role in demonstrating the
efficacy of the approach educating village communities about its rationale and encouraging them to
adopt it.
Narayanagowda (1992) opined that in the context of development, it is more appropriate to call this
programme as ‘watershed development programme’ (WDP) rather than watershed management
programme. It could be defined as an integrated scientific strategy aimed at optimising land, water
and vegetation in all area and thus could provide an answer to mitigate drought, moderate floods,
prevent soil erosion improve water availability, increase fuel, fodder, fruits and food production,
employment generation and income on a sustained basis.

Prasad (1994) opined that watershed approach offers an excellent opportunity for all organized and
integrated management of drylands. It can facilitate an optimal use of the available resources
including soil and water. It leads to greater diversification of dryland farming which would generate
more employment and income earning opportunities and help to reduce mostly the risks inherent in
crop centred activity.
Rajput and Verma (1997) defined integrated watershed management as an appropriate approach to
develop both arable and non-arable lands in rain fed areas for increasing and stabilizing production by
adopting improved soil and water conservation measures.
Randhawa (1987) emphasized that the improvement and sustainability of agricultural
production in the dryland agricultural areas can be achieved through appropriate land shaping, which
will optimise in -situ moisture conservation and will also permit the excess water to be managed in a
manner, where, it could be stored and utilized at a life saving irrigation, also on the adoption of
improved production technologies which involves the use of seeds, fertilizers, plant protection
chemicals and improved implements.
Rajput et al. (2000) opined that watershed development programme should integrate with
multi-disciplinary management to take up soil and water conservation activities, generation of
irrigation facilities, construction of water harvesting structures for multiple uses, animal husbandry,
horticulture, farm forestry and afforestation, which were necessary to maximize production on sustained
basis for overall development of the area.
Tiwari and Mal (2000) quoted water harvesting technology includes inducement and
increment of run-off from land surface by using surface treatment, collection and storage of run-off
water in suitable reservoir or pond, reducing the seepage and evaporation losses and use of
conserved water most efficiently at critical time to provide life saving irrigation to crops.
Singh (2000) opined that watershed as a geographic area drained by stream or a system of
connecting streams such that all surface runoff originating due to the precipitation in this area leaves
the area in a concentrated flow through a single outlet.
Aravind Kumar et al. (2001) opined that the rainwater harvesting techniques recommended
for rainfed crop production in the regions includes the hydraulic efficiency micro-catchments in arid
lands, interplot run-off conservation or storage in surface ponds and under ground reservoir for life
saving irrigation to rainfed crops as well as for domestic purpose.
Padmavathi and Reddy (2002) viewed watershed as a geo-hydrological unit, which drained at
a common point, and they stated that watershed had been accepted as a scientific unit for area
development all over the world.
Sreedharan (2002) reported, that in watersheds of Tamil Nadu, the down stream lands were
benefited by the control of sedimentation through run-off and arrest of flooding by impounding
rainwater. Increase in water table levels observed in dug wells and increased availability of water for
irrigation and drinking water were observed. There was an appreciable increase in water table level
due to various water harvesting structures in the watershed.
Rajvedi (2003) reported in rainwater harvesting as a panacea for water woes and opined that
rainwater conservation makes droughts less severe, rivers will have water throughout year and soil
holds greater level of moisture and consequently, there is increase in agricultural production and thus
economic conditions of rural poor is appreciably improved.
Naidu (2005) defined watershed is an economic and bio-physical system which may contain
people from urban, rural communities, agriculture and forestry, primary and secondary industry. The
land resources of soil, water and vegetation cannot be managed for quality and sustained availability
in isolation from each other or from the watershed environment. Integrated watershed management
has been recognized internationally as an important holistic approach to national resource
management.
2.2 Impact of various rwhs on cropping pattern, cropping intensity,
employment, returns and groundwater recharge
Reddy and Sudha (1988) conducted study at Chevella watershed in Rangareddy district of
Andhra Pradesh and Mittemari watershed in Kolar district of Karnataka, the income from all sources
were higher by Rs. 463/household at Chevella and Rs. 1046/household at Mittemari watershed area,
compared to non-watershed area.
Srinivasa (1988) studied the impact of Chitravathi watershed of Kolar district in Karnataka and found
that productivity of land in terms of yield per hectare increased by 66.79 per cent in ragi, 64.56 per

cent in paddy and 98.56 per net in groundnut due to nala bund. Similarly, as an impact of farm pond,
groundnut yield increased by 94.44 per cent followed by ragi (73.42%) and paddy (66.66%).
Atheeq and Venkataram (1989) assessed the optimum land use pattern of Kabbalanala watershed
of Karnataka and found that the land use pattern of the farmers in the watershed area was closer to the
optimum and hence a reorganization of the existing resource use pattern would yield only 17 to 18 percent
increase in net returns.
Bharadwaj et al. (1989) reported that in the Aravali watershed of Haryana, the irrigated area
was doubled, the number of wells and sprinkler sets went up four times, crop yields increased
dramatically and income of the farmers increased by as much as 166 per cent.
Chandregowda and Jayaramaiah (1990) in their study reported that the average yield of ragi
increased by 3.09 q / acre and 2.14 q per acre in case of small and marginal farmers, respectively
over a period of four years. In case of groundnut also there was increased from 3.32 and 2.25 q per
acre in the fields of small and marginal farmers, respectively.
Phadnawis et al. (1990) reported that the production of food grains increased from 5 to 10 q /
ha of bajra crop due to adoption of improved technology. The water structures developed in this area
helped in increase of irrigation from 0.80 ha to 40 ha. The per capita annual income of Rs. 1587
increased to Rs. 6541. The cropping intensity increased from 106 to 150.7 per cent. The adoption of
recommended cropping pattern of watershed was to the extent of 90 per cent.
Reddy and Walker (1990) observed that on an average the total income and agricultural
income were higher by Rs. 248 and Rs.278/household respectively, in case of watershed compared
to non-watershed villages at Chevella of Andhra Pradesh similarly the total income and agricultural
income were higher by Rs. 1,595 and Rs. 2,394/household respectively at Mittemari watershed of
Karnataka. Both the total and agricultural income/household increased with the increase in size of the
holding at both locations.
Singh (1990) in his study conducted in Uttar Pradesh reported that the productivity increased
21.4 per cent (pigeonpea) 24.58 per cent (wheat) in about five years. The increase in productivity in
other prime crops like mustard (23.9%), groundnut (22.5%), pearlmillet (22.0%), blackgram (17.0%),
lentil (11.7%), grain (10.7%) and pea (7.5%), respectively. Further his study revealed that the
cropping intensity was increased from 84.28 per cent in 1984-85 to 173.9 per cent in 1989-90. This
was the increase in cropped area both in kharif and rabi.
According to Singh and Rahim (1990) optimum land use plans in Uttar Pradesh hills showed
that the returns over variable costs could be increased by as much as 89 per cent with the adoption of
improved technology and availability of credit compared to the optimum crop plan under existing
technology. The returns over variable costs from community orchards and pastures were found to be
Rs. 2178/hectare.
Alagumani (1991) assessed the impact of soil conservation measures in terms of land area
protected from erosion, increase in productivity, production, employment and income and claimed that
the productivity of cotton and gingelly increased by 23.37 % and 19.76 % crops except groundnut in
the Avanashi Watershed in Coimbatore district.
Biradar (1991) noticed while studying techno-economic issues of watershed development
approach in Gulbarga district of Karnataka that the soil erosion of the fields reduced considerably and
the crop yields have increased by 80 to 100 per cent.
Ghosh (1991) attempted to study the changes in land use pattern, crop pattern, productivity of land
and labour, labour use intensity in the command area after the introduction of the programme in the
district of Bankura, West Bengal and noticed that the per acre (net sown area) value of productivity in
the command area increased from Rs.1, 788 in the pre-introduction period to Rs.2, 776 in post-
introduction period compared to non-command area.
Hafeez et al. (1991) analysed the crop diversification and its economics in Chitravati watershed of
Karnataka and found that the crop diversification constantly increased in the villages at Chitravati
watershed. Benefit cost ratio worked out to be 1.48 indicating higher return on each rupee invested in
the cultivation of these crops.
Jahagirdar (1991) conducted a study on the growth parameters in Manoli watershed project of
Akola district in Maharashtra and found that the cropping intensity increased from 104 to 115 per cent,
the area under well irrigation increased by 206 hectares and also reported that the adoption of in situ
moisture conservation technologies and in particular vegetative barriers helped in increasing the yield
per hectare of various crops.
Kallur (1991) assessed the socio-economic impacts of Muchkulla nala Watershed
development project of Gulbarga district and reported that the farmers in the project area became
progressive in their approach, which is reflected in their adoption and use of high-yielding variety
seeds, chemical fertilizers and plant protection measures. Watershed approach has opened up new

vistas of productive and remunerative employment. Therefore an increase in the agricultural incomes
through several avenues like construction and repair of storage structures, canals and terraces could
be undertaken.
Neema et al. (1991) attempted to monitor the changes emerging in the Watershed
Development Programme area of Barkheds-Hat in Guna district of Madhya Pradesh and indicated
that the intensity of cropping in farms of the watershed was higher by 13 to 20 per cent than the farms
in the non-watershed area.
Norman et al. (1991) stated that about 25 per cent of the beneficiaries in Palakkad district of
Kerala were benefited by the land development works by way of increased yields, irrigation potentials
and subsequent change in cropping pattern, the net irrigated area increased by about 5 per cent.
Singh (1991) examined the impact of watershed development programme on ground water
table in Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh and revealed that the average annual increase in the
water table was 3.7 meters, varying from 3 meters in rainy season to 6.5 meters in summer season.
Singh and Thapaliyal (1991) assessed the impact of watershed programme on rain fed
agriculture in Jhansi district of Uttar Pradesh and indicated that the underground water table in the
area showed a significant increase, the average annual increase in the water table being 3.7 meters.
A shift in the area from pulses to cereals and from cereals to pulses was observed in Rabi and kharif
seasons, respectively.
Srivatsava et al. (1991) reported that the watershed programme in Mandsur district of Madhya
Pradesh offered an opportunity to the farmers to bring in more area under rabi crops and in a few
cases under summer crops also. The gross cropped area increased by 38.31 per cent. The increase
in the yield was more in rabi crops than in kharif crops, the maximum yield was recorded in opium
(93%).
Kumar and Dhawan (1992) reported that the land development programme in Kandi
watershed of Punjab, increased the per household income of the small, medium and large farmers by
38.37, 52.99 and 53.45 per cent respectively. On overall, the before and after implementation of the
project, the average household income was Rs. 12122.20 and Rs. 18078.4 (i.e., 49.13% increase)
respectively.
Manhot et al. (1992) in their study revealed that watershed programme helps to increase the
availability of irrigation water to increase the cropping intensity. Further, in their study revealed that
the favourable change due to soil and water conservation has increased the mandays of work of the
farmers and bullock days in the field, which indicate the increase in employment.
Karam Singh et al. (1993) compared two periods 1979-80 and 1986-87 of Kandi watershed
project area in Punjab, reported that the operational area increased from 2.69 hectare to 2.71
hectares, livestock from 182 to 192 per 100 households use of chemical fertilizers from 38.9 to 61.8
kg per hectare.
Kumar (1993) found that the net returns of small and large farmers in the watershed area
under existing cropping pattern and resources were Rs. 24099 and Rs. 50466 respectively. The
optimal plans increased the income of small and large farms of watershed area by 8.83 and 4.86 per
cent respectively.
Kaushal et al. (1994) also revealed the generation of employment opportunities to the extent
of 70,606 man-days for casual and 2, 08,606 man-days for regular labour over a period of 24 years,
which would be further helpful in checking the outflow of migration from the rural to the urban area.
Krishnappa et al. (1994) in their study on impact assessment of watershed development
found that the net returns from crop production from an area of 28.45 ha at Achalu micro watershed in
Kabbalanala of Karnataka improved form a net loss of 1400 during the pre project to positive returns
of Rs. 84130 in the post project period.
Vamanamoorthy and Shankarmurthy (1994) revealed that there is positive effect of watershed
development activity on production, productivity and increased the manday of work of the farmers,
which indicated the increase in employment.
Jally et al. (1995) revealed that the post project income from crop production and new income per
farm increased by 57 per cent 67 per cent respectively compared to those of the pre project period at
Nartora watershed of Madhya Pradesh. They also indicated that the income inequalities reduced
during the post project period.
Purohit and Murthy (1995) concluded that in Bijapur district of Karnataka, the economics of
scale could be seen in three oil seed crops (safflower, groundnut and sunflower). Both cost of
production and gross and net returns were higher for adopters of recommendations such as correct
use of fertilizer, plant protection chemicals, cropping pattern, seed rate and land improvement in the
form of bunding and contour cultivars than the non-adopters.

Singh et al. (1995) in their study revealed that after implementation of project for five years
(1988-89 to 1992-93). The project was evaluated in terms of conservation and development of
resources and increased in productivity. The watershed management programme has not only
increased the crops yield but also developed fodder resources in the area. The productivity of maize,
paddy, jowar, blackgram and wheat have increased by about 2.15, 2.16, 1.79, 1.62 and 2.07 times,
respectively. Over the base year (1988-89) yield of 5.0, 4.5, 5.0, 2.0 and 6.50 q per ha, respectively.
Ram Mohan Rao (1996) while studying the impact of watershed development in Chinnatekur
watershed of Karnool district in Andhra Pradesh on income and its distribution concluded that there
was an increase of 2.32 to 4.72 per cent income in the post project period over that of pre-project
period. The study also revealed that the increase in income was higher on small and medium farmers
compared to marginal and large farmers, which they attributed to better resource utilization among
farmer group.
Hazra (1997) in his overview of crop yield performance in Tejpura watershed reported that,
due to soil and water conservation works and water storage structures, the wells which earlier used to
fetch water for about 1-2 hours, fetched water for more than 8-10 hours due to the increased ground
water table by 10 to 23 feet after the construction of water storage structures. As a result of
increased water availability and productivity, the monthly net income per family increased more than
seven times from Rs. 240 to Rs. 1734.
Singh and Singh (1997) examined the gains of the Rendhar watershed project in Jalaun
district of Uttar Pradesh and found that there has been a phenomenal increase in the cropping
intensity and crop productivity that because of an increase of gross cultivated area.
Arunkumar (1998) in his case study on Kuthangere micro watershed in Karnataka found that the total
income per household of the watershed farmers (Rs. 27411.25) was higher by Rs. 10183.46
compared to that of the non-watershed farmers (Rs. 17227.79) during 1996-97 and also total
employment generated by the project activities was 27,941 mandays and annual incremental
employment in crop production and maintenance of horticultural crops was 18,609 mandays in four
years.
Singh (1999) conducted study in the Chhajawa watershed and adjacent villages in Baran
district of Rajasthan to assess the impact of watershed management effects on the farmer’s income.
The average family income inside the watershed area was 2.15 per cent higher as compared to those
outside of it.
Bisrat (2000) in his study on economic analysis of watershed treatment through groundwater
recharge of Basavapura micro-watershed in Kolar district of Karnataka revealed that average yield of
bore well increased from 1150 gallons per hour (GPH) to 1426 GPH that is by 24 per cent due to
construction of water harvesting structures.
Bharathkumar (2001) in his case study of Perambalur district of Tamil Nadu reported that
annual average incremental employment in crop production and maintenance of horticultural crops
during four years was 15,263 mandays. Thus, the watershed project had resulted in an average
additional employment of 37,550 mandays in four years.
Naidu (2001) in his study Vnjuvankal watershed of Andhra Pradesh noticed that water
harvesting structures and percolation ponds showed a rise in ground water level in the wells by 2 to 3
meters. It was also noted that there was an increase in the double-cropped area in the watershed.
The farmers shifted towards commercial crops and agricultural productivity was higher. The net
returns of farmers growing commercial and horticultural crop increased substantially and varies from
Rs. 5000 to Rs. 8000 per hectare.
Ramesh and Srinivasa Gowda (2001) reported that the small and large groups of farmers in
Kabbalanala watershed area of Karnataka obtained comparatively higher productivity out of scarce
resources than their counter parts in the non-watershed areas. They have also analysed and found
that, in respect of small farmers, in watershed area, except human labour, all other resources
contributed significantly towards ragi cultivation, whereas for non-watershed farmers, land and farm
yard manure (FYM) resources had shown negative effect on ragi cultivation.
Reddy et al. (2003) reported the environmental sustainability through watershed programme
in semi-arid region of Andhra Pradesh that the red soil was developed on water shed basis and the
conservation measures reduced run-off and increased the yields of major crops as groundnut by 15
per cent and further the run-off stored against conservation structures recharged the water levels in
open wells by 0.5 to 1.5 m. The per capita income also increased from Rs. 1443 to 1917 in addition to
the creation of employment opportunities to the tune of 29,938 mandays.
Karegoudar et al. (2004) studied the impact of soil and water conservation measures in
Kudligi watershed of Karnataka and indicated that there has been positive impact of soil and water

conservation measures on watershed basis including check dams, nala bunding, farm ponds etc., on
resource conservation and productivity.
2.3 Feasibility of investment on various rwhs including farm ponds
Agnihotri et al. (1986) estimated the economics of small storage dams at village Nada in
Shivalik foot hills. The analysis showed that the B:C ratio is 1.23:1 at 10% discount rate and IRR 20%
further opined that these values indicate water resources appears to good possibility and such
projects also provide insurance against drought, floods and sedimentation of reservoirs and also
reported that the availability of fodder and grasses have increased considerably due to protection of
catchment area.
Anonymous (1988) on an evaluation of soil conservation works of Nalabunds in the
catchments of three River Valley Projects, viz. Matatila, Nizamsagar and Ukai, which was done by
Agricultural Finance Corporation Ltd., Bombay. And reported that the benefit cost ratio and the
internal rate of return was 1.38:1 and 32 %, 1.3:1 and 48 % & 1.23:1 and 33% respectively in Matatila,
Nizamsagar and Ukai catchments of three River Valley Projects of Nalabunds for 12 year life span.
Selvarajan et al. (1984) reported that even with the 50 per cent decrease in crop benefits
under farmers management, the investment on farm-ponds was found economically feasible as
revealed by high Internal Rate of Returns (IRR) with highest Benefit-Cost ratio of 3.4 which was
obtained when five cm of water was applied to crops as protective irrigation from the ponds.
Palanisami (1991) reported that the investment in percolation ponds in Tamil Nadu state has
been increasing over years. Financial evaluation of the ponds showed that ponds with moderate
maintenance had a B:C ratio and IRR of 1.14 and 14.83 per cent while those with good maintenance
had a B:C ratio and IRR of 1.89 and 20.42 per cent respectively.
Sandhu et al. (1991) attempted to evaluate the development works done by the forestry,
animal husbandry, and soil conservation and engineering components of the project. The economic
analysis indicated that the rate of return was 15.2 percent for forestry, 13.1 percent for livestock and
12.6 percent for soil conservation and a benefit –cost ratio of more than unity at 12 percent discount
rate. The overall rate of return was found to be 14.5 percent, which could be considerably stepped up
by proper maintenance and increase in area under the various components of the watershed.
Singh et al. (1991) evaluated two watershed development projects for Shivalik hills in Punjab.
The Benefit cost ratio worked out was more than unity at 12 percent discount rate with an IRR of more
than 15.5 percent for both the watersheds. This study also reported that the horticultural sector was
the most beneficial with a B-C ratio of 4.65 and 5.01 at 15 percent discount rate for Maili and Chohal
watersheds, respectively.
Dhayani et al. (1993) concluded from their study that adoption of soil and water conservation
technologies on farmers field on watershed basis in the outer Himalayan region was economical with
B:C ratio of 1.93.
Basavaraja (1999) evaluated the economic feasibility of vegetative and mechanical barriers
used for soil moisture conservation in the medium black soils of the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
The study showed that the net present value of the conservation measured was not only positive but
also appealing, the IRR was more than 100 per cent and B:C ratio being more than two.
Naik (2000) conducted study on economics of soil and water conservation structures in
Kanakanala and Indawar-Hullalli watersheds in the Northern Dry Zone of Karnataka and analysed that
the payback period was less in both vegetative bund (2.34) and contour bund (2.77), B:C ratio was
found highest in farm ponds (3.59) followed by contour bunds (3.34). NPV was positive and highest in
farm ponds (16,506) and IRR was more in case of vegetative bund (35%) contour bund (34%) and
farm ponds (29.5%) and overall indicated that the adoption of soil and water conservation structure at
farmer’s level were economically viable and financially feasible.
Reddy et al. (2003) reported that the conservation of natural resources on watershed basis in
semi arid region with B:C ratio 2.29 in Andhra Pradesh and proved to be economically viable and
environmentally sustainable.
Chandrappa (2004) studied economic evaluation of percolation tanks in Chitradurga district of
Karnataka and summarized that the net present worth of investment on percolation tanks was Rs.
12.56 lakhs with 15 per cent discount rate. While the B:C ratio was 1.47. The pay back period with 15
per cent discount rate was 7.36 years and the internal rate of returns was 26 per cent.

2.4 Constraints in adoption of rwhs
Krishnappa et al. (1988) in their study on Kabbalanala watershed at Bangalore reported that
simultaneous adoption of all the components of technology was obstructed by lack of adequate capital
and credit in the case of majority of farmers. Agro-climatic conditions, scanty and uneven distribution
of rainfall, undulating topography, shallow depth of soil, low moisture retention capacity, low fertility of
soil, small and fragmented nature of holdings and the lack of adequate market facilities also came in
the way of adoption of new agronomic practices.
Singh (1988) analysed the constraints of rabi crops in Parva Nala watershed of Madhya
Pradesh and found that lack of capital at the time of major farm operations was the main constraint.
Other constraints found were non-availability of desired fertilizers. Lack of HYV seeds, non-availability
of desired variety seeds and lack of technical know. He also reported that, constraint of ‘nonavailability
of credit’, was felt more intensively by marginal and small farmers.
Norman et al. (1991) suggested that the official machinery should have been streamlined to
co-ordinate the implementation of the project in Palakkad district of Kerala. Lack of perception of the
objectives of the programme by the target group was the main lacunae in the project implementation.
It should also be noted that some important components like forestry programme, pasture
development dairying were not given enough weightage.
Randhir and Ravichandran (1991) in their policy implications in Anakatti region of Coimbatore
district of Tamil Nadu, included the implementation of the programme by enlisting the participation of
farmers, educating them in soil and water conservation, bringing more area under watershed
management, encouraging farmers in the maintenance of structures and subsidizing the inputs for
watershed management.
Narayanagowda (1992) reported that the adoption level of soil and moisture conservation
practices was higher among the participants of Chitravati watershed in Kolar district of Karnataka as
compared to non-participants. However, he observed that a higher percentage of farmers had not
adopted the practice of stabilization of bunds with vegetative species, lack of conviction and difficulty
to establish were the dominant reasons for their lack of adoption.
Anand (2000) in his study conducted in Bidar district of Karnataka revealed that the major
problems/reasons for non-adoption or partial adoption of watershed technology include, lack of capital
for contour bund and land levelling, unawareness of technology for compartment bunding and live
bunds, lack of knowledge and hard sub-surface soil in opening of ridges and furrows and plantation of
horticulture and forest tree species.
Naik (2000) reported the major reasons for non-adoption of water harvesting structures and
grade stabilization structures in the Kanakanala and Indawar-Hullalli watersheds in Northern Dry Zone
of Karnataka and found that credit non-availability and high interest rates were severe problems (69%
each) followed by long gestation period (68%), high hiring charges of improved implements (65%) and
small holdings (61%) etc. in the non-watershed area.
Nirmala (2003) reported that the farmers perception and constraint analysis under impact
study of watershed development programme on socio-economic dimensions in Ranga Reddy district
of Andhra Pradesh and found that technologies were beneficial in the form of increased income
(58.33%), increased moisture (51.66%) and increased productivity (48.33%) along with increased
employment generation. Reduced soil erosion integrated ground water recharge etc. were other
benefits of technology as perceived by the farmers. Further observed that the major reasons for nonadoption
of structures in non-watershed area were lack of capital (51.6%) technical know-how
(46.60%), size of holding (45%) followed by problems of irrigation, inadequate input availability nonavailability
of labour, inadequate extension services, poor quality of land etc.

III. METHODOLOGY
The design of the study is an important component of research. To realize the various
objectives of the study, an appropriate methodology describing sampling design, data
collection and tools of analysis for the conduct of the study are inevitable. In this chapter the
methodology adopted for the present study, including the selection and description of the
study area, sampling design, collection of data and analytical tools employed are presented
under the following heads.
3.1 Description of the study area
3.2 Selection of the study area
3.3 Sampling design
3.4 Collection of data
3.5 Analytical tools employed
3.6 The terms and concepts used in the study
3.1 Description of the study area
An assessment of any development activity can be made only with a detailed
understanding of the physical and natural characteristics of the region as well as the socioeconomic
status of the population. Hence an attempt has been made to describe the physical,
natural and socio-economic features of Dharwad district, with special reference to Dharwad
and Kalaghatagi taluks those are chosen for the study, and secondary data were collected
from the District Statistical Office of Dharwad district.
3.1.1 Geographic location and extent
Dharwad district falls in the northern part of Karnataka state (Fig. 1). It is situated in
the interior of the Deccan peninsula and lies between the Northern latitudes of 15°15’ and
15°35’ and East longitudes of 75°00’ and 75°20’. It is bound on the North by Belgaum district,
while on the South by Haveri district, on the East by Gadag district and on the West by Uttar
Kannada district.
The total geographical area of the district is 4.27 lakh hectares, which is about 2.22
per cent of the state. The district has five taluks viz., Dharwad, Hubli, Kalaghatagi, Kundgol
and Navalgund. Out of the five taluks, Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks were chosen for the
study. This district has 127 gram panchayaths encompassing 397 villages.
3.1.2 Rainfall and temperature
The average annual rainfall of the district is around 670 mm with a bimodal
distribution. The first peak occurs in May-June while the second in October. The maximum
temperature is 38°C with minimum of 16°C in April-May and December-January respectively.
3.1.3 Soils
The soils of the district are predominantly red sandy loams with patches of black
soils. The soils of the Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks are practically homogeneous and red
sandy loams with medium to deep black soils.
Most of the area of both the taluks comes under rainfed condition and depends more
or less absolutely on rain.
3.1.4 Land utilization pattern
Land utilization pattern of a particular area is an indicator of the natural endowment
and opportunities for development of the area. The land utilization pattern of the study area
during 2001-02 has been given in Table 3.1. The total geographical area of the district was
4,27,329 hectares, that of Dharwad taluk has 1,11,788 hectares and Kalaghatagi taluk
accounted for about 68,757 hectares. The forest cover was more (28.39%) in Kalaghatagi
taluk compared to Dharwad taluk (12.23%). The land not available for cultivation, other
cultivable waste and fallow lands together constituted around 14.18 per cent in Dharwad
district, 22.83 per cent in Dharwad taluk and 10.5 per cent in Khalaghatagi taluk to their
respective geographical area. In Dharwad district the total cropped area was 4,80,267
hectares accounting 112.38 per cent and in Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluk the total cropped
area was 88.56 and 66.66 per cent respectively with more than 60 per cent net sown area,
indicated that more than100 per cent cropping intensity existed in the study area. In Dharwad

Fig. 1. Showing Selected study district and taluks in Karnataka

Table 3.1 Land utilization pattern of Dharwad district and selected taluks (2001-02)
Area in hectares
Sl.
No. Particulars
Dharwad
district
% to total
area
Dharwad
taluk
% to total
area
Kalaghatagi
taluk
% to total
area
1. Area under forest 35,235 8.24 13,676 12.23 19,526 28.40
2. Land not available for cultivation 25,506 5.96 9,188 8.21 4,634 6.74
3. Cultivable waste 6,402 1.49 3,490 3.12 1,494 2.17
4. Fallow land 28,790 6.73 12,862 11.50 1,106 1.60
5. Net sown area 3,31,396 77.50 72,572 64.91 41,997 61.08
6. Total geographical area 4,27,329 100.00 1,11,788 100.00 68,757 100.00
7. Total cropped area 4,80,267 112.39 99,008 88.56 45,839 66.66
Source: Dharwad district at a glance 2002-03.
District Statistical Office, Dharwad

Table 3.2 Irrigation status of Dharwad district (2001-03)
Sl.
No. Particulars
Total area in
hectares
Per cent to total area
irrigated
1. Irrigation under canals 10,932 38.60
2. Irrigation under tanks 412 1.46
3. Irrigation under open wells 241 0.85
4. Irrigation under bore wells 9,244 32.64
5. Others 7,494 26.45
Total irrigated area 28,323 100.00
Source: Dharwad district at a glance 2002-03
Table 3.3 Demographic information of Dharwad district and selected taluks
2001 census
Sl.
No.
Total numbers
Particular
Dharwad district Dharwad taluk Kalaghatagi taluk
1. Male population 8,23,415 1,12,252 70,720
2. Female population 78,379 1,06,561 66,258
3. Total population 16,03,794 2,18,803 1,36,978
4. Literacy (%) 62.57 85.69 85.05
5. Total families 2.17 lakh
Source: Dharwad district at a glance 2002-03.
District Statistical Office, Dharwad

district canals are the major source of irrigation (Table 3.2) and irrigating about 38.60 per cent
of total irrigated area (28,323 ha) followed by wells (33.49 per cent) and other sources
including tanks (27.91 per cent).
The total population of the district is 16.03 lakh (As per 2001 census) comprising of
8.23 lakh males and 7.83 lakh females 62.57 per cent literacy with 2.17 lakh families. (Table
3.3) The total population and literacy percentage is 2,18,803 and 85.69 per cent and 1,36,978
and 85.05 per cent in Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks respectively. And there are 948
females for every 1000 males.
3.1.5 Crops and cropping pattern
Area under different crops in Dharwad district and selected taluks for the year 2001-
02 has been given in Appendix II.The gross cropped area in Dharwad district, Dharwad taluk
and Kalaghatagi taluk during 2001-02 was 4,80,267 hectares, 99,008 hectares and 45,839
hectares respectively. The area under cereal crops in Dharwad district was 1,48,126 hectares
(30.84%) of the total cropped area. The corresponding figures for Dharwad and Kalaghatagi
taluks were 41,750 hectares (42.16%) and 27,128 (59.18%).
Jowar and paddy are the staple food crops of the region accounting for 20.14 per
cent of total cropped area in the district. The corresponding figures for Dharwad and
Kalaghatagi taluks were 31.87 per cent and 57.36 per cent, which were higher than the
district share to their respective total cropped area. Pulses occupied a larger proportion in
Dharwad taluk (26.53%) as compared to Kalaghatagi taluk (4.04%) to the total cropped area
of respective taluks. In Dharwad district pulses occupied to an extent of 13.91 per cent
(66,808 ha) to the total cropped area. Under commercial crops Dharwad district occupied
higher proportion of 31.25 per cent (1,50,108 hectares) to the total cropped area. The
Kalaghatagi taluk (32.02%) occupied larger proportion of commercial crops as compared to
Dharwad taluk (21.33%) to the total cropped area.
3.1.6 Number of sub-watersheds in Dharwad district under different schemes
The talukwise distribution of sub-watersheds (SWS) in the district is presented in the
Table 3.4.
The total number of sub-watersheds (SWS) under National Watershed Development
programme for Rainfed Agriculture (NWDPRA) are 17, under River Valley Project (RVP) are
16, Drought Prone Area Programme (DPAP) are 45. Under WGDP only one SWS and under
World Bank sponsored scheme called Sujala Watershed Project, the number of subwatersheds
covered are 9 of that 2 SWS in Dharwad taluk and 1 SWS in Kalaghatagi taluk.
3.2 Selection of study area
The focus of the study was confined to the economic evaluation of Rain Water
Harvesting Structures (RWHS) especially farm-ponds and their impact on cropping pattern,
employment and income of farmers in Managundi and Galagi sub-watersheds of Dharwad
and Kalaghatagi taluks at Dharwad district of Karnataka state, where the Sujala Development
Project is being implemented. The scheme is also implemented in other districts (Fig. 2) of
Karnataka state viz., Kolar, Tumkur, Chitradurga and Haveri. The total area covered under
this project of World Bank assisted Sujala Watershed Scheme in Karnataka (Table 3.5) it self
is 4.27 lakh hectares of which, 49,840 hectares falls under Dharwad district alone. The
scheme has already run for three years out of the total five and half years, i.e. from
September 2001 to March 2007.
Managundi and Galagi sub-watershed were selected purposively in Dharwad district
because of the three reasons, namely (i) These sub-water sheds have many watershed
treatment activities especially farm-ponds (ii) The sub-watersheds are covered under Sujala
Watershed Development Scheme, (iii) Availability of accurate and needful data and more
area is under rainfed situation.
Managundi SWS has six micro-watersheds viz., Mansur-I, Nuggikeri-II,
Benakanakatti-III, Managundi IV, V and VI. Where as, Galagi SWS has five micro-watersheds
viz., Galagi-I, Arebasavanakoppa-II, Tumari-koppa-III, Mutagi-IV and Sangameshwar-V.
Out of the above mentioned, micro-watersheds Managundi and Tumari-koppa microwatersheds
have been selected from Managundi and Galagi SWS in Dharwad and
Kalaghatagi taluks, respectively.

Table 3.4. Number of sub-watersheds in Dharwad district under different schemes
Sl.
No.
Taluka wise distribution of sub watersheds in Dharwad district
Schemes
Dharwad Hubli Kalaghatagi Kundgol Navalagund Total
1. NWDPRA (National Watershed Development
Programme for Rainfed Agriculture)
4 4 2 3 4 17
2. RVP (River Valley Project) 4 4 - 2 6 16
3. Sujala (World Bank Sponsored Scheme) 2 3 1 2 1 9
4. DPAP (Drought Prone Area Programme) 11 11 12 11 - 45
5. WGDP (Western Ghat Development Programme) 1 - - - - 1
Source: Sujala Watershed Development Division, Dharwad

Fig. 2. Showing districts covered under World Bank assisted Sujala
Watershed Scheme in Karnataka state

Table 3.5. Total area covered by each SWS in Dharwad district under Sujala
Watershed Development Scheme
I. Phase sub-watersheds
Sl.
No.
Taluk Sub-watershed Area (ha)
1. Dharwad Managundi 5,090
2. Kalaghatagi Galagi-Hulakoppa 4,024
Sub total 9,114
II. Phase sub-watersheds
1. Navalgund Yarnal 6,917
2. Hubli Kurdikeri 7,446
3. Kundagol Googihalla 6,168
Sub total 20,531
III. Phase sub-watersheds
1. Dharwad Amblikoppa 6,889
2. Hubli Devaragundihal 6,356
3. Hubli Unakal 3,134
4. Kundagol Bennohalla 3,816
Sub total 20,195
District total (I+II+III) 49,840
Area in Karnataka state 4.27 lakh
Source: Sujala Watershed Development Division, Dharwad
Table 3.6. Number of sample farmers selected for the study
Sample WS
No. of sample farmers selected
With farm-pond Without farm-pond
Managundi MWS 25 25
Tumari-koppa MWS 20 20
Total 45 45

3.3 Sampling design
For the present study, multistage sampling procedure was adopted. In the first stage,
based on the criterion of availability maximum number of farm-ponds in each of the subwatersheds
in Dharwad district i.e. one sub-watershed in Dharwad taluk and another subwatershed
from Kalaghatagi taluk were selected for the study.
In the II stage, one micro-watershed from each of the two selected sub-watersheds
were considered. Accordingly Managundi micro-watershed in Managundi SWS and Tamarikoppa
micro-watershed from Galagi SWS were chosen.
In the final stage, from selected two MWS, 25 per cent of the farmers were randomly
selected from each MWS based on the availability of farm- ponds located on their fields to
make a sample size of 45 and for comparison purpose another sample of 45 farmers who do
not possess farm-ponds i.e. without farm-pond were randomly interviewed. Thus, total sample
size constituted 90 farmers (Table 3.6).
3.4 Collection of data
The required data for the study included both secondary and primary data. Secondary
data on the extent of various rainwater harvesting structures as well as their construction
costs etc. were collected from the District Watershed Development Office (DWDO), Dharwad,
lead NGO (IDS) of Sujala watershed and also from sub-offices of Managundi and Tumarikoppa
villages.
The primary data on household composition, land holdings, farm machinery and
equipments, livestock, cropping pattern, cost and returns of different activities were collected
from the selected 90 sample farmers of both with and without farm-pond areas. Primary data
related to the agriculture year 2003-04 was elicited using pre-structured and pre-tested
schedules.
3.5 Analytical tools employed
Following different methods were employed to analyze the data, interpret the results, to draw
inferences and to design policy options for adoption by farmers, researchers and
Government.
3.5.1 Conventional analysis
Tabular presentation technique was employed including percentages and averages in
respect of socio-economic features of sample farmers, cropping pattern, input usage, cost of
cultivation and returns etc. for both the sample farmer’s group, to facilitate comparison
between With and Without farm-pond areas.
3.5.2 Cost of cultivation and returns
3.5.2.1 Cost concepts
The cost of cultivation per hectare of all the crops cultivated in both with farm-pond
and without farm pond areas were calculated according to cost concepts used in Farm
business analysis for the data pertaining to the crop year 2003-04.
Cost A: For computing Cost A, following items of expenditure were included and aggregated.
Wages of hired human labour
Charges of owned and hired bullock labour
Charges of owned and hired machine labour
Value of seeds (both farm produced and purchased)
Value of manures, fertilizers, seed treatment and plant protection chemicals
Depreciation of farm implements, machinery, farm buildings etc.,
Land revenue
h. Interest on working capital.
Cost B: This was computed by adding the following items to cost A,
Rental value of owned land
Interest on fixed capital
Cost C: This was worked out by adding the value of imputed human labour supplied by the
family and marketing cost to Cost- B, the value of imputed human labour was taken at the
prevailing wage rate for hired labour.
3.5.2.2 Returns

Gross returns for each crop was aggregate value of both the main product and byproduct
at the selling prices. Net returns were computed by deducting the cost of cultivation
from the gross returns. Finally returns per rupee of investment (B:C ratio) was calculated by
dividing total returns over total cost.
3.5.2.3 Depreciation charges
Depreciation on farm buildings, machinery and equipments were calculated by using
straight-line method using the formula given under.
Purchase value – Junk value
Depreciation = ——————————————
Expected life of the item
Note: Depreciation charge was considered at fixed rate for all the crops.
3.5.3 Financial feasibility
The financial feasibility analysis is a systematic way to compare the streams of
benefits and costs. The costs and benefits can be evaluated to find out the economic
efficiency of the project. In the present study, the benefits and costs of farm-ponds were
studied to determine whether the technology was financially viable or not, i.e., by using four
principal measures viz., Net present worth (NPW), Pay back period, Benefit cost ratio (BCR),
Internal rate of returns (IRR) based on the following assumptions
1. The benefits of the farm- ponds were taken based on increase in net returns per
hectare of all crops on sample farms due to enhanced yield after construction of farmponds.
2. The cost incurred per farmer on construction of farm-ponds was considered, as an
initial investment and maintenance cost per annum was considered as variable cost
3. Cash inflows were discounted at 8.5 per cent as this rate represents prevailing bank
rate on working capital.
4. The project period was considered for 10 years, accordingly discounted cash flows
were worked out and analysed with the four-foresaid parameters.
3.5.3.1 Net Present Worth (NPW)
Net present worth (NPW), also known as the present value, is based on the desire to
determine the present value of net benefits from the watershed project. Since the goal of the
analysis was to determine the total net contribution of the Farm-Ponds to the sample farmers
in the With Farm-Pond area. For a project to be economically viable the NPW should be
positive and as high as possible. The formula used for the calculation of NPW is
n -i
NPW = ∑ Yi(1+r) -I
i=1
Where,
Y i = net cash inflows obtained by the sample farms due to the Farm-pond in i th year
(i=1,2….n)
r = discount rate
i= no. of year
n=life period of the farm-pond
I = Initial investment on the farm-pond
3.5.3.2 Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR)
The benefit cost ratio of the Farm-pond was analysed to compare the present value
of benefits to the present value of costs to determine whether the watershed project is
economically a viable proposition or not. The Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) was worked out by
using the following formula.
Discounted returns
BC Ratio = ⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Initial investment

If the benefit cost ratio of the watershed technology appears greater than unity, then
the adoption and implementation of the farm-pond structure would be economically sound.
The ratio is expressed in the following form.
n -i
BC ratio = ∑ Yi(1+r) /I
i=1
Where,
Y i = net cash inflows obtained by the sample farms due to the Farm-pond in i th year
(i=1,2….n)
r = the discount rate
i= no. of year
n=life period of the farm-pond
I = Initial investment on the farm-pond
3.5.3.3 Pay Back period (PB period)
The pay back period is the time required to recover invested money in the project.
The pay back period was estimated by summing up all the undiscounted net benefits over
years to make up the initial investment incurred for establishment.
The pay back period is a common, rough means of choosing among investments
especially when projects entail a high degree of risk. However, as a measure of investment
worth, the pay back period has two important weaknesses. Firstly, it fails to consider cash
flows after the pay back period, Secondly, even though it measures projects liquidity, it does
not indicate the liquidity position of the firm as a whole. The pay back period is worked out as
below.
I
P = ⎯⎯⎯
Y
Where,
P = Pay back period in pre-defined time units (in present study it is ‘years’)
I = Capital investment on the project in rupees
Y = Net income realized after meeting production expenditure.
3.5.3.4 Internal Rate of Returns (IRR)
The rate at which the net present value of project is equal to zero is nothing but the
Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The net cash inflows were discounted to determine the present
worth following the interpolation technique as under.
IRR = Lower discount +
rate
Net present worth of the cash flows at
lower discount rate
⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯⎯
Difference between the ⎯⎯
two discount rates
Absolute difference between present
worth (cash flow) stream at the two
discount rates
If the IRR calculated appears greater than the reference rate, then the adoption of
Farm-ponds in the sample farms is economically attractive. If the IRR calculated is lesser than
the reference rate, then practicing Farm-ponds in the sample farms is said to be economically
not viable.
3.6 Terms and concepts
3.6.1 Watershed
The term watershed is typically an area having common drainage i.e. is a natural
geo-hydrological entity.
3.6.2 Watershed development approach

It implies a cognizant effort to optimize and maintain the productivity of the land
systems through integrated and optimal development of water, land, vegetation and livestock
researchers and suggesting appropriate land use practices causing minimum environmental
damage.
3.6.3 Rain Water harvesting (RWH)
RWH is capturing and storing rainwater in ponds, lakes, open areas for agriculture
purpose as well as domestic purpose.
3.6.4 Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RWHS)
RWHS are the barriers or measures created or adopted to harvest the rainwater.
Major RWHS under watershed approach are check dams, farm-ponds, nala bunding, contour
bunds, vegetative barriers etc.
3.6.5 Farm ponds
Farm ponds are small water harvesting structures used for collecting and storing runoff
water. Farm ponds are constructed with varying size and may fulfil several farm needs
such as supply of the water to crops for protective irrigation, fish production etc.
3.6.6 With farm-pond area
The area where the farm-pond concept is adopted.
3.6.7 Without farm-pond area
The area not only includes the area outside farm pond but also where the concept of
farm pond is not at all adopted.
3.6.8 Sub-watershed (SWS)
Area with 5000-7000 hectares.
3.6.9 Micro-watershed (MWS)
Area with 500-700 hectares.
3.6.10 Cropping intensity
It is the ratio of gross cropped area to the net sown area expressed in percentage.
Gross cropped area
Cropping intensity = —————————————— X 100
Net cropped area
3.6.11 Total income
It is the sum of the earnings by the sample farmers in the household from all the
sources i.e. farm and non-farm cases in case of beneficiary.
3.6.12 Total employment
It is obtained by summing up the total days employed in a year by each person in a
family.
3.6.13 Man-day
Refers to eight hours work turned out by an adult male in a day.
3.6.14 Conversion factor
Female workday to man equivalent day. The conversion ratio of two man equivalent
days equal to three female workdays was used in the study to compute total employment per
farm in man equivalent days.

3.6.15 Seed
Farm produced seed has been valued at the village prices prevalent at the time of
sowing and purchased seeds have been considered at actual rates paid by the sample
farmers.
3.6.16 Farm yard manure
Farm yard manure was valued at the village prices prevalent at the time of sowing
and farm yard manure purchased was valued at actual rates paid by the sample farmers.
3.6.17 Farm business income
The difference between the gross income and Cost-A, that is, profit at Cost A
represented the Farm business income of cultivators.
3.6.18 Family labour income
The profit at Cost-B, that is, the difference between the gross income and Cost B
represented the income of the cultivators on account of his own and family labour.
3.6.19 Net income
The profit at Cost-C, that is, the difference between gross income and Cost-C
represented the net income of the farm enterprise.

Plate 1. Farm-pond
Plate 2. Contour bunding
Plate 3. Check dam

Plate 4. Nala bunding
Plate 5. Researcher collecting data from respondents
Plate 6. Diversion channel

IV. RESULTS
The key focus of the present study is to analyse the impact of farm-ponds on
cropping pattern, productivity, income etc. and also the financial feasibility of investment on
farm-ponds adopted by the farmers in the identified watershed area. The primary information
and the data collected from the sample farmers were examined using the various economic
tools. The results obtained have been presented with respect to the objectives under the
following heads.
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers
4.2 Extent of use of RWHS in the selected micro-watersheds
4.3 Cost involved in various RWHS in the study area pertaining to sample farmers
4.4 Impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern, cropping intensity, crop productivity, cost and
returns profile, income and employment levels
4.5 Financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds
4.6 Farmers perception and constraints towards RWHS
4.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers
The socio-economic features of the sample farmers of with and without farm-pond
areas are presented below under the following sub-headings.
4.1.1 Age and education status of the sample farmers
The details of the age and education status of the head of the family of the sample
farmers are presented in Table 4.1. The average age of the head of the household was 53.44
and 50.11 years among with and without farm-pond sample farmers, respectively.
Majority of the farmers (60 per cent) having with farm-pond area were belonged to old
age group (Fig. 3) which was followed by middle age group constituting 26.7 per cent while
more number of the farmers (44.5%) were belonged to middle aged group which was followed
by old aged (42.2%) in case of without farm-pond area. Equal (13.3%) number of farmers
were observed to the young aged group in both with and without farm-pond areas.
The educational status of heads in the case of with farm-pond area was higher than
the without farm-pond area. About 73 per cent of farmers in with farm-pond area were
literates; where as only about 53 per cent of farmers in case of without farm-pond area were
literates. It was found (Fig.4) that 66.66 per cent and 44.44 per cent of the farmers were
educated up to primary level in case of with and without farm-pond areas respectively.
However equal percentage (6.67%) of farmers were educated up to secondary school. Table
also indicated only 2.22 per cent of the sample farmers were observed in without farm-pond
area as educated up to college level while no sample farmers were observed in case of with
farm-pond area.
4.1.2 Family type and size of sample farmers
Majority (76 per cent and 82 per cent) of the sample farmers belonged to nuclear
family type while, 24 per cent and 18 per cent of the farmers were belonged to joint family
type in case of with and without farm-pond areas (Table 4.2) respectively. There were 362
family members in with farm-pond area and average family size worked out to 8.04, while
corresponding figures for the without farm-pond area were 347 and 7.71. The percentage of
adult male population to the total population was relatively higher in case of with farm-pond
area (38.12%) compared to without farm-pond area (36.89%) while the percentage of adult
female population was marginally higher in without farm-pond (33.72%) area over with farmpond
(32.04%) area. However, the percentage of children to the total population was almost
same in both with farm-pond area (29.84%) and without farm-pond area (29.39%).
4.1.3 Land holding and its classification among the sample farmers
The land holdings were classified as marginal, small and large and were compared
with and without farm-pond areas and presented under table 4.3 which indicates the average
land holding was 1.73 ha and 1.77 ha in with and without farm-pond areas, respectively.
Majority of the farmers were belonged to small farmers category with equal proportion
(48.89%) both in with and without farm-pond areas.

Table 4.1. Age and education status of the sample farmers
Sl.
No.
With farm-pond (n=45) Without farm-pond (n=45)
Particulars
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
I Age
i Young (50 yr) 27 60 19 42.2
Average age (years) 53.44 50.11
II Education
i Illiterate (0) 12 26.67 21 46.67
ii Primary (1-7) 30 66.66 20 44.44
iii Secondary school (8-
10)
3 6.67 3 6.67
iv College (>10) 0 0 1 2.22
Total 45 100 45 100

Percentages
Percentages
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
13.3
13.3
44.5
26.7
With FP Without FP
Young Middle Old
Category
42.2
Fig. 3. Age status of the sample farmers
Illiterate (0) Primary (1-7)
Secondary school (8-10) College (>10)
0
6.67
66.66
26.67
2.22
6.67
44.44
46.67
With farm Pond Without Farm Pond
Farm pond ownership
Fig. 4. Education level of the sample farmers
Fig. 4. Education level of the sample farmers
60

Table 4.2. Family type and size of sample farmers
Sl.
No. Particulars
I Family type
With farm-pond Without farm-pond
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
a Joint 11 24.4 8 17.8
b Nuclear 34 75.6 37 82.2
c Total 45 100 45 100
II Family size
a Adult male 138 38.12 128 36.89
b Adult female 116 32.04 117 33.72
c Boys 63 17.4 45 12.97
d Girls 45 12.44 57 16.42
e Total 362 100 347 100
f Average
family size
8.04 7.71
Table 4.3. Classification of sample farmers according to their land holdings
Sl.
Farmer's type
No.
With farm-pond Without farm-pond
Frequency Percentage Frequency Percentage
1 Marginal (2 hectares) 15 33.33 18 40
4 Total 45 100 45 100
5 Average land
holding (ha)
1.73 1.77

On the other hand, nearly 18 and 11 per cent (Fig.5) of the farmers were marginal farmers in
case of with and without farm-pond areas, respectively, while the 33 per cent in with farmpond
area and 40 per cent of farmers in without farm-pond area were large farmers.
4.2 Extent of use of rwhs in the selected micro-watersheds
For the present study Managundi and Tumarikoppa micro-watersheds were selected
from Managundi and Galagi sub-watershed in Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks of Dharwad
district, respectively.
The total numbers of beneficiaries (Table 4.4) of the project were 497 and 470 with
total investment of Rs. 56.87 lakhs and Rs. 54.13 lakhs in Managundi and Tumari-koppa
MWS respectively, in the study area. Among the identified RWHS, farm-ponds occupied
major part of investment (47.60%) with 19.52 per cent (Fig.6) of beneficiaries followed by
contour bunding (31.38% of investment) benefited to 60.76 per cent of total beneficiaries in
Managundi MWS. While, in Tumari-koppa MWS, contour bunding occupied major part of
investment (52.77%) followed by farm ponds (37.16%) with 66.17 per cent and 17.23 per cent
(Fig.7) proportion of beneficiaries respectively.
Other structures, namely, check dams, diversion channel, rubble checks, percolation
tanks and nalabunds and sunken ponds were found and together constituted to around 21.02
per cent of total investment consisting 19.70 per cent of total number of beneficiaries in
Managundi MWS. However, in Tumari-koppa MWS other structures viz., checkdams, rubble
checks, nalabunds and diversion channel except sunken ponds and percolation tanks were
found and constituted to the 10.07 per cent of investment with 16.6 per cent of beneficiaries
under project.
4.3 Cost of various rwhs
Table 4.5 indicates the detail of the investments involved on RWHS by the project.
Among the six structures, farm-ponds had covered majority (Fig.8) of the area (77.81 ha) next
in order was contour bunding (47.85 ha) followed by diversion channel, nala bunding, Rubble
checks, and sunken ponds, accounting for area of 13.44, 11.66, 5.10 and 1.78 hectares
respectively. Among different RWHS, the investment per hectare made on farm-pond (Rs.
14,573.96 /ha) was highest and the second most expensive treatment was sunken ponds (Rs.
13,496.62/ha) followed by contour bunding (Rs. 3,854.54/ha), nala bunding (Rs. 3,679.24/ha),
rubble checks (Rs. 1,764.70/ha) and diversion channel (Rs. 1,261.90/ha). Among all the
RWHS, which were implemented in the project area, diversion channel required the lowest
investments of Rs. 1,262 per hectare.
4.4 Impact of farm-ponds
4.4.1 Cropping pattern
The particulars of cropping pattern of the sample farmers of with and without farmpond
area are presented for comparison in Table 4.6 indicates that the total cropped area
was 110.04 ha and 89.96 ha in case of with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas
respectively.
The total kharif area was 69.82 per cent (76.84 ha) in with farm-pond area and in
without farm-pond area was 86.95 per cent (78.22 ha). There was no much change in
cropping pattern as for as kharif crops were concerned, except in case of soybean (i.e.
7.36%) as compared with(Fig.9) without farm-pond area (5.85%).
However, the total rabi area in with FP area was relatively higher (30.18 per cent)
than without farm-pond area (13.05 per cent). Rabi jowar and green gram (i.e. paddy followed
by green gram) were prominent rabi crops with an area of 8.10 per cent and 22.08 per cent in
case of with farm-pond area whereas in case of without farm-pond area it was hardly 2.70 per
cent and 10.35 per cent respectively.
4.4.2 Cropping intensity
Table 4.7 indicates that, the cropping intensity was relatively higher (141.42 per cent)
in case of with farm-pond area (Fig.10) compared to without farm-pond (112.67 per cent)
area. Although net cropped area in both cases was almost observed same and gross cropped
area was more in case of with farm-pond compared to without farm-pond area.

Table 4.4. Extent of use of RWHS in selected micro-watersheds
Sl.
No.
Structures Physical
achievement
Managundi micro-watershed Tumari-koppa micro-watershed
Total
investment
(Rs.)
No. of
beneficiaries
Physical
achievement
Total
investment (Rs.)
No. of
beneficiaries
1 Farm-ponds (No) 97 27,07,316 97
81 20,11,102 81
(47.60) (19.52)
(37.16) (17.23)
2 Check dams (No) 8 7,22,477 8
5 3,75,000 5
(12.70) (1.61)
(6.93)
(1.06)
3 Nala bunds (No) 3 66,000 3
3 78,000 3
(1.16) (0.60)
(1.44)
(0.64)
4 Contour bunding 89268 17,84,489 302
127331 28,56,383 311
(mts)
(31.38) (60.76)
(52.77) (66.17)
5 Rubble checks (No) 37 1,10,583 37
14 81,200 14
(1.94) (7.44)
(1.50)
(2.99)
6 Sunken ponds (No.) 3 24,026 3
0 - -
(0.42) (0.60)
7 Diversion channel 8639 1,72,437 45
543 10,964 56
(mts)
(3.03) (9.05)
(0.20)
(11.91)
8 Percolation tank 2 1,00,000 2
0 - -
(No)
(1.77) (0.40)
Total 56,87,328 497 54,12,649 470
Figures in parentheses indicate percentages to total

Percentages
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
33.33
48.89
17.78
Large (>2 hactare)
Small (1 to 2 hactare)
Marginal (

Table 4.5. Investment on RWHS through watershed project
Sl.
No. Structure
Average
investment
per farmer
(Rs.)
No. of
beneficiaries
Total
investment
Area
treated
(hectares)
Investment
per hectare
(Rs.)
1 Farm-ponds (No.) 25,200 45 11,34,000 77.81 14573.96
2 Contour bunding
(mts)
6,360 29 1,84,440 47.85 3854.54
3 Diversion
channel (mts)
2,120 8 16,960 13.44 1261.90
4 Rubble checks
(No.)
3,000 3 9,000 5.10 1764.70
5 Sunken ponds
(No.)
8,008 3 24,024 1.78 13496.62
6 Nala bunding
(No.)
21,450 2 42,900 11.66 3679.24
Note: Data pertaining to sample farmers
Table 4.6. Impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern on sample farms
(Area in hectares)
Sl.
No. Season/crop
With farm-pond Without farm-pond
Area
Proportion
(%)
Area
Proportion
(%)
I Kharif
1 Paddy 31.42 28.55 28.02 31.15
2 Cotton 22.27 20.23 18.62 20.70
3 Jowar 6.07 5.52 7.69 8.55
4 Maize 4.13 3.75 11.34 12.60
5 Soybean 8.10 7.36 5.26 5.85
6 Groundnut 4.85 4.41 7.29 8.10
7 Fallow 0.97 - 1.62 -
Total kharif cropped 76.84 69.82 78.22 86.95
II Rabi
1 Rabi jowar 8.91 8.10 2.43 2.70
2 Green gram 24.29 22.08 9.31 10.35
3 Fallow 44.61 - 68.10 -
Total rabi cropped 33.20 30.18 11.74 13.05
Gross cropped area 110.04 100 89.96 100
Note: Percentages to gross cropped area

Percentages
13496.62
3679.24
1764.7
3854.54
1261.9
14573.96
Contour bund
Diverssion channel
Farm-ponds
Rubble checks
Sunken ponds
Nala bund
Fig. 8. Investment on various RWHS (Rs. per ha)
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Paddy
cotton
Jowar
Maize
Soybean
Crops
With Farm Pond
Without Farm Pond
Groundnut
Rabi Jowar
Green gram
Fig. 9. Impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern
Fig. 8. Investment of various RWHS (Rs. Per ha)
Fig. 9. Impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern

4.4.3 Productivity of major crops
The productivities of eight major crops grown by sample farmers are presented in
Table 4.8.
The net crop yield in with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area was more
(Fig.11) in case of maize (7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha) and soybean (2.63 q/ha)
with percentage change of 30.20, 22.74 and 20.04 respectively. The paddy was grown under
rainfed condition in case of both with and without farm-pond areas. The change in crop yield
in other crops, namely groundnut was 2.41 q/ha (16.15%), cotton 2.07q/ha (20.95%), jowar
2.15 q/ha (22.56%), rabi jowar 1.85 q/ha (i.e., 22.23%) and green gram 1.11 q/ha (41.20%)
over without FP area.
4.4.4 Comparison of Cost and returns structure of major crops
The per hectare cost of cultivation for the important crops grown by sample farmers
in with farm-pond and without farm-pond area were computed and presented as under.
Cost and returns profile paddy and jowar crops
The details regarding costs, returns and profits of paddy and jowar crops presented in
Table 4.9 and indicate that the cost of cultivation for paddy (Rs. 15,540.96) and jowar (Rs.
10,221.72) was more in case of with farm-pond area as compared to without farm-pond area
(Rs. 14,462.34 and Rs. 8,673.15, respectively). The gross returns were also more in both
paddy (Rs. 20,899.26) and jowar (Rs. 11,584.30) in with farm-pond area as compared to
without farm-pond (Rs. 17,121.05 and Rs. 9,131.59, respectively) area.
The farm business income, farm labour income and net income of paddy and jowar
was more in case of with farm-pond area (Rs.10, 122.36, 7,244.09 and 5,358.30 of paddy and
Rs.5, 380.50, 2,502.24 and 1,362.58 of jowar, respectively) as compared to without farmpond
area.
The B: C ratio for paddy and jowar was relatively high (1.34 and 1.13) in with farmpond
area as compared to without farm-pond (1.18 and 1.05, respectively) area. The overall
change in net returns from paddy and jowar was Rs. 2,699.58 and Rs. 904.14 respectively in
with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area.
Cost and returns structure of soybean and maize crops
Table 4.10 indicates that both in case of soybean and maize cost C (Rs. 14,439.89
and 14,693.90, respectively), gross returns (Rs. 18,839.35 and 20,186.74, respectively), net
income (Rs. 4,399.46 and Rs. 5,492.84, respectively) were more in with farm-pond area as
compared to without farm-pond area. The B: C ratio was also more both in soybean and
maize (1.30 and 1.37, respectively) in with farm-pond compared to without farm-pond (1.18
and 1.14 respectively) area. The change in net returns over without farm-pond area in
soybean and maize were Rs. 1,974.10 and Rs. 3,564.60, respectively, in with farm-pond
area.
Cost and returns structure of cotton and groundnut
The per ha cost and returns profile for cotton and groundnut crops are presented in
the Table 4.11 shows that Cost A, Cost B and Cost C of cotton and groundnut were high in
case of with farm-pond area (Rs.16, 279.81, 19,158.08 and 21,531.60 of cotton and Rs.13,
611.71, 16,489.98 and 18,012.79 of groundnut, respectively) over without farm-pond area.
The farm business income, farm labour income and net income of cotton and
groundnut were more in case of with farm-pond area (Rs.14, 702.85, 11,824.58 and 9,451.06
of cotton and Rs.12, 477.64, 9,599.37 and 8,076.56 of groundnut, respectively) as compared
to without farm-pond area.
The change in net returns over without FP in with FP area for cotton and groundnut
was Rs. 3,865.79 and Rs. 1,424.81 respectively. The B: C ratio was relatively high in both
cotton and groundnut in with farm-pond (1.43 and 1.44, respectively) area compared to
without farm-pond (1.27 and 1.39, respectively) area.
Cost and returns structure of rabi jowar and green gram
Table 4.12 reveals that the Per ha Cost C and gross returns of rabi jowar and green
gram (i.e paddy followed by green gram) were higher in with farm-pond (Rs. 10,119.88 and
14,109.85 and Rs. 6,503.70 and 8,964.42, respectively) area compared to without farm-pond
(Rs. 8,755.53 and 11,454.62 and Rs. 5,970.50 and 7,836.59, respectively) area. The overall
change in net returns from rabi jowar and green gram was Rs. 1,290.88 and 594.63

Table 4.7. Impact of farm-ponds on cropping intensity on sample farms
Particulars With farm-pond Without farm-pond
Gross cropped area
(hectares)
110.04 89.96
Net cropped area (hectares) 77.81 79.84
Cropping intensity (%) 141.42 112.67
Table 4.8. Impact of farm-ponds on productivities of major crops
q/hectare
Crops With farm-pond Without farm-
pond
Change in crop yield over
without farm pond area
Paddy 24.82 20.22 4.60 (22.74)
Cotton 11.95 9.88 2.07 (20.95)
Jowar 11.68 9.53 2.15 (22.56)
Maize 32.03 24.60 7.43 (30.20)
Soybean 15.75 13.12 2.63 (20.04)
Ground nut 17.33 14.92 2.41 (16.15)
Rabi jowar 10.17 8.32 1.85 (22.23)
Green gram 3.80 2.69 1.11 (41.26)
Note: Figures in parentheses indicate percentage increase over without farm-pond area

Area (ha)
Yield (q/ha)
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
110.04
89.96
Gross cropped
area (hectares)
With farm-pond
Without farm-pond
77.81
79.84
Net cropped area
(hectares)
Crop cultivation practices
141.42
112.67
Cropping intensity
(%)
Fig. 10. Impact of farm-ponds on cropping intensity
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Paddy
24.82
20.22
Cotton
11.95
9.88
Jowar
11.68
9.53
Maize
32.03
24.6
15.75
Soybean
13.12
Ground nut
Name of the crop
With farm-pond area
Without farm-pond area
17.33
14.92
Rabi jowar
10.17
8.32
Green gram
Fig. 11. Impact of farm-ponds on crop yields
Fig. 10. Impact of farm-ponds on cropping intensity
Fig. 11. Impact of farm-ponds on crop yields
3.8
2.69

Table 4.9. Cost and returns profile of paddy and jowar
(Rs. per ha)
Sl.
No.
Item
Paddy
With farmpond
Without
farm-pond
Jowar
With farmpond
Without
farm-pond
1 Cost A 10776.90 10068.55 6203.80 4791.92
2 Cost B 13655.17 12817.70 9082.06 7541.08
3 Cost C 15540.96 14462.34 10221.72 8673.15
4 Gross returns 20899.26 17121.05 11584.30 9131.59
5 Farm business income 10122.36
(profit at cost ‘A’)
7052.5 5380.50 4339.67
6 Farm labour income
(profit at cost ‘B’)
7244.09 4303.35 2502.24 1590.51
7 Net income (profit at
cost ‘C’)
5358.30 2658.71 1362.58 458.44
8 B:C ratio 1.34 1.18 1.13 1.05
9 Change in net returns 2699.58 904.14

Table 4.10. Cost and returns profile of soybean and maize in with and without
farm-pond areas
(Rs. per ha)
Sl.
No.
Item
Soybean
With farmpond
Without
farm-pond
Maize
With farmpond
Without
farm-pond
1 Cost A 10018.44 9315.38 10276.70 8841.31
2 Cost B 12896.70 12064.54 13154.97 11590.47
3 Cost C 14439.89 13405.06 14693.90 12954.58
4 Gross returns 18839.35 15830.43 20186.74 14882.81
5 Farm business income 8820.91
(profit at cost ‘A’)
6515.05 9910.04 6041.5
6 Farm labour income
(profit at cost ‘B’)
5942.65 3765.89 7031.77 3292.34
7 Net income (profit at
cost ‘C’)
4399.46 2425.36 5492.84 1928.23
8 B:C ratio 1.30 1.18 1.37 1.14
9 Change in net returns 1974.10 3564.60
Table 4.11. Comparison of cost and returns profile of cotton and groundnut
(Rs. per ha)
Sl.
No.
Item
Cotton
With farmpond
Without
farm-pond
Groundnut
With farm- Without
pond farm-pond
1 Cost A 16279.81 15601.16 13611.71 12690.98
2 Cost B 19158.08 18350.32 16489.98 15440.13
3 Cost C 21531.60 20673.30 18012.79 16869.36
4 Gross returns 30982.66 26258.57 26089.35 23521.12
5 Farm business income 14702.85
(profit at cost ‘A’)
10657.41 12477.64 10830.14
6 Farm labour income
(profit at cost ‘B’)
11824.58 7908.25 9599.37 8080.99
7 Net income (profit at
cost ‘C’)
9451.06 5585.27 8076.56 6651.75
8 B:C ratio 1.43 1.27 1.44 1.39
9 Change in net returns 3865.79 1424.81

espectively in with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area. The B:C ratio was found to
1.39 and 1.30 ,respectively in case of with farm-pond and without farm-pond area for rabi
jowar and corresponding B:C ratio for green gram was 1.37 and 1.31.
4.4.5 Impact of farm-ponds on income level
The details of the average net income household of both with and without farm-pond
areas are presented in the Table 4.13.
The extent of income generated in case of with farm-pond area (Rs. 16,748.85) was
higher by 48.21 per cent than that of without farm-pond area (Rs. 11,300.65). So also the
income generated in case of sample farmers of with farm-pond area in agriculture sector
(Fig.13) was Rs. 12,887.09, horticulture was Rs. 911.03, animal husbandry of Rs. 1,880.32
compared to without farm-pond area (Rs. 6,427.85, Rs. 876.66 and Rs. 1,692.26,
respectively). However, in case of labour the income generated was more (Rs. 1,955.2) in
without farm-pond area than that of with farm-pond (Rs. 643.2) area. The income generated
from other source in case of with farm-pond area is more (Rs. 427.21) than that of without
farm-pond area.
4.4.6 Impact of farm-ponds on employment generation (in man days)
The employment levels of the farmers in with and without farm-pond areas are
presented in the Table 4.14. The total employment days were conveniently divided in to four
groups viz., agriculture, animal husbandry, labour and others (business and service). The
total employment generated in with farm-pond area (343.33 mandays) was higher (4.08%)
than that of without farm-pond area (329.85 mandays). The employment generated from
agriculture sector was more (6.86%) in with farm-pond area than without farm-pond area
(268.89 mandays).
4.5 Financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds
To evaluate the financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds, the criteria such as
Net Present Worth (NPW). Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR), Pay Back Period (PBP) and Internal
Rate and Return (IRR) were employed and the results are presented in Table 4.15.
The net present worth of investment on farm-ponds was Rs. 51,719.86 with 8.5 per
cent discount rate as this rate represents prevailing bank rate. While the Benefit Cost ratio
was 3.05. The pay back period was found hardly 1.54 years. The internal rate of return was
51.48 per cent. It could be revealed that the net present worth was positive, B: C ratio was
more than unity and internal rate of return was more than that of referenced bank rate and all
indicated that the investment in farm-ponds was financially found more feasible.
4.6 Farmers perception and constraints towards rwhs
4.6.1 Farmers perception about benefits RWHS
Table 4.16 indicates that majority of the farmers expressed that the RWHS under
watershed technology is highly beneficial in the form of increased moisture availability (60%).
The next best benefit, as perceived by the farmers was increased income (55.56%).
Increased yield was found to be third important benefit (53.33%) as opined by the farmers,
followed by reduced soil erosion (51.11%). Increased employment (46.67%), maintenance of
common assets (44.45%) and increased ground water recharge (42.22%) were other benefits
of RWHS as perceived by the farmers.
4.6.2 Reasons for non-adoption of RWHS
The reasons expressed by the farmers for the non-adoption of Rain Water Harvesting
Structures (RWHS) presented in table 4.17 and indicate that lack of credit availability was
severe constraint (64.44%) followed by heavy investment (51.11%), fragmented land holdings
(46.67%) and long gestation period (40%). Poor soil fertility (37.77%), improper extension
service (31.11%), high labour rates (28.89%) were the other problems faced by farmers.
Whereas non-suitability of technology (4.44%) and not aware of technology (8.89%) were not
major problems as opined by the farmers.

Table 4.12. Cost and returns profile of Rabi jowar and green gram in with and
without farm-pond areas
(Rs. per ha)
Sl.
No.
Item
Rabi jowar
With farmpond
Without
farm-pond
Green gram
With farm- Without
pond farm-pond
1 Cost A 6032.35 4904.13 2995.34 2634.74
2 Cost B 8910.62 7653.28 5873.61 5383.90
3 Cost C 10119.88 8755.53 6503.70 5970.50
4 Gross returns 14109.85 11454.62 8964.42 7836.59
5 Farm business income 8077.50
(profit at cost ‘A’)
6550.49 5969.08 5201.85
6 Farm labour income
(profit at cost ‘B’)
5199.23 3801.34 3090.81 2452.69
7 Net income (profit at
cost ‘C’)
3989.97 2699.09 2460.72 1866.09
8 B:C ratio 1.39 1.30 1.37 1.31
9 Change in net returns 1290.88 594.63
Table 4.13. Comparison of average net incomes from different sources of the
sample farmers
(Rs./ household)
Sl.
No.
Source With farm-pond Without farm-pond
1 Agriculture 12,887.09 6,427.85
2 Horticulture 911.03 876.66
3 Animal husbandry 1,880.32 1,692.26
4 Labour 643.20 1,955.20
5 Others 427.21 348.68
6 Total average net
income
16,748.85 11,300.65
7 Percentage change 48.21

Amount (Rs./ha)
Amount (Rs./ha)
10000
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
5358
Paddy
2659
1363
458
4399
2425
5493
1928
9451
5585
With Farm Pond
Without Farm Pond
8077
6652
3989.97
2699.09
Jowar
Soyabean
Maize
Cotton
Groundnut
Rabi Jowar
Green gram
Name of the crop
Fig. 12. Impact of farm-ponds on net income
14000
12000
10000
8000
6000
4000
2000
0
12887.09
Agriculture
6427.85
911.03
Horticulture
876.66
1880.32
Animal husbandry
1692.26
Labour
Name of the sector
643.2
1955.2
427.21
Others
2461
348.68
1866
With farm-pond
Without farm-pond
Fig. 13. Average net income generation from different sectors
Fig. 12. Impact of farm-ponds on net income
Fig. 13. Average net income generation from different sectors

Table 4.14. Employment levels in different sources of the sample farmers in
with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas
(man days/house hold)
Sl.
No.
Source With farm-pond Without farm-pond
1 Agriculture 287.34 268.89
2 Animal husbandry 27.38 16.53
3 Labour 18.08 37.60
4 Others 10.53 6.83
5 Total employment 343.33 329.85
6 Percentage change 4.08
Table 4.15. Financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds
Net present value (Rs.) 51719.86
Pay back period (years) 1.54
Benefit: cost ratio 3.05
Internal rate of return (%) 51.48
Table 4.16 Farmers perception about the benefits of the RWHS
Sl.
No.
(n=45)
Perception about RWHS
No. of respondents Percentage
Benefits
H M L H M L
1. Reduced soil erosion 23 18 4 51.11 40.00 8.89
2. Maintenance of common
assets
20 19 6 44.45 42.22 13.33
3. Increased moisture
availability
27 16 2 60.00 35.56 4.44
4. Increased ground water
recharge
19 17 9 42.22 37.78 20.00
5. Increased yield 24 17 4 53.33 37.78 8.89
6. Increased employment 21 19 5 46.67 42.22 11.11
7. Increased income 25 17 3 55.56 37.78 6.66
Note: H = Higher, M = Moderate, L = Lower

Table 4.17 Constraints for non-adoption of RWHS
(n=45)
Sl.
No.
Non-adoption of RWHS
No. of respondents Percentage
Constraints
S MS NS S MS NS
1. Not aware of technology 4 19 22 8.89 42.22 48.89
2. Technology not suitable 2 16 27 4.44 35.56 60.00
3. Heavy investment 23 12 10 51.11 26.67 22.22
4. Lack of credit availability 29 12 4 64.44 26.67 8.89
5. Poor soil fertility 17 12 16 37.77 26.67 35.56
6. Fragmented land holdings 21 15 9 46.67 33.33 20.00
7. High labour rates 13 13 19 28.89 28.89 42.22
8. Improper extension
service
14 13 18 31.11 28.89 40.00
9. Long gestation period 18 12 15 40.00 26.67 33.33
Note: S = Severe, MS = Moderately severe, NS = Not severe

V. DISCUSSION
The results of the study presented in the previous chapter have been discussed in
this chapter with cross references done under review of literature, to highlight the major
trends observed and some of the reasons responsible for the findings have been discussed
under the following headings.
5.1 Socio-economic characteristics of the sample farmers
The impact assessment of farm-ponds will be easily facilitated if the socio-economic
indicators of the selected sample farmers of with and without farm-pond areas are
homogenous. If there is heterogeneity, the information on the differences that exists help in
drawing meaningful interpretations from the results. With this view the socio-economic
characteristics of the sample farmers are analysed and discussed here under with detailed
perspectives.
5.1.1 Age and education status
The average age of farmers of the both with and without farm-pond (Table 4.1) area
was around fifty years (53.44 and 50.11 years, respectively). As regards to education level of
sample farmers, the percentage of illiterates was lower in the case of with farm-pond area
(26.61%) compared to without farm-pond area (46.67%).
The primary education level was more in (Fig.4) with farm-pond (66.66%) area as
compared to without farm-pond area (44.44%). The secondary school education was exactly
of same proportion (6.67%) by farmers of with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas. Thus,
it could be inferred that about 73 per cent of farmers in farm-pond area were literates,
whereas only about 53 per cent of farmers in without farm-pond area.
5.1.2 Family type and size
More than 75 per cent of the families were nuclear type families in both the cases of
with and without farm-pond areas and hardly 24 per cent and 18 per cent of the farmers
belonged to joint family type in case of with farm-pond and without farm-pond (Table 4.2)
areas, respectively. The average family size was almost same between the areas (8.04 and
7.71), which were not confirmed to norms specified as ideal size of the family.
5.1.3 Land holding and its classification among the sample farmers
Majority of the farmers belonged to (Table 4.3) small farmer’s category with exactly
equal proportion (Fig.5) of 48.89 per cent in both with farm-pond and without farm-pond
areas. Followed by large farmers of 33.33 per cent and 40 per cent in with farm-pond and
without farm-pond areas respectively. The average land holding observed was almost same
(1.73 ha and 1.77 ha) in both areas, respectively.
Whereas marginal farmers were of smaller proportion in both with farm-pond
(17.78%) and without farm-pond (11.11%) area.
5.2 Extent of use of rwhs in the selected micro-watershed
Table 4.4 reveals that the total number of beneficiaries under the project were 497
and 470 with almost equal total investment of Rs. 56.87 lakhs and Rs. 54.13 lakhs in the
selected Managundi and Tumari-koppa MWS respectively. By considering different harvesting
structures in the study area major part of investment was on farm-ponds (47.60%) followed by
contour bunding (31.38%) in Managundi MWS. Where as in Tumari-koppa MWS high
investment was made on contour bunding (52.77%) followed by farm-ponds (37.16%).
The analysis of extent of use of any practice in the study area helps in proper
designing of sample farmers. In both Managundi and Tumari-koppa MWS, the number of
beneficiaries (Fig.6 and 7) was more in adoption of contour bunding (60.76% and 66.17%)
followed by farm ponds (19.52% and 17.23%, respectively).
5.3 Cost involved in various rwhs
It is generally felt by the farmers that the rain water harvesting structures need heavy
investment and the returns are spread over few years. The investment was highest (Rs.
14,573.96/ha) for farm-pond (Fig.8) as compared to other structures. A note worthy feature of

farm-pond in the study region was that they provided irrigation to crops at critical stages.
Similar advantages of farm-pond was also reported by Naik, (2000).
A sunken pond is another expensive water harvesting structure (Rs, 13,496.6) among
farmers of the study area. In case of contour bunding (Rs. 3,854.54/ha) and Nala bunding
(Rs. 3,679.24/ha) the investment was quite high and almost similar. Rubble checks and
diversion channel are other most important water harvesting structures, which need moderate
investment of Rs. 1,764.70/ha and Rs. 1,261.90/ha, respectively.
5.4 Impact of farm-ponds
5.4.1 Cropping pattern
A critical observation of cropping pattern (Table 4.6) reveals that the gross cropped
area increased by 22.32 per cent in case of with farm-pond area over without farm-pond area
and as for as kharif crops were concerned, there was no much change in cropping pattern
between with farm-pond and without farm-pond areas.
However, the total rabi area was (Fig.9) relatively more (30.18%) in with farm-pond
area than without farm-pond (13.05%) area. The area under rabi jowar and green gram in
with farm-pond area (8.10% and 22.08% respectively) was higher as compared to the without
farm-pond (2.70% and 10.35%, respectively) area. The improved soil moisture condition due
to farm-ponds undertaken in watershed area has resulted in increased area under the above
crops.
The results were in confirmity with the findings of Srivatsava et al. (1991) and
reported that the gross cropped area increased by 38.31 per cent and watershed helps
farmers to bring more area under rabi crops. Moreover, the availability of water from water
harvesting structures had resulted in diversification of the cropping pattern with the
substitution of more profitable crops.
5.4.2 Cropping intensity
It is evident from Table 4.7 that the gross cropped area was more in case of with
farm-pond (110.04 ha) area compared to without farm-pond (89.96 ha) area. The area under
double cropping (30.18%) was also increased in with farm-pond area as compared to without
farm-pond (13.05%) area mainly because of better conservation of residual moisture in the
rabi season due to construction of farm-ponds. As a result, cropping intensity enhanced
(141.42%) in case (Fig.10) of with farm-pond area.
The results gain support from the study conducted by Phadnawis et al. (1990),
Jahagirdar (1991), Neema et al. (1991), Singh (1990) and others who observed that the
adoption of in situ moisture conservation techniques had resulted in decline of the area under
waste land and helps in increased the cropping intensity. Therefore, in order to bring fallow
land under cultivation and to increase cropping intensity farmers need to be encouraged to
follow the adoption of RWHS under watershed technology.
5.4.3 Productivities of major crops
The results presented in Table 4.8 revealed better idea about the differences in crop
productivities of all crops of with and without farm-pond areas by virtue of implementation of
farm-ponds. In could be inferred that percentage increase of crop productivity obtained by the
farmers was considerably higher over without farm-pond area.
The change in crop yield over without farm-pond area was noticed (Fig.11) more in
case of maize (7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha) indicated that paddy and maize were
highly responsible for water and overall change in crop yield was vary from 16 per cent to 41
per cent.
The reason that could be attributed to this phenomenon is availability of water as a
protective irrigation at critical stages of crop production from the farm-ponds. As a result of
farm-pond treatment in the watershed area, there was additional storage of moisture in the
soil profile due to this factor production and productivity have increased considerably in case
of with farm-pond region.
The result was in confirmity with the findings of Singh (1990), Chandregouda and
Jayaramaiah (1990) and reported that due to increased soil moisture and increased area
under kharif and rabi that positively lead to increase in the crop yields.
5.4.4 Cost and returns profile for different crops

A critical observation of cost and returns structure (Table 4.9 to 4.12) revealed that
the cost of cultivation was higher in all crops in with farm-pond area over without farm-pond
area because of higher levels of input usage. However, returns also increased in case of with
FP area in all crops over without FP area due to increased production as well as better price.
The change in net returns was (Fig.12) varied from Rs. 594.63 (green gram) to Rs. 3,865.79
(cotton). So overall change in net returns from all crops due to farm-ponds was Rs.
16,318.53/ha.
The above findings was supported with the study conducted by Naidu (2001) noticed
that water harvesting structures showed a rise in groundwater level and hence increase in the
double cropped area and net returns were varying from Rs. 5,000 to Rs. 8,000 per ha.
5.4.5 Impact of farm-ponds on levels of income and employment
The per household average net income generated was revealed by Table 4.13
depicts that average net income generated in with farm-pond area (Rs. 16,748.85) was found
to be relatively higher than that of without farm-pond area (Rs. 11,300.65). In percentage
terms, the corresponding increase of income was 48.21 per cent. The definite positive change
in yield levels of all crops, employment as well as addition income generated from all crops or
animal husbandry brought about by effective implementation of farm ponds had given
opportunity to increase the income of the farmers.
Similar results were noticed by Kumar and Dhawan (1992) and observed that the
overall change in income in the watershed area due to harvesting structures was 49.13 per
cent.
A glance on Table 4.14 provides an increase in man-days per household in with farmpond
area (343.33) over without farm-pond area (329.85) with a percentage increase of 4.08
per cent. From different sources of employment agriculture followed by animal husbandry
generated more number of man days in with farm-pond area.
The improved crop management practices and operations have resulted in the change of
cropping pattern and cropping intensity and this contributed for providing additional
employment among farmers.
In addition to this, in off-season, other sources of employment that included the
construction of farm-ponds, there was an involvement of more labours that provides more
employment opportunities in case of with farm-pond area.
5.5 Financial feasibility of investment in farm-ponds
The investment in farm-ponds was evaluated by using various investment or project
evaluation techniques viz., pay back period, benefit: cost ratio, net present worth and internal
rate of returns. The economic life of farm-ponds was assumed to be 10 years. Cash flows
were discounted at 8.5 per cent discount rate as this rate represents prevailing bank rate. The
pay back period was very low and the investment could be recovered in one and half years.
The B: C ratio was 3.05, which is more than unity, and NPV was Rs. 51,719.86 and was
found positive. The result showed that the investment in farm-ponds was economically viable
the internal rate of return was high as 51.48 per cent which is so high and indicated the
investment in farm-ponds was financially feasible.
The pay back period, B: C ratio and net present worth results were in line with the
study conducted by Palanisami (1991), Naik (2000) and IRR result was gain support from
study conducted by Selvarajan et al. (1984) and reported that the investment in farm-ponds
was found economically more feasible as evidenced by high internal rate of returns (IRR).
5.6 Farmers perception and constraints towards rwhs
All the 90 sample farmers of with and without farm-pond area were asked to list their
perceived benefits and constraints in adoption of RWHS.
All the 45 farmers of with farm-pond had opined that the RWHS were beneficial
(Table 4.16) because of realization of increased moisture availability (60%), increased income
(55.56%), increased yield (53.33%) and reduced soil erosion (51.11%) followed by additional
employment (46.67%). Maintenance of common assets and increased ground water recharge
were other benefits indicated by the farmers.
The main objective of the watershed development project is to improve and conserve
the soil and water for efficient and sustained production and productivity of agriculture land or
to improve the status of natural resource base in the project area. Due to adoption of RWHS

(especially farm ponds) there was an increased in crop yields and employment in case of with
farm-pond area and thus resulted in increased income of the farmers.
The adoption of RWHS also have resulted in reduction of soil erosion and increased
moisture conservation although marginally which led to recharge of ground water and helped
in maintaining common assets of environment. Similar findings were also reported by Nirmala
(2003).
Thus majority of the farmers felt that the RWHS are beneficial and therefore needs to
be encouraged to adopt these technologies in rainfed areas.
The major constraints as opined by the farmers in adoption of RWHS (Table 4.17)
were lack of credit availability (64.44%), heavy investment (51.11%), fragmented land
holdings (46.67%) and long gestation period (40%). Poor soil fertility, improper extension
service, high labour rates are other reasons for non-adoption of RWHS.
Krishnappa et al. (1998), Naik (2002), Nirmala (2003) were also reported similar
findings and reported that major reasons for non-adoption of practices were, lack of capital,
technical know-how, size of holding, input availability, high interest rates, heavy investments,
inadequate extension services and quality of land.
There is need to educate the farmers with suitable extension activities on the benefits
of RWHS in the long run. Development of suitable low cost and labour effective technology
would helps to overcome the problems faced by the farmers for better adoption of RWHS.

VI. SUMMARY AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS
Water is the life-blood of the environment, without water no living being can survive,
water plays an unique role in development of all sectors in any economy of every country.
Water is used for power generation, waste disposal, transportation, recreation, agriculture and
other various purposes but gross misuse of water resources causes widespread degradation
of soil and disrupts the supply of potable water, and generates massive economic losses.
More than 200 million people would live under conditions of high water stress by the year
2050, according to the UNEP reports, which warns that water could prove to be limiting factor
for development in a number of regions in the world. About 1/5 th of the world’s population,
lack of access to safe drinking water and with the present consumption patterns. Two out of
three persons on the earth would live in the water stressed conditions by 2025.
Around 1/3 rd of the world’s population now living in countries with moderate to high
water stress-where water consumption is more than 10 per cent of renewable fresh water
supply, said the GEO (Global Environment Outlook) 2000, the UNEPs millennium report. The
present decade in India is characterized by the damage caused by scarcity of rainfall on one
hand and flash floods due to heavy rainfall on the other. Since ours is monsoonic country
where the rainfall is erratic, uneven and failure occurs at least once in 3 or 4 years, there is a
need to take up comprehensive conservation and harvesting of rainwater, by the farmers who
have practicing farming under rainfed situations, for the rest of the years. In order to mitigate
water scarcity during critical stages of crop production the rain water harvesting structure on
watershed basis viz., farm ponds would help in taking supplementary or protective irrigation.
Comprehensive research studies that focus on watershed programmes, particularly
rain water harvesting structures viz., farm- ponds are few and far between. With this in view,
the present study was under taken with the below mentioned objectives and the results
obtained from economic evaluation of farm ponds would help in learning and drawing policy
guidelines for the future investments planned.
The present study was taken up in the Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks of Dharwad
district of Karnataka state with the following specific objectives.
To identify the extent of the use of Rain Water Harvesting Structures (RWHS) in the study
area
To study the cost involved in construction of various RWHS
To examine the impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern, productivity, employment and
income of the farmers
To examine the feasibility of investment in farm-ponds
6.1 Sampling and data
The present study was purposively undertaken in the rainfed areas of Dharwad and
Kalaghatagi taluks at Dharwad district of Karnataka, where the World Bank assisted Sujala
Watershed is under operation.
For the present study, Managundi MWS in Managundi SWS and Tumari-koppa MWS
in Galagi SWS were selected respectively, from Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks.
From the selected two MWS 25 per cent of the farmers were randomly selected from each
MWS based on the availability of farm ponds located on their fields to make a sample size of
45 and for comparison purpose another sample of 45 farmers who do not possess farm
ponds i.e. without farm-pond were randomly interviewed and the data pertaining agriculture
year 2003-04 was collected using pre-tested interview schedules.
The technique of tabular presentation including averages and percentages were
adopted in respect to compute socio-economic features of sample farmers, cropping pattern,
input usage, cropping intensity, cost and returns using cost concepts etc. and the financial
feasibility criteria was used to evaluate the financial feasibility of farm ponds.
6.2 Major findings of the study
A brief summary of findings of the study is presented below.
The sample farmers in with and without farm-pond area are almost same with respect
to age and family type (average of 53.44 and 50.11 respectively) while education status was
comparatively higher in with farm-pond (73.33%) area over without farm-pond (53.33%) area.

The average land holding was more or less similar and most of the farmers belonged
to the small farmers category with equal proportion (48.89%) in both with and without farmpond
areas.
Under the extent of use of RWHS, majority of the beneficiaries had benefited from
contour bunding (302 and 311 beneficiaries, respectively) followed by farm-ponds (97 and 81
beneficiaries, respectively) in both selected Managundi and Tumari-koppa MWS.
Across different rain water harvesting structures the investment made on farm pond
(Rs.14, 573.96/ha) was the highest, while it was lowest in diversion channel (Rs.1,
261.90/ha).
The extent of gross cropped area increased by 22.32 per cent in with farm-pond
(110.04 ha) area over without FP (89.96 ha) area.
The cropping pattern indicated that the cropped area under kharif was more or less
similar in with FP (76.84 ha) area over without FP (78.22 ha) area. While cropped area under
rabi was comparatively higher (30.18%) in with FP area than without FP (13.05%) area.
The cropping intensity in with farm-pond area (141.42%) was relatively higher that of without
farm-pond (112.67%) area.
A definite positive change has been observed in the productivities of all crops in with
farm-pond area than without farm-pond area and change in yield was found high in maize
(7.43 q/ha) followed by paddy (4.60 q/ha).
The net returns from all the crops were substantially higher in with farm-pond area
compared to without farm-pond area and the change in net returns vary from Rs.3, 865.79 (in
cotton) to Rs.594.63 (in green gram).
The per household average net income generated from the with farm-pond area was
found to be relatively higher by 48.21 per cent than that of without farm-pond area.
The per household human labour employment generated in the with farm-pond area was
higher by 4.08 per cent than that of without farm-pond area.
It has been clearly indicated that the investment in farm-ponds was financially
feasible and viable activity with 51.48 per cent IRR and net present worth of Rs.51,719.86
and a B:C ratio of 3.05 and pay back period was found to be low at1.54 years.
All the farmers in the case of with farm-pond area opined that major benefits accrued
were in the farm of increased moisture availability (60%), increased income (55.56%),
increased yield (53.33%), reduced soil erosion (51.11%) and increased employment
(46.67%). Moreover the maintenance of common assets of environment and increased
ground water recharge were other major benefits of RWHS.
The major reasons for partial adoption/non-adoption of RWHS in without farm-pond
area includes lack of credit availability (64.44%), heavy investment (51.11%), fragmented land
holdings (46.67%). Long gestation period, poor soil fertility and improper extension services
were the other reasons for non-adoption of RWHS.
6.3 Conclusions
The following conclusions are drawn on the basis of the results of the present study.
The watershed project had given top priority to rainwater harvesting structures in rainfed
conditions of dry lands based on extent of use of RWHS and heavy investment on those
structures.
Construction of farm-ponds had brought about a perceptible change in cropping
pattern by increasing area under rabi crops of about 30.18 per cent in case of with farm-pond
area as compared to without farm-pond area (13.05%).
The yield, gross returns and net returns of all crops were higher in with farm-pond area over
without farm-pond area.
The percent household income (48.21%) and employment levels (4.08%) were higher
in with farm-pond area than without farm-pond area.
All the economic indicators of investment on farm-ponds justified with a positive NPW, B:C
ratio of more than unity and the IRR of investment with 51.48 per cent.
6.4 Policy implications
Watershed technology has helped in augmenting returns from dry land crop
production as well as other subsidiary activities. Therefore the implementation of watershed
development programme needs to be continued and extended to other areas.

Farm-ponds were found to have positive impact on cropping intensity, productivity,
average net income and employment levels. Hence, farmers need to be encouraged to follow
this technology particularly in the areas where ground water level has declined.
Financial feasibility analysis of farm-ponds indicated a favourable results in terms of
NPW, B:C ratio, PBP and IRR. In other words, investment in farm-ponds was found
economically feasible. Therefore they can be extended in the next phase of development
especially in dry land tracts.
Majority of the farmers enjoyed the benefits of RWHS. Also, they expressed various
problems like non-availability of timely credit and requirement of high investment. Therefore, a
suitable credit policy needs to be designed for better adoption of RWHS.

VII. REFERENCES
AGNIHOTRI, Y., MITTAL, S.P. AND MISRA, P.R., 1986, An economic evaluation of water
resource development in a Shivalik foot hills- A case study. Indian Journal of
Soil Conservation, 14(2): 7-14.
ALAGUMANI, T., 1991, Economic evaluation of soil conservation in Avinasi Taluk of
Coimbatore in Tamil Nadu. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3):
300-301.
ANAND, S.S., 2000, Economic analysis of national watershed development programme for
rainfed area in Bidar district. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural
Sciences, Dharwad.
ANONYMOUS, 1977, International crop research institute for semi-arid and tropics on farm
watershed research. Annual Report, Hyderabad.
ANONYMOUS, 1988, Evaluation study of soil conservation in River Valley Projects of
Matatila, Nizamsagar and Ukai- Summary report. Agricultural Finance
Corporation Ltd., Bombay, pp.58.
ANONYMOUS, 2003, National water policy of water resource. Government of India, New
Delhi, www.watermgmt.com/en/index.htm.
ARAVIND KUMAR, SINGHAL, O.P. AND SINGH, A., 2001, Water harvesting for sustainable
agricultural production and rural water supply. Farmer’s Forum, pp.6-9.
ARUNKUMAR, Y.S., 1998, Economic evaluation of watershed development – A case study of
Kuthanagere micro-watershed in Karnataka. Ph.D. Thesis, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
ATHEEQ, L.K. AND VENKATARAM, J.V.V., 1989, Optimum land use pattern of a watershed
– A study of Kabbalanala Watershed Project Karnataka. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 44(3): 268-269.
BASAVARAJA, H., BELGAUMI, M.I., ITNAL C.J. AND RADDER, G.D., 1999, Economic
evaluation of vegetative and mechanical barriers used for soil and moisture
conservation in medium black soils. Agricultural Economics Research
Review, 12(2): 129-136.
BHARADWAJ, S.P., DHRUVANARAYANA, V.V., SHARMA, A.K. AND SINGH, J.P., 1989,
Fortunes take a turn in Aruvali watershed. Indian Farming, 39(9): 11-13.
BHARATHKUMAR, K.A., 2001, Impact of watershed development programme in the
Perambalur district of Tamil Nadu. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, Acharya N.G. Ranga
Agricultural University, Hyderabad.
BIRADAR, A.A., 1991, Techno-economic issues of watershed development approach. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 313.
BISRAT, A.M., 2000, Access of water resource for irrigation: economics of watershed
development in a drought prone area of Karnataka. M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
CHANDRAPPA, T., 2004, Economic analysis of percolation tanks in Chitradurga district of
Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore.
CHANDREGOUDA, M.J., AND JAYARAMAIAH, K.M., 1990, Impact of watershed
development programme on socio-economic status, land productivity and
income of small and marginal farmers. Indian Journal of Extension Education,
26(3&4): 44-47.
CHAURASIA, S.P.R., AND SINGH, L.R., 1991, Optimal cropping pattern for minimizing soil
loss in Nauraur watershed of Almora district in Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal
of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 320.
DHAYANI, B.L., SHARMA, J.S., JUYAL, G.P., RAMBABU, KATIYAR, V.S. AND BABU, R.,
1997, Socio-economic analysis of a participatory integrated watershed
management in Gharwal Himalaya Fakot watershed (Bulletin). Central Soil
and Water Conservation Research and Training Institute, 52(24): 33-113.
GHOSH, M.G., 1991, An evaluation of the National Watershed Development Programme in
West Bengal. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 299-300.
HAFEEZ, S., LAKSHMI, R. NATH, RAJU, R.K. AND REDDY, V.R., 1991, A study on crop
diversification and its economics at Chitravathi watershed neighbouring
villages in Kolar district of Karnataka. Indian Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 46(3): 318.

HAZRA, C.R., 1997, Sustainable agricultural development on watershed approaches – A
decade on Tejpura watershed. Indian Gross Land and Fodder Research
Institute Jhansi, Fertilizer News, 42(7): 51-61.
JAHAGIRDAR, D.V., 1991, Manoli watershed project – A study of some growth parameters.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 304.
JAISWAL, N.K. AND SINGH, R.N., 1982, Need for Watershed Approach in Drought Prone
Areas – Guide for Planning and Implementation of Watershed Development
Projects in Drought Prone Areas: National Institute of Rural Development,
Rajendranagar, Hyderabad, pp.2-3.
JALLY, M.K., MAROTHIA, D.K. AND AGARWAL, D.K., 1995, Managing dryland watershed
development programme, lessons of Nartora project. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Research Development, 19(2): 115-130.
KALLUR, M.S., 1991, Socio-economic impact of Muchkulla Nala Watershed Development
Project, Gulbarga district of Karnataka – A case study of pattern village.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 314-315.
KARAM SINGH, SANDHU, H.S., NIRMAL SINGH AND BALBIR KUMAR, 1993, Kandhi
watershed project – A critical evaluation. Economic and Political Weekly,
28(52): A123-A125.
KAREGOUDAR, A.V., VEERANNA, V.S. AND KALIBAVI, C.M., 2004, Impact of soil and
water conservation measures in Kudlagi watershed of Karnataka. Karnataka
Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 17(2): 270-274.
KAUSHAL, R.C., SWARNA LATA ARYA AND GREWAL, S.S., 1994, Economic viability of
watershed management project selected to rehabilitate degraded Aravali
foothills of Haryana. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 49(4): 591-
600.
KRISHNAPPA, A.M., NAGARAJ AND ARUNKUMAR, Y.S., 1988, Crop production in red soils
under resource constraints – A case study in Kabbalanala watershed. Paper
presented at State Level Interaction Session on Watershed Development
Programme on 5-6 May, held at University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
KRISHNAPPA, A.M., ARUNKUMAR, Y.S., REDDY, T.G. AND NAGARAJU, 1994, Watershed
approach – A boon for dry land farming. The Experience of Operational
Research Project, KWMS, University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore,
pp.20-30.
KUMAR, B. AND DHAWAN, K.C., 1992, Impact of land development programmes on socioeconomic
parameters in Kandi area of Punjab. Journal of Rural
Development, 11(3): 325-339.
KUMAR, S.C.R., 1993, Risk efficient farming systems for eastern dry zone: A comparative
study of watershed and non-watershed areas in Karnataka. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
MANHOT, S.C., SINGH, P.K. AND YOGESH SHARMA, 1992, Socio-economic evaluation of
watershed management project – A case study. Journal of Rural
Development, 11(2): 219-227.
MANN, H.S. AND SINGH, H.P., 1981, Watershed management-An integrated approach to
conserving the soil and water resources and increasing the productivity of
arid and semi arid regions. Lecture Delivered at Training Course on
Watershed Management, Central Arid Zone Research Institute, Jodhpur.
NAIDU, A., 2001, Evaluation of land and water resources and socio-economic impact
assessment of Vanjurankal watershed in Ananthpur district of Andhra
Pradesh, India. Environment and People, 8(1): 3-7.
NAIDU, S.A.B., 2005, Integrated watershed management. Kisan World, pp.42-43.
NAIK, M.R., 2000, Economics of soil and water conservation in northern dry zone of
Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad.
NARAYANAGOUDA, K., 1992, Consequences of watershed development programme – An
analysis of Chitravati watershed project in Karnataka. Ph.D. Thesis,
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore.
NEEMA, M.G., SINGH, V.N. AND MISHRA, B.L., 1991, Impact of Barkheda – Hat Watershed
Development Programme in district of Guna of Madhya Pradesh. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 305-306.

NIRMALA, B., 2003, Impact of watershed development programme on socio-economic
dimensions of beneficiaries in Ranga Reddy district of Andhra Pradesh.
M.Sc.(Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad.
NORMAN, T.S.J., RAJAN, K.C. AND NARAYANAN KUTTY, M.C., 1991, Impact study on
National Watershed Development Programme in Palakkad district of Kerala
state. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 302.
PADMAVATHI, M. AND REDDY, M.S., 2002, Personal and socio-economic characteristics of
Mitra Kisans in National Watershed Development Project for rainfed areas.
Journal of Research Acharya N.G. Ranga Agricultural University, 30(1): 71-
75.
PALANISAMI, K., 1991, Economic evaluation of percolation ponds in Tamil Nadu. Indian
Journal of Soil Conservation, 19(1&2): 45-52.
PHADNAWIS, A.N., BIRAJDAR, J.M., NANGRE AND ASHMATODDIN, M., 1990, Integrated
management of resources on watershed basis for optimising production –
Padalsing watershed. Proceedings of International Symposium on Water
Erosion, Sedimentation and Resources Conservation, CSWCRTI Deharadun,
pp.348-354.
PRASAD, V.N.R., 1994, Challenges to meet future water needs. Paper presented at
Workshop on Water Needs at Shivakumala, Balekundhi Trust, Dharwad.
PUROHIT, K.V.M. AND MURTHY, H.G.S., 1995, Impact of watershed development
programme on the production of oilseed crops in Bijapur district, Karnataka –
An economic analysis. National Bank News Review, Bombay, 11(1): 23-28.
RAJPUT, A.M. AND VERMA, A.R., 1997, Impact of Integrated Watershed Development
Programme in Indore district of Madhya Pradesh. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 52(3): 537-538.
RAJPUT, A.M., VERMA, A.R. AND SHARMA, J.P., 2000, Economic Impact of Rajiv Gandhi
watershed Development Programme in Tribal district Jhabua of Madhya
Pradesh. Agricultural Situation in India, 7(4): 181-186.
RAJVEDI, V.P., 2003, Rainwater harvesting – A panacea for water woes. Kurukshetra, pp.62-
65.
RAM MOHAN RAO, M.S., 1996, Soil and water conservation through watershed
management in the semi-arid region of South India in watershed
development. Proceedings of Paridas International Workshop on Watershed
Development, WDCV, New Delhi.
RAMANNA, R., 1991, Watershed approach to dry land agricultural development. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 251-260.
RAMESH, R.S. AND SRINIVASA GOUDA, M.V., 2001, Econometric analysis of watershed
development programme. Financing Agriculture, 33(1): 22.
RANDHAWA, N.S., 1987, Indian Agriculture extent and direction of progress. Yojana, 3(1):
72-75.
RANDHIR, O.T. AND RAVICHANDRAN, M., 1991, Economic analysis of watershed
management in Anakatti region of Coimbatore district through national
perspective. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 301.
REDDY, G.P., RAMAMOHAN, RAO, M.S., MATH, N.S.K. AND ADHIKARI, 2003,
Environmental sustainability through watershed programme in semi-arid
region of Andhra Pradesh. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 31(1): 57-65.
REDDY, Y.V.R. AND SUDHA, M., 1988, Impact of watershed programme on adoption and
economics of technology and also economic condition of rural people. Annual
Report, CRIDA, Hyderabad, pp.69-71.
REDDY, Y.V.R. AND WALKER, J.S., 1990, Impact of watershed programme on adoption and
economics of technology and also on economic conditions of rural people,
CRIDA, Annual Report, 1989, pp.67-71.
SANDHU, H.S., SINGH, N. AND BALBIR KUMAR, 1991, An evaluation of watershed
development approach for Shivalik hills in Punjab. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 322.
SEKAR, K., 1990, Dry farming: Problems and prospects. Yojana, 34(8): 31-34.
SELVARAJAN, S., RAMAMOHANRAO, M.S. AND CHITTARANJAN, S., 1984, Economic
feasibility of farm-pond for supplemental irrigation for Rabi crops in Semi-arid
deep black soils of Bellary. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 12(1): 73-79.

SHARMA, H.C. AND HOOJA, R., 1981, Watershed management and people participation.
Kurukshetra, 29(8): 7-10.
SINGH, A.J., JOSHI, A.S., SINGH, R.P. AND RAVI GUPTA, 1991, An economic appraisal of
Kandhi watershed and area development project in Punjab. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 287-293.
SINGH, B. AND SINGH, R.P., 1997, Participatory approach watershed management.
Agricultural Extension Review, 9(1): 11-14.
SINGH, D.K., 1991, Impact of watershed on land use and cropping pattern in the catchment
area of Matatila River Valley Project in Lalithpur district of Bundelkand region
of Uttar Pradesh. Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 324-325.
SINGH, J.P., 2000, Economic Evaluation of Manchal Watershed, MANAGE, Hyderabad.
SINGH, K., 1988, Managing Dryland Watershed Development Programs- Lessons of
Karnataka Experience. Research Paper, Institute of Rural Management,
Anand, India.
SINGH, K. AND RAHIM, K.M.B., 1990, Identification and evaluation of optimal cropping
system for a typical watershed in Uttar Pradesh hills. Indian Journal of
Agricultural Economics, 45(1): 29-35.
SINGH, M.P., 1990, Rainfed agro-technology on watershed basis – A case study. Indian
Journal of Extension Education, 26(3&4): 47-52.
SINGH, P.K., JASPAL SINGH, S.C. AND SANJAY MODI, 1995, Watershed approach in
improving the socio economic status of tribal area – A case study. Journal of
Rural Development, 14(2): 107-116.
SINGH, R. AND THAPALIYAL, K.N., 1991, Impact of National Watershed Development
Projects on Rainfed Agriculture in Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh.
Indian Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 309-310.
SINGH, S.V., 1999, Watershed management – A holistic approach to improve socioeconomic
status of the farmers. Indian Journal of Soil Conservation, 27(3):
243-246.
SREEDHARAN, C.K., 2002, Joint forest management and Watershed Development
Programme in Tamil Nadu. An experience in TAP. The Watershed
Management Issues and Policies for 21 st Century, Eds. Palanisamy, K.,
Suresh Kumar, D., Chandrashekharan, B., Tamil Nadu.
SRIDHARA, K., 2002, Evaluative study of watershed programme in Pavgada taluk of Tumkur
district in Karnataka. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Dharwad.
SRINIVASA, G.I., 1988, Water harvesting structures and their impact on land use and
cropping pattern in dry land agriculture, Kolar district, Karnataka – An
economic evaluation. M.Sc. (Agri.) Thesis, University of Agricultural
Sciences, Dharwad.
SRIVATSAVA, A., GUPTA, S.K. AND ATHAVALE, M.C., 1991, Importance of watershed
development programme on Mandaur district of Madhya Pradesh. Indian
Journal of Agricultural Economics, 46(3): 297-298.
TIWARI, K.N. AND MAL, P.K., 2000, Conservation, storage and effective utilization of
rainwater. National Workshop on Rainwater and Groundwater for Rice
Ecosystems, 25-2 September, 2000 IIT, Kharagpur.
VAMANAMOORTHY, P.K. AND SHANKARMURTHY, H.G., 1994, Impact of watershed
development programme on income and employment from major crops in
Bijapur district, Karnataka – An economic analysis. Agricultural Situation in
India, 49(2): 87-92.
VIDYANATHAN, A., 1991, Integrated watershed development – Some major issues. Waste
Land News, 7(2): 127-134.

Sl.
No
I. Basic Information:
APPENDIX I
SCHEDULE
A. Secondary data collection schedule
1. Watershed Name / Sangha Name :
2. Location :
3. Area in Hectors :
4. Taluk :
5. District :
6. Topo-sheet Number :
7. Above Mean Sea level :
8. Year of development :
9. Developmental total cost :
II. Natural Resource Survey:
a. Annual Average Rainfall
b. Rainfall distribution
Land classification
1. Cultivatable land (ha)
c.
2. Cultivatable waste (ha)
3. Non Cultivatable (ha)
d. Soil Type
Total Number of Beneficiaries
1. Small
e.
2. Marginal
3. Large
Size of the land holding
f. 1. Rain fed (ha)
2. Irrigated (ha)
g. Average Land holding
III. Details of different RWHS and their investments in ________________MWS
2003-04
Different RWHS
Physical
Unit
1 Contour bund Mt
2 Rubble checks No
3 Farm Ponds No
4 Diversion
Channels
Mt
5 Check Dam No
6 Percolation
No
tanks
7 Nalabunding No
8 Sunken ponds No
Total
Contribution
Rs
Area
Covered
(ha)
Physical
Achievement
Financial
Investment
(Rs./ str)
Year Of
Construction
Expected
Life Span
Remarks

IV. Important Crops, Area, Yield and Production
Sl
No
1
2
3
4
5
Crops
Area Rain
fed
Other Cropping Pattern
I
1
2
3
Horticulture
II
1
2
3
Forestry
III
1
2
Pasture
Irrigated
Yield
Production
Rain fed Irrigated Rain fed Irrigated
V. Distribution of Land Holdings in _____________________MWS
Sl
No
Category
No Area (acres)
Avg. land holding
1
Marginal Farmers
(< ha)
2
Small Farmers
(1 to 2 ha)
3
Medium & Large Farmers
(> 2 ha
Total
Sl
No
I
II
VI. Socio Economic Features of ___________MWS
Population
(i) Male
(ii) Female
(iii) Total
Literacy %
(i) Male
(ii) Female
(iii) Overall
III Total Number of families
Live stock Population (Number)
1 Cattle
IV
2
3
Buffalos
Sheep
4 Goats
Particulars Details
5 Poultry
V Family Occupation
Farm facilities
Agricultural Labors
Landless labors
Artisans and others
VI Impact of RWHS on farming systems:

Sl
No
Particulars Unit
1 Area Acre / ha
2 Water Table Acre / ha
3
Live stock
Possession
Number
Total Wells Number
4 Working
Non Working
5 Social Forestry ha
6 Agri - silviculture ha
7 Drip Irrigation ha
8 Inter cropping Ha
9 Sericulture Ha
10 Pasture Ha
11 Agro-processing
(if any)
Number
I General Information:
Before
Implementation
B. Primary Data Collection Schedule
1 Name of the Village :
2 Name of the Taluk :
3 Name of the District :
4 Name of the Watershed :
5 Location of the Land : Upper :
in relation to RWHS Middle :
activities Down trench :
6 Name of the respondent :
7 Age of the respondent :
8 Size of the land holding (Ac) Total :
a) Rain fed :
b) Irrigated :
9 Family Type : a) Joint :
b) Nuclear :
10 Number of people working :
in Agriculture
11 Details of the Family : a) Adults :
Composition Male :
Female :
b) Children :
Boys :
Girls :
After
Implementation
12 Details on,
(i) Education, Occupation & Income:
Name A Education Occupation Income

Sl
No Name
1
2
3
4
5
6
Education
G
E I P S C Occupation
Rupees
/
Annum
Note: I – Illiterates, P – Primary Schooling,
S – Secondary Schooling, C – College Educated
(ii) Income Earning activities:
Sl No Occupation Income Rupees / Annum
1 Agriculture
2 Horticulture
3 Animal Husbandry
4 Wages
5 Salary
6 Business
7 Others (If any)
II. Details of the Land Holding:
Sl
No
I
II
Type of the Land
Dry Land with Farm
Pond
Dry Land without
Farm Pond
Area (in
Acres)
III. Farm Assets Possession:
a) Farm Buildings
Sl
No
Item Number
1 Dwelling House
2 Farm House
3 Cattle Shed
4 Poultry Shed
5 Others (If any)
Soil
Type
Year of
Construction
Value
of the
Land
Rental
Value of
the Land
Construction
Cost (Rs)
Land
Tax
Paid
Dist to
FP
Present Value
(Rs)

Sl
No
b) Farm Machinery & Equipments:
Sl
No
Particulars No.
1 Bullock Cart
2 Power Tiller
3 Tractor
4 Irrigation Pump set
5 Ploughs
Wooden
Iron
6 Seed Drill
7 Thresher
8 Sprayer
9 Peddlers
10 Leveler
11 Others (if any)
IV Impact of FP on Cropping Pattern:
Crop / Season
I Dry
1 Field Crops
Khariff
A
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
B
C
Rabi
A
B
C
Summer
A
B
C
II Irrigation through FP
1 Field Crops
Khariff
A
(i)
B
C
(ii) Rabi
A
B
C
Summer
A
(iii)
B
C
VI Cost of Cultivation:
Area
(Acres) Variety
Year of
Purchase/
Installed
Production
(Qtls)
Purchase
Price (Rs)
Price
(Rs / Qtls)
Current Value
Approximate
Cost of
Production

Crop: __________ Variety: _________ Season: __________ Area:
______ Dry: ____________ Irrigation through FP: ____
A. Implements and labour charges:
Sl No Particulars
1. Ploughing
2. Clod crushing
3. Transportation of FYM
4. Harrowing
5. Spreading of FYM
6. Seed bed preparation
7. Sowing
8. Fertilizer application
9. Hand weeding
10. Intercultivation
11. Spraying/Dusting
12. Irrigation
13. Harvesting
14. Threshing
15. Winnowing
16. Bagging & Bundling
17. Transport & Marketing
18.
Others (Watch &
Ward)
Family Labour
Total Cost (A)
Wage Per Day (Rs.)
B. Input information:
Frequ
ency
Human labor (Man days)
Hired Family
Male Female Male Female
Bullock
labor
(Pair
days)
Machin
e Labor (Hours)
Hired Owned Hired Owned
Sl Particulars Qty ( Kg) Price/ unit Total Cost
No
(Rs)
1. FYM (Cart Load)
2. Seeds (Kg)
3.
a.
b.
c.
Seed Treatment Chemicals
4.
a.
b.
c.
Fertilizers
5.
a.
b.
c.
PPC
Total Cost Rs.
C.Marketing Cost:
i. Transportation Cost :Rs.
Implem
ent
charges
(Rs)

Sl
No
ii. Commission Paid :Rs.
iii. Tax Paid :Rs.
iv. Any Other Charges:Rs.
Total Cost (C) :Rs.
Total Cost :Rs.
Gross Returns:
Sl No Product Qty (Qtls) Rate (Rs.)
1. Main Product
2. By-Product
3. Total
4. Total Returns
5. Net Returns
VI. Impact of Farm Ponds in taking the activity of Animal Husbandry:
Type
1 Bullock
2 Cow
3 Buffaloes
4 Sheep
5 Goat
6 Poultry
Local
(No)
Cross
Breed
(No)
Purchase
Price
(Rs)
Milk Sold
/ Month
(Liter)
VII. Farmers perception about the benefits of the RWHS
Gross
returns
per year
Amount
(Rs.)
Cost of
Maintenance
Sl.
No.
Benefits
Perception of RWHS
No. of respondents Percentage
H M L H M L
1. Reduced soil erosion
2. Maintenance of common
assets
3. Increased moisture
availability
4. Increased ground water
recharge
5. Increased yield
6. Increased employment
7. Increased income
Note: H = Higher, M = Moderate, L = Lower

VIII. Constraints for non-adoption of RWHS
Non-adoption of RWHS
Sl.
Benefits
No. of respondents Percentage
No.
S MS NS S MS NS
1. Not aware of technology
2. Technology not suitable
3. Heavy investment
4. Lack of credit availability
5. Poor soil fertility
6. Fragmented land holdings
7. High labour rates
8. Improper extension service
9. Long gestation period
Note: H = Higher, M = Moderate, L = Lower
Sl
No
IX. Details of RWHS taken on the farm:
Different RWHS Units
1 Contour bund Mt
2 Rubble checks No
3 Farm Ponds No
4 Diversion Channels Mt
5 Check Dam No
6 Percolation tanks No
7 Nalabunding No
8 Sunken ponds No
Number
&
Dimensi
on
Year of
Constru
ction
Investm
ent
Source
of
Improvement
Investm
ent Year Cost
Function
al or
Non
function
al
Reason
s if non
functioni
ng

Sl.
No.
APPENDIX II
Area under different crops in Dharwad district and in selected taluks
during 2001-02
I. Cereals
Crops Dharwad district
Taluk
Dharwad Kalaghatagi
1. Paddy 39,324 (8.18) 14,409 (14.55) 22,718 (49.56)
2. Jowar 57,459 (11.96) 17,151 (17.32) 3,576 (7.80)
3. Maize 9,316 (1.94) 1,644 (1.66) 317 (0.69)
4. Wheat 39,212 (8.16) 7,366 (7.43) 22 (0.04)
5. Soybean 2,498 (0.52) 1,180 (1.19) 488 (1.06)
6. Minor millets 317 (0.06) - (0.00) 7 (0.01)
Total (I) 1,48,126 (30.84) 41,750 (42.16) 27,128 (59.18)
II. Pulses
7. Bengal gram 39,597 (8.23) 14,503 (14.64) 21 (0.04)
8. Tur 2,247 (0.46) 812 (0.82) 281 (0.61)
9. Green gram & other
pulses
24,964 (5.20) 10,956 (11.06) 1,553 (3.38)
Total (II) 66,808 (13.91) 26,271 (26.53) 1,855 (4.04)
III. Commercial crops
10. Groundnut 37,069 (7.71) 8,510 (8.59) 4,401 (9.60)
11. Cotton 1,05,429 (21.95) 8,157 (8.23) 7,620 (16.62)
12. Sugarcane 2,868 (0.60) 2,675 (2.70) 175 (0.38)
13. Other oilseeds 4,742 (0.98) 1,785 (1.80) 2,484 (5.41)
Total (III) 1,50,108 (31.25) 21,127 (21.33) 14,680 (32.02)
IV Other crops 1,15,225 (23.99) 9,860 (9.95) 2,176 (4.74)
Total cropped area 4,80,267 (100.00) 99,008 (100.00) 45,839 (100.00)
Note: Figures in the parentheses indicates percentages of total cropped area
Source: District Statistical Office, Dharwad

APPENDIX III
Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in with farm-pond area
Crops
Hired human
labour
(mandays)
Owned and
hired bullock
labour (pair
days)
Owned and
hired machine
labour (hrs)
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)
Plant protection
Fertilizers (kg) Depreciati
chemicals (Ilit)
on (Rs.)
Land
revenue
(Rs.)
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V
Paddy 71.21 2863.8 20.00 3004.5 0.76 231.56 82.12 5.00 410.63 14.35 1806.1 191.02 1272.6 0 0 936.92 110.65
0
0
8
2
Jowar 29.59 1097.9 9.88 1482 0 0 7.41 50 370.5 7.90 1052.2 74.1 718.77 0 0 936.92 110.65
1
2
Soybean 35.69 1347.2 15.04 2256.6 0 0 86.45 13.90 1202.4 10.76 1347.2 247 2264.1 0 0 936.92 110.65
6
6
2
6
9
Maize 44.85 1679.6 12.96 1945.1 2.47 741 12.35 40 494 12.35 1568.4 216.12 1980.9 0 0 936.92 110.65
2
5
4
Crops
Maint Interest
enan on
ce working
cost capital
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Cost A
(Rs.)
Rental
vale of
owned
land
(Rs.) 1
Interes
Cost B
Cost C
t on
Imputed value Marketin
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
fixed of family human g cost
(Cost
(cost
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4
A+1+2)
B+3+4)
2
Main product (q)
Q Price/q V
By product (q)
Q Price/q V
Total Net
B:C
returns returns
ratio
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Paddy 0 320.01 10776.9 2778.75 99.52 13655. 43.99 1651.0 234.75 15540.9 24.82 495 12297. 6.54 1315.2 8601.9 20899. 5358.3 1.34
0
17
2
6
31
9 4 26
Jowar 303.8 131.00 6203.80 2778.75 99.52 9082.0 29.09 1043.5 96.33 10221.7 10.54 557 5872.4 3.18 1796 5711.8 11584. 1362.5 1.13
1
6
7
2
2
7 3 8
Soybean 334.2 218.76 10018.4 2778.75 99.52 12896. 37.19 1393.3 149.87 14439.8 15.75 1164.6 18345. 1.38 358 494 18839. 4399.4 1.30
8
4
70
0
9
3 35
35 6
Maize 523.3 296.67 10276.7 2778.75 99.52 13154. 32.99 1218.5 320.40 14693.9 32.03 529 16962. 2.79 1155.8 3224.7 20186. 5492.8 1.37
4
0
97
2
0
04
0 0 74 4
- 10 -

APPENDIX IV
Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in with farm-pond area
Crops
Hired human
labour
(mandays)
Owned and
hired bullock
labour (pair
days)
Owned and
hired machine
labour (hrs)
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)
Plant protection Seed treatment Deprec Land
Fertilizers (kg)
chemicals (lit) (g)
iation revenu
(Rs.) e (Rs.)
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V Q V
Cotton 116.43 4408.4 19.09 2864.2 0.93 284.98 2.50 360. 889.2 14.82 1855.3 313.49 2624.7 4.94 1079.1 0 0 936.92 110.65
5
3
4
4
9
Groundnut 99.12 3694.7 10.27 1543.7 2.86 864.5 83.98 23.80 2058.3 14.82 2000.7 627.77 1890.5 0 0 200 123.5 936.92 110.65
0
5
2
6
Rabi jowar 17.36 644.25 8.64 1296.7 1.43 432.25 7.41 9.03 66.88 8.32 1070.5 113.20 1098.1 0 0 0 0 936.92 110.65
5
4
1
Greengram 11.09 417.43 6.22 933.66 0.098 118.56 16.69 15 250.45 0 0 19.76 191.67 0 0 0 0 936.92 110.65
Crops
Maint Interest
enan on
ce working
cost capital
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Cost A
(Rs.)
Rental
vale of
owned
land
(Rs.) 1
Interes
Cost B
Cost C
t on
Imputed value Marketin
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
fixed of family human g cost
(Cost
(cost
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4
A+1+2)
B+3+4)
2
Main product (q)
Q Price/q V
By product (q)
Q Price/q V
Total Net
B:C
returns returns
ratio
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Cotton 741 485.08 16279.8 2778.75 99.52 19158. 57.30 2156.4 217.01 21531.6 11.95 2427.2 29006. 2.48 796.77 1976 30982. 9451.0 1.43
1
08
8
0
8 66
66 6
Groundnut 0 388.11 13611.7 2778.75 99.52 16489. 37.91 1349.2 173.56 18012.7 17.33 1134.2 19657. 2.22 2897.4 6432.2 26089. 8076.5 1.44
1
98
3
9
7 07
7 35 6
Rabi jowar 290.2 86.49 6032.35 2778.75 99.52 8910.6 30.05 1109.4 99.81 10119.8 10.17 738.88 7514.4 2.47 2791.6 6895.4 14109. 3989.9 1.39
2
2
2
8
5
5 0 85 7
Greengra 0 35.98 2995.34 2778.75 99.52 5873.6 15.80 592.8 37.29 6503.70 3.75 1595.7 5983.9 1.50 1986.8 2980.3 8964.4 2460.7 1.37
m
1
3 7
6 0 2 2
- 11 -

APPENDIX V
Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in without farm-pond area
Crops
Hired human
labour
(mandays)
Owned and
hired bullock
labour (pair
days)
Owned and
hired machine
labour (hrs)
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)
Plant protection
Fertilizers (kg) Depreciati
chemicals (lit)
on (Rs.)
Land
revenue
(Rs.)
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V
Paddy 67.57 2544.1 19.31 2900.2 0.15 46.31 79.48 5.00 400.58 13.68 1726.0 171.73 1167.0 0 0 874.47 114.11
9
8
7
Jowar 27.63 1020.1 9.26 1389.3 0 0 7.41 50 370.5 7.41 11.11 67.92 658.87 0 0 874.47 114.11
1
7
Soybean 33.02 1242.8 13.46 2020.9 0.66 202.07 81.04 13.88 1125.6 9.63 1202.4 218.91 2003.3 0 0 874.47 114.11
5
0
2
2
9
Maize 38.72 1455.3 12.52 1881.7 0.24 77.97 12.35 40 494 10.37 1333.8 204.73 1876.6 0 0 874.47 114.11
4
4
5
Crops
Maint Interest
enan on
ce working
cost capital
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Cost A
(Rs.)
Rental
vale of
owned
land
(Rs.) 1
Interes
Cost B
Cost
t on
Imputed value Marketin
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
fixed of family human g cost
(Cost
(cost
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4
A+1+2)
B+3+4)
2
Main product (q)
Q Price/q V
By product (q)
Q Price/q V
Total Net
B:C
returns returns
ratio
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Paddy 0 295.48 10068.5 2655.25 93.90 12817. 38.23 1434.6 209.95 14462.3 20.22 477 9638.7 5.23 1430 7482.3 17121. 2658.7 1.18
5
70
9
4
1
5 05 1
Jowar 250.7 102.65 4791.92 2655.25 93.90 7541.0 29.66 1053.4 78.62 8673.15 8.89 515 4574.4 2.76 1651 4557.1 9131.5 458.44 1.05
0
8
5
4
5 9
Soybean 328.3 201.13 9315.38 2655.25 93.90 12064. 32.25 1206.9 133.60 13405.0 13.11 1172 15358. 1.33 354.52 471.52 15830. 2425.3 1.18
8
54
1
6
91
43 6
Maize 479.2 253.94 8841.31 2655.25 93.90 11590. 30.18 1117.9 246.11 12954.5 24.60 494 12152. 2.37 1157.8 2729.9 14882. 1928.2 1.14
5
47
9
8
81
9 9 51 3
- 12 -

APPENDIX VI
Per ha cost of cultivation according to cost concepts in without farm-pond area
Crops
Hired human
labour
(mandays)
Owned and
hired bullock
labour (pair
days)
Owned and
hired machine
labour (hrs)
Seeds (kg) FYM (t)
Plant protection Seed treatment Deprec Land
Fertilizers (kg)
chemicals (lit) (g)
iation revenu
(Rs.) e (Rs.)
Q V Q V Hr V Q Price V Q V Q V Q V Q V
Cotton 110.40 4198.4 20.10 3018.0 0.19 61.75 2.5 360.00 900 13.46 1699.6 298.45 2478.8 4.71 1059.0 0 0 874.47 114.11
8
1
5
4
1
Groundnut 95.95 3572.5 11.43 1717.7 0.66 202.07 82.39 24.08 1984.9 14.02 1894.5 623.10 1845.1 0 0 600 123.5 874.47 114.11
0
6
6
8
8
Rabi jowar 14.96 540.31 7.41 1111.5 0 0 7.41 8.33 61.75 6.17 833.62 108.06 1048.1
9
0 0 0 0 874.47 114.11
Greengram 8.76 330.06 5.92 892.55 0 0 15.26 15 229.01 0 0 16.79 163.34 0 0 0 0 874.47 114.11
Crops
Maint Interest
enan on
ce working
cost capital
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Cost A
(Rs.)
Rental
vale of
owned
land
(Rs.) 1
Interes
Cost B
Cost
t on
Imputed value Marketin
(Rs.)
(Rs.)
fixed of family human g cost
(Cost
(cost
capital labour 3 (Rs.) 4
A+1+2)
B+3+4)
2
Main product (q)
Q Price/q V
By product (q)
Q Price/q V
Total Net
B:C
returns returns
ratio
(Rs.) (Rs.)
Cotton 741 466.60 15601.1 2655.25 93.90 18350. 56.41 2115.4 207.52 20673.3 10.10 2409.3 24339. 2.40 800 1921.0 26258. 5585.2 1.27
6
32
5
0
3 77
9 57 7
Groundnut 0 361.80 12690.9 2655.28 93.90 15440. 36.08 1279.9 149.31 16869.3 14.91 1129.5 16840. 2.28 2909.0 6680.2 23521. 6651.7 1.39
8
13
0
6
0 90
9 1 12 5
Rabi jowar 250.0 70.07 4904.13 2655.25 93.90 7653.2 28.77 1017.7 83.36 8755.53 8.32 675 5619.2 2.28 2550 5835.3 11454. 2699.0 1.30
8
8
6
5
7 62 9
Greengra 0 31.17 2634.74 2655.25 93.90 5383.9 14.96 561.35 25.24 5970.50 2.69 1828.2 4917.5 1.46 2000 2919.0 7836.5 1866.0 1.31
m
0
7 2
7 9 9
- 13 -

An economic analysis of rain water harvesting structures
– A case study of farm-ponds
Rajeshwari Desai 2005 Dr. B. L. Patil
Major Advisor
Abstract
Water is recognized as an elixir of life, human, societal development and
environmental sustainability. Hence, water should be treated as an economical and social
good and its management must aim for the worthwhile use envisaging equity concerns,
efficiency and environmental sustainability. Comprehensive research studies that focus on
watershed programmes, particularly on rainwater harvesting are few. Hence the study was
undertaken with main objectives of assessing impact of farm-ponds on cropping pattern,
productivity, employment and income of the farmers and examining the feasibility of
investment in farm-ponds at farm level and analyzing benefits and constraints therein.
The study was conducted in rainfed areas of Dharwad and Kalaghatagi taluks at
Dharwad district of Karnataka. For the present study, Managundi MWS in Managundi SWS
and Tumari-koppa MWS in Galagi SWS were selected respectively from Dharwad and
Kalaghatagi taluks. The primary data pertaining to agriculture year 2003-04 was collected
using pre-tested interview schedules through personal interview method from 90 farmers, 45
from With Farm Pond farmers and 45 from without farm-pond farmers. The data were
analyzed using various statistical techniques including tabular and financial analysis.
The results indicated that the Farm-ponds have positive impact on cropping pattern,
cropping intensity, productivity, average net income and employment levels. Also an
investment in farm-ponds was financially feasible and viable with 51.48 per cent IRR and net
present worth (Rs.51, 719.86) and B:C ratio (3.05) and pay back period was low at 1.54
years.
Majority of farmers enjoyed the benefits of RWHS. Also the Constraints severely
faced by farmers were non-availability of credit, requirement of high investment, Therefore,
low-cost effective technology with suitable credit policy needs to be designed for the better
adoption of RWHS.