A wake-up call for canal irrigation

It is ironical that the area under canal irrigation saw stagnation and decline despite so much investment

The development of canal irrigation through investments in medium and major irrigation projects has been a priority of the government of India since the beginning of the First Five Year Plan. As a result, the area irrigated by canal (refer to government canals) increased from 71 lakh hectares during 1950-51 to 144 lakh hectares during 1980-81. In these 30 years, the share of public canals in the net irrigated area under all sources of irrigation also increased from 34 to 37 per cent. The area irrigated by government canals continued to increase in the next decade and reached a peak level of 173 lakh hectares by the year 1991-92. However, in this period, groundwater irrigation expanded at a much faster rate than canal irrigation. After 1991-92, the area under canal irrigation at the national level stagnated for about eight years and then followed a steep decline and reached bottom level of 138.7 lakh hectares in year 2002-03 (see Figure). There was some recovery in the next four years, which was again followed by a stagnation and a small decline. The net result is the net irrigated area under canal hovered around 160 lakh hectares during 2011-12 to 2014-15, which is 10 lakh hectares less than what was achieved 20 years back. 

It looks ironical that the area under canal irrigation witnessed stagnation and decline for such a long period despite so much investment in medium and major irrigation in the country. During the period 1993-2014, the country spent on an average about Rs 176.63 billion per year at current prices on capital expenditure for major and medium irrigation projects. This disquiet trend necessitates closer examination and urgent action to ensure the resources spent on canal irrigation gives the expected return.

Representative image

It took almost two decades for the erstwhile Planning Commission to take note of the stagnation and decline in the area under canal irrigation that set in in the early 1990s. The approach paper to the Twelfth Five Year Plan (2011) acknowledged that large investments have been made in major and medium irrigation but the irrigated area served by canals has not increased significantly in the past decade. The paper informs that a large number of major as well as medium projects have been going on for 30–40 years without completion whereas the normal gestation period is 15-20 years for major projects and five-ten years for medium ones. The paper goes on to say “this reflects the chaotic state of affairs in the development of irrigation schemes across the country”.

The main reason for the lack of progress in area under canal irrigation is poor utilisation of the irrigation potential created. The gap between potential created (IPC) and potential utilised (IPU) was 25 per cent during the ninth Plan (1997-2002) and increased to 36 per cent during the 10th Plan (2002-07). Irrigation potential utilised further dropped to 21 per cent of IPC during the 11th Plan (2007-12). This despite the fact that Rs 1744.73 billion was spent on major and medium irrigation projects in the 11th Plan period. Though IPU remained poor, even this should have resulted in an increase in the area under canal irrigation, which is not visible in the irrigation statistics. Besides IPC not fully translating into utilisation, there are several other reasons for the decline in the area under canal irrigation. Before discussing them we look at a state-wise picture because all states do not follow the all-India trend.

Andhra Pradesh spent Rs 35.37 billion per year during 1992-93 to 2011-12 without any significant increase in the area under canal. Maharashtra topped in spreading canal irrigation during 1992-93 to 2004-05, after which the area under canal irrigation stagnated around 10.80 lakh hectares despite annual investment of Rs 66.69 billion. The decline was less than 3.5 per cent in Madhya Pradesh and Bihar, but it ranged from 10 to 65 per cent in other major states. Jharkhand topped with 65 per cent decline in canal irrigation followed by Himachal Pradesh (42 per cent) and Tamil Nadu (23 per cent). Uttar Pradesh showed highest decline in canal irrigated area (6.82 lakh hectares) even though it spent Rs 9.21 billion per year on major and medium irrigation projects during 1992-93 to 2013-14. In the case of West Bengal, canal area declined by 6.2 per cent during 1992-93 to 2003-04, while the annual capital expenditure was Rs 864.9 million at current prices. The data on canal irrigation for the state after 2003-04 is not available.

On the other hand, Karnataka, Gujarat, Rajasthan, Jammu & Kashmir and Rajasthan show more than 30 per cent increase in the area under canal irrigation during 1992-93 to 2013-14. The increase was 29 per cent in Chhattisgarh and 11 per cent in Assam.  

The decline in the area under canal irrigation is putting strong pressure on use of groundwater leading to its over-exploitation, which has several adverse implications. The share of canal irrigation in the total irrigated area has declined from 37.5 per cent in 1984-85 to 23.43 per cent in 2014-15. Other reasons for poor progress of canal irrigation are reduced flow water at the source, low reliability of canal water forcing farmers to shift to groundwater irrigation, poor maintenance of canal and distributaries, an increase in cultivation of water intensive crops and adoption of water intensive practices.

Pradhan Mantri Krishi Sinchayi Yojana launched in 2015 aims at fixing the problem of poor performance of medium and major irrigation projects and correct the trend in the area under canal irrigation. This involves a paradigm shift in public investments in irrigation to close the gap between IPC and IPU and targets early completion of ongoing projects that are facing the problem of last mile connectivity. 

It is hoped that this change in the approach to public irrigation will help in getting the right returns from the investments in medium and major irrigation schemes.

Chand is member, NITI Aayog; Sharan is a Young Professional. Views are personal