Cost Effectiveness of Rainwater Harvesting for Groundwater Recharge in Micro-Watersheds of Kolar District of India: The Case Study of Thotli Micro-Watershed
Date
Authors
Major Professor
Advisor
Committee Member
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Authors
Research Projects
Organizational Units
Since 1905, the Department of Agricultural Engineering, now the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering (ABE), has been a leader in providing engineering solutions to agricultural problems in the United States and the world. The department’s original mission was to mechanize agriculture. That mission has evolved to encompass a global view of the entire food production system–the wise management of natural resources in the production, processing, storage, handling, and use of food fiber and other biological products.
History
In 1905 Agricultural Engineering was recognized as a subdivision of the Department of Agronomy, and in 1907 it was recognized as a unique department. It was renamed the Department of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering in 1990. The department merged with the Department of Industrial Education and Technology in 2004.
Dates of Existence
1905–present
Historical Names
- Department of Agricultural Engineering (1907–1990)
Related Units
- College of Agriculture and Life Sciences (parent college)
- College of Engineering (parent college)
- Department of Industrial Education and Technology, (merged, 2004)
Journal Issue
Is Version Of
Versions
Series
Department
Abstract
This study has estimated the supply augmentation of groundwater recharge due to creation of water harvesting structures and has assessed the cost-effectiveness of rainwater harvesting for groundwater recharge on watershed basis in one of the sub-watersheds of the Kolar district, Peninsular India — a typically hard-rock area. The study is based on the primary data for the year 2008-09 collected from a sample of 90 farmers having irrigation bore-wells in the selected watershed named Thotli. The study has indicated that the annual draft of irrigation water exceeds the annual recharge, causing a negative balance. On an average, the returns per rupee investment have been found to be ` 1.80 on farm pond, ` 1.78 on recharge pit and ` 1.39 on field bund. The cost incurred to impound a metre cube of water has been found as ` 3.01 in the case of field bund, where estimated recharge benefit is 5.6 m3, ` 1.67 /m3 in the case of recharge pit (with an estimated recharge benefit of 720 m3), and ` 1.33 /m3 in the case of farm pond (recharge benefit of 1350 m3). The discounted cost-benefit analysis of the investment on water harvesting structures has indicated that the investment on water harvesting structures is cost-effective and financially-viable.
Comments
This article is from Agricultural Economics Research Review 24 (2011): 217–224.