Impact assessment of agricultural water management interventions in the Jaldhaka watershed

The report uses the Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) and a lumped groundwater model to evaluate the Jaldhaka watershed's current hydrology and the effects of shifting land use or increasing groundwater pumping. It finds that while both a deforestation scenario and an electrification scenario increase rice production, deforestation significantly raises flood risks. Electrification increases productivity but may lead to groundwater depletion of up to 8 meters in downstream areas under a 100% adoption scenario, though this may be partially offset by induced recharge from perennial rivers.

• The Jaldhaka watershed is characterized by high humidity and a high rainfall-to-reference evapotranspiration ratio of 2.5, with approximately 73% of rainfall contributing to streamflows and only 26% to evapotranspiration.
• Current groundwater exploitation in the watershed is considered sustainable on average, as the withdrawal of 145 mm/year is lower than the estimated groundwater recharge of 571 mm/year (± 158 mm/year).
• A deforestation scenario, where upstream forests are replaced by rainfed rice or bare land, increases the risk of damaging flood events by raising peak flows and increasing direct surface runoff.
• Deforestation leads to a reduction in groundwater recharge and baseflow because agricultural soils are less permeable than forest soils.
• In the electrification scenario, increasing groundwater pumping for summer rice cultivation can lead to significant groundwater depletion, with levels potentially dropping by 8 meters in downstream areas under the 100% sub-scenario.
• The electrification scenario reduces groundwater baseflow by approximately 15% in the 50% sub-scenario and by 30% in the 100% sub-scenario, though the overall impact on annual river flow remains insignificant.
• Both the deforestation and electrification scenarios increase total rice production, but electrification is deemed preferable as it increases productivity rather than simply expanding agricultural land at the expense of forests.
• The report suggests that the 25% or 50% electrification sub-scenarios are the most attainable due to the high costs for government infrastructure and farmers' equipment.

APA

de Condappa, D., Barron, J., Tomer, S. K., & Muddu, S. (2012). Impact assessment of agricultural water management interventions in the Jaldhaka watershed. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/impact-assessment.pdf

Chicago

de Condappa, Devaraj, Jennie Barron, Sat Kumar Tomer, and Sekhar Muddu. Impact assessment of agricultural water management interventions in the Jaldhaka watershed. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2012. https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/impact-assessment.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=de Condappa |first1=Devaraj |last2=Barron |first2=Jennie |last3=Tomer |first3=Sat Kumar |last4=Muddu |first4=Sekhar |title=Impact assessment of agricultural water management interventions in the Jaldhaka watershed |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=February 2012 |url=https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/impact-assessment.pdf |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{decondappa2012impact, author = {de Condappa, Devaraj and Barron, Jennie and Tomer, Sat Kumar and Muddu, Sekhar}, title = {{Impact assessment of agricultural water management interventions in the Jaldhaka watershed}}, institution = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2012}, month = feb, url = {https://www.sei.org/mediamanager/documents/Publications/Air-land-water-resources/agwater/impact-assessment.pdf}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }