Do Farmers Need Free Electricity?

Implications for Groundwater Use in South India

Elumalai Kannan*
Abstract
The present study analyses farmers perception on free farm electricity
and groundwater extraction based on survey data collected from two
South Indian states, viz., Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The study is
prompted by lack of empirical evidence on farmers perception on
free power and groundwater overuse and its connection with public
policy formulation. The study reveals that benefit from free electricity
differed for different groups of farmers, and at the same time most
farmers reported excess use of electricity leading to over-exploitation
of groundwater. A high proportion of farmers did not want free
electricity due to its poor quality and frequent power cuts, and hence
expressed willingness to pay for its use.
Key words: Groundwater, electricity, irrigation, subsidy, crop
production, willingness to pay

Introduction
Groundwater irrigation played an important role in the development of
Indias agricultural sector. The Green Revolution introduced during the 1960s in
the form of improved seeds and fertilisers spread faster in areas where irrigation
water resources were available abundantly. It has been estimated that irrigation
contributed significantly to total factor productivity growth in Indian agriculture
(Fan et al 1999; Chand et al 2011; Kannan 2011). In fact, massive investment in
irrigation infrastructure helped achieve Indias long-term food security. There
was considerable increase in net irrigated area from 24.7 million hectare in 1960-
61 to 63.2 million hectare in 2008-09. Surface and groundwater constituted
important sources of net irrigation even though their relative share has changed
over time. While the share of surface irrigation declined from 42.1 per cent to
30.3 per cent of net irrigated area between 1960-61 and 2008-09, the share of
groundwater has almost doubled from 29.6 per cent to 60.2 per cent (CGWB 2011).

* Associate Professor, Institute for Social and Economic Change, Dr V K R V Rao Road,
Nagarabhavi, Bangalore - 560 072. E-mail: elumalaik@isec.ac.in.
The author is thankful to an anonymous referee for providing useful comments.
Vol.15 No.2 Elumalai Kannan: Do Farmers Need Free Electricity? 17

The expansion of groundwater irrigation can be attributed to increased adoption

of tube well technology and electrification of villages (Shah 2007; Gandhi and
Namboodri 2009).
Southern peninsular India is characterised by hard rock areas, which
have hard non-porous rocks flexible for water extraction through dug-, dug-cum-
bore, shallow bore- and deep bore-wells (Nagaraj and Chandrakanth 1997). However,
beyond certain depths of groundwater level, diesel pump sets will not be useful
and only electric pumps can be used for extraction of water. Dug-wells were the
predominant groundwater irrigation structures till the 1980s, but thereafter the
number of bore-wells increased tremendously due to the fall in groundwater level
as a consequence of increased demand for irrigation water. The increased demand
for irrigation water has actually resulted from the cultivation of high water intensive
crops like paddy and sugarcane by farmers in southern India. The state governments
provided subsidies for drilling wells and laying power lines to connect irrigation
pumps with electricity. The electricity tariff rates were also reduced to utilise the
tube-well technology. With virtually free access to captive groundwater in hard
rock areas and subsidised farm power, farmers did not have any incentive to
conserve it for future use and started competitive drilling of bore wells leading to
a decline in water table. Further, since the early 1990s various state governments
announced free electricity supply for agricultural purposes. The free electricity
supply has led to over-draft of groundwater leading to depletion and wastage of
energy. Such policy has benefited only the capitalist farmers, while resource poor
peasants are left in a disadvantageous position. Over-exploitation of groundwater
through energy subsidy poses environmental, social and economic problems (Shah
et al 2008).
A few studies have analysed the effect of free electricity on groundwater
depletion in India (Mukherji 2007; Shah et al 2008; Shah 2012). However, the
empirical evidence from southern India is limited. Although various state
governments started imposing tariffs on electricity supplied to agriculture since
the early 2000s, a few states including Karnataka and Tamil Nadu continue to
provide free power supply to farmers for political reasons. The present study
analyses the farmers perception on the impact of free electricity supply on
groundwater depletion in the southern states of Karnataka and Tamil Nadu. The
extent of use of groundwater is assessed based on the type of crops grown and
area irrigated through groundwater. Since farm power is supplied free, the cost of
pumping groundwater is zero to farmers. In a way, these state governments subsidise
electricity for the extraction of groundwater1, which in fact has equity implications
for different cultivating classes. Therefore, the present study also attempts to
analyse issues related to access to electricity subsidy and problems in supply of
electricity. The strategy of pricing electricity to contain over-exploitation of
groundwater is also explored.
18 Journal of Social and Economic Development July-Dec. 2013

Data Sources
A field survey was undertaken in Mandya and Raichur districts of
Karnataka, and Dharmapuri and Thanjavur districts of Tamil Nadu during 2009-
10. These districts represented agriculturally backward (Raichur and Dharmapuri)
and advanced (Mandya and Thanjavur) regions in each state. The proportion of
irrigated area to net sown area was 40.9 per cent in Dharmapuri and 86.3 per cent
in Thanjavur during the triennium ending 2006-07. Similarly, Mandya had an
irrigated area of 56.0 per cent and Raichur 28.5 per cent. From each district, two
clusters of three villages each were selected in such a way that one cluster was
near the district headquarters. From each cluster, a sample of 55 farmer households
was selected forming a sample of 110 farmer households in each state. A total of
220 farmer households were interviewed from both the states.
Based on the total operational land holdings, the sample households were
classified into different farm size groups viz., marginal farmers (<2.5 acre), small
farmers (2.5 to 5.0 acre), medium farmers (5.0 to 10.0 acre) and large farmers
(>10 acre). Analysis by farm size groups was useful to understand the nature of
control over natural resources and financial capital, which was found to be
proportionately increasing with increase in the size of holdings. Information related
to area irrigated through groundwater, crop cultivation, use of electricity and
groundwater depletion were collected from the sample farmers. Farmers
perceptions on environmental degradation due to excessive use of free energy
have also been captured.

Irrigation Status
The proportion of area irrigated through all sources by the sample farmers
was high at 92.6 per cent in Tamil Nadu as compared to 51.2 per cent in Karnataka
(Table 1). In Tamil Nadu, groundwater irrigation (dug-well + bore-well) accounted
for 49.0 per cent of net area irrigated and the rest through surface irrigation
comprising canals, tanks and river/ponds. Tanks are small reservoirs that are
traditionally used for irrigation purposes particularly in dry regions. But, the tank
irrigation system has deteriorated over time due to lack of maintenance and
encroachment, and hence the area irrigated through tanks has decreased
considerably (Palanisami et al 2010). As a sequel to this, dry areas of Dharmapuri
in Tamil Nadu accounted for a large number of bore wells and dug wells for
extraction of groundwater for irrigation purpose. The agriculturally developed
region of Thanjavur is predominantly irrigated through canals.
Vol.15 No.2 Elumalai Kannan: Do Farmers Need Free Electricity? 19

Table 1: Area Irrigated by Different Sources

(% of net sown area)

Items Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Karnataka
Open/Dug well 7.0 6.0 0.3 0.9 2.0
Bore well 20.3 26.5 19.3 9.9 14.5
Canal 28.4 47.6 35.7 28.4 31.8
River/Ponds 2.0 - - 0.9 0.8
Tank - - - 3.5 2.1
Overall 57.7 80.1 55.3 43.6 51.2
Tamil Nadu
Open/Dug well 37.3 34.3 36.6 26.0 32.8
Bore well 8.9 8.3 20.2 19.2 16.1
Canal 23.8 43.8 34.4 41.1 36.9
River/Ponds 13.8 3.6 0.6 8.2 5.4
Tank 3.1 3.6 0.6 0.0 1.3
Overall 86.9 93.5 92.4 94.5 92.6

In Karnataka, the area irrigated by the sample farmers comprised largely

canals and bore-wells with 31.8 per cent and 14.5 per cent, respectively. The share
of groundwater irrigation constituted only 16.5 per cent, which can be attributed to
the presence of large tracts of dry villages in Raichur district. Development of
groundwater resources was limited in this district whereas in Mandya its
development was relatively high leading to cultivation of predominantly water
intensive crops like paddy and sugarcane. Among farm size groups, the percentage
of net irrigated area was high for small and marginal farmers.
The analysis of ownership pattern of bore-well or dug-well among the
sample farmers provides an idea about the extent of access to and utilisation of
groundwater irrigation. Interestingly, except marginal farmers in Karnataka, the
other category of farmers had full ownership over the bore-well or the dug-well
(Table 2). The sharing of dug-well was high at 40 per cent among marginal farmers.
No instance of purchase of water was observed among the sample farmers. In
contrast, among the sample farmers in Tamil Nadu, sharing of dug-well was common
among marginal, small and medium farmers, and also the purchase of irrigation
water among marginal and small farmers. In case of sharing, mostly the members of
the same family shared the dug well when the land was partitioned between them.
It can be observed that only 58.2 per cent of the sample farmers owned dug or bore
wells in Tamil Nadu, while 27.8 per cent and 13.9 per cent of the farmers shared the
well and purchased water from others. Across the farm size groups, about 62.5 per
20 Journal of Social and Economic Development July-Dec. 2013

cent of marginal farmers and 41.1 per cent of small farmers did not own a dug/bore
well. These farmers have either shared a well or purchased water from their fellow
farmers at a flat rate of ` 50 per hour.

Table 2: Ownership of Bore Well/Dug Well by Farm Size Groups

(Per cent)
Item Owned Shared Purchased Overall
Karnataka
Marginal 60.0 40.0 - 100
Small 100.0 - - 100
Medium 100.0 - - 100
Large 100.0 - - 100
Overall 90.9 9.1 - 100
Tamil Nadu
Marginal 37.5 37.5 25.0 100
Small 58.8 23.5 17.6 100
Medium 70.0 30.0 - 100
Large 100.0 - - 100
Overall 58.2 27.8 13.9 100

Cropping Pattern
In Karnataka, the cropping pattern among the sample households was
dominated by cotton followed by paddy and pulses (Table 3). Medium and large
farmers allocated a relatively high area to cotton with 33.9 per cent and 34.5 per
cent, respectively. However, the area allocation under paddy was high for marginal
and small farmers. The cultivation of sugarcane also seemed to be predominant
among these farmer groups. The marginal farmers have allocated a relatively
high area to coarse cereals like sorghum and finger millet. The medium and large
farmers have also grown pearl millet with an area share of 2.5 per cent and 3.6,
respectively. Actually, cotton and pearl millet were mainly cultivated in the dry
areas of Raichur, where the average size of farm was high resulting in higher area
allocation for these crops by medium and large farmers.
However, a slightly different cropping pattern can be observed among
the sample farmers in Tamil Nadu. Paddy alone occupied over two-third of the
gross cropped area followed by pulses and cotton. Interestingly, the area allocation
under fruits, vegetables and flowers was relatively high for marginal farmers and
these crops are highly labour intensive. Further, when the sample farmers were
asked whether they changed the cropping pattern in the last 10 years, 32.7 per
cent of the total sample farmers in Tamil Nadu and 24.3 per cent in Karnataka
Vol.15 No.2 Elumalai Kannan: Do Farmers Need Free Electricity? 21

reported such changes primarily due to the fall in groundwater level. Farmers
reported shifting from high water intensive crops like paddy to low water intensive
crops like flowers, vegetables, finger millet, cotton and mulberry.

Table 3: Cropping Pattern by Farm Size Groups

(% of total cropped area)

Crop Marginal Small Medium Large Overall
Karnataka
Cotton 10.6 24.5 33.8 34.5 30.7
Paddy 25.1 22.8 17.4 22.9 22.1
Pulses 9.1 - 11.2 13.1 10.9
Sugarcane 20.8 21.8 10.7 2.8 8.3
Sorghum 14.5 1.0 4.7 7.1 6.8
Pearl millet 0.1 1.0 2.5 3.6 2.8
Sunflower 2.0 - 1.3 3.6 2.6
Finger millet 6.3 6.0 4.7 0.5 2.5
Caster seed 1.5 1.5 0.6 2.7 2.1
Chilli 0.1 4.0 2.5 1.5 1.8
Others* 9.8 17.4 10.4 7.6 9.4
All Crops 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Tamil Nadu
Paddy 53.7 66.4 54.5 69.7 62.1
Pulses 7.6 4.5 15.2 19.5 14.0
Cotton 8.3 13.1 9.4 - 6.4
Coconut 2.1 4.7 5.8 5.4 5.0
Fruits 11.2 1.9 4.3 0.9 3.5
Vegetables 6.2 4.7 2.7 - 2.5
Sugarcane - 1.9 2.5 2.3 2.0
Flowers 4.4 1.3 1.0 0.9 1.4
Finger millet 6.6 - 2.0 0.0 1.5
Others** - 1.4 2.5 1.4 1.6
All Crops 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
Note: * include horse gram, mulberry, ajwana, groundnut, eucalyptus, coconut,
watermelon, onion, sesamum, pepper, tobacco, cow pea and urad.
** Teak, turmeric, samai
22 Journal of Social and Economic Development July-Dec. 2013

Table 4: Area Irrigated by Major Crops

Crop % area irrigated to % share of

total cropped area groundwater irrigation
Karnataka
Cotton 68.0 24.3
Paddy 98.1 36.0
Tur 15.2 33.3
Sugarcane 100.0 33.0
Tamil Nadu
Paddy 100.0 55.0
Coconut 100.0 100.0
Cotton 62.1 81.0
Green Gram 78.6 100.0
Black Gram 86.5 100.0

In fact, irrigation coverage of paddy was almost 100 per cent in both the
states (Table 4). Sugarcane in Karnataka and coconut in Tamil Nadu have also
received 100 per cent irrigation. Cotton is mostly cultivated under rain-fed
conditions in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu with an overall irrigation coverage of
68.0 per cent and 62.1 per cent, respectively. However, in Tamil Nadu wherever
cotton was cultivated in the sample districts it received groundwater irrigation to
the extent of 81 per cent of total irrigated area. Black gram and green gram were
widely cultivated as fallow crops to paddy among the sample farmers in Thanjavur
district of Tamil Nadu. Although these two pulses grow depending on the residual
soil moisture available after the harvest of paddy, farmers also provide
supplementary irrigation through groundwater whenever necessary to increase
the yield. It can be observed that although surface irrigation plays an important
role in Karnataka, the pressure on groundwater resources is high for the cultivation
of paddy and sugarcane. Similarly, a high level of utilisation of groundwater can
be observed in the study areas of Tamil Nadu.

Electricity Subsidy, Equity and Groundwater Depletion

In India, farmers use electricity mainly for energising irrigation pump sets
to extract groundwater. The number of electric tube wells has increased tremendously
over time with the availability of free electricity. The increase in tube wells required
more power connections which increasingly affected the financial condition of the
state electricity boards (Shah 2012). The proliferation of tube wells has led to
competitive extraction of groundwater by farmers with almost zero cost of pumping.
The over-extraction of groundwater results in falling water tables and ultimately
Vol.15 No.2 Elumalai Kannan: Do Farmers Need Free Electricity? 23

leads to well failure. Further, the externalities of electricity subsidy are not equally
shared by different sections of the farming community and accrue to those who
have electricity connections to run the tube wells.
Although the adverse effect of supplying subsidised energy on utilisation
of groundwater is well known, state governments continue to uphold the policy
of free farm power for political reasons2. In fact, the policy on supply of electricity
to the farm sector in Karnataka and Tamil Nadu has undergone considerable
changes over time. In Tamil Nadu, tariffs were charged for agricultural pump sets
on unit rate basis until 1983-84 with differential tariff for big and small farmers.
From 1984-85 to 1990-91, tariff was charged on a flat rate per horse power (HP)
per year. But, from 1991-92 the state government offers free power to the
agricultural sector and the policy of supplying free electricity continues. Similar
policy changes on electricity supply in Karnataka were also launched around the
same time. Actually, in Karnataka, electricity supply to the agricultural sector
was metered till 1991 and thereafter it has been provided free of charge up to 10
HP irrigation pump sets. For using more than 10 HP pump sets, farmers have to
pay ` 30/HP/month as fixed charges and additionally pay ` 1.40 paisa/kWh as
per usage.

Table 5: Distribution of Average Electricity Subsidy

District Marginal Small Medium Large

`/farmer household
Mandya (Karnataka) 7964.5 10137.6 6057.0 5377.8
Raichur (Karnataka) 6898.7 6807.4 7582.2 12276.6
Dharmapuri (Tamil Nadu) 2592.4 2808.9 11701.0 3939.8
Thanjavur (Tamil Nadu) 1751.0 2650.8 17493.7 15909.2
`/acre of pump sets irrigated area
Mandya (Karnataka) 522.3 579.3 504.7 672.2
Raichur (Karnataka) 1061.3 756.4 322.7 209.9
Dharmapuri (Tamil Nadu) 157.1 170.2 220.8 1969.9
Thanjavur (Tamil Nadu) 159.2 135.9 472.8 248.6

In order to understand the distributional aspects of free farm power supply,

the electricity subsidy was calculated for the sample farmers by multiplying the
unit cost of electricity supply with the amount of electricity consumed. The amount
of total electricity consumption was estimated based on the number of hours of
pump set used in a year and its capacity in terms of horse power. Since electricity
was supplied free of cost and there was no recovery from the farmers, the entire
cost of supply was considered as subsidy3.The distribution of electricity subsidy
per farmer household and per acre of pump sets irrigated area is provided in Table
24 Journal of Social and Economic Development July-Dec. 2013

5. Except Mandya, in the other three districts the average electricity subsidy per
farmer household was high for medium and large farmers. It was observed that
relatively a high level of subsidy accrued to marginal and small farmers in Mandya
due to use of high capacity pump sets and long hours of usage by these farmers
for pumping irrigation water.
However, the distribution of electricity subsidy per acre of pump sets
irrigated area is revealing. Except for marginal farmers in Raichur, the average
subsidy per acre was high for large farmers in Mandya and Dharmapuri, and
medium farmers in Thanjavur. The average subsidy per acre for these farmer
groups worked out to ` 672 in Mandya, ` 1,969.9 in Dharmapuri and ` 472.8 in
Thanjavur. Although this analysis shows that there are differences in the
distribution of subsidies between the districts in both the states, it is difficult to
argue that the electricity subsidy favours the developed region only. However, it
can be understood that electricity subsidy accrues only to those farmers who have
electricity connection and own a tube-well on their farms4. Therefore, electricity
subsidy benefited only a part of the farming community even in irrigated areas.
Among those who benefited from free power supply, most belonged to the medium
and large land holding categories in Tamil Nadu. But in Karnataka, it also benefited
the marginal and small farmers due to the differential tariff pattern existing for
different capacity pump sets. Howes and Murgai (2003) also came to similar
conclusions in their study on electricity subsidy that not all farmers cultivate
irrigated lands and even in irrigated areas not everyone benefits from electricity
subsidy.
Although electricity is supplied free of cost to the agricultural sector,
farmers were not happy with the quality of electricity supplied in terms of hours
of supply per day and faced frequent voltage fluctuations, which resulted in high
cost of maintenance of pump sets. The sample farmers in both the states reported
power availability for about 4-5 hours a day with heavy voltage fluctuations.
Because of heavy voltage fluctuations in the study area, farmers incurred average
repair cost of ` 6,000 per year. Frequent power cuts and discontinuous supply
were the other common problems reported by the sample farmers. These problems
often result in pump set burnouts. Pump set burnouts occur not only due to the
poor quality of electricity, but also due to inefficient or cheap quality pump sets
available in the market. Since electricity has been highly subsidised or free in
most Indian states, there was no incentive for manufacturers to produce good
quality and environment-friendly pump sets (Sant and Dixit 1996).
Nevertheless, the use of diesel pump sets among the sample farmers was
mostly limited to dry regions only. But, interestingly some farmers owned both
diesel engine and electric pump sets mainly for three reasons. First, diesel engines
are cheaper than electric ones; second, to avoid high repair cost of electric pump
Vol.15 No.2 Elumalai Kannan: Do Farmers Need Free Electricity? 25

sets and third, to be able to use a diesel engine for irrigation purposes anytime
during the day without relying on supply of electricity. Given the limited use of
diesel engines for irrigation purpose, an increase in the price of diesel may not
affect the exploitation of groundwater at least in these two states under study, but
may impact the operational cost of use of other agricultural machineries like tractors
and harvesters.

Table 6: Awareness about Excess Use of Electricity and

Groundwater Depletion

(% farmers reported)

Particulars Marginal Small Medium Large Overall

Karnataka
Aware of environmental 86.8 73.1 80.0 90.9 82.9
problems due to excess use
Decline in water table 68.6 42.1 35.0 30.0 47.9
High repair and 14.3 5.3 15.0 10.0 11.7
maintenance cost
Tamil Nadu
Aware of environmental 95.1 95.0 95.2 90.0 94.6
problems due to excess use
Decline in water table 61.5 84.6 89.5 85.7 76.9
High repair and 54.2 81.8 93.8 60.0 71.4
maintenance cost

One of the biggest fallouts of supply of subsidised inputs as popularly

perceived is that it leads to excess use of inputs. Excess use has many environmental
hazards. About 94.6 per cent farmers in Tamil Nadu and 82.9 per cent farmers in
Karnataka were aware of the fact that excess use of energy may cause environmental
damage (Table 6). The sample farmers in both the states reported a decline in water
table due to over-drawing of groundwater, which in turn was attributed to free
power supply. The farmers also reported high cost of repair and maintenance of
tube wells as a result of overuse and poor quality electricity.
Therefore, incensed over the frequent power cuts and voltage spikes,
and concerned over the indiscriminate application of groundwater and falling
water table, a majority of the sample farmers did not want the free electricity
supplied by the government. About 91.5 per cent and 83.7 per cent of the sample
farmers in Tamil Nadu and Karnataka respectively expressed willingness to pay
for electricity (Table 7). While expressing willingness to pay, farmers mentioned
a precondition that they should get good quality power supply. Presently, the
26 Journal of Social and Economic Development July-Dec. 2013

sample farmers are dismayed that they neither get adequate supply nor quality.
Interrupted power supply was one of the reasons for the farmers to keep visiting
the fields at odd hours to switch on and switch off the pump sets and sometimes
they keep it on to avoid frequent trips to the field. Thus, it leads to over-drawing of
water and pump sets burn out. Hence, the farmers are willing to pay for electricity
in order to reduce their woes and improve crop production.

Table 7: Choice of Electricity Pricing Method

(% farmers reported)
Category Karnataka Tamil Nadu
Farmers willing to pay 83.7 91.5
Opted for metering 4.1 11.9
Opted for flat rate 79.6 79.7
Opted for free power 16.3 8.5
Willingness to pay for metering*
Less than Re 1/unit 100 100
` 1-2/unit 0.0 0.0
` 2-3/unit 0.0 0.0
Willingness to pay for flat rate/Hp/Yr#
Less than ` 250 32.5 75.0
` 250-300 42.5 22.9
` 300-350 20.0 2.1
` 350-400 5.0 0.0
Note: *Out of those who have opted for metering # Out of those who have
opted for flat rate

Since the farmers were willing to pay for use of electricity for irrigation
purpose, they were asked which method of pricing they would prefer install a
meter and pay as per usage or pay a flat rate per year. Almost an equal number of
sample farmers (80 per cent) in both the states opted for flat rate and the rest for
metering. The reason for choosing a flat rate was that they can use electricity
judiciously without bothering to pay every month as in the case of metering. Over
three-fourths of the sample farmers in Tamil Nadu were willing to pay a flat rate
of less than Rs. 250/ HP/year and 23 per cent from ` 250 to ` 300. In Karnataka,
a high proportion of farmers (42.5 per cent) were willing to pay from ` 250-300/
HP/year, while 32.5 per cent wanted to pay less than ` 250. Therefore, it is clear
that a relatively high proportion of sample farmers are willing to pay to get better
quality power supply and thereby prevent over-exploitation of groundwater.
Vol.15 No.2 Elumalai Kannan: Do Farmers Need Free Electricity? 27

Conclusion
The present study examined the farmers perception on free farm power-
groundwater link and their access to electricity subsidy in southern India. The
field survey data showed that the sample farmers cultivated different types of
crops, which are irrigated by surface and groundwater sources. The share of
groundwater irrigation in the total irrigated area was higher for paddy, cotton,
sugarcane and coconut. About 91 per cent of farmers in Karnataka and 58 per
cent in Tamil Nadu had access to groundwater resources. Most farmers recognised
that excess use of energy leads to environmental damage. The sample farmers in
the study area reported a decline in water table due to over-drawing of groundwater
which in turn was attributed to free power supply. A high proportion of sample
farmers wanted the government to stop supplying free electricity and expressed
willingness to pay for its use. However, it remains a tricky issue for the political
class which is under the illusion that farmers still require free power and therefore
refuse to take bold steps.

Notes
1
Based on the stage of ground water development, which is estimated as the ratio of net
draft to net availability, the ground water scenario of the assessment (hydrological)
units is classified as safe (<70%), semi-critical (70-90%), critical (90-100%) and over-
exploited (>100%). According to CGWB (2011), Karnataka has Net Annual Groundwater
Availability of 14.81 billion cubic metres (BCM) and the Annual Ground Water Draft
of 10.01 BCM. So, the Stage of Groundwater Development is calculated at 68 per cent.
Out of the 270 hydrological units assessed, 71 was categorized as over-exploited, 11 as
critical, 34 as semi critical and 154 as safe. In case of Tamil Nadu, Net Annual
Groundwater Availability has been estimated at 20.65 BCM with stage of ground water
development at 80 per cent leaving a limited scope for further development of
groundwater resources. Out of 386 units assessed, 39 are over-exploited, 33 critical, 67
semi-critical and 136 safe.
2
Political parties are afraid of losing the strong rural vote banks if they meddle with free
supply of agricultural inputs including electricity. However, the government recovers
the electricity subsidy to agriculture by cross subsidising it through charging higher
tariffs for industrial and commercial users.
3
For Karnataka, the estimated cost of supply or tariff on irrigation pump sets was compiled
from the Karnataka Electricity Regulatory Commission (KERC) for the year 2010-11.
The average cost of supply for Mandya district was ` 3.38 per unit and for Raichur
district it was ` 3.58 per unit. Similarly, the cost of supply was ` 4.89 per unit for Tamil
Nadu which was determined by the Tamil Nadu Electricity Regulatory Commission.
4
It was found among the sample farmers that 54.6 percent in Tamil Nadu and 43.8 per
cent in Karnataka owned electric pump sets irrigating 48.7 per cent and 18.8 per cent of
the total cropped area in the respective states.
28 Journal of Social and Economic Development July-Dec. 2013

References
CGWB (2011). Dynamic Groundwater Resources of India (As on 31 March 2009).
Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India.
Chand, R, P Kumar and S Kumar (2011). Total Factor Productivity and
Contribution of Research Investment to Agricultural Growth in India.
Policy Paper 25. New Delhi: National Centre for Agricultural Economics
and Policy Research (NCAP).
Fan, S, P Hazell and S Thorat (1999). Linkages between Government Spending,
Growth and Poverty in Rural India. Research Report 110. Washington,
D.C.: International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI).
Gandhi, V P and N V Namboodri (2009). Groundwater Irrigation in India: Gains,
Cost and Risks. Working Paper No. 2009-03-08. Ahmedabad: Indian
Institute of Management.
Howes, S and R Murgai (2003). Incidence of Agricultural Power Subsidies: An
Estimate. Economic and Political Weekly, XXXVIII (16): 1533-35.
Kannan, E (2011). Total Factor Productivity Growth and its Determinants in
Karnataka Agriculture. ISEC Working Paper No. 265. Bangalore: Institute
for Social and Economic Change.
Mukherji, A (2007). The Energy-irrigation Nexus and its Impact on Groundwater
Markets in Eastern Indo-Gangetic Basin. Energy Policy, XXXV (12):
6413-30.
Nagaraj, N and M G Chandrakanth (1997). Intra- and Inter-Generational Equity
Effects of Irrigation Well Failures: Farmers in Hard Rock Areas of India.
Economic and Political Weekly, XXXII (13): A41-A44.
Sant, G and S Dixi (1996). Beneficiaries of IPS Subsidy and Impact of Tariff
Hike. Economic and Political Weekly, XXXI (51): 3315-21.
Shah, T (2007). Crop Per Drop of Diesel? Energy Squeeze on Indias Smallholder
Irrigation. Economic and Political Weekly, XLII (39): 4002-09.
(2012). Political Economy of the Energy-Groundwater Nexus in
India: Exploring Issues and Assessing Policy Options. Paper presented
at a National Seminar on Imperatives of Sustainable Farm Sector
Development in the Backdrop of Globalisation, Poverty and Employment.
Ahmedabad: Sardar Patel Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Shah, T, S Bhatt, R K Shah and J Talati (2008). Groundwater Governance through
Electricity Supply Management: Assessing an Innovative Intervention
in Gujarat, Western India. Agricultural Water Management, XCV (11):
1233-42.