Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Assessing Water Footprints and Virtual Water Flows in Gomti River Basin of India


Affiliations
1 ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre, Ranchi 834 010, India
2 Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
 

This article analyses the blue, green and grey water footprints and virtual water flows within the Gomti river basin (GRB) in India. Assessments were made at spatial resolution of agricultural production units (APUs). An APU is a homogeneous spatial unit delineated on the basis of soil type, agro-ecological region and district boundaries. Water footprints of crop production and consumption were compared to arrive at virtual water balance within the GRB. Results show that water footprint of GRB was 12,773 million m3 year–1. Crop production was the largest water consumer accounting for 95.5% of water footprint within the basin. The higher proportion of blue water footprint (47.3%) indicates the dependence of GRB on irrigated agriculture. Contribution of rainfed agriculture to total water footprint was about 11.2%. Considerable portion of blue water is used in the production of low value water-intensive crops. The GRB was assessed as a net virtual water importer, indicating its dependence on the water resources of other river basins; it imports 2945 million m3 virtual water annually. This scenario can be changed if the area allocated to different water-intensive crops is optimized and limited to the extent that meets the consumption needs within the basin, leading to reduction in production surplus of these crops.

Keywords

Economic Water Productivity, River Basin, Virtual Water Flow, Water Footprint.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • Postel, S. L., Daily, G. C. and Ehrlich, P. R., Human appropriation of renewable freshwater. Science, 1996, 271(5250), 785–788.

  • Vorosmarty, C. J. et al., Global threats to human water security and river biodiversity. Nature, 2010, 467, 555–561.

  • UNICEF, FAO and SaciWATERs, Water in India: Situation and Prospects, 2013, p. 91.

  • Hoekstra, A. Y. and Chapagain, A. K., Water footprints of nations: water use by people as function of their consumption pattern. Water Res. Manage, 2007, 21, 35–48.

  • Liu, J. and Savenije, H. H. G., Food consumption patterns and their effect on water requirement in China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 2008, 12(3), 887–898.

  • Hoekstra, A. Y., Chapagain, A. K., Aldaya, M. M. and Mekonnen, M. M., The water footprint assessment manual: setting the global standard 2011, Earthscan, London, UK.

  • Zeng, Z., Liu, J., Koeneman, P. H., Zarate, E. and Hoekstra, A. Y., Assessing water footprint at river basin level: a case study for the Heihe River Basin in northwest China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 2012, 16, 2771–2781.

  • Aldaya, M. M., Munoz, G. and Hoekstra, A. Y., Water footprint of cotton, wheat and rice production in Central Asia. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 41, UNESCO–IHE, Delft, The Netherlands, 2010.

  • MOWR, Draft National Water Policy 2012, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India (GoI), 2012; www.mowr.gov.in (accessed on 15 June 2012).

  • Dietzenbacher, E. and Velazquez, E., Analysing Andalusian virtual water trade in an input–output framework. Reg. Stud., 2007, 41, 185–196.

  • Aldaya, M. M. and Llamas, M. R., Water footprint analysis for the Guadiana river basin. Value of Water Research Report Series No. 35, UNESCO–IHE Delft, The Netherlands, 2008.

  • Liu, C., Carolien K., Hoekstra, A. Y. and Leenes, W. G., Past and future trends in grey water footprints of anthropogenic nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to major world rivers. Ecol. Indic., 2012, 18, 42–49.

  • Roy, R. and Ahmad, H., State agricultural profile of Uttar Pradesh, Agro-Economic Research Centre, University of Allahabad, 2015.

  • IISR, Water use efficient technologies for improving productivity and sustainability of sugarcane, Final Report of FPARP, Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, Lucknow, 2011.

  • Srivastava, S. K. and Kumar Rand Singh, R. P., Extent of groundwater extraction and irrigation efficiency on farms under different water-market regimes in central Uttar Pradesh. Agric. Econ. Res. Rev., 2009, 22, 87–97.

  • MOA, Agricultural Statistics at a Glance-2011. Department of Economics and Statistics, Ministry of Agriculture, GoI, 2012; eands.dacnet.nic.in (accessed on July 2012).

  • ISRO, Bhuvan Thematic Data Services, ISRO’s Geoportal Gateway to Indian earth observation data products and Services, 2012; www.bhuvan.nrsc.gov.in (data received 8 March 2012).

  • IndiaStat, India’s comprehensive statistics information portal. 2013; www.indiastat.com (accessed on 5 March 2013).

  • Mali, S. S., Singh, D. K., Sarangi, A., Khanna, M., Parihar, S. S. and Das, D. K., Variability mapping of crop evapotranspiration for water footprint assessment at basin level. Indian J. Soil Conserv., 2015, 43(1), 255–259.

  • Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D. and Smith, M., Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 1998.

  • FAO, CROPWAT 8.0, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy, 2012; www.fao.org (accessed 1 March 2012).

  • NICRA-ICAR, District wise daily weather data. National Initiative on Climate Resilient Agriculture, Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi; http://www.nicra-icar.in (accessed on 11 July 2012).

  • Doorenbos, J. and Kassam, A. H., Yield response to water. FAOIrrigation and Drainage Paper No. 33. Rome, FAO, Italy, 1979.

  • NSSO, Household consumption of various goods and services in India, NSS 66th Round, National Statistical Organization, National Sample Survey Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation, GoI, Report No. 541, 2012 (66/1.0/3).

  • Shukla, B. D. and Patil, R. T., Post-harvest management – fights hunger with FAO. India Grains, 2002, 4(3), 20–22.

  • Savenije, H. H. G., Water scarcity indicators; the deception of the numbers. Phys. Chem. Earth, Part B. 2000, 25, 199–204.

  • Liu, J., Zehnder, A. J. B. and Yang, H., Global consumptive water use for crop production: the importance of green water and virtual water. Water Resour. Res., 2009, 45, 05428.

  • Kanwar, R. S., Baker, J. L. and Laflin, J. M., Nitrate movement through the soil profile in relationship to tillage system and fertilizer application method. Trans. ASAE, 1986, 31(2), 453– 460.

  • Chowdhary, V. M., Rao, N. H. and Sarma, P. B. S., A coupled soil water and nitrogen balance model for flooded rice fields in India. Agric. Ecosyst. Env., 2004, 103, 425–441.


Abstract Views: 317

PDF Views: 109




  • Assessing Water Footprints and Virtual Water Flows in Gomti River Basin of India

Abstract Views: 317  |  PDF Views: 109

Authors

Santosh S. Mali
ICAR-Research Complex for Eastern Region, Research Centre, Ranchi 834 010, India
D. K. Singh
Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
A. Sarangi
Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India
S. S. Parihar
Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110 012, India

Abstract


This article analyses the blue, green and grey water footprints and virtual water flows within the Gomti river basin (GRB) in India. Assessments were made at spatial resolution of agricultural production units (APUs). An APU is a homogeneous spatial unit delineated on the basis of soil type, agro-ecological region and district boundaries. Water footprints of crop production and consumption were compared to arrive at virtual water balance within the GRB. Results show that water footprint of GRB was 12,773 million m3 year–1. Crop production was the largest water consumer accounting for 95.5% of water footprint within the basin. The higher proportion of blue water footprint (47.3%) indicates the dependence of GRB on irrigated agriculture. Contribution of rainfed agriculture to total water footprint was about 11.2%. Considerable portion of blue water is used in the production of low value water-intensive crops. The GRB was assessed as a net virtual water importer, indicating its dependence on the water resources of other river basins; it imports 2945 million m3 virtual water annually. This scenario can be changed if the area allocated to different water-intensive crops is optimized and limited to the extent that meets the consumption needs within the basin, leading to reduction in production surplus of these crops.

Keywords


Economic Water Productivity, River Basin, Virtual Water Flow, Water Footprint.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv115%2Fi4%2F721-728