Environ Dev Sustain

DOI 10.1007/s10668-006-9073-0

ORIGINAL PAPER

Watershed development in India. 2. New approaches

for managing externalities and meeting sustainability
requirements

Ian Calder Æ Ashvin Gosain Æ

M. S. Rama Mohan Rao Æ Charles Batchelor Æ
James Garratt Æ Emma Bishop

Received: 19 June 2006 / Accepted: 8 August 2006

! Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2006

Abstract This paper recognises the need for a revision of watershed development
policy in India in relation to the planning of development interventions involving
agricultural intensification and rainwater harvesting and the need for new ap-
proaches to assist the planning process. Building on, and using as an example, the
results of biophysical and societal impact studies carried out on two watershed
development projects in Karnataka three new management/dissemination tools, are
suggested. These are (1) the web-based geographical information systems explor-
atory, climate land assessment and impact management tool dissemination tool for
disseminating to policymakers and non-specialist stakeholders the downstream
impacts of watershed interventions, (2) the ‘quadrant’ approach for ensuring that
sustainability criteria are met and (3) Bayesian networks to investigate the bio-
physical and societal impacts of interventions.

Keywords Bayesian networks Æ Dissemination tool Æ Externality Æ

Management tools Æ Rainwater harvesting Æ Sustainable water resources Æ
Watershed management

Abbreviations
BIRDS Bijapur integrated rural development society (an NGO for the
Inchigeri area)

Readers should send their comments on this paper to BhaskarNath@aol.com within 3 months of
publication of this issue

I. Calder (&) Æ C. Batchelor Æ J. Garratt Æ E. Bishop

Centre for Land use and Water Resources Research, University of Newcastle, Newcastle Upon
Tyne NE1 7RU, UK
e-mail: i.r.calder@ncl.ac.uk

A. Gosain
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi, India

M. S. R. M. Rao
Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha, Bangalore, India
123
 I. Calder et al.

CLUWRR Centre for Land Use and Water Resources Research

DFID Department for International Development
EXCLAIM EXploratory, Climate Land Assessment and Impact Management tool
SWAT Soil Water Assessment Tool
G/B Green and Blue water
GIS Geographical Information Systems
HYLUC HYdrological Land Use Change
JSYS Jala Samvardhane Yojana Sangha, a World Bank programme
responsible for implementing the Karnataka community-based tank
management project
KAWAD Karnataka Watershed Development Society
SCS Soil Conservation Service
SWC Soil and Water Conservation

1 Introduction

Concerns have been raised in an earlier paper (I. R. Calder et al., 2007, submitted)
that structural water retention interventions within watershed development projects
may not always have the intended beneficial impacts on water availability and
people’s livelihoods (see also: Batchelor, Singh, Rama Mohan Rao, & Butterworth,
2002; Batchelor, Rama Mohan Rao, & Manohare Rao, 2003; Rama Mohan Rao
et al., 2003; ETC, 2004; Sakthivadivel & Scott, 2005; Sharma & Scott, 2005).
These concerns are exemplified by two studies that investigated the water flows
and societal impacts of watershed interventions in Department for International
Development (DFID) and World Bank funded watershed development projects in
southern India, at Inchigeri and Mustoor. It was concluded that the general inten-
sification of agricultural activities is the cause of the reduction in catchment flows
now observed throughout much of India. The intensification results from the con-
struction of rainwater harvesting structures, tank rehabilitation, increased areas
under irrigation using borewell water, increased areas under forestry and other
farming activities which might involve field levelling and field bunding, on rainfed as
well as irrigated areas, and increased areas under horticulture.
Because of these changes to the environment it is believed that methodologies for
planning watershed interventions, which were appropriate perhaps three decades
ago are no longer appropriate under present day conditions of much reduced
catchment flows.
New planning tools and methodologies are required and this paper describes
three new approaches, which have been developed to assist the planning process.
These are (1) the web-based geographical information systems (GIS) EXploratory
Climate Land Assessment and Impact Management (EXCLAIM) dissemination
tool for disseminating to policy makers and non-specialist stakeholders the down-
stream impacts of watershed interventions, (2) the ‘quadrant’ approach for ensuring
sustainability criteria are met and (3) Bayesian networks to investigate the bio-
physical and societal impacts of structural interventions.
Traditional engineering methodologies based on the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) method are reviewed and it is suggested that these methods, which have the
123
Watershed development in India

great advantages of simplicity and robustness, will need to be adapted and recali-
brated for present day conditions if their use is to be continued.

2 The geographical information system-based exploratory climate land assessment

and impact management tool

The GIS-based EXCLAIM tool has been developed as a means for disseminating
knowledge of land and water interactions to policy makers.
The tool has been applied to demonstrate the impacts of catchment interventions
including changes in forest cover, irrigation and soil water conservation structures in
a range of countries including India, South Africa and Costa Rica (Calder, 2005).
Where the appropriate socio-economic data are available the tool can also dem-
onstrate how spatial changes in land use impact on job opportunities and economic
production values.
The tool can also demonstrate the effects of climatic variability. This allows the
impacts of different land use change scenarios to be investigated for not only an
average rainfall year, but also, through the use of a ‘slider’, a range of rainfall years.
The slider allows anything from the driest to the wettest years in an historical record
to be selected by moving the slider over the range of 5–95% rain years.
A new development of the EXCLAIM tool involves the joint incorporation of
sliders which determine the extent of irrigation and forested areas within a catch-
ment, and of a slider which controls the extent of tank storage and soil-water con-
servation measures within a catchment. Together these sliders show:
• How different land uses determine the sustainability of the catchment with re-
spect to evaporative water loss and how large areas under irrigation, or combi-
nations of areas under irrigation and forestry, can lead to unsustainable rates of
evaporation that exceed the precipitation input.
• That increasing tank storage and densities of rainwater harvesting and soil-water
retention structures will reduce annual flows from a catchment.
The impact of changing the proportion of forest and irrigated areas, through
movement of the respective sliders, is indicated by changes in the overall evapora-
tion from the catchment (changes in the green up arrow), with corresponding
changes in the blue water flow (blue horizontal and vertical arrows indicating surface
and groundwater flows, respectively). The arrow representing net groundwater re-
charge is shown as a blue down pointing arrow when the recharge is positive and a
red upward pointing arrow when net recharge is negative, i.e. when the net
abstraction due to groundwater abstraction for irrigation exceeds the groundwater
recharge taking place over the catchment. Note that a negative net recharge indi-
cates a depleting groundwater table.
The impact of different densities of water retention structures or tank capacities
on surface, groundwater flows and evaporative flows (as a result of increased
evaporation from water retained behind the structures) can be investigated through
movement of the ‘tank storage’ slider. Moving this slider changes the storage from
0% capacity (representing tanks which are entirely silted), to 60% (representing a
typical present day scenario), to 100% (representing a desilted tank) to 120%
(representing desilted and deepened tanks).

123
 I. Calder et al.

All the above combinations of land use and tank storage scenarios can be
investigated under different climate scenarios through the use of the ‘climate’ slider
which allows selection of various climate scenarios, including the median rainfall
year and ranging from the one in five wettest year to the one in five drought year.
Figure 1 shows the EXCLAIM tool applied to the Mustoor Catchment showing
‘present case’ scenarios of areas under tree crops, irrigation, and tank storage for a
median rainfall scenario. For this scenario the tool indicates that net groundwater
recharge is negative and surface flows out of the Bairekur tank (last tank in cascade)
are zero.
The surface and groundwater flows that would result under different climate
scenarios representing the one in five wettest and one in five driest years are shown
in Figs. 2 and 3.
These visualisations demonstrate that the Mustoor tanks, under present land use
scenarios, even in the silted state, have sufficient storage to capture all flows except
in the wettest years.
Changes in land use would be required for flows out of the catchment to be
restored for an average or medium rainfall year. Figure 4 shows that the extreme
scenario of reducing irrigated area to zero will result in positive groundwater re-
charge and outflow from the catchment.

Fig. 1 Current state of development of the EXCLAIM tool for the Mustoor Catchment showing
‘present case’ scenarios of areas under tree crops, irrigation and tank storage for a median rainfall
scenario. For this scenario the tool indicates that net groundwater recharge is negative and surface
flows out of the Bairekur tank (last tank in cascade) are zero. Total blue water flows (Surface plus
groundwater) from the catchment are negative
123
Watershed development in India

Fig. 2 EXCLAIM visualisation of the Mustoor Catchment showing ‘present case’ scenarios of areas
under tree crops, irrigation and tank storage for a one in five wettest year rainfall scenario. Net
groundwater recharge is positive and positive surface flows indicate some surface flows from the
Bairekur tank. Total blue water flows from the catchment are positive

Fig. 3 EXCLAIM visualisation of the Mustoor Catchment showing ‘present case’ scenarios of areas
under tree crops, irrigation and tank storage for a one in five driest year rainfall scenario. Net
groundwater recharge is negative and there are zero outflows from the Bairekur tank. Total blue
water flows from the catchment are negative

123
 I. Calder et al.

Fig. 4 EXCLAIM visualisation of the Mustoor Catchment showing a ‘present case’ scenario of
areas under tree crops and tank storage but for zero area under irrigation and a median rainfall
scenario. Total blue water flows from the catchment are positive

3 A proposed ‘quadrant’ approach to managing green water (evaporation) and blue

water (liquid) flows from a catchment

Many watershed development programmes have produced significant benefits for

some social groups through the promotion of rainwater harvesting, forestry and
groundwater-based irrigation. But these interventions all tend to increase evapora-
tion and reduce water yields from catchments. Thus the questions arise:
• Under what circumstances might these interventions result in beneficial or
untoward outcomes?
• How can a balance between high and low water using land uses be achieved to
achieve long-term sustainability of water use and the maintenance of down-
stream and environmental flows.
It is suggested that to resolve this question consideration should be given to two
issues:
(1) The sustainability of land uses within the watershed with respect to evaporative
use. It is important to determine if (in the absence of any bulk transfers of
water into the watershed) the long-term precipitation (P) exceeds the total
long-term evaporation (E) from the different land uses, i.e. to determine if
P > E.
(2) Whether surface flows (Qs), exceed an agreed minimum flow (Qm). Minimum
flow criteria could be defined variously. Conventionally this would be defined
in terms of an agreed seasonal or annual minimum volume flow. Alternatively,
for reservoired catchments, criteria could be defined in terms of return periods

123
Watershed development in India

of surface flow exiting the catchment, for example a 1 year, or a more severe
criterion of say, 5 years. The (Qs-Qm) criteria could then be regarded as po-
sitive, if the return period for flows was less than 1 or 5 years. This definition
would then approximate conditions, if there are reservoirs in the watershed, of
whether or not the final reservoir (or tank using Indian terminology) has spilt
within the last year or has spilt within the last 5 years.

The four combinations resulting from this analysis indicate preferred options for
the management of evaporation from land uses and for the management of surface
flows. Using the green and blue water (G/B) terminology derived by Falkenmark
(1995), these could be referred to as the G/B management options:
(1) P > E, Qs > 0.
Green water management: Opportunities for enlarged areas of land uses with
increased evaporation, e.g. irrigated areas and forestry.
Blue water management: Benefits may be gained from further soil and water
conservation (SWC) measures and water retention structures. Consider increasing
density of structures, rehabilitate structures.
(2) P < E, Qs > 0.
Green water management: Reduce areas of land uses with increased evaporation,
e.g. reduce irrigation and forestry. Consider increasing areas of ‘water providing’
land uses such as dryland agriculture.
Blue water management: Only local benefits (at the expense of downstream users)
will be gained from further SWC measures and water retention structures. Consider
increasing efficiency of existing structures through measures such as deepening
(reduces evaporative losses by reducing the surface to volume ratio).
(3) P < E, Qs = 0.
Green water management: Reduce areas of land uses with increased evaporation,
e.g. reduce irrigation and forestry. Consider increasing areas of ‘water providing’
land uses such as dryland agriculture.
Blue water management: No overall benefits from further SWC measures and
water retention structures. Consider reducing density of structures and/or increasing
efficiency of existing structures through measures such as deepening.
(4) P > E, Qs = 0.
Green water management: Opportunities for expanding areas of land uses asso-
ciated with high evaporation, e.g. irrigated areas and forestry.
Blue water management: No overall benefits from further SWC measures and
water retention structures. Consider reducing density of structures and/or increasing
efficiency of existing structures through measures such as deepening.
These outcomes can be illustrated with a quadrant diagram, as shown in Fig. 5.
This approach, shown in the ‘quadrant’ diagram, Fig. 5, may help to direct
development funds to those situations where further structural measures are likely to
have an overall benefit (quadrant 1) and to scale back investments in catchments
which are approaching conditions of catchment closure (quadrants 3 and 4). The
approach also makes clear the interconnecting management options regarding G/B
management and shows that in quadrants 2 and 3 development efforts would
be much better directed at green water management by reducing catchment
evaporation losses, than by managing blue water through further water retention
measures.

123
 I. Calder et al.

Positive (Qs-Qm)
2 1
P<E, Qs>Qm P>E, Qs>Qm

G/B management: G/B management:

!Reduce irrigation, forestry !Increase irrigation, forestry
!Possible increase in SWC !Increase SWC

Negative (P-E) Positive (P-E)

4
Negative (Qs-Qm)
3
P<E, Qs<Qm P>E, Qs<Qm

G/B management: G/B management:

!Reduce irrigation, forestry !Increase irrigation, forestry

!Limit/reduce SWC !Limit/reduce SWC

Fig. 5 Catchment conditions, which can be used to identify green and blue water management
options and whether benefits would be derived from further soil water conservation measures and
water retention structures

4 Bayesian networks

4.1 Relevance of Bayesian networks

Many biophysical and societal factors have to be considered when developing and
implementing watershed management strategies. Some of these factors are distinct
and relatively easy to monitor and analyse, such as rainfall and population, whereas
others, whilst being equally important, are much more difficult to define and quantify
such as awareness, resistance to change and social cohesion. Bayesian networks, also
known as Belief networks, provide a methodology for representing and analysing
relationships between variables. The methodology is particularly relevant to water
management and the understanding of societal impacts because it works well even if
these relationships involve uncertainty, unpredictability or imprecision.
Bayesian networks have been piloted under the Jala Samvardhane Yojana
Sangha and Sujala watershed development projects to:
• Reach a common understanding amongst stakeholders on the nature and causal
linkages between biophysical and societal factors central to the success of the
projects.
• Investigate the potential to improve strategic and tactical land and water man-
agement decision-making at a range of spatial and temporal scales. Both projects
routinely collect large amounts of information and first indications are that
Bayesian Network analysis can help the projects make much better use of this
information.
123
Watershed development in India

4.2 Prototype Bayesian networks

Figures 6 and 7 are examples of prototype Bayesian networks that have been
developed to support decision-making in relation to:
• The appropriate level of desiltation from tanks that are part of a cascade system.
• The potential impact of agricultural intensification (including drainage-line and
in-field water harvesting) on the inflows into individual tanks and tanks in a
cascade system.
• The combined impacts of project interventions on the utility of individual tanks
and on the utility of tanks down a cascade system.
The main design criteria for the prototype networks are that:
• The nodes should be characterised to represent the disaggregated impacts of the
project interventions.
• The nodes should be populated with data that are routinely collected by wa-
tershed development projects.
• The networks should be sufficiently simple that a numerate graduate could start
using them after 2–3 h training.
Figures 6 and 7 shows the layout of the prototype networks with nodes (or fac-
tors) that represent project interventions highlighted in yellow and green, respec-
tively. When the networks are used operationally on a computer different
intervention strategies can be evaluated by simply altering values or probability
distributions. Most importantly, different intervention strategies can be evaluated
for a range of climatic conditions or for extreme conditions (e.g. flood and drought
years). More information on the use of Bayesian Network software can be found on
the Norsys website (1995–2006 copyright). A discussion of the potential benefits of
using Bayesian networks to improve water management can be found in Batchelor
and Cain (1999) and Cain, Batchelor, and Waughray (1999).

5 Water resource assessment and the soil conservation service method

A deficiency in the design of many current watershed development projects in India

is that often no water resource assessments are made prior to the installation of
water harvesting structures. Ideally assessments should be carried out to take ac-
count of the volumes of water retained in existing structures in relation to available
water resources and minimum flow requirements before further structures are in-
stalled. Where available water resources have decreased through agricultural
intensification, catchments, which might in the past have been considered as having
optimal design in terms of the density of rainwater harvesting structures, may now be
‘over engineered’.
Where assessments are carried out one of the common methods for calculating
inflows of water to rainwater harvesting structures is the (SCS) method. The method
was developed in the USA and has been adapted, based on soil type, to various
regions in India. In India, surface runoff is generally calculated using a specific
Indian curve number derived from locally determined rainfall runoff relationships
(Tideman, 1999). The method is simple and robust and works well under regimes for
which it has been calibrated. However earlier calibration of the method in India will
123
 Prototype Bayesian Network (developed using d ata f rom Inchigeri Tank)
Rainfall
100 to 200 5.41
Sujala Project
200 to 300 8.11
300 to 400 13.5 Water harvesting intensity

123
400 to 500 29.7 0 to 5 0
500 to 600 21.6 5 to 10 100
600 to 700 5.41 10 to 15 0
700 to 800 2.70 15 to 20 0
800 to 900 5.41 Water use efficiency Agricultural value (Rs lak...
900 to 1000 5.41 7.5 ± 1.4
0 to 25 0 0 to 0.25 0
1000 to 1100 2.70 25 to 50 0 0.25 to 0.5 0
5.1e+002 ± 2.1e+002 50 to 75 100 0.5 to 0.75 100
75 to 100 0 0.75 to 1 0
JSYS Project 62.5 ± 7.2 0.625 ± 0.072

Agricultural value (Rs lak...

0 to 0.25 0 Tank spillage
Water harvested by struc...
0.25 to 0.5 0 0 to 10 65.4 Net benefit (lRs lakhs)
0.5 to 0.75 100 0 to 10 21.9
10 to 20 0 0 31.2
0.75 to 1 0 10 to 20 46.8
20 to 30 19.2 10 65.6
20 to 30 23.8
0.625 ± 0.072 30 to 40 9.73 20 3.11
30 to 40 7.30
40 to 50 5.68 30 0
40 to 50 0.27
50 to 60 0 40 0
50 to 60 0
60 to 70 0 50 0
60 to 70 0
70 to 80 0 60 0
70 to 80 0
Water use efficiency 80 to 90 0 70 0
80 to 90 0
90 to 100 0 150 0
0 to 25 0 90 to 100 0
100 to 110 0 7.2 ± 5.1
25 to 50 100 16.7 ± 9.1
50 to 75 0 14 ± 13
75 to 100 0
37.5 ± 7.2
Water use efficiency Agricultural value (Rs lak...
Tank inflow
0 to 25 0 0 to 0.25 0
0 to 10 20.3 25 to 50 0
10 to 20 0 0.25 to 0.5 0
50 to 75 0 0.5 to 0.75 100
Net benefit (lRs lakhs) 20 to 30 7.03 75 to 100 100
30 to 40 33.8 0.75 to 1 0
0 70.2 87.5 ± 7.2
10 29.2 40 to 50 20.0 0.625 ± 0.072
20 0.57 50 to 60 4.32
30 0 60 to 70 5.95
70 to 80 6.76 Net benefit (lRs lakhs)
40 0
50 0 80 to 90 1.89 0 18.2
60 0 90 to 100 0 10 5.54
70 0 100 to 110 0 20 49.7 Total benefit (lRs lakhs)
150 0 110 to 120 0 30 15.6
120 to 130 0 40 7.81 0 15.3
3 ± 4.7 130 to 140 0 10 6.06
50 3.05
60 0 20 13.0
37 ± 21
70 0 30 31.7
150 0 40 12.8
50 9.76
20 ± 12 60 6.59
70 4.70
150 0
30 ± 19

Fish production value

0 20.3
0.1 60.8
0.2 17.8
Enviro-cultural benefit
0.3 1.14
Low 61.1
0.1 ± 0.065
High 38.9

Fig. 6 Prototype decision support network for assessing the net financial benefits of different Sujala and JSYS interventions
I. Calder et al.
 Rainfall
400 to 500 6.82
HG Halli Tank 500 to 600 11.4
SCS Curve No. 600 to 700 15.9
CN65 0 700 to 800 13.6
CN70 0
CN75 100 800 to 900 25.0 NakkarasankunteTank
CN78 0 HG Halli Runoff
CN80 0 -5 to 0 0
900 to 1000 9.09 Nakara Tank Runoff
CN85 0 0 to 10 47.7 1000 to 1100 6.82 -20 to 0 0
10 to 20 50.5 0 to 0.1 0 SCS Curve No.
20 to 30 1.82
1100 to 1200 6.82 0.1 to 10 86.6
30 to 40 0 CN65 0
1200 to 1300 4.55 10 to 20 13.4
40 to 50 0 CN70 0
20 to 30 0
50 to 60 0 8e+002 ± 2.1e+002 CN75 100
30 to 40 0
60 to 70 0 CN76 0
Tank storage capacity 40 to 50 0
70 to 80 0 CN80 0
50 to 60 0
S60 0 80 to 90 0 CN85 0
60 to 70 0
S80 0 90 to 100 0 70 to 80 0
S100 100
10.4 ± 6.1 80 to 90 0 Tank storage capacity
S120 0
90 to 100 0
S60 0
6.4 ± 4.4 S80 0
S100 100
S120 0

HG Halli tank spill Nakara Tank catch Nakara Tank spill

HG Halli tank catch 0 to 0.1 0 0 to 5 34.6 0 to 0.1 8.66
5 to 10 65.4 0.1 to 5 77.9
0 to 5 28.6 0.1 to 10 99.8 5 to 10 10.7
10 to 15 0
5 to 10 19.1 10 to 20 0.18 15 to 20 0 10 to 20 2.68
20 to 25 0 20 to 30 0
10 to 15 35.3 20 to 30 0 30 to 40 0
25 to 30 0
15 to 20 17.0 30 to 40 0 30 to 35 0 40 to 50 0
20 to 25 0 40 to 50 0 35 to 40 0 50 to 60 0
40 to 45 0 60 to 70 0
25 to 30 0 50 to 60 0 70 to 80 0
5.8 ± 2.8 80 to 90 0
30 to 35 0 60 to 70 0
90 to 100 0
35 to 40 0 70 to 80 0 IG NewTank
3.2 ± 3
40 to 45 0 80 to 90 0
Watershed development in India

9.5 ± 5.6 90 to 100 0

5.1 ± 2.9
Pujenahalli Tank Runoff Pujenahalli Tank
-5 to 0 0 SCS Curve No.
0 to 10 34.1 CN65 0
10 to 20 52.5 CN70 0
20 to 30 11.3 IG New Tank Runoff
CN75 0
30 to 40 2.15 -20 to 0 0 CN76 100
SCS Curve No.
IG Old Tank 40 to 50 0 0 to 0.1 0 CN80 0
CN65 0 50 to 60 0 0.1 to 10 85.2
CN70 0 CN85 0
IG Old Tank Runoff 60 to 70 0 10 to 20 14.8
CN75 0 70 to 80 0 20 to 30 0
-5 to 0 0 CN76 100
0 to 10 23.6 80 to 90 0 30 to 40 0
CN80 0 90 to 100 0 40 to 50 0
10 to 20 71.7 CN85 0
20 to 30 4.60 100 to 110 0 50 to 60 0 Tank storage capacity
SCS Curve No. 30 to 40 .055 110 to 120 0 60 to 70 0 S60 0
CN65 0 40 to 50 0 120 to 130 0 70 to 80 0 S80 0
CN70 0 50 to 60 0 130 to 140 0 80 to 90 0 S100 100
Tank storage capacity 140 to 150 0 90 to 100 0
CN75 0 60 to 70 0 S120 0
CN76 100 70 to 80 0 S60 0 150 to 160 0 6.5 ± 4.5
CN80 0 80 to 90 0 S80 0 13.1 ± 7.7
CN85 0 90 to 100 0 S100 100
100 to 110 0 S120 0
110 to 120 0
120 to 130 0 IG New Tank spill
130 to 140 0 Nakara Tank catch 0 to 0.1 8.52
140 to 150 0 Pujenahalli Tank spill
Tank storage capacity Pujenahalli Tank catch 0 to 5 59.7 0.1 to 5 91.5
150 to 160 0
S60 0 0 to 0.1 0
13.1 ± 5.8 0 to 5 17.0 5 to 10 30.0 5 to 10 0
S80 0
S100 100 5 to 10 17.0 0.1 to 20 99.1 10 to 15 10.3 10 to 20 0
S120 0 10 to 15 55.9 20 to 40 0.86 15 to 20 0 20 to 30 0
15 to 20 10.0 40 to 60 0 20 to 25 0 30 to 40 0
20 to 25 0 60 to 80 0 25 to 30 0 40 to 50 0
IG Halli Old Tank spill 25 to 30 0 80 to 100 0 30 to 35 0 50 to 60 0
IG Halli Old Tank catch 0 to 0.1 0 Bairekur Tank Runoff 100 to 120 0
30 to 35 0 35 to 40 0 60 to 70 0
0 to 5 4.73 0.1 to 20 100 -50 to 0 0 120 to 140 0 40 to 45 0 70 to 80 0
0 to 50 11.8
35 to 40 0
5 to 10 26.1 20 to 40 .016 140 to 160 0 45 to 50 0 80 to 90 0
50 to 100 68.4 40 to 45 0
10 to 15 68.7 40 to 60 0 100 to 150 19.2 160 to 180 0 90 to 100 0
150 to 200 0.58 10.4 ± 4.7 5 ± 3.7
15 to 20 0.51 60 to 80 0 10.2 ± 6
200 to 250 0 2.3 ± 1.5
20 to 25 0 80 to 100 0 250 to 300 0
25 to 30 0 100 to 120 0 300 to 350 0
30 to 35 0 350 to 400 0
120 to 140 0 400 to 450 0
35 to 40 0 140 to 160 0 450 to 500 0
40 to 45 0 160 to 180 0 500 to 550 0
550 to 600 0
10.7 ± 3.2 10.1 ± 5.8 600 to 650 0 Tank storage capacity
650 to 700 0
700 to 750 0 S60 0
750 to 800 0 S80 0
800 to 850 0 S100 100
850 to 900 0 S120 0 Bairekur Tank
SCS Curve No. 79 ± 32
CN65 0
CN70 0 BairekurTank spill
CN75 0
CN76 100 0 to 0.1 66.5
CN80 0 0.1 to 100 33.5
CN85 0
100 to 200 0
200 to 300 0
300 to 400 0
Bairekur Tank catch 400 to 500 0
0 to 50 11.8 500 to 600 0
50 to 100 78.0 600 to 700 0
100 to 150 10.2 700 to 800 0
150 to 200 0 800 to 900 0
200 to 250 0 900 to 1000 0
250 to 300 0 1000 to 1100 0
300 to 350 0 1100 to 1200 0
350 to 400 0 1200 to 1300 0
400 to 450 0 1300 to 1400 0
74 ± 28 17 ± 29

Fig. 7 Prototype decision support network for assessing the biophysical impacts of JSYS and Sujala interventions

123
 I. Calder et al.

have implicitly included contributions of groundwater flow which are not present in
many catchments today due to depleted groundwater tables. Application under
modern conditions may therefore result in an overestimate of surface flows.
In conditions where there are now no longer any contributions from groundwater
flow it is recommended that extreme care should be used in the application of this
method using historically derived curves. Ideally, new curves should be derived for
present day catchment conditions (of low groundwater tables) or use should be made
of modelling methods which can take explicit account of surface/groundwater flow
interactions [e.g. hydrological land use change (HYLUC)-EXCLAIM and the soil
water assessment tool (SWAT) developed by the US Department of Agriculture
(Arnold, Srinivasan, & Engel, 1994)]. It might also be possible to correct the his-
torical curves for modern conditions through the generation of synthetic flows from
SWAT and HYLUC-EXCLAIM modelling approaches.

Table 1 Summary of methods for assisting the planning of interventions and managing externalities
and meeting sustainability requirements

Methodologies/ Main purposes Limitations and requirements for

planning tools future developments

New
Hydrological Provide an understanding of the bio
models: physical processes
HYLUC-cascade, Provide a means of improving and
SWAT, etc. calibrating empirical methodolo-
gies/tools
Always likely to used by researchers
or specialists
EXCLAIM A dissemination and decision support
tool that has a strong visual impact
Raising awareness amongst non-
technical stakeholders of the socie-
tal and biophysical effects of
watershed interventions which alter
groundwater and surface flows
Bayesian networks A decision-support tool that is strong
on its ability to handle uncertainty
and information from a wide range
of sources
As it is commercially available and
documented, it can be used ‘rou-
tinely’ by specialists
Traditional
SCS Estimation of runoff using a calcula-
tor or a PC
Easy to use and hence used exten-
sively by engineers and field work-
ers
Simple and robust within its realm of
calibration. SCS is always likely to
be the method of choice for engi-
neering purposes
Models are potentially able to
describe surface—groundwater
interactions but more calibration is
needed in field conditions
Improved linkage of HYLUC-cascade
to EXCLAIM required to ease set
up of EXCLAIM applications
Coupling of societal impact modelling
through the use of Bayesian net-
works is possible
Further piloting of the networks for
real world situations is required
SCS method does not take account of
groundwater flows
A major revision of SCS curves and/or
input parameters would be needed
to deal with all the impacts of
agricultural intensification and the
effects of changes to groundwater
flows

123
Watershed development in India

6 Summary of methods and tools

The main purposes, limitations and development requirements of the proposed

watershed planning tools are shown in Table 1.

7 Conclusions

Studies conducted in conjunction with World Bank and DFID watershed devel-
opment projects in Karnataka indicate that a revision of watershed management
policy may be required by government, particularly in relation to the planning of
structural interventions. This need has arisen because over the past 10–15 years
increased intensification of agriculture has led to much reduced flows of water into
water reservoirs. Field levelling, field bund construction, expansion of horticultural
and forested areas and increased abstraction and use of groundwater for irrigation
are all contributing factors to reduced flows. Planning methodologies and ap-
proaches, which may have been appropriate 30 years ago, are no longer appropriate
today.
New planning methodologies are required which are able to take account of these
reduced flows. The three approaches that have been discussed in this paper: the web-
based GIS EXCLAIM dissemination tool for disseminating to non-specialist
stakeholders the downstream impacts of watershed interventions, the ‘quadrant’
approach for ensuring sustainability criteria are met, and Bayesian networks for
determining both the biophysical and societal impacts of structural interventions,
provide new mechanisms for assisting the planning process. Further development,
testing and piloting of these approaches within watershed development projects will
be required to develop fully operational systems.
These approaches, even in their prototype forms, expose the deficiencies and
dangers inherent in current watershed development planning—where often little
consideration is given to the externalities associated with structural watershed
interventions.

References

Arnold, J. G. R., Srinivasan, R., & Engel, B. A. (1994). Flexible watershed configurations for
simulation models. American Institute of Hydrology. Hydrological Science and Technology, 30,
5–14.
Batchelor, C. H., & Cain, J. D. (1999). Application of belief networks to water management studies.
Agricultural Water Management, 40, 51–57.
Batchelor, C. H., Singh, A. K., Rama Mohan Rao, M. S., & Butterworth, J. A. (2002). Mitigating the
potential unintended impacts of water harvesting. In Proceedings of the international water
resources association (IWRA) international regional symposium on ‘‘Water for Human Survival’’,
Delhi, 26–29 November 2002.
Batchelor, C. H., Rama Mohan Rao, M. S., & Manohare Rao, S. (2003). Watershed development: a
solution to water shortages in semi-arid India or part of the problem? Land Use and Water
Resources Research, 3, 1–10. From http://www.luwrr.com/.
Cain, J. D., Batchelor, C. H., & Waughray, D. N. (1999). Belief networks: a framework for the
participatory development of natural resource management strategies. Environment, Develop-
ment and Sustainability, 1, 123–133.

123
 I. Calder et al.

Calder, I. R. (2005). The blue revolution, integrated land and water resources management. London:
Earthscan Publications.
ETC (2004). Environmental impact assessment of KAWAD watersheds. Bangalore, India: Consul-
tants Report, ETC.
Falkenmark, M. (1995). Coping with water scarcity under rapid population growth. Pretoria: Con-
ference of SADC Ministers, 23–24 November 1995.
Norsys Netica tutorial (1995–2006 copyright). Retrieved June 15, 2006, from http://www.norsys.com/
tutorials/netica/nt_toc_A.htm.
Rama Mohan Rao, M. S., Batchelor, C. H., James, A. J., Nagaraja, R., Seeley, J., & Butterworth, J. A.
(2003). Andhra Pradesh rural livelihood programme water audit report (APRLP), Hyderabad,
India.
Sakthivadivel, R., & Scott, C. A. (2005). Upstream-downstream complementarities and trade-
offs: opportunities and constraints in watershed development in water scarce regions. In:
B. R. Sharma, J. S. Samra, C. A. Scott, & S. P. Wani (Eds.), Watershed management challenges:
improving productivity, resources and livelihoods. London: IWMI/ICAR Publication.
Sharma, B. R., & Scott, C. A. (2005). Watershed management challenges: introduction and overview.
In: B. R. Sharma, J. S. Samra, C. A. Scott, & S. P. Wani (Eds.), Watershed management chal-
lenges: improving productivity, resources and livelihoods. London: IWMI/ICAR Publication.
Tideman, E. M. (1999). Watershed management—guidelines for indian conditions. New Delhi:
Omega Scientific Publishers.

123