Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601
DOI 10.1007/s12665-017-6912-2
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Evaluation of groundwater resources for sustainable groundwater
development in a semiarid river basin of India
Pawan S. Wable1 • Madan K. Jha1 • Surajit Murasingh1
Received: 4 April 2017 / Accepted: 14 August 2017
Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017
Abstract There is a growing stress on groundwater due to
increase in the frequency and intensity of droughts, and the
limited availability of surface water. Therefore, proper
assessment of available groundwater reserves is highly
essential at a microscale (e.g., block level) to take into
account spatial variability. In this paper, a methodology for
the effective assessment of groundwater resources is
demonstrated considering a semiarid river basin of Western
India as a study area. The rainfall data of nine raingauge
stations and seasonal groundwater-level data of 132 sites
over the basin for 20 years (1990–2009) were used.
Groundwater availability in the unconfined aquifer was
evaluated at a block level in terms of ‘static groundwater
reserve (SGWR)’ and ‘dynamic groundwater reserve
(DGWR),’ and their spatial and temporal variabilities were
analyzed. Furthermore, the status of groundwater utiliza-
tion in individual blocks was explored considering the level
of groundwater development (GWDL) and the trends of
long-term seasonal groundwater levels. To sustain avail-
able groundwater resources on a long-term basis, the runoff
potential in the study area was also evaluated. It was found
that SGWR varies from 0.09 to 136.97 MCM (million
cubic meters), whereas DGWR ranges from -35.85 to
156.26 MCM. During ‘normal’ years, around 43% of the
study area has a SGWR in the range of 20–40 MCM and
& Pawan S. Wable
pawan.wable@gmail.com
Madan K. Jha
madan@agfe.iitkgp.ernet.in
Surajit Murasingh
smurasingh@gmail.com
1
AgFE Department, Indian Institute of Technology
Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721 302, India
DGWR in the range of 0–50 MCM. Although the GWDL
in the study area varies from about 12 to 124%, the status
of groundwater development in the study area is catego-
rized to be ‘safe.’ The analysis of runoff potential in the
study area revealed that it considerably varies with time
and space. About 71% of the study area is suitable for
rainwater conservation during ‘wet’ years, whereas this
figure reduces to 33% in ‘normal’ years. It is emphasized
that regular monitoring of groundwater at a suitable spatial
scale (at least block level) is necessary on long-term basis
and the adoption of rainwater harvesting measures are
indispensable for sustainable utilization and management
of groundwater resources in semiarid regions.
Keywords Groundwater assessment  Static groundwater
reserve  Dynamic groundwater reserve  Trend analysis 
Runoff potential  Sustainable groundwater development 
Semiarid region
Introduction
Groundwater is a replenishable but limited resource. It is
the largest source of freshwater and accounts for 33% of
the global water withdrawal (Gorelick and Zheng 2015).
However, rapid industrialization, population growth and
expanding agricultural activities have led to overexploita-
tion of this freshwater resource in different parts of the
world.
For instance, the area of land used for groundwater
irrigation has increased by 105% in India in the last
20 years, whereas the surface water irrigated areas have
increased by only 28% (IWMI 2001). In addition, a large
proportion of the country frequently experiences recurring
droughts. Increasing irrigation demands and frequency of
123
601 Page 2 of 17
droughts along with mismanagement have led to critical
decline in groundwater levels across the country. The most
affected community is the farmers whose livelihoods are
dependent on agriculture.
The occurrence, movement and storage of groundwater
are governed by several factors including hydrometeorol-
ogy, topography, soil, land use/cover, geomorphology,
geology, and above all human activities. All these factors
make the precise assessment of groundwater very difficult
with no direct technique available for its estimation.
Although indirect methods (such as water balance methods,
isotope methods, and numerical modeling) are available,
they are expensive and time-consuming for a large-scale
assessment. However, a combination of reliable local data
with geospatial technologies such as remote sensing (RS)
and the use of geographic information systems (GIS) can
be an effective tool for better assessment of groundwater in
large areas. For example, remote sensing techniques may
provide valuable spatiotemporal data about numerous
environmental aspects. In particular, data from the Gravity
Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite
provide an indirect pathway for the assessment of changes
in groundwater reserve over a larger scale (Tapley et al.
2004; Rodell et al. 2009). However, many researchers have
applied RS and GIS techniques for the exploration and
mapping of groundwater prospect zones with or without
multicriteria decision analysis (e.g., Jothiprakash et al.
2003; Sener et al. 2005; Solomon and Quiel 2006;
Chowdhury et al. 2009; Jha et al. 2010), identification of
rainwater harvesting and artificial recharge sites/zones
(e.g., Saraf and Choudhury 1998; Jha et al. 2014), mapping
of surface and subsurface waterlogged areas and salt-af-
fected soils (e.g., Mandal and Sharma 2001; Chatterjee
et al. 2005; Chowdary et al. 2008), mapping of recharge
and discharge areas (Tweed et al. 2007), and so on.
In order to develop a proper groundwater management
plan, a comprehensive assessment of recharge and dis-
charge processes occurring in a groundwater basin is
required. However, detailed information about these pro-
cesses is often lacking at a basin scale. Generally,
groundwater levels are monitored, and therefore, it is
generally much easier to obtain these data than other
information that can be used to determine water balances
for a groundwater flow system. The fluctuations in long-
term groundwater levels can be related to both natural
changes in the water balance (due to the effects of evap-
otranspiration, precipitation, climate changes, etc.) and
water balance changes caused by human activities, such as
the effects of groundwater pumping and induced infiltra-
tion or the effects of changing land uses (Healy and Cook
2002).
In India, the planning of groundwater development and
management strategies is performed following the
123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601
guidelines recommended by the Groundwater Resource
Estimation Committee (1997) using groundwater level and
withdrawal rate data and estimates of effective porosity.
Guidelines are provided for the assessment of available
groundwater in terms of ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ reserves
and the hydraulic categorization of assessment units based
on the extent of groundwater utilization and long-term
trend of seasonal groundwater levels.
In this paper, the methodology for the effective evalu-
ation of groundwater resources is demonstrated through a
case study in the semiarid region of Western India. The
study area is located in the semiarid region of Maharashtra
in the western part of India, and it falls under ‘chronically
drought-prone area’ (PACS 2004). This basin is charac-
terized as being highly water-stressed (Garg et al. 2012),
though many irrigation projects have been implemented in
the study area. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate ground-
water status in the study area to properly address the issue
of water scarcity. The present study is the first of its kind in
this study area.
The specific objectives of this study are: (i) to assess
spatiotemporal variations of static groundwater reserve
(SGWR) and dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR) in the
basin and analyze their trends, (ii) to explore spatial vari-
ability of SGWR and DGWR during ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and
‘dry’ years, (iii) to identify the status of groundwater uti-
lization in the basin, and (iv) to suggest a suitable measure
for sustainable utilization of groundwater resources.
Materials and methods
Study area
Location and hydrometeorology
The study area is the Sina River Basin, which is situated in
Maharashtra state of India and falls in the semiarid region.
The location of the study area along with the location of
data collection sites is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of 20
blocks (administrative units) as shown in Fig. 1 and covers
parts of four districts, namely the Ahmednagar, Beed,
Osmanabad, and Solapur districts, with the majority (42%)
of the area falling in the Solapur district. Out of the 20
blocks, only 16 blocks have been considered in this study
because no observation wells are present in four small size
blocks (Akkalkot, Kallam, Pathardi, and Parner). Basic
information about the study area is summarized in Table 1.
It is worth mentioning that the study area experienced
severe to extreme drought spells during 2001–2004 (EIS
2006).
The rainfall in the study area mostly occurs from mid-
June to the end of October each year from the southwest
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 3 of 17 601

rea
dy A
Stu

Fig. 1 Location map of the study area

monsoon. Three distinct seasons occur in the study area:
winter, summer and the rainy seasons. The winter season
starts in November and extends up to the end of February;
the summer season period is from March to mid-June; and
the monsoon (rainy) season period is from mid-June to the
end of October.
Geologic setting
The study area is underlain by hard rocks with an uncon-
fined aquifer at shallow depth as well as semi-confined
(leaky confined) and confined aquifers at deeper depths
(MoWR and CGWB 2013). The depth of unconfined

123
601 Page 4 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Table 1 Salient information about the study area

Latitude 17°280 N–19°160 N
Longitude 74°280 E–76°70 E
Geographical area 12,444 km2
Topography 420–964 m MSL
Climate Semiarid
Average annual rainfall 644 mm
Average maximum temperature 40.5 °C (May)
Average minimum temperature 10.5 °C (December)

aquifer extends up to 20 m below the ground level (bgl),

and its thickness varies 5–20 m. It lies in weathered or
fractured upper portions of the Deccan basalt. The specific
yield of the unconfined aquifer ranges from 0.01 to 0.026.
The semi-confined aquifer occurs at a depth of 21–40 m
bgl with a thickness 2.5–30 m bgl, whereas the confined
aquifer with variable thickness occurs at a depth of greater
than 40 m. The details of geologic setting of the study area
can be found in MoWR and CGWB (2013).

Collection of data
Fig. 2 Land use/land cover map of the study area
Daily rainfall data for the period 1990–2009 for nine
raingauge stations in the area were obtained from the India classes is presented in Table 2. It is apparent that the study
Meteorological Department, Pune and State Data Storage area is comprised of 12 types of land use/cover with 78.5%
Center, Hydrology Project, Nashik, India. For the same area under agriculture followed by pasture land (9%) and
period, seasonal data of groundwater levels (depth to water fallow land (5.7%). Also, the soil map of the study area of
table) for 132 shallow observation wells (unconfined scale 1:250,000 was collected from the National Bureau of
aquifer) and 15 deep observation wells (semi-confined and Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur (Fig. 3) and
confined aquifers) over the basin were obtained from the the soil statistics are provided in Table 3. Three types of
Groundwater Survey and Development Agency, Pune, soils are found in the study area: loam, clay, and dense clay
India. However, the post-monsoon groundwater-level data (clay [35%) with a majority of the area (about 45%)
of shallow observation wells located in some blocks of having ‘dense clay’ type soil (Table 3).
Solapur district for 2007 and 2009 years are missing. On
the other hand, continuous seasonal time series data of Table 2 Coverage of area under different land use/land cover
groundwater level in the deep aquifer are available for (LULC) classes
9 years (2000–2008) at only three sites located in Jamkhed, LULC Area (km2) Area (%)
Paranda and Barshi blocks. The groundwater-level data of
1. Agriculture 9615.61 78.5
observation wells collected in the months of May and
2. Waste land 65.36 0.5
October are designated as ‘pre-monsoon’ and ‘post-mon-
3. Dense forest 38.35 0.3
soon’ data, respectively. The data on groundwater with-
4. Fallow land 701.09 5.7
drawals from all the 16 blocks for irrigation, domestic and
industrial purposes for the year 2008 were obtained from 5. Mining area 10.76 0.1
the government report (GSDA and CGWB 2011). These 6. Open forest 30.49 0.2
data are available for the year 2008 only. 7. Plantation 31.28 0.3
Moreover, the land use/land cover map of scale 1:50,000 8. River/water bodies 268.41 2.2
was obtained from the National Remote Sensing Center 9. Rural settlement 118.60 1.0
(NRSC), Hyderabad, India. The spatial distribution of land 10. Degraded forest 119.69 1.0
use/cover in the study area is shown in Fig. 2 and the 11. Pasture land 1098.90 9.0
summary of the areas covered by different land use/cover 12. Urban settlement 145.90 1.2

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601
Fig. 3 Types of soil in the study area
Analysis of groundwater-level fluctuations
in shallow and deep aquifers
The seasonal variations of water table elevations in the
unconfined aquifer during 1990–2006 were studied by
plotting the time series of pre-monsoon and post-mon-
soon depth to water table along with the bargraphs of
rainfall. Similarly, variations in potentiometric heads in
the deep aquifers (semi-confined and confined aquifers)
were also analyzed using data of the pre-monsoon and
post-monsoon depths to groundwater for the period
2000–2008. Furthermore, a linear trend analysis of pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels was
performed for both the shallow and deep aquifers to
understand their overall fluctuation behavior during the
study period. The methodology for trend analysis is
mentioned in the subsequent section (‘‘Trend analysis’’
section).
Table 3 Soil texture along with
Soil texture
soil hydrologic group and its
spatial distribution 1. Loam
2. Clay
3. Dense clay (clay [35%)
Page 5 of 17 601
Assessment of groundwater availability
Estimation of static groundwater reserve
The ‘static groundwater reserve’ refers to the available
groundwater resource under the zone of natural ground-
water-level fluctuation (GWREC 1997). The estimation of
‘static groundwater reserve/resource’ in an area or a basin
can be accomplished after knowing the aquifer thickness
and determining specific yield of the aquifer over the area
or basin. The ‘static groundwater reserve (SGWR)’ was
estimated as (GWREC 1997):
SGWR ¼ ðDAB  DWT Þ  A  Sy ð1Þ
where DAB = depth to the aquifer base [L], DWT = depth
to water table in the pre-monsoon season [L], A = aquifer
area of influence [L2], and Sy = specific yield of the
aquifer [fraction].
Estimation of dynamic groundwater reserve
The ‘dynamic groundwater reserve’ refers to the long-term
average annual recharge under the condition of maximal
groundwater use (GWREC 1997). Usually, up to the end of
October, the soil is extremely wet due to monsoon rain and
no supplementary groundwater withdrawal for irrigation is
needed. Groundwater irrigation normally starts from the
beginning of November and continues up to May of the
next year. Therefore, the ‘dynamic groundwater reserve
(DGWR)’ was estimated as follows (GWREC 1997):
DGWR ¼ ðDWTE  DWTO Þ  A  Sy ð2Þ
where DWTE = depth to water table in the pre-monsoon
season of next year [L], DWTO = depth to water table in
the post-monsoon season of the current year [L],
A = aquifer area of influence [L2], and Sy = specific yield
of the aquifer [fraction].
The ‘dynamic groundwater reserve’ (DGWR) is also
known as the exploitable groundwater reserve or utilizable
groundwater reserve, which clearly indicates that this
amount of groundwater can be fully extracted/withdrawn to
meet annual water demands without causing any detri-
mental effect on the available groundwater resource and
the environment. Like Eqs. (1), (2) can also be used to
estimate the ‘dynamic groundwater reserve/resource’ at a
particular site/location as well as in a catchment or basin.
Hydrologic soil group Area (km2) Area (%)
HSG B 3287.09 26.85
HSG C 3456.50 28.23
HSG D 5500.85 44.93
123
601 Page 6 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

 a
In general, the pre-monsoon season for a particular year  
refers to the period from October/November of the previ-
ous year to May/June of the particular year, whereas the
post-monsoon season for a particular year refers to the
period from October/November of that year up to May/
June of the next year. In this study, for calculating SGWR
and DGWR in the unconfined aquifer of the study area, the
depth to water table in the month of May was taken as
being representative of the ‘pre-monsoon season’ and the
depth to water table in the month of October was taken as
being representative of the ‘post-monsoon season.’ As to
the spatial scale, SGWR and DGWR were estimated at a
block level that is a suitable practical spatial unit for
evaluating groundwater resources at catchment or river
basin scales.
Due to their large size and the spatial variability of
seasonal groundwater-level fluctuations, 12 of the 16
blocks (Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Jamkhed,
Karjat, Karmala, Madha, Mohol, North Solapur, Paranda,
and South Solapur) were subdivided into sub-areas for
estimating the SGWR and DGWR. Thus, the SGWR and
DGWR values in the unconfined aquifer of each block
were estimated at an annual scale for the 1990–2006 per-
iod. Thereafter, the temporal variation of SGWR and
DGWR estimates along with their trends was analyzed.
Furthermore, the spatial variation of the ‘static’ and ‘dy-
namic’ groundwater reserves was analyzed for three sce-
narios, namely for ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years. Here,
the ‘wet year’ denotes the year in which the annual rainfall
is greater than the average annual rainfall of an area, a
‘normal year’ refers the year wherein the annual rainfall is
equal to the average annual rainfall, and a ‘dry year’ or
‘drought (meteorological drought) year’ denotes the year in
which the annual rainfall is more than 25% below the
average annual rainfall (Subramanya 2008). Based on the
temporal variation of the annual rainfall in the study area
during the study period (1990–2006), the year 1998 was
‘wet year,’ the year 2000 was a ‘normal year’ and the year
2003 was a ‘dry year.’
Trend analysis
Prior to the trend analysis, the time series data used in this
study (e.g., pre-monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater
levels, static groundwater reserve, and dynamic ground-
water reserve) were subjected to standard normality tests.
All these time series were found to follow normal distri-
bution. Thereafter, trend analysis of pre-monsoon and post-
monsoon groundwater levels as well as static groundwater
reserve and dynamic groundwater reserve was performed
by a linear regression method. The significance of the trend
was investigated using a Student’s t-test. The t-statistic is
defined as (Haan 1977):
123
t-statistic ¼   ð3Þ
r
where ‘a’ is the slope coefficient of the regression line
within observed values and time and ‘r’ is the standard
error of estimated slope coefficients. Using Eq. (3), the
value of t-statistic was computed. If the value of t-statistic
is greater than that of t-critical, then the null hypothesis of
nonsignificant slope is rejected (i.e., there is a trend) and
vice versa. In this way, trends in all the four time series
were examined.
Evaluation of groundwater exploitation status
The status of groundwater exploitation from the unconfined
aquifer in the study area was evaluated at a block scale
based on the level of groundwater development and the
presence of a significant long-term decline of ‘pre-mon-
soon’ and ‘post-monsoon’ groundwater levels. The level of
groundwater development (GWDL) is defined as (GWREC
1997):
Existing groundwater withdrawal for all uses
GWDL ¼  100
Net annual groundwater availability
ð4Þ
The term ‘net annual groundwater availability’ refers to the
available annual recharge after allowing for natural
groundwater discharge in the monsoon season in terms of
base flow and subsurface outflow. ‘Existing groundwater
withdrawal for all uses’ refers to the total groundwater
pumping for all purposes (i.e., irrigation, domestic, and
industry). Using Eq. (4), the extent of groundwater
exploitation in each block was estimated for the year 2008.
Thereafter, the long-term trend of ‘pre-monsoon’ and
‘post-monsoon’ groundwater levels in each block was
identified by a linear regression method. The significance
of the trend of seasonal groundwater level was evaluated
using the Student’s t-test as mentioned in the previous
section. In addition, the slopes of regression lines, which
were not found statistically significant, were visually
examined from the practical viewpoint to assess their sig-
nificance. Using this information and the guidelines men-
tioned in Table 4, the ‘stage (status) of groundwater
development’ in individual block was determined.
Assessment of rainwater harvesting potential
In order to ensure sustainable management of groundwater,
the potential of rainwater harvesting in the study area was
also investigated. This was undertaken using the distributed
curve number (CN) method to estimate storm-based runoff
using daily time steps, which were then integrated to
estimate runoff on an annual time scale. The CN method is
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 7 of 17 601

Table 4 Guidelines for assessing the stage of groundwater development (GWREC 1997)
Stage of groundwater Criteria
development

1. Safe (a) GWDL B 70%, and there is no significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-monsoon
groundwater level
(b) GWDL [ 70%, and there is no significant long-term decline of both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon
groundwater level
2. Semi-critical GWDL [ 70% but \90%, and there is a significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-monsoon
groundwater level
3. Critical (a) GWDL [ 90% but \100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-
monsoon groundwater level
(b) GWDL \ 100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon
groundwater levels
(c) GWDL [ 100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-monsoon
groundwater level
4. Overexploited GWDL [ 100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon
groundwater level
GWDL groundwater development level

based on the water balance equation of the rainfall in a
known interval of time (Dt). The runoff generated by a
given runoff event is given as (Subramanya 2008):
ðP  kSÞ2
Q ¼
P þ ð1  kÞS
where Q = direct surface runoff; P = total precipitation;
k = initial abstraction ratio; and S = potential maximum
retention after runoff begins. Values of k vary in the range
of 0.1 B k C 0.4. For the study area, k = 0.3 was selected
because it is applicable to the soils having AMC types I, II
and III (Subramanya 2008). Hence, the modified form of
Eq. (5) was used in study, which is given as:
ðP  0:3SÞ2
Q ¼
P þ 0:7S
Using Eq. (6), annual runoff was estimated for individual
blocks and then runoff potential maps were generated in
the GIS environment for the ‘wet (1998),’ ‘normal (2000),’
and ‘dry (2003)’ years.
Results and discussion
Groundwater-level fluctuation in the shallow aquifer
depth during post-monsoon season in 2003 was 10.27 m
for the Ahmednagar block. Groundwater levels rose shar-
ply in all the blocks due to the high rainfall in 1998,
whereas there was a drop in the post-monsoon groundwater
ð5Þ levels in 1994 and 2003 years because of below-average
rainfall. It should be noted that for the Ahmednagar block
in 1994, the post-monsoon groundwater levels were deeper
than the pre-monsoon groundwater level which can be
attributed to the relatively high rate of groundwater
pumping in this block. Similarly, the seasonal fluctuation
of groundwater level in the shallow aquifer for other blocks
can be also explained.
Furthermore, the trend lines of pre-monsoon and post-
monsoon groundwater levels indicate that the pre-monsoon
groundwater levels in all the four blocks have a decreasing
ð6Þ
trend (Fig. 4a–d). However, the trend of post-monsoon
groundwater levels is negligible for Ahmednagar and
Barshi blocks, whereas there is somewhat increasing trend
for Ashti and Bhum blocks. Thus, out of 16 blocks, the
groundwater levels in 15 have an increasing trend during
pre-monsoon season (3–44.70%) and those in six blocks
during post-monsoon season (1.44–11.29%). In addition,
during post-monsoon seasons, parts of six blocks
(Ahmednagar, Barshi, Karmala, Madha, Mohol, and
Osmanabad) have either an increasing trend (0.65–14.74%)
or a decreasing (1.91–14.81%) trend.

The response of groundwater levels in the unconfined
aquifer (shallow aquifer) during 1990–2006 was analyzed
for all the 16 blocks, and it is illustrated in Fig. 4a–d for
four blocks (Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, and Bhum) as an
example. It is apparent that the maximum groundwater
depth during the pre-monsoon season was 13.94 m in 1992
for the Bhum block, whereas the maximum groundwater
Groundwater-level fluctuation in the deep aquifers
As mentioned earlier, continuous time series data of pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels in the
deep aquifers are available for only three observation
wells for the 2000–2008 period. These observation wells
are located in the Barshi, Jamkhed, and Paranda blocks

123
601 Page 8 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Year Year

Depth to groundwater (m bgl)

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Depth to water table (m bgl)

0 0 0 0
200
4 200

Rainfall (mm)
400

Rainfall (mm)
20
400 600
8
800
12 600 1000
40
1200
16 800
1400
20 (a) AhmednagarBlock: Unconfined Aquifer 1000 60 1600
(a) Jamkhed Block: Confined Aquifer
Rainfall Pre-monsoon 1800
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon) Rainfall Pre-monsoon
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon) Linear (Post-monsoon)
Year Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Depth to water table (m bgl)

Depth to groundwater (m bgl)

0 0 0 0

4 200 3 200

Rainfall (mm)
8

Rainfall (mm)
400 6 400
12
600 9 600
16
800 12 800
20

24 15 1000
1000
(b) Ashti Block: Unconfined Aquifer (b) Barshi Block: Semi-Confined Aquifer
Rainfall Pre-monsoon 18 1200
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon) Rainfall Pre-monsoon
Linear (Post-monsoon) Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon)
Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
0 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Depth to water table (m)

0 0
200
4
Depth to groundwater (m bgl)

400 200
20
8
Rainfall (mm)

600 400

Rainfall (mm)
12 800 40 600
1000 800
16
1200 60
20 1000
1400
80 1200
24 1600
(c) Barshi Block: Unconfined Aquifer 1400
1800 (c) Paranda Block:
Rainfall Pre-monsoon 100
Confined Aquifer 1600
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon) 120 1800
Rainfall Pre-monsoon
Year Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon)
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0 0
Depth to water table (m)

4
200 Fig. 5 Annual variation of depth to groundwater in the deep aquifer
400 during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons of 2000–2008 period:
Rainfall (mm)

8
600 a Jamkhed block, b Barhsi block, and c Paranda block
12 800
1000
16

20
24
(d)
Fig. 4 Variation of seasonal depth to water table during 1990–2006
period in a Ahmednagar, b Ashti, c Barshi, and d Bhum blocks
at depths of 36.8 m (semi-confined aquifer), 75 m
(confined aquifer), and 120 m (confined aquifer),
respectively. The fluctuations of the pre-monsoon and
post-monsoon groundwater levels in the deep aquifer
during 2000–2008 for these three blocks are shown in
Fig. 5a–c. It can be seen that there is a sudden drop of
groundwater levels during the pre-monsoon season in
1200 Jamkhed block in 2004 and Paranda blocks in 2003 and
1400
1600
2004 as well as post-monsoon groundwater levels in
Bhum Block: Unconfined Aquifer
Paranda block during 2002–2004. The sudden decrease
1800
Rainfall Pre-monsoon in groundwater levels is attributed to the occurrence of
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon) drought in the study area during the 2001–2004 period.
Moreover, it is evident from Fig. 5a–c that the pre-
monsoon groundwater levels in the deep aquifers have a
decreasing trend for Jamkhed and Paranda blocks, while no
trend is apparent for the Barshi block. In contrast, an
increasing trend was seen in the post-monsoon ground-
water levels of the Jamkhed and Barshi blocks, which
suggests appreciable recharge in these blocks. However, an
observed decreasing trend in the post-monsoon ground-
water levels of Paranda block emphasizes the need for
proper management of groundwater resources in this block.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 9 of 17 601

Spatiotemporal variations of the static groundwater
reserve
Temporal variations of static groundwater reserves
(SGWR) in the unconfined aquifer during 1990–2006 for
four blocks are shown in Fig. 6a–d as an example. These
figures reveal that the SGWR was reduced to below 7
MCM (million cubic meters) in the Ahmednagar block
during 2003 and 2004 years, in the Barshi block during
2003 and 2005, and in the Bhum block during 2004,
whereas the lowest value of SGWR in Ashti block was
12.45 MCM in 2006. The minimum and maximum values
of the SGWR estimates for all the blocks together with
their trends are presented in Table 5. The minimum SGWR
estimates for six blocks (Ahmednagar, Mohol, North
Solapur, Osmanabad, Paranda, and South Solapur) are
zero, which is due to the drop of water table below the
depth of the observation well during the pre-monsoon
season. Hence, such open wells should be deepened
(wherever possible) or could be converted into dug-cum-
bore wells. On the other hand, the maximum values of the
SGWR vary from 24.91 MCM (Patoda block) to 136.97
MCM (Tuljapur block), with four blocks (Ahmednagar,
Ashti, Paranda, and Tuljapur) having maximum SGWR
values greater than 100 MCM.
Moreover, the trend analysis of SGWR estimates reveals
that they had a decreasing trend in all the four blocks
during 1990–2006 (Fig. 6a–d), with steep declines being
apparent in the Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Karjat,
Mohol, Paranda, and Tuljapur blocks (Table 5). In contrast,
there was an apparent trend of increasing SGWR values in
two blocks (South Solapur and Osmanabad) which was
found to be statistically nonsignificant. Thus, the temporal
variation in SGWR indicates a decreasing trend in much of
the area with the rate of decline varying from 0.22 to 5.22
MCM/year. The decreasing trend of SGWR values in the
Ashti, Patoda, and Mohal blocks is significant at 1% level
of significance, whereas that in the Madha and Barshi
blocks is significant at 5% level of significance. The
decreasing trend of SGWR in a majority of the study area is
a serious concern for sustainable water supply in the area.
Adequate water conservation measures should be initiated
to minimize or avoid groundwater depletion in the
unconfined aquifer of the study area.
Spatiotemporal variation of the dynamic
groundwater reserve
The annual variation of dynamic groundwater reserve
(DGWR) values for the four blocks during 1990–2006 is
illustrated in Fig. 7a–d as an example. It is apparent that
the lowest values of the DGWR occurred in 1997 in the
Ahmednagar, Ashti, and Barshi blocks, while the Bhum
block had a minimum value of DGWR in 1995. The

Fig. 6 Temporal variation of 120 120

static groundwater reserve (a) Ahmednagar Block (b) Ashti Block
(SGWR) in the unconfined 100 100
aquifer during 1990–2006
SGWR (MCM)

SGWR (MCM)

period in a Ahmednagar, 80 80
b Ashti, c Barshi, and d Bhum
60 60
blocks
40 40

20 20

0 0
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Year Year

120 120
(c) Barshi Block (d) Bhum Block
100 100
SGWR (MCM)

SGWR (MCM)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Year Year

123
601 Page 10 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Table 5 Maximum and minimum values of SGWR and DGWR in the study area along with their trend
Name of block SGWR DGWR
Max. (MCM) Min. (MCM) Slope (MCM/year) Max. (MCM) Min. (MCM) Slope (MCM/year)

1. Ahmednagar 110.92 (1991) 0.00 (1995) -2.19 to -0.56 91.12 (2006) 0.11 (2003) 0.00 to ?2.14
2. Ashti 131.93 (1990) 3.13 (2004) -5.22* to -4.26* 107.4 (2000) 2.14 (1997) ?1.94 to ?3.00**
3. Barshi 93.22 (1991) 0.20 (1992) -2.57** to -0.39 85.01 (2002) 0.91 (1997) ?0.04 to ?1.06
4. Bhum 76.29 (1990) 5.36 (2004) -1.43 to -1.03 76.08 (2003) -18.59 (1995) ?1.03 to ?1.34
5. Jamkhed 54.96 (1999) 2.99 (2004) -0.42 to -0.91 49.66 (1991) -20.15 (1998) -0.39 to ?0.11
6. Karjat 66.58 (1990) 0.17 (2004) -1.41 to -1.08 52.92 (1991) 10.06 (1995) -0.05 to ?0.38
7. Karmala 40.09 (1991) 0.17 (1999) -0.96 to -0.61 65.41 (1998) -3.21 (1991) -0.22 to ?0.67
8. Madha 86.00 (1997) 0.09 (1999) -0.81** to -2.10 156.26 (1998) -1.55 (2003) -0.22 to ?1.86
9. Mohol 87.21 (1991) 0.00 (1999) -3.32* to -0.31 113.76 (1998) -6.48 (1993) ?1.36 to ?1.77
10. North Solapur 43.29 (1991) 0.00 (1999) -0.52 to -0.22 85.21 (1998) -16.71 (2003) ?0.29 to ?0.75
11. Osmanabad 34.75 (2000) 0.00 (1990) ?0.11 54.70 (2006) 1.44 (1995) ?1.53
12. Paranda 127.98 (1999) 0.00 (1992) -1.44 to -1.94 155.37 (2006) -14.29 (1995) ?1.36 to ?2.37
13. Patoda 24.91 (1990) 0.23 (2006) -1.01* 27.62 (2005) 3.49 (2006) ?0.43
14. Shrigonda 30.73 (1994) 0.11 (2004) -0.91 32.21 (2002) 4.42 (1995) ?0.07
15. South Solapur 38.29 (1991) 0.00 (1990) ?0.80 to ?0.83 53.31 (2000) -26.62 (2003) -0.11 to ?0.07
16. Tuljapur 136.97 (1997) 29.27 (2004) -2.28 124.91 (2000) 235.85 (1995) ?2.09
Figures in the parenthesis indicate year; boldface figures show the highest and lowest values in respective column; positive and negative signs in
the slope columns indicate increasing and decreasing trend, respectively; values with * and ** indicate significant slope at 1 and 5% level of
significance, respectively; zero value of SGWR indicates drop of water table below the depth of observation well in the pre-moonson season

maximum and minimum values of DGWR and its trend for
all the sixteen blocks are summarized in Table 5. The
lowest value of DGWR calculated in all of the blocks was
-35.85 MCM in 1995 in the Tuljapur block, and the
highest value was 156.26 MCM in 1998 in the Madha
block followed by 155.37 MCM in 2006 in the Paranda
block. Notably, in eight blocks (Bhum, Jamkhed, Karmala,
Madha, North Solapur, Paranda, South Solapur, and Tul-
japur), the calculated values of DGWR were negative
(Table 5), which indicates that groundwater has been
overexploited in these blocks in a particular year. Long-
term monitoring of groundwater level in these blocks is
recommended.
Furthermore, a trend analysis of the DGWR indicated
that there was a rising trend in the four blocks as shown in
Fig. 7a–d. The values of the regression line slopes for all
the blocks are shown in Table 5. The maximum increasing
trend of 3 MCM/year was observed in the Ashti block
followed by 2.37 MCM/year in the Paranda block, 2.14
MCM/year in the Ahmednagar block, and 2.09 MCM/year
in the Tuljapur block. Both the increasing and decreasing
trends of DGWR that were discernible in parts of Jamkhed,
Karjat, Karmala, Madha, and South Solapur blocks are
statistically nonsignificant. On the other hand, 11 blocks
(Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Mohol, North Solapur,
Osmanabad, Paranda, Patoda, Shrigonda, and Tuljapur)
had an increasing trend of DGWR, which is statistically
significant at 5% level of significance in the Ashti block
only. The increasing trend of DGWR values indicates that
there is scope for further exploitation of groundwater from
the unconfined aquifer of these 11 blocks.
Groundwater availability during ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’
and ‘dry’ years
The availability of groundwater in the unconfined aquifer
of the study area in terms of the static groundwater reserve
(SGWR) and dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR) is
presented under three scenarios: ‘wet,’ ‘normal’ and ‘dry’
years. As mentioned in ‘‘Materials and methods’’ section,
1998 represents a ‘wet’ year, 2000 represents a ‘normal’
year, and 2003 represents ‘dry’ year. Maps of SGWR and
DGWR for ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years are depicted in
Figs. 8a–c and 9a–c, respectively.
The SGWR potential over the study area can be divided
into five classes: (i) 0–20 MCM, (ii) 20–40 MCM, (iii)
40–60 MCM, (iv) 60–80 MCM, and (v) [ 80 MCM
(Fig. 8a–c). For SGWR values during a ‘wet’ year
(Fig. 8a), the majority of the study falls in the 20–40 MCM
class covering an area of 6864 km2 (56% of the total area).
A strip of 0–20 MCM class of area 3194 km2 (26%) is
observed in the northwest/west parts of the study area. For
the 40–60 MCM class, an area of 1533 km2 (13%) is
located in the northeast and southeast/southern parts of the
study area. Small patches of 60–80 MCM class are scat-
tered throughout the study area, while the [80 MCM class

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 11 of 17 601

Fig. 7 Annual variation of 120 120

dynamic groundwater reserve (a) Ahmednagar Block (b) Ashti Block
(DGWR) in the unconfined 100 100
aquifer during 1990–2006
80 80
period in a Ahmednagar,

DGWR(MCM)
DGWR(MCM)
b Ashti, c Barshi, and d Bhum 60
60
blocks
40 40

20 20

0 0
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Year Year
120 120
(c) Barshi Block (d) Bhum Block
100
100
80

DGWR(MCM)
80
DGWR(MCM)

60
60
40
40
20

20 0

0 -20
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Year Year

has a very limited areal extent. The SGWR availability
during a ‘normal’ year (Fig. 8b) shows that the 20–40
MCM class of SGWR is dominant similar to the ‘wet’ year,
encompassing an area of 5523 km2 (45%) in the north-
western part of the study area. It is followed by the 40–60
MCM class covering an area of 4375 km2 (36%) and the
0–20 MCM class covering an area of 1558 km2 (13%)
mostly in the southeastern/southern part of the study area.
The 60–80 MCM class is found in scattered patches
encompassing an area of 758 km2 (6%). In contrast, the
map showing values of the SGWR during the ‘dry’ year
(Fig. 8c) indicates that the SGWR class of 0–20 MCM is
dominant in the study area (11,083 km2, 91%), followed by
four scattered patches of 20–40 MCM class covering an
area of 1077 km2 (9%), whereas 40–60 MCM class has
limited areal extent (1% of the study area). It should be
noted that as compared to the ‘normal year,’ the area
covered by the 0–20 MCM SGWR category increases to
78% in the ‘dry’ year.
Further, the DGWR potential over the study area can be
divided into five classes: (i)\0 MCM, (ii) 0–50 MCM, (iii)
50–100 MCM, (iv) 100–150 MCM, and (v) [150 MCM as
shown in Fig. 9a–c. In the ‘wet’ year (Fig. 9a), the class of
50–100 MCM DGWR encompasses 5991 km2 (49%)
located in mostly in the southern parts of the study area,
whereas the class of the 0–50 MCM DGWR covers
5567 km2 (45%) in the northwestern/northern part of the
study area. Two patches of the class 100–150 MCM cov-
ering an area of 585 km2 (5%) are located in the south-
western part of the study area, and \0 MCM class has a
limited areal extent (1% of the study area). In the ‘normal’
year (Fig. 9b), the distribution of the DGWR is similar to
that in ‘wet’ years but with a 4 and 1% decrease in area
under 0–50 MCM and \0 MCM classes of DGWR,
respectively, and 6% increase in area under the 50–100
MCM class. The 100–150 MCM class covering an area of
506 km2 (4% of the study area) is distributed in small
patches. Conversely, in ‘dry’ years (Fig. 9c) the class of the
0–50 MCM DGWR covers the largest area [11,073 km2
(90%)], followed by the \0 MCM class which encom-
passes an area of 859 km2 (7%) in the southeast-
ern/southern part of the study area. A comparison of
DGWR scenario in the ‘dry’ years with that in the ‘normal’
years reveals that the area under the DGWR class of 0–50
MCM increases to 49% in ‘dry’ years, which suggests that
there is a need for groundwater augmentation by artificial
recharge in the blocks falling in the 0–50 MCM class.
Status of groundwater utilization
As mentioned earlier, the data of annual groundwater draft
(withdrawal) in the study area are available only for 2008.
Hence, the status of groundwater development in the study
area has been evaluated for this year. In 2008, groundwater

123
601 Page 12 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Fig. 8 Maps of static groundwater reserve (SGWR) in the unconfined aquifer of the study area for: a wet year (1998), b normal year (2000), and
c dry year (2003)

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 13 of 17 601

Fig. 9 Maps of dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR) in the unconfined aquifer of the study area for: a wet year (1998), b normal year (2000),
and c dry year (2003)

drafts in the study area varied from 4.04 to 51.01 MCM, (GWDL) varied from about 12 to 124% (Table 6). It is
DGWR ranges from 17.59 (Patoda block) to 148.88 MCM obvious from the table that the level of groundwater
(Paranda block), and the level of groundwater development development in the study area varied considerably from

123
601 Page 14 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Table 6 Status of groundwater development in the study area in 2008

Name of block DGWR (MCM) GWDL (%) Pre-monsoon GWL slope (%) Post-monsoon GWL Status of GW
slope (%) development

1. Ahmednagar 20.85–70.52 70.96–123.78 ?10.10# to ?14.72# -3.41 to ?4.43 Safe

2. Ashti 70.66–104.84 37.67–59.39 ?30.20* to ?35.40* ?3.70 to ?4.92 Safe
3. Barshi 74.33–90.88 34.42–36.21 ?3.00 to ?18.45** -3.24 to ?4.56 Safe
4. Bhum 63.70–66.40 11.99–14.39 ?12.01# to ?14.91# -8.49 to -6.72 Safe
5. Jamkhed 42.40–45.07 34.85–39.49 ?5.30 to ?10.82# ?2.93 to ?5.12 Safe
6. Karjat 28.05–40.14 64.71–72.67 ?15.50# to ?16.01# ?1.44 to ?7.40 Safe
# #
7. Karmala 44.91–76.99 27.42–39.93 ?9.48 to ?11.71 -3.34 to ?2.37 Safe
8. Madha 41.68–131.30 33.70–75.51 ?9.38** to ?17.54# -4.71 to ?6.52 Safe
9. Mohol 38.86–59.07 63.49–82.25 ?3.41 to ?43.88** -13.27# to ?14.74# Safe
10. North Solapur 38.66–54.97 36.41–61.38 ?3.66 to ?6.02 -8.04 to -3.68 Safe
11.Osmanabad 41.35 67.14 ?12.82# ?2.22 Safe
# #
12. Paranda 106.01–148.88 15.30–35.74 ?4.65 to ?15.76 ?0.65 to -14.81 Safe
13. Patoda 17.59 22.99 ?44.70* ?6.80 Safe
14. Shrigonda 36.06 37.84 ?20.00# ?11.29# Safe
# #
15. South Solapur 37.39–38.75 37.39–49.72 -12.40 to -15.70 -8.33 to -6.70 Safe
16. Tuljapur 106.44 32.67 ?18.19# -1.91 Safe
Positive and negative signs in the slope columns indicate increasing and decreasing trend, respectively; values with * and ** indicate statistically
significant slope at 1 and 5% level of significance, respectively; values with superscript # indicate practically significant slope
GWDL groundwater development level, GWL groundwater level

one block to another. The blocks having the
GWDL B 70% are the Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Jamkhed,
Karmala, Madha, North Solapur, Osmanabad Paranda,
Patoda, Shrigonda, South Solapur, and Tuljapur blocks. At
this time, the blocks having GWDL [ 70% but less than
100% were part of the Ahmednagar, Karjat, Madha, and
Mohol blocks, whereas only part of Ahmednagar block had
a GWDL [ 100% (i.e., &124%).
Moreover, the slopes of the trend lines of the pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels for all the
sixteen blocks are also shown in Table 6. In this table, the
positive value of the slope indicates an increasing trend and
the negative value of slope indicates a decreasing trend.
The pre-monsoon groundwater levels of the Ashti and
Patoda blocks have increasing trends, which are statisti-
cally significant at a 1% level of significance, whereas
those of the Barshi, Madha, and Mohol blocks have sig-
nificant increasing trends at a 5% level of significance. The
pre-monsoon groundwater level of only South Solapur
district has a declining trend which is not statistically sig-
nificant, but it is practically significant. Interestingly, nei-
ther the increasing nor the decreasing trends of the post-
monsoon groundwater levels are statistically significant
even at 5% level of significance. However, based on a
visual inspection, the slope greater than ±9% is reasonably
large and hence it was considered practically significant.
Practically significant slopes of the pre-monsoon and post-
monsoon groundwater levels are shown with superscript #
in Table 6. Based on this criterion, the pre-monsoon
groundwater levels of eight more blocks have significant
increasing trends and the post-monsoon groundwater levels
of only three blocks (Mohol, Paranda and Shrigonda) have
practically significant trends (increasing or decreasing).
The guidelines given in Table 4 for assessing the stage
of groundwater development are applicable to the area
wherein there is a significant long-term decline of pre-
monsoon and/or post-monsoon groundwater levels. Thus,
three blocks, viz., the Mohol, Paranda, and South Solapur
blocks, have a significant declining trend of groundwater
levels in either the pre-monsoon season or post-monsoon
seasons and the groundwater development levels (GWDL)
for these blocks are 63.49–82.25, 15.30–35.74, and
37.39–49.72%, respectively. As these values of GWDL are
less than 70% (except part of the Mohol block), these
blocks are characterized as ‘safe’ blocks along with the
remaining 13 blocks. On the other hand, the remaining 13
blocks have no significant long-term decline of both pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels and
GWDL \ 70% in most of blocks. Thus, the whole study
area is characterized as being ‘safe’ in terms of the level of
groundwater development. This may be due to enhanced
recharge from the small and medium size reservoirs that
are present in the study area. Nevertheless, the study area
should be monitored regularly to protect it from overex-
ploitation in the near future in view of increasing frequency
of droughts in the study area.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 15 of 17 601

Fig. 10 Maps of runoff potential in the study area during a wet year (1998), b normal year (2000), and c dry year (2003)

123
601 Page 16 of 17
Runoff potential in the study area
Using monthly runoff estimates for a 20-year period
(1990–2009), the annual runoff potential maps for indi-
vidual years were prepared. The spatial variation of runoff
for the ‘wet’ year (1998), ‘normal’ year (2000), and ‘dry’
year (2003) is presented in Fig. 10a–c, respectively. Based
on the volume of runoff generated in the study area, the
study area can be classified into six zones: (i) ‘very poor’
(\100 mm), (ii) ‘poor’ (100–200 mm), (iii) ‘moderately
poor’ (200–300 mm), (iv) ‘moderately good’
(300–400 mm), (v) ‘good’ (400–500 mm), and (vi) ‘very
good’ ([500 mm).
As the highest amount of rainfall during the study period
was received in 1998, the runoff generated over the study
area during this year is likely to be the maximum value
received during this period. The area having ‘very good’
runoff potential is 693 km2 (6%), ‘good’ runoff potential is
4595 km2 (38%), ‘moderately good’ runoff potential is
3295 km2 (27%), ‘moderately poor’ runoff potential is
2912 km2 (24%), ‘poor’ runoff potential is 506 km2 (4%),
and ‘very poor’ runoff potential is 243 km2 (2%). All the
zones having good runoff potential were observed in the
‘wet’ year, and they are distributed over the northwestern/
northern and the southeastern/southern parts of the study
area. During a ‘normal’ year (Fig. 10b), a majority (67%) of
the area has a ‘poor’ runoff potential encompassing an area
of 8169 km2 and a ‘very poor’ runoff potential zone covers
3661 km2 (30%) in the southern and northeastern portions of
the study area. In contrast, in a dry year (Fig. 10c), almost
97% of the study area falls in the ‘very poor’ runoff potential
zone covering an area of 11,830 km2, with small scattered
patches having ‘poor’ runoff potential.
Based on above discussion, it is obvious that in ‘normal
year,’ 97% of the study area falls in categories of the ‘poor’
and ‘very poor’ runoff potential classes, whereas in the
‘wet’ year around 71% area falls under ‘moderately good’
to ‘very good’ runoff potential as compared to 33% area
under ‘poor’ and ‘moderately poor’ class (Fig. 10a, b).
Therefore, planning of rainwater harvesting should be
primarily done for the ‘wet’ years in order to conserve
rainwater for ensuring sustainable water supply in the
basin. This can be achieved through construction of suit-
able rainwater harvesting structures like farm ponds and
tanks as well as artificial recharge structures such as check
dams, percolating tanks, and subsurface dykes. The con-
struction of these structures at suitable locations would
help in recharging groundwater and conserving rainwater,
which in turn can help in mitigating the impacts of
droughts in the study area. Such planning and management
strategies will also ensure conjunctive use of surface water
and groundwater in the basin.
123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601
Conclusions
This paper deals with the assessment of groundwater
resources at a suitable spatial scale (i.e., block level) in a
semiarid river basin of Western India. For this, rainfall data
of nine raingauge stations and pre-monsoon and post-
monsoon groundwater-level data of 132 sites over the basin
for the 1900–2009 period were used. The availability of the
groundwater resource in the unconfined aquifer was
investigated in terms of ‘static groundwater reserve
(SGWR)’ and ‘dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR),’
and an analysis of the spatiotemporal distribution of these
reserves was carried out. Based on the level of groundwater
development (GWDL) and the long-term trends of pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels, the status
of groundwater development in individual blocks was
explored. Moreover, the runoff potential over the study
area was evaluated for ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years
from a rainwater harvesting viewpoint, and three runoff
maps corresponding to these years were prepared using
GIS.
The spatiotemporal distribution of the SGWR revealed
that five blocks have a significantly decreasing trend during
the study period, which is of concern. Consequently, ade-
quate water conservation measures should be initiated in
these blocks to augment groundwater reserves. On the other
hand, there is an increasing trend of DGWR in 11 blocks
that suggests further groundwater exploitation from the
unconfined aquifer of these blocks is possible. The area
having SGWR values in the range of 0–20 MCM increases
to 78% in ‘dry’ years as compared to ‘normal’ years, which
suggests that groundwater from these blocks should be
judiciously utilized. The area having 0–50 MCM is found to
increase to 49% in ‘dry’ years compared to ‘normal’ years,
indicating the need for constructing rainwater harvesting
and artificial recharge structures in this portion of the study
area. The trend analysis of seasonal groundwater levels
revealed that during pre-monsoon seasons, ten blocks have
a significantly increasing trend and only one block has a
significantly decreasing trend. However, during post-mon-
soon seasons, the Shrigonda block has a significantly
increasing trend, some part of the Paranda block has a
significant decreasing trend and a portion of Mohol block
has either significant increasing or decreasing trend. How-
ever, considering the GWDL and long-term trends of pre-
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels, the entire
study area is characterized as ‘safe’ for further groundwater
exploitation. The runoff potential maps generated for ‘wet,’
‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years revealed that in ‘wet’ years, 71%
area falls under ‘moderately good’ to ‘very good’ zones
suggesting blocks under this area are favorable for imple-
menting suitable rainwater harvesting methods.
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601
Overall, it can be concluded that a regular monitoring of
groundwater-level fluctuation at multiple sites reveals the
effect of various environmental factors on aquifer systems
and provides a clear picture of spatiotemporal variations of
groundwater resources in an area or a basin. This should be
continued in the future as well. The developed maps
showing static and dynamic groundwater reserves are
useful for the efficient planning and management of
groundwater resources at a block or district level in the
study area. In addition, runoff potential maps for ‘wet,’
‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years can be helpful in identifying
suitable sites for rainwater harvesting, which in turn can
help evolve realistic plan for sustainable utilization of
groundwater in drought-prone areas. The methodology
presented in this study can be replicated in other regions of
India as well as in other parts of the world.
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge India Meteorology
Department (IMD), Pune and State Data Storage Center, Hydrology
Project, Nashik, India, for providing meteorological data as well as to
Groundwater Survey and Development Agency, Pune, India, on
supplying groundwater-level data. We are also thankful to Associate
Editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and
suggestions.
References
Chatterjee C, Kumar R, Chakravorty B, Lohani AK, Kumar S (2005)
Integrating remote sensing and GIS techniques with groundwater
flow modeling for assessment of waterlogged areas. Water
Resour Manag 19(5):539–554
Chowdary VM, Chandran RV, Neeti N, Bothale RV, Srivastava YK,
Ingle P, Singh R (2008) Assessment of surface and sub-surface
waterlogged areas in irrigation command areas of Bihar state
using remote sensing and GIS. Agric Water Manag
95(7):754–766
Chowdhury A, Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Mal BC (2009) Integrated
remote sensing and GIS-based approach for assessing ground-
water potential in West Medinipur district, West Bengal, India.
Int J Remote Sens 30:231–250
EIS (2006) Disaster management in Maharashtra. Environmental
Information System (EIS), Environmental Department, Environ-
mental Information System (ENVIS) Newsletter, Government of
Maharashtra, India, vol 1, pp 1–10
Garg KK, Bharati L, Gaur A, George B, Acharya S, Jella K,
Narasimhan B (2012) Spatial mapping of agricultural water
productivity using the SWAT model in Upper Bhima Catchment,
India. Irrig Drain 61(1):60–79
Gorelick SM, Zheng C (2015) Global change and the groundwater
management challenge. Water Resour Res 51:3031–3051
Page 17 of 17 601
GSDA and CGWB (2011) Dynamic ground water resources of
Maharashtra (2008–2009). Groundwater Surveys and Develop-
ment Agency (GSDA), Maharashtra and Central Ground Water
Board (CGWB), Central Region, Nagpur, India
GWREC (1997) Report of the Ground Water Resource Estimation
Committee. Ground Water Resource Estimation Committee
(GWREC), Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Ministry of
Water Resources, New Delhi
Haan CT (1977) Statistical methods in hydrology. Iowa State
University Press, Ames
Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Using groundwater levels to estimate
recharge. Hydrogeol J 10(1):91–109
IWMI (2001) The strategic plan for IWMI 2000–2005. International
Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo
Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Chowdhury A (2010) Groundwater assess-
ment in Salboni Block, West Bengal (India) using remote
sensing, geographical information system and multi-criteria
decision analysis techniques. Hydrogeol J 18(7):1713–1728
Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Kulkarni Y, Mal BC (2014) Rainwater
harvesting planning using geospatial techniques and multicriteria
decision analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 83:96–111
Jothiprakash V, Marimuthu G, Muralidharan R, Senthil Kumar N
(2003) Delineation of potential zones for the artificial recharge
using GIS. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 31(1):37–47
Mandal AK, Sharma RC (2001) Mapping of waterlogged areas and
salt affected soils in the IGNP command area. J Indian Soc
Remote Sens 29(4):229–235
MoWR and CGWB (2013) Ground water information Solapur
District Maharashtra. Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi
and Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Central Region,
Nagpur, India
PACS (2004) Drought in India: challenges and initiatives. Report of
Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme 2001–2008,
New Delhi, India
Rodell M, Velicogna I, Famiglietti JS (2009) Satellite-based estimates
of groundwater depletion in India. Nature 460:999–1002
Saraf AK, Choudhury PR (1998) Integrated remote sensing and GIS
for groundwater exploration and identification of artificial
recharge sites. Int J Remote Sens 19(10):1825–1841
Sener E, Davraz A, Ozcelik M (2005) An integration of GIS and
remote sensing in groundwater investigations: a case study in
Burdur, Turkey. Hydrogeol J 13(5–6):826–834
Solomon S, Quiel F (2006) Groundwater study using remote sensing
and geographic information systems (GIS) in the central
highlands of Eritrea. Hydrogeol J 14(5):729–741
Subramanya K (2008) Engineering hydrology. Tata McGraw-Hill
Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, pp 155–160
Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Reigber C (2004) The gravity
recovery and climate experiment: mission overview and early
results. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2004GL019920
Tweed SO, Leblanc M, Webb JA, Lubczynski MW (2007) Remote
sensing and GIS for mapping groundwater recharge and
discharge areas in salinity prone catchments, southeastern
Australia. Hydrogeol J 15(1):75–96
123