The recommendation by the Commission for Agriculture Costs and Prices that States fix ceilings on per hectare use of water deserves to be taken up seriously. Paddy is a water guzzler; a kg of paddy requires 3,000-5,000 litres of water. Providing for this across the length and breadth of India has created ecological and livelihood imbalances. The same holds true for sugarcane, another water-intensive crop. Punjab, a State that is almost entirely irrigated and has the highest per hectare yields, uses over 5,300 litres of water to produce a kg of rice. Free electricity since 1997 led to a shift away from canal irrigation to groundwater irrigation. This shift — thanks to groundwater being available on demand right through the year — coincided with a huge increase in acreage under rice in the State, at the expense of coarse grains and pulses. Even as water tables have fallen precipitously in many districts, farmers stick to a paddy-wheat cycle. The combination of free electricity and assured price still works in paddy’s favour. If the State government cannot levy a price on electricity, the least it can do is ration its supply.

This is not to argue that paddy, essential for food security, should be discouraged. By levying a price on water in command areas or curbing its supply, farmers may be persuaded to adopt efficient methods, developed by the ICAR, that use 30 per cent less water. However, raising water rates — command area farmers are heavily subsidised — may not lead to efficient cropping practices, unless water accounts for a significant share of the costs. Therefore, a lot depends on whether the irrigation system can regulate supply in keeping with efficient cropping practices, rather than flood the fields without warning and then not supply water for days on end. The government, besides raising water rates in command areas, should focus on ‘irrigation extension’ activities such as developing decentralised, well-informed water user associations, as in Gujarat and Maharashtra. As for sugarcane, it is a case of political forces not paying heed to market realities — a crop favoured by growers because of assured prices and buyers is in crisis because of a sugar glut.

While taking a serious view of water use, it must be kept in mind that the economics of rainfed farming is a pretty grim affair. Farmers desperate for water invest over a lakh in a pumpset only to find it becoming useless after two years because of a declining water table, in effect paying a high price for water. For them to shift to horticultural products that are amenable to drip irrigation, they need to be assured of market linkages and better extension support. Reforms in warehousing and distribution practices must be pursued at the earliest. This will leave not just the water table, but also farmers and consumers better off.