Water Resources Management 18: 219–235, 2004.

219
© 2004 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

Planning and Design of Cost-effective Water

Harvesting Structures for Efficient Utilization of
Scarce Water Resources in Semi-arid Regions of
Rajasthan, India

DEEPESH MACHIWAL1, MADAN K. JHA1∗ , P. K. SINGH2 , S. C. MAHNOT2

and A. GUPTA2
1 AgFE Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India;
2 SWE Department, College of Technology and Engineering, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India
(∗ author for correspondence, e-mail: madan@agfe.iitkgp.ernet.in)

(Received: 8 August 2003; accepted: 9 January 2004)

Abstract. Water-harvesting structures have the potential to increase the productivity of arable lands
by enhancing crop yields and by reducing the risk of crop failure in arid and semi-arid regions, where
water shortages are common because of scanty rainfall and its uneven distribution. In semi-arid
regions of Rajasthan, India, existing practice of harvesting rainwater is through anicut and earthen
embankments. Because of higher costs and higher technical skills involved in the construction of
these structures, these structures have not been accepted by the resource-poor local people. There-
fore, in the present paper, the detailed design of some low-cost water-harvesting structures using
locally available materials and adaptable to the socio-economic conditions of the beneficiaries is
discussed. Two types of cost-effective water-harvesting structures, which include dry stone masonry
and upstream-wall cement masonry of heights 1, 2, and 2.5 m for catchments of less than 10, 10
to 20, and 20 to 30 ha, respectively are proposed and designed. The analysis of costs involved
in constructing dry stone masonry and upstream-wall cement masonry water-harvesting structures,
emergency spillway, anicuts and earthen embankments revealed that the earthen embankments have
the least cost of construction whereas the anicuts have the highest construction costs for all the
selected heights. However, based on the past experiences, earthen embankments are not suitable for
the semi-arid regions of Rajasthan. The economic evaluation of the proposed structures indicated
that the dry stone masonry structures are very cost-effective for the region with a benefit-cost ratio
of 3.5:1 and the net present worth value of Rs. 102978. Although the economic indicators ranked the
upstream-wall cement masonry structures lower than the dry stone masonry structures, the former
has greater stability and strength compared to the latter. In practice, both the cost-effective water-
harvesting structures (i.e., dry stone masonry and upstream-wall cement masonry) are gaining wide
acceptance and popularity in the region through some nongovernmental organizations, which have
adopted the design presented in this paper.

Key words: dry stone masonry structures, India, indigenous water-harvesting structures, semi-arid
region, upstream-wall cement masonry structures, water harvesting, water scarcity
220 D. MACHIWAL ET AL.

1. Introduction

The twentieth century has seen phenomenal growth in the use of water. The world
population has tripled, but the use of water for human purpose has multiplied six
fold. The world is fast heading towards ‘a water shock’, which may even dwarf the
oil crisis. The shortage of water is likely to be so acute in future that the next world
war may well be fought over disputes relating to the sharing of water resources
among various countries. The Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Re-
sources of the World (CFA, 1997) illustrates the magnitude of the global water
problem and estimates that about one-third of the world’s population is currently
afflicted with moderate to severe water stress. By the year 2025, approximately
two-thirds of the world population (close to 5.5 billion people) would be at risk
of facing water stress, if the present trend continues (Kuylenstierna et al., 1997).
The problem of water scarcity in arid and semi-arid regions of the world (almost
30% of the earth’s surface), triggered by low rainfall and its uneven distribution
throughout the season, has been tackled through water harvesting techniques from
historical times.
Water harvesting, defined in its broadest sense as the collection of runoff for
its productive use (Siegert, 1994), is an ancient art practiced in the past in many
parts of North America, Middle East, North Africa, China and India. As a result,
different indigenous techniques and systems were developed in different parts of
the world, which are still mentioned in the literature by their traditional names
(Kolarkar et al., 1983; Dijk and Ahmed, 1993; Prinz, 1994). Indigenous water
harvesting methods are site-specific and include widely differing practices such as
bunding, pitting, micro-catchment water harvesting, flood water and groundwater
harvesting (Prinz 1996; Critchley and Siegert 1991). UNEP (1983) presents an
excellent historical review of rainwater harvesting techniques for agriculture.
During last two decades, various governmental, private and university research
organizations showed their increasing interest in this old technique by initiating
studies to develop and evaluate modern methods and materials for designing, con-
structing, and managing water harvesting. Many of those modern systems failed,
despite good techniques and design, because the social, economic, and manage-
ment factors were inadequately integrated into development of the system (Bazza
and Tayya, 1994). The key to the success of water harvesting techniques in a
region is the acceptance by the beneficiaries (i.e., rural people/farmers) and their
full support (Renner and Frasier, 1995). Generally, the beneficiaries of developing
countries have little risk-bearing ability and they avoid to test unproven methods.
The chances for success are greater if scientific knowledge is integrated with the
beneficiaries’ traditional knowledge, which refers to the unique and local know-
ledge existing within and developed around the specific conditions of women and
men indigenous to a particular geographic area (Nirmale and Metar, 2003). One of
the crucial social aspects for the success is the participation of the beneficiaries and
local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in planning, design, implementation,
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 221

and operation and maintenance of water harvesting structures. Another import-

ant condition for success is the economic feasibility of structures in both initial
construction and maintenance costs. Therefore, new interest has emerged during re-
cent decades to evaluate indigenous water harvesting techniques (Prinz and Singh,
2003) which are simple, easy to be implemented and are of low capital investment.
Although increasing interest is currently focused on rainwater harvesting meth-
ods for arid climates, very little attention has been paid to semi-arid climatic re-
gions (Tsakiris, 1991). About 24 million ha area in India lies in the arid zone,
while the semi-arid regions are spread over an area of 60 million ha (encompassing
most of Rajasthan), which is about 20% of total area in the country (Samra et al.,
2002). Rajasthan, the driest state of India has a mean annual rainfall of about 570
mm (GOR, 2000) and is characterized as water scarce state (per capita water avail-
ability < 1000 m3 yr−1 ). Agarwal (1998) envisages enormous potential of water
harvesting in India, and emphasizes the importance of rainwater harvesting and its
pivotal role in water management. Rainwater harvesting is playing a central role in
the water supply for agriculture in semi-arid and arid regions of India like Gujarat
and Rajasthan (Kolavalli and Whitaker, 1996).
Earthen embankments and anicuts are usually constructed as major water har-
vesting structures in the semi-arid regions of Rajasthan, which are very expensive
and require highly technical skill in their design and construction. Here, the term
‘anicut’ denotes a weir type masonry structure constructed across the natural drain
for impounding water. On the other hand, regional farmers have evolved different
indigenous water harvesting systems over the generations. These indigenous water
harvesting structures are simple, cost-effective and easy to implement compared
to anicuts. However, their unscientific design and construction have resulted in a
failure of these indigenous structures in most cases. The principal cause of the
failure has been identified as no provision of emergency spillway and lack of tech-
nical knowledge. In view of the high initial investment, technical skill required
for the design and construction of anicuts and earthen embankments, and growing
demand for indigenous water harvesting structures in the region, the present study
was undertaken with the objectives: (i) to plan and design two cost-effective water
harvesting structures; and (ii) to evaluate the economic feasibility of the designed
water harvesting structures.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY AREA
The hilly region of Rajasmand district in Rajasthan, India was selected as a study
area for the present study (Figure 1). Rajasmand district is situated in the southern
part of Rajasthan and is oval in shape with a very narrow strip stretching towards
the North. The district with total area of 0.48 million ha, which is about 1.4% of the
state lies in the semiarid to sub-humid agro-climatic zone IV-A of Rajasthan and
is located at 25◦ 20 N latitude and 73◦ 50 E longitude. The district has moderate
222 D. MACHIWAL ET AL.

Figure 1. Location of the study area.

climate with average annual rainfall of about 541 mm, most which occurs during
June to September (monsoon season). The rainfall of the region shows greater
spatio-temporal variations and is highly erratic in nature. Based on the Indian soils
classification system, the soils of the study area can be classified as medium to fine
textured Kota series, Chambal series, Bundi series, Mangrop series, RBL (Rough
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 223

Broken Land) and hills. However, based on the USDA soil classification system,
the soils of the area can be classified as ‘loam’ and ‘sandy loam’.
Traditionally, the rural people of Rajasmand have been dependent on forestry,
agriculture and on livestock rearing for their livelihoods. However, in recent years,
due to large-scale degradation of natural resources and due to breakdown in the
institutional mechanisms to manage the resources, people are becoming more and
more dependent on marginal agriculture and in migrating out for wage labour. They
are barely able to sustain themselves economically. In terms of land holdings, the
average is less than a hectare and a large proportion of families live below the
poverty line. In recent years, water scarcity is emerging as the major disaster in the
region.

2.2. SELECTION OF WATER HARVESTING SITE

The selection of a suitable site for water harvesting structures is very important
because of the fact that the cost of construction, utility and the life of structures
depend on the site. The micro-catchment Bheru Das Ka Khera, with a narrow
section of valley and steep side slopes was selected for the planning and design
of two cost-effective water harvesting structures in this study. As the selected site
consists of a narrow valley, the larger storage capacity can be obtained with the
less earthwork, and hence the total cost of construction reduces considerably. In
addition, good fill-in materials locally known as murrum and loose stones required
for the construction of the water harvesting structures are available in abundance
in the region, which further reduces the cost of construction. The catchment being
in hilly tract, the seepage and percolation losses can be neglected. Total size of the
selected catchment was determined as 30 ha by using G.T. sheet and planimeter.
The slope of the catchment ranges from 5 to 10%. On the basis of USDA land
capability classification (Klingebiel and Montgomery, 1961), the catchment lands
vary from class IV to VII.

2.3. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR THE INDIGENOUS WATER HARVESTING

STRUCTURES

In designing a water harvesting structure, the first step is to decide the height of
the structure, which is a function of the availability of runoff water. On the basis of
local experiences (Singh, 2000), the water harvesting structures of heights 1, 2, and
2.5 m are suitable for the catchments of less than 10, 10 to 20, and 20 to 30 hectares,
respectively. Indigenous water harvesting structures can be constructed manually
by the beneficiaries at appropriate locations (e.g., narrow valleys) in different com-
binations of dry stone and cement masonry walls at upstream and downstream sides
of the structures. In the present study, two types of water harvesting structures viz.,
dry stone masonry (DSM) and upstream-wall cement masonry (UCM) of heights 1,
224 D. MACHIWAL ET AL.

2, and 2.5 m are proposed and their scientific designs are presented for their better
performance.
In DSM type water harvesting structures, the upstream and downstream walls
are made up of dry stone masonry, and murrum/soil is filled in-between them at
suitable intervals to provide stability to the structure. These structures should not
be constructed for more than 2.5 m height, which may cause overturning of the
structure (Singh, 2000). A provision of emergency spillway is a must for the safe
disposal of excess runoff from the structure. It is lacking in the structures currently
used by the farmers.
In UCM type water harvesting structures, the upstream wall is constructed with
cement masonry, whereas the downstream wall is constructed with dry stone ma-
sonry. In between two walls, murrum/soil is filled at certain intervals to provide
stability to the structure. In any case, the bottom width of the UCM structure should
not exceed 1.5 m (Singh, 2000).

2.4. DESIGN OF EMERGENCY SPILLWAY

The emergency spillway acts as a key component in any water storage structure
as it protects the whole construction in case of surplus runoff. As already men-
tioned, there was no provision for emergency spillway in the earlier indigenous
water harvesting structures, which was the main reason for the failure of struc-
tures. Therefore, in this paper, the design procedures of the rectangular emergency
spillway are presented below.

2.4.1. Calculation of Peak Runoff

In the design of emergency spillway, the first step is to compute the peak runoff
from the catchment. The peak runoff can be computed by the rational formula,
which is mathematically as (Subramanya, 1994):

CIA
Qp = (1)
36

Where Qp = peak runoff rate (m3 /sec); C = runoff coefficient (dimensionless); I

= rainfall intensity (cm/hr) for the design recurrence interval and for the duration
equal to the time of concentration of the watershed; and A = catchment size (ha).
The values of runoff coefficient are dependent on the vegetative cover, soil tex-
ture, and slope and suitable values for the study area were selected from standard
tables (Singh et al., 1981).
Time of concentration of a watershed is computed by the most commonly used
Kirpich formula (Haan et al., 1994). It is mathematically expressed as:

t = 0.019474 K0.77 (2)

WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 225

and,


L3m
K= (3)
H
Where t = time of concentration (minutes); Lm = maximum length of travel (m);
and H = elevation difference between most remote point and outlet (m).

2.4.2. Calculation of Length of Emergency Spillway

The length of the proposed emergency spillway is calculated by the following
formula (Singh, 2000):

L = Qp /(1.71h3/2 ) (4)

Where L = length of the emergency spillway (m); Qp = peak discharge of the

spillway (m3 sec−1 ); and h = depth of flow over the spillway crest (m).
In the construction of emergency spillway, stone pitching was proposed on the
surface of spillway, and hence total area and volume of earthwork involved was
calculated accordingly. While estimating the cost of construction of proposed water
harvesting structures, the volume of earthwork involved for emergency spillway
was subtracted from the earthwork needed for structures.

2.5. CALCULATION OF COSTS AND BENEFITS

For estimating the construction costs of the proposed water harvesting structures,
detailed estimates comprising description of works, dimensions (length, width, and
height,) and quantities, and the abstract estimates including items, quantities, rates
and amounts were prepared for the DSM and UCM type water harvesting structures
of heights 1, 2, and 2.5 m.
The costs of both DSM and UCM water harvesting structures included the man-
power supplied by the beneficiaries for various labour works such as land marking,
excavation of foundation, dressing and disposal of excavated materials, filling of
coarse and gravelly soils (i.e., murrum) in between upstream and downstream sides
of the structures, plaster pointing and stone pitching. The costs of construction
materials, i.e., dry stone and random rubble stone masonry using cement mortar
were also considered while calculating the costs of water harvesting structures.
The service life of the proposed water harvesting structures is considered as ten
years.
Benefits due to increased and dependable water availability have been calcu-
lated based on the increased area under existing crops. Moreover, benefits due to
change in the relatively high value crops, e.g., mustard in place of barley, have also
been considered in this study. It is worth mentioning that the benefits due to long-
term effects of water harvesting structures, e.g., rising of groundwater table have
226 D. MACHIWAL ET AL.

not been considered because of the rocky terrain and relatively short life of the
proposed structures. However, the enhanced crop production in both the seasons
(i.e., rainy and winter seasons) take into account the long-term benefits of water
harvesting structures in this study.

2.6. ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES

Economic analysis of water harvesting structures is essential for better selection,
planning, evaluation and decision-making. Therefore, the water harvesting struc-
tures proposed and designed in this paper, are evaluated using two widely used
economic indicators such as net present value (NPV) and benefit-cost (B-C) ratio.

2.6.1. Net Present Value

Net present value (NPV) is computed using the following equation (Brooks et al.,
1998):
 n  
Bt − Ct
NPV = (5)
t=1
(1 + r) t

Where Bt and Ct = benefit and cost in year t, respectively; and r = discount rate.

2.6.2. Benefit-Cost Ratio

A benefit-cost (B-C) ratio simply compares the present value of benefits to the
present value of costs and is given by the following equation (Brooks et al., 1998):
 
n Bt
t=1 (1 + r)
t
B - C ratio = n   (6)
 Ct
t=1 (1 + r)
t

If the B-C ratio is greater than 1, the present value of benefits is greater than the
present value of costs and the structure is considered economically viable.

2.6.3. Choice of Economic Indicators

Brooks et al. (1998) compared three economic indicators, i.e., NPV, B-C ratio,
and internal rate of return under three conditions and suggested that for mutually
exclusive situations (as in the present study), the NPV indicator is the only one
that will always lead to the correct selection. According to Dixon and Hufschmidt
(1986), NPV indicator must always be a part of any choice criterion for accepting
or rejecting watershed management practices, projects, or programs. The B-C ratio
is the measure of benefits per unit of cost. Thus, this gives no indication of the total
magnitude of the net benefits or NPV. Therefore, reliance on just the B-C ratio
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 227
Table I. Design dimensions of the emergency spillway

Height of the Emergency spillway

structure (m) Height (m) Length (m)

1.0 0.3 4.94

2.0 0.5 4.60
2.5 0.7 4.16

Table II. Recommended design parameters of the proposed water

harvesting structures

Design Dry stone masonry Upstream-wall cement

parameters (m) of heights masonry of heights
1 m 2 m 2.5 m 1m 2 m 2.5 m

W1 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.45 0.5 0.6

W2 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 1.5 1.5
W3 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
W4 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.6 0.8 1.0
W5 0.8 1.0 1.2 0.8 1.0 1.2
L1 0.3 0.5 0.7 0.3 0.5 0.7
L2 1.0 2.0 2.5 1.0 2.0 2.5
L3 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 1.0

could lead to the selection of structures that yield total net benefits less than that
yielded by the structures selected based on the NPV indicator.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. DESIGN DIMENSIONS OF EMERGENCY SPILLWAYS
The peak runoff rates for three catchments of size 10, 20, and 30 ha as determined
by the ‘rational’ formula (Equation 1) are 1.39, 2.78, and 4.17 m3 sec−1 , respect-
ively. Here, the runoff coefficient was considered as 0.25 from the standard table
(Singh et al., 1981) for the prevailing land conditions in the study area. For com-
puting the length of the emergency spillways, the depths of flow over the crest of
spillways were considered as 0.20, 0.35, and 0.50 m for the structures of height 1, 2,
and 2.5 m, respectively, and then 15% freeboard was added. The design dimensions
of the proposed emergency spillways are summarized in Table I. The stone pitching
of 20 cm thickness is proposed for the emergency spillway on the murrum surface
area.
 228

Figure 2. Schematic diagrams defining the design parameters of the proposed water harvesting structures.
D. MACHIWAL ET AL.
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 229

Figure 3. Costs of construction for the proposed and indigenous water harvesting structures.

3.2. DESIGN DIMENSIONS OF PROPOSED WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES

The schematic diagrams along with the design parameters of the proposed DSM
and UCM type water harvesting structures are shown in Figure 2(a,b) and recom-
mended design parameters for both the structures of 1, 2, and 2.5 m heights are
presented in Table II. The length of the water harvesting structures is considered
25 m as per the requirement at the selected site. For a given height, the same design
dimensions of upstream and downstream walls are taken for DSM type water har-
vesting structures. The foundation depth for the structure of 1 m height is kept as
0.50 m, whereas for 2 and 2.5 m height structures, it is kept as 1.0 m. For DSM
type water harvesting structures, the cross-sections of upstream and downstream
walls are similar in dimensions and construction material. However, in the case of
UCM type water harvesting structures, the cross-section of upstream wall is smaller
than that of downstream wall, and the upstream wall is constructed with cement
masonry instead of dry stone masonry. It is emphasized to use locally available
construction materials (e.g., murrum and loose stones) so as to minimize the cost
of construction. Table II and Figure 2 provide guidelines for adopting the proposed
cost-effective water harvesting structures.
230 D. MACHIWAL ET AL.

Table III. Net benefits without and with the proposed rainwater harvesting structure

Details Season Crop Area Cost of Gross Total Total Net

(ha) cultivation return cost of gross return
(Rs.a ha−1 ) (Rs. ha−1 ) cultivation return (Rs.)
(Rs.)a (Rs.)

Without water kharif Maize 2.5 744 3240 1860 8100 6240
harvesting (rainy) Urd 2.0 827 1724 1654 3448 1794
structures rabi Wheat 1.0 1446 4200 1446 4200 2754
(winter) Barley 1.0 1092 2400 1092 2400 1308
Total 12096.00

With kharif Maize 3.5 1687 4800 5905 16800 10895

water (rainy) Urd 2.5 1450 3486 3625 8715 5090
harvesting rabi Wheat 2.0 2563 6024 5126 12048 6922
structures (winter) Mustard 2.5 1580 6497 3950 16243 12293
Total 35200.00

a Rs. = Indian Rupees (47 Rs. = 1 US $).

3.3. ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF THE PROPOSED WATER HARVESTING

STRUCTURES

3.3.1. Cost Analysis

A comparison of the costs of existing and the proposed water harvesting structures
is illustrated in Figure 3. It is clear from this figure that the highest cost of con-
struction is involved for anicuts of all heights. The cost ratios for the 2 m high
DSM and UCM type water harvesting structures to the anicuts of same height
are 6.02 and 3.23, respectively. In other words, the DSM and UCM type water
harvesting structures of 2 m height are 6 and 3 times cost-effective, respectively
than the anicut. Here, it should be noted that though the cost of construction for
earthen embankments is lower than the proposed DSM and UCM type water har-
vesting structures, the former are not recommended for the study area due to their
instability on sandy loam soils and high maintenance costs. Thus, the proposed
DSM and UCM type water harvesting structures are cost-effective even in terms of
construction costs and are also suitable for the region.

3.3.2. Net Benefits With and Without Water Harvesting Structures

Under with and without principle, benefits obtained from water harvesting struc-
tures at pre- and post-implementation stages are compared. In the present study,
the harvested water is planned to be utilized for providing irrigation to 6 ha area in
the downstream side of the structure. The net returns from the cultivable area with
and without implementing the proposed water harvesting structures are computed
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 231

as shown in Table III. From this table it can be seen that without the introduction
of water harvesting structures, cropped areas were 4.5 and 2 ha in kharif (rainy)
and rabi (winter) seasons, respectively. However, after implementing the proposed
structures, the cropped areas increase to 6 ha in kharif and 4.5 ha in rabi seasons.
It is worth mentioning that with the proposed structures, barley is replaced with
mustard in rabi season, and the acreage under each crop increases significantly due
to the enhanced water availability for irrigation.
Whenever a change occurs because of a project implementation (i.e., new crop
areas, increased crop yields, etc.), it is recommended to determine the net incre-
mental benefit of the project, not the gross benefit. The net incremental benefit of
the proposed water harvesting structures is computed to be about Rs. 23104 based
on the information in Table III.

3.3.3. Economic Feasibility

In the present study, NPV and B-C ratio economic indicators are applied to find
out the most economic water harvesting structure. The economic analysis for 10
yr is presented in Table IV for 2 m high water harvesting structure as an example.
In Table IV, the total cost of the structure includes the construction cost in the
first year and the repair and maintenance charge in subsequent years. The repair
and maintenance charges are considered @10% in case of DSM, UCM and anicut
structures while @25% for earthen embankments. Higher repair and maintenance
charges for earthen embankments justify the frequent maintenance associated with
these structures compared to other structures.
In Table IV, the B-C ratio is less than 1 for anicuts, and hence anicuts are
not economically feasible for the semi-arid regions of Rajasthan. The highest net
present worth value (i.e., Rs. 114,950) is for earthen embankments, but as men-
tioned earlier, this structure is not suitable for the soils of the study area. The
next higher present worth value (Rs. 102,978) is for dry stone masonry (DSM)
type structure with B-C ratio of about 3.5:1. On the other hand, the upstream-wall
cement masonry (UCM) type structure has a lower B-C ratio (1.9:1) and NPV
than the DSM type structure, though the UCM has a greater stability and strength.
Thus, the economic indicators finally confirm the cost-effectiveness of both the
water harvesting structures proposed and designed in this study.

3.4. TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER AND USERS ’ RESPONSE

Some local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have adopted the DSM and
UCM type water harvesting structures proposed and designed in this study for the
semi-arid regions of Rajasthan. The local people/farmers actively participated in
the construction work and are currently using such structures without any com-
plaints. It is important to mention that such a quick and effective adoption of
the proposed structures is solely attributed to their cost-effectiveness and being
socio-economically friendly.
 232

Table IV. Economic evaluation of 2 m high water harvesting structures

Years Net Present Earthen embankment Dry stone masonry Upstream-wall cement Anicut
incremental worth of structure masonry structure
income incremental Total cost Present Total cost Present Total cost Present Total cost Present
(Rs.)a income (Rs.) worth of (Rs.) worth of (Rs.) worth of (Rs.) worth of
(Rs.) total cost @ total cost @ total cost @ total cost @
10% (Rs.) 10% (Rs.) 10% (Rs.) 10% (Rs.)

1 – – 11720 11720 25740 25740 48000 48000 155000 155000

2 23104 21004 2930 2664 2574 2340 4800 4363 15500 14090
3 24260 20050 2930 2422 2574 2128 4800 3967 15500 12810
4 25473 19139 2930 2202 2574 1935 4800 3607 15500 11646
5 25473 17399 2930 2002 2574 1759 4800 3279 15500 10587
6 25473 15817 2930 1820 2574 1599 4800 2981 15500 9625
7 25473 14379 2930 1654 2574 1454 4800 2710 15500 8750
8 25473 13072 2930 1504 2574 1322 4800 2464 15500 7954
9 25473 11884 2930 1367 2574 1202 4800 2240 15500 7231
10 25473 10804 2930 1243 2574 1093 4800 2036 15500 6574
Total 143548 28598 40570 75647 244267
Benefit-cost ratio 5.02:1 3.54:1 1.90:1 0.59:1
Net present value (Rs.) 114950 102978 67901 –100719

a Rs. = Indian Rupees (47 Rs. = 1 US $).

D. MACHIWAL ET AL.
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 233

4. Conclusions
The present study was carried out with the objectives to plan and design two cost-
effective water-harvesting structures and to evaluate their economic feasibility for
the semi-arid regions of Rajasthan, India. Two types of water harvesting structures,
i.e., dry stone masonry and upstream-wall cement masonry of heights 1, 2, and 2.5
m are proposed and designed for the catchments of size less than 10, 10 to 20, and
20 to 30 ha, respectively with a provision of suitable emergency spillways.
The detailed cost analysis of the proposed and existing structures revealed that
the dry stone masonry and upstream-wall cement masonry water harvesting struc-
tures are less expensive than the anicuts – existing water-harvesting structures.
Anicuts of 2 m height are 6 to 3 times costlier than the dry stone masonry and
upstream-wall cement masonry structures of the same height. Furthermore, from
the economic analysis of the structures, it is found that the benefit-cost ratios for
the anicuts, dry stone masonry, and upstream-wall cement masonry structures are
less than one, 3.5, and 1.9, respectively. Thus, anicuts are not economically feas-
ible, and hence are not recommended for the study area, instead the proposed dry
stone masonry and/or upstream-wall cement masonry structures are recommended.
Here, it is important to know that despite the highest benefit-cost ratio for earthen
embankments, they are not preferred based on past experiences with the structures.
Similar results were obtained while applying net present value indicator. The net
present value is negative for anicuts and maximum (Rs. 102978) for dry stone
masonry structures preceded by earthen embankments (Rs. 114950).
The structures proposed and designed in this study can be implemented in other
semi-arid regions of India having almost the same climatic and socio-economic
conditions. The importance of the emergency spillway is strongly emphasized for
successful and efficient operation of any rainwater harvesting structures, and it
should be designed scientifically. As the proposed water harvesting structures in-
tegrate the indigenous traditional knowledge with the scientific knowledge, the
adoption and success of such cost-effective water harvesting structures in practice
is very high as revealed by the overwhelming response of the beneficiaries in the
study area.

Acknowledgements
Sincere thanks are due to Mr. Parag Chowdhary, Assistant Engineer, Watershed
and Soil Conservation Department, Deogarh, Rajasthan, India and the local NGO
for their kind cooperation during field visits and site selection. Authors are also
very grateful to the referees for their meticulous and helpful comments.
234 D. MACHIWAL ET AL.

References

Agarwal, A.: 1998, ‘Rainwater harvesting in a new age: When modern groundwater and river
exploitation has reached its limits’, Water Harvesting, SIWI Paper 2, Stockholm, pp. 5–12.
Bazza, M. and Tayya, M.: 1994, ‘Operation and management of water harvesting techniques’,
in ‘Water Harvesting for Improved Agricultural Production’, Proceedings of the FAO Expert
Consultation, Cairo, Egypt, Nov. 1993, Rome, Italy.
Brooks, K. N., Ffolliott, P. F., Gregersen, H. M. and DeBano, L. F.: 1998, Hydrology and the
Management of Watersheds, Panima Publishing Corporation, New Delhi, 502 pp.
CFA: 1997, Comprehensive Assessment of the Freshwater Resources of the World, WMO, Geneva,
33 pp.
Critchley, W. and Siegert, C.: 1991, Water Harvesting Manual, FAO Paper AGL/MISC/17/91, FAO,
Rome.
Dijk, J. A. van and Ahmed, M. H.: 1993, ‘Opportunities for expanding water harvesting in Sub-
Saharan Africa: The case of the Teras of Kassala’, Gatekeeper Series No. 40, London, UK:
International Institute for Environment and Development.
Dixon, J. and Hufschmidt (eds): 1986, Economic Valuation Techniques for the Environment: A Case
Study Workbook, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Univ. Press.
GOR: 2000, Water Resources Vision 2045, Department of Irrigation, Government of Rajasthan.
http://www.rajirrigation.com/vision.htm (accessed on 2 Nov. 2002).
Haan, C. T., Barfield, B. J. and Hayes, J. C.: 1994, Design Hydrology and Sedimentology for Small
Catchments, Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, California: 63–103.
Klingebiel, A. A. and Montgomery, P. H.: 1961, Land Capability Classification, Agriculture
Handbook No. 210. Soil Conservation Service, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington,
D.C.
Kolarkar, A. S., Murthy, K. N. K. and Singh, N.: 1983, ‘Khadin – A method for harvesting water’, J.
Arid Environ. 6, 59–66.
Kolavalli, S. and Whitaker, M. L.: 1996, ‘Institutional aspects of water harvesting: Khadins in western
Rajasthan, India’, Paper presented at the 6th Annual Conference of the International Association
for the Study of Common Property, June 1996, Berkeley, California, U.S.A.
Kuylenstierna, J. L., Bjorklund, G. and Najlis, P.: 1997, ‘Sustainable water future with global
implications: everyone’s responsibility’, Natural Res. Forum 21(3), 181–190.
Nirmale, V. H. and Metar, S. Y.: 2003, Indigenous Knowledge: Wealth of Nation, Employment News,
New Delhi, India, 28(10), pp. 1.
Prinz, D.: 1994, ‘Water harvesting – past and future’, in L. S. Pereira (ed.), Sustainability of Irrigated
Agriculture, Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop Vimeiro, March 1994,
Rotterdam: Balkema.
Prinz, D.: 1996, ‘Water Harvesting – History, techniques, trends’, Z. f. Bewaesserungswirtschaft
31(1): 64–105.
Prinz, D. and Singh, A. K.: 2003, Technological Potential for Improvements of Water Harvesting,
http://www.damsreport.org/docs/kbase/contrib/opt158.pdf (accessed on 5 July 2003).
Renner, H. F. and Frasier, G.: 1995, ‘Microcatchment water harvesting for agricultural production.
Part 2, Socio-economic considerations’, Rangelands 17, 79–82.
Samra, J. S., Sharda, V. N. and Sikka, A. K.: 2002, Water Harvesting and Recycling: Indian Experi-
ences, Central Soil and Water Conservation Research & Training Institute, Dehradun, India, 347
pp.
Siegert, K.: 1994, ‘Introduction to water harvesting: Some basic principles for planning, design and
monitoring’, in Water harvesting for improved agricultural production. Proceedings of the FAO
Expert Consultation, Cairo, Egypt, Nov. 1993, Rome, Italy.
Singh, G., Venkataramanan, C. and Sastry, G.: 1981, Manual of Soil and Water Conservation
WATER HARVESTING STRUCTURES FOR EFFICIENT UTILIZATION 235

Practices in India, Central Soil and Water Conservation Research & Training Institute (ICAR),
Dehradun.
Singh, P. K.: 2000, Watershed Management: Design and Practices, E-media Publications, Udaipur,
174 pp.
Subramanya, K.: 1994, Engineering Hydrology, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Limited,
New Delhi, India, 390 pp.
Tsakiris, G.: 1991, ‘Micro-catchment water harvesting in semi-arid regions: Basic design considera-
tions’, Water Res. Manage. 5, 85–92.
UNEP: 1983, Rain and Storm Water Harvesting in Rural Areas, United Nations Environment
Program Dublin: Tycooly International Publishing Limited.