Mechanics of Tillage and Traction

LESSON 3. A Critical Review Of Mmi Projects: 1947‐2010

3.1 Water Resources Development – Historical Prospective

Grand Anicut in the Cauvery river delta was one of the earliest canal systems built as far back as the 2nd Century A.D.Historical evidence points out that Ghiyasuddin Tughlaq (1220‐25) was one of the first rulers who took interest in digging canals at the state’s expense. Similarly, Firoz Tughlaq (1351‐86), who was inspired by the Central Asian experience, built a number of canals. The Vijayanagar Empire expanded primarily because of large impetus provided to irrigation works in the 15th century in southern India.

In the nineteenth century, British rule in India brought about a significant change in water resource development. Some large and extensive works like Upper Ganga Canal, the Upper Bari Doab Canal and the Krishna and Godavari Delta Systems were taken up, which were all river diversion schemes of fairly large size. In 1867, Government adopted the proactive of accepting works which promised a minimum net return. Thereafter, a large number of projects were taken up such as the Sirhind Canal, the Lower Ganga canal, the Agra Canal, the Mutha Canal, Periyar Dam, the Lower Swat Canal, the Lower Soliag Canal, the Lower Chenab and the Sidhnai Canals. Owing to frequent droughts and famines during the second half of the 19th century, irrigation development received special attention. Some of the protective works constructed during the period were the Betwa Canal, the Nira Left Bank Canal, the Gokak Canal, the Mahaswad Tank and the Rushikulya Canal. The total irrigated area towards the end of the 19th century, both by public and private works, was around 13.2 Mha of which 56 percent constituted the public works. Source wise, canals irrigated 45 percent, wells 35 percent, tanks 15 percent and other sources five percent of the area.

 3.2 Recommendations of Irrigation Commissions

The first Irrigation Commission was appointed in 1901 to report on irrigation as a ‘means of protection against famine in India’. Prior to setting up of this commission, a few Famine Commissions had been set up and those Commissions had also recommended the development of irrigation works to contain the adverse impact of frequent famines. However, it was only after appointment of the First Irrigation Commission that a number of ambitious construction programmes were taken up to fight famine. The Commission in its Report recommended financial yardsticks for taking up famine relief and protective works. It also made a thorough review of irrigation development in the provinces and recommended proposals for new schemes. The more important public works recommended by the Commission included Chankapur storage on river Girna, Maladevi storage on river Pravara, storage works on the rivers Ujjani and Ghataprabha, improvement of Kurnool‐Cuddapah Canal, storage works on rivers Cauvery and Krishna, the Ken Canal, the diversion of Sarada waters into the Ganga above the Narora weir and location of suitable storage sites on the rivers Sabarmati, Mahi and Narmada. That Commission inter‐alia suggested the need for conjunctive use of surface and ground water, preparation of complementary programmes covering engineering works, watershed management and ayacut development and also recommended constitution of seven River Basin Commissions for the whole country to oversee all water resources development. Keeping in view the social urges and the demand for the removal of regional and social disparities, the Commission recommended construction of minor works in a time bound framework in under‐developed area. In order that irrigation in India should pay for itself, the Commission recommended that the water rates should be raised to a level sufficient to cover the cost of maintaining and running the works and a reasonable rate of interest on investment. It also advocated the use of computers for the collation of irrigation and agriculture statistics in order to provide the latest information to irrigation planners. The Irrigation Commission supported the adoption of B: C Ration criteria in sanctioning projects as practiced then. However, it also recommended that the practice of accepting projects with B:C ratio more than 1.5 be relaxed in the case of drought areas with lower limit of 1.0. The Commission also recommended the setting up of a High Level Authority, “The National Water Resources Council”, to take policy decisions for the conservation, utilization and inter basin transfers of water; to lay down priorities for the use of water; to keep a continuous watch on the working of the River Basin Commissions and problems of inter‐state rivers and to ensure that the formulation and execution of irrigation projects were in accordance with the highest national interest. The Commission further highlighted the importance of soil conservation in protecting the watershed and, therefore, recommended adoption of such measures as afforestation, pasture development, protection of river fringes, road sides and the shore lines of the reservoir and the control of forest fires. Similarly, the concept of participatory irrigation management by constituting water users’ associations was another important recommendation for economical and efficient use of water resources. The Commission also suggested that a special administrative agency for the coordinated and expeditious development of command area under the medium and major projects was necessary and each project should have a separate ayacut development agency. These recommendations were taken into consideration from time to time during the subsequent Plan Periods.

3.3 Irrigation in Early Twentieth Century

The emphasis shifted from productive to protective irrigation systems. By 1901, area irrigated by protective works was only a little over 0.12 million hectares, while the gross area irrigated from public works was about 7.5 million hectares (Mha), of which 3 Mha was from minor works like tanks and inundation canals. Farmer-managed irrigation systems (FMIS) also contri­buted their might to increase Irrigation potential, as area irrigated by private works was 5.7 Mha of which 70 per cent was by wells and the remaining from tanks, streams and channels.

Though private works contributed and continue to contribute their might for the expansion of irrigation, they remained outside the ambit of irrigation policy per se, except for a limited purpose of extending institutional financial support where initiative comes from individuals or communities. Therefore, not much attention is paid for its detailed analysis here,

A shift in the thrust of irrigation development from productive to protective is more significant. For, the British government was particular about the returns on investment and concentrated only on prime areas. Environmental compulsions have, however, forced to relax the productive norms applied for irrigation systems There was a spurt in protective irrigation works in the first two decades of this century, The recognition of its importance is revealed by a six-fold increase in outlay on protective works: the outlay has increased from Rs 2 crores in 1903 to about Rs 12 crores in 1921 as against a two-told increase in the overall outlay on irrigation—protective and productive together—from Rs 40 crores in 1901 to Rs 79 crores in 1920-21. At the end of this period, the area irrigated was 10.4 Mha by public works and 8.9 Mha by private works in British India and 3.3 Mha in the former princely States with a total of 22.6 Mha.

The Bengal famine (1943) gave a spun to further expansion of protective rather than productive irrigation works to increase food production. The realization seemed to have come soon that public systems alone cannot meet shortages of food. The stress was, therefore, on private irrigation works also. The Famine Enquiry Commission (1944) in particular emphasized the need for concentrating on private works. They perhaps thought that it was the best strategy to harness locally available water resources by using the local skills and materials, including capita!. In a way this was a meaningful approach to tap the surplus resources and plough back the same for developmental processes. By 1945, the area irrigated from private sources in undivided India, excluding princely states, was 10 Mha of which 4.4 Mha was by wells. This shows that groundwater exploitation was as important as surface irrigation. However, it was the monopoly of private individuals. The Table 3.1 gives the status of irrigation development in British period.

TABLE 3.1 AREA IRRIGATED IN UNDIVIDED INDIA (Net area irrigated in million hectares)

Year	Public Sector	Private Sector	Total
1900	7.6 (57)	5.7 (43)	13.3 (100)
1920-21	10.4 (54)	8.9 (46)	19.3 (100)
1945	13.5 (58)	10.0 (42)	23.5 (100)

Note: Figures in parentheses are percentages. Source: Government of India, Ministry of Agriculture and Irrigation. New Delhi. Report of the National Commission on Agriculture. 1976, Vol. 5, p. 14,

Two distinct trends in the progress of irrigation are observed from the data presented above. In the first two decades (1900-20) area irrigated by private sources has shown a perceptible increase (56.1 per cent) when compared with public sector (36.8 per cent); a reverse trend is observed in the subsequent two decades (1920-45). Since British government initially was not favourably disposed to its expansionist role into less productive irrigation systems, increase in area irrigated under public works was understandably slow. When the state expansionism became inevitable to combat natural disasters like famines and droughts by extending irrigation to less endowed regions, the area under public works had naturally increased faster than under private works. While appreciating the inevita­bility of state expansionist role in irrigation development, the slow pace of progress witnessed under private works was not welcomed. That could be the reason why the Famine Enquiry Commission (1944), as pointed already, emphasized the need for encouraging private irrigation works to supplement the government works,

Between 1900 and 1945 area irrigated by public works had increased by 77.6 per cent as against 75.4 per cent in private sector; it indicates that the colonial rule not only expanded state intervention but also encouraged irrigation under private sector. However, the performance of private sector, in terms of area irrigated, between 1921 and 1945 was not very encouraging. The area irrigated by private sources increased by only 12.4 per cent between 1921 and 1945 as against 29.8 per cent under public sector. Though irrigation development in British period took twists and turns in terms of thrust and direction, it had set the tone for the emergence of a dynamic and vibrant irrigation sector in the country. It is, therefore, said that harnessing of waters of India's rivers for irrigation purposes would appear as one of the most positive ways in which the colonial regime contributed to Indian welfare.

The partition of the country in 1947 was yet another curtain raiser as far as irrigation chapter in Indian economic develop­ment is concerned. Irrigation profile of Indian Union had changed. A major portion of the irrigation potential created in undivided India during the pre-independence period went to Pakistan. At the time of the partition in 1947, the net sown area in the country, including the princely states, was 116.8 Mha. Of this 28.2 Mha or 24 per cent was irrigated. On partition, 18.3 Mha of net sown area, of which 8.8 Mha or nearly half was irrigated land, went to Pakistan. Of the balance left with India, only 19.4 Mha or about one-fifth was irrigated. While India was left with 80 per cent of the pro-partition population, it got only 69 per cent of the total irrigated area. This had naturally led to exploring the possibilities of constructing irrigation works in the regions endowed with less natural resources, which in normal course tend to affect benefit-cost ratios.

3.4 Development of Irrigation under the Plans

In the First Five Year Plan (1951‐56), the country launched a major irrigation programme. A number of Multipurpose and Major Projects were taken up, such as Bhakra Nangal, Nagarjunasagar, Kosi, Chambal, Hirakud, Kakrapar and Tungabhadra. Simultaneously, minor irrigation schemes including ground water were given emphasis under the Agricultural Sector, along with financial assistance from the Centre. During the periods of Second Five year Plan (1956‐61), third Five year Plan (1961‐66) and the Three Annual Plans (1966‐69), irrigation programmes were being implemented with new starts. During the Fourth Five Year Plan (1969‐74), the emphasis was shifted to the completion of ongoing projects, integrated use of surface and ground water, adoption of efficient management techniques and modernization of existing schemes. The new starts, however, continued. During the fifth Plan (1974‐78), Command Area Development Programme was launched as a Centrally Sponsored Scheme with the objective of reducing the lag between potential created and optimum utilization of available land and water. The programme was conceived as a means of co‐ordinating all related activities to meet with these objective under one umbrella. Initially, 60 Major and Medium projects were covered with a CCA of 15 Mha.

During the Annual Plans of 1978‐80 and the Sixth five Year Plan (1980‐85), ‘new starts’ continued and at the end of Seventh Plan, there were as many as 182 major and 312 medium ongoing projects requiring an estimated amount of Rs. 39,044 crore at the 1990‐91 price level for their completion. ‘New starts’ were, therefore, restricted considerably and greater emphasis was laid on completion of projects, which were in the advance stages of completion (those with an expenditure of 75 percent or more). This was continued during 1990‐91 & 1991‐92 Annual Plans, VIII Plan (1992‐97) and IX Plan (1997‐2002).

For speedy completion of ongoing projects in advance stage of construction Accelerated Irrigation Benefit Programme (AIBP) was launched in 1996‐1997. During VIII Plan period irrigation potential of 2.22 mha was created under major and medium sector at an annual rate of 0.44 mha per annum. During IX Plan period this increased to 4.12 mha out of which 1.65 mha (nearly 40%) was through AIBP. Renovation, Modernization and Rehabilitation of old irrigation schemes gained momentum. User’s participation in major and medium irrigation schemes received greater attention. Repairs and improvement to the minor irrigation projects, as a part of integrated micro‐development, also received encouragement. Similarly, sprinkler and drip irrigation programmes and the conjunctive use of surface and ground water gained momentum.

 3.5 Development and Utilization of Irrigation Potential

As per the reassessment of the Committee constituted by MoWR in May 1997, the currently accepted figures of Ultimate Irrigation Potential (UIP) under the major and medium projects sector is 58.47 MHa and Potential Created (PC) and utilized up to X Plan are 41.64 Mha and 33.74 respectively. The assessment of Ultimate Irrigation Potential needs to be periodically reviewed to account for revision in scope, technological advancement, inter basin transfer of water, induced recharging of ground water, etc. The created irrigation potential in respect of major and medium projects increased from 9.72 mha in preplan period to 46.24 mha (tentative) including 4.60 MHa anticipated to be created in XI plan. In the corresponding period the potential utilization has been from 9.70 mha period during pre plan period to 35.10 mha (including 1.36 Mha anticipated during XI plan). The pattern of irrigation potential creation and its corresponding utilization during the plan periods is shown in table 3.2. Basin-wise Live Storage Capacities under Major & Medium Irrigation Projects in India are in table 3.3

Table 3.2    Plan-wise Achievements of Irrigation Potential Created/Utilised (Cumulative) under Major & Medium Irrigation Projects (‘000 ha)

Sl. No.	State/UT	Ultimate Irrigation Potential	Sixth Plan * 1980-85		Seventh Plan 1985-90		Annual Plan 1990-92			Eighth Plan* 1992-97		Ninth Plan 1997-2002		Tenth Plan 2002-07		% of IPC to UIP	% of IPU to IPC
			IPC	IPU	IPC	IPU	IPC	IPU		IPC	IPU	IPC	IPU	IPC	IPU
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9		10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17
1	Andhra Pradesh	5000	2902	2695	2991	2836	2999	2847		3045.1	2883.8	3303.2	3051.6	3742.7	3337.2	74.9	89.2
2	Arunachal Pradesh	0	0	0	0	0	0	0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.2	0.8	0.0	65.8
3	Assam	970	98	55	144	97	176	111		196.7	138.2	243.9	174.4	312.9	219.2	32.3	70.1
4	Bihar	5224	2556	2009	2743	2259	2766	2295		2802.5	2324.2	2680.0	1714.8	2959.0	1896.2	56.6	64.1
5	Chhattisgarh	1147	Included in M.P.									922.5	760.7	1810.7	1281.5	157.9	70.8
6	Goa	62	1.0	0	13	5	13	12		13	12.1	21.2	15.3	37.7	25.9	60.7	68.8
7	Gujarat	3000	1055	646	1199	855	1246	986		1350.0	1200.0	1430.4	1300.8	2218.5	1813.1	74.0	81.7
8	Haryana	3000	1923	1745	2021	1791	2035	1791		2078.8	1833.6	2099.5	1850.0	2191.4	1909.7	73.0	87.1
9	Himachal Pradesh	50	6	5	8	6	8	4		10.6	5.6	13.4	7.5	15.5	8.9	30.9	57.5
10	Jammu &Kashmir	250	153	112	158	117	158	136		173.7	147.6	179.7	168.8	203.3	184.1	81.3	90.6
11	Jharkhand	1277	Included in Bihar									354.5	230.5	604.0	440.7	47.3	73.0
12	Karnataka	2500	1165	1053	1308	1183	1377		1192	1666.0	1471.7	2121.1	1844.8	2127.8	1849.9	85.1	86.9
13	Kerala	1000	375	342	402	355	416		367.0	513.3	464.3	609.5	558.9	1090.5	783.2	109.0	71.8
14	Madhya Pradesh	4853	1592	1072	1815	1269	1962		1395.0	2317.6	1621.0	1386.9	875.6	1451.9	917.9	29.9	63.2
15	Maharashtra	4100	1722	754	1986	976	2030		1036.0	2313.0	1287.7	3239.0	2147.2	3494.2	2313.1	85.2	66.2
16	Manipur	135	40	25	59	46	59		50.0	63.0	52.0	91.2	72.9	103.1	82.4	76.3	80.0
17	Meghalaya	20	-	-	-	-	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-	-	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
18	Mizoram	0	-	-	-	-	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	-	-	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
19	Nagaland	10	-	-	-	-	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	1.0	0.7	10.0	65.0
20	Orissa	3600	1236	1178	1356	1254	1409		1326	1557.8	1442.7	1826.6	1794.2	1990.0	1900.4	55.3	95.5
21	Punjab	3000	2252	2234	2344	2303	2367		2309	2512.9	2452.3	2542.5	2486.0	2604.7	2530.0	86.8	97.1
22	Rajasthan	2750	1712	1551	1913	1740	1999		1887	2273.9	2088.4	2482.2	2313.9	2890.4	2611.6	105.1	90.4
23	Sikkim	20	0	0	0.0	0.0	0.0		0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.0
24	Tamil Nadu	1500	1499	1506	1539	1536	1545		1541	1545.5	1545.5	1549.3	1549.3	1561.1	1556.9	104.1	99.7
25	Tripura	100	-	-	2	2	2		2.0	2.3	2.3	4.9	4.5	18.7	13.5	18.7	72.0
26	Uttar Pradesh	12154	6223	5523	6667	5705	6806		5763	7059.0	6126.0	7910.1	6334.0	8781.4	6926.0	72.3	78.9
27	Uttarakhand	346	Included in  U.P.									280.3	185.4	289.7	191.5	83.7	66.1
28	West Bengal	2300	1185	1069	1244	1132	1353	1258		1444.1	1332.5	1683.3	1527.1	1769.8	1583.4	76.9	89.5
Total States		58367	27695	23574	29912	25467	30726	26308		32938.6	28431.4	36974.9	30968.2	42270.6	34377.7	72.4	81.3
Total UTs		98	-	-	8.0	0.0	15	7		18.5	9.3	6.5	3.9	6.5	3.9	6.6	60.5
All-India Total		58465	27695	23574	29920	25467	30741	26315		32957.1	27893.2	36981.4	30972.1	42277.1	34381.7	72.3	81.3

 

Source: Table 27 in http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/water%20and%20related%20statistics.pdf

Table 3.3   Basin-wise Live Storage Capacities under Major & Medium Irrigation Projects in India

S. No.	Basin	Average Annual Flow	Live Storage Capacities				Percentage of Likely Average Annual Flow (6+7)/3)*100
			Completed Project	Project Under Constru- -ction	Total	Project Under Conside- -ration
1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8
1	Indus	73305.00	16285.90	282.53	16568.43	2576.39	26.12
2	A) Ganga	525023.00	42060.20	18600.18	60660.38	30083.92	17.28
	B) Brahmaputra & Barak	585597.00	2326.92	9353.64	11680.56	41262.88	9.04
3	Godavari	110540.00	25124.60	6205.79	31330.39	5841.16	33.63
4	Krishna	78124.00	41803.98	7743.54	49547.52	1127.84	64.87
5	Cauvery	21358.00	8597.20	269.82	8867.02	261.99	42.74
6	Pennar	6316.00	2649.40	2170.71	4820.11		76.32
7	EFR from Mahanadi to Godavari and Krishna to Pennar	22520.00	1601.44	1424.97	3026.41	945.29	17.64
8	EFR B/W Pennar and Kanyakumari	16458.00	1838.41	68.49	1906.90	-	-
9	Mahanadi	66879.00	12334.80	1873.00	14207.80	10094.20	36.34
10	Brahmani & Baitarni	28477.00	4648.09	875.60	5523.69	8721.19	50.02
11	Subernarekha	12368.00	672.02	1650.19	2322.21	1380.50	29.94
12	Sabarmati	3809.00	1306.77	60.77	1367.54	99.33	38.51
13	Mahi	11020.00	4722.60	261.43	4984.03	11.81	45.33
14	WFR of Kutch Saurashtra Including Luni	15098.00	4726.92	797.23	5524.15	2849.06	55.46
15	Narmada	45639.00	16979.50	6625.10	23604.60	465.73	52.74
16	Tapi	14879.00	9408.37	847.42	10255.79	286.92	70.86
17	WFR from Tapi to Tadri	87411.00	11268.03	3464.38	14732.41	81.69	16.95
18	WFR from Tadri to Kanyakumari	113532.00	10236.16	1317.54	11553.70	1453.31	11.46
19	Area of Inland Drainage of Rajasthan	-	-	-	0.00	-	-
20	Minor River Basins Draining into Myanmar and Bengladesh	31000.00	312.00		312.00	1.47	1.01
Grand Total in BCM		1869.35	218.90	63.89	282.80	107.54	20.88

 

Source: Table 7 in http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/water%20and%20related%20statistics.pdf

    Table3.4   Live Storage Capacities under Major & Medium Irrigation Projects by State

Sl. No.	Name of State	LIVE STORAGE CAPACITIES UNDER					Percente Distribution of Live Storage Capacity (Col.5 /Total of Col.5 *100)
		Completed Projects	Ongoing Projects		Total	Consideration Projects
1	2	3	4	5		6	7
1	Andhra Pradesh	27305.13	6148.33	33453.46		1611.28	11.83
2	Assam	12.46	-	12.46		725.49	0.00
3	Arunachal Pradesh	-	241.06	241.06		37934.03	0.09
4	Bihar	1842.22	675.30	2517.52		5822.22	0.89
5	Chattisgarh.	6217.24	787.55	7004.79		519.30	2.48
6	Goa	44.30	227.16	271.46		-	0.10
7	Gujarat	16137.80	7406.84	23544.64		3446.02	8.33
8	Haryana	-	-	-		258.00	0.00
9	Himachal Pradesh	13917.15	188.73	14105.88		985.80	4.99
10.	Jammu And Kashmir	-	93.80	93.80		1831.59	0.03
11	Jharkhand	2472.07	6877.64	9349.71		475.53	3.31
12	Karnataka	33631.21	1413.15	35044.36		66.23	12.39
13	Kerala	5384.27	1336.22	6720.49		1686.07	2.38
14	Madhya Pradesh	26906.28	7026.46	33932.74		7335.04	12.00
15	Maharashtra	25523.01	13242.89	38765.90		763.23	13.71
16	Manipur	396.50	8449.58	8846.08		-	3.13
17	Meghalaya	697.96	-	697.96		516.26	0.25
18	Mizoram	-	663.00	663.00		1561.00	0.23
19	Nagaland	1220.00	-	1220.00		526.10	0.43
20	Orissa	17224.61	1997.66	19222.27		21099.70	6.80
21	Punjab	2368.75	-	2368.75		-	0.84
22	Rajasthan	8284.85	1425.95	9710.80		1807.02	3.43
23	Sikkim	-	-	-		1.47	0.00
24	Tamilnadu	6500.47	68.49	6568.96		13.24	2.32
25	Tripura	312.00	-	312.00		-	0.11
26	Uttarakhand	5671.08	2726.52	8397.60		153.63	2.97
27	Uttar Pradesh	15345.01	2711.59	18056.60		18406.45	6.39
28	West Bengal	1475.15	184.44	1659.59		-	0.59
29	Andaman & Nicobar Islands	-	-	-		-	-
30	Chandigarh	-	-	-		-	-
31	Dadra & Nagar Haveli Daman & Diu	-	-	-		-	-
32	Delhi	-	-	-		-	-
33	Lakshadweep	-	-	-		-	-
34	Puducherry	13.79	-	13.79		-	0.00
Total in MCM		218903.31	63892.36	282795.67		107544.70	100.00
in BCM		218.90	63.90	282.80		107.54

Source: Table 8 in http://www.indiaenvironmentportal.org.in/files/water%20and%20related%20statistics.pdf

Table 3.5  Water Use Efficiency of Completed Major/Medium Irrigation Projects based on Field Measurements of Losses

 

S.No.	Name of Project	Culturable Command Area (Hectare)	Conveyance Efficiency(%)	On Farm Application Efficiency (%)	Overall Project Water Use Efficiency (%)
(1)	(2)	(3)	(4)	(5)	(6)
1.	Bhairavanithippa Project	4856	86	67	58
2.	Gajuladinne (SanjeevaiahSagar Project)	10300	57	45	26
3.	Gandipalem Project	6478	73	38	28
4.	Godavari Delta System(Sir Arthur CottonBarrage)	410108	83	54	45
5.	Kurnool –Cuddapah CanalSystem	65465	62	45	28
6.	Kaddam Project	27519	51	36	18
7.	Koil Sagar Project	11700	83	75	62
8.	Krishna Delta System(Prakasam Barrage)	529000	87	46	40
9.	Nagarjuna Sagar Project	889000	56	39	22
10.	Narayanapuram Project	15855	47	32	15
11.	Nizamsagar Project	93659	87	45	39
12.	Srisailam Project	59900	50	34	17
13.	Rajolibanda DiversionScheme	35 410	82	51	42
14.	Somasila Project	54650	56	32	18
15.	Sri Ram Sagar Project	371054	78	57	45
16.	Tungabhadra High LevelCanal	45800	81	58	47
17.	Tungabhadra Low LevelCanal	61163	72	45	32
18.	Vamsadhara Project	82087	91	58	53
19.	Yeleru Project	27240	50	28	14
20.	Augmentation CanalProject	85443	79	72	57
21.	Dholabaha Dam Project	2600	74	71	53
22.	Ranjit Sagar Dam Project	300000	51	65	33
23.	Ahraura Dam IrrigationProject	14964	70	70	49
24.	Matatila Dam Project	179880	68	80	54
25.	Naugarh Dam IrrigationProject	64221	71	70	50
26.	Pili Dam Project	4044	58	65	38
27.	Walmiki Sarovar Project	6271	62	62	38
28.	East Baigul ReservoirProject	16605	64	65	42
Average			69	52	38

Source: Table 2.10 in  http://planningcommission.nic.in/aboutus/committee/wrkgrp12/wr/wg_major.pdf