Hydrological impacts of rainwater harvesting (RWH) in a case study catchment: The Arvari River, Rajasthan, India. Part 1: Field-scale impacts

C.J. Glendenning and R.W. Vervoort

Agricultural Water Management, 2010, vol. 98, issue 2, 331-342

Abstract: Rainwater harvesting (RWH), the small-scale collection and storage of runoff to augment groundwater stores, has been seen as a solution to the deepening groundwater crisis in India. However, hydrological impacts of RWH in India are not well understood, particularly at the larger catchment-scale. A key element to grasping RWH impact involves understanding the generated recharge variability in time and space, which is the result of variability in rainfall-runoff and efficiency of RWH structures. Yet there are very few reported empirical studies of the impact of RWH. Catchment-scale impacts are best studied using a water balance model, which would require a basic level of field data and understanding of the variability. This study reports the results of a 2-year field study in the 476Â km2 semi-arid Arvari River catchment, where over 366 RWH structures have been built since 1985. Difficulties associated with working in semi-arid regions include data scarcity. Potential recharge estimates from seven RWH storages, across three different types and in six landscape positions, were calculated using the water balance method. These estimates were compared with recharge estimates from monitored water levels in 29 dug wells using the water table fluctuation method. The average daily potential recharge from RWH structures varied between 12 and 52Â mm/day, while estimated actual recharge reaching the groundwater ranged from 3 to 7Â mm/day. The large difference between recharge estimates could be explained through soil storage, local groundwater mounding beneath structures and a large lateral transmissivity in the aquifer. Overall, approximately 7% of rainfall is recharged by RWH in the catchment, which was similar in the comparatively wet and dry years of the field analysis. There were key differences between RWH structures, due to engineering design and location. These results indicate that recharge from RWH affects the local groundwater table, but also has potential to move laterally and impact surrounding areas. However, the greatest weakness in such analysis is the lack of information available on aquifer characteristics, in addition to geology and soil type.

Keywords: Water; storage; Groundwater; Recharge; Water; balance; Water; table; fluctuation (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2010
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations: View citations in EconPapers (9)

Downloads: (external link)
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378-3774(10)00296-9
Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:eee:agiwat:v:98:y:2010:i:2:p:331-342

Access Statistics for this article

Agricultural Water Management is currently edited by B.E. Clothier, W. Dierickx, J. Oster and D. Wichelns

More articles in Agricultural Water Management from Elsevier
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Catherine Liu ().