In recent years, inequality in the distribution of tube wells and non-availability or non-accessibility of canal water during the rabi season leads to a lack of economic value fixation of irrigation water to crops. The main objective of this paper is to calculate the economic value of irrigation water for major crops in the Paliganj distributary of the Sone canal system and the Nalanda corridor site of tube well irrigation, Bihar, India using the Residual Value Method (RVM). Results revealed that the average irrigation water economic value on the basis of applied irrigation through the canal and tube well in the Paliganj distributary for rice, kharif maize, wheat, lentil, khesari, gram, rabi maize, potato, onion, and green gram crops was assessed as 3.73, 22.60, 11.67, 21.50, 27.42, 23.27, 14.75, 98.06, 84.92, and 27.17 Rs./m3, respectively. In the Nalanda corridor, the average irrigation water economic value of rice, kharif maize, wheat, lentil, gram, pea, mustard, potato, rabi maize, and green gram crops was assessed as 12.54, 24.61, 18.71, 44.15, 39.53, 37.85, 32.35, 96.93, 15.44, and 30.25 Rs./m3, respectively.

  • The residual value approach was applied to estimate water economic values in the canal- and tube well-irrigated areas.

  • Water value for vegetable crops is generally higher as compared to field crops.

  • Economic value of irrigation water serves as the tool for decision-makers for uniform allocation of water to crops.

In developing countries, water is increasingly becoming scarce because diversion or allocation of fresh water for agricultural purposes is reducing owing to increasing population, urbanization, and industrialization (Kiprop et al. 2015). Due to rising population, urbanization, climate change, competition & conflicts for water uses and users, and water scarcity increases mostly at global, national, and regional levels (Menezes et al. 2022; Yasin et al. 2022). Hence, the allocation of water among the major sector uses, such as agricultural, industrial, and domestic is a critical issue for most of the countries in the world (World Bank 2022). Water allocation is in reality a challenging task as decisions about meeting all types of water demands are considered keeping in view social objectives, such as efficiency, sustainability, equity and economics (Gallego-Ayala et al. 2011; Adeoti & Fati 2022). The lack of an efficient and equitable water pricing system is an additional handicap in the process of managing water allocation (Latinopoulos 2005; Upadhyaya et al. 2022). The participation in the water market has been found to decline with an increase in the size of landholdings (Singh et al. 2007).

To grow more food to feed the ever-increasing population with limited or reduced availability of natural resources such as water is a great challenge. This challenge can be met if water is utilized efficiently and judiciously in agricultural production systems (Singh 2007). In irrigated areas, mainly through canals and groundwater, water is efficiently utilized if those crops are selected which consume less water and give relatively better yields. Groundwater irrigation through tube wells is the most appropriate alternative source of irrigation that can harness the potential benefits of available resources at a reasonable cost and within a short period of time (Singh et al. 2007).

Studies on irrigation water pricing are scanty, but experts always desire, discuss, and show their dedication in determining the economic value of irrigation water. When water suppliers and water users know the actual value of irrigation water, they will realize its importance and it will be easy to convince and encourage the water users to utilize water more efficiently in agriculture (Chebil et al. 2022). However, there is an urgent need to lay greater emphasis on the cost of producing a unit quantity of water at the water source (surface and groundwater) and charging economic water rates (Berbel et al. 2019). Any financial scrutiny should also examine the percentage of net income per crop which can support the cost of purchasing water for its maturity (Sangal 1991). Many different crops are cultivated in the region. The allocated lands for crops are shown in Table 1. According to Table 1, rice and wheat have a bigger production area in the region.

Table 1

Crop production, area, and yield in the study region (2019–2020)

CropProduction (million tonnes)Area (million hectares)Yield (kg/hectare)
Rice 6.05 2.89 2,096 
Wheat 5.90 2.25 2,626 
Maize 2.01 0.65 3,083 
Lentil 0.12 0.15 793 
Potato 7.71 0.258 29,885 
Onion 1.31 0.058 22,825 
Rapeseed and mustard 0.10 0.08 1,187 
Gram – – 769 
CropProduction (million tonnes)Area (million hectares)Yield (kg/hectare)
Rice 6.05 2.89 2,096 
Wheat 5.90 2.25 2,626 
Maize 2.01 0.65 3,083 
Lentil 0.12 0.15 793 
Potato 7.71 0.258 29,885 
Onion 1.31 0.058 22,825 
Rapeseed and mustard 0.10 0.08 1,187 
Gram – – 769 

To identify the issues of irrigation water, it is necessary to assess the irrigation water economic value under different situations as is proposed in this study. So, it is necessary to determine the real value of irrigation water applied and optimally allocate this important input among the products in such a way that the highest value of production is attained. In estimating agricultural water demand, the market economic value cannot be considered as there is no market for it or the market is incomplete. Because of this, it is hard to determine the economic value for it directly. For this reason, several models have been used by researchers to determine the economic value of agricultural water and the willingness to pay, including net-back analysis, hedonic models (Esmaeili & Vazirzadeh 2009) and optimization models such as the Residual Value Method (RVM) (Ashfaq et al. 2005; Muchara et al. 2016; Qamar et al. 2018; Qureshi et al. 2018; Upadhyaya & Roy 2020); while capital budgeting techniques, namely net present value (NPV), benefit–cost ratio (B:C ratio) and internal rate of return (IRR) have been used for evaluating the investment in tube wells (Singh et al. 2007). In valuing irrigation water, very few studies have employed the RVM technique. Berbel et al. (2011) applied residual value techniques for the economic analysis of irrigation water for the Guadalquivir river basin, in Southern Spain. They found that the RVM technique is simple, and the results obtained are robust and consistent with alternative method findings. Aparnathi & Bhatt (2014) applied the linear programming (LP) model to maximize net benefit from optimal cropping patterns with different extents of allocation of water from canal and tube wells for the Nadiad branch canal command of Mahi command, Gujarat, India. Kiprop et al. (2015) applied the residual value technique to determine the economic value of irrigation water used across the Kerio valley basin in Kenya. Very few studies have been conducted in Indian conditions for the estimation of the economic value of irrigation water in canals as well as tube well-irrigated command areas using the residual valuation method.

Low irrigation water pricing results in indiscriminate and unscrupulous use of irrigation water in the upper, middle, and tail reaches of a canal, leading to either over-saturation or under-saturation conditions. For the last two decades, irrigation water charges have not been revised in many states of the country and as a result revenue from irrigation water is not increasing (Upadhyaya et al. 2022). In the future, agriculture is going to face a new challenge of producing more from less water available, because more water is being diverted toward industries, urban and domestic sectors. Due to the poor maintenance of the canal irrigation system, an increasing number of tube well water markets have developed, particularly in Bihar.

In recent years, due to inequality in the distribution of tube well and non-availability or non-accessibility of canal water during the rabi season, most of the non-tube well owners are forced to purchase water from tube well owners. It is important to mention here that south Bihar is considered an agriculturally well-developed region endowed with an assured irrigation system through private diesel-operated tube wells. Keeping in view the importance of groundwater in increasing agricultural production, the objective of the present study is to determine the economic value of irrigation water for major crops in the Paliganj distributary of the Sone canal system and Nalanda corridor, Bihar, India, based on the economic value of tube well water and canal water obtained from state departments, agricultural input data collected from farmers and thereafter application of the RVM.

This section introduces the study area along with its location, basic characteristics like rainfall, canal water availability, groundwater availability, information about soil, crop, climate, evapotranspiration of crops computed using meteorological data, other data related to input cost, labor cost, fixed cost used to calculate the total cost of cultivation, monetary returns from (main product and by-product) rice and wheat crops, and total irrigation water applied collected from farmers in a prescribed format through a developed questionnaire for the Paliganj distributary and Nalanda corridor.

Study area

Paliganj distributary command

The study was undertaken in the Paliganj distributary of the Sone canal system, Bihar, India which arises at 75 km from the Patna main canal, on the right side. The total length of the Paliganj distributary is 27.4 km and its design discharge is 5.1 cumecs. It is divided into three reaches such as the head (I), middle (II), and tail (III) reaches. The lengths of I, II, and III reaches are 10.45, 6.65, and 10.3 km, respectively. The gross command areas (GCA) of these reaches are 2,767, 2,513, and 2,794 ha, respectively, and culturable command areas (CCA) are 2,479, 2,102, and 2,400 ha, respectively (Figure 1).
Figure 1

Selected sites in the Paliganj distributary and Nalanda corridor.

Figure 1

Selected sites in the Paliganj distributary and Nalanda corridor.

Close modal

Nalanda corridor command

The study was undertaken in 15 villages of Noorsarai, Chandi and Nagar Nausa blocks of the Nalanda district of Bihar, India (Figure 1). The average annual rainfall of the district is 1,002.2 mm. About 92.55% of the rainfall is received during June to October by the south-west monsoon. Agriculture is the foremost source of livelihood. The farmers mainly grow paddy, as well as potato and onion. The cultivated area in the district is 1,948.43 km2. This corridor site is characterized by four types of soil, namely clay loam, fine loam, loam, and course loam, which is mainly derived from an alluvial deposit of the Gangetic plain. The net annual groundwater availability in Noorsarai, Chandi, and Nagar Nausa blocks is 3,721, 3,762, and 2,689 ha m, respectively (Central Groundwater Water Board 2013). In Nalanda district, the gross irrigated area is 179,263 ha, out of which the area irrigated through tube wells/bore wells is 118,000 ha (which is approximately 65.82% of gross irrigated area) (District Survey Report 2021).

Data collection

In order to collect required data/information about agricultural inputs used and their costs, labor cost involved in agricultural operations, the value of land, implements, infrastructure, output (main as well as by-product) produced along with their economic value, a structured questionnaire was developed. Thirty farmers from each site, representing I, II, and III reaches of the Paliganj distributary command and Nalanda corridor command, were interviewed and questionnaires were filled in. Irrigation water economic value was assessed by considering water actually used by crops as well as water applied by farmers depending on availability.

Data analysis

In analyzing data, descriptive statistics of the variables used in the analysis of production functions were used to describe the socio-economic characteristics of farmers. The residual value technique was used to determine the average economic value of irrigation water used in production across major crops grown in the Paliganj distributary command and Nalanda corridor command.

Estimating financial and economic returns

Farm costs have three components, i.e. fixed costs (includes rent of land, and farm machinery), variable costs (includes labor, seed, fertilizer, farm yard manure, pesticides, draught power, and irrigation service) and total costs. The total costs are obtained by adding both fixed costs and variable costs. All costs are estimated on a per-hectare basis. The average cost (i.e. land, labor, seed, fertilizer, farmyard manure, pesticides, and farm machinery) and returns (i.e. yield, economic values and other earnings) are defined for the average farm (Berbel et al. 2011). The financial returns (FR) or sale economic values are predicted by averaging yield from each crop by multiplying the farm gate economic values (FGP), and summing up the by-product by multiplying the economic values received by farmers from the market. The financial net returns (FNR) or gross margins are obtained by subtracting the total cost of cultivation from the gross FR (Kiprop et al. 2015; Yasin et al. 2022). The economic returns (ER) are obtained by evaluating the main product of the crop at economic values (EP). By-product economic values are the same as those used for estimating gross FR (Ashfaq et al. 2005). The cost of crop production was deducted from the gross FR of each individual crop. These FR were further divided by the amount of water applied (m3).

Residual value method

RVM is a technique used to compute irrigation water economic value of crops or the value water productivity where water is used as an intermediate input into crop production (Kiprop et al. 2015; Roy 2019; Upadhyaya & Roy 2020). According to Euler's theorem, for an agricultural production function involving constant returns to scale, the summation of the marginal products will actually yield the total product. The relationship between inputs and output of crop production can be expressed mathematically through what is called a production function. The model conceptualizes around the fact that agricultural production is the function of input variables. For a homogeneous agricultural production function, f (x1,x2, …, xn) of degree 1, if the economic value of each input i is its ‘marginal product’ (x1,x2, …, xn) then the total cost, i.e. (x1,x2, …, xn) is equal to the total output, i.e. f (x1,x2, …, xn). Agricultural production function ‘Y’ is assumed to be influenced by four factors, i.e. money invested (M), labor force used (L), available natural resources such as land area (A) and water (W) utilized. It may be expressed as:
(1)
Assuming agricultural production and economic values are known and technology is constant, Po is the economic value of output, and Pi is the economic value of input under perfect information. Assuming that the objective of farmers is to maximize production, the production function may be written as:
(2)
The optimal profits can be determined if the first derivative of ‘PF’ with respect to x is equal to zero.
(3)

Therefore, Po (dy/dx) = Pi.

If all inputs, including water, are exchanged in a competitive market and employed in a production process. The value of water is estimated by (Pw·Qw) in Equation (4):
(4)
The RVM basically calculates the incremental contribution of each input in the production process, if all the inputs except water are assigned appropriate economic values. Therefore, the residual value of water can be calculated as the difference between the total value of output (Y·PF) and the costs of all non-water inputs to production. The economic value of irrigation water is calculated by Pw in the Equation (5):
(5)

In both cases (i.e. Paliganj distributary command and Nalanda corridor command), farmers generally applied irrigation water to crops at the maximum production water supply (i.e. water consumption ≥ evapotranspiration). In such conditions, assumed marginal water productivity is zero (Berbel et al. 2011).

The study undertook a valuation of the residual value of water for 10 major crops grown in the Paliganj distributary command and 10 major crops grown in the Nalanda corridor command.

Econometric characterization of each crop

Several socio-economic and technological factors affect the sale and purchase of irrigation water. Some of these variables have been identified as measurable. However, some factors are plot-specific and others are socio-psychological, which may not be quantified easily. For the application of the RVM, secondary data were made available by farmers for all case studies (Paliganj distributary and Nalanda corridor) under assessment, which results from a consultation with farmers in each community. Standard crop budgets have been created for each crop, which results from field surveys. For each crop, the average input costs and yield returns were defined, assuming that each farm adopted standard production techniques. In addition, for each crop, a mean amount of water applied was considered, based on the average amounts accounted at each farmer's field (Rodrigues et al. 2021). A multiple linear regression model (RVM) is used to determine the economic value of irrigation water for each crop as shown in Equations (1)–(4).

The empirical information is drawn from the agricultural service agencies and field surveys from farmers' respondents. Data sets included the quantity of output, economic values, and costs of selected crops and water. The most important management implication of this study is the reallocation of irrigation water according to the economic value of water in various crops. In order to assess the irrigation water economic value of different crops in the Paliganj distributary command (irrigated with canal and groundwater) and Nalanda corridor site (irrigated by groundwater only), required data were collected from 30 farmers of the Paliganj distributary command and 15 villages of Nalanda corridor through the developed questionnaire.

Residual return to water of the Paliganj distributary

Farm budgets for 10 crops, namely rice, maize kharif, wheat, lentil, khesari, gram, maize rabi, potato, onion and green gram, were developed. Farm costs which include rent of land, labor (involved in ploughing/tilling/harrowing/sowing/dibbling/planting/transplanting/weeding/harvesting/threshing), seed, organic matter, fertilizer, insecticide, and pesticide were all summed up to arrive at the total cost of cultivation for each crop. The cost of the main product such as cereal crops on minimum support price (MSP), and khesari and vegetable (potato and onion) crops on local market rate was considered. The gross margins or FNR are calculated for each crop in order to analyze the value of the water of these crops. Table 2 provides a summary of the crop budgets of the 10 crops obtained from the sampled 30 representative farmers of the Paliganj distributary command. These crops together make up around 90% of the total irrigated land area in both command areas.

Table 2

Summary statistics of crop budgets of the Paliganj distributary command

CropTotal cost (Rs.)Total sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)
Rice 67,939 93,120 25,181 
Wheat 62,606 88,875 26,269 
Lentil 44,524 71,400 26,876 
Gram 52,518 81,600 29,082 
Khesari 42,225 76,500 34,275 
Green gram 31,448 72,750 41,303 
Maize Kharif 38,899 89,760 50,861 
Maize Rabi 49,409 104,720 55,311 
Potato 91,876 312,500 220,624 
Onion 67,857 450,000 382,143 
CropTotal cost (Rs.)Total sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)
Rice 67,939 93,120 25,181 
Wheat 62,606 88,875 26,269 
Lentil 44,524 71,400 26,876 
Gram 52,518 81,600 29,082 
Khesari 42,225 76,500 34,275 
Green gram 31,448 72,750 41,303 
Maize Kharif 38,899 89,760 50,861 
Maize Rabi 49,409 104,720 55,311 
Potato 91,876 312,500 220,624 
Onion 67,857 450,000 382,143 

The result shows the gross margins for the different crop enterprises. From the results, onion had the highest gross margin (Rs. 3,82,143) compared to other crops followed by potato (Rs. 2,20,624), maize rabi (Rs. 55,311), maize kharif (Rs. 50,861), green gram (Rs. 41,303), khesari (Rs. 34,275), gram (Rs. 29,082), lentil (Rs. 26,876), wheat (Rs. 26,269), and rice (Rs. 25,181), respectively, in decreasing order. This result was consistent with another study by Kiprop et al. (2015), who calculated it as Ksh 91,288 (Rs. 61,218.05) and Ksh 84,944 (Rs. 56,963.74) for the green gram and maize crops, respectively. These crop budgets were utilized to determine the economic value of irrigation water (Rs./m3) through the RVM. The cost of production was subtracted from the gross returns of each individual crop. These returns were further divided by the amount of water applied (m3) to achieve the economic value of irrigation water at zero cost of irrigation. Table 3 provides a summary of the data at the farm crop level, which was used to evaluate the economic value of irrigation water for different crops (Rs./m3). The economic value of irrigation water was derived from the crop output with irrigation over the entire production period of the year.

Table 3

Economic value of irrigation water for different crops (Rs./m3)

Economic result per ha
Water average doses (m3)Apparent productivity
CropTotal sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)Sales/water (Rs./m3)Irrigation water economic value (Rs./m3)
Rice 93,120 25,181 6,750 13.79 3.73 
Wheat 88,875 26,269 2,250 39.50 11.67 
Maize Rabi 104,720 55,311 3,750 27.92 14.75 
Lentil 71,400 26,876 1,250 57.12 21.50 
Maize Kharif 89,760 50,861 2,250 39.89 22.60 
Gram 81,600 29,082 1,250 65.28 23.27 
Green gram 72,750 41,303 1,520 47.86 27.17 
Khesari 76,500 34,275 1,250 61.20 27.42 
Onion 450,000 382,143 4,500 100.00 84.92 
Potato 312,500 220,624 2,250 138.89 98.06 
Economic result per ha
Water average doses (m3)Apparent productivity
CropTotal sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)Sales/water (Rs./m3)Irrigation water economic value (Rs./m3)
Rice 93,120 25,181 6,750 13.79 3.73 
Wheat 88,875 26,269 2,250 39.50 11.67 
Maize Rabi 104,720 55,311 3,750 27.92 14.75 
Lentil 71,400 26,876 1,250 57.12 21.50 
Maize Kharif 89,760 50,861 2,250 39.89 22.60 
Gram 81,600 29,082 1,250 65.28 23.27 
Green gram 72,750 41,303 1,520 47.86 27.17 
Khesari 76,500 34,275 1,250 61.20 27.42 
Onion 450,000 382,143 4,500 100.00 84.92 
Potato 312,500 220,624 2,250 138.89 98.06 

It may be observed from Table 3 that the economic value of irrigation water after considering irrigation water applied through canals and tube well in the Paliganj distributary command for field crops; rice, wheat, maize rabi, lentil, maize kharif, gram, green gram, and khesari are 3.73, 11.67, 14.75, 21.50, 22.60, 23.27, 27.17, and 27.42 Rs./m3, respectively. Similarly, for the vegetable crops, onion and potato are 84.92 and 98.06 Rs./m3, respectively. Maximum irrigation water economic value of 98.06 Rs./m3 for potatoes and minimum 3.73 Rs./m3 for rice is observed, also quoted by Berbel et al. (2011). This clearly shows that the consumption of water by rice is quite high as compared to potato but the profit earned from potato is maximum as compared to all other crops. This result was consistent with other studies by Ashfaq et al. (2005) and Kiprop et al. (2015), who calculated the economic value of irrigation water for field crops; rice, wheat, maize and green gram were 0.63, 1.13, 9.97 Rs./m3 (Ksh 14.87) and 13.98 Rs./m3 (Ksh 20.85), respectively, and for vegetable crops; potato and onion were 6.60 and 13.10 Rs./m3, respectively. Muchara et al. (2016) estimated water economic value for potatoes was ranging from −US$1.67/m3 (–Rs. 138.24/m3) to US$1.13/m3 (Rs. 93.54/m3). The results of Ren et al. (2018) also supported the economic value of canal irrigated areas as being 3.39–5.64 Rs./m3 and 1.20–2.12 Rs./m3 and for tube well-irrigated areas 3.76–6.01 Rs./m3 and 1.55–2.49 Rs./m3 for maize and rice crops, respectively. Finally, it is concluded that at the crop level water values estimated for vegetable crops are generally higher compared to field crops. This indicates that there is greater potential in vegetable crops than in cereal crops.

Residual return to water of Nalanda corridor command

Farm budgets for the 10 crops, namely rice, maize kharif, wheat, lentil, gram, pea, mustard, potato, maize rabi and green gram were developed. Farm costs which include rent of land, labor (involved in ploughing/tilling/harrowing/sowing/dibbling/planting/transplanting/weeding/harvesting/threshing), seed, organic matter, fertilizer, insecticide, and pesticide were all summed up to arrive at the total cost of cultivation for each crop. The cost of main products such as cereal crops on MSP, and pea and vegetable crops (potato) on the local market rate was considered. The gross margins or FNR are calculated for each crop in order to analyse the value of the water of these crops. Table 4 provides a summary of the crop budgets of the 10 crops obtained from 15 villages of this command (irrigated through tube well only).

Table 4

Summary statistics of crop budgets of Nalanda corridor

CropTotal cost (Rs.)Total sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)
Rice 64,901 93,120 28,219 
Gram 46,854 76,500 29,646 
Mustard 37,403 69,750 32,348 
Wheat 56,136 88,875 32,739 
Lentil 43,391 76,500 33,109 
Green gram 49,204 94,575 45,371 
Pea 48,903 100,000 51,098 
Maize Kharif 38,128 93,500 55,373 
Maize Rabi 56,155 114,070 57,915 
Potato 95,082 312,500 217,418 
CropTotal cost (Rs.)Total sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)
Rice 64,901 93,120 28,219 
Gram 46,854 76,500 29,646 
Mustard 37,403 69,750 32,348 
Wheat 56,136 88,875 32,739 
Lentil 43,391 76,500 33,109 
Green gram 49,204 94,575 45,371 
Pea 48,903 100,000 51,098 
Maize Kharif 38,128 93,500 55,373 
Maize Rabi 56,155 114,070 57,915 
Potato 95,082 312,500 217,418 

The result shows the gross margins for the different crop enterprises. From the results potato had the highest gross margin (Rs. 2,17,418) compared to other crops followed by maize rabi (Rs. 57,915), maize kharif (Rs. 55,373), pea (Rs. 51,098), green gram (Rs. 45,371), lentil (Rs. 33,109), wheat (Rs. 32,739), mustard (Rs. 32,348), gram (Rs. 29,646), and rice (Rs. 28,219), respectively, in decreasing order. This result was consistent with the study by Kiprop et al. (2015), who calculated it as Ksh 91,288 (Rs. 61,218.05) and Ksh 84,944 (Rs. 56,963.74) for the green gram and maize crops, respectively. These crop budgets were utilized to determine the economic value of irrigation water (Rs./m3) through the RVM. The cost of production was subtracted from the gross returns of each crop. These returns were further divided by the amount of water applied (m3) to achieve the economic value of irrigation water at the zero cost of irrigation. Table 5 provides a summary of the data at the farm crop level, which was used to evaluate the economic value of irrigation water for different crops (Rs./m3). The economic value of irrigation water was derived from the crop output with irrigation over the entire production period of one year.

Table 5

Economic value of irrigation water for different crops (Rs./m3)

CropEconomic result per ha
Water average doses (m3)Apparent productivity
Total sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)Sales/water (Rs./m3)Irrigation water economic value (Rs./m3)
Rice 93,120 28,219 2,250 41.39 12.54 
Maize Rabi 114,070 57,915 3,750 30.42 15.44 
Wheat 88,875 32,739 1,750 50.79 18.71 
Maize Kharif 93,500 55,373 2,250 41.56 24.61 
Green gram 94,575 45,371 1,500 63.05 30.25 
Mustard 69,750 32,348 1,000 69.75 32.35 
Pea 100,000 51,098 1,350 74.07 37.85 
Gram 76,500 29,646 750 102.00 39.53 
Lentil 76,500 33,109 750 102.00 44.15 
Potato 312,500 217,418 2,250 138.89 96.63 
CropEconomic result per ha
Water average doses (m3)Apparent productivity
Total sales (Rs.)Gross margin (Rs.)Sales/water (Rs./m3)Irrigation water economic value (Rs./m3)
Rice 93,120 28,219 2,250 41.39 12.54 
Maize Rabi 114,070 57,915 3,750 30.42 15.44 
Wheat 88,875 32,739 1,750 50.79 18.71 
Maize Kharif 93,500 55,373 2,250 41.56 24.61 
Green gram 94,575 45,371 1,500 63.05 30.25 
Mustard 69,750 32,348 1,000 69.75 32.35 
Pea 100,000 51,098 1,350 74.07 37.85 
Gram 76,500 29,646 750 102.00 39.53 
Lentil 76,500 33,109 750 102.00 44.15 
Potato 312,500 217,418 2,250 138.89 96.63 

Results reported in Table 5 reveal that at Nalanda corridor command, irrigation water economic values for field crops rice, maize rabi, wheat, maize kharif, green gram, mustard, pea, gram, and lentil are 12.54, 15.44, 18.71, 24.61, 30.25, 32.35, 37.85, 39.53, and 44.15 Rs./m3, respectively. Similarly, for the potato crop the value is 96.93 Rs./m3. A maximum irrigation water economic value of 96.93 Rs./m3 for potato crop and a minimum of 12.54 Rs./m3 for rice is observed. The presented results are compared with other countries’ studies analyzing the economic value of water for irrigation at the regional level. Ziolkowska (2015) estimated the economic value of irrigation water for maize as 5.80 Rs./m3 (US$0.07/m3) and for wheat they are lowest. Rodrigues et al. (2021) also reported field crops such as wheat and maize to have a lower economic value of irrigation water. The result shows that vegetable crop such as potato has great potential to be cropped in the Nalanda corridor.

Policy recommendation

In light of the above results, the economic value of irrigation water indicates vegetable crops such as potato and onion give high FR while utilizing less water. Farmers should be encouraged to grow more vegetable crops such as potato and onion in the Paliganj distributary command and Nalanda corridor command. It is also recommended that these command areas are also highly suitable for high-value horticultural crops which provide maximum gross return while utilizing less water for farmers, increasing water use efficiency and improving the livelihoods of area inhabitants.

Two case studies have been reported here. At the Paliganj distributary site, canal water as well as groundwater has been applied for irrigation, whereas, at the Nalanda corridor site, only groundwater has been used for applying irrigation. A comparison of irrigation water pricing at the Paliganj distributary site as well as the Nalanda corridor site showed that the irrigation water economic value at the Nalanda corridor site is higher than the Paliganj distributary site because farmers realize the importance of water at Nalanda and they apply it efficiently and judiciously when it is essentially required by crops, whereas at Paliganj canal water charges are much lower compared to groundwater and farmers applying it unconsciously. The results of this study may serve as a tool for decision-makers on how irrigation water should be economically valued in order for some crops to be suitable. Also, it provides standard economic value for the most representative crops in both regions, thereby offering support for new farmers on which crops should be farmed in those irrigation communities.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Adeoti
O.
&
Fati
B. O.
2022
Factors constraining household willingness to pay for piped water tariffs: the case of Ekiti State, Nigeria
.
H2Open Journal
5
(
1
),
115
133
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/h2oj.2022.135
.
Aparnathi
M. G.
&
Bhatt
D. K.
2014
Linear programming model for optimal cropping pattern for economic benefits of Mrbc command area
.
International Journal for Innovative Research in Science & Technology
1
(
1
),
47
54
.
ISSN (online): 2349-6010
.
Ashfaq
M.
,
Jabeen
S.
&
Baig
I. A.
2005
Estimation of the economic value of irrigation water
.
J. Agr. & Social Sci.
1
(
3
),
270
272
.
doi:1813–2235/2005/01–3–270–272
.
Berbel
J.
,
Mesa-Jurado
M. A.
&
Piston
J. M.
2011
Value of irrigation water in Guadalquivir basin (Spain) by residual value method
.
Water Resources Management
25
(
6
),
1565
1579
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9761-2
.
Berbel
J.
,
Borrego-Marin
M. M.
,
Exposito
A.
,
Giannoccaro
G.
,
Montilla-Lopez
N. M.
&
Roseta-Palma
C.
2019
Analysis of irrigation water tariffs and taxes in Europe
.
Water Policy
21
(
4
),
806
825
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2019.197
.
Central Groundwater Water Board
2013
Ground water information booklet, Nalanda district, Bihar state. Central ground water board, Ministry of water resources (Govt. of India) Mid-Eastern region Patna. Available from: https://cgwb.gov.in/District_Profile/Bihar/Nalanda.pdf.
Chebil
A.
,
Soula
R.
,
Souissi
A.
&
Bennouna
B.
2022
Efficiency, valuation, and pricing of irrigation water in northeastern Tunisia
.
Agricultural Water Management
266
,
107577
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2022.107577
.
District Survey Report
2021
District survey report of sand mineral. Prepared by Sub Divisional Committee, Nalanda district, Bihar. Available from: https://cdn.s3waas.gov.in/s3f85454e8279be180185cac7d243c5eb3/uploads/2022/03/2022030280.pdf.
Esmaeili
A.
&
Vazirzadeh
S.
2009
Water pricing for agricultural production in the South of Iran
.
Water Resources Management
23
(
5
),
957
964
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9308-y
.
Gallego-Ayala
J.
,
Gomez-Limon
J. A.
&
Arriaza
M.
2011
Irrigation water pricing instruments: a sustainability assessment
.
Spanish Journal of Agricultural Research
9
(
4
),
981
999
.
https://doi.org/10.5424/sjar/20110904-449-10
.
Kiprop
J. K.
,
Lagat
J. K.
,
Mshenga
P.
&
Macharia
A. M.
2015
Determining the economic value of irrigation water in Kerio Valley basin (Kenya) by residual value method
.
Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development
6
(
7
),
102
108
.
ISSN: 2222-1700
.
Latinopoulos
P.
2005
Valuation and pricing of irrigation water: an analysis in Greek agricultural areas
.
Global NEST Journal
7
(
3
),
323
335
.
Menezes
F. M.
,
Capodeferro
M. W.
,
Smiderle
J. J.
&
Guimarães
P. E.
2022
Estimating efficient water economic values in the Sao Marcos river basin: a residual imputation approach
.
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management
148
(
5
),
06022001
.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0001538
.
Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers’ Welfare
2020
Annual Report, 2019–20
.
Muchara
B.
,
Ortmann
G.
,
Mudhara
M.
&
Wale
E.
2016
Irrigation water value for potato farmers in the Mooi river irrigation scheme of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa: a residual value approach
.
Agricultural Water Management
164
,
243
252
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.10.022
.
Qamar
M. U.
,
Azmat
M.
,
Abbas
A.
,
Usman
M.
,
Shahid
M. A.
&
Khan
Z. M.
2018
Water pricing and implementation strategies for the sustainability of an irrigation system: a case study within the command area of the Rakh branch canal
.
Water
10
(
4
),
509
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10040509
.
Qureshi
M. E.
,
Ahmad
M. D.
,
Whitten
S. M.
,
Reeson
A.
&
Kirby
M.
2018
Impact of climate variability including drought on the residual value of irrigation water across the Murray–Darling Basin, Australia
.
Water Economics and Policy
4
(
1
),
1550020
.
https://doi.org/10.1142/S2382624X15500204
.
Ren
Y.
,
Wei
S.
,
Cheng
K.
&
Fu
Q.
2018
Valuation and pricing of agricultural irrigation water based on macro and micro scales
.
Water
10
(
8
),
1044
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081044
.
Rodrigues
G. C.
,
da Silva
F. G.
&
Coelho
J. C.
2021
Determining farmers’ willingness to pay for irrigation water in the Alentejo region (Southern Portugal) by the residual value method
.
Agronomy
11
(
1
),
142
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11010142
.
Roy
L. B.
2019
Irrigation water pricing in Sone command area
.
Adrian an ENVIS Newsletter
2
(
1–2
),
8
12
.
ISSN: 2581-8090
.
Sangal
S. P.
1991
Pricing of irrigation waters in India
.
Economic and Political Weekly
26
(
46
),
2645
2651
.
Singh
K. A.
,
Chaudhary
A. K.
&
Sinha
D. K.
2007
Groundwater marketing in Nalanda district of Bihar state: a socio-economic appraisal
.
Agricultural Economics Research Review
20
(
2
),
333
344
.
ISSN: 0971-3441
.
Upadhyaya
A.
&
Roy
L. B.
2020
Valuation of irrigation water for two principal crops in Paliganj distributary of Bihar, India
.
Water Utility Journal
25
,
31
39
.
Upadhyaya
A.
,
Jeet
P.
,
Singh
A. K.
,
Kumari
A.
&
Sundaram
P. K.
2022
Efficacy of influencing factors in the decision-making of irrigation water pricing: a review
.
Water Policy
24
(
6
),
963
979
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/wp.2022.004
.
World Bank
2022
Water in Agriculture
.
Yasin
H. Q.
,
Marinova
D.
&
Tahir
M. N.
2022
A critical analysis of the economic valuation of canal irrigation water in Punjab, Pakistan
.
Sarhad Journal of Agriculture
38
(
431
),
1352
1360
.
Ziolkowska
J. R.
2015
Shadow economic value of water for irrigation – a case of the high plains
.
Agricultural Water Management
153
,
20
31
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.01.024
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).