Case6-March-2013
Water is becoming one of the scarce natural resource everywhere. In our country major amount of water is being used for irrigation. Normally the farmers adapting traditional irrigation method like flood irrigation through the open channel which is consuming more water. There are heavy percolation and evaporation losses in the traditional methods. The Farmers in Kottampatti block conserved the water by carrying through newly laid under ground pipe line system instead of carrying the flow in the open channel.
Kottampatti is situated in the south western direction of the Madurai district. During 1960’s it was called as Melur I after that it was changed to Kottampatti block. In 1992, Kottampatti block was organized. This block is benefited by canal and tank irrigation mostly by rain fed tanks. There are 961 irrigation tanks mostly small in size providing irrigation to less than 40 Ha and located in 27 village Panchayats grouped into 32 revenue villages and there are about 198 small villages. Kottampatti a remote block which is neither fed with any perennial river nor supported with any such water sources for the peoples’ mainstay agriculture. The farmers solely depend on rainwater, which is stored in irrigation bodies called tanks made of mud bunds thrown across land slope. As a whole Madurai has 2450 tanks in which 961 tanks are there in Kottampatti block itself. The tank rehabilitation programme with people participation was initiated in the year 1994 in this block with the objective of enabling the people towards tank restoration and for sustainable management. The annual rainfall for Kottampatti is around 860 mm. Though farmers cultivate paddy as a main crop in wet land and have mixed crop such as coconut, mango, pulses, ground nut etc. in dry land, these dry land and dry land crops are also the main sources of livelihood.
The NABARD has sanctioned र 20.0lakhs to the
Kottampatti Vattara Vayalagam under the UPNRM project. The farmers of this federation has utilized the
loan effectively for laying pipe line in their land. Totally
43 number of members benefited through this project
and र 8,67,000/- amount of loan was distributed to the
members. The list of the Micro Finance Group(MFG)
and the beneficiary numbers are given in the above table.
| S. No. | Group Name | Village Name | No. of Member | Amount |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Sanipatti VVV club | Sanipatti | 8 | 1,60,000 |
| 2 | Palkulam MFG | Kadumeetanpatti | 4 | 1,00,000 |
| 3 | Periyaruruvi neradi neer pasanam | Kadumeetanpatti | 5 | 1,00,000 |
| 4 | Alagarmalaiyan MFG | Kesampatti | 6 | 1,20,000 |
| 5 | Pattaliyin pasumai purachi | Alangampatti | 3 | 60,000 |
| 6 | Moongilgalin munnetram | Alangampatti | 2 | 40,000 |
| 7 | Kilavan kanmoi vayalagam | Velayuthampatti | 1 | 20,000 |
| 8 | Alagikulam | Kadumeetanpatti | 3 | 50,000 |
| 9 | Thiranikaruppu | Periyakarpurampatti | 1 | 20,000 |
| 10 | Alangulam,Mangulam | Kesampatti | 3 | 57,000 |
| 11 | Aindunilai nattar | Vellanipatti | 1 | 20,000 |
| 12 | Arulmigu vinayagar | Ottakovilpatti | 1 | 20,000 |
| 13 | Vadakkura selvi | Ottakovilpatti | 1 | 20,000 |
| 14 | Manthaiyamman | Alangampatti | 2 | 40,000 |
| 15 | Pattaliyin pasumai purachi | Alangampatti | 2 | 40,000 |
| Total | 43 | 8,67,000 |
Due to the absence of Perennial River in Kottampatti block the farmers depends on Rainfed tanks and Ground water. In the tank command also the farmers having well and using the water conjunctively. Before five decades the farmers lift the well water manually and also by using animals. The name of the irrigation method is called Kamalai or Etram. Now a days the farmers are not creating well because of its cost. Recent years most of the farmers are digging borewell to lift the ground water. They are using oil and Electrical motors for pumping the water. Usually the lifted water falls near the location of the motor and the open channel carries the water to some distance for irrigation. While carrying the water in the channel the water is percolating and evaporating. When the soil is sandy the percolation loss is very high. The time taken to reach the field to irrigate, the power requirement for pumping the water and the labour work for cleaning the channel and closing the opening for diverting the water to next part of land to irrigate was high.
| S.No. | Particulars | Traditional Method | Pipe line Method |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Loss of water | Percolation and Evaporation losses are high | No percolation and evaporation loss |
| 2 | Time for irrigation per acre | 5.0 hrs | 3.0 hrs |
| 3 | Oil and Power requirement | High | Low |
| 4 | Labour | Careful watch to avoid breaches, burden for frequent cleaning and diverting water is required. | Easy operation and saving the time and cost for labor. Even the women can irrigate. |
| 5 | Area for irrigation | Limited area | Additional 2.0 acres can be irrigated when compare with traditional method |
| 6 | Number of irrigation | Two times per month | Four times per month |
| 7 | Yield | Average | Due to the increase of irrigation the yield also increase. |
To avoid the above said problems the farmers are laying
PVC pipe line in the ground to carry the water through
the pipe line system. The UPNRM supported the farmers
to meet the initial expenditure for laying the pipe line
system from the pump. र 20,000/ amount of loan was given to the farmers for laying the PVC pipe line system.
The below table gives the comparative of traditional
irrigation system and Pipe line irrigation system.
The UPNRM project supported the small and marginal farmers for improving the status of the farmers. The farmers could utilize the loan effectively for the conservation of land and water. Ultimately the production in the agriculture and income of the farmers were increased with the support of the UPNRM project.