Ground Zero: The Promise And Challenge Of Aquifer Mapping In India

DINESH KUMAR

It has been almost three decades since the efforts to pitch groundwater against surface water began in India by a bunch of researchers and academicians, with the sole aim of proving that the former (groundwater) is better than the latter (surface water) for meeting India’s growing water demands. I call them ‘groundwater die-hards.’ Most of them suffer from a problem called hydroschisophrenia.

They distinctly divide water into groundwater and surface water, failing to realize that without rains, there will be neither surface water nor groundwater, and that both are part of the same hydrological system. To prove their point, they had gone to the extent of rebuking all systems that are based on surface water, particularly public irrigation systems.

I have stated several times on this platform that such a comparison is absolutely unnecessary, and any such writings defy the principles in hydrology and could be done only with ulterior motives. Many well-meaning NGOs in India that have been working at the grass-roots level to solve water problems have also joined this bandwagon, without realizing that by doing it, they would be limiting their own catalogue of options to serve the communities in water-scarce regions.

Some had taken up groundwater recharge schemes in many of their project areas as a silver bullet, though in many cases, the physical environment (rainfall, climate, geology and topography) did not provide any favourable conditions for artificial recharge (with limited and highly variable runoff, high evaporation and poor aquifer storage potential). In places where opportunities for harvesting runoff water on the surface existed, such options were not explored in favour of this weird worldview.

However, the growing evidence of groundwater over-exploitation in many parts of the country (manifested by drops in water level and water quality deterioration) and the ineffectiveness of local recharge systems in arresting this problem in most situations had forced many well-meaning grassroots professionals to rethink the futility of over-dependence on groundwater as a future source of water supply in the country.

In fact, we had argued with empirical evidence that without surface water imports from water-rich areas, groundwater irrigation cannot be sustained in any of the semi-arid parts of the country except in the alluvial areas of Ganges-Brahmaputra River systems.

Aquifer Mapping

Realizing the futility of the efforts into artificial recharge of groundwater through the use of local runoff (in most cases, barring a few exceptions), the ‘groundwater die-hards’ had then decided to change the entire narrative to their advantage. They came up with the argument that the country needed to map the aquifers to know more about groundwater (aquifers) before we do anything to manage it.

To sell the idea, it was claimed that such an exercise would help reveal where the resource is and how much is available. In principle, no one would disagree with this proposition, although there may be questions regarding how much of it is truly required at present when good amount of knowledge about the geological formations and aquifer conditions in almost 95% of the country’s geographical area is known.

A few fashionable terms such as ‘groundwater governance’ (which would resonate with the social scientists) were introduced with the intention to hide the business agenda of doing what geologists have been doing for centuries, i.e., mapping the underground strata. To make it attractive, a new term was coined: ‘aquifer mapping’. The next step was to get the government to accept this proposal. This was possible because of their strong influence on the then Planning Commission of India. A large sum of money was sanctioned (around INR 3500+ crore) by the then Planning Commission.

There was absolutely no plan, and the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), which is supposed to be the custodian of India’s groundwater, had no clue of how this large sum of money could be spent. The whole idea was thrust upon them, and there was no real consultation whatsoever.

At least a few scholars had raised concerns regarding the time required for doing country-wide aquifer mapping in the manner it was envisioned by the concept’s initiators, and what it would finally produce. There were no clear answers from the proponents to any of these crucial questions. They talked about everything under the sky, other than the hardware called ‘water’.

However, the grandiose plan to use the large government funds to implement their pet idea using their cohorts failed due to the lukewarm response from some of the eminent scholars from the Central Ground Water Board who were at the helm of affairs. Then, the next step was to get other CSOs in the country to accept this as a sine qua non for implementing any project on water.

The idea could be easily sold to the CSR wings of some of the big industries and corporates that were looking for some new ideas to spend their money on through their CSO partners. As a result, CSOs working to implement field projects on water management with CSR funds also began doing so out of compulsion.

This exercise so far had not produced anything useful from the perspective of groundwater management, such as mapping groundwater level trends or estimating the geohydrological properties of the aquifers and the storage space in the aquifers. The exercise normally produces some maps displaying the geological profile (which rocks are lying at what depth, and the geological structures). The information produced from such an exercise is proven to be simply useless for the organizations for which they were meant.

The theory that once the aquifer was mapped, the local communities would work out the rules to manage groundwater sustainably had already fallen flat. There is not an iota of evidence in the country that shows that aquifer mapping can yield outcomes that are comparable to the claims. Many NGOs have already begun to raise serious questions about the utility of doing this exercise as an input for planning their work.

Borewell Recharging

The group that appears to act as evangelists for ‘groundwater governance’ has already formed a cartel in the country. They have penetrated deep into the system. Many of them work very closely with private companies that offer services like ‘bore well recharging’. The latter argue that there is a sufficient volume of runoff water in every locality that goes uncaptured, that it is simply a matter of constructing a few bore wells (using appropriate design) to send the water underground, and that recharge will not occur naturally through rains.

The science is that in the hard rock areas that cover almost 65% of the country’s geographical area, even natural recharge to the underground formations is constrained by its poor porosity. The steep rise in water levels in the formation after the monsoon due to recharge from rainfall infiltration limits the ability to put additional water through artificial means. This means, in good rainfall years, artificial recharge through bore wells is simply not possible.

The aquifer mapping experts and these private companies work as cohorts and support each other. On the surface, they all appear as water conservation activists and crusaders. But deep down, these groups have strong commercial interests. They make tall promises to their potential clients vis-à-vis what can be done to improve groundwater conditions in rural and urban areas using their ‘techniques’.

The ‘bourgeois environmentalism’ that has now become a phenomenon in the country provides a favourable climate for the work of such agencies. Needless to say, there is no application of the theories in groundwater hydraulics in the design of these recharge wells. As studies worldwide show, poorly designed systems can cause serious harm to groundwater, through contamination like heavy metals, microbes, and pesticide residues.

Conclusions

It is well established that the two major reasons for over-exploitation of aquifers are the absence of well-defined rights in groundwater and inefficient pricing of electricity supplied in the farm sector which is the largest user of groundwater in the country. The problem is surely not due to a lack of sufficient information about the occurrence of groundwater and its flows. The local farmers who drill the wells, as well as official agencies, know the characteristics of the underground formations and how the resource condition is changing over time. Aquifer mapping can do nothing to halt this ongoing menace.

That said, there is no denial that we need to enhance our understanding of groundwater resources in the country. That understanding is concerned with resource availability and use, i.e., how much recharge occurs naturally through precipitation, how this varies between years, how much water could be artificially added under various conditions, and how much of that water is withdrawn annually for various uses.

As I had written earlier, we can invest additional resources in refining the current resource assessment methodology. But we already have sufficient information to start initiating management actions in the problem areas. The real challenge there lies in building appropriate institutions that can frame and enforce rules regarding groundwater withdrawal and use.

Dinesh Kumar is a renowned Distinguished Water Sector Expert, Executive Director, Institute for Resource Analysis & Policy (IRAP), Hyderabad & Honorary Advisor, IMPRI.

The article was first published in LinkedIn as Aquifer Mapping and Borewell Recharging: A Panacea for India’s Groundwater Crisis? on 27 June 2025.

Disclaimer: All views expressed in the article belong solely to the author and not necessarily to the organisation.