Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

DOI 10.1007/s12665-017-6912-2

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Evaluation of groundwater resources for sustainable groundwater

development in a semiarid river basin of India
Pawan S. Wable1 • Madan K. Jha1 • Surajit Murasingh1

Received: 4 April 2017 / Accepted: 14 August 2017

Ó Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany 2017

Abstract There is a growing stress on groundwater due to DGWR in the range of 0–50 MCM. Although the GWDL
increase in the frequency and intensity of droughts, and the in the study area varies from about 12 to 124%, the status
limited availability of surface water. Therefore, proper of groundwater development in the study area is catego-
assessment of available groundwater reserves is highly rized to be ‘safe.’ The analysis of runoff potential in the
essential at a microscale (e.g., block level) to take into study area revealed that it considerably varies with time
account spatial variability. In this paper, a methodology for and space. About 71% of the study area is suitable for
the effective assessment of groundwater resources is rainwater conservation during ‘wet’ years, whereas this
demonstrated considering a semiarid river basin of Western figure reduces to 33% in ‘normal’ years. It is emphasized
India as a study area. The rainfall data of nine raingauge that regular monitoring of groundwater at a suitable spatial
stations and seasonal groundwater-level data of 132 sites scale (at least block level) is necessary on long-term basis
over the basin for 20 years (1990–2009) were used. and the adoption of rainwater harvesting measures are
Groundwater availability in the unconfined aquifer was indispensable for sustainable utilization and management
evaluated at a block level in terms of ‘static groundwater of groundwater resources in semiarid regions.
reserve (SGWR)’ and ‘dynamic groundwater reserve
(DGWR),’ and their spatial and temporal variabilities were Keywords Groundwater assessment  Static groundwater
analyzed. Furthermore, the status of groundwater utiliza- reserve  Dynamic groundwater reserve  Trend analysis 
tion in individual blocks was explored considering the level Runoff potential  Sustainable groundwater development 
of groundwater development (GWDL) and the trends of Semiarid region
long-term seasonal groundwater levels. To sustain avail-
able groundwater resources on a long-term basis, the runoff
potential in the study area was also evaluated. It was found Introduction
that SGWR varies from 0.09 to 136.97 MCM (million
cubic meters), whereas DGWR ranges from -35.85 to Groundwater is a replenishable but limited resource. It is
156.26 MCM. During ‘normal’ years, around 43% of the the largest source of freshwater and accounts for 33% of
study area has a SGWR in the range of 20–40 MCM and the global water withdrawal (Gorelick and Zheng 2015).
However, rapid industrialization, population growth and
expanding agricultural activities have led to overexploita-
& Pawan S. Wable tion of this freshwater resource in different parts of the
[email protected]
world.
Madan K. Jha For instance, the area of land used for groundwater
[email protected]
irrigation has increased by 105% in India in the last
Surajit Murasingh 20 years, whereas the surface water irrigated areas have
[email protected]
increased by only 28% (IWMI 2001). In addition, a large
1
AgFE Department, Indian Institute of Technology proportion of the country frequently experiences recurring
Kharagpur, Kharagpur, West Bengal 721 302, India droughts. Increasing irrigation demands and frequency of

123
601 Page 2 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

droughts along with mismanagement have led to critical guidelines recommended by the Groundwater Resource
decline in groundwater levels across the country. The most Estimation Committee (1997) using groundwater level and
affected community is the farmers whose livelihoods are withdrawal rate data and estimates of effective porosity.
dependent on agriculture. Guidelines are provided for the assessment of available
The occurrence, movement and storage of groundwater groundwater in terms of ‘static’ and ‘dynamic’ reserves
are governed by several factors including hydrometeorol- and the hydraulic categorization of assessment units based
ogy, topography, soil, land use/cover, geomorphology, on the extent of groundwater utilization and long-term
geology, and above all human activities. All these factors trend of seasonal groundwater levels.
make the precise assessment of groundwater very difficult In this paper, the methodology for the effective evalu-
with no direct technique available for its estimation. ation of groundwater resources is demonstrated through a
Although indirect methods (such as water balance methods, case study in the semiarid region of Western India. The
isotope methods, and numerical modeling) are available, study area is located in the semiarid region of Maharashtra
they are expensive and time-consuming for a large-scale in the western part of India, and it falls under ‘chronically
assessment. However, a combination of reliable local data drought-prone area’ (PACS 2004). This basin is charac-
with geospatial technologies such as remote sensing (RS) terized as being highly water-stressed (Garg et al. 2012),
and the use of geographic information systems (GIS) can though many irrigation projects have been implemented in
be an effective tool for better assessment of groundwater in the study area. Therefore, it is crucial to evaluate ground-
large areas. For example, remote sensing techniques may water status in the study area to properly address the issue
provide valuable spatiotemporal data about numerous of water scarcity. The present study is the first of its kind in
environmental aspects. In particular, data from the Gravity this study area.
Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite The specific objectives of this study are: (i) to assess
provide an indirect pathway for the assessment of changes spatiotemporal variations of static groundwater reserve
in groundwater reserve over a larger scale (Tapley et al. (SGWR) and dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR) in the
2004; Rodell et al. 2009). However, many researchers have basin and analyze their trends, (ii) to explore spatial vari-
applied RS and GIS techniques for the exploration and ability of SGWR and DGWR during ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and
mapping of groundwater prospect zones with or without ‘dry’ years, (iii) to identify the status of groundwater uti-
multicriteria decision analysis (e.g., Jothiprakash et al. lization in the basin, and (iv) to suggest a suitable measure
2003; Sener et al. 2005; Solomon and Quiel 2006; for sustainable utilization of groundwater resources.
Chowdhury et al. 2009; Jha et al. 2010), identification of
rainwater harvesting and artificial recharge sites/zones
(e.g., Saraf and Choudhury 1998; Jha et al. 2014), mapping Materials and methods
of surface and subsurface waterlogged areas and salt-af-
fected soils (e.g., Mandal and Sharma 2001; Chatterjee Study area
et al. 2005; Chowdary et al. 2008), mapping of recharge
and discharge areas (Tweed et al. 2007), and so on. Location and hydrometeorology
In order to develop a proper groundwater management
plan, a comprehensive assessment of recharge and dis- The study area is the Sina River Basin, which is situated in
charge processes occurring in a groundwater basin is Maharashtra state of India and falls in the semiarid region.
required. However, detailed information about these pro- The location of the study area along with the location of
cesses is often lacking at a basin scale. Generally, data collection sites is shown in Fig. 1. It consists of 20
groundwater levels are monitored, and therefore, it is blocks (administrative units) as shown in Fig. 1 and covers
generally much easier to obtain these data than other parts of four districts, namely the Ahmednagar, Beed,
information that can be used to determine water balances Osmanabad, and Solapur districts, with the majority (42%)
for a groundwater flow system. The fluctuations in long- of the area falling in the Solapur district. Out of the 20
term groundwater levels can be related to both natural blocks, only 16 blocks have been considered in this study
changes in the water balance (due to the effects of evap- because no observation wells are present in four small size
otranspiration, precipitation, climate changes, etc.) and blocks (Akkalkot, Kallam, Pathardi, and Parner). Basic
water balance changes caused by human activities, such as information about the study area is summarized in Table 1.
the effects of groundwater pumping and induced infiltra- It is worth mentioning that the study area experienced
tion or the effects of changing land uses (Healy and Cook severe to extreme drought spells during 2001–2004 (EIS
2002). 2006).
In India, the planning of groundwater development and The rainfall in the study area mostly occurs from mid-
management strategies is performed following the June to the end of October each year from the southwest

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 3 of 17 601

rea
dy A
Stu

Fig. 1 Location map of the study area

monsoon. Three distinct seasons occur in the study area: Geologic setting
winter, summer and the rainy seasons. The winter season
starts in November and extends up to the end of February; The study area is underlain by hard rocks with an uncon-
the summer season period is from March to mid-June; and fined aquifer at shallow depth as well as semi-confined
the monsoon (rainy) season period is from mid-June to the (leaky confined) and confined aquifers at deeper depths
end of October. (MoWR and CGWB 2013). The depth of unconfined

123
601 Page 4 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Table 1 Salient information about the study area

Latitude 17°280 N–19°160 N
Longitude 74°280 E–76°70 E
Geographical area 12,444 km2
Topography 420–964 m MSL
Climate Semiarid
Average annual rainfall 644 mm
Average maximum temperature 40.5 °C (May)
Average minimum temperature 10.5 °C (December)

aquifer extends up to 20 m below the ground level (bgl),

and its thickness varies 5–20 m. It lies in weathered or
fractured upper portions of the Deccan basalt. The specific
yield of the unconfined aquifer ranges from 0.01 to 0.026.
The semi-confined aquifer occurs at a depth of 21–40 m
bgl with a thickness 2.5–30 m bgl, whereas the confined
aquifer with variable thickness occurs at a depth of greater
than 40 m. The details of geologic setting of the study area
can be found in MoWR and CGWB (2013).

Collection of data
Fig. 2 Land use/land cover map of the study area
Daily rainfall data for the period 1990–2009 for nine
raingauge stations in the area were obtained from the India classes is presented in Table 2. It is apparent that the study
Meteorological Department, Pune and State Data Storage area is comprised of 12 types of land use/cover with 78.5%
Center, Hydrology Project, Nashik, India. For the same area under agriculture followed by pasture land (9%) and
period, seasonal data of groundwater levels (depth to water fallow land (5.7%). Also, the soil map of the study area of
table) for 132 shallow observation wells (unconfined scale 1:250,000 was collected from the National Bureau of
aquifer) and 15 deep observation wells (semi-confined and Soil Survey and Land Use Planning, Nagpur (Fig. 3) and
confined aquifers) over the basin were obtained from the the soil statistics are provided in Table 3. Three types of
Groundwater Survey and Development Agency, Pune, soils are found in the study area: loam, clay, and dense clay
India. However, the post-monsoon groundwater-level data (clay [35%) with a majority of the area (about 45%)
of shallow observation wells located in some blocks of having ‘dense clay’ type soil (Table 3).
Solapur district for 2007 and 2009 years are missing. On
the other hand, continuous seasonal time series data of Table 2 Coverage of area under different land use/land cover
groundwater level in the deep aquifer are available for (LULC) classes
9 years (2000–2008) at only three sites located in Jamkhed, LULC Area (km2) Area (%)
Paranda and Barshi blocks. The groundwater-level data of
1. Agriculture 9615.61 78.5
observation wells collected in the months of May and
2. Waste land 65.36 0.5
October are designated as ‘pre-monsoon’ and ‘post-mon-
3. Dense forest 38.35 0.3
soon’ data, respectively. The data on groundwater with-
4. Fallow land 701.09 5.7
drawals from all the 16 blocks for irrigation, domestic and
industrial purposes for the year 2008 were obtained from 5. Mining area 10.76 0.1
the government report (GSDA and CGWB 2011). These 6. Open forest 30.49 0.2
data are available for the year 2008 only. 7. Plantation 31.28 0.3
Moreover, the land use/land cover map of scale 1:50,000 8. River/water bodies 268.41 2.2
was obtained from the National Remote Sensing Center 9. Rural settlement 118.60 1.0
(NRSC), Hyderabad, India. The spatial distribution of land 10. Degraded forest 119.69 1.0
use/cover in the study area is shown in Fig. 2 and the 11. Pasture land 1098.90 9.0
summary of the areas covered by different land use/cover 12. Urban settlement 145.90 1.2

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 5 of 17 601

Assessment of groundwater availability

Estimation of static groundwater reserve

The ‘static groundwater reserve’ refers to the available

groundwater resource under the zone of natural ground-
water-level fluctuation (GWREC 1997). The estimation of
‘static groundwater reserve/resource’ in an area or a basin
can be accomplished after knowing the aquifer thickness
and determining specific yield of the aquifer over the area
or basin. The ‘static groundwater reserve (SGWR)’ was
estimated as (GWREC 1997):
SGWR ¼ ðDAB  DWT Þ  A  Sy ð1Þ
where DAB = depth to the aquifer base [L], DWT = depth
to water table in the pre-monsoon season [L], A = aquifer
area of influence [L2], and Sy = specific yield of the
aquifer [fraction].

Estimation of dynamic groundwater reserve

The ‘dynamic groundwater reserve’ refers to the long-term

average annual recharge under the condition of maximal
groundwater use (GWREC 1997). Usually, up to the end of
Fig. 3 Types of soil in the study area October, the soil is extremely wet due to monsoon rain and
no supplementary groundwater withdrawal for irrigation is
needed. Groundwater irrigation normally starts from the
Analysis of groundwater-level fluctuations beginning of November and continues up to May of the
in shallow and deep aquifers next year. Therefore, the ‘dynamic groundwater reserve
(DGWR)’ was estimated as follows (GWREC 1997):
The seasonal variations of water table elevations in the DGWR ¼ ðDWTE  DWTO Þ  A  Sy ð2Þ
unconfined aquifer during 1990–2006 were studied by
where DWTE = depth to water table in the pre-monsoon
plotting the time series of pre-monsoon and post-mon-
season of next year [L], DWTO = depth to water table in
soon depth to water table along with the bargraphs of
the post-monsoon season of the current year [L],
rainfall. Similarly, variations in potentiometric heads in
A = aquifer area of influence [L2], and Sy = specific yield
the deep aquifers (semi-confined and confined aquifers)
of the aquifer [fraction].
were also analyzed using data of the pre-monsoon and
The ‘dynamic groundwater reserve’ (DGWR) is also
post-monsoon depths to groundwater for the period
known as the exploitable groundwater reserve or utilizable
2000–2008. Furthermore, a linear trend analysis of pre-
groundwater reserve, which clearly indicates that this
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels was
amount of groundwater can be fully extracted/withdrawn to
performed for both the shallow and deep aquifers to
meet annual water demands without causing any detri-
understand their overall fluctuation behavior during the
mental effect on the available groundwater resource and
study period. The methodology for trend analysis is
the environment. Like Eqs. (1), (2) can also be used to
mentioned in the subsequent section (‘‘Trend analysis’’
estimate the ‘dynamic groundwater reserve/resource’ at a
section).
particular site/location as well as in a catchment or basin.

Table 3 Soil texture along with

Soil texture Hydrologic soil group Area (km2) Area (%)
soil hydrologic group and its
spatial distribution 1. Loam HSG B 3287.09 26.85
2. Clay HSG C 3456.50 28.23
3. Dense clay (clay [35%) HSG D 5500.85 44.93

123
601 Page 6 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

 a
In general, the pre-monsoon season for a particular year  
t-statistic ¼   ð3Þ
refers to the period from October/November of the previ- r
ous year to May/June of the particular year, whereas the where ‘a’ is the slope coefficient of the regression line
post-monsoon season for a particular year refers to the within observed values and time and ‘r’ is the standard
period from October/November of that year up to May/ error of estimated slope coefficients. Using Eq. (3), the
June of the next year. In this study, for calculating SGWR value of t-statistic was computed. If the value of t-statistic
and DGWR in the unconfined aquifer of the study area, the is greater than that of t-critical, then the null hypothesis of
depth to water table in the month of May was taken as nonsignificant slope is rejected (i.e., there is a trend) and
being representative of the ‘pre-monsoon season’ and the vice versa. In this way, trends in all the four time series
depth to water table in the month of October was taken as were examined.
being representative of the ‘post-monsoon season.’ As to
the spatial scale, SGWR and DGWR were estimated at a Evaluation of groundwater exploitation status
block level that is a suitable practical spatial unit for
evaluating groundwater resources at catchment or river The status of groundwater exploitation from the unconfined
basin scales. aquifer in the study area was evaluated at a block scale
Due to their large size and the spatial variability of based on the level of groundwater development and the
seasonal groundwater-level fluctuations, 12 of the 16 presence of a significant long-term decline of ‘pre-mon-
blocks (Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Jamkhed, soon’ and ‘post-monsoon’ groundwater levels. The level of
Karjat, Karmala, Madha, Mohol, North Solapur, Paranda, groundwater development (GWDL) is defined as (GWREC
and South Solapur) were subdivided into sub-areas for 1997):
estimating the SGWR and DGWR. Thus, the SGWR and
Existing groundwater withdrawal for all uses
DGWR values in the unconfined aquifer of each block GWDL ¼  100
Net annual groundwater availability
were estimated at an annual scale for the 1990–2006 per-
iod. Thereafter, the temporal variation of SGWR and ð4Þ
DGWR estimates along with their trends was analyzed. The term ‘net annual groundwater availability’ refers to the
Furthermore, the spatial variation of the ‘static’ and ‘dy- available annual recharge after allowing for natural
namic’ groundwater reserves was analyzed for three sce- groundwater discharge in the monsoon season in terms of
narios, namely for ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years. Here, base flow and subsurface outflow. ‘Existing groundwater
the ‘wet year’ denotes the year in which the annual rainfall withdrawal for all uses’ refers to the total groundwater
is greater than the average annual rainfall of an area, a pumping for all purposes (i.e., irrigation, domestic, and
‘normal year’ refers the year wherein the annual rainfall is industry). Using Eq. (4), the extent of groundwater
equal to the average annual rainfall, and a ‘dry year’ or exploitation in each block was estimated for the year 2008.
‘drought (meteorological drought) year’ denotes the year in Thereafter, the long-term trend of ‘pre-monsoon’ and
which the annual rainfall is more than 25% below the ‘post-monsoon’ groundwater levels in each block was
average annual rainfall (Subramanya 2008). Based on the identified by a linear regression method. The significance
temporal variation of the annual rainfall in the study area of the trend of seasonal groundwater level was evaluated
during the study period (1990–2006), the year 1998 was using the Student’s t-test as mentioned in the previous
‘wet year,’ the year 2000 was a ‘normal year’ and the year section. In addition, the slopes of regression lines, which
2003 was a ‘dry year.’ were not found statistically significant, were visually
examined from the practical viewpoint to assess their sig-
Trend analysis nificance. Using this information and the guidelines men-
tioned in Table 4, the ‘stage (status) of groundwater
Prior to the trend analysis, the time series data used in this development’ in individual block was determined.
study (e.g., pre-monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater
levels, static groundwater reserve, and dynamic ground- Assessment of rainwater harvesting potential
water reserve) were subjected to standard normality tests.
All these time series were found to follow normal distri- In order to ensure sustainable management of groundwater,
bution. Thereafter, trend analysis of pre-monsoon and post- the potential of rainwater harvesting in the study area was
monsoon groundwater levels as well as static groundwater also investigated. This was undertaken using the distributed
reserve and dynamic groundwater reserve was performed curve number (CN) method to estimate storm-based runoff
by a linear regression method. The significance of the trend using daily time steps, which were then integrated to
was investigated using a Student’s t-test. The t-statistic is estimate runoff on an annual time scale. The CN method is
defined as (Haan 1977):

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 7 of 17 601

Table 4 Guidelines for assessing the stage of groundwater development (GWREC 1997)
Stage of groundwater Criteria
development

1. Safe (a) GWDL B 70%, and there is no significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-monsoon
groundwater level
(b) GWDL [ 70%, and there is no significant long-term decline of both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon
groundwater level
2. Semi-critical GWDL [ 70% but \90%, and there is a significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-monsoon
groundwater level
3. Critical (a) GWDL [ 90% but \100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-
monsoon groundwater level
(b) GWDL \ 100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon
groundwater levels
(c) GWDL [ 100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of either pre-monsoon or post-monsoon
groundwater level
4. Overexploited GWDL [ 100%, and there is a significant long-term decline of both pre-monsoon and post-monsoon
groundwater level
GWDL groundwater development level

based on the water balance equation of the rainfall in a depth during post-monsoon season in 2003 was 10.27 m
known interval of time (Dt). The runoff generated by a for the Ahmednagar block. Groundwater levels rose shar-
given runoff event is given as (Subramanya 2008): ply in all the blocks due to the high rainfall in 1998,
whereas there was a drop in the post-monsoon groundwater
ðP  kSÞ2
Q ¼ ð5Þ levels in 1994 and 2003 years because of below-average
P þ ð1  kÞS
rainfall. It should be noted that for the Ahmednagar block
where Q = direct surface runoff; P = total precipitation; in 1994, the post-monsoon groundwater levels were deeper
k = initial abstraction ratio; and S = potential maximum than the pre-monsoon groundwater level which can be
retention after runoff begins. Values of k vary in the range attributed to the relatively high rate of groundwater
of 0.1 B k C 0.4. For the study area, k = 0.3 was selected pumping in this block. Similarly, the seasonal fluctuation
because it is applicable to the soils having AMC types I, II of groundwater level in the shallow aquifer for other blocks
and III (Subramanya 2008). Hence, the modified form of can be also explained.
Eq. (5) was used in study, which is given as: Furthermore, the trend lines of pre-monsoon and post-
monsoon groundwater levels indicate that the pre-monsoon
ðP  0:3SÞ2 groundwater levels in all the four blocks have a decreasing
Q ¼ ð6Þ
P þ 0:7S trend (Fig. 4a–d). However, the trend of post-monsoon
Using Eq. (6), annual runoff was estimated for individual groundwater levels is negligible for Ahmednagar and
blocks and then runoff potential maps were generated in Barshi blocks, whereas there is somewhat increasing trend
the GIS environment for the ‘wet (1998),’ ‘normal (2000),’ for Ashti and Bhum blocks. Thus, out of 16 blocks, the
and ‘dry (2003)’ years. groundwater levels in 15 have an increasing trend during
pre-monsoon season (3–44.70%) and those in six blocks
during post-monsoon season (1.44–11.29%). In addition,
during post-monsoon seasons, parts of six blocks
Results and discussion (Ahmednagar, Barshi, Karmala, Madha, Mohol, and
Osmanabad) have either an increasing trend (0.65–14.74%)
Groundwater-level fluctuation in the shallow aquifer or a decreasing (1.91–14.81%) trend.

The response of groundwater levels in the unconfined Groundwater-level fluctuation in the deep aquifers
aquifer (shallow aquifer) during 1990–2006 was analyzed
for all the 16 blocks, and it is illustrated in Fig. 4a–d for As mentioned earlier, continuous time series data of pre-
four blocks (Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, and Bhum) as an monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels in the
example. It is apparent that the maximum groundwater deep aquifers are available for only three observation
depth during the pre-monsoon season was 13.94 m in 1992 wells for the 2000–2008 period. These observation wells
for the Bhum block, whereas the maximum groundwater are located in the Barshi, Jamkhed, and Paranda blocks

123
601 Page 8 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Year Year

Depth to groundwater (m bgl)

1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Depth to water table (m bgl)

0 0 0 0
200
4 200

Rainfall (mm)
400

Rainfall (mm)
20
400 600
8
800
12 600 1000
40
1200
16 800
1400
20 (a) AhmednagarBlock: Unconfined Aquifer 1000 60 1600
(a) Jamkhed Block: Confined Aquifer
Rainfall Pre-monsoon 1800
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon) Rainfall Pre-monsoon
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon) Linear (Post-monsoon)
Year Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Depth to water table (m bgl)

Depth to groundwater (m bgl)

0 0 0 0

4 200 3 200

Rainfall (mm)
8

Rainfall (mm)
400 6 400
12
600 9 600
16
800 12 800
20

24 15 1000
1000
(b) Ashti Block: Unconfined Aquifer (b) Barshi Block: Semi-Confined Aquifer
Rainfall Pre-monsoon 18 1200
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon) Rainfall Pre-monsoon
Linear (Post-monsoon) Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon)
Year
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Year
0 0 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Depth to water table (m)

0 0
200
4
Depth to groundwater (m bgl)

400 200
20
8
Rainfall (mm)

600 400

Rainfall (mm)
12 800 40 600
1000 800
16
1200 60
20 1000
1400
80 1200
24 1600
(c) Barshi Block: Unconfined Aquifer 1400
1800 (c) Paranda Block:
Rainfall Pre-monsoon 100
Confined Aquifer 1600
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon) 120 1800
Rainfall Pre-monsoon
Year Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon)
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
0 0
Depth to water table (m)

4
200 Fig. 5 Annual variation of depth to groundwater in the deep aquifer
400 during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons of 2000–2008 period:
Rainfall (mm)

8
600 a Jamkhed block, b Barhsi block, and c Paranda block
12 800
1000
16

20
1200 Jamkhed block in 2004 and Paranda blocks in 2003 and
1400
24 1600
2004 as well as post-monsoon groundwater levels in
(d) Bhum Block: Unconfined Aquifer
Paranda block during 2002–2004. The sudden decrease
1800
Rainfall Pre-monsoon in groundwater levels is attributed to the occurrence of
Post-monsoon Linear (Pre-monsoon)
Linear (Post-monsoon) drought in the study area during the 2001–2004 period.
Fig. 4 Variation of seasonal depth to water table during 1990–2006
Moreover, it is evident from Fig. 5a–c that the pre-
period in a Ahmednagar, b Ashti, c Barshi, and d Bhum blocks monsoon groundwater levels in the deep aquifers have a
decreasing trend for Jamkhed and Paranda blocks, while no
at depths of 36.8 m (semi-confined aquifer), 75 m trend is apparent for the Barshi block. In contrast, an
(confined aquifer), and 120 m (confined aquifer), increasing trend was seen in the post-monsoon ground-
respectively. The fluctuations of the pre-monsoon and water levels of the Jamkhed and Barshi blocks, which
post-monsoon groundwater levels in the deep aquifer suggests appreciable recharge in these blocks. However, an
during 2000–2008 for these three blocks are shown in observed decreasing trend in the post-monsoon ground-
Fig. 5a–c. It can be seen that there is a sudden drop of water levels of Paranda block emphasizes the need for
groundwater levels during the pre-monsoon season in proper management of groundwater resources in this block.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 9 of 17 601

Spatiotemporal variations of the static groundwater during 1990–2006 (Fig. 6a–d), with steep declines being
reserve apparent in the Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Karjat,
Mohol, Paranda, and Tuljapur blocks (Table 5). In contrast,
Temporal variations of static groundwater reserves there was an apparent trend of increasing SGWR values in
(SGWR) in the unconfined aquifer during 1990–2006 for two blocks (South Solapur and Osmanabad) which was
four blocks are shown in Fig. 6a–d as an example. These found to be statistically nonsignificant. Thus, the temporal
figures reveal that the SGWR was reduced to below 7 variation in SGWR indicates a decreasing trend in much of
MCM (million cubic meters) in the Ahmednagar block the area with the rate of decline varying from 0.22 to 5.22
during 2003 and 2004 years, in the Barshi block during MCM/year. The decreasing trend of SGWR values in the
2003 and 2005, and in the Bhum block during 2004, Ashti, Patoda, and Mohal blocks is significant at 1% level
whereas the lowest value of SGWR in Ashti block was of significance, whereas that in the Madha and Barshi
12.45 MCM in 2006. The minimum and maximum values blocks is significant at 5% level of significance. The
of the SGWR estimates for all the blocks together with decreasing trend of SGWR in a majority of the study area is
their trends are presented in Table 5. The minimum SGWR a serious concern for sustainable water supply in the area.
estimates for six blocks (Ahmednagar, Mohol, North Adequate water conservation measures should be initiated
Solapur, Osmanabad, Paranda, and South Solapur) are to minimize or avoid groundwater depletion in the
zero, which is due to the drop of water table below the unconfined aquifer of the study area.
depth of the observation well during the pre-monsoon
season. Hence, such open wells should be deepened Spatiotemporal variation of the dynamic
(wherever possible) or could be converted into dug-cum- groundwater reserve
bore wells. On the other hand, the maximum values of the
SGWR vary from 24.91 MCM (Patoda block) to 136.97 The annual variation of dynamic groundwater reserve
MCM (Tuljapur block), with four blocks (Ahmednagar, (DGWR) values for the four blocks during 1990–2006 is
Ashti, Paranda, and Tuljapur) having maximum SGWR illustrated in Fig. 7a–d as an example. It is apparent that
values greater than 100 MCM. the lowest values of the DGWR occurred in 1997 in the
Moreover, the trend analysis of SGWR estimates reveals Ahmednagar, Ashti, and Barshi blocks, while the Bhum
that they had a decreasing trend in all the four blocks block had a minimum value of DGWR in 1995. The

Fig. 6 Temporal variation of 120 120

static groundwater reserve (a) Ahmednagar Block (b) Ashti Block
(SGWR) in the unconfined 100 100
aquifer during 1990–2006
SGWR (MCM)

SGWR (MCM)

period in a Ahmednagar, 80 80
b Ashti, c Barshi, and d Bhum
60 60
blocks
40 40

20 20

0 0
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Year Year

120 120
(c) Barshi Block (d) Bhum Block
100 100
SGWR (MCM)

SGWR (MCM)

80 80

60 60

40 40

20 20

0 0
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Year Year

123
601 Page 10 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Table 5 Maximum and minimum values of SGWR and DGWR in the study area along with their trend
Name of block SGWR DGWR
Max. (MCM) Min. (MCM) Slope (MCM/year) Max. (MCM) Min. (MCM) Slope (MCM/year)

1. Ahmednagar 110.92 (1991) 0.00 (1995) -2.19 to -0.56 91.12 (2006) 0.11 (2003) 0.00 to ?2.14
2. Ashti 131.93 (1990) 3.13 (2004) -5.22* to -4.26* 107.4 (2000) 2.14 (1997) ?1.94 to ?3.00**
3. Barshi 93.22 (1991) 0.20 (1992) -2.57** to -0.39 85.01 (2002) 0.91 (1997) ?0.04 to ?1.06
4. Bhum 76.29 (1990) 5.36 (2004) -1.43 to -1.03 76.08 (2003) -18.59 (1995) ?1.03 to ?1.34
5. Jamkhed 54.96 (1999) 2.99 (2004) -0.42 to -0.91 49.66 (1991) -20.15 (1998) -0.39 to ?0.11
6. Karjat 66.58 (1990) 0.17 (2004) -1.41 to -1.08 52.92 (1991) 10.06 (1995) -0.05 to ?0.38
7. Karmala 40.09 (1991) 0.17 (1999) -0.96 to -0.61 65.41 (1998) -3.21 (1991) -0.22 to ?0.67
8. Madha 86.00 (1997) 0.09 (1999) -0.81** to -2.10 156.26 (1998) -1.55 (2003) -0.22 to ?1.86
9. Mohol 87.21 (1991) 0.00 (1999) -3.32* to -0.31 113.76 (1998) -6.48 (1993) ?1.36 to ?1.77
10. North Solapur 43.29 (1991) 0.00 (1999) -0.52 to -0.22 85.21 (1998) -16.71 (2003) ?0.29 to ?0.75
11. Osmanabad 34.75 (2000) 0.00 (1990) ?0.11 54.70 (2006) 1.44 (1995) ?1.53
12. Paranda 127.98 (1999) 0.00 (1992) -1.44 to -1.94 155.37 (2006) -14.29 (1995) ?1.36 to ?2.37
13. Patoda 24.91 (1990) 0.23 (2006) -1.01* 27.62 (2005) 3.49 (2006) ?0.43
14. Shrigonda 30.73 (1994) 0.11 (2004) -0.91 32.21 (2002) 4.42 (1995) ?0.07
15. South Solapur 38.29 (1991) 0.00 (1990) ?0.80 to ?0.83 53.31 (2000) -26.62 (2003) -0.11 to ?0.07
16. Tuljapur 136.97 (1997) 29.27 (2004) -2.28 124.91 (2000) 235.85 (1995) ?2.09
Figures in the parenthesis indicate year; boldface figures show the highest and lowest values in respective column; positive and negative signs in
the slope columns indicate increasing and decreasing trend, respectively; values with * and ** indicate significant slope at 1 and 5% level of
significance, respectively; zero value of SGWR indicates drop of water table below the depth of observation well in the pre-moonson season

maximum and minimum values of DGWR and its trend for only. The increasing trend of DGWR values indicates that
all the sixteen blocks are summarized in Table 5. The there is scope for further exploitation of groundwater from
lowest value of DGWR calculated in all of the blocks was the unconfined aquifer of these 11 blocks.
-35.85 MCM in 1995 in the Tuljapur block, and the
highest value was 156.26 MCM in 1998 in the Madha Groundwater availability during ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’
block followed by 155.37 MCM in 2006 in the Paranda and ‘dry’ years
block. Notably, in eight blocks (Bhum, Jamkhed, Karmala,
Madha, North Solapur, Paranda, South Solapur, and Tul- The availability of groundwater in the unconfined aquifer
japur), the calculated values of DGWR were negative of the study area in terms of the static groundwater reserve
(Table 5), which indicates that groundwater has been (SGWR) and dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR) is
overexploited in these blocks in a particular year. Long- presented under three scenarios: ‘wet,’ ‘normal’ and ‘dry’
term monitoring of groundwater level in these blocks is years. As mentioned in ‘‘Materials and methods’’ section,
recommended. 1998 represents a ‘wet’ year, 2000 represents a ‘normal’
Furthermore, a trend analysis of the DGWR indicated year, and 2003 represents ‘dry’ year. Maps of SGWR and
that there was a rising trend in the four blocks as shown in DGWR for ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years are depicted in
Fig. 7a–d. The values of the regression line slopes for all Figs. 8a–c and 9a–c, respectively.
the blocks are shown in Table 5. The maximum increasing The SGWR potential over the study area can be divided
trend of 3 MCM/year was observed in the Ashti block into five classes: (i) 0–20 MCM, (ii) 20–40 MCM, (iii)
followed by 2.37 MCM/year in the Paranda block, 2.14 40–60 MCM, (iv) 60–80 MCM, and (v) [ 80 MCM
MCM/year in the Ahmednagar block, and 2.09 MCM/year (Fig. 8a–c). For SGWR values during a ‘wet’ year
in the Tuljapur block. Both the increasing and decreasing (Fig. 8a), the majority of the study falls in the 20–40 MCM
trends of DGWR that were discernible in parts of Jamkhed, class covering an area of 6864 km2 (56% of the total area).
Karjat, Karmala, Madha, and South Solapur blocks are A strip of 0–20 MCM class of area 3194 km2 (26%) is
statistically nonsignificant. On the other hand, 11 blocks observed in the northwest/west parts of the study area. For
(Ahmednagar, Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Mohol, North Solapur, the 40–60 MCM class, an area of 1533 km2 (13%) is
Osmanabad, Paranda, Patoda, Shrigonda, and Tuljapur) located in the northeast and southeast/southern parts of the
had an increasing trend of DGWR, which is statistically study area. Small patches of 60–80 MCM class are scat-
significant at 5% level of significance in the Ashti block tered throughout the study area, while the [80 MCM class

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 11 of 17 601

Fig. 7 Annual variation of 120 120

dynamic groundwater reserve (a) Ahmednagar Block (b) Ashti Block
(DGWR) in the unconfined 100 100
aquifer during 1990–2006
80 80
period in a Ahmednagar,

DGWR(MCM)
DGWR(MCM)
b Ashti, c Barshi, and d Bhum 60
60
blocks
40 40

20 20

0 0
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006

Year Year
120 120
(c) Barshi Block (d) Bhum Block
100
100
80

DGWR(MCM)
80
DGWR(MCM)

60
60
40
40
20

20 0

0 -20
1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006
Year Year

has a very limited areal extent. The SGWR availability study area. Two patches of the class 100–150 MCM cov-
during a ‘normal’ year (Fig. 8b) shows that the 20–40 ering an area of 585 km2 (5%) are located in the south-
MCM class of SGWR is dominant similar to the ‘wet’ year, western part of the study area, and \0 MCM class has a
encompassing an area of 5523 km2 (45%) in the north- limited areal extent (1% of the study area). In the ‘normal’
western part of the study area. It is followed by the 40–60 year (Fig. 9b), the distribution of the DGWR is similar to
MCM class covering an area of 4375 km2 (36%) and the that in ‘wet’ years but with a 4 and 1% decrease in area
0–20 MCM class covering an area of 1558 km2 (13%) under 0–50 MCM and \0 MCM classes of DGWR,
mostly in the southeastern/southern part of the study area. respectively, and 6% increase in area under the 50–100
The 60–80 MCM class is found in scattered patches MCM class. The 100–150 MCM class covering an area of
encompassing an area of 758 km2 (6%). In contrast, the 506 km2 (4% of the study area) is distributed in small
map showing values of the SGWR during the ‘dry’ year patches. Conversely, in ‘dry’ years (Fig. 9c) the class of the
(Fig. 8c) indicates that the SGWR class of 0–20 MCM is 0–50 MCM DGWR covers the largest area [11,073 km2
dominant in the study area (11,083 km2, 91%), followed by (90%)], followed by the \0 MCM class which encom-
four scattered patches of 20–40 MCM class covering an passes an area of 859 km2 (7%) in the southeast-
area of 1077 km2 (9%), whereas 40–60 MCM class has ern/southern part of the study area. A comparison of
limited areal extent (1% of the study area). It should be DGWR scenario in the ‘dry’ years with that in the ‘normal’
noted that as compared to the ‘normal year,’ the area years reveals that the area under the DGWR class of 0–50
covered by the 0–20 MCM SGWR category increases to MCM increases to 49% in ‘dry’ years, which suggests that
78% in the ‘dry’ year. there is a need for groundwater augmentation by artificial
Further, the DGWR potential over the study area can be recharge in the blocks falling in the 0–50 MCM class.
divided into five classes: (i)\0 MCM, (ii) 0–50 MCM, (iii)
50–100 MCM, (iv) 100–150 MCM, and (v) [150 MCM as Status of groundwater utilization
shown in Fig. 9a–c. In the ‘wet’ year (Fig. 9a), the class of
50–100 MCM DGWR encompasses 5991 km2 (49%) As mentioned earlier, the data of annual groundwater draft
located in mostly in the southern parts of the study area, (withdrawal) in the study area are available only for 2008.
whereas the class of the 0–50 MCM DGWR covers Hence, the status of groundwater development in the study
5567 km2 (45%) in the northwestern/northern part of the area has been evaluated for this year. In 2008, groundwater

123
601 Page 12 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Fig. 8 Maps of static groundwater reserve (SGWR) in the unconfined aquifer of the study area for: a wet year (1998), b normal year (2000), and
c dry year (2003)

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 13 of 17 601

Fig. 9 Maps of dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR) in the unconfined aquifer of the study area for: a wet year (1998), b normal year (2000),
and c dry year (2003)

drafts in the study area varied from 4.04 to 51.01 MCM, (GWDL) varied from about 12 to 124% (Table 6). It is
DGWR ranges from 17.59 (Patoda block) to 148.88 MCM obvious from the table that the level of groundwater
(Paranda block), and the level of groundwater development development in the study area varied considerably from

123
601 Page 14 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Table 6 Status of groundwater development in the study area in 2008

Name of block DGWR (MCM) GWDL (%) Pre-monsoon GWL slope (%) Post-monsoon GWL Status of GW
slope (%) development

1. Ahmednagar 20.85–70.52 70.96–123.78 ?10.10# to ?14.72# -3.41 to ?4.43 Safe

2. Ashti 70.66–104.84 37.67–59.39 ?30.20* to ?35.40* ?3.70 to ?4.92 Safe
3. Barshi 74.33–90.88 34.42–36.21 ?3.00 to ?18.45** -3.24 to ?4.56 Safe
4. Bhum 63.70–66.40 11.99–14.39 ?12.01# to ?14.91# -8.49 to -6.72 Safe
5. Jamkhed 42.40–45.07 34.85–39.49 ?5.30 to ?10.82# ?2.93 to ?5.12 Safe
6. Karjat 28.05–40.14 64.71–72.67 ?15.50# to ?16.01# ?1.44 to ?7.40 Safe
# #
7. Karmala 44.91–76.99 27.42–39.93 ?9.48 to ?11.71 -3.34 to ?2.37 Safe
8. Madha 41.68–131.30 33.70–75.51 ?9.38** to ?17.54# -4.71 to ?6.52 Safe
9. Mohol 38.86–59.07 63.49–82.25 ?3.41 to ?43.88** -13.27# to ?14.74# Safe
10. North Solapur 38.66–54.97 36.41–61.38 ?3.66 to ?6.02 -8.04 to -3.68 Safe
11.Osmanabad 41.35 67.14 ?12.82# ?2.22 Safe
# #
12. Paranda 106.01–148.88 15.30–35.74 ?4.65 to ?15.76 ?0.65 to -14.81 Safe
13. Patoda 17.59 22.99 ?44.70* ?6.80 Safe
14. Shrigonda 36.06 37.84 ?20.00# ?11.29# Safe
# #
15. South Solapur 37.39–38.75 37.39–49.72 -12.40 to -15.70 -8.33 to -6.70 Safe
16. Tuljapur 106.44 32.67 ?18.19# -1.91 Safe
Positive and negative signs in the slope columns indicate increasing and decreasing trend, respectively; values with * and ** indicate statistically
significant slope at 1 and 5% level of significance, respectively; values with superscript # indicate practically significant slope
GWDL groundwater development level, GWL groundwater level

one block to another. The blocks having the in Table 6. Based on this criterion, the pre-monsoon
GWDL B 70% are the Ashti, Barshi, Bhum, Jamkhed, groundwater levels of eight more blocks have significant
Karmala, Madha, North Solapur, Osmanabad Paranda, increasing trends and the post-monsoon groundwater levels
Patoda, Shrigonda, South Solapur, and Tuljapur blocks. At of only three blocks (Mohol, Paranda and Shrigonda) have
this time, the blocks having GWDL [ 70% but less than practically significant trends (increasing or decreasing).
100% were part of the Ahmednagar, Karjat, Madha, and The guidelines given in Table 4 for assessing the stage
Mohol blocks, whereas only part of Ahmednagar block had of groundwater development are applicable to the area
a GWDL [ 100% (i.e., &124%). wherein there is a significant long-term decline of pre-
Moreover, the slopes of the trend lines of the pre- monsoon and/or post-monsoon groundwater levels. Thus,
monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels for all the three blocks, viz., the Mohol, Paranda, and South Solapur
sixteen blocks are also shown in Table 6. In this table, the blocks, have a significant declining trend of groundwater
positive value of the slope indicates an increasing trend and levels in either the pre-monsoon season or post-monsoon
the negative value of slope indicates a decreasing trend. seasons and the groundwater development levels (GWDL)
The pre-monsoon groundwater levels of the Ashti and for these blocks are 63.49–82.25, 15.30–35.74, and
Patoda blocks have increasing trends, which are statisti- 37.39–49.72%, respectively. As these values of GWDL are
cally significant at a 1% level of significance, whereas less than 70% (except part of the Mohol block), these
those of the Barshi, Madha, and Mohol blocks have sig- blocks are characterized as ‘safe’ blocks along with the
nificant increasing trends at a 5% level of significance. The remaining 13 blocks. On the other hand, the remaining 13
pre-monsoon groundwater level of only South Solapur blocks have no significant long-term decline of both pre-
district has a declining trend which is not statistically sig- monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels and
nificant, but it is practically significant. Interestingly, nei- GWDL \ 70% in most of blocks. Thus, the whole study
ther the increasing nor the decreasing trends of the post- area is characterized as being ‘safe’ in terms of the level of
monsoon groundwater levels are statistically significant groundwater development. This may be due to enhanced
even at 5% level of significance. However, based on a recharge from the small and medium size reservoirs that
visual inspection, the slope greater than ±9% is reasonably are present in the study area. Nevertheless, the study area
large and hence it was considered practically significant. should be monitored regularly to protect it from overex-
Practically significant slopes of the pre-monsoon and post- ploitation in the near future in view of increasing frequency
monsoon groundwater levels are shown with superscript # of droughts in the study area.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 15 of 17 601

Fig. 10 Maps of runoff potential in the study area during a wet year (1998), b normal year (2000), and c dry year (2003)

123
601 Page 16 of 17 Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601

Runoff potential in the study area Conclusions

Using monthly runoff estimates for a 20-year period This paper deals with the assessment of groundwater
(1990–2009), the annual runoff potential maps for indi- resources at a suitable spatial scale (i.e., block level) in a
vidual years were prepared. The spatial variation of runoff semiarid river basin of Western India. For this, rainfall data
for the ‘wet’ year (1998), ‘normal’ year (2000), and ‘dry’ of nine raingauge stations and pre-monsoon and post-
year (2003) is presented in Fig. 10a–c, respectively. Based monsoon groundwater-level data of 132 sites over the basin
on the volume of runoff generated in the study area, the for the 1900–2009 period were used. The availability of the
study area can be classified into six zones: (i) ‘very poor’ groundwater resource in the unconfined aquifer was
(\100 mm), (ii) ‘poor’ (100–200 mm), (iii) ‘moderately investigated in terms of ‘static groundwater reserve
poor’ (200–300 mm), (iv) ‘moderately good’ (SGWR)’ and ‘dynamic groundwater reserve (DGWR),’
(300–400 mm), (v) ‘good’ (400–500 mm), and (vi) ‘very and an analysis of the spatiotemporal distribution of these
good’ ([500 mm). reserves was carried out. Based on the level of groundwater
As the highest amount of rainfall during the study period development (GWDL) and the long-term trends of pre-
was received in 1998, the runoff generated over the study monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels, the status
area during this year is likely to be the maximum value of groundwater development in individual blocks was
received during this period. The area having ‘very good’ explored. Moreover, the runoff potential over the study
runoff potential is 693 km2 (6%), ‘good’ runoff potential is area was evaluated for ‘wet,’ ‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years
4595 km2 (38%), ‘moderately good’ runoff potential is from a rainwater harvesting viewpoint, and three runoff
3295 km2 (27%), ‘moderately poor’ runoff potential is maps corresponding to these years were prepared using
2912 km2 (24%), ‘poor’ runoff potential is 506 km2 (4%), GIS.
and ‘very poor’ runoff potential is 243 km2 (2%). All the The spatiotemporal distribution of the SGWR revealed
zones having good runoff potential were observed in the that five blocks have a significantly decreasing trend during
‘wet’ year, and they are distributed over the northwestern/ the study period, which is of concern. Consequently, ade-
northern and the southeastern/southern parts of the study quate water conservation measures should be initiated in
area. During a ‘normal’ year (Fig. 10b), a majority (67%) of these blocks to augment groundwater reserves. On the other
the area has a ‘poor’ runoff potential encompassing an area hand, there is an increasing trend of DGWR in 11 blocks
of 8169 km2 and a ‘very poor’ runoff potential zone covers that suggests further groundwater exploitation from the
3661 km2 (30%) in the southern and northeastern portions of unconfined aquifer of these blocks is possible. The area
the study area. In contrast, in a dry year (Fig. 10c), almost having SGWR values in the range of 0–20 MCM increases
97% of the study area falls in the ‘very poor’ runoff potential to 78% in ‘dry’ years as compared to ‘normal’ years, which
zone covering an area of 11,830 km2, with small scattered suggests that groundwater from these blocks should be
patches having ‘poor’ runoff potential. judiciously utilized. The area having 0–50 MCM is found to
Based on above discussion, it is obvious that in ‘normal increase to 49% in ‘dry’ years compared to ‘normal’ years,
year,’ 97% of the study area falls in categories of the ‘poor’ indicating the need for constructing rainwater harvesting
and ‘very poor’ runoff potential classes, whereas in the and artificial recharge structures in this portion of the study
‘wet’ year around 71% area falls under ‘moderately good’ area. The trend analysis of seasonal groundwater levels
to ‘very good’ runoff potential as compared to 33% area revealed that during pre-monsoon seasons, ten blocks have
under ‘poor’ and ‘moderately poor’ class (Fig. 10a, b). a significantly increasing trend and only one block has a
Therefore, planning of rainwater harvesting should be significantly decreasing trend. However, during post-mon-
primarily done for the ‘wet’ years in order to conserve soon seasons, the Shrigonda block has a significantly
rainwater for ensuring sustainable water supply in the increasing trend, some part of the Paranda block has a
basin. This can be achieved through construction of suit- significant decreasing trend and a portion of Mohol block
able rainwater harvesting structures like farm ponds and has either significant increasing or decreasing trend. How-
tanks as well as artificial recharge structures such as check ever, considering the GWDL and long-term trends of pre-
dams, percolating tanks, and subsurface dykes. The con- monsoon and post-monsoon groundwater levels, the entire
struction of these structures at suitable locations would study area is characterized as ‘safe’ for further groundwater
help in recharging groundwater and conserving rainwater, exploitation. The runoff potential maps generated for ‘wet,’
which in turn can help in mitigating the impacts of ‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years revealed that in ‘wet’ years, 71%
droughts in the study area. Such planning and management area falls under ‘moderately good’ to ‘very good’ zones
strategies will also ensure conjunctive use of surface water suggesting blocks under this area are favorable for imple-
and groundwater in the basin. menting suitable rainwater harvesting methods.

123
Environ Earth Sci (2017) 76:601 Page 17 of 17 601

Overall, it can be concluded that a regular monitoring of GSDA and CGWB (2011) Dynamic ground water resources of
groundwater-level fluctuation at multiple sites reveals the Maharashtra (2008–2009). Groundwater Surveys and Develop-
ment Agency (GSDA), Maharashtra and Central Ground Water
effect of various environmental factors on aquifer systems Board (CGWB), Central Region, Nagpur, India
and provides a clear picture of spatiotemporal variations of GWREC (1997) Report of the Ground Water Resource Estimation
groundwater resources in an area or a basin. This should be Committee. Ground Water Resource Estimation Committee
continued in the future as well. The developed maps (GWREC), Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Ministry of
Water Resources, New Delhi
showing static and dynamic groundwater reserves are Haan CT (1977) Statistical methods in hydrology. Iowa State
useful for the efficient planning and management of University Press, Ames
groundwater resources at a block or district level in the Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Using groundwater levels to estimate
study area. In addition, runoff potential maps for ‘wet,’ recharge. Hydrogeol J 10(1):91–109
IWMI (2001) The strategic plan for IWMI 2000–2005. International
‘normal,’ and ‘dry’ years can be helpful in identifying Water Management Institute (IWMI), Colombo
suitable sites for rainwater harvesting, which in turn can Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Chowdhury A (2010) Groundwater assess-
help evolve realistic plan for sustainable utilization of ment in Salboni Block, West Bengal (India) using remote
groundwater in drought-prone areas. The methodology sensing, geographical information system and multi-criteria
decision analysis techniques. Hydrogeol J 18(7):1713–1728
presented in this study can be replicated in other regions of Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Kulkarni Y, Mal BC (2014) Rainwater
India as well as in other parts of the world. harvesting planning using geospatial techniques and multicriteria
decision analysis. Resour Conserv Recycl 83:96–111
Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge India Meteorology Jothiprakash V, Marimuthu G, Muralidharan R, Senthil Kumar N
Department (IMD), Pune and State Data Storage Center, Hydrology (2003) Delineation of potential zones for the artificial recharge
Project, Nashik, India, for providing meteorological data as well as to using GIS. J Indian Soc Remote Sens 31(1):37–47
Groundwater Survey and Development Agency, Pune, India, on Mandal AK, Sharma RC (2001) Mapping of waterlogged areas and
supplying groundwater-level data. We are also thankful to Associate salt affected soils in the IGNP command area. J Indian Soc
Editor and anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and Remote Sens 29(4):229–235
suggestions. MoWR and CGWB (2013) Ground water information Solapur
District Maharashtra. Ministry of Water Resources, New Delhi
and Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Central Region,
Nagpur, India
References PACS (2004) Drought in India: challenges and initiatives. Report of
Poorest Areas Civil Society (PACS) Programme 2001–2008,
Chatterjee C, Kumar R, Chakravorty B, Lohani AK, Kumar S (2005) New Delhi, India
Integrating remote sensing and GIS techniques with groundwater Rodell M, Velicogna I, Famiglietti JS (2009) Satellite-based estimates
flow modeling for assessment of waterlogged areas. Water of groundwater depletion in India. Nature 460:999–1002
Resour Manag 19(5):539–554 Saraf AK, Choudhury PR (1998) Integrated remote sensing and GIS
Chowdary VM, Chandran RV, Neeti N, Bothale RV, Srivastava YK, for groundwater exploration and identification of artificial
Ingle P, Singh R (2008) Assessment of surface and sub-surface recharge sites. Int J Remote Sens 19(10):1825–1841
waterlogged areas in irrigation command areas of Bihar state Sener E, Davraz A, Ozcelik M (2005) An integration of GIS and
using remote sensing and GIS. Agric Water Manag remote sensing in groundwater investigations: a case study in
95(7):754–766 Burdur, Turkey. Hydrogeol J 13(5–6):826–834
Chowdhury A, Jha MK, Chowdary VM, Mal BC (2009) Integrated Solomon S, Quiel F (2006) Groundwater study using remote sensing
remote sensing and GIS-based approach for assessing ground- and geographic information systems (GIS) in the central
water potential in West Medinipur district, West Bengal, India. highlands of Eritrea. Hydrogeol J 14(5):729–741
Int J Remote Sens 30:231–250 Subramanya K (2008) Engineering hydrology. Tata McGraw-Hill
EIS (2006) Disaster management in Maharashtra. Environmental Publishing Company Limited, New Delhi, pp 155–160
Information System (EIS), Environmental Department, Environ- Tapley BD, Bettadpur S, Watkins M, Reigber C (2004) The gravity
mental Information System (ENVIS) Newsletter, Government of recovery and climate experiment: mission overview and early
Maharashtra, India, vol 1, pp 1–10 results. Geophys Res Lett. doi:10.1029/2004GL019920
Garg KK, Bharati L, Gaur A, George B, Acharya S, Jella K, Tweed SO, Leblanc M, Webb JA, Lubczynski MW (2007) Remote
Narasimhan B (2012) Spatial mapping of agricultural water sensing and GIS for mapping groundwater recharge and
productivity using the SWAT model in Upper Bhima Catchment, discharge areas in salinity prone catchments, southeastern
India. Irrig Drain 61(1):60–79 Australia. Hydrogeol J 15(1):75–96
Gorelick SM, Zheng C (2015) Global change and the groundwater
management challenge. Water Resour Res 51:3031–3051

123