Sugarcane in a Fluoride Block
A dry block receives 680 mm of annual rainfall; 78% of gross cropped area is sugarcane, up from 31% in 2002. Farms average 1.8 ha and hold three borewells each; 62% of wells are deeper than 90 m. Groundwater fell 0.8 m per year over 15 years. Electricity for pumps is free but available only seven hours a day. Fluoride in 41% of habitations exceeds 1.5 mg/L. The state offers a subsidy for micro-irrigation and a guaranteed cane price. A mill 22 km away crushes 2,500 tonnes per day and pays within 14 days. Coarse millets yield 900 kg/ha with 250 mm of water; sugarcane yields 100 tonnes/ha with 1,800 mm. A proposal would ban new borewells and tax cane acreage.
1. Explain the resource conflict using the water requirement and cropping data.
Read the worked answer
Sugarcane needs about 1,800 mm of water, while the block receives only 680 mm of rainfall. The deficit of roughly 1,120 mm must be met from groundwater. Millets need about 250 mm, which is closer to what rainfall can supply. Yet 78% of gross cropped area is under cane, so the crop pattern has been built on pumping rather than on rain.
The evidence of over-extraction is direct: three borewells per 1.8 ha farm, 62% of wells deeper than 90 m, and a water table falling 0.8 m per year. Free electricity gives pumping a zero marginal cost, so farmers have no incentive to stop. The guaranteed cane price and 14-day payment reduce market risk, making cane the rational private choice even though it is the costly social choice.
The fluoride result - 41% of habitations above 1.5 mg/L - links the conflict to drinking water. Deep pumping can draw fluoride-rich water into shallower aquifers. The conflict is therefore not simply “farmers versus farmers” but irrigated cane versus safe drinking water for the whole block.
2. Evaluate the proposed ban-plus-tax against a micro-irrigation subsidy. Which addresses the root cause?
Read the worked answer
Ban plus tax. A ban on new borewells directly caps the number of extraction points, and a cane-acreage tax raises the cost of the most water-intensive crop. This addresses quantity at source. But enforcement is difficult with thousands of small wells, and a tax may be passed on to the mill or absorbed by tenants. It could also penalise small farmers who have fewer alternatives.
Micro-irrigation subsidy. This reduces water use per hectare, often by 30–50%. But it can encourage farmers to expand cane area with the saved water - a rebound effect - and it does not touch the guaranteed price or free power that make cane attractive. It improves efficiency without changing the crop incentive.
Judgement. The root cause is the incentive structure: free pumping plus assured cane procurement. Neither policy alone fixes that. A ban on new borewells in fluoride-affected villages is the most urgent first step, but it should be paired with metering or power pricing and with procurement support for millets. Micro-irrigation is useful as a support measure, not as the main instrument. Without demand-side incentives, it may simply extend the cane frontier.
3. What would make a millet-based alternative economically credible to farmers? Give two conditions and explain each.
Read the worked answer
Condition 1 - Assured procurement with fast payment. Cane is attractive partly because the mill pays within 14 days. A millet programme must offer a comparable guarantee: a procurement centre within a reasonable distance, a announced price before sowing, and payment within two weeks. Without that, farmers face price risk that cane does not have.
Condition 2 - A market beyond the raw grain. Millets need processing - milling, flour, snacks, malt - and stable buyers. A processing unit or a school-meal and public-distribution contract would create demand that does not collapse when the harvest is good. Crop insurance and water-saving payments could be added, but they are secondary to a buyer and a price.
The two conditions together change the risk-return calculus, not just the agronomy. A farmer will not switch from a 100 t/ha cane crop merely because millets use less water; the alternative must be bankable.