Accepted Manuscript

In situ and satellite-based estimates of usable groundwater storage

across India: implications for drinking water supply and food security

Soumendra N. Bhanja , Abhijit Mukherjee

PII: S0309-1708(18)30431-7
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.02.001
Reference: ADWR 3274

To appear in: Advances in Water Resources

Received date: 15 May 2018

Revised date: 29 January 2019
Accepted date: 3 February 2019

Please cite this article as: Soumendra N. Bhanja , Abhijit Mukherjee , In situ and satellite-based es-
timates of usable groundwater storage across India: implications for drinking water supply and food
security, Advances in Water Resources (2019), doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.02.001

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service
to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo
copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please
note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and
all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Highlights:

• Estimation of total usable groundwater storage (UGWS) in India

• Groundwater storage depletion/replenishment fraction against total availability

• Temporal downscaling of groundwater availability using satellite-based

T
measurements

IP
• Estimates of groundwater availability and change across Indian states

CR
Agricultural water use intensified in rapid groundwater depleting regions

US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

In situ and satellite-based estimates of usable groundwater storage across

India: implications for drinking water supply and food security

Soumendra N. Bhanja1,2, Abhijit Mukherjee1,3,4

T
IP
1
Department of Geology and Geophysics, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India
2
Presently at Faculty of Science and Technology, Athabasca University, Alberta T9S3A3, Canada

CR
3
School of Environmental Science and Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal

721302, India
4

*
US
Hydroscience and Policy Advisory Group, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, West Bengal 721302, India

Corresponding authors: Soumendra N. Bhanja (soumendrabhanja@gmail.com) and Abhijit Mukherjee

AN
(amukh2@gmail.com, abhijit@gg.iitkgp.ernet.in)
M

Abstract

Groundwater use in India has been in the limelight in recent years due to its intensive and
ED

apparent unsustainable use that poses threats to water security, drinking water supply and food

production. Here, we present estimates of usable groundwater storage, for the first time, at the
PT

state-level across all of India using both in situ and satellite-based measurements. Groundwater-
CE

level data are used from 3907 in situ monitoring wells across India and the total usable

groundwater storage (UGWS) is estimated between 2005 and 2013. The UGWS estimates
AC

indicates high rates of depletion (>5 km3/yr) of groundwater storage (GWS) in north-east India

(i.e. Assam), even though increase in precipitation has been observed in that state. Satellite-based

(Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment, GRACE) estimates indicate that the development of

recent GWS-depletion zones is concentrated in unconsolidated sediments or lithotype across the

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra basins, in the states of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar,

and West Bengal. In contrast, southern and central Indian states (such as Andhra Pradesh,

Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and Chattisgarh), show replenishing GWS trends. We also

find that the states with highest groundwater depletion rates are subjected to water-intensive

cropping practices. We temporally downscale the UGWS with support from GRACE satellite-

T
based measurements. We conclude that the approach we developed here can be applied in other

IP
parts of the world to devise management options for sustainable groundwater use.

CR
Keywords: Usable groundwater storage; Food security; India; Groundwater management

US
AN
1 Introduction

Groundwater, being the largest freshwater resource available on Earth, plays crucial role
M

in human sustenance and global food security through irrigated agriculture (Hertig and Gleeson,
ED

2012). Earlier studies (Rodell et al., 2009; Tiwari et al., 2009; Reager and Famiglietti, 2013;

Voss et al., 2013; Richey et al., 2015; Asoka et al., 2017; Bhanja et al., 2017b) report from
PT

various parts of the globe that many regions or nations have been experiencing discernible

groundwater depletion in recent times. The scenario has been further intensified as a function of
CE

increasing demand for foods through irrigated agriculture (Siebert et al., 2015), and due to

uncertainty in seasonal water availability linked to global warming and climate change
AC

(Famiglietti and Rodell, 2013). Therefore, delineating groundwater resources is a crucial step for

designing an effective management framework for future sustainability of water and food.

India (Figure 1) comprises only ~2.3% of the global terrestrial area but host about 17.8%

of the population (Mukherjee et al., 2015). The country also includes more than 30% of the
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

global irrigated land (FAO, 2013). Net groundwater-fed irrigated area has been rapidly increased

from 5.98 Mha in 1950-51 to 42.44 Mha in 2013-14 in India (DES, 2015). Groundwater use in

net irrigated area has been expanded from 28.7% in 1950-51 to 62.3% in 2013-14 (DES, 2015).

Furthermore, a significant portion of urban drinking water and ~85% of the rural drinking water

are used from groundwater sources (Pahuja et al., 2010). India faces acute shortage of

T
groundwater-sourced, drinking water and other usable waters, as it is witnessing steep rise in

IP
water demand and change in societal water use pattern because of increasing population, rapid

CR
urbanization and lifestyle change. The area is drained by some of the largest fluvial systems like

the Indus-Ganges-Brahmaputra (IGB) system (Supplementary Figure 1; MacDonald et al.,

US
2016). However, availability of groundwater within the study region is extremely heterogeneous
AN
with aquifers ranging from high-potential unconsolidated sedimentary formations to low yielding

crystalline bedrocks (Mukherjee et al., 2015; Bhanja et al., 2016). Further, in spite of relatively
M

high precipitation (~1200 mm/year; ~900 mm in monsoon season; NCC, 2013), monsoon-

dependent, precipitation-based aquifer recharge is spatially (monsoonal path dependent) and

ED

temporally (>75% precipitation during monsoon months) variable (Scanlon et al., 2010; Bhanja

et al., 2018). Based on the differential precipitation pattern, distinct climate zones are formed in
PT

India ranging from extremely arid to some of the wettest places on Earth (Mukherjee et al.,
CE

2015). Moreover, the available groundwater is profusely abstracted (222 BCM irrigational

groundwater abstracted in India during 2011; CGWB, 2014b), thereby characterizing much of
AC

the region to very high water stressed area (groundwater withdrawal to availability ratio is

greater than 0.8) (Alcamo et al., 2003; Bates et al., 2008). Hence, groundwater storage and

availability in the study region is largely based on dynamic equilibrium between hydraulic

property of the aquifers, precipitation distribution and intensity, and human interferences by
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

abstraction or replenishment. Previous studies have suggested that groundwater resources in

most of India are under serious threat if withdrawal continues at this rate (Zaveri et al., 2016);

gross irrigated area increased more than 3.8 times in the last 60 years (MoA, 2012). Depletion

causes include inefficient water use practices, irrigation systems with poor maintenance and

inadequate price of both power and water, facilitating misuse of water (MoA, 2012; Bhanja et

T
al., 2017b).

IP
Some of the earlier studies (Rodell et al., 2009; Tiwari et al., 2009; Soni and Hasan,

CR
2015; Panda and Wahr, 2016; Asoka et al., 2017) have reported the patterns of groundwater

US
storage (GWS) anomalies in parts of India using satellite-based observations. Bhanja et al.,

(2016) evaluated the performance of satellite-based groundwater storage estimates using a dense-
AN
network of in situ groundwater level monitoring stations in 12 largest river basins in India and

found consistent match with satellite-based GWS. Here, for the first time, we estimate
M

groundwater storage changes and availability in major Indian states using a dense-network of in

situ and satellite-based estimates between 2005 and 2013. To our knowledge, this is the first
ED

study on estimation of groundwater storage availability in the form of usable groundwater

PT

storage (UGWS), nationally across the whole of India. We also attempted to temporally

downscale the UGWS using satellite-based GWS estimates.

CE

2 Data and Methods

AC

2.1 Precipitation data

The tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission’s (TRMM) Multi-satellite Precipitation

Analysis (TMPA) data is used here. The TMPA has been developed to provide best precipitation

estimates across the globe (Huffman et al., 2010). We use the monthly, gridded (0.250 × 0.250)
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3B43 product (version 7), which includes a combination of multiple satellite retrieval as well as

rain gauge measurements from the Global Precipitation Climatology Centre (GPCC) archive

(Huffman et al., 2007, 2010). As the in situ groundwater level measurements are available for

four times a year, precipitation data is processed for the four time-periods: December-January,

February-May, June-August and September-November, respectively.

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2.2 Groundwater storage estimates using in situ groundwater level data

Seasonal, in situ borehole hydrographs are obtained from 15,653 locations across India

from Central Ground Water Board (CGWB, India) between January 2005 and November 2013.

CGWB has been maintaining an excellent groundwater monitoring network that started in 1969

T
(CGWB, 2014a). As of March, 2017, 23,125 monitoring locations are operating across India

IP
(CGWB, 2017), within which 16,703 (72%) are dug wells (CGWB, 2017). A previous estimate

CR
show that the non-pumping observation wells are mostly located in unconfined aquifers (CGWB,

2014a). We compare groundwater levels obtained from continuous monitoring sensors to the

US
CGWB data in some locations within the study area. The two measurements compared well with

each other. We process the data for maintaining temporal continuity, i.e.at least three seasonal
AN
data out of four should be available at a location in every year. Interquartile range (IQR) filter

has been applied on the data to remove outliers (Davis, 2002), reducing the total number of
M

locations down to 3,907 (Table 1, Figure 1). Groundwater-level anomalies (∆h) are estimated by
ED

subtracting the mean water-level depths from the entire time-series (2005-2013) for individual

water-level time-series data.

PT

2.3 Usable groundwater storage (UGWS) and specific yield

CE

Aquifer thickness extends up to 700 m or more in unconsolidated, sedimentary

formations of the Indus-Ganges-Brahmaputra (IGB) river basin (Supplementary Table 1;

AC

CGWB, 2012). Aquifers are found to be existing up to 600 m in consolidated, permeable

sedimentary formations (Supplementary Table 1; CGWB, 2012). Fractured encountered data

shows the exploration of fractures up to 291 m depth for groundwater utilization in the fractured

formations (Supplementary Table 1; CGWB, 2012). Occurrence of modern groundwater at a

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

depth of >150 m has been reported in north-west India (Lapworth et al., 2015). MacDonald et al.

(2016) restricted their study to the depth of 200 m due scarcity of data in the IGB basin. The

upper 300 m of the terrestrial ground has also been assumed as the maximum depth of aquifer

responding to most of the anthropogenic groundwater activities (Mukherjee et al., 2007, 2011).

For its aquifer mapping program, CGWB also considered to map the subsurface features up to

T
the maximum depth of 300 m (CGWB, 2013b). In general, water quality deteriorates beyond 300

IP
m because groundwater at that depth has undergone extensive hydrogeochemical evolution and

CR
getting enriched in ionic concentration. It is also a costly affair to drill at greater depths,

particularly beyond 300 m. The energy usage for deeper groundwater exploitation is also higher.

US
Therefore, based on the available information, we have considered the upper 300 m as the usable
AN
thickness of the aquifer. The UGWS is estimated by multiplying usable aquifer thickness and

specific yield values at each of the selected wells. The study area is characterized into 6
M

hydrogeological units: unconsolidated sedimentary aquifers; consolidated, permeable

sedimentary aquifers; sedimentary aquitards; folded metasediment/metamorphic aquifers; jointed

ED

crystalline aquifers; and fractured crystalline aquifers (Bhanja et al., 2016; Bhanja et al., 2018b).

Specific yield (Sy), being the property of the medium, varies from 0.02 to 0.44 across different
PT

geologic material (Bhanja et al., 2018a). Ranges of Sy for different hydrogeologic formations in
CE

India are obtained from CGWB (2012) and provided in Supplementary Table 1. Long-term

pumping tests are conducted for estimating Sy values (GEC, 2009). Mean Sy values of the
AC

hydrogeologic units in India varying from 0.018 to 0.13. Here, we apply the Sy values reported in

Bhanja et al (2016). The gridded specific yield values are assigned to each of the wells on the

basis of their locations. Our major assumption is that the aquifers are homogeneous,

interconnected and unconfined up to 300 m. Gleeson et al. (2015) indicates negligible change in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

porosity in different rock types up to 300 m depth. MacDonald et al. (2016) and Bonsor et al.

(2017) considered aquifer extension up to 200 m in IGB basin. CGWB reported >300 m depth of

aquifers in some of the places in the study region (CGWB, 2012). Mukherjee et al. (2007, 2011)

reported aquifer extending up to 300 m in parts of the study area; the depth beyond that might be

contaminated with naturally occurring chemical contaminants (Mukherjee et al., 2011). We

T
prefer using Sy over porosity for calculating the usable water volume, as Sy includes the amount

IP
of extractable water from aquifer material unlike porosity, which depicts the pore fraction only

CR
within aquifer material.

US
2.4 Satellite-based groundwater storage estimates

We use 101 monthly (2005-2013), gridded (10×10) liquid water equivalent thickness
AN
(LWET, also known as terrestrial water storage, TWS) from the National Aeronautics and Space
M

Administration (NASA) Jet Propulsion Laboratory's (JPL) archive. Bhanja et al. (2016) reported

better performance of GRACE mascon products against GRACE spherical harmonics products
ED

for reproducing groundwater storage estimates using in situ groundwater storage measurements

in India. The recently released, RL05 mascon solution are used in this analysis. The entire globe
PT

is divided into 30 spherical mass concentration units having equal area in the mascon approach
CE

(Watkins et al., 2015). Several techniques have been applied on the data for estimating terrestrial

water storage (TWS) (http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov/data/get-data/jpl_global_mascons/ accessed on 26

AC

April, 2016). Satellite Laser Ranging data are used to replace degree 2 and order 0 coefficients

(Cheng and Tapley, 2004). Geo-center corrections (degree 1 coefficients) are computed

following Swenson et al. (2008). The process developed by Geruo et al. (2013), has been

followed to remove the post glacial rebound signal in the data. We have multiplied the scale-

factor (provided with the data) with the TWS solutions for more representative TWS solutions.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

We use Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) (Rodell et al., 2004) simulation

outputs from the NASA archive for soil moisture (SM) and surface water (SW) equivalent

estimates. Snow is not taken into consideration as the study region is not subjected to snow

(except for the Himalayan sections). Surface-water measurements are not available across India;

we use surface runoff from GLDAS outputs as a proxy for SW following Asoka et al. (2017).

T
We use an ensemble of SM and SW from 3 different land surface models’ (LSM), Community

IP
Land Model (CLM) (Dai et al., 2003), Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) (Liang et al., 1994,

CR
1996), and Noah (Chen et al., 1996; Koren et al., 1999). The ensemble result is reported to

provide best results than using individual LSM’s output (Bhanja et al., 2016). Time-series of

US
anomalies (∆) of each of the components are obtained by removing all-time mean from the
AN
individual data. Groundwater storage anomalies (∆GWS) are computed after removing ∆SM and

∆SW from ∆TWS. GRACE have been widely used across the globe for computing the GWS
M

change, even at the places with very few or scarce observation data available. The original

resolution of GRACE-based estimates are approximately 30 × 30 spatial resolution as it was

ED

designed for regional scale studies (Tapley et al., 2004). Although recent algorithm

developments are facilitating higher resolution output at 10 × 10 spatial resolution (Watkins et al.,
PT

2015), the user should be cautious upon using the data for the local-scale studies i.e. local-scale
CE

groundwater storage change impacted from anthropogenic activities.

2.5 Temporal downscaling of usable groundwater storage

AC

The in situ data are available for four times a year, we also attempted to temporally

downscale (i.e. monthly) the UGWS data using monthly-scale, satellite-based GWS estimates.

Bhanja et al. (2017a) have reported groundwater spatial variability in major river basins using
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

the same groundwater level measurement database used in this study. The spatial variability of

the wells located within each state are calculated following the equation (Bhanja et al., 2017a):

N = t21-(α/2),N-1 (2)/(d2) (1)

N = t21-(α/2),N-1 (e2c2H)/(d2) (2)

T
IP
where, N is the total number of samples;  is the spatial variability within each state; d is

CR
the user desired accuracy level (absolute error); t21-(α/2),N-1 representing the Student's t-distribution

at the significance level α (5% used here);  is the extent; C and H are the intercept and slope of

US
the linear relationship between log-(spatial variability) and log-extent, respectively. In order to

compute the spatial variability, further analysis is performed for the 15 states with number of
AN
wells >50 (Table 1). Finally, 8 states are selected for further analyses using in situ data (Table 1).

To compute satellite-based UGWS (UGWSsat), we used linear regression analysis using

M

independent variable, UGWS and dependent variable satellite-based GWSA (GWSAsat) between
ED

2005 and 2013. As the UGWS values are available four times a year, GWSAsat values are used

for the corresponding time period of the groundwater measurements.

PT

GWSAsat = m × UGWS + c (3)

CE

The slope (m) and intercept (c) values from the regression analysis, have been used

further to transform GWSAsat to UGWSsat in the following way:

AC

UGWSsat = (GWSAsat - c) / m (4)

2.6 Assumptions and limitations

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The satellite-based estimates are not advisable to use for smaller basins/states due to

coarser resolution of satellite-based observations. GWSA from individual wells are spatially

averaged to provide state-wide GWSA following Bhanja et al. (2017a) and Scanlon et al. (2018)

for basin-wide average. The spatial error associated with the spatial averaging is computed

following Equation 2. Based on unavailability of data, an uniform aquifer thickness is used

T
through India. Future studies targeted to improve the UGWS estimates should consider including

IP
high resolution aquifer thickness. Disaggregating the GWSA signal from TWSA is a challenging

CR
task due to unavailability of observational data for all of the required components.

3 Results and Discussions

US
AN
3.1 Estimation of groundwater storage availability

Table 1 shows detail of the states and number of wells used in UGWS calculation, spatial
M

mean precipitation and spatial mean UGWS values. While comparing the UGWS in the states

with moderate data availability (> 50 wells), the highest UGWS values are observed in the states
ED

such as Haryana, Uttar Pradesh and Assam, respectively. All of the three states are located in
PT

highly fertile, basins of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers; Figures 2 and 3 in Bhanja et

al. (2016) indicates the spatial distribution of unconsolidated, semi-consolidated and crystalline
CE

aquifer units across India. Although the state Jammu and Kashmir is comprised of a combination

of unconsolidated and consolidated lithotypes, the in situ observation wells (Figure 1) used in
AC

this study are mostly confined to the unconsolidated/semi-consolidated lithotypes (Figure 1 and

Figure 2 in Bhanja et al., 2016). This is the main reason for obtaining higher than expected

UGWS values in Jammu and Kashmir (Table 1). UGWS values in southern and central Indian

states that are comprised of crystalline rocks, are showing comparatively lower UGWS values
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Table 1). Precipitation rates might not influence the total UGWS magnitude, for example,

Haryana receives comparatively lower rainfall but subjected to the highest observed UGWS

values. On the other hand, Madhya Pradesh, Chhattisgarh, and Karnataka are receiving almost

the twice of the amount of precipitation in comparison to Haryana, however, exhibits much

lower UGWS values. Supplementary Figure 2 shows state-wise time series of spatial mean

T
UGWS between 2005 and 2013. UGWS data shows strong seasonality with highest values in

IP
monsoon or in post-monsoon season. Most of the states are experiencing a rise in water table

CR
after 2009-10; 2009 is the year of lowest rainfall in the country during the study period.

Supplementary Figure 3 shows time-series of spatial mean precipitation and their HP trends

US
between 2005 and 2013. Precipitation data shows strong seasonality (Supplementary Figure 3). It
AN
is interesting to note that, we observe recent increasing trend of precipitation in most of the states

(Supplementary Figure 3), indicating dominance of anthropogenic influence on groundwater

M

depletion in the states like, Assam, Haryana, and Odisha. The three states experience continuous

depletion in groundwater level (Supplementary Figure 2).

ED

3.2 Groundwater storage anomaly from satellite-based estimations

PT

Satellite-based GWSA estimates (GWSAsat) show development of intense groundwater

CE

depletion zones in the states located in parts of Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra basins between

2005 and 2013 (Figure 2). The highly fertile alluvial formations are linked with intense
AC

irrigation-linked groundwater withdrawal (Siebert et al., 2010), while, the central and south

Indian states are subjected to comparatively lower irrigation-linked groundwater withdrawal

leading to unchangeable to replenishing GWS conditions over the years (Figure 2). Greater

depleting GWSAsat trends (>4 km3/yr) are observed in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (Figure 3).

These estimates are in line with results from the earlier studies conducted within the region
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

(Rodell et al., 2009; Tiwari et al., 2009; Soni and Hasan, 2015; Panda and Wahr, 2016; Bhanja et

al., 2017b).

3.3 Trends in precipitation and groundwater storages

The state-wise trends of precipitation, UGWS and GWSAsat values are shown in Figure 3.

T
We observe increasing precipitation trend in most of the states (Figure 3a), with a few

IP
exceptions, decreasing precipitation trends are observed in Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka.

CR
UGWS trends indicate rapid depletion in Assam (Figure 3b) at a rate of >5 km3/yr (Figure 3b),

despite of overall increase in precipitation. The state is also subjected to comparatively higher

US
amount of total precipitation (2663 mm/year, Table 1). Similar observation has been found in
AN
Haryana with increase in precipitation and depletion in groundwater storage. UGWS and

GWSAsat, both of the estimates show replenishing trend in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, and
M

Tamil Nadu between 2005 and 2013, although GWS in Tamil Nadu exhibit depleting HP trend in

recent years (Supplementary Figure 2). The estimates are also consistent with published reports
ED

of CGWB (CGWB, 2013a; 2014b).

PT

3.4 Groundwater use in irrigation

Despite increase in total precipitation in Assam, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the reasons
CE

for observing highest UGWS/GWSAsat are further investigated using groundwater irrigation data
AC

and the underlying cropping pattern over the years. State-wise net irrigated area and land use

statistics data are obtained from the Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Govt. of India

(open-source data are retrieved from data.gov.in). Groundwater irrigated area (GWIA) has been

rapidly increased in Assam within the study period (Supplementary Figure 4a). Increase in

GWIA has also been observed in Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (Supplementary Figure 4b, 4c).
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The total water requirement by crops is studied as a fraction of the total cropped area of water

intensive crops and the total cropped area. The annual cropped area for six of the most water

intensive crops (Living Waters, 2004), i.e. rice, wheat, sugarcane, fruits and vegetables (F/V),

soya-bean and cotton, are shown in Figure 4 (Supplementary Table 2). It is observed that the

water intensive crops cover maximum fraction of the total cropped area in Assam, Rajasthan and

T
Uttar Pradesh (Figure 4). The percentage trend of cropped area coverage of the water intensive

IP
crops has been increased in recent years at the three states during the study period (Figure 4). It

CR
is important to note that cropped area associated with the two most water intensive crops, cotton

and rice, has been rapidly increased in Assam and Rajasthan in 2005-2013. This would lead to

US
comparatively faster depletion of water resources if continued at the ongoing rate.
AN
3.5 Temporal downscaling of UGWS using satellite-based measurements
M

Widespread use of satellite-based approaches for estimation of GWS has been observed

in India (Rodell et al., 2009; Tiwari et al., 2009; Soni and Hasan, 2015; Bhanja et al., 2016;
ED

Panda and Wahr, 2016; Bhanja et al., 2017b). However, all of the studies report GWS anomaly

or change over the years. Here, we attempt to estimate UGWS from the satellite-based
PT

measurements (UGWSsat) for the 8 states, which have sufficient in situ measurement locations
CE

(see Section 2.5 for details). In order to get realistic estimates, the states with statistically

significant (p values <0.05) relationship between UGWS and GWSsat are further selected for the
AC

analyses. Strong seasonality are observed in UGWSsat values with maximum values during

monsoon season (Figure 5). In general, UGWSsat matches well with the UGWS data (Figure 5).

UGWSsat shows recent increasing trend in four of the five states studied (Figure 5).

3.6 Spatial variability of the groundwater storage anomaly

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

UGWS values are estimated after analyzing the groundwater level observations from the

number of wells indicated in Table 1, hence, state(s) with comparatively lower number of

observation wells will not exactly represent the actual condition in that state(s). We have also

investigated the error level associated with the spatial averaging of the wells within the states

(Figure 6). Absolute error level is found to be within <2 cm GWSA anomaly in the all 15 states

T
studied; out of which it is <1 cm in the 6 states (Figure 6). The results show comparatively lower

IP
absolute error level on comparing the error estimates in the river basins within United States

CR
reported by Li et al. (2015). The magnitude of the error is found to be within 5% of the estimated

GWSA estimates across the states.

3.7 Significance of the UGWS calculation

US
AN
The widely used GWS anomaly provides relative (not absolute) information on
M

groundwater storage condition. The intense data-driven approach has leading to our robust

estimation of groundwater depletion/replenishment potential in Indian states. Highest depletion

ED

potential has been observed in Assam with more than 2% of their total UGWS depletion during

2005-2013 (Figure 7), interestingly, precipitation data shows increasing trend in Assam during
PT

the period (Figure 3a). This contrasting nature of UGWS and precipitation in Assam might be
CE

linked with higher rates of irrigation-linked groundwater withdrawal; net irrigated area using

irrigation from tube wells has been increased from 9 thousand hectares in 2004-05 to 74
AC

thousand hectares in 2013-14 (Groundwater irrigation data is retrieved from the Ministry of

Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India. Source: https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/ accessed on

February 20, 2017). Water intensive cropping has also been increased manifold in Assam in

recent years (Figure 4). The situation is alarming, in view of groundwater quality issues

prevalent in the region (Mukherjee et al., 2015; MacDonald et al., 2016). For example,
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

groundwater is contaminated with geogenic Arsenic in parts of eastern and northeastern India

(Mukherjee et al., 2015; MacDonald et al., 2016); parts of western and southern India are

subjected to fluoride contamination in groundwater (Mukherjee et al., 2015); parts of northwest,

western and southern India are linked with higher groundwater salinity (Mukherjee et al., 2015;

MacDonald et al., 2016). On the other hand, Andhra Pradesh and Jharkhand are experiencing the

T
highest replenishment potential. The concept can be applied in other parts of the globe for proper

IP
application of groundwater resource management.

CR
4 Conclusions

US
In this study, we investigate groundwater storage changes in all of the major Indian states
AN
using in situ (n = 3907) and satellite-based measurements doe the period of 2005-2013. In situ

data are used to compute the usable groundwater storage (UGWS) across the Indian states. In
M

order to provide representative estimates, we select only those states with sufficient density of in

situ monitoring wells exist. UGWS data show greater depletion in Assam at a rate of -6.66
ED

km3/year in 2005-2013. Satellite-based GWS estimates indicate greater depletion zones that are

developed in parts of Punjab, Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and West Bengal. Groundwater
PT

storage shows replenishing trend in Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Gujarat, Tamil Nadu, and
CE

Chattisgarh. Precipitation rates are showing increasing trend in most of the states, even in the

states of highest groundwater depletion. Substantial groundwater withdrawal linked with

AC

irrigation also indicates increasing trend in Assam, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, the three states

with the highest groundwater depletion in the study period. Water intensive cropping pattern

linked with prevalence of water intensive crops (with >50% occurrence) further influence the

scenario in the three states. We also attempt to temporally downscale the seasonal UGWS

estimates using monthly satellite-based measurements. The UGWS calculations enable us to

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

compute the changes in total usable water storage and also provide the quantity of usable

groundwater available for future use. This would provide a distinct picture of groundwater

availability rather than the groundwater storage anomalies. The approach could be used in other

parts of the globe for quantification of groundwater storage availability.

T
Acknowledgments and Data

IP
SNB acknowledges CSIR (India) for their support through SPM fellowship. This

CR
manuscript uses freely-available data of the Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Government

of India, weblink: http://www.india-

US
wris.nrsc.gov.in/GWL/GWL.html?UType=R2VuZXJhbA==?UName= accessed on June 20,

2017. The opinion expressed in the paper is of authors’ own and not of the affiliated Department.
AN
We acknowledge CGWB, India for providing water level data. GRACE land data were

processed by Sean Swenson, supported by the NASA MEaSUREs Program, and are available at
M

http://grace.jpl.nasa.gov. The GLDAS data used in this study were acquired as part of the
ED

mission of NASA's Earth Science Division and archived and distributed by the Goddard Earth

Sciences (GES) Data and Information Services Center (DISC). The TRMM data has been
PT

obtained from NASA archive. Groundwater water irrigation data are retrieved from the Ministry

of Agriculture & Farmers Welfare, Govt. of India (Source: https://eands.dacnet.nic.in/ accessed

CE

on February 20, 2017). We would also like to thank the editor, Prof. Paolo D'Odorico, and the
AC

three anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments and suggestions.

References

Aeschbach-Hertig, W. and Gleeson, T, 2012. Regional strategies for the accelerating global

problem of groundwater depletion. Nature Geoscience, 5, 853-861.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., Lehner, B., Rösch, T. and Siebert, S., 2003.

Development and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability.

Hydrol. Sci. J., 48, 317–338.

Asoka, A., Gleeson, T., Wada, Y. and Mishra, V., 2017. Relative contribution of monsoon

T
precipitation and pumping to changes in groundwater storage in India. Nature

IP
Geoscience, 10(2), 109-117.

CR
Bates, B. C., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Wu, S. and Palutikof, J. P. (Eds.), 2008. Climate Change and

Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergov. Panel

US
on Clim. Change Secr., Geneva, Switzerland, 210 pp.
AN
Bhanja, S. N., Mukherjee, A., Saha, D., Velicogna, I., and Famiglietti, J. S., 2016. Validation of

GRACE based groundwater storage anomaly using in situ groundwater level measurements
M

in India. Journal of Hydrology, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.10.042.

ED

Bhanja, S. N., Rodell, M., Li, B., Saha, D., and Mukherjee, A, 2017a. Spatio-temporal variability

of groundwater storage in India. Journal of Hydrology,

PT

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.11.052.
CE

Bhanja, S. N., Mukherjee, A., Wada, Y., Chattopadhyay, S., Velicogna, I., Pangaluru, K. and

Famiglietti, J. S., 2017b. Groundwater rejuvenation in parts of India influenced by water-

AC

policy change implementation, Scientific Report, 7.

Bhanja, S. N., Zhang, X., and Wang, J., 2018a. Estimating long-term groundwater storage and its

controlling factors in Alberta, Canada, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 22, 6241-6255,

https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-6241-2018.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Bhanja, S. N., Mukherjee, A., Rangarajan, R., Scanlon, B. R., Malakar, P., and Verma, S.,

2018b. Long-term groundwater recharge rates across India by in situ measurements, Hydrol.

Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-313.

Bonsor, H.C., MacDonald, A.M., Ahmed, K.M., Burgess, W.G., Basharat, M., Calow, R.C.,

T
Dixit, A., Foster, S.S.D., Gopal, K., Lapworth, D.J. and Moench, M., 2017. Hydrogeological

IP
typologies of the Indo-Gangetic basin alluvial aquifer, South Asia. Hydrogeology

CR
Journal, 25(5), 1377-1406.

Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), G. o. I., Ministry of Water Resources, 2012. Aquifer

systems of India, p. 92pp.

US
AN
Central Ground Water Board, CGWB, 2013a. G. o. I., Ministry of Water Resources. Master Plan

for Artificial Recharge to Ground Water in India, p. 225.

M

Central Ground Water Board, CGWB, 2013b. G. o. I., Ministry of Water Resources. Manual on
ED

Aquifer Mapping, p. 72.

Central Ground Water Board, CGWB, 2014a. G. o. I. Ministry of Water Resources. Ground
PT

Water Year Book – India 2013-14, p. 76pp.

CE

Central Ground Water Board, CGWB, 2014b. G. o. I. Ministry of Water Resources. Dynamic

groundwater resources, p. 283pp.

AC

Central Ground Water Board, CGWB, 2017. G. o. I. Ministry of Water Resources. Ground

Water Year Book – India 2016-17, p. 90pp.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Chen, F., Mitchell, K., Schaake, J., Xue, Y., Pan, H., Koren, V., Duan, Y., Ek, M., and Betts, A.,

1996. Modeling of land-surface evaporation by four schemes and comparison with FIFE

observations. J. Geophys. Res., 101(D3. 7251–7268, doi:10.1029/95JD02165.

Cheng, M., and Tapley, B. D., 2004. Variations in the Earth’s oblateness during the past 28

T
years. J. Geophys. Res., 109, B09402, doi:10.1029/2004JB003028.

IP
Dai, Y. et al., 2003. The Common Land Model, CLM. Bull. Amer. Meteor. Soc., 84, 1013–1023.

CR
Davis, J. C., 2002. Statistics and data analysis in geology. 3rd edition, New York, Wiley, pp. 656.

US
Directorate of Economics and Statistics (DES), Department of Agriculture, Cooperation and

Farmer Welfare (2015). Ministry of Agriculture and Farmer Welfare, Govt. of India. Source:
AN
eands.dacnet.nic.in accessed on November 19, 2018.

Famiglietti, J. S., and Rodell M., 2013. Water in the Balance, Science, 340 (6138), 1300-1301,
M

doi: 10.1126/science.1236460.
ED

Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2013. FAO Statistical Yearbook 2013:

World Food and Agriculture, 289 pp.

PT

Report of the Ground Water Estimation Committee (GEC), Ground Water Resource Estimation
CE

Methodology, Ministry of Water Resources, Govt of India, 2009.

AC

Geruo, A., Wahr, J., and Zhong, S., 2013. Computations of the viscoelastic response of a 3-D

compressible Earth to surface loading: an application to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in

Antarctica and Canada. Geophysical Journal International, 192(2), 557-572.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Gleeson, T., Befus, K. M., Jasechko, S., Luijendijk, E., and Cardenas, M. B., 2015. The global

volume and distribution of modern groundwater. Nat. Geosci., 9(2), 161-167.

Hodrick, R. J. and Prescott, E. C., 1997. Postwar US business cycles: an empirical investigation.

Journal of Money, credit, and Banking, 1-16.

T
Huffman, G. J., Bolvin, D. T., Nelkin, E. J., Wolff, D. B., Adler, R. F., Gu, G., Hong, Y.,

IP
Bowman, K. P. and Stocker, E. F., 2007. The TRMM multisatellite precipitation analysis

CR
(TMPA): Quasi-global, multiyear, combined-sensor precipitation estimates at fine scales.

Journal of Hydrometeorology, 8(1), pp.38-55.

US
Huffman, G. J., Adler, R. F., Bolvin, D. T., and Nelkin, E. J., 2010. The TRMM multi-satellite
AN
precipitation analysis (TMPA). In Satellite rainfall applications for surface hydrology, pp. 3-

22, Springer Netherlands.

M

Koren, V., Schaake, J., Mitchell, K., Duan, Q. Y., Chen, F., and Baker, J. M., 1999. A
ED

parameterization of snowpack and frozen ground intended for NCEP weather and climate

models. J. Geophys. Res., 104, 19569–19585, doi:10.1029/1999JD900232.

PT

Lapworth, D. J., MacDonald, A. M., Krishan, G., Rao, M. S., Gooddy, D. C. and Darling, W. G.,
CE

2015. Groundwater recharge and age‐ depth profiles of intensively exploited groundwater

resources in northwest India. Geophysical Research Letters, 42(18), 7554-7562.

AC

Li, B., Rodell, M., and Famiglietti, J. S., 2015. Groundwater variability across temporal and

spatial scales in the central and northeastern U.S., J. Hydrology, 525, 769-780,

doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.04.033.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Living Waters, 2004. Conserving the source of life. Thirsty Crops: Our food and clothes: eating

up nature and wearing out the environment.

Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., and Burges, S. J., 1994. A simple hydrologically

based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for GSMs. J. Geophys. Res., 99(D7.

T
14,415–14,428, doi:10.1029/94JD00483.

IP
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., and Wood, E. F., 1996. One-dimensional statistical dynamic

CR
representation of subgrid spatial variability of precipitation in the two-layer variable

infiltration capacity model. J. Geophys. Res., 101(D16. 21,403–21,422,

doi:10.1029/96JD01448.
US
MacDonald, A. M. et al. 2016. Groundwater quality and depletion in the Indo-Gangetic Basin
AN
mapped from in situ observations. Nature Geoscience, 9(10), 762-766.
M

Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Government of India, 2012. State of Indian agriculture 2011-12.
ED

Mukherjee, A., Fryar, A. E., and Howell, P. D., 2007. Regional hydrostratigraphy and

groundwater flow modeling in the arsenic-affected areas of the western Bengal basin, West
PT

Bengal, India. Hydrogeol. J., 15, 1397-1418.

CE

Mukherjee, A., Fryar, A.E., Scanlon, B.R., Bhattacharya, P. and Bhattacharya, A., 2011.

Elevated arsenic in deeper groundwater of the western Bengal basin, India: Extent and
AC

controls from regional to local scale. Applied Geochemistry, 26(4), 600-613.

Mukherjee, A., Saha, D., Harvey, C. F., Taylor, R. G., Ahmed, K. M., and Bhanja, S. N., 2015.

Groundwater systems of the Indian Sub-Continent. J. Hydrol. Regional Studies, 4, 1-14.

National Climate Centre (NCC), India Meteorological Department, 2013. Monsoon report 2012.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Pahuja, S., Tovey, C., Foster, S. and Garduno, H., 2010. Deep wells and prudence: towards

pragmatic action for addressing groundwater overexploitation in India. Deep wells and

prudence: towards pragmatic action for addressing groundwater overexploitation in India.

World Bank.

T
Panda, D. K., and Wahr, J. 2015. Spatiotemporal evolution of water storage changes in India

IP
from the updated GRACE-derived gravity records. Water Resour. Res., 51,

CR
doi:10.1002/2015WR017797.

Ravn, M. O., and Uhlig, H., 2002. On adjusting the Hodrick-Prescott filter for the frequency of

US
observations. Review of economics and statistics, 84(2), 371-376.
AN
Reager, J. T., and Famiglietti, J. S., 2013. Characteristic mega‐ basin water storage behavior

using GRACE. Water Resources Research, 49(6), 3314-3329.

M

Richey, A. S., Thomas, B. F., Lo, M. -H., Famiglietti, J. S., Reager, J. T., Voss, K., Swenson, S.,
ED

and Rodell, M., 2015. Quantifying renewable groundwater stress with GRACE. Wat.Resour.

Res., 51, 5217–5238, doi:10.1002/2015WR017349.

PT

Rodell, M., Houser, P.R., Jambor, U. E. A., Gottschalck, J., Mitchell, K., Meng, C. J., Arsenault,
CE

K., Cosgrove, B., Radakovich, J., Bosilovich, M. and Entin, J. K., 2004. The global land data

assimilation system. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 85(3), 381-394.

AC

Rodell, M., Velicogna, I., and Famiglietti J. S., 2009. Satellite-based estimates of groundwater

depletion in India. Nature, 460, 999–1002.

 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Scanlon, B. R., Mukherjee A., Gates, J., Reedy, R. C. and Sinha, A. K., 2010. Groundwater

recharge in natural dune systems and agricultural ecosystems in the Thar Desert region,

Rajasthan, India. Hydrogeology Journal, 18, 959-972.

Sen, P. K., 1968. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau. Journal of the

T
American Statistical Association, 63(324), pp.1379-1389.

IP
Siebert, S., Burke, J., Faures, J. M., Frenken, K., Hoogeveen, J., Döll, P., and Portmann, F. T.,

CR
2010. Groundwater use for irrigation–a global inventory. Hydrology and Earth System

Sciences, 14, 1863-1880.

US
Siebert, S., Kummu, M., Porkka, M., Döll, P., Ramankutty, N. and Scanlon, B. R., 2015. A
AN
global data set of the extent of irrigated land from 1900 to 2005. Hydrology and Earth

System Sciences, 19(3), 1521-1545.

M

Soni, A. and Syed, T. H., 2015. Diagnosing Land Water Storage Variations in Major Indian
ED

River Basins using GRACE observations. Global and Planetary Change, 133, 263-271.

Swenson S.C , Chambers, D. P., and Wahr, J., 2008. Estimating geocenter variations from a
PT

combination of GRACE and ocean model output. J. Geophys. Res.-Solid Earth, Vol 113,
CE

Issue: B8, B08410, doi:10.1029/2007JB005338.

Tapley, B. D., Bettadpur, S., Ries, J. C., Thompson, P. F., and Watkins, M. M., 2004. GRACE
AC

measurements of mass variability in the Earth system. Science, 305, 503–505.

Tiwari, V. M., Wahr, J., and Swenson, S., 2009. Dwindling groundwater resources in northern

India, from satellite gravity observations. Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L18401.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Voss, K. A., Famiglietti, J. S., Lo, M., Linage, C. de, Rodell, M., and Swenson S. C., 2013.

Groundwater depletion in the Middle East from GRACE with implications for transboundary

water management in the Tigris-Euphrates-Western Iran region. Water Resour. Res., 49.

Watkins, M. M., Wiese, D. N., Yuan, D.-N., Boening, C., and Landerer, F. W., 2015. Improved

T
methods for observing Earth’s time variable mass distribution with GRACE using spherical

IP
cap mascons. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth, 120, doi:10.1002/2014JB011547.

CR
Zaveri, E., Grogan, D. S., Fisher-Vanden, K., Frolking, S., Lammers, R. B., Wrenn, D. H.,

Prusevich, A. and Nicholas, R.E., 2016. Invisible water, visible impact: groundwater use and

US
Indian agriculture under climate change. Environmental Research Letters, 11(8), p.084005.
AN
M
ED
PT

Figure 1: States and groundwater observation well locations within the study region. The state

details can be found in Table 1

CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure 2: Maps of annual satellite-based groundwater storage anomalies (10 × 10) between 2005

and 2013
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure 3: State-wide trend estimates of precipitation (mm/yr), UGWS (km3/yr) and GWSAsat

(km3/yr), respectively. The error bars indicate 68% confidence interval in the Sen's slope
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

estimate. The data extending beyond the limit of the Y-axis are provided in bottom of the

column

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC

Figure 4: Annual irrigated area for the six most water intensive crops, rice, wheat, sugarcane,

fruits and vegetables (F/V), soya-bean and cotton for Assam, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh in
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

2005-2013. The full circle indicates highest annual value (within 2005-2013) of total

irrigated area in each state, Assam (378 thousand hectares), Rajasthan (9865 thousand

hectares) and Uttar Pradesh (20403 thousand hectares)

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 5: Monthly time series of UGWS and UGWSsat (cm) between 2003 and 2015. Analyses

is performed at the states with sufficient number of groundwater level monitoring locations

and where a statistically significant relationship between UGWS and GWSsat exists

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 6: Absolute error level in the studied states computed based on their extent and number

of wells used. The number within the squares represents state number in the following way:

1: Andhra Pradesh, 2: Assam, 3: Chattisgarh, 4: Gujarat, 5: Haryana, 6: Jammu and Kashmir,

7: Jharkhand, 8: Karnataka, 9: Madhya Pradesh, 10: Maharashtra, 11: Orissa, 12: Rajasthan,

13: Tamil Nadu, 14: Uttar Pradesh, 15: West Bengal

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 7: Percentage change in UGWS between 2005 and 2013 in states, where sufficient

number of groundwater level monitoring locations present

T
IP
CR
US
AN
M
ED
PT
CE
AC
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1: Indian states’ name, area (km2), number of wells used, spatial-mean annual
precipitation (mm/year), and spatial mean UGWS (cm). The basins are arranged
alphabetically

State State name Area No. of Area/well Mean Mean

code (km2) wells precipitation UGWS
(mm/year) (cm)

AP Andhra Pradesh 275069 448 614 1066 839

T
AS Assam 78438 136 577 2504 2663

IP
BR Bihar 94163 8 11770 1239 1375

CR
CT Chhattisgarh 136034 176 773 1407 1038

GJ Gujarat 196024 220 891 976 688

HR

HP
Haryana

Himachal Pradesh
44212

55673 4
US
94 470

13918
689

1147
3593

520
AN
JK Jammu and Kashmir 222236 51 4358 504 1960

JH Jharkhand 79714 133 599 1344 846

M

KA Karnataka 191791 608 315 1262 639

KL Kerala 38863 14 2776 2424 673

ED

MP Madhya Pradesh 308144 526 586 1136 773

MH Maharashtra 307713 515 598 1308 604

PT

OD Odisha 155707 144 1081 1573 1477

CE

PB Punjab 50362 4 12591 743 1357

RJ Rajasthan 342240 105 3259 521 1030

AC

TN Tamil Nadu 130058 479 272 1189 696

UP Uttar Pradesh 240928 89 2707 1052 2628

UT Uttaranchal 53484 18 2971 1462 1797

WB West Bengal 88752 81 1096 1821 2340