Punjab Farmers Find Silt-Removal Scheme Unviable, Complain About Poor Sand Quality
Farmers in flood-affected parts of Punjab have raised objections to a state scheme that lets them mine and sell sand deposited by overflowing rivers in their fields. They say the sand is so mixed with clay and mountain soil that its quality is too poor to make the venture profitable.
In many villages, deposited sediment (silt) is a mix of sand, clay, and debris. While the government’s plan aims to help farmers convert this into income, locals say that after factoring in the costs—renting heavy machinery, fuel, labor, and transportation—the returns are negligible. Pure sand fetches much higher prices, but the silt they are getting sells for a tiny fraction of that. One farmer estimates mixed sand would fetch as little as ₹2,000 per trolley, compared to ₹15,000 for good-quality sand.
Another hurdle: machinery. Many farmers say that silt removal is impossible without access to earth-moving machines, and the government has not made enough available locally. Even where machines can be rented, the expenses reduce or eliminate any profit.
Members of the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee have taken their concerns to district administrations across Punjab, submitting memoranda asking for reforms. They propose that instead of trying to sell the sand, it might be more practical to use the silt to reinforce local embankments. That could help protect fields from future flooding, they argue, and make better use of the material already deposited.
Sarpanch Paramjit Singh of Baupur Jadid village emphasized that unless societies or local authorities provide the heavy machinery needed, farmers are left with the burden of arranging everything themselves—often at high cost and risk.
State leaders say the scheme was intended to help flood-hit farmers get an alternate income and clean up land, turning a problem into an asset. But many farmers disagree, pointing out that for all but the best quality sand, costs of removal and sale often swallow potential profits. They therefore view the scheme as well-intentioned but practically flawed in its current form.
As things stand, unless measures are taken to improve sand quality, reduce removal costs, or offer state support for machinery and logistics, many farmers say they may simply decline to participate—and instead focus on flood protection and soil rehabilitation.
In many villages, deposited sediment (silt) is a mix of sand, clay, and debris. While the government’s plan aims to help farmers convert this into income, locals say that after factoring in the costs—renting heavy machinery, fuel, labor, and transportation—the returns are negligible. Pure sand fetches much higher prices, but the silt they are getting sells for a tiny fraction of that. One farmer estimates mixed sand would fetch as little as ₹2,000 per trolley, compared to ₹15,000 for good-quality sand.
Another hurdle: machinery. Many farmers say that silt removal is impossible without access to earth-moving machines, and the government has not made enough available locally. Even where machines can be rented, the expenses reduce or eliminate any profit.
Members of the Kisan Mazdoor Sangharsh Committee have taken their concerns to district administrations across Punjab, submitting memoranda asking for reforms. They propose that instead of trying to sell the sand, it might be more practical to use the silt to reinforce local embankments. That could help protect fields from future flooding, they argue, and make better use of the material already deposited.
Sarpanch Paramjit Singh of Baupur Jadid village emphasized that unless societies or local authorities provide the heavy machinery needed, farmers are left with the burden of arranging everything themselves—often at high cost and risk.
State leaders say the scheme was intended to help flood-hit farmers get an alternate income and clean up land, turning a problem into an asset. But many farmers disagree, pointing out that for all but the best quality sand, costs of removal and sale often swallow potential profits. They therefore view the scheme as well-intentioned but practically flawed in its current form.
As things stand, unless measures are taken to improve sand quality, reduce removal costs, or offer state support for machinery and logistics, many farmers say they may simply decline to participate—and instead focus on flood protection and soil rehabilitation.