India’s ethanol blending programme pitched as a way to cut crude oil imports and support farmers is now at the centre of a sharp debate on water use. The trigger is a widely cited claim that producing one litre of ethanol can require up to 10,000 litres of water. But the industry says this number is being taken out of context.

The controversy

The high water figure is largely linked to ethanol made from rice and reflects the total water used during cultivation, including irrigation and rainfall. This “water footprint” has raised concerns in a water-stressed country like India, with policy discussions, including those linked to NITI Aayog, flagging risks around groundwater depletion.

The worry is straightforward: if water-intensive crops are increasingly diverted for fuel, the environmental cost could rise significantly.

Industry pushes back

The All India Distilleries Association has strongly contested how the figure is being used in public discourse.

Kushal Mittal, Vice President at AIDA, says the number does not reflect actual industrial consumption. “The 10,000-litre figure reflects cumulative agricultural water use, not the 3–4 litres consumed within the distillery. This distinction matters enormously,” he said.

Mittal added that the industry converts “surplus and damaged grain nutritionally unfit for consumption into clean fuel, rural employment, and measurable energy security,” and argued that the current narrative risks overlooking these benefits.

‘Selective narrative’ or valid concern?

AIDA leaders have also questioned why scrutiny has intensified now.

Vijendra Singh, President of AIDA, pointed to what he called inconsistency in how water use is debated. “Every kilogram of rice India exports carries 4,000 litres of embedded water silently without debate. Yet when broken, consumption-unfit rice is used for ethanol production, figures of 10,000 litres per litre of ethanol are amplified selectively,” he said.

He added that the same grain used earlier for industrial purposes did not attract similar attention, raising questions about the timing of the criticism.

Footprint vs factory use

At the heart of the debate is a difference in definitions. The larger number reflects the entire agricultural lifecycle behind ethanol production, while the smaller number refers only to water used inside distilleries.

Both figures are technically accurate, but they serve different purposes. The footprint captures environmental impact, while plant-level usage reflects operational efficiency.

This means the core issue is not just ethanol production, but the choice of feedstock—particularly water-intensive crops like rice and sugarcane.

The bigger policy trade-off

India’s ethanol push sits at the intersection of energy security and water sustainability. The programme helps reduce fossil fuel dependence and supports farm incomes, but it also raises questions about resource use.

“The ethanol blending programme addresses both directly reducing fossil fuel dependence while supporting our farming communities,” Singh said, urging stakeholders to assess the issue based on “complete evidence, and not allow decontextualised narratives to derail a solution that serves every Indian.”

Published on: May 4, 2026 5:18 PM IST