Study of Benchmarking and Water Auditing of 20 nos. Major ... · Auditing of 20 nos. Major and...

Water Resource Zone, Udaipur, Rajasthan

Oct 2015

Study of Benchmarking and Water

Auditing of 20 nos. Major and Medium

Irrigation Projects under Water

Resources Zone, Udaipur

Final ReportR-Bagolia Irrigation Project

This report has been prepared under the DHI Business Management System

certified by DNV to comply with Quality Management ISO 9001

DHI (India) Water & Environment Pvt Ltd• NSIC Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, NSIC-STP Complex, 110020, New Delhi, India Telephone: +91 11 4703 4500 • Telefax: +91 11 4703 4501 • • www.dhigroup.com

Study of Benchmarking and Water

Auditing of 20 nos. Major and Medium

Irrigation Projects under Water

Resources Zone, Udaipur

Final ReportR-Bagolia Irrigation Project

Prepared for : Water Resource Zone, Udaipur, Rajasthan

Represented by : Additional Chief Engineer

Project manager : Dr Alka Upadhyay

Authors : Dr. R. K. Rai, Dr. Alka Upadhyay, Mr. Ravindra Bhatnagar

Associate Members : Pankaj Sinha, Mani Goyal

Project number : 63800456

Classification : Restricted

Version : V2

DHI (India) Water & Environment Pvt Ltd• NSIC Bhawan, IIIrd Floor, NSIC-STP Complex, 110020, New Delhi, India Telephone: +91 11 4703 4500 • Telefax: +91 11 4703 4501 • • www.dhigroup.com

3

Contents

1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 9 1.1 Approach Advancing .................................................................................................................... 10 1.2 Report Structure ........................................................................................................................... 10 1.2.1 Benchmarking of irrigation projects .............................................................................................. 10 1.2.2 Water auditing of irrigation projects ............................................................................................. 13

2 Bagolia Irrigation Project .......................................................................................... 17 2.1 General features .......................................................................................................................... 17 2.1.1 Observation during reconnaissance survey ................................................................................. 18 2.1.2 Salient features of Bagolia irrigation project ................................................................................ 20 2.2 Catchment Description ................................................................................................................. 23 2.2.1 Climate-Rainfall ............................................................................................................................ 23 2.2.2 The Mann-Kendal’s (MK) test for rainfall trend analysis .............................................................. 27 2.2.3 Lake evaporation .......................................................................................................................... 28 2.2.4 Potential evapotranspiration or Reference crop evapotranspiration ............................................ 31 2.2.5 Soil, land use and water harvesting structures ............................................................................ 34 2.2.6 Water harvesting structures or anicuts ........................................................................................ 37 2.3 Irrigation Command and Cropping Pattern .................................................................................. 38 2.3.1 Crop coefficient for representative crops ..................................................................................... 40 2.3.2 Population, household and Literacy ............................................................................................. 45 2.3.3 Workers ........................................................................................................................................ 45 2.4 Baseline Summary ....................................................................................................................... 46

3 Benchmarking of Irrigation Project and Filling of Reservoir ................................. 53 3.1 Data Collected for for Benchmarking ........................................................................................... 54 3.2 Reservoir Filling and Estimation of the Effective Yield ................................................................ 55 3.3 Performance Indicators for Benchmarking................................................................................... 58

4 Evaluation of System Delivery Performance ........................................................... 67 4.1 Total Annual Volume of Irrigation Supply..................................................................................... 67 4.2 Total Annual Volume of Water Supply ......................................................................................... 69 4.2.1 Estimation of effective rainfall ...................................................................................................... 69 4.2.2 Computation of annual water supply ............................................................................................ 70 4.3 Indices for Irrigation Supply per unit Area .................................................................................... 70 4.4 Indices for Relative water supply and irrigation supply ................................................................ 71 4.4.1 Relative water supply ................................................................................................................... 71 4.4.2 Relative irrigation supply .............................................................................................................. 71 4.4.3 Overalll system efficiency............................................................................................................. 71 4.5 Water Delivery Capacity............................................................................................................... 72

5 Evaluation of Productive Performance .................................................................... 79 5.1 Productive Performance Indicators: Relative to Area .................................................................. 79 5.1.1 Total value of agricultural production per unit CCA ..................................................................... 79 5.1.2 Total annual value of agricultural production per unit irrigated area ............................................ 80 5.2 Productive Performance Indicators: Relative to Water ................................................................ 80

4

5.2.1 Total seasonal value of agricultural production per unit irrigation supply .................................... 80 5.2.2 Total annual value of agricultural production per unit of water supply ......................................... 80 5.2.3 Total annual value of agricultural production per unit of crop water requirement

(CWR) .......................................................................................................................................... 80

6 Optimal Cropping Pattern ......................................................................................... 85

7 Evaluation of Financial and Environmental Performance ...................................... 89 7.1 Estimation of MOM ....................................................................................................................... 89 7.1.1 Cost recovery ratio ....................................................................................................................... 89 7.1.2 Total MOM cost per unit area (Rs/ha) .......................................................................................... 89 7.1.3 Revenue collection performance ................................................................................................. 90 7.1.4 Staffing per unit area (person/ha) ................................................................................................ 90 7.1.5 Revenue per unit volume of irrigation supply (Rs/m3) ................................................................. 90 7.1.6 Total MOM cost per unit volume of irrigation supply (Rs/m3) ...................................................... 90 7.2 Discussion .................................................................................................................................... 91

8 Water Auditing of Irrigation Projects ....................................................................... 99 8.1 Steps of Water Auditing ............................................................................................................... 99 8.2 Summary of Water Auditing ....................................................................................................... 100 8.3 Assessment of Canal Capacity at Head .................................................................................... 101 8.4 Assessment of Irrigation Efficiencies ......................................................................................... 111 8.5 Calibration of Canal Outlets ....................................................................................................... 111 8.5.1 Classification of outlets .............................................................................................................. 111 8.5.2 Discharge through the outlets .................................................................................................... 112 8.5.3 Calibration Process of the Outlet ............................................................................................... 116

9 Irrigation Scheduling .............................................................................................. 119 9.1 Simple calculation of irrigation scheduling (FAO, 1989) ............................................................ 119 9.2 Water Balance Method............................................................................................................... 126 9.2.1 Soil moisture terminology ........................................................................................................... 126 9.2.2 Rooting depth ............................................................................................................................. 129 9.2.3 Estimation of crop evapotranspiration (ETc) .............................................................................. 130 9.2.4 Estimation of effective rainfall .................................................................................................... 131 9.3 Poor ............................................................................................................................................ 133 9.3.1 Upward flux of water to the root zone depth or capillary rise (U) ............................................... 134 9.3.2 Software for irrigation scheduling ............................................................................................... 134

10 Barabandi Scheduling ............................................................................................ 143 10.1 Definition of Barabandi ............................................................................................................... 143 10.2 Indicators of Good Water Distribution System ........................................................................... 143 10.3 Water Distribution Methods ........................................................................................................ 143 10.4 Enforcement in Barabandi ......................................................................................................... 144 10.5 Systems of Barabandi ................................................................................................................ 144 10.6 Forms of Barabandi .................................................................................................................... 144 10.7 Process of Barabandi ................................................................................................................. 144 10.7.1 Data requirement for Barabandi Roaster ................................................................................... 144 10.7.2 Formulation of Warabandi Schedules ........................................................................................ 145

5

11 Recommendation of Remedial Measures .............................................................. 153 11.1 General Remarks ....................................................................................................................... 153 11.1.1 Indicators of the water auditing .................................................................................................. 155 11.1.2 Indicators of the benchmarking .................................................................................................. 156 11.2 Remedial Measure: Suggestion to improve O&M and MOM of canal system........................... 158 11.3 Survey of CCA, and Reservoir Capacity .................................................................................... 159 11.3.1 Financial estimate for the survey ............................................................................................... 160 11.4 Estimate of remedial measures ................................................................................................. 161 11.4.1 General Abstract of the Cost ...................................................................................................... 161 11.4.2 Existing cropping pattern before renovation .............................................................................. 163 11.4.3 Values of produce as per existing cropping pattern and before renovation .............................. 164 11.4.4 Proposed cropping pattern with Renovation .............................................................................. 165 11.4.5 Values of produce as per proposed cropping pattern with Renovation ..................................... 166 11.4.6 Net receipt before renovation ..................................................................................................... 167 11.4.7 Net receipt after renovation ........................................................................................................ 168 11.4.8 Estimated benefit-cost ratio for Project renovation .................................................................... 169

Bibliography .............................................................................................................................. 171

Appendices ................................................................................................................................ 175

A.1 Gauge-capacity Table ............................................................................................. 177

A.2 10-daily crop coefficients for Rabi and Kharif Crops (dimensionless) ....................................................................................................... 178

A.3 Field capacity and Permanent Wilting Point ......................................................... 179

A.4 Values of minimum allowable deficit and depth of crops .................................... 179

A.5 Approximate net irrigation depth applied per irrigation (mm) ............................. 179

A.6 Recommended value of irrigation application rate ............................................... 179

A.7 List of upstream structures (Anicuts/WHS) .......................................................... 180

A.8 Irrigation sources .................................................................................................... 185

A.9 Theissen polygon of the catchment ...................................................................... 187

A.10 Irrigation rates ......................................................................................................... 189

A.11 List of outlets/Minors .............................................................................................. 191

A.12 General guideline for embankment sections (Source: IS: 12169 – 1987)......................................................................................................................... 192

A.13 Proposed requirement of operation and maintenance staff on Major/ Medium Irrigation ........................................................................................ 193

A.14 List of BIS codes for canal maintenance ............................................................... 194

6

List of Tables

Table 1-1 Detailed Tasks in benchmarking study ............................................................................................ 11 Table 1-2 Objective for present Water Auditing study ...................................................................................... 14 Table 2-1 Catchment area of the Bagolia dam ................................................................................................. 23 Table 2-2 Auxiliary equations used for Penman method ................................................................................. 28 Table 2-3 Estimated 15-daily evaporation (mm) for Bagolia reservoir using Penman method ........................ 30 Table 2-4 Auxiliary equations used for Penman-Monteith method .................................................................. 32 Table 2-5 Estimated 15-daily reference crop evapotranspiration (mm) for Bagolia using

Penman-Monteith method ............................................................................................................ 33 Table 2-6 Soil texture in the Bagolia Dam catchment ...................................................................................... 34 Table 2-7 Landuse statistics of the Bagolia command area ............................................................................ 35 Table 2-8 Cropping pattern of the Bagolia command area during Rabi season .............................................. 39 Table 2-9 Cropping pattern of the Bagolia command area during Kharif season ............................................ 39 Table 2-10 Crop coefficient of Rabi crops ........................................................................................................ 40 Table 2-11 Crop coefficient of Kharif crops ...................................................................................................... 40 Table 3-1 List of baseline and historical data collected .................................................................................... 54 Table 3-2 Live capacity and percentage filling of the Bagolia reservoir (1984-2013) ...................................... 56 Table 3-3 Analysis of dependable effective yield for Bagolia Project ............................................................... 57 Table 3-4 Dependable filling of the Bagolia dam .............................................................................................. 58 Table 3-5 List of key performance indicators ................................................................................................... 59 Table 4-1 Computation of total annual volume of irrigation supply .................................................................. 68 Table 4-2 Calculation of total annual water supply for irrigation ...................................................................... 70 Table 4-3 Computation of Indices for Irrigation Supply per unit Area .............................................................. 73 Table 4-4 15-daily crop water requirement using the Penman-Monteith method (FAO56)

and existing cropping pattern during Rabi ................................................................................... 74 Table 4-5 15-daily gross irrigation requirement based on existing cropping pattern during

Rabi and overall efficiency of 0.60 (Conveyance: 0.80; Field: 0.75) ........................................... 75 Table 4-6 Relative water and irrigation supply and overall system efficiency .................................................. 76 Table 4-7 Computation and comparison of water delivery capacity (required capacity of the

canal at head sluice) as per the exiting cropping pattern and designed

capacity at head ........................................................................................................................... 77 Table 5-1 Average crop yield, minimum support price and irrigation rates of the common

crops............................................................................................................................................. 79 Table 5-2 Cropping pattern, cropped area and production .............................................................................. 81 Table 5-3 Gross income from Rabi crops and total income ............................................................................. 82 Table 5-4 Computation of productive and economic performance of the water use in

production .................................................................................................................................... 83 Table 6-1 Basic input required for estimating the optimal cropping pattern ..................................................... 85 Table 6-2 Basic input required for estimating the optimal cropping pattern ..................................................... 86 Table 7-1 Calculation of irrigation revenue invoiced ........................................................................................ 93 Table 7-2 Calculation of staff expenditure ........................................................................................................ 94 Table 7-3 Analysis of financial performance indicators .................................................................................... 95 Table 8-1 Indicative values of the field application efficiency (Ea) ................................................................. 100 Table 8-2 Indicative values of the conveyance efficiency (Ec) for adequately maintained

canals ......................................................................................................................................... 100 Table 8-3 Field plot study for estimating the field application efficiency ........................................................ 107 Table 8-4 Field plot study for estimating the field application efficiency ........................................................ 108 Table 8-5 Field plot study for estimating the field application efficiency ........................................................ 109 Table 8-6 Estimation of canal capacity at head .............................................................................................. 110 Table 8-8 Value of k as a function of Q .......................................................................................................... 115 Table 8-9 Format for outlet calibration ........................................................................................................... 117 Table 9-1 Approximate net irrigation depth applied per irrigation (mm) (FAO, 1989) .................................... 119

7

Table 9-2 Approximate root depth of the major crops (FAO, 1989) ............................................................... 120 Table 9-3 Typical values of field application efficiency, Ea (FAO, 1989) ........................................................ 120 Table 9-4 Crop water need and growing period (FAO, 1989) ........................................................................ 121 Table 9-5 Soil moisture at field capacity (θFC), permanent wilting point (θPWP), available

water content (AWC in cm/cm) and basic infiltration rate (F in mm/day) ................................... 128 Table 9-6 Maximum allowable depletion (MAD) and rooting depth for crops (FAO, 1989) ........................... 129 Table 9-7 Antecedent soil moisture conditions (McCuen, 1989) .................................................................... 133 Table 9-8 Description of hydrologic groups .................................................................................................... 133 Table 9-9 Classification of woods (USDA, 1972) ........................................................................................... 133 Table 9-10 Runoff curve number (CN for hydrologic soil cover complex ....................................................... 134 Table 9-10 Irrigation scheduling for Wheat crop ............................................................................................ 139

List of Figures

Figure 2-1 Rainfall pattern of the Bagolia dam catchment ............................................................................... 24 Figure 2-2 Catchment area map of Bagolia dam including the upstream storages ......................................... 25 Figure 2-3 Estimated values of daily evaporation from Bagolia reservoir using Penman

method ......................................................................................................................................... 30 Figure 2-4 Map showing the soil texture of the Bagolia Dam catchment ......................................................... 35 Figure 2-5 Soil map of the Bagolia reservoir catchment and command .......................................................... 36 Figure 2-6 Land use in Bagolia dam catchment (1972) .................................................................................. 36 Figure 2-7 Land use in Bagolia dam catchment (2008) ................................................................................... 37 Figure 2-8 Storage capacity versus submergence area relationship ............................................................... 38 Figure 2-9 Command area map of the Bagolia irrigation project showing the canal network,

individual command and village boundary ................................................................................... 41 Figure 2-10 Tree-diagram of the canal distribution system of Bagolia irrigation project .................................. 43 Figure 3-1 Dependable effective yield response of the Bagolia Project .......................................................... 58 Figure 8-1 Non-modular pipe outlet (submerged exit).................................................................................... 113 Figure 8-2 Semi-modular type pipe outlets (Free flow exit) ........................................................................... 113 Figure 8-3 Crump’s Adjustable Proportional Module (APM) [All dimensions in centimeters] ........................ 115 Figure 9-1 Excel Worksheet Programme for Irrigation scheduling using Simple calculation

method ....................................................................................................................................... 122 Figure 9-2 Generalized crop coefficient curves (FAO, 1998) ......................................................................... 130 Figure 9-3 Print screen of the Irrigation scheduling software on EXCEL platform (Page1:

Data input sheet) ........................................................................................................................ 135 Figure 9-4 Plot of cumulative crop evapotranspiration and irrigation application ........................................... 142 Figure 10-1 Map showing the small water course and chak plan .................................................................. 146 Figure 10-2 Map showing the large water course and chak plan ................................................................... 149

9

1 Introduction

Water is vital resource and with the increase in population, urbanization and related consequences have created an alarming situation for its subsequent availability for future. Erratic rainfall and climate change may also have impacts to it. About 25 per cent of water is utilized for domestic, industrial and other purposes. Whereas, 75 per cent is utilized in agriculture at national level. In Rajasthan about 83 per cent is utilized in irrigation. It may reduce to 75 per cent

1 due to increasing demand from

other competing sectors. Therefore, for the sustainability, water utilization should be efficiently. Effective utilization and conservation are the means through which the grave problem can be managed. To overcome the problem and with understanding the severity of problem, Government of Rajasthan, through its Water Resource Department has initiated Benchmarking and Water Auditing exercises for the irrigation schemes to understand the actual status, changes if any in the inflow conditions and reasons behind that, to fix the gaps in the transmission of water through canals, problems and solutions. Rajasthan remains a largely agrarian state and about 70% of the population depends on agriculture and allied activities sector. This highlights the importance of water resources with respect to use of water for irrigation purposes. Irrigation being the main user of water resources assumes crucial importance in overall planning and use of water. There is a large gap between irrigation potential created and potential utilized. Water Resource Department, Rajasthan has about 3320 irrigation schemes (major, medium and minor). Major irrigation schemes have Culturable Command Area (CCA) more than 10,000 ha, Medium irrigation schemes comprise of CCA more than 2000 and up to 10000 ha. All ground water schemes and surface water schemes (both flow and lift) having CCA up to 2000 ha separately are considered as minor irrigation schemes. Rajasthan has created potential through major, medium and minor schemes as 6545.5, 8678.1 and 9235.6 thousand hectare at the end of 8

th Plan (1992-97), 9

th

Plan (1997-2002) and 10th Plan (2002-2007) respectively. Gap in net irrigated area

with net sown area for Rajasthan is around 31 per cent. Further to this, most of the project has lost its designed CCA due to various losses, change in cropping pattern, deviation in inflow or catchment yield etc. It has largely affected the delivery productive economic performance of irrigation projects. Looking into these facts, it becomes important to re-evaluate the projects as well as their design parameters and identify the deficiencies wherever it is, and to provide feasible remedial measures to improve the overall efficiency of the project.

1 Water Resource Department, Rajasthan

10

1.1 Approach Advancing

On the basis of present need for effective water management it is important to evaluate the existing irrigation projects, therefore, Water Resource Department; Rajasthan has awarded the study “Benchmarking and Water Auditing of 20 nos. Irrigation projects, under Water Resource Zone, Udaipur to DHI (India) Water & Environment Pvt Ltd, a subsidiary of DHI Denmark. This study will envisage the optimum utilization of irrigation schemes, improvement mechanisms; water budgeting, training and ownership building for longevity of resources in the end users. This draft report for Bagolia Irrigation Project has been made based on the available information collected from Girva Divisional Office, Water Resources Department, Udaipur Zone.

1.2 Report Structure

As per the ToR, the Final Report should comprise of analyses of entire data collected from the department as well as from the field during canal operation. The report comprised of recommendations for improving performance, operational efficiency, and remedial measures. The report should also include the recommendation regarding the Operation and Maintenance (O&M) with their cost of remedial measure. The report has been divided into two sections, viz. Benchmarking, and Water Auditing. The first section deals with the Bechmarking of the irrigation projects.

1.2.1 Benchmarking of irrigation projects

Performance Evaluation of Irrigation System (it is done for a particular irrigation

system at a time) lays emphasis on bridging the gap between the irrigation

potential achieved over that created. The Benchmarking process involves identifying

certain common parameters among similar irrigation systems, and choosing the best or

an Ideal Irrigation System which excels the other systems (with reference to the

identified parameters), and then comparing with the ideal system so as to find how

best the other system too could be brought at par with the ideal project. This is a

continuous process in which efforts are made to bridge the gap among similar

irrigation system in the range. The performance evaluation and benchmarking of

irrigation systems both ultimately aim at maximizing the crop production per unit of

the command area or per unit of the available water.

Benchmarking is a process of “introspection” since it is a continuous of measuring

one’ own performance. Benchmarking has also broad application in problem

solving, planning improvement etc. In the irrigation sector that would mean more

productive and efficient use of water i.e. “more crop per drop”.

Benchmarking process, an important tool, is proposed to be increasingly used in

irrigation sector in Rajasthan so as to improve water use efficiency and management

of irrigation projects. By using appropriate performance indicators of Benchmarking

suitable for various socio-economic and agro-climatic conditions, along with

11

adoption of best management practices and environmental sustainability,

improvement in water use efficiency and financial viability of irrigated agriculture

system can be achieved. It would help in identifying grey areas in the system and

provided direction for improvement therein.

Irrigation projects have been designed and constructed with some parameters

as quantity of water to be received, irrigation to be achieved, irrigation to be done,

losses in canals etc. But during the course of time, it is observed that the irrigation

projects are not performing as per designed parameters and there is a big gap

between perception and practical achievement of project. Benchmarking is the

process of studying the existing system & to the net deficiency and suggests the

strategy to bridge the gap between designed parameters and actual achievement

so as to maximize the use of available water. It also includes the methods / study to

be adopted for increasing inflow in the structure without effecting adjacent structures

adversely.

Tasks to be covered in the study include:

Salient features of all the irrigation projects selected for Benchmarking

study

Develop a software for compilation of various data collected

Calculate the actual yield available from the catchments of each tank and

compare it with the design yield taken at the time of formulation of project

Design, prepare and submit all formats required for analysis of various for

the study of Benchmarking of Irrigation Projects.

Recommendation of remedial measures

Training to staff

Details of tasks for the study are mentioned in Table 1.1

Table 1-1 Detailed Tasks in benchmarking study

S.

No.

Task

A Collection of basic data of irrigation projects within study purview

(i) Salient features of all the irrigation projects selected for Benchmarking study need

to be meticulously collected and complied as these will facilities identification /

marking of the project to a particulars group. Figures of water availability and irrigation

potential created / utilized should be statistical values based on records of last 5 years.

This data can be collected from the department records.

(ii) Collect hydrological data of all irrigation projects under assignment for last 30 years

as suggested by the department.

(iii) Collection data should be fed to the software with data processing forms and

reports customized to the requirements of department as finalized by the employer

detailed in the document.

B Collection of field data regarding System Performance for benchmarking of

12

S.

No.

Task

irrigation project

(i) To suggest adequate number of rain gauge stations in the catchments area of each

tank and will install these rain gauge stations.

(ii) The bidder will calculate the actual yield available from the catchments of each tank

and compare it with the design yield taken at the time of formulation of project. If

any deficiency occurs, he will also suggest method to improve the yield from the

catchments to attain design yield.

(iii) Data so collected shall be complied in the proforma approved by the engineer-in-

charge on day to day basis in the digitized form and shall be made available for check

by the department staff.

(iv) Training for at least three days to the officers and field staff of the department and for

this he will prepare training schedule and get it approved from the department. The

training will focus on study of the catchments area reservoir performance of

reservoir operation. All expenses of training shall be borne by the consultant.

(v) To prepare inventory of wells and tube wells existing in the CCA and submergence

area of the reservoir.

C Digital data collection and processing

(i) The bidder shall develop software for compilation of various data collected or

secondary data received from different data. The software so developed shall be

handed over to the department.

(ii) The bidder shall develop a software for Benchmarking and also impart training to

officers and officials of Water Resources Department

D Analysis of Data

(i) The bidder shall design, prepare and submit all formats required for analysis of

various for the study of Benchmarking of Irrigation Projects. These formats shall be got

approved from the employer

(ii) To develop a software for the analysis of the data for the Benchmarking

Studies. The software so developed shall be handed over to the department.

E Recommendation of Remedial Measures

(i) To develop water delivery efficiency of dam system by incorporating assessment

of all types of losses (Seepage, percolation, evaporation and theft) from dam

(ii) To work out the costs of the suggested rehabilitation and / or renovation /

modernization measures.

F Submission of reports

(i) Inception Report: After one & half month from the assignment. The report shall cover

outcome of the reconnaissance field survey recommending deficiencies in the

measuring structures. It will also cover all the formats for data collection, compilation

and analysis of benchmarking studies.

(ii) Draft Final Report: The report will be submitted after fifteen month of start of the

assignment. The report shall comprise of report on all the data collected, report on

first impression based on the data collected at that stage. It will also suggest possible

remedies based on the studies conducted up to that stage.

(iii) Final Report: The report will be submitted after Eighteen month, at the end of the

13

S.

No.

Task

assignment. It will comprise of –

Recommendations for improving performance, operational efficiency of each

project.

Recommendation regarding remedial measures of any existing critical

problems. Etc.

Recommendation regarding O & M and renovation needs.

Recommendation regarding remedial measures with time bound action plan.

Both interim and final report will be submitted and presented to the

department and WUA thought department (WUA wise) with findings and

recommendation for better performance on lagging contributing factors

G Training

To develop training module for making benchmarking studies and impart necessary

training for at least of 3 days to the officers and field staff (About 100) of the

department before the end of the assignment.

The training should focus on ways of collecting field data, findings of the study, future

course of action, online data entry & operation of software & website and training in

water management including benchmarking, efficient technologies & techniques. The

training would be provided by bidder at Udaipur and Bhilwara under guidance of IMTI

Kota, Beside that the bidder is expected to prepare manual for benchmarking of

irrigation projects to help department personnel in conducting studies at their own

level in future.

1.2.2 Water auditing of irrigation projects

Water audit determines the amount of water lost from a distribution system due to

leakage and other reasons such as theft, unauthorized or illegal withdrawals from

systems and the cost of such losses to the distribution system and water users,

thereby facilitating easier and effective management of the resources with improved

reliability (CWC, 2005). It helps in correct diagnosis of the problems faced in order to

suggest optimum solutions. It is also an effective tool for realistic understanding and

assessment of the present performance level and efficiency of the service and the

adaptability of the system for future expansion and rectification of faults during

modernization.

Water audit improves the knowledge and documentation of the distribution system, problem and risk areas and a better understanding of what are happening to the water after it diverted from the headwork. It facilitates in: (i) reduction in water loss, (ii) improvement in financial performance, (iii) improvement in reliability of water supply, (iv) efficient use of existing supply, etc.

Water auditing study has following objectives:

To inspect entire canal system including main canal and distribution network

to assess present discharge carrying capacities between various control

points as compared to design discharge especially at the haed.

14

Study of irrigation project with respect to the original proposed

parameters i.e. yield available and received adequate availability of water

for irrigation.

To prepare irrigation schedule programme as per requirements of intensity

of irrigation and cropping pattern and also suggest alternative cropping

pattern

To prepare the barabandi programme for the command area

Carryout techno-economic feasibility of introduction of micro irrigation

techniques

Details of these objectives for the water auditing study have been given in Table 1.2.

Table 1-2 Objective for present Water Auditing study

S.No. Objectives set forth for water auditing

1 Identification of best management practice.

2 To inspect entire canal system including main canal and distribution network & to

assess present discharge carrying capacities between various control points as

compared to design discharge especially at the head. Identify spots which require de-

silting repair, remodelling etc. and to suggest type of repair required.

3 To inspect 10 percent of the outlets in the entire above mentioned canal system and

to check their structural accuracy and soundness, discharge carrying capacity and to

compare with design structure & discharge and point out difference and remedial

measure required

4 Assessing and monitoring the irrigation efficiency

5 Detail study of irrigation project with respect to the original proposed

parameters i.e. yield available & received adequate availability of water for irrigation

and other purpose and benefits to be occurred from the project.

6 Inspect the ICA of the project as per record and available information of actual

irrigated area in the command.

7 To inspect present discharge measuring system on all canal system

benchmarking it against national / international measurement system and to check

whether they are functional their discharge tables are correct, if not to prepare

correct discharges tables. To suggest remedial measure to bring all above structures

to accepted standards of national / international level.

8 Digitization of the map of CCA if available.

9 To prepare the sample barabandi programme for the one of the selected outlet/minor

of the command.

10 To prepare irrigation schedule as per the requirements of intensity of irrigation and

cropping pattern and also suggest alternative cropping pattern

11 To supply software for preparation of barabandi water audit and accounting and train

about 30 persons of the Zone to operate the software.

12 To prepare inventory of soil in the submergence of command area.

13 To work out the all types of losses in the canal and actual area irrigated and asses

productivity.

15

S.No. Objectives set forth for water auditing

14 Carryout water audit to determine :-

a. Conveyance losses in main canals & conveyance efficiency.

b. Conveyance losses in branches / distributaries & efficiency.

c. Conveyance losses in water & efficiency.

d. Field application efficiency.

e. Water use efficiency at farms field and efficiency.

15 Critically appraise the water release and rotation system decided by the water

distribution committee on the following points in particulars

a. Whether the amount of water decided to be released for each canal is in

conformity with design CCA, irrigation intensity, drinking water and other

authorized requirement?

b. Whether the amount of water and timing as per the crop requirement or more

than that?

c. What can be the best alternative method to regulate releases to obtain the

optimum water use efficiency?

16 a. Assess productivity as against the design (per unit of water supplied and

per unit area for various crops)

b. What can be the alternative cropping pattern which could give the optimum

benefit to the farmer?

17 To work out the deficiencies and proposal to overcome them with action plan and

asses non-revenue water supplied thought canal system.

To start with, the brief introduction of the irrigation project is summarized in next Chapter.

17

2 Bagolia Irrigation Project

2.1 General features

Bagolia Irrigation Project is a medium project constructed on the junction of Ghasa

Palana nallah and Thamal nallah of Berach River during the year 1956. The dam is

located near Badiyar village of Mavli Tehsil via Mavli-Nathdwara Road (RJ SH-49) in

Udaipur District at 24°48'46.45"N latitude, 73°57'11.69"E longitude. This project was

designed for irrigation supply during Rabi season and for Kharif protection under

Monsoon failure while maturity of Kharif crops. The project has created an irrigation

potential of 3676.75 ha and irrigable command area of 1962.6 ha with designed

irrigation intensity of 53.4 percent. This project benefits 18 villages in the command.

The dam is earthen having length of 2865 m with masonary overflow section of

274.3 m. The upstream slope of the dam is protected with stone pitching. There is

dense vegetation/ weed growth along the upstream and downstream face of the

dam, which causing earth cracks dangerous in terms of leakage / seepage. An

uncontrolled Ogee overflow weir and Byewash has been provided to release surplus

water. The length of Byewash cutting is 274.3 m. The surplushing arrangement can

pass the designed discharge of 647.0 m3/s with crest level of 510.54 m.

It receives water from its free catchment of 168.35 sq km whereas the gross

catchment is of the order of 233.10 sq km. The dam is constructed on comparatively

flatter terrain having gross storage capacity of 19.43 MCM (686.0 MCFT) with 6.55

m [21.5 feet] (gauge above lowest sill level), and water is mostly utilized for irrigation

purpose. A live capacity of the reservoir i.e. storage capacity above sill level is 18.86

MCM (666.0 MCFT).

In the upstream of the dam, almost 169 WHS or Anicuts have been constructed

which has largely affected the net inflow to the reservoir. Since year 1995, only 5

times it has received some water and gained full storage capacity in the year 2006.

Average achieved live capacity by the reservoir during 1995-2013 is only 1.68 MCM

and average irrigation achieved during the year 1999-2013 is only 165.0 ha. In last

34 years, reservoir has achieved its full capacity once. By and large, project is facing

huge scarcity of water to utilize its created potential. Therefore Department has to

look into this aspect of augmenting inflows from other surplus catchments.

From the dam, two canals offtakes (i.e. LMC and RMC) at an invert level of 504.1 m.

The length of the main and Minor & sub-Minor canals are 12.21 km and 33.0 km

respectively, and sufficiently covering the CCA.

18

2.1.1 Observation during reconnaissance survey

Following observations were made during the reconnaissance survey which needs

to be considered for operation and maintenance of the project to avoid losses and

damage.

Dam Road and embankment slopes: Top width (dam road) is uniform throughout the

dam or embankment, however, due to black cotton soil, cracks can be seen at few

section. In few sections downstream slope has been disturbed because of the soil

material and non-protection, which need to be protected by using the erosion

resisting grass. Upstream slope of the embankment has been protected by stone

pitching, however, due to growth of Babool trees, stones has been disturbed, which

may lead to the seepage.

Canal: Two main canals (LMC and RMC) off-takes from the reservoir. Most of the

main distribution system is lined. Both rectangular and trapezoidal section has been

used in lined canal. For water auditing the primary requirement is making the canal

accessible and removal of weeds from the canal. However, at the end of Monsoon,

again this reservoir has not received any water for irrigation. After the year 2010-11

no irrigation has been done which left the canal without maintenance. Under this

uncertainity of irrigation supply, it was realy difficult to manage the system.

Gate and Outlets: Outlets are mostly uncontrolled and circular in section. Due to

siltation in the canal, farmers use the obstruction in the canal to raise the water level

for free flowing of the water from the outlets. Gates are mostly damaged due to theft

and non-maintenance.

Gauging discharge measurement in the canal: There is no discharge measuring

devices installed in the distribution system though very few gauges are installed on

the lined canals. For better management and distribution of canal water, discharge

measuring mechanism and gauges need to be installed.

For water auditing and evaluation of canal efficiency (i.e. conveyance efficiency of

the distribution system), the gauging at specific points is necessary:

At head of main canal

At downstream of off taking each minor in main canal

At tail of main canal

At head and tail of each minor

The installation of above gauges will facilitate the selection of reaches of main

canals and minors in head, middle and tail reaches for water auditing and irrigation

efficiency of the system. The above installation of gauges is required to be

completed before start of irrigation.

Soil characteristics: Soil in the command area of mostly three category viz. Red,

Black and Murom having soil depth ranging from 0.5 to 2.0 m.

Cropping pattern: Major cropping pattern of the Rabi season in the area is Wheat,

Barley, Mustard and Gram. The area allocated to the crop is generally depending

upon the live capacity available in the reservoir. Kharif crops are generally rainfed

and composed of Maize, Jowar, Gwar and Bajra.

19

Overflow or spilling arrangements: Unregulated overflow arrangement has been

provided. Length of waste weir is 274.3 m with 91.45 m of byewash

Canal operation: Canal operation irrigation period currently used is 28 days though

the designed period is only 20 days, which itself indicate deficiency in canal

distribution system due to vegetation, silting, unauthorized pumping and increased

losses.

Number of irrigation: Number of irrigation depends upon the live capacity of the reservoir in current year. With full capacity, four irrigation is given sufficient to provide four (1 + 3) irrigations; whereas, only three (1 + 2) and two (1 + 1) can be provided when the live capacity is less than 13 feet and 10 feet respectively. In normal years, only 2 (1 + 1) irrigation supplies are made. The technical, climatic, command area, irrigation infrastructure, crop information are summarized in the salient feature of the project.

20

2.1.2 Salient features of Bagolia irrigation project

Dam features Designed

Name of Dam Bagolia

Tehsil Mavli

District Udaipur

Location 24°48'46.45"N, 73°57'11.69"E

Access road Mavli-Nathdwara Road (RJ SH-49)

Nearby village Badiyar

Name of River / Nalla Tributary of

Berach/Berach/Banas/Chambal

Upstream medium/major projects 169

Year of Completion 1956

Capital Cost 13.11 lacs

B-Catchment Area

Gross area 233.10 sq km (90 sq mile)

Intercepted area 64.75 sq km (25 sq mile)

Free catchment area 168.35 sq km (65 sq mile)

Net catchment area 168.35 sq km (65 sq mile)

Inflow other than catchment Nil

Average annual rainfall 575.0 mm

Average Monsoon rainfall 575.0 mm

No. of Raingauges 3

Name of the Rain gauge station Nathdwara, Bagolia, Nandsamand

Average annual yield (1981-2013) 2.29 MCM (80.8 MCFT)

Other climatic data

Temp Max 44.6 °C

Temp. Min 3.5 °C

Relative Humidity 48.8 %

Average annual yield (1981-2013) 2.29 MCM (80.8 MCFT)

Gross Storage Capacity 19.425 MCM (686.0 MCFT)

Live Storage Capacity 18.86 MCM (666.0 MCFT)

Dead storage capacity 0.565 MCM (20.0 MCFT)

Type of Dam Earthen Dam

Maximum Height of Dam 12.20 m (40.0 ft)

21


Main Dam -Total Length 2865 m (9397.2 ft)

Top width of dam 4.0 m (13.12)

Full reservoir level, FRL/FTL 510.54 m (1675.0 ft)

Maximum water level, MWL 511.76 m (1679.0 ft)

Top bund level, TBL 513.59 m (1685.0 ft)

Full tank gauge 6.55 m (21.5 ft)

Highest flood level, HFL NA

Top elevation of Parapet NA

Sill Level, SL (m) 504.1 m (1653.50 ft)

Whether levels are GTS / Arbitrary Arbitrary

Surplusing Arrangements

a)Gated Spillway :Type and dimension

NIL

Crest levels (m) 510.54 m (1675.0 ft)

b) Overflow weir: Type and length c)Bye-wash cutting Length

Ogee shape weir, 274.3 m length (899.7 ft) 91.45 m

Designed maximum discharge 647.0 m3/s (22892.0 cfs)

Max. observed flood 340.0 m3/s (12007.0 cfs)

E-Canals / Command

Canal Sill level (m)

Capacity at head (m

3/s)

Length (km)

GCA (ha) CCA (ha) ICA (ha)

LMC 504.1 1.565 9.21 3593.0 3455 1831

RMC 504.1 0.190 3.00 261.85 220.75 131.6

Total 1.755 12.21 3854.85 3676.75 1962.6

Length of minors and sub-minors: 33.0 km

Irrigation intensity (%) 53.4

Current status/ modification required

Due to less or no water availability in the tank since long time because of the construction of anicuts in the catchment, canals are not running which induced vegetation, damage of the linings, etc. Water transfer scheme from surplus catchment/basin may be explored.

Dam structure Earthen

Gate NA

22


Canal gate Vertical sluice

Modernization Canal modernization and data harmonization while ensuring water availability

Any plan developed/ under execution

NA

Structural /mechanical requirement Canal flow measurement

Planning/ management requirement Ensuring water availability

Water user association (WUA) available Yes/ no

No

Problem in Command area No

Cropping pattern Kharif: rainfed crops; Rabi: as per ground water resources

Kharif (i) Maize, (ii) Jowar, (iii) Gwar, (iv) Bajra

Rabi (i) Wheat, (ii) Mustard, (iii) Gram, (iv) Barley

Jayad NA

Irrigation method Surface-furrow

Fertilizer DAP, Urea, Organic manure

Availability /utilization of seeds Govt. distribution system

Other problem with canal

Excess utilization/ supply through canal in some part due to political pressure

Not reported

Theft/ canal breach Not recorded

Silting /vegetation growth in canal Yes

Damage at gates/ uncontrolled Yes

Workforce availability/ adequate number

Insufficient

Senior level (above EE) 1

Middle (AE ) 1

Junior JE 0

Technical staff for site NA

Admin staff 1

Normal annual irrigation Almost Nil since 1993 except 2 years in between

Name of villages under Command 18

23

2.2 Catchment Description

The gross catchment ((Table 2.1) of the Bagolia dam comprised an area of 233.10

sq km out of which only 168.35 sq km drainage area directly contributes to the

reservoir inflow (Figure 2.1). In rest of catchment other small reservoir projects exists

including many anicuts.

Table 2-1 Catchment area of the Bagolia dam

Parameter Description

Gross area 233.10 sq km

Intercepted area 64.75 sq km

Free catchment area 168.35 sq km

Net Catchment area 168.35 sq km

Type Composite: Forest +Agriculture+Urban

No. of WHS/Anicuts 169 including 1 Minor project

2.2.1 Climate-Rainfall

Climatologically, the catchment can be categorized as semi-arid, meaning that the

annual potential evapotranspiration loss is quite higher than the annual rainfall

causing soil moisture deficit. The rainfall in the catchment is dominated by the South-

West Monsoon during July to Mid-October that contributes almost 100 percent of the

annual rainfall. The areal average annual rainfall of the catchment is 569.0 mm.

24

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015

An

nu

al R

ain

fall

(mm

)

Year

Rainfall

Average

50% dependable rainfall

75%-dependable rainfall

Linear (Rainfall)

Figure 2-1 Rainfall pattern of the Bagolia dam catchment

Considering Figure 2-2, overall increasing trend has been observed in the annual or

monsoon rainfall. Figure 2-2 also depicts the 50% and 75% dependable year rainfall.

To test the significance of this falling/declining trend, a well-established statistical

approach known as Mann-Kendal’ Test is employed and explained in the following

section.

25

Figure 2-2 Catchment area map of Bagolia dam including the upstream storages

27

2.2.2 The Mann-Kendal’s (MK) test for rainfall trend analysis

The Mann-Kendal (MK) test searches for a trend in a time series without specifying whether the

trend is linear or nonlinear. The Mann-Kendall test for detecting monotonic trends in hydrologic

time series is described by Yue et al. (2002). It is based on the test statistics S, which is defined

as:

1

1 1

sgn ( )n n

j i

i j i

S x x

(2.1)

where, jx are the sequential data values, n is the length of the data set and

1, 0

sgn ( ) 0, 0

1, 0

for t

t for t

for t

(2.2)

The value of S indicates the direction of trend. A negative (positive) value indicate falling (rising) trend. Mann-Kendall have documented that when 8n , the test statistics S is approximately

normally distributed with mean and variance as follows:

( ) 0E S (2.3)

1

1( ) ( 1) (2 5) ( 1)(2 5)

18

m

i i i

i

Var S n n n t t t

(2.4)

where, m is the number of tied groups and it is the size of the thi tie group. The standardized

test statistics Z is computed as follows.

1, 0

( )

0 , 0

1, 0

( )

MK

Sfor S

Var S

Z for S

Sfor S

Var S

(2.5)

The standardized Mann-Kendall statistics Z follows the standard normal distribution with zero

mean and unit variance. If Z ≥ Z1 – (α/2), the null hypothesis about no trend is rejected at the

significance level α (10% in this study).

An approach to perform the trend analysis of time series with presence of significant serial

correlation using the Mann-Kendall test is to remove the serial correlation from data first and

then apply the test. Among the various approaches, the pre-whitening approach is most

common which involves computation of serial correlation and removing the correlation if the

calculated serial correlation is significant at 0.05 significance level. The pre-whitening is

accomplished as follows:

'1 1t t tX x r x (2.6)

where, tx = original time series with autocorrelation for time interval t; 'tX = pre-whitened time

series; and 1r = the lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient. This pre-whitened series is then subjected

to Mann-Kendall test (i.e. eqs. 2.1 to 2.5) for detecting the trend.

Using this statistical test, the Z-statistics for the annual or Monsoon rainfall of 34 years was

+0.139, which is less than the critical absolute value of 1.96 at 5% significance level, indicating

that the annual rainfall of Bagolia catchment do not have significance trend though there is a

increasing trend as the Z-statistic value is positive.

28

2.2.3 Lake evaporation

Evaporation losses are one of the major losses from the reservoir. However, there is no

instrumentation available for the direct measurement of the lake evaporation. Under this

circumstance, a most reliable method of estimating the lake evaporation i.e. Penman Method

has been used utilizing the basic meteorological data of RCA-CTAE, Udaipur. A detailed step of

using this methodology is as follows:

The Penman (Penman, 1948), a well-known combination equation (i.e. combination of an

energy balance and an aerodynamic formula) can be expressed as follows:

na

RE E

(2.7)

where, E evaporation (mm d-1

), latent heat of vaporization (MJ kg-1

) = 2.45 MJ kg-1

,

slope of the saturated vapor pressure curve (i.e. /se T ) (kPa °C-1

), se saturated vapor

pressure (kPa), T = temperature (°C-1

), nR net radiation flux (MJ m-2

d-1

), G = sensible heat flux

into soil (MJ m-2

d-1

), psychometric constant (kPa °C-1

) = 0.059 kPa °C-1

, Ea = vapor

transport flux (mm d-1

) = f {u2, (es – ea)}, u2 = wind speed (m s-1

), and ea = actual vapor pressure

(kPa). Variables used in eq. (2.7) can be estimated from various relationships summarized in

Table 2-2.

Table 2-2 Auxiliary equations used for Penman method

Parameter Relationships

Relative humidity, RH (%) 100%

( )

a

o

eRH

e T

( )oe T is the saturation vapor pressure at same temperature (kPa), T

is temperature (°C ), and ea is the actual vapor pressure (kPa)

Saturation vapor pressure, es (k Pa)

17.27( ) 0.6108exp

237.3

o Te T

T

max min0.5[ ( ) ( )]o o

se e T e T

Tmax and Tmin are the daily maximum and minimum temperatures (°C)

Actual vapor pressure, ea (k Pa) 0 17.27

( ) 0.6108exp237.3

dewa dew

dew

Te e T

T

( /100)a se e RH

Vapor transport flux, Ea (MJ m

-2d

-1)

2

( ) ( )

( ) 1.313 1.381

a s aE f u e e

f u u

Where u2 is the wind speed at 2 m above the surface (m s-1

)

02

0

ln(2 / )

ln( / )z

zu u

z z

Where uz is the wind speed at z m above the surface (m s-1

), z0 is the surface roughness height =0.002 m for water.

slope if the saturation

vapor pressure, (kPa °C

-1)

2

17.274098 0.6108exp

237.3

( 237.3)

T

T

T

29


Extraterrestrial radiation, Ra (MJ m

-2d

-1)

24(60)[ sin( ) sin( )

cos( ) cos( ) sin( )]

a sc r s

s

R G d

Gsc = solar constant (0.0820 MJ m-2

min-1

)

1 0.033cos(2 /365)rd J

J = number of the day in the year between 1 (1st January) and 365 or

366 (31st December)

arccos[ tan( ) tan( )]s

latitude (radian) [radian = π (decimal degree) / 180]

20.409sin 1.39

365

J

Solar radiation, Rs (MJ m

-2d

-1)

When n = N, the solar radiation will becomes the clear sky solar radiation.

s s s a

nR a b R

N

n = actual duration of sunshine hours (hours); N = maximum possible daylight hours (hours); n/N = relative sunshine hour (dimensionless); as = 0.25, and bs = 0.50

24 /sN

Net shortwave radiation, Rns (MJ m

-2d

-1)

(1 )ns sR R

albedo or reflection coefficient.

For hypothetical grass reference, = 0.23

For deep water = 0.04 to 0.09

For shallow water, = 0.09 to 0.12

Net longwave radiation, Rnl

(MJ m-2

d-1

)

4 4

max, min,

2

(0.34 0.14 ) 1.35 0.35

K K

nl

sa

so

T TR

Re

R

Stefan-Boltzman constant (= 4.903 x 10-9

MJ K-4

m-2

day-1

)

max,KT daily maximum temperature (K) [K = °C + 273.16];

min,KT daily minimum temperature (K);

/s soR R relative shortwave radiation (≤1.0).

5(0.75 2 10 )so aR EL R

EL is the mean elevation of the reservoir site (m amsl)

Net radiation, Rn (MJ m

-2d

-1)

n ns nlR R R

Utilizing the meteorological data, the lake evaporation is computed using Eq. (2.8) and depicted

in Figure 2-3. A 15-daily estimate of reservoir evaporation is tabulated in Table 2-3.

5

(mm) ( )

(MCM) 10 ( )

lake

lake

E E P

E E P A

(2.8)

30

Where, E is the evaporation (mm) and P is the rainfall over the reservoir (mm), and Ᾱ is the

avareage water surface area of the reservoir during the period (ha).

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00

01-01-05 16-05-06 28-09-07 09-02-09 24-06-10 06-11-11 20-03-13

Evapora

tion (

mm

)

Date

Figure 2-3 Estimated values of daily evaporation from Bagolia reservoir using Penman method

Table 2-3 Estimated 15-daily evaporation (mm) for Bagolia reservoir using Penman method

Year/ Month

15-days

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Oct I 60.4 64.8 57.1 60.2 56.2 55.1 61.0 58.1 64.8

II 55.5 57.7 54.0 58.6 54.3 51.8 55.9 55.9 57.7

Nov I 43.6 42.7 40.7 48.1 39.3 34.7 43.9 42.4 42.7

II 40.3 36.3 36.5 38.9 35.1 27.5 39.7 38.0 36.3

Dec I 34.8 36.6 33.5 32.3 32.4 27.8 37.6 36.0 36.6

II 34.7 35.8 31.3 37.3 30.8 26.9 32.8 34.9 35.8

Jan I 30.5 34.5 32.0 33.1 32.6 26.4 31.2 31.5 34.5

II 42.0 50.4 36.3 36.8 36.9 33.2 38.3 39.1 50.4

Feb I 44.5 48.3 37.6 47.0 45.2 42.5 44.5 44.2 48.3

II 53.6 44.4 41.8 48.2 42.4 42.4 52.0 46.4 44.4

Mar I 57.6 64.1 58.5 68.9 64.1 58.9 64.6 62.4 64.1

II 81.7 76.3 71.4 81.5 87.1 89.7 78.4 80.9 76.3

Apr I 94.9 90.9 85.8 99.9 92.5 80.4 94.3 91.2 90.9

II 118.9 107.4 105.6 98.1 130.2 99.8 93.2 107.6 107.4

May I 142.3 123.3 128.4 135.4 136.2 120.4 96.9 126.1 123.3

II 138.9 131.9 150.3 140.0 156.2 122.3 117.3 136.7 131.9

31

Year/ Month

15-days

2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Jun I 109.2 123.1 89.6 133.5 115.2 105.0 110.5 112.3 123.1

II 93.9 91.6 82.5 92.4 114.2 71.2 125.7 95.9 91.6

Jul I 63.9 61.6 56.9 70.1 73.6 59.8 79.1 66.4 61.6

II 52.4 78.7 71.9 46.2 54.9 54.0 73.1 61.6 78.7

Aug I 44.9 49.2 42.7 49.6 43.0 45.6 49.9 46.4 49.2

II 44.3 62.4 68.4 54.7 52.6 52.1 52.8 55.3 62.4

Sep I 61.1 59.9 62.7 63.6 39.1 42.1 41.5 52.9 59.9

II 59.6 56.2 58.0 63.9 58.3 57.5 54.9 58.3 56.2

Total 1603.3 1628.2 1533.3 1638.5 1622.0 1427.3 1569.0 1580.5 1628.2

Analysig the estimated evaporation data for Bagolia reservoir for the period of five years, the

average annual evaporation rate is approximately 1558.0 mm, and during the month of reservoir

operation (especially from October to March) the value of evaporation loss is 564.8 mm.

2.2.4 Potential evapotranspiration or Reference crop evapotranspiration

Accuracy of the reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) is very important in design and planning

of the irrigation projects as it forms the basic input for the estimation of irrigation requirement.

Considering this phylosphy, a most acceptable method has been used in this study, i.e. the

Penman-Monteith method. This method uses the various climatic parameters generally recorded

at climatic or weather stations. The governing equation for estimating ETo is as follows

(Monteith, 1965; Allen et al., 1998).

0

2

2

9000.408 ( ) ( )

273

(1 0.34 )

n z z

o

R G u e eTET

u

(2.9)

In eq. (2.9) oET the grass reference ET (mm/d), nR the net radiation (MJ m-2

d-1

), G the

sensible heat exchange from the surface to the soil or water (MJ m-2

d-1

), T the mean daily

temperature (ºC), the slope of the saturation vapor pressure versus temperature (kPa ºC-

1), the psychometric constant (kPa ºC

-1), 2u the mean 24-hour wind speed at 2 m above

the ground (ms-1

), o

ze the saturation vapor pressure based on measurements at 1.5 to 2.0 m

(kPa), and ze the actual vapor pressure (kPa). The parameters appeared in the above

equation can be determined using the auxiliary equations summarized in Table 2-4.

Using the climatic data, daily values of reference crop evapotranspiration was estimated. The

15-daily and monthly estimate of the reference crop evapotranspiration is presented in Table2-5.

32

Table 2-4 Auxiliary equations used for Penman-Monteith method


Relative humidity, RH (%) 100%

( )

a

o

eRH

e T

( )oe T is the saturation vapor pressure at same temperature (kPa), T

is temperature (°C ), and ea is the actual vapor pressure (kPa)

Saturation vapor pressure, es (k Pa)

17.27( ) 0.6108exp

237.3

o Te T

T

max min0.5[ ( ) ( )]o o

se e T e T

Tmax and Tmin are the daily maximum and minimum temperatures (°C)

Actual vapor pressure, ea (k Pa) 0 17.27

( ) 0.6108exp237.3

dewa dew

dew

Te e T

T

( /100)a se e RH

U2 (m/s)

2

4.87

ln(67.8 5.42)zu u

z

Where uz is the wind speed at z m above the surface (m s-1

), z0 is the surface roughness height =0.002 m for water.

slope if the saturation

vapor pressure, (kPa °C

-1)

2

17.274098 0.6108exp

237.3

( 237.3)

T

T

T

Extraterrestrial radiation, Ra (MJ m

-2d

-1)

24(60)[ sin( ) sin( )

cos( ) cos( ) sin( )]

a sc r s

s

R G d

Gsc = solar constant (0.0820 MJ m-2

min-1

)

1 0.033cos(2 /365)rd J

J = number of the day in the year between 1 (1st January) and 365 or

366 (31st December)

arccos[ tan( ) tan( )]s

latitude (radian) [radian = π (decimal degree) / 180]

20.409sin 1.39

365

J

Solar radiation, Rs (MJ m

-2d

-1)

When n = N, the solar radiation will becomes the clear sky solar radiation.

s s s a

nR a b R

N

n = actual duration of sunshine hours (hours); N = maximum possible daylight hours (hours); n/N = relative sunshine hour (dimensionless); as = 0.25, and bs = 0.50

24 /sN

Net shortwave radiation, Rns (MJ m

-2d

-1)

(1 )ns sR R

albedo or reflection coefficient.

For hypothetical grass reference, = 0.23

For deep water = 0.04 to 0.09

For shallow water, = 0.09 to 0.12

33


Net longwave radiation, Rnl

(MJ m-2

d-1

)

4 4

max, min,

2

(0.34 0.14 ) 1.35 0.35

K K

nl

sa

so

T TR

Re

R

Stefan-Boltzman constant (= 4.903 x 10-9

MJ K-4

m-2

day-1

)

max,KT daily maximum temperature (K) [K = °C + 273.16];

min,KT daily minimum temperature (K);

/s soR R relative shortwave radiation (≤1.0).

5(0.75 2 10 )so aR EL R

where, Rso is the clear-sky solar radiation (MJ m-2

d-1

), EL is the mean elevation of the reservoir site (m amsl).

Net radiation, Rn (MJ m

-2d

-1)

n ns nlR R R

Soil heat flux, G (MJ m

-2d

-1)

For daily periods, the magnitude of G averaged over 24 hours

beneath a fully vegetated grass or alfalfa reference surface is

relatively small in comparison with Rn. Therefore, for daily

computation of ET0, G can be ignored (i.e. G = 0). For water surface,

G = 0.

Psychometric constant, γ (kPa °C

-1)

30.665 10pc P

P

where, P is the atmospheric pressure (kPa), λ is the latent heat of

vaporization (2.45 MJ kg-1

), cp is the specific heat at constant

pressure (1.013 x 10-3

MJ kg-1

°C-1

), and ε is the ratio molecular

weight of water vapor/dry air = 0.622.

The simplified equation for relating the atmospheric pressure and

elevation above mean sea level can be given as follows:

5.26293 0.0065

101.3293

ELP

Table 2-5 Estimated 15-daily reference crop evapotranspiration (mm) for Bagolia using Penman-

Monteith method

Year/ Month 15-day 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Jan I 33.4 30.5 34.5 32.0 33.1 32.6 26.4 31.2

II 37.2 42.0 50.4 36.3 36.8 36.9 33.2 38.3

Feb I 48.7 44.5 48.3 37.6 47.0 45.2 42.5 44.5

II 50.5 53.6 44.4 41.8 48.2 42.4 42.4 52.0

Mar I 64.7 57.6 64.1 58.5 68.9 64.1 58.9 64.6

34

Year/ Month 15-day 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

II 97.6 81.7 76.3 71.4 81.5 87.1 89.7 78.4

Apr I 99.3 94.9 90.9 85.8 99.9 92.5 80.4 94.3

II 106.2 118.9 107.4 105.6 98.1 130.2 99.8 93.2

May I 120.3 142.3 123.3 128.4 135.4 136.2 120.4 96.9

II 139.8 138.9 131.9 150.3 140.0 156.2 122.3 117.3

Jun I 134.9 109.2 123.1 89.6 133.5 115.2 105.0 110.5

II 104.8 93.9 91.6 82.5 92.4 114.2 71.2 125.7

Jul I 76.9 63.9 61.6 56.9 70.1 73.6 59.8 79.1

II 83.0 52.4 78.7 71.9 46.2 54.9 54.0 73.1

Aug I 55.9 44.9 49.2 42.7 49.6 43.0 45.6 49.9

II 75.7 44.3 62.4 68.4 54.7 52.6 52.1 52.8

Sep I 62.1 61.1 59.9 62.7 63.6 39.1 42.1 41.5

II 50.9 59.6 56.2 58.0 63.9 58.3 57.5 54.9

Oct I 60.4 64.8 57.1 60.2 56.2 55.1 61.0 58.1

II 55.5 57.7 54.0 58.6 54.3 51.8 55.9 55.9

Nov I 43.6 42.7 40.7 48.1 39.3 34.7 43.9 42.4

II 40.3 36.3 36.5 38.9 35.1 27.5 39.7 38.0

Dec I 34.8 36.6 33.5 32.3 32.4 27.8 37.6 36.0

II 34.7 35.8 31.3 37.3 30.8 26.9 32.8 34.9

Since the benchmarking analyses has been proposed to carry out based on the data of at least

10 years, therefore to supplement the series the available data will be recycled for further use.

2.2.5 Soil, land use and water harvesting structures

The topography of the catchment is undulating composed of hills and hillocks with high to

medium and gentle slopes. The catchment is poor with respect to generating the surface runoff.

In the catchment, sandy loam soil is dominating followed by Sandy soil (Figure 2-4). A statistical

abstract of the soil texture in the catchment is shown in Table 2-6. The soil in the catchment is

dominated by medium brown clay soil and murram with average thickness of 0.20 to 1.6 m. For

such soil group initial rainfall abstraction is high for light rainfall intensity (Figure 2-5).

Table 2-6 Soil texture in the Bagolia Dam catchment

Soil Texture Area (km2)

% of Catchment Area

Clay 15.4 6.6

Sand 55.5 23.8

Sandy Loam 162.1 69.6

Total 233.0 100.0

The catchment of the Bagolia dam shows high increase in barren land (8.33 per cent in 1972

and 19.8 per cent in year 2008), which is similar to other two Udaisagar and Vallabhnagar dam

catchment. Habitation area has increased almost double in 2008 as compared to 1972. Water

bodies and agriculture area has also shown reduction similar to Udaisagar and Vallabhnagar

35

dam catchment. The catchment is composed of scarce hilly forest, gently sloped land with

scrubs and bushes and agriculture and urban lands (Figure 2-6 and 2-7 and Table 2-7).

Figure 2-4 Map showing the soil texture of the Bagolia Dam catchment

Table 2-7 Landuse statistics of the Bagolia command area

Land class Year 1972 Year 2008

Water Bodies 1.37 1.27

Agriculture 41.71 36.30

Forest 24.78 24.07

Hills and Hillocks 22.37 18.64

Barren 8.33 19.81

Habitation 1.50 2.95

36

Figure 2-5 Soil map of the Bagolia reservoir catchment and command

Figure 2-6 Land use in Bagolia dam catchment (1972)

37

Figure 2-7 Land use in Bagolia dam catchment (2008)

2.2.6 Water harvesting structures or anicuts

Construction of the anicuts or water harvesting structures has definitely benefitted the local

environment; however, it has also negative impacts on medium and major irrigation projects and

in turn the major beneficieries. In general, there are few inventories available for the anicuts or

water harvesting structures having the submergence area as well as the storage capacity.

Under such circumstances, it becomes difficult to assess the actual upstream storage in the

catchment affecting the inflow to the medium and major projects.

Therefore, to estimate the storage capacity of the upstream water harvesting structures or

anicuts, a relationship has been saught using the available set of submergence area and

storage capacities of the 80 anicuts or reservoirs with capacity ranging between 0.25 to 84

MCM. Based on the fitting of the data (Figure 2-8), the derived relationship is given as follows:

0.0515V A (2.10)

where A is the submergence area (ha) and V is the storage capacity (MCM). The derived

relationship has the root mean squared error (RMSE) is 2.79 MCM, and is reasonable for its

application.

The catchment of the Bagolia Reservoir has many (approximately 169 in numbers including

upstream of the Udaisagat dam) other minor and medium water resources projects along with

with large numbers of the water harvesting structures (Figure 2-1). Based on the inventory made

through the Geographic Information System (GIS) and satellite imageries, the estimated

submergence is approximately 3973 ha. Using the above relationship, the estimated upstream

storage capacity in the Bagolia catchment is 40.0 MCM ranging between 0.002 – 12.0 MCM

(0.07 – 423.8 MCFT). It reveals that before filling of the Bagolia reservoir, approximately 204.6

MCM of water has to be satisfied in the upstream.

38

V = 0.0515 x AR² = 0.6512

0.1

1

10

100

0 200 400 600 800 1000

Sto

rage C

apacity,

V (

MC

M)

Submergence Area, A (ha)

Figure 2-8 Storage capacity versus submergence area relationship

2.3 Irrigation Command and Cropping Pattern

Based on the available information and site inspection, the command area of the project has

originally undulated topography altered for the cultivation with good drainage conditions. The

land holding of the command area is small to medium. A brief description of the command area

is given below:

Soil characteristics: Soil in the command area of mostly three category viz. medium brown clay

having soil depth ranging from 0.5 to 1.2 m. Soil has good water retention capacity adequate for

the Wheat crop. If good rainfall is received during the Monsoon, at-least first irrigation

(commonly known as Relni) is not required for such crops.

Cropping pattern: Major cropping pattern of the Rabi season in the area is Wheat, Barley,

Mustard and Gram. The area allocated to the crop is generally depending upon the water

availability in the reservoir or live capacity of the reservoir. Kharif crops are generally rainfed and

composed of Maize, Jowar, and Bajra. The cropping pattern of the Bagolia irrigation command

area is summarized in Table 2-8 and 2-9 for Rabi and Kharif crops.

Canal operation: Canal operation irrigation period currently used is 28 days though the

recommended designed period is only 15 days, which itself indicate deficiency in canal

distribution system due to vegetation, silting, unauthorized pumping and increased losses.

Number of irrigation: In general, number of irrigation depends upon the water availability, soil

type and crop. For majority of the crops sown in the area requires three to four irrigation

depending upon the crop.

39

Table 2-8 Cropping pattern of the Bagolia command area during Rabi season

Year Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Fodder

% % % % %

1999-00 67.57 5.41 2.70 10.81 13.51

2000-01 67.57 5.41 2.70 10.81 13.51

2001-02 62.84 6.83 2.73 21.86 5.74

2002-03 61.27 8.67 1.16 19.65 9.25

2003-04 57.32 6.71 0.00 29.27 6.71

2004-05 61.81 8.52 0.80 22.81 6.05

2005-06 52.20 6.69 0.00 39.12 1.99

2006-07 77.92 8.78 0.23 9.10 3.98

2007-08 60.45 10.15 0.00 26.34 3.06

2008-09 61.81 8.52 0.80 22.81 6.05

2009-10 52.20 6.69 0.00 39.12 1.99

2010-11 62.03 11.04 0.35 18.87 7.71

2011-12 67.99 16.70 0.23 13.53 1.55

2012-13 52.20 6.69 0.00 39.12 1.99

2013-14 62.03 11.04 0.35 18.87 7.71

Average 61.81 8.52 0.80 22.81 6.05

Table 2-9 Cropping pattern of the Bagolia command area during Kharif season

Year Maize Jowar Groundnut Soybean Fodder

% % % % %

1999-00 62.68 7.81 6.84 0.01 26.01

2000-01 63.41 4.28 6.15 0.01 27.92

2001-02 68.91 1.62 6.75 0.00 22.73

2002-03 69.59 1.86 12.32 0.00 16.23

2003-04 73.22 0.71 6.58 0.00 19.49

2004-05 64.19 0.38 5.40 0.01 30.02

2005-06 61.88 0.00 2.54 0.00 35.58

2006-07 61.72 0.00 5.56 0.03 32.69

2007-08 59.13 0.00 6.16 0.00 34.71

2008-09 64.19 0.38 5.40 0.01 30.02

2009-10 61.88 0.00 2.54 0.00 35.58

2010-11 62.21 0.00 5.49 0.06 32.24

2011-12 63.44 0.00 3.46 0.00 33.10

2012-13 61.88 0.00 2.54 0.00 35.58

2013-14 62.21 0.00 5.49 0.06 32.24

Average 64.04 1.14 5.55 0.01 29.61

Canal network: Canal network in the command area is sufficient for the equitable distribution.

However, due to the canal silting and vegetation leading to the alteration in the longitudinal

section, and continuous miss-management like unauthorized pumping breaching, leakage from

the gates, seepage, etc. water do not reach to tail end of the system. The canal network

including the outlet and their command area with village boundary is shown in Figure 2-9.

Canal lining: The LMC and RMC are partially lined though some damage may be seen.

Secondary distribution systems like or minors are mostly unlined.

40

Canal monitoring: Only two to three gauges has been installed in the main canals. There is no

discharge measuring devices installed in the system. At least all the gates should have the

gauge. In the absence of gauges, distribution of water in the command may be some time

questionable to the farmers.

Overall maintenance: In spite of the above, entire system need to be relooked, and regular

maintenance of the canal infrastructure including structures, canal road, cleaning etc. are

needed. However, it is also requisite to ensure irrigation water supply through inter basin water

transfer. Since most of the projects follows the reservoir drawdown every year, and this reservoir

is not getting water, therefore need some extra attention to the earthen structure during high

rainfall if reservoir get filled up.

Staffing: To accomplish above observation, sufficient and trained staff are required in the

project. A general guideline for field staffing is geven in Annexure A.13.

Performance evaluation: The performance of the project needs to be evaluated at the end of

every financial year and if required necessary measures should be taken. For which, revenue

generation due to irrigation invoicing data should be shared to the WRD.

The tree-diagram of the Bagolia project is presented in Figure 2-10, which describes chainage,

capacity and length of the minor off-takes, distributary and outlets of both the main canals.

2.3.1 Crop coefficient for representative crops

Crop coefficient, kc is used to estimate the crop water requirement of the crop. Its value varies

with the crop growing stages and summarized in Table 2-10 and 2-11 for Rabi and Kharif crops,

respectively. The 10-daily values of crop coefficients are presented in Annexure A.2.

Table 2-10 Crop coefficient of Rabi crops

Crop Days Date of sowing

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr

I II I II I II I II I II I II I II

Wheat 130 16-Nov 0.22 0.44 0.84 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.90 0.20

Barley 130 07-Nov 0.21 0.21 0.70 1.11 1.15 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.80 0.20

Gram 141 21-Oct 0.10 0.10 0.28 0.65 1.05 1.15 1.15 1.15 0.55 0.25

Mustard 130 16-Oct 0.10 0.10 0.54 0.90 1.15 1.15 1.12 0.66 0.25

Rabi Fodder

182 16-Oct 0.50 0.76 0.85 0.90 0.6 0.85 0.54 0.85 0.60 0.89 0.60 0.85

Table 2-11 Crop coefficient of Kharif crops

Crop Days Date of sowing

Oct Nov Jul Aug Sep

I II I II I II I II I II

Maize 102 01-Jul 0.6 0.12 0.76 1.15 1.15 1.04 0.72

Soybean 130 01-Jul 1.05 0.76 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.52 0.9 1.05 1.05

Groundnut 130 01-Jul 1.05 0.76 0.16 0.12 0.12 0.52 0.9 1.05 1.05

Jowar 115 01-Jul 0.75 0.5 0.12 0.35 0.7 0.75 1 1.05

41

Figure 2-9 Command area map of the Bagolia irrigation project showing the canal network, individual command and village boundary

43

Bagoliya Irrigation Scheme

Right Main Canal Left Main Canal

Q 0.19 cumec Q 1.565 cumec

1.0 km CCA 221 ha 1.0 km CCA 3455 ha

ICA 132 ha ICA 1831 ha

2.0 km 2.0 km

3.0 km 3.0 km

4.0 km

5.0 km

5.88 km

6.0 km 1.50 km Q 0.163 cumec

Mavli Minor I CCA 360 ha

ICA 191 ha

9.0 km 6.63 km

Q 0.142 cumec Lopada Minor 3.0 km

CCA 313 ha Mavli Minor II Q 0.109 cumec

ICA 166 ha CCA 241 ha

ICA 128 ha

8.07 km 6 km

Bishan Pura Minor Q 0.34 cumec

CCA 749 ha

ICA 397 ha

9.21 km 9.0 km

Khempura Minor Q 0.576 cumec

CCA 1272 ha

ICA 674 ha

4.50 km Q 0.231 cumec

Tara Minor CCA 510 ha

ICA 270 ha

Figure 2-10 Tree-diagram of the canal distribution system of Bagolia irrigation project

45

2.3.2 Population, household and Literacy

Total population of Bagolia command villages is about 17246 (Census 2011). SC and ST population of dam command is 1696 and 3921 respectively. Literacy rate for male and female is 35.3 and 18.14 respectively. Total literate population is 53.44, which is less than the Udaipur district literate population 61.83 per cent. Urban and rural population of district Udaipur differs very sharp with respect of literacy. Urban population is 87.51 percent literate whereas, only 54.93 per cent rural population is literate. Total household in the villages of command area is about 3616 (Census 2011).

2.3.3 Workers

Work is defined as participation in any economically productive activity. All persons engaged in 'work' are workers. Persons who are engaged in cultivation or milk production even solely for domestic consumption are also treated as workers. Reference period for determining a person as worker and non-worker is one year preceding the date of enumeration (Census, 2011). Total workers in the Bagolia command area are 50.22 per cent of the total population. Out of the total workers 67.3 are Main and 32.7 are Marginal workers. Main and Marginal cultivator population is 38.03 and 8.09 per cent respectively, whereas agriculture labors of these categories contribute 4.38 and 19.39 per cent.

Percentage of Total worker from Population

Percentage of Main worker from total worker

Percentage of Marginal worker from total worker

Percentage of Main cultivator from total worker

Percentage of Main Agricultural labour from Total worker

Percentage of Marginal Cultivator from total worker

Percentage of Marginal Agriculture labour from total worker

50.22 67.30 32.70 38.03 4.38 8.09 19.39

46

2.4 Baseline Summary

Code Item Possible options

Location Maoli-Nathdwara Road (RJ SH-49)

Dl District Udaipur

D2 Name of the Project / Scheme Bagolia irrigation Project

D3 Name of System / Sub-system Water Resources Department, Udaipur Division

D4 River / Basin / Sub-Basin Tributary of Berach/Berach/Banas/Chambal

Three-four tanks located in the upstream of catchment

D5 Latitude / Longitude 24°48'46.45"N, 73°57'11.69"E

Climate and soils

D6 Climate (Arid, Semi-arid Humid,

Humid tropics)

Semi-arid

D7 Average annual rainfall (mm) 575.2 mm

D8 Average annual reference crop

potential evapotranspiration, ETc

(mm)

1758.2 mm

D9 Peak daily reference crop

potential evapotranspiration,

Etc. (mm /day)

7.11 mm/d

D10 Predominant soil types (s) and

percentage of total area of each

type (Clay/ Clay loam/ Loam/

Silty clay loam/ Sand)

Sandy loam to Sandy

Institutional

D11 Year first operational 1956

D12 Type of management

Government agency Water users

Association / Federation of WUA's

Sub-divisional Irrigation Office, Water Resources

Department, Udaipur Division (Girva)

No WUA

D13 Agency functions (to indicate

the extent the Agency controls

the system/sub- system)

Irrigation and drainage service/

Water Resources management/

Reservoir management/ Flood

control/ Domestic water supply

Fisheries Others

Irrigation and drainage service

D14 Type of revenue collection

(Tax on irrigated area/ Charge on

crop type and area/ Charge on

volume of water delivered-

charge per irrigation/ Charge

based on number of watering

Charge on Crop-wise irrigated area

47


per seasons)

D15 Agency entrusted with

Revenue Collection (Water

Resources Department Revenue

Department /WUA/ Others)

Revenue Department

D16 Land ownership (Government/

Private)

Private

Socio-economic

D17 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) NA

D18 Farming system

Cash crop

Food grains crop

Mixed cash / Food grains crop

Mixed cash and Food grains crop

D19 Marketing

Government marketing board

Private traders

Local market

Regional / national market

Government marketing board

Private traders

Local market

D20 Pricing

Government controlled prices

Local market prices

Government controlled prices: Minimum Support Price

Water source and availability

D21 Water source

Storage on river Run-of-the river

including barrage / anicut Ground

water

Conjunctive use of surface and

ground water

Storage across the Nallah of river Berach

D22 Water availability

(Abundant /Sufficient / Water

scarcity)

Water Scarcity. Almost no inflow has been received

since 1995 except for few years in between.

D23 Number and duration of

irrigation season (s)

Number of seasons

Number of month per season

Season 1 : Rabi

Season 2: Kharif

Season 3:

Two irrigation season: Rabi (3-4 months); Kharif (1

month i.e. Kharif Protection)

Two

4 months (Mid-November to Mid-March)

4 months (Mid-June to Mid-October)

D24 Commanded (irrigation) area (ha) CCA: 3676.75 ha

ICA: 1962.6 ha

D25 Total number of households 5251

D26 Average farm size (ha) 0.5 – 3.0 ha

D27 Average annual irrigated area (ha)

by schemes

165.0 ha during 1999-2013

48


D28 Average annual cropping

intensity (%)

CItotal cropped area in a year

100net area

%

109 %

The value more than 100% shows that some part of

land is also used for cultivation in multiple seasons (i.e.

Rabi as well as Kharif). This cropping intensity was

achieved due to rainfed agriculture during Kharif and

groundwater utilization during Rabi season.

Infrastructure - Irrigation

D29 Method of water abstraction:

Gravity diversion :

Pumped diversion :

Ground water:

Gravity diversion

D30 Water delivery infrastructure

(length and %):

Lined channel :

Unlined:

Pipelines:

Length of main canals: 12.21 km; Length of Minor &

Sub-Minors: 33.0 km

40% (as per the discussion with field staff and site visits

during reconnaissance survey)

60%

NA

D31 Location and type of water control

equipment:

Control structure at intake of the

system / sub-system Type:

None Fixed proportional division

Gated- manual operation Gated -

automatic local control:

Sluice gate at RMC Head (24°48'55.28"N,

73°57'15.19"E); LMC head (24°48'36.54"N,

73°57'3.18"E)

NA

D32 Discharge measurement

facilities, location and type

Location :

Type:

Flow meter:

Fixed weir or flume:

Not available.

Infrastructure- Drainage

D33 Area serviced by surface drains

(ha)

Full command

D34 Type of surface drain:

Constructed :

Natural:

Natural

D35 Length of surface drain (km):

Natural :

Open :

Closed:

Natural

D36 Area serviced by sub-

surface drainage (ha)

NA

D37 Number of ground water

level measurement sites

Nil

Water allocation and distribution

49


D38 Type of water distribution

Supply oriented

On-demand

Arranged -demand

Supply oriented

D39 Frequency of irrigation scheduling

at the intake of the system / sub-

system

Daily :

Weekly :

Twice monthly :

Monthly :

Seasonal :

None:

Seasonal, which fixed by the Water Distribution

Committee depending upon the live capacity of the

reservoir achieved during the year

Seasonal

D40 Predominant farm irrigation

practice (Surface-furrow, basin,

border, flood, furrow-iu-basin Drip

/ sprinkler , Sub-surface)

Surface irrigation: border, flood, and furrow depending

upon the crop

Cropping

D41 Main crops each season

with percentages of total

command area

Rabi: (i) Wheat, (ii) Mustard, (iii) Gram, (iv) Barley

Kharif: (i) Maize, (ii) Jowar, (iii) Gwar, (iv) Bajra

51

Section I

Benchmarking

53

3 Benchmarking of Irrigation Project and Filling of Reservoir

Benchmarking can be defined as: “A systematic process for securing continual

improvement through comparison with relevant and achievable internal or external norms

and standards”. Benchmarking implies comparison: either internally with previous

performance and desired future targets, or externally against similar system. It aims at

finding best management practices. It benefits to the water users, service providers,

Government regulatory bodies like WUA, and donors and funding agencies.

In measuring performance, interest is towards the efficiency with which inputs

(resources: water resources, human resources, financial resources) to the system is

converted into the outputs (socio-economic and environmental benefits). In irrigation

system, three major domains are of general interest:

Service delivery performance: This domain includes two areas of service provision:

(a) Adequacy with which the organization manages the operation of the irrigation

delivery system to satisfy the water required by the users. The irrigation delivery

system includes management and operation of the entire components from the

reservoir to minor canal including reservoir inflow.

(b) Efficiency with which the organization uses resources to provide this services

(financial performance).

Production performance and efficiency: Measures the efficiency with which irrigated

agriculture uses water resources in the production of crops. It measures the performance

of the system after minor canal to the irrigation application. It includes the field

application efficiency and agriculture water use efficiency (i.e. grain produced per unit of

IRRIGATION PROJECT TO BE BENCHMARKED

Benchmarking

Process

1. Identification and

Planning

Identification of

indicators, selection of

ideal system

2. Data Collection

and Compilation

3. Data

Processing and

Analysis

5. Comparison with

Ideal system, and

identification of gaps 4. Evaluation of

Performance

Indicators

6. Monitoring

Framework and

Training

54

water consumed). The production efficiency can be evaluated in financial terms to the

farmers.

Financial performance: It is important for the project for their self-sustenance that at

least Operation and Maintenance (O & M) cost of the project can be recovered from the

revenue generated from the irrigation supply.

Environmental performance: Measure the impacts of irrigated agriculture on land and

water resources.

3.1 Data Collected for for Benchmarking

Data can be divided into two basic categories: (i) Baseline data/information; and (ii)

Historical data. Baseline data includes the salient features of the project and design

technical parameters fixed at the time of inception of the project. These data may be

location, climate (i.e. hydro-meteorological variables, such as rainfall, evaporation,

evapotranspiration, temperature, wind, relative humidity, etc.), catchment characteristics

(i.e. soil, topography, land use characteristics), reservoir storage characteristics (such as

Gross, Live and Dead storage capacity of the project), design discharge including

structural information, command area information (i.e. Gross Command Area, GCA,

Culturable Command Area, CCA, utilization potential, irrigation intensity, irrigation

method, cropping pattern, cropping intensity, farm holding, canal system, etc.). Table 2.1

presents the list of base line data collected for the project.

Table 3-1 List of baseline and historical data collected

S.

No.

Data Frequency of

Observation

and Period

Source Purpose

1 Hydrological data:

Inflow

Daily for 15 years

Annual 44 years

Water

Resources

Department

Revisit to the water availability,

and comparison with basis of

irrigation project designed.

Pattern change in the inflow

hydrograph to the system using

the flow duration curve analyses.

2 Project data:

Designed irrigation

potential and

actual utilized

Seasonal or

monthly for 5

years

Water

Resources

Department

Statistical analysis of system

deficiency

3 Meteorological

data: Rainfall,

evaporation,

evapotranspiration,

temperature, etc.

Daily for 10 years Water

Resources

Department;

Meteorological

Department;

Agriculture

Department

Estimation of catchment yield if

runoff data are not available. An

appropriate Rainfall-Runoff

Modelling tool will be used

simulate the runoff hydrograph

generated from the catchment.

Rainfall-runoff modelling of the

catchment will help in the

investigation of the impact of

upstream mini projects like anicuts

or WHS on medium and major

55

S.

No.

Data Frequency of

Observation

and Period

Source Purpose

irrigation projects.

Estimation of crop water

requirement and effective rainfall.

Estimation of irrigation interval and

irrigation scheduling.

4 Toposheet Water

Resources

Department or

Survey of

India

Digitization of catchment and

command area of the projects.

Land use map preparation

5 Crop (Jinswar) and

land use (Milan

Khasra) data

Cropping pattern

for at least 5 or

10 years

Tahsil office or

Statistical

Department;

Agriculture

Department

Estimation of cropping intensity

Crop water requirement

Irrigation requirement

Actual irrigated area

6 Sajra map Command map Water

Resources

Department

Digitization of command map,

which include canal network,

individual command area of the

distribution system.

7 Revenue data Revenue

Department;

Water

Resources

Department

Analysis of revenue performance

8 O&M data 10 year Water

Resources

Department

Analysis of cost and benefits

3.2 Reservoir Filling and Estimation of the Effective Yield

Live capcity and percent filling of the reservoir is summarized in Table 3-2, which clearly

indicate that reservoir has filled once in 30 years. Average filling is only 8.76% in 30

years. An average live capacity achieved by the reservoir during 1981-2013 is only 2.0

MCM out of 18.86 MCM. Table 3-2 also include the Monsoon or annual rainfall values

and their deficit. Analysing the rainfall and live capcity, it can be stated that at least 79 %

of rainfall need to be exceeded than the average rainfall of 575.0 mm for completely

filling of the reservoir.

Effective yield refer to the actual runoff volume that accounts for the reservoir storage.

When it is represented with respect to the probability or reliability then it is known as

dependable yield. The %D dependable year is defined as the year for which a

corresponding magnitude Dx at most 100 %D of the years exceeds the value of Dx .

Steps involved in arriving dependable year yield are as follows:

56

(i) Let the annual yield or maximum gauge or capacity filled during the years

1 2, ,....., Ny y y are 1 2, ,...., Nx x x .

(ii) The filling capacity (live or gross) 1 2, ,...., Nx x x will be arranged in descending

order and the year is also written corresponds to ix , 1,2,.....,i N .

(iii) Assign the ranks from 1 to N for ix .

(iv) The dependable year D will corresponds year at ( 1) /100N D ; and

corresponding flow will be referred as the D% dependable year flow of the catchment.

Using the available record for the period of 1983 to 2013 the dependable effective yield

analysis is presented in Table 3-2 and shown in Figure 3-1.

Table 3-2 Live capacity and percentage filling of the Bagolia reservoir (1984-2013)

Hydrologic Year Rainfall (mm)

Percent deviation (%)

LC (MCM) % Fill

1984-85 561.8 -1.09 0.99 5.25

1985-86 491 -13.56 3.4 18.03

1986-87 407 -28.35 3.99 21.16

1987-88 265.3 -53.29 0 0

1988-89 577 1.58 0.92 4.88

1989-90 810 42.61 2.12 11.24

1990-91 625.4 10.11 0.71 3.76

1991-92 495.4 -12.78 0.76 4.03

1992-93 625 10.04 3.61 19.14

1993-94 455 -19.89 0.14 0.74

1994-95 749 31.87 1.05 5.57

1995-96 411 -27.64 0 0

1996-97 608 7.04 0 0

1997-98 601 5.81 0 0

1998-99 563 -0.88 0 0

1999-00 325 -42.78 0 0

2000-01 286 -49.65 0 0

2001-02 664 16.90 2.83 15.01

2002-03 345 -39.26 0 0

2003-04 405 -28.70 0 0

2004-05 433 -23.77 0 0

2005-06 797 40.32 6.17 32.71

2006-07 1017 79.05 18.86 100

2007-08 618 8.80 1.91 10.13

2008-09 560 -1.41 0 0

2009-10 531 -6.51 0 0

2010-11 1053 85.39 2.12 11.24

2011-12 781 37.50 0 0

2012-13 689 21.30 0 0

2013-14 494 -13.03 0 0

57

Table 3-3 Analysis of dependable effective yield for Bagolia Project

Hydrologic Year

Live Capacity (MCM)

Gross Capacity (MCM)

Rank, m P (%) T

2006 18.86 19.43 1 2.94 34.00

1983 13.59 14.16 2 5.88 17.00

2005 6.17 6.74 3 8.82 11.33

1986 3.99 4.56 4 11.76 8.50

1992 3.61 4.18 5 14.71 6.80

1985 3.4 3.97 6 17.65 5.67

2001 2.83 3.4 7 20.59 4.86

1981 2.69 3.26 8 23.53 4.25

1989 2.12 2.69 9 26.47 3.78

2010 2.12 2.69 10 29.41 3.40

2007 1.91 2.48 11 32.35 3.09

1994 1.05 1.62 12 35.29 2.83

1984 0.99 1.56 13 38.24 2.62

1988 0.92 1.49 14 41.18 2.43

1991 0.76 1.33 15 44.12 2.27

1990 0.71 1.28 16 47.06 2.13

1993 0.14 0.71 17 50 2.00

1982 0 0.57 18 52.94 1.89

1987 0 0 19 55.88 1.79

1995 0 0 20 58.82 1.70

1996 0 0 21 61.76 1.62

1997 0 0 22 64.71 1.55

1998 0 0 23 67.65 1.48

1999 0 0 24 70.59 1.42

2000 0 0 25 73.53 1.36

2002 0 0 26 76.47 1.31

2003 0 0 27 79.41 1.26

2004 0 0 28 82.35 1.21

2008 0 0 29 85.29 1.17

2009 0 0 30 88.24 1.13

2011 0 0 31 91.18 1.10

2012 0 0 32 94.12 1.06

2013 0 0 33 97.06 1.03

Based on the above analysis, frequency of the reservoir filling is summarized in Table 3-

4. It reveals that the reservoir is completely filled on once in 34 years. The inflow to the

reservoir has been drastically reduced since the year 1995. The reduction in the yield is

largely due to the construction of water harvesting structures in the catchment because

rainfall regime has not changed significantly rather increasing trend has been observed.

Based on the analysis, the average annual gross storage capacity or the net catchment

yield of the Bagolia Project is worked out to approximately 2.30 MCM (1981-2013).

58

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Liv

e S

tora

ge (

MC

M)

Probability of Exceedence, P (%)

Figure 3-1 Dependable effective yield response of the Bagolia Project

Table 3-4 Dependable filling of the Bagolia dam

Dependability (%)

Return Period, T

Year Goss

Capacity (MCM)

Live Capacity (MCM)

3 34.0 2006-07 19.43 18.86

10 33.3 2005-06 6.74 6.17

20 14.3 2001-02 3.4 2.83

25 11.1 1989-90 2.69 2.12

50 5.9 1993-94 0.71 0.14

60 5 1995-96 0 0

75 3.8 2002-03 0 0

80 3.7 2003-04 0 0

90 3.2 2011-12 0 0

Analysis shows that the hydraulic capacity of the Bagolia reservoir is high enough as

compared to the available catchment yield at 50 % dependable years. Therefore, to fill

the reservoir capacity every year, it is important to transfer some water from the surplus

catchment, and the magnitude will be approximately 18.72 MCM at 50% dependable

year.

3.3 Performance Indicators for Benchmarking

Considering the benchmarking domains, the list of key performance indicators is

presented in Table 3.5. These indicators will be analysed using the data collected for

project. Simplistic software will be developed to estimate these indicators for evaluation

of the projects.

59

Table 3-5 List of key performance indicators

Performance Indicator Definition Data Specifications

(A) Service delivery performance

(i) Total annual volume of irrigation supply

(MCM)

It is the total annual volume of water diverted for the irrigation Measured at the diversion structure of the

reservoir. Here it is the sluice gates.

(ii) Total annual volume of water supply

(MCM)

It is the total volume of water used for the irrigation/crop; and is sum of annual

volume of irrigation supply from the project, annual groundwater use, and annual

effective rainfall.

Measured at the diversion structure of the reservoir. Here it is the sluice gates.

Annual groundwater abstraction for irrigation.

Effective rainfall used for the crops.

(iii) Annual irrigation supply per unit

command area (m3/ha)

3Totalannual volumeof irrigation supply (m )

Total command area of the project (CCA in ha)

Measured at the diversion structure of the reservoir. Here it is the sluice gates. [Indictor-i]

The command area for which irrigation infrastructure has been provided (CCA).

(iv) Annual irrigation supply per unit irrigated

area (m3/ha)


Total annual actual irrigated crop area (ha)

Measured at the diversion structure of the reservoir. Here it is the sluice gates. [Indictor-i]

Total actual area irrigated during the year as per the revenue record (ha).

(v) Potential utilized and created It is the ratio of potential utilized (area irrigated) to created irrigation potential of

the project:

Totalannual irrigated crop area (ha)

Irrigation potential for the project (ha)

actual

created

Total actual area irrigated during the year as per the revenue record (ha).

Irrigation potential created for the project (ha).

60


(vi) Annual relative water supply Totalannual volumeof water supply (MCM)

Totalannual volumeof crop water demand (MCM)

Total volume of water supply [Indictor-ii]: volume of water used for the crop and is sum of annual volume of water supply, annual groundwater used, and annual effective rainfall.

Annual volume of crop water demand: water used to meet the evapotranspiration demand of the crop.

(vii) Annual relative irrigation supply Totalannual volumeof irrigation supply (MCM)


Total annual volume of irrigation supply: it is the annual volume of water diverted from the reservoir for irrigation [Indictor-i].

Annual volume of crop water demand: water used to meet the evapotranspiration demand of the crop.

(viii) Water delivery capacity 3

3

Canal capacity at the head (m

Peak irrigation water consumptive demand (m

/s)

/s)

Canal capacity at head: Actual canal capacity of the main canal (LMC or RMC) at the head.

Peak irrigation water consumptive demand: The peak crop irrigated water requirement for a monthly period expressed as a flow rate at the head of the irrigation system.

61


(ix) Deviation in reservoir inflow 100%d t

d

V

V

V

Vd = catchment yield used in the design of project (MCM)

Vt = actual annual catchment yield (MCM)

Deviation may be due to change in land use, topography and rainfall pattern.

Catchment yield used in the design: it is the estimated annual runoff at particular dependable year (say 75% for medium and 50% for minor) used in the designing the project.

Actual annual catchment yield: it is an actual inflow or runoff coming to the reservoir from the catchment for a particular year. It will be either estimated using the appropriate model or observed inflow.

(x) Structure performance Structure perfomance index P

T

S

S

SP = number of structure in poor conditions

ST = total number of structures installed in the system

Theoretically, it should be equal to unity.

(B) Productive Performance and Efficiency

(i) Total gross annual agricultural production

(tonnes)

Total annual tonnage of agricultural production under each crop This information is available at village

level and can be extrapolated to actual irrigated area in the command.

(ii) Total annual value of agricultural

production (Rs) i i

i

Cp MSP

Cpi = Crop production in the irrigated area for ith

crop (tonnage)

MSPi = Minimum support price of the crop fixed by the Government (Rs per

tonnage)

62


(iii) Total annual value of agricultural

production per unit CCA (Rs/ha)

Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs)

CCA of the project (ha)

Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs): Indicator-ii

CCA of the project

(iv) Total annual value of agricultural

production per unit irrigated area (Rs/ha)


Total annual irrigated area (ha)


Total annual irrigated area (ha): Actual annual irrigated area as per the revenue record (ha)

(v) Total annual value of agricultural

production per unit irrigation supply (Rs/m3) 3


Total annual volume of irrigation supply (m )


Total annual volume of irrigation supply (m3): it is the volume of water diverted for the irrigation from the reservoir.

(vi) Total annual value of agricultural

production per unit of water supply (Rs/m3) 3


Total annual volume of water supply (m )


Total annual volume of water supply (m3): it is the volume of water diverted for the irrigation from the reservoir plus the groundwater use and effective rainfall.

(vii) Total annual value of agricultural

production per unit of crop water demand

(Rs/m3)

3


Total annual volume of crop water demand (m )


Total annual volume of crop water demand (m3): it is the volume of water required to meet the crop water demand in terms of consumptive use or evapotranspiration.

63


(viii) Cropping intensity (CI) Cropping intensity can be defined as number of times a land is cultivated within

the single crop calendar year.

Actual area used for cultivation during crop calender year

100%Net area available for cultivation

CI

3

,

1

100x j

jx

CI AA

Where Ax is the culturable area of khasra no.-x, j is the index for crop season, and

Ax, j is the area under j-th season of same khasra no.- x.

Actual area used for cultivation during crop calendar year: during kharif if whole area is used for cultivation and during rabi only 25% of area is used then cropping intensity will be 125%.

(ix) Change in cropping pattern Area under different crops in a crop season in a command area is cropping

pattern. Cropping pattern defines the water requirement during the crop growing

period and thus the irrigation requirement.

Annual cropping pattern data. The change will be assessed with reference to the cropping pattern used in designing the irrigation project.

(C) Financial Performance and Efficiency

(i) Cost recovery ratio Gross revenue collected

Total MOM cost

Gross revenue collected: Total revenue collected from payment of services by water users.

Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenance cost of providing the irrigation services.

It largely depends on the state water

policy on the water charges.

Theoretically this cost recovery ratio

should be equal to unity, or even more

to recover some of capital cost of the

project.

64


(ii) Total MOM cost per unit area (Rs/ha) Total MOM cost (Rs)

Total irrigated area in CCA (ha)

Total MOM cost: Total management, operation and maintenance cost of providing the irrigation services.

Total irrigated area in CCA: It is the total annual irrigated area of the CCA.

(iii) Revenue collection performance Gross revenue collected (Rs)

Gross revenue invoiced


Gross revenue invoiced: Total revenue due for collection from water user for providing irrigation services.

(iv)Staffing per unit area (person/ha) Total number of staff engaged in Irrigation service

Total annual irrigated area by the system

Total number of staff engaged in Irrigation Service: Number of staff employed in the provision of irrigation services under the project.

Total annual irrigated area by the system: total actual irrigated area in a year.

(v) Revenue per unit of volume of irrigation

supply (Rs/m3) 3

Gross revenue collected (Rs)



Total annual volume of irrigation supply (m

3): it is the volume of water diverted

for the irrigation from the reservoir.

65


(vi) Total MOM cost per unit of volume of

irrigation supply (Rs/m3) 3

Total MOM cost (Rs)



Total annual volume of irrigation supply (m3): it is the volume of water diverted for the irrigation from the reservoir.

(D) Environmental and social indicators

(i) Land degradation index Land degraded due to water logging and salinity (ha) 100%

Irrigation potential created (ha)

Land degraded due to water logging and salinity: Some irrigated area lost its productivity due to water logging and salinity because of excessive water use or canal seepage in a soil of poor drainability.

Irrigation potential created under the project.

(ii) Equity performance It is assessed using the tail end supply index:

Tail-end supply index (TSI) S

T

N

N

NS = Number of days that sufficient amount of water reached the tail end of the

canal (i.e. end user of the system)

NT =Total number of days canal runs

This information could be collected

through the farmers at tail end.

Theoretically value of TSI should be

unity for 100% equitable distribution of

supply.

67

4 Evaluation of System Delivery Performance

Delivery of water to meet user’s requirement for irrigation and other purposes is the

primary aim of the project authority. The water delivery process is strongly governed by

the physical, climatic, socio-economic factors. The project authority has limited control

over the various factors like, the prevailing climatic conditions which governs the water

resources availability, crop water requirement, cropping intensity, irrigation intensity in

any crop season. Under this condition, project in-charge has the main objective to

precisely use the available water in the reservoir with equitable distribution in the

culturable command area.

To evaluate the system delivery performance, various indicators have been discussed in

Table 3.5. However, detailed evaluation of these indicators is presented in the present

chapter.

4.1 Total Annual Volume of Irrigation Supply

It is defined as the total annual volume of water diverted for the irrigation through the

diversion structure or main canals through sluice. Considering the multiple use of water

from the reservoir, following annual water budget equation can be used to estimate the

volume of irrigation supply.

( ) ( )IR D I ELSCV V V V V E S (4.1)

where: VIR = annual volume of irrigation supply (MCM), VLSC = volume under live storage capacity (MCM), VD = volume of water allocated for domestic use (MCM), VI = volume of water allocated for industrial use (MCM), VE = volume of water allocated for ecological sustenance (MCM), E = evaporation loss (MCM), and S = seepage loss from the reservoir (MCM).

Since the project is designed for the Rabi irrigation, therefore, it is assumed that entire irrigation water will be used during the period from October to March.

The water allocation variables are generally fixed in the Water Distribution Committee Meeting of the stakeholders, organization and administrative heads after the Monsoon. Other variables like evaporation and seepage loss are considered as per the climate and reservoir bed characteristics or taken from available secondary data for the project. The computation table using Eq. (4.2) for the total volume of irrigation supply is presented in Table 4-1.

68

Table 4-1 Computation of total annual volume of irrigation supply

Hydrologic Year

Live Storage capacity, VLSC

(MCM)

Water Allocation for other Uses (MCM) Evaporation Loss: Oct-Mar

(mm)

Evaporation Loss (MCM)

Seepage Loss (MCM)

Annual Volume of Irrigation Supply

(MCM) Domestic, VD Industrial, VI Ecological, VE

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) = (vi) x As

/1000 (viii)

(ix) = (ii)-(iii)-(iv)-(v)-(vii)-(viii)

1999-00 0

711.1 0.00 0.00 0.00

2000-01 0

702.1 0.00 0.00 0.00

2001-02 2.83

669.8 0.21 0.14 2.48

2002-03 0

669.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

2003-04 0

711.1 0.00 0.00 0.00

2004-05 0

702.1 0.00 0.00 0.00

2005-06 6.17

717.8 0.34 0.31 5.52

2006-07 18.86

727.5 0.59 0.94 17.33

2007-08 1.91

669.0 0.17 0.10 1.64

2008-09 0

711.1 0.00 0.00 0.00

2009-10 0

702.1 0.00 0.00 0.00

2010-11 2.12

669.8 0.18 0.11 1.83

2011-12 0

704.5 0.00 0.00 0.00

2012-13 0

700.5 0.00 0.00 0.00

2013-14 0

700.0 0.00 0.00 0.00

As is the submergence area of the reservoir (sq km).

69

4.2 Total Annual Volume of Water Supply

It is defined as the total volume of water used for the irrigation including groundwater use

and effective rainfall during the crop calendar year. However, in minor irrigation projects

irrigation supply is limited for the single season (Rabi season in the present case);

therefore, this exercise can be conducted based on the project design (whether for Rabi

season or both Rabi and Kharif). Mathematically, it is expressed as:

IRWSV V GW ER (4.2)

where: VWS = volume of water supply to the irrigated area (MCM), GW = ground water

use (MCM), and ER = effective rainfall (MCM).

When only water supply is only for Rabi irrigation and actual irrigated area is considered

for the canal then effective rainfall and ground water component will be ignored. In case

if there is rainfall during the Rabi season then it is computed as follows.

4.2.1 Estimation of effective rainfall

In order to calculate the effective rainfall, a semi-empirical method developed by the U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA, 1970) can be used. This method is combined with an

improved estimate of the effect of the net irrigation application depth on effective rainfall.

The USDA method is based on a soil water balance performed for 22 meteorological

stations in the USA, by virtue of 50 years of data. It considers deep percolation to the

groundwater basin and soil-profile depletion by evapotranspiration. In the method,

however, the surface runoff is only marginally accounted, and that three factors are

considered to influence the effectiveness of rainfall, viz. mean cumulative monthly

precipitation, mean cumulative monthly evapotranspiration, and irrigation application

depth. The calculation procedure can be described as follows:

According to USDA (1970), the effective precipitation is calculated on a monthly basis

using the following empirical expression.

0.0010.824(1.253 2.935) 10 cET

eP f P (4.3)

where, Pe = effective precipitation per month (mm/month), P = total precipitation per

month (mm/month), ETc = total crop evapotranspiration per month (mm/month), and f = a

correction factor which depends on the depth of the irrigation water application per turn

[dimensionless].

The factor f equals 1.0 if the irrigation water application depth is 75 mm per turn. For

other application depths, the value of f can be estimated as follows:

0.133 0.201ln( );if d<75mm/turnf d (4.4)

40.946 7.3 10 ;if d 75mm/turnf d (4.5)

When the mean total rainfall per month is less than 12.5 mm, it is assumed that 100%

rainfall will be considered to be effective.

If a calculation per day, week or every 10-days is needed then the effective rainfall is first

estimated on monthly basis using Eqs. (4.3) to (4.5). After that, the calculated effective

rainfall in mm/month is converted back into mm/day, mm/week or mm/10-days using

suitable distribution.

70

Equation (4.3) requires the monthly value of total crop evapotranspiration (mm/month)

and can be determined using the climatic models discussed in the following section, for

which the procedure has been discussed in Chapter 2.

4.2.2 Computation of annual water supply

Once the effective rainfall and ground water abstraction is estimated using the above

procedure, the annual water supply for irrigation can be estimated. The computation

table is presented in Table 4-2.

Table 4-2 Calculation of total annual water supply for irrigation

Hydrologic Year

Volume of Irrigation

Supply at the Diversion, Vir

(MCM)

GW abstraction

(MCM)

Effective Rainfall,

ER (MCM)

Total Volume of Water

Supply, VWS

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v)

1999-00 0 0 0 0

2000-01 0 0 0 0

2001-02 2.48 0 0 2.48

2002-03 0 0 0 0

2003-04 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0

2005-06 5.52 0 0 5.52

2006-07 17.33 0 0 17.33

2007-08 1.64 0 0 1.64

2008-09 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0

2010-11 1.83 0 0 1.83

2011-12 0 0 0 0

2012-13 0 0 0 0

2013-14 0 0 0 0

4.3 Indices for Irrigation Supply per unit Area

There are four basic indices to assess the performance of delivery system:

(i) Irrigation supply per unit command area;

(ii) Irrigation supply per unit irrigated area;

(iii) Relative duty; and

(iv) Relative potential utilized

These terms have been discussed in Table 3-5. The system delivery performance during

1999-2014 for the Bagolia irrigation project is presented in Table 4-3.

It is observed that during last four years the duty is approximately 29.10 ha/MCM and

relative duty is 0.26, which shows that relatively lower system delivery performance; and

is due to non-availability of irrigation water. Other than this, irrigation recording is not

being done properly which also affects the revenue collection. As far as the relative

potential utilization is concerned, it is almost none (i.e. 0.084).

71

4.4 Indices for Relative water supply and irrigation supply

These indicators directly relates to the various losses in the distribution system as well as

in the field application. Higher relative values indicate the scope of improvement in the

system. The indicators used to evaluate the performance of the project are (i) relative

water supply, (ii) relative irrigation supply, (iii) Overall system efficiency.

4.4.1 Relative water supply

The annual relative water supply is defined as the total annual volume of water supply

per unit annual volume of crop water requirement. The annual crop water requirement is

the volume required to meet the evapotranspiration for the crop during the crop-calendar

year. Numerically, it is expressed as follows:

Totalvolumeof watersupply(MCM)Relative water supply =

Totalvolumeof cropwater requirement (MCM)

The volume of crop water requirement (CWR) and gross irrigation requirement (GIR)

estimated using the methodology discussed in Chapter 2 is presented in Table 4-4 and

4-5.

The value of this index for Bagolia project is 0.64, which indicates that the system is not

capable of supplying sufficient water to meet the crop water requirement in the

command. It should close to unity.

4.4.2 Relative irrigation supply

The annual relative irrigation supply is defined as the total annual volume of irrigation

water diverted from the reservoir per unit annual volume of crop water requirement. It is

expressed as follows:

Totalvolumeof irrigationsupply(MCM)Relative irrigation supply =

Totalvolumeof cropwater requirement (MCM)

The computation table to estimate the total annual relative water supply and irrigation

supply is presented in Table 4.6.

Higher the value of this index means lower is the performance. Value close to unity

means 100% efficiency.

The value of this index for Bagolia project is 0.64, which indicates that the system is not

capable of supplying sufficient water to meet the crop water requirement in the

command. It should close to unity.

4.4.3 Overalll system efficiency

Overall system efficiency defines the all the losses in the system. It is computed using

the following formula:

100%Totalvolumeof irrigationsupply(MCM)

Overall system effiiciency =Totalvolumeof grossirrigation requirement (MCM)

Closer the value to 100% means there is no further losses in the system other than the

standard losses in the conveyance and field application. Value more than 100% show

huge losses in the system, theft, non-accountability of water in the system. Whereas,

lower value than 100% indicates the non-delivery of sufficient irrigation supply.

72

For Bagolia, value of overall system efficiency is 17.85%, which shows that quite low

delivery performance of the system. Lower the value than 100% shows the non-delivery

of the sytem.

4.5 Water Delivery Capacity

Water delivery capacity is one of the most important parameters used in the designing

the canal capacity. Generally the main off-take canals are designed on the basis of peak

irrigation water consumptive demand. To assess the adequacy of the capacity of the

main canal, this index is used. Theoretically the value of water delivery capacity should

be more than unity.

3

3

Canal capacity at the head (mWater delivery capacity


/s)

/s)

Computation of the water delivery capacity required as per the existing average cropping

pattern and designed is summarized in Table 4-7.

Based on the analysis, it was found that capacity of both the canals at head is sufficient

for 21 days of base period with existing situation.

73

Table 4-3 Computation of Indices for Irrigation Supply per unit Area

Hydrologic Year

Live Storage (MCM)

Irrigation Supply (MCM)

Annual Actual

Irrigated Area (ha)

Annual Irrigation Supply per unit Command Area

(m3/ha)

Annual Irrigation Supply per unit Irrigated Area

(m3/ha)

Actual Annual Duty (ha/MCM)

Relative duty Relative potential

utilized

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) = (iii)*10^6/ CCA

(ha) (vi) = (iii)*10^6/(iv) (vii) = (iv) /(iii)

(viii) = (vii) / Ddesign

(ix) = (iv)/ potential created

1999-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001-02 2.83 2.48 352 674.5 7045.5 141.94 1.245 0.179

2002-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 6.17 5.52 614 1501.3 8990.2 111.23 0.976 0.313

2006-07 18.86 17.33 1297 4713.5 13361.6 74.84 0.656 0.661

2007-08 1.91 1.64 0 446.1 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2010-11 2.12 1.83 213 497.7 8591.5 116.39 1.021 0.109

2011-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average 2.13 1.92 165.07 522.21 2713.49 29.63 0.260 0.084

CCA= 3676.7 ha Average (2010-14) 124.425 2147.875 29.10 0.255 0.027

ICA= 1962.5 ha

74

Table 4-4 15-daily crop water requirement using the Penman-Monteith method (FAO56) and existing cropping pattern during Rabi

Year Presowing

(mm)

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total


1999-00 100.0 0.00 4.50 5.56 13.72 19.89 29.90 33.79 44.67 46.99 51.57 44.81 18.55 10.89 0.00 424.82

2000-01 100.0 0.00 4.68 5.44 12.36 20.92 30.88 38.30 53.66 51.07 42.74 49.86 17.31 10.43 0.00 437.64

2001-02 100.0 0.00 2.88 3.36 11.95 19.81 28.78 36.19 40.27 38.53 37.81 39.64 12.40 4.18 0.00 375.81

2002-03 100.0 0.00 3.93 5.26 13.25 19.32 33.76 37.14 40.03 48.21 44.16 48.61 15.93 7.85 0.00 417.46

2003-04 100.0 0.00 3.41 3.70 12.48 20.17 28.70 36.84 40.61 44.55 36.03 40.34 14.67 5.28 0.00 386.77

2004-05 100.0 0.00 2.79 3.04 9.10 16.59 24.73 29.92 36.75 43.38 38.47 40.09 15.87 4.14 0.00 364.88

2005-06 100.0 0.00 2.72 2.98 14.37 22.50 33.83 34.84 47.27 42.35 42.18 31.14 10.60 1.60 0.00 386.38

2006-07 100.0 0.00 1.69 2.47 9.92 19.16 31.65 39.29 56.62 52.86 46.41 51.72 15.04 3.07 0.00 429.93

2007-08 100.0 0.00 2.25 2.88 11.79 20.18 29.52 36.45 40.82 38.01 37.43 38.14 11.38 2.23 0.00 371.08

2008-09 100.0 0.00 3.16 4.21 12.85 19.27 34.37 37.46 40.71 47.94 43.74 46.85 14.43 5.14 0.00 410.14

2009-10 100.0 0.00 2.66 2.68 12.54 20.93 29.98 37.29 41.56 43.00 33.37 34.68 11.30 1.56 0.00 371.56

2010-11 100.0 0.00 2.99 3.50 9.03 16.46 24.45 29.79 36.45 43.98 39.70 42.20 17.25 5.27 0.00 371.08

2011-12 100.0 0.00 1.20 2.66 10.78 20.80 30.34 35.68 43.48 47.99 53.00 49.12 14.01 1.24 0.00 410.30

2012-13 100.0 0.00 2.74 2.90 13.55 23.28 33.97 35.99 44.06 42.11 36.53 33.74 10.49 1.54 0.00 380.91

2013-14 100.0 0.00 3.33 4.31 11.90 21.65 32.64 38.90 55.32 50.00 41.56 45.87 14.67 5.96 0.00 426.11

Average 100.0 0.00 3.00 3.66 11.97 20.06 30.50 35.86 44.15 45.40 41.65 42.45 14.26 4.69 0.00

3.00 15.64 50.56 80.01 87.04 56.72 4.69

Peak net irrigation requirement = 87.04 mm

75

Table 4-5 15-daily gross irrigation requirement based on existing cropping pattern during Rabi and overall efficiency of 0.60 (Conveyance: 0.80; Field: 0.75)

Year Presowing

(mm)

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr Total


1999-00 125.00 0.00 7.49 9.26 22.86 33.15 49.84 56.31 74.45 78.31 85.94 74.68 30.91 18.15 0.00 666.35

2000-01 125.00 0.00 7.79 9.07 20.60 34.86 51.46 63.83 89.44 85.12 71.23 83.10 28.85 17.39 0.00 687.74

2001-02 125.00 0.00 4.80 5.60 19.92 33.01 47.97 60.32 67.12 64.21 63.02 66.07 20.67 6.97 0.00 584.68

2002-03 125.00 0.00 6.55 8.77 22.08 32.20 56.27 61.91 66.71 80.35 73.60 81.02 26.55 13.09 0.00 654.10

2003-04 125.00 0.00 5.68 6.17 20.80 33.61 47.83 61.39 67.69 74.24 60.05 67.23 24.44 8.79 0.00 602.92

2004-05 125.00 0.00 4.65 5.06 15.17 27.65 41.22 49.87 61.25 72.29 64.12 66.82 26.45 6.90 0.00 566.45

2005-06 125.00 0.00 4.54 4.96 23.96 37.49 56.39 58.06 78.78 70.59 70.29 51.91 17.66 2.67 0.00 602.30

2006-07 125.00 0.00 2.81 4.12 16.53 31.93 52.75 65.48 94.37 88.10 77.36 86.20 25.07 5.12 0.00 674.84

2007-08 125.00 0.00 3.75 4.81 19.65 33.64 49.20 60.75 68.03 63.34 62.38 63.57 18.97 3.72 0.00 576.81

2008-09 125.00 0.00 5.27 7.02 21.42 32.12 57.29 62.44 67.85 79.89 72.90 78.08 24.05 8.57 0.00 641.90

2009-10 125.00 0.00 4.44 4.47 20.90 34.88 49.97 62.16 69.27 71.67 55.61 57.80 18.84 2.61 0.00 577.62

2010-11 125.00 0.00 4.99 5.84 15.05 27.43 40.76 49.65 60.76 73.31 66.17 70.33 28.75 8.79 0.00 576.83

2011-12 125.00 0.00 2.00 4.43 17.97 34.67 50.57 59.47 72.46 79.98 88.34 81.86 23.35 2.07 0.00 642.17

2012-13 125.00 0.00 4.57 4.83 22.59 38.80 56.61 59.98 73.44 70.18 60.88 56.24 17.48 2.57 0.00 593.17

2013-14 125.00 0.00 5.56 7.18 19.83 36.09 54.40 64.83 92.21 83.34 69.27 76.44 24.45 9.93 0.00 668.53

Average 125.00 0.00 4.99 6.11 19.96 33.44 50.84 59.76 73.59 75.66 69.41 70.76 23.77 7.82 0.00

76

Table 4-6 Relative water and irrigation supply and overall system efficiency

Hydrologic Year


Water Supply (MCM)

Crop Water Requirement

(mm)

Gross Irrigation

Requirement (mm)

Actual Irrigated Area (ha)

Crop Water Requirement

(MCM)

Relative Irrigation Supply

Relative Water Supply

Gross Irrigation

Requirement (MCM)

Overall System

Efficiency (%)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) = (ii)/(vii)

(ix) = (iii)/(vii)

(x) (xi) =

(x)*100/(ii)

1999-00 0 0 424.82 666.35 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000-01 0 0 437.64 687.74 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001-02 2.48 2.48 375.81 584.68 352 1.32 1.879 1.879 2.06 83.06

2002-03 0 0 417.46 654.1 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003-04 0 0 386.77 602.92 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 364.88 566.45 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 5.52 5.52 386.38 602.3 614 2.37 2.329 2.329 3.7 67.03

2006-07 17.33 17.33 429.93 674.84 1297 5.58 3.106 3.106 8.75 50.49

2007-08 1.64 1.64 371.08 576.81 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 410.14 641.9 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 371.56 577.62 0 0 0 0 0 0

2010-11 1.83 1.83 371.08 576.83 213 0.79 2.316 2.316 1.23 67.21

2011-12 0 0 410.30 642.17 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012-13 0 0 380.91 593.17 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013-14 0 0 426.11 668.53 0 0 0 0 0 0

Average 1.92 1.92 397.66 621.09 165.07 0.67 0.64 0.64 1.05 17.85

77

Table 4-7 Computation and comparison of water delivery capacity (required capacity of the canal at head sluice) as per the exiting cropping pattern and designed capacity at head

Field application Efficiency = 0.47 Conveyance Efficiency = 0.80 Base Period =

21 days

Fraction Rush Irrigation = 0.1

S. No. Canal CCA (ha) ICA (ha) Peak NIR (mm)

FIR (mm)

Delta (m/ha)

Base Period (days)

Base Period (s)

Duty (ha/cumecs)

Discharge at Head (cumecs/ha)

Requied Capacity at head (m^3/s)

Designed discharge (m^3/s)

Remark

1 LMC 3455 1831 87.04384 185.2 0.25465 21 1814400 712.51 0.0014 2.56 1.565 Under Capacity

2 RMC 220.75 131.6 87.04384 185.2 0.25465 21 1814400 712.51 0.0014 0.18 0.19 Sufficient

Total 3675.75 1962.6 2.74 1.755 Under Capacity

However, as per our calculation using the L-section of the canal and cross-section, the capacity of LMC at head is 2.83 cumecs and is greater than required

capcity of 2.56 cumecs. The calculation is as follows:

Canal Chainage

Section Side Slope (m/m)

Bed Width (m)

Bed Slope (m/m)

FSL Depth (m)

Maniing's n

Velocity (m/s)

Discharge (cumecs)

0-200 Trapezoidal 0.667 3.05 0.0002 1.143 0.02 0.65 2.83

79

5 Evaluation of Productive Performance

The main objective of the irrigation system or project is deliver irrigation supply to

increase the productivity in the culturable command area. It can be assessed in several

ways like production of actual tonnage of individual crops, production in terms of money,

etc. Further to this, it is required to evaluate the productive performance per unit of

irrigation or water supply. Therefore, to cover this aspect of the evaluation, this chapter

describes the various indicators and data collection sheet to perform the analyses.

The gross annual or seasonal production (tonnage) is estimated using the regional

average yield, and can be converted into the gross money with the help of minimum

support price (MSP). For commonly grown crops in the region the value of yield and

MSP is summarized in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1 Average crop yield, minimum support price and irrigation rates of

the common crops

S. No. Crop

Average

Yield

(kg/ha)

Minimum

Support Price

(Rs/ton)

Irrigation

Rate (Rs/ha)

Rabi

1 Wheat 2912 13500 104.00

2 Barley 2515 11000 57.00

3 Gram 955 30000 67.00

4 Mustard 1178 30000 89.00

5 Rabi fodder 755 5000 89.00

Kharif

1 Maize 1386 11750

2 Sorghum (Jwar) 501 15000

3 Groundnut 1554 22500

4 Soybean 1208 22000

5 Paddy

5.1 Productive Performance Indicators: Relative to Area

Sections 6.1 to 6.3 give the basic productive performance of the irrigation project. Other

than these indicators, following numerical indices or relative indices with respect to the

area can be used to evaluate the productive performance of the system. These

indicators are defined in the following sub-sections. The computational table to evaluate

these relative performance indicators are presented in Table 6.2.

5.1.1 Total value of agricultural production per unit CCA

It is defined as the annual value of agricultural production per unit of CCA of the project

i.e.:



80

5.1.2 Total annual value of agricultural production per unit irrigated area

Since whole area is actually not irrigated in the CCA, therefore, following relative index is

used to evaluate the production performance.

Annual value of production Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs)

Total annual irrigated area (ha)per uniti rrigated area

5.2 Productive Performance Indicators: Relative to Water

Water is a precious element of nature and therefore its precise use is important. It should

be wisely utilized in various sectors as per the climatic conditions. Thus, the economic

performance of the water use needs to be assessed and compared with the established

standard under similar climatic and geophysical conditions. These indicators are defined

below, and their computational table is presented in Table 6.2.

5.2.1 Total seasonal value of agricultural production per unit irrigation supply

3 3

Total annual value of agrAnnual value of agricultura icultural production (Rs)

To

l production

per uni tal annual volume oft ir irrrigation igation ssup uppply ly )R /m (ms

5.2.2 Total annual value of agricultural production per unit of water supply

3 3

Total annual value of agrAnnual value of agricultura icultural production (Rs)

To

l production

pe tal annual volur unit wa me of watter er ssupply upply Rs/m (m )

5.2.3 Total annual value of agricultural production per unit of crop water requirement (CWR)

3 3

Total annual value of Annual value of agricult agricultural production ural productio (Rs)

Total annu

n

per unit al volume of C of CWW RR Rs/m (m )

81

Table 5-2 Cropping pattern, cropped area and production

Hydrologic Year

Cropping Pattern Area

Irrigated during Rabi (ha)

Crop Area under Irrigation Supply (ha) Crop Production (tons, t)

Rabi Rabi Rabi

Year of Project

Inception Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Others Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Others

Wheat (2912 kg/ha)

Barley (2515 kg/ha)

Gram (955

kg/ha)

Mustard (1178 kg/ha)

Others (750

kg/ha)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (xvii)

1999-00 67.57 5.41 2.70 10.81 13.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000-01 67.57 5.41 2.70 10.81 13.51 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001-02 62.84 6.83 2.73 21.86 5.74 352 221.2 24.04 9.61 76.95 20.2 644.1 60.5 9.2 90.6 15.2

2002-03 61.27 8.67 1.16 19.65 9.25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003-04 57.32 6.71 0.00 29.27 6.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 61.81 8.52 0.80 22.81 6.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 52.20 6.69 0.00 39.12 1.99 614 320.51 41.08 0 240.2 12.22 933.3 103.3 0 283 9.2

2006-07 77.92 8.78 0.23 9.10 3.98 1297 1010.62 113.88 2.98 118.03 51.62 2942.9 286.4 2.8 139 38.7

2007-08 60.45 10.15 0.00 26.34 3.06 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 61.81 8.52 0.80 22.81 6.05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 52.20 6.69 0.00 39.12 1.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2010-11 62.03 11.04 0.35 18.87 7.71 213 132.12 23.52 0.75 40.19 16.42 384.7 59.2 0.7 47.3 12.3

2011-12 67.99 16.70 0.23 13.53 1.55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012-13 52.20 6.69 0.00 39.12 1.99 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013-14 62.03 11.04 0.35 18.87 7.71 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

82

Table 5-3 Gross income from Rabi crops and total income

Hydrologic Year Area

Irrigated during

Rabi (ha)

Crop Production (tons, t) Gross Income (Rs) Total Rabi

Income (Million

Rs)

Total Income

with Rabi Irrigation (Million

Rs)

Rabi Rabi

Year of Project

Inception

Wheat (2912 kg/ha)

Barley (2515 kg/ha)

Gram (955

kg/ha)

Mustard (1178 kg/ha)

Others (750

kg/ha)

Wheat (Rs13500/t)

Barley (Rs11000/t)

Gram (Rs30000/t)

Mustard (Rs

30000/t)

Others (Rs

5000/t)

(i) (vii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (xvii) (xviii) (xix) (xx) (xxi) (xxii) (xxiii) (xxiv)

1999-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001-02 352 644.1 60.5 9.2 90.6 15.2 8695350 665500 276000 2718000 76000 12.43 12.43

2002-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 614 933.3 103.3 0 283 9.2 12599550 1136300 0 8490000 46000 22.27 22.27

2006-07 1297 2942.9 286.4 2.8 139 38.7 39729150 3150400 84000 4170000 193500 47.33 47.33

2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2010-11 213 384.7 59.2 0.7 47.3 12.3 5193450 651200 21000 1419000 61500 7.35 7.35

2011-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

83

Table 5-4 Computation of productive and economic performance of the water use in production

Hydrologic Year

Irrigated Area (ha)

Total Production (Million Rs)

Production per unit Irrigated

Area (Million Rs/ha)

Annual Production

Per unit CCA

(Million Rs/ha)


Annual Production

per unit Irrigation Supply (Million

Rs/MCM)

Water Supply (MCM)

Annual Production

per unit Water Supply (Million

Rs/MCM)

CWR (MCM)

Annual Production

per unit CWR

(Million Rs/MCM)

GIR (MCM)

Annual Production

per unit GIR (Million Rs/MCM)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii)

1999-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001-02 352 12.43 0.035 0.003 2.48 5.012 2.48 5.012 1.32 9.417 2.06 6.034

2002-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 614 22.27 0.036 0.006 5.52 4.034 5.52 4.034 2.37 9.397 3.7 6.019

2006-07 1297 47.33 0.036 0.013 17.33 2.731 17.33 2.731 5.58 8.482 8.75 5.409

2007-08 0 0 0 0 1.64 0 1.64 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2010-11 213 7.35 0.035 0.002 1.83 4.016 1.83 4.016 0.79 9.304 1.23 5.976

2011-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

CCA= 3676.7 ha ICA= 1962.5 ha

85

6 Optimal Cropping Pattern

This chapter presents the reliability of the storage capacity of the irrigation reservoir with

respect to the current cropping pattern of the culturable command area. The chapter also

includes the decision of optimal cropping pattern with respect to the storage availability in

the reservoir at different dependable years.

Optimal cropping pattern is the allocation of cropped area under different crops in the

culturable command with maximum return under available storage in the reservoir. It can

be determined using the Linear Programming (LP) model.

The development of LP model to investigate the optimal cropping pattern is explained

below using the following variables:

(i) Culturable command area: A (ii) Number of crops sown in the CCA during the crop calendar year, n: 4 (iii) Type of crops during Rabi: Wheat, Mustard, Green Gram, Barley (iv) Available storage in the reservoir for irrigation supply: S (v) System efficiencies: η (vi) Irrigation water requirement, average yield and price of the crops:

Table 6-1 Basic input required for estimating the optimal cropping pattern

S.

No. Crops CWR (mm)

Average Yield

(kg/ha)

Minimum Support

Price, MSP (Rs/kg)

1 Maize 133.99 1386 1175

2 Wheat 409.17 2912 1350

3 Barley 429.06 2515 1100

4 Gram 350.91 955 3000

5 Mustard 319.71 1178 3000

6 Rabi Fodder 535.61 750 500

The LP problem can be formulated as follows:

Objective function

1 1

maxn m

i i i j j j

i jRabi Kharif

z Y MSPA Y MSP A

(6.1)

where i is the index for the number of Rabi crops, j is the index for number of Kharif

crops, Y is the average yield of the crop (kg/ha); MSP is the minimum support price of

the crop (Rs/kg); A is the area under crop (ha); CWR is the crop water requirement

during the growing period for crop (mm); ηc is the conveyance efficiency; ηf is the field

application efficiency; S is the water availability for irrigation supply (MCM), CCA is the

culturable command area of the project (ha); α and β are the integer for Rabi and Kharif

season, respectivey. For priority crop like Kharif protection value of β should be kept high

enough as compared to the value of α.

The conveyance and field efficiency of the system can be considered 0.85 and 0.70,

respectively.

86

Subject to:

(i) Water availability constraint

5

1

[10 ( )]n

i i c f

i

A CWR S

(6.2)

where c and f are the conveyance and field application efficiency of the system.

(ii) Crop area constraint

1

n

i

i

A CCA

(6.3)

where CCA is the culturable command area of the project (ha).

(iii) Non-negative constraints

0;iA i (6.4)

(iv) Crop diversity constraint

( /100) ;i iA f CCA i (6.5)

where fi is the minimum percentage of the crop area required to maintain the crop

diversity.

The LP problem will be solved using the Simplex method, which give the optimal area of

the crops to be cultivated under the available storage. In this formulation, the cost of the

production will not be considered to estimate the net return from the production. It will be

based on the general assumption that gross return is relative to the cost of the

production; i.e. higher the cost of production higher will be the gross income, and vice-

versa.

The term CWR can be replaced with the net irrigation requirement (IWRnet) after

deducting effective rainfall (ER) term from the CWR. The estimation of these variables is

presented in Chapter 2.

This exercise will be performed for various dependable year storage capacity of the

reservoir. The estimated optimal cropping pattern for Bagolia Irrigation Project is

summarized in Table 6-2.

Table 6-2 Basic input required for estimating the optimal cropping pattern

Components Maize Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Fodder Total

CWR (mm) 133.99 409.17 429.06 350.91 319.71 535.61 2178.44

GIR (mm) 225.19 687.68 721.11 589.76 537.32 900.18 3661.25

Area under crop (ha)

0 28.14 0 196.25 196.25 0 420.65

Cropping Pattern

6.69 0 46.65 46.65 0

Average Yield (kg/ha)

1386 2912 2515 955 1178 750

MSP (Rs/qt) 1175 1350 1100 3000 3000 500

87

Components Maize Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Fodder Total

Gross Return (Lakh Rs)

0 11.064 0 56.23 69.36 0 136.65

GIR (MCM) 0 0.194 0 1.157 1.054 0 2.41

CCA = 3676.75 ha; ICA = 1962.55 ha

Objective function (Multiple)

136647.4

Objective function (Rabi)

136.65

Constraint-1 (Area) 0 <= 3676.75

Constraint-2 (Area) 420.6537 <= 2757.563

Constraint-3 (LC) 2.4055 <= 2.41

Non-negative

0 > 0

28.14375 > 0

0 > 0

196.255 > 0

196.255 > 0

0 > 0

Crop Diversity

28.14375 > 588.765

0 > 294.3825

196.255 > 196.255

196.255 > 196.255

0 > 196.255

Cropped area under different dependability

Dependablity (%)

LC (MCM)


Economical and Optimal Crop Area (ha) Total Irrigated Area (ha) Maize Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Fodder

75 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

50 0.14 0.10 343.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.60 0.00 18.60

25 2.12 1.80

126.74 196.26 0.00 323.00

20 2.83 2.41

28.14 0.00 196.26 196.26 0.00 420.65

Suggested cropping pattern for Rabi

Dependablity (%)

LC (MCM)

Total Irrigated Area (ha)

Economical and Optimal Cropping Pattern (%)

Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Fodder

75 0 0.00

50 0.14 18.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00

25 2.12 323.00 0.00 0.00 39.24 60.76 0.00

20 2.83 420.65 6.69 0.00 46.65 46.65 0.00

89

7 Evaluation of Financial and Environmental Performance

This chapter presents the evaluation techniques for financial and environmental

performance of the irrigation project. Financial performance relates to the revenue

generation from irrigation services and the cost involved in the project Management,

Operation and Maintenance (MOM). It also relates the staffing involved in the project per

unit culturable command area. On the other hand, the environmental performance can

be evaluated in terms of water table rise in the irrigation wells, land degradation due to

water logging and salinity; and equity performance.

7.1 Estimation of MOM

The total MOM cost is defined as the cost incurred in the operation and maintenance for

the delivery of irrigation services during the financial year. Sometimes, it is also

considered as the O&M cost of the project. This cost includes remodelling, maintenance

of the canals, gates, canal desilting, labour, staffing, electricity, etc. Higher the MOM

lower will be performance.

Following indices can be used to evaluate the economic efficiency of the system. The

data collection and calculation format is presented in Table 8.1.

7.1.1 Cost recovery ratio

It is the ratio of recovery of water charges to the cost of providing the services. It is

imperative to devise water rates and mechanism for recovery of water charges for

irrigation use in such a manner to meet, at least annual cost under the MOM of the

system and recovery of some portion of capital investment on the projects in order to

make the project sustainable. Theoretically, the cost-recovery ratio should be at least

one.

Gross revenue collectedCost recovery ratio 1.0

Total MOM cost

The gross revenue collected refers to the revenue collected from payment of services by

the water users or individual farmers. The state water policy plays a vital role in the cost

recovery.

7.1.2 Total MOM cost per unit area (Rs/ha)

The total MOM cost per unit area is the ratio of total MOM cost incurred to the culturable

command area for which irrigation infrastructure was created.

Total MOM cost (Rs)

TotaTotal MOM cost per unit

l irrigated area in CCA a

)rea

(ha

90

This ratio should be as minimum as possible. Higher is the ratio, lesser will be economic

efficiency of the project.

7.1.3 Revenue collection performance

This is one of the important indicators which relate the integration of water user and

service provider. The revenue collection performance is the ratio between gross revenue

collected during the financial year to the revenue invoiced to the user. Theoretically, it

should be equal to unity.

1.0Gross revenue collected (Rs

Revenue collection performance)


The gross revenue invoiced refers to the total revenue due for collection from water user

for providing irrigation services. The performance close to unity indicates the higher

success.

7.1.4 Staffing per unit area (person/ha)

It defines number of staff employed in the provision of irrigation services under the

project. Less value of this indicator has high economic performance.

Total number of staff engaged in Irrigation service=

Total annual irrigatStaffing per unit

ed area by the syarea

stem

7.1.5 Revenue per unit volume of irrigation supply (Rs/m3)

It describes the revenue collection performance per unit of irrigation supply at the head

canal. The value of this indicator should as high as possible.

3

Gross revenue collected (RsRevenue per unit of volume

of

)=

Total annual volume of irriga irrigation supp tion supply l (my )

7.1.6 Total MOM cost per unit volume of irrigation supply (Rs/m3)

It should be vice-versa of the above performance (i.e. revenue per unit volume of

irrigation supply). It is computed as a ratio of total MOM incurred in a particular financial

year per unit of irrigation supply. The value of this indicator should be as minimum as

possible.

3

Total MOM cTotal MOM co ost (Rs)

Tota

st per unit

of volume of l annual volume of irrigairrigation su tion supply p ly (m )p

91

7.2 Discussion

For financial performcae evaluation of the project, various indicators were evaluated out

of which the cost recovery ratio and MOM cost per unit CCA, and revenue performace

are most important. Based on the analyses of the records available, it was very difficult to

get the revenue collected from the Department and therefore failed to estimate the

revenue performance. It is due to the fact that the Water Resources Department (WRD)

does not have their own staff for irrigation recording and Revenue collection system and

this work has been entrusted to Revenue Department. In the present scenario, the WRD

do not have any data of Project’s irrigation recording, Revenue realization and collection

with them for past or current years. As such the WRD has limited its responsibility up to

delivery of water only. This is highly detrimental for project performance as Department

has no direct check or control over irrigation monitoring and Revenue Realization.

Other than the revenue performance, cost recovery ratio is very poor which mean that

the investment into the project is large enough as compared to the revenue invoiced.

There are four main reasons for this large gap: (i) non-recording of actual irrigation

achieved, (ii) irrigation charges are low and which should be close to the MOM per CCA,

(iii) low system delivery efficiency i.e. high loss of water, (iv) insufficient inflow to the

reservoir.

As far as the staffing is concern, the staff availability is very less for such a large system.

93

Table 7-1 Calculation of irrigation revenue invoiced

Hydrologic Year

Area Irrigated during

Rabi (ha)

Crop Area under Irrigation Supply (ha) Irrigation Revenuew Invoice (Rs) Total

Revenue Invoiced

(Rs)

Rabi Rabi

Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Others Wheat (Rs

104/ha)

Barley (Rs

57/ha)

Gram (Rs

67/ha)

Mustard (Rs

89/ha)

Others (Rs

89/ha)

1999-00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2000-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2001-02 352 221.2 24.04 9.61 76.95 20.2 23004.8 1370.28 643.87 6848.55 1797.8 33665.3

2002-03 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2003-04 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2004-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2005-06 614 320.51 41.08 0 240.2 12.22 33333.04 2341.56 0 21377.8 1087.58 58139.98

2006-07 1297 1010.62 113.88 2.98 118.03 51.62 105104.48 6491.16 199.66 10504.67 4594.18 126894.2

2007-08 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2008-09 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2009-10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2010-11 213 132.12 23.52 0.75 40.19 16.42 13740.48 1340.64 50.25 3576.91 1461.38 20169.66

2011-12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2012-13 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

2013-14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

94

Table 7-2 Calculation of staff expenditure

Financial Year

Irrigated Area (ha)

Irrigation supply (m

3)

No. of Executive

Staff (Existing)

No. Executive

Staff (Required)

No. of Field Staff

(Existing)

No. of Field Staff (Required)

Total Staff

(Person)

Salary-Executive staff (Rs)

Salary-Field

staff (Rs)

Total Salary (Rs)

Other Expenses

of Staff (Rs)

Total Expenditure

on Staff (Rs)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii) (xiii)

1999-00 0 0

2000-01 0 0

2001-02 352 2.48

2002-03 0 0

2003-04 0 0

2004-05 0 0 3

1

4 36342.857 56400 92742.857

92742.86

2005-06 614 5.52 3

1

4 40029.943 65604 105633.94

105633.9

2006-07 1297 17.33 3

1

4 81085.714 159600 240685.71

240685.7

2007-08 0 1.64 3

1

4 85142.857 168000 253142.86

253142.9

2008-09 0 0 3

1

4 91028.571 180000 271028.57

271028.6

2009-10 0 0 3

1

4 96400 192000 288400

288400

2010-11 213 1.83 3

1

4 105314.29 210000 315314.29

315314.3

2011-12 0 0 3

1

4 113828.57 228000 341828.57

341828.6

2012-13 0 0 3

1

4 124628.57 252000 376628.57

376628.6

2013-14 0 0 3

1

4 137828.57 276000 413828.57

413828.6

95

Table 7-3 Analysis of financial performance indicators

Financial Year

Irrigated Area (ha)

Irrigation supply (MCM)

Total Expenditure

on Staff (Rs)

O&M Cost (lakh Rs)

MOM Cost (Lakh Rs)

Revenue Invoiced

(Lakh Rs)

Revenue Collected

(Lakh Rs)

Cost Recovery Ratio (Revenue Collected/MOM)

MOM cost per unit CCA (Rs/ha)

Revenue Collection Preformace

(Collection/Invoiced)

Staffing per unit Irrigated

area (person/ha)

MOM Cost per unit

Volume of Irrigation Supply (Rs/m

3)

(i) (ii) (iii) (xiii) (xiv) (xv) (xvi) (xvii) (xviii) (xix) (xx) (xxi) (xxii)

1999-00 0 0

0

2000-01 0 0

0

2001-02 352 2.48

0.337

2002-03 0 0

0

2003-04 0 0

0

2004-05 0 0 92742.86 0.5 1.43 0

0.0000 38.89

0.0020

2005-06 614 5.52 105633.9 2.25 3.31 0.581

0.1755 90.03

0.0020 0.0600

2006-07 1297 17.33 240685.7 41.32 43.73 1.269

0.0290 1189.38

0.0020 0.2523

2007-08 0 1.64 253142.9 5.8 8.33 0

0.0000 226.56

0.0020 0.5079

2008-09 0 0 271028.6 2.85 5.56 0

0.0000 151.22

0.0020

2009-10 0 0 288400 7.2 10.08 0

0.0000 274.16

0.0020

2010-11 213 1.83 315314.3 2.7 5.85 0.202

0.0345 159.11

0.0020 0.3197

2011-12 0 0 341828.6 0.85 4.27 0

0.0000 116.14

0.0020

2012-13 0 0 376628.6 1.65 5.42 0

0.0000 147.41

0.0020

2013-14 0 0 413828.6 0.55 4.69 0

0.0000 127.56

0.0020

Average 0.0239 252.05 0.0020 0.2850

97

Section II Water Auditing

99

8 Water Auditing of Irrigation Projects

To recall the term ‘water auditing’ again as it is an accounting procedure of entire inflows

(rainfall, inflow from feeder canal system, ground water inflow), outflows (i.e. spilling,

evaporation and seepage loss, water diversion for meeting the demands, and various

other losses incurred in the system), and storages involved in the hydrologic system

during a particular period of time (says, weekly, monthly, seasonal, annual time period).

Water audit determines the amount of water lost from a distribution system due to

leakage and other reasons such as theft, unauthorized or illegal withdrawals from

systems and the cost of such losses to the distribution system and water users, thereby

facilitating easier and effective management of the resources with improved reliability

(CWC, 2005). It helps in correct diagnosis of the problems faced in order to suggest

optimum solutions. It is also an effective tool for realistic understanding and assessment

of the present performance level and efficiency of the service and the adaptability of the

system for future expansion and rectification of faults during modernization.

Water audit improves the knowledge and documentation of the distribution system,

problem and risk areas and a better understanding of what are happening to the water

after it diverted from the headwork. It facilitates in: (i) reduction in water loss, (ii)

improvement in financial performance, (iii) improvement in reliability of water supply, (iv)

efficient use of existing supply, etc.

8.1 Steps of Water Auditing

The steps followed in the water auditing are:

(i) Water supply and use

(ii) Process study

(iii) System audit

(iv) Discharge analysis

(v) Audit report

(i) Water Supply and Usage: The first step is to prepare a layout plan of the canal

distribution network from the headwork to the field outlet including the command area.

It will cover:

(a) Structural information: Gates, flow measuring structures, outlets, flow control structures, regulators, etc. installed in the system with their salient features like type of gate, dimension of gates, type of flow measuring device and its salient feature like location, rating curve, etc.

(b) Canal information: layout plan, L-sections, cross-sections or geometry, extent of lining and lining type (i.e. material).

(c) Canal siltation: magnitude and extent of siltation in the canal.

(d) Digitization of Sajra map showing the canal network and its command area coverage.

(ii) Process Study: The process study involves the study of hydrodynamic components

in the distribution system. It will also include the investigation of field application process

of water.

The process study includes:

100

(a) Hydraulics of irrigation system

(b) Discharge measurement at various locations in the main, distributary, minor and field outlet canal system; and its evaluation based on the design parameters.

(c) Assessment of the canal capacity with respect to the peak irrigation demand in the outlet command.

(iii) Assessment of Irrigation Efficiency and Productivity

This step includes:

(a) Work out all types of losses in the canal and actual areas irrigated and assess productivity.

(b) Work out conveyance losses in main canals and conveyance efficiency.

(c) Work out conveyance losses in branches / distributaries and efficiency.

(d) Work out conveyance losses in water courses and efficiency.

(e) Work out field application efficiency.

(f) Work out water use efficiency at farms field and efficiency.

Table 8-1 Indicative values of the field application efficiency (Ea)

Irrigation methods Field application efficiency

Surface irrigation (border, furrow, basin) 60%

Sprinkler irrigation 75%

Drip irrigation 90%

Table 8-2 Indicative values of the conveyance efficiency (Ec) for

adequately maintained canals

Earthen canals Lined canals

Soil type Sand Loam Clay

Canal length

Long (> 2000m) 60% 70% 80% 95%

Medium (200-2000m) 70% 75% 85% 95%

Short (< 200m) 80% 85% 90% 95%

(v) Audit Report: The water audit report of the irrigation project cover entire aspects

discussed in the earlier steps including the proposal for feasible rehabilitation plan for the

project to minimize the deficiencies in the system.

The subsequent sections present the detailed description and methodology to carry out

the tasks mentioned above.

8.2 Summary of Water Auditing

Based on the actual flow measurements of the canal distribution system, water auditing

summary sheet is prepared. A detailed auditing worksheet is appended in the next

section.

101

8.3 Assessment of Canal Capacity at Head

Based on the analysis, it was found that capacity of both the canals at head is sufficient

for 21 days of base period with existing situation.

107

Table 8-3 Field plot study for estimating the field application efficiency

Instrument used: Fieldscout, TDR 300

Plot size: 3 x 3 m 9 sq m

Field capacity: 18 %

Flume used: None Discharge

3.64 lps

Time of irrigation: 1 min

Depth of observation: 20 cm

Motor:

5 HP Pipe length: 600 ft

Pipe dia:

2.5 in

Crop: Methi Stage: Initial Soil: Sandy Root depth: 10 cm

Soil Moisture Measurement Discharge Measurement

Location Pre irrigation SM

(%V) Post irrigation SM

(%V) MD (cm) Time

FlumeGauge (cm)

Q (lps)

L1 8.4 18.2 0.96 10:12:00 3.64 13.9

L2 8.4 30.8 0.96 10:13:00 3.64 13.9

L3 8.7 30.8 0.93

L4 4.8 18.1 1.32

L5 4.8 21.7 1.32

Mean Q 3.64

L6 8 29.7 1

Vol. 218.4 l

L7 8.2 26.1 0.98

Vol. 0.2184 m3

L8 8.1 19.2 0.99

Water depth 2.4267 cm

Average 7.425 24.33 1.06

Field application efficiency 0.436 Field application efficiency 43.6 % Remark: Soil is not suitable for surface irrigation method.

108



Plot size: 10 x 2.9 m 29 sq m



5 lps

Time of irrigation: 5.1 min


Motor:


Pipe dia:

2.5 in

Crop: Wheat Stage: Initial Soil: Black Root depth: 10 cm

Soil Moisture Measurement Flume Discharge Measurement

Location Pre irrigation SM

(%V) Post irrigation SM

(%V) MD (cm)

Time FlumeGauge

(cm) Q

(lps)

L1 10.9 52.5 3.11 12:20:00 5 13.9

L2 13.1 64 2.89 12:25:06 5 13.9

L3 13.1 60.8 2.89

L4 13.4 62.6 2.86 Mean Q 5

L5 11.6 66.2 3.04 Vol. 1530 l

L6 12 55.4 3 Vol. 1.53 m3

L7 11.6 63 3.04 Water depth

5.276 cm

L8 12.7 65.5 2.93

Average 12.3 61.25 2.97

Field application efficiency (MD/Water depth) 0.563

Field application efficiency 56.3%

Remark: Very less field application efficiency. Suggested to change irrigation methods.

109



Plot size: 10 x 5 m 50 sq m



5 lps

Time of irrigation: 15.1 min


Motor:


Pipe dia:

2.5 in

Crop: Wheat Stage: Initial Soil: Black Root depth: 20 cm

Soil Moisture Measurement Flume Discharge Measurement

Location Pre irrigation SM (%V) Post irrigation SM (%V) MD (cm) Time Q (lps)

L1 33.7 69.3 1.66 14:10:00 5

L2 18.7 63.2 4.66 14:25:00 5

L3 32.3 66.5 1.94

L4 16.2 67.9 5.16 Mean Q (lps) 5

L5 20.4 69.5 4.32 Vol. (litres) 4500

L6 22.6 68.1 3.88 Vol. (cu m) 4.5

L7 26.8 65.6 3.04 Water depth (cm) 9

L8 19.1 61.1 4.58

Average 23.725 66.40 3.66

Field application efficiency (=MD/Water depth) 0.406

Field application efficiency 40.6 %

Remark: Soil is not suitable for surface irrigation method.

110

Table 8-6 Estimation of canal capacity at head

Field application Efficiency = 0.47 Conveyance Efficiency = 0.80 Base Period =

21 days

Fraction Rush Irrigation = 0.1

S. No. Canal CCA (ha) ICA (ha) Peak NIR (mm)

FIR (mm)

Delta (m/ha)

Base Period (days)

Base Period (s)

Duty (ha/cumecs)

Discharge at Head (cumecs/ha)

Requied Capacity at head (m^3/s)

Designed discharge (m^3/s)

Remark

1 LMC 3455 1831 87.04384 185.2 0.25465 21 1814400 712.51 0.0014 2.56 1.565 Under Capacity

2 RMC 220.75 131.6 87.04384 185.2 0.25465 21 1814400 712.51 0.0014 0.18 0.19 Sufficient

Total 3675.75 1962.6 2.74 1.755 Under Capacity

However, as per our calculation using the L-section of the canal and cross-section, the capacity of LMC at head is 2.83 cumecs and is greater than required

capcity of 2.56 cumecs. The calculation is as follows:

Canal Chainage

Section Side Slope (m/m)

Bed Width (m)

Bed Slope (m/m)

FSL Depth (m)

Maniing's n

Velocity (m/s)

Discharge (cumecs)

0-200 Trapezoidal 0.667 3.05 0.0002 1.143 0.02 0.65 2.83

111

8.4 Assessment of Irrigation Efficiencies

(i) Overall conveyance efficiency = 80.39% (assumed as per the field survey followed by

correlation with the available measured data)

(ii) Field application efficiency = 46.83%

(iii) Scheme irrigation efficiency: The scheme irrigation efficiency (E) for the distribution

system can be calculated using the following formula:

( ) /100%E Ec Ea (8.1)

Using the values of conveyance efficiency (Ec) and field application efficiency (Ea), the

estimated values of Scheme irrigation efficiency (E) is 37.64 %.

A value of scheme irrigation efficiency between 50-60% is considered good; 40% is

reasonable, while a scheme irrigation efficiency of 20-30% is poor. For Bagolia irrigation

project, it is only 37.64% and can be said reasonable though needs adequate attention of

lining of the unlined system and relining of damaged section.

8.5 Calibration of Canal Outlets

Before proceeding to detailed procedure of calibrating the outlets, it is important to

understand the type of outlets and their design consideration.

Outlet can be defined as a device through which water is released from a distributing

channel into a water course. The discharge through an outlet is usually less than 0.085

cumecs (3.0 cusecs) (IS: 7986-1976). Various types of canal outlets have been

developed from time to time to obtain suitable performance. No one type has come out to

be suitable universally. In fact, it is very difficult to achieve good design with respect to

‘flexibility’ and sensitivity’ because of various indeterminate conditions both in distribution

channels and the water course, namely, discharge levels, silt charge, capacity factor,

rotation of channels, regime condition of distributing channels, etc. Variation in any of

these factors affects proper functioning of the outlet. Even a particular type of outlet

considered suitable upstream of control structure in a canal may not be suitable in the

downstream reach of the same canal.

8.5.1 Classification of outlets

Outlets may be classified in following three types:

(i) Non-modular outlets: Non-modular outlets are the outlets whose discharge is a function of the difference in water levels in the distributing channel and the water course and variation in either affects the discharge. These outlets consist of rectangular or circular openings and pavement. The effect of downstream water level is more with short pavement, although even with long pavement it cannot be entirely eliminated. The common examples of this type of outlets are: (a) open sluice, and (b) drowned pipe outlet.

(ii) Semi-modular outlets: Semi-modular outlets are the outlets whose discharge is depending on the water level in the distributing channel not on the water level in the water course so long as the working head is available. Working head for the outlets is the difference between the water level of the distributing channel and centre of the pipe or outlet. The common examples of this type of outlets are: pipe outlet, venture flume, open flume and orifice semi-module.

112

(iii) Modular outlets: Modular outlets are the outlets whose discharge is independent of water levels in the distributing channel and the water course, within reasonable working limits; i.e. for such outlets or module, the discharge is constant within reasonable working limit irrespective of the fluctuation in the water levels in the distributary channel and/or water course. This type of outlets is either with moving parts or without moving parts. In the latter case these are called as rigid modules. Modular outlets with moving parts are not simple to design and construct and are, thus expensive. These are liable to derangements due to increase in friction, rusting of the moving parts and any obstruction in the working of moving parts caused by the silt and weeds carried in flowing water. Gibb’s module is a common example of this type of outlet or module.

8.5.2 Discharge through the outlets

In this section, only non-modular and semi-modular type outlets will be discussed as

installed in selected 20 irrigation projects taken for the study.

8.5.2.1 Non-Modular outlet

A pipe outlet with exit end of the pipe submerged in water in the water course works as a

non-modular outlet. The pipes are placed horizontally and at right angles to the centre

line of the distributing channel (Figure 8-1). Discharge through the pipe outlet is

computed using the following formula:

2d Lq C A gH (8.2)

Where, q is the discharge (m3/s) of an outlet; A is the cross-sectional area of the pipe

(m2); g is the acceleration due to gravity (m/s

2); HL is the difference of water levels in the

distributing channel and water course (m); Cd is the coefficient of discharge which

depends on friction factor, length and size of the pipe outlet. A value of Cd can be

computed using the following relationship:

0.051.5

400

d

dC

df L

f

(8.3)

where,

f = coefficient of fluid friction for pipes. It can be taken as 0.005 for clean iron pipes and

0.01 for slightly encrusted iron pipes. For earthenware pipes the value of f can be

considered as 0.0075.

L = length of pipe (m); and

d = diameter of pipe (cm).

For computational ease, an average value of Cd proposed by CWPRS equal to 0.73 can

be considered for submerged flow condition; whereas, for free flow condition as the case

of semi-modular outlet, its value can be considered as 0.62.

113

Figure 8-1 Non-modular pipe outlet (submerged exit)

8.5.2.2 Semi-modular outlet

The commonly used semi-modules are:

(a) Pipe outlet discharging freely into the water course; (b) Venturi flume outlet or Kennedy’s Gauge outlet; (c) Open flume outlet; (d) Adjustable orifice semi-module.

Here, only pipe outlet and Adjustable orifice semi-module has been discussed as these

two outlets are commonly used.

(a) Pipe outlet discharging freely into the water course

The pipe outlets work as a semi-modules when the discharge has free fall into the water

course. This class of outlets may therefore be used as semi-modular outlets in which

case the exit end of pipe is placed higher than the water level in the water course. The

working head, H0 is the difference between water level in distributing channel and centre

of pipe outlet (Figure 8-2). The discharge is computed using the following formula

02dq C A gH (8.4)

where, H0 is defined in Figure 8-2. The value of Cd can be estimated using Eq. (8.3). For

general computation value of Cd can be considered equal to 0.62.

Figure 8-2 Semi-modular type pipe outlets (Free flow exit)

L

H0 d

L

d

FSL

HL = Working head

= Head causing flow

114

(b) Adjustable Orifice Semi-Modules

Various types of orifice semi-modules have been designed so far. The one which found

popularity is called Crump’s adjustable proportionate module (APM). In this modules

various modifications has been made, and the latest model which is being now used in

Punjab and Haryana is called an Adjustable orifice semi-module (AOSM). This type of an

adjustable module is considered to be best of all the modules and is mostly adopted. An

adjustable orifice module consists of an orifice provided with a gradually expanding flume

on the downstream side of orifice. The flow through the orifice is super-critical, resulting

in the formation of a hydraulic jump in the expanding flume position. The formation of

jump makes the discharge independent of water level in the water course.

The principal features of an adjustable orifice module are similar to those of a flumed

regulator with horizontal crest and curved water approach on the upstream, and

downstream wings expanding to the width of water course, b. But unlike gates, it is

provided with cast iron roof block, around which masonry is done. The opening height, y0

can be changed by suitably adjusting the roof block, which can be easily done after

dismantling the masonry around it. Since roof block cannot be re-adjustable without

breaking the masonry around it, the opening, y0, and hence the outlet discharge, cannot

be easily tempered with by the cultivators. The module is thus perfectly rigid, and at the

same time adjustable in dimensions at a slight cost of re-doing the masonry. Typical

layout of this type of outlet is depicted in Figure 8-3.

The discharge through such an outlet can be computed using the following formula:

0( ) 2d sq C W y gH (8.5)

where, q = discharge through the outlet (m3/s);

W = width of throat (m);

y0 = height of the orifice opening (m), generally kept 1.5 to 2 times of W;

Hs = head measured from upstream water level in the distributary to the lowest

point of the roof block (m);

Cd = coefficient of discharge, whose value varies between 0.8 to 1.05 for throat

width (W) varying between 0.06 to 0.3 m. It can be considered as 0.91 for normal

throat width of 0.12 m. By adopting the value of Cd as 0.91, the formula (Eq. 8.5)

for discharge through the outlet will be reduced as follows:

04.03 ( ) sq W y H (8.6)

This type of adjustable modules are provided in eight different standard widths, W = 0.06,

0.075, 0.10, 0.12, 0.15, 0.19, 0.24 and 0.30 m. The minimum modular head loss involved

in such module is given by following formula:

0.82 0.5L sH H W (8.7)

Originally, when this module had a setting (i.e. H/y) of (6/10), it aimed at exact

proportionality and, therefore, used to be called APM (Adjustable Proportional Module).

The throat width, W is fixed according to the ratio q/Q as follows:

( / 2)a u

qW k B D

Q (8.8)

where:

Wa = setting forward of the d/s wing wall of the approach (m);

q = discharge through the outlet (m3/s);

Q = discharge of the distributing channel (m3/s);

115

Bu = bed width of the distributing channel just upstream of the outlet (m);

D = depth of water level in the distributing channel; and

k = ratio between the mean velocity for the entire distributing channel and mean velocity

in the part of the distributing channel, wherein outlet has to be installed. Values of k can

be taken as a function of Q from Table 8-8.

Figure 8-3 Crump’s Adjustable Proportional Module (APM) [All dimensions in centimeters]

Table 8-7 Value of k as a function of Q

Q (m3/s) k

< 0.283 1.00

0.283 to 1.415 1.25

1.415 to 5.660 1.50

> 5.660 2.00

Following conditions are required for the performance of the modular:

(a) Ratio Hs/D should be 0.375 to 0.48 for proportionate distribution of silt;

(b) Ratio Hs/D should be 0.80 or less for modular working.

Disadvantage: The waterway in this type of outlets is either deep or narrow which could

get blocked easily, or is shallow and wide in which case it does not draw its fair share of

silt.

W

Wa

Roof Block Top of Bank

Water Course

Water Course

Bed Level Channel Bed Level

y0

Hs

R = 2H

Wa

Distributary

Channel

Bed Width of Water

Course

Dis

trib

uta

ry C

ha

nn

el

(a) Longitudinal Section

(b) Plan

116

8.5.3 Calibration Process of the Outlet

Calibration of the outlet is nothing but the development of relationship between the

opening of the outlet versus discharge passing through it for a particular gauge or water

level in the parent canal (distributing channel); and its comparison with designed

discharge as per the standard design formula. In the current situation (i.e. for selected 20

irrigation projects), the outlets are mostly designed for its maximum discharge capacity of

2 to 3 cusecs (0.057 to 0.085 m3/s). Under such circumstances, the Cut-throat flume has

been applied for measuring the actual discharge passing through the outlet. For

measuring the water level in parent canal or distributing channel as well as in the water

course in case of non-modular outlets, staff-gauge will be used.

Format used for the calibration of the outlet is provided in Table 8-9.

117

Table 8-8 Format for outlet calibration

(a) Name of Minor/Distributary/Main canal: LMC

(b) RD: 220 Ch (c) Type of outlet: Semi-Modular 2

Note: Non-Modular =1, Semi-Modular=2, Modular =3

(d) Outlet section: Pipe

Note: Rectangular or Pipe (e) Size of outlet: 15 cm

(f) Length of pipe: 3 m (g) Invert level of pipe: 0 m

Sample

Water level in

distributing channel

(m)

Water level in distributing

channel above pipe invert level

(m)

Water level in water

course (m)

Height of opening of outlet for

rectangular outlet (m)

Percent Opening in case

of circular outlet

Working/ operating head for outlet (m)

Rated discharge

(m3/s)

Measurement of discharge through outlet (Cut-throat flume)

Measured discharge through outlet (m

3/s) Flume

size ha (cm) Q (lps)

(i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi) (vii) (viii) (ix) (x) (xi) (xii)

1 1.25 1.25 0.15 50 1.175 0.026 C-1 14.0 19.94 0.020

2 1 1.00 0.15 75 0.925 0.035 C-1 18.0 31.69 0.032

3 1.00 1.00 0.15 100 0.925 0.047 C-1 23.0 49.79 0.050

4 0.9 0.90 0.15 50 0.825 0.022 C-1 15.0 22.65 0.023

119

9 Irrigation Scheduling

Irrigation scheduling can be defined as “the process of determining when to irrigate and

how much water to apply, based upon measurements or estimates of soil water or water

used by the plant” (ASABE, 2007). The method of estimating irrigation scheduling

depends on either soil or plant monitoring or soil water balance estimates. Method for

monitoring or estimating the soil water status or ET include the hand feel and

appearance of soil, gravimetric soil water sampling, tensiometers, electrical resistance

blocks, water balance approaches, and modified atmometer (Broner, 2005). Here two

methods have been described for irrigation scheduling: (Simple calculation method

(FAO, 1989); and (ii) Water balance approach. The former method gives general ideal of

the irrigation interval and accounts for the climatic parameter, and therefore considered

good. Whereas, the later method gives detailed soil moisture accounting in the field and

is more robust than the former method. The water balance method can be used as real

time irrigation scheduling and can include the climatic forecast.

9.1 Simple calculation of irrigation scheduling (FAO, 1989)

The sample calculation method to determine the irrigation schedule is based on the

estimated depth of the irrigation applications and the calculated irrigation water need of

the crop over the growing season. The following steps are involved in the estimation of

the irrigation schedule (FAO, 1989):

(i) Estimate the net and gross irrigation depth (dnet and dgross), mm (ii) Estimate the irrigation water need (IN) in mm over the total growing season; (iii) Estimate the number of irrigation applications over the total growing season (NoI) (iv) Estimate the irrigation interval (INT), days (v) Adjustment for the peak irrigation demand.

Step 1: Estimation of the net and gross irrigation depth

The net irrigation depth is best determined locally by checking how much water is given

per irrigation application with the local irrigation method and practice. In absence of local

irrigation application data, Table 9.1 can be used estimated the net irrigation depth with

support of Table 9.2, which summarized the approximate rooting depth of the major

crops.

Table 9-1 Approximate net irrigation depth applied per irrigation (mm) (FAO, 1989)

Soil Type Shallow Rooting

Depth Crops

Medium

Rooting Depth

Crops

Deep Rooting

Depth Crops

Shallow and/or sandy

soil

15 30 40

Loamy soil 20 40 60

Clayey soil 30 50 70

120

Table 9-2 Approximate root depth of the major crops (FAO, 1989)

Depth Class /

Rooting Depth

Range

Crops

Shallow rooting crops

(30 – 60 cm)

Crucifers (Cabbage, Cauliflowers, etc.), Celery, Lettuce, Onions,

Pineapple, Potatoes, Spinach, other vegetable excepts Beats, Carrots,

Cucumber

Medium rooting crops

(50 – 100 cm)

Banana, Beans, Beats, Carrots, Clover, Cucumber, Groundnut, Palm trees,

Peas, Pepper, Sisal, Soybeans, Sugar beats, Sunflower, Tobacco,

Tomatoes

Deep rooting crops

(90 – 150 cm)

Alfalfa, Barley, Citrus, Cotton, Deciduous orchards, Flax, Grapes, Maize,

Melons, Oats, Olives, Safflower, Sorghum, Sugarcane, Sweet potatoes,

Wheat.

The gross irrigation depth can be estimated using the following expression:

100netgross

a

dd

E (9.1)

where dgross is the gross irrigation depth (mm), and Ea is the field application efficiency

(%). Typical values of the field application efficiency are given in Table 9.3.

Table 9-3 Typical values of field application efficiency, Ea (FAO, 1989)

S. No. Irrigation method Ea (%)

1 Surface irrigation 60

2 Sprinkler irrigation 75

3 Drip irrigation 90

Step 2: Estimation of the irrigation water need

The detailed estimation procedure of the irrigation water requirement has been

discussed earlier. For the growing period, if the percolation loss and ground water

contribution from the field are considered negligible then the irrigation water need can be

estimated as follows:

, ,i c i e iIN ET P (9.2)

where, ETc, i is the crop water demand for i-th growing period (mm), and Pe, i is the

effective rainfall during the i-th period (mm). The total net irrigation water need during the

total growing period is estimated as:

1

cND

i

i

IN IN

(9.3)

where, NDc is the total growing period. If detailed climatic data is not available, the

approximate value of crop water needs, ETc can be determined from Table 9.4.

121

Table 9-4 Crop water need and growing period (FAO, 1989)

Crop Crop Water Need,

ETc (mm)

Crop Growing

Period, Nc (days)

Alfalfa 800 – 1600 100 – 365

Banana 1200 – 2200 300 – 365

Barley/Wheat/Oats 450 – 650 120 – 150

Bean (green) 300 – 500 75 – 90

Cabbage 350 – 500 120 – 140

Citrus 900 – 1200 240 – 365

Cotton 700 – 1300 180 – 195

Maize 500 – 800 125 – 180

Melon 400 – 600 120 – 160

Onion 350 – 550 150 – 210

Peanut / Groundnut 500 – 700 130 – 140

Pea 350 – 500 90 – 100

Pepper 600 – 900 120 – 210

Potato 500 – 700 105 – 145

Paddy 450 – 700 90 – 150

Sorghum 450 – 650 120 – 130

Soybean 450 – 700 130 – 150

Sugar beat 550 – 750 160 – 230

Sugarcane 1500 – 2500 270 – 365

Sunflower 600 – 1000 125 – 130

Tomato 400 – 800 135 – 180

Step 3: Estimation of the number of irrigation applications over the total growing season

The number of irrigation application over the total growing season can be obtained as

follows:

( )I

net

INNumber of Irrigation N

d (9.4)

Step 4: Estimation of the irrigation interval, INT

The irrigation interval can be estimated as follows:

c

I

NDINT

N (9.5)

where, INT is the irrigation interval (days), NDc is the total growing period of the crop

(days), and NI is the number of irrigation.

Step 5: Adjustment for peak period

For peak period, irrigation need for the crop is less than the net irrigation depth,

therefore, steps 2 and 4 is repeated for the peak period adjustment. Considering the

above algorithm of simple irrigation scheduling method, software has been developed on

Microsoft Office-Excel platform. A print screen view of the software is depicted in Figure

9.1. A sample computational of irrigation scheduling using the above described method

is presented in Example 9.1.

122

(A) Project and Watercourse:

Project: Bagolia

Outlet no.:

Location: Lat: Long: Alt (m):

CCA (ha): 45

ICA (ha): 45

Outlet capacity (cumec) 0.075

(B) CCA, Soil and Area under cultivation

ICA (ha) 45

Major crop: Wheat

Soil type: Clay loam

(C) Irrigation method:

Irrigation method: Surface

Field application efficiency: 60

(D) Crop Information

Crop name: Wheat

Platation data: 16-Nov

Total growing period: 130

Harvesting date: 25-Mar

Rooting (Table 9.2): Medium rooting

Max. root depth (cm)- Table 9.6: 90

Figure 9-1 Excel Worksheet Programme for Irrigation scheduling using Simple calculation method

123

(E) Irrigation Scheduling

Case I: For total growing period

Month Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total

No. of Days 15 31 31 28 25 130

IN (mm) 7.96 42.67 82.37 103.94 72.3 309.24

Net irrigation depth (mm): 45 mm

Gross irrigation Depth (mm): 75 mm

Irrigation water need (mm) 309.24 mm

Number of irrigation, NI 7

Irrigation interval, INT 18 days

Summary:


No. of Days 15 31 31 28 25 130

IN (mm/momth) 7.96 42.67 82.37 103.94 72.3 309.24

Irrigation applied, dnet (mm) 37.5 77.5 77.5 70 62.5 325

dnet-IN (mm/month) 29.54 34.83 -4.87 -33.94 -9.8 15.76

Irrigation interval (days) 18 18 18 18 18

Remarks: Go to Next Trial

Trial I: For Peak Growing Period


Gross irrigation Depth (mm): 75 mm

IN during peak period (mm): 258.61 mm

Number of days during peak 84



Summary:


No. of Days 15 31 31 28 25 130

IN (mm/momth) 7.96 42.67 82.37 103.94 72.30 309.24

Irrigation applied, dnet (mm) 37.50 77.50 99.64 90.00 80.36 385.00

dnet-IN (mm/month) 29.54 34.83 17.27 -13.94 8.06 75.76

Irrigation interval 18 18 14 14 14


Trial-II: For Peak Growing Period


Net irrigation depth (mm): 75

IN during peak period (mm): 103.94 mm


Number of irrigation, NI 2.31


Summary:


No. of Days 15 31 31 28 25 130

IN (mm/momth) 7.96 42.67 82.37 103.94 72.30 309.24


dnet-IN (mm/month) 29.54 34.83 17.27 1.06 8.06 90.76


Remarks: Irrigation Scheduling Completed.

Figure 9.1 (Continued….)

124

Example 9.1: For the groundnut crop, following information are collected from the field.

Soil type: loam

Irrigation method: furrow

Field application efficiency, Ea = 60%

Total crop growing period, NDc = 130 days

Planting date: 15th July

Harvesting date: 25th November

The irrigation water need during the growing period is as follows:

Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total

IN (mm/month) 38 115 159 170 45 527

Using the above information determines the irrigation schedule for: (i) total growing period, (ii) peak

period, and (iii) combination of (i) and (ii).

Solution: Using the software, the computations are below:

(A) Project and Watercourse:

Project: XYZ

Outlet no.: XYZ

Location: Lat: Long: Alt (m):

CCA:

ICA:

Outlet capacity (cumec)

(B) CCA, Soil and Area under cultivation

ICA (ha)

Major crop: Groundnut

Soil type: Loam

(C) Irrigation method:

Irrigation method: Surface

Field application efficiency: 60 %

(D) Crop Information

Crop name: Groundnut

Platation data: 15-Jul

Total growing period: 130

Harvesting date: 22-Nov

Rooting (Table 9.2): Medium rooting

Max. root depth (cm)- Table 9.6: 90

125

(E) Irrigation Scheduling

Case I: For total growing period


No. of Days 16 31 30 31 22 130

IN (mm) 38 115 159 170 45 527


Gross irrigation Depth (mm): 66.7 mm

Irrigation water need (mm) 527 mm



Summary:


No. of Days 16 31 30 31 22 130

IN (mm/momth) 38 115 159 170 45 527

Irrigation applied, dnet (mm) 64 124 120 124 88 520

dnet-IN (mm/month) 26 9 -39 -46 43 -7

Irrigation interval (days) 10 10 10 10 10


Trail I: For Peak Growing Period


Gross irrigation Depth (mm): 66.7 mm

IN during peak period (mm): 329 mm


Number of irrigation, NI 8.5


Summary:


No. of Days 16 31 30 31 22 130

IN (mm/momth) 38.00 115.00 159.00 170.00 45.00 527.00


dnet-IN (mm/month) 26.00 9.00 12.43 7.14 43.00 97.57


Remarks: Irrigation Scheduling Completed.

126

9.2 Water Balance Method

The water balance is the accounting procedure of all inflow, outflows and the storages

involved within the firm hydrologic boundary during given period of time. For irrigated

field, farm land will acts as a hydrologic boundary and lower boundary is up to the rooting

depth. The water balance is merely a detailed statement of the law of conservation of

mass. The water balance can be expressed as follows:

Inflows - Outflows = ChangeinStorages (9.6)

Mathematically, a general water balance or soil moisture balance equation can be

expressed as follows:

1 1( ) ( )j j jP I U Q D ETc SM (9.7)

Substituting 1j j jSM SM SM in Eq. (9.7) results:

1 1 1( ) ( )j j j j jSM SM P Q D I U ETc (9.8)

1 1 1 1Re ( )j j j j j jSM SM I U ETc (9.9)

Converting Eq. (9.9) into a soil moisture deficit (j jSWD FC SM ) term will results:

1 1 1( ) (Re)j j j jSWD SWD ETc I U (9.10)

In the above governing equation, P is the precipitation or rainfall, I is the irrigation water

applied, U is the upward flux of water to the root zone depth or capillary rise, Q is the

surface runoff from the field, D is the deep percolation, ETc is the average

evapotranspiration from the cropped surface or consumptive use of crop during the water

balance period, ΔSM is the change in soil moisture storage, SMj is the soil moisture at jth

time, and SMj+1 is the soil moisture at (j+1)th

time step, SWD is the soil moisture deficit,

FC is the field capacity of the soil, and Re is the effective rainfall that replenish the soil

while rainfall or precipitation occurs. All the terms appeared in the above equation are

either in volumetric unit or in water depth equivalent unit. For irrigation scheduling, daily

time steps are common and users are most often interested in estimating the irrigation

amount(s) and date(s) of application needed to maintain the SWD at some future date at

or above the Minimum Allowable Deficit (MAD).

9.2.1 Soil moisture terminology

A description of the soil moisture terms appeared in Eqs. (9.8 to 9.10) are presented as

follows:

(i) Field capacity of soil (FC): The term field capacity is interchangeably used with the

terms water holding capacity and water retention capacity. Field capacity is the amount

of soil moisture or water content held in soil after excess water has drained away and the

rate of downward movement has materially decreased, which usually takes place within

2–3 days after a rain or irrigation in pervious soils of uniform structure and texture. The

physical definition of field capacity (θfc) is the bulk water content retained in soil at − 33

J/kg (or − 0.33 bar) of hydraulic head or suction pressure. In equivalent depth term, it is:

( /100)FCFC RD (9.11)

where FC is the field capacity (mm), θFC is the field capacity of soil (%v/v), and RD is the

rooting depth (mm).

127

(ii) Permanent wilting point (PWP): The permanent wilting point is the point when there is

no water available to the plant. The permanent wilting point depends on plant variety, but

is usually around 1,500 kPa (15 bars). At this stage, the soil still contains some water,

but it is difficult for the roots to extract from the soil. It is also presented in percentage by

volume (%v/v) and can be converted into depth term by multiplying with root depth (RD)

as explained in Eq. (9.11).

(iii) Available water content: It is the amount of water actually available to the plant for

their growth. It is determined as field capacity minus the water that will remain in the soil

at permanent wilting point. The available water content depends greatly on the soil

texture and structure.

The moisture at available water capacity is expressed as follows:

AWC FC PWP (9.12)

where, AWC is the maximum available moisture content (%v/v), FC is the moisture

content at field capacity (%v/v), and PWP is the moisture content at permanent wilting

point (%v/v). Values of θFC, θPWP, and AWC has been summarized in Table 9.5 for

various soil textures.

(iv) Available water holding capacity (AWC): The available water content (cm/cm) is

determined as follows:

100

FC PWPAWC

(9.13)

And the total water available in the root zone (TAW) is determined as:

100

FC PWPTAW AWC RD RD

(9.14)

(v) Currently available soil moisture (SM): Current soil moisture (SM) is defined as the

moisture currently (i.e., at present state of the crop and soil) available to the plant.

Mathematically, it is expressed as follows:

0SM PWP (9.15)

where, SM is the presently available soil moisture content (%v/v), and 0 is the current

soil moisture content (%v/v). It can be presented in depth term through the following

equation.

0

100

PWPSM RD

(9.16)

(vi) Depletion of available soil moisture: The percentage depletion of available soil-water

is the lowering of current state of soil-moisture from field capacity with respect to

theoretical maximum possible available soil-moisture. It is expressed as follows:

0,% 100FC

FC PWP

Depletion

(9.17)

128

Table 9-5 Soil moisture at field capacity (θFC), permanent wilting point (θPWP), available water content

(AWC in cm/cm) and basic infiltration rate (F in mm/day)

Soil Type θFC (%v) θPWP (%v) F (mm/day) AWC

(cm/cm)

Sand 9.0 4.0 1200 0.050

(6-12) (2-6) (600-6000)

Coarse sand 3.2 1.2 11200 0.020

Medium coarse sand 9.5 1.7 3000 0.078

Medium fine sand 15.5 2.3 1100 0.132

Fine sand 19.6 4.2 500 0.154

Sandy loam 14.0 6.0 600 0.080

(10-18) (4-8) (312-1824)

Sandy loam 19.5 6.1 165 0.134

Light loamy medium (Coarse sand) 24.2 10.0 23 0.142

Loamy medium coarse sand 18.1 2.1 3.6 0.160

Loamy fine sand 14.6 6.0 265 0.086

Fine sandy loam 27.3 8.7 120 0.186

Loam 22.0 13.0 192 0.090

(18-26) (8-12) (192-480)

Silt Loam 33.8 9.2 6.5 0.246

Loam 29.3 9.8 50 0.195

Clay Loam 27.0 13.0 192 0.140

(23-31) (11-15) (60-360)

Sandy clay loam 31.7 18.0 235 0.137

Silty clay loam 34.5 18.5 15 0.160

Clay Loam 39.3 25.5 9.8 0.138

Silt clay 31.0 15.0 60 0.160

(27-35) (13-17) (7.2-120)

Clay 35.0 17.0 12 0.180

(31-39) (15-19) (2.4-120)

Light clay 34.0 21.5 35 0.125

Silty clay 44.7 25.7 13 0.190

Basin clay 49.8 32.1 2.2 0.177

(vii) Soil water deficit (SWD%): It is the difference field capacity (θFC) and currently

available soil moisture content (θj) and can be determined as follows:

j FC jSWD (9.18)

In volumetric depth term, the soil moisture deficit (mm/mm) is given by following formula:

jSWD FC SM (9.18a)

(viii) Management allowed depletion (MAD): In irrigation practice, only a percentage of

AWC is allowed to be depleted because plant start to experience water stress even

before soil water is depleted down to PWP. Therefore management allowed depletion

(MAD, %) of the AWC must be specified while irrigation scheduling. Therefore, MAD is

the fraction/percentage of total plant available water that is to be depleted from the active

root zone before irrigation is applied. This amount is managed by the water manager and

is dependent on the soil texture and type of crop.

129

The MAD can be expressed in terms of depth of water (dMAD, mm) using the following

equation.

( /100) ( /100)MADd MAD AWC RD MAD TAW (9.19)

The value of dMAD can be used as a guide for deciding when to irrigate. Typically,

irrigation water should be applied when MADSWD d or when MADSWD d .To

minimize the water stress on the crop, SWD should be kept less than dMAD (i.e.

MADSWD d ) if irrigation system has enough capacity. The net irrigation amount equal

to SWD can be applied to bring soil moisture deficit to zero or at FC. If the irrigation

system has limited capacity (maximum irrigation amount is less than dMAD), then the

irrigator should not wait for MADSWD d , but should irrigate more frequently to ensure

MADSWD d .

The maximum allowable depletion (MAD) and maximum rooting depth of selected crops

are summarized in Table 9.6.

Table 9-6 Maximum allowable depletion (MAD) and rooting depth for crops (FAO, 1989)

Crop MAD (%) Maximum Root

Depth (cm)

Total growing

period of crop

(days)

Beans (dry) 40 90 90-120

Beans (green) 50 90 60-90

Corn (grain) or Maize 50 60-90 90-110

Corn (sweet) 65 120 90

Onion (dry) 50 60 120

Onion (green) 50 60 90

Pasture / turf 60 60 65

Peas 40 60 100

Potatoes 30 60 90-120

Safflower 65 180

Sorghum (Jowar) 65 60-90 135

Soybean 65 90 90-140

Sunflowers 65 90-120

Wheat 50 90 120

Cotton 50 120-150 195

Paddy or Rice 70 30-60 120

Groundnut 60 60-75 120

Gram 50 120-150 110

Mustard 45 120-150 100

Sugarcane 60 120 365

9.2.2 Rooting depth

While progression of crop development, the variation in the root zone depth for the crop

can be determined by using the following formula proposed by Borg and Grimes (1986):

1 max[0.5 0.5 sin{3.03 ( / ) 1.47}jRD RD DAP DTM (9.20)

1 150mmjRD (As evapotranspiration take place up to 150 mm of soil depth)

130

In Eq. (9.20), DAP is the days after planting, i.e. (j+1)th day, DTM days at which

maximum root depth is attained by crop, i.e. RDmax, RDj+1 is the root depth in mm on

(j+1)th day, and RDmax is the maximum root depth in mm on DTM. Values of RDmax, and

DTM is given in Table 9.6.

9.2.3 Estimation of crop evapotranspiration (ETc)

Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is estimated using the following formula:

c o c sET ET K K (9.21)

Where, ETc is the crop evapotranspiration or consumptive use (mm), ETo is the reference

crop evapotranspiration (mm), Kc is the crop coefficient, and Ks is the water stress

coefficient. A typical curve for Kc used in the computation of irrigation scheduling with

daily time step is shown in Figure 9.2. A detailed procedure of estimating ETc is given in

Chapter 2, in which value of ETo is estimated using the Penman-Monteith method when

climatic data such as temperature, wind speed, relative humidity, sun-shine hours, etc.

are available. Under limited climatic data, Hargreaves method (Hargreaves and Samani,

1985; Hargreaves, 1994) can be satisfactorily used and is expressed as follows.

Hargreaves equation has a tendency to under-predict under high wind speed conditions

(u > 3 m/s) and over-predict under conditions of high relative humidity.

0.5

max min0.0023( 17.8)( ) (0.408 )o mean aET T T T R (9.22)

Figure 9-2 Generalized crop coefficient curves (FAO, 1998)

131

where ETo is the reference evapotranspiration (mm d-1

); Tmean, Tmax, and Tmin are the

daily mean, maximum and minimum temperatures (˚C); and Ra is the extra-terrestrial

radiation for each day (MJ m-2

d-1

). A detailed procedure of estimating the value of Ra is

summarized in Chapter 2.

The values of crop coefficient for selected crop are also summarized in Chapter 2. The

value of water stress coefficient, Ks varies between 0 to 1 and depends upon the soil

water/moisture deficit (SWD). If SWD remains less than the dMAD, Ks = 1, which means

no water stress condition. Otherwise it would be less than unity. The value of Ks can be

determined using the following relationship.

;(1 )

1.0 ;

s MAD

MAD

TAW SWDK SWD d

MAD TAW

SWD d

(9.23)

9.2.4 Estimation of effective rainfall

In order to estimate the irrigation water requirements, it is required to know the portion of

rainfall useful to the crop root zone. Not all the rainfall infiltrates into the soil; a part may

evaporate; another part may become surface runoff. Therefore, the effective rainfall is

that part of the total precipitation that replaces, or potentially reduces, a corresponding

net quantity of required irrigation water. Based on the ICID (1978), the definition of

effective rainfall can be given as: “effective rainfall or precipitation is that part of the total

precipitation on the cropped area, during a specific time period, which is available to

meet the potential transpiration requirements in the cropped area.”

In irrigation scheduling algorithm, the SCS-CN method has been used and is discussed

as below.

The SCS-CN method

The SCS-CN method is based on the water balance equation and two fundamental hypotheses. The first hypothesis equates the ratio of the actual amount of direct surface runoff (Q) to the total rainfall (P) (or maximum potential surface runoff) to the ratio of the amount of actual infiltration (F) to the amount of the potential maximum retention (S). The second hypothesis relates the initial abstraction (Ia) to the potential maximum retention. Thus, the SCS-CN method consists of:

(a) Water balance equation (USDA, 1972; McCuen, 1982; Mishra and Singh, 2003):

aP I F Q

(9.24)

ReP Q

(9.25)

where, Re is the effective rainfall represented by:

Re aI F (9.26)

Re aI F P Q (9.27)

132

(b) Proportional equality hypothesis:

a

Q F

P I S

(9.28)

(c) Ia-S hypothesis:

aI S (9.29)

where P = total rainfall; Ia = initial abstraction; F = cumulative infiltration excluding Ia; Q =

direct runoff; and S = potential maximum retention or infiltration, also described as the

potential initial abstraction retention (McCuen, 2002). All quantities in equations (9.24)

through (9.29) are in depth or volumetric units. For irrigation purpose, the term aF I in

Eq. (9.26 and 9.27) equals the effective rainfall, Re (i.e. Re P Q ).

Combining Eqs (9.24) and (9.28) results the following expression

2( - )

;for-

0; for

a

a

a

a

P IQ P I

P SI

Q P I

(9.30)

For = 0.2, equation (9.30) can be re-written as

2

( - 0.2 );for 0.2

0.8

0; for 0.2

P SQ P S

P S

Q P S

(9.31)

Since parameter S (Eq. 9.30 and 9.31) can vary in the range of 0 S , it is mapped

into a dimensionless curve number (CN), varying in a more appealing range 0 CN

100, as follows:

25400 - 254S

CN (9.32)

where, S in Eq. (9.32) is the maximum potential retention (mm). The underlying

difference between S and CN is that the former is a dimensional quantity [L] whereas the

latter is a non-dimensional quantity. Although CN theoretically varies from 0 to 100, the

practical design values validated by experience lie in the range (40, 98) (Van Mullem,

1989).

The value of CN is dependent on the antecedent moisture condition (AMC), hydrological soil group, hydrologic surface condition and land use. AMC is categorized into three levels: AMC I (for dry condition of soil), AMC II (for normal or average condition of soil), and AMC III (for wet condition of soil); which depends upon 5-day cumulative antecedent rainfall (Table 9.7).

Based on the AMC conditions, CN values will be adjusted. Following expressions shall

be used for converting the CNII values into CNI and CNIII.

2.3 0.013

III

II

CNCN

CN

(9.33)

133

0.43 0.0057

IIIII

II

CNCN

CN

(9.34)

where, CNI and CNIII are the CN values corresponding to AMC-I and AMC-III.

Table 9-7 Antecedent soil moisture conditions (McCuen, 1989)

AMC 5-day cumulative antecedent rainfall (cm)

Dormant

season

Growing season

I Less than 1.3 Less than 3.6

II 1.3 to 2.8 3.6 to 5.3

III More than 2.8 More than 5.3

The hydrological soil group and hydrological condition of watershed surface can be categorized as per the Tables 9.8 and 9.9, respectively.

Table 9-8 Description of hydrologic groups

Hydrologic Soil

Group

Minimum Infiltration Rate

(cm/hr)

A 0.76-1.14

B 0.38-0.76

C 0.13-0.38

D 0-0.13

Table 9-9 Classification of woods (USDA, 1972)

S.

No.

Vegetation Condition Hydrologic

Condition

1 Heavily grazed or regularly burned.

Litter, small trees, and brush are

destroyed. 9.3 P

oor

2 Grazed but not burned. Some litter

exists, but these woods not protected.

Fair

3 Protected from grazing and litter and

shrubs cover the soil.

Good

The values of CN for normal AMC, and hydrological surface condition and soil group are

summarized in Table 9.10

134

Table 9-10 Runoff curve number (CN for hydrologic soil cover complex

Land use

Cover Hydrologic

Condition

AMC-II

Treatment / Practice Ia = 0.3 S Ia = 0.1 S

A B C D

Cultivated Straight Fair 76 86 90 93

Cultivated Contoured Poor 70 79 84 88

Good 65 75 82 86

Cultivated Contoured and terraced Poor 66 74 80 82

Good 62 71 77 81

Cultivated Bunded Poor 67 75 81 83

Good 59 69 76 79

Cultivated Paddy 95 95 95 95

Orchards -- Poor 39 53 67 71

Good 41 55 69 73

Forest --

Poor 26 40 58 61

Fair 28 44 60 64

Good 33 47 64 67

Pasture --

Poor 68 79 86 89

Fair 49 69 79 84

Good 39 61 74 80

Wasteland -- -- 71 80 85 88

Roads (Dirt) -- -- 73 83 88 90

Hard surface area -- -- 77 86 91 93

Considering the land use, land treatment, hydrologic condition and hydrologic soil group,

value of CN corresponding to AMC-II condition is selected (Table 9.10) and converted

into CNI or CNII or CNIII (Eqs. 9.33 and 9.34) as per the actual AMC condition based on

5-days cumulative antecedent rainfall. This CN value is converted into maximum

potential retention using Eq. (9.32) followed by estimation of direct runoff, Q using Eqs.

(9.30 and 9.31). Once the value of Q is estimated, the effective rainfall Re can be

determined using Eq. (9.27).

9.3.1 Upward flux of water to the root zone depth or capillary rise (U)

The upward flux of water to the root zone or capillary rise is dependent on the depth of

water table. In many cases in tropical semi-arid to sub-humid regions, the groundwater

table is very deep as compared to the root zone depth; and therefore the term U can be

neglected.

9.3.2 Software for irrigation scheduling

Using the detailed algorithm described for irrigation scheduling using water balance

method, software for the irrigation scheduling has been developed using the Microsoft

Office-Excel platform. A print screen of the said software is depicted in Figure 9.3.

135

Figure 9-3 Print screen of the Irrigation scheduling software on EXCEL platform (Page1: Data input sheet)

136

Figure 9.3 (continued) Print screen of the Irrigation scheduling software on EXCEL platform (Page2: Computational sheet)

137

Figure 9.3 (continued) Print screen of the Irrigation scheduling software on EXCEL platform (Page3: Summary sheet)

139

Results of Irrigation scheduling for Wheat crop in Jaisamand Irrigation Command is shown in Table 9-

11, and plot of cumulative crop evapotranspiration and irrigation application is depicted in Figure 9-4.

Table 9-11 Irrigation scheduling for Wheat crop

Sequence, j Date Cumulative Etc (mm)

Cumulative Re (mm)

Cumulative Irrigation (mm)

1 15-Nov-15 0.73 0.00 0

2 16-Nov-15 1.53 0.00 0.00

3 17-Nov-15 2.35 0.00 0

4 18-Nov-15 3.19 0.00 0

5 19-Nov-15 4.10 0.00 0

6 20-Nov-15 5.02 0.00 0

7 21-Nov-15 5.88 0.00 0

8 22-Nov-15 6.91 0.00 0

9 23-Nov-15 7.84 0.00 0

10 24-Nov-15 8.73 0.00 0

11 25-Nov-15 9.53 0.00 0

12 26-Nov-15 10.37 0.00 0

13 27-Nov-15 11.21 0.00 0

14 28-Nov-15 11.98 0.00 0

15 29-Nov-15 12.67 0.00 0

16 30-Nov-15 13.79 0.00 0

17 01-Dec-15 14.98 0.00 15

18 02-Dec-15 16.48 0.00 15

19 03-Dec-15 18.10 0.00 15

20 04-Dec-15 19.84 0.00 15

21 05-Dec-15 21.81 0.00 15

22 06-Dec-15 24.00 0.00 15

23 07-Dec-15 26.32 0.00 15

24 08-Dec-15 28.76 0.00 15

25 09-Dec-15 31.55 0.00 15

26 10-Dec-15 34.28 0.00 30

27 11-Dec-15 36.85 0.00 30

28 12-Dec-15 39.00 0.00 30

29 13-Dec-15 41.35 0.00 30

30 14-Dec-15 43.49 0.00 30

31 15-Dec-15 45.73 0.00 30

32 16-Dec-15 48.01 0.00 50

33 17-Dec-15 50.25 0.00 50

34 18-Dec-15 52.57 0.00 50

35 19-Dec-15 54.90 0.00 50

36 20-Dec-15 57.20 0.00 50

37 21-Dec-15 59.88 0.00 50

38 22-Dec-15 62.64 0.00 50

140


Cumulative Re (mm)


39 23-Dec-15 64.97 0.00 70

40 24-Dec-15 67.42 0.00 70

41 25-Dec-15 69.95 0.00 70

42 26-Dec-15 72.97 0.00 70

43 27-Dec-15 75.69 0.00 70

44 28-Dec-15 78.55 0.00 90

45 29-Dec-15 81.33 0.00 90

46 30-Dec-15 84.52 0.00 90

47 31-Dec-15 87.35 0.00 90

48 01-Jan-16 89.47 0.00 90

49 02-Jan-16 92.59 0.00 90

50 03-Jan-16 95.41 0.00 125

51 04-Jan-16 98.15 0.00 125

52 05-Jan-16 101.39 0.00 125

53 06-Jan-16 104.86 0.00 125

54 07-Jan-16 108.77 0.00 125

55 08-Jan-16 112.07 0.00 125

56 09-Jan-16 115.18 0.00 125

57 10-Jan-16 118.07 0.00 125

58 11-Jan-16 121.07 0.00 160

59 12-Jan-16 124.08 0.00 160

60 13-Jan-16 127.31 0.00 160

61 14-Jan-16 130.60 0.00 160

62 15-Jan-16 133.95 0.00 160

63 16-Jan-16 138.00 0.00 160

64 17-Jan-16 142.39 0.00 160

65 18-Jan-16 145.63 0.00 160

66 19-Jan-16 148.70 0.00 200

67 20-Jan-16 151.76 0.00 200

68 21-Jan-16 155.11 0.00 200

69 22-Jan-16 158.43 0.00 200

70 23-Jan-16 161.55 0.00 200

71 24-Jan-16 164.94 0.00 200

72 25-Jan-16 168.22 0.00 200

73 26-Jan-16 171.81 0.00 200

74 27-Jan-16 175.46 0.00 200

75 28-Jan-16 178.96 0.00 250

76 29-Jan-16 182.99 0.00 250

77 30-Jan-16 187.45 0.00 250

78 31-Jan-16 191.14 0.00 250

79 01-Feb-16 194.99 0.00 250

80 02-Feb-16 198.93 0.00 250

81 03-Feb-16 202.89 0.00 250

141


Cumulative Re (mm)


82 04-Feb-16 206.89 0.00 250

83 05-Feb-16 211.13 0.00 250

84 06-Feb-16 215.13 0.00 250

85 07-Feb-16 219.74 0.00 315

86 08-Feb-16 225.73 0.00 315

87 09-Feb-16 230.30 0.00 315

88 10-Feb-16 234.41 0.00 315

89 11-Feb-16 238.40 0.00 315

90 12-Feb-16 243.20 0.00 315

91 13-Feb-16 248.38 0.00 315

92 14-Feb-16 253.33 0.00 315

93 15-Feb-16 257.67 0.00 315

94 16-Feb-16 262.33 0.00 315

95 17-Feb-16 266.61 0.00 315

96 18-Feb-16 271.13 0.00 315

97 19-Feb-16 275.53 0.00 385

98 20-Feb-16 280.44 0.00 385

99 21-Feb-16 286.04 0.00 385

100 22-Feb-16 293.19 0.00 385

101 23-Feb-16 299.40 0.00 385

102 24-Feb-16 305.05 0.00 385

103 25-Feb-16 309.76 0.00 385

104 26-Feb-16 313.94 0.00 385

105 27-Feb-16 318.18 0.00 385

106 28-Feb-16 323.18 0.00 385

107 29-Feb-16 327.60 0.00 385

108 01-Mar-16 332.11 0.00 385

109 02-Mar-16 335.95 0.00 385

110 03-Mar-16 339.72 0.00 460

111 04-Mar-16 344.56 0.00 460

112 05-Mar-16 349.93 0.00 460

113 06-Mar-16 354.80 0.00 460

114 07-Mar-16 358.71 0.00 460

115 08-Mar-16 361.92 0.00 460

116 09-Mar-16 365.57 0.00 460

117 10-Mar-16 368.39 0.00 460

118 11-Mar-16 371.11 0.00 460

119 12-Mar-16 373.77 0.00 460

120 13-Mar-16 376.77 0.00 460

121 14-Mar-16 379.36 0.00 460

122 15-Mar-16 381.44 0.00 460

123 16-Mar-16 383.62 0.00 460

124 17-Mar-16 386.17 0.00 460

142


Cumulative Re (mm)


125 18-Mar-16 388.68 0.00 460

126 19-Mar-16 390.79 0.00 460

127 20-Mar-16 392.80 0.00 460

128 21-Mar-16 394.85 0.00 460

129 22-Mar-16 396.14 0.00 460

130 23-Mar-16 397.20 0.00 460

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

15-Nov-15 15-Dec-15 14-Jan-16 13-Feb-16 14-Mar-16

Cum

ula

tive E

Tc o

r Ir

rigation (

mm

)

Date (DD-MM-YY)

Cumulative Etc (mm)

Cumulative Re (mm)


Figure 9-4 Plot of cumulative crop evapotranspiration and irrigation application

143

10 Barabandi Scheduling

10.1 Definition of Barabandi

Barabandi also called “Warabandi” is a rotational system of equitable water distribution

by turn in proportion to the land holding within an outlet command. “Wara”-means “turn”

and “Bandi”-means “Fixation” i.e. Warabandi or Barabandi means “fixation of turns”

which is adopted according to a predetermined schedule clearly specifying the “Day,

Time and Duration” of supply of water to each Irrigator or farmer. It is just not distributing

water flowing inside a channel according to a roaster, but is an integrated water

management system extending from the source to the farm gate. The need to equitably

distribute the limited water resources available in an irrigation system among all the

legitimate water users in that system is a basic premise underlying the concept of

Barabandi.

10.2 Indicators of Good Water Distribution System

Some important indicators of a successful distribution system are as follows: (i) Appropriateness as per the area and water availability;

(ii) Equity: (a) Between large and small farmer, (b)Between location i.e. from Head to

Tail, (c) Equitability of time as per land holdings

(iii) Predictability: (a) Adequacy, (b) Timeliness, (c) Flexibility, (d) Incentive to users,

(e) Less scope of malpractices

10.3 Water Distribution Methods

Water distribution methods under gravity flow irrigation can be broadly classified as; (i)

Flexible and (ii) Rigid method. These methods are briefly explained as under:

(i) Flexible Methods: This method involves much flexibility in demand as well as in

operation, and can be further classified as: (a) On-demand method, (b) Modified demand

method, (c) Continuous Method.

Among the three methods, first two are not in practice in Rajasthan as these methods

need a huge canal section to cope up the undecided or unscheduled demand at a single

point of time. Besides this the Continuous method is being adopted in the Projects,

where the water is available in ample quantity. In the continuous method there is no

control and water is wasted on one hand and on the other hand needy are deprived due

to lack of proper management.

(ii) Rigid methods: These methods do not allow the flexibility. The supply in these

methods is controlled and water distribution is based on the pre-determined schedule or

plan which is strictly to be followed with rigidity.

Under this method, mainly the Rotational Water Distribution is covered, which is named

Barabandi. Barabandi too is only practised in some of the projects in Western Rajasthan

viz Gang Canal, Bhakhra Canal and Indira Gandhi Canal. This practice of Barabandi in

144

these canal systems satisfactorily works for effective water management and equitable

distribution.

10.4 Enforcement in Barabandi

In case the Divisional Irrigation officer is of the opinion that the distribution of irrigation

water in a chak is not being ensured equitably and economically and Barabandi is

essential, he may enforce the same under the provisions of “Rajasthan Irrigation and

Drainage Act,1955” after giving adequate publicity. The breach of such Barabandi will be

an offence punishable under the Act.

10.5 Systems of Barabandi

Barabandi can be categorized in view of the system of water distribution, and are: (i)

Nakewar Barabandi (ii) Goal Barabandi and (iii) Khatewar Barabandi.

10.6 Forms of Barabandi

Barabandi can be planned in three forms as far as scheduling is concerned:

(i) Non Continuous Barabandi (gili-gili Barabandi)

(ii) Continuous Barabandi (weekly temporary gili-sukhi Barabandi)

(iii) Continuous Barabandi (weekly permanent)

Weekly permanent warabandi is prevalent in Gang canal Bhakhra canal and IGNP.

10.7 Process of Barabandi

The Barabandi is a continuous rotation of water in which one complete cycle of rotation

lasts seven days (or in some instances, ten and a half days), and each farmer in the

watercourse receives water during one turn in this cycle for an already fixed length of

time. The cycle begins at the head and proceeds to the tail of the watercourse, and

during each time turn, the farmer has the right to use all of the water flowing in the

watercourse. Each year, preferably at canal closure, the Barabandi cycle or roster is

rotated by twelve hours to give relief to those farmers who had their turns during the

night in the preceding year's schedule. The time duration for each farmer is proportional

to the size of the farmer's landholding to be irrigated within the particular watercourse

command area. A certain time allowance is also given to farmers who need to be

compensated for conveyance time, but no compensation is specifically made for

seepage losses along the watercourse. Therefore, the water users have to maintain the

watercourse in good condition as successful Barabandi operation relies heavily on the

hydraulic performance of the conveyance system. These conditions, and those who are

responsible for maintaining these conditions, together with an expected behavioural

pattern among both the agency staff and the farmers, form the concept of a Barabandi

system.

10.7.1 Data requirement for Barabandi Roaster

For preparation of Barabandi plan for a particular chak, the Chak plan (map of Chak) is

needed with following information details within it:

145

(i) Details of CCA,

(ii) Sanctioned alignment of water course duly marked on the Chak plan,

(iii) Geometry of the watercourse,

(iv) List of farmers along with the details of holdings,

(v) Location of Naka points on the Water course,

(vi) Filling time (Bharai) from one Naka to other,

(vii) Depletion time (Jharai)

10.7.2 Formulation of Warabandi Schedules

The Barabandi schedule is framed to form and maintain water distribution schedules for

watercourses, generally assigned by the Irrigation Department. Theoretically, in

calculating the duration of the Barabandi turn given to a particular farm plot, some

allowance is added to compensate for the time taken by the flow to fill that part of the

watercourse leading to the farm plot. This is called bharai or watercourse “filling time.”

Similarly, in some cases, a farm plot may continue to receive water from a filled portion

of the watercourse even when it is closed from upstream to divert water to another farm

or another part of the watercourse command. This is called Jharai or “draining time,” and

is deducted from the turn duration of that farm plot.

The Barabandi Roaster is prepared to be completed in 7 days period i.e. 168 hours (7 x

24 = 168). The turn should start at head of water course at 6.00 AM on Monday and will

end on 6.00 AM on next Monday after completing 168 hours. The calculation of time

allocated per unit area of the chak and the time further allocated to the individual farmer

for his land holding is computed by using following formulae:

(i) Unit Irrigation Time for flow per unit area under the watercourse (TU) in Hours per

hectare

(168 ) /TU TF TD CCA (10.1)

where, TU is the unit time for flow per unit area under the watercourse (h/ha), TF is filling

time (h), TD is the draining time (h) and CCA is the culturable command area under the

watercourse (ha). The value of TU should be the same for all the farmers in the

watercourse.

(ii) Farmer’s Barabandi Turn Time (Tt): It gives the total time of run for individual farmer

with respect to size of his holding. It is determined using the following formula:

( )t ChakT TU A TF TD (10.2)

where Tt is the turn time for irrigating individual’s farm area or Chak (h), AChak is the area

of the Chak of the farmer (ha), ΔTF is filling time or Bharai (h) between two consecutive

Naka, and TD is the draining time or Jharai (h) between two consecutive Naka. Bharai

(ΔTF) is generally zero in case of last farmer in the watercourse, and Jharai (ΔTD) is

zero for the entire farmer excepting the last farmer in the watercourse.

As per the practice in Indira Gandhi Nahar Pariyojna (IGNP), where agricultural plots are

well planned as it is distributed after the completion of project, the filling time has been

standarized 20 min per Murrobba (i.e. 825 ft) [i.e. 0.21 m/s] for unlined and 10 min per

825 ft (i.e. 0.42 m/s) for lined water courses. For draining time, two times of filling time is

generally considered.

Since, existing irrigation project do not have planned agricultural plots, therefore, this

criteria could not be considered, though the range would be same. In the present study,

146

the draining time has will be estimated based on the actual measured flow velocity and

length of watercourse in consecutive outlets (Naka). The formula used for filling time is:

60

LTF

v

(10.3)

where, ΔTF is filling time or Bharai (h) between two consecutive Naka (min), ΔL is the

length between consecutive Naka (m), and v is average measured velocity (m/s).

Whereas, ΔTD will be computed as:

2TD TF (10.4)

The turns are fixed on the basis of “first come first served basis” from Head downwards.

Sample Barabandi programme for project for watercourse is given as follows along with

watercourse and chak plan.

Case 1: Sample Barabandi Programme and Computation for small CCA

Figure 10-1 Map showing the small water course and chak plan

147

Sample Barabandi Programme for Irrigation Project

Nathu Ka Dohra

493

12.07

12.07

1207

15

(vii) Main Canal FSD (cm): 115

Earthen

Trapezoidal

(a) Width (cm): 60

(b) FSD (cm): 18

(c) Total depth (cm):

(d) Normal depth (cm):

0.0005

(xi) Manning's roughness: 0.025

0.031

1.08

(xiv) Required discharge as per duty (m3/s): 0.019

(xv) Required discharge as per duty (cfs): 0.67

(xvi) Average velocity in channel (m/s): 0.15

Hour Min

1 R1 Gopal Nath 2051 2970.27 0.30 30 23.68 23.68 2.63 6.00 4.21 6.00 6 0 1 Mon

2 R1 Sumer Singh 2050 4899.94 0.49 49 23.68 0 10.21 6.81 10.21 10 13 1 Mon

3 R1 Sumer Singh 2152 7007.78 0.70 70 23.68 0 17.02 9.73 17.02 17 1 1 Mon

4 L1

Om Nath Bal Nath Neem

Nath 2145 5255.72 0.53 53 23.68 47.36 2.63 26.75 7.41 2.75 2 45 2 Tue

5 L1 Sugan Bai 2148 2905.40 0.29 29 47.36 0 34.17 4.03 10.17 10 10 2 Tue

6 R2 Prem 2125 3142.13 0.31 31 15.65 63.01 1.74 38.20 4.34 14.20 14 12 2 Tue

7 R2 Tara Chand 2149 3823.47 0.38 38 63.01 0 42.53 5.28 18.53 18 32 2 Tue

8 R2 Tara Chand 2126 2654.67 0.27 27 63.01 0 47.82 3.75 23.82 23 49 2 Tue

9 L2 Kanha 2146 2385.26 0.24 24 28.54 91.55 3.17 51.57 3.39 3.57 3 34 3 Wed

10 L2 Mahadev Gopal Nanu 2147 2699.03 0.27 27 91.55 0 54.96 3.75 6.96 6 58 3 Wed

11 L3 Chotu Ghasi Mewa 2130 2858.14 0.29 29 49.07 140.62 5.45 58.71 4.12 10.71 10 43 3 Wed

12 L3 Hardev 2127 2866.81 0.29 29 140.62 0 62.83 4.03 14.83 14 50 3 Wed

13 L4 Kanya Lal Shiv Raj 2128 2761.15 0.28 28 45.08 185.70 5.01 66.86 3.98 18.86 18 52 3 Wed

14 L4 Jatan Lal 2129 3005.20 0.30 30 185.70 0 70.84 4.17 22.84 22 50 3 Wed

15 L5

Madan Nath, Ram Nath,

Gopal Nath 2112 3134.230.31 31

49.10234.80 5.46 75.01 4.40 3.01 3 1 4 Thu

16 L5 Ashok Kumar 2115 2323.05 0.23 23 234.80 0 79.41 3.20 7.41 7 25 4 Thu

17 L5 Sajjan Singh 2113 2776.69 0.28 28 234.80 0 82.61 3.89 10.61 10 36 4 Thu

18 L5 Paras Mal 2114 2669.98 0.27 27 234.80 0 86.50 3.75 14.50 14 30 4 Thu

19 R3 Dharmi Chand 2116 5480.92 0.55 55 46.72 281.52 5.19 90.25 7.73 18.25 18 15 4 Thu

20 R3 Devi 2124 2589.19 0.26 26 281.52 0 97.98 3.61 1.98 1 59 5 Fri

21 R3 Devi, Mahavir Bansi 2123 2223.58 0.22 22 281.52 0 101.60 3.06 5.60 5 36 5 Fri

22 R3 Dharmi Chand 2118 2412.41 0.24 24 281.52 0 104.66 3.34 8.66 8 39 5 Fri



25 R4 Dharmi Chand 2119 2157.22 0.22 22 32.09 313.61 3.57 118.97 3.12 22.97 22 58 5 Fri

26 R4 Sanwra 2117 3041.25 0.30 30 313.61 0 122.09 4.17 2.09 2 5 6 Sat

27 R4 Dharmi Chand 2120 2205.81 0.22 22 313.61 0 126.26 3.06 6.26 6 16 6 Sat

28 R5 Sidhenath, Omnath 2098 4466.76 0.45 45 61.10 374.71 6.79 129.32 6.37 9.32 9 19 6 Sat

29 R5 Devi Singh 2097 8820.27 0.88 88 374.71 0 135.69 12.23 15.69 15 41 6 Sat

30 R5 Devi Singh 2099 5470.65 0.55 55 374.71 0 147.92 7.65 3.92 3 55 7 Sun

31 End

Bhagirath Nath, Rajinder

Nath, Raghunath, Balnth,

Neemnath 2063 13583.901.36 136

117.90492.61 13.1 13.58 155.56 18.90 11.56 11 34 7 Sun

Total 120464 12.07 1207.00 493 54.74 13.58 168.46

(a) Total Filling time (min): 54.74

(b) Total Draining time (min): 13.58 Check?

(c) Unit time for irrigation (hours/ha): 13.862 168

(d) Unit time in (hours/Ares): 0.139 168

Final Check for Barabandi:

No. Days of run for Water Course: 7

Day

Draining

Time

(min)

Cum.

Turn

(hours)

Run

Time

(hours)

Turn

Time

(hours)

Day

(index)

Turn Time

(HH:MM)Chak

No.

CCA (sq

m)

(viii) Channel section:

(ix) Channel geometry:

(x) Channel slope (fraction):

(xii) Discharge capacity (m3/s):

(xiii) Discharge capacity (cfs):

S. No. Outlets Name of FarmerCCA

(ha)

CCA

(Ares)

Length,

ΔL (m)

Cum.

Length

(m)

Filling

Time

(min)

(vi) Outlet size (cm):

(i) Name of Minor/Sub-Minor:

(ii) Length of Minor (m):

(iii) CCA (ha):

(iv) ICA (ha):

(v) ICA (Ares):

149

Case 2: Sample Barabandi Programme and Computation for large CCA

Figure 10-2 Map showing the large water course and chak plan

151

(A) For major outlets Sample Barabandi Programme for Gambhiri Irrigation Project

Khor Minor

2397

148.34

148.34

14834

Rectangular

(a) Width (cm): 150

(b) FSD (cm): 0.5

(c) Total depth (cm): 75

(d) Normal depth (cm): 50

0.002

(x) Manning's roughness: 0.02

1.054

37.22

(xiii) Required discharge as per duty (m3/s): 0.237

(xiv) Required discharge as per duty (cfs): 8.37

(xv) Average velocity in channel (m/s): 0.15

Hour Min

1 R1 2 16801.30 1.68 168 158.11 158.11 17.57 6.00 2.14 6.00 6.00 0 1 Mon

2 R2 1 7206.33 0.72 72 64.46 222.57 7.16 8.14 0.91 8.14 8.00 8 1 Mon

3 R3 3 24457.10 2.45 245 105.36 327.93 11.71 9.05 2.89 9.05 9.00 3 1 Mon

4 R4 3 6035.41 0.60 60 43.38 371.31 4.82 11.94 0.74 11.94 11.00 57 1 Mon

5 R5 5 25619.00 2.56 256 26.49 397.80 2.94 12.68 2.87 12.68 12.00 41 1 Mon

6 R6 4 7661.67 0.77 77 185.77 583.57 20.64 15.55 1.19 15.55 15.00 33 1 Mon

7 L1 21 226605.00 22.66 2266 37.95 621.52 4.22 16.74 25.00 16.74 16.00 44 1 Mon

8 L2 60 311852.00 31.19 3119 159.68 781.20 17.74 41.74 34.60 17.74 17.00 44 2 Tue

9 R7 12 50235.70 5.02 502 3.18 784.38 0.35 76.34 5.53 28.34 28.00 20 4 Thu

10 R8 24 75693.70 7.57 757 104.35 888.73 11.59 81.87 8.52 9.87 9.00 52 4 Thu

11 R9 3 16606.30 1.66 166 85.21 973.94 9.47 90.39 1.98 18.39 18.00 23 4 Thu

12 R10 2 1862.83 0.19 19 145.45 1119.39 16.16 92.37 0.48 20.37 20.00 22 4 Thu

13 L3 36 213843.00 21.38 2138 120.14 1239.53 13.35 92.85 23.74 20.85 20.00 51 4 Thu

14 R11 2 11065.10 1.11 111 18.44 1257.97 2.05 116.59 1.26 20.59 20.00 35 5 Fri

15 R12 3 14662.80 1.47 147 98.69 1356.66 10.97 117.85 1.80 21.85 21.00 51 5 Fri

16 R13 1 5969.19 0.60 60 55.74 1412.40 6.19 119.65 0.76 23.65 23.00 39 5 Fri

17 R14 13 120064.00 12.01 1201 138.26 1550.66 15.36 120.41 13.47 0.41 0.00 25 6 Sat

18 L4 11 63646.70 6.36 636 18.74 1569.40 2.08 133.88 7.03 13.88 13.00 53 6 Sat

19 L5 3 19814.90 1.98 198 274.66 1844.06 30.52 140.91 2.69 20.91 20.00 54 6 Sat

20 R15 12 35253.70 3.53 353 13.71 1857.77 1.52 143.59 3.91 23.59 23.00 36 6 Sat

21 L6 6 15170.00 1.52 152 164.11 2021.88 18.23 147.50 1.98 3.50 3.00 30 7 Sun

22 L7 2 6980.29 0.70 70 52.90 2074.78 5.88 149.48 0.87 5.48 5.00 29 7 Sun

23 R16 4 42138.80 4.21 421 10.19 2084.97 1.13 150.35 4.65 6.35 6.00 21 7 Sun

24 R17 7 31361.10 3.14 314 42.09 2127.06 4.68 154.99 3.53 10.99 10.00 60 7 Sun

25 L8 1 6937.82 0.69 69 11.44 2138.50 1.27 158.53 0.78 14.53 14.00 32 7 Sun

26 L9 10 37430.20 3.74 374 49.13 2187.63 5.46 159.31 4.21 15.31 15.00 18 7 Sun

27 R18 3 18247.60 1.82 182 136.51 2324.14 15.17 163.51 2.25 19.51 19.00 31 7 Sun

28 End 23 70063.30 7.01 701 72.56 2396.70 8.06 30.34 165.77 7.34 21.77 21.00 46 7 Sun

Total 277 1483285 148.34 14834.00 2397 266.29 30.34 167.11

(a) Total Filling time (min): 266.29

(b) Total Draining time (min): 30.34 Check?

(c) Unit time for irrigation (hours/ha): 1.106 168

(d) Unit time in (hours/Ares): 0.011 167

Final Check for Barabandi:

No. Days of run for Water Course: 7

Day

Draining

Time

(min)

Cum.

Turn

(hours)

Run

Time

(hours)

Turn

Time

(hours)

Turn Time

(HH:MM)Day

(index)

Filling

Time

(min)

(vii) Channel section:

(viii) Channel geometry:

(ix) Channel slope (fraction):

(xi) Discharge capacity (m3/s):

(xii) Discharge capacity (cfs):

S. No. Outlets No. of ChakCCA (sq

m)

CCA

(ha)

CCA

(Ares)

Length, ΔL

(m)

Cum.

Length

(m)

(vi) Outlet size (cm):

(i) Name of Minor/Sub-Minor:

(ii) Length of Minor (m):

(iii) CCA (ha):

(iv) ICA (ha):

(v) ICA (Ares):

152

(B) For a particular Naka Sample Barabandi Programme for Gambhiri Irrigation Project

Outlet No.: R4

Turn Day Index 1

Hour Min

1 Bardichand 110 L1 4916.15 0.492 49.20 11.94 0.05 11.94 11 57 1 Mon

2 Ratna Narayan Champawat 115 R1 4176.48 0.418 41.80 11.99 0.04 11.99 11 59 1 Mon

3 Ramnarayan Jat 109 L2 5407.35 0.541 54.10 12.03 0.05 12.03 12 2 1 Mon

4 Ratna Narayan Champawat 116 R2 4496.24 0.450 45.00 12.09 0.05 12.09 12 5 1 Mon

5 Labhchand Jat 108 L3 546.64 0.055 5.50 12.13 0.01 12.13 12 8 1 Mon

6 Veniram Jat 107 L4 14675.10 1.468 146.80 12.14 0.15 12.14 12 8 1 Mon

7 Ratna Narayan Champawat 117 L5 5082.26 0.508 50.80 12.28 0.05 12.28 12 17 1 Mon

8 Nanda Bholu Chamar 118 L6 1110.35 0.111 11.10 12.34 0.01 12.34 12 20 1 Mon

9 Lalu/Rama Regar 120 L6 11204.70 1.120 112.00 12.35 0.11 12.35 12 21 1 Mon

10 Narayan Chamar 119 L7 6102.74 0.610 61.00 12.46 0.06 12.46 12 28 1 Mon

11 Mu. Bhagwani Mewa 114 L8 5926.02 0.593 59.30 12.52 0.06 12.52 12 31 1 Mon

Total 63644.03 6.366 636.60 0.64

(a) Total Run time (hours): 0.74

(b) Unit time for irrigation (hours/ha): 0.116

(c) Unit time in (hours/Ares): 0.001

DayCCA

(Ares)

Turn Time

(hours)

Run

Time

(hours)

Total Turn

(hours)

Turn TimeDay

(index)

CCA

(ha)S. No Farmer's Name Chak No.

Outlet

Direction

Area (sq

m)

153

11 Recommendation of Remedial Measures

11.1 General Remarks

(i) Hydrology:

Climatologically, the catchment can be categorized as semi-arid, meaning that the annual potential evapotranspiration loss is quite higher than the annual rainfall causing soil moisture deficit. The rainfall in the catchment is dominated by the South-West Monsoon during July to Mid-October that contributes almost 100 percent of the annual rainfall. The areal average annual rainfall of the catchment is 569.0 mm.

Numbers of raingauges (Annexure A.9) in the catchment are sufficient as per the IS Code: IS 4987-1968.

The Mann-Kendal’s Z-statistics for the annual or Monsoon rainfall of 34 years was +0.139, which is less than the critical absolute value of 1.96 at 5% significance level, indicating that the annual rainfall of Bagolia catchment do not have significance trend though there is a increasing trend as the Z-statistic value is positive.

The estimated average lake evaporation for Udaisagar reservoir is approximately 1558.0 mm, and during the month of reservoir operation (especially from October to March) the value of evaporation loss is 564.8 mm.

The inflow to the reservoir has been drastically reduced since the year 1995. The reduction in the yield is largely due to the construction of water harvesting structures in the catchment because rainfall regime has not changed significantly rather increasing trend has been observed.

An average annual gross storage capacity or the net catchment yield of the Bagolia Project is worked out to approximately 2.30 MCM (1981-2013).

The hydraulic capacity of the Bagolia reservoir is high enough as compared to the present catchment yield at 50 % dependable years. Therefore, to fill the reservoir capacity every year, it is important to transfer some water from the surplus catchment, and the magnitude will be approximately 18.72 MCM at 50% dependable year.

The most significant parameter affecting the catchment yield is the construction of anicuts or water harvesting structuresor medium/minor projects.

Dependable filling of the reservoir is:

Dependability (%)

Return Period, T

Year Goss

Capacity (MCM)

Live Capacity (MCM)

3 34.0 2006-07 19.43 18.86

10 33.3 2005-06 6.74 6.17

20 14.3 2001-02 3.4 2.83

25 11.1 1989-90 2.69 2.12

50 5.9 1993-94 0.71 0.14

60 5 1995-96 0 0

75 3.8 2002-03 0 0

80 3.7 2003-04 0 0

90 3.2 2011-12 0 0

154

(ii) Duty and relative duty: During last four years the duty is approximately 29.10 ha/MCM with relative duty is 0.255, which itself shows the poor system delivery performance. Lower value of average observed duty is due to insufficient water availability for irrigation supply.

(iii) Relative potential utilized: The relative potential utilized is only 0.084 during 1999-2013 showing non-utilization of created irrigation potential. However in last four years (2010-2013), the potential utilization is 0.027 due to further decreased inflows. The value of relative potential utilization should be close to unity.

(iv) Relative water or irrigation supply: For Bagolia irrigation project, the relative water or irrigation supply is quite high i.e. 0.64, which shows that the project is not suffice the irrigation requirement in the catchment. Higher the value of this index than unity means excess water delivery as compared to the crop water requirement. The value lower than unity reveals under delivery of irrigation supply as compared to the requirement. For proper functioning of the system value of this index should be 1.2 to 1.5.

(v) Canal: Canal network in the command area is sufficient for the equitable distribution.

(vi) Outlets: Outlets are mostly uncontrolled. Apart from the uncontrolled outlets in the distribution system, there is no flow measuring structures or gauges available to monitor the irrigation supply.

(vii) Measuring structures/ gauges in canal system: Practically no gauge strips have been installed at indicative locations even in the main canal. Beside the installation of the direct flow measuring device, canal gauges (preferably the gauge wells along the canal) need to be installed at key locations and monitored during the canal operation to insure the sufficient and equitable irrigation supply.

(viii) Irrigation recording: Irrigation recording is not being done properly due to involvement of Revenue Department.

(ix) Field staff: Canal’s operation and management is generally done by least possible man power.

(x) Canal operation: Canal is generally operated for 21-25 days continuously for meeting the peak irrigation supply in the command.

(xi) Water delivery capacity: Based on the varios cases, it was found that capacities of both canals are sufficient for 21 days of base period to meet the supply at peak irrigation demand.

(xii) Irrigation efficiency: The overall irrigation efficiency of the sytem is less (i.e. 37.64%) as compared to the international standard (i.e. 50 to 60%) resulting into huge loss. If this efficiency is improved up to 54% (i.e. Ec = 90%, and Ea = 60%) then the last four years average value of duty (i.e. 55.25 ha/MCM) can be increased up to 93.32 ha/MCM.

Field application efficiency is quite satisfactory (i.e. 46.83%), but can be increased up to 60% through proper field delivery.

(xiii) Financial stability: Cost recovery ratio is very poor (0.0239) indicating the large gap in the investment into the project and cost recovery. Possible reasons are: (a) non-recording of actual irrigation achieved, (b) irrigation charges are low and which should be close to the MOM per CCA (i.e. Rs 252.05/ha CCA), (c) low system delivery efficiency i.e. high loss of water, and most important is (d) insufficient water availability for irrigation supply.

The indicators of the water auditing and benchmarking are summarized as follows:

155

11.1.1 Indicators of the water auditing

S.

No.

Indicator Formula Estimated value

(i) Water availability in the

reservoir on 15th

October (MCM) 1

1 N

i

i

WA LCN

2.30

(ii) (a) Percentage of

actual evaporation to

live storage (%)

Estimated evaporation loss100%

Actual LC on 15 Octth

9.57

(b) Percentage of

actual evaporation to

projected evaporation

(%)

Actual evaporation100%

Projected evaporation

47.8

(iii) Target and

achievement of

irrigation potential

utilization

Annual irrigated area (ha)

Projected irrigation potential (ha)

actual

0.084

(iv) Water use pattern Water sharing for irrigation, and non-

irrigation (a) drinking, (b) industrial (c) power

Irr.: 100%

(v) Irrigation system

performance or actual

observed duty

(ha/MCM)

Actual area irrigated (ha)

Total water relaese (MCM)

29.63

(vi) Percentage of planned

and actual non

irrigation use (%)

Non irrigation use

Non-irrigation use as per project100%

NA

(vii) Percentage of balanced

unutilized water to live

storage (%)

Balanced unutilized water

LC as on 15 Oct100%

th

BS

(viii) Conveyance efficiency

of main canals (%)

80.39

(ix) Actual cropping pattern

(%) i

s

Ac (ha)×100%

A (ha)

Wheat: 61.81 Barley: 8.52 Gram: 0.80 Mustard: 22.81 Rabi Fodder: 6.05

156

11.1.2 Indicators of the benchmarking

Performance Indicator Definition/Formula Estimated

Values

(i) Water delivery capacity 3

3

Canal capacity at the head (m


/s)

/s)

LMC: 1.10

RMC: 1.05

(ii) Total annual volume of

irrigation supply (MCM)

It is the total annual volume of water diverted for the irrigation 1.92

(iii) Field application efficiency Observed 46.83%

(iv) Annual relative water

supply

Totalannual volumeof water supply (MCM)


0.64

(v) Annual relative irrigation

supply

Totalannual volumeof irrigation supply (MCM)


0.64

(vi) Annual irrigation supply

per unit command area

(m3/ha)


Total command area of the project (CCA in ha)

522.2

(vii) Annual irrigation supply

per unit irrigated area (m3/ha)


Total annual actual irrigated crop area (ha)

2713.5

(viii) Potential utilized and

created

It is the ratio of potential utilized (area irrigated) to created

irrigation potential of the project:

Totalannual irrigated crop area (ha)

Irrigation potential for the project (ha)

actual

created

0.045

(ix) Total annual value of

agricultural production per unit

CCA (Lakh Rs/ha)

Total annual value of agricultural production (Lakh Rs)


0.016

(x) Total annual value of


irrigated area (Lakh Rs/ha)


Total annual irrigated area (ha)

0.09

157

Performance Indicator Definition/Formula Estimated

Values

(xi) Total annual value of


irrigation supply (Rs/m3)


Total annual volume of irrigation supply ( )MCM

10.5

(xii) Total annual value of


of water supply (Lakh

Rs/MCM)

3


Total annual volume of water supply (m )

10.5

(xiii) Total annual value of


of crop water demand (Lakh

Rs/MCM)


Total annual volume of crop water demand ( )MCM

24.4

(xiv) Cost recovery ratio Gross revenue collected

Total MOM cost

0.024

(xv) Total MOM cost per unit

area (Rs/ha)

Total MOM cost (Rs)

Total irrigated area in CCA (ha)

252.0

(xvi) Revenue collection

performance

Gross revenue collected (Rs)


--

(xvii)Staffing per unit area

(person/ha)

Total number of staff engaged in Irrigation service

Total annual irrigated area by the system

0.002

(xviii) Revenue per unit of

volume of irrigation supply

(Lkah Rs/MCM)

Gross revenue collected (Lakh Rs)


0.0106

(xix) Total MOM cost per unit

of volume of irrigation supply

(Lakh Rs/MCM)

Total MOM cost (Lakh Rs)


0.285

(xx) Land degradation index Land degraded due to water logging and salinity (ha) 100%

Irrigation potential created (ha)

Nil

158

11.2 Remedial Measure: Suggestion to improve O&M and MOM of canal system

After analysing the whole data collected in the study, analysis and key finding of system deficiency a comprehensive plan shall be prepared to improve the O&M of the canal system. Recommendations are:

(i) Water availability: Bagolia irrigation project is severely facing with water scarcity, and therefore cannot utilize its created potential. To ensure irrigation, it is recommended to explore the feasibility of water diversion project from surplus catchment or basin.

(ii) Measuring structures/gauges in canal system: To operate the system efficiently and equitable distribution of water in the command, flow measuring structures will be required to install. A combination of flumes and gauge well is recommended. Gauge well gives available operating head for the outlets.

(iii) Outlet control: Mostly the outlets are uncontrolled. Outlets offtaking from the main canal should be gated and equipped with gauge well to know the operating head. It is therefore recommended to install the gate at the mouth of the outlet to regulate the flow.

(iv) Irrigation recording: Monitoring of the system, especially the irrigation recording so that actual revenue can be assessed. Irrigation recording is not registered fully. It is therefore, suggested that the old practice of using Departmental Patwaries for revenue collection as well as irrigation recording need to be relooked.

Water Resources Department had handover the irrigation recording and revenue collection to the Revenue Department, which has shown deficiency in the recording as well as collection of revenue. It is suggested to reform the original practice of irrigation monitoring and revenue collection by Departmental Patwaries. For these projects, practices from IGNP can be replicated which results into satisfactory irrigation monitoring and revenue collection. In IGNP, it is being done by Departmental Patwaries.

(v) Enmankment protection: The embankment dam should comply with the Annexure A.12.

(vi) Staffing: The project is running with least available staff and should be according to the recommendation made in Annexure A.13.

(vii) Canal maintenance: Periodic canal maintenance is required following the BIS Code of Practices given in annexure A.14.

(viii) Cost recovery ratio: Cost recovery ration of the project is very poor (i.e. 0.0239) and should be close to unity for sustainability of the project. It is recommended to increase the irrigation rates to recover the MOM cost.

(ix) The overall irrigation efficiency of the sytem is less (i.e. 37.64%) as compared to the international standard (i.e. 50 to 60%) resulting into huge loss. If this efficiency is improved up to 54% (i.e. Ec = 90%, and Ea = 60%) then the last four years average value of duty (i.e. 55.25 ha/MCM) can be increased up to 93.32 ha/MCM.

Field application efficiency is quite satisfactory (i.e. 46.83%), but can be increased up to 60% through proper field delivery.

Conveyance efficiency should be increased up to 95 %, and lining work should be adequately considered in the ERM.

(x) Canal capacity at head: The capacities of both canals are sufficient for 21 days of base period to meet the supply at peak irrigation demand considering the current cropping pattern and efficiency.

(xi) Recommended cropping pattern is:

159

Dependablity (%)

LC (MCM)

Total Irrigated Area (ha)

Economical and Optimal Cropping Pattern (%)

Wheat Barley Gram Mustard Fodder

75 0 0.00

50 0.14 18.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 0.00

25 2.12 323.00 0.00 0.00 39.24 60.76 0.00

20 2.83 420.65 6.69 0.00 46.65 46.65 0.00

(xii) Formation of WUA: Formation of WUA can also help in the management of canal operation.

Awareness to the WUA can be recommended for crop selection and minimization of losses with emphasis to the improvement in gross income to the farmers.

Once the sytem is restructured, WUA and Barabandi etc. will work, otherwise there will be a failure and no intermittent measures will be beneficial as far as the complete performance is concerned.

(xiii) Suggested survey for ICA: To check the recording with all check in the command area of the project including numbers & outlets and regulators along with their design capacity as per design of canal system, resurvey of ICA is required. Based on revised survey, revised Sjara map could be prepared and draw-off satment can be revised.

(xiv) Reservoir capacity survey: The survey of reservoir capacity was done long time back and should be revised.

(xv) Suggested study: Further to this, to assess the impact of the Anicuts/WHS, a separate study should be taken up to evaluate the impact of micro-storage schemes on the medium irrigation schemes.

11.3 Survey of CCA, and Reservoir Capacity

For the proposal of effective estimate of remedial measures for the project, the scope of work

should be read as follows:

S. No. Work description Scope of work

1 Cross-section survey (i) Cross-section survey of the main canals; (ii) Cross-section survey of distributary minors

and sub-minors.

2 Topographic survey Topographic survey of whole command area and

development of contour with 30 m interval.

3 Walk through survey (i) GPS location of entire outlets/diversion/offtake control points in whole system;

(ii) Measurement of existing outlet size and the operational head at the offtake;

(iii) Survey of alignment of the existing water courses with their field outlets;

(iv) Marking of the Chak along the water course alignment being irrigated by the canal.

(v) Recording of cropping pattern.

4 Sajra map Revision of Sajra map based on surveyed ICA

5 Analyses for the sufficiency of the

outlet size

Proposal for revised outlet size based on the

required discharge to meet the irrigation

6 Analyses of the sufficiency of the Proposal of revised cross-section for the

160

S. No. Work description Scope of work

capacity of the Main/Distributary/

Minor /Sub-minor canal

distribution system.

7 Draw-off statement Development of the revised Draw-off statement

8 Reservoir capacity survey Dvelopment of revised Elevation-Area-Capacity

Curve/Table and Estimation of New Zero

Elevation of the reservoir

11.3.1 Financial estimate for the survey

S. No. Work description Unit Cost estimate as per BSR-2012 (Rs)

Revised cost as per escalation (Rs)

1 Cross-section survey (@ 3935/km) 45.21 177901.35 213481.62

2 Topographic survey of the command area and preparation of revised Sajra Map indicating all the relevant details (@635/ha) 3676.75 2334736.25 2801683.5

3 Walk through survey (@250000/Project) 250000 300000

4 Draw-off statement for complete distribution system (@2875/km) 45.21 129978.75 155974.5

5 Drawing and reports (@200000/Project) 200000 240000

6 Reservoir's bathymetry survey (@350/ha) 162 56700 68040

Total Survey Cost (Rs) 3149316.35 3779179.62

Say (Lakh Rs)

38.00

161

11.4 Estimate of remedial measures

11.4.1 General Abstract of the Cost

S. No Particulars Amount (Rs)

1 Cost of Estimate Based on BSR 2014 for Main canal renovation as per Water Audit Report (Chapter 8) and Renovation of Whole Secondary and Tertialry canals

165453750.00

2 Add 20 % Expected Tender Premium 33090750

Total 198544500.00

3 Phased Escalation

Year Amount (in Rs Lakh)

Escalation % @ Escalation Amount (Rs)

2015 - 16 0 0 0.000

2016 - 17 79417800 7 5559246.000

2017 - 18 119126700.00 14 16677738.000

Total 198544500 22236984.000

4 Total Cost of Project (Rs)

220781484.00

5 Total Cost of Project (Lakh Rs)

2207.81

163

11.4.2 Existing cropping pattern before renovation

S.No. Crops Irrigated Unirrigated Total Details of C.C.A. ( Hectare ) % C.C.A. Area (ha) % C.C.A. Area (ha) % C.C.A. Area (ha)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

A KHARIF

1 Paddy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

0.00 0.00 C.C.A. 3676.75

2 Maize 0.00 0.00 64.04 2354.59 64.04 2354.59

Well Irrigated area

1714.15

3 Kh. Puises 0.00 0.00 1.14 41.91

1.14 41.91

Unirrigated area in Kharif

3676.75

4 Oil seeds 0.00 0.00 5.56 204.43 5.56 204.43 Pasture Land 0.00

5 Other 0.00 0.00 29.26 1075.82

29.26 1075.82

Crop Cultivated during Rabi

1714.15

TOTAL 0.00 0.00 100.00 3676.75 100.00 3676.75 TOTAL 7105.05

Irrigated-Canal Irrigated-Well Total

B RABI 1 Wheat 61.81 0.00 61.81 1059.52 61.81 1059.52

2 Barley 8.52 0.00 8.52 146.05 8.52 146.05

3 Gram 0.81 0.00 0.81 13.88 0.81 13.88

4 Mustard 22.81 0.00 22.81 391.00 22.81 391.00

5 Others 6.05 0.00 6.05 103.71 6.05 103.71

TOTAL 100.00 0.00 100.00 1714.15 100.00 1714.15

GRAND TOTAL 100.00 0.00 200.00 5390.90 200.00 5390.90

164

11.4.3 Values of produce as per existing cropping pattern and before renovation

S.No. Crops Area (ha) Av. Yield (Qt/ha)

Total Yield (Qt)

Rate (Rs/Qt) Total Value of Produce ( Rs)

Rate of Seed ( Rs/ha)

Total Cost of Seed (Rs)

Rate of Fert. (Rs/ha)

Total Cost of Fert (Rs)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(Present)

1 Paddy 0.00 7.10 0.00 1200.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 500 0

2 Maize 2354.59 30.00 70637.72 1175.00 82999322.18 500.00 1177295.35 200 470918.14

3 Kh. Puises 41.91 2.19 91.79 3000.00 275381.22 0.00 0.00 200 8382.99

4 Oil seeds 204.43 3.63 742.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200 40885.46

5 Other 1075.82 6.50 6992.81 500.00 3496405.41 15.00 16137.26 150 161372.5575

6 Wheat 1059.52 35.00 37083.06 1350.00 50062136.43 600.00 635709.67 500 529758.0575

7 Barley 146.05 30.00 4381.37 1100.00 4819504.14 550.00 80325.07 350 51115.953

8 Gram 13.88 14.00 194.38 3000.00 583153.83 1125.00 15620.19 200 2776.923

9 Mustard 391.00 15.00 5864.96 3000.00 17594892.68 60.00 23459.86 200 78199.523

10 Others 103.71 7.50 777.80 500.00 388897.78 20.00 2074.12 150 15555.91125

0

Total 5390.90 160219693.67 1950621.51 1358965.52

Say 5391.00 160219694.00 1950622.00 1358966.00

165

11.4.4 Proposed cropping pattern with Renovation

S.No. Crops Irrigated Unirrigated Total Details of CCA (ha)

Well Canal

% C.C.A. Area (ha)

% C.C.A. Area (ha)

% C.C.A. Area (ha)

% C.C.A. Area (ha)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

A Kharif 1 Paddy 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.000 C.C.A. 3676.75

2 Maize 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.04 2354.59 64.04 2354.591 Bed Cultivation 0.00

3 Kh. Puises 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.14 41.91 1.14 41.915 Well Irrigated 1714.00

4 Oil seeds 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.56 204.43 5.56 204.427 Irrigated area 1963.00

5 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.26 1075.82 29.26 1075.82

Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3676.75 100.00 3676.750 7353.75

B Rabi 1 Wheat 28.34 485.75 28.34 556.31 0.00 0.00 28.34 1042.06

2 Barley 9.45 161.97 9.45 185.50 0.00 0.00 9.45 347.48

3 Gram 9.45 161.97 9.45 185.50 0.00 0.00 9.45 347.48

4 Mustard 43.31 742.33 43.31 850.18 0.00 0.00 43.31 1592.51

5 Others 9.45 161.97 9.45 185.50 0.00 0.00 9.45 347.48

Total 100.00 1714.00 100.00 1963.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 3677.000

C Zayad

(Moong) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Grand Total 100.00 1714.00 100.00 1963.00 100.00 3677.00 200.00 7354.000

166

11.4.5 Values of produce as per proposed cropping pattern with Renovation

S.No. Crops Area (ha) Av. Yield

(Qt/ha)

Total Yield (Qt)

Rate (Rs/Qt )

Total Value of Produce (Rs)

Rate of Seed

(Rs/ha)

Total Cost of Seed

(Rs)

Rate of Fertilizer (Rs/ha)

Total Cost of Fert. (Rs)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

(Canal IRRIGATED)

1 Paddy 0.00 7.10 0.00 1200.00 0.00 1000.00 0.00 500 0

2 Maize 2354.59 30.00 70637.72 1175.00 82999322.18 500.00 1177295.35 200 470918.14

3 Kh. Puises 41.91 2.19 91.79 3000.00 275381.22 0.00 0.00 200 8382.99

4 Oil seeds 204.43 3.63 742.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 200 40885.46

5 Other 1075.82 6.50 6992.81 500.00 3496405.41 15.00 16137.26 150 161372.5575

6 Wheat 1042.06 35.00 36472.16 1350.00 49237420.05 600.00 625237.08 500 521030.9

7 Barley 347.48 30.00 10424.30 1100.00 11466724.50 550.00 191112.08 350 121616.775

8 Gram 347.48 14.00 4864.67 3000.00 14594013.00 1125.00 390911.06 200 69495.3

9 Mustard 1592.51 15.00 23887.63 3000.00 71662891.50 60.00 95550.52 200 318501.74

10 Others 347.48 7.50 2606.07 500.00 1303036.88 20.00 6949.53 150 52121.475

11 Zayad (Moong)

0.00 0.00 0

0.00 0

0.00 0

0

TOTAL 7353.75 14825.00 235035194.73 3870.00 2503192.88 1764325.34

SAY 7354.00 235035195.00 2503193.00 1764326.00

167

11.4.6 Net receipt before renovation

Total Area

5390.90

S.No. Particulars Amount (Rs)

A GROSS RECEIPT

1 Gross Value of farm produce for grain 160219694.00

2 During Receipt @3% of the fodder expenditure 4806590.82

Total ( A ) 165026284.82

B EXPENSES

1 Cost of seed 1950622.00

2 Expenditure on manures or fertilizers 1358966.00

3 Depriciation on implements @2.70% of the Gross Value of Farm produce

4325932.00

4 Share and cash rent @5% of the Gross Value of produce

8010985.00

5 Expenditure on hired bullock or tractor and labour @Rs.4050.00/ha

21833145.00

6 Fodder expenditure @15% of the Gross Value of produce

24032955.00

7 Irrigation Charges 0.00

8 Land revenue for Canal irrigated area @Rs.15.00/ha

0.00

9 Land revenue for unirrigated area @Rs.4.70 /ha 25337.00

Total ( B ) 61537942.00

C NET RECEIPT

Total ( A ) - Total ( B ) 103488342.82

Total 103488342.82

Net Receipt per Hectare (Rs/ha) 19196.86

168

11.4.7 Net receipt after renovation

Total Area

7354.00

S.No. Particulars AMOUNT

A GROSS RECEIPT

1 Gross Value of farm produce for grain 235035195.00

2 During Receipt @30% of the fodder expenditure 7051056.00

Total ( A ) 242086251.00

B EXPENSES

1 Expenditure on seeds 2503193.00

2 Expenditure on manures or fertilizers 1764326.00

3 Depriciation on implements @2.70% of the Gross Value of Farm produce

6345950.00

4 Share and cash rent @3% of the Gross Value of produce

7051056.00

5 Expenditure on hired bullock/tractor and labour @Rs.4050/ha

29783700.00

6 Expenditure on Plant Protection measures @Rs.300/ha

2206200.00

7 Fodder expenditure @10% of the Gross Value of produce

23503520.00

8 Irrigation Charges 173036.00

9 Land revenue for Canal irrigated area @Rs.15.00/ha

29445.00

Total ( B ) 73360426.00

C NET RECEIPT

Total ( A ) - Total ( B ) 168725825.00

Total 168725825.00

Net Receipt per Hectare of irrigated Area (Rs/ha) 22943.41 Say 22944.00

169

11.4.8 Estimated benefit-cost ratio for Project renovation

S.No. Particulars Amount

Annual Receipt

A Present Canal System

1 Benefits of before Project renovation 103488342.82

Total (A) 103488342.82

B After RRR

1 Benefits from renovation 168725825.00

Total (B) 168725825.00

Net Benefit

Total ( B ) - Total ( A ) 65237482.18

C CAPITAL COST OF THE RRR

1 Total Cost of the RRR 198544500.00

Total-C 198544500.00

Annual Cost

1 Interest @6.50% on Capital Cost 12905393.00

2 Depriciation of the Project @1% of the Capital Cost

1985445.00

3 O. and M. cost of Project @Rs.300.00 Per Hectare of Gross irrigated area or C.C.A. whichever ir more i.e.

1103025.00

4 Maintenance of the Head Works @1% of the Cost

1985445.00

Total Annual Cost 17979308.00

Benefir Coat Ratio @ 6.50 % Interest

Net Benefit/Total Annual Cost

3.628

BC Ratio

3.628:1

171

Bibliography

[1] Allen, R.G., Jensen, M.E., Wright, J.L., and Burman, R.D. (1989). Operational estimates of

reference evapotranspiration. Agron J., 81: 650-662.

[2] Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines

for computing crop water requirements. Irrigation & Drainage Paper No. 56. United Nations

FAO, Rome, Italy.

[3] Chow, V.T. (1959). Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York.

[4] Chow, V.T., Maidment, D.R., and Mays, L.W. (1988). Applied Hydrology, McGraw-Hill Book

Company, New York.

[5] Doorenbos, J. and Pruitt, W.O. (1977). Crop water requirement. Irigation & Drainage paper No.

24, FAO, Rome, Italy.

[6] FAO (1985). Irrigation Water Management: Training manual No. 1: Introduction to irrigation.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

[7] FAO (1986). Irrigation Water Management: Training manual No. 3: Irrigation water needs.

United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

[8] FAO (1988). Irrigation Water Management: Training manual No. 5: Irrigation methods. United

Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.

[9] FAO (1989). Irrigation Water Management: Training manual No. 4: Irrigation scheduling. United


[10] Feddes, R.A., Kabat, P., Van Bakel, P.J.T., Bronswijk, J.J.B., and Halbertsma, J. (1988).

Modeling soil water dynamics in the unsaturated zone-state of the art. J. Hydrol., 100: 69-111.

[11] Hargreaves, G.H., and Samani, Z. (1985). Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature.

Appl. Engg. Agr, ASAE, 192): 96-99.

[12] Hawkins, R.H., Hjelmfelt, A.T., and Zevenbergen, A.W. (1985). Runoff probability, storm depth,

and curve numbers. J. Irrig. Drain. Engr., ASCE, 111(4): 330-340.

[13] ICAR (2008). Handbook of Agriculture. Indian Council of Agricultural Research, New Delhi.

[14] ICID (1978). Standards for the calculation of irrigation efficiencies. ICID Bulletin 27(1): 91-101.

[15] Jensen, M.E., and Haise, H.R. (1963). Estimating evapotranspiration from solar radiation. J.

Irrig. Drain. Div., ASCE, 96: 25-28.

[16] Jensen, M.E., Burman, R.D., and Allen, R.G. (eds.) (1990). Evapotranspiration and irrigation

water requirements. ASCE Manual No. 70: 332 p.

[17] McCuen, R.H. (1982). A Guide to Hydrologic Analysis using SCS mehod. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

[18] Mishra, S.K., and Singh, V.P. (2003). Soil Conservation Services Curve Number (SCS-CN)

Methodology. Water Science and Technology, Vol. 42, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The

Netherlands.

[19] Monteith, J.L. (1965). Evaporation and environment. In: Fogg, G.E. (ed.) The state and

movement of water in living organisms. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 205-234 p.

[20] Murray, F.W. (1967). On the computation of saturation vapor pressure. J. Appl. Meteor., 6: 203-

204.

172

[21] Nash, J.E. (1959). A note on the Muskingum flood routing method. J. Geophys. Res., 64: 1053-

1056.

[22] Penman, H.L. (1948). Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass. Proc. Roy. Soc.

Lond. (A), 193: 120-145.

[23] Ponce, V.M. (1979). Simplified Muskingum routing equation. J. Hydr. Div., ASCE, 105 (HY1):

85-91.

[24] Ponce, V.M. (1989). Engineering Hydrology: Principles and Practices. Prentice-Hall, Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey.

[25] Schaake, J.C., Koren, V.I., and Duan, Q-Y (1996). Simple water balance model for estimating

runoff at different spatial and temporal scales. J. Geophy. Res., 101 (D3): 7561-7475.

[26] Singh, V. P. (1988a). Hydrologic Systems: Vol I, Rainfall-Runoff Modeling, Prentice-Hall, New

Jersey 07632, USA.

[27] Singh, V. P. (1988b). Elementary Hydrology, Prentice-Hall, New Jersey 07632, USA

[28] Soil Conservation Services (1972). National Engineering handbook, Section 4. Hydrology. Soil

Conservation Services (SCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Washington,

DC.

[29] USDA (1970). Irrigation Water Requirement, Technical Release 21. Soil Conservation Services,

United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

[30] Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998). Crop evapotranspiration - Guidelines for

computing crop water requirements - FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO - Food and

Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, 1998.

[31] ASABE (2007). S526.3 SEP20077: Soil and water terminology. American Society of Agricultural

and Biological Engineers, St. Joseph, Mich.

[32] Borg H, and Grimes DW (1986). Depth development of rootswith time: an empirical description.

Transaction ASCE, 29(1): 194-197.

[33] Broner I (2005). Irrigation scheduling. Bulletin 4.708. Colorado State University, Ft. Collins,

Colo.

[34] FAO (1989). Irrigation Water Management: Training manual No. 4: Irrigation scheduling. United


[35] Hargreaves, G.H. (1994). Defining and using reference evapotranspiration. J. Irrg. Drain. Engr.,

ASCE, 120(6): 1132-1139.

[36] Hargreaves, G.H., and Samani, Z. (1985). Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature.

Appl. Engg. Agr, ASAE, 192): 96-99.

[37] ICID (1978). Standards for the calculation of irrigation efficiencies. ICID Bulletin 27(1): 91-101.

[38] McCuen, R.H. (1982). A Guide to Hydrologic Analysis using SCS mehod. Prentice-Hall,

Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey.

[39] McCuen, R.H. (1989). Hydrologic Analysis and Design, 2nd

edn., Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

[40] McCuen, R.H. (2002). Approach to confidence interval estimation for curve numbers. J. Hydrol.

Engg., ASCE, 7(1): 43-48.

[41] Mishra, S.K., and Singh, V.P. (2003). Soil Conservation Services Curve Number (SCS-CN)

Methodology. Water Science and Technology, Vol. 42, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The

Netherlands.

[42] USDA (1972). USDA-SCS National Engineering handbook, Section 4. Soil Conservation

Services, United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.

[43] Van Mullem, J.A. (1989). Runoff and peak discharges using Green-Ampt infiltration model. J.

Hydraul. Engg., ASCE, 117 (3): 354-370.

173

[44] Singh, K. K. (ed.). 1981. Warabandi for irrigated agriculture in India. Publication no. 146. New

Delhi: Central Board of Irrigation and Power, India.

[45] Malhotra, S. P. 1982. The Warabandi and its infrastructure. Publication no. 157. New Delhi:

Central Board of Irrigation and Power, India.

[46] IS: 7986-1976. Code of Practice for Canal Outlets. Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

175

Appendices

177

A.1 Gauge-capacity Table

Level (ft amsl) Gauge (ft) Gross Capacity (MCFT) Level (ft amsl) Gauge (ft) Gross Capacity (MCFT)

1647.5 -6.0 0.0 1662.5 9.0 135.0

1648.0 -5.5 1.3 1663.0 9.5 150.0

1648.5 -5.0 2.5 1663.5 10.0 160.0

1649.0 -4.5 3.8 1664.0 10.5 175.0

1649.5 -4.0 5.0 1664.5 11.0 190.0

1650.0 -3.5 6.0 1665.0 11.5 202.5

1650.5 -3.0 7.0 1665.5 12.0 220.0

1651.0 -2.5 8.0 1666.0 12.5 240.0

1651.5 -2.0 9.0 1666.5 13.0 255.0

1652.0 -1.5 10.0 1667.0 13.5 272.5

1652.5 -1.0 12.5 1667.5 14.0 292.5

1653.0 -0.5 15.0 1668.0 14.5 310.0

1653.5 0.0 20.0 1668.5 15.0 327.5

1654.0 0.5 21.0 1669.0 15.5 348.0

1654.5 1.0 23.0 1669.5 16.0 368.0

1655.0 1.5 25.0 1670.0 16.5 390.0

1655.5 2.0 30.0 1670.5 17.0 420.0

1656.0 2.5 33.0 1671.0 17.5 450.0

1656.5 3.0 38.0 1671.5 18.0 475.0

1657.0 3.5 44.0 1672.0 18.5 500.0

1657.5 4.0 50.0 1672.5 19.0 532.5

1658.0 4.5 55.0 1673.0 19.5 560.0

1658.5 5.0 62.0 1673.5 20.0 587.5

1659.0 5.5 70.0 1674.0 20.5 615.0

1659.5 6.0 75.0 1674.5 21.0 650.0

1660.0 6.5 85.0 1675.0 21.5 686.0

1660.5 7.0 95.0 1675.5 22.0 720.0

1661.0 7.5 105.0 1675.75 22.25 725.0

1661.5 8.0 115.0 1676.0 22.5 750.0

1662.0 8.5 125.0

178

A.2 10-daily crop coefficients for Rabi and Kharif Crops (dimensionless)

Crop Crop Whea

t Barley Gram

Mus-tard

Rabi Fodder

Maize

Soy-bean

Ground-nut

Jowar

Others

Month Duration of crop

130 130 141 130 182 102 130 130 115 140

10-day/Date of sowing 16-Nov

07-Nov

21-Oct

16-Oct 16-Oct 01-Jul

01-Jul 01-Jul 01-Jul

01-Jul

Oct I

0.6 1.05 1.05 0.75 0.75

Oct II

0.1 0.5 0.5 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.6

Oct III

0.1 0.1 0.66

0.75 0.75 0.5 0.5

Nov I

0.2 0.3 0.2 0.65

0.2 0.2

Nov II 0.2 0.2 0.8 0.54 0.65

Nov III 0.3 0.75 0.8 0.54 0.85

Dec I 0.75 0.75 1.05 0.9 0.9

Dec II 0.84 0.75 1.1 0.95 0.8

Dec III 1.05 0.75 1.1 1 0.6

Jan I 1.15 1.05 1.1 1.1 0.8

Jan II 1.15 1.15 1.05 1.15 0.65

Jan III 1.15 0.65 0.8 0.9 0.54

Feb I 1.15 0.65 0.55 0.8 0.8

Feb II 1.15 0.65 0.55 0.6 0.65

Feb III 0.9 0.25 0.25 0.4 0.6

Mar I 0.84 0.2

0.85

Mar II 0.4 0.2

0.75

Mar III 0.2

0.6

Apr I

0.85

Apr II

0.75

Apr III

May I

May II

May III

Jun I

Jun II

Jun III

Jul I

0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.12

Jul II

0.4 0.12 0.12 0.22 0.22

Jul III

0.76 0.12 0.12 0.35 0.34

Aug I

1.15 0.5 0.5 0.7 0.71

Aug II

1.15 0.7 0.7 0.72 0.82

Aug III

1.15 0.9 0.9 0.75 0.93

Sep I

1.05 1.05 1.05 1 1.04

Sep II

0.9 1.05 1.05 1.05 1.01

Sep III

0.72 1.05 1.05 1.05 0.97

179

A.3 Field capacity and Permanent Wilting Point

S. No.

Texture Field Capacity,

FC (%) Permanent Wilting

Point, PWP (%)

1 Sand 10 5

2 Loamy sand 12 5

3 Sandy loam 18 8

4 Sandy clay loam 27 17

5 Loam 28 14

6 Sandy clay 36 25

7 Silty loam 31 11

8 Silt 30 6

9 Clay loam 36 22

10 Silty clay loam 38 22

11 Silty clay 41 27

12 Clay 42 30

A.4 Values of minimum allowable deficit and depth of crops

S. No.

Crop MAD (%) Maximum Root Depth (cm)

1 Maize 65 60 – 90

2 Pasture 65 45 – 60

3 Peas 65 50 – 60

4 Potato 30 50 – 60

5 Sorghum 65 60 – 90

6 Soybean 65 80 – 100

7 Wheat 65 90 – 120

8 Sugarcane 60 70 – 95

9 Barley 90 – 100

10 Cotton 120 – 150

11 Groundnut 60 – 75

12 Gram 120 – 150

13 Mustard 120 – 150

14 Paddy 30 – 60

15 Pearl Millet (Bajra) 60 – 90

16 Arhar (Tur) 120 – 150

A.5 Approximate net irrigation depth applied per irrigation (mm)

Soil Type Shallow Rooted

Medium Rooted

Deep Rooted

Shallow and/or sandy soil 15 30 40

Loamy soil 20 40 60

Clayey soil 30 50 70

A.6 Recommended value of irrigation application rate

Soil Type Maximum application rate with different land slopes (mm/h)

0-5% 5-8% 8-12%

Coarse sandy soil 38.0 – 50.8 25.4 – 38.1 19.0 – 25.4

Light sandy 19.0 – 25.4 12.7 – 20.3 10.2 – 15.2

Silt loam 7.62 – 12.7 6.35 – 10.2 3.81 – 7.62

Clay loam to clay 3.81 2.54 2.03

180

A.7 List of upstream structures (Anicuts/WHS)

S. No.

Catchment Submergence Area (sq km)

Submergence Area (ha)

Capacity (MCM)

Capacity (MCFT)

1 Bagolia 0.0022 0.220 0.011 0.399

2 Bagolia 0.0023 0.233 0.012 0.424

3 Bagolia 0.0095 0.955 0.049 1.737

4 Bagolia 0.0171 1.709 0.088 3.109

5 Bagolia 0.0410 4.101 0.211 7.459

6 Bagolia 0.0067 0.670 0.034 1.218

7 Bagolia 0.0178 1.777 0.092 3.232

8 Bagolia 0.0031 0.311 0.016 0.566

9 Bagolia 0.0284 2.845 0.146 5.174

10 Bagolia 0.0320 3.204 0.165 5.827

11 Bagolia 0.0032 0.318 0.016 0.578

12 Bagolia 0.0167 1.669 0.086 3.035

13 Bagolia 0.0091 0.908 0.047 1.651

14 Bagolia 0.0321 3.215 0.166 5.847

15 Bagolia 0.0017 0.173 0.009 0.314

16 Bagolia 0.0099 0.994 0.051 1.808

17 Bagolia 0.0135 1.352 0.070 2.458

18 Bagolia 0.0163 1.627 0.084 2.959

19 Bagolia 0.0074 0.735 0.038 1.337

20 Bagolia 0.0062 0.620 0.032 1.127

21 Bagolia 0.0016 0.162 0.008 0.294

22 Bagolia 0.0056 0.557 0.029 1.012

23 Bagolia 0.0105 1.054 0.054 1.916

24 Bagolia 0.0642 6.422 0.331 11.680

25 Bagolia 0.0976 9.756 0.502 17.743

26 Bagolia 0.0129 1.286 0.066 2.338

27 Bagolia 0.0121 1.210 0.062 2.201

28 Bagolia 0.0083 0.833 0.043 1.514

29 Bagolia 0.0095 0.946 0.049 1.720

30 Bagolia 0.0028 0.282 0.015 0.513

31 Bagolia 0.0043 0.430 0.022 0.782

32 Bagolia 0.0644 6.443 0.332 11.717

33 Bagolia 0.0042 0.418 0.022 0.760

34 Bagolia 0.2118 21.183 1.091 38.526

35 Bagolia 0.0098 0.978 0.050 1.778

36 Bagolia 0.0037 0.372 0.019 0.677

37 Bagolia 0.0246 2.460 0.127 4.474

38 Bagolia 0.0270 2.704 0.139 4.919

39 Bagolia 0.0279 2.795 0.144 5.083

40 Bagolia 0.0086 0.863 0.044 1.569

181

S. No.



Capacity (MCM)

Capacity (MCFT)

41 Bagolia 0.0119 1.186 0.061 2.156

42 Bagolia 0.0090 0.897 0.046 1.631

43 Bagolia 0.0081 0.813 0.042 1.478

44 Bagolia 0.0119 1.194 0.061 2.171

45 Bagolia 0.0074 0.744 0.038 1.354

46 Bagolia 0.0029 0.285 0.015 0.518

47 Bagolia 0.0033 0.327 0.017 0.595

48 Bagolia 0.0116 1.159 0.060 2.109

49 Bagolia 0.0058 0.580 0.030 1.055

50 Bagolia 0.0622 6.223 0.321 11.319

51 Bagolia 0.0018 0.183 0.009 0.333

52 Bagolia 0.0030 0.299 0.015 0.545

53 Bagolia 0.0094 0.943 0.049 1.714

54 Bagolia 0.0468 4.678 0.241 8.508

55 Bagolia 0.1783 17.830 0.918 32.427

56 Bagolia 0.0041 0.415 0.021 0.754

57 Bagolia 0.0043 0.433 0.022 0.788

58 Bagolia 0.0041 0.413 0.021 0.751

59 Bagolia 0.2906 29.065 1.497 52.861

60 Bagolia 0.0013 0.125 0.006 0.228

61 Bagolia 0.0016 0.160 0.008 0.291

62 Bagolia 0.0208 2.078 0.107 3.779

63 Bagolia 0.0579 5.785 0.298 10.521

64 Bagolia 0.0246 2.456 0.127 4.467

65 Bagolia 0.0040 0.400 0.021 0.728

66 Bagolia 0.0172 1.717 0.088 3.123

67 Bagolia 0.0022 0.215 0.011 0.392

68 Bagolia 0.0012 0.117 0.006 0.213

69 Bagolia 0.0014 0.140 0.007 0.254

70 Bagolia 0.0026 0.264 0.014 0.480

71 Bagolia 0.0059 0.591 0.030 1.076

72 Bagolia 0.0066 0.660 0.034 1.200

73 Bagolia 0.0023 0.234 0.012 0.426

74 Bagolia 0.0504 5.040 0.260 9.166

75 Bagolia 0.0073 0.734 0.038 1.335

76 Bagolia 0.6064 60.644 3.123 110.293

77 Bagolia 0.0030 0.304 0.016 0.554

78 Bagolia 0.0031 0.314 0.016 0.571

79 Bagolia 0.0073 0.729 0.038 1.325

80 Bagolia 0.0227 2.272 0.117 4.131

81 Bagolia 0.0039 0.390 0.020 0.709

182

S. No.



Capacity (MCM)

Capacity (MCFT)

82 Bagolia 0.0030 0.302 0.016 0.550

83 Bagolia 0.0019 0.192 0.010 0.349

84 Bagolia 0.0056 0.561 0.029 1.021

85 Bagolia 0.1073 10.728 0.552 19.511

86 Bagolia 0.0039 0.386 0.020 0.702

87 Bagolia 0.0075 0.753 0.039 1.370

88 Bagolia 0.0380 3.795 0.195 6.902

89 Bagolia 0.0021 0.212 0.011 0.386

90 Bagolia 0.0045 0.445 0.023 0.810

91 Bagolia 0.0401 4.012 0.207 7.297

92 Bagolia 0.5161 51.611 2.658 93.865

93 Bagolia 0.0089 0.888 0.046 1.615

94 Bagolia 0.0027 0.268 0.014 0.488

95 Bagolia 0.0015 0.146 0.008 0.265

96 Bagolia 0.0044 0.436 0.022 0.792

97 Bagolia 0.0110 1.104 0.057 2.007

98 Bagolia 0.0044 0.435 0.022 0.791

99 Bagolia 0.0036 0.364 0.019 0.662

100 Bagolia 0.0035 0.346 0.018 0.629

101 Bagolia 0.0612 6.118 0.315 11.127

102 Bagolia 0.0069 0.693 0.036 1.260

103 Bagolia 0.0364 3.642 0.188 6.623

104 Bagolia 0.0027 0.273 0.014 0.496

105 Bagolia 0.0042 0.420 0.022 0.763

106 Bagolia 0.0123 1.232 0.063 2.241

107 Bagolia 0.0060 0.597 0.031 1.086

108 Bagolia 0.1291 12.911 0.665 23.482

109 Bagolia 0.2625 26.255 1.352 47.750

110 Bagolia 0.1281 12.810 0.660 23.297

111 Bagolia 0.0055 0.549 0.028 0.999

112 Bagolia 0.0065 0.647 0.033 1.176

113 Bagolia 0.0392 3.923 0.202 7.135

114 Bagolia 0.0155 1.545 0.080 2.811

115 Bagolia 0.0037 0.367 0.019 0.668

116 Bagolia 0.0117 1.167 0.060 2.123

117 Bagolia 0.0147 1.467 0.076 2.668

118 Bagolia 0.0087 0.870 0.045 1.583

119 Bagolia 0.0017 0.165 0.009 0.301

120 Bagolia 0.0154 1.536 0.079 2.794

121 Bagolia 0.0036 0.355 0.018 0.646

122 Bagolia 0.0075 0.755 0.039 1.372

183

S. No.



Capacity (MCM)

Capacity (MCFT)

123 Bagolia 0.0224 2.239 0.115 4.072

124 Bagolia 0.0231 2.308 0.119 4.197

125 Bagolia 0.0069 0.691 0.036 1.257

126 Bagolia 0.0051 0.513 0.026 0.933

127 Bagolia 0.0149 1.494 0.077 2.716

128 Bagolia 0.0322 3.223 0.166 5.861

129 Bagolia 0.0036 0.360 0.019 0.655

130 Bagolia 0.0065 0.653 0.034 1.187

131 Bagolia 0.0482 4.824 0.248 8.773

132 Bagolia 0.0103 1.033 0.053 1.879

133 Bagolia 0.0024 0.244 0.013 0.444

134 Bagolia 0.0032 0.321 0.017 0.584

135 Bagolia 0.0624 6.235 0.321 11.340

136 Bagolia 0.0128 1.281 0.066 2.330

137 Bagolia 0.0262 2.621 0.135 4.766

138 Bagolia 0.0054 0.542 0.028 0.985

139 Bagolia 0.0053 0.530 0.027 0.963

140 Bagolia 0.0048 0.478 0.025 0.869

141 Bagolia 0.0027 0.270 0.014 0.491

142 Bagolia 0.0965 9.649 0.497 17.548

143 Bagolia 0.0070 0.705 0.036 1.282

144 Bagolia 0.0015 0.154 0.008 0.280

145 Bagolia 0.0047 0.475 0.024 0.863

146 Bagolia 0.0022 0.224 0.012 0.407

147 Bagolia 0.1335 13.353 0.688 24.285

148 Bagolia 0.0924 9.241 0.476 16.807

149 Bagolia 0.0022 0.218 0.011 0.397

150 Bagolia 2.3380 233.804 12.041 425.221

151 Bagolia 0.1009 10.093 0.520 18.357

152 Bagolia 0.0108 1.083 0.056 1.969

153 Bagolia 0.0068 0.684 0.035 1.243

154 Bagolia 0.0023 0.229 0.012 0.416

155 Bagolia 0.0223 2.232 0.115 4.059

156 Bagolia 0.4687 46.869 2.414 85.241

157 Bagolia 0.0043 0.429 0.022 0.781

158 Bagolia 0.0093 0.934 0.048 1.698

159 Bagolia 0.0076 0.756 0.039 1.374

160 Bagolia 0.0119 1.190 0.061 2.164

161 Bagolia 0.0180 1.804 0.093 3.281

162 Bagolia 0.0044 0.443 0.023 0.806

163 Bagolia 0.1752 17.518 0.902 31.861

184

S. No.



Capacity (MCM)

Capacity (MCFT)

164 Bagolia 0.0291 2.910 0.150 5.293

165 Bagolia 0.0014 0.139 0.007 0.252

166 Bagolia 0.0010 0.103 0.005 0.188

167 Bagolia 0.0010 0.103 0.005 0.187

168 Bagolia 0.0006 0.058 0.003 0.105

169 Bagolia 0.0006 0.063 0.003 0.114

185

A.8 Irrigation sources

S.

No.

Pond Tubewell Irrigation well no. and wells with pumping Well Padat Well, working well

Villa

ge

s

less t

han 1

00 a

cre

Ayacut

mo

re t

han 1

00 a

cre

Ayacut

only

fo

r peta

agri w

ork

To

tal

Ele

ctr

icity

Die

sel

To

tal

Independent

Ayacut

oth

er

irrig

atio

n s

ourc

e

with E

lectr

icity

with D

iesel

oth

er/

rahat

Govt

Pvt

regula

r w

ork

tota

l

Curr

ent

year-

padat

due to f

alli

ng

oth

er

padat

To

tal

Old

Curr

ent

year

availa

ble

for

work

To

tal

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

1 Mavli

2 2 8

8 285 15 90 20 210 4 296 5 305

200 200 100

100

2 Gadariyawas

0 1

1 55 5 14 6 24

60

60

19 19 41

41

3 Lopra

1 1 5

5 118 7 61 8 55 1 124

125

22 22 103

103

4 Swarooppura

0 1

1 28 2 20 1 10 1 29

30

15 15 15

15

5 Beer Ghas

0 1

1 48 3 27 5 19 1 50

51

14 14 37

37

6 Sawaniya

1 1 1

1 70 5 46 4 25 2 73

75

17 17 58

58

7 Salera Khurd

0 3

3 67 3 56 2 12 1 69

70

7 7 63

63

8 gadoli

0 4

4 103 10 43 17 59 3 116

119

58 58 61

61

9 Tilora

0 1

1 30 6 15 4 17

36

36

13 13 23

23

10 Jawanji Ka Khera

0 1

1 13 1 6 2 6 1 13

14

6 6 8

8

11 Bajmiya

0 2

2 78 7 45 6 34 1 84

85

25 25 60

60

12 cheepi khera

0 2

2 58 5 34 13 4 1 62

63

10 10 53

53

13 Rahmi

0 2

2 48 4 21 8 21 1 51

52

16 16 36

36

14 Gandoli Khera

0 1

1 35 9 1

43

44

44

15 15 26 3

29

15 Ladani

1 1 2

2 108 14 15 8 99 1 121 2 124

56 56 62 4

66

16 Vishanpura

1 1 1

1 43 9 1 5 46

52 2 54

27 27 22 3

25

17 Dangi khera

0

0 17 2 6

13

19

19

8 8 11

11

18 satharo ka khera

0

0 8 2 2 1 7 1 9

10

2 2 8

8

19 badgaon

2 2 32

32 260 16 177 37 62 5 271

276

59 59 217

217

186

S.

No.

Pond Tubewell Irrigation well no. and wells with pumping Well Padat Well, working well

Villa

ge

s

less t

han 1

00 a

cre

Ayacut

mo

re t

han 1

00 a

cre

Ayacut

only

fo

r peta

agri w

ork

To

tal

Ele

ctr

icity

Die

sel

To

tal

Independent

Ayacut

oth

er

irrig

atio

n s

ourc

e

with E

lectr

icity

with D

iesel

oth

er/

rahat

Govt

Pvt

regula

r w

ork

tota

l

Curr

ent

year-

padat

due to f

alli

ng

oth

er

padat

To

tal

Old

Curr

ent

year

availa

ble

for

work

To

tal

20 Itali

1 1 38

38 323 12 127 27 181 5 330 1 336

63 63 250 2 20 272

21 Girdharipura

0 1 1 2 48 2 20 2 28

50

50

18 18 32

32

22 Khempur

0 1

1 64 4 25 10 35 2 68

70

16 16 54

54

23 Bariyar

1

1 6

6 117 28 44 11 90 2 143

145

66 66 79

79

24 bhartadi

0 6

6 75

35 5 35 1 174

175

43 43 32

32

187

A.9 Theissen polygon of the catchment

189

A.10 Irrigation rates

191

A.11 List of outlets/Minors

(A) LMC: Minor details

Canal RD (m) Outlet/Minor Position

Outlet Size (ft.)

Sill Level (m)

Canal FSD (m) CCA (ha) ICA (ha)

Outlet Discharge (cumecs)

5880 Mavli Minor I L 360.00 191.00 0.163

6560 Lopda Minor R 313.00 166.00 0.142

6630 Mavli Minor II L 241.00 128.00 0.109

8070 Bishanpura Minor L 749.00 397.00 0.34

9210 Khempur Minor L 1272.00 674.00 0.576

9210 Taria Minor (Tail) R 510.00 270.00 0.231

(A) RMC: Canal

Length (km) CCA (ha) ICA (ha) Discharge (cumecs)

3 221 132 0.19

192

A.12 General guideline for embankment sections (Source: IS: 12169 – 1987)

S. No.

Description Height:

< 5 m

Height:

5 – 10 m

Height:

10 – 15 m

1 Type of section Homogeneous/Modified homogeneous section

Zoned / Modified homogeneous /Homogeneous section

Zoned / modified homogeneous/ homogeneous section

2 Side slopes U/S D/S U/S D/S U/S D/S

(a) Coarse grained soil

(i) GW, GP, SW, SP Not suitable Not suitable Not suitable for core, Suitable for casing zone

(ii) GC,GM,SC,SM 2:1 2:1 2:1 2:1 Section to be decided based upon stability analysis

b) Fine grained soil

(i) CL,ML,CI,MI 2:1 2:1 2.5:1 2.25:1 Section to be decided based upon stability analysis

(ii) CH, MH 2:1 2:1 3.75:1 2.5:1 Section to be decided based upon stability analysis

3. Hearting zone Not required May be Provided Necessary

a) Top width -- 3m 3m

b) Top Level -- 0.5m above MWL 0.5m above MWL

4. Rock toe height

Not necessary up to 3m height.

Above 3m height, 1m height of rock toe may be provided

Necessary

= H/5

Necessary

= H/5

5. Berms Not necessary Not necessary

The berm may be provided as per design. The minimum berm width shall be 3 m.

H is height of embankment GW: Well graded clean gravels, gravel-sand mixture; GP: Poorly graded clean gravels, gravel-sand mixture GM: Silty gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt mixture; GC: Clayey gravels, poorly graded gravel-sand-silt SW: Well graded clean sand, gravelly sands; SP: Poorly graded clean sands, sand-gravel mixture SM: Silty sands, poorly graded sand-silt mixture; SC: Clayey sands, poorly graded sand-clay mixture ML: Inorganic silts and clayey silts; CL: Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity MH: Inorganic clayey silts, elastic silts; CH: Inorganic clays of high plasticity

193

A.13 Proposed requirement of operation and maintenance staff on Major/ Medium

Irrigation

Structure

Departmental staff Requirement (Nos)

Alternative Agency other than

Department Superviser

/Mistry Chowkidar

/Beldar Electricia

n Pump Driver

(A) Dam and Spillways

Main Dam 2 7

(Two in each shift)

Gallery ( For Dewatering)

4 (one in each

shift) 2 3

Work can be given on contract basis

Spillway Gates 2 7

(Two in each shift)

2

Work canbe given on contract basis

(B) Main Canal and Distribution System

Main Canal/Distributary

1

3 One in each

shift Per 5 km length

WUA

Distribution system

3 One in each

shift Per 5 km length

WUA

194

A.14 List of BIS codes for canal maintenance

S. No. IS Code Title

1 IS 3872-2002 Lining of Canals with Burnt Clay Tiles - Code of Practices

2 IS 3873-1993 Laying cement concretestone slab lining on canals- Code of Practice

3 IS 4558-1995 Under-drainage of lined canals - Code of Practice

4 IS 4701-1982 Code of practice for earthwork on canals

5 IS 4839-1-1992 Maintenance of canals - Code of practice Part 1: Unlined canals

6 IS 4839-2-1992 Maintenance of canals - Code of practice Part 2: Lined canals

7 IS 4839-3-1992 Maintenance of canals - Code of practice Part 3: Canal Structures,

Drains, Outlets, Jungle, Clearance, Plantation and Regulation

8 IS 5256-1992 Sealing Expansion Joints in Concrete Lining of Canals - Code of

practice

9 IS 5690-1982 Guide for laying combination lining for existing unlined canals

10 IS 6531-1994 Canal Head Regulators - Criteria for Design

11 IS 6936-1992 Guide for location, selection and hydraulic design of canal escapes

12 IS 7112-2002 Criteria for Design of Cross-Section for Unlined Canals in Alluvial Soil

13 IS 7113-2003 Soil-Cement Lining for Canals - Code of Practice

14 IS 7114-1973 Criteria for hydraulic design of cross regulators for canals

15 IS 7331-1981 Code of practice for inspection and maintenance of cross-drainage

works

16 IS 9451-1994 Guidelines for lining of canals in expansive soils

17 IS 10430-2000 Criteria for design of lined canals and guidance for selection of type of

lining

18 IS 10646-1991 Canal lining-Cement Concrete Tiles-Specification

19 IS 11809-1994 Lining for Canals by Stone Masonry –Code of Practice

20 IS 12331-1988 General Requirement for Canal Outlets

21 IS 12379-1983 Code of Practice for Lining of Water-Courses and Field Channels

Study of Benchmarking and Water Auditing of 20 nos. Major ... · Auditing of 20 nos. Major and...

Documents

Transcript of Study of Benchmarking and Water Auditing of 20 nos. Major ... · Auditing of 20 nos. Major and...