Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
4/22/2016
1
Connecting the Last Mile through Underground Pipelines
Experience of Sardar Sarovar Project, Gujarat
K. A. Patel and Dr. M. B. Joshi
Sardar Sarovar Project, Gujarat, IP 1.8 Million Hectare
4/22/2016
2
• Irrigation – 19.05 Lakh Ha (18 Lakh Ha. In Gujarat)
• Increase in Agricultural Production
- 87 Lakh Tonnes per annum
• Hydro Power – 100 crore units per year
(installed capacity 1450 MW)
• Drinking water - 9490 villages (out of 18225 total)and 173 towns (out of 195 total)
• Flood Protection to 30,000 Ha
• 10 lakh jobs - mostly in rural areas
3
So far…..86,800 MCM of water conveyed
37,655 MU of ecofriendly hydro power generation
Sardar Sarovar Project, Gujarat, The Planned Benefits
Conventional System of Open Gravity Channels
4/22/2016
3
Physical Progress
Type of canal Total Length in Km
Completed Length in Km
Main Canal 458 458
Branch Canal 2731 2515
Distributaries 4569 3920
Minors 15670 11487
Sub-minors 48320 17404
Total 71748 35784
Major Challenge for Speedy completion of Sub-Minors
• Sub-Minors of 38,000 km / 13.7 lac ha to be executed
• 19,000 ha land to be acquired for Sub-Minors –without any compensation as per extant Policy
• 3 lac farmers will be affected against 86,000 farmers upto Minors – fragmentation of farmland
• Availability of borrow areas / contractors / laborers for canal construction ?
• Implementation period of about 6 - 7 years
• Poor response for participation by beneficiaries
Pre-Policy Scenario 2012
4/22/2016
4
BENEFITS LIMITATIONS
• Cost effective for large Discharges
• No Energy cost
• Permanent loss of land
• More time for construction
• Large nos. of Drainage Structures and Bridges
• Low Water Use Efficiency
• Vulnerable to damages / flooding
• Liable to Water-Logging and Soil Deterioration
• Reluctance of farmers due to limited land holding and fragmentation
6
Conventional System of Open Gravity Channels
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL)
4/22/2016
5
BENEFITS LIMITATIONS
• Land saving and water saving(up to 10-20 %)
• Less implementation period• Feasible even in flood zone /
Undulating area• Land fragmentation can be
avoided• Field Channels could be
integrated with the Sub-Minors• O & M expenditure will be less• Future integration with
PINS/MIS possible
• Requires energy forlifting operation in somepatches (~60 %)
• Suitable for fallingtopography
6
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL)
4/22/2016
6
HYDRAULIC GRADE LINE
TURNOUT
AVAILABLE WATER LEVEL
G.L.G.L.
F.S.L.
PARENT CANAL
PUMP
SCHEMATIC DIAGRAM SHOWING UGPL WITH GRAVITY AND PUMPING
WATER LEVEL IS ABOVE THE G.L.
(GRAVITY FLOW)
WATER LEVEL IS BELOW THE G.L.
(MULTIPLE PUMPING)
4/22/2016
7
Pros and Cons of the Solutions
Particulars Single
Point
Lifting
Linear
Multiple
Points Lifting
Lifting at the
Centre of Chak
and Radial
Pipes
Reduced cost due to common
infrastructure
Yes No Yes
Pump Installation and Operation
& Maintenance by
SSNNL or
WUA
WUA SSNNL or WUA
Uniformity in water distribution Yes No Yes
Effective control during operation Yes No Yes
Reduction in length of Field
Channels
No No Yes
Integration with Micro Irrigation
System (MIS)
No Yes Yes
Report of the Expert Group for Strategy for the Accelerated Development of Sardar Sarovar Project Command Area, May 2010Chairman : Shri B. N. Navalawala, Adviser (WR) to Hon’ble Chief Minister 14
Main Recommendations made by Expert Group (2010)
– Conventional open channel should be adopted forSub-Minors except for the topographical constraints(UGPL).
– SSNNL should acquire land for Sub-Minors by payingcompensation.
– SSNNL should adopt the Micro Irrigation System [MIS]at the Subchak level.
– PPP model should be adopted for MIS
4/22/2016
8
Conclusion of a
Study carried out
by IWMI (2010)… there are at least ten
strong reasons why
Gujarat should seriously
consider the ‘IWMI
Proposal’ for pipelining
the water distribution
system below the
minors in the
SSP command area.
16
Consensus in the Meeting of Expert Group on PIM
– Both the Options i.e. Conventional open channel andUGPL to be decided at VSA level or preferably at Chaklevel
– Licensing / franchise Model to be evolved under PPP
– WUAs may choose the energy option i.e. electricity ordiesel or combination thereof
– Integration of UGPL with MIS desirable
– Appropriate financial incentives efficient water use(MIS)
– Services of NGOs and model WUAs as Motivators
– Capacity building through specially designed Modulesfor different levels
4/22/2016
9
Open Channel Sub-Minors – Vulnerable to Damage
18
UGPL Policy 2014
• No restriction of technical options selected
• The group of farmers have to decide the alignment of
sub minor which is underground and therefore there is
no question of land acquisition. However, if open
channel is selected by farmers, farmers will be
expected to contribute their land.
• SSNNL will pay 97.5% of the total cost
• The group of farmers is expected to pay 2.5% of the
cost as a labour component to the cost of scheme.
The purpose is to inculcate a sense of ownership in
farmers.
• O&M of sub minor will be responsibility of beneficiary
farmers of chak.
4/22/2016
10
19
UGPL Policy - Highlights
Alignment of UGPL and locations of Turn-outs
to be decided in consultation with Farmers
Tri-partite Agreement (Beneficiary Farmers,
Implementing Agency & SSNNL) for each Chak
Time-limit for UGPL Work – 3 Months
5 years’ Defect Liability to ensure Quality
20
Tender Procedure
38 agencies working in GGRC & SSNNL and
29 through expression of interest in August
2014
Invited for unit rates for UGPL work
38 agencies filled up unit rates
Rates were moderated and approved by the
SSNNL by Price discovery accordingly.
4/22/2016
11
21
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) - Implementation
• 5 lakh Hectare area in 54 Talukas taken up.
Approximate cost of Rs.2000 crore.
• Inauguration of UGPL Sub Minor works done by
Hon'ble CM & Hon'ble Ministers simultaneously at
17 places of State on 28/01/2015
• Beneficiary farmers to contribute 2.5% of cost
which can be in form of labour.
• Factory Testing and On-site Testing of Pipes
• TPI Agencies for Testing & Trial Runs
Consultation with Beneficiary Farmers after finalizing Chak
and Sub-chak (>2,75,000 so far)
Fixing the UGPL Alignment and locations of Turnouts
Preparation of Drawings
Preparation of Estimates
Technical Sanction to the Estimates
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) - Implementation
4/22/2016
12
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) - Implementation
Collecting 2.5% contribution from the Beneficiary Farmers
Issuance of Letter of Intent (LOI)
Issuance of Work Order
Tri-partite Agreement (Farmers, Agency & SSNNL)
Payment of 5% Security Deposit by the Agency
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) – Planning Criteria
a) To plan Chaks (40-60 ha) / Sub-Chaks (5-8 ha)suitable to Rotational Water Distribution Schedule(RWS).
b) Alignment of UGPL Sub minor is selected, crossingthe contour to avail sufficient head to overcomefrictional losses in pipe flow.
c) Turnout outlet is kept on highest point of sub chakcommand as to serve the command area effectively.
d) As far as possible Length of Sub minor is kept minimum without compromising the efficiency of UGPL network system.
4/22/2016
13
REFERENCES
Minor
Sub Minor------
-Sump /Kundi
SR. NO
NAME OF SM
CH. IN MDIA OF
PIPE
1 SM-1 0 to 389 250 mm
2 BSM 0 to 331 250 mm
SR. NO
Sub ChakNo
Area In Ha
No of Beneficiary
1 SC-1 6.262 8
2 SC-2 6.121 8
3 SC-3 9.347 8
4 SC-4 5.045 8
5 SC-5 2.636 5
Total Ha 29.41 37
Chak map of Fatepura Minor
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) – Design Procedure
INPUT DATA
a) Sub chak name and its chainage.
b) CCA of chak.
c) Available FSL of Parent Canal.
d) Ground Level at Turnout of Sub chak command.
OUTPUT
a. Design Discharge of the Sub minor.
b. Head loss due to friction in pipe line (Using Modified
Hazen-William formula).
c. Available FSL and Required FSL at Turnout point.
d. Flow Condition of sub minor i.e. Gravity Flow or Lift
flow.
e. Height of Well
4/22/2016
14
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) – Design Procedure
Diameter of pipe line was selected considering the
following points
a) Velocity was kept between 0.5-1.5 m/s.
b) Height of well not to exceed 5.00 mt.
c) To ensure priority for Gravity flow condition with
minimum diameter
d) In Lift condition minimum diameter is ensured within
the allowed height of well (about 5.00 mt) and
maximum velocity.
e) L-Section of Sub-Minor is generated at 30 m intervals.
LONGITUDINAL SECTION
L-SECTION OF CHICHODRA MINOR-I OF VARSADA DISTY/
Ch - 1478mA.V
BENDREDUCER
04 CHM-I
Ch - 1231mREDUCER03 CHM-I
Ch - 1138mA.VREDUCER02 CHM-I
Ch - 970mBOLW-OFF ASSEMBLY
Ch - 900mBEND
Ch - 394mA.V
BEND
REDUCER
01 CHM-I
Ch - 0mR.C.C WELL
DIA OF PIPE - 0.450 mDIA OF PIPE - 0.500 m
DIA OF PIPE - 0.600 m
DIA OF PIPE - 0.700 m
1.88
641
.254
43.7
3542
.790
1500
-41
.518
43.7
7742
.580
1478
1.51
241
.518
43.8
7742
.580
1478
1.83
041
.510
43.9
9342
.890
1470
1.71
041
.480
44.0
3742
.740
1440
1.60
041
.450
44.0
8142
.600
1410
1.49
041
.420
44.1
2542
.460
1380
1.56
041
.390
44.1
6942
.500
1350
1.63
041
.360
44.2
1342
.540
1320
1.77
041
.330
44.2
5742
.650
1290
1.94
041
.300
44.3
0142
.790
1260
-41
.271
44.3
4343
.350
1231
2.57
941
.271
44.4
4343
.350
1231
2.31
041
.270
44.4
6943
.080
1230
2.62
041
.240
44.5
0043
.360
1200
3.03
041
.210
44.5
3143
.740
1170
3.34
041
.180
44.5
6244
.020
1140
-41
.178
44.5
6444
.400
1138
3.82
241
.178
44.6
6444
.400
1138
2.67
041
.150
45.0
0943
.220
1110
2.06
041
.120
45.0
2642
.580
1080
1.63
041
.090
45.0
4342
.120
1050
1.60
041
.060
45.0
6042
.060
1020
1.62
041
.030
45.0
7742
.050
990
1.72
041
.000
45.0
9442
.120
960
1.73
040
.970
45.1
1142
.100
930
1.58
040
.940
45.1
2841
.920
900
1.56
841
.132
45.1
4542
.100
870
1.62
641
.324
45.1
6242
.350
840
1.75
441
.516
45.1
7942
.670
810
1.89
241
.708
45.1
9643
.000
780
2.01
141
.899
45.2
1343
.310
750
2.22
942
.091
45.2
3043
.720
720
2.31
742
.283
45.2
4744
.000
690
2.33
542
.475
45.2
6444
.210
660
2.30
342
.667
45.2
8144
.370
630
2.22
142
.859
45.2
9844
.480
600
2.11
043
.050
45.3
1544
.560
570
1.99
843
.242
45.3
3244
.640
540
1.62
643
.434
45.3
4944
.460
510
1.61
443
.626
45.3
6644
.640
480
1.53
243
.818
45.3
8344
.750
450
1.43
044
.010
45.4
0044
.840
420
-44
.176
45.4
1545
.320
394
1.84
444
.176
45.5
1545
.320
394
1.44
044
.180
45.6
1544
.920
390
1.51
044
.210
45.6
3045
.020
360
1.81
044
.240
45.6
4545
.350
330
1.86
044
.270
45.6
6045
.430
300
2.02
044
.300
45.6
7545
.620
270
2.05
044
.330
45.6
9045
.680
240
2.15
044
.360
45.7
0545
.810
210
2.26
044
.390
45.7
2045
.950
180
2.37
044
.420
45.7
3546
.090
150
2.50
044
.450
45.7
5046
.250
120
2.34
044
.480
45.7
6546
.120
90
2.12
044
.510
45.7
8045
.930
60
1.91
044
.540
45.7
9545
.750
30
1.70
044
.570
45.8
1045
.570
0
48
47
46
45
44
43
42
41
40
39
38
37
36
35
GL - GROUND LEVEL
UGPL
FSL LEVEL
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
(m)
DEPTH OF CUTTING
GROUND LEVEL
DISTANCE
FSL LEVEL
TOP OF RL OF PIPLINE
DATUM
0.000
362.114
0.25
45.81
46.06
2250M (TR)
CCA (ha)
GCA (ha)
W/Head (m)
FSL in O/T Canal(m)
FSL in Parent Canal(m)
O/Take Chainage(m)
L-SECTION OF CHICHODRA MINOR-I OF VARSADA DISTY OF KACHCHH BRANCH CANAL
4/22/2016
15
Baffle wall for heading upLocation : R&R Site
Pilot project of Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL)MAHISA PILOT PROJECTMAHISA PILOT PROJECT
6
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) – Pilot Project
4/22/2016
16
MAHISA PILOT PROJECTMAHISA PILOT PROJECT
7
Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) - Implementation
UGPL Turnout functioning
4/22/2016
17
33
Major Issues in Implementation of UGPL Sub-Minors
• Farmers were not willing to pay 10%, their
contribution was later on reduced to 2.5%
• Farmers continuously growing crops and hence not
willing to allow laying of UGPL – provision of crop
compensation
• Pipe suppliers unable / not willing to supply in
sufficient quantity at reasonable rates – persuading
them to maintain regular supply
34
Sr. no.Nos. of Taluka
Preparation of plan and Estimate after
consulting farmers at the unit rates of
implementing agency
Technical approval of estimate of chaks
Tri party agreement/work order
Ongoing works
Nos of chak Hectare Nos of chak Hectare Nos of chak HectareNos of chak
Hectare
Total 61 11580 551253 11312 532434 8977 422204 8202 344514
Detail of Pipes for ongoing works
Completion of work
Supplied at site Laid (Fix)
in Nos.of Chaks
Length (m)
in Nos.of Chaks
Hectare Nos of chak Hectare
7164 8884117 6472 306148* 5441 257701
Progress of UGPL (Sub-minor) as3.2016Progress of Sub-Minors (UGPL) as on 2.4.2016
* A record in
the history of
Irrigation
Infrastructure
Development
in India
4/22/2016
18
More Crop Per Drop – Explaining the farmers about value of water
36
THANKS
