17th March -2017

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited

K B Parmar Chief Engineer (Design)

Sardar Sarovar Project, GujaratCCA 17.92 Lakh Hectare

17 Districts

3112 Villages

13 Agro-climatic Regions

75% Draught Prone area is covered under Narmada command

Out of allocated water share of 9.0 MAF, 7.94 MAF for Irrigation(88.23%), 0.86 MAF (9.55%) for Domestic and 0.2 MAF (2.22%)for Industrial use.

The Project is Supplying Drinking water to 9490 villages and 173urban centers.

Water Scarcity Affected Area Project Beneficiary Area

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, Government of Gujarat

Physical Progress

Type of canal Total Length in Km

Completed Length in Km

Main Canal 458 458

Branch Canal 2731 2541

Distributaries 4569 4103

Minors 15670 12250

Sub-minors 48320 25743

Total 71748 45095

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, Government of Gujarat 17th March-2017

Narmada Canal Network

5

100%

93%88%

76%

53%

Irrigation Potential Developed

13.97 lac Ha.

Qd 0.5-1 Cusec

Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Limited, Government of Gujarat

Open Channel Sub-Minors – Vulnerable to Damage

Failure due to..

Micro level Land fragmentation

Drainage issues

Obstruction in Transportation path

…..

Connecting the Last Mile through Underground Pipelines

Milestone achievement in the history of irrigation.

Total 6.17 lakh hectare area in 1 ½ Years is covered

under UGPL Subminor by June 2016.

Against,total 20.80 Lakh Hectare area have been

covered by Subminor/field channel etc. in 11th Five

Years Plan. (website of MoWR,RD & GR)

ISSUE FACED AND POLICY DECESION TAKEN TO

ACHIEVE THE MILESTONE

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 ChiefMinister

Main Recommendations made by Expert Group (2010)

– Conventional open channel should be adopted for Sub-Minors except for the topographical constraints (UGPL).

– SSNNL should acquire land for Sub-Minors by payingcompensation.

– SSNNL should adopt the Micro Irrigation System [MIS] atthe Subchak level.

– PPP model should be adopted for MIS

– Pilot Project in area like Rajasthan can be done for study

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 86,000beneficiary farmers by fragmentation of farmlandupto Minors

• Availability of borrow areas / contractors / laborersfor canal construction ?

• Implementation period of about 6 - 7 years

• Poor response for participation by beneficiaries

Pre-Policy Scenario 2012

Flood Prone Delta Region of Sabarmati River–UGPL Distributaries/Minors/Sub-Minors of Dholka Branch Canal for about 30,000 Ha area is partially completed.

Draught Prone Region Near Tharad for about 5000 Ha Area is completed.

Results of Pilot Projects is found satisfactory

UGPL Pilot Projects

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• Future integration with

PINS/MIS possible

• Requires energy forlifting operation in somepatches (~60 %)

• More suitable for fallingtopography

6

Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL)

UGPL Policy 2014

• No restriction of technical options

• The group of farmers have to decide the alignment of

underground sub minor 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.

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

Survey, Network Planning, Designs & Estimate

of UGPL are being carried out by WAPCOS Ltd.

Tender Procedure

38 agencies working in GGRC & SSNNL and

29 through Expression Of Interest was selected

in August 2014

Tenders Invited for unit rates for UGPL work

Rates were moderated and approved by the

SSNNL by Price discovery accordingly.

Progressively ,35 No. of Pipe Manufacturers

and 234 No. of Agencies were involved in

execution

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 (>2,80,000 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

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

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

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 67 12604 617000 12604 617000 12604 617000 12604 617000

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

12604 15507762 12604 617000* 12604 617000

Progress of UGPL (Sub-minor) as3.2016Progress of Sub-Minors (UGPL) as on 1st Mar, 2017

* A record in

the history of

Command Area

Development in

India in a year.

(2015-16).

Planning of Sub-Minors (UGPL)

Recently total 145 agencies have been given work

order of UGPL Subminor works for another 4 Lac

hectare area (6680 chaks)

at uniform rates, moderated after Tendering process.

For checking the quality of pipes in factory, at site ,

etc. following agencies have been appointed

1.CIPET

2.GIRDA

3.Other Six TPI agencies

As per the Guideline of CADWM for Concurrent

Evaluation Report by an independent agency, the

LASA is being appointed

Quality & Control of Piped Irrigation Network

%age CCA under Gravity Flow : 52.84

%age CCA under Partial Lift Flow : 25.58

%age CCA under Lift flow : 21.58

Average cost per Hectare : Rs.41016

(Approx.)

Energy requirement for lifting of water for SSP

For Single Point Lifting : 38.5 KW

For Multipoint Lifting System : 21.0 KW

Under Ground Pipe Line(UGPL)

LIFTING IS PROPOSED

L-SECTION OF CASE-I (GRAVITY FLOW)

PIPE LINEG.L. G.L.

L-SECTION OF CASE-II(PARTIAL LIFT)

PIPE LINE

G.L.G.L. G.L.PUMP PUMP

PUMP

LAYOUT OF CASE-II(PARTIAL LIFT)

FLOW POINT

LOCAL LIFTING

POINT

L-SECTION OF CASE-III(COMPLETE LIFT)

PIPE LINE

PUMP

PUMPPUMP

PUMPPUMP

LAYOUT OF CASE-III(COMPLETE LIFT)

(ALTERNATE OPTION FOR LIFTING AS PUMPING AT OFFTAKE-SINGLE POINT LIFTING)

L-SECTION OF CASE-II (PARTIAL LIFT CONDITION AFTER SINGLE POINT LIFTING)

PIPE LINE

G.L.

G.L.

PUMP

Pumping point

LAYOUT OF CASE-II(PARTIAL LIFT CONDITION AFTER SINGLE POINT LIFTING )

FLOW POINT

FLOW POINT

L-SECTION OF CASE-III (COMPLETE LIFT CONDITION AFTER SINGLE POINT LIFTING)

PIPE LINE

G.L.

PUMP

Pumping point

LAYOUT OF CASE-III(COMPLETE LIFT CONDITION AFTER SINGLE POINT LIFTING )

FLOW POINT

FLOW POINT

SAMPLE COMPARISON STUDY FOR LIFTING AT OFFTAKE POINT IN TWO CASES

Sr .No. FEATURE

PARTIAL LIFT CONDITION COMPLETE LIFT CONDITION

MULTI PUMPING AT TURNOUT WELL

PUMPING AT OFF-TAKE (0 Ch)

MULTI PUMPING AT TURNOUT

WELLS

PUMPING AT OFF-TAKE (0 Ch)

1 Name of Sub Minor 15 NVM OF NAVDA MINOR 03 CHM OF CHALA MINOR

2 Dia of Pipe line (mm) 280 225 280 250

3 Velocity (m/s) 0.44 0.68 0.46 0.58

4 Provision of Diesel Pump set At each turnout pointOnly At off-Take

PointAt each turnout

pointOnly At off-Take

Point

5 Type of structureRCC / Brick Masonry

Well & TurnoutTurnout except

offtake wellsRCC / Brick

Masonry WellTurnout except

offtake wells

6 Type of structure At OfftakeRCC / Brick Masonry

Well

RCC / Brick Masonry Well & Raised Delivery

well

RCC / Brick Masonry Well

RCC / Brick Masonry Well & Raised Delivery

well

7 CCA of Chak (Ha) 56.64 56.64 44.11 44.11

8 Total Cost (Rs In lac.) 18.22 12.40 31.05 23.08

9 Cost/Hectare (Rs) 32164 21884 70380 52382

10 Total Savings (Lacs) 5.82 7.97

11 Savings (Rs/Ha.) 10280 17998

12 Further Reduction in Dia. (Cost Saving Approx 1.50 Lac) ( Cost saving Approx 2.50 Lac)

CONCLUSION (Pumping at off-take point)

• Higher velocity is obtained.

• Lower diameter of pipe is needed.

• Depth of Cutting (Excavation) and pipe length is reduced.

• Chances of Silting in underground pipe is Less.

• Only one pump set is required instead of multi pump sets.

• Saving in cultivable land at every turnout point.

• Construction of well at turnout points is avoided.

• Less maintains in long run of project.

• Cost of construction of sub-minor can be reduced in between Rs 10000 to 17000 per hectare.

Pros and Cons of the Solutions

Particulars Single Point

Lifting

Linear Multiple

Points Lifting

Reduced cost due to common

infrastructure of pump

Yes No

Pump Installation and Operation &

Maintenance by

SSNNL or

WUA

WUA

Uniformity in water distribution Yes No

Effective control during operation Yes No

Compulsion of Participatory Operation Yes No

Delivery of Water Upto Sub-Chak

Without Pumping

No Yes

Har Khet Ko Pani – Explaining the farmers about value of water

THANKS

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 areaeffectively.

d) As far as possible Length of Sub minor is keptminimum without compromising the efficiency ofUGPL network system.

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

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.V

REDUCER02 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

1.8

86

41

.25

44

3.7

35

42

.79

01

50

0

-4

1.5

18

43

.77

74

2.5

80

14

78

1.5

12

41

.51

84

3.8

77

42

.58

01

47

81

.83

04

1.5

10

43

.99

34

2.8

90

14

70

1.7

10

41

.48

04

4.0

37

42

.74

01

44

0

1.6

00

41

.45

04

4.0

81

42

.60

01

41

0

1.4

90

41

.42

04

4.1

25

42

.46

01

38

0

1.5

60

41

.39

04

4.1

69

42

.50

01

35

0

1.6

30

41

.36

04

4.2

13

42

.54

01

32

0

1.7

70

41

.33

04

4.2

57

42

.65

01

29

0

1.9

40

41

.30

04

4.3

01

42

.79

01

26

0

-4

1.2

71

44

.34

34

3.3

50

12

31

2.5

79

41

.27

14

4.4

43

43

.35

01

23

12

.31

04

1.2

70

44

.46

94

3.0

80

12

30

2.6

20

41

.24

04

4.5

00

43

.36

01

20

0

3.0

30

41

.21

04

4.5

31

43

.74

01

17

0

3.3

40

41

.18

04

4.5

62

44

.02

01

14

0 -

41

.17

84

4.5

64

44

.40

01

13

83

.82

24

1.1

78

44

.66

44

4.4

00

11

38

2.6

70

41

.15

04

5.0

09

43

.22

01

11

0

2.0

60

41

.12

04

5.0

26

42

.58

01

08

0

1.6

30

41

.09

04

5.0

43

42

.12

01

05

0

1.6

00

41

.06

04

5.0

60

42

.06

01

02

0

1.6

20

41

.03

04

5.0

77

42

.05

09

90

1.7

20

41

.00

04

5.0

94

42

.12

09

60

1.7

30

40

.97

04

5.1

11

42

.10

09

30

1.5

80

40

.94

04

5.1

28

41

.92

09

00

1.5

68

41

.13

24

5.1

45

42

.10

08

70

1.6

26

41

.32

44

5.1

62

42

.35

08

40

1.7

54

41

.51

64

5.1

79

42

.67

08

10

1.8

92

41

.70

84

5.1

96

43

.00

07

80

2.0

11

41

.89

94

5.2

13

43

.31

07

50

2.2

29

42

.09

14

5.2

30

43

.72

07

20

2.3

17

42

.28

34

5.2

47

44

.00

06

90

2.3

35

42

.47

54

5.2

64

44

.21

06

60

2.3

03

42

.66

74

5.2

81

44

.37

06

30

2.2

21

42

.85

94

5.2

98

44

.48

06

00

2.1

10

43

.05

04

5.3

15

44

.56

05

70

1.9

98

43

.24

24

5.3

32

44

.64

05

40

1.6

26

43

.43

44

5.3

49

44

.46

05

10

1.6

14

43

.62

64

5.3

66

44

.64

04

80

1.5

32

43

.81

84

5.3

83

44

.75

04

50

1.4

30

44

.01

04

5.4

00

44

.84

04

20

-4

4.1

76

45

.41

54

5.3

20

39

41

.84

44

4.1

76

45

.51

54

5.3

20

39

41

.44

04

4.1

80

45

.61

54

4.9

20

39

0

1.5

10

44

.21

04

5.6

30

45

.02

03

60

1.8

10

44

.24

04

5.6

45

45

.35

03

30

1.8

60

44

.27

04

5.6

60

45

.43

03

00

2.0

20

44

.30

04

5.6

75

45

.62

02

70

2.0

50

44

.33

04

5.6

90

45

.68

02

40

2.1

50

44

.36

04

5.7

05

45

.81

02

10

2.2

60

44

.39

04

5.7

20

45

.95

01

80

2.3

70

44

.42

04

5.7

35

46

.09

01

50

2.5

00

44

.45

04

5.7

50

46

.25

01

20

2.3

40

44

.48

04

5.7

65

46

.12

09

0

2.1

20

44

.51

04

5.7

80

45

.93

06

0

1.9

10

44

.54

04

5.7

95

45

.75

03

0

1.7

00

44

.57

04

5.8

10

45

.57

00

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

Baffle wall for heading upLocation : R&R Site

Pilot project of Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL)MAHISA PILOT PROJECTMAHISA PILOT PROJECT

Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) – Pilot Project

MAHISA PILOT PROJECTMAHISA PILOT PROJECT

Under Ground Pipe Line (UGPL) - Implementation

UGPL Turnout functioning

• 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

So far…..98,500 MCM of water conveyed

40,800 MU of ecofriendly hydro power generated

Sardar Sarovar Project, Gujarat, The Planned Benefits