Upload
others
View
3
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
8
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.
16
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
Dam features Designed
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
Dam features Designed
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
26
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
Parameter Relationships
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
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
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
Parameter Relationships
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
42
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
44
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
Code Item Possible options
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
Code Item Possible options
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
Code Item Possible options
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
50
51
Section I
Benchmarking
52
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)
3Totalannual volumeof irrigation supply (m )
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
Performance Indicator Definition Data Specifications
(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)
Totalannual volumeof crop water demand (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
Performance Indicator Definition Data Specifications
(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
Performance Indicator Definition Data Specifications
(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 value of agricultural production (Rs)
Total annual irrigated area (ha)
Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs): Indicator-ii
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 value of agricultural production (Rs)
Total annual volume of irrigation supply (m )
Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs): Indicator-ii
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 value of agricultural production (Rs)
Total annual volume of water supply (m )
Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs): Indicator-ii
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 value of agricultural production (Rs)
Total annual volume of crop water demand (m )
Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs): Indicator-ii
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
Performance Indicator Definition Data Specifications
(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
Performance Indicator Definition Data Specifications
(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 collected: Total revenue collected from payment of services by water users.
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 )
Gross revenue collected: Total revenue collected from payment of services by water users.
Total annual volume of irrigation supply (m
3): it is the volume of water diverted
for the irrigation from the reservoir.
65
Performance Indicator Definition Data Specifications
(vi) Total MOM cost per unit of volume of
irrigation supply (Rs/m3) 3
Total MOM cost (Rs)
Total annual volume of irrigation supply (m )
Gross revenue collected: Total revenue collected from payment of services by water users.
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.
66
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
Peak irrigation water consumptive demand (m
/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
I II I II I II I II I II I II I II
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
I II I II I II I II I II I II I II
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
Irrigation Supply (MCM)
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
78
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.:
Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs)
CCA of the project (ha)
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)
Irrigation Supply (MCM)
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
84
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)
Irrigation Supply (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
88
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)
Gross revenue invoiced
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.
92
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
96
97
Section II Water Auditing
98
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.
102
103
104
105
106
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
Table 8-4 Field plot study for estimating the field application efficiency
Instrument used: Fieldscout, TDR 300
Plot size: 10 x 2.9 m 29 sq m
Field capacity: 42 %
Flume used: None Discharge
5 lps
Time of irrigation: 5.1 min
Depth of observation: 20 cm
Motor:
5 HP Pipe length: 600 ft
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
Table 8-5 Field plot study for estimating the field application efficiency
Instrument used: Fieldscout, TDR 300
Plot size: 10 x 5 m 50 sq m
Field capacity: 42 %
Flume used: None Discharge
5 lps
Time of irrigation: 15.1 min
Depth of observation: 20 cm
Motor:
5 HP Pipe length: 300 ft
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
118
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:
Month Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
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
Net irrigation depth (mm): 45 mm
Gross irrigation Depth (mm): 75 mm
IN during peak period (mm): 258.61 mm
Number of days during peak 84
Number of irrigation, NI 6
Irrigation interval, INT 14 days
Summary:
Month Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
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
Remarks: Go to Next Trial
Trial-II: For Peak Growing Period
Net irrigation depth (mm): 45 mm
Net irrigation depth (mm): 75
IN during peak period (mm): 103.94 mm
Number of days during peak 28
Number of irrigation, NI 2.31
Irrigation interval, INT 12 days
Summary:
Month Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
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 99.64 105.00 80.36 400.00
dnet-IN (mm/month) 29.54 34.83 17.27 1.06 8.06 90.76
Irrigation interval 18 18 14 12 14
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
Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
No. of Days 16 31 30 31 22 130
IN (mm) 38 115 159 170 45 527
Net irrigation depth (mm): 40 mm
Gross irrigation Depth (mm): 66.7 mm
Irrigation water need (mm) 527 mm
Number of irrigation, NI 13
Irrigation interval, INT 10 days
Summary:
Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
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
Remarks: Go to Next Trial
Trail I: For Peak Growing Period
Net irrigation depth (mm): 40 mm
Gross irrigation Depth (mm): 66.7 mm
IN during peak period (mm): 329 mm
Number of days during peak 61
Number of irrigation, NI 8.5
Irrigation interval, INT 7 days
Summary:
Month Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Total
No. of Days 16 31 30 31 22 130
IN (mm/momth) 38.00 115.00 159.00 170.00 45.00 527.00
Irrigation applied, dnet (mm) 64.00 124.00 171.43 177.14 88.00 624.57
dnet-IN (mm/month) 26.00 9.00 12.43 7.14 43.00 97.57
Irrigation interval 10 10 7 7 10
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)
138
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
Sequence, j Date Cumulative Etc (mm)
Cumulative Re (mm)
Cumulative Irrigation (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
Sequence, j Date Cumulative Etc (mm)
Cumulative Re (mm)
Cumulative Irrigation (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
Sequence, j Date Cumulative Etc (mm)
Cumulative Re (mm)
Cumulative Irrigation (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)
Cumulative Irrigation (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
23 R3 Dharmi Chand 2122 5197.13 0.52 52 281.52 0 107.99 7.23 11.99 11 59 5 Fri
24 R3 Dharmi Chand 2121 2675.90 0.27 27 281.52 0 115.22 3.75 19.22 19 13 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):
148
149
Case 2: Sample Barabandi Programme and Computation for large CCA
Figure 10-2 Map showing the large water course and chak plan
150
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
Peak irrigation water consumptive demand (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)
Totalannual volumeof crop water demand (MCM)
0.64
(v) Annual relative irrigation
supply
Totalannual volumeof irrigation supply (MCM)
Totalannual volumeof crop water demand (MCM)
0.64
(vi) Annual irrigation supply
per unit command area
(m3/ha)
3Totalannual volumeof irrigation supply (m )
Total command area of the project (CCA in ha)
522.2
(vii) Annual irrigation supply
per unit irrigated area (m3/ha)
3Totalannual volumeof irrigation supply (m )
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)
CCA of the project (ha)
0.016
(x) Total annual value of
agricultural production per unit
irrigated area (Lakh Rs/ha)
Total annual value of agricultural production (Lakh Rs)
Total annual irrigated area (ha)
0.09
157
Performance Indicator Definition/Formula Estimated
Values
(xi) Total annual value of
agricultural production per unit
irrigation supply (Rs/m3)
Total annual value of agricultural production (Lakh Rs)
Total annual volume of irrigation supply ( )MCM
10.5
(xii) Total annual value of
agricultural production per unit
of water supply (Lakh
Rs/MCM)
3
Total annual value of agricultural production (Rs)
Total annual volume of water supply (m )
10.5
(xiii) Total annual value of
agricultural production per unit
of crop water demand (Lakh
Rs/MCM)
Total annual value of agricultural production (Lakh Rs)
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)
Gross revenue invoiced
--
(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)
Total annual volume of irrigation supply ( )MCM
0.0106
(xix) Total MOM cost per unit
of volume of irrigation supply
(Lakh Rs/MCM)
Total MOM cost (Lakh Rs)
Total annual volume of irrigation supply ( )MCM
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
162
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
170
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
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
[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
Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, Italy.
[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
174
175
Appendices
176
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.
Catchment Submergence Area (sq km)
Submergence Area (ha)
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.
Catchment Submergence Area (sq km)
Submergence Area (ha)
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.
Catchment Submergence Area (sq km)
Submergence Area (ha)
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.
Catchment Submergence Area (sq km)
Submergence Area (ha)
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
188
189
A.10 Irrigation rates
190
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