See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/230496780

Determination of water conveyance loss in the ahmetli regulator irrigation

system in the lower Gediz Basin Turkey

Article  in  Irrigation and Drainage · December 2011

DOI: 10.1002/ird.602

CITATION

2 authors, including:

Gökhan İsmail Tuylu

Harran University
10 PUBLICATIONS   71 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Harran Ovası’nda Mısır Bitkisi (Zea mays L.) için Planlanan ve Gerçekleşen Sulama Zamanı Programının Değerlendirilmesi View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Gökhan İsmail Tuylu on 28 February 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
Published online 7 December 2010 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI: 10.1002/ird.602

DETERMINATION OF WATER CONVEYANCE LOSS IN THE AHMETLI REGULATOR

IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN THE LOWER GEDIZ BASIN, TURKEYy

MURAT KILIC* AND GOKHAN I. TUYLU

Ege University, Faculty of Agriculture, Department of Irrigation and Agricultural Structures, Bornova-Izmir, Turkey

ABSTRACT
Determining the water conveyance loss in large-scale irrigation systems is important not only from the points of view of
irrigation programming and optimum allocation of deficit resources, but also for the sustainable operation of the system. The
aim of this investigation is to determine the conveyance losses of the concrete-lined main, secondary and tertiary canals in the
Right Bank Irrigation System of the Ahmetli Regulator in the Gediz Basin, Turkey. The investigation was carried out according
to the inflow–outflow method. Average conveyance losses of the main (0.067 l s
1 m
2), secondary (0.119 l s
1 m
2) and
tertiary canals (0.030 l s
1 m
2) were found to be higher than either the average conveyance loss of Turkey or the seepage
standard of the Bureau of Reclamation. It may be suggested that associations responsible for maintenance, repair and operation
of the system can be supported financially to reduce conveyance loss. Apart from this, application of new technologies with
lower cost to the systems will reduce conveyance losses. In addition, the participation of farmers in the maintenance of the
network will ensure that the system is used more rationally. In this way, most of the operational problems of the system can be
solved. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
key words: open canal flow; hydraulic structures; irrigation systems; water conveyance loss; Gediz River Basin, Turkey

Received 22 May 2009; Revised 27 July 2010; Accepted 27 July 2010

RÉSUMÉ
Déterminer les pertes liées au transport de l’eau dans les grands systèmes d’irrigation est important non seulement du point de vue
de la programmation de l’irrigation et de l’allocation optimale d’une ressource en déficit, mais aussi pour le fonctionnement durable
du système. L’objectif de ce travail est de déterminer les pertes de transport les canaux bétonnés primaires, secondaires et tertiaires
du système d’irrigation de la rive droite du régulateur d’Ahmetli dans le bassin du Gediz en Turquie. Le travail a été réalisé selon la
méthode entrées-sorties et a montré des pertes par infiltration de 0.067 l s
1 m
2, 0.119 l s
1 m
2, 0.030 l s
1 m
2 dans les canaux
primaires, secondaires, et tertiaires, respectivement. Ces valeurs sont plus élevées que celles habituellement observées en Turquie,
ou que la norme d’infiltration de l’USBR. Dès lors on ne peut que suggérer de financer les associations chargées du fonctionnement
et de l’entretien, ce qui n’exclut pas la participation des agriculteurs à ces opérations. En dehors de cela, l’application de nouvelles
technologies à faible coût pour les systèmes de réduire les pertes de transport. En outre, la participation des agriculteurs à l’entretien
est un gage d’utilisation rationnelle du système. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
mots clés: débit en canal ouvert; ouvrages hydrauliques; systèmes d’irrigation; la perte d’adduction d’eau; Gediz bassin de la rivière; la Turquie

INTRODUCTION countries with 40% of the world population already suffer

The increasing scarcity of water in dry areas is now a well-
recognized problem. According to the World Commission
on Environment and Development, approximately 80
* Correspondence to: Murat Kilic, PhD, Ege University, Faculty of Agri-
culture, Department of Irrigation and Agricultural Structures, Bornova-
Izmir, Turkey. Tel.: þ90 232 3111010 Ext. 2638, Fax: þ90 232 3881864.
E-mail: kilic.murat@ege.edu.tr
y
Détermination de la perte d’adduction d’eau dans le système d’irrigation
Régulateur Ahmetli dans le bassin inférieur du Gediz en Turquie.
from serious water shortages. The agricultural sector is the
largest user of water in the world. On a consumptive use
basis, 80–90% of all water is consumed in agriculture.
Unfortunately, water use efficiency in this sector is very
poor, not exceeding 45%, with more than 50% water losses;
thus, enormous water savings could be achieved in the
agricultural sector comparable to those in other sectoral
water uses (Hamdy et al., 2003). As agriculture is the major
user, water conveyance loss in irrigation networks is
therefore of great importance.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

580 M. KILIC AND G. I. TUYLU
Water conveyance loss consists mainly of operational
losses, evaporation, and seepage into the soil from the
sloping sides and bed of the canal (Çevik and Tekinel, 1995;
Kanber, 1997; Australian National Committee on Irrigation
and Drainage (ANCID, 2003); Schultz and Wrachien,
2002). A significant part of the water released into irrigation
canals is lost to seepage. This seepage, apart from depleting
water resources, leads to problems such as waterlogging,
salinization, and groundwater contamination (Swamee and
Kashyap, 2001; Chahar, 2007). Wachyan and Rushton
(1987) investigated the water losses from a canal to an
aquifer. High amounts of water loss from lined canals were
identified from field measurements. The reasons for the
losses were investigated by performing numerical model
solutions for different conditions. Partial lining of a canal
has been shown to have little effect on the magnitude of the
losses, and total lining containing defects is also ineffective.
Kacimov (1992) carried out an investigation on seepage
optimization for trapezoidal canals. A complex-variable
method and series expansions were applied to optimal-shape
design problems for a canal bed. A dimensionless depth of a
trapezoidal and rectangular canal was determined by mini-
mizing the cost function, constrained by specified hydraulic
characteristics. The cost function included seepage losses and
the cost of lining. The hydraulic constraints were cross-
sectional area, the hydraulic radius and the discharge. Swamee
et al. (2000) carried out an investigation on the design of
minimum seepage loss canal sections. In this investigation,
which used previously derived results, simplified algebraic
equations for computation of seepage loss from triangular,
rectangular and trapezoidal canals were presented. Using these
seepage loss equations and the general uniform flow equation,
explicit equations for the design variables of minimum
seepage loss canal sections were obtained for each of the three
canal shapes by applying a nonlinear optimization technique.
The optimal trapezoidal section had the least seepage loss and
cross-sectional area among the three optimal sections.
Swamee and Kashyap (2001) carried out an investigation
on design for minimum seepage loss in non-polygonal canal
sections. In the study, seepage from circular and exponential
sections was calculated by a finite-difference-based numerical
solution of the differential equation governing the seepage
flow. No measurement application was carried out on canal
sections in the study. Wahl et al. (2005) carried out an
investigation on simplified design of flumes and weirs. This
study combined several previous efforts to provide tools in
both metric and English units for the most typical
measurement applications encountered in irrigation and
drainage systems. The use of the tables was demonstrated
with examples, and construction methods were illustrated.
Chahar (2007) investigated section elements of a new class of
curvilinear-bottomed canal whose boundary maps along a
circle onto the hodograph plane. Optimal section properties of
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
the curved canal section for the least area and minimum
seepage loss were presented in the study. Constraints on canal
dimensions and the velocity of flow were the other
components of the investigation. No application of the
measurement was carried out on canal sections.
It is beneficial to design a canal cross-section which
ensures minimum seepage loss. However, the canal lining
will deteriorate with time. Cracks in the lining may develop
anywhere on the perimeter due to settlement of the sub-
grade, weed growth in the canal, construction defects, the
use of inferior quality lining materials, weathering, etc.
(Chahar, 2007). Ertsen (2009) defined some of the key
challenges irrigation experts face in responding to the
demand on irrigation with a focus on water delivery. The
increasing demand upon irrigated agriculture to modernize
to improve productivity was stated in the paper. Ambast
et al. (2002) carried out an investigation on satellite remote
sensing to support management of irrigation systems. In the
study, some key elements of irrigation system management
were stated to be (i) performance monitoring and evaluation,
(ii) diagnostic appraisal, (iii) action research, and (iv)
farmers’ participation. Also, water conveyance losses in an
open canal system directly affect the management of
irrigation systems and the components stated above. The
study presented different perspectives of water use in
irrigated agriculture for better system management. Khan
et al. (2009) carried out an investigation on the spatially
distributed assessment of canal seepage using geophysics
and artificial intelligence methods. In this study, the spatial
distribution of canal seepage was quantified using artificial
neural networks (ANNs). Electromagnetic imaging data along
with hydraulic conductivity, depth and salinity of groundwater
were correlated with seepage meter measurements using the
ANNs. It was estimated that over 42 million m3 of water could
be lost annually from 500 km of canal in the Murrumbidgee
Irrigation Area in Australia. The importance of investment in
the leakiest parts of the canal system was stated in the study.
As stated by Batt and Merkley (2010), a participatory
irrigation management policy has been adopted by the
Egyptian Ministry of Water Resources and Irrigation over
the past two decades to support agricultural productivity,
decrease open-canal conveyance losses, and increase agricul-
tural water distribution equity. The study focused on the
reform of irrigation system improvement policies so that they
were more realistic and successful, supporting agriculture
and encouraging ministry personnel to adopt and support
participatory water management as implemented in the
targeted Egyptian irrigation projects.
In Turkey, the total agricultural area is nearly 28.1  106
ha, and when today’s economic conditions and the
restrictions of soil features and topography are considered,
25.7  106 ha of this area can be irrigated. In 2005, the
irrigated agricultural area was 4.9  106 ha, and 94% of this
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
 DETERMINATION OF WATER CONVEYANCE LOSS, TURKEY
was irrigated by surface irrigation methods (National Water
Agency (DSI) Reports, 2006). The rising population and
increasing industrialization of Turkey demand the active
exploitation of water resources. Bekişoğlu (1993) stated that
the water conveyance loss occurring in concrete canals in
Turkey varied between 0.0026 and 0.0754 l s
1 m
2 (average
0.0321 l s
1 m
2). The Bureau of Reclamation (1975) gave
the standard of seepage for concrete canals as 0.00024 l s
1
m
2. Kraatz (1977) stated that, if concrete canals were built
properly and well maintained, seepage loss would occur below
the value of 0.03 m3 m
2 day
1 (about 0.0003 l s
1 m
2).
Considering these values, it can be concluded that canal
seepage loss in Turkey is at a critical level.
The aim of this investigation was to determine the water
conveyance losses (and efficiencies) of the canals in the
Right Bank Irrigation System of the Ahmetli Regulator in
the Gediz Basin. The data obtained from this research
constitute one of the main parameters necessary in solving
such problems as the optimum use of deficit resources,
irrigation programming at network level, system perform-
ance determination, measured and controlled water distri-
bution, the planning of maintenance, operation and
renovation activities for the canals, the ensuring of social
equity in the use of the system, and the allocation of deficit
resources in both temporal and spatial dimensions.
MATERIALS
Description of the research area
This investigation was carried out in the Right Bank
Irrigation System of the Ahmetli Regulator in the Lower
Figure 1. General plan of the Gediz Basin in Turkey
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
581
Gediz Basin in Turkey. The basin is located within the
Aegean region of western Turkey at latitude 380 040 –390 130
N and longitude 260 420 –290 450 E. The drainage area of the
basin is roughly 17 200 km2. The Gediz Basin is located
between the Ege, Susurluk and Küçük Menderes basins, and
lies along the Gediz River. The river rises in the Murat
and Şaphane mountains, which are within the borders of
Kütahya province, then passes through Uşak, Manisa and
Izmir provinces, and enters the Aegean Sea between Foça
and Izmir Bird Sanctuary (Anonymous, 1971; Kilic, 2004;
Kilic and Tuylu, 2008) (Figure 1).
The Ahmetli Right Bank Plain comprises the area from
Kendirlik village within the borders of Manisa Province in the
east to Menemen in the west. The largest area in the plain is
around Saruhanlı. The plain is 65 km in length in an east–west
direction and has a width of 15–20 km from north to south. The
width of the plain reduces to 500 m in the eastern parts of the area.
The geological structure of the Gediz Basin is of a plain of
tectonic origin aligned in an east–west direction. The
mountains in the north and south parts of the valley,
surrounding Salihli, Alaşehir and Sarıgöl, are metamorphic
in nature. Young volcanics called Kula basalts are found in
the north-east of the valley. The Ahmetli Plain formed in the
Gediz Graben as a result of alluvia carried by the Gediz
River. This alluvial structure extends from the Demirköprü
Dam in the upper part of the Gediz River to the outlet point
where it enters the Aegean Sea. The alluvium layer is quite
thick. The reason for the thickness of this layer is that the
Neogene series along the valley are soft and weak against
erosion. Gneiss, micaschist and amphibolites are seen under
the Neogene series along the Ahmetli Right Bank as far as
Manisa (Anonymous, 1974; Kilic and Tuylu, 2008).
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
582 M. KILIC AND G. I. TUYLU
The highest place topographically in the Ahmetli Right
Bank Plain is the Belen area at a height of 120 m above sea
level. The average height of the plain varies between 30 and
40 m. The slope and flow direction of the Gediz River is
towards the west and the general slope of the district is
towards the Gediz River. Near the river, the slope of the area
is usually 0.5% and this gradually increases to 10% towards
the north parts of the plain. The topography of some places is
bad near the Gediz River, depending on river flooding, and
there is an erosion problem in the slope areas (Anonymous,
1969; Kilic, 2004; Akgül, 2009).
The Ahmetli Right Bank Plain has alluvial soils, and the
natural fertility of these is high. Alluvial soils have formed
because of the accumulation of material due to erosion from
the upper parts of the Gediz River and Kumçayı. These soils
have a depth of more than 200 cm, and are generally of
medium texture with no stones or gravel. However, near the
Gediz River the soil texture is light because of sandy and
gravelly layers. Also, some alluvial soils have formed
because of the accumulation of material by erosion locally
from such mountains as Çal. These soils contain stone and
gravel in some of their profiles. Their colours are generally
shades of brown (Anonymous, 1969, 1974).
The research area is under the effect of a continental
climate. The district usually receives rainfall in November,
December, January and February. There is little or no rain in
June, July and August, and the land is irrigated in the period
from May to September when rainfall is insufficient. Annual
average temperature and rainfall in the district between 1975
and 2006 were 16.9 0C and 705 mm respectively (National
Meteorology Works (DMI) Reports, 2008). In accordance
with the climate and soil conditions, the main crops in the
district are grapes and cotton, but also include maize, citrus,
cereals and vegetables.
Water resource potential and irrigation system of
the research area
The main water resource for the Lower Gediz Irrigation
System is the Gediz River, which has a length of 275 km.
The surface water potential of the basin is 2 km3 yr
1
(63.4 m3 s
1) (Girgin et al., 1999; Baran et al., 1999; Kilic,
2004). Apart from this, there are many wells of different
depths in the basin. Over the past decade there has been a
scarcity of water in the Lower Gediz Basin because of the
increase in urban and industrial demand (Svendsen and
Murray-Rust, 2001). This situation has increased compe-
tition for water between sectors.
The Demirköprü Dam was constructed on the Gediz River
for irrigation, hydropower and flood control. The water is
delivered to the Lower Gediz Irrigation System by means of
three regulators constructed on the river: from upstream to
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
downstream, Adala, Ahmetli and Emiralem (Figure 2). The
main and secondary canals are under upstream control.
Water level and flow can be controlled from three points in
the system, namely, (i) the main regulator at the head of
the main canal; (ii) offtake regulators at the heads of the
secondary canals; and (iii) constant-head orifices at the
turnout to each tertiary canal.
The total water stored in the Demirköprü Dam determines
the volume and duration of irrigation water supplied to the
Gediz Basin System. Since it usually rains in the winter
months in the research area and the district receives no
precipitation from June to August, the land needs irrigation
in the period from May to September in accordance with the
cropping pattern and the climate conditions of the district.
Inflows to reservoirs are measured and observed regularly by
the DSI in Turkey. Groundwater levels are also observed by
periodic measurement by the same body. The groundwater
and surface water potential of Manisa is 210 and 233 hm3
respectively, which is used for domestic, industrial and
irrigation purposes (Kabukçu, 1999). The DSI decides on the
amount of irrigation water to be allocated from the reservoir
to different irrigation associations at the beginning of the
irrigation season for a particular year.
The Ahmetli, Turgutlu, Sarıkız and Gediz Irrigation
Associations receive water from the Right Main Canal of the
Ahmetli Regulator. The sizes of the commands of each
association are roughly 694, 1860, 13 700 and 11 000 ha
respectively. The Ahmetli Regulator Irrigation System
consists of concrete-lined open canals. Water is delivered
to the area by means of secondary and tertiary canals. Water
from the regulator is released into the main canal. In
addition, main, secondary and tertiary drainage canals have
been constructed in the irrigation system. The natural
drainage of the Ahmetli Right Bank Plain takes place
through the Gediz River and Kumçayı together with other
small tributaries (Kilic and Tuylu, 2008).
Operation and maintenance of the irrigation system
The DSI is responsible for the operation of the main canal,
which serves more than one association. The DSI also
operates the major water control infrastructures, such as
river regulators and dams.
The irrigation associations are responsible for water
delivery from the main canal to the secondary canals. Repair
and maintenance work on the network is carried out by the
irrigation associations before the start of the irrigation
season. They hire temporary labour for canal cleaning, grass
cutting and canal desilting. All maintenance work on the
main and secondary irrigation and drainage canals is
financed from the associations’ budgets. The irrigation
associations also operate the gates on the secondary and
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
 DETERMINATION OF WATER CONVEYANCE LOSS, TURKEY
Figure 2. General plan of the dams and regulators in the system
tertiary canals, and are responsible for water distribution
policies and for implementing water allocation among
farmers.
Village irrigation groups (VIGs) are the lowest unit of the
irrigation associations, and are responsible for collecting and
submitting farmers’ water demand forms, managing water
distribution at tertiary canal level, and cleaning and carrying
out minor repairs on canals, siphons and concrete flumes.
Maintenance expenses at tertiary level are met by a payment
to the VIGs from the association budget.
Water delivery to tertiary canals and plots is arranged by
VIGs which are responsible to the irrigation association.
Farmers report their water requirements to the VIGs one or
two days before the desired irrigation date, and VIGs decide
the allocation of water to the plots according to the reports
from the farmers. A rotation system is applied in delivering
the water. Each rotation zone has a fixed length of irrigation
time, and farmers receive water from the canals to their plots
according to this fixed rotation plan. However, especially in
peak irrigation periods and under water-scarcity conditions,
farmers at the tail end of the network cannot use the system
equally and cannot receive an adequate amount of water on
schedule. Disagreements between the farmers are handled
by the VIGs or the irrigation associations. Water charges are
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
583
collected annually by the irrigation associations according to
the crop type and size of the area (TL ha
1).
In the face of inadequate water in the canals, farmers use
groundwater as an alternative. However, the cost of
groundwater is higher than canal water because of the price
and the use of motorized pump units to supply water to the
plots. In addition, the DSI, which controls and regulates the
use of groundwater in Turkey, does not always permit
groundwater to be used for irrigation, as it is used
industrially and domestically besides its use in agricultural
irrigation. There is another restricting factor on the use of the
groundwater by farmers. This is that water from the open
canal irrigation system is priced in TL ha
1 and is paid for as
a single payment for the whole season. This is more
attractive to producers and is cheaper than the use of
groundwater (Kilic, 2004; Kiymaz, 2006; Kilic, 2007).
METHOD
The investigation was carried out in four main steps. The
first was to determine the canals and segments on which the
measurements would be carried out. Each canal section
where the measurements were carried out was designated as
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
584 M. KILIC AND G. I. TUYLU
a segment. It was ensured that the canals represented the
features of the system. This process was carried out by
investigation of the entire network in the district. In addition,
the segments were chosen from places where there was no
water flow either from outside into the segment or from the
segment to the outside, and also where there was nothing to
prevent flow along the segment.
Some sections of the canals exhibit heterogeneous
characteristics because of either structural disruptions or
changes in canal type. These kinds of feature give rise to
different water conveyance efficiencies in different sections
of the same canal line. Because of this, various segments
with different characteristics were taken into account in such
canals. Thus, measurements were carried out on the
heterogeneous canal sections, and water conveyance losses
(and efficiency values) were determined throughout the
length of the canal using the data from the different
segments. In order to define the positions of the segments of
the canals, coordinates were determined by GPS.
The second stage of the research consisted of measure-
ments carried out on canals when there was no water in the
network. This process was performed in both the beginning
and end sections of each canal segment. In this stage,
measurements were made on concrete trapezoidal canals of
canal bed width, bed slope, side slope angle, side length,
canal upper width, and length of the segment. On rectangular
concrete canals, the bed width, bed slope, side height, and
length of the segment were measured, while on elliptical
concrete canals, the bed slope, upper width, length of the
segment and maximum water flow depth were measured.
The third stage of the research comprised measurements
when the water was released to the canals. In this process,
water heights were measured, together with the average flow
velocities at both the head and the end of each canal
segment. The measurements were carried out three times for
each segment. Thus, water conveyance losses of the canals
were determined according to the inflow–outflow method as
explained by ANCID (2003) and Kilic and Tuylu (2008).
The components of this method were formulated as shown
below:
S ¼ Qi
Qo
E
D þ I (1)
where S ¼ seepage loss through the segment (l s
1);
Qi ¼ inflow to the segment (l s
1); Qo ¼ outflow from the
segment (l s
1); E ¼ evaporation (l s
1); D ¼ water delivered
from the segment (l s
1); and I ¼ inflow to the segment from
other sources (l s
1) (precipitation, surface flow, etc.) The
values of the parameters D and I are zero in the formula
above, as there is no water inflow–outflow to the segment.
Since it was determined that evaporation has little effect on
water conveyance loss, the value of this parameter was
considered as zero in this study. The average flow velocity in
the vertical section of the canal, which is necessary for
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
determining the discharges in both the head and the end
sections of the segment, was determined according to the
velocity–area method (Apan, 1982; Kanber, 1997; Bayazıt,
1999; United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR, 2001)).
If the water depth was less than 0.5 m, the measurement of
the flow velocity was carried out at 0.60 of the water depth. If
the depth of water was greater than 0.5 m, the flow velocity
was measured at 0.20 and 0.80 of the depth of the water. Two
different types of current meter – Valeport Model 801 and
SEBA Universal Model F1 – were used in determining the
flow velocities.
The fourth stage of the research consisted of arrangement
of the data from the previous stages, inputting them to the
computer and carrying out the calculations. This step of the
research was considered as two sub-sections. The first was
calculation of the canal hydraulic parameters, and the
second was determination of the water conveyance losses.
In determining the canal hydraulic parameters, flow cross
section, wetted perimeter, hydraulic radius, average flow
velocity, Manning roughness coefficient, inflow to the
segment, and outflow from the segment were determined at
both the head and the end sections of the canal segment
(Sığıner and Sümer, 1995; Mays, 1996; Kilic, 2006). Flows
in concrete flumes were calculated with DSI tables according
to the depth of water in the canal, canal bed slope and the type
number of the concrete flume (Acatay, 1996).
In the process of determining the water conveyance losses
in the canals, these were defined in three different ways,
namely, (i) conveyance loss per unit of canal length
(m3 s
1 km
1 and l s
1 100 m
1), (ii) conveyance loss as a
percentage of inflow (% per 1 km and % per 100 m), and
(iii) conveyance loss per unit of wetted area of the trapezoidal
canals per unit of time (l s
1 m
2) (Balaban, 1970; Şener,
1976; USDA-National Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS, 1997); Land and Water Resources Research and
Development Corporation (LWRRDC, 2002); Kilic, 2008).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Water conveyance losses were determined for the main,
secondary and tertiary canals in the Right Bank Irrigation
System of the Ahmetli Regulator in the Lower Gediz Basin
in 2007. The conveyance losses for the trapezoidal
and rectangular concrete canals in the system are given in
Tables I–III.
The values of such hydraulic parameters as wetted area,
wetted perimeter, hydraulic radius and discharge are needed
in order to determine conveyance loss in flume systems
(Şener, 1976; NRCS, 1997, LWRRDC, 2002). Since there is
no analytical solution method for flumes, the DSI tables
given by Acatay (1996) were used for this purpose, and the
values of such parameters as those mentioned above are
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
 DETERMINATION OF WATER CONVEYANCE LOSS, TURKEY 585

Table I. Water conveyance losses in the Right Main Canal of the Ahmetli Regulator

Segment Length of Discharge (m3 s
1) Discharge Average wetted Water conveyance loss
segment (m) loss (m3 s-1) perimeter (m)
Head of End of (m3 s
1 km
1) (l s
1 m
2) (% km
1)
segment segment
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Segment 1 295 11.2 10.9 0.3 10.5 1.02 0.097 9.11

Segment 2 1110 12.4 10.6 1.8 11.4 1.62 0.142 13.1
Segment 3 1290 12.5 12.2 0.3 11.5 0.23 0.020 1.84
Segment 4 300 11.9 11.7 0.2 10.4 0.67 0.064 5.63
Segment 5 1600 10.0 9.79 0.21 10.7 0.13 0.012 1.30
Average 0.734 0.067 6.20

Table II. Water conveyance losses in the secondary canals

Canal Length of Discharge (m3s
1) Discharge Average Water conveyance loss

segment (m) loss (m3 s
1) wetted
perimeter (m)
Head of End of (l s
1 100 m
1) (l s
1 m
2) (% 100 m
1)
segment segment
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Y4B 185 0.403 0.374 0.029 1.17 15.7 0.134 3.89

P5 195 0.054 0.052 0.002 1.03 1.03 0.010 1.91
Y5 370 0.672 0.635 0.037 1.30 10.0 0.077 1.49
Y6 68.0 1.66 1.63 0.030 1.72 44.1 0.256 2.66
Y7 295 0.670 0.654 0.016 2.90 5.42 0.019 0.81
Y9 1090 8.22 5.09 3.13 6.76 287 0.425 3.49
Y11 1790 3.36 3.01 0.35 4.10 19.6 0.048 0.58
Y13 430 3.54 3.39 0.15 3.52 34.9 0.099 0.99
Y14 600 1.21 1.20 0.01 2.40 1.67 0.007 0.14
Average 46.6 0.119 1.77

Table III. Water conveyance losses in the tertiary canals

Canal Length of Discharge (l s
1) Discharge Average Water conveyance loss

segment (m) loss (l s
1) wetted
Head of End of perimeter (m) (l s
1 100 m
1) (l s
1 m
2) (% 100 m
1)
segment segment
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)

Y4B/1 right 65.0 214 212 2.0 1.89 3.08 0.016 1.44
Y4B/1 left 171 275 269 6.0 2.35 3.51 0.015 1.28
Y4B/5 50.0 197 194 3.0 0.88 6.00 0.068 3.05
Y4B/8 94.0 152 146 6.0 1.22 6.38 0.052 4.20
Y5/1 right 53.0 137 128 9.0 2.08 17.0 0.082 12.4
Y5/6 left 285 483 477 6.0 2.90 2.11 0.007 0.44
Y6/2 47.0 155 154 1.0 2.02 2.13 0.011 1.37
Y7/6 70.0 199 197 2.0 2.45 2.86 0.012 1.44
Y5/11 150 295 292 3.0 1.99 2.00 0.010 0.68
Average 5.01 0.030 2.92

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
586 M. KILIC AND G. I. TUYLU

Table IV. Water conveyance losses in the concrete flumes resistance and modifies sediment transport and deposition
(Yen, 2002). Apart from this, roots and decomposing plant
Flume Type of Flume bed Water conveyance loss material produce organic acids which cause corrosion in
flume slope (%)
l s
1 100 m
1 % 100 m
1 canals (Letsoalo and Van Averbeke, 2006), and vegetation
growth reduces water flow velocity and increases irrigation
O.6 180 0.13 41.1 24.7 time. The limited budgets of the associations make it
O.16 70 0.40 7.28 20.8 difficult to carry out work such as either renovating the old
O.18 315 0.40 26.9 11.8 canals or lengthening them, or converting the canals to a
O.19 180 0.27 25.8 15.9
O.20 70 0.43 11.1 31.2 piped system.
O.21 180 0.53 25.2 26.5
O.26 180 0.18 10.0 5.67
Y19 180 0.196 16.1 14.6 Water conveyance losses in the secondary canals
Y21 100 0.18 7.90 20.2
4B/9 180 0.13 25.2 14.3 In the measurements on the secondary canals, which in this
Average 19.7 18.6 system are entirely concrete-lined, values of the canal bed
slope varied between 3.20  10
4 and 4.32  10
2 m m
1,
and the average wetted perimeter varied between 1.17 and
6.76 m. When Table II is analysed, water conveyance loss on
determined according to the canal bed slope, water height
unit wetted area of the canals can be seen to vary between
and average flow velocity in the flumes. Data not coinciding
0.007 and 0.425 l s
1m
2 with an average of 0.119
with the DSI table values were calculated by the
l s
1 m
2. This value is higher than both 0.0321 l s
1 m
2,
interpolation method. The interpolation operation carried
which is the average value for Turkey, and the limit value of
out with the DSI tables in determining the value of more than
0.00024 l s
1 m
2, which is the standard of the Bureau of
one hydraulic parameter increases the deviation from the
Reclamation (Büyüktaş and Alagöz, 2004).
results of water conveyance loss per unit wetted area
When the average value of the conveyance loss for the
(l s
1 m
2). Because of this, conveyance losses for different
secondary canals (0.119 l s
1 m
2) (Table II) is compared to
types of concrete flumes were determined as l s
1 100 m
1,
that of the main canal (0.067 l s
1 m
2) (Table I), the value
and % 100 m
1 (Table IV).
in the secondaries can be seen to be higher. This shows that
the secondary canals are in a worse condition than the main
Water conveyance losses in the main canal canal from the point of view of conveyance efficiency. The
reason for this is that essential maintenance and repair work
Measurements were carried out on five different segments
to prevent deterioration occurring over time are not being
on the concrete-lined Right Main Canal. It was determined
conducted and that canal cleaning is not being carried out
that the canal bed slopes varied between 2.64  10
5 and
properly. Kilic and Tuylu (2008) reported that high-level
6.86  10
4 m m
1, the average wetted perimeter varied
conveyance loss is due to seepage and damage to the
between 10.5 and 11.5 m, and the average water conveyance
concrete linings and cracks and deterioration of water-
loss per unit wetted area of the canal is 0.067 l s
1 m
2.
sealing materials as well as construction and operating
When compared with the average for Turkey of 0.0321
mistakes. Apart from this, water conveyance losses in
l s
1 m
2 and the limit value of 0.00024 l s
1 m
2 set by the
secondary canals show a wide range of variation at network
Bureau of Reclamation for concrete-lined canals (Büyüktaş
level (Table II). The main reason for this is that different
and Alagöz, 2004), it is seen that water conveyance loss is
irrigation associations are responsible for the maintenance,
higher than both of these values.
renovation and operation of different canals in the system.
The high conveyance losses in the canal show that
Thus, while some associations pay enough attention to such
renovation, maintenance and repair work done by the
work, others neglect it for such reasons as inadequate
irrigation associations are insufficient. One of the reasons
budget, labour or machine facilities. As a result, this
for the high rate of conveyance loss is degradation of
prevents uniformity of conveyance loss between the canals.
the concrete used in the canal lining. Other reasons are the
cracks occurring over time in the canals, and break-up of
the linings. The problems of sedimentation and vegetation
Water conveyance losses in the tertiary canals
growth in canals were also determined by field observations
in the research area (Kilic and Tuylu, 2008). Sedimentation In the measurements carried out in the entirely concrete-
reduces the flow cross-section area of the canals, which gives lined tertiary canals, the canal bed slopes varied between
rise to deterioration in the hydraulic features of the system. 1.76  10
4 and 1.45  10
2 m m
1, and the average wetted
Furthermore, vegetation growth in canals increases flow perimeter varied between 0.88 and 2.90 m. Water con-

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
 DETERMINATION OF WATER CONVEYANCE LOSS, TURKEY
veyance loss per unit wetted area of the canals varied
between 0.007 and 0.082 l s
1 m
2 with an average of 0.030
l s
1 m
2 (Table III). When compared to 0.0321 l s
1 m
2,
the average value for Turkey, and the limit value of 0.00024
l s
1 m
2, which is the seepage standard of the Bureau of
Reclamation, this value is observed to be lower than the
former, but higher than the latter.
If the average values of the water conveyance losses of
different types of canals in the network are compared to each
other, it can be seen that the average value in the tertiaries
(0.030 l s
1 m
2) is lower than in the main (0.067 l s
1 m
2)
and secondary canals (0.119 l s
1 m
2) (Tables I–III). These
values show that the physical and maintenance condition of
the canals is very variable in the network. It was observed in
the research area that the structural condition of some canals
was good, while for others it was very bad. The main reason
for this variability is that canal maintenance and repair work
is carried out by different associations. Therefore, some
irrigation groups do not pay enough attention to repair and
maintenance of the canals.
Water conveyance losses in flumes
Measurements were conducted on different types of
flumes in the research area. It was found that water
conveyance loss value in the 100 m long flume segments
varied between 7.28 and 41.1 l s
1 with an average of 19.7
l s
1. Also, the conveyance loss in the 100 m long flume
segments increased as a percentage of inflow from 5.67 to
31.2%, averaging 18.6% (Table IV).
Flume systems in the research field are predominantly
situated in the end segments of the network. In the region
which is managed by the Gediz Irrigation Association and
designated as Segment VII, flumes are found in many places.
However, maintenance, repair, cleaning and renovation
services of the system are not performed properly. In
addition, such problems as adverse slope, lower canal level
than the plot level and insufficient capacity hamper efficient
use of the system. In addition, degradation of the sealing
material in the canal joints, changes in slope due to gradual
settling of the canal supports, cracks and breaks, all
contribute to a great loss of efficiency of the system.
Farmers, especially those at the end of the segments of the
network, do not find enough water in the canals when they
need it. The associations’ inadequate budgets prevent them
from carrying out the maintenance, renovation and cleaning
of the canals properly.
CONCLUSIONS
The aim of this investigation was to determine the water
conveyance losses of the main, secondary, and tertiary
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
587
canals situated in the Right Bank Irrigation System of the
Ahmetli Regulator in the Gediz Basin, Turkey. Values of
conveyance losses for these canals show a wide range of
distribution for the network. One of the reasons for this
variation is that different irrigation associations are
responsible for the maintenance, renovation, cleaning,
repair and operation of the various canals in the system.
Therefore, while some associations pay enough attention to
such work, others cannot because of an insufficient budget
(Kilic, 2004, 2007; Kilic and Tuylu, 2008). The average
conveyance losses from the unit wetted area of the secondary
canals are higher than those of both the main and the tertiary
canals. Moreover, the average values of water conveyance
loss for the three types of canals are higher than either the
average loss in Turkey or the seepage standard of the Bureau
of Reclamation.
Reasons for the high level of conveyance loss in the
research area are cracks occurring over time in canals,
settlement of the canal bed, deformation of the hydraulic
structure of the canals, deterioration of water-sealing
materials, construction and operating mistakes, cracks and
leaking joints in the flumes, and degradation of the concrete
used in the canal lining (Kilic and Tuylu, 2008). Apart from
this, vegetation growth in canals increases evapotranspira-
tion losses. This also increases flow resistance, changes
backwater profiles, and modifies sediment transport and
deposition (Yen, 2002). Roots and decomposing plant
material produce organic acids, which react with the calcium
in the concrete of the canals, causing corrosion (Letsoalo
and Van Averbeke, 2006). Moreover, vegetation growth
reduces water flow velocity and increases irrigation time.
In addition, a freezing or drying cycle, changes in the
water table, damage to the bed, or increased wetted
perimeter due to plant growth slowing flows can cause an
increase in leakage rate (Dreher and Tuthill, 1999). Another
factor increasing the water conveyance loss in canals is
sedimentation, which decreases the flow cross-section area
of the canals, and has an adverse effect on the flow
conditions of the canals (Kilic and Tuylu, 2008). An
additional factor increasing the conveyance loss in canals is
algae in the irrigation water. At certain times in the irrigation
season, water velocities in canals are significantly reduced
because of algae, and water cannot be supplied in the
required amounts. Chow (1973) stated that suspended
material, whether moving or not moving, would consume
energy and cause head loss in canals. Therefore, associations
occasionally add copper sulphate to irrigation water in order
to prevent algal growth.
These conditions, determined during field observations,
generally indicate that maintenance, repair, cleaning and
renovation work is insufficient in the research area. The
inadequate budget of the irrigation associations has an
important effect on this. The limited budgets of the
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
588 M. KILIC AND G. I. TUYLU
associations make it difficult to carry out work such as
renovating the old canals or converting them to a piped
system.
Insufficient maintenance and renovation work results not
only in water loss and operation problems in the system, but
also in inefficient use of the network. Reducing the water
conveyance losses in canals is important from the point of
view of the sustainable use of deficit resources in the
research area. For this purpose, it may be suggested that the
budget of the irrigation associations, which are responsible
for the maintenance, renovation, cleaning, repair and
operation of the network, should be increased. Apart from
this, renovation work should be carried out in order to reduce
conveyance losses in canals to the lowest possible level. The
farmers using the canals should play an active role in
contributing to the maintenance, cleaning and preservation
of the network. Moreover, effective control must be ensured
in order to prevent farmers from damaging the canals while
using them. In this way, the system can be used more
rationally. Apart from this, the associations must perform
essential maintenance and repair regularly. In order to use
the water resources at an optimum level and to operate the
system efficiently, it is necessary to use more economical
irrigation systems which minimize seepage loss. Thus,
investigations should be carried out with the purpose of
developing new technologies with lower costs, and the
application of these to the irrigation systems. In this way,
many of the physical and operational problems of the
irrigation system can be solved.
REFERENCES
Acatay T. 1996. Irrigation Engineering. Dokuz Eylül University Publi-
cation: Izmir, Turkey; (In Turkish.).
Akgül S. 2009. The effects of changes in the elements of water balance in
Gediz Basin on the use of water in agriculture. PhD thesis, Ankara
Üniversitesi Fen Bil Enst, Ankara, Turkey; 245 pp. (In Turkish with
English abstract.).
Ambast SK, Keshari AK, Gosain AK. 2002. Satellite remote sensing to
support management of irrigation systems: concepts and approaches.
Irrigation and Drainage 51: 25–39. DOI: 10.1002/ird.26.
Australian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (ANCID). 2003.
Open Channel Seepage and Control V (1.4). Best practice guideline for
channel seepage identification and measurement; 95 pp. (http:/www.
ancid.org.au/pdf/seepreports141003/Vol1.4_Guidelines.pdf).
Anonymous. 1969. Gediz Havzası Ahmetli Sağ Sahil Ovası planlama arazi
tasnif raporu. DSI II. Bölge Müdürlüğü, İzmir, Turkey; 42 pp. (In
Turkish.).
Anonymous. 1971. Menemen Ovası temel toprak etüdü. Köy İşleri Bakan-
lığı Topraksu Genel Müdürlüğü Yayınları No. 146: 40, Ankara, Turkey.
(In Turkish.).
Anonymous. 1974. Gediz Basin Soils. Topraksu Genel Müdürlüğü
yayınları: 302, Köy İşleri ve Kooperatifler Bakanlığı yayınları No. 220,
Havza No. 5 Raporlar Serisi: 86, Toprak Etütleri ve Haritalama Dairesi,
Ankara, Turkey; 143 pp. (In Turkish.).
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Apan M. 1982. Hydrology. Atatürk University, Faculty of Agriculture,
Culturtechnic Department: Erzurum, Turkey; (In Turkish.).
Balaban A. 1970. An Investigation on Seepage Losses on Channels and
Field Irrigation Trenches in Networks Ankara University, Faculty of
Agriculture Publications, Publication No. 455, A.Ü. Basımevi; 61 pp,
Ankara, Turkey. (In Turkish.).
Baran T, Durnabaş I, Öziş U, Gül S. 1999. Surface water potential of Ege
Region. In Izmir Water Congress. Izmir, Turkey; 4-5 June; 57–73. (In
Turkish.).
Batt HA, Merkley GP. 2010. Water management and user association
analysis for irrigation improvement in Egypt. Irrigation and Drainage
59: 150–160.
Bayazıt M. 1999. Hydrology. Istanbul Technical University Publication No.
1605: Istanbul, Turkey; (In Turkish.).
Bekişoğlu Ş. 1993. Beton kaplamalı kanallarda sızdırmazlık önlemleri
mastik asfalt ve püskürtme beton uygulaması. Bayındırlık ve İskan
Bakanlığı. DSI Genel Müdürlüğü, İşletme ve Bakım Daire Başkanlığı:
Ankara; (In Turkish.).
Bureau of Reclamation. 1975. Water measurement manual (Second Edition).
USDI, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado, USA. 327 p.
Büyüktaş K, Alagöz T. 2004. Farklı çimento çeşitleri ve karışımlar kulla-
nılarak kaplanan sulama kanalında sızma kayıplarının belirlenmesi.
Akdeniz Üniversitesi, Ziraat Fakültesi Dergisi 17: 49–58. (In Turkish.).
Çevik B, Tekinel O. 1995. Irrigation Networks and Operation Methods.
Cukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture, Publication No. 81: Adana,
Turkey; (In Turkish.).
Chahar BR. 2007. Optimal design of a special class of curvilinear bottomed
channel section. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering 133(5): 571–576.
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9429(2007)133:5(571).
Chow V. 1973. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill: New York.
Dreher KJ, Tuthill DR. 1999. Report Regarding Evaluation of Irrigation
Diversion Rates. Idaho Department of Water Resources Adjudication
Bureau, Report to the Snake River Basin Adjudication: District Court:
Idaho/USA.
Ertsen MW. 2009. From central control to service delivery? Reflections on
irrigation management and expertise. Irrigation and Drainage 58: S87–
S103. DOI: 10.1002/ird.476.
Girgin A, Geçgel G, Gül S, Özder E. 1999. Menemen Sulama Şebekesinin
Sulama Birliklerine devri öncesi ve sonrasında su yönetimine ilişkin bazı
değerlendirmeler. In VII. Kültürteknik kongresi;, 34–45. (In Turkish
Kapadokya/TURKEY.).
Hamdy A, Ragab R, Scarascia-Mugnozza E. 2003. Coping with water
scarcity: water saving and increasing water productivity. Irrigation and
Drainage 52: 3–20. DOI: 10.1002/ird.73.
Kabukçu F. 1999. Hydroenformatic investigations and importance for water
resources security. In Izmir Water Congress, 4-5 June, Izmir, Turkey;
395–399. (In Turkish with English abstract.).
Kacimov AR. 1992. Seepage optimization for trapezoidal channel. Journal
of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 118(4): 520–526.
Kanber R. 1997. Irrigation. Çukurova University, Faculty of Agriculture.
General Publication No. 174, Lecture Books Publication No. 52: Adana,
Turkey; (In Turkish.).
Khan S, Rana T, Dassanayake D, Abbas A, Blackwell J, Akbar S, Gabriel
HF. 2009. Spatially distributed assessment of channel seepage using
geophysics and artificial intelligence. Irrigation and Drainage 58: 307–
320. DOI: 10.1002/ird.415.
Kilic M. 2004. Determining the optimum water allocation in irrigation
networks by nonlinear programming method. PhD thesis, Ege Üniversi-
tesi Fen Bil Enst, Bornova, Izmir, Turkey; 137 pp. (In Turkish with
English abstract.).
Kilic M. 2006. ‘‘Hidhes 3.1’’. A Computer Program for Hydraulic Calcu-
lations of Open Channel Systems (with Turkish Interface). Published in
Ege University Scientific Research Project: 2006-ZRF-047.
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)
 DETERMINATION OF WATER CONVEYANCE LOSS, TURKEY
Kilic M. 2007. Interactive planning of canal rotation system in real-time
condition for Lower Gediz Basin Irrigation Network: method and appli-
cation. In Proceedings of the International Congress on River Basin
Management, Antalya, Turkey; 626-639.
Kilic M. 2008. ‘‘Interrand 3.1’’. A Computer Program for Determining the
Water Conveyance Loss (and Efficiency) in Open Channel Irrigation
Systems (with Turkish Interface). Published in Ege University Scientific
Research Project: 2006-ZRF-047.
Kilic M, Tuylu GI. 2008. Determining the Water Conveyance Efficiency
for Ahmetli Regulator Irrigation System in Lower Gediz Basin. Ege
University Scientific Research Project. Project No. 2006-ZRF-047, Izmir,
Turkey; 53 pp. (In Turkish with English abstract.).
Kiymaz S. 2006. Problems and solutions for water user associations
in the Gediz Basin example. PhD thesis, Çukurova Üniversitesi Fen
Bilimleri Enst. Adana, Turkey; 211 pp. (In Turkish with English
abstract.).
Kraatz DB. 1977. Irrigation Canal Lining. Food and Agriculture Organ-
ization of the United Nations: Rome.
Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation
(LWRRDC). 2002. Guidelines to Good Practice for the Construction
and Refurbishment of Earthen Irrigation Channel Banks. Australia.
http://lwa.gov.au/products/pr020358
Letsoalo SS, Van Averbeke W. 2006. Infrastructural maintenance on
smallholder canal irrigation schemes in the north of South Africa. In
Proceedings, International Symposium on Water and Land Management
for Sustainable Irrigated Agriculture. Adana, Turkey; April 4-8.
Mays LM. 1996. Water Resources Handbook. McGraw-Hill: Arizona State
University, Tempe Arizona, USA. ISBN 0-07- 041150-6.
National Meteorology Works (DMI). 2008. Manisa and Akhisar Meteor-
ology Reports. Ankara, Turkey; (In Turkish.).
National Water Agency (DSI). 2006. Agriculture. DSI General Director,
Ankara. <http://www.dsi. gov.tr/hizmet/tarim.htm> (In Turkish.).
Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
View publication stats
589
Schultz B, De Wrachien D. 2002. Irrigation and drainage systems research
and development in the 21st century. Irrigation and Drainage 51: 311–
327. DOI: 10.1002/ird.67.
Şener S. 1976. Investigations on Water Conveyance Losses in the Menemen
Irrigation Network. Menemen Bölge Topraksu Araştırma Enstitüsü
Müdürlüğü Yayınları, General Publication No. 47, Report Series No.
25. Izmir, Turkey; 90 pp. (In Turkish.).
Sığıner A, Sümer MB. 1995. Hydraulic Problems. Birsen Yayınevi, Istan-
bul, Turkey; 208–277. (In Turkish.).
Svendsen M, Murray-Rust DH. 2001. Creating and consolidating locally
managed irrigation in Turkey: the national perspective. Irrigation and
Drainage Systems 15: 355–371.
Swamee PK, Mishra GC, Chahar BR. 2000. Design of minimum seepage
loss canal sections. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
126(1): 28–32.
Swamee PK, Kashyap D. 2001. Design of minimum seepage-loss non-
polygonal canal sections. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineer-
ing 127(2): 113–117.
United States Bureau of Reclamation (USBR). 2001. Water Measurement
Manual. A Water Resources Technical Publication: Washington, DC;
http://www.usbr.gov/pmts/hydraulics_lab/pubs/wmm/
USDA-National Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 1997. Irrigation
Guide. Irrigation – Handbooks and Manuals – National Engineering
Handbook Part 652: Washington, DC; <http://www. wcc.nrcs.usda.gov/
nrcsirrig/irrig-handbooks.html.>
Wachyan E, Rushton KR. 1987. Water losses from irrigation canals. Journal
of Hydrology 92(3–4): 275–288. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(87)90018-7.
Wahl TL, Clemmens AJ, Replogle JA, Bos MG. 2005. Simplified design of
flumes and weirs. Irrigation and Drainage 54: 231–247. DOI: 10.1002/
ird.160.
Yen BC. 2002. Open channel flow resistance. Journal of Hydraulic
Engineering 128: 20–39.
Irrig. and Drain. 60: 579–589 (2011)