_ 5

Lining of Irrigation Canals

and Economics of Lining
5.1. General
Next to China, India has the largest area under irrigation. The irrigated area
is constantly and continuously being increased, so as to ensure assured irrigation
and to avoid crop failures due to famines and non-availability of water. To secure
the benefits of irrigated land, a tremendous amount of capital has been invested
in this country in the irrigation projects. So much so, that an expenditure of about
Rs. 1,15,000 crores has been incurred in our country on major and medium irriga-
tion projects since independence and up to the end of ninth five-year plan (1997-
2002). This data confirms the fact that irrigation water is a costly commodity, and
as such, there should be no wastage during its carriage from the reservoirs to the
fields. Most of the canals, constructed in India to carry irrigation water, are
unlined, and hence, a large part of the costly irrigation water is lost in percolation
and absorption as seepage loss. No doubt, there are regions where the soil is such
that seepage losses are very small, and there is no justification for lining them,
but at the same time, it is also true that there are areas where 25 to 50% of the
water is lost in seepage. This is a very serious loss and proportionately reduces
the irrigation potential of the supplied water. Such seepage loss of the costly
irrigation water must, therefore, be minimised. The seepage can be avoided or
minimised by lining the irrigation canals.
By lining the canal, we mean that the earthen surface of the channel is lined
with a stable (inerodible) lining surface, such as concrete, tiles, asphalt, etc.
Depending upon the type of lining adopted, the seepage losses can be reduced to
2%-5% of their original values by lining the canals. Apart from reduction in
seepage losses, there are various other advantages of lining the canals. All these
advantages are described below in details :
5.2. Advantages of Lining
(1) Seepage Control. It has been emphasised above, that the seepao·e losses
are considerably reduced if the channels are lined. A lined canal costs about 2 to
i
2 times as much as an unlined canal, but where seepage is heavy, the saving of
costly irrigation water may itself be sufficient to fully justify the capital exp a·-
1
ture on lining. It should also be kept in mind that heavy seepage losses in en
would n ecess1tate
· h . . can 1
f
t e construct10n o 1arger reservoirs and biO'ger dams p. t· s
a
of seep b . • ti . d h . . 0
• 1 even 10n
1 age y 1mmg would, there ore, re uce t e1r unpounding capacity dh
t;er the construction costs of these works. The idea of the extent to h'. a~ ence,
a es place in different kinds of channels can be obtained from Tab;: ~~ 1. seepage
179
 HUU GATION ENGINEERlNG AND HYDRAu
182 Lic S'l'Ru
1 . . ') ~ ,,nnoal of weeds. Huge
money is spent in removing C'!'lJllt~
"'' 11.c 1 . 1 .L. . . Weeds I)
1 • \,' \r , h y• ,ocinth
p \ nth ~ ,.L . · , •
t 1c cana
de., Imm
f1 s. mmg eliminate s or r
and,.,
••ate
L'X\Wl\C ·\ ·,t ,,,·" l'On ~hh-rnh\y , n~ \.h e
' . · ·
p\onts ow down the canal d educes t t
ue to h'1 hi
\' l'hw,\l'l-4 '" \nwc\ rnnnh-1. gher Uo\~
(G) Elimination of Flood Dan~cri,;. /\n un\ine<l canal found
fo undations is alw ays in danger, and a breach ma y occu r at an t_ed on Wea1.
· 1· .1
hnvc occurred where sma 11 b reac h es m un rn cu tana\ s resulted .
Y nne · lnstanl\f:r
. in Wash· ~
of considerable length of emban lunent- I ea <l mg to flooding of . ing aw.
. . . . . h h certain a1
causing scarcity of 1rngatio n water m ot ers, as t c canal was O t areas and
. 1· . u of se .
critical tnne for crops. A strong concrete mmg removes all such cl TV1~ at
angers. a

FINANCIAL JUSTIFICATION AND

ECONOMICS OF CANAL LINING
In certain cases , the lining of a channel may be required from pure\ • ,
considerations. For example, a canal constructed on a high fill or a ca Yl~c.~ca;
na 'l~c
partly on rock and partly on permeable strata, may be unsafe, unless -t ;_ .: ;::;
Sometimes a hard lined surface may be required to withstand the
1
~ \u;·
velocities, as in power channels. Apart from these special circumstan '·~
engineer is required to produce a good economic justification for the capi: ·..~
that is likely to be invested on lining. In considering the economy of canal ~~
it is necessary to evaluate the tangible (which can be measured in terms of;;:
and additional benefits, and then to compare these with the cost of lininoo· &,....,;:..•
cost ratio can, therefore, be worked out, so as to justify the necessity of li.r.·--:~
Mathematically speaking, expenditure on a project is justified if the re.i- i~
annual benefits exceed the annual costs (including interest on the capital~-
diture) i.e. Benefit cost ratio is more than one. The justification for lini!:.;:.:.:
existing channels is different from that of constructing new lined. c:hanr.e'.3 .:. :
new project. It is because of the fact that a large number of additional ad\"JS.~~
; such as lesser earth-work-handling, lesser land acquisition, lesser impoe: -~
reservoir capacities, etc., are obtained in a new project, by adopting lining :·~::"
canals.
5.3. Justification for Lining the Existing Canals
1:-1'
(i)Ann~al Benefits. Irrigation water is sold to the cultiv~t_o~ \~ :;~
rate. Let this rate be rupees R 1 per cumec. If m cumecs of water\::, _s. ·
the canal, annually, then the money saved by lining = mR1 rupees. ~
• . u·il up~~
L .mmg
. w1·11 a l so re d uce mamtenance
· cost. Th e average co :·t:, of ~n
'. be .R.,,. R~- ,;··
of unlined channel can be worked out from previous record$ . Lt't it . bY lil\l~
. . . . t ,u1ce co::it .
p 1s the percentage fraction of the saving achieved m mrun en-
the canal, then the amount saved= p•R 2 rupees. ...\:J.l
:. The total annual benefits= mR 1 + p·R2 ken t,~ 0-4
. 18· general\v ta ,;
(The value of P . · .. c nip<c•.:
. d on \ ,n o l~
. . 111lY , · ,,.,,.
(ii) Annual Costs. If the capital expendit ure require . _ iation charg~'
and the linin ~ h a~ a life of sny Y years, then the annual depi ec a locked uP
I C . .111terest, thet1
I be y rupees. If r percent is the rate of annual s11nple • s11d
t charge~,
\I capital of C rupees would earn, annually C (
( _ ,. \
) rupees a~
. interes
100
 •
LINING OF IRRIGATION CANALS AND ECONOMICS OF LINING 183
since the capital value of th e asset decreases from C to zero in Y years, the average

2 100
J
annual interest cost may be taken as C ( - '-· rupees
·
:. The total annual costs of lining
C C r
= y + 2 X 100 ... (5.2 )
Annual Benefits
Benefit cost ratio = - - - - - --=-
Annual Costs

~[;:~:p;J ... (5.3)

If p is taken as 0.4, then

Benefit cost ratio =

mR1 + 0.4
C + C _r_
R2] ... (5.4)
{ Y 2 X 100

For project justification, benefit cost ratio must be greater than unity.
In addition to the benefits grouped above i.e. (water saving and reduction in
maintenance cost) there may be benefits, like prevention of water-logging, reduced
cost of drainage for adjoining lands, reduced risk of breaching, reduced incidence
of malaria and other diseases in damp areas. Actual evaluation of these benefits
is very difficult and may be approximated, based on experience, and may be taken
into account for evaluating the annual benefit cost ratio.
Example 5.1. An unlined canal giving a seepage loss of 3.3 cumecs p er million
sq. metres of wetted area is proposed to be lined with 10 cm thick cement concrete
lining, which costs Rs. 180.00 per 10 sq. m. Given the following data, work out the
economics of lining and benefit cost ratio.
Annual revenue per cumec of water from all crops= Rs. 3.5 lakhs
Discharge in the channel= 83.5 cumecs.
Area of the channel= 40. 8 sq. m.
Wetted perimeter of the channel= 18.8 metres
Wetted perimeter of the lining= 18.5 metres
Annual maintenance cost of unlined channel per 10 sq. m. = Re. 1. 00
Assume additional suitable data, if required.
Solution.
Let us consider 1 km reach of canal.
Therefore, the wetted surface per km. = 18.8 x 1,000 = 18,800 sq. m.
(i) Annual Benefits
(a) Seepage. Seepage loss in unlined canal @ 3.3 cumecs per million sq m
= -3 ·-3 x 18,800 cumecs/km. = (62,040]
6
cumecs/km
10 6 10
.Assume seepage Joss in lined channel at 0.01 cumec per million sq m of wetted
Perimeter.