Ch-8 Ground Water Draft (15-12-2017)

Construction and Rehabilitation of Kas Umar Khan Canal System Project December, 2017
Final Updated Feasibility Report Chapter-8
CHAPTER 8: GROUND WATER QUALITY STUDIES.............................................................8-1

8.1 Introduction............................................................................................................. 8-1
8.1.1 Importance of Groundwater Quality in Agriculture.....................................8-1
8.2 Water Quality Standards and Classification Criteria................................................8-3
8.2.1 Criteria of Water Quality As Suggested by World Bank.............................8-3
8.2.2 Groundwater Quality Standards Adopted by WAPDA...............................8-3
8.2.3 Criteria fixed by U.S. Salinity Laboratory for use of water for Irrigation......8-4
8.3 Classification of Groundwater Quality in Project Area.............................................8-5
8.3.1 Classification of Groundwater Quality on the Basis of World Bank
Guidelines.................................................................................................8-5
8.3.2 Assessment of Groundwater Quality Status According to U.S. Salinity
Laboratory Standards................................................................................8-9
8.4 Depth-Wise Groundwater Quality..........................................................................8-14
8.5 Results and Discussion.........................................................................................8-16
8.6 Reference and Bibliography..................................................................................8-17
List of Tables
Table 8.1: Proposed Mixing Ratio of Groundwater with Canal water..........................................8-3

Table 8.2 Water Quality Criteria Based on EC, SAR and RSC Values......................................8-4
Table 8.3: Areal Distribution of Groundwater Categories in Project Area........................................8-5
Table 8.4: On the Sport Determined Electrical Conductivity Data and TDS Parameters in
Project Area............................................................................................................... 8-7
Table 8.5: Detailed Chemical Analysis of Water Samples Collected from 14 Selected
Tubewells................................................................................................................. 8-11
Table 8.6: Classification of Groundwater Samples as per U.S. Salinity Laboratory System......8-13
Table 8.7: Depth-Wise Water Quality Variation in project Area.................................................8-15
List of Figures
Figure 8.1: Sub-Soil Formation of Kas Umar Khan Project Canal Area upto 30 feet depth..........8-2
Figure 8.2: Display of Total Dissolved Solids in Different Ranges of Concentrations...................8-6
Figure 8.3: Location of Selected Tubewells for Groundwater Sampling.....................................8-10
Figure 8.4: Wilcox Diagram for classification of water for irrigation............................................8-12
Figure 8.5: Map showing Location-wise Groundwater Quality Classes......................................8-14
Figure 8.6: Depth-Wise Variation in Water Quality Expressed in TDS.......................................8-16
EGC|RHC|AGES Page I
CHAPTER 8: GROUND WATER QUALITY STUDIES
8.1 Introduction
The Kas Umar Khan Canal Project area in general is extensively covered by piedmont deposits
between the escarpment of the Shin Ghar mountainous range in the west and low lying active flood
plain of Indus River adjacent to its eastern boundary. The area has on an average elevation of 932
feet in the west which lowers to 584 feet in the east. The average gradient varies from northern to
southern parts of the project area in the range of 24 to 36 feet per mile.
The western belt of land two to four miles in width along the mountain base has coarse and
moderately coarse soil material, whereas, the land in the eastern area is composed of
comparatively fine textured soils and at several places particularly in the middle of the area, clayey
or silty clay layers are intercalated at different depths between the fine sandy strata. The formation
of sub soil so observed at different locations is shown in a map of Figure.8.1.
Groundwater quality is very much dependent on the on the nature of underground strata. In coarse
textured zones, the recharge of fresh water from surface is unobstructed to replenish the
groundwater whereas in areas containing clayey or silty clayey layers either on the top or
sandwiched in the underground formation, the recharge from the surface is largely impeded and
refreshing of the groundwater is much restricted For this reason groundwater quality in the western
area is much more improved and better than in the eastern area.
The area is drained by a number of natural drains commonly called as nullahs/Hill torrents which
emerge from the mountainous range on the west and outfall in the Indus River on the east of the
project area. Amongst these several nullahs, Rukka nullah, Broach nullah and Adwala nullah, are
quite wide and recharge the groundwater with fresh water during the monsoon rainy season. For
this reason, tubewells close to these nullahs are of good water quality but in the tubewells installed
away at a distance from these natural streams, the quality of groundwater shows gradual decline.
8.1.1 Importance of Groundwater Quality in Agriculture
The quality of irrigation water plays a vital role in regulating the plant growth. If the Electrical
Conductivity of the Soil Saturation Extract (Ece) is less than 4 mS/cm (micro Siemens/cm), most of
the crops can grow successfully without showing any signs of salt injury or toxicity. On the other
hand, if the Ece happens to be between 4-10 mS/cm, medium and high salt tolerant plants can be
grown. The sensitive species are screened out themselves. Under high salinity soil conditions with
Ece from 16-18 mS/cm, only high salt tolerant crops, grasses and plants can survive.
Another important factor that can adversely affect the crop production is the Sodium Adsorption
Ratio (SAR). At high SAR above 10, the clayey soils containing high percentage of montmorillonite
are very allergic to this parameter. The heavy soils containing high percentage of clay can easily
become impervious to downward movement of water and blocks the exchange of gases between
the root zone and open atmosphere when in contact with high SAR water. Consequently uptake of
nutrients is retarded under anaerobic conditions, and plant growth becomes stunted with little fruit
formation. Such is the alarming impact of high SAR on the crop yields through adverse modification
of physical and chemical characteristics of the soils.
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 1
Figure 8.1: Sub-Soil Formation of Kas Umar Khan Project Canal Area upto 30 feet depth
The third important factor relates to the presence and concentrations of bicarbonate ions in the
irrigation water. In the presence of these specific ions in the irrigation water, calcium and
magnesium in the soil solution precipitate as their carbonates leaving sodium ions behind in the soil
solution for quick adsorption on the soil surface followed by immediate dispersal of colloidal
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 2
particles. This phenomenon converts the productive to unproductive lands with very little support to
plant growth.
The three important parameters i.e. salinity, SAR, and RSC (Residual Sodium Carbonate) are to be
given equal weightage when classifying the irrigation water for agricultural purposes especially
when the soils are fine to very fine textured. If any of these three factors is ignored from the
classification, the crops could be grown in coarse textured soils, but may show total failure when the
soils are of clayey nature containing fine to very fine colloidal particles.
A review of the classification standards recommended at national and international levels is given in
the next section.
8.2 Water Quality Standards and Classification Criteria
In order to make assessment of groundwater quality, World Bank, WAPDA, and U.S. Salinity
Laboratory have developed guidelines for classifying water samples with respect to their suitability
for irrigation. Salient features of these guidelines are discussed as below.
8.2.1 Criteria of Water Quality As Suggested by World Bank
World Bank Consultant (1967) suggested using groundwater even up to 1000 ppm on land directly
without any modification. The waters with T.D.S. above 1000 ppm have to be used after mixing with
the canal water. The upper limit of utilization of groundwater was fixed with TDS up to 3000 ppm
after dilution with canal water to lower the T.D.S. to 1000 ppm. The detail about the classification of
groundwater and ratio of mixing of groundwater with canal water is given in Table 8.1.
Table 8.1: Proposed Mixing Ratio of Groundwater with Canal water
Groundwater Quality
Groundwater Quality Zones Mixing Required
ppm
Fresh 1000 No mixing
1000-2000 1:1
Usable After Mixing
2000-3000 2.5:1
Saline >3000 Not to be used
Reference: Dr. P. Lieftnick et.al (1967)
8.2.2 Groundwater Quality Standards Adopted by WAPDA
WAPDA Scarp Monitoring Organization (SMO 2002-2008) has classified groundwater quality,
tubewell water quality and river water quality on the basis of the three most important parameters of
EC, SAR, and RSC. The limits of these parameters set for classification by this organization are as
shown below in Table 8.2.
Table 8.2 Water Quality Criteria Based on EC, SAR and RSC Values
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 3
EC RSC
Quality SAR
(mS/cm) (meq/l)
Usable directly 0-1500 0-10 0.2.5
Usable for mixing 1500-2700 10-18 2.5-5.0
Hazardous >2700 >18 >5.00
Reference: WAPDA SMS Publications No.2002-8

Note: if the water is characterized as usable for mixing in the above Table, it is assumed to be
mixed in equal parts of surface and groundwater
8.2.3 Criteria fixed by U.S. Salinity Laboratory for use of water for Irrigation.
The U.S.A Salinity Laboratory Staff in 1954 developed a procedure for classification of irrigation
waters taking care of salinity as well as sodicity levels. The RSC factor was set aside for a separate
test. A schematic rectangular type diagram was prepared with Ec along x-axis and SAR along y-
axis. Primarily, there were four classes on the basis of electrical conductivity of water sample. The
dividing points between classes being at 250,750 and 2250 microsiemens/cm. and also four classes
on SAR values from 0 to 30. Combination of these salinity and sodicity classes with one and other
generates sixteen classes each requiring special soil and water management practices. To use this
diagram, the Electrical Conductivity and concentration of sodium and calcium plus magnesium in
the irrigation water is required. The Sodium Adsorption Ratio is determined from the concentration
of these chemicals.
The salient features of the main four salinity and sodicity classes along with recommended soil and
water management requirements and crop selection for better growth and yields are highlighted
below:
8.2.3.1 Salinity Hazards
A. Low Salinity Water (C1): can be used for irrigation with most crops on most soils with little
likelihood that soil salinity will develop
B. Medium Salinity Water (C2): can be used if a moderate amount of leaching occurs. Plants
with moderate salt tolerance can be grown in most cases without special practices for salinity
control.
C. High Salinity Water (C3): cannot be used on soils with restricted drainage even with
adequate drainage, special management for salinity control may be required and plants with
good salt tolerance should be selected.
D. Very High Salinity Water (C4): is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions but may
be used occasionally under very special circumstances. The irrigation water must be applied
in excess to provide considerable leaching and very high salt tolerant crops should be
selected.
8.2.3.2 Sodium Hazard
A. Low Sodium Water (S1): can be used for irrigation on almost all soils with little danger of the
development of harmful level of exchangeable sodium
B. Medium Sodium Water (S2): will present an appreciable hazard in fine textured soils having
high cation exchange capacity, especially under low leaching conditions, unless gypsum ions
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 4
present in the soils. This water may be used on coarse textured or organic soils with good
permeability.
C. High Sodium Water (S3): may produce harmful levels of exchangeable sodium in most soils
and will require special soil management – good drainage, high leaching and organic matter
addition.
D. Very High Sodium Water (S4): is generally unsatisfactory for irrigation purposes except at
low and perhaps medium salinity, where the solution of calcium from the soils or use of
gypsum or other amendments may make the use of these waters feasible.
8.3 Classification of Groundwater Quality in Project Area
Classification of groundwater quality in the project area has been made on the basis of World Bank
Guidelines and U.S. Salinity Laboratory classification system in order to gain maximum
understanding of the groundwater quality status and to suggest suitable and appropriate
recommendations for better and safe management of the groundwater resources in the project
area.
8.3.1 Classification of Groundwater Quality on the Basis of World Bank Guidelines
During the process of survey and investigation studies of groundwater, entire area of the project
was surveyed to determine the groundwater quality in terms of Electrical Conductivity (EC) /Total
Dissolved Solids (TDS). About eighty (80) water samples both from hand pumps and tubewells at
different locations varying in depths from 35-700 feet were analyzed at the spot for Electrical
Conductivity using a portable Electrical Conductivity meter by the Consultant. The EC values were
then converted to Total Dissolved Solids in ppm units by multiplying with a factor of 0.64 (Ref. 4).
The water quality data in terms of EC and TDS parameters are shown in Table 8.4 along with the
geographical coordinates of each site.
The area-wise occupation of different categories of groundwater quality have been computed from
the above by GIS techniques is shown in Table 8.3. The areal extent of groundwater quality in
terms of TDS values in the range of 0-1000, 1000-1500, 1500—2000 and 2000-3000 ppm as
specified by World Bank have been displayed in Figure 8.2.
Table 8.3: Areal Distribution of Groundwater Categories in Project Area
Classification
Area Percent of Total Area
Category Criteria
(acres) %
ppm
Useable <1000 8282 8.5
Marginal-1 1000-1500 50021 51.3
Marginal-2 1500-2000 36804 37.7
Saline 2000-3000 2395 2.5
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 5
Figure 8.2: Display of Total Dissolved Solids in Different Ranges of Concentrations
According to the statistics of the area occupied by groundwater of different salinity levels as shown
above in Table 8.3 about 8300 acres or 8.5% of land is underlain by fresh groundwater and as such
can directly be used for irrigation. Whereas the major area i.e. about 87000 acres equivalent to 89%
of total land is possessing groundwater of marginal quality. As per World Bank suggestion, this
groundwater can be used for irrigation after mixing with 1:1 ratio. The saline category of the
groundwater encompasses a small area of about 2400 acres. The salinity of this groundwater
category is not too hazardous to be declared unfit for irrigation. Groundwater of salinity level
between 2000-3000 ppm can also be used for irrigation after mixing with canal water at the ratio of
1:2.5.
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 6
Table 8.4: On the Sport Determined Electrical Conductivity Data and TDS Parameters in
Project Area
Electrical
Sr. TDS
source long latitude Conductivity
No ppm
uS/cm
1 Hand pump 71.1777 32.6173 1611 1031.04
2 Tubewell 71.1793 32.6178 2010 41
3 Hand pump 71.1908 32.6245 1279 818.56
4 Tubewell 450 ‘ 71.2136 32.6330 1146 733.44
5 Tubewell 400’ 71.2152 32.6340 914 584.96
6 Hand pump 71.2276 32.6451 3520 2252.8
7 Hand pump -1 71.2406 32.6600 3110 1990.4
8 Hand pump-2 71.2406 32.6600 2860 1830.4
9 Tubewell 71.2498 32.6664 2520 1612.8
10 Hand pump 71.2580 32.7712 3330 49
11 Hand pump 71.2729 32.6737 3150 2016
12 Hand pump 71.2745 32.6823 3280 2099.2
13 Ata-ullah 71.2692 32.6959 1292 826.88
14 Hand pump 71.2674 32.7146 4010 2566.4
15 Tubewell 71.2674 32.7146 1648 1054.72
16 pump 71.2655 32.7177 2910 1862.4
17 Hand pump 71.2664 32.7195 2860 1830.4
18 Hand pump 71.2661 32.7199 2270 1452.8
19 Hand pump 71.2643 32.7258 2360 1510.4
20 Tubewell 71.2633 32.7341 1968 1259.52
21 Tubewell 71.2670 32.7346 2070 1324.8
22 Tubewell 71.2688 32.7371 2070 1324.8
23 Tubewell 71.2745 32.7531 1462 935.68
24 Tubewell 71.2757 32.7545 1660 1062.4
25 Tubewell 71.2762 32.7578 1402 897.28
26 Hand pump 71.2885 32.7758 2260 1446.4
27 Tubewell 71.2885 32.7758 2260 1446.4

28 Donkey Pump 71.2891 32.7772 2870 1836.8
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 7
29 lal pump 71.2897 32.7784 2800 1792

30 Hand pump 71.2995 32.7867 2360 1510.4
31 Hand pump 71.1782 32.7964 1683 1077.12
32 Hand pump 71.3116 32.7966 1976 1264.64
33 Hand pump 71.3152 32.7998 1516 970.24
34 Tubewell 71.3152 32.7998 1710 1094.4
35 Hand pump 71.3224 32.8055 1468 939.52
36 Tubewell 71.3224 32.8055 1468 939.52
37 Hand pump 71.3359 32.8230 1190 761.6
38 Tubewell 71.1936 32.7189 940 601.6
39 Hand pump 71.2661 32.7199 2270 1452.8
40 Hand pump 71.3402 32.8283 1866 1194.24
41 lal pump 71.3406 32.8315 1173 750.72
42 Hand pump 71.3446 32.8401 2240 1433.6
43 lal pump 71.3495 32.8408 1500 960
44 Tubewell 71.3729 32.8443 1094 700.16
45 Tubewell 71.3749 32.8446 840 537.6
46 Hand pump 71.3749 32.8446 938 600.32
47 Hand pump 71.3832 32.8494 741 474.24
48 Hand pump 71.3832 32.8494 914 584.96
50 Hand pump 71.3832 32.8494 1116 714.24
51 Hand pump 71.3832 32.8494 1082 692.48
52 Hand pump 71.2708 32.6414 2770 1772.8
53 Hand pump 71.2699 32.6379 3050 1952
54 Tubewell 71.2672 32.5002 2320 1484.8
55 Hand pump 71.2676 32.6337 2040 1305.6
56 Hand pump 71.2480 32.6846 3300 2112
57 Hand pump 71.3832 32.8494 741 474.24
58 pump 71.1959 32.7338 617 394.88
59 Hand pump 71.1907 32.7398 737 471.68
60 Tubewell 71.1848 32.7460 650 416
61 Tubewell 71.1814 32.7578 772 494.08
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 8
62 Turbine 71.2228 32.7558 513 328.32

63 Hand pump 71.2228 32.7558 576 368.64
64 Hand pump 71.2228 32.7558 575 368
65 Hand pump 71.2634 32.7497 2750 1760
66 Pump 71.2475 32.7732 1032 660.48
67 Tubewell 71.2459 32.7795 1006 643.84

69 Tubewell 71.2374 32.7981 1094 700.16
70 pump 71.2060 32.8401 1442 922.88
71 Pump 71.2051 32.8421 2450 1568
72 Hand pump 71.2914 32.7949 2890 1849.6
73 Tubewell 71.2741 32.7080 1266 810.24
74 Tubewell 71.2664 32.7132 2060 1318.4
75 Tubewell 71.2671 32.7310 2040 1305.6
76 Hand pump 71.2687 32.7290 2050 1312
77 Peter 71.2728 32.7305 2420 1548.8
78 Hand pump 71.2753 32.7302 2000 1280
79 Tubewell 71.2091 32.7004 2370 1516.8
8.3.2 Assessment of Groundwater Quality Status According to U.S. Salinity Laboratory

Standards
For assessment of groundwater quality for irrigation by U.S. Salinity laboratory Classification
System, detailed chemical analysis of water samples is required. To accomplish this task, 14 water
samples were collected from tubewells scattered all over the project area. The location of these
tubewells is shown in a map of Figure. 8.3. All these samples were got analyzed from standard
laboratory for cations like Calcium (Ca+2), Magnesium, (Mg+2), Sodium (Na+1), Potassium (K+1) and
anions including Carbonate (CO3-2) Bicarbonate (HCO3-1), Chloride (Cl-1a) and Sulfate (SO4-2). In
addition, Electrical Conductivity, and pH parameters were also determined. The detailed chemical
analysis of 14 tubewell water samples are shown in Table 8.5
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 9
Figure 8.3: Location of Selected Tubewells for Groundwater Sampling
EGC|RHC|AGES Page 10
k CO3
Depth Ec TDS p Ca+Mg Na HCO3 Cl SO4
W NO Long. Lat. (meq/ (meq/
ft (US/cm) ppm H (meq/l) (meq/l) (meq/l) (meq/l) (meq/l)
l) l)
TW-1 71.174 32.627 350 2350 1645 8 2.3 18.9 5 2.4 4.4 16 2.7
TW-2 71.247 32.432 450 1427 999 8 2.3 11.9 4.8 2.8 5 6.3 0.1
TW-3 71.255 32.733 260 972 680 9 1.2 8.5 3.7 1.4 6.2 1.5 0.6
TW-4 71.300 32.767 100 3930 2751 8 5.6 33.7 16 0.8 5.6 30 9.3
TW-5 71.318 32.772 100 3450 2415 8 7.1 27.4 13 1.2 4.2 24 4.4
TW-6 71.243 32.767 317 3140 2198 8 5.3 26.1 12 0.7 5.8 11 10
TW-7 71.284 32.839 350 1819 1273 8 7.2 10.9 7.2 0.6 5.2 3.2 0.3
TW-8 71.302 32.818 200 3550 2485 8 6.9 28.6 13 0.8 5.4 6.4 11
TW-9 71.351 32.828 100 2650 1855 8 5.5 21 14 1.2 7.8 11 3.1
TW-10 71.326 32.878 180 2420 1694 8 5.5 18.7 11 1.1 4.8 5.6 6.6
TW-11 71.339 32.884 200 2640 1848 8 6.3 20.1 14 0.6 5.2 4.2 1.6
TW-12 71.307 32.910 330 2650 1855 8 7.1 19.4 13 1 6.2 3.8 4.5
TW-13 71.234 32.801 200 1905 1334 8 8.1 10.9 6.2 0.5 4.4 3.4 22
TW-14 71.250 32.841 350 1936 1355 8 8.4 11.2 7.2 0.2 7.4 3.3 2.1
Table 8.5: Detailed Chemical Analysis of Water Samples Collected from 14 Selected Tubewells
As per detailed chemical analysis given in Table 8.5, Electrical Conductivity (EC) of water samples
was directly determined in the laboratory while Sodium Adsorption Ratio(SAR) was computed from
the concentration of Na+1, Ca+2, Mg+2cations using the following formula
Where all cations in the formula are in meq/l. Then, SAR and EC data were plotted versus each
other in a famous Wilcox diagram for classification of water for irrigation. These plotting have been
shown in Figure 8.4. and the results of this classification are produced in Table 8.6. The location-
wise identified water quality classes of water samples collected from these scattered tubwells are
C1 250 C2 750 C3 2250 C4
30
S o d iu m H a z a rd (S A R )
20 S4
10
S3
S2
S1
0
100 1000
also displayed in a map of Figure 8.5. Salinity Hazard (Cond)
Figure 8.4: Wilcox Diagram for classification of water for irrigation
Table 8.6: Classification of Groundwater Samples as per U.S. Salinity Laboratory System
TW Depth EC RSC
pH SAR Class
No Feet uS/cm meq/l
1 350 2350 8.4 17.60 4.5 C4S4
2 450 1427 8.4 11.10 5.5 C3S3
3 260 972 8.6 11.00 6.4 C3S3
4 100 393 8.2 20.20 0.8 C4S4
5 100 3450 7.9 14.50 0 C4S4
6 317 3140 8.0 16.00 0 C4S4
7 350 1819 8.2 5.70 0 C3S2
8 200 3550 8.1 15.40 0 C4S4
9 100 2650 8.0 12.60 0 C4S3
10 180 2420 8.2 11.13 0 C4S3
11 200 2640 8.2 11.30 0 C4S3
12 330 2650 8.1 10.30 0 C4S3
13 200 1905 8.2 5.40 0 C3S2
14 350 1936 8.4 5.50 C3S2
Figure 8.5: Map showing Location-wise Groundwater Quality Classes
8.4 Depth-Wise Groundwater Quality
On the basis of investigation of groundwater EC/TDS collected from shallow and deep aquifers by
collecting water samples from tubewells and hand pumps installed at various depths in the project
area. The depth-wise groundwater quality data has been shown in Table 8.7 and is plotted and
displayed in Figure.8.6. This figure depicts very interesting feature of the groundwater quality with
respect to the bore depth of each handpump / tubewells selected. It is observed that there is a
rather sharp decrease in the salinity from top of aquifer to a depth of 200 feet and then it gradually
continue to decrease with depth and becomes asymptotic with further increase at a depth 700 feet.
In other words, the groundwater quality in shallow aquifer generally is saline but it first sharply and
then continue to improves gradually to a good quality water at the deeper depths.
The trend line fitting to the plotted points shows that salinity level in terms of TDS is inversely related
to 0.38 power of bore depth by the empirical relation as expressed below:
Table 8.7: Depth-Wise Water Quality Variation in project Area

Bore TDS Bore TDS Bore TDS
Sr. No Sr. No Sr. No
Depth Ft ppm Depth Ft ppm Depth ppm
1 20 818.56 19 100 970.24 37 230 1516.8
2 35 1031.04 20 100 1548.8 38 240 660.48
3 36 1286.4 21 110 1094.4 39 250 1324.8
4 40 1849.6 22 110 939.52 40 250 1484.8
5 50 1305.6 23 110 939.52 41 280 368.64
6 50 922.88 24 120 1990.4 42 280 368
7 60 1280 25 125 1264.64 43 300 601.6
8 65 2131.2 26 125 761.6 44 300 394.88
9 70 2016 27 130 1830.4 45 330 700.16
10 70 2099.2 28 130 1510.4 46 350 643.84
11 70 2566.4 29 130 1194.24 47 350 1568
12 80 1836.8 30 135 2112 48 400 584.96
13 80 1510.4 31 140 692.48 49 400 416
14 85 2252.8 32 160 1452.8 50 450 733.44
15 90 1862.4 33 160 935.68 51 550 826.88
16 90 1077.12 34 180 1772.8 52 550 1054.72
17 95 1830.4 35 200 897.28 53 600 494.08
18 100 1792 36 54 700 810.24
Figure 8.6: Depth-Wise Variation in Water Quality Expressed in TDS
8.5 Results and Discussion
Results obtained from the groundwater quality survey along with discussions and recommendations
are as follows:
a. As per Word Bank Classification, directly usable groundwater occurs in about 8.5% of the
area particularly in the area close to western boundary or adjacent to natural drains
commonly called as Nullahs. The major area comprising 89% of the total project land is
occupied by marginal quality groundwater that can be used safely after mixing with canal
water at 1:! Ratio of groundwater to canal water. The remaining 2.5 % of the area is
underlain by saline groundwater having salinity in the range of 2000-3000 ppm. The saline
groundwater is not too hazardous to be considered as totally unfit, but the groundwater
within this salinity level can also be used after mixing with canal water at 1:2.5 ratio of
groundwater to canal water
b. Groundwater of Project Area in the light of U.S. Salinity Laboratory classification system,
reflects more elaborate details about the groundwater quality status in different regions
within the project boundary. According to this system of classification, groundwater shows
considerable variation in its salinity and sodicity status in different zones. Area-wise quality
status along with recommendations is discussed as below:
i. The groundwater quality in the north of project area is of C4-S3 category Groundwater of
this category is considered as very high salinity water (C4) and high sodium water (S3).
Groundwater of this class usually is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions,
but may be used in well drained and permeable soils in excess to provide considerable
leaching. To mitigate the adverse impact of high sodium, chemical amendment such as
gypsum may be required for replacement of exchangeable sodium
ii. The area between Broach and Rukka Nullahs is mostly occupied by groundwater of C3-
S2 classification. Groundwater of this classification is considered as of high salinity water
(C3) and medium-sodium water (S2). In order to use this quality water for irrigation,
special management for salinity control may be required and plants with good salt
tolerance should be selected. For sodicity control, gypsum may be needed in fine textured
soils but may be used on coarse textured soil with good permeability without any
amendment.
iii. In a big chunk of land adjacent to eastern boundary of the project area between Trug and
Kallur villages and in the area close to southern tip of the project area near Sharifabad,
the groundwater is of C4-S4 classification. The groundwater of this classification is
generally unsatisfactory for irrigation. However, by applying excess water for leaching and
application of gypsum to an adequate quantity, application of this type of groundwater
could be made feasible
c. The groundwater quality improves considerably from saline category to good quality water
class for irrigation as the salinity of groundwater in general is lower in deeper depths than in
shallow aquifers. The trend line fitting to the data of TDS versus Depth shows that TDS of
groundwater is inversely related to the 0.32 power of depth bore depth. This is very
interesting feature of the project area. Further research in this direction could be more
useful. It is recommended that Electrical Resistivity Survey covering vertical sounding of the
entire of the project may be carried out systematically to fully assess the groundwater quality
relationship with depth for beneficial exploitation and proper management of this precious
groundwater resources available in the project.
8.6 Reference and Bibliography
a. Ahmad, N(1995) Groundwater Resources of Pakistan

b. U.S. Agriculture Handbook No.60. (1954) Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali
Soils by the Staff of the Riverside Salinity Laboratory, 1954
c. WAPDA-SMS (2002) Institutionalized Environmental Monitoring of Land and Water
Conditions under National Drainage Program. Draft Report on Water Quality 1998-2001.
SMS Publication No. 2002-8
d. Dr. P. Lieftnick et al. (1967 Report to the President of the International Bank for
Reconstruction and Development-Study of the Water and Power Resources of West
Pakistan,Vol.II
e. WAPDA (2010) Surface and Groundwater Quality of Indus Plain during 2007-08. SMO,
Lahore

Ch-8 Ground Water Draft (15-12-2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Ch-8 Ground Water Draft (15-12-2017)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ch-8 Ground Water Draft (15-12-2017)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Construction and Rehabilitation of Kas Umar Khan Canal System Project December, 2017

Final Updated Feasibility Report Chapter-8

CHAPTER 8: GROUND WATER QUALITY STUDIES.............................................................8-1

Table 8.1: Proposed Mixing Ratio of Groundwater with Canal water..........................................8-3

CHAPTER 8: GROUND WATER QUALITY STUDIES

8.1.1 Importance of Groundwater Quality in Agriculture

8.2 Water Quality Standards and Classification Criteria

8.2.1 Criteria of Water Quality As Suggested by World Bank

Table 8.1: Proposed Mixing Ratio of Groundwater with Canal water

Reference: Dr. P. Lieftnick et.al (1967)

8.2.2 Groundwater Quality Standards Adopted by WAPDA

Usable for mixing 1500-2700 10-18 2.5-5.0

Hazardous >2700 >18 >5.00

Reference: WAPDA SMS Publications No.2002-8

8.2.3.1 Salinity Hazards

8.2.3.2 Sodium Hazard

8.3 Classification of Groundwater Quality in Project Area

8.3.1 Classification of Groundwater Quality on the Basis of World Bank Guidelines

Table 8.3: Areal Distribution of Groundwater Categories in Project Area

Marginal-1 1000-1500 50021 51.3

Marginal-2 1500-2000 36804 37.7

Saline 2000-3000 2395 2.5

Figure 8.2: Display of Total Dissolved Solids in Different Ranges of Concentrations

27 Tubewell 71.2885 32.7758 2260 1446.4

29 lal pump 71.2897 32.7784 2800 1792

62 Turbine 71.2228 32.7558 513 328.32

67 Tubewell 71.2459 32.7795 1006 643.84

8.3.2 Assessment of Groundwater Quality Status According to U.S. Salinity Laboratory

Figure 8.3: Location of Selected Tubewells for Groundwater Sampling

also displayed in a map of Figure 8.5. Salinity Hazard (Cond)

Figure 8.4: Wilcox Diagram for classification of water for irrigation

2 450 1427 8.4 11.10 5.5 C3S3

3 260 972 8.6 11.00 6.4 C3S3

4 100 393 8.2 20.20 0.8 C4S4

5 100 3450 7.9 14.50 0 C4S4

6 317 3140 8.0 16.00 0 C4S4

7 350 1819 8.2 5.70 0 C3S2

8 200 3550 8.1 15.40 0 C4S4

9 100 2650 8.0 12.60 0 C4S3

10 180 2420 8.2 11.13 0 C4S3

11 200 2640 8.2 11.30 0 C4S3

12 330 2650 8.1 10.30 0 C4S3

13 200 1905 8.2 5.40 0 C3S2

14 350 1936 8.4 5.50 C3S2

Figure 8.5: Map showing Location-wise Groundwater Quality Classes

8.4 Depth-Wise Groundwater Quality

Table 8.7: Depth-Wise Water Quality Variation in project Area

2 35 1031.04 20 100 1548.8 38 240 660.48

3 36 1286.4 21 110 1094.4 39 250 1324.8

4 40 1849.6 22 110 939.52 40 250 1484.8

5 50 1305.6 23 110 939.52 41 280 368.64

6 50 922.88 24 120 1990.4 42 280 368

7 60 1280 25 125 1264.64 43 300 601.6

8 65 2131.2 26 125 761.6 44 300 394.88

9 70 2016 27 130 1830.4 45 330 700.16

10 70 2099.2 28 130 1510.4 46 350 643.84

11 70 2566.4 29 130 1194.24 47 350 1568