HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION

SCHEME; CASE STUDY OF ALLAWUHA IRRIGATION SCHEME, NORTH

WOLLO, ETHIOPIA

M.Sc. THESIS

HABTAMU ABAY ESHETIE

FEBRUARY, 2017
ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA
HYDRAULIC PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION
SCHEME; CASE STUDY OF ALLAWUHA IRRIGATION SCHEME, NORTH
WOLLO, ETHIOPIA

HABTAMU ABAY ESHETIE

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO

THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER RESOURCE AND IRRIGATION ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES
ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIRMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF

MASTER OF SCIENCE IN WATER RESOURCE AND IRRIGATION ENGINEERING
(SPETIALAIZATION OF IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING)

FEBRUARY, 2017
ARBA MINCH, ETHIOPIA

i
DECLARATION

First, I declare that this thesis is my work and that all sources of materials used in this
thesis have been duly acknowledged. This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirement for the degree of Master of Science water resource and irrigation
engineering (irrigation and drainage engineering) at Arba Minch University. I confidently
declare that I have not submitted this thesis to any other institution anywhere for the
award of any academic degree, diploma, or certificate.

Name: Habtamu Abay

Signature __________, Date _________

Place: Arba Minch University, Ethiopia

ii
 ADVISOR THESIS SUBMISSION APPROVAL SHEET

SCHOOL OF POST GRADUATE STUDIES

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

This is to certify that the thesis entitled with “

Hydraulic Performance Evaluation of small
scale Irrigation Scheme; A Case Study on Alawuha Irrigation Scheme, North Wollo,
Ethiopia” sub
mitted in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of Masters
with specialization in Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, the graduate program of the
department of Water Resource and Irrigation Engineering, and has carried out by
Habtamu Abay Id. No RMSc 211/07, under my supervision. Therefore, I recommend that
the student has fulfilled the requirement and hence hereby can submit the thesis to the
department for defense.

Mekonen Ayana (PhD) _____________ ______________

Name of principal Advisor Signature Date

iii
 BOARD OF EXAMINERS’
APPROVAL PAGE

This thesis entitled

Hydraulic with of“Small Scale Irrigation
Performance Evaluation
Scheme; A Case Study of Alawuha Irrigation Scheme, North Wollo, Ethiopia “ has
been approved by the research advisors, examiners, SGS coordination and department
head for the partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of master of science in
water resources and irrigation engineering.
Date of defense: February-21/2017
Submitted By:
Mr. Habtamu Abay Eshetie _____________ _____________
Signature Date

Approved By:
1. Zeleke Agide (PhD) _____________ _____________
External examiner Signature Date

2. Samuel Dagalo (PhD) _____________ _____________

Internal examiner Signature Date

3. Mr. Alemayehu Kassaye _____________ _____________

Chairperson Signature Date

4. Mekonen Ayana (Asso. Prof.) _____________ _____________

Principal advisor Signature Date

5. Mr. Alemayehu Kassaye _____________ _____________

Department Head Signature Date

6. Mr. Aschalew Cherie _____________ _____________

PG coordinator Signature Date

7. …………………… (PhD) _____________ _____________

SGS Approval Signature Date

iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First of all, I would like to thank my Advisor, Asso. Prof. Mekonen Ayana PhD, for his
kind guidance, valuable suggestions, encouragement and insightful comments during
my study and also for his valuable suggestions and remarks.

I also would like to thank to Mr. Selomon Wendatir (MSc) for his support in my
academic career, helpful discussions, valuable suggestions, remarks and encouragement
throughout the fieldwork. Spatial tanks to Mr. Getachewu for his support during field
measurement.

My gratefulness also goes to “North wollo

during the fieldwork in the study area and by providing monthly salary.

I want to express my deep appreciation to all Irrigation water users and Water user
associations (WUA) of the Allawuha irrigation scheme for their great support during my
fieldwork and for providing data. My gratefulness also goes to North Wollo Water,
Irrigation and Energy Department (NWWIED).

I would also like to express my sincere thanks to Sirinka agricultural research center, for
the support and help by providing field materials during my fieldwork in the study area.

I would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy (MoWIE) for
offering me this chance (the scholarship) to pursue the Master of Science degree in Water
resource and irrigation engineering (irrigation and drainage engineering) programme.

Finally, I would like to thank my Parents who encourage me morally, and also my special
thankfulness goes also my mother, Ethiye Demeke for her support.

v
Dedication

I dedicate this thesis document to my families, particularly my mother for her love and
wholehearted cooperation in the success of my life.

vi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
BR Branched Canal
FC Field Capacity
CWR Crop Water Requirement
DDR Delivery Duration Ratio
DEM Digital Elevation Model
DPR Delivery Performance Ratio
EASRUP Environmental Assessment & sustainable Resource Utilization Plan
EI Effectiveness of Infrastructure
ERHT Equity Ratio for Head to Tail
ETc Crop Evapotranspiration
ETO Reference evapotranspiration
FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
FSL Full Supply Level
IWMI International Water Management Institute
IW Irrigation Water
IWR Irrigation Water Requirement
MDR Management Delivery Ratio
NWAND North Wollo Agricultural and Natural Resource Department
PA Adequacy of Performance Indicators
PE Equity of Performance Indicators
PD Dependability of Performance Indicators
PF Efficiency of Performance Indicators
PWP Permanent wilting Point
SEARAR Sustainable Environmental & Agricultural Rehabilitation for Amhara
Region
USDA United State Department of Agriculture
WSE Water Surface Elevation
WUA Water User Association

vii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENTS PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................v
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................... vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................. viii
LIST OF TABLES ...............................................................................................................x
LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................................... xi
ABSTRACT ................................................................................................................. xiii
1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 Statement of the problem ........................................................................................... 2
1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................... 3
1.3.1 General objective ................................................................................................. 3
1.3.2 The specific objectives were: .............................................................................. 3
1.4 Research questions ..................................................................................................... 3
1.5 Significance of the study ............................................................................................ 3
1.6 Scope of the study ...................................................................................................... 4
1.7 Structure of the thesis ................................................................................................. 4
2 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................................6
2.1 General ....................................................................................................................... 6
2.1.1 Concept of performance ...................................................................................... 6
2.1.2 The need for performance assessment ................................................................. 6
2.1.3 Goals of performance assessment........................................................................ 7
2.2 Previous studies related to design objectives ............................................................. 8
2.2.1 Irrigation water demand and supply .................................................................... 8
2.2.2 Performance evaluation of irrigation schemes .................................................. 10
2.2.3 Performance gaps and remedial measures ......................................................... 12
2.3 Performance indicators of irrigation system ............................................................ 15
2.3.1 External performance indicators ........................................................................ 15
2.3.2 Internal performance indicators ......................................................................... 16
3. METHODOLOGY ........................................................................................................26
3.1 Description of the study area .................................................................................... 26

viii
 3.1.1 Location ............................................................................................................. 26
3.1.2 Land use Pattern ................................................................................................ 27
3.1.3 Climate............................................................................................................... 27
3.1.4 Description about the scheme ............................................................................ 27
3.2. Materials .................................................................................................................. 29
3.3. Data sources and methods of data collection .......................................................... 29
3.3.1 Primary data ....................................................................................................... 30
3.3.2 Secondary data ................................................................................................... 32
3.4. Methods of data Analyses and Interpretation .......................................................... 34
3.4.1 Estimation of irrigation water requirement ....................................................... 35
3.4.2 Evaluation of irrigation water supply versus demand ....................................... 35
3.4.3 Assessing performance indicators ..................................................................... 36
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION ......................................................................................41
4.1 Irrigation water demand versus supply .................................................................... 41
4.1.1 Irrigation water supply....................................................................................... 41
4.2.1 Irrigation Water Requirements .......................................................................... 42
4.3.1 Evaluation of irrigation water supply versus demand ....................................... 45
4.2 Assessment of water delivery performance ............................................................. 47
4.2.1. Spatial water delivery performance indicators ................................................. 47
4.2.2 Temporal values of water delivery performance indicators .............................. 50
4.2.3 Overall water delivery performance indicators ................................................. 54
4.3 Assessment of maintenance requirement ................................................................. 57
4.3 Identification of the gap and suggestion of the remedial measure ........................... 60
4.3.1 Irrigation water supply with demand ................................................................. 60
4.3.2 Temporal and spatial variation in water delivery system .................................. 60
4.3.3 Maintenance activities in the system .............................................................. 61
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .........................................................63
5.1 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 63
5.2 Recommendations .................................................................................................... 64
6. REFERENCE.................................................................................................................66
7. APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................72

ix
LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Water delivery performance standards for indicators ....................................... 20

Table 2.2: Range of performance indicators for ERHT and DDR. ................................... 22
Table 4.1: Average monthly irrigation water supply at each off takes the system.....41
Table 4.2: Total monthly crop water requirement of five cultivated crops in the scheme 43
Table 4.3: Monthly irrigation water demand at each off take off take points (m3). .......... 44
Table 4.4: Average equity of water distribution in the system, PE. .................................. 50
Table 4.5: Average adequacy of water distribution in the system, PA .............................. 51
Table 4.6: Average spatial and temporal values of efficiency, PF. ................................... 53
Table 4.7: Average dependability of water distribution, PD. ............................................ 54
Table 4.8: Overall average water delivery performance values of irrigation canals. ........ 54
Table 4.9: Average value of spatial and temporal deficiency, D. ...................................... 55
Table 4.10: Average value of delivery performance ratio, PDR. ...................................... 56
Table 4.11: Equity ratio for head and tail (ERHT (MDR)) reach of the system. .............. 57
Table 4.12: Average water surface elevation ratio (WSER) of the main canal. ................ 58
Table 4.13: Effectiveness of infrastructure (EI) for the main and secondary canal. ......... 59

x
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1: Map of the study area. ..................................................................................... 26

Figure 3.2: Discharge measurement using 90oV notch. ..................................................... 31
Figure 4.1: Rain fall and reference evapotranspiration of the study are……………..
42
Figure 4.2b: Irrigation water supply versus demand ......................................................... 45
Figure 4.3: Average spatial fact of adequacy in the system. ............................................. 47
Figure 4.4: Spatial efficiency of water delivery in the system. ......................................... 48
Figure 4.5: The degree of spatial equity of water delivery over 3 months. ....................... 49
Figure 4.6: Average temporal fact of adequacy for each off takes and locations .............. 50
Figure 4.7: Temporal efficiency of water delivery in the system. ..................................... 52
Figure 4.8: Dependability of water delivery in the system. ............................................... 53

xi
LIST OF APPENDIX

Appendix I: Climate and crop data of the study area......................................................... 72

Appendix II: Soil dates of Allawuha irrigation scheme..................................................... 73
Appendix III: Actual observed and required discharge in the off taking locations. .......... 73
Appendix IV: The Design discharge and dimensions of components of the main canal. . 74
Appendix V: Dates of water surface elevation and flow depth in the main canal. ............ 74
Appendix VI: Condition of irrigation structures in Allawuha irrigation scheme. ............. 75
Appendix VII: Definition and sketch of a 90o V-notch weir overflow. ............................ 76
Appendix VIII: Guidelines for calculation of crop water requirements. ........................... 77

xii
ABSTRACT
Performance assessment in irrigation systems plays a vital role in identifying the gaps and
applying mitigation measures. The water delivery performance of the physical structures
in Allawuha irrigation scheme was not clearly understood so far; hence the objective of
the study was evaluating the hydraulic performance of Allawuha small scale irrigation
scheme. This study was carried out for a single irrigation season from February to June,
2016. Hydraulic performance of the scheme was evaluated by assessing irrigation water
supply versus demand and using 10 internal process indicators classified under water
delivery and maintenance indicators.

As per the results, deficit in supply was observed during April and May, which was 35.16
and 25.53% respectively. However, supply was exceeding the demand by 60.47% during
March. The highest spatial deficit was observed at the last outlet point and the lowest at
the first outlet point. The overall water delivery performance of the canal in relation to
adequacy, dependability, equity and efficiency were found to be 0.56, 0.47, 0.22 and 0.96
respectively. Therefore, water delivery performance of the canals was poor in terms of
adequacy and dependability; however it was good and fair for efficiency and equity
respectively. Similarly, delivery performance ratio and equity ratio for head to tail were
found to be 0.74 and 2.73 respectively. These values indicate, the existing performance of
the main canal was declined as compared with the intended and also management of
delivery was poor from head to tail reach of the system. Maintenance indicators like
water surface elevations ratio, effectiveness of infrastructure and sustainability of
irrigated area were found to be 78%, 28.13% and 97.8% respectively. These values
indicate that, actual water level as well as command area was reduced from initially
designed, and a number of structures initially installed were become nonfunctional.

Based on the results from this study non-proportionality of irrigation water demand with
supply, poor water delivery system, absence of frequent maintenance, and the
management aspects were problems strongly affecting the hydraulic performance of the
scheme. Therefore, it is suggested that, frequent maintenance, optimal crop plan, and
apply a strong water delivery plan are required to mitigate these problems.

Keywords: Hydraulic performance, irrigation water demand and supply, water delivery,
utility and maintenance indicators, Allawuha irrigation scheme.

xiii
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background
Irrigation development is an important tool to inspire the economic growth and rural
development, and it is considered as a cornerstone of food security and poverty reduction
in Ethiopia. Irrigation is one means by which agricultural production can be increased to
meet the growing food demands in the country (Awulachew et al., 2005). Expanding new
irrigation development is one of the best alternatives to consider reliable and sustainable
food security on various scales, through river diversion, constructing micro dams and
water harvesting structures. However, growing population with higher farming intensities,
increasing urbanization, computation of different sectors for water allocation and
environmental concerns have all combined to put pressure on water resources (Robel,
2005).

Ethiopia has huge cultivable land; however the irrigated area coverage was about 640,000
hectare (Awulachew, 2010). Currently the government has undertaken development of
several new irrigation projects for enhancement of coverage. However, the performances
of existing irrigation schemes are given less attention for improvement. In the country
small scale community managed irrigation is by far dominating and these schemes play a
vital role in improving the livelihoods of the smallholder farmers. The existing small-
scale community managed irrigation schemes face various problems related to operation
and maintenance, water management and sustainability, these problems have greatly
reduced their benefits and challenged their overall sustainability, so a need arises to
identify which arrangement for water management in community managed irrigation
schemes functions better (Zeleke et al., 2015).

The poor performance of small scale irrigation scheme is existed in Ethiopia; however the
frequent assessment is not common, and also resource management challenges are often
observed in small scale irrigation systems (Yesuf, 2004). In many of these schemes, water
management activities are achieved by the farmers themselves, however they lack
technical expertise to manage their water effectively. The performance of many irrigation
systems are significantly below their potential due to a number of limitations including
poor design, construction, operation, maintenance, and ineffective water control and
measurement structure installation (Mamuye & Mekonen, 2015).

1
The Amhara region as part of the country has been implementing small scale irrigation
schemes since 1970‟
s. In the region, the extent of irrigation development and their
performances is low. Most of the implemented schemes are suffering from problems
attributed to design, construction, operation and maintenance (Seid, 2012). These led to
reduce the performance of the irrigation schemes over the region. As a result a number of
issues are found to be critical in contributing to the prevailing problems of the structure
and management. Agriculture is the main means of livelihood for the community in North
Wollo. Irrigation development is one of the components of water resource development
over the zone and it can be classified into traditional and modern schemes. However due
to the absence of detailed study, their performance was not clearly understood.

Allawuha small scale irrigation scheme is found in Amhara region, North wollo Zone.
The scheme is serving for farmers to harvest twice a year. The water distribution
approach in the scheme is fixed rotational water delivery scheduling, yet the water control
and regulating mechanisms are traditional using barriers like leaves and stones. Hence,
appraisal of the performance of water delivery system and the level of maintenance
requirements of the scheme becomes vital to ensure the good functioning of the irrigation
system.

1.1 Statement of the problem

As the population number increases and the erratic nature of rainfall persists, the users‟
water resources computation will also increase. The Allawuha irrigation scheme is a
community managed small scale irrigation scheme that is developed for surrounding
farmers. However, due to lack of awareness and frequent training for water delivery and
management, they apply water non-proportionally to the demand. Similarly, the amount
of irrigation water demand by the crop and supply of water at each secondary outlet point
is not clearly understood. As a consequence of such operation the result is an oversupply
with a lot of wastage of water in the periods of low demand, while deficiency of supply
during high demand.

The water delivery performance of the canals, the delivery of a fair share of water to the
user, and the level of maintenance requirement of the system is not clearly understood.
Hence, assessing the hydraulic performance of the schemes has now become a paramount
importance, not only to point out where the problem lies, but also to identify alternatives
for effective and feasible improvement of irrigation system performance. So far,

2
specifically in the study area there is no any assessment done regarding hydraulic
performance. Therefore, the aim of this study was to evaluate the hydraulic performance
of Allawuha small scale irrigation scheme, in North Wollo.

1.3 Objectives
1.3.1 General objective
The overall objective of this study was to evaluate the hydraulic performance of
Allawuha small scale irrigation scheme in North Wollo.

1.3.2 The specific objectives were:

To evaluate irrigation water supply versus demand on each secondary outlet
points of the system.

To assess the water delivery performance of the canal in terms of spatial and
temporal water delivery performance indicators.

To assess the level of maintenance requirement of the physical structures using

selected maintenance performance indicators.

To identify the performance gaps and recommend remedial measure that will
improve irrigation system performance.

1.4 Research questions

 How does the actual irrigation water supply versus demand behave in secondary
outlet points?

 How does the existing water supply in the canal affect the spatial and temporal
water delivery performance of the system?

 How does the maintenance indicator show the level of maintenance requirement
of the physical structures in the system?

 What measures have to be undertaken in order to improve the performance of

irrigation system?

1.5 Significance of the study

The hydraulic performances of the system, described in this paper have a key role to play
as we address the future system management in the study area, and then interventions
could be made to improve the functioning of the systems. Therefore, this study is; (1)

3
important to measure and evaluate their success or failure actually and identifies specific
areas needed to be improved, (2) it is of great interest to know how the existing water
delivery structures in the scheme is actually performing at this occurrence and to
determine whether the farmers are satisfied or not with the irrigation service, and (3)
the study is vital to forward a potential information and recommendation based on the
final finding of the study, beside to give information for those who want for further study
and needed to aware the community how the irrigation system could be sustained. Hence,
this study provides to different stakeholders; system managers, farmers and policy makers
a better understanding of how a system will be managed.

1.6 Scope of the study

The study was evaluating the hydraulic performance of the scheme by focusing on
assessing irrigation water supply versus demand and using performance indicators such as
water delivery and maintenance indicators. The existing water delivery performance of
the canal was assessed on the bases of spatial and temporal water delivery indicators.
However, the maintenance requirement of the structures was investigated using
maintenance indicators in the system components. Therefore, this study deals only with
the hydraulic performance in Allawuha small scale irrigation scheme by comparing
actual irrigation water supply with demand and in terms of various criteria such as
adequacy, reliability, equity, efficiency, deficiency, delivery performance ratio, equity
ratio for head to tail, water surface elevation ratio, and sustainability of irrigated area. The
study, finally makes a critical analysis of the issues related to irrigation system
performance, and recommends the remedial measures to improve this performance.

1.7 Structure of the thesis

This thesis is organized into 7 chapters. Chapter 1 gives highlights and general overview
of irrigation system performance in the country, region and zone perspective, including
information about; background, problem statement, objectives, research questions, scope
and significance of the study. Chapter 2, a review of related literatures, this chapter is
categorized into three subsections such as; general about performance assessment,
previous studies related to design objectives, and performance indicators of irrigation
system. In Chapter 3, give a brief description on research methodology in general, and
then particularly about the study area, materials utilized during monitoring, data sources
and methods of data collection, methods of data analyses and interpretation. Chapter 4,
presents the results of evaluation of the hydraulic performance in the Allawuha small
4
scale irrigation scheme. A discussion of the existing performance, and issues related to
this performance also presented in this chapter. Forever thesis presents an evaluation of
irrigation water supply versus demand on each secondary outlet points, the existing
spatial and temporal water delivery performance of the canals, and irrigation system
performance, finally the gaps were identified and remedial solution is taken. In Chapter 5,
conclusions and recommendations derived from the result of the study were discussed.
Chapter 6 and 7 respectively, presented the reference and appendix of the study.

5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Under this chapter, the review of related literature on three subsections such as general,
which is a highlight about performance assessment, reviewing important documents
related to design objectives, and performance indicators which can be used to determine
the extent to which design objectives are achieved. However, detail discussion is focused
on proposed objectives and the indicators that are used to evaluate the performances of
irrigation system.

2.1 General

2.1.1 Concept of performance

Performance is the degree to which a system achieves its objectives; the performance of a
system represented by its measured levels of achievement in terms of one or several
parameters (Aberenethy, 1986). The performance of any irrigation system is defined as
the measurement the degree to which it achieves anticipated objectivity, therefore it is
important to measure and evaluate the success or failure of a given irrigation scheme
objectivity and identity specific areas in need of improvement (Cakmak et al., 2004).
Murray-Rust and Snellen (1993) improved the concept of performance, they states that
performance of a system is encompassing the totality of the activity of inputs and the
transformation of the inputs into intermediate and final outputs.

2.1.2 The need for performance assessment

Performance assessment of irrigation system can be defined as the systematic
observation, documentation and interpretation of activities related to irrigated agriculture
with the objective of continuous improvement (Molden et al., 2007; Bos et al., 2005).
The ultimate purpose of performance assessment is to attain an efficient and effective use
of resources by providing relevant responses to management at all levels. Therefore, it
contributes the system management in determining whether the performance is
satisfactory and, if not, which remedial actions need to be taken in order to remedy the
situation.

Efficient operation and management for small scale irrigation system plays an important
role in the sustainability of irrigated agriculture. Hence, irrigation project performance
studies are being used with increasing frequency to encourage this objective.
Furthermore, performance analysis is an essential part of management, it is needed to
target and monitor actual achievements in the operation and take appropriate actions if

6
required. Performance of an irrigation system could be assessed for a number of reasons,
some of the needs are; to assess development against strategic goals of a system, to
improve operations, to evaluate impact of water delivery service on the whole
performance of the agricultural sector, to recognize cost effectiveness and financial
viability of the system, and for comparison of one with other irrigation systems (Molden,
1998).

2.1.3 Goals of performance assessment

Performance studies are being used with increasing frequency to promote the objective of
sustainability, thereby helping to improve the system operation, assess the general health
of a system, evaluate the impact of intervention, diagnosis constraints, better
understanding determinants of performance and compare the performance of a system
with other systems or within the same system over the time (Unal et al., 2003). According
to Nalbantoglu and Cakmak (2007) the most significant objective of performance
assessment is to achieve an effective and efficient project performance by providing a
flow of information to the project management in each stage. More importantly, if an
irrigation system committed to the farmers satisfaction, it can supply more and better
sustainability information. Arunkumar and Ambujam (2010) discussed that the ultimate
purpose of performance assessment is to achieve an efficient and effective use of water
resources.

Griffiths and Lecler (2001) state that the objectives of the performance evaluation in an
irrigation system are: (1) to control the system for functioning it according to farmer
expectations and design specifications in terms of the amount of water applied, and
thereby to provide a basis for improved irrigation scheduling, (2) to fix how much
variation in the amounts of water applied and whether or not the measured variation has a
significant impact on crop yields, deep percolation, runoff losses, fertilizer application
and usage as well as production cost, (3) to determine the causes of the variation in
applied water and to investigate and recommend cost effective remedial action, (4) to
assess whether or not the conveyance system is sized within design norms that were based
on a fair balance between capital and operating costs, (5) to suggest the remedial solution
(recommendations) to improve on any aspects that would result in the effective use of
water and energy.

7
2.2 Previo us Studies

2.2.1 Irrigation water demand and supply

The principal objective of irrigation is applying water to maintain crop evapotranspiration
when precipitation is insufficient. The finite amount of available water is crucial for the
economy, health and welfare in developing world. Hess (2005) defined crop water
requirement as the total water needed for evapotranspiration, from planting to harvest for
a given crop in a specific climate regime, when adequate soil water is maintained by
rainfall and/or irrigation so that it does not limit plant growth and crop yield.

Under optimal management and environmental conditions, potential evapotranspiration of

crop is equal to the CWR; in other words, the amount of water required to compensate the
evapotranspiration loss from a cropped field is defined as a crop water requirement. Crop
water requirement is quite low during wet season than the dry season are to the fact that
maximum rain water happens in the wet season and higher atmospheric evaporative
demand is advanced in the dry season (Adeniran et al., 2010; Jehanger et al., 2004).
Surendran et al. (2015) states that crop water requirement were higher for longer growing
season crops than shorter ones.

Shfique (1991) states that the actual irrigation water requirement are computed based on
crop water needs using an empirical relation on monthly bases and manual measurement.
He concluded that, irrigation water requirement varies with time in a very explicit manner
which is maximum in October, two-third October in November and one-third October in
December.

The irrigation requirements (IR) are computed by adding the daily ETc between
consecutive irrigation events and subtracting effective rainfall (FAO, 1997). It includes
water consumed by crops (ET crop) plus losses during the application of irrigation water
and the quantity of water required for leaching. The volume of water required (Vr) at each
measurement location is the product of IR and the cropped area served by assuming an
irrigation efficiency of 60 percent (Bos et al., 1991). Binoy et al. (2013) calculating the
values of crop water requirement for different crops at different measuring points for the
different weeks, authors concluded that considerable reduction in the crop water
requirement due to rainfall.

8
Ullah et al. (1998) assessed and compared available irrigation water supplies to the crop
water demand at Pabbi minor of the Warsak gravity canal. They found that that at all
outlets, crops demand exceeded the available water supply, which occurred due to non-
availability of adequate amount of water and having a large cultivable command area.
Therefore, cops demand was higher and exceeded the available water supply; hence the
major proportion of the area was left fallow. Similarly, Iqbal (1995) found that, more
water is supplied as compared to crop demand in the head of minor, whereas demand is
higher than supply in the middle due to greater cultivable command area. However, in tail
of minor supply was in excess of the requirement as a result of a small cultivable
command area. So, an equitable supple of water is ensured to all the farmers in an
irrigation unit throughout the year, by means of comparing irrigation water demand with
supply by finding out the actual crop water requirement is very crucial.

Hydraulic performance of irrigation system may be evaluated by matching irrigation

water demand with supply and identify the extent in which the system is in deficit or
surplus. A comparison of the irrigation demand and water supply was made by
Hussain (1980) for different canal commands of the Indus Basin. He found an overall
shortage of 30 percent in supply. Halsema et al. (1997) and Khan et al. (2005) compared
the irrigation supply and demand in the irrigation systems in Peshawar valley and found
that there was an over-all excess of supply to the tertiary units. The variation in between
actual irrigation water supply and crop water demand in the command area is used to
quantify the hydraulic performance in terms of two parameters such as deficit and excess
(Jahromi et al., 2000).
Irrigation canals are designed to meet the peak irrigation water requirements. Excess
water is expected to supply in the periods of low demand. Ghumman et al. (2007) assess
and compare irrigation water demand with actual supply by calculating irrigation water
requirements using the CropWat software for a cropping intensity. They found that the
three sample outlets received more water than their requirements. Therefore, the authors
recommended water saving measures to be introduced. Adeniran et al. (2010) reported
that irrigation water requirement was higher than actual water supply. They suggested
that, by constructing dam it can accessibly supply the required water for irrigation in the
area used at present and also in the entire land area.
Zeleke et al. (2015) assesses irrigation water demand and actual supply of Metahara
large-scale scheme. They found that, the existing operational rule in the scheme is not

9
adequate and actual irrigation water supply is poorly matched with crop water demand. In
this particular study the average annual irrigation supply is in excess of demand.
Surendran et al. (2015) attempted to compute the crop water requirements using
CROPWAT 8.0 model of FAO and comparing the same with the available water
resources of the district. The authors found that utilizable water resources of the district
are less than the requirement, which created a deficit scenario.

2.2.2 Performance evaluation of irrigation schemes

Performance evaluation at all levels of irrigation sector has been focused on the issue of
management of the main system and, in particular on the allocation and distribution of
water from the source of the system to the point where individuals or farmer groups take
over responsibility for these tasks (Murray-Rust & Snellen, 1993). Hydraulic performance
of on farm irrigation system is determined by the efficiency in which water is diverted,
conveyed, and applied adequately and uniformly in each field on the farm. Singh (1998)
emphasized the need for improvement in hydraulic performance of conveyance system,
equity, adequacy and efficacy of water supply suitable to crop production irrigation
system.

Irrigation performance indicators mainly show the key aspects of equity, productivity,
adequacy, reliability, and ecological sustainability in which the water is delivered to and
used within the irrigation scheme (Bos et al., 1994; Murray-Rust & Snellen, 1993).
Different methodologies using performance indicators in recent times were summarized
by Bos et al. (2005) who distinguished between strategic and operational irrigation
performance. Based upon the results of the operational irrigation performance, irrigation
performance indicators facilitate developing the long term strategic plan. Essafi (1995)
include mainly socio-economical and hydraulic performance indicators in irrigation
systems, including productivity, social stability, financial and economic criteria,
effectiveness, efficiency, equity, reliability, and general welfare criteria.

Hydraulic performance of the irrigation system can be evaluated using several

performance indicators. According to Molden and Gates (1990) and Boss (1997) delivery
duration ratio, efficiency and deficiency, adequacy, dependability, equity and equity ratio
at head and tail, water surface elevation ratio, efficiency of infrastructure, sustainability of
irrigable area, and overall reliability are currently used in many research program on
irrigation performance. Within these programs field data are measured and collected to

10
quantify and test multidisciplinary performance indicators. Gorantiwar and Smout (2005)
summarized performance measures proposed by various researches into allocation type
and scheduling types. Allocation type of performance measures are productivity and
equity, while scheduling type includes adequacy, reliability, flexibility, efficiency and
sustainability.

The irrigation system performance can be improved through frequent physical

maintenance of the physical structures and well organized management activities.
However, poor performance is apparent from low productivity coupled with poor
efficiency of water use and rapid deterioration of irrigation system. When water supply is
less than demand farmers are unable to supply their crop with adequate irrigation. It is
agreed by the researchers Molden et al. (1998); and Seckler et al. (1988) that supplies and
distribution of irrigation water in an adequate, equitable and reliable manner is a primary
essential condition to achieve productivity.

Tariq and Kakar (2010) suggested that variation in discharges along the outlet has
increased. Irrigation water supply in the head outlet was more than demand; however the
remaining outlets supply was getting the discharge less than the demand. Therefore,
farmers are unable to supply their crop with adequate irrigation. For this evaluation,
hydraulic performance indicators such as; delivery performance ratio, adequacy, equity,
and relative water supply are used for making these calculations.

Korkmaz et al. (2009) evaluated the water delivery performance of irrigation system
using variables measured on-site. Authors suggested that, to improve the water delivery
performance of the system, it is necessary to reduce water conveyance losses, increase the
water application efficiency and apply prepare water distribution plans. The following
water delivery performance indicators like adequacy, efficiency, dependability, and
equity were used for this evaluation. Korkmaz and Avci (2012) was mad a similar study
and they recommend that to improve water delivery performance water should be
delivered in a planned way, systems should be established to monitor soil moisture and
that farmers should be given training in efficient irrigation.

Singh et al. (2013) was made a study to assess the performance of irrigation water
management. They found that without any change in cropping pattern in the command
area, irrigation system has yielded low returns and the physical performance of the left
side of irrigation scheme is not satisfactory. It was due to poor operation of water

11
distribution, improper functioning of diversion structures and there is less involvement of
farmers in the water management of the scheme. Authors suggested that suitable
permanent diversion structure should be constructed and lined feeder channel could be
needed.

Zeleke et al. (2015) utilized and refined a set of evaluation indicators to describe the
water delivery performance of the Metahara large-scale irrigation scheme. They found
that the water delivery performance of the scheme was poor. Lack of adequate knowledge
on the operation and management of the system was the main case to achieve poor
efficiency and inequity. Adequacy, efficiency, equity and dependability were used as
indicators of water delivery performance. Upadhyaya et al. (2009) stated the problems
related to water allocation, distribution and utilization is due to technical, social,
managerial, hydraulic, institutional and financial issues, which affect wide application in
canal water supply and crop water demand. These leads to inadequacy, irregularity, and
unreliability in canal water supply.

Mamuye and Mekonen (2015) have made an assessment of hydraulic performance

evaluation of Hare community managed irrigation scheme. They found that water
delivery performance, water utility and maintenance activities of the system were found
to be poor. Authors suggested that capacity building of farmers, adequate operation and
maintenances of the system, improving diversion capacity of the scheme is required to
improve the existing low system performance. For this study adequacy, equity, equity
ratio for head to tail, water surface elevation ratio, delivery duration ratio, sustainability
of irrigated area, effectiveness of infrastructure and deficiency are used to evaluate the
hydraulic performance of the scheme.

Nam et al. (2016) assessed the water delivery efficiency in irrigation canals using
hydraulic performance indicators. They found that the spatial and temporal water
distribution in the physical structures, mainly affected by management and operational
practice. Authors, provide an insight into methods for irrigation management needed in
order to improve the temporal uniformity and equity in the water distribution by
evaluating the efficiencies of water supply and delivery.

2.2.3 Performance gaps and remedial measures

The rationale behind performance assessment is to identify any performance gap and to
rectify the solutions. Hence, managers at different levels should identify the performance

12
gap, find the cause for the gap, and take corrective measures. Therefore, suitable
performance assessment criterion has to be developed and appropriate performance
indicators have to be identified (Bandara, 2006). Four types of potential performance gaps
could be occurred within irrigation systems these‟re
(1) Technological performance gap;
this is when the infrastructure of an irrigation system lacks the capacity to deliver a given
hydraulic performance standard. The normal solution to technology, performance gaps is
to change the type, design or condition of physical infrastructure. (2) Performance gap
occurred when a difference arises between how management procedures are supposed to
be implemented and how they are actually applied. This includes such problems as how
people adjust gates, maintain canals and report information. This can be called a gap in
implementation performance. A problem of this kind generally requires changes in
procedures, supervision or training. (3) The third kind of performance gap is a difference
between management targets and actual achievements. Examples of management targets
are the size of the area served by irrigation in a given season, cropping intensity,
irrigation efficiency, water delivery schedules and water fee collection rates. This can be
called a gap in achievement. Such problems are generally addressed either by varying the
objectives or increasing the capacity of management to achieve them, such as through
increasing the resources available or reforming organizations. (4) Impacts of
management; this is a difference between what people think should be the ultimate effects
of irrigation and what actually results.

Performance of an irrigation system is assessed for a variety of reasons, some of them

are: (1) to improve system operations; (2) to assess improvement against strategic goals;
(3) as an integral part of performance oriented management, to assess the general health
of a system, to assess impacts of interventions; (4) to diagnose constraints; to better
understand determinants of performance; (5) to compare the performance of a system
with others or with the same system over time (Molden et al., 1998).

Styles and Marino (2002) applied and refined a set of evaluation indicators that can be
used to describe the irrigation performance of sixteen international irrigation projects in
less developed countries. They suggested that, modernized irrigation design can
positively impact on the irrigation project performance, therefore both management and
structural/hardware improvements are needed.

Attentions to the corrective measures are very useful to improve low performance.
Command area expansion works for efficient on farm water management are enhanced in

13
a participatory manner, however their performance of the irrigation system is forced by
among other factors; like poor water delivery systems. Adequacy of water supply, equity
of water distribution and dependability of water supply constitutes the main performance
indicators of water delivery systems. These indicators are interrelated, though treated
separately and their assessment fully describes irrigation performance in respect of
water delivery (Murray-Rust & Snellen, 1993 and Bos et al., 1994).

Efficient operation and management in irrigation scheme plays an important role in the
sustainability of irrigated agriculture (Mishra et al., 2001). However, traditional irrigation
management problems include water distribution systems with less capacity than the peak
demand, irregular delivery rates, and low irrigation efficiency and uniformity, absence of
frequent maintenance are the main constraints to achieve high performance. The major
reason for the low performance of irrigation systems is an inaccurate water distribution
due to the lack of a good monitoring system for water delivery. Therefore, it is necessary
to reduce water conveyance losses, increase the water application efficiency and prepare
water distribution plans (Korkmaz et al., 2009).
Haque et al. (2004) developed an irrigation water delivery-scheduling model to
increase irrigation efficiency, by comparing the observed and computed irrigation
delivery values for the main season and off-season. The outcome showed that the
observed values are higher than the computed values, this indicats an excess water
supply in the field than the demand. Therefore, irrigation water delivery schedules
would save a considerable amount of irrigation water during the main season and off-
season.

Deficiency in irrigation water supply for the seasonal cropping demand affects crop yield,
however improvements in the performance of the irrigation water delivery systems have
the potential of increasing the irrigated area, minimizing conflicts among users and
increasing crop production at farm level. Harris (2006) studied on improvements in water
management. He suggested that changing the operational rules for the existing
infrastructure, effective maintenance of the existing irrigation and drainage infrastructure
was an alternative way to improve the efficiency of water management and increase crop
yield. Ortega, et al. (2005) presents the main methodological aspects of improving water
management. To improve the water management, the farmer must follow more technical
irrigation scheduling criteria.

Evaluation of irrigation systems helps to identify the management aspects (Clemmens and

14
Bos, 1990) and systems that can be effectively implemented to improve the irrigation
efficiency. Hamdy (2007) suggest that the performance of irrigated system is
unsatisfactory due to reasons such as underutilization of irrigation services, poor system
management. The gap between the government and the beneficiaries is often too distant
to enable efficient and responsive management and inadequate maintenance of
infrastructure.

Kuscu (2009) suggest some corrective measures to improve the low performance of the
Karacabey Irrigation scheme. Some of them are efficient water management, all activities
in the irrigation network should be monitored and checked, technical requirements should
be met, training and extension should be enhanced, evaluations should be performed on a
daily and seasonal basis and the results should be delivered to the relevant individual and
institutions with an efficient monitoring and evaluation system.

2.3 Performance indicators of irrigation system

In irrigated agriculture performance indicators are categorized as hydraulic, external and,
internal. However, in this study detail discussion is focused on internal and hydraulic
performance indicators.

2.3.1 External performance indicators

The external performance indicators can be subdivided in to four different categories,
namely agricultural performance indicators, water supply and delivery indicators,
economic and environmental indicators (Greaves, 2007). External indicators as those
that analyze the inputs into and outputs from irrigation projects such as land, labour,
water, cost of scheme operation and maintenance as well as the value of production. Nine
sets of nine external performance indicators developed by Molden et al. (1998) for
describing performance at scheme level. Malano and Burton (2001) developed a similar
set of external indicators, and added environmental indicators to the list. They are
important for comparison of performance between different schemes for study of the
impacts of management interventions.

Bos et al. (2005) states that, water related external performance indicators are categorized
as water balance, water service and maintenance. The authors advise that these indicators
could be presented either as a function of time or with respect to their spatial distribution.
The external performance indicators are, however insufficient for decision making,
planning and control operations in a self-motivated irrigation environment. They do not

15
reflect all dimensions of organizational performance in a balanced and integrated
framework, hence the need to include financial and environmental indicators (Greaves,
2007; Jusoh et al., 2008). Burt and stles (2004) emphasized that external indicators by
themselves do not provide any insight into what must be done to improve performance or
efficiency.

2.3.2 Internal performance indicators

The internal indicators do not fit themselves well to cross systems comparison. This is
due to several reasons. First, internal processes of irrigation systems vary from system to
system, thus they are tailored to meet specific system needs. Second, indicators related to
irrigation processes tend to be data intensive and it is often difficult, time consuming and
expensive to obtain complete data sets. Third assumptions about relations between
internal processes and outputs may not be valid. Internal indicators examine the
mechanisms of water control and allocation at all levels of the project and provide a
systematic rating of hardware, management and service throughout the entire system
(Kuscu et al., 2009). Much of the work to date on irrigation performance assessment has
been focused on internal processes of irrigation systems.

Many internal process indicators relate performance to management targets such as

timing, duration, and flow rate, area irrigated and cropping patterns. A major purpose of
this type of assessment is to assist irrigation managers to improve water delivery service
to users. An example of internal performance indicators is actual water delivery services
to irrigation schemes, volume measurement, flexibility and reliability (Burt, 2002).

Hydraulic performance indicators are selection criteria to choose appropriate structure

and needs to review the state of established objectives of scheme. These indicators are
equity, adequacy, dependability as well as relative water supply and relative irrigation
supply which used to assess the hydraulic performance of the system (Mishra, et al.,
2010).

Hydraulic performance measures are introduced as functions of defined state variable and
are used to indicate the state of system performance relative to the objectives of
adequacy, efficiency, dependency, and equity of water delivery. Molden and Gats (1990)
describe performance measures for use in evaluation and design of new or rehabilitated
irrigation water delivery system. Clemmens (2006) states that hydraulic performance
indicators are useful tools for understanding the internal operational processes that affect

16
water distribution and delivery, and hence contribute in finding ways to improve the
water delivery process.

2.3.2.1 Water delivery performance indicators

Internal performance indicators used to assess internal processes, i.e. water delivery
systems. Clemmens (2001) states that water delivery performance indicators are useful
tools to understand the internal operational processes of the system. Internal indicators
enable a comprehensive understanding of the processes that influence water delivery
service and the overall performance of a system (Renault et al., 2007). Hence, they are
useful to show what would have to be done to improve the internal and hence the external
performance. Water delivery indicators are evaluating whether the system delivers water
at the required rate at the right place and time and to assess whether the water delivery
service is healthy. Adequacy (PA), Efficiency (PF), Equity indicator (PE) and
Dependability indicator (PD) are the main indicators of internal water delivery
performance.

Adequacy indicators

Adequacy is influenced by water availability at the source, delivery capacity and the
operational situation of the scheme (predictable water demand in relation to supply) and
type of the division system. Adequacy of water delivery is a measure of the degree to
which water deliveries meet soil-plant water requirements. It can be managed by
matching cropping plans and calendars with estimated seasonal water availability before
the start of the season or by adjusting operational targets in reaction to actual demand
during the season (Sagardoy et al., 1986; Murray-Rust & Snellen, 1993).

Adequacy of water delivery is dependent on water supply, specified delivery schedules,

the capacity of the hydraulic structures to deliver water according to the schedules and the
operation and maintenance of hydraulic structures (Mishra et al., 2010). Adequacy
specifies the capacity of an irrigation system to meet water demands of the farm; it is a
measure of the ability of a system to reach targeted deliveries in terms of quantity
(Renault &Wahaj, 2005). Adequacy indicator (PA) is given as (Molden & Gates, 1990);

∑ ( ∑ )

17
Where, pA =QD/QR, If QD≤ QR, otherwise PA
indicator, T is time and R is site where canals are located, QD is actual amount of water
delivered by the system and QR is the amount of water required for crop consumptive
use.

Equity indicators

Equity, as related to water delivery system can be defined as the delivery of the fair
shares of water to the users throughout the system. Equitable water distribution is attained
when the ratio of water delivery to head outlets to the outlet at the tail outlets equal to
one. In irrigation system water delivered to the beneficiary farmers in an equitable
manner in its command area to ensure maximum agricultural production. Equity of water
distribution is the operational objective of the canal irrigation system in Pakistan (Bhutta
et al., 1992).

Equity of water distribution is a share of each individual or considered fair by all the
system members. A perfectly equitable distribution will result if all locations receive an
adequate water supply or if each location receives the same supply or what they are
entitled to. The water allocation process principally affects the equity performance
indicator (Murray-Rust & Snellen, 1993; Tariq & Kaka, 2004). Equity indicator (PE) is
given as (Molden & Gates, 1990);

∑ ( )

Where, ( ) is the spatial coefficient of variation of ratio ( ) over the region R.

This measure describes the degree of variability in relative water delivery from point to
point over the region. The closer value of PE to zero, the greater the degree of equity.

Dependability indicators

The farmer should not only get the required amount, but also should get it in time. If
water is not available at the right time it may lead to total crop failure. Dependability of
water supply is an appearance of confidence in the irrigation system to deliver water as
promised and is indicative of the timeliness and adequacy of deciding deliveries (Rey et
al., 1993; Makadho, 1994).

According to Murray-Rust and Snellen (1993) dependability deals with the quality of the
irrigation service rather than the quantity and it covers both the reliability of discharges

18
and timing of deliveries (predictability). Dependability of water delivery is an indicator
for the degree of conformity of water deliveries to prior expectations. This implies the
achievement of temporal uniformity of the relative water delivery over a region R.
Dependability is influenced by the mode of water delivery and type of distribution
system. Depending on the mode of water delivery, variability and predictability of water
supply are important aspects of dependability.

Dependability is defined as temporal uniformity of the ratio of the delivered amount of

water to be required or scheduled amount. A farmer can plan for a dependable delivery of
an inadequate supply of water by planting less or growing different crops or adjusting
other farming inputs. The dependability of water delivery can be taken as the temporal
variability of the ratio of amount of water required that occurs over a region.
Dependability indicator (PD) is given as (Molden & Gates, 1990);

∑ ( )

Where PD is dependability indicator over a time period T for a region R, and CVT is the
temporal coefficient of variation of the ratio QD/QR over time T. Table 1 shows the
performance standards of the indicators.

Efficiency indicators

Efficiency (PF) is the conservation of water resource which plays an important role in
water delivery for the authority and government because water saved may result in less
expenditure on infrastructure and can possibly be allocated to fully meet the existing
requirement or irrigate more land (Paul, J.M., 1996). Then, delivery system for which PF
values range between 0.7 and 0.84 is measured as fairly efficient (Molden & Gates,
1990).

Efficiency values indicate that the proportions of excess water lost as deep percolation to
saline groundwater. The off taking efficiency indicators hence that the excess water
diverted is lost in the main system (seepage), into the drainage within the system (mainly
to saline groundwater and part of it back to the river), and at system tail end (to saline
marshes) (Zeleke et al., 2015).

Efficiency is defined as the ratio of the volume of water required for a specific purpose to
the volume of water delivered for this purpose. It is commonly interpreted as the volume

19
of water stored in the soil for evapotranspiration compared to the volume of water
delivered for this purpose (Mohsen et al., 2012; Binoy et al., 2013). The ratio is given as:

∑ ( ∑ )

( )

Where PF is the special and temporal average of the ratio QR/QD indicator over an
area R and time period T for a specific time.

After computation of PA, PE, PD and PF values, the water delivery canals are evaluated
based on water delivery performance indicators standards developed by Molden & Gates,
(1990), given in Table 2.1.

Table 2.1: Water delivery performance standards for indicators;

(Molden and Gates, 1990).
Indicators Poor Fair Good

Adequacy indicator (PA) <0.80 0.80–0.89 0.90–1.00

Efficiency indicator (PF) <0.70 0.70–0.84 0.85–1.00
Equity indicator (PΕ) >0.25 0.11–0.25 0.00-0.10
Dependability (PD ) >0.20 0.11-0.20 0.00-0.10

2.3.2.2 Other water delivery (conveyance) indicators

Deficiency indicator

If water does not arrive at farms in an adequate and timely amount, crop yields may suffer
and farm net returns may decrease. Assessment of the deficiency is given as the ratio of
water deficiency to the required amount. The degree of deficiency (D) is extra parameter
that the farmer is more concerned so that he or she can take safety measures to meet it.
Knowledge of the amount of deficiency is a quantitative measure of
of users. Estimation of deficiency is given as the ratio of water deficiency to the required
amount. A measure of deficiency is considered as the temporal and spatial average
of the ratio of (QR-QD) and QR (Binoy et al., 2013).

∑ ( ∑ )

20
Where PDF is deficiency indicator over the system S and time period T and (QD-
QD)/QD is deficiency indicator at a point for a specific time. The expression gives water
deficiency over the system in each period and overall deficiency over the period.

Delivery performance ratio indicator

The amount of irrigation water supply can be evaluated using water delivery
performance. It is the ratio of the actual volume of delivered water to the intended. Bos et
al. (1991) provided the use of average seasonal values of the ratio of intended and actual
volumes of water delivered to the tertiary units in a performance evaluation of a
secondary channel of an irrigation scheme.

The delivery performance ratio enables a manager to determine the extent to which water
is actually delivered as intended during a selected period and at any location in the
system. It is obvious that if the actual delivered volume of water is based on frequent flow
measurements, the greater the likelihood that managers can match actual to intended
flows. To obtain sufficiently accurate flow data, discharge measurement structures with
water level recorders must be available at key water delivery locations (Bos, 1989). To
facilitate the handling of data, recorders that write data on a chip are recommended
(Clemmens et al., 2001).

Delivery performance ratio (DDR) is the simplest, and yet probably the most important,
operational hydraulic performance indicator (Clemmens & Bos, 1990; Molden & Gates,
1990; Bos et al., 1991). DPR in irrigation system indicates the problems related to
sediment deposits, erosion, vegetation, e.t.c of some water conveyance structures.
Generally delivery performance ratio is the ratio of the amount of actual delivered to the
intended amount of water to be delivered. The ratio is given as;

∑ ( )

Where Qa: Actual discharges based on daily water level measurement for n days, Qd:
Design or intended discharges of irrigation water n; number of monitoring period.

21
It can be assumed that, if the delivery performance ratio value is close to one, it indicates
that the management input is very high and the canal keeping its operational condition as
its intended level (Boss et al., 2005).

Equity ratio for head to tail indicator

Non restricted water allocation and supply practiced and non-fixed water rights lead to
inequitable water distribution between the head and middle reaches of the main canal.
Murray Rust and Halsema (1998) derived similar results from the performance evaluation
study of Kalpani distributary and decided almost irrespective of the inflow conditions;
upper end outlets receive more than the tail one.

Equity ratio for head to tail (ERHT) is both conveyance and water delivery indicator. It
focused on the equity of water distribution for head and tail at different levels of a system.
Bhutta and Vander Velde (1992) stated that irrigation system of Lower Chanab canal was
inequitable and supplies to the tail outlets were typically three to six times less than the
head outlets. ERHT indicator can assist to identify head and tail difference at each level
of the system or subsystem; and hence to address problems as a result. An equity ratio for
head to tail (ERHT) components of a distribution sub-system is given as:

∑ ( )
( )
∑ ( )

Where MDR is Management Delivery Ratio which is described as the amount of

delivered water to the required (QD/QR), n is the number of periods monitored (Lento
and Baily (1984).

Table 2.2: Range of performance indicators for equity ratio for head to and delivery
duration ratio ERHT and DDR; (Molden & Gates, 1990); Mohsen et al., (2012).

Range of performance indicators

Parameters
Poor Fair Good Excellent
MDR <0.7 0.7-0.79 0.8-0.9 0.90-1.10
ERHT > 1.3 1.21-1.3 1.1-1.2

2.3.2.3 Maintenance indicators

Maintenance of irrigation and drainage systems intend to accomplish the following main
purposes: (1) Assure safety related to failure of infrastructure, keep canals in sufficiently

22
good (operational) condition to minimize seepage or clogging, and sustain canal water
levels and designed head–discharge relationships (2) Keep water control infrastructure in
working condition (Boss et al., 2005). The hydraulic performance of the scheme could
also be evaluated through maintenance performance indicators; Maintenance indicators
give practical information on the sustainability of the intended water level. It was
estimated through the indicators recommended by Bos et al. (1993); Bos (1997); Kloezen
& Garces (1998); and Bos et al. (2005). It states that the maintenance innovations of in
irrigation system have a duty of undertaking for the purposes of safety improvement,
keeping water control, distribution and other infrastructures in good working condition to
design in sustainable base.

The physical structure in the system becoming non-operational due to broken of structure,
change of canal cross-section, scouring of canal section, missing of flow control and
distribution facilities, damaging of the structure, sedimentation and weed growth
(Samad &Vermillion, 1998; Vermillion et al., 1999). Proper maintenance enables the
keeping of water level control and distribution infrastructure in good working condition
(Mamuye & Mekonen, 2015).

Maintenance performance inspection of the scheme would provide to insight the feature
of the preservation of the system. Bos et al. (1993) state that the maintenance innovations
in irrigation system have a duty of undertaking for the purposes of safety improvement,
keeping water control, distribution and other infrastructures in good working condition to
design in sustainable base. The maintenance indicators are computed using the following
parameters like water surface elevation ratio, effectiveness of infrastructure and
sustainability of irrigable area.

Water surface elevation ratio

This indicator provides to foresee the impact of sedimentation and erosion problems
on the physical irrigation system, if any of the situations were happen i.e. the rise or
drop of the WSE, which indicates that the maintenance are being required (Shafique,
1993). It was computed by taking the actual water depth from the canal bottom and
comparing it with the design water depth at the same position in the main canal. The
parameter is defined by measuring the actual water surface elevation at the intended water
level recorded below the full supply level (FSL). Water surface elevation ratio (WSER)
can be calculated as:

23
Where, AWSE is actual water surface elevation at Full Supply Level; IWSE is intended
or designed water surface elevation at Full Supply Level.

The value of WSER is equal to or close to 1.00, the main canal is keeping of water level
in good working condition and the main canal is free of sediment accumulation and not
affected by erosion. A value of WSER greater than one indicates an erosion problem. A
value of WSER is less than one, shows a probability of increasing canal bad level due to
siltation and weed incidence in a canal (Boss et al., 1993).

Effectiveness of infrastructure

Regular maintenance of irrigation system component is needed to keep the system in

operational condition. The ratio of effectiveness of infrastructure indicates the extent to
which the system manager is able to control water. For the analysis to be effective,
structures should be grouped according to their hierarchical importance such as primary,
secondary, tertiary and quaternary (Boss et al., 2005). The effectiveness of infrastructure
(EI) may be given as:

Where, EI effectiveness of infrastructure, NFE is Number of Functioning Structures;

TNSII is Total Number of Structures Initially Installed.

The computed values of the ratio (percentage), performance were classified as

“
operative”
, “nearly operative”
Mamuye and “inoperativ
& Mekonen, 2015).
Generally, a deviation of more than 5% would signal the need for maintenance or
rehabilitation of the physical structures (Boss et al., 2005; Kloezen & Garces, 1998).

Sustainability of irrigated area

Sustainability is the performance measure related to upgrading, maintaining, and

degrading the environment in the irrigation scheme. According to Abernethy (1986)
sustainability is the most difficult factor to encompass and refers to the issue of leaching,
drainage and salinization which if not atte

The intensity with which the irrigated area is cropped traditionally is a function of the
number of crops per year grown in an irrigated area. For cropping patterns of various

24
crops with widely different lengths of the growing period, and for plantations, however,
this cropping intensity is not well-defined. To quantify the „te
by a crop it is recommended to use the ratio of actual irrigated area to design. Within the
irrigated area, several negative impacts (waterlogging, salinity and water shortage due to
competitive use) cause a reduction of the actually irrigated area (Boss et al., 2005). A
further reduction of the cropped area is related to population growth and urbanization,
road construction, etc. Parameters of physical sustainability of the irrigated area that can
be affected by irrigation managers relate primarily to over-or under-supply of irrigation
water, leading to waterlogging or salinity.

Irrigated area sustainability refers to the percentage of change in irrigated area over the
period of years (Gorantiwat & Smout 2005). Sustainability of irrigated area (SI) is
measured as the ratio of existing area under irrigation to the planned irrigated area (Bos,
1997). The ratio is given as:

Where, AIA is actual irrigated area (ha) and DIA is designed irrigated area (ha).

25
3. METHODOLOGY
3.1 Description of the study area

3.1.1 Location
Allawuha small scale irrigation scheme is found in Amhara Regional State of Ethiopia,
North wollo zone, in Allawuha kebelle; about 13 km far from northern part of Woldiya
town along Addis Ababa-Mekele highway. It is located about 535km far away from the
capital city of Ethiopia. The scheme is geographically located between 11° 53' 40" N to
11053' 42" N Latitude and 39° 41' 10" E to 39° 40' 10" E longitude, has an estimated total
area of 296 hectares. The altitude in the study area varies from 1390 to 1420 meters above
sea level (Masl). The area has only one agro-ecological zone, namely lowland (Kolla)
550-1500 Masl.

Allawuha

Figure 3.1: Map of the study area.

26
3.1.2 Land use Pattern
Most of the lands in north wollo zone are under extensive cultivation with increased land
pressure. Most of the area was suffering from deforestation and agricultural areas are now
limited for cultivation. However, the study area is surprisingly covered agro forestry, fruit
trees, cereal crops etc. Farming methods with mulching, inter cropping pattern, agro
forestry and shifting cultivation are also well practiced.

3.1.3 Climate
In the North wollo zone the highland areas (Dega and Weinadega) are mainly dependent
on Belg rain. However, the study area is characterized by Kolla agro ecological zone and
rain fall is dominant in meher season. For their crop production, water requirements
depend on maximum and minimum rainfall of 16.63 and 196.97mm, respectively. On the
other hand, the average monthly temperature ranges between 21°c to 25°c. According to
the data collected from Sirinka Agriculture Research Center (which is located about 10km
south of Woldiya town), a bi-modal nature of rainfall is characterized most parts of
Gubalafto woreda as well as the study area (Allawuha). Usually, it occurs from June to
September (during summer season) and a distinct dry season follows from September to
January follows. The short rainy season (Belg) occurs between February and April, while
the long rainy season (Meher) occurs between June and September. The catchment where
the study area located is characterized by unreliable rainfall which varies from 486 mm to
693 mm annually. For the past three decades, an erratic distribution of rainfall has been
the major climatic factor affecting crop yield in the area.

3.1.4 Description about the scheme

3.1.4.1 Historical Background
Allawuha small scale irrigation scheme is an improved traditional irrigation system, and
its command area was expanded and enhanced through construction of different physical
structures. The scheme was started before 1980 by farmers for producing vegetation, but
after the establishment of the Amhara National Regional State in 1993 Allawuha
irrigation project was considered again for further expansion. After the completion of
feasibility study and designing of the physical structures diversion weir, head regulator
(both in left and right side of the river bank) are built on Alawuha River and the off taking
structures and conveyance canals are constructed on the system in 1998 by sustainable
environmental and agricultural rehabilitation for Amhara region (SEARAR).

27
To divert water into the scheme through the main canal at Alawuha river, SEARAR was
constructed ogee shaped weir, it is located at the neck of the river course where elevation
at which a maximum of land could be commanded to supply irrigation water through
gravity. The total potential irrigable area of the scheme was about 302.64 hectare (ha);
however currently the scheme has 296 ha irrigated areas of land serving about 1431
households out of this 1264 are male and 167 are female within two kebeles; 04 and 03,
namely Lay-Alawuha and Lasetegerado respectively.

3.1.4.2 Source and availability of irrigation water

The source of water for the scheme is the Allawuha River. The river originates from the
highlands in the western part of Gidan and Gubalaf woredas and joins into Awash River.
Water is diverted from the Allawuha River in to the scheme through two diversion head
works (ogee type weir) with gated regulators (on the left and right bank of the river),
called main intake. The current investigation focused only on the main diversion on the
right bank. This intake supply water with a maximum and minimum flow of about 430
and 720 l/s respectively for 302.64 ha of land (Potentially irrigable area). However,
currently about 296 ha area of land is irrigated.

Available irrigation water is supplied through the primary canal, and extends it up to the
entire irrigated land. And then, water is passes through the secondary off take and
distributed into five delivery canals. The full length of main canal covers about 1.5 km
length from head regulators to the tail reach. The shortest distance of irrigated farm land
from the source is 0.5 km at Lay-Alawuha (04 Kebele), while the longest distance is 1.5
km sited at Lasetegerado (03 Kebele).

3.1.4.3 Institutional setups

Irrigation water management associations in the scheme were started in 1998, and they
are responsible to manage the overall activities in the scheme, including resolving
conflicts for water sharing between upstream and downstream users. However it was
newly organized in 2003 and they call it water users association (WUA) which is
established by users. WUA manage in all aspects in the tertiary unit system, including
field water delivery schedules, collection of fees, scheduling routine maintenance, resolve
conflicts for water sharing between farmers or groups of farmers, penalty procedures for
failure to abide by the rules and regulations. Irrigation water fee is collected by WUA for
operation and maintenance activities, then users have been paid irrigation water fees for

28
representative committees those who manage and run the scheme. An individual user
pays a water fee of 2.50 birr per year for 0.13 hectare of irrigated land. However, this
collected fee from users was not covering the cost of operation and maintenance
activities. The WUA has an executive committee comprising of chairperson, vice chair,
secretary, treasurer (Banker), and three members.

3.1.4.4 Dominant crops

According to the available data from the Department of North Wollo Agriculture and
Natural Resource, the major crops cultivated during the short rainy season (Belg); in
order of importance are barley, teff and lentils. During the main rainy (Meher) season the
most important cultivated crops are sorghum, maize, wheat, chick peas, faba and beans.
Maize, sugarcane and teff cover the largest portion of cultivated land under irrigation.
The production pattern differs considerably among irrigation users. Although the total
irrigated area during the short rainy season was small as compared with the rain fed
fields, most of the farmers cultivate food crops, while very few cultivate vegetables and
fruits.

3.2. Materials
The materials used in this study are summarized as follows: discharge measurement
instrument like 90o angle V-notch, measuring tape meter and staff gauge, DEM (Digital
Elevation Model) and GPS instrument. Software such as ArcGIS 10.1 and CROPWAT
8.0 have also been used. Digital camera was used to capture the pictures or images during
fieldwork. Moreover, design document of the Alawuha irrigation project has been used to
collect some important data.

3.3. Data sources and methods of data collection

In this study, the required data were collected from primary and secondary sources. The
primary data were collected by direct measurement from the field such as discharge,
water surface elevation, and field observation like inspection of functional and
nonfunctional structures. Secondary data have been collected from different office and
design documents.

29
3.3.1 Primary data
The primary data are collected directly from the field. Such activity includes; discharge
measurement using V-Notch, measurement of actual water surface elevation in the main
canal, and filed observations. The detail procedures discussed in the following sections.

3.3.1.1 Flow measurement

Flow measurement is one of the main activities of data collection. In this study, V-Notch
was used to measure canal irrigation water supply. The flow measurements were taken for
the secondary off take locations on the main canal. The main canal was sampled to
represent the major head, middle and tail conditions. A 90o V-Notch in each outlet point
of the main canals were installed at the flow measurement location (Figure 3.4) and
frequent readings were taken on four days per month (twelve days per three months) from
March to May. The flow discharge in the canals was resulting from the depth-flow
relationship of Notch was calculated for free flow conditions. The measurements were
taken at the main canals, just after abstraction points along the branched (distribution)
canals. The actual measured values of the flow were converted into an average monthly
rate. The method for measuring canal irrigation water supply using 900 V-notch is
discussed as follows;

V-Notch

The V-notch is thin-plate weir, also called triangular weir, has an overflow edge in the
form of an isosceles triangle. V-Notch is typically installed in open channels such as
streams to determine discharge (flow rate). The basic principle is that discharge is directly
related to the water depth above the crotch is called head (h) (Appendix VII). The V-
notch design causes small changes in discharge to have a large change in depth, allowing
more accurate head measurement than with a rectangular weir (Kuhlin and Compton,
1975).

In this study, a 90o V-Notch was used to measure flow the discharge through each off
take along the main canals, hence involving measurement of flow depth (h). According to
the established water delivery plan, this flow depth is measured four days per month
(Figure 3.2). The discharge coefficient (C) and head loss correction factor (K) are
computed using equation 3.1 and 3.2 respectively. Finally, the flow into the system at
each measuring location (off take point) was computed by using equation (3.3).

30
 ( )( )

Where, Q=Discharge (cft or m3/s), h=head (ft or m), C= discharge coefficient k= Head
correction factor (ft or m), θ =Notch angle

Figure 3.2: Discharge measurement using 90oV notch.

3.3.1.2. Field observation

For the period of field observation, the conditions of existing irrigation structures were
inspected during off and on irrigation time. During field observation the overall
operational activities were identified and a number of functional and non-functional
structures in the scheme were documented and recorded.

3.3.1.3. Water surface elevation measurements (WSE)

Measurement of water surface elevation of the main canal during irrigation season was
considered at the head, middle and tail reach of the system. At each reach on the main
canal, the actual data were taken at every ten meters distance intervals along the main
canal up to the entire length (representative monitoring locations). The measurement was
taken ten meters far away from the main intake gate. For all inspection stations, the canal
section was divided into three columns transversely in the main canal. Hence three
measurements were taken at each section and average values have been taken. The actual

31
water surface depth from canal bottom was measured by using staff gauge and measuring
tape meter. In general, actual WSE data were taken on 30 inspection stations along the
main canal for the head, middle and tail reaches (Appendix V; Table 7.8).

3.3.2 Secondary data

The secondary data were collected from agricultural and rural development offices of
Gubalafto woreda, North Wollo water resource development department, national
meteorological service (Kombolcha branch for Kobo meteorological station) and from
design document reports of the Allawuha irrigation project. Climate data, soil moisture
data, and designed features of the scheme are major secondary dates used in the study.

3.3.2.1 Climatic and Meteorological Data

For this study, 15 years meteorological data (1998 to 2014) were taken from National
meteorological service, kombolcha branch for Kobo meteorological station used to
compute the crop water requirement and the irrigation water demand. Such data include
Temperature (maximum and minimum) relative humidity, sunshine hours, wind speed
and rainfall.

As per the meteorological data, the area receives 843.5 mm average rainfall annually,
about 19% of the rainfall have received in the months of February to May, considered the
minor rainy season, and the remaining rain is received during the months of July and
August, the main rainy season. Uneven distributions of the rains shorten the effective
rainy season and results in late dry spells. Therefore, rain fed cropping is often unreliable,
and there is recurrent drought.

The study area is found in the kola agro-ecological zone. The mean monthly maximum
and minimum temperature are 29.5oC and 14.5oC, respectively. In the area, the maximum
reference evapotranspiration (ETO) is 4.33 mm/day. The ETO value is much higher than
that of the remaining months. This indicates that irrigation is very indispensable in most
of the months. These meteorological data are presented in Table 3.1. However, the detail
of meteorological data is summarized in Appendix I; Table 7.1.

32
Table 3.1: Climatic features of metrological Data

Months Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May Jun. Jul. Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
Average
Temperature
18.8 19.8 20.8 21.1 22.1 22.7 23.8 23.1 22.8 20.4 19.4 18.9
(oC)
Humidity
68.0 61.0 59.0 59.0 48.0 41.0 60.0 64.0 64.0 60.0 59.0 60.0
(%)
Wind
94.0 112 112 94.0 123 129 118 94.0 76.0 71.0 71.0 100
(km/day)
Sunshine
6.90 7.70 8.4 8.1 7.9 7.1 4.9 6.0 5.6 8.1 8.0 7.8
hours (hr)
Radiation
17.2 19.6 21.8 21.5 16.7 19.8 16.7 18.6 17.7 20.5 18.9 17.9
(MJ/m2/Day)
Rain (mm) 35.9 37.7 71.0 97.0 87.2 25.1 197 230 76.4 42.2 42.2 21.5

3.3.2.2 Soil moisture Data

In addition to meteorological data, soil moisture data are one of the input parameters used
to estimate crop water demand, which is obtained from the design document for Allawuha
irrigation project 2013/2005. As per the design document, the soil moisture properties like
average soil moisture content at plot 1, 2 and 3 was 72.56mm, 68.62mm and 44.31mm
respectively. The available soil moisture content is 103.1mm/m (PWP –FC) and the
irrigated land is characterized as well-drained loam soil. Average infiltration rate of the
soil is 25.4 mm/day. The detail of soil moisture properties of the study area are presented
in Appendix II in Table 7.3.

3.3.2.3 Additional secondary data

The canal full supply level and design discharge, including intended command area were
obtained from design document of Allawuha irrigation scheme (Appendix IV; Table 7.7).
Planting and harvesting date of dominant crops during irrigation season were obtained
from North Wollo agricultural and natural resource department (NWAND) and Derogibir
kebelle agriculture extension report, 2016 (Appendix I; Table 7.2). The number of
structures initially installed also some of additional data used in this study (Appendix VI,
in Table 7.9).

33
In general, this study is mostly based on the primary field data collection in the
schemes, however secondary data were also used. The location in which, primary data
collected at the head, middle and tail reaches are show in Figure 3.3.

Secondary off take location (SotT) Main canal Tertiary canals

Flow measurement site Secondary (SC) Main intake

WSE measurements site Head Middle Tail

Figure 3. 3: The layout and flow monitored locations of the scheme.

3.4. Methods of data Analyses and Interpretation

In this study, the hydraulic performance of the Allawuha irrigation was evaluated in two
sections; by means of evaluating irrigation water demand versus supply and using
hydraulic performance indicators.
Irrigation water demand versus supply was assessed for its status, either deficit in supply
and/or surplus (excess) over demand. However, the performance of water delivery canals
was assessed using water delivery performance indicators. The maintenance requirement
of the system was evaluated using selected maintenance indicators, specifically by
measuring the extent to which the goals and benefits are being achieved. It was
investigated based on the data collected during the irrigation period from March to May,
2016 in one irrigation season. The choice of these months was decided due to the fact that
it has hardly raining and almost all fields are irrigated.

34
3.4.1 Estimation of irrigation water requirement
The crop water requirement was computed from secondary data using CROPWAT
Version 8.0 (FAO, 2009). The CROPWAT program requires climatic parameters (e.g.,
maximum and minimum temperature, wind speed, sunshine hour, humidity and rainfall),
soil data, and planting as well as harvesting dates including cultivated area of crops.
The reference crops evapotranspiration (ETO) for the subsequent months was estimated
using the FAO Penman-Monteith method (FAO, 1998). The crop water requirement
(ETc) was computed from the ETO and the crop factor (Kc) values for each crop planted
during 2nd irrigation season (from February 5th to January 23th, 2016). The irrigation water
demand for each irrigated crop in the command area was computed by subtracting
effective rainfall from daily Etc (FAO, 1974). The value of effective rainfall was
determined using USDA soil conservation service method.
The amount of irrigation water demand in l/s/h was estimated using CROPWAT software
for existing cropping pattern on each secondary off take (out let point). Then, duty of
irrigation water requirement (l/s/h) to feed each secondary outlet was converted into flow
rate by multiplying the area served from the off take. Which is the product of IR in l/s/ha
per month and the command area (ha) served for irrigation practice by assuming
irrigation efficiency (IE) of 39 per cent. Finally, to evaluate irrigation water demand
versus supply and water delivery performance indicator, the flow rate was converted in to
volume (QR, in m3). The irrigation requirement (IR) indicates the difference between the
Evapotranspiration of the crop under ideal conditions (ETc) and the effective rainfall
(ER) contributions during the same time period (Aksara and Pasin, 2015) and it is
expressed in mm or m3.

3.4.2 Evaluation of irrigation water supply versus demand

In this section, irrigation water supply and demand situations were evaluated based on the
degree of the extent of irrigation water supply to achieve its crop demand. It was
investigated based on the flow data collected during March to May, 2016 and
meteorological data from1998 to 2014. The IWR in m3 was estimated (as described in
section 3.4.1). Flow of water to the sample passages of the secondary canals was
determined from daily water level monitoring that pass through the 900 V notch. Water
levels (flow heights) were measured once per a week. The daily flow heights were
measured by placing meters along the walls of the V-notch, and it was converted into
volume base.

35
Evaluation of irrigation water supply versus demand at each secondary outlet point in the
system is very important to identify the extent of the system in deficit and/or excess of
supply. When actual supply is greater than demand, there is a surplus (excess) in supply
over demand and vice versa (Hussain, 1980; Ullah et al., 1998; Halsema et al., 1997;
Jahromi et al., 2000, and Khan et al., 2005). Therefore, by comparing the actual irrigation
water supply and demand, it is possible to identify the extent in which actual supply is in
deficit and/or excess over demand. Hence, this technique was applied to compare
irrigation water supply with demand on the system.

3.4.3 Assessing performance indicators

Water delivery and maintenance performance indicators are used in this study to evaluate
the hydraulic performance of the scheme. Water delivery performance indicators were
utilized the data like amount of actual irrigation water delivered (QD) and irrigation water
requirement of the crop (QR). The amount of irrigation water supply at each secondary
off take canal was computed by measuring the flow height above the crotch (h) at each
off take and it and was converted into discharge (QD) using equation 3.3.

For computation of water delivery performance indicators, the actual irrigation water
supply and demand was converted into volume base. Therefore, the amount of irrigation
water supply was converted in to volume (VS, in m3) by multiplying the flow rate (QS, in
m3/s) with 10 hours duration of supply. However, irrigation water requirement in l/s/h
was converted into volume (VR, in m3), according to the
FAO“rule o
(1989), to covert the continuous flow (duty) (l/s/h) into irrigation depth (mm). The
relationship between gross irrigation (Ig), irrigation interval (days) and continuous flow
(l/s/h) from "rule of thumb" is 8.64 mm/day = 1.0 liter/second per hectare (l/s/h).
Therefore, from the relationship, the irrigation water requirement in l/s/h was converted
into VR in m3 using equation 3.1.

where, Cf is continuous flow in l/s/h and A is command area in m2

However, maintenance indicators were requiring the following data such as actual and
intended water surface elevation at FSL, number of functional and initial installed
structures, actually irrigated and intended irrigable area.

36
3.4.3.1 Water delivery performance indicators

Evaluation of the hydraulic performance of water delivery canals of the system was
assessed using spatial and temporal water delivery performance indicators. The spatial
performance indicators are intended for the water delivery performance over a region R;
while the temporal indicators are for the water delivery performance in time T. Therefore,
temporal values of performance indicators were evaluated for adequacy, efficiency and
dependability, whereas spatial values of indicators were evaluated for adequacy,
efficiency and equity (Korkmaz et al., 2009; Zeleke et al., 2015; W.H. Nam et al., 2016).

The hydraulic performance of the water delivery canal was designed to evaluate at head,
middle and tail reaches of the system and for each secondary outlet point (see figure 3.3).
It was estimated based on the monthly required and delivered discharge at each secondary
off take. To evaluate canal water delivery performance, four basic internal parameters
were used such as; Adequacy indicator (PA), equity indicator (PE), dependability
indicator (PD) and efficiency indicator (PF). These indicators should be computed using
equations provided by Molden and Gates (1990) and the computed performance indicator
values; performance was classified
Table 2.1). In addition as
to “goo
those parameters, the water delivery performance of the canals also evaluated using
deficiency, delivery performance ratio and equity ratio for head to tail for the head,
middle and tail reaches of the system.

Adequacy indicator (PA)

PA is a measure of performance relative to this objective for a region or sub region R

served by the system over the period T is given as follows. T represents the time period in
which system performance was determined and R represents the sub region of the system
whose performance is to be determined. PA was calculated using equation 2.1. QD/QR=
1 shows that enough water is being supplied in order to meet the requirements, but
QD/QR< 1 indicates that the supply is less than the requirement. QD/QR> 1 indicates that
more water is being supplied than is required.

Equity indicator (PE)

PE is the spatial variation of the ratio of the amount delivered to the amount required over
the time period of interest, and it was calculated using equation 2.2. An equity value of
zero (PE=0) indicates perfect equity or fair distribution of water. PE values close to 1.0
indicate serious inequity of water distribution (Molden and Gates, 1990).

37
Dependability indicator (PD)

PD is the degree of temporal variability in the ratio of the amount delivered to the amount
required over a region. It indicates the uniformity of QD/QR over time. PD was
calculated using equation 2.3. When the value of PD approaches zero, water delivery for
a period time, under consideration is shown to be uniform and thus more reliable. PD
values close to 1.0 indicate serious unreliability of water distribution (Molden and Gates,
1990).

Efficiency indicator (PF)

PF is the measure of the excess of water delivered in comparison with the requirements. It
is indicator over an area R and the time period T at a point for a specific time. PF was
calculated using the following equation 2.4. If pF value was equal to or close to 1.00, the
water in the system was being used efficiently and farmers conserve more water.
However, pF value was less than 0.70 indicates water in the system was not being used
efficiently (Molden and Gates, 1990).

Deficiency (D)

The value of deficiency was computed by using equation (2.5). The parameter helps the
system managers and users to take corrective measurements for improving the system in
the deficit area. As the value of D equal to or close to 0.00, supply is uniform at each off
take. However, D value is greater than zero (D > 0) a deficiency in supply was happened.
In this case, crops may suffer from water stress (Binoy et al., 2013).

Delivery performance ratio (DPR)

For computation of DPR, two important data were utilized such as actual and intended
discharge (Bos et al., 1994). The actual discharge was computed by using equation 3.3
and the intended discharge was obtained from feasibility/design report of the Allawuha
irrigation project. Accordingly DPR computed using equation 2.6 for each off take point
on the head, middle and tail reach of the system. When the DPR value equal to or close
to 100, water supply in the main DPR
canal is
value is less as i
than one, there was problems related to water scarcity and sediment deposits.

38
 Equity ratio for head to tail (ERHT)

ERHT focused on the equity of water distribution for head and tail reach of a system.
This indicator can assist to identify water supply and to address problems between the
head and tail. The ratio was computes using equation 2.7.

3.4.3.2 Maintenance indicators

Water surface elevation ratio (WSER):

Water surface elevation ratio indicator provides to predict the impact of sedimentation
and erosion problems on the physical irrigation system. This inspection was made at the
head middle and tail reach of the main canal. WSER was computed using equation 2.8.

Effectiveness of infrastructure (EI)

The assessment of the effectiveness of infrastructure was focused on the physical

structures in irrigation system components including the spillway and weir. Under this
parameter, the level of maintenance requirement of the system was assessed in two sub
sections; the first one was by computing the ratio of actually functional structures and
total number of structures initially installed. The second one was based on the ratio of
actual functional length to total length of main and secondary canals. The value of EI was
computed using equation 2.9.

Sustainability of irrigated area (SI)

For computing SI, the actually irrigated area was delineated and estimated using GPS and
Arc GIS. The planned command area was obtained from design document. Then, SI was
computed using equation 2.10. When the value of SI is equal and/or close to 1.00, the
irrigated area is keeping its design state. The value of SI greater than one indicates that
the expansion of irrigated (command) area.

In summary, the research procedures followed in this study are as follows:

 Flow monitoring at each off take (outlet point) for the head, middle and tail reaches by
using a 90o V-notches.
 Measuring of the actual water surface elevation (flow depth) at different measurement
location on the main canals.
 Field assessment and observation was involved to identify functional and non-functional
structures in the system.
 Organizing all secondary data and documented them for computation of indicators.

39
 Evaluation actual irrigation supply versus demand.
 Computing performance indicators such as water delivery and maintenance.
 Finally, the existing hydraulic performance of the scheme was investigated, and then
recommends acceptable mitigation measures that would enhance irrigation service, water
delivery and sustainability.
Figure 3.4 shows a basic conceptual framework of this research.

Data collection

Primary data Secondary data

Field measurements Additional primary data's Data's from concerned office

 Flow measurements.  Field observation and  Metrological data's
 Water surface elevations survey  Agronomic data's
in the main canal.  Design documents

Understand the overall existing

operational activities with respect to
water delivery and maintenance practice
of the scheme

 Data Analysis  Contrasting irrigation

 Performance criteria water demand with
and indicators supply
 Interpretation of results

The current level of overall system

performance was evaluate and
identified
 Identify the
performance gaps
 Analysis the gap for
improvement
 Select best options

Recommend and Suggesting overall

remedial measures

Inputs Process Out put

Figure 3.4: Conceptual frame work

40
4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Irrigation water demand versus supply
The results of this assessment have been discussed in the following three subsections:
First computation of the amount of water supplied into the off take (outlet points) during
the monitoring period (March, April and May), Second estimation of irrigation water
demand at the off takes in which the command area served, and Third, comparison of the
actual irrigation water supply with demand on the system.

4.1.1 Irrigation water supply

Based on the delivery schedule, the amount of irrigation water supplies to each out let (off
take) on the system over three months (beginning in March to June, 2016) was estimated.
Monthly irrigation water supplies to the system were determined as average monthly
supplies for each successive month (Table 4.1). The average monthly maximum irrigation
water supply was observed in secondary supply canal one (SotP1), which was 540m3.
However, the minimum was 396m3, which was observed at SotP5. The observed values of
irrigation water supply into each outlet on the system are summarized below in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: Average monthly irrigation water supply at each off takes the system (m3).

Name of supply canals (secondary off take points)

Months Total
SotP1 SotP 2 SotP 3 SotP 4 SotP 5
March 540 504 468 530 432 2484
April 468 432 396 504 324 2124
May 576 468 540 504 432 2520
Average 540 468 468 504 396 2376
Total 1584 1404 1404 1548 1188 7200

Note; SotP is secondary off take point in supply canals; i number of SotP from 1 to 5.

As shown in Table 4.1, from the total supply, about 34.84% was contributed by irrigation
water during the month of March; it was a maximum at SotP1 and minimum was at SotP5.
In April, 29.50% of total supply water was observed, in this month the maximum of
23.7% and a minimum of 15.25% was observed at SotP 4 and SotP5 respectively. During
the month of May, about 35.35% of water was contributed by irrigation. In this month,
the minimum water was delivery into the outlet point of SotP5; it was about 6.1% of the
total supply, whereas a maximum of 7.58% water supply was contributed by irrigation
water at SotP 1.

41
The overall average monthly water supply contributed for irrigation in to each supply
canal (outlet points) on the system during the monitoring period was about 7200m3 (Table
4.1). The highest value of irrigation water supply was observed in May. In this month
currently happening rainfall was the main case to excess diversion at the intake in to the
system. However, in April, minimum irrigation water supply was observed resulting from
high monthly evaporation demand, deficiency of rainfall and illegal water withdrawal.
This shows that seasonal irrigation water supply varies both spatially and temporally.
Therefore, meteorological parameters such as rainfall, humidity, temperature, e.t.c., poor
management and absence of effective water delivery plan in the system affect the amount
of irrigation water supply.

4.2.1 Irrigation Water Requirements

4.2.1.1 Reference Evapotranspiration (ETO)

The ETO of all months in the study area was ranging from 3.29 to 5.06 mm/day. This
indicates that meteorological parameters are varies from month to month (from relatively
dry to relatively wet year). The values in Figure 4.1, shows that ETO was lowest during
the peak of the rainy season (half of June to August) and highest during the peak of the
dry season (January to June and half of September to December). This is in agreement
with Adeniran et al., (2010), and Jehanger et al., (2004). This is because of large amount
of rainfall falling in wet season and no rainfalls happened during peak dry season.

Eto, mm/ day Rainfall, mm/day

8
7
ETo & rainfall, mm/d

6
5
4
3
2
1
0

Figure 4.1: Rain fall and reference evapotranspiration of the study area.

42
This greater ETO values (extends from January to June) was happening because of non-
availability of sufficient amount of rainwater and higher atmospheric evaporative
demand. For instance, rainfall is too low to meet the water requirement of the crop, and
hence irrigation is necessary to grow crops safely. Therefore it decided that, the higher
ETO and low rainfall values show irrigation water demand by the crops is very high. The
detail of ETO and PE values for each month are presented in Appendix I; Table 7.1.

4.2.1.2 Crop water requirement

The crop water requirement (CWR) of individual crop was estimated for one irrigation
season (from January to June, 2016) using CROPWAT 8.0 software program. The
planting dates were staggered over two months (during January and February) for five
different crops. The results are summarized below in Table 4.2;

Table 4.2: Total monthly crop water requirement of five cultivated crops in the scheme

CWR (mm)
Months Average
Maize Mango Tomato Sugarcane Sorghum
January 27.8 62.9 18.7 34.2 10.4 30.80
February 93.2 100.0 68.3 53.2 47.7 72.48
March 168.1 125.5 129.1 119.7 128.7 134.22
April 140.3 127.4 162.5 167.9 140.5 147.72
May 23.3 146.8 173.1 189.4 97 125.92
June 0 150.1 74.4 185.5 0 82.00
Total 452.7 712.7 626.1 749.9 424.3 593.14
As illustrated in Table 4.2, the average monthly crop water requirement (CWR, mm) for
five consecutive months (from January to June) has been fluctuating ; higher from March
to May (it ranged from 629.6 to 738.6) and relatively minimum in January and February
(varies from 154 to 362.4). The result displays that the crop water requirement is very
high during the dry season and low during wet (rainy) season. Therefore crops grown in
the dry season need more water than those grown during the rainy season. This is similar
to the Adeniran et al. (2010), and Jehanger et al. (2004) report.

The total water requirement in the study area ranged from 424.3 to 749.9 mm during the
growing season (Table 4.2). The lowest water requirement of the irrigated area is
recorded for sorghum, which is 424.3 mm and the higher requirement for sugarcane, it
was 749.9 mm. This indicates that the crop water requirement is higher for crops with
longer growing seasons than for those with shorter ones and vice versa. This is agreed by
Surendran et al. (2015).

43
4. 2.1.3 Irrigation water demand

The monthly irrigation water demand in the scheme (in m3) was estimated only for one
irrigation season of cropping pattern (from January to June, 2016). The effective rainfall
is derived from observed rainfall, according to USDA S.C method. Therefore irrigation
water requirement was calculated from the difference between total water requirement
and effective rainfall. Irrigation water demand (IWD) on the system was estimated based
on the off take requirement, (the secondary off take in which the command area is
served). The CROPWAT model simulated results are summarized below in Table 4.3.

Table 4.3: Monthly irrigation water demand at each off take off take points (m3).

Location January February Mar April May June Total

SotP1 144 396 432 864 936 576 3348
SotP2 72 252 252 540 576 360 2052
SotP3 108 288 288 612 684 396 2376
SotP4 72 216 252 504 540 324 1908
SotP5 144 360 396 828 864 540 3132
Total 540 1512 1620 3348 3564 2196
Average 108 288 324 669.6 720 432
As evident from Table 4.3, results shows that average irrigation water requirement during
the season was varying from 108 to 669.6m3. The highest irrigation water requirement
was recorded from March to May, whereas the lowest was January and February. It
happened due to the atmospheric evapotranspiration demand was varies from month to
month.

Among the secondary off take (outlet) points, the highest irrigation water demand was
observed at SotP1, which was found to be 3348m3 and the lowest demand was observed
SotP4, which was found to be 1908 (Table 4.3). It was happening because of outlet point
four having a small command area compared to the first outlet point. The result is similar
with Ullah (1998) who reported that, the crop water demand was low when cultivable
command area is small.

At outlet point one, the lowest irrigation requirement was observed in the month of
January (144 m3) and the highest was in the month of May (936m3). Similarly, at outlet
point four, the lowest irrigation requirement was observed in the month of January, which
was found to be 72m3 and the highest was in the month of May, which was 540 m3 (Table
4.3). This indicates there is a difference in water requirement even within a single district
for the different period and hence it displays the significance and necessity of scientific

44
planning for irrigation. It occurred due to atmospheric evaporative demand varies from
month to month and the greater size of irrigated command also differs from off take to off
take.

4.3.1 Evaluation of irrigation water supply versus demand

The comparisons between monthly actual irrigation water supply and demand have been
discussed in the preceding sections and presented graphically (Figures 4.2a and 4.2b). In
Figures 4.2a, IS represents actual irrigation water supply, ID is the irrigation water
demand and SotP is secondary off take point.

March April May

1000
ID Vs IS, m3

500

0
ID, IS ID IS ID IS ID, IS, ID IS
SotP1 SotP2 SotP3 SotP4 SotP5
Secondary outlet point

Figure 4.2a Irrigation water demand and supply on the system

This comparison of IS and ID in the system has been considered only for three
monitoring periods, beginning from March to May; in its circumstance of either deficit in
demand or excess of supply. The result in exceed and deficit is shown in Figure 4.2b.

March April May

70
60
50
% of excess and

40
30
20
10
0
SotP1 SotP2 SotP3 SotP4 SotP5
Secondary outlet points

Figure 4.2b: Irrigation water supply versus demand

45
As can be seen from the results presented in Figure 4.2a, in March the actual irrigation
water supply to all sampled outlets points (secondary off take location) was in excess of
the requirements. In this month, supply in first secondary off take (SotP1) was 540m3 and
demand was 432m3 (Figure 4.2a). Thus at SotP1 the actual supply was exceeded the crop
water demand by 25 percent (Figure 4.2b). The supply in the second outlet point or off
take (SotP2) was 504m3, but demand was 252m3. Hence at SotP2 the actual supply was
exceeded the crop water demand by 58.3 percent. Similarly, the actual supply was
exceeded the crop water demand by 41, 75 and 16 percent at SotP3, SotP4 and SotP5
respectively. These oversupply could result in the crop suffer from water logging.

April was a month in which demands exceeding supply at all secondary outlets. Irrigation
water demand at the first off taking location (SotP1) was 864m3, but the actual supply was
468m3 (Figure 4.2a). Thus, at this outlet (SotP1) crop water demand was exceeding the
actual supply by 45.8 percent (Figure 4.2b). Likewise, the crop water demand was
exceeding the actual supply by 20, 35.29, 6.67 and 55 percent at SotP2, SotP3, SotP4 and
SotP5 respectively. This shows that, a shortage of water is advanced in this month and
such an undersupply could result in the crop suffer from water stress. Water shortages
resulted from inadequate regulation and losses through seepage, and consumptive use by
the weeds.

In May, average irrigation water supply to the sample outlets of off take points was in
shortage of the requirements, except SotP 4. Irrigation water demand at the first secondary
off take or outlet (SotP1) was 936m3, but the actual supply was 576m3. Thus at this out let
(SotP1) crop water demand was exceeding the actual supply the by 38.46 percent. The
same thing, the crop water demand was exceeding the actual supply by 18.75, 21.05 and
40 percent at SotP2, SotP3, and SotP5 respectively (Figure 4.2b). However, the supply on
fourth secondary off take (SotP4) was 504m3 and the demand was 468m3 (Figure 4.2a).
Hence at this outlet (SotP4) the actual supply was exceeded the crop water demand by
7.14 percent.

4.3.1.1 Overall comparison

During the investigation period actual water supply was 60.47% more than irrigation
water demand in March, such an oversupply could result in water logging in the
command area. However, irrigation water demand was 35.16 percent more than supply in
April and 25.53 percent more than actual water supply in May. In April and May, high

46
temperature and less rainfall may be attributed to raising irrigation water demand. As a
result of this, farmers had left major proportions of the cultivable area as fallow. The
secondary outlet SotP1 and SotP2 were located along the head of the main canal. Hence
SotP2 is attributed to lesser water demand here and had a large command area; whereas
outlet SotP1 had a small command and supply here exceeded the crop water demand. As
with other outlets, high water demanding crops (sugarcane, maize, mango e.t.c) and fairly
high cultivable areas restricted adequate water supply to fulfill the crop water demands.
The results achieved from this study is similar from the result of Iqbal (1995) and Ullah
(1998), Authors reported that high water demanding crop and large cultivable areas limits
supply of water sufficient to fulfill the crops water demands.

4.2 Assessment of water delivery performance

4.2.1. Spatial water delivery performance indicators

The water delivery performance of the existing canals was computed for spatial and
temporal performance indicators. The spatial average values of the performance
indicators for water delivery canals in a single season were discussed in the following sub
contents. The spatial water delivery indicators include adequacy, efficiency, and equity.

4.2.1.1 Adequacy (PA)

Adequacy of spatial performance indicators is spatially averaged values of the canal at

each off takes, for three months. As can be seen from the results presented in Figure 4.3,
the spatial adequacy level of the system were relativel

Spatial, PA
1
0.8
0.6
∑ 𝑃𝐴

0.4
𝑅

0.2
0
March April May
Month

Figure 4.3: Average spatial fact of adequacy in the system.

47
The spatial average values of PA were found to be 0.89, 0.43 and 0.45 in March, April
and May respectively. In contrast, the highest PA value was found in March and the
lowest PA value was found in April. According to ranges of water delivery performance
standards given by Molden & Gats (1990), water delivery performance of the canal in
relation to adequacy was fair in the month of March; however it was poor during April
and May. This shows that, the amount of water supplied in the canal during the month of
March was relatively satisfactory. However, irrigation water supply was not enough to
fulfill the requirement of the crop during April and May. It occurs due to the fact that,
during the month of April and May, water scarcity and atmospheric evaporative demand
is high. Therefore, the actual irrigation water supply was insufficient to fulfill the
requirement. However, irrigation water supply is proportional to the requirement in
March.

4.2.1.2 Efficiency (PE)

Efficiency is useful to enable comparison of different management strategies for a

particular system, since efficiency shows to foresee how the water resource would be
conserved. Efficiency of water delivery was assessed both temporal and spatial variations.
A spatial value of efficiency indicator is spatially averaged values of water delivery
performance of supply canal for different months.

As can be shown the result, Figure 4.4, the spatial efficiency level of the system was very
high, ranging from 0.92 to 1.00.

Spatial, PF

0.95
∑ F
𝑅

0.9

0.85
March April May
Month

Figure 4.4: Spatial efficiency of water delivery in the system.

48
The spatial average values of PF were found to be 0.93 in March and 1.00 during April
and May. According to the ranges of water delivery performance standards (Molden &
Gats, 1990), these values indicated that, efficiency was good throughout the investigation
period. These results show that, at times when higher irrigation water requirement, the
amount of delivered irrigation water was used more efficiently by the irrigators/farmers.
Therefore, spatial efficiency levels of the system are rated as good in all months.

4.2.1.3 Equity (PE)

Equity is the spatial coefficient of variation of the water delivery performance indicator.
Equity of water distribution was calculated as the coefficient of variation of the adequacy
values between locations. The degree of spatial variation of water delivery performance
for all off take locations over 3 months is presented in Figure 4.5.

Spatial, PE
0.3
0.25
0.2
)
𝑄𝐷
𝑄𝑅

0.15
𝐶𝑉𝑅(

0.1
0.05
0
March April May
Month

Figure 4.5: The degree of spatial equity of water delivery over 3 months.
As illustrated the result in Figure 4.5 equity of water distribution during March and May
was appearing in the range of fair. The value fluctuates from 0.17 to 0.23. According to
water delivery performance standards given by Molden & Gats, (1990) the spatial
distribution of water in the canal during the month of March and May was fair. Therefore,
it concluded that, in these months, the spatial coefficient of variation of adequacy
between the off takes is fair. In April, the PE value was found to be 0.26, and then it was
rated as poor. This shows that, when those supplies were free, some of the canals received
more than their needs and some received less.

49
The average value of overall equity of the delivery system in the canals was found to be
0.22 (Table 4.4). The value displays that relatively, the equity of water distribution
(spatial coefficient of variation of adequacy) is fair over the system (Molden & Gats,
1990). The values of spatial coefficient of variation at each out let locations were
presented below in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Average equity of water distribution in the system, PE.

Months Head Middle Tail Mean Stdv. CV,EP

BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5
March 0.714 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.727 0.888 0.153 0.17
April 0.351 0.514 0.445 0.541 0.280 0.426 0.110 0.26
May 0.363 0.563 0.444 0.552 0.339 0.452 0.104 0.23
Overall,
PE 0.22

4.2.2 Temporal values of water delivery performance indicators

The temporal values of performance indicators are time-based performance indicators that
show the water delivery performance of canals in the system. Temporal values of water
delivery performance indicators were evaluated for adequacy, efficiency and
dependability.

4.2.2.1 Adequacy (PA)

A temporal value of the adequacy, performance indicator was assessed for all off take and
reach of the system (head, middle, tail) in a single irrigation season (March-May, 2016).
The result of temporal value of adequacy is presented below in Figure 4.6.

Fig. 4.6a; Temporal, PA for Fig. 4.6b; Temporal, PA for

0.8 system canals
0.7
0.6 0.6
0.5
∑ 𝑃𝐴

0.4 0.4
0.3
𝑇

0.2 0.2
0.1
0 0
Head Middle Tail BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5
Locations of the reach Branched/secondary off takes

Figure 4.6: Average temporal fact of adequacy for each off takes and locations

50
As can be seen from the results presented in Figure 4.6a, temporal PA value at the head
reaches of the system was found to be 0.58. However, temporal PA value at the middle
and tail reach off take locations were found to be 0.66 and 0.45 respectively. According to
ranges of water delivery performance standards given by Molden & Gats (1990),
adequacy of water delivery performance at the head, middle and tail reach of the system
was classed as poor. This shows that supply during the monitoring period at the head,
middle and tail reaches of the system is insufficient to fulfill the requirements of the crop.

As shown in Figure 4.6b, temporal PA value was ranging from 0.48 to 0.69. Individually,
values at BR1, BR2, BR3, BR4 and BR5 were found to be 0.48, 0.69, 0.63, 0.70 and 0.45
respectively. The highest PA values were found in the secondary canal two (BR2), BR3
and BR4, whereas the lowest value was observed at BR2 and BR5. According to water
delivery performance standards (Molden & Gats (1990), adequacy of water delivery
performance was poor at all secondary off takes (outlet points). Therefore, it perceived
that, in all outlets, irrigation water supply is not carried out well in accord with the
demand in the different monitoring periods. This situation has occurred due to poor
management, water scarcity, absence of a water delivery plan and inadequate flow
regulation.

In general, the overall adequacy, value of the system is found to be 0.56 (Table 4.5).
Therefore, water delivery performance in the supply canal for the entire command during
the irrigation season (January to June 2016) was found to be poor (Molden & Gats
(1990). The tabulated results of spatial and temporal average values of the adequacy in
the scheme system are summarized below in Table 4.5.

Table 4.5: Average adequacy of water distribution in the system, PA

Head Middle Tail Spatial,

Months
BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 PA
March 0.714 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.727 0.89
April 0.351 0.514 0.445 0.541 0.280 0.43
May 0.363 0.563 0.444 0.552 0.339 0.45
Temporal
average 0.48 0.69 0.63 0.70 0.45 0.56
Average,
PA 0.58 0.66 0.45 0.56

51
4.2.2.2 Efficiency (PF)

A temporal value of efficiency, performance indicator was assessed for each off take
locations and reach of the system for a single irrigation season. The tabulated results of
temporal value of efficiency for each outlet point at the head, middle and tail reaches are
presented below in Figure 4.7.

Fig. 4.7a; Temporal, PF Fig. 4.7b; Temporal, PF at each

1.000
off takes
1.000
0.990
0.980
0.980
0.960
∑ PF

0.970
0.960 0.940
𝑇

0.950 0.920
0.940 0.900
Head Middle Tail BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5
Locations of the reaches off take points

Figure 4.7: Temporal efficiency of water delivery in the system.

As shown from the results presented in Figure 4.7a, temporal PF value at the head, middle
and tail reach reaches of the system was found to be 0.97, 0.96 and 1.00 respectively.
According to these values, water delivery performance of the canals was good for the
head, middle and tail reaches of the system (Molden & Gats (1990). It is derived from the
fact that, farmers are used supplied water more efficiently at the head and tail reach of the
system, compared to the middle one.

The temporal PF values at all outlet points are very high and its values ranging from 0.94
to 1.0. Independently, the PF value at outlet point one (BR1), two (BR2), three (BR3), four
(BR4) and five (BR5) were found to be 1.0, 0.94, 0.98, 0.95 and 1.0 respectively (Figure
4.7b). According to water delivery performance standards (Molden & Gats (1990), all of
water delivery canals are achieving a good performance. This shows that, even though in
adequate supply existed, at the time of supply, irrigators of the entire area use the water
more efficiently.

The overall temporal efficiency value of the system is found to be 0.96; therefore
efficiency of the system during irrigation season for the entire command is appears to be

52
good. The tabulated results of spatial and temporal mean values of efficiency in the
scheme system are summarized below, in Table 4.6.

Table 4.6: Average spatial and temporal values of efficiency, PF.

Head Middle Tail Spatial

Months
BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 (PF)
March 1.000 0.831 0.949 0.845 1.000 0.93
April 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00
May 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.00
Temporal, PF 1.000 0.944 0.983 0.948 1.000 0.96
Average, PF 0.97 0.96 1.000 0.96
4.2.2.3 Dependability (PD)

Dependability indicates the degree of temporal variability of water delivery. It is the ratio
of the amount of water delivered to require over a time. The value of dependability is
presented graphically below in Figure 4.8. The Figure clearly shows the temporal
coefficient of variation of water delivery (degree of reliability) at each outlet as well as
head, middle and tail reaches of the system.

Fig. 4.8a; temporal, PD at the Fig. 4.8b; temporal,PD on

three reach each BR off take points
0.600 0.600
0.500
0.400 0.400
)

0.300
𝑄𝐷
𝑄𝑅
𝐶𝑉𝑇(

0.200 0.200
0.100
0.000 0.000
Head Middle Tail BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5
Locations in the system Off take points

Figure 4.8: Dependability of water delivery in the system.

As can be seen from the results presented in Figure 4.8a, the average values of PD
(temporal coefficient of variation) at the head, middle and tail reach of a system are
ranging from 0.41 to 0.44. The temporal coefficient of variation was 0.41 at the head,
0.44 at the middle and 0.54 at the tail of the system. According to water delivery
performance standards given by Molden & Gats (1990), the reliability of flow was poor at
the head, middle and tail reaches of the system. Therefore, it is concluded that, high
temporal coefficient of variation in supply was observed on the system.
53
The average values of PD at the first branch canal (BR1), (BR2), (BR3), (BR4), (BR5) were
0.43, 0.39, 0.51, 0.38 and 0.54 respectively (Figure 4.8b). These values indicate that,
water delivery performance of all branched (secondary) canals was rated as poor. During
the monitoring period, the highest PD value was observed on the last outlet point and the
lowest at fourth outlet. This shows that water is not supplied to the canals at the right
times, which was happening due to the absence of well-organized water delivery plan and
insufficient water supply and inadequate flow regulators.

The overall average dependability of the flow in the system was found to be 0.47 (Table
4.7). This indicates that, the time of irrigation water supply has been inconsistent
throughout the investigation period and then the flow is unreliable. The results of
temporal coefficient of variation (PD) of water distribution over the investigation period
are given below, in Table 4.7.

Table 4.7: Average dependability of water distribution, PD.

Head Middle Tail Overall

Months
BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5 PD
March 0.714 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.727
April 0.351 0.514 0.445 0.541 0.280
May 0.363 0.563 0.444 0.552 0.339
Mean 0.476 0.692 0.630 0.698 0.449
Stdv. 0.206 0.268 0.321 0.262 0.243
0.43 0.39 0.51 0.38 0.54
Cv, PD
0.41 0.44 0.54 0.47

4.2.3 Overall water delivery performance indicators

The average values of water delivery performance indicators over three months in a
single irrigation season are summarized in Table 4.8.

Table 4.8: Overall average water delivery performance values of irrigation canals.

Parameters of water deliver

Adequacy Efficiency Dependability Equity
performance (PA) (PF) (PD) (PE)

Values of these indicators 0.56 0.96 0.47 0.22

As per the Table 4.8, the overall PA and PF values were found to be 0.56 and 0.96
respectively. The PD and PE values were also greater than zero, which is 0.47 and 0.22
respectively. According to the performance standard developed by Molden and Gate
(1990) the water delivery performance of the canals was poor in terms of the adequacy,

54
and dependability. This occurred due to two important reasons such as water scarcity and
inadequate flow regulators. However, it was good and fair in terms of efficiency and
equity respectively. This indicates that, even if water deliveries were inadequate and
unreliable (variable from month to month), farmers effectively used the supplied water
irrigation water. Water shortages resulted from inadequate regulation and losses through
seepage, overtopping and consumptive use by the weeds.

4.2.4 Deficiency (D)

The average value of temporal deficit at the head, middle and tail reach was 0.14, 0.20
and 0.28 respectively (Table 4.9). According to these values, higher temporal deficit was
observed at the middle and tail reach and the lowest deficit at the head reach of the
system. This shows that, the amount of irrigation water supply was relatively low and
cannot fulfill the requirement of the crop at the middle and tail reach than the head. The
results of spatial and temporal average value of deficiency are presented below, in Table
4.9.

Table 4.9: Average value of spatial and temporal deficiency, D.

Head Middle Tail

Months Spatial, D
BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5
March 0.02 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.02
April 0.28 0.20 0.30 0.156 0.514 0.29
May 0.08 0.26 0.420 0.28 0.254 0.26
0.13 0.15 0.24 0.17 0.28 0.18
Temporal, D 0.14 0.20 0.28
As per Table 4.9, the temporal averaged values of deficiency at the secondary outlet
points was ranges from 0.13 (13%) to 0.28 (28%). The higher deficit was observed at
outlet points five and the lowest was at outlet points one. These values indicate that,
secondary canal outlet point five was suffering from a high temporal deficit than outlet
point one. It was happening because of two important factors such as illegal abstraction of
water by the head reach users from the canal and the outlet points where found in the
middle and tail reaches having a higher command area, it is in agreement with Ullah
(1998). Therefore, it is concluded that, the existing irrigation water supply in the system
cannot satisfy the requirement from head to tail.

As can be shown the result in Table 4.9, spatial average values of deficiency were found
to be 0.02, 0.29 and 0.26 in March, April and May respectively. According to these
values, relatively no spatial deficit was observed in March. However, a spatial deficit has
55
been observed in April and May. Therefore, it is concluded that, a spatial deficit was the
worst during April and May, due to the fact that water scarcity, low rainfall and higher
evapotranspiration demand of crops in these months. It is agreed by Iqbal (1995) and
Ullah (1998), Authors reported that high water demanding crop in large cultivable areas
limits the supply sufficient to fulfill the crops water need. Generally, the overall
deficiency value is found to be 0.18 or 18 percent (Table, 4.9). Therefore it directs that,
both spatial and temporal deficit in supply was existed in the scheme.

4.2.5 Delivery performance ratio (DPR)

The delivery performance ratio (DPR) is the ratio of actual discharge to allowed
(maximum design or intended) discharge. The delivery performance ratio for each
secondary outlet (off take point) was determined using equation 2.6, and the results are
presented in Table 4.10.

Table 4.10: Average value of delivery performance ratio, PDR.

Locations Head Middle Tail
off take point BR1 BR2 BR3 BR4 BR5
DPR,m3/s 0.82 0.90 0.99 0.53 0.59
DPR,% 81.89 90.10 99.1 53.65 59.31
Average DPR 0.86 0.77 0.59
Average DPR, % 86.00 77.00 59.00
The value of delivery performance ratio (DPR) at the head, middle and tail reach of the
system was ranges from 0.59 to 0.86. The highest DPR value was found at the head reach
of the system which was 86 percent and the lowest at the tail reach which was 59 percent
(Table 4.10). These results show that the actual discharge in the main canal was remains
about 86 and 59 percent of the intended at the head and tail reach of the system
respectively. Therefore, it concluded that secondary canals at the head and tail reaches
were lost about 14 and 51percent of design discharge respectively. It was happening due
to the fact that high water losses and unscheduled abstraction from main canals through
the use of channels and plastic pipe.

Generally, the overall delivery performance ratio (DPR) of the system is found to be 0.74.
This result indicates that the main canal achieved only 74 percent of design discharge.
But the remaining of 26 percent of the design discharge in the main canal was reduced
from the intended/designed. This occurred due to the following two important reasons;
accumulation of sediments inside the main canal and poor routine (day-to-day
maintenance).

56
4.2.6 Equity ratio for head to tail (ERHT)
The Equity ratio for head to tail (ERHT) describes an equity concept in terms of the
spatial variations of management delivery ratio (MDR). It provides the equity of water
delivery among the distributaries with special focus on head and tail reach. ERHT was
calculated using equation (2.7), and the result is presented below in Table 4.11.

Table 4.11: Equity ratio for head and tail (ERHT (MDR)) reach of the system.

Head Tail
Location EHTR
BR1 BR2 BR5
(MDR)
Months MDR MDR MDR
March 0.714 1.000 0.727 2.36
April 0.351 0.514 0.280 3.10
May 0.363 0.563 0.339 2.73
Over all,
ERHT (MDR) 2.73
As per Table 4.11, the value of ERHT during the monitoring period was ranging from
2.36 to 3.10. All the values of ERHT in the table are greater than 1.3 it indicates that the
management delivery ratio at the head reach of the system is higher than the tail reach.
Based on the range of performance indicators presented in table 2.2, ERHT value
obtained here is rated as poor. Therefore, the head delivery systems receive more water
than the tail in all months.

Generally, the overall average value of ERHT is found to be 2.73, so the performance of
the system is found to be poor with respect to ERHT (MDR). This resulted from absence
of adequate flow regulation and high water losses through seepage. This was get worse by
unscheduled abstraction from main canals through the use of channels with no design
specifications.

4.3 Assessment of maintenance requirement

4.3.2.1 Water surface elevations ratio (WSER)
This parameter (WSER) was focused on different sections of the main canal. It was
computed by taking the actual water depth from the canal bottom on different
measurement points in each individual inspection location and comparing it with the
design water depth at the same position in the main canal. The result would help to
predict the impact of sedimentation, weeds and erosion problem on the main canal. The
results are given in Table 4.12.

57
 Table 4.12: Average water surface elevation ratio (WSER) of the main canal.

Sites Head Middle Tail Over all

Dev. Dev. Dev. Dev.

WSE WSER WSE WSER WSE WSER WSE WSER

Average 0.17 0.82 0.17 0.8 0.23 0.72 0.19 0.78

Note: the result is based on mean level measurement of water depth at FSL on various
main canal sections and all measurements are in meter unit. Dev. WSE is deviation of
water surface elevation.

As per the design document the intended water level depth in the main canal from the
bottom was 0.9 m at the head reach and 0.8 m at the middle and tail reach of the system
with a discharge capacity of 270 l/s at Full supply level (FSL). The current average water
level depth at FSL was found to be 0.68 m (Appendix V, Table 7.8). Hence, the overall
average WSER was found to be 0.78 (Table 4.12). This result shows that the main canal
was attained about 78 percent of WSE at FSL and flow depth in the main canal was
reduced by 22 percent from the intended or designed. This arises due to two main factors;
growing of weed and accumulation of sediments inside the main canal.

According to the value of WSER, the head, middle and tail reaches of the main canal
during the monitoring period is generally less than one (Table 4.12). This shows a
probability of increasing canal bad level due to siltation and weed incidence in a canal.
Therefore routine maintenance of the main canal is required. The detail of water surface
elevation measurement at different location (the head middle and tail) of main canal is
presented in Appendix V, Table 7.8.

4.3.2.2 Effectiveness of infrastructures (EI)

According to the design document, total numbers of structures initial installed in the
scheme were 64, however only 18 structures are currently functional (Appendix VI; Table
7.9 and 10). Therefore, the value of effectiveness of infrastructure is found to be 28.13
percent. This value indicates that more than 71.87 percent of initially installed structures
were nonfunctional and the physical irrigation infrastructure in this system has
deteriorated over time. It was happing because of absence of regular maintenance of the
irrigation system components.

58
The physical states of canal length inspection with regard to the canal operating condition
also estimated using equation (2.9) and presented below in Table 4.13.

Table 4.13: Effectiveness of infrastructure (EI) for the main and secondary canal.
Nearly Nearly
Total length Operative Inoperative
Location operative inoperative
of canal (m) (%) (%)
(%) (%)
Main canal 1500 28.6 46.1 17.8 7.93
Branched canals 282 60.99 23.0 10.63 5.37
As per Table 4.13, EI of the main canal section is found to be operative, nearly operative,
nearly inoperative and inoperative with the corresponding value of 28.6, 46.1, 17.8 and
7.93 percent respectively. Similarly, branch (secondary) canal with 60.99, 23.0, 10.63 and
5.37 percent are operative, nearly operative, nearly inoperative and inoperative
respectively. Almost the higher percentage of the main and secondary canal length was
found to be operative and nearly operative. This indicates that the performance of water
the canals has been reduced over the period and the tail reach users were suffering from a
shortage of water distribution. This call for irrigation system performance is poor and
maintenance is very crucial. The detail of the physical condition of canal length
inspection (both for Main and secondary canals) is presented in Appendix VI, Table 7.10.

4.3.2.3 Sustainability of irrigated area (SI)

This indicator empowered to investigate the alterations or change in area actually
irrigated against the planned in terms of ratio and provide valid reasons for such variation
(Raghava, et al., 2011). As per the design document, the intended command area that a
scheme could potentially irrigate was about 302.64 ha. However the actual irrigated area
in a cropping season is 296 hectare (Appendix IV, Table 7.7). Hence, SI is found to be
97.8 percent using equation (2.10). This indicates that the actual irrigated area in a
cropping season was above 97.8 percent of the design/intended command area. Therefore,
irrigated area of the scheme was reduced only by 2.19 percent compared with the
previous (planned). This result shows that the inability of the scheme water supplied to
the irrigated area and inadequate maintenance activity is not limiting factors for poor
system performance. It implies that this parameter will be not intensifying the
maintenance requirements of the system. This result was agreed by Mekonen and
Mamuye (2015) who reported that, reductions in command area from the intended are not
due to the inability of the scheme water supplied to the farm and lacking of maintenance
activity.

59
4.3 Identification of the gap and suggestion of the remedial measure

4.3.1 Irrigation water supply with demand

As per the result in this study, mismatching between irrigation water demand and supply
has been occurring. Irrigation water supply was observed in shortage of the requirement
in some portion of secondary outlet point, whereas in excess of the requirement in other
portions. This problem occurred due to two main important reasons such as; water
scarcity and inappropriate delivery schedules. However, some of improvement options to
mitigate this problem are discussed below;
4.3.1.1 Improving timeliness and spatial variation

The problem of time the mismatch between supply and demand may be solved by
providing auxiliary storage at the head of the watercourse and allowing for intra seasonal
variations in water delivery schedules. However, the variation at each outlet point may be
solved by applying gated division systems at each outlet; it is possible to allocate short-
term changes in demand. Systems with gated cross-regulators provide a larger potential to
manage for short-term changes in space than those with little or no cross-regulation
capacity (Murray-Rust, D.H. & W.B. Snellen, 1993).

4.3.1.2 Optimal crop plan development

In principle, crops are cultivated in irrigated commands based on available water resource
and maximum economic return (crop having higher yield). However, due the absence of
an optimal crop plan for existing available water and cropping pattern, irrigation water
supply and demand was varies both spatially and temporally over the season. As a result
of this, crops suffering from water logging and stress respectively. In order to mitigate
this limitation, it is suggested that the size of irrigated command and cultivated crops
should be proportional to available water, in which crops achieve maximum yield.
Therefore an optimal crop plan development is essential, by considering the existing
cropping pattern and available water supply. Hence, further study should be required for
develop optimal crop plans in relation to the existing water supply.

4.3.2 Temporal and spatial variation in water delivery system

The amount of water flow into delivery canals are insufficient to fulfill the requirement of
the crop and it is varies from month to month over the season; hence water is not supplied
to the canals at the right times. The problems of inadequate and unreliable water delivery
to the system can lower water productivity and canal performance is poor, to some extent.

60
Yet, it could be mitigated by making certain modifications in the system. The detailed
description on how the intervention to be designed in order to improve this inadequacy
and unreliability of flow is mentioned below;
4.3.2.1 Improvement in reliability
It is more difficult objective to assess because it is subjective, dealing with the quality of
irrigation service rather than the quantity. As per the result, water is not released at the
right times from the source into delivery canals. However, it might be improved by
applying a gated division system in water distribution. Gated division systems have a high
potential for improving poor performance in terms of reliability (Murray-Rust, D.H. &
W.B. Snellen, 1993). Provided an insight is needed into irrigation methods of
management in order to improve the temporal uniformity of water distribution by
assessing the efficiencies of water distribution.
4.3.2.2 Improvement in adequacy

It can be managed in two ways by matching cropping plans and calendars with estimated
seasonal water availability before the start of the season, and by adjusting operational
targets in response to actual demand during the season. Therefore a gated division system
is possible to manage for adequacy more carefully. Hence, there are significant
opportunities for actual deliveries to exceed crop water requirements.

4.3.3.3 Improvement in management of delivery

Due to poor management from the head to tail, the head reach receive more water than
the tail reach of the system. Therefore, the management of water delivery should be
strongly implemented in the following two ways; understood and fix effective water
allocation plan, and applying gated division systems based on a percentage share of
available water and crop water need. Generally, poor management delivery system
between the head and tail reach has improved by implementing well organized water
management plan successfully: it might have been reducing unscheduled water
abstraction from the canals and possible to irrigate the entire service area with rotational
water distribution in the system.
4.3.3 Maintenance activities in the system

The maintenance requirements of the system are very high. As a result of sediment
accumulation and growing of weed in the main canal, flow depth has been deteriorating
from time to time, when it compared to the intended and most of the functional irrigation
infrastructure initially installed was turning into nonfunctional. It occurs due to absence

61
of frequent, regular maintenance. Towards improvement of the system performance of the
scheme, the following helpful events should be introduced;
4.3.4.1 Improvements in the physical structures
This comprehensive evaluation indicates that the need for hardware or structural
improvements was crucial. Therefore, it is recommended that the rehabilitation of the
existing structures and maintaining different components of irrigation infrastructure in the
system is a prime need in order to improve the operational aspects in irrigation water
delivery system. Generally, to improve problems related to water delivery, efforts in
physical modernization of the system is very essential.
4.3.4.2 Control canal sedimentation;
Due to the accumulated sediments and growing of weeds in the main and secondary
canals, including intake and off take, the amount of irrigation water supply have been in
sufficient to fulfill the requirement. Therefore it recommended that, the following two
improvement options should be applied to mitigate this problem; (1) the farmers must
have apply routine maintenance (sediment and weed removal from intake and canals), (2)
introduced sediment management options such as; locate intake at the outside of the canal
bend, limit flows entering into the canal with flow regulating structure, provide a simple
sediment sluice and make provision for rising command levels etc.

62
5 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 Conclusions
According to the result, irrigation water supply to all secondary outlet point was observed
in excess of the requirement March. However, the demand exceeded supply in April and
May, which was maximum in May and minimum in March. During the monitoring
period, the highest amount of irrigation water supply was observed in the first and fourth
outlet point, even though the lowest supply recorded at the outlet point two, three and
five. Yet, irrigation water demand was very high at the outlet point one and five than the
reaming outlets. Therefore it is decided that, irrigation water supply varies both spatially
and temporally. Some of the outlet points have been getting the discharge in excess of the
requirement, whereas in deficit of the requirement in the remaining outlet points

The spatial and temporal delivery performances of indicators were computed for each
outlet point and head, middle and tail reach during the monitoring period. As per the
result, water delivery performance of the system was rated as good in terms of efficiency.
However the performance of the canals was assessed as poor in terms of dependability
and adequacy, but it was fair in terms of equity. From this result, it decided that, even if,
supply in the canals is insufficient and unreliable, farmers were used more effectively and
irrigators conserve more water.

Similarly, the overall values of deficiency, and delivery performance ratio, and equity
ratio for head to tail indicates that, both a spatial and temporal deficit has been observed
and crops suffer from water shortage during the season. The average value of the delivery
performance ratio indicates that, 74 percent of discharges were getting in the main canal
and about 26 percent of the discharge has been reduced from the design. The overall
value of the equity ratio for head to tail under management, delivery ratio was greater
than 1.3, this shows that the management of delivery from head to tail reach was poor and
head delivery systems receive more water than the tail during the investigation period.

Performance of the scheme in relation to maintenance has been generally poor. On

average, the main canal water surface elevation has been reduced by twenty two percent
from the intended. A number of the structures are affected by sedimentation, weed
growth, flooding, erosion, problems. Therefore the numbers of functional structures
initially installed has been becoming nonfunctional. The command areas of the irrigation

63
scheme are reduced compared to initially planned command area. These all parameters of
maintenance performance indicators call for maintenance in the scheme is very curtail.

Generally, poor performance of the irrigation system is due to the following factors such
as unreliable water deliveries, poorly control and distribution system, inflexible irrigation
planning, varied cropping pattern, lack of supportive training for irrigation water
application and management, inadequate frequent maintenance, sediment accumulation,
improper operation of water delivery system, and malfunctioning of flow control
structures. Therefore, the result focuses to the government and other stakeholders in
identifying suitable improvement approaches.

5.2 Recommendations
Based on the results of the study, the following recommendations are put forward to
improve the performance of the scheme.

 Applying proper water distribution plan in the system, providing water storage
structures (auxiliary storage) and applying a gated division system in the canals
might be vital for improving no proportional irrigation water supply and demand
among outlets consistently.

 Scarcity of water is one of the constraints to fulfill the requirements of crop water
need. So to mitigate this problem, planting crops of having less water requirement
and use ground water source for irrigation to supplement insufficient supply from
the river.

 A flow measuring device at the sluice (Parshall flume) and measuring weirs
should be installed at every off-take to improve the operational capabilities of the
systems. It could be important for attaining equitable distribution of water from
head to tail reaches.
 The canal requires continuous action to keep them free from weeds and reducing
the deposition of silt by taking corrective actions i.e. continuous removal of
sedimentation, preventing large logs and debris entering to the canal, constructing
soil water conservation structure across the canal and canal bank protection. So,
the government, the scheme WUAs and farmers should be working together.
 Rehabilitation for various irrigation system components is needed including
replacement of void structures, weed and silt clearance in the canals, repair of
canal sluice gates and head regulators.
64
 Water User Association of the scheme is not well-organized. So, reforming or
giving training to them is essential for ensuring healthier water management, fair
distributing of irrigation water, resolving conflicts among users in the irrigation
scheme.

65
6. REFERENCE
Abernethy, C. (1986). Performance measurement in canal water management. Journal of
International Irrigation Management Institute ODI, 86 (2d), p 1-25.
Adeniran, K.A., Amodu, M.F., Amodu, M.O., & Adeniji, F.A. (2010). Water
requirements of some selected crops in Kampe dam irrigation project. Journal of
Agricultural Engineering, 1 (4); 119-125.
Aksara, P. & Pasin, S. (2015). Water requirements and irrigation scheduling of ban khai
irrigation project using GIS and CropWat model in rayong province Thailand.
International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage 26th. Euro-mediterranean
Regional Conference and Workshops «Innovate to improve Irrigation performances».
Arunkumar, R., & Ambujam, N.K. (2010). Performance assessment of canal irrigation
system, the Indian society for hydraulics Institute. Journal of hydraulic engineering,
16 (SP.I), Mumbai, India, p 147.
Awulachew, S.B., Merrey, D.J., Kamara, A.B., Van Koppen, B., Penning, de Vries F.,
Boelee, E., and Makombe, G. (2005). Experiences and opportunities for promoting
small scale/micro irrigation and rainwater harvesting for food security in Ethiopia.
IWMI. (Working paper 98). Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Awulachew, S. B. (2010). Irrigation potential in Ethiopia. Constraints and opportunities
for enhancing the system. International Water Management Institute.
Bandara, K. (2006). Assessing irrigation performance by using remote sensing.
Unpublished doctoral thesis, Wageningen University, The Netherlands.
Bhutta, M., and E.J. VenderVelde. (1992). Equity of water distribution along secondary
canal in Punjab, Pakistan. Irrigation & Drainage System, 6:161-171.
Binoy, M. A., Varghese, S., and Paul, K. (2013). Paul Irrigation system assessment
farmers and managers view. International Journal of Engineering Science and
Innovative Technology (IJESIT), 2, Issue 2, Kothamangalam, Indian, p 148-159.
Burt, C.M. and Styles, S.W. (2004). Conceptualizing irrigation project modernization
through benchmarking and the rapid appraisal process. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage, 53(2),John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., p 145-154.
Bos, M. G. (1989). Discharge measurement structures, 3rd ed. International Institute for
Land Reclamation and Improvement, 20, Wageningen. The Netherlands, p 96-402.
Bos, M.G., Wolters, W., Drovandi, A., and Morabito, J.A. (1991). The Viejo Retamo
Secondary Canal. Performance Evaluation Case Study, Mendoza, Argentina.
Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 5; 77–88.
Bos, M.G., Murray-Rust, D.H., Merry, D.J., Johnson, H.G. and Snellen, W.B. (1993).
Methodologies for assessing performance of irrigation and drainage management,
The Netherlands.
Bos, M.G., Murray-Rust, D.H., Merry, D.J., Johnson, H.G., and Snellen, W.B. (1994).
Methodologies for assessing performance of irrigation and drainage management.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage system, p 231-261.
Bos, M. G. (1997). Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage. Journal of
Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 11(2); Kluwer, Dordrecht, p 119-137.

66
Bos, M.G., Burton, M.A, and Molden, D. J. (2005). Irrigation and drainage performance
assessment practical guidelines. Journal of Centre for Advanced Biomedical
Imaging, 22; Wallingford, UK, p 28-59.
Burt, C. (2002). Rapid appraisal process and benchmarking: explanation and tools,
accessed on 4/2/2010, from http://www.watercontrol.orgools.com.
Cakmak, B., Beyribey, M., Yildırım, , and Kodal, S.Y.E.
(2004). Benchmarking
performance of irrigation schemes: a case study from Turkey. Journal of Irrigation
and Drainage,
Clemmens, A.J. and Bos, M.G. (1990). Statistical methods for irrigation system water
delivery performance evaluation, International Institute of Land Reclamation, 6700
A. Journals of Irrigation and Drainage System. Kluwer Academic, Wageningen, the
Netherlands, p 345-365.
Clemmens, A. J., Wahl, T.L., Bos, M.G., and Replogle, J.A. (2001). Water measurement
with flume and weir. International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement
(IRLI), 58, Wageningen, the Netherland; ISBN 90-70754-55-X.
Clemmens, A.J. (2006). Improving irrigated agriculture performance through an
understanding of the water delivery process. Irrigation and Drainage 55: 223–234.
DOI:10.1002/ird.236.
Essafi, B. (1995). Farm water management. Soil and Erosion hazard of North wollo.
Environmental support project comment comment-2.management, Socio-economic
and environmental aspects. Comp. Adana, p 1-28.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (1974). Soil Map of the World 1:5000000, I.
Legend, UNESCO, Paris.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (1997). Irrigation technology transfer in
support of food security. Proceeding of a sub-regional workshop, Water report 14,
Harare, Zimbabwe.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (1998). Crop evapotranspiration: Guidelines
for computing crop water requirements. FAO irrigation and drainage paper, 56;
Rome, Italy.
Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) (2009). CropWat 8.0 for windows user
guide. Rome, Italy.
Ghumman, A. R., Khan, M. Z., Khan, G. D., and Khattak, M. K., (2007). Assessment of
supply and Irrigation demand for dagai distributary of the maira branch of upper
swat canal irrigation system. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, Vol. 23, No.
Gorantiwar, S.D, and Smout, I.K, 2005. Performance assessment of irrigation water
management of heterogeneous irrigation scheme; 1. A. framework for evaluation,
Irrigation and Drainage system, 19 (1), PP 1-36.
Greaves, K. (2007). Quantifying and benchmarking irrigation scheme performance with
water balances and performance indicators. Unpublished master thesis, University of
KwaZulu Natal.
Griffiths, B. and Lecler, L. (2001). Irrigation system evaluation procedures of the South
African Sugar Technologists Association, p 58-67.
Halsema, G. Van., T. Sarwar, and M. Z. Khan (1997). Water supply and crop water
requirements in selected units of Pabbi and Sheikh Yousaf Minors. In Murray-Rust,
67
 D. Hammond et al. (eds) water management in NWFP. Department of Water
Management, NWFP Agric. Univ. and Wageningen Univ. 247-259.
Hamdy, A. (2007). Irrigation management transfer: monitoring and evaluation concepts
and approaches, 4th. Presented on Asian Regional Conference & 10thInternational
Seminar on Participatory Irrigation Management, Tehran, Iran.
Haque, M. A., Najim, M.M., and Lee, T.S. (2004). ModelingIrrigation Water Delivery
Schedule for Rice Cultivation in East Coast Malaysia.Tropical Agricultural Research
Vol.16: 204-213 (2004).
Harris, D.N. (2006). Water management in public irrigation schemes in Vietnam.
Impact Assessment Series Report No. 43,. ISSN 1832-1879.
Hess, T. (2005). Crop Water Requirements, Water and Agriculture, Water for
Agriculture, WCA info NET, http:// silsoe.cranfield.ac.uk/iwe/dailyet.htm.
Hussain, C.A. (1980). Water management factors commission on Irrigation and Drainage.
12 th Congress. pp 395-437.
Iqbal, M.Z. (1995). To assess the Water Supply and Demand for Pabbi minor at Pabbi for
Rabi season. (Unpublished) M.Sc. (Hons) Thesis. Dept: of Water Management,
N.W.F.P Agriculture University Peshawar.
Jahromi, S. D., and Feyen, J. (2000). Water Delivery Performance in the Doroodzan
Irrigation Scheme, Iran. Irrigation and Drainage system, Volume 14, Issue 3; pp
207–222.
Jehanger, W.A., Turral, H., and Masih, I., (2004). Water Productivity of Rice Crop in
Irrigated Areas. Proceedings of the 4th International Crop Science Congress,
Brisbane, Australia, http:/www.cropscience.org.au.
Jusoh, R., Ibrahim, D. N., & Zainuddin, Y. (2008). The performance consequence of
multiple performance measures usage: Evidence from the Malaysian manufacturers.
International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 57 (2), p 119-
136.
Khan, M.Z., M.K. Khattak M.J. Khan and M. Asrar (2005). Comparison of supply and
demand for the Rabi season at tertiary level in the command of Jui Sheikh
Canal Irrigation System. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 21(3): 417-423.
Kloezen, W. H. and Garces-Restrepo, C. (1998). Assessing irrigation performance with
comparative indicators: the case of Alto Rio Lerma irrigation district, Mexico,
research report 22. Journal of IWMI, Colombo, Sri Lanka, accessed on 12/11/2014,
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu.
Korkmaz, N, A., Unal, H. B., and Gunduz, S. M. (2009). Evaluation of the Water
Delivery Performance of the Menemen Left Bank Irrigation System Using Variables
Measured On-Site. Journal of irrigation and drainage engineering, 2009, 135(5): 633-
642.
Korkmaz, N., and Avci, M. (2012). Evaluation of water delivery and irrigation
performances at field level: the case of the Menemen Left Bank irrigation district in
Turkey. Indian Journal of Science and Technology. Vol. 5 No. 2, ISSN: 0974- 6846.
Kuscu, H., Boluktepe, F.E., & Demir, A.O. (2009). Performance assessment for irrigation
water management: A case study in Karacabey Irrigation Scheme in Turkey. African
Journal of Agricultural Research. 4(2), p 124 -132.

68
Leton, R and Baily, C. (1984). A Management tool for the Gezira Irrigation scheme. In
Fadl O.A.and Bailey C. eds., Water Distribution in Sudanese Irrigated Agriculture
Productivity and Equity. Workshop. Univ. of Gezira and Ford Foundation.
Makadho, J. (1994). An analysis of water management performance in smallholder
irrigation schemes. PhD thesis, University of Zimbabwe Harare.
Malano, H., and Burton, M. (2001). Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the
irrigation and drainage Sector. International program for research in irrigation and
drainage and FAO, Rome, Italy.
Mamuye, T., and Mekonen, A. (2015). Hydraulic Performance Evaluation of Hare
Community Managed Irrigation Scheme, Southern, Ethiopia. International Research
Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). Volume: 02 Issue: 08 | Nov-2015.
Mishra, A., Adhikary, A.K., Mohanty, R.K., Anand, P.S., Ghosh, S., Panda, S.N., and
Kumar, A. (2010). Performance enhancement of a minor irrigation system
through secondary storage and multiple use management. Research Bulletin, 49,
directorate of water management (Indian Council of Agricultural Research),
Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar-751023, India, p 38.
Mohsen, A., Kiamura, Y., and Shimizu, K. (2012). Assessment of irrigation practices at
main irrigation network in the Nile Delta. International Journal of
Biological, Veterinary, Agricultural and Food Engineering, 16 (9), World
Academy of Science, Engineering and Technology, p 1-8.
Molden, D.J., and Gates, T.L. (1990). Performance measure of irrigation water delivery
systems. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 116(6): 804-823.
Molden, D. J., Sakthivadivel, R., Perry, C. J. and Charlotte, F. (1998). Indicators for
comparing performance of irrigated agricultural systems. Research Report 20,
International Water Management Institute publication, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Molden, D. J. (1998). Indicators for comparing performance of irrigated agricultural
systems. Research Report 20, International Water Management Institute publication
publications, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
Molden, D., Burton, M. and Bos, M.G. (2007). Performance assessment, irrigation
service delivery and poverty reduction: benefits of improved system management.
Irrigation and Drainage 56: 307-320.
Murray-Rust, D. H. and Snellen, W. B. (1993). Irrigation system performance assessment
and diagnosis. Journal of IIMI, ILRI, IHE, International Irrigation Management
Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka 20 + 148 pp.
Murray Rust, D.H. and Halsema, G.E. (1998). Effect of construction defect on hydraulic
performance of Kalpani distributary, NWFP, Pakistan. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage System. 12(4): 323-339.
Nalbantoglu, G. and Cakmak, B. (2007). Akin
kars¸ilas¸ tirmalidegerlendirilmesi. Tarım Bilim
isi, 13 (3), p 213–223.
Ortega, J.F., Juan J.A., Tarjuelo, J.M. (2005). Improving water management: The
irrigation advisory service of Castilla-La Mancha (Spain). Agricultural Water
Management, 77; 37–58.
Paul, J. M. V. (1996). Irrigation_and_Drainage_System_Management lecture not.
HH356/98/11.

69
Raghava, S. R., Venkateswarao, B., and Sreekanth, S. (2011). Modernization of an
existing irrigation project by performance evaluation using performance indicators.
International Journal of Mathematics and Engineering, 141, India, p 1273-1292.
Renault, D. & Wahaj, R. (2005). Performance Indicators of Irrigation Service. Rome,
Italy: FAO NRLW; 1–16.
Renault, D., Facon, T., &Wahaj, R. (2007). Modernizing irrigation management –the
MASSCOTE approach. Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the
United Nations.
Rey, J., Murray-Rust, D.H. and Sally, H. (1993). Improving irrigation management using
decision support systems. A framework and review of IIMI's experience Irrigation
Management.
Robel, L. (2005). Assessment of design practices and design performance of small scale
irrigation structures in Southern region. MSc. Thesis, Arba Minch University,
Ethiopia.
Sagardoy, J.A., Bottrall, A., and Uittenbgaard, G. O. (1986). Organization, operation and
maintenance of irrigation schemes. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 40, FAO,
Rome.
Samad, M. and Vermillion, D. (1998). Assessment of participatory management of
irrigation schemes in srilanka: partial reforms, partial benefits. Paper presented
at the annual conference of International Association for the Study of Common
Property, Vancouver, Canada.
Seckler, D., Sampth, R. K., and Raheja, S.K. (1988). An index for measuring
performance of irrigation management systems with an application. Water Resources
Bullet, 24 (4): 855-860.
Seid, S. (2012). Performances of diversion structures for small scale irrigation
schemes in Amhara region; Msc thesis.
Shafique (1991). Water and yield distribution performance of the Rahad irrigation
scheme. International Irrigation Management Institute.
Shafique, M. S. (1993). Performance of the Gezira canals. An internal review program,
International Irrigation Management Institute, Sudan, Colombo, Sir Lanka.
Singh, S.R. (1998). “Peoples
managed irrigation systems in partnership mode- status and
method for performance evaluation”. Proce
management for sustnable agriculture-problems and perspectives for the 21st
Century, IARI, New Delhi, pp.427 - 439.
Singh H.P., Sharma M.R., Quamrul, H., and Naved, A. (2013). Performance Evaluation
of Irrigation Projects - A Case Study of Lift Irrigation Scheme Sirsa Manjholi in
Solan area of Shivalik Himalayas. Asian J. of Adv. Basic Sci.: 1(1), 79-86ISSN
(Online): 2347 –4114. www.ajabs.org.
Styles, S.W., and Marino, M.A. (2002). Water delivery service as a determinant of
irrigation project performance. Irrigation Training and Research Center (ITRC) –
www.itrc.org. ITRC Paper No. P02-007.
Surendran U., Sushanth C.M., Mammen, G., and Joseph, E.J. (2015). Modeling the crop
water requirement using FAO-CROPWAT and assessment of water resources for
sustainable water resource management: A case study in Palakkad district of humid

70
 tropical Kerala, India. International conference on water resources, coastal and ocean
engineering, Aquatic Procedia 4; 1211 –1219.
Tariq J.A. and M.J. Kakar. (2010). Effect of variability of discharges on equity of water
distribution among outlets. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 26(1): 51-59.
Tariq, J. A. and Kakar, M. J. (2004). Irrigation system performance monitoring as
diagnostic tool to operation: Case study of Shahibala minor of Warsak Gravity canal.
Journal of Water Resources, 8 (I); Pakistan, p 13-22.
Ullah, E I., Khan, H., and Khan, S.A. (1998). An assessment of the crop water demand
and irrigation water supply at Pabbi minor of warsak gravity canal.
Unal, H.B., & Asik, M. M. (2003). Performance of water delivery system at tertiary canal
level: a case study of the Menemen Left bank irrigation system, Gudiz Basin, Turky.
Journal of Agricultural water management institute, 65; p 155-171.
Upadhyaya, A., Sikka, A. K., Singh, A. K., and Kumar, J. (2009). Performance evaluation
of Patna main canal command. Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR),
research complex for Eastern WALMI, Patna, India, p 1-16.
Vermillion, D. L., Samad, M., Pusposutardjo, S., Arif, S.S., and Rochdyanto, S. (1999).
An assessment of the small scale irrigation management turnover program in
Indonesia. International Water Management Institute, Research Report 38, Colombo,
Sri Lanka.
W.H. Nam, E.M. Hong, and J.Y. Choi (2016). Assessment of water delivery efficiency in
irrigation canals using performance indicators. Irrig. Sci. 34:129–143, DOI
10.1007/s00271-016-0488-6.
Yesuf, K. (2004). Assessment of small-scale irrigation using comparative performance
indicators on two selected schemes in upper Awash River valley. A thesis submitted
to the school of graduate studies. Alemaya University.
Zeleke, A., Bart, S., and Laszlo H. (2015). Water delivery performance at Metahara large-
scale irrigation scheme, Ethiopia. Irrig. and Drain.64: 479–490 (2015). Published
online 16 May 2015 in Wiley Online Library (wileyonlinelibrary.com)DOI:
10.1002/ird.1917.

71
7. APPENDIX
Appendix I: Climate and crop data of the study area.
Table 7.1 Monthly average climate data for determining CWR/IWR in in Allawoha
irrigation scheme (1998-2014).

Country; Ethiopia Station; Kobbo Class 1

Altitude: 1420m Longitude: 39.63 o E Latitude: 12.16 o N

Min Max Hum Eff

Month Temp Temp idity Wind Sun Rad ETo Rain rain
°C °C % km/day hours MJ/m²/day mm/day mm mm
January 11.1 26.5 68 94 6.9 17.2 3.39 35.96 37.4
February 11.6 28.1 61 112 7.7 19.6 4.02 37.76 39.2
March 12.8 28.8 59 112 8.4 21.8 4.51 71.02 69
April 11.8 30.5 59 94 8.1 21.5 4.59 97.09 89.3
May 13 31.3 48 123 7.9 16.7 5.12 87.2 81.9
June 12.8 32.6 41 129 7.1 19.8 5.34 25.17 26.7
July 18.4 29.3 60 118 4.9 16.7 4.09 197.8 143
August 17.7 28.6 64 94 6.0 18.6 4.03 230.1 151
September 17.4 28.3 64 76 5.6 17.7 3.77 76.42 73.4
October 12.6 28.2 60 71 8.1 20.5 3.97 42.25 43.5
November 11.5 27.3 59 71 8.0 18.9 3.53 42.25 43.5
December 10.6 27.3 60 100 7.8 17.9 3.53 21.58 23.1
Average 13.4 28.9 59 99 7.2 19.4 4.16 80.39 68.4
Source: Methodological Agency, Kombolcha Sub Branch
Table 7.2 Agronomic data for each sub command area of dominant crops in the area
during irrigation season, 2016
Crop Planting Harvesting Total length Cropped Area
type Date Date of Days (ha) (%)
th
Maize February May 17 125 187 61.82
13th
Mango January 6th January 6th 365 6 1.98
Tomato January 23th June 16th 145 45 14.88
Sugarcane January 13th January 12th 360 14.5 4.79
sorghum February 5th July 19th 125 22 7.27
Total 302.5 100
Source: Derogibir agriculture and rural development office and NWADD report, March
2016

72
Appendix II: Soil dates of Allawuha irrigation scheme.
Table 7.3, Soil moisture content in the study area

Sample Sample soil Soil Soil % of soil Available Total

area depth wet dry moisture soil available
(cm) weight weight content moisture soil
(gm) (gm) (wt basis) (mm) moisture
(mm)
Plot 1 0-30 157.2 117.7 33.6 37.39
30-60 157.2 120.5 25.5 35.17 72.56
Plot 2 0-30 139.9 107.1 30.6 40.31
30-60 151.5 129.1 17.4 28.31 68.62
Plot 3 0-30 147.4 115.3 27.8 33.34
30-60 145.5 114.1 27.5 10.97 44.31
Ave. 149.78 117.3 27.07 30.92 61.83
Source: Allawuha irrigation project design document report, 2005/2013.
Note; From Allawuha irrigation project design document, report, 2005/2013; the average
textural composition of soil particles over the field; sand, silt and clay are 52, 75 and 23%
respectively, therefore the soil type is sandy loam (soil triangle); the average value
available soil moisture (mm/meter) was 103.05 mm/m, Maximum and minimum
infiltration rate of the soil is 21.5 and 29.3 mm/ day respectively, and irrigation efficiency
of 39%, Soil moisture content (wt basis) is computed by subtracting Soil dry weight (gm)
from Soil wet weight (gm) then divided by Soil dry weight.

Appendix III: Actual observed and required discharge in the off taking locations.
Table 7.4 the required, continuous flow at each secondary off take location, l/s/h

Months Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec
Req.
dis.(l/s/ha) 0.05 0.14 0.15 0.31 0.33 0.2 0.07 0.03 0.26 0.32 0.22 0.17
Table 7.5 the required discharges at each secondary off take location, m3/s
Com.
Loca area
tion Jan Feb Mar Apri May June July Auje Sept Oct Nov Dec (ha)
SofP1 0.004 0.011 0.012 0.024 0.026 0.016 0.006 0.002 0.02 0.025 0.017 0.013 75.6
SofP2 0.002 0.007 0.007 0.015 0.016 0.010 0.003 0.001 0.013 0.016 0.011 0.008 45.0
SofP3 0.003 0.008 0.008 0.017 0.019 0.011 0.004 0.002 0.015 0.018 0.012 0.01 56.4
SofP4 0.002 0.006 0.007 0.014 0.015 0.009 0.003 0.001 0.012 0.014 0.01 0.008 44.0
SofP5 0.004 0.01 0.011 0.023 0.024 0.015 0.005 0.002 0.019 0.023 0.016 0.012 75.0
Total 0.015 0.042 0.045 0.094 0.100 0.061 0.021 0.009 0.079 0.097 0.067 0.051 296.0
Where, Bc is the off take point cross to branched canals at which the flow measurement
are takes place in the main canal; i is 1, 2….5
73
 Table 7.6 the actual measured/monitored discharges at each off taking location
Location March April May
SofP1 0.016 0.014 0.014 0.016 0.015 0.015 0.014 0.015 0.016 0.016 0.017 0.017
SofP2 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.016 0.013 0.015 0.013 0.013 0.016 0.016 0.014 0.017
SofP3 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.016 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.014 0.016 0.014 0.015
SofP4 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.015 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.014 0.013 0.015 0.015 0.015
SofP5 0.013 0.015 0.013 0.015 0.011 0.012 0.011 0.011 0.014 0.015 0.014 0.014
Source: observed discharge from the off takes
Where, SotP is the off take point in secondary canals at which the flow measurement are
takes place; i is 1, 2….5.
Appendix IV: The Design discharge and dimensions of components of the main canal.
Project Location; Allawuha SSI; Canal type: Rectangular
Table7.7 Dimensions of components of the main canal
Length Depth Width Flow Design Operating Free Command
(km) (m) (m) depth discharge time per board area
at FSL (liter per day (m) (ha)
(m) second) (hour)
1.5 1 1.2 0.9 720 8 0.3 302.64
Source: Allawuha irrigation project design document report, 2005/2013
Appendix V: Dates of water surface elevation and flow depth in the main canal.
Table 7.8 Water surface elevation measurement at different location
(The head middle and tail) part of main canal
Head Middle Tail
IW Ch. Ch. Ch. Dev.
Lo. SE Le AW Dev. WS Lo.2. IW Le AW Dev. WS Lo.3. IW Le AW WS WS
No (m) (m) SE WSE ER No SE (m) SE WSE ER No SE (m) SE E ER
L1 0.9 10 0.85 0.05 0.94 L11 0.85 560 0.69 0.16 0.81 L21 0.85 1110 0.68 0.17 0.80

L2 0.9 30 0.78 0.12 0.86 L1 2 0.85 580 0.7 0.15 0.82 L22 0.85 1130 0.68 0.17 0.80
L3 0.9 60 0.74 0.16 0.82 L1 3 0.85 610 0.68 0.17 0.80 L23 0.85 1160 0.67 0.18 0.78
L4 0.9 100 0.74 0.16 0.82 L14 0.85 650 0.72 0.13 0.84 L24 0.85 1200 0.65 0.2 0.76
L5 0.9 150 0.73 0.17 0.81 L15 0.85 700 0.68 0.17 0.80 L25 0.85 1250 0.66 0.19 0.77
L6 0.9 210 0.72 0.18 0.80 L16 0.85 760 0.7 0.15 0.82 L26 0.85 1310 0.63 0.22 0.74
L7 0.9 280 0.72 0.18 0.80 L1 7 0.85 830 0.66 0.19 0.77 L27 0.85 1380 0.58 0.27 0.68
L8 0.9 360 0.71 0.19 0.78 L1 8 0.85 910 0.66 0.19 0.77 L28 0.85 1460 0.55 0.3 0.64
L9 0.9 450 0.68 0.22 0.75 L19 0.85 1000 0.66 0.19 0.77 L29 0.85 1480 0.55 0.3 0.64
L 10 0.9 550 0.68 0.22 0.75 L 20 0.85 1100 0.68 0.17 0.80 L30 0.85 1500 0.51 0.34 0.60
Aver. 0.74 0.17 0.82 0.68 0.17 0.80 0.62 0.23 0.72
Max. 0.85 0.22 0.94 0.72 0.19 0.85 0.68 0.34 0.80
Min. 0.68 0.05 0.76 0.66 0.13 0.78 0.51 0.17 0.60

Where, L is location at which measurement was taken; IWSA is intended or designed

Water Surface Elevation; AWSE is Actual Water Surface Elevation; Ch.le is chain length
for different lengths of location; Dev. WSE is deviation of water surface elevation;

74
WSER is water surface elevation ratio and Ave, max and min are average, maximum and
minimum value respectively.

Note; Deviation of water surface elevation was obtained by subtracting the actual water
surface elevation from the intended water surface elevation and water surface elevation
ratio were calculated by using equation (3.16)

Appendix VI: Condition of irrigation structures in Allawuha irrigation scheme.

Table 7.9 Conditions of irrigation structures in the scheme
Status of existing structures in number
Types of structure Installed Operative Nearly operative In operative
Drop structure and tertiary
off takes 32 8 15 9
Division box 23 2 4 17
Main canal off take gate 1 … 2 3
Flume on main 1 1 … …
Off take structure at
secondary canal 5 4 1 …
Diversion weir 1 1 … …
Spill way gate 1 1 … …
In take gate 1 1 … …
Total 64 18 22 29
Effectiveness of
infrastructure (%) 28.13 31.9 42.0
Source: Allawuha irrigation project design document report, 2005/2013 and field
measurement.
Table 7.10 Physical condition of canal length inspection (Main and Branched canals)
Total Nearly
Operative Nearly Inoperative
Location length of inoperative
length operative length
canal (m) (m)
Main canal 1500 423 691 267 199
Branched canals 282 172 65 30 15
BR1 74 38 22 9 5
Head
BR2 67 36 14 17 10
BR3 39 37 2 - -
Middle
BR4 54 31 19 4 -
Tail BR5 48 40 8 - -
% of EI for main canal 28.2 46.1 17.8 7.93
% of EI for branched canal 60.99 23.0 10.63 5.32
Note: operative structure means that the structure can currently perform its basic design,
function and displays no signs of losing its' capacity around a year, a nearly operative

75
structure is one that is reflected likely to become functional, but incapable to achieve
its full basic function about a year, whereas, inoperative structure found that any was
unable to perform its basic function at the time of the investigation.

Appendix VII: Definition and sketch of a 90o V-notch weir overflow.

A weir is a structure placed across a channel which raises the upstream water level and
may be used to measure the flow rate. A range of measuring weirs was developed (Darcy
and Bazin 1865, Bos 1976, Ackers et al., 1978). The V-notch thin-plate weir, also called
triangular weir, has an overflow edge in the form of an isosceles triangle. The triangular-
notch, thin-plate weir is used widely for measuring the flow of liquids in flumes and open
channels. Simple in design and easily made from readily available materials, it is
inexpensive, convenient to use, and easy to maintain.

V-notch weirs are suitable for a wide range of open channel flows from 0.0082 cfs to
about 13.7 cfs (0.00023 to 0.38m3/s). V-notch weirs are very accurate at flows of 1 cfs or
less. Depending on the situation and location, V-notch weirs are an inexpensive method
for measuring small flows. See figure 7.1, above, for proper proportions. triangular-notch
weirs be used instead of rectangular weirs when the range of discharges to be
measured.

a b c

d 90 degree h

d+p

Figure 7.1 Sketch of a 90o V-notch weir overflow

Table 7.11 Dimensions of 90o measuring V notch (m)

a b c B p d+p
0.3 0.6 0.3 1.2 0.7 1.0

76
Appendix VIII: Guidelines for calculation of crop water requirements.
Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) is the evapotranspiration from disease-free, well fertilized
crops, grown in large fields, under optimum soil water conditions, and achieving full
production under the given climatic conditions (Allen et al., 1998). Crop water
requirement may simply be defined as the amount of water required by a crop for its
development and maturity. Although crop evapotranspiration can be calculated from
climatic data and by integrating directly the crop resistance, albedo and air resistance
factors, better the Penman-Monteith method is used for the estimation of the standard
reference crop and be used to determine crop evapotranspiration.

ETc = Kc ETO …………………………………………………………………… (X

I.1)

Where, Kc is crop coefficient and ETO is reference evapotranspiration (mm or mm/day).

Kc, the ratio ETc/ETo can be experimentally determined.

Reference evapotranspiration (ETO) is the rate of evapotranspiration from a reference

crop (green grass) with a height of 8-15 cm, actively growing, completely shading the
ground, and no short of water (Allen et al., 1998). The FAO Penman Monteith method is
selected as the method by which the ETO can be unambiguously determined, and the
method which provides consistent ETO values in all regions and climates. The modified
Penman-Monteith equation reads as:

( n ) (es ea)
o
( )

Where; ETO reference evapotranspiration [mm day-1], Rn net radiation at the crop
surface [MJ m-2day-1], G soil heat flux density [MJ m-2day-1], T mean daily air
temperature at 2 m height [°C] u2 wind speed at 2 m height [m s-1], es saturation vapour
pressure [kPa] ea actual vapour pressure [kPa] es- ea saturation vapour pressure deficit
[kPa], Δ slope v curve [kPa °C-1], g psychro metric constant [kPa °C-1].
apour pressure

FAO CROPWAT model, which was used for determination of crop water requirements in
this study, was uses the Modified Penman-Monteith equation. ETO is only dependent on
climatic parameters. Meteorological data required for calculation of ETO include solar
radiation, temperature, relative humidity, wind speed.

77