MPIEIP Report1 IrriWatch v02

Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Efficiency
Improvement Project (MPIEIP)
Component 1: Hystorical Analysis & Benchmarking of the

entire Kundalia Irrigation Project (KIP)
IrriWatch Progress Report #1

September 2021
1
MPIEIP – IrriWatch Report # 1: Historical Analysis & Benchmarking
1. Introduction
1.1 Project Objectives
The objective of this project is to support the Kundalia Irrigation Project (KIP) under the
Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Efficiency Improvement Project (MPIEIP), in which irrigation in
130,639 ha of land will be supplied through piped pressurized surface water and a pseudo on-
demand irrigation delivery. A new dam was constructed in 2018 on the Kalisindh River for
distribution of surface water resources. This KIP project proposes to irrigate 419 villages with
new micro-irrigation technologies like drip, sprinkler etc. While the project foresees in the
supply of water up to field level, farmers are expected to invest in micro-irrigation systems
(MIS) to optimize on-farm irrigation efficiency. Presently most of the land is irrigated by
groundwater from small wells. With the construction of underground pipe lines, water will be
supplied to farmer’s fields at high pressure. There is not sufficient water for every year, and
conjunctive use of groundwater in areas of groundwater potential during years with surface
water shortage is expected. The direct implication of this water resources situation is that
operational plans for water demand exceeding water supply should be in place.
In order to support the KIP project, IrriWatch will carry out the following three tasks:
1. Analysis of historic rabi season irrigation practices with identification of hotspots in
the various agro-ecological zones
2. Live testing of daily irrigation App in demo sites equipped with micro-irrigation
3. Upscaling of the mobile app technology to an area of 30,000 ha
The scope of this report is to present updates related to the first task (Component 1) with
regard to benchmarking exisiting irrigation practices and detecting evapotranspiration (ET)
and groundwater withdrawal patterns, using remote sensing data from previous rabi seasons.
2. Component 1: Historic rabi season irrigation practices

2.1 Agroecological Zones Determination
Before benchmarking the existing irrigation practices and groundwater patterns, an analysis
was done to identify different agrocecological zones (AEZ) in the KIP project. This is an
essential step for the recognition that not all soil, land and climate condions have similar
conditions and properties, hence the irrigation performance can be expected to differ along
these lines as well. Throught the introduction of AEZ’s, it becomes feasible to separate
irrigation performance indicators to physical conditions (AEZ) and water management
(anthropogenic) conditions. The AEZ classification is based on baseline remote sensing
imagery and other open-access spatial data sources. This included digital elevation model
and slopes, soil information inferred from local and open-access soil databases on texture,
organic matter content and soil bulk density. The soil water holding capacity was approximated
using pedo-transfer functions developed by IrriWatch (unpublished). Land use was also used
as well as reference evapotranspiration and rainfall data. These GIS data layers formed the
basis to discern zones with similar potential growing conditions following agreed principles of
Agro-Ecological Zoning (AEZ) in the international community.
An unsupervised classification was performed on all the GIS data layers for acquiring 5
classes, which were then combined into 3 zones (Figure 1). It is important to note that rescaling
of all paramters was done and k-mean statistical methods was used for acquiring these
clusters. The average values of the parameters used for the classification are shown in Table
1 for each AEZ. These average values appeared not to be very different. For example the
2
difference in average elevation between the AEZs is 55m, 115 mm for rainfall and 100mm for
ET0. One of the major elements affecting the clasification is the soil type, however, minor
differences were found and the majority of soil was clay to clay loam with a soil water holding
capacity difference being less than 10m/m among AEZs. This is in line to IHE technical report
on water productivity assessment (2018) that reported 92% of the soil as clay to clay loam
based on field assessment (Cai et al., 2018). Therefore, in commonly known AEZ
classifications, the three identified AEZ could be considered as only one zone.
Table 1: Average values for different GIS data layers in each AEZ
Elevation Slope Precip - wet year ET0 Soil Water Holding Capacity
(m) (%) (mm/yr) (mm/season) (mm/m)
AEZ 1 375 1.25 1,720 950 65
AEZ 2 405 1.70 1,765 1,050 57
AEZ 3 430 1.15 1,835 935 55
Figure 1: Identified AEZ for the KIP
2.2 Rainfall Analysis

The historic analysis for defining the baseline at the start of KIP operations was done for five
rabi seasons (2016 to 2020). Among these seasons we selected a dry year and a wet year for
understanding the influence of rainfall on the irrigation performance (Figure 2). Since the
duration is relatively short for assessing typical rainfall values for wet and dry years, we ran a
historical rainfall analysis fo 40 years (1981-2020) using standardized CHIRPS rainfall data.
The average rainfall across 40 years in KIP area is
3
CHIRPS rainfall data has been validated for India by several researchers and is considered
as a reliable source for long-term historical rainfall analysis (Divya and Shetty, 2021; Gupta et
al., 2019; Pandey et al., 2020, 2021; Prakash, 2019; Sandeep et al. 2021 among others).
Please note that CHIRPS rainfall covers the entire KIP land area, so the sampling and
operational data collection challenges of rain gauges are eliminated. Figure 3 below shows
the average rainfall for the 40 years and it clearly shows that 2019 was the wettest year and
2017 was among the dry years. More details about the rainfall historical analysis are presented
in Annex 1.
Figure 2: Yearly precipitation over KIP for 2016-2020 (2017 was a dry year and 2019 a wet year)
Mean Rainfall (mm/year)

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1995
1999
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1996
1997
1998
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Figure 3: Annual rainfall over KIP from 1981 to 2020 (Error bars represent + or – standard deviation of
rainfall across the KIP area)
4
Table 2 below shows that the selected wet year has a return period of about 40.8 years while
dry year has a return period of 1.4 years indicating that these years are representatives of
extreme rainfall conditions. The rainfall of 2017 occurs more or less once in four years.
Table 2: Probability of exceedance and return period for the selected wet and dry years
Mean Rainfall Probability of Return Period,

Year
(mm/year) exceedance % Tr (years)
Selected Wet Year 2019 1740 2.4% 40.8
Selected Dry Year 2017 782 73.8% 1.4
2.3. Benchmarking KIP historic irrigation practices

For benchmarking of irrigation practices, we ran the 5 years rabi season analysis at 30 m x 30
m resolution. Only the KIP project boundaries are considered in this analysis. The resulting
raster maps were aggregated to each village level for which administrative boundaries are
available. Whether a field was irrigated or not is determined by the following criteria:
 Max vegetation cover > 40%

 Relative soil moisture higher than FAO critical level
 Actual evapotranspiration (ET) from apllied water (AW) exceeding 5 mm per season
The SEBAL 4.0 model was used to calculate all parameters from the raw satellite imagery
including Actual Evapotranspiration, Transpiration, Evaporation, Applied Water, Irrigation
Efficiency, Dry Matter Production, and Water Productivity (WP). Figure 4 belows shows the
WP maps for the 5 years. Additional figures and maps can be found in Annex 2. The yearly
average values for all villages is presented in Table 3 (All data is available in monthly and
yearly time-steps for each 30m x 30m pixel and for each village). This table hows that the wet
year (2019) had more irrigated areas (92,602 ha) than 2017 (76,177 ha). Such kind of
behaviour is typically reflecting a water scarce situation. A below average rainfall in the kharif
season seems to reduce the filling of local reservoirs and has a lower recharge of the
groundwater table. As a consequence, there is simply not sufficient water available to survive
during the rabi season. The expectation is that the new reservoir is going to alleviate this
problem and makes the farmers in KIP more reslient to below average rainfall. The year 2020
is an exception which may be related to the pandemic year or start of implementing the
irrigation systems.
Table 3: Average values for all villages within KIP for the Rabi seasons. The total KIP irrigated acreage
is scheduled to become 130,639 ha
Irrigated Rabi Actual ET Applied Dry Matter WP Efficiency

Area (ha) Rainfall (mm) Water Production (kg/m3) (%)
(mm) (mm) (kg/ha)
2016 85,879 54 472 701 4,656 0.99 58.8
2017 76,177 13 385 579 3,819 1.00 63.1
2018 91,175 15 462 671 6,465 1.41 65.5
2019 92,602 78 397 580 5,908 1.51 56.7
2020 45,467 25 274 421 4,665 1.73 57.4
The actual crop water use seems inverse proportial with the irrigated area. This confirms the
hypothesis of prevailing water shortage during below-average kharif rainfall. The values of
5
Actual ET have been translated into Applied Water by means of a soil water balance.
Considerable differences can be found between years and this impacts the crop production
and food security of the region.
A crop classification has been made for the separation into perennial and non-perennial crops.
For each of these classes, the dry matter production has been computed. Following earlier
ADB studies on Water Productivity (WP), WP is estimated as the dry matter production per
unit of water consumed. Some interesting observations can be made:
 There is a considerable difference in crop production between years (3,819 to 6,465

kg/ha or 70% difference)
 There is a considerable difference in crop water use between years (274 mm to 472
mm or 73% difference)
 Production and water use have a poor correlation (R2=0.13) so there are some
complex interactions between water availability, irrigation managent, on-farm
decisions going on
 Consequently WP has a significant inter-annual variability of 0.99 to 1.73 kg/m3 and
there is scope of improvement in general and to create more stability
 The on-farm irrigation efficiency is rather similar, independent on water availability
Figure 4: Water Productivity Maps for 2016 - 2020
The same analysis was repeated for each AEZ and it was noticed that for all years
investigated, AEZ2 always had higher productivity and AEZ3 the lowest (Figure 5). AEZ 3 is
the least favorable, which can be ascribed to the lower soil water holding capacity. It makes
sense that more coarse textured soils have a lower flexibility to retain water during elongated
periods of drought. Also that they have in general a lower crop production due to restrictions
of soil fertility.
6
Figure 5: Comparison of Land productivity (DMP) and Water Productivity (WP) for the different AEZs
This historic analysis is a great opportunity to compile a review of groundwater withdrawals.

We assume here that all water resources are groundwater borne in 2016 to 2020. This is a
simplification because locally tanks with surface water resources are in place, Nevertheless it
allows a first approximation of the total volume of groundwater pumped during recent years
where many orchards have been established (Cai et al., 2018).
Excluding the abnormal year 2020, we estimate the total groundwater abstraction to range
from 441 to 611 million cubic meter during the rabi season. The average values is 548 million
m3/season. By absence of irrigation during kharif, this implies an annual groundwater
abstraction of 548 Mm3/yr with an equivalent water depth of 633 mm/yr (see Table 3). The
longer term median rainfall is 908 mm/yr (see Annex 1) and this reflects that a large part of
rainfall in recent years has been converted into groundwater abstractions. The new reservoir
and pressurized irrigation system have the intention to reduce this groundwater refill the
aquifers. This baseline survey is therefor very important for monitoring whether this is
occurring according to plan.
Table 4: Summary Groundwater Abstraction of irrigated land within KIP areas
Irrigated Area AW Total Groundwater abstraction
(ha) (mm/season) (Million m3/season)
2016 85,879 701 602
2017 76,177 579 441
2018 91,175 671 611
2019 92,602 580 537
2020 45,467 421 191
This analysis on groundwater abstraction at the one hand and the irrigation water
requirements for each village/chak at the other hand is essential for optimizing irrigation
distribution. The KIP - DSS on water requirements and conjunctive water use can use this
historic data. A detailed example for one demo famer is presented in Annex 2 and it clearly
shows the importance of for decision making. All historic IrriWatch images are available and
will be transferred to the proper institutions of MP and the contractors of KIP.
7
3. Village Selection
Another important outcome of Component 1 is related to the selection of villages for the
upscaling and testing of IrriWatch data, being important parts of Components 2 and 3. The
historical analysis described in the previous chapter allows us to selected top performing and
less performing villages. The selection of these top and lowest perfoming villages is based on
the following criteria:
• Average dry matter production (Top/bottom 25 villages)
• High difference between top and bottom villages (> 30%)  Top/bottom 25 villages
• Performance occurrence in both wet (2019) and dry (2017) years
• Proximity of villages to each other and to main roads (for easier field data collection)
These villages should be located on both Left and Right Banks of the river and they should be
present in different AEZ’s. The villages with a top performance in Land and Water Productivity
are:
 Ubhapan
 Sulipra
 Kilona
 Kherkherdi
 Pipalkhedi
The lowest performing selected were (see also Fig. 6):
 Malhargarh
 Malharapura
 Bhawanipura
 San Khedi
 Jodhpura
The villages selected are located in different AEZs (4 in AEZ1; 5 in AEZ2 and 1 in AEZ3). Be
reminded that no remarkable differences was notices between AEZs. The average values for
dry matter production, actual ET, AW and WP of the selected villages are presented in Table
5.
The villages will receive daily IrriWatch data during rabi 2021-22 and the uptake of irrigation
intelligence will be guided and monitored by the project team.
8
Low performing villages High performing Villages
Dry Year - 2017 Wet Year - 2019 Dry Year - 2017 Wet Year - 2019
1 GOTAMPURA BRAHMAN KHEDA 1 BHARUGARH Dhandheda
2 ANANDPURA JHADMAU 2 Pipalkhedi Kanthaliya
3 JODHPURA BANGPURA 3 Kilona BHARUGARH
4 Jkhali BANYABEY 4 KUMDA Soyat Khurd
5 Gagorni BANS KHEDI 5 UBHAPAN Pipalkhedi
6 Shatrukhedi MALHARAPURA 6 BHAGORA KUMDA
7 SEMLI KUNDI KHEDA 7 Dhandheda Kherkhedi
8 CHITAWALIA DEONAGAR 8 SULIPURA Kilona
9 KESARPURA Bhawanipura 9 BHAGORI UBHAPAN
10 MALHARGARH LALU KHEDI 10 KISHANPURA Digon
11 RAMGARH BORKHEDI SALOKI 11 JETPURA PIPALIA KALAN
12 LALIA KHEDI JETHLI 12 BANS KHEDI Gareli
13 TOLI GHATA GOTAMPURA 13 Digon DAGALYA
14 CHAINPURIYA Modi 14 Kherkhedi SULIPURA
15 SADALPUR Devpur 15 ADAMPURA BHAGORI
16 BHAWANIPURA JODHPURA 16 Lohariya DUPADIYA
17 GOPALPURA BHANPURA 17 Gareli Lasudaliya Kelwa
18 Sadalpur KHANKRI 18 MURJHADI MUNDLA LODHA
19 MALHARAPURA MALHARGARH 19 Rughnathpura Gudrawan
20 GUJAR KHEDI SAMELI 20 CHOKHANDA ADAMPURA
21 RUPAHEDA Guradi Soyat 21 KHEDI Manasa
22 Jamuniya SHAHWAJPURA 22 SHANKARPURA Beekapura
23 FATEHPUR RAMGARH 23 Pilwas
24 Amla Nankar SAN KHEDI 24 TEJPURA Lohariya
25 SAN KHEDI BHAWANIPURA 25 Beekapura BHAGORA
Figure 6: Selected top and lowest performing villages for scaling the irrigation performance project as part of
project Components 2 and 3. Two clusters are identified to make the field work easier to coordinate
Table 5: Average values for the top/lowest selected villages in both dry and wet years
Dry Matter Applied Water
Actual ET
Production Water Productivity
(mm/season)
(kg/ha) (mm/season) (kg/ha)
Selected Top 5 villages 5810 432 680 1.4
2017
Selected Low 5 villages 2420 304 450 0.8
Selected Top 5 villages 8066 455 700 1.8
2019
Selected Low 5 villages 4654 294 434 1.6
4. Usage of historic analysis in project components 2 and 3

Starting rabi season 2021-22, the work on components 2 and 3 of the project will start and
these include:
- Live testing of daily irrigation data in micro-irrigation system demo sites (Component
2): 4 demo sites on the Left Bank and Right Bank were selected in an earlier stage by
the various public MP agencies and the contractor. The demo sites are supposed to
have an operational micro irrgation system in place (unconfirmed at this stage). Eatch
demo farm has a number of fields and farmers. Following field visits in October /
November, a number of farmers will be asked and selected to voluntary participate in
this IrriWatch demo. One requirement is that they have a smartphone, or at least a
mobile phone that can read sms messages. The subtask foreseen include:
• Selection of farmers in the demo sites
9
• Open data portal for daily system operations
• Ground truthing of remote sensing data
• Developing localized mobile App
• Technical support for training purpose
Figure 7: Example of one of the four demo-farms selected. The demo-farms comprise various fields
and crop types
• Large scale applications of mobile app technology (Component 3): this work foresees
the upscaling of IrriWatch data to the villages specified in Section 4. Existing
organizations such as villages, cooperatives and water use associations (if there are
any) should be explored. Current communication procedures to reach out to farmers’
should be explored. The subtasks are:
• Village and farmer selection (a total area of 30,000 ha: 10 villages, 25
farmers/village): village selection was done as part of component 1. This needs
to be validated with the project team.
• Daily data provision (10 m x 10m)
• Farmers’ App for daily actions (irrigation advisory)
• Ground calibration (hours of pumping, yields, etc.)
• Compare hydrant and well operations
• MPWRD/Irrigation operators (10-day and monthly compounded irrigation
bulletins)
• Capacity building (Farmers Field Schools)
• End-of-season evaluation
5. References
Cai, Xueliang, Wim Bastiaanssen and Ram Kumar Saxena, 2018. Water
ProductivityAssessment for Improved Irrigation Performance and Water Security in the
Asia-Pacific Region: Madhya Pradesh, India, Technical report, UNESCO IHE, Delft, The
Netherlands
Divya P., Shetty A. 2021. Evaluation of CHIRPS Satellite Rainfall Datasets Over Kerala, India.
In: Narasimhan M.C., George V., Udayakumar G., Kumar A. (eds) Trends in Civil
Engineering and Challenges for Sustainability. Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering, vol 99.
Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-6828-2_49
Gupta, V., M.K. Jain, P.K. Singh, V. Singh. 2019. An assessment of global satellite-based
precipitation datasets in capturing precipitation extremes: A comparison with observed
10
precipitation dataset in India. International Journal of Climatology, 40, (8)
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6419
Pandey, V., P.K. Srivastava, R. K. Mall, F. Munoz-Arriola, and D. Han. 2020. Multi-satellite
precipitation products for meteorological drought assessment and forecasting in Central
India. Geocarto International. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2020.1801862
Pandey, V.; Srivastava, P.K.; Singh, S.K.; Petropoulos, G.P.; Mall, R.K. 2021. Drought
Identification and Trend Analysis Using Long-Term CHIRPS Satellite Precipitation Product
in Bundelkhand, India. Sustainability 13, 1042. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13031042
Prakash, S. 2019. Performance assessment of CHIRPS, MSWEP, SM2RAIN-CCI, and TMPA
precipitation products across India. Journal of Hydrology, Volume 571, Pages 50-59, ISSN
0022-1694, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.01.036.
Sandeep P., G.P. Obi Reddy, R. Jegankumar, K.C. Arun Kumar. 2021. Monitoring of
agricultural drought in semi-arid ecosystem of Peninsular India through indices derived
from time-series CHIRPS and MODIS datasets. Ecological Indicators, Volume 121,
107033, ISSN 1470-160X, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107033.
11
Annex 1: Historical Rainfall Analysis 1981 – 2020
Mean Rainfall (mm/year)

2000
1800
1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
1990
1994
2015
2019
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1991
1992
1993
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2016
2017
2018
2020
Annual rainfall over KIP from 1981 to 2020 (Error bars represent + or – standard deviation)
Rainfall maps 1981 - 2000
12
Rainfall maps 2001 - 2020
Probablity of exceedance and return periods using Weibull method
Return
Mean Rainfall Probability of
Year Rank (r) Period, Tr
(mm/year) exceedance %
(years)
2019 1740 1 2.4% 41.0
2013 1522 2 4.9% 20.5
2016 1411 3 7.3% 13.7
2006 1358 4 9.8% 10.3
2011 1249 5 12.2% 8.2
1996 1226 6 14.6% 6.8
1994 1217 7 17.1% 5.9
1983 1159 8 19.5% 5.1
2020 1125 9 22.0% 4.6
2018 1103 10 24.4% 4.1
1990 1099 11 26.8% 3.7
1986 1068 12 29.3% 3.4
13
2015 1034 13 31.7% 3.2
1988 1016 14 34.1% 2.9
1985 956 15 36.6% 2.7
1999 950 16 39.0% 2.6
2010 926 17 41.5% 2.4
2012 918 18 43.9% 2.3
2014 916 19 46.3% 2.2
1993 909 20 48.8% 2.1
2005 906 21 51.2% 2.0
2004 874 22 53.7% 1.9
2000 865 23 56.1% 1.8
1998 857 24 58.5% 1.7
1997 854 25 61.0% 1.6
1982 842 26 63.4% 1.6
2003 833 27 65.9% 1.5
2001 830 28 68.3% 1.5
1995 828 29 70.7% 1.4
2007 818 30 73.2% 1.4
1987 796 31 75.6% 1.3
2009 788 32 78.0% 1.3
2017 782 33 80.5% 1.2
1991 782 34 82.9% 1.2
2008 754 35 85.4% 1.2
1981 735 36 87.8% 1.1
1989 728 37 90.2% 1.1
1984 693 38 92.7% 1.1
2002 584 39 95.1% 1.1
1992 559 40 97.6% 1.0
Rainfall Frequency Curve (MPIEIP)

1800
y = 281.29ln(x) + 696.46
1600
R² = 0.9785
Rainfall (mm/year)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
1.0 10.0 100.0
Return Period (yrs)
14
Rainfall Probability (MPIEIP)
1800
1600
1400
Rainfall (mm/year)
1200
1000
800
y = -281.3ln(x) + 696.46
R² = 0.9785 600
400
1% 10% 100%
Probability (%)
Return Period Rainfall

(Yrs) (mm)
5 1,149
10 1,344
25 1,602
50 1,797
100 1,992
Mean Return
Probability of
Year Rainfall Period, Tr
exceedance %
(mm/year) (years)
Selected Wet Year 2019 1740 2.4% 40.8
Selected Dry Year 2017 782 73.8% 1.4
15
Annex 2: Detailed Presentation about Component 1
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41

MPIEIP Report1 IrriWatch v02

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

MPIEIP Report1 IrriWatch v02

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Madhya Pradesh Irrigation Efficiency

Improvement Project (MPIEIP)

Component 1: Hystorical Analysis & Benchmarking of the

IrriWatch Progress Report #1

2. Component 1: Historic rabi season irrigation practices

Figure 1: Identified AEZ for the KIP

2.2 Rainfall Analysis

Mean Rainfall (mm/year)

Mean Rainfall Probability of Return Period,

2.3. Benchmarking KIP historic irrigation practices

 Max vegetation cover > 40%

Irrigated Rabi Actual ET Applied Dry Matter WP Efficiency

 There is a considerable difference in crop production between years (3,819 to 6,465

Figure 4: Water Productivity Maps for 2016 - 2020

This historic analysis is a great opportunity to compile a review of groundwater withdrawals.

4. Usage of historic analysis in project components 2 and 3

Mean Rainfall (mm/year)

Rainfall maps 1981 - 2000

Probablity of exceedance and return periods using Weibull method

Rainfall Frequency Curve (MPIEIP)

Return Period Rainfall

You might also like