Content uploaded by Rajesh Kumar N.K
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rajesh Kumar N.K on Nov 30, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305259180
Appraisal of on-farm water distribution in lateral commands of upper Krishna
project, Karnataka
ArticleinEcology, Environment and Conservation · May 2016
CITATIONS
0
READS
567
6 authors, including:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Groundnut Baseline and Early-Adoption Surveys in South Asia Insights from TL-II (Phase-1) Project View project
GROUND WATER POLLUTION IN YADGIRI DISTRICT AND ITS EFFECT ON HUMAN HEALTH : AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS View project
Palanisamy Balakrishnan
University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur
11 PUBLICATIONS25 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Bheemsainrao Kishanrao Desai
46 PUBLICATIONS113 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Lokesha Huchaiah
University of Agricultural Sciences, Bangalore
54 PUBLICATIONS54 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Lokesha Huchaiah on 13 July 2016.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
1Ph.D. Scholar, 2Dean, 3 Professor and Head, 4Professor, 5Professor and Head
*Corresponding author’s email : rajeshmtechster@gmail.com
Eco. Env. & Cons. 22 (April Suppl.) : 2016; pp. (S245-S254)
Copyright@ EM International
ISSN 0971–765X
Appraisal of on-farm water distribution in lateral
commands of upper Krishna project, Karnataka
N.K. Rajeshkumar1, P. Balakrishnan2, U. Satishkumar3, B.S. Polisgowdar4, B.K. Desai5 and
H. Lokesha6
1,2,3,4Department of Soil and Water Engineering, College of Agricultural Engineering, University of
Agricultural Sciences, Raichur 584 104 (Karnataka), India
5Department of Agronomy, 6Department of Agricultural Economics, College of Agricultural
Sciences, University of Agricultural Sciences, Raichur 584 104 (Karnataka), India
(Received 9 September, 2015; accepted 22 Novemebr, 2015)
ABSTRACT
Post-independence development of irrigation in India was phenomenal, which greatly contributed for
‘green revolution’ and achieving food production targets. However, poor operating efficiencies of irrigation
projects due to unscientific management of land and water resources and inappropriate cropping pattern
in the command areas have posed serious concern. This has led to excess irrigation application, conveyance
losses and wastage of water through outlets with low crop yields. The financial returns were not
commensurate with the investments made in irrigation sector and there were also problems of waterlogging
and salinity. Keeping these aspects in view, a study was carried out on evaluation of land, water and
cropping practices in different reaches of command areas of two selected laterals of the Upper Krishna
Project (UKP), Karnataka during 2012-’14. The results revealed that cropping intensity in both the laterals
was more in kharif season (73.25- 99.97 per cent) compared to rabi season (15.94-75.13 per cent). Paddy area
was pre-dominant, though it was not at all considered in the originally envisaged cropping pattern. There
were excess inflows at the lateral heads than actually required, ranging from 27.94-51.76 per cent and
42.49-56.44 per cent with water demand-delivery ratios of 0.48-0.72 and 0.44-0.58 in kharif and rabi seasons
respectively. Similarly, the excess irrigation application than required at field level varied from 21.11-27.98
per cent and from 21.03-30.54 per cent during kharif and rabi respectively. The conveyance and outlet losses
observed ranged from 16.17-16.99 per cent and 6.83- 26.79 per cent in kharif and from 16.58-19.88 per cent
and 19.40- 35.41 per cent in rabi respectively. Further, excess amounts of water applied more than the
requirements to paddy, cotton, pigeonpea and chilli varied from 22.03-26.05, 18.16-22.69, 16.21-19.85, 15.67-
21.76 per cent for during kharif and from 18.71-25.07, 10.45-21.59, 14.79-17.42 and 10.76-21.87 per cent during
rabi respectively. All the above losses were quite considerable and if they were minimised and put to efficient
use, additionally 4.88-62.90 ha in kharif and 10.34- 69.18 ha in rabi season could have been cropped with
high to light irrigated crops, which in turn would have fetched higher farm returns. Moreover, as the water
table is shallow in some pockets of the lower reaches of the command area, canal water releases need to be
regulated in conjunction with groundwater and adopting appropriate cropping pattern in different reaches
of command areas. This would minimise the problems of water shortage in the tail-end areas, thereby
would help in sustainability of irrigated agriculture.
Key words : Irrigation project, Evaluation, Lateral command area, Water distribution, Cropping pattern
S246 Eco. Env. & Cons. 22 (April Suppl.) : 2016
Introduction
Globally, India ranks very high in irrigation devel-
opment. A mere 22.6 M ha irrigation potential in
1951 increased to about 115 M ha at present, which
in the history of irrigation development anywhere in
the world is unparalleled. It has been estimated that
as much as 52 per cent of the rise in food grain pro-
duction was solely on account of an increase in irri-
gated area (Thomas, 2006). Agricultural production
requirements need to reach 367 M t to feed the rap-
idly increasing Indian population of about 1.33 bil-
lion by the year 2025 and 581 M t by 2050 to achieve
marginal self-sufficiency against the water require-
ment of 780 and 994 BCM for irrigation respectively.
While, there is no scope for expanding the net sown
area, sustaining self-sufficiency would require in-
creasing the cropping intensity and putting more
area under irrigation through technological inter-
ventions. The projected gross cropped area of 223 M
ha by 2050 from the existing 193 M ha, may not be
easy considering increasing land requirements.
Against these requirements, the irrigation projects
are operating at niggardly low efficiency of 25-30
per cent. As high as 50-70 per cent of the irrigation
water was observed to be lost in carrier and distri-
bution systems, while the loss from field water
courses or minors was estimated at 20 per cent of the
water delivered; over irrigation and wastages of
water were found to be by 45-70 per cent in the field
(Anonymous, 1983; Arya et al., 2006). Therefore, the
deficiencies in operation and maintenance of irriga-
tion systems need to be corrected. Unless the effi-
ciency of the irrigation systems is improved, it
would be difficult to achieve the irrigation area and
production targets to meet out the growing food
demands. It is contemplated that even a marginal 2
per cent improvement in efficiency can additionally
irrigate an area of 0.50 M ha. The agricultural pro-
ductivity is a meagre 1.7 t ha-1 against 5-6 t ha-1
achieved in national demonstrations and about 10 t
ha-1 in global level (Ashwani, 2011).
In many canal command areas, injudicious use of
irrigation water has resulted in rising of water tables
from 0.26-1.20 m from the ground surface and wa-
terlogged saline conditions have led to reduction in
crop productivity and soil fertility or the lands have
become barren. About 8.40 M ha of land area of the
country is degraded due to waterlogging and soil
salinity problems. It was estimated that an outlay of
Rs. 824 M was required for drainage in reclamation
works in the Upper Krishna Project area in
Karnataka; however, this would fetch a net return of
Rs. 326 M per year (Balakrishnan et al., 2008). For
optimum utilization of irrigation water, the existing
irrigation practices would be evaluated regarding
dependable, timely and adequate supply of water to
the farmers. These issues pose serious concern in the
command areas of the irrigation projects in the
country, which need to be addressed on priority fo-
cusing on land and irrigation water management for
vertical expansion of cropped areas as well as to
enhance the stagnant yields in order to make irri-
gated agriculture a highly profitable and sustainable
venture (Balakrishnan, 2001). Synchronization of
cultivation and irrigation is possible only when the
water control in terms of adequacy, timeliness and
uniformity is practised in a command area (Skewes,
1998; Wang et al., 2004; Mujumdar et al. 2012).
Balakrishnan et al. (2008) reported that excess
water flows at the head end of field irrigation chan-
nels (FIC) and excess irrigation at the field level
ranged from 27.30-211.10 and 11.00- 25.70 per cent
during various seasons than the required. The con-
veyance and the outlet losses were in the range of
10.90-13.00 and 5.60-54.30 per cent of the inflows.
Similarly, the excess quantities of water applied to
the various crops were 10.60-28.90 per cent. Due to
large variations and unequal supply of irrigation
water, productivity remains a major constraint in
most of the command area. Singandhupe and Sethi
(2009) similarly observed that major problem that
exists in irrigation command was excess water at
head reach and limited water at tail reach. The re-
sults revealed that the water productivity from the
experimental area was quite high than the water
productivity of selected command area. Mishra et al.
(2012) found that in kharif season water availability
was insufficient for paddy in the middle and tail
reaches of Eastern Yamuna Canal (EYC) and hence
the farmers switched over from paddy to sorghum
crop. Further, the conveyance efficiencies observed
were 43-44 per cent, indicating that there was ample
scope of increasing the water availability by prop-
erly checking the seepage and evaporation losses.
The Upper Krishna Project (UKP) in Karnataka is
the most prestigious project of the Karnataka state
and lining is done till the last tier up to the field ir-
rigation channel (FIC) of the canal network unlike
other projects of the country. Despite this, the over-
all project efficiency was estimated at 51 per cent
and the originally envisaged semi-dry cropping pat-
RAJESHKUMAR ET AL S247
tern is not strictly followed. Under the fast growing
paddy-paddy scenario in both the seasons in the
command area, it would be difficult to achieve the
ultimate irrigation potential of about 1 M ha as
against the presently created irrigable area of about
6.25 lakh ha. Therefore, the present research work
was carried out in two selected lateral command
areas of the UKP during 2012-’14 for appraisal of
irrigation water allocation and identifying the prob-
lems and causes for low irrigation efficiencies and
for suggesting adoption of appropriate scientific ir-
rigation and cropping practices in different reaches
of the command areas.
Materials and Methods
The study area comes under the command area of
branch distributary 5 of the tail end distributary 18,
starting at chainage of 23.33 km in the UKP
Narayanapur Right Bank Canal (NRBC) starting at
right flank of Narayanpur dam. The study area is
located in Gabbur village at an altitude of 389 m
from mean sea level (MSL), Devadurga taluk,
Raichur district under North-eastern dry zone in
Karnataka located between 16o 16' 52.28'’ to 16o 17'
50'’ N latitudes and 77o 09' 20'’ to 77o 30' 50'’ E longi-
tudes (Fig. 1). Soils are deep to very deep black clay
in major areas and shallow to medium black in mi-
nor pockets, sandy clay loam to light red sandy soil
in some parts. The average water holding capacity is
18-20 cm in deep black soils; 25-27 cm in very deep
black soils, 8-10 cm in sandy clay loam soils. The cli-
mate is semi-arid tropical with an annual average
rainfall of 534.3 mm, and about 87, 5, 1 and 8 per
cent occur during kharif, rabi season, winter and
summer respectively. The monthly evaporation var-
ies from 141 to 273 mm and is maximum during
April-May.
The investigation was carried out during kharif
and rabi seasons of 2012-’13 and 2013-’14 in the com-
mands of lateral-1 starting at chainage of 0.22 km
and covering 95.4 ha and lateral-2 starting at
chainage of 0.45 km and covering 74.03 ha with each
consisting of 7 FICs. The evaluation study was car-
ried out on present irrigation, land and cropping
practices in the upper, middle and tail reaches of the
Fig. 1. Location details of the study area under Narayanapura Right Bank Canal in UKP
S248 Eco. Env. & Cons. 22 (April Suppl.) : 2016
command area to find out the short-comings/ lacu-
nae in the system and suggest strategies/ measures
for higher water productivity. The surveys and in-
ventories were carried out in the study area to col-
lect the data pertaining to details of the canal system
and command area particulars, climatic data, land
holdings and farmers, land slope, soil type, cropping
pattern, season wise crop area statistics, discharge in
canal system, water allocation to crops, losses in con-
veyance and outlets etc. for four seasons during
2012-’13 and 2013-’14.
The rainfall of 37 years for Gabbur hobli for the
period 1978 to 2014 was collected from the Depart-
ments of Irrigation and Karnataka State Disaster
Management Centre, Government of Karnataka,
Bangalore. Other climatic data on evaporation, tem-
perature, relative humidity, sunshine hours, wind
velocity etc. were collected from the Main Agricul-
tural Research Station (MARS), University of Agri-
cultural Sciences, Raichur.
The evaluation of land was done by geo-referenc-
ing the Survey of India topo sheet 56 H of 1:250000
scale and the latitudes, longitudes and elevation of
the research area were marked. This geo-referenced
data was verified with ground truth observation by
Trimble GPS instrument through field survey. Spa-
tial analysis survey was done through multiple-date
satellite-based digital images of LISS-III and LISS-IV
from the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC),
Hyderabad and the digital elevation model (DEM)
images downloaded from Bhuvan. This data were
used to estimate the topography, land use/land
cover classifications, land capability and irrigability
classes and the soil parameters were found out us-
ing laboratory analysis.
The crop hectareage of various crop types was
estimated from the satellite images of LISS-III and
LISS-IV sensors along with land use/land cover and
crop classification maps developed for both the
kharif and rabi seasons during 2012-’13 and 2013-’14
as shown in Fig. 2. To evaluate the accuracy and re-
liability of satellite-derived information, a compari-
son was made with similar information obtained
from the agricultural census abstracts kept by the
government departments, interviewing with farm-
ers, revenue and CADA officials. The seasonwise
cropping intensity particulars in different reaches of
the commands under the two laterals were worked
out.
The evapotranspiration (ET0) was computed by
analysing the meteorological data using the Penman
Montieth method (Penman, 1948; Monteith, 1965;
Allen, 1998). The evapotranspiration (ET0 mm) was
multiplied by the Kc values during the various
growth stages as per the FAO guidelines for five
main crops of the study area i.e. paddy, groundnut,
pigeonpea, cotton and chillies to compute their po-
tential evapotranspiration rates. The crop evapo-
transpiration (ETc) was calculated using the follow-
ing equation:
ETc = Kc× ET0…(1)
where
ETc = crop evapotranspiration (mm)
Fig. 2. Crop area information obtained for kharif and rabi seasons using LISS-III and LISS- IV images during 2012-’13
and 2013-’14 in the study area
RAJESHKUMAR ET AL S249
Kc = crop coefficient value
and ET0 = reference evapotranspiration (mm).
The effective rainfall was estimated using the
USDA-SCS method (Blaney, 1950). The net water
requirement (NWR) of the crops was estimated
from the following equation:
NWR = ETc – ER ... (2)
where
NWR = net water requirement of crop (mm/
month)
ETc = potential evapotranspiration
ER = effective rainfall, mm/month.
The gross crop water requirement (GWR) was
estimated as follows:
GWR (ha m) = NWR + TL + AL ... (3)
where
GWR = maximum possible gross water require-
ment as per existing agricultural practices
NWR = net water requirement (ha m)
TL= transition losses (ha m)
= Conveyance losses (CL) + Evaporation losses
(EL) ... (4)
AL = application losses (ha m).
The total irrigation water requirements were esti-
mated by adding up the weekly demands for irriga-
tion requirements for various crops as computed
above and multiplied with the satellite data-derived
each crop hectareage. Water flow discharge rates in
canal network in head, middle and tail reaches of
the study area were measured through standard
field experiment techniques by using current meter
and flume. By measuring the flow rates of water in
the channels at regular intervals, the conveyance
losses were assessed using the inflow-outflow
method. The application efficiency was estimated as
the ratio of quantity of irrigation water stored in the
root zone of the crop to the quantity of water deliv-
ered to the field. By adding crop water requirement
with the conveyance and application losses in the
field gives gross crop water requirement for the
study area.
Further, the actual quantities of water applied as
irrigation by the farmers to the various crops dur-
ing different seasons were measured using flume
and added up. The field application losses were es-
timated comparing the computed crop water re-
quirements and irrigation water actually applied.
The outlet water losses were measured by obtaining
velocity of flow using current meter and multiplied
with the canal section and flow duration. Analysing
the above data, the water allocation / distribution in
each of the FIC commands under the two laterals
was studied. The water balance components of in-
flow, water actually required, water demand-deliv-
ery ratio, excess water flow than required, irrigation
water actually applied vs. required for crops at the
lateral / FIC heads and at the field levels were cal-
culated.
Results and Discussion
Cropping intensity at different seasons
The season wise cropping intensity particulars in the
study area were presented in Table 1. An analysis of
the data indicates that the cropping intensity (CI)
varied from 75.58-99.83 per cent during kharif and
from 17.54-41.92 per cent during rabi season with the
annual cropping intensity (ACI) of 93.12-139.55 per
cent during 2012-’13 in different reaches (head,
middle and tail) of the lateral-1. Similarly, the CI
ranged from 75.58-99.83 per cent during kharif and
from 17.54-62.87 per cent during rabi season and the
ACI varied from 93.12-146.78 in 2013-’14. Similarly,
the CI varied from 73.25-99.97 per cent during kharif
and 15.94-75.13 during rabi season, the ACI varied
from 95.69-148.38 during 2012-’13, the CI ranged
from 76.26-99.97 per cent and 31.66-72.11 per cent
during rabi season, the ACI varied from 112.50-
148.38 in 2013-’14 in different reaches of the lateral-
2. The results of crop area estimation through satel-
lite data and ground truth observations showed that
there was increase in annual CI of 2.04 to 14.27 per
cent in head and middle reaches of lateral-1 and
10.76-14.95 per cent in lateral-2 during kharif and rabi
seasons over the years 2012-’13 and 2013-’14 respec-
tively. Overall, the CI was higher in kharif season
compared to rabi season by 53.68 and 46.04 per cent
in lateral-1 and by 46.32 and 38.43 per cent in lateral-
2 during 2012-’13 and 2013-’14 respectively. Fur-
ther, the annual cropping intensity was more in lat-
eral-2 over lateral-1 by 1.86 and 4.15 per cent during
2012-’13 and 2013-’14 respectively. This was due to
increase in paddy area during the year 2013-’14 as
the cumulative water supply period increased upto
225 days leading to some farmers growing two
paddy crops in kharif and rabi seasons in both the
laterals.
Slightly more cropping intensity at different
S250 Eco. Env. & Cons. 22 (April Suppl.) : 2016
Table 1. Annual cropping intensity particulars at different reaches of the laterals in the study area
Sl. Particulars 2012-’13 2013-’14
No. Kharif (ha) Rabi (ha) Kharif (ha) Rabi (ha)
Head Middle Tail Head Middle Tail Head Middle Tail Head Middle Tail
Lateral-1
1. Paddy 16.46 20.04 18.47 - - - 16.46 23.30 18.47 6.34 4.23 -
2. Cotton 5.72 9.21 - 5.72 9.21 - 5.72 5.95 - 5.72 5.95 -
3. Pigeonpea 2.63 - - 2.63 - - 2.63 - - 2.63 - -
4. Groundnut - - - 3.76 -----3.76 - -
5. Chilli 0.57 4.03 5.58 0.57 4.03 5.58 0.57 4.03 5.58 0.57 4.03 5.58
6. Total cropped area 25.38 33.28 24.05 12.68 13.24 5.58 25.38 33.28 24.05 19.01 14.20 5.58
7. Gross command area 30.24 33.33 31.83 30.24 33.33 31.83 30.24 33.33 31.83 30.24 33.20 31.83
8. Cropping intensity CI (%) 83.92 99.83 75.58 41.92 39.71 17.54 83.92 99.83 75.58 62.87 42.79 17.54
9. Annual cropping intensity (%) 125.84 139.55 93.12 - - - 146.78 142.45 93.12 - - -
10. Percentage increase in CI - - ----14.27 2.04 0.00 - - -
11. Overall CI (%) 119.72 127.36
Lateral-2
1. Paddy 10.40 15.00 19.80 6.40 - - 12.00 15.00 19.80 6.40 4.00 3.40
2. Cotton 9.01 3.75 4.20 9.01 3.75 4.20 8.21 3.70 4.20 8.21 3.75 4.20
3. Ground nut - - - 4.50 -----4.50 - -
6. Total cropped area 19.41 18.75 24.00 19.91 3.75 4.20 20.21 18.70 24.00 19.11 7.75 7.60
7. Gross command area 26.50 23.51 24.01 26.50 23.51 24.01 26.50 23.51 24.01 26.50 23.51 24.01
8. Cropping intensity (%) 73.25 79.75 99.97 75.13 15.94 17.49 76.26 79.55 99.97 72.11 32.95 31.66
9. Annual cropping intensity (%) 148.38 95.69 117.47 - - - 148.38 112.50 131.63 - - -
10. Percentage increase in CI - - -----14.95 10.76 - - -
11. Overall CI (%) 121.58 131.51
RAJESHKUMAR ET AL S251
reaches of the command in kharif season was
due to availability of assured soil moisture
from rainfall and/or canal water when com-
pared to rabi, during which canal water
stops early during February month. Hence,
proper crop planning is needed to explore
the possibility of taking up dual crops suit-
able for late kharif and also rabi crops match-
ing with the timing of release of canal water
and maturing with the stoppage of canal
water by February end or March first fort-
night. Another strategy could be that wher-
ever feasible, conjunctive use of water could
be resorted to take up crop planting/sowing
in appropriate time during kharif using the
groundwater (even with brackish quality)
and later on switching over to canal water,
when it is made available. This would also
reduce the waterlogging and salinity prob-
lem and the canal water thus saved could be
diverted to the tail-end areas.
Water distribution pattern
The water distribution pattern, conveyance
and outlet losses in the study area are pre-
sented in Table 2 and shown in Fig. 3. The
scrutiny of the data clearly shows that there
were excess inflows at the lateral heads than
what were actually required, which ranged
from 27.94- 44.89 per cent (29.85-49.61 ha m)
and 36.85-51.76 per cent (40.02-57.58 ha m)
in kharif and varied from 54.35- 56.44 per
cent (40.25- 49.98 ha m) and 42.49-49.65 per
cent (35.34-38.75 ha m) in rabi during 2012-
’13 and 2013-’14 in laterals-1 and 2 respec-
tively. Thus, the excess flows were higher
during rabi compared to kharif. This could be
attributed to the duration of on-off policy of
water release during different seasons (one
week on and one week off during kharif and
two weeks on and one week off during rabi)
and also as the kharif season naturally coin-
cides with the rainy period and therefore
there would be restictions in canal water
flow. The corresponding water demand-de-
livery ratio ranged from 0.55-0.72 and 0.48-
0.63 in kharif season and from 0.44-0.46 and
0.50-0.58 in rabi season.
Similarly, there were excess inflows at the
field levels too, than what were actually re-
quired, which ranged from 21.11-27.98 per
Table 2. Water distribution pattern, conveyance and outlet losses and additional area that could be irrigated in the study area
Lateral-1 Lateral-2
Sl. Particulars 2012-’13 2013-’14 2012-’13 2013-’14
No. Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi Kharif Rabi
1. Inflows at lateral head (ha m) 106.82 71.31 110.52 91.96 108.60 71.19 111.24 91.20
2. Water actually required at Lateral head, (ETc-ER+AL+CL in the field) ha m 76.97 31.06 60.91 41.98 68.58 35.84 53.66 52.45
Percentage (2/1) 72.06 43.56 55.11 45.65 63.15 50.35 48.24 57.51
3. Water demand/delivery ratio (2/1) 0.72 0.44 0.55 0.46 0.63 0.50 0.48 0.58
4. Excess water flow at lateral head (ha m) (1-2) 29.85 40.25 49.61 49.98 40.02 35.34 57.58 38.75
Percentage (4/1) 27.94 56.44 44.89 54.35 36.85 49.65 51.76 42.49
5. Water applied as irrigation to the crops(Depth of irrigation given) ha m 81.89 34.24 73.96 51.78 79.57 42.83 62.93 55.64
Percentage (5/1) 76.66 48.01 66.92 56.30 73.27 60.16 56.57 61.01
6. Irrigation water actually required at field level (ha m) (2-9) 59.35 19.24 43.04 23.69 50.13 22.94 35.14 34.58
Percentage (6/1) 55.56 26.99 38.94 25.77 46.16 32.23 31.59 37.92
7. Water/demand delivery ratio (6/5) 0.72 0.56 0.58 0.46 0.63 0.54 0.56 0.62
8. Excess irrigation application (ha m) (5-6) 22.54 15.00 30.93 28.08 29.45 19.88 27.78 21.06
Percentage (8/1) 21.11 21.03 27.98 30.54 27.11 27.93 24.97 23.09
9. Conveyance losses (ha m) 17.62 11.82 17.88 18.28 18.45 12.90 18.52 17.87
Percentage (9/1) 16.50 16.58 16.17 19.88 16.99 18.12 16.65 19.59
10. Outlet losses (ha m) 7.30 25.25 18.68 21.90 10.57 15.46 29.80 17.69
Percentage (10/1) 6.83 35.41 16.90 23.82 9.73 21.72 26.79 19.40
11. Additional area that could be commanded with the water losses under 4.88 16.90 15.44 18.14 7.07 10.34 23.90 12.63
high to light irrigated crops (ha) 20.00 69.18 49.27 57.76 27.87 40.77 62.90 37.34
S252 Eco. Env. & Cons. 22 (April Suppl.) : 2016
cent (22.54-30.93 ha m) and 24.97-27.11 per cent
(27.78-29.45 ha m) in kharif and varied from 21.03-
30.54 per cent (15.00-28.08 ha m) and 23.09-27.93 per
cent (19.88-21.06 ha m) in rabi during 2012-’13 and
2013-’14 in laterals 1 and 2 respectively. Thus, the
excess flows were greater during rabi season over
kharif season. The corresponding water demand-de-
livery ratio varied from 0.58-0.72 and 0.56-0.63 in
kharif and from 0.46-0.56 and 0.54-0.62 in rabi season.
Table 3. Excess water applied than required (per cent) to various crops in lateral commands
Sl. Crops Lateral-1 Lateral-2 Range Overall
No. 2012-’13 2013-’14 Mean 2012-’13 2013-’14 Mean mean
Kharif
1 Paddy 22.03 22.07 22.05 25.59 26.05 25.82 22.03-26.05 23.94
2 Cotton 22.43 18.16 20.30 21.75 22.69 22.22 18.16-22.69 21.26
3 Pigeonpea 19.85 16.21 18.03 - - - 16.21-19.85 18.03
4 Chilli 22.17 15.67 18.92 - - - 15.67-22.17 18.92
Rabi
1 Paddy 18.71 25.07 21.89 24.33 19.33 21.83 18.71-25.07 21.86
2 Cotton 10.45 19.15 14.80 14.72 21.59 18.16 10.45-21.59 16.48
3 Pigeonpea 14.79 17.42 16.11 - - - 14.79-17.42 16.10
4 Groundnut 18.78 21.00 19.89 10.63 24.45 17.54 10.63-24.45 18.71
5 Chilli 21.98 10.76 16.37 - - - 10.76-21.98 16.37
Further investigation indicated that excess amounts
of water applied than the requirements to different
crops varied from 22.03-26.05, 18.16-22.69, 16.21-
19.85, 15.67-21.76 per cent for paddy, cotton, pigeon
pea and chilli during kharif, and in rabi the surplus
quantities ranged from 18.71-25.07, 10.45-21.59,
14.79-17.42, 10.63-24.45 and 10.76-21.87 per cent for
paddy, cotton, pigeon pea, groundnut and chilli re-
spectively (Table 3 and Fig. 4). The excess water ap-
Fig. 3. Water distribution pattern, excess irrigation, conveyance, outlet losses and additional area that could be irrigated
in the study area
RAJESHKUMAR ET AL S253
plication to the crops was comparatively less during
rabi due to adoption of canal water release policy of
10 days on and 10 days off and also during kharif
even when there was rainfall, the farmers used to
apply irrigation water. High water requiring paddy
area needs to be reduced in sandy and loamy soils;
in order that more command area could be irrigated.
The conveyance losses were found to range from
16.17-16.50 per cent (17.62-17.88 ha m) and 16.65-
16.99 per cent (18.45-18.52 ha m) in kharif and from
16.58-19.88 per cent (11.82-18.28 ha m) and 18.12-
19.59 per cent (12.90-17.87 ha m) in rabi season of
laterals-1 and 2 during 2012-’13 and 2013-’14 respec-
tively. The outlet losses were observed to vary from
6.83-16.90 per cent (7.30-18.68 ha m) and 9.73-26.79
per cent (10.57-29.80 ha m) in kharif and from 23.82-
35.41 per cent (21.90-25.25 ha m) and 19.40-21.72 per
cent (15.46-17.69 ha m) in laterals-1 and 2 during rabi
season 2012-’13 and 2013-’14 respectively. In the
study area, two types of soils were observed- sandy
soil at head region and clay soils in the tail region.
Most of the farmers are growing paddy crop in head
region. Due to this, more conveyance and applica-
tion losses were observed in the head region. More-
over, average slope of 1 to 3 per cent is steeper,
which needs to be levelled precisely using the recent
technology of laser-guided leveller even if it in-
volves lot of cost to improve the irrigation and re-
source use efficiency.
The above losses were quite considerable and if
they were minimised and put to use, additionally
4.88-20 and 7.07- 27.87 ha in kharif 2012-’13 and
15.44- 49.27 and 23.90- 62.90 ha in kharif 2013-’14;
and 16.90- 69.18 and 10.34- 40.77 ha in rabi 2012-’13
and 18.14-57.76 and 12.63-37.34 ha in rabi 2013-’14
could have been commanded with light to high irri-
gated crops in laterals-1 and 2 respectively.
Hence, proper crop planning needs to be sug-
gested to the farmers to grow light irrigated crops
like pigeon pea, chickpea, groundnut etc. in upper
reaches followed by medium irrigated crops like
cotton, maize, chilli in middle reaches and high irri-
gated like paddy in lower reaches, which would re-
sult in equal distribution of water during kharif and
rabi seasons in all the laterals. In addition, this prac-
tice would minimise the irrigation application and
also reduce the irrigation return flows or seepage
from the upper and middle reaches to the lower
reaches, thereby the problems of waterlogging and
salinity could be reduced. The water table monitor-
ing till 2014 revealed that it was in the range of 3 m
from the ground surface in about 55.84 ha area in
the lower reaches of the command, which could be
classified as ‘potential for waterlogging’. This indi-
cated that the problems of waterlogging and salin-
ity were fast approaching in the study area. Particu-
larly, paddy could be cultivated in these areas,
where groundwater would be conjunctively used to
lower the water table. Thus, the canal water supplies
saved could be allocated to the water starving tail
end areas. In both the laterals, the farmers were
found to grow paddy in head reaches even though
they consist of sandy soil in the commands of FICs 1,
2 and 3 in laterals-1 and 2. Though paddy is a
banned crop in the UKP command area as per the
originally envisaged cropping pattern, the area un-
der paddy cultivation is increasing at alarming rate
over the years. If this practice continuous, there will
be huge shortage of water particularly in tail reaches
of the command area. This problem needs to be cur-
tailed, otherwise, it would be difficult to wean the
farmers away from this practice later on.
Conclusion
The research study revealed that the farmers need to
be advised for adopting efficient water management
methods and proper crop planning of growing light
irrigated crops in upper reaches, medium irrigated
crops in middle reaches and higher irrigated crops
in lower reaches in specifically demarcated areas
where the water table is shallower and conjunctive
use of groundwater is feasible. The canal operating
policy should take into cognisance the effective rain-
fall during kharif, above suggested cropping pattern
and minimisation of outlet losses and accordingly
the water releases are made. Thorough repairs and
Fig. 4. Excess water applied than required for various
crops in lateral command area
S254 Eco. Env. & Cons. 22 (April Suppl.) : 2016
maintenance of laterals and FICs to reduce wastage
of water in conveyance and appropriate drainage
measures should be followed for preventing the
problems of waterlogging and salinity and also to
reclaim the areas already affected. Farmers could
also be encouraged to use groundwater for timely
sowing of crops during kharif and later on switch
over to canal water when it is released, thereby also
rabi crops could be taken up in time so that they
mature by February end or March beginning, coin-
ciding with closure of canal water. There needs to be
a check on alarming increase of paddy area, other-
wise the projected command of 1 M ha on full devel-
opment of irrigation in UKP would remain as a
dream and not become a reality.
Acknowledgments
The authors are grateful to the Science and Engi-
neering Research Board, Department of Science and
Technology, GoI for the project funded under the
Young Scientist Scheme to the Senior Author and
also to the authorities of the UAS Raichur,
Karnataka for extending research facility and sup-
port in the conduct of the present investigation.
References
Allen, R. G. 1996. Assessing integrity of weather data for
reference evapotranspiration estimation. J. of Irriga-
tion and Drainage Engineering, ASCE. 122 (2) : 97–106.
Arya, C., Purohit, R.C. and Kothari, M. 2006. Diagnostic
analysis of left main canal command of Som Kagdar
irrigation project. J. of Water Management. 14 : 24-29.
Ashwani, K., Gouranga, K. and James, B.K. 2011. ICAR-
Vision 2030. Directorate of Water Management,
Bhubaneswar, Odisha, pp. 1-24.
Balakrishnan, P., Lingappa, S. and Shirahatti, M.S. 2001.
Reclamation of waterlogged saline areas in Upper
Krishna project command of Karnataka State, India.
1st Asian Regional Conference, Seoul, Korea, pp. 16-21.
Balakrishnan, P., Rajkumar, H. and Meti, C.B. 2008. Evalu-
ation of water demand delivery pattern in field ir-
rigation channel command of Upper Krishna Project
(Karnataka). J. of Water Management. 16 (1) : 28-34.
Blaney, H.F. and Criddle, W.D. 1950. Determining water
requirements in irrigated areas from climatological
and irrigation data. USDA Soil Conservation Service
- Technical Paper- 96.
Mishra, A.K., Singh, B. and Sharma, R.K. 2012. Influence
of canal water distribution system on water produc-
tivity of selected kharif crops in distributaries of East-
ern Yamuna Canal (EYC) command area. Recent Res.
in Sci. and Technology. 4 (11) : 1-11.
Monteith, J. L. 1965. Evaporation and the environment. In
G.E. Fogg (Ed.), The State and Movement of Water in
Living Organisms. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Mujumdar, P. P., Vedula, S., Subhankar, K., Manavalan,
P. 2012. Irrigation water allocation in canal com-
mand areas. J. of Hydraulic Engineering. 10 (1) : 33-47.
Penman, H.L. 1948. Natural evaporation from open water,
soil and grass. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Lon-
don.
Singandhupe, R.B., Sethi, R.R. and Chakravarty, H.S. 2009.
Increasing water productivity in canal command of
Orissa- A case study in coastal area. 60th International
Executive Council Meeting and 5 th Asian Regional Con-
ference, pp. 6-11. New Delhi, India.
Skewes, M.A. 1998. Benchmarking irrigation performance
in viticulture best practices. Proceedings of ASVO
Viticulture Seminar, Adelaide, Australia, pp.16-18.
Thomas, M.L. 2006. Encyclopedia of the Developing World-
Irrigation. Taylor and Francis Group, 270, Madison
Avenue, New York, USA, pp. 872-873.
Wang, Z. and Zhou, Z. 2004. Optimization of water allo-
cation in canal systems of Chengai irrigation area.
Nature and Science. 2 (1) : 89-94.
View publication statsView publication stats