25-05-2018

Total Precipitation 4000 BCM

Total water availability 1869 BCM

Total utilizable water resources 1123 BCM

Surface water Ground Water 690 BCM 433 BCM

Current utilization Current utilization 450 BCM ( 65% ) 243 BCM (58%)

Central Water Commission 2

1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 Rainfall in mm

Rainfall Rainfall in mm 300 Averag 1,170 200 e 100 Mawsynram, Max. 11,000 0 Meghalaya Western Min. 100 Rajasthan Pre Post Winter Monsoon Monsoon Monsoon (Jan-Feb) (Oct-Dec) (Jun-Sep) Monsoon (Mar-May

Central Water Commission 3 4

1 25-05-2018

Sl Total Water Requirement for Different Uses (in BCM) ➢ Total Cultivable Land: 181.98 Mha No. Uses Year 2025 Year 2050 ➢ Ultimate Irrigation Potential: 139.89 Mha 1. Irrigation 611 807 ➢ Potential Created (Mar 12): 113.53 Mha 2. Domestic 62 111  Major & Medium: 47.97 Mha 3. Industries 67 81  Minor: 65.56 Mha 4. Power 33 70 ➢ Gross Sown Area: 195.25 Mha 5. Others 70 111 ➢ Gross Irrigated Area: 91.53 Mha Total 843 1180 ➢ Net Sown Area: 140.80 Mha Population 1.3 Billion 1.5 Billion ➢ Net Irrigated Area: 65.26 MHa Estimate

Assumptions: ▪ Increase in efficiency in irrigation from present level of 35% to 60% by 2050 ▪ Increase in productivity for rainfed agriculture from 1 to 1.5 and Irrigated agriculture from 3.0 to 4.0 t/ha 5 6

Efficiency Values (%)  To answer Why, What and How to improve the Reservoir Efficiency 95%-98% efficiency of the project Conveyance Fully Lined system 70%-75% Efficiency Partially Lined system 65%  To setup a benchmark to evaluate the projects Unlined system 60% against them for prioritisation of improvement On farm application Sprinkler/Drip 85% measures, if any. Efficiency Irrigation 60% Basin/Furrow Irrigation  To adjust the project to new demand scenario Drainage Efficiency 80% emerging out of long term developments. IPU/IPC 85% Overall WUE 60-65%  To find the design and planning deviations affecting the performance of the project to an optimum level. How to reach  Leverage the new technologies available now for better management of the project.

2 25-05-2018

 Input resource assessment- The yield patterns STORAGE Inflow + Sediment achieved against those assumed in the design, especially the temporal distribution Evaporation from surface  constraints of Distribution system capabilities- Unaccounted implementation, unauthorised extensions, new demands, state of withdrawal form Seepage Seepage Operation reservoir the system contributing to from bed Policy groundwater and sides  On farm usage- cropping patterns, application methods, Releases for use present agro-climatic environment Seepage Direct leakage/ PH back to Uncontrolled  Management- systems in place, social structues and system spills Power releases management methods needing improvement/ introduction  Key takeaway is that these are all interrelated. Attacking any single aspect will not yield the desired results.

FIELD APPLICATION/ CONVEYANCE SYSTEM UNDER WRD/WUA CONTROL CROP PRODUCTIVITY Crop Produced

Missing/ broken Regulator A BC ID Channels structure/Measuring Water Consumed Water Transpired by Head (Main, Br., Dy. by crop works device for Supply to Crop, Soil (> 150 Cusecs) WUAs Project Water loss Soil Moisture WUAs Minor transpired by weed Channels (< 150 retained for D EFG Cusecs) crop production

A D Soil Moisture A. Inappropriate design, siltation B required B. Evaporation loss from canal surface I for leaching C. Transpiration from Hyacinth H Rainfall Dew Pumped Ground Water D. Seepage from bed, sides C E Initial Soil Water Moisture Farmer’s Field E. Unaccounted withdrawal as a loss F. Management based (operational) losses G F On-farm G. Diversions for other use supply Farm H. Inappropriate outlet design Inlet On-Farm I. Unaccounted outlet/field channel losses/ (Nakas) Storage Storage Water supplied by WUA over irrigation Augmentation On Farm Storage Loss though outlet/field rotation Fields Evaporation, Transpiration Seepage, Leakage Loss Delivery

3 25-05-2018

Case Studies – List of Projects (Krishna Basin) -10 nos. Andhra Pradesh (Pennar Basin) • Tungabhadra Right Bank High Level • Somasilla canal (TB-RB-HLC) Andhra Pradesh (Other Basins)- 3 nos. • Tungabhadra Right Bank Low Level • Vamsadhara (Gotta Barrage) Canal (TB-RB-LLC) • Narayanpur Anicut • Rajoli Banda Diversion Scheme • Yeleru Dam (RBD) Uttar Pradesh (Ganga Basin) – 6 nos. • Kurnool Cuddapah canal (KC Canal) • Matatila Performance Assessment Studies- • Srisailam Right Bank Canal (SRBC) • Pilli Dam • Nagarjuna Sagar (NJS) • Ahraura dam Findings • Krishna Delta • Ohan dam • Koil Sagar • Naughar dam • Gajuladinne Dam (Medium) • East Baigul • Bhairavantippa (Medium) Haryana (/Ganga) – 2 nos. Andhra Pradesh (Godavari Basin)- 6 nos. • Naggal Lift project (WJC) • Upper Manair • Augmentation Canal, (WJC) • Punjab – 2 nos. • Sri Rama Sagar (SRSP Complex) • Upper Bari Doab Canal (Ranjit Sagar • Kaddam (SRSP Complex) Dam) • Godavari Delta • Dholbaha Project • Gandipalem (Medium)

Integrated Aspects in Tungabhadra Sub Basin

➢ Nearly all projects are integrated in terms of configuration, resource, use ➢ Changing scope of the projects ➢ Altered hydrology ➢ Un-assured withdrawals from reservoirs ➢ Lost active capacity of the reservoirs ➢ Dam safety concerns ➢ Evaporation and seepage losses from the reservoirs ➢ Leakage and uncontrolled withdrawals ➢ Excessive spills ➢ Inability of the head works to supply ‘Full Supply Discharge’

16

4 25-05-2018

READJUSTED ALLOCATION OF WATERS WITH IN ANDHRA PRADESH Configuration of Manjira Basin Recent Period 75% Dependable inflows as percent of design 75% dependable : Manjira dam Reservation in inflows/allocation GWDT Allocation • Water Supply to & 100 623 MCM (22 TMC) Tiruna dam Secunderabad (2.96 TMC) ex CA – 10484 Sq. Km. Manjira barrage 80 • Water Supply to Hyderabad & 60 Secunderabad (4.00 TMC) from dam 40 Choukinala dam • Water Supply to Fatheh bad and Mahaboob Nagar (4.06 TMC) 20 GWDT Allocation: • Support for Nizam Sagar Dam (8.35 0 404 MCM (14.27 TMC) Karanjia dam TMC) CA- 3688 Sq. Km. • Reservoir losses, lift from reservoir and extra storage for silt provision (10 54 TMC) Andhra Pradesh: • Total )Singur dam) (29.91 TMC) GWDT allocation: Singur dam Balance Contributing to Nizam Sagar 1784 MCM (63 TMC) • Untapped from Singur and CA- 7521 Sq. Km. catchment downstream of Singur up Manjira Barrage to Nizam Sagar dam (33.09 TMC) • Support from flood waters of 40000 Nalavagu dam (2 TMC) through flood Dependable Flow – Design 5553 cumec; Present 3231 cumec 35000 Ghanpur Anicut canal Annual flow sequence at SRSP • Total directly reaching Nizam Sagar 30000 (35.09 TMC) 25000 Nizam Sagar Anicut Nizam Sagar Command 107028 ha 20000 7-year moving mean CA below Nizam Sagar Nizam Sagar Nizam Sagar Nizam Sagar 15000 Nizam Sagar Command Command Command Command Average - 9151 Sq. Km. Dy. 1 to 49 Dy. 50 to 72 Dy. 73 to 82 Dy. 73 to 82 10000 (56152 ha) (21769 ha) (15699 ha ) (13408 ha ) 5000 Aliagar Gutpah Shifted LIS LIS to SRSP 0

Sri Ram Sagar Reservoir 18

• Medium reservoirs have high seepage and evaporation losses  Inflows in many reservoirs are dwindling Evaporation Loss as % of gross storage Seepage loss as a percent of gross storage  Periodic review of hydrology with basin as a unit is necessary 25  Withdrawals from reservoirs are not reliable – cannot assure equity 20 15 10 Withdrawals in a 75% dependable year as % of design 120 5 107.3 withdrawals 0

100 89 81.8

80 68.3 61.4 57.8

60 52.2 36.6 40 36.3 26 24.5 20 20 15.9 6.7 0 0 0

Leakage from earthen portion

5 25-05-2018

Percent of time Reservoirs spilled during 1995-96 to 2005-06 Maximum ReservoirInflow Efficiency 120 Average Reservoir Inflow Efficiency 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 Reservoir InflowEfficiency in a Dependable Year 89 100 82 73

80 70 80 60

60 50 50 45 60

40 30 30

20 40

20 10 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20

0

 Excessive spills coupled with lower withdrawals suggest wrong operational policy • Reported Reservoir filling efficiencies in a dependable year are  Operational priorities for complementary/contradictory releases are questionable also not reported

Actual Capacity of Head works as % of Design Capacity 160 ➢ Wrong approach for selection of canal reach for estimation of 140 efficiency 120 100 ➢ Inadequate capacity of head regulators to deliver FSD 80 ➢ 60 Many of the head regulators not functioning/tampered 40  Missing shutters/control devices 20  0 Require extensive repairs ➢ High seepage rate in many selected canal reaches

➢ Reduced carrying capacity of canal reaches ➢ Non-uniformity of seepage loss rate

6 25-05-2018

HR MR TR 200

➢ PIM Act not enacted/ functional in some states 160

➢ Canal Operational Concerns 120

 High leakages, over withdrawals, thefts common 80

 Assurance on supplies non-existent 40

 Information on farm delivery not recorded 0  Warabandi/ canal roster not adhered to RBD (AP) RBD NagarjunaJC Nagarjuna-LC  Kaddam(LMC) TB-RBLLC(AP)

Sometimes only one watering is given Narayanpur (Dy) KoilSagar (LMC) KoilSagar (RMC) KrishnaDelta (WC) Narayanpur (RFMC) GandiPalem(LFMC) Gajuladinne (RFMC) GandiPalem(RFMC) Nizamsagarproject SRSP(Kaktiya0 Km) GodavariDelta (East) GodavariDelta (West) Ohendam(UP)(Main) KrishnaDelta (Ryves) Bhairavantippa(RFMC) SRSP (Kaktiya147 Km) GodavariDelta (Central) Somasilla (NorthFeeder) Somasilla Sidha(Naughar)Dy. (UP) Daulatabad (Ahrura) (UP) Somasilla(South Feeder) Ohen (Arwara Minor)Ohen (Arwara (UP) ChaukiaDy. (UP) (Ahrura) Gobindpur(Naughar) (UP) Bhatija(Naughar)Dy. (UP) KCCanal (Reach-1) (New) OhenMinor)(Aghudya (UP) Pambra Pambra (Dholbaha) Dy. (Pb.) Augmentationcanal (Haryana) Mugal Mugal main Sarai (Ahrura)… canal

Design loss rate: Rock 0.91, Black Cotton Soil – 1.83, Alluvium Soils – 2.74, Decayed rock or gravel – 3.0 cumec/million sq m

Canal Loss - cumec/million sq m 100 30

20 80

10 60 0 40

20

0 Canal Loss - cumec/million sq m 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

7 25-05-2018

Water Availability : Farmers feed back ➢ Cropping pattern in most of the dams is not changed, only crop area Table. Availability of irrigation water at required time changed to suit water availability (SRBC is an exception) Farmers ➢ Wherever groundwater coexists, cropped area is stabilized Availability of irrigation S. No. water at required time Number Percent ➢ Diversification from paddy to irrigated dry crops suggested without 1 Yes 221 42.7 any assurance on farmers income/alternate livelihood 2 No 296 57.3 ➢ Drainage is not a real issue except in case of Delta area projects Total 517 100.0

300 ➢ Waterlogging is a concern in some of the canal commands 249 250 ➢ Created irrigation potential does not match CCA – PPA/localized 200 command area is proposed for irrigation potential creation; 150 115 100 84.1 ➢ Utilized irrigation potential matches creation in some of the years 41 50 38.8 27 13.8 9.1 suggesting gap in potential due to development is reduced 0 Conveyance Head reach Water is not Canal runs ➢ However, gap in potential increases in the years of low flow, system is faulty farmers are not released as and below the level releasing water when required of fields suggesting reduced cropped area due to non availability of water in canals

Number of farmers Percent

Fig. Reasons for not getting the irrigation water

Area under crop reported by ID (2005-06) Area under crop reported by APSRAC (2005-06) 12,00,000 Ground water utilization as percent of ground water recharge from irrigation in case of projects from Andhra Pradesh 10,00,000 8,00,000 6,00,000 300 244 4,00,000 250 2,00,000 200 0 150 114

100 82 63 59 59 53 44 37 35 25

50 17 12 11 2 0

Percent growth of crops from other source as reported by Irrigation Department

600 513

500 440 400

300 246 191 161

200 130 105 98 97 90 76 67 63 41 20 100 18 11 0 0 0 0

8 25-05-2018

100 91 Baseline On-farm water use efficiencies 80 75

80 72 67 65 65 58 58 57 IPU as % of IPC in a year of maximum potential utilized IPU as % of IPC in a year of munimum potential utilized 54 54

60 52 46 45 45 45 45

38 120 36 34 32 40 31 28 27 20 100

0 80

60

40

20

0

70 62 Project Efficiency Target efficiency line (60%) 58 57 54 53 60 53 47 45 45

50 43 40 39 38 36 33 40 32 28 28 22 30 22 18 18 17 15 20 14 10 0

Attributes Score Attributes Score

1 Project is inter-state 23/30 12 PIM introduced but not yet 20/30 • Storage: Consistent and continuous efforts in improving the implemented performance of storage infrastructure within the basin context to 2 Project is integrated 22/30 13 IMT has taken place 0/30 improve availability of flows at canal head(s); 3 Hydrology is disturbed 17/21 14 Warabandi is being implemented 4/30 • Conveyance: Better design and improved conveyance and 4 Project is not able to meet 15/20 15 CD & CM are not in order 17/26 distribution system in both engineering and management sense; requirements 5 Active live storage is affected 16/24 16 Water measuring devices are not in 30/30 • On-Farm application: Improving on-farm efficiencies through better place practices, improved drainage and ensuring other quality inputs 6 Project has dam safety concerns 25/28 17 Actual cropping pattern deviates 6/19 leading to better production and productivity; from design cropping pattern 7 Evaporation losses from reservoir 7/20 18 Irrigation from other source is 23/27 • Participatory: Gradually decreasing the role of administration in are excessive substantial managing the canal systems and promoting the role of beneficiaries 8 Seepage losses from reservoir are 5/19 19 Diversification from paddy is 16/29 in asset management in an accountable and sustainable manner; excessive recommended • 9 Head work is not capable of taking 21/29 20 Drainage is not adequate 7/28 Crop management: Crop diversification, adoption of low water FSD intensive crops, better farm management practices, micro irrigation 10 Head regulators are not supplying 19/25 21 New/field/intermediate and link 5/29 systems and quality inputs to improve productivity; FSD drains required • R&D: Continued research and development, and periodic monitoring 11 Canal capacities do not meet design 23/25 22 Water logging salinity/alkalinity is a 9/29 discharge concern and evaluation through water auditing and benchmarking

9 25-05-2018

Assessment of Gap in Efficiencies Project Type Conveyance On- Farm Efficiency Project Efficiency Efficiency To be Gap To be Gap To be Gap achieved achieved achieved Large Storage 90% 0-47% 66.67% 0-40% 60% 2-46% systems Diversion 85% 2-23% 70.59% 19-25% 60% 17-31% Delta 95% 4-48% 63.16% 5-32% 60% 7-45%

• Attaining 60% efficiency would be a difficult task • As a short term solution CADWM Programme component on ‘Correction of System Deficiencies’ may be reviewed using MASSCOTE approach of FAO; • Long run solution to improve Conveyance would be to shift to basin approach under IWRM • Improving On farm efficiency – conservation and integration of all sources of water within command, harvest rainwater, diversification to low water intensive varieties, adopting improved methods of cultivation- SRI / SSI, shift to MIS-drip and sprinkler for new projects

37

➢ Land Resources - 2.45% 6000 ➢ Renewable Water Resources - 4% 5177 ➢ Population - 18% 5000 Water Stress Line 1700 cu. m. per person per year 4000 Line 1000 cu. m. per Land Resources Renewable Water Population 3000 person per year 2200 1820 2000 1545 capita per year) 1340 1140 1000

0 Water Availibilty (Cubic metre per 1951 1991 2001 2011 2025 2050 39

10 25-05-2018

No. of Large Dams in Country = 4857

253.4

250.0 200.0 109.7 150.0 50.9 100.0 15.6 50.0 0.0

41

Domestic use Industrial use Agricultural use Totla use 6000

5000

4000 Evergreen Revolution 3000 ❑ ’s share of resources 2000 Water use, Cu km/year Cu use, Water Water Resources : 4% 1000 Land Resources : 2.5 % 0 Population : 18 % 1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000 Year

➢ Food Requirement by 2050 : 450 MT ➢ Improve Overall WUE by : 20% (National Water Mission, GOI)

44

11 25-05-2018

Water for domestic demand

46

S. N. Project Reservoir ᶯ Canal ᶯ On-Farm ᶯ Overall ᶯ

1 KDS 100 87.4 46.18 40.36 2 GDS 100 83.21 46.09 45.05 3 KC Canal NA 62.25 45.15 28.10 4 NSP 100 55.96 38.93 21.80 5 Nizamsagar 75.95 87 45.32 39.43 6 RDS 100 82.83 51.51 42.66 7 Somasila 72.16 56.3 31.84 18.00 8 SRSP 95.05 77.98 57.28 44.66 9 TBPHLC 42.51 80.90 58.32 47.13 10 TBPLLC 100 72.13 44.80 32.23 11 Vamsadhara 100 90.50 58.47 52.91 12 Yeleru 28 50.00 28.42 14.21

47

12 25-05-2018

 Priority on use of water  NWP on impact of climate change Common reasons for low WUE Common recommendations for improvement of WUE  Enhancing water availability for different use  Demand management i) Damaged structures Rehabilitation and restoration of damaged/silted ii) Silting in the canal system canal system Project appraisal and environmental impact assessment iii) Poor maintenance Proper and timely maintenance of the system for water uses to inter-alia include: Selective lining of the canal and distribution system iv) Weed growth in the canal i) analysis of water foot prints, Realistic and scientific systemoperation ii) recycle and reuse including return flows , system Revision of cropping pattern, if needed v) Seepage in the system Restoration/provision of appropriate control iii)incentivizing economic use of water vi) Over-irrigation structures iv)adaptation to water saving means vii) Un trained farmers Efficient and reliable communication system v) performance monitoring and viii) Changing the cropping Reliable and accurate water measuring system vi) reclamation of commands from water logging, pattern Conjunctive use of ground and surface water salinity Regular revision of water rate Encouragement for and alkalinity. formation of Water Users’Association  Regulation of water prices Training to farmers Micro-credit facilities  Project planning & implementation Agricultural extension services  Data base and information needs (WRIS) Encouragement to farmers for raising livestock  Capacity building, research and training needs

49

o Increase water use efficiency by 20% o Water Footprints and Water Auditing (assessment of water Water Footprint is quite simply the volume of water used. At the use), individual level, this is expressed in litres. But at the national level, this becomes complex - The water footprint of a nation is equal to the use need to be developed. of domestic water resources, minus the virtual water export flows, plus o Continuous water balance and water accounting studies the virtual water import flows. o Methods to encourage water saving (Ex. Micro Irrigation) VIRTUAL WATER o Conjunctive ground water use The term ‘virtual water’ was introduced by Tony Allan in the early 1990s. It is defined as the volume of water required to produce a o Participatory Approach: Users of water should be involved in commodity or service. monitoring the pattern of water use

13 25-05-2018

Eating water? Yes Water Measurement The engineers of I&CAD Department should install How many litre a day special water measurement structures like RBC flumes as a standard procedure in all their new irrigation projects; the same applies for their modernization projects of existing schemes.

1.3 billion ton food is lost or wasted every year (FAO)

54

Water Saving Crop Production Technologies The engineers of I&CAD Department, officials of Agriculture and Ground Water Department should be offered trainings on a regular basis on irrigation modernisation, crop irrigation requirements  Direct seeding / MSRI / AWD for rice in harmony with including effective rainfall contribution, water soil microbial technologies in maximizing the water use budgeting, latest aspects of water measurement efficiency. and regulation, participatory approaches in water management and women’s participation in AWM.

14 25-05-2018

Fig. Location of the 10 Medium Projects in Andhra Pradesh and States 58

Planning Workshops held at WALAMTARI Project Visits by WALAMTARI Team

15 25-05-2018

Torrigadda Main Canal Thatipudi Reservoir

Stakeholder Workshops Musi Reservoir Vattivagu Reservoir

Detailed Investigations Irrigation Infrastructure Application

Socioeconomic Survey Canal Hydraulic Studies

Velocity Measurement Crop Ground Truth

16 25-05-2018

Crop Ground Truth Application To irrigate and fertigate the plant instead of soil

National Task Force on MI in 2003: 69 M ha potential AP Micro Irrigation Project: lunched in 2003 Target : 0.25 M ha with Rs11,760 million in 5 yr

Achieved: 1.1M ha with Rs 41,700 million in 10 yr 66

MICROIRRIGATION IN CANAL COMMANDS Distributory

Minor I. Total Area Covered : 1.0427 m ha a) Drip : 0.7617 m ha b) Sprinkler : 0.2810 m ha DP 1 II. MI system cost PVC pipe Sump 1 a) Total : Rs 41,708 Million b) Farmers contribution : Rs 10,427 Million CROSS SECTIONAL VIEW III. Annual cost (CRF 0.2055) based on a) Total cost : Rs 8,571 Million b) Farmers contribution : Rs 2,143 Million DP 2 IV. Additional yield PVC pipe @Rs 15,000/ha minimum : Rs 15,640 Million Sump 2 ➢ Sump is required to store water V. Payback period based (II/IV) Additional benefits during non-pumping hours a) Total cost : 2.7 years a. Water saving : 149 TMC ➢ Capacity depends upon a) Duty of the water b) Farmers contribution : 0.7 year b. Energy saving: 417 million LAYOUT OF LIMIP unit b) Area under each sump VI. Every rupee on MI yields (IV/III) c. Labor saving c) Operating time of irrigation system WATER DISTRIBUTION NETWORK OF LIMIP a) Total annual cost : Rs 1.8 d. Employment avenue b) Farmers annual cost : Rs 7.3

17 25-05-2018

Adaptation to climate change: An integrated science-stakeholder-policy approach for water and agricultural sectors

DC4 MIRYALAGUDA DC2 NARSARAOPET S. WUA Name and 1 No. No. S. WUA Name and 1 Borraipalem-23 No. No. Applalmmagud Gollapadu - 2 1 em-24 167 Sathuluru - 3 Kallepally-25 2 168 4 Kondrapolu-26 Kanaparru – 3 Damarcherla- 169 5 27 Nadendla 1 - 4 6 Kesavapur-28 170 Erlla Padu - PROJECT PAERTNERS Area: 8497 ha 5 171 Kavuru 2 - 6 172 Nadendla 2 - 7 173

SCHOOL CHIDREN AWARENESS AND TRAINING

Project Achievements Importance of CC &WUE Interaction with Scientists and line dept officials Exhibition of technologies Farmers Feedback

18 25-05-2018

 Water is an Economic Good

 Water Measurement

 Demand Based Water Delivery

 Virtual Water Approach

 Incentivizing WUE

 Irrigation Asset Management

 Promoting PIM

 Respect Agriculture

[email protected]

73

19