Trans.Inst.Indian Geographers ISSN 0970-9851 Assessing the suitability of the Ujjani water and its surrounding ground water for irrigation purposes using GIS techniques

Deepti Pachorkar and Ravindra G Jaybhaye, ,

Abstract The Ujjani Dam was constructed in 1980 on the to cater the drought-prone areas of Pune, and Ahmednagardistricts of Maharashtra. The Ujjani Dam water is polluted due to the huge industrial waste, agricultural runoff and untreated waste water. The present study supports the identification of the impactof reservoir water on nearby ground water quality and thus explores its feasibility for irrigation suitability. In total, 63 water samples were selected by the random grid sampling method and analyzed for parameters such as pH, EC, TDS, TH, cations (Ca+2, Mg+2, Na+, and K+) and anions (HCO-3, Cl-, SO-4, and NO-3) using standard methods. To identify the suitability of water for irrigation purposes different irrigation indices were studied such as SAR, PI, Potential salinity, %Sodium, RSC, RSBC, KI, and exchangeable sodium ratio indices. In addition to these indices, conductivity and nitrate values trend was also analyzed to find out the appropriateness of water for irrigation. As per the irrigation indices, it has been observed that water is suitable for irrigation purpose on the basis of SAR, RSC,RSBC, and permeability index (PI).The study of USSL diagram supports salinity issues and high values of conductivity. The major key indicator of water pollution, nitrate is seen in almost throughout the study area and 67% of the water samples have concentrationsgreater than 45mg/l. The saline water and nitrate concentrations are principle factors that are impairing the suitability of water for irrigation. The salinity and nitrate pollution issue has been increasing with drainage and permeability issue after 1980 and this issue are getting aggressive due to continuous supply of irrigation water from reservoir. These interpretations elucidate that the critical values of salinitywill get worse if proper care is not taken in future. Key words: Ground water quality, Irrigation suitability, Ujjani reservoir, SAR, GIS

Introduction Bhima Rivercontributesa major area The Ujjani Dam is constructed in 1980 at in Maharashtra state after Krishna and the drought-prone area to provide water Godavari rivers. The major tributaries of for drinking and irrigation purposes. the Bhima River are Mula- Mutha,Pavana, This reservoir separates three districts, Ghod ,Sina and Indrayani. The Mula-Mutha namely Ahmednagar, Pune, and Solapur. river flows through the urbanized and The dam is locatedonthe Bhima River highly populated cities such as Pune and near Ujjani village, Solapur. The Pimpari-ChinchwadMunicipal Corporation

Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 | 197 (PCMC), which contributes to a high As reservoir water is getting polluted amount of domestic effluent and industrial continuously the nearby people are switching discharges into the river(Jadhav S and to ground water,that is dug wells and tube Jadhav M 2015; More et al. 2014;Eknath wells, for irrigation and drinking purposes 2013). While intersecting with the Bhima and this is evident from the increase in the River at Pargaon, the Mula – number of wells.So far, the geochemistry carries a huge load of untreated waste and the suitability of the groundwater for water and deposits it at the Ujjani Dam. agricultural purposes in and around the Also, the untreated domestic waste water Ujjani Dam (Yashwantsagar reservoir) have from the nearby villages and agricultural not been studied in great detail. The present runoff contributes to the high salt content study identifies the salt water intrusion from of the Ujjani Dam(Kulkarni U D 2010). the Ujjani reservoir and the suitability of In addition to this,subsequent irrigations ground water samples for irrigation purposes. for crop production bring more salt to the The similar studies related to ground water land, which in the absence of adequate quality and its suitability for irrigation were leachingdeposit in the area and transform performed(Singh et al. 2005; Sadashivaiah et it into more saline region. al. 2008; Adhikary and Dash 2012; Haritash A K 2014)in different parts of .

Fig. 1: Location map

198 | Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 Geology and stratigraphic summary of Methods of collection and analysis of water the study area samples for pH, electrical conductivity The study area (Figure1) for research is (EC), Total solids (TS), Total dissolved finalized on the basis of drainage pattern. solids (TDS), Total Hardness (TH), Ca, Mg, Na, K, Cl, HCO ,SO ,PO and NO are The total study area is of 1105.73 sq.km2 3 4 4 4 essentially the same as given by (APHA with74 0 44’57.720E to 75010’13.270E and 1998). The samples were collected in 2 1802’9.260N to 18025’18.090N. The study litercapacity polyethylene bottles. Prior area separates three districts as Pune, to collection, the bottles were thoroughly Solapur, and Ahmednagar. The Bhima River washed with diluted HNO acid and then receives water from some major tributaries 3 with distilled water in the laboratory before Mula-Mutha, Indrayani, Ghod, Kukadi, filling bottles with samples. The parameters Bhama, Pawana, Sina, Nira, and Vel. such ascalcium (Ca+2) and magnesium The study area consists of Deccan (Mg+2) were determined titrimetrically Traps covering different types of basaltic using standard ethylenediaminetetraacetic flows of late Cretaceous to early Eocene. It acid (EDTA), chloride (Cl-) by standard - comprises simple basalt (Aa type), vesicular- AgNO3 titration, bicarbonate (HCO3 ) by acid + amygdaloidal (compound pahoehoe) basalt titration of 0.02 N H2SO4 and sodium (Na ) flow, and red bole beds (Tachylitic bands) and potassium (K+) by flame photometry. - which are exposed in the road cuts and well The anions such assulphates (SO2 ), nitrate - - sections. The district resource map (DST) (NO3 ), phosphate (PO4 ) were determined showed that the area is divisible into five by spectrophotometer, EC, pH and TDS different formations from the base to the measurements were performed in situ with top, as upper Ratangarh formation (of two portable meter and also it was carried out different types), Indrayani formation, Karla inside the lab to maintain the accuracy of the formation and Devighat formation (District results. The analytical precision for ions was Resource Map by Geological Survey of determined by the ionic balances, which is India). generally within ±5 %. The equipment and instruments were tested and calibrated with Material and Method: calibration blanks and a series of calibration standards as per specifications outlined in the For this study, the water samples were standard methods of water (APHA 1998). collected from 63 locations as 16 samples of reservoir water and 47 of different dug well and bore well. The sampling was carried Result and Discussion out during post-monsoon season November Physicochemical characteristics of water 2014, to identify the impact of rain water on samples the water quality. The groundwater samples Surface water were collected fromreservoir (surface water), dug wells, and bore wells using The backwater of the reservoir shows GARMIN GPS to locate the exact location. alkaline water with a range of 6.87 to 7.71.

Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 | 199 While 81.25% samples showed values in the minimum. 36.59% samples show below 1000µS/cm for conductivity due to concentration range as K

25% samples and PO4

as PO4

Table 1 : Statistical data for chemistry of water in and around Yaswantsagar reservoir Sample Surface water (SW) Bore well (BW) Dug well (DW) type Parameters Min Max Avg Min Max Avg Min Max Avg pH 6.87 8.71 7.71 6.84 8.04 7.32 6.76 8.30 7.41 EC 438.60 1591.20 740.06 413.10 2091.00 1065.51 612.00 3141.60 1224.73 TS 201.11 613.02 299.36 22.05 1120.02 514.13 90.05 1550.45 626.75 TDS 201.00 613.00 299.13 22.00 1120.00 513.94 90.00 1550.00 626.30 TH 306.00 830.00 484.54 293.45 1250.71 681.39 401.93 1240.90 748.49 Ca 52.10 137.00 96.54 44.09 224.00 116.61 56.09 300.00 137.31 Mg 21.91 129.26 59.41 32.00 168.70 95.21 56.05 193.18 98.97 Na 27.34 119.60 51.20 16.31 302.00 85.85 33.77 308.70 105.11 K 0.06 0.35 0.25 0.03 0.21 0.09 0.00 8.19 0.49

200 | Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 HCO3 210.00 550.00 379.38 223.00 825.00 472.47 150.00 650.00 477.67 Cl 59.98 229.93 98.36 39.98 375.00 187.63 97.00 509.84 216.67

SO4 42.00 360.00 105.53 10.00 310.00 115.41 30.00 760.00 167.95

PO4 0.00 8.72 3.17 0.23 8.63 4.58 0.34 9.86 4.73

NO3 2.39 211.00 60.99 11.80 110.00 74.38 11.56 145.00 79.96

Suitability of water samples for irrigation The US salinity hazard (USSL) diagram purpose (Figure 3a) was plotted considering SAR The analysis of water samples for suitability values and conductivity value, and it was recognized thatout of the 63 samples, only of irrigation purpose is important as soil 2 samples have values in C4S1 class as permeability plays an important role in very high salinity hazard and low sodium cropping pattern and agriculture. For hazard, 40 samples showed values as C3S1 irrigation suitability, different indices were with highsalinity hazard and low sodium studied in detail and their values are given hazard, and 21 samples with medium salinity in Table 3. hazard and low sodium hazard. As per the USSL class, it could be stated that the water 1. Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) and having values in good class can be used 1. Sodium adsorption ratio1. (SAR) Sodium and adsorption salinity index. ratio salinity(SAR) andindex. salinity index. for irrigation with little danger of harmful SAR is an important factor for the analysis levels of exchangeable Na+.The doubtful SAR is an important factorSAR for the is ananalysis important ofof water waterfactor quality for the as as analysis the the sodium sodium of concentration water conc entrationquality aswaters the sodium can be concused entrationto irrigate salt-tolerant expresses the reaction with the soil and and semi-tolerant crops under favorable expresses the reaction withexpress the essoil the and reaction reduction reductionwith in thesoil in soil soilpermeability andpermeability reduction (Ravikumar (Ravikumar in soil permeabilityanddrainage conditions. (Ravikumar The unsuitableand waters and Somashekar 2011); and it is also a are generally undesirable for irrigation and Somashekar 2011); and it isSomashekar also a measure 2011) of; alkali/sodiumand measureit is also of a hazard alkali/sodiummeasure to ocrops.f alkali/sodium hazard SAR to calculation crops. hazard should to crops. not beSAR used calculation on clayey soils of low SAR calculation(Figure 2 a) showed that permeability. On the other hand, unsuitable (Figure 2 a) showed that the(Figure values 2 extentsa) showed in thethat therange the values values of 0.2extents extents-5.18 in theand in range thethese range of are 0.2 ofall -5.18 0.2below -5.18water and can these be usedare allfor below plants of high salt and these are all below 10(Table2). The tolerance, when grown on previously salty + + 10(Table 2). The identified10 SAR(Table values 2). The state identified thatidentified the SARvalue valuesSARof Na values state is relativelystate that thatthe thehighervalue value of than Nasoils is torelatively safeguard higher further reducingthan the fertile lands (Subba Rao 2006). of Na+ is relatively higher than Ca+2(Subba +2 +2 Ca (Subba Rao 2006). TheCa cation(Subba-exchange Rao 2006) complexRao. The 2006).The cationbecomes- exchangecation-exchange saturated complex with complex sodium becomes if saturated with sodium if 2. Percentage sodium and Sodicity Index. becomes saturated with sodium if irrigation irrigation water is high in sodiumirrigation and water low inis highcalcium. inwater sodium This is high damages and in sodiumlow thein and casoillcium. low structure in This calcium. anddamages theSodium the soil concentration structure and is thevery significant This damages the soil structure and the soil in classifying irrigation water. The high soil becomes compact andsoil impervious becomes duecompact to the and becomesdispersion impervious compact of clay due and particlesto impervious the dispersion (Kumar due to etof al. clayconcentration particles of(Kumar sodium affectset al. plant growth the dispersion of clay particles (Kumar et and soil permeability. From the study it has 2009; Bhardwaj and Singh 20092011); Bhardwaj. and Singhal. 2009; 2011) Bhardwaj. and Singh 2011). been seen that samples showed % Na values in the range of excellent to permissible class 1 (Table2). It helps to explain1 that water is suitable for irrigation purposes (Figure2 b).

The US salinity hazard ( USSL The √US) diagram salinity ( Figurehazard 3 ( USSLa ) was√) diagram plotted considering(Figure 3 a )SAR was plotted considering SAR Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 | 201 values and conductivity valuevalues, an andd it conductivity was recognized value that, an outd it ofwas the recognized 63 samples, that only out 2of the 63 samples, only 2 samples have values in C4S1samples class have as very values high in salinity C4S1 classhazard as andvery low high sodium salinity hazard hazard, 40 and low sodium hazard, 40 samples showed values assamples C3S1 with showed high valuessalinity as hazard C3S1 andwith low high sodium salinity hazard hazard, and and 21 low sodium hazard, and 21 samples with medium salinisamplesty hazard with and medium low sodium salinity hazard. hazard andAs perlow the sodium USSL hazard. class, it As per the USSL class, it could be stated that the watercould having be stated values that in thegood water class having can be values used forin goodirrigation class with can belittle used for irrigation with little danger of harmful levels ofdanger exchangeable of harmful Na+. levels The of doubtful exchangeable waters Na+.can be The used doubtful to irrigate waters can be used to irrigate salt-tolerant and semi-tolerantsalt- tolcropserant underand semifavorable-tolerant drainage crops underconditions. favorable The drainageunsuitable conditions. The unsuitable waters are generally undesirablewaters forare irrigation generally and undesirable should not for be irrigation used on andclayey should soils not of below used on clayey soils of low permeability. On the otherpermeabili hand, uty.nsuitable On the water other can hand, be uusednsuitable for plantswater ofcan high be saltused for plants of high salt tolerance, when grown on previouslytolerance, whensalty soilsgrown to on safeguard previously further salty reducing soils to safeguardthe fertile furtherlands reducing the fertile lands

(Subba Rao 2006). (Subba Rao 2006).

7 7

2. Percentage sodium and Sodicity Index. 2. Percentage 2.sodium Percentage and Sodicity sodium Index. and Sodicity Index. Sodium concentration is very significant in classifying irrigation water. The high Sodium concentraSodiumtion concentrais very significanttion is very in significantclassifying inirrigation classifying water. irrigation The high water. The high concentration of sodium affects plant growth and soil permeability. From the study it has concentration concentrationof sodium affects of sodium plant growthaffects andplant soil growth permeability. and soil permeability.From the study From it has the study it has been seen that samples showed % Na values in the range of excellent to permissible class been seen thatbeen samples seen showedthat samples % Na showed values in% theNa rangevalues ofin excellentthe range to of permissible excellent to class permissible class (Table 2). It helps to explain that water is suitable for irrigation purposes (Figure 2 b). (Table 2). It helps(Table to explain2). It helps that to water explain is sui thattable water for isirrigation suitable purposes for irrigation (Figure purposes 2 b). (Figure 2 b). PercentagePercentage sodium sodium vs. conductivity vs. conductivity plot (Wilcox) plot 3. helps Residual to identify sodium the carbonateSodicity I ndex(RSC) and (Wilcox) helps to identify the Sodicity Index residual sodium bicarbonate (RSBC) Percentage sodiumPercentage vs. conductivity sodium vs. plot conductivity (Wilcox) plothelps (Wilcox) to identify helps the toS odicityidentify I ndexthe S odicity Index (Figure 3 b(Figure). It states 3 b). that It statesall of thatthe samplesall of the aresamples in the classRSC of isexcellent used to to quantifypermissible the range effect of (Figure 3 b). It( Figurestates that3 b). all It ofstates the thatsamples all of are the arein samples thein theclass class are of in excellentof the excellent class to of permisto excellent permissiblesible to range permis carbonatesible range and bicarbonate on the quality of and only four samples (5%) have reading as doughtful to unsuitable, which are DW7, DW21, range and only four samples (5%) have the water. An excess quantity of carbonate and only four samplesand only (5%)four sampleshave reading (5%) ashave doughtful reading to as unsuitable, doughtfuldoughtful whichtoto unsuitable,unsuitable, are DW7, whichwhich DW21, are DW7, DW21, DW19, and BW42. and bicarbonate is considered to be harmful, are DW7, DW21, DW19, and BW42. as excess carbonate combines with calcium DW19, and BW42.DW19 , and BW42. and magnesium which shows adverse2 impact on the physical property of the soil and this 2 2 3. Residual sodium carbonate (RSC) and residual sodium forms b icarbonate a solid (RSBC)material like a black stain on

3. Residual sodium 3. Residual carbonate sodium (RSC) carbonate and residual (RSC) sodium and residual b icarbonate sodium (RSBC) b icarbonate (RSBC) the soil surface after drying (Eaton1950; RSC is used to quantify the effect of carbonate andKumar bicarbonate et al. 2009; on theKumar quality et al. of 2007). the RSC is used toRSC quantify is use thed to effect quantify of carbonate the effect and of carbonatebicarbonate and on bicarbonate the quality onof thethe quality of the water. An excess quantity of carbonate and bicarbonate is considered to be harmful, as excess water. An excesswater. quantity An excess of carbonate quantity and of carbonatebicarbonate and is bicarbonateconsidered tois beconsidered harmful, toas be excess harmful, as excess carbonate combines with calcium and magnesium which shows adverse impact on the carbonate combinescarbonate with combines calcium withand magnesiumcalcium and whichmagnesium shows whichadverse shows impact adverse on the impact on the physical property of the soil and this forms a solid material like a black stain on the soil physical propertyphysical of the property soil and of thisthe formssoil and a solidthis formsmaterial a solidlike amaterial black stainlike aon black the soilstain on the soil surface after drying (Eaton1950; Kumar et al. 2009; Kumar et al. 2007). surface after dryingsurface (Eaton1950; after drying Kumar (Eaton1950; et al. 2009 Kumar; Kumar et al. et2009 al. ;2007) Kumar. et al. 2007). Figure. 2 Iso-concentration map showing spatial variation in (a) SAR and (b) percent Figure. 2 Iso-Figureconcentration. 2 Iso-concentration map showingsodium. mapspatial showing variation spatial in ( avariation) SAR and in ((ba)) percentSAR and (b) percent sodium. sodium. Fig. 2 : Iso-concentration map showing spatial variation in (a) SAR and (b) percent sodium.

8

8 Fig. 3 : (a)US8 salinity hazard diagram and (b)Wilcox diagram for post-monsoon season.

202 | Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 Figure. 3 (a)US salinity hazardFigure . diagram3 (a)US and salinity (b)Wilcox hazard diagram diagram forand post (b)-monsoonWilcox diagram for post-monsoon

season. season.

Figure. 3 (a)US salinityFigure . hazard3 (a)US diagram salinity and hazard (b)Wilcox diagram diagram and (b) forWilcox post -monsoon diagram for post-monsoon season. season.

RSC values showed that almostRSC 56 values samples showed were that suitable almost for 56 irrigation samples purposeswere suitable (Table for 2) irrigation purposes (Table 2)

while only 7 samples had RSCwhile value only more7 samples than 2.5had. TheRSC concentration value more thantrend 2.5 for. TheRSC concentration is trend for RSC is

displayed in (Figure 4 c). displayed in (Figure 4 c).

3 3

  The residual sodium bicarbonateThe residual (RSBC) sodium calculation bicarbonate was proposed (RSBC) by calculation Gupta and was proposed by Gupta and RSC values showed that almost 56 of water for irrigation. An RSBC value less RSC values showedRSC that valuesalmost showed56Gupta samplessamples (1987)that werealmost were to suitable identify 56 suitable samples for the irrigationfor wereGuptasuitability irrigation suitable (1987)purposes of purposes for waterto (Tirrigation identifyable for 2) irrigation. thanpurposesthe suitability 5 is (TAn ablesuitable RSBC of2) water valuefor forirrigation less irrigation. than 5purpose. isAn RSBC value less than 5 is (Table 2) while only 7 samples had RSC Almost all samples were suitable for while only 7 sampleswhile had only RSC 7 valuesamples more had than RSC 2.5 value. The moreconcentration than 2.5 . trendThe concentrationfor RSC is trend for RSC is suitablevalue for more irrigation than 2.5. purpose. Thesuitable concentration Almost for irrigationall trend samples purpose.irrigation were suitable Almost purpose forall (Figure irrigationsamples 4 d) webutpurposere only suitable three for irrigation purpose displayed in (Figure di4 splayedc). in (Figurefor 4 c)RSC. is displayed in (Figure 4 c). samples showed exceeding values for RSBC (Figure 4 d) but only three samples(Figure 4showed d) but exceedingonly three valuessamples for showed RSBC exceedingas 6.17, 5.62 values, and for RSBC as 6.17, 5.62, and as 6.17, 5.62, and 5.87. The negative values 3 3 5.87. The negative values of 5.8RSBC7. The (Table negative 3) of values all waterof of RSBC RSBCsamples (Table (Table from 3) 3the of) of allstudy all water water area samples samplesreveal from from the study area reveal

The residual sodium The bicarbonate residual sodium (RSBC) The bicarbonateresidual calculation sodium(RSBC) was proposed calculation bicarbonate by Gupta was proposed and the studyby Gupta area and reveal that HCO3 is present in that (RSBC)HCO3 is calculationpresent in excess wasthat proposed amount HCO 3(Tanvir byis presentGupta et alin. 2014)excessexcess. amount amount(Tanvir (Tanvir et et al al.. 2014) 2014).. Gupta (1987) to identifyGupta the (1987) suitability to identify andof water Gupta the forsuitability (1987)irrigation. ofto water Anidentify RSBC for irrigation. thevalue suitability less An than RSBC 5 is value less than 5 is 4 4 suitable for irrigationsuitable purpose. for irrigationAlmost allpurpose. samples Almost were suitableall samples for irrigationwere suitable purpose for irrigation purpose  

(Figure 4 d) but only(Figure three 4samples d) but showedonly three exceeding samples valuesshowed for exceeding RSBC as values 6.17, 5.62for RSBC, and as 6.17, 5.62, and

5.87. The negative values5.87. Theof RSBC negative (Table values 3) ofof allRSBC water (Table samples 3) offrom all waterthe study samples area revealfrom the study area reveal that HCO3 is presentthat in excess HCO3 amountis present (Tanvir in excess et al amount. 2014). (Tanvir et al. 2014).

4 4   9 9

Fig.4 : Iso-concentration maps showing spatial variation in (c) RSC and (d) RSBC

9 9 Table 2 : SAR, percentage sodium, residual sodium bicarbonate Sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) SAR Water quality Post-monsoon samples <10 Excellent 63 10–18 Good - 19–26 Doubtful/fair poor - >26 Unsuitable - Percentage sodium % Sodium Water class Post-monsoon samples 20 Excellent 32 20 – 40 Good 28 40 – 60 Permissible 3

Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 | 203 60 -80 Doubtful - >80 Unsuitable - Residual Sodium Carbonate RSC Water class Post-monsoon samples 4. Kelly’s ratio <1.25 4. Kelly’s ratio Good 56 In general,1.25 groundwater - 2.5 withIn general, Kelly’sDoubtful groundwaterratio (KR) greater with Kelly’sthan one ratio is- unfit (KR) for greater irrigation, than one is unfit for irrigation, >2.5 Unsuitable 7 as KR value more than 1 indicatesas KR value that more the amount than 1 indicatesof Na+ is that in an the excess amount amount of Na (Tanvir+ is in an et excess amount (Tanvir et 4. Kelly’s ratio (Tanvir et al. 2014). KR for study area ranges al. 2014). KR for study areaal. ranges2014). fromKR for 0.05 study to 1.02 area with ranges an fromaverage 0.05 of to 0.29 1.02 (Figure with an 5 averagee). As of 0.29 (Figure 5 e). As In general, groundwaterwith Kelly’s ratio from 0.05 to 1.02 with an average of 0.29 (Figure 5 e). As per the criteria, all of the per the(KR) criteria greater, all than of the one samples isper unfit the criteriaforare irrigation, suitable, all of for the irrigation samples purpose.are suitable for irrigation purpose. as KR value more than 1 indicates that samples are suitable for irrigation purpose. the amount of Na+ Kelly’sis in an Ratioexcess = amount Na+/ Ca +2+MgKelly’s+2 Ratio = Na+/ Ca+2+Mg+2 5 5

Figure. 5 Iso-concentrationFigure maps. 5 showingIso-concentrat spatialion variation maps showing in (e) Kelly’s spatial index variation (f) in (e) Kelly’s index (f) permeability Index, (g) exchangeablepermeability sIndexodium, ( gratio) exchangeable, (h) potential sodium salinity. ratio , (h) potential salinity.

Fig.5 : Iso-concentration maps showing spatial variation in (e) Kelly’s index(f) permeability Index,(g) exchangeable sodium ratio,(h) potential salinity.

204 | Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017

5. Permeability index 5. Permeability index

11 11

The permeability index (PI)The values permeability also indicate index the(PI) suitability values also of indicateground- thewater suitability for of ground- water for

irrigation. Doneen (1964) irrigation.has evolved Doneen a criterion (1964 )for has assessing evolved thea criterion suitability for of assessing water for the suitability of water for

irrigation based on PI (Tableirrigation 3). As based per onpermeability PI (Table indices,3). As perthe permeabilitywater samples indices, may be the water samples may be

subdivided into Class I, Classsubdivided II and Classinto Class III. Almost I, Class all II of and the Class samples III. Almost(Figure all6) fromof the the samples (Figure 6) from the

study area fall under Classstudy I and area Class fall II under types, Class but only I and one Class sample II types, DW7 but showed only oneClass sample III DW7 showed Class III

type of water; with 25% typemaximum of water; permeability. with 25% Classmaximum I and permeability.Class II type Classs of water I and are Class II types of water are

suitable for irrigation withsuitable 75% of formaximum irrigation permeability. with 75% of The maximum permeabi permeability.lity values range The permeabion lity values range on

the basis of Doneen’s chartthe andbasis most of Doneen’s of the groundwater chart and mostsamples of thein thegroundwater study area samples are in the study area are

suitable for irrigation purposessuitable as shown for irrigation in (Figure purposes 5 f). as shown in (Figure 5 f).

6 6

Figure. 6 Doneen (1964) Figureclassification √ . 6 Doneen of ir rigation⁄(1964) classification water √ based of on ir therigation⁄ permeability water based on the permeability index index

5. Permeability index 6. Exchangeable sodium ratio (ESR) 6. Exchangeable sodium ratio6. Exchangeable (ESR) sodium ratio (ESR) The permeability index (PI) values also The ESR values calculated to determine the TheThe permeability indicate ESR values the index suitability calculated (PI) Thevalues of ground- to ESR also determine valuesindicate water calculated thesuitability suitability suitability toof ofwater determine of ground watersample- water the samplefor suitabilityagricultural for for of water sample for The permeabilityThe permeability index (PI)index values (PI) valuesalso indicate alsofor indicate irrigation.the suitability the Doneen suitability of ground(1964) of ground-has water evolved- forwater forpurposes, varied from 0.05 to 1 and its extent irrigation.agricultural Doneen purposes,a criterion (1964 varied)for has agriculturalassessing evolvedfrom 0.05 the a purposes, tocriterionsuitability 1 and itsvariedfor ofextent assessing fromis is displayed displayed 0.05 the tosuitability in1 inand(Figure5 (Figure its ofextent g). water5 g) is. displayedfor in (Figure 5 g). irrigation.irrigation. Doneen Doneen (1964) (has1964 evolved) has evolved a criterion a criterion forwater assessing for for irrigationassessing the suitability based the suitability on PIof (Tablewater of 3).As forwater for irrigation basedper on permeability PI (Table indices,3ESR). As = theper Na water +permeability/ Ca samples+2 +Mg+ 2indices, ESR =the Na +water/ Ca+ 2samples +Mg+2 may be7 7 irrigationirrigation based onbased PI (onTable PI (3Table). As 3per). Aspermeability per permeabilitymay indices, be subdivided indices, the water intothe Classsampleswater I, Classsamples may II beand may be subdivided intoClass Class7. III.Potential I, Almost Class salinity IIall and of (PS)theClass7. samples Potential III. Almost (Fig. salinity 6) all (PS) of7. thePotential samples salinity (Figure (PS) 6) from the subdividedsubdivided into Class into I, Class Class I, II Class and ClassII and III. Class Almost III. fromAlmost all ofthe the allstudy samplesof thearea samples fall(Figure under ( Figure6 )Class from12 6 I )the andfrom the 12 study area fall Classunder II Class Thetypes, PSI andbut value onlyClass identified one II types,sampleThe for PS butthe DW7value studyonly identified oneareaThe sampleis PS infor valuethe theDW7 range studyidentified showed of area 2.24 isfor Class- in22 the the meq/l III studyrange with areaof an2.24 - 22 meq/l with an is in the range of 2.24 - 22 meq/l with an study areastudy fall area under fall Classunder I Classand Class I and II Class types, II buttypes, onlyshowed but one only Classsample one III sample DW7type ofshowed DW7 water; showed Classwith 25%III Class III type of water;maximum withaverage 25% permeability. ofmaximum 6.47meq/l Class(permeability.Figureaverage I and5 ofh). ClassII6.47meq/l Class (IFigureaverage and Class5 hof). 6.47meq/l II types (Figure5of water h). are type oftype water; of water; with 25% with maximum 25% maximum permeability. permeability. Classtypes I Class ofand water ClassI and are II Classsuitable type sII of typefor water irrigations of arewater are suitable for irrigation with 75% of maximum permeability. The permeabi lity values range on 8 8 with 75% of maximum permeability. The suitablesuitable for irrigation for irrigation with 75% with of 75% maximum of maximum permeability. permeability.permeability8. TheConductivity permeabi valuesThe permeabi lityrange values8. on Conductivitylity the valuesrange basis on range of on 8. Conductivity the basis of Doneen’sDoneen’s chartchart and and most most of theof groundwaterthe groundwater samples in the study area are the basisthe ofbasis Doneen’s of Doneen’s chart andchart most and ofmost the ofgroundwater thesamples groundwater The samplesinEC the value studysamples inlower thearea than instudyThe are the 250 ECsuitable areastudy µS/cmvalue are forarealower is suitabl arethanThe e 250forEC crop µS/cmvalue and islower thussuitabl acceptablethane for 250 crop forµS/cm and irrigation thus is acceptable for irrigation suitable for irrigation purposes as shown in (Figure 5 f). irrigation purposes as shown in (Figure5 f). suitable for crop and thus acceptable suitablesuitable for irrigation for irrigation purposes purposes as shown as shownin (Figure in ( Figure5 f). purposes, 5 f). but values morepurposes, than 300 but µS/cmvalues ismore forinappropriate thanirrigation 300 µS/cm for purposes, crop is productioninappropriate but values (Westcott for morecrop and production (Westcott and than 300 µS/cm is inappropriate6 for crop

Ayers 1984). The crop Ayersproduction 1984). declines The crop with production the high declinesEC as it adverselywith the high affects EC theas itplants adversely affects the plants 6 6 production (Westcott and Ayers 1984). The Figure . 6 Doneen (1964) classification √ of ir rigation⁄ water based on the permeability and its water intake abiandlity its(Zouahri water intake et al. 2015)abicroplity. In(Zouahriproduction the stud ety al.areadeclines 2015) from. with Inthe the mapthe stud highity could area EC from be the map it could be

Figure.Figure 6 Doneen. 6 Doneen (1964) (1964)classification √ classification √ index of ir rigation⁄ of ir rigation ⁄ water basedwater onbased the onpermeability the permeability as it adversely affects the plants and its evident that almost moreevident than that 90% almost area more haswater conductivity than intake 90% ability areavalue has(Zouahri greater conductivity thanet al. 3002015). valueµS/cm greater than 300µS/cm index index In the study area from the map it could be (Figure 7 i). On the basis(Figure of 7conductivity i). On the, basisthe water of conductivity is unsuitable, the for water irrigation. is unsuitable And this for irrigation. And this evident that almost more than 90% area has situation will be gettingsituation cumulative will be with getting conductivityexces cumulativesive irrigation value with greater andexces insufficient sivethan irrigation300 µS/cmdrainage and insufficient drainage (Figure 7 i). On the basis of conductivity, systems and high watersystems table. and high waterthe table. water is unsuitable for irrigation. And this situation will be getting cumulative with Figure. 7 Iso-concentrationFigure maps. 7 Iso showing-concentration spatialexcessive mapsvariation irrigation showing in (andi )spatial conductivity insufficient variation anddrainage in ( j()i ) conductivity and (j) nitrate concentration.nitrate concentration.systems and high water table.

i i j j

Fig. 6 : Doneen (1964) classification of irrigation water based on the permeability index

Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 | 205 6. Exchangeable sodium ratio (ESR) 6. Exchangeable6. Exchangeable sodium sodium ratio (ESR) ratio (ESR) 9. Nitrate 9. Nitrate The ESR values calculated to determine the suitability of water sample for The ESRThe values ESR values calculated calculated to determine to determine the suitability The the nitrate suitability ofconcentration water of The watersample plays nitrate samplea forsignificantconcentration for role plays in irrigat a significantion. The highrole inconcentrations irrigation. The of high concentrations of agricultural purposes, varied from 0.05 to 1 and its extent is displayed in (Figure 5 g). nitrogen and phosphorusnitrogen in surface and phosphoruswaters are major in surface factors waters that contributeare major factorsto eutrophication that contribute to eutrophication agriculturalagricultural purposes, purposes, varied fromvaried 0.05 from to 0.051 and to its 1 andextent its isextent displayed is displayed in (Figure in ( Figure5 g). 5 g). ESR = Na+/ Ca+2 +Mg+2 7 and hypoxia problems.and Similarly hypoxia excess problems. nitrate Similarly concentration excess leads nitrate to leachingconcentration of salts leads which to leaching of salts which ESR = ESRNa+/ =Ca Na+2 ++Mg/ Ca++22 +Mg+2 7 7 percolates beyond the rootpercolate zone12s and beyond not be the available root zone to andthe notcrop be system. available The to concentration the crop system. of The concentration of

12 12 13 13

Fig. 7 : Iso-concentration maps showing spatial variation in (i) conductivity and (j) nitrate concentration.

9. Nitrate the root zone and not be available to the The nitrate concentration plays a significant crop system. The concentration of nitrate is role in irrigation. The high concentrations shown in (Figure 7 j) as per (BIS, 1991), the of nitrogen and phosphorus in surface suitable quantity of nitrate is 45mg/l. From waters are major factors that contribute the map, it could be evident that a major of to eutrophication and hypoxia problems. area is under nitrogen concentration stress, Similarly excess nitrate concentration leads thus, contributing to an increase in the salt to leaching of salts which percolates beyond concentration.

Table 3 : Irrigation indices for water samples from study area. Sr. Sample Potential SAR %Na RSC RSBC KI PI ESR No. name salinity 1 SW1 0.90 17.36 12.67 1.33 0.21 20.69 4.66 0.21 2 SW2 0.96 19.59 -2.41 0.26 0.24 24.18 3.51 0.24 3 SW3 0.68 13.99 -2.12 2.72 0.16 25.37 2.40 0.16 4 SW4 2.23 36.03 -2.93 0.51 0.56 18.43 4.64 0.56 5 SW5 1.80 23.84 -7.59 3.00 0.31 14.01 10.23 0.31 6 DW6 1.49 19.04 -9.40 3.16 0.24 13.37 8.57 0.24 7 DW7 3.81 35.08 -7.57 -11.07 0.54 5.54 22.00 0.54 8 BW8 1.79 23.69 -6.92 3.96 0.31 14.53 7.62 0.31 9 DW9 1.76 25.09 -6.47 0.96 0.34 14.94 7.91 0.34 10 SW10 0.62 11.96 -2.05 3.79 0.14 24.72 2.54 0.14 11 BW11 0.67 11.44 11.49 2.20 0.13 19.07 3.57 0.13

206 | Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 12 DW12 1.76 23.56 6.18 -0.60 0.31 14.42 8.06 0.31 13 BW13 0.65 10.58 -0.23 -1.22 0.12 13.27 9.93 0.12 14 SW14 0.62 12.95 -3.56 1.24 0.15 22.77 2.77 0.15 15 SW15 0.68 15.17 -2.38 -0.58 0.18 25.93 3.13 0.18 16 DW16 1.72 23.00 -8.54 1.22 0.30 13.40 8.61 0.30 17 DW17 1.60 20.70 -3.75 -0.09 0.26 12.40 10.74 0.26 18 SW18 0.77 17.06 -3.52 0.84 0.21 22.26 2.71 0.21 19 DW19 2.66 28.03 -12.59 3.24 0.39 10.38 18.11 0.39 20 DW20 1.72 26.31 -4.85 -0.26 0.36 16.76 5.83 0.36 21 DW21 2.35 29.96 0.28 -0.70 0.43 11.04 11.16 0.43 22 SW22 0.75 17.59 -2.03 0.89 0.21 27.41 2.83 0.21 23 DW23 1.32 16.58 -12.37 2.82 0.20 11.95 12.74 0.20 24 DW24 1.85 24.75 -3.48 0.93 0.33 11.59 9.75 0.33 25 SW25 0.57 11.43 -1.36 3.23 0.13 26.60 2.24 0.13 26 DW26 1.55 23.98 3.75 -1.95 0.32 10.14 4.25 0.32 27 DW27 1.61 25.75 -1.49 4.15 0.35 21.29 4.07 0.35 28 DW28 1.59 25.00 12.97 2.86 0.33 18.52 4.53 0.33 29 SW29 0.56 11.79 -2.90 1.17 0.13 24.40 3.11 0.13 30 BW30 0.28 5.41 -3.39 2.00 0.06 22.95 3.57 0.06 31 DW31 0.78 13.39 -4.65 1.78 0.15 19.43 3.95 0.15 32 DW32 1.16 15.45 -10.55 1.40 0.19 13.10 12.47 0.19 33 BW33 2.46 41.83 17.78 0.41 0.72 19.35 4.75 0.72 34 DW34 0.65 11.12 -5.33 0.98 0.13 18.92 4.69 0.13 35 BW35 1.44 19.90 -3.16 -0.65 0.25 12.79 10.76 0.25 36 BW 36 0.59 9.20 -10.36 0.71 0.10 13.88 8.11 0.10 37 DW37 0.50 7.98 -7.09 2.62 0.09 17.13 5.75 0.09 38 DW38 0.91 18.40 -1.65 3.55 0.23 25.65 3.13 0.23 39 BW39 0.61 9.49 -7.75 2.40 0.10 16.30 5.75 0.10 40 BW40 1.99 29.62 -3.83 3.37 0.42 17.36 5.88 0.42 41 DW41 1.57 21.52 -7.44 -0.48 0.27 14.54 7.90 0.27 42 BW42 1.36 16.13 -14.37 -0.54 0.19 11.10 13.79 0.19 43 BW 43 1.85 29.42 -4.50 0.83 0.42 16.87 6.55 0.42 44 DW44 1.51 20.69 -6.12 1.04 0.26 15.64 7.83 0.26 45 DW45 0.70 10.29 -7.88 -0.57 0.11 15.90 6.59 0.11 46 DW46 1.80 27.79 18.45 1.03 0.39 16.53 5.29 0.39 47 SW47 0.95 15.99 -3.70 2.85 0.19 20.07 3.38 0.19 48 SW48 1.49 24.64 -3.36 1.04 0.33 19.47 4.50 0.33

Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 | 207 49 BW49 1.00 17.90 -5.30 0.20 0.22 18.02 5.71 0.22 50 SW50 1.30 20.16 -7.52 -1.13 0.25 14.62 5.53 0.25 51 BW51 2.28 36.84 -0.01 2.71 0.58 23.16 4.08 0.58 52 SW52 1.04 18.22 -4.22 1.11 0.22 19.56 3.74 0.22 53 BW53 0.69 10.52 -3.81 6.27 0.12 19.09 2.27 0.12 54 DW54 2.03 30.19 -2.37 4.02 0.43 18.91 4.31 0.43 55 DW55 1.91 32.21 -1.35 3.48 0.48 22.12 3.99 0.48 56 BW56 1.60 23.22 -3.73 5.63 0.30 17.83 6.04 0.30 57 BW57 1.10 20.43 -2.93 3.99 0.26 21.91 4.18 0.26 58 DW58 4.54 48.12 -2.32 5.87 0.93 13.93 7.20 0.93 59 DW59 1.72 29.68 -3.23 2.26 0.42 19.37 7.00 0.42 60 BW60 5.19 50.62 -5.77 0.29 1.03 10.73 7.73 1.03 61 DW61 0.95 15.32 -5.66 1.64 0.18 17.68 4.76 0.18 62 DW62 1.19 19.25 -4.36 0.32 0.24 18.67 7.67 0.24 63 DW63 1.48 19.78 -12.20 -4.66 0.25 10.94 6.72 0.25

Conclusion: Ujjani reservoir. The other important The Ujjani reservoir is mainly constructed contributory factors for nitrate concentration to cater the requirements of irrigation and are uncontrolled and excessive irrigation domestic purposes. The water from the application, animal wastes, use of fertilizers, Ujjani Dam and surrounding region is and greater number of septic tanks. suitable for irrigation purposes on the basis The drought conditions and fluctuations of SAR, percentage sodium, RSC, RSBC, in water level will escalate this situation KI and PI. The water from the dam and to a major extent if proper care is not surrounding region is getting polluted due taken. To reduce the concentration of to the high content of salts and nitrate. The pollutants, it is advisable to provide common drainage pattern and permeability affect treatment facility to the nearby villages the concentration of EC and nitrate. The which will to treat the untreated waste. The pollutant gets settled in the Ujjani reservoir proper drainage practices and sustainable as the drainage that enters into the Ujjani agriculture will also help to minimize the Dam does not have a steep gradient and application of nitrogen-containing fertilizers this slows down the flow of river water by and its permeability into the aquifer. The providing settling time for pollutants.The drip irrigation will also support to reduce the feeding river carries the load of pollutants excessive use of water for irrigation as this from upper part and dumps it into the is one of the point sources for salts.

208 | Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 Bibliography • Kumar, M. (2007): A comparative evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation • Adhikary, P.P. (2012): Evaluation of and drinking purposes in two intensively groundwater quality for irrigation and cultivated districts of Punjab, India. Environ drinking using GIS and geostatistics in Geology, Vol 53:553–574. a peri-urban area of Delhi , India. Arab J Geosci, Vol . 5:1423– • Kumar, S.(2009): Environmental studies on river water quality with reference • 1434. to suitability for agricultural purposes : • Ahamed, A.J. (2013): Assessment of Mahanadi river estuarine system , India – a groundwater quality for irrigation use case study. EnvironMonit Assessessment,Vol in Alathur Block , Perambalur District 155:227–243. , Tamilnadu , South India. Appl Water • More PAB, (2014) Engineering Water Sci,Vol. 3:763–771. Quality Status of Mula-Mutha River. Global • Bhar59dwaj, V. (2011): Surface and research analysis,Vol 3 issue 4 :75–77. groundwater quality characterization of • Ravikumar, P. (2011): Geochemistry of Deoria District, Ganga Plain, India. Environ groundwater, Markandeya River Basin, Earth Sci., Vol. 63:383–395. Belgaum district, State, India. • Eknath, C.N. (2013): The Seasonal Chinese J Geochemistry, Vol 30:51–74. Fluctuation of Physico-Chemical parameters • Sadashivaiah,C. (2008): Hydrochemical of River Mula- Mutha at Pune , India and Analysis and Evaluation of Groundwater their Impact on Fish Biodiversity. Research Quality in Tumkur Taluk , Karnataka State Journal of Animal, Veterinary and Fishery , India.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, Sciences, Vol.1:11–16. Vol 5:158–164. • Etteieb, S. (2015): Hydrochemical • Singh, A. K. (2005): Hydrochemistry of assessment of water quality for irrigation: a reservoirs of Damodar River basin, India: case study of the Medjerda River in Tunisia. Weathering processes and water quality Appl Water Sci. assessment. Environ Geology,Vol 48:1014– • Haritash, A.K. (2014): Assessment of water 1028. quality and suitability analysis of River • Rao, S. N. (2006): Seasonal variation of Ganga in Rishikesh, India. Appl Water groundwater quality in a part of Guntur Sci.,Vol 6:383–392. District, Andhra Pradesh, India. Environ • Jadhav, S.(2015): Heavy Metal Pollution Geology, Vol 49:413–429. Study of Mula-Mutha River in Pune • Tanvir, A.T.M. (2014): Groundwater (Maharashtra).International Journal of characterization and selection of suitable Innovative and Emerging Research in water type for irrigation in the western Engineering,Vol 2:22–25. region of Bangladesh. Appl Water Sci. • Kulkarni,U. D.(2010):Geochemical Impact • Westcott, D.W (1984): Water quality of the Surface runoff on the drinking water criteria in irrigation with reclaim municipal quality of the Yashwantsagar Reservior. wastewater. California: State water resources Advances in Geosciences, Vol 23:171–183. control board, Sacramento.

Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017 | 209 • Zouahri, A.(2015): Evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation in the Skhirat region, Northwest of Morocco. EnvironMonit Assess, Vol 187:4184 .

Deepti Pachorkar Corresponding author [email protected] Department of Environmental Sciences, Ravindra G Jaybhaye Department of Geography, SavitribaiPhule Pune University, Pune, Maharashtra, India, 411007.

210 | Transactions | Vol. 39, No. 2, 2017