NATURAL FLOW AND HUMAN USE OF THE RIVER Headwaters of the Tributary

John Kolars

Rival claims between , and Iraq for use of the waters of the Euphrates (and ) River will increase in intensity in the near future as more of the developmental plans of those countries are realized.

Before such claims can be arbitrated there must be as complete knowledge as possible of the natural characteristics of the river and its basin made available to all concerned parties. Beyond the physical attributes of

the river — some of which will be discussed below — additional information regarding the demography and ethnicity of the populations involved, the history of the area and of the use of its river(s), developments already in place or underway as well as those planned for the future, and the legal, political, and economic issues involved must also be readv at hand. This discussion does not intend to be definitive or complete. Its intent is to outline some critical aspects of one small section of the Euphrates River system. It is hoped by this to indicate the type of continuing research undertaken by the author for the MERI water project. The basic data needed for understanding developments in the basin are the amounts of water available both on the surface and in its aquifers, and on the various withdrawals from these amounts by natural and human subsystems. Such data are usually obtained by records kept at various gauging stations along the length of streams and by well logs. Such records vary in accuracy, timing, and number of years kept. Another important aspect of such records is whether or not the data represent pre- or post- damming periods of flow. Ancillary checks on the accuracy and amounts recorded can be computed — again with varying degrees of accuracy — from catchment areas and climatic records. Soils, underlying lithology (permeability and porousity), vegetative cover, and slope are also important. If amounts of flow can be assigned to specific tributaries this further enhances the overall picture.

This last point is the focus of this particular presentation. The mentioned above help to describe and identify the quantity of water A contributed by each country sharing the river basin. In this case the riparian states in question are Turkey which provides most of the waters - 2 -

of the Euphrates, Syria which contributes about ten percent of the river's flow, and Iraq which essentially uses but does not contribute to the Euphrates. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia technically shares a small portion of the downstream river basin, but that for all practical purposes neither gives water to nor receives water from the system. Country shares have little correlation with the amounts of water claimed and/or used by riparian states. There is a long record of international river use throughout the world although it is poorly codified. Nevertheless, the case for the legitimacy of downstream as well as upstream users' claims is well established. When water is used for irrigation, domestic use, and industry part of that water will be returned to the system. The amount and quality of the returned water can be significant factors in determining equitable river basin use. Hydroelectric production in theory should not effect downstream users since the water is returned to the system after being passed through the turbines. However, water ponded in reservoirs can be lost through evaporation and seepage and the silt content of rivers can be dramatically altered by settling out in upstream reservoirs. Another important feature of river bsin water use is the amount of water transported and stored in natural underground reservoirs (aquifers). This is of particular interest in the where surface water losses from evaporation are great. Water held underground remains uneffected by high temperatures and low humidities. On the other hand, the pumping of aquifers can change the flow of surface streams and the return of water to aquifers can pollute as well as restore such supplies. Far less is known about the characteristics, movements and amounts of underground waters then about those on the surface. This presentation will point out the significance of certain aquifers to the Euphrates system. Little will be said here about the legal, historic, and economic events which form the matrix of human use of Euphrates waters. However, in the final analysis, it is in those areas that the most critical decisions have been and will be made. The counties (kaza) in Turkey which fall within the Southeast Anatolia Project (SEAP) are shown on Map I (Figure I). This constitutes the major catchment area for precipitation supplying the Euphrates River. Counties farther east are also important sources of water for the Tigris River. - 3 -

Several estimates of the flow of Euphrates waters attribute 88 percent to Turkey and 12 percent to Syria (Garbrecht as quoted in Beaumont, 1978). Al-Khasab using different techniques and sources of data assigns 100 percent of the flow to Turkey (Table 9, 1958). Al-Hadithi using other materials attributes 84 percent of the river's mean annual runoff to Turkey, 13 percent to Syria, and 3 percent to Iraq (1979). (Determining which of these sets of figures is correct will take additional analysis but is discussed below.) One element of importance is the question of the Syrian contribution to the Euphrates' flow into Iraq. This increment comes from three tributaries: the Sadjur which enters from the right bank near the Turkish border, the Balikh (Colap in Turkey) from the left bank farther downstream, and the Khabur midway between the Tabqa and the Iraqi border. Water from these tributaries £omes in part from their catchment areas within Syria, but a major portion of their flow originates in Turkey. The upper reaches of the Khabur constitute a number of smaller streams in Turkey as well as a large aquifer which provides the Khabur in Syria with much of its flow. The materials in this presentation are limited to an examination of the role played by the Khabur and its sources. The "-Ceylanpinar Irrigation Area' within the Euphrates basin represents the area of Turkey which provides water to the Khabur and which is itself undergoing significant agricultural development within SEAP in Turkey. Such developments will have an important effect on downstream conditions of the Khabur. Put another way, it may well be that of the estimates quoted above, that of Al-Khasab is closest to actual conditions. This, in turn, would mean that Turkey's control over Euphrates waters is nearly total in so far as the geographical location of

their sources is concerned. Map II (Figure II) shows the SEAP area in greater detail. The Euphrates River with its existing and proposed reservoirs occupies the western portion of this map. The Tigris River and its existing and proposed reservoirs is in the east. (A portion of Lake Van shows in the northeast. This lake is landlocked and saline and plays no part in the river basin system.) Proposed irrigation developments are shown with the Mardin-Ceylanpinar area found just north of the Syrian border in the central portion of the map. The Colap — and its downstream extension into Syria as the Balikh — is immediately to the west of the Mardin-Ceylanpinar area. A series of tunnels and canals will lead water from an arm of the Ataturk Reservoir in the northwest in a southeasterly direction to both the Colap and the Mardin-Ceylanpinar - 4

irrigation developments. Map III presents additional information about the Mardin-Ceylanpinar project. (It is important to remember that it is this area with its surface streams and underlying aquifers that provides the downstream flow of the Khabur.) The remainder of this discussion will present a review of just how much and in what way this water finds its way into Syria and the Khabur River. The focal point of this map is an area of some 60,000 hectares which will receive water from pumped wells rather than from surface canals. The aquifer tapped by these wells is also the source of water for springs in Syria which feed the Khabur. This irrigation development centers upon Ceylanpinar. Surrounding this area is a much larger one in Turkey in which between 300,000 and 448,000 additional hectares of land will be irrigated with water brought by canals from the Ataturk Reservoir. The impact of this imported water upon the flow and quality of both surface streams and aquifers is problematical. A further point of interest on this map are state farms where crop production from pumped wells is already a fact. Map IV (Figure IV) draws attention to the Syrian role in the physical and economic development of the Khabur River. An area in northeast Syria centering upon the province of Al-Hasakah contains the Syrian headwaters of the Khabur and its tributaries. To the west, the Euphrates River flows across the Turkish border into Syria where it is ponded behind the . To the east the Khabur joins the Euphrates near Deir ez Zor. The river then continues to and across the Iraqi-Syrian border. Little water, if any, enters the river downstream from Deir ez Zor with the exception of irregular

• floods from usually dry wadis. The headwaters of the Khabur in that portion of Syria known as the Jezireh are shown on Map V. This region is an extension of the north Syrian steppe which is terminated north of the Syrian-Turkish border by the foothills of the Anti-. The principal feature of this region is the valley of the Khabur which is divided into the High Jezireh just south of the Turkish border and the Low Jezireh which extends as far as the Euphrates River near Deir ez Zor by volcanic highlands to west and east. Upstream from the town of Hasakah there are two main branches of the Khabur. These are the Khabur itself which flows from the northwest and the Jagh Jagh coming from the northeast. The major source of water is a giant spring from which - 5 -

the Khabur flows at the town of Ras el AIn immediately across the border from Ceylanpinar. This perrenial spring is one of the largest in the world. Additional water is added to the river by seasonal surface flows in the late winter and early spring. Other smaller streams also contribute smaller amounts to the Khabur. These come from a combination of smaller springs and seasonal runoff. To the east the Jagh Jagh flows from Turkey into Syria as a perrenial stream. Farther east is a large marsh, the Radd, which imponds a large quantity of water, much of which is lost through evapotranspiration into the atmosphere. The other streams shown are seasonal in character. The perrenial flow of these streams, with few if any exceptions, stops just short of the Turkish border. This is the result of a diplomatic and technological coincidence. When the extensions of the so-called Berlin to Baghdad Railroad was constructed across this territory the tracks were located far enough up each stream to avoid the expensive bridging of year-round stream flow. Subsequently, when the Turkish Syrian border was drawn following World War I, the railroad was included in Turkish territory, but so close does the border come to the tracks that in may places one actually steps out of the south side of the train onto Syrian soil. An unforeseen result of all this was that while the perrenial streams and springs feeding the Khabur are in Syrian territory, a large portion of the catchments and aquifers for such springs and streams are located under Turkish administration. The major source of the Khabur sub-system is the spring known as Ras el Ain which rises immediately south of the Turkish border in the town of the same name. This spring flows from limestone caverns as a nearly invarying rate of about 35 m to 40 m per second. (It should be noted that the figure "40" in this case represents a real estimated value and not the Middle Eastern "forty.") Figure VII shows this base flow of the Khabur downstream near Suwar and is plotted a more conservative 37 m /sec. Winter and spring rains create surface runoff which begins in January and peaks sometime in April. Spring floods would thus provide an important part of the reservoir storage planned for Syria on the Khabur. At the same time, base flow represents a significant part of the system. The karstique (coming from passage disolved in limestone) waters of the Ras el Ain derive from an aquifer which is located largely across the Turkish border to the north. - 6 -

Accounts of this recharge area describe it as "7,500 km " (UN Report No. 9). The relationship of the spring to its aquifer and of the aquifer to its catchment area is illustrated in Figure VIII. Available geological data are not specific enough to give an exact analysis of this situation. However, the water bearing strata in question dip southward from Turkey into Syria, reaching the surface at Ras el Ain and producing enough head for natural or artesian flow of the waters. Turkish surveys list two areas of underground water availability in the Mardin-Ceylanpinar district: that surrounding Ceylanpinar and another near Mardin-Kiziltepe. The latter is relatively insignificant having an estimated 13 x 10 6m 3 /yr of water recharge, but the " "* 6 3 former is said to contain a rechargeable supply of 852 x 10 m /yr available for pumping. The graph inset in Figure VIII indicates that if all recharge of the Ras el Ain spring were to cease, the spring would exhaust its stored supply of water in approximately four years (graph line q). This raises a number of technical questions. How much water do the Turks plan to extract from the Ceylanpinar aquifer? What proportion will return to the system through seepage and what quality will that water have? What increased amounts of surface runoff from planned irrigation in Turkey can be expected? Water losses from evapotranspiration off irrigated fields can be significant (a minimum figure of 10,000 m ha/yr has been suggested). These considerations also become part of the ultimate equation. The many elements referred to in the above pages interact to create the Khabur River contribution to the Euohrates-Tigris system. Turkey and Syria are active participants in this particular phase of water use. Iraq has no direct role in how much or what quality water joins the main stream at Deir ez Zor but will be effected in many ways by what takes place there. In order to conceptualize these interactions Figure X outlines the Khabur system in Turkey and Syria. The diagram should be read from the upper left to the lower right. (The concluding two diagrams expand on this initial display and attempt to assign numerical values wherever possible.)

Two main sources of water ultimately provide for the Mardin-Ceylanpinar/ Ras el Ain-Jezireh combined region. These are precipitation over the watershed which occurs in the winter and early spring and which declines from 1306 rnrn/yr at Lice in the north to 333 mm/yr at Ceylanpinar, and to less then 300 mm/yr near Deir ez Zor. This provides both surface runoff and recharges - 7 -

the underlying aquifers. A second source of water will be that brought into the region from the Ataturk Reservoir. While this water's ultimate source is precipitation farther up the Euphrates River, it is assumed here that such supplies can and will be provided as needed and will be independent of local variation in precipitation at Ceylanpinar. (Implications of this downstream beyond Deir ez Zor will be discussed in the following pages.) Seasonal runoff will be partially stored in local reservoirs such as those at Mardin and Derik. Another part will flow downstream into Syria as shown in Figure VII as the peak flow in April. Evaporation from these reservoirs will represent a net loss from the system; seepage from them into the aquifer will help to recharge losses from planned pumping. Locally stored waters as well as water from the main canals leading from the Ataturk Reservoir will irrigate fields. Additional fields will be served by water pumped from the local aquifer. Evapotranspiration from fields will represent a net loss to the system. Infiltration will partially recharge the aquifer and in addition some runoff will find its way downstream into Syria. Syrian agricultural development plans have long focussed on use of the waters of the Asad Reservoir behind the Tabqa Dam for irrigation of large tracts in the Euphrates Valley downstream. Unforeseen diffculties and expenses relating to the soil quality in these areas have delayed large-scale development. At the present time, the have turned their attention to two alternate strategies. A greater emphasis is now being placed upon dry farming techniques — a matter that does not dierectly concern this study. However, major irrigation developments are underway along the Khabur (Map IX). One area will use water diverted from the spring at Ras el Ain to irrigate 42,000 hectares along the banks of the Khabur as far as the El-Hasakah Dam. Another 49,950 hectares will be irrigated to the east and west of Hasakah, while another 46,650 hectares are planned for the Al-Khabur Dam area downstream from Suwar. A number of questions need to asked concerning this region of the High Jezireh and the Khabur.What are the flow characteristics of these streams? That is, how much of their waters originate in Syria and how much finds its - 8 -

way across the Syrian-Turkish border either as seasonal runoff at the surface or through aquifers providing water for perrenial springs? What effect will Turkish developments have on these streams and springs? Furthermore, what can be anticipated regarding Syrian plans for use of these waters within the Jezireh? A parallel question relates to the Radd Marsh and its possible draining in order to prevent water loss through evapotranspiration. Finally, what impact will developments in both Turkey and Syria on the Khabur system have on Iraqi use of Euphrates water? The next two diagrams consider these question^in greater detail and ujiljL mm niinnlirtitiij, ill iipriHT attempt to summarize the overall Khabur system and to describe developmental impact upon it. (Questions regarding demographic change and other aspects of human use of water have not been addressed in this preliminary study.) Although the diagram in Figure IX shows the situation on the Syrian side in less detail, Figure X-B expands on the conditions that exist there. Water from the Ceylanpinar aquifer reaches the surface in Syria as springs. Part of the aquifer's fund will continue underground farther into Syria. Losses will occur from evapotranspiration from fields and and from the Radd Marsh (assuming it is not drained) and from evaporation from reservoir and canal suSriaces. Return flows from the fields and possibly unused surplusses will continue on to the Euphrates mainstream at Deir ez Zor. Figures X-A and X-B indicate terms in the overall Khabur system which at present quantifiable. These data are subject to revision based upon analyses currently being conducted. Other values will be added whenever available. Because of the variety of reference materials used for the infor mation shown here, certain values appear anomalous or contradictory. Current analyses anticipate resolving such inconsistencies. Figure IX shows the general articulation of the system, and therefore, the discussion of Figures X-A and X-B will emphasize a description of the data and their sources. (The following numbers refer to corresponding numbers on Figure X-A.) 1. Precipitation is estimated as the average for the Ceylanpinar-Mardin region times the area of the catchment: 450mm X t500 km2 = 3.38 x 109m 3/yr. 2. The yearly fund of water from the Ceylanpinar aquifer is found in 6 3 SEAP II-6 and + 852 x 10 m /yr. - 9 -

6 3 3. The Mardin-Kiziltepe fund SEAP II) = 13 x 10 m /yr. 4. Water use from pumpage is set equal to water need per hectare per year for the Ceylanpinar area (SEAP II 36) times hectarage involved: n 6 3 10,000 m /yr x 60,000 ha « 600 x 10 m /yr. 5. Remaining flow towards Syria does not take infiltration from fields into account and represents the Ceylanpinar fund less the amount pumped. 6. Areas of the Derik and Mardin reservoirs from SEAP V 9. Evaporation from these will be an overall withdrawal from the Euphrates system but may be replaced locally according to need from the Ataturk Reservoir. 7. Areas of fields receiving pumped water: 60,000 ha (SEAP V 9). 8. Area of fields receiving water from Urfa Canal: 164,000 ha (SEAP V 4). 9. Area total » Note #7 plus Note #8. 10. A larger figure including the Urfa-Harran as well as the Mardin- Ceylanpinar area is given in SEAP V 9 as 492,000 ha. This apparently includes some additional fields in the Ceylanpinar area but their hectarage is uncertain. This will represent an unknown withdrawal from the pumpage fund or an additional input from the canals. 3 11. Evapotranspiration is computed as 10,000 m /ha/yr (SEAP III 36) times the area (see #9). This is a conservative estimate. 224,000 ha x 10,000 m3/ha/yr = 2.24 x 109m3/yr. The SEAP report uses a potential evapotranspiration figure which would account only for the needs of the plants. Dunne and Leopold caution (p. 162) that such a "calculation gives only the potential evapotranspiration from a field. It does not take into account evaporation and percolation losses associated with conveyance of water to the field by canal or the extra water that must be applied to the field to leach away salts that would otherwise accumulate in the soil as water evaporated. These 'nonproductive* water requirements can often be of the same general magnitude as the consumptive use, and so a rough estimate of the water needed would involve a doubling of the calculated amount." If their advice is to be taken the withdrawal cited here is unrealistically low. 12. No infiltration or return flow is calculated for this diagram. Al-Hadithi (p. 245) suggests a return flow of 25 percent of the water applied. In view of Note #11. this figure cannot be calculated at this time. - 10 -

Summary: The overall picture given by this diagram is that pumping will reduce the aquifer fund by about three-fourths of its annual recharge increment or Jomewhat more then one-third of the annual flow of the Ras el Ain. How much of this will be made up by return flow and infiltration from fields is uncertain. Water quality of the return flow is also important because the open channels of the karstique aquifer will serve as poor filters compared to sandy strata. If the cautionary view expressed in Note 11. is correct, then the reduction of the aquifer will be even greater. On the other hand, additions from the Ataturk Reservoir via the Urfa tunnel could offset part of this deficit. Such increments, however, would be added to the Balikh to the west and possibly to the Jagh Jagh to the east of the Ceylanpinar area which will receive relatively little water via canal. This might in turn impact on Syrian plans for the upper Khabur northwest of Masakah. Figure XI-B considers the implications of this situation. The data shown in Diagram JJ5J-B for the Syrian Khabur are found in a tiyi^surface* of sources tnen those used for the Turkish area. Al-Thawrah reports /waters are estimated to be 1.6 x 10 m in the "Khabur Basin." Al-Hadithi 2 (p. 45) gives this area as 36,908 km , a much larger figure then that given for the recharge area of the Ras el Ain spring (UN #9). Calculations by the present author indicate that it is the smaller rather then the larger figure which is being referred to at this point. It is also assumed that only the Syrian Khabur is being referred to. The three values shown for the Ras el Ain represent (a) a minimum estimate for the springs at Ras el Ain (UN #9; Al-Thawrah; and Dubertret), and (b) the remainder of the above value assigned 6 3 to run off. Al-Thawrah also reports 400 x 10 ra groundwater resources. Total field area taken from Al-Thawrah total 137,900 ha. Evapotranspiration 2 rates are assigned a value of 1100 mm/m /yr (Thornthwaite). Al-Hadithi uses a 2 higher value of 1400 mra/m /yr. Neither value takes Dunne and Leopold's observation (Note #11) into consideration. Surface and spring water for the Radd/Jagh Jagh tributaries to the east are shown at the top of the diagram. Of all these eastern tributaries only the Jagh Jagh has perrenial flow. This is given as 350 x 106 m3/yr (UN #9), a relatively small amount compared to the flow of the Khabur to the west. Water from this stream has been used in Turkey for at least a quarter of a century above . Part of these waters flow directly into the system via the Jagh Jagh; the remainder are filtered through the - 11 -

6 3 Radd Marshes where some 370 x 10 m are lost to evapotranspiration yearly. •c Two estimates of flow farther downstream based on the same source (UN #9) are close to each other in value. (Total stream flow — as above — less 6 Radd Marsh evapotranspiration equals 80 x 10 m"\ ; cf. the UN estimate of 94.5 x 10f\ A "\ J 9 3 Total evapotranspiration from fields = 1.055 x 10 m for the downstream areas

and 460 x 10 m for fields above al-Hasakah on the Khabur. Total - 1.455 x 10 m . 11 Thawrah reports that the Khabur reservoirs will store 989 x 10 m , but because the surface area of these water bodies is as yet unknown no estimate of water loss through evaporation can be given for this report. Summary: Analysis of these data indicates that water loss from irrigated fields will almost equal surface flow of the Khabur Basin including the 6 3 springs at Ras el Ain. Groundwater can supply an additional 400 x 10 m . 6 3 To this might be added most of the 350 x 10 m from the eastern tributaries if the Radd Marsh is drained. This three-quarters of a billion cubic meters could be added to the Euphrates at Deir ez Zor and serve to maintain downstream flow of the main stream. However, this scenario does not take into consideration higher evapotranspiration estimates nor the possibility of doubling any such quantities for "non-productive" purposes. It should further be noted that any water added to the Khabur system in Turkey will be from upstream withdrawals on the mainstream of the Euphrates system. Thus, at Deir ez Zor the system closes upon itself. Downstream returns via the Khabur are simply upstream removals less evapotranspiration and evaporation losses. Quality of returning water is also an important issue. The overall result will most likely be a diminution of flow and increases in impurities. A major question that remains unanswered in examining the Khabur subsystem is the relationship between Syrian and Turkish estimates of groundwater and surface water quantities. Further questions to be addressed are the amounts of return by seepage and infiltration that can be expected as well as net losses to the entire system through evapotranspiration and evaporation. While research on these questions continues, the importance of new developments in the international Khabur basin for downstream users

can be seen. BIBLIOGRAPHY

* A Commentary on the Headwaters of the Khabur River, Sy^-fti John Kolars, December 1985 + __ .

Ahd-El-Al, Ibrahim, "Statlc3 and Dynamics of Water in the Syro-Lebanese Line- stone Massifs," Ankara Symposium on Arid Zone Hydrology, Arid Zone Program II.

al-Khashab, Wafiq H., The Water Budget of |&g T^ris and Euphrates Basin, 1958)! e°graphy Search Paper No. 54, University of Chicago (Chicago:

Beaumont, Peter, "The Euphrates River - an International Problem of Water Resources Development," Environmental Conservation, V. 5, No. 1, Spring (1978), pp. 35-43. S f1^/1"" aXld Jean Dre9ch> La Nediterranee et la ^oven-Orient. V. 2 La fcediterranee Oriental et le Moven-Orient. pp. 191-47.0-

Daniel7'-ErJ»V'B-Syrie Interieure," Lexiqus Stratigraphique International» sous la direction de 1. Dubertret, Vol. Ill Asie, Congress Geologique — Commission de Stratigraphie, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (19 ), pp. 159-289. ; Dubertret 1 and J. Weularsse, Manuel de Geographie — Syria, Liban et Procha Orient — Premiere Partie — La Peninsula Arabique, Imprimerie Catholique , (Beyrouth: 1940), pp. 57-74.

.• •

Geographer, Office of; Bureau of Intelligence and Research, IL»S. Govt, International Boundary Study No. 163, "Syria-Turkey Boundary'; 7 March. 1973 Wash., D.C._ Gibart, Andre and Maurice Fevret, "La Djezireh Syrienne et son Reveil Economique Revue da gsographia da Lyon, V 23, No. 1 <1953), pp. 1-16.

, as above, deuxieme parrie* V28, No- 2 (1953), pp. 83-98.

Turkey, Govt of, Enerji ve Tabii Kaynaklar Bakanligi, Devlet Su I^leri Genel Mlldurlugu, Etlit ve Plan Dairesi Baskanligi, Gunay Dogu Projesi - r (Ankara: 1980). ,-•-.'•:;.- United Nations-; Dept. of Technical Co-operation for Development, "Ground Water in the Eastern .Mediterranean and Western Asia," Natural Resources/Water Series • No. 9 (United Ifetions, New York: 1982), pp. 143-170. £ Supplemental Bibliography Headwaters of the Khabur Tributary — January 1986 John Kolars

"The Transformation of 150,000 Hectares into Irrigated Land," Al-Thawrah, Damascus (12 March 1983), p. 5.

Al-Hadithi, Adai Hardan; Optimal Utilization of the Water Resources of the Euphrates River in Iraq, Ph.D. Dissertation (University of Arizona, Tucson: 1979).

Thomas Dunne and Luna B. Leopold, Water in Environmental Planning (W.H. Freeman and Co., New York, 1978).

" • .: — — -..•»-•--»->., Yizps ;:f Thornthwaite,,. C.W., J~.R; Mather, and D.B. Carter, Three Water Balance Maps of Southwest- Asia, Publications in Climatology, V. XI, No. 1, Laboratory 7/ of Climatology (Centerton, N.J.: 1958). .

',Turkey, Govt of, Harta Genel MudurlUgU, "Mardin," and "Scsaybin," revised •1946, printed. 1947, 1:200,000 (Ankara: Turkey).

War Office and: Air Ministry, Great Britain, "Mardin," series 1404, sheet 340 D, ^ Edition 3-GSGS, 1:500,000 (1961).

Other various issues-of MEED and other Near Eastern Press sources.

• -••"'•'•- --• •• -

o

Figure II

THE TURKISH SOUTHEAST ANATOLIA DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

IRAO

Irrigated areas shown in gray

Guneydopu Anadolu Projesi ..

Figure III

THE MARDIN/CEYLANPINAR IRRIGATION AREAS, SOUTHEAST ANATOLIA PROJECT Completed irrigation works using pumped water are'diagonally lined. Potential area irrigated by pumped/artesian water stippled. Not all proposed canals are shown but none enter the stippled area. Local reservoirs shaded. flllneydogu Anadolu Projesi

SYRIA

Canals, shown as solid lines. N.B. Ephemeral streams dashed; lower

fr AREA SHOWN IN MAP V

c

.-,e 50J25iJ /

o Figure V

THE SYRIAN JEZIREH

Andre Gibert and Maurice Fevrct "La Djezireh Syrienne et son Reveil Figure VI

DRAINAGE PATTERNS OF THE UPPER J SYRIA (not to scale)

Ceylanpinar

After: Andre Gibert and Maurice Fevret

r* r\ Fi e VII *

STREAM FLOW OF THE KHABUR AT SUWAR, SYRIA 1932-1933

160

140

-a 8 12°

W peak discharges from r f*\T ioo and surface runoff u c £ 80

60

40 3* 20 assumed minimum baseflow Springs: Ras el ain Kamechlie (Nusaybin)

N D J F M A M J J A 0 e a e a P a u u u v c n b r r y n 1 8

L. Dubertret and J. Weulersse.• • Manuel de Geographie — Syrie, Liban, et Proche Orient (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1940), p. 62, Fig. 57. Figure VIII O

GEOLOGICAL SECTION ILLUSTRATING THE HYDROLOGY OF THE RAS-EL-AIN ARTESIAN SPRING

6 » 4 CD • V u E> oE 3 O u u CW

. P.5 50

1*. 2.0 . 40 r^r . I.S

'.° . ?0

.0,4 . _ 10 .•,.»r<7c

Surface: 1 •' 2,000.000 • Scale* Altitude: 1/200,000 a -0 i -W X Co 90 i?o ISO 80 t in days

-- 5^>

N£

JC00- c

1. Sens.linn inarL 3. Compact benches of gypsum with intrreallation* of porous J. Eoeeue fuaurod limwtcne of high absorptive- capacity licaestosc Burdigalian-Vindobonian (Hjoceae). 4. Alluvia, acre*, ailL Quaternary.

Ibrahim Abd-el-Al, "Statics and Dynamics of Water in the Syro-Lebanese Limestone Massifs," Arid Zone Program II, Ankara Symposium on Arid Z6rie Hydrology, p. 73. Figure IX

INAGE PATTERNS. OF THE.UPPER JEZIRAH, SYRIA .. _

Ceylanpinar

(Ras el Ain to western el Hasakah Dam — 42,000 ha)

(al Khabur Dam

area — 46,450 ha)

... After: Andre Gibert and Maurice Fevret

r*x ' Figure X

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF HYDROLOGIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE MARDIN/CEYLANPINAR — RAS-EL-AIN/JEZIREH REGION

Evapo- trans. Precip.

Main Canals _n—n

seasonal runoff

Aquifer

JFK 1985 Figure XI - A O O ••'» SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF HYDROLOGIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE MARDIN/CEYLANPINAR REGION '• / *• :'k.'*^'? ...

(Ceylanpinar) 13 x 10 M /yr (^5) (Mardin-Kiziltepe)

*total ha Urfa-Harran/Mardin-Ceylanpinar regions with full development (SEAP V-9) Fipure XI -B

SCHEMATIC REPRESENTATION OF HYDROLOGIC RELATIONSHIPS IN THE RAS EL AIN/JEZIREH REGION >

TURKEY SYRIA Precipita tion evapo- * east. trans. surface tribsJ combined -_$> „run off ~? surface/ 1 springs aquifer Jagh •> 350 x 10 V/yr Jagh 270 x 106M3/yr % Radd ^L> Marsh

canal run off (est)1.05 x 109M3/yr 3 £ M /yr (est) k (est) 80 x lOnrVyeV/i precip. .4 x 109M3/yr run off •> r~x —$ ,460x 106 M3/yr (est) 95,900 ha 1.2 x 109 M3/yr (min.est) .L 1 \ ♦■42,000 ha Ras el Ain various spring i—,iw>yt -> 5->jb reservoii —£* pumpage fields -» aquifer \ s "—3R 1.6 x 109M3/yr (est (planned) 989 x 106W3MJ/yr y.

v 400 x 106 M3 (est.) infiltration

JFK 1985