Contents preface (VII) introduction 1—37

Table 6.1 Performance of some irrigation projects in terms of
area irrigated (1)
			Ratio of area
Project (Ref.)		Period	irrigated to area
	planned to be
			irrigated
Rajasthan Canal (1)		1980’s	0.50
Sarda Sahyak Project (1)		1980–81	0.38
Kosi Canal (2)		1971–76	0.31
Krishna-Cauvery Canal (3)		1980–81	0.88
Tungabhadra High Level Canal (3)		1980–81	0.81
Tungabhadra Low Level Canal (3)		1980–81	0.78
Kaddam (3)		1980–81	0.65
Rajolibanda Diversion Scheme (3)		1980–81	0.60
Nagarjunasagar Left Bank Canal (3)		1980–81	0.42
Nagarjunasager Right Bank Canal (3)		1980–81	0.37
Sri Ram Sagar Project (3)		1980–81	0.17
Perambikulam Aliyar Project (4)		1976–81	0.47

The variation in the assessment of waterlogged area from 3.35 to 6.0 Mha may be due to differences in criteria and methods used. Areas affected by waterlogging and salinity are quite large in the command area of Kosi and Gandak Projects in Bihar, Mahi-Kadana Project in Gujarat, Chambal Project in Rajasthan, Nagarjunasagar Project and Sri Ram Sagar Project in Andhra Pradesh, Tungabhadra Project in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh, and Sarda Sahayak Project in UP. It has been reported that following the extension of the Sarda Sahayak Project in UP, an expenditure of Rs. 384 crore had added 4 lakh hectares of irrigation area but with a loss of 5 lakh hectares of irrigated area due to waterlogging (1). All these facts indicate that waterlogging is a serious problem in India at levels of irrigation management prevalent in the mid–1980’s.

Tail-end deprivation is present in almost every canal irrigation project and is reflected in terms of water supply, irrigation intensity, crops grown, cultivation practices, yields, and incomes. Tail-end deprivation of water supply and irrigation intensity is usually more acute on new projects. For example, on minors in the Hirakud project, 70 per cent of the irrigation water went to the upstream halves with only 30 per cent left for the downstream halves (1). Similarly, in 1981, farmers of the upper reaches of the new Sarda Sahayak command area got five irrigations against only one irrigation received by farmers of the tail-end reaches of the same command area. Some examples of tail-end deprivation of irrigation intensity are given in Table 6.3 for new as well as old irrigation projects. Besides, higher-valued and more water-intensive crops are usually concentrated in head reaches. For example, sugarcane intensity was 44 and 10 per cent, respectively, at the head reach and the tail-end reach of Left Salawa distributary of Upper Ganga canal (6). Crop yields and farm income usually decline from head reach to tail-end reach. However, sometimes they can be higher in the middle reaches (especially if the head reach is waterlogged) or even in the tail-end reaches if ground water is used extensively. Yields and incomes in the head reach and the tail-end reach of a minor of Gambhiri Project are shown in Table 6.4.

228		IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING
	Table 6.2 Waterlogged areas in India (5)
		Area under waterlogging (1000 ha)
S.	State	(depth of water within 2m)
No.			Soil and Salinity	Irrigation	NCA	CGWB
		Research Institute	Commission	(1976)	(1982)
		(1981)	(1972)
1.	Andhra Pradesh	4.0	–	339.0	725.0
2.	Assam	–	–	–	445.0
3.	Arunachal Pradesh	–	–	–	38.0
4.	Bihar	–	–	117.0	178.0
5.	Delhi	1.0	–	1.0	–
6.	Gujarat	484.0	–	484.0	150.6
7.	Haryana	1427.0	651.0	620.0	82.0
		(including Punjab)
8.	Jammu and Kashmir	10.0	–	10.0	178.0
9.	Karanataka	–	6.6	10.0
10.	Kerala	–	–	61.0	1.4
11.	Madhya Pradesh	57.0	57.0	57.0	28.8
12.	Maharashtra	111.0	1.6	111.0	273.2
13.	Mizoram	–	–	–	–
14.	Manipur	–	–	–	–
15.	Meghalaya	–	–	–	56.8
16.	Nagaland	–	–	–	–
17.	Orissa	–	–	60.0	372.0
18.	Punjab	(Included in Haryana)	1090.0	1097.0	250.8
19.	Rajasthan	347.0	347.6	348.0	123.8
20.	Tamil Nadu	–	–	18.0	15.0
21.	Uttar Pradesh	686.0	810.0	810.0	351.3
22.	West Bengal	1309.0	388.5	185.0	151.5
	Total	4436.0	3353.0	5986.0	3422.5
		4.44 Mha	3.35 Mha	6.0 Mha	3.42 Mha

Table 6.3 Tail-end deprivation of irrigation intensity (1)

	Intensity of irrigation (in per cent)
Name of the Channel
	Head reach	Tail-end reach
Ghatampur distributary of Ramganga Project	155	22
Pardhipali Subminor	93	24–46
Old Sarda Canal	42	19
Left Salawa Distributary on the Upper Ganga Canal	119	68

MANAGEMENT OF CANAL IRRIGATION IN INDIA		229
Table 6.4 Yields and income in the head reach and the tail-end
reach of a minor of Gambhiri Project (7)
	Yield in kg per	Net income in	Net income in
	hectare	Rs. per 100 kg	Rs. per hectare
Thikaria Minor (Head Reach)	2500	142	881
Rithola Minor (Tail-end)	1400	41	144

Another measure of poor performance of irrigation projects is the average yields which have been usually less than the potential. For example, during 1980–81, wheat yields of Gambhiri Project were only 1850 kg per hectare against 3500 kg per hectare on the experimental farm (7).

From these examples it is obvious that the performance of most of the irrigation projects in India is very poor. However, one should also keep in view the fact that the projections made at the time of planning and design are often unrealistically optimistic. Such projections are made to achieve the desired returns and to pacify political interests demanding water in places which could not be served. Even the so-called physically feasible potentials can never be fully achieved in the actual situation as regards canal systems which have so many constraints. Nevertheless, there is considerable scope to improve the performance of ongoing projects as well as future ones through improved irrigation management.


6.2. INADEQUACIES OF CANAL IRRIGATION MANAGEMENT
From the point of view of performance, the management of the canal irrigation systems in India is far from satisfactory. The major inadequacies are as follows (1, 8 and 9):
(i) Insufficient planning and preparation at the stage of execution of the project which results in longer construction time and escalated project cost,
(ii) Involvement of more than one ministry/department and poor coordination among them,
(iii) Non-responsive, authoritarian, and poor administration resulting in increased mal-practices,
(iv) Lack of interaction between engineering and agricultural experts, (v) Lag between creation of potential and its utilisation,

(vi) Improper assessment of personnel, equipment, and other facilities for proper opera-tion and maintenance of reservoirs and canal systems resulting in erratic (unreli-able and insufficient) supplies and inequitable distribution of available water,

(vii) Higher conveyance losses,
(viii) Absence of conjunctive use of ground water and surface water, (ix) Insufficient drainage, excessive seepage, and waterlogging, (x) Poor on-farm management,
(xi) Absence of farmer’s participation in the management, (xii) Lack of communication facilities in the command area,

(xiii) Poor extension services – lack of pilot projects, demonstration farms, etc.,

230 IRRIGATION AND WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING
(xiv) Problems related to land settlement and rehabilitation of displaced persons, and (xv) Recovery of the project cost.

3. 
   OBJECTIVES AND CRITERIA OF GOOD CANAL IRRIGATION
   

MANAGEMENT
There are several conventional measures to improve the performance of canal irrigation systems. Some of these measures are lining of canals and field channels, on-farm development, farmers’ organisation, warabandi system of water distribution, charging farmers volumetrically for water, and educating farmers in water use management. However, before seeking a solution to improve the irrigation management, it is worthwhile to consider the objectives of irrigation and the criteria for judging the performance of an irrigation project.
The effects or impacts of irrigation can be best phrased as ‘‘optimising human well-being’’ (1). The term ‘‘well-being’’ includes food security, incomes, nutritional status, health, education, amenity, social harmony, and self-respect.
The criteria for judging the performance of canal irrigation systems can be vastly different for different groups of people depending upon their concerns (Table 6.5). However, the most common criteria generally accepted for judging the performance of an irrigation system are productivity, equity, and stability which together contribute to the objective of well-being (1).
Table 6.5 Criteria of good irrigation system performance (1)

Type of person	Possible first criterion of good system performance
Landless Labourer	Increased labour demand, days of working, and wages
Farmer	Delivery to his or her farm of an adequate, convenient, predictable,
	and timely water supply for preferred farming practices
Irrigation engineer	Efficient delivery of water from headworks to outlet
Agricultural engineer	Efficient delivery and field application of irrigation water from the
	outlet to the root zone of the crop
Agronomist	Creation and maintenance of the optimum moisture regime and plant
	growth and, in particular, maximising production of that part of the
	plant which is the harvestable product
Agricultural economist	High and stable farm production and incomes
General economist	A high internal rate of return
Political economist	Equitable distribution of benefits, especially to disadvantaged groups
Sociologist