world bank documentdocuments.worldbank.org/curated/en/132971468033536563/pdf/mul… · report no....

Document of

The World Bank

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

Report No. 32 39-IN

INDIA

STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECT

February 26, 1981

South Asia Projects DepartmentAgriculture C Division

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir official duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

Pub

lic D

iscl

osur

e A

utho

rized

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

US$1.00 Rupees (Rs) 8.40 1/

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (METRIC SYSTEM)

1 meter (m) 3.28 feet (ft)1 kilometer (km) = 0.62 miles (mi)1 hectare (ha) 3 2.47 acres (ac)1 million cubic meters (Mm ) = 810 acri-feet (ac-ft)1 cubic foot per second (cusec) = 0.028 m Is = 28 liter per second (l/s)1 cubic meter per second (cumec) = 35.3 cusec1 liter per second = 0.0353 cusec1 ton = 1,000 kilograms (kg) = 2,205 pounds

1/ The US Dollar/Rupee exchange rate is subject to change. Conversions inthis report have been made at US$1.00 to Rs 8.40, which represents theprojected exchange rate over the disbursement period.

FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY

ABBREVIATIONS

AD - Appraisal Division

AE - Assistant Engineer

ARDC - Agricultural Refinance and Development CorporationCCA - Cultivable Command Area

CE - Chief Engineer

EE - Executive Engineer

GOI - Government of India

GOK - Government of Karnataka

HYV - High Yielding VarietyID - Irrigation Department

IMD - Indian Meteorological DepartmentLCB - Local Competitive BiddingMIC - Minor Irrigation CommitteeMIW - Minor Irrigation Wing

NPV - Net Present Value

O&M - Operation and MaintenanceOMED - Operational Monitoring and Evaluation DivisionPFC - Project Formulation CellSASC - Special Appraisal and Supervision CircleSE - Superintending Engineer

TIP - Tank Irrigation ProjectTMED - Technical Monitoring and Evaluation DivisionUAS - University of Agricultural SciencesWRDO - Water Resources Development Organization

GLOSSARY

1. Deccan - Plateau covering the Southern Indian Peninsula

2. Kharif - Main Agricultural Growing Season (Rainy Season,June to October) \

3. Rabi - Second Agricultural Growing Season (Dry Season,October to February)

4. Strange's Table - Tables Relating Rainfall and Runoff inHydrological Catchments for Southern India,developed by A. Strange

5. Switching Value - Value of a Cost or Benefit Parameter that would,Ceteris Paribus, reduce Net Present Value to Zero

6. Taluk - Administrative Subdivision of a District

7. Western Ghats - Mountain Range extending North to South alongthe West Coast of the Deccan Peninsula

FISCAL YEAR

GOI, GOK - April 1 to March 31

This document has a restricted distribution and may be used by recipients only in the performance oftheir offDcial duties. Its contents may not otherwise be disclosed without World Bank authorization.

INDIA


STAFF APPRAISAL REPORT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

I. INTRODUCTION ............................................ 1Agriculture and Irrigation in India ..................... 2The State of Karnataka .................................. 3- General .............................................. 3- The Economy .......................................... 3- Employment ........................................... 4- Rural Incomes ........................................ 5Land Reform, Land Tenure and Farm Sizes ................. 5

II. THE AGRICULTURE SECTOR IN KARNATAKA ..................... 6General ................................................. 6Topography and Climate .................................. 6soils ................................................... 7Land Use ................................................ 8Agro-Climatic Zones ..................................... 8Crops and Cropping Patterns ............................. 9Agricultural Production Trends .......................... 12Agricultural Supporting Services ........................ 12Marketing, Processing and Storage ....................... 13

III. THE IRRIGATION SUB-SECTOR ............................... 14Water Resources ......................................... 14Irrigation Potential and Utilization .................... 14General Trends in Irrigation Development .... ............ 15Regional Pattern of Irrigation Development .... .......... 16The Role of Irrigation in Karnataka's Agricultural

Development .......................................... 17Bank Group Involvement .................................. 17

IV. PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTS ........ 17General ................................................. 17Design and Operation .................................... 18Project Formulation ..................................... 19

This report was prepared by Ms. M. Nguyen and Messrs. Y. K. Choi, C. Diewald,G. Fauss and P. Ljung, with contributions by Mr. G. Tibor and T. Wickham(consultant). The appraisal mission on whose findings the report is basedvisited Karnataka in August 1980.

- i~i -

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) Page No.

V. THE PROJECT ............................................ 20Project Objectives ...................................... 20Project Components ...................................... 20

Description of a Tank Irrigation System .... ............. 21Project Scope and Unit Cost ............................. 21Criteria for Tank Irrigation Projects ................... 22- General ....... . ..................................... 22

- Planning Criteria .................................... 22

- Design Criteria ...................................... 24

- Implementation Criteria .............................. 25

- Operation Criteria ................................... 25

- Tank Irrigation Committee (TIC) ...................... 25- Economic Criteria .................................... 26Dam Safety .............................................. 26Rainfall and Stream Gauging Network ..................... 27Development of an Improved Hydrological ForecastingSystem ................................................ 28

Water Users' Organization Study ......................... 28Project Costs and Financing ............................. 28Procurement ............................................. 29Disbursements ........................................... 30Accounts and Audits ..................................... 30

VI. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT ............................. 31The Irrigation Department ............................... 31The Minor Irrigation Wing ............................... 31- Existing Organization ................................ 31- Proposed Organization ................................ 32The Minor Irrigation Committee .......................... 32Procedures for Processing of Tank Irrigation Projects ... 33- Project Identification ............................... 33

- Project Preparation .................................. 33

- Project Appraisal .................................... 33- Project Approval ..................................... 33

- Project Supervision .................................. 34IDA Involvement ......................................... 35Farmers' Organization ................................... 35Maintenance of Tank Irrigation Projects .... ............. 35Cost Recovery ........................................... 35

VII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION .............................. 37General ................................................. 37Production Benefits ..................................... 38Employment Benefits ..................................... 38Income and Poverty Impact ............................... 38Assumptions for Economic Analysis ....................... 39Economic Rate of Return ................................. 40Project Risk ............................................ 41

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS ......................................... 44

- iii -

ANNEX 1 - SUPPORTING TABLES AND CHARTS

T-1 - Performance of Selected Major CropsT-2 - Contribution of the Irrigation Sector to Agricultural Growth

in KarnatakaT-3 - Typical Unit Cost Estimates for Tank Irrigation ProjectsT-4 - Elements and Features of Six Selected Tank Irrigation ProjectsT-5 - Cost Estimates for Six Selected Tank Irrigation ProjectsT-6 - Tentative Distribution of Tank Irrigation Projects by Size

and Agroclimatic ZonesT-7 - Rainfall and River Gauging Network-Cost EstimateT-8 - Estimated Implementation ScheduleT-9 - Schedule of ExpendituresT-10 - Proposed Allocation of CreditT-ll - Estimated Schedule of DisbursementsT-12 - Estimated Farm Budgets and Project Rent by Agroclimatic ZonesT-13 - Standard Assumptions for Yields and Input RequirementsT-14 - Cropping Patterns, Crop Budgets and Water Requirements by

Agroclimatic ZonesT-15 - Value of Water for Agroclimatic ZonesT-16 - Estimated Cost and Benefit Streams for One Ha of Command Area

CHARTS

C-i - Organization Chart Minor Irrigation WingC-2 - Organization Chart Minor Irrigation CommitteeC-3 - Project Cycle for Tank Irrigation Projects

- iv

LIST OF ANNEXES

Annex I - Supporting Tables and Charts

Annex 2 - Criteria for Tank Irrigation ProjectsProposed for IDA Assistance

Annex 3 - Terms of Reference for Study on Increased FarmerParticipation in Tank Irrigation Projects

Annex 4 - Terms of Reference for Panel of Experts on Dam Safety

Annex 5 - Reporting Formats for Project Preparation, Monitoringand Evaluation

Annex 6 - Empirical Formulae for Estimating Runoff Yields inKarnataka and Proposal for an Improved Forecasting Model

Annex 7 - Assumptions for Economic and Risk Analysis

Annex 8 - Economic Justification of Canal Lining

Annex 9 - Related Documents and Data Available in Project File

LIST OF MAPS

IBRD 15341 Agroclimatic ZonesIBRD 15342 SoilsIBRD 15343 Normal Annual Rainfall

INDIA


I. INTRODUCTION

1.01 A tank is a small reservoir behind an earthen embankment. Tankshave been the traditional source of irrigation water in the areas of low anderratic rainfall in southern India (Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra, Tamil Naduand Karnataka) for many centuries. They are built to store seasonal runofffrom streams and minor rivers mainly during the months of the SouthwestMonsoon. Water is released either during the rainy season itself to protectthe standing crop or, if remaining supply permits, to raise a second irrigatedcrop in the following months of scant or non-existing rainfall. Priority isgiven to supplementary kharif irrigation (protective function), but farmersusually try to minimize water use for this purpose in order to make a secondcrop possible. The distribution of water is through one or two main canalsand then through primitive field channels to the crops.

1.02 A tank command area may range in size anywhere between a few hectaresand several thousand hectares. In the past, smaller tanks were usually builtby village communities and local landlords, larger ones by regional princes.After Independence, State governments took over ownership of all existingtanks with more than 4 ha command area (about 25,000 in Karnataka), construc-tion of new tanks, and their operation and maintenance. However, sincethe thirties increasing emphasis has been given to large scale surface irri-gation schemes, starting with the Krishnarajasagar Scheme near Mysore, fol-lowed after Independence by several others--most notably the TungabhadraScheme commanding about 418,000 ha (within Karnataka). While construction oflarge schemes continues, e.g., in the IDA-assisted Upper Krishna Scheme, theGovernment of Karnataka (GOK) has realized the limitations of large projects,which provide irrigation only to certain areas of the State while leavingother dry and drought prone areas without irrigation development. The meritsof minor irrigation (tanks, lift schemes, pick-up weirs, wells) once againbecame recognized, for it allows greater geographical flexibility and provideswater to many areas poorly endowed with water resources.

1.03 As part of the current Five Year Plan (1980/81 to 1984/85), GOKhas scheduled a Minor Irrigation Program of about US$126 M, of which US$108 Mwill be used for construction of tanks and lift irrigation schemes and forrepair of existing schemes. Government of India (GOI) has requested IDA'sassistance to finance a four year time slice (1981/82-1984/85) of GOK's tankconstruction program, covering 120-160 new tank irrigation projects (TIPs)spread throughout the State of Karnataka. 1/ This would be the first timethat IDA would assist directly in the development of minor surface waterschemes in India. (Minor irrigation has been receiving support by IDAthrough agricultural credit operations.)

1/ A tentative list of TIPs has been prepared by GOK, including 160individual projects.

-2-

1.04 Tanks to be financed under the proposed project would be locatedmostly in drought prone areas and where large scale irrigation development isnot feasible. They have short gestation periods and thus would yield quickreturns. The proposed investment would promote a regionally more balanceddevelopment and reduce rural poverty and unemployment. The tanks would alsoprovide opportunities to experiment with more modern irrigation practices, forcrop diversification and the setting up of water management organizations atthe grass root level. Lessons learned from the tank project could be used inthe design and subsequent management of major irrigation projects where smallmanagement units (irrigation blocks) could be disaggregated from the largeconveyance system and be operated somewhat like individual tank projects. 1/

Agriculture and Irrigation in India

1.05 India has a population of about 660 M which is growing at an annualrate of 1.9%. Although since 1960 per capita income grew at an annual rateof 1.4% and reached US$180 in 1979/80, and although access to public serviceshas improved, there has been little change in the incomes of the vast massesof urban and rural poor, who comprise about 50% of the total population.Therefore, GOI's development plans give priority to alleviating poverty andcreating employment, especially in rural areas.

1.06 Agriculture is the dominant sector of the Indian economy and contri-butes about 45% of GNP. It engages about 70% of the labor force and providesthe base for about 55% of India's exports. During the last decade, GOI devel-opment plans have emphasized agriculture and sought to raise food productionby increasing the use of fertilizers, plant protection chemicals and improvedseed varieties. In suport of this, GOI has modernized and expanded its agri-cultural credit institutions and accelerated the development of irrigation.

1.07 Some 50 M ha are presentlv irrigated, about three-fifths fromsurface water sources and two-fifths from groundwater. Irrigated areas arealmost four times as productive as rainfed areas and account for about 60%of agricultural output. The expansion of irrigation facilities and theproductivity gains on irrigated lands have accounted for at least three-quarters of the agricultural growth since 1960.

1.08 Actual utilization in many completed irrigation projects remainslow. In an attempt to remedy the situation, Command Area Development programs--focusing on development below the Government outlet, i.e., on the constructionof field channels and drains and on landshaping---have been initiated in mostmajor irrigation projects. Experience from such programs indicates, however,that a lack of on-farm development is only a partial explanation for the

1/ Instead of the traditional irrigation outlets in the major projects(which serve areas of about 40 ha) a proposal under consideration (notpart of this project) is to build small tanks near these outlets wherewater can be stored overnight or possibly longer and supplied to theconsumers below the tank on a more flexible basis than the traditionalrotational system.

- 3 -

underutilization of the irrigation potential. It has become increasingly

clear that one of the major constraints to greater utilization lies in the

deficiencies of the distribution system between the water source (dam ordiversion) and the Government outlet.

1.09 Project design, water allocation and canal operation procedures havechanged little since the last century when the prime objective of irrigationwas to provide "insurance" against drought and famine. Existing designs and

management procedures make it almost impossible to provide a timely andreliable water supply at the farmgate--a prerequisite for modern agriculturebased on high yielding, high value crops. Furthermore, actual water conveyancelosses are much higher than assumed for the design of the canal systems,which reduces the area that can actually be irrigated. As a consequence,on-farm development is resisted by the farmers who have to pay for its costand may not see the benefits. Improvements of both irrigation structures andon-farm development should be complementary and reinforce each other to meetthe demand of modern agriculture. These objectives have been pursued by manyrecently Bank-financed irrigation projects in India.

The State of Karnataka

1.10 General. The State of Karnataka has an area of 19.1 M ha and apopulation of about 35.5 M (1979). Population growth during the last twodecades is estimated at about 2.2% per annum. About 70% of the labor force

is employed in agriculture. The ability of urban centers to accommodatemigrants from rural areas is limited and the welfare of the majority of theState's population is critically dependent on growth in agriculture.

1.11 The Economy. Between 1960/61 and 1978/79, State income grew at anannual rate of 3.5%, slightly higher than the national average. Sectoralgrowth in Karnataka differed from that of the rest of India as follows:

Share in Trend GrowthNet Domestic Product 1960/61 1978/79Karnataka India Karnataka India(average 1974-79, %) (% per annum)

Agricultural & AlliedActivities 48 40 2.9 2.2

Mining, Manufacturing,Construction, etc. 23 25 4.4 4.3

Services 29 35 4.1 4.5

Total 100 100 3.5 3.3

Karnataka's agriculture grew faster than agriculture in the rest of thecountry, yet it showed the lowest growth among all sectors in Karnataka.Since it is the main activity in the State and has close links to transport,storage, trade and other services, the comparatively poor performance of theservice sector can partly be explained by the slow growth of agricultural

- 4 -

output. The fastest growing sector has been manufacturing. However, withits small and highly concentrated base, it contributed only marginally tothe welfare of the majority of population in the rural areas (75%).

1.12 Per capita income grew at 1.3% p.a., close to the nationalaverage. In 1977/78, average per capita income was estimated at aboutRs 1,130 (US$135). Variations in the regional income levels are largelya result of ecological factors:

AveragePer Capita

Rural per Income inZone /a Rainfall Capita Income /b Karnataka

(mm) (Rs) (Rs)

Dry 450- 900 680 1,180Transitional 660-1,300 700 1,040Hilly 1,000-6,400 1,380 1,690Coastal 3,000-3,700 830 1,350

State 750 1,130

/a The State is divided into ten agro-climatic zones,based on soils and rainfall patterns (see para 2.06).In this table they have been further aggregated intofour groups, based primarily on the amount and relia-bility of rainfall.

/b Value-added in the agricultural sector per head ofrural population.

The table indicates that the high rainfall areas have a higher agriculturaloutput per head of rural population and higher average per capita income. Theremoval of regional inequities depends largely on the increase of agriculturaloutput. Since unpredictable and low rainfall tends to restrict growth inagriculture, an expansion of reliable irrigation facilities would reduce thisconstraint, particularly in the dry and transitional zones.

1.13 Employment. The labor force constitutes about 35% of Karnataka'spopulation. The participation rate is higher in rural (36%) than in urbanareas (27%). In 1971, cultivators accounted for 40% and agricultural laborersfor 27% of the workforce. Productive employment has failed to keep pace withpopulation growth. Open unemployment in 1977/78 was 9.3% of the rural and11.4% of urban labor force (9.8% of total labor force). 1/ No estimates ofunderemployment are available, although it is considered more significant.Removal of unemployment and underemployment is one of the main developmentobjectives at present. Highest priority is accorded to irrigation, agricul-ture and allied activities which generate high employment. In addition, in

1/ Based on National Sample Survey (1977/78) of the distribution of personsin the age group 15-59 by daily activity in Karnataka.

- 5 -

March 1979, GOK introduced the "Employment Affirmation Scheme" which aimsat providing work of about 100 days in a year to all able-bodied adults whocannot find work during the slack agricultural season.

1.14 Rural Incomes. Average rural per capita income in Karnatakais estimated at about Rs 750 (US$89) per year. 1/ About 70% of the ruralpopulation is considered as living at or below the poverty threshold. 2/Because of sluggish growth in per capita rural income, the incidence ofpoverty has basically remained unchanged. GOK has attempted to implement aseries of programs to raise standards of living of the poor, including landreform, minimum wages, assistance to small and marginal farmers, subsidies toartisans, special programs for scheduled Castes and Tribes and other backwardminorities. Experience indicates that the Employment Guarantee Scheme inMaharashtra had a significant effect on incomes of a large group of landlesslaborers and small farmers. The Employment Affirmation Scheme in Karnatakais expected to have similar effects.

Land Reform, Land Tenure and Farm Sizes

1.15 Land Reform has been in effect since 1965. It provides land owner-ship to tenants, fixes land ceilings, and redistributes surplus land among thelandless. Land ceilings are fixed as 20 ha for rainfed and 8 ha for irrigatedland per family of five, but are increased for each family member in excess offive, up to double the basic ceiling. So far, about 0.22 M tenants have beendeclared owners of about 0.44 M ha land. In addition, 0.13 M ha have beendeclared surplus to be distributed to landless farmers. At present, about90% of all holdings are wholly owned and self operated; 5% are partly owned,partly rented and the remainder 5% are wholly rented.

1.16 The average farm size in Karnataka decreased from 3.20 ha in 1970/71to 2.98 ha in 1976/77, due to a reduction in both the number and the area oflarge holdings. Marginal and small farmers continue to be predominant. Thechange in holdings of various categories of farms occurred as follows:

% of Numbers % of OperationalCategory of Farms of Holdings Area Average Size (ha)

1970-71 1976-77 1970-71 1976-77 1970-71 1976-77

Marginal (below 1 ha) 30 33 5 6 0.51 0.50Small (1-2 ha) 24 24 11 12 1.46 1.49Medium (2-10 ha) 40 38 53 54 4.25 4.24Large (10 ha and above) 6 5 31 28 16.43 16.30

Total 100 100 100 100 3.20 2.98

1/ The value added of agriculture and allied activities per head of ruralpopulation. It is about two-thirds of the state per capita income ofUS$135.

2/ Estimated as about Rs 780 per capita per year for rural India (1980).

-6-

1.17 Regional variations in farm size distribution are determined byagroclimatic conditions; small farms are much more frequent in high rainfallareas than in low rainfall areas:

% of Farms inZone Annual Rainfall Size Group (ha) Average Size

(mm) 0-1 1-2 2-10 10+ (ha)

Dry 450- 900 33 23 38 6 3.14Transitional 600-1,300 27 24 44 5 3.07Hilly 1,000-6,400 47 22 29 2 2.16Coastal 3,000-3,700 57 25 17 1 1.33

Karnataka 33 24 38 5 2.98

However, small farms in high rainfall areas support considerably more peoplethan similar size farms in other areas.

II. THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR IN KARNATAKA

General

2.01 Agriculture contributes about 45-50% of Karnataka's State incomeand employs about 70% of its labor force. From 1955/56 to 1977/78, productionof most major crops increased at a moderate rate.

Topography and Climate

2.02 The State forms the southwestern part of the Deccan Peninsula. Mostof the State is on a plateau, bordered in the west by a coastal strip and theWestern Ghats (up to 1,500 m in altitude) and tapering off in altitude from theGhats towards the east. All rivers originate in the Ghats, flowing west oreast. The State includes four distinct physiographic zones (see Maps IBRD15341 and 15343):

(a) The coastal plain between the Western Ghats and the ArabianSea. It averages about 30 km in width, and has an annualrainfall ranging from 3,000 to 3,700 mm, virtually all ofit during the Southwest Monsoon.

(b) The Western Ghats, a mountain range averaging 50 km inwidth and extending for 650 km from the North to South.It includes the areas with the highest rainfall in theState, ranging from 1,000 to 6,400 mm and averagingabout 2,500 mm.

(c) The Northern Plateau, lying to the East of the Ghats, withmean annual rainfall varying from 900 mm at the westernmargin to 500 mm at the eastern. However, rainfall increasesagain towards the Northeast to about 900 mm. Elevationaverages about 600 m.

- 7 -

(d) The Southern Plateau is similar to the Northern, but withmore rolling topography and annual rainfall in the rangeof 750 mm to 500 mm.

2.03 Karnataka has a tropical monsoon climate. It receives the majorportion of its rainfall from the Southwest monsoon which usually startsin early June and continues with some intervals till the end of September.The Northeast monsoon commences in October and usually ceases by the end ofDecember. There are considerable variations in both amount and distributionof monsoon rainfall. The times of onset and end of the monsoon are uncertainand long dry spells frequently occur within the rainy season. In fact, asmany as 135 out of 175 taluks 1/ in the State are often exposed to drought(classified as "drought prone"). These conditions make irrigation importantfor successful crop production even during the monsoon season.

Soils

2.04 A wide variety of soils occurs in different parts of the State (MapIBRD 15342). Deep black soils are mostly confined to the northern parts ofKarnataka. They are over 90 cm deep and usually dark brown in color, siltyclay and clay, ranging from 40-65%. They have high water holding capacities.These soils have low permeability (0.1-10 mm per hour) and a tendency toswell and shrink as the soil moisture fluctuates. They are fertile and pro-duce good yields when moisture is adequate. Medium deep black soils occurmostly in the north central part of the State. These soils are moderatelydeep (30-90 cm) and dark in color. They contain a high percentage of clay(30-40%), have a moderate water holding capacity, ranging from 30-40%, andare moderately permeable with an infiltration capacity of 0.5-2.5 cm per hour.Shallow black soils occur mainly in the northern parts of the State. Thesesoils are less than 30 cm deep, gravelly clay loam to clay loam and clay intexture with low water holding capacity of 20-35%. They are moderately tohighly permeable with moderately high infiltration. The soils are welldrained. Red loamy soils are found in a long strip east of the Western Ghats.The soils are sandy loam, gravelly sandy loam to clay loam, with low fertilityand shallow rooting depth and low water holding capacity, ranging from 20-25%.They are well drained with moderate permeability. The infiltration capacityranges from 1.5-2.5 cm per hour. Red sandy soils occur in the southern andcentral part of the State. They are 50-80 cm deep with a high proportion ofquartz gravel. The surface is a thin layer of gravelly to cobly sandy loamto loamy sand; the sub-soils are gravelly to strong sandy clay with gravelranging from 30-50%. These soils also have low fertility and shallow rootingdepth. The soils are moderately rapid in permeability with an 2-3 cm per hourinfiltration rate. Adequate doses of organic manures to build up soil struc-ture, fertility and water holding capacity is necessary to obtain satisfactorycrop yields in these soils. Laterite soils mainly occur on gently undulatingrolling plains, in hilly topography, and along the coastal high rainfallareas. They are deep, dark red in color, and clay loam to gravelly sandy loanon the surface and clay loam to gravelly sandy clay or clay in the subsurface

1/ Taluk is an administrative subdivision of a district, typically witha population of about 150,000.

- 8 -

horizon. They are acidic and low in water holding capacity (about 20-30%)with moderately high permeability and infiltration. Alluvial soils occur onthe coastal plains. They are deposited soils consisting of washed-downmaterial from the Western Ghats. The soils are loamy sandy to sandy loam onthe surface, with loamy sand, gravelly sandy loam to clay loam in the sub-surface horizon. They have low water holding capacities, with moderately slowpermeability. The water table in the low-lying areas is usually at 1 to 1.5meters for most parts of the years.

Land Use

2.05 About 11.9 M ha (62% of the State's area of 19.1 M ha) is undercultivation. The forest area is 2.9 M ha (15%), less than what is requiredto maintain a healthy ecological balance. About 1.9 M ha (10%) are eitherbarren, uncultivable or put to non-agricultural uses. Cultivable wasteland accounts for 0.6 M ha (3%). The remaining 1.8 M ha (10%) are usedas permanent pastures or as grazing land. In practice there is littlescope for increasing the cultivable area.

Agro-Climatic Zones

2.06 Karnataka has been divided into ten agro-climatic zones based onclimate, topography, soils and vegetation (see Map IBRD 15341). Thesezones are:

(a) The Northeastern Transition Zone (5%) 1/ receives between800-900 mm of rainfall annually. The soils are black claywith poor drainage. Main crops grown are sorghum, maize,cotton and chillies in the wet season; pulses, maize, andoilseeds in the dry season.

(b) The Northeastern Dry Zone (13%) receives from 600 to 800 mmof rainfall. The highest rainfall occurs in September andOctober. The soils are deep black clay in most areas.Sorghum, millet, oilseeds, pulses and cotton are the maincrops grown.

(c) The Northern Dry Zone (34%) has a semi-arid monsoon climate.Rainfall varies widely over the large area, being somewhathigher in the western and northern parts. Much of the zonereceives less than 600 mm of rainfall per year. Two typesof soils, black clay and red sandy loam, exist in the area.The principal crops are sorghum, millet, pulses and oil-seeds.

(d) The Central Dry Zone (10%) also has a semi-arid monsoonclimate and receives between 400-700 mm of annual rainfall,mostly during the pre-monsoon (April to May) and monsoon

1/ Figures in brackets indicate a zone's share in total cultivable area ofthe State.

- 9 -

(July to October) seasons. The soils are red sandy loamswith some mixes of deep black clays. The important cropsare sorghum, millet, pulses, chillies, oilseeds and somecotton.

(e) The Eastern Dry Zone (8%) also receives pre-monsoon and mon-

soon rains which range between 800-900 mm annually. Thesoils are mostly red sandy loam with some clay laterites.The main crops are millet, paddy, pulses, maize and oil-seeds. As a cash crop, mulberry is extensively grownthroughout the year.

(f) The Southern Dry Zone (7%) has natural features similar tothe Eastern Dry Zone, except that pockets of black clay soilsare intermixed with red sandy loam in some areas. The prin-cipal crops grown are paddy, sorghum, millet, pulses andoilseeds. Sugarcane and mulberry are important cash cropsin this zone.

(g) The Southern Transition Zone (7%) forms a narrow strip wedgedbetween the dry zones (Southern and Central) and the southernpart of the Hilly zone. Annual rainfall varies widely fromplace to place and ranges between 600-1,000 mm. Red sandyloams and loamy soils dominate in the area. The main cropsare paddy, sorghum, millet, pulses and sugarcane.

(h) The Northern Transition Zone (8%), between the Northern DryZone to the east and the Hilly Zone to the west, forms astrip extended from the Southern Transition Zone, whereannual rainfall ranges between 600 to 1,300 mm. The soilsare black clay and red sandy loam in equal proportion.The principal crops are paddy, sorghum, pulses, oilseeds,cotton and sugarcane.

(i) The Hilly Zone (6%) occupies a long narrow mountainous areato the east of and parallel to the coastal belt. Rainfallis very heavy and reliable. The soils are red clay loams andlaterites in major areas. The main crops are paddy, condi-ments, spices and plantation crops such as coffee.

(j) The Coastal Zone (2%), a long narrow coastal belt lyingbetween the Western Ghats and the Arabian Sea, receives ahigh and assured rainfall during the monsoon season. Paddyis the main crop and coconut, arecanut, cashews, fruitsand other perennials are extensively grown.

Crops and Cropping Patterns

2.07 Karnataka has three cropping seasons: Kharif (usually June-October);Rabi (November-February); and hot weather (February-May). Most of the crop-ping takes place during the kharif season, utilizing the monsoon rainfall.

- 10 -

In the northeastern and northern dry zones where over 50% of annual rainfalloccurs between September and December, the main growing season is later thanin other parts of the State. Rabi crops are grown on residual soil moisture,occasional rainfall or with irrigation. No cultivation is practiced duringthe hot season, except in areas where perennial irrigation is available.The variable agro-climatic conditions in the State have caused a diversity ofcropping patterns. Major crops are described below:

2.08 Paddy is the most important cereal crop of the State, accounting forabout 10% of the total cropped area. Almost 65% of the crop is irrigated, andpaddy is the preferred crop for irrigated land, taking up about 35% of thegross irrigated area. Rainfed paddy is mostly grown in areas of assured rain-fall, i.e., the coast, the hills and in the transitional zones. The averageyield in the State is estimated at about 3.2 t/ha; rainfed yields average about1.8 t/ha. 50 to 60% of paddy consists of high yielding varieties (HYV), withyields of 4.0 to 4.5 t/ha under average irrigated conditions, and about2.0 to 2.5 t/ha when rainfed. Highest yields are achieved in the hot season(February to April) under irrigation. HYVs are usually transplanted. Localvarieties, mostly drilled and grown under rainfed conditions, give averageyields varying with rainfall from 1.0 t/ha to 2.0 t/ha.

2.09 Sorghum is the major dryland crop in the State, grown rainfed duringthe monsoon season and on residual soil moisture in the dry season. Sorghumis the staple food crop especially in the northern dry zones and occupiesabout 21% of the cropped area. Several hybrid varieties are gradually replac-ing local varieties. Average yields are low at 0.6 t/ha for local varietiesand 2.0 t/ha for the hybrids. Hybrids under irrigation can be expected toproduce about 3.0-3.5 t/ha.

2.10 Millets are an important crop group in the low rainfall areas of theState, accounting for about 20% of the cropped area. They are mainly grown inthe kharif season and to a small extent under irrigation in the rabi season.Ragi or fingermillet 1/ is the staple food crop in the southern parts of theState. About 90% of it consists of HYV. Hybrid bajra or pearl millet 2/ andminor millets occupy the remaining area. The area under minor millets isgradually decreasing as the hybrids and HYVs are more widely adopted by thefarmers. Crop yields are low at 0.4 t/ha for local varieties, and 0.6 t/hafor HYV, both under rainfed condition. When irrigated, HYV ragi and hybridbajra average yields are about 1.6 t and 2.4 t per ha, respectively.

2.11 Maize has been a minor crop in the past. However, since the intro-duction of hybrid seeds in the early 1970s, the area planted to maize hasrapidly increased. Still the total cropped area in maize is only about 1%.Further growth in maize production is expected from its increased acceptanceas a foodgrain, as livestock feed and for industrial processing. Hybridsoccupy about 90% of the maize area and are grown under irrigation. In theSouthern and Northern Dry Zones, hybrid maize is also being successfully grownas a rainfed crop. Average yield of hybrid maize in the State is about 2.9t/ha as against a national average of about 1.0 t/ha (all varieties).

1/ Eleusine coracona.

2/ Pennisetum typhoideum.

- 11 -

2.12 Wheat is a popular rabi crop cultivated in the northern parts ofthe State. It accounts for 3% of the cropped area in the State. About 40%of the cropped area is covered with HYVs of the semi-dwarf Mexican types andlocal improved varieties. The present yield of HYV wheat is low at 0.8 t/haas against the average of about 1.3 t/ha in India. Locally improved rainfedvarieties give about 0.5 t/ha. These low yields are attributed to thesouthern location and high winter temperatures.

2.13 Pulses account for about 13% of the cropped area in the State.Pulses comprise cow pea, pigeon pea, bengalgram, blackgram, greengram, andhorsegram. They are grown in all seasons, virtually all under rainfedconditions. Pigeon pea is the most important pulse in the kharif and bengal-gram in the rabi season. Yield of pulses under rainfed is about 0.4 t/haand irrigated about 0.5 t/ha. GOK is encouraging farmers to grow more pulsesas a cheap source of protein supply. Higher yielding varieties have recentlybeen introduced for some species.

2.14 Oilseed crops are groundnut, safflower, sunflower, sesamum, linseed,niger and coconut. They account for about 9% of the total cropped area in theState. The most widely grown oilseed crop is groundnut. Presently, mostoilseeds are grown rainfed during kharif, but farmers start growing them alsoduring the rabi season. The average yield of unshelled groundnut (the mostimportant oilseed) is low at 0.5 t/ha rainfed and about 0.8 t/ha under irriga-tion. GOK encourages expansion of oilseeds in line with a national policy.

2.15 Cotton is an important fiber crop, grown on 9% of the cropped area,primarily on the black soils in the northern parts of the State. Karnatakacontributes about 10% of the total cotton production of the country. Pre-sently, long staple hybrid and HYV cottons are grown mainly on irrigated areas(about 7% of the cotton area). Most of the rainfed varieties are Asiatic andAmerican upland cottons. They have usually short to medium staple length.A poor average yield of about 0.3 t/ha for rainfed cottons is attributed to:(a) the use of mixed seed of low viability; (b) poor pest control; (c) thevagaries of rainfall, particularly the timing of early rains; and (d) theunwillingness of farmers to invest in inputs under those conditions. Since1972, two hybrid varieties have been successfully introduced in Karnataka.They are especially suited for the area and for irrigation, and are of thelong staple type. Yields under average irrigated conditions are 1.5-2.0 t/ha(seed cotton).

2.16 Sugarcane is an important cash crop. All sugarcane is grown underirrigation. While only 1% of the cropped area is currently devoted tosugarcane, there is a tendency to expand the area as more land comes underirrigation. Sugarcane is grown throughout the State. The average yield isestimated at 75 t/ha, which is among the highest in India.

2.17 The mulberry area in the State is estimated at 110,000 ha, ofwhich about 27% is irrigated. About 4% of the cropped area is planted toan improved variety. Although mulberry grows well in a wide range of soilsin the State, at present it is largely confined to the Eastern and SouthernDry Zones. Recently, evidence has accumulated that sericulture is feasiblein many other parts of the State. A rapid increase in mulberry planting is

- 12 -

therefore anticipated. 1/ Present average leaf yield is estimated at 3.0 t/ha(rainfed) and 8.0 t/ha (irrigated), far below its potential (about 25-30 t/ha).Due to high net returns, farmers are increasingly interested in this crop.

Agricultural Production Trends 2/

2.18 Between 1955/56 and 1977/78, foodgrain production grew only about2.7% per annum, slightly above the population growth of 2.2%. Areas underfoodgrains declined while yields showed an increasing trend. The performanceof cash crops remained stagnant except for the production of sugarcane andcotton, which increased at 5.7% and 2.9%, respectively. However, since thesecrops only occupy a small portion of the total cropped areas, they did notsignificantly affect the overall performance of the agricultural sector.

2.19 From the mid-50s to mid-60s, agriculture was characterized by botharea expansion and yield increases for most crops. Rice and jowar accountedfor most of the gains in foodgrains production which grew at a rate of 1.4%per annum. Production of most cash crops, except for sugarcane, declinedby about 1-2% p.a. The trend changed significantly after 1967/68, with agradual introduction of HYV and rapid increase in the use of fertilizers(11% p.a.). Increases in production of most crops during this period werelargely the result of impressive yield improvements particularly for jowar,ragi, maize and wheat. This was, however, not the case for rice whoseyield only grew at a rate of 2% p.a. during this period. The performanceof cash crops has been mixed. Production of oilseeds remained relativelyunchanged from the previous period; sugarcane grew at a much slower ratethan before and cotton production increased spectacularly at 8.2% p.a.mainly due to changes in varieties and corresponding yields. Because ofsignificant increases in foodgrain production since the mid-60s (about 3.4%p.a.) Karnataka has become a net exporter of cereals. It is marginallyself-sufficient in pulses and edible oilseeds. GOK plans to stimulate thediversification of the cropping pattern in the State towards more pulses,oilseeds, horticultural crops and sericulture.

Agricultural Supporting Services

2.20 General. Agriculture in Karnataka experienced a faster growth inthe past than did India's agriculture as a whole (para 1.11). This may beexplained in part by a more advanced structure and performance of supportingservices such as extension and research, credit and input supply and marketing.The proposed project, covering virtually the entire State, would build on thesatisfactory state of this supporting system; deficiencies still encounteredare usually common to all states and to be addressed at a more general level.

1/ IDA is assisting Karnataka's sericulture development under Cr. 1034-IN,US$54 M, 1979.

2/ For detailed information on performance of major crops refer toAnnex l, T-1.

- 13 -

2.21 Agricultural Research. The University of Agricultural Sciences(UAS), established in 1965, is responsible for agricultural research. It hastwo main campuses at Bangalore and Dharwar and five regional stations repre-senting the main agro-climatic zones in the State. A network of 35 substa-tions is dispersed throughout the State to provide location-specific testingof research results. UAS owns some 600 ha of farmland and is staffed withover 200 scientists. It also has about 80 Extension Units involved in testingresearch findings on farmers' fields. Existing research facilities areadequate for project support.

2.22 Agricultural Extension Services. The "Training and Visit System"has been introduced in Karnataka since 1978 assisted by IDA under the CompositeExtension Project (Credit 862-IN). The extension program under this projectis progressing well and now covers virtually all districts of the State.There is a close linkage between the extension service and research providedby UAS. The proposed project is expected to greatly benefit from the inten-sity and coverage of the extension system.

2.23 Agricultural Inputs. There is a well organized system for distri-bution and sale of seeds, fertilizer and pesticides throughout the State.Procurement and distribution is organized by the Karnataka State CooperativeMarketing Federation, through Cooperative Marketing Societies. These socie-ties are usually located in regulated markets at Taluk level where theyhave offices and storage facilities. Primary agricultural credit cooperativesocieties, functioning at village level, are members of marketing societiesfrom which they obtain fertilizers, pesticides and seeds for sale and distri-bution to farmer members. Other outlets are the Department of Agricultureand private dealers. Input prices are controlled by GOK. Many farmers retaintheir own seed or buy or exchange seed with their neighbors.

2.24 Agricultural Credit. Institutional credit organization followsthe normal pattern for India. The cooperative banks, which provide shortand medium term loans mainly for agricultural inputs at an annual rate of11-12% to the farmer are organized on a three tier basis with the StateCooperative Bank at the State level, 20 central banks at the district leveland 5,000 primary cooperatives at the village level. The State Land Develop-ment Bank (LDB) is handling long term credit (up to 15 years) through 140branches. Commercial Banks (CB) with 1,600 branches in the State, have juststarted entering the field of agricultural lending. Most banks, particularlyLDBs, have had considerable experience of Bank Group supported lending, notablythrough the Mysore Agricultural Credit Project (Cr. 278-IN) and three Agricul-tural Refinance and Development Corporation (ARDC) Credit Projects (Credits540-IN, 715-IN and 947-IN).

Marketing, Processing and Storage

2.25 Marketing in Karnataka is regulated under the Agriculture ProduceMarketing Act, 1966. Trade is controlled by the State Marketing Departmentthrough local Agricultural Produce Marketing Committees. At present, thereare 115 main markets and 202 sub-markets under the control of the State

- 14 -

Marketing Department. 44 out of the 115 main markets are being furtherdeveloped with the assistance of an IDA credit (Cr. 378-IN, 8.0 M, 1973).

2.26 Private processing facilities exist in most major producing areas.GOK is also encouraging the development of cooperative processing plants suchas sugar factories and textile mills; or in some cases, silk factories andoil crushing units. The State Warehousing Corporation is developing storagefacilities in all major market yards and the Central Warehousing Corporationhas larger depots in the major centers.

III. THE IRRIGATION SUB-SECTOR

Water Resources

3.01 Three major river systems traverse the State. The Krishna, Godavari,and Cauvery--three of India's four largest rivers--originate in the WesternGhats and flow across the Deccan Plateau before discharging into the Bay ofBengal. They drain about 80% of the State's area. The remaining 20% of theland area lie in the basins of smaller west-flowing rivers, the North Pennar,South Pennar and Palar which rise on the western side of the Ghats and draininto the AraVian Sea. The total discharge of the State's rivers is estimatedat 97,300 Mm , about half of which could be utilized. The potential fordevelopment of these large surface water resources, however, is limited,inter alia, because all the tributaries of the major rivers are seasonal,and even in the case of the perennial rivers more than 90% of the totalflow occurs during the June-September monsoon when the need for irrigationis lowest. Also, the Krishna, Godavari and Cauvery Rivers all have a majorpart of their catchment in other States. The availability of water forKarnataka depends, therefore, largely on interstate agreements. Becauseplateau areas of the State are underlain by crystalline rocks, groundwateraquifers are low yielding and costly to develop. The State Groundwater Cell 3estimates that the total groundwater potential of the State is about 11,700 Mm

Irrigation Potential and Utilization

3.02 At present, the irrigation potential and its utilization in theState is roughly estimated as follows:

Potential Water Presently % ofResource Developed Potential

Mm3 M h /a Mm3 M ha/ Water Area

Surface Water 47,000 4.00 19,000 1.50 40 37Groundwater 12,000 1.80 1,800 0.40 15 21

59,000 5.80 20,800 1.90 35 33

/a In terms of gross irrigated area (i.e., including double croppedarea).

- 15 -

The figures indicate the ample scope for further irrigation development fromboth surface and groundwater resources. Development of groundwater resourcesis undertaken mainly through private investments with financial support fromthe institutional credit system. Through the Mysore Agricultural CreditProject (Cr. 278-IN, 1971, US$40.0 M) and the line of credit to the Agri-cultural Refinance and Development Corporation (ARDC), the Bank Group hassupported and still is supporting groundwater development in Karnataka.

General Trends in Irrigation Development

3.03 Before Independence, the area under irrigation was less than 5% ofthe total area under cultivation. Large scale irrigation development wasnegligible and most of the irrigation was from tanks, small diversion weirsand dugwells. A large number of major and medium projects were constructedduring the First and Second Five Year Plans (1950/51 to 1960/61). As aresult, by 1960/61, about 27% of the total net irrigated area were undermajor and medium projects, 41% under tanks, 15% was irrigated from wellsand 17% by other sources.

3.04 Between 1960/61 and 1977/78, the total net irrigated area grew at arate of some 2.5% per annum. The expansion of irrigated areas under major andmedium projects and wells accounted for most of this growth. Irrigated areasunder tanks declined at annual rates of 0.6%. This was probably due to thesilting of tanks and, in some areas, due to switching from tank to canal andwell irrigation. Progress of irrigation development in terms of net irrigatedarea in the State since 1960/61 is shown below:

1960/61 1965/66 1970/71 1977/78-- 000 ha-------------

Major & Mediums 235.8 360.4 448.7 561.9Tanks 343.7 329.3 364.8 347.5Wells 132.8 163.1 459.5 356.7Others 145.9 127.5 92.4 121.4

Total 858.2 975.3 1365.4 1387.7

3.05 By 1977/78, the share of irrigated areas under major and mediumprojects had increased to 40%, while those under tanks had diminished to 25%.Irrigated areas under wells accounted for about 26% in 1977/78 as comparedto 15% in 1960/61, and other sources provided water for only 9% of the totalirrigated areas. In spite of this growth, only about 13% of the net areasown in the State is irrigated. This proportion is one of the lowest in Indiaand far below the national average of 30%. The gross irrigated area (i.e.,including multiple croppi;ig) accounted only for about 15% of the gross croppedarea. This is also less than half the national average.

- 16 -

Regional Pattern of Irrigation Development

3.06 There is a wide variation in the level of irrigation developmentin the State. The high rainfall areas (hilly and coastal zones) have ahigher proportion of land irrigated than the lower rainfall areas (dry andtransitional zones). In 1977/78, the level of irrigation development indifferent parts of the State was as follows:

NetIrrigated Area

Zones Rainfall (as % of Net Area Sown)(mm)

Dry 450-900 12.9Transitional 600-1,300 11.5Hilly 1,000-6,400 20.7Coastal 3,000-3,700 36.4

State 13.5

3.07 Between 1960/61 to 1977/78, virtually all of the increase inirrigated area occurred in the dry and transitional zones. This indicatesthat GOK's investment policy for irrigation has largely been oriented towardsan equalization of the level of irrigation development in different partsof the State. Special emphasis has been given to projects in drought proneand economically backward areas.

3.08 An examination of the sources of irrigation indicates that the highlevel of irrigation development in the high rainfall areas is mainly due toprivate investments in groundwater, river lift schemes and both public andprivate investments in tanks. On the other hand, in dry and transitionalzones, a large part of the irrigated areas developed were under major andmedium schemes (canals). In 1977/78, the following pattern emerged:

Zones Canals Tanks Wells Other Total--------- % of total ---------- %

Dry 49 19 28 4 100Transitional 35 30 26 9 100Hilly 9 74 2 15 100Coastal - 7 25 67 100

The Role of Irrigation in Karnataka's Agricultural Development

3.09 Between 1960/61 and 1975/76, the gross value of crop production 1/increased by about 38%, or 2.2% p.a. The growth in production from irrigatedareas existing in 1960/61 contributed about 18% to the overall increase, while

1/ At constant 1975/76 prices.

- 17 -

the balance of increases of production on new irrigated areas and correspond-ing losses of rainfed production on the same area contributed about 52%, andthe growth of production on rainfed areas (as existing in 1960/61) contributedabout 30%. The shift from rainfed to irrigated cultivation alone, even ifyields had not increased during this period, contributed about 37% of overallgrowth. Yields on irrigated areas improved at a moderate rate of 1.9% p.a.whereas those on rainfed land grew only at about 1.3% p.a. (A detailedpresentation of the structure of growth in both sectors is to be found inAnnex 1, T-2). This indicates that the expansion of irrigation facilitiesand the associated yield improvements have been the major contribution tothe growth of agricultural production.

Bank Group Involvement

3.10 The Bank Group is directly involved in surface irrigation developmentin Karnataka through the Karnataka Irrigation Project (Cr. 788-IN, US$126.0 M,1978). The project finances a five year time slice of the development of theUpper Krishna project, estimated to require 15 years for completion.' Theproject made a slow start, mainly due to procurement problems. -Tt has nowpicked up momentum and progress in construction of dams and main canals issatisfactory. Planning and implementation of the distribution system andcommand area development suffer from lack of experienced staff and inadequatecooperation between the Command Area Development Authority and the IrrigationDepartment. The road component suffers from inadequate funding as well asorganization and staffing deficiencies. These issues have been raised withGOK and are being followed up.

3.11 The Bank Group also supported groundwater development through theMysore Agricultural Credit Project (Cr. 278-IN, US$40.0 M, 1972) which wascompleted in 1977. The Performance Audit Report (No. 2892, 1980) on thisproject concluded that the project exceeded its target in terms of numbers ofminor irrigation investments financed (51,000 wells and 27,000 pumpsets vs.16,000 wells estimated at appraisal). Also against appraisal expectations,farmers preferred by far the more economical and less risky dugwells againstborewells. Only half of the wells and about two thirds of the pumpset invest-ments financed under the project were completed at the end of the projectperiod; most of the balance were to be completed under IDA's first and secondline of credit to ARDC. In spite of a higher number of investments, totalirrigated area increased only modestly due to a smaller benefiting area perwell than was estimated at appraisal. Moreover, cost per well turned out tobe higher than anticipated. Nevertheless, groundwater investments, wherefeasible, proved to be economically well justified and financially profitableto farmers. Through a third line of credit to the ARDC, funds from IDA aremade available to refinance credits for private groundwater investments aswell as land levelling and land shaping, through Land Development Bank andcommercial banks.

- 18 -

IV. PERFORMANCE OF EXISTING TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTS

General

4.01 Tanks were constructed as early as the 12th century. Many old tanksstill exist and are operational. At present, there are about 41,000 tanks,widely dispersed throughout the State. Of these, about 25,000 tanks witha command area above four ha each are owned and operated since 1949 (afterIndependence) by the State's Irrigation Department (ID). Another 16,000tanks, with less than four ha command area each, are under control of TalukDevelopment Boards. Together, the 41,000 tanks cover a nominal command areaof about 850,000 ha. However, the actual irrigated area is probably not morethan 350,000 ha.

Design and Operation

4.02 As indicated in the introduction to this report, tanks are designedto catch and store runoff from streams and minor rivers during the rainyseason. They serve the double purpose of protecting the standing cropfrom dry spells during the kharif season which in dry areas would destroythe crop, and to facilitate the growing of a second crop. Since catchmentand command area are usually subject to similar climatic conditions, highirrigation demand occurs typically in seasons with low runoff from the catch-ment and therefore low water supply. Therefore, and since the protective usehas absolute priority, a second crop is usually only possible in good rainfallyears. Due to the drought protection objective, command areas have usuallybeen defined as large as possible, so as to reach a maximum of beneficiaries.

4.03 The design of the reservoir (dam and overflow section) is usuallybased on empirical formulae, i.e., on standard correlations of annual rainfalland runoff, given the characteristics of the catchment area, rather than onactual rainfall/runoff relationships observed at the site (see Annex 6).This, of course, is almost inevitable given the number of tanks developed andthe paucity in stream gauging stations. Only recently have actual measure-ments at a few tank sites been started. While nothing is known about thehydrological criteria used for very old tanks, actual performance indicatesthat the design of overflow structures seems to be satisfactory. 1/ Only veryfew tanks breach every year; in such a case, the damage is mostly confined toagricultural areas on the banks of the stream. A major problem for existingtanks is the silting of the reservoir, caused by unstable, over-cultivatedcatchment areas or by excessive forest clearing. Silting reduces the potentialof the tanks to store water and is one of the reasons for the gap observedbetween areas commanded by the tank canal system and the actual irrigatedarea. 2/

1/ More recent engineering practice makes use of an empirical formula toestimate peak runoff (Ryve's Formula), or unit hydrographs for tankcatchments.

2/ The criteria for implementation of the proposed project stress the needfor adequate catchment protection works in unstable catchment areas(para 5.08). However, since siltation affects "dead storage" first,no adverse effects are expected from such process before about 50 yearsof project life.

- 19 -

4.04 The distribution system in most cases consists of unlined maincanals (usually two, one on each side of the stream) with outlets leadingeither directly to the fields or to long, poorly shaped and uncontrolled fieldchannels. Main canals are usually rather long (up to 15 km), in order toserve a generously defined command area, which results in high conveyancelosses. Where there are only few cross regulators and gated outlets, opera-tional staff is unable to regulate the water supply adequately. Farmers atthe head of the system or of a particular outlet command are free to take morethan their share of water. Water often flows from field to field towards themain drain, even in the case of crops other than paddy, not permitting controlof amount and timing of water application. These and other "operational"losses are estimated to account for about 20% of overall losses.

4.05 Unlined channels cause excessive seepage losses. A recent study inthree tanks in gravelly soils shows that losses are in the range of 63 to 78cusecs per million square feet, a range of values many times larger than thenormally assumed losses (about 8-10 cusecs per million square feet). Alongthe entire length of a channel, 40-80% of the head discharge are lost. As aresult, no water reaches the middle and tail-end fields in the command areas.

4.06 Operation of tanks is presently under the instruction of a Govern-ment irrigation officer, who consults with the Taluk Development Committee (acommittee consisting of concerned government staff and local farmers' repre-sentatives). The officer has the authority under the Karnataka Irrigation Act(1965) to specify time, period and quantity of water releases as well as thearea to be served. Such decisions are made public for each tank before theirrigation season and are known to the farmers. A canal inspector, orNalamanegar, from the staff of the Irrigation Department, regulates the supplyat the gated reservoir outlet, while further distribution among outlets tofield channels is carried out by auxiliary staff, called Sowdies (alsoemployed by the Government). In larger tanks, each Sowdi is responsiblefor a section of the canal serving about 200 ha. Night irrigation occursin time of heavy demand (paddy pre-planting and transplanting periods).Farmers generally know the day and time of water supply to their outlet, butare not aware of the exact time and quantity to be supplied to their individualholdinigs. Although there are no formal organizations within a tank command,informal arrangements for water-sharing exist inside the outlet command.However, these arrangements are precarious and often result in inequitabledistribution of water.

4.07 Water supply is rotated in many tanks between groups of outlets forperiods at one to two week intervals in order to maximize flows to the lowerreaches of the system. However, with the prevailing features of the canalsystem, sufficient flow to tailenders is the exception rather than the rule.Where double cropping is only possible for part of the command area, supplyof water is rotated betwe2n parts of the system (usually along one of the maincanals) on a yearly basic,.

4.08 Maintenance of reservoir structures and canals is the responsibilityof the Irrigation Department. The farmers do not contribute to these worksdirectly; however, they have to maintain their own field channels. Due toa low density of supervisory staffing, and due to the unlined canals and

- 20 -

channels, maintenance of the distribution network is often less than satis-factory, leading to higher operational losses. Higher standards of main-tenance can be expected for lined systems and with more participation andinterest in a properly functioning system on the part of benefiting farmers.

Project Formulation

4.09 About 54% of the State's geographical area is drought prone comparedto 16% of the total area in India. While, on average, only about 10% of thepopulation in India live in drought prone areas, at least 50% of the popula-tion of Karnataka live in such areas. Furthermore, only about 13% of the netarea sown in the State is irrigated, which is one of the lowest ratios inIndia and far below the national average of 30%. Therefore, expansion ofirrigation facilities is one of the highest priorities in GOK's agriculturaldevelopment plan. Given the limited scope for further groundwater develop-ment, 1/ GOK plans to accelerate development of surface irrigation projects.Within the latter, minor surface irrigation projects have a high prioritybecause of their effect on regional equity and rural poverty.

4.09 During the current Five-Year Plan (1980/81 to 1984/85), GOK willallocate about US$126 M of its development budget to minor irrigation programs.Out of this, about US$18 M will be spent during 1980/81 for completing on-going minor schemes. The remaining US$108 M will be used for constructing newtanks, lift irrigation schemes and for repair of existing schemes. GOK hasproposed to IDA a project consisting of the construction of about 120-160 newtanks covering an aggregate area of some 25,000 ha at a cost of US$77 M duringfour years (1981/82 - 1984/85). The reason for including only new tank irri-gation schemes under the proposed project is to experiment with new planningand design criteria, the effect of which would be carefully monitored andevaluated. Lessons learned would subsequently be applied to the modernizationof existing tanks.

V. THE PROJECT

Project Objectives

5.01 The proposed project is formulated with the following objectives:

(a) spread irrigation to areas where large scale irrigationdevelopment is not feasible;

(b) achieve more economic use of scarce surface water resources;

(c) ensure a more reliable irrigation supply to consumers;

(d) build up GOK's capability to prepare, appraise, superviseand evaluate irrigation projects;

1/ Groundwater development is also mainly a private activity, albeitsupported by subsidized institutional credit.

- 21 -

(e) increase farmers' participation in the operation of tankirrigation projects (TIPs); and

(f) improve the hydrological data base for minor surfaceirrigation projects.

Project Components

5.02 The proposed project would finance:

(a) Construction, over a four-year period, of 120-160 TIPsthroughout the State, estimated to irrigate some 25,000 ha;

(b) a rainfall and stream gauging network to improve the hydro-logical data base for the planning of future minor irrigationprojects;

(c) development of an improved model for catchment runoffestimation; and

(d) a study of possible approaches to the formation of waterusers' organizations.

Description of a Tank Irrigation System

5.03 Under the proposed credit, individual TIPs would cover cultivablecommand areas of between 20 and 2,000 ha. Each TIP would generally consistof:

(a) an earthfill embankment to create a reservoir, with an ungatedspillway and head regulator(s);

(b) a fully lined canal network which would deliver water throughoutlets serving approximately 8 ha blocks;

(c) a system of normally unlined field channels within the 8 hablocks; and

(d) a drainage network connected to natural drains.

Project Scope and Unit Cost

5.04 Project scope, i.e. the total area to come under irrigation throughthe proposed project, depends on the average cost per ha. Cost per ha issubject to some uncertainty, since only a fraction of the planned TIPs havebeen fully designed and costed. 1/ Analysis of available cost estimates shows

1/ GOK has prepared nine model projects, one for each agroclimatic zone ofthe State (except Northern Transition Zone). Out of the nine, six proj-ects have been selected as typical. Their features, design criteria andcost estimates are shown in Annex 1, T-4 and T-5. Some modificationsto cost estimates were made by the mission to reflect improved designstandards for the distribution and drainage systems.

- 22 -

considerable variation between TIPs, even between TIPs of similar size, interms of cost per ha as well as cost per unit of water deliverable at thetank outlet. On the basis of available information, and of separate costestimates for the reservoir (embankments and overflow) and for the distri-bution system for various sizes of TIPs, a typical cost estimate for fivedifferent size groups of TIPs has been developed (Annex 1, T-3). More extremedeviations from the assumed norm due to particular topographical conditions,have been disregarded to arrive at this estimate. The cost of the tank itselfaccounts typically for about 75-80% of the total cost of a TIP, the cost ofthe distribution and drainage system accounting for the rest. However, costper ha of the reservoir varies considerably with size, decreasing for largerunits to about 60% of project cost. This economy of scale outweighs by fara higher per ha cost of the canal system in larger projects, resulting in alower per ha total cost for larger TIPs. With the social objective of spread-ing the benefits of the project more widely in a geographical sense, especiallyin drought prone areas, GOK intends to build about one third of the TIPs inthe size group between 20-100 ha, another third between 100 to 200 ha, and thebalance larger than 200 ha. The average size of the TIPs financed would beabout 230 ha. Depending on the actual cost of the projects built, the numberof tanks financed might be reduced, with possible changes also in the sizedistribution. The weighted 1/ average cost per ha of CCA (in 1980 prices)is estimated at about Rs 21,300. This includes physical contingencies andoverhead for design and supervision, as well as the cost of land acquisition.The estimated unit cost is higher than for medium and large surface irrigationprojects (Rs 11,000-13,000/ha), firstly because tanks per se are somewhat morecostly than larger schemes, and secondly because of the deliberate policy ofincluding a larger number of relatively small TIPs in the construction program.However, smaller schemes have considerably shorter gestation periods, aboutone to one and a half years for the smallest (20-100 ha). (The averageconstruction period is assumed to be about 3 years.) Also, TIPs have generallyhigher conveyance efficiencies than medium and large schemes, and are moremanageable in terms of efficient operation.3 Assuming an annual water avail-ability at the reservoir of about 10,800 m /ha of CCA, the average cost percubic meter of water is estimated at about Rs 1.97. Given the funds budgetedfor the Tank Irrigation3Program, 2/ the project would provide water to some25,000 ha (about 270 Mm in an average year).

5.05 The proposed regional distribution of TIPs would favor the dry zonesof the State with 52% of the proposed CCA and 65% of the projects, and thetransitional zones with 36% of proposed CCA and 29% of the projets. Thebalance would be in the coastal and hilly zones. The tentative regional andsize-wise distribution of TIPs is shown in Annex 1, T-6.

1/ Weights being derived from the size distribution intended by GOK.

2/ About Rs 524 M after allowing for price contingencies (23%). This doesnot include expenditures for other project related works or operations,such as a catchment protection program or resettlement of displacedfamilies, to be financed from other budget funds.

- 23 -

Criteria for Tank Irrigation Projects

5.06 General. In view of the proposed dispersion of the tank projectthroughout the State, detailed appraisal by IDA of each tank would be quiteimpractical. Therefore, criteria for planning, design, implementation,operation and economic viability have been developed and discussed betweenGOI, GOK and IDA for projects to be financed from the credit. An assurancehas been obtained from GOK that TIPs financed under the credit would followthe agreed criteria. The criteria are described in detail in Annex 2 andare summarized below:

Planning Criteria

5.07 Basic Data Requirements for a Tank Project: (i) topographicalmap; (ii) reconnaissance type soil survey and land classification dividingthe area commanded into three categories: areas suited for paddy, areassuited for both paddy and upland crops, and areas suited for upland cropsonly; (iii) data for three years (minimum) of rainfall in the catchment andits correlation with actual streamflow data for the tank site (exceptionssee under para 5.08 (i) below; (iv) sediment samples to be taken at or neareach tank site for determination of expected sediment levels in the reser-voir for all tanks with more than 1,000 ha CCA.

5.08 Hydrology. Actual streamflow data observed at the tank site andcorrelated with observed rainfall in the catchment over a period of at leastthree years should be used wherever possible to estimate the annual andmonthly design runoff from a catchment. In order to improve the hydrologicaldata base for TIPs to be constructed in the last years of the proposed projectas well as for schemes to be built thereafter, a long term streamflow andrainfall gauging program would be started immediately (paras 5.25-5.28 below).In cases where actual measurements of streamflows are not yet available(during the first years of the project) or where they will not be available inthe future (for small TIPs), runoff estimates should either be based on datafrom nearby catchments with similar characteristics for which observationsare available, or on the use of Strange's method (see Annex 6) after properclassification of the catchment. A more accurate system of runoff yieldestimation, based on "continuous water balance methods," would be developedand adapted to Karnataka conditions in the first year(s) of the proposedproject (para 5.29 below). It would, when successfully implemented, replacethe methods mentioned above for ungauged or poorly gauged catchments.The hydrological basis for the planning and design of TIPs would thus beconsiderably improved after two to three years.

5.09 In addition, rain gauges should be installed in the catchment areaof all TIPs serving more than 150 ha and daily rainfall records should be main-tained. (Self recording gauges for TIPs with more than 1,000 ha command.)For other TIPs, the nearest existing rain gauging station should be used.Where existing tanks are located in the catchment area of a proposed TIP, a25% return flow can be assumed from an existing upstream irrigation scheme.The impact of the proposed TIP on existing downstream schemes should be care-fully assessed. For an estimate of the net impact, a 25% return flow fromthe proposed TIP can be assumed. If the estimated reduction of inflows to

- 24 -

the existing downstream scheme would exceed 5% of the design yield for thatscheme, the proposed TIP would have to be submitted to IDA for review andapproval.

5.10 Otb>r Planning Criteria. (i) To avoid erosion of the catchment andsilting of tanks, the need for catchment protection works should be assessed,based on maps depicting slopes, soils, land capability, erosion and vegetativecover of the catchment. Appropriate measures should be outlined and includedin the project proposal. They would be part of the TIP and eligible for reim-bursement from the proposed IDA credit. (ii) GOI's project preparation andmonitoring cell has prepared, in cooperation with GOK, standard cropping pat-terns, which should be suitably modified for each TIP in order to take accountof soil surveys and the existing cropping pattern in the proposed area; specialcare should be taken against an under-estimation of the probable paddy areain the future with project. (iii) The project formulation cells establishedunder the project should, in cooperation with concerned departments, carry outsurveys on the existing agricultural supporting services in the area andpropose arrangements for any necessary strengthening of such services.

5.11 Water Requirements: (i) The modified Penman method 1/ should beused to estimate crop water requirements; (ii) monthly evapotranspirationrates (ETo) for each agroclimatic zone should be taken from zone-wise EToestimates prepared by GOI's Project Preparation and Monitoring Cell; (iii)based on long-term rainfall records in the proposed command area or at anearby station, effective rainfall would be calculated as 50% of the 50%dependable rainfall during the monsoon, and as 65% of such rainfall duringthe non-monsoon season; (iv) irrigation requirements for paddy should includeallowances for land preparation, nursery and transplanting (200-250 mm), deeppercolation (2-4 mm/day) and for maintaining a water depth of about 50 mm; (v)preplanting irrigation requirements should be scheduled for upland Kharif andlate Rabi crops; (vi) the conveyance efficiency should not be assumed higherthan 85%; (vii) assumed field irrigation efficiencies should be based on soilcharacteristics and should not exceed 90% for paddy and 70% for diversified(upland) crops, (viii) a month-by-month tank operation study for the designyear should be carried out.

5.12 Dams, Embankments and Appurtenant Structures. Criteria and stan-dards for design and safety of earthen dams laid down by GOI and GOK andapplicable to small dams should be observed in addition to sound and acceptedengineering practice. Planning, design and construction of larger dams wouldbe subject to recommendations and approval by a Dam Safety Panel (see paras5.22-5.24 below). The design of overflows structures should also be basedon results from the improved model for runoff estimation (continuous waterbalance methods), once this is developed, since it would be capable of moreaccurate estimates of peak runoff (para 5.29 below).

Design Criteria

5.13 Distribution System: (i) Design and Layout of canaLs and iieldchannels should be completed down to the individual holding; for very small

1/ FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24.

- 25 -

holdings, water would be supplied to I ha; (ii) the head capacity of supplychannels should be designed according to a formula which takes into accountthe expected mix of paddy and upland crops (between 0.7 liter/second and 1.2liter/second per ha); (iii) the design should permit rotational water supplyand small systems should be designed for daylight irrigation only; (iv) thecomplete system should be lined down to turnouts serving about 8 ha subunits. 1/Lining should be extended, if necessary, so that the distance between linedchannels and farm gates does not exceed 300 m; (v) part of the field channelsshould be lined in case of permeable soils or of slopes exceeding 2%, so thatthe unlined length of a channel does not exceed 100 m; (vi) all outletsand turnouts should be gated; (vii) field channels should have adequatestructures, especially protective drop structures; (viii) measuring devicesshould be installed at the outlets from the tank and main channels and ateach 1 ha outlet; (ix) cross regulators in the main channel would permitfull discharge at take-off points when the channel is flowing at less than50% capacity.

5.14 Drainage System: (i) Adequate cross drainage works should be builtalong the main channels, as well as cut-off drains on the up-hill side of suchchannels; and (ii) in the command area, a system of drainage channels designedto drain a runoff at a rate of three liter/second/ha should be built andconnected to natural drains.

5.15 Communication: (i) An all-weather access road should be providedto the tank; (ii) according to size of channels, all-weather service roads ormotorcycle/bicycle paths would be built along main and distributary channels.

Implementation Criteria

5.16 Construction Practices: (i) Canal embankments and earthfill aroundstructures should be thoroughly compacted by mechanical equipment; and (ii)to ensure proper settlement of foundation in minor channels, sections wouldbe thoroughly saturated by ponding or exposure to one season of rainfallbefore lining.

5.17 Implementation: (i) Construction periods should be planned not toexceed two years for smaller TIPs (< 400 ha), three years for medium size TIPs(< 1000 ha) and four years for larger ones, excluding time needed for prelim-inary works such as construction of approach roads, which should not lastlonger than one year; (ii) large TIPs should be commissioned in blocks notmore than 400 ha in size; (iii) water should not be released until all fieldchannels have been completed and the TIP (or a section of it) has been com-missioned; (iv) lining should be tested by ponding before commissioning; ifseepage losses of more than 3 cusec/M sq ft occur, lining should be rectified;and (v) commissioning would include tests to determine whether water reachesall parts of the CCA.

1/ An economic justification of lining is given in Annex 8.

- 26 -

5.18 Cost Estimates: (i) Estimates should be based on current depart-mental rates or recent local bid prices; (ii) they should include physicalcontingencies of 10% for work already designed in detail and 20% for allother works, and (iii) should include cost of land acquisition, settlementof displaced families (if any) and of approach and service road^.

Operation Criteria

5.19 Water Release: (i) Discharge from outlets/turnouts to fieldchannels should normally be about one cusec, and not less than one halfcusec; (ii) water release to farmers should initially follow a fixedschedule 1/ prepared for each season; and (iii) releases for upland cropsshould be rotated every ten days.

5.20 Tank Irrigation Committee (TIC). A TIC should be formed imme-diately after construction of a tank has been sanctioned. The TIC should beconsulted by the Irrigation Department (ID) before finalizing the design ofa TIP. Although the ID would keep, for the time being, full responsibilityfor the physical maintenance of the system above the irrigation outlets, theTIC would share with the ID the responsibility for operation (water schedul-ing) and possibly maintenance of the system. Until the proposed Study onWater User's Organizations (para 5.26) would be completed, GOK should, on anexperimental basis, initiate formation of such committees in at least threeselected new TIPs.

Economic Criteria

5.21 Individual TIPs should have an economic rate of return exceeding12%, based on estimated annual costs and benefits discounted over 50 years.To facilitate economic evaluation, total financial cost per cubic meter ofwater available in the design year at the reservoir outlet should be comparedto a critical limit derived and tabulated for the agroclimatic zones by IDA(Annex 2, Appendix). (These cut-off rates should be increased each year bythe estimated rate of inflation for civil works.) A TIP could be approvedif its unit cost of water is below the critical limit for the respective zone.Critical cost limits were derived in such a way as to assure a minimum rateof return of 12% for the individual TIP, based on benefits projected for eachagroclimatic zone by IDA. GOK may submit a TIP to IDA for special approvalin cases when GOK deems the project justifiable although its cost exceeds thecut-off rate.

Dam Safety

5.22 Design and construction standards for the comparatively small damsof most TIPs would follow sound engineering practice, and adequate qualitycontrol would be providel under the proposed organization (para 6.03 below).

1/ A mote flexible water supply schedule should be started after an initialperiod of fixed rotations. The more flexible schedule would be gearedto the needs of the actual crops grown below each outlet. The TankIrrigation Committee would gradually involve itself in this moresophisticated scheduling.

- 27 -

However, there would be a number of TIPs which due to their larger size wouldwarrant special attention to design and construction standards of dams andrelated structures, as well as to regular maintenance. A special Dam ReviewPanel has been constituted by GOK to undertake periodic and comprehensivereviews of plans, designs and construction procedures of these iarger damsor embankments with the objective of ascertaining and reporting on theirgeneral safety and performance. In the following cases this review would benecessary:

(a) if the proposed height of the embankment above streambedexceeds 10 m, or;

(b) if the gross storage behind the embankment exceeds 2.5 Mmat full reservoir level, or;

(c) if the proposed location of the embankment is such thatsignificant destruction would occur in case of its failure.

5.23 The Panel would review and evaluate all data and design and construc-tion procedures and make specific recommendations to GOK concerning embankmentsafety, foundation, abutment integrity and spillway adequacy. This reviewwould be required specifically at the time when foundation preparation workhas been completed and before embankment placement has progressed very far,and at such other times during construction as is necessary or desirable.The Panel's role should not be viewed as one of assisting or guiding theexecuting Irrigation Department, since responsibility for proper design andconstruction, including quality control, rests with GOK. Rather it shouldbe considered as a review body of technical experts whose judgment and opinionson particular technical matters would carry considerable weight in the evalua-tion of proposed actions by the project administration. Agreed terms of refer-ence (TOR) for the Panel, which have been more or less standardized for otherIDA-financed projects, are included as Annex 4. The TOR require that thePanel submit a written report containing their review, comments, and recom-mendations within 60 days following each convening of the Panel. The reportshould be made available to IDA and to such bodies within GOI which may beassigned safety-of-dam responsibilities for their review.

5.24 An assurance has been obtained from GOK, that it would maintain itsDam Review Panel with TOR, experience and qualifications agreed with IDA forthe above mentioned purposes. Any costs incurred for activities of the panelin relation with the project would be eligible for reimbursement under theproposed credit.

Rainfall and Stream Gauging Network

5.25 To improve the data base for planning of future TIPs, about 1000new fiberglass raingauges would be installed to supplement approximately 220raingauge sites that presently meet Indian Meterological Department (IMD)standards. At present there are only 31 self recording raingauges in theState; according to IMD standards about 10% of the 1,200 sites would beself recording. The raingauge sites would be installed in small catchmentswhich already have or for which there are proposals to install streamgauging stations.

- 28 -

5.26 There are presently 124 gauge-discharge measuring sites on streamswithin the State; discharges at 89 sites are measured with current meters and35 by recording reservoir levels. However, most of the above sitef have beenestablished in catchments with drainage areas greater than 5000 km . In orderto improve the data base for smaller catchments it is proposed to add 100 newstream discharge measuring sites throughout the State. Appropriate equipmentwould be financed under the proposed credit (Annex 1, T-7).

5.27 As an additional basis for estimation of evapotranspiration ratesfor various agro-climatic zones within the State, to be used in crop waterrequirement calculations, it is recommended that six new hydrometerologicalstations be established within the State to supplement presently availabledata. There are presently 45 such stations within the State. In addition,evaporation data should be supplemented in six of the existing sites byinstalling Class "A" pan evaporimeters. Equipment for this purpose wouldbe financed from the credit (Annex 1, T-7).

5.28 It is proposed that the raingauge and hydrometerological stationsbe operated and maintained by the IMD while the stream gauging program becarried out by the Irrigation Department. The data is critically neededto improve estimates of water supplies by allowing the introduction of newmethodologies. Improved estimates of water supplies will assure a soundinvestment program in the future.

Development of an Improved Hydrological Forecasting System

5.29 Improvements in the estimation of catchment runoff over traditionalempirical formulae can be made through use of modern hydrological techniquesand computing equipment. The development of "continuous water balance"simulation/estimation models has produced excellent results in many parts ofthe world. Such models take into account daily distribution and intensityof rainfall, rather than monthly or annual aggregates only, as well as suchcatchment characteristics as potential evapotranspiration, soil properties,vegetation, topography, drainage channels and man-made changes. Recent testsof a continuous water balance model in the Narmada Basin of Madhya PradeshState have shown its usefulness for tropical monsoon environments. In orderto make this technology available to Karnataka for the proposed project andother future projects, a computerized hydrological forecasting system would bedeveloped, tested, calibrated and commissioned under the coordination of theKarnataka Engineering Research Station at Mysore and with technical assistancefrom an experienced hydrological institute, under terms of reference to beagreed with IDA. Simultaneously, training would be provided by the institutefor about two local hydrologists in the use of the model and the computingequipment. The cost of technical assistance and training is estimated notto exceed about US$70,000, the cost of necessary computing equipment (desk-computer and plotter) to be about US$35,000. These costs would be reimbursedfrom the proposed credit.

Water Users' Organization Study

5.30 One of the objectives of the project is to increase farmers' parti-cipation in the operation of TIPs. A study of possible approaches to waterusers' organizations would be undertaken and completed by March 31, 1983. It

- 29 -

would investigate existing farmers' organization and cooperation within tankcommand areas, in order to recommend means for establishing viable and effec-tive participation of irrigators in operation and maintenance of TIPs financedunder the project. Under IDA supervision, the study would be carried out bythe Indian InLtitute of Management (IIM) in Bangalore, with assistance fromthe Minor Irrigation Wing Staff of the Irrigation Department. The terms ofreference for the study have been developed and discussed between GOK and IDA,and are given in Annex 3.

Project Costs and Financing

5.31 The proposed project would support a four year time-slice of theGOK construction program of about 120-160 new TIPs. The proposed IDA creditwould finance expenditures on TIPs planned, designed and constructed inaccordance with the agreed criteria (paras 5.07-5.21) during the period1981/82 to 1984/85. Total project cost would be Rs 650 M (US$77.4 M) witha foreign exchange component of Rs 84.5 M or about 13% of total cost. Taxesand duties are insignificant and therefore not included. Price contingencieshave been estimated as about 23% of base cost for the tank constructionprogram. Price contingencies for equipment are estimated as about 10%.They are negligible for technical assistance (study and forecasting model).

% ofBase

Local Foreign Total Local Foreign Total Cost--- Rs M--------- -------US$ M-

Construction of TIPs 456.3 68.3 524.6 54.3 8.1 62.5/a 99.4Rainfall and Stream Gauging

and Computing Equipment 3.0 0.5 3.5 0.4 - 0.4 0.5Technical Assistance and

Training 0.8 - 0.8 0.1 - 0.1 0.1460.1 68.8 528.9 54.8 8.1 63.0 100.0

Price Contingencies 105.4 15.7 121.1 12.5 1.9 14.4

565.5 84.5 650.0 67.3 10.0 77.4

/a Rows/columns may not add due to rounding.

5.32 The proposed IDA credit of US$54.0 M (SDR 43.5 M) would financeabout 70% of total project cost including the foreign exchange component(US$10.0 M) and about 65% of local cost. All expenditures would be met by GOKfrom its development budget which includes a GOI contribution. An assurancehas been obtained from GOK that it would promptly provide funds to execute theproject in accordance with the schedule of expenditures (Annex 1, T-9). IDAwould annually exchange views with GOK on the implementation program for theconstruction of TIPs. The proposed allocation of the proceeds of the creditis presented in Annex 1, T-10. An assurance has been obtained from GOI thatproceeds of the credit would be channeled to GOK in accordance with standardarrangements for development assistance with the States of India.

- 30 -

Procurement

5.33 Civil works under the project would be individually small and scat-tered over the whole State. Construction would be seasonal and carried outthrough labor-intensive methods. Consequently, it would neither be feasiblenor economic to group them into large contracts. Present practice of GOK isto award most of the construction works for dams, spillways and main canalsafter local competitive bidding (LCB), and the practice would be followedunder the proposed project. The Central Water Commission of GOI has recentlydeveloped guidelines for procurement procedures for civil works which havebeen approved by IDA. GOK would adopt these guidelines for procurement underthe proposed credit. For contracts costing more than the equivalent ofUS$200,000, review by IDA of tender documents and award recommendation wouldbe required prior to award. It is expected that due to the remoteness andsmall size of some works stand&rd LCB procedures would not attract any contrac-tors' response. In these cases, unit price contracts would be awarded on thebasis of rates established by competitive bidding each year. Some minor workswould be carried out through GOK's Employment Affirmation Scheme. Departmentalwork would be used only when required by safety or quality considerations.The stream and rain gauging equipment and the computing equipment would beprocured under LCB procedures acceptable to IDA.

Disbursement

5.34 Disbursements would be made for: (i) 100% of foreign exchange costfor goods directly imported; (ii) 100% of local manufactured goods procuredex-factory; (iii) 70% for other locally procured goods; (iv) 100% of expendi-tures on technical assistance and of cost of training; and (v) 85% of expendi-tures on civil works. Disbursements against payments less than Rs 300,000for civil works and less than Rs 150,000 for equipment would be made againststatement of expenditures submitted by GOK. The same arrangement would beapplied to disbursements on departmental work, without cost limit per payment.Supporting documents for these payments would be retained by GOK and madeavailable for inspection by IDA during the course of review missions. Theprocedures for statements of expenditures have been well established under theon-going Karnataka Irrigation Project (Cr. 788-IN) and are satisfactory toIDA. The estimated semi-annual disbursement schedule is presented in Annex 1,T-ll. It is expected that disbursements would be completed by March 31, 1986.

Accounts and Audits

5.35 The project would be subject to normal Government control and audit-ing procedures which are satisfactory. A resident Audit Officer, representingthe State Accountant General would audit the project accounts. Statements ofaccount certified by the Accountant General or his designee supported by anitemized account and a summary of expenditures would be submitted to IDA assoon as possible after the end of each fiscal year. Assurances have beenobtained from GOK that: (i) it would maintain separate accounts on projectexpenditures; (ii) it would ensure that these accounts would be auditedannually by the Accountant General; (iii) the resulting reports would besubmitted to IDA as soon as possible but not later than nine months afterthe end of each fiscal year; and (iv) that it would make complete accountsand financial statements available for inspection during IDA review missions.

- 31 -

VI. ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT

The Irrigation Department

6.01 The Irrigation Department (ID) is headed by a Special Secretary,Irrigation who reports directly to the Chief Secretary, GOK. The department'sorganization is flexible and adjusted to the workload. At present, it hasten branches, each headed by a Chief Engineer with functional and/or regionalresponsibilities. Branches important for the proposed project are:

(a) The Water Resources Development Organization (WRDO) withheadquarters at Bangalore is entrusted with general estab-lishment matters of the Irrigation Department and otheritems such as water disputes pertaining to Krishna, Godavariand Cauvery, river gauging, preparation of the Water YearBook, maintenance of water accounts of river valleys,investigation, planning, design of major and medium surfaceirrigation projects, and inspection of machinery and equip-ment of the Department all over the State. There are 3circles and 4 divisions, with sub-divisions in the field.

(b) The Karnataka Engineering Research Station acts as an advisorand consultant in solving the problem of field engineers incharge of irrigation and hydroelectric projects and as testhouse for field problems. Its activities include design andresearch on dams and water conveyance systems, studies onreturn flow and silting of reservoirs, as well as studies oncrop water requirements. The station has 5 divisions.

(c) The Minor Irrigation Wing is in charge of planning, imple-mentation and operation and maintenance of irrigation schemeswith less than 2,000 ha command area (minor schemes). It isdivided into two regional branches, each headed by a ChiefEngineer:

(i) Minor Irrigation (South) oversees minor schemes in11 districts. Its headquarters are at Bangalore.

(ii) Minor Irrigation (North) is in charge of minor schemesin the remaining 8 districts of the State. Its head-quarters are at Dharwar.

The Minor Irrigation Wing (MIW)

6.02 Existing Organization. The direct responsibility for planningimplementation, operation and maintenance of tank irrigation projects (TIPs)would rest with the Minor Irrigation Wing of ID. As mentioned above, theMIW has two Chief Engineers who report directly to the Special Secretary,Irrigation. The two Chief Engineers are assisted by 10 SuperintendingEngineers (SEs). Six are in charge of investigation, construction, operationand maintenance (OEM), and monitoring of the minor irrigation works; two areresponsible for preparing designs and cost estimates. Each Superintending

- 32 -

Engineer is in charge of 2-3 districts and has about 3-8 divisions headedby Executive Engineers (EEs). Each-EE has about 5 subdivisions headed byAssistant Engineers (AEs) and is supported by engineering and clerical staff.At present, the MIW has 2 design cells, 8 investigation divisions and 36construction and O&M divisions dispersed throughout the State.

6.03 Proposed Organization (Annex 1, C-1). To improve the implementationcapacity of the Minor Irrigation Wing under the project, a Project FormulationCell (PFC) has been established in each of the offices of the two ChiefEngineers, Minor Irrigation. The two PFCs would prepare tank projects forappraisal according to criteria (paras 5.07-5.18) agreed between GOK andIDA. In addition, two Quality Control Divisions under the supervision of SEs,Design have been established to ensure appropriate standards in the construc-tion of tank projects. Staffing of these divisions and cells will be completedby March 31, 1981.

The Minor Irrigation Committee

6.04 Under the chairmanship of the Special Secretary, Irrigation, aMinor Irrigation Committee (MIC) consisting of the Deputy Secretary, ID;the Chief Engineers, Minor Irrigation; the Chief Engineer, Water ResourceDevelopment Organization; the Director of the Karnataka Engineering ResearchStation; the Director of the Department of Agriculture and experts fromthe Indian Institute of Management, the Institute of Social Change and theUniversity of Agricultural Sciences would be established to be responsiblefor appraising and supervising TIPs. The MIC would supervise the works ofa Special Appraisal and Supervision Circle (SASC) headed by a SuperintendentEngineer who would be also Secretary of the MIC. He would be supported by fourdivisions: two Appraisal Divisions (AD), a Technical Monitoring and EvaluationDivision (TMED), and an Operational Monitoring and Evaluation Division (OMED).The proposed organization of the MIC is shown in Annex 1, C-2.

6.05 The two ADs would be responsible for appraising the proposed TIPs.Each of these two divisions will be staffed with one EE, three to four AEEsand an Agriculturalist (Annex 1, C-2). The TMED would supervise TIPsunder implementation and would initiate technical review and evaluations ofthe agreed criteria (assumptions on irrigation efficiencies, design of theirrigation and drainage networks and construction methods). It would liaisewith the Institute of Engineering in Karnataka to incorporate results oftechnical research into the implementation of TIPs. The OMED would monitorthe agro-economic aspects as well as O&M of TIPs under operation. In addition,it would carry out surveys to assess the effectiveness of water allocationprocedures and the appropriateness of the recommended cropping patterns. Incooperation with local agricultural authorities it would monitor the develop-ment of crop yields under the project for operating TIPs and induce appropriatemeasures to be taken in the case of adverse developments. It would also liaisewith other research and evaluation agencies in charge of overall evaluation ofthe minor irrigation program. The staff of these two divisions will includean Executive Engineer, 4-5 Assistant Engineers; an Agricultural Economist,and 2 Statistical Officers (Annex 1, C-2). The MIC and SASC have already been

established. Staffing for the latter will be completed by March 31, 1981.

- 33 -

Procedures for Processing of Tank Irrigation Projects 1/

6.06 Project Identification. Potential sites for tank irrigationprojects (TIPs) below 1,000 ha would be identified by the existing 8 MinorIrrigation Investigation Divisions. TIPs above 1,000 ha would be identifiedby the existing 4 Major Irrigation Investment Division under the WaterResources Development Organization. Preliminary reports will be submittedto the concerned Chief Engineers (CEs). After consultation with concernedDistrict Offices, the CEs will approve full scale investigation and prepara-tion of TIPs.

6.07 Project Preparation. Hydrological, geological, topographical andsoil investigations would be carried out by the Irrigation InvestigationDivisions (Minor and Major). These divisions would also be responsiblefor detailed designs of the reservoirs and the irrigation systems. Thetwo Project Formulation Cells, which would prepare projects for appraisalaccording to criteria agreed between GOI, GOK and IDA, would be responsiblefor producing Project Preparation Reports (Annex 5A). Each report wouldinclude designs, agricultural plans, costs estimates and a tentative imple-mentation plan. These reports would be cleared with GOK's concerned depart-ments at the District level as well as at the State level. After clearance,the projects would be submitted for appraisal.

6.08 Project Appraisal. The two Appraisal Divisions of the SpecialAppraisal and Supervision Circle (SASC) would be responsible for appraisingthe proposed TIPs at the sites and ensure that the designs are technicallysound, the hydrology and geology as well as designs of large dams have beenreviewed by the Dam Safety Panel and its recommendations have been followed;the proposed cropping patterns are suitable for the command area; design andoperation of the system have been discussed and agreed with farmers; arrange-ments for strengthening of agricultural supporting services are adequate;implementation schedules are realistic and the projects are economicallyviable. The Appraisal Divisions would confirm and adjust cost estimates asnecessary and prepare Project Summaries (Annex 5B) to be submitted to the MIC.

6.09 Project Approval. On the basis of information provided by theProject Formulation Cells in the Project Preparation Report and by theAppraisal Divisions in the Project Summary, the Minor Irrigation Committee(MIC) would approve or disapprove the proposed TIPs. An assurance has beenobtained from GOK, that project summaries of approved projects and minutesof all MIC meetings would be promptly furnished to IDA.

6.10 Project Supervision. The following activities would be carried out:

(a) Annual Implementation Review. The Superintending Engineer (SE)of the SASC would prepare an annual report to list TIPs underpreparation and implementation (Annex 5C). Special attentionwould be given to budgetary allocations and staff availabilityfor each TIP in order to ensure that adequate funds would beprovided in accordance with implementation schedule.

1I/ For a graphic presentation of the project cycle, see Annex 1, C-3.

- 34 -

(b) Annual Tank Performance Review. The Superintending Engineer ofthe SASC would also prepare an annual summary of the performanceof TIPs built under the project, including data on operationand maintenance, on areas actually irrigated and on croppingpatterns (Annex 5D). Annual implementation programs and annualperformance summaries would be submitted to IDA by Ma-ch 31of each year. An assurance to this effect has been obtainedfrom GOK.

(c) Progress Review: Technical Implementation. The Technical Moni-toring and Evaluation Division (TMED) would be responsible forsupervising TIPs under implementation. Because of the largenumber of TIPs scattered throughout the State, field visitsto each one will not be possible. Consequently, TMED wouldvisit every TIP above 1,000 ha and above 25% of TIPs below1,000 ha twice a year. It would submit to the MIC a supervi-sion summary for each TIP visited to report the progress ofconstruction (as compared to planned implementation schedules),change in costs, if any, compliance to agreed criteria andprocurement problems encountered during construction, if any(Annex 5E). For the remaining 75% of TIPs below 1,000 ha,the concerned implementing divisions would prepare progressreports twice a year for submittal to the MIC.

(d) Progress Review: Operational Implementation. The OperationalMonitoring and Evaluation Division (OMED) would be responsiblefor supervising the agro-economic aspects as well as O&M ofTIPs under operation. The OMED would visit the same projectsas those for implementation review twice a year. It wouldsubmit to the MIC a supervision summary for each TIP visitedto report irrigation benefits, adequacy of agricultural sup-porting services as well as the quality and effectiveness ofoperation and maintenance (Annex 5F). For the remaining 75%of the TIPs below 1,000 ha, the concerned implementing divi-sions would prepare progress reports twice a year for submit-tal to the MIC.

IDA Involvement

6.11 An assurance has been obtained from GOK that the procedures set forthin paras. 6.06-6.10 would be adopted. IDA's involvement would be to spotcheckthe decisions of the Minor Irrigation Committee on a selective basis. The MICwould be required to submit to IDA minutes of MIC meetings and project sum-maries of approved TIPs. IDA would select randomly at least two TIPs a yearto appraise in depth. In any case, if IDA disagrees with MIC's approvals ofcertain TIPs, IDA would n.t disburse against expenditures claimed for thoseTIPs.

6.12 IDA supervision missions would: (i) assess the quality of theappraisal divisions' works; (ii) spot-check in the field whether agreedcriteria have been followed; (iii) review procurement procedures; (iv) checkthe financial reports kept by GOI and GOK; (v) assess whether the established

- 35 -

criteria continue to be appropriate; and (vi) examine the content and timeli-ness of reports submitted by the SASC to the MIC and by MIC to IDA.

Farmers' Organization

6.13 In order to improve on overall tank operations, in a system designedto higher standards of efficiency and operation, a Tank Irrigation Committeewould be formed for each new tank command area, immediately after a TIP hasbeen sanctioned for the respective location. The Committee would be heard andconsulted before finalization of detailed designs, so as to ensure a moreactive participation of farmers in "their" tank development right from thebeginning and to integrate farmers' views of a proposed project into finaldesign. After construction, at least twice a year before each irrigationseason, local staff of the Irrigation Department would consult and agree withthe Committee on the details of scheduling water delivery for the coming season.The Department would remain in charge of physical maintenance of the tank anddistribution/drainage system, but would share the responsibility for O&M withthe Committee. Each Committee would consist of an appropriate number of farmerrepresentatives, an agricultural officer and a junior engineer. The juniorengineer would be responsible for preparing schedules for water deliveryaccording to the decision of the Committee. The appropriate organizationalstructure of the Committee and farmers' organization for water sharing wouldbe studied under the project (para. 5.26). Until such study is completed,GOK would initiate the formation of a Tank Irrigation Committee on an experi-mental basis for at least three TIPs. An assurance has been obtained to thiseffect.

Maintenance of Tank Irrigation Projects

6.14 Until a decision on structure, functions and responsibilities ofTank Irrigation Committees (TICs) is implemented (which would include a deci-sion on sharing of the responsibility for as well as the physical executionof the maintenance of distribution systems between farmers on one side andthe Irrigation Department (ID) on the other side), the ID would continue tomaintain the canals, structures and drainage networks of TIPs. Physical main-tenance requirements would, however, be reduced considerably by lining of thedistribution systems. Maintenance of field channels would be carried out bythe farmers themselves and would be supervised by the ID's staff. Operationand maintenance of dams and appurtenant structures would remain with the IDirrespective of final arrangements for the sharing of responsibilities withthe TICs.

Cost Recovery

6.15 Capital and O&M Costs. The per hectare investment cost for individualtank projects varies with size and topographical conditions of a project. Onaverage, capital cost would amount to about Rs 21,300 per ha, including theconstruction of tank, distribution and drainage system and on-farm works, landacquisition, physical contingencies and overhead (para 5.04). Operation andmaintenance is assumed to cost about Rs 85 per ha annually. Thus, totalannualized cost, at 10% interest over 50 years, would be about Rs 2,230/ha.

- 36 -

6.15 Charges Related to Irrigation. Prevailing water rates, last estab-lished in January 1981, vary with crops from Rs 60/ha for most upland crops,to Rs 128/ha for paddy, Rs 120/ha for cotton and Rs 560/ha for sugarcane.On the average, a watercharge of about Rs 106/ha of CCA can be expected. Landrevenue differs for rainfed and irrigated land; the project would result in anincremental revenue of Rs 24/ha. Other local taxes and cesses are calculatedas a 60% addition to land revenue. Considering all water related charges,annual cost recovery would amount to about Rs 144/ha of CCA, or to about 6.5%of annual capital and O&M cost.

6.17 Other Taxes. Other taxes, which are at present easier to asses andcollect are given greater importance by the Government. In Karnataka, a taxof 4% is levied on the sale of all agricultural products. Sales of fertili-zers and agrochemicals also carry a tax of 2%, and sales of most certifiedseeds are taxed by 4%. In addition, a 2% market fee is levied on all producesold through regulated markets, of which 0.8% is used for the operation of themarket while 1.2% is collected by the state. Sales taxes and market fees wouldincrease GOK's revenue by about Rs 380 per hectare brought under irrigation.Together with water-related charges, tax revenue would increase to a total ofabout Rs 524 per ha, covering all O&M cost and about 20% of annual capitalcost, under the prevailing system of watercharges and taxes. Income taxpayable on incomes exceeding a certain threshold, especially by medium andlarge farmers, would also contribute to higher revenues, but this effect hasnot been estimated.

6.18 Farmers' Ability to Pay. Cost recovery has to be compared to whatfarmers can reasonably be expected to afford to pay, considering their incre-mental benefits from irrigation and the necessary incentives for them toparticipate in this scheme. For this purpose, "project rent" has been cal-culated as incremental net income per ha, less appropriate rewards to familylabor, entrepreneurship and allowance for cultivation risk (Annex 1, T-l1).At full development, the estimated average project rent would amount to aboutRs 2,800 per ha. Direct recovery would thus result in a recovery/rent ratio of5%. This leaves ample scope for increases in watercharges without reducingincentives to use irrigation water.

6.19 Limits to Higher Charges. Cost recovery with present levels of watercharges would be unsatisfactory under the proposed project, both with regardto farmers' estimated potential ability to pay and to the percentage of totalcost recovered. Under the present system, a State-wide uniform rate is charged(for a given crop on a per acre/per season basis) in all public irrigationschemes because of administrative difficulties of assessing benefits individ-ually for each farmer. Large variations in benefits do not only occur betweendifferent farmers in the same command area (e.g., due to farm size, soilquality and location within the scheme) but also between projects and betweendifferent types of schemes (large and medium surface water schemes, tanks,etc.). It can be observed in existing projects that the water supplied totail-end farmers is often unreliable--due to design and condition of thedistribution system--and that benefits to irrigators are fairly low. Thus,water rates are set at a low level to give tail-end farmers sufficient incen-tive to use the water, although the "average" farmer would be able to paysubstantially higher charges. The same reasoning applies also to qualitative

- 37 -

differences between irrigation schemes and types of irrigation. Until it istechnically and administratively feasible to implement volumetric water charges,which better reflect the benefits accruing to each farmer, water charges willremain at an inherently low level.

6.20 Study of Modified System of Watercharges. Under the proposed project,design standards and operational criteria for water distribution aim at animproved water supply, with essentially equitable and measurable quantitiesto be delivered to all participating farmers on a rotational basis. This wouldallow methods of charging for irrigation services more closely related to theamount of water actually used by individual farmers (e.g., by recording thetime periods of actual flow to a holding). It would also facilitate an increasein the overall level of water charges and their collection (for these new tankirrigation schemes), since higher reliability of service and the link betweencharges, volume of water received and benefits derived therefrom can be expectedto change farmers' attitudes towards payment for such service, particularly inview of rather high expected benefits. As charging for irrigation servicesis an important element in the relationship among farmers as well as betweenthe Irrigation Department and the farmers, the proposed study on Water Users'Organization would include recommendations as to what methods of assessing,administrating and collecting water charges within te envisaged organizationalframework would be suitable to promote equitable charging, efficiency of wateruse and acceptable cost recovery, given the improved design and operation ofdistribution systems. The recommendations of the study would also take intoaccount the political and legislative feasibility of special charging methodsand/or levels for irrigation schemes with improved design and operation.

6.21 On the basis of such recommendations, GOK would, by March 1984,review the method and the level of changing for irrigation water supply innew tank irrigation projects and would, after the consideration of IDA's com-ments, introduce an appropriate system and leve of such charges, with theobjective of recovering the operation and maintenance cost of such tanks fully,and the investment cost to the extent possible, given the need for incentivesto participating farmers and given their payment capacity. An assurance tothis effect has been obtained from GOK.

VII. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION

General

7.01 Under the proposed project, 120-160 individual tanks would be built,covering a command area of about 25,000 ha. About 60% of this area would belocated in dry and drought prone areas with less than 800 mm of mean annualrainfall. The project would reduce some of the dependence of agriculture on

- 38 -

the vagaries of rainfall, reduce farmers' risks and their risk aversion, 1/increase production of food and cash crops and provide farmers with higher andmore regular incomes and employment. Not only would new irrigation facilitiesbe provided, but simultaneously also higher standards of design and operationwould be introduced in these projects. The independence of projects frommajor sources of irrigation water permits their location in places whereotherwise no irrigation would be possible, thus helping to correct some of theexisting imbalance in irrigation development. The main benefits from theproject are summarized below:

Summary of Expected Benefits

Benefiting farm families 7,500-8,500Increase in net irrigated area 25,000 haIncrease in cropping intensity from 102% to 161%Increase in foodgrain production 63,000 t per yearIncrease in cashcrop production Rs 105 MIncrease in per capita income 300%Increase in farm employment 3 M mandays/yearIncrease in value added Rs 109 MEmployment in construction during 5 years 35-40 M mandays

7.02 Production Benefits. Annual production increases generated by theproject at full development (about 1990), are estimated at about 63,000 tonsof cereals and pulses, valued at Rs 69 M (+340% over "without project situa-tion"), and Rs 105 M of cashcrops (+570%), mostly cotton, oilseeds, chillies,sugarcane and mulberry. The incremental annual value added to the economy atthose production levels is estimated at about Rs 109 M per annum, not countinginduced value added in production of material inputs or in the processingindustries. An additional benefit, which is difficult to quantify, would begenerated in the form of fish production in new tanks. This is currentpractice in most existing tanks and would be expected under new tanks also.

7.03 Employment Benefits. Overall direct employment effects will largelystem from the provision of irrigation in presently rainfed areas. Employmenton benefiting farms would increase from about 1.8 M mandays to about 4.7 Mmandays per year under the project, which is equivalent to the creation ofabout 12,000-13,000 full time jobs. Most of this employment would occur inthe form of increased on-farm activities for family members, thereby reducingthe need to rely on uncertain and often remote work opportunities. Medium andlarger farmers would hire additional labor, mostly from underemployed ruralworkers, at a rate of some 1.2 M mandays annually. It is estimated that con-struction of tanks would provide, over a span of four to five years, between35 M and 40 M mandays of employment for unskilled workers.

1/ Farmers would still be depending on annual variations in rainfall, sincethe source of irrigation (the volume of water in the reservoir) is alsodirectly depending on rainfall. The risk reduction refers rather tothe bridging of dry spells during the rainy season in average and goodrainfall years, and to an assured water supply to those areas thatreceive irrigation in the dry season in any given year (based on actualreservoir levels before the start of the dry season).

- 39 -

Income and Poverty Impact

7.04 The project is directed towards farmers which are at present vir-tually without any irrigation, more than 60% of them living in areas whichare considered moderately or severely droughtprone. Incomes under thesecircumstances are near the subsistence level, which is reflected in estimatedfarm budgets for some typical farm sizes without the project (Annex 1, T-ll).Net family incomes (in cash and kind) in the dry and transitional zones varyfrom Rs 1,800-2,200 for a marginal farm to Rs 7,000-11,000 per year for alarge farm. Taking into account family size on such farms, per capita incomesvary roughly from Rs 400 to Rs 1,300 per year. In the high rainfall zones,per capita income ranges from about Rs 600 to Rs 1,200 per year. 1/ Given anestimated rural poverty income threshold of about Rs 780 per year and givenwith the farm size distribution as illustrated in para 1.16, some 70% of farmfamilies likely to benefit from the project live presently under poverty con-ditions. Projecting farm budgets for the future with project (Annex 1, T-11),assuming average zonal cropping patterns and varying availability of familylabor, farm family incomes (including off-farm earnings) would increase toabout Rs 6,000 for a small farm, Rs 23,500 for a medium size farm and aboutRs 45,000 for a large farm, translating into average per capita incomes ofabout Rs 1,300, Rs 3,700 and Rs 5,700, respectively. The incidence of projectbenefits is likely to follow the present pattern of landholding size. It isthus anticipated that absolute poverty would be almost eliminated among parti-cipating families. Not much is known about income levels of rural landlesslaborers in Karnataka, but a survey in the Tungabhadra command area revealedthat the number of days worked annually by landless workers increased fromabout 130 to 230 as a result of irrigation. With the observed differencein average wages for operations on rainfed and irrigated land (Rs 5 vs Rs 6.3),incomes of landless laborers (who belong generally to the poorest of the poor),are expected to increase at least two-fold in places affected by new tankirrigation.

Assumptions for Economic Analysis (see Annex 7 for details)

7.05 For each agroclimatic zone, cropping pattern, crop yields and inputrequirements were projected towards the expected year of full development(1990), both for the "with project" and "without project" situation. Croppingpatterns for the "without project" situation are based on present rainfedcropping practices; those under the project have been derived from observedpatterns under irrigation in each zone, taking into account agroclimaticcharacteristics, farmers' preferences when switching from rainfed to irrigatedproduction, but also GOK's policy of promoting production of certain crops(oilseeds, to a lesser extent pulses) and of restricting use of valuable waterfor water-intensive crops, such as paddy and sugarcane in areas of low rainfall.Cropping patterns so deri-ed do not represent necessarily an optimum choice inthe sense of maximizing 'eturns to water (the limiting factor), since such anoutcome could only be expected from strictly enforced, optimal water distribu-tion practices. Thus, the share of paddy and sugarcane is always assumed to

1/ Only a small percentage of the farms in the high rainfall zones arelarger than 3 ha. Population density on the majority of farms is veryhigh, resulting in comparatively low per capita incomes.

- 40 -

be somewhat larger than advisable under the climatic conditions. Assumedirrigation intensitiSs (average 145%) result in average water3requirements ofabout 9,500-10,500 m /ha of CCA in dry3zones, 10,000-11,000 m /ha for transi-tional zones and about 13,000-14,000 m /ha for high rainfall zones, reflectingdifferent conditions of likely supply. Crop yields for rainfed crops have beenassumed slightly higher than at present to take into account likely increasesover the next decade. Irrigated yields reflect the assessment of what wouldbe feasible with presently available varieties and average present cultivationpractices under irrigation. Cropping patterns, yields, inputs and crop budgetsfor different agroclimatic zones are presented in Annex 1, T-13 and T-14.

7.06 Economic input and output prices were projected for 1990, in constant1980 Rupees, according to standard Bank practice, i.e. they were derived fromprojected world market prices after adjusting for transport, handling, pro-cessing and quality differences. A standard conversion factor of 0.8 wasapplied to domestic cost elements. Economic wages for unskilled farm laborwere estimated as about two thirds of financial wage rates. Reflecting anobserved wage differential, wages in irrigated agriculture are assumed tobe about 25% higher than in rainfed agriculture.

7.07 Project Cost was derived as a weighted average construction cost percubicmeter of water available in an average year at the reservoir outlet, theweights being the expected shares of different tank 3size categoriSs (Annex 1,T-3). Such cost varies typica ly with size from Rs 1.50/m to Rs 2.20/m ;the average is about Rs 1.97/m . In order to take into account other projectrelated cost difficult to estimate on a unit basis (access roads, catchmentprotection works, land shaping, etc.), this value has been increased by 15% toRs 2.26 per cubic meter. A construction conversion factor of 0.78 was appliedto this cost, reflecting the assumed shares of unskilled labor, non-tradedinputs and import content and their respective economic cost. Cost of opera-tion and maintenance of a TIP was &ssumed as Rs 85/ha, multiplied by a conver-sion factor of 0.7 to reflect a high content of unskilled labor. Creation ofa reservoir causes loss of agricultural production in the submerged area. Onthe average, an area equivalent to about 15% of CCA is estimated to be sub-merged; a loss of rainfed production of Rs 1,050/ha of CCA was assumed tooccur due to the project. 1/

7.08 Value of water and project benefits. Cost-benefit analysis is basedon an evaluation of cost and returns to water (as the main benefit-producingfactor); thus the incremental net return per unit of water used (value ofwater) has been calculated. 2/ It varies between agroclimatic zones from

1/ 80% of average estimated economic net return of Rs 1,300/ha, since partof the submerged area can be cultivated when tank is temporarily dry.

2/ Water requirements were calculated according to modified Penman methodand agreed criteria (para 5.11) for each agroclimatic zone, based onestimated average rainfall (50% dependable) for the zone and projectedcropping patterns.

- 41 -

about Rs 0.50 tg Rs 0.60 per m of water (at reservoir outlet), averagingabout Rs 0.55/m (Annex 1, T-15). The average over all zones virtually doesnot change with varying assumptions on irrigation intensities; therefore,project benefits depend only on the actual quantities of water made availableper ha of CCA. For the calculation of expected benefits, the release and useof water as well as the incremental production were assumed to follow an ini-tial build-up over five years (after completion of construction), reflectingthe gradual adoption and adjustment process of participating farmers.

Economic Rate of Return.

7.09 After distributing construction cost over an estimated averageimplementation period of three years, and discounting costs and benefits ofwater over 50 years, the economic rate of return is about 20%, as against anestimated opportunity cost of capital of 12% for India. This economic rateof return reflects the viability of an average TIP. Estimated economic costand benefit streams for an average ha of command area are shown in Annex 1,T-16.

Project Risk

7.10 Uncertainty of Average Reservoir Inflows. I/ Methods presentlyused in Karnataka for estimation of annual inflow into a reservoir are basedon formulae which estimate runoff yield of a catchment on the basis of meanseasonal rainfall in the catchment, given certain catchment characteristics.Although the proposed project would improve the data base for runoff yieldestimates by actual streamflow measurements and a more accurate predictionmodel, there will always be errors in prediction to varying degrees, whichcause a potential risk to a project's viability by reducing the benefits(which depend essentially on the average volume of water available per ha ofcommand area) below their appraisal level. However, since there are noindications that the presently available methods are significantly biasedtowards either under- or overestimation, the overall project outcome as anaverage over many dispersed tank irrigation projects faces a diversified,i.e., low risk, even with those less accurate runoff estimation methods.

7.11 The results from a study undertaken by GOK to test the reliabilityof runoff estimates according to Strange's curves (Annex 6) by comparingactual with estimated runoffs in 12 catchments in Karnataka indicates thatthe actual inflow into a reservoir may be assumed to be not less than 65%of the estimate with 90% probability. For the proposed project, a reductionof average water supply by 35% relative to appraisal assumptions would stillresult in an economic rate of return of about 14%.

1/ The uncertainty or risk referred to here is not related to year-to-yearvariations in rainfall (see footnote to para 7.01), but to the long termaverage water supply for an individual TIP and for all TIPs as an aggre-gate. The evaluation of benefits is based on such long term averagesupply; consequently, this risk affects the long term benefits from theproject.

- 42 -

7.12 An attempt was made to illustrate the consequences of under- andoverdesigning of a typical project relative to various levels of actual reser-voir inflow. For this purpose, an approach based on decision analysis wastaken; for details on the assumptions and results see Annex 7. The resultsindicate that better prediction methods achieve, of course, a reduction of the(opportunity) cost of uncertainty, i.e. of risk, but do not necessarily leadto different decisions on the optimum size of a project, unless the expectedbenefit/cost ratio is low. 1/ If the problem were whether to delay a projectin order to collect more information and to reduce risk, or to go ahead basedon less reliable information, the decision should certainly be in favor of thelatter, since the expected cost of delay in terms of net benefits lost 2/(about 30% of "appraisal NPV" for three years delay, at a 12% discount rate),would always outweigh the benefits gained in terms of reduced opportunitylosses. In addition, the risks associated with imperfect methods of runoffestimation do not seem more serious than those resulting from possible errorsin other parameters (rainfall, yields, prices, water requirements, projectcost). There is little chance of average water supply shortfalls being soserious as to reduce the expected net present value to zero. However, theintroduction of improved methods of prediction and actual runoff measurementsat the tank site would reduce the expected cost of uncertainty considerably 3/and would lead, on average, to better design decisions and economic returnsfor later schemes under the project and thereafter.

7.13 Sensitivity to Basic Assumptions. The project's economic viabilitywas tested for its sensitivity to deviations from basic values for key para-meters, such as crop yields at full development, input costs, output prices,water requirements, and cost of and delays in construction, etc. Correspond-ing changes in the economic rate of return are tabulated below:

1/ "Optimum" size (as against a size based on deterministic design decisions)is the project size with the highest expected net present value. Gener-ally, the "optimum" size in this approach is slightly lower than theappraisal size. (This is due to the fact that expected benefits increaseonly slightly for project sizes larger than the appraisal size and reachsoon a maximum, while project cost varies approximately in proportion tosize.) For low B/C ratios, a more accurate prediction method wouldresult in appraisal sizes closer to the optimum size than less accuratemethods.

2/ A delay in construction would not affect the rate of return; it would,however, change the NPV as estimated at present, i.e., at the time ofundelayed construction.

3/ The expected cost of uncertainty (also known as expected opportunityloss, expected value of perfect information or simply expected risk), isthe difference between the expected net present value for the optimumsize under uncertainty and such value under certainty.

- 43 -

Change Economic Rate of Return(%) (%)

Base Case - 20

(a) All yields at full development - 20 14

(b) Input cost at full development + 20 18

(c) Net return per ha, without project + 40 18

(d) Economic output prices - 20 15

(e) Cost of construction + 40 15

(f) Average construction period +100 17

(g) Average water requirements per ha + 20 17

(h) Water supply per ha of CCA - 20 17

(i) Conveyance efficiency - 20 17

Other parameters, such as particular values of conversion factors, economicwages, O&M cost or loss of production due to submergence have no significanteffect on the sensitivity of the economic rate of return. Even combinationsof substantial changes of benefit and cost parameters would not be likely toreduce the economic rate of return to 12%.

7.14 Switching Values. The returns to and quantity of water and thecost of construction play an important role in determining economic viability.Therefore those values of these parameters have been examined (switchingvalues) which would, ceteris paribus, reduce the economic rate of return tothe estimated opportunity cost of capital. These values are estimated asfollows:

Value of water at the tank outlet

Basic assumption: Rs 0.55/ 3Switching value: Rs 0.30/m (-46%)

Supply of water from the tank

Basic assumption: 10,800 m3/ha/yearSwitching value: 5,880 m /ha/year (-46%)

Cost of construction per m of releas-ble water:Basic assumption: Rs 2.26/mi

Switching value: Rs 4.31/m3 (+91%)

Construction periodBasic assumption: Average: 3 yearsSwitching value: Average: more than 10 years

- 44 -

A shortfall of 46% in the incremental net returns per cubic meter of water orin the supply of water per ha of CCA and a 90% overrun in construction costare not considered likely. The average construction period is not likely tomore than double relative to basic estimate, since most sub-projects wouldbe relatively small and GOK's capability of implementing a relatively modestprogram of construction of about 120-160 tanks is not questioned.

7.15 The proposed project faces the risks normally associated withirrigation projects, the overall risk being widely diversified over a largenumber of individual projects. The risk is considered acceptable; the projectwould be economically viable.

VIII. RECOMMENDATIONS

8.01 Agreements have been reached with GOI during negotiations that theproceeds of the credit would be channeled to GOK in accordance with GOI'sstandard arrangements for development assistance to the States of India(para. 5.26).

8.02 Agreements have been reached with GOK during negotiations on thefollowing points:

(a) Tank Irrigation Projects (TIPs) would be planned, designed,approved, implemented and operated according to the agreedcriteria (para. 5.06);

(b) (i) GOK would maintain its panel of experts with qualifications,experience and terms of reference (Annex 4) acceptable to GOKand IDA to review the plans and designs of all dams, includingtheir related structures constructed under the Project, whoseproposed height of the embankment above streambed exceeds10 m, Phose proposed gross storage behind embankment exceeds2.5 Mm at full reservoir level, or whose proposed locationof the embankment is such that significant destruction couldoccur in case of failure; (ii) it would cause the panel toconduct periodic reviews during the design and constructionto examine whether any new grounds for making changes in thedesign of the such dams have become apparent (para 5.24).(iii) GOK would cause the dams mentioned above to be period-ically inspected in accordance with sound engineering practicein order to determine whether there are any deficiencies in thecondition of such structures, or in the quality and adequacyof maintenance or methods of operations of the same, whichmay endanger their safety.

- 45 -

(c) A study would be completed by March 31, 1983 according toterms of reference agreed between GOK and IDA (Annex 3) withthe purpose: (i) to investigate whether the formation ofwater users' organizations would contribute to an increaseof the farmers' participation in the operation of the TIPs;(ii) to recommend means for establishing viable and effectiveparticipation of beneficiaries in operation and maintenanceof the TIPs; and (iii) to recommend a system of watercharges in accordance with objectives agreed with theAssociation (para 5.30).

(d) GOK would promptly provide funds from its development budgetto execute the project in accordance with the schedule ofexpenditures set forth in Annex 1, T-9 (para. 5.32);

(e) (i) GOK would maintain separate accounts on project expen-ditures; (ii) it would ensure that these accounts are auditedannually by the State Accountant General or his designateand that the resulting reports would be submitted to IDA assoon as possible but not later than nine months after theend of each fiscal year; (iii) it would make completeaccounts and financial statements available for inspectionduring IDA review mission (para 5.35);

(f) GOK would promptly furnish to IDA Project Summaries (seeAnnex 5B) for each TIP approved by the Minor IrrigationCommittee (MIC) as well as minutes of each MIC meeting(para 6.10);

(g) GOK would submit to IDA by March 31 of each year anAnnual Implementation Program (see Annex 5C) and anAnnual Performance Summary (see Annex 5D), (para 6.10);

(h) individual tank irrigation projects would be processedaccording to agreed procedures (para 6.11);

(i) GOK would initiate, on an experimental basis, the formationof a Tank Irrigation Committee in each of at least threeselected TIPs. Committees would be formed before start ofconstrution, in accordance with TOR and with a compositionto be agreed with IDA (para 6.13); and

(j) With the objective of ensuring recovery of annual operationaland maintenance costs and, to the extent possible, cost ofinfrastructure investments, having consideration to incentivesfor, and payment capacity of, farmers, GOK would (i) consider-ing the recommendations of the study specified under (c) above,by March 31, 1984, review the method of charging for irrigationwater supply as well as the level of water and water relatedcharges in tank irrigation projects in Karnataka, and (ii) assoon as feasible thereafter, introduce and enforce an appro-priate system and level of such charges after paying dueconsideration to IDA's comments, if any, on the abovementioned review and the study (para 6.21).

- 46 -

8.03 With the above conditions and assurances, the proposed project wouldbe suitable for an IDA credit of US$54 M on standard IDA terms. The Borrowerwould be the Government of India.

-47- ANNEX 1Table 1

INDIA

KARNATAXA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECT

Performance of Selected Major Crops(Annual Growth Rates in Percent)

1955/56-1977/78 1955/56-1966/67 1967/68-1977/78Area Yield Production Area Yield Production Area Yield Production

Rice 0.8 2.0 2.8 2.6 0.4 3.0 -0.6 2.0 1.5

Jowar -1.8 4.1 2.4 0.9 2.9 3.8 -0.3 3.4 3.7

Ragi 0.2 0.9 1.1 2.2 -5.0 -3.1 -0.1 7.4 7.4

Wheat 1.0 6.1 7.1 -1.0 0.0 -l.0 1.5 6.4 8.5

Pulses 0.4 2.7 2.9 -0.3 1.8 1.4 0.3 3.0 2.9

Foodgrains -0.2 3.0 2.7 0.8 1.0 1.7 -0.1 3.7 3.4

Oilseeds 0.5 0.1 0.5 -0.7 -1.7 -2.3 0.8 -1.3 -0.7

Sugarcane 4.7 1.1 5.7 5.8 3.7 9.5 4.4 -2.3 2.2

Cotton -0.4 3.4 2.9 -1.4 0.3 -1.4 -0.7 7.9 8.0

-48-ANNEX 1Table 2

INDIA


Contribution of the Irrigation Sector to Agricultural Growth

In Karnataka 1/

(A) Increase in the Irrigated Sector (+98%) RsM Share in Total(%)

1. On existing irrigated areas(gross 0.97M ha)

(a) Due to yield improvements +1,170 34.1(b) Due to changes in cropping

pattern -280 -S.2(c) Interactive effects of

(a) and (b) -100 -2.9

+790 23.02. On new irrigated areas (gross 0.59M ha)

(a) Due to area increase alone +2,140 62.4(b) Due to yield improvements +720 21.0(c) Due to changes in cropping

pattern -170 -5.0(d) Interactive effects of

(a), (b) and (c) -50 -1.4

+2,640 77.0

Total irrigated sector: +3,430 100.0

As per cent of total increase: 78.3

(B) Increase of Production in Rainfed Sector (+11.8%)

1. On existing rainfed areas(gross 9.5 M ha)

(a) Due to yield improvements +1,750 184.2(b) Due to changes in cropping

pattern -350 -36.8(c) Interactive effects of (a) & (b) -70 -7.4

1,330 140.0

2. On decreased rainfed area(gross -p.38 M ha)

(a) Due to change in area alone -320 -33.7(b) Due to yield improvements -70 -7.4(c) Due to changes in cropping

pattern +10 +1.1(d) Interactive effects of

(a), (b), and (c) 0 0

-380 -40.0

Total Rainfed Sector +950 100.0

As per cent ot total increase 21.7

(C) Total Increase in Both Sectors (+38.0%)2/

(a) Due to shift of areas fromrainfed to irrigated agriculture +1,600 36.5

(b) Due to yield improvements +3,010 68.7(c) Due to changes in cropping

pattern -670 -15.3(d) Due to change in total area

cropped +230 5.3(e) Interactive shift/yield effect +420 9.6(f) Other interactive effects -210 4.8

4,380 100.0

1/ In constant 1975/76 prices. The year 1975//6 represents actually an averageof the years 1974/75 to 1976/77, the last year for which complete productiondata are available.

2/ Fertilizer use alone would explain about 35% ot the overall increase ofRs 4,380 M, when assuming a production increase of Rs 8 due to 1 kg of nutrient.However, a distribution of this effect among irrigated and rainfed agriculture,new and existing areas has not been attempted.

INDIA


Typical Unit Cost Estimates for Tank Irrigation Projects(Rupees per na or UA;

Size

Item 20-100 ha 100-200 ha 200-500 ha 500-1000 ha 1000-2000 ha Average(Weight: 34%) (Weight: 32%) (Weight: 27%) (Weight: 1%) (Weight: 6%) (Weighted)

A) RESERVOIR

Dam 9,000 7,000 5,500 4,000 3,000 7,005

SPillway 5,400 4,200 3,300 2,400 1,800 4,203

Buildings, Plant 300 700 1,000 1,500 1,500 701

Land Aquisition 750 750 750 750 750 750

Subtotal 15,450 12,650 10,550 8,650 7,050 12,659

B) DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM 4:

Main Canals & Distributaries 900 1,800 2,500 3,200 3,600 1,805(down to 40 ha, lined)

Minor Channels 990 990 990 990 990 990

(down to 8 ha, lined)

Field Channels 200 200 200 200 200 200

Outlets 70 70 70 70 70 70

Drainage 280 280 280 280 280 280

Land Aquisition 100 100 100 100 100 100

Subtotal 2,540 3,440 4,140 4,840 5,240 3,445

Base cost 17,990 16,090 14 90 13 49'0 12,290 16,104

C) GENERAL

Physical Contingencies (15%) 2,700 2,410 2,200 2,020 1,840 2,416Engineering & Supervision (15%) 3,100 2,180 2,540 2,330 2,120 2,778

Total 23,790 21,280 19,430 17,840 16,250 21,298

INDIA

EARNATARA IANR IRRICATION rEtJECT

Elemnt and Features of Six Selected Tank irrigation Projests

Project: Dangen.halli Vadedoddi Attinori handead Kailuvoddh.lla GNbur

Lc-atibn in scate East Central tatre. e SE NW H1il North Centr- l West C-e-ral North-ast

Protect ToPo-a-phy fmdnlatint onAd "-stly level L-nl-nt-me loon is level to Le-el wIth a £aw Level vith a fre

dralosge swell d-ained relief-g.od 2%4 nloen-good .ndolati.ns-ge-d ond.lation--good

dtaiage dAtainage dtainage drainaeg

Cenvatd Ares OCCA in ha. 21 263 800 1,000 1,800 1,400

Clitmanntealo

Temperature (<C)

Sta/-oth35.4/Apr. 34.1/Apt. 35.9/Ap-. 36.9/Apr, 35.9/Apr. 39.4/Apttn/=net 22.5D/Jan. 14.7/Jla. 14.7/Jan 14.7/Det. 14.0/Jan 1469/Ja.

Avg. Raillft11 (ms/ye) Rteord (yrs.) 645/30 728/28 1,026/5-33 523/20 1,399/10-30 686/75Gauge L-eati../N.. of sites Oltoit.e/l titt o.tsidn/l sine Ot-idn/4 aite- lntide/I eie; T-ntide/2 sites; et-tide/1 mite

Teatures

D..Type z.n.e nereth Zoed earth Z2nod -rth Z.o.ed earth Zoned earth Zoned earthTotaI Cre-t Le-gth (m) 243 451 840 820 350 1,746Top Ufin (m) se .1. 103.10 31.94 562.47 531.12 437.46 429.55Tne Widetha 1.00 I.8 4.57 3.7 4.60 4.005lit. of Dae ahone otre med (ml 7.60 10.37 23.66 16.61 22.97 11.85Upet te Nlepe/ Pretenei-n 2:1/Rock 2:1/Rotk 2.5-3:1/Soek 2.5:1/Rock 3.5:1/R.ek 2.5:1/RSekSeenstrean slepe/peometti-n 1.5:1/Grace 1.5:1/Scasa 2:1/irant 1.5 6 2:1/Grdss 2:1/yeast 2Slyronm

Pree-bard (ml 1.20 1,22 2.44 2.60 1.83 2.50

h'an. watr Level (It bkn l..I) 101.90 30. 2 560.23 528.52 635.33 427.05Fell SsRno-le L-Ie leahebesL. 101.00 209.02 5507.65 526.30 433.50 4215.55T.t.1 Storage (.3n)1 0(m 1.29 5;266 3.68 11.92 5.83Live Storage (iM3) 0.171 1.D00 4.50 3.16 11.05 5.20Dead Sto_son (Mm

3) 0.011 0.29 0,77 D.52 0.07 0.63

Ttal Subtlrtio Area (ha) 2.700 .31 127.00 142.00 198,00 211.00

spil Issy

Ltcation Left Fl.hk Left Fl-nk Right Flank Left Flank Right Fl-::k Left Fldnk

Type Sloping aproe type .eit Dgee/otlem Chutc Chute CI-te ChuteCeret Lenoth (m) 12 101 25 99.4 50 102cr-tt Rlev. (tbthee t...) 101.0. 29.02 557.65 526.30 633.50 425.55Mat. Height (n) 0.9 0.91 4.5 8.23 1.34 7.55

Peak De-ni Fleed(tomt.. 31 161.4 255 690 269 447Menkod Ryves, C=1250 Ryve, C-950 Rynee, C-1500 Rye-, C=1250 Ryve-, C=1S00 Ryves, C=1250

rrigation Cen.siIype/t Iv mm Ctoc. lined/50 Cfoo. lIned/50 Con. ilned/50 Cnc. li-ned/50 fnnc.ll- ed/50 Cenc. lIved/50

Left, gak Canol (CCA I1 ha) - 40 323 400 1740 g.88Hend Diclh. q/Q (canel. _ .151/.071 0.58/0.54 0.40/0.31 3.18/3.38 1.31/0.67Ghadient - I/i544 1.2500 1.200Q 1.250 1/1200Length (In) - 4.88 3.30 4.8 32.1 7.8

Sight Otk C.anlI

(CCA/in ha.) 21 123 477 600 60 512HSad DieO,.q/Q (cumto) .022/.01 .134/.059 01.86/0.77 0.60/0.66. 0.11/0.13 0.58/0.39Gradient 1/1800 1/1500 1/2500 1/2000 112500 1/2000Length (km) 1.41 3.88 4.00 6,4 3.6 8.0

Hyd-ology

Lengeh ef Stremn (km) 1.6 11 9 50 11.2 34Total _antcej-t (eq. kos) 2.07 38.1 35.6 224 41 115.,Inter-epted cateheeet (sq. k-s) - 12.7 - - 13.3Indepetde- t-b-hmeoh (sq. kmm) 2.07 25.4 35.6 224 41 102.3Rainfall (em) /Oepevd.bility (%) 645/50 672/50 959/50 539/50 1 68/50 686/50

Method stra-gc/A-e. Stran-n/A-e Stret-l/Gind Strantg/Ave. SNrO-ge/Av-. St.taugOA/-e50) Dnp-ndable YilId-itdeyemde-t

Catchmeet I(mP) 0.177 2.85 11.90 10.70 25.7 12.04Water Avilibse for Irrig. (Pm

3) 0.160 2.56 10.71 9.60 23.11 10.48

Irrigat-io Dcn..d 0.159 1.99 10.70 9.56 2o1.17 10.504

ANNEX 1Table 5

INDIA


Cost Estimrates for Six Selected Tank Irrigation Projects

------------------------------- Project ------------ -------- ----_________ Average Costin Rs/ha for Percent

Daggenahalli Vadedoddi Attiveri Mundwad Kalluvodduhalla Gobur Six ProJects of TotalFeature CCA=21 ha CCA=263ha CCA=800ha CCA=1,000ah CCA=1,800ha CCA'1,400 ha

Dam and AppurtenancesEarth and Miscellaneous 11,062 2,418 5,588 3,150 5,833 3,054 5,185 34.1Spillway and Appurtenances 4,181 2,038 ',750 6,060 2,723 1,554 3,213 21.2Land Acquisition nil 1,806 325 1,030 666 656 747 4.9Bldgs., Special Tools & Plant nil 1.049 2.761 1.000 1,716 2,081 i,43 9.4

Sub-total 15,243 7,311 11,424 11,240 10,938 7,345 10,579 69.6

Distribution SystemCanals (Down to 40 ha)

Earthwork & Structures - 2,338 1,982 1,188 2,183 2,700 1,732 11.4Concrete Lining - 760 786 793 2,583 1,577 1,083 7.1

Subminors (40 to 8 ha)Earthwork & Structures 529 255 255 255 255 255 300 3.0Concrete Lining 725 725 725 725 725 725 725 4.8

Land Acquisition nil 625 75 120 355 219 233 1.5Sub-total 1,254 4,703 3,081 3,823 6,101 5,476 4,073 26.8

Minor Drains 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 1.0Sub-total 145 145 145 145 145 145 145 1.0

On-Farm Works (Below 8 ha)Outlets (@ Rs 500/8 ha) 63 63 63 63 63 63 63 0.4Field Channels (60 m/ha) 200 200 200 200 200 200 200 1.3Field Drains (40 m/ha) 130 130 130 130 130 130 130 0.9

Sub-total 393 393 393 393 393 393 393 2.6

Total Direct Costs 17,035 12,552 15,785 14,859 17,577 13,359 15,190 100.0Physical Contingencies 3/ 1,882 1,779 2,014 1,848 2,422 1,937 1,980Design and Supervision 3/ 2,837 2,150 2,670 2,506 3,000 2,294 2,576

Total Project Costs 21,754 16,481 2C,469 19,213 22,999 17,590 19,751

Total Water Deliverable at Dam(m 3

/ha) 7,619 9,734 13,388 9,600 12,838 7,743 -

Cost of Water in Rs/m3

2.86 1.69 1.53 2.00 1.79 2.27 2.02

1/ Costs are in Rs per hectare of CCA, except as noted on the last line of the table. Size of CCA as given by GOK.:!odifications were made to the cost of distribution systems in order to account for higher design standards. >

2/ Includes diversion canal and structures designed to higher standards than t,pically used for channel conve"ance between 40 ectare and 8 hectareoutlets in larger schemes.

3/ Physical contingencies for Dam and Appurtenances are estimated at 10 percent; and 20 percent is used for all other featfnres. Des:gn a*nd superv sionare estimated at 157. of total direct costs and physical contingencies.

-52-

ANNEX 1Table 6

INDIA


Tentative Distribution of Tank Irrigation

Projects by Size and Agroclimatic Zones

Distribution by Size(% of total number)

< 100 ha 34%

100 - 200 ha 32%

200 - 300 ha 9%

300 - 500 ha 18%

500 - 1,000 ha 1%

1,000 ha + 6%

100%

Distribution by Agroclimatic Zone(% of Command Area)

Northeastern Transition Zone 17%

Northeastern Dry Zone 8%

Northern Dry Zone 20%

Central Dry Zone 2%

Eastern Dry Zone 9%

Southern Dry Zone 13%

Southern Transition Zone 13%

Northern Transition Zone 6%

Hilly Zone 9%

Coastal Zone 3%

100%

-53-

ANNEX 1

Table 7

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTS

Rainfall and River Gauging Networks

Cost Estimates

Item No. Unit TotalCost Cost

$$

Raingauges - 8" Fiberglassnon-recording 1,000 30 30,000

Raingauges - Self recording 90 800 72,000

Current Meters (completeOutfits) 30 1,000 30,000

Staff Gauges 100 50 5,000

Recording Bubble Gauges 2/(Complete Outfits) 3 3,500 10,500

Control Weir Construction 1/and Installation of Gauges - 3 10,500 31,500

Jeep Transportation -/ 3 7,000 21,000

Hydrometerological Siteswith Class 'A' Pans 6 30,000 180,000

Totals 380,000

1/ Installation of a minimum of 3 specially equipped stream gauging sitesnear Government installation for scientific collection of control datafor establishment of rainfall-runoff in small catchments exhibiting high,medium and low runoff characteristics is recommended as a part of theprogram.

INDIA


ESTIMA-TED SCHEDULE OF IMPLEMENTATION-/

1.981/822 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85

I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV I II III IV

Pre2paRatio 10L 4M 76S20S 60S

Appraisal IOL 4I 66S20S 60S

Approval 10L 4M 66S U20S 60S 4

Construction 10L iOL IOL IOL 10L 10L IOL 10L 10L 10L 10L 10L 10L20S 20S 20S 20S 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M

80S 80S 60S 60S 126S 126S 126S 66S 66S

Completion ofConstruction 20S 60S IOL

4M66S

L = Large Projects (above 1,000 ha) m xM = Medium Projects (400-1,000 ha)S = Small Projects (below 400 ha)

1/ Due to the tentative character of underlying COst estimates, the total number of projects may result to be less than 160.

2/ Fiscal years of Karnataka: April 1 to March 31

-55- ANNEX 1

Table 9

INDIA


Estimated Schedule of Expenditures

1981/82 1982/83 1983/84 1984/85 Total

------------------- Rs M ------------------------

Construction of TIPs 89.8 126.8 160.3 147.7 524.6

Expected Price Increases-/ 7.6 21.1 39.7 52.3 120.7

97.4 147.9 200.0 200.0 645.3

Rainfall and River Gaugingand Computing Equipment 2.0 1.5 - - 3.5

Expected Price Increases-/ 0.2 0.2 - - 0.4

2.2 1.7 - - 3.9

Technical Assistanceand Training 0.4 0.4 - - 0.8

a!Expected Price Increases- * * - - *

TOTAL 100.0 150.0 200.0 200.0 650.0

* = less than 0.1

a/ Assumed rates of inflation: 1981/82: 8.5%1982/83: 7.5%1983/84: 7.0%1984/85: 7.0%

-56-

ANNEX 1Table 10

INDIA


Proposed Allocation of the Credit

Allocation % of ExpendituresCategory (US$ Equivalent) to be Financed

Civil Works 51,450,000 85%

Equipment 450,000 100% of foreign exchangeexpenditure.

100% of local ex-factorycost

70% of other localexpenditure

Technical Assistanceand Training 100,000 100%

Unallocated 2,000,000

54,000,000

ANNEX 1-57- Table 11

INDIA


Estimated Schedule of Disbursements

Bank Fiscal Year Disbursements (US$ M)and Semester Semeiter Cumulative

1982 1st 1.0 1.02nd 3.0 4.0

1983 1st 5.0 9.02nd 5.0 14.0

1984 1st 6.0 20.02nd 8.0 28.0

1985 lst 8.0 36.02nd 8.0 44.0

1986 1st 5.0 49.02nd 5.0 54.0

ANNEX 1

-58- Table 12A

INDIA


ESTIMATED FARM BUDGETS AND PROJECT RENT

FOR REPRESENTATIVE FARM SIZES

A: Low Rainfall Zones

1 hA Farm 5 ha Farm 10 ha Farm

NO'/ FW;/ FWO NW NWO NW

-FARM BUDGET

Gross Value of Production 1,130 6,890 5,660 34,440 11,320 68,870

Total Labor Cost 260 1,010 1,320 5,030 2,650 10,060

Other Inputs 510 1,890 2,560 9,480 5,110 18,950

Land Tax + Watercharge 10 150 40 760 80 1,530

Total Cost 780 3,050 3,920 15,270 7,840 30,540

Net Value of Production 350 3.84 0 1.740 14,170 73n , a 3--Rn

Reward to Family Labor 260 910 1,320 3.520 2.120 4.200

Net Farm Family Income 610 4,750 3,060 22,690 5,600 42,530

Off-Farm Income 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,200

Net Family Income 1,810 5,750 4,260 23,890 7.100 43.730

Per Capita Income -2 402 1,322 710 3,982 947 5,831_

PROJECT RENT

Net Return to Farm 350 3,840 1,740 19,170 3,480 38,330

+ (Tax + Watercharge) 10 150 40 760 8

Net Return Before Tax 360 3,990 1,780 19,930 3,400 39,860

- Risk EquivaLent-3/ 450 1,030 1,700 3,440 2,260 6,890

- Management Fee (10%)-/ 40 400 180 2,000 340 4.000

Implicit Land Rent - 130 2,560 - 100 14,490 800 28,970

Project Rent Rs per hectare- 2,690 2 2,817

1/ "FWO": Future without project; "FW": Future with project.

2/ Assumed family sizes: 4.5, 6.0, and 7.5 respectively.

3/ Risk Equivalent = Expected gross value of production x farmers' risk aversion factor xcoefficient of variation of yields. The risk aversion factor is assumed as 2.0, 1.5,and 1.0 respectively without project, and as 1.5, 1.0, and 1.0 with project. Thecoetiicient of yield variation has been assumed as 20% without project and 10% withproject.

4/ Management fee is a premium for management and entrepreneurship skills. It has beenassumed as 10% of net return to the farm

5/ Project rent is the incremental land rent per ha, due to the project.

ANNEX 1

Table 12B

INDIA




B: Transitional Zones

1 hA Farm 5 ha Farm 10 ha Farm

1/FWE/ F__1 FWO FW FWO FW

FARM BUDGET

Gross Value of Production 1,530 7,500 7,630 37,520 15.260 75.030

Total Labor Cost 320 1,210 1,600 6,040 3,200 12,080

Other Inputs 550 2,080 2,760 10,850 5,520 20,810

Land Tax + Watercharge 10 170 40 840 80 1.670

Total Cost 880 3,460 4,400 17,730 8,800 34,560

Net Value of Production 650 4,040 3,230 19.790 6.,460 40,47n

Reward to Family Labor 320 1,090 1,600 3,020 2,880 4,830

Net Farm Family Income 970 5,130 4,830 22,810 9,340 45,300

Off-Farm Income 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,200 1,500 1,200

Net Family Income 2,170 6,330 6,030 24,010 10,840 46,5002/

Per Capita Income- 434 1.266 , 197R 5.470

PROJECT RENT


+ (Tax + Watercharge) 10 170 40 840 80 1,670


- Risk Equivalen 3/ 610 1,130 2,290 3,750 3,050 7,500

- Management Fee (10%)-/ 60 420 330 2,060 650 4,200

Implicit Land Rent - 10 2,660 650 14,820 2,840 30,440

Project Rent Rs per hectare5- 2,670 2,834 2,760

1/ "FWO": Future without project; "FW": Future with project.

2/ Assumed family sizes: 5.0, 6.5, and 8.5 respectively.

3/ Risk Equivalent = Expected gross value of production x farmers' risk aversion factor xcoefficient of variation of yields. The risk aversion factor is assumed as 2, 1.5,and 1.0 respectively without project, and as 1.5, 1.0, and 1.0 with project. Thecoefficient of yield variation has been assumed as 20% without project and 10% withproject.

4/ Management fee is a premium for management and entrepreneurship skills. It has beenassumed as 10% of net return to the farm.


ANNEX 1-60- Table 12C

INDIA




C: High Rainfall Zones

0.5 ha Farm ha Farm 3 ha Farm

1//FWO _ -_/ NWO FW FWO FW

FARM BUDGET

Gross Value of Production 1,940 5,060 3,880 10,120 11,630 30,350

Total Labor Cost 370 910 730 1,810 2,200 5,440

Other Inputs 610 1,360 1,230 2,730 3,680 8,190

Land Tax + Watercharge - 130 10 270 20 800

Total Cost 980 2,400 1,970 4,810 5.900 14.430

Net Value of Production 960 2,660 1,910 5,310 5,730 15,Q20

Reward to Family Labor 370 910 730 1,630 2.200 3.800

Net Farm Family Income 1,330 3,570 2,640 6,940 7,930 19,720

Off-Farm Income 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,500 1,200

Net Family Income 2,83Q 5,070 41 4,44 9,430 20,920

Per Capita Income- 629 1,127 753 1,535 1,179 2,615

PRWEJCT RENT


+ (Tax + Watercharge) - 130 10 270 20 800


- Risk Equivalent- 580 760 1,160 1,520 2,620 3,060

- Management Fee (10%)-/- 100 280 190 56 580 1,67n

Implicit Land Rent 280 1,750 570 3.500 2.550 11,990

Project Rent Rs per hectare-/ 2,940 2L1

it "FNO": Future without project; "FW': Future with project

2/ Assumed family sizes: 4.5, 5.5 and 8.0 respectively.

3/ Risk Equivalent = Expected gross value of production x farmers' risk aversion factor xeo-fficient of variation of yields. The risk aversion factor is assumed as 2.0,2.0, and 1.5 respectively without-project, and as 1.5, 1.5, and 1.0 with project--The coefficient of yield variation has been assumed as 15% without project and10% with project.

41 Management fee is a premium for management and entrepreneurship skills. It has beenassumed as 10% of net return to the farm.


INDIA

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROIECT

STANDARD YIELDS AND INPUT REQUIREMENTS

CROP SCASON YIELD BYPRODUCT HUMAN LABOR BULLOCKS NITROGEN PHOSPATE POTASH CHEMICALS SEED WATER CHARGE

(TONS) (RS) (MANDAYS) (PAIRDAYS) (KG) KG) (KG) (RS) (RS) (RS)

PADDY HYV Kl4 4.3 304 145 25 75 30 20 180 t49 88

PADDY IIYV KH- 2.3 168 130 24 45 20 tO 100 149 0

PADDY LOCAl. KH* 2. t 320 120 24 20 10 10 8O 148 88

PADDY LOCAL KH- 1.6 160 100 24 20 6 0 60 148 0

SORGHUM HYB KH+ 3.2 320 82 18 60 30 t5 60 90 50

SORGHUM HYB Kl- 1.5 170 55 14 30 20 0 40 90 0

SORGHUM t.DC KH- 0.9 180 51 14 10 6 0 0 45 0

MILLEIS HYV KH+ 2.4 120 74 17 60 30 15 65 30 45

MILLETS HYV KH- 0.6 30 54 15 20 10 0 35 30 0

MILLETS LOC KH- 0.5 25 48 15 10 6 0 0 36 0

MAIZF HYB KH+ 3.5 220 85 17 75 40 25 80 68 45

MAIZE HYB KH- 1.2 160 65 I5 30 15 6 40 68 0

PUilSES KH+ 0.6 60 46 12 t5 35 0 30 85 45

PULSES KH- 0.5 50 43 8 5 10 0 0 85 0

CHILLIES KH+ 0.9 0 210 28 80 40 40 400 45 45

CHILLIES KH1- 0.5 0 190 28 0 0 0 0 45 0 a

OlSEEDS KH+ 1.7 0 110 26 20 40 20 85 450 50

DILSEEDS KH- 0.6 0 63 20 5 10 0 0 450 0

COTTON KH1l 1.8 0 149 25 100 55 55 1500 80 125

COTTON KH- 0.4 0 72 19 60 30 30 300 80 0

PADDY HYV RB+ 4.5 310 145 25 75 30 20 1R0 136 88

PADDY IIYV RB- 2.3 160 135 24 45 -25 10 140 136 0

PADDY LOCAL RB+ 2.2 176 120 24 30 10 10 80 148 88

PADDY LOCAL RB- 1.8 160 100 24 20 10 10 60 148 0

SORGHUM HYB RB4 3.4 330 82 18 60 30 15 60 70 50

SORGHUM HIYB RB- 1.5 180 55 14 25 tO 5 40 70 0

SORGHUM LOC RB- 0.7 180 50 14 0 0 0 0 45 0

MILLETS HYV RB- 2.5 125 74 17 60 30 15 65 30 45

MILLErS HYV RB 0.6 35 54 14 25 10 5. 35 30 0

MILLETS LOC RB- 0.5 25 48 12 0 0 0 0 36 0

MAIZE MIYB RB+ 3.7 225 85 t7 75 40 25 80 60 45

MAIZE HYB RB- 1.2 170 65 15 30 15 6 40 60 0

WHEAT HYV RB+ 1.7 255 74 15 55 40 20 40 375 75

WHEAT HYV RB- 0.6 255 62 13 20 10 10 0 375 0

WHEAT LOC RB- 0.4 120 50 10 0 0 0 0 250 0

P(tLSES RR+ 0.7 70 48 t2 15 35 0 30 85 45

PULSES RB- 0.5 50 41 8 0 0 0 0 85 0

OltSEEDS RB4 1.8 0 120 26 20 40 25 85 450 50 m >.

OILSEFDS RB- 0.5 0 63 20 0 0 0 50 450 0 X

SlJGARCANE PN+ 80.0 0 350 46 200 80 40 340 600 500 i

SIJGARCANF PN- 45.0 0 200 42 110 45 15 250 600 0

MULBERRY PN+ 22.0 0 110 20 240 80 80 0 I5O 500

MULBERRY PN- 5.0 0 80 20 80 40 40 0 150 0

= IRRIGATED. - = RAINFED. "KH" = KHARIF. "R" RABI, "PN" PERENNIAL

NOTE: ALL FIGURES ARE PER HECTARE.STANDARD ASSUMPTIONS FOR RAINrED CROPS ARE MODIFIED FOR DIFFERENT AGROCLIMATIC ZONES.

1 INDIA


CROPPING PATTERNS. ECONOMIC CROPSUDGETS AND WATER REQtUIREMENTS 8Y AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

NORTHEASTERN TRANSITION ZONE

cROP SEASON % OF YIELD BYPRODUCT GROSS RETURN LABOR OTHER COST NET RETURN WATER REQUIREMENT NET RETURN PER H3

CCA (T/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (PS/HA) (RS/HA) (M3/HA) (RS/M3)…-_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ -_ - - - - - - -- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CROPS WITH PROJECT

PADDY HYV I KHARIF 6 4.30 304 8044 624 1341 6079 8354 0,728

PADDY LOCAL I KHARIF 2 2.10 320 4457 516 725 3216 8790 0.366

SORGHUM HYB I KHARIF 20 3.20 320 5152 353 961 3838 1083 3.545

MILLETS HYV I KHARIF 5 2.40 120 3480 318 891 2271 1059 2.144

MAIZE HYB I KHARIF 12 3.50 220 5540 366 1127 4047 1267 3.194

PULSES I KHARIF 10 0.60 60 3204 198 549 2457 1101 2.232

CHILLIES I KHARIF 5 0.90 0 7974 903 1634 5437 3862 1.408

OILSEEDS I KHARIF 20 1.70 0 4675 473 1257 2945 1071 2.750

COTTON I KHARIF 5 1.80 0 11304 641 2975 7688 4950 1.553

SORGHUM HYB I RABI 20 3.40 330 5464 353 940 4171 3249 1.284

MAIZE HYB I RABI 10 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 3921 1.113

WHEAT HYV I RABI 20 1.70 255 3434 318 1242 1874 3029 0.619

PULSES I RABI 10 0.70 70 2499 206 549 1743 2570 0.678

OILSEEDS I RABI 30 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 4587 0.689

SUGARCANE I PERENN 10 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 15738 0,705

AVERAGE PER HA OF CCA: 185 10360 866 2328 7166 6718 1.067

CROPS WITHOUT PROJECT

PAODY LOCAL R KHARIF 2 1.60 160 3312 330 649 2333

SORGHUM HYB R KHARIF 4 1.50 170 2435 182 600 1653

SORGHUM LOC R KHARIF 15 0.90 180 1539 168 302 1068

MILLETS HYV R KHARIF 11 0.70 30 1015 178 421 416

MILLETS LOC R KHARIF 5 0.50 25 725 158 303 264

PULSES R KHARIF 25 0.55 50 2937 142 269 2526

OILSEEDS R KHARIF 10 0.60 0 1650 208 782 660

COTTON R KHARIF 3 0.40 0 1960 238 1231 491

SORGHUM HYB R RABI 4 1.50 180 2445 182 503 1761

SORGHUM LOC R RABI 6 0.70 180 1237 165 203 870

WHEAT HYV R RABI 1 0.70 255 1607 205 753 649

WHEAT LOC R RABI 3 0.50 120 1130 165 376 589

PULSES R RABI II 0.50 50 1785 135 180 1470

OILSEEDS R RABI 10 0.55 0 1513 208 743 562

AVERAGE PER HA OF CCA: 110 2070 190 471 1409

'I' = IRRIGATED, 'R' = RAINFED 4

NOTE: 5% CONTINGENCIES ARE ADDED TO INPUT COST.WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REQUIREMENTS AT RESERVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 11038 M3.

PROOECT EFFICIENCY: 61%.

2 INDIA


CROPPING PATTERNS. ECONOMIC CROPBUDGETS AND WATER REQUIREMENTS BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

NORTHEASTERN DRY ZONE

CROP SEASON % OF YIELD BYPRODUCT GROSS RETURN LABOR OTHER COST NET RETURN WATER REOUIREMENT NET RETURN PER M3CCA (T/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (M3/HA) (RS/M3)

…_ ------ _ _ _ _ _ ------- _ _ ______ ----------------- -----------------

CROPS WITH PROJECT

PADDY HYV I KHARIF 12 4.30 304 8044 624 1341 6079 9922 0.613PADDY LOCAL I KHARIF 4 2.10 320 4457 516 725 3216 10442 0.308SORGHUM HYB I KHARIF 15 3.20 320 5152 353 961 3838 1833 2.094MILL4TS HYV I XHARIF 8 2.40 120 3480 318 891 2271 1690 1.344MAIZZ HYB I KHARIF 3 3.50 220 5540 366 1127 4047 2071 1.955PULStS R KHARIF 9 0.50 50 2670 185 271 2214 0 0.000CHILLIES I KHARIF 6 0.90 0 7974 903 1634 5437 5510 0.987OILStEDS I KHARIF a 1.70 0 4675 473 1257 2945 2648 1.112COTTON I KHARIF 30 1.80 0 11304 641 2975 7688 5171 1.487SORGHUM HYB I RABI 10 3.40 330 5464 353 940 4171 4117 1.013MAIZt HYB I RABI 5 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 4403 0.991WHEAT HYV I RABI 10 1.70 255 3434 318 1242 1874 3641 0.515PULStS R RABI 15 0.45 50 1607 176 182 1248 0 0.000OILStEDS I RABI 18 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 4379 0.722SUGAkCANE I PERENN 2 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 18743 0.592


CROP5 WITHOUT PROJECT_____________________

SORGHUM HYB R KHARIF 5 1.40 170 2273 182 600 1491MILLETS HYV R KHARIF 14 0.55 30 798 178 421 199MILLETS LOC R KHARIF 5 0.45 25 653 158 303 191PULSES R KHARIF 8 0.50 50 2670 142 269 2259OILSEEDS R KHARIF 17 0.55 0 1513 208 782 523COTTON R KHARIF 18 0.35 0 1715 238 1231 246SORGHUM HYB R RABI 6 1.40 180 2282 182 503 1598SORGHUM LOC R RABI 16 0.65 180 1149 165 203 781WHEAT HYV R RABI 2 0.60 255 1377 205 753 420WHEAT LOC R RABI 2 0.40 120 904 165 376 363PULSES R RABI 8 0.45 50 1607 135 180 1291OILSEEDS R RABI 4 0.45 0 1238 208 743 287


'I' = IRRIGATED. 'R' - RAINFED (

NOTE: 5% CONTINGENCIES ARE ADDED TO INPUT COST.WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REQUIREMENTS AT RESERVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 10043 M3.PROJECT EFFICIENCY: 63%.

INDIA


CROPPING PATTERNS, ECONOMIC CROPSUDGETS AND WATER REQUIREMENTS BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

----------------------------------------------------------__-----------------__-----

NORTHERN DRY ZONE

CROP SEASON % OF YIELD BYPRODUCT GROSS RETURN LABOR OTHER COST NET RETURN WATER REQUIREMENT NET RETURN PER M3

CCA (T/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (M3/HA) (RS/M3)

_ _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - - - - - - - - - -

_ _ _---__ _- - - - - - - - --- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - --

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _

CROPS WITH PROJECT

PAPOY HYV I KHARIF 10 4.30 304 8044 624 1341 6079 9960 0.610

PAODY LOCAL I KHARIF 3 2.10 320 4457 516 725 3216 10488 0.307




PULSES R KHARIF 10 0.45 50 2403 185 271 1947 0 0.000



COTTON I KHARIF lB 1.80 0 11304 641 2975 7688 4980 1.544

SoRGHUM HYB I RABI 20 3.40 330 5464 353 940 4171 3088 1.351

MAIZE HYB I RABI 10 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 2969 1.470

WHEAT HYV I RABI 6 1.70 255 3434 318 1242 1874 3159 0.593

PULSES R RABI 10 0.40 50 1428 176 182 1070 0 0.000

OILSEEDS I RABI 14 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3,163 3451 0.916

SUGARCANE I PERENN 5 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 1f103 16363 0.679







MAIZE HYB R KHARIF 2 1.00 160 1653 215 576 863

PULSES R KHARIF 10 0.45 50 2403 142 269 1992

CHILLIES R KHARIF 1 0.40 0 3544 627 373 2544


COTTON R KHARIF 16 0.30 0 1470 238 1231 1

SORGHUM HYB R RABI 7 1.30 180 2119 182 503 1435

SORGHUM LOC R RABI 8 0.60 180 1060 165 203 693

MILLETS HYV R RABI 2 0.60 35 875 178 455 241

WHEAT HYV R RABI 4 0.55 255 1262 205 753 305 z

PULSES R RABI 2 0.40 50 1428 135 180 1113 0)

OILSEEDS R RABI 3 0.40 0 1100 208 743 149 Z

AVERAGE PER HA OF CCA: 96 1380 183 555 641 I X

'I' = IRRIGATED. 'R' RAINFED

NOTE: 5% CONTINGENCIES ARE ADDED TO INPUT COST.

WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REQUIREMENTS AT RESERVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 9781 M3.

PROJECT EFFICIENCY: 62%.

4 INDIA


CROPPING PATTERNS, ECONOMIC CROPBUDGETS AND WATER REQUIREMENTS BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

CENTRAL DRY ZONE

CROp SEASON % OF YIELD BYPRODUCT GROSS RETURN LABOR OTHER COST NET RETURN WATER REQUIREMENT NET RETURN PER M3CCA (T/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (M3/HA) (RS/M3)

CROPS WITH PROJECT

PADDY HYV I KHARIF 12 4.30 304 8044 624 1341 6079 10251 0.593PADDY LOCAL I KHARIF 4 2.10 320 4457 516 725 3216 10787 0.298SORGHUM HYB I KHARIF 12 3.20 320 5152 353 961 3838 2832 1.355MILLETS HYV I KHARIF 20 2.40 120 3480 318 891 2271 2380 0.954MAIZE HYB I KHARIF 9 3.50 220 5540 366 1127 4047 2862 1.414PULSES R KHARIF 10 0.45 50 2403 185 271 1947 0 0.000CHILLIES I KHARIF 6 0.90 0 7974 903 1634 5437 5058 1.075OILSEEDS I KHARIF 12 1.70 0 4675 473 1257 2945 2743 1.074COTTON I KHARIF 10 1.80 0 11304 641 2975 7688 5682 1.353SORGHUM HYB I RABI 10 3.40 330 5464 353 940 4171 2987 1.397MILLETS HYV I RABI 15 2.50 125 3625 318 891 2416 3124 0.773MAIZE HYB I RABI 5 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 3332 1.310PULSES R RABI 10 0.40 50 1428 176 182 1070 0 0.000OILSEEDS I RABI 15 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 3647 0.867SUGARCANE I PERENN 4 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 15518 0.715


CROPS WITHOUT PROJECT__ ________________ _

SORGHUM HYB R KHARIF 2 1.30 170 2110 182 600 1329SORGHUM LOC R KHARIF 10 0.80 180 1368 168 302 897MILLETS HYV R KHARIF 6 0.50 30 725 178 421 126MILLETS LOC R KHARIF 16 0.40 25 580 158 303 119PULSES R KHARIF 10 0.45 50 2403 142 269 1992CHILLIES R KHARIF 6 0.40 0 3544 627 373 2544OILSEEDS R KHARIF 15 0.50 0 1375 208 782 385COTTON R KHARIF 5 0.30 0 1470 238 1231 1SORGHUM HYB R RABI 10 1.30 180 2119 182 503 1435MILLETS HYV R RABI 4 0.60 35 875 178 455 241WHEAT HYV R RABI 2 0.50 255 1148 205 753 190PULSES R RABI 6 0.40 50 1428 135 180 1113OILSEEDS R RABI 3 0.40 0 1100 208 743 149

AVERAGE PER HA OF CCA: 95 1437 195 461 781 R

'I' = IRRIGATED. 'R' = RAINFED r >


5 INDIA


CROPPING PATTERNS, ECONOMIC CROPBUDGETS AND WATER REOUIREMENTS BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

EASTERN DRY ZONE



CROPS WITH PROJECT

PADDY HYV I KHARIF 17 4.30 304 8044 624 1341 6079 8744 0.695



PULSES R KHARIF 9 0.50 50 2670 185 271 2214 0 0.000



MILLETS HYV I RABI 10 2.50 125 3625 318 891 2416 3939 0.613

MAIZE HYB I RABI 10 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 4629 0.943

PULSES R RABI 15 0.50 50 1785 176 182 1427 0 0.000

OILSEEDS I RABI 15 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 4701 0.673

SUGARCANE I PERENN 3 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 11882 0.934

MULBERRY I PERENN 15 22:00 0 16060 473 2617 12970 11882 1.092



PADDY LOCAL R KHARIF 2 0.75 160 1553 330 649 573




PULSES R KHARIF 12 0.50 50 2670 142 269 2259



MILLETS LOC R RABI 4 0.50 25 725 158 172 395

PULSES R RABI 4 0.45 50 1607 135 180 1291

OILSEEDS R RABI 3 0.45 0 1238 208 743 287

MULBERRY R PERENN 2 5.00 0 3650 264 1229 2157


'I' = IRRIGATED. 'R' = RAINFEDH} F

NOTE: 5% CONTINGENCIES ARE ADDED TO INPUT COST. (DX

WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REQUIREMENTS AT RESERVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 10480 M3. H


6 INDIA


CROPPING PATTERNS, ECONOMIC CROPBUDGEIS AND WATER REQUIREMENTS BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

SOUTHERN DRY ZONE



CROPS WITH PROJECT





MAJZF HYB I KHARIF 8 3.50 220 5540 366 1127 4047 2338 1.731

PULSES R KHARIF 5 Q.S0 50 2670 185 271 2214 0 Q.00O


OILSEEOS I KHARIF 10 1.70 0 4675 473 1257 2945 2469 1.193

SORGHUM HYB I RABI 6 3.40 330 5464 353 940 4171 2689 1.551


MAIZE HYB I RABI 10 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 3308 1.319

PULSES R RABI 10 0.45 SO 1607 176 182 1248 0 0.000

OILSEEDS I RABI 16 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 2749 1.151

SUGARCANE I PERENN 8 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 11960 0.928

MULBERRY I PERENN I0 22.00 0 16060 473 2617 12970 11960 1.084








PULSES R KHARIF 19 0.50 50 2670 142 269 2259


DILSEEDS R KHARIF 9 0.55 0 1513 208 782 523


PULSES R RABI 5 0.45 50 1607 135 180 1291

OILSEEDS R RABI 3 -0.45 0 1238 208 743 287

MULBERRY R PERENN 8 5.00 0 3650 264 1229 2157

AVERAGE PER HA OF CCA: 95 . 1698 179 462 1057 13

'I' = IRRIGATED, 'R' = RAINFED p.


WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REQUIREMENTS AT RESERVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 10507 M3.PROJECT EFFICIENCY: 64%.

7 INDIA ANNEX I

T-13 GKARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECT

CROPPING PATTERNS, ECONOMIC CROPBUDGETS AND WATER REOUIREMENTS BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

SOUTHERN TRANSITION ZONE



CROPS WITH PROJECT





PULSES R KHARIF 10 0.55 50 2937 185 271 2481 0 0.000



PADDY HYV I RABI 20 4.50 310 8410 624 1327 6459 10656 0.606


MAIZE HYB I RABI 9 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 2678 1.630

PULSES R RABI 15 0.50 50 1785 176 182 1427 0 0.000

OILSEEDS I RABI 10 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 4748 0.666

SUGARCANE I PERENN 10 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 10799 1.028 .C









PULSES R KHARIF 15 0.50 50 2670 142 269 2259




MILLETS LOC R RABI 2 0.60 25 870 158 172 540

MAIZE HYB R RABI 1 1.30 170 2160 215 568 1378

WHEAT HYV R RABI 1 0.55 255 1262 205 753 305

PULSES R RABI 5 0.50 50 1785 135 180 1470

oILSEEDS R RABI 2 0.55 0 1513 208 743 562

AVERAGE PER HA OF CCA: 100 1780 202 438 1140 |

'I' = IRRIGATED, 'R' = RAINFED 4

NOTE: 5% CONTINGENCIES ARE ADDED TO INPUT COST.WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REQUIREMENTS AT RESERVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 11030 M3.


8 INDIA



NORTHERN TRANSITION ZONE

CROP SEASON % OF YIELD BYPRODUCT GROSS RETURN LABOR OTHER COST NET RETURN WATER REQUIREMENT NET RETURN PER M3CCA (T/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (M3/HA) (RS/M3)

CROPS WITH PROJECT

PADDY HYV I KHARIF 16 4.30 304 8044 624 1341 6079 8537 0.712PADOY LOCAL I KHARIF 4 2.10 320 4457 516 725 3216 8989 0.358SORGHUM HYB I KHARIF 11 3.20 320 5152 353 961 3838 2100 1.827MILLETS HYV I KHARIF 4 2.40 120 3480 318 891 2271 1630 1.393MAIZE HYB I KHARIF 12 3.50 220 5540 366 1127 4047 2719 1.488PULSES R KHARIF 15 0.50 50 2670 185 271 2214 0 0.000CHILLIES I KHARIF 8 0.90 0 7974 903 1634 5437 5242 1.037OILSEEDS I KHARIF 15 1.70 0 4675 473 1257 2945 2160 1.363COTTON I KHARIF 14 1.80 0 11304 641 2975 7688 5528 1.391MAIZE HYB I RABI 15 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 3380 1.292WHEAT HYV I RABI 6 1.70 255 3434 318 1242 1874 3439 0.545PULSES R RABI 15 0.50 50 1785 176 182 1427 0 0.000OILSEEDS I RABI 10 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 4540 0.697SUGARCANE I PERENN 10 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 14131 0.786



PADDY LOCAL R KHARIF 7 1.55 160 3209 330 649 2229SORGHUM HYB R KHARIF 9 1.40 170 2273 182 600 1491SORGHUM LOC R KHARIF 16 0.90 180 1539 168 302 1068MILLETS HYV R KHARIF 6 0.60 30 870 178 421 271PULSES R KHARIF 10 0.50 50 2670 142 269 2259CHILLIES R KHARIF 8 0.45 0 3987 627 373 2987OILSEEDS R KHARIF 15 0.60 0 1650 208 782 660COTTON R KHARIF 14 0.40 0 1960 238 1231 491WHEAT HYV R RABI 2 0.70 255 1607 205 753 649WHEAT LOC R RABI 4 0.50 120 1130 165 376 589PULSES R RABI 3 0.45 50 1607 135 180 1291OILSEEDS R RABI 6 0.50 0 1375 208 743 424


'I' = IRRIGATED. 'R' = RAINFED H H


9 INDIA

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECT---------------------------------


----------------------------------------------------------__-----------------__-----

HILLY ZONE



_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - - - - - - - -- - - - - - -_ - - - - - - -- - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --__ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _

CROPS WITH PROJECT__________________




PADDY HYV I RABI 30 4.50 310 8410 624 1327 6459 9907 0.652

MAIZE HYB I RABI 30 3.70 225 5849 366 1119 4365 3159 1.382

PULSES R RABI 5 0.55 50 1964 176 182 1605 0 0°000

OILSEEDS I RABI 20 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 3163 4468 0.708

PERENNIALS I PERENN 20 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 9032 1.229


CROPS WITHOUT PROJECT_____________________

PADDY HYV R KHARIF 30 2.60 168 4870 429 963 3478


SORGHUM HYB P KHARIF 2 1.80 170 2922 182 600 2140


PULSES R KHARIF 5 0.60 50 3204 142 269 2793



WHEAT HYV R RABI 4 0.70 255 1607 205 753 649

PULSES R RABI 12 0.55 50 1964 135 180 1648

OILSEEDS R RABI 9 0.60 0 1650 208 743 699

PERENNIALS R pERENN 15 50.00 0 10000 660 2368 6972


'I' = IRRIGATED, 'R' = RAINFED


WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REOUIREMENTS AT RESERVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 13841 M3.

PROdECT EFFICIENCY: 69%.

0 tINtOT A


CROPPING PATTFRNS. ECONOMIC CROPEUDGFIS AND WATER RFQtUIREMFNTS BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

CROP SFASON % OF YIFLD RYPRODUCT GROSS RFIURN LAROR OTHER COST NET RETllRN WATER REQUIRFMFNT NFT RETURN PER M3

CCA (T/1MA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HA) (RS/HIA) (RS/HA) (M3/HA) fRs/M3)

CROPS WITH PROJECT


PADDY lO)CAM I Kl-IARIF 15 2.10 320 4457 516 725 3216 9678 1.201PADDY HYV I RARI 50 4.50 310 8410 624 1327 6459 9869 0.655PULSES P RABI I15 0.60 50 2142 176 182 1784 0 0.000OILS.EEDS I RABI 20 1.80 0 4950 516 1271 31G3 2207 1.433PERENNIALS I PlRFNN 20 80.00 0 16000 1505 3392 11103 9115 1.218

AVERAGE PEP HA OF CCA 185 146f13 1225 2604 10784 9256 1. 165

CROPS WITHOLJT PROJECT_ _ _ _ _ _ . _ _-- - - -

PADDY HYV R KHARIF 40 2.60 168 4870 429 963 3478PADDY LOCAI R KHARIF 25 2.00 160 4140 330 649 3161MILLETS HYV R KliARIF 1 0.90 30 1305 178 421 706PULSES R KHARIF 5 0.60 50 3204 142 269 2793CHIILLIES R KFIARIF 4 0.55 0 4873 627 373 3873OILSEEDS R KHARIF 5 0.70 0 1925 208 782 935PADDY HYV R PABI 7 2.80 160 5235 446 1018 3772PADDY LOCAL R RABI 10 2.00 160 4118 330 696 3092PULSES R RABI 8 0.50 50 1785 135 180 1470PERENNIA[% R PEPFNN 15 55.00 0 11000 660 2388 7972

AVERAGE PER tHA OF CCA: 120 6018 472 1129 4416

'I' = IRRIGATED, 'R' - RAINFED

NOTE: 5'/ CONTINGENCIES ARE ADDED TO INPUT COS.WATER REQUIREMENTS ARE AT FIELD. WATER REOQUIREMENTS AT RESFRVOIR OUTLET ESTIMATED AS 12946 M3. tz

PROJECT EFFICIENCY: 72%. F-is

-72-ANNEX 1Table 15

INDIA


VALUE OF WATER BY AGROCLIMATIC ZONES

Economic Net Return PerHa of CCA l/

Mean Annual Without With Water Value of-Zone Rainfall Project Project Requirement Water

(mm) (Rs) (Rs) (m /ha) (Rs/m )

North EasternTransition Z. 889 1409 7166 11038 0.522

North EasternDry Z. 726 777 6606 10043 0.580

Northern Dry Z. 562 641 6470 9781 0.596

Central Dry Z. 607 781 5804 9527 0.527

Eastern Dry Z. 768 621 6617 10480 0.572

Southern Dry Z. 731 1057 6673 10507 0.535

Southern Tran-sition Z. 870 1140 7166 11030 0.546

Northern Tran-sition Z. 751 1211 6793 10189 0.548

Hill Zone 2380 3657 10555 13841 0.498

Coastal Zone 3761 4416 10784 12946 0.492

Average - 1316 7228 10809 0.547

1/ The value of water is calculated as

v Net return per ha with project - net return per ha without projectWater requirement per ha

-73- ANNEX 1Table 16

INDIA


Estimated Cost and Benefit Streams

for One Hectare of Command Area

Loss of ProductionYear Benefits Investment Cost 0 & M Cost from Submergence Net Benefits

(Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs) (Rs)

1 5,716 _ -5,716

2 9,527 -9,527

3 - 3,811 - -3,811

4 2,128 - 60 158 1,911

5 3,784 - 60 158 3,567

6 4,966 _ 60 158 4,749

7 5,676 - 60 158 5,458

8-50 5,912 60 158 5,695

Net Present Value: Rs 14,000/ha at 12% discount rate

Economic Rate of Return: 20%

Benefit/Cost Ratio : 1.84

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTOrganization Chart

Minor Irrigation Wing

Special SecretarY| rrigation Department

C = hief Engineer giee

| Minor Irrigation (NortVi) || Minor Irrigation (South)

S uperinten den 1 Superintendent b Superinlteniden:t 1 Superintendent

Engineers Engineer Engineers Engineer

(Construction) (Design) (Construiction (Design) nu

16Eextv 4 Executive 1 Executive 1 Executive 22 Executive I xctv xctv Executivei

Engineers Engi~,neers Engineer Engineer Engineers Engineers Engineer E Egineer

(Cosrcin (Investigati'on) I (Quailitv Control) | (Project Formulain (Construction) (investigation) (Quiality Control) || (Projeict"Formulation)|

Z ] Existing Organization

- ' Proposed Organization

World Bank 22185 Ix

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTOrganization Chart

Minor Irrigation Committee

Minor Irrigation Committee (MIC)Special Secretary, Irrigation Department: Chairman

Members of MIC Members of MIC

Deputy Secretary, Irrigation Department Director, Department of Agriculture

Chief Engineer, Water Resource Development Organization Representatives from:

Chief Engineers, Minor Irrigation Indian Institute of Management

Director, Kamataka Engineering Research Station Institute of Social Change University of Agriculture i

Special Appraisal and Supervision Circle (SASC)

Superintendent Engineer: Secretary of MIC

Appraisal Division I Appraisal Division II Technical Monitoring and Operationa Monitoring

1 Executive Engineer 1 Executive Engineer Evaluation Division and EvalualEon Division

3--4 Assistant Engineers 3-4 Assistant Engineers 1 Executive Engineer 1 Agricultural Economist

1 Agriculturalist 1 Agriculturalist 3-4 Assistant Engineers 2 Statistical Officers1 Assistant Engineer

World Bank- 22184

N-

iNDiA

rARNCAKAA TANK IRRIG;ATyIO PROJECT

Pro ject LCoLe otr Took irrioio prOjcts

Action Undertaken By Reportt LCitelL

|IPDEOTIPICATiON Minor Irrigation Inventigliain Divisilin (8)- Projecit dlncLifitotict Report i'rel,n'n,r' C odininco Ictio-i, hydrology,in Minor Irrigation Wing (MIW) for projectn gcologc, coprogrphy, ccc.=malier ti,so 1,000 haMajor Irriganio Innestigation Divisions (4)in Water Resottee D-enPnipeni Org-i-atii-.1 for projects Ilarger than 1,01111 ho

| APPROVAL OP PULL SCALE | Chief gsginoers (2), Minor irrigation| PREPARATION

POEPAPATOON Prnjoct FerosrItise ColLs (2) in MIW assiMtet P-eparanti- Rnp-rt (Fornat in DeLailid designs, ogricoitneal plals, cosLby Minor Sr Mti r Irrigation InnestigaLien Asoec S A) ctinatno, tentative i neROtation planDinisions (To hr cirarod wit), reneorieRddrpartmcnns atO sitrict andcrate lonel),I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l- i-p.. _

APPAIS Appraisal Dinisi-ns (2) in Special Appraisal Final Prep-arti-n RcporL Adcq-_ay of detailed design, cropping pat-and Nopeenisios Circle (SASC) snder the (Annee 5 A) tere, supporting sernices ltIplonrntIonMisor ir1igoElse Co.sittee (VIC); D.o Revlon Pr-)eet Stmmary (Annen 5 B) sc..edelec; nccnomicviability. -esige andPanel for Iarge- embaokmets eperotin to ho disucssed and agreed vlEti

s}farners. Rfcnpndanioes of lain Reniew Panel

Miner Irrigation Cnnnitete co-der the Spe-ialSerretary, Orrigatlen

~1IMPLgMgNTATION Constrsetion Dinistons, QuaLity Central--

Divisiens (2) of MIW

ANNUAL SMPLEMENTATSOB N sperintesdiso Engineer (NE) of Spoisi ,Annsi Implnementation Renio LisE ef projpects under preparation, appr-cedRIEW Appraisal and Superni.n Cirele (SASC) Report (Ansex 5 ;) to MIC and snderronestrction

| SUPERVINION OP TECHNICAtL Technical M.nit-rinE and Evalisatie Division T-chtsii-l Slporvisi-o S--ary Actual vs. planned pro-grss of constructinnIMPL2MRNETATION c of SASC far all projeets larger thran 1,00 ha to NE of SANE (Tice a year, tar indinidusl prajeess; odhernce to cri-and for 25% of enaler pajucEs; tmpleesetieg Anoec N D) tors; prcsrrnen -s prnbhems; don cairndivEisns Ear re=-aining 75T of prajests

SUPERVISIQN OP OpERATION operational .. nitErin,g and Evaluation Operation aSperi-visi SumaEry Agro nomic aspects (yield, cropping ine,sities,OP COMPLETED PROJECTN Divicion is SE of SASC (Twire a Year, cropping pattern, ilpoc one), reserveir opera-An-ne 5 E) ties, cost an') qiolity cC ORI, ster disnribs-

*ion, st,ffing, isrsnncc ercaniuaclun

|ENERAL SUPERVIISION IDA Supereision oi SMIC, Of actiiies nf spetiolAppraisal aRel sicpernisi Circle; spetcheris H'nr seleetedl projects inl rhe field io review t

. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~' I_. i_

. _

f," 1

adheenc cc brad adeqey of a-od criteria

T,In hr-kht she sacb- of sni r eperaning

-77-

ANNEX 2Page 1

INDIA


Criteria for Tank Irrigation Projects

Proposed for IDA Assistance

Planning Criteria

1. Topographical Survey. Each proposed command area should be sur-veyed and a topographical map should be prepared at a scale of about1:4,000 (16 inches to 1 mile) with contours not exceeding 0.3 m (1 foot).The map should also show cadastral information and the boundaries of theproposed system.

2. Soil Survey and Land Classification. A simple reconnaissancetype soil survey and land classification should be carried out in eachcommand area. The purpose of the classification should be to: (i) dif-ferentiate between areas suitable for upland and lowland crops that re-quire different irrigation practices; (ii) help predict the probablefuture cropping patterns in the command; and (iii) identify soil defi-ciencies, if any, for improved cultural practices. For this purpose, thearea should be classified into the following three categories: (i) R-areas suitable for paddy; (ii) D-areas where a diversified cropping patternof both paddy and upland crops is possible; and (iii) U-areas suitable forupland crops only. The R-areas would be relatively level, moderately welldrained with estimated percolation rates below 3 mm/day. Normally, mont-morillonitic clay soils ("black cotton soils") would, in spite of theirlow percolation rates, not be included in this category. However, allareas where rainfed paddy is grown at present would be classified in theR-category. The D-areas would have higher percolation rates (3-6 mm/day)and slopes up to 1.5%. The U-areas would have percolation rates exceeding6 mm/day and/or slopes extending 1.5%.

Hydrology

3. (a) Runoff Estimates. Actual stream flows observed at a tank sitetogether with corresponding rainfall data over a period of atleast three years should be used wherever available to determinemean (or 50% dependable) annual runoff from a catchment.I' Thesame method should be used for the monthly distribution of run-off. For those tank irrigation projects (TIPs) where suchrecords either are not yet or will not be available (e.g., forsmall projects or during the first two years of the construction

1/ A long-term stream gauging program would be started in combination withan improved and extended rainfall data collection network in order toobtain better runoff yield estimates. This is expected to be applicableto TIPs under this proposed project after the initial years.

-78-

ANNEX 2Page 2

program), runoff estimates should either be based on a corre-lation of rainfall and runoff observed at nearby catchmentswith similar characteristics or on the use of Strange's tablesafter classification of the catchment as "good," "average" or"bad." Special care should be taken in the classification ofthe catchment, and any "good" classification should be justi-fied by a detailed comparison of the catchment with similarcatchments for which actual rainfall/runoff correlations areavailable. (Annex 6 discusses the derivation and use ofStrange's tables in more detail.) As soon as the improved run-off estimation model (Annex 6), based on continuous waterbalance calculations, is fully developed and adapted for usein Karnataka, it would replace the above-mentioned approachesfor determining runoff yield in ungauged or poorly gauged catch-ments.

(b) For ungauged catchments, the monthly distribution of runoffshould be derived from nearby tanks or stream gauging stationsas above, or by using Strange's cumulative rainfall/runoffrelationships as discussed in Annex 6.

(c) Rainfall Data. Rain gauges should be installed in the catchmentof tanks serving more than 150 ha and daily rainfall recordsshould be maintained. Tanks with a command area of 1,000 haor more should have self-recording gauges. For tanks servingless than 200 ha, the nearest existing rain gauge could beused. At least three years of records inside the catchmentshould be available for correlations with nearby gauge(s) forwhich long-term records are available.- The adjusted meanrainfall for the catchment would be used in the calculation ofrunoff. (The purpose of this correlation is to ensure that thecatchment is not located in a rainshadow area.)

(d) In establishing the hydrology for a TIP, the intercepted runoffupstream in a catchment should be excluded. However, a 25% re-turn flow can be assumed from any existing upstream irrigationproject.

(e) The impact of the proposed TIP on the nearest downstream projectshould be carefully assessed. In establishing the net impact onthe downstream project, a 25% return flow can be assumed fromthe TIP. If the calculations indicate that the construction of

1/ For projects approved during the first and second year of the credit, aone-year and a two-year record would be acceptable. However, the raingauging would be continued during construction and the hydrology and thewater balance of the TIPs would be reviewed before commissioning.

-79-

ANNEX 2Page 3

the proposed TIP would result in a shortfall of water exceeding5% of the design yield of the downstream project, the proposedTIP must be submitted to IDA for approval.1/

(f) For TIPs serving more than 1,000 ha, sediment samples should betaken at or near each tank site for the determination of ex-pected sediment levels in the reservoir. In the absence ofactual measurements, an estimate could be based on an assumedsilt load of 75 acre-feet per 100 sq mi of catchment. Sedimentranges would be established for all tanks with command areas ex-ceeding 1,000 ha so that accurate measurements of silt can bemade in the future.

4. Catchment Protection Plan. To avoid erosion and silting of thetanks, the need for catchment protection works should be assessed and anaction program drawn up. The catchment assessment should, inter alia, bebased on: (i) slope classification map; (ii) soil and land capabilitymap; (iii) erosion map; and (iv) vegetative cover map. Based on the re-sults of the surveys, appropriate measures should be outlined and includedin the project proposal. Depending on the nature and extent of the problem,the action plan might include check dams, afforestation, bunding and ter-racing. These special soil conservation measures would be part of theproject and eligible for reimbursement from the credit.

Cropping Patterns

5. A general guideline for cropping patterns has been prepared byGOI's PPM Cell for each agro-climatic zone. These guidelines should bemodified for each project to take into account the soil survey resultsand the existing cropping patterns in the area. In this respect, it ismost important that the likely area under paddy is not underestimated. Asa minimum, it should be assumed that all lands classified in the "R" cate-gory would be under paddy during the main crop season. If the zonalcropping pattern guide assumes a higher percentage of the area under paddy,this higher figure should be adopted for the designing of the irrigationsystem.

Water Requirements

6. (a) The modified Penman method2/ should be used to estimate crop waterrequirements. In applying this method, the monthly evapotranspi-ration (Eto) could be taken from the zone-wise Eto estimates pre-pared by GOI's PPM Cell.

1/ In this case, GOK should submit the project reports for both the proposedTIP and the existing project to IDA together with GOI's appraisal summaryfor the proposed TIP and a separate note on hydrology.

2/ See FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 24.

-80-

ANNEX 2Page 4

(b) Effective rain should be taken as 50% of the 50% dependablerainfall during the monsoon season and as 65% of the 50% de-pendable rainfall during the nonmonsoon season. In calculatingthe dependable rainfall, long-term records from a station in ornear the command area should be used.

(c) Irrigation requirements for paddy should include allowance forland preparation (200-250 mm), deep percolation (2-4 mm/day),and for maintaining a water depth of about 50 mm (this would bedrained at the end of the season).

(d) A preplanting irrigation (50-75 mm) should be scheduled for up-land kharif crops, and, where necessary due to late plantingdates, for rabi crops.

(e) At this stage of development, the assumed field irrigation effi-ciencies should not exceed 90% for paddy and 70% for diversified(upland) crops.

(f) For planning purposes, the assumed conveyance efficiency shouldnot exceed 85%.

(g) A monthly tank operation study for the design year should becarried out. Evaporation should be based on the average monthlystorage and.the area-capacity curve for the reservoir.

Design Criteria

7. Distribution System:

(a) The Irrigation Department (ID) would lay out design and constructthe canal and field channel system down to each individual holding.If the holdings are less than 1 ha, the water would be suppliedto 1 ha.

(b) The head capacity of the supply channels should be calculated withthe formula: q =(0.7 + 0.5 x p) x CCA

where q = head capacity in liter per second (l/s)p = portion of the area under paddy

CCA = Cultivable Command Area in ha.

This implies that a system serving only upland crops would havea capacity of 0.7 1/s/ha and a system serving only paddy wouldhave 1.2 1/s/ha.

(c) The distribution system should be designed to permit rota-tional supply. Small tank systems (200 ha or less) should bedesigned for daylight irrigation only.

-81-

ANNEX 2Page 5

(d) The conveyance and distribution system should be lined down toturn-outs serving approximately 8 ha areas. Field channelsshould be lined only to such extent that the distance betweenthe furthest field and a lined channel does not exceed 300 m.

(e) In areas with sandy (permeable) soils and/or areas with slopesexceeding 2%, the head reach of the field channels (below 8ha outlets) should be lined so that the distance between alined channel and the furthest field does not exceed 100 m.

(f) Both the outlets from the main supply channel and the turn-outsserving 8 ha blocks should be gated.

(g) In all areas, the field channel system would be provided withadequate structures, especially drop structures.

(h) Measuring devices should be provided at the head of the mainsupply channel, at each off-taking channel, and at each 1 cusecoutlet.

(i) The main supply channels should be designed to permit full dis-charges at off-take points when the main channel is flowing atless than 50% capacity. Appropriate cross-regulators shouldbe provided for this purpose.

8. Drainage:

(a) Adequate cross drainage works should be designed and built alongthe main supply channels. In designing the cross drainage works,special attention should be given to rainfall runoff from smallcatchments uphill of the main supply channels.

(b) The ID should design and construct a drainage system (field andmain drains) in the command area. The capacity of the drainagesystem should be sufficient to take care of a runoff of 3 1/s/ha.Special attention should be given to the prevention of waterlogging in the bottom lands close to the natural river channel(Nalla).

9. Communication System:

(a) An all-weather access road should be provided to all tanks.

(b) An all-weather service road should be provided along channelswith a capacity over 10 cusecs. An all-weather motorcycle/bicycle path should be provided along all main supply channelsand distributary channels with a capacity between 10 cusecs and1 cusec.

-82-

ANNEX 2Page 6

10. Agricultural Supporting Services

As a necessary condition for the successful development of theproject, adequate provision should be made for the supply ofextension services, inputs and marketing of products. ThePPM Cell, in coordination with the Department of Agricultureand other concerned departments, would be responsible for in-cluding in the project preparation report an analysis of thepresent credit arrangements in the command area and the pro-posed arrangements for the future. Surveys of other input re-quirements (seed, fertilizer, pesticides, etc.) and the ade-quacy of marketing and processing facilities should also bemade and future requirements identified. In addition, theadequacy of supporting services, including extension, demonstra-tion farms and research facilities should be examined, and pro-posals made for catering to the needs of the project area.

11. Dams, Embankments and Appurtenant Structures

Responsibility for the review of design and for quality controlof larger dams, embankments and apportionment structures wouldrest with the Dam Review Panel. Exercise of their control shouldbe through timely review of designs prior to project construction.The panel would assess the technical adequacy of the design basedon the present state of engineering practice and would recommendmodifications consistent with the utility and safety of eachstructure. Following required modifications, the panel wouldapprove initiation of construction. Available GOI, State andinternationally recognized design and safety criteria andstandards should be observed as far as applicable. In additionto empirical formulae (e.g., Ryve's) and unit hydrographs, theimproved system for runoff yield estimation should be used foran estimate of peak runoff, as soon as this system is available.

Implementation Criteria

12. Construction Practices:

(a) Canal embankments and earthfill around structures should bethoroughly compacted. Furthermore, where the canal invert isin fill, the invert should be compacted. Mechanical compac-tion equipment should be employed-1/

(b) To ensure proper settlement of foundation in minor channels,the sections should be thoroughly saturated by poanding or e%-posing to one season of monsoon rains before lining operationsare undertaken.

1/ If mechanical compaction due to lack of space is not possible, pneumaticrammers should be used.

-83-

ANNEX 2Page 7

(c) All applicable GOI standards and practices should be followedin construction of small dams or embankments and appurtenantstructures. These standards and practices should be adapted tothe utilization of local materials and to site conditions.

13. Implementation Scheduling:

(a) The planning construction period for TIPs should not exceed:

Size of TIP Construction Period

Less than 400 ha 2 years400 ha - 1,000 ha 3 yearsOver 1,000 ha 4 years

In addition to this construction period, preliminary works(such as approach roads) should not exceed one year.

(b) Larger TIPs would be completed and commissioned on a block-by-block basis. Each commissioning block should be not more thanabout 400 ha.

(c) Water should not be released until all field channels have beencompleted and the project, or a section of the project, has beencommissioned.

(d) The lining should be tested through ponding tests before commis-sioning. If the seepage losses in any section of the channelsexceed 3 cusecs/H sq ft., the lining should be rectified.

(e) As part of the commissioning, the system should be tested to en-sure that irrigation water can reach all parts of the CCA.

14. Cost Estimates:

(a) Cost estimates would be based on current departmental rates oron bid prices prevailing in the project area at the time ofappraisal.

(b) Cost estimates would include a physical contingency of 10% forworks for which detailed designs are available and 20% for allother works, and no less than 15% for administration, designand supervision. Price contingencies should be calculated inaccordance with the following table:

Years of Construction Percent of Base Cost

2 14%3 18%4 22%

-84-

ANNEX 2Page 8

(c) Cost estimates would include land acquisition, resettlement offamilies displaced by the project, approach and service roads.

15. Operation Criteria:

(a) Water-flows from outlets/turn-outs to each field channel shouldnormally be about 1 cusec but not less than 0.5 cusec.

(b) Release of water to farmers should follow initially a fixedschedule prepared for each season.

(c) Irrigation releases for upland crops should be rotated every10 days.

(d) A Tank Irrigation Committee should be formed immediately afterconstruction of a tank has been sanctioned. It would be con-sulted by the Irrigation Department before finalizing of designof the project and would be in charge of water scheduling, jointlywith the Department.

(e) The Government would be responsible for maintenance of the systemabove the irrigation outlets. The Tank Irrigation Committeeshould share with the Irrigation Department the responsibilityfor operation and possibly maintenance of the system.

(f) The details of the organization of the Committee and the ways inwhich responsibility should be shared would be decided after theStudy of Water Users Organization has been completed. For thetime being, GOK would, on an experimental basis, initiate forma-tion of such committees in at least three selected new tank areas.

16. Economic Criteria:

(a) Individual TIPs would have a rate of return exceeding 12% basedon estimated annual costs and benefits, discounted over 50 years.

(b) A TIP would meet this requirement if estimated undiscounted totalinvestment cost, divided by the amount of water (in cubic meters)expected to be available in the design year for distribution atthe reservoir outlet, does not exceed a critical limit as setforth by IDA for the agro-climatic zones (see Appendix). Theselimits should be increased annually by the estimated rate ofinflation applicable to civil works.

(c) Total investment cost would comprise all projected related cost(i.e., for construction, land aquisition, access roads, resettle-ment, land development and catchment protection works, if any,etc.) including physical contingencies. Price contingencieswould not be included, since the critical cost limits are basedon constant prices.

-85-

ANNEX 2Page 9

(d) In cases where a proposed TIP does not meet the economic cri-terion mentioned in (b), and where GOK deems such a projectnevertheless justifiable, GOK would submit documentation onsuch a project to IDA for approval, together with documentationand arguments why the project is deemed justified.

Appendix

Critical Limits for Total InvestmentCost in Rupees Per Cubic Meter of Water Available

at the Reservoir Outlet

Expected Construction Period

2 yrs 3 yrs 4 yrs 5 yrs

Dry Zones 5.21 4.80 4.58 4.31

Transitional Zones 4.99 4.61 4.28 4.13

Hilly and Coastal Zones 4.58 4.23 4.03 3.79

Note: The derivation of these values is explained in Annex 7.

-86- ANNEX 3

Page 1

INDIA


Terms of Reference for a Study on IncreasedFarmers' Participation in Tank Irrigation Projects

There are currently some 25,000 tank irrigation schemes in Karnatakaoperated and maintained by the State's Irrigation Department. Present opera-tion practices are not geared to efficient water utilization. Greater parti-cipation on the part of farmers in managing the operations and maintenance(O&M) of these projects could enhance better water use and possibly reduceGovernment staffing in new projects. Experience with farmers' organizationsfor irrigation, however, has generally not been encouraging in India or inmost of Asia. A study is therefore proposed to examine the potential forand proposed approaches toward achieving greater farmer participation inO&M of new tank irrigation projects. Specific issues to be addressed bythe study would include the following:

1. An evaluation of social, cultural and organizational features ofKarnataka farm families which bear on their willingness and potential effec-tiveness to assist in O&M of tank projects. In this regard the study would:

- examine farm families in different agro-climatic zoneswithin the State;

- consider the difference in behaviour of farmers dependentonly on rainfall and those cultivating under tank irrigation;

- consider differences between farmers growing mainly paddyand those used to upland crops;

- consider differences between farmer's practices where farmsare located in the headreach of the network and thoselocated at the tailend;

- evaluate relationships between farmers as irrigators and thesystem authorities, as well as among farmers themselves;

- examine farmers' awareness of advantages and disadvantagesof different operational alternatives;

- examine the role of other institutions in village lifewhich affect farmers' willingness to participate in jointendeavours;

- consider the effects of caste and/or religion; and

- assess the role of leadership in farmer participation.

ANNEX 3Page 2

-87-

2. Conduct one or more case studies in each of the ten agro-climaticzones of the State to find feasible levels of farmer participation in opera-tion and maintenance. Case studies should cover tank schemes with differentlevels of design standards and should specifically:

- assess the impact of function, features and condition ofthe physical system (dam, canals, structures, outlets,etc.) on farmer participation;

- include one or more case studies from parts of a rivervalley project if the results can be related to tanks;

- examine the role of communication among farmers and betweenthem and higher authorities in achieving farmer partici-pation;

- assess the degree of formality in farmer organizationsneeded for their effective participation in systemmanagement; and

- identify the specific components of tank operations andmanagement in which farmers should or should not betrained to participate.

3. Determine forms and levels of incentives required to induce sustainedfarmer participation. Specifically, but not limited to these, consider:

- status through committee membership;

- incentives in the form of guaranteed "water rights," e.g.predictable and measured water supply throughout the season;

- possible modification of legal status covering water use;

- possible participation of farmers' organization in administrationof water charges; and

- estimated costs of the recommended incentives, if any, and bywhom borne.

4. Advise on possible changes in the system of charges for irrigationservice in new tank irrigation schemes, i.e. under improved standards ofdesign and operation of the physical water distribution system, in view ofproposed organizational arrangements and of modified modes of operation (e.g.measured rotational water supply guaranteed to all participants). For thispurpose take into account, inter alia,

- the objectives of equitable charging for irrigation services(commensurate with level of service received) and of efficientuse of scarce water supply;

ANNEX 3Page 3

-88-

- the need for effective, voluntary participation in productivewater use within the proposed organizational framework;

- farmers' non-monetary contributions, e.g. for maintenanceworks;

- feasible levels of charging in view of determinants offarmers' varying ability to pay (e.g. incremental totalincome and cash income, cultivation risk, reliability ofservice, size of holding, etc.)

- legal implications of changes in the basis for and the systemof water charges; and

- political feasibility of such changes.

5. Determine an appropriate role for Government agencies (Irriga-tion Department primarily, but also Agriculture Department and others) inrelating to farmer organization, with explicit consideration of the Irri-gation Department providing:

- monitoring of O&M for each tank;

- advisory or technical services to the system;

- participation with farmers on a tank committee;

- limited power in resolving conflicts within a tankcommand;

- mediation between farmers' organizations from two ormore tanks; and

- training of farmers.

6. Develop a systematic plan or applied methodology of implementationby which recommended levels of farmer participation could be introduced innew tanks.

7. Provide a probability estimate of success in inducing sustainedfarmer participation along the lines recommended.

-89-

ANNEX 4Page 1

INDIA


Terms of Reference for a Panel of Experts on Dam Safety

General

The Panel will undertake periodic anf comprehensive review of theplans, designs and construction of large dams! and related structures in-cluded in TIPs, with the objective of ascertaining and reporting on theirgeneral safety and performance, including consideration of geological, hy-draulic and structural aspects as well as soil mechanics.

Specific Actions

(i) To review all drilling and boring data and samples to indi-cate any additional investigations and/or improvements thatmay be required in connection with foundation treatment, de-sign parameters, borrow areas and potential reservoir leakage;

(ii) To review design parameters being used for the selected con-struction materials;

(iii) To examine the design of filters and review their location;

(iv) To review proposed construction plans, procedures and schedules;

(v) To examine the adequacy of treatment given or proposed for thefoundations and abutments;

(vi) To advise on instrumentation to be installed in embankment/non-overflow spillway sections and to ensure that a programof monitoring is provided for;

(viii) To review the flood hydrology used in sizing and designingthe spillway;

(ix) To compare the design parameters with those realized in thefield, and suggest modifications, if any, required in thedesign parameters;

1/ Large dams are defined as those having a proposed height of more than 10meters above streambed, or creating a reservoir exceeding 2.5 Mm3 ofstorage, or with such a location that significant destruction wouldoccur in case of failure.

-90-

ANNEX 4Page 2

(x) To review the quality control procedures being followed inthe construction of the dam;

(xi) To review the proposed filling and operating criteria fromthe standpoint of dam safety;

(xii) To review operation, maintenance and safety criteria andprocedures proposed to be used after initial filling; and

(xiii) To advise on flood warning systems in catchment area ofdams.

2. All the necessary data and information required by the panel forreview of the various items listed above will be furnished by the IrrigationDepartment. Additional investigation studies, laboratory testing, modelexperiments, etc., which in the opinion of the panel are necessary will alsobe undertaken by the Irrigation Department.

3. The panel will submit a written report containing their reviewcomments and recommendations within sixty days following each convening ofthe panel. This report should be made available to IDA for review and tosuch bodies within the Government of India which may be assigned safety-of-dam responsibilities.

ANNEX 5-91-

INDIA


REPORTING FORMATS FOR PROJECT PREPARATION,MONITORING AND EVALUATION

-92- ANNEX 5A

Page 1


Preparation Project Report

I. THE PROJECT AREA

Location:

District(s) and Taluka(s) in which project is locatedAgro-climatic zoneSize of catchment areaSize of cultivable command area

Climate:

Monthly data on rainfall, temperature, relative humidity, panevaporation, windspeed and sunshine hours,

Monthly evapotranspiration rates

Topography and Soils:

Slopes, soil surveys, land classification, drainage problems, needfor levelling/shaping.

Population, Farm Sizes and Land Tenure:

Population within the gross commanded area, distribution of opera-tional holdings, number of landless population, ownership andtenancy.

Agriculture:

Present cropping pattern, yields, use of high yielding varietiesand fertilizers.

Irrigation:

Existing Irrigation: sources, irrigated areas;Irrigation Potential: sources, ultimate potential, utilization.

II. THE PROJECT

General:

Description of proposed works.

Catchment Area:

Description of conditions of the catchment and proposed protectionworks, if any.

-93- ANNEX 5APage 2

Water Supply, Demand and Quality:

Rainfall, streamflow measurements, estimation of runoff yields anddesign flood, reservoir storage capacity calculations, croppingpattern, irrigation intensity crop water requirements, irrigationefficiency, monthly water balance.

Dam and Reservoir

Description of dam and reservoir site geology, alignment of the dam,design of the dam and its construction method, submerged area,storage. Sediment samples, estimate of sedimentation rate.Dam Review Panel responsibilities.

Irrigation and Drainage Network:

Description of design parameters, structures, extent of lining,lining materials, communication.

Cost Estimates:

Land acquisition, resettlement cost, dam and spillways, main canals,distributaries, field channels, drains, structures and outlets,cost of lining, physical contingencies, engineering and administra-tion. If applicable, give cost estimate for catchment protectionworks.

Project Implementation:

Construction methods (including procurement), equipment requirements,implementation schedule, schedule of expenditures, plan for reset-tlement, if any.

Organization:

Description of proposed organization for constructing project, staffrequirements, proposed organization for O&M, cost of O&M, organi-zation of farmers, plan for operating the system, plan for waterdelivery.

Agricultural Development:

Projected cropping patterns, yields, conditions of agricultural sup-porting services in the project area to meet future requirements,proposed arrangements for improvement of supporting services.

ANNEX 5A-94- Page 3

III. BENEFITS AND JUSTIFICATION

Summary of Benefits:

Number of beneficiaries, amount of water available during the designyear irrigated area, total foodgrain production, production ofcash crops, revenues from irrigation, revenues from other agricul-tural related taxes.

Economic Justification:

Compare the cost per unit of water to the critical limit establishedfor the agroclimatic zone.

Attachments:

1. Climatic Data2. Implementation Schedule (Chart) - Construction Schedule3. Schedule of Expenditures (Chart) - in Rs.4. Staff Requirements (Chart in terms of sub-divisions)

Maps:

1. Project Area (showing tank, complete irrigation and drainage network,recommended scale 1:4,000 with 0.3 m contour intervals).

2. Land classification.3. Large scale map of tank and typical cross sections.4. Length section of main canal showing off-takes, cross regulation and

escapes.5. Typical layout of distributaries (from main canals to outlets serving

8 ha) with outlets, and the area commanded under each outlet.6. Cross section of structures and outlets.

-95- ANNEX 5BPage 4


Project $ummary

A. General

District(s) and Taluka(s) in which project is located:Agro-climatic zone(s) in which project is located:Size of Catchment Area: km2.Size of Cultivable Command Area (CCA): ha.Population:Disadvantaged Population:

B. Cost Estimates

Total Project Cost: RsCost per ha of CCA: RsCost per ha of irrigtyed area: RsCost per m3 of water- : RsCost per family: Rs

C. Compliance with Agreed Criteria

Yes No Remarks(Specify reasons for

non-compliance)

1. Hydrology

a. Rain-gaugesb. Run-off Measurementc. Rainfall/run-off correlationd. Sediment samples

2. Design Criteria

a. Emergency spillwayb. Distribution systemc. Field channelsd. Flow measuremente. Outletsf. Drainage

3. Water Requirements

a. Methodologyb. Canal conveyance efficiencyc. Field application efficiencyd. Field channel efficiency

1/ Water available for distribution in a typical (design) year at thereservoir outlet.

ANNEX 5B-96- Page 5

C. Compliance with Agreed Criteria (cont.)

Yes No Remarks(Specifying reasons for

non-compliance)

4. Construction Criteria

a. Construction periodb. Compactionc. Testing

5. Cost Estimates

a. Pricesb. Physical and Price contingenciesc. Engineering and Administration

6. Operation Criteria

a. Water delivery scheduleb. Contact with farmersc. Maintenance

7. Economic Criteria

D. Agricultural Development

Comment on the proposed cropping patterns and yields.Comment on existing agricultural supporting services and theirability to meet future requirements. Proposals for improvementof supporting services.

E. Summary of Benefits

Project Beneficiaries (number)Increase in irrigated area (ha)Increase in foodgrain production (tons)Increase in other crops (tons)Increase in employment (man-days)

F. Comments

97 ANNEX 5CPage 6


Annual Implementation programApril 19 to March 19

A. General Information

Number of Projects under Preparation:Number of Projects Approved:Number of Projects Disapproved:Number of Projects under Implementation:Number of Projects in Operation:

B. Budgetary Allocation (in Rs)

1. Year-to-DateIDA Projects Non-IDA Projects Total

Planned AllocationActual Expendtures

2. Next Fiscal YearPlanned Allocation (Rs)

IDA ProjectsNon-IDA ProjectsTotal Minor Irrigation Program

3. Total Claims for Reimbursement from World Bank to Date: Rs

C. Project Details - ExpendituresActual and Anticipated

Date Planned Expenditures (Rs) Expenditures (Rs)of Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr

Project Zone Approval 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1.2.3.

etc.

D. Project Details - Staff Requirements/Availability (in terms of sub-divisions)

Date Staff Requirement Actual Availabilityof Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr Yr

Project Zone Approval 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5

1.2.3.etc.

E. Activities and Reports of Dam Review Panel

KARNAT'AKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECT

Annual Perferlanre geview

Date of Irrigated CroPPing PatternR Q Lt earCCA Date of First Total Area Irrigated (ha) OdM Staff in 06M Expe- Khrif Crtps Rahi traps Two-Seasonal perenIialPrelect in ha App -rrigati- Yr Yr 2 Yr 3 Yr 4... Sub-Divisics ditures (nS) paddy Others Paddy Others Cr-ps -

2.

3.

4. 2c5.

.,sfail Events of ia5g the Year

(e.., auts 5

t-stttres, etc.)

ANNEX 5E-99- Page 8


Progress Review: Technical Implementation

Part 1. General Information.

Project Name Progress Report Prepared byTaluka(s), District(s)Agro-Climatic ZoneSize of Command AreaEstimated Project Cost at AppraisalDate of ApprovalDate of Project Start

Part 2. Mission Schedule 1/

Dates at Project Site

Present Mission From: To:Previous Mission From: To:Staff Participating in Present Mission:

Part 3. Overall ProgressPrevious PresentProgress Progress

Appraisal Report Report

Estimated Months of ProjectCompletion

Estimated Project CostStatus: 1 = Problem Free or Minor

Problems2 = Moderate Problems3 = Major Problems

Trend: 1 = Improving2 = Stationary3 = Deteriorating

Types of Problems: (Enter mostcritical factor first)

F = Financial/BudgetaryM = Managerial/OrganizationT = TechnicalC - Non-Compliance with Criteria0 = Other

Specification (for C and 0)

1/ This is not applied to progress reports prepared by implementing divisions(75%).

-100- ANNEX 5E

Page 9

Comments: One or two pages describing overall progress in project imple-mentation, mentioning principal problems encountered, issuesraised, and highlights concerning project execution, costs andbudgetary allocations.

Part 4. Conformity with World Bank Criteria

Does the implementation conform with the established criteria? If not, givereasons and actions taken. Include comments of Dam Review Panel, if any.

Part 5. Procurement

Details on preparation of tender documents for civil works contracts, issueof tenders, contracts awarded and comparison between contract cost and engi-neering estimates. Description of works carried out departmentally, reasonswhy works are executed departmentally. Description of procurement of materialsand equipment, progress, bottlenecks, if any, and remedies.

Part 6. Construction Progress

A brief description on the construction progress during the reporting period.A chart in the form of Exhibit 1 should be attached to show scheduled andactual progress for each principal project status. A comparison of the totalaccumulated anticipated expenditures with the actual expenditures should beprovided in the form of Exhibit 2. Explanations of and comments on:

(a) actual or expected significant deviations from theoriginal construction schedule;

(b) actual or expected difficulties or delays, anymeasures taken or planned to correct them, andthe probable effects on the construction schedule;

(c) expected changes in the completion date of any majorpart of the project or the project as a whole; and

(d) any actual or expected event or condition which mayaffect the cost of the project.

Part 7. Project Management

Performance of project management, changes in key personnel, staff problemsand vacancies.

Part 8. Budgetary Situation

Details of changes in budget allocation for the project, if any, adequacy ofbudget allocation for the completion of the project in accordance with thetime schedule.

-101- ANNEX 5FPage 10


PROGRESS REVIEW: OPERATIONAL IMPLEMENTATION

Part 1. General Information

Project NameTaluka(s), District(s)Agro-Climatic ZoneSize of Command AreaActual Project CostDate of ApprovalDate of CompletionDate of First Release of WaterProgress Report Prepared by

Part 2. Mission Schedule 1/

Dates at Project Site

Present Mission From: To:Previous Mission From: To:Staff Participating in Present Mission:

Part 3. IrrigationThis Year Previous Year

Area Irrigated in Kharif(Months: ) ha ha

Area Irrigated in Rabi(Months: ) ha ha

Area Irrigated in Hot Season(Months: ) ha ha

Part 4. Cropping Patterns

This Year Previous YearAreas Under Major Crops (ha) Sown Irrigated Sown Irrigated

RiceBajraEtc.

Total

1/ This is not applied to progress reports prepared by implementing divisions(75%).

-102- ANNEX 5F

Page 11

Part 4. (Cont)This Year Previous Year

Major Crop Yields Irrigated Rainfed Irrigated Rainfed

RiceBajraEtc.

Part 5. Use of InputsArea Under High Yielding Varieties (ha) This Year Previous YearArea Under High Yielding Varieties (ha) This Year Previous Year

RiceBajraEtc.Total

Use of Fertilizer (kg/ha)

RiceBajraEtc.

Total

Part 6. Reservoir Operations

Months 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Command Area RainfallCatchment Area RainfallInflow to ReservoirIrrigation ReleasesSpills

Part 7. O&M Cost and Budgetary Situation

Breakdown of expenditures for O&M (Rs).

This Year Previous Year

WorksStaff

Comments on the adequacy of budget allocation for O&M.

Part 8. Maintenance


Status: 1 = Problem Free or Minor Problem2 = Moderate Problems3 = Major Problem

Trend: 1 = Improving2 = Stationary3 = Deteriorating

-103-ANNEX 5FPage 12

Part 8. (Cont)


Types of Problems: (Enter most criticalfactor first)

F = Financial/BudgetaryM = Managerial/OrganizationT = Technical0 = Other, specify

General Comments: Where in the system are the maintenance problems mostcritical? Discuss the type of maintenance works carriedout and equipment, if any, used for maintenance.

Part 9. Water Distribution

Description of the water allocation procedures used in the project area?Do the farmers follow the schedule? Any head-reach/tail-end problems?

Part 10. Staffing

Description of the organization for O&M. Performance of project management,changes in key personnel, staff problems and vacancies.

Part 11. Farmers' Organization

Has a Tank Irrigation Committee been established? Description of organiza-tion and established working procedures of the Committee. How far are farmersinterested and involved in the decisionmaking process for operation? Arethere conflicts of interest within the farmers! community related with theCommittee and its operation? Are farmers involved in maintenance of theproject?

Part 12. Water Charges

What amount of water charges has been assessed in the previous and presentyear? What percentage has actually been collected? How are charges assessed?Problems with rates and collection?

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTConstruction Schedule

Progress ReportMonth of . 19

19 19 19 19 19VVork lienms

2 3 4 1 21a 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

o 25 50 75 1001. Land Acquisition

12.5

2. ReservoirEarthwRorkStructures

3. Spillway

4. Main Canals

6. Distributaries

6. Field Channels

7. Roads, etc.

Planned Progress RprigDt

Actual Progress

Note: program of works is expressed in terms of percentage of the totalamount of physical works. The above example shows that at the end of

October 19 , which is the reporting date, 25% of land acquisition is planned X

to be completed. The actual progress is only 12.5%. World Bank- 22182 i-i. 11

rt Xn

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTSchedule of Accumulated, Anticipated and Actual Expenditures

19 19 19 19 19

1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 490 - -_ - - - - -…

Re g Anticipated

50

a~~~~~~~~~~~Ata

40

E

30

E2c 4-

a

*0A

Date ~~~~~~~~~~World Bank k-22183 w >4

F 30

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r -

-106-ANNEX 6Page 1

INDIA


Empirical Formulae and Improved Methods of EstimatingRunoff Yields in Karnataka

1. Estimating runoff from watersheds has in the past been doneby using various formulae linking runoff with precipitation and by takinginto consideration the topographical and vegetative characteristics of thecatchments. Most commonly used in southern India are Strange's and Binnie'stables and the Inglis-Ghat formula. Over the years various attempts havebeen made to check on their accuracy. In the case of the Karnataka catchments,hydrologists principally use the Stranges tables by categorizing runoff inthe individual catchments "good", "average", or "bad". Available datarelating rainfall, measured runoff and Strange's computed runoff coefficientsare summarized and compared in Table 1 for twelve locations spread through-out the State. The data has been taken from a recent GOK paper entitled"A Note on Hydrological Studies in Karnataka".

2. Binnie derived his curve in 1890 by observing a number of smallcatchments in Madhya Pradesh. Some two years later Strange developed hiscurves using data observed in irrigation tanks in South India. These curvesreflect the type and size of catchment to which they relate. For example,Binnie based his curves on catchments (less than 7 square miles) which werenearly impermeable, whereas Strange's work is more suitable for South Indianconditions. The critical weakness of the Strange and Binnie approaches isthat the rainfall-runoff curves do not reflect different incidences of rain-fall; that is, the same total monsoon rainfall does not necessarily producethe same runoff. Strange's coefficients are tabulated in the "HydrologicalAtlas of Madhya Pradesh, Volume I, 1973" for up to 60 inches of annual rain-fall for good, average and bad runoff conditions. The relationship betweenthese conditions is given by a ratio of 2:1.5:1, respectively; thus, estimatesof runoff will vary significantly depending on catchment classifications.However, the estimated value of yields based on Strange's tables dependsprimarly on the duration and accuracy of the rainfall data used in derivingthe average annual rainfall for each catchment.

3. The above mentioned study by GOK attempted to relate measuredmonsoon rainfall and runoff for various catchments within the State toStrange's catchment runoff classifications in order to improve identificationof catchments being considered for development of tank irrigation projects.In the GOK's preparation reports for the nine individual tank projects, theestimated annual runoff was based on the 50 or 75 percent dependable monsoonrainfall. The runoff distribution for the months in question was based onthe observed monthly rainfall data for each catchment. None of the proposed

-107-ANNEX 6Page 2

locations for nine tank projects reviewed had streamflow gauges working overa sufficient time span.l/ Also, very few rain gauge sites were located inthe project catchments. Because of this lack of geographically applicablerainfall data, some catchments might produce considerably smr-aller runoffyields than estimated due to local rain shadow effects. A program isdescribed in the main report which will firm up the data base for theselection and development of future tank irrigation projects.

4. Table 1 compares measured runoff values in twelve catchments withthe theoretical runoff computed by use of Strange's "average" coefficientsfor each catchments. Values for measured runoff compare quite well withvalues obtained using Strange's "average" runoff coefficients. The absoluteand relative variation of the measured runoff with computed runoff in eachcatchment using Strange's "average" condition is tabulated. Absolute yielddeviations vary between +6 and -3 inches, deviations of the runoff coeffi-cients vary between +12 and -9 percentage points. The relative standarddeviation of actual from computed yield is estimated by 27.4%. In summary,although Strange's estimates may result in considerable error in specificcases, on the average its performance appears to be satisfactory. Graph 1shows curves for Binnie's as well as Strange's good, average and bad runoffcoefficients. For annual rainfall of up to 60 inches, most runoff valuesfor the empirical estimates fall below the 40 percent coefficient level,2/especially for the Strange's average and bad runoff conditions. Additionalimprovement over the standard deviation of error may be expected by usinga rational case-by-case field choice of good, average or bad coefficientsto fit the type of catchment under consideration.

5. The Inglis-Ghat Formula has been employed for determining annualrainfall runoff-relationships for Karnataka Tank Irrigation Projects whereaverage annual rainfall exceeds 60 inches. Studies justifying its use werenot examined; however, very few tank projects are expected in the coastalzone where rainfall would typically exceed 60 inches. Also, in cases wheretanks are planned in high rainfall areas, the surface water supply isusually not the limiting factor; rather, storage sites and costs, especiallythose related to peak runoff (spillway capacity, etc.), would control selection.

6. If no measured rainfall-runoff correlations are available and theStrange tables are the only way to estimate runoff, they should be used onlywith the understanding that the tables indicate the relationship betweencumulative monthly rainfall, starting at the beginning of the season, andcumulative runoff, i.e., a "double-mass" relationship. Thereby, the method usedof obtaining annual runoff by the one-step use of Strange's rainfall runoff-

1/ Stage recorders arE. now being installed at several of the proposed sitesat calibrated cros3-sections.

2/ Wide experience in the South Asia monsoon areas indicate that runoff fromcatchments having other than near saturated antecedent conditions seldomproduce runoff in excess of 40 percent.

-108-ANNEX 6Page 3

coefficients and the subsequent distribution of annual values according tomonthly rainfall patterns in the area may be improved upon by obtainingmonthly runoff increments from cumulative runoff estimates. This will pro-vide the required monthly values for use in the project water supply andoperations evaluations but will not fully eliminate previously mentionederrors which are inherent in Strange's empirical estimates. Strange'soriginal computation concept is formally discussed in the publication"Methods of Hydrological Forecasting for the Utilization of Water Demands,"Water Resources Series No. 27, United Nations, 1964.

Continuous Water Balance Models

7. There is a need to improve the accuracy of present methodologiesfor determining runoff in small catchments. The proposed improvement ofthe state-wide rainfall data collection network and long-term streamgauging program would be started in order to refine the hydrological database for TIPs. It will be possible to obtain some improvement in watersupply estimates by improving methodologies using the present data base.In recent years, with greater availability of computers and calculators,continuous water balance methods have been used. The water balance methodeliminates the major source of error in historically used formulae or co-axial correlation techniques by accounting for the sequence of precipita-tion in time. Thus, in a year when rainfall is more concentrated andoccurs at higher intensities more runoff is produced than a year when therainfall sequence is normal. In water balai4ce calculations, years withthe same total annual rainfall do not necessarily produce the same runoff.Continuous water balance analyses have been used very successfully forirrigation and water supply projects in Algeria, Indonesia, Ghana, Domini-can Republic, Venezuela, Brazil, Bolivia and Iran. Water balance techniqueswere recently accepted as a basis for a decision on annual water yields bythe United States Supreme Court, and have become widely used for flow fore-casting in the United States. These methods should also prove useful inKarnataka.

8. Prior to 1950, hydrologists developed and used formulae, graphi-cal techniques and combined graphical-mathematical methods such as coaxialcorrelation techniques to relate annual runoff to annual precipitation andother catchment characteristics. These techniques include the use ofBinnies, Inglis-Ghat and Strange's formulae, tables and graphs as presentlyemployed by the GOK. They do not properly account for the time sequenceor incidence of precipitation and evapotranspiration in the catchment.These conditions together with the soil properties of the catchment arefactors determining runoff.

9. In the early 1960's programmable digital computers made it possibleto simulate continuous water balance processes of rainfall and runoff. Hy-drologic techniques such as the well-known Stanford Watershed Model usingdaily and hourly tainfall. and evapotranspiration to ca'lculate aaiLy soil

moisture and runoff have resulted. This and other conceptually similar con-tinuous water balance models presently employ programmable hand held calcu-lators, desk-top and floor type computers. All give excellent runoff yield

-109-

ANNEX 6Page 4

and related hydrological estimates over a range of catchment variables.Such variables include the following: annual rainfall and its sequentialdistribution throughout the year; potential evapotranspiration and relatedtime sequence; soil properties such as moisture storage and permeability;vegetation; topography and land slope; drainage characteristics; and,pond, lake, and reservoir areas. Continuous water balance models arebased on the interrelated physical processes that occur in the catchmentbetween the parameters listed above. Rainfall and potential evapotran-spiration inputs would be estimated or obtained for each catchment so asto reflect local climatic conditions in the water balance model in termsof time sequence and quantity.

Experience with a Continuous Water Balance Model in India

10. A particular existing continuous water balance model, the "HBV-Model" developed by the Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute(SMHI), was adapted for and tested in the Upper Narmada River Basin ofMadhya Pradesh in collaboration between the Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), New Delhi and the SMHI. The purpose was to verify the model'spotential under Indian Monsoon conditions.l/ Data were provided by IITand the model calibration was carried out by SMHI staff. Test runs werealso made on a few smaller catchments in the Betwa River Basin as part ofa UNDP training program at the SMHI (results not yet published).

11. The HBV-model is a conceptual model for estimating runoff throughcontinuous water balance calculations. Input data include daily (longeror shorter time periods may be used) precipitation observations and poten-tial evapotranspiration estimates. The evaporation values used are nor-mally monthly averages. (Air temperature data are also used for catchmentsin northern climates for snow accumulation and ablation calculations onlybut have been omitted under Indian conditions.) The model consists of sub-routines for snow-accumulation and melt, a soil moisture accounting pro-cedure, routines for runoff generation and groundwater recharge, andfinally a simple routing procedure. An advanced version provides optionsfor geographical zoning and different vegetation covers.

12. The principal conclusion from the application of the HBV-model tothe Upper Narmada River Basin is that the model has potential for runoffsimulation and hydrological forecasting in India. The model requires prepa-ration of a better data base from available information, separate calibra-tion of submodels to various subcatchments in the basin, extension of therecord base to trace human impact and other changes in the catchment area,and the addition of an interception component and some modification of thesoil moisture routine to further study man-made changes.

Proposed Development of a Hydrological Forecasting Model for Karnataka

13. While it is not suggested that the Swedish or any other specificmodel should necessarily be adopted for use in Karnataka, development of an

1/ Results of a completed Phase I of the adaptation and a program for aPhase II are contained in a paper by SMHI, see Annex 3, No. 6.

-110-

ANNEX 6Page 5

appropriate hydrological forecasting system, based on continuous waterbalance techniques, is a necessity for future irrigation development (notonly for tanks). Apart from providing a more accurate estimate of periodiccatchment runoff to be expected under given rainfall patterns, it wouldalso facilitate cross-checks on existing methods of estimating peak-runofffor the design of overflow sections of reservoirs. A program is thereforeproposed to develop (if possible, with existing Indian technological re-sources) a forecasting model to be calibrated for catchments in Karnataka.Calibration of such model would be carried out with data on one or severalwell gauged pilot catchments and/or subcatchments in Karnataka. The pilotcatchment area and/or subcatchments would be chosen consistent with thebest available rainfall and runoff records, proximity to qualified govern-ment personnel and required facilities and the desired range of catchmentcharacteristics to be faced in future tank project development. Evaluationof data on up to three catchments or subcatchments within the pilot area isproposed over a 10-12 month period beginning concurrently with overallproject implementation. The program would be operational in 1982 at whichtime a decision would be taken as to its possible continuation, refinement,expansion or discontinuation. Implementation of the program as describedor with modifications as necessary, will depend on the results of an initialfield review to select the pilot area(s) including the availability andapplicability of existing rainfall-runoff data. The program implies the useof a programmable desk-top computer with plotter. The use of hand-held pro-grammable calculators is a potentially viable alternative for runoff yieldestimates but would be limited in its ability to handle future process im-provements and expansion of computer usage to other hydrological estimates.

14. The overall responsibility for and coordination of the developmentof the model would rest with the Karnataka Engineering Research Station atMysore which is well qualified for this task. The research station wouldseek the technical assistance from a hydrological institute with the neces-sary expertise on the techniques involved. It is understood that such ex-pertise is existing in India. The Department of Irrigation and other agen-cies of GOK and GOI would provide the necessary data base and would assistwith staff. Training would be provided to about two hydrologists of GOKon the use, possible modification and maintenance of the model, as well ason the use of the computing equipment. Expenditures for technical assis-tance, training and equipment would be reimbursable by IDA under thisproposed credit.

-111-

INDIA

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTS

Rainfall vs. Measured and Computed Runoff

For Various Indian Catchments

RelativeComputed DeviationRunoff a/ Absolute of

Average Gauged or for Strange's Deviation ComputedPeriod of Rainfall Measured Gauged "Average" Runoff of Computed from

Drainage Rainfall in the Runoff iri Runoff Catchment Co- From Measured MeasuredBasin. Project and Catchment Area e Data Catchment Catchment Coefficient Condition efficient Yield Yield

(sq. mi.) (years) (inches) (inches) (1) (inches) (%) (Inches)

Karnataka State b/

Cauvery Basin

1. Cauvery River atK. R. Sagar(Mandya District) 4,100 36 55.6 24.0 43 23.0 41 -1.0 -4.2

2. Lakshmanuthirtha RRiver at Undwadi(Mysore District) 580 36 50.7 12.9 25 18.8 37 +5.9 +45.7

3. Hemavathy River atAkkihebbal (MandyaDistrict) 2,007 36 48.5 21.2 44 17.1 35 4.1 -19.3

4. Uduthorehalla Riverat Rampur (MysoreDistrict) 85 5 36.7 8.0 22 9.3 25 +1.3 +16.3

Krishna Basin

5. Arkavathy River atChanargiasagar(Bangalore District) 555 38 34.6 6.0 17 8.2 24 +2.2 +36.7

6. Malaprabha River atHuvanur (BijapurDistrict) 4,405 11 28.7 6.7 23 5.3 18 -1.4 -20.9

7. Malaprabha River atMalaprabha Reservoir(Dharwar District) 840 6 49.0 19.1 39 17.5 34 -1.6 -8.4

8. Markandeya River atPahapur (BelgaumDistrict) 374 7 42.5 13.0 30 12.8 30 -0.2 -1.5

9. Suvarnamukhi Riverat Gayathri Reservoir(Chitrajurga District) 707 16 23.0 1.6 7 3.2 14 +1.6 +100.0

10. Ameria River atShahapur (Gulbarga

District) 133 5 33.0 5.6 17 7.3 22 +1.7 +30.4

11. Bennithora River atKurikota (GulbergaDistrict) 718 6 28.3 5.6 20 5.2 18 -0.4 -7.1

Godavari Basin

12. Karanja River atBelhally 782 10 32.6 10.2 31 7.1 22 -3.1 -30.4

Average: 1,274 i7.7 38.6 11.1" 26.5% 11.2" 26.7% +0.08" +11.5%

Standard relative deviation of actual from computed yield, 27.4%

a/ The annual runoff yield from Strange's tables for the "average" condition may be expressed as Y= -0.05625R + 0.0084375R2

where Y is the annual yield expressed in inches of average depth for the catchment and R is the average annual depthof rainfall over the catchment in inches. The relationship between good, average and bad runoff conditions isexpressed by the ratio 2:1.5:1. Note that no classification of catchments has been assumed; all are treated asaverage in this sample.

b/ Annual data for Karnataka State river and stream locations were taken from "A Note on Hydrological Studies inKarnataka" mimeo 1980.

-112- ANNEX 6Graph 1

KARNATARA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN STANDARD RUNOFF,IJ

BINNIE'S AND STRANGES' COEFFICIENTS

50-

o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o

40

0 0 30 40S06

Sd rinnie's h

2 / Exeiec atgue ie nmnonevrnet niae

O m0 i or

20o>

4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(

10 Strnge

E20102304506

tht esue rnffi te40to10%oe squsioaleWrlBankges226

ANNEX 7-113- Page 1

INDIA


Assumptions for Economic and Risk Analysis

Prices for Economic Analysis

1. General. The economic prices of major traded agricultural outputsand inputs are derived from the IBRD projected 1990 world market prices ex-pressed in 1980 currency value with appropriate adjustments for freight, hand-ling and processing. The projected economic prices for non-traded foodgrains,on the other hand, are derived by applying a foodgrain conversion factor (FCF)to the financial price. The financial prices of various crops are projectedon the basis of their historical price trends. Present and projected finan-cial and economic prices are given in Table 1. The assumptions behind theestimates are described below.

Official Exchange Rate (OER)

2. Until September 24, 1975, the Rupee was officially valued at a fixedPound Sterling rate. Since then, it has been fixed against a "basket" ofcurrencies. As these currencies are floating, the US Dollar/Rupee exchangerate is subject to change. Conversions of financial prices have been madeat US$1 to Rs 8.40.

Standard Conversion Factor (SCF)

3. The benefits of the TIPs are evaluated at world market prices, i.e.,they measure what India would have to pay for imports or receive for exports.Most of the costs, however, are for items that are not traded on the worldmarket. Tariffs and trade restrictions introduce a distortion in the pricerelationship between traded goods--valued at world markets--and non-tradedgoods--valued at local prices. Thus, the costs are not directly comparablewith the benefits. In order to make them comparable, an SCF is applied tothe price of non-traded goods. In the absence of trade restrictions, theSCF can be approximately calculated using the formula:

SCF x+m 1X + S + M+T 1/x m

For the period since 1970, this calculation gives an SCF of 0.86. However,since this estimate does not take into consideration quantitative restric-tions, it provides only an upper limit for the SCF. The Indian PlanningCommission recommends for the evaluation of industrial projects the use ofconversion factors for foreign exchange and for untraded goods that implicitlygive a SCF of about 0.75. Because of the approximate nature of this estimate,a SCF of 0.8 has been used in the economic analysis.

1/ X - export value (f.o.b.); M = import value (c.i.f.);S = subsidies on exports; T = taxes and duties on imports.

-114- ANNEX 7Page 2

Prices of Agricultural Outputs (Table 1)

4. The economic prices for traded goods such as rice, wheat, cotton,groundnuts, and sugarcane are based on their border prices at the officialexchange rate (OER). The domestic cost components (i.e., local processing,transport and marketing charges) are adjusted by the SCF of 0.80. Theeconomic prices for non-traded foodgrains (sorghum, millets, pulses) are derivedby applying a foodgrain conversion factor to the financial price. Thefoodgrain conversion factor was estimated as a weighted average of implicitconversion factors for traded foodgrains. The financial prices for variouscrops were derived from the estimated wholesale price trends over the lasteight years in Karnataka and adjusted to arrive at farmgate prices. Theyrepresent 1980 current prices.

Prices of Agricultural Inputs (Table 1)

5. Fertilizers have been valued at the projected world market price.Pesticides and insecticides have been assumed to be traded; no conversionfactor has been applied to their financial prices. The economic price ofseed and miscellaneous charges has also been assumed to approximate thefinancial price. The financial price of bullocks (equivalent to the rentalprice for one pair with operator per day) has been multiplied by the SCF toexpress it in economic terms.

Agricultural Wages

6. Observed wage rates vary seasonally and regionally between Rs 3and Rs 8 per man-day for rainfed agriculture, and between Rs 4 and Rs 10for irrigated agriculture. Regional variations do not exceed about + 12%of the State average; uniform rates have therefore been adopted for allagroclimatic zones, since zone-wise rates were not available. Seasonalvariations were averaged out by adopting seasonally weighted daily wagerates, based on the following financial seasonal rates:

Rainfed Irrigated(Rs/manday) (Rs/manday)

Slack Season 3 (3 months) 3 (3 months)Intermediate Season 5 (7 months) 6 (6 months)Peak Season 8 (2 months) 10 (3 months)

Average 5.0 6.3

Economic wage rates were derived from the financial ones assuming that for theslack period the financial wage is a good approximation for the shadow wage(reservation wage), that the same holds true for peak wages, and that onlyduring the intermediate season the financial wage overstates the opportunitycost of labour by some 40%. To the weighted average average shadow wage rates soderived, the SCF (0.8) was applied, resulting in economic wages of Rs 3.3for the "without project" situation and Rs 4.3 for the "with project"situation. When compared to financial wage rates, this is equivalent to anunskilled-labor conversion factor of about 0.67.

-115-ANNEX 7Page 3

Construction Conversion Factor (CCF)

7. The schemes would be constructed using a mixture of equipment,skilled and unskilled labor. For the economic analysis, the CCF is estimatedas follows:

(a) Traded Component. This component includes capital-intensiveworks which require imported materials, Hence the conversionfactor is 1.00. it is estimated that about 17% of theconstruction costs fall under this category.

(b) Non-Traded Component. This component includes works thatrequire skilled labor and locally manufactured materials.The SCF of 0.80 is used as the conversion factor for theseworks. About 43% of the construction costs are includedin this category.

(c) Unskilled Labor. A ratio of economic to financial wagessimilar to the one assumed for agricultural labor (67%)has been assumed tor unskilled construction labor. It isestimated that unskilled labor constitutes about 55% of theconstruction costs.

Conversion WeightFactor

Traded Items 1.00 0.17Non-Traded Items 0.80 0.43Unskilled Labor 0.67 0.40Construction Costs (weighted average) 0.78 1.00

Discounting Factor

8. A 12% discount rate has been chosen for the analysis, as thisrate approximately represents the opportunity cost of capital in India.The first year of the construction period is chosen as the base year fordiscounting purposes. Discounting is applied from the first period on.

Benefits

9. Crop Budgets. Assessment of future yields, with as well aswithout project, was based on indications of agricultural officialsin the State, on yield statistics (generally available only up to1977/78 for rainfed and irrigated crops separately, and of uncertainreliability) and on direct information in the field. Cautious projectionsto 1980 for with project yields of major crops under irrigation were madeon this basis. They represent an assessment of what should be safelyfeasible for moderately progressive farmers under assured water-supplyconditions in an average year, given the associated amount of materialinputs (about 60-70% of recommended levels) and a satisfactory extension

-116-

ANNEX 7Page 4

service. Project yield levels are, however, somewhat lower than whathas been witnessed in several areas under tank irrigation, in order toreflect conditions closer to the average. Rainfed yields were more easilyderived from available statistics, they have been adjusted slightlyupwards (about +14%) to reflect past productivity trends. Irrigationyields are assumed uniform throughout the State, since water requirementswere calculated so as to adjust for differences in rainfall and evapo-transpiration in various agroclimatic zones. Rainfed yields, however,were varied in relation to an annual standard yield (State average) foreach agroclimatic zone. When zonal yields differed from the assumedstandard, input requirements (except seeds) were also adjusted upwardsor downwards, but only by half the rate of yield variation (assumedinput/yield elasticity of 0.5). Standard yields and input requirementsfor the State are shown in Annex 1, T-12, and zonal yields and crop-budgets in Annex 1, T-13. Economic crop budgets do not include intereston working capital (11% of 40% of total input cost), land revenue orwater charges as do financial crop budgets. The estimated value otbyproducts is the same for economic and financial crop budgets.

Cropping Patterns

10. Without project (rainfed) cropping patterns were projectedon the basis of taluk-wise cropping statistics. Cropping intensitiesreflect to some degree differences in precipitation for various agro-climatic zones. Projected "with-project" cropping patterns, which containalso some rainfed crops (mostly pulses) are the result of the examinationof existing cropping patterns under irrigation, the consideration ofestablished government policies on promotion or restriction of certaincrops in irrigated areas and to which degree these could probably beenforced, and the economic attractiveness of various crops to irrigatingfarmers. The latter depends considerably on the amount ot water afarmer expects to be able to secure for himself, and therefore on theoperational characteristics of tank irrigation projects. Under essentiallyequal and equitable distribution practices the cultivation of some water-intensive crops (paddy, sugarcane) might well be automatically reducedtoa minimum, tor a limited amount of total supply. The projected croppingpatterns contain a share of such water-intensive crops that is lower thanthe average in irrigated agriculture of the dry and transitional zones,but higher than what would be considered optimal from the standpoint ofallocation of a scarce resource. Irrigation intensities vary between70% and 90% for the kharif season, 35% and 80% for the rabi season and2% and 20% for perennial crops, according to a rough estimate of annualwater supply per ha of CCA for different zones. Overall irrigationintensities were projected so as to exhaust such average annual watersupply. For details on zonal cropping patterns, crop budgets, croppingintensities and average net returns refer to Annex 1, T-13.

-117-

ANNEX 7Page 5

Build-up Rates

11. In order to take account of a gradual increase in waterrelease and in areas coming under irrigation, as well as of a gradualadoption process of improved practices, better varieties and higherinput applications, a benefit build-up process, combining area andproductivity build-up, was assumed for a period of five years aftercompletion of construction of a project, and applied to the estimatedfull development benefits as follows:

Year after completion of construction 1 2 3 4 5Percent of full development benefits 36 64 84 96 100

Costs

12. The economic cost of construction was derived from typicalcost estimates for various size groups of tank irrigation projects, atfirst as a weighted per-ha cost, weights being the expected shares ofthese size groups in the overall program (Annex 1, T-3). The averagewater supply (= demand) per ha derived from the zonal cropping patterns(10,800 m3) was then related to the per ha cost (Rs 24,490) 1/ to arriveat a financial unit cost per m3 (Rs 2.26) of water available in theaverage year at the reservoir outlet. (Net water requirements at thefield and gross water requirements at the reservoir outlet are relatedby overall project efficiencies assumed as about 60% for upland cropsand 77% for paddy. The average efficiency, as implied by zonal croppingpatterns,over all zones is estimated as about 63%). This unit cost wasfurther adjusted by a construction conversion factor of 0.78 (para 7of this Annex) to arrive at economic construction cost.

13. The financial cost of operation and maintenance is estimatedby the Irrigation Department as about Rs 85/ha. Since O&M involvesprimarily employment of unskilled or semi-skilled labor, a low conversionfactor of 0.70 was applied.

14. The opportunity loss of production of rainfed crops in the areasubmerged by the reservoir was estimated as the same per-ha economic netreturn as in the command area without project. However, 20% of the submergedarea was nevertheless assumed to be cultivated in periods when the reservoiris empty, as is custom in many tanks. The economic loss is thereforeassumed to be about Rs 1,050 per ha of submerged land. On average, an areaequivalent to about 15% of the CCA would be submerged. The final economicloss is thus assessed at about Rs 158 per ha of CCA. The cost of O&M andof submerged lands together is less than Rs 0.02 per m3 of water, or about1% of the investment cost.

Cost Schedules

15. For the purpose of determining maximum allowable constructioncosts, four different construction cost schedules were assumed:

1/ A basic construction cost of Rs 21,300/ha was increased by 15% to takeaccount of other project related costs.

-118- ANNEX 7

Page 6

Percent of Total Construction Cost

2 years 3 years 4 years 5 yearsCompletion Completion Completion Completion

Year 1 40 30 20 15Year 2 60 50 30 20Year 3 - 20 30 30Year 4 - 20 20Year 5 20 15

The cost of O&M and the loss from submergence were assumed to be fullyincurred starting after the last year of construction. For the purposeof economic evaluation of the overall project, an average constructionperiod of three years was assumed.

Method of Cost-Benefit Analysis

16. Instead of only evaluating the estimated incremental benefitsand cost per ha of CCA, the approach here adopted integrates estimatedwater supply and demand into the analysis. This has three advantages:

(a) water as the actual benefit-generating factor is moreclearly emphasized;

(b) assumptions on water requirements and water availabilityare made explicit; and

(c) the approach allows to test the project's sensitivity toassumptions on water supply and demand, and to calculatecut-off rates for investment cost per unit of water.

As a starting point, a"normal" application rate of water per ha of CCA wasprojected for the dry, traditional and high rainfall zones. Croppingpatterns and implied irrigation intensities were then adjusted so as toresult in water requirements that approximately exhaust the norm applica-tion in m per ha. Water requirements and average net returns per ha ofCCA with project and without project for each zone were subsequentlyweighted (by a zone's expected share in overall project CCA) to arriveat overall average values for the State: The estimated economic net re-turn per ha with project is Rs 7,226, compared to Rs 1,316 without project.T8e estimated average water requirement at the reservoir outlet is 10,809m per ha of CCA, with an implied average project conveyance and fieldapplication efficiency of about 0.63.

17. From these estimates the incremental return to water (or "valueof water") of calculated as

X, - X0

v =

where X = net return per ha of CCA with project

-119-ANNEX 7Page 7

XO = net return per ha of CCA without project

W = water requirement per ha of CCA, with project

This value is estimated as Rs 0.547/mr3 for the project as a whole. Sincethe zonal values of water, which were separately calculated in the samefashion, vary somewhat with assumptions on the overall irrigation inten-sity, the average value for all zones was tested for its sensitivity tochanges in the annual dry-season irrigation intensity, because any short-falls in actual water supply are likely to result in reduced doublecropping. As can be seen from Table 2, the overall average for the valueof water does not change to any significant degree with varying assump-tions on irrigation intensity 1/. The benefits from an average project de-pend therefore only on the actual quantity of water available in a typicalhydrological year:

B - v q

They do not depend, a priori, on assumptions about the size of a project (CCA).However, the approach here chosen has to make such an assumption indirectly,since the total amount of water made available in the State through theproposed project depends on total project cost and estimated cost per unitof water. The latter in turn is derived from per ha cost established earlier(Annex 1, T-3), and under the assumptions that the projected water availa-bility per ha of CCA would equal the estimated average water requirement ofabout 10,809 m3 per ha of CCA, which is a result of assumed cropping patterns.Thus, the incremental benefit per ha at full development is:

b = v q = 5,912 Rs/ha

where q = 10,809 m3 /ha

This result could, of course, have been taken directly from the assumednet returns per ha with and without project. However, this would have beenat the cost of leaving crucial assumptions unmentioned. Furthermore, sen-sitivity to estimates of water requirements, of water supply and of thecost of water can now be explored in a more straightforward manner. Eco-nomic benefit and cost streams were derived by applying build-up ratesand cost schedules (paras 11 and 15) to the benefit and cost of waterrespectively. For convenience, these streams are presented for an averagehectare of CCA in Annex 1, T-16.

1/ The assumption of diminishing marginal returns to water does not applyin this context, since water supply would not be increased on any givenarea, but rather more hectares would be irrigated at a constant waterapplication rate in the dry season.

-120-ANNEX 7Page 8

Cut-Off Rates for the Cost of Water

18. Economic evaluation of the individual tank irrigation projects(TIPs) would be considerably simplified by comparing estimated costs ofwater to a critical limit of such cost, established for each agroclimaticzone (Annex 1, T-15). These critical limits are derived as switchingvalues for the cost per cubic meter of water available in an averageyear at the reservoir outlet. The calculation of switching values proceedsas follows:

NPV = PVB - PVCON - PVOM

with NPV net presentPVB present value of benefitsPVCON = present value of construction costPVOM = present value of O&M cost

The present values (per ha of CCA) of the component streams depend onassumed benefit (cost) parameters (v or c) and on the discounted value ofthe build-up (or construction) schedules (k).

PVB = v * q kb

PVCON = cW q k

PVOM = cOM kOm Om

The discounted build-up schedules in turn depend on the assumed constructionperiod (para 15). The critical parameter is the maximum permissible costof water, c* (in Rs/m3). It can be determined by setting the NPV = 0.

NPV = PVB - PVCON - PVOM = 0

PVB - PVOM = PVCON

v *q kb ~-cOM *koM c* q c

v * kb - OMq * kor* = OY Ow kc . CCF (CCF = construction conversion

f actor)

The critical value depends mainly on the estimated value of water, v (para 17)and on the supply of water per ha of CCA, q. Both parameters vary over dif-ferent agroclimatic zones, but q is held constant (at 10,830 m3/ha) since itsvariations are of negligible importance 1/. The present values of build-upand construction schedules are listed below for different construction periods:

1/ The cost of O&M per m3 of water is very small in relation to the valueof water (0.006 vs. 0.55).

-121-ANNEX 7Page 9

k k kb c om

2 years 5.819 0.836 6.6153 years 5.196 0.809 5.9064 years 4.639 0.758 5.2735 years 4.142 0.719 4.708

19. Inserting zonal values of water (Annex 1, T-14) as well as economiccost of O&M into the above equation, one obtains the cut-off rates for econo-mic investment cost per cubic meter of water. These values have been dividedby the construction conversion factor to arrive at financial cost. Since thevalues of water within the dry zones, the transitional zones and the highrainfall (as a group respectively) are not considered to differ significantly,average values for each group were taken and corresponding average cut-offrates calculated for the three groups. All cut-off rates were subsequentlyincreased by 5%, so as to take account of possible errors in economic analysis.

20. Example:

Zones 1, VII and VIII (transitional zones):

Average value of water: v = Rs 0.5386/mi3

Water supply per ha : q = 10,809 m3/ha

O&M cost (economic) : cOm = Rs 60/ha

Two year constructionperiod : km = 5.819

kc = 0.836

k = 6.615om

C* = (0.5386 x 5.819 - 60/10,809 x 6.615)/0.836w

3= Rs 3.705/m3 (economic cost)

Construction conversion factor = 0.78

Financial cut-off rate: C* - 3.705/0.78 = Rs 4.75/m3w

Allowance for error margin (5%) = 0.24

Financial ceiling rate for cost of water: Rs 4.99/mr3

-122- ANNEX 7

Page 10

Risk Analysis

21. In order to assess the risks associated with uncertainty aboutactual inflows into a reservoir, two ways of analysis were chosen: (i)on the basis of a correlation of observed with estimated inflows, anestimate of the standard deviation of actual from estimate inflows wasmade, and a confidence interval for the actual inflow around the esti-mate was build; (ii) various levels of actual inflows (random events)

were combined with various project sizes (actions); for each combina-tion of conditional present values of costs and benefits have determined,and expected payoff for each project size was calculated on the basisof an a-priori distribution of inflows. The latter approach followsthe reasoning of decision theory.

22. A sample of twelve catchments in Karnataka (Annex 6, Table 1)was available for comparison of actual runoff yields and of runoffs esti-mated by Strange's formula for "average" catchments. (This is the tra-ditional estimation method for catchments for which no actual runoffgauging data is available.) In order to eliminatedifferent absoluteyield levels, relative deviations of actual from estimated runoffs werecalculated (as percent of estimate). The standard deviation of thoseactual observations from the mean (= 100) was estimated as 27.4%. Thesample distribution is not quite symmetrical, but the apparent skewnesswas not considered significant. For simplicity, a normal distributionwith mean 100 and standard deviation 27.4 was assumed. From this alower confidence limit for actual inflows was derived on the basis of

Prob (actual inflow >Q) 90%

Q, the lower limit, is derived from tables of the normal distribution as65 (percent of estimate). There is therefore a chance of 10% that actualinflow will be lower than 65% of the estimate. Incremental benefits areassumed to be proportional to available water, thus the net presentvalue per ha of CCA would be reduced to about 23% of the appraisal NPV(Rs 14,000), given a cost-benefit ratio of 1.84 as estimated for theproposed projectcl! For a lower cost-benefit ratio (say 1.2), NPV wouldbe reduced from an implicit Rs 3,340/ha to Rs-3,670,which is equiva-lent to a rate of return less than 12%. In order to avoid, with 90%chance, the risk of a negative NPV, the cost-benefit ratio should begreater than about 1.54 for the average project, given the estimatedaverage cost. This latter ratio would imply a shortfall in incrementalbenefits in the order of 16% relative to the appraisal estimate.

23. The second approach is based on the following assumption:

(a) The project cost per ha varies inversely with size. Variationswere calculated on the basis of standard unit costs (Annex 1,T-3) for various size groups, according to the regressionformula:

1/ The economic rate of return in this case would be about 14%.

-123-ANNEX 7Page 11

Cost per ha = 33,048 - 2,306 . In CCA

(b) Benefits are proportional to actual water supply (constantvalue of water) as long as actual inflow does not exceedthe norm inflow for a given project size.

(c) For inflows in excess of the norm for a given size, bene-fits increase less than proportionally with water supply,due to reservoir and distribution system constraints, upto a maximum of 108% of "norm benefits" for a given projectsize, when excess supply reaches 15% of normal supply.Any additional water would be lost through spilling.

(d) Normal distributions of actual inflow as percent of estimatedinflow with three different standard deviations were assumedto reflect estimation procedures for runoff yield with dif-ferent degrees of accuracy:

- 27% standard deviation (low accuracy)- 10% standard deviation (medium accuracy)- 3% standard deviation (high accuracy)

The standard deviation of 27% for low accuracy methods was taken to repre-sent Stranget s estimation method (para 22). Inflows are varied stepwiserather than continuously. A matrix of conditional benefits and the size -specific costs are illustrated in Tables 3A-3C. Benefits and costs(present values) are given as percent of appraisal benefits, i.e., forsize = 100 and inflow = 100.

24. Subsequently conditional net present values (as percent ofappraisal benefits, not shown) were multiplied by the probability foreach level of inflow, resulting in a second matrix as shown in Tables 3A-3C. The column sum for each project size indicates the expected netpresent value (EPV) for that size ("expected monetary value" of a decisionin decision analysis). The project size with the highest EPV would be theoptimal size to choose under risk-neutrality. The optimum size is the samefor all distributions of estimation error for high and medium benefit/costratios. For lower benefit/cost ratios, however, the first method wouldhave given a considerably lower optimum size, while more accurate methodsgive optimum sizes closer to the appraisal size.

25. The right most column in the second matrix gives the highestweighted net present value for each level of inflow, representing theproject size that h.d been chosen if inflow had been known with certaintybefore the decision on size was taken. The sum of this column is the"expected net present value under certainty" (EPVC); it is always higherthan the EPV of the optimum size under uncertainty. The differencebetween the EPVC and the optimum EPV is the "expected value of perfectinformation" (EVPI), which decreases, of course, with better estimation

-124-

ANNEX 7Page 12

methods. The EVPI is what one would pay for a survey to get a perfectprojection of the actual runoff yield. Optimum sizes, EPV, EPVC andEVPI are summarized for different distributions and different underlyingcost-benefit ratios in Table 4.

26. The actual implications of this analysis need further study.So far one conclusion may safely be drawn: The cost of obtaining moreinformation to reduce uncertainty is not so much the cost of more streamgauging or more sophisticated estimation methods. The real cost is thenet present value lost by delaying construction based on less reliablewater supply estimates, which is about 30% of the net present value forimmediate construction at a discount rate of 12% over a survey period of3 years. None of the above-mentioned assumptions on the accuracy ofpresently used estimation techniques would result in an "expected valueof perfect information" so high as to justify this cost of delay. Thisdoes in no way preclude the usefulness of better techniques and increasedhydrological information for future projects, where they could result inconsiderable reduction of expected risk.

-125-ANNEX 7Table 1

INDIA

Karnataka Tank Irrigation Project

Financial and Economic Prices

(in constant 1980 Rupees)

Crops (Rupees per ton) Financial Economic(1980) (1990)

Paddy, HYV 1,100 1,800

Paddy, local 1,200 1,970

Sorghum 1,080 1,510

Millets 1,000 1,400

Maize 1,030 1,520

Wheat, HYV 1,790 1,870

Wheat, local 1,880 1,960

Kharif Pulses (Tur) 3,740 5,240

Rabi Pulses (Bengalgram) 2,480 3,470

Chillies 8,860 8,860

Cotton (short/medium staple) 4,300 4,900

Cotton (medium/long staple) 5,500 6,280

Oilseeds (groundnuts) 2,400 2,750

Sugarcane 150 200

Mulberry Leaves 500 730

Inputs

Human Labor (manday) 5.0 (rf)/6.3 (irr) 3.3/4.3

Animal Labor (pairday) 12.00 10.00

Nitrogen (kg) 4.40 6.30

Phosphate (kg) 4.50 5.30

Potash (kg) 1.90 2.30

INDIA

KARNATAKA T-ANK IRRIGATION PROJECT

SENSIIIVITY OF VALUE OF WATER TO CHANGES IN IRRIGATION INlENSITY (AVERAGE OVER All ZONES)

RARI IRRIGATION TOTAL IRRIGATION BENEFITS BENEFITS INCREM. % OF WATER USE % OF VAlUE OF % OF

INTENSITY JNIENSITY WITH PROJ. WITIIOUI PROJ. BENEFITS BASECASE PER HA BASECASE WATER BASFCASE

cXJ R RS/i iA) (RS/IIA) (RS/HA) (M:3/HA R ( RS,M3)

BASE CASE

55 145 7228 1316 5912 100.0 1(5309 100.0 0.5470 100.0

VARIAtioN OF RABT IRRIGATION INTENSITY

o 90 5158 1316 3842 G5.0 7031 65.0 0.5464 99.9

5 95 5346 1316 4030 68.2 7374 68.2 0. 5465 99.9

10 100 5534 1316 4218 71.3 7718 71.4 0.-465 99.9

i5 105 5722 1316 4406 74.5 8061 74.6 0.5466 99.9

20 110 5910 1316 4594 77 .7 8404 77.7 0.5467 ?9.9

25 115 6098 1316 4782 80.9 8747 80.9 0. 467 10O00

30 120 6286 1316 4970 84.1 9091 84.1 0.5468 1l0.0

35 125 6474 1316 5159 87.3 9434 87.3 0.5468 10().0

40 130 6662 131G 5347 90.4 9777 90.5 0.5468 100 0 I

45 135 6851 1316 5535 93.6 10121 93.6 0.5469 10(.0 N

50 140 7039 131G 5723 96.8 10464 96.8 0.5469 100. 0

55 1145 7227 1316 5911 100.0 10807 100.0 0.54170 100.0

60 150 7415 1316 6099 103.2 11150 103.2 0.5470 10o.0

65 155 7603 1316 6287 106.3 11494 106.3 0.5470 100.0

70 160 7791 1316 6475 109.5 11837 109.5 0.5470 10).0

75 165 7979 1316 6663 112.7 12180 112.7 0.5471 100.0

80 170 8167 1316 6852 115.9 12523 115.9 0.5471 100.0

85 175 8355 1316 7040 119.1 12867 119.0 0.5471 100.0

90 180 8544 1316 7228 122.3 13210 122.2 0.5471 100.0

95 185 8732 1316 7416 125.4 13553 125.4 0.5472 100.0

100 190 8920 1316 7604 128.6 13897 128.6 0.5472 100.0

I8 W

m s4

ANNEX 7Table 3 A

INDIA

KARNATAKA TANKC IRRIGATION PROJECT

Conditional Payoff Matrices for VaryingCombinations of Project Size and Water Supply 1

CASE A: Low Reliability of Runoff Yieldi Estimates

0TAN0ARD nFlVIATION- 27%- FOR DISTRIBUTION OF ACTUAL INFLOWS

66077 ITS 710(08 - 100777NF711/(70ST RAT10 - 1.84

MATRIX OF C(7N0TTTONAL OPESFNT VAl.7375 OF BENEFITS IINDICES)

INDEX OF PPO,JFCT SIZF

(N07I00 PP0F 770 70 705 80o 00 00 05 70 700F I( t 1 71 70 201 775 77f 1177(INDEX) 771/1

50 I 40 50000 00 00 00.00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 500.00 00.00 00 00 00 00 50000 00 00 50 00 00 0000 I 041 00 00 50 0O 00 00 00.000 0' 00 00 00) 0 00 00 000 5 000 09 000 05 00 50 000 59 00 00 00 55 00CI0 2.02 60 00 60 00 60 00 60.00 G 00.0 60 00 60 00 6 0.0) 60 00O 00.00 60.00 60.00O 60 00 60 00 60 0065 7)7)0 60.00 60 00 60 00 60 00 65 00 650(0 60 00 60 00 60 00 65 00 60 00 65.00 65.00 05.00 65,0070 4 21 06.87 70 00 70.00 70 00 70 00 70 00 70 00 70 00 70 00 70 00 70.010 40 0(o 70.4)0 70 00, 70.0(7705 .0 70 20 74 06 70 00 20 00 75 00 70 00 75 00 70 00 70 00 75600 70 00 70 00 70 00 70 00 7 00080 0711 70 20 70.09 70.70 80.00 80 00 800On 8(0.00 60.00 60.00 Bo000 80 00 80 00 80 00 Ho000 go00000 6 775 70 20 75 80 60 87 84 22 80 00 80 077 80 00 60 00 80.00 80 00 60 00 60 00 80 0O, 80 On 87 00777 7 271 70 20 70 60 87.00 80.22 80.20 80 00 80 00 90 00 90.00 00.00 00.00 80 00 80 00 770.00 90.0090 7 64 70.20 70 60 57 00C 86 40 87.48 84 35 80 00 85CI0 9 00 80 00 009 00 9500 00 00 00 00 00 80(7 0.0,I770 7 85 70 20 75 60 87 00 85.40 87 80 86.72 88 40 700 00 100 00 100 00 700 00 100 7)0 100~(70I 77(7 07 7(77 (0I700 7.774 70.20 70.60 B1 n0 86 40 81.80 87 20 701 02 704 4 4 700 00 100 00 700 000 0( 00 700 07. 7705 70O 70 07777 IC 277 70 20 70. 60 81 00 86 40 gi 80 97 20 102.60 707.7ItO 1048 11000O 170 00 I71000 170 7(I7 i 710 (7 l70 077715 6 60 70 20 75 60 81.00 86.40 81 80 87 20 102.60 los 00 772.28 114 03 110.00 170 00 IS5 00 170 00 770 00770 0 01 70 20 70 60 81 00 86.40 87.80 87 20 102 60 706 00 177 38 717 43 110 56 720 00 120 00 170 770 7.77) 0O125 07 09 70 20 70 60 57 00 86.40 81 50 87.20 102 60 708.00 773.40 718J.7 73 22.07 724.68 120 00 72750 7.( 720 07)730 4271 70 20 70, 60 81 00 86 40 97.80 97.20 102 C0 708 00 113,40 716 80 124 04 727 70 128 62 77777 00 170 0(1130 3 705 70.20 75.60 87 00 86 40 87.80 97.20 102.80 708.00 173 40 776 80 124.20 720.33 132.82 134 00 720 007407 2.-62 70.20 70.60 81 00C 86.40 87 60 97 20 707.60 708 00 173 40 118 60 724 20 728.60 724. 677 737.07 770.7740 1.04 70.20 75.80 81.00 86.40 87.80 87.20 702.60 708.00 173.40 118.80 724.20 728 60 130.00 770 80 147 03700 7.40 70 70 75 80 87.00 86.40 87 80 87 20 702 60 708.00 77.3.40 778 80 724.20 729.60 735 0 177 40 477 145 77

COS) (Y. OF REN-700 30 94 38 48 42 02 44 52 47 07 49 48 07 84 04.38 06.81 50.27 67.62 64.07 86 .70 08 79 (7 71

874167X 07 4-1ND7T10NAI NET7 Pf8ESENT VALUES WEIGV4rF5 BY P74O6A61L77IFS

INOFX OF PPO,IECT SIZF

10NF0 O 961R6 60 70 70 80 60 70o 00 100 700 770 770 720 120 777) 7 70 ROWIIOX

00 7.4(7 0 76 0 70 0 17 0.08 0 04 0.07 0 03 0 06 0 70 -0 77 ~0 78 0.20 0 23 026C 0.30 0.7600 704 0 30 0310 020 020 0.70 0.17 0 00 007 0 04 008 0.13 -0.l7 0 27 -02) (777 7. 3560 202 0.610 0.54 042 047 0.74 0.28 0.211 0 is 0 08 002 0 071 0.77 0.74 0.77 1 728 060O65 73 70 084 0 80 0 77 0 60 0 00 0 02 0.44 0l.36 0 27 0 78 0.771 71.03 -0~00 7 73. 0~ L0 03470 4; 27 7.3 1 - 28 Ii 78 707 0 07 0 86 0 76 0.06 0.06 0) 45 0 30 0 20 (1 70 .7 (73 7 0 1 3070 008l 1.00 1 76 7 68 5 80 7 42 7 70 7 7 7 7.00 0893 060 068 006 044 072 020 1.1660 097 1.07 2.73 2 78 2 70 7 85 7 80 7 6,6 7 07 7 37 7.73 7 09 084 0877 716 003 2.78960 G56 2 27 2 ~.0 2.50 2.64 2057 2 36 2 20 2.04 7.87 17.7 15 00 740 I 24 1O 7)8 (78 2490 727 2 42 2 63 2.83 3.03 7, 07 2 95 2 77 2590 2 41 2 24 2 06 1.85 772 7 04 7.37 "I 07805 7.0 4 2 54 2 76 2.88 3.~20 7 40 3 43 3 20 3 70 2 82 2 77 2.50 2377 2178 2 07 783 7 42700 C 0 2 67 2 67 306 3 28 3.02 7 17 3 73 308 3 38 720 307 2.8~3 264 245 2 27, .73700 7 04 2 04 2 76 2 88 3 20 3.42 3.05 3 82 382 3 68 3.00 3.31 3 73 2.95 2 77 2.00 3 82770 2 27 2 42 2.63 2 83 3.04 3 26 7.47 3.88 31 83 3 63 3 69 3502 3.34 :3 77 3.77OF7 2867 3 .671770 6 65 2 271 2.40 2059 2IS8 2.88 3 77 7.37 3507 3 69 3 68 3.55 3.28 333 3 08 2 82 3 69720 0.97 1.8 9 2.73 2 30 247 2 65 2 82 2.08 7.77 7 34 34,4 342 731 7.17 307' 2089 .44725 S708 '7.0 7.984 7.88 273 2 20 2 43 2 08 2.77 2 08 7 07 3 70 3.08 2.88 2.86 2 7.4 3In0

770 4 21 7 40 7.~~~~~~~~52 7.64 7 76 1 689 2 07 2 17 2 26 2 .38 7 7 263 268 2.6 70 2 40 2 60775 7:~ 30 77 721 7.37 1.40 7 0 76 77 0 SO 9 80 .00 2 70 2 70 227 2 27 2 74 2.237.70 2602 0 87 09 80 702 I 0 77 I 2 17 7 0 74 .0 76 77 78 0 78

700 7 4 0 6 7770 076 0 81 0 81 0 3 8 04 7 70 76 -07.7 27 71 73 78 740 740170 740 047 00 7 00 063 0.0 0 71 75 70 3 0l.88 082 (7 8l 1777 I 104 7 ((7

(07777F F7 007 (( F 72 7 34 28 30 78 37 50 30 63 39777 -; 70 90 781 76 78 70 717 76 76 44 34 87 72 08 70 5 87 7 78 47 28)

70PFCTF0 067(77 t OF OPIJMUM SIZE 30.55

F.1rEC7E9 NF7 4FTU5N UND0ER CE87TA7NI( 47289

1/ All COSt and net benefit figures are expressed as percent of "appraisal benefits"' per ha.

-12 8-

ANN'EX 7Table 3 B

INDIA



CASE B: Medium Reliability of Runoff Yield Estimates

STANDAPD DEVIATION - 10%. FOR DISTRI6UT ION OF ACTUAL INFLOWS

ITENFFITT, 20098 ¶0ToRFNFFIT/COST PATJO 1.84

MAT PTX OF COND ITTONAL PRESENT VAL UES OF BENEFFITS I INDIC.ES)

INDFX OF PROJECT SIZE

I NFtLOW PROS 635 70 7 5 80 85 90 65 100 lOS I1 to 15i 120 125 1730 1735(INDE X I M%

075 0,0)7 650 65.00 65 .00 65.00 05..00 65 . 00 65.00 65 .00 G 5 00 65 .00(5 O 65.00 6.5. 00 60. 00 55 (it) 5 .00O70 0.24 68.97 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 70.001 7(0.00

75 0.92 702 40 5.07.07.0 '75. 00 75 .00 75.00 '75.~00 75.00 75.00 75 00 75.,00 75.00n 7 5.0080 2.80 70.20 75.59 79.15 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.0 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.00 80.0" P0.1708 5 6.5? 9 70.20 75.60 80.93 84.22 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 85.00 .85.0 (C 5F 0(7 F85(On50 12.13 70.20 75.60 81.00 86.22 89.29 50.00 90.00 90.00 90.00 90.01) 60.00 90.00 90.00 90 o(1 '60.0055 17.91i 70.20 75.60 81.00 86.40 51.48 94.25 65.00 95.00, 55.00 715.nn 95.00 5 00) 95 00 95.0(7 19.00

100) 19.52 70.20 75.60 81.00 86.40 51.50 96.72 95.40 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 100.00 ioo.0CO ¶0(7.10lOS 17.511 701.20 75.60 81.00 86.40 91.80 97.20 l01.62 104.44 105 00 17)5 00 1,7-.00 lOS 00 1035.0) 105.00 10900CIto 12.13 70.20 75.60 81.00 88.40 91.80 97.20 102.00 107.11 109.49 110.00 110.017 110.00 110.00 110 O(1 110.00115 6.57 70.20 75.60 81.00 86.40 91.80 97.20 102.60 108.00 112.28 114 53 115.00 1.15.00 115.00 115 00 115.00120 2.80 70.20 75.60 81.00 86.40 91.80 97.20 102.60 108.00 113.38 117.43 119.56 120.00 120.00 120 1)0 120.00)¶29 0 921 70.20 75.60 81.00 86.40 91.80 97.20 102.60 108.0(0 113.40 1I8.72 122.57 124.59 125.00 12S, 00 125.0''130 0.24 70.20 75.60 81.00 85.40 91.80 57.20 102.60 ¶08.00 113.40 118.80 124.L74 127.70 129.62 ¶20.00 130.0(0¶39 0.07 70.20 75.630 81.00 86.40 51.80 57.20 102 60 108.00 ¶12..40 ¶18.80 124.20 129.33 132.82 ¶34.05 (215 00

COIlST (7 OE RFN100<) 26.94 25. 46 42.02 44.921 47.01 49.48 51.54 54.38 56.81 59.27 01.I(A, 64.01 60.36 C 0875 71.11

MATRIX OF CONDITrONAI NET PPESFNT VALFTIES WFIGHTED RY PPORABILITIES

INDEX OF PROOFCT1 SIZE

iNFlOW PROP., 65 70 75 80 859 90 55 11)0 ¶05 lID ¶15 120 1 257 ¶1 1 135 EIIWMAXI I NIPF I I ("I.I

C) 07 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01 0 01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 (7 0C1 (7.00 0.020 .24 0.08 0.177 0.¶( 0.06. 0. 06 0.05 (70 .4 0 02 17.73 ¶.0 0.7 001 700 -0 (.8

75 0.7.2 0.31I 0.32 (1.30 0.28 0.26 0.23 0.21 0 19 n.17 0.15 0.12 0.IC0 0.08 0(1(C 004l 0.32s0 2.80 0.53 1.01 1.04 0.55 0.52 0.85 ( 7.7 0.72 0.65 0.551 (1.51 0.45 0) 38 ( 1.1 0.25 1.0.155 C,.57 2.18 2.71 2.56 2.61 2.50 2.33 2.17 2.01 1.85 1.69 1.54 1.38 1.22 ¶ 07 0 9I 2.6190 12,.13 4.03 4.38 4.73 5.06 5.13 4.51 4.62 4.22 4.03 3.73.2.442.115 2.86, 2 58 2.29 5.1365, 17.51 5.82 6.22 6.823 7.33 7.79 7.86, 7.54 1.l 6.65 6.26 5.84 5.43 5.01 4.50 4.18q 7.80(100 III S2 6.45 7.05 7 SI 8.17 8.74 5.22 5.26 8.50 8.43 7.56 7.49 7.03 63.56 G.Io0 5.04 9.26I1)75 i7( 5I 5.82 6. 32 0, 87' 7.23 7.84 8.30 8.75 8.77 8.44 8 02 7 00 7 18 6.76 6.35 5 .5 A .7 7¶10 12.13 4.03 4.38 '1.73 5.08 5.42 5.79 6.15 6.40 5.35 8.16 5. 87 5.58 5.259 5.170 4.72 6.4715I 0.57 2.18 2.27 2.56 2 15 2- 94 3.13 3.33 3.52 3.64 2.. 63 2.51 3.35 3.16 3.n.1 2.88 3.0'4¶20 2.PI) 0.93 1.01 I.09 1.17 1.25 1.34 1.42 1.50 1.58 1.83 1.652 1.57 1.5(7 I 43 1.37 1 63125 0.9=1~ 0.31 0.33 0.256 (1.29 0. 11 0 .414 0.~47 0.45 0.52 0.55 0.56I 0.56 (7. 54 0.52,; .50 0.50¶7 0..O 74 0.08 0.05 0.05 0. 10 0.¶Ii 0. II 0 12 0. 13 0. 14 0. III 0.is I . 5 0 11, 0. P 17 4 0 ISI175 0 7.(~ 0.02 0.0 0. 02 0.0(3 0.02 0.02 03 0' 0 0)4 0 174 0.0.1 17.04 0.0(5 0 05 (1.1(5 1). (7. n 0.11

FXrT.CTFI7 VAt OF: 33.25 360.77 1 -8.8 41.37 4.1.47 441.67 41.91 44.15~I 42 G0 40.5 26. 39~ 32 75.58 33.I1 11 20 278.P'l 47.51

OrT I MLIM SI ZE: 05EXPFCTED) VALUE OF OPTIMUJM SIZE: .1.~1.

EXPECTED NET PFIUP1N UNDER CERTAINTY: 47.51FXPFCIFI) VAIIIF DI PYSRiEC INFORMATION: 2,60

1/ All cost and net benefit figures are expressed as percent of "appraisal benefits" per ha.

-129-

ANNEX 7Tab le 3 C

INDIA



CASE C: High Reliability of Runoff Yield Estimates

STANPAP10 (73FV8TATIO - 3%'. FOP 06 I TR15 I8RU01(ON OF1 AC06 I 311INFL4W8

(71 N I ( 18 71(G8l I no7

35A16(I1 nF N T I ON A I PP F I '6111N1T VAI tiF- nr RFNlrI Trs ( INDICES1

NI NF 11W 13(111, 11 711 13 111n 617I3 11n I1I3In1 I 1 18 I 211 211 10 -In

111 (1 ( 68 011 63 00 11600Q 63 00o 16 00 63 00 6 00 63 110C 685 00 1135 CO 85 00 65 0(1 113.00 111 (1 61CO1((1 .1 11,1 68 11710 00C 70 (10 70 (10 70 00) 70 010 20 00O 70 010 271 10 7(n 00 10 00 7010 1 (1 1 17

78; 070 0 20 74 06, 2300 75 00 711 0n 75 00 75.00 75 (10 71100 751On 73.00 753 O0 711 01 78170 71111PC 1 ( 07 33 3.3 (00 00 8.0 100 00 1001 100 00 80 0 80(017 1187 10

1(11 011 7(720 75160 SO(183 84 22 811,00 8500o 8 (10 811 170 n s10 s80 8o 100 83II 170 811 017 81 Co( 3 (7,611 (1 62 ~~~~~7(1 20 75 60 81 (71 86 22 89.283 960.00 9(7 (30 6 0 8 1 00 311(700 g.00C0o00 60.0 1117 (I(

61 ( (I (7 2(1 13 617 Pi 00 86C 40 91 48 84 31 1 83 1(0 811 111 030 83 (717 ~~n 811 (10 8 00 66 n 1178 (O 11 . (111(11 q36 (4 0 20 75 111 81 170 86 40 911 8n0 16 72 (1 40 l(00 On1 1170 O0 100 00 I1)0 00 (00.0 (0Io 017 1170 170 10(1 OI,f(01 (Iq II 70 20 136(7 111 1( 683 40) 61 80 82 20 (01 0 2 104A 44 in,1 00 T0g (70 (08.0 (0.0 0 1 7(1(io 1113II, (10 1(11 011It ( I 7 0 707 20 111.60 31 I717 S6 40 618 .8 87.2 (02. 60 (0. IT I((( 49 (17(0) I1(C 00o 1)0 (70 I ((7 Onl 1 I1 01' 1 (1 120,)I I1 71111 10 '20 7 561( 81 IOn 88( 40 9 1 80 87 20 (02 60 (08 0(7 (12 28 (14 I1 (1 0(7 (18 (70 ((17 1(1(' 18(f(2 (7n 10 20C -2560 81 ((0 86 40 81. 80 97 20 (02 (10 ((18 (0 (() t33. 117 A47 (q 58C 120(117 (2011 In f1(1711 2(1 10n(211 1) (I.n7 70 217 75 110 RI (10 811 417 l 80 97 20 ((72.8(10 11110(1 1(73 4011 (1 13 (22 57 (24 59 12115 01 1 5 (21 I1 ~11 (711(11 17011 7(1 20 73 80, O 1 0(1 Bf 811 0 81 I1 6I 7 20 (02 -10 Ins Cc11 I(I 411 I(8 S11 (24 04 12171 ~(28,qr I' ((11 1711 '1j O(1(:111 (1 00( 71120 756n Ft1 81On7 Sr8 4C(1 61 o1 `1 20) (02.6C ' 1 On (1 ((3.40 I (8Ft1PO (24 20 (20 33 (32 8.'I 11.1, 1<1 '71

1(131 1,. 111 8111-11111 711 84 78 49 42 (72 44.82 41 01 49 489 11 941143116, ,81110922 f 11162 64 111 G C6 3'( 111 R1 71 1

(NFI W( PROP(1 113 1( 7 8 0 811C 80 83 1((10 ((71 Ito( I (1F) 12(7 ( 1 70 (3 R0(W35AI INP F I I (I

611-, ICO1 0.00C 0 00 00 0.(on 1100 00(7) (00n 0.n7 (7.00 000 00(7 0.00C C (1( 0017 (700 (10010 '7 On 17 17( 0 on 1 (( (Co I (((1 '.170 ( 00 17 00 (7 On( (701 17On (10 0( 17 no10 (O(1 Cl (I7C 11 1(( 0 0(7

7 1711n 00on 0.00 0Co( 0)00 0017n 0.00 0170 0(1( 0.(7 001 o 00' I(70 0On1 010 I (In 0o (7.0080 11I111 (0( Co 70(7c 0(10 000 (1(10 000O 0(7o 00On (0( 0(7(, 0(7o ((00 (71O1 :11On 000 (71(01111 00(( (1.0( 0.00 0Of1 ((00 0110 000 C 0(7 nC(o( (1((7 000) 000 (100 0170 (7(O1 (1(11 n (n0(8(7 0 62 021 0 2 2 (724 0 21 (7 26 0 23 0 2.1 0n22 n721 0n(in (8p 0 11 7 ('1 1"' ( 7 2 ( 28911 (8 71 65 111 7 (2 7 18 11.23 8 77 8 84 (1 49 8 01 7 57 7011 6, 11( 6 ( 11 6,4 511 II I 8 8((1 '-034 (6 7`3 21 47 27 (3 24.11 211.88 2(1 (71 28 (6 2707 23~)- 6 3 24.I2(1 22.177 21.-36r (8 611 (8 11. (1 (3 2 1(03 (6 (I 6 53 1 (2 71 11 8 8 25 8.83 8.40 8 85 8.87 9.~5(7 3 02 85 31 84 08 7I 1 I1 (4 11 6,8 9 82(10 0 62 (21 11.22 (7.24 026 0 28 0 30 0 21 1) 33 031 (7I 31 (73(1 0 28 0 27 (7 c ( 211 0:4 n 33lt( nO(011 000 (.O(n 1CO1 000 0(70 0 00 0(70 000 0170 0Co( 0(o( (C(71 n0(1 (no( (7.0( (7.0(7120 000 0.0 0.00 (((0 0)00 0(70 0 00 0)00 000 0)00 0.00) 000 0.120 (200 (7.0( 0(7(7 0.0(7122 0.0 (701 0(7 0(70 00(7 0(7n 000( 0(70 1700 O(7( 00(7 0(70 000o 0(7(7 1(711 000 On7(3(7 1117 011 0( 10 O 1700 000 0(7(7 0.00 00 ( 700O 0.~O) )00 ((.00 0. 00 (7.00 (7.0 (1(11 000 00(1O("7 no (7((7 7(7 0(7 00n o C 0 (70 0 (70(7 (7.,00 (700 (7(( (7.0(7 (7,( 0.1o01 ( 7C (1( 11 0( 0017)

11011.111 r '24(V1I1 77 I28 1(6 ( 1 7p.88 41 68 441 (I 46.112 47 011- 411 .i8 43 19 40.78 311 38 2589 3~ 81 71 211 28 89 47 411

F 7(KrFQTVI VAi ( n -(1111 F711T I17 NOPM (711N 1

1/All cost and net benefit figures are expressed as percent of "appraisal benefits" per ha.

-130-ANNEX 7Table 4

INDIA


Summary of Results from

Evaluation of Conditional Payoff Tables

Benefit - Cost Ratio

Reliability of Runoff 2.08 1.50 1.20Yield Estimate

CCAOpt : 95 90 80

EPV : 38.55 28.13 13.84A. Standard Deviation : 27% opt

(actual from estimate) EPVC : 47.29 35.76 20.33

EVPI : 7.74 7.64 6.49

CCA Opt :95 90 85

EPV : 44.91 33.49 18.40B. Standard Deviation 10% opt

EPVC : 47.51 36.08 20.89

EVPI : 2.60 2.59 2.49

CCA : 95 90 90C. Standard Deviation: 3% opt

EPV : 47.05 35.64 20.48opt

EPVC : 47.46 36.05 20.89

EVPI 0.41 0.41 0.41

Explanation

CCA = optimum size of project, i.e. the size with maximum expected netopt present value (as % of "appraisal size")

EPV = Expected net present value (as % of "appraisal" benefits per ha) ofopt the optimum size project

EPVC = Expected net present value under certainty, given the assumedprobability distribution

EVPI = Expected value of perfect information, calculated as EPVC - EPVopt

-131-ANNEX 8Page 1

INDIA


Economic Justification of Canal Lining

General

1. The design criteria established for tank irrigation schemes underthe proposed project stipulate that all canals and channels down to turnoutsserving 8 ha blocks should be lined. (Field channels would not be lined,except for a part of excessively long or steep channels.) The followinganalysis provides an economic justification for such higher design standards.

2. The analysis is based on a comparison of costs and benefitsbetween a lined and an "equivalent" unlined canal system. Equivalence meansthat both systems depend on the same annual water supply from the tank, andthat both systems will deliver the same volume of water per ha of CCA at the8 ha-turnouts, given the respective conveyance losses for each system. Theunlined system, under these assumptions, will always be somewhat smaller inextent.

3. Lining affects conveyance losses and costs of a system in severalways. Primarily, it reduces the seepage rate per unit wetted area. Second,operational losses (water at the wrong time at the wrong place, wastage,breakage, tampering, spillage, etc.) are minimized. Rotation of water supplyis faster and more easily controllable, and deliveries are more reliable andequitable among farmers. Higher velocities due to lining permit relativelysmaller channels and reduce wetted perimeters and the risk of silting.Lining also allows steeper side slopes and longitudinal slopes (gradient),which further reduces the wetted area and increases the velocity of linedchannels (in relation to an unlined channel of the same capacity). The costof structures will also be less under such options. Since it is difficultto quantify the cumulative effect of lining on losses and on costs under bothdesign alternatives in general terms, simplifying but conservative assump-tions have been made.

Assumptons

4. Losses. Overall losses from the tank outlet to 8 ha turnouts con-sist of seepage losses and of operational losses. Seepage rates for linedsystems would normally be less than 3 cusec/Mft2 (1 cumec/m1)Z. This highvalue has, however, been adopted for the analysis. Seepage in unlined systemshas been measured at between 5 cusec and 70 cusec per Mft in various canalsin India. The average for smaller size canals (minors and sub-minors),which correspond to the canal sizes typical for tank irrigation schemes, isaround 15-20 cusec/Mft2. A lower, conservative value of 12 cusec/Mft2 (3.66cumec/Mm2) has been adopted here. Lining greatly improves the manageabilityof distribution systems, particularly in rather small systems such as tank

-132- ANNEX 8

Page 2

schemes. Operational losses would not exceed about 12% of head supply; thusthis value was adopted for a lined system. In unlined systems, these lossesare generally estimated at about 20%, and this value is used here.

Capacities and Wetted Perimeters

5. Design parameters for typical trapezoidal canals foi a lined andan unlined system, both serving the same command area (100 ha) were calcu-lated in such a way that peak discharge at the tail end of the systems wouldbe equal for the respective conveyance losses.!/ Losses turned out to beabout 15% of head capacity for the lined system and 31% for the unlined one.Accordingly, the unlined system was then reduced to 82% of the original sizeand new design parameters calculated for canals serving a smaller area andhaving the same peak discharge per ha of CCA at the 8 ha turnouts as thelined system. As a result, the wetted perimeter of the "equivalent" unlinedsystem at the head was estimated as about 39 m2/ha versus 31 m2/ha for thelined system./ The cross-sectional area of the unlined system would beabout 24% larger and the velocity about 24% smaller than for the lined system.Both systems would have the same peak capacity at the head.

Determination of System Size and Total Losses

6. Consistent with assumptions made in the economic analysis of theproject, a norm water application of 6,380 m3/ha/year at the field wasassumed. Given a combined field channel and field application efficiencyof 76%, this translates into 9,180 m3/ha/year at 8 ha turnouts. Given anannual design water supply at the reservoir of 1.0 Mm3, the respectivecommand areas of a lined and unlined system can be estimated by means ofthe following relationship:

1,000,000 9,180 * CCA + (rp.Lf *T CCA) (1 -d ) + i 1,000,000; _ *

net supply seepage losses op. losses

where: r seepage rate (1.0 cumec/Nm2 for lined system,3.66 cumec/Mm2 for unlined system)

p = wetted perimeter (1.25 m lined, 1.55 m unlined)I = length of canals per ha of CCA (25m/ha for both systems)

1/ Basic Assumptions: Lined System Unlined System

Peak demand at head: 0.8llsec/ha to be determinedCCA: 100 ha 100 haPeak capacity at head: 0.08 cumec to be determinedSide slope: 1:1 1.5:1Bedwidth: 0.4 m 0.4 mManning's "n": 0.0018 0.0025Slope: 1:2,000 1:2,000Length of canal system: 2,500 m 2,500 m

2/ This assumes that the total system consists only of one main canal. Allow-ance for gradual and stepwise decrease in capacities will be made later on.

-133- ANNEX 8

Page 3

f = an adjustment factor (0.6 for both systems)T = annual operating time (5,000 hours ¢ 18M sec for both systems)-A = operational loss rate (12% of head supply lined, 20% unlined)

An adjustment factor f, approximately takes account of the combined effectof rotation of water supply (only parts of the system are wet at any onetime), of smaller capacities for lateral channels and of gradually decreasingwetted perimeters of main and lateral channels. This factor has been esti-mated as 0.6. The fact that seepage rates are much higher at the beginningof a rotational cycle (when channel is dry) has been ignored; it would affectseepage in unlined channels considerably more than in lined channels. TheCCA of the lined system results as about 93 ha, while the unlined systemwould comprise only about 77 ha. Overall losses in the lined system would beabout 147,600 m3/year (14.8%); in the unlined system they would amount toabout 294,200 m3/year (29.4%). The savings in water from a lined systemamount therefore to about 146,600 m3/year (at the 8 ha turnouts).

Incremental Benefits

7. Benefits are derived from the volume of water available at theturnouts to 8 ha irrigation blocks, and from the estimated incremental bene-fits per unit of water. The "value of water" has been estimated to averageabout Rs 0.55/m3. However, to be conservative, a value of Rs 0.55 only waschosen. The buildup of benefits, starting in the third year for the unlinedsystem and in the fourth year for the lined system, is assumed to follow thefive-year schedule presented in Annex 7, para 11. The present value (12%,50 years) of incremental benefits results as Rs 175,400.

Costs

8. The cost of the reservoir itself would be approximately the samefor both lined and unlined systems. The composition of the cost of thedistribution network per ha of CCA is estimated as follows: /

Lined Unlined(Rs/ha) (Rs/ha)

Earthworks and Structures 1,100 1,300

Lining 2,100 -

Outlets, Field Channels andDrainage 700 700

Land Acquisition 100 150

4,000 2,150

Total cost of the respective systems, given their sizes, works out toRs 371,600 and Rs 165,300. A conversion factor of 0.78 is applied to thefinancial cost to arrive at economic cost. The present value of incremental

1/ Including physical contingencies and overhead (30%).

-134-ANNEX 8Page 4

economic cost is estimated at Rs 126,700.-/ The net present value of liningis estimated at about Rs 49,000, the economic rate of return at 14%. Sincetank irrigation projects would be generally located where groundwater devel-opment is practically non-existent, the impact of lining on the recharge togroundwater has not been examined.

1/ Assuming a two-year construction cost for the unlined system and threeyears for the lined system. Cost scheduling as in Annex 7, para 15.

-135-

ANNEX 9

Related Documents and Data Available in Project File

1. Karnataka State, General Report on Minor Irrigation TankProjects and Model Project Report on Mundwad Tank Project(Joint Report of Project Preparation and Monitoring Cell,GOI and GOK).

2. Karnataka State, Minor Irrigation Tank Projects: ModelProject Reports on 8 selected Tank Irrigation Projects,Project Preparation and Monitoring Cell, GOI and GOK, 1980.

3. GOK, Department of Irrigation: Agroclimatic Zone-wise Listof Minor Irrigation Tanks Proposed under World BankAssistance, by Agroclimatic Zones, 1980.

4. Consultant's Report on Farmers Organization for Operationand Maintenance: Implications and a Proposed Study.

5. GOK, Department of Irrigation, A Note on HydrologicalStudies in Karnataka, 1980.

6. Swedish Institute of Meteorology and Hydrology(Dr. Bergstrom/Prof. M.C. Chaturvedi), November 1980:Institutional Collaboration between IIT Delhi and SMHI,Norrkoping, on Water Resources Development - HydrologicalForecasting; Report on Phase I and Program for Phase II.

_____________________n___nPr________________________________ !_________r_ IBRD 15341

Th.a ~W h.. b yp.pdb the OS.Boor Hnk. s ttaff -chms.l/y for } r J / s - Arswov= CHINA

the cooen,cef th. reders of |

th report to which t is ttched.The droomintooa used a-d the /boundr-e *hown eo this map ( PAKISTAN } 30do not ,ply. on the psrt of the _UTANWorld 8.n0 Fd its aftilts, *ny :/I/r

jacdgment on the lgal nters ot rs /tfany terrto,y orany eodor~eoent _or cceptance of such bo-oderiis. . r A DIA q2 J

. / < INDIA D5

MA HARASHTRA

> 4 - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~9 <^~~~~ISAWTAKA

Gufbarga0 , - to.

.Jj~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o

~&4 } ) -. .@0aipur S .?$'L A L rA

ANVDHRA PRADESHwoeo8 0 ,g 00'- 0 Raichuro S

Be\ ga m m'' Bgur INDIA

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTGOA j-< 0Dhoary r AGRO-CLIMATIC ZONES

r .- AGRO-CLIMATIC ZONES: NET IRRIGAiED AREA AS

/ Sellary t I NORTHEASTERN TRANSITIONAL ZONE 22 PERCENTAGE OF NET AREABellary ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o OWN (1977/78IJ < ,/ . J 2~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ NORTHEASTERN DRY ZONE "_NET AREA SOWN IN HECTARES

I- NORTHERN ORY ZONE0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~iiNRHR R OEAGRO-C!LIMATIC ZONAL

Karwar I>5 CENTRAL DRY ZONE BOUNOARiES

SB;,SC *UTIT H . ..... z \ ........ . .. t t 2 * EASTERN DRY ZONE 0 DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS

j'X..)J_% .) v EVI SOUTHERN DRY ZONE STATE HEADQUARTERS

. t- 55115 SOUTHERN TRANSITIONAL ZONE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

..- * . VSTZ NORTHERN TRANSITIONAL ZONE - STATE BOUNDARIES

c..^. \ ,> < NChitradigd. -_J.-LJ\ ix HILLYZONE INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIES

ShImo > * *. X COASTALZONE RIVERS

-K X -Chikoagaj lur . .p A

I <aChItktgalt*( K TUmkuro

Mangalore' Ba"goAore 0 Kol:r .

o . t °Ffo~~Hss n

TAMIL NADULMercara My&o - I

A KERAIA

NOVEMBER i980

IBRD 15342

Th, map has been prepared by the !80World Bank', staff e.closively for | , . procn,cta CHINAthe convenience the readersof | JZS"CcMrOithe report to wh,ch it i attached .t rThe denominations used and the i vS.J bo-nda,es shown on thio map ( PAKISTAN 30'do not imply, o the part of the BHUTWorld Bank and to affl,ates, anyjdgmen.t on the legal tao ofsoy teritory or anedorsemen .®oIQ~or acceptance of soch boundrie-. T. .

Ivlsn1a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~INDIA:f U' VBURMA

MA HARASHTRA 5.V \t Vf-7al

KAAARNARAKA P

As,ss- '5,,

QGUIbar9a ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SRILANKA

AWNDRA PRADESH

INDI1A

KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTGOA . ..... SOILS

ROCKY AREAS 0 DISTRICT HEADQUARTERS

RED LOAMY SOILS STATE HEADQUARTE RS

5 ' ,',;',-, *%t. .BelXoryi . . .,; REO SANDY SOILS - DISTRICT BOUNDARIES

LA-ERITE SOILS - - STATE BOUNDARIES

* O- LATrERITE GRAVELLY SOI LS -. - INTERNATIONAL BOUNDARIESs+3rtrs X k t ¢ j ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~SHA\LLOW BLACKSOILS - -RIVERS

MB DIUM BLACK SOILS

K DEE-P BLACK SOILS

MIXED RED AND BLACK SOILS

N ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~CATAwL /ALLVUM SOL

To ~ cT

gci LT - Tu •, 2, I .

~Manciyu0 TAMIL NADU

. , .. ... 040 80 120

KILOMETERS

NOVEMBER 1980

IBRD 15343{ -~~o. 9b -9

This tp has bea prad by theWorld Bank's staffercbuniweyfor pproonSS5t , CHINAth conveni nce of the reader of ! 6 9 o Cuerethe repor. to .hich ,t is attachedThe denominations used nd the J

boundries shown on this map P AKISTANy 30>Bdo not tmply, on the pat of the rH / B ,_World Bank end its affiliates, any fjudgment on the legal status of I ) /ny t-rrtory or any endorsement - / Nsa '.%4Li,for acceptance of such houndared_

ManirO A. INDIA

SZ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 25 2 0A S~

MA HA RA SH TRA o "

\ INDIJ @ trA

soOS ' R m; z\ < X~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~s

\ '\9 -a-4 ~~~~~KARNATAKA TANK IRRIGATION PROJECTGOA\6\n\\\ \X/\oWf ~)/ A-6sNC)RMAL ANNUAL RAINFALL

t 5 \\\\ \ \Ai ' -~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~700 ISOHYETS IN MILLIMETERS

\9 X\\\\<\ \ u/ ) sC49\¢ y~~~~~~~~~~~~ IRRIGATION CANALS

iO\\O\\ < g 1; == ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I RVE RS , DAMS AN D WEI RS

3200i,e, \ \\os>/ j 5 (giX @ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~STATE HEADQUARTERS

\ \ \ < \ \ 2 ) - ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~- STATE BOUNDARIES

X F~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ - INT ERN ATI ONMAL BOUN DA RIES

(

f~~~~~glr B g a o r KoI, ) (

> \ ) :< 0,, ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4,0, 80 .120

X \ ° ffloO%< = C < ) ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~KILOYETERSA NHRA PRA DHNOER 1980