generic typology for irrigation systems operation

Research Report

International Water Management Institute

INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTEP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Tel (94-1) 867404 • Fax (94-1) 866854 • E-mail [email protected] Home Page http: //www.cgiar.org/iimi

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 92-9090-372-4

29

Generic Typology for IrrigationSystems Operation

D. RenaultandG. G. A. Godaliyadda

Research Reports

IWMI’s mission is to contribute to food security and poverty eradication by fosteringsustainable increases in the productivity of water through better management ofirrigation and other water uses in river basins. In serving this mission, IWMIconcentrates on the integration of policies, technologies, and management systems toachieve workable solutions to real problems—practical, relevant results in the field ofirrigation and water resources.

The publications in this series cover a wide range of subjects—from computermodeling to experience with water user associations—and vary in content from directlyapplicable research to more basic studies, on which applied work ultimately depends.Some research reports are narrowly focused, analytical, and detailed empirical studies;others are wide-ranging and synthetic overviews of generic problems.

Although most of the reports are published by IWMI staff and their collaborators,we welcome contributions from others. Each report is reviewed internally by IWMI’sown staff and Fellows, and by external reviewers. The reports are published anddistributed both in hard copy and electronically (http://www. cgiar.org/iimi) and wherepossible all data and analyses will be available as separate downloadable files.Reports may be copied freely and cited with due acknowledgment.

ii

Research Report 29

Generic Typology for Irrigation SystemsOperation


International Water Management InstituteP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

ii

The authors: D. Renault is Irrigation Specialist, International Water ManagementInstitute (IWMI) and G. G. A. Godaliyadda is Irrigation Manager, Irrigation Department,Sri Lanka.

This collaborative work between the Irrigation Department of Sri Lanka and IWMI hasreceived financial aid from France and technical support from Cemagref, Irrigation Di-vision, Montpellier. The authors are grateful to Ian W. Makin, Design and OperationResearch Leader of IWMI for his critical comments and suggestions on an earlierstage of the work and his helpful revision of the paper.

Renault, D., and G. G. A. Godaliyadda. 1999. Generic typology for irrigation systemsoperation. Research Report 29. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Water ManagementInstitute.

/ irrigation management / irrigation systems/ water use efficiency / canals / operations/ water delivery / irrigation effects / hydraulics / gravity flow / resource management/ typology / case studies / constraints / water supply / networks / Sri Lanka /

ISBN 92-9090-372-4ISSN 1026-0862

© IWMI, 1999. All rights reserved.

Responsibility for the contents of this publication rests with the authors.

The International Irrigation Management Institute, one of sixteen centers supported bythe Consultative Group on International Agricultural Research (CGIAR), was incorpo-rated by an Act of Parliament in Sri Lanka. The Act is currently under amendment toread as International Water Management Institute (IWMI).

iiiiii

Contents

Summary v

Introduction 1

Review of Irrigation System Classification and Partitioning Schemes 3

A Typology for Canal Operation 4

Considerations on Level of System and Structures 6

Considerations on Level of Networks 11

Considerations on Level of Water 13

Considerations on Level of Consumer 15

Application of the Generic Typology 17

Summary and Perspectives 19

Literature Cited 20

v

Summary

With respect to operations, irrigation systems areheterogeneous both at large scale (variationsbetween schemes) and at local level (variationswithin a scheme). If operational decision makingand resources allocations can take suchheterogeneity into consideration, the cost-effectiveness of operations will be improved.

This report presents a methodology foridentifying the main characteristic features(constraints and opportunities) of gravity-fedirrigation systems, which influence managementand operation of the system for the purpose ofwater delivery. The methodology is applicable foranalysis of entire irrigation systems or forsubsystems. The proposed typology analyzesactivities related to system operation at four levels.

The first level of analysis is the System andStructures of the irrigation system and are shownto be analogous to factory and machines in theindustrial sector. At this level, the utilization ofresources for manipulation of the irrigation systemto achieve targeted operational objectives isanalyzed. At the second level the hydraulicnetworks that control known and unknownperturbations to water entering the system areconsidered. These boundary networks influencethe behavior of the system and consequently theoperation of regulating structures. The third level

considers the hydrological context of the system,i.e., availability and quality of water, which impacton the operation of regulators and canals. Theconcern is to identify the constraints imposed onoperations by the quantity and quality of waterresources available to the system. The final levelconsiders the outputs of system operations interms of allocation of priorities amongst differentusers and uses; and the specification ofperformance objectives. The analysis focuses onrules for distribution and the socio-institutionalcontext of the system. This level is labeled as theconsumer.

At each level of analysis relevant criteria areidentified and then subdivided into classes basedon their management-related properties. Theresulting matrix of characteristics can be used tocharacterize irrigation systems. This matrixenables system managers to identify keyproperties that determine performance of canaloperations.

A case study of 64 irrigation systems in SriLanka is presented illustrating the practicalapplication of the proposed typology. The typologyis shown to differentiate four major types ofsystems with significant differences in terms ofconstraints (perturbation occurrence) and opportu-nities for operation.

1

Irrigation is under increasing pressure to improvethe productivity of water and to become moresustainable. These pressures are a result ofincreasing demands for food and the evermorelimited possibilities for extension of irrigation tonew areas due to land and water scarcities, andincreasing costs of development (Shanan 1992).Increased inter-sectoral competition for water,particularly from the municipal and industrialsectors, is also affecting irrigation.

Increasing water productivity is not an easytask because of the complexity of the hydrologiccycle in the watershed context. For instance,despite apparently low water use efficiency at thelocal level, it can be shown that water useefficiency of irrigation at the larger scale can bemuch higher. This is due to the recycling processof water during its downward course within thewatershed (Seckler 1996). Systems operation isthe process that ultimately determines whetherirrigation achieves, or fails to achieve, theobjectives of providing a water service to usersand controlling the impacts of irrigation on thewater basin.

Irrigation operations require the mobilization ofa range of resources—human, transportation, andhardware and software—to manipulate the system.These resources must be allocated and used inthe most efficient way for implementing scheduledchanges to the system status and to respond tounscheduled perturbations.1 In addition, resourcesmust be allocated for data collection and dataprocessing to support decision making.

The current process for allocation of resourcesand the definition of strategies and rules foroperation are generally based on the assumptionthat irrigation systems are homogeneous. Thisimplies that generic rules for operation can bederived and would lead to the equivalent levels ofperformance whatever systems or subsystems areconsidered. This assumption is implicit intechnical guide documents, such as Plan ofOperation and Maintenance (POM), which areincreasingly recommended by external agencies.In some irrigation departments the completion ofirrigation development projects, for both new andrehabilitated schemes, is defined as the adoptionof an operational procedure based on thesedocuments.

In this report we argue that the assumption ofhomogeneity of irrigation systems is not valid ateither the large scale or at the local level.Therefore, a heterogeneous approach to operationsis required to deal with the spatial variability ofirrigation system properties, which should result ina more cost-effective allocation of resources. Theheterogeneity of irrigation systems has two majorconsequences for operations. First, the quality ofservice and, therefore, the performance targetsthat operations should achieve, have to bedifferentiated. For instance, some zones of ascheme may be more sensitive to variations indeliveries and, therefore, should be operated withmore precise targets. Second, the allocation ofresources for operations should be differentiatedon the basis of the spatial variation of the

Generic Typology for Irrigation Systems Operation

D. Renault and G. G. A. Godaliyadda

Introduction

1Perturbation is understood here as a slight variation of the input conditions, i.e., a variation of water depth and/or discharge.

2

difficulty of the task. For instance, structuresthat are more hydraulically sensitive require morefrequent operational inputs to avoid propagationof perturbations to their zone of influence, andhence require additional resources for effectiveoperation.

For managers to be able to reengineer theprocess of operations, a systematic procedure isrequired to identify the main determinants ofsystem behavior. Once identified, the managerwould be able to develop specific operationalstrategies and rules to improve the reliability ofthe irrigation service and ultimately the overallefficiency of water management.

The reasons for reengineering irrigationoperations, are numerous. As a result of recentinstitutional reforms, particularly irrigation transfer,users are becoming increasingly responsible forsetting of irrigation service standards and formeeting the costs of providing that level ofservice. Therefore, system managers may, infuture, have to adjust the cost of operatingirrigation systems, i.e., mobilization of resources,to match the required level of service at the locallevel. Furthermore, recent advances in thehardware and software for irrigation systemoperation are spectacular but their implementationon-site is quite slow. Many reasons can be putforward for the slow adoption of moderntechniques in irrigation (cost of investment,absence of trained staff, maintenance issues,etc.). Here again, it is proposed that a moreselective approach to investment and allocation ofresources, which considers the spatial distributionof system characteristics, is likely to be morecost-effective than a blanket application ofadvanced technologies.

A clear and adaptable methodology fordevelopment of operational strategies is missing.Several initiatives have been taken to definestrategies and rules for operation and maintenanceof irrigation systems. For example, the WorldBank and the International Commission onIrrigation and Drainage published a technical guidefor the preparation of operational strategies and

manuals (ICID 1989). In India, the Indian NationalCommittee on Irrigation and Drainage published anational guide for preparing the POM (INCID1994). At system level, a manual of specificationsfor operation and maintenance, is given tomanagers when irrigation systems are handedover to them. These types of documents areusually exhaustive in listing the tasks thatmanagers should undertake for operation andmaintenance. Although these documents must beconsidered as steps to improve operationalprocedures they are usually rigid and, due to theassumption of homogeneity described previously,are not adapted to fit the local context. Twoextreme attitudes are evident at scheme level:either the rules are applied bureaucratically or thePOM is completely neglected and other, generally,simpler rules adopted. In many irrigation systems,it is still common not to be able to find any O&Mmanual at all.

Perhaps a major step towards improvementwould be to realize that the operational frameworkcannot be fully determined at the design stageand that fine-tuning after some years of practice isfundamental (Uittenbogaard and Kuiper 1993).It is seen that an adaptive process or a learningprocess or both are generally preferableto a strictly prescriptive approach (Skogerboeand Merkley 1996) as found in POMmanuals.

This study is an attempt to bridge the gapbetween generic approaches, loose by nature, andsite-specific methodologies based on rule ofthumb, which are not transferable. The goal is toderive a framework for building new strategies inoperating irrigation systems on the basis of acomprehensive analysis of the key determinantsof water management in the context of waterbasins and irrigation systems. This framework isbased on the assumption that irrigation systemscan be grouped into classes with characteristicsof operational behavior, for which specificguidelines can be proposed for management ofsystems.

3

This report presents the development of ageneric typology for improving irrigation systemsoperations. The resulting typology has beenapplied to irrigation systems in Sri Lanka, and

Clemmens (1987) proposes a terminology tosuit different delivery scheduling methods.Paudyal and Loof (1988) state the need for aclassification, and list several criteria to be takeninto account in the typology of main systems(size, climate, crop, management, ownership,storage). A classification by Ankum (1992a)combines traditional flow criteria (fixed flow,intermittent flow, varied discharge flow) withconsiderations of supply policy (arranged, semi-demand, on-demand) in relation to the type ofirrigation (protective or productive). Wateravailability compared to demand is the maincriterion that Sagardoy, Botrall, and Uittenbogaard(1982) use. They distinguish, among irrigationschemes, those having a supply greater than orequal to the demand, those having a moderatewater deficit, and those having a large waterdeficit.

The domain of irrigation for whichclassifications have been mainly developed iscanal regulation. Burt (1987) presents a practicaltaxonomy of water delivery control with somefeatures not commonly used such as flow versuswater level control and intermediate storage.Ankum (1992b) proposes a flow controlclassification based on a management criterion.Malaterre (1995) gives an updated review ofseveral existing classifications, with somecomments on their strengths and limitations, andpresents a more comprehensive and consistentanalysis applied to 27 regulation methods. Hisclassification is based on four criteria (considered

discriminates four main types. Finally, strategiesfor improving system operations of each type arediscussed.

Review of Irrigation System Classification and PartitioningSchemes

Numerous typologies or classifications forirrigation systems have been proposed recently.This illustrates the current level of interest in thecharacterization of existing or projected irrigationsystems; however, the proposed classifications inthe literature vary significantly. Malaterre (1995),reviewing several proposed classifications,observes that they are not only not clearlystructured, but also based “on misleadingterminologies.” He then suggests that the rules forgoverning the division of categories should beclearly defined and should not overlap oneanother.

A basic irrigation system typology is found in apaper by Bos and Nugteren (1974). The importanceof the canal in the system or its position in theirrigation network or both are the criteria used forthe characterization. This classification divides thecanal network into primary, secondary, tertiary, andquaternary canals. Although in some cases there isa clear relation between the above classificationand the different management operational units,this typology is not intended to definecharacteristics of canal operation within eachmanagement unit. Manz (1987a) proposes a similarclassification but puts greater emphasis on thespecific functions of canals with regard to the waterdelivery. He divides irrigation systems intoquaternary, distributary, and first-order laterals.Another contribution by Manz (1987b), proposesclassification of components on the basis of theirwater management functions: diversion, depthcontrol, transfer, and storage.

4

variables, logic of control, design method, fieldimplementation).

The classification developed by Shanan,Uppal, and Albinson (1986) combines hydraulicfeatures defining control characteristics along themain canal with the physical properties of theoutlets. The physical and hydraulic characteristicsused are: undershot, overshot, free-flow, andsubmerged structures. The approach is developedas a sensitivity analysis to perturbations within theirrigation system. Plusquellec, Burt, and Wolter(1994) give a comprehensive description of thefactors to be taken into account to promotemodern water control. Kosuth (1996) reviews themain characteristics of irrigation canals (size, timedependent-behavior, interactions in operation) and

operational constraints (variety of perturbationsand targets) illustrating the complexity of canaloperation. He then suggests improvements thatcould be derived from modern methodologies suchas information system, simulation models, andautomatic control.

This review of classification systems foundthat most of those applied to irrigation are genericand descriptive but in general only considerinternal factors. Externally imposed constraintssuch as water availability, and institutional andsociological factors are left aside. Further,although these classifications address importantaspects of irrigation, the application of thetypologies is not always clear, except for thosefocusing on flow regulation.

A Typology for Canal Operation

The management of irrigation involves a complexmixture of activities, involving those related toinstitutional and technical constraints. Theobjective of the typology proposed here is toassist irrigation system managers to analyze thecomplex domain of irrigation system operations.

From the generic framework presented belowit is possible to identify the major constraints to,and opportunities for, improved system operations.Practical guidelines for improving canal operationat a specific scheme can be developed from theanalysis.

This typology defines a set of pertinent criteriafor analysis of canal operations and develops aclass structure for each criterion. The matrix ofcriteria and subdivisions can be used forapplication at different levels of irrigationinfrastructure, for example:

• in evaluation of system properties ofimportance in canal operations to assistirrigation managers’ decision making (localmanagement)

• for partition of systems into subsystems withhomogeneous operational characteristics (localmanagement)

• for comparison of the difficulties of operationsbetween irrigation systems to enable improvedallocation of resources (national/regional level)

• for comparison of irrigation systemperformance in relation to the physical,agricultural, and institutional contexts (policymakers and research and developmentinstitutes)

Irrespective of the level of irrigationinfrastructure at which the typology is applied,the operation of a canal is analogous to anindustrial process in that inputs are transformedby operations of machines (canals andstructures) into outputs (fig. 1). In classifying the“process” of canal operations four aspects areconsidered.

First, the internal and external constraints,which affect the variability of inputs to the system

5

Information InformationOPERATION

STRUCTURESetting

INPUT

- upstream level

- upstream discharge

OUTPUT

- downstream discharge

- upstream level

and hence modify the status of the system.Second, the characteristics of the machinesinvolved in the process. The characteristics ofcanal reaches and regulating structures determinehow the system will react to perturbations of theinput and how perturbations caused by theoperation of the “machine” will propagate throughthe system. Third, the impact of the quality ofirrigation service on the system, which enablesthe manager to determine what level ofperformance should be achieved. Finally, themeans or resources (inputs and efforts) required toachieve the required level of performance, giventhe internal and external constraints.

Keeping in mind the four areas ofconsideration, the canal operation typology isdeveloped with four levels of analysis (fig. 2). Thefirst level of analysis considers the technologicalaspects of the irrigation system, seeking todifferentiate the control process; the degree ofoperation; characteristics of the ‘process’machines; and the canal reaches and thestructures that are analogous to “factory andmachines” from industrial processes (Rey,Renault, and Lamacq 1996). This level is referredto as “system and structures.”

The second level focuses on the interface atthe boundaries of the considered system, withparticular regard to the characteristics of water

flows at the boundaries. The system networkbeing considered joins with a number of othernetworks including irrigation, drainage, return-flows,runoff, natural streams, and rivers. This level istherefore referred to as “networks.”

The third level, “water” considers theopportunities and constraints presented by thehydrological context of the system considered,with particular focus on the constraints imposedon canal operations by the relative availabilityand quality of water resources.

At the fourth level, the service provided tousers of the system is analyzed. Again taking theanalogy with the industry, irrigation operations ‘addvalue’ to water by processing water through theirrigation system to transform lower-value water, inrivers or storages, to higher-value water at thepoint of delivery to the user. The quality of thedelivery to the user will, to a large extent, affectthe potential of the user to make effective use ofthe irrigation delivery and therefore the perceivedvalue of the water. This level is referred to as the“consumer.”

In the following sections the generic typologymatrix is developed through an analysis of theconstraints, characteristics, impacts, andresources applicable at each level of analysisdiscussed above.

FIGURE 1.Canal operation: Basic process.

6

FIGURE 2.Framework for canal operation approach.

Considerations on Level of System and Structures

This level is divided into two sublevels. Thesublevel, system addresses the overall physicalcharacteristics of the irrigation system, and thesublevel, structures focuses on the localcharacteristics of structures.

System Sublevel

The matrix of criteria developed for this sublevelis displayed in table 1A, where criteria ofcharacterization are identified, related properties

TABLE 1A.Matrix of criteria: Level of system and structures (system sublevel).

Criterion Properties Classesof characterization related to operation Partition of the criterion

Controlled variable · Flexibility in deliveries Discharge Volume Composite· Regulation of water balance

Type of control · Supply- or demand-driven Upstream Downstream

Type of operation · Amount of effort Manual Automatic Fixed· Hydraulic stability · Manual and · Automatic · Structured· Adjustability gated · Semi-

automatic

SYSTEM & STRUCTURES

Technology

Hydraulic

NETWORKS

Hydrology

WATER

CONSUMER Sociological context

Policy

Hydrological context

Agricultural context

7

reservoirs with closed loop feedback linked to thesupply.

Type of control

Most gravity irrigation systems are based onupstream control. With this technique, all irrigationcontrol structures are set according to thedischarge imposed from the main intake structure.The objective is to maintain the water levelupstream of each cross-regulator to control thebackwater profile in the upstream reach. Thebackwater profile determines the head at offtakesin the upstream reach. The alternative technique,i.e., downstream control, has attracted theattention of engineers and irrigation managersbecause of the potential advantages (Burt 1987;Plusquellec 1988; Plusquellec, Burt, and Wolter1994; Malaterre 1995). Downstream controlautomatically responds to fluctuating downstreamdemands from users and can minimize waterlosses. However, the technique requires horizontalcanal banks and some automated controlstructures.

Type of operation

This parameter combines the adjustability of thecontrol structures and the level of automation ofoperations. Some systems are fully adjustable,i.e., every structure has movable parts that canbe set according to the current situation and alarge range of defined operational targets. Othersystems have no provision for any manipulationat all, such as the so-called ‘structured’ systemsbased on fixed proportional distribution. Therequirements for operation of these systems aresignificantly different. Similarly, there is a rangeof systems where the degree of automationvaries from zero to 100 percent, from fullyautomated to entirely manual operation. Bothaspects, i.e., the demand and the response,partition irrigation systems into different types ofoperation.

for operation listed, and classes defined. Thecriteria considered are: controlled variable, type ofcontrol, and type of operation.

Controlled variable

Operation of irrigation systems may seek tocontrol discharge, volume or a combination ofdischarge and volume. Discharge control is mostcommon.

Discharge control may be direct or, morecommonly, indirect through control of water level.Other systems are designed and operated tocontrol volume in canal reaches. This lattertechnique requires the availability of storage,either on-line storage capacity in the canal itself orin intermediate reservoirs. Available storage isdependent on variation of water depth in thesystem and therefore offtake discharge should besomewhat independent of upstream water level,i.e., outlet structures should have a lowsensitivity.

Dynamic regulation (Rogier, Coeuret, andBrémond 1987) is one example of volume controlmethodology applicable to irrigation canals withoutintermediate storage reservoirs. The mainadvantages of using a volume control technique isthe ability to deliver instantaneous dischargesgreater than the actual transport capacity of thesystem. This property is of great importance tomatch peak flows in nonrotational distribution,e.g., on-demand or free access delivery pattern.Volume control techniques are receiving increasedattention. For example, in India, several examplesof new or modernization projects are implementingvolume control techniques including the SardarSarovar Irrigation Project in Gujarat (Frederiksen1985), the Majalgaon Project in Maharashtra(Rousset 1990), and the Krishna Project inKarnataka (Lele and Patil 1993).

For systems with intermediate storage withinthe canal, the control objectives applied may becomposite, i.e., discharge control for the canalreaches and volume control for intermediate

8

The amount of effort that the agency has toput into the operation of a system is illustrated infigure 3, and the performance that can beachieved and the hydraulic stability are thedependent variables of the type of operation.Systems with fixed structures are stable, requirelittle effort but, by definition, are also less flexible.A fully adjustable and fully automated systemdoes not require more effort than a fixed structuresystem; however it is more flexible. Fullyadjustable systems can become unstable ifimproperly operated (manually or automatically).

Partition of this criterion is finally madeconsidering three classes: manually operatedgated systems, fixed systems, and automatic/semiautomatic systems.

Manually operated gated systems. An intensivemanually operated system is one in which allofftakes and control regulators (the irrigationstructures) are gradually adjustable. Each struc-

ture has to be manipulated by irrigation staff whena change in the flow regime is scheduled oroccurs due to an unscheduled perturbation. Thedifficulty in operating these systems results fromthe numerous structures to be adjusted simulta-neously when the flow regime is changing. A largenumber of structures implies the mobilization ofcorrespondingly large amounts of resources fromthe agency (human and/or transport) for checkingand fine-tuning of control settings. The greater thedensity and sensitivity of structures, the greaterthe difficulty of the control task resulting fromunsteady flow conditions.

Fixed systems. These systems known as ‘struc-tured systems,’ have been largely developed inIndia, Pakistan, and Nepal (Shanan 1992). Waterdelivery is organized around pulses of constantdischarge with a varied frequency. Distribution isproportional and structures are fixed permanentlyat the construction stage (no movable parts).

FIGURE 3.Intensity of efforts for operation as a combination of adjustability and automation.

100

Automatic

Automation (%)50LOW

MEDIUM

HIGH

Manual

Flexibility (%)

Structured

0 50

Intensity of manualintervention required

0

100

9

Although the nonadjustable section of structuredsystems is limited to minor canals with the main/branch canals remaining fully operated, thesavings in resources for manipulation of structurescan be important as shown by Shanan (1992).

Automatic/semiautomatic systems. Hydraulicallyautomated systems are equipped with controlstructures that control water levels in canals overa wide range of discharges. These structures maybe either downstream or upstream control devices.Most commonly, control of water level is achievedby mechanical movements of regulator gates,driven by hydraulic forces without an externalsource of energy or human intervention. Thesetypes of gates include AMIL and AVIS/AVIO gates(Goussard 1987), DACL (Clemmens and Replogle1987), and Danaidean gates (Burt and Plusquellec1990). Variations of water level must still beexpected to occur at locations remote from thecontrol regulator. Hence, hydraulically automaticcross-regulator structures are frequently associ-ated with constant discharge distributors, such asbaffles (Burt and Plusquellec 1990), to enhancethe overall performance.

Semi-fixed systems are connected to fixedstructures with adjustable ones. A good exampleof this type of system is combining long crestedweirs with constant discharge distributors (Walker1987). In these systems on-line dischargefluctuations are converted to limited variations ofwater level at the cross-regulator weir.Furthermore, discharge variation through theofftake is minimized by selection of low sensitivityofftake structures. Operations are limited to theopening and closing of offtake gates andregulation of main intake discharge. Hence, theyalso can be referred to as semiautomaticsystems.

Structures Sublevel

Irrigation systems can be considered toconsist of two types of components, thosefor conveyance and storage of water (canalreaches); and those for control of water depthand deliveries (structures). The matrix ofcriteria for the structures sublevel is given intable 1B.

TABLE 1B.Matrix of criteria: Level of system and structures (structures sublevel).

Criterion Properties Classesof characterization related to operation Partition of the criterion

Adjustment of the structure · Freedom and precision Fixed Open or closed Stepwise Gradualof control

Manipulation of the structure · Amount of efforts Manual Hydraulically automatic Motorized

Control of the structure · Amount of efforts In situ controlled Remotely controlled

Sensitivity of the structure · Accuracy in control Low Medium High

Physical condition · Deviation from design Low Medium Highof the structure

Storage in the reach · Responsiveness No Storage Distributed storage Localized storage· Regulation of water (Intermediate

balance reservoir)

Control along the reach · Depth control Under backwater Under normal depth Under free floweffect

Bed material in the · Seepage losses Lined Unlinedreach · Roughness

10

Control and delivery structures

The properties of irrigation structures ofsignificance to the operation process are: first, thefreedom and precision that can be exerted in theadjustment of the output; second, the effortrequired for manipulation and control; and finally,the hydraulic stability based on the sensitivity ofthe structures. These properties lead to theidentification of the following criteria in thetypology.

Adjustment. The properties, freedom of adjust-ment, and precision of control can be analyzedthrough the classification of structures that Horst(1983) proposes:

1. Fixed:no adjustment is possible, e.g., weirs, orifices,dividers

2. Open/closed:generally, gates for minor canal either fullyopen or closed

3. Stepwise adjustment:regulation by steps, modules, or stoplogs

4. Gradual adjustment:gated orifices, movable weirs

5. Automatic:hydraulically adjusted gates

• For fixed structures, freedom ofadjustment is nil, since output is directlyimposed by ongoing discharge (input), andprecision is meaningless.

• For open/closed structures, freedom andprecision are not relevant.

• For stepwise adjustment, freedom andprecision are limited by the number ofdiscrete steps in the adjustment betweenzero and full capacity.

• For gradually adjustable structures, thedegree of freedom is usually high in that it

is generally possible to choose anysetting between zero and the maximumvalue. However, in practice, the actualsetting will be imposed by the input value.Precision will depend on the increment ofthe mechanical adjustment.

• For hydraulically automatic structures flowconditions are the governing factors. Ingeneral, these structures cannot beadjusted in normal use and, therefore, thedegree of freedom is zero. However, theoperational objective is to maintainconstant output, and precision isdetermined by the range of variations ofoutput resulting from variations of input.

Manipulation and control. The operational propertycharacterized by the manipulation and controlcriteria is related to the amounts of effort requiredto operate the adjustable structures in the canalnetwork. The manipulation criterion distinguishesbetween manual, hydraulical, and motorizedcontrol structures. The control criterion separatesin situ and remotely controlled structures.

Sensitivity. The sensitivity criterion characterizesthe hydraulic stability of the control structures. Forexample, when considering discharge control,overshot structures are three times more sensitivethan undershot structures (assuming head lossesare equal). The difference is due to the exponentof the head loss variable in the discharge equa-tion, 3

2 and 12 , respectively. Due to the effects of

feedback from the downstream side of the struc-ture, the sensitivity is not always simply related tothe available head loss (Renault and Hemakumara1999).

For water depth control, overshot structuresare less sensitive than undershot structures, i.e.,the same perturbation in discharge will result in asmaller change in water depth, three times lessfor overshot structure (weir type) than for anequivalent undershot structure (orifice type).

11

Physical condition. The current physical conditionof structures greatly influences the capabilities foradjustment, manipulation and control, and thesensitivity of the structures to perturbations,irrespective of the properties at the design stage.

This property is site-specific and is largelydependent on the maintenance of the system andthe discipline of the users. The physicalconditions of structures are highly variable.

Conveyance and storage structures: Reach

Canal reaches are considered here as structuresfor conveyance and/or storage of water. Thecriteria of significance for operation of thesestructures are storage, control, and bed material.

Storage. Storage in the canal reach has a directimpact on the speed at which the system canrespond to changes in flow conditions. Theresponse of a reach to any scheduled or unsched-uled perturbation to the input is related to thetopography of the canal section. Double BankCanals (DBK), Single Bank Canals (SBK), andcanal reaches with Intermediate Reservoirsrespond differently to such perturbations.

On-line storage acts in two contradictoryfashions that are important in terms of the timelag involved in operations. On the one hand,storage increases the time lag between issue and

delivery by lowering the velocity and increasingattenuation of the transition wave, and on theother, it allows local adjustment of discharge inadvance of the wave, considerably reducingoperational time lags. The second property relatedto this criterion is the regulation of water balanceat subsystem level. Intermediate or on-line storagealong a canal can be utilized as a partition pointto separate different units for operation as theymitigate fluctuations from the upstream operations.

Control. Canal water depth is controlled by back-water effects from cross-regulators. Depth de-creases with distance upstream and reaches aconstant depth when normal flow depth is at-tained. Backwater control is interrupted whereversuper-critical flow velocities occur. Super-criticalflow is commonly found at cross-regulators withfree-flow conditions downstream. This criterionconsiders reaches in three situations: within thebackwater effect, operating at normal depth, andfree-flow or super-critical flow.

Bed material. Seepage losses from canal reachescan be a significant factor in system operations.Bed material is selected as an indicator of seep-age losses. It separates unlined canals havinghigher and more variable seepage losses fromlined canals having lower and, generally, almostconstant losses.

Considerations on Level of Networks

Irrigation systems do not operate in isolation, butrather within the context of surrounding hydraulicsystems. This level of the typology identifies theboundary conditions for irrigation systems. Itconsiders perturbations and conditions for waterflows at the upstream, internal (lateral), and

downstream boundaries of the system orsubsystem. The characteristics evaluated arerelated to the different networks that impact thescheme, i.e., water sources, irrigation, drainage,runoff, and return flow. The matrix of criteria forthis level is given in table 2.

12

Type of Supply

The first criterion is the type of supply, andconsiders the properties of variability and thedegree of control of the source of supply. Twotypes of supply are considered first: reservoir anddiversion. Second, each type is subdivided intosurface water and groundwater reservoirs, andriver and canal diversion, respectively.

In the case of a surface reservoir, freedom ofcontrol and stability of supply are generally highbecause, at least in the short term, wateravailability is not limited and the depth of water inthe reservoir is steady. For groundwater reservoir,a similar statement can be made although theinstant available discharge may be sometimesmore influenced by locally variable hydraulicproperties than by the capacity of the reservoir.For river diversion, the freedom of control isgenerally lower as discharge to be diverteddepends on instantaneous water availability.Furthermore, short-term changes in the river levelcan lead to high variations in the dischargeentering the system, unless the diversion isequipped with regulation facilities; hence, thedegree of freedom and stability of flows divertedfrom a river are considered as low.

Systems with significant on-line storagecapacity (intermediate storages or large canalsections), can also be classified under the

category ‘reservoir,’ provided the available storagecan compensate for fluctuations in upstreamdischarge entering the system while continuing tomeet downstream requirements.

Diversions may also be considered when canalsubsystems are analyzed. Two types of subsystemdiversions can be considered: series and branchdiversions. In a series subsystem, the dischargecoming from the upstream subsystem must beaccepted without modification and, therefore, thedegree of control is low, unless there is a storage inthe upstream reach. In the case of branchsubsystems, the degree of control is generallymoderate. The discharge at branch diversion pointscan vary to some extent without disrupting the flowof other downstream subsystems.

Layout

The occurrence of lateral flows to the canal systemhas a direct impact on the variability of on-linedischarge. To capture this effect the layout oflateral flows criteria are used to distinguishnetworks which have return-flow and/or runoff fromthose which do not. Return-flow occurs alongirrigation systems when overtopping from spill alonglaterals and from fields is returning to the maincanal or into other laterals. Direct runoff to thecanal typically occurs in the case of single bankcanals and where runoff ditches are present.

TABLE 2.Matrix of criteria: Level of networks.

Criterion of Properties Classes:characterization related to operation Partition of the criterion

Source of · Variability Reservoir Diversionsupply · Degree of control Surface waterGroundwater River Canal Branch

reservoir reservoir series canal

Return flow (RF) Non-return flow (NRF)

Layout of · Variability of on- Single bank canal (SBK) Double bank canal (DBK)lateral flows line discharge with runoff without runoff

Runoff ditches No ditches

13

Operation of a canal system is largely controlledby the hydrological context of the scheme. In thistypology this context is described in the watercharacteristic. Three criteria of characterization areconsidered: upstream context, downstreamcontext, and impacts. The matrix of criteria forthis level is given in table 3.

Upstream Context

Two characteristics are considered in this level,water availability and water quality.

Water availability

The abundance or shortage of water can make alarge difference in the performance targets thatmanagers should aim to achieve. Where water isabundant, relative to demand, the distributiontargets may include a factor of oversupply tosimplify operations. Operations may acceptoversupply and excess losses, depending on theability of downstream systems to accommodatethem. When water is insufficient to meet

demands, operations have to be more precise.Operational targets have to be defined moreaccurately and implementation of distributioncorrespondingly more accurate. In the Valenciascheme (Plusquellec 1988), three levels of wateravailability are considered: abundance; ordinary orlow; and extraordinary drought. Depending on thesituation, distribution rules vary.

In this typology, three water availabilityconditions are considered: abundance; shortages;and seasonal variability.

The notion of abundance in water must alsobe relativized in the light of a water basinperspective. Where any complacency for operationmay lead to depriving downstream users fromgetting enough water, ‘abundance’ may be simplysuppressed from the vocabulary.

Water quality

Two aspects of water quality are of concern, thepresence of solids; and the presence of chemicalpollutants.

Sediments in water entering the canal systemare a serious problem affecting the physical

Considerations on Level of Water

TABLE 3.Matrix of criteria: Level of water.


Upstream context · Water availability Abundance Shortage Varying

(hydrological context) · Water quality (seasonally)

Sedimentation No sedimentation

Salinity No salinity

Downstream context · Additional water Recycling systems No recycling

availability

Conjunctive use No conjunctive use

Impacts · Environmental impacts Salinity hazard No salinity hazard

Logging hazard No logging hazard

· Health impacts Stable flow Fluctuating flow

14

was estimated to have reached 300,000 in 1992(Vander Velde and Kijne 1992). The density of wellsis inversely related to the reliability of the surfacenetwork in delivering water to farmers (Strosser andKuper 1994) and groundwater was found tocontribute above 50 percent of the crop waterrequirement for some watercourses located at thetail end of distributary canals.

Conjunctive use provides flexibility in irrigationtiming, and groundwater is frequently used tocompensate for the rigidity of operations and/orpoor performance of surface delivery systems.Where additional supplies from groundwater arelimited, because of high pumping cost or lowquality of water, more attention to supplyingsurface water is required than in areas wherepumping can compensate for unreliable supply.

Impacts

Environmental impacts

Increases in soil and water salinity andwaterlogging of areas are serious environmentalhazards related to irrigation in arid regions. Clearly,operation of irrigation systems has to take intoconsideration the spatial distribution of areasprone to salinization and waterlogging and shouldprovide an adapted water service. Partitioning ofthe irrigated area to identify areas where additionalfresh surface water should be provided to leachsalts from the soil, areas in which percolationshould be minimized to prevent saline groundwaterfrom rising into root zones, etc., is part of aneffective water management.

Health impacts

It is well known that irrigation, despite its positiveeffects on the economy and income of farmers,has also brought some negative impacts on healththrough vector-borne diseases. The continuouspresence of water in canals over long periodsmodifies the reproductive cycle and prevalence of

characteristics of the conveyance system andcontrol structures. The impacts of sedimentationnormally become apparent in the long term.Therefore, sedimentation is normally a concern formaintenance rather than for operations. However,sedimentation influences the design of somesystems that are equipped with special structuresdesigned to limit sediments entering the system,control sedimentation at sensitive points, and/or toshare the sedimentation equitably. In somesystems, operations are suspended during periodsof high sediment load in the river system.

Chemical pollutants may be significant whereindustrial or municipal water use is high upstreamof the irrigation system. Salinity of the watersource may be of concern where return flows ofupstream irrigation systems are a high proportionof the available resource.

Downstream Context

Reuse of water

Reuse of water draining from irrigated areas canbe an important factor in determining watermanagement objectives. In Sri Lanka, forexample, cascade systems consist of severaltanks and command areas, which are highlyinterconnected through both surface water andgroundwater return flows. Losses in one placebecome inputs at some downstream location. Therecycling of water in this way substantially easesthe upstream operational task by accommodatingany excess distribution.

Conjunctive use of water

As pumping technology has become moreaccessible (O’Mara 1988), conjunctive use ofsurface water and groundwater has become morepopular. In India, the annual growth of pumpingequipment use is about 13 percent (Moench 1996).In Pakistan Punjab, the use of pumping equipmentis fast increasing. The number of shallow tube wells

15

disease vectors. The link between systemsoperation and impacts on health can be strong.

Fluctuations in canal water depth and flow areconsidered by many to comprise a highly positivemeasure to reduce vector breeding (Hunter et al.1993). There is a clear conflict between thedesirable operations from health considerations

and the needs of irrigation management in termsof operational fluctuations in the system.Fluctuations of flows for health are generally inconflict with the desire for steady flow conditionsin the canals to simplify operations. Methods toresolve this conflict require further investigationsto test new techniques of operation.

Considerations on Level of Consumer

This level of the typology, consumer, focuses onthe user and the intended water service. Fivecriteria for characterization are considered: use ofwater, distribution policy, performance ofdistribution, sociological aspects, and institutionalaspects. The matrix of criteria for this level isgiven in table 4.

Use of Water

In many irrigation systems water is used for manyother purposes as well. The multiple uses of waterare increasingly integrated in irrigationmanagement objectives, whether or not theseother uses had been considered at the design

stage. Domestic uses, fisheries, environment andrecreation, and hydropower and industrial uses aresome of the more important other uses of water.

Rules for operation of multipurpose systemsshould be based on clearly defined priorities andsharing between users. However, this can becomplex as conflicts arise when setting targets forthe different uses.

Distribution Policy

The distribution policy, whether supply is to befully flexible, highly rigid, or some intermediatestrategy, is the main determinant of the quality ofservice provided. Fully flexible and rigid patterns

TABLE 4.Matrix of criteria: Level of consumer.


Use of water Priorities and sharing Single use Multiple usebetween users

Distribution policy Distribution mode Supply-based On-request Free access(arranged)

Performance of Performance of High Medium Lowdistribution operation

Sociological aspects Hydraulic stability Discipline No discipline

Institutional aspects Management setup Headworks Main system Distribution system

16

(hydrological context) and the demand for irrigation(agricultural context). For instance, changes inallocation and distribution priorities can be relatedto water shortages when the set of prioritiesdefines the policy for sharing the available wateramong consumers. Some systems define prioritieson the basis of crop values (high /low), or water-holding capacity of the soil, or on variable waterrights.

For this typology the performance ofdistribution is classified and is spatially distributedon the basis of the water service, i.e., the agreedallocation policy. The performance of distribution isclassified as high, medium, and low.

Sociological Aspect

Numerous sociological factors are important forirrigation system management. However, for thistypology for system operations, only one aspect isconsidered, namely, the level of disciplinedisplayed by consumers with respect tounauthorized operation of the system.Unscheduled operations by undisciplinedconsumers result in modification of the systemsettings, generally penalize other consumers, andmay even jeopardize the safety of the system.

Two classes of discipline are included in thetypology, medium to high, and low to none.

Institutional Aspect

Among the many institutional aspects of relevanceto irrigation management, this typology considersonly the conceptual framework for watermanagement. Several different organizations maybe involved with water management at variouslevels of the water delivery system, from the mainwater source down to the application in farmers’fields. The water management framework issubject to modification. For instance, the recenttrend for transfer of management responsibilities

are the extremes of a wide range (Clemmens1987). Where cropping patterns and climaticconditions or any other important agriculturalaspects are highly variable, greater flexibility inthe delivery pattern is required (Steiner and Walter1993). For farmers, the most desirable policywould be to provide a highly flexible supply (freeaccess); however, this requires the mostexpensive infrastructure. Therefore, it is generallynecessary to agree with a standard of service,which is affordable by the consumers. Three majorclassifications of distribution strategies areconsidered here, supply-based, on-request, andfree access or on-demand.

The water delivery pattern has a major impacton the efforts to be taken by managers foroperation of the irrigation system. Flexibilitywithout automatic facilities implies large numbersof manual manipulations of regulator settings.Furthermore, flexible deliveries result in creatingeffectively continuous unsteady flow conditions inthe distribution network. Too great a flexibility canhave negative impacts on the stability ofdeliveries and may even negate the benefits offlexible scheduling (Palmer, Clemmens, andDedrick 1989). The application of highertechnology control systems can overcome suchproblems.

For rice cultivation, or for mono-croppedsystems, irrigation systems operate with a morestable pattern of demands and are, therefore, lesscomplex to operate. However, the progressivediversification to cash crops, other than rice, islikely to result in increasing demands for moreflexibility in operation of irrigation systems allowingfor more fluctuations of deliveries.

Performance of Distribution

A set of priorities for allocation and distribution ofwater is identified for many irrigation systems.These priorities are usually based on acomparison between the available water supply

17

to user organizations has modified the conceptualframework for water management, as in Mexico(Johnson 1997) and elsewhere. The balancebetween agency and user responsibilities is animportant aspect, which must be considered whenorganizing operational procedures.

supply, and layout of lateral flows. The lattercriterion is further subdivided into two sub-criteria:return flow (yes/no) and runoff (yes/no) linkedmainly to the type of canal (single/double bankcanals).

However, it must be pointed out that ifsubsystems had been studied, rather than entireschemes, greater variability of some criteria wouldhave been identified, for example recyclingfacilities and double bank canals appear as morevariable and, therefore, more significant atsubsystem level than at system level.

Thus with a total of 4 criteria and sub-criteriaselected at system level, and two classes each,16 theoretical system types can be defined. Noinstances of five of the defined types were foundin the survey of systems in Sri Lanka.Furthermore, after elimination of classes with afew instances, all 64 systems were classified intofour main types. These types appear to be quitedifferent with respect to the probability ofperturbations occurring, the likely behavior inresponse to perturbations, and finally the difficultyin operating the distribution systems. They are:

• Reservoir and localized storage system: Themain source of supply is a reservoir; it has alocalized storage (intermediate reservoirs),single bank canals, without return flowentering the system.

• Reservoir without localized storage system:The main source of supply is a reservoir; no

The typology distinguishes three levels of theirrigation network for analysis of managementinstitutions, namely: main source and headworks,main conveyance system, and distributionsystem.

Application of the Generic Typology

The generic typology, defined above, includes atotal of 21 criteria proposed for consideration whenreengineering the process of irrigation systemoperations. Although the partitioning of eachcriterion has been kept minimal to avoid too greata number of classes, it is clear that a strictapplication of the typology, as defined, leads tothe identification of huge numbers of potentialtypes of systems, which is of no practical value.However, the practical significance of eachcriterion has to be considered with reference tothe context of each application. Although thisstudy strongly promotes the need to recognize theheterogeneity of irrigation systems it is necessaryto recognize that for many of the criteria, systemsmay be considered as being homogeneous. Andfurthermore, some criteria may be totally irrelevantin a particular context. Therefore, to be useful fora specific application a typology should result in avery limited number of types of irrigation systems.

In Sri Lanka, the generic typology has beenapplied to the classification of 64 major/mediumirrigation systems maintained by the IrrigationDepartment. This application has shown that inthis context the irrigation systems arehomogeneous for the large majority of thedocumented criteria (18 out of the 21 criteria).Only three criteria were sufficient to enable a cleardistinction of the operational characteristics of thestudied systems. Table 5 summarizes the resultsof the classification and identifies the mainpartitioning criteria, namely: storage, type of

18

TABLE 5.Typology matrix application to Sri Lankan irrigation systems (in gray characteristics).

Level of typology Criterion of Identified classescharacterization

Controlled variable Discharge Volume Composite

Type of control Upstream Downstream

Type of operation Manual Automatic FixedManual and gated · Automatic Structured

· Semiautomatic

Adjustment (structure) Fixed Open or closed Stepwise Gradual

Manipulation Manual Hydraulically Motorizedautomatic

System Control In situ controlled Remotely controlled

and structures Sensitivity No information

Physical condition Low Medium High

Storage No storage Distributed Localized storage(DBK) storage (Intermediate

(SBK) reservoir)

Control Variable

Backwater - normal depth - free-flow

Bed material Lined Unlined

Type of supply (*) Surface reservoir(**) River diversion

Return flow (RF) Non-return flow (NRF)

Networks Layout of lateral flows (SBK) (DBK)with runoff without runoff

Runoff ditches No ditches

Upstream context Abundance Shortage Varying(seasonally)

Concern about sedimentation Low concern aboutand salinity sedimentation and salinity

Water Downstream context VariableRecycling systems (***)

Conjunctive use No conjunctive use

Salinity hazard No salinity hazard

Impacts Waterlogging hazard Minimum waterlogging

Stable flow Fluctuating flow

Use of water Single use Multiple use

Distribution policy Supply-based type On-request Free-accessfor rice field (arranged)

Consumer Performance of High Medium Lowdistribution

Sociological aspect Medium to high/discipline No discipline

Institutional aspect State agency for headworks and main systemsParticipatory management for distribution system

(*) Canal branch and series diversion apply to the subsystem; thus they are not considered in the survey.

(**) No groundwater supply for irrigation.

(***) Recycling criterion applies to the subsystem; thus it is not considered in the survey.

SBK = Single Bank Canals.DBK = Double Bank Canals.

19

localized storage (intermediate reservoir), withsingle bank canals, and without any returnflow entering the system.

• Diversion river system: Main source of supplyis from a diversion (river), it has single bankcanals, with or without localized storage andreturn flows.

• Return flow system: This type groups irrigationsystems with return flows coming back intothe system, having single bank main canals,fed by reservoir or diversion, and with orwithout localized storage.

The first type is the least complex system foroperation. The occurrence of perturbation on

discharge is low as this type of system is fed bya reservoir, and has little or no lateral inflows. Theopportunities for operation are good as on-linestorage increases the efficiency and the reliabilityof operation (minimize fluctuations and waterlosses). On the other hand, systems with a riverdiversion supply, with lateral inflows from returnflow and surface runoff, and with no on-linestorage capacity are much more complex tooperate. Perturbation occurrence and magnitudeare high, and the canal has little flexibility to copewith these. More detailed descriptions of theapplication of this typology and the developmentof revised operational strategies will be reported inforthcoming papers.

The analysis presented in this paper defines atypology of irrigation systems specifically orientedto analysis of system operations. The typology isorganized in four conceptual levels defined as:system and structures, networks, water, andconsumer. Each level includes a consistent set ofcriteria for differentiating system characteristics.Some criteria are global, i.e., they can be appliedto a system as a whole. Some criteria arespatially distributed and the aggregation of thecriteria depends on the spatial variability within thesystem analyzed. Other criteria are intermediateand can be used to partition a particular irrigationdomain into homogeneous units.

The application of the proposed typologyshould be seen as an approach similar to the use

of Geographical Information System (GIS). Foreach criterion, a layer of information displays thepartitioning of the considered domain with respectto the criteria. Some criteria result in classificationof spatial units such as command areas, drainedbasins, etc., whereas others define points alongthe irrigation network, e.g., break points in waterdepth control. Layers of information within each ofthe four conceptual levels can be overlaid toidentify units with effectively homogeneousoperational characteristics. However, the overlayprocess has to be context-specific and local orregional features of special interest must be takeninto consideration when determining the weightageto be given to each criterion.

Summary and Perspectives

20

Literature Cited

Ankum, P. 1992a. Desired behaviour of irrigation systems. In Advances in planning, design and management ofirrigation systems as related to sustainable land use, ed. Jan Feyen, Emmanuel Mwendera, and Moussa Badji,1:245-254. Proceedings of an International Conference held in Belgium. September 14-17, 1992. Belgium: Centerfor Irrigation Engineering (CIE).

Ankum, P. 1992b. Classification of flow control systems for irrigation. In Advances in planning, design and manage-ment of irrigation systems as related to sustainable land use, ed. Jan Feyen, Emmanuel Mwendera, and MoussaBadji, 1:265-274. Proceedings of an International Conference held in Belgium. September 14-17, 1992. Belgium:Center for Irrigation Engineering (CIE).

Bos, M. G., and J. Nugteren. 1974. On irrigation efficiencies. Publication 19. Wageningen: International LivestockResearch Institute.

Burt, C. M. 1987. Overview of canal control concepts. In Planning, operation, rehabilitation and automation of irrigationwater delivery systems, ed. Darell D. Zimbelman, 81-109. Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the Irrigationand Drainage Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Oregon Section, July 28-30,1987. Portland, Oregon: ASCE.

Burt, C. M., and H. L. Plusquellec. 1990. Water delivery control. In Management of farm irrigation systems, ed. G.J.Hoffman, T. A. Howell, and K.H. Solomon, 373-423. USA: American Society of Agricultural Engineers.

Clemmens, A. J. 1987. Delivery system schedules and required capacities. In Planning, operation, rehabilitation andautomation of irrigation water delivery systems, ed. Darell D. Zimbelman, 18-34. Proceedings of a Symposiumsponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the OregonSection, July 28-30, 1987. Portland, Oregon: ASCE.

Clemmens Albert J., and John A. Replogle. 1987. Controlled-leak methods for water level control. In Planning,operation, rehabilitation and automation of irrigation water delivery systems, ed. Darell D. Zimbelman,133-154.Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage Division of the American Society of CivilEngineers and the Oregon Section, July 28-30, 1987. Portland, Oregon: ASCE.

Frederiksen, H. D. 1985. Design for operation and maintenance: A case study. Sardar Sarovar Irrigation Project.Gujarat, India. Paper presented at World Bank Irrigation Seminar, January 1985.

Goussard, Jean. 1987. Neyrtec automatic equipment for irrigation canals. In Planning, operation, rehabilitation andautomation of irrigation water delivery systems, ed. Darell D. Zimbelman,121-132. Proceedings of a Symposiumsponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the OregonSection, July 28-30, 1987. Portland, Oregon: ASCE.

Horst, L. 1983. Irrigation systems. Internal report. The Netherlands: Wageningen Agricultural University.

Hunter J. M., L. Rey., K. Y. Chu., E. O. Adekolu-John, and K. E. Mot. 1993. Parasitic diseases in water resourcesdevelopment. The need for intersectoral negotiation. Geneva: World Health Organization.

Indian National Committee on Irrigation and Drainage (INCID). 1994. Guide for preparation of plans of operation andmaintenance of irrigation systems in India. India: INCID.

International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (ICID). 1989. Planning the management, operation, and mainte-nance of irrigation and drainage systems. A guide for the preparation of strategies and manuals. World BankTechnical Paper No.99. USA: The World Bank.

Johnson S.H. III. 1997. Irrigation management transfer: Decentralizing public irrigation in Mexico. In Deregulation,decentralization and privatization in irrigation: State functions move to the free market, 40-63. Eleventh Interna-tional Irrigation Symposium, 1997. DVWK Bulletin No. 20.

21

Kosuth, Pascal. 1996. Remote control and management of irrigation delivery systems. In Sustainability of irrigatedagriculture, ed. L. S. Pereira, 493-512. The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

Lele, S. N., and R. K. Patil. 1993. Promoting participation in ecosystem management, Pune, India. Innovations in canalmanagement and operation for better water deliveries. In Maintenance and operation of irrigation/drainage schemesfor improved performance, 7-1 to 7-18. Paper presented to the Asian Regional Symposium held in Beijing, China.24-27 May, 1993.

Malaterre, Pierre-Olivier. 1995. Regulation of irrigation canals, characterization and classification. Irrigation and DrainageSystems 9: 297-327.

Manz, David H. 1987a. Terminology for describing irrigation conveyance systems. Journal of Irrigation and DrainageEngineering 113(2):142-154. (May 1987)

Manz, David H. 1987b. Classification of irrigation water conveyance system components. Journal of Irrigation andDrainage Engineering 113(4):479-496. (November 1987)

Moench, M. 1996. Groundwater policy: Issues and alternatives in India. IIMI Country Paper, India 2. Colombo, SriLanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.

O’Mara, Gerald T. 1988. The efficient use of surface water and groundwater in irrigation: An overview of the issues. InEfficiency in irrigation. The conjunctive use of surface and groundwater resources, ed. Gerald T. O’Mara 1-17. AWorld Bank Symposium. USA: The World Bank.

Palmer, Joel D., Albert J. Clemmens, and Allen R. Dedrick. 1989. Several sources of nonuniformity in irrigation deliveryflows. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering 115(6):920-937. (December 1989)

Paudyal G. N., and R. Loof. 1988. Improvement of irrigation system operation. Research Report 211. Bangkok,Thailand: Agricultural, Land and Water Development Program, Division of Water Resources and Engineering,Asian Institute of Technology.

Plusquellec, Hervé. 1988. Improving the operation of canal irrigation systems. An audiovisual presentation. USA: TheWorld Bank.

Plusquellec, H. L., C. M. Burt, and H. W. Wolter. 1994. Modern water control in irrigation. Concepts, issues, andapplications. World Bank Technical Paper 246. Irrigation and Drainage Series. USA: The World Bank.

Renault, Daniel, and H. M. Hemakumara. 1997. Irrigation offtakes sensitivity. Journal of Irrigation and DrainageEngineering: ASCE (In press).

Rey, J., D. Renault, and S. Lamacq. 1996. Vision “industrielle” de la gestion de l’eau sur un périmètre irrigué. HouilleBlanche 339:70-75.

Rogier, Daniel, Charles Coeuret, and Jean Brémond. 1987. Dynamic regulation on the Canal De Provence. In Plan-ning, operation, rehabilitation and automation of irrigation water delivery systems, ed. Darell D. Zimbelman, 180-191. Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the Irrigation and Drainage Division of the American Society ofCivil Engineers and the Oregon Section, July 28-30, 1987. Portland, Oregon: ASCE.

Rousset, Pierre. 1990. Majalgaon Irrigation Project (Maharashtra): Implementation of volumetric allocation and rota-tional delivery. Washington D.C.: The World Bank. Duplicated.

Sagardoy, J. A., A. Botrall, and G. O. Uittenbogaard. 1982. Organization, operation and maintenance of irrigationschemes. FAO Irrigation & Drainage Paper 40. Rome: FAO.

Seckler, David. 1996. The new era of water resources management: From “dry” to “wet” water savings. ResearchReport 1. Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Shanan, Leslie. 1992. Planning and management of irrigation systems in developing countries. Agricultural WaterManagement (October 1992) 22(1+2). The Netherlands: Elsevier.

22

Shanan L., B. K. Uppal, and B. Albinson. 1986. Guideline 5: Layout and design. In Design and operating guidelines forstructured irrigation networks. Fourth Draft. Irrigation II Division, South Asia Projects Department. Duplicated.

Skogerboe, Gaylord V. and Gary P. Merkley. 1996. Irrigation maintenance and operations learning process. HighlandsRanch, Colorado, USA: Water Resources Publications, LLC.

Steiner, Roy A., and Michael F. Walter. 1993. The effect of allocation schedules on the performance of irrigationsystems with different levels of spatial diversity and temporal variability. Agricultural Water Management 23: 213-224. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V.

Strosser, Pierre, and Marcel Kuper. 1994. Water markets in the Fordwah/Eastern Sadiqia area: An answer to perceiveddeficiencies in canal water supplies? Working Paper No.30. Colombo, Sri Lanka: International Irrigation Manage-ment Institute.

Uittenbogaard, G. O., and N. R. Kuiper. 1993. Improved operation strategies in India. Paper presented to the AsianRegional Symposium on Maintenance and Operation of Irrigation/Drainage Schemes for Improved Performanceheld in Beijing, People’s Republic of China, 24-27 May 1993. HR Wallingford.

Vander Velde, Edward J., and Jacob W. Kijne. 1992. Salinity and irrigation operations in Punjab, Pakistan: Are theremanagement options? Paper presented at the Workshop on IIMI-India Collaborative Research in Irrigation Man-agement. 13-14 February, 1992. New Delhi, India. Pakistan: International Irrigation Management Institute.

Walker, Robert E. 1987. Long crested weirs. In Planning, operation, rehabilitation and automation of irrigation waterdelivery systems, ed. Darell D. Zimbelman, 110-120. Proceedings of a Symposium sponsored by the Irrigation andDrainage Division of the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Oregon Section, July 28-30, 1987. Portland,Oregon: ASCE.

Research Reports

16. Irrigation Management Transfer in Mexico: A Strategy to Achieve Irrigation DistrictSustainability. Sam H. Johnson III, 1997.

17. Design and Practice of Water Allocation Rules: Lessons from Warabandi in Pakistan’sPunjab. D. J. Bandaragoda, 1998.

18. Impact Assessment of Rehabilitation Intervention in the Gal Oya Left Bank. Upali A.Amarasinghe, R. Sakthivadivel, and Hammond Murray-Rust, 1998.

19. World Water Demand and Supply, 1990 to 2025: Scenarios and Issues. David Seckler,Upali Amarasinghe, David Molden, Rhadika de Silva, and Randolph Barker, 1998.

20. Indicators for Comparing Performance of Irrigated Agricultural Systems. David J.Molden, R. Sakthivadivel, Christopher J. Perry, Charlotte de Fraiture, and Wim H.Kloezen, 1998.

21. Need for Institutional Impact Assessment in Planning Irrigation System Modernization.D. J. Bandaragoda, 1998.

22. Assessing Irrigation Performance with Comparative Indicators: The Case of the AltoRio Lerma Irrigation District, Mexico. Wim H. Kloezen and Carlos Garcés-Restrepo,1998.

23. Performance of Two Transferred Modules in the Lagunera Region: Water Relations.G. Levine, A. Cruz, D. Garcia, C. Garcés-Restrepo, and S. Johnson III, 1998.

24. Farmer Response to Rationed and Uncertain Irrigation Supplies. C. J. Perry and S.G. Narayanamurthy, 1998.

25. Impacts of Colombia’s Current Irrigation Management Transfer Program. Douglas L.Vermillion and Carlos Garcés-Restrepo, 1998.

26. Use of Historical Data as a Decision Support Tool in Watershed Management: ACase Study of the Upper Nilwala Basin in Sri Lanka. W. K. B. Elkaduwa and R.Sakthivadivel, 1998

27. Performance Evaluation of the Bhakra Irrigation System, India, Using AdvancedInformation Technologies. Wim Bastiaanssen and D. Molden, 1998.

28. Performance Evaluation of the Bhakra Irrigation System, India, Using Remote Sensingand GIS Techniques. R. Sakthivadivel, S. Thiruvengadachari, Upali Amerasinghe,W.G.M. Bastiaanssen, and David Molden, 1999.

29. Generic Typology for Irrigation Systems Operation. D. Renault and G.G.A.Godaliyadda, 1999.

Research Report

International Water Management Institute

INTERNATIONAL WATER MANAGEMENT INSTITUTEP O Box 2075, Colombo, Sri Lanka

Tel (94-1) 867404 • Fax (94-1) 866854 • E-mail [email protected] Home Page http: //www.cgiar.org/iimi

ISSN 1026-0862ISBN 92-9090-372-4

29

Generic Typology for IrrigationSystems Operation


generic typology for irrigation systems operation

Documents