IRRIGATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CASE OF

KOG DAM AND IRRIGATION PROJECT

BY:

AYALEW AYTENEW TSEHAY

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDY

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE IN

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING

JUNE 2015
IRRIGATION SYSTEM PERFORMANCE EVALUATION: CASE OF
KOG DAM AND IRRIGATION PROJECT

A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF WATER

RESOURCE AND IRRIGATION ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDY OF

ARBA MINCH UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS

FOR THE DEGREE OFMASTER OF SCIENCE IN

IRRIGATION AND DRAINAGE ENGINEERING

BY:

AYALEW AYTENEW TSEHAY

Major advisor: Nigussie Teklie (PhD)

Co-advisor: Zeleke Agidie (PhD)

JUNE 2015

i
DECLARATION

I, Ayalew Aytenew Tsehay, declare that this thesis is my own original work
and that has not been presented and will not be presented by others and me
to any university for similar or any other degree award.

Signature______________

ii
APPROVAL PAGE
This thesis entitled “Irrigation system performance evaluation: Case of Koga dam
and irrigation project” approved by advisors, examiners, department head, Coordinator
and director of graduate studies in the partial fulfillment of the requirement for degree of
master of Science in irrigation and drainage engineering.

Submitted By:

Ayalew Aytenew _______________ ____________

MSc Student Signature date

Approved By:

1. Nigussie T. (PhD) ______________ ____________

Major Advisor Signature date

2. Zeleke A. (PhD) _____________ ____________

Co-Advisor Signature date

3. Mr. Alemayehu Kassaye ________________ ___________

Department head Signature date

4. Mekonnen A. (PhD) -------------------------- _______________

Internal Examiner Signature date

5. Moltot Z. (PhD) _________________ __________

External Examiner Signature date

6. Mr. Habtamu T. ---------------------------- ------------------

Chairperson Signature date

7. Damelash W. ---------------------------- ------------------

PG Coordinator Signature date

8. ANTO ARKATO ---------------------------- ------------------

SGS coordinator (PhD) signature date

iii
List of Abbreviations
ADSWE Amhara design and super vision enterprise

ANRS Amhara National Regional State

UBWIR Bahir dar university Blue Nile Water institute researchers

FDREMW Federal democratic republic Ethiopia ministry of water resource

ID Irrigation and drainage

IDI Irrigation and Drainage Infrastructures

IHD Irrigation, hydraulics and drainage

IHDDR Irrigation, hydraulics and drainage directorate researchers

IIA Irrigation and Irrigated Agriculture

IID Irrigated and Irrigation Agriculture

IIMI International Irrigation Management Institute

KDIP Koga dam and Irrigation Project

ME Monitoring and Evaluation

MOM Management, Operation and Maintenance

P ME Participatory Monitoring and Evaluation

PA Performance Assessment

PE Performance evaluation

ARWS Annual Relative Water Supply

ARIS Annual Relative irrigation supply

WDC Water delivery capacity

WEB Water and Energy Bureau

WRDA Water resource development authority

iv
Table of Contents
APPROVAL PAGE ......................................................................................................... iii
List of Abbreviations ........................................................................................................ iv
LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................ vi
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................vii
1. INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background ................................................................................................................ 1
1.2. Statement of the problem .......................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objective .................................................................................................................... 4
1.3.1. General objective ................................................................................................ 4
1.4. Significance of the study ........................................................................................... 4
2.1 Indicators of irrigation performances ......................................................................... 6
2.2 Properties of performance indicators ......................................................................... 6
2.3. Development of indicators to monitor and evaluate the performance of irrigation
systems ............................................................................................................................. 8
2.4 Performance and bench marking: ............................................................................... 9
2.5 Relationships between performance assessment (PA) and bench marking (BM) ..... 9
2.6 Performance gaps existing in irrigation management .............................................. 10
3. METHODS AND MATERIALS ................................................................................ 12
3.1 Methods .................................................................................................................... 12
3.1.1 Description of the study area ............................................................................. 12
3.1.2 Secondary and Primary data collection ............................................................. 14
3.1.3 Laboratory analysis............................................................................................ 15
3.2 Materials ................................................................................................................... 15
3.3 Data analysis ............................................................................................................ 15
3.3.1 Crop water requirements ................................................................................... 15
3.3.2 Performance indicators ...................................................................................... 16
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................................................. 19
4.1 Irrigation water delivery or water use indicators ..................................................... 19
4.2 Agricultural performance indicators ........................................................................ 21
5. CONCLUSIONS ......................................................................................................... 28
6. RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................. 29
7. REFERENECES .......................................................................................................... 31

v
LIST OF TABLES
Table 4.1.1irrigation water demands and canal water delivery of the four blocks ............ 19
Table 4.2: Results of ARWS, ARIS, Reliability, adequacy and equity ............................. 19
Table 4. 3: Area % of crops grown in four blocks (year 2007E.c) .................................... 21
Table 4.4: Results of agricultural performance indicators ................................................. 21
Table 4. 5 Reliability, irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each
tertiary unit in kudimi ........................................................................................................ 22
Table 4.6 irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each tertiary unit in
chihona ............................................................................................................................... 24
Table 4. 7 irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each tertiary unit in
A/mesk ............................................................................................................................... 25
Table 4.8 irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each tertiary unit in
Inguiti ................................................................................................................................. 26

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 3.1 Lay out of command blocks of KDIP ---------------------------------------------14

Figure 4.1: Equity by for each tertiary unit in Kudimi---------------------------------------23

Figure 4.2: Adequacy of each tertiary unit in Kudimi----------------------------------------23
Figure 4.3 Adequacy of tertiary units in inguiti ------------------------------------------------24

Figure 4.4 Equity of tertiary units in Ambo mesk ------------------------------------------25

LIST OF APPENDICE TABLE

Table 8. 1 Monthly ETO Penman monteith ---------------------------------------------------33

Table 8.2 Monthly rainfalls -----------------------------------------------------------------------33

Table 8.3 Total results of cropwat for Kudimi block ------------------------------------------34

Table 8.4 Total results of cropwat for chihona block ------------------------------------------34

Table 8.5 Total results of cropwat for Ambomesk block--------------------------------------35

Table 8.6 Total results of cropwat for Inguiti block -------------------------------------------35

Table 8.7 Upstream main and secondary canal capacities of the four blocks --------------35

Table 8.8 kc values and growth stages for crops in blocks (2007) --------------------------36

Table 8.9 Command area comparisons ---------------------------------------------------------36

Table 8.10. Water delivery performance standards (Molden and Gates, 1990) ------------36

vi
Acknowledgments
For all their sincere, faithful, immense and unlimited devotion for the accomplishment of
my thesis much appreciation goes to my advisors Nigusie Tekile (PhD) & Zeleke Agidie
(PhD)

I would also like to express my gratitude for the financial, technical and material Support
provided by MOWE, AMU Community in general ,ANRS WEB, KDIP staff members,
BUBWI IHDDR, Tana sub-basin institute, ANRS meteorological agency, ANRS soil
laboratory agency, ADSWE to whom no words to express my profound respect and
admiration for their guidance, fast comments and feedbacks.

Special thanks to Sisay Asress, Mesenbet Yibeltal and Demisew Almaw for their honest
friendship and co-operation for the accomplishment of this study.

In addition, the generous support and contribution of all my colleagues, friends, families
and relatives are deeply acknowledged and emphasized in all cases of my future life.

Above all I would like to thank almighty God for giving me courage and stamina to reach
this reality.

vii
Abstract
Large irrigation systems have their own identity and have a very important role
in economic development of many parts of the world. Therefore the aim of this study
was to assess the performance of selected command blocks of koga dam and irrigation
project for comparing their level of performance using minimum set of performance
indicators. The study was also met its objective by collected and analyzed secondary and
primary data of climatic, soil, Crop and water delivery or water use.

Irrigation water applied on irrigable areas within the blocks was insufficient, too much or
not the recommended water quantity. Therefore it was essential to revise irrigation
schedule and the ways in which we managed water application uniformities, efficiencies
and conditions of irrigation and drainage canals. The results of water delivery and
agricultural performance indicators showed ranges of annual relative water supplied from
0.60 to 6.75; annual relative irrigation water supplied from 0.48 to 7.53; reliability of
water delivered from 0.57 to 0.84; Adequacy 0.9 to 3.00 ; crop production from 3.8
to13.5 tons/ha; output per unit water irrigation water supplied from 0.32 to 3.8 kg/m3 with
irrigation ratio ranged 0,87 to 0.99.Therefore there should be strong argument for
ensuring water delivery of the main and secondary canals made as reliable as possible
thereby enhancing the management capacity of farmers to utilize irrigation water and
land according to their own objectives at farm level.

Keywords: Crop production, performance, performance indicators, irrigation water

management

viii
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background

Rapid increases in the world population have made the efficient use of irrigation water
vitally important, particularly in developing countries, where the greatest potential for
increasing food production and rural incomes is often to be found in irrigable areas.
Therefore becomes a matter of serious concern since recent years despite their very high
costs the performance of many irrigation schemes has fallen far short of expectations
(FAO, 1986) and becomes the duty of researchers to increase the level of irrigation
systems and schemes for sustainable production and productivity for sustainable live of
the society.

During the 1960s; many third world countries adopted the large scale, multifunction
water project as a development tool in drought prone arid and semi-arid regions. These
“great projects” were promoted by developed countries as being economically desirable.
International financing institutions lent billions of dollars for their construction. It was
anticipated that, in addition to supplying hydro-electric power for fledgling industries,
such projects would bring previously uncultivated land under irrigated cultivation, and
thus increase the regional food supply. This would achieve socio-economic stability and
decrease the vulnerability of the local population to re-current drought. This policy was
adopted in 1960 by the Brazilian government for application in the Northeast region of
Brazil. Between 1967 and 1980 thirty large scale irrigation projects with affiliated
colonization schemes were constructed in Northeast Brazil.

The prototype project, Morada Nova in Ceara, was the subject of a socio-economic
impact study completed by the author in 1986 (Meaney-Leckie, 1986). With rapid
increase in the world's population the efficient use of irrigation water vitally important,
particularly in poorer countries, where the greatest potential for increasing food
production and rural incomes found in irrigated areas. It has therefore become a matter of
serious concern in recent years that, despite their very high costs, the performance of
many irrigation schemes has fallen far short of expectations (FAO, 1986); for this
performance evaluation becomes the duty of researchers to increase the level of irrigation
systems and schemes for sustainable production and productivity for wellbeing of the
society.

1
Successful irrigated and irrigation agriculture (IIA) water management minimize
production risks such as drought, poor drainage and flooding. If a change in climatic
conditions occurs it puts an increased pressure on different uses of water. Especially for
agricultural sector to bring sustainable production and productivity a farmer should
produce at least three times a year. This improves output and provides incentives for
farmers to invest in other technological inputs and agronomic practices. Improvements
like the hydraulic and agricultural performance of irrigation and drainage (ID)
infrastructures i.e. irrigation systems, conjunctive use of canal water and ground water,
environmental sustainability with special references to water logging and salinity and the
management of maintenance and modernization of irrigation systems especially the use of
management information and decision supporting tools.

On the research concepts of international institute management of irrigation (IIMI) new

management is an important change to strengthen the quality and quantity of research out
puts. Therefore indicators are developed for performance evaluation of irrigation systems
and irrigated agriculture in which the main output considered crop production and the
major inputs are water, land and finance. In sustainable IIA as water is the limiting
resource factor for development we may ask the value of agricultural production per unit
of water consumed from hydrological cycle and if we applied beyond irrigation schedule
water logging, salinity, runoff and other environmental problems may arise. Sustainable
production and productivity can be achieved by two ways in IIA. Either new irrigation
projects can be developed or existing schemes can be evaluated and their level of
performance can be measured and improved. Most authors propose to use different
indicators and different methodologies or tools to measure the same indicators (Bos et al.,
1994). This causes much confusion in evaluation. To avoid this, studies have
concentrated on classifying indicators recently.

Irrigation systems aim to meet objectives and performance. Therefore must be assessed
using quantifiable measures using methodologies which provides systematic approach for
comparing and combining the components of overall performance Two types of
indicators used to evaluate irrigation systems: process and comparative. The aim of
applying comparative indicators is to evaluate outputs and impacts of irrigation
management practices, interventions across different systems and system levels, as well
as to compare various irrigation seasons and technologies with one another while process

2
indicators are used to assess actual irrigation performance relative to system-specific
management goals and operational target (Kloezen et al., 1998).

Irrigation projects perform inefficiently for a number of reasons and the low level of
performance can be seen at every level of irrigation sector because of customs in rain fed
agriculture and great attentions and emphasis has been placed on other sectors letting on
new investments in irrigation and drainage infrastructures or in rehabilitation and
modernization of existing irrigation systems. More over to manage a system properly the
physical effectiveness of past operations must be considered against the original criteria
set for the project or as subsequently amended following the modifications of the
facilities. To improve the performance of irrigation systems increasing the efficiency,
transparency and accountability of the irrigation managers and beneficiaries by providing
irrigation services and increase the participation of users is very important.

In recent years, many modernization processes have been undertaken in irrigation systems
with the main objective to improve water use efficiency; overall efficiency and further
aimed to meet multiple objectives and performance, therefore must be assessed using
quantifiable measures for each with a methodology which provides a systematic approach
to compare and combine the components of overall performance. An irrigation system
performance evaluation results in better maintained and operated, better managed
irrigation systems which brings better level of performance of the irrigation projects.

The aim of this study is to evaluate the performance of four selected blocks, namely
Kudmi, Chihona, Ambomesk, and Inguiti of KDIP using performance indicators.
Therefore system manager can develop new strategies and new adjustment for long-term
objectives under determined system performance. This will provide a chance of
comparing these command areas or blocks with other blocks within the system and with
another system that has different environment, infrastructure and climate in the region.

1.2. Statement of the problem

The reality of increasing population in any parts of the world including KDIP on finite
resources provides strong justification for improved resource management. One
particularly pressing resource management challenge was to improve performance of
irrigation blocks. The performance of many blocks of KDIP was significantly under their
potential due to a number of factors and shortcomings like:

3
  the blocks lack the capacity to deliver a given hydraulic performance standards,
 poor irrigation water management practices , inefficient or too much water use,
 excess irrigation water surface runoff,
 difference between management targets and achievements like size of irrigable
area, water delivery schedules and environmental problems such as water logging
and salinity.
 irrigation blocks suffer from a legacy of poor design,
 degraded infrastructure and poor water management practices
 and stagnation in the face of rapid transformations of rain fed agriculture to
irrigation and irrigated agriculture and pressure on resources. Thus selected
blocks of KDIP need Performance evaluation to improve system operations and
understand progress against strategic or planned goals.

1.3 Objective

1.3.1. General objective

This study was aimed to evaluate the performance of selected command blocks of KDIP
with performance indicators and formulate comparative analysis for further comparison
of 12 blocks and these blocks with other irrigation systems.

1.3.2. Specific objectives

Specific objectives of this study were:

 To assess and compare the level of performance of the selected command blocks
using performance indicators.
 To identify feasible and sustainable irrigation management practices to improve
crop productivity there by income for the community

1.4. Significance of the study

There is a challenge to transform selected command blocks from supply driven to

demand-driven responsive systems, improve their financial, environmental, technical
and service performance to significantly increase control, reliability, adequacy, equity
and flexibility to allow these systems to adapt to changing or more variable water
allocations so as enable farmers to boost IIA and water productivity, be more responsive
to market opportunities, and therefore adopt new and diversified water Management
practices on their farms.

4
The need for higher levels of performance on the selected command blocks was driven by
several factors:

 increasing population leading to a need for greater and sustainable agricultural

production and productivity,
 higher expectations from farmers and their families in terms of their livelihoods,
 higher expectations by irrigated farmers in relation to the level of service required
from the KDIP for changing perceptions, attitudes and practices within government
on provision of public services.

These all required PE and flexibility in changing operational policies from year to year,
and increased participation of farmers in co- management of the ID systems. However, in
practice, existing irrigation management practices , water allocations and their future
evolution were difficult to anticipate and planners and managers of KDIP very rarely
have accurate and operational data on irrigation command block over all efficiencies. In
this study it was possible to assess the impacts of interventions, ways to improve system
operation and performance schemes with in the blocks, assess progress against strategic
or planned goals, diagnoses constraints of performance, assess the general health of the
system, improve water delivery service to users and can compare systems within the
system over time.

5
2. Literature review
2.1 Indicators of irrigation performances

Indicators: are ways of measuring progress towards the achievement of the goal i.e., the
targets or standards to meet at each stage. They provide an objective basis for the
monitoring progress and evaluation of final achievements. A good indicator should define
the level of achievement, specifically: How much? How well? , By when? (Andreas P.
and Keren F., 2002)

Parameters: For the calculation of indicators a certain number of parameters have to be

measured in the irrigation system and schemes. They should be easily measurable, at low
cost, preferably by farmers themselves. It is useful to consider an irrigation system in the
context of nested systems to describe different types and uses of performance
indicators (Small and Svendsen, 1992). An irrigation system is nested within an
irrigated agricultural system, which in turn can be considered part of an
agricultural economic system. For each of the systems, process, output, and impact
measures can be considered. Process measures refer to the processes internal to the
system that lead to the ultimate output, whereas output measures describe the quality and
quantity of the outputs where they become available to the next higher system (Molden et
al, 1998).

2.2 Properties of performance indicators

The principal objective of evaluating surface irrigation systems is to identify management

practices and systems that can be effectively implemented to improve the irrigation
efficiency. Evaluations are useful in a number of analyses and operations, particularly
those that are essential to improve management and control. Evaluation data can be
collected periodically from the system to refine management practices and identify the
changes in the field that occur over the irrigation season or from year to year (FAO,
1989).

The performance of any irrigation system is the degree to which it achieves desired
objectives. As many farmers managed irrigation systems do not perform as well as they
should, there is a need to identify the areas in which they fall short of their potential. It is
therefore important to measure and evaluate their success or failure objectively and
identify specific areas in need of improvement (Jorge, 1993).The evaluation of surface

6
irrigation at field level is an important aspect of both management and design of the
system. (Andreas P. and Keren F., 2002)

Field measurements are necessary to characterize the irrigation system in terms of its
most important parameters, to identify problems in its function, and to develop alternative
means for improving the system (FAO, 1989). Public agencies in many developing
countries want to assist farmer-managed irrigation systems improve their performance
through better management; and better management is dependent upon appropriate
methods and measures by which system performance can be evaluated relative to the
management objectives (Oad and Sampath, 1995). Hence, reliable measures of system
performance are extremely important for improving irrigation policy making and
management decisions.

The development potential for small-scale irrigation seems attractive in view of cost
effectiveness, well-focused target group and its sustainability through empowerment of
the beneficiaries. However, experience has shown that there are still considerable
constraints and setbacks that hinder the introduction of small-scale irrigation. A true
performance indicator includes both an actual value and intended values that enables
the assessment of the amount of deviation and contain information that allows
the manager to determine if the deviation is acceptable. Some of the desirable attributes
of performance indicators suggested by Bos (1997) are:

 Scientific basis: the indicator should be based on an empirically

quantified, statistically tested causal model of that part of the irrigation
process it describes.
 The indicators must be quantifiable: the data needed to quantify the indicator must
be available or measurable with available technology. The measurement must be
reproducible.
 Reference to a target value: It implies that relevance and appropriateness of the
target values and tolerances can be established for the indicator. These
target values and their margin of deviation should be related to the level of
technology and management (Bos et al, 1991).
 Provide information without bias: ideally, performance indicators should not be
formulated from a narrow ethical perspective. This is, in reality, extremely
difficult as even technical measures contain value judgments.

7
  Ease of use and cost effectiveness: particularly for routine management,
performance indicators should be technically feasible, and easily used by agency
staff given their level of skill and motivation. Further, the cost of using indicators
in terms of finances, equipment, and commitment of human resources, should
be well within the agency’s resources.

2.3. Development of indicators to monitor and evaluate the performance of

irrigation systems

M E of a program or a project or irrigation scheme is important in order to provide

information how it is performing. Monitoring is the collection of information and the use
of that information to enable management to assess the progress of implementation and
take timely decisions to ensure that progress is maintained according to the schedule
(Casley and Lury, 1981). Monitoring is a continuous or regular activity and assesses
where inputs are delivered, are being used as intended and having the initial effect as
planned. It is an internal project or scheme activity, an essential part of good management
practice and therefore an integral part of day to day management. The purpose of
monitoring is to achieve efficient and effective project or scheme performance by
providing feed back to the management at all levels and enables management to improve
operational plan and to take timely corrective action in case of problems.

It is an organizational process for improving activities still in progress and for aiding
management in future planning, programming and decision making (Casley and Kumar,
1990).The principal objective of evaluating surface irrigation systems is to identify
management practices and systems that can be effectively implemented to improve the
irrigation efficiency. Evaluations are useful in a number of analyses and operations,
particularly those that are essential to improve management and control. Evaluation data
can be collected periodically from the system to refine management practices and identify
the changes in the field that occur over the irrigation season or from year to year (FAO,
1989) Evaluation can be carried out (FARMESA. 2001):

 During project planning (ex-ante) : to assess the potential impact;

 during project implementation ( ongoing) : to evaluate the performance and
quality;
 At completion (ex-post): to determine successful completion;

8
  Some years after completion (impact): to assess its ultimate impact on
development.

2.4 Performance and bench marking:

Performance assessment is an essential component of performance management and seen

as the information system which enables performance management process to function
effectively and efficiently providing the information needed to assess the extent to which
an organization delivers value and achieves excellence. Because performance
“represents the aggregation of basic stages of action, from intention to result”
(Lebas 1995), we can’t spare the result, namely the performance obtained, of the
resources and activities through which it was obtained, of the objectives to be achieved
because a result means anything if not analyzed by itself. Moreover, "If you can’t
measure, you can’t control. If you can’t control, you can’t manage. If you can’t manage,
you can’t improve and can’t be efficient" (Kuegen and Krahn 1999 quoted by Albu and
Albu 2005:41).

Benchmarking can be defined as (Malano & Burton, 2001): “A systematic process for
securing continual improvement through comparison with relevant and achievable
internal or external norm standards”. The overall aim of bench marking is to improve the
performance of an organization as measured against its peers, mission and objectives. It is
a process for achieving continued improvement in the irrigation sector through
comparisons with relevant and achievable internal or external goals, norms, and
standards.

The benchmarking process should be a continuous series of measurement, analysis, and

changes to improve the performance of the schemes, evaluation of technical indicators
(both internal and external); appraisal of the system processes; evaluation of service to
users and their satisfaction with that service.

2.5 Relationships between performance assessment (PA) and bench

marking (BM)

BM and PA are related but different in several ways: BM is essentially an externally

focused activity and in BM the specific aim is to identify key competitors/ comparable
organizations and find best management practices for that organization i.e. The scope of
bench marking activity is determined by the objectives and scale perused in finding the

9
best management practices in any system such as an ID system networks considers inputs,
processes, outputs and impacts. In measuring performance we are interested in measuring
efficiency with which we convert inputs to outputs and the potential impacts that: the use
of these inputs (resources) might have and the outputs might have on the wider
environment.

In PA we are also interested in the efficiency with which the processes convert inputs in
to outputs and PA indicators are specifically identified to enable the comparison of
irrigation and drainage scheme or schemes and monitor progress towards closing the
identified performance gaps.

Abernethy (1989) defines performance as: “performance of a system is represented by its

measured levels of achievement in terms of one, or several, parameters which are chosen
as indicators of the System’s goals.

2.6 Performance gaps existing in irrigation management

Performance is assessed for a variety of reasons: to improve system operations; to assess

progress against strategic goals; as an integral part of performance-oriented management,
to assess the general health of a system; to assess impacts of interventions; to diagnose
constraints; to better understand determinants of performance; and to compare the performance
of a system with others or with the same system over time.

The type of performance measures chosen depends on the purpose of the performance assessment
activity (Molden et al., 1998). There are four potential kinds of performance gaps that can occur
with irrigation systems (Douglas and Juan, 1999).

 The first is a technological performance gap. This is when the infrastructure of an irrigation
system lacks the capacity to deliver a given hydraulic performance standard. The normal
solution to technology performance gaps is to change the type, design or condition of physical
infrastructure.
 The second kind of performance gap is when a difference arises between how management
procedures are supposed to be implemented and how they are actually implemented. This
includes such problems as how people adjust gates, maintain canals and report information.
This can be called a gap in implementation performance. A problem of this kind generally
requires changes in procedures, supervision or training.
 The third kind of performance gap is a difference between management targets and actual
achievements. Examples of management targets are the size of area served by irrigation in a

10
 given season, cropping intensity, irrigation efficiency, water delivery schedules and water fee
collection rates. This can be called a gap in achievement. Such problems are generally
addressed either by changing the objectives (especially simplifying them) or increasing the
capacity of management to achieve them: such as through increasing the resources available
or reforming organizations.
 The fourth type of performance problem concerns impacts of management. This is a
difference between what people think should be the ultimate effects of irrigation and what
actually results. These are gaps in impact performance and include such measures as
agricultural and economic profitability of irrigated agriculture, productivity per unit of water,
poverty alleviation and environmental problems such as water logging and salinity.

If management procedures are being followed and targets are being achieved, but ultimate
impacts are not as intended, then the problem is not that the managing organization has performed
badly, since these effects are generally beyond its direct control. The problem is that the
objectives of the organization do not produce the desired impacts. This is more a problem of
policy than management. Furthermore Tom et al (1999) has discussed on irrigation efficiencies
and identified some of the causes of irrigation inefficiencies as follow: Inefficient use of water: a
Precious resource: sub-optimal use of limited surface water; leakage from unlined canals or from
breakages in the canal system; and faulty use of irrigation water (over-watering in flood irrigation
regimes).Water lost to the system has a number of serious implications and is a classical dilemma
of irrigation technology.

Presuming reasonable match of available water to crop water requirements and total command
areas, water losses will lead to diminished production increases because there will not be enough
water to irrigate the entire planned command area. Over-watering using more water than is
required for satisfactory crop production can cause the same effect, exacerbating the challenge of
meeting the needs of both “head and tail-enders” within the irrigated perimeter. It may also lead
to inefficient use of fertilizers and over-leaching of soils, or creating proper conditions for pests,
thereby reducing crop productivity and leaving soils more degraded.

11
3. METHODS AND MATERIALS

3.1 Methods

3.1.1 Description of the study area

Koga dam and irrigation project is located within the great bend of Abay, in Mecha
woreda in West Gojjam zone in Amhara region. It is bounded by the Koga River to the
south, the Gilgel Abay to the west and secondary drainage basin to the north and east. It
lies at an altitude of 2000masl. The area falls in the woinadega climatic zone which is
classified as cool and semi-humid.

The Koga River is approximately 49km in length and its catchment covers 27,850ha and
about half of this area is intensively cultivated in rain fed season. Koga dam and
irrigation project is constructed under ministry of water resource development to improve
the wellbeing of farmer’s under the area. Koga dam and irrigation project is a large scale
project consisting of 12 command blocks and irrigates more than 7000 ha during dry
season.

An ID system was designed to build on the 7000 ha would include a 19.7km long
concrete lined main canal, 52km of lined secondary canals, 156km of unlined tertiary
canals, 905km of unlined quaternary canals, 11 night storages.

From the 12 blocks the four blocks were Kudimi, Chihona, Ambomesk and Inguiti.
Kudimi Command area or block: is situated at the west of the main dam along the main
canal at the chain-age of 3.238 km and irrigates 373 hectare during dry season.

An ID system was designed to build on this hectare includes one secondary canal, three
tertiary canals, and 27 quaternary canals , one night storage with a capacity of 19440 m3
of water. With 514 beneficiaries’ onions, potatoes, wheat, peppers and others grow in this
command area.

Chihona block: situated at the west of the main dam along the main canal at the chain-age
of 9.76 km and irrigates 617 hectare during dry season. An ID system designed to
build on this hectare includes one secondary canal, 14 tertiary canals, and 36 quaternary
canals, one night storage with a capacity of 30,240m3 of water. With 868 beneficiaries’
onions, potatoes, wheat, peppers and others grow in this command area.

12
Ambomesk block: situated at the west of the main dam along the main canal at the chain-
age of 10.79 km and irrigates 812 hectare during dry season. An I D system designed to
build on this hectare includes one secondary canal, 13 tertiary canals, and 57 quaternary
canals, one night storage with a capacity of 40,190 m3 of water. With 1170 beneficiaries’
onions, potatoes, wheat, peppers and others grow in this command area.

Inguiti command area: situated at the west of the main dam along the main canal at the
chain age of 13.78 km and irrigates 617 hectare during dry season. An I D system
designed to build on this hectare includes on secondary canal, three tertiary canals, and 26
quaternary canals, one night storage with a capacity of 18,144 m3 of water. With 468
beneficiaries’ onions, potatoes, wheat, peppers and others grow in this command area.

. The main crops grown in the project area are onion/shallot, cabbage, tomato, maize,
pepper, wheat, barley, etc both in wet and dry season. Among the mentioned crops
onions, potatoes, wheat and peppers were grow in selected command blocks during dry
season in which wheat covers the highest percentage of irrigated areas of the year 2007
E.C. During the rainy season even if the rain is sufficient for the crop irrigation water is
supplemented when vegetable crops are transplanted.

Farmers sell their produce by themselves based on the market price and the Amhara seed
enterprise is the one supplying pure seeds like wheat and buy the product with better
price. .Other products are sold to town Merawi and city Bahirdar. Recently the
representative expert or management records the amount of the yield and incomes to
know the yearly productivity of the project.

The individual farmer covers the production costs like fertilizer, chemicals and labor by
himself. Here the main production constraint experienced by the farmers is frequent
improper water management practices, pest and disease occurrence, market prices
fluctuations, farm labor shortages and others.

13
Figure 3.1 Lay out of blocks of koga dam and irrigation project

3.1.2 Secondary and Primary data collection

Water delivered and supplied, soil data, crop, command area, irrigation canal and night
storage, main dam and reservoir data and number of beneficiary were collected during the
study. The data collection was carried out in collaboration with agronomists, irrigation
engineers, BUBWIR, canal and night storage gate operators and other individuals of the
irrigation Project. Crop Production data collection was made with the criteria of those
immediately starts modern irrigation practices during or after implementation including
size of irrigable area, the availability of recorded data that are used to calculate some of
the performance indicators and parameters and assumed to represent the other command
blocks. Primary data was collected from respective selected blocks of the project and
secondary data was collected from regional bureau of water and agriculture, Bahirdar
meteorological stations, , design documents of the study area, research papers, ADSWE
soil lab results and any possible sources.

14
Primary field data collection activities include frequent field observations made to
observe and investigate the method of water applications, and practices related to water
management techniques made by the assigned persons and farmers. Measurements of
discharge at main, secondary and tertiary canals were taken frequently and average
discharge coupled with the total flow time and the total volume of water diverted by the
irrigation scheme was estimated. Bulk density; field capacity, permanent wilting point;
moisture content and infiltration rate of the soils were determined by taking soil samples
at different depth.

The discharge of the secondary and tertiary canals was measured by using current meter
and taking references of gauges and the main dam reservoir water delivery was from
computerized controlling systems of the dam. To calculate the total amount of water
diverted to the total irrigated areas within a season, the total flow time of irrigation water
in the main; secondary and tertiary canals were recorded and multiplied by the respective
discharges.

3.1.3 Laboratory analysis

Bulk densities, textures, Field Capacity, Permanent Wilting Point, moisture contents of
the soil were determined by taking more than 96 soil samples from farmer’s fields with an
interval of 30 cm to 90 cm soil depths following their respective laboratory
procedures/This depth was assumed to represent the depth of the effective root zone of
irrigated crops and vegetable crops. The values were analyzed at ADSWE soil lab.

3.2 Materials

Current meters, control and measuring structures and staff gauges, core sampler,
infiltrometres, graduated cylinders, measuring tape; CROPWAT 8.0 computer program
for windows; Excel data sheets were used.

3.3 Data analysis

The analysis made based on irrigation water management institute (IWMI) performance
indicators. The following data were analyzed using mathematical operations and
equations, graphs; excel data sheet Cropwat8.0 and others as required.

3.3.1 Crop water requirements

To calculate the Crop water requirement, total gross irrigation requirement, actual
irrigation requirement, net crop water requirement and the net irrigation requirements (IR)

15
for each irrigated crop for the 2007E.C dry cropping season Cropwat for windows (
cropwat 8.0 ) was used. This program uses Penman-Monteith equation for calculating
reference crop evapotranspiration and effective rainfall.

The crop coefficients, planting dates, growth length in days, maximum rooting depth,
total available soil moisture, initial soil moisture depletion, initial available soil moisture
and maximum infiltration rate of the soil were used to calculate the above parameters.

The determination of the CWR and irrigation requirement by this model depends on the
determination soil parameters by USDA soil conservation service method. Crop types,
crop growth stages and periods, Kc values and area of each crop were used as inputs in
this software. The results presented in graphs and tables. To compare the selected
command areas of the irrigation project in terms of their output per area and water
supply, four comparative indicators (output per cropped area; output per unit command
area; output per unit irrigation supply and output per unit water consumed.

3.3.2 Performance indicators

The types and availability of secondary data recorded, measured and tested primary data
by each selected blocks have different nature and limit to apply many comparative and
process performance indicators developed by IWMI for the same cropping season of the
whole twelve blocks of KDIP. Hence, to compare the selected blocks minimum sets of
comparative and process indicators were applied with the available information gathered
and primary data of lab and field tests and measurements in which time and budget
bounded for this thesis.

Agricultural Performance indicators used for analysis were:

 Annual output per unit cropped area ( ℎ )

= (1)

 Output per unit command area ( ℎ

= (2)

16
  Output per unit irrigation water supplied (ton/m3)

= (3)

 Output per unit water consumed (ETB/m3)

= (4)
( )

Where

The output is the Production of the irrigated area in terms of gross or net value of
production measured at local or world prices.
Irrigated cropped area is the sum of the areas under crops during the time period of
analysis,
Command area is the nominal or design area to be irrigated,
Irrigation supply is the volume of surface irrigation water diverted to the command area,
plus net removals from groundwater and rain fall
Volume of water consumed by ET is the actual evapotranspiration of crops.
In addition to agricultural performance indicators the following irrigation water delivery
or water use indicators ,

 Annual relative water supplied =
(5)

 Annual relative irrigation water supply

=
(6)

 PR = ∑ ) (7)

Where PR is reliability indicator for a period of T, and CVT is time coefficient of

variation of the ratio QD/QR over a region R.

 PA= ∑ (∑ ) (8)

Where PA is adequacy indicator over an area R and time period T, and pA is

an adequacy at a point for a specific time.

17
 PE = ∑ ( ) (9)

Where PE is equity indicator over an area R for a period of T, and CVR is spatial
coefficient of variation of the ratio QD/QR over a region R.

 Main system water delivery efficiency (%)

( )
= (10)

 Water productivity (kg/m3 ) =
(11)

 Irrigation ratio =
(12)

 Overall scheme efficiency = (13)

Where:
Water supply = Surface diversions plus rainfall.
Crop demand = Potential crop ET, or the ET under well watered conditions.
Irrigation water supply = only the surface diversions for irrigation.
Irrigation demand = the crop ET less effective rainfall.

Reliability variation of the RWS at the main canal intake and at tertiary intakes during the
season indicates the level of reliability.

Adequacy measured at the main canal intake and each tertiary unit. Target value =1.0

Equity is the variation of RWS at tertiary intakes indicates the degree of equity or
inequity.

Relative irrigation supply is the inverse of the irrigation efficiency Molden et al (1998).
The term relative irrigation supply was presented to be consistent with the term relative
water supply, and to avoid any confusing value judgments inherent in the word
efficiency.

18
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1 Irrigation water delivery or water use indicators

The four indicators RWS, RIS, reliability, adequacy and equity were used as water
delivery performance indicators to evaluate and characterize the performance of the four
individual blocks of the irrigation project.

Table 4.1.1irrigation water demands and canal water delivery of the four blocks
Name Water Irrigation Water Total Effecti Potentia Actual gross irrigation
of the supplied Demand supplied RF ve l Water irrigatio requirem
Block byTCs For the bySC2 (mm) RF Water used n ent
(m^3) Block(m^3) (m^3) (mm) use(mm (mm) (mm) (mm)

Kudim 692064 5624069.7 1827360 65.9 41.4 1564.9 1564..3 2221.5 1523.4
i
Chiho 15100992 2006728.5 1510092 65.8 51.0 1564.6 1564.3 2115.4 1514
na
Ambo 6119712 10810205 2744928 85.5 60.4 1598.5 1597.6 2201 1538.2
mesk
Inguiti 3343680 4552571.1 1780704 51.4 38.9 1198.2 1198.2 1672.7 1159.9

The total seasonal volume of water diverted to kudimi, chihona, Ambomesk and inguiti
was 5598720; 15100992; 6010848 and 3343680 m3 for 369.3; 574.5; 703.235 and 341.50
ha of irrigated area during the season with average discharge of 0.72; 1.942; 0.773 and
0.43cum per second for 12 hrs/day of flow respectively.

In Chihona command block with effective rainfall 51.0mm and less actual irrigation
requirement and irrigation demand of 1514.0 mm and 2006728.5 m3, much water was
delivered and supplied even the actual water used by crops was the same as kudimi block
which is less than Ambomesk and Inguiti blocks.

Table 4.2: Results of ARWS, ARIS, Reliability, adequacy and equity

Name of ARWS ARIS Reliability adequacy Water
the block productivity
(kg/m^3)
Kudimi 1.01 1.00 0.64 1.6 0.46
Chihona 6.75 7.53 0.84 0.9 0.32
Ambomesk 0.60 0.48 0.57 3 0.56
Inguitu 0.75 0.55 0.73 1.44 0.39

19
The ARWS in chihona was more than the 3 blocks. This means the total seasonal volume
of water delivered and supplied was greater than the volume of irrigation water demand
and irrigation water supply was major the source of production in the block. The ARWS
for Kudimi was nearly the actual value. This means the actual discharge was equal to the
planned discharge, but for Ambomesk and Inguiti the values were less than 1, hence the
water delivered was less than the irrigation water demand.

From the Table 4.2 the values of ARIS for Ambomesk and Inguiti blocks was less than
1.This means the irrigation requirement was not completely met as relative values under 1
are typically under deficit irrigation schedule and in kudimi the irrigation water delivered
and irrigation water demand were equal .In chihona more water is delivered beyond
irrigation water demands of crops. In inguiti and ambo mesk blocks ARWS is greater
ARIS this means the source of water from rainfall was better as the irrigation water
delivery is less than the three.

In case of adequacy and reliability Ambo mesk block was more adequate but irrigation
water delivered and supplied was not reliable compared to the three blocks and Chihona
block was reliable but not adequate This was because of improper water application
practices of farmers which led to irrigation water loses. This means the total volume of
irrigation water delivered not met the volume of irrigation water demand; hence the water
supplied and delivered was not applied at the scheduled time and the right amount i.e.
proper supply based practices rather than demand based water delivery and supply.
Considering adequacy, in chihona block the water delivery was not adequate. Considering
water productivity, Ambomesk was better than the other 3 blocks with better adequacy
and less reliable water supplied and delivered.

20
 Table 4. 3: Area % of crops grown in four blocks (year 2007E.c)
Kudimi Chihona Ambomesk Inguiti
block block block block
Crop Area Area Area
type Area(ha) Area (%) Area(ha) (%) Area(ha) (%) Area(ha (%)

Onions 13.25 3.59 106 18.45 26.75 3.8 3.5 1.02

potatoes 87.5 23.69 92 16.01 55.85 7.94 13 3.81

Wheat 265.05 71.77 370.5 64.49 620.01 88.17 325 95.17

Pepper 3.5 0.95 6 1.04 0.625 0.09 0 0

Total 369.3 100 574.5 100 703.235 100 341.5 100

From table 4.3 Wheat covers the larger area in all blocks and pepper covers the least.
even though pepper was more profitable This was because farmers do have the right to
grow according to their choice of crop type and the trends of producing cash crops with
demand based irrigation water management.

4.2 Agricultural performance indicators

The results of agricultural productivity indicators evaluated are presented in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4: Results of agricultural performance indicators

Crop Value of Crop Value of Value of
Production per Production per Crop production production Irrigat
unit unit Command per unit water per unit water
ion
Cropped area supplied consumed
Ratio
Name Block Area (ETB/ha) (kg/m^3) ETB/m^3)
(ton/ha)
Kudimi 6.96 58,706.3 0.46 3.8 0.87
Chihona 8.30 128,329.8 0.32 34.5 0.87
A/bomesk 4.88 48,472.9 0.56 3.5 0.93
Inguiti 3.79 32,162.9 3.78 1.1 0.99
As shown in Table 4.4 comparing the actual irrigated area and the designed command
area 99 % in inguiti, 93% in Ambomesk, 87% in kudimi and Chihona was irrigated, but
water delivered and supplied in inguiti and ambomesk was less than the two blocks.

21
Crop production or yields for the year 2007 E.C was 6.96 ton; 8.30ton; 4.88 ton; 3.79 ton
within average value of 5.98 ton/ha . The reasons of variation in production were
inconsistencies in the agricultural practices, management system and input supplies. The
total income of the blocks was 21, 897,350.00; 79,179,500.00; 39,360,020.00 and 12,
640,000.00 ETB for kudimi, chihona, Ambomesk and Inguiti blocks respectively.

The prices of the crops were fluctuating time to time, so in order to avoid over or under
estimation average values were considered. The output per cropped area for Chihona was
better than the other three blocks but for the output per water supplied the inverse was
true; Inguiti block was better and in chihona was less Since the intention of the analysis
was to investigate how the performances of the blocks of irrigation project chihona block
performs better and kudimi, Ambomesk and Inguiti follows orderly.

The value of crop production per unit water consumed in chihona was more. To produce
0.32 kg needed 34.52 ETB but in Inguiti was less. To produce 3.78kg needed 1.13 ETB.

Table 4. 5 Reliability, irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each
tertiary unit in kudimi

Irrigation adequacy Water target equity

Of
TCs demand of TCs supplied Of TCs TCs
(m^3) (m^3) (m^3) (m^3)
TC1 807137 0.29 692064 513346.6 0.28
TC2 395954 0.90 894240 251830.4 0.27
TC3 533015 0.67 1111968 339002.4 0.23
TC4 487328 0.73 233280 309945.1 0.16
TC5 1675190 0.93 979776 1065436 0.19
TC6 1238117.7 0.77 979776 787454.2 0.26
TC6L 487328 0.73 707616 309945.1 0.47

In kudimi command block from Table 4.5, Figure 4.1 and 4.2 and according to table 8.9
in TCs 1, 3, 4, 6, and 6Lwater delivered and supplied was not adequate but in tertiaries 2
and 5 was adequate. In all TCs water distribution was inequitable since the values were
not between 0 and 0.1 according to Molden and Gate.1990.

22
 0.5

0.45 0.47

0.4

0.35

0.3 0.28
0.27
0.25 0.23 0.26

0.2
0.19
0.15 0.16

0.1

0.05

0
TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC6L

Figure 4.1: Equity by for each tertiary unit in Kudimi

1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
Adequacy

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC6L

Figure 4.2: Adequacy of each tertiary unit in Kudimi

23
Table 4.6 irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each tertiary unit in
chihona

Nam of Irrigation adequacy Water target equity

TCs demand of TCs supplied of of
TCs(m^3/s) TCs(m^3) tertiary units TCs
TC1 71633.99 0.16 388800.00 216511.70 0.06
TC2 345145.58 1.27 3009312.00 1043192.73 0.44
TC3 71633.99 1.27 3009312.00 216511.70 0.44
TC4 156292.34 1.27 3009312.00 472389.16 0.44
TC5 185597.15 0.33 785376.00 560962.13 0.11
TC6 195365.42 0.50 1189728.00 590486.45 0.17
TC7 260487.23 1.01 2402784.00 787315.27 0.35
TC8 236717.77 0.28 653184.00 715472.75 0.09
TC9 483855.03 0.28 653184.00 1462438.11 0.09

1.4

1.2

1
Adequacy

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2
Figure 4; 3: Adequacy of each tertiary unit in Chihona
0
In Chihona from
TC1TableTC2
4.8 and
TC3Figures
TC44.3 and
TC5 4.4 in
TC6tertiary
TC7units TC8
2, 3, 4 TC9
and 7 water
supplied was adequate and reliable, even in some Tcs there was excess water delivery that
exceeds irrigation water demand of crops grown in this year. In this block except tertiary
canals 5, 8 and 9 the water delivery and distribution was not equitable according to table
8.9.

24
Table 4. 7 irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each tertiary unit
in A/mesk

Nam of Irrigation adequacy Water target equity

TCs demand of TCs supplied of Of
TCs(m^3/s) TCs(m^3) tertiary units TCs
TC1 1097629.48 0.55 0.88 1263788.74 0.47
TC2 594549.30 0.92 1.46 684552.23 0.79
TC3 365876.49 0.83 1.32 421262.91 0.71
TC4 411611.05 0.81 1.28 473920.78 0.69
TC5 320141.93 0.67 1.07 368605.05 0.57
TC6 320141.93 0.21 0.34 368605.05 0.18
TC7 121958.83 0.56 0.89 140420.97 0.48
TC8 167693.39 0.97 1.53 193078.83 0.82
TC9 594549.30 0.43 0.68 684552.23 0.37
TC10 243917.66 0.85 1.34 280841.94 0.72
TC11 625039.01 0.31 0.49 719657.48 0.26
TC11L 365876.49 0.58 0.91 421262.91 0.49
TC12 243917.66 0.70 1.12 280841.94 0.60
TC14 442100.76 0.86 1.04 509026.02 0.56
TC16 365876.49 0.62 0.98 421262.91 0.53

0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
TC1 TC2 TC3 TC4 TC5 TC6 TC7 TC8 TC9 TC10 TC11 TC11L TC12 TC14 TC16

Figure 4.4: Equity of each tertiary unit in A/bomesk

From Table 4.7, Figures 4.4 above irrigation water delivered for tertiary canals 2 and 8, 1
was adequate and reliable and in TCs and 3,4,10 and 14 it was better but in others was not
adequate. In this block in all tertiary canals water delivered and supplied was not
equitable.

25
 Table 4.8 irrigation demand, adequacy, Equity and water supplied by each tertiary unit in
Inguiti

Nam of Irrigation adequacy Water target equity

TCs demand of TCs supplied of Of

tertiary
TCs(m^3/s) TCs(m^3) units TCs

TC1 1796915.00 0.58 1780704.00 1354453.66 0.76

TC3 1031777.00 0.63 1780704.00 1411838.04 0.45

TC5 4552571.10 0.09 1780704.00 810668.30 0.49

From Table 4.8, in Inguiti water supplied and delivered was not adequate, reliable and
inequitable.

Table 4.9 Total yield and land coverage of Kudimi

crop Area yield yield yield ( total

Type area (ha) (%) (qt/ha)) (qt)) kg) price(ETB/kg income(ETB)
Onions 13.25 3.59 170 2252.5 17000 30 510000
Potatoes 87.5 23.69 200 17500 1750000 8 14000000
Wheat 265.05 71.77 30 7951.5 795150 9 7156350
Pepper 3.5 0.95 22 77 7700 30 231000
Total 369.3 100 27781 2569850 77 21897350

In this block greater yield and total income was obtained from potatoes with in an
irrigated area percent of 23.69

Table 4. 10 Total yield and land coverage of chihona

crop yield yield yield ( total

Type area (ha) Area(%) (qt/ha)) (qt)) kg) price(ETB/kg income(ETB)

Onions 106 18.45 170 18020 1802000 30 54060000

potatoes 92 16.01 200 18400 1840000 8 14720000

Wheat 370.5 64.49 30 11115 1111500 9 10003500

Pepper 6 1.04 22 132 13200 30 396000

Total 574.5 100 422 47667 4766700 77 79179500

26
In Chihona block greater yield was obtained from potatoes with in an Irrigated area
percent of 8.45 but greater total incomes was from onions with in an Irrigated area
percent of 16.0.

Table: 4.11 Total yield and land coverage of Ambomesk

crop Area yield yield yield ( total

Type area (ha) (%) (qt/ha)) (qt)) kg) price(ETB/kg income(ETB)
Onions 26.75 3.8 170 4547.5 454750 30 13642500
potatoes 55.85 7.94 200 11170 1117000 8 8936000
wheat 620.01 88.17 30 18600.3 1860030 9 16740270
pepper 0.625 0.09 22 13.75 1375 30 41250
Total 703.235 100 422 34331.55 3433155 77 39360020
From Table 4:11 in Ambomesk greater yield and total income was obtained from wheat
Within an Irrigated area percent of 88.17.

Table 4. 12 Total yield and irrigated area for crops grown in Inguiti block

crop Area yield yield yield ( total

Type area (ha) (%) (qt/ha)) (qt)) kg) price(ETB/kg income(ETB)
Onions 3.5 1.02 170 595 59500 30 1785000
potatoes 13 3.81 200 2600 260000 8 2080000
wheat 325 95.17 30 9750 975000 9 8775000
pepper 0 0 22 0 0 30 0
Total 341.5 100 422 12945 1294500 77 12640000
From table 4: 12 in Inguiti greater yield and total income was obtained from wheat with
in an Irrigated area percent of 95.17. Although pepper was profitable as onions farmers
in this block did not plant peppers.

27
5. CONCLUSIONS
The evaluation and characterization of the selected command blocks of the irrigation
project individually indicated that irrigation water was not a constraint on some blocks at
farm level and higher amount of water was diverted and at Chihona there was also high
rate of return on investment but for the output per water supply the inverse was true
inguiti block with water constraint was better (3.78kg/m^3).

Irrigation water delivered from main, secondary, tertiary canals and distributed at field
levels showed major differences head-end units received significantly more than their
share, while tail-end areas received comparatively less. The actual water distribution
pattern failed to meet the targets set down at the start of each season.

The study showed strong argument for ensuring water delivery of the main and secondary
canals should be made as reliable as possible thereby enhancing the management capacity
of farmers to utilize this water according to their own objectives at farm level. The
selected command blocks of the irrigation project were different in their irrigation water
application, operation and management, and so on. Since the intention of the study was to
investigate how consistent or how the performance of the blocks was consistent with
respect to the irrigation management practices Chihonal block was performing better than
the other three blocks. But it does not mean the next stage of one block continues more
efficient or healthier than the other, because it needs continuous and larger sample study
and taking into consideration several situations or issues. For instance farmers’ awareness
and trainings, operation and maintenance, continuous ME aspects of the blocks of project,
market conditions and so on.

From the study furrow alignments, preseason water delivery application for moistening
the soil before tillage; water management practices, crop pattern and variety selection
were observed problems next to running costs which needs further trainings more skilled
manpower, continuous & proper land and water management follow up, maintenance of
irrigation and drainage structure and planning and practicing diffident water application
methods which increase the level of performance of the selected command blocks.

28
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
To know how much water used is vital for effective irrigation management, and some
form of water metering is necessary to use the performance indicators. Measuring flow
rates or volumes allows setting baseline indicator values and to carry out an ongoing
checking of the capacity of the system.

In particular the use of water meters and gauges in all blocks of the project needed for

 checking that the system with which drawing the amount of water expected;
 comparing the performance with the design specifications and resource consent
conditions;
 Checking daily variations in quantity or flow rate over the system due to elevation
effects;
 Determining limitations in irrigator positions;
 monitor the amount of non-irrigation time or downtime in a cycle.

In the longer term, flow or volume measurements will allow the project area to

 determine how system performance has changed over time;

 help pinpoint reasons for changes, possibilities include irrigation and drainage
infrastructures, water supply and degeneration, channel deterioration and
diversion problems. To gain benefits from the above activities it is essential to
carry out irrigation water flow checks.

For best management and sustainable irrigated agriculture of the KDIP it is important to
plan the Season’s Irrigation; maximizing application efficiency; where and when to
irrigate and water supply restrictions during the season should be planned at the start of
the season. Understanding Customers becomes essential as Ansoff (1979) stated that the
degree to which the organizations product and services respond to the needs of its
customers and the efficiency with which the organization uses resources in supplying
these needs.

In relation to irrigation water rights each blocks of the irrigation project has to have a
known principle by which individuals or groups have an established right to water: There
may be different bases for water rights include:

29
 Share per unit area, where available water is divided on a percentage basis
determined by the potential irrigable area or blocks of the irrigation project: shares
of this nature do not guarantee a specific discharge because the percentage is
independent of total water availability;
Fired discharge per unit area, where water is delivered volumetrically in
proportion to the potential irrigable area;
Fired volume, where each water user is entitled to a maximum volume of water
during an irrigation season.
Instantaneous demand, where there are no restrictions imposed and individual
water users can take as much or as little water as they wish at any given moment
in time.

In situations of institutional and organizational conditions design and management

environments which include the institutional and organizational conditions of the
project that directly affect the capacity of managers to achieve the water allocation
targets that have been established and there is a greater degree of variability over time
than in either the physical design of the system or in water allocation principles it
useful to consider Conditions that affect management capacity which includes:

 Managing the capacity of an irrigation system to meet demands of farmers which

can manage in two ways:
 matching cropping plans and calendars with estimated seasonal water
availability before the start of the season, and
 adjusting operational targets in response to actual demand during the season.

Therefore to choose and apply the best irrigation water right or rights leads to better and
high level of performance of individual and whole blocks of KDIP.

30
7. REFERENECES
Abernethy, C.L. 1990. Indicators and criteria of the performance of irrigation
System Paper presented at the FAO Regional Workshop on Improved irrigation
System Performance for Sustainable Agriculture, Bangkok, and Thailand.

Albu, Nadia and Albu, 2003. Catalin.Instrumente de management al performance, vol.1

Contabilitate de-gestiune. Bucureşti: Editura Economică.

Andreas P.Savva and Keren Frenkew. 2002. Monitoring the technical financial
performance of an irrigation systems, 2002, Harare

Annette Meaney-Leckie (1986). Drought and Irrigation in Northeastern Brazil: A Case

Study Based on Morada Nova. Ceara (Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation,
University of Calgary

Ansoff, H.I. 1979. Strategic management. Macmillan Press Ltd. London. 236 pp

Boss. (1997). Performance indicators for irrigation and drainage. Irrigation and Drainage
Systems, ,pp.119-13.

Bos M. G. Wolters W. Drovandi, A. and Morabito J. A. 1991. The Viejo Retamo

Secondary canal- performance evaluation (case study). Mendoza,
Argentina. Irrigation and Drainage Systems, 5: 77-88.

Casley, D.J. and Kumar K. 1990. Project monitoring and evaluation in agriculture.
London.

Casley, D.J. and Lury, D.A. 1981. A handbook on monitoring and evaluation of
agriculture and rural development projects. World Bank

Douglas L. V., Juan A. S. 1999. Transfer of Irrigation Management Services. Guideline:

Irrigation and Drainage Paper. No. 58. FAO, Rome.

FAO. (1986). operation and maintenance of irrigation schemes. FAO irrigation and
drainage paper 40,Rome .

FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization). 1989. Guidelines for Designing and
Evaluating Surface Irrigation System: Irrigation and Drainage Paper. No.
45. FAO, Rome.

FARMESA. 2001. Farming systems approach to technology development and transfer: a

source book. Prepared by: Matata, J.B, Anandajayasekeram, P, Kiriro, T.N,
Wandera, E.O. and Dixon, J. Harare, Zimbabwe.

FDREMW.2003.Koga dam and irrigation main report, Addis Ababa.

Hanks, R.J. 1974. Model for predicting plant yield as influenced by water use.
Agronomy Journal 66:660-665.

31
H.P.Ritzema, 1994.Drainage principles and Application. Netherlands.

Kamara C. S. and Haque, 1991.Soil Physics Manual. Working Document No. B12. Soil
science & Plant Nutrition Section: International Livestock Center for Africa.
Addis Abeba, Ethiopia.

Kloezen W. H. and Garces-Restrepo C. 1998.Assessing Irrigation Performance with

Comparative indicators: The case of the Alto Rio Lerma irrigation district, Mexico
Research report 22.

Malano H & M. Burton. 2001. FAO Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the
irrigation and drainage sector. Rome.

Malano H & M. Burton. 2001. FAO Guidelines for benchmarking performance in the
irrigation and drainage sector. Rome.

Martin Burton, 2010. Irrigation and water management principles, UK.

Molden DJ, Gates TK 1990. Performance measures for evaluation of irrigation water
delivery systems. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering6: 804–823.

Molden D. J., Sakthivadivel R., Perry C. J., and Charlotte de Fraiture. 1998. Indicators for
Comparing Performance of Irrigated Agricultural Systems. Research Report
20.International Water management Institute. Colombo, Sri Lanka.

Sahlemedhin Sertsu and Taye Bekele. 2000. Procedures for Soil and Plant Analysis.
National Soil research Center. Ethiopian Agricultural Research Organization.
Technical Report No. 74.Addis Abeba Ethiopia.

Small L. E. and M. Svendsen. 1992. A Framework for Assessing Irrigation Performance.

International Food Policy Research Institute Working Papers on Irrigation
Performance No.1 International Food Policy Research Institute. Washington. C.

Tom C., Moges Worku, Messele Endale, Carmela G. A., Frank B., Abebe Wolde ;
Amanuel and Kibru Mamusha. 1999. Programmatic Environmental Assessment
of Small Scale Irrigation in Ethiopia: for Catholic Relief Services, U.S. Catholic
Conference. Baltimore, Maryland

32
8. APPENDICES

Table 8. 1Monthly ETO Penman monteith

Country: Ethiopia Station: Bahir dar

Longitude: 11.590N Latitude: 37.388E Altitude: 1800m

Month Min.To Max.To Humidity Wind Sun Rad ETo

(co) (co) (%) speed shine (MJ/m2/d
(km/d) hrs ) (mm/d
(hrs) )
Jan. 8.00 26.70 50.20 56.53 9.5 20.80 3.55
Feb. 10.00 28,20 44.80 63.38 9.6 22.50 4.05
Mar, 13.00 29.60 42.30 77.98 9.1 23.1 4.61
April 15.00 30.00 42.60 86.34 9.0 23.4 4.93
May 15.00 29.10 52.50 75.86 8.3 22.00 4.59
June 15.00 26.90 66.50 81.58 7.0 19.70 4.07
July 14.00 24.00 76.00 65.98 4.5 16.10 3.21
Aug. 14.00 24.20 81.40 60.64 4.6 16.40 3.18
Sep. 13.00 25.40 72.50 59.92 6.5 19.10 3.63
Oct. 13.00 26.40 61.30 64.06 8.6 21.30 3.96
Nov. 11.00 26.60 54.60 58.43 9.5 21.10 3.73
Dec. 9.00 26.40 51.40 53.34 9.7 20.50 3.47
Aver. 13.00 26.90 58.00 66.49 8.0 20.50 3.92

Table 8.2 Monthly rainfall

country: Ethiopia Station: Bahir dar Altitude: 1800m

Latitude: 11.590 N Longitude: 37.388 E

Month Rainfall (mm) Effective rain

Jan. 1.7 1.7

Feb. 2.3 2.3
Mar, 9.7 9.5
April 26.2 25.1
May 68.9 61.3
June 180.5 128.4
July 412.8 166.3
Aug. 377.8 162.8
Sep. 188.8 131.8
Oct. 83.8 72.6
Nov. 11.6 11.4
Dec. 2.5 2.5
Aver. 1366.6 775.6

33
 Table 8.3 Total results of cropwat for Kudimi block

actual
Crop total gross total net water potential Actual irr. total Effective

use by
Type irrigation Irrigation crop water use by requirement rainfall Rainfall

(mm) (mm) (mm) Crop(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Onion 569.6 398.7 399.3 399.6 395.4 16.9 4.2

pepper 490 343 366.1 366.2 352.8 14.5 13.5

wheat 560 392 373.9 374.1 361.2 14.5 12.6

Potato 601.9 421.3 425.0 425 414.0 20.0 11.1

Totals 2221.5 1555 1564.3 1564.9 1523.4 65.9 41.4

Table 8.4: Total results of cropwat for chihona block

total actual effectiv

Crop gross total net water potential Actual irr. total e
irrigatio irrigatio use by water use Rainfal
Type n n crop by requirement rainfall l

Crop(mm
(mm) (mm) (mm) ) (mm) (mm) (mm)
Onion 567.2 397 399.3 399.3 392.9 16.9 6.7
Pepper 464.3 325 366.1 366.2 351.9 14.4 14.3
Wheat 496 347.2 373.9 374.1 360.4 14.5 13.7
Potato 587.9 411.6 425 425 408.8 20 16.3
Totals 2115.4 1480.8 1564.3 1564.6 1514 65.8 51

34
Table 8.5 Total results of cropwat for Ambomesk block
Crop total gross total net actual water potential Actual irr. total Effective

Type Irrigation irrigation use by crop water use by requirement rainfall Rainfall

(mm) (mm) (mm) crop(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Onion 567.2 397 399.3 399.6 392.9 16.9 6.7

Pepper 522.8 366 399.7 399.8 374.9 34.1 24.9

Wheat 523.1 366.1 373.6 374.1 361.6 14.5 12.5

Potatoes 587.9 411.6 425 425 408.8 20 16.3

Total 2201 1540.7 1597.6 1598.5 1538.2 85.5 60.4

Table 8.6Total results of cropwat for Inguiti block

potential
water use
Actual By crop
water use Actual irr.
Crop total gross total net By crop (mm) Total Effective
Requirement
type Irrigation irrigation (mm) (mm) (mm) rainfall Rainfall
onion 547.9 383.5 399.3 399.6 393 16.9 6.6

wheat 552.5 386.7 373.9 374.1 360.5 14.5 13.6

potatoes 572.3 400.6 425 425 406.4 20 18.7
Total 1672.7 1170.8 1198.2 1198.7 1159.9 51.4 38.9

Table 8.7 Upstream main and secondary canal capacities of the four blocks

U/s Capacity SC2 Chain Develope Actual

Name of Q(m3/s) SC capacity age Designe d Irrigate
the block Main (m3/s) (m^3) (m) d irrigable d
canal Area(ha) area(ha) Area
(ha)
Kudmi 9.10 0.46 3576960 3.238 373 370 369.3
Chihona 8.64 0.78 6065280 9.76 617 583 574.5
A/bomesk ---- 0.93 7231680 10.79 812 703.235 703.24
Inguiti 5.99 2.46 3576960 13.78 393 363 341.5
Totals 2195 2019.40 1988.5

35
Table 8.8 Command area comparisons

block(ha) Designed(ha) irrigated(ha) chain age(km)

Kudmi 373 369.3 3.238
Chihona 617 574.5 9.76
Ambomesk 812 703.24 10.79
Inguiti 393 341.5 13.78

Table 8.9 kc values and growth stages for crops in blocks (2007)

KC Growth
Crop G/stages values stage wheat average 0.505 120

Onions Initial 0.5 5 initial 0.5 30

Dev't 0.5 25 Potatoes Dev't 0.5 35
mid-
mid-season 1.09 40 season 1.09 40
late
late season 1 30 season 0.57 25
average 0.7725 100 average 0.665 130
Wheat initial 0.35 15 initial 0.5 25
Dev't 0.35 25 pepper Dev't 0.5 35
mid-
mid-season 1.09 50 season 1 40
late
late season 0.23 30 season 0.56 20

Table 8.10. Water delivery performance standards (Molden and Gates, 1990)

Indicator poor Fair Good

PA <0.80 0.80-0.89 0.90-1.00
PE >0.25 0.11-0.25 0.00-0.10

36