3.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1. Description of the Study Area
The study was carried out at two modern small-scale irrigation schemes in the Oromia
National Regional State specifically in East Arsi Administrative: The Arata Chufa and Laga
Elu modern Small Scale irrigation at Tito and Ziway Dugda woreda, respectively.
3.1.1. Laga Elu Small Scale Irrigation Scheme

he study irrigation schemes are

found in Wondo Genet district,
southern nation, nationality, and
people regional
state (SNNPRS) of Ethiopia which is
located at about 263 km south of
Addis Ababa.
he study irrigation schemes are
found in Wondo Genet district,
southern nation, nationality, and
people regional
state (SNNPRS) of Ethiopia which is
located at about 263 km south of
Addis Ababa.
he study irrigation schemes are
found in Wondo Genet district,

1
southern nation, nationality, and
people regional
state (SNNPRS) of Ethiopia which is
located at about 263 km south of
Addis Ababa.
Laga Elu small scale irrigation scheme is located in Arsi Zone, between, borders of Tiyo and
Zuway Dugda districts, at specific village called Laga Elu Bosha. The scheme area is located
about 18km from Assela Town and 175 km south east of Addis Ababa. Geographically it
located at 70 57.190’N and 39003.916’E. Average altitude in the command area is 1802m
a.s.l and Mean annual rainfall is 1298mm with Net irrigable area 70 ha. (Source Arsi Zone
Agricultural Development Office).
3.1.2. Arata -Chufa small scale irrigation scheme

Arata -Chufa small scale irrigation scheme is located in Arsi Zone, Zuway Dugda districts,
at specific village called Arata peasant Association. The scheme area is 30Km far away from
Assela Town and 175 km south east of Addis Ababa. Geographically it located at located at
7_59 N and 39_02 E. The area has an average altitude of 1780 m.a.s.l. Average annual
temperature is 13.8°C and the average annual rainfall of the scheme is 1118 mm. The
scheme has command area of 100ha and currently served a total household beneficiaries of
340 (source Arsi Zone Agricultural Development Office).

2
 Figure 3.1: Location map of the study areas

3.2. Data Collection

The required data collection for this study were started in September up to April 2022 from
both primary and secondary sources. The primary data were collected from field by direct
measurement such as; discharge, water surface elevation, soil samples(laboratory), field plot
dimensions, questionnaires and field observation of irrigation infrastructures. Whereas,
secondary data from different offices and design documents.

3.2.1 Primary Data

The Primary data used for this study were collected directly from the field and laboratory
which includes; Soil samples were taken at different depth for the determination of bulk
density; field capacity, permanent wilting point; moisture content and infiltration rate of the
soils, Measurements of discharge at main, secondary and tertiary canals were taken using
current method and the average discharge coupled with the total flow time and the total
volume of water diverted by the irrigation scheme was estimated others data also collected
through questionnaires, number of beneficiary farmers/households from irrigation schemes,
filed observations, discussions with some selected groups, which selected purposively as a
committee of WUAs, developmental agents (DA) and the key informant interviews about
the performance of the irrigation projects.
3
3.2.2.1. Fieldwork Data Collection

While conducting this study, the following details elaborated primary field data collection
were undertaken from both irrigation schemas.

A. Soil Samples Data Collection

For the determination of the physical properties soil such as; bulk density, soil texture, field
capacity, wilting permanent point and soil moisture content, soil samples were collected
using auger at 30 cm depth intervals from the surface up to maximum rooting depth of the
crop 120cm.from six farm plots (one from the head, middle and tail from both
schemes).

To determine bulk density, undisturbed soil sample of known volume were taken using core
sampler from three representative places(one from the head, middle and tail from both
schemes) at three different depths (0-30 cm, 30-60 cm, 60-120 cm). The sample were dried
in an oven to determine the dry weight fraction. Then bulk density was calculated as the
ratio of dry weight of the soil to known cylindrical core sampler volume (Hillel, 2004).

Ms
BD= (3.1)
Vt

Where, BD = Bulk Density (g/cm3), Ms = dry weight of the soil (g) and Vt = total volume of
the soil (cm3).

The soil moisture status of the study area was observed by gravimetric moisture content
determination method at three depths, which are 0-30 cm, 30-60 cm and 60-120 cm. The wet
soil samples was put in an oven set at a temperature of 105oC and dried for 24 hours. Its
gravimetric water content was determined using the following equation.

Wws−Wds
ω= ∗100( 3.2)
Wds

Where: -ω is water content expressed on weight basis in (%), W ds is weight of dry soil (g),
and Wws is weight of wet soil (g).

The soil moisture content at field capacity (FC) and permanent wilting point (PWP) were
determined after soil samples were saturated for one day (24hrs) using the pressure plate
apparatus. Field capacity was determined by exerting a pressure of 0.33 bars and permanent
wilting point was determined by exerting a pressure of 15 bars until no change in moisture
was observed. The FC and permanent wilting point PWP values were further used to
determine total available water (TAW) as here under.
4
 TAW =10 ( Fc−PWP ) (3.3)
Where TAW = total available water in the root zone (mm/m), FC = moisture content (vol.
%) at field capacity and PWP = moisture content (vol. %) at permanent wilting point

B. Characteristics of Soil Infiltration

Determination of the basic infiltration rate was used as an input data for the
CROPWAT8.0 Model that was useful for the determination of crop water and irrigation
water requirements. It was determined using double ring infiltrometer. The inner and outer
rings have 30cm and 60cm diameter respectively. Measurements were taken in the internal
ring, but the purpose of the external ring was protecting the lateral movement of the water
through the soil. Water was added to the soil with certain interval of time. Measuring the
infiltration rate was continued by pouring water when the water depth is reduced in the rings
until the infiltration rate has been reach a constant value. After a long time, the infiltration
rate of the soil reached nearly constant. The cumulative depth of infiltration and the time
elapsed was recorded carefully and the basic infiltration rate was determined.
C. Flow in the Canals

When irrigation schemes are well managed, the accurate flow division within the canal
network and in the irrigated field is obtained. As result, the water demand for crop and farm
is met. However, a poor flow in the irrigated canal may result in discharges being too high in
some canals and too low in others, and could lead to water conflicts among irrigation
beneficiaries. To attain sufficient and equitable distribution of water to the fields it is useful
to know the flow of water in the canal.

Flow measurement in the canals was taken by using floating method and partial flume at
main, secondary and terriciary canals which were conveyed water to off takes of irrigated
fields. The method consists of estimating the average flow velocity and measuring the area
of the cross-section, called the “wetted cross-section”. It is paramount for the determination
behaviors of water conveyance systems and its efficiencies. The continuity equation 3.2 was
used to calculate the flow in the canal.

Q= A∗V (3.4 )

Where: Q: the discharge (m3/s)

V: the average flow velocity (m/s)
A: The area (m2) of the wetted cross-section.

5
3.2.2 Secondary Data

The secondary data required for this study includes climate data from the meteorological
station nearby to the schemes, necessary reports, project documents, studies and other useful
written materials were collected from different sources. These data included design and
layout of the scheme, design of conveyance and water control structures, irrigated area, area
irrigated per crop per season/year, crop types and number of farmers, were obtained from
Arsi Zone Agricultural and Natural Resource Department.

3.2.2.1. Climatic data

Data on climate of the study area was collected from the nearby Agro-meteorological
Observatory. From this data includes minimum and maximum temperature, wind speed,
relative humidity, sunshine hour and rainfall. This climatic data is used to estimate reference
evapotranspiration (ETO) which was computed using Penman-Monteith method,
CROPWAT ver. 8.0 window based computer model from the climatic data gathered.
Additional data like (Kc, maximum rooting depth, length of growing season and MAD) were
collected from reports and research published documents. Furthermore, data like, total
command area, irrigable area, irrigated area, crop yield and cost of irrigation scheme were
collected from Woreda and Zonal Agricultural Offices and Design Documents and from
respective stakeholders.
3.3. Materials used for data collection

Many materials were used to conduct this study. Some of listed below are the major
materials with their specific services;
Auger: it is used to take soil samples for the determination of soil textural classes of the
study area.
Oven dry: used to kept soil samples for the determination of soil moisture contents, bulk
density.
Core sampler: Used to collect undisturbed soil samples of the study area for the
determination of soil bulk density.
Weight balance: - Used to measure weight of soil moisture taken soil samples (i.e. at wet
and dry condition of soil)
Double ring infiltrometres: used to measure the soil infiltration rate of the study area.
Parshall flume: To measure the rate of flowing water from canals in to the field channels or
furrows.

Floating materials: - This used to take time required to reach the length required to
determine discharge passing on the canal.
6
Stop watch: - To know time taken by floating material to reach the second marked point

3.4. Data Analysis

After all necessary data used for performance evaluation of irrigation schemes were
collected, the analysis and manipulation activities was made using CROPWAT 8.0 model,
using mathematical operations and equations, graphs; excel data sheet. Finally the selected
performance indicators were computed based on irrigation water management institute
(IWMI).
3.4.1. Determination of Crop Water and Irrigation Water requirement

The crop water requirement of crops grown in the study area was calculated using
CROPWAT 8.0 model which is familiar and easy to use. The model needs climatic data
such as; mean monthly minimum and maximum temperature (0c), relative humidity (%),
wind speed (km/day) and sunshine hours (hr.) for determination of reference
evapotranspiration. These used data were for 15 years (2006 -2021) collected from nearby
metrological station. The mean values of the climate data were analyzed and presented in
Appendix Table 5.

The Crop water requirement, total gross irrigation requirement, actual irrigation requirement,
net crop water requirement and the net irrigation requirements (IR) for each irrigated crop
for the 2020 and 2021 dry cropping season were computed using CROPWAT 8.0 computer
program by feeding the computed monthly ETo values together with the necessary crop,
rainfall and soil data. The determination of the CWR and irrigation requirement by this
model depends on the determination soil parameters by USDA soil conservation service
method. 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 also used to calculate the above
parameters. Then, crop evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirement were determined
as expressed in (Eq. 3.5 and 3.6)

ETc=ETo∗Kc 3.5

Where: ETC = Crop evapotranspiration

ETO = Reference crop evapotranspiration
KC = Crop coefficient

7
 IWR=ETc−RFeff 3.6
Where, ETc = Crop evapotranspiration (cm)
IWR= irrigation water requirement (cm)
RFeff = effective rainfall (cm)

3.4.2. Irrigation Performance Indicators

The performance of irrigation schemes were evaluated based on various indicators which
were mentioned by Molden et al., (1998). These groups of performance indicators are
internal and external performance indicators.

3.4.2.1. Internal performance Indicators

The internal performance indicators were used to evaluate the irrigation water use efficiency
of farmers at field level and to compare each other in the same irrigation project. The detail
of these indicators discussed in turn.

Conveyance Efficiency (Ec)

When irrigation water is taken from its sources and transported then distributed to different
irrigation fields or the point where this water used is called Conveyance system. During this
transportation, the water may lost in this conveyance system in the form of evaporation,
overtopping, seepage.

Efficient irrigation system transports water with minimum losses and hence has high
conveyance efficiency.

The conveyance Efficiency of irrigation scheme refers to the volume of water lost by the
network of conveyance canals due to seepage and evaporation (Kassa and Ayana, 2019) and
is determined as shown in equation.

Q inflow
CE = ∗100 3.8
Qout flow
Where, Ec, Qin, and Q out are conveyance efficiency (%), inflow, and out flow discharge
(m3/sec) respectively.

8
Application Efficiency (Ea)

In the operation of an irrigation scheme, it is very important to know the term application
efficiency in order to determine the performance of the irrigation. It refers to the amount of
water applied that is stored in the crop root zone. This value is determined by water
distribution characteristics, system management, soil conditions, the crop, and weather
conditions. Water application efficiency pertains to an individual irrigation event. Based on
the application efficiency result the scheme can categorized as good or bad and remedial
measures will or will not be taken.

The application efficiency can be determined after determining the depth of water actually
applied into the fields using a Parshall flume and the depth of the water retained in the root
zone of the soil based on the soil moisture contents of the soils before and after irrigation
and located in the head, middle and tail-end of the water source. To measure this indicator,
moisture content of the soil and amount of irrigation water supplies were required in each
sample plots.

Application efficiency was computed as follows (Michael, 2008):

Ws
Ea = Wd
3.9

Where:
Ea = application efficiency; Ws = average depth water stored in the root zone of the plant
and Wd = average water delivered to the field (water depth applied to the field)

Storage Efficiency (Es)

The water storage efficiency refers to how completely the water needed prior to the
irrigation root zone during irrigation. It is the ratio of water stored in the root zone during
irrigation to the quantity of water needed in the root zone before irrigation.
It is used to relate the amount of water required by the crop with the amount of water stored
in the root zone of the crop (Amer and Amer, 2010; van Halsema et al., 2011) and can be
determined as shown in equation below.

Ws
Es = Wn
∗100 3.10

9
Where, Es, Ws, and Wn are storage efficiency (%), water stored in the root zone during
irrigation, and water needed in the root zone before irrigation (mm). The amount of water
needed by the crop before irrigation depends on the type of soil and rooting depth (da Silva
et. al., 2017). It was estimated from the soil field capacity and permanent wilting using
equation below.

TAW =¿ 3.11

Where, TAW, FC, PWP and Zr are volumetric total available water in the root zone (mm),
volumetric moisture content at field capacity (m3/m3), volumetric moisture content at
permanent wilting point (m3/m3), and plant root depth (m), respectively.

3.4.2.2. External performance Indicators

10
 4. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

4.1. Soil data Result Analysis

The soil textural class of the study areas was identified based on the particle size distribution
through using Soil Textural Triangle method USDA. For the determination purpose, soil
samples were taken at depth interval of (0-30, 30-60 and 60-120cm) for the determination
of the physical properties soil such as; bulk density, soil texture, field capacity, wilting
permanent point and soil moisture content from six farm plots of the irrigation schemes at
different location ( one from the head, middle and tail ).

4.1.1. Soil Texture

The results of the particle size distribution is given in Table 4.1.and Appendix 12. The result
of the soil analysis from the Arata Chufa irrigation scheme showed that the composition of
sand, silt and clay percentages were in the range of 17.87- 16.66 %, 37.2 – 55.37% and
27.97 – 44.93% , respectively. Based on this percentage range, the leading soil textural class
in Laga Elu irrigation through the command area of the scheme was the same starting from
the head to the tail is clay texture.
On the other hand, the soil content of the Eluu River irrigation area is similar to that of the
Arata Chufa irrigation, which is clay. Accordingly, the soil analysis from the Laga Elu
irrigation scheme showed that the composition of sand, silt and clay percentages were in the
range of 15.7- 16.82%,46.89 – 55.2% and 28.6 – 35.2%, respectively Table 4.1 and
Appendix Table 33.

Table 4. 1. Soil textural class

Scheme Soil %Sand % Silt % Clay Soil Class

Depth(cm)
Arata 0-30 17.87 55.37 44.93 Clay
Chufa 30-60 18.31 52.24 29.45 Clay
60-90 16.66 37.2 27.97 Clay
Average 17.61 48.27 34.12 Clay
Laga Elu 0-30 16.2 55.2 28.6 Clay
30-60 16.82 46.89 30.23 Clay
60-90 15.70 49.10 35.20 Clay
Average 16.24 50.40 31.34 Clay

11
4.1.2. Determination of Soil bulk density, Moisture at Fc, PWP and TAW

The determined physical properties of soil such as; bulk density(BD), field capacity (FC),
permanent wilting point (PWP) and total available water content (TAW) in the study were
indicated in table 4.2.

The bulk density of soil of the area showed a variation with depth in both irrigation schemes.
It varied between 0.87 to 1.21 g /cm3 and 0.81 to 1.22 g /cm3 for Arata Chuafa irrigation and
Laga Elu irrigation Schemes respectively. (Table 4.2). As a result the top surface soil had an
average lower bulk density than the bottom surface. The obtained result shows that the bulk
density values for clay soils were in the range of recommended values. In Average the soil
bulk density of Arata Chufa irrigation scheme was better than Laga Elu irrigation scheme.
Imhoff et al., (2016) suggested a critical bulk density of 1.35 g /cm3 as suitable for plant
growth, this also indicating the suitability soil bulk density of both sites for crop growth

The total available moisture content values in Arata Chufa irrigation scheme ranges from
78.89 to 209.33mm/m where as that of Laga Elu irrigation scheme ranges from 105.95 to
260mm/m table 4.2.

The soil moisture content at field capacity was found in the range of 31.35 to 38.13% for
Arata Chufa and 33.48 to 40.55% for Laga Elu irrigation schemes. On the other hand the
soil moisture content permanent wilting point was found in the range of 17.9 to 23.71% for
Arata Chufa and 18.54 to 25.03% for Laga Elu irrigation schemes.

Table 4. 2. Field capacity, permanent wilting point, bulk density and total available moisture
Scheme Canal Soil Depth Fc (%) PWP BD TWA TWA
Reaches (cm) (%) (g/cm3) (mm) (mm/m)
Head 0-30 31.35 22.1 1.05 29.14 97.13
30-60 33.4 20 1.13 45.43 151.42
Arata 60-90 35.2 17.9 1.21 62.8 209.33
Chufa Middle 0-30 34.12 22.83 0.89 30.14 100.48
30-60 35.33 21.03 0.86 36.89 122.98
60-90 37.61 18.61 1.06 60.42 201.40
Tail 0-30 33.45 23.71 0.81 23.67 78.89
30-60 34.86 22.16 0.78 29.72 99.06
60-90 38.13 20.15 1.01 54.48 181.60
Average   138.032
Laga Elu Head 0-30 33.48 22.66 1.08 35.06 116.86
30-60 38.12 21.41 1.14 57.15 190.49
12
 60-90 40.55 19.23 1.22 78.03 260.10
Middle 0-30 34.68 18.54 0.91 57.71 192.37
30-60 36.63 21.69 0.84 37.65 125.50
60-90 39.45 20.71 1.05 59.03 196.77
Tail 0-30 36.33 24.16 0.88 32.13 107.10
30-60 38.11 25.03 0.81 31.78 105.95
60-90 40.16 22.05 1.03 55.96 186.53
Average   164.63

4.2. Crop and Irrigation Water Requirements

The seasonal crop and irrigation water requirements of the crops (onion, pepper, Tomato,
cabbage and Potato) grown in the study area during the study period as estimated by the
CROPWAT 8 model.

This model computed the crop water requirements based on equation [3.5] and it needs
climatic data for ETo computation, crop characteristics data and soil description for the
determination of crop water requirements and irrigation water requirements.

While determining crop water requirements, Crop coefficient (Kc), maximum root depth
(m), crop height, and yield reduction factor (Ky) values were adopted from FAO Irrigation
& Drainage paper 24 and 56. Furthermore, the allowable soil moisture depletion fraction for
each crops at each growing stage were also adopted from FAO I & D paper 24 and 56, and
research documents.

Accordingly, the seasonal crop and irrigation water requirement estimated at Laga Elu
irrigation scheme for potato 399.2 mm and 347.4mm, Onion 362.8mm and 311.0 mm,
Tomato 471.3 mm and 393.9 mm, Cabbage 451.2 mm and 391.0 mm and Pepper 463.0 mm
and 406.2 mm respectively (Appendix Table 8). Similarly, the seasonal crop and irrigation
water requirement estimated at Arata Chufa irrigation scheme of onion 365.7 mm and
256.4mm, potato 368.8 mm and 264.4 mm, Tomato 460.5 mm and 333.0 mm, Cabbage
415.5 mm and 307.2 mm and pepper 386.9 mm and 264.2 mm respectively.

The estimated crop and irrigation water requirements indicated that tomato crop which had
relatively higher crop and irrigation water requirement compared to other at both irrigation
schemes (Appendix Table 8).

13
Table 4.3: Net Crop water and Net IR of Laga Elu and Arata Chufa irrigation schemes
NCWR NR. eff NIR NCWR R. Eff NIR
Scheme
(mm/Season) (mm/Season) (mm/Season) (m3) (m3) (m3)
Laga Elu 418.7 58.08 360.62 293,090 40,656 252,434
Arata Chufa 392.07 111.60 280.47 392,070 111,600 280,470

The total net crop water requirement/demand/ for each irrigation scheme was calculated
using the following equation;
NCWR =CWRPotato∗( A Potato ) CWR tomato∗( A tomato ) CWROnion∗( A Onion ) CWR Cabagge∗( ACabagge ) CWR Pepper∗( A
+ + + +
total area total area total area total area total area

Accordingly, the total net crop water requirement at Arata Chufa irrigation scheme was
392.07 mm/season and 418.7 mm/season was the total net crop water requirement at Laga
Elu irrigation scheme.
With similar computation procedures the total net irrigation requirements of the two
irrigation schemes were determined as 280.47mm/season for Arata Chufa and 360.62
mm/season for Laga Elu Irrigation Scheme.
4.3. Total Supplied/Diverted Water in to Irrigation Schemes

The total water supplied in both irrigation schemes were estimated from average discharge
through main canals, total days at which the irrigation practiced for the season of 2020/2019
and irrigation practicing hour of farmers who were the beneficiaries of the irrigation
schemes. From the interviewed irrigation users, the operating hour for both irrigation
schemes were identified as 8 hr. /day and irrigation season stayed for four months (Octobar1
to February 2, 2019/20). The average inflow discharge to the main canals of Arata Chufa
and Laga Elu irrigation schemes were observed as 89.27l/s and 84.42 l/s respectively
(Appendix Table 11).
Accordingly, the total diverted irrigation water for Arata Chufa irrigation scheme was
318,801.02 m3 and, the total supplied irrigation water at the head of the main canal
throughout irrigation season for Laga Elu irrigation scheme was 301,480.7 m3.

4.4. Internal Performance Indicators

4.4.1. Conveyance Efficiency

Conveyance efficiency of the systems was estimated using equation (3.8) considering the
total
flow delivered by conveyance system and total inflow into the system (Table 4.4 &
Appendix Table 12 and 11). During the study period, average conveyance efficiency of the
14
main canal from main intake up to the tail end considering different measuring locations of
discharge using float method.
Table 4.4 below indicates that the average conveyance efficiency at Arata Chufa small scale
irrigation was found 88.78 % with a mean conveyance loss of 0.201 m 3/sec/m for the main
canal while it was 72.82% with conveyance loss of 0.341 m 3/sec/m for the secondary canal
and 55.16 % with conveyance loss of 0.225 m 3/sec/m for the terriciary canal (Appendix
Table 20 and Table 4.4). Similarly, for Laga Elu small scale irrigation, the average
conveyance efficiency was found 88.51 % with conveyance loss of 0.191 m 3/sec/m the main
canal while it was 80.66 % with conveyance loss of 0.148 m 3/sec/m for secondary canal and
it was 55.56 % with conveyance loss of 0.132m3/sec/m for terriciary canal.
Table 4.4: Average canal conveyance efficiency
Arata Chufa Irrigation Scheme Laga Elu Irrigation Scheme
Flow in the canals at
Avge Qinflo AvgeQout Ec Avge Qinflo Avge Qout Ec
different reach
( l /s) (l /s) (%) ( l /s) (l /s) (%)
88.7
MC at Reach per 50m 89.27 79.22 8 M,o 74.86 88.51
72.8
SC at Reach per 50m 61.98 44.92 2 45.98 36.36 75.40
55.1
TC at Reach per 50m 25.44 14.17 6 13.5 6.88 53.56
Where, MC, SC, and TC are Main Canal, Secondary Canal and Terriciary Canal
respectively
4.4.2. Application Efficiency

Water application efficiency provides a general indication of how well an irrigation system
application efficiency of selected fields at the Arata Chufa irrigation scheme was found to
vary from 57.31% to 58.10% with an average of 57.59% while that of the Laga Elu for
selected fields from the tail to head irrigation scheme vary from 55.98 to 87.50% with an
average application efficiency of 68.21% (Table 4.5). The results of this study show that,
farmers who use from chufa irrigation scheme used more water in the selected field of the
head, middle and tail. In other ways, the reason for low application efficiencies of these
selected fields might be due to the problem that the irrigation scheme was not properly
managed and not uniformly supply water to these fields. However, farmers in the upper
fields of the Elu River irrigation scheme were used water efficiently.
Furthermore, the average values of application efficiencies for Arata chufa irrigation scheme
for the selected fields from head, middle and tail reaches were within the ranges indicated in
many literatures reported for surface irrigation FAO (1989). Roger et al., (1997) and US
(SCS) reported the maximum attainable application efficiency as in range of 50-90% and 55-
70% respectively.
15
 Table 4.5. Application efficiencies of the Irrigation Schemes

Arata Chufa Irrigation Scheme Laga Elu Irrigation Scheme

Position Delivered Stored Ea(% Delivered Stored Ea(%
Depth of Depth of ) Depth of Depth of )
Water(mm) water(mm Water(mm) water(mm)
)
Head 131.19 76.22 58.10 109.01 74.36 68.21
Middle 113.48 65.085 57.35 86.43 41.63 48.17
Tail 80.18 45.9475 57.31 66.46 29.32 44.12
Averag 108.28 62.42 57.59 87.30 48.44 53.50
e

4.4.3. Storage Efficiency

The storage efficiency relates to the amount of water needed before irrigation and the
amount of water storage in the root zone during irrigation. It becomes important when water
supplies are limited or when excessive time is required to secure adequate penetration of
water into the soil.

The average storage efficiency at Arata Chufa irrigation scheme ranged from 46.98–51.36%
during the irrigation season along the selected field from the head, middle and tail (Table
4.6). On the other hand, the average storage efficiency of Laga Elu irrigation scheme ranged
from 44.12 to 53.85% during the irrigation season. This indicating that it is consistent with
the recommendation given in Dayer et al., (2018) with the average water storage efficiency
of surface irrigation in the range of 50–55%
Table 4. 6. Storage efficiencies of the Irrigation Schemes

positionChufa Irrigation Scheme Laga Elu Irrigation Scheme

Delivered Stored Es Delivered Stored Depth Es(%)
Depth of Depth of (%) Depth of of water(mm)
Water(mm) water(mm) Water(mm)
Head 148.395 76.2225 51.36 138.09 74.36 53.85
Middle 128.82 65.085 50.52 86.43 41.63 48.17
Tail 97.8075 45.9475 46.98 66.46 29.32 44.12
Average 125.01 62.42 49.62 96.99 48.44 48.71

4.5. External Performance Indicators

4.5.1. Water Productivity Performance Indicators

According to the researcher's observations from the study area and various data collected
from the people who are using these irrigation systems in the area, it was found that due to

16
the untimely rains, many of the beneficiaries who use these irrigation systems were used
these irrigation schemes as major source of their income.

Table 4.7: Parameters for agricultural performance indicators

Irrigation Irrigation Crop
Command Area Productio
Water Water Water
Scheme Irragble Harvested n Value
Diverted delivered Consumed
Area (h) (ha) ($)
(m3) (m3) (m3)
Arata Chufa 100 82 168740 318,801.02 280,470 392,070
Laga Elu 70 50 102232 301,480.70 252,434 293,090

In order to compare the two irrigation schemes in terms agriculture performance indicators,
water productivity was selected as it is major water is a constraining resource in the study
are
Through these indicators were used to compare the water productivity performances at both
irrigation schemes; output per unit irrigation water supplied and output per unit water
consumed.

Eternal performance indicators relate the value of production in dollar with the irrigated
cropped area (ha), command area (ha), diverted and consumed irrigation water supply (m3)
as an output of the scheme (Değirmenci et al., 2017; Sener and Albut, 2011).

Output per unit Irrigation Supply

The output per unit irrigation supply expresses as how well the total annual diverted
irrigation water from source is productive. The irrigation water supply includes conveyance
losses in canals in areas where water is scarce, water management aims to increase the
output per drop of irrigation water. This indicator shows the revenue from agricultural
output for each cubic meter of irrigation water supplied.

Accordingly, from calculation using equation (3.14) and the collected data and presented in
the table 4.7,the output per unit water supply for Arata Chufa was found to be 0.53US$/m 3
and that of Laga Elu was 0.34 US$/m3( Table 4.7).

17
4.5.2. Land productivity performance indicators

Land productivity gives an indication of the crop production or output per unit land area
(Dharmasiri, 2012). During this study, the researcher was attempted to determine the land
productivity of the irrigated area using two land productivity indicators. These were output
per unit of irrigated area and output per irrigations command area. However. The crop yields
in the irrigation schemes vary and it may be difficult to compare these two irrigation
schemes. Therefore, it were expressed monetary measures after converted to these output
results to standardization across crops in the two irrigation.

Output Per unit Irrigated Area

The estimated output per harvested area of Arata chufa irrigation scheme was US$
2,057.8 /ha where as that of Laga Elu irrigation scheme was US$ 2,044.64 /ha. The results
showed similarities in the land productivity performance for both irrigation schemes in terms
output per harvested irrigated area. Output per unit of harvested area value of both Arata
Chufa and Laga Elu irrigation schemes were comparable with results obtained in Wedecha
schemes (Wondatir, S. 2016) which found the output per unit irrigated area values of
2198$/ha and 1356$/ha at Jari and Aloma small scale irrigation schemes, respectively. The
similar result also was reported by Shiberu et al. (2019) who found the outputs per cropped
area were found to be 2,852.77 US$/ha and 2,179.41 US$/ha for Haleku and Dodicha
irrigation schemes respectively,

18
Output Per unit of Command Area (US$/ha)

The importance of this indicator is to indicate that whether the command irrigated areas of
both irrigation schemes generating the expected return or fail to provide the expected return.
According to the collected and estimated result of the table 4.7 the output per unit command
area were 1687.4 and 1460.4 US$/ha for Arata Chufa and Laga Elu irrigation schemes
respectively.

The results showed that the output per unit command area Arata Chufa scheme was better
than at Laga Elu irrigation scheme. This is mainly due to Laga Elu irrigation scheme has not
been able to live up to the expected designed command area relative to Arata Chufa
irrigation scheme.

Muema et al. (2018) found average values of output per unit command area ranging from
US$1,921/ha to US$2,047/ha for the Kenya irrigation schemes and highlighted the high
values to be a result of intensive irrigation in those schemes. However the estimated values
were higher than values of 709 US$/ha and 1,278.59US$/ha reported by Sener et al. (2007)
and Shiberu et al. (2019) at Dodicha small scale irrigation scheme respectively.
Additionally, the calculated output per unit command area values were higher than the
values reported by Hakuzimana, and Blessing (2020) which were US$1,017/ha and
US$985/ha for Rugeramigozi 1 and Rugeramigozi 2, respectively.

Table 4.7: Parameters for agricultural performance indicators

Irrigation Irrigation Crop
Command Area Productio
Water Water Water
Scheme Irragble Harvested n Value
Diverted delivered Consumed
Area (h) (ha) ($)
(m3) (m3) (m3)
Arata Chufa 100 82 168740 318,801.02 280,470 392,070
Laga Elu 70 50 102232 301,480.70 252,434 293,090

19
4.6. Water use performance indicators

4.6.1. Relative Water Supply

The relative water supply describes whether there is enough irrigation water supplied or not
to the command area. The relative water supply value below one normally indicates that the
water applied is less than the crop demands and values above one indicate extra water is
added to the root zone beyond plant demands.

4.6.2 Relative irrigation supply

The relative irrigation supply shows whether the irrigation demand is satisfied or not. This
means that for the value of production per unit volume of annual irrigation water delivered
to the head of command area. It is different from irrigation supply as it does not include
losses in conveyance systems. It is a useful comparative indicator because it addresses
output per drop of irrigation water actually delivered to the user. Inefficient water use results
in lower values of this indicator.

20
21
 REFERENCES

Amer, A.M., Amer, K.H., 2010. Surface irrigation management concerning water infiltration
and distribution in soils. Soil Water Res. 5. https://doi.org/10.17221/47/2009-swr

Dharmasiri, L. M., 2012. Measuring agricultural productivity using the Average

Productivity Index (API). Sri Lanka Journal of Advanced Social Studies. 1(2), 25-44.

Değirmenci, H., Tanriverdi, Ç., Arslan, F., Gönen, E., 2017. Benchmarking Performance of
Large Scale Irrigation Schemes With Comparative Indicators in Turkey. Sci. Pap.
Ser. E. L. Reclam. Earth Obs. Surv. Environ. Eng. VI.

Hakuzimana, and Blessing Masasi (2020). Performance Evaluation of Irrigation Schemes in

Rugeramigozi Marshland, Rwanda. Water Conservation and Management, 4(1): 15-
19.

Imhoff, S., Da Silva, A.P., Ghiberto, P.J., Tormena, C.A., Pilatti, M.A., Libardi, P.L., 2016.
Physical quality indicators and mechanical behavior of agricultural soils of
Argentina. PLoS One 11. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0153827

Muema, F., Home, P., Raude, J., 2018. Application of benchmarking and principal
component analysis in measuring performance of public irrigation schemes in
Kenya. Agriculture, 8(10), 162.

Sener, M., Albut, S., 2011. Irrigation performance assessment in Turkey: Thrace region case
study. Bulg. J. Agric. Sci. 17, 521–530.

Van Halsema, G.E., Keddi Lencha, B., Assefa, M., Hengsdijk, H., Wesseler, J., 2011.
Performance assessment of smallholder irrigation in the central rift valley of
Ethiopia. Irrig. Drain. 60, 622–634. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.613

Wondatir, S. 2016. Performance evaluation of irrigation schemes: A case study of Jari and
Aloma small-scale irrigation schemes, Tehuledere District, Ethiopia. MSc thesis in
Irrigation and Drainage Engineering. Arba Minch, Ethiopia: Arba Minch University.

22
 APPENDIX

Appendix Table 4.1 Soil physical characteristics at Arata Chufa irrigation schemes
Soil Textural
%Sand % Silt % Clay Sample pit
Depth(cm) Class
0-30 15.5 14.8 69.7 Clay
30-60 16.33 54.81 28.863 Clay Head Reach
60-90 14.88 56.42 28.7 Clay
0-30 20.3 48.6 31.1 Clay
30-60 18.6 50.9 30.5 Clay Middle Reach
60-90 21.1 49.7 29.2 Clay
0-30 17.8 48.2 34 Clay
30-60 20 51 29 Clay Tail Reach
60-90 14 60 26 Clay

Appendix Table 4.2 Soil physical characteristics at Laga Elu irrigation scheme
Soil
%Sand % Silt % Clay Textural Class Sample pit
Depth(cm)
0-30 15.5 14.8 69.7 Clay
30-60 16.33 54.81 28.863 Clay Head Reach
60-90 14.88 56.42 28.7 Clay
0-30 20.3 48.6 31.1 Clay
30-60 18.6 50.9 30.5 Clay Middle Reach
60-90 21.1 49.7 29.2 Clay
0-30 17.8 48.2 34 Clay
30-60 20 51 29 Clay Tail Reach
60-90 14 60 26 Clay

4.3. Determination of Crop Water Requirements and Irrigation Requirements

23
 Appendix Table 8: Crop water and IR of Laga Elu and Arata Chufa irrigation schemes

Major Area(ha CWR R. eff NIR GIR

Scheme
Crops ) (mm/Season) (mm/Season) (mm/Season) (mm/Season)

Potato 21 399.2 51.8 347.4 496.3

Onion 17.5 362.8 51.8 311 518.4
Laga Elu Tomato 14 471.3 74.4 396.9 661.6
Cabbage 10.5 451.2 60.2 391 651
Pepper 7 463 56.8 406.2 677
  Total 70        
Potato 35 368.8 104.4 264.4 440.7
Onion 25 365.7 109.3 256.4 427.4
Arata Chufa Tomato 17 460.5 127.5 333 554.9
Cabbage 15 415.5 108.3 307.2 512
Pepper 8 386.9 122.7 264.2 440.3
  Total 100        
Where; CWR- crop water requirement NIR- Net irrigation requirement R.eff- effective rainfall GIR- Gross
irrigation requirement

The total net crop water requirement/demand/ for each irrigation scheme was calculated
using the following equation;

NCWR =CWRPotato∗( A Potato ) CWR tomato∗( A tomato ) CWROnion∗( A Onion ) CWR Cabagge∗( ACabagge ) CWR Pepper∗( A
+ + + +
total area total area total area total area total area

CWR
Major R. eff NIR GIR
Scheme Area(ha) (mm/Season
Crops (mm/Season) (mm/Season) (mm/Season)
)
Potato 21 399.2 51.8 347.4 496.3
Onion 17.5 362.8 51.8 311 518.4
Laga Elu Tomato 14 471.3 74.4 396.9 661.6
Cabbage 10.5 451.2 60.2 391 651
Pepper 7 463 56.8 406.2 677
  Total 70        
Potato 35 368.8 104.4 264.4 440.7
Onion 25 365.7 109.3 256.4 427.4
Arata Chufa Tomato 17 460.5 127.5 333 554.9
Cabagge 15 415.5 108.3 307.2 512
Pepper 8 386.9 122.7 264.2 440.3
  Total 100        

24
 NCW
R. eff NIR GIR
R NCWR R. Eff NIR GIR
Scheme (mm/Se (mm/Se (mm/Se
(mm/S (m3) (m3) (m3) (m3)
ason) ason) ason)
eason)
729754.71
Laga Elu 418.7 82 511 811 376830 73674 460233 4
Arata 352860 100440.
Chufa 392 112 280 467 .3 9 252419.4 420706.8

4.2 Water use performance indicators

Water supply performance indicators are used to relate the relative water supply and relative
irrigation supply to demand, for the indication of enough irrigation water supply or the
scarcity of the water supply for the irrigation.

If the amount of water used for irrigation is above the amount of water required by the plant
or if the ratio of the irrigation water supply to the crop water demand is above one, it
indicates that there is sufficient water in the irrigated area. On the other hand, the irrigation
project that produces sufficient yield without any shortage of water for irrigation and the
plant gets enough water. Therefore, water is not considered as a scarcity to provide good and
sufficient yields.

However, when their ratio is less than one, it indicates that there is a shortage of water in the
irrigation area. Also, in an irrigation area where the relative water supply value less than one

25
may not represent a problem; rather, it may provide an indication that farmers are practicing
other way of irrigation water management.

26
Appendix Table : Long-term (2001-2021) Climatic Data of the Laga Elu irrigation
WS(km/ Rainfall(mm
Month Tmin((0C) Tmax((0C) RH% Day SH(Hr) )
JAN 10.30 26.2 52 112 9.1 12.0
FEB 12.10 26.6 48 86 8.7 47.0
MAR 12.90 27.4 50 86 8.0 44.0
APR 13.20 28.5 50 69 7.5 85.0
MAY 12.80 28.6 53 79 73.0 41.0
JUN 13.40 27.0 63 130 7.4 72.0
JUL 14.30 24.6 76 95 5.3 132.0
AUG 14.10 24.2 79 86 5.8 118.0
SEP 13.10 24.4 78 61 5.4 89.0
OCT 12.40 26.2 64 69 8.1 32.0
NOV 10.30 25.5 49 104 8.8 11.0
DEC 8.80 26.2 48 78 8.4 6.0
Averag 12.31 26.28 59.17 87.92 12.96 57.42
e

Appendix Table 1: Long-term (2001-2021) Climatic Data of the Arata Chufa irrigation Scheme
Tmin((0C WS(km/ Raifall
Month ) Tmax((0C) RH% Day SH(Hr) Data(mm)
JAN 11.50 24.12 51 78 8.2 14.5
FEB 12.70 24.60 54 86 8.4 24.3
27
 MAR 13.10 25.11 56 86 8.3 54.3
APR 13.65 24.80 61 95 8.1 53.0
MAY 14.25 24.13 58 60 8.3 52.0
JUN 13.13 22.70 56 43 8.4 228.0
JUL 14.61 20.00 73 52 6.8 286.0
AUG 12.11 19.80 84 43 6.4 287.0
SEP 11.59 20.70 80 52 7.3 97.0
OCT 11.21 22.10 86 86 8.7 81.0
NOV 13.87 22.80 58 76 9.2 18.0
DEC 15.12 22.40 54 74 9.1 9.0
Averag
e 13.07 22.77 64.25 69.25 8.10 100.35

Appendix Table 1 : Rain and Effective Rain at Irrigation Schemes

Schemes Laga Elu Arata Chufa
Month Rainfall(mm) Eff Rain(mm Rain(mm) Eff rain(mm)
January 14.5 14.2 12 11.8
February 24.3 23.4 47 43.5
March 54.3 49.6 44 40.9
April 53 48.5 85 73.4
May 52 47.7 41 38.3
June 228 144.8 72 63.7
July 286 153.6 132 104.1
28
 August 287 153.7 118 95.7
September 97 81.9 89 76.3
October 81 70.5 32 30.4
November 18 17.5 11 10.8
December 9 8.9 6 5.9
Total 1204.1 814.2 689 594.9

Appendix Table 1 Potato Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Laga Elu
Eff
Decad Kc(coeff Etc(mm/ ETc(mm/
Month Stage rain(mm/dec Irr. Req.
e ) day) dec)
) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.88 18.8 14.4 4.4
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.99 19.9 8.9 11
Oct 3 Deve 0.54 2.19 24 7.1 16.9
Nov 1 Deve 0.77 3.11 31.1 5.3 25.8
Nov 2 Deve 1 4.1 41 3 38
Nov 3 Mid 1.19 4.69 46.9 2.6 44.2
Dec 1 Mid 1.2 4.58 45.8 2.2 43.5
Dec 2 Mid 1.2 4.41 44.1 1.5 42.6
Dec 3 Late 1.17 4.46 49.1 2.3 46.8
Jan 1 Late 1.05 4.14 41.4 2.5 38.9
Jan 2 Late 0.96 3.96 11.9 0.8 10.5
374 50.8 322.7

Appendix Table 1 : Potato Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Arata Chufa

29
 Eff Irr. Req.
Month Decade Stage Kc(coeff) Etc(mm/day) Etc(mm/dec)
rain(mm/dec) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.78 17.8 26.1 0
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.81 18.1 25.5 0
Oct 3 Deve 0.54 1.98 21.8 18.9 2.8
Nov 1 Deve 0.74 2.75 27.5 10.3 17.2
Nov 2 Deve 0.95 3.58 35.8 3.7 32.1
Nov 3 Mid 1.12 4.17 41.7 3.5 38.2
Dec 1 Mid 1.13 4.18 41.8 3.5 38.3
Dec 2 Mid 1.13 4.15 41.5 2.4 39.1
Dec 3 Late 1.1 4.05 44.5 3.1 41.4
Jan 1 Late 0.99 3.64 36.4 4 32.4
Jan 2 Late 0.92 3.37 10.1 1.4 7.8
337 102.4 249.3

30
Appendix Table 1 Tomato Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Laga Elu

Etc(m Eff Irr.

Month Decade Stage Kc(coeff) Etc(mm/day)
m/dec) rain(mm/dec) Req.(mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.88 18.8 14.4 4.4
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.99 19.9 8.9 11
Oct 3 Deve 0.53 2.13 23.4 7.1 16.3
Nov 1 Deve 0.69 2.78 27.8 5.3 22.5
Nov 2 Deve 0.85 3.48 34.8 3 31.8
Nov 3 Deve 1.01 4 40 2.6 37.4
Dec 1 Mid 1.14 4.35 43.5 2.2 41.3
Dec 2 Mid 1.15 4.23 42.3 1.5 40.8
Dec 3 Mid 1.15 4.4 48.4 2.3 46
Jan 1 Mid 1.15 4.56 45.6 2.5 43.2
Jan 2 Late 1.12 4.59 45.9 2.7 43.2
Jan 3 Late 0.99 4.12 45.3 6.6 38.7
Feb 1 Late 0.88 3.7 25.9 8.4 13.8
461.8 67.8 390.4
Appendix Table 1 Tomato Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Arata Chufa
Eff Irr. Req.
Month Decade Stage Kc(coeff) Etc(mm/day) ETc(mm/dec)
rain(mm/dec) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.78 17.8 26.1 0
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.81 18.1 25.5 0
Oct 3 Deve 0.53 1.93 21.3 18.9 2.4
Nov 1 Deve 0.67 2.49 24.9 10.3 14.6
Nov 2 Deve 0.82 3.08 30.8 3.7 27
Nov 3 Deve 0.97 3.6 36 3.5 32.6
Dec 1 Mid 1.08 4.01 40.1 3.5 36.6
Dec 2 Mid 1.09 4.01 40.1 2.4 37.7
Dec 3 Mid 1.09 4.01 44.1 3.1 41
Jan 1 Mid 1.09 4.01 40.1 4 36.1
Jan 2 Late 1.07 3.94 39.4 4.6 34.8
Jan 3 Late 1 3.8 41.8 5.6 36.2
Feb 1 Late 0.94 3.68 25.8 4.4 19.5
420.3 115.6 318.5

31
 Decad Etc(mm/ Eff Irr. Req.
Month Stage Kc(coeff) Etc(mm/dec)
e day) rain(mm/dec) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.88 18.8 14.4 4.4
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.99 19.9 8.9 11
Oct 3 Deve 0.5 2.01 22.1 7.1 15
Nov 1 Deve 0.61 2.48 24.8 5.3 19.4
Nov 2 Deve 0.78 3.2 32 3 29.1
Nov 3 Deve 0.96 3.78 37.8 2.6 35.1
Dec 1 Mid 1.09 4.16 41.6 2.2 39.4
Dec 2 Mid 1.1 4.05 40.5 1.5 38.9
Dec 3 Mid 1.1 4.21 46.3 2.3 44
Jan 1 Mid 1.1 4.37 43.7 2.5 41.2
Jan 2 Late 1.08 4.44 44.4 2.7 41.7
Jan 3 Late 1 4.16 45.8 6.6 39.1
Feb 1 Late 0.95 3.99 8 2.4 8
425.6 61.7 366.3
Appendix Table 1 Pepper Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Laga Elu
Appendix Table 1 Pepper Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Arata Chufa
Eff Irr.
Month Decade Stage Kc(coeff) Etc(mm/day) ETc(mm/dec)
rain(mm/dec) Req.(mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.78 17.8 26.1 0
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.81 18.1 25.5 0
Oct 3 Deve 0.5 1.84 20.2 18.9 1.3
Nov 1 Deve 0.6 2.23 22.3 10.3 12
Nov 2 Deve 0.75 2.84 28.4 3.7 24.6
Nov 3 Deve 0.91 3.39 33.9 3.5 30.4
Dec 1 Mid 1.03 3.81 38.1 3.5 34.6
Dec 2 Mid 1.04 3.82 38.2 2.4 35.8
Dec 3 Mid 1.04 3.82 42 3.1 38.8
Jan 1 Mid 1.04 3.82 38.2 4 34.1
Jan 2 Late 1.02 3.76 37.6 4.6 33
Jan 3 Late 0.96 3.65 40.1 5.6 34.5
Feb 1 Late 0.92 3.61 7.2 1.3 7.2
382 112.5 286.4

32
 Appendix Table 1 : Cabbage Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Laga Elu
Eff
Mont Decad Kc(coeff ETc(mm/ Etc(mm/
Stage rain(mm/dec Irr. Req.
h e ) day) dec)
) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.88 18.8 14.4 4.4
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.99 19.9 8.9 11
Oct 3 Deve 0.64 2.59 28.4 7.1 21.3
Nov 1 Deve 0.9 3.63 36.3 5.3 31
Nov 2 Mid 1.09 4.44 44.4 3 41.5
Nov 3 Mid 1.1 4.35 43.5 2.6 40.8
Dec 1 Mid 1.1 4.19 41.9 2.2 39.7
Dec 2 Mid 1.1 4.04 40.4 1.5 38.9
Dec 3 Mid 1.1 4.2 46.2 2.3 43.9
Jan 1 Mid 1.1 4.36 43.6 2.5 41.1
Jan 2 Late 1.07 4.41 44.1 2.7 41.3
Jan 3 Late 0.99 4.09 32.7 4.8 26.1
440.3 57.5 380.9
Appendix Table 1 : Cabbage Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Arata Chufa
Eff Irr. Req.
Month Decade Stage Kc(coeff) Etc(mm/day) ETc(mm/dec)
rain(mm/dec) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.78 17.8 26.1 0
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.81 18.1 25.5 0
Oct 3 Deve 0.66 2.43 26.7 18.9 7.8
Nov 1 Mid 0.95 3.52 35.2 10.3 24.8
Nov 2 Mid 1.05 3.93 39.3 3.7 35.6
Nov 3 Mid 1.05 3.9 39 3.5 35.5
Dec 1 Mid 1.05 3.87 38.7 3.5 35.2
Dec 2 Mid 1.05 3.84 38.4 2.4 36.1
Dec 3 Mid 1.05 3.84 42.3 3.1 39.1
Jan 1 Late 1.04 3.83 38.3 4 34.3
Jan 2 Late 0.99 3.62 36.2 4.6 31.6
Jan 3 Late 0.93 3.54 10.6 1.5 7.8
          380.6 107.1 287.9

Appendix Table 1 : Onion Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Laga Elu
Eff
Decad Kc(coeff Etc(mm/ ETc(mm/
Month Stage rain(mm/dec Irr. Req.
e ) day) dec)
) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.88 18.8 14.4 4.4
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.99 19.9 8.9 11
Oct 3 Deve 0.66 2.63 29 7.1 21.8
Nov 1 Deve 0.93 3.76 37.6 5.3 32.3
Nov 2 Mid 1.13 4.64 46.4 3 43.4
Nov 3 Mid 1.15 4.54 45.4 2.6 42.8
Dec 1 Mid 1.15 4.38 43.8 2.2 41.6
Dec 2 Late 1.15 4.22 42.2 1.5 40.7
Dec 3 Late 1.09 4.18 46 2.3 43.6
Jan 1 Late 1.02 4.04 32.3 2 29.8
361.3 49.5 311.3
33
 Appendix Table 1 : Onion Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement at Arata Chufa
Eff
Decad Kc(coeff Etc(mm/ ETc(mm/
Month Stage rain(mm/dec Irr. Req.
e ) day) dec)
) (mm/dec)
Oct 1 Init 0.5 1.78 17.8 26.1 0
Oct 2 Init 0.5 1.81 18.1 25.5 0
Oct 3 Deve 0.64 2.35 25.9 18.9 6.9
Nov 1 Deve 0.89 3.3 33 10.3 22.7
Nov 2 Mid 1.08 4.05 40.5 3.7 36.8
Nov 3 Mid 1.09 4.07 40.7 3.5 37.3
Dec 1 Mid 1.09 4.04 40.4 3.5 36.9
Dec 2 Late 1.09 4.01 40.1 2.4 37.7
Dec 3 Late 1.04 3.82 42 3.1 38.8
Jan 1 Late 0.97 3.56 28.4 3.2 24.4
327 100.2 241.6

Appendix Table 1 : Crop Water, Net irrigation water and Gross irrigation at Schemes
Scheme Laga Elu Irrigation Arata Chufa Irrigation
CWR( Eff Eff
NIR(mm)/ GIR(mm)/ CWR(mm) NIR(mm)/ GIR(mm)/
Crop Type mm)/ RF(mm)/ RF(mm)/
Season Season /Season Season Season
Season Season Season
Potato 399.2 51.8 347.4 496.3 368.8 104.4 264.4 440.7
Tomato 471.3 74.4 396.9 661.6 460.5 127.5 333 554.9
Pepper 463 56.8 406.2 677 386.9 122.7 264.2 440.3
Cabage 451.2 60.2 391 651 415.5 108.3 307.2 512
362.8 51.8 311 518.4 365.7 109.3 256.4 427.4
Total 2147.5 295 1852.5 3004.3 1997.4 572.2 1425.2 2375.3

Appendix Table 1 : Long-term (2001-2021) Command and Irrigated Area of the Schemes
Irrigation Scheme Commend Area(ha) Irrigated Area
Arata Chufa 100 75.00
Lega Elu I 70 ha 70.00
Total 170  145.00

34
 Appendixes Table 11: Conveyance Efficiency of Canal Ata Chufa Irrigation Scheme
MC At Head Reach At Middle Reach At Tail Reach
Qin Qo Los Qin Qo Loss Qin
Ec% Ec% Qo l/s Ec% Los1/s
Month l/s l/s L/s l/s l/s L/s l/s
105.
Oct 3 90.3 85.8 15 85.3 73.3 85.9 12 82.93 71.93 86.7 11
102.
Nov 5 86.5 84.4 16 81.5 68.5 84 13 81.05 69.05 85.2 12
Dec 97.8 84.8 86.7 13 79.8 69.8 87.5 10 84.47 75.47 89.3 9
100.
Jan 6 90.6 90.1 10 85.6 78.6 91.8 7 88.82 82.82 93.2 6
Feb 92.7 84.8 91.5 7.9 79.8 74.9 93.9 4.9 90.86 86.96 95.7 3.9
99.7
Aveg. 8 87.4 87.7 12.38 82.4 73.02 88.6 9.38 85.63 77.25 90.0 8.38
SC At head Reach At Middle Reach At Tail Reach
Qin Qo Los Qin Qo Loss Qin
Ec% Ec% Qo l/s Ec% Los1/s
Month l/s l/s L/s l/s l/s L/s l/s
67.4 65.8
Oct 3 46.43 68.9 21 6 37.86 57.5 28 34.16 24.16 70.7 10
64.5 62.9
Nov 5 42.55 65.9 22 2 33.92 53.9 29 30.22 21.72 71.9 8.5
70.9 70.2
Dec 7 51.97 73.2 19 3 44.23 63 26 40.53 33.43 82.5 7.1
78.3 76.5
Jan 2 62.32 79.6 16 7 53.57 70 23 49.87 44.57 89.4 5.3
82.4 80.1
Feb 6 68.56 83.1 13.9 4 59.24 73.9 20.9 55.54 49.34 88.8 6.2
Aveg. 72.7 54.37 74.14 18.38 71.1 45.76 63.7 25.38 42.06 34.64 80.7 7.42

35
 5 4
 TC At head Reach At Middle Reach At Tail Reach
Qin Qo Los Qin Qo Loss Qin
Ec% Ec% Qo l/s Ec% Los1/s
Month l/s l/s L/s l/s l/s L/s l/s
21.7
Oct 33.8 22.5 66.6 11.3 8 14.78 67.9 7 14.68 8.32 56.7 6.36
19.6
Nov 30.1 20.31 67.5 9.79 7 13.14 66.8 6.53 12.96 5.79 44.7 7.17
39.3 22.6
Dec 2 23 58.5 16.32 3 11.89 52.5 10.74 11.23 5.33 47.5 5.9
48.7 27.2
Jan 6 27.5 56.4 21.26 3 16.12 59.2 11.11 14.31 6.74 47.1 7.57
53.2 21.8
Feb 9 22.5 42.2 30.79 9 9.78 44.7 12.11 9.92 4.88 49.2 5.04
41.0 22.6
Aveg. 5 23.16 58.23 17.89 4 13.14 58.2 9.50 12.62 6.21 49.0 6.41

Appendixes Table 11: Conveyance Efficiency of Canal Ata Laga Elu Irrigation Scheme
Mont
h Main Canal at head Reach Main Canal at Middle Reach Main Canal at Tail Reach
Losse Losse Losse
Qin Qo Qin Qin Qo
  Ec% Ls- Qo l/s Ec% Ls- Ec% Ls-
l/s l/s l/s l/s l/s
1/50m 1/50m 1/50m
Oct 99.3 90.3 90.9 9 87.93 73.3 83.4 14.63 70.93 59.93 84.5 11.0
Nov 96.5 86.5 89.6 10 86.5 68.5 79.2 18 68.50 56.50 82.5 12.0
Dec 91.8 84.8 92.4 7 84.8 69.8 82.3 15 69.80 60.80 87.1 9.0
Jan 94.6 90.6 95.8 4 90.6 78.6 86.8 12 78.60 72.60 92.4 6.0
Feb 86.7 84.8 97.8 1.9 84.8 74.9 88.3 9.9 74.90 71.00 94.8 3.9

36
Aveg. 93.78 87.4 93.3 6.38 86.93 73.02 84 13.91 72.55 64.17 88.2 8.38
  Secondary Canal at head Reach Secondary Canal at Middle Reach Secondary Canal at Tail Reach
Losse Losse Losse
Mont Qin Qo Qin Qin Qo
Ec% Ls- Qo l/s Ec% Ls- Ec% Ls-
h l/s l/s l/s l/s l/s
1/50m 1/50m 1/50m
Oct 57.56 45.23 78.6 12.33 30.53 18.03 59.1 12.5 16.14 9.69 60 6.45
Nov 56.50 43.10 76.3 13.4 29.70 15.99 53.8 13.71 15.99 9.08 56.8 6.91
Dec 60.80 50.69 83.4 10.11 40.58 29.58 72.9 11 29.58 24.45 82.7 5.13
Jan 72.60 62.61 86.2 9.99 52.62 42.06 79.9 10.56 42.06 37.18 88.4 4.88
Feb 71.00 65.80 92.7 5.2 60.60 53.4 88.1 7.2 53.40 38.52 72.1 14.88
Aveg. 63.69 53.49 83.43 10.21 42.81 31.81 70.8 10.99 31.43 23.78 72.0 7.65
  Tereciary Canal at head Reach Tereciary Canal at Middle Reach Tereciary Canal at Tail Reach
Losse Losse Losse
Qin Qo Qin Qin Qo
Mont Ec% Ls- Qo l/s Ec% Ls- Ec% Ls-
l/s l/s l/s l/s l/s
h 1/50m 1/50m 1/50m
Oct 8.19 4.8 58.6 3.39 3.47 1.5 43.2 1.89 1.19 0.98 82.4 0.21
Nov 9.08 5.07 55.8 4.01 5.07 1.66 32.7 2.35 1.35 0.88 65.2 0.47
Dec 24.45 11.79 48.2 12.66 11.79 6.22 52.8 6.44 5.34 2.65 49.6 2.69
Jan 37.18 21.98 59.1 15.2 21.98 7.89 35.9 7.31 7.21 3.72 51.6 3.49
Feb 38.52 22.89 59.4 15.63 22.89 8.21 35.9 7.42 4.1 2.99 72.9 1.11
Aveg. 23.48 13.31 56.24 10.18 13.04 5.10 40.1 5.08 3.84 2.24 64.3 1.59

Appendix Table 1 Canal flow measurement values at Arata Chufa irrigation scheme

37
 Discharge passing through sample
Measuring Velocity
canal section
Positio Flow Length
n Vel Adj Are
Canal Vel. Depth of the
coeffici Velocit a(m
Trial Tim leng( (m/s Measur canal( Discharge
ent y(m/s) 2)
points e (s) m) ) ed(m) m) (m3/s)
0.2
0.85
1 10.8 5 0.46 0.39 0.15 1.8 7 0.11
0.6
0.85
2 10.3 5 0.49 0.41 0.33 2.1 9 0.29
0.7
0.85
up 3 10.9 5 0.46 0.39 0.32 2.2 0 0.27
Stream 0.2
0.85
4 10.7 5 0.47 0.40 0.16 1.6 6 0.10
0.4
0.85
5 10.6 5 0.47 0.40 0.18 2.3 1 0.17
0.4
Aveg 10.7 5.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.23 2 6 0.18
0.2
1 12.4 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.14 1.82 5 0.09
0.5
2 12.5 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.28 1.78 0 0.17
0.4
Middle 3 12.6 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.26 1.76 6 0.15
Stream 0.2
4 12.3 5 0.41 0.85 0.35 0.16 1.82 9 0.10
0.2
5 12.3 5 0.41 0.85 0.35 0.15 1.81 7 0.09
12.4 0.3
Aveg. 2 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.20 1.80 5 0.12
0.1
1 12.8 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.13 1.48 9 0.06
0.2
2 12.6 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.19 1.47 8 0.09
0.2
Down 3 12.9 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.18 1.48 7 0.09
Stream 0.2
4 12.7 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.13 1.5 0 0.07
0.1
5 12.9 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.12 1.51 8 0.06
12.7 0.2
Aveg. 8 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.15 1.5 2 0.07

Measurening Velocity Discharge passing thro

Positio
n Trial Time Canal Velocity Adjusted Flow Depth Length of
measurin it length(m Velocit coefficien Velocity(m/ Measured( the
g points take(s) ) y (m/s) t s) m) canal(m)
1 10.8 5 0.46 0.85 0.39 0.15 1.8
2 10.3 5 0.49 0.85 0.41 0.33 2.1
up 3 10.9 5 0.46 0.85 0.39 0.32 2.2
Stream 4 10.7 5 0.47 0.85 0.40 0.16 1.6
5 10.6 5 0.47 0.85 0.40 0.18 2.3
Average 10.7 5.0 0.5 0.9 0.4 0.23 2
Middle 1 12.4 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.14 1.82
Stream 2 12.5 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.28 1.78
38
 3 12.6 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.26 1.76
4 12.3 5 0.41 0.85 0.35 0.16 1.82
5 12.3 5 0.41 0.85 0.35 0.15 1.81
Average 12.42 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.20 1.80
1 12.8 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.13 1.48
2 12.6 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.19 1.47
Down 3 12.9 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.18 1.48
Stream 4 12.7 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.13 1.5
5 12.9 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.12 1.51
Average 12.78 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.15 1.5
Appendix Table 1 Canal flow measurement values at Lega Elu irrigation scheme
Discharge passing through sample
Measurening Velocity
canal section
Positio Adj Flow
Vel Canal Are
n Canal Veloci Depth Dischar
coefficie Leg. a(m
Trial Time leng( Vel. ty(m/s Measur ge(m3/
nt (m) 2)
points (s) m) (m/s) ) ed(m) s)
11.2 0.3
0.85
1 5 5 0.44 0.38 0.17 2.1 6 0.13
10.8 0.9
0.85
2 9 5 0.46 0.39 0.52 1.8 4 0.37
11.5 0.8
up 0.85
3 1 5 0.43 0.37 0.53 1.6 5 0.31
Strea
11.6 0.4
m 0.85
4 2 5 0.43 0.37 0.18 2.2 0 0.14
10.9 0.3
0.85
5 8 5 0.46 0.39 0.16 2.3 7 0.14
0.6
Aveg. 11.3 5.0 0.4 0.9 0.4 0.31 2 2 0.24
12.6 0.3
1 2 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.16 1.94 1 0.10
12.2 0.9
2 1 5 0.41 0.85 0.35 0.48 1.92 2 0.32
Middl 12.4 0.9
e 3 4 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.46 1.96 0 0.31
Strea 12.5 0.4
m 4 7 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.19 2.25 3 0.14
12.3 0.3
5 8 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.17 1.95 3 0.11
12.4 0.5
Aage 4 5 0.40 0.85 0.34 0.29 2.00 8 0.20
Down 0.2
Strea 1 13.2 5 0.38 0.85 0.32 0.15 1.51 3 0.07
m 0.5
2 13.1 5 0.38 0.85 0.32 0.38 1.5 7 0.18
0.6
3 12.9 5 0.39 0.85 0.33 0.42 1.48 2 0.20
0.2
4 13.3 5 0.38 0.85 0.32 0.18 1.5 7 0.09
0.2
5 13.4 5 0.37 0.85 0.32 0.16 1.48 4 0.08
Aveg 13.1 5 0.38 0.85 0.32 0.26 1.5 0.3 0.12
39
 8 8

Appendix Table 12. Conveyance Efficiency

Scheme System Mean discharge Mean discharge Ec (%) Canal loss

inflow( m3 /s) outflow (m3 /s) (m3 /s/m)
Main Canal at head Reach 99.78 87.4 87.68 0.248
Arata Chufa Main Canal at Middle Reach 82.4 73.0 88.6 0.188
Main Canal at Tail Reach 85.63 77.25 90.05 0.168
Mean 89.27 79.22 88.78 0.201
Main Canal at head Reach 93.78 87.4 93.31 0.128
Laga Elu Main Canal at Middle Reach 86.926 73.02 83.99 0.278
Main Canal at Tail Reach 72.546 64.166 88.25 0.168
Mean 84.42 74.86 88.51 0.191
Terriciary Canal at head Reach 41.05 23.16 58.23 0.358
Arata Chufa Terriciary Canal at Middle Reach 22.6 13.1 58.2 0.190
Terriciary Canal at Tail Reach 12.62 6.21 49.02 0.128
Mean 25.44 14.17 55.16 0.225
Terriciary Canal at head Reach 23.48 13.31 56.24 0.204
Laga Elu Terriciary Canal at Middle Reach 13.04 5.10 40.10 0.159
Terriciary Canal at Tail Reach 3.838 2.244 64.337 0.032
  Mean 13.50 6.88 53.56 0.132
Secondary Canal at head Reach 72.746 54.366 74.143 0.368
Arata Chufa Secondary Canal at Middle Reach 71.14 45.76 63.65 0.508
Secondary Canal at Tail Reach 42.06 34.64 80.66 0.148
40
 Mean 61.98 44.92 72.82 0.341
Secondary Canal at head Reach 63.69 53.49 83.43 0.204
Laga Elu Secondary Canal at Middle Reach 42.81 31.81 70.77 0.220
Secondary Canal at Tail Reach 31.43 23.78 72.00 0.153
  Mean 45.98 36.36 75.40 0.192

Appendix Table 13. Storage Efficiency of Irrigation Schemes

Mid Hea Mid
Irrigatio Crop Head dle Tail d dle Tail
n Stage(mm) Ea( Ea( Ea(
Scheme Wd Ws Wd Ws Wd Ws %) %) %)
85.5 53.4 28.9 60.7 54.2 54.2
Initial 1 51.96 74.82 40.58 5 8 6 4 2
Developmen 171. 100.1 149.6 94.1 47.9 58.5 54.3 50.8
t 02 6 5 81.33 2 8 7 5 9
Arata 103.6 154.3 101.5 112. 69.6 56.9 61.8
Chufa Mid season
182 60 3 50 54 10 6 65.8 5
Late 86.2 60.6 37.2 56.9 49.0 61.4
Season 2 49.11 75.12 36.88 1 2 6 9 1
131. 113.4 80.1 45.9 58.3 55.8 57.0
Average 19 76.22 8 65.09 8 5 1 7 9
81.4 50.4 24.1 47.9 47.9 47.9
Initial 6 46.91 72.33 38.45 4 9 6 6 6
Developmen 114. 70.6 30.7 43.5 43.5 43.5
t 22 95.71 89.69 41.81 2 8 9 9 9
160. 113.1 97.9 40.4 41.2 41.2 41.2
Laga Elu
Mid season 53 123.2 4 54.12 4 1 6 6 6
79.8 46.8 21.8 46.7 46.7 46.7
Late Season 4 31.62 70.55 32.14 2 8 3 3 3
44.8 44.8 44.8
Average             8 8 8

yield Total Total

Major Yield Price
Scheme Area(ha) Qut/h income income
Crops (Qut) (birr/Q)
a (Birr) ( US$)
Potato 17 140 2380 600 1,428,000 40858.4
Onion 13.5 160 2160 550 1,188,000 33991.4
Tomato 10 150 1500 450 675,000 19313.3
Laga Elu
Cabbage 6.5 150 975 240 234,000 6695.3
Pepper 3 20 60 800 48,000 1373.4
Total 50 7075 3,573,000 102232
Potato 30 143 4290 600 2,574,000 73648.1
Arata Chufa Onion 20 164 3280 550 1,804,000 51616.6
Tomato 15 148 2220 450 999,000 28583.7
41
 Cabbage 12 146 1752 240 420,480 12030.9
Pepper 5 25 125 800 100,000 2861.2
Total 82 11,667 5,897,480 168740.0

Appendix Table 14. Total yields and land coverage of both irrigation Scheme
#1US$=34.95ETH birr, average currency exchange rate for 2020/21 production year.

42
43