surface and groundwater nexus_gw management options for ibis

8/10/2019 Surface and Groundwater Nexus_GW Management Options for IBIS

1/155

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

G r o u n

d w a t e r e l e v a t

i o n

( m )

One Century

One CenturyGroundwater Behavior

in Bari Doab

Publication No. 299

INTERNATIONAL WATERLOGGING AND SALINITYRESEARCH INSTITUTE (IWASRI), LAHORE

GROUNDWATER MANAGEMENT(RECHARGE POTENTIAL AND GOVERNANCE)

Surface Water and Groundwater Nexus:Groundwater Management Options for

Indus Basin Irrigation System

PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

February, 2014


2/155


3/155

i

CONTENTS

CONTENTS ................................................................................................................... i

LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................... iv

LIST OF TABLES ...................................................................................................... vii

ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................x

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................... xiii

1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1

1.1. Background .....................................................................................................1

1.2. Indus Basin Irrigation System and its Design .................................................4

1.3. Water Resources ..............................................................................................7

1.4. Groundwater in General ................................................................................10

1.5. Changing Groundwater Regime in Pakistan .................................................11

1.6. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) ......................................13

2. LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................................................15

2.1. Irrigation System Performance Assessment ..................................................16

2.2. International Experiences in Groundwater Management ..............................17

2.2.1. India ....................................................................................................... 18

2.2.2. Bangkok, Thailand ................................................................................. 21

2.2.3. China ...................................................................................................... 22

2.2.4. Netherlands ............................................................................................ 22

2.2.5. Australia ................................................................................................. 22

2.2.6. Spain ...................................................................................................... 23

2.2.7. Water sector reforms in Mexico ............................................................ 23

2.2.8. Pakistan .................................................................................................. 24

2.3. Highlights of Management Approaches Abroad .......................................... 24

2.4. Approaches for Sustainable Groundwater Management ...............................25


4/155

ii

2.5. Expected Climate Change and its Impact on Surface and GroundwaterAvailability and Demand ..............................................................................26

2.5.1 Climate change and hydrologic variability ............................................ 26

2.5.2 Possible impacts on the Indus Basin ...................................................... 28

2.5.3. The importance of groundwater in a changing climate ......................... 29

3. MATERIALS AND METHODS ............................................................................30

3.1. Identification of Critical Groundwater Areas................................................30

3.2. Crop consumptive use demand .....................................................................31

3.3. Effective Rainfall ..........................................................................................32

3.4. Spatial Variation in Irrigation Demand .........................................................32

3.5. Present Water Allocations and its Impact on Groundwater ..........................34

3.6. Linking Waterlogging, Groundwater Quality and Surface salinity inSindh .............................................................................................................34

3.7. Irrigation-Drainage and Waterlogging-Salinity Nexus in Sindh ..................36

4. CURRENT GROUNDWATER STATUS AND ITS MANAGEMENT INTHE INDUS PLAIN ..............................................................................................37

4.1. Groundwater Aquifers ...................................................................................38

4.2. Groundwater Quality .....................................................................................39

4.2.1. The Punjab plains ................................................................................... 40

4.2.1. Sindh ...................................................................................................... 45

4.3. Spatial and Temporal Variation in Groundwater Behavior over IBISduring the Last Decade .................................................................................46

4.4. Comparison of Groundwater Depth Distribution amongst Regions inIBIS ...............................................................................................................52

4.5. Groundwater Depletion and its Causes in Bari Doab ...................................56

4.6. Lahore - a Case study of Urban Groundwater Management .........................57

4.7. Institutional Setup .........................................................................................60

5. IRRATIONAL WATER SUPPLY AND DEMAND ACROSS PUNJAB ............63

5.1. Irrigation Demand and Supply Inequity ........................................................63

5.1.1 Crop consumptive use, irrigation demand index and canal supplies ..... 64

5.2. Existing Canal Water Allocations .................................................................67 5.3. Recharge Inequity .........................................................................................68


5/155

iii

5.4. Present Water Allocations and its Impact on Groundwater ..........................70

5.4.1 Irrigation system distribution inequity ................................................... 73

5.4.2 Watercourse command distribution inequity ......................................... 73

5.4.3 Groundwater demand and supply inequity ............................................ 74 5.5. Emerging Groundwater Behavior Waterlogging and Depletion ................75

6. IRRIGATION-DRAINAGE AND WATERLOGGING-SALINITY ISSUESIN LOWER INDUS AND THEIR POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS ..............................78

6.1. Operation and Maintenance Conditions of Sindh Irrigation andDrainage System ...........................................................................................79

6.2. Waterlogging and Salinity distribution in Lower Indus ................................92

6.2.1. Depth to watertable in Lower Indus....................................................... 92

6.2.2 Waterlogging situation during drought period in Lower Indus ............. 94

6.2.3 Groundwater quality in Lower Indus ..................................................... 98

6.3. Lessons from Surface Salinity in IBIS as Surveyed During 2001-03. ........103

6.4. Impact of Drought in Over Irrigated Areas of Lower Indus .......................105

6.5. Irrigation Water Allocations in Lower Indus ..............................................109

7. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...............................................112 7.1. Groundwater Regulation Potential ..............................................................114

7.2. Surface Water and Groundwater Nexus and Conjunctive Management.....114

7.3. Management Issues .....................................................................................114

7.4. Important Conclusions and Recommendations ...........................................116

7.5. Recommended Action Points for Punjab ....................................................118

7.6. Recommended Action Points for Lower Indus (Sindh and Balochistan) ...119

REFERENCES ..........................................................................................................120

Annexure A: Canal head withdrawals (MAF) for canal irrigation systems inSindh and Balochistan (source: H&WM, WAPDA, WapdaHouse, Lahore) ...................................................................................126


6/155

iv

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Population growth, water availability and demand for Pakistan. ................3

Figure 1.2 Geographical area and population distribution in Pakistan (Source:ECPAK, 2011). .........................................................................................5

Figure 1.3: Irrigated Areas of the Indus Basin Irrigation System. .................................6

Figure 1.4: Annual average escapages below Kotri based on 1976-2000 data are37.8 MAF and based on 1976-2011 are 30.70 MAF. .............................10

Figure 1.5: Changing groundwater levels in LBDC command, in response toirrigation inception and current over pumping (Basharat and Tariq,2013a). ....................................................................................................12

Figure 1.6: Variation of annual normal rainfall in Pakistan (PMD, 2010). .................13

Figure 2.1: Degree to which aquifers important for farming are under stress(Gleeson et al. 2012). ..............................................................................18

Figure 4.1: Groundwater Quality in Chaj Doab, during 2002-03. ...............................41

Figure 4.2: Groundwater Quality in Rechna Doab, during 2002-03. ..........................42

Figure 4.3: Groundwater quality in Bari Doab, during 2002-03. ................................43

Figure 4.4: Groundwater salinity profile for the strip from Raiwind to middle ofOkara and Sahiwal. .................................................................................44

Figure 4.5: Depth to watertable status in IBIS during June 2000. ...............................47



Figure 4.8: Depth to watertable status in IBIS during October 2002. .........................50

Figure 4.9: Exponential growth of tubewells in Punjab, showing acute shortageof canal supplies in the province. ............................................................50

Figure 4.10: Depth to watertable in IBIS, during June 2012. ......................................52

Figure 4.11: Surface salinity in IBIS, as surveyed during 2003-04. ............................53

Figure 4.12: Areas under different DTW (October 2002) in Punjab and KP. .............53

Figure 4.13: Comparison of DTW amongst the provinces (June, 2011). ....................55

Figure 4.14: Comparison of DTW amongst regions of KP, as on June, 2011.............55

Figure 4.15: Comparison of DTW amongst regions of Punjab province (June,2012). ......................................................................................................55

Figure 4.16: Depth to watertable position in Bari Doab (June 2012). .........................56


7/155

v

Figure 4.17: Desiccation of Ravi River in 2000, after the completion of TheinDam, above Madhopur headworks. ........................................................58

Figure 4.18: Groundwater level trends in Lahore city (2003 2011). ........................59

Figure 4.19: Groundwater elevation contours (m), 2009, (deep depression underLahore city, and irrigation network of CBDC Command.......................60

Figure 5.1: Increasing aridity shown by met stations across the command. ................63

Figure 5.2: Increasing ET o in downstream direction of IBIS in Punjab (PMD,2006). ......................................................................................................64

Figure 5.3: Cotton crop consumptive use requirement for selected canalcommands. ..............................................................................................64

Figure 5.4: Rice (left) and Wheat (right) crop consumptive use requirement forselected canal commands. .......................................................................65

Figure 5.5: IDI p and average canal supplies on annual basis. ......................................65

Figure 5.6: IDI a and average canal supplies during Kharif season. .............................66

Figure 5.7: IDI a and average canal supplies during Rabi season. ................................66

Figure 5.8: IDI a, average annual canal supplies and CI. ..............................................67

Figure 5.9a: Comparison of WAA allocations and 2001-09 supplies, duringKharif. .....................................................................................................68

Figure 5.9b: Comparison of WAA allocations and 2001-09 supplies, duringRabi. ........................................................................................................68

Figure 5.10: Map showing rivers, perennial and non-perennial channels inPunjab. ....................................................................................................69

Figure 5.11: Depth to watertable, October 1977 (Ahmad, 1995). ...............................71

Figure 5.12: Depth to watertable, June 1978 (Ahmad, 1995). .....................................72

Figure 5.13: Canal and groundwater usage along four selected watercourses(Basharat 2012). ......................................................................................74

Figure 5.14: Depth to watertable hydrographs for Bari Doab canal commands. ........77 Figure 5.15: Depth to watertable hydrographs for canal commands other than

Bari Doab. ...............................................................................................77

Figure 6.1: Patchy wheat crop near Mirpur Khas, due to waterlogging andsalinity. ....................................................................................................80

Figure 6.2: Almost fully choked drain, crossing Sanghar-Mirpur Khas road(left), Waterlogged and barren/saline lands (right) in another areaalong Sanghar-Mirpur Khas road............................................................81

Figure 6.3: Two different fields showing good stand of Banana, along Nawabshah to Qazi Ahmad road. ...........................................................81


8/155

vi

Figure 6.4: A view of functioning Scavenger well, with 15 HP motor (35 kmalong Nawabshah to Sanghar road): left, fresh delivery, 1.5 cfs,

bore depth 100; right, saline delivery, 0.5 cfs, bore depth 220 ............82

Figure 6.5: EKTD Project showing poorly maintained sumps, drains, standing

water, as well as, well established date palm trees, in areas with balanced. .................................................................................................83

Figure 6.6: A view of Mancher lake (left) and water treatment plant with ROtechnology (right)....................................................................................84

Figure 6.7: Agriculture land with patchy wheat crop, due to waterlogging andsalinity (along Dadu-Johi road). .............................................................85

Figure 6.8: Enormous waterlogged areas with standing water along Dadu to KNShah road (December 12, 2013). ............................................................85

Figure 6.9: Johi branch canal upstream (left) and downstream view (right), at aroad X-ing, the channel is not in its proper section at many of the

places.......................................................................................................86

Figure 6.10: KN Shah drain pumping station (L) for occasional pumping intoKhuda waha (R), otherwise KN Shah drain discharges into MNVdrain. Even close to the drain outlet, a vast area was observed withstanding water, thus other areas are also waterlogged due to

blockage of surface water. ......................................................................86

Figure 6.11: Zero Point of Miro Khan drain: (left) Super structure over theMNV drain and gates to Hamal lake; (right) Mirokhan outfall gatesto: MNV drain (L) and Hamal Lake (R). Here many of the farmersuse drain water for irrigation, locally called abadi. ..............................86

Figure 6.12: Waterlogged and saline lands between KN Shah, Mehar and HamalLake (NW and Rice commands). ............................................................87

Figure 6.13: Vast areas around Miro Khan drain: (R) with standing water; orwithout wheat crop due to very wet soils................................................88

Figure 6.14: Standing Water in areas of Khanpur, Ghuspur and Kandhkot(Guddu right bank command). ................................................................89

Figure 6.15: First 2-pics:- Sindh Feeder crossing Shikarpur-Kandhkot road,crossing is oblique and de-routing the channel, due to lack of

proper annual maintenance. Second 2-Pics:- Unerwah X-regulatorat RD-29, flow is only hitting at two extreme left gates. Third 2-Pics, Unerwah irrigation channel, in much poor condition. ...................90

Figure 6.16: Farmers use their full authority to divert (or otherwise) water totheir self-designed outlets. The upper right picture is a special

example of gigantic outlet in discharge that was closed with


9/155

vii

bushes, thus irrigation department has almost lost the control overdistribution of the irrigation water. .........................................................91

Figure 6.17: Poor germination of wheat crop (left), due to more than optimummoisture content; SCARP tubewell, KKP-20 in operating condition

(right), a good stand of wheat crop due to proper drainage andtimely sowing of wheat crop. ..................................................................91

Figure 6.18: Percentage areas under different depth to watertable in LowerIndus, as on October 2011. .....................................................................92

Figure 6.19: Depth to watertable in Lower Indus (October, 2011). ............................93

Figure 6.20: Depth to watertable in Lower Indus, June 2001. .....................................94

Figure 6.21: Depth to watertable in Lower Indus, October, 2001. ..............................95

Figure 6.22: Depth to watertable in Lower Indus, June, 2002. ....................................96

Figure 6.23: Depth to watertable in Lower Indus, October, 2002. ..............................97

Figure 6.24: Deep groundwater quality in Lower Indus (Qureshi et al., 2004). ..........99

Figure 6.25: Percent area under different groundwater quality ranges in Gudduand Sukkur commands ............................................................................99

Figure 6.26: Groundwater quality (TDS) in Lower Indus (2001-03). .......................100

Figure 6.27: Shallow groundwater quality (SMO data) in Lower Indus (Oct,2010). ....................................................................................................102

Figure 6.28: Comparison of surface salinity in Punjab for the periods: 1979-81and 2001-03 ..........................................................................................104

Figure 6.29: Comparison of surface salinity in Lower Indus (Sindh-Balochistan)for the periods: 1979-81 and 2001-03. ..................................................104

Figure 6.30: Surface salinity in in Lower Indus, as observed during 2002-03. .........106

Figure 6.31: Annual average water supplies in Ratto Dero Branch (Saeed et al.,2009). ....................................................................................................108

Figure 6.32: Pre-Monsoon DTW in SMO Observation Well No. LS-78, in thecommand of Jalbani Distributary (Saeed et al., 2009). .........................108

Figure 6.33: Pre-Monsoon area under different DTW in North West canalcommand (Saeed et al., 2009). ..............................................................109

Figure 6.34: Cropped area (%) during Rabi, Kharif and Yearly basis in thecommand of Jalbani Distributary (Saeed et al., 2009). .........................109

Figure 6.35: Comparison of canal water supplies amongst the irrigation systemsin Sindh. ................................................................................................111

Figure 7.1: Proposed stepwise approach for groundwater management in IBIS. ......113


10/155

viii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1.1: Geographical areas of Pakistan (Source: ECPAK, 2011). .........................4

Table 1.2: Surface water allocation in WAA of 1991 and irrigated area on provincial basis. ..........................................................................................5

Table 1.3: Annual average flows (MCM) to Indus River and its tributaries(Ahmad et al., 2012) ...................................................................................8

Table 1.4: Western River Inflows (MCM) at Rim Station (1976-77 to 2008-09). ........8

Table 1.5: Eastern Rivers Inflows (MCM) at Rim Station (1976-77 to 2008-09). ........8

Table 1.6: Annual Inflows (MCM) to IBIS at Rim Stations (1976-77 to 2008-09). ..............................................................................................................9

Table 1.7: Annual canal withdrawals (MAF) for post-Tarbela period (1976-77to 2006-07 (data source: H&WM, WAPDA). ............................................9

Table 3.1: Classification for calculating areas under different depths towatertable in IBIS. ....................................................................................31

Table 3.2: Thirty years normal and effective rainfall at various locations inPunjab. ......................................................................................................33

Table 3.3: Criteria of Surface Salinity Survey .............................................................36

Table 3.4: Limits and field observation indices for each category of surfacesalinity. .....................................................................................................36

Table 4.1: Doab wise area under different DTW zones, as on October 2002. ............54

Table 5.1: Annual average flows (MAF) in Ravi and Sutlej Rivers for different periods. .....................................................................................................70

Table 6.1: Existing drainage facilities, up to June, 2001 (WRPO and IWASRI,2004). ........................................................................................................79

Table 6.2: Areas (000 acres and %) under different DTW, as on October, 2011,

in Lower Indus (Sindh-Balochistan) ........................................................93 Table 6.3: Area under different depth to watertable ranges in Lower Indus, June

2001. .........................................................................................................95

Table 6.4: Area under different depth to watertable ranges in Lower Indus,October 2001. ...........................................................................................96

Table 6.5: Area under different DTW ranges in Lower Indus, June, 2002. ................97

Table 6.6: Area under different DTW ranges in Lower Indus, October, 2002. ...........98

Table 6.7: Shallow groundwater quality in Lower Indus (October, 2010). ...............101

Table 6.8: Temporal and spatial comparison of surface salinity in IBIS...................103


11/155

ix

Table 6.9: Areas (ha) and percentage under different surface salinity classes inLower Indus. ...........................................................................................105

Table 6.10: GCA and CCA of irrigation system in Lower Indus (source: SindhIrrigation Department and IWMI (1998). ...............................................110

Table 6.11: Monthly canal water supply in terms depth (mm) over the CCA ofirrigation systems (source: H&WM) and monthly normal of ETo atRohri and Tando Jam (source: PMD). ....................................................111


12/155

x

ABBREVIATIONS

AJK Azad Jammu and Kashmiramsl Above Mean Sea Level

BCM Billion Cubic MeterCCA Cultureable Command AreaCGWA Central Groundwater AuthorityCGWB Central Groundwater BoardCI Cropping IntensityCu Consumptive UseDLR Directorate of Land ReclamationdS/m Desi Siemens per meterDTW Depth to Water Table

EPA Environmental Protection AgencyETc Crop Evapotranspiration RequirementETo Reference Crop EvapotranspirationFESS Fordwah Eastern Sadiqia SouthFGW Fresh GroundwaterFOs Farmers Organizationsft feetGB Gilgit BaltistanGCA Gross Command AreaGIS Geographic Information SystemGSII Groundwater Sustainability Infrastructure IndexH&WM Hydrology and Water Managementha HectareIBIS Indus Basin Irrigation SystemID Irrigation DemandIDI Irrigation Demand IndexIDIa Actual Irrigation Demand IndexIDI p Potential Irrigation Demand IndexIDW Inverse Distance Weighting

IPCC Intergovernmental Panel on Climate ChangeIRSA Indus River System AuthorityIWASRI International Waterlogging and Salinity Research InstituteIWMI International Water Management InstituteIWT Indus Water TreatyKc Crop CoefficientKm KilometerKP Khyber PakhtoonkhwahLBDC Lower Bari Doab Canal

LBOD Left Bank Outfall DrainLCC Lower Chenab Canal


13/155

xi

LIP Lower Indus ProjectLJC Lower Jhelum Canallpcd Liters per Capita per DayMac Million Acre

MAF Million Acre FeetMCM Million Cubic MetersMGD Million Gallons per DayMha Million HectareMNV Main Nara ValleyMR Marala Ravi

NGO Non Governmental OrganizationOFWM On-Farm Water ManagementPCRWR Pakistan Council of Research in Water ResourcesPET Potential EvapotranspirationPHED Public Health Engineering DepartmentPID Provincial Irrigation DepartmentPMD Pakistan Meteorological Department

ppm Parts per millionPPSGDP Punjab Private Sector Groundwater Development ProjectRBOD Right Bank Outfall DrainRO Reverse OsmosisRS Remote SensingRSC Residual Sodium Carbonate

S1 Non SalineS2 Slightly SalineS3 Moderately SalineS4 Strongly SalinitySAR Sodium Adsorption RatioSCARP Salinity Control and Reclamation ProjectSGW Saline GroundwaterSMO SCARPs Monitoring OrganizationSUPARCO Space and Upper Atmospheric Research CommissionTDS Total Dissolved SolidsUJC Upper Jhelum CanalUNDP United Nations Development ProgramWAA Water Apportionment AccordWAPDA Water and Power Development AuthorityWASA Water and Sanitation AgencyWRPO Water Resources Planning Organization


14/155

xii

FOREWORD

Groundwater in some of the areas of Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS) is underincreasing threat from over-exploitation, pollution and lack of any management tomatch water demands and supplies with the natural resource base. The IBIS designand its management are totally oriented towards canal water management only,leaving groundwater development at the sole discretion of individuals. In some of theareas, groundwater pumping is higher than its recharge, resulting in unprecedentedgroundwater depletion, whereas in other areas, waterlogging salinity problems persistsince long.

The groundwater situation in Pakistan, particularly in Punjab Province, is becoming successively critical, due to increasing demand for irrigation, industrial anddomestic uses. A few aquifers, like in lower and central parts of Bari Doab, Lahore,Rawalpindi/Islamabad and Quetta, have exhausted their available groundwater

development potential: which was created over a long period, with the inception ofirrigation systems; or recharged by rainfall, before the extensive population growth. Itis a paradox that such a vast and highly valuable resource, which is likely to becomeeven more important as climate change increasingly affects surface water sources, is

being so neglected by Federal and Provincial governments and the community at atime, when interest and support for the water sector as a whole, is at an all-time high.Almost an anarchy situation is prevailing in groundwater development in almost allrural and urban centers and irrigated agriculture areas; covering almost all of Punjab,Khyber Pakhtoonkhwah, and rain-fed areas of Baluchistan, whereas waterlogging andsalinity has affected major portions of canal commands in Sindh province and causingcropping intensities and yields to be far less than the potential, particularly in the right

bank canals of Guddu and Sukkur Barrages.

The Ministry of Water and Power, Government of Pakistan, directed IWASRIto carryout Groundwater Management (Recharge Potential and Governance) study,under the PC-II (2009-13). The main objective of the study was to analyze the issue ofgroundwater management and suggest appropriate and pragmatic policy options forimplementation by the government. Under the study, IWASRI published its firstreport Irrigation System Issues and Groundwater Governance in 2011, address ingthe issues of canal irrigation management related to groundwater management. The

current report has further tried to provide innovative solutions for groundwatermanagement, for critical areas in IBIS, by addressing, irrigation demand and supply,groundwater depth and quality, and changes in recharge sources over time.

The study concludes that adopting rational surface water managementapproach will not only eliminate groundwater mining in overstressed areas; but willalso help minimize waterlogging and root zone salinity, especially in higher rainfallareas and/or with more than required canal supplies. Efforts of the authors are highlyappreciated, which they deployed even with scarce available human and financialresources.

(Engr. Akbar Ali Bajkani)Director General, IWASRI


15/155

xiii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The summary describes the study background, brief description of the tasks carriedout, issues and options for groundwater management in Pakistan, and therecommendations arising out of the present work.

Background: Pakistan has an established system of water sharing and water rights foragriculture in Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS), which has some aspects of good

practice, but this has remained essentially unchanged since the countrys birth. In the past few decades, groundwater has been the single most important resource forincreasing agricultural production, particularly in the upper Indus Plain. This means,with the passage of time, the sustainability of agriculture, especially in the Punjab

province is linked to the sustainability of groundwater resources, which is sufferingdifferently, i.e. at locations with waterlogging or with unprecedented mining of theresource. Continuous improvement in the performance of irrigated agriculture can beapproached by revisiting policies on management and allocation of both the surfacewater and groundwater, because provisions for increasing water supply to the canalsare limited.

In some of the areas of IBIS, groundwater pumping is higher than its recharge,resulting in unprecedented groundwater depletion. Letting this mining continue, thesefarmers will have to bear an irreversible loss due to increasing pumping costs andgroundwater quality deterioration, especially salt water up-coning in saline areas.Analysis of groundwater depth and quality data is being routinely collected bySCARPs Monitoring Organization (SMO) for the areas served by IBIS; and IWASRIconducts in-depth GIS-based data analysis for identification and extent of areas withvarying salt contents and depths to groundwater. Under the GroundwaterManagement (Recharge Potential and Governance) study, IWASRI has carried outin-depth analysis of waterlogging and groundwater depletion issues, in considerationof irrigation water demand and supply for various irrigation units, especially for the

provinces of Punjab and Sindh.

Groundwater Mining and Waterlogging Causes and Way Out: According to depth to watertable (DTW) position in IBIS, for June 2011, 20%irrigated area of Punjab province is facing groundwater depletion i.e. having DTWmore than 12m. On the other hand, 99.5% area in Lower Indus (Sindh & Balochistan)falls within 4.5m depth, out of this 53.7% falls in waterlogged category i.e. within1.5m, depth to groundwater.

In Sindh, the non-perennial canals are suffering the most from this twinmenace of waterlogging and salinity. These non-perennial areas receive more thanrequired supplies in the Kharif season, thus, the watertable rises significantly, whichalso acts as secondary menace for sowing of Rabi crops, particularly the wheat. At theonset of the Rabi season, fields are with standing water or more than the optimummoisture contents for seed germination, also salinity rises towards the surface due to

bare land evaporation. Thus, many of the lands offer only one cropping. Rice Canal is


16/155

xiv

one of the prominent examples of such a phenomenon, where the watertablefluctuates between 1-3 meters during Kharif and Rabi. This annual cycle of rise andfall of watertable brings the salts to the upper soil strata

In Punjab, most of the depleted area falls within the lower and central parts of

the Bari Doab, i.e. 65.4% area of the Bari Doab was highly depleted (DTW > 12m) inJune 2012, whereas in Bahawalpur and Rechna Doabs, 10.9 and 7.8%, respectively,was in depleted class. Further distribution of depleted areas in Bari Doab is towardsSutlej River and towards the center of the Doab. In reality, groundwater is evendeeper in central part of the Doab, i.e. along the course of old Sukh-Beas River. Basedon groundwater levels of 2002 and 2012, it is estimated that 23.3 BCM (18.9 MAF)volume of groundwater has been depleted from the aquifer under Bari Doab in this 10years duration, which is equivalent to a groundwater mining of 2.33 BCM (1.89MAF) per year.

There are various reasons for rapid groundwater depletion in the lower andcentral parts of the Bari Doab, the most prominent is the re-routing of varioustributary flows of the Indus river system as a result of the IWT of 1960, and in returndue to non-availability of environmental flows in these rivers. The second majorreason is the continuation of chronic irrational distribution (one century old system,designed in stages) of surface supplies amongst the irrigation units called canalcommands. And the third contributing factor is the increasing crop water demandsdue to increasing cropping intensities, as a result of increasing population and ensuingfood demands. Thus, farmers in the area are constrained by water scarcity and

unprecedented groundwater depletion rates, resulting in intense competition betweendifferent water users for this scarce water resource. Obviously, the poor are beingaffected the most, because of increasing tubewell development and pumping costs,creating socio-economic imbalance and environmental degradation. Especially,threatening those farmers, where underlying groundwater is marginal or hazardous.Thus, unprecedented groundwater depletion in the area is emerging as a newchallenge for water managers, farmers and other stakeholders in the irrigation sector,

particularly the policy makers.

The solution to rapid groundwater depletion in certain areas and simultaneous

waterlogging in some other areas lies in increasing the water use efficiency of theIBIS. Moving towards this efficient food production will require more efficientmanagement and consumption of freshwater resources, employing the integratedwater resources management (IWRM) approach at national, provincial and canalcommand level. This management will require better quantitative tools (modeling,RS/GIS etc.) and understanding of irrigation water management, than are practicednow in the country. Instead of a narrow focus on surface and groundwater in isolation,rainfall should be taken as the ultimate source of water that can be managed togetherwith canal water. Surface water allocations to different irrigation units in IBIS, beingmore than a century old, now demands canal supplies to be integrated withgroundwater resources and annual normal rainfall (being also the sources for


17/155

xv

groundwater recharge), and a more robust conjunctive use of canal and ground water,at least dictated by well-planned canal supplies, forcing farmers for groundwater

pumping to the tune where it avoids groundwater depletion and waterlogging. This is particularly important, because the future of millions of poor farmers is linked to the

improvement in response reactions of the system, with the passage of time.The factors to be integrated are: groundwater depth (specifically waterlogging

and groundwater mining) and quality, natural recharge from adjoining rivers, annualnormal rainfall patterns, variation in crop water demand, cropping pattern andintensities, and revision of the century-old perennial and non-perennial allocations.Particularly, farmers at tail-end of watercourse commands are getting far less thantheir counterparts at head-ends, Therefore , Warabandi time (weekly waterco urseflow rotation in watercourse command) allocations amongst the farmers, atwatercourse level, need to be rationalized in head-tail end perspective for

consideration of seepage losses, along the watercourse length. Now, it is well established that water re-allocation both locally (watercourse

level) and throughout the system as a whole, or at least on provincial level will be pre-requisite for initiating any groundwater management activity. Re-distributing thecanal water, in relative proportion to the evapotranspiration demand, amongst variousirrigation units and further equitable distribution at farm level, will pave the way forany best fit of restrictions (if needed) on groundwater pumping in highly depletedareas. Adopting rational surface water management approach will lead to efficientconjunctive use of canal and groundwater. This will not only eliminate groundwater

mining in overstressed areas, but will also help minimize waterlogging, especially inhigher rainfall areas or with higher canal supplies.

In IBIS, only canal water is managed by the Irrigation and Power Department (IPD)of the respective provinces, ignoring the needs for groundwater management andthereby its long-term sustainability. Canal water management too is based on centuryold approach, where water demand was less by manifolds, and groundwatercontribution was negligible in irrigated areas. Although, contribution of groundwaterin meeting crop water requirement has surpassed canal water, no amendments have

been adopted in canal water management. Groundwater is only scantly studied by

various federal and provincial institutions regarding its quality, waterlogging and,nowadays, depletion. The Canal and Drainage Act (1873) confers extensive powerson the Provincial Government, acting through the Canal Officer of the IPD, in relationto the control of surface irrigation, flood protection, and drainage. But, no such

powers or essence exists in IPD, whereby long-term sustainability of irrigatedagriculture can be assured, particularly regarding groundwater resourcessustainability.

Conclusions and Recommendations: Following are the specific conclusions andrecommendations of the study.

Legislation at national and provincial levels is the first and foremostrequirement for enhancing equity of surface and ground water supply and


18/155

xvi

rationalizing the available water resources. The legislation would further pavethe way for groundwater management in critical areas, with the provision of

better governance environment;

Chronic perennial/non-perennial allocations being continued without any

logic, even after the improved water supply patterns with the operation ofTarbela and Mangla reservoirs, need to be re-evaluated. Examples are: hugecanal supplies to Rice canal during Kharif, creating flooding conditions,therefore, big loss to potential yields during Rabi; similarly, non-perennialallocation to Mailsi canal and desiccation of adjoining Sutlej River is creatinggroundwater mining there, and farmers are forced to pump saline groundwater,with increasing salinity.

The allocation of river water amongst different canal commands in Punjab province has no rationale. Fresh assessment of cropping patterns and

intensities, and the corresponding crop water requirement, along with existingallocations, is strongly recommended for rationalizing canal water allocations.For the purpose, a technical commission in each of the provinces should beformulated with the mandate to finalize recommendations on canal command

basis keeping in view cropping pattern and intensities, potentialevapotranspiration and irrigation demand, groundwater depth and quality,annual normal rainfall etc.

Based on the analysis presented in this report, it is strongly recommended that(a) supplies to Upper Jhelum and Muzaffargarh canal commands be reduced

and (b) correspondingly, supplies to Pakpattan, Mailsi and Sidhnai commands be increased.

Similarly, in Sindh province, a few canals, e.g. Rice and Kalri are beingsupplied with much higher canal water, thus major parts of the command areasremained flooded or waterlogged, just at the onset of Rabi season. The farmersare unable to cultivate in Rabi, especially the wheat crop, resultantly, thecropping intensities are much less than the actual potential.

Non-beneficial evaporation in Sindh, due to waterlogging conditions prevailing over about 50% of the area is a major challenge in enhancing water

productivity in the province. This can be taken up by provision of reducedirrigation supplies matching with demand and increased groundwater drainage(for irrigation or otherwise), to provide cushion for storage of irrigationleakages and excess rainfall. Thus, rainfall flooding as observed in 2011 onleft of Indus River in Sindh could be avoided. This groundwater buffer can bevery efficiently utilized by deep and shallow skimming wells, depending uponthe thickness of fresh groundwater.

Practical demonstration to the farmers regarding possibility of growing paddywith less water and thereby provide optimum moisture content for Rabi crops,

especially the wheat crop is the need of the hour. This will help in changingthe mindset of the farmer regarding misconception of rice crop over irrigation.


19/155

xvii

Before moving towards farm level groundwater management, equity ofsurface water availability should be ensured, especially at farm gate. Inwatercourse commands, allocate less time at head and more towards tail reach,thus, creating a sense of equal delivery of irrigation water at farm gate;

There is an urgent need to utilize recharge potential in river beds of Sutlej andSukh-Beas by diverting surplus supplies during the Kharif season. Thereshould be proper planning and implementation for utilizing such recharge

potential during wet years. For this purpose, provision of environmental flowsfor eastern rivers under the umbrella of the IWT of 1960 with India may also

be taken up;

For improving groundwater situation in Punjab and increased provision ofdemand based supply to the irrigation systems in Sindh, construction of megareservoirs should be the first priority for the country; and

In order to avoid non-reversible pollution and mining of groundwaterresources under Lahore, it is recommended that about 0.5 MAF surface watermay be allocated from Indus Basin Irrigation System, for water supply andadditional recharge to the aquifer under Lahore. Also, flat rate billing bereplaced with metered water supply. Otherwise, continuity of current situationwould prove to be big disaster, especially for future generations of this everexpanding mega city.

It is expected that groundwater depletion situation in the lower and central parts of the Bari doab would be reverted after rational allocation of surface water atPunjab scale and diverting flood flows in to the Sukh-Beas channel for groundwaterrecharge. Even if the aforementioned interventions could not improve water balancein the area, then some holistic approaches might be needed. There can be many suchinterventions, improving the water use efficiency i.e. distributary/minor andwatercourse improvement/lining, tunnel farming etc. As a last resort, controllingcropping patterns and intensities according to the available water resources in the areais recommended. Given the overall governance situation in the country, this isconsidered to be the easily implementable groundwater governance option forcontrolling the depleting groundwater levels in any area.


20/155

1

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Like all over the World, groundwater has become the most important source foragricultural, domestic as well as industrial consumption, in Pakistan. It is thegroundwater that has contributed more than the surface water for the increased waterrequirements almost in every water use sector in the last 30-40 years. Thus, thesustainability of groundwater resources so for, has played the key role in overalldevelopment of the country. It is a unique resource, widely available, providingsecurity against cyclical droughts and yet closely linked to surface water resourcesand the hydrological cycle. Its reliable supply, good quality and suitable temperature,relative turbidity and pollution free, minimal evaporation losses, and low cost of

development are attributes making groundwater more attractive. With rapid growth in population, urbanization, industrialization and competition for economicdevelopment, groundwater resource has become vulnerable to extreme depletion anddegradation. For an effective, efficient and sustainable groundwater resourcesdevelopment and management, the planners and decision makers have futurechallenges to assess the inextricable logical linkages between water policies andethical consideration. Groundwater being a hidden resource is often developedwithout proper understanding of its occurrence in time and space; this is especiallytrue for developing countries where governments do not own this precious resource.

Thus, groundwater management on scientific lines under the auspices of thegovernments is the key for sustainability of this vital resource.

1.1. Background

Pakistan is an agrarian country where irrigation is used on 75% of agriculturalland, mainly in Indus Basin. Like many other developing countries in South Asia,agriculture in Pakistan is heavily dependent on groundwater irrigation forsustainability of current crop production levels. Because, canal irrigation systems do

not provide farmers with adequate water or enough control over irrigation deliveries,majority of them have turned to groundwater as a sole or supplemental source ofirrigation. Sale and purchase of groundwater through informal water markets offerother farmers the opportunity to use groundwater particularly by non-owners of

private tubewells. The factors affecting private tubewell development and theemergence of groundwater markets are complex and interlinked (PIES, 2001)including physical, economic and social factors. The increase in private tubewells hasincreased the total water availability for crop production and also provided with ondemand control over irrigation supplies at farm level. This increased supplement tocanal water is at stake due to over development and quality deterioration in many ofthe irrigated areas of Indus Basin, particularly the Punjab Province is facing


21/155

2

unprecedented groundwater depletion rates (NESPAK/SGI, 1991; PPSGDP, 2000;Basharat, 2012; Basharat and Tariq, 2013. Shah (2006) said Sustaining the massivewelfare gains groundwater development has created without ruining the resource is akey water challenge facing the world today.

The water stored in the aquifer can be compared to money kept in a currentaccount of bank. If you withdraw money at a faster rate than you deposit new moneyyou will eventually start having account-supply problems. Pumping water out of theaquifer faster than it is replenished over the long-term causes similar problems. Thevolume of groundwater in storage is decreasing in many areas of the country inresponse to pumping. Groundwater depletion is primarily caused by sustainedgroundwater pumping over and above the natural recharge. Some of the emergingnegative effects of groundwater depletion in water stressed areas of the Punjab are:

drying up of wells

deterioration of groundwater quality; and increasing pumping costs

Human economic activities and population growth have led to a sharpdecrease in per capita water availability, as well as decrease in surface runoff andlowering of groundwater level in many parts of the world. In Pakistan three waterreservoirs were constructed i.e. Tarbela, Mangla and Chashma with a total livestorage of 16.29 MAF. Due to silting up, their capacity has reduced to 11.47 MAF in2010 and is estimated to further reduce to 10.70 MAF in year 2020 (PILDAT, 2011).Also in Pakistan, canal irrigation is supply-driven with inadequate releases from

Tarbela, Mangla dams & Chashma reservoir to prevent fluctuations in natural riverflows. Canal water available to meet consumptive use requirements is the diversionquantities reduced by conveyance and application efficiencies of about 46%. Major

portion of these losses joins the aquifer, which is developed by the users without anymanagement intervention by the government at local or basin scale. Much of ourirrigation infrastructure is lacking in proper repair and maintenance; also the system isnot financially sustainable. Water productivity is low as well, compared to othercountries; crop yields both per cubic meter and per hectare are low. All theaforementioned facts demand innovative measures to augment and conserve ouralready under stress water resources.

According to Pakistan National Water Policy Strategy of 2002, prepared byMinistry of Water and Power, the surface water availability in Indus Basin variesfrom 138 MAF to 145 MAF, while 3.8 MAF is available outside Indus Basin.PILDAT (2011) has compared the water requirements in Pakistan for the year 2025with that in 2003. Over the time an increase of 28%, 110% and 118% in the sectors ofi) Agriculture (at farm gate), ii) municipal and rural water supply, sanitation andenvironment and iii) Industry respectively. Whereas, an over all increase 34.3 % inthis period was projected (PILDAT, 2011).


22/155

3

The country is moving from a water-stressed region to a water-scarce regionand is continuously approaching the low level limits of its water resources. Present

per capita water availability has touched the figure of 1000 m 3 per year in 2010 as projected by Briscoe et al. (2005), due to gradual increase in population @2.03% per

annum (World Population Day, 2011). With this population growth rate, it takes about34 years to double, thus causing additional stress on available water resources in thecountry. Pakistan has the highest population growth rate in the world and each familyhere in the country has 3.4 children on average. It is likely to double in the next 34years, making Pakistan 4th most populous country of the world; whereas land areawill remain the same rather will be reduced due to residential plans. Irshad et al.(2012) has projected water requirements for Pakistan as 141.6 MAF for the year 2030.Based on this projected water requirement, population growth rate of 2.03% perannum (World Population Day, 2011), Figure 1.1 shows trends of population growth,total water demand, surface and groundwater availability (assuming that Diamer-Bhasha dam will be ready in 2021).

Figure 1.1: Population growth, water availability and demand for Pakistan.

Knowledge of crop water requirement is necessary in planning and operatingan irrigation system as large as IBIS. With respect to the agriculture sector, havingonly meager options for expansion in land or water resources in the country, there is aneed to focus on increasing the efficiency of existing land and water resources basedon rational allocation of scarce water resources. Within this context, the reportexamines how the ways of sharing and using irrigation remained the same while therealities of water availability, groundwater regime and river flow conditions havechanged, causing huge strain on the groundwater conditions in some of the areas in

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

2 0 1 1

2 0 1 3

2 0 1 5

2 0 1 7

2 0 1 9

2 0 2 1

2 0 2 3

2 0 2 5

2 0 2 7

2 0 2 9

2 0 3 1

2 0 3 3

2 0 3 5

2 0 3 7

2 0 3 9

2 0 4 1

2 0 4 3

2 0 4 5

2 0 4 7

2 0 4 9

P o p u

l a t i o n

( i l l i o n )

A n n u a

l V o l u m e

( M A F )

Year

Live Storage (MAF)

Total Water Demand (MAF)

Surface and GW availability(MAF)Population (million)


23/155

4

Punjab. Many of the countries all over the world are moving towards groundwatermanagement. But the groundwater management principles cannot be universallyapplicable, due to site specific surface water management infrastructure andregulation, hydrogeologic conditions and socio-economic setup. How we can pave the

way towards pragmatic groundwater management in IBIS is not an easy question toanswer. Therefore, Issues and possibilities of groundwater management in IBIS, with particular emphasis on its sustainability, are the ultimate objective of this report.

1.2. Indus Basin Irrigation System and its Design

Pakistan consists of four provinces and measures about 79.6 million hectares,as given in Table 1.1 and shown in Figure 1.2, out of the total, 22 million ha arecultivated. Out of this cultivated area 19.6 million ha are irrigated (Agricultural

Statistics of Pakistan, 2009 2010). Major crops are wheat, rice, cotton, maize andsugarcane, which together occupy about 63% of the total cropped area (Alam et al. ,2000). The irrigation system was initially designed with the objective of bringing asmuch land under canal command as possible, with the objective of providingsettlement opportunities. The designed annual cropping intensities were generallykept low, at 60 to 80 percent (Jurriens and Mollinga 1996). According to the latestagro-economic farm survey carried out in 2010-11, encompassing 200 watercoursesspread all over the IBIS, the cropping intensities increased from 129% in 1988 to172% in 2011 (Mirza and Latif, 2012). This is due to gradual increase in [email protected]% per annum (World Population Day, 2011).

Table 1.1: Geographical areas of Pakistan (Source: ECPAK, 2011).

Province/AreaArea

%(Sq. Km) (Mha) (Sq. mi) (Mac)

Pakistan(Including GB & AJK)

881,891 88.19 340,645 217.90 100

AJK 13,297 1.33 5,136 3.29 1.5GB 72,496 7.25 28,003 17.91 8.2FATA 27,220 2.72 10,514 6.72 3.1KP 74,521 7.45 28,785 18.41 8.4Islamabad 906 0.09 350 0.22 0.1Punjab 205,347 20.54 79,319 50.74 23.3Sindh 140,914 14.09 54,429 34.82 16.0BTN 347,190 34.72 134,108 85.79 39.4Pakistan(Excluding GB & AJK)

796,094 79.61 307,505 196.70 90.3

IBIS consists of Indus River; itself falling ultimately to Arabian Sea, whereas

its other tributaries are Kabul, Jhelum, Chenab, Ravi, Beas and Sutlej (for the laterthree rivers, India has full rights under IWT of 1960). For river water storage and


24/155

5

diversion, the IBIS comprises of three major reservoirs, 16 barrages, 2 head-works, 2siphons across major rivers, 12 inter river link canals, 44 canal irrigation systems,called canal commands (23 in Punjab, 14 in Sindh, 5 in KP and 2 in Baluchistan). Theaggregate length of the canal water distribution system (main, distributary and minor

channels) is about 56,073 km, and more than 107,000 km of watercourses, conveyingwater to farmers fields. Irrigated areas under IBIS are shown in Figure 1.3.

MAP OF PAKISTAN

Figure 1.2 Geographical area and population distribution in Pakistan (Source:ECPAK, 2011).

Table 1.2 shows the share of each province from the available river flows in

IBIS as agreed upon in the Water Apportionment Accord of 1991. Area irrigated fromcanal and wells is also given in Table 1.2. MacDonald et al. (1990) estimated that79% of the area in Punjab and 29% of that of Sindh have groundwater that is suitablefor irrigation. Therefore, keeping in view increasing water demands, varyinggroundwater depth and quality in irrigated areas, conjunctive use of surface andsubsurface reservoirs, needs to be pursued much more systematically than in the past.Mara and Duloy (1984) suggested that large gains in agricultural production andemployment are possible, given more efficient policies as well as allocation andmanagement of surface and ground water resources.

Table 1.2: Surface water allocation in WAA of 1991 and irrigated area on provincial basis.

ProvinceWater Allocation (MAF) Irrigated area

(Mha)Kharif Rabi TotalPunjab 37.07 18.87 55.94 15.09Sindh 33.94 14.82 48.76 5.18KP 5.28 3.50 8.78 0.85Baluchistan 2.85 1.02 3.87 0.399

Total 79.14 38.21 117.35 21.52

GEOGRAPHICAL AREA OF PAKISTAN

27,2203.1%

72,4968.2%

347,19039.4%

74,5218.4%

140,91016%

205,34723.3%

9060.1%

13,2971.5%

Islamabad P unjab Sindh KPKBTN FATA GB AJK


25/155

6

Figure 1.3: Irrigated Areas of the Indus Basin Irrigation System.

Water is delivered to farms through outlets ( mogas ). Within a watercoursecommand (an area ranging from 200 to 700 acres), farmers receive water in

proportion to their land holding. The entire discharge of the watercourse is given toone farm for a specified period, on a seven day rotation schedule called warabandi .Due to its age, overuse, and deferred maintenance, the delivery efficiency of the canalsystem is low. On average, delivery efficiency ranges from 35 to 50% from the canalhead to the root zone, with maximum losses occurring in the watercourses. As aresult, less water is available for crops, and problems of waterlogging and salinity

have been the result. According to the 2011 data collected by SMO, it is estimatedthat 22.8% of irrigated land on the Indus plain is affected by waterlogging andsalinization.

The surface irrigation supply system is extremely rigid, providing water on arotational ( warabandi ) basis and limiting intensive cultivation to 75%. As a result,under-irrigation is quite normal. Nonetheless, farmers tend to make rational choices atthe farm level, opting for allocation efficiency across crops, rather than yieldenhancements. At the field level, there is considerable scope for improving irrigationmethods. Improved irrigation notwithstanding, the timeliness of water supply is a key

to maximizing efficiency. Water should be available to farmers during sowing,sprouting, and grain development. The Warabandi system precludes such timeliness.


26/155

7

Over time, the canal irrigation system has caused the watertable in the Indus basin torise by an average of 15m. This has raised concern over waterlogging. Waterloggingis a condition whereby the soil is saturated to the extent that common plants fail togrow, or their growth and yields are adversely affected by poor aeration of the root

zone. There has also been great concern over the salt balance in the Indus basin. In theabsence of good drainage, surface evaporation occurs and results in salt deposition. Infact, some 10.8 million tons of salt are added to the system each year.

However, as long as they remain below the reach of crops and trees, they dolittle harm. When salts are mobilized, either through a rising watertable (waterloggedareas of Sindh) or pumping of saline groundwater (saline areas of Punjab), they

become a problem. The scope for finding additional water in Pakistan is limited.Surface water supplies are fixed, whereas additional groundwater potential has beenalmost fully utilized, where it was available. In other words, presently available

groundwater potential lies in areas where it cannot be utilized without proper drainageas pre-condition. Groundwater resources have been heavily exploited in Pakistan inthe past three to four decades. Groundwater has made increased acreage under cropsand higher cropping intensities possible. The exploitation of groundwater can beattributed to the inadequacy of canal water resources, as well as the variability ofrainfall and high runoff during the monsoon season. About one million tube wells arelocated throughout various irrigated parts of the country. These tubewells pump about65 BCM groundwater, annually.

1.3. Water Resources

The main source of water in Pakistan is the Indus River system. The system resemblesa funnel, with a number of water sources at the top that converge into a single riverthat flows into the Arabian Sea, east of Karachi. The average annual inflow of thewestern and eastern rivers and their tributaries at the rim stations is 180 BCM (146.01million acre-feet, MAF). The Indus River and its five major tributaries form one ofthe worlds largest contiguous irrigation systems. The Indus basin irrigation networkin Pakistan stretches over an area of 22.14 Mha. Based on the Indus Water Treaty(IWT) of 1960 with India, Pakistan was allocated the flow of three western rivers(Indus, Jhelum and Chenab), with occasional spills from the Sutlej and Ravi rivers.The network has three major reservoirs: the Tarbela, Mangla, and Chashma. It alsoincludes 19 barrages or headworks, 12 link canals, 43 canal commands, and over107,000 watercourses. Irrigation developments over the past 150 years have resultedin very large diversions of water. The three reservoirs are losing their storage capacitydue to sedimentation.

The flows of the Indus and its tributaries vary widely from year to year andwithin the year, as given in Table 1.3, for different periods. Post Tarbela (1976-77 to

2008-09) annual average inflows at Rim Stations for eastern and western rivers, andtotal flows are also given in Tables 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6, respectively (source: H&WM).


27/155

8

The construction of two mega storages (Mangla and Tarbela) and inter river linkcanals compensated the allocation of three eastern rivers to India, as result of IWT of1960. It also helped the operation of the IBIS in an integrated and improved manner,with greater control and enhanced river water utilization. Consequently, the canal

head withdrawals in the Indus increased to 124.6 BCM just after the Tarbela Dam andreached the peak of 133.2 BCM in 1979. Thereafter, canal withdrawals then stagnatedat this level up to 1989-90 and have now declined to around 125.8 BCM due toreduction in reservoir capacities caused by progressive sedimentation.

Table 1.3: Annual average flows (BCM) to Indus River and its tributaries (Ahmad etal., 2012)

RiverAnnual average flows (BCM)1922-61 1985-95 2000-09

Kabul 32.1 28.9 23.3Indus 114.7 77.3 100.3Jhelum 28.4 32.8 22.8Chenab 32.1 33.9 27.8Ravi 1 8.6 6.2 1.4Sutlej 17.3 4.4 0.5Annual total 233.1 183.5 176.0

Table 1.4: Western River Inflows (BCM) at Rim Station (1976-77 to 2008-09).

ScaleIndus at Kalabagh Jhelum at Mangla Chenab at Marala Total

Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi TotalAverage 92.10 18.85 110.94 21.55 6.39 27.95 26.59 5.87 32.48 140.25 31.12 171.36

Maximum 114.89 25.77 138.38 31.06 9.49 39.47 33.87 8.09 40.32 174.58 43.35 212.29Minimum 68.37 13.15 81.88 10.11 2.81 14.62 18.38 3.37 23.31 98.50 20.43 119.81

Table 1.5: Eastern Rivers Inflows (BCM) at Rim Station (1976-77 to 2008-09).

Scale Ravi at Balloki Sutlej at Sulemanki TotalKharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total Kharif Rabi Total

Average 4.13 1.21 5.34 2.60 0.63 3.24 6.75 1.84 8.59Maximum 12.15 3.42 13.63 11.83 4.42 13.10 20.74 7.80 24.63Minimum 0.48 0.11 0.83 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.48 0.20 1.02

1 Under the IWT of 1960, India was entitled to the exclusive use of three eastern rivers (Ravi, Beas and Sutlej),while the western rivers (Chenab, Jhelum and Indus) were earmarked for use by Pakistan. A system consisting of 2storage dams, 8 inter-river link canals and 6 barrages was constructed as replacement works under the Treaty totransfer water from western rivers to canal systems, which were dependent on the eastern rivers.


28/155

9

Table 1.6: Annual Inflows (BCM) to IBIS at Rim Stations (1976-77 to 2008-09).

Scale Kharif Rabi Total

Average 147.00 32.96 179.95Maximum 195.32 51.14 236.92Minimum 98.98 20.62 120.84

Pakistans economy largely depends on agriculture. Its 22 million hectares land isirrigated by canals and tubewells. Average annual water availability for canalwithdrawals had progressively increased from 67 to 105 MAF between the years 1947and 1976 to meet ever growing demand. This increase was achieved with theconstruction of water reservoirs at Chashma, Mangla and Tarbela (total live storage

=16.29 MAF). After completion of Tarbela reservoir, in 1976 there has not been anyfurther increase in canal withdrawals although the population has continued to grow.On the other hand gross capacity of Tarbela, Mangla and Chashma reservoirs hasdepleted by 4.37 MAF (28%) by the year 2012. The process of sedimentation willcontinue and it is estimated that the gross storage loss would reach to 5.82 MAF(37%) by 2025 (Ahmad, 2012). In the current scenario (post Tarbela), annual average(1976-77 to 2008-09) inflow to IBIS at Rim Stations is about 147.0 MAF. Annualaverage canal withdrawals from 1976-77 to 2006-07 are 101.5 MAF (Table 1.7). Themajor part of this difference goes to Arabia Sea, without any management, and minor

part can be attributed to river losses, which too are variable along different reachesdue to difference in river water surface and surrounding groundwater elevations. Thereleases below Kotri barrage are highly uncertain (Figure 1.4), depending uponwetness or dryness of monsoon season. Therefore, the flow regime in the Indus Riverdownstream of the Kotri Barrage during the post-Tarbela period had not beensufficient for environmental sustainability in the lower reaches of the river and thedelta.

Table 1.7: Annual canal withdrawals (MAF) for post-Tarbela period (1976-77 to2006-07 (data source: H&WM, WAPDA).

76-77

77-78

78-79

79-80

80-81

81-82

82-83

83-84

84-85

85-86

86-87

87-88

88-89

89-90

90-91

91-92

96.8 102.7 96.7 105.1 107.4 101.9 103.3 100.5 101.1 96.4 105.9 109.1 105.1 102.1 109.8 109.5

92-93

93-94

94-95

95-96

96-97

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01

01-02

02-03

03-04

04-05

05-06

06-07

100.9 107.6 94.5 102.4 111.1 103.1 110.7 106.7 86.2 79.6 93.4 103.1 87.8 106.5 99.7


29/155

10

Figure 1.4: Annual average escapages below Kotri based on 1976-2000 data are 37.8MAF and based on 1976-2011 are 30.70 MAF.

The impact of expected climate change on water resources must also be kept in mind.Therefore, the context of new infrastructure that has to be designed to respond oradapt to an increasing demand for water for drinking, sanitation purposes, and powergeneration. For example, consider Karachi, the only major coastal city in Pakistan,and secondly, the Lahore, being capital of Punjab is expanding rapidly. Obviously,this is leading to increased water demands and stress on available fresh groundwaterresources is increasing. The salinity in Karachi and the Indus delta is already veryhigh. In 1991, 45% of the rural population and 80% of the urban population hadaccess to safe drinking water. In the future, there is likely to be decreased access for

both rural and urban populations, because rates of urbanization exceed the capabilityof services to cope with the growing demand. At the same time, quality ofgroundwater is deteriorating. Increasing water deficits will cause inter-sectorialcompetition and tensions among productive sectors. Higher pricing or rationingoptions are likely to generate cost increases or production losses. Such problems are

likely to be exacerbated by provincial water allocation decisions, which will be politically driven and thus not lead to optimal water utilization.

1.4. Groundwater in General

Groundwater is the water located beneath the earth's surface in soil pore spaces and inthe fractures of rock formations. A unit of rock or an unconsolidated deposit is calledan aquifer when it can yield a usable quantity of water. The depth at which soil porespaces or fractures and voids in rock become completely saturated with water is called

the watertable. Groundwater is recharged from, and eventually flows to the surfacenaturally; natural discharge often occurs at springs and seeps, and can from oases or

69.1

30.4

80.6

29.8

20.1

33.8

9.7

45.9

29.6

11.0

26.9

17.5

52.9

17.2

42.3

53.3

81.5

29.1

91.8

62.8

45.4

20.8

35.2

8.8

0.81.92.4

20.2

0.3

24.521.7

15.8

5.44.1

54.5

8.4

0.0

10.0

20.0

30.0

40.0

50.0

60.0

70.0

80.0

90.0

100.0

A n n u a

l f l o w s

b e l o w

K o t r i

( M A F )

Years

Annual average flows (1976-2011)= 30.70 MAF


30/155

11

wetlands. Also, groundwater is often withdrawn for agricultural, municipal andindustrial use by constructing and operating extraction wells. Sustainable groundwaterresources management will require available surface water allocation and aquifermanagement plans that clearly integrate groundwater and surface water systems. This

will require more sensitive and accurate surface water availability, and aquifer water balance, to develop management plans which recognize the long timeframes ofaquifer and surface water interaction.

For proper groundwater management in the country, it is a pre-requisite toacknowledge the importance of groundwater and its role in the current scenario ofoverall water cycle in Pakistan. Important components of this strategy can be to:

Improve our knowledge of groundwater and surface water connectivity, withsignificantly connected irrigation systems (as the IBIS is often called the

biggest contiguous system in the world) to be managed as one integrated

resource; Complete the return of currently over-allocated or overused irrigation systems

to environmentally sustainable levels of recharge and extraction rates; and Improve understanding of sustainable extraction rates and regimes, and develop

common approaches to achieving sustainability.

1.5. Changing Groundwater Regime in Pakistan

Currently, surface water in Pakistan is managed at federal and provincial scales,

leaving groundwater at sole discretion of end users. Keeping in view the increasingwater demands, especially the groundwater, sustainable management of groundwaterresources is imperative to the agricultural, industrial, urban, rural and environmentalviability of the country. Such management requires not only a robust scientific basis

but also ongoing monitoring and re-assessment of surface water allocations todifferent irrigation systems, water levels, and groundwater quality. This re-assessmentcan point out any flaws in current water management approaches, which are based onmore than century old status and knowledge of the irrigation system.

The cropping intensity was 102.8, 110.5 and 121.7% during 1960, 1972 and

1980, respectively (Ahmad, 1995), and now operating at about 172% (Mirza andLatif, 2012) and even higher in certain areas. As a result, groundwater mining due tohigher abstraction rates as compared to the corresponding recharge is well reported inthe literature (NESPAK/SGI, 1991; Steenbergen and Olienmans, 1997; Basharat andTariq, 2013a; Cheema et al., 2013). It means the underground reservoir that wasrecharged by the newly built irrigation system with low cropping intensities is now

being overexploited due to increased cropping intensity, as shown in Figure 1.5, forLBDC command. The average rate of groundwater rise was 23.5 cm/year for these sixobservation wells. The period from 1987 to 2008 indicates a depletion rate of 31.4cm/year, i.e. an even faster depletion than its aforementioned rise. With dramaticincrease in the intensity of groundwater exploitation in the last three decades, the


31/155

12

policy landscape for Pakistan has changed i.e. the main policy issues now relate toenvironmental sustainability and welfare (Steenbergen and Olie nmans, 1997). Thus,it is important to avoid declining groundwater tables and deteriorating groundwaterquality in fresh groundwater areas, and also to ensure equal access to this increasingly

important natural resource.The gravity of drop in aquifer levels, as seen presently in some of the canal

commands in Punjab and Khyber Pakhtoonkhwah (KP) has proved that irrigators arenow facing increased cost of pumping and in some areas, have to upgrade the

pumping plant to cope with higher lifts. The time when groundwater may become outof reach of small/poor farmers is fast approaching. According to Punjab PrivateSector Groundwater Development Project (PPSGDP, 2000), the areas with deepergroundwater levels are generally located in tail reaches of the canal system. Basharatand Tariq (2013) proved that towards tail ends there is relatively increasing shortfall

between crop water requirement and irrigation water supply in comparison to headreaches. The reason being that spatial climate variability within the irrigation systemin the Indus basin has created differential variations in rainfall and as a result, inirrigation water demand. Basharat and Ali (2012) pointed out a depletion rate of 0.55m per year for the lower part of Bari Doab in contrary to stable groundwater levels inthe upper part. Shah (20 06) mentioned this as a key challenge by saying sustainingthe massive welfare gains, groundwater development has created without ruining theresource is a key water challenge facing the world today. Thus, the policy landscapefor Pakistan has changed, i.e. the main policy issue is to ensure equal access to thisincreasingly important natural resource.

Figure 1.5: Changing groundwater levels in LBDC command, in response to irrigationinception and current over pumping (Basharat and Tariq, 2013a).

120

130

140

150

160

170

180

1910 1930 1950 1970 1990 2010

G r o u n

d w a t e r e

l e v a t i o n

( m )

One centuray

CL_VIII/2

CL_VIII/4

CL_XII/4

CL_XVII/2

NPLX/15

NPLX/17

19.532.9

26.4

13.7

25.7

22.4

rise @ cm/yr

14.327.1

35.1

59.4

25.9

26.2

fall @ cm/yr

aveergae @31.4average @ 23.5


32/155

13

1.6. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)

Generally groundwater potential for irrigation use in IBIS diminishes over thealluvial aquifers in downstream direction. The reasons are two fold, i.e. either thegroundwater is highly mineralized for use or the depth to groundwater increases from

head to tail of canal commands. On the other hand, demand for supplementalirrigation supplies increases towards south in downstream direction of canal systemsin IBIS. The reason being that climate becomes more arid in this direction. Althoughsolar radiation, wind and temperature, all affect evapotranspiration demand, rainfall isoften the most important determinant of irrigation demand. Mean annual precipitationranges from about 100 mm in parts of Lower Indus Plain to over 1000 mm near thefoothills in the Upper Indus Plain (Figure 1.6). On the other hand, lake evaporationincreases in north-south direction from 1270 mm at Peshawar to 2800 mm at Thatta(Ahmad, 1982).

Investments to strengthen institutional capacity are critical for improvinggovernance. Groundwater is a highly decentralized resource often developed by

private initiative, thus its management and protection will not be effective withoutsocial (user and polluter) participation. But, both Federal and Provincial governmentshas to play a central role as resource guardian.

Figure 1.6: Variation of annual normal rainfall in Pakistan (PMD, 2010).

Economically efficient food production will require more efficientmanagement and consumption of freshwater resources employing IWRM principle at


33/155

14

national, provincial and canal command level. That management will require betterquantitative tools and understandings than are practiced now. Quantification of waterdemand and supply requires tools that determine the spatial structure of waterrequirement and availability, especially groundwater over large areas. These tools are

currently available for handling and analyzing spatial data. Thinking differently aboutwater is essential, instead of a narrow focus on surface and groundwater in isolation,view rain as the ultimate source of water that can be managed together with canalwater for most optimal production levels at the system level. This is vital for foodsecurity, environmental sustainability, minimizing extra energy consumption ongroundwater pumping from deeper depths and poverty alleviation, particularly thecondition of millions of poor is linked to the improvement in response reactions of thesystem with passage of time. In this regard IWMI and Global Water Partnership(2005) has very rightly concluded that by considering groundwater availability andquality when allocating surface water, water managers could improve the equity,sustainability and productivity of irrigated systems. Basharat (2011) examinedcritically, all the irrigation system operation and management issues in IBIS, whichhave severely caused inequity in groundwater demand and supply, at the farm level.


34/155

15

CDAPTER - 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

By 2030, the world economy is projected to double, and the world population isexpected to increase by one-third (Gurria 2009). To feed these people, crop

production should be increased by 33%. This demand will increase the agriculturalsectors pressure o n water resources. To support the changing lifestyle of people,

pressure on water resources from energy production and industries will also increase.The pressure on water resources is exacerbated by the continued deterioration offreshwater quality. The pollution of water from both agricultural fields and industrialareas also affects water resources. Climate change is expected to worsen the problemof water availability. Many countries or regions are facing increasing competition for

water resources among domestic, industrial, and agricultural uses or between usersand environmental needs. The agricultural sector needs particular attention, as itaccounts for approximately 70% of the water used worldwide, whereas in Pakistan itaccounts for about 97%.

Overexploitation of groundwater has been reported in many parts of the world.For example, the water level of the aquifers in India has been receding (Chawla et al.2010). Las Vegas, Beijing, Bangkok and Manila are all suffering from severe watershortages because of the overexploitation of groundwater at different rates (WorldWater Day, 1998). Some parts of Bangladesh are experiencing a similar problem. For

example, in Dhaka city, over-extraction has caused the watertable to fall by as muchas 40 m in some places (Sarkar and Ali 2009). In most parts of the country, farmershave been forced to replace their suction mode pumps with submersible pumps

because of the continuous decline in groundwater levels. Over-extraction issues arealso reported for some parts of Sri Lanka (Villholth and Rajasooriyar 2010), China(Yin et al. 2011), Pakistan (Qureshi et al. 2010), and Spain (Molina et al. 2011).

According to Molden et al. (2010), there is a considerable scope for improvingwater productivity of crop, livestock and fisheries at field through to basin scale.Deficit irrigation is one of the practices used to achieve increased production; others

include water harvesting, supplemental irrigation, precision irrigation techniques andsoil-water conservation practices. Authors further claim that maximum improvementis possible in areas of physical water scarcity where competition for water is high,such as falling groundwater tables, and river desiccation. Geerts and Raes (2009)confirm that deficit irrigation is successful in increasing water productivity for variouscrops without causing severe yield reductions. The Indus Basin Irrigation System(IBIS) is already designed on the concept of deficit irrigation. This deficit is met bygroundwater pumping by farmers, as and when required due to deficit in canalsupplies, especially in Punjab where groundwater is mostly fresh, however, marginal

to hazardous in areas away from the rivers is also common. Population growth is particularly high in Pakistan (2.03% per annum, World Population Day, 2011). This


35/155

16

means that the country has an additional challenge of increasing crop production forexpected increase in population.

2.1. Irrigation System Performance Assessment

In Pakistan, the water allowance within any canal command is based onachieving equity in conveying canal water, but difference in crop water requirementalong with groundwater availability and rainfall variation has not been considered inirrigation system design. Furthermore, the recharge to groundwater varies across anycanal command due to proximity difference to line sources of recharge such as maincanals and the rivers. According to Basharat (2012), many researchers and engineers(Abernethy, 1986; Oad & McCornick, 1989; Bos & Nugteren, 1990; Molden & Gates,1990; Murray Rust & Snellen, 1993; Merrey et al. 1994; Bos, 1997; Malano &Burton, 2001 and Bos et al., 2005) have tried to devise performance indicators to

permit better comparison of irrigation systems with respect to the intended objectives.To account for water use from both surface and groundwater, various new irrigation

performance indicators have also been developed e.g. depleted fraction by Molden etal. (1998). Ahmad et al. (2009) has concluded through remote sensing analysis ofactual evapotranspiration (ET a) in Rechna Doab Irrigation System in Punjab,Pakistan, that the adequacy and reliability of combined surface water andgroundwater deliveries decline towards the tails of the canal and towards the centraland downstream parts of the Doab. Accordingly, the authors have suggestedenhancing the overall system productivity through changed water allocation for long

term perspectives. A good indicator points out what current performance of theirrigation system is, and what further management measures need to be adopted toimprove it further. There can be many such parameters, for example, irrigation systemcan be judged on the basis of the following indicators, i.e.:

The actual volume of water delivered, V A, determined from monitoring data ofact

surface and groundwater nexus_gw management options for ibis

Documents