Browsing by Author "GUESH HAGOS ASRESU"

Filter results by typing the first few letters
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF IRRIGATION SCHEMES: A CASE STUDY OF MAI-SHAWSH AND MIDMAR SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION SCHEMES, IN MEREB SUB-BASIN, NORTH ETHIOPIA
    (Hawassa University, 2017-03-21) GUESH HAGOS ASRESU
    This study tries to evaluate the performance of small scale irrigation schemes using comparative indicators at Maishawsh and Midmar schemes, Mereb Sub basin, North Ethiopia. This study area has poor water management practice and not evaluated before using comparative performance indicators. To address the objectives of irrigation water use efficiency and on-field irrigation management performance of this study was field measurements related to canal discharge, moisture content determination of the soils, measurement of depth of water applied to the fields using two inches parshal flume, group discussion and informant interview to establish the cost of production and the price produced. The result of this study revealed that, the conveyance efficiency for Maishawsh scheme was 98.95%, 91.03%, and 75.21%, respectively for main lined, secondary lined and tertiary unlined canals of the scheme, and for Midmar scheme, it was 76.89% which was an earthen canal. The computed application, storage, distribution and overall scheme efficiency values are 60.8, 64.2, 93.40 and 46.7% for Midmar while they are 56.8, 70, 94.2 and 42.7% for Maishawsh schemes, respectively. The comparative indicators of agricultural outputs such as land productivity measured as outputs per unit command area and outputs per unit irrigated area are 3461.58 and 3512.8 US$/ha for Midmar while 3120.91 and 3032.46 US$/ha for Maishawsh respectively. The water indicators such as output per unit irrigation supply and Output per water consumed are 0.36 and 0.61 for Midmar while they are 0.25 and 0.54 US$/m3 for Maishawsh schemes respectively. The water supply indicators measured by, relative water supply and relative irrigation supply gave 1.8 and 1.85 for Midmar while they are 2.29 and 2.37 for Maishawsh schemes respectively. This implied that the amount of water supplied was sufficient for the water demand of both schemes. The original irrigable and command area was declined by 2% from the actual irrigated area in Midmar scheme. However, the actual irrigated area was expanded by 3% and 6% from original irrigable and command area in Maishawsh scheme respectively. The financial indicators measured by gross return on investment and financial self sufficiency for Midmar are 91.5 and 69% while they are 91 and 77% for Maishawsh respectively. Based on this result, Midmar irrigation scheme was slightly better than Maishawsh, the reason might be good water management at field level and Midmar water users pay for what they have consumed