Irrigation and Drainage Engineering
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://etd.hu.edu.et/handle/123456789/70
Browse
3 results
Search Results
Item COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF MOJO ASHA AND ADANO SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION SCHEMES IN EAST HARARGHE ZONE, OROMIA REGION(Hawassa University, 2017-08-24) EBSA MUSTEFA HAKIMThis study attempts to assess and cross-compare the performance of two small-scale irrigation schemes found in Oromia regional state namely, Mojo Asha and Adano irrigation schemes using comparative indicators. After collection of the valuable data from various sources, data analysis techniques were implemented for evaluating their performance using selected performance indicators such as conveyance efficiency, Application efficiency, system efficiency, water productivity and land productivity. The results showed that the average conveyance efficiencies of the two schemes were 83.41 % and 76.78 % at Mojo Asha and Adano respectively. It was lower at Adano than Mojo Asha scheme due to poor water management and irrigation structures’ deterioration. The maximum value of application efficiency found in downstream field of Mojo Asha scheme were 65.43 % and the minimum value was found in the Adano scheme at upstream field 40.45 % due to much amount of water was applied to the field without considering water requirement. The results of water use performance also indicated that the ratio of annual relative water supply were1.09 and 1.19 at Mojo Aasha and Adano schemes respectively, and ratio of annual relative irrigation supply were 1.12 and 1.27 at Mojo Aasha and Adano schemes respectively. The result indicated that water distribution is not tightly related to crop water demand or applying more than the demand. From analysis of agricultural performance the output results showed that the outputs per unit irrigation supply were 8.62 and 7.92 Birr/m3 at Mojo Asha and Adano schemes respectively. Whereas output per unit irrigation delivered were 10.78 and 9.70 Birr/ m3 at Mojo Asha and Adano schemes respectively. Outputs per unit command area in Birr/ha were 82501 and 96750 at Mojo Asha and Adano scheme respectively. Outputs per unit irrigated cropped area in Birr/ha were 55237 and 56437.5 at Mojo Asha and Adano schemes respectively. In case of water productivity Mojo Asha scheme was performing better than Adano scheme due to more productive use of irrigation water while land productivity was performing better at Adano than Mojo Asha scheme due to more intensive irrigation and better investment. Generally evaluation results of different indicators give information of performance level of the schemes that enables to transfer best practice to propose improvement measures.Item A CASE STUDY OF MAI-SHAWSH AND MIDMAR SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION SCHEMES, IN MEREB SUB-BASIN, NORTH ETHIOPIA(Hawassa University, 2017-10-16) GUESH HAGOS ASRESUThis 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 consumedItem COMPARATIVE PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT OF MOJO ASHA AND ADANO SMALL SCALE IRRIGATION SCHEMES IN EAST HARARGHE ZONE, OROMIA REGION(Hawassa University, 2017-08-06) EBSA MUSTEFA HAKIMThis study attempts to assess and cross-compare the performance of two small-scale irrigation schemes found in Oromia regional state namely, Mojo Asha and Adano irrigation schemes using comparative indicators. After collection of the valuable data from various sources, data analysis techniques were implemented for evaluating their performance using selected performance indicators such as conveyance efficiency, Application efficiency, system efficiency, water productivity and land productivity. The results showed that the average conveyance efficiencies of the two schemes were 83.41 % and 76.78 % at Mojo Asha and Adano respectively. It was lower at Adano than Mojo Asha scheme due to poor water management and irrigation structures’ deterioration. The maximum value of application efficiency found in downstream field of Mojo Asha scheme were 65.43 % and the minimum value was found in the Adano scheme at upstream field 40.45 % due to much amount of water was applied to the field without considering water requirement. The results of water use performance also indicated that the ratio of annual relative water supply were1.09 and 1.19 at Mojo Aasha and Adano schemes respectively, and ratio of annual relative irrigation supply were 1.12 and 1.27 at Mojo Aasha and Adano schemes respectively. The result indicated that water distribution is not tightly related to crop water demand or applying more than the demand. From analysis of agricultural performance the output results showed that the outputs per unit irrigation supply were 8.62 and 7.92 Birr/m3 at Mojo Asha and Adano schemes respectively. Whereas output per unit irrigation delivered were 10.78 and 9.70 Birr/ m3 at Mojo Asha and Adano schemes respectively. Outputs per unit command area in Birr/ha were 82501 and 96750 at Mojo Asha and Adano scheme respectively. Outputs per unit irrigated cropped area in Birr/ha were 55237 and 56437.5 at Mojo Asha and Adano schemes respectively. In case of water productivity Mojo Asha scheme was performing better than Adano scheme due to more productive use of irrigation water while land productivity was performing better at Adano than Mojo Asha scheme due to more intensive irrigation and better investment. Generally evaluation results of different indicators give information of performance level of the schemes that enables to transfer best practice to propose improvement measures.