Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 79

JOMO KENYATTA UNIVERSITYOFAGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY

Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering Department

FINAL YEAR PROJECT REPORT.

TITLE:
EVALUATION OF THE PERFOMANCE OF IRRIGATION INFRASTRUCTURE
[A CASE STUDY OF MWEA TEBERE IRRIGATION SCHEME]

AUTHOR:

LAWRENCE MUTUGI NJUE

REG. NO: E25-0109/04

SUPERVISOR:
Mr. M.O. KEPHA

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the award of Bachelor of Science Degree in Civil, Construction and
Environmental Engineering

March, 2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT.
Without life, nothing could ever be realized, Glory be to God Almighty, for making all things possible and
for His love and Grace.
To my mum: Miss. Regina Nyambura Njue, all would be lost without responsible parenthood. Thank you
for your relentless sacrifices and confidence so that I can be who I am today.
Special appreciation to my supervisor: Mr. M.O. KEPHA for your selfless input and commitment to see
this research work to a success, you took my ideas and gave them form and for that I thank you!
I also want to pass my humble appreciation to Mr. Matolo and Dr. Khome from the BEED department for
taking part in seeing my success in doing this project especially with the M.I.S. team
And lastly to my Grandmother, Mrs. Njue and Auntie Felister your prayers, support and encouragement
has been the driving force to this point and am eternally grateful.

Any inherent flaws and mistakes are my own responsibility.

i
DECLARATION

I do declare that this report is my original work and to the best of my knowledge, it has not been submitted
for any degree award in any University or Institution.

Signed______________________________________________ Date ____________


<Student>

CERTIFICATION

I have read this report and approve it for examination.

Signed_______________________________________________Date____________
<Supervisor>

ii
ABSTRACT.
The aim of this research was to evaluate irrigation infrastructure of an irrigation scheme, specifically the
water conveyance loss in the open canal irrigation network of Mwea Tebere Irrigation scheme that’s
served by both River Nyamindi on the North and River Thiba on the south. This was done with the aim of
achieving sustainable production from irrigated rice agriculture in the area especially after the low
performance decline that faced the scheme due to low water levels in the 2009 season. The research was
carried out in the main, secondary, and tertiary canals. Water conveyance loss in the canals was measured
by the inflow-outflow method using already installed and calibrated measuring infrastructure, while water
velocity was determined using a current-meter. Statistical relationships between canal types, canal shapes,
canal length and type of lining was also investigated. The water conveyance loss at the main canal level
was between 0.06% and 0.123% (157.2 l s-1 to 392.9 2 l s-1) per 1 km and the total percentage conveyance
loss was found to be 48.1% in the Thiba main canal, and between 0.03% and 0.09% (69.38 l s-1 to 235.73 l
s-1) per 1 km and the total percentage conveyance loss was found to be 24.1% in the Nyamindi main canal.
The average loss in the main canals was 36.1%. At the secondary canal level the average water
conveyance loss for the trapezoidal canals on the Thiba main canal was 0.016% (42.005 l s-1) per 1 km
and for the Nyamindi main canal was 0.204%, (199.84 l s-1) per 1 km. The total percentage conveyance
loss for the seven secondary canals three on Nyamindi and four on Thiba was found to be 26.4%. The
agricultural performance of the scheme shows that the production rate obtained varied between 4.018
tons/ha and 5.086 tons/ha, per unit of cropped area and 2.226 tons/ha to 4.486 tons/ha per unit of
command. There is a large variation between the year 2008/2009 and the other years. The output obtained
out of a unit of water volume consumed varied from 1511.5 tons/m3/s to 3046.1 tons/m3/s. The results
showed the scheme is not performing to its designed capacity as both the agricultural performance and the
water delivery capacity of the scheme are way below optimum. The conveyance losses in the scheme are
higher than the values determined in a similar project 30 years ago and this is a clear indication of the
continued deterioration of the infrastructure in the scheme and the overall, maintenance and repair work
on the conveyance canals were not sufficient.

iii
Table of Contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. ................................................................................................................................... i

DECLARATION .................................................................................................................................................ii

ABSTRACT. ..................................................................................................................................................... iii

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

LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... viii

LIST OF CHARTS. ............................................................................................................................................ ix

NOMENCLATURE AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................... x

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION. ........................................................................................................................ 1

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY. ................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 STUDY JUSTIFICATION. ........................................................................................................................ 2

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT. ....................................................................................................................... 3

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE. ......................................................................................................................... 4

1.41 GENERAL OBJECTIVE.......................................................................................................................... 4

1.42 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES. ........................................................................................................................ 4

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS ....................................................................................................................... 4

1.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY. ................................................................................................................ 4

CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.................................................................................................................. 5

2.1 INTRODUCTION. .................................................................................................................................. 5

2.3 MWEA IRRIGATION SCHEME, (M.I.S) .................................................................................................. 5

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA. .................................................................................................... 6

2.4.1 Location and physiography .......................................................................................................... 6

2.4.2 Climate.......................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4.3 River basin. ................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4.4 Soils............................................................................................................................................... 7
iv
2.5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. ............................................................................................................. 8

2.5.1 What does evaluation means? ..................................................................................................... 8

2.5.2 Irrigation efficiencies .................................................................................................................. 12

2.6 RICE FARMING IN MWEA. ................................................................................................................. 14

2.6.1 General Description of Rice. ....................................................................................................... 14

2.6.2 Rice growth stages...................................................................................................................... 15

CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY. ................................................................................................... 17

3.1 INTRODUCTION. ................................................................................................................................ 17

3.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................... 18

3.2.1 Crop Water Requirement (C.W.R.) ............................................................................................. 21

3.2.1.1 Reference Evapotranspiration. (ETo) ...................................................................................... 21

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ...................................................................................................... 26

4.2 MONTHLY ETO PENMAN-MONTEITH DATA. ..................................................................................... 26

4.3 MONTHLY RAIN DATA. ...................................................................................................................... 27

4.3 CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION LOSS ANALYSIS. .......................................................................... 28

4.3.1 Water Conveyance Loss in Main Canals .............................................................................. 28

4.3.2 The Water Conveyance Loss in the Secondary Canals ........................................................ 33

4.4 AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE .................................................................................................. 47

4.4.1 Output per unit-cropped area and per unit of command ................................................... 47

4.4.2 Output per unit water consumed........................................................................................ 50

4.4.3 W ater delivery capacity (WDC)................................................................................................. 51

5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. ............................................................................................ 53

6.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................................... 56

APPENDICES................................................................................................................................................. 57

APPENDIX 1: METEOROLOGICAL DATA ................................................................................................... 57

v
Rainfall ................................................................................................................................................. 57

Temperature........................................................................................................................................ 57

Relative Humidity. ............................................................................................................................... 57

Evaporation. ........................................................................................................................................ 58

Wind speed.......................................................................................................................................... 58

Sunshine Hours .................................................................................................................................... 58

Radiation. ............................................................................................................................................ 58

APPENDIX 2: CALLIBRATED TABLES FOR M.I.S. MEASURING STRUCTURES. ........................................... 59

APPENDIX 3: AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS TABLES ........................................................... 63

APPENDIX 4: MWEA IRRIGATION SCHEME MAP AND SCHEMATIC LAYOUT........................................... 65

vi
LIST OF TABLES.
Table 1: M.I.S. sections and their hectare coverage. ..................................................................................... 5

Table 2: Benefits of irrigation performance to different stakeholders .......................................................... 9

Table 3: Indicative values of the conveyance efficiency (EC) for adequately maintained canals. .............. 14

Table 4: Conveyance losses for the Thiba main canal (TMC) .................................................................... 28

Table 5: Conveyance losses in the Nyamindi main canal (NMC) .............................................................. 30

Table 6: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal one (TBC1) .............................................................. 33

Table 7: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal two (TBC2) .............................................................. 35

Table 8: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal three (TBC3) ............................................................ 37

Table 9: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal four (TBC4) ............................................................. 39

Table 10: Conveyance loss in the Nyamindi branch canal one (NBC1). .................................................... 41

Table 11: Conveyance loss in the Nyamindi branch canal two (NBC2) ..................................................... 43

Table 12: Conveyance loss in the Nyamindi branch canal three (NBC3) ................................................... 45

Table 13: Area under irrigation at different years in Mwea Irrigation scheme ........................................... 47

Table 14: Output per unit cropped area (tons/ha) ........................................................................................ 47

Table 15: Output per unit command area (tons/ha) ..................................................................................... 48

Table 16: Output per unit water consumed (tons/M3/s) .............................................................................. 50

Table 17: Irrigation ratio ............................................................................................................................. 51

vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Main headwork’s on Thiba River one of the intake points of M.I.S. ............................................ 7

Figure 2: Irrigated rice terraces in Indonesia. .............................................................................................. 11

Figure 3: Irrigated paddies in Mwea Tebere irrigation scheme................................................................... 11

Figure 4: shows irrigation water losses in the canal .................................................................................... 13

Figure 5: shows irrigation water losses in the field ..................................................................................... 13

Figure 6: Rice growth stages ....................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 7: Schematic water distribution - Nyamindi section. ....................................................................... 19

Figure 8: Schematic water distribution - Thiba part. ................................................................................... 20

Figure 9: A calibrated Broad Crested Weir used to measure flow along the Thiba main Canal. ................ 24

Figure 10: A student using a current meter to determine flow on a tertiary canal ...................................... 24

Figure 11: lining and reconstruction of an irrigation canal as part of rehabilitation project in Zanzibar,
Tanzania. ..................................................................................................................................................... 54

viii
LIST OF CHARTS.
Chart 1: Conveyance losses along the Thiba main canal profile. ................................................................ 29

Chart 2: Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi main canal profile. ......................................................... 31

Chart 3: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal one profile ....................................................... 34

Chart 4: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal one profile ...................................................... 36

Chart 5: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal three profile .................................................... 38

Chart 6: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal four profile...................................................... 40

Chart 7: Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi Branch canal one profile. ............................................... 42

Chart 8: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal three profile .................................................... 44

Chart 9: Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi Branch canal three profile.............................................. 46

Chart 10: Output per unit-cropped area (tons per ha) .................................................................................. 48

Chart 11: Output per unit command (tons per ha) ....................................................................................... 49

Chart 12: Output per unit water consumed (tons/m3/s) ............................................................................... 50

Chart 13: Irrigation ratio.............................................................................................................................. 51

ix
NOMENCLATURE AND ABBREVIATIONS.
NIB……………………………………………………………………….……National Irrigation Board

MIS…………………………………………………………..……………….. Mwea Irrigation Scheme

WUA ……………………………………………………………………….…..Water Users Association

O & M………………………………………………………………………Operation and Maintenance

ASAL…………………………………………………………………………Arid and Semi Arid Land

FAO………………………………………………………………..Food and Agricultural Organization

MIAD………………………………………….Mwea Irrigation and Agricultural Development Centre

CWR…………………………………………………………………………..Crop Water Requirement

TMC…………………………………………………………………………..…...…Thiba Main Canal

TBC……………………………………….……………………………………...…Thiba Branch Canal

NMC…………………………………….………………………..………………Nyamindi Main Canal

NBC…………………………………….………………………………………Nyamindi Branch Canal

WDC…………………………………………………………………..………Water Delivery Capacity

CP…………………………………………………………………………………………...Check Point

x
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION.

1.1 BACKGROUND OF STUDY.

"We have the potential to become the grain-basket for this region and beyond. Our farmers are capable of
doubling productivity so that we have food security for our people and a surplus for export," Kibaki told
an agriculture conference. The economy of Kenya relies heavily on Agriculture which accounts for a
quarter of gross domestic product in east Africa's largest economy, generating 45 percent of income and
contributing more than half of foreign exchange earnings However eighty percent of the country is arid or
semi-arid. In the arid and semi-arid areas sustainable agriculture can only be achieved through well
planned and operated irrigation. The Government of Kenya has identified irrigation as an important tool
for improving food self-sufficiency and enhancing household incomes in the rural sector. In this regard the
government plans to invest 12.6 Billion shillings on irrigation schemes and in specific 8.3 billion shillings
will go directly to the expansion of Mwea irrigation scheme with an extra 3500 acres.

Mwea Irrigation Scheme is situated in Kirinyaga district, in Central province of Kenya. The Scheme is
about 100 Km South East of Nairobi. Farming in the scheme started in 1956, rice has been then
predominant crop in the scheme. The scheme has a gazette area of 30,350 acres. A total of 16,000 acres
has been developed for paddy production. The rest of the scheme is used for settlement, public utilities,
subsistence and horticultural crops farming. The scheme is served by two main rivers VIZ Nyamindi and
Thiba rivers. Irrigation water is abstracted from the rivers by gravity by the help of fixed intake weirs,
conveyed and distributed in the scheme via unlined open channels. There is a link canal joining the two
rivers which transfers water from Nyamindi to Thiba River which serves about 80% of the scheme. Land
tenure is on tenancy basis. Since inception till 1998 the scheme was being run by various government
agencies. In 1998, the scheme management was taken over by a Mwea Rice Farmer& Grower’s
cooperative society MRGM. However, the farmers realized that they could not go it alone due to:
- Unskilled personnel
- Lack of finances
- Lack of machinery for scheme maintenance.
In 2003, the farmers approached the government for assistance in the scheme management.
Currently, the scheme is being run by National Irrigation Board, NIB, and the farmers Organizations,
mainly the Water Users Association, WUA. NIB is responsible of all the main infrastructure, water
management in the main and secondary canals, making of cropping program and land administration in
the scheme. WUA is responsible of water management in the tertiary unit, facility maintenance in the
1
tertiary units except roads and farmers payment of O&M fee. Marketing of rice is open for farmers to
decide where to sell but the farmers society, the National Cereal and Produce Board, NCPB, are presently
the main players.

1.2 STUDY JUSTIFICATION.


Scarcity and misuse of water pose a serious and growing threat to life and sustainable development. As
water is the limiting factor in most of the world, increasing yields and sustaining food production depend
mainly on irrigation.
In order to achieve sustainable production from irrigated agriculture it is obvious that the utilization of the
important resources in irrigated agriculture, water and land, must be improved. The question- how is
irrigated agriculture performing with limited water and land resources? Has not been satisfactorily
answered. This is because that we are not able to compare irrigated land and water use to learn how
irrigation systems are performing relative to their initial design capacities and what are the appropriate
targets and achievement (Molden et al., 1998). With many variables that influence performance of
irrigated agriculture, including infrastructure design, management, climatic conditions, socio-economic
settings, and the task of evaluation of the performance of systems is formidable. However, if we focus on
the communalities of irrigated agriculture water, land, finance and crop production it should be possible to
see, in gross sense, how irrigated agriculture is performing with various settings and not changes if any in
the production of the scheme (Molden et al., 1998).
In addition, performance of many irrigation systems in the country is significantly below their potential
due to a number of shortcomings, including poor design, construction, operation and maintenance. As a
result, development in irrigation planning, operation and maintenance has not been achieved to the same
extent as in developed countries. Performance evaluation is the most practical tool to assess the success of
any changes in irrigation management. That is why; performance evaluation studies have gained
significance since the early 2000s. Compared to developed countries, performance evaluation studies are
not sufficient in Kenya both in the aspects of their number and content. Especially, environmental
performance indicators cannot be calculated due to a lack of reliable data. Only by performance evaluation
reasons for low performances can be determined, related measured taken and overall system performance
be improved. The most significant purpose of performance evaluation is to provide effective project
performance through continuous information flow to project management at each stage. Continuous
performance evaluation helps project management assess whether or not performance is sufficient. If not,
it allows management to determine the measures to reach desired performance levels. Performance
evaluation providing a periodical information flow about the key indicators of an irrigation project is an

2
effective management tool in monitoring irrigation schemes (Bos, 1997). It also facilitates the
determination of problems and thus improves the performance of irrigation schemes.
Mwea Tebere irrigation scheme like many other schemes in the country has recorded reduced production
in the last few years hence performing far much below the designed capacity in all aspects. A detailed
investigation in the reasons behind this and probable recommendations for the corrections is necessary
hence the need for a performance evaluation study of the scheme to assist it in harnessing its full irrigation
potential.

1.3 PROBLEM STATEMENT.


Food shortages are a recurrent problem in the country, which cannot be solved through rain – fed
agricultural production alone, without irrigation development. Irrigation technologies help us tap in the
agricultural potential of wider area even that of ASAL areas hence improving our food production and
subsequently our food security. However irrigation projects have the potential to degrade the land, the soil
and waste the valuable resource- water if they are mismanaged. In recognition of both the benefit and
hazards assessment and evaluation of irrigation schemes performance has now become a paramount
importance not only to point out where the problem lies but also helps to identify alternatives that may be
both effective and feasible in improving system performance. Performance evaluation of irrigation
projects is not common in the country. Lack of knowledge and tools used to assess the performance of
projects adds to the problem. In addition to that the increasing demand for water for the domestic and
industrial sectors is expected to continue. This means that the water use by the agriculture sector must be
decreased to 33% by the year 2025 (seckler et al 1998). This calls for more efficient use of water in
irrigation. The irrigation efficiency, which was estimated at 27% in 1990, should increase to54% to reduce
the water withdrawals in irrigation by the year 2025 ((seckler et al 1998).
This however is still a mirage in our local irrigation schemes especially in Mwea irrigation scheme where
the level of production of the whole scheme had reduced by more than 55% with only 7000ha out of the
larger number of 16000 ha having access to irrigation water and hence leaving the larger majority without
the ability of growing any rice due to water scarcity by August this year, the problem escalated to the level
of alarm by both the management and the farmers , the Scheme Manager MR. Simon Kamundia claimed
that he was worried of the low water levels in the schemes Canals and unless there is a constant water
supply the scheme might soon be no more, he also added that over – dependence on Rain fed irrigation
has proved dangerous and there is need to develop sustainable measures for the scheme. The situation of
water scarcity coupled with mismanagement of the little that is there has escalated to extreme levels and
experts are warning that this could completely kill rice farming in Mwea in the next five years and if this
happens prospects of improved food security will dim, as rice is considered second staple food after
3
maize, this claims and concerns were passed through an article that was published by the STANDARD
NEWSPAPER ON MON 10TH AUGUST 2009.

1.4 RESEARCH OBJECTIVE.

1.41 GENERAL OBJECTIVE.


The main objective of this research is to evaluate the comparative performance of the Mwea Tebere
irrigation scheme by assessing the status of its existing infrastructure and food production levels versus its
designed capacity and potential performance.

1.42 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES.

1. To evaluate the performance of the irrigation system infrastructure


2. To determine the current water conveyance and application efficiency within the scheme in
contrast to the recommended design values.
3. To investigate and recommend sustainable strategies for agricultural land use and farm
management to mitigate negative impacts of clime change on agricultural water demand.

1.5 RESEARCH HYPOTHESIS


Mwea Tebere irrigation scheme is performing to its designed capacity.

1.6 LIMITATION OF THE STUDY.


Performance evaluation of irrigation projects is not common in the country. Lack of knowledge and tools
used to assess the performance of projects adds to the problem, inadequacy of consistent data collection
procedures also challenges the evaluation process since there is inadequate and unreliable data for
analysis. Also for an in depth study of the performance of the system requires a longer period of time
more than eight months.

4
CHAPTER 2: LITERATURE REVIEW.

2.1 INTRODUCTION.
This chapter provides a summary of the existing knowledge on the subject and area of research. This
literature review is from the internet, journals, books and other publications on surface irrigation
and specifically basin and how it has been in applied in the growing of paddy rice, it then gets
into details on the water need and conveyance and distribution of such irrigation systems. Then
lastly it will consider other evaluation processes which have taken place before and the
procedures involved in order to determine the performance of the schemes. A brief history of the
scheme will also be explained in this chapter.

2.3 MWEA IRRIGATION SCHEME, (M.I.S)


The scheme was started in 1954 covering an average 1200 ha and gradually expanded to about 2000 ha at
independence time in 1963 it was the under the management of a department in the ministry of
agriculture. In June 1966 the national irrigation board (N.I.B) was established by an act of parliament.
Under N.I.B was established. Under N.I.B. Mwea expansion program was enhanced through development
of Thiba, Wamumu, and Karaba sections which by 1973 brought the total area under rice cultivation to
5,830 ha, thus making Mwea the largest rice growing project in the country. The scheme is currently made
of five sections as shown in Table 1 below with their sizes

Table 1: M.I.S. sections and their hectare coverage.

TEBERE MWEA THIBA WAMUMU KARABA TOTAL (ha)

1300 1220 1150 1120 1070 5860

The scheme produces about 28,000 tones of paddy annually and support 3240 farmers’ families. In
addition to production of rice there are 1600 acres of subsistence crop on red soils. The Mwea irrigation
scheme courtesy of N.I.B. provides land for thirty six villages, fourteen primary schools, five secondary
schools, four dispensaries and a hospital totaling over 1000 acres in total. Mwea Irrigation Scheme
directly supports well over 100,000 people. Other rice growing schemes in the Kenya are, Bunyala, West
Kano, and Ahero. Scheme covers an area of about 14,000 acres producing an average 75-80% of Kenya’s
rice production and therefore surpassing the rest by a huge production margin. However the influence of
N.I.B. especially on farmers’ output management practices has considerably reduced since 2007. Rice
farmers in Mwea are more liberal in their management of their paddy to the on sale of the rice in the
5
markets they chose where to market their products and the prices of the products are more market
governed by demand and supply and not any central authority. They have also gained more autonomy than
before since they now own the paddy fields and are not operating them under the tenancy system as they
were doing before, what they only buy from the Authority is only irrigation water at a rate of Ksh. 2000
per acre annually.

2.4 DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA.


2.4.1 Location and physiography.
Mwea irrigation scheme is located in central province, Kirinyaga South District. The scheme is situated at
approximately 100 km north east of Nairobi and on the foothills of Mount Kenya, being situated at an
altitude between 1100-1200m above sea level but mostly described averagely as 1159 meters above sea
level. Geographically M.I.S. lies at intersection of longitude and latitude 370 20’ and 00 40”.

The topography of the study area is relatively uniform and extends over the flat land on the outskirts of
Mt. Kenya. The catchment area of the study consists mountainous terrain and gentle slope, and
considerably plain and hilly slopes. The mountainous portion is covered with scattered to good cover of
bushes, while the gentle and hilly slope areas are mainly managed for agricultural lands.
The command area where the scheme overlies is a flat land with a slope range of 1 – 3%. Therefore, it is
suitable for mechanization and farm developments, but mostly favors surface irrigation which is the
practiced irrigation mode in Mwea and specifically basin irrigation.

2.4.2 Climate.
The season of the East Africa climate are controlled by the northward and southward movement of the
Sun across the equator. The latitude of greatest heating occurs where the sun is directly overhead and
results in a zone of low pressure. This zone is referred to variously as the heat trough; Equatorial trough or
Inter tropical convergence zone. Climate as the synthesis of weather on a time – integrated scale, can be
explained in terms of movement of this zone. The two rainy seasons occur in the late April through May
and late October through November. In these circumstances, the climate of the M.I.S. is defined as
tropical with equatorial and medium high altitude characters and which climatic conditions are dominated
and governed by seasonal monsoons.

2.4.3 River basin.


The major rivers flowing through the irrigation scheme are Nyamindi and Thiba and Ruamuthambi, which
are considered as stable water sources for irrigation. The river basins are covered by cultivated soil. In
6
addition to the above major rivers some small streams such as Kive, Murubara, and Nyaikungu also run
through the scheme, these small streams are partly used as minor irrigation water sources and or natural
drains. Thiba, Nyamindi and Ruamuthambi rivers have relatively large catchment area and they are
available resources for irrigation intake. The scheme taps water from these rivers through two water
intakes one at Nyamindi and the other one at Thiba River and supplies to the existing paddy field by
gravity flow. The Nyamindi network consist of a headwork, a main canal, three branch canals and related
structures, and supplies the water to Tebere section while the Thiba Irrigation comprises of a headwork, a
main canal, four branch canals and related structures and distributes water to Mwea, Thiba Wamumu and
Karaba section.

Figure 1: Main headwork’s on Thiba River one of the intake points of M.I.S.

2.4.4 Soils.
The two major dominant types of soils found in the scheme are black cotton soils and red soils, black
cotton soils are good for irrigated rice cultivation and red soils are good for maize and beans cultivation
under rain fed conditions, though some are recognized as irrigable soils for cultivation of horticultural
crops. The schemes sections served by the canal from Thiba River are characterized by extensive coverage
of black cotton soils whereas the lower Tebere section served by the Nyamindi canal has a good coverage
of red soils.

7
2.5 PERFORMANCE EVALUATION.

2.5.1 What does evaluation means?

Evaluation is a process of determining systematically and objectively the relevance, efficiency,


effectiveness and impact of activities in the light of their objectives. It is an organizational
process for improving activities still in progress and for aiding management in future planning,
programming and decision-making (Casley and Kumar, 1990). Evaluation in the context of rural
development programmes is concerned with the assessment of effects, benefits or disbenefits and
impacts, on the beneficiaries.

Evaluation concerns are: who or which group has benefited (or has been adversely affected), by
how much (compared to the situation before the activity), in what manner (directly or indirectly),
and why (establishing causal relationships between activities and results to the extent possible).
While monitoring is a continuous or regular activity,
evaluation is a management task that takes place at critical times of the life of a project or
programme (FAO/DFID/ICID, undated).
Evaluation can be carried out (FARMESA, 2001):
 during project planning (ex-ante): to assess the potential impact
 during project implementation (ongoing): to evaluate the performance and quality
 at completion (ex-post): to determine the successful completion
 some years after completion (impact): to assess its ultimate impact on development

The main purpose of Evaluation is to ensure that the programme or project fulfills the stated goals
and objectives within the financial parameters that are set at the beginning.

Performance evaluation of irrigation schemes has become a necessary procedure in the management and
running of irrigation schemes, the relevancy of its being carried out is multi disciplinary and has different
roles and impacts to all the stake holders involved or affected. FAO has tabulated as shown below the
benefits of irrigation evaluation to all irrigation stakeholders as shown in Table 2 below.

8
Table 2: Benefits of irrigation performance to different stakeholders

– Monitor wastage of water and energy and the cost implications


– Appreciate the need to adopt appropriate agronomic practices and make adjustments in
order to improve their performance
– Compare their yields with those of farmers practicing rainfed cultivation and other
IRRRIGATORS. irrigators
– Gauge whether their yield levels are increasing
– Decide whether to change their cropping programme
– Compare their incomes with those of farmers practicing rainfed cultivation, other irrigators
and their previous incomes under rainfed conditions
– Gauge whether they are making profit
– Gauge whether their incomes are increasing in relation to the cost of living
– Make an assessment as to whether the scheme is sustainable.

– Assess the scheme performance


– Assess whether their services are being accepted and integrated into the farmers’
SCHEME production systems
MANAGEMENT – Assess whether the project is reaching its intended clients: do rich community leaders
dominate the scheme when, on paper, it was targeted at the poor in the community?
– Assess whether certain groups, such as female farmers, are accorded the same access as
their male counterparts
– Assess the profitability of the cropping programme they recommended
– Recommend a more profitable cropping programme
ADVISORS – Advise on markets for inputs and produce or outputs
(EXTENSION – Advise on possible sources of credit
OFFICERS) – Advise on pricing
– Devise an effective training programme for irrigators
– Advise on appropriate agronomic practices to meet certain output targets
– Better plan future irrigation development
– Advise on servicing of equipment, for example if energy consumption suddenly shoots up
PLANNERS AND – Advise on energy-saving ways of irrigating
IRRIGATION – Advise on causes of frequent equipment breakdowns
ENGINEERS – Get feedback on the ease, or otherwise, of operation and maintenance of the scheme
– Get feedback on water management and efficiency of water utilization at the scheme
– Get feedback on environmental problems affecting the scheme
– Draw lessons for better scheme planning in the future
– Continue funding the scheme
GOVERNMENT – Fund similar irrigation schemes in future
DEPARTMENTS – Supply drought relief to the area
– Give specific services such as agricultural extension and/or credit, etc.

– Continue funding the scheme


DONORS – Fund similar irrigation schemes in future
– Channel technical support to irrigation institutions or specific schemes

9
Irrigation performance can therefore be analyzed based on the following main categories which when
combined describe the performance of the whole irrigation scheme
�Technical performance
�Agronomic performance
�Financial performance
�Socio-economic performance
�Environmental and health performance
�Managerial performance

The scope of in depth assessment of all the above aspects of irrigation evaluation is gigantic and the
dynamism also associated with some aspects further complicates the topic, and in this regard this study
will only concentrate on the technical performance of the scheme where it will further specialize on
conveyance efficiency of the scheme. This calls for one to appreciate the extensive demand for water
specifically for irrigation all over the world water, FAO describes the irrigation subsector is thelargest
single water user on earth. Some 70 percent of surface waterand groundwater abstraction worldwide is
used for irrigation purposes; in semi-arid countries,the figure can be as high as 90 percent. The total water
use for irrigated rice production alone amounts to some 1 500 000 million m3 annually. Considering the
extensive irrigation water demands displayed in irrigation especially surface irrigation an evaluation of the
performance is un avoidable, and this is understandable because irrigation is a major user of water in
Kenya, irrigation uses over 69% of the limited developed water resources (Torori et al 1995) and despite
this high water use, the performance of irrigation projects has not been impressive. The figures below
demonstrate flooded paddies showing an indication of the amount of water demanded for irrigation during
paddy rice farming.

10
Figure 2: Irrigated rice terraces in Indonesia.

Figure 3: Irrigated paddies in Mwea Tebere irrigation scheme.

11
A Case Study From Turkey which evaluated the Irrigation Performance of Asartepe Irrigation Association
showed that Similar to the situation in other countries, the largest percentage of water resources is utilized
in the agricultural sector in Turkey. Parallel to increasing population, increasing demands of non-
agricultural sectors limit the water resources allocated to agriculture. That is why, the principle of ‘more
gain for each drop of water’ has been adopted in Turkey and structural and managerial measures taken for
effective water resource utilization. The most dramatic change has been the transfer of irrigation schemes
to irrigation associations. Only by performance evaluation reasons for low performances can be
determined, related measured taken and overall system performance be improved. The most significant
purpose of
performance evaluation is to provide effective project performance through continuous information flow
to project management at each stage. Continuous performance evaluation helps project
management assess whether or not performance is sufficient. If not, it allows management to determine
the required measures to reach desired levels. Performance evaluation providing a periodical information
flow about the key indicators of an irrigation project is an effective management tool in monitoring
irrigation schemes (Bos, 1997). It also facilitates the determination of possible problems and thus
improves the performance of irrigation schemes. Irrigation management transfer to Water Users
Associations (WUAs) has been implemented in several countries in Asia, Africa, America and Fareast
(Vermillion and Sagardoy, 1999; Vermillion, 2000). In Turkey, with support provided by the World Bank,
transfer of irrigation facilities operated by the State Hydraulic Works (DSI) to irrigation associations,
irrigation cooperatives, municipalities and village judicial personalities was instituted by the Government.
Starting in 1993, Turkey undertook an ambitious program of devolution to transfer management.

2.5.2 Irrigation efficiencies


The term irrigation efficiency is used to describe the percentage of irrigation water used efficiently and
percentage lost. Its good to understand that not all water taken from a source (river, well) reaches the root
zone of the plants. Part of the water is lost during transport through the canals and in the fields. The
remaining part is stored in the root zone and eventually used by the plants. Irrigation water losses in canals
may be due to:
1. Evaporation from the water surface
2. Deep percolation to soil layers underneath the canals
3. Seepage through the bunds of the canals
4. Overtopping the bunds
5. Bund breaks
6. Runoff in the drain
12
7. Rat holes in the canal bunds

Figure 4: shows irrigation water losses in the canal


Irrigation water losses in the field; these are due to:
1. Surface runoff, whereby water ends up in the drain
2. Deep percolation to soil layers below the root zone

Figure 5: shows irrigation water losses in the field

13
The scheme irrigation efficiency (E in %) is that part of the water pumped or diverted through the scheme
inlet which is used effectively by the plants. Can be further sub-divided into:
- The conveyance efficiency (EC) which represents the efficiency of water transport in canals, and
- The field application efficiency (EA) which represents the efficiency of water application in the field.
The conveyance efficiency (EC) mainly depends on the length of the canals, the soil type or permeability
of the canal banks and the condition of the canals. In large irrigation schemes more water is lost than in
small schemes, due to a longer canal system. From canals in sandy soils more water is lost than from
canals in heavy clay soils. When canals are lined with bricks, plastic or concrete, only very little water is
lost. If canals are badly maintained, bund breaks are common. Table 3 provides some indicative values of
the conveyance efficiency (EC), considering the length of the canals and the soil type in which the canals
are dug. If the level of maintenance is not taken into consideration; bad maintenance may lower the values
of Table 3 by as much as 50%.

Table 3: Indicative values of the conveyance efficiency (EC) for adequately maintained canals.

EARTHEN CANALS LINED CANALS

SOIL TYPE SAND LOAM CLAY

CANAL LENGTH

LONG( >2000m) 60% 70% 80% 95%

MEDIUM(200-2000m) 70% 75% 85% 95%

SHORT (<200m) 80% 85% 90% 95%

2.6 RICE FARMING IN MWEA.


2.6.1 General Description of Rice.

Rice is grown from the equator 500 north and from sea level to 2500m. It is grown in the hot, wet valleys
of Assam and in the irrigated deserts of Pakistan. The soils in which rice grows are as a varied as the
climatic regime to which the crop is exposed. Texture ranges from sand- clay, PH from 3-10; organic
matter content from 1-50%, salt content from almost 0-1% and nutrient availability from acute
deficiencies to surplus. Productivity of land used for growing is to a large extend determined by soil and
water conditions. Rice is the only major annual food crop (with the exception of avoids that thrives on
land that is water saturated or even submerged, during part or all of its growth cycle. The rice plants
14
usually takes 3-6 months from germination to maturity, depending on the variety and the environment
under which it is grown. During this period, rice completes basically to distinct sequential growth stages.
Vegetative and reproductive (further subdivided in pre heading and post heading) the latter is better
known as the ripening period. Yield capacity or the potential size of crop yield, is primarily determined
during pre heading. Ultimate Yield, which is based on the amount of starch that fills the spikelet’s, is
largely determined during post heading. Hence, agronomical, it is reproductive and ripening. The
vegetative stage refers to a period from germination to the initiation of panicle (primordial) the
reproductive stage, from panicle primordial initiation to heading; and the ripening period, from heading to
maturity. A 120- Day variety, when planted in a tropical environment, spends 60 Day in vegetative stage,
30 days in reproductive stage and 30 days in ripening.

2.6.2 Rice growth stages.

1. Nursery - from sowing to transplanting; duration approximately one month.


2. Vegetative stage - from transplant to panicle initiation; duration varies from 1½ to 3 months.
Vegetative stage includes the tillering. Tillering means that several stems develop on one plant If
the rice is sown directly (broadcast), the two stages combined are called the vegetative stage.
3. Mid season or reproductive stage - from panicle initiation to flowering; duration approximately
one month. This stage includes stem elongation, panicle extension and flowering. Late tillers may
die.
4. Late season or ripening stage - from flowering to full maturity; duration approximately one
month. This stage includes grain growth.

15
Figure 6: Rice growth stages

Mwea irrigation scheme is the major rice grower in the country producing about 75%-80% of the total rice
production in the country. The average annual production is about 28,000 tones. The scheme grows two
major rice varieties arromatic and non-arromatic types. The arromatic variety is made up of two varieties,
Basmati 217 and Basmati 317 the non – arromatic locally known as Sindano varieties are,ita, BW 196.
Basmati varieties are more popular with the farmers especially in the previous years due to their ability to
fetch high prices in the markets and their short growing period their level of inputs are also comparatively
low.

16
CHAPTER 3: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY.

3.1 INTRODUCTION.
Research Methodology briefly describes study and methods of data collection. It gives a summary of the
aims of the research and ways of achieving the set objectives.

This research applies both qualitative and quantitative techniques in its examination with a qualitative
approach aimed at understanding, interpretation and generalization through comparisons and quantitative
technique at testing and verification of facts, formal approaches, measurements and analysis.

Data collection.
Primary data was collected from the scheme which was mainly field measurements of the water levels and
balance from the already installed and calibrated structures. Likewise secondary data was also collected
from the Metrological department, National Irrigation Board and the scheme offices (M.I.S. and
M.I.A.D.). Moreover, a participatory approach discussion was conducted with beneficiary farmers and the
Mwea Tebere farmers’ organizations especially the Water Users Association. (WUA).

Data Analysis.
The analysis was made based on particular water performance indicators specifically internal process
indicators like efficiency of the scheme particularly the conveyance and distribution efficiency of the
system combined with four other external indicators describing agricultural performance and water
delivery performance. The results of this analysis which will help determine the amount of water losses
incurred in the scheme, will be compared with the demand of the scheme currently and this will be
obtained as the crop water requirement and will be conducted using FAO CROPWAT 8.0. The four
indicators are:
Output per cropped area (tons/ha) = production / Irrigated crop area

Output per unit command (tons/ha) = production /Command area

Output per unit irrigation supply (birr/m3) = production / Diverted irrigation supply

Relative irrigation supply (ratio) = irrigation supply /Irrigation demand

17
3.2 EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The methodology of this study is mainly to describe the water conveyance efficiency of the two main
canals and the seven secondary canals. A slight insight check of some few random chosen tertiary canals
one from Thiba and one from Tebere section will be selected and used to describe the condition of the
scheme at the field level. This decision on which canals to be studied and which one to omit was based on:
 Extensive size of the scheme and also the accessibility of all the canals in the scheme.
 Lack of measuring and control structures in some canals in the scheme.
 Water source.
 Channel geometry.
 Slope and lateral length of the canals.
 Variables such as soil type, location within the rice belt.

Due to the extensive size of the scheme only 10 canals comprising of all classes could be studied. These
were selected for study on the basis of the availability of discharge measuring facilities along the canals.
The figures below describe the schematic arrangement of the scheme both on the Nyamindi River and on
the Thiba River; they are used in the selection process of which canal to be evaluated for conveyance and
distribution performance.

18
Figure 7: Schematic water distribution - Nyamindi section.

19
Figure 8: Schematic water distribution - Thiba part.
20
The methodology will also investigate the irrigation water needs of the scheme this will involve the
calculation of the crop water requirement and determining the total coverage area (acreage) of the scheme
and hence computing the amount of water demand for the crops. Lastly the conveyance efficiency will be
related with the supply and the compared with the overall demand to figure out if the scheme is meeting
its water demand.
The procedure governing the determination of water losses in irrigation schemes either in the conveyance
stage or the field application stage are all governed by first determining the amount of water demanded by
the specific crops to be irrigated this is referred to as the Crop Water requirement (CWR), the crop water
requirement can be defined as the net amount of water required by a crop for full development. The total
irrigation water requirement is a sum of the CWR and the losses either in the field or during conveyance
from the abstraction or intake point. The sum of the two can be termed as the irrigation water demand.

DEMAND Q = CWR + Irrigation Water Losses

Coupling the demand Q and the amount of water that gets into the scheme or SUPPLY Q then it will be
easier to determine the amount of water lost in the conveyance.

3.2.1 Crop Water Requirement (C.W.R.)


This will be guided by a number of other factors which will all be determined using FAO CROPWAT 8.0
model and they include:

3.2.1.1 Reference Evapotranspiration. (ETo)


This represents the potential evaporation of a well-watered grass crop. The water needs of other crops are
directly linked to this climatic parameter. The model employs the Penman –monteith method to determine
ETo and utilizes the following climatic data has been collected from the Embu-Mwea meteorological
station to be used in this study.
 Temperature
 Humidity
 Sunshine
 Wind speed
3.2.1.2 Rainfall Data.
The model has been used to analyze long - term rainfall data from the Embu-Mwea station and to compute
the effective rainfall that will directly contribute to the CWR after rainfall losses due to surface run-off
and deep percolation has been accounted for. In the computation of the effective rainfall the rainfall in

21
wet, normal and dry years i.e. rainfall with a respectively 20, 50, 80% probability of exceedance was
determined. The different steps involved in processing the rainfall data are:
i. Tabulate yearly rainfall totals for a given period
ii. Arrange data in descending order of magnitude
iii. Tabulate plotting position according to:

100 m
Fa 
N 1
Where:
N = number of records
M = rank number
Fa = plotting position
iv. Plot values on log – normal scale and obtain the logarithmic regression equation.
v. Calculate year values at 20, 50 and 80% probability: P80, P50 and P20.
vi. Determine monthly values for the dry and wet year according to the following relationship.

P   
Pidry  Piay   dry P  Piwet  Piay   Pwet P 
 ay   ay 

Where:
Piav = average monthly rainfall for month I
Pidry = monthly rainfall dry year for month I
Pav = average yearly rainfall
Pdry = yearly rainfall at 80% probability of exceedance

3.2.2.1 Conveyance Efficiency.


The efficiencies of the schemes are computed by conducting field measurements and. To measure the
conveyance efficiency of the schemes the discharge is measured at different points. The measurement
starts just after the headwork’s of both Nyamindi and Thiba rivers and the measurement continues at all
points with permanently placed measuring structures which mainly consist of broad crested weirs parshall
flumes, gauged drop structures and double orifices and also and where the canals are branching to the
secondary canals.
In this study, an inflow-outflow method was used, which showed the loss occurring during water
conveyance in the open canals without obstructing the seasonal irrigation operation of the selected canals,

22
but at the same time allowed sufficiently accurate measurements. With this method, the following formula
was used to calculate water conveyance loss in defined canal sections of sufficient length:
S = Qi – Qo – E – D + I
Where:
S is conveyance loss in the canal segment (l s-1),
Qi is inflow to the segment (l s-1),
Qo is outflow from the segment (l s-1),
E is evaporation (l s-1),
I is inflow to the segment from other sources (l s-1), and
D is water diverted from the segment (l s-1).
NB: Evaporation loss (E) was considered zero for the purposes of the study. Moreover, because there
was no flow into the segment from outside (I), or diverted from the segment (D), both values were
considered zero.
Water conveyance loss in the canals was calculated 3 different ways:
i) Conveyance loss per unit of canal length (l s-1 km-1 and l s-1 100 m-1),
ii) Conveyance loss as a percentage of inflow (% per 1 km and % per 100 m), and
iii) Conveyance loss as a percentage of the inflow along the measured segment length.

23
Figure 9: A calibrated Broad Crested Weir used to measure flow along the Thiba main Canal.

Figure 10: A student using a current meter to determine flow on a tertiary canal
24
Flows at the beginning and end of segments of the tertiary canals were calculated according to the
velocity-area flow measurement method. The canal cross-section at the measurement points was first
divided into subsections, and velocity values were measured for each subsection by the 2-point method,
or, for shallow water with a depth < 0.5 m, the six-tenths method, using a calibrated propeller current
meter. Flow velocity at the measurement points was calculated in relation to the revolutions of an Ott-type
current meter over a period of 60 seconds. Flow velocity was calculated using the following equation: V =
0.2541 N + 0.014
Where 0.2541- is the coefficient of the propeller type and
0.014- is the coefficient of the friction of the propeller,
N - is the number of revolutions per second of the propeller, and
V - is the flow velocity of the water (m s-1).
Both coefficients were found by calibration. When using the 2-point method, the flow velocity was
measured at 2 vertical points, 0.2 (20%) and 0.8 (80%) depths, respectively, from the top of the water
surface. The flows at these 2 levels were then averaged to get a single measurement. Velocity should
generally be larger at the 0.2 depths, but should not be larger than twice the velocity at the 0.8 depths. If
the velocity at the 0.2 depths was not larger than the 0.8 depths or if it was twice as great as the 0.8 depths,
then an additional reading was taken at the 0.6 depths. These 0.6 depths were averaged with the 0.8 and
0.2 means.

25
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.2 MONTHLY ETO PENMAN-MONTEITH DATA.
(File: M.I.S.pen)

Country: KENYA Station: EMBU – MWEA.


Altitude: 1159 m Latitude: 0.68 oS Longitude 37.33 o
E

Month Min Tmp Max Tmp Hum Wind Sun Rad ETo
°C °C % km/day hours MJ/m?/day mm/day/month?

Jan 14.8 28.9 56 128 8.8 22.5 4.78


Feb 15.2 30.8 49 141 9.4 24.1 5.43
Mar 16.5 31.4 52 143 8.3 22.5 5.33
Apr 17.8 28.9 63 118 7.0 19.8 4.39
May 17.6 27.5 65 101 6.6 18.1 3.87
Jun 16.4 26.0 64 86 5.0 15.2 3.26
Jul 15.4 25.3 64 97 4.0 14.1 3.11
Aug 15.7 26.0 61 129 4.3 15.3 3.55
Sep 16.4 28.5 54 167 6.4 19.2 4.69
Oct 17.3 29.8 55 148 7.4 20.9 4.95
Nov 16.8 27.5 66 113 6.7 19.3 4.13
Dec 15.4 27.6 59 115 7.3 19.9 4.24

Avg 16.3 28.2 59 124 6.8 19.2 4.31


Cropwat 8.0

26
4.3 MONTHLY RAIN DATA.
(File: Documents and settings\All users\Application Data\CROPWAT\data\rain\Mwea Rain)

Station: EMBU – MWEA.


Eff. Rain method: Effective rain is 80% of actual rain.

Rain Eff rain


mm mm
January 34.0 32.2
February 15.0 14.6
March 89.0 76.3
April 289.0 153.9
May 135.0 105.8
June 14.0 13.7
July 8.0 7.9
August 9.0 8.9
September 11.0 10.8
October 115.0 93.8
November 160.0 119.0
December 69.0 61.4

Total 948.0 698.4


Cropwat 8.0

27
4.3 CONVEYANCE AND DISTRIBUTION LOSS ANALYSIS.
This study determined conveyance loss at the main and secondary levels in the open canal irrigation network serving the whole Mwea irrigation
scheme on both the Thiba served sections and the Nyamindi one during the January-February irrigation season. Conveyance loss in the Thiba and
Nyamindi main canals is shown in Table 4 and Table 5 respectively. Conveyance loss for the three Nyamindi secondary canals is presented in
Tables 6, 7, 8 and loss for the four Thiba secondary canals is presented in Tables 9, 10, 11, 12.
4.3.1 Water Conveyance Loss in Main Canals.
1. Water conveyance loss for the Thiba main canal level was found to be lowest at (0.06%, 157.2 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest at (0.123%, 392.9 2 l
s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the Thiba main canal was found to be 48.1%.

Table 4: Conveyance losses for the Thiba main canal (TMC)

Segment Canal coordinate Segment Water Water Inflow Outflow Conveyance losses
no. name length (m) depth surface (m3/s) (m3/s)
Beginning of End of segment (m) width l s-1 km-1 % 1km % loss
segment (m)
1 TMC 37°18' 04.5" E 37° 19'21.7" E 3118.8 0.66 3.8 5.11 4.03 346.3 0.068 21.13
0° 38' 50.3" S 0° 41' 01.1" S

2 TMC 37° 19'21.7" E 37° 19'34.5" E 2027.6 0.81 3.3 4.03 3.39 315.6 0.078 15.89
0° 41' 01.1" S 0° 42' 20.1" S

3 TMC 37° 19'34.5" E 37° 19'48.2" E 765.3 0.73 2.7 3.39 3.20 248.3 0.073 5.61
0° 42' 20.1" S 0° 42' 05.5" S
4 TMC 37° 19'48.2" E 37° 19'52.9" E 1400 0.50 2.4 3.20 2.65 392.9 0.123 17.19
0° 42' 05.5" S 0° 42' 20.1" S

5 TMC 37° 19'52.9" E 37° 19'59.4" E 445.3 0.79 2.3 2.65 2.58 157.2 0.06 2.64
0° 42' 20.1" S 0° 42' 31.3" S

28
Conveyance losses along the Thiba main canal profile.
5.5

4.5
Discharge in M3/S

3.5 Inflow
Outflow
3

2.5

2
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000 6500 7000 7500 8000
Distance in metres

Chart 1: Conveyance losses along the Thiba main canal profile.

29
2. Water conveyance loss at the Nyamindi main canal level was found to be lowest at (0.03%, 69.38 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest at (0.09%, 235.73
l s-1 km-1) The total percentage conveyance loss for the Nyamindi main canal was found to be 24.1%

Table 5: Conveyance losses in the Nyamindi main canal (NMC)

Segment Canal coordinate Segment Water Water Inflow Outflow Conveyance losses
no. name length (m) depth surface (m3/s) (m3/s)
(m) width
Beginning of End of segment (m) l s-1 km-1 % 1km % loss
segment
1 NMC 37°32' 04.8" E 37° 32'18.7" E 1145.4 1.06 2.93 2.58 2.31 235.73 0.09 10.46
0° 45' 23.3" S 0° 46' 56.8" S

2 NMC 37° 32'18.7" E 37° 32'34.5" E 655.8 0.78 2.46 2.31 2.17 213.48 0.09 6.06
0° 46' 56.8" S 0° 44' 44.1" S

3 NMC 37° 32'34.5" E 37° 18'39.1" E 1887.3 0.57 2.08 2.17 2.00 90.08 0.04 7.83
0° 44' 44.1" S 0° 44' 01.1" S

4 NMC 37° 18'39.1" E 37° 19'52.9" E 576.5 0.32 2.28 2.00 1.96 69.38 0.03 2.00
0° 44' 01.1" S 0° 42' 20.1" S

30
Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi main canal profile
2.7

2.6

2.5
Discharge in M3/S

2.4

2.3
Inflow
2.2 Outflow

2.1

1.9
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500

Distance in Metres

Chart 2: Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi main canal profile.

31
Discussion.
The average of both canals was 36.1%. The figures above all exceed the recommended values for unlined
canals which is normally 25% by FAO. The Nyamindi canal has a better efficiency since it’s partly lined
but the quality of the lining has being damaged with time and hence there is still a lot of water loss in the
main canals. The exorbitant value of water losses along Thiba canal is normally caused by unlicensed
underground pipes which are illegally installed by farmers who conduct tomato and French pea farming
along the canals. This has been one of the biggest challenges faced by M.I.S. management as they lose a
lot of water through the pipes. The measured water conveyance loss showed an increase over the last 30
years when compared to the values of conveyance loss determined for the same canals. In addition to the
reasons above poor maintenance of water infrastructures along the two main canals both control and
measuring structures have also led to this losses since there has been over the last couple of years been
poor distribution and regulation of water in the scheme as a result of the above, lastly the number of out-
growers in the scheme has increased to such alarming figures over the past couple of years, as they are not
included in the larger water distribution system they have resulted in breaking canals lining and stealing
water for their own farms. This shows that maintenance and repairs have to be performed on the main
canals including al the monitoring and control infrastructures needed.

32
33
4.3.2 The Water Conveyance Loss in the Secondary Canals
3. Water conveyance loss for the first Thiba branch canal (TBC1) level was found to be lowest at (0.044%, 40.49 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest at
(0.093%, 77.88 l s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the first Thiba branch canal (TBC1) was found to be 20.7%.

Table 6: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal one (TBC1)


Segment no. Canal Segment Water Water Inflow Outflow Conveyance losses
name length (m) depth (m) surface (m3/s) (m3/s)
width (m)
l s-1 km-1 % 1km l s-1 m-2
1 TBC1 987.8 0.49 1.36 0.92 0.88 40.49 0.044 4.35

2 TBC1 591.2 0.44 1.21 0.88 0.84 67.66 0.077 4.55

3 TBC1 1412.5 0.56 0.88 0.84 0.73 77.88 0.093 13.10

33
Conveyance losses along the Thiba branch canal one profile
1

0.95

0.9
Discharge in M3/S

0.85
Inflow
Outflow
0.8

0.75

0.7
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000

Distance in Metres

Chart 3: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal one profile

34
4. Water conveyance loss for the second Thiba branch canal (TBC2) level was found to be lowest at (0.04%, 16.52 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest at
(0.113%, 44.24 l s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the second Thiba branch canal (TBC2) was found to be 32.6 %.

Table 7: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal two (TBC2)

Segment no. Canal Segment Water Water Inflow (m3/s) Outflow Conveyance losses
name length (m) depth (m) surface width (m3/s)
(m)

l s-1 km-1 % 1km l s-1 m-2


1 TBC2 1404.8 0.27 1.01 0.46 0.41 35.59 0.077 10.87

2 TBC2 1210.6 0.28 1.22 0.41 0.39 16.52 0.040 4.88

3 TBC2 1808.1 0.10 0.86 0.39 0.31 44.24 0.113 20.51

35
Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal two profile
0.5

0.48

0.46

0.44
Discharge in M3/S

0.42

0.4
Inflow
0.38 Outflow

0.36

0.34

0.32

0.3
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000

Distance in Metres

Chart 4: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal one profile

36
5. Water conveyance loss for the third Thiba branch canal (TBC3) level was found to be lowest at (0.031%, 46.72 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest at
(0.083%, 116.4 l s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the third Thiba branch canal (TBC3) was found to be 21.2 %.

Table 8: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal three (TBC3)

Segment no. Canal Segment length Water depth Water surface Inflow (m3/s) Outflow Conveyance losses
name (m) (m) width (m) (m3/s)

l s-1 km-1 % 1km l s-1 m-2


1 TBC3 2140.3 0.77 1.4 1.51 1.41 46.72 0.031 6.62

2 TBC3 1117.1 0.44 1.36 1.41 1.28 116.4 0.083 9.22

3 TBC3 1724.8 0.53 1.33 1.28 1.19 52.18 0.041 7.03

37
Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal three profile
1.55

1.5

1.45
Discharge in M3/S

1.4

1.35
Inflow
1.3 Outflow

1.25

1.2

1.15
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500

Distance in Metres

Chart 5: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal three profile

38
6. Water conveyance loss at the Fourth Thiba branch canal (TBC4) level was found to be lowest at (0.016%, 42.005 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest at
(0.034%, 84.832 l s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the fourth Thiba branch canal (TBC4) was found to be 27.5 %.

Table 9: Conveyance loss in the Thiba branch canal four (TBC4)

Segment no. Canal Segment length Water depth Water surface Inflow (m3/s) Outflow Conveyance losses
name (m) (m) width (m) (m3/s)

l s-1 km-1 % 1km l s-1 m-2


1 TBC4 2856.8 1.06 3.6 2.58 2.46 42.005 0.016 4.65

2 TBC4 4125.8 0.60 2.8 2.46 2.11 84.832 0.034 14.23

3 TBC4 1869.9 0.33 2.1 2.11 2.04 37.435 0.018 3.31

4 TBC4 3200.7 0.72 2.4 2.04 1.87 53.113 0.026 8.33

5 TBC4 2445.3 0.52 1.8 1.87 1.77 40.895 0.022 5.35

39
Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal four profile
2.6

2.5

2.4
Discharge in M3/S

2.3

2.2
Inflow
2.1 Outflow

1.9

1.8
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000 13000

Distance in Metres

Chart 6: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal four profile.

40
7. Water conveyance loss for the first Nyamindi branch canal (NBC1) level was found to be lowest at (0.043%, 38.89 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest
at (0.204%, 199.84 l s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the first Nyamindi branch canal (NBC1) was found to be 18.4 %.

Table 10: Conveyance loss in the Nyamindi branch canal one (NBC1).

Segment no. Canal name Segment Water depth Water Inflow Outflow Conveyance losses
length (m) (m) surface (m3/s) (m3/s)
width (m)

l s-1 km-1 % 1km l s-1 m-2


1 NBC1 2854.8 0.32 1.6 0.98 0.91 199.84 0.204 7.14

2 NBC1 1285.6 0.46 1.1 0.91 0.86 38.89 0.043 5.49

3 NBC1 1845.2 0.38 1.3 0.86 0.80 32.52 0.038 6.98

41
Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi Branch canal one
profile
1

0.95
Disvharge in M3/S

0.9

Inflow
0.85
Outflow

0.8

0.75
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

Distance in Metres

Chart 7: Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi Branch canal one profile.

42
8. Water conveyance loss for the second Nyamindi branch canal (NBC2) level was found to be lowest at (0.043%, 38.89 l s-1 km-1 ) and
greatest at (0.071%, 61.20 l s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the second Nyamindi branch canal (NBC2) was found to be
29.0%.

Table 11: Conveyance loss in the Nyamindi branch canal two (NBC2)

Segment no. Canal name Segment Water depth Water Inflow Outflow Conveyance losses
length (m) (m) surface (m3/s) (m3/s)
width (m)

l s-1 km-1 % 1km l s-1 m-2


1 NBC2 1800.0 0.36 1.34 1.00 0.91 50.0 0.05 9.00

2 NBC2 1285.6 0.46 1.12 0.91 0.86 38.89 0.043 5.49

3 NBC2 2450.8 0.40 1.08 0.86 0.71 61.20 0.071 17.44

43
Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi Branch canal two profile
1.05

0.95
Discharge in M3/S

0.9

0.85
Inflow
Outflow
0.8

0.75

0.7

0.65
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 5500 6000

Distance in Metres

Chart 8: Conveyance losses along the Thiba Branch canal three profile

44
9. Water conveyance loss for the third Nyamindi branch canal (NBC1) level was found to be lowest at (0.193%, 48.37 l s-1 km-1 ) and greatest
at (0.308%, 58.44 l s-1 km-1). The total percentage conveyance loss for the third Nyamindi branch canal (NBC1) was found to be 34.7%.

Table 12: Conveyance loss in the Nyamindi branch canal three (NBC3)
Segment no. Canal name Segment Water depth Water Inflow Outflow Conveyance losses
length (m) (m) surface (m3/s) (m3/s)
width (m)

l s-1 km-1 % 1km l s-1 m-2


1 NBC3 1240.5 0.13 0.65 0.25 0.19 48.37 0.193 24.0

2 NBC3 855.6 (0.18 0.58 0.19 0.14 58.44 0.308 26.3

45
Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi Branch canal three profile
0.26

0.24

0.22
Discharge in M3/S

0.2

Inflow
0.18
Outflow

0.16

0.14

0.12
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
Distance in Metres

Chart 9: Conveyance losses along the Nyamindi Branch canal three profile

46
Discussion.
The average of the four Thiba branch canals was 25.5%. The average of the three Nyamindi branch canals
was 27.3%. The figures above all exceed the recommended values for unlined canals which is normally
25% by FAO When the values of average conveyance loss of the secondary (branch) canals (Tables 6 to
12) are compared to the values in the main canals (Table 4 and 5), it is clear that the conveyance loss in
the main canals whose average total loss is 36.1% is greater than the losses in the secondary canals whose
average total losses is 26.4%. Water losses in the secondary canal are also caused by more or less the same
reasons that affect the main canal, poor maintenance of the canals have caused losses as some have broken
banks that lead to leakages and overflowing, illegal underground pipes mostly by the out-growers is also a
big cause of water losses. Domestic uses of water in the canals by families living along them also cause
decline of water let alone damaging the banks as the access the water. The Nyamindi values are higher
than the Thiba values due to the red soil found along most Nyamindi canals.

4.4 AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE


The agricultural performance of the scheme was evaluated base on the four external performance
indicators earlier described in the Methodology.

Table 12: Area under irrigation at different years in Mwea Irrigation scheme

Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Source: MIAD in Mwea.

4.4.1 Output per unit-cropped area and per unit of command

Table 13: Output per unit cropped area (tons/ha)

Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Production (tons) 22328.3 20029.4 23817.4 14668.3 26287.1 13044.2

Output per unit cropped 4.942 4.644 4.987 4.214 5.086 4.018
area (tons/ha)

47
Output per unit croppd area
(tons/ha)
6

4
Production
tons/ha

3
Output (tons/ha)
2

0
1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09
Seasons

Chart 10: Output per unit-cropped area (tons per ha)

Table 14: Output per unit command area (tons/ha)

Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Production (tons) 22328.3 20029.4 23817.4 14668.3 26287.1 13044.2

Output per unit command 3.810 3.418 4.064 2.503 4.486 2.226
area (tons/ha)

48
Output per unit command area
(tons/ha)
5

4.5

3.5
Production

3
tons/ha

2.5

2 Output (tons/ha)

1.5

0.5

0
1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09
Seasons

Chart 11: Output per unit command (tons per ha)

Figure 9 and 10 shows output per unit-cropped area and per unit command, obtained between the periods
1997/98-2001/02 with an inclusion of the year 2008/09. The result shows that the production rate obtained
varied between 4.018 tons/ha and 5.086 tons/ha, per unit of cropped area and 2.226 tons/ha to 4.486
tons/ha per unit of command. There is a large variation between the year 2008/2009 and the other years.
The main reason for the variation is, in the year 2008/2009 the farmers experienced one of the most
challenging droughts and the water levels were at their lowest level ever this called for intensive rationing
leading even to closure of some scheme sections that year.

49
4.4.2 Output per unit water consumed

Table 15: Output per unit water consumed (tons/M3/s)

Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Production (tons) 22328.3 20029.4 23817.4 14668.3 26287.1 13044.2

Output per unit water 2587.2 2320.9 2759.8 1699.7 3046.1 1511.5
consumed (tons/M3/s)

Output per unit water consumed (tons/M3/s)


3500

3000

2500
Production
tons/M3/S

2000

1500 Output (tons/ha)

1000

500

0
1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09
Seasons

Chart 12: Output per unit water consumed (tons/m3/s)

50
This indicator shows the output obtained out of a unit of water volume consumed or evapotranspired by
the crop. When we compare the six years result obtained it varied from 1511.5 tons/m3/s to 3046.1
tons/m3/s. Year 2000/01 and 2008/09 from the results below shows quite low consumptive ratio as
compared to the other years where the differences are not so big and this can be attributed to poor
cropping pattern and low crop yield in this two years as compared to the rest

4.4.3 W ater delivery capacity (WDC)

Table 16: Irrigation ratio

Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Irrigation demand (m3) 813.25 776.33 859.67 626.55 930.33 584.36

Irrigation ratio 0.771 0.736 0.815 0.594 0.882 0.554

Irrigation ratio
1
0.9
0.8
Water Delivery Ratio

0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
Irrigation ratio
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09
Seasons

Chart 13: Irrigation ratio

51
The result shows that the water intake infrastructure is not capable of delivering the necessary peak water
demand. In the six years shown below the irrigation ratio always falls below the peak demand hence
showing signs of under performance of the scheme this seams to indicate that the canals may not meet
the peak demands that may occur in some particular time. But in the area since the irrigation program does
not follow the normal pattern such kind of problem therefore occurs.

52
5.0 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.
As there is no trend of recording data in the irrigation schemes, it was observed that obtaining historical
data pose a problem. Because of this reason some assumptions are made while calculating the indicators.
In addition the poor nature of the infrastructure in Mwea irrigation scheme is a big cause of alarm both
control and measuring structures have dilapidated with time and some are partly functional or completely
incompetent. This has influenced fair and equitable water distribution in the scheme and also challenged
accurate data collection for research and extension services which are very vital in any scheme. An
immediate address to this should be done to help in improving the scheme efficiency.
In this study, water conveyance loss was determined for the canals that convey and distribute water in the
Mwea irrigation scheme open canal irrigation network. The state of maintenance of the canals was
evaluated by comparing the values of the conveyance loss in the main, secondary, and tertiary canals to
each other, with the reference values of water conveyance loss in the open canals, and with conclusions
reached in other studies.
In addition, seepage loss was statistically tested.
The average values of water conveyance loss in the network were higher in the main canal than in both
secondary and tertiary canals. It was also found that the values for secondary canals along the Thiba main
canal were lower than those values for secondary canals along the Nyamindi main canal this was mostly
due to the difference in the soil types that characterizes this two regions, where the Thiba canal is mainly
on clay soil which has a lower seepage capacity as compared to the red loam soil that is popular in most
areas of the Nyamindi section.
Moreover, it was determined that the average water conveyance loss determined for all open canals in the
network was higher than the average value of 30 years ago, a similar research conducted by M.I.A.D in
the scheme in 1982 showed that the conveyance efficiencies of the scheme was approximately 25% which
is well within the recommended values of an unlined open channel but the alarming figures obtained in
this research which were as high as 44% along Thiba main canal calls for a reason of concern. The current
average values of networks in Mwea irrigation scheme indicate inadequacy of maintenance and repair.
The increase and excess in conveyance loss shows that renovation work, which was conducted on
conveyance canals in certain parts of the irrigation area, and maintenance and repair work done by the
WUAs were insufficient. The lining of the Nyamindi main canal was a step in the right direction but this
was short changed by the poor maintenance which has led to destruction of the lining with time and hence
low performance of the canal as well. But the main concerns as in the figures above is the conveyance
losses along the Thiba main canal, a word from the locals is that there has been a large increase in the
number of illegal underground pipes that get their irrigation water from the canal, especially with booming

53
business of tomato and French peas farming many illegal out growers use the canal water for this farming
which on the other hand demands a lot of water. The authorities have done very little to control this as
most of the activities are conducted at night.
Such water loss causes huge economic and environmental problems. In order to prevent such problems,
certain measures should be taken. The limited budgets of the WUAs make it difficult to carry out work,
such as renovating either the old canals left out of the consolidation or the canals renovated and
lengthened as part of the consolidation, or converting the canals to a piped system. The feasibility of new
economic measures to reduce water conveyance loss especially through illegal tapping in the network has
to be studied.

For this reason, the following measures may be suggested:


 Install concrete linings with new concrete mixtures that are able to withstand the effects of water
and soil, and that have been determined to be more effective in terms of seepage As the
conveyance loss is huge in the irrigation schemes. Moreover the farmlands in lower elevation than
canals become safe.

Figure 4: lining and reconstruction of an irrigation canal as part of rehabilitation project in


Zanzibar, Tanzania.

54
 Use canal linings that are more economical, more effective, more durable, and longer-lasting;

 Make sure farmers do not damage the canals when they get water from them and while engaging
in other agricultural activities.

 The amount of water applied in irrigation should not exceed the storage capacity of the soil at the
time of irrigation because this will override all other factors affecting irrigation efficiency.

 The evaluation of the performance of Mwea irrigation scheme will help to know the present status
of this scheme. Therefore for the improvement of the irrigation system management especially in
regards to water delivery management and the irrigation practice frequent performance evaluation
is imperative.
 Adoption of new and modern rice farming techniques that have low water demand and improved
yield in production should be adopted as in the case of SRI (System Rice Intensification) which is
commonly and successfully practiced in India and Botswana. The system requires less water for
its cultivation and hence the low levels in the scheme will not be as severe as they currently are.

55
6.0 REFERENCES

 J. Aisenbrey, Jr. R. B Hayes H J. Warren D. L. Winsett, R.B. Young. First edition 1974 Reprinted
1987; Design of Small Canal Structure; United States Department of the Interior. Bureau of
Reclamation.
 J. Doorenbos, A. H. Kassam, C. L. M. Bentvelsen, M. Smith, G.O. Uittenbogaad and H.K. Van
Der Wal; Crop Yield Response to Water (FAO Irrigation and Drainage, Paper 33)

 Glenn J. Hoffman, Terry A. Howell and Kenneth H. Solomon; Management of Farm Irrigation
Systems.

 FAO 44; Design and Optimization of Irrigation Systems.

 Richard H Cuenca, Burman R D & Hillel D: Techniques of Estimating Water Irrigation

 Richard H Cuenca: Irrigation System Design.

 A M Michael: Irrigation Theory And Practice

 Hansen, V.E., Israelsen, O.W. Stringham, G.E: Irrigation Principles and Practice, 3rd Edition by
John Wiley & Sons

 Determination of Water Conveyance Loss in the Menemen Open Canal Irrigation Network
 Erhan Akkuzu, Halil Baki Unal, Bekir S›tk› Karatafi from University of Ege, Faculty of
Agriculture, Department of Agricultural Structures and Irrigation, ‹zmir – Turkey. Lastly edited

 Report on Community Based Irrigation Management in the Tekeze Basin: Performance


Evaluation in 2006 by Mintesinot Behailu, Mohammed Abdulkadir, Atinkut Mezgebu, and
Mustefa Yasin

56
APPENDICES.

APPENDIX 1: METEOROLOGICAL DATA

Rainfall
The rain pattern in the study area is characterized by bimodal rainy seasons, the long rain period from
March – May and the short rain period from October to November. An annual mean rainfall is about
950mm, at of which about 510mm concentrates in the long rain period as shown below.

Average Monthly Rainfall 1993-2001 (unit mm)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec TOTAL.

34 15 89 289 135 14 8 9 11 15 160 69 945

Temperature.
The mean temperature is about 220 C over the year with mean monthly maximum in March and minimum
in January

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave

MAX. 28.9 30.8 31.4 28.9 27.5 26.0 25.3 26.0 28.5 29.8 27.5 27.6 28.2

MIN. 14.8 15.2 16.5 17.8 17.6 16.4 15.4 15.7 16.4 17.3 16.8 15.4 16.3

MEAN 21.8 23.0 24.0 23.4 22.6 21.2 20.3 20.8 22.5 23.6 22.2 21.5 22.2

Relative Humidity.
The relative humidity varies from about 70% in the morning hours to about 45% in afternoon on the
annual average.

Average of monthly relative humidity.

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave

A.M. 69 63 68 78 77 76 77 75 70 71 79 74 73

P.M. 43 34 36 49 53 53 51 46 38 40 54 52 46

MEAN 56 49 52 63 65 64 64 61 54 55 66 63 59

57
Evaporation.
The average daily open water evaporation is the highest in February and March (about 8mm/day) and
lowest in July (about 4mm/day). The average daily evaporation over the year is about 6mm/day.

Average of monthly Mean Daily Pan- Evaporation (CLASS A) Units (mm/day)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave

6.5 7.5 7.6 5.6 5.0 4.4 4.2 4.8 6.6 6.8 5.0 5.5 5.8

Wind speed.
The average monthly wind speeds range from just over 140km/day (from February to March) to almost
100km/day (from May to July).

Average of monthly mean daily wind speed Units (km/day)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave

128 141 143 118 101 86 97 129 167 148 113 115 124

Sunshine Hours
The average daily sunshine is lowest in July (almost 4hours/day) and highest in February (around
9hrs/day).

Average of monthly daily sunshine hours. Units (hours/day)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave

8.8 9.4 8.3 7.0 6.6 5.0 4.0 4.3 6.4 7.4 6.7 7.3 6.8

Radiation.
Average daily radiation is lowest in July (almost 440langley’s/day) and highest in February (around 680
Langley’s/day).

Average of monthly mean daily radiation unit (Langley’s /day)

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Ave

631 656 629 582 563 488 437 468 589 615 571 594 568

58
APPENDIX 2: CALLIBRATED TABLES FOR M.I.S. MEASURING STRUCTURES.
BROAD CRESTED WEIR FOR NYAMINDI MAIN CANAL (CHECK POINT 1 – CP1)
B = 1.3 m L = 1.0 m

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.05
0.1 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.17
0.2 0.18 0.2 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.3 0.32
0.3 0.34 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.43 0.44 0.46 0.48 0.5
0.4 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.7 0.72
0.5 0.74 0.77 0.79 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.92 0.95 0.97
0.6 1 1.03 1.05 1.08 1.11 1.14 1.17 1.2 1.23 1.26
0.7 1.29 1.32 1.35 1.38 1.41 1.44 1.47 1.51 1.54 1.57
0.8 1.61 1.64 1.67 1.71 1.74 1.78 1.81 1.85 1.88 1.92
0.9 1.95 1.99 2.03 2.07 2.1 2.14 2.18 2.22 2.26 2.3
1 2.33 2.37 2.41 2.46 2.5 2.54 2.58 2.62 2.66 2.7

BROAD CRESTED WEIR FOR LINK CANAL 1 (CHECK POINT 2 – CP2)


B = 1.3 m L = 1.0 m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.09 0.11 0.13
0.1 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.23 0.26 0.029 0.32 0.35 0.38 0.42
0.2 0.45 0.48 0.52 0.55 0.59 0.63 0.67 0.71 0.75 0.79
0.3 0.83 0.87 0.91 0.96 1 1.05 1.09 1.14 1.19 1.23
0.4 1.28 1.33 1.39 1.44 1.49 1.55 1.6 1.66 1.72 1.77
0.5 1.83 1.89 1.95 2.01 2.07 2.14 2.2 2.26 2.33 2.4
0.6 2.46 2.53 2.6 2.67 2.73 2.81 2.88 2.95 3.02 3.09
0.7 3.17 3.24 3.32 3.39 3.47 3.55 3.63 3.71 3.79 3.87
0.8 3.95 4.03 4.12 4.2 4.29 4.37 4.46 4.54 4.63 4.72
0.9 4.81 4.9 4.99 5.08 5.18 5.27 5.36 5.46 5.55 5.65
59
Q in M3/S and H in m
BROAD CRESTED WEIR FOR LINK CANAL 2 (CHECK POINT 3 – CP3)
B = 2.0 m L = 1.0 m

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.1 0.13 0.17 0.21 0.25
0.1 0.29 0.34 0.39 0.44 0.49 0.54 0.6 0.66 0.72 0.78
0.2 0.84 0.9 0.97 1.04 1.1 1.17 1.25 1.32 1.39 1.47
0.3 1.55 1.62 1.7 1.78 1.87 1.95 2.04 2.12 2.21 2.3
0.4 2.39 2.48 2.57 2.66 2.76 2.85 2.95 3.05 3.15 3.25
0.5 3.35 3.45 3.55 3.66 3.76 3.87 3.98 4.08 4.19 4.34
0.6 4.41 4.53 4.64 4.75 4.87 4.99 5.11 5.24 5.36 5.49
0.7 5.61 5.74 5.87 6 6.14 6.27 6.4 6.54 6.68 6.81
0.8 6.95 7.09 7.23 7.38 7.52 7.67 7.81 7.96 8.11 8.26
0.9 8.41 8.56 8.71 8.87 9.02 9.18 9.34 9.5 9.66 9.82
1 9.98 10.14 10.31 10.47 10.64 10.81 10.98 11.15 11.32 11.49
1.1 11.67 11.84 12.02 12.19 12.37 12.55 12.73 12.91 13.1 13.24

DROP STRUCTURE ALONG TMC (for Thiba, Wamumu, and Karaba) (CHECK POINT 4 – CP4)
Drop Structure (Formula: Broad Crested 1.355)

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0.01 0.03 0.05 0.08 0.11 0.14 0.18 0.22 0.28
0.1 0.31 0.36 0.41 0.47 0.53 0.59 0.65 0.72 0.78 0.87
0.2 0.93 1 1.08 1.16 1.25 1.33 1.42 1.51 1.61 1.73
0.3 1.8 1.9 2 2.11 2.21 2.33 2.44 2.55 2.67 2.85
0.4 2.91 3.04 3.16 3.29 3.43 3.56 3.7 3.84 3.98 4.14
0.5 4.27 4.42 4.57 4.72 4.88 5.04 5.2 5.37 5.53 5.71
0.6 5.87 6.05 6.23 6.4 6.59 6.77 6.96 7.15 7.34 7.57

60
BROAD CRESTED WEIR FOR BRANCH CANAL 4 (CHECK POINT 5 – CP5)
B = 2.0 m L = 1.0 m

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.07
0.1 0.09 0.11 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.21 0.24 0.27 0.3 0.33
0.2 0.36 0.39 0.43 0.46 0.5 0.53 0.57 0.61 0.65 0.69
0.3 0.73 0.78 0.82 0.86 0.91 0.96 1 1.05 1.1 1.15
0.4 1.2 1.25 1.3 1.36 1.41 1.47 1.52 1.58 1.63 1.69
0.5 1.75 1.81 1.87 1.94 2 2.07 2.13

CIPOLETTI WEIR FOR Wi – 3 (ALONG TBC3) (CHECK POINT 6 – CP6)

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.08 0.09
0.1 0.11 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26 0.28
0.2 0.3 0.33 0.35 0.38 0.4 0.43 0.45 0.48 0.5 0.53
0.3 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.64 0.67 0.7 0.73 0.77 0.8 0.83
0.4 0.86 0.89 0.93 0.96 0.99 1.03 1.06 1.1 1.13 1.17

CIPOLETTI WEIR FOR BRANCH CANAL 1 – 3 (M1 - 8)

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06
0.1 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.17
0.2 0.18 0.2 0.21 0.23 0.24 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.3 0.32
0.3 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.44 0.46 0.47 0.49
0.4 0.51 0.53 0.55 0.57 0.59 0.61 0.63 0.65 0.67 0.69
0.5 0.71 0.73 0.75 0.78 0.8 0.82 0.84 0.87 0.89 0.91

61
RECTANGULAR WEIR FOR NYAMINDI BRANCH CANAL 1

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.08
0.1 0.09 0.11 0.13 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.24 0.26
0.2 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.41 0.43 0.46 0.48 0.51
0.3 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.62 0.65 0.68 0.71 0.74 0.77 0.8
0.4 0.83 0.87 0.9 0.93 0.97 1 1.03 1.07 1.1 1.14
0.5 1.17 1.21 1.25 1.28 1.32 1.36 1.4 1.43 1.47 1.51
0.6 1.55 1.59 1.63 1.67 1.71 1.75 1.79 1.83 1.87 1.92
0.7 1.96 2 2.04 2.09 2.13 2.17 2.22 2.26 2.31 2.35

CIPOLETTI WEIR FOR BRANCH CANAL 1 – 3 (M1 - 8)

Q in M3/S and H in m

H 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09


0 0 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.05 0.06
0.1 0.1 0.12 0.13 0.15 0.16 0.18 0.2 0.22 0.19 0.21
0.2 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.36 0.38 0.4 0.42 0.39 0.41
0.3 0.49 0.51 0.54 0.56 0.59 0.61 0.64 0.65 0.63 0.65
0.4 0.74 0.77 0.8 0.83 0.86 0.88 0.91 0.94 0.9 0.93
0.5 1.03 1.06 1.09 1.12 1.16 1.19 1.22 1.25 1.21 1.21
0.6 1.35 1.38 1.42 1.45 1.49 1.52 1.55 1.59 1.54 1.58

62
APPENDIX 3: AGRICULTURAL PERFORMANCE ANALYSIS TABLES
Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Production (tons) 22328.3 20029.4 23817.4 14668.3 26287.1 13044.2

Output per unit cropped 4.942 4.644 4.987 4.214 5.086 4.018
area (tons/ha)

Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Production (tons) 22328.3 20029.4 23817.4 14668.3 26287.1 13044.2

Output per unit command 3.810 3.418 4.064 2.503 4.486 2.226
area (tons/ha)

Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Production (tons) 22328.3 20029.4 23817.4 14668.3 26287.1 13044.2

Output per unit water 2587.2 2320.9 2759.8 1699.7 3046.1 1511.5
consumed (tons/M3/s)

63
Year 1997/98 1998/99 1999/2000 2000/01 2001/02 2008/09

Area under irrigation (ha) 4518.06 4312.96 4775.9 3480.84 5168.52 3246.44

Area under irrigation (%) 71.1 73.6 81.5 59.4 88.2 55.4

Irrigation demand (m3) 813.25 776.33 859.67 626.55 930.33 584.36

Irrigation ratio 0.771 0.736 0.815 0.594 0.882 0.554

64
APPENDIX 4: MWEA IRRIGATION SCHEME MAP AND SCHEMATIC LAYOUT.

65
66
67