A Procedure For Planning Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation: TDR Project R5832 Report OD/TN 84

A Procedure for
Planning Irrigation
Scheme Rehabilitation
TDR Project R5832

Report OD/TN 84
1997
G. Cornish - J. Skutsch
HR Wallingford
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION OF THE
UNITED KINGDOM
i
Table of Contents
Summary 1
A Procedure for Planning Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation 1
Introduction 4
Background 4
Need for Rehabilitation - Causes and Effects 5
Aims and Scope of the Procedure 7
Initial Investigation (Prefeasibility) 9
Detailed Investigation (Feasibility) 11
Performance of Schemes 13
Indicators-General 13
National Performance Norms 14
Water Supply, Demand, and Hydraulic Indicators 15
General 15
Supply and Demand 16
Excess Releases 16
Reduced Releases 16
Reduced Cropped Area 17
Hydraulic Indicators 18
Adequacy 18
Preliminary Selection of Schemes 20
Table of Contents ii
Background information 22
Mapping 22
Sector and Project 22
Analysis of Scheme Operations 24
Identifying Problems 26
Checklist of Performance Constraints 26
Farmer Questionnaire 27
Stratification of the Scheme 27
Use of the Questionnaire 28
Guidelines for Interviewing Farmers 29
Hydraulic Measurements 30
Backwater 30
Field Investigations 31
Assessing the Condition of Infrastructure 34

General 34
Overseer’s Inspection 35
Engineer’s Inspection 37
Selecting Priorities 37
Table of Contents iii
Acknowledgements 41
References 42
Appendix 1: Checklist of possible

performance constraints 44
Part 1 - Agricultural and Economic Factors 45
Production Inputs - price/availability (Linked to 1.7) 45
Inputs - water supply 45
Labour - price/availability 45
Future input supply 45
Crop pests 45
Crop marketing (Linked to 1.8) 46
Price/availability of credit (Linked to 1.1) 46
Changes in land use (Linked to 1.2 and 1.3) 46
Land out of command (Linked to Part 2.7) 46
Existing organisations/Institutions 46
Consultation with Farmers 46
Part 2 - System Design and Operation 47

Method of Flow Control 47
Operational practices 47
Ask staff to describe actual operational practices. 48
Indicate whether current operating practices
limit scheme output. 48
Table of Contents iv
Design/operation compatibility 48
Staff numbers 48
Variations from design assumptions 49
Part 3 - Deterioration of System Infrastructure 49

Condition of assets 49
Part 4 - Land Degradation 50

Surface flooding 50
Shallow groundwater table 50
Soil Salinization 50
Land fragmentation 50
Erosion 50
Pollution 50
Part 5 - Supply at the Headworks 52

Variation from design discharge 52
Command area less than design 52
Reduced conveyance capacity 52
Deterioration of supply 52
Unrealistic design hydrology 53
Table of Contents v
Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Farmers 56

Guidance Notes 56
General 56
Location and Water source 56
Cropping Intensity 56
Cropping Yields 57
Water Supply 57
Flooding 58
Water distribution and structures below the outlet 59
Priorities for change 59
Questionnaire: Farmers’ Views on System Constraints

and Rehabilitation Needs 60
Appendix 3A: Condition assessment -

Overseer’s inspection 65
Structure Type: Intake (or Head Regulator) 65
Notes 65
1. Missing Gate 65
2. Gate operation 65
3. Gate Condition 65
4. Cracks/damage and movement 66
5. Blockage 66
6. Seepage 66
7. D/s Apron 66
8. Gauge Boards 66
9. Overall condition 66
Table of Contents vi
Structure Type: Gated Cross Regulator 67

Notes 67
1. Missing Gate 67
5. Leakage 67
6. D/s Apron 68
7. Gauge Boards 68
Structure Type: Canal Reach 68

Notes 69
1. Illegal weirs or debris 69
2. Sediment 69
3.Weed 69
4. Conveyance capacity 69
5. Freeboard 69
6. Bank slippage or erosion 69
7. Lining damage 69
8. Unauthorised off-takes 69
9. Seepage 70
Structure Type: Inspection Road 70

Notes 70
1. Road width 70
2. Surface condition 70
3. Cross drains 71
4. Side slopes 71
Table of Contents vii
5. Year round access 71

Structure Type: Flow Measurement Structure 72

Notes 72
1. Channel obstruction 72
2. Drowned structure 72
3. Structural damage 72
4. Leakage 72
5. D/s Apron 72
6. Gauge boards 73
Structure Type: Gated Offtake 73

Notes 73
1. Missing Gate 73
5. Blockage 74
6. Seepage 74
7. D/s Apron 74
8. Gauge Boards 74
Structure Type: Drain 75

Notes 75
1. Channel obstruction 75
2. Overtopping 75
3. Waterlogging 75
Table of Contents viii
4. Bank slippage 75
5. Drainage structures 75
Structure Type: Drop/Chute 76

Notes 76
2. Leakage 76
3. D/s protection 76
4. D/s bed & channel 77
Structure Type: Cross Drainage Culvert 77

Notes 77
2. Leakage into culvert 77
3. Culvert capacity 78
4. Blockage 78
5. Erosion 78
Structure Type: Aqueduct / Flume 78

Notes 79
1. Cracks 79
2. Separation from Backfill 79
3. Aqueduct/canal 79
4. Leakage 79
5. Overtopping 79
6. Damage to piers/Superstructure 79
Table of Contents ix
Structure Type: Syphon 80

Notes 80
1. Cracks 80
3. Leakage from syphon 80
4. Overtopping u/s of syphon 80
5. Blockage 80
6. Erosion in d/s transition 80
7. Erosion of channel/drain 81
Structure Type: Side Weir/Escape 81

Notes 81
1. Blockage 81
3. Seepage 81
5. D/s protection 82
Appendix 3B: Condition assessment -

Engineer’s inspection 84
Engineering Inspection - Canal Reach page 1 84
Engineering Inspection - Canal Reach page 2 86
Guidance Notes for Engineering Assessment of Canal Reaches 87
Reach Functions 87
Potential Modes of Failure 87
Channel degradation: 87
Structural failure: 88
Table of Contents x
Guidance Notes: Condition of elements 88

Factor: Discharge capacity 88
Factor: Sediment/weeds/other blockages 89
Factor: Freeboard 89
Factor: Slippage 89
Factor: Erosion 90
Factor: Seepage 90
Factor: Lining damage - Lining purpose, structural 91
Factor: Lining damage - Lining purpose, seepage reduction 92
Engineering Inspection - Structure page 1 93

Engineering Inspection - Structure page 2 94
Factor: Conveyance capacity 95
Factor: Control of discharge/level 95
Factor: Discharge measurement 96
Factor: Water tightness/Leakage 96
Factor: Movement 97
Factor: Scour at structure 97
Factor: Scour in channel 98
Factor: Joint condition 98
Factor: Structural elements 98
Factor: Surface condition 99
Factor: Stability of slopes/retained soils 99
Table of Contents xi
Appendix 4: Condition assessment scores 100
Appendix 5: Relative importance

of different assets 105
Appendix 6: Hydraulic modelling

as an aid to diagnosis 110
A Procedure For Planning Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation 1
Summary
A PROCEDURE FOR PLANNING IRRIGATION
SCHEME REHABILITATION
G Cornish
J Skutsch
TDR Project R5832
Report OD/TN 84
February 1997
The Procedure is the final output of a three year project under the UK
Overseas Development Administration’s TDR programme, to investigate and
recommend methods of determining priority needs in irrigation
rehabilitation programmes. The work, undertaken jointly by HR Wallingford
and the Directorate General of Water Resources Development, Indonesia,
was based initially on field investigations at three schemes in Yogyakarta
Special Province, and subsequently on a scheme in Central Sulawesi.
The Procedure is aimed at Government, funding agency and

consultancy staff who must appraise schemes for rehabilitation. It is
intended to help in project identification and formulation, improving the
objectivity and consistency of assessment and making the best use of
available resources by:
• identifying the factors which lead to schemes performing

below expectations
• determining the condition and fitness of scheme components
• establishing priorities for improvement
The performance of an irrigation scheme is influenced by many factors,

socio-economic, agronomic, environmental and technical. Factors are
often interlinked, so causes and effects may not be readily distinguishable.
Physical defects may be more easily identified, but their removal will not
necessarily solve problems of under-performance.
Used in the initial stages of project identification, the Procedure should

help to determine whether rehabilitation could improve scheme output, or
what other measures might be required. If the proposed project continues
to look technically and economically feasible, the Procedure may be used

further to identify priority works for rehabilitation. Detailed investigation of
non-engineering problems is not included in the document.
Section 1 of the document identifies the scope of the Procedure.
Section 2 discusses the performance of schemes. Problems of

evaluating performance on the basis of limited data and brief visits to the
field are identified.
Section 3 describes the uses and analysis of background data to detect

problems.
Section 4 describes the purpose and use of two of the three principal
elements of the Procedure :
• Checklist of performance constraints

• Questionnaire for Farmers
The checklist is intended to detect the nature and approximate scale of

constraints, both technical and non-technical, on the performance of a
system. Underlying causes for apparent constraints should be identified in
the process. It should serve as the basis for initial discussions with O&M
staff during pre-feasibility investigations and as a guide to further work. The
proforma is included in Appendix 1.
The questionnaire (proforma - Appendix 2) is aimed at farmers. It

should provide views from field level about the functioning of the system,
the needs for technical improvements, general problems faced by farmers
and the relative importance of technical and non-technical issues. In
conjunction with the checklist it will provide a crosscheck on initial
findings.
Section 5 describes function-based Condition assessment, the third

principal element of the Procedure (Appendix 3). Assessment would be
undertaken at feasibility stage if the checklist and questionnaire indicate
that there are physical constraints to improved system performance. The
process is intended to establish a consistent basis for determining the
fitness of an asset for its function.
The priority of works is established by combining the assessed

condition of a component of a system with a measure of its strategic
importance and the area served, in an overall score and ranking (Section
5.4). The cropped area served by an element is considered to be a rough
proxy for its economic value to the system, and it is therefore included in
the priority-setting process.
As it is difficult to link benefits uniquely to the improvement of individual

components of an agricultural system, optimization of the returns to
packages of works is not attempted. However, ranked lists of works will
form the basis for detailed economic analysis of the costs and benefits of
possible alternative programmes of investment.
Computer modelling offers potential for diagnosing hydraulic

constraints and for evaluating the effect of different interventions. Notes on
the use of modelling are included in Appendix 6.
The experience acquired in Indonesia, which was drawn upon in

developing the Procedure, is summarized in a separate report (Cornish
1994). A software program, MARLIN (Maintenance and Rehabilitation of
Irrigation Systems), has subsequently been developed at Wallingford to
assist with routine use of the condition assessment and ranking procedures
in planning scheme maintenance.
Introduction
BACKGROUND
In many regions of the world, shortage of water and suitable land
increasingly constrain new developments in the irrigated agriculture sector.
The major international funding agencies are now largely involved with
programmes of rehabilitation rather than with new construction.
Feasibility studies for rehabilitation projects often indicate high rates of

return on capital investment, provided that the assumed benefits from
intervention are achieved. In practice, performance audits show that
returns to rehabilitation are very frequently lower than anticipated. One
reason is that projects tend to be formulated around improvements to
infrastructure, to remove perceived constraints to performance. However,
institutional, social and economic constraints may play a greater role in
reducing scheme output than technical factors, the circumstances varying
from scheme to scheme. Unfortunately, the relative importance of the
various constraints may not be readily apparent.
The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (Fasso, 1987)

distinguishes between Rehabilitation - the renovation of a scheme to meet
its original design criteria - and Modernisation - the improvement of a
scheme to meet new criteria. Intervention projects offer the opportunity to
examine the functioning of a scheme and consider whether an upgrading
of the design is appropriate. The processes of problem identification and
priority - setting, with which the present document is concerned will be
common to the two types of project. The decision as to whether to
renovate or improve may be taken when the reasons for failing
performance have been clearly identified.
HR Wallingford, with the support of the UK Overseas Development

Administration (ODA), has undertaken programmes in a number of
countries aimed at investigating the deterioration of irrigation systems and
diagnozing the causes for declining performance, (Goldsmith and Makin,
1989), Francis, (1988), Brabben and Bolton, (1988), Smailes, (1996). The
present document is the principal output of a three year investigation
together with the Directorate General of Water Resources Development
(DGWRD ) in Indonesia to develop improved methods for identifying and
formulating rehabilitation needs. Initial work concentrated on an
investigation of performance and condition of three schemes, Sapon, Van
der Wijck and Papah (Cornish 1994) in Yogjakarta Special Province. In the
final year of the project , the Procedure detailed in the present document
was developed and applied with DGWRD at Dolago scheme in Central
Sulawesi.
It is envisaged that the Procedure will be of use to government, funding

agency and consultancy staff, being sufficiently flexible for use at a
number of levels. It is hoped that it will help users formulate programmes
aimed at the prime causes of scheme underperformance, rather than the
renewal of complete systems. In this way, available funds should be used
more effectively.
NEED FOR REHABILITATION - CAUSES AND EFFECTS

Complex linkages can exist between factors affecting performance and
their effects. Figure 1 summarizes the interaction between the many
possible determinants of performance.
As an example, poor operational control and field water management

could lead to excess water in the drains, e+ncouraging weed growth and
lack of channel capacity at times of rainfall. The resulting flooding might
cause a reduction in cropped area, reduce or reschedule water demand if
crops are replanted, discourage farmers from investing in inputs, reduce
yield, worsen problems of water control in the system, and lead to further
waste of water.
Again, an external cause such as falling world commodity prices could

reduce returns to farming so that farmers leave the land or do not invest in
inputs . Crop output falls, water demand falls, channels run part-full,
sedimentation and weedgrowth proliferate, water supply becomes erratic,
crop yield falls further.
The need for broad-based interventions to achieve sustainable

improvements to overall performance is illustrated below:
• Inadequate operational practices may limit improvements to water supply expected

from improved infrastructure.
• Trained and motivated operational staff are needed. They must be committed to
delivering a specified minimum level of service. Institutional will and government
policies are needed to effect such changes.
• Farmers must be willing and able to exploit a better supply. They may need training
in water use and maintenance. A formal or informal water user group must exist.
Until the water supply is improved, it is unlikely that farmers will cooperate.
FIGURE 1 - Links between causes and effects
Outward indications of underperformance, which may be cited as

evidence of a need for rehabilitation, are termed “perceived defects” at
the head of Figure 2. Perceived defects may be due to a number of linked
causes, as indicated above.
“Primary causes” are set out below the perceived defects in Figure 2.
They have been grouped into the following broad categories: agricultural/
economic, design and operation, system deterioration, land degradation
and headworks supply.
A large number of possible alternative, or complementary,

underlying causes are shown below the primary causes.
At the bottom of Figure 2 are shown the three diagnostic tools which
are contained within the Procedure, which are detailed below.
Hydrological analyses are also included as a diagnostic tool. Since
standard methods are well-documented elsewhere, they are not further
detailed here.
AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE

The Procedure is aimed at “pragmatic” physical rehabilitation, (Murray-
Rust, 1985). “Pragmatic” physical rehabilitation relies on diagnosis of the
condition of the infrastructure to determine its impact on the water
distribution performance of the scheme. The key constraints on scheme
performance are identified and may be selectively removed.
The Procedure should help in formulating programmes by:
1 Identifying factors which constrain the performance of individual

schemes and thus determining whether rehabilitation will be beneficial
and/or what other measures may be needed.
2 Determining the condition of individual scheme elements and their

fitness for function.
3 Prioritizing works.
FIGURE 2 - Determinants of performance and diagnostic methods
A Procedure For Planning Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation

8
Action 1) corresponds to the pre-feasibility stage when schemes may

be screened and compared on the basis of approximate estimates of
technical and economic viability. If the project proceeds to feasibility
stage, more detailed information may be required on the constraints to
performance of individual projects, so that economic and technical
feasibility can be defined. Actions 2) and 3) will follow, providing the
detail necessary to plan and cost the project. Note that the Procedure
does not cover the investigations required to formulate non-engineering
components to the project.
Table 1 summarizes the steps in an investigation. For the present

purposes, it is supposed that pre-feasibility and feasibility studies will both
be carried out, though the processes may in reality be condensed into one.
The Procedure comprises three principal diagnostic tools:
• Checklist of factors potentially limiting scheme performance.

• Questionnaire to obtain farmers’ opinions on system constraints and priority needs.
• Condition assessment methods, determining “fitness for function”, which lead to a
listing of priority works.
Sections 4.1, 4.2 and 5 respectively describe the use of these elements.
The Procedure identifies where schemes are failing to perform

adequately but does not recommend on the standards for improvement.
Circumstances change over time; the original design standards may no
longer be appropriate. Rehabilitation provides the opportunity to review
original assumptions and make changes as necessary.
Initial Investigation (Prefeasibility)

The checklist is intended to detect the nature and approximate scale of
constraints, both technical and non-technical, on the performance of a
system. Underlying causes for apparent constraints should be identified in
the process. It should serve as the basis for discussions with O&M staff and
as a guide to further investigations.
The questionnaire is aimed at farmers. It should provide views from

field level about the functioning of the system, the needs for technical
improvements, general problems faced by farmers and the relative
importance of technical and non-technical factors. Used in conjunction
with the checklist it provides a crosscheck on initial findings.
Alternative outcomes and actions at the end of the pre-feasibility stage

could be:
Finding Action
No significant problem End investigation
No major infrastructural problems but Formulate appropriate project

substantial problems with institutional, (outside scope of Procedure)
agronomic or socio-economic aspects.
Substantial infrastructural problems(s) Proceed with more detailed investigation.

Focussed institutional support project
may also be required.
TABLE 1 - Steps in Investigation

Pre- Feasibility
• Obtain sector and system background data

• Interview operations staff CHECKLIST
• Check water supply
• Obtain operations data, compare performance with norms
• Stratify scheme for survey FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE

• Interview farmers
• Visit problem areas
• Rapid inspection of condition
• Rapid hydraulic checks, if appropriate
• Outline costs and benefits
Feasibility
• Interview operations staff

• Hydraulic checks, if appropriate
• Inventory of system & condition CONDITION ASSESSMENT
• Outline priorities
• Outline programme of works with quantities
• Costs and benefits
• Report feasibility
If rehabilitation appears viable after pre-feasibility investigations , any

substantial physical works which would exceed estimates based on a per
hectare improvement cost should be identified and costed in. If
institutional, agronomic or socio-economic constraints are identified,
experts in the individual disciplines should be involved in formulation of
complementary actions.
Detailed Investigation (Feasibility)

The condition assessment procedure provides a consistent basis for
determining the fitness of an asset to perform its function. It allows a
selected set of assets, identified on the basis of priority of need, to be
included in a programme of rehabilitation The assessment assigns the asset
to one of four categories: Good, Fair, Poor or Very Poor.
Condition assessment would be undertaken only if the checklist and

questionnaire indicated that there were physical constraints to improved
system performance.
It is assumed that the basic assessment is made by relatively

inexperienced staff, (Overseer’s Inspection). If needed, more detailed
investigation can be made by an engineer (Engineer’s Inspection) to bring
more experienced technical judgement to bear.
Priority ranking of need is based on three elements: the condition of a

component, a function of the area served, and a measure of the functional
importance of the component. The ranking method produces priorities
which are independent of each other, in other words, there is no direct
link to ensure that all components needed to produce an anticipated
improvement in performance are ranked together. The user must therefore
apply judgement to ensure that a practical programme of works is selected.
The economic return to less pressing works will diminish progressively.
Under the condition classification system adopted, classes Good and

Fair require only minor work, not urgent at present, which could be
addressed under a programme of minor maintenance. Works defined as
Poor or Very Poor require imminent actions, provided they satisfy criteria
for priority (Section 5.4). Depending on available funding, such works
would be suitable for inclusion under a rehabilitation programme or
selectively under emergency maintenance. However, the system of
prioritization does not demand that such a seemingly arbitrary division
between programmes be strictly followed. Works can be selected
according to available funding.
For large schemes, the Procedure can be used to confirm the nature and
approximate magnitude of problems. If an overall constraint is identified
which is principally technical in nature, and the economic returns to
rehabilitation appear broadly favourable, the Procedure may be applied
further to identify particular elements of the scheme which constrain
performance. Priority of need can be established, and selected works
included in a programme of rehabilitation.
For sector programmes, less detailed information on individual schemes

will probably be available. Preliminary identification of schemes with the
more pressing problems could be made on the basis of confirmed

information on scheme output and irrigated area. The Procedure would
serve initially to identify whether physical rehabilitation were the
appropriate response. The preliminary economic case for rehabilitation
could be based on standardized development costs per hectare (Section
2.2). After preliminary selection of schemes, the Procedure can be used to
identify essential works within individual schemes so that a detailed
economic analysis can be made.
By adopting a selective procedure, under which items of work are

chosen according to their effect on system performance, the unit costs of
rehabilitation might in many cases be reduced without jeopardizing the
integrity of systems. The returns to investment by both funding agency and
Government would be higher, making scarce local capital available for
alternative uses. Governments must, however, commit themselves to
effective programmes of maintenance to avoid unchecked deterioration of
currently satisfactory elements.
Performance of Schemes
INDICATORS-GENERAL
The costs of a rehabilitation project must be justified either by
increasing output by expanding the cultivated area, or by raising yield on
the existing command area. In some circumstances, rehabilitation will be
necessary to safeguard current levels of output. Irrigated area, yield and
cropping intensity are widely seen as primary measures of system
performance. Systems may be identified for rehabilitation if the indicators
are demonstrably lower than regional /country norms for the crop, soil,
and climate. (Section 2.2)
However, outline data on yield and irrigated area do not provide a firm
basis for detecting whether rehabilitation is required. High crop yields and
areal coverage indicate that the system, including its hydraulic aspects
(Section 2.3), is performing satisfactorily. Lower values do not necessarily
indicate that the hydraulic performance is unsatisfactory and that the
infrastructure therefore needs to be restored. Many other factors may
reduce yield and irrigated area, including, for example: a reduction in the
water supply at source ; crop losses due to pests and diseases; diminished
soil fertility; unseasonable weather conditions; unfavourable crop prices;
alternative uses of the land; shortage of labour.
There are other disadvantages to the use of yield and irrigated area as
primary parameters of performance. Recorded data are frequently of
dubious accuracy. In the case of crop yield, uncertainties are due partly to
inaccuracies inherent in the methods used (crop cutting or recall), and
partly owing to the use of limited sample sets to produce average values for
quite large areas. Variations between samples taken within selected areas
may well exceed differences in mean yield between different areas. The
Ministry of Agriculture, which is normally responsible for determining crop
yields, probably takes samples according to criteria which are unrelated to
the water supply system. It is therefore difficult to make meaningful
correlations between water supply and yield within localized areas.
Reliable figures on cropped area are notoriously difficult to obtain.

Quoted areas are often the nominal commands and therefore show no
variation between years. Lands which theoretically lie outside the project
may benefit from the project water supply, whilst areas within the project,
particularly in the tail regions, may be inadequately served. In such
circumstances farmers may draw water from adjacent systems under
informal or semi-formal arrangements.
Notwithstanding the difficulties in obtaining accurate information on

output, the feasibility or otherwise of rehabilitation will inevitably be
judged on that basis. Supplementary investigations will therefore probably
be required at the identification stage to confirm the output and for
cropped area, determine the causes of unsatisfactory production, and
locate disadvantaged areas.
NATIONAL PERFORMANCE NORMS

Schemes are commonly selected for rehabilitation on the basis that they
do not match up to national performance norms which have become
established over time. Examples of such norms are :
Aspect Norm
Agricultural
Yield Crop(s) output per ha.

Areal coverage Actual command compared with design command
Cropping intensity Annual total cropped area compared with design command
Hydraulic
System efficiency Overall water use efficiency
Application efficiency Farmers’ water use efficiency

System level releases Area irrigated per unit of water, or discharge per unit area
System level seasonal releases Average depth of water supplied at the
headworks per unit of land
Canal seepage Volume lost in seepage per specified wetted surface area
Tubewell coverage Area served per installation
Economic
Development cost Cost per hectare
Since climate, soils, crop variety and topography can vary widely,
even within a region, it is necessary to know the range of conditions for
which the national norms were developed, to verify that they are
relevant to any individual scheme. In other conditions, the target values
of the various parameters may either be unattainable or, on occasions,
may be unduly conservative.
National figures for the development costs per unit of land will
normally provide a benchmark against which to compare potential benefits
from proposed projects.
WATER SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND HYDRAULIC INDICATORS
General
A hydraulic system should be able to allocate available supply
equitably against demand. In practice, operators and farmers may be
accustomed to using the system in ways which lead to uneven distribution
or accelerated deterioration. Rehabilitation of the system may be the
appropriate response if there are clear physical constraints, but many
factors affect the balance between supply and demand. A formal
framework can help the assessor to determine the primary causes for
observed effects within the limited time available for an investigation. As
an example of the possible complexity of the problem, a variety of
possible causes for an apparent water shortage in parts of the scheme are
indicated in Section 2.3.2. In some circumstances, the nature of the
problem may appear clear. For example, tail end canals may become so
weed - grown and silted up that flow clearly cannot pass. The underlying
causes might be less clear: shortage of water at the headworks, inflow of
sediment due to catchment development, “theft” of water by upstream
farmers and unsuitable operation, amongst other conditions, might all lead
to the observed effects. It might well be necessary to rehabilitate the
system, but without other measures the benefits would prove short-lived.
In arid regions, variations in temperatures between years will affect

demand to some extent. More importantly, for run-of-river systems,
considerable variations in supply are likely. In semi-arid and humid areas,
where irrigation is designed to supplement rainfall in one or more seasons,
both seasonal demand and supply may vary considerably between years.
Irrigation systems are usually designed to assure adequate supply in

80% of years. Thus, over a long period of operations, some degree of
shortage could be expected on average once every 5 years, a very
approximate estimate, particularly because the climate in many regions
appears to be changing. Since the functioning of the system at any time is
affected by climate, judgements about relative scarcity of supply and crop
output must obviously be set in the context of recent events.
Field investigations are unlikely to be timed for a period when the

system is under stress. It is therefore useful to establish in advance whether
the conditions found in the field are broadly typical of longer term
performance. At the least, climatic records will serve to establish whether
the season to date is “normal”, or significantly wetter or drier than average.
Similar procedures will categorize immediately preceeding years/seasons.
Supply and Demand

Overall patterns of supply may be determined from the average depth
of water released at headworks level (Section 3.3 shows an example). The
volumetric sum of discharges over time divided by the cropped area yields
a duty which may be compared with seasonal norms.
A large number of possible alternative factors may affect supply and

demand (see Figure 2).
Excess Releases
If the supply at the head of the system consistently exceeds design
values or regional norms over a number of seasons, it will be necessary to
establish which of the following factors could be responsible:
1 The actual irrigated area is greater than reported. “Unofficial” areas may
be drawing water from the scheme. It may be realistic to accept the de
facto situation, modifying infrastructure and system operations as
necessary.
2 High water use rates owing to poor field management, or light soils.
3 High losses in the conveyance system owing to poor condition of the

channel and embankments (linings) or optimistic design assumptions
about losses.
4 Poor operational control, water may be lost to drains.
Cause 1) may call for remodelling (modernization). Rehabilitation could

address cause 3), and possibly partially improve 4). Problem 2 would
require separate, or complementary, solutions.
Reduced Releases
If the releases are apparently low, some or all of the command area
may be under-supplied owing to :
5 Insufficient supply at the head of the scheme due to deterioration of the

catchment, changing climate, increased upstream abstraction, changing
river morphology
6 Poor condition of the headworks structures, blockage or deterioration.
7 Poor control due to inadequate operational procedures, shortage of staff

or defective structures.
8 Inadequate conveyance capacity in parts of the canal network due to

design/construction faults or progressive deterioration.
9 The cropped area is less than planned (see below).
Rehabilitation could address problems 6), 8), and possibly 7). Other
measures would be needed to address the other problems.
Reduced Cropped Area

The cropped area may be less than planned owing to :
5 - 8 above:
9 Land degradation, flooding and salinity.
10 Land out of command.
11 Change in land use caused by poor returns to farming or encroachment

by housing/small industry.
In many projects, information on flows will be limited to headworks gate

operations, from which discharges and irrigated depths may be deduced. On
larger schemes, similar information for key locations further down the network
may be routinely kept, but probably not analyzed. Potentially, such processed
information should help in determining whether sub- areas of a scheme
receive an adequate and equitable supply when required (Section 2.3.3).
External constraints on the water supply clearly need to be detected at

the earliest stages of project appraisal.
The technical justification for rehabilitation is an improvement in the

performance of components of a system. The point is emphasized because
systems may appear superficially run-down and yet may be capable of
operating adequately. In older systems, built-in margins of capacity may
have developed over the years. Channels may be consistently run above
design FSL without obviously jeopardising structural integrity; maintenance
over many years may have considerably increased the original section size;
standard structures may have spare hydraulic capacity.
The underlying causes for lack of hydraulic capacity at any point in the
system may not be obvious. Channel backwater effects, particularly on very
flat lands, can extend for many kilometres upstream of the controlling point or
reach. (see Section 4.3). Deposition of sediment and weedgrowth occur at
points in the scheme where the velocity decreases below some threshold level.
The effects will therefore be unevenly spread throughout affected systems. It
may be possible to achieve marked improvement in conveyance upstream by
detecting and removing a choked section, reach or structure with relatively
limited works, rather than completely reforming the entire network of
channels. Experience is needed to identify such constraints. Section 4.3 and
Appendix 6 discuss ways of detecting problems. The standard procedure for
assessing the conditions of reaches (Sections 5.2, 5.3) depends on observations

of the channel cross sectional area and adequacy of the water supply.
Hydraulic Indicators
Conventional measures of hydraulic performance, such as efficiency, only
provide a partial indication of the way the water supply system is performing,
and provide no guidance as to the causes for a reduced level of performance.
Efficiency is conventionally defined as the ratio between theoretical crop
needs and the water supply at some level of the system. At times of water
shortage, the efficiency parameter cannot indicate the extent to which the
supply meets crop needs. In cases of extreme shortage, the system efficiency
could apparently exceed 100%, whilst the effects on the crop would be
disastrous. Rehabilitation will probably be called for when greater or lesser
parts of the system are suffering water shortage, so efficiency alone will not
sufficiently describe hydraulic performance. On many schemes, the efficiency
may appear low (high unit water use). The principal reason is not necessarily
the condition of the water control and distribution system but may be poor
distribution of water by staff and/or farmers. On the other hand, farmers may
actually increase overall efficiency by pumping water from drains. If properly
interpreted, efficiency remains a useful measure of performance which is
universally recognized by irrigation engineers.
Adequacy
There are other measures of a system’s ability to deliver water. Most
have limited relevance to investigations for rehabilitation where there are
likely to be very few data. The most relevant seem to be indicators of
supply adequacy, either Relative Water Supply (RWS) or that due to
Molden and Gates (1990), shown below:
Supply
Sp =
Demand
(d+ER)
=
Dreq 1
where d = supply depth at given level of system

ER = effective rainfall
Dreq = water requirements at given level of system
Sp = supply indicator
1: Dreq allows for inevitable losses between given level and crop
A value of Sp =1 indicates that crop water needs have just been met, in
other words, the supply is just adequate. It is most useful to calculate the
adequacy indicator at intervals less than a season to identify the scale of
inevitable variations, particularly around the time of maximum demand.
Oversupply at one period of the season (Sp> 1) will not compensate for
shortage at other stages (Sp<1). If Sp is limited to unity, periods of excess
supply will be discounted.
Equity
If data on supply at lower levels of the system are available, a number
of alternative indicators can be used to determine equity between areas.
For simplicity, the coefficient of variation of the supply may be used:
Cv = SD/Mean
where W = range of values (largest-smallest value)

= mean value
n = number of points
σ = standard deviation (SD)
Cv will be zero for perfect equity. A value of 1 will indicate serious

inequity. Equity may be judged against the ranges for Cv shown below:
Good Reasonable Poor
0.1< 0.1- 0.25 > 0.25
2: Effective rainfall determined by a standard method, such as USDA

PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF SCHEMES

Criteria adopted in Indonesia for initial identification of schemes to be
rehabilitated vary slightly between programmes, but generally include
items below:
• Schemes exceed a defined minimum irrigated area, (varies between programmes).

• Performance, judged by the following aspects can be improved :
• cropping intensity
• cropped area
• crop yield
• Schemes located in areas designated for irrigated agriculture.
• Water resources are adequate.
• Schemes are economically viable with expected ERR of at least 10% (12%).
• Maps and background data are available.
• Access is good.
• Farmers and water user associations favour the project.
So-called Agro-Institutional Profiles are required for some programmes.
Budgetary norms will limit the scale of the work which may be
undertaken.
Under externally-funded rehabilitation programmes in Indonesia, $US

2,500 /ha ($3000/ha) was taken as the upper limit of expenditure in 1990.
(Cornish, 1994).
The present procedure is intended to complement existing methods of

initial screening by identifying schemes where rehabilitation may not
necessarily lead to the required production increases. The Checklist
(Section 4.1) and the Farmers Questionnaire (Section 4.2) should help to
identify the causes of under-performance without a heavy investment of
staff time.
TABLE 2 - Information for investigations
Data/Investigations Purpose Details
PRE-FEASIBILITY
Country norms Provide baseline comparison for individual projects Crop yield/ha (high/medium/low inputs)
Seasonal output by crop
Cropping intensity
Rehabilitation costs/ha
Climate Quantify average, dry and wet historic season 5 years minimum
to categorize current and past seasons • monthly rain totals
• monthly average evaporation
Nature and location of problems Identify principal constraints to performance Questionnaires included in Appendices 1 and 2
Irrigated area, by season Compare with designated area, also Agricultural department. 5 years’ minimum
Check on plan, and in field if possible
Terrain Identify on plan irrigated, deprived areas plus flooded regions and Outline scheme layout (s) with contours using
areas supplied from other sources information from interviews
Crop output/yield by season Compare with country norms (high/medium/low inputs) 5 years’ minimum official data.
• rates of input Check in the field for preceding season(s)
• soil types
Crop water requirements Compare with historic seasonal rain and headworks releases Penman monthly ETO
Headworks releases Compare with irrigated area and seasonal rains 5 years’ monthly records (if available)
Supply source discharges (if available) Determine whether records confirm questionnaire data 5 years
Discharge at problem sites (if available) Compare with headworks flows, rain and irrigated area monthly releases, or rapid field checks
Crop prices and farm budgets Determine incremental benefits in irrigated and areas Sector studies/feasibility reports
FEASIBILITY
Detailed condition of scheme Identify current condition and potential problems Details in Appendices 3 and 4
Discharges at selected sites (if required) Confirm nature and location of hydraulic constraints Measurements at structures or current metering
Prioritize works Identify most cost-effective works and establish ranking order Prioritize according to condition, commanded
area and importance
Topographic survey of selected components Quantify work for costing selected items Details vary according to circumstances
Identify benefits
Economic feasibility Standard methodologies

Background information
Table 2 shows the needs for information. The following paragraphs
provide information to supplement the table.
MAPPING
Maps at a scale of 1:5000 or 1:10000 will be needed. Project O & M
staff should indicate whether and where changes have been made to the
scheme, to cropped areas and to system layout since the maps were
prepared. The maps can be used to identify areas of poor supply, flooding,
and alternative sources of water. They may also be used to stratify the
scheme for the survey of farmers.
In Indonesia, the requirements are as follows:
Mapping :
• Contours at an interval of 0.5 or 1.0 m

• Villages
• Tertiary block areas
• Areas of irrigated, rainfed and non-agricultural land
• Roads including canal inspection roads
• Benchmarks with levels
• Raingauges and meteorological stations
• Main, secondary and tertiary canals
• Drainage canals
• Location of structures
• Reservoirs, rivers, streams
• Scale and north line
Schematics showing planned command areas at principal points in the

canal system may be available.
SECTOR AND PROJECT

Project reports, sector studies, and government records should provide
the following data:
FIGURE 3 - Irrigation supply and rainfall at Sapon headworks 1991-1993

Background Information
• Hydrometeorological
• rainfall
• evaporation/evapotranspiration
• dependable river flows
• historic floods (if available)
• Agronomic/soils
• soil types
• planned cropping patterns
• planned cropping intensities
• target yields
• Design service area
• Project economics
A minimum of 5, preferably 10 years, information on local rainfall will

allow expected mean monthly/seasonal rains to be calculated, as a basis
for comparing seasonal water releases and crop needs. Long-term
processed rainfall and evaporation data for local stations may be available
at national level.
River flow records (run-of-river systems) for a site close to the scheme
may not be available. Indications of the pattern of seasonal flows for recent
years may be derived from gauging stations elsewhere on the river.
ANALYSIS OF SCHEME OPERATIONS

Analysis of historic data on scheme operations can help to provide a
benchmark for comparing scheme performance with design or expected
performance. The scope and scale of analysis will depend upon the data
available and the time allowed to the investigating team. Particularly on
small schemes, data may be very limited. It is obviously necessary to have
a sufficiently long period of record to distinguish between short-term
variations and longer-term trends. Five years of data appear a realistic
minimum. Experience from work in Indonesia suggests that a rapid
analysis of headworks flows, in conjunction with knowledge of rainfall,
cropped areas and crop yield should provide a basic technical indicator of
overall functioning. The reasons for a given level of performance will
remain speculative without further investigation (Section 4).
Analyses of performance were carried out at three schemes in Indonesia

(Cornish, 1994 ). Figure 3 shows the supply at the headworks at Sapon
scheme, Indonesia, and the total rainfalls for each of three seasons over a
three year period. The recommended cropping pattern was: rice in MT1
and MT2 seasons, “palowija” cropping in MT3. The table below shows the
seasonal water use and effective rainfall compared with design irrigation
depth and the ten year mean effective rainfall.
Season Year Mean Expect/ Design

1991 1992 1993
ER ID ER ID ER ID ER ID 10 yr ID
mean ER
MT1 820 - 360 1550 750 1410 643 1480 670 1370
MT2 370 1050 450 750 390 800 403 867 380 960
MT3 10 1350 250 1050 20 800 93 1067 100 400
where ID = irrigation depth (mm)

ER= effective rain (mm)
No clear trend in seasonal water use is evident. Releases do not appear

to be well-correlated with rainfall, so there is scope for water saving with
better management. The irrigation releases for MT1 and MT2 appear close
to expected values. Those for MT3 are much higher than expected if the
recommended non-rice crops were grown. It appears clear that farmers
were growing rice over most of the scheme. The scheme was not being
considered for rehabilitation and the figures confirm that there are no
significant hydraulic constraints.
Information on flows at lower levels of the system is commonly not

available. Where data are available, it must be recognized that processing
and analysis will require substantial investment of time, without the
assurance that clear trends will be detectable. The process is unlikely to be
justified except for the largest schemes. In Indonesia, analysis of water use
at points further down the system showed no clear inequities of supply,
nor areas where water was obviously short. The conclusion confirmed field
investigations and discussions with operating staff.
Identifying Problems
CHECKLIST OF PERFORMANCE CONSTRAINTS
The checklist included in Appendix 1 lists issues which potentially
affect scheme performance. It should indicate, the need for further analysis
and specialist studies in e.g. hydrology, agriculture, management and
economics.
A question linked to each cause should identify its influence, if any, on

water supply, crop yield and/or cropped area. The aim is to ensure review
of information from a range of sources before conclusions are drawn.
The questions in the five parts of the checklist can serve as the basis for
unstructured interviews with operations staff. The data sheet attached to
the checklist can be used to record the comments of staff. Information
relating to each factor should be cross-checked wherever possible with
data from field inspections and surveys, with operations records, and with
interviews at field level.
Problems of water shortage are dealt with in Parts 2, 3, and 4 of the

checklist. Water shortage may be due to inadequate supply at the
headworks (Part 2) or to problems within the irrigation system. Within the
system, shortage may arise from operational problems (Part 3), from poor
condition of the infrastructure, (Part 4) or from interactions between the two.
Each factor in the list should be checked in one of three classes Major,
Minor or No significance, according to its effect on system performance.
To reduce subjectivity, the user should be guided by the following points:
Points to be considered in rating significance of a problem:
• How frequent is it and how long does it last ?

• What is the areal extent of the problem?
• How severe ?
• Will performance deteriorate further if action is not taken?
When interviewing operations staff, the locations, frequency, severity

and extent of any problem should be recorded. Area served by adjacent
projects or affected by poor supply, by flooding or lack of command can
be marked up on a map at the time of questioning to confirm statements.
Some questions ask about possible underlying causes. Relevant comments

can be included in the “Notes” section of the recording form.
Guidance in assigning responses or observations to the categories

“Major” and “Minor” is set out below:
Major significance - Farmers from around 15% of the command area report a
particular factor regularly limits crop yields or area in one
or more seasons per year.
AND/OR Operations staff, field inspection and/or operations records

indicate that the factor regularly causes under - supply,
reduction in yield or irrigated area on around 15% of the
command area.
Minor significance - Farmers in less than, say, 15% of the command area report
a particular factor regularly limits crop yield or area in one
or more seasons per year.
AND/OR Operations staff, field inspection and/or operations

records indicate that the factor causes under-supply,
reduction in yield or irrigated area on less than 15% of
the command area.
No significance - The factor does not appear to limit performance.
FARMER QUESTIONNAIRE
The survey of farmers need not be an onerous procedure requiring
experienced interviewers. It is aimed at, and should be limited to, the
overall purpose of the Procedure, which is to characterise scheme
performance, identify key constraints, and allow priorities to be
established.
The interviewer should have already completed the checklist, with

which farmers’ responses may be compared.
Stratification of the Scheme

Stratification here refers to the identification of sub-groups of farmers
within the scheme. The purpose is to define groups of farmers who may
hold differing views concerning the performance of the scheme and the
actions required to improve the irrigation service. A small number of
individuals will be selected from each location to provide information on

farming problems and on the performance of the scheme.
For the purposes of the guidelines it is important to acquire information

from different areas but it is not considered necessary to interview large
numbers of farmers to obtain statistically significant results. The sample
size will be determined by the time and resources available.
Stratification may be based on location relative to the canal(s), so as to

include head, middle and tail-end farmers. On certain schemes, other
criteria may modify the basic pattern:
Criteria to consider in identifying sub-groups of farmers:
• location relative to the head of the scheme or major canal

• topography - include low- lying and upland areas
• different farming systems
• size of holding or type of land tenure
• farmers’ income and status
• population density.
On large schemes each canal should be considered a separate sub-group.
As an example of sampling density, farmers were interviewed at 7

locations on a 2500 ha rice-growing scheme in Indonesia (Dolago, Central
Sulawesi). Conditions were relatively uniform across the command area.
Use of the Questionnaire

A questionnaire with notes, for use in the field, is given in Appendix 2.
The questionnaire can be used as the basis for a structured interview with
either a single farmer or a number who obtain their water from the same
source. When farmers are interviewed as a group, answers should be
cross-checked with different members of the group.
The questionnaire is relatively short and selective. It is designed to assist

in the diagnosis of a scheme rather than to provide a broad survey of the
socio-economic conditions of farmers. The information obtained by the
questionnaire should indicate the effects on farming of a range of factors
including water supply, flooding, and agricultural inputs.
Responses from the questionnaire may be checked by supplementary

questions, if the investigator possesses background knowledge derived
from the checklist and other sources. For example, Part 3 of the
questionnaire asks for information on yields in terms of “good”,”average”

or “poor” output. Appropriate values for each range should be known.
Guidelines for Interviewing Farmers

It is important that the interviewer understands the purpose of each
question. Questions are intended to find out why the farmer follows a
particular course of action or holds a particular view. A list of common
responses is provided. However, it is not exhaustive; alternative answers
may be recorded in the space provided.
It is essential that the interviewer does not deliberately lead the farmer
towards a common or “expected” reply. If a farmer gives an unusual or
unexpected reply it may be checked by phrasing the question differently.
The purpose of the interview is clearly to obtain the farmers’ views - not
those of the interviewer!
• Once a user is familiar with the format of the questionnaire it should require no
more than 15 to 20 minutes to interview a single farmer. If farmers are interviewed
together, the time required will be greater.
• Before using the questionnaire the interviewer should be familiar with the length
and timing of the cropping seasons and their local names, as most of the questions
refer to performance on a season - by -season basis.
• Interviews should be carried out at locations defined by logical stratification
of the scheme area.
• The interview should be conducted in an informal manner. Where possible, it is
preferable to approach and interview farmers in the field rather than rely on more
formal, pre-arranged meetings.
Notes for users are provided to clarify the issues involved in each part
of the questionnaire. Once the purpose of a question is understood, staff
who are familiar with local conditions and practices may wish to re-phrase
questions so that they relate more readily to farmers’ actual experience.
Thus, the material may be considered as a guide - indicating what issues
should be considered and providing a format for questions - rather than an
inflexible questionnaire.
HYDRAULIC MEASUREMENTS
Backwater
Canal reaches are designed to a uniform depth profile corresponding to
the design discharge using a Mannings (Strickler) friction coefficient
appropriate to conditions of good maintenance. Cross regulators may be
provided to ensure command over offtakes, particularly at lesser
discharges.
When the condition of a reach deteriorates owing to obstruction, the

deposit of sediment and/or the growth of weeds, its discharge and
sediment transport capacity decrease. System operators, under pressure to
maintain water supplies, will respond by allowing the full supply level
(FSL) to rise above design, thus infringing upon freeboard. The safety or
otherwise of such practice will depend on the duration and extent of
supercharging, the integrity of the canal banks and the maximum height of
FSL above ground.
The extent of the backwater arising from raised water level in one part
of the system will depend on the bedslope and the magnitude of the
surcharge. For example, a surcharge of 500mm in a canal falling at 1 in
10,000 will have an appreciable effect for some 6km upstream. As another
example, the water level in the parent canal may need to be raised, by
suitable operation of cross regulators or otherwise, if command is to be
retained over lower order canals in poor condition.
The nature and location of a constraint which causes upstream water

levels to rise may not be readily apparent, particularly in flat lands.
Alternative reasons could be:
• A general problem of sediment deposit/weed growth throughout most

of the system.
• Particular reaches where the local hydraulic regime encourages the
deposition of sediment and weed growth. The increased normal depth
will affect reaches upstream.
• A solid local constriction, occupying more than 33% or so of canal
cross section. The obstruction will act as a control and cause
supercrical flow immediately downstream.
• Blocked or partially blocked hydraulic structures.
Sediment and weeds are the most common constraints on channel

conveyance capacity, reducing the available waterway area and, in the
case of weeds, increasing surface roughness. As an example of the effects
on capacity of a medium sized trapezoidal channel; assuming no
infringement on freeboard:-
Reduction in Depth (%) Reduction in capacity (%)
30 35
Increased Mannings Roughness Reduction in capacity (%)
from n = 0.025 to 0.060 58
The cross sections of earth channels which have been operating for
some time will no longer appear prismatic. Surface unevenness within the
wetted perimeter of a section are not significant per se. Limited variation in
any individual cross sectional area from the design value (10-20%
variation) will also not have much effect on the water level since changes
in surface profiles occur gradually on typical bed slopes. Several cross
sections in sequence, at say 50m centres, all similarly differing from
design, will affect upstream levels. Normally a rise in water level would be
expected, but if the downstream channel had been overexcavated during
maintenance, the upstream water level could be drawn down.
Local stretches of bank instability may occur where the sideslopes are
too steep for the prevailing soil or the canal water level has been drawn
down too rapidly. Unless a substantial length is affected, say 50 meters, the
effects are likely to be restricted to local changes in water depth and
velocity and the section would not act as a control.
Solid local obstructions will also not materially affect upstream levels
until the waterway area is so restricted, say 33% of intended section, that
critical flow develops through the section. Earthen obstructions, unless
massive, are likely to be scoured out as critical flow approaches.
Field Investigations
Field investigations should assess both the structural integrity of system
components and their fitness to control and/or convey flows. Judgement
needs to be made about current performance and also the likely
performance under the maximum required flows. Though the design
discharge may in some circumstances be inappropriate, it represents a
baseline for comparisons.
Knowledge of canal discharge at the location of a possible constraint

will help to detect problems. However, system discharge records are
commonly limited to the headworks. It is unlikely that a programme of
flow measurements can be undertaken within the timescale of pre-
feasibility investigations. It is therefore important to draw heavily upon
local knowledge of system operations to identify problem locations.
Experienced operators will normally be aware of points in the network
which limit releases. At feasibility stage, targetted measurements using
standard procedures could be undertaken to answer specific questions

about the functioning of the system.
Rapid methods of flow measurement, for example float tracking, can be

used to supplement information from operators. They are simplest to
undertake in lined canals but can also provide indicative results in unlined
canals if the reaches are selected carefully. Reasonable results may be
obtained by:
• measuring for at least two minutes

• repeating measurements
• improving the estimate of mean velocity from the surface velocity
using a factor dependent on the depth of flow:
Average reach depth (m) Coefficient
0.3 0.66
0.6 0.68
0.9 0.70
1.2 0.72
1.5 0.74
1.8 0.76
2.7 0.77
3.6 0.78
4.6 0.79
> 6.0 0.80
From Discharge measurements Structures, USBR, 1975
Water level measurements at drops, weirs, flumes or gates can give an

accuracy better than 10%.
The discharge, depth and width of the channel at the estimated

discharge can be compared with design values at full discharge, and the
expected values at partial discharge. Cross regulators need to be opened
up, offtakes closed, and conditions allowed to stabilize before
investigating. In lined channels it is relatively easy to detect a backwater
problem by checking the depth along the reach. The depth will vary if the
flow is non - uniform. An engineers level can indicate the water surface
slope over a reach. If the slope differs radically from the design bed slope,
and the condition of the channel is reasonably similar along its length,
there is downstream influence, or conceivably, a discrepancy in
construction. The average water surface slope may also be calculated if a
level is not available, using Mannings equation with known discharge,
measured sections and assumed friction value.
It may be possible to detect backwater effects at cross regulators. Weirs

are designed to operate undrowned, with a minimum head difference of at
least 60mm, varying with circumstances. Downstream constraint on free
flow over the crest should be evident.
The effects of a rise in backwater on a gated cross regulator may be less

easy to detect. Levels throughout the scheme may have changed over the
course of time due to longer term siltation. The designs should indicate the
intended head difference across the structure. Operators should be able to
indicate progressive problems which force them to raise upstream water
levels to get the necessary discharge through the structure. The magnitude
of the discharge at given water levels can be checked in the field and
compared with operating rules, where they exist. However, it must be
borne in mind that existing structural calibrations may be considerably in
error. The effects of a backwater problem will vary with the system.
Locations at and below the constraint will suffer shortages, areas upstream
may receive excess water owing to increased head at offtakes. Overall,
equity of supply will suffer.
Once the origin of a problem is located, decisions may be made as to

whether the entire system needs major cleaning/reexcavation or whether
localized work will materially improve performance. Experienced judgement
and information from operations staff will be needed to estimate the rate at
which the problem has developed and the rate at which it could reoccur, if
rectified. Recent surveys for maintenance desilting may be available.
Sediment problems may require specialist expertise. Apart from the

regime designs of the Indian sub-continent, most canal systems were not
designed specifically to transport sediment: designers try to ensure a
minimum velocity under design conditions.
Sediment excluders/ejectors/extractors may be included at the head of a

system drawing from sediment-laden rivers, in an attempt to eliminate the
problem. However, fluvial, hydraulic and sediment regimes may have
changed radically since scheme implementation, owing to upstream
developments, catchment deterioration and climate change. Sediment may
also be entering the system below the headworks from subsidiary water
sources and from bank erosion. The rate of sediment deposition at any
location in the system depends on the suspended sediment size,
concentration, settling velocity and the local hydraulic conditions.
Improvements resulting from major channel reshaping programmes can be
very short-lived if the supply of sediment is not cut off. Delay in taking
necessary action can also accelerate the rate of deposition as discharges are
progressively reduced.
In large or complex systems with many branches it may not be apparent

from field investigations where the principal constraints lie. In these
circumstances, properly calibrated hydraulic models can assist both in
problem identification and selection of improvements. A model was
constructed for one of the schemes in Indonesia to determine whether there
were constraints to conveyance of the design discharges. Appendix 6
discusses the experience gained and the potential of modelling.
Assessing the
Condition of Infrastructure
GENERAL
The US Corp of Army Engineers, under the Repair, Evaluation,
Maintenance and Rehabilitation project (REMR), has developed a number
of function-based condition indexing procedures to determine the
condition of large, multi-function, multi-element structures, (Andersen and
Torrey, 1995; Bullock, 1989).
Condition assessment is used extensively in the roads sector to

determine the condition of the pavement and ancillary assets over
extensive networks. Condition scoring is based on physical measurements
of surface and structural deterioration and ride quality, often using
sophisticated measurement equipment, (Haas, Cheetham, & Karan 1982;
Snaith, 1990).
Surface irrigation schemes typically include a large number of relatively

low cost assets, of several different types and functions, spread over a large
area. Some irrigation and navigation canal managements have developed
condition-indexing procedures. They tend not to relate condition to
functioning and may rely on subjective ranking . (Ferguson, 1993;
Hogwood, 1995)
The condition-indexing system used in the present Procedure, uses

several of the concepts included in the REMR research program. The fitness
of an asset to perform its function is assessed by field inspection. However,
the assessment method has been adapted for use by relatively unskilled
staff (overseers). Since some problems require experienced engineering
judgement, a two-stage procedure has been adopted. In the first stage,
condition is assessed by relatively unskilled staff using standard forms.
(Overseers Inspection). Components which are rated Poor or Very Poor
may require a second-stage investigation by engineering staff to confirm
condition, identify underlying causes, anticipate progression and define
the action to be taken (Engineers Inspection).
Structures of principal importance such as diversion weirs, dams and

impounding embankments require formal inspections by experienced
engineers. Standard engineering inspection proformas have not been
included in the Procedure, but could be prepared by the user, if required.
OVERSEER’S INSPECTION
This section describes procedures for determining the condition of
infrastructure, condition being judged in terms of hydraulic effectiveness
and structural integrity. The final output of the Procedure defines priorities
for work. Selected items can be detailed and costed. The method lends
itself for use with a computerised asset management system.
The principal elements of an asset are assessed using a standard

questionnaire requiring a YES or NO response to each question. The
questions are all formulated such that a YES response indicates a defect, a
NO response implies no defect. The overseer is not required to score any
of his responses in the field. However, to help subsequent analysis to put
priorities on works, fixed scores (Appendix 4) have been assigned to any
“Yes” response, while “No” responses all score 100. The condition index
(CI) is the score associated with the element in worst condition.
The CI is combined with measures of the percentage command area

served and the importance of the asset type, to arrive at an indicator of
priority for improvement (Section 5.4). It is a measure of the benefits which
would be foregone if the asset were not improved. Priority rehabilitation
needs can be rough-costed using averaged repair/renewal costs for assets
of that type.
For convenience, structures have been considered to fall into the

following types:
Basic structure types for condition assessment:
• Intake • Syphon
• Gated cross regulator/check • Flow measurement structure
• Gated offtake/ Head regulator • Canal reach
• Drop/chute • Drain
• Cross drainage culvert • Inspection road
• Aqueduct/flume • Side weir/escape
It is also clearly essential to regularly inspect structures such as

diversion weirs, barrages and embankment dams. However, it is felt that
inspections of such structures require experienced engineering judgement
based on an Engineer’s inspection (see 5.3).
An asset may fail to perform its intended hydraulic functions whilst still
structurally sound. It may also fail structurally, with some associated
hazard. The scoring is intended to reflect the fitness of the asset for its
function.
The assessment scores were developed as set out in the box below:
Derivation of scores:
• The key function, hydraulic or/and structural, of each type of asset was identified -
in most cases a single function predominates.
• The principal elements of each type of asset were defined.
• Questions relating to the expected modes of deterioration of each element
were formulated.
• The effect of deterioration of each element on overall effectiveness was judged.
The allotted score represents remaining percentage effectiveness.
The standardized questions for each type of asset are included in

Appendix 3A. Appendix 4 contains the scores assigned to each question,
representing the element’s hydraulic functioning or structural integrity.
The table below shows how the values for CI correspond to broad
descriptions of condition.
Condition Index Status
100 - 81 Good - A YES response returned for a question (s) related to

a minor fault. No significant structural deterioration or loss
of hydraulic function.
70 - 80 Fair - indicates partial loss of function and/or some risk to

the integrity of the structure. Action not immediately urgent.
51 - 69 Poor - A serious loss of function and/or potentially serious

threat to structural integrity. Action needs to be taken to
prevent progressive failure.
< 50 Very poor - Effective failure.
A general question “Does the overall condition concern you?” is

included on all assessment forms. It is intended to allow an overseer to
highlight a concern which may not be explicitly covered in the YES/NO
question format. It allows for the following situations:
“Overall concern”
• Where the standard assessment questions do not adequately describe deterioration.

• Where an asset is apparently in good condition but it is failing to function as required.
• Where it is apparent that deterioration is in initial stages but may progress
rapidly to failure.
The response to the question is not scored.
ENGINEER’S INSPECTION
An Engineer’s inspection should be undertaken if the overseer responds
positively to the question “Does the overall condition concern you?” or
where the engineer believes there is a problem.
Engineer’s Inspection:
• To confirm the overseer’s assessment .

• To identify underlying causes of observed deterioration.
• To estimate progression of actual or potential problems
• To define and plan necessary rehabilitation actions.
• To define requirements for site surveys/investigations.
The inspection should result in an overall classification based on the

condition of the worst element.
Standard reporting forms for canal reaches and hydraulic structures,

with guidance notes, are included in Annex 3B.
Inspection forms specific to particular structures, such as barrages,

diversion weirs and dams, incorporating questions designed to
determine the fitness of elements for their function, can be drawn up by
individual users.
SELECTING PRIORITIES
Once an inventory of asset condition is prepared, the priority of works
is based on the benefit actually, or potentially, foregone. The Priority Index
takes account of:
Parameters included in the Index:
• Asset condition, as calculated from the overseer’s report.

• A measure of the area served by the asset relative to the total area.
• An indicator reflecting the strategic importance of the asset.
Each asset type is given a strategic importance on a scale of 1 to 4, see

table below. The score is intended to reflect the importance of its function,
hazard in the event of failure, and relative cost of rebuilding. Appendix 5
contains more details.
Score= 1 Score= 2 Score= 3 Score= 4
Measurement Canal reach Cross drainage culvert Diversion weir*

structure Drain Aqueduct Embankment dam*
Head regulator/ Syphon Barrage*
gated offtake Intake works
Cross regulator
Drop/chute
Inspection road
Escape
Bridge
The Priority Index is calculated from the following formula:
Priority Index = (100-CI) x √(a/A) x Is 3
Where: CI= Condition Index

a= The area served by, or dependent on, the asset**
A= Command area of the scheme
Is= Importance score
Calculation of the Priority Index to produce a ranking of works

according to need is most easily done on a customised spreadsheet or an
asset management program such as MARLIN (Maintenance and
Rehabilitation of Irrigation Networks), currently being developed at
Wallingford.
An example showing how the priority system applies to a number of

assets is shown in Table 3 following.
3: For rice, seepage and percolation term to be included in the denominator

*: For use with results of Engineer’s Inspection (see Section 5.3).
**. Structures such as bridges, inspection roads, escapes, etc are assigned a service area equal
to that of the canal reach on which they occur.
TABLE 3 - Example of Priority Ranking

Scheme area = 1500 ha
Asset Area served (ha) Importance1 Condition Score2 Priority Index3
Main canal 1500 2 75 (fair) 50

2+500 - 3+420
Sec. Canal 1. 380 2 40 (v. poor) 60

3+000 - 4+000
Sec. Canal 2. 435 2 55 (poor) 48

0+000 - 0+850
MC drain culvert 1220 3 60 (poor) 108

8+430
DC drop 185 2 75 (poor) 17

2+690
1 Importance: See Section 5.4 and Appendix 5

2 Condition Score: Determined by most serious defect recorded
by overseer. See scores in Appendix 4
3 Priority Index: = (100 - Cond. Score) x √a/A x Importance
Assets ranked according to Priority index

Priority index
1. MC drain culvert 8+430 108

2. Sec canal 1. 3+000 - 4+000 60
3. Main canal 2+500 - 3+420 50
4. Sec. Canal 2. 0+000 - 0+850 48
5. DC drop 2+690 17
The formulation of equation (3) is empirical. The rankings derived from

the equation have been checked against expert opinion to ensure that the
method produces valid results. The square root function of area is intended
to give greater relative weight to assets located towards the tail of main
canals, which would otherwise be down-rated relative to assets on large
secondary systems (The proportion of total area commanded by any asset
is dependent on the level of branching within the canal system. In most
systems only a small number of assets will serve more than 20 - 25% of
the total command area. Many assets will serve less than 15%).
The resulting ranking order should be regarded as a guide. First hand

knowledge of the system may lead to reordering of the priority accorded
certain works. In particular, it should be noted that the method produces
priorities which are independent of each other. In other words, a need is
identified for work on a particular component. In practice, certain groups
of items will need to be improved at the same time in order to achieve
overall benefit. For example, there is no point in improving downstream
works to pass the design discharge if there is an upstream constraint.
In particular desilting works should be undertaken from the downstream

end of the system working upstream. If the head end of a system is desilted
first, sediment will merely resettle locally since the discharge capacity of
downstream reaches remains unchanged. Under the method of ranking,
upstream works tend to receive a higher priority, in other circumstances
there may be reasons why certain items need to receive a higher priority
than the ranking list would indicate. So the planner should ensure that he
is guided by the above example when selecting programmes of works.
In particular, the use of area served as a proxy for the area

disadvantaged, and hence the economic loss, is simplistic for problems
connected with backwater. For example, a silted reach or minor could
raise upstream water levels, endanger banks and promote inequality of
supply throughout the system. Areas upstream might receive an increased
supply owing to greater head at the offtakes. Unless waterlogging resulted,
economic disadvantage would result predominantly, but not totally, in the
downstream area.
Table 3 shows an example of the ranking procedure applied to a

number of assets.
Acknowledgements
The contributions and help of DGWRD staff in Jakarta, particularly Irs.
Napitupulu and Tampubolan were essential to the project, and are
acknowledged with thanks.
Particular thanks go to the staff based in Yogyakarta office under Pak

Soedaryanto, and in Palu under Pak Soekrasno.
The assistance of Mr T. Forster in modelling hydraulic systems is

acknowledged.
The support of the British Overseas Development Administration under
its TDR research programme was fundamental to the work.
References
Andersen G. R. & Torrey V. H.
1995. Function based condition indexing for embankment dams.
Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol 121 8 p 579-588
Brabben T. and Bolton P.

1988. Aquatic Weed Problems in Irrigation Systems.
16th Meeting Weed Science Soc, Nigeria.
Bullock R. E.
1989. A rating system for the concrete in navigation lock monoliths.
Tech Report REMR -OM--4 US Army Engr Waterways Experiment
Station Vicksberg, USA.
Cornish G.
1994. Methodology to Facilitate Cost-Effective Rehabilitation and
Modernisation of Irrigation Schemes. Interim Report OD/TN 62,
HR Wallingford.
Davies A.
1993. An asset management program for irrigation agencies in
Indonesia. Unpublished MSc Thesis. Institute of Irrigation Studies,
University of Southampton. .
Fasso C.A.
1987. General Reporter, Question 40: ICID 13th Congress,
Casablanca, 1987.
Ferguson G.
1993. Fixed Civil Assets (Irrigation Infrastructure) Inspection Guidelines.
Department of Water Resources, Murrumbidgee Region, Leeton NSW,
Australia.
Francis M.
1988. Minor Canal Management in the Gezira Scheme, Sudan.
HR Wallingford, Report OD 106
Goldsmith H. and Makin I.

1989. Canal lining: from the laboratory to the field and back Irrigation.
Irrigation Theory and Practice. Proceedings 1989, Southampton
University, UK.
Haas R. Cheetham A. and Karan M.A.

1982. A method for integrated priority programming and budget level
analysis for pavement maintenance and rehabilitation.
5th Int. Conference on Structural Design of Asphalt Pavements.
Hogwood J.
1995. A brief explanation of the Asset Management System.
British Waterways, Midlands and South West Region, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, UK.
Molden D.J. and Gates T.L.

1990. Performance measures for evaluation of irrigation - water-delivery
systems. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.
Vol 116 6 804-823.
Mott MacDonald International Ltd.

1993. Programming and Monitoring System (PMS). Design Report.
Internal document under Irrigation O & M and Turnover Component,
Irrigation Subsector Project. DGWRD, Ministry of Public Works,
Gov. of Indonesia.
1990. Guideline for monitoring and Evaluation of Advanced
Operation Units. Central Java Irrigation Project.
Murray-Rust D. H. .
1985. Managing the Rehabilitation Process In Proceedings from the
workshop on selected irrigation management issues. 15-19 July 1985,
Digana Village, Sri Lanka. IIMI Research Paper No.2
Smailes E. L.
1996. Hydraulic Effects of Vegetation Management. HR Wallingford,
Report TR 3
Snaith M. S.
1990. Efficient Management of the Road Infrastructure: The tasks required
and the techniques available. 6th Conference, Road Engineering
Association of Asia and Australia. March, 1990, Kuala Lumpur.
USBR.
1975. Water Measurement Manual. 2nd edition Gov. Printing Office.
Washington DC. USA.
Ven Te Chow.
1959. Open Channel Hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, Tokyo.
Welch J. W. 1995.
Asset management procedures for irrigation scheme Unpublished MSc
Thesis. Institute of Irrigation Studies, University of Southampton, UK.
APPENDIX 1:
Checklist of possible
performance constraints
PART 1 AGRICULTURAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS
PART 2 SYSTEM DESIGN AND OPERATION
PART 3 DETERIORATION OF SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE
PART 4 LAND DEGRADATION
PART 5 CONSISTENT UNDER-SUPPLY AT THE HEADWORKS

User note Record additional information relating to any question
on separate pages. Refer to this in the “Notes” section
of the summary table.
PART 1 - AGRICULTURAL AND ECONOMIC FACTORS

Information will be obtained using the farmer questionnaire Appendix 2,
and from interviews with operations staff and agricultural extension staff.
Production Inputs - price/availability (Linked to 1.7)

Does the price or availability of agricultural inputs such as:
• fertilizer
• pesticides
• improved seed varieties
• machinery or draught animals
limit their use such that yields are depressed or land is left fallow?
Inputs - water supply

Do farmers report that the under-supply of irrigation water is a
constraint limiting their cropped area or yields in any season?
Labour - price/availability
Does the cost or availability of labour, at times of peak demand:
• limit the area that farmers cultivate in any season, or

• lead to reduced yields due to inadequate crop husbandry practices
such as delayed or limited weed or pest control?
Future input supply

Is the supply of labour, machinery, water and/or other production inputs
sufficient to meet the requirements of any proposed changes in the
production system?
Crop pests
Do crop pests reduce crop yield in any of the cropping seasons?
Crop marketing (Linked to 1.8)

Have low crop prices, or the absence of an adequate marketing system,
caused farmers to reduce the land area that they cultivate, or change their
cropping pattern?
Price/availability of credit (Linked to 1.1)

Does the cost, or limited availability, of credit to purchase agricultural
inputs significantly restrict their use by farmers causing reduced crop yields?
Changes in land use (Linked to 1.2 and 1.3)

Have areas of land fallen out of production, or are there areas within the
command area that have not been developed? Is that land now used for rainfed
crop production, is it lying fallow or is it used for non-agricultural purposes
such as housing, etc.? Has the change in use come about mainly due to:
• Financial factors
• Failure to carry out land development (land clearance, drainage,
construction of tertiary/quaternary systems, etc.)
• Soils not suited to proposed crop types
• Inadequate/unreliable irrigation supply
Land out of command (Linked to Part 2.7)

Are there areas of land within the existing scheme area that are out of
command due to insufficient or poorly sited off-takes, poor canal
alignment, or the deterioration of infrastructure?
Existing organisations/Institutions
Do weaknesses in farmer organisations or other institutions result in
reductions in crop yields or cropped area?
Consultation with Farmers

Proposals for rehabilitation may include changes to existing water
allocation practices, either through physical re-modelling (re-alignment of
canals and/or drains, land consolidation, construction of new off-takes,
etc), or through the promotion of new farmer organisations. Have the
effects of such changes on existing water management practices been
discussed with the farmers who will be affected, or are procedures
established for such consultation to occur?
PART 2 - SYSTEM DESIGN AND OPERATION

Information will be obtained from discussions with operations staff,
from the observation of structures and water levels in the field, from
review of operations manuals, and review of original design criteria and
assumptions, where these are available.
To assess the impact of scheme operation on cropping intensity and/or

yields, and identify what variations exist between intended and actual
practice, the flow control methods and water delivery pattern for which the
scheme was originally design, must be defined.
Method of Flow Control

Different types of flow control structures may be used at different levels
of control within the distribution network. Note what structure types are
used in the canal distribution network:
Division/offtake structures Water Level Control

• Fixed overflow weir • No cross regulation
• Submerged orifice • Fixed cross regulation (weirs)
• Submerged orifice gated • Gated cross regulation
• Automated level control
(Record this information on additional pages.)
Operational practices
Note the design delivery pattern, guided by the following table. Record
specific details of intended operational practice where these are available.
At tertiary offtake In main distribution network
1. Continuous, proportional division 1. Continuous, fixed discharge.

(No adjustment) Rotation between canals when
supply « demand.
2. Continuous, variable discharge 2. Continuous but variable discharge.

(Control by irrigation agency) Rotation between canals when
supply « demand.
3. Rotational supply, fixed discharge 3. Intermittent throughout network or

(Control by irrigation agency) rotation between canals.
4. Semi on-demand 4. Continuous, variable discharge.

(Farmer requests to irrigation agency)
5. On-demand
(Farmer control)
Ask staff to describe actual operational practices. Consider:

• which structures are monitored and adjusted?
• are water levels maintained at design level?
• how frequently are settings changed?
• is rotational supply implemented?
Cross-check key points in discussions with farmers. Record the

information on additional pages.
Indicate whether current operating practices limit scheme output.

Consider:
a.Differences between design and actual water control practices. Are
structures being operated according to design?
b.Headworks and sediment exclusion - are sediment exclusion and/or

flushing structures operated effectively to minimise sediment entry?
c.Are canals frequently operated at low discharges causing problems of

ponding or sediment deposition?
d.Have any operational procedures led to damage of structures or canals?

For example, is canal freeboard regularly infringed at any location? Has
rapid canal drawdown caused slumping or damage to lining?
Design/operation compatibility
Where operational practice differs significantly from design,
rehabilitation planning must consider whether original structures, designed
for a method of flow control and water delivery which is no longer
implemented, should be restored or replaced with structures that allow a
different water allocation policy.
Staff numbers
Compare staff numbers with establishment figures. Are there sufficient
staff, with appropriate transport, to control structures and implement water
deliver schedules?
Staff grade Area/chainage served Target No. on Actual No. on
this system this system
Variations from design assumptions

Are any factors which differ significantly from original design
assumptions affecting operations? Such factors may already be noted in
other Parts of the checklist. Check the following factors:
• Irrigated area significantly different from design, (greater or less)

• Significant changes in crop calendar (note what changes)
• Changed river morphology
• Increased sediment load in supply and/or from other sources
• Reduced water supply (Part 5)
• Reduced annual rainfall within the scheme catchment
Inappropriate design
Are there areas of land within the scheme area that are out of command
or receive inadequate water due to insufficient or badly sited off-takes, or
poor canal alignment? Has incorrect or inappropriate design of any structure,
canal reach or drain resulted in insufficient conveyance capacity or the
failure of the structure to function as required? Check the following factors:
• Canal embankment slopes too steep

• Insufficient cross drainage
• Insufficient escape capacity
• High losses in distribution or field systems
PART 3 - DETERIORATION OF SYSTEM INFRASTRUCTURE

Detailed information on deterioration of infrastructure, and its likely
impact on hydraulic performance, will be obtained using the condition
assessment procedure. Early, discussions with operations staff can indicate
the location of problems arising from structural deterioration. Where
problems are due to faults in original design or construction record this in
Part 2.6. Information obtained in this way should be cross-checked through
the condition assessment procedure and localised studies of hydraulic
performance, where these are required.
Condition of assets
Does the condition of any component of the irrigation or drainage
networks restrict conveyance capacity, threaten structural stability or
otherwise lead to reduced water supply or flooding?
Consider each type of asset in turn, as listed on the checklist, to avoid

focusing only on the “worst cases”.
PART 4 - LAND DEGRADATION

Information will be obtained from the field, by use of the farmer
questionnaire, and in interviews with operations staff and agricultural
extension staff.
Use the separate data summary table to record information.
Surface flooding
Does surface flooding regularly affect any part of the command area
causing yields to be depressed or land to be left uncultivated?
Shallow groundwater table

Does a shallow groundwater table limit the type of crops cultivated or
lead to reduced yields or land left fallow in any season?
Soil Salinization
Is there a build-up of saline or alkali (sodium) salts in the surface soil
layers in any part of the command area leading to reduced yields or
deterioration of soil structure? Is the severity or areal extent of this problem
increasing over time?
Land fragmentation
Has the sub-division of farm plots resulted in significant loss of irrigable
land or reductions in field irrigation efficiencies or has it led to problems
for on-farm water management.
Erosion
Has land erosion within the scheme’s command area resulted in a loss
of irrigable land through deposition of sediment, gully formation or
extensive bank erosion?
Pollution
Have municipal or industrial pollutants caused land to go out of crop
production?
Land Degradation Summary Table
Nature of Area Influenced (ha) Underlying cause

Degradation Perm Wet Season Dry Season Other 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Surface flood
Shallow Groundwater
Salinization
Land fragmentation
Erosion
Pollution
Total Area
1. Inundation from other water body

2. Seasonal rise in groundwater
3. Inadequate/poorly maintained field drainage
4. Inadequate/poorly maintained main drains
5. Saline irrigation water
6. Shallow saline groundwater
7. Land inheritance customs
8. Highly erodible soil
9. Topography
10. Extensive bank erosion by canals/rivers
11. Urban/industrial waste
PART 5 - SUPPLY AT THE HEADWORKS

Information will be obtained from review and analysis of past
operations records, review of previous hydrological studies, including
original feasibility and design studies, analysis of meteorological records
and the observations of operations staff.
Variation from design discharge

Are actual irrigation releases at the headworks consistently above or
below the design value at times of peak requirement?
If flows are close to design values, record this on the summary table
and ignore the remainder of this part. Where peak flows do vary from
design values, complete all of this part.
Command area less than design

Is the actual irrigated area less than design? If so, is the reduction in
area due to:
• agricultural or economic factors, (see Part 1)
• water shortage due to system deterioration (see Part 3)
• land degradation (see Part 4)
• inadequate supply, (See questions 5.3 & 5.4)
Reduced conveyance capacity

Releases at the headworks may be reduced because of constraints
within the conveyance network. If operations staff are aware of limiting
points within the canal system note the location and nature of the
constraint in Part 3 of the checklist.
Deterioration of supply
Do records and/or staff experience show that in the past the supply was
reliable and sufficient but is now frequently insufficient? Where it is
possible, indicate the probable likely cause:
• Increased abstraction by other users - new irrigation schemes,

reservoirs, industrial demand, domestic supply, increases in
groundwater pumping, etc.
• Changes in land use in the catchment, and/or changes in rainfall

distribution.
• For a river supply. Has the sediment burden in the river increased,
therefore requiring more frequent closure of the intake? Does it affect
the reliability and adequacy of supply to the scheme?
• Is sediment or other debris blocking the intake structure?
• Changes in river morphology/plan form - aggradation, degradation,

channel movement.
Unrealistic design hydrology

Do records and/or staff experience indicate that ever since the scheme
was constructed, the water supply has been insufficient to meet demand in
one season or more each year? If not known, record “Cannot be
established”.
Record summary sheet of possible performance constraints
Significance
1. Agricultural & Economic Notes (Refer to any additional pages used)
Major Minor None
1.1 Production inputs - Price/availability
1.2 Water supply
1.3 Labour - Price/availability
1.4 Future inputs supply
1.5 Crop pests
1.6 Crop marketing
1.7 Credit - Price/availability
1.8 Changes in land use
1.9 Land out of command
1.10 Existing organisations/institutions
1.11 Consultation with farmers
Significance
2. System design and operation Notes (Refer to any additional pages used)
Major Minor None
2.1 Method of flow control
2.2 Design delivery pattern
2.3 Operational practices
2.4 Design/operation compatibility
2.5 Staff numbers
2.6 Variaton from design assumptions
2.7 Inappropriate design
Notes
Record summary sheet of possible performance constraints (cont'd)
Significance
3. Deterioration of system infrastructure Notes (Refer to any additional pages used)
Major Minor None
3.1 Condition of assets
Headworks & sediment exclusion
Primary canals
Secondary canals
Head regulators
Cross regulators
Off-takes
Distribution works below offtakes
Drains
Roads
Other structures
4. Land degradation Significance
Notes (Refer to any additional pages used)
(See separate summary matrix in checklist) Major Minor None
4.1 Surface flooding
4.2 Shallow groundwater table
4.3 Soil salinization
4.4 Land fragmentation
Significance
5. Supply at the headworks Notes (Refer to any additional pages used)
Major Minor None
5.1 Variation from design discharge
5.2 Command area less than design
5.3 Reduced conveyance capacity
5.4 Deterioration of supply
5.5 Unrealistic design hydology
Notes
APPENDIX 2:
Questionnaire for Farmers
GUIDANCE NOTES
General
The purpose of the questionnaire is to obtain information on the
“normal” or average conditions experienced by farmers in each season.
Farmers should therefore be encouraged to consider the situation over the
last three or four seasons rather than give a reply that only reflects their
most recent experience. It is important to be aware of any abnormal but
short lived circumstances which are influencing the current season, and
therefore farmers assessment of yield, water supply, or other factors.
Abnormally high or low rainfall will influence the current season and this
is reported in Part 4. Any other short-lived factors should be noted in the
section at the end of the questionnaire.
Location and Water source

This part records basic information that ensures that the responses can
be linked to an identified area of the scheme.
Where farmers are obtaining the major part of their water from
unauthorised off-takes or re-using drainage water there may be problems
with the present location of off-takes. Alternatively the development or
maintenance of farm channels below existing, authorised off-takes may
be inadequate.
Record in the “Notes” section observations on the use of different water

sources. Check if different sources are used in different seasons.
Cropping Intensity
This part determines if farmers regularly leave potentially irrigable land
uncultivated in one season or more in a year, or if there has been a
reduction in cropping intensity over time. The questions aim to identify the
reasons for land being left fallow or for the change from more to less
intensive production, i.e. why, in the past, more land was cultivated and/or
more crops were grown per year.
Question 2.1 concerns land which supports an irrigated crop at least

once per year but is regularly left idle in a second or third season. Unusual
circumstances which led a farmer to leave land fallow can be ignored - we
are concerned to identify locations where land is regularly, or routinely,
left idle. Question 2.2 examines whether the farmer’s current cropping
intensity - irrigated cropped area and number of crops per year - has been
unchanged over a long time or whether there has been a fall in cropping
intensity, with less land area or fewer crops per year being irrigated now
than in the past. The important aspect of 2.2 is to determine whether
conditions have remained stable over time or have deteriorated.
The farmer may report in question 2.1, that all of his currently irrigable
land is cropped in all seasons. Question 2.2 investigates whether in the
past he had more irrigable land which may now have changed in use and
is no longer irrigated. In this case we are interested to know what has led
to this change in land use. Where there has been a change in land use the
reason should be recorded in the “Notes” section.
Cropping Yields
The question should assess the farmer’s level of satisfaction with yield
compared to farmers on other parts of the same scheme. If farmers can
readily quantify their yield per unit area this may be recorded but
quantitative data is not essential. Where farmers report some level of
dissatisfaction with yield the cause of the low yield, as perceived by the
farmer, should be identified. Tick one or more of the check boxes to
indicate the cause of low yield, or where none of these factors apply, note
the cause under “other”.
Water Supply
Question 4.1 asks for the farmer’s evaluation of rainfall in the present
and previous seasons. Question 4.2 asks whether the farmer believes there
has been a trend for rainfall amounts to fall over the long term. Where
rainfall data are available farmers answers can be cross-checked with this.
In question 4.3 the farmer is asked whether he describes the irrigation

supply, at the offtake, in each season, as “good” or not. A good supply is one
which is reliable and provides adequate water for the full length of a season.
Where the farmer states that the irrigation supply is not good, confirm which
season is referred to and determine which of the following three descriptions
of poor supply lies closest to his or her assessment of the irrigation supply.
More than one of these descriptions may apply for any season:
• insufficient all through the season

• insufficient at times of peak demand (land preparation)
• erratic and unpredictable (unreliable)
If the farmer states that the water supply is not good, check to see if the
farmer answered that water supply limited yield in Part 3.1.
The second part of question 4.3 asks for the farmer’s view on the cause
of the poor irrigation supply. The farmer may only have a partial
knowledge of the condition of the conveyance and distribution canals and
of their operation. However, it is important to obtain the view of the farmer
which can subsequently be cross-checked in discussions with operations
staff, through review of operations records and through assessment of
infrastructure condition.
Where a farmer refers to a specific physical problem in the canal

system note what the problem is, as well as ticking the box for “The
condition of the main canal system”
Flooding
Where a farmer reports that flooding is a problem that prevents him
from planting or reduces crop yield determine how frequently the problem
occurs and the duration of the flooding, i.e. for how long, on average, the
land remained flooded.
Where a farmer reports that flooding causes him to leave land un-
planted in a particular season cross-check with the answer to question 2
concerning cropping intensity. Did he refer to flooding when asked if he
left land fallow in any season? If not, is this because flooding occurs only
occasionally? Record the frequency of damaging floods at 5.4.
Part 5.5 records the farmer’s view as to the cause of flooding. As with
Part 4, the farmer may not have sufficient knowledge of the scheme to
accurately identify the cause of flooding. Information given should be
cross-checked. It is possible that the farmer may identify a local constraint
which may otherwise be overlooked.
Water distribution and structures below the outlet

The purpose of the question is to identify if farmers believe that the
condition of canals and structures, at or below tertiary level, leads to a
reduction in yields or fallow areas. Where possible the question should be
put to several farmers within the block including those most distant from
the off-take. It may be necessary to record a summary of the views of
several farmers in answering this question.
Priorities for change

In the course of the interview with the farmer a large number of
potential and actual problems may have been mentioned or discussed in
detail. It is possible that a farmer may have stated that something is a
problem simply because it has been suggested to him. The purpose of this
part is to identify what farmers consider to be the most serious problem
that limits their crop production.
QUESTIONNAIRE: FARMERS’ VIEWS ON SYSTEM

CONSTRAINTS AND REHABILITATION NEEDS
Date: _____________ Interviewer: ________________________
Scheme Name: _____________________________________________
Type of interview:
Single farmer ¨ Farmer name:_______________________
Group of farmers ¨
Location and water source

Village name: ______________________________________________
Canal name: __________ Tertiary off-take name/s:______________
Most irrigation water is taken from:

Authorised off-take ¨
Unauthorised off-take ¨
Re-use from drains ¨
Wells ¨
Notes: ____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Cropping intesity
Do you regularly leave land un-planted in one season
or more per year?
Yes ¨ No ¨
If “Yes” , why do you not plant in those seasons?

Lack of water ¨
Land is flooded ¨
Poor supply of other inputs -
labour, seed, fertilizer, pesticides ¨
Prefer to spend time in other activities ¨
High risk of pest attack ¨
Other ___________________________________
Have you been able to irrigate more land or plant more

crops per year in the past?
Yes ¨ No ¨
If “Yes”, what has caused the change:

Lack of water ¨
Land is flooded ¨
Less land available (land use changed) ¨
Poor supply of other inputs - labour,
seed, fertilizer, pesticides ¨
No need/desire to work for
another crop ¨
Prefer to spend time in other activities ¨
Other __________________________________
Notes: ____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
CROPPING - YIELDS
Do farmers think their yields are normally:
Good Average Poor
First Season
(month of harvest_______________) ¨ ¨ ¨
Second Season
(month of harvest_______________) ¨ ¨ ¨
If yields are poor then what, in the farmers’ opinion, is the cause?
Water supply ¨
Seed type ¨
Time of planting ¨
Soil fertility ¨
Weeds ¨
Crop pests ¨
Drainage ¨
Other __________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Notes: ____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Water supply
Was/is the rainfall amount:
More than Average Less than
average average
Present season ¨ ¨ ¨
Last season ¨ ¨ ¨
Was the rainfall higher in the past?

Yes ¨ No ¨
Is the irrigation supply normally good,

i.e. enough water and a regular supply?
in First Season Yes ¨ No ¨
in Second Season Yes ¨ No ¨
If the supply is not good, do farmers describe the supply as:

First Season 2nd. Season
insufficient all through the season ¨ ¨
insufficient at times of peak
demand (land prep) ¨ ¨
erratic and unpredictable (unreliable) ¨ ¨
If the supply is not good then what, in the farmers’ opinion,

is the cause?
First Season 2nd. Season
Not enough water in the river
or reservoir ¨ ¨
Bad control/operation of the main
canal system ¨ ¨
Other farmers take too much water ¨ ¨
The condition of the main canal system ¨ ¨
Distribution/control of water below
the tertiary off-take ¨ ¨
Other _____________________________________________________
Notes: ____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Flooding
Does flooding around this area ever prevent planting or
cause damage to crops?
Yes ¨ No ¨
If “Yes”, then:
In which month or months is flooding a problem?

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
For how long is the land flooded?

__________________________________________________________
Does flooding prevent cropping or reduce yield:

Every year ¨
Most years ¨
Occasionally ¨
Farmers think the cause is:

blocked drains ¨
No drains ¨
Other ___________________________________
Notes: ____________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
On-farm structures and water distribution

Does the off-take from the main system, or the canal and
structures below it, cause problems of water supply for any
farmers in the block?
Yes ¨ No ¨
If yes, describe the problem __________________________________

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Priorities for change

What is the most serious problem that limits crop production in:
First Season? _______________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Second Season? ____________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
Notes
Note any unusual and short term constraints influencing production or
farmer perceptions at the time of carrying out the interview of farmers
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
APPENDIX 3A:
Condition assessment -
Overseer’s inspection
STRUCTURE TYPE: INTAKE (OR HEAD REGULATOR)
YES NO UNASSESSED
1. Are any of the gates missing? ¨ ¨ ■
2. Is it difficult to fully open or
close any of the gates? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Is any gate seriously corroded or rotting? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Are there serious cracks or movement in
any part of the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is any part of the structure blocked
by sediment? ¨ ¨ ¨
6. Is seepage occurring around the
structure? ¨ ¨ ¨
7. Is the d/s apron seriously damaged
or undercut? ¨ ¨ ¨
8. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s
gauge boards? ¨ ¨ ■
9. Does the overall condition concern you? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Missing Gate
Only answer YES if a gate has been removed from the structure. Where
a gate is broken but still present, answer NO to this question and YES to
question 2.
2. Gate operation
Answer YES when the condition of the lift mechanism, missing
components or other factors make it impossible to effectively operate a
gate. If a gate is missing, answer YES to question 1 and NO to this
question.
3. Gate Condition
Answer YES where corrosion or rotting has reduced the strength or
water tightness of any gate. Disregard minor patches of surface corrosion
or minor deterioration of any gate.
4. Cracks/damage and movement

Answer YES where cracks appear to be caused by differential movement
of the structure or overloading of the structure. Vertical, horizontal or
rotational movement may be visible. Disregard shallow, surface cracks or
minor damage that does not affect function.
5. Blockage
Answer YES where sediment accumulation is seriously reducing the
open area for water to pass through. Disregard blockage by floating
vegetation or other debris that could be quickly pulled away.
6. Seepage
Answer YES if there is washout of fine soil particles, very wet areas of
fill or other evidence of water flowing around the structure.
7. D/s Apron
Answer YES where the apron, or other bed protection, is breaking up or
unstable because of serious undercutting. Disregard minor surface abrasion
or bed/bank scour if this appears stable and does not threaten the stability
of the structure. Answer NOT KNOWN, if you cannot see the apron or
gain reliable information from the operator.
8. Gauge Boards
Answer NO when gauge boards have not been installed.
9. Overall condition
Answer YES, if:
• There is a serious fault or deterioration or failure to function that is

not covered by any other question.
OR
• Deterioration has begun and may progress rapidly causing important

loss of function or risk of structural failure before next inspection.
STRUCTURE TYPE: GATED CROSS REGULATOR

YES NO UNASSESSED
2. Is it difficult to fully open or close any gate? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Are there serious cracks or movement in
any part of the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is leakage occurring around the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
7. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s gauge
boards? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Missing Gate
question 2.
2. Gate operation
gate. If a gate is missing, answer YES to question 1 and NO to this
question.
3. Gate Condition

5. Leakage
Answer YES if you can see washout of fine soil particles, very wet areas
or other evidence of water flowing around the structure.
6. D/s Apron
or bed/bank scour if this is now stable and does not threaten the stability
of the structure. Answer UNASSESSED, if you cannot see the apron or gain
reliable information from the operator.
7. Gauge Boards
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: CANAL REACH

YES NO UNASSESSED
1. Is the canal partially blocked at any
location by illegal weirs or debris? ¨ ¨ ■
2. Is there serious siltation at any location? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Is there serious weed growth at
any location? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Do farmers and/or staff report
the canal capacity restricts water supply? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Where the reach is in fill, has the water
level been dangerously near the canal
top at any point? ¨ ¨ ■
6. Are there problems of serious bank
slippage or erosion? ¨ ¨ ■
7. If lined - Is there important damage
to lining? ¨ ¨ ■
8. Are there any unauthorised off-takes? ¨ ¨ ■
9. Is seepage a problem in the reach? ¨ ¨ ¨
Notes
1. Illegal weirs or debris
Answer YES where farmers have placed material in the reach to raise
the water level or where a land slip or accumulation of rubbish appears to
reduce the conveyance capacity of the reach.
2. Sediment
Disregard minor and localised accumulation of sediment which does
not reduce the conveyance capacity of the canal or cause a reduction in
the freeboard. If you are uncertain, answer YES.
3.Weed
Disregard small areas of weed which do not appear to restrict the
conveyance capacity of the canal or cause a reduction in the freeboard. If
you are uncertain, answer YES.
4. Conveyance capacity
Ask farmers or staff if they believe that water supply is limited because
of a problem in THIS reach. If so, answer YES.
5. Freeboard
Answer YES where: There is sometimes a risk of overtopping that might
result in washout of an embankment and serious structural damage.
Disregard minor low points where the canal is in cut.
OR,
The condition is not yet dangerous but deterioration of the canal

freeboard is continuing and may become dangerous before the next
inspection.
6. Bank slippage or erosion

Answer YES if slippage or erosion threatens to block the canal or, where
the canal is in fill, weaken the embankment. Disregard minor erosion of
the channel section unless it threatens the integrity of the reach.
7. Lining damage
Disregard isolated damaged panels or masonry. Answer YES where
more than 1 in 10 of the lining panels or 10% of the surface within the
reach is seriously damaged.
8. Unauthorised off-takes
Look for deliberate cuts or submerged pipes etc. in the canal bank.
9. Seepage
Look for standing water, washout of fine particles from the
embankment, flowing water emerging from the toe of the embankment,
reeds or salt deposits on ground lying close to the canal embankment. If
any of these is widespread answer YES.

Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: INSPECTION ROAD

YES NO UNASSESSED
1. Does limited track width prevent
vehicle access at any point? ¨ ¨ ■
2. Do surface unevenness and pot holes
make driving difficult? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Are cross drainage culverts seriously
damaged or exposed at any point? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Are sides slopes seriously eroded or
showing signs of serious slippage? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is access difficult at any time of year? ¨ ¨ ¨
Notes
1. Road width
Answer YES, if the width prevents necessary maintenance vehicles/plant
from using the road.
2. Surface condition
Answer YES, where the surface condition limits driving speed to less
than 15 km/hr over at least 1 km. Minor isolated holes or surface
deterioration to be disregarded.
3. Cross drains
Answer YES if a culvert is:
• exposed and vulnerable to damage from traffic using the road
OR
• substantially damaged and/or settling
OR
• substantially blocked or causing serious flooding
4. Side slopes
Answer YES, where erosion or slippage is likely to weaken an
embankment or cause a slip that will block the road. Disregard isolated,
minor problems unless they may develop into a serious problem before the
next inspection.
5. Year round access

Answer YES if the road can frequently not be used by vehicles during
the wet season.
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: FLOW MEASUREMENT STRUCTURE

YES NO UNASSESSED
1. Are there silt, weeds or rubbish

within 5m u/s or d/s of the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
2. Is the measurement structure drowned? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Is there serious damage to any part of
the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
gauge boards? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Channel obstruction
Answer YES where silt or debris influence the flow of water through the
measurement structure causing a serious disturbance of the flow. Ignore
weed growth that can be simply cleared.
2. Drowned structure
A “drowned“ measurement structure is one where the water level d/s of
the structure affects the level u/s. Structures require a minimum head
differential for accurate measurement:
For broad crested weirs and flumes H(d/s)/H(u/s) must be £ 0.6
For sharp crested weirs H(d/s) must be below crest
3. Structural damage
Look for any damage that influences flow measurement or the stability
of the structure. Common examples will be damage to a weir crest or
other control section, serious cracks or structural movement.
4. Leakage
Answer YES if there is/are washout of fine soil particles, very wet areas
of fill or other evidence of water flowing around the structure.
5. D/s Apron
6. Gauge boards
Answer YES if any gauge boards are missing or cannot be read.
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: GATED OFFTAKE

YES NO UNASSESSED
2. Is it difficult to fully open or close
any of the gates? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Are there serious cracks or movement
in any part of the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is any part of the structure blocked
by sediment? ¨ ¨ ¨
6. Is seepage occurring around the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
gauge board? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Missing Gate
question 2.
2. Gate operation
gate. If a gate is missing, answer YES to question 1 and NO to this question.
3. Gate Condition

5. Blockage
Answer YES where sediment accumulation is seriously reducing the
open area for water to pass through. Disregard blockage by floating
vegetation or other debris that could be quickly pulled away.
6. Seepage
7. D/s Apron
8. Gauge Boards
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: DRAIN

YES NO UNASSESSED
1. Is the flow seriously limited at any

location by silt, weeds or debris? ¨ ¨ ■
2. Are there any signs that water has
overtopped the drain? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Is there evidence of waterloggin
(salts, mud, reeds) in this area? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Is there serious bank slippage
at any location? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Are any structures in this reach
seriously deteriorated? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Channel obstruction
Answer YES if silt, weed or debris limits flow in the drain so that
localised flooding or waterlogging of land occur frequently.
2. Overtopping
Look for the high water mark in the drain or for debris caught on the
banks or in adjacent vegetation.
3. Waterlogging
If necessary, ask farmers if problems of waterlogging, due to inadequate
drainage, are common.
4. Bank slippage
Answer YES where slippage threatens to restrict flow capacity of the
drain. Disregard minor slides if they are now stable.
5. Drainage structures
Answer YES only where damage to a structure threatens the correct
functioning of the drain.
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: DROP/CHUTE

YES NO UNASSESSED
3. Is the d/s structure - stilling basin/apron -
seriously damaged or undercut? ¨ ¨ ¨
4. Is the d/s bed or channel section
seriously eroded? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
2. Leakage
3. D/s protection
of the structure. Answer NOT KNOWN, if you cannot see the apron or
gain reliable information from the operator.
4. D/s bed & channel

Answer YES if erosion of the bed or banks threatens the stability of the
drop structure or the canal reach. Disregard minor scour or bank erosion if
this appears to be stable. Answer UNASSESSED if you cannot see the bed
or channel section or gain reliable information from the operator.
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: CROSS DRAINAGE CULVERT

YES NO UNASSESSED
2. Is the canal visibly leaking into
the culvert? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Do farmers or staff say the culvert fails
to effectively carry peak flow? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Does the culvert appear blocked? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is there serious erosion around the entry
or exit of the culvert? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
2. Leakage into culvert

Answer YES if there is obvious and important loss of water from the
canal into the culvert. Disregard minor seepage.
3. Culvert capacity
Answer YES If farmers report that the drain frequently floods on the u/s
side of the culvert.
4. Blockage
Answer YES, where more than one quarter of the open area appears
blocked. Disregard small quantities of sediment or weed in the bottom of
the culvert.
5. Erosion
Answer YES if erosion is occurring that could lead to undercutting of the
structure.
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: AQUEDUCT / FLUME

YES NO UNASSESSED
2. Is there any serious separation of
the backfill & structure? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Does the aqueduct leak at the union
with u/s or d/s reach? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Are there important leaks from
the aqueduct itself? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is there evidence of overtopping
in the aqueduct or immediately u/s? ¨ ¨ ■
6. Is there evidence of serious damage,
to supporting piers and/or superstructure? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Cracks
Disregard shallow, surface cracks. Answer YES where cracks appear to
be caused by differential movement of the structure or overloading of the
structure.
2. Separation from Backfill

Report YES where gaps can allow seepage.
3. Aqueduct/canal
Answer YES if there is any leakage, resulting in a serious loss of water or
erosion of the foundation slab.
4. Leakage
Disregard minor leakage from construction joints, but answer YES
where there are important leaks from expansion/contraction joint fillers.
5. Overtopping
Check the high water line or consult local farmers.
6. Damage to piers/Superstructure
Look for exposure/corrosion of reinforcing bars, split masonry or
settlement of any pier which can crack the aqueduct.
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: SYPHON

YES NO UNASSESSED
in any part of the structure ? ¨ ¨ ■
2. Is there any serious separation of
the backfill & structure? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Are there signs of leakage from
the syphon? ¨ ¨ ¨
4. Is there, or has there been overtopping
immediately u/s of syphon? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is the syphon blocked or partially blocked? ¨ ¨ ¨
6. Is there serious erosion in the d/s
transition section? ¨ ¨ ■
7. Is there serious erosion or settlement
in the section which the syphon crosses? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Cracks
Disregard shallow, surface cracks. Answer YES where cracks appear to
be caused by differential movement of the structure or overloading of the
structure.

Report YES where gaps can allow seepage.
3. Leakage from syphon

Look for damp patches in soil or seepage from soil surface at low points
4. Overtopping u/s of syphon

Look at the level of the high water line.
5. Blockage
It is not possible to inspect the syphon itself. Blockage will be indicated
by high u/s water levels.
6. Erosion in d/s transition

Answer YES if erosion of the bed or banks threatens the stability of the
structure or the canal reach. Disregard minor scour or bank erosion if this
appears to be stable.
7. Erosion of channel/drain
Answer YES if the barrel of the syphon is exposed where the channel or
roadway crosses. Where the syphon crosses a drainage line answer YES if
erosion of the drain bed threatens the stability of any part of the syphon.
Answer YES, if:

OR

STRUCTURE TYPE: SIDE WEIR/ESCAPE

YES NO UNASSESSED
1. Is any part of the structure blocked? ¨ ¨ ■
3. Is seepage occurring around the structure? ¨ ¨ ■
4. Is there serious separation of the backfill
& structure? ¨ ¨ ■
5. Is the d/s protection seriously damaged
or undercut? ¨ ¨ ■
Notes
1. Blockage
Answer YES if the blockage prevents water passing over the weir at the
design crest level or would prevent the safe discharge of water d/s of the weir.

3. Seepage

Report YES where where gaps can allow seepage.
5. D/s protection
Answer YES where the d/s protection, is breaking up or unstable because
of serious undercutting. Disregard minor erosion if this is now stable and
does not threaten the stability of the structure.
Answer YES, if:

OR

Example of Field Data Collection forms: CANAL REACH
Assessor: Date: Canal:
Canal Reach: u/s station

Canal Reach: d/s station
1. Is the canal partially blocked at any location by illegal weirs or debris?
2. Is there serious siltation at any location?
3. Is there serious weed growth at any location?
4. Do farmers and/or staff report the reach capacity restricts water supply?
5. Where the reach is in fill, has the water level been dangerously near the canal top at any point?
6. Are there problems of serious bank slippage or gullies?
7. If lined - Is there important damage to lining?
8. Are there any unauthorised offtakes?
9. Is seepage a problem in the reach?
10. Does the overall condition concern you?
Example of Field Data Collection forms: GATED OFFTAKE
Assessor: Date: Canal:
Offtake ID
Station
1. Are any of the gates missing?
2. Is it difficult to fully open or close any of the gates?
3. Is any gate seriously corroded or rotting?
4. Are there serious cracks or movement in any part of the structure?
5. Is any part of the structure blocked by sediment?
6. Is seepage occurring around the structure?
7. Is the d/s apron seriously damaged or undercut?
8. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s gauge board?
9. Does the overall condition concern you?
APPENDIX 3B:
Condition assessment -
Engineer’s inspection
ENGINEERING INSPECTION - CANAL REACH PAGE 1
Canal Name: _________________ Reach ID__________________
Design Parameters:
Discharge____________________ Flow depth ________________
Bed width ___________________ Freeboard _________________
Bed slope ____________________
A. Hydraulic functions:
Percentage of design
Value (125 - 80%) (79 - 70%) (69 - 50%) (<50%)
Estimated discharge _____ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Average depth _____ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Average clear bed width _____ ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Do d/s conditions create

backwater problems? Yes* No Don’t know*
¨ ¨ ¨
*Describe d/s condition at section D
B. Channel condition:
Good Fair Poor Very Poor
(None/minimal) (Minor) (Serious) (Very serious)
Siltation ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Weeds ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Freeboard ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
C. Bank condition:
Slips ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Erosion ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Seepage ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
If lined:
Primary purpose - structural ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Primary purpose -
seepage reduction ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Condition summary:
Most serious defect _________________________________________________________
Overall classification Good / Fair / Poor / Very poor

ENGINEERING INSPECTION - CANAL REACH PAGE 2

D. Notes on Sections A and B:____________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
F. Is any condition expected to become Poor or Very Poor within 12

months, if not already so?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
G. Required action:
None ¨
Repair ¨
Demolish & rebuild ¨
Demolish & redesign ¨
Define scope of detailed site survey/investigations, if these are required:

______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Rough estimate of quantities/materials required:

______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
GUIDANCE NOTES FOR ENGINEERING

ASSESSMENT OF CANAL REACHES
Reach Functions
1 Convey maximum design discharge without infringement of design
freeboard, without drowning u/s control or measurement structures and
without hazard of structural failure.
2 Maintain level vs discharge relationship such that all off-takes on the

reach can abstract their design proportion of the available flow.
3 Maintain a stable channel section (neither bed/bank erosion or

deposition) under normal, operating flows.
4 Convey water without undue seepage loss and without unauthorised

abstraction.
Potential Modes of Failure

Channel degradation:
a.Blockage, caused by:
Earth slips or other debris
Sediment accumulation
Weed growth
b.Bank erosion, caused by:

Rainfall
Canal flow
Human or animal traffic
Cross drainage flows
c.Reduced freeboard, caused by:

Bank erosion
Increased channel roughness
Reduced cross-sectional area
d.Failure of side drains
Structural failure:
a.Slippage
Surface
Deep seated
b.Lining damage
c.Seepage
Minor and stable
Progressive seepage failure
Based on this summary of functions and possible mechanisms of

functional or structural failure, guidance for the classification of each
factor is presented in the following tables.
GUIDANCE NOTES: CONDITION OF ELEMENTS
Factor: Discharge capacity

Good No more than 10% reduction in discharge below design
capacity when running at FSL. Reduced capacity therefore has
little effect on adequacy of d/s supply except at times of peak
demand.
Fair Discharge capacity reduced by between 10% and 25% when

running at FSL. Reduced capacity has a moderate effect on the
adequacy of d/s supply.
Poor Discharge capacity reduced by between 25% and 50% when

running at FSL. Reduced capacity has a serious effect on the
adequacy of d/s supply.
Very poor Discharge capacity reduced by more than 50% when running
at FSL. Reduced capacity results in serious yield loss or failure
to crop in some d/s areas.
Factor: Sediment/weeds/other blockages

Good Any sediment, weed or other blockage is insufficient to cause
reduction of freeboard here or in u/s reaches when flowing at FSD.
Fair Channel cross-section, whether caused by sediment, weeds, or

debris in any combination, is reduced by no more than 30%
over any sustained length of the reach.
Poor Channel cross-section, whether caused by sediment, weeds, or

debris in any combination, is reduced by between 30% and
50% over a sustained length of the reach.
Very poor Channel cross-section, whether caused by sediment, weeds, or

debris in any combination, is reduced by more than 50% over
a sustained length of the reach.
Factor: Freeboard
Good Freeboard at normal design Q is equal to or greater than design
Fair Freeboard at design discharge is reduced by up to 25% over

localized area.
Poor Freeboard at design Q reduced by between 25% and 50% at

any point.
Or
Freeboard reduced by up to 25% over a major part of the reach
Very poor Freeboard reduced at any point so design discharge cannot pass
without risk of overtopping. (Freeboard reduced by >50% at
any point.)
Factor: Slippage
Good No slips or signs of surface cracks.
No heave at slope toe.
No slumping or deep seated movement either in up-slope
terrain (cut) or in embankments
Fair Minor surface cracks.

No heave at slope toe.
No slumping or deep seated movement either in up-slope
terrain (cut) or in embankments
Poor Occasional surface slumping of embankments due to over-

steep slopes. May contribute to minor sedimentation but no risk
of sudden blockage through sliding.
Banks not weakened and no immediate risk of structural failure
Very poor Actual or threatened failure of banks, including:

• deep-seated slips, including upslope collapse in cut areas,
especially after rainfall, or saturated embankments in fill areas.
• Tension cracks in embankment surface or heave at
embankment toe may indicate potential failures.
Factor: Erosion
Good No erosion, either within the channel, on upslope terrain (cut)
or on the external face of embankments.
Fair Minor surface erosion under rainfall, on upslope terrain (cut) or

on the external face of embankments. Minor local scour at
hydraulic structures which does not threaten undermining.
Poor Frequent areas of bank erosion, including major runnelling

under rainfall. Cannot be restored to condition by minor
maintenance/ turfing.
Progressive bed erosion around hydraulic structures may lead
to structural undermining.
Design bank top width may be reduced locally, but no
immediate danger of bank failure.
Very poor Widespread areas of bank erosion, either major runnelling

under rainfall or around hydraulic structures.
Immediate danger of structural undermining.
Bank top width and cross section dangerously reduced.
Factor: Seepage
Good No evidence of seepage from embankment.
Fair Minor canals: Limited occasional areas of seepage from

embankment.
Conveyance canals: No evidence of seepage
Poor Minor canals: frequent breaches causing visible loss. Conveyance

canals: stable, minor seepage/up-welling visible at bank toe.
Very poor Minor canals: frequent breaches seriously diminish channel flow.
Conveyance canals: seepage/up-welling at bank toe visibly
increasing over time. Seepage may threaten stability of slopes
(cut) or embankments.
Factor: Lining damage - Lining purpose, structural

Good In situ concrete lining - No significant damage - penetrating
cracks, settlement or heave - in any lining panel.
Masonry/block lining - Very few isolated instances of damaged
or missing blocks may occur.
No evidence of washout behind lining at any point.
No apparent risk of progressive failure.
Fair In situ concrete lining - An Isolated, few occurrences of

penetrating cracks, settlement or heave.
Masonry/block lining - minor occurrence of individual
damaged/missing blocks or masonry.
and/or
Isolated occurrence of minor washout behind lining.
No apparent risk of progressive failure.
Poor In situ concrete lining - Frequent, isolated cases of penetrating

cracks, settlement or heave, (no more than 20% of panels show
damage). No single area of extensive damage.
Masonry/block lining - Frequent occurrence of individual
damaged/missing blocks or masonry
and/or
Frequent occurrence of washout behind lining.
A risk of progressive failure from existing weak points is apparent.
Very poor In situ concrete lining - Very frequent occurrence of penetrating

cracks, settlement or heave, (more than 20% of panels show
damage). Or a single extensive area of damage.
Masonry/block lining - Very frequent occurrence of individual
damaged/missing blocks or masonry. Or a single extensive area
of damage.
and/or
Serious erosion and risk of bank failure is evident.
Factor: Lining damage - Lining purpose, seepage reduction

Good In situ concrete lining - Panels to line and level. No evidence of
sub-grade erosion. Rare occurrence of hairline cracking only.
Joints appear sound, material firmly held in place. No
vegetative growth.
Masonry block lining - Panels to line and level - no evidence of
sub-grade erosion. Very occasional isolated blocks missing but
no danger of progressive loss.
Fair In situ concrete lining - Panels to line and level. Occasional

points where erosion or settlement of sub-grade may be
occurring. Minor cracking, up to 1mm wide, may affect one
panel in 20. Joint material generally sound, some joints may
require re-sealing. no vegetative growth in joints.
Masonry block lining - Panels to line and level. Occasional
points where erosion or settlement of sub-grade may be
occurring. Small areas of bricks/blocks missing - not more than
0.5m2 on main system. Joint generally sound but some minor
shear cracking. No cracks greater than 1mm wide.
Poor In situ concrete lining - Occasional panels deviate from line and
level. approximately one panel in 20 clearly damaged, back
erosion and/or bank settlement occurring at such points. Cracks
up to 5mm wide randomly distributed over the lining. Frequent
joint failures. Clear danger of progressive failure.
Masonry block lining - Lining clearly deviates from line and level.
Areas of bricks/blocks missing - up to 1.0m2 on main system.
Frequent joint failures. Clear danger of progressive failure.
Very poor In situ concrete lining - Line and level lost over groups of panels.
Panels collapsed, sub-grade erosion and/or settlement at these
points. Other panels cracked, progressive failure occurring.
Masonry block lining - line and level lost over tens of
metres. Major holes in the lining occur frequently. Bonding
lost over virtually full cross section in many places.
progressive failure occurring.
ENGINEERING INSPECTION - STRUCTURE PAGE 1

For hydraulic structures complete Sections A and B.
For non-hydraulic structures, e.g. bridges, roads etc. omit Section A
Structure type ________________ Structure ID _______________
A. Hydraulic functions
Conveyance capacity ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Where relevant:
Control of discharge/level ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Discharge measurement ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Water tightess ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
B. Structural condition:
(None/minimal) (Minor) (Serious) (Very serious)
Movement (settlement
displacement/heave/rotation) ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Scoure damage to structure ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Scoure damage to channel ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Joint condition ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Condition of structural elements

(Cracking, etc.) ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Surface condition
(Spalling, rust, damaged coatings) ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Stability of slopes/retained soil) ¨ ¨ ¨ ¨
Condition summary:
Most serious defect _________________________________________________________
Overall classification Good / Fair / Poor / Very poor

ENGINEERING INSPECTION - STRUCTURE PAGE 2

C. Notes on Sections A and B: ____________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
D. Is any condition expected to become Poor or Very Poor within 12

months, if not already so?
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
G. Required action:
None ¨
Repair ¨
Demolish & rebuild ¨
Demolish & redesign ¨
Define scope of detailed site survey/investigations, if these are required:

______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Rough estimate of quantities/materials required:

______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________
Factor: Conveyance capacity

Good No more than 5% reduction in conveyance capacity at FSL.
Flow can be distributed evenly across full width of structure.
Fair Conveyance capacity reduced by between 5 and 15% at FSL.

Flow can be distributed evenly across full width of structure.
Poor Conveyance capacity reduced by between 15 and 30% at FSL.

Part of the open area may not function correctly.
Very poor Conveyance capacity reduced by more than 30% at FSL.

Part of the open area may not function correctly.
Factor: Control of discharge/level

Good All gates fully operational. No damage to any fixed control
surface. No blockage of any part of the structure
Fair All gates fully operational. No damage to any fixed control

surface. Accumulation of sediment or debris may affect the
control of discharge or level.
Poor All gates in place. Sub-standard condition of one or more gates

limits control of discharge or level.
Or Fixed control surfaces damaged.
Performance of system is affected.
Very poor One or more gates missing or not working.

Or Fixed control surfaces badly damaged. Structure cannot
provide control of level or discharge. Structure is effectively
non-functional.
Factor: Discharge measurement

Good Level gauge/s present and correctly sited, clear of drawdown
and turbulence.
Structure approach, control section and exit in good repair and
free from obstruction.
Structure is not drowned under any operating conditions.
Fair Level gauge/s present and correctly sited, clear of drawdown

and turbulence.
Structure approach, control section and exit in good repair.
Channel obstruction u/s of structure distorts flow profile
through the control section.
Structure is not drowned under any operating conditions.
Poor Gauge/s missing/illegible or sited in zone of drawdown or

turbulence.
and/or
Minor structural damage to control surface - crest, throat etc.
Structure partially drowned.
Very poor Control surface seriously damaged.

Structure drowned under normal operating conditions.
Factor: Water tightness/Leakage

Good No meaningful leakage.
Fair Minor leakage estimated at < 1% of design discharge of structure.
Poor Leakage estimated at up to 5% of design discharge. This water

may be re-used elsewhere.
Very poor Serious leakage - > 5% of design discharge of structure. Affects

water available in system and/or threatens erosion.
Factor: Movement
Good No settlement or heave/rotation or displacement under load,
including temperature stress. All joints appear sound. No
structural cracking.
Fair Minor movement apparent from small structural cracks or

minor joint displacement. structure remains basically sound,
remedial work may be needed to avoid progressive movement
and damage.
Poor Movement in any plan is clearly apparent. Proper functioning
of the structure already impaired. Early action needed to avoid
progressive failure.
Very poor Movement in any plane has seriously disrupted proper

functioning of the structure. Full depth structural cracks of 5mm
width or more.
(Hydraulic structure) Rotation and displacement of joints mean
that structure cannot retain water.
Factor: Scour at structure

Good No meaningful damage to bed or banks adjacent to structure
apparent on de-watering.
Fair Progressive erosion to bed or banks adjacent to structure. No

structural damage has yet occurred but it may occur if remedial
action is not taken.
Poor Erosion to bed or banks has begun to seriously undermine the

structure. Progressive failure is threatened.
Very poor Structure actually or virtually ceased to function as intended.

Extensive damage to structural elements.
Factor: Scour in channel

Good no meaningful damage to bed or banks apparent on de-watering.
Fair Erosion to bed or banks does not affect conveyance. Bank

stability not impaired to date but undercutting is threatened.
Poor Erosion to bed or banks causing instability to side slopes.
Very poor Progressive erosion to bed or banks causing extensive slips,

threatening sudden blockage in sections of cut or bank failure
in sections of fill. Excess sediment being deposited in reaches
downstream.
Factor: Joint condition

Good Joints appear sound throughout their length.
Sealant or filler securely in place. No leakage, observed or
expected.
Fair Minor defects. Joints generally sound but localised areas where
sealant or filler is eroded or damaged. No obvious leakage path.
Poor Sealant or filler lost or substantially damaged in several places.

Joint will allow leakage (hydraulic structures), entry of water,
dirt and debris (bridge decks etc).
Very poor Sealant or filler lost over most of the joint length. Joint will be
completely ineffective in preventing leakage (hydraulic
structures), or entry of water, dirt and debris (bridge decks etc)
Factor: Structural elements

Good Element(s) are sound. No signs of structural cracking, damage
or distress.
Fair Element(s) are generally sound. Minor damage may have been
sustained. Element(s) still fit to perform function within the
immediate future.
Poor Element(s) appear distressed. Structural cracks and/or damage.

Performance is, or will shortly be, adversely affected.
Very poor Elements no longer fit for function.
Note: Identify affected elements on the proforma.

Factor: Surface condition

Good Surface sound. No evidence of deterioration under external or
internal erosive/corrosive agents.
Fair Surface substantially sound. A few areas showing localised

defects. Slow deterioration likely.
Poor Surface noticeably defective: - spalling, cracking or rusting.

Structural integrity of the structure at risk.
Very poor Severe surface deterioration. Progressive or sudden failure of

the element under external or internal agents is imminent.
Factor: Stability of slopes/retained soils

Good Soil mass stable. No cracking, deformation or movement.
Fair Soil mass stable. Minor surface cracking and/or deformation,

not extending into body of soil.
Poor Soil mass marginally stable. Cracking and/or deterioration

affecting body of soil. Evidence of minor movement and/or
seepage.
Very poor Soil mass unstable, cracking and/or deterioration affecting body
of soil. Clear evidence of significant movement with/without
seepage. Slip planes may be visible.
APPENDIX 4:
Condition assessment scores
Ratings : > 80 = Good 51 - 70 = Poor
71 - 80 = Fair ≤ 50 = V. Poor
Note Questions correspond to those in the Overseers Inspection

forms - Appendix 3A. Scores/Class are used in subsequent analysis to
determine priorities, and have been set on the basis of reasonable
engineering judgement.
Structure Type: Intake/Head Regulator Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective
1. Are any of the gates missing? • V. Poor 40
2. Is it difficult to fully open or close any of the gates? • V. Poor 45
3. Is any gate seriously corroded or rotting? • Poor 70
4. Are there serious cracks or movement in any part • Poor 60

of the structure?
5. Is any part of the structure blocked by sediment? • Fair 75
6. Is seepage occurring around the structure? • Poor 60
7. Is the d/s apron seriously damaged or undercut? • V. Poor 40
8. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s gauge board? • Good 90
Structure Type: Gated Cross Regulator Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective
4. Are there serious cracks or movement in any part • Poor 60

of the structure?
5. Is leakage occurring around the structure? • Poor 60

Structure Type: Canal Reach Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective
1. Is the canal partially blocked at any location

by illegal weirs or debris? • Good 85
2. Is there serious siltation at any location? • Poor 55
3. Is there serious weed growth at any location? • Poor 55
4. Do farmers and/or staff report the canal capacity

restricts water supply? • Poor 60
5. Where the reach is in fill, has the water level

been dangerously near the canal top at any point? • V. Poor 40
6. Are there problems of serious bank slippage or erosion? • V. Poor 45
7. If lined - Is there important damage to lining? • Poor 55
8. Are there any unauthorised offtakes? • Good 90
9. Is seepage a problem in the reach? • Poor 60
Structure Type: Inspection Road Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective
1. Does limited track width prevent vehicle

access at any point? • V. Poor 45
2. Do surface unevenness and pot holes

making driving difficult? • Fair 75
3. Are cross drainage culverts seriously damaged

or exposed at any point? • Poor 60
4. Are sides slopes seriously eroded or showing

signs of serious slippage? • Poor 55
5. Is access difficult at any time of year? • Poor 60
Structure Type: Flow Measurement Structures Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective
1. Are there silt, weeds or rubbish within

5m u/s or d/s of the structure? • Fair 75
2. Is the measurement structure drowned? • V. Poor 50
3. Is there serious damage to any part of the structure? • Poor 55
5. Is the d/s apron seriously damaged or undercut? • Poor 55
6. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s gauge boards? • Fair 75

Structure Type: Gated Offtake Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective

in any part of the structure? • Poor 60
5. Is any part of the structure blocked by sediment? • Fair 75
Structure Type: Drain Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective
1. Is the flow seriously limited at any location by silt,

weeds or debris? • V. Poor 50
2. Are there any signs that water

has overtopped the drain? • Fair 75
3. Is there evidence of waterlogging (salts, mud, reeds)

in the area? • Poor 55
4. Is there serious bank slippage at any location? • Poor 60
5. Are any structures associated with this drain

reach seriously deteriorated? • Fair 75
Structure Type: Drop/Chute Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective

in any part of the structure? • Poor 60
4. Is the d/s bed or channel section eroded? • Fair 75

Structure Type: Cross Drainage Culvert Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective

in any part of the structure? • V. Poor 40
2. Is the canal visibly leaking into the culvert? • Fair 75
3. Do farmers/staff say the culvert fails

to effectively carry peak flows? • Poor 55
4. Does the culvert appear to be blocked? • V. Poor 45
5. Is there serious erosion around

the entry or exit of the culvert? • Poor 50
Structure Type: Aqueduct/Flume Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective

2. Is there any serious separation

of the backfill and structure? • Fair 75
3. Does the aqueduct leak at the union

with u/s or d/s reach? • Poor 65
4. Are there important leaks from the aqueduct itself? • Poor 70
5. Is there evidence of overtopping in the aqueduct

or immediately u/s? • V. Poor 50
6. Is there evidence of serious damage to supporting

piers and/or super structure? • Poor 55
Structure Type: Syphon Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective


of the backfill and structure? • Poor 60
3. Are there signs of leakage from the syphon? • Poor 65
4. Is there, or has there been, overtopping

immediately u/s of siphon? • Poor 60
5. Is the syphon blocked or partially blocked? • Poor 65
6. Is there serious erosion in the d/s transition section? • Fair 75
7. Is there serious erosion or settlement in the section

which the syphon crosses? • V. Poor 45
Structure Type: Side Weir/Escape Hydraulic Structural Class % Effective
1. Is any part of the structure blocked? • V. Poor 45


of the backfill and structure? • Fair 75
5. Is the d/s protection seriously damaged or undercut? • Poor 50

APPENDIX 5:
Relative importance
of different assets
The strategic importance of a given type of asset to the overall
functioning of the scheme is based on consideration of the following three
components:
Function. The significance of the asset to proper functioning of the

system. Considers the effect of removing that type of asset from a system.
The notion of area served is not included in this assessment.
Hazard. The potential impact on the integrity of the system should the
asset fail. This does not consider the risk to life and limb. It anticipates the
most likely type of failures - a slow deterioration, which has low hazard, or
sudden, catastrophic failure and high hazard. For example, a cross
regulator in a canal system is unlikely to fail suddenly or dangerously. An
aqueduct has a much higher associated risk or hazard.
Worth. An approximate measure of the relative cost of repairing or

replacing the asset. Comparisons based on the the intrinsic cost of
components sized for similar locations in a scheme.
Each type of asset was rated in one of three categories corresponding to

each of the above criteria:
Function Hazard Worth
Essential High High

Important Medium Medium
Minor Low Low
Assets were then grouped into four classes of importance:
Importance Scores (classes)

1 2 3 4
Measurement structures Canal reach Scour sluice Diversion weir

DrainHead regulator Cross drainage culvert Embankment dam
Cross regulator Aqueduct Intake works
Drop/chute Syphon Barrage
Inspection road Sediment trap
Side weir
Bridges
Structure Type: Intake Hydraulic Structural

Impairment Impairment
1. Are any of the gates missing? 40 0
2. Is it difficult to fully open or close any gate? 35 0
3. Is any gate seriously corroded or rotting? 0 25
4. Serious cracks/damage or movement in any part of the structure? 0 35
5. Is seepage occurring around the structure? 0 35
Structure Type: Gated Cross Regulator Hydraulic Structural

4. Serious cracks/damage or movement in any part of the structure? 0 35
6. Is the d/s apron seriously damaged or undercut? 0 50
7. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s gauge boards? 15 0
Structure Type: Canal Reach Hydraulic Structural

1. Is the canal partially blocked at any location by illegal weirs or debris? 10 0
2. Is there serious siltation at any location? 20 0
3. Is there serious weed growth at any location? 20 0
4. Do farmers and/or staff report the canal capacity restricts water supply? 30 0
5. Water level been dangerously near the canal top at any point? 25 35
6. Are there problems of serious bank slippage or erosion? 0 35
7. If lined - Is there important damage to lining? 15 20
8. Are there any unauthorised off-takes? 5 0
9. Is seepage a problem in the reach? 15 20

Structure Type: Inspection Road Hydraulic Structural

1. Has the road become too narrow to pass necessary traffic? 40
2. Is driving difficult because of surface unevenness and pot holes? 10
3. Are any cross drainage culverts seriously damaged or exposed? 30
4. Are sides slopes seriously eroded or showing signs of slippage? 30
5. Is access difficult during the rainy season? 0
Structure Type: Flow Measurement Structure Hydraulic Structural

1. Are there silt, weeds or rubbish within 5m u/s or d/s of the structure? 20 0
2. Is the measurement structure drowned? 35 0
3. Is there serious damage to any part of the structure? 0 35
5. Is the d/s apron seriously damaged or undercut? 0 25
6. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s gauge boards? 20 0
Structure Type: Gated Offtake / Head Regulator Hydraulic Structural

4. Are there serious cracks or movement in any part of the structure? 0 35
5. Is the pipe or any other part of the structure blocked by sediment? 30 0
7. Is the d/s apron/other protection seriously damaged or undercut? 0 50
8. Is it difficult to read the u/s or d/s gauge board? 5 0

Structure Type: Drain Hydraulic Structural

1. Is the drain flow seriously limited at any location by silt,

weeds or debris? 35 0
2. Are there any signs that water has overtopped the drain? 20 0
3. Is there evidence of waterlogging (salts, mud, reeds) in this area? 25 0
4. Is there serious bank slippage at any location? 0 30
5. Are any structures in the reach seriously deteriorated? 0 25
Structure Type: Cross Check / Drop / Chute Hydraulic Structural

3. Is the d/s structure - stilling basin/apron -

seriously damaged or undercut? 0 50
4. Is the d/s bed or channel section seriously eroded? 10 25
Structure Type: Cross Drainage Culvert Hydraulic Structural

2. Is the canal leaking into the culvert? 10 15
3. Do farmers or staff say the culvert fails to effectively carry peak flows? 35 0
4. Does the culvert appear to be blocked? 40 0
5. Is there serious erosion around the entry or exit of the culvert? 0 35

Structure Type: Aqueduct / Flume Hydraulic Structural

1. Are there serious cracks in any part of the structure? 0 35
2. Is there any serious separation of the backfill and structure? 0 20
3. Does the aqueduct leak at the union with u/s or d/s reach? 15 35
4. Are there leaks from the aqueduct itself? 15 20
5. Is there evidence of overtopping in the aqueduct or immediately u/s? 40 0
6. Is there evidence of significant damage or corrosion to supporting piers? 0 30
Structure Type: Syphon Hydraulic Structural

1. Are there serious cracks or movement in any part of the structure ? 0 35
2. Is there any serious separation of the backfill and structure? 0 20
3. Are there signs of leakage from the syphon? 20 10
4. Has there been overtopping immediately u/s of syphon? 35 0
5. Is the syphon blocked or partially blocked? 30 0
6. Is there serious erosion in the d/s transition section? 0 15
7. Is there serious erosion or settlement in the drain or road channel? 0 40
Structure Type: Side Weir Hydraulic Structural

1. Is any part of the structure blocked? 40 0
4. Can gaps be seen between the structure and the backfill? 0 20
5. Is the d/s protection seriously damaged or undercut? 0 35

APPENDIX 6:
Hydraulic modelling
as an aid to diagnosis
In applying computer models to design, the designer will normally set
the principal system parameters uniformly over large parts of the system. In
contrast, in order to simulate the hydraulic behaviour of an existing system,
it is necessary to correctly represent parameters varying from place to
place in the system.
Thus, to provide a useful tool in system diagnosis, hydraulic models

require detailed information on field conditions. Users would probably be
designers rather than systems managers.
Design information on the system will be introduced initially, and the

model run to check and establish reference water levels. Survey
information can then be used to run the model for prevailing system
conditions. Reasonable judgements on channel roughness values may be
made using standard texts, such as Ven Te Chow (1959). Once the user is
satisfied that the model is correctly calibrated, identified constraints
causing a rise in water level can be successively removed and the model
re-run to assess the effectiveness of the action. It is thus possible to arrive
at a priority of actions.
There is little point in conducting highly detailed surveys, involving

cross sections at close centres, if uncertainties in the values of other
parameters, such as the friction coefficient, mean that average estimated
values must be used. It may be possible to approximate by using design
profiles for much of the system and conducting detailed surveys over
localised areas of particular significance. The following observations are
intended to assist in determining the intensity of survey.
• Once a system of earthen channels has been operating for some time
the cross section may no longer appear prismatic. Surface unevenness
within the wetted perimeter of a section are not significant per se.
Limited variation of any individual cross sectional area from the
design value (10-20% variation) will also not have much effect on the
water level since changes in surface profiles occur gradually on
shallow slopes.
• A possible exception could be a section in hard ground which has
been under-excavated to the extent of some 33% or more of the
intended value. In this case, the section is likely to form a “choke”,
causing critical flow and afflux upstream.
• Several cross-sections in sequence, all similarly differing from design,

(sections assumed at, say 50m centres) will affect upstream water
levels. Normally, a rise in water level would be expected, but if the
downstream channels had been over-excavated during maintenance,
the upstream water level could be drawn down.
In the type of systems indicated above, hydraulic modelling can assist by:
• establishing the location and effect of constraints in the system

• simulating the response of the system to alternative interventions
• predicting the response of the system if conditions were to worsen in
specified ways and no corrective action were taken
A model can assist with problems of weed growth, sedimentation,

seepage loss, malfunctioning or damaged structures. It could also be used
to determine, for example, the effect of modification to canal cross
sections; lining; and the construction of cross regulators.
It is difficult to accurately predict the time needed to set up a model, as

it will depend on the information already available, the size of the scheme
and the ease of use of the software. As an example, a scheme of 2000 ha
in Indonesia was modelled in 2 weeks by a new user who had received a
week’s preliminary training in the software of a model that was then
current and was familiar with the scheme. Existing design data were used
throughout. A further week was spent in the field to compare the
preliminary model output with the observed behaviour of the system.
Once the model was established and calibrated, several simulations were
performed in a single day.
In this case it was found that there were no material constraints to flow
within the system.
More recent models running seasonal simulations at, say, weekly time
steps, can be set up and calibrated in a few days.
The method seems most appropriate for :-
• large multi-branched systems on flat terrain where large sums will be

needed for rehabilitation.
• systems affected by severe problems which do not show material
improvement even just after maintenance.
• systems where topographic surveys of canals are routinely carried out
in connection with annual maintenance programmes.

A Procedure For Planning Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation: TDR Project R5832 Report OD/TN 84

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Procedure For Planning Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation: TDR Project R5832 Report OD/TN 84

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Procedure For Planning Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation: TDR Project R5832 Report OD/TN 84

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Procedure for

TDR Project R5832

Assessing the Condition of Infrastructure 34

Appendix 1: Checklist of possible

Part 2 - System Design and Operation 47

Part 3 - Deterioration of System Infrastructure 49

Part 4 - Land Degradation 50

Part 5 - Supply at the Headworks 52

Appendix 2: Questionnaire for Farmers 56

Questionnaire: Farmers’ Views on System Constraints

Appendix 3A: Condition assessment -

Structure Type: Gated Cross Regulator 67

Structure Type: Canal Reach 68

Structure Type: Inspection Road 70

5. Year round access 71

Structure Type: Flow Measurement Structure 72

Structure Type: Gated Offtake 73

Structure Type: Drain 75

Structure Type: Drop/Chute 76

Structure Type: Cross Drainage Culvert 77

Structure Type: Aqueduct / Flume 78

Structure Type: Syphon 80

Structure Type: Side Weir/Escape 81

Appendix 3B: Condition assessment -

Guidance Notes: Condition of elements 88

Engineering Inspection - Structure page 1 93

Appendix 4: Condition assessment scores 100

Appendix 5: Relative importance

Appendix 6: Hydraulic modelling

TDR Project R5832

The Procedure is aimed at Government, funding agency and

• identifying the factors which lead to schemes performing

The performance of an irrigation scheme is influenced by many factors,

Used in the initial stages of project identification, the Procedure should

to look technically and economically feasible, the Procedure may be used

Section 1 of the document identifies the scope of the Procedure.

Section 2 discusses the performance of schemes. Problems of

Section 3 describes the uses and analysis of background data to detect

• Checklist of performance constraints

The checklist is intended to detect the nature and approximate scale of

The questionnaire (proforma - Appendix 2) is aimed at farmers. It

Section 5 describes function-based Condition assessment, the third

The priority of works is established by combining the assessed

As it is difficult to link benefits uniquely to the improvement of individual

Computer modelling offers potential for diagnosing hydraulic

The experience acquired in Indonesia, which was drawn upon in

Feasibility studies for rehabilitation projects often indicate high rates of

The International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (Fasso, 1987)

HR Wallingford, with the support of the UK Overseas Development

It is envisaged that the Procedure will be of use to government, funding

NEED FOR REHABILITATION - CAUSES AND EFFECTS

As an example, poor operational control and field water management

Again, an external cause such as falling world commodity prices could

The need for broad-based interventions to achieve sustainable

• Inadequate operational practices may limit improvements to water supply expected

Outward indications of underperformance, which may be cited as

A large number of possible alternative, or complementary,

AIMS AND SCOPE OF THE PROCEDURE

The Procedure should help in formulating programmes by: