Exploring Groundwater Dynamics:

A Comprehensive Investigation and Spatial Mapping

in Canal Command Areas of Sindh

Hafiz Abdul Salam

Muhammad Ashraf
Naveed Iqbal
Nazar Gul
Muhammad Farooque
Shahnawaz Memon

Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR)

2023

ii
Citation: Salam H.A, M. Ashraf, N. Iqbal, N. Gul, M. Farooque, S. Memon (2023).
Exploring Groundwater Dynamics: A Comprehensive Investigation and Spatial
Mapping in Canal Command Areas of Sindh. Pakistan Council of Research in Water
Resources (PCRWR) Islamabad, pp.38

© All rights reserved by PCRWR. The authors encourage fair use of this material for
non-commercial purposes with proper citation.

ISBN: 978-627-7725-03-7

Disclaimer:

The views expressed in this report are those of the authors and not necessarily
those of the institution.

iii
 Table of Contents
Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... vii

Executive Summary ................................................................................................. viii

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

1.1 Irrigation Network in Sindh .................................................................... 2

1.2 Objectives ............................................................................................. 5

1.3 Scope of the Study ............................................................................... 5

2. Methodology .................................................................................................... 6

3. Results and Discussion ................................................................................... 9

3.1 Soil Texture Analysis ............................................................................ 9

3.2 Soil Salinity ......................................................................................... 10

3.3 Depth to Water Table .......................................................................... 13

3.4 Groundwater Quality Sampling and Analysis ...................................... 15

3.5 Groundwater Quality Mapping through ERS ....................................... 17

3.6 Discharge Measurements ................................................................... 31

3.7 Seepage Measurements ..................................................................... 33

4. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 36

References ............................................................................................................ 37

iii
 List of Tables

Table 1: Barrages with canal irrigation network .................................................. 3

Table 2: Measurements at cross sections on left and right side of each canal ... 7

Table 3: Classification of soil salinization and sodicity ...................................... 10

Table 4: Classification of soil salinity based on ECe (dS/m) ............................. 11

Table 5: Water quality zoning ........................................................................... 15

Table 6: Discharge of canals at 20 km cross section ........................................ 32

Table 7: Seepage rate in canals at 20 km cross section................................... 34

iv
 List of Figures

Figure 1: Canal command areas of Sindh ............................................................ 4

Figure 2: An integrated methodology of the study................................................ 6

Figure 3: Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) ............................................ 8

Figure 4: Seepage meter with accessories .......................................................... 8

Figure 5: Sub surface lithological variations in 14 CCAs ...................................... 9

Figure 6: Area coverage of soil texture in 14 CCAs ........................................... 10

Figure 7: Depth wise spatial variation of soil salinity (ECe) in CCAs.................. 11

Figure 8: Area coverage of soil salinity (ECe) in 14 CCAs ................................. 12

Figure 9: Depth wise spatial variation of SAR in 14 CCAs ................................. 12

Figure 10: Depth wise spatial variation of ESP in 14 CCAs ................................. 13

Figure 11: Pre-monsoon and post-monsoon DTW covering 14 CCAs in 2021 .... 14

Figure 12: Area coverage of DTW covering 14 CCAs in 2021 ............................. 15

Figure 13: Pre-monsoon and post-monsoon EC variations covering 14 CCAs at

varying depths in 2021 ........................................................................ 16

Figure 14: Area coverage of EC covering 14 CCAs in 2021 ................................ 17

Figure 15: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 25 m depth ....................... 18

Figure 16: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 25 m depth in 14 CCAs ...... 19

Figure 17: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 50 m depth ....................... 20

Figure 18: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 75 m depth ....................... 21

Figure 19: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 100 m depth ..................... 22

Figure 20: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 50 m depth in 14 CCAs ...... 23

Figure 21: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 75 m depth in 14 CCAs ...... 23

Figure 22: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 100 m depth in 14 CCAs .... 24

Figure 23: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 150 m depth ..................... 25

Figure 24: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 200 m depth ..................... 26

v
Figure 25: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 150 m depth in 14 CCAs .... 27

Figure 26: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 200 m depth in 14 CCAs .... 27

Figure 27: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 250 m depth ..................... 28

Figure 28: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 300 m depth ..................... 29

Figure 29: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 250 m depth in 14 CCAs .... 30

Figure 30: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 300 m depth in 14 CCAs .... 30

Figure 31: Discharge measurement through ADCP in canals .............................. 31

Figure 32: Seepage measurement in the active canal bed .................................. 33

vi
 Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank Sindh Irrigation Department (SID), Government of
Sindh, for funding this study through the ADP Scheme "Groundwater Investigation
and Mapping in Sindh". The exceptional support and coordination provided by the
Sindh Irrigation and Drainage Authority (SIDA) is highly appreciated. The authors
extend their sincere gratitude to the dedicated team whose extensive fieldwork
greatly supported the project activities. Acknowledgments are also due to key staff of
Drainage and Reclamation Institute of Pakistan (DRIP), Pakistan Council of
Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) Office, Tando Jam, who were deeply
involved in accomplishment of administrative, financial, and technical tasks. The staff
of the Soil and Water Analysis Laboratory, DRIP, Tando Jam, is recognized for their
diligent efforts in soil and water analysis. The contributions of Engr. Syed Ibtisam
Asmat, Deputy Director, Mr. Izhar Hussain Bhutto, Assistant Director and Mr.
Muhammad Akram Chandio, Surveyor are highly acknowledged for their invaluable
efforts in conducting measurements for discharge and seepage rates. The authors
would like to extend their sincere thanks to Dr. Manzoor Ahmad Malik, Ex-Director of
PCRWR, for his invaluable guidance on the discharge and seepage measurement
sections. The work of Mr. Umer Abro and Mr. Zeeshan Munawar in formatting the
reports is highly appreciated.

vii
 Executive Summary

Groundwater stands as the keystone of primary water source and a crucial factor in
advancing irrigated farming across numerous global regions. Pakistan solidifies its
position as the world's fourth-largest groundwater consumer. The Sindh province of
Pakistan has about 80% saline groundwater. The prevalence of higher salinity levels
in Sindh province is primarily attributed to inadequate drainage conditions and the
existence of shallow and brackish groundwater. However, due to low conveyance
efficiency and uneven distribution of surface water, farming communities have been
compelled to increasingly depend on groundwater, especially in the downstream
areas.

This study was planned in Sindh in line with the National Water Policy, 2018, which
emphasizes for the development of Groundwater Atlas for each canal-controlled
area. Accordingly, detailed and comprehensive study has been completed in
partnership with Sindh Irrigation Department (SID) through Sindh Irrigation and
Drainage Authority (SIDA). This study aims to delineate fresh groundwater quality
pockets in the 14 canal command areas of Sindh Province. The Sindh Water Policy,
2023 also provides clear guidance to the Government of Sindh on sustainable
groundwater management aiming to identify fresh groundwater quality pockets for
safe extraction.
This study includes the investigations of both groundwater and surface water.
Groundwater studies comprise of characterizing soil properties, Electrical Resistivity
Survey (ERS), measurements of depth to water table and groundwater monitoring
(pre-monsoon and post-monsoon, 2021) in 14 main canal command areas. For
surface water, discharge measurement through Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler
(ADCP) and calculation of seepage rates through seepage meter in canal beds were
carried out at 20 km cross section.
The findings of the study revealed that Kotri Barrage's command area and the
downstream of Sukkur Barrage are characterized by major soil types like clay loam,
clay, and loamy soils. The predominant soil type in the upstream of Guddu Barrage
is sandy clay loam, followed by loamy soil. Soil salinity findings reveal that within
Guddu Barrage's command zone, except the western side of Begari Sindh and
Desert Pat Feeder, the soil profile down to 90 cm depth ranges from non-saline (ECe
< 4 dS/m) to slightly saline (ECe 4 - 8 dS/m). The downstream segments of the Nara,
Akram Wah, Phuleli, Pinyari, and Begari show moderate salinity (ECe 8 - 15 dS/m)
to strong salinity (ECe > 15 dS/m) levels, extending from the surface to deeper
depths (90 cm) in Mirpurkhas, Sanghar, Badin, Sujawal, Thatta, and Jacobabad
Districts.
The Desert Pat Feeder and Begari Sindh Feeder areas have a shallow depth (less
than 2.0 m), primarily due to the cultivation of rice in these regions. Additionally, Kalri
Baghar and Pinyari canal command areas show prevalence of the shallow water
tables. Laboratory analysis of groundwater samples shows fresh groundwater quality

viii
at shallow depths upto 16 m depth in areas such as: Ghotki, Khairpur West, Begari
Sindh, North West, Rice canal, and downstream Rohri, spanning districts like Ghotki,
Khairpur, Shikarpur, Larkana, Matiari and Tando Allahyar. During post-monsoon
period, there is a 4% improvement in the quality of fresh groundwater attributed to
the recharge of rainfall as well as nearby river and canal irrigation network.
The ERS findings suggest that groundwater at a depth of 25 m in the downstream
regions of Phulei, Pinyari, Kalri Baghar Feeder, Akram Wah and Nara canal
command area exhibits high salinity levels (EC > 4.0 dS/m). This salinity is likely
influenced by factors such as sea water intrusion, flat topography, low-lying tracts,
inadequate drainage, and the presence of fine layers like clay loam and clay. The
results suggest that groundwater extraction should be conducted safely in the
Ghotki, Begari Sindh Feeder, North West canal, Rice, Khairpur West, Khairpur East,
upstream and downstream Rohri command areas, particularly in proximity to the
River Indus up to a depth of 100 m. This implies that the aquifer recharge is
significantly influenced by seepage losses from the canals and the River Indus. This
highlights the significance of implementing careful canal lining practices.
The discharge of canals was measured through an ADCP instrument. The results
reveal that discharge at head was substantial but gradually reduces due to flow
diversions to distributaries as well as minors for irrigation purpose and seepage
losses. Seepage rates demonstrate diverse trends across different canals,
influenced by local conditions and soil strata.

ix
1. Introduction

Groundwater has emerged as an important water resource, and its increasing

demand in agriculture, domestic, and industrial sectors underscore its strategic
significance. Global estimates indicate that the annual groundwater extraction
worldwide is approximately 750 - 800 km3, accounting for about one-sixth of the total
freshwater abstraction (Shah, 2000). Pakistan is the world's fourth-largest user of
groundwater for irrigation. The total groundwater potential is approximately 68 billion
cubic meters (BCM), with around 60 BCM currently being exploited (Qureshi, 2018;
Basharat and Tariq, 2015).

The available groundwater resource in Sindh is approximately 6.2 BCM and holds
ample potential for irrigation. However, the utilization of groundwater is relatively
lower (4.3 BCM) than surface water due to two primary reasons (Steenbergen et al.,
2015). A significant portion of the area is situated over saline or brackish water and
the canal command areas receive sufficient surface irrigation supplies.
About 1.2 million private tubewells are operational in the country, with 85% located in
Punjab, 6.4% in Sindh, 3.8% in Khyber-Pakhtunkhwa, and 4.8% in Balochistan
(Qureshi, 2020). In Sindh province, the use of groundwater is minimal due to quality
concerns, resulting in lower utilization for irrigation compared to Punjab (Ahmad et
al., 1998; Young et al., 2019). In Punjab, only 23% of the area has poor groundwater
quality, while in Sindh, it is 78% (Bakshi and Trivedi, 2011). In Punjab, groundwater
quality ranges from 0.5 to 4.5 dS/m, whereas in Sindh, it rises to 9.0 dS/m (Bhutta,
2002; Qureshi et al., 2009).
About 35% of Sindh's total area have water table within 1.5 m, resulting in significant
waterlogging issues (Steenbergen, 2020). In 2013, the average annual depth to the
water table ranged from 0.2 to 3.0 m, covering approximately 98% area. Out of this,
about 51% area experienced waterlogging conditions with a depth to water table
(DTW) less than or equal to 1.5 m (Iqbal et al., 2020). Due to these challenges, the
development of private tubewells in Sindh remained limited, and groundwater
fluctuations are less noticed compared to other regions. This constraint can be
attributed to the restricted exploitation of groundwater due to the reasons explained
above.
However, low conveyance efficiency and mismanagement of surface water have
compelled the farming community particularly at the tail-ends to rely on groundwater.
As a result, groundwater depletion in these areas triggered the saline water up-
coning, leading to secondary salinization. The cultivation of high delta crops such as
sugarcane, rice, and banana, using traditional irrigation practices, presents another
challenge contributing to low water productivity. Generally, canal water is more
accessible to head and middle-reach farmers, while tail-end farmers frequently
express concerns about the inadequate availability of their rightful share. This
situation not only compromises groundwater quality due to reduced recharge but

1
also imposes an additional burden in the form of pumping costs on the shoulders of
tail-end communities.
Presently in Sindh, there is no regulation or authority to control the over-extraction of
groundwater. Sindh Water Policy, 2023 highlights that groundwater rights have not
yet been introduced in the province. The Policy proposed reforms in the associated
institutions for the restructuring of Sindh Irrigation Department and Sindh Irrigation
and Drainage Authority into Sindh Water Resources Management Department.
Under this department, Groundwater, Drainage and Water Quality Directorate will be
established dealing with the policy, planning, allocation, regulation, operation and
maintenance of vital parts of the system. A mechanism for water governance and
crucial policy actions concerning groundwater management will be implemented by
preparing and enforcing the appropriate regulations for licensing of groundwater to
ensure the safe extraction of groundwater, taking into account the site-specific
aquifer conditions in various ecosystems.
According to National Water Policy (Clause 16), the provinces shall be encouraged
to prepare a Groundwater Atlas for each canal command and sub-basin, enforce
legislation and take regulatory measures. For the development of atlas and
management of groundwater, the following information is necessary:
 Identification of depth to water table in different canal commands/zones
 Mapping of water quality zones
 Identification of fresh-saline water interface
 Determination of fresh groundwater potential.
The Sindh Irrigation Department (SID) entrusted Pakistan Council of Research in
Water Resources (PCRWR) to conduct comprehensive groundwater investigation for
the demarcation of fresh groundwater quality along with identification of depth to
water table in 14 major canal command areas of the province.

1.1 Irrigation Network in Sindh

Irrigation in Sindh province has a long history spanning thousands of years. The
development of irrigation infrastructure has played a vital role in enabling the
existence and fostering the growth of agriculture in this region . Without it, virtually
there would have been no agriculture. From Moen-jo-Daro era (5000 years ago) the
waters of Indus have governed the overall development of Sindh. Even the name
Sindh is derived from one of the original names of the Indus River. The irrigation
network infrastructure of the province is given in Table 1. The irrigation was
intensified through the construction of barrages and development of canal irrigation
system.

2
 Table 1: Barrages with canal irrigation network

Barrage Canals Command Design Districts in the

Area Discharge Command Area
(Mha) (m3/sec)

Desert Pat Feeder Ghotki, Sukkur,

Kashmore, Kandhkot,
Jacobabad, Shikarpur,
Begari Sindh and Larkana districts of
Guddu 1.17 33,980
Feeder Sindh. Nasirabad and
Jafarabad districts of
Ghotki Feeder Balochistan province

Rohri Sukkur, Kambar

Shahdadkot, Khairpur,
Nara Shikarpur, Jacobabad,
Dadu, Larkana,
Khairpur East Sanghar, Tando
Allahyar, Umerkot,
Khairpur West Mirpurkhas, Tharparker,
Sukkur 3.09 42,450
Naushahro Feroze,
North West Shaheed Benazirabad,
(Kirthar) Matiari, Tando Allahyar,
and Badin.
Rice

Dadu

Pinyari Districts Hyderabad,

Thatta, Tando
Phuleli Muhammad Khan,
Kotri 1.21 24,800 Jamshoro, Badin and
Akram Wah Karachi
Kalri Baghar
Feeder

Sindh has been one of the major beneficiaries of irrigation development on the Indus
River. There are 3 barrages and 14 main canals that irrigate approximately 5 Mha of
area (Steenbergen, 2014), along with 1,446 distributaries/minors and 45,000
watercourses (Memon, 2006). The first barrage in the province was completed in
1932 at Sukkur. Later on, irrigation system was further expanded through
construction of Kotri Barrage (1955) and Guddu barrage (1962). The canal system in
Sindh is an integral component of the Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS), providing
irrigation water for agriculture and supporting the economic development of the
province. The canal command areas of the 14 distinct canals are shown in Figure 1.

3
 Figure 1: Canal command areas of Sindh

The canal water is not only a source of irrigation, but it also helps in recharging the
groundwater. Seepages of freshwater from the canals, major and minor
distributaries, watercourses and field application losses have developed a lens of the
freshwater of varying thickness overlying on saline groundwater (Ashraf et al., 2012).
The abstraction of fresh groundwater from such aquifer is complex process,
necessitating careful consideration of water quality rather than focusing solely on
quantity due to delicate interface between fresh and saline groundwater. Any excess
water abstraction results in salt water up-coning (Saeed et al., 2003). Therefore,

4
groundwater investigation and mapping at canal command scale is imperative for the
demarcation of fresh water zones as well as sustainable management. The
objectives of the study were:

1.2 Objectives

i) Analyzing spatial variations in depth to water table on seasonal basis

(Pre-Monsoon and Post-Monsoon).

ii) Demarcation of spatial variation in groundwater quality and identification of

fresh groundwater pockets.

iii) Assessment of canal water discharges and calculation of seepage rate.

1.3 Scope of the Study

The scope of this study covers the irrigated areas falling under the canal commands
of 14 major canals in Sindh province including Tharparkar District as well as Malir
Area (cultivated area between Hyderabad and Karachi). Considering the natural
calamities such as COVID – 19, the 2022 floods, law and order situation in Guddu
Barrage command area and time constraint, PCRWR mainly focused the canal
command areas of 14 canals whereas; the Malir area could not be completed due to
above mentioned limitations. Owing to the challenging law and order conditions in
the Katcha region along the Indus River, the measurement of discharge and
seepage in four canals namely Desert Pat Feeder, North West canal, Ghotki canal,
and Begari Sindh Feeder could not be executed. For Tharparkar, PCRWR has
recently published a separate technical report titled, "Beneath the Sands: A
Comprehensive Study of Groundwater in Tharparkar Region” (Salam et al., 2023).
This report is now accessible from the organization's website
(https://pcrwr.gov.pk/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/Beneath-the-Sands-Groundwater-
Study-in-Tharparkar-Region.pdf.

5
2. Methodology

In this study, an integrated methodology was adopted. In order to characterize soil

texture, soil salinity and sodicity, samples were collected and analyzed for Electrical
Conductivity, Sodium Absorption Ratio and Exchangeable Sodium Percentage. For
groundwater investigations, depth to water table was measured to assess the
groundwater behavior and groundwater samples were collected to characterize
chemical properties. Geophysical technique namely Electrical Resistivity Survey was
used to examine the groundwater quality. For surface water, discharge of canals was
measured through Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) and seepage rates
were determined through seepage meter (Figure 2).
Groundwater Investigation

Surface water Analayis

Depth to Water Table
Measurement
Soil Analysis

Texture Discharge
meaurements
Groundwater Quality
Analysis
Seepage rate
ECe, SAR, ESP measurements
Electrical Resistivity
Survey

Figure 2: An integrated methodology of the study

Overall, 832 soil samples were collected from 208 locations using an auger, at
different depths: 0 - 15 cm, 15 - 30 cm, 30 - 60 cm, and 60 - 90 cm, on a 25 km x 25
km grid interval. The depth to water table (DTW) measurements and groundwater
water quality samples were collected twice a year in pre-monsoon (April, 2021) and
post-monsoon (December, 2021) as per designed methodology given in Table 2. In
total, 4,009 depths to water table measurements were taken. Similarly, 4,257
groundwater samples were collected and analyzed for detailed quality analysis at
DRIP, PCRWR, Laboratory.

The ABEM Terrameter equipment of SAS-4000 model was used with Schlumberger
configuration. The field data was processed using IX1D software. For mapping
purpose, Inverse Distance Weighted (IDW) interpolation technique was used in
ArcGIS software for spatial analysis. Moreover, thematic maps were created at

6
different depth intervals upto 300 m to demarcate lateral and vertical variations in
groundwater quality.

Table 2: Measurements at cross sections on left and right side of each canal

Survey 0 300 600 1 5 10 20 30 40 50 60

Description m m m km km km km km km km km

DTW
(Pre &       
Post
Monsoon)
Groundwater

WQ
Sampling
      
Pre & Post
Monsoon

ERS
          
Probes
Surface water

Discharge    

Seepage
   
rate

Electrical resistivity probes (2,212 Nos.) were carried out upto the depth of 300 m on
both sides of canals depending upon the length and width of each canal command.
The one-time, one-spot discharge and seepage measurements were taken along the
length of the canal at every 20 km cross section. For discharge measurement, ADCP
is now a commonly used method for measuring streamflow (Figure 3). The ADCP
River Ray 600, manufactured by Teledyne Company in the USA, was used for data
acquisition up to a depth of 40 m. This instrument has been manufactured in 2015
and provided by UNESCO to PCRWR by ensuring the best available technology. All
standard operating procedures for discharge measurement were adopted. The
accuracy and consistency through parameters were ensured, such as shape of the
stream banks, ADCP draft depth (0.15 m), and un-measured zones extrapolation
power factor (1/6) to standardize the measurements. Further steps like clock
synchronization, diagnostic test of the ADCP with WinRiver-II software, distance
from magnetic materials, minimum water velocity, uniform flow, proper site selection,
compass calibration, moving bed (loop test) and 4 - 6 number of transects were
carried out successfully. All measurements were taken through GGA mode.

7
 Figure 3: Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP)
Seepage in the canal section is an important component of the water mass balance.
Seepage meter comprises a seepage bell of 60 cm diameter cylinder having depth of
50 cm and 13 mm nozzle. A simple version of seepage meter with accessories is
given in Figure 4. It consists of an inverted drum cut at the bottom and connected at
the top through a hose to a flexible water reservoir floating on the water surface.
Working under air tight condition, water loss from the drum through seepage from its
bottom bed is compensated by the water in the flexible reservoir. Volume of water
loss over the given time interval is recorded. The seepage rate of the river channel at
the point of measurement is then calculated by dividing the volume of water lost by
the area of the drum bed and time lapsed (Malik and Ashraf, 2017).

Figure 4: Seepage meter with accessories

8
3. Results and Discussion

3.1 Soil Texture Analysis

Soil texture plays a significant role in groundwater recharge and soil moisture. Figure
5 illustrates the dominance of clay loam at all respective depths, followed by clay and
loamy soil.

Figure 5: Sub surface lithological variations in 14 CCAs

About 39% of the top soil is covered with clay loam soil, followed by clay (22%), loam
(18%) and sandy clay loam (Figure 6). Therefore, the predominant soil texture,
constituting 89% of the area, is clay loam, clay, loam, and sandy clay loam. The
results are in agreement with those found by Iqbal et al., (2020). They concluded that
clayey strata were more prominent in the Indus Delta, including the areas of Tando
Allahyar, Tando Muhammad Khan, Thatta, Sujawal, and Badin Districts. Sandy loam
soil predominates in the upper part of the Lower Indus Basin, including Ghotki,
Sukkur, and Khairpur Districts. Sandy loam soil also dominates in the Potohar region
of Upper Indus basin along with two other textural classes loam and silt loam (Malik
and Ashraf, 2023).

The clay loam, clay and loamy soils are dominant in Kotri Barrage and downstream
of Sukkur Barrage command area. At the upstream of Guddu Barrage, sandy-clay

9
loam is dominant followed by loamy soil. The sub surface soil lithological variation
shows that clay and loamy soils gradually decrease to 29% and 15%, respectively at
60-90 cm depth. However, the clay content in the soil texture slightly increases from
the top layer to the bottom layer from 22% to 27%. The higher percentage of clay
loam soil may be due to the accumulation of clay particles over time, as they tend to
settle down through the soil profile. Moreover, high clay content could be due to
transportation of fine particles with irrigation water.

Clay Clay Loam Loam Loamy Sand

Sandy Clay Loam Sandy Loam Silt Loam Sand
45
40
Area Coverage (%)

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90
Depth (cm)

Figure 6: Area coverage of soil texture in 14 CCAs

Clay loam soil has a relatively fine texture with good water retention properties. This
means that it can hold water for longer periods. In regions like Indus Delta with high
salinity levels in the water, the fine particles in clay loam trap the salts that
accumulate over time. As the water evaporates, the salts remain in the soil, leading
to increased soil salinity.

3.2 Soil Salinity

Soil salinity refers to the concentration of salts present in the soil, whereas sodium
concentration promotes soil sodification. The soil classification based on soil salinity
and sodicity is given in Table 3, whereas classification of soil salinity based on
Electrical Conductivity (ECe) is presented in Table 4.
Table 3: Classification of soil salinization and sodicity
Soil Type ECe (dS/m) SAR ESP
Normal <4 < 13 < 15
Saline >4 < 13 < 15
Sodic <4 > 13 > 15
Saline – Sodic >4 > 13 > 15
Source: Horneck et al., (2011).

10
Figure 7 shows that the soil profile upto 90 cm depth within the command area of
Guddu Barrage is non-saline to slightly saline except few pockets of Begari Sindh
and Desert Pat Feeder command areas.

Table 4: Classification of soil salinity based on ECe (dS/m)

Soil Type ECe (dS/m)

Salt free <4
Slightly saline 4-8
Moderately saline 8-15
Strongly saline > 15
Source: Ghassemi et al., (1995), Steenbergen, et al., (2015).

The soils in the downstream command areas of Akram Wah, Pinyari, Phuleli, Nara
canal, and western side of Begari Sindh Feeder are moderate saline (21%) to
strongly saline (6%) extending from surface soil to deeper depth (60-90 cm). These
command areas comprise the districts of Badin, Thatta, Sujawal, Sanghar,
Mirpurkhas, and Jacobabad. The high salinity may be due to high water table,
inadequate drainage conditions, and use of poor-quality groundwater. The
percentage of ECe in the 14 command areas is illustrated in Figure 8. About 37% of
the upper soil layer consists of slightly saline soil (ECe 4-8 dS/m). This condition is
noticed throughout the canal command areas.

Figure 7: Depth wise spatial variation of soil salinity (ECe) in CCAs

11
 Salt free Slightly saline Moderately saline Strongly saline
70

60

50
Area Percentage %

40

30

20

10

0
0-15 15-30 30-60 60-90
Depth (cm)

Figure 8: Area coverage of soil salinity (ECe) in 14 CCAs

The non-saline soil varies from 37% to 62%, ranging from the top soil layer (0-15 cm)
to the lower layer (60-90 cm). The spatial variation of SAR and ESP is given in
Figures 9 to 10.

Figure 9: Depth wise spatial variation of SAR in 14 CCAs

12
 Figure 10: Depth wise spatial variation of ESP in 14 CCAs

The Sodium Absorption Ratio (SAR) and Exchangeable Sodium Percentage (ESP)
are on higher side in Dadu, Khairpur East, and lower region of Sindh i.e. downstream
Nara, Akram Wah, Phuleli, Kalri Baghar Feeder and Pinyari canal. These results are
consistent with those found by Iqbal et al., (2020), that the lower region of Sindh,
particularly in the Indus Delta has higher SAR and ESP values.

3.3 Depth to Water Table

Depth to Water Table (DTW) is classified into five classes, ranging from <2 m to
greater than 16 m (Figure 11). The DTW analysis reveals that the most significant
seasonal variation occurs immediately after monsoon season. The average water-
table depth in pre-monsoon season is 4.6 m, whereas in the post-monsoon season,
it decreases to 2.4 m. Total command area with 60% falling within 2.1 to 4.0 m
water-table depth. Additionally, 28% of the area lies within less than 2 m depth
(Figure 12). The Desert Pat Feeder and Begari Sindh Feeder have shallow water-
table depths i.e., <2 m. The reason for shallow depth in this region may be due to
growing of rice using Pancho irrigation system which is one of the most inefficient
irrigation systems (Ashraf et al., 2014).

13
Figure 11: Pre-monsoon and post-monsoon DTW covering 14 CCAs in 2021

14
The reason of shallow depth to water table in Kalri Baghar and Pinyari canal
command may be due to low lying area, sea water rises, and growing high water
demanding crops such as rice, sugarcane and banana. The water table rose up to
2 m in 69% of the canal command area in post-monsoon, 2021. The reason for this
may be recharge due to rainfall and high flows in canals during the post-monsoon
season. Further, 25% area lies under 2.1-4.0 m water-table depth. During the post-
monsoon period in 2021, the extent of waterlogging (DTW ≤ 1.5 m) has increased
to 42% in canal command areas.

80
Pre-Monsoon Post-Monsoon
70
60
Area Coverage (%)

50
40
30
20
10
0
<2 2.1 - 4 4.1 - 8 8.1 - 16 > 16
Depth to Water Table (m)

Figure 12: Area coverage of DTW covering 14 CCAs in 2021

The areas under DTW range of <2 m have increased significantly in post monsoon
from 28% to 69%. Conversely, the area under DTW 2.0-4.0 m decreased from 60%
to 25%. This may be due to increase in shallow water table area (<2 m).

3.4 Groundwater Quality Sampling and Analysis

Groundwater has a broad range of applications in domestic, agriculture and

industrial sectors. Therefore, it is important to monitor its quality regularly. The
quality of groundwater in terms of EC was measured in the Laboratory and divided
into four water quality zones (Table 5). The spatial variation of groundwater quality is
given in Figure 13.

Table 5: Water quality zoning

Water Quality Zones EC (dS/m)

Fresh < 1.5
Marginal 1.5 – 2.5
Saline 2.6 – 4.0
Highly Saline > 4.0
Source: Iqbal et al., (2020).

15
Figure 13: Pre-monsoon and post-monsoon EC variations covering 14 CCAs at varying depths in 2021

16
Figure 14 illustrates that 52% of the area falls under marginal groundwater quality,
34% area falls under fresh groundwater quality, and remaining 14% of the area falls
under saline to highly saline groundwater. The groundwater of fresh quality was
found in shallow pockets upto 16 m in Ghotki, Khairpur West, Begari Sindh, North
West, Rice canal and downstream Rohri canal commands in the Districts of Ghotki,
Khairpur, Shikarpur, Larkana, Matiari and Tando Allahyar.

The reason for fresh groundwater quality at shallow depth may be recharge from
river and canal irrigation network as well as cropping pattern. During the post-
monsoon, fresh groundwater quality (<1.5 dS/m) is improved by 4%. It shows that in
post monsoon, due to recharge from rainfall and high flows in canals, the
groundwater quality was improved.

Pre-Monsoon EC Post-Monsoon EC

60

50
Area Coverage (%)

40

30

20

10

0
< 1.5 1.6 - 2.5 2.6 - 4.0 > 4.0

EC (dS/m)

Figure 14: Area coverage of EC covering 14 CCAs in 2021

The majority of area (pre-monsoon, 52% and post monsoon, 45%) falls under
marginal groundwater quality at shallow depth (16 m). This water can be used
conjunctively with surface water for irrigation purpose (Sheikh and Ashraf, 2009).

3.5 Groundwater Quality Mapping through ERS

The sustainable groundwater management depends on monitoring the groundwater

use and evaluating the groundwater quality. The spatial variation of groundwater
quality evaluated through ERS is given in Figure 15. The groundwater at a depth of
25 m in the command areas of Phuleli, Pinyari, Kalri Baghar Feeder, Akram Wah,
and tail end of Nara canal is highly saline. Saltwater intrusion, low-lying areas, flat
topography, inadequate drainage, and the prevalence of fine layers (clay loam and
clay) could be the potential factors contributing to increased groundwater salinity in
the Kotri Barrage and downstream of the Nara command areas.

17
Figure 15: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 25 m depth
18
The canal commands closer to River Indus on both sides have fresh groundwater
quality that may be due to recharge from the river. The groundwater quality at a
depth of 25 m is predominantly highly saline at 30% area, followed by 26% saline,
23% marginal, and 21% fresh (Figure 16).

35

30

25
Area Coverage (%)

20

15

10

0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Groundwater Quality Zoning

Figure 16: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 25 m depth in 14 CCAs

Most importantly, groundwater quality in the command area of Ghotki, Begari Sindh
Feeder, North West, Rice, Khairpur East, and Khairpur West Feeders near the Indus
River, covering the districts of Ghotki, Kashmore, Shikarpur, Larkana, Khairpur,
Naushero Feroze, Matiari and Tando Allahyar, is suitable for irrigation purposes. The
upstream and downstream command areas of Rohri canal have fresh groundwater
quality.

The groundwater quality at 26 to 100 m depth is given in Figures 17 to 19. Kotri

Barrage command area and downstream Nara canal have highly saline groundwater
with EC > 4.0 dS/m. The groundwater can be pumped safely in Ghotki, Begari Sindh
Feeder, North West canal, Rice, Khairpur West, Khairpur East, upstream and
downstream Rohri command areas close to River Indus upto the depth of 100 m.

19
Figure 17: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 50 m depth

20
Figure 18: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 75 m depth

21
Figure 19: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 100 m depth

22
About 45-58% area at 26-100 m depth is highly saline mostly in Kotri Barrage
command area and downstream of Nara canal (Figures 20-22). The groundwater
covering an area of 11-21% in the command areas of Guddu and Sukkur Barrage
near River Indus is suitable for irrigation purposes. The reason for the fresh
groundwater quality in these areas could be excessive irrigation in rice fields and
recharge of river and canals.

50
45
40
35
Area Coverage (%)

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Groundwater Quality Zoning

Figure 20: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 50 m depth in 14 CCAs

60

50
Area Coverage (%)

40

30

20

10

0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Groundwater Quality Zoning

Figure 21: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 75 m depth in 14 CCAs

This shows that seepage from above mentioned canals and Indus River plays a vital
role in recharging the aquifer.

23
 70

60

50
Area Coverage (%)

40

30

20

10

0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Grounwater Quality Zoning

Figure 22: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 100 m depth in 14 CCAs

About 11-23% area upto 100 m depth lies under marginal groundwater quality which
can be used through conjunctive use of surface and groundwater. The groundwater
quality in pockets of Ghotki Feeder, Rice and downstream of Rohri canal command
areas adjacent to River Indus in District Ghotki, Larkana, Naushahro Feroze and
Tando Allhayar show the fresh groundwater quality even at deeper depth (101-200
m) and usable for irrigation purpose (Figures 23-24).

The command areas of Kotri Barrage with four canals (Phuleli, Pinyari, Kalri Baghar
Feeder, and Akram Wah), along with the downstream of Nara canals, show high
salinity. One possible reason for this could be the proximity of these areas to the
sea, as well as flat and low-lying topography.

The area coverage of EC in groundwater at 150-200 m depth (Figures 25-26) in 14

canal command depicts that 72-84% area is highly saline. The areas mostly include
Kotri Barrage command area, downstream section of the Nara canal, and areas on
the right side of the River Indus, situated away from it.

It is pertinent to mention that the area under the saline zone (EC 2.5-4.0 dS/m)
shows relatively less coverage (12-26%) across the entire investigation depth (0-300
m).

24
Figure 23: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 150 m depth

25
Figure 24: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 200 m depth

26
 80

70

60
Area Coverage (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Groundwater Quality Zoning

Figure 25: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 150 m depth in 14 CCAs

90

80

70

60
Area Coverage (%)

50

40

30

20

10

0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Groundwater Quality Zoning

Figure 26: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 200 m depth in 14 CCAs

In the Ghotki Feeder command area, there are some pockets close to River Indus at
250-300 m depth (Figures 27-28), which show the fresh groundwater quality and can
be used for irrigation and domestic purposes. However, the rest of the area in all
commands is highly saline at this depth.

27
Figure 27: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 250 m depth

28
Figure 28: Spatial variation of groundwater quality at 300 m depth

29
The area coverage of groundwater quality at 201-300 m depth in 14 canal command
areas is given in Figures 29-30. The groundwater quality at these depths is highly
saline encompassing about 87-90% of the area.

100
90
80
70
Area Coverage (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Water Quality Zoning

Figure 29: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 250 m depth in 14 CCAs

100
90
80
70
Area Coverage (%)

60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Fresh Marginal Saline Highly Saline

Water Quality Zoning

Figure 30: Area coverage of groundwater quality at 300 m depth in 14 CCAs

30
Evidently, at greater depths (201-300 m), the groundwater quality becomes highly
saline. High salinity at deeper depths may be due to various factors, including low
recharge, poor drainage, flat topography, and geological characteristics. By
understanding the causes and consequences of high salinity, and by implementing
effective mitigation strategies, it is possible to reduce its impact on agriculture, water
resources, and the environment, ensuring a sustainable future for the region.

3.6 Discharge Measurements

Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler (ADCP) provides rapid and reliable measurement
of river /canal flow regime. However, moving bed test, compass calibration, magnetic
declination, deviation and multipath errors require special consideration (Malik and
Ashraf, 2021). Aligned with the objectives of the study, discharge in the canals was
measured with ADCP (Figure 31). The width, area, and mean velocity of the canal's
cross sections vary from one canal to other. The detailed data with time and date of
discharge in the canals is maintained by PCRWR. The summary of discharge is
given in Table 6.

Figure 31: Discharge measurement through ADCP in canals

The discharge of Nara canal shows a consistent rise up to 180 km may be due to the
drainage and sewerage from Rohri city, industrial effluents, and the outflow of flood
water into the canal. Following this, Nara canal was bifurcated into four segments:
New Jamrao canal, Old Jamrao canal, Ranto canal, and the Nara canal itself. The
flow gradually decreased until reaching 240 km may be due to closure of Pak Siri
regulator. The canal flow was increased at 260 km. This increase might be due to
inclusion of water from the Ranto canal originating from the Chotiyari dam. After this,
the flow gradually decreased until reaching its conclusion, where it was distributed
into various distributaries. The discharge data through ADCP shows that flow
gradually reduces due to flow diversion to minors, and distributaries for irrigation
purposes and seepage losses in Rohri, Khairpur West, Dadu, Rice, Pinyari, and Kalri
Baghar Feeder. The discharge of Khairpur East shows gradual decrease up to a
distance of 40 km.

31
 Table 6: Discharge of canals at 20 km cross section

Discharge (m3/sec)
S.
Name of Canal 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
No.
km km km Km km km km km km km km km km km km km km km

1 Nara 280 294 303 300 300 294 320 328 320 311 119 121 11 36 31 28 27 22

2 Rohri 267 211 200 207 211 152 148 134 133 129 117 108 106 79 31 13 10 -

3 Khairpur East 42 17 7 17 7 6 -

4 Khairpur West 35 23 16 -

5 Dadu 24 22 19 17 15 16 12 14 7 4 3 -

6 Rice 41 40 39 37 27 19 7 -

7 Phuleli 41 61 43 37 36 -

8 Akram wah 24 22 13 11 39 34 -

9 Pinyari 43 43 41 39 37 -

10 Kalri Baghar Feeder 61 60 58 54 -

32
Afterwards, slight increase was observed at 60 km due to the inclusion of water from
Sathio Wah/minor, followed by a subsequent decrease at the tail end. The discharge
of Akram Wah at 80 km increased, possibly due to the addition of water from Alipur
X-Regulator (RD-230) of Phuleli canal. The discharge at the 20 km cross-section of
Phuleli has increased. This rise may be due to the inclusion of effluent from
Hyderabad city and its surrounding areas. Due to the complex situation involving
inflows, such as the inclusion of city sewage, and outflows, like flow diversion
through minors/distributaries for irrigation, along with the legal or illegal lifting of
water through pumps for drinking or irrigation purposes, flow variations at the head
regulators etc., it is difficult to accurately determine conveyance losses along the full
length of the canals.

Discharge measurement is crucial for ensuring the efficient allocation and utilization
of water resources for drinking, irrigation, industrial processes, and ecological
preservation. The data highlight the dynamic nature of flow rates in canals, which are
influenced by various factors such as discharge variation at the head of canal,
distributaries or minor outlets, inflows and other anthropogenic activities. This
underscores the importance of regular and comprehensive discharge assessments
along various reaches of the canals.

3.7 Seepage Measurements

Table 7 shows the results of the seepage tests (Figure 32) carried out on the canals
of the Sukkur and Korti Barrages. Point measurement of seepage rate is not
supposed to reflect the seepage rate of the canal reach as it represents the
measurement on a very small area (Malik and Ashraf, 2021).

Figure 32: Seepage measurement in the active canal bed

33
 Table 7: Seepage rate in canals at 20 km cross section

Seepage rate (mm/day)

S.
Name of Canal 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
No.
km km km km km km km km km km km km km km km km km km

1 Nara 5 5 0.4 1 1 11 8 7 6 14 7 5 3 11 2 3 3 -

2 Rohri 12 3 7 7 1 - 3 7 4 0.4 - 1 7 3 1 4 1 -

3 Khairpur East 7 2 7 15 5 13 -

4 Khairpur West 11 22 10 -

5 Dadu 20 6 5 17 16 13 5 13 4 13 8 -

6 Rice 11 6 17 16 - 1 16 -

7 Phuleli 8 7 4 4 3 -

8 Akram Wah Lined Portion 3 2 -

9 Pinyari 6 2 2 2 2 -

10 Kalri Baghar Feeder 16 3 2 - -

34
However, such measurements can give reasonable estimates of seepage rates for
various reaches. Akram Wah has only two seepage measurements, and no
measurements were taken in its lined portions. The seepage rate varies randomly
along the entire length of the canal sections. Seepage rates though have mixed
trends depending on local strata but are generally more in upstream and lowest at
the downstream reaches of Rohri, Dadu, Phulei, Pinyari and Kalri Baghar Feeder
canal sections except Khaipur East, Khairpur West and Rice canals. The elevated
seepage rate in the upstream reach appears to be attributed to the less graded bed
material compared to the downstream. Material with a less-graded composition has
a narrower range of particle sizes, leading to poor packing and increased
permeability in the strata. In contrast material that is well-graded possesses a wide
range of particle sizes, allowing for effective packing and resulting in less permeable
strata (Bouteiller et al., 2011). In Nara canal, highest and lowest seepage rates are
14 mm/day (180 km) and 0.4 mm/day (40 km), respectively, but seepage rate values
vary randomly along the reach of the canal.
The investigation into seepage measurement in canals has provided valuable
insights into the losses due to seepage. This information is essential for managing
water resources efficiently and ensuring that canals continue to serve their intended
purpose effectively. The observed variations in seepage rates highlight the need for
periodic assessments to monitor and address potential issues.

35
4. Conclusions

i) The most prevalent soil types at the Kotri Barrage and downstream of Sukkur
Barrage command area are clay loam, clay, and loamy soils. At the upstream
of Guddu Barrage, sandy-clay loam is dominant, followed by loamy soil.

ii) The soil profile up to a depth of 90 cm within the command area of Guddu
Barrage is non-saline to slightly saline, with the exception of few pockets
adjacent to Balochistan province in the Begari Sindh and Desert Pat Feeder
command areas.

iii) The soil in the downstream command areas of Akram Wah, Pinyari, Phuleli,
Nara canal, and the western side of Begari Sindh Feeder ranges from
moderately saline to strongly saline at depths extending from the surface to a
depth of 90 cm. These regions include the districts of Badin, Thatta, Sujawal,
Sanghar, Mirpurkhas, and Jacobabad.

iv) The average water-table depth in pre-monsoon is 4.6 m and 2.4 m in post-
monsoon. The command areas of Desert Pat Feeder, Begari Sindh Feeder,
Kalri Baghar, and Pinyari canals have shallow water-table depths, i.e., less
than 2 m. After post-monsoon period, about 42% area is under waterlogging
conditions (≤1.5 m depth).

v) Groundwater quality is fresh at shallow depths, extending up to 16 m within

the command areas covering Ghotki, Khairpur West, Begari Sindh, North
West, Rice canal, and downstream Rohri canal. These areas include districts
Ghotki, Khairpur, Shikarpur, Larkana, Matiari, and Tando Allahyar.

vi) The groundwater at a depth of 25 m in the command areas of Phuleli, Pinyari,

Kalri Baghar Feeder, Akram Wah, and at the tail end of Nara canal is highly
saline. The groundwater quality in the command areas of Ghotki, Begari
Sindh Feeder, North West, Rice, Khairpur East, Khairpur West Feeders, and
upstream and downstream command areas of Rohri canal near the Indus
River is suitable for irrigation purposes upto 100 m depth.

vii) The discharges at the head of canals were substantial but gradually reduced
due to flow diversions to distributaries, minors and seepage losses. Seepage
rates exhibit diverse trends across various canals, influenced by local
conditions and soil strata.

36
References
Ashraf, M., A. Z. Bhatti., Z. Ullah (2012). Diagnostic analysis and fine-tuning of
skimming well design and operational strategies for sustain-able groundwater
management Indus Basin of Pakistan. Irrigation and Drainage, 61: 270-282.
Ashraf, M., M.K. Marri, I. Rao, A. Salam, M.A. Khan (2014). Pancho-irrigation system
– a wasteful practice of irrigation rice fields in the Lower Indus Basin of
Pakistan. Pakistan Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 51 (4): 867-873.
Ahmad, B., M. Ahmad, Z.A Gill. (1998). Restoration of Soil Health for Achieving
Sustainable Development Growth in Agriculture. The Pakistan Development
Review 37:4, Part II, 997-1015.
Basharat, M., A.R Tariq. (2015). Groundwater modelling for need assessment of
command scale conjunctive water use for addressing the exacerbating
irrigation cost inequities in LBDC irrigation system, Punjab, Pakistan. Sustain.
Water Resources. Management., 1, 41–55.
Bakshi, G.; Trivedi, S (2011). The Indus Equation; Strategic Foresight Group:
Mumbai, India, 2011.
Bhutta MN (2002). Sustainable management of groundwater in the Indus basin.
Paper presented at second South Asia water forum, Pakistan Water
Partnership, Islamabad, Pakistan, 14–16 December 2002
Bouteiller, C.L., F. Naaim‐Bouvet, N. Mathys and J. Lavé (2011). A new framework
for modeling sediment fining during transport with fragmentation and abrasion.
Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 116 (F3), 1-15,
DOI:10.1029/2010JF001926, hal0197337
Ghassemi, F., Jakeman, A. J., Nix, H. (1995). Salinization of Land and Water
Resources: Human causes management and case studies. Center for
Resources and Environmental Studies, ANU, Canberra.
Horneck, D., D. Sullivan, J. Owen Jr, J. Hart (2011). Soil Test Interpretation Guide.
Oregon State University Extension.
Iqbal, N., M. Ashraf, M. Imran, H.A. Salam, F.U. Hasan A.D. Khan. (2020).
Groundwater investigations and mapping in the Lower Indus Plain. Pakistan
Council of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR), Islamabad, pp 70.
Malik, M.A., Ashraf, M. (2023). Field-scale measurements of soil physico-chemical
profiles of the Potohar region in the Indus basin of Pakistan. Irrigation and
Drainage, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2857.
Malik, M.A., M. Ashraf (2021). Hydro-Morphology of the Tributaries and Active Flood
Plains of the River Indus. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources
(PCRWR). pp 80.
Malik, M.A. and M. Ashraf (2017). Determining River Basin Hydraulic and Physical
Characteristics: A Manual. Pakistan Council of Research in Water Resources
(PCRWR), pp.88.

37
Memon, N. A. (2006). Participatory Irrigation Management and Institutionalizing
Irrigation Service in Sindh. In I. Hussain, Z. A. Gill, Z. Naseer, and S. Sarwar
(eds.) INPIM’s 9th International Seminar Participatory Irrigation Management.
Lahore: INPIM. pp. 78–93.
Qureshi, A.S. (2020). Groundwater Governance in Pakistan: From Colossal
Development to Neglected Management. 12, 3017; doi:10.3390/w12113017.
www.mdpi.com/journal/water.
Qureshi, A.S. (2018). Challenges and opportunities for groundwater management in
Pakistan. In Groundwater of South Asia; Mukherjee, A., Ed.; Springer
Hydrogeology; Springer: Berlin, Germany.
Qureshi, A.S., P G. McCornick, A. Sarwar, B R. Sharma (2009). Challenges and
Prospects of Sustainable Groundwater Management in the Indus Basin,
Pakistan. Water Resources Management (2010) 24:1551–1569 DOI
10.1007/s11269-009-9513-3.
Saeed, M. M., M. Ashraf and M. N Asgher (2003). Hydraulic and hydrochemistry
behaviours of skimming wells under different pumping regimes. Agricultural
Water Management, 61: 163-177.
Salam, H.A., M. Ashraf, N. Iqbal, N. Gul, S. Memon (2023). Beneath the Sands: A
Comprehensive Study of Groundwater in Tharparkar Region. Pakistan Council
of Research in Water Resources (PCRWR) Islamabad, pp.33
Shah, T., (2000). Groundwater markets and agricultural development: a South Asian
overview. In: Proceedings of regional groundwater management seminar,
Pakistan Water Partnership, 9–11 October 2000.
Sheikh, A.A., M. Ashraf (2009). Use of low quality groundwater for sustainable crop
production: agriculture with low quality groundwater. LAP Lambert Academic
Publishing, pp. 72.
Steenbergen, V. F. (2014). Water Charging in Sindh, Pakistan—Financing Large
Canal Systems.
Steenbergen V, Frank, Muhammad Basharat, and Bakhshal Lashari (2015). “Key
Challenges and Opportunities for Conjunctive Management of Surface and
Groundwater in Mega-Irrigation Systems: Lower Indus, Pakistan.” Resources
4, no. 4: 831–856. doi:10.3390/resources4040831.
Steenbergen V, Frank. (2020). “Groundwater and Surface Water in the Mega-
Irrigation Systems of Pakistan.” The Case for Conjunctive Management,”: 10.
Young, W, J., Arif, A., Tousif, B., Edoardo, B., Stephen, D., William, R., Garthwaite
III, E. Michael, G., Christina, L., Lucy, L., Ian, M., and S. Basharat. (2019).
Pakistan: Getting More from Water. Water Security Diagnostic. World Bank,
Washington, DC.

38