NORTH WEST IRRIGATION SECTOR PROJECT ADB Loan No. 2035 - CAM (SF) AFD Grant No. CHK 3003.

01

RIVER BASIN AND WATER USE STUDIES, PACKAGE 2 Boribo and Dauntri Sub-basins

Final Report Volume 2: Boribo Sub-basin 5 December 2006

Prepared for MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES AND METEOROLOGY by PRD Water & Environment in association with DHI Water & Environment

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

Revisions
Version 1: Summary expanded New section 4.4: Water availability Table 4.7 skipped, Table 8.2 changed Version 1a: Section 4.4 expanded A large part of Section 6.3 (water quality) shifted to new Appendix 5 Some wrong figures replaced in Appendix 3 Version 2: Section 3.5: Reference added to Appendix 3; short comment added about a new regulator at Bamnak New Section 4.5 (allocation of manageable flows), with explanation of manageable flows, and estimates of water availability downstream of candidate sub-projects Section 8.4: Livestock analysis revised

Acknowledgement
The Package 2 Team expresses its sincere thanks to the staff members from the Provincial Departments, the district officers, and the many individual persons who have kindly taken time out to share their knowledge for the purpose of the present study. MOWRAM, the PMO, the PIUs and the TA Consultant have provided valuable guidance and shared data and knowledge, including results from monitoring programmes and previous related studies. MRC has kindly made data and GIS layers available for the purpose of the study.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

Summary
The Northwest Irrigation Sector Project (NWISP) is being implemented by MOWRAM, with assistance from Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Agence Française de Développement (AFD). It has the overall objective of supporting the effort of the Royal Government of Cambodia to reduce poverty in rural areas of northwest Cambodia through enhanced agricultural production. The immediate objectives are to improve the use of water resources and to take advantage of the potential for irrigated agriculture. One activity of the NWISP is a series of river basin and water use studies, which have the over-all objective 'to provide a framework leading eventually to institutional means for installing a scientifically informed approach for management of water quantity and quality in the target river basins'. The river basin and water use studies will provide a part of the basis for subsequent master planning, and for design and feasibility studies of irrigation schemes to be conducted later on under the NWISP. Package 2 of these studies covers Dauntri Sub-basin in Battambang and Pursat Provinces, and Boribo Sub-basin in Pursat and Kg Chhnang Provinces (and with a small corner in Kg Speu Province). The present 'Final Report, volume 2' describes the water balance and water uses in Boribo Sub-basin. The work has been based on data and information available from the Commune Database, MOWRAM, MRC and others, as well as comprehensive field surveys conducted under the present study. The analyses have been supported by numerical river basin modeling of water balance and water quality. A summary of the average water balance and the present water utilization is shown in the following table.

Boribo Sub-basin (St. Bamnak, St. Boribo, and St. Thlea Maam) Area: 1,499 km2 (39 percent of which is more than 100 m above mean sea level) Cultivated (rice) area (2005): 288 km2, of which wet season irrigated: 109 km2 (actual), 239 km2 (potential) dry season irrigated (2 crops per year): 20 km2 (actual), 72 km2 (potential) Population (2004): 52,774

Annual water balance, present conditions, 4 out of 5 years
Rainfall m3/s 54.1 l/s/km2 36.1 Evaporation m3/s 35.0 l/s/km2 23.3 Storage and losses m3/s -0.3 l/s/km2 -0.2 Water availability m3/s 19.4 l/s/km2 12.9 Domestic uses m3/s l/s/km2 Irrigation uses m3/s 1.1 l/s/km2 0.7 Livestock uses m3/s l/s/km2 Outflow m3/s 18.3 l/s/km2 12.2

'-' means 'less than 0.05'

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

Boribo Sub-basin has 2 schemes that have been identified as candidate sub-projects under the NWISP. The estimated manageable water availability is summarized below.

Water availability at candidate sub-projects
Bamnak Tram Mneash Tram Mneash alone, low estimate (a) m3/s J F M A M J J A S O N D 0,7 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,2 2,7 5,8 12,1 16,6 12,7 4,1 1,6 m3/s 0,7 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,3 2,7 5,6 12,0 16,5 12,6 4,0 1,6 To share with Bamnak, high estimate (a) m3/s 1,3 0,6 0,3 0,1 2,5 5,5 11,3 24,1 33,1 25,3 8,1 3,2

The water availability is the estimated availability in 4 out of 5 years under present conditions The estimate includes present withdrawals for irrigation; and present and future withdrawals for domestic and livestock The estimate excludes any future expansion of irrigation withdrawals (a) The water availability at Tram Mneash is influenced by the implementation of the Bamnak scheme and on the operation of the Bamnak diversion. The low and high estimates are based on assumptions about the future operation. Please refer to text for details No allocation has been made for in-stream demands

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

i

Contents
Acronyms and abbreviations..................................................................................................................vii Study tasks ........................................................................................................................................... viii Terminology............................................................................................................................................ix Names .....................................................................................................................................................ix Location map............................................................................................................................................x 1 2 Introduction .........................................................................................................................1 Geography ...........................................................................................................................2 2.1 Data ........................................................................................................................2 2.2 Population, administrative boundaries ...................................................................2 2.3 Elevations, land use, soils ......................................................................................4 2.4 Irrigation.................................................................................................................7 Hydrology............................................................................................................................9 3.1 Data ........................................................................................................................9 3.2 River network and catchment delineation ..............................................................9 3.3 Rainfall and evaporation ......................................................................................12 3.4 Streamflow ...........................................................................................................13 3.5 Regulation ............................................................................................................17 Water uses and water balance............................................................................................19 4.1 Water uses ............................................................................................................19 4.2 Water balance.......................................................................................................20 4.3 Candidate sub-projects .........................................................................................31 4.4 Water availability .................................................................................................34 4.5 Allocation of manageable flows...........................................................................37 Morphology, floods and drought .......................................................................................41 5.1 Data ......................................................................................................................41 5.2 Morphology..........................................................................................................41 5.3 Floods and drought...............................................................................................44 Aquatic environment .........................................................................................................46 6.1 Data ......................................................................................................................46 6.2 Pollution loads......................................................................................................46 6.3 Water quality........................................................................................................51 6.4 Implications of irrigation development ................................................................54 Fisheries.............................................................................................................................59 7.1 Thlea Maam/Kompong Lor River........................................................................59 7.2 Boribo River.........................................................................................................60 Socio-economics................................................................................................................61 8.1 Data ......................................................................................................................61 8.2 Socio-economic context .......................................................................................61

3

4

5

6

7

8

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

ii

8.3 8.4 8.5

Water utilization...................................................................................................67 Economic analysis................................................................................................76 Water user groups ................................................................................................84

References..............................................................................................................................................86 Appendix 1: Thematic maps ..................................................................................................................87 Appendix 2: Data files ...........................................................................................................................90 Appendix 3: Water management structures ...........................................................................................92 St. Boribo...........................................................................................................................92 St. Bamnak .......................................................................................................................93 St. Thlea Maam ................................................................................................................94 Appendix 4: Water balance tables..........................................................................................................95 Appendix 5: Water quality simulations................................................................................................127 A5.1 General ...............................................................................................................127 A5.2 Present conditions ..............................................................................................128 A5.3 Implications of irrigation development ..............................................................131

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

iii

Figures
2.1: 2.2: 2.3: 2.4: 2.5: 3.1: 3.2: 3.3: 3.4: 3.5: 3.6: 3.7: 3.8: 3.9: 3.10: 3.11: 4.1: 4.2: 4.3: 4.4: 4.5: 4.6: 4.7: 4.8: 4.9: 4.10: 4.11: 5.1: 5.2: 5.3: 6.1: 6.2: 6.3: 6.4: 6.5: 6.6: Communes in Boribo Sub-basin Land elevations in Boribo Sub-basin Land elevation distribution in Boribo Sub-basin Land use in Boribo Sub-basin Irrigation schemes in Boribo Sub-basin River network, Boribo Sub-basin (detailed and simplified) Catchment boundaries Comparison of catchment boundaries from different studies Observed and rated discharge at Boribo Rated discharge plot. Boribo versus Bac Trakoun Rated discharge at Bac Trakoun versus that of Peam Discharge relation between Bac Trakoun and Peam Average monthly rainfall versus runoff, Maung Russey Average monthly rainfall versus runoff, Kg.Tralach The Bamnak Diversion Diversion structures at Bamnak MIKE Basin model of the Boribo Sub-basin Schematic representation of sub-catchments Rated and observed discharge at Boribo Simulated and observed/rated discharge at Boribo Water availability in April, present conditions Specific water availability in April, present conditions Water availability in September, present conditions Specific water availability in September, present conditions Specific water availability, yearly average, present conditions Effective drainage area of Boribo Sub-basin Schematization of candidate sub-projects Examples of bank erosion, St. Boribo and St. Bamnak Erosion Accretion Amount of annual BOD load by sub-catchment Location of the sub-catchments of the Boribo Sub-basin Amount of annual Total Nitrogen load by sub-catchment Amount of annual Total Phosphorous load by sub-catchment Total specific runoff and estimated base-flow for Boribo Calculated concentrations at Kg Preah Kokir

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

iv

6.7: 6.8: 6.9: 6.10: 8.1: 8.2: 8.3: 8.4: 8.5: 8.6:

Simulated discharge at the outlet of St. Boribo Simulated discharge at the outlet of St. Thlea Maam Calculated concentrations at the outlet of St. Boribo Calculated concentrations at the outlet of St. Thlea Maam Household wealth Structure of household cash income Main sources of drinking water in Pursat Irrigated cropping areas in Boribo Sub-basin Present and future extractive water demands Value added by water to livelihoods

A5.1: Average concentration of BOD for 2000 and 2001 A5.2: Maximum concentration of BOD for 2000 and 2001 A5.3: Average concentrations of NH4 for 2000 and 2001 A5.4: Maximum concentrations of NH4 for 2000 and 2001 A5.5: Average concentrations of NO3 for 2000 and 2001 A5.6: Maximum concentrations of NO3 for 2000 and 2001 A5.7: Average concentration of BOD for the candidate sub-projects A5.8: Maximum concentration of BOD for the candidate sub-projects A5.9: Difference in BOD concentrations between the candidatesub- projects and the present situation A5.10: Average concentrations of NH4 for the candidate sub-projects A5.11: Maximum concentrations of NH4 for the candidate sub-projects A5.12: Difference in NH4 concentrations between the candidate sub-projects and the present situation A5.13: Average concentrations of NO3 for the candidate sub-projects A5.14: Maximum concentrations of NO3 for the candidate sub-projects A5.15: Difference in NO3 concentrations between the candidate sub-projects and the present situation A5.16: Difference in total-phosphorus concentrations between the sub-candidate projects and the present situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

v

Tables
2.1: 2.2: 2.3: 2.4: 3.1: 3.2: 4.1: 4.2: 4.3: 4.4: 4.5: 4.6: 4.7: 4.8: 4.9: 4.10: 4.11: 5.1: 5.2: 6.1: 6.2: 6.3: 8.1: 8.2: 8.3: 8.4: 8.5: 8.6: 8.7: 8.8: 8.9: 8.10: 8.11: 8.12: 8.13: Administrative units with area and population Land use Forest cover Irrigation schemes Distribution of annual rainfall Pan evaporation Estimate of future domestic demand Summary water balance, present conditions Water balance for increased domestic consumption Water balance in case of an assumed climate change Water balance for a 50% - 50% distribution at Bamnak Water balance for the lower part of Thlea Maam Estimated water availability at Bamnak Estimated water availability at Tram Mneash Manageable flows downstream of candidate sub-projects Rainfall deficit, Boribo sub-basin Irrigable areas Cultivation areas affected by floods and drought Occurrence of floods and drought Estimated BOD load reaching the river in each subcatchment Estimated nitrogen load reaching the river in each subcatchment Estimated phosphorus load reaching the river in each subcatchment Summary socio-economic indicators Cultivated areas Irrigated crop areas Future demands for irrigation Present livestock water demands Change in livestock population, Cambodia Projected livestock water demands Projected domestic consumption demands Crop budget summary Crop budgets for NE Thailand Livestock value Average tariff and unit production costs Net benefits of domestic water supply

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

vi

8.14: 8.15: A2.1: A2.2: A4.1: A4.2: A4.3: A4.4: A4.5: A4.6: A4.7: A4.8: A4.9: A4.10:

Gross value of the potential fish yield Water User Groups Time series data Data tables Summary water balance, base situation Summary water balance, increase in domestic water use Summary water balance, climatic change. Summary water balance, candidate project 50%-50% distribution Summary water balance, candidate project 100%-0% distribution Water balance on monthly basis, base situation Water balance on monthly basis, increase in domestic water use Water balance on monthly basis, climatic change Water balance on monthly basis, candidate project 50%-50% Water balance on monthly basis, candidate project 100%-0%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

vii

Acronyms and abbreviations
ADB AFD CNMC DoE EIA FWUC GW IWRM MAFF MCM MoE MOWRAM MRC NWISP PDAFF PDWRAM PIU PMO PRA RGC ToR WQ WUC, WUG WUP-FIN WUP-JICA : Asian Development Bank : Agence Française de Développement : Cambodia National Mekong Committee : (Provincial) Department of Environment : environmental impact assessment : farmer's water user community : groundwater : integrated water resources management : Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries : million cubic metres : Ministry of Environment : Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology : Mekong River Commission : North West Sector Irrigation Project : Provincial Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries : Provincial Department of Water Resources and Meteorology : Project Implementation Unit (of the NWISP) : Project Management Office (of the NWISP) : participatory rural appraisal : Royal Government of Cambodia : terms of reference : water quality : water user community, water user group : Finnish component of MRC's Water Utilization Programme : Japanese component of MRC's Water Utilization Programme

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

viii

Study tasks
No. Item Inception phase – Collection of information 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Collection of general data and information Collection of hydro-meteorological and hydraulic data and information Field surveys, inspection of monitoring stations, flood damage assessment Consultation meetings at province, commune and village level Basic thematic maps Approach to hydrological analysis Technical workshop with MOWRAM/PDWRAM Hydrological studies and modelling 8 9 10 11 12 13 Review of river monitoring network Hydrological analysis Morphological analysis Flood characteristics Fish, fish habitats and fish migration Support to selecting candidate NWISP subprojects Analysis of water uses 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Remote sensing analysis and field survey Forestry and land use survey Field surveys of water uses Inventory of water users committees Quantification of consumptive and non-consumptive water uses Economic analysis of water utilization Economic analysis of long-term development opportunities Water balance 21 22 23 24 Water balance for the sub-basins Assessment of trends in water availability and demand Assessment of impacts of each subproject on downstream water uses NWISP candidate sub-projects Environmental aspects 25 26 27 28 29 Existing WQ data and classification Point and non-point sources Aquatic environment in representative reaches Environmental flows in representative reaches, and assessment of enforcement Evaluation of fish passages Reports – progress meetings - workshops 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 Inception report Sub-basin reports Surface water and groundwater maps Response to data shortcomings Project completion report Project completion workshops Weekly progress statements Liaison with RGC and provincial agencies and community representatives Knowledge-sharing with designated counterpart staff (reported separately) (reported separately) Vol2&3 Sect 4.2 (no GW maps) (cross-cutting) (reported separately) (reported separately) (reported separately) (cross-cutting) (cross-cutting) Vol1 Sect 7.3 Vol1 Sect 7.4, Vol2&3 Sect 6.2 Vol2&3 Sect 6.3 Section 9.6 Vol2&3 Ch 7 Vol2&3 Sect 4.2, Vol2&3 App 4 (same) Vol2&3 Sect 4.3, Vol2&3 App 4 Vol2&3 Sect 4.4 Vol1 Sect 5.2, Vol2&3 Sect 4.1 Vol1 Ch 8, Vol2&3 Ch 8 Vol1 Sect 8.4 (cross-cutting) Vol1 Sect 2.3, Vol2&3 Sect 2.3 Vol1 Sect 5.2, Vol2&3 Sect 4.1 Vol1 Sect 9.1 Vol2&3 Ch 4 Vol1 6.2, Vol2&3 Sect 5.2 Vol1 Sect 6.3, Vol2&3 Sect 5.3 Vol1 Sect 7.2, Vol2&3 Ch 7 Vol1 Sect 9.2, Vol2&3 Sect 4.3 (cross-cutting) Vol1 Sect 4.1 (cross-cutting) (cross-cutting) Vol2&3 App 1 Vol1 Sect 5.3, Vol1 App 2 (reported separately) Reference

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

ix

Terminology
Following a discussion at the Inception Workshop in Pursat on 11 July 2006, and with a view to the terminology applied in the Terms of Reference, the following suggestions are made: Terms used in the present study: Catchment: The general term for an area from where the surface flow proceeds towards a specific location (like a cross-section of a river or canal, or a lake or reservoir). A catchment is delineated by a catchment boundary. It can be a river basin or a part of a river basin. Same as drainage area Catchment boundary: The boundary of a catchment (or a river basin or a sub-catchment). The surface flow of rain falling on each side of the boundary will proceed towards different locations. A review of catchment boundaries is a part of the present study River basin: The catchment of a whole river (with its tributaries). In the present study, this term is used both for the Mekong Basin and the Tonle Sap Basin. (In some other studies, the Tonle Sap Basin is referred to as a sub-basin of the Mekong Basin) Study area (Package 2): The Daun Try/Svay Don Keo and the Boribo/Thlea Maam Sub-basins Sub-area: An area that is a part of another area Sub-basin: The catchment of a tributary, and hereby a part of river basin. The present study deals with the Daun Try/Svay Don Keo Sub-basin and the Boribo/Thlea Maam Sub-basin Sub-catchment: A catchment that is explicitly a part of a larger catchment. In the present study, an irrigation scheme will receive water from a sub-catchment, and sub-catchments are used as units for the river basin modelling of water balance and water quality Terms not used in the present study: Drainage area or drainage basin: Same as a catchment (or a sub-catchment) Watershed: (1) in English, same as a catchment boundary; (2) In American English, same as a catchment. Watershed management can cover different aspects of water-related management within a watershed, depending on the circumstances

Names
Most rivers change their names along their course, often within short distances. Different spellings are used for many rivers, streams and locations, for example Pursat/Pouthisat, Bamnak /Bomnork, Daun Try/Dauntry/Dauntri, Boribo/Baribour, etc. St. Thlea Maam is also named St. Kompong Lar. MOWRAM applies the former name for data storage, while the latter name is commonly used in the area. Also, St. Thlea Maam has been used as the name for the adjacent St. Ou Srang in Pursat River Basin St. Daun Try is also named St. Muong.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

x

Location map
300 000 1 500 000 350 000 400 000 450 000 500 000

1 450 000

1 400 000

1 350 000

1 500 000

1 450 000

1 400 000

1 350 000

300 000

350 000

400 000

450 000

500 000

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

1

1

Introduction
The Northwest Irrigation Sector Project (NWISP) is being implemented by MOWRAM, with assistance from Asian Development Bank (ADB) and Agence Française de Développement (AFD). It has the overall objective of supporting the effort of the Royal Government of Cambodia to reduce poverty in rural areas of northwest Cambodia through enhanced agricultural production. The immediate objectives are to improve the use of water resources and to take advantage of the potential for irrigated agriculture. It is intended to establish ten to twelve rehabilitated and sustainably operational small to medium-scale irrigation systems and other water control infrastructure. The NWISP is managed by a Project Management Office (PMO) within MOWRAM, assisted by a TA Consultant (BCEOM/ACIL/SAWAC). The assistance by the TA Consultant includes guidance and supervision of the studies outlined in the present report. One activity under the NWSIP is the 'River Basin and Water Use Studies, Package 2', covering Dauntri Sub-basin in Battambang and Pursat Provinces, and Boribo Sub-basin in Pursat and Kg Chhnang Province. This work is being carried out by PRD Water & Environment in association with DHI Water & Environment. The scope of the river basin and water use studies is specified in the Terms of Reference prepared by MOWRAM. The overall objective is 'to provide a framework leading eventually to institutional means for installing a scientifically informed approach for management of water quantity and quality in the target river sub-basins'. The aim is not a master plan nor a set of feasibility studies for selected subprojects. Rather, the work will serve as a part of the basis for subsequent master planning and preparations for individual projects. The Final Report comes in 3 volumes: 1 2 3 Methodology and general findings Boribo Sub-basin Dauntri Sub-basin

Data tables and thematic maps are submitted separately. Basic documentation has been indexed and compiled on a CD. A report about Boribo Sub-basin was discussed at a workshop in Pursat on 19 September 2006. The present report is based on guidance received at the workshop as well as from the TA Consultant.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

2

2
2.1

Geography
Data
This section relates to ToR, Task 1: Collection of general data and information

The physical geopgraphic description has been based on • • • • • • • Land cover maps 1992/93, 1996/97 and 2002 Satellite images (RADARSAT-1) 1998, 2000, 2002 and 2005 (showing topographical features and land use) Aerial photos (available for a part of the area only) Administrative boundaries: Country, province, district, commune and village (villages as point coverage) Topographical maps 1:50,000 and 1:100,000 Digital Elevation Model with 50 m resolution Soil coverage digitized from 1,000,000 scale map

Various demographic information origins from the 2004 Commune Database. The commune is the basic unit for a substantial part of the geographic, agricultural and socio-economic data.

2.2

Population, administrative boundaries
This section relates to ToR, Task 1: Collection of general data and information Related data Area-population.xls (submitted electronically) Area and population (2002-04) within the study area; buffaloes, cows, horses, goats, pigs, and poultry; families using fertilizer; by province, district and commune

In Boribo Sub-basin, the population density was 46 persons/km2 in 2004 and the population growth was 2.4 percent/year from 2002 to 2004. There are no major urban settlements (such as provincial towns) in the study area. This influences the future population growth, which is expected to be much higher in urban areas than in rural areas. Commune boundaries, areas and population are shown in the following figure and table.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

3

Figure 2.1: Communes in Boribo Sub-basin

Table 2.1: Administrative units with area and population, Boribo Sub-basin
Province Kg Chhnang District Baribour Commune Anhchanh Rung Khon Rang Kampong Preah Kokir Melum Phsar Pech Changvar Chieb Krang Skear Kanhchor Ansa Chambak Boeng Kantuot Chheu Tom Kampong Pou Ou Sandan Sna Ansa Svay Sa Tnaot Chum Prongil Roleab Trapeang Chour Area (km2) 68,2 31,5 59,8 52,4 36,1 55,7 350,2 592,1 85,4 213,7 46,9 190,8 74,0 85,2 87,6 195,8 169,1 1133,1 204,4 17,7 Area within subbasin (km2) 26,6 0,3 13,3 25,7 20,9 14,0 84,0 229,0 10,1 3,1 23,7 172,2 45,0 59,3 14,0 189,2 145,1 405,9 0,1 17,7 1499,2 Population within sub-basin (2004) 1.810 57 460 1.726 2.916 836 1.413 4.329 1.030 91 2.803 9.516 3.602 3.156 724 5.752 9.092 3.158 6 297 52.774

Tuek Phos Pursat Kandieng Krakor

Kg Speu Total

Phnum Kravanh Sampov Meas Aural

Data: Commune Database 2004 and GIS analysis

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

4

2.3

Elevations, land use, soils
This section relates to ToR, Task 1: Collection of general data and information Related data Landuse.xls Geology.xls Protectedareas.xls (submitted electronically) Land use within each sub-basin (2005), and forest cover within each sub-basin (1993, 1997, 2002, 2005), and rate of change Geological classification of each sub-basin Protected areas in each sub-basin

Elevations The land elevation in the sub-basin is illustrated below. The highest elevation in Boribo Sub-basin is around 1,755 m (according to the 50 x 50 m resolution DEM). Cambodia's highest peak, Phnom Aoral (1,784 m), is located on the sub-basin boundary. 1

1

The 'Lonely Planet Guide' lists the height of Phnom Aoral at 1,813 m

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

5

Figure 2.2: Land elevations in Boribo Sub-basin

Phnom Aoral (1,784 m)

Figure 2.3: Land elevation distribution in Boribo Sub-basin
> 500 m (10.2 pct) 0-20 m (17.1 pct) 200-500 m (10.3 pct) 20-50 m (16.3 pct) 100-200 m (18.6 pct)

50-100 m (27.6 pct)

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

6

Land use and soils The present land use (2005) is shown in the following figure, which provides an important characterization of the sub-basin: The major part is forest - evergreen, semi-evergreen or deciduous (shedding the leaves annually). There is some rainfed paddy area, and only small parts of other land use. Additional information is given in Tables 2.2 and 2.3.

Figure 2.4: Land use in Boribo Sub-basin

Data: Interpretation from Landsat ETM (2005)

Table 2.2: Land use (2005)
Land use Evergreen forest Semi-evergreen forest Deciduous forest Other forest Grassland Dry season rice Rainfed rice Village Water Total Area (km2) 235 215 663 52 34 0 288 7 4 1.499

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

7

Table 2.3: Forest cover (1993-2005)
Forest cover 1993 km2 Evergreen forest Semi-evergreen forest Deciduous forest Other forest Non-forest Total '0,0' means 'less than 0,005' 235 18 714 265 267 1.499 1997 km2 235 18 711 238 298 1.499 2002 km2 235 215 654 43 351 1.499 2005 km2 235 215 663 52 334 1.499 Rate of change 1993-97 percent 0,0 0,0 -0,2 -1,8 2,1 0,0 1993-2002 percent 0,0 13,1 -4,0 -14,8 5,7 0,0 1993-2005 percent 0,0 13,1 -3,4 -14,2 4,5 0,0

2.4

Irrigation
This section relates to ToR, Task 1: Collection of general data and information Related data Irrigation.xls (submitted electronically) Wet and dry season irrigated areas (actual and potential)

Many of the schemes were registered and evaluated under the so-called Halcrow study in 1994, conducted for the Mekong Committee (today's MRC). Some of them, including most candidate sub-projects, were re-visited and evaluated under NWISP in 2003. These studies are still relevant. When using them, however, it is noted that in some cases, both the scheme and the commune(s) have changed their names. The UTM coordinates provide the best identification. Irrigation schemes are shown in the following table and figure. Additional information (including coordinates and water source) are included in the corresponding electronic file.

Table 2.4: Irrigation schemes in Boribo Sub-basin
District Name Commune Existing Wet (ha) Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Boribo Bomnork Tram Mnas Dam Thlea Maam Kampong Lar Cham Kar Krouch Trapeang Kantuot Lum Hach Total Cheur Tom Thnoat Chu Boeung Kan Kampong Po Svay Sar Boeng Kantuot Pict Sangv 7.945 10.918 900 830 873 250 120 Dry (ha) 300 70 50 20 0 0 1.535 1.975 18.165 23.915 Potential Wet (ha) 2.300 1.100 1.700 300 350 Dry (ha) 800 100 100 150 0 0 6.051 7.201 CS, 2 CS, 2 2 2 2 2 2 Status

Status: CS = candidate sub-project; 1 = poor; 2 = medium; 3 = good state of maintenance

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

8

Figure 2.5: Irrigation schemes in Boribo Sub-basin

An overview of water management structures is given in Appendix 3.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

9

3
3.1

Hydrology
Data
This section relates to ToR, Task 2: Collection of hydro-meteorological and hydraulic data and information Related data R@9stations-allyears.xls (submitted electronically) Daily, monthly and annual rainfall at Battambang (8 years), Kg Chhnang (55 years), Pursat (60 years), Krakor (36 years), Kravanh (10 years), Svay Donkeo (6 years), Talo (6 years), Bamnak (15 years) and Boeung Khnar (7 years) Daily and monthly rainfall data from Pursat 1912-2005 (53 years), with summary statistics Monthly rainfall data from 16 stations from 2001-2004 (4 years), with summary statistics Monthly rainfall data from Battambang, Pursat and Kg Chhnang, from 1939, 1996, and 2001-05 (7 years) Daily and monthly evaporation at Pochentong 2000-04 and Siem Reap 1996-2000 Daily water level at Kg Chhnang 1995-2004 (10 years) Daily water level at Prek Kdam 1995-2004 (10 years) Daily and monthly flow at Prek Kdam 1964-73 (10 years) Daily water level and calulated flow at Boribo (St. 590101) Jun 98 Dec 05 (7.5 years) Daily water level and calulated flow at Maung Russey (St. Dauntry) (St. 5501101) Jun 01 - Dec 02 (1.5 years) Flow records from St. Boribo (91 months), St. Dauntri (19 months), and St. Pursat (72 and 58 months)

R@Pursat-12-05 R@16stations-01-04.xls R@3stations-7years.xls E@2stations-96-04.xls WL@KgChhnang-95-04.xls WL@PrekKdam-95-04.xls Q@PrekKdam-64-73.xls WL-Q@Boribo-98-05.xls WL-Q@Maung-01-02.xls Q@4stations.xls

3.2

River network and catchment delineation
This section relates to ToR, Task 9: Hydrological analysis

The river network has been established on the basis of satellite (RADARSAT-1) images; aerial photos (where available); and topographical maps 1:50,000 and 1:100,000. In addition, several reconnaissance visits have been made to locations where there was doubt about the network. In addition to the detailed network, which forms the basis for the catchment delineation, a simplified network (of main rivers and streams) has been derived as a basis for the hydrological analysis. Results are shown below, together with an overview of the study area catchments and adjacent catchments. A comparison has been made between the catchment boundaries established in this way and catchment boundaries from other studies: • • Sub-Basin Profiles of the Tonle Sap, ADB website, http://www.adb.org/ Projects/ Tonle_Sap/atlas/default.asp; Ly Sarann, Someth Paradis, Seng Bunrith, And Men Nareth: Potential of Water Resources of Pursat Basin for Irrigation Development. Proceedings of

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

10

the 2nd International Symposium on Sustainable Development in the Mekong River Basin, Phnom Penh, 16th – 18th September 2006, p. 77; and • TA 4756-CAM, Tonle Sap Lowland Stabilization Project: Water Availability Report, September 2006

Figure 3.1: River network, Boribo Sub-basin (detailed and simplified)

St Thlea Maam

St Boribo

St Bamnak

Figure 3.2: Catchment boundaries

50 km

St. Sangker

St. Battambang Daun Try Svay Don Keo

St. Pursat

Thlea Maam Boribo

Tonle Sap Basin result A sampleboundaryof the comparison are shown below. The boundaries complied well, except for one small area, where it was found that the surface runoff is intercepted by an elevated road.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

11

Figure 3.3: Comparison of catchment boundaries from different studies

TA 4756-CAM, Tonle Sap Lowland Stabilization Project: Water Availability Report, September 2006 Present study

Approximate topographical divide (not extremely well defined, due to the flat land)

Elevated road without culverts, expectedly intercepting the surface runoff

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

12

3.3

Rainfall and evaporation
This section relates to ToR, Task 9: Hydrological analysis Related data R@9stations-allyears.xls (submitted electronically) Daily, monthly and annual rainfall at Battambang (8 years), Kg Chhnang (55 years), Pursat (60 years), Krakor (36 years), Kravanh (10 years), Svay Donkeo (6 years), Talo (6 years), Bamnak (15 years) and Boeung Khnar (7 years) Daily and monthly rainfall data from Pursat 1912-2005 (53 years), with summary statistics Monthly rainfall data from 16 stations from 2001-2004 (4 years), with summary statistics Monthly rainfall data from Battambang, Pursat and Kg Chhnang, from 1939, 1996, and 2001-05 (7 years) Daily and monthly evaporation at Pochentong 2000-04 and Siem Reap 1996-2000

R@Pursat-12-05 R@16stations-01-04.xls R@3stations-7years.xls E@2stations-96-04.xls

Rainfall The long-term record from Pursat has been chosen as the basis for the water balance analysis presented in this study. The rainfall in Boribo/Thlea Maam Subbasin has been estimated as the rainfall in Pursat plus 3 percent. Hereby, the analysis builds on (i) 53 years of 'good' data (which is fully acceptable); (ii) a relatively safe estimate of the 4-out-of-5 years rainfall; (iii) another relatively safe estimate of the variation along the Great Lake; and (iv) a less safe assumption that the rainfall is homogenous within the sub-basin. The resulting estimate of rainfall in the study area is shown below.

Table 3.1: Distribution of annual rainfall, Boribo Sub-basin (mm/year or mm/month)
1986 Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 897 0 0 5 20 85 130 96 206 156 111 48 40 4 of 5 yrs 1.156 3 4 37 68 131 115 122 159 207 198 97 16 Average 1.360 4 5 43 80 154 136 143 187 243 233 114 19 1995 2.143 0 25 36 74 245 176 294 230 436 404 190 32

Data: Estimated as Pursat plus 3 percent

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

13

Evaporation Evaporation data are sparse. The following figure and related table are based on 9 station-years of 'accepted' data from two different stations - Battambang and Pochentong, which are located on each side of the study area. There was no overlap between the 'accepted' records, but the difference between the stations remained within 5 percent on an over-all average basis. The average variation from one year to another on a monthly basis was +/- 24 percent.
Table 3.2: Pan evaporation (mm)
J Lowest Average Highest 112 130 156 F 110 135 184 M 114 167 217 A 137 163 203 M 120 154 200 J 115 143 167 J 116 151 167 A 83 139 171 S 97 128 155 O 105 124 147 N 83 125 150 D 93 133 183 Year 1,543 1,691 2,000

Data: Battambang (1996-2000) and Pochentong (2001-04) (9 years)

The actual evaporation will be less than the pan evaluation values, depending on the so-called pan coefficient and also on the vegetation cover (that varies very much over the year in the study area). In view of the uncertainties, a conservative estimate of 0.7 times the pan evaporation has been applied.

3.4

Streamflow
This section relates to ToR, Task 9: Hydrological analysis Related data WL-Q@Boribo-98-05.xls WL-Q@Maung-01-02.xls (submitted electronically) Daily water level and calulated flow at Boribo (St. 590101) Jun 98 Dec 05 (7.5 years) Daily water level and calulated flow at Maung Russey (St. Dauntry) (St. 5501101) Jun 01 - Dec 02 (1.5 years)

Stung Boribo There is no back water effect at the measurement site, wherefore the type of the rating curve is Q = f(H), where H is the water level at Boribo. This type is suggested by Le van Sanh (June 02). The correlation coefficient is 0.97. The rating curve has the formula (JICA 2004):
Q = 23.56 ⋅ (H Boribo − 0.2588)
2
Rating curve for Stung Boribo at Boribo
Q=f(H), data from 1998,1999, 2001

2.50

2.00 Gauge height [m]

1.50

1.00

0.50

0.00 0.00

20.00

40.00

60.00 Q [m3/s]

80.00

100.00

120.00

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

14

Stung Pursat There is no indication that Bac Trakoun station is subject to back water effects. Further Carbonnel and Guiscafre suggest that the rating curve is of the type Q=f(H), where H is the water level at Bac Trakoun. The correlation coefficient is very good, 0.99. The formula reads (JICA 2004):
Q = 25 .5 ⋅ (H BakTrakoun − 0.0856 )
2
Rating curve Stung Pursat at Bak Trakoun
Q=f(H), data from 1998,1999, 2001 6.00 5.00 Gauge height [m] 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 100.00 200.00 300.00 Q [m3/s] 400.00 500.00 600.00

The rating curve formulas for the stations above are applied for generation of discharge. As an example, the rated discharge at Boribo is presented in the following figure.
Figure 3.4: Observed and rated discharge at Boribo
Observed and rated discharge at Boribo, Stung Boribo
200 180 160 Discharge [m3/s] 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 01/01/98 01/01/99 01/01/00 31/12/00 01/01/02 01/01/03 01/01/04 01/01/05 01/01/06 Rated discharge Observed discharge

The fluctuations in the rated discharge in the recession period and dry season are not immediately explainable. The sudden changes results from sudden changes in water level, which could be a results of some control in the river system. The generated discharges from all three stations are applied for model calibration and general analysis in the study. The discharges at two stations in a catchment may be correlated. The more uniform the catchment is with regards to topography, soil characteristics and vegetation cover, the more likely are the discharges of the sub-catchments to be correlated.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

15

Discharges from different catchments are not likely to be well correlated. An example of this is shown below, where the daily discharge at Boribo is correlated with the discharge at Pursat. The year selected is 2001. It is seen from the plot that there is no correlation.
Figure 3.5: Rated discharge plot for 2001. Boribo versus Bac Trakoun
Rated discharge at Boribo versus rated discharge at Bac Trakoun, year 2001
600 Daily discharge at Bak Trakoun [m3/s]

500

400

300

200

100

0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Daily discharge at Boribo [m 3/s]

If two stations within the same catchment are selected then a correlation can be expected. In Figure 4.15 the rated discharge at Peam (upper part of Stung Pursat) is plotted against the rated discharge at Bac Trakoun (lower part of Stung Pursat). Although there is some scatter in the data, there seems to be a trend between the two data sets. There are several ways to plot the discharges. In Figure 4.16 the square root of the product of the two discharges are plotted against the discharge at Peam. The correlation is acceptable.

Figure 3.6: Rated discharge at Bac Trakoun versus that of Peam, year 2001
Rated discharge at Bac Trakoun versus rated discharge at Peam, year 2001
250

Figure 3.7: Discharge relation between Bac Trakoun and Peam, year 2001
Discharge relation between Bac Trakoun and Peam, rated daily data year 2001
250 y = 0.5874x - 1.8781 R2 = 0.9529

Daily discharge at Peam [m3/s]

Daily discharge at Peam [m3/s] 400 500 600

200

y = 0.0004x 2 + 0.1179x + 2.8326 R2 = 0.7595

200

150

150

100

100

50

50

0 0 100 200 300 Daily discharge at Bac Trakoun [m 3/s]

0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 Sqrt(Q_BacTrakoun * Q_Peam )

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

16

In conclusion, the streamflow analysis - drawing comprehensivlely on the previous JICA studies - provide a acceptable (and useful) understanding of the flow in the downstream part of St. Boribo, which is believed to provide a valid basis for describing the rainfall-runoff conditions in the Boribo Sub-Basin. Rainfall versus discharge The runoff in a catchment is clearly a result of the amount of rainfall. However, in terms of establishment of a relation between the rainfall and runoff, the outcome may be more of less successful. The reasons are several: The selected rainfall station(s) may not be representing the entire catchment, the infiltration rate may be unevenly distributed throughout the catchment, and there may be flow regulation and storage occurring, just to mention a few. The relation between the rainfall and runoff is likely to be better on bi-weekly or monthly time scale rather on a daily scale. One source of uncertainty in the present study is that the discharges are mostly rated and that the number of rainfall stations are few and of different quality. Examples of relations between rainfall and runoff is seen in the figures below, where the average monthly rainfall is plotted against the average monthly runoff at Maung Russey and at Boribo respectively. There is no clear tendency, but the data suggest that threshold values of rainfall exist in order to generate substantial runoff. One problem with this kind of plots is that the seasonal development of e.g. soil saturation is embedded in the data. Hence a moderate rainfall in the late monsoon period may give a higher runoff than a similar amount of rainfall occurring in the beginning of the monsoon.

Figure 3.8: Average monthly rainfall versus runoff, Maung Russey
Rainfall versus runoff - Maung Russey 45

Figure 3.9: Average monthly rainfall versus runoff, Kg.Tralach
Rainfall versus runoff - Boribo 30

Average monthly runoff at Maung (m3/s)

Average monthly runoff at Boribo (m3/s)
0 50 100 150 200

40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0

25 20 15 10 5 0 0 100 200 300

Average monthly rainfall at Maung (mm/month)

Average monthly rainfall at Kg.Tralach (mm/month)

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

17

3.5

Regulation
This section relates to ToR, Task 9: Hydrological analysis

Overview An overview of regulation is shown in Appendix 3. For details, please refer to the thematic 'Sub-basin map', submitted separately. The Bamnak Diversion The Bamnak Diversion distributes water from the St. Bamnak catchment between the two downstream catchments of St. Boribo and St. Thlea Maam (also named St. Kompong Lar). About 300 m downstream of the Boribo/ThleamMaan junction a diversion channel built under the Khmer Rouge period conveys water to the Thleam Maam catchment. This channel usually conveys water from August and onwards in the monsoon, but is left dry the remaining part of the year. Prior to 2002, however, most of the flow was diverted to Thleam Maan catchment and only a smaller part to Boribo. The sudden change in flow distribution has created significant erosion on the Bamnak/Boribo channel.

Figure 3.10: The Bamnak Diversion controls the flow distribution between the Boribo and Thlea Maam rivers. (Photo 5 July 2006)

Pursat

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

18

Nearby structures comprise a bridge on the Khmer Rouge channel; a destroyed Khmer Rouge gate located downstream of the Khmer Rouge channel (but on the old Bamnak river course); and an old overflow weir built by Sihanouk in the 1960’ies, around 100 m downstream (and still on the old Bamnak).

Figure 3.11: Diversion structures at Bamnak

Diversion structures, built in the 60-ies and upgraded in 1977, now degraded

Old channel (with diversion structures)

New channel, originally a buffalo cart road, developed gradually via a flood season channel to all-year flow 1980-94, so that the flow tends to bypass the diversion

Restoration of the regulator The flow distribution between St. Boribo and St. Thlea Maam is quite significant to the present and future water users in both catchments, as it will be clearly exemplified in the following chapter. Particulalry in St. Boribo, present water uses depend on inflow from upstream (i.e. from the Bamnak Sub-catchment) in February, March and April (whereas in January, the availability and the demand more or less balance each other, and in the rest of the year, the water availability exceeds the present demand, even in the absence of an inflow from St. Bamnak) 2. Also, the flow distribution affects the water availability for the Tram Mneash candidate sub-project on St. Thlea Maam. Restoration of the regulator would provide a tool for orderly and predictable operation, which would, expectedly, be a benefit for all downstream water users, assuming that a small but reliable flow can be equally valuable as a higher but less reliable flow.

2

Please refer to Table 4.9

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

19

4
4.1

Water uses and water balance
Water uses
This section relates to ToR, Task 18: Quantification of consumptive and non-consumptive water uses Related data Area-population.xls (submitted electronically) Area and population (2002-04) within the study area; buffaloes, cows, horses, goats, pigs, and poultry; families using fertilizer; by province, district and commune PRD survey Jul-Aug 2006: Cultivation practices; cropping cycles; labour input; livestock; use of fertilizers and pesticides; farmgate prices; obstacles to cultivation Present and projected domestic water demand in each sub-basin

Agriculture-2006.xls

Domesticdemand.xls

An attempt has been made to illustrate the possible development of domestic demand. The following assumptions have been made: • • The actual long-term population growth within the sub-basin, including the effect of migration, will be between nil and 2 percent per year The unit demand will increase by between 1 and 2 l/p/d per year

If so, as seen in the table below, the future domestic demand will be somewhere between 3 and 6 times the present demand. This is still a small part of the available water in the area, but the increase must be kept in mind in connection with the predicted increased demand for other purposes, particularly irrigation. For long-term planning, a 'strategic priority allocation' could be considered, perhaps of 60-80 l/p/d. This is believed to be a realistic level, although it cannot be safely predicted when it will be reached.

Table 4.1: Estimate of future domestic demand, Boribo Sub-basin
Year Population High estimate 2 pct/yr 2004 2009 2014 2019 2024 2029 2034 52,774 58,267 64,331 71,027 78,419 86,581 95,593 Low estimate nil 52,774 52,774 52,774 52,774 52,774 52,774 52,774 Unit demand High estimate l/p/d 23 33 43 53 63 73 83 Low estimate l/p/d 23 28 33 38 43 48 53 Total demand High estimate Mm3/year 0.4 0.7 1.0 1.4 1.8 2.3 2.9 Low estimate Mm3/year 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0

Data: The present unit demand of 23 l/d is from TSBMO (Mar 03); the present pupolation is from the Commune Database; other values are estimates

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

20

Agricultural water uses Agricultural water uses are by far the largest in terms of volume, and play an important role in terms of social and economic value, including livelihoods. Today, the agricultural water uses are limited both by the raw water availability and by infrastructural constraints. In the course of time, however, as the infrastructural constraints are gradually removed, the raw water availability will become the sole limiting factor. Distribution of water uses Spatial and monthly distributions of present and future domestic demand, livestock demand and irrigation demand are inlcluded in Appendix 2.

4.2

Water balance
This section relates to ToR, Task 21: water balance for the sub-basins Related data B-W-balance-4of5yrs.xls (submitted electronically) Boribo Sub-basin, calculated water balance, present conditions, with water uses and availability, in 4 out of 5 years, whole sub-basin and details Boribo Sub-basin, calculated water balance, alternative scenarios: Increased domestic consumption, 50-50 and 100-0 diversion at Bamnak, and impact of climate change

B-W-balance-scenarios.xls

MIKE Basin set-up Water balances have been calculated using the MIKE Basin modeling system. Please refer to Appendix 3 for a general description. The set-up for the present study is shown in the following figure.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

21

Figure 4.1: MIKE Basin model of the Boribo Sub-basin

The model is divided into 17 sub-catchments with associated river network as well as water uses. The sub-catchments follow largely internal catchments divides, and are thus derived on basis of physical boundaries. An exemption is the delineation between sub-catchment C67 and C68, which is located at the proposed site for candidate sub-project Tram Mneash. In some cases the topographical information was insufficient for a sub-catchment delineation, instead the average distance to tributaries has been used. The catchment contains one very important diversion point located at Bamnak. The river water from the upstream part of the catchment divides here into a portion flowing into the Thlea Maam catchment and another part into the Boribo Subbasin. The history of the flow distribution is unclear as there are no exact information on how this diversion point has been controlled in the past. For model purposes the flow distribution at this location must therefore be assumed. The figure below shows in schematic form the connection between the subcatchments and their areas.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

22

Figure 4.2: Schematic representation of sub-catchments
C14 55 C13 129

C15 87

C11 42

C16 165

C17 56

C10 79

C18 131 C7 48 C19 141

C9 57

C8 24

C6 10

C5 156

C68 100

C67 110

C2 111

Catchments given by a number (eg. C14) and an area in km2 (eg. 55). Bamnak catchment shown with green color, Boribo Sub-basin with yellow color, and Tlhea Maam shown with red color

Rainfall-runoff model calibration In the Thlea Maam- Boribo there is only one station in which discharges have been observed. This station is located at Boribo, and represents therefore only approximately half of the catchment outflow. As this is the only discharge measurement location, calibrated parameters from the rainfall-runoff module are assumed to be valid for the Thlea Maam part of the catchment. The discharge available for model calibration at Boribo are few, but nevertheless usable. The data cover mainly 2001, but a few data have been made in 1998 and 1999. Based on the discharge data and associated water level observations it has been possible to construct a rating curve for the station. This rating curve can be applied to derive a rated discharge by using the observed water levels. In principle the rating curve should be checked from time to time using new measurements of discharge. This is not possible in the present case due to lack of data, hence the rated discharge produced for the period 1998 to 2005 is subject to uncertainty.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

23

The rainfall-runoff results have been compared with the discharge observations as well as the rated discharge. The water levels from 2002 -2005 give rise to a slightly different runoff pattern than the years 1998-2001. Since the discharge observations fall in the period 1998-2001, emphasis has been on this period in the model calibration. The figures below show the rated and observed discharge for the entire period 1998-2005, and the simulated and observed/rated discharge for the period 1998-2001. The calibrated parameters have been applied for the entire Boribo Sub-basin.

Figure 4.3: Rated and observed discharge at Boribo for 1998-2005
Observed and rated discharge at Boribo, Stung Boribo
200 180 160 Discharge [m3/s] 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 01/01/98 01/01/99 01/01/00 31/12/00 01/01/02 01/01/03 01/01/04 01/01/05 01/01/06 Rated discharge Observed discharge

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

24

Figure 4.4: Simulated and observed/rated discharge at Boribo, 1998-2001

This is a hidden box

Water uses The water uses that have been accounted for in the model are domestic, irrigation and livestock water uses. The principle in the MIKE Basin model is that the water uses in a given subcatchment draws water from a particular node, in this case the catchment nodes. Hence all the water uses in a catchment takes water from the same catcment node, which is always located in the downstream end of the catchment. Since the subcatcments are based on physical boundaries and the water uses are based on commune data, it has been necessary to calculate the fractional contribution of each commune to each of the sub-catchments. The commune data (eg. number of persons) are then assumed to be evenly distributed in the communes. Domestic water uses: It has been assumed that each person presently consumes 23 l/d in the catchment. It is estimated that this unit demand will increase in future at a rate of 1-2 l/p/d per year. One of the scenario simulations made is to predict the effect of increased domestic consumption 25 years ahead. For this simulation the unit domestic water demand is 73 l/p/d.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

25

Irrigation water uses: Data for rain fed irrigation area, wet season irrigation area, dry recession irrigation area and dry season irrigation area are available in the commune data base. These data have been used for the estimation of the irrigation areas in each of the sub-catchments. The present state of the irrigation systems suggest that there are no return flows from the paddy fields. Hence the rain fed irrigation areas can simply be taken out of the calculations, as the water use in there areas does not affect and is not affected by the river flows. In the present MIKE Basin model, the wet season irrigation, the dry recession irrigation and the dry season irrigation areas have been included. It is assumed that the wet season irrigation takes place between july and November, the dry recession irrigation between December and February, and the dry season irrigation between March and June. It is assumed for all categories that the water demand for irrigation is 2 l/s/ha, and that the paddy fields are evenly distributed in the communes. It is further assumed that there are no return flows from the paddy fields. Water balance, present conditions The MIKE Basin model has been used to compute a water balance for the subbasin on a monthly and annual basis, considering the rainfall, evaporation, inflow, outflow, storage/losses and water uses. Results are shown in the table below (while detailed water balances for each subcatchment are presented in Appendix 2). It is seen from this table that the water uses in general constitute a small fraction of the available water, at least on a yearly basis and during the wet season. In the driest months – February to April, the water uses are of the same magnitude as the available water. In April there are almost no outflows from the catchment. Both presently (in some years) and in the future there is therefore competition for water in the driest months of the year. Proper planning of the water allocation is therefore inevitable, if the situation is to be improved. Another remark to the numbers in table is that in the wet season (June to November) as well as a part of the recession period (December), there is plenty of available water for irrigation water use or other uses. Presently most water in this period flows into the Great Lake, where it naturally serves other purposes. The numbers in the table are based on precipitation data that represent a ‘4 out of 5 years’ situation, or 80 % reliability. This means that in 1 out of 5 years (on the average), the water availability is expected to be less than shown in the table. The figures below show • • • the water availability for each sub-catchment in the month of April given as runoff [m3/s] and specific runoff [l/s/km2]; the same, but for the month of September; and the yearly averaged specific runoff [l/s/km2] for each sub-catchment.

Subcatchments which have a higher specific runoff than the lowest value receive flows from upstream catchments.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

26

Table 4.2: Summary water balance for Boribo sub-basin, present conditions
Rainfall Evaporation m3/s Storage and losses m3/s Water availability m3/s Domestic uses m3/s Irrigation uses m3/s Livestock uses m3/s Outflow from catchment m3/s

m3/s

January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly
l/s/km2

1,7 2,5 20,4 38,4 73,4 65,0 68,4 89,2 115,9 111,3 54,6 8,8 54,1
l/s/km2

10,8 4,0 20,4 38,4 57,5 53,8 47,1 41,7 32,9 36,3 43,4 33,7 35,0
l/s/km2

-11,8 -2,8 -0,8 -0,7 10,9 0,7 -2,6 -0,6 17,5 24,6 -6,4 -31,1 -0,3
l/s/km2

2,7 1,3 0,8 0,7 4,9 10,6 23,8 48,1 65,4 50,5 17,7 6,2 19,4
l/s/km2

l/s/km2

0,6 0,6 0,5 0,5 0,5 0,5 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 1,7 0,6 1,1
l/s/km2

l/s/km2

2,1 0,7 0,2 0,1 4,4 10,1 22,1 46,4 63,7 48,7 15,9 5,6 18,3
l/s/km2

January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly

1,1 1,7 13,6 25,6 48,9 43,4 45,6 59,5 77,3 74,3 36,4 5,8 36,1
mm

7,2 2,7 13,6 25,6 38,4 35,9 31,4 27,8 22,0 24,2 28,9 22,5 23,3
mm

-7,9 -1,9 -0,5 -0,4 7,3 0,4 -1,7 -0,4 11,7 16,4 -4,3 -20,8 -0,2
mm

1,8 0,9 0,5 0,4 3,3 7,1 15,9 32,1 43,6 33,7 11,8 4,1 12,9
mm

mm

0,4 0,4 0,3 0,3 0,3 0,3 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 1,2 0,4 0,7
mm

mm

1,4 0,5 0,2 0,1 2,9 6,7 14,7 30,9 42,5 32,5 10,6 3,7 12,2
mm

3 4 36 66 131 112 122 159 200 199 94 16 1139

19 6 36 66 103 93 84 74 57 65 75 60 737

-21 -5 -1 -1 19 1 -5 -1 30 44 -11 -56 -5

5 2 1 1 9 18 43 86 113 90 31 11 408

-

1 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 3 3 1 22

-

4 1 0 0 8 17 39 83 110 87 27 10 386

Values calculated by MIKE Basin representing a '4 out of 5 years' availability. '-' means ''less than 0.5 m3/s', less than 0.05 mm', or 'less than 0.05 l/s/km2'.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

27

Figure 4.5: Water availability in April (m3/s), present conditions

Figure 4.6: Specific water availability in April (l/s/km2), present conditions

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

28

Figure 4.7: Water availability in September (m3/s), present conditions

Figure 4.8: Specific water availability in September (l/s/km2), present conditions

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

29

Figure 4.9: Specific water availability, yearly average (l/s/km2), present conditions

Water balance, future conditions Apart from the implications of irrigation development (which is described in a separate section below), water balances have been calculated for two development scenarios: • • Increased domestic demand - a development that is certain to take place, although it is uncertain how fast; and climate change - illustrated by tentaive (and quite uncertain) assumptions as described in Section 4.8.

Increased domestic demand: The water balance assumes an increase of 2 l/p/day per year. This corresponds to a high-end estimate of this development. With a simulation that predicts the situation 25 years ahead, this value amounts to 73 l/p/day. The increased domestic water use is adopted in the MIKE Basin model with all other conditions being unchanged as compared with present conditions. Hereby, the calculations describe the water availability in 4 out of 5 years. Climate change: The assumed changes are a decrease of 2 % in the rainfall and and an increase in evaporation of 2%. These changes have been imposed on the rainfall and evaporation series that were used for the base situation simulation. No other changes have been considered. The net difference in water availability as compared with the base situation is app. 8 %, but the effect is more pronounced in the premonsoon and recession period than in the dry season. Results are shown in the tables below. Detailed water balances for each subcatchment are presented in Appendix A.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

30

Table 4.3: Water balance for increased domestic consumption
Rainfall Evaporation [m3/s] Storage and losses [m3/s] Water availability [m3/s] Domestic uses [m3/s] Irrigation uses [m3/s] Livestock uses [m3/s] Outflow to the Great Lake [m3/s]

[m3/s]

January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly

1,67 2,50 20,43 38,36 73,38 65,04 68,38 89,23 115,91 111,32 54,62 8,76 54,13

10,77 3,99 20,43 38,36 57,54 53,79 47,11 41,69 32,94 36,27 43,36 33,68 34,99

-11,81 -2,82 -0,80 -0,67 10,90 0,65 -2,57 -0,61 17,54 24,57 -6,40 -31,11 -0,26

2,70 1,33 0,80 0,67 4,94 10,61 23,84 48,14 65,43 50,48 17,66 6,19 19,40

0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04 0,04

0,61 0,61 0,52 0,52 0,52 0,52 1,75 1,75 1,75 1,75 1,75 0,61 1,05

0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

2,03 0,66 0,22 0,09 4,36 10,03 22,03 46,34 63,63 48,68 15,85 5,52 18,29

Table 4.4: Water balance in case of an assumed climate change
Rainfall Evaporation [m3/s] Storage and losses [m3/s] Water availability [m3/s] Domestic uses [m3/s] Irrigation uses [m3/s] Livestock uses [m3/s] Outflow to the Great Lake [m3/s]

[m3/s]

January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly

1,67 2,08 20,01 37,53 72,13 63,38 67,13 87,56 113,41 108,82 53,37 8,34 52,95

10,33 3,80 20,01 37,53 58,37 55,04 47,95 42,53 33,77 37,11 44,20 33,49 35,34

-11,20 -2,96 -0,76 -0,60 10,55 0,10 -1,86 -0,35 17,07 23,92 -6,91 -30,97 -0,33

2,54 1,25 0,76 0,60 3,21 8,24 21,04 45,38 62,57 47,79 16,08 5,82 17,94

0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

0,61 0,61 0,52 0,52 0,52 0,52 1,75 1,75 1,75 1,75 1,75 0,61 1,05

0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

1,90 0,61 0,21 0,05 2,66 7,69 19,27 43,60 60,79 46,02 14,31 5,19 16,86

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

31

4.3

Candidate sub-projects
This section relates to ToR, Task 23: Assessment of impacts of each sub-project on downstream water uses; and Task 24: NWISP candidate sub-projects Related data (submitted electronically)

B-W-balance-4of5yrs.xls

Boribo Sub-basin, calculated water balance, present conditions, with water uses and availability, in 4 out of 5 years, whole sub-basin and details Boribo Sub-basin, calculated water balance, alternative scenarios: Increased domestic consumption, 50-50 and 100-0 diversion at Bamnak, and impact of climate change

B-W-balance-scenarios.xls

There are 2 candidate sub-projects in the Boribo-Thlea Maam Sub-basin: Bamnak (or Bomnork) and Tram Mneash.

Bamnak (Bomnork)

Bomnork (code KK3, map 5833 IV) Boribo - Thlea Maam - Srang Sub-basin Pursat Province, Krakor District, Chheu Tom and Svay Char Communes 410 295 E, 1 359 550 N 1,750 ha (wet season)/ 50 ha (dry season)

Tram Mneash

Tram Mneash (code KK51, map 5833 IV) Boribo - Thlea Maam - Srang Sub-basin Pursat Province, Krakor District, Thnot Chum Commune 393 868 E, 1 375 032 N 1,200 ha (wet season)/ 60 ha (dry season)

The two candidate projects have been examined using the MIKE Basin model. The water demand has been assumed at 2 l/s/ha and the return flows have been assumed at nil. While return flows are likely to occur in the future, using no return flow is on the conservative side with regards to water availability.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

32

Since it is difficult to predict the water distribution at the Bamnak diversion, two different assumptions have been applied: • • A 50% - 50% distribution between Thlea Maam and Boribo; and a 0% - 100% distribution between Thlea Maam and Borobo (so that the entire flow goes to Boribo).

The two scenarios have been selected because it is expected that the future distribution - which is utterly uncertain - will be within the interval of a 0 - 50 percent diversion. A diversion rate higher than 50 percent is regarded as unlikely. A 50% - 50% distribution at Bamnak: A summary water balance for this scenario is seen in the following table. The scenario has a significant effect on the water balance. On a yearly basis, the net outflow from the catchment is reduced by app. 14 %. The outflows during the dry months is less as compared with the base situation, and the driest month (April) appears to be critical.

Table 4.5: Water balance for a 50% - 50% distribution at Bamnak
Rainfall [m3/s] Evaporation [m3/s] Storage and losses [m3/s] Water availability [m3/s] Domestic uses [m3/s] Irrigation [m3/s] Livestock [m3/s] Outflow [m3/s]

January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly

1,67 2,50 20,43 38,36 73,38 65,04 68,38 89,23 115,91 111,32 54,62 8,76 54,13

10,77 3,99 20,43 38,36 57,54 53,79 47,11 41,69 32,94 36,27 43,36 33,68 34,99

-11,81 -2,82 -0,83 -0,77 10,90 0,65 -2,57 -0,61 17,54 24,57 -6,40 -31,11 -0,27

2,70 1,33 0,83 0,77 4,94 10,61 23,84 48,14 65,43 50,48 17,66 6,19 19,41

0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

0,83 0,83 0,74 0,74 0,74 0,74 7,65 7,65 7,65 7,65 7,65 0,83 3,64

0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01 0,01

1,84 0,47 0,06 0,00 4,17 9,84 16,16 40,47 57,76 42,81 9,98 5,33 15,74

All flow at Bamnak distributed to St. Boribo: All conditions under this scenario are the same as the previous scenario, except the flow distribution at Bamnak. This scenario assumes that all flows upstream of the Bamnak diversion is diverted into the Boribo Sub-basin, and nothing into the Thlea Maam catchment. The idea is shown in the figure below, in which the area that drains into the Boribo Sub-basin under such circumstance is shown with red color.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

33

Figure 4.10: Effective drainage area of Boribo Sub-basin (red color) assuming a 100 % flow distribution towards Boribo at Bamnak

The summary water balance (for the entire catchment as a whole) for this scenario is identical to the previous scenario, hence it is not presented. However, there are pronounced effects at the two outlets of the catchments. To illustrate this, the water balance for sub-catchment 2 (the downstream part of Thlea Maam) is shown below for the base situation, the present and previous scenario. (Sub-catchment 2 has been selected as an example because the effects are particularly visible and significant in this area). All months are affected by the change in flow diversion at Bamnak. The outflow from catchment 2 of the 100%-0% scenario is app. 25 % lower than the outflows from the 50%-50% scenario. This is a significant change, and it means that the driest months are close to zero outflow. The flow diversion at Bamnak is a significant control for the diversion of water into the two catchments. Therefore, an analysis of the optimal water allocation into the two catchments can develop into a set of rules for this diversion.
Table 4.6: Water balance for the lower part of Thlea Maam (sub-catchment 2)
Runoff m3/s Rainfall m3/s Inflow m3/s Domestic m3/s Irrigation m3/s Livestock m3/s Outflow m3/s

Present conditions, 4 out of 5 years

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

0,20 0,10 0,05 0,03 0,37 0,79 1,76 3,56 4,84 3,74 1,31 0,46

0,13 0,17 1,50 2,83 5,44 4,80 5,05 6,59 8,56 8,22 4,03 0,64

1,24 0,60 0,29 0,18 2,29 4,93 10,18 21,53 29,60 22,62 7,30 2,87

-

0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,10

-

1,34 0,60 0,23 0,11 2,55 5,62 11,55 24,69 34,04 25,96 8,20 3,23

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

34

Runoff

Rainfall

Inflow

Domestic

Irrigation

Livestock

Outflow

Candidate sub-projects plus a 50% - 50% distribution at Bamnak

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

0,20 0,10 0,05 0,03 0,37 0,79 1,76 3,56 4,84 3,74 1,31 0,46 0,20 0,10 0,05 0,03 0,37 0,79 1,76 3,56 4,84 3,74 1,31 0,46

0,13 0,17 1,50 2,83 5,44 4,80 5,05 6,59 8,56 8,22 4,03 0,64 0,13 0,17 1,50 2,83 5,44 4,80 5,05 6,59 8,56 8,22 4,03 0,64

1,07 0,43 0,12 0,02 2,12 4,76 6,03 17,38 25,45 18,47 3,15 2,70 0,78 0,32 0,09 0,02 1,53 3,43 4,89 13,06 18,87 13,84 2,82 1,95

-

0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,10 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,40 0,10

-

1,17 0,43 0,06 0,00 2,38 5,45 7,40 20,54 29,89 21,81 4,05 3,06 0,87 0,31 0,03 0,00 1,79 4,11 6,25 16,22 23,31 17,18 3,72 2,30

Candidate sub-projects, all water from Bamnak diverted into Boribo

'-' means 'less than 0.005'

The estimated water availability at the two candidate sub-projects is shown in the following figure. The availability at the Tram Mneash site is affected by upstream withdrawals and can be affected by the Bamnak diversion, in case that the diverted water reaches the location.

4.4

Water availability
This section relates to ToR, Task 24: NWISP candidate sub-projects Related data (submitted electronically)

Subprojects.xls

Water availability for candidate sub-projects, and irrigable areas

On the basis of the analyses described above, the present section elaborates on the water availability for candidate sub-projects in the sub-basin. The two candidate sub-projects are located upstream and downstream of each other, as shown in the figure below. The water availability for the downstream one,

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

35

Tram Mneash, is influenced by the implementation of the upstream one, Bamnak, and on the manageable Bamnak Diversion. In consequence, the water availability can conveniently be presented as 1 2 Water available for the Bamnak scheme; and water available to share between the Bamnak scheme and the Tram Mneash scheme.

Hereby, the water available for Bamnak is included in the water available to share between the schemes.

Figure 4.11: Schematization of candidate sub-projects
St. Bamnak catchment

Bamnak scheme and Bamnak Diversion Flow to St. Boribo

St. Thlea Maam catchment

Tram Mneash scheme

Flow to the Great Lake

Not all the water available at each location should be used for irrigation. As estimated in Section 4.1, the domestic demand may increase by a factor 3-6 within a period of 30 years. Also, livestock breeding may increase. However, these demands are small in comparion with the over-all water availability. Today, between them, they are estimated at around 0.02 l/s/km2, or around 0,027 m3/s for the entire sub-basin. A 5-fold increase would amount to 0.13 m3/s. They have been included in the availability estimates in proportion to the catchment area of each scheme, not because they are significant but in order not to forget about them. The estimated awater availability is shown in the following tables.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

36

Table 4.7: Estimated water availability at Bamnak
Inflow m3/s (1) Other uses m3/s (2) Manageable m3/s (3) = (1) - (2)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

0,7 0,3 0,2 0,1 1,3 2,8 5,8 12,1 16,7 12,8 4,2 1,6

0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03

0,7 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,2 2,7 5,8 12,1 16,6 12,7 4,1 1,6

Catchment area: 392 km2 The water availability is the estimated total availability in 4 out of 5 years under present conditions, including present withdrawals for irrigation; present and future withdrawals , domestic and livestock; and excluding any future expansion of irrigation withdrawals

Table 4.8: Estimated water availability at Tram Mneash
Inflow From Bamnak low estimate m3/s (2) high estimate m3/s (3) Other uses Tram Mneash alone low estimate m3/s (5) = (1)+(2)-(4) To share with Bamnak high estimate m3/s (6) = (1)+(3)-(4)

m3/s (1)

m3/s (4)

J F M A M J J A S O N D

0,7 0,3 0,2 0,1 1,3 2,8 5,6 12,0 16,5 12,6 4,0 1,6

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

0,7 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,2 2,7 5,8 12,1 16,6 12,7 4,1 1,6

0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03 0,03

0,7 0,3 0,1 0,1 1,3 2,7 5,6 12,0 16,5 12,6 4,0 1,6

1,3 0,6 0,3 0,1 2,5 5,5 11,3 24,1 33,1 25,3 8,1 3,2

Catchment area: 394 km2 (excluding the Bamnak catchment) (2), (5): Assuming all water from Bamnak is diverted into St. Boribo (3), (6): Assuming all water from Bamnak is diverted into Thlea Maam and subtracting an allocation for domestic + livestock upstream of Bamnak (6): Water available to share between Bamnak and Tram Mneash The water availability is the estimated total availability in 4 out of 5 years under present conditions, including present withdrawals for irrigation; present and future withdrawals for domestic and livestock; and excluding any future expansion of irrigation withdrawals

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

37

4.5

Allocation of manageable flows
Manageable flow (or water availability)

The manageable flow is the water that can technically be withdrawn for off-stream uses at a given river section. The manageable flow is determined as the upstream generation of water (by net rainfall and storage exchange) minus upstream off-stream uses. The manageable flow is available to share between • off-stream uses at the given river section • off-stream uses downstream; and • in-stream (non-consumptive) uses downstream. The allocation can depend on the value generated, observation of exsiting water uses, and other aspects.

Downstream water uses The following table lists the estimated manageable flows downstream of each candidate sub-project. The table indicates that the water uses in St. Boribo depend on inflow from upstream (i.e. from the Bamnak Sub-catchment) in February, March and April, whereas in January, the availability and the demand more or less balance each other. In the rest of the year, there is a positive water availability. In St. Thlea Maam, the marigin between availability and consumption is small in February, March and April, whereas the marin is clearly positive in the rest of the year.
Table 4.9: Manageable flows downstream of candidate sub-projects
Bamnak St. Boribo m3/s St. Thlea Maam m3/s Tr Mneash St. Thlea Maam m3/s

J F M A M J J A S O N D

-0,01 -0,26 -0,29 -0,34 0,48 1,51 4,30 8,70 11,82 9,12 3,18 0,62

0,54 0,22 0,06 0,00 1,07 2,41 5,05 10,79 14,87 11,34 3,59 1,36

0,30 0,10 0,00 -0,04 0,63 1,47 3,06 6,64 9,19 6,99 2,15 0,81

Values are water generated in 4 out of 5 years minus present off-stream uses, extracted from MIKE Basin baseline simulation (Appendix 4, Table A4.6) Inflow from upstream not included Negative values indicate that inflows from upstream are relied upon to serve present demand Values include present estimated withdrawals for irrigation, domestic use and livestock

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

38

In-stream water uses Environmental flows (and other in-stream demands) have not been included in the analysis. An allocation of (for example) 2 l/s/km2 (or 3.0 m3/s for the entire subbasin) would exceed the present water availability from December through June and is simply not possible to achieve. On the other hand, 2 l/s/km2 is around the flow required on the average for the entire Mekong Basin to keep the saline sea water out of the Mekong Delta. It is an open question, however, how the contributions to this flow should be functionally allocated within the Mekong Basin, considering that much more water is available elsewhere. Areas that can be irrigated with the available water The area that can be irrigated with the manageable flow will change from one month to another, and will depend on the withdrawal demand. The withdrawal demand, in turn, depends on the crops, the cultivation routines, the direct rainfall, and the water losses in the irrigation system (conveyance losses, seepage and infiltration). Today, during an average rainy season, the farmers can raise one purely rainfed crop, although the yield is affected by water stress (which means that the water availability is less than ideal). This indicates a present withdrawal demand of somewhere around 0,5 l/s/ha minus direct rainfall - which would allow the farmers to cultivate their present wet season rice crops, with the present yield, in years with rainfall less than average. Short- and medium-term rice varieties require more water than long-term varieties, and dry season paddy cultivation requires more water that wet season cultivation, whereas many crops other than rice require less water. The area that can be irrigated with a given amount of water can be calculated as the rainfall deficit divided by the flow that is available. The rainfall deficit is the difference between the irrigation demand and the direct rainfall. It is shown in the following table for assumed withdrawal demands of 0.5, 1 and 2 l/s/ha. The former value is an indication of present practices in the wet season, while the latter value indicates possible future practices in the dry season.

Withdrawal demands According to MOWRAM's design manual for irrigation schemes (draft, Dec 03) Crop water requirement: 1,700 m3/mth (December) to 2,300 m3/month (April), or 0.6-0,9 l/s/ha, assuming a crop factor 1.1 for paddy and including percolation 2 mm/day Over-all system efficiency: Varying between 60 percent to schemes up to 50 ha and 51 percent for schemes above 400 ha This gives a withdrawal demand of between 1.1 and 1.7 l/s/ha in December to April The MOWRAM Manual notes that 'experience in other countries has indicated that crop yields are not significantly reduced if water supplied is within 85-90% of optimum'.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

39

Table 4.10: Rainfall deficit, Boribo sub-basin
Withdrawal demand Rainfall (1) mm 0.5 l/s/ha Demand (2) mm Deficit (3) = (2) - (1) mm mm 1 l/s/ha Demand (4) Deficit (5) = (4) - (1) mm mm 2 l/s/ha Demand (6) Deficit (7) = (6) - (1) mm

J F M A M J J A S O N D

3 4 37 68 131 115 122 159 207 198 97 16

134 122 134 130 134 130 134 134 130 134 130 134

131 118 97 62 3 15 12 0 0 0 33 118

268 244 268 259 268 259 268 268 259 268 259 268

265 240 231 191 137 144 146 109 52 70 162 252

536 488 536 518 536 518 536 536 518 536 518 536

533 484 499 450 405 403 414 377 311 338 421 520

Note: Values are for 4 out of 5 years

The corresponding irrigable areas are shown in the following tables.

Table 4.11a: Irrigable areas (a), withdrawal demand 0.5 l/s/ha
Bamnak Tram Mneash alone Low estimate ha ha to share High estimate ha

J F M A M J J A S O N D

1.355 628 351 283 114.476 48.463 129.245 n/a n/a n/a 32.883 3.577

1.370 641 367 306 115.377 48.734 125.221 n/a n/a n/a 31.412 3.602

2.725 1.269 718 590 229.853 97.198 254.466 n/a n/a n/a 64.294 7.179

n/a: Cultivation not limited by water availability (irrigation supplies not required)

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

40

Table 4.11b: Irrigable areas (b), withdrawal demand 1 l/s/ha
Bamnak Tram Mneash alone Low estimate ha ha to share High estimate ha

J F M A M J J A S O N D

670 309 147 91 2.443 4.907 10.564 29.798 82.581 48.788 6.609 1.675

677 315 154 99 2.462 4.934 10.235 29.415 81.889 48.199 6.313 1.687

1.347 624 301 190 4.905 9.841 20.798 59.213 164.470 96.986 12.922 3.362

Table 4.11c: Irrigable areas (c), withdrawal demand 2 l/s/ha
Bamnak Tram Mneash alone Low estimate ha ha to share High estimate ha

J F M A M J J A S O N D

333 153 68 39 826 1.754 3.724 8.610 13.843 10.090 2.544 812

337 156 71 42 833 1.764 3.608 8.499 13.727 9.969 2.430 817

670 309 139 81 1.659 3.518 7.332 17.109 27.570 20.059 4.974 1.629

The allocation of a finite amount of water between upstream and downstream schemes is a matter of give and take. In the so-called Halcrow Study (1993-95), it is recommended to prepare a master plan for 'the interconnected catchments that discharge into the south-west shore of the Great Lake' (Halcrow, Dec 03, p. 3).

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

41

5
5.1

Morphology, floods and drought
Data
This section relates to ToR, Task 2: Collection of hydro-meteorological and hydraulic data and information

Information about morphological processes was collected in July-August 2006 in connection with the present study.

5.2

Morphology
This section relates to ToR, Task 10: Morphological analysis

Bank erosion and accretion takes place along the alluvial reaches of rivers and streams, sometimes as a gradual process that proceeds for years in a predictable way, and sometimes rather abruptly. In the present study area, the erosion rate is generally slow to moderate. Bank erosion can cause damage to property, buildings and infrastructure (including irrigation infrastructure), while accretion can increase the flood risk and affect fish habitats and mish migration.
Figure 5.1: Examples of bank erosion, St. Boribo and St. Bamnak (5 July 2006)

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

42

Figure 5.2: Erosion

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

43

Figure 5.3: Accretion

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

44

5.3

Floods and drought
This section relates to ToR, Task 23: Assessment of impacts of each sub-project on downstream water uses; and Task 24: NWISP candidate sub-projects Related data (submitted electronically)

Agriculture-2006.xls

PRD survey (Jul-Aug 06): Cultivation practices; cultivation areas; cropping cycles; labour input; livestock; use of fertilizers and pesticides; farm gate prices; obstacles to cultivation

Flooded areas in 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2002 are shown in a thematic map (submitted separately). Effects of floods and drought exist over most of the sub-basin, to an extent that depends on the cultivation cycle. Normally, a drought is regarded as a drought only if it occurs during cultivation. The effects vary from one village to another, over short distances, often within each commune. In general, drought problems are much more widespread and more frequent. The following tables show drought-affected areas and the general occurrence of floods and drought in the sub-basin.

Table 5.1: Cultivation areas affected by floods and drought
Province District Commune 2005, flood ha Drought ha 2004, flood ha Drought ha

Pursat

Bakan

Snam Preach Trapeangchong Boengbatkandol Boeng Khnar Metuek Outapoang Svaydaunkeo Khnar Totueng Rumlech Talor 5

137 192 418 1813 218 2042 511 1234 163 436 65 50 48 63 126 25 141 142 135 98 … 898 0 …. …. …. 32 36 32 88 102 18 … … 7472

55 62 88 125 85 106 27 70 97 160

Kg. Chhnang

Boribo

Anchanh Rung Pich Changvar Po Pel Psar Trapeang Chan Punley Melum Khon Rang Chak Chnok Tru Kampong Koki

10 20 20 20 30 20 995

Total
Data: District Agriculture Offices

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

45

Table 5.2: Occurrence of floods and drought
Province District Commune Village Flood Drought

K.Chnang K.Chnang K.Chnang K.Chnang K.Chnang K.Chnang K.Chnang K.Chnang K.Chnang Pousat Pousat Pousat Pousat Pousat Pousat Pousat Pousat Pousat

Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor

Melum Anchanrong Anchanrong Anchanrong Anchanrong Melum Melum Psar Psar Boeng Kantot Bomnork Cheu Tom Cheu Tom Cheu Tom Cheu Tom Cheu Tom Cheu Tom Svay Sor

Toul Thlok Anchanrong Andong Rovieang Andong Rovieang Steung Thmey Melum Toul Roka Kbal Thnol Psar Ou Anchanh Toul Tbeng Bomnork Cham Thmey Cheu Tep Cheu Tom Phteak Chek Tang Lvear Toul Andet

2000 0 0 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 2000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year Every year

Data: 22 household surveys in Boribo Sub-basin 2006 Flood damage: Damage to crops, livestock and infrastructure Drought damage: Damage to crops and livestock disease For details, please refer to data table Agriculture-2006.xls

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

46

6
6.1

Aquatic environment
Data
This section relates to ToR, Task 25: Exisiting WQ data and classification

Data used in the evaluation and assessment of the aquatic environment is mainly from the commune database 2004 as presented in the previous chapters regarding population and livestock estimates. Besides this also satellite images from LandSat 2005 have been used in the analysis including data on landuse from 1993, 1997 and 2002. No water quality data have been available for the studied sub-catchments. Only data from Tonle Sap Lake have been available to a limited extent.

6.2

Pollution loads
This section relates to ToR, Task 26: Point and non-point sources Related data (submitted electronically)

Area-population.xls

Area and population (2002-04) within the study area; buffaloes, cows, horses, goats, pigs, and poultry; families using fertilizer; by province, district and commune PRD survey Jul-Aug 2006: Cultivation practices; cropping cycles; labour input; livestock; use of fertilizers and pesticides; farmgate prices; obstacles to cultivation

Agriculture-2006.xls

BOD In the figure below the load of BOD is shown for each sub-catchment.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

47

Figure 6.1: Amount of annual BOD load by sub-catchment

From this figure it can be seen that the BOD load reaching the receiving waters will be biggest in sub-catchments covering the lower stretches of the Boribo Subbasin and especially in the districts of Krakor and Boribor. The figure also show the distribution of receiving water load between domestic and non-point load. This shows clearly that in all sub-catchments the non-point load is the highest. In Table 6.1 below the estimated pollution load of BOD to each subcatchment of the river is presented. The total load, the load for non-point pollution sources and domestic load has been calculated.

Table 6.1: Estimated BOD load reaching the river in each subcatchment
Name Area km2 BODTotal kg BODNonPoint kg BODDomestic kg

Catchment2 Catchment5 Catchment6 Catchment7 Catchment8 Catchment9 Catchment10 Catchment11 Catchment13 Catchment14 Catchment15

111,2 155,7 9,7 48,0 23,9 57,2 79,9 42,1 128,7 55,1 87,0

63303 39882 6764 34073 18451 35214 37181 12351 17731 10125 19619

58005 38579 6529 33006 17857 33634 35602 12126 17268 9897 18867

5298 1304 235 1067 594 1580 1579 225 463 228 752

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

48

Catchment16 Catchment17 Catchment18 Catchment19 Catchment67 Catchment68

165,3 56,2 130,7 140,8 110,3 99,6

43909 20335 78315 114018 71665 48303

42142 19595 73741 107486 66080 44824

1768 740 4575 6532 5585 3479

For identification of location of the different subcatchments please refer to Figure 7.8 below

Figure 6.2: Location of the sub-catchments of the Boribo Sub-basin

Nitrogen The highest contribution of nitrogen to the receiving waters originates in the subcatchments covering the districts of Krakor and Boribor. Substantial differences in the receiving water load between the upper and lower stretches of the Boribo Sub-basin can be seen. Compared to the BOD load there is indications that the proportion of nitrogen load from non-point sources might be even more pronounced.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

49

Figure 6.3: Amount of annual Total Nitrogen load by sub-catchment

In Table 6.2 below the estimated pollution load of total-nitrogen to each subcatchment of the river is presented. The total load, the load for non-point pollution sources and domestic load has been calculated.

Table 6.2: Estimated nitrogen load reaching the river in each subcatchment
Name Area km2 N_Total kg N_Nonpoint kg N_Domestic kg

Catchment2 Catchment5 Catchment6 Catchment7 Catchment8 Catchment9 Catchment10 Catchment11 Catchment13 Catchment14 Catchment15 Catchment16 Catchment17 Catchment18 Catchment19 Catchment67 Catchment68

111,2 155,7 9,7 48,0 23,9 57,2 79,9 42,1 128,7 55,1 87,0 165,3 56,2 130,7 140,8 110,3 99,6

39861 34432 3862 19276 10323 20343 25384 13324 23207 12145 19898 43487 19052 47457 69249 39692 32455

39861 34432 3862 19276 10323 20343 25384 13324 23207 12145 19898 43487 19052 47457 69249 39692 32455

942 295 41 187 102 281 303 49 124 56 174 389 153 818 1086 961 653

For identification of location of the different subcatchments please refer to Figure 7.8

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

50

Phosphorus The phosphorus load shows a similar pattern as for nitrogen when indicating the pressure of human impact. Again the highest overall phosphorus load to the river system is generated in Krakor and Boribor districts.

Figure 6.4: Amount of annual Total Phosphorous load by sub-catchment

In Table 6.3 below the estimated pollution load of total-phosphorus to each subcatchment of the river is presented. The total load, the load for non-point pollution sources and domestic load has been calculated.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

51

Table 6.3: Estimated phosphorus load reaching the river in each subcatchment
Name Area km2 PtotTotal kg PtotNonPoint kg PtotDomestic kg

Catchment2 Catchment5 Catchment6 Catchment7 Catchment8 Catchment9 Catchment10 Catchment11 Catchment13 Catchment14 Catchment15 Catchment16 Catchment17 Catchment18 Catchment19 Catchment67 Catchment68

111,2 155,7 9,7 48,0 23,9 57,2 79,9 42,1 128,7 55,1 87,0 165,3 56,2 130,7 140,8 110,3 99,6

4650 2078 455 2370 1445 2167 2283 916 740 561 1341 2733 1585 5144 11519 4720 3051

4398 2024 443 2313 1410 2094 2204 906 727 553 1311 2665 1550 4918 11176 4451 2890

252 54 12 57 35 74 79 11 13 8 30 69 35 225 343 269 160

For identification of location of the different subcatchments please refer to figure 7.8

The results above are first estimates on pollutant loads entering the river. The results may only give an indication on how the relative differences in concentration may look like and which catchments may contribute relatively more than others to pollution levels expected in the river system. The plan plot showing pollutant loads entering the river system discriminates between nonpoint and point types of sources. In general the plots indicate that nonpoint sources in general are far more important than point sources (e.g. domestic sources from population). However this cannot be verified but compared to the above load amount generated it seems reasonably. However, a number of local conditions may affect the transport and retention of different sources types and it is important to obtain monitoring data covering both low flow and high flow periods in order to verify that this is also actually the case.

6.3

Water quality
This section relates to ToR, Task 27: Aqautic environment in representative reaches

The different water uses require a raw water quality that is adequate for the particular use, whether domestic, fisheries, industrial, or for agriculture. And most water uses generate a return flow, the water being released as sewage from households, businesses and industries, or as tailwater from irrigation systems and mines. A MIKE Basin Water Quality model was setup for the Boribo study area based on the water balance. The water balance is based on down stream discharges calculated from the water level measurements and Q/h relations which are

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

52

available for 1998 – 2005. The Q/h relation is primarily based on measured discharge data from 2001. Calculated discharges have been translated into area specific runoffs as input for the MIKE Basin model. The applied area specific runoff and estimated base-flow are presented the below figure.
Figure 6.5: Total specific runoff and estimated base-flow for Boribo study area in 2001.
Boribo Runoff [l/s/km^2] baseflow [l/s/km^2]

40 30 20 10 0 Jan 2001 Feb 2001 Mar 2001 Apr 2001 May 2001 Jun 2001 Jul 2001 Aug 2001 Sep 2001 Oct 2001 Nov 2001 Dec 2001

Water quality simulations This section presents the results from the water quality simulations. Two types of simulation results are presented. • • Time series plot for a selected location in the river Plan plot showing average and maximum concentrations

Below is shown the simulated concentrations of BOD, total-nitrogen and total phosphorus. These simulations indicated relative high concentrations of BOD, ammonia, and total phosphorus in February-March (dry season), and relatively high levels of nitrate and partly BOD and total phosphorus in the rainy season. BOD The simulated average concentration of BOD during the present conditions show that the concentration levels will increase in the lower reaches of the Boribo Subbasin. The calculations indicate that an up to three times increase might occur in the lower reaches of the northern river arm. However the calculation indicate using the assumptions given above that the present quality conditions should be good. During periods with low flow the simulations indicate more or less the same pattern and concentration level.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

53

Figure 6.6: Calculated concentrations at the outlet of St. Boribo (Kg Preah Kokir): BOD, ammonia, nitrate and total phosphorous
N140|BOD [mg/l]

2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5
N140|NO3 [mg/l]

2000

2001

0.70 0.60 0.50 0.40 2000 2001

N140|NH4 [mg/l]

0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10
N140|P_tot [mg/l]

2000

2001

0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 2000 2001

Ammonia The average annual concentrations of ammonia in the main part of the catchment in general meets the requirements for good quality except some short stretches in the northern river arm. However, the calculations indicate that in periods with low flow during the dry season the quality conditions regarding ammonia might be poor as the levels found in the lower reaches of the northern river arm might be five to six times higher than the upper reaches.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

54

Nitrate Regarding nitrate the average concentrations indicates that good quality conditions will occur in all river stretches. The calculations indicate however that during the rainy season the quality conditions in the lower reaches will be decreasing showing concentration levels of approx. 2 times higher than the upper reaches.

6.4

Implications of irrigation development
This section relates to ToR, Task 23: Assessment of impacts of each sub-project on downstream water uses

The impact of the candidate sub-projects on the water quality conditions will be evaluated in the following. The comparison have been made under the assumption that all pollution loads and retention in the system will be similar to the present situation, so that the only change that will occur will be the reduced water flow due to the newirrigation scheme.

Figure 6.7: Simulated discharge for reference scenario (black) and the candidate subprojects (blue) at node 140 at the outlet of St. Boribo

Figure 6.8: Simulated discharge for reference scenario (black) and the candidate subprojects (blue) at node 11 at the outlet of St. Thlea Maam

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

55

The figures show clearly that the discharge through the two river arms will be reduced during the rainy season for the candidate project and also that the discharge in the dry season will be very low. Similar types of simulation have been made as for the present situation. Below is shown the simulated concentrations of BOD, ammonium, nitrate and total phosphorus in the two arms of the river. These simulations indicate that relative small changes will take place in the concentrations of BOD, ammonium, nitrate and total phosphorus the southern arm of the river. The biggest changes will be in the level of total-phosphorus in the end of the dry season and for nitrate in July-August. In the northern arm the changes will be more pronounced. The simulations indicate that the concentrations of the simulated compounds might increase by a factor of 2 in the end of the dry season. In the wet season no significant changes will occur. BOD The simulated average concentration of BOD for the candidate project with 5050% diversion of water have been calculated. The concentration show a similar situation as for the present situation but with slightly higher values in the lower reaches. Figure 7.24 show the simulated differences in concentration levels between the candidate project and the present situation. These calculations indicate that the levels in the lower reaches will increase between 0 – 0.5 mg/l in the average situation. Ammonium The simulated concentrations of ammonium show an increase in concentration level in the lower reaches and in average an increase between 0 – 0.07 mg/l. The biggest increase will occur in the northern branch.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

56

Figure 6.9: Simulation results for the outlet of St. Boribo at Kg Preah Kokir: BOD, ammonia, nitrate and total phosphorous. Simulated concentrations for reference scenario (black) and the candidate sub-projects (red) at node 140

N140|BOD - Candidate project [mg/l] N140|BOD - reference [mg/l]

3.0 2.5 2.0 1.5 1.0 0.5 2000
N140|NH4 - Candidate project [mg/l] N140|NH4 - reference [mg/l]

2001

0.60 0.50 0.40 0.30 0.20 0.10 2000
N140|NO3 - Candidate project [mg/l] N140|NO3 - reference [mg/l]

2001

0.70

0.60

0.50

0.40

2000

2001

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

57

Figure 6.10: Simulation results for the outlet of St. Thlea Maam: : BOD, ammonia, nitrate and total phosphorous Simulated concentrations for reference scenario (black) and the candidate sub-projects (red) at node 11 at the northern outlet

N11|BOD - Candidate project [mg/l] N11|BOD - reference [mg/l]

5.0 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 2000
N11|NH4 - Candidate project [mg/l] N11|NH4 - reference [mg/l]

2001

1.0 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2

2000

2001

N11|P_tot - Candidate project [mg/l] N11|P_tot - reference [mg/l]

0.50

0.40

0.30

0.20

0.10

2000

2001

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

58

Nitrate The simulated concentrations of nitrate for the candidate project show that the concentrations in the lower reaches of the Boribo Sub-basin will increase between 0 – 0.07 mg/l. The biggest increases will be seen around the diversion and in the outer part of the northern branch. Total phosphorus The simulated concentrations of total-phosphorus show a similar pattern as the other compounds and with increases of 0 up to 0.03 mg/l

Conclusion The simulations conducted so far indicate that the quality conditions could be good and this seems to be in accordance with recent water quality monitoring programs, undertaken by MOWRAM, MRC and WUP-FIN, that the general pollution level is fairly low at present. The simulations conducted for the candidate project indicate an increase in the concentrations but overall it is not expected to change the water quality conditions to any great extent. So the proposed irrigation schemes will generally result in a reduction in water quality as less water will be available for dilution of the pollutants. In the future, in the likely case of crop diversification and the related increased use of pesticides and fertiliser, it is important to prevent serious environmental impacts in general, and contamination of edible fish in particular.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

59

7

Fisheries
Boribo Sub-basin comprises two parts: One associated with Boribo river and another one associated with Thlea Maam / Kompong Lor river. The two areas are linked by a man-made canal at Bamnak (built in 1967). The fishery in Boribo Subbasin can be described seperately for each of these areas.

7.1

Thlea Maam/Kompong Lor River
With the current situation, the linkage of different fishery ecologically compartments are significantly disturbed by a number of blocking structures. Kampong Lor River is currently blocked by two existing water regulators. One is at its downstream close to the lake, in Kampong Lor village. The other one is at its upstream part, at the Thlea Maam regulator. During high water level, the regulator downstream seems not to be a barrier to the fish migration, because of a general flood over the area. Therefore fishes are able to bypass the structure during the upstream migration. In contrast to this, the one upstream seems to be an important barrier to the fish migration. Both of the two structures are problematic concerning the upstream fish migration early in the migration period that starts in the beginning of the rainy season (June to August). This Thlea Maam regulator is probably one of the main causes of fishery changes observed by the local communities in this area. In the dry season, no fishing activities were reported by the local communities. The main river stream downstream this regulator has changed its morphology and apparently lost fish pools (deep part of river that serves as fish refuge area during dry season). In rainy season, especially at the begining of the season, fishing practice is reactive. This activity coincides with the period of up-stream migration. During this period, the immediate downstream part of this up-stream regulator structure has become a good site for fishing by the local communities. These are apparently fishes from the Tonle Sap lake which seems to attempt to migrate up-stream but is blocked by the regulator. The blocking of the regulator has made fishery in the rice field in these areas downstream of the regulator significant. Interviews under the present study revealed that approxiately 2kg of fishes can be caught by a farmer per day during rainy season, especially begining of the season. Upstream of the regulator, the fishery becomes less significant. However, observation on the morphology of the river of this part has indicated that many fish pools could exist along the main stream. These pools could serve as fish refuge areas during the dry season. In rainy season, rice field fishery is reported as common by the local communities. Finally, it is also important to note that, while the Thlea Maam regulator seems to have a major impact on fishery in the sub-basin, this could be rectified if a fish passage is included within the regulator structure and operation. The improved structure for fish passage would also significantly contribute to the fishery in the upstream areas.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

60

All future irrigation subprojects, that involve blocking the river, must consider including fish passage, and the interaction/passageway between different ecologically fish related compartments must be maintained. Beside, the amount of water in the irrigation canal will probably increase and more permanent, thussome additional benefit to the local people, who usually fully exploit the canal for fishing. Moreover, irrigated systems will be operated to help overcome water shortage in the wet season. This should benefit the natural fisheries as they prevent drought conditions in the fields.

7.2

Boribo River
Under the current situation, it is observed that the fishery associated with this river is less disturbed by the blocking structures along the main river. Only one possible blocking could be in the past (before 2000), at the Prekchik 17 April Dam. This dam was washed out by the 2000 and 2001 floods. Currently the dam is not forming any potential impact on fish migration. Before 2000, the dam isolated the catchment area above the dam from migrating fish species, developing a permanent water body upstream of the dam. Thereby, fishery was practically divided upstream and downstream of this dam. According to reports by local communities, flood water in the reservoir upstream of the dam is now abandoned of fishes. The area used to be a fishing ground for all fishermen from all around the dam site. The reservoir upstream of the dam created a refuge for riverine fish in the dry season. To survive during the dry season, fish is locally, laterally migrating in the river to deeper water. Locally migrating species can adapt to reservoir condition. Fishing is reported significantly dropping after the dam collapsed. Rehabilitation of the dam will reinstate an upstream reservoir and its fishery. Without exception, the fishermen interviewed in areas around the dam are supporting the proposed rehabilitation of the dam in anticipation of returning lucrative reservoir fisheries. Further upstream, at Bam Nak area, the river course has been severely disturbed by the Bam Nak diversion weir. Morphological development and changes are significant in this area. The Bam Nak weir itself seems to have isolated the upstream catchment (Bam Nak sub-basin) from its downstream fishery. The fishery upstream of this weir seems to have relied only on the local fishery. After the break though in the 1990s, the river have rejoined its course. No blocking of fish migration is observed after this period. The fish can use this newly cut-through river as its migration route up-stream or downstream. The rehabilitation of the Bam Nak weir may involve in blocking also this newly cut-through river course, thus could also significantly impact the aquatic diversity and fishing yield upstream of the weir. Aquatic diversity and fishing yield downstream of the weir could also be impacted if migrating fish species would have been denied access to their spawning grounds located upstream of the weir. A possible mitigation measure to avoid blocking off fish migration by weirs is the construction of fishways.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

61

8
8.1

Socio-economics
Data
This section relates to ToR, Task 1: Collection of general data and information Related data (submitted electronically)

Area-population.xls

Area and population (2002-04) within the study area; buffaloes, cows, horses, goats, pigs, and poultry; families using fertilizer; by province, district and commune Cultivation areas and livestock (2005), by province, district and commune PRD survey Jul-Aug 2006: Cultivation practices; cropping cycles; labour input; livestock; use of fertilizers and pesticides; farmgate prices; obstacles to cultivation

Cultivation-livestock.xls Agriculture-2006.xls

Data and information is available from • • • government reports, official publications by various ministries, consultant reports, and other relevant available literature previous studies carried out by ADB and WUP-FIN; secondary data from a variety of sources including the National Institute of Statistics and the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries (MAFF), commune databases and various projects; and surveys conducted under the present study in July-August 2006.

8.2

Socio-economic context
This section relates to ToR, Task 19: Economic analysis of water utilization

The Boribo-Thlea Maam Sub-basin straddles three of the poorest provinces in Cambodia - Pursat, Kampong Chhnang and Kampong Speu. Prevailing socioeconomic conditions within the sub-basin are described briefly below. Population and population growth rates The Boribo Sub-basin has an estimated population of around 52,774 which is projected to grow at an average annual rate of around 1.2% (compared with the national rate of 2.5%). The growth in population will require future investment in water and sanitation, power and transport systems. Income and poverty Pursat and Kampong Chhnang are two of the poorest provinces in Cambodia. It is estimated that around 40% of the population live below the consumption-based poverty line (MRC, 2003) in both provinces. Average gross household cash income among households surveyed in the Boribo-Thlea Maam Sub-basin is US$682 per year (or US$131 per person) compared to average national GDP per capita in 2004 of around US$363 (ADB, 2006).

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

62

The figure below clearly shows the dependency of households in the sub-basin on their land as their main source of wealth 3 and highlights their vulnerability to the impacts of drought and severe floods which affect both crop and livestock productivity. Livestock – although not often sold or traded – are clearly an important store of value, providing some form of security to households in times of need. The structure of cash income is very similar, with at least half of all cash income generated from actual sales of livestock, paddy and poultry. Note that the income levels shown below do not account for the costs associated with undertaking these income-generating activities. When these are considered, a very different picture emerges.

Income and wealth

For the purposes of this report, the distinction is made between cash income and wealth. Cash income is money that the household receives in return for goods and services that it provides. Wealth is the value of household goods (e.g. crops) and services (i.e. labour) that could be converted into direct cash value if sold. Also, although a large share of production is for subsistence, using economic prices for all crops, livestock and fisheries is justified on the basis that farmers would otherwise need to acquire these products in the market.

Employment Over 80% of the populations of Pursat and Kampong Chhnang are engaged in agriculture as the primary source of employment (MRC, 2003). This figure is believed to be a lot higher in the study area where there are no major towns offering employment in industry or services. Among the 68 households interviewed, 100% stated their main occupation as farming. Seasonal migration is a common phenomenon with around 30-40% of households in the study area having at least one member employed in either Phnom Penh or market towns along the Thai border for up to 8 months of the year. Women working in garment factories in Phnom Penh are able to earn US$30 per month while men working in the Thai border areas earn up to US$60 per month, providing an important source of supplementary cash income to households.

3

Here income is used in the economic sense and does not necessarily refer to cash income. Furthermore, livestock is valued at its stock value (i.e. as an asset) rather than as a flow value

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

63

Figure 8.1: Household wealth

Household gross income (2005)
1% 1.76% Paddy cultivation Livestock Fisheries Paid work Off-farm 8% 10%

79%

Source: project survey data

Figure 8.2: Structure of household cash income
Average gross cash income per household per year
2%

8%

Paddy Livestock 45% 44% Poultry Fisheries Off-farm Other on-farm 1% 0.1%

Source: project survey data

Access to water and sanitation Safe water is defined by UNICEF as a supply of water through household connection, public standpipe, protected dug well, protected spring or rainwater collection, with a minimum quantity of 20litres/person/day within one hour of people’s residences (UNICEF, 2002). The sub-basin population has poor access to safe water and sanitation facilities. At the time of the last census in 1998, it was estimated that less than 20% of the population in each of Pursat and Kampong Chhnang provinces had access to a safe

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

64

water supply (MRC, 2003) and less than 12% had access to proper sanitation facilities (MRC, 2003). The main sources of drinking water for the population of Pursat are shown below.

Figure 8.3: Main sources of drinking water in Pursat

Main source of drinking water - Pursat Province

4% 0% 1% 5%

2%

Piped Tube / piped well Protected dug well Unprotected dug well 40% Spring / river / stream Bought Other

48%

Source: UNDP, 2006

Domestic water consumption within the Boribo Sub-basin is characterized by a large span between urban households with piped water supply and rural households with shared or no water supply. The distribution is the limiting factor in all areas that are not covered by public supplies directly to each household. The majority of the sub-basin population harvests rainwater during the wet season which is stored in large jars. This is supplemented with water collected from nearby rivers and streams. Water quality has not been reported as a problem but with growing populations of both humans and livestock, and increasing applications of chemical fertilizers and pesticides in agriculture, poor water quality may become an issue, especially in the dry season. Health The health of people living in the Boribo Sub-basin is generally poor due to low levels of access to clean water and sanitation. Diarrhea is common among children. Almost half of all children in Pursat and Kampong Chhnang Provinces are malnourished (MRC, 2003). The MAFF (2005) estimates per capita rice requirements to be 143 kg per year, equivalent to 744 kg of rice per household per year in the sub-basin. According to project survey data, rice yields are around 736 kg/ha, or 1.13 tonnes per household year, suggesting that poor diet, rather than food or rice shortages, is the main cause of malnutrition among children.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

65

Land holdings Findings from village surveys reveal that the average cultivated area per household is around 1.5 hectares. The small size of land holdings, poor quality soils and lack of water limit the types and quantity of crops that can be grown and deny farmers the opportunity to benefit from economies of scale. Generally, households devote most of their cultivated area to wet season paddy. Literacy Education and training standards are extremely low by developing country standards. Literacy in Pursat and Kampong Chhnang provinces is around 80% for men but much lower (60%) for women. Less than 20% of the population complete primary school and less than 10% are educated to a secondary school level (MRC, 2003). Low levels of education limit the options available to households to diversify their livelihoods away from subsistence farming, again making them extremely vulnerable to factors affecting agricultural productivity. Physical infrastructure The physical infrastructure serving villages in the Boribo Sub-basin is relatively undeveloped and roads are poorly maintained. Most of the roads and cart tracks become impassable during the wet season, isolating many rural communities and limiting opportunities to market surplus agricultural produce. Rivers and streams are thus important transport conduits in the wet season, allowing people to travel between villages located near waterways. Plans to rehabilitate the railway between Phnom Penh and Poipet as an integral part of the Greater Mekong Subregion (GMS) southern economic corridor (one of 11 flagship programs under the GMS subregional economic cooperation) are underway. The railway (which will eventually link Singapore to Kunming) passes through Bamnak in Boribo basin and could be beneficial to residents in the Boribo basin by: • • Providing a means for farmers (in collaboration) to transport surplus produce to markets in Phnom Penh, Battambang and Poipet Creating an opportunity for the development of tourism to the Cardamom mountains

The railway line is expected to be completed by 2015 (ADB, 2006). Summary The residents of Boribo basin are predominantly poor rice farmers. They engage in subsistence rice cultivation during the wet season and typically find off-farm work during the dry season when water shortages severely limit the feasibility of a second rice crop. However, low levels of education and literacy, limit the off-farm opportunities available to most households. Rural households do not have access to safe water supplies and consequently suffer poor health which also affects their agricultural productivity. Livestock raising is an important source of wealth but livestock health depends on the availability of sufficient water for drinking and fodder. Apart from water shortages during the dry season, agricultural productivity is constrained by small landholdings and poor soil quality.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

66

Summary socio-economic indicators for Boribo Sub-basin are presented in the table below.
Table 8.1: Summary socio-economic indicators for Pursat, Kampong Chhnang and the study area
Indicator Demographics Population Population growth rate (% p.a.) Population density (persons/km2) Migrant population (%) Health & welfare Infant mortality rate (per 1,000 live births) Proportion of population aged 014 (%) Child malnutrition (%) Ave household size GDP per capita (US$) Ave household landholdings (ha) % of population living below consumption-based poverty line % of population with access to safe water supply % of population with access to sanitation Ave household livestock holdings (cows, buffaloes, pigs) Education Literacy rate (%) Primary attainment rate (%) Lower secondary attainment rate (%) Employment Labour force participation rate (%) Agricultural Employment (%) Industrial Employment (%) Services Employment (%) Unemployment (%) 100 74.2 82.6 2.1 15.3 3.5 76.4 85.5 1.7 12.8 3.1 4 5.2 161 1.5 40.7 12.3 11.7 44.6 19.3 6 52,774 2.4 46 28.4 2.8 75.7 3.9 360,400 Boribo / Thlea Maam Pursat Province# Kampong Chhnang Province#

104 47.2 48.6 5.2

91 44.5 47.6 5

76.5 (male) 82.5 (male) 59.5 (female) 53.7 (female) 16.7 15.2 8 5.4

# Provincial estimates are sourced from MRC Social Atlas (1998 census data unless otherwise indicated); sub-basin data comes from project surveys and commune databases

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

67

8.3

Water utilization
This section relates to ToR, Task 19: Economic analysis of water utilization

This section provides a snapshot of knowledge about current water use in the Boribo Sub-basin. It identifies and quantifies (as far as possible) the water uses and services by socio-economic sector thereby providing some insight into the relative socio-economic importance of water uses to the sub-basin residents. The economic importance of each water use is analysed in section 8.4. Irrigated agriculture and forestry Water is essential to the agricultural sector for irrigation, drinking water for livestock and cleaning. It is estimated that 19 % of the total sub-basin area is under cultivation (Table 8.2) and that 38 % of the total cultivated area is irrigated.

Table 8.2: Cultivated areas in Boribo Sub-basin
Total Wet paddy Dry paddy Other crops

Basin area (ha) Cultivated area (ha) Percent of basin area Irrigated area (ha) Percent of total cultivated area

149,900 28,800 19 28,800 19 10,900 38 1,975 0.3 1,975 7 45 0.03

Source: Cultivated area by land use analysis (2005) (Table 2.2); distribution of cultivated area estimated from data contained in the commune database and collected from local authorities; irrigation areas according to Table 2.4

Rice cultivation is relatively limited, representing no more than 5-10 percent of the commune area in the majority of the communes, with some higher coverage in the lower reaches. Wet season paddy is the predominant crop (see Figure 8.4) with only relatively small areas of irrigated dry season paddy. In many localities, farmers grow other crops (Table 8.3) such as vegetables, sugar palm, and various fruit. Livestock rising generally is important, with most farmers raising chickens, pigs and ducks for consumption and sale, and oxen or buffalo for draught power. For non-rice crops, a large variety of cropping systems are used, some of which involve supplementary irrigation. (Apart from vegetables, very small areas of nonrice crops are fully irrigated). For instance, maize is grown under rain-fed conditions along river floodplains, where the soil receives an annual replenishment of silt, to maintain fertility. The crop is planted at the beginning of the wet season rains, and harvested prior to the floods in September. Supplementary crops are grown primarily for subsistence use while corn is grown to provide pig fodder. Drought has become an annual occurrence, and is often accompanied by pest infestations, giving farmers little incentive to cultivate during the dry season. While severe flooding is less of an issue, when it does occur the impacts are devastating, with farmers reporting crop losses of between 50-90%, particularly in those communes bordering The Great Lake.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

68

Figure 8.4: Irrigated cropping areas in Boribo Sub-basin

Irrigated cropping areas (2005)
5% 1%

Wet Dry Total Supplementary

94%

Data from commune database and district authorities

Table 8.3: Irrigated crop areas
District Commune Paddy (ha) Wet
Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Boribo Tuek Phos Tuek Phos Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Krokor Kandieng Phnum Kravanh Sampov Meas Aural Anchanh Rung Pich Changvar Psar Melum Khon Rang Kampong Koki Chieb Krang Skear AnsaChambak Snar Ansar Ou Sandann Boeng Kantout Tnoat Chum Kampung Po Cheu Tom Svay Sor Kanhchor Prongil Roleab Trapeang Chour

Other Irrigation Crops (Ha) Corn 0 320 280 200 0 240 0 65 0 0 0 0 Potato 8 0 3 4 6 11 Bean 1 0 0 0 0 0 Sugar Cane 1 0 1 1 1 1 Pineapple 1 0 0 0 1 1 Vegetable 9 0 12 9 10 11 Total 19 65 16 14 17 24

Dry

4,076 1,445 2,027 1,724 1,858 280

2,080 502 1,020 833 1,538 1,149 1,549 1,531

35 2 …. …. …. 2 …. 30

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

…. …. …. …. …. …. …. ….

Total

21,612

1,109

65

32

1

3

2

51

154

Irrigated agriculture is the largest user of water in the Boribo Sub-basin (as in Cambodia as a whole), presently consuming around 32.8 million m3 per annum. Most agriculture is rainfed with only around 7% of the total land area receiving any form of irrigation. However, where irrigation is possible, the benefits are substantial. The total potential irrigable area is estimated to be around 23,915 in the wet season and 7,201 ha in the dry season. At present, only 46% and 27% of irrigation potential is being exploited in the wet and dry season respectively. Demands for irrigation water can be expected to increase over time as more food is required to support a growing population. It is difficult to predict exactly how much additional water will be required as much depends on the mix of crops

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

69

grown, technological uptake and water-use efficiency. Access to markets, agricultural extension and the terms of trade offered to farmers will also impact agricultural productivity. Future demands for irrigation water (Table 8.4) are estimated based on the following assumptions: • • • The full development of potential irrigation areas such that water utilization is limited by the water availability rather than by distribution capacity Improvements in water and land-use efficiencies A partial shift towards crops that are less water-consuming and more valuable than rice

Table 8.4: Future demands for irrigation in Boribo basin
Present (million m3) Future (million m3)

Irrigation demands

32.8

113.2

During the course of the household surveys, farmers cited the main obstacles to cultivation as: • • • • • Lack of water (100%) Lack of capital (29%) Lack of seed (19%) Lack of technology (14%) Low yields (5%)

It is thus believed that an inability to manage water flows around the considerable variability in rainfall is likely to a serious constraint to agricultural growth in the sub-basin. The long dry season and irregular rainfall during the wet season place considerable constraints on crop production, and on farmer confidence and ability to invest. Water resources management and control are a basic requirement for increasing agricultural productivity, reducing risk of crop failure, and reducing rural poverty (CNMC, 2003).

Impacts of irrigation development on agricultural water demands and water availability Potential impacts of irrigation development on agricultural water demands include: • • Reduced total demand because of improved water-use efficiencies (i.e. reduced leakage from canals, etc) thereby contributing to water availability Increased total demand because of improved access to water for irrigation and potential for expanding both the cultivated area and the cultivation period. The change in demand will depend largely on the price of water for irrigation vis-à-vis the value of household returns to agricultural production. Reduced water availability through increased use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides on an expanded and/or intensified cropping area

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

70

Forestry 78 percent of the Boribo Sub-basin is covered by evergreen, semi-evergreen or deciduous forest (PRD Interpretation from Landsat ETM (2005). Agronomically, natural forest may be the largest consumer of water in the basin. The forest receives all of its required water from annual rainfall and by tapping residual soil moisture plus water from shallow aquifers during the dry season. Overall water consumption decreases in land denuded of forest and cultivated with annuals, but there will be an accompanying change in seasonal flows into the mainstream and possible long-term climate change effects (Nesbitt, 2005). Livestock Livestock is regarded as both a source of income and as a livelihood safety net to be sold in response to shocks such as illness or expenses associated with marriage or death. Animal sales are a major source of income for subsistence farmers who see them as ‘banks’ for accumulation of wealth. Based on information from project surveys, over 70% of all households raise cows, and over 60% of all households raise pigs. Chickens are generally a source of protein for farmers, and there are no known commercial poultry farms. Estimates of water consumption by large animals range from 50 to 120 litres of water per animal per day. Table 5 shows present livestock water demands based on both low and high estimates of daily water consumption.

Table 8.5: Present livestock water demands in the Boribo Sub-basin (2005)
Daily water Total annual Daily water demand per water demand per animal demands (m3) - animal (m3) (m3) - LOW LOW HIGH 0.05 0.05 0.03 0.01 329,413 202,301 164,173 478,234 1,174,121 0.12 0.10 0.05 0.02 Water Total annual Water demands water demands(m (m3/s) demands 3/s) - LOW HIGH (m3) - HIGH 790,590 404,603 273,622 956,468 2,425,283 3.813 2.341 1.900 5.535 9.150 4.683 3.167 11.070

Head

Buffalo Cows Pigs Poultry Total

18,050 11,085 14,993 131,023 175,151

* Livestock numbers are based on a combination of project surveys and information contained in commune databases

Table 8.6 shows recent over-all changes in livestock population for Cambodia as a whole. More localised (but short-term) data are available from the Commune Database. In the recent past, the number of buffaloes has been decreasing, possibly reflecting a shift from using animal-drawn implements to machinery for crop cultivation. However, the increased number of cattle and pigs across the basin has offset this decline. The general increase in large animal numbers is a reflection of improved crop production and of the general welfare of farmers. Higher rice grain yields for example, have resulted in associated increases in the quantity of stubble made available for grazing both cattle and buffaloes. Pigs on the other hand are fed with rice bran, a bi-product of milling. Increased grain production results in the support of a greater number of pigs, chickens and ducks.
Table 8.6: Change in livestock population, Cambodia

Livestock
Version 2

Buffalo Cows Pigs Chickens

Change 1991 - 2001 (% per year) -2.4 2.2 1.7 5.5

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

71

Source: UNFAO, 2002. ‘Selected Indicators of food and agriculture development in Asia', quoted by MoE (Apr 05)

Based on the information in Table 8.6, it is possible to project future livestock demands, assuming that: • • • Animal population growth rates will remain more or less stable over the next 10 years Livestock productivity among subsistence farmers will not be heavily impacted by the spread of animal diseases such as avian influenza Possible changes in market prices will not influence the holding patterns of subsistence farmers in Boribo Sub-basin

The figures in Table 8.7 are based on conservative (low) estimates of daily livestock water demands.
Table 8.7: Projected livestock water demands to 2030

2005 population Buffalo Cows Pigs Poultry Total 18,050 11,085 14,993 131,023 175,151

2030 annual 2030 water 2030 water demand demands population (m3) (m3/s) 7,220 131,765 0.004 17,182 313,567 0.010 21,365 233,947 0.007 311,180 1,135,806 0.036 356,946 1,815,085

Domestic consumption Today, in the project area, with its large rural population, domestic water uses are limited by the infrastructure (withdrawal capacity and distribution capacity), and also, in some places and in part of the year, by the immediate raw water availability. Information from the household surveys revealed the following: • Most households in the study area collect and store rainwater in large 225 litre jars during the wet season. Each household will have between 3 and 5 jars. The harvested rainwater is used for drinking and cooking only and will last until around Feb/March. Bathing and washing is done in nearby rivers and ponds.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

72

Those households living within 100 metres of rivers and streams tend to fetch drinking water from the nearest source. Households who have to collect water from streams or rivers generally spend about 1 hour per week doing so. During the dry season households will either purchase water from delivery trucks (around 10,000 riel per load = 1,250 litres) in more built up areas, or fetch water from rivers in rural areas. Those households who cannot afford to pay for water are able obtain it from the nearest pagoda or community well.

Estimated daily water consumption in the Boribo Sub-basin is around 50 litres per person, or a total of 2.6 million litres per day. This is high in comparison with estimates of per capita consumption for Cambodia as a whole – 20.7 litres per person per day in rural areas and 65.1 litres per person per day in urban areas (MRC Jun 03). Demands for domestic water are expected to increase over the coming years as a result of: • Population growth, including the impacts of migration. Net migration may be negative, since there are no significant urban centres (such as provincial towns) in the study area. The possibility exists that at a certain stage, the population of the study area will stagnate, and, later on, decrease, reflecting an anticipated shift of livelihood opportunities from rural to urban areas, as well as new agricultural technologies with a much higher labour efficiency. Increased per capita demand because of better education about the benefits of water for good hygiene Improved lifestyles with more widespread use of water-using technologies and an expanded coverage of piped water supplies direct to each household

• •

Assuming a conservative population growth rate of 1.2% per annum (low) and a more typical one of 2.4% (high) as well as an increase in per capita demands of between 1 and 2 litres per day per year until 2015, consumption levels are projected to be around the levels shown in Table 8. Based on these assumptions, domestic demand in 25 years’ time will be somewhere between 3 and 5 times the present demand. This is still a small part of the available water in the area, but the increase must be kept in mind in connection with the predicted increased demand for other purposes, particularly irrigation. When managing water allocation, priority should be given to domestic uses as a basic human right.
Table 8.8: Projected domestic consumption demands
2005 2030 (low) 2030 (high)

Population Daily per capita consumption (litres)* Total annual demand (mm3)

52,774 23 0.44

71,964 49 1.29

88,313 75 2.42

* assumes an increase of 1 litre per capita per day under the low growth scenario and 2 litres per capita per day under the high growth scenario. The present unit demand of 23 l/d is from TSBMO (Mar 03); the present population is from the Commune Database; other values are estimates

Fisheries Fisheries in the Boribo Sub-basin (like elsewhere in the Mekong basin) is enormously important both commercially and for subsistence livelihoods. Fish provide a vital source of nutrients to the people of the Tonle Sap and the

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

73

surrounding area (Ahmed et. al., 1998) and are also an important component of households’ cash economy. Fish provide self-employment, wage employment (for men and women in the fishing lots on Tonle Sap Lake), direct nutrition, indirect nutrition, and other livelihood needs (by cash sale or barter for other produce). Both subsistence and commercial fishing takes place in the Boribo-Thlea Maam basin. While most households are involved in subsistence fishing in the wet season (10 days per month in the wet season), only a very small number of villagers do any kind of commercial fishing. Around 30% of total fish catch is either sold or exchanged for rice. No data on fisheries productivity was available for the Boribo basin, therefore values have been derived from studies by the MRC Fisheries Program which estimates that average consumption of fish and other aquatic products (OAP) in the Lower Mekong Basin as a whole is about 36 kg/person/year. Households in the Boribo basin each consume around 2kg of fish per week (20kg/person/year), or a total at present of 1,000 tonnes per year for the sub-basin. With a growing population (and assuming no change in diet), future demands are expected to rise to around 1,500 tonnes per year by 2030 (under a conservative population growth rate). Actual production estimates vary widely, and are subject to a number of methodological debates centred around whether catch or consumption should be used as the basis for measuring yield. The estimated fish yield of the Great Lake and the Tonle Sap river itself is as high as 139-190 kg/ha/year (by Van Zalinge et al 2001). Annual fish productivity in the Cambodian floodplains is estimated to be around 243kg/ha. This is a high-end estimate based on work near Phnom Penh by Dubeau et al 4 (see Beecham and Cross, 2005). The productivity and sustainability of fisheries – and hence their ability to meet rising demands - depends on a number of factors including: • • • • • • fishing practices total fishing effort river flows barriers to migration access to, and from floodplain habitats; and the floodplain area that is inundated in the wet season, which in turn depends on the annual maximum flood height..

There is, as yet, no standard functional form for evaluating the impact of changes in river flow levels to changes in fisheries productivity but recent advances have, however, been made in modelling how fisheries productivity may be affected by changes in hydrological flow levels using indicators relating to habitat availability and migration (Beecham & Cross, 2005).

4

Dubeau, P., Poeu, O. and Sjorslev, J. (2001) Estimating fish and aquatic animal productivity /yield per area in Kampong Tralach: An integrated approach. http://www.mekonginfo.org/

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

74

Preserving the Mekong fishery is central to food security in the region. The wild fishery is particularly important for the poorest rural households, making significant contributions to their nutrition, food security and income (MRC, 2003). Industry There are no significant industrial activities in the Boribo Sub-basin at present. There is some light industry in the form of rice milling and brick making. Rice milling demands negligible amounts of water (for cleaning) while brick-making requires around X m3 per tonne. The scale of brick production in the Boribo Subbasin is relatively minor (around 2 family-run operations), with production for only local consumption. Some sand extraction takes place in the dry season in the lower parts of the rivers, at places where the transport of the excavated sand is practical. Each operation can extract around 5m3 per day in the dry season. The sand sells for around US$2 per m3. These operations are typically run by outsiders who draw on cheap, local labour. Future industrial development in the area is limited by the poor infrastructure network and generally low levels of education among sub-basin residents. It is not therefore expected to impact, or be impacted upon by, water availability. Navigation The roads and tracks in the study area are generally very poor and virtually impassible during the wet season. Many villagers thus rely on waterborne transport when they need to travel beyond their own village in the wet season. Irrigation development in the sub-basin is not expected to impact upon river navigability during the wet season. Tourism and recreation Pursat province is the gateway to the Cardamom mountains and, together with its location not far from Phnom Penh, offers significant tourism potential. However, the poor condition of the access road (impassable during the wet season) and extremely limited tourist facilities are reflected in the low number of visitors to the region. Peak visitation rates are during Khmer and Vietnamese New Year holidays. As mentioned earlier, the proposed railway development from Phnom Penh to Poipet could stimulate tourism activity around the Cardamom mountains. The impacts upon water resource availability, at least in the next 20 years, are believed to be negligible. Micro-hydropower The general topography of the Boribo-Thlea Maam Sub-basin supports the development of run-of-river micro-hydropower schemes. At present there is only one known scheme in operation in the sub-basin. It is located near Chrak La Eang waterfall and its low capacity (2-3kW) allows it to serve only a small number of households. It is believed that there is significant potential for further microhydropower development, although more particularly on the other side of the catchment (personal communication, Teang Sokhom, 17 October 2006). The development of such schemes will not affect water availability and their location in

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

75

the upper catchment areas should protect them against the potential impacts of downstream irrigation development. Maintenance of aquatic ecosystems for livelihood support and environmental sustainability Apart from the direct use value that rivers provide in the form of water for irrigation, livestock, domestic and industrial consumption and fisheries production, they are also important for the maintenance of aquatic ecosystems. Riverine ecosystems in Cambodia support a highly diverse aquatic animal and plant community, many of which are valuable foods and medicines for rural households. A number of households in Boribo basin, for example, collect water hyacinth for domestic consumption during the wet season. Summary Agriculture is presently the biggest user of water in the Boribo Sub-basin and is likely to expand its share of water demand significantly if the basin’s irrigation potential is fully exploited (fig. 4). Domestic and livestock demands are almost insignificant by comparison (in terms of volume), although they are important in value. With the available data, it is not possible to quantify industrial demands but these are negligible at present and expected to continue to be so. Instream demands (such as fisheries and ecology) are also difficult to quantify, not least of all because the relationships between productivity and water flows are generally not yet well understood.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

76

Figure 8.5: Present and future composition of major extractive water demands in Boribo Sub-basin

Present and future composition of extractive water demands in the Boribo Basin
120 Million cubic metres 100 80 60 40 20 0 Livestock Irrigation Domestic Present Future

8.4

Economic analysis
This section relates to ToR, Task 19: Economic analysis of water utilization

This section attempts to quantify, in monetary terms, the value of water uses in the Boribo Sub-basin. In turn, such an analysis should provide decision-makers with some insight into the relative magnitude of costs and benefits associated with irrigation development and the significance of any water-use trade-offs that may arise. Economic valuation approach In order to compare and quantify the economic value of water uses in such a way that the analysis can be used to guide decision-makers towards an economically optimal allocation of water, it is important that the values assigned to the different water uses are comparable (i.e. valued in common units) and that all items can be valued at their value in use or opportunity cost to society.
Opportunity costs

... are the benefits foregone by using a limited resource for one purpose instead of for its next best alternative use (Gittinger, 1996)

The general approach is taken to recognise that water is one of a number of inputs into a process and each input makes a contribution to the final value of the output. Wherever possible, the analysis has attempted to convert the value of water use to a value per m3. Typically, an economic analysis of water use requires some estimation of the contribution water makes to an industrial process using indicators such as contribution to national GDP/GNP, employment (share of labour force employed by activity), value-added activities and contribution to export earnings) to measure the significance of each activity (WFD CIS Guidance, 2004). However, given the

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

77

largely subsistence nature of ‘economic activity’ within the study area, such an analysis is more difficult to conduct – and less meaningful - not least of all because the data to substantiate such indicators is rarely available below the national level. Furthermore, these indicators do not give a complete picture of the relative economic importance of each of these activities. For example, they rarely account for informal economic activities (such as subsistence agriculture and nonmotorised water transport); roles in poverty reduction; indirect links that arise as a result of the primary activity (e.g. servicing of trucks used to transport produce to market), and the social and environmental impacts of the activities. The approach adopted here is therefore to quantify the benefits of water at a household level which is justified by the overall poverty alleviation objective of the project. Markets generate the relative values of all traded goods and services as prices which makes them very useful for comparison as not only are they co-measurable but also some indication of their current relative scarcity value is provided (Hanley and Spash, 1993). However, the use of market prices alone is sometimes not sufficient for analysing the real trade-offs to society as they do not always reflect the total economic value (TEV) of a particular good or service.
Total Economic Value (TEV)

is used to define features in terms of their direct and indirect use and non-use values (see figure 1 below). Using the concept of TEV allows us to include values for benefits that may not have market prices (i.e. they are generally not bought or sold, e.g. ecological services and heritage value) and to examine the environmental and social impacts of development options

In order to make resource allocation decisions based on economic values, what we really want to measure is the net economic benefit obtained from a good or service. For individuals, this is measured by the amount that they are willing to pay, rather than the amount they might actually pay. The amount individuals are willing to pay for something will change if its usefulness or quality changes. Also, if the price or quality of a good changes, that is considered to be a substitute for the original good, willingness to pay for the original good will change. Sometimes, consumers will be willing to pay more than the market price for a particular good or service because its private value to them is much higher. This may be because the resource has a non-use value that is not typically expressed in the market place or conveys some form of positive externality.
Externalities

are unintended, unpriced impacts of developments. They may be positive where benefits are realised or negative where costs are borne by third parties

The economic benefits of domestic, industrial and agricultural water demands are generally straightforward to quantify, as their values are expressed in the market place. However, economic benefits of environmental water demands are more difficult to quantify, as their values are generally not expressed through market processes.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

78

All monetary values are expressed in terms of net benefits (i.e. revenues minus costs). This is to account for the fact that prices (set by local, regional and sometimes global markets) are not necessarily good indicators of the true value of a good or service because they do not always account for the value of resources used up in the production of goods and provision of services. In summary, net benefits for water-dependent activities in the sub-basin were calculated using various approaches as follows: • By estimating the production costs (including externalities wherever possible) associated with an activity and subtracting these from gross revenues (i.e. gross sales value at point of first sale, or farmgate prices) Household survey and commune data was used as far as possible to estimate the net benefits In each case, the marginal relationship between water (as an input) and the value of output (i.e. the net benefit) was established to allow further examination of how these values might be expected to change with changes in water availability.

• •

Irrigated agriculture The value of water used for irrigation can be broadly estimated by determining the net value of irrigated crop harvests. Wet season paddy is the principal crop grown with only relatively small areas of dry season paddy and other supplementary crops receiving any form of irrigation. The valuation approach can be summarised as follows: • Although a large share of production is for subsistence, using economic prices for all irrigated crops is justified on the basis that farmers would otherwise need to acquire these products in the market. Values are calculated per hectare and per household on the basis of the net profits to farmers once production costs have been accounted for. Crop production costs were not widely available for supplementary crops and thus estimates of the approximate returns to production were based on limited information from reports containing farm production budgets. Using this information, production costs are estimated at around 75% for fruit and vegetables. This takes into account both the direct costs of crop production and the opportunity cost of family labour and land.

• •

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

79

Table 8.9: Crop budget summary for Boribo Sub-basin
Unit WS rice DS Rice Corn Potatoes Beans Sugarcane Pineapple Vegetables Irrigated area ha 21,612.00 1,109.00 65.00 32.00 1.10 2.70 2.30 51.00 Yield t/ha 1.30 2.15 2.00 2.00 2.00 16.40 10.00 2.00 Price US$/kg 0.12 0.12 0.09 0.27 0.69 0.11 0.24 0.19 Gross value US$/ha 156.00 258.00 185.06 546.01 1,378.67 1,818.18 2,355.89 372.16 Production costs 139.09 87.38 138.80 409.50 1,034.00 1,363.64 1,766.92 279.12 Seed US$/ha 12.00 12.00 Labour US$/ha 97.50 45.00 Fertiliser US$/ha 17.81 17.81 Pesticide US$/ha 0.00 0.79 Water US$/ha 11.78 11.78 Pumping costs US$/ha US$/ha Net crop income 16.91 170.62 46.27 136.50 344.67 454.55 588.97 93.04 Cultivated area per hou ha 2.13 0.11 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 Ave h/hold income US$ 36.00 18.64 0.30 0.43 0.04 0.12 0.13 0.47

1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/

Assumptions: Labour is valued at US$1.50 per day (both hired and family); wet season rice requires around 65 days of labour per ha Seed costs US$0.12 per kg. To cultivate 1 ha of rice requires approx 100kg of seed Fertiliser is applied at a rate of around 60kg/ha. One kg costs 1,232 riel Pesticides are applied at a rate of around 0.4 bottles per ha. One bottle costs 8.166 riel Yields for supplementary crops are based on MAFF (2004-5) statistics for Pursat Producer prices for supplementary crops are based on FAOStat database for Cambodia (2003) In the absence of detailed data, production costs for supplementary costs are assumed to be 75% of farmgate prices. This is consistent with values obtained from individual farm budget studies

These findings are consistent with those from other studies including Sareth (2002) who found that gross family income (Gross income minus cash and in-kind costs) equalled US$131 per ha in Takeo province for a single crop and US$119/ha/crop for double cropping. When farmer labour is charged to the budget, rice production was a loss making exercise with net incomes of minus US$103 and minus US$74 for single and double cropping respectively. Other crop budget summaries are presented in Table 10 indicating the low level of rice farm income across the Lower Mekong Basin.

Table 8.10: Crop budgets for NE Thailand
Rice Rice Rice Corn Potatoes

Cultivation type Season Variety Production costs (US$/ha) Cash gross income (US$/ha) Net crop income (US$/ha)

Rainfed Wet Local 98.4 96.9 -44

Irrigated Wet HYV 118.0 119.7 -49

Irrigated Dry HYV 110.0 130.1 21

Irrigated Dry 128.1 279.2 73

Irrigated Dry 260.9 713.1 603

* Net crop income assumes labour cost (hired or family) of US$2.5 per day Source: Euroconsult (1998) in Nesbitt (2005)

It is therefore common for farmers to supplement their farm incomes by seeking labouring jobs nearby or in the cities. Despite the low profitability of agriculture, it employs more than 80% of the workforce (in terms of person-days) and accounts for around 70% of total household income. In Boribo district, income from rice cultivation is insufficient to

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

80

support some households so these households sometimes borrow from other farmers. The loan is paid back the following year from revenue generated by rice sales. Improving the irrigation system would allow more farmers to engage in dry season paddy production but is unlikely to have the desired effect on poverty unless irrigation improvements are accompanied by: • investments in appropriate technologies (including higher yield varieties, more water efficient crops and cropping techniques, a shift to higher value crops) agricultural extension (including marketing and value-adding), access to markets (including storage, transport infrastructure and the terms of trade offered to farmers) some form of agricultural insurance for farmers who are prepared to diversify against the risks of external shocks and stresses such as drought and severe flooding

Livestock As mentioned earlier, livestock is regarded as both a source of income and as a livelihood safety net. Animal sales are a major source of income for subsistence farmers who see them as ‘banks’ for accumulation of wealth. However, in most cases, livestock are only sold in times of need, for instance in response to shocks such as illness or expenses associated with marriage or death. The value added by water to livestock is estimated as follows: • Livestock health (and thus value) is assumed to be directly (but not linearly) related to the availability of sufficient volumes of water for drinking and cleaning. However, water is only one of a number of requirements for good animal health. Since the relationship between water consumption and animal value is not known, the net benefit values in Table X reflect the total value of livestock that water availability supports. They do not reflect the value-added by water alone. The gross value of livestock to individual households is equivalent to the market value of total stock holdings (and not simply cash sales) at any given time The net value of livestock includes the cost of purchase and raising

Information from the household surveys shows that on average, households earn around US$320 per year from the sale of livestock but the net value of total holdings (shown in Table 8.11) is up to 45 percent higher and provides an important safety net to these households in times of need.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

81

Table 8.11: Livestock value in the Boribo Sub-basin
Raising costs from Gross Net value to Net value Gross time of value to Purchase the basin to each Sales value value to the purchase each costs (US$ household (US$/head) basin (US$ household (US$/head) to time of millions) (US$) millions) sale (US$) (US$/head) 289 289 108 3 3 5 2 0 10 316 514 160 37 1,028 169 169 24 0 0 0 36 0 1.34 2.17 0.72 0.38 5 132 214 71 37 454

Number of head in Boribo basin

Cows Buffalo Pigs Poultry Total

11,085 18,050 14,993 131,023 175,151

1/ 2/ 3/ 4/ 5/ 6/ 7/ 8/

Assumptions: Market price of chicken is 8000 riel/kg. Each head of chicken produces 1.5kg of meat Households purchase young cows and buffaloes (<3 years) at a cost of 600,000 - 800,000 riel. Households are able to sell mature cows and buffaloes (>3 years) at a price of 1,200, 000 riel. Costs of raising cows and buffalo are minimal (but not zero) Each household spends 2,000 riel per day on pig feed (for 2-3 pigs) or 1,000 riel per day per pig Replacement/purchase costs of poultry are zero. The poultry population regenerates itself. Households sell cows and buffalo on average once every 3 years Pigs are sold every 4-6 months

It is important to understand that the water-related benefits presented above are believed to be overstated for the following reasons: • • They do not reflect the value-added by water alone, but rather the total net benefits of livestock, where water is just one of a number of inputs. The full economic costs of livestock husbandry have not been considered. In practice, there are real costs associated with the feeding and care of animals, including provision of shelter, medication, etc.

During times of drought and severe flood, livestock productivity is adversely affected. Farmers interviewed in Psar and Melum communes reported losses of between 20-40% of their livestock during the floods of 2000. Livestock reportedly suffer ill-health during times of drought, which are an annual occurrence in Boribo Sub-basin. Although the diseases may not be fatal, they require expensive treatment which lowers the total net benefits that households are able to obtain from their livestock holdings. Domestic consumption The value of water for household consumption is based on estimates of household willingness-to-pay (WTP). Most households in the study area collect and store rainwater in large 225 litre jars during the wet season. Each household will have between 3 and 5 jars. The harvested rainwater is used for drinking and cooking only and will last until around Feb/March, where after households either purchase water from vendors (in urban areas) or fetch it from rivers in rural areas. Those households who purchase water from vendors spend up to US$2 per m3 (information from household surveys). Those households who cannot afford to pay for water are able obtain it from the nearest pagoda or community well. Assuming

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

82

that all households hold the same value for a reliable source of clean drinking water (regardless of ability to pay), the value of the benefits derived from drinking water can be set equivalent to the willingness-to-pay for water from vendors. Water also has significant real costs of supply. Various kinds of costs are involved (Briscoe, 1996; Cotton et al, 1991; Winpenny, 1994; Herrington, 1987; Rogers, Bhatia and Huber, 1997; Webster, 1998): • Supply costs (the capital and recurrent costs associated with the installation of the necessary infrastructure required to treat, transport and provide services, operation and maintenance costs of this infrastructure and the depreciation costs which accrue over the life of the project as parts need to be repaired or upgraded). Opportunity costs (the value of water in its next best alternative use). The size of the opportunity cost depends on the value of the water in its highest alternative current-use value. Environmental costs (both direct and indirect, relating to the abstraction, distribution and use of the resource).

Together, the opportunity and supply or use costs make up what is commonly referred to as the ‘economic cost’ of water. Table 8.12 shows average tariffs and unit production costs for the Phnom Penh water supply authority. It is assumed that district authorities will face similar, if not higher unit production costs.

Table 8.12: Average tariff and unit production costs
Average tariff Phnom Penh 0.244 USD/m3 Unit production cost 0.082 USD/m3

Source: ADB (2004) Water in Asian Cities

Table 8.13: Net benefits of domestic water supply

WTP Cost of provision Net benefit Net benefit per household

Unit US$/m3 US$/m3 US$/m3 US$

1.927711 0.082 1.845711 80.57144

1/ 2/

Assumptions: Vendors sell water for 10,000 riel per truck load (1,250 litres)

The unit costs of production are based on data from BasedPhnom Penh Water Supply Authority (ADB, of domestic water supplies are on this information, the annual net benefits 2004)

estimated to be in the region of US$81 per household (Table 8.13).

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

83

Fisheries Net fishery values can be estimated as the yield, times average farm-gate price less the cost of harvesting or production. A very simplistic analysis of the potential gross value of fish in the Boribo Sub-basin is shown in the table below.
Table 8.14: Gross value of the potential fish yield in Boribo Sub-basin

Area of water (ha) Fish productivity (kg/ha) Fish yield (kg) Fish value (US$) Fish value per ha (US$) Assumptions: 1/ 2/ 3/

408 150 61,200 41,616 102

Ave fish density is uniform across all water bodies in the Boribo sub-basin Fish productivity is based on work by Van Zalinge et al (2001) Fish value is based on farmgate prices for capture fisheries (MRC, 2006)

To estimate the net value (i.e. sales value less costs of raising and production), the production costs are estimated to be around 30% of gross (or sales) value (MRC, 2006). This works out to approximately US$21,000. Standard functional forms for the evaluation of the relationship between water flows and the value of fish production (necessary to calculate the value added by water to the value of fisheries) are not readily available. However, productivity is known to be a function of multiple factors including: • • • • • fishing practices total fishing effort river flows barriers to river migration access to and from floodplain habitats and habitat changes

Recent advances have, however, been made in modelling how fisheries productivity may be affected by changes in hydrological flow levels (MRC, 2005) using indicators relating to habitat availability and migration. However, the parameters required to calculate the productivity changes were not available for the project area at the time of this study. Summary The findings of the analysis above, suggest that – from a household perspective – livestock raising is the most valuable use of water. Even allowing for the fact that the estimate for the value-added by water to livestock productivity was significantly overstated, this value far exceeds the net benefits achieved by any of the other water uses. Irrigated agriculture provides the lowest net benefits to

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

84

households, based on the data made available from the household surveys. This is unsurprising given the poor quality of soils in the sub-basin, low yields, limited dry-season water availability and high input costs. From a household perspective, the value of the fishery can be simply estimated on the basis of the value of household consumption and sales. If each household in Boribo Sub-basin is assumed to consume around 100kg per year, then the value of fish to each household is around US$70 per annum. However, the data collected during household surveys suggests that present total demands (around 1,000 tonnes per year) significantly exceed available supplies (around 61 tonnes per year).

Figure 8.6: Value added by water to livelihoods in the Boribo Sub-basin
Value added by water to livelihoods in Boribo / Thlea Maam subbasin
Net benefits (US$/household) 500 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 Irrigated agriculture Livestock Domestic consumption Fisheries

8.5

Water user groups
This section provides background information for ToR Task 17: Inventory of water users committees

Information on Water User Groups (WUGs) was collected from the PDWRAMs. The WUGs were established with support from the SEILA Program and PDWRAM. There are two WUGs in Boribo Sub-basin: Thlea M’am Boeng Kantuot Water User Group and Thlea M’am Ou Sandan Water User Group. They are located in Krakor district (Pursat Province) and use the water from Thlea M’am irrigation system. Both are already registered with PDWRAM Pursat. Based on the field survey and interview, we found out that those WUGs do not work at all because: The irrigation scheme are not yet complete, it has only the main canal and the tributaries are not yet rehabilitated. So the supply of water for farmers are not efficient.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

85

-

The water regulation does not work well The capacity of the Water User Group Committee is limited Lack of budget for O&M of the irrigation system because the community members are not willing to pay because of inefficient service of water supply.

Table 8.15: Water User Groups in Boribo Sub-basin
No 1 2 Community Thlea Ma’arm Thlea Ma’arm Province Pursat Pursat District Krakor Krakor Commune Boeng Kanturt O Sandan Registered yes yes

Data: PDWRAM in Pursat Province

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

86

References
(References marked 'EL' are available in the Electronic Library)
CTI and DHI (Aug 03): Consolidation of hydro-meteorological data and multi-functional hydrological roles of Tonle Sap Lake and its vicinities, Phase II. Final reports. CTI Engineering International Co., Ltd. and DHI – Water & Environment. Client: Mekong River Commission (EL) CTI (May 04): Consolidation of hydro-meteorological data and multi-functional hydrological roles of Tonle Sap Lake and its vicinities, Phase III. Final report. CTI Engineering International Co., Ltd. And DHI – Water & Environment. Client: Mekong River Commission (EL) Halcrow (Dec 03): Ranking criteria report. Irrigation Rehabilitation Study in Cambodia, prepared for the Mekong Secretariat by Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd. in association with Mandala Agricultural Development Corporation. Contract CAM.IRS 238.93, UNDP Grant 3.3.37/92/UNP, B/L 21 Halcrow (Apr 04): Inventory & analysis of existing systems. Volume 1: Main report; and Volume 6: Pursat, Siem Reap, Svay Rieng, Takeo. Irrigation Rehabilitation Study in Cambodia, prepared for the Mekong Secretariat by Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd. in association with Mandala Agricultural Development Corporation. Contract CAM.IRS 238.93, UNDP Grant 3.3.37/92/UNP, B/L 21 Halcrow (Jun 04): Final report: Main report; Annex A: Hydrology; Annex B: Agronomy; Annex C: Lowland rice soils of Cambodia; Annex D: Socio-economics; and Annex F: Environmental assessment. Irrigation Rehabilitation Study in Cambodia, prepared for the Mekong Secretariat by Sir William Halcrow and Partners Ltd. in association with Mandala Agricultural Development Corporation. Contract CAM.IRS 238.93, UNDP Grant 3.3.37/92/UNP, B/L 21 JICA and MRD (May 02): The study on groundwater development in Central Cambodia. Final report prepared for Japan International Cooperation Agency and Ministry of Rural Development, Cambodia, by Kokusai Kogyo Co. Ltd. MOWRAM (March 2002): Smallholder water and land management in Cambodia. Prepared for Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology with the assistance of M. P. Mosley as Project Report 5 under the North West Irrigation Sector Project, Part A: Capacity-building in Ministry of Water Resources and Meteorology, Cambodia, funded by ADB (TA 3758-CAM) MRC-BDP (Nov 05): National Sector Reviews. BDP Library Volume 13, October 2004, revised November 2005. Mekong River Commission MRC-WUP-JICA (Mar 04a): The study on hydro-meteorological monitoring for water quantity rules in Mekong River Basin. Final report, Volume I (Main report), prepared by CTI and Nippon Koei (EL) MRC-WUP-JICA (Mar 04b): The study on hydro-meteorological monitoring for water quantity rules in Mekong River Basin. Final report, Volume 2a (supporting documents 1: Improvement of hydrological stations; 2: Gap filling of rainfall data; 3: Hydrological monitoring; 4: Development of hydro-hydraulic model for the Cambodian floodplains; 5: Application of hydro-hydraulic model; and 6: Water use in the Lower Mekong Basin), prepared by CTI and Nippon Koei (EL) MRC-WUP-JICA (Mar 04c): The study on hydro-meteorological monitoring for water quantity rules in Mekong River Basin. Final report, Volume 2b (supporting documents 7: Maintenance of flows on the Mekong mainstream; 8: institutional strengthening; and 9: Water use management), prepared by CTI and Nippon Koei (EL) MRC-WUP-JICA (Mar 04d): The study on hydro-meteorological monitoring for water quantity rules in Mekong River Basin. Final report, Volume III (Summary), prepared by CTI and Nippon Koei (EL) Le van Sanh (June 02): Mission Report, Analysis of Hydrological Data at Stations around the Great Lake and on Mekong, Bassac Rivers in 1960s and from 1998 to 2001. Phnom Penh Nanni, Marcella (April 2001): End of assignment report, submitted to MOWRAM (Cambodia) by SMEC International Pty. Ltd. under the Agricultural Hydraulics Component of the Agricultural Productivity Improvement Project Nhim Sophea (Mar 06): Water quality data assessment 2005, MRC water quality monitoring network. Water Quality Office, Department of Hydrology and River Works, MOWRAM OADA (Mar 03): Study report on Kamping Puoy Irrigation Scheme Rehabilitation project in Battambang Province, the Kingdom of Cambodia. Overseas Agricultural Development Association WUP-FIN (Aug 02b): Data report. MRC Water Utilization Program, WUP-FIN component - Modelling of the flow regime and water quality of the Tonle Sap Karri Eloheimo, Seppo Hellsten, Teemu Jantunen, Janos Jozsa, Mikko Kiirikki, Hannu Lauri, Jorma Koponen, Juha Sarkkula, Olli Varis, and Markku Virtanen (EL)

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

87

Appendix 1: Thematic maps
Note: This appendix is intended to provide an overview. The maps are submitted separately

Sub-basin map

Administrative units

Land use

Geology

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

88

Elevations

Protected areas

Soils

Floods

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

89

Gauges

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

90

Appendix 2: Data files
Note: The data files are submitted separately

Table A2.1: Time series data
File name R@9stations-allyears.xls Contents Daily, monthly and annual rainfall at Battambang (8 years), Kg Chhnang (55 years), Pursat (60 years), Krakor (36 years), Kravanh (10 years), Svay Donkeo (6 years), Talo (6 years), Bamnak (15 years) and Boeung Khnar (7 years) Daily and monthly rainfall data from Pursat 1912-2005 (53 years), with summary statistics Monthly rainfall data from 16 stations from 2001-2004 (4 years), with summary statistics Monthly rainfall data from Battambang, Pursat and Kg Chhnang, from 1939, 1996, and 2001-05 (7 years) Daily and monthly evaporation at Pochentong 2000-04 and Siem Reap 1996-2000 Daily water level at Kg Chhnang 1995-2004 (10 years) Daily water level at Prek Kdam 1995-2004 (10 years) Daily and monthly flow at Prek Kdam 1964-73 (10 years) Daily water level and calulated flow at Boribo (St. 590101) Jun 98 - Dec 05 (7.5 years) Daily water level and calulated flow at Maung Russey (St. Dauntry) (St. 5501101) Jun 01 - Dec 02 (1.5 years) Flow records from St. Boribo (91 months), St. Dauntri (19 months), and St. Pursat (72 and 58 months)

R@Pursat-12-05 R@16stations-01-04.xls R@3stations-7years.xls E@2stations-96-04.xls WL@KgChhnang-95-04.xls WL@PrekKdam-95-04.xls Q@PrekKdam-64-73.xls WL-Q@Boribo-98-05.xls WL-Q@Maung-01-02.xls Q@4stations.xls

Table A2.2a: Data tables: Geography. livelihoods
File name Area-population.xls Communes-catchments.xls Elevations.xls Forestcover.xls Soils.xls Geology.xls Protectedareas.xls Agriculture-2006.xls B-farming-econ-03-05.xls Contents Area and population (2002-04) within the study area; buffaloes, cows, horses, goats, pigs, and poultry; families using fertilizer; by province, district and commune Commune areas within each sub-catchment Distribution of land elevation within each sub-basin Forest cover within each sub-basin (1993, 1997, 2002, 2005), and rate of change Soil classification in each sub-basin Geological classification of each sub-basin Protected areas in each sub-basin PRD survey Jul-Aug 2006: Cultivation practices; cropping cycles; labour input; livestock; use of fertilizers and pesticides; farmgate prices; obstacles to cultivation Boribo sub-basin, PRD survey Jul-Aug 2006: Economy of farming households (2003-05)

Table A2.2b: Data tables: Water uses
File name Domesticdemand.xls Irrigation.xls Subprojects.xls Contents Present and projected domestic water demand in each sub-basin Wet and dry season irrigated areas, actual and potential, in each sub-basin Water availability for candidate sub-projects, and irrigable areas

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

91

Table A2.2c: Data tables: Water balance
File name Monitoringstations.xls B-W-balance-4of5yrs.xls B-W-balance-scenarios.xls D-W-balance-4of5yrs.xls D-W-balance-scenarios.xls Wells.xls Wells-KgChhnang.xls Contents Rainfall, water level and flow monitoring stations inside or near the study area Boribo Sub-basin, calculated water balance, present conditions, with water uses and availability, in 4 out of 5 years, whole sub-basin and details Boribo Sub-basin, calculated water balance, alternative scenarios: Increased domestic consumption, 50-50 and 100-0 diversion at Bamnak, and impact of climate change Dauntry Sub-basin, calculated water balance, present conditions, with water uses and availability, in 4 out of 5 years, whole sub-basin and details Dauntry Sub-basin, calculated water balance, alternative scenarios: Damnak Ampil canal, candidate sub-projects, and impact of climate change Inventory of groundwater wells and yield Inventory of groundwater wells in Kg Chhnang, with yield and geological layers

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

92

Appendix 3: Water management structures
St. Boribo

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

93

St. Bamnak

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

94

St. Thlea Maam

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

95

Appendix 4: Water balance tables
Note: The water balance tables are also submitted as electronic data files
Base situation
Rainfall [m3/s] January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly Evaporation Storage and Water losses availability [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] Domestic uses [m3/s] Irrigation uses [m3/s] Livestock Outflow uses from catchment [m3/s] [m3/s]

1.7 2.5 20.4 38.4 73.4 65.0 68.4 89.2 115.9 111.3 54.6 8.8 54.1

10.8 4.0 20.4 38.4 57.5 53.8 47.1 41.7 32.9 36.3 43.4 33.7 35.0

-11.8 -2.8 -0.8 -0.7 10.9 0.7 -2.6 -0.6 17.5 24.6 -6.4 -31.1 -0.3

2.7 1.3 0.8 0.7 4.9 10.6 23.8 48.1 65.4 50.5 17.7 6.2 19.4

0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014

0.611 0.611 0.523 0.523 0.523 0.523 1.746 1.746 1.746 1.746 1.746 0.611 1.055

0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013

2.1 0.7 0.2 0.1 4.4 10.1 22.1 46.4 63.7 48.7 15.9 5.6 18.3

Table A4.1: Summary statistics for water balance of Boribo Sub-basin, base situation
Increase in domestic water use
Rainfall [m3/s] January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly Evaporation Storage and Water losses availability [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] Domestic uses [m3/s] Irrigation uses [m3/s] Livestock Outflow uses from catchment [m3/s] [m3/s]

1.7 2.5 20.4 38.4 73.4 65.0 68.4 89.2 115.9 111.3 54.6 8.8 54.1

10.8 4.0 20.4 38.4 57.5 53.8 47.1 41.7 32.9 36.3 43.4 33.7 35.0

-11.8 -2.8 -0.8 -0.7 10.9 0.7 -2.6 -0.6 17.5 24.6 -6.4 -31.1 -0.3

2.7 1.3 0.8 0.7 4.9 10.6 23.8 48.1 65.4 50.5 17.7 6.2 19.4

0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044 0.044

0.611 0.611 0.523 0.523 0.523 0.523 1.746 1.746 1.746 1.746 1.746 0.611 1.055

0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013

2.0 0.7 0.2 0.1 4.4 10.0 22.0 46.3 63.6 48.7 15.9 5.5 18.3

Table A4.2: Summary statistics for water balance of Boribo Sub-basin, increase in domestic water use

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

96

Climatic change
Rainfall [m3/s] January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly Evaporation Storage and Water losses availability [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] Domestic uses [m3/s] Irrigation uses [m3/s] Livestock Outflow uses from catchment [m3/s] [m3/s]

1.7 2.1 20.0 37.5 72.1 63.4 67.1 87.6 113.4 108.8 53.4 8.3 53.0

10.3 3.8 20.0 37.5 58.4 55.0 47.9 42.5 33.8 37.1 44.2 33.5 35.3

-11.2 -3.0 -0.8 -0.6 10.5 0.1 -1.9 -0.3 17.1 23.9 -6.9 -31.0 -0.3

2.5 1.3 0.8 0.6 3.2 8.2 21.0 45.4 62.6 47.8 16.1 5.8 17.9

0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014

0.611 0.611 0.523 0.523 0.523 0.523 1.746 1.746 1.746 1.746 1.746 0.611 1.055

0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013

1.9 0.6 0.2 0.1 2.7 7.7 19.3 43.6 60.8 46.0 14.3 5.2 16.9

Table A4.3: Summary statistics for water balance of Boribo Sub-basin, climatic change.
Candidate projects 50%-50% distribution
Rainfall [m3/s] January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly Evaporation Storage and Water losses availability [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s] Domestic uses [m3/s] Irrigation uses [m3/s] Livestock Outflow uses from catchment [m3/s] [m3/s]

1.7 2.5 20.4 38.4 73.4 65.0 68.4 89.2 115.9 111.3 54.6 8.8 54.1

10.8 4.0 20.4 38.4 57.5 53.8 47.1 41.7 32.9 36.3 43.4 33.7 35.0

-11.8 -2.8 -0.8 -0.8 10.9 0.7 -2.6 -0.6 17.5 24.6 -6.4 -31.1 -0.3

2.7 1.3 0.8 0.8 4.9 10.6 23.8 48.1 65.4 50.5 17.7 6.2 19.4

0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014

0.831 0.831 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.743 7.646 7.646 7.646 7.646 7.646 0.831 3.641

0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013

1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 4.2 9.8 16.2 40.5 57.8 42.8 10.0 5.3 15.7

Table A4.4: Summary statistics for water balance of Boribo Sub-basin, candidate project 50%-50% distribution
Candidate projects 100%-0% distribution
Rainfall [m /s] January February March April May June July August September October November December Yearly
3

Evaporation Storage and Water losses availability [m3/s] [m3/s] [m3/s]

Domestic uses [m3/s]

Irrigation uses [m3/s]

Livestock Outflow uses from catchment [m3/s] [m3/s]

1.7 2.5 20.4 38.4 73.4 65.0 68.4 89.2 115.9 111.3 54.6 8.8 54.1

10.8 4.0 20.4 38.4 57.5 53.8 47.1 41.7 32.9 36.3 43.4 33.7 35.0

-11.8 -2.8 -0.8 -0.8 10.9 0.7 -2.6 -0.6 17.5 24.6 -6.4 -31.1 -0.3

2.7 1.3 0.8 0.8 4.9 10.6 23.8 48.1 65.4 50.5 17.7 6.2 19.4

0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014 0.014

0.831 0.831 0.743 0.743 0.743 0.743 7.646 7.646 7.646 7.646 7.646 0.831 3.641

0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013 0.013

1.8 0.5 0.1 0.0 4.2 9.8 16.2 40.5 57.8 42.8 10.0 5.3 15.7

Table A4.5: Summary statistics for water balance of Boribo Sub-basin, candidate project 100%-0% distribution

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

97

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 13 Area (km2): 129 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.23 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.42 0.91 2.04 4.13 5.61 4.33 1.51 0.53 Catchment 14 Area (km2): 55 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.39 0.87 1.77 2.40 1.85 0.65 0.23 Catchment 11 Area (km2): 42 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.30 0.67 1.35 1.84 1.42 0.50 0.17

0.15 0.20 1.74 3.28 6.32 5.57 5.87 7.66 9.95 9.56 4.68 0.75

Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.23 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.11 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.03 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.42 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.91 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.98 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 4.06 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 5.54 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 4.26 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.45 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.53 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.10 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.05 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.02 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.01 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.18 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.39 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.85 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.74 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 2.37 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.82 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.62 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.23 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.33 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.40 0.16 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.19 0.08 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.09 0.05 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.06 0.60 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.74 1.29 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 1.59 2.83 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 3.39 5.80 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 7.04 7.92 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 9.64 6.09 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 7.39 2.07 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 2.46 0.75 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.92

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.08 0.74 1.40 2.69 2.38 2.50 3.27 4.24 4.07 1.99 0.32

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.05 0.06 0.57 1.07 2.06 1.81 1.91 2.50 3.24 3.11 1.52 0.24

Table A4.6a: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 13, 14 and 11, base situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

98

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 15 Area (km2): 87 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.61 1.38 2.79 3.79 2.93 1.02 0.36 Catchment 10 Area (km2): 79 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.56 1.27 2.56 3.48 2.69 0.94 0.33 Catchment 8 Area (km2): 24 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.38 0.77 1.04 0.80 0.28 0.10

0.10 0.13 1.17 2.22 4.26 3.76 3.96 5.17 6.71 6.44 3.16 0.50

Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.08 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.29 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.61 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 1.25 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.66 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 3.66 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.80 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 0.90 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.36 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.55 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.70 0.27 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.34 0.13 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.16 0.08 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.10 1.02 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 1.28 2.20 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 2.76 4.64 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 5.79 9.70 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 12.14 13.31 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 16.66 10.19 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 12.76 3.35 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 4.17 1.28 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 1.61 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.35 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.39 0.17 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.19 0.08 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.09 0.05 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.06 0.64 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.72 1.38 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 1.55 2.89 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 3.19 6.07 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 6.76 8.33 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 9.29 6.38 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 7.10 2.08 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 2.28 0.80 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.90

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.09 0.12 1.07 2.01 3.87 3.41 3.60 4.69 6.10 5.85 2.86 0.46

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.03 0.04 0.32 0.61 1.18 1.04 1.09 1.43 1.85 1.78 0.87 0.14

Table A4.6b: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 15, 10 and 8, base situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

99

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 9 Area (km2): 57 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.91 1.84 2.49 1.92 0.67 0.24 Catchment 7 Area (km2): 48 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.34 0.76 1.54 2.09 1.61 0.56 0.20 Catchment 6 Area (km2): 10 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.15 0.31 0.42 0.33 0.11 0.04

0.07 0.09 0.77 1.45 2.79 2.46 2.59 3.39 4.40 4.22 2.07 0.33

Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.10 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.05 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.19 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.40 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.78 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.71 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 2.37 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.80 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.54 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.23 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.09 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.01 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.34 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.57 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.35 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.90 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.42 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.37 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.20 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.58 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.60 0.28 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.29 0.13 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.14 0.09 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.09 1.06 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 1.10 2.29 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 2.36 4.54 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 4.65 9.81 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 10.08 13.56 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 13.94 10.32 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 10.60 3.20 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 3.27 1.34 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 1.37

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.07 0.65 1.22 2.35 2.07 2.19 2.85 3.70 3.56 1.74 0.28

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.01 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.59 0.77 0.74 0.36 0.06

Table A4.6c: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 9, 7 and 6, base situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

100

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 5 Base situation Area (km2): 156 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.28 0.18 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.28 0.14 0.24 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.13 0.07 2.11 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.06 0.04 3.97 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.04 0.51 7.64 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.51 1.10 6.74 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 1.10 2.47 7.10 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 2.26 4.99 9.27 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 4.79 6.78 12.04 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 6.58 5.23 11.56 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 5.03 1.83 5.66 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 1.62 0.64 0.90 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.64 Catchment 68 Area (km2): 100 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.70 1.58 3.19 4.34 3.35 1.17 0.41 Catchment 67 Area (km2): 110 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.36 0.78 1.75 3.54 4.81 3.71 1.30 0.45 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.87 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.05 0.42 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.51 0.20 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.25 0.13 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.16 1.61 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.93 3.46 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.16 6.92 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.50 14.87 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.06 20.52 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.86 15.63 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.98 4.90 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.07 2.01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.42 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 1.05 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 1.24 0.51 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.60 0.25 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.29 0.16 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.18 1.93 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 2.29 4.16 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 4.93 8.50 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 10.18 18.06 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 21.53 24.86 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 29.60 18.98 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 22.62 6.07 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 7.30 2.42 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 2.87

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.12 0.15 1.35 2.55 4.90 4.32 4.55 5.94 7.72 7.41 3.63 0.58

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.13 0.17 1.49 2.80 5.39 4.75 5.01 6.54 8.49 8.15 3.99 0.64

Table A4.6d: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 5, 68 and 6, base situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

101

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 2 Area (km2): 111 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.37 0.79 1.76 3.56 4.84 3.74 1.31 0.46

0.13 0.17 1.50 2.83 5.44 4.80 5.05 6.59 8.56 8.22 4.03 0.64

Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 1.24 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 1.34 0.60 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.60 0.29 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.23 0.18 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.11 2.29 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 2.55 4.93 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 5.62 10.18 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 11.55 21.53 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 24.69 29.60 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 34.04 22.62 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 25.96 7.30 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 8.20 2.87 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 3.23

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 16 Base situation Area (km2): 165 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.30 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.14 0.07 2.23 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.07 0.05 4.20 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.05 0.54 8.08 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.54 1.17 7.13 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 1.17 2.62 7.51 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 2.44 5.30 9.80 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 5.12 7.20 12.73 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 7.02 5.56 12.22 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 5.37 1.94 5.98 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 1.76 0.68 0.95 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.68 Catchment 17 Area (km2): 56 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.89 1.80 2.45 1.89 0.66 0.23 Base situation Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.10 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.18 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.40 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.89 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.80 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 2.45 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.89 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.66 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.23

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.09 0.76 1.43 2.74 2.42 2.55 3.33 4.32 4.15 2.03 0.32

Table A4.6e: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 2, 16 and 17, base situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

102

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 18 Base situation Area (km2): 131 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.24 0.15 0.35 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.58 0.12 0.20 0.17 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.28 0.06 1.77 0.08 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.13 0.04 3.34 0.05 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.08 0.43 6.42 0.64 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.07 0.92 5.66 1.38 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 2.30 2.08 5.96 2.89 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 4.97 4.19 7.78 6.07 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 10.26 5.70 10.11 8.33 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 14.03 4.40 9.70 6.38 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 10.77 1.54 4.75 2.08 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 3.62 0.54 0.76 0.80 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.34 Catchment 19 Base situation Area (km2): 141 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.25 0.16 0.98 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.72 0.12 0.22 0.48 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.09 0.06 1.90 0.23 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 -0.13 0.04 3.59 0.15 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 -0.23 0.46 6.91 1.80 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 1.84 0.99 6.09 3.87 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 4.44 2.24 6.42 8.30 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 10.52 4.51 8.38 17.18 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 21.68 6.14 10.88 23.50 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 29.62 4.73 10.44 18.04 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 22.75 1.66 5.11 6.04 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 7.68 0.58 0.82 2.25 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 2.33

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Table A4.6f: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 18 and 19, base situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

103

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 13 Area (km2): 129 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.23 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.42 0.91 2.04 4.13 5.61 4.33 1.51 0.53 Catchment 14 Area (km2): 55 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.39 0.87 1.77 2.40 1.85 0.65 0.23 Catchment 11 Area (km2): 42 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.30 0.67 1.35 1.84 1.42 0.50 0.17

0.15 0.20 1.74 3.28 6.32 5.57 5.87 7.66 9.95 9.56 4.68 0.75

Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0008 0.0020 0.0002 0.23 0.00 0.0008 0.0020 0.0002 0.11 0.00 0.0008 0.0020 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0008 0.0020 0.0002 0.03 0.00 0.0008 0.0020 0.0002 0.42 0.00 0.0008 0.0020 0.0002 0.91 0.00 0.0008 0.0620 0.0002 1.98 0.00 0.0008 0.0620 0.0002 4.06 0.00 0.0008 0.0620 0.0002 5.54 0.00 0.0008 0.0620 0.0002 4.26 0.00 0.0008 0.0620 0.0002 1.45 0.00 0.0008 0.0020 0.0002 0.53 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0004 0.0010 0.0001 0.10 0.00 0.0004 0.0010 0.0001 0.05 0.00 0.0004 0.0010 0.0001 0.02 0.00 0.0004 0.0010 0.0001 0.01 0.00 0.0004 0.0010 0.0001 0.18 0.00 0.0004 0.0010 0.0001 0.39 0.00 0.0004 0.0270 0.0001 0.85 0.00 0.0004 0.0270 0.0001 1.74 0.00 0.0004 0.0270 0.0001 2.37 0.00 0.0004 0.0270 0.0001 1.82 0.00 0.0004 0.0270 0.0001 0.62 0.00 0.0004 0.0010 0.0001 0.23 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.33 0.0003 0.0040 0.0001 0.40 0.16 0.0003 0.0040 0.0001 0.19 0.08 0.0003 0.0040 0.0001 0.09 0.05 0.0003 0.0040 0.0001 0.06 0.60 0.0003 0.0040 0.0001 0.73 1.29 0.0003 0.0040 0.0001 1.59 2.83 0.0003 0.1090 0.0001 3.39 5.80 0.0003 0.1090 0.0001 7.04 7.92 0.0003 0.1090 0.0001 9.64 6.09 0.0003 0.1090 0.0001 7.39 2.07 0.0003 0.1090 0.0001 2.46 0.75 0.0003 0.0040 0.0001 0.92

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.08 0.74 1.40 2.69 2.38 2.50 3.27 4.24 4.07 1.99 0.32

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.05 0.06 0.57 1.07 2.06 1.81 1.91 2.50 3.24 3.11 1.52 0.24

Table A4.7a: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 13, 14 and 11, increase in domestic water use

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

104

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 15 Area (km2): 87 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.61 1.38 2.79 3.79 2.93 1.02 0.36 Catchment 10 Area (km2): 79 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.56 1.27 2.56 3.48 2.69 0.94 0.33 Catchment 8 Area (km2): 24 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.38 0.77 1.04 0.80 0.28 0.10

0.10 0.13 1.17 2.22 4.26 3.76 3.96 5.17 6.71 6.44 3.16 0.50

Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.08 0.00 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.29 0.00 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.61 0.00 0.0010 0.1270 0.0003 1.25 0.00 0.0010 0.1270 0.0003 2.66 0.00 0.0010 0.1270 0.0003 3.66 0.00 0.0010 0.1270 0.0003 2.80 0.00 0.0010 0.1270 0.0003 0.89 0.00 0.0010 0.0000 0.0003 0.36 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.55 0.0019 0.0010 0.0005 0.69 0.27 0.0019 0.0010 0.0005 0.33 0.13 0.0019 0.0010 0.0005 0.16 0.08 0.0019 0.0010 0.0005 0.10 1.02 0.0019 0.0010 0.0005 1.28 2.20 0.0019 0.0010 0.0005 2.76 4.64 0.0019 0.1210 0.0005 5.78 9.70 0.0019 0.1210 0.0005 12.14 13.31 0.0019 0.1210 0.0005 16.66 10.19 0.0019 0.1210 0.0005 12.75 3.35 0.0019 0.1210 0.0005 4.17 1.28 0.0019 0.0010 0.0005 1.61 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.35 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.39 0.17 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.19 0.08 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.09 0.05 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.06 0.64 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.72 1.38 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 1.55 2.89 0.0007 0.0830 0.0001 3.19 6.07 0.0007 0.0830 0.0001 6.75 8.33 0.0007 0.0830 0.0001 9.29 6.38 0.0007 0.0830 0.0001 7.10 2.08 0.0007 0.0830 0.0001 2.28 0.80 0.0007 0.0000 0.0001 0.90

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.09 0.12 1.07 2.01 3.87 3.41 3.60 4.69 6.10 5.85 2.86 0.46

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.03 0.04 0.32 0.61 1.18 1.04 1.09 1.43 1.85 1.78 0.87 0.14

Table A4.7b: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 15, 10 and 8, increase in domestic water use

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

105

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 9 Area (km2): 57 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.91 1.84 2.49 1.92 0.67 0.24 Catchment 7 Area (km2): 48 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.34 0.76 1.54 2.09 1.61 0.56 0.20 Catchment 6 Area (km2): 10 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.15 0.31 0.42 0.33 0.11 0.04

0.07 0.09 0.77 1.45 2.79 2.46 2.59 3.39 4.40 4.22 2.07 0.33

Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0020 0.0000 0.0005 0.10 0.00 0.0020 0.0000 0.0005 0.05 0.00 0.0020 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0020 0.0000 0.0005 0.01 0.00 0.0020 0.0000 0.0005 0.19 0.00 0.0020 0.0000 0.0005 0.40 0.00 0.0020 0.1280 0.0005 0.78 0.00 0.0020 0.1280 0.0005 1.70 0.00 0.0020 0.1280 0.0005 2.36 0.00 0.0020 0.1280 0.0005 1.79 0.00 0.0020 0.1280 0.0005 0.54 0.00 0.0020 0.0000 0.0005 0.23 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0012 0.0000 0.0003 0.08 0.00 0.0012 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0012 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0012 0.0000 0.0003 0.01 0.00 0.0012 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0012 0.0000 0.0003 0.34 0.00 0.0012 0.1900 0.0003 0.57 0.00 0.0012 0.1900 0.0003 1.35 0.00 0.0012 0.1900 0.0003 1.90 0.00 0.0012 0.1900 0.0003 1.42 0.00 0.0012 0.1900 0.0003 0.37 0.00 0.0012 0.0000 0.0003 0.20 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.57 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.59 0.28 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.29 0.13 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.13 0.08 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.08 1.06 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 1.09 2.29 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 2.36 4.54 0.0002 0.0400 0.0001 4.65 9.81 0.0002 0.0400 0.0001 10.08 13.55 0.0002 0.0400 0.0001 13.94 10.31 0.0002 0.0400 0.0001 10.60 3.20 0.0002 0.0400 0.0001 3.27 1.33 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 1.37

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.07 0.65 1.22 2.35 2.07 2.19 2.85 3.70 3.56 1.74 0.28

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.01 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.59 0.77 0.74 0.36 0.06

Table A4.7c: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 9, 7 and 6, increase in domestic water use

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

106

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 5 Increase of domestic water use Area (km2): 156 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.28 0.18 0.00 0.0019 0.0020 0.0004 0.28 0.14 0.24 0.00 0.0019 0.0020 0.0004 0.13 0.07 2.11 0.00 0.0019 0.0020 0.0004 0.06 0.04 3.97 0.00 0.0019 0.0020 0.0004 0.04 0.51 7.64 0.00 0.0019 0.0020 0.0004 0.51 1.10 6.74 0.00 0.0019 0.0020 0.0004 1.10 2.47 7.10 0.00 0.0019 0.2060 0.0004 2.26 4.99 9.27 0.00 0.0019 0.2060 0.0004 4.78 6.78 12.04 0.00 0.0019 0.2060 0.0004 6.58 5.23 11.56 0.00 0.0019 0.2060 0.0004 5.03 1.83 5.66 0.00 0.0019 0.2060 0.0004 1.62 0.64 0.90 0.00 0.0019 0.0020 0.0004 0.64 Catchment 68 Area (km2): 100 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.70 1.58 3.19 4.34 3.35 1.17 0.41 Catchment 67 Area (km2): 110 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.36 0.78 1.75 3.54 4.81 3.71 1.30 0.45 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.87 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.05 0.42 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.51 0.20 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.24 0.12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.15 1.60 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.93 3.45 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.16 6.91 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 8.49 14.86 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.05 20.51 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 24.85 15.63 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 18.97 4.89 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 6.06 2.01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.42 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 1.05 0.0110 0.0000 0.0032 1.23 0.51 0.0110 0.0000 0.0032 0.59 0.24 0.0110 0.0000 0.0032 0.28 0.15 0.0110 0.0000 0.0032 0.17 1.93 0.0110 0.0000 0.0032 2.28 4.16 0.0110 0.0000 0.0032 4.92 8.49 0.0110 0.0600 0.0032 10.17 18.05 0.0110 0.0600 0.0032 21.52 24.85 0.0110 0.0600 0.0032 29.59 18.97 0.0110 0.0600 0.0032 22.61 6.06 0.0110 0.0600 0.0032 7.29 2.42 0.0110 0.0000 0.0032 2.86

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.12 0.15 1.35 2.55 4.90 4.32 4.55 5.94 7.72 7.41 3.63 0.58

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.13 0.17 1.49 2.80 5.39 4.75 5.01 6.54 8.49 8.15 3.99 0.64

Table A4.7d: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 5, 68 and 67, increase in domestic water use

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

107

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 2 Area (km2): 111 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.37 0.79 1.76 3.56 4.84 3.74 1.31 0.46

0.13 0.17 1.50 2.83 5.44 4.80 5.05 6.59 8.56 8.22 4.03 0.64

Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 1.23 0.0064 0.1000 0.0018 1.32 0.59 0.0064 0.1000 0.0018 0.58 0.28 0.0064 0.1000 0.0018 0.22 0.17 0.0064 0.1000 0.0018 0.09 2.28 0.0064 0.1000 0.0018 2.53 4.92 0.0064 0.1000 0.0018 5.60 10.17 0.0064 0.4000 0.0018 11.53 21.52 0.0064 0.4000 0.0018 24.67 29.59 0.0064 0.4000 0.0018 34.02 22.61 0.0064 0.4000 0.0018 25.94 7.29 0.0064 0.4000 0.0018 8.19 2.86 0.0064 0.1000 0.0018 3.21

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 16 Increase of domestic water use Area (km2): 165 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.0025 0.0000 0.0008 0.29 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.0025 0.0000 0.0008 0.14 0.07 2.23 0.00 0.0025 0.0000 0.0008 0.07 0.05 4.20 0.00 0.0025 0.0000 0.0008 0.04 0.54 8.08 0.00 0.0025 0.0000 0.0008 0.54 1.17 7.13 0.00 0.0025 0.0000 0.0008 1.16 2.62 7.51 0.00 0.0025 0.1810 0.0008 2.44 5.30 9.80 0.00 0.0025 0.1810 0.0008 5.12 7.20 12.73 0.00 0.0025 0.1810 0.0008 7.02 5.56 12.22 0.00 0.0025 0.1810 0.0008 5.37 1.94 5.98 0.00 0.0025 0.1810 0.0008 1.76 0.68 0.95 0.00 0.0025 0.0000 0.0008 0.68 Catchment 17 Area (km2): 56 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.89 1.80 2.45 1.89 0.66 0.23 Increase of domestic water use Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.10 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.01 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.18 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.40 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.89 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 1.80 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 2.45 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 1.89 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.66 0.00 0.0009 0.0000 0.0002 0.23

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.09 0.76 1.43 2.74 2.42 2.55 3.33 4.32 4.15 2.03 0.32

Table A4.7e: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 2, 16 and 17, increase in domestic water use

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

108

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 18 Increase of domestic water use Area (km2): 131 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.24 0.15 0.35 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 0.57 0.12 0.20 0.17 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 0.28 0.06 1.77 0.08 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 0.13 0.04 3.34 0.05 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 0.08 0.43 6.42 0.64 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 1.06 0.92 5.66 1.38 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 2.30 2.08 5.96 2.89 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 4.96 4.19 7.78 6.07 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 10.25 5.70 10.11 8.33 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 14.02 4.40 9.70 6.38 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 10.77 1.54 4.75 2.08 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 3.61 0.54 0.76 0.80 0.0055 0.0000 0.0016 1.34 Catchment 19 Increase of domestic water use Area (km2): 141 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.25 0.16 0.97 0.0074 0.5010 0.0025 0.71 0.12 0.22 0.47 0.0074 0.5010 0.0025 0.08 0.06 1.90 0.22 0.0074 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.04 3.59 0.14 0.0074 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.46 6.91 1.79 0.0074 0.4130 0.0025 1.83 0.99 6.09 3.86 0.0074 0.4130 0.0025 4.43 2.24 6.42 8.29 0.0074 0.0120 0.0025 10.51 4.51 8.38 17.17 0.0074 0.0120 0.0025 21.67 6.14 10.88 23.49 0.0074 0.0120 0.0025 29.60 4.73 10.44 18.03 0.0074 0.0120 0.0025 22.74 1.66 5.11 6.03 0.0074 0.0120 0.0025 7.67 0.58 0.82 2.24 0.0074 0.5010 0.0025 2.31

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Table A4.7f: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 18 and 19, increase in domestic water use

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

109

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 13 Area (km2): 129 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.22 0.11 0.05 0.03 0.28 0.71 1.80 3.89 5.36 4.10 1.38 0.50 Catchment 14 Area (km2): 55 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.30 0.77 1.66 2.29 1.75 0.59 0.21 Catchment 11 Area (km2): 42 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.09 0.23 0.59 1.27 1.76 1.34 0.45 0.16

0.15 0.20 1.74 3.28 6.32 5.57 5.87 7.66 9.95 9.56 4.68 0.75

Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.22 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.10 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.03 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.27 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.70 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.74 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 3.83 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 5.30 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 4.03 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.32 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.50 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.09 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.04 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.02 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.01 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.12 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.30 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.74 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.64 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 2.27 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.73 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.56 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.21 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.31 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.37 0.15 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.18 0.07 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.08 0.04 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.04 0.39 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.48 1.00 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 1.23 2.48 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 2.97 5.46 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 6.63 7.57 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 9.21 5.76 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 6.99 1.88 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 2.22 0.71 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.87

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.08 0.74 1.40 2.69 2.38 2.50 3.27 4.24 4.07 1.99 0.32

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.05 0.06 0.57 1.07 2.06 1.81 1.91 2.50 3.24 3.11 1.52 0.24

Table A4.8a: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 13, 14 and 11, climatic change

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

110

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 15 Area (km2): 87 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.15 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.19 0.48 1.22 2.63 3.63 2.77 0.93 0.34 Catchment 10 Area (km2): 79 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.17 0.44 1.12 2.41 3.33 2.54 0.86 0.31 Catchment 8 Area (km2): 24 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.05 0.13 0.34 0.72 1.00 0.76 0.26 0.09

0.10 0.13 1.17 2.22 4.26 3.76 3.96 5.17 6.71 6.44 3.16 0.50

Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.15 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.07 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.19 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.48 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 1.09 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.50 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 3.50 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.64 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 0.80 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.34 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.52 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.65 0.25 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.32 0.12 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.15 0.06 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.07 0.66 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 0.83 1.71 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 2.15 4.06 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 5.06 9.13 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 11.42 12.71 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 15.92 9.63 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 12.05 3.02 0.0006 0.1210 0.0005 3.76 1.20 0.0006 0.0010 0.0005 1.51 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.33 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.37 0.16 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.18 0.08 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.08 0.04 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 0.41 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.47 1.07 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 1.20 2.53 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 2.78 5.71 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 6.35 7.96 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 8.87 6.03 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 6.70 1.88 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 2.05 0.76 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.85

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.09 0.12 1.07 2.01 3.87 3.41 3.60 4.69 6.10 5.85 2.86 0.46

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.03 0.04 0.32 0.61 1.18 1.04 1.09 1.43 1.85 1.78 0.87 0.14

Table A4.8b: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 15, 10 and 8, climatic change

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

111

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 9 Area (km2): 57 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.31 0.80 1.73 2.39 1.82 0.61 0.22 Catchment 7 Area (km2): 48 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.26 0.67 1.45 2.00 1.53 0.51 0.19 Catchment 6 Area (km2): 10 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.05 0.14 0.29 0.40 0.31 0.10 0.04

0.07 0.09 0.77 1.45 2.79 2.46 2.59 3.39 4.40 4.22 2.07 0.33

Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.10 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.05 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.01 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.12 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.31 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.67 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.60 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 2.26 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.69 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.48 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.22 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.08 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.01 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.10 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.26 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.48 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.26 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.81 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.34 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.32 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.19 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.54 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.56 0.26 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.27 0.13 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.13 0.06 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.06 0.69 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.71 1.78 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 1.83 3.93 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 4.03 9.21 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 9.46 12.94 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 13.30 9.74 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 10.00 2.86 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 2.92 1.26 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 1.29

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.07 0.65 1.22 2.35 2.07 2.19 2.85 3.70 3.56 1.74 0.28

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.01 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.59 0.77 0.74 0.36 0.06

Table A4.8c: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 9, 7 and 6, climatic change

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

112

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 5 Climatic change Area (km2): 156 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.26 0.18 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.26 0.13 0.24 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.13 0.06 2.11 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.06 0.03 3.97 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.03 0.33 7.64 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.33 0.85 6.74 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.85 2.18 7.10 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 1.97 4.71 9.27 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 4.50 6.49 12.04 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 6.28 4.96 11.56 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 4.75 1.67 5.66 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 1.46 0.60 0.90 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.60 Catchment 68 Area (km2): 100 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.17 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.21 0.55 1.40 3.01 4.15 3.17 1.07 0.39 Catchment 67 Area (km2): 110 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.19 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.24 0.61 1.55 3.33 4.60 3.51 1.18 0.43 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.82 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.99 0.40 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.48 0.19 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.23 0.09 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.12 1.04 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.25 2.68 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.23 6.01 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 7.40 13.96 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 16.97 19.58 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 23.73 14.75 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 17.92 4.38 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 5.45 1.89 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.28 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.99 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 1.17 0.48 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.57 0.23 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.27 0.12 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.13 1.25 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 1.48 3.23 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 3.83 7.40 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 8.88 16.97 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 20.24 23.73 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 28.26 17.92 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 21.37 5.45 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 6.56 2.28 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 2.70

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.12 0.15 1.35 2.55 4.90 4.32 4.55 5.94 7.72 7.41 3.63 0.58

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.13 0.17 1.49 2.80 5.39 4.75 5.01 6.54 8.49 8.15 3.99 0.64

Table A4.8d: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 5, 68 and 67, climatic change

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

113

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 2 Area (km2): 111 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.19 0.09 0.05 0.02 0.24 0.61 1.56 3.36 4.63 3.54 1.19 0.43

0.13 0.17 1.50 2.83 5.44 4.80 5.05 6.59 8.56 8.22 4.03 0.64

Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 1.17 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 1.25 0.57 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.56 0.27 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.21 0.13 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.05 1.48 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 1.62 3.83 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 4.34 8.88 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 10.03 20.24 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 23.19 28.26 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 32.49 21.37 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 24.50 6.56 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 7.35 2.70 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 3.03

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 16 Climatic change Area (km2): 165 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.28 0.19 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.28 0.14 0.25 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.14 0.07 2.23 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.07 0.04 4.20 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.03 0.35 8.08 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.35 0.91 7.13 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.91 2.32 7.51 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 2.13 5.00 9.80 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 4.81 6.89 12.73 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 6.71 5.26 12.22 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 5.08 1.77 5.98 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 1.59 0.64 0.95 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.64 Catchment 17 Area (km2): 56 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.12 0.31 0.79 1.70 2.34 1.79 0.60 0.22 Climatic change Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.09 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.01 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.12 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.31 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.79 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.70 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 2.34 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.79 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.60 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.22

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.09 0.76 1.43 2.74 2.42 2.55 3.33 4.32 4.15 2.03 0.32

Table A4.8e: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 2, 16 and 17, climatic change

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

114

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 18 Climatic change Area (km2): 131 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.22 0.15 0.33 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.54 0.11 0.20 0.16 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.26 0.05 1.77 0.08 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.13 0.03 3.34 0.04 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.06 0.28 6.42 0.41 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.69 0.72 5.66 1.07 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.79 1.83 5.96 2.53 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 4.36 3.95 7.78 5.71 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 9.66 5.45 10.11 7.96 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 13.40 4.16 9.70 6.03 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 10.18 1.40 4.75 1.88 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 3.28 0.51 0.76 0.76 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.26 Catchment 19 Climatic change Area (km2): 141 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.24 0.16 0.92 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.65 0.12 0.22 0.45 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.06 0.06 1.90 0.21 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.03 3.59 0.11 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.30 6.91 1.16 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 1.05 0.77 6.09 3.00 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 3.36 1.97 6.42 7.28 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 9.23 4.26 8.38 16.17 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 20.41 5.87 10.88 22.45 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 28.30 4.48 10.44 17.05 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 21.52 1.51 5.11 5.46 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 6.96 0.55 0.82 2.12 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 2.16

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Table A4.8f: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 18 and 19, climatic change

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

115

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 13 Area (km2): 129 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.23 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.42 0.91 2.04 4.13 5.61 4.33 1.51 0.53 Catchment 14 Area (km2): 55 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.39 0.87 1.77 2.40 1.85 0.65 0.23 Catchment 11 Area (km2): 42 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.30 0.67 1.35 1.84 1.42 0.50 0.17

0.15 0.20 1.74 3.28 6.32 5.57 5.87 7.66 9.95 9.56 4.68 0.75

Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.23 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.11 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.03 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.42 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.91 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.98 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 4.06 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 5.54 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 4.26 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.45 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.53 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.10 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.05 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.02 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.01 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.18 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.39 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.85 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.74 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 2.37 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.82 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.62 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.23 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.33 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.40 0.16 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.19 0.08 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.09 0.05 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.06 0.60 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.74 1.29 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 1.59 2.83 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 3.39 5.80 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 7.04 7.92 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 9.64 6.09 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 7.39 2.07 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 2.46 0.75 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.92

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.08 0.74 1.40 2.69 2.38 2.50 3.27 4.24 4.07 1.99 0.32

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.05 0.06 0.57 1.07 2.06 1.81 1.91 2.50 3.24 3.11 1.52 0.24

Table A4.9a: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 13, 14 and 11, candidate project 50%-50%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

116

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 15 Area (km2): 87 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.61 1.38 2.79 3.79 2.93 1.02 0.36 Catchment 10 Area (km2): 79 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.56 1.27 2.56 3.48 2.69 0.94 0.33 Catchment 8 Area (km2): 24 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.38 0.77 1.04 0.80 0.28 0.10

0.10 0.13 1.17 2.22 4.26 3.76 3.96 5.17 6.71 6.44 3.16 0.50

Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.08 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.29 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.61 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 1.25 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.66 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 3.66 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.80 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 0.90 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.36 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.55 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.60 0.27 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.24 0.13 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.06 0.08 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.00 1.02 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 1.18 2.20 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 2.66 4.64 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 2.29 9.70 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 8.64 13.31 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 13.16 10.19 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 9.26 3.35 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 0.67 1.28 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 1.51 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.30 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.34 0.12 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.14 0.03 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.01 0.59 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.67 1.33 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 1.50 1.14 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 1.44 4.32 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 5.01 6.58 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 7.54 4.63 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 5.35 0.33 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 0.53 0.75 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.85

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.09 0.12 1.07 2.01 3.87 3.41 3.60 4.69 6.10 5.85 2.86 0.46

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.03 0.04 0.32 0.61 1.18 1.04 1.09 1.43 1.85 1.78 0.87 0.14

Table A4.9b: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 15, 10 and 8, candidate project 50%-50%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

117

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 9 Area (km2): 57 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.91 1.84 2.49 1.92 0.67 0.24 Catchment 7 Area (km2): 48 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.34 0.76 1.54 2.09 1.61 0.56 0.20 Catchment 6 Area (km2): 10 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.15 0.31 0.42 0.33 0.11 0.04

0.07 0.09 0.77 1.45 2.79 2.46 2.59 3.39 4.40 4.22 2.07 0.33

Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.10 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.05 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.19 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.40 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.78 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.71 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 2.37 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.80 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.54 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.23 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.09 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.01 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.34 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.57 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.35 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.90 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.42 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.37 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.20 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.53 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.55 0.23 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.24 0.08 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.09 0.04 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 1.01 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 1.05 2.24 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 2.31 2.79 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 2.90 8.06 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 8.33 11.81 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 12.19 8.57 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 8.85 1.45 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 1.52 1.29 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 1.32

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.07 0.65 1.22 2.35 2.07 2.19 2.85 3.70 3.56 1.74 0.28

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.01 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.59 0.77 0.74 0.36 0.06

Table A4.9c: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 9, 7 and 6, candidate project 50%-50%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

118

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 5 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Area (km2): 156 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.28 0.18 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.28 0.14 0.24 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.13 0.07 2.11 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.06 0.04 3.97 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.04 0.51 7.64 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.51 1.10 6.74 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 1.10 2.47 7.10 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 2.26 4.99 9.27 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 4.79 6.78 12.04 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 6.58 5.23 11.56 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 5.03 1.83 5.66 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 1.62 0.64 0.90 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.64 Catchment 68 Area (km2): 100 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.70 1.58 3.19 4.34 3.35 1.17 0.41 Catchment 67 Area (km2): 110 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.36 0.78 1.75 3.54 4.81 3.71 1.30 0.45 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.82 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.88 0.37 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.34 0.15 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.08 0.08 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.00 1.56 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 1.76 3.41 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 3.99 5.17 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 4.35 13.12 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 13.91 18.77 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 20.71 13.88 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 14.83 3.15 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 1.92 1.96 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 2.25 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.88 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 1.07 0.34 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.43 0.08 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.12 0.00 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.02 1.76 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 2.12 3.99 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 4.76 4.35 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 6.03 13.91 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 17.38 20.71 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 25.45 14.83 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 18.47 1.92 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 3.15 2.25 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 2.70

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.12 0.15 1.35 2.55 4.90 4.32 4.55 5.94 7.72 7.41 3.63 0.58

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.13 0.17 1.49 2.80 5.39 4.75 5.01 6.54 8.49 8.15 3.99 0.64

Table A4.9d: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 5, 68 and 67, candidate project 50%-50%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

119

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 2 Area (km2): 111 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.37 0.79 1.76 3.56 4.84 3.74 1.31 0.46

0.13 0.17 1.50 2.83 5.44 4.80 5.05 6.59 8.56 8.22 4.03 0.64

Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 1.07 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 1.17 0.43 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.43 0.12 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.06 0.02 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.00 2.12 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 2.38 4.76 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 5.45 6.03 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 7.40 17.38 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 20.54 25.45 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 29.89 18.47 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 21.81 3.15 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 4.05 2.70 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 3.06

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 16 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Area (km2): 165 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.30 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.14 0.07 2.23 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.07 0.05 4.20 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.05 0.54 8.08 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.54 1.17 7.13 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 1.17 2.62 7.51 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 2.44 5.30 9.80 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 5.12 7.20 12.73 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 7.02 5.56 12.22 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 5.37 1.94 5.98 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 1.76 0.68 0.95 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.68 Catchment 17 Area (km2): 56 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.89 1.80 2.45 1.89 0.66 0.23 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.10 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.18 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.40 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.89 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.80 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 2.45 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.89 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.66 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.23

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.09 0.76 1.43 2.74 2.42 2.55 3.33 4.32 4.15 2.03 0.32

Table A4.9e: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 2, 16 and 17, candidate project 50%-50%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

120

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 18 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Area (km2): 131 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.24 0.15 0.30 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.53 0.12 0.20 0.12 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.23 0.06 1.77 0.03 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.08 0.04 3.34 0.00 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.03 0.43 6.42 0.59 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.02 0.92 5.66 1.33 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 2.25 2.08 5.96 1.14 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 3.22 4.19 7.78 4.32 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 8.51 5.70 10.11 6.58 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 12.28 4.40 9.70 4.63 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 9.02 1.54 4.75 0.33 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.87 0.54 0.76 0.75 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.29 Catchment 19 Candidate project (50%-50% diversion) Area (km2): 141 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.25 0.16 0.93 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.67 0.12 0.22 0.43 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.04 0.06 1.90 0.18 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.04 3.59 0.10 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.46 6.91 1.75 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 1.79 0.99 6.09 3.82 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 4.39 2.24 6.42 6.55 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 8.77 4.51 8.38 15.43 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 19.93 6.14 10.88 21.75 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 27.87 4.73 10.44 16.29 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 21.00 1.66 5.11 4.29 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 5.93 0.58 0.82 2.20 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 2.28

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Table A4.9f: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 18 and 19, candidate project 50%-50%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

121

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 13 Area (km2): 129 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.23 0.11 0.06 0.04 0.42 0.91 2.04 4.13 5.61 4.33 1.51 0.53 Catchment 14 Area (km2): 55 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.18 0.39 0.87 1.77 2.40 1.85 0.65 0.23 Catchment 11 Area (km2): 42 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.14 0.30 0.67 1.35 1.84 1.42 0.50 0.17

0.15 0.20 1.74 3.28 6.32 5.57 5.87 7.66 9.95 9.56 4.68 0.75

Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.23 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.11 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.03 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.42 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.91 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.98 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 4.06 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 5.54 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 4.26 0.00 0.0003 0.0620 0.0002 1.45 0.00 0.0003 0.0020 0.0002 0.53 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.10 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.05 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.02 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.01 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.18 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.39 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.85 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.74 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 2.37 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 1.82 0.00 0.0001 0.0270 0.0001 0.62 0.00 0.0001 0.0010 0.0001 0.23 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.33 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.40 0.16 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.19 0.08 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.09 0.05 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.06 0.60 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.74 1.29 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 1.59 2.83 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 3.39 5.80 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 7.04 7.92 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 9.64 6.09 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 7.39 2.07 0.0001 0.1090 0.0001 2.46 0.75 0.0001 0.0040 0.0001 0.92

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.08 0.74 1.40 2.69 2.38 2.50 3.27 4.24 4.07 1.99 0.32

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.05 0.06 0.57 1.07 2.06 1.81 1.91 2.50 3.24 3.11 1.52 0.24

Table A4.10a: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 13, 14 and 11, candidate project 100%-0%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

122

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 15 Area (km2): 87 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.16 0.08 0.04 0.02 0.29 0.61 1.38 2.79 3.79 2.93 1.02 0.36 Catchment 10 Area (km2): 79 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.14 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.26 0.56 1.27 2.56 3.48 2.69 0.94 0.33 Catchment 8 Area (km2): 24 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.01 0.08 0.17 0.38 0.77 1.04 0.80 0.28 0.10

0.10 0.13 1.17 2.22 4.26 3.76 3.96 5.17 6.71 6.44 3.16 0.50

Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.08 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.29 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.61 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 1.25 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.66 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 3.66 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 2.80 0.00 0.0003 0.1270 0.0003 0.90 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0003 0.36 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.55 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.60 0.27 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.24 0.13 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.06 0.08 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 0.00 1.02 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 1.18 2.20 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 2.66 4.64 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 2.29 9.70 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 8.64 13.31 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 13.16 10.19 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 9.26 3.35 0.0006 3.6210 0.0005 0.67 1.28 0.0006 0.1010 0.0005 1.51 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.02 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.01 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.01 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.08 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.17 0.00 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 0.30 0.00 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 0.68 0.00 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 0.96 0.00 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 0.72 0.00 0.0002 0.0830 0.0001 0.20 0.00 0.0002 0.0000 0.0001 0.10

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.09 0.12 1.07 2.01 3.87 3.41 3.60 4.69 6.10 5.85 2.86 0.46

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.03 0.04 0.32 0.61 1.18 1.04 1.09 1.43 1.85 1.78 0.87 0.14

Table A4.10b: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 15, 10 and 8, candidate project 100%-0%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

123

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 9 Area (km2): 57 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.91 1.84 2.49 1.92 0.67 0.24 Catchment 7 Area (km2): 48 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.09 0.04 0.02 0.01 0.16 0.34 0.76 1.54 2.09 1.61 0.56 0.20 Catchment 6 Area (km2): 10 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.07 0.15 0.31 0.42 0.33 0.11 0.04

0.07 0.09 0.77 1.45 2.79 2.46 2.59 3.39 4.40 4.22 2.07 0.33

Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.10 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.05 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.02 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.19 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.40 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.78 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.71 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 2.37 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 1.80 0.00 0.0006 0.1280 0.0005 0.54 0.00 0.0006 0.0000 0.0005 0.23 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.09 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.04 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.02 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.01 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.16 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.34 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.57 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.35 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.90 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 1.42 0.00 0.0004 0.1900 0.0003 0.37 0.00 0.0004 0.0000 0.0003 0.20 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.23 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.25 0.11 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.12 0.05 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.06 0.03 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.04 0.42 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.45 0.91 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.98 1.65 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 1.76 3.74 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 4.01 5.23 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 5.61 3.94 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 4.23 1.12 0.0001 0.0400 0.0001 1.19 0.53 0.0001 0.0000 0.0001 0.57

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.07 0.65 1.22 2.35 2.07 2.19 2.85 3.70 3.56 1.74 0.28

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.01 0.02 0.14 0.25 0.49 0.43 0.46 0.59 0.77 0.74 0.36 0.06

Table A4.10c: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 9, 7 and 6, candidate project 100%-0%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

124

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 5 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Area (km2): 156 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.28 0.18 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.28 0.14 0.24 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.13 0.07 2.11 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.06 0.04 3.97 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.04 0.51 7.64 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.51 1.10 6.74 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 1.10 2.47 7.10 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 2.26 4.99 9.27 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 4.79 6.78 12.04 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 6.58 5.23 11.56 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 5.03 1.83 5.66 0.00 0.0006 0.2060 0.0004 1.62 0.64 0.90 0.00 0.0006 0.0020 0.0004 0.64 Catchment 68 Area (km2): 100 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.18 0.09 0.04 0.03 0.33 0.70 1.58 3.19 4.34 3.35 1.17 0.41 Catchment 67 Area (km2): 110 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.36 0.78 1.75 3.54 4.81 3.71 1.30 0.45 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.52 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.58 0.26 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.22 0.12 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.05 0.08 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 0.00 0.96 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 1.17 2.08 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 2.66 4.03 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 3.21 8.79 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 9.59 12.19 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 14.13 9.25 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 10.20 2.81 0.0000 2.4000 0.0000 1.58 1.21 0.0000 0.1200 0.0000 1.50 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.58 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.78 0.22 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.32 0.05 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.09 0.00 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 0.02 1.17 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 1.53 2.66 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 3.43 3.21 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 4.89 9.59 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 13.06 14.13 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 18.87 10.20 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 13.84 1.58 0.0035 0.0600 0.0032 2.82 1.50 0.0035 0.0000 0.0032 1.95

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.12 0.15 1.35 2.55 4.90 4.32 4.55 5.94 7.72 7.41 3.63 0.58

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.13 0.17 1.49 2.80 5.39 4.75 5.01 6.54 8.49 8.15 3.99 0.64

Table A4.10d: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 5, 68 and 67, candidate project 100%-0%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

125

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 2 Area (km2): 111 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.20 0.10 0.05 0.03 0.37 0.79 1.76 3.56 4.84 3.74 1.31 0.46

0.13 0.17 1.50 2.83 5.44 4.80 5.05 6.59 8.56 8.22 4.03 0.64

Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.78 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.87 0.32 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.31 0.09 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.03 0.02 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 0.00 1.53 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 1.79 3.43 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 4.11 4.89 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 6.25 13.06 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 16.22 18.87 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 23.31 13.84 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 17.18 2.82 0.0020 0.4000 0.0018 3.72 1.95 0.0020 0.1000 0.0018 2.30

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 16 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Area (km2): 165 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.30 0.19 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.30 0.15 0.25 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.14 0.07 2.23 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.07 0.05 4.20 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.05 0.54 8.08 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.54 1.17 7.13 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 1.17 2.62 7.51 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 2.44 5.30 9.80 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 5.12 7.20 12.73 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 7.02 5.56 12.22 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 5.37 1.94 5.98 0.00 0.0008 0.1810 0.0008 1.76 0.68 0.95 0.00 0.0008 0.0000 0.0008 0.68 Catchment 17 Area (km2): 56 Runoff Rainfall m3/s m3/s 0.10 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.19 0.40 0.89 1.80 2.45 1.89 0.66 0.23 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Water use Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.10 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.05 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.02 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.18 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.40 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.89 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.80 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 2.45 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 1.89 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.66 0.00 0.0003 0.0000 0.0002 0.23

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

0.06 0.09 0.76 1.43 2.74 2.42 2.55 3.33 4.32 4.15 2.03 0.32

Table A4.10e: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 2, 16 and 17, candidate project 100%-0%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

126

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Catchment 18 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Area (km2): 131 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.24 0.15 0.60 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.83 0.12 0.20 0.24 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.35 0.06 1.77 0.06 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.11 0.04 3.34 0.00 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 0.04 0.43 6.42 1.18 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 1.61 0.92 5.66 2.66 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 3.58 2.08 5.96 2.29 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 4.36 4.19 7.78 8.64 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 12.83 5.70 10.11 13.16 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 18.86 4.40 9.70 9.26 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 13.65 1.54 4.75 0.67 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 2.20 0.54 0.76 1.51 0.0017 0.0000 0.0016 2.04 Catchment 19 Candidate project (100%-0% diversion) Area (km2): 141 Water use Runoff Rainfall Inflow from Domestic Irrigation Livestock Outflow m3/s m3/s upstream m3/s m3/s m3/s m3/s 0.25 0.16 1.22 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.97 0.12 0.22 0.54 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 0.16 0.06 1.90 0.21 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.04 3.59 0.10 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 0.00 0.46 6.91 2.34 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 2.38 0.99 6.09 5.15 0.0023 0.4130 0.0025 5.72 2.24 6.42 7.69 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 9.91 4.51 8.38 19.75 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 24.25 6.14 10.88 28.33 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 34.45 4.73 10.44 20.91 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 25.63 1.66 5.11 4.63 0.0023 0.0120 0.0025 6.27 0.58 0.82 2.96 0.0023 0.5010 0.0025 3.03

jan feb mar apr may jun jul aug sep oct nov dec

Table A4.10f: Water balance on monthly basis for catchments 18 and 19, candidate project 100%-0%

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

127

Appendix 5: Water quality simulations
A5.1 General
MIKE Basin set-up A MIKE Basin Water Quality model was setup for the Boribo study area based on the water balance. The water balance is based on down stream discharges calculated from the water level measurements and Q/h relations which are available for 1998 – 2005. The Q/h relation is primarily based on measured discharge data from 2001. Calculated discharges have been translated into area specific runoffs as input for the MIKE Basin model.

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

128

A5.2

Present conditions
Figure A5.1: Average concentration of BOD for 2000 and 2001

Figure A5.2: Maximum concentration of BOD for 2000 and 2001

Please note: Not same scale as the above figure

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

129

Figure A5.3: Average concentrations of NH4 for 2000 and 2001

Figure A5.4: Maximum concentrations of NH4 for 2000 and 2001

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

130

Figure A5.5: Average concentrations of NO3 for 2000 and 2001

Figure A5.6: Maximum concentrations of NO3 for 2000 and 2001

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

131

A5.3

Implications of irrigation development
Figure A5.7: Average concentration of BOD for the candidate sub-projects

Figure A5.8: Maximum concentration of BOD for the candidate sub-projects

Please note: Not same scale as the above figure

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

132

Figure A5.9: Difference in BOD concentrations between the candidatesub- projects and the present situation

Figure A5.10: Average concentrations of NH4 for the candidate sub-projects

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

133

Figure A5.11: Maximum concentrations of NH4 for the candidate sub-projects

Figure A5.12: Difference in NH4 concentrations between the candidate sub-projects and the present situation

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

134

Figure A5.13: Average concentrations of NO3 for the candidate sub-projects

Figure A5.14: Maximum concentrations of NO3 for the candidate sub-projects

Version 2

North West Irrigation Sector Project River basin and water use studies, Package 2

135

Figure A5.15: Difference in NO3 concentrations between the candidate sub-projects and the present situation

Figure A5.16: Difference in total-phosphorus concentrations between the sub-candidate projects and the present situation

Version 2

Project Working Team of River Basin Study-Package 2
Dr. Tue Kell Nielsen Mr. Toch Sophon Mr. Henrik Garsdal Mr. Jens Erik Lyngby Mr. Teang Sokhom Mr. Prum Peurn Ms. Petrina Rowcroft Ms. Sorn Somoline Mr. Nay Sophon Team Leader Co Team Leader Hydrology Expert Water Quality Expert GIS and Remote Sensing Specialist Water Use and Water Balance Specialist Environmental Economic Expert Socio-Economic Specialist Community Development Specialist

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.