Table of Contents for a Report on Groundwater Hydro-Salinity

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page #
SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................................1
1. INTRODUCTION/STATEMENT OF PROBLEM.....................................................4
2. OBJECTIVES ................................................................................................................7
3. METHDOLOGY.............................................................................................................8
3.1 Description of the Study Area............................................................................8
3.2 General Aquifer and Climatic Conditions........................................................9
3.3 Water Resources ...............................................................................................10
3.4 Hydro-Salinity Measurement .........................................................................11
3.5 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA).............................................................13
3.6 Selection of Sites for Pumping Tests ...............................................................13
3.7 Pumping Tests ...................................................................................................15
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS .................................................................................18
4.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal...............................................................................18
4.1.1 General ...............................................................................................................18
4.1.2 Skimming wells and quality of pumped water.....................................................19
4.1.3 Skimming well design..........................................................................................22
4.1.4 Water-table depth in the project area.................................................................30
4.2 Hydro-Salinity Based on Resistivity Survey...................................................31
4.3 Spatial and Temporal Hydro-Salinity Based on Water Sampling ...............36
4.4 Effect of Recharge on Hydro-salinity..............................................................41
4.5 Pumping Tests ...................................................................................................45
4.6 Soil Salinity Profile ...........................................................................................48
4.7 Rainfall Pattern.................................................................................................50
4.8 Fine Tuning of the Skimming Well Design and Operational Strategies......51
4.8.1 Discharge............................................................................................................51
4.8.2 Saline-freshwater interface.................................................................................52
4.8.3 Depth of the well .................................................................................................52
4.8.4 Size and number of strainers...............................................................................52
ii
4.8.5 Radial spacing of strainers from pump...............................................................52
4.8.6 Radial spacing of skimming wells.......................................................................53
4.8.7 Operational strategies ........................................................................................53
5. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................................54
6. REFERENCES......................................................................................................................56
Annexure-I .............................................................................................................................61
iii
List of Tables
Table 1: Hydrogeological characteristics of Chaj Doab .............................................................10

Table 2: Salient features of the selected skimming wells sites...................................................15
Table 3: Schedule of pumping tests ............................................................................................17
Table 4: Cropping patterns and pumped water at the selected sites ...........................................17
Table 5: Farm size and mode of pumping in the study area .......................................................18
Table 6: Salient features of the project area as per PRA ............................................................19
Table 7: Farmer’s views about water-table and quality..............................................................19
Table 8: Quality of the pumped water by the surveyed skimming wells ...................................21
Table 9: Brake horsepower required for 9 m lift for different combination of strainers ...........27
Table 10: Comparison of max-drawdown and radial influence .................................................47
Table 11: Pumped water quality (dS/m) at the sites (4 and 6 hrs pumping)...............................47
Table 12: Pumped water quality (dS/m) at the sites (8 and 12 hrs pumping).............................48
iv
List of Figures
Fig. 1: Schematic presentation of a single-strainer well ...............................................................7

Fig 2. Schematic presentation of a multi-strainers well................................................................8
Fig. 3: Location map of the study area .........................................................................................8
Fig. 4: Hydrogeological profile in the (a) upper (b) middle and (c) lower Chaj Doab.................9
Fig. 5: Irrigation system of Chaj Doab .......................................................................................11
Fig. 6: Location of resistivity survey points ( ) and observation wells ( )................................12
Fig. 7: Schematic diagram of a the multi-level observation well and suction pump..................13
Fig. 8: Schematic diagram of skimming well (a) and location map (b) of Site 1.......................14
Fig. 9: Schematic diagram of skimming well (a) and location map (b) of Site 2.......................14
Fig. 10: Schematic diagram of skimming well (a) and location map (b) of site 3......................15
Fig. 11: Location of sklimming wells surveyed .........................................................................20
Fig. 12: Groundwater quality (dS/m) pumped by skimming wells ............................................21
Fig. 13: Installation of skimming wells with time in the project area ........................................22
Fig. 14: Farmers trend in the selection of no. of strainers ..........................................................23
Fig. 15: A skimming well with 26 strainers................................................................................24
Fig. 16: A T used to join the well points with the pump ............................................................24
Fig. 17: Farmers’ trend in selection of the size of strainers........................................................25
Fig. 18: Cost of skimming wells as function of number of strainers..........................................25
Fig. 19: Cost of skimming wells as function of size of strainers................................................26
Fig. 20: No. of skimming wells with different distance of strainers from pump........................26
Fig. 21: Skimming wells with different depth of strainers .........................................................27
Fig. 22: Skimming wells with different depth of blind pipes .....................................................28
Fig. 23: Skimming wells as a function of total depth .................................................................29
Fig. 24: Size of the pumps used with skimming wells ...............................................................29
Fig. 25: Type of envelop material used with skimming wells....................................................30
Fig. 26. Water-table position in the area.....................................................................................31
Fig. 27: Hydro-salinity (dS/m) at 10 m depth.............................................................................32
Fig. 31. Hydro-salinity profile at Site 1 .....................................................................................37
v
Fig. 32. Hydro-salinity profile at Site 2 ......................................................................................37
Fig. 33. Hydro-salinity profile at Site 3 ......................................................................................38
Fig. 34: Hydro-salinity profile at Nabishah Site.........................................................................39
Fig. 35: Hydro-salinity profile at Sahiwal Site ...........................................................................39
Fig. 36: Hydro-salinity profile at Shahpur Site ..........................................................................40
Fig. 37: Schematic of the observation well, piezometers and the injection wells .....................43
Fig. 38. Schematic of the recharge well......................................................................................43
Fig. 39 Hydro-salinity profile at Tariq Farm ..............................................................................45
Fig. 40 Soil salinity profile at Site 1 ...........................................................................................49
Fig. 43 Rainfall pattern at the selected sites…………………………………………………...51
vi
SUMMARY
Groundwater plays a vital role in the agriculture based economy of Pakistan, where over 60% of
the irrigation water requirements are met from groundwater. However, in the Indus Basin, the
native groundwater is saline due to marine geological formations. Over this saline water, a
freshwater layer has been developed due to recharge from rainfall, rivers and irrigation network.
The thickness of this freshwater layer varies from place to place depending upon the native
topography, infiltration rate and recharge available. Various skimming well techniques are being
used to extract freshwater including conventional shallow wells, multi-strainer (multi-point)
wells, radial collector wells, scavenger wells and dug wells. Because of ease in installation and
operation, multi-strainer skimming wells have become famous amongst the farming community.
However, these wells are designed and installed without considering the depth of fresh-saline
water interface, recharge and spacing from other wells etc. Therefore, in most cases, the strainers
of these wells penetrate through the fresh-saline water interface, resulting in deterioration of
pumped water quality. Moreover, indiscriminate and continuous pumping also results in
upconing of the interface resulting in groundwater quality deterioration.
A three year study (2005-07) was conducted in Chaj Doab (the area between the rivers Chenab
and Jhelum) to: (i) determine the depth of fresh-saline water interface; (ii) conduct surveys and
characterize design of skimming wells installed by farmers and their operational strategies; and
(iii) fine-tuning of the design and development of operational strategies for sustainable
groundwater management using skimming wells. The project area was divided into grids of 5 km
x 5 km. A questionaire was developed and pre-tested in the field to collect information regarding
skimming wells, such as number of strainers, size of strainers, depth of strainers, inter-strainer
spacing, discharge of skiming wells and quality of pumped water etc. The electrical conductivity
(EC) of the groundwater was determined by measuring resistivity with Terrameter SAS 4000 on
an approximate grid interval of 10 km x 10 km. Ten multi-level observation wells were installed
in the area to measure the spatial and temporal hydro-salinity at different depths. Out of these 10
sites, 3 sites were selected to conduct pumping tests, where farmers have installed skimming
wells. These tests were conducted to determine the suitability of designs, radial influence of
drawdown, variation in the groundwater and pumped water quality for different pumping
durations of 4, 6, 8 and 12 hours. Moreover, the impact of local groundwater recharge on the
hydro-salinity was also studied.
1
The survey revealed a drastic increase in the number of skimming wells installed during the
drought period i.e. from 1999 to 2002. About 36% skimming wells were found to pump water
with EC greater than 2.0 dS/m reflecting some problems either in the design or with operational
strategies. There are no set design criteria for the installation of skimming wells and it entirely
depends on the advice of the drillers and the wishes of the farmers. The number of strainers
varies from 2-20 and the size of the strainer from 5-15 cm. However, 6 strainer wells, 7.5 cm
diameter, at a radial spacing of 3-5 m are commonly used by the farmers. Similarly, the radial
spacing of the strainers from the well is also arbitrary. The prevailing depth to water table in the
area ranges from 2 to 10 m, whereas the strainers of the wells are usually drilled up to 18 m. The
depth to interface of the fresh-saline water in the area is at about 30 m in the center of the Doab
and along the banks of River Jhelum and 40 m or more along the banks of the River Chenab.
The water table is shallow (within 2 m) near the upper reaches of the rivers and lower Jhelum
canal and is as deep as 10 m towards the lower reach of the Doab due to less recharge from the
rivers and irrigation network. The groundwater quality shows a lot of spatial variability. At
shallow depths (2 to 10 m), groundwater quality is relatively good (0.4-1.0 dS/m) near the river
banks. Freshwater pockets exist at some scattered places particularly near recharging sources. At
20 m depth, the groundwater quality is generally good (1.0-2.0 dS/m) except at the center of the
Doab where it is about 4.0 dS/m. At 30 m depth, the salinity is very high (2.4-4.0 dS/m)
particularly at the centre of the Doab. However, at this depth, the water quality is relatively good
near rivers (<2.4 dS/m). At 40 m depth or beyond, the hydro-salinity is the highest in whole of
the area (4.0 dS/m) with a few relatively freshwater pockets along lower reach of the river
Jhelum and upper reach of the river Chenab.
Depth to interface of the fresh and saline groundwater in the area is at about 30 m from the soil
surface, in the center of the Doabs and along banks of the Jhelum River, and about 40 m or more
near the banks of River Chenab. The groundwater quality measured through observation wells
also shows a lot of spatial and temporal variability. The hydro-salinity is not static rather
dynamic and fluctuates with time depending on various factors such as source of recharge,
abstraction, pumping technologies, cropping pattern, cultural practices, season etc. Therefore,
site specific information regarding groundwater quality is necessary for proper installation and
operation of wells. Moreover, the groundwater quality improved when recharged locally with
rainwater.
2
Based on the pumping tests, it is suggested that skimming wells, each with 28 lps discharge,
should not be installed within a radial distance of 350 m (3.5 ha) from each other. Six strainers of
7.5 cm diameter are recommended for installation upto 20 m depth (10 m strainer length) to
pump about 28 lps of water. A pumping time of 4 to 12 hrs/day may be adopted for skimming
wells without having adverse effect on groundwater and pumped water quality.
3
1. INTRODUCTION/STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
Globally, groundwater comprises one third of the freshwater resources. However, the rapidly
shrinking surface water resources due to over exploitation, all over the world, has placed
tremendous pressure on the groundwater resources, resulting in depletion, in many parts of the
world (Al-Senafy and Abraham, 2004; Xu et al., 2005; Pareek et al., 2006; Singh et al., 2006;
Anuraga, et al., 2006; Ambast et al., 2006; Babiker et al., 2007). Pakistan has the largest
contiguous irrigation system and 75% agricultural lands, mainly in the Indus basin, are irrigated.
The annual water supply through this network is around 180 billion cubic meter (BCM)
irrigating a command area of 16.2 million hectares (Mha). The irrigation system was designed
for about 60% cropping intensity which is now over 170%. This tremendous increase in cropping
intensity could become possible only by exploiting groundwater. About 75% of increased water
supply during the last twenty five years has been attributed to groundwater (van Steenberger and
Gohar, 2005). Agriculture uses more than 93% of the available water resources. Due to increased
population, urbanization, and industrialization, the annual per capita water availability has
reduced from 5300 cubic meter (m3) to 1100 m3 over the last fifty years (Kahlown and Majeed,
2004). The recent drought (1999-2002) in the country reduced the canal water supplies and
further increased the pressure on groundwater.
The total groundwater abstraction in Pakistan is estimated to be 50 BCM against a potential of 63
BCM (Kahlown and Majeed) and more than 70% population depends on groundwater for
drinking and domestic uses. The estimated groundwater contribution in total irrigation water
supply of Punjab during Rabi 2001-2002 reached up to about 81% (Shafique et al, 2002). There
are now over 600,000 tubewell pumping water in the Indus basin which were only 2700 in 1950.
The density of private tubewells (no. of tubewells/1000 ha) has increased from 3 in 1965 to 46 in
2003 (Qureshi et al., 2003). However, there is no systemic trend in tubewell densities. The
tubewell densities in areas of marginal groundwater quality do not substantially differs from
those in fresh groundwater areas. It may be high at head due to rice cultivation, at the center due
to difference in water supplies and at the tail where irrigation is totally dependent on
groundwater (van Steenberger and Oliemans, 2002). The number of users is over 2.5 million
who either own tubewells or purchase water from their neighbours. Inspite of high importance of
groundwater, it has never been systematically assessed, monitored or managed (van Steenberger
and Gohar, 2005). Due to absence of any groundwater regulatory framework, groundwater is
4
considered a free commodity and any one can install any number of tubewells of any capacity, at
any time, at any depth and can pump any quantity of water, at any time. Therefore, groundwater
abstraction is highly variable and due to lack of monitoring of the aquifer, there is a little
understanding about an adverse effect which is likely to result from such indiscriminate
pumping.
The groundwater in the Indus basin is of marine origin. Seepage from conveyance system and
deep percolation from field irrigation and precipitation has formed freshwater layers of varying
thickness that overlay deeper saline groundwater. However, the uncontrolled and unregulated use
of groundwater has resulted in overdraft of aquifer and salt-water intrusion in many parts of the
Indus basin (Kijne, 1999; Ashfaq et al., 2006). Partially penetrating wells may be used to pump
groundwater from freshwater layers of the aquifer. However, such pumping may cause the fresh-
saline water interface to move up. This phenomenon which occurs at the local level is termed as
upconing and differs from salt-water intrusion occurring at a regional scale (Pareek et al., 2006).
Various well techniques are being used to extract this freshwater. These include conventional
shallow wells, multi-strainer (multi-point) wells, radial collector wells, scavenger wells,
dugwells and re-circulation wells. Among these, single-strainer and multi-strainers wells (Figs 1
& 2) are more acceptable to farmers due to low cost, simplicity and the availability of local
material and skilled labour (Sufi et al., 1998; Saeed et al., 2003). In case of a multi-strainer well,
drawdown is less compared to that for a single strainer well for the same discharge. Due to which
the saltwater upconing in response to pumping is lower for multi-strainers skimming well as
compared to a single strainer well (Kemper et al., 1976; Hafeez et al., 1986)
Kemper et al., (1976) observed a non-linear relationship between salinity of the pumped water
and aquifer heterogeneity. Asghar et al., (2002) defined various design and operational
parameters for single-borehole well using a modular 3-dimesnional finite difference groundwater
flow model, MODFLOW (McDonald and Harbough, 1988) and a modular 3D Transport Model,
MT3D (Zheng, 1990). In these numerical experiments, field data collected by Kemper et al.
(1976) were used to simulate upward movement of saline water. Working in the same area,
Saeed et al., (2003) found that the hydro-salinity profile of the area has changed and guidelines
developed by Asghar et al., (2002) are no longer helpful in the installation and operation of
skimming wells in the area.
5
Nevertheless, the knowledge of fresh-saline water interface and hydro-salinity behaviour is very
important for the proper design and operation of these wells. Due to lack of such information,
most of the wells in the area have one of the following problems (Ashraf et al., 2001): (i) the
wells are installed deep into the saline aquifer even though the shallow groundwater is of good
quality. This has resulted in the salinization of the productive agricultural lands. Qureshi and
Barrett-Lennard, (1998) reported that over 70% tubewells in the Indus basin are pumping sodic
water due to which sodicity is increasing in many parts of the country. The secondary
salinization associated with the use of poor quality groundwater for irrigation has further
compounded the problem (Qureshi et al., 2003; Khan et al., 2003). (ii) The wells are installed in
the freshwater layer. However, over pumping/indiscriminate pumping results in upconing of the
saline-freshwater interface due to which the quality of the pumped water deteriorates with time.
Due to these phenomena, more than 250 drainage cum irrigation tubewells installed in the fresh
groundwater zones under the Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP-II) have been
abandoned on farmers’ request. NESPAK, (1997) found that the wells installed at the fringes of
freshwater areas showed a continuous increase in the salinity of groundwater. The areas most
prone to this salinization are freshwater zones hydro-geologically downstream of the saline water
zones i.e. at the centre and towards lower reach of the Doab. Saeed et al., (2002a) conducted
diagnostic analysis to evaluate performance of farmers’ skimming wells. However, the study
covered only a small area and did not take into account the spatial and temporal variability of the
wells. Yasin et al., (2002) conducted participatory rural apparisal of thirteen villages of the areas
to find the thickness of freshwater layer. It was found that indiscriminate/continuous pumping
disturbs the fresh-saline water interface resulting in increased salinity in the pumped water.
However, the freshwater thickness thus determined was not actual since it was based on the
farmers perceptions and the quality of pumped water. McWhorter (1980) conducted field
experiments on skimming wells and found that saltwater upconing is not stable. However, rate of
restoration and decay of the cone was observed. It was found that restoration of the freshwater
conditions takes place slowly once saltwater upconing had occurred in response to pumping.
Kemper et al., (1976) conducted field experiments in the same area and found that continuous
pumping results in a larger displacement of freshwater by the underlying saline water, which
ultimately deteriorates pumped water quality. Moreover, such indiscriminate/continuous
pumping also results in upward movement of saline water (Reilly and Goodman, 1987; Hafiz et
6
al., 1986; Ashraf et al., 2001) leading to deterioration of pumped water quality. The long-term
sustainability of agriculture depends on protecting land and water resources from salinity. The
assessment and monitoring of groundwater quality is therefore, very important to ensure safe use
of these resources for various purposes.
Delivery Pipe
Pump
Non Return Valve
Tee-Joint
Freshwater
Saline-Upconing
Saline Water
Fig. 1: Schematic presentation of a single-strainer well
Delivery Pipe
Pump
Non Return Valve
Tee-Joint
Freshwater
Saline-Upconing
Saline Water
Fig 2. Schematic presentation of a multi-strainers well
2. OBJECTIVES
The overall objective of the project was to refine the skimming well design and develop
operational strategies. However, the specific objectives were to:
7
• Determine depth to interface of the fresh and saline groundwater in the target area;
• Conduct surveys and characterize the design of skimming wells installed by farmers and their
operational strategies; and
• Fine-tuning of the design and development of operational strategies for sustainable
groundwater management using skimming wells.
3. METHDOLOGY
3.1 Description of the Study Area
The study was conducted in the Chaj Doab (the area between Chenab and Jhelum rivers) district
Sargodha. The latitude of the Doab varies from 31º 11´ N to 32º 58´ N, the longitude from 72º
10´ E to 74º 22´ E and altitude from 150 to 250 m above the mean sea level. The district is
bounded on the north by Jhelum district and on the east by the districts of Mandi Bahauddin and
Hafizabad separated by the Chenab River. The Jhang district lies on the south and the Khushab
district on the west, separated by the Jhelum river. The area of district Sargodha is 5,854 km2
comprising five tehsils i.e. Sargodha, Bhalwal, Sahiwal, Shahpur and Sillanwali. Figure 1 shows
the location of the study area. The major crops grown are wheat, rice, sugarcane, fodder and
citrus. The location map of the study area is given in Fig. 3.
N
N C H IN A
A
C h itra l
G ilg it
D ro s h B u n ji
T
S C h ila s
S
D ir S a k rd u
S
B a la k o t
A Z A D JA M M U
D U
I
M u z a ffa ra b a d
A N D
IN
N
P e s h a w a r
K A S H M IR
P a r a c h in a r
A
Is la m a b a d
E R
IV
H
M
R G u j Vr Ea R t
U I
L R
H B
J E A
S a rg o d h aH N S ia lk o t
G
D .I .k h a n C
F a i s aE R l a b a d
F
Z h o b
R
IV L a h o re
I
A
V
A
L o ra la i
R
P r o je c t L o c a tio n
E R
B a rk h a n C H A J D O A B
Q u e tta
M u lta n
IV
A
S R
S ib i B a h a w a ln a g a r
I
D U
N o k u n d i D a lb a n d in B a h a w a lp u r
K a la t
IN
K h a n p u r
K h u z d a r J a c o b a b a d
N
S u k k u r
I
IR A N
N a w a b s h a h
P a n jg u r
P a d id a n
G a w a d a r O rm a ra H y d e ra b a d
K a ra c h i
C h o r
B a d in
A R A B IA N S E A
S a e e d M irz a
Fig. 3: Location map of the study area
8
3.2 General Aquifer and Climatic Conditions
The area falls in the upper Indus plain which is underlain by alluvium and is usually regarded as
an alluvial terrace. The deposited sediments of the terrace are old and composed of compact
calcareous silty clays (Table 1, Fig. 4). The narrow strips of lands along the Jhelum and Chenab
rivers are active flood plains. Those were inundated almost every year during the pre-weirs
period, covered with rich alluvium, these areas are highly suitable for agriculture. The depth and
charactersitics of alluvium vary from place to place and extends beyond 300 m (Ahmad and
Chaudhry, 1988). The horizontal hydraulic conductivity varies from 30-60 m/day with specific
yield of 13% (Associeted Consulting Engineers, 1997), horizontal anisotropy ratio is 1:1 and
specific storage of the aquifer ranges from 1x10-6 to 1x10-4 (Dhari, 2002). The aquifer therefore,
is highly transmisitive and has the capacity to hold, yield and transport good quantity of water.
The climate of the area is characterized by large seasonal variations in temperature and rainfall.
From December to Febrarury, the temperature drops considerably and the weather becomes cold.
Usually, the temperature during winter ranges from 3 to 27 0C. In summar, the weather is
extremely hot with temperature from 20 to 42 0C. The average annual rainfall and refrerence
evaporatranspiration are 600 mm and 1612 mm, respectively (Saeed et al., 2003).
(a) (b) (c)
220
220
200
200
200
180
180
180 160
160
160 140
140
Elevation (m amsl)
Elevation (m amsl)
Elevation (m amsl)
140 120
120
120 100
100
100 80
80
60
80
60
40
60
40
20
40
20
10 20 30 40 50 20 30 40 50 60 10 20 30 40 50
Distance (Km) Distance (Km) Distance (Km)
Clay Silt Sand
Fig. 4: Hydrogeological profile in the (a) upper (b) middle and (c) lower Chaj Doab
9
Table 1: Hydrogeological characteristics of Chaj Doab
Depth Sand (m) Silt & Fine Clay (m) Good yielding Low yielding
Range (m) Sand (m) formation (%) formation (%)
0-30 13.7 14.8 2.0 45 55.0
0-60 29.9 28.1 3.1 49 51.0
0-90 41.2 43.6 5.1 45.1 54.9
0-120 51.8 61.9 8.1 12.6 57.4
0-150 54.9 79.3 18.4 36.0 64.0
3.3 Water Resources

There are two major canals in the area namely: the Upper Jhelum and the Lower Jhelum canal
(Fig. 5). The Lower Jhelum canal off takes from Rasul headworks on the river Jhelum near
Mandi Bahaudin, travels a long distance downstream and divides into two branches at Head
Faqirian, i.e. the nothern branch and the southern branch. The design discharge of the Lower
Jhelum canal is 149 m3/sec. It is 406 km long, whereas length of its distributaries is 2,072 km. It
caters a culturable command area of 0.6 million hectares located in the middle and lower tracts
of the Doab, whereas its gross canal command area is 0.66 million ha (Fahlbusch, et. al. 2004).
The Lower Jhelum canal has been divided into four irrigation divisions, namely Sargodha,
Kirana, Shahpur and Rasul.
Significant irrigation requirements are met by groundwater in the Chaj Doab. The areas located
at the tail ends of the watercourses, which receive insufficient canal supplies are particularly
dependent on groundwater pumped by tubewells. Despite a lot of spatial and temporal variations,
the groundwater quality is worse than canal water and usually deteriorates towards the tail ends
of watercourses. In 1998, there were 14823 tubewells (13312 private and 1511 public tubewells).
10
Fig. 5: Irrigation system of Chaj Doab
3.4. Hydro-Salinity Measurement

The resistivity based survey has been used by many investigators to study salt-water intrusion
and groundwater recharge (van Dam and Meulankamp 1967; Choudhury et al., 2001; Pareek et
al., 2006, Ambast et al., 2006). The resistivity survey of the study area was conducted with
Terrameter SAS 4000 to delineate the groundwater quality. The measured resistivity in the field
was converted into groundwater EC by using the following third degree polynomial equation
(PCRWR, 2007):
y = −5 × 10 −5 x 3 + 0.007 x 2 − 0.343 x + 6.585 (R2 = 0.95) where
y = Electrical conductivity (dS/m)
x = Earth resistivity (Oh-m).
The resistivity survey was conducted on 43 points at approximate grid interval of 10 km x 10 km

(Fig. 6). The position of each point was marked by Global Positioning System (GPS). Surfer32
was used to map the groundwater quality at different depths. Multi-level observation wells (Fig.
7) were also installed in the area to monitor the spatial and temporal hydro-salinity behaviour.
The observation wells consisted of 5 mm diameter high density polyethylene tubes installed at
different depths ranging from 7.5 to 75 m depth. The lower part (approximately 30 cm) of each
11
tube was made perforated by punching small holes to serve as screen. This portion was further
wrapped with synthetic polyester filter cloth to prevent any excessive accumulation of silt and
fine sand in the tubes. The lower end of the tube was closed to allow only lateral entry of water
into it. At the top, each tube was marked according to its penetration depth. In the same borehole,
a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) pipe of 25 mm diameter and 10 m length was installed to measure
the water level. This pipe has a perforated portion of 3 m at the lower end (Saeed et al., 2002b).
Three water samples from each depth were collected and their EC was measured with an EC
meter (Aqualytic CD-20) and were averaged. The storage effect during sampling was minimized
by disposing off the already existing water in each tube.
6
32.50 12
8
Bhalwal
32.40 35
Jhelum River 5
1
2
9
4
Site 3
32.30 36
38 3
Site 2
32 11
Shahpur Site 1
)
ch )
an ch
32.20 39
n
Br 10
14
Br
an
er
Latitude (Degree)
rn
rt h he
37
31
(N
o Kot Momin So
ut
n al l( 13
Ca
15 na
29
Ca
32.10 20 hl
um
hl
um
18
Je 27 Je
er
ow Sargodha w
er
L Lo 17
21
30 19
32.00 22
25
33 26
16
28
Sahiwal 43
31.90 24 34
23
Silanwali Chenab River
31.80 40
42
31.70
41
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 6: Location of resistivity survey points ( ) and observation wells ( )
12
7.5m
C en t eral 5 0
f eet u p t o t h e
w a t e r -t a b le
1 . 5 " d ia p ip e
75 m
7 .5 m t o 7 5 m
T o t a l= 1 0
5 m m d ia p ip e
W o o d e n S c re e n -h e a d c o v e r e d
in t h e 4 " d ia G . I. Pip e .
Fig. 7: Schematic diagram of a the multi-level observation well and suction pump
3.5 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

For participatory rural apprasial, the project area was divided into grids of 5 km × 5 km. A
questionaire was developed and pre-tested in the field to collect information from each grid
regarding skimming wells, such as number of strainers, size of strainers, depth of strainers, inter-
strainer spacing, discharge of skiming wells, quality of pumped water, crops grown, water
availabilty etc. A total of 263 number of multi-strainer skimming wells were surveyed. The
location of each well was marked by GPS.
3.6 Selection of Sites for Pumping Tests

Based on PRA, three skimming well sites were selected for conducting pumping tests (Figs 8-
10). These sites have skimming wells of different number, size and depth of strainers, most
commonly used in the area. A multi-level observation well (46 m deep) and piezometers (15 m
deep) were installed at each site in order to study hydro-salinity, drawdown and pumped water
quality. Standard rain gauges were installed at each site to measure rainfall. The salient features
of the skimming wells and sites selected for conducting pumping tests are given in Table 2.
13
(a) (b)
d
P -9
oa
S ite -1 Yar M. Lak Distributary
R
Mohd. Nawaz
nk
Li
Ghaus Mohd.
15
30.5 m
M. Nawaz Hattar
k
32.280 Haji Afzal
ha
Maqbool Awan
-C
)
ch
ad
an
ab
Haji M. Yar
Br
ar
aw
rse
Liaqat Hattar
rn
P -8
ss
T e e -J o in t
cou
he
Ta
ort
rse
Nasar Iqbal
ter
l (N
15 m
Wa
cou
Aslam Nazir
32.275 Nasar Iqbal
na
Mohd. Nawaz
ater
Ca
Site 1
ed W
lum
P -7
he
Lin
6m
rJ
Mohd. Riaz
Tassawar Marth
we
P -5
Lo
P -6 32.270
O b s e rv a tio n
w e ll
Bhalwal-Sargodha Road M. Khan Tiwana
3 .8
M. Iqbal
1m
96
3.
Mohd. Khan
Qadir Yar
P -4
3 .9 6 m Pum p 3 .6 6 m Manak Parhar
P -1
32.265
Bricks road (solang)

Haji M. Yar
Malik Mazhar
3m
D e liv e ry
m
p ip e
66
3.
P -2
Aslam Marth
P -3 W a te r Maqbool Ahmad
D iv e rs io n
Pond
32.260
Sardar Budhor
W a te r c h a n n a l
72 810 72 815 72 820 72 825 72 830
Fig. 8: Schematic diagram of skimming well (a) and location map (b) of Site 1
(a) (b)
S ite -2
oad
P -9
Khan Jaspal
ha R
30.5 m
rgod
Zafar Iqbal
S a r g o d h a - M a n d i B h a w a ld in R o a d Zafar Iqbal
l- S a
Ghulam Ali
Bashir Ahmad
Umar Hayat Tulla
lw a
y
Zafar Iqbal
32.341 M. Ameer
ar
Bha
P -8
ut
Ghaus M. Tualla
ib
s tr
Anar Jaspal
Di
T e e -J o in t
30.5 m
al
sp
Zahoor Ahmad Ja
Mumtaz Jaspal
P -7 M. Arshad
Ghaus Mohammad
Tariq Aziz
32.336 M. Yar
15 m
Manzoor
M.Hussain
Yar Jaspal
Riaz Ahmad
Water channal (Abanoed)
P -5 D is c o rd e d
O b s e rv a tio n Ghulam Abbas
P -6 w e ll Khan M. Jaspal
3m
Sultan Ahmad
m
6
Zafar Iqbal Jaspal

m
Site 2
3 m Pum p 3 m Munawar Jaspal
P -4 P -1 M. Hayat
32.331 Zafar Jaspal
Mumtaz Ahmad
Fateh Mohammad
M
ot
D e liv e ry er
3m
m
p ip e
Drain
3
Aman Ullah
W a te r Zafar Iqbal
D iv e r s io n
P -3 Pond P -2
W a te r c h a n n a l
32.326
73.030 73.032 73.034 73.036 73.038 73.040 73.042 73.044 73.046 73.048 73.05
14
(a) (b)
Drainage Nallah
32.354 Al
Site-3 ipu
r-F
ate Mumtaz
ha
b ad
Ro
ad
32.352
Ameer Sapra
Tee-Joint
32.350
P-2
Zubair Bakhar Tariq Bashir
Site 3 Noor Riaz Shah

32.348
Fateh-abad Noon Road

Imtiaz M. Anwar Mohd. Khan
M Usman
Mona Drain Aslam
Observation 32.346 Rajay Shah

Aain
3m
well Ghulam Abbas
32.344
3m Pump 3m 30 m 30.5 m
6m 15 m
P-1 Delivery P-3 P-4 P-5 P-6 P-7
pipe
Water channel 32.342
se
our
32.340
te r c
Wa
32.338
72.852 72.854 72.856 72.858 72.860 72.862 72.864 72.866 72.868 72.870
Table 2: Salient features of the selected skimming wells sites

Farm No. of Size of Depth of Depth Size of Water Water
strainer strainer strainers of well pump Quality table
(cm) (m) (m) (cm) (dS/m) depth (m)
Muhammad 6 8 13 21 15 x 0.76 1.8
Aslam Hattar 13
(Site 1)
Sultan Ahmad 5 8 8 15 15 x 1.05 1.8
Jaspal (Site 2) 13
Tahir Javed 3 8 9 18 13 x 1.18 2.4
(Site 3) 11
3.7 Pumping Tests

The understanding of the behavior of fresh and saline groundwater during pumping operation
can help in better use of skimming wells. During the period of low canal supplies or high water
15
demand, farmers have to rely more on groundwater. The farmers have two options to fulfill their
irrigation demands (i) more pumping hours per day with less number of pumping days and (ii)
more number of pumping days with low pumping hours. Ashraf et al. (2001) and Saeed et al
2005, recommended the later i.e. intermittent pumping against continuous pumping to pump
good quality water and to avoid saline water upconing. However, by increasing the pumping
days, the farmers face the following problems:
• Considerable time is wasted in starting the engine and to lift water. An idle time upto 45
minutes has been recorded, resulting in loss of fuel, time and labour (Ashraf and Idrees,
2000);
• They have to engage themselves in irrigation for more days per week by compromising
their other engagements; and
• The same watercourse may be used by other farmers for irrigation.
Four, 6, 8 and 12-hrs pumping tests were conducted for three consecutive days at each of the
three sites (Table 3). The schedule was based on farmers’ convenience and requirements. Most
of the groundwater is pumped from October to April (Rabi season) during which canal supplies
are comparatively low. Therefore, this period is critical for groundwater quality management.
Normally, after wheat harvesting in April-May, the lands are kept fallow for couple of months
before sowing of the succeeding crops (rice or fodder). Sugarcane, rice-wheat and wheat-maize
cropping patterns are practiced on these sites. Table 4 shows the cropping pattern and the water
applied on these sites, during the study period.
Prior to pumping, water-table depth and groundwater quality at different depths were measured
through the observation well and piezometers. The water table was measured with a water-table
recorder. During pumping and recession, water table and groundwater quality was measured at
specific time intervals.
16
Table 3: Schedule of pumping tests
Site Pumping time (hrs)
4 6 8 12
Site 1 11-13 Oct, 2005 17-19 Oct, 2005 5-7 Feb, 2007 12-14 Apr, 2007
Site 2 2-4 Oct, 2005 11-13 Dec, 2006 31 Oct-2 Nov, 2006 23-25 Jan, 2007
Site 3 3-5 Apr, 2006 12-14 Apr, 2006 25-27 Sep, 2006 26-28 Apr, 2007
Table 4: Cropping patterns and pumped water at the selected sites

Site Farm Cropping pattern Pumped water (hrs) Canal water (hrs)
Size 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2004- 2005- 2006- 2004- 2005- 2006-
(ha) 05 06 07 05 06 07
1 10.5 Wheat, Wheat, Wheat, 507 480 378 484 428 428
fodder, fodder, fodder,
sugarcane, sugarcane, sugarcane,
orchard orchard vegetables,
orchard
2 5.3 Rice, Rice, Wheat, 268 292 260 135 143 139
wheat, wheat, fodder,
fodder, fodder, sugarcane,
sugarcane, sugarcane, orchard
orchard orchard
3 1.2 Wheat, Wheat, Wheat, 124 108 100 - - -
fodder, fodder, fodder,
sugarcane, sugarcane, sugarcane,
orchard orchard vegetables,
orchard
17
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
4.1 Participatory Rural Appraisal
4.1.1 General
About 88 percent farmers use diesel engines as prime mover, 8% use tractors and only 4% use
electric motors (Table 5). Diesel powered engines are preferred by the farmers due to their low
initial cost despite the fact that their operational cost is very high. Asad et al., (2003) reported
that 87% of the tubewells operated in Pakistan are diesel powered. Since July 2007, the
Government of Pakistan has given a subsidy of 25% on electrically operated tubewells.
Therefore, this subsidy will benefit only 4-13% farmers who are generally large farmers able to
afford an electric connection (Rs. 300000 to 400,000 per connection) for tubewell. The farm size
varies from 0.4 to 30 ha in the area, 19% farmers own land up to 2 ha, 39% from 2 to 5 ha and
42% greater than 5 ha. However, the average farm size in the area is 15 ha.
Table 5: Farm size and mode of pumping in the study area

Power source Percentage Farm size Percentage
Diesel engine 88 < 2 ha 19
Tractor 8 2-5 ha 39
Electric motor 4 > 5 ha 42
Canal water is available in the area on rotational basis, its availability per farm per week ranges
from 0.3 to 48 hrs depending on the farm size. Most of the farmers use groundwater, as canal
water is insufficient. The skimming wells of the area are 0 to 20 years old. The farmers reported
a priming time of 0 to 45 minutes and diesel consumption of 1 to 4 liters/hr depending on the
engine horsepower. The power used in the area ranges from 12 to 63 HP (Table 6). Use of high
HP engines, more than the optimal, increases the installation and operational costs of the
tubewell. Asad et al., (2003) reported low energy efficiency, as one of the major issues of
groundwater pumping in Pakistan. Therefore, a large scope exists to improve the efficiency of
these tubewells by optimizing their designs.
18
Table 6: Salient features of the project area as per PRA
Feature Minimum Maximum
Farm size (ha) 0.4 30
Canal water availability per week (hrs) 0.3 48
Age of skimming well (year) 0 20
Priming time (min) 0 45
Diesel consumption (liter/hr) 1 4
Horsepower used (HP) 12 63
The length and height of delivery pipe also affect the performance of centrifugal pump. The
delivery pipes of the tubewells varied from 0.61 to 6 m length whereas their diameter varied
from 7 to 17.78 cm. The height of delivery pipes above pumps was 0.30 to 2.74 m. Six percent
farmers reported a decline of water-table in their area, whereas 94% did not report such evidence
(Table 7). Only 6% farmers reported that they had got their tubewell water analyzed for
irrigation whereas 94% did not ever have such analysis. Taste is the main criteria for determining
the fitness of pumped water in the area. Based upon this, 54% farmers were satisfied with their
water quality whereas the other complained of the poor water quality.
Table 7: Farmer’s views about water-table and quality

Category Yes (%age) No (%age)
Decline of water-table 6 94
Analysis of water quality 6 94
Satisfaction from water quality 54 46
4.1.2 Skimming wells and quality of pumped water

Since shallow freshwater layers exist in the project area underlain by saline water therefore
installation of multi-strainer skimming wells are preferred over single-strainer deep well to pump
good quality water. A high concentration of skimming wells was found along the northern
branch of the lower Jhelum canal (Fig. 11). It may be due to availability of shallow freshwater
layer being recharged from the canal. Mostly centrifugal pumps are used with skimming wells
which have limited suction lift. These wells therefore, are normally located where water-table is
19
within 6 m depth. In addition to those located along the lower Jhelum canal (northern branch), a
number of wells were found at scattered places of the project area. The number of skimming
wells located along the river banks is low as mostly deep wells were installed. The skimming
wells are particularly suitable for those aquifers where a thin shallow layer of good quality
groundwater overlays saline water.
32.50
River Jhelum Bhalwal

32.40
32.30
Shahpur )
ch
an
32.20 n
Br
h)
Latitude (Degree)
er an
c
o r th Br
l(
N
th er n
na (S ou
32.10 Ca na
l
u m Ca Kot Momin
hl m
Je
Je hlu
er r
Lo
w we
Lo
32.00 Sargodha
Fig.3120:
.90Location of skimming
Sahiw al wells based on PRA
31.80 Silanwali
River Chenab
31.70
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 11: Location of sklimming wells surveyed
The quality of water pumped by the skimming wells bear a lot of spatial variability (Fig. 12).
The pumped water quality was relatively good (< 1.0 dS/m) near the Jhelum river and along the
Lower Jhelum Canal. The pumped water quality is particularly poor towards the tail of the
southern branch of the Lower Jhelum canal and at the centre of the doab. This may be due to
more pumping than recharge in this area. Table 3 shows that only 26% skimming wells were
pumping relatively good quality water (1.0 dS/m), 37% marginal quality water (1.0-2.0 dS/m)
and 36% very low quality water (EC > 2.0 dS/m). A large number of skimming wells (36%),
with an EC more than 2.0 dS/m, reflect some problems either in the design of the wells or with
20
the operational strategies. In Punjab, the groundwater quality varies from 0.3-4.6 dS/m (Asad et
al., 2003).
Table 8: Quality of the pumped water by the surveyed skimming wells

EC Range (dS/m) < 0.5 0.5-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 > 2.0
No. of skimming wells 2 66 60 33 90
32.50
Bhalwal
32.40
32.30
Shahpur
) h)
ch an
c
32.20 Br
an Br
rn
Latitude (Degree)
n e
er ut h
o r th l (S o
N na
l( Ca
32.10 Ca
na l um Kot Momin
eh
m rJ
hl
u we
Je Lo
er
w
Lo
32.00 Sargodha
Sahiwal
31.90
31.80 Silanwali
31.70
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 12: Groundwater quality (dS/m) pumped by skimming wells
Figure 13 shows that installation of skimming wells was quite low upto 1998, started to
gradually increased since 1998 and drastically increased during the drought period of 2000-2002.
However, in the post-drought period, installtion of skimming wells once again slowed down.
Similar multi-strainers skimming wells were installed in Left Bank Outfall Drain (LBOD) areas
where the water table lies with in 1.5 to 3 m. However, most of the area has usable groundwater
within a depth of 15-30 m. In Gaga area of Kotri, 3-4 strainers shallow tubewells, 15-30 m apart,
were insalled and the water was pumped by centrifugal pumps. The tubewells discharge was
21
more than 28 lps and those remained operational for 10 years. Later on these tubewells were
closed due to financial problems (Nazir, 1993).
60
No. of skimming wells
50
40
30
20
10
0
84
88
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
00
01
02
03
04
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
19
20
20
20
20
20
Year
Fig. 13: Installation of skimming wells with time in the project area
4.1.3 Skimming well design

There are no set design criteria for the installtion of skimming wells. The number and size of the
strainers absolutely depend on the advice of drillers and wishes of the farmers. As both do not
have any idea about optimum number of strainers, therefore, it is normally believed that more
number of strainers can produce more discharge. However, more number of strainers increases
the frictional losses, the horsepower requirements and consequently the operational cost of the
skimming wells. In addition the repair and maintenance cost also increases. Similarly, the
frictional losses are more for strainers of smaller diameters particularly for those less than 7.5
cm. The horsepower required for different combinations of number and size of strainers by the
diesel operated wells is given in Table 9. For a discharge of 28 lps, the horespower requirement
increases from 9 to 12 HP as the number of strainers are increased from 2 to 6 with a
simultaneous reduction of diameters from 10 to 5 cm. However, decreasing the size of the
strainers from 10 cm to 5 cm, the cost also decreases from Rs: 32,000 to 25,000, respectively.
Therefore, wells with a low initial cost would have more operational cost and vice versa.
Therefore, 3-strainers wells of 7.5 cm diameter or 4 strainers of 5 cm diameter with 10 HP prime
22
mover are recommended to get a discharge of about 28 lps. The PRA however, reveals that
farmers mostly prefer 6-strainer wells followed by 4, 8 and 12, respectively (Fig. 14). A few
farmers have installed 20-strainers wells, even one farmer of the area has installed 26 strainers of
5 cm diameter (Fig. 15). It has been found that farmers usually prefer even number of strainers
because of their ease in adjustment in a T-joint, with which the pipes are connected (Fig. 16).
Farmers also desire to install more strainers with the intention that if any of these become
inoperational due to one or the other reasons, they can close that and operate the well with the
remaning strainers without losing dicharge significantly.
60
50
No. of skimming well
40
30
20
10
0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 20
No. of strainers
Fig. 14: Farmers trend in the selection of no. of strainers
23
Fig. 15: A skimming well with 26 strainers
Fig. 16: A T used to join the well points with the pump
Figure 17 shows that commonly 7.5 cm strainer is used by the farmers. The reasons for this
selection are, local availability of materails, availability of installation equipment and relative
ease in installation.
24
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
5.0 7.5 10.0 12.5 15.0 20.0
Size of strainers (cm)
Fig. 17: Farmers’ trend in the selection of the size of strainers
Figures 18 and 19 show the cost of skimming wells as a function of number and size of strainers.
The cost of the skimming well increases with increase in number of strainers and size of strainer.
However, increased number of strainers does not increase discharge, as long as the available
horsepower remains the same, rather it increases the frictional losses. Therefore, with increased
number of strainers, the priming issue which is prevalent in the area becomes more crucial.
44
Cost (Thousand Rs)
42
40
38
36
34
32
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 20
No of Strainers
Fig. 18: Cost of skimming wells as function of number of strainers
25
45
43
41
Cost (Thousand Rs)
39
37
35
33
31
29
27
25
3.8 5 7.5 10 12.5 15
Size (cm)
Fig. 19: Cost of skimming wells as function of size of strainers
The distance of the strainers from the pump is also arbitrary and depend on the drillers and
farmers’ choice. The farmer’s trend towards selection of radial spacing of strainers from the
pump is shown in Fig. 20. The distance of each strainer from the pump is normally kept the
same. However, in some cases, the distance of strainers from the pump was different depending
upon location of installation. The farmers normally choose more distance from pump with the
concept that it would give more discharge for a longer time. The short radial spacing of strainers
intercepts supplies of surrounding strainers thereby reducing the overall discharge.
70
60
No of skimming wells
50
40
30
20
10
0
<1.5 1.5 1.8 2.1 2.4 2.7 3.0 3.7 4.6 6.1
Radial spacing of strainers from pump (m)
Fig. 20: No. of skimming wells with different distance of strainers from pump
26
Table 9: Brake horsepower required for 9 m lift for different combination of strainers
Q (lps) N x S* BHP N x S* BHP N x S* BHP N x S* BHP
19 2 x 7.5 6.24 - - - - - -
25 2 x 10 8.08 3 x 7.5 8.70 4x5 9.08 - -
28 2 x 10 9.09 3 x 7.5 9.79 4x5 10.21 6x5 11.95
32 2 x 10 10.11 3 x 7.5 10.88 4x5 11.35 6x5 13.27
*No of strainers x size of strainers (cm).
Farmers normally prefer strainers of greater lengths for deep penetration into the aquifer (Fig.
21) with the intention to get more discharge as it is believed that deep strainers would yield more
discharge and it would be available for a longer period of time. Conceptually, it is true upto some
extent, but an increase in strainers length may not increase the discharge essentially but increases
the installation cost of the well. Selection of casing (blind pipe) is normally derived from the
water-table depth. Greater the water-table depth, greater would be the length of the casing. As
the prevailing water table in the area ranges from 2 to 10 m, a blind pipe of 6 m length is
commonly used in the area (Fig. 22).
100
80
60
40
20
0
<5 5 6 8 9 11 12 14 15 18 21
Depth of strainers (m)
Fig. 21: Skimming wells with different depth of strainers
27
No. of skimming wells 120
100
80
60
40
20
0
3 5 6 8 9 11 >11
Depth of blind pipe (m)
Fig. 22: Skimming wells with different depth of blind pipes
The total depth of skimming wells should depend on the water-table depth, number of strainers,
size of strainers, discharge requirements and more importantly on the depth to saline-freshwater
interface. The depth of the well is very important since it affects the quality of the pumped water
and is directly related to the cost of the well. It has been found during the survey that the farmers
normally increase depth of the wells with an intention to get more discharge without considering
the freshwater lense, due to which the quality of the pumped water deteriorates with time. That is
why, it is a common complaint that the water quality of wells was good initially but deteriorated
with time. Most farmers of the area have skimming wells penetrating upto 18 m depth (Fig. 23).
An increase in depth of well makes pumping uneconomical and increases the installation cost.
28
No. of skimming well 100
80
60
40
20
0
>11 11 12 14 15 17 18 20 21 24 27
Total depth (m)
Fig. 23: Skimming wells as a function of total depth
The farmers’ trend in the selection of the pump is shown in Fig. 24. Commonly, 15.2 cm x 12.7
cm size pumps are used. These are locally made, medium size pumps and are easily available in
the market. These can give discharge of 28 to 42 lps depending upon the size, number and depth
of strainers, water-table depth and prime mover. Nylon type strainers are commonly used (98%)
in the area (Fig. 25). The reason for the use of nylon strainers is its durability and availability.
12.7 cm x 10.2 cm 15.2 cm x 12.7 cm 17.8 cm x 15.2 cm
4% 12%
84%
Fig. 24: Size of the pumps used with skimming wells
29
Nylon Jute
2%
98%
Fig. 25: Type of envelop material used with skimming wells
4.1.4 Water-table depth in the project area

The water-table depth is an important factor for the design, installation and operation of a
tubewell. Figure 26 shows that the depth to water table varies from 2-10 m in the project area.
The water table is shallow in the upper reaches of Doab, near rivers and along the lower Jhelum
canal and is as deep as 10 m towards the tail reach of the Doab due to lack of irrigation network
and less recharge available. Due to high abstraction and lower recharge in the lower part of the
Doab, the farmers face three prone problems: (i) there is more stress on groundwater resulting in
increased water-table depth (more tubewell installation and operational costs). (ii) The most
commonly used centrifugal pumps become uneconomical to install due to increased water-table
depth, as the farmers have to install pump sets in sumps or replace them with submersible
pumps, imposing additional burden on farmers. (iii) The water-table depression mobilizes fossil
salts from the adjoining area and also from the bottom consequently deteriorating the
groundwater quality. (iv) Increased soil salinization due to the use of relatively poor quality
groundwater threatening the sustainability of irrigated agriculture. The pumped groundwater
recharges shallow aquifer from where it is reused. This recycling could increase the soil salinity
levels. Hillel (1980) reported that poor groundwater management practices in countries such as
USA and Australia have resulted in total degradation of soil and groundwater conditions, making
them useless for farming. The groundwater decline associated with saline water irrigation
30
deteriorated soil considerably over the last decade in Kuwait (Al-Senafy and Abraham, 2004).
The high water table at the upstream areas is due to maximum losses of water that occur at the
upstream of a canal command. Proper lining and maintenance of the irrigation system would
help reduce the seepage losses at the upstream and convey the same to the tail reaches resulting
in equitable distribution of water. Moreover, there is need to readjust the water allowance i.e.
reduce it at the upstream and increase at the downstream. This would help reduce the pressure on
groundwater and recharge the aquifer at the downstream areas.
32.50
32.40
Jhelum River Bhalwal
32.30
Shahpur
) )
ch ch
an an
Br Br
32.20 er
n
the
rn
Latitude(Degree)
o rt h (S
ou
N al
l( an
na C
Ca lum
32.10 u m r Je h
hl we
Je Lo Kot Momin
er
w
Lo
Sargodha
32.00
31.90 Sahiwal
31.80 Silanwali
Chenab River
31.70
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 26. Water-table position in the area
4.2. Hydro-Salinity Based on Resistivity Survey

Groundwater quality in the area shows a lot of spatial variability. Figure 27 shows that
groundwater quality at 10 m depth is relatively good near the river banks and towards the center
of the Doab. There are certain freshwater pockets in the area (about 0.6 to 1.20 dS/m) at some
scattered places. Even in the middle of the Doab, a few freshwater pockets (EC < 1.5 dS/m)
exist. These have been developed due to extensive irrigation activities from the northern branch
of the Lower Jhelum Canal. At 20 m depth, the groundwater quality is generally good (1-2 dS/m)
except at the center of the Doab and towards downstream of the Doab such as Sillanwali areas
where it is about 4.0 dS/m (Fig. 28). It might be due to skimming wells as generally the multi-
strainer skimming wells are installed at 15-20 m depth (Ashraf and Ashfaq, 2006) in the area.
31
Due to pumping, the saline water is pumped out and the aquifer is recharged from the adjoining
areas with relatively fresh water i.e. from the rivers and irrigation network. A few freshwater
pockets (EC < 1.5 dS/m) at 30 m depth of the aquifer exist at some scattered places (Fig. 29).
Highly saline water pockets have not only concentrated in the middle of the Doab but have also
extended to middle reaches of the river Jhelum. The freshwater pockets have been found mostly
along the river Chenab but very few along the river Jhelum and at some scattered places of the
study area. The freshwater areas at 30 m depth are smaller in comparison to those existed at 10
and 20 m depths, indicating that effect of recharge is restricted to shallower depths. Qureshi et
al., 2003 reported that in Punjab, the groundwater quality varies from 0.3 to 4.6 dS/m whereas in
Sindh it varies from 0.5 to 7.1 dS/m. the areas adjacent to Chenab river is relatively better
(between 1.0-2.0 dS/m) and bad quality skewed towards center of Doab and Jhelum river most
probably due to influence of salt range which touches the right side of Jhelum river.
Nevertheless, at 40 m depth, water quality is the worst in whole of the project area with a few
freshwater pockets along lower reach of the river Jhelum and upper reach of the river Chenab.
32.50
32.40
32.30
Shahpur
)
ch
an
Br
32.20 er
n ch
)
r an
Latitude (Degree)
o rt h B
l (N th ern
na ou
Ca l (S
32.10 m na
lu Ca
J eh lum
w
er Sargodha r Jeh Kot Momin
Lo we
Lo
32.00
Sahiwal
31.90
31.80 Silanwali
Chenab River
31.70
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 27: Hydro-salinity (dS/m) at 10 m depth
32
32.50
Bhalwal
32.40
Jhelum River
32.30
Shahpur
c h)
an
Br
32.20 er
n
ch
)
rth ran
Latitude (Degree)
o B
(N ern
n al th
Ca ou
m l (S
32.10 hl
u na
Je Ca
er lu m Kot Momin
w eh
Lo Sargodha rJ
we
Lo
32.00
Sahiwal
31.90
Silanwali
31.80 Chenab River
31.70
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 28: Hydro- salinity (dS/m) at 20 m depth
32.50
32.40
32.30
Shahpur
)
ch
an
32.20 Kot Momin Br
ern
Latitude (Degree)
) uth
ch So
an l(
Br na
n Ca
er lum
32.10 No
rth
rJ
eh
l( we
Ca
na Sargodha Lo
m
lu
eh
rJ
32.00 w
e
Lo
Sahiwal
31.90
Chenab River
31.80 Silanwali
31.70
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 29: Hydro- salinity (dS/m) at 30 m depth
33
32.50
32.40 Bhalwal
Jhelum River
32.30
Shahpur
c h)
an
32.20 h) Br
nc er n
Kot Momin
Latitude (Degree)
Sargodha B ra
So
uth
n l(
er na
th Ca
or m
(N lu
32.10 na
l
r Je
h
Ca we
Lo
um
hl
Je
er
w
32.00 Lo
Sahiwal
31.90
Silanwali Chenab River

31.80
31.70
31.60
72.20 72.30 72.40 72.50 72.60 72.70 72.80 72.90 73.00 73.10 73.20 73.30
Longitude (Degree)
Fig. 30: Hydro-salinity (dS/m) at 40 m depth
Qureshi et al., 2003) reported that during Kharif season (April-September), the utilization factor
(no. of hours a tubewell operated divided by the total no. of hours in a year) is almost double
than Rabi season (October-March) due to high evaporative demand and growing of high water
requirement crops such as rice. In the upper Punjab where annual rainfall is high (over 500 mm),
the groundwater utilization factor is about half than that in the lower Punjab where rainfall is less
(100-150 mm). In high rainfall areas, groundwater is fit whereas in the lower Punjab, the
groundwater quality is marginal to unfit due to more pumpage and low rainfall. Similar situation
exists in the Chaj Doab. The water table has been dropped by 3 m over the period 1998-2001
(Van Steenbergen and Gohar, 2005). Any decline in fresh groundwater areas accelerates the salt-
water intrusion from the adjoining saline areas and also from the bottom. The recharge and
abstraction of groundwater has mixed up the fresh and saline water. Therefore, the boundaries
between fresh and saline water are not sharp, rather salinity generally increases with depth and
distance from the recharging source. The fresh and saline water therefore, cannot be defined as
separated and distinct bodies in term of their location (Rehman et al., 1997). Saeed et al., (2003)
assumed 1.5 dS/m as the fresh-saline water interface (iso-concentration line). However,
34
freshwater upto 1.5 dS/m is available only in very thin layers and water with an EC of 1.5-3.0
dS/m is considered marginally fit (Imtiaz et al., 2007). Therefore, if we assume 3.0 dS/m as the
interface between the saline and freshwater, then the interface is around 30 m in the center of the
Doab and along the Jhelum River banks whereas it is about 40 m near the Chenab river banks.
Therefore, tubewells may be installed between 10 and 20 m depth at 50 to 60% penetration ratios
(the ratio between the depth of well and the thickness of freshwater layer). However, near the
Chenab river bed, tubewells may be installed at relatively greater depth (≥ 40 m).
The quality of water in the area varies from place to place, both vertically and horizontally, from
highly fresh to extremely saline, depending on the origin, the sources of recharge and the pattern
of groundwater movement in the aquifer. Babiker et al., (2007) observed two gradients of water
quality in Nasuno basin, Tochigi, Japan: (i) a decrease in groundwater quality from the northwest
to northeast following the general groundwater flow direction and (ii) a decrease in groundwater
quality from the centre line of the basin towards the northeast (Naka River) and southwest
(Houki River) borders of the basin. They reported that the groundwater quality was more
variable in the upper part as compared to the middle part of the basin and attributed this
variability to the seasonality of the precipitation in the first case and precipitation as well as
irrigation in the second case. Generally, it is stated that water close to the rivers beds is fresh and
saline at the center of the Doab (Qureshi et al., 2003; Khan et al., 2003). However, there is no
evidence or systematic study to support this statement. The present study has provided such
information. In the Chaj Doab, the freshwater thickness is not uniform, there is no specific trend
and it varies over space and time depending upon the geo hydrological conditions specific to the
area, pumping technologies, pattern of abstraction and recharge etc. Even at the centre of the
Doab, freshwater pockets exist and it may be highly saline near rivers depending on the
geological formations. The pumping and recharge could change the hydro-salinity behaviour in
the Doab. Therefore, for proper design and installation of a tube well, site specific information of
hydro-salinity is required. Hydro-salinity behaviour is also important for planning and
management of groundwater resources. The study also showed that operational strategies are
very important to get the freshwater on sustainable basis. Otherwise there are chances of water
quality deterioration over time with indiscriminate pumping due to movement of salts from the
adjoining relatively saline water pockets. Ashraf et al., (2001) reported that over
35
pumping/continuous pumping disturb the fresh-saline water interface and deteriorates the water
quality with time.
4.3 Spatial and Temporal Hydro-Salinity Based on Water Sampling

Hydro-salinity depends on the aquifer characteristics, groundwater recharge and abstraction of
the area. Monitoring of hydro-salinity is very important for sustainable management of
groundwater. Figures 31-32 show the hydro-salinity measured through observation wells
installed upto 45 m depth. At these sites it was not possible to install observation wells deeper
than 45 m due to existence of multi-point wells (skimming wells). The hydro-salinity mostly
decreases with depth (Fig. 31). This might be due to pumping of salts from the deeper depths to
the surface, which again leaches down, increasing the salinity level at shallow depths. However,
Fig. 32 shows that the hydro-salinity is high at 5 m depth and decreases upto 15 m depth. It
increases from 15 to 20 m depth and decreases from 20 to 35 m depth. Below 35 m depth, it
again increases. As skimming wells are shallow and are generally installed at 15-20 m depth in
the area (Ashraf and Ashfaq, 2006)., therefore, the water quality in the pumping zone is
relatively good, most probably due to pumping of salts out of the zone and replenishment with
the relatively fresh water. Ashraf et al. (2001), working in the same area, reported two gradients
of salinity below the soil surface: (i) salinity increases from shallow depth (3 m) towards the soil
surface. They attributed high salinity at shallow depth to the application of poor quality water
and leaching of salts to the shallow depth. (ii) The salt concentration increases from shallow
depth towards the deeper depths. In Kuwait, 35% of the pumped water lost due to
evapotranspiration and the rest infiltrated back to the aquifer through vadose zone resulting in an
increased in salinity level in the groundwater upto 14 dS/m (Al-Senafy and Abraham, 2004).
However, the recharge is not equally distributed over the area. Its pattern varies from year to year
and from season to season depending on the irrigation method and the amount of water applied.
Figure 33 also shows two gradients. The salinity first decreases upto 10 m depth, increases upto
20 m depth and below 30 m depth, it slightly increases with depth.
36
Apr-05 Jul-05 Aug-06 Jan-07 May-07
0
5
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35
40
45
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6
EC (dS/m)
Fig. 31. Hydro-salinity profile at Site 1
Apr-05 Jul-05 Jan-06 Aug-06 Jan-07 7-May
0
5
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50
EC (dS/m)
37
Mar-05 Jul-05 Dec-05 Apr-06 Jul-06 Jan-07 7-May
0
5
10
15
Depth (m)
20
25
30
35
40
45
0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
EC (dS/m)
Figures 34-36 show groundwater quality measured through observation wells installed upto 75 m
depth. In Fig. 34, the hydro-salinity decreases from 5 to 10 m depth, increases upto 20 m depth.
Between 30 and 50 m depth, the hydro-salinity is almost constant and then increases towards
deeper depths. The hydro-salinity fluctuates over time particularly at 20 m depth i.e. the pumping
zone. Figure 35 shows more than two gradients. The salinity first decreases upto 20 m depth,
increases between 30 and 40 m depth and again decreases between 40 and 70 m depths. The
trend of Fig. 36 is similar to that of Fig. 35 except at shallow depths of 10-20 m where it is
opposite to each other.
38
Apr-05 Sep-05 Feb-06 Aug-06 Dec-06 7-May
0
10
20
30
Depth (m)
40
50
60
70
80
0.50 0.70 0.90 1.10 1.30 1.50 1.70 1.90
EC (d S/m)
Fig. 34: Hydro-salinity profile at Nabishah site
Apr-05 Aug-06 Dec-06 Mar-06 Sep-06 May-07
0
10
20
30
Depth (m)
40
50
60
70
80
0.5 0.7 0.9 1.1 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9
EC (d S/m)
Fig. 35: Hydro-salinity profile at Sahiwal site
39
Aug-06 Oct-06 Nov-06 May-07
0
10
20
30
Depth (m)
40
50
60
70
80
0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5
EC (d S/m)
Fig. 36: Hydro-salinity profile at Shahpur site
The above discussion shows that there is no specific trend in hydro-salinity and there is high
spatial and temporal variation of the groundwater. Moreover, the hydro-salinity is not static
rather is dynamic fluctuating with time. It depends on a number of factors such as aquifer
heterogeneity, recharging source, frequency and intensity of rainfall, intensity of wells, pumping
technology, depth of pumping, pumping hours, cropping pattern etc. Therefore, site specific
investigation is necessary for proper design of the tubewell. Moreover, regular monitoring of
groundwater quality is also very important. Farmers generally complaint the deterioration of
water quality with time (Ashraf et al., 2001, Saeed et al., 2002a). The temporal variation in
groundwater quality illustrates the reason for deterioration in pumped water quality. The “fossil”
salts accumulated in the soil profile may be mobilized and transported towards the pumping zone
(Bos and Wolters, 1994). Kemper et al., (1976) conducted field experiments in the same area and
found that continuous pumping results in a larger and larger fraction of pumped water coming
from the displacement of freshwater by the underlying saline water. Moreover, the
indiscriminate/continuous pumping also results in upward movement of saline water (Reilly and
Goodman, 1987; Hafiz et al., 1986) leading to deterioration of pumped water quality. Once the
quality of the aquifer is deteriorated, it would take long time to recover. Ashraf et al. (2001)
monitored two multi-strainers skimming wells for 97 and 70 days with pumping schedule of 5-6
40
hours per day and found that intermittent pumping helps control the water table and reduces the
salinity in the pumped water. Therefore, the operational strategies should be devised based on the
native hydro-salinity behaviour to pump relatively freshwater.
4.4. Effect of Recharge on Hydro-Salinity

In the Indus basin, out of 43 canal commands, the water table is declining in 26 canal commands
due to rapid increase in groundwater abstraction (Bhutta et al., 2000). Raising groundwater level
is an effective technique to combat salt-water intrusion (Pareek et al., 2006). van Steenberger and
Gohar (2005) suggested to invest more on groundwater recharge than groundwater exploitation.
The recharge occurs mostly by percolation losses from fields and seepage losses from irrigation
network. Percolation losses are influenced by weather, soil properties, land use, crops grown and
groundwater use. Seepage losses depend on flow conditions in the water distribution system. In
large irrigation project areas, all the factors influencing the recharge of the groundwater vary
spatially (Chowdary et al., 2003). The priority action is to develop appropriate and cost effective
water harvesting packages. Few experiments have been conducted recently in India where
surplus river flows in the monsoon period were diverted to unlined irrigation channels in order to
recharge the shallow aquifer (Sing et al., 1997; Singh et al., 2002; Ambast et al., 2006). During
the dry season, the stored water was pumped and drawdown of shallow aquifer made it possible
to maximize the storage potential for the next monsoon.
In Pakistan, fixed warabandi is practiced. The farmers have to use their share of water supply
even when there is rainfall or lands are fallow after harvesting. The farmers therefore, apply their
share of water to the fields even if it is not needed. A significant part of the water is lost in
evaporation and transpiration by weeds. This excessive canal water and rainwater nevertheless,
could be used to recharge the groundwater. It has several advantages: (i) the groundwater is a
flexible source of water and can be used at any time in any quantity, (ii) the cost of recharge may
be less than equivalent surface schemes, (iii) the water is available at the farm therefore
eliminates the need for surface distribution system, (iv) water stored at the surface is subject to
evaporation and contamination, which is minimized by underground storage, (v) less area is
required to store the given volume of water (vi) the water is within the easy reach for extraction
(vii) pumping lift is small which reduces the operational and installation cost of tubewell and
(viii) improves the quality of groundwater (Keller et al., 2000). There is good example of
41
groundwater recharge in Oosambadi Peria Eri in Tamil Nadu India which had a small reservoir
with 80-hectare command area, 53 farmer beneficiaries, and 60 dugwells. Prior to 1986, only one
crop was grown with conjunctive use of surface and groundwater. Even this crop could not be
successfully irrigated without supplementing well water as the reservoir could provide irrigation
water for about 70 days. In 1986, only four farmers in the command area did not own wells.
However, the Water Users Association decided that these four farmers would be provided with
water at the common cost and the reservoir water would exclusively be used for recharging the
aquifer. In 1986, the sluices of the reservoir were permanently closed. Since then the farmers are
growing two crops, paddy and another crop (Keller et al., 2000).
There is high potential for recharging the aquifer due to availability of surplus water (rainwater
and canal water during low demand period) and high transmisivity of the Indus basin aquifer.
More than 22 BCM of rainwater is available in the country, most of which is lost as surface
runoff. Khan et al., (2003) reported that the storage capacity of Rechna Doab (the area between
the rivers Ravi and Chenab), upto 15 m depth, is 10 times greater than the storage capacity of
Terbela dam (the world largest earth fill dam with storage capacity of 11.7 BCM). Ambast et al.,
(2006) found groundwater recharge technically feasible and economically viable through vertical
shafts. In such cases recharge wells improve water quality and availability more quickly than
gradual percolation from storage tanks or check dams.
To study the prospects of local groundwater recharge, rainwater was diverted through perforated
pipes at Mr. Tariq Farm where a six strainers skimming well of 7.6 cm diameter was installed
upto 18 m depth (9 m screen and 9 m blind pipe). Six piezometers and an observation well have
already been installed at this site (Saeed et al., 2003). Three 7.6 cm diameter PVC pipes were
installed close to the strainers upto 12 m depth (Figs 37 and 38). At the bottom, 6 m of these
pipes were made perforated. Sand-gravel filter was used around the pipes to avoid the sediment
entry into the well. In this way rainwater was diverted to the aquifer near to the point of
pumping.
42
7.60 m 1.45 m 1.63 m 1.80 m 2.25 m P-2 P-5 P-1
P-6 P-5 P-4 P-3 P-2 P-1 3.1

2 m 3.05 m 2.15 m 3.05 m
Watercourse
Observation
well 0.66 m Tank
LEGEND 3.05 m 2.15 m 3.05 m
Well point
P-3 P-4
3.35 m
Piezometer P-6
1.67 m
3.65 m
Injection well
Fig. 37: Schematic of the observation well, piezometers and the injection wells
6.5 m
7.6 cm
Sand-gravel filter
Water table
7.6 cm dia pvc pipe
12.0 m
6.0 m
Perforated
Fig. 38. Schematic of the recharge well
43
Figure 39 shows three different gradients at this site. The salinity first increases upto 20 m depth,
decreases upto 45 m depth and again increases towards deeper depths. However, the quality of
the water was improved after the monsoon season (July-August) at all depths and this
improvement was quite persistent. The improvement was more pronounced at shallow depths
(20-40 m). The salinity of the pumped water was 3.15 dS/m in January 2005 and decreased to 2.8
dS/m in March 2006 indicating prospects of improving local groundwater quality with rainwater.
The cost of installation of one injection well is about Rs. 1,000 ($304). This method avoids the
contamination of water during percolation (Ambast, 2006). It is very cost effective and very
simple to install. Due to high salinity in the pumped water, the farmers used it occasionally when
there was extreme shortage of canal water. The pumped groundwater is a mixture of several
water-bearing zones and represents the average water quality imposed by the local geological
conditions, discharge and hydraulic characteristics (Khan et al., 2003). The abandoned tubewells
and drains, topographic depression, non perennial canals could be used to recharge the aquifer
with rainwater. During warabandi time (fixed rotation), when no irrigation is required to irrigate
the crops, the canal water could also be used to recharge the aquifer to make it safe for use at the
time of need. It would also improve the groundwater quality. Nevertheless, the prospects of
recharging the aquifer with canal water and particularly with rainwater, in the lower part of the
Doab, where groundwater is depleting, need to be studied in more detail covering a relatively
larger area and identifying contribution from various sources.
44
Nov-05 Mar-06 Aug-06 Dec-06 Mar-07 Jun-07
0
10
20
30
Depth (m)
40
50
60
70
80
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
EC (d S/m)
Fig. 39: Hydro-salinity profile at Tariq Farm
4.5 Pumping Tests

The maximum radial drawdown effect, during pumping tests, extended upto 145, 187 and 150 m
at sites 1, 2 and 3, respectively. It continues to extend further if the pumping is continued. The
maximum drawdown occurred at sites 1, 2 and 3 were 4.68, 3.98 and 2.86 m, respectively which
increased with an increase in the pumping time, indicating that steady state conditions could not
be achieved even after 12 hrs of pumping. The maximum drawdown took place within a radius
of 5-10 m only, which reduced down to 30-50 cm at the edges of the cone of depression. About
80% of the drawdown took place within first 40 minutes of pumping. Afterwards, there was
small variation in drawdown while the radius of influence kept on increasing gradually.
Therefore, groundwater may be in a partial steady-state condition particularly near the strainers.
The trend of groundwater recovery to its normal level after closure of pumping was similar to
that of drawdown, as 80% of the recovery at the nearest piezometers, took place within the initial
25 minutes. The drawdown was greater at Site 1 than Sites 2 and 3 whereas radial influence was
at Site 2. The drawdown and radial influence was relatively less at Site 3 as compared to Sites 1
and 2. The behaviour of drawdown depends on number of factors such as discharge, recharge,
45
and transmissibility of the aquifer, water-table depth, size and length of the strainers, distance of
the strainers from each other and more importantly the intensity of wells in the area. The time of
pumpage also plays an important role in drawdown since during high water demand period i.e.
during Rabi season (October to March), rainfall is less, canals are closed for annual maintenance
(in December) and a number of tubewells may be pumping water at the same time in the same
area. This would lead to a much different cone of depression for the same well than that, if
operated during high rainfall period, when the canals are operating as well.
Kemper et al. (1976) concluded that when partial steady-state conditions are achieved during 6
hours pumping, a part of pumped water comes from the saline-fresh water aquifer (vertical) and
a part from lateral recharge due to hydraulic gradient. However, Ashraf et al., (2001) concluded
that if the water is pumped intermittently for few hours a day, the aquifer will be recharged only
from the adjoining area due to hydraulic gradient that developed near the well and the chances of
withdrawal of water from the underlying saline zone of the aquifer will be minimal. For 12-hrs
pumping; the radial influence of drawdown extended to a maximum of 187 m at Site 2.
In the Indus basin, the normal radius of influence is from 150-300 m for single strainer well
(Sharma, 1987). The study reveals that the radius of influence for multi-strainer skimming wells
is significantly less than that for single strainer well. This is due to the fact that in single strainer
well, the water is pumped from one point whereas in multi-strainers pumps, the water is pumped
from several points. It consequently reduces the drawdown and its radius of influence. Therefore,
skimming wells can be installed at relatively less distance from each other. Saeed et al., (2003)
also showed that specific drawdown was higher for single strainer and decreased with an
increase in the number of strainers and hence reduces the chances of upconing. A minimum
radial spacing of 350 m (3.5 ha) is therefore, recommended for skimming wells.
46
Table 10: Comparison of max drawdown and radial influence
Site Pumping Time Max Drawdown (m) Radial Influence (m)
4-hrs 4.45 140
6-hrs 3.68 135
1
8-hrs 4.33 142
12-hrs 4.68 145
4-hrs 3.50 149
6-hrs 3.38 158
2
8-hrs 3.62 167
12-hrs 3.98 187
4-hrs 2.31 126
6-hrs 2.86 133
3
8-hrs 2.11 140
12-hrs 2.44 150
The variation in pumped water quality during pumping tests (4 to 12 hrs/day) was only 3-9%
(Tables 11, 12). The water quality is good in the area due to recharge by an extensive irrigation
network. Therefore, 4 to 12 hrs pumping schedule may be adopted depending on the water
requirements.
Table 11: Pumped water quality (dS/m) at the sites (4 and 6 hrs pumping)
Site 4 hrs pumping 6 hrs pumping
No. 1st day after 3rd day before 1st day after pumping 3rd day before
pumping closing closing
1 0.69 0.68 0.70 0.69
2 1.29 1.41 1.44 1.49
3 1.19 1.18 1.18 1.18
47
Table 12: Pumped water quality (dS/m) at the sites (8 and 12 hrs pumping)
Site 8 hrs pumping 12 hrs pumping
No. 1st day after 3rd day before 1st day after 3rd day before closing
pumping closing pumping
1 0.65 0.64 0.65 0.63
2 1.29 1.33 1.27 1.32
3 1.14 1.18 1.15 1.17
4.6 Soil Salinity Profile

The irrigation with skimmed water (relatively good quality water) may also lead to soil salinity.
For example, if 1000 mm of pumped water having an EC of 1.0 dS/m is applied for two crop
seasons in a year, then the salts added to land will be around 640 kg/ha. These salts would either
remain in the soil profile to increase its salinity or leach down. The movement of salts is a
dynamic phenomenon which depend on number of factors such as soil type, cropping pattern,
cultural practices, quantity and quality of irrigation water, frequency and intensity of rainfall,
climatic conditions etc. Figures 40 to 41 show that soil salinity at all depths increased during the
study period particularly at 50 cm depth. However, at Site 3, the soil salinity decreased at the
shallower depths and increased at 50 cm depth. This might be due to leaching of salts from the
shallow depths and accumulation at deeper depths. Normally, the ploughings are done at
shallower depths which help in leaching of salts and hard pans are developed below the
ploughing zones.
48
Bench Mark Salinity Final Year Salinity
0
10
20
Depth (cm)
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
EC (dS/m)
Fig 40. Soil salinity profile at Site 1

0
10
20
Depth (cm)
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
EC (dS/m)
49
0
10
Depth (cm) 20
30
40
50
60
70
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
EC (dS/m)
4.7 Rainfall Pattern

The spatial and temporal variability in rainfall affects the recharge to the groundwater and hence
the hydro-salinity. Figure 43 shows spatial and temporal variability of rainfall in the area. In
June-July, 2005 the rainfall was almost the same at all the three sites. However, during February-
March 2005 and August-September, 2005 the variation in rainfall was high. There was no
rainfall from October to December 2005, little rainfall from September to November 2006 and
quite a good (upto 50 mm) during December 2006. Maximum rainfall occurred during July and
September 2005 and during July and August 2006. The overall rainfall is relatively good and
could be used to recharge the aquifer.
50
Site 1 Site 2 Site 3
180
160
140
120
Rainfall (mm)
100
80
60
40
20
0
ug
ov
05
l
6
ay
ay
ar
ar
Ju
Se
0
0
M
M
M
M
A
N
n-
n-
n-
Ju
Ja
Ja
Fig. 43. Rainfall pattern at the selected sites
4.8 Fine Tuning of the Skimming Well Design and Operational Strategies
As the name implies, a skimming well should extract only the freshwater (mostly the recharge
from the irrigation and field network, rainfall etc.) without disturbing the fresh-saline water
interface. Therefore, proper design and operational schedules are very important to achieve the
intended benefits of skimming wells. Proper design of skimming wells includes a number of
parameters such as: discharge, thickness of freshwater layer, depth of well, number of strainers,
size of strainers, length of strainers, horizontal distance of the strainers from the pump etc.
4.8.1 Discharge
The average farm size in the area is 15 ha, 58% farmers own less than 5 ha and 42% greater than
5 ha. In addition, the farmers have canal water supply of 0.3 to 48 hrs on rotational basis (after
every 8 days) depending on the area owned. The discharge of these skimming wells are generally
less than 28 lps (< 1.0 cusec). This discharge is sufficient to irrigate more than 8 ha of land on
weekly rotation with 6 hrs pumping/day (Ashraf et al., 2001). However, if the pumping time is
increased to 12 hrs/day, an area of 16 ha could be easily irrigated. Therefore, a well with 28 lps
discharge is appropriate for the average size of the land holdings in the area.
51
4.8.2 Saline-freshwater interface
Although, groundwater in the Indus basin is saline due to its marine geological nature but a
freshwater layer has been developed over the saline aquifer as a result of seepage from irrigation
networks, deep percolation from fields and rainfall. Certain pockets of freshwater exist in the
area and the thickness of freshwater layer is not uniform. Generally, it is thick near banks of the
rivers and canals and becomes thinner away from recharge sources. The thickness of freshwater
layer is more than 100 m near the rivers and main canals and decreases to less than 30 m in the
lower or central parts of the Doab. However, in Chaj Doab, the fresh-saline water interface is
about 30 m from the soil surface, in the center of the Doabs and along banks of the Jhelum River,
and about 40 m or more near the banks of River Chenab. The spatial and temporal variability of
groundwater is very high. Therefore, site specific information regarding groundwater quality is
necessary for proper installation and operation of skimming wells.
4.8.3 Depth of the well

The prevailing water table in the area ranges from 2 to 10 m whereas depth to saline-freshwater
interface varies from 30-40 m. Therefore, a depth of around 20 m with 10 m well screen will
provide a penetration ratio of 50 to 66%, which is reasonable to extract relatively freshwater
from the aquifer. Previously, Saeed and Ashraf (2005) reported that for 30-60% penetration ratio,
the quality of the pumped water remained below 1.5 dS/m.
4.8.4 Size and number of strainers

An analytical analysis shows that for a discharge of about 28 lps, a strainer of 20 cm will be
required. Saeed and Ashraf, (2005) found discharges from 5 and 7.5 cm strainers of 9 m well
screen as 3.5 and 4.5 lps, respectively. Therefore, for an average discharge of about 28 lps (1.0
cusecs), the number of strainers should not be more than 8 for 5 cm diameter and 6 for 7.5 cm
diameter. However, instead of 5 cm diameter strainers, 7.5 cm diameter strainers should be
preferred.
4.8.5 Radial spacing of strainers from pump

The radial distance of strainers from the pump should be designed by taking into account the
hydrogeology of the site, pumping conditions, pumping time, discharge etc. An increase in the
52
horizontal distance of strainers would increase its installation cost as well as frictional losses
which in turn increases the HP requirements and operational costs. On the other hand, if the
strainers are spaced closely, the flow contribution of each strainer goes down. Consequently the
overall discharge of the well is reduced. Based on the pumping tests, a distance of 3 m is
recommended.
4.8.6 Radial spacing of skimming wells

The installation of wells in the area is quite arbitrary and the wells are installed without
considering the distance from the neighboring wells. In a number of cases, their cone depressions
overlap consequently affecting the performance of each other. Based on the pumping test results,
it is suggested that skimming well should not be installed within a radial distance of 350 m (3.5
ha) for a discharge of about 28 lps.
4.8.7 Operational strategies

Operational strategies such as pumping hrs per day, time and season of pumping can affect
groundwater quality to a great extent. The rainfall immediately affects the skimmed water
quality. The changes in quantity and quality of skimmed water can occur due to lateral
groundwater flow and solute transport from the surrounding areas. Similarly, the vertical
groundwater flow and solute transport from the bottom of the radial well can also affect it.
Kemper et al., (1976) reported that continuous pumping of skimming well results in more
contribution of underlying saline water to the pumped water. Hafiz et al., (1986) conducted
experiments on single strainer (installed to 18 m depth) and 2-strainer wells (installed to 9 m
depth) each having a discharge capacity of 14 lps. The single strainer and 2-strainer wells were
continuously operated for 15 days and 32 days, respectively. The salinity of pumped water
increased from 1.4 to 1.97 dS/m and from 1.2 to 1.9 dS/m, for single strainer and 2-strainer
wells, respectively. Whereas, the saline-fresh water interface moved up by 9 m for the single
strainer well and by 3 m for 2-strainer wells. Even after a period of 164-days of pumping, the
interface could only recover by 3 m (down). This indicates that continuous pumping results in
the deterioration of groundwater quality and once the saline-water interface is disturbed by
continuous/over pumping, it takes a long time to re-stabilize. During continuous pumping, when
the water table stabilizes, a part of the pumped water comes from the underlying saline aquifer
53
and a part from the recharge from the adjoining areas under the hydraulic gradient. However, if
the water is pumped intermittently, there would be more contribution from the adjoining area and
the chances of withdrawal from the underlying aquifer will be minimal (Ashraf et al., 2001).
Nevertheless, the question arises what should be the optimal operational hrs for skimming well
of 28 lps capacity? Ashraf et al., (2001) reported 5 and 6 hrs intermittent pumping for 3 and 16-
strainers wells. Saeed and Ashraf (2005) recommended 4 to 8 hrs/day where the thickness of
freshwater layer ranges from 20 to 30 m. With an increase in the pumping time from 2 to 8
hrs/day, the quality of pumped water deteriorated three folds with a simultaneous reduction of
discharge by 5 to 30%. However, the present investigation shows that the aquifer starts depleting
for 12-hrs pumping where lateral recharge could not counterbalance the abstraction,
consequently letting the well to withdraw more water from the underlying aquifer. This may
result in saline water upconing. Therefore, skimming wells may be operated from 4-12 hrs
without causing adverse effects on groundwater. Since, the temporal variability of groundwater
is very high, the groundwater quality should be regularly monitored for proper operation of
skimming wells.
5. CONCLUSIONS
• There was a drastic increase in the number of skimming wells installed in the area during
the drought period i.e. from 1999 to 2002 and there is high concentration of skimming
wells along the northern branch of Lower Jhelum Canal.
• A large number of skimming wells (36%) are pumping water with an EC greater than 2.0
dS/m, reflecting some problems either in the design of the wells or with operational
strategies.
• There are no set design criteria for the installation of skimming wells. The design of
skimming wells absolutely depends on the advice of the drillers and the wishes of the
farmers. The number of strainers varies from 2-20 and the size of the strainer from 5-20
cm. The distance of the strainers from the pump is also arbitrary. Six strainers of 7.5 cm
diameter are commonly used by the farmers. Total depth of the well most commonly
adopted is 18 m from the soil surface.
• The maximum radial drawdown effect, during pumping tests, extended upto 145, 187 and
150 m at Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3, respectively. It continues to extend further if the
54
pumping is continued. The maximum drawdown at Site 1, Site 2 and Site 3 were 4.68,
3.98 and 2.86 m, respectively which increase with an increase in the pumping time,
indicating that steady-state conditions could not be achieved even after 12 hrs of
pumping. The maximum drawdown took place within a radius of 5-10 m only, which
reduced down to 30-50 cm at the edges of the cone of depression. Therefore, two
skimming wells of 28 lps discharge each, should not be installed within a radial distance
of 350 m (3.5 ha).
• Six strainers of 7.5 cm size or 8 strainers of 5 cm diameter may be installed upto 20 m
depth with 10 m well screen to pump about 28 lps water. The distance of strainer from
the well should be 3 m and a pumping time of 4 to 12 hrs/day may be adopted for
skimming wells without having an adverse effect on pumped water quality.
• The prevailing water table in the area ranges from 2 to 10 m. The water table is shallow
near the upper reaches of rivers and lower Jhelum canal and is as deep as 10 m towards
the lower parts of the Doab due to less recharge available. The groundwater quality
shows high spatial and temporal variability and ranges from 0.6-4.0 dS/m. At shallow
depths (2 to 10 m), groundwater quality is relatively good (0.4-1.0 dS/m) near the rivers
banks. Freshwater pockets exist at some scattered places particularly near recharging
sources. At deeper depths (10 to 30 m), the salinity is very high (2.4-4.0 dS/m)
particularly at the centre of the Doab. However, in the areas near rivers, the water quality
is relatively good (<2.4 dS/m). At 40 m depth or beyond, the water quality is the worst (≥
4.0 dS/m) in area with a few freshwater pockets along lower reaches of the river Jhelum
and upper reach of river Chenab.
• Fresh-saline water interface in the target area is 30 m from the soil surface in the center
of the Doabs and along the banks of the Jhelum River and 40 m near the banks of River
Chenab.
• The spatial and temporal variability of groundwater is very high. Therefore, site specific
information regarding groundwater quality is necessary for proper installation and
operation of wells. Moreover, regular monitoring of hydro-salinity is also important for
sustainable management of groundwater resources.
• The groundwater potential and quality can be improved when recharged locally with
rainwater.
55
6. REFERENCES
Ahmad, N., Chaudhry, G.R., 1988. Irrigated Agriculture of Pakistan. 61-B/2 Gulberg III, Lahore,
Pakistan.
Al-Senafy, M., Abraham, J., 2004. Vulnerability of groundwater resources from agricultural
activities in southern Kuwait. Agricultural Water Management 64, 1-15.
Ambast, S.K., Tyagi, N.K., Raul, S.K., 2006. Management of declining groundwater in the Trans
Indo-Gangetic Plain (India): Some options, Agricultural Water Management 82, 279-296.
Anuraga, T.S., Ruiz, A., Kumar, M.S.M., Sekhar, M., Leijnse A., 2006. Estimating groundwater
recharge using land use soil data: A case study from South India. Agricultural Water
Management 84, 65-76.
Asghar, M.N., S.A. Prathapar and M.S. Shafique. 2002. Extracting relatively-fresh groundwater
from aquifers underlain by salty groundwater. Agricultural Water Management 52, 119-
137.
Ashfaq, A., Ashraf, M., Nasir, A. 2006. Sustainable groundwater management: issues and
strategies. In: Proceedings of the International Seminar on Water and Environment –A
Looming Crisis, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, Pakistan, August 20-22, pp. 144-
152.
Ashraf M., M. Aslam, M. M. Saeed, M. S. Shafique. 2001. Effect of intermittent pumping on the
quality of multi-strainer skimming well.In: Proceedings 2nd National Seminar on
Drainage in Pakistan, UAF. April 18-19, pp. 200-211.
Ashraf, M., Ashfaq, A., 2006. Diagnostic analysis of skimming wells in Indus basin of Pakistan.
In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Agricultural Engineering: Issues and
strategies, University of Agriculture Faisalabad, 16-18 February. pp 217-225.
Ashraf M., M. Idrees (2000). Skimming well technologies: farmer’s practices. Proceedings of the
year end seminar on root zone salinity management using fractional skimming wells.
International Water Management Institute Lahore.
Associated Consulting Engineers, 1997. Hydrogeological and groundwater mathematical models
studies. Second Salinity Control and Reclamation Project (SCARP) transition, North
Rohri Pilot Project, Completion Report, p.147.
Babiker, I.S., Mohamed, M.A.A., Hiyama, T. 2007. Assessing groundwater quality using GIS.
Water Resources Management 21, 699-715.
56
Bhutta, M.N., Abdul, H. and Allah, B.S. 2000. Depleting Groundwater Resources in Pakistan. In:
Proceedings of Regional Groundwater Management Seminar, October 9-11, 2000
Islamabad, Pakistan Water Partnership (PWP), pp. 155-160.
Bos, M.G., Wolters, W. 1994. Influence of irrigation on drainage. In: H.P. Ritzema (Editor-in
Chief), Drainage Principles and Applications. ILRI Pub. No. 16, pp-513-531.
Choudhury, K., Saha, D.K., Chakraborty, P. 2001. Geophysical study for saline water intrusion
in coastal alluvial terrain. Journal of Applied Geophysics 46, 189-200.
Chowdary, V.M., Rao, N.H., Sarma, P.B.S. 2003. GIS-based decision support system for
groundwater assessment in large irrigation projects. Agricultural Water Management 62,
229-252.
Dahri, Z.H., 2002. Suitability of shallow skimming wells for sustainable management in the
Lower Indus basin of Pakistan. M.Sc. thesis. Centre of Excellence in Water Resources
Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, p. 120.
Fahlbusch, H., Schultz, B., Thatte, C.D. (Eds). 2004. The Indus Basin: History of Irrigation,
Drainage and Flood Management. International Commission on Irrigation and Drainage
(ICID), New Delhi, India, pp. 389.
Hafeez, A., Piracha, Z.A., Ahmad, N. 1986. Multi-strainer tubewells for skimming top layer of
fresh water underlain by saline aquifer. Publication No. 152, Mona Reclamation
Experimental Project, Water and Power Development Authority, Bhalwal, Pakistan, p.50.
Hillel, D., 1980. Fundamentals of Soil Physics. McGraw-Hill, New York.
Imtiaz, A., Khan, M.Z., Hasan, D., Ahmad, A. 2007. GIS and image processing for the study
“soil salinity survey of irrigated areas of the Indus Basin”. International Waterlogging and
Salinity Research Institute (IWASRI), Publication No. 275.
Kahlown, M.A., Majeed, A., 2004. Water Resources Development and Management (ed.),
PCRWR, Islamabad, 2004.
Keller, A., Sakthivadivel, R., Seckler, D. 2000.Water scarcity and the role of storage in
development. International Water Management Institute (IWMI) Research Report No.
39.
Kemper, W.D., Jahangir, M., McWhorter D.B. 1976. Skimming well report: Field studies.
Publication No. 67, Mona Reclamation Experimental Project, Water and Power
Development Authority , Bhalwal, Pakistan, p.24.
57
Khan, S., Rana, T., Ullah, K., Christen, E., Nafees, M. 2003. Investigating conjunctive water
management options using a dynamic surface-groundwater modeling approach: a case
study of Rechna Doab. CSIRO Land and Water Technical Report 35/03, June 2003.
Kijne, J.W. 1999. Improving the productivity of Pakistan’s irrigation: The importance of
management choices. International Water Management Institute, Colombo, Sri Lanka.
McDonald, M.G. Harbough, A.W. 1988. MODFLOW: A modular 3D finite difference
groundwater flow model. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 83-875, p. 528.
McWhorter, D.B. 1980. Summary of skimming well investigations. Water Management
Technical Report No. 63. Water Management Research Project, Engineering Research
Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA, 77 p.
Nazir A. 1993. Water Resources of Pakistan. Shahid Nazir Publisher, 61-B/2, Gulberg-3 Lahore,
Pakistan.
NESPAK, 1997. Second SCARP Transition North Rohri Pilot Project, Completion Report,
Government of Sindh.
Pareek, N, Jat, M.K., Jain, S.K. 2006. The utilization of brackish water, protecting the quality of
the upper freshwater layer in coastal aquifers. Environmentalist 26, 237-246.
PCRWR, 2007. Demarcation of groundwater quality zone in the Indus basin. Pakistan Council of
Research in Water Resources, Unpublished Report.
Qureshi, A.S., Shah, T., Akhtar, M. 2003. The groundwater economy of Pakistan. Working
Paper 64, Lahore Pakistan: International Water Management Institute.
Qureshi, R.H., Barrett-Lennard E.G. 1998. Saline Agriculture for Irrigated Land in Pakistan: A
Hand Book. Australian Centre for International Agriculture Research, Canberra Australia.
Rehman, G., Jehangir, W.A., Rehman, A., Aslam, M., Skogerboe, G.V. 1997. Principal findings
and implications for sustainable agriculture: salinity management alternatives for Rechna
Doab, Punjab, Pakistan. Research Report, R-21.1, Vol. 1. International Water Management
Institute, Lahore-Pakistan.
Reilly, T.E., Goodman, A.S. 1987. Analysis of saltwater beneath a pumping well. Journal of
Hydrology 89, 169-204.
Saeed, M.M., Ashraf, M., Asghar, M.N. 2003. Hydraulic and hydro-salinity behavior of
skimming wells under different pumping regimes. Agricultural Water Management 61,
163-177.
58
Saeed, M.M., Ashraf M., Bruen, M. 2002a. Diagnostic analysis of skimming well technologies in
the Indus basin. Irrigation and Drain. Sys. 16, 139-140.
Saeed, M.M., Bruen, M., Ashraf, M., Asgher. M.N. 2002b. Design of a multi-level sampling well
for monitoring hydro-salinity behaviour under shallow wells. Journal of Engineering and
Applied Sciences 21 (1): 1-5.
Shafique, M.S., Frankin, DS., Jackson, E.W. 2002. Sulfurous acid generator: A technology to
mitigate drought conditions. In: Proceedings of National symposium on drought and water
resources in Pakistan, 18th March 2002, CEWRE, Lahore, Pakistan, pp. 117-122.
Sharma, S.K. 1987. Principles and Practices of Irrigation Engineering. S Chand & Company
Ltd., New Delhi, India.
Singh, K.P., Malik, A., Mohan, D., Singh, V.K., Sinha, S. 2006. Evaluation of groundwater
quality in northern Indo-Gangetic alluvium region. Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment, 112, 211-230.
Singh, O.P., Ambast, S.K., Kalendhonkar, M.J., Verma, A.K., Rani, M. 1997. Feasibility studies
on artificial recharge in North-East Haryana, Annual Report-1997, Central Soil Salinity
Research Institute, Karnal-India.
Singh, O.P., Kalendhonkar, M.J., Ambast, S.K., Verma, A.K., Rani, M., Tyagi, K.C., Tyagi,
N.K. 2002. Feasibility studies on artificial groundwater recharge in North-East Haryana,
Bull. No. 1/02, Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal-India, pp. 66.
Sufi, A.B., Latif, M., Skogerboe, G.V. 1998. Simulating skimming well techniques for
sustainable exploitation of groundwater. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 12, 203-226.
van Dam, J.C., Meulankamp, J.J. 1967. Some results of the geo-electrical resistivity method in
groundwater investigations in the Netherlands. Geophysical Prospecting 92-115.
van Steenbergen, F., Gohar, M.S. 2005. Groundwater development and management in Pakistan.
Country Water Resources Assistance Strategy, Background Paper # 11. Pakistan’s Water
Economy Running Dry. The World Bank, Oxford University Press Karachi.
van Steenberger, F., Oliemans, W. 2002. A review of policies in groundwater management in
Pakistan. Water Policy 23, 53-74
Xu, Y., Mo, X., Cai, Y., Li, X. 2005. Analysis of groundwater table drawdown by land use and
the quest for sustainable water use in the Hebei Plain in China. Agricultural Water
Management 75, 38-53.
59
Yasin M., M.M.Ahmad, Z. Hussain, Z. Khan, G Akber. 2002. Issues of farmers in saline and
waterlogged areas. J. Drainage and Water Management, 6(1): 9-18.
Zheng, C. 1990. MT3D: A modular 3D Transport Model. S.S. Papadopulos and Associates, Inc.,
60
Annexure-I
Base Line Survey Questionnaire for the Refinement of Skimming Well, Project
Grid No:
Grid Reference:
Location (GPS):
General
Name of the Enumerator Date:
Name of the Farmer
Location of land with reference to canal outlet Head Middle Tail
Name of Village
Name of Union Council
Land Holding & Its Condition
Area (Ac)
Land Type (i) Leveled (ii) Partially Leveled (iii) Un-Leveled
Soil Type
Soil Sample Collected Y N
EC Value: ______________ pH Value: _______________
SAR: _______________ ESP: _______________
Water Availability & Quality
Irrigation Type (i) Canal (ii) TW (Public) (iii) TW (Private)
Pumped water sample collected Y N
EC Value: ______________ pH Value: _______________
SAR: _______________ RSC: _______________
After how many days, you get irrigation supplies____________________________
After how many days you irrigate your field _________& for how many hours_______
How many months per year you receive canal water? Kharif: _______Rabi_________
Area which you irrigate in one turn (a) Kharif _________ (Ac), (b) Rabi _________(Ac).
In case of tube well irrigation, Then
Type of TW
Discharge (l/hr)
Depth of WT (m)
61
Depth of Well ________________________
Diameter of suction pipe (m)
Diameter of delivery pipe (m)
Pump make/model
Pump size
Pump type
Height of delivery pipe
from the pump (m)
Height of delivery pipe
from the ground surface
Horizontal length of
delivery pipe
Type of strainers (i) Nylon (ii) Jute coir (iii) Any other _______________
No. of strainers
Depth of strainers
Horizontal distance of
strainer from the pump
Distance of strainer
from each other
Length of blind pipe
Diameter of blind pipe
Type of foot valve
Size of foot valve
Foot valve Installed at the bottom Installed below the pump
Type of power used (i) Electricity (ii) Diesel engine (iii) Tractor
Make/Model ____________ HP _____________ Fuel consumption/hr ____________
Mode of Transmission ________________________
(Belt Driven\Mono Block\PTO)
Primining time (min)
Is the water table increasing or decreasing in the tube well? Y N
Have you analyzed your Tube well water Y N
62
If yes, then what is the quality of water for irrigation purposes?
(i) Fit (ii) Marginally (iii) Unfit
If no, then what is yours self-assessment about the suitability of water for irrigation purposes?
(i) Fit (ii) Marginally (iii) Unfit
Year of installation
Cost of pump
Cost of delivery pipe/ft
Cost of blind pipe/ft
Cost of foot valve
Cost of engine/motor
Cost of strainer/ft
Fitting charges
Cost of labor/skimming well
installation
Total Installation Cost (Rs.) ________________________
Type of irrigation method Border Furrow Basin Other
How you observed the salinity/sodicity problem in yours soils?
What are the causes of salinity? High watertable_____Over-irrigation_____Unleveled
fields______ Shortage of water________ Use of poor quality under GW________ Poor
drainage________ Inherited________ Other________.
Have you analyzed the type of salinity? Y N
Do you know any remedial measures to reclaim your land? Y N
If yes, name the remedial measure adopted _______________________________
What is the impact of adopted measures on yours’ (i) soil (ii) crop (iii) yield
Does salinity/waterlogging affect your crop growth or yield? Y N
Which crop severely affected by salinity? ________________________________
During which month salinity/waterlogging is severe? ______________________
63
Cropping Pattern & Yield:
Crop Variety Area (Acres) Yield (kg/ac)
Kharif crops
Sugarcane
Fodder
Vegetable
Intercrop (specify)
Other
Rabi crops
Wheat
Barley
Fodder
Vegetables
Intercrop (specify)
Other
Orchards
(Fruit name)
64

Table of Contents for a Report on Groundwater Hydro-Salinity

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Table of Contents for a Report on Groundwater Hydro-Salinity

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Table 1: Hydrogeological characteristics of Chaj Doab .............................................................10

Fig. 1: Schematic presentation of a single-strainer well ...............................................................7

Fig. 1: Schematic presentation of a single-strainer well

Fig 2. Schematic presentation of a multi-strainers well

Fig. 3: Location map of the study area

Clay Silt Sand

3.3 Water Resources

3.4. Hydro-Salinity Measurement

The resistivity survey was conducted on 43 points at approximate grid interval of 10 km x 10 km

Fig. 6: Location of resistivity survey points ( ) and observation wells ( )

3.5 Participatory Rural Appraisal (PRA)

3.6 Selection of Sites for Pumping Tests

Bricks road (solang)

72 810 72 815 72 820 72 825 72 830

Zafar Iqbal Jaspal

Site 3 Noor Riaz Shah

Fateh-abad Noon Road

Observation 32.346 Rajay Shah

well Ghulam Abbas

Table 2: Salient features of the selected skimming wells sites

3.7 Pumping Tests

Table 4: Cropping patterns and pumped water at the selected sites

Table 5: Farm size and mode of pumping in the study area

Table 7: Farmer’s views about water-table and quality

4.1.2 Skimming wells and quality of pumped water

River Jhelum Bhalwal

Fig. 11: Location of sklimming wells surveyed

Table 8: Quality of the pumped water by the surveyed skimming wells

Fig. 12: Groundwater quality (dS/m) pumped by skimming wells

4.1.3 Skimming well design

Fig. 14: Farmers trend in the selection of no. of strainers

Fig. 17: Farmers’ trend in the selection of the size of strainers

Fig. 18: Cost of skimming wells as function of number of strainers

Fig. 19: Cost of skimming wells as function of size of strainers

Fig. 21: Skimming wells with different depth of strainers

Fig. 22: Skimming wells with different depth of blind pipes

Fig. 23: Skimming wells as a function of total depth

12.7 cm x 10.2 cm 15.2 cm x 12.7 cm 17.8 cm x 15.2 cm

Fig. 24: Size of the pumps used with skimming wells

Fig. 25: Type of envelop material used with skimming wells

4.1.4 Water-table depth in the project area

Fig. 26. Water-table position in the area

4.2. Hydro-Salinity Based on Resistivity Survey

Fig. 27: Hydro-salinity (dS/m) at 10 m depth

Fig. 28: Hydro- salinity (dS/m) at 20 m depth

Fig. 29: Hydro- salinity (dS/m) at 30 m depth

Silanwali Chenab River

Fig. 30: Hydro-salinity (dS/m) at 40 m depth

4.3 Spatial and Temporal Hydro-Salinity Based on Water Sampling

Fig. 31. Hydro-salinity profile at Site 1

Apr-05 Jul-05 Jan-06 Aug-06 Jan-07 7-May

Fig. 32. Hydro-salinity profile at Site 2

Fig. 33. Hydro-salinity profile at Site 3

Fig. 34: Hydro-salinity profile at Nabishah site

Apr-05 Aug-06 Dec-06 Mar-06 Sep-06 May-07

Fig. 35: Hydro-salinity profile at Sahiwal site

4.4. Effect of Recharge on Hydro-Salinity

P-6 P-5 P-4 P-3 P-2 P-1 3.1

LEGEND 3.05 m 2.15 m 3.05 m

7.6 cm dia pvc pipe

Fig. 38. Schematic of the recharge well