Critical analysis of optimal lift irrigation management

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES
For
OPTIMAL MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES
Ph. D. Thesis
WATER RESOURCES
N. CHALAMAIAH
JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY
COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING (AUTONOMOUS)

HYDERABAD – 500 072
December 2002
Irrigation in India
India is the seventh largest country in the world
Geographical area 329 M ha
Population above 1000 Million
Available cultivable area 199 M ha
Ultimate irrigation potential 142 M ha
Major & medium irrigation projects 58 M ha
Minor irrigation projects 84 M ha
Irrigation potential created up to year 2K 91 M ha

Surface water & Ground water
 Average annual surface water flows 1952.87x103
MCM (CWC)
 Total utilizable water resource through conventional
schemes 690.30x103 MCM (NWDA)
 Possible additional utilization through inter-basin
transfer 200 to 250x103 MCM
 Assessment of loss through sedimentation by the
year 2025 49.50x103 MCM
 Replenishable ground water Resources as per CGWD
431.90x103 MCM
 Utilizable ground water resources 395.60x103 MCM
(CGWD)
National Water Policy (Sept.1987)
water allocation priorities should be as follows

 Drinking water,
 Irrigation,
 Hydropower,
 Navigation,
 Industrial and other uses

Irrigation in Andhra Pradesh (AP)
 Geographical area 27.44 M ha
 Cropped area 13.19 M ha.
 Forests 6.15 M ha
Irrigation under different sources during 1996-97 in ha

S No. Source Irrigated Area in Million ha.
1 Canals 1.63
2 Tanks 0.84
3 GW 1.73
4 Other Sources 0.19
Total 4.39
Area irrigated in the state 41% of the sown area.
Irrigation under SW/GW Lifts 44%
Ground water scenario of Andhra Pradesh (April 2000).
 Annual normal rainfall 900 mm
 Total water through annual rainfall 24.4 M ha m
 Surface run off (40%) 9.8 M ha m
 Percolation to ground water bodies (9%) 2.2 M ha m
 Evapotranspiration (41%) 10.0 M ha m
 Soil moisture (10%) 2.4 M ha m
 Annual dynamic potential 3.5 M ha m
 Allocated for drinking and industrial use (15%) 0.5 M ha m
 Irrigation (85%) 3 M ha m
 Irrigation services as on 3/99 as per APTRANSCO 2.222 Million
 Irrigated area under these services 2.644 M ha
Importance of Lift irrigation
 To cope up with increased demands of food grains
 Most of the favorable sites for construction of major &
medium irrigation projects are exhausted
 The only alternative left for supply of water to higher
elevation (upland area) is through lift
 Several small and big LI and GW schemes have been
constructed & many more are in the pipeline
 It is necessary, to irrigate the vast upland areas to
provide food for the growing population and for the
survival of the rural masses
“vision 2020” Godavari waters for the Telangana
 Utilized from dependable flows of Godavari 720 TMC
 Balance to be tapped 775 TMC
 Irrigation potential that can be created 23.5 lakh acres
 Proposed under Ichampally & Polavaram 530 TMC
 Being tapped under the ongoing Major & medium
schemes and the possible MI Schemes 245 TMC
 BL of Godavari < +100 m
 Levels of land to be irrigated +300 to +500 m
 Loss of considerable capacity due to siltation foreseen.
 Construct several small dams to avoid submersion of
larger areas.
 Built reservoirs on the mainland to retain the
envisaged storage capacity.
 Pump Godavari water into these reservoirs, to irrigate
vast stretches in Telangana area.
Other factors favoring the taking up of LIS
 Environmentalist movements against taking up of major &
medium irrigation projects involving, huge areas of
submergence, rehabilitation problems, annihilation of rare
species of flora and fauna
 High gestation periods of flow Irrigation Schemes & low
gestation periods of LIS
 Aspirations of the public in demanding quick results
 Comparatively higher cost of FIS (200% to 300% higher than
that required for LIS).
 No submergence of cultivable lands under LIS
Disadvantages of LIS
 Requirement of scarce power (electricity)
 High maintenance costs of E&M equipment
Phases in lift irrigation schemes (LIS)
There are 3 phases in LIS
1. Investigation
2. Execution and
3. Maintenance
The objective of detailed investigation is minimization of
capital cost subject to certain constraints:
 Assured irrigation to entire command area
 Dependable high performance
 B/C ratio to be with in the limits
 The proposal of the scheme to be bankable
Objective of the study
1. To study the present status of commissioned LIS
(Functional & Non-Functional) in the state of Andhra
Pradesh, as a whole, region wise, district wise,
contemplated extent (ayacut) wise, time series (date
of commissioning) wise and program (program under
which the scheme is constructed) wise.
2. To analyze the perceptions of the farmers and
engineers about the functioning of different
components of LI Schemes and socio economic
conditions of farming community and to compare the
same with the functionality and non-functionality of
the LIS.
Conti.
3. To study the well managed LIS for productivity of
land, productivity of water and financial
sustainability of the LI Scheme to evaluate the best
management.
4. To formulate an LP model to optimize the efficiency
of LI Scheme (system), subject to certain
constraints.
5. To propose an engineering model covering all the
sub-systems of LIS to arrive at the irrigation
efficiency of the LIS
Format of presentation
This thesis contains total eight chapters
1. Status of irrigation & water resources in India, AP,
importance of LI and objectives of the study are covered.
2. Relevant literature on systems engineering, functioning of
LIS, productivity of land & water, participatory irrigation
management and some relevant repots of IWMI & SWIM are
reviewed.
3. Study area, covers the total LIS commissioned by APSIDC up
to March 2001 through out the state.
4. The procedure followed for the collection of data and the
methodology followed for the analysis was covered.
5. The analysis part is dealt in the fifth chapter
6. The thesis is summarized and the conclusions & inferences
are listed in the sixth chapter.
7. Recommendations for future study are made in the seventh
chapter.
8. References & enclosures are given in the eight chapter
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
The following Relevant literature is reviewed

 Systems engineering
 study reports and papers published in the
workshops about the functioning of LIS
 papers published in the seminars about the
participatory irrigation management
 IWMI and SWIM reports about the water use
efficiency
 water accounting and costing
 Conjunctive utilization, optimization of resources
and LP modeling
Present study
 The social involvement for efficient functioning of lift

irrigation schemes in terms of productivity of land,
productivity of water, water rate demand and
collection has been studied in the present thesis
 A model for the best managed LIS has been
proposed.
 An LP model for maximizing the net return while
optimizing the utility of resources like land and
water under the LIS is formulated
STUDY AREA
 All the 975 LIS commissioned by APSIDC

through out A P up to March 2001
 Functionality and non-functionality of LIS based
on the region, district, size of command area
under the scheme, age of the scheme,
perceptions of the farmers & engineers about
the performance of different components
/subsystems of the LIS.
Status of LIS in AP
 LIS constructed and maintained by the APSIDC, until
1995
 TGKP during 1982 where 50% capital cost of the
scheme is invested by the farmers and the
maintenance of the LIS is by the farmers
 Since 1986 the beneficiaries have donated the land
required for the construction of LIS free of cost.
 Maintenance of all the LIS grounded since 1992 shall
be taken up by the beneficiary society
 From 1995 on words APSIDC with drew from the
maintenance of all the L I Schemes.
 About 30% of the LIS are not functioning
 Due to less development of command area (ayacut),
the capital as well as the maintenance cost/ha of the
functional schemes is increasing abnormally
METHODOLOGY OF STUDY
 Primary data is collected through structured

questionnaires from the farmers and expert
engineers, directly from the field.
 Direct data from the managements of farmer
managed LIS is collected through structured formats
sent by post in Telugu.
 The secondary data pertaining to LIS is collected
from the divisional records of APSIDC
 Analysis is done on computer using Microsoft office
ANALYSIS OF THE PROBLEM
Analysis of commissioned LIS 5.1A Status of LIS
Table 5.1
OVER ALL STATUS OF COMMISSIONED LIS
in Ha.
No.of Schemes
Commissioned
command area
command area
Scheme in Ha.
Average Cont.
Contemplated
(Ayacut) per
Cost per Ha.

Cost in Rs.
(Ayacut)
Millions
in Rs
LIS
PERCENTAGE
Contemplated
area (Ayacut)
command
Schemes
No.of
Cost
Functional 683 102,961 151 1,152.3 11,192 70 71 75
Non-
Functional 292 41,647 143 376.0 9,029 30 29 25
Total 975 144,608 148 1,528.3 10,569 100 100 100
Percentage difference in cost per Ha. between Functional and
Non-Functional L I S 19
Figure 5.1
Status of Commissioned L I S (by No.)
750 Functional,
700 683
650
600
550
500
450
No.of LIS
400
Non-
350 Functional,
292
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
Functional Non-Functional
Status of LIS
Figure 5.2
Status of Commissioned LIS (by command area)
110,000 Functional,
102,961
100,000
90,000
80,000
Contemplated command in Ha.
70,000
60,000
Non-
50,000 Functional,
41,647
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
Status of LIS
Figure 5.3
Status of Commissioned LIS (by capital
cost)
1,400.0
Functional,
1,200.0 1,152.3
Capital cost in Rs. Millions
1,000.0
800.0
600.0
Non-
Functional,
376.0
400.0
200.0
0.0
Status of LIS
Figure 5.4
Status of Commissione LIS (by cost per Ha.)
12,000 Functional,
11,192
10,000 Non-Functional,
9,029
8,000
Cost per Ha. in Rs.
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
Status of LIS
Figure 5.5
Status of Commissioned LIS (by percentage No., extent (ayacut), cost)
80 3, 75
1, 70 2, 71
70
60
50 Functional
Percentage
40
30 29
30
25
20
Non Functional
10
0
1 2 3
LIS by percentage No., extent, cost
Observations & conclusions
 cost per hectare of the commissioned LIS is
Rs.10,569/-, functional schemes is Rs.11,192/-
and non-functional schemes is Rs.9,029/-.
 the functional schemes are 70% by No., 71%
by extent and 75% cost.
 Non- functional schemes are comparatively
cheaper in cost per Ha.
 Average size of the non- functional schemes is
comparatively less.
Region wise analysis
Table 5.2
ABSTRACT OF REGION WISE STATUS OF COMMISSIONED LIS
REGION FUNCTIONAL SCHEMES NON-FUNCTIONAL SCHEMES TOTAL
Percentage Percentage
Average extent under

Cont. command area
Cont. command area
Cont. command area

Cost in Rs. Millions
Average cost/Ha. in
each Scheme in Ha
(ayacut) in Ha.
(ayacut) in Ha.
(ayacut) in Ha.
Cost/Ha Rs.
Cost/Ha Rs.
Extent
Extent
Cost
Cost
No.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Rs.
Coastal 362 53,908 561.8 10,421 74 81 83 129 12,874 119.1 9253 26 19 17 491 66,782 681 136 10,196
Telamgana 302 45,033 552.1 12,259 68 65 71 141 24,519 226.1 9223 32 35 29 443 69,552 778 157 11,189
Rayalaseema 19 4,020 38.5 9,573 46 49 56 22 4,254 30.7 7227 54 51 44 41 8,274 69 202 8,367
Total 683 102,961 1152.3 11,192 292 41,647 376.0 9029 975 144,608 1,528 148 10,569
Figure 5.6
Region Wise Status of LIS (by No.)
400
362
350
Functional
302
300
250
Number of LIS
200
150 141
129
Non-
100 Function
al
50
19 22
0
Coastal Telamgana Rayalaseema
Name of the Region
Figure 5.7
Region wise status of LIS (by extent)
60,000
53,908
50,000
45,033
Contemplated extent in Ha.
40,000
Functional
30,000
24,519
20,000
12,874 Non-Functional
10,000
4,0204,254
0
Name of the Region
Figure 5.8
Region wise status of LIS (by cost)
600.0
561.8 552.1
500.0
Functional
Capital cost in Rs. Million
400.0
300.0
226.1
200.0
Non-Functional
119.1
100.0
38.5 30.7
0.0
Name of the Region
Figure 5.9
Region Wise Status of LIS (by Cost/Ha.)
14,000
12,259
12,000
10,421
10,000 Functional 9,573

9253 9223
8,000
Cost in Rs.
7227
Non
Functional
6,000
4,000
2,000

Name of the Region
Figure 5.10
Region Wise Status of LIS (by percentage No., extent,cost)
90
83
81
80 Coastal
74
71 Telamgana
70 68
65 Rayalaseema
60 56
54
51
Percentage
49
50 46
44
40 35
32
29
30 26
19 17
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6
Region wise status of LIS
 The number of F schemes is highest in Andhra region.

 The number of N F schemes is highest in Telangana
 The number of, both the F & NF schemes is lowest in
Rayalaseema region.
 In Andhra Region percentage, number extent and cost
of the functional LIS is highest (74, 81, & 83%)
 In Telangana Region these three indicators are little
lower (68, 65 &71%)
 In Rayalaseema Region, all these three indicators are
lowest (46, 49 & 56%).
District wise analysis of status of LIS
Table 5.3
ABSTRACT OF DISTRICT WISE STATUS OF COMMISSIONED L I S
Functional Schemes Non-Functional /schemes Total

Cont.command area
Cont.command area
Cont.command area
Percentage Extent
Percentage Extent
Percentage Cost
Percentage Cost
(Ayacut) in Ha.
(Ayacut) in Ha.
(Ayacut) in Ha.
Cost/Ha. In Rs.
Cost/Ha. In Rs.
Percentage No.
Percentage No.
Cost on Rs.
Cost on Rs.
Millions
Millions
District
Region
S No.
No.
No.
No.
1 Khammam T 201 12,031 201.4 16,740 81 85 73 47 4,339 34.7 7,990 19 15 27 248 16,371 236.1
2 Prakasam C 162 19,378 157.8 8,142 89 90 89 20 2,473 18.3 7,414 11 10 11 182 21,851 176.1
3 Guntur C 79 14,692 151.0 10,277 91 88 87 8 2,166 20.3 9,382 9 12 13 87 16,858 171.3
4 Nalgonda T 66 21,644 193.8 8,952 84 89 89 13 2,802 23.6 8,414 16 11 11 79 24,446 217.3
5 Krishna C 48 7,768 156.9 20,197 94 99 97 3 264 1.7 6,505 6 1 3 51 8,033 158.6
6 Nellore C 32 2,146 22.6 10,540 70 61 71 14 858 14.2 16,591 30 39 29 46 3,004 36.9
7 Adilabad T 3 684 10.6 15,454 9 10 8 32 7,568 92.1 12,169 91 90 92 35 8,252 102.7
8 E.G C 6 1,774 21.2 11,961 18 50 47 28 1,975 21.0 10,652 82 50 53 34 3,749 42.3
9 VijayaNagaram
C 5 478 1.6 3,366 15 7 17 29 2,412 22.1 9,145 85 93 83 34 2,890 23.7
10 Visakha C 11 454 6.8 14,963 37 40 24 19 1,410 10.3 7,318 63 60 76 30 1,864 17.1
11 Kurnool R 14 2,766 25.9 9,354 61 60 61 9 1,779 17.0 9,536 39 40 39 23 4,544 42.8
12 Srikakulm C 12 1,627 17.7 10,889 60 61 55 8 1,315 11.1 8,441 40 39 45 20 2,942 28.8
13 K.Nagar T 7 577 7.5 13,058 35 35 34 13 1,108 14.0 12,684 65 65 66 20 1,684 21.6
14 NizamabadT 10 4,235 95.4 22,521 59 91 72 7 1,621 9.5 5,881 41 9 28 17 5,856 104.9
15 Medak T 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 16 2,071 24.6 11,878 100 100 100 16 2,071 24.6
16 Mbnr T 8 3,622 27.1 7,492 57 54 51 6 3,526 23.3 6,615 43 46 49 14 7,148 50.5
17 Cuddapah R 4 1,005 9.4 9,371 31 48 34 9 1,955 10.1 5,186 69 52 66 13 2,960 19.6
18 WG C 7 5,590 26.1 4,677 100 100 100 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 7 5,590 26.1
19 Warangal T 6 2,003 14.1 7,042 86 92 72 1 765 1.3 1,689 14 8 28 7 2,768 15.4
20 Anathapur R 2 486 5.4 11,101 33 60 48 4 521 3.6 7,004 67 40 52 6 1,006 9.0
21 RangaReddyT 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 6 718 3.0 4,183 100 100 100 6 718 3.0
975 144,608 0.0
Kh
No. of LIS
am
0
50
100
150
200
250
m
Pr am
ak
as
47
am
201
Gu
20
162
Na ntur
lg
8
on
79
Kr da
Functional
ish
13
66
Ne na
Non-Functional
ll
3
48
Ad ore
ila
ba
14
32
Vi d
jay
3
32
aN E.G
ag
ar
6
a
28
Vi m
sa
5
k
29
Ku ha
r
11
19
Sr noo
ik
ak l
u
9
K. l m 14
Ni Na g 8
12
Figure 5.11
za ar
m
Name of the District

ab
7
a
13
M d
ed
7
10
ak
M
0
16
Cu bn
District Wise Status of LIS (by No.)
dd r
ap
68
ah
4
9
W WG
ar
a
0
7
An nga
a l
Ra tha
1
6
ng pu
aR r
42
ed
dy
0
6
Figure 5.12
District Wise Status of LIS (by extent)
25,000
21,644
Functional
20,000 19,378
Extent in Ha
15,000 14,692
12,031
7,768 7,568
5,590
5,000 4,339 4,235
3,622
3,526
2,4732,1662,802 2,146 2,412 2,766
1,975
1,774 1,4101,7791,627
1,3151,1081,6212,071 1,955 2,003
858 684 478 454 577 1,005 765 521
486 718
0 264 0 0 0
am
l
ar
am
ak
a
dy
ad
r
ah
ol
ga
tu
hn
ag
no
ed
lab
ap
ed
ar
an
un
m
ris
.N
ur
M
ag
aR
dd
m
ar
G
di
K
K
ha
W
A
Cu
ng
ya
K
Ra
ija
V

Figure 5.13
District Wise Status of LIS (by cost)
250.0
200.0 201.4
capital cost in Rs. Millions
193.8
Functional
157.8 156.9
150.0 151.0
100.0 95.4
92.1
50.0 Non-Functional
34.7
25.9 24.6 27.1 26.1
18.3 20.3 23.6 22.6
14.2 10.6
21.0 22.1
21.2 17.0 17.7 14.0
23.3
14.1
10.3
6.8 11.1 7.5 9.5 10.1
9.4
0.0 1.7 1.6 0.0 0.0 1.3 5.4
3.6 3.0
0.0
m
r
na
ol
y
a
nr
am
al
ul m
WG
d
ha
zam r
r
Na G
am
bad
Ad re
dak
apu
ntu
aga
nd
edd
aba
apa
ma
g
rno
E.
Mb
llo
ish
sak
ran
ga r
kas
lgo
Me
ila
kak
Gu
ath
K.N
am
Ne
aR
dd
Ku
Kr
Vi
Wa
Pra
Na
Cu
An
Sri
ng
Kh
Ni
a
Ra
jay
Vi
Name of the district

Figure 5.14
District Wise Status of LIS (by Cost/Ha.)
25,000
22,521
20,000 20,197
16,740 16,591
15,454
Cost in Rs.
15,000 Functional 14,963

13,058
12,684
12,16911,961 11,878
10,652 10,889 11,101
10,277 10,540
10,000 9,3828,952 9,536 9,371
9,145 9,354
7,9908,142 8,414 8,441
7,414 7,318 7,492 7,042 7,004
6,505 6,615
5,881
5,000 Non-Functional 5,1864,677
4,183
3,366
1,689
0 0 0 0
Pra am
ddy
na
ol
r
nr
ul m
gal
am
nda
Ku a
Niz agar
r
WG
d
E.G
ad
pah
re
dak
am
apu
ntu
akh
aba
rno
Mb
llo
ish
ilab
m
ran
gar
kas
Re
lgo
dda
Me
kak
Gu
K.N
ath
am
Vis
Ne
am
Kr
Wa
Na
Ad
nga
Na
Cu
Sri
An
Kh
aya
Ra
Vij

Figure 5.15
District Wise Status of LIS (by percentage No.)
120
100 Functional 100 100 100

Percentage No. of LIS
94 91
89 91
84 85 86
80 81 82
70 69
65 67
63 61
60 60 59 57
41 43
40 37 39 40
35 33
30 31
20 19Non-Functional
16 18 15 14
11 9 9
6
0 0 0 0
VijayaNagaram
K.Nagar
Warangal
Nalgonda
WG
E.G
Nizamabad
RangaReddy
Kurnool
Visakha
Nellore
Krishna
Khammam
Mbnr
Guntur
Anathapur
Medak
Adilabad
Prakasam
Srikakulm
Cuddapah
Figure 5.16
District Wise Status of LIS (by percentage cost)
120
100 99 100 100 100

Functional 93
90 89 90 91 92
88
85
Percentage cost
80
65
60 61 60 60 61 60
54 52
50 48
46
40 39 40 40 39 40
35
20 Non-Functional
15
10 12 11 10 9
7 8
0 1 0 0 0
VijayaNagaram
K.Nagar
Warangal
Nalgonda
WG
E.G
Nizamabad
RangaReddy
Kurnool
Visakha
Nellore
Krishna
Khammam
Mbnr
Guntur
Anathapur
Medak
Adilabad
Prakasam
Srikakulm
Cuddapah
Figure 5.17
District Wise Status of LIS (by percentage extent)
120
100 97
100 100 100
92
89 89
Percentage Extent
87
83
80 Functional
73 76
71 72 72
66 66
60 61
53 55
51
49 52
47 48
45
40 39
34 34
27 Non-Functional 29 28 28
24
20
17
11 13 11
8
3
0 0 0 0
VijayaNagaram
K.Nagar
Warangal
Nalgonda
WG
E.G
Nizamabad
RangaReddy
Kurnool
Visakha
Nellore
Krishna
Khammam
Mbnr
Guntur
Anathapur
Medak
Adilabad
Prakasam
Srikakulm
Cuddapah

There are 30 or more commissioned LIS in each of the
10 districts namely Khammam, Prakasam, Guntur,
Nalgonda, Krishna, Nellore, Adilabad, E.G, Vijaya
Nagaram and Visakha districts.
 There are only 6 districts having more than 30
functional (“F”) LIS namely Khammam, Prakasam,
Guntur, Nalgonda Krishna and Nellore.
 There are two districts Khammam & Adilabad with
more than 30 non-functional (“NF”) schemes
 There are six districts having more than 5,000 Ha of
contemplated command area under “F” LIS namely
Khammam, Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda Krishna and
West Godavari.
 In West Godavari all the commissioned LIS are “F”
 Adilabad is the only district with more 5000 Ha of
contemplated command under the “NF” LIS.
There are five districts namely Khammam, Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda
and Krishna with an investment of more than Rs.100 Million on the “F” LIS.
It is closely followed by Nizamabad with Rs.95 Million. Adilabad is on the
other side with an investment of Rs.92 Million on “NF” LIS.
There are four districts namely Khammam, Krishna, Adilabad and
Nizamabad where the capital cost per Ha has exceeded Rs.15000/Ha.
Nellore is the only district where the capital cost on “NF” LIS has exceeded
Rs.15000/Ha.
There are 12 districts namely Khammam, Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda,
Krishna, Nellore, Kurnool, Sreekakulam, Nizamabad, Mahbubnagar West
Godavari and Warangal with 50% or more No. of “F” LIS
When the capital cost of the LIS is considered two more districts E G and
Anamthapur are added to the above with 50% or more “F” LIS
When the percentage command is considered the two districts which
joined list of 12 by virtue of cost slipped again from the list.
•It can be inferred that, the twelve districts namely Khammam,
Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda, Krishna, Nellore, Kurnool,
Sreekakulam, Nizamabad, Mahbubnagar, West Godavari and
Warangal have 50% or more No. and also command under the
“F” schemes.
•In most of these districts, the awareness, empowerment and
involvement levels of the farmers are comparatively high.
•In the other nine districts namely Adilabad, East Godavari,
Vijayanagarm, Visakha, Karim nagar, Medak, Rangareddy,
Cuddapah and Anamthapur, the percentage No. and
command under the “NF” LIS is 50% or more.
•In Medak and Rangareddy districts all the LIS are “NF”
In most of these 9 districts, the awareness, empowerment and
involvement levels of the farmers are comparatively less.
Time-series analysis of status of LIS
Table 5.4
ABSTRACT OF TIME SERIES WISE STATUS OF COMMISSIONED LIS
Functional Schemes Non - Functional Schemes Total Commissioned
commissioning
Cost/Ha. In Rs.
Cost/Ha. In Rs.
Cost/Ha. In Rs.
(ayacut) in Ha.
(ayacut) in Ha.
(ayacut) in Ha.
command area
command area
command area
Contemplated
Contemplated
Contemplated
Duration of
Cost in Rs.
Cost in Rs.
Cost in Rs.
Percentage
Percentage
Number
Number
Millions
Millions
Millions
Number
Extent
Cost
No.
upto- 1980 17 9,666 27.4 2,839 52 64 63 16 No. 5,344 16.2 3,031 48 36 37 33 15,010 43.6 2,908
1981 - 1985 24 11,499 46.2 4,014 60 69 65 16 5,224 24.8 4,738 40 31 35 40 16,723 70.9 4,240
1986 - 1990 178 16,342 111.0 6,794 83 66 69 37 8,245 49.5 6,003 17 34 31 215 24,587 160.5 6,528
1991 - 1995 158 27,207 228.0 8,382 53 66 63 139 13,748 134.0 9,746 47 34 37 297 40,955 362.0 8,840
After 1995 306 38,247 739.6 19,339 78 81 83 84 9,085 151.6 16,686 22 19 17 390 47,332 891.2 18,829
683 102,961 1,152.3 11,192 292 41,647 376.0 9,029 975 144,608 1,528.3 10,569
Figure 5.18
Time Series Status of LIS (by No.)
350
300 306
250 Functional
Number of LIS
200
178
158
150
139
100 Non Functional

84
50
37
17 24
16 16
0
upto- 1980 1981 - 1985 1986 - 1990 1991 - 1995 After 1995
Year of Commissioning
Figure 5.19
Time Series Status of LIS (by extent)
45,000
40,000
38,247
Functional
35,000
30,000
Extent in Ha.
27,207
25,000
20,000
Non-Functional
16,342
15,000
13,748
11,499
10,000 9,666 9,085
8,245
5,000 5,344 5,224
0
upto- 1980 1981 - 1985 1986 - 1990 1991 - 1995 After 1995
Figure 5.20
Time Series Status of LIS (by Capital Cost)
800.0
739.6
700.0
Functional
600.0
Cost in Rs. Millioins
500.0
400.0
300.0
228.0 Non-Functional
200.0
151.6
134.0
100.0 111.0
46.2 49.5
27.4
16.2 24.8
0.0
upto- 1980 1981 - 1985 1986 - 1990 1991 - 1995 After 1995
Figure 5.21
Time Series Status of LIS (by cost/Ha.)
25,000
20,000
19,339
Functional
Cost per Ha. in Rs.
16,686
15,000
Non-Functional
10,000 9,746
8,382
6,794
6,003
5,000 4,738
4,014
3,031
2,839
0
upto- 1980 1981 - 1985 1986 - 1990 1991 - 1995 After 1995
Year of commissioning
Figure 5.22
Time Series Status of LIS (by percentage No.)
90
83
80 78
Functional
70
Percentage No. of schemes
60 60
52 53
50 48 47
40 40
30 Non-Functional
20 22
17
10
0
upto- 1980 1981 - 1985 1986 - 1990 1991 - 1995 After 1995
Figure 5.23
Time Series Status of LIS (by percentage extent)
90
80 81
70 69
66 66
64
Functional
Percentage extent
60
50
40 Non-Functional
36
34 34
30 31
20 19
10
0
upto- 1980 1981 - 1985 1986 - 1990 1991 - 1995 After 1995
Figure 5.24
Time Series Status of LIS (by percentage cost)
90
83
80
70 69
65
63 Functional 63
60
Percentage Cost
50
40 Non-Functional
37 37
35
30 31
20
17
10
0
upto- 1980 1981 - 1985 1986 - 1990 1991 - 1995 After 1995
 During time-series 1986-90 the number of “F” LIS raised
sharply to 178 from 24 in the previous time series
 During 1991-95 it has taken a slide from 178 to 158
 after 1995 it has climbed to 306
 In the first 3 time series the No. of “NF” LIS has gradually
moved up to 37
 During 1991-95 there is sharp raise to 139
 After 1995 again there is a sharp fall to 84
 A similar trend but on smooth lines was observed in the case of
command area and capital cost of “F” & “NF” LIS
 No definite trend in any time series could be observed in the
cost per ha. of the “F” or “NF” LIS.
•A healthy diverging trend is observed between the percentage
number of “F”& “NF “LIS through out the time series except
during 1991-95 (unhealthy converging trend).
• In the case percentage extent under “F”& “NF” LIS the
unhealthy trend is not well defined
•In the case of percentage capital cost under “F”& “NF” LIS the
unhealthy trend is defined but not clear like percentage number
•The construction of LIS is increasing gradually at a slow &
steady pace and picked up during the time-series 1986-90.
•The size & cost of the LIS has increased sharply after 1995
•There is a sharp increase in the “NF” LIS during 1991-95.
•During the last time-series there is a steep raise in the capital
cost per Ha of the LIS.
Command area group wise status of LIS
Table 5.5
ABSTRACT OF COMMAND AREA (AYCUT) GROUP WISE STATUS OF COMMISSIONED L I S
Functional Schemes Non Functional Schemes Total
Command area (ayacut) Group in Ha.
Command area (ayacut) in Ha.



Percentage Extent
Percentage Extent
Percentage Cost
Percentage Cost
Percentage No.
Percentage No.
Cost/Ha.. Rs.
Cost/Ha.. Rs.
S No.
No.
No.
No.
1 0 to 20 125 1,426 26.8 18,829 79 73 74 33 524 9.2 17,631 21 27 26 158 1,950 36.1
2 21 to 40 202 6,700 116.5 17,383 73 72 74 75 2,554 40.3 15,771 27 28 26 277 9,254 156.7
3 41 to 80 95 5,939 89.6 15,088 62 62 69 58 3,692 40.6 10,986 38 38 31 153 9,630 130.2
4 81 to 120 59 6,240 80.5 12,900 63 62 64 35 3,769 44.3 11,765 37 38 36 94 10,010 124.8
5 121 to 200 69 11,408 136.8 11,987 62 61 66 43 7,353 70.8 9,630 38 39 34 112 18,761 207.6
6 201 to 280 45 11,315 140.6 12,423 69 70 73 20 4,822 52.7 10,920 31 30 27 65 16,137 193.2
7 281 to 400 32 11,506 130.6 11,354 74 75 80 11 3,779 32.9 8,717 26 25 20 43 15,284 163.6
8 401 to 800 36 20,655 204.7 9,912 77 75 82 11 6,817 45.2 6,631 23 25 18 47 27,472 249.9
9 > 800 20 27,772 226.2 8,145 77 77 85 6 8,337 40.0 4,796 23 23 15 26 36,109 266.2
683 102,961 1,152.3 292 41,647 376.0 975 144,608 1,528

Figure 5.25
Command Area (ayacut) Group Wise Status of LIS (by No.)
250
Functional
200 202
No. of LIS
150
125
100
Non-Functional 95
75
69
58 59
50 45
43
33 35 32 36
20 20
11 11 6
0
0 to 20 21 to 40 41 to 80 81 to 120 121 to 201 to 281 to 401 to > 800
200 280 400 800
Command area (ayacut) group in Ha.
Figure 5.26
Command Area (ayacut) Group Wise Status of LIS (by extent)
30,000
27,772
25,000 Functional
20,655
20,000
15,000
11,408 11,315 11,506

8,337
6,700 7,353 6,817
5,939 6,240
5,000 4,822
3,692 3,769 3,779
2,554
1,426
0 524
200 280 400 800
Command area (ayacut) group in Ha
Figure 5.27
Command Area (ayacut) Group Wise Status of LIS (by cost)
250.0
226.2
200.0 204.7
Functional
150.0
136.8 140.6
130.6
116.5
100.0
89.6
80.5
70.8 Non-Functional
50.0 52.7
40.3 40.6 44.3 45.2 40.0
32.9
26.8
9.2
0.0
200 280 400 800
Figure 5.28
Command Area (ayacut) Group Wise Status of LIS (by cost/Ha.)
20,000
18,829
18,000 17,631 17,383
16,000 15,771
15,088
14,000
Cost per Ha. in Rs.
Functional
12,900
12,423
12,000 11,765 11,987
10,986 11,354
10,920
10,000 . 9,630 9,912
Non-Functional 8,717
8,000 8,145
6,631
6,000
4,796
4,000
2,000
0
200 280 400 800
Figure 5.29
Command Area (ayacut) Group Wise Status of LIS (by percentage No.)
90
80 79
77 77
73 74
70 Functional 69
Percentage No. of LIS
62 63 62
60
50
Non-Functional
40 38
38 37
30 31
27 26
23 23
20 21
10
0
200 280 400 800
Figure 5.30
Command Area (ayacut) Group Wise Status of LIS (by percentage extent)
90
Percentage command area(ayacut)
80
75 75 77
73 72
70 Functional 70
60 62 62 61
50
Non-Functional
40 39
38 38
30 30
27 28
25 25 23
20
10

200 280 400 800

Figure 5.31
Command Area (ayacut) Group Wise LIS (by percentage cost)
90
85
80 80 82
74 74 Functional 73
70 69
Percentage cost of LIS
64 66
60
50
Non-Functional
40
36 34
30 31
26 26 27
20 20 18
15
10
0
200 280 400 800
 The command area under group 0 to 20 Ha is nominal at 1950
Ha with 158 No.'s of commissioned LIS
 The No. of LIS are highest i.e. 277 with a command area of 9254
Ha in the command area group of 21 to 40 Ha.
 The command area is highest under the group with more than
2000 Ha with the lowest No. of LIS at 26.
 The No. of “F” (202) & “NF” (75)LIS is highest in the command
area group of 21 to 40 Ha.
 There is sharp increase in the command area in the groups 401
– 800 ha & > 800 ha
 Cost per ha of the “NF” LIS is consistently less than that of “F”
LIS in all the groups.
 The cost per ha of the LIS is consistently falling with the increase
in command area under the scheme.
•The percentage No. of “F” LIS started with 79% in the
lowest command area group of 0-20 ha and reached
minimum of 62% in the 41 – 80 ha group, moved around
the same range in the next 2 groups up to 121 – 200
ha. It started raising and reached 77% in the 402 – 800
ha range and stabilized in the next range
•The same trend was also observed in the case
percentage command area and percentage cost of
Functional LIS
•The percentage of “F” LIS is highest in the smallest and
the biggest command area groups.
•“NF” LIS is highest in the three command area ranges
41 to 80 Ha, 81 to 120 Ha and 121 to 200 Ha ranges but
not in the lower or higher command area ranges.
•It can be concluded that, cost per Ha of LIS is
very high in the smaller LIS.
•It falls with the increase in command area
under the scheme.
•The law of economy of scale applies here
•The popular belief that smaller schemes can
only be maintained by the beneficiaries is not
correct. Even the bigger LIS are being
maintained by the beneficiaries in equally good
numbers
•The percentage of “F” LIS is highest in the
smallest and the biggest command area groups.
Programme-wise status of LIS
Table 5.6
ABSTRACT OF PROGRAMME WISE STATUS OF COMMISSIONED LIS
Functional Non - Functional Total
Average ayacut per scheme
Average cost per Ha. in Rs.

Percentage Command area
Percentage Command area

Contemplated command
area (ayacut) in Ha.


Percentage Cost
Percentage Cost
Percentage No.
Percentage No.
Cost/Ha. in Rs.
Cost/Ha..in Rs.
Programme
in Ha.
S No.
No.
No.
No.
1 TGKP 172 12,335 80.6 6,537 96 92 96 7 1,122.6 3.6 3,242 4 8 4 179 13,457.8 84.3 75 6262
2 DW 186 19,509 274.6 14,076 82 93 91 41 1,504.2 25.5 16,968 18 7 9 227 21,012.9 300.1 93 14283
3 ADSFS 115 21,228 239.1 11,263 72 80 78 45 5,420.4 69.0 12,731 28 20 22 160 26,648.6 308.1 167 11562
5 NIDC 108 34,205 346.7 10,136 59 62 74 74 20,543.9 118.8 5,781 41 38 26 182 54,749.2 465.5 301 8502
4 IRDP 33 7,948 63.3 7,968 57 59 62 25 5,629.6 39.1 6,950 43 41 38 58 13,577.2 102.5 234 7546
6 NSFDC 24 1,796 30.2 16,825 50 65 64 24 984.2 17.2 17,497 50 35 36 48 2,780.2 47.4 58 17063
7 ITDA 14 809 8.3 10,317 16 14 14 71 4,942.8 50.3 10,176 84 86 86 85 5,751.4 58.6 68 10196
652 97,830 1042.9 10,661 287 40,147.7 323.6 8,060 939 137,977.3 1,366.5
Figure 5.32
Programme Wise Status of LIS (by No.)
200
186
180
172
160
140
Number of schemes
Functional
120
115
108
100
80
74 71
60 Non-Functional
41 45
40
33
25 24
20
14
7
0
TGKP DW ADSFS NIDC IRDP NSFDC ITDA
Name of the programme
Figure 5.33
Programme Wise Status of LIS (by extent)
40,000
35,000 34,205
30,000
25,000
Functional
21,228 20,543.9
20,000 19,509
15,000
12,335
10,000
7,948
5,000 5,420.4 5,629.6 4,942.8
Non-Functional
1,122.6 1,504.2 1,796
984.2
0 809
Figure 5.34
Programme Wise Status of LIS (by cost)
400.0
350.0 346.7
Functional
300.0
274.6
250.0
239.1
200.0
150.0
118.8
100.0 Non-Functional
80.6
69.0 63.3
50.0 50.3
39.1
25.5 30.2
17.2
0.0 3.6 8.3
Figure 5.35
Programme Wise Status of LIS (by cost/Ha.)
20,000
18,000
17,497
16,968 16,825
16,000
14,000 14,076
Cost per Ha. in Rs.
12,731
12,000
11,263 Functional
10,000 10,136 10,317
10,176
8,000 7,968
Non-Functional
6,950
6,537
6,000 5,781
4,000
3,242
2,000
0

Figure 5.36
Programme Wise Status of LIS (by percentage No.)
120
100
96
82 84
80
72
Functional
60 59
the 57
Non-Functional 50
41 43
40
28
20 18 16
4
0

Figure 5.36
Programme Wise Status of LIS (by percentage No.)
120
100
96
82 84
80
72
Functional
60 59
the 57
Non-Functional 50
41 43
40
28
20 18 16
4
0

Figure 5.37
Programme Wise Satus of LIS (by percentage extent)
100
92 93
90
86
Percentage extent under the LIS
80 80
70
Functional 65
62
60 59
50
Non-Functional
40 41
38
35
30
20 20
14
10 8 7
0
Figure 5.38
Programme Wise Status of LIS (by percentage cost)
120
100
96
91
Percentage cost of LIS
86
80 78
74
Functional
62 64
60
Non-Functional
40 38 36
26
20 22
14
9
4
0

 lowest No. of “NF” LIS are under Telugu Grameena Kranthi
Pathakam (TGKP) programme which is a participatory project by
the beneficiaries.
 Deposit Works (DW) programme is having the highest No. of “F”
LIS, which is closely followed by TGKP
 Here the beneficiaries’ pretty well know that they have to take up
the maintenance of LIS immediately after commissioning and their
mindset is prepared for that in-advance.
 The highest No. of “NF” LIS is under Normal Irrigation
Development Corporation (NIDC) programme
 They were maintained by APSIDC until Dec.1995 and handed
over to the beneficiary committees as per the change in policy of
the government.
 The second highest No. of “NF” LIS is in the Integrated Tribal
Development Authority (ITDA) programme. Out of the 85
commissioned LIS only 14 are “F” and 71 are “NF”.
•The largest command area under the “F”/ “NF” LIS is under NIDC.
•Similarly NSFDC accounts for the lowest extent
•The cost of “F” LIS is higher under programmes; TGKP, NIDC & IRDP.
•Cost of “NF” LIS is higher under programmes; DW, ADSFS & NSFDC.
•Under ITDA programme the cost per Ha of F & NF LIS is almost equa
•The cost per Ha is highest under both “F” & “NF” LIS in NSFDC with
Rs.17, 497/- and Rs.18, 875/- per Ha respectively
• The number of “F” LIS by percentage is highest in the case of TGKP
•The percentage number of “F” & “NF” LIS is equal in the case of
NSFDC
•In the case of ITDA the percentage number of “NF” LIS is highest.
•The percentage command area (ayacut) under the “F” LIS is highest
(93%)in the case of DW and TGKP and lowest (14%) under ITDA
programme.
•. Under TGKP which have very high rate of functioning,
the farmers have participated from the initial stages of the scheme
and invested 50% in the capital cost. Most of these schemes are
cornered by small & marginal farmers of forward communities.
•LIS under DW, ADSFS programmes are taken up with the
concurrence of the beneficiaries that maintenance shall be taken
up by the beneficiary committee after commissioning of the
schemes. Here the farming community is only small & marginal
farmers but with several casts in the society.
•NIDC is taken up with the perception that the scheme shall be
maintained by APSIDC and water rate will be collected from the
beneficiaries. As such, beneficiaries could not digest the idea of
taking up the maintenance of the LIS when they were handed over
to the beneficiary committees during Dec.95 as per the policy
decision of the government
•The percentage functioning of the LIS taken up under IRDP &
NSFDC programmes is little less. Under these two programmes
it is clear to the beneficiaries that the schemes have to be
maintained by them. Most of the schemes being in the interior
areas and intended for segregated communities, who were
spoon fed by the government for obvious reasons, they were not
psychologically prepared to continue the maintenance of the
scheme by investing a nominal amount which is required for
annual maintenance.
•The LIS under ITDA programme are taken up for the tribal
people who are down trodden and live in segregated habitations.
They are not empowered or interested to take up the
maintenance of the LIS. The social involvement levels of these
people even during the construction are very low.
Structured Questionnaire
The perception of the farmers is collected from:
 38 L I Schemes spread over seven districts.
 A minimum of two farmers under any scheme
 One farmer for every 20 farmers under bigger

schemes
 Average perceptional weightage of the farmers for
each scheme is taken
 Appropriate weightages are given to the answer under
each question.
 The information collected from the Engineers is also
tabulated
•The schemes are divided into “F” and “NF” LIS
•Averages weightages for perceptions of the
engineers & farmers,
•Socio economic conditions of the farming
community is also given its due weightage based on
the following parameters.
•Political environment (based on the development
works done in the village through public works),
•Social structure (cast structure in the farming
population),
•Educational level,
•Economic level (based on the proportion of irrigated
land in the cultivated land)
Table 5.7
ABSTRACT OF PERCEPTIONAL ANALYSIS OF LIS
Weightage(25
Scheme Code
Status of the
Name of the
Enviroment
Educat.(10)
W'ge of the
Social (10)
Preception
scheme by
Economic
(10) W'ge
Irrigation
Effiiency
Political
Farmers
Scheme
Scheme
W'ge
W'ge
Er's
S No.
1 501 Gajjaram LIS N 13 21.00 6.3 5 2.5 10 59
2 503 Vadapalli LIS N 17.3 20.50 6 10.00 2.50 9.00 10
3 707 Vejendla Suddapalli LISN 6.5 21.25 2 5.00 7.50 9.00 23
4 803 Inamanamelluru-2 LIS N 13.4 20.25 2.5 7.50 2.50 5.00 76
5 804 Polavaram LIS N 15.4 26.75 2.5 5.00 7.50 2.00 76
6 1802 Damarancha LIS N 10.8 21.50 0.1 7.50 2.50 5.00 72
7 1803 Bolak Palli LIS N 15.9 22.00 0.1 7.50 0.00 6.00 0
8 1901 Vittapur LIS N 11.1 22.25 3.6 7.50 2.50 3.00 65
9 1902 Kopparadevi LIS N 14.7 13.50 5.6 10.00 0.00 3.00 21
10 1904 Mategaon LIS N 19 22.00 4.2 7.50 0.00 5.00 90
11 1905 Andavalli LIS N 18.6 23.50 4.2 10.00 0.00 9.00 0
Toal average 14.2 21.3 3.4 7.5 2.5 6.0 45
12 502 Kumaradevam LIS Y 19 25.75 6.3 7.50 5.00 9.00 46
13 504 Nidadavolu LIS Y 14.9 27.25 7.7 10.00 5.00 9.00 50
14 505 Vegeswara Puram LIS Y 20.1 26.75 5.9 7.50 2.50 10.00 45
15 601 Purushottapatnam LIS Y 20.6 24.50 4.7 7.50 2.50 10.00 100
16 602 Gannvaram LIS Y 15.5 25.00 6.7 7.50 10.00 9.00 95
17 603 Avanigadda LIS Y 17.3 23.50 4.6 7.50 7.50 6.00 100
18 701 Krishnaya palem LIS Y 20.5 27.00 5.1 10.00 7.50 10.00 91
19 702 Karla palem LIS Y 20.2 26.00 3 10.00 2.50 7.00 71
20 703 Kondakavuru LIS Y 18.9 24.25 5.5 7.50 0.00 10.00 71
21 704 Gopalam vari palem LISY 15 21.50 6.5 5.00 2.50 9.00 26
22 705 Boggavaram LIS Y 13 29.50 4.3 10.00 0.00 8.00 29
23 706 Patha reddy palem LIS Y 18.7 27.00 4.9 7.50 7.50 9.00 64
24 708 Neerukonda LIS Y 14.7 23.50 5.1 7.50 2.50 7.00 83
25 801 Kanuparthi L I S Y 21 25.00 3.9 5.00 2.50 7.00 73
26 802 Inamanamelluru-1 LIS Y 18.4 25.25 4.5 7.50 2.50 3.00 67
27 805 Ulichi L I Scheme Y 22.3 24.25 9.1 7.50 0.00 6.00 100
28 806 Chinaganjam LIS Y 23.2 25.00 1.4 10.00 2.50 4.00 48
29 807 Motupalli LIS Y 21.6 25.00 1.7 7.50 0.00 5.00 36
30 1801 Kistapur LIS Y 12 25.00 4.1 7.50 0.00 7.00 129
31 1903 Mulakala LIS Y 12.8 23.25 3 5.00 0.00 6.00 43
32 2301 R3 LIS Y 9.5 22.00 2 5.00 7.50 8.00 38
33 2302 L-3 LIS Y 11.9 22.00 1.9 5.00 2.50 6.00 38
34 2303 Ragadapa LIS Y 16 21.50 2.6 2.50 0.00 10.00 46
35 2304 Special Alwal LIS Y 14.1 18.75 5 2.50 5.00 9.00 25
36 2305 L-1 LIS Y 11.9 22.75 2.1 7.50 0.00 8.00 32
37 2306 L22-23 LIS Y 19.3 25.75 6.8 5.00 2.50 8.00 25
38 2307 L-32 LIS Y 13.8 19.25 5 7.50 0.00 8.00 16
Average of Functional LIS 16.9 24.3 4.6 7.0 3.0 7.7 59
Average of Non-Functional LIS 14.1 21.3 3.4 7.5 2.5 6.0 45
Average of Functional LIS
Status of the
Average of Non-Functional LIS

Scheme
Irrigation Effiiency
weightage with
50% points
22.4 14.1
29.4 16.9
Farmers Preception
Table 5.8
Weightage(25)
W'ge of the scheme
by Er's perception
21.3 (35)
24.3
Political
ABSTRACT OF PERCEPTIONS (Indicators)
Enviroment (10)
Economic (10)
W'ge
Educat.(10) W'ge
3.4 6.0 2.5
4.6 7.7 3.0
Social (10) W'ge

7.5
7.0
Figure 5.39
Perceptional Analysis of LIS
35.0
29.4
30.0
Functional
24.3
25.0
Weightage points
22.4
21.3
20.0 Non-Functional
16.9
15.0 14.1
10.0 7.7 7.0 7.5

6.0
4.6
5.0 3.4 3.0 2.5
0.0
Irrigation Farmers W'ge of the Political Economic (10) Educat.(10) Social (10) W'ge
Effiiency Preception scheme by Er's Enviroment (10) W'ge W'ge
weightage with Weightage(25) perception (35)
50% points
Nature of weightage
 The perceptions of the Farmers & Engineers

about the performance of different sub-systems
of the LIS, is a clear indication about the odds in
running the LIS.
 The political environment, economic condition &
educational levels are affecting the performance
and maintenance of the LIS by the farmers.
 The social status (cast) seems to be not having
any impact or relation to the performance or
maintenance of LIS by the farmers.
•The maintainability of the LIS by the farmers will
be the result of their perceptions.
•The political environment, economic status and
educational levels of the beneficiary community are
having an impact on the irrigation efficiency and
maintainability of the LIS.
•The social (cast) environment is not having any
bearing on the efficiency or manageability of the
LIS by the farmers.
To Analyze the Farmer Managed LIS & bring out the
Best Management
This is to bring out the competencies of the LIS
managements in four aspects
1. Productivity of Land, which is measured in Rupees
per Ha.
2. Productivity of Water, which is measured in Rupees
per Cubic Meter of water.
3. Water cess collection as percentage of demand.
4. R & M expenditure as percentage of collection.
The over all weightage is sorted out in descending order
and the top scheme is the best managed scheme
The management of the top scheme is adjudged as the
best management.
Table 5.9
EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF LIS
(Ayacut) in Ha.
commissioning
Productivity of
Productivity of
command area
land in Rs/Ha.
Irrigated Area
Contemplated
% of demand
Collection as
Collection as
Name of the
Name of the
Expenditure
Efficiency
Irrigation
Rs/Cum.
water in
Society
Village
Date of
in Ha.
% of
2 Sri Annapurna LI Scheme 2 Kammavari palem Oct-97 246.9 237 26358 6.7 100 138.0 96
9 NamdamuriTarakarama LIS Purushottapatnam Oct-98 587.2 587 30787 3.7 93 250.3 100
12 Vegeswarapuram LIS Vegeswarapuram Oct-76 2250.1 1012 53002 4.5 48 115.3 45
20 Sri Kodanda Ramaswami LIS Jammula Palem Oct-97 101.2 162 20158 7.7 100 100.0 160
8 NamdamuriTarakarama LIS Krishnayapalem Oct-96 443.5 416 29475 2.7 100 111.0 94
1 Sri vighneswara LI Society P B Devam Oct-96 303.5 194 24402 4.1 97 114.9 64
6 Maruthi pumping scheme Dachapuram Oct-89 202.3 127 42603 3.1 84 97.8 63
11 Kumaradevam LIS Kovvuru Oct-76 1881.8 1820 39825 3.9 33 113.2 97
22 Gopalakrishna joint farming society Kattubadipalem Oct-88 81.7 67 20757 3.0 100 100.7 82
13 Sri Srinivasa LI coop Society Kakumanu Oct-90 1416.4 1355 33112 3.0 73 104.9 96
7 Balatripura sundari LIS-2 Peravali palem Feb-98 63.5 64 25619 9.1 74 88.9 100
10 Sri Ramanjaneya LIS Nidadavolu Dec-97 242.8 123 33332 4.0 59 94.1 51
14 Arulla LIS Arulla Oct-95 283.3 162 27104 1.7 99 100.2 57
21 Sri Sai LIS Pedamatla pudi Oct-96 291.4 150 18530 0.8 100 133.7 51
3 Muppalla-4 LI Scheme Muppalla Oct-96 56.7 45 20794 2.4 100 100.0 79
4 Umamaheswara LI Society Domada Feb-97 40.5 40 17736 3.3 87 108.8 100
5 Balatripura sundari LIS-1 Peravali palem Feb-98 170.4 170 25619 7.4 56 93.3 100
18 Ramuni Cheruvu LIS Teldarupalli Oct-98 60.7 22 25497 1.8 53 151.8 37
16 Sri Ramanjaneya LIS Damuluru Feb-99 363.0 243 35682 2.3 82 92.8 67
15 Gramadevata Bangaramma Talli LISo Lakshmai Narusu Pet Jul-95 202.3 40 18253 1.7 83 131.7 20
19 Basaveswara LIS Kishtapur Oct-98 242.8 263 22030 1.9 94 96.2 108
Table 5.10
EVALUATION OF BEST MANAGEMENT OF LIS
Gross Weightage points

Productivity of water in
Date of commissioning
Productivity of land in
Irrigated Area in Ha.
Name of the Society
area (Ayacut) in Ha.
Irrigation Efficiency
Name of the Village
Collection as % of
Collection as % of
Weightage points
Weightage points
Weightage points
Weightage points
Expenditure
Rs/Cum.
demand
Rs/Ha.
2 Sri Annapurna LI Scheme 2 Kammavari palem
Oct-97 246.9 237 26358 13 6.7 19 100 21 138.0 20 73 96
9 NamdamuriTarakarama LIS Purushottapatnam
Oct-98 587.2 587 30787 16 3.7 14 93 13 250.3 22 65 100
12 Vegeswarapuram LIS Vegeswarapuram
Oct-76 2250.1 1012 53002 22 4.5 18 48 2 115.3 17 59 45
20 Sri Kodanda Ramaswami LIS Jammula Palem
Oct-97 101.2 162 20158 5 7.7 21 100 22 100.0 9 57 160
8 NamdamuriTarakarama LIS Krishnayapalem
Oct-96 443.5 416 29475 15 2.7 9 100 19 111.0 14 57 94
1 Sri vighneswara LI Society P B Devam
Oct-96 303.5 194 24402 9 4.1 17 97 15 114.9 16 57 64
6 Maruthi pumping scheme Dachapuram
Oct-89 202.3 127 42603 21 3.1 12 84 11 97.8 7 51 63
11 Kumaradevam LIS Kovvuru
Oct-76 1881.8 1820 39825 20 3.9 15 33 1 113.2 15 51 97
22 Gopalakrishna joint farming society Kattubadipalem
Oct-88 81.7 67 20757 6 3.0 10 100 20 100.7 11 47 82
13 Sri Srinivasa LI coop Society Kakumanu
Oct-90 1416.4 1355 33112 17 3.0 11 73 6 104.9 12 46 96
7 Balatripura sundari LIS-2 Peravali palem
Feb-98 63.5 64 25619 12 9.1 22 74 8 88.9 2 44 100
Sep-91 689 549 31463 14 5 15 82 13 121 13 55 91
10 Sri Ramanjaneya LIS Nidadavolu Dec-97 242.8 123 33332 18 4.0 16 59 5 94.1 5 44 51
14 Arulla LIS Arulla Oct-95 283.3 162 27104 14 1.7 3 99 16 100.2 10 43 57
21 Sri Sai LIS Pedamatla pudi Oct-96 291.4 150 18530 4 0.8 2 100 17 133.7 19 42 51
3 Muppalla-4 LI Scheme Muppalla Oct-96 56.7 45 20794 7 2.4 8 100 18 100.0 8 41 79
4 Umamaheswara LI Society Domada Feb-97 40.5 40 17736 2 3.3 13 87 12 108.8 13 40 100
5 Balatripura sundari LIS-1 Peravali palem Feb-98 170.4 170 25619 11 7.4 20 56 4 93.3 4 39 100
18 Ramuni Cheruvu LIS Teldarupalli Oct-98 60.7 22 25497 10 1.8 5 53 3 151.8 21 39 37
16 Sri Ramanjaneya LIS Damuluru Feb-99 363.0 243 35682 19 2.3 7 82 9 92.8 3 38 67
15 Gramadevata Bangaramma Talli LIS Lakshmai Narusu Pet Jul-95 202.3 40 18253 3 1.7 4 83 10 131.7 18 35 20
19 Basaveswara LIS Kishtapur Oct-98 242.8 263 22030 8 1.9 6 94 14 96.2 6 34 108
17 Kotta Singapeta LIS Kotta Singa Peta Oct-86 141.6 45 16803 1 0.7 1 74 7 75.0 1 10 31
Jun-96 190 118 23762 9 3 8 81 10 107 10 37 64
Average for top 11 LIS
Average date of
commissioning
Average for bottom 11 LIS Jun-96

Sep-91
area (Ayacut) in Ha.
Table 5.11
Productivity of land in
Rs/Ha.
190 23762
689 31463
Productivity of water in
Rs/Cum.
2.56
4.67
Gross Weightage points

37
55
AVERAGE VALUE OF MANAGEMENT INDICATORS FOR THE LIS
Irrigation Efficiency
64
91
Figure 5.40
Management Evaluation of LIS (command area)
800
Average for top 11 LIS,
689
700
600
Command area in Ha
500
400
300
Average for bottom 11
LIS, 190
200
100
Average for top 11 LIS Average for bottom 11 LIS
Command area
Figure 5.41
Management Evaluation of LIS (productivity of land)
35000
Average for top 11 LIS,
31463
Value of productivity 0f land in Rs.
30000

25000 LIS, 23762
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Productivity of land
Figure 5.42
Management Evaluation of LIS (productivity of water)
5.00
4.67
4.50
Productivity of water in Rs.per Cum
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.56
2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Productivity of water
Figure 5.43
Management Evaluation of LIS (date of commissioning(AGE))
Mar-97

Oct-95 LIS,
Jun-96
Jun-94
Jan-93
Sep-91
Average for top 11

LIS,
May-90 Sep-91
Dec-88
Nature of LIS
Figure 5.44
Management Evaluation of LIS (weightages)
91
100
90
80
64
70 55
Weightages
60
Avg. for Bottom
Avg. for 37 11 LIS
50
top 11 LIS
40
30
20
10
0
Gross Weightage points Irrigation Efficiency
 The average command area under the top eleven LIS is 689 Ha
and that under the bottom eleven LIS is 190 Ha.
 The average productivity of land under the top eleven LIS is
Rs.31,463/- per Ha and that under the bottom eleven LIS is
Rs.23,762/- per Ha.
 The average productivity of water under the top eleven LIS is
Rs.4.67 per Cum and that under the bottom eleven LIS is Rs.2.56
per Cum.
 The average date of commissioning of the top eleven LIS is
September ’91.and that for the bottom eleven LIS is June ’96.
 The average gross weightage of all the four parameters for the top
eleven LIS is 55 and that for the bottom eleven LIS is 37.
 The average irrigation efficiency for the top eleven LIS is 91 and
that for the bottom eleven LIS is 64.
1. Better functioning of the LIS is not a function of
size of the (command area) LIS.
2. Productivity of land is higher in the case of bigger
LIS.
3. Productivity of water is higher in the case of bigger
LIS.
4. Age of the LIS is not a function in the better
performance.
5.4 Solution of LP model
The objective is to determine the optimal

allocation of the water and irrigated area for
different crops to maximize the net returns
Ten crops are identified which are generally raised
under most of the LI Schemes.
The net returns from agricultural productions for
various crops in two seasons is maximized
subject to the resource, operational, and
management constraints under the LI Schemes.
sub-systems influencing the efficient functioning of
a Lift Irrigation System
1. Water availability in the source at any given time.
2. Efficiency of the intake to draw required water.
3. Efficiency of the pumping machinery.
4. Efficiency of the pressure main.
5. Efficiency of the power supply in quantity & quality.
6. Land consolidation after commissioning.
7. Efficiency of the Distributary system to supply water
to the fields in time and space.
8. Land development with reference to application
efficiency of water.
9. The combined efficiency of all the above sub-
systems is the over all efficiency of the LIS.
•Mainly there are three resources required for
running an LIS;
•Land, Water, and Electricity.
•Even though Electricity is one of the main inputs
to pump water to the crops, its output is water .
As such, it is a function of water
•Hence, optimal utilization of the land and water
will result in maximizing the net return under a
LIS for which an LP Problem is formulated.
•Efficiency of water availability is the ratio of
water available in the source to the designed
pumping capacity of the scheme during the base
period of the proposed crops under the scheme.
It should be >1 to have the confidence in the
system.
•The crop calendar is prepared for ten different crops generally grown
under the LIS in the state and presented in Table 5.12.
•Month wise crop water requirement is worked out for all the ten
crops and given in Table 5.13
•Water availability during different months under these four schemes
is calculated and tabulated in table 5.14
•The two universal constraints are applied;
•The water usage in any month is less than or equal to the availability
of the water during that month.
•The total extent under all the standing crops during any month is
less than or equal to contemplated command area under the
scheme.
•Other constraints like restricting the extents under certain crops,
avoiding to grow certain crops are also introduced to bring down the
LP modeling to the possible conditions that are more nearer to the
ground realities.
Table 5.12
CROP WATER CALENDER UNDER LIS
CROP
Mini
Sugar Chillie Red black Ground Black
Month Paddy cane Cotton s Maize gram gram Coconut Nut gram
a b c d e f g h i j
June 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
July 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
August 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
September 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
October 1 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
November 0 1 1 1 0 1 0 0 0 0
December 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 1
January 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 1
Febravery 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 1
March 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 1 0
April 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0
May 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
Table 5.13
MONTHLY WATER REQUIREMENT OF CROPS UNDER LIS (All figures in meters)
Water requirements of Crops grown under LIS
Mini
Sugar Chillie Red black Ground Black
Paddy cane Cotton s Maize gram gram Coconut Nut gram
Kh. Rabi Rabi Rabi Rabi Rabi
Month a b c d e f g h i j
June 0 0.299 0 0 0 0 0 0.180 0 0
July 0.213 0.12 0 0 0 0 0 0.090 0 0
August 0.457 0.105 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
September 0.333 0.034 0.011 0.035 0 0 0 0 0 0
October 0.345 0.052 0.137 0.158 0 0.035 0 0 0 0
November 0 0.111 0.197 0.177 0 0.052 0 0 0 0
December 0 0.155 0.201 0.132 0.067 0.052 0.105 0 0.034 0.105
January 0 0.212 0.169 0 0.09 0.052 0.115 0 0.121 0.115
Febravery 0 0.277 0 0 0.116 0 0 0.050 0.266 0.115
March 0 0.434 0 0 0.183 0 0 0.075 0.401 0
April 0 0.468 0 0 0 0 0 0.120 0.333 0
May 0 0.485 0 0 0 0 0 0.180 0 0
Total 1.348 2.752 0.715 0.502 0.456 0.191 0.22 0.695 1.155 0.335
Net Return in
Rs. per Ha of
crop 10,047 40,401 13,591 42,008 3,459 4,939 1,053 5,276 10,197 6,915
Table 5.14 Monthly water availability
command area
Contempleted
(ayacut) Ha.
Name of the
society
S No.
Month wise Water availability in Ha. m

Jan. Feb. Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Maruthi
6 pumping scheme 202 28.41 25.66 28.41 27.50 28.41 27.50 28.41 28.41 27.50 28.41 27.50 28.41
Vegeswarapura
12 m LIS 2250 213.31 192.67 213.31 206.43 213.31 206.43 213.31 213.31 206.43 213.31 206.43 213.31
14 Arulla LIS 283 0 0 0 0 0 0 49.77 49.77 48.17 49.77 48.17 49.772
21 Sri Sai LIS 291 51.19 46.24 51.19 49.54 0 0 51.19 51.19 49.54 51.19 49.54 51.19
For linear programming, four LIS are selected.
Two are selected with the perennial water
availability where crops like sugarcane can be
raised;
Maruthi Pumping Scheme in Khammam district
with a command area of 202 ha.
Vegeswarapuram LIS in West Godavari district with
a command area of 2250 ha.
Two other LIS are selected with seasonal water
supply;
Sri Sai LIS with a command area of 291 ha and
water availability for ten months.
Arulla LIS with a command area of 283 ha and
water availability for 6 months.
Table 5.15
Resource Utilisation Under Maruthi Pumping Scheme
Contemplated command area under the scheme= 202 Ha
i) The water usage in any month is less than or equal to the availability of the water during that month.
ii) The total extent of all the standing crops during any month is less than equal to contemplated command area under the
scheme.
iii) The extent of Coconut crop under the LIS is restricted to standing crop of 50 Ha. i.e. <= 50
in
Month Water Utility in Ha m
Total land under crop

Paddy Sugarcane Blackgram Chillies Coconut Groundnut
Total water utility

Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha
Ha m
Jan 40.02 8.48 23.391 2.69 8.3194 1.01 12.2 72
Feb 40.02 11.09 23.391 2.69 50 2.50 8.3194 2.21 18.5 122
Mar 40.02 17.37 50 3.75 8.3194 3.34 24.5 98
Apr 40.02 18.73 50 6.00 8.3194 2.77 27.5 98
May 40.02 19.41 50 9.00 28.4 90
Jun 40.02 11.97 50 9.00 21.0 90
Jul 16.656 3.55 40.02 4.80 50 4.50 12.9 107
Aug 16.656 7.61 40.02 4.20 11.8 57
Sep 16.656 5.55 40.02 1.36 130.3 4.56 11.5 187
Oct 16.656 5.75 40.02 2.08 130.3 20.58 28.4 187
Nov 40.02 4.44 130.3 23.06 27.5 170
Figure 5.45
Month Wise Land Utility Under Maruthi Pumping Scheme
250
202
200 187 187
170
Land in Ha
150
122
107
98 98
100 90 90
72
57
50
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Momth
Figure 5.46
Month Wise Water Utility Under Maruthi Pumping Scheme
30.0 28.4 28.4
27.5 27.5
26.1
25.0 24.5
21.0
Water utility in Ha m
20.0 18.5
15.0
12.9
12.2 11.8 11.5
10.0
5.0
0.0
Month
LP solution for Maruthi Pumping Scheme
 Highest land utility is 202 Ha during the month

of Dec. and the lowest is 57 Ha during the
month of August.
 The highest water utility is 28.4 Ha m during the
months May & October. The lowest water utility
is 11.5 Ha m during the month of September.
 Most of the crops are raised and crop intensity is
133%.
Table 5.16
Resource Utilisation Under Vegeswarapuram LIS
Contemplated command area = 2250 Ha
The extent under coconut be limited to 200 Ha. The extent under chillies is limited to 500 Ha.
The sugarcane is restricted to 200 Ha due to the adverse market conditions.
The water utility during any month is less than or equal to the availability.
The land utility during any month is less than or equal to the contemplated command area.
Crop wise, Month wise Land & Water Utility
Paddy Sugarcane Cotton Blackgram Chillies Coconut Red Gram Groundnut
Total water utility
Total land under

Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
Water required
crop in Ha
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
in Ha m
Month
Jan 200 42.40 97.7 16.51 490 56.31 696 36.18 266.8 32.28 184 1750
Feb 200 55.40 490 56.31 200 10.00 266.8 70.96 193 956
Mar 200 86.80 200 15.00 266.8 106.97 209 467
Apr 200 93.60 200 24.00 266.8 88.83 206 467
May 200 97.00 200 36.00 133 200
Jun 200 59.80 200 36.00 96 200
Jul 249.8 53.20 200 24.00 200 18.00 95 450
Aug 249.8 114.14 200 21.00 135 250
Sep 249.8 83.17 200 6.80 97.7 1.07 500 17.50 109 750
Oct 249.8 86.17 200 10.40 97.7 13.39 500 79.00 696 24.35 189 750
Nov 200 22.20 97.7 19.25 500 88.50 696 36.18 130 500
Dec 200 31.00 97.7 19.64 490 51.42 500 66.00 696 36.18 266.8 9.07 177 1256
Figure 5.47
Month Wise Land Utility Under Vegeswarapuram LIS
2000
1800 1750
1600
1400
1256
Land in Ha
1200
1000 956
800 750 750
600 500
467 467 450
400
250
200 200
200
0
Month
Figure 5.48
Month Wise Water Utiliy Under Vegeswarapuram LIS
250
209 206
200 193 189
184
177
150
133 135
130
109
96 95
100
50
0
Momth
LP solution for Vegeswarapurm LIS
 The highest land utility under the scheme is

1750 Ha during January and the lowest land
utility 250Ha during May and June months.
 The highest water utility under the scheme is
209 Ha m during March and the lowest is 95 Ha
m during July.
 Almost all the crops are raised and crop intensity
is also 120%.
Table 5.17
Resource Utilization Under Sri Sai LIS
A constraint is imposed that the extent under chillies <= 100 Ha.
The usage of Land & Water is limited by the availability constraints
Crop wise, Month wise Land & Water Utility
Paddy Cotton Chillies Groundnut
Total land under

utility in Ha m
Crop area in
Crop area in
Crop area in
Crop area in
Total water
required in
required in
required in
required in
crop in Ha
Water
Water
Water
Water
Ha m
Ha m
Ha m
Ha m
Ha
Ha
Ha
Ha
Month
Jan 63.3 10.71 127.7 15.45 26 191
Feb 127.7 33.96 34 128
Mar 127.7 51.19 51 128
Apr 127.7 42.51 43 128
May 0 0
Jun 0 0
Jul 77.4 16.49 16 77
Aug 77.4 35.38 35 77
Sep 77.4 25.78 63.3 0.70 100 3.50 30 241
Oct 77.4 26.71 63.3 8.68 100 15.80 51 241
Nov 63.3 12.48 100 17.70 30 163
Dec 63.3 12.73 100 13.20 127.7 4.34 30 291
Figure 5.49
Month Wise Land Utility Under Sri Sai LIS
350
300 291
250 241 241

Land utility in Ha
200 191
163
150
128 128 128
100
77 77
50
0 0
0
Month
Figure 5.50
Month Wise Water Utility Under Sri Sai LIS
60
51 51
50
43
40
35
34
30 30 30
30
26
20 16
10
0 0
0
Month
LP solution for Sri Sai LIS Observations &
conclusions
 Highest land utility under the scheme is 291 Ha
during December, which is equal to the
command area under the scheme
 There is no crop during the months of May and
June as there is no water.
 The lowest cropped area is 77 Ha during July
and August.
 The highest water utility is 51 Ha m during the
months of March and October
 There is no water during May and June
 The lowest water utility is 16 Ha m during July.
Table 5.18
Resource Utilization Under Arulla LIS
A constraint is imposed that the extent under chillies <= 100 Ha.
Month Crop wise, Month wise Land & Water Utility
Total water utility in

Paddy Chillies
Total land under

Crop area in Ha
Crop area in Ha
Water required
Water required
Required in m
Required in m
Water depth
Water depth
crop in Ha
in Ha m
in Ha m
Ha m
Jan 0 0
Feb 0 0
Mar 0 0
Apr 0 0
May 0 0
Jun 0 0
Jul 10.9 0.213 2.31 2 11
Aug 10.9 0.457 4.96 5 11
Sep 10.9 0.333 3.61 272.1 0.035 9.52 13 283
Oct 10.9 0.345 3.74 272.1 0.158 43.00 47 283
Nov 272.1 0.177 48.17 48 272
Dec 272.1 0.132 35.92 36 272
Figure 5.51
Month Wise Land Utility Under Arulla LIS
300 283 283

272 272
250
Extent of land in Ha
200
150
100
50
11 11
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Month
Figure 5.52
Month Wise Water Utility Under Arulla LIS
60
50 48
47
40
36
30
20
13
10
5
2
0 0 0 0 0 0
0
Month
LP solution for Arulla LIS Observations &
conclusions
 Highest land utility is 283 Ha during the months

of September and October.
 There is no crop during January to June as there
is no water.
 Lowest cropped area is 11 Ha during July and
August.
 The highest water utility is 48 Ha m during
November.
 There is no water from January to June.
 The lowest water utility is 2 Ha m during July.
Table 5.19
Comparisioin of LP results with current field Incomes
(In Rs. Millions)
(in Rs. Millions)

Name of the LIS
command area
Crop Intensity
Contempleted
Income as per
LPP Solution
Net Revenue
(ayacut) Ha.
Maximised
S No.
6 Maruthi pumping scheme 202 3.00 1.33 10.41

21 Sri Sai LIS 291 1.50 1.17 7.10
14 Arulla LIS 283 1.50 1.00 11.51
12 Vegeswarapuram LIS 2250 36.00 1.20 53.02
Figure 5.53
Net Revenue Under the LIS
14.00
12.00 11.51
10.41
Net revenue in Rs Millions
10.00
8.00 Maximised
7.10
6.00
4.00 3.00
2.00 Normal 1.50 1.50
0.00
Maruthi pumping scheme Sri Sai LIS Arulla LIS
Name of the LIS
Figure 5.54
Net Revenue Under Vegeswarapuram LIS
60.00
53.02
50.00
Net revenue in Rs. Millions
40.00 36.00
30.00 Maximised
Normal
20.00
10.00
0.00
Vegeswarapuram LIS
5.18 Comparison of LP results
 The present income due to the transplantation

of crops without scientific analysis and
planning improves, if crop mix is selected
through LP to maximize the return by optimally
utilizing the resources.
 The application of LP in the finalization of
cropping pattern by optimizing the resources
under a LIS to maximize the net return under
the scheme is possible through a bottom up
approach by involving the farmers
5.5 Engineering Model to arrive at the
irrigation efficiency of a LIS
The sub-systems as taken in article 4.4 are considered.
 Water availability in the source at any given time.
 Efficiency of the intake to draw required water.
 Dependability of the pumping machinery.
 Dependability of the pressure main.
 Dependability of the power supply in quantity & quality.
 Land consolidation after commissioning.
 Efficiency of the Distributary system to supply water to the
fields in time and space.
 Land development with reference to application efficiency of
water.
 Over all Efficiency of a Lift Irrigation Scheme is as derived in
chapter 5.4.9.
Efficiency of water availability =
Discharge of water available in the source

w = Designed Discharge for the Scheme
Qa
w = 5.1
Qd
Qa Discharge of water available in the source
Qd Designed discharge for the Scheme

Efficiency of the intake to draw required water =
Discharge of water drawn by the Intake

=
i Designed Discharge for the Scheme
Qi
i = 5.2
Qd
Qi Discharge of water drawn by the intake
Efficiency of the pumping machinery =
Actual discharge of the pump sets
p e = Designed discharge of the pump sets X
The Actual Number of Hours Run by the working pump sets
The number of hours, quality power supply available to run
the pump sets, during the base period of the proposed crops.
Qa d Ha
pe= Qd X H pa 5.3
Qad Actual discharge of the pump sets

Ha Actual number of hours run by the working pump sets
Hpa Number of hours quality power supply available
to run the pump sets during the base period of the
proposed crops
Efficiency of the pressure main =
Actual Discharge from the Pressure Main
pm
=
Actual Water Pumped into the Pressure Main
X
The number of hours the pressure main has worked
The number of hours the pump sets could run
Qap Hpr
=
pm Qad X Hpe a 5.4
Qap Actual discharge from the pressure main

Hpr Number of hours pressure main has worked
Hpea  Number of hours the pump sets could run
(without shut downs for want of pressure main repairs)
Efficiency of the power supply in quantity &
quality =
Actual number of hours Quality Power Supply Made Available to the Scheme
=
p The designed number of hours the Quality Power Supply is to be made
available to the scheme
H es
p = 5.5
H ed
Hes Actual number of hours Quality Power Supply
Made Available to the Scheme
Hed The designed number of hours the Quality Power Supply
is to be made available to the scheme
Land consolidation after commissioning =
Consolidated or Finalised Command Area

=
ca Contemplated Command Area.
A ca
ca
= 5.6
Aa
Aa Contemplated command area

Aca  Consolidated or finalized command area
Efficiency of the Distributary system to supply
water to the fields in time and space =
The portion of Consolidated Command Area of the Scheme to which

the Distributory System can Supply water in Time and Space
ds = The Consolidated Command Area under the Scheme.
A ds
ds
= 5.7
A ca
Ads The portion of Consolidated Command Area of the
Scheme to which the Distributory System can Supply
Water in Time and Space
Land development with reference to
application efficiency of water =
The Extent of Land Developed Suitably for Efficient Water Application
l d = 0.7 + The Extent efficiently covered by the Distributory System
A ld
ld = 0.7 + 5.8
A ds
Ald The Extent of Land Developed Suitably for
Efficient Water Application (Area of land developed
for efficient application of water to the requirements
of crops being harvested in the command area)
Over all Efficiency of a Lift Irrigation Scheme =
w X i X pe X pm X p X ld
l i s= 5.9
c aX ds
5.5.1 Practical Applicability of the formula
Direct performance efficiency of the each
component and that of the LIS can be
measured;
 Subject to the availability of measurement of
flows in the source & intake, discharges of each
pump set, discharge at the end of the pressure
main, discharge at salient points in the
distributory system and discharges from the off
take sluices at regular intervals.
 This is not possible with the present
infrastructure available with the LIS.
The other criteria, which bring out the final utility to user
are;
•Dependability of the sub systems, which will have a
direct bearing on the efficiency of water supply to the
crops and
•The resultant probability of running the scheme by the
farmers.
•The outcome will be the better management and
continuous improvement of efficiency of the LIS on
sustainable lines.
•The above two components are mainly influencing the
maintenance of a LIS by the farmer’s societies.
Table 5.20
Efficiency of different sub-systems of LIS
pumpinng
Consolidated command
Pressure
Command area in Ha.
Over all efficiency of

Irrigated Area in Ha.
Name of the Scheme
Irrigation efficiency
Intake
Power
Efficiency of water
Land consolidation
Water application
Efficiency of
Efficiency of
Efficiency of
Efficiency of
Efficiency of
Disty.system
the scheme
Equipment
area in Ha.
Efficiency
Efficiency
District
Village
supply
source
S No.
main
1 Sri vighneswara LI Society P B Devam Oct-96 E G 312 260 200 0.77 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.54 0.95 0.83 0.90 0.65
2 Sri Annapurna LI Scheme 2 Kammavari palem Oct-97 Krishna 254 245 243 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.95 1.00 0.97 0.95 1.01
3 Balatripura sundari LIS-1 Peravali palem Feb-98 Guntur 175 175 175 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
4 Maruthi pumping scheme Dachapuram Oct-89 Kammam 208 150 131 0.87 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.75
5 NamdamuriTarakarama LIS Krishnayapalem Oct-96 Guntur 456 456 428 0.94 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.93
6 NamdamuriTarakarama LIS Purushottapatnam Oct-98 Krishna 603 603 603 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
7 Sri Ramanjaneya LIS Nidadavolu Dec-97 W G 250 200 127 0.63 1.00 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.54 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.61
8 Kumaradevam LIS Kovvuru Oct-76 W G 1934 1934 1871 0.97 1.00 1.00 0.98 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.96
9 Vegeswarapuram LIS Vegeswarapuram Oct-76 W G 2312 1900 1040 0.55 1.00 0.93 0.95 0.98 0.54 1.00 0.82 1.00 0.57
10 Sri Srinivasa LI coop SocietyKakumanu Oct-90 Guntur 1455 1455 1392 0.96 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.95
11 Arulla LIS Arulla Oct-95 W G 291 200 166 0.83 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.57 1.00 0.69 1.00 0.83
15 Gramadevata Bangaramma Talli
Lakshmai
LISo Narusu Pet Jul-95 Sreekakulam208 150 42 0.28 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.72 1.00 0.71
12 Sri Ramanjaneya LIS Damuluru Feb-99 Krishna 373 300 250 0.83 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.80 1.00 0.66
13 Kotta Singapeta LIS Kotta Singa Peta Oct-86 Nellore 146 100 46 0.46 1.00 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.40 0.90 0.69 1.00 0.45
14 Basaveswara LIS Kishtapur Oct-98 Nizamabad 250 250 250 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.98
15 Sri Kodanda Ramaswami LISJammula Palem Oct-97 Prakasam 104 104 104 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.99
16 Sri Sai LIS Pedamatla pudi Oct-96 Guntur 299 250 154 0.62 1.00 1.00 0.95 1.00 0.54 1.00 0.83 1.00 0.61
E
C
B
D
A
Scheme
No. of intervenctions in a
season to to enable the
intake to draw required
water, for repairs of
5
4
3
2
1
pumpsets, for repairs of
pressure mains and
unscheduled power
failures during pumping
day
Table 5.21
As per actuals
70
86
94
98
100
the LIS
As per Trend Line

Equation
Dependability of
70.02
86.01
94.00
98.00
100.00
As per actuals
40
72
88
96
100
Dependability of the LIS & Probability of running the LIS
As per Trend Line

Running the
Probability of
Equation
40.13
72.05
88.02
96.01
100.00
Figure 5.55
Dependability of Intake, E & M Equipment, Pressure Main and Quality
of Power Supply
120
Trend Line
100
Irrigation efficiency
80
60
40
20
Equation for Trend Line
y = -0.0833x4 + 0.5x3 - 1.9167x2 + 1.5x + 100
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
No. of interventions
Figure 5.56
Probability of Running the LIS Based on the Dependability of Intake, E &
M Equipment, Pressure Main and Quality of Power Supply
Equation for Trend Line

120
y = 0.1667x5 - 2.6667x4 + 15.167x3 - 41.333x2 + 48.667x + 80
100
Probability of running the scheme
Trend Line
80
60
40
20
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-20
No of interventions
When the water availability in the source, for the standing crop is
not dependable, it is taken as a constraint. As such, it is presumed
that all the “F” LIS are having sufficient water in the source during
the base period of the crop.
In the case of next three risks i.e. dependability of Intake, E & M
equipment and Pressure main the dependability of the LIS will
drastically (exponentially) fall with the number of interventions by
the farmers to put the subsystem/subsystems into running
condition.
By the time dependability reaches 40 to 50%, the probability of
running the LIS reaches Zero.
In most of the cases where the LIS have ceased to function, it is
informed by the beneficiaries’ that one or more of the above risks
have drawn the intervention of the farmers four to five times
during the crop season.
The fifth risk i.e. when the unscheduled break downs have
occurred four to five times in a working day the LIS have ceased
to run.
An equation of fourth order exponential is developed to indicate the
dependability of the LIS and other equation of fifth order to indicate the
probability of running the LIS.
Dependability of Intake, Pumping Equipment and Pressure main during the base
period of the crops under the LIS drastically fall with the increase in number of
interventions by the farmers for the repairs
The same holds good for the unscheduled failures of power supply during the
working day
The probability of running of the LIS falls still more drastically.
To improve the dependability of the LIS, the reliability of the sub-systems &
power supply has to be improved.
This will stabilize the confidence levels of the beneficiaries about the supply of
required water to their crop in the fields in time & space.
To achieve this, measures are to be initiated to involve the farmers from the
investigation stages of the scheme until commissioning and finally full
involvement to take up the maintenance of the scheme.
The government to take necessary measures to improve the quantity
and quality of power supply to mach the requirements of crops..
Training may be given to the farmers duly bringing out the training
needs through the involvement of the farmers.
The above five subsystems play a major role in improving the
efficiency, dependability and maintainability of a LIS.
Along with these five subsystems, there are other three i.e. land
consolidation, efficiency of Distributary system and finally land
development will have a role in determining the efficiency of a LIS.
The other critical component to maintain the quality of these
subsystems and exploit the efficiency of the subsystems is the
management;
Characteristics of the Management organization
Characteristic of the Management
MODEL OF BEST MANAGED L I S
1.0 PERFORMANCE OF SUB-SYSTEMS OF L I S ##
1.1 Availability of water in the source C
1.2 Drawing capacity of intake during lean periods 15
1.3 Dependability of the E & M Equipment 15
1.4 Dependability of the Pressure main 15
1.5 Quality and quantity of power supply 20
1.6 Ayacut Development 10
1.7 Consolidation of ayacut 10
1.8 Capacity of the Disty. System 15
2.1 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ORGANISATION SYSTEM
50
2.1.1 Simple Organisational Structure Management committee-General 10
2.1.2 Body
Elected Chairman by majority vote & commands respect from 10
2.1.3 members
Qualifications of the chairman & committee( ability to keep
promisses, fair, Concientiously working for the members,honest 15
2.1.4 etc.)
Water user members ( Should respect the regulations, highly
responsible & least selfish) 15
2.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE MANAGEMENT 50
2.2.1 Proactive Lobbying to positively influnce Govt. policy on power
supply, Tariff, Water cess and Remunarative prices for Agri. Inputs 10
2.2.2 & Outputs
Water Budgeting with effective monitoring for, practicable,
equitable, timely, efficient & economical use of water 15
2.2.3 Prepare & Monitor Crop calender to suit water & power availability,
manage the crop & produce till marketing at remunerative price 15
2.2.4 Freequent Group contact for effective water monitoring, Acceptance
& enforcement of good laws, for the benefit/punishment and
optimise the awailment of opportunities extended by the Govt. 10
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES
 All the LIS commissioned by APSIDC up to March 2001 are
considered for the present study
 The functionality & non-functionality of these commissioned LIS is
analysed on the basis of region, district, date of commissioning, size
of the scheme and programme under which it is constructed which
determine the participation level of the beneficiaries in different stages
of the scheme.
 The reflections of the perceptions of farmers and engineers on the
performance of different components of the LIS is related to the
functionality or other wise of the LIS.
 The managements of the LIS are evaluated on the indicators like
productivity of land, water and financial performance to bring out the
best management.
 An LP is formulated for maximizing the net return on the scheme.
 Model of the best-managed LIS is proposed based on the efficiencies
of the sub-systems of the LIS, which influence the system efficiency,
and characteristics of the organization system and management.
Conclusions
 the average size of “F” LIS is 151 Ha and that of “NF” LIS is 143 Ha.
 Out of the 975 commissioned LIS, 683 schemes are functional and
292 schemes are Non-Functional
 The average cost per Ha of the commissioned LIS is Rs.10, 569/-
For the “F” LIS it is Rs.11, 192/- and for “NF” LIS it is Rs.9, 029/-.
 The “F” LIS are 70% by No., 71% by extent and 75% cost.
 There are 491 LIS in Andhra region with an extent of 66,782 Ha
costing Rs.681 Million.
 There are 443 LIS in Telangana region with an extent of 69,552 Ha
costing Rs.778 Million.
 There are only 41 LIS in Rayalaseema region with an extent of
8,274 Ha costing Rs.69 Million
 The percentage No., Extent, and Cost of the Functional LIS is
highest in Andhra region and lowest in Rayalaseema region
•There are 30 or more commissioned LIS in the 10 districts namely Khammam,
Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda, Krishna, Nellore, Adilabad, E.G, Vijayanagarm
and Visakha districts.
•There are only six districts having more than 30 Functional LIS namely
Khammam, Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda Krishna and Nellore.
•West Godavari is the only district with all the commissioned LIS functional.
•There are two districts Khammam & Adilabad with more than 30 “NF” LIS
•There are six districts having more than 5,000 Ha of contemplated command
area under the “F” LIS namely Khammam, Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda Krishna
and West Godavari.
•Adilabad is Only district with more 5000 Ha under the “NF” LIS.
•All the commissioned LIS (16 & 9) are “NF” in Medak & Rangareddy districts
•There are five districts namely Khammam Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda and
Krishna with an investment of more than Rs.100 Million on the “F” LIS.
•Nizamabad closely follows it with an investment of Rs.95 Million on “F” LIS
•Adilabad is on the other side with Rs.92 Million on “NF” LIS.
Out of the 975 LIS Only 73 LIS were commissioned up to 1985
687 are commissioned after 1990. The Lift Irrigation activity was geared up
during 1986-90. Since then, the activity is accelerating continuously.
During time-series 1986-90, the number of “F” LIS raised sharply from 24
in the previous time series to 178
During the next time series (1991-95) it has taken a slide from 178 to 158
and again after 1995 it has climbed to 306
The number of “NF” LIS has gradually moved up to 37 during the first 3
time series and raised sharply to 139 during 4th time series (1991-95 )
It has fallen sharply during the last time series i.e. after 1995.
The contemplated command area gap between the “F” & “NF” LIS has
increased gradually up to 1991-95
The capital cost of the “F” LIS which was gradually increasing up to 1990-
95 has taken sharp raise after 1995
The cost of “NF” LIS which has followed the same trend up to 1990-95 has
almost stabilized during the time series after 1995.
The percentage No. of “F” & “NF” LIS followed an interesting trend.
The figure has taken the shape of a Double Socketed pipe or
Venchuri flume.
The throat runs for a length of three extent group series i.e. from
41 to 80 to 200 to 280 Ha
The non-Functional LIS are highest in this zone.
The highest No. of LIS constructed under DW (227) and the lowest
number under NSFDC (48)
Maximum command area (57,749 Ha) & Max. investment (Rs.466
M) is under NIDC
The lowest No.(48), extent (2780 Ha) & investment (Rs.47.4 M) is
under NSFDC
.
Lowest No. of “NF” LIS are under Telugu Grameena kranthi
Pathakam (TGKP), a participatory project by the beneficiaries
Deposit Works (DW) programme is having the highest No. of “F” LIS,
which is closely followed by TGKP.
Before grounding the LIS the beneficiaries’ pretty well know that they
have to take up the maintenance of the schemes immediately after
commissioning and their mindset is prepared for that in advance.
The highest No. of Non-Functional LI Schemes are under Normal
Irrigation Development Corporation (NIDC) programme.
The largest command area (54,749 Ha ) under the Functional (72%)
and also Non-functional LIS (38%) is under NIDC.
The second highest No. of Non-Functional LIS (85 out of 99) are
under ITDA programme
The perceptions of the farmers & Engineers about the performance of different
sub-systems of the LIS, is a clear indication about the odds in running the LIS.
The political environment, Economic condition & educational levels are affecting
the performance and maintenance of the LIS by the farmers.
The social status (cast) does not show any impact or relation to the performance
or maintenance of LIS by the farmers.
Managements of LIS were evaluated to arrive at the best management on the
basis of productivity of land, water and financial performance.
The average command area under the top eleven LIS is 689 Ha and that under
the bottom eleven LIS is 190 Ha.
Average productivity of water under the top eleven LIS is Rs.4.67 per Cum and
that under the bottom eleven LIS is Rs.2.56 per Cum.
Average date of commissioning of the top eleven LIS is September ’91.and that
for the bottom eleven LIS is June ’96.
The average gross weightage of all the four parameters for the top eleven LIS is
55 and that for the bottom eleven LIS is 37.
It is also observed that the average Irrigation efficiency for the top eleven LIS is
91 and that for the bottom eleven LIS is 64.
Optimal utilization of the land and water will result in maximizing the
net return under a LIS for which an LP Model is formulated.
The linear programming model is formulated and solved on the
computer to determine the optimal irrigated areas under different
crops to maximize the net returns under four LI Schemes with the
following constraints
1.The water usage in any month is less than or equal to the
availability of the water during that month.
2. The total extent under all the standing crops during any month is
less than or equal to contemplated command area under the
scheme.
3. Other constraints like restricting the extents under certain crops,
avoiding growing of certain crops are also introduced to bring
down the LP modeling to the possible real time conditions.
Availability of water in the source, efficiency of the intake, efficiency
of the pumping equipment, efficiency of the pressure main and
quality and quantity of power supply are important in the
maintenance of LIS.
The above five subsystems play a major role in improving the
efficiency, dependability and maintainability of a LIS.
Land consolidation, efficiency of Distributary system and finally land
development, will have a role in determining the efficiency of a LIS.
For efficient maintenance of a LIS, all these eight subsystems should
maintain good efficiency and the first five a good dependability.
The dependability of Intake, Pumping Equipment and Pressure main
during the base period of the crops under the LIS, drastically falls
with the increase in number of interventions by the farmers for the
repairs.
The same holds good of the unscheduled failures of power supply
during the working day, which will drastically bring down the
specific conclusions
1. “NF” LIS are comparatively cheaper in cost per Ha,
which is Rs.9, 029/- against Rs.11, 192/- per Ha for
functional LIS.
2. Average size of the “NF” LIS is comparatively less,
which is 143 Ha against 151 Ha for “F” LIS
3. The number of “F” LIS is highest in Andhra region
The number of “NF” LIS is highest in Telangana.
4. The number of, both the “F” & “NF” LIS are lowest
in Rayalaseema region.
5. In Andhra Region percentage number, extent and
cost of the “F” LIS is highest (74, 81, & 83%).
6. In Telangana Region these three indicators are little
lower (68, 65 &71%).
7. In Rayalaseema Region, all these three indicators
are lowest (46, 49 & 56%)
8. Out of the 21 districts there are 12 districts namely Khammam,
Prakasam, Guntur, Nalgonda, Krishna, Nellore, Kurnool,
Sreekakulam, Nizamabad, Mahbubnagar West Godavari and
Warangal with 50% or more number of the commissioned
schemes functional. In West Godavari, all the commissioned
schemes are functional. In most of these districts, the awareness,
empowerment and involvement levels of the farmers are
comparatively high.
9. In the other nine districts namely Adilabad, East Godavari,
Vijayanagarm, Visakha, Karim nagar, Medak, Rangareddy,
Cuddapah and Anamthapur the percentage number of “F” LIS and
percentage of command area under the “F” LIS is less than 50%.
In Rangareddy and Medak districts, the number of “F” LIS is nil.
10. In most of these districts, the awareness, empowerment and
involvement levels of the farmers are comparatively less.
14. Cost per Ha of LI Scheme is very high in the smaller LIS. It falls
with the increase in command area under the scheme. The law of
economy of scale applies here.
15. The popular belief that smaller schemes can be maintained by
the beneficiaries is not correct. Even the bigger schemes are
being maintained by the beneficiaries in equally good numbers.
Non-functional LIS are highest in the three command area groups
41 to 80 Ha, 81 to 120 Ha and 121 to 200 Ha ranges but not in the
lower or higher command area groups.
16. TGKP schemes where the farmers have participated from the
initial stages of the scheme and with an investment of 50% in the
capital cost are having very high rate of functioning. On the other
side ITDA schemes where the participation levels are very low the
functional LIS are 14 against 71 non-functional schemes.
17. LIS under DW, ADSFS programmes are taken up with the
concurrence of the beneficiaries that maintenance shall be
taken up by the beneficiary committee after commissioning of
the schemes. Here the farming community is only small &
marginal farmers but with several casts in the society. These
LIS are functioning better because of the advance mindset of
the farmers that they have to maintain the schemes after
commissioning.
18. NIDC is taken up with the perception that the scheme shall be
maintained by APSIDC and water rate will be collected from the
beneficiaries. As such, beneficiaries could not digest the idea of
taking up the maintenance of the LIS when they were handed
over to the beneficiary committees as per the policy decision of
the government.
19 The percentage functioning of the LIS taken up under IRDP &
NSFDC programmes is little less. Under these two programmes it
is clear to the beneficiaries that the schemes have to be
maintained by them. Most of the schemes being in the interior
areas the beneficiaries are not psychologically prepared to
continue the maintenance of the scheme by investing a nominal
amount which is required for annual maintenance.
20. The perceptional performance of different sub-systems of the LIS
will be having a definite impact on the Irrigation efficiency and
maintainability of the LIS by the farmers.
21. The political environment, economic status and educational levels
of the beneficiary community are having an impact on the irrigation
efficiency and maintainability of the LIS.
22. The social (cast) environment is not having any bearing on the
efficiency or manageability of the LIS by the farmers.
23. Better functioning of the LIS or maintainability of the LIS by the
farmers is not a function of size of the (command area) LIS.
24. Productivity of land is higher in the case of bigger LIS
25. Productivity of water is higher in the case of bigger LIS
26. Age of the LIS is not a function in the better performance of the
LIS.
27. The irrigation efficiency of an LIS is having a direct relation with
the above parameters of the LIS.
28. Present income due to raising of crops without scientific analysis
and planning improves, if crop mix is selected through LP model to
maximize the return by optimally utilizing the resources. This is
happening even when the maximization is subjected to several
constraints and brings down the LP Solution nearer to the ground
level realities and practical environment.
Inferences
1. Taking up of LIS shall be demand based
2. The farmers (beneficiaries) are to be involved from the
starting of preliminary investigation.
3. Participatory Rural Appraisal has to be conducted on the
first day to bring out from the farmers about the present
cropping pattern, input costs of agriculture and the gross
& net return patterns (Base line survey for pre-LIS era),
the cropping pattern they propose after the
commissioning of the LIS and their input costs and
returns.
4. A transact walk along with the village elders should be taken up to
enquire and see the flows in the water source, to identify the
probable, Head Works locations, alignment of intake channel/pipe
lines, pressure main alignments, cistern points, boundaries of the
command area etc. The farmers may be advised to form an adhoc
body to coordinate with the agency in pursuing the work for the
LIS and they may be informed clearly that they have to contribute
the land required for construction of the Lift Irrigation System free
of cost. They have to take up the maintenance of the LIS, once it is
commissioned. An indication may be given about the cost of yearly
maintenance.
5. Loans may be arranged to the farmers for land development for
efficient water usage under the scheme
6. Farmers may be advised & convinced to shoulder the labor costs
of detailed investigation, either in kind or cash which will induce
their involvement & consolidate their ownership feeling.
7. The gestation period for the LIS is less when compared to the FIS
8. The cost per Ha of a Lift Irrigation Scheme falls with the increase
in command area.
9. The capital cost per Ha of LIS is almost 50% of that of Flow
Irrigation Schemes (FIS).
10. It may be insisted that the farmers may form a formal society or
WUA before grounding of the scheme. They may be given
requisite training to pursue the quality of works during execution.
The work schedule may be informed to the society so that they
can facilitate smooth completion of the scheme as per schedule.
11. A two-year warranty may be arranged by the executing agency for
smooth running of the scheme during maintenance
12. Strict quality standards for the construction materials, Pipes and
Electrical & Mechanical equipment may be maintained during
execution of the LIS for sustainability of the maintenance and
longevity of the scheme components.
13. During the execution, the farmers should get a feeling that the
LIS is constructed to satisfy their needs with their knowledge &
concurrence. With this, they will be with a mind set to be tolerant
or to bear with the minor inconveniences during the maintenance.
14. The society may be trained in, water budgeting, crop planning
maintenance of logbooks, routine maintenance of different
components of the scheme, Integrated pest management,
Integrated crop management, planning of input costs, crop
harvesting, preservation of the produce and marketing etc. This
may be done during the first two years of maintenance.
15. Sustainable maintenance of a LIS by the farmers can be through,
involvement, training and empowerment of the farmers under the
scheme. Cost effective or economical maintenance of a LIS is
through comprehensive maintenance of quality in the construction
of LIS. This will also bring down the uncertainty or risk component
under most of the sub-systems of LIS, which will result in better
maintenance of the LIS on sustainable basis.
16. Contract farming may be tried under the farmer maintained LIS
for improving cohesiveness of farmers and sustainability of the
income against market risks.
17. The maintainability of a LIS by the farmers is not a function of its
size. Even the bigger LIS with more than 800 Ha are being
maintained by the farmers’ societies efficiently on sustainable
basis.
18. Productivity of land is higher in the case of bigger LIS. It may due
to the high & healthy internal competition.
19. The maintainability of a LIS by the farmers is not a function of its
age. The L I Schemes commissioned in 1975 are being maintained
by the farmers’ societies efficiently.
20. The LI Schemes are more successful irrespective of the area if
the involvement of the farmers (water users) is good. Successful
maintenance of LIS in Nalgonda and Khammam, Prakasam,
Guntur, Krishna and West Godavari districts is an example.
21. The maintenance cost of a LIS is very high when compared to
that of a FIS but the cost of money invested for the extra capital
cost of FIS very much out weighs, the excess cost of maintenance
on LIS.
22. A thorough analysis of the performance of different sub-
systems of LIS to calculate their individual efficiencies and
remedial measures are to be taken to improve the individual
efficiencies & thus the system efficiency.
23. Awareness in the farmers has to be developed about the
Characteristics of the organization system & the characteristics of
the management and management by objectives the
implementation of which will improve the Overall efficiency of the
LIS.
CHAPTER 7:FUTURE SCOPE OF STUDY
7.0 GENERAL;
The socio economic development and empowerment of
the farmers is mainly due to improvement of Agro
Economic development of the farming community/rural
masses, which is achieved through creation of
irrigation facility. Lift irrigation schemes are essential
for the creation of irrigation facility in upland areas of
state. The future LIS will be of very high heads like
Devadula LIS.
1. A study may be taken up to maximize the over all efficiency of the
LIS by working on the LP model.
2. A study may be taken up to improve the productivity of water
under LI Schemes through introduction of micro irrigation systems
to bring down the cost of electricity by minimizing the application
losses of water.
3. LI Schemes are running with efficiencies ranging from 0 to 100%.
Study may be taken up on continuous basis for bringing out the
best management practices under the lift irrigation schemes
through out the state, to continuously improve the optimization of
resources under the schemes.

Critical analysis of optimal lift irrigation management

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

Critical analysis of optimal lift irrigation management

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEMES

JAWAHARLAL NEHRU TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING (AUTONOMOUS)

Population above 1000 Million

Available cultivable area 199 M ha

Ultimate irrigation potential 142 M ha

Major & medium irrigation projects 58 M ha

Minor irrigation projects 84 M ha

Irrigation potential created up to year 2K 91 M ha

water allocation priorities should be as follows

 Industrial and other uses

Irrigation under different sources during 1996-97 in ha

The following Relevant literature is reviewed

 The social involvement for efficient functioning of lift

 All the 975 LIS commissioned by APSIDC

 Primary data is collected through structured

Cost per Ha.

Average extent under

Cont. command area

Cont. command area

Cost in Rs. Millions

Cost in Rs. Millions

10,000 Functional 9,573

Coastal Telamgana Rayalaseema

 The number of F schemes is highest in Andhra region.

Cost in Rs. Millions

Name of the District

Name of the District

Name of the district

15,000 Functional 14,963

Name of the District

100 Functional 100 100 100

100 99 100 100 100

100 Non Functional

Command area (ayacut) in Ha.

Command area (ayacut) in Ha.

Cost in Rs. Millions

Cost in Rs. Millions

3 41 to 80 95 5,939 89.6 15,088 62 62 69 58 3,692 40.6 10,986 38 38 31 153 9,630 130.2

4 81 to 120 59 6,240 80.5 12,900 63 62 64 35 3,769 44.3 11,765 37 38 36 94 10,010 124.8

683 102,961 1,152.3 292 41,647 376.0 975 144,608 1,528

11,408 11,315 11,506

0 to 20 21 to 40 41 to 80 81 to 120 121 to 201 to 281 to 401 to > 800

Command area (ayacut) group in Ha.

Average ayacut per scheme

Average cost per Ha. in Rs.

Percentage Command area

area (ayacut) in Ha.

area (ayacut) in Ha.

Cost in Rs. Millions

Cost in Rs. Millions

Name of the programme

Name of the programme

Name of the programme

Name of the programme

 A minimum of two farmers under any scheme

 One farmer for every 20 farmers under bigger

Average of Non-Functional LIS

Social (10) W'ge

10.0 7.7 7.0 7.5

 The perceptions of the Farmers & Engineers

EVALUATION OF MANAGEMENTS OF LIS