Downstream Hydrological Impacts of the Melamchi Inter-basin Water Transfer Plan (MIWTP

)

P. Gurung and L. Bharati International Water Management Institute (IWMI), Lalitpur, Nepal

Introduction
Drinking Water Demand of Kathmandu: Water available in Kathmandu Valley: 220 MLD 90 MLD (Dry Season) 130 MLD (Wet Season) Melamchi Water Supply Project (MWSP): 1973 (Identified) 1998 (Implemented) 2008 (Planned to Complete) 2015 (Extend to Complete) … Demand of local people, political circumstances and challenges to engage private sector partner is major barrier to complete project … Till 2008, project has paid Rs. 880 million as a cash compensation to local … In addition, downstream hydrological impacts is another issue

Introduction
At present , Water in Melamchi River Basin is using for : Irrigation and Water Supply, MHP Generation and operating Water Mills Consumed by Forest and Vegetation Project has set minimum downstream release: nearly 35 MLD

Few studies are carried out to account water – focused on Indrawati Basin Use of distributed hydrological model developed for entire Koshi basin to look hydrological impacts of the MWSP until the outlet of the Koshi basin at Chatara

Method
Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model: Physically based semi-distributed hydrological model Water quantity, sedimentation and water quality Developed by Department of Agriculture, USA SWAT model developed for Koshi basin is divided into 79 sub-basins (Outlet Chatara)
[Developed under Storage Project in Koshi basin of IMWI Nepal]

Downstream impact of MWSP is carried out for 11 among 79 sub-basins of Koshi basin

In this study, the study river reach starts from sub-basin 35 and ends at sub-basin 79

Method
3

1 2 4 18 5

6

Ü
9 10 8 12 11 15 13 17 16 32 34

14 20 19 27 36 26 28 37 43 48 54 55 61 67 72 70 59 66 71 78 75 77 76 74 79 39 44 30 40 47 62 60 64 63 33 38 31 29 41 45 57 56 7

21 22 25 24 35

23

42

51

46 49

5052

53

58 65 69 68 73

0

30

60

120 km

Method
!4000 (

LEGEND
* # ! ( Flow Station Climate Station River Netwroks Melamchi River (Stage-I) Yangri River (Stage-II) Larke River (Stage-III) Study River Reach Koshi River Basin Country Boundary
42 48

Ü
!285885 (

!4300 (

!2223 (
21 22 * #25 24 35

627.5 !1006 ( * #620 !1062 ( 630 * #
55

!2222 (

!1022 (

!1115 (

* ( # !1103 647 # * 650

61 72

*( # !1220 668.5 !1206 ( * # 670
78

!2221 ( * !1301 (# !1325 (# * ( 604.5 !1303 !1324 ( ( 681 !1307

!1404 (

* # 652 67
INDIA

CHINA

Ü
INDIA

!1108 (

!1406 ( *( #!1419 684

!1213 (

77

76 # * * # * 79 #

NEPAL

* # 690 695

!1212 (

INDIA

0

30

60

120 km

Method
21 24 35 21 42 25 48 55 61 72 35 22

Water Transfer Location
25 22

24

67

Study River Reach

78

77

76

79

Method
Model Calibration and Validation:
Calibration and validation is carried out for 15 flow stations within Koshi basin Calibration Period (1996 – 2000) and validation period (2001-2005) Plot of observed versus simulated flow at Koshi basin outlet, Chatara

Method
Melamchi Inter-basin Water Transfer Plan (MIWTP)
[Conceptual Plan for Modeling]
Melamchi
Stage-I: Water Transfer

21 24 35 42 48 55 61 67 72 Indrawati

1.97 m3/s [62.1 MCM] 22 25

Larke Yangri

Order of the sub-basins as per flow direction
Sun Koshi

The rivers flow into Study River Reach Stage I: Sub-basin 24 [170 MLD] Stage II: Sub-basin 25 [85 MLD] Stage III: Sub-basin 22 [85 MLD]

Rosi Tama Koshi Likhu

Stage-II&III: Water Transfer

1.97 m3/s [62.1 MCM]

Dudh Koshi

78 77 76 Water Supply to Kathmandu Valley

Arun and Tamor

79

Impact of MWSP on 11 sub-basins

Sapta Koshi

Result and Discussion
Simulated Water Availability in Headwork of MWSP:
70 Stage I - Melamchi River 60 50 Stage II - Yangri River

Stage III - Larke River
Water Transfer Plan

Flow [m3/s]

40

Downstream flow release at driest month: Stage I: 13% of the river flow of that month Stage II: 57% of the river flow of that month Stage III: 57% of the river flow of that month

30
20 10 0 0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Percentage of Exceedence

Result and Discussion
Simulated Water Availability in Headwork of MWSP:
350 Larke River

Monthly Flow Volume [MCM]

300 250 200 150

Yangri River

Melamchi River
Total Water Transfer Plan

Annual Simulated Flow : Melamchi: 499 MCM Yangri: 443 MCM Larke: 448 MCM

100
50 0 Jan Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

More than 80% of the total annual river flow occurrs within June to October

Result and Discussion
Mean Monthly Flow Available at MWSP’s Headwork in Melamchi River :
60
60 Flows

Mean Monthly Flow [m3/s]

SWAT Simulated

50 40 30 20

Bisector 40

R² = 0.99
20

NSE = 0.93

0 0 20 40 60 Bhattarai et al., 2002

18.06
15.71

10
0 Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

SWAT Simulated Annual Mean, SWAT Simulated

Bhattarai et al., 2002 Annual Mean, Bhattarai et al., 2002

Result and Discussion
Impact of MIWTP along Downstream River Reach of Koshi Basin:
0 36 15.5 0 6 2.5 4.1 0 12 4.8 7 7 2 3.6 2.5 0.7 0.6 0.4 1.4 0.3 1.3 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.2 0.3 1.6 1.3 1.3 1.6 1.6 4 3 12.7 18 20

Ü
LEGEND

Annual Reduction:
Stage I Stage II Stage III : 12% : 7% : 7%

Dry Season Average Outflow Reduction [%] Wet Season Average Outflow Reduction [%] Annual Average Outflow Reduction [%]

Wet Season Reduction:
Stage I Stage II Stage III : : : 6% 4% 3%

3.9

Dry Season Reduction:
Stage I Stage II Stage III : 36% : 18% : 20%

0.6

Reduction at Chatara: Annual : 0.2%
Wet Dry : 0.1% : 0.6%

0.5 0.5 0.5

0

25

50

100km

0.2

Result and Discussion
Water Balances at the Sub-basins in Study River Reach:
Highest annual precipitation occur at sub-basin 35 (3355 mm) and lowest at 55 & 61 (1028 mm) All hydrological component is following the trend of precipitation Decreasing trend is observed in all hydrological component further towards outlet of basin outlet
4000

Annual Average Water Balance [mm]

2000

0

-2000

-4000 21 24 25 22 35 42 48 55 61 67 72 78 77 76 79 Sub-basin Number
Precipitation Actual ET Surface Runoff Percolation Soil Water Content Return Flow Lateral Flow

Result and Discussion
Water Balances at the Sub-basins in Study River Reach:
Simulated annual average water balance at sub-basins in study river reach
Sub-basin Number 21 & 24 25 22 35 42 48 55 61 67 72 78 77 76 79 Area, km2 148 110 114 424 432 213 751 558 468 700 1393 205 231 231 Rainfall, mm 2072 2072 2072 3355 2088 2088 1028 1028 1926 1798 1872 1498 1180 1040 Actual ET, mm 603 603 614 735 750 707 537 534 696 645 731 580 629 658 Net Water Yield, mm 1454 1450 1444 2584 1311 1353 487 490 1208 1132 1119 897 543 381

Conclusion
In past study, detail quantification of the impacts in downstream sub-basins have not been done, hence this study help to fill this gap In this study, flow reduction is quantified in all three stages at sub-basin level Result of the study shows that the MIWTP has considerable hydrological impacts on the sub-basin that is immediately downstream of the transfer points but not further downstream towards the basin outlet All the hydrological components are following the trend of precipitation occurred in the sub-basin and in average these trends are in decreasing order

THANK YOU !!!

Additional Information and Further Work
Impact of MIWTP on Agricultural Command Area of Melamchi River:
Crop Type Paddy Wheat Maize Millet Barley Pulses Oilseed Potato Vegetable
Crop Type Early Paddy Main Paddy Wheat Maize Vegetable

Irrigated Area [ha] 101 74 289 188 4 47 52 62 50

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Cropping Length [Day] 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 150 1 27 135 125 105 120 100 110 130 105
28 15 25 4 9 16 1 30 1 16 3 28 16 16 16 16

Present Cropping Pattern and Calendar in Melamchi River Command Area

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Irrigated Cropping Area [ha] Length [Day] 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 90 25 22 161 289 74 128 215 105 120 105 180
15 1 8 13 11 25 7 16

Possible Change in Cropping Pattern and Calendar in Melamchi River Command Area

Additional Information and Further Work
Impact of MIWTP on Agricultural Command Area of Melamchi River:
Rainfall versus crop water requirement (CWR) in present and possible change in cropping pattern BUDGET model, developed by KU Leuven, is used to obtain CWR
1000

Water Depth [mm]

100

10

CWR [Change in Cropping Pattern] CWR [Present Cropping Pattern] 80% Dependable Rainfall

1

Jan

Feb

Mar

Apr

May

Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dec

Additional Information and Further Work
Impact of MIWTP on Agricultural Command Area of Melamchi River:
Gross irrigation requirement (GIR) in dry season (Jan-May, Nov-Dec) and driest month (Apr)
1000
GIR [Present Copping Pattern] GIR [Change in Copping Pattern] Stream Flow in Dry Season (At Present) Stream Flow in Dry Season (After MWSP) Stream Flow in April (At Present) Stream Flow in April (After MWSP)

Water Volume [MCM]

100

10

1

0%

10%

20%

30%

40% 50% 60% Overall Efficiency

70%

80%

90%

100%

Additional Information and Further Work
Impact of MIWTP on Agricultural Command Area of Melamchi River:
GIR in change in command area at 40% irrigation efficiency in dry season and driest month
100
GIR at 40% Overall Irrigation Efficiency [Present Cropping Pattern] GIR at 40% Overall Irrigation Efficiency [Change in Cropping Pattern] Stream Flow in Dry Season (At Present) Stream Flow in Dry Season (After MWSP)

Water Volume [MCM]

Stream Flow in April (At Present)

Stream Flow in April (After MWSP)

10
-1%, 4.57 29%, 4.57

104%, 9.43 167%, 9.43

1 -50%

0%

50%

100%

150%

200%

250%

300%

Change in Agricultural Command Area

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.