Agricultural Water Management, 18 (1990) 195-207

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam

195

Design of storage tanks for water harvesting in rainfed areas

H.N. Verma a and P.B.S. Sarma b
aDryland Research Station, Garhshanker, Hoshiarpur, Punjab (India) b Water Technology Centre, Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi (India)
(Accepted 14 January 1990)

ABSTRACT Verma, H.N. and Sarma, P.B.S., 1990. Design of storage tanks for water harvesting in rainfed areas. Agric. Water Manage., 18:195-207. A procedure was developed to design a tank for water harvesting and compute its benefit-cost ratio for a region in northern Punjab. It was observed that the total cost of tank per unit of capacity decreased with increasing tank capacity. Tanks designed on the basis of seasonal runoff and used for presowing irrigation of wheat, are the most beneficial with a benefit-cost ratio ranging from 1.60 to 4.56 for catchment areas varying from 1 to 100 ha. The probability level of the lowest assured runoff corresponding to the lowest annual cost per unit of available water increased with increasing tank capacity and varied from 40 to 80%.

INTRODUCTION

Most areas with low rainfall suffer from low and unstable crop yields. Often one life-saving irrigation to these crops at the most critical stage could substantially improve yields. Generally, storage of rainfall in the soil profile is cheaper and more efficient than storage of runoff in excavated tanks. However, the major limitation of storage in the soil profile is its limited capacity. In most of the rainfed areas, rainwater conservation measures cannot conserve all the rainwater and a certain amount of runoff is bound to occur. This runoff can be collected and stored in tanks for a life-saving irrigation to rainfed crops. Use of water harvesting tanks in rainfed areas has come into vogue only recently (Palmer et al., 1982; Helweg and Sharma, 1983) and not much literature is available on the design of tanks. Hence, a suitable technology is not available to the farmers of different rainfed areas. A proper design of storage tanks for rainfed agriculture involves: (a) hydrological analysis including probability of occurrence of runoff;
0378-3774/90/$03.50 1990 - - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

196

H.N. V E R M A A N D P.B.S. SARMA

(b) hydraulic design to determine physical sizes of the tank considering seepage and evaporation losses; (c) policies for utilising the stored water in terms of ( 1 ) timing, (2) quantity, (3) crop to be irrigated, and (4) selection of irrigation system; (d)economic viability of the scheme. The results of investigations carried out in India revealed that water collected in tanks should be utilized for a single life-saving irrigation with a limited quantity of water to the most responsive crop at its most critical stage to obtain the maximum benefit from a water harvesting system (Verma, 1987 ). A storage tank for this purpose should be designed such that the lowest possible unit cost of stored water is obtained. The design of water harvesting tanks and supplemental irrigation systems is highly location-specific and, thus, makes it very difficult to develop a general model which can be used for all areas. In this study, a procedure for the design of water harvesting tanks for rainfed farming in northern Punjab, India, was developed which can be modified and used for other rainfed areas.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The rainfed area of Garhshanker Tehsil of northern Punjab, which is a typical representative of the well-known rainfed belt called Kandi, was selected for the study. The major cropped area of the Kandi belt lies on the narrow fiat strip below the Himalayan foothills and has a mild undulating topography with erodible and low water retentive soils. The majority of soils of this belt have sandy loam and loamy sand textures. While in loamy sand soils it is possible to utilise rainwater completely by water conservation measures, in sandy loam soils runoffis bound to occur, even with such measures. Hence, a properly designed water harvesting tank system to store the runoff to provide a life-saving irrigation is feasible in this area. Local maize followed by dwarf wheat was identified as the best crop sequence in sandy loam soils of this region (Singh et al., 1983). Full benefit of irrigation can be obtained if irrigation is applied during a long dry spell which coincides with the critical growth stage of the crop. However, if rainfall occurs immediately after such an irrigation the impact (benefit) of irrigation would be only partial. Analysis of dry spells for this area indicates that the need for a pre-sowing irrigation to the wheat crop is 96.3% which is associated with full benefit (cent per cent response). On the other hand the need for an irrigation to the maize crop at its most critical stage (tasseling-silking) in the 35th week is 55.5% and is associated with full benefits in only 80% of the irrigation events (Verma and Sarma, 1989). The results of investigations carried out by Verma (1987) on rainwater management in this area indicated the following facts: ( 1 ) The average response to a 50 mm irrigation when applied at tasseling-

DESIGN OF STORAGE TANKS

197

silking stage is 400 kg h a - ~ of maize grain, whereas with a presowing irrigation it is 770 kg h a - J of wheat grain and 1300 kg/ha of wheat straw. In monetary terms the annual return of an irrigation is Rs 528 h a - ~ for maize and Rs 1668 ha -~ for wheat at 1987 prices. The annual net return, based on 40 years of effective life of the tank and an annual price growth rate of 5 and 6%, is Rs 3380 h a - l and Rs 964 h a - 1 for wheat and maize, respectively. (2) For only one irrigation of short duration ( 10 days ) per year from tank water, the furrow irrigation method is most suitable. For lifting and conveyance of water, portable diesel engine pumping sets (5 to 10 hp) with PVC pipes are most suitable and economical. The annual cost of such an irrigation system (excluding cost of tank) is Rs 340 ha-~. (3) The study area receives an average annual rainfall of 889 m m of which 703 m m falls during the Kharifseason (June-September) and 186 m m during the Rabi season (October-April). Traditional rainfed farming in sandy loam produces an average of 198 m m runoff from June to September, which reduces to 100 m m when water conservation measures, contour cultivation and ridge and furrow formation are used. The lowest assured runofff at different probability levels, on a cropped (maize) sandy loam catchment with the above soil and water conservation measures, was estimated using an incomplete gamma distribution (Table 1 ) (Verma and Sarma, 1988). The following cases of tank design were considered in this study: Case 1: Based on periodical (weeks 24 to 35 ) runoff (T35) for irrigation of maize in the 35th week for 55.5% of the time, and presowing irrigation to wheat in the 44th week of the remaining time. Case 2: Based on seasonal (weeks 24 to 39 ) runoff (T39) for presowing irrigation of wheat in the 44th week.
TABLE 1

Lowest assured periodical and seasonal r u n o f f for a sandy loam catchment with improved moisture conservation measures, and maize cultivation Probability level (%) Periodical r u n o f f ( m m ) Weeks 24-35 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 188.4 141.3 107.7 87.5 67.3 53.2 39.4 26.9 14.8 4.3 Weeks 36-39 27.7 13.7 6.1 1.7 Seasonal runoff ( m m ) Weeks 24-39 191.9 147.6 119.0 100.0 82.8 68.1 54.3 40.9 26.7 11.7

198

H.N. VERMA AND P.B.S. SARMA

Design of tanks
In this study, it is assumed that complete runoff resulting from the catchment treated with in-situ water conservation procedures, enters the tanks, and suitable inlet and spillway structures are provided. The most suitable shape considered is the inverted truncated pyramid with a square base. A side slope of 1 : 1 and a maximum water depth of 5 m were considered in this study. The watershed areas consist of small cropped fields suitably treated for soil and water conservation and efficient disposal of excess runoff. The main criteria for determining the volume of tanks was taken as the lowest assured runoff occurring during 24th to 35th week in the case of irrigation to maize and during the 24th to 39th week in the case of presowing irrigation to wheat. Thus the tanks should be completely filled during the 35th and 39th week in the first and the second case, respectively. Seepage is the main problem in the case study area because it is as high as 520 1 m -2 day -1 in newly excavated unlined tanks (Verma, 1981 ). Hence, lining is essential. After detailed consideration of installation and maintenance costs, and durability, the combination of polyethylene sheet (200-250 ~tm thickness) burried under a 0.2 m thick soil layer at the tank bottom and lining of 75 m m thick brick in cement at the sides of the tanks was reported to be the most suitable for the case study area (Verma, 1981 ). The lining reduced the average seepage losses to 12.71 1m -2 d a y - 1, with the assumption that the change in seepage rate with water depth is negligible. The tank capacity for silt accumulation is taken to be 10 m 3 ha-1 for 5 years, i.e., at the rate of 2 m 3 ha -1 yr -1 (2.5 t ha -1 yr -1 ). It is assumed that after every 5 years the extra silt will be removed by the farmers. Daily pan evaporation data for 22 years (1961-1981 ) were collected from the nearest meteorological station, Chandigarh. Average weekly evaporation from the tanks was computed with a pan coefficient of 0.7.

Cost of tanks
The total cost of a tank comprises its construction cost (escavation +lining), cost of inlet and spillway structures, operation and maintenance costs and the shadow price (productivity cost) of land occupied by the tank. From available information on tank construction and maintenance in the case study area (Anonymous, 1975-1983) it was observed that the cost of inlet and spillway structure constitutes 8% of the construction cost and the maintenance cost is about 2% of the construction cost. Hence, in this study, 10% of the construction cost is taken as "other costs" to account for construction of inlet and spillway and maintenance cost. The schedule of Rates of the Public Works Department, Government of Punjab, 1983 updated to 1987, was used to analyse excavation costs for 5 m

DESIGN OF STORAGZ TANKS

199

deep tanks. A linear relationship was developed for the excavation cost ( C~ ) of tanks with the proposed shape and bottom width (B), which can be given by C~ -- 0.0043B+ 3.3517 Rs m - 3. The cost of lining of the bottom with polyethylene sheet (C2) and cost of side lining with brick in cement (C3) at prices of 1986-1987 are Rs 5.76 m -2 and Rs 22.75 m -2, respectively. The existing lease rate of land is Rs 1300 h a - ~y r - ~for levelled and terraced land, and Rs 700 h a - ~ y r - ~ for undulating land. Considering the low profits in rainfed farming the low value of the leasing rate of land is taken as the production cost of land in the study area. The land area occupied by the tank depends on the topography and soil type and the surroundings. In this study 150% of the top surface area of the tank is taken as the area occupied under the tank, which includes side bunds. Annual costs were computed for different sizes of tanks based on time of irrigation, probability level and catchment area. The interest rate on investment was taken as 10% per year. An effective life of 40 years for lined tanks was taken considering the local situations and weathering of lining.

Available water for irrigation

If a tank is designed at a lower probability level of assured runoff, it will have a larger capacity and lower chance of being filled up to its full capacity. On the other hand, a tank designed on the basis of a higher probability level of assured runoff will have a low storage capacity but chances of its being filled to full capacity will be greater and thus the expected storage per unit volume of tank will be higher. In this study, probability levels (Pi) of assured runoffare considered at ten equal intervals, i.e., i = 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 and the corresponding assured runoff value Xi was used for the design. Thus, each X~ value has a probability of 0.1. A tank designed on the basis of a runoff amount of Xr, at a probability level Pr has a capacity VTr (after deducting losses during the period of collection and storage) and will hold a volume of Vs~ at the time of irrigation. The probability of storing an amount of Vs~ at the time of irrigation is only r because at lower probability levels (i~< r) it will collect runoffonly up to its fixed capacity VT~ and the rest of the runoff will be wasted. But at a higher probability ( i > r ) the runoff a m o u n t will be less than X~ and the tank volume VTr, being the same, will be partially filled and V~, ( i > r) will always be less than V~r. In this case the expected volume of stored water at the time of irrigation (EVOLr) can be given
as
100

EVOLr'~-PrVsr"]- E
i = r + 10

(Pi Vsi)

where P~-- O. 1 for i = r + 1O, r + 20, r + 30,..., r + 100.

200

H.N. VERMA AND P.B.S. SARMA

~0 ~PUTE

READ WK
SILT VOLUME (VS) vs: ZA~I0 REAO RAO

R~.AO TRI TRII

ER LAD
SRS,$RB

~ C~./ C3 )CL

COMPUI'E TANg EqMENSLONS AND STORAGE CAp~,CITy {VNP} FOR RUNOFF [TRI ( I P ) ] CONSiOERLNG WEEKLY RUNOFF, EVAPORATION AND SEEPAGE (FROM WEEK NO 2L,-~S) AVAILABLE wATER IN }S th wEEK=VNP

,,l i

SUBROUTINE NRI L WRITE I A , I P aOTA, ATOP ~TSlOA, OF, OS,TVOL, VNP

C THE TANK OCOST, TCOST, UCOST EACOST, PLCO~T,TACOST

[:............. I
RE S ~ O U A L STORAGE

) .......
RSR = V N P ~

~N TANK,

RSR ;C

COMPUTE AVERAGE AVAILABLE WATER {EVOL {tP{] IN ~GID wEEK~CONSIDERING TRII, SEEPAGE ANO EVAPORATION LOSSES

SUBROUTINE NRI I WRITE EVOL ([P) IRRI@ (IP)

.... ~%;o,~0 (.P) }

E

l
COMPUTE AVAILABLE WATER IN leith WEEK (VOL) IN THE SANE TANK {HAVING CAPACITY =VNP} FOR

~UBROUTINE

NR I

HIGHER PROBABILITY (NP) O RUNOFF{TRK(NP)) F

COv p TE AVERAGE AVAILABLE WATER i~ u CEVOL(NP)} 4~,{h WEEK, CONSIOERING TRI~ SEEPAGE AND EVAPORATIONLOSSES

NRI L WRITEEVOL (NP) ~RRIG (NP}

Fig. 1. Flow chart of computer programme A for tank design on periodical runoff basis and computation of its costs and available water at the time of irrigation.

DESIGN OF STORAGE TANKS

201

Computationalprocedure
Two computer programmes were developed to design the storage tanks and evaluate their costs and amount of water available at the time of irrigation. The first programme (A) is for case 1 and the second program (B) is for case 2. The computational procedure of programme A is shown in the flow chart (Fig. 1 ). Programme B involves only one irrigation decision (in the 44th week) and forms a subset of programme A.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Total cost of tank

The total cost per unit capacity of the tank for various sizes (capacity) is depicted in Fig. 2. High costs, up to Rs 34 m -3 was found for small tanks having a capacity below 1000 m 3. This cost reduces when its size increases. It is because of the decrease in lining cost due to the reduction in wetted area relative to the increase in excavation cost per unit volume due to the increases surface area of land. Thus for tanks of 1000, 10 000 and 100 000 m 3 capacity, the corresponding cost is about 13.2, 7.8 and 5.9 Rs m-3, respectively. Hence,

34"
32" 30, 28 26 2/ec 22

v20 m ~ -~ ~
o
16

1.4-1

108: :

p..

2-

2o'oo

~obo

6o~o

~oo

Io~oo 12600 ,~6oo 16600 ,8~oo

CAPACfTY OF TANK) m3

" so6oo 1oo'ooo

TOTAL

Fig. 2. Total initial cost of tank construction.

202

H.N. VERMA AND P.B.S. SARMA

1009.5~085.
80.

cs

757065. 60, -~
o

55.

~ 50a:
,,~ 45.

w ~ 35. o ,~ 30. 25 15 20' i 10 5 0.

0 10,000 20,000

40.

30000

i*0,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 TOTAL CAPACITY OF TANK~ m t

90,000

100000

110,000 120,000

Fig. 3. Catchment area and capacity of tank at different probability levels of seasonal runoff on a sandy loam soil.

in order to achieve economy on tank construction, the tank should be of the largest possible size.

Probability of assured runofffor tank design and cost of available water for irrigation
In general, the capacity of the tanks increases as the probability level of assured runoff decreases. This is true for all sizes of the catchment area (Fig. 3 ). Further, the volume of available water per unit of tank capacity increases as this probability level increases for various sizes of tank (Fig. 4). In order to select an appropriate probability level of assured runoff for tank design the annual cost of unit volume of available water at the time of irrigation was computed. The annual cost per unit of available water decreases gradually up to a minimum as the probability level of assured runoff increases. Further on, it increases gradually (Fig. 5 ). This is due to the fact that

DESIGN OF STORAGE

TANKS

203

90,000,

ao,ooo.
70,000

60,000
o ^I -~ I

4o, o0oJ ~o,o00!

2o,oooi
P,, ;opoo-

~0"1o

;0,60o 2o.~

3o,~

~o,~oo $0,~

6o.~oo 70,~

.o.ooo 9o.~oo ;oo~ ,o.~oo ;~o,~

TOTAL CAPACITY OF TANK ~. m 3

Fig. 4. Total capacity of tank and expected available water for presowing irrigation of wheat for tanks designed on different probability levels of seasonal runoff on a sandy loam soil.

as the probability level increases the tanks size decreases and the volume of available water per unit of tank capacity increases (Fig. 4). Thus at a higher probability level, the cost of tank per unit volume will be high and vice versa at lower probability levels. The appropriate probability levels of a tank design giving the lowest annual cost per unit volume of available water for irrigation for different cases are presented in Table 2. This probability level varies from 40 to 80% for catchment sizes varying from 1 to 100 ha. In all cases, the probability level for tank design increased with increasing catchment size.

Economic feasibility of tank based irrigation

The benefit-cost analysis of the tanks designed on basis of periodical runoff was done and the appropriate probability level was identified (Table 3 ). Further, the following facts were observed: (i) The amount of water available in the 35th week for irrigation of maize is always more than that of water saved up to the 44th week for presowing irrigation of wheat. This is because seepage and evaporation losses during the

204

H . N . V E R M A A N D P.B.S. S A R M A

/1 ha
~ s

2ha

ol

.u
4

3ho 4ha

la

5ha

U~
Z

6ho 7ha

~ 3,..

8ha
~ho
10ha

~ -~
o

~. ~

20ha 30ha 40ho 50 ha

1ooho

lo

io

;o

io

~o

6o

;o

;o

~o

1;o

PROBABILITY OF LOWESTASSURED RUNOFFs, =/o

Fig. 5. Cost of water available in tanks designed at different probability levels of periodical (weeks 24-35) runofffor maize irrigation in sandy loam soil (case 1 ).

TABLE 2 Appropriate probability levels of tank design for different size of catchments Case ( 1 ) T35 for (i) Maize irrigation (ii) Presowing irrigation to wheat (2) T39 for presowing irrigation to wheat Appropriate probability level in percent (catchment area in ha) 50 (1-2) 40 (1) 50 (1-2) 60 (3-10) 50 (2-5) 60 (3-7) 70 (20-50) 60 (6-20) 70 (8-30) 80 (60-100) 70 80 (30-90) (100) 80 (40-100)

TABLE 3 ~ z
I,d

Cost and benefit of tanks designed on periodical (weeks 24-35) runoff basis at the probability level ~ giving the lowest cost per unit volume of expected water for irrigation of maize (in 35th week) or wheat (in the 44th week ) on sandy loam soils (case l ) Presowing irrigation ( 50 mm ) to wheat in 44th week)

> C~

Benefitcost ratio,

Available water (m 3)

Area irrigated (ha)

>7

Water- Total tank Total anIrrigation (50 mm) to maize in 35th week shed capacity nual cost of area (m 3) tank, C~ Available Area Annual Annual (ha) (Rs) waterb irrigated irrigation returnof (m 3) (ha) cost, C2 irriga(Rs) tion, B (Rs)

B~
(C, +C2) 0.56 0.67 0.73 0.77 0.80 0.84 0.91 0.93 0.95 0.96 1.10 1.16 1.20 1.23 1.25 1.27 1.28 1.29 1.30 173.8 428.2 711.9 1000.2 1306.6 1343.4 1607.4 1872.5 2137.5 2401.3 4065.7 6318.1 8628.4 10 972.5 13 296.6 15668.4 18 022.5 20 354.4 22 762.0 0.348 0.856 1.424 2.000 2.613 2.687 3.215 3.745 4.275 4.803 8.131 12.636 17.568 21.945 26.593 31.337 36.045 40.709 45.524 136 334 555 780 1019 1048 1254 146l 1415 1590 2691 3766 5235 6540 7925 9338 10741 12131 13 566

Annual Annual Benefit-cost irrigation returnof ratio, B / cost, C 2 irrigation, (C I -~-C2) (Rs) B (Rs) 1176 2893 4812 6759 8831 9081 10 865 12 656 14 447 16 232 27479 42703 59371 74163 89871 105903 12 1814 13 7576 15 3848 1.21 1.64 1.90 2.09 2.22 2.33 2.43 2.51 2.70 2.77 3.17 3.52 3.72 3.80 3.88 3.95 4.01 4.05 4.09

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

470.1 1009.0 1569.9 2133.5 2710.1 2574.9 3031.7 3488.9 3945.7 4401.4 6693.9 10 167.6 13 677.7 17 206.8 20 721.9 24265.6 27 797.4 31 314.8 34 878.4

835.2 1425.2 1973.5 2459.8 2953.6 2848.7 3221.1 3581.8 3933.1 4276.8 5965.1 8370.0 l0 705.7 12 987.4 15 229.3 17442.7 19 635.1 21 814.6 23 968.4

314.7 678.5 1057.4 1433.7 1822.9 1871.4 2202.8 2533.8 2863.7 3192.0 5211.5 7908.6 10 637.0 13 381.5 16 108.5 18863.5 21 604.4 24 329.1 27 100.7

0.629 1.357 2.115 2.867 3.646 3.743 4.406 5.068 5.727 6.384 10.423 15.817 21.274 26.763 32.217 37.727 43.209 48.658 54.201

245 529 825 1119 1422 1460 1458 1678 1896 2113 3106 4713 6339 7975 9600 11242 12 876 14 500 16 152

606 1308 2038 2763 3514 3607 4246 4884 5519 6152 10 045 15 243 20 502 25 792 31 048 36358 41 641 46 892 52 234

aThe probability levels 50, 60 and 70% were selected for 1-5, 6-10 and 20-100 ha catchment area, respectively. These probability levels were slightly adjusted for comparing irrigations in the 35th and 44th week and for a few catchment sizes slightly higher costs per unit volume of water were taken. bThe water available in the 44th week due to runoff from weeks 36-39 is negligible (less than 1 m3).

to
tan

206 TABLE 4

H.N. VERMAAND P.B.S. SARMA

Cost and benefit of tanks designed on a seasonal runoff basis and probability level a giving the lowest cost per unit volume of expected water in the 44th week for wheat irrigation on sandy loam soils (case

2)
Catchment area (ha) Total tank capacity (m 3 ) Total annual cost of tank, CI (Rs) 857.5 1513.7 1804.5 2285.9 2760.0 3194.7 3634.9 3393.3 3734.0 4067.1 7328.1 10 397.1 10 499.0 12 756.5 14 993.6 17 193.5 19 377.7 21 542.9 23 698.3 Available water (m 3) Area irrigated (ha) Annual irrigation cost, C2 (Rs) Net annual return of irrigation, B Benefit-cost ratio,

B/(CI+C2)

(Rs)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 494.3 1101.3 1401.9 1933.1 2476.8 3017.3 3568.4 3248.8 3687.4 4125.2 8643.2 13 210.2 13 368.9 16 828.4 20 366.1 23 833. l 27 340.9 30 906.8 34 382.8 249.8 605.9 850.6 1199.9 1563.9 1921.3 2292.4 2264.4 2540.6 2853.7 6158.8 9514.9 10 213.4 12 907.7 15 707.2 18 410.1 21 167.9 24 003.9 26 717.9 0.500 1.212 1.701 2.400 3.128 3.843 4.585 4.453 5.081 5.707 12.318 19.030 20.427 25.815 31.414 36.820 42.336 48.008 53.436 195 473 663 936 1220 1499 1518 1474 1682 1889 3671 5671 6087 7693 9361 10 972 12 616 14 306 15 924 1690 4096 5749 8111 10 571 12 987 15 495 15 049 17 171 19 287 41 629 64 312 69 033 87 242 106 164 124 433 143 075 162 243 180 587 1.60 2.06 2.33 2.52 2.66 2.77 3.00 3.09 3.17 3.24 3.78 4.00 4.16 4.27 4.36 4.42 4.47 4.52 4.56

aLowest cost per unit of expected water volume is at 50, 60, 70 and 80% probability levels for 1-2, 37, 8-30 and 40-100 ha watershed areas.

storage period from week Nos. 36 to 44 are higher than the runoff received during the same period. (ii) The benefit-cost ratio in the case of presowing irrigation of wheat is always more than that of irrigation of maize. This is because of the low response and the low price of maize and chances of partial benefits from irrigation of maize due to the possibility of the occurrence of rain just after irrigation. (iii) The benefit-cost ratio of the tank based irrigation of maize is less than one for tanks having a catchment area up to 10 ha. This ratio increased with increasing catchment area and varied from 1.1 to 1.3 for catchment areas of 20 to 100 ha. The tanks designed on the basis of case 2 (seasonal runoff for presowing irrigation of wheat) give more available water than that of case 1. The benefit-cost ratio in case 2 (Table 4) is greater for all the catchment sizes and

DESIGN OF STORAGE TANKS

207

varies from 1.6 to 4.56 for catchment areas of I to 100 ha. The above results reveal that tank based irrigation of wheat at presowing is much more beneficial than that of irrigation of maize. Hence, tanks in sandy loam soils should be designed on a seasonal runoff basis for a presowing irrigation of wheat.
CONCLUSIONS

( 1 ) A computer based procedure has been developed for designing storage tanks and computing costs and the volume of available water at the time of irrigation for planning water harvesting tank systems in the Kandi dry farming belt of northern Punjab. (2) Small tanks are costlier and, for economy measures, the tank should be of the largest size within the limits set by other factors. ( 3 ) The appropriate probability level of lowest assured runoff for tank design increases with increasing catchment area and varies from 40 to 80%. (4) For maximum benefit the tanks should be designed on the basis of lowest assured runoff for presowing irrigation to wheat. The benefit-cost ratio of such tanks varied from 1.60 to 4.56 for catchment areas 1 to 100 ha.

REFERENCES Anonymous, 1975-1983. Records of tank construction. AICRPDA, Hoshiarpur Centre, PAU, Ludhiana. Helweg, O.J. and Sharma, P.N., 1983. Optimum design of small reservoirs (tanks). Water Resour. Res., 19(4): 881-885. Palmer, W.L., Barfield, B.J. and Haan, C.T., 1982. Sizing farm reservoirs for supplemental irrigation of corn. Trans. Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., 25 (2): 372-387. Singh, R.P., 1983. Farm pond. Project Bulletin No. 6. All India Coord. Res. Project on Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad. Singh, R., Prihar, S.S., Verma, H.N., Singh, N., Sandhu, K.S., Singh, Y., Singh, M., Singh, N. and Saggar, S., 1983. Dry/and cropping in the sub-montane Punjab. Bull. Punjab Agric. Univ., Ludhiana. Verma, H.N., 1981. Water harvesting for life-saving irrigation of rainfed crops in the sub-montane region of Punjab. J. Agric. Eng., 18(3-4): 64-72. Verma, H.N., 1987. Studies on efficient use of rainwater for rainfed crops. Ph.D. Thesis, I.A.R.I., New Delhi. Verma, H.N. and Sarma, P.B.S., 1988. Analysis of short duration rainfall for planning rainfed crops. J. Agric. Eng., XXV(3): 14-19. Verma, H.N. and Sarma, P.B.S., 1989. Critical dry spells and supplemental irrigation to rainfed crops. J. Ind. Water Resour. Soc., 9(4): 12-16.