You are on page 1of 21




A synopsis report submitted

in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy


H. Ramesh
Register No. 03221005

Under the Guidance of

Dr. A. Mahesha
Asst. Professor

Department of Applied Mechanics and Hydraulics





Synopsis Report on

1. General
Water resource management should preserve or enhance the environment’s buffering
capacity to withstand the increasing stresses. As the environmental carrying capacity is
put under increasing pressure due to the growing needs of the population, and improper
use of its resources, environmental vulnerability too increases. In this context,
mismanagement of water resources leads to water scarcity and water pollution problems
which threaten the security and quality of human life.

1.2. Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM)

Giving proper regard to the unsustainable trend in water resource management, the
second World Water Forum (Dublin, 1992) acknowledged the term “integrated” which
embraces the planning and management of water resources, both conventional and non-
conventional surface and groundwater resources. Social, economic and environmental
factors are taken into account in the management which includes surface water,
groundwater and the ecosystems through which they flow.
Integrated water resources management depends on cooperation and partnerships at all
levels, from individual to governmental and non-governmental, national and international
organizations sharing a common political, scientific and ethical commitment to the need
for water security and for optimizing water resources use and planning. To achieve this
goal, there is need for coherent national, regional or interregional polices to overcome
fragmentation and for transparent and accountable institutions at all levels. The resources
should be managed at both the river basin and at the aquifer levels. Active research
should cover field and laboratory evaluation, assessment and monitoring, development
and implementation of suitable water management strategies. It requires enhanced basic
and applied research and large number of tools ranging from field techniques to advanced

technology for water control and regulation such as models, remote sensing, geographic
information system, decision support system and spatial analysis procedures. All these
tools have to be considered under integrated approach for addressing use, planning,
conservation and protection of both surface and subsurface water resources to achieve
sustainable development.

1.3. Conjunctive Use of Surface Water and Groundwater

As broadly outlined above, water planner can achieve a better management through
basin-wide strategies that include integrated utilization of surface and ground water
which may be defined as conjunctive use (Todd, 1959). Conjunctive use is the
coordinated use of surface water and groundwater. Until late 1950s, development and
management of surface water and groundwater were dealt separately, as if they were
unrelated systems. Although the adverse effects have been evident, it is only in recent
years that conjunctive use is being considered as an important water management
In general terms, conjunctive use implies planned, coordinated management of surface
water and groundwater, so as to maximize the efficient use of total water resources to
understand the interrelationships existing between surface water and groundwater. Thus
groundwater may be used to supplement surface water resources to cope with peak
demands for drinking and irrigation purposes or to meet deficits in years of low rainfall.
On the other hand, surface water may be used in overdraft areas to conserve the
groundwater storage by artificial recharge. Also, transfer of surplus water (groundwater /
surface water) could be from water plentiful to water deficit areas through canals.

1.4. Scope of the Study

Agriculture is the backbone of India’s economy and it has to produce food grains for 1.2
billion people. The thrust on water resources has increased considerably from last several
decades and will continue in coming decades. The scenario of Indian per capita water
demand varies from 35 lpcd to 55lpcd in rural areas and 75 lpcd to 135 lpcd (Jal Nirmal
Project, 2003) in the urban area. Traditional methods are now incapable to satisfy the
rapid increase in population, industry and agriculture. Hence water must now be treated

as finite resource which has to be used rationally. Uneven distribution of seasonal rainfall
causes variation in both surface water and groundwater storage. At the same time,
groundwater is also being over-extracted in some areas through public, private tube wells
and open wells to augment the water need which has caused depletion of groundwater
In Karnataka, 2.7 Mha of land is being irrigated by surface water supply during the year
2003-2004. Most of west flowing rivers of the state are being not utilized. Hence surface
water and groundwater resources need to be integrated, well managed and protected for
effective utilization water resources. Failure to do so will result in groundwater mining
and declining agricultural productivity and ecological imbalances. Hence conjunctive use
of surface water and groundwater studies is required for sustainable development.
Little work has been reported in the field of conjunctive use of surface water and
groundwater in India. The present study considers water balance based surface water
model followed by a finite element groundwater model which will give complete
interaction between surface water and groundwater. The study also involves optimization
model which will help in the allocation and withdrawal of surface water and groundwater
to meet the required demand. This gives the solution in the form of strategies for water
resources development and management in a catchment / basin. The conjunctive use
model has the capability to predict the interaction of surface water on groundwater for
long term and short term management on sustainable basis. The allocation of surface
water and groundwater resources individually and in combination for irrigation, drinking
water supply etc for different seasons in a catchment area would be decided by the model.
At the same time, sustainable development of these resources is assured by the model.
The study thus would be useful for the sustainable development of a region/ basin in a
period of increasing demand for freshwater resources.
1.5. Objectives of the Study
The specific objectives of the research are:
1. To assess the aquifer characteristics and safe yield of the Varada river basin.
2. To develop a conjunctive use surface water and groundwater model.
3. To develop a conjunctive use optimization model.
4. A GIS linked input and output of the above two objectives.

2. Study Area
The study area is located in the Karnataka state, India. Vardamoola, the place where river
Varada has its origin at an altitude of 610 m above msl in Sagar taluk of Shimoga district,
Karnataka. Varada river basin is chosen for the research purpose which is located
between latitude 14٥ to 15٥ 15 ‫׳‬and longitude 74٥ 45’ to 75٥ 45’ as shown in figure 1. It
has a drainage area of 5020 km2 and flows for about 220 Kms towards the north-east and
joins the river Tungabhadra.

Figure 1. Study area- Varada basin

Physiographically, the Varada basin consists of western ghats on the west and plateau
region in the east. Varada river is a major tributary of Tungabhadra. Sirsi, Siddapur,
Soraba, Sagar, and part of Hanagal taluks are covered by the western ghat region and
form a dense tropical forest zone with rich in culture and ecology. The remaining area
falls under plateau region.
Agriculture is the main occupation in Varada basin for about 70% of the population.
Important crops grown here are rice, jowar, bajra, small millets, cotton, sugarcane,
pulses, groundnut, and bananas. The major forest products are teak, eucalyptus, cashew,

casuarinas, bamboo, soft wood, etc. (Shiva 1991). The normal rainfall varies from 2070
mm in the western ghats to 775 mm in the plateau region. The meteorological data are
available for 11 rain gauge stations from 1991 to 2003 in the basin. The characteristics of
study area are indicated in table 1.
Table 1. Characteristics of Varada basin

Basin Varada river basin, Karnataka, India

Topography Plain, low relief, gentle slope
Land use 70% cultivated, 30% Mixed forest
Soil/Aquifer Black cotton, laterite, loamy type & confined
Bedrock Peninsular gneiss, schist
Average depth to groundwater level 8 meters
Mean annual Temp.(○C) 26.56
Mean annual precipitation (Cm) 207 Cm to 77.50 Cm
Basin area 5020 Sq. km
Years study 10 years, 1993-2002
Rain gauges 11 (@ taluk centre)
Stream gauge 1 (@ Hosaritti Village)
Major Surface water Reservoir 1 ( Dharma Reservoir near Hanagal)
Observation Bore wells 50
Lift Irrigation Schemes 65 (Irrigated Area= 378.43 Ha)
Minor irrigation Schemes 200 (Utilization of water = 5278 Mcft)

3. Methodology
3.1. Aquifer Properties
In this study, step drawdown pumping test was carried out to estimate the aquifer
properties and safe yield in the basin. The step drawdown tests were conducted for eight
hours with two hour each step. Pumping test data were analyzed for 48 bore wells using
the ‘StepMaster’ software (1994).
It is also observed from the results that the storage coefficient in Varada basin varies
from 0.01 to 0.00001 which confirms the aquifer is predominantly confined. The
transmissivity values vary from 25m2/d to 364m2/d. Both the methods are compared with
recovery test data and it is concluded that the results of Birsoy-Summer (1980) method is
reasonably matches with the recovery test results. The transmissivity and storage
coefficient values are represented in the figure 2.

(a) (b)

Figure 2. (a) -Transmissivity and (b) - storage coefficient distribution

3.2 Sustainable/Safe Yield Estimation
Safe yield refers to long-term balance between the water that is naturally and artificially
recharged to an aquifer and the groundwater that is pumped out (CWAG, 2002). When
more water is removed than is recharged, the aquifer is described as being out of safe
yield. In general, the sustainable yield of an aquifer must be considerably less than
recharge if adequate amount of water is to be available to sustain both the quantity and
quality of streams, springs, wetlands, and ground-water-dependent ecosystems. To ensure
sustainability, it is imperative that water limits be established based on hydrologic
principles of mass balance.
Hill method and water balance method were used to estimate sustainable yield in the
study area. The sustainable yield estimated by Hill method and water balance method
were respectively 317 Mm3 to 358 Mm3.

3.3. Conjunctive Use Model

The conjunctive use of surface water and groundwater was developed based on the
principle of hydrologic cycle. It consists of three sub-models viz. surface water model,
groundwater model and optimization model. The methodology of the present research is
outlined in figure 3.

Data: Rainfall, Hydro- Data: Groundwater level,
meteorological, Stream flow, Bore wells, aquifer
Demand, LU/LC properties, Hydrogeological,

Surface water Recharge Groundwater

Model model

Domestic, Industrial &

Agricultural demand.

Change Change
parameters: parameters

Develop. of
No optimization model No
[hydraulic, stream
flow constraints]


Performance of the
Implementation model & selection of
best policy

Figure 3. Conceptual model of conjunctive use methodology

3.3.1 Surface water model

The schematic diagram of surface water and groundwater model is presented in figure 4.
From water balance concept,
I  O   S t (1)
where I = total inflow, O = total outflow, ΔSt = change in groundwater storage
The flow in the saturated zone i.e. (groundwater reservoir R3) will be simulated using
groundwater model. The net recharge of a catchment area is then given by following




Figure 4. Conceptual model of surface water and groundwater (after Sarwar, 1999)

where (2)
Q = Net recharge to the aquifer RFR = Recharge from rainfall
DPF = Deep percolation from field RDM =Recharge from distributary & minors
RWC = Recharge from water courses RLC = Recharge from link canals
INFL = Inflow from adjacent area ROF = Surface runoff
ETC = Crop evapotranspiration EFL = Evaporation from fallow/ bare soil
PSTW = Pumpage by public tube wells PPTW = Pumpage by private tube wells
SD = Seepage from water table to surface drains

Seepage from water table to surface drains (SD) is not considered. Pumpage by public
and private tube wells are considered together and represented by pumpage from tube
wells (PTW). RCL is considered here within the basin which irrigated 6060 ha of land.
The net recharge to the groundwater was computed by integrating water balance
considering R1 and R2 together. The components of equation (2) were computed based
on the guidelines given by Groundwater Estimation Committee (GEC, 1997).
Evaporation loss was estimated by CROP WAT (FAO, 1956) software by considering a
data of meteorological station (IMD, 1974) located in Shimoga. Runoff is measured in
the basin at Hosaritti village and other components were suitably assumed and some of
them are taken from literature.

3.3.2 Groundwater Model

The Galerkin finite element method was applied to solve both steady and unsteady two
dimensional groundwater flow governing partial differential equations.
The groundwater flow in an aquifer is represented by the differential equation of
substantial saturated thickness (Jacob, 1950)
  h    h  h
 Tx    T y   S  G ( x, y , t ) (3)
x  x  y  y  t
where Tx and Ty are the x and y – direction transmissivities respectively (m2/day)
h- Groundwater potential (m), S – Storage coefficient (dimensionless),
G(x,y,t) – Recharge intensity (m3/day) and t – Time (days).
This equation is solved using finite element method with the following initial and
boundary conditions.
Initial condition
h xi ,0   hl  xi  in Ώ (4)
Where, hi is spatially varying functions of initial distribution of heads.
Boundary Conditions
The governing equation is subjected to the following boundary conditions
h  h x , y , z , t  on A1 (5)

h h h
kx lx  k y ly  kz l z  q  x, y , z , t  on A2 (6)
x y z
where h = ……, lx, ly and lz are the direction cosines between the normal to the boundary
surface and the coordinate axes; A1 represents those parts of the surface where h is
known and is therefore specified. For the remaining parts of boundary referred to as A2;
q is prescribed flow rate per unit area across the boundary. For the general case of
transient flow with piezometric surface moving with a velocity Vn normal to its
instantaneous configuration, the quantity of flow entering its unit area is given by
q  Vn S  I * l x (7)
where S is the storage coefficient relating the total volume of material to the quantity of
fluid which can be drained. I is the infiltration or evaporation.
Well Boundary Condition
This condition incorporates the pumping or recharge activities through wells at specific
locations, mathematically
Qhw ( xi , t )   Qmw   xi  xim  for ( xi  xim )   (8)

where Qh = a well function, Qmw = pumping or recharge rate of a single well (m3/d),

X im = coordinate of a single well (m),

Computer code was developed in Visual C++ (VC++). Finite element discretization of
Varada basin is as shown in figure 5. Linear triangular elements are considered for the
discretization with 329 elements and 196 nodes. The elemental matrices were computed
based on shape function and assembled in global matrix of size number of nodes by
number nodes. The initial and boundary conditions were then prescribed for the
respective nodes in the global matrix. The systems of equations were solved by Gauss
elimination method for nodal groundwater head.

No. of Nodes: 196
No. of Elements: 329

Figure 5. Finite element discretization of Varada river basin

The model was calibrated for the period 1993 to 1998 and validated for 1999 to 2003
data. The simulated and observed groundwater head and statistics of the performance of
the model are given in table 2 and the performance of the model was found to be good.

Table 2. Performance statistics of the model

Error Well Location (Node No.)

Measures 6 14 43 105 139 175 185
ME -0.08 -0.31 0.47 0.55 -0.21 -0.43 -0.08
RMSE 0.65 0.46 0.73 0.78 0.56 0.76 0.69
R 0.83 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.91 0.78 0.86

4. Model Application
This calibrated model was used to predict various management scenarios for the years
2007 to 2010 and a few cases are tabulated in table 3. The rainfall and pumping data were
analysed for the last 11 years. It clearly indicated that, there is an average decrease of
rainfall of about 6% with respect to the normal rainfall and pumping increases of about
6% every year (average year). Similarly, an increase of rainfall and pumping of about
30% and 20% respectively leads to wet year (1994) and very less rainfall of about -70%
with gradual increased pumping of about 10% leads to dry year (2001). Based on these
statistics, the five prediction scenarios are defined as follows.
1. 2 % increase in the pumping rate of 2003 every year up to 2010.
2. 5 % increase in the pumping rate of 2003 every year up to 2010.
3. 5 % increase in pumping with 2 % increase in recharge rate of 2003 every year up
to 2010.
4. 10 % increase in the pumping rate of 2003 every year up to 2010.
5. Proposed inter-linking of Bedti-Varada river along with three irrigation tanks.
The groundwater levels are predicted over a short duration (up to 2010) considering the
growth in the extraction rate (Fig. 5, 6 & 7). The figures indicate considerable depletion
of groundwater levels with 10 % increase in the extraction rate every year.

Table 3. Predicted groundwater levels in meter for the scenarios – II & IV (January)
(Groundwater levels are in m above msl)

Scenario-I Scenario-II
Node Village Long Lat 5 % increase in pumping 10% increase in pumping
No. (Deg) (Deg) Jan-03 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10 Jan-07 Jan-08 Jan-09 Jan-10
2 Yadagigalemane 74.994 14.139 608.612 606.801 605.078 603.441 601.883 604.989 601.723 605.682 596.662
5 Talaguppa 74.899 14.219 578.728 578.637 578.541 578.439 578.332 578.546 578.343 576.554 571.249
6 Alahalli 74.941 14.201 572.79 572.518 572.233 571.935 571.622 572.246 571.65 569.694 566.041
10 Ullur 75.107 14.142 628.195 625.132 622.222 619.458 616.832 622.069 616.556 621.053 609.253
14 Keladi 75.017 14.222 577.702 577.582 577.466 577.356 577.251 577.461 577.241 576.319 574.494
16 Bommatti 75.103 14.172 609.13 606.854 604.688 602.625 600.661 604.578 600.464 605.309 596.531
32 Hosabale 75.047 14.317 592.088 591.681 591.293 590.924 590.573 591.274 590.538 591.494 586.25
43 Yalsi 75.05 14.372 574.993 574.719 574.447 574.178 573.91 574.444 573.907 571.905 565.716
49 Tyagali 74.874 14.481 546.102 542.663 539.053 535.262 531.281 539.226 531.661 499.33 436.29
80 Kuppagadde 75.114 14.476 565.748 564.844 563.981 563.155 562.364 563.94 562.293 562.717 559.217
92 Isloor 74.886 14.681 626.632 626.696 626.763 626.835 626.909 626.76 626.902 624.856 613.349
95 Jade 75.05 14.572 553.349 552.326 551.251 550.121 548.936 551.302 549.049 537.382 511.321
97 Anavatti 75.152 14.564 542.337 542.256 542.169 542.077 541.981 542.174 541.991 538.416 525.947
105 Agasanahalli 75.156 14.608 540.053 539.92 539.781 539.636 539.482 539.788 539.497 537.996 529.975
114 Makaravalli 75.167 14.65 549.354 548.968 548.562 548.136 547.688 548.581 547.731 541.809 525.138
139 Motebennur 75.483 14.717 576.445 575.897 575.379 574.89 574.429 575.349 574.374 574.688 572.631
144 Adur 75.25 14.783 545.556 545.193 544.811 544.411 543.99 544.829 544.03 538.717 523.453
179 Haleritti 75.55 14.9 517.911 517.716 517.513 517.298 517.073 517.522 517.094 518.973 502.615
180 Negalur 75.617 14.883 513.596 513.473 513.344 513.207 513.065 513.35 513.078 513.432 512.297
185 Yalavigi 75.4 15.033 596.408 596.364 596.317 596.268 596.216 596.319 596.221 594.513 588.735
189 Out let 501.08 500.791 500.489 500.171 499.837 500.503 499.869 495.023 481.406

Figure 6. Predicted groundwater level contour maps (5% Increase in Pumping)

Figure 7. Predicted January groundwater level contour maps (10 % Increase in Pumping)

5. Conjunctive Use Optimization

In the present study, optimization problem was formulated as a linear programming

problem with the objective of maximizing water production from the wells and from the
streams similar to John (USGS, 2003) with a little modification. The optimization
problem is subject to the following constraints:
1. Maintaining groundwater level at or above a specified level.
2. Utilization of stream flow at or below maximum specified rates.
3. Limiting the groundwater withdrawals to a maximum of 10 percent of the rate
pumped in 2003 every year up to 2010.
The ultimate objective of the optimization model is to provide estimates of sustainable
yield from both groundwater and surface water. Sustainable yield is defined here as the
withdrawal rate from the aquifer or from a stream that can be maintained over a longer
period without causing violation of either hydraulic-head or streamflow constraints. The
optimization problem was solved by graphical method as shown in figure 8 along with
withdrawals of surface water and groundwater limits.

0.3 1.6

Figure 8. Results of optimization model for the scenario of 2003

Table 4 indicates the various options available in the management of surface water and
groundwater. From table 4, it is clear that the total sustainable yield of 11.8 Mm3/d
arrived by conjunctive use of surface water (1.6 Mm3/d) and groundwater (10.2 Mm3/d)
in the Varada basin is the optimum condition.
Table 4. Optimum withdrawals rates of surface and groundwater

Feasible q well q river Z=Σ qwell+Σ qriver

3 3
region points [Mm /day] [Mm /day] [Mm3/day]
1 1 0.3 1.3
2 1 1.6 2.6
3 10.2 1.6 11.8 (Optimum)
4 10.2 0.1 10.3
5 3 0.1 3.1

Specifying an upper withdrawal limit of 10 percent of the 2003 withdrawal rate which
continues every year (scenario-1), the sustainable yield from groundwater for the basin is
5.81 Mm3/d in the year 2010 (Table 5). In the case further increased demand, the only
option available to sustainable yield is withdrawal from stream flow has to be increased.
The different withdrawal limits from stream and groundwater are tabulated in table 5.
Total sustainable yield from the Varada river is about 1.3 Mm3/d. This large sustainable
yield represents a potential source of water that could supplement groundwater and meet
the total water demand, But to do so it requires the construction of withdrawal and
distribution facilities, which will have legal, political, economic, and social

Table 5 Sustainable yield under different upper limits on withdrawals.[all are in Mm3/d]
Sources 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
5% increase
of 2003 3 3.15 3.31 3.48 3.36 3.85 4.04 4.24
every year
10% 10.2
( wells)
increase of
3 3.3 3.63 3.99 4.38 4.81 5.29 5.81
2003 every
5% increase
of 2003 0.3 0.315 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.39 0.41 0.43
Surface every year
water 10% 1.6
(River) increase of
0.3 0.33 0.363 0.399 0.439 0.483 0.531 0.585
2003 every

6. Conclusions
In this study, mathematical and optimization models were developed for the conjunctive
use of surface water and groundwater resources in the Varada river basin. The major
conclusions based on the results are as follows:
 The Varada aquifer is predominantly a confined aquifer as evident by the field
tests and observations. The transmissivity of the aquifer ranges from 50-120 m2/d
in the plain area and 80-170 m2/d for western ghat. The storativity values ranges
from 0.001 to 0.00001.
 The sustainable yield of Varada basin estimated from the water balance and the
Hill methods ranges between 317 Mm3 to 358 Mm3.
 The study evaluated the effect of recharge due to rainfall and other surface water
bodies on groundwater through field observations and methods proposed by
Groundwater Estimation Committee. These were incorporated in the surface
water model to estimate the net recharge to groundwater.
 The numerical solution was effective and accurate enough to simulate the aquifer
system with mean error range between -0.43 to 0.55 and correlation coefficient
between the ranges of 0.78 to 0.91.
 The basin is capable of sustaining with 5% to 10% increase in pumping rate every
year from 2003 up to 2010.

 It becomes crucial to supply canal water to meet the water demand of basin
prevents the groundwater mining in the study area.
 The optimization model provides a compromised solution considering different
water demands (domestic and agriculture) and available groundwater/surface
water resources. Considering a maximum growth rate of 10% every year in the
water demand, the optimal solution over a short range i.e. in the year 2010 is 5.81
Mm3/d from groundwater resources and 0.585 Mm3/day from surface water
resources. The effective implementation of the developed policies ensures
sustainable groundwater development in the study area.
 The study focuses on the importance of conjunctive use optimization of water
resources in meeting the increasing demand.

7. Recommendations
Based on the investigations, the following recommendations are made to conjunctively
utilize the water resources of the region.
 Construction of recharge structures like irrigation tanks, nala bund in the study
area to arrest the surface runoff and thereby increase in recharge. An increase of
about 2% recharge can ensure 1.88 m of groundwater level improvement
 Utilization of about 25% of 242 Mm3 transferable water by inter-linking of Bedti-
Varada river in the Varada basin through a network of canals increases the
groundwater potentials significantly.
 Suitable crops and cropping patterns need to be adopted to suit the predicted
water availability to achieve sustainability.
 Awareness on community based management of river basin would be more
effective in the management and development of both surface water and
groundwater resources.
 To achieve the predicted results, imposition of policy on excess groundwater
withdrawals control may be introduced such as cut down the power supply
suitably i.e., more power supply in monsoon and less power supply in non-
monsoon seasons.

 The present model and results could be improved by thorough field investigations
to accurately assess soil properties, hydro-geological properties, and groundwater
flux through boundaries etc. Intense database on groundwater level, riverflow,
periodical change in land use / land cover would add to the above for more
accurate simulations.

Birsoy Y. K. and Summers W. K., 1980. Determination of aquifer parameters from step
tests and intermittent pumping data. J.of Ground Water, 18, 137-146.
CWAG, 2005. Citizen’s Water Advisory Group information bulletin ,PO Box 13145,
Prescott, AZ 86304 (928) 443-5353.
FAO. 1992. CROPWAT — A Computer Program for Irrigation Planning and
Management. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 46. Food and Agriculture
Organization, Rome.
GEC, Groundwater Resource Estimation Methodology - 1997. Report of the Groundwater
Resource Estimation Committee, Ministry of Water Resources, Government of
India, New Delhi, June 1997.
India Meteorological Department [IMD], 1984. Climate of Karnataka state. Printer: Office
of Additional Director General of Meteorology (Research), IMD, Pune-411005.
Publisher: Controller of Publication, civil Lines, New Delhi 110054. pp 1-143.
Jal Nirmal, 2003. Jal Nirmal Project report, 2003. Karnataka Rural Water Supply and
Sanitation Agency (KRWSSA), Bangalore.
John B. Czarnecki, Clark R. Brian and Stanton P. Gregory. 2003. Conjunctive use
optimization model of the Mississippi river valley alluvial aquifer of south eastern
Arkansas. USGS Water resources investigation report 03-4233. USA.
Miguel Solanes and Fernando Gonzalez-Villarreal, 1999. The Dublin Principles for
Water as Reflected in a Comparative Assessment of Institutional and Legal
Arrangements for Integrated Water Resources Management. Global Water
Partnership/Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency, S105-25
Stockholm, Sweden, pp 1-48.

Sarwar Asaf, 1999. Development of conjunctive use model, an integrated approach of
surface and groundwater modeling using GIS. University of Bonn, Germany. (PhD
Thesis) pp 1-140.
StepMaster, software. 1994, Star point software Inc. 7027, Windword Way, Suite 246,
Cincinnati, OH 45241, USA. <> (March 10, 2004).
Todd, D.K. (1956). Groundwater Hydrology. 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York.