Report No.

_______

WATER BALANCE ESTIMATION OF THE WATERSHED IWMP-16

IN KANKER DISTRICT (CHHATTISGARH)

(NEERANCHAL PROJECT)

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF HYDROLOGY

JAL VIGYAN BHAVAN
ROORKEE
2017
 Director : Sharad K. Jain
Coordinator : A.K. Lohani

STUDY GROUP

Principal Investigator : T.R. Nayak, Scientist-F

Team members : Senthil Kumar, Scientist-F

Jyoti Patil, Scientist-C
R.V. Galkate, Scientist-E
R.K. Jaiswal, Scientist-D
Shashi P. Indwar, Scientist-C
 PREFACE

The basic concept of Integrated Water Resources Management (IWRM) is to integrate not only
the stakeholders but also put together all aspects of natural resources for efficient use of available
waterin a river basin. It is essential to exercise the entire sources of supply and demands in a river basin
for planning and prioritization of the water allocation for different uses, viz. domestic, industrial and
agricultural purposes. The WEAP is a simple tool for prioritizing the supply sources, the surface water
as well as ground water and also allocation for different demands. All the links and nodes can be
assigned the priority in terms of numbers, viz. for highest priority, it is 1. The WEAP tool also gives
answers for “What if?” type questions, like what if the rate of population growth increases or decreases,
what if crop rotation changes, what if additional water harvesting structures or dams are constructed.
The input for these types of situations is assigned in the form of scenario generation. The input may be
in the form of maps, tables or formula. In other words, WEAP can simulate the dynamics of watershed
characteristics and future changes in the basin, which affect the water supply and demand. This helps in
planning and allocation of available water.

In the present study an attempt has been made to make an account of the present available water
resources in the IWMP-16 micro watershed in Kanker district, Chhattisgarh. The year 2009-10 has
been considered as ‘current year’ on ‘reference year’ as per the data availability and effect of climate
change has been tested from the year 2009-10 to 2049-50. The totalwater demands, supplies and the
unmet water demandsfor the reference year 2009-10 have been computed on the basis of population,
livestock, area under crop, rainfall, climatic conditions, cropping pattern and watershed characteristics
for the year 2009-10. The unmet water demands have been computed for the future years also. The
changes in unmet water demands under three types of scenarios, viz. modeled climate change, Increase
in Ground Water Recharge and Construction of surface water storage structures. I hope the study will
be useful to the stakeholders of water resources in Kanker district, especially for planning of
developmentalactivities.

Dr. Tejram Nayak, Scientist 'F' and team of Central India Hydrology Regional Centre, Bhopal
have carried out the study under the ‘Neeranchal Project’ during the year 2018-19. The Chhattisgarh
State Watershed Management Agency, C.G. State Water Data Centre, Water Resources Department,
Raipurand Central Ground Water Board, Raipur deserves our special thanks for supplying all required
data for this study.

(Sharad K. Jain)
DIRECTOR

i
 CONTENTS

Chapter Title Page No.

PREFACE … i
CONTENTS … ii
List of Tables … iv
List of Figures … v
ABSTRACT … vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION … 1
1.1 Overview of WEAP Tool … 2
1.1.1 Background … 2
1.1.2 WEAP Development … 3
1.1.3 WEAP Capabilities … 3
1.2 Objectives … 3
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW … 5
3.0 METHODOLOGY … 8
3.1 The WEAP Approach … 8
3.2 Program Structure … 8
3.2.1 Schematic … 9
3.2.2 Data … 9
3.2.3 Results … 10
3.2.4 Scenario Explorer … 11
3.3 The WEAP Steps ` … 11
4.0 STUDY AREA … 14
4.1 IWMP-16 Sub Watershed … 14
4.1.1 Location … 14
4.1.2 Physiographic … 14
4.1.3 Climate … 14
4.1.4 Geology … 15
4.1.5 Soil and Crop … 16
4.2 Land use … 16
4.3 Ground Water … 18
4.3.1 Ground Water Recharge and Drought … 18
4.3.2 Water Conservation and Artificial Recharge … 19
5.0 DATA USED AND ANALYSIS … 20
5.1 Demand Sites and Catchments … 20

ii
 5.1.1 Population Demand … 20
5.1.2 Crop Water Requirement … 21
5.1.3 Rainfall Runoff Method (Soil Moisture Method) … 21
5.2 Climate Data … 22
5.2.1 Monthly Rainfall, Temperature and wind Speed Data … 23
5.3 Supply and Resources … 24
6.0 RESULTS … 25
6.1 Results as per the Reference Scenario … 26
6.2 Results as per the Future Scenario … 31
6.2.1 Results for Scenario I: Ground Water Recharge/
Draft (Rain Water Harvesting) … 31
6.2.2 Results for Scenario II: Construction of Water
Storage Structure … 33
7.0 CONSULUSIONG … 35
8.0 REFERENCES … 37

iii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table No. Title Page No.

3.1: Different sources for Data collection … 12

4.1 Spatial Distribution of Land use in IWMP-16 … 17
4.2 Ground Water Resources of Bhanupratappur Block kanker District … 18
5.1 Medium Variant Population Growth Rate (%) for India … 21
6.1 Demand Sites and Their Supply Sources … 26
6.2 Water Demands (Excluding Losses and reuse) in MCM … 27
6.3 Supply Delivered (in MCM) … 28
6.4 Unmet Water Demands … 30
6.5 Annul Variation in Unmet Water Demands (2009-2050)- … 32
with 2% Growth Rate in Groundwater Recharge and water
Storage structure

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Title Page No.

No.

3.1 Schematic view of WEAP … 9

3.2 Data view of Precipitation in IWMP-16 … 10
3.3 Result view of WEAP … 10
3.4 Scenario explorer view of WEAP … 11
3.5 Flow chart of methodology … 13
3.6 Index of IWMP-16 Sub Watershed … 15
4.4 Classified Landuse map of IWMP-16 … 17
4.5 Suitable Area for Artificial Recharge and Future Ground … 19
Water Development
5.1 Monthly Rainfall Data from the year 2009 to 2050 … 23
5.2 Monthly Temperature Data from the year 2009 to 2050 … 23
5.3 Monthly Wind Speed Data from the year 2009 to 2048 … 24
6.1 Detailed view of WEAP area including Supply Sources and Demand Fields … 25
6.2 Water demands (Excluding losses and reuse) in the year 2009-2050 … 26
6.3 Supply Delivered for Domestic and Catchments in the year 2009-2050 … 29
6.4 Annual Variation of Unmet Water Demands … 31
6.5 Annual Variation of Unmet Water Demands (2009-2050) with 2% … 33
Growth Rate in Ground Water Recharge and Water Storage Structure
6.6 Unmet Water Demands, Annual variation (2009-2050) with all scenarios … 34

v
 ABSTRACT

Study and analysis of water allocation between user and ecosystem is useful when it is addressed at the
basin level. In the cases of limited water resources, environmental quality and policies for sustainable
water use, where conventional supply oriented simulation models are not adequate, WEAP is modern,
straight forward and easy-to-use modelling tool. In the present study, WEAP has been applied to
manage domestic and agricultural systems to govern a range of issues like: water allocation priorities,
water conservation, groundwater and stream flow simulations, and water storage structure. The main
purpose of the study is to simulate water demand and supply, recharge and draft using WEAP.

The WEAP Schematic was prepared based on the watershed boundary and major drainage system and
linked with the Global Coordinate System with datum WGS-84 so that the working area (IWMP-16)
was linked with Global Climate Model. WEAP provides access to a "built-in" global historical gridded
climate dataset, including data for temperature, precipitation and wind speed, at daily and monthly time
steps for 1948-2010, at a spatial resolution of 0.25 degrees (roughly 28 km). This global climate
dataset was created by the Terrestrial Hydrology Group at Princeton University. It blends reanalysis
data with observations. The year 2009-10 has been considered as the base year on the ‘Reference
accounts year (2011)’, for which the demographic data was available. The WEAP model has been run
for future years 2009-10 to 2050-51 with different scenarios and assumptions. As per the suggested
methodology, the required input data was fed into data view of the model, viz. precipitation,
temperature, landuse, and soil parameters. The values for annual water use rate, population, and supply
capacity of the sources were input; and WEAP thus gave the results for Total Water Demand,
Available Supply and Unmet Water Demands of the watershed. Water Demand here is the total amount
of water that is required in the region for use of various domestic and agricultural purposes. Unmet
Demands are the unsatisfied water demands that require great concern and alternatives to cope up with
them. The database available on human population, live stocks, agricultural area, irrigation supply from
surface water and groundwater, etc. for the study pertains to the the base year or ‘Reference accounts
year’, i.e. 2009-10. The supply sources, domestic and catchment demands, unmet water demands for
the year 2010 -2050 has been analyzed to compare the future years with different under different
scenarios with interventions, such as population growth, decrease or increase in groundwater recharge,
construction of surface water storage structures, etc. have been analyzed through WEAP model and the
results are presented in tabular as well as graphical form.

vi
1.0 INTRODUCTION

Essential to all, water is the basis of life. It is the most common natural resource, covering
about 71% of the Earth's surface. Although there is much available, it is sometimes a scarce resource.
Water has its own domain of phenomenal significance. It gives life to everyone but also death to some.
It is a vital source of agriculture, production and countless other human activities and yet it is one of
the most poorly managed resources on earth. The big difference in the accessibility of water in
different parts of the world makes its significance even more remarkable. Water supply on earth can’t
be changed but can be managed as per the needs. The impacts and spreading occurrence of water
problems can be reduced by managing the resources in two ways: by decreasing the waste &
unnecessary uses and increasing the usable supply. It includes innumerable parameters that need to be
considered like climate factors (temperature, humidity, radiations, precipitation),economic factors,
population variance, consumption, settlements and a lot more. Watershed boundaries provide the
natural limits for considering and managing these parameters within.

Watershed is defined as a hydro-geological unit of area from which the rainwater drains
through a single outlet. From the hydrological point of view, the different phases of hydrological cycle
in a watershed depend on the various natural properties and human activities. Watershed is not only
the hydrological unit but also a socio-political-ecological entity which plays important role in
determining social, economical and food security and provides life support services to rural people
(Wani et al., 2008). It restricts both surface and groundwater supplies, along with related terrestrial and
community resources. Much of its water comes from rainfall and storm-water runoff. All the
alterations to the land-mining, agriculture, roadways, urban development, and the activities of people
within a watershed affect the quality and quantity of storm-water. This is a complex typical problem
and difficult to manage that is why there is a requirement of better understanding of the interactions
between the environmental components.

Watersheds are the physical features found everywhere across the landscape serving as the
geographic foundation for Water management and modelling. They supply drinking water, provide
recreation and respite and sustain life in many other ways. Therefore watersheds planning and
management is highly desirable. Watershed management implies to integrate planning for land and
water; taking into account both ground and surface water flow, it recognizes and plans for the
interaction of water, animals, plants, human and land use found within the physical boundaries of the
watershed. It also provides a framework to assess the nature and status of the watershed define and re-
evaluate short and long-term objectives, actions and goals; identify watershed issues; assess benefits
and costs; and implement and evaluate actions through integrated decision- making process. Integrated
Watershed Management thus provides ridge to valley watershed planning for water, natural resources

1
and environment. It is a holistic problem solving strategy used to protect and restore the physical,
chemical and biological integrity of aquatic ecosystems, human health, and provides for sustainable
economic growth (National Research Council, 1999). Managing the supply and demand with an
assurance of good quality water is a great deal now-a-days. There could be multiple factors within the
boundary of a watershed that greatly alter the storage and availability of water by demanding more or
less water than the usual expectations. Unusually increasing and decreasing demands of water can
broadly affect future water supply unless there is some planning to manage the behaviour. An
integrated approach to water development has emerged over the last decade in the context of demand-
side issues, water quality and ecosystem preservation.

1.1 Overview of WEAP Tool

Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) is a microcomputer tool for integrated water
resources planning. It provides a flexible, comprehensive and user-friendly framework for policy
analysis. WEAP is found to be useful by a growing number of water professionals, in addition to their
toolbox of models, databases, spreadsheets and other software.This overview summarizes purpose,
approach and structure of WEAP. WEAP tutorial contents are also introduced; a series of modules that
takes you through all aspects of WEAP modelling capabilities constructs the tutorial. WEAP focuses
to include various demands and resources supply values into a practical tool for water resources
planning. It is differentiated by its integrated approach towards simulating water systems and by its
policy orientation. WEAP places the demand side of the equation - water use patterns, allocation,
equipment efficiency, re-use, and prices on an equal footing with the supply side - streamflow,
reservoirs, groundwater, and water transfers. WEAP is a laboratory for examining alternative water
management strategies and water development.

WEAP is comprehensive, straightforward, and easy-to-use, and does not substitute but attempts
to assist the skilled planner. A system for maintaining water demand and supply information is
provided by WEAP as a database. WEAP simulates water demand, supply, flows, and storage, and
pollution generation, treatment and discharge as a forecasting tool. WEAP assess a full range of water
development and management options, and takes into account of multiple and competing applications
of water systems as a policy analysis tool.

1.1.2 WEAP Development

The Stockholm Environment Institute provided basic support for the development of WEAP.
The Hydrologic Engineering Centre of the US Army Corps of Engineers funded significant
enhancements. A number of agencies, including the World Bank, USAID and the Global Infrastructure

2
Fund of Japan have provided project support. WEAP has been applied in water assessments in over
one hundred countries.

1.1.3 WEAP Capabilities

 Water balance database: WEAP provides a system for maintaining supply information and water
demand.
 Scenario generation tool: WEAP simulates water storage, runoff, demand, supply, streamflows,
instream water quality, pollution generation, treatment and discharge.
 Policy analysis tool: WEAP takes account of multiple and competing uses of water systems and
assess a full range of water development and management options.

1.2 Objectives

A draft roadmap has been prepared in-house in NITI Aayog for development of North-
Eastern States and similarly positioned Eastern States i.e. Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Jharkhand, odisha and
west Bengal, in the form of a report titled ' Transformation of Aspirational Districts'. The programme
has a focussed approach: to improve performance across health and nutrition, education, agriculture
and water resources, financial inclusion and skill development, and basic infrastructure. The
Transformation of Aspirational Districts Program aims to expeditiously transform 117 districts that
were identified from across 28 states, in a transparent manner. There are 11 districts of Chhattisgarh
Korba, Bastar, Mahasamund, Bijapur, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, Kanker, Kondagaon, Narayanpur,
Rajnandgaon and Sukma.

Kanker district is one of the district identified for implementing the National Neeranchal
Watershed Program. In 2011, Kanker had population of 748,941 of which male and female were
373,338 and 375,603 respectively. Water sources are varied and often seasonal. Most of the agriculture
is rain fed, so farmers are highly dependent on the monsoon rains. As the 90 percent of annual rainfall
is received in the Monsoon season, the climate pattern is quite uncertain and erratic. It sometimes
causes droughts and also floods in the monsoon. In both of the extreme climatic situations, the farmers
lose their livelihood, viz. Peddy cultivation in the Kharif season. The Rabi season cultivation is very
less, as the minor forest produce (laghu van udyog) is the source of income for major population. The
availability of forest produce is one of the major factor that the farmers and villagers do not grow Rabi
season crop even if the irrigation facility is created. Thus, keeping in view the erratic rainfall pattern
for most of years in Bastar region, which caused scarcity for the irrigation demands of the area, this
study was aimed to assess the available water resources of IWMP-16 sub watershed and supply-
demands water balance through different possible future scenarios.

3
 In particular, the objectives of the study have been framed as:

To develop the Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) applications for the watershed
management in IWMP-16 sub watershed for Reference year.
To compute the Annual Unmet Water Demands in the years 2009 – 2050.
Formulation and evaluation of the following scenarios to meet the total demands:
Groundwater recharge
Incorporating Water Storage Structure (Dam) in the study area

4
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW

The WEAP tool has been used for planning water management in current scenario as well as
future changes in demand and supply due to population growth, developmental activities in the
watershed, cropping pattern and climate change.

Strzepek K. M., Major D. C. (1999) reported new methods of linking climate change scenarios
with agricultural, hydrologic and water planning models to study future water availability for
agriculture, an essential element of sustainability. They studied the integration of models for water
supply and demand, and of crop growth and irrigation management. Rosenzweig C., Strzepek K. M.
(2004) examined the implications of water availability for the reliability of irrigation and changes in
crop water demand, taking into account changes in competing industrial and municipal demands, and
explores the effectiveness of adaptation options in maintaining reliability. They reported on methods of
linking climate change scenarios with hydrologic, agricultural, and planning models to study water
availability for agriculture under changing climate conditions, to evaluate adaptation strategies for the
water resources and agriculture sectors and to estimate changes in ecosystem services.

Jenkins M. W., Marques G. F. (2005) presents a study of the Water Evaluation and Planning
System (WEAP) as a decision support tool (DST) in addressing shared water issues in the River Njoro
watershed for local stakeholders and communities. The watershed includes a large shallow saline lake
designated a RAMSAR wetlands site of international importance, an important downstream habitat at
Lake Nakuru, and a broad mix of water uses and users located in the semi-arid Rift Valley of
Kenya.Purkey et. al. (2008) looked at the impact of climate change on agricultural water management
and the potential for adaptation in the Sacramento River Basin of California. In terms of improving
irrigation efficiency and shifts in cropping patterns during dry periods, climate time series were used to
simulate agricultural water management with and without adaptation. They found WEAP more robust
than any other tool in evaluating future climate scenarios and also the water demand associated with
high temperatures and low rainfall.

Bharati et al. (2008) used the model to evaluate the water availability as against water demand
in the link from Godavari River (at Polavaram) to Krishna River (at Vijayawada). This study helped in
examining whether the planned water transfers (Polavaram reservoir and link canal) would satisfy the
growing agricultural water demands in the Polavaram link command area. Young C., Joyce B.
(2008) worked with WEAP, which is simulation modelling software that includes a robust and flexible
representation of water demands from all sectors and flexible, programmable operating rules for
infrastructure elements such as reservoirs, canals, and hydropower projects. Additionally, it allows all
portions of the water infrastructure and demand to be dynamically nested within the underlying

5
hydrological processes with its watershed rainfall-runoff modelling capabilities. WEAP also allows for
linking with other models to provide feedback mechanisms whereby the management regime can be
altered to respond to changing water supply conditions.

Mugatsia (2010) adopted Decision Supportive System (DSS) to evaluate the current water
management scenario and the effect of proposed water development projects in future in the Perkerra
catchment of Kenya. To create spatial database and the impact of various water infrastructural
developments, policy and regulation assessed under various scenarios, the data was geo-referenced in
ArcView GIS software. Mounir Z.M. et. al. (2011) used WEAP as a forecasting tool of future water
balance. They investigated the scenarios for future water resource development in the Niger River
basin in Niger Republic for three main purposes: for human needs (domestic), for irrigation
(agriculture) and for industrial purpose in the Niamey and Tillabery cities. Results for satisfied and
unsatisfied (unmet) water demands were obtained by running and comparing the scenarios.

Page M., Berjamy B. et. al. (2012) Decision Support System has been set up as the result of a
fruitful cooperation between several public and research institutions in the framework of a large
cooperation program. The DSS aims to compare spatially and temporally sectorial water demands of
the Haouz-Mejjate plain (Morocco) in regard to available surface and groundwater resources. A
dynamic linkage between MODFLOW and WEAP transfers the results of one model as input data to
the other. The model restitutes both spatial and temporal variations in head charges and allows the
calculation of the ground water balance. Mehta V. K.; Purkey, et. al. (2013) studied on WEAP that
includes a dynamically integrated watershed hydrology module that is forced by input climate time
series. This software allows direct simulation of water management response to climate and land use
change. They represented a WEAP application for the Yuba, Bear and American River (ABY)
watersheds of the Sierra Nevada.

Fayad A., Alameddine I. (2014) investigated over the Upper Litani River Basin. The
framework encompassed the ability to export back model simulation results and as time series records,
incorporate them within the Hydrologic Information System HIS. Since then, the developed HIS
system was adopted as a data repository for other water related projects in Lebanon and has helped
identify key gaps in existing data and set monitoring priorities. Usha B., Mudgal B. V. (2014) studied
that the effect of climate variability/climate change on runoff is limited in humid tropical regions.
Climate change has effects on agriculture and fisheries other than the water resources sector. Their
study provides information on climate variability/changes and its impacts on runoff in the
Kosasthaliyar sub-basin. Rahimi et. al. (2014) investigated near Masouleh River in Guilan province of
Iran for economic valuation of water resources.

6
 Sampath D. S. and Weerakoon S. B. (2014) developed a model for water management in
development area of LB canal and for the assessment of diversion requirement from the DeduruOya
reservoir through the LB Canal to supplement LB irrigation demand. They used Hydrological
Engineering Center-Hydrological Modeling System (HEC-HMS) for runoff estimations and
CROPWAT model to estimate crop water requirements. For water balance simulations in DeduruOya
LB canal development area and to calculate water requirements from LB canal for the period of recent
10years, Water Evaluation and Planning (WEAP) model was used. Suryawanshi R. A. and Shirke A. J.
(2014) worked with the software Water Evaluation And Planning System (WEAP 21) which operates
at a monthly step on the basic principle of water balance accounting. The user represents the system in
terms of its various sources of water demands, supply withdrawals and ecosystem requirements. The
recent application of the WEAP model forms part of on-going research work in Subarnarekha River
Basin, to develop, test and promote management practices and decision-support tools for effective
management of water and land resources.

Malla M. A., et. al. (2014) used WEAP (water evaluation and planning model) developed by
Stockholm Environment Institute to study the global climatic concerns, which began to cast their
shadows on the climate of Jammu and Kashmir as well. This model is a tool for integrated water
resource management and planning like, forecasting water use, supply, demand, inflows, outflows,
reuse, water quality, priority areas and Hydropower generation, etc,.Asl-Rousta B., Araghinejad S.
(2015) considered three different objectives namely Supply-demand Equilibrium, Drought
Mitigation and Economic Efficiency for the analysis. The developed tool benefits from the ability of
spatial weighting through which physical, economic and socio-environmental aspects are considered
in a weighting process.

Bhatti G.H., et. al. (2015) discussed that there are limited resources of fresh water supply,
while there is competing demand for water amongst agricultural, industrial and domestic users. In arid
and semi arid regions, with limited availability of irrigation water, it has become necessary to optimize
efficiency of water usage and maximize crop yields under deficit irrigation conditions. During the
growth period of crops, water shortage has an impact on its ultimate yields. Thus to have more
effective and optimal use of limited supplies of water, there is need to adopt irrigation scheduling
techniques. Regulated deficit irrigation can provide a means of reducing water consumption while
minimizing adverse effects on yield. Ortega C. V., et. al. (2016) considered WEAP as a policy making
tool. By doing economic valuation of water resources and managing them in economized and
executable manner, it helps the stakeholders and policy makers to take decision. They applied
WEAP21 to manage the water resources of Guadiana river basin of Portugal through stakeholder
participation for vulnerability and adaptation.

7
3.0 METHODOLOGY

Water Evaluation And Planning (WEAP) model has been used to analyse the water supply and
demands in the Bina river basin. WEAP relies heavily on two-fold methodologies: generation of
necessary datasets required to simulate future scenarios; and feeding these datasets into the model to
obtain the results.

3.1 The WEAP Approach

WEAP is applicable to municipal and agricultural systems, single catchments or complex

transboundary river systems as it operates on the basic principle of a water balance. Moreover, WEAP
can define a wide range of issues, e.g., water conservation, water rights and allocation priorities,
hydropower generation, sectorial demand analyses, groundwater and streamflow simulations,
vulnerability assessments, reservoir operations, pollution tracking, ecosystem requirements, and
project benefit-cost analyses.The analyst represents the system in terms of its various supply sources
(e.g., rivers, creeks, groundwater, reservoirs, and desalination plants); withdrawal, transmission and
wastewater treatment facilities; ecosystem requirements, water demands and pollution generation. The
data structure and level of detail may be easily customized to meet the requirements of a particular
analysis, and to reflect the limits imposed by restricted data.

The WEAP applications generally include several components:

 Project definition: The time frame, spatial boundaries, system components, and configuration of the
problem are established.
 Current accounts: A snapshot of actual water demand, pollution loads, resources and supplies for
the system are developed. This can be viewed as a calibration step in the development of an
application.
 Scenarios: A set of alternative assumptions about future impacts of policies, costs, and climate, for
example, on water demand, supply, hydrology, and pollution can be explored. (Possible scenario
opportunities are presented in the next section.)
 Evaluation: The scenarios are evaluated with regard to water sufficiency, costs and benefits,
compatibility with environmental targets, and sensitivity to uncertainty in key variables.

3.2 Program Structure

WEAP consists of five main views: Schematic, Data, Results, Scenario Explorer and Notes.
These five views are presented below.
8
3.2.1 Schematic:
This view contains GIS-based tools for easy configuration of your system. Objects (e.g.,
demand nodes, reservoirs) can be created and positioned within the system by dragging and dropping
items from a menu. ArcView or other standard GIS vector or raster files can be added as background
layers. You can quickly access data and results for any node by clicking on the object of interest.

The entire Bina River basin has been considered for the study. The watershed boundary, block
boundaries, major streams, sources of supply, consumption nodes, return flows, etc. have been marked
through nodes and transmission links and the Schematic has been developed for the Bina River basin
(Fig.3.1).

Fig. 3.1 Schematic view of WEAP

3.2.2 Data: The Data view allows you to create variables and relationships, enter assumptions
and projections using mathematical expressions, and dynamically link to Excel. Any
modification of input data is possible at any stage of analysis. A sample data view of
‘Precipitation’ is shown at Fig.3.2.
9
 Fig. 3.2 Data view of Precipitation in IWMP-16

3.2.3 Results: The Results view allows detailed and flexible display of all model outputs, in
charts and tables, and on the Schematic. Fig.3.3 shows bar chart of results.

Fig. 3.3 Result view of WEAP

10
 3.2.4 Scenario Explorer: You can highlight key data and results in your system for quick
viewing. Bar charts of different scenarios is shown at Fig.3.4.

Fig. 3.4 Scenario explorer view of WEAP

3.3 The WEAP Steps:

To achieve the objectives for this study, the following steps were performed:
1. Data collection to define the current situation of the watershed: The watershed in the WEAP
model is represented by its drainage pattern, and the demand and supply sites that happen to
exchange water. They require huge varied datasets to define the current status of water in terms of
availability, accessibility, and use. The variety of data collected from different sources is given in
Table 3.1.
2. Displaying the watershed in schematic view: The drainage pattern of IWMP-16 sub watershed was
directed into schematic view. Demand sites, transmission links, runoff links, catchments, ground
water and rivers were all located by using the default symbols.
3. Feeding the data into WEAP model: WEAP offers an easy way to import data from excel sheet
into the model. The climatic data, precipitation, crop distribution, groundwater draft and recharge
etc. as per requirement was fed into the model and saved.
4. Obtaining the results: The model was run to obtain the results for the current year 2009.

11
5. Generating the future scenarios: This study aimed to simulate the demand and supply of water for
the Bina River watershed and managing the same in ‘what if’ scenarios for the next 40 years.
Keeping in mind the physical, demographic and economic characteristics of the watershed,
following three scenarios were generated:
 Increase in Groundwater Development and Rainwater Recharge: This scenario gave
information about the effect of increase in groundwater recharge and draft.
 Population growth: This scenario was generated to see the growing trend of water demands
for next 40 years,as per the annual rate of population growth.
 Incorporation of the construction of a Stop Dam after the year 2020: The trend of changing
water demands in future by water supply for domestic and irrigation use from reservoirs to
harvested water; was obtained by running the model in this scenario.
6. The model was finally run to obtain results in these scenarios.

Table 3.1: Different sources for Data collection

S. No. Type of data Parameters Source

1 Population  Human Population Census of
 Livestock Population Chhattisgarh
2 Climate data  Average humidity Global climate
 Min. and max. dataset was created
temperature by the Terrestrial
 Precipitation Hydrology Group at
 Reference ET Princeton University,
 Wind speed New Jersey, USA.
3 Water demand data Domestic consumption PHED, Chhattisgarh
4 Land use data  LULC Map RS Data and
 Total land area Agriculture Deptt.
5 Ground Water Data  Initial Storage Regional Director,
 GW withdrawal CGWB, Raipur
 GW recharge
6 Soil  Soil Map NBSS&LUP, Nagpur
7 Other Maps  District Block Map SOI toposheet
 Drainage Map
 Topographical Map
 Watershed Boundary
8 Reservoir data Proposed Dam and Assumed to fulfil the
Storage capacity Agriculture demand

12
The overall methodology can be summed up and shown in Fig. 3.5.

Fig. 3.5: Flow chart of methodology

13
4.0 STUDY AREA

4.1 IWMP-16 Sub Watershed

4.1.1 Location

The study was conducted for IWMP-16 sub watershed in Bhanupratappur block of Kanker
district situated between 80º43’45” to 80º44’35”E longitudes and 20º12’40” to 20º17’35” Nlatitudes.
The 66.35 area of the watershed is agricultural land,29.05% area covered by the forest cover and
approximately 1.00% area is under barren land and forest blank. The region of Kanker is situated in the
dense tropical forestlands of Central India in the state of Chhattisgarh. The average annual rainfall of
the study area is about 1492 mm. The geographical area of the IWMP-16 sub watershed is about 39.78
km².IWMP-16 sub watershed falls in the tributary of Indravati river which traverses through the fertile
plains of Kanker and Pakhanjur, is one of the important tributary of Godavari Riverof southern part of
Chhattisgarh.

4.1.2 Physiography

The study area falls under Deccan plateau and Dharwar hill group as per broad physiographical
classification. The land slope is characterized by flat topped hillocks. The agricultural land is well
drained nature. The region has fairly extensive network of rivers which are mostly seasonal. The major
river in the study area is Indravati, which is a tributary of Godavari River. The district is having
complex and heterogeneous physiographic setting. Nearly half of northern part of block is undulating
comprising plateau and piedmonts. The plateaus are scattered or disconnected chains of low hills. Other
important rivers are Kotri, Khandi, Kuha, Sabri and Mahanadi and their tributaries. South of Indravati
River are Dailadila range which run from north to south.The district has a complex geomorphology.
Surface configurations are brought about through geological times by intermittent intrusions and
residual terrestrial pen planation processes and overall change in climate. The resultant changes have
rendered diversified landscape pattern.

4.1.3 Climate

The average annual rainfall of the study area is 1492 mm and about 90% of the annual rainfall
takes place during the southwest monsoon period i.e. June to October, only 5.5% of annual rainfall
takes place during winter and about 4.5% of rainfall occurs during the summer season. The maximum
monthly rainfall occurs during the month of July followed by August. The climate of study area can be

14
 Fig.-3.1: Index map of IWMP-16 Sub watershed

classified mainly into three seasons: Winter season starting from middle of November to end of
February; March to May constitutes the summer season whereas the monsoon season starts from
second week of June to end of September. During winter season the January is the coldest month with
the average minimum temperature of 11˚C whereas the hottest month is May with average maximum
temperature upto 44˚C (Bhuarya et al. 2018).

15
4.1.4 Geology

The region belongs to older Archean shield of peninsular region which has remained stable for
a long time and has kept its geologic antiquity in spite of various phases of diastrophic movements
occurred in the area. Towards Eastern Ghat section of the district, numerous lenses of charnockites are
noticed in gneissic formations. The constituent minerals of the Archean gneiss are orthoclase, feldspar,
quartz, biotite and hornblende with variable amount of accessary minerals like tourmaline, apatite,
magnetite, zircon, chlorite and Orthoclases are the most abundant constituents and give the
characteristic pink or white colour to the rocks. The study area falls under the Vindhyan region,
important rocks found in this area are sand stone, Quartizitic sand stone, lime stone and Deccan traps,
called basalt. Basalt rocks overlie the Vindhyan sand stone. Lower Vindhyan is represented by
quartizitic sand stone and shale where as upper Vindhyan consists of sand stone and shale with
subordinate limestone. Lameta lime stone is also found in lower ridge area.

4.1.5 Soil and Crop

The soil around Indravati river basin is found clay loam, loam and red soil, which makes this
area fertile. The main crops grown in kharif season are paddy, pigeonpea, black gramand main crops
grown in rabi season are wheat, maize, gram. Other staple crops like linseed, chickpeas, sorghum,
oilseeds are also grown in zayad season in the study area.

4.2 Landuse

Land use activity is a linkage between human and environment. Human activity of development
is a primary driving force global environmental change of environment in return affect land use types.
The land use map of the Bina watershed was prepared from IRS satellite LISS-III imagery data. Digital
Image Processing (DIP) technique using the Maximum Likelihood Classifier (MLC) was applied to
prepare the land use map of the IWMP-16 sub watershed using remote sensing data. Total nine land use
classes could be identified in the watershed through Digital Image Processing moduleavailable in
ArcGIS. Based on the ground truth survey and discussions held with the Joint Director, Department of
Agriculture, Kanker Chhattisgarh. The cropland was classified as Kharif crop and current fallow. The
current fallow is the agricultural land without crops for that particular season. The forest areas were
classified into three categories, i.e. open forest, forest plantation and dense forest. Four other land use
classes include settlements, lakes/ponds, sandy area and land forest blanks. The land use map thus
classified from satellite imagery has been stored in raster format. The spatial distribution of land use in
IWMP-16 sub watershed is shown in the Fig.4.4.The spatial distribution of landuse is given at Table
4.1.
16
Table 4.1: Spatial Distribution of Landusein IWMP-16
LULC class Area Sq.km. Area %
Open Forest 3.726 9.44
Forest Plantation 6.500 16.46
Kharif 25.136 63.67
Current Fallows 1.262 3.20
Dense / Closed 1.330 3.37
Lakes / Ponds 0.901 2.28
Sandy area 0.068 0.17
Settlements 0.555 1.40
Forest Blanks 0.307 0.78
Total Area Sq.km. 39.784

Fig.4.4: Classified Landuse Map of IWMP-16

17
4.3 Groundwater

The ground water development estimated for Kanker block is 43.62%, forCharama block is
56.39%, for Narharpur block is 29.16%, for Bhanupratappur block is19.20%, for Koylibeda block is
8.43%, for Durgkondal blocks is 6.83% and for Antagarhblock is 8.66%. The overall stage of ground
water development for the district is20.81%.The dug well depth varies from 6 to 15 m and the dia
varies from 2.4 to 3.1 m.The bore wells drilled in the area are 60 to 90m deep with dia varying from 0.1
to 0.15m. Diesel or electric operated pumps of 0.25 to 1HP or traditional teda is used to lift thewater
from dug wells for the irrigation purposes. The electrical pump or rope and bucketis used to lift the
water for domestic purpose. Submersible electrical pumps of 3 to 5 HPare used for irrigation purpose in
case of bore wells in the area. The ground water is the main sources of drinking water in the district
covering 1003 noof villages.In all 5119 no of bore wells and 4481 no of dug wells are existing in the
district.Together they irrigate around 7221 ha. The contribution of ground water for irrigationcomes to
nearly 48% in the district. The use of ground water in non-command area ismaximum.

4.3.1 Ground Water Recharge and Draft

The ground water resources for Kanker district has been estimated based on theGEC.1997
methodology. The estimates indicate that the annual replenishable groundwater resource for the district
is 87764.34 Ham. The net annual ground water availabilityis 83376.11 Ham. The gross annual draft has
been estimated as 17349.74 Ham and outof which, the draft for irrigation is 15797.06 Ham and for
domestic & industrial watersupply purpose is 1552.68(CGWB, 2012-13).

Table 4.2: Ground water resources for Bhanupratappur Block of Kanker district
Command / Total Net Existing Existing Existing Allocation Net Stage of
NonComma Annual Ground Gross Gross Gross For Ground Ground
nd Recharge Water Ground GW Ground Domestic Water Water
in Ham Availability Water Draft for Water & Availability Develop-
in Ham Draft for Domestic Draft Industrial for Future ment in %
Irrigation & for Water Irrigation
in Ham Industrial All Supply in Develop-
Water Uses Ham ment in
Supply in in Ham Ham
Ham
Command 139.86 132.87 52 2.83 54.83 3.74 77.13 41.27
Non
9327.74 8861.35 1473.2 198.47 1671.67 261.96 7126.19 18.86
Command
Block Total 9467.6 8994.22 1525.2 201.3 1726.5 265.7 7203.32 19.2

18
4.3.2 Water conservation and Artificial Recharge

Downward movement of water into earth through a saturated zone by force of gravity or in any
direction determined by hydraulic conditions is known as recharge. Groundwater recharge occurs
naturally due to precipitation over the catchment and from the Bina River. Estimating groundwater
recharge rate is a basic prerequisite of efficient groundwater resource management and it is vital in
semi-arid regions where such resources are often the key to economic development.

The average annual rainfall for the district is 1090mm. There exist a huge surplusnon-
committed run off in the district. Rain water harvesting and artificial rechargestructures at suitable
locations can be constructed to improve the storage capacity ofthe surface and subsurface reservoirs.
Fig. 4.5 is presented to show the area suitable forartificial recharge and future ground water
development.

Fig. 4.5: Suitable area for artificial recharge and future ground water development

19
5.0 DATA USED AND ANALYSIS

5.1 Demand Sites and Catchments

Demand analysis in WEAP is a disaggregated, end-use based approach for modelling the
requirements for water consumption in an Area. Using WEAP you can apply economic, demographic
and water-use information to construct alternative scenarios that examine how total and disaggregated
consumption of water evolve over time in all sectors of the economy. Demand analysis in WEAP is
also the starting point for conducting integrated water planning analysis, since all Supply and Resource
calculations in WEAP are driven by the levels of final demand calculated in the demand analysis.

WEAP provides a lot of flexibility in how you structure your data. These can range from highly
disaggregated end-use oriented structures to highly aggregate analyses. Typically a structure would
consist of sectors including households, industry and agriculture, each of which might be broken down
into different subsectors end-uses and water-using devices. You can adapt the structure of the data to
your purposes, based on the availability of data, the types of analyses you want to conduct, and your
unit preferences. Note also that you can create different levels of disaggregation in each demand site
and sector.

In each case, demand calculations are based on a disaggregated accounting for various measures
of social and economic activity (number of households, hectares of irrigated agriculture, industrial and
commercial value added, etc.). In the simplest cases, these activity levels are multiplied by the water
use rates of each activity (water use per unit of activity). Each activity level and water use rate can be
individually projected into the future using a variety of techniques, ranging from applying simple
exponential growth rates and interpolation functions, to using sophisticated modelling techniques that
take advantage of WEAP's powerful built-in modelling capabilities. More advanced approaches can
incorporate hydrologic processes to determine demand (e.g. crop evapotranspiration calculations to
determine irrigation requirements).

5.1.1 Population Demand

The collected census data from the Chhattisgarh Government, the Districts Statistical Handbook
for human and Livestock were used. But since in the IWMP-16 sub-watershed only some proportions
of the districts fall, the population of the study area has been considered same as the ratio of the
geographical area. The WEAP consider water demand for the human population only. Therefore, the
water demands for the livestock has been converted into equivalent human population in order to

20
include the water demand for cattle. Hence we derived the human population and cattle population
accordingly.
Ave. Water demand = (43.8*human population)+ (25.55 * Livestock)/ Total Population
Where,
Total Population = human population + Livestock
Annual water use rate for Population = 43.8 m3/Capita/year (120 lt./day)
Annual water use rate for Livestock = 25.55 m3/Livestock/year(70 lt./day)

In the study area the total human population is 4034 and the livestock is 3627 as per the 2011
census. The average water demand has been computed as:

= 35.1 m3/ year

According to the World Population Prospects – 2010 Revision we have the population growth
as given at Table 5.1:

Table 5.1: Medium Variant Population Growth Rate (%) for India

Period 2005-2010 2010-2015 2015-2020 2020-2025

Growth Rate 1.40 1.27 1.10 0.92
(% per annum)

5.1.2 Crop Water Requirement

There is a choice among five methods to simulate catchment processes such as

evapotranspiration, runoff, infiltration and irrigation demands. These methods include (1) the Rainfall
Runoff and (2) Irrigation Demands Only versions of the Simplified Coefficient Approach, (3) the Soil
Moisture Method, (4) the MABIA Method, and (5) the Plant Growth Method or PGM. You can click
on the "Advanced" button at the top of the Data Entry window for a particular catchment to select
among these options. The choice of method should depend on the level of complexity desired for
representing the catchment processes and data availability.

5.1.3 Rainfall Runoff Method (Soil Moisture Method)

The Soil Moisture method is more complex, representing the catchment with two soil layers, as
well as the potential for snow accumulation. In the upper soil layer, it simulates evapotranspiration
21
considering rainfall and irrigation on agricultural and non-agricultural land, runoff and shallow
interflow, and changes in soil moisture. This method allows for the characterization of land use and/or
soil type impacts to these processes. Baseflow routing to the river and soil moisture changes are
simulated in the lower soil layer. Correspondingly, the Soil Moisture Method requires more extensive
soil and climate parameterization to simulate these processes. The deeper percolation within the
catchment can also be transmitted directly to a groundwater node by creating a Runoff/Infiltration Link
from the catchment to the groundwater node. The method essentially becomes a 1-layer soil moisture
scheme if this link is made.

5.2 Climate Data

WEAP can automatically delineate catchments and rivers (using digital elevation data),
calculate land area (disaggregated by elevation band and land cover), and download historical climate
data for each catchment (by elevation band). This will greatly simply the process of setting up and
modeling catchment hydrology. WEAP will automatically download global datasets for elevation, land
cover and climate as needed.WEAP can overlay gridded time-series climate data with your elevation
bands to determine the climate for each elevation band. WEAP creates CSV files of these derived time
series -- one CSV file per catchment that includes a column for each linked climate variable and
elevation band -- and then creates ReadFromFile expressions linking the WEAP climate variables for
each elevation band. If you are creating elevation bands, WEAP will automatically set the location of
WEAP's climate data expressions to "Each branch within a catchment can have different climate data."
(See Basic Parameters for more information about this setting.) WEAP does not disaggregate the
climate by land cover branch. Therefore, if you are creating land cover branches, the ReadFromFile
expression corresponding to the elevation band and climate variable will be repeated for each land
cover branch. The CSV files are created in a subdirectory of your area folder named "ClimateData."

WEAP provides access to a "built-in" global historical gridded climate dataset, including data
for temperature, precipitation and wind speed, at daily and monthly timesteps for 1948-2010, at a
spatial resolution of 0.25 degrees (roughly 28 km). This global climate dataset was created by the
Terrestrial Hydrology Group at Princeton University. It blends reanalysis data with observations.

To turn on access to climate data and select a climate dataset to use, click the Load Climate
Data checkbox on the right. The Select Climate Data Source screen will automatically open, and you
can choose which dataset to use -- one of the "built-in" datasets ("Monthly, 1948-2010, 0.25 degree
(Princeton)" or "Daily, 1948-2010, 0.25 degree (Princeton)") or your own ("User-specified file
(NetCDF format)"). Initially, WEAP will default to the Princeton dataset that matches the timestep of
your model or catchment method (daily or monthly). Even if your model's timestep is not daily, you
22
may choose to use the daily climate dataset -- WEAP's ReadFromFile expression will aggregate the
daily data to match your model's timestep. However, using the daily Princeton dataset with your
monthly model will result in larger CSV files and slightly longer calculation time, and will yield the
same results as the monthly Princeton dataset.

5.2.1 Monthly Rainfall, Temperature and Wind Speed Data:

The gridded rainfall, temperature and wind speed data downloaded through Automatic
Catchment Delineation mode in WEAP have been given at the following Fig. 5.1, Fig. 5.2 and Fig. 5.3.
Precipitation (monthly)

550

500

450

400

350
mm/month

300

250

200

150

100

50

Feb May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May
2009 2010 2011 2013 2014 2015 2017 2018 2019 2021 2022 2023 2025 2026 2027 2029 2030 2031 2033 2034 2035 2037 2038 2039 2041 2042 2043 2045 2046 2047 2049 2050

Fig.5.1: Monthly Rainfall Data from the year 2009 to 2050

Temperature (monthly)
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
C

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

Oct Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan May Sep Jan
2008 2010 2011 2012 2014 2015 2016 2018 2019 2020 2022 2023 2024 2026 2027 2028 2030 2031 2032 2034 2035 2036 2038 2039 2040 2042 2043 2044 2046 2047 2048 2050

Fig.5.2: Monthly Temperature Data from the year 2009 to 2050

23
 Wind (monthly)

2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2
2.0
1.8
m/second

1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Jan Feb Apr Jun Aug Oct Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov Jan Apr Jun Aug Oct Dec Feb Apr Jul Sep Nov Jan Mar May Jul Sep Dec Feb Apr Jun Aug
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2032 2033 2034 2035 2036 2038 2039 2040 2041 2042 2043 2045 2046 2047 2048

Fig.5.3: Monthly Wind Speed Data from the year 2009 to 2048

5.3 Supply and Resources

Given the monthly supply requirement established from the definitions of the system demand,
and the definitions of Hydrology, the Supply and Resources section determines the amounts,
availability and allocation of supplies, simulates monthly river flows, including surface/groundwater
interactions and stream flow requirements, hydropower generation, and tracks reservoir and
groundwater storage.

Supply and Resources include the following subsections:

 Transmission Links: transmission links carry water from local and river supplies to demand sites,
subject to losses and physical capacity, contractual and other constraints.

 Rivers and Diversions: surface inflows to rivers, properties and operation of reservoirs and run-of-
river hydropower facilities, instream flow requirements, surface water-groundwater interaction, and
streamflow gauges.
 Groundwater: aquifer properties, storage and natural recharge..

 Local Reservoirs: reservoirs not on a river.

 Other Supplies: e.g., surface sources that are not modelled in your WEAP application, such as
inter-basin transfers or desalination.
 Return Flows: wastewater from demand sites can be routed to one or more wastewater treatment
plants, rivers, groundwater nodes or other supply sources; treated effluent from wastewater
treatment plants can be routed to one or more rivers, groundwater nodes or other supply sources.

24
6.0 RESULTS

As per the suggested methodology, the required data was fed into data view of the model and
results for the ‘Current accounts year (2009)’ were calculated. The values for annual water use rate,
population, and supply capacity of the sources were input; and WEAP thus gave the results for Total
Water Demand, Supply Delivered and Unmet Demand of the watershed. Water Demand here is the
total amount of water that is required in the region for use of various domestic and industrial purposes.
The IWMP-16 sub-watershed has a major agricultural area and the irrigation demands are complex,
therefore these demands have been computed separately. Unmet Demands are the unsatisfied water
demands that require great concern and alternatives to cope up with them. The database available on
human population, live stocks, agricultural area under different crops, irrigation supply from surface
water and groundwater, etc. for the study pertains to the year 2011, however the year 2009-10 has been
chosen as the base year or ‘Current accounts year’ to compare the future years with different scenarios
with interventions, such as population growth, decrease or increase in rainfall/runoff, etc.Table 6.1
describes the demands and supply represented by the links and nodes given in the Fig. 6.1.

Fig. 6.1 Detailed view of WEAP area including supply sources anddemand fields

25
 Table 6.1: Demand Sites and Their Supply Sources
S.No. Demand Sites Supply Supply Source
Preference
1 Domestic 1 River
(Population and 3 Ground Water
Livestock) 2 Check Dam

2 Irrigation 1 River
3 Ground Water
2 Check Dam

6.1 Results as Per the Reference Scenario

The WEAP setup has been run for the results after assigning supply and demands through links
and nodes for the study area. After inserting the data to the WEAP model, the RESULT View of the
model shows the output information both in graphs and Tables.The output obtained from the WEAP
model have been shown at the following graphs from Fig. 6.2 to Fig. 6.6 and the results are also given
at Table 6.2 to Table 6.6 respectively.

The total watershed area is 3978 ha. Out of which 63.67 % area is under Kharif crop and 3.20 %
area is Current Fellow. In the Rabi season only about 5.00 % of the total watershed area is cultivated.
The annual domestic water demand, crop water requirement for Kharif and Rabi season has been
computed automatically by the model as shown at fig.6.2.

Annual Water Demands of IWMP-16 of Kanker District

20.0
Domestic Demand Irrigation Demand Kharif Irrigation Demand Rabi

15.0
Volume in MCM

10.0

5.0

0.0
2038
2010

2014

2018

2022

2026

2030

2034

2042

2046

2050

Year

Fig.6.2: Water demands (Excluding losses and reuse) in the year 2009-2050

26
Table 6.2: Water Demands (Excluding losses and reuse) in MCM

Domestic Irrigation Irrigation Total

Year
Demand Demand Kharif Demand Rabi Demand
2009 0.269 17.000 4.076 18.345
2010 0.271 8.591 4.536 13.398
2011 0.273 5.754 2.964 8.991
2012 0.275 10.986 3.970 15.232
2013 0.278 4.807 4.670 9.755
2014 0.280 8.331 3.869 12.479
2015 0.282 9.465 5.068 14.815
2016 0.284 4.988 4.606 9.878
2017 0.287 4.429 3.784 8.500
2018 0.289 2.300 3.635 6.225
2019 0.291 7.265 5.486 13.042
2020 0.294 7.342 4.622 12.257
2021 0.296 3.725 4.504 8.525
2022 0.298 2.961 5.127 8.387
2023 0.301 6.815 4.560 11.676
2024 0.303 11.619 3.505 15.427
2025 0.305 10.174 5.230 15.710
2026 0.308 10.115 6.220 16.643
2027 0.310 10.174 5.959 16.443
2028 0.313 10.205 6.966 17.484
2029 0.315 9.350 3.296 12.961
2030 0.318 10.742 6.372 17.432
2031 0.320 2.944 6.087 9.351
2032 0.323 6.616 6.546 13.485
2033 0.326 8.902 6.854 16.082
2034 0.328 9.271 6.451 16.050
2035 0.331 10.577 8.255 19.163
2036 0.333 10.026 5.782 16.141
2037 0.336 0.000 5.747 6.083
2038 0.339 10.023 8.546 18.908
2039 0.342 6.750 2.905 9.997
2040 0.344 8.882 5.629 14.855
2041 0.347 8.059 8.052 16.457
2042 0.350 6.711 7.975 15.036
2043 0.353 8.533 7.630 16.516
2044 0.355 9.903 8.642 18.901
2045 0.358 9.132 8.934 18.424
2046 0.361 10.180 9.610 20.151
2047 0.364 3.704 7.016 11.085
2048 0.367 12.055 9.216 21.638
2049 0.370 16.187 7.208 23.766
2050 0.373 10.000 4.385 14.758

27
 In Table 6.2, the Annual Variation of Water Demands (excluding losses and reuse) for domestic
and irrigation purpose is calibrated which shows that there is large variation in the water demand from
6.083 MCM in the year 2037 to 23.766 MCM in the year 2049 which depends on the climatic factors,
viz. rainfall and temperature.

Table 6.3 given below shows the Annual Variation in precipitation, surface runoff and flow to
the groundwater. The major supply sources are from the river and its tributaries along with the
groundwater storage. Since the climate change model has been applied as per the study of Princeton
University, USA, there is variation in the supply for all the years from 2009 to 2050. The supply
delivered varies from 0.976 MCM to 12.751 MCM in the year 2018 and 2049 respectively (Fig. 6.3).

Available Water Resources in IWMP-16 of Kanker District

60.0
Precepitation
50.0 Surface Runoff
Flow to Groundwater
Volume in MCM

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0

0.0
2010

2014

2018

2022

2026

2030

2034

2038

2042

2046

2050
Year

Fig. 6.3: Annual Precipitation and Supply Delivered in the year 2009-2050

The total domestic and irrigation demands were computed based on the input data, viz.
population, area under different crops, soils information, etc. It does not consider the losses and reuse
of the supplied water. The annual unmet water demands for domestic and irrigation have been worked
out through WEAP model under the Reference Scenarios from the year 2009 to 2050. The Annual
Variation in Unmet Demand from the year 2009 to 2050 has been shown in Table 6.4 and Fig.6.4. The
unmet water demand may be taken as difference between the Supply Requirement (including losses
and reuse) of all sites and the supply delivered. The annual unmet water demands for domestic and
irrigation have been worked out through WEAP model under the Reference Scenarios from the year
2009 to 2050. The Annual Variation in Unmet Demand from the year 2009 to 2050 has been shown in
Table 6.4 and Fig.6.4.

28
 Table 6.3: Supply Delivered (in MCM)

Flow to Supply
Year Precipitation Surface Runoff
Groundwater Delivered
2009 40.522 11.179 4.174 12.107
2010 29.991 3.657 4.665 6.905
2011 37.798 8.354 4.934 6.786
2012 27.426 3.485 4.498 8.952
2013 33.946 3.780 4.610 3.583
2014 31.410 4.677 4.728 7.136
2015 33.131 6.731 4.883 8.624
2016 39.436 8.689 4.916 4.187
2017 42.463 12.171 5.060 5.160
2018 42.259 9.083 5.028 0.976
2019 33.464 4.306 4.674 5.939
2020 38.513 10.035 4.948 7.379
2021 39.868 6.641 5.253 3.650
2022 36.553 5.165 5.239 3.693
2023 39.970 10.201 4.907 4.702
2024 36.259 8.525 4.926 9.668
2025 37.268 10.540 5.244 10.812
2026 34.206 7.551 5.214 9.420
2027 29.611 3.353 4.729 7.467
2028 32.865 4.262 4.881 8.548
2029 38.634 7.772 5.156 7.762
2030 37.234 6.204 5.384 9.896
2031 44.769 9.198 5.161 1.548
2032 46.150 13.576 5.247 4.331
2033 35.959 4.421 5.524 9.432
2034 32.882 4.035 5.202 7.484
2035 32.287 4.809 5.414 10.815
2036 33.515 5.710 5.652 11.859
2037 50.071 11.963 5.744 1.172
2038 38.098 7.393 5.125 6.938
2039 43.982 9.713 5.867 9.016
2040 36.279 7.082 5.445 6.384
2041 42.113 7.458 5.616 6.925
2042 40.235 4.831 5.324 3.807
2043 42.151 9.298 5.553 6.967
2044 37.711 5.885 5.391 7.101
2045 42.322 7.377 5.768 8.040
2046 38.366 6.811 5.145 7.516
2047 48.402 11.070 5.913 5.223
2048 37.342 7.093 5.245 8.841
2049 32.989 6.782 5.095 12.751
2050 40.283 14.008 6.422 7.758

29
 25.0
Total Demand
Supply Delivered
20.0
Unmet Demand
Volume in MCM

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
2018
2010

2014

2022

2026

2030

2034

2038

2042

2046

2050
Year

Fig. 6.4: Annual Variation of Unmet Water Demands

30
 Table 6.4: Unmet Water Demands
Year Total Demand Supply Delivered Unmet Demand
2009 18.345 12.107 6.238
2010 13.398 6.905 6.493
2011 8.991 6.786 2.206
2012 15.232 8.952 6.279
2013 9.755 3.583 6.172
2014 12.479 7.136 5.343
2015 14.815 8.624 6.191
2016 9.878 4.187 5.692
2017 8.500 5.160 3.340
2018 6.225 0.976 5.249
2019 13.042 5.939 7.104
2020 12.257 7.379 4.879
2021 8.525 3.650 4.875
2022 8.387 3.693 4.694
2023 11.676 4.702 6.974
2024 15.427 9.668 5.759
2025 15.710 10.812 4.898
2026 16.643 9.420 7.223
2027 16.443 7.467 8.977
2028 17.484 8.548 8.936
2029 12.961 7.762 5.199
2030 17.432 9.896 7.537
2031 9.351 1.548 7.803
2032 13.485 4.331 9.154
2033 16.082 9.432 6.650
2034 16.050 7.484 8.565
2035 19.163 10.815 8.348
2036 16.141 11.859 4.282
2037 6.083 1.172 4.911
2038 18.908 6.938 11.970
2039 9.997 9.016 0.981
2040 14.855 6.384 8.471
2041 16.457 6.925 9.532
2042 15.036 3.807 11.229
2043 16.516 6.967 9.548
2044 18.901 7.101 11.800
2045 18.424 8.040 10.385
2046 20.151 7.516 12.635
2047 11.085 5.223 5.862
2048 21.638 8.841 12.797
2049 23.766 12.751 11.014
2050 14.758 7.758 6.999

31
6.2 Results as Per the Future Scenario

6.2.1 Results for Scenario I: Ground Water Recharge/Draft (Rain Water Harvesting)

It is the scenario, which considers 2% increase in the total volume of groundwater recharge by
all means, i.e. rainwater harvesting structures in the watershed and check dams on the streams. The
cumulative effect of increase in groundwater recharge will be rise in groundwater table and increase in
the groundwater storage. In order to maintain the groundwater table at an acceptable level, we have to
increase the groundwater draft, to maintain the equilibrium between the recharge and draft. Therefore,
2% increase in groundwater draft has been assumed. The WEAP suggest through the results that in this
scenario, the unmet demands are expected to be very less by the year 2050.

Table 6.5 shows the annual variation in the unmet water demands as per the watershed
conditions in the reference year with the effects of climate change model (Prinston University Model)
and for the Scenario-I and Scenario-II, viz. the supply delivered with 2% annual increase in the
groundwater recharge and construction of 10 MCM water conservation structures. The Fig. 6.5 shows
that the groundwater supply has increased during the later years, as the demand increases. Thus by
increasing the groundwater recharge we can reduce the Unmet Demands in the watershed. The WEAP
model automatically quantifies the increase in supplies and we may decide the rate of growth in
recharge to fulfil the demands.

32
 Table 6.5: Annual Variation in Unmet Water Demands (2009-2050) -
With 2% Growth Rate in Groundwater Recharge and Water Storage Structure
Year Reference Year 2% Growth in Creating 10 MCM
2009 2009
6.238 GW Recharge
5.313 Storage Structure
6.146
2010 6.493 2.110 6.501
2011 2.206 4.886 5.963
2012 6.279 2.654 9.583
2013 6.172 1.449 8.130
2014 5.343 2.142 0.000
2015 6.191 6.330 4.648
2016 5.692 0.000 3.891
2017 3.340 4.093 3.175
2018 5.249 3.250 3.753
2019 7.104 4.844 2.291
2020 4.879 3.387 4.547
2021 4.875 4.410 0.000
2022 4.694 4.506 0.181
2023 6.974 7.345 0.000
2024 5.759 1.629 0.000
2025 4.898 5.099 0.000
2026 7.223 4.809 4.853
2027 8.977 4.205 2.905
2028 8.936 3.429 7.376
2029 5.199 0.916 0.000
2030 7.537 6.996 0.000
2031 7.803 6.861 0.414
2032 9.154 1.013 0.851
2033 6.650 0.505 0.000
2034 8.565 5.023 0.000
2035 8.348 5.987 0.000
2036 4.282 2.634 2.239
2037 4.911 3.501 4.326
2038 11.970 2.462 7.065
2039 0.981 7.026 0.000
2040 8.471 5.519 0.000
2041 9.532 6.318 4.875
2042 11.229 6.218 0.000
2043 9.548 3.546 0.000
2044 11.800 5.317 0.485
2045 10.385 4.617 0.000
2046 12.635 4.483 0.000
2047 5.862 4.972 0.000
2048 12.797 7.331 0.000
2049 11.014 2.831 0.000
2050 6.999 3.637 0.000

33
 Fig. 6.5: Annual Variation in Unmet Water Demands (2009-2050)
With 2% Growth Ratein Groundwater Recharge and Water Storage Structure

6.2.2 Results for Scenario II:Construction of Water Storage Structure

The total demands may not be fulfilled by the available surface runoff and groundwater
supplies. We could see from figure 6.5 that there is about 3 to 5 MCM unmet demand during the
assessment years. Thus the scenario-II was planned to meet the total demand by construction of the
water conservation structures, viz. Check/Stop dam, Tanks etc. for irrigation purposes. By WEAP
analysis, when we put the provision of water storage structures upto 10 MCM, the unmet demand
becomes nil. The results of Scenario-II, viz. the annual variation of Unmet Demands for all demand
sites for the years 2009-2050 have been given at Table 6.5 and the variation is also shown in the
graphical form at Fig. 6.6.

It is clear from the Fig.6.6 that if the water conservation structures of the total capacity of 10
MCM is constructed in the IWMP-16 sub watershed area, the entire demands including domestic (with
15 % population growth) and irrigation requirements with growth rate of 0.5 % in Kharif and 2 % in
Rabi crop would be fulfilled completely.

34
Fig. 6.6: Unmet Water Demands (2009-2050) with Storage Structure Scenarios

35
7.0 CONCLUSIONS

This study was aimed at allocation and management of demand; supply and unmet water
demand of Bina River watershed under present and future scenarios. Though WEAP is a flexible model
with respect to the type of data available (monthly, daily, annually, etc.); but availability of the data is
imperative. Use of gridded data in the absence of point quantitative data made the present study slightly
difficult to find broader results. Climate data was one such type in this study. The data was available to
run the model but not enough to run scenarios on it. This is one limitation of the present study.

Another limitation of the study is time constraints that prevented us from carrying out more
detailed approach in understanding the other aspects of the watershed like considering the agricultural
demands under different crop cycle, or doing economic evaluation and simulating them in future
scenarios (change in cropping pattern, modernization in irrigation techniques etc.) as the project was
called off. So these analyses may be studied in another similar project on Kanker district. Following
conclusion may be drawn from the present study:

 The levels of satisfaction of demands and the quantity of river water deficit current and in future
were obtained. The Unmet water demands in the IWMP-16 sub watershed in the year 2009 to 2050
have been calibrated which comes to be minimum of 2.2 million cubic meters in 2011 and 12.8
million cubic meters in 2048 for the reference scenario.

 WEAP has a unique characteristic of realizing the possibilities of future scenarios. In this study, we
saw how water demands can be affected by the population and agriculture growth. The scenario is
highly probable because population is rising day-by-day with an increasing rate, so the present
scenario of the domestic water demand and irrigation demands getting changed in future is not a
difficult move. Realizing the possibilities and its consequences before the scenario actually becomes
a reality is a strategy of sustainable development, and this is what we should know.

 Similarly by considering the improved groundwater recharge as well as draft condition through
watershed management program and rainwater harvesting structures, like contour bunds, percolation
tanks, check dams or Gabion structures will help meeting the future demands by augmenting the
supply sources. Once the harvesting structures are built, more recharge of ground water takes place
and thus supply load on rivers decrease and gets transferred to the ground water bodies.
Consequently, groundwater draft may be increased without affecting the sustainable groundwater
level. Through WEAP, this has been demonstrated by increasing the groundwater recharge and draft
both by 2%.

36
 The impact of construction of a 10 MCM capacity reservoir on the main stream of the IWMP-16 sub
watershed has also been modelled through WEAP and found that all the demand sites getting supply
from the reservoir are satisfied, the unmet water demands are negligible.

All these scenarios are important to understand and the consequences must be taken in
consideration while planning developmental activities in the area. The WEAP model made it easier for
us by predicting future probabilities and hence we now can plan accordingly in a more strategic way.
The impact of Climate Change has also been incorporated in the present study.

37
8.0 REFERENCES

1. Alfarra A., Benedict E. K., Hotzl H., Sader N. and Sonneveld B. (2012) Modelling Water Supply
And Demand For Effective Water Management Allocation In The Jordan Valley, Journal of
Agricultural Science and Application (JASA), Vol. 1, pp. 1-7.

2. Al-Omari S., Al- Karablieh E. K., Al-Houri Z. M., Salman A. Z. and Al-Weshah R. A. (2014)
Irrigation Water Management in the Jordan Valley Under Water Scarcity, Fresenius
Environmental Bulletin, Vol. 24, pp. 1176-1188.
3. Asl-Rousta B. and Araghinejad S. (2015) Development of a Multi Criteria Decision Making Tool
for a Water Resources Decision Support System, Water Resources Management, Vol. 29, No. 15,
pp. 5713-5727. .

4. Bharati L., Anand B.K. and Smakhtin V. (2008) Analysis of the Inter-basin Water Transfer
Scheme in India: A Case Study of the Godavari–Krishna Link, Strategic Analyses of the National
River Linking Project (NRLP), Vol. 2, pp.63-78.
5. Bhatti H. and Patel H. M. (2015) Irrigation Scheduling Strategies for Cotton Crop in Semi-Arid
Climate using WEAP Model, Journal of Indian Water Resources Society, Vol. 3, pp. 7-15. .
6. Central Ground Water Board (CGWB), Government of India, 2009, District Ground Water
Information Booklet.
7. Choi S. J., Kim J. H. and Lee D.R. (2012) Decision of the water shortage mitigation policy using
Multi-Criteria Decision Analysis, Korean Society of Civil Engineers (KSCE), Journal of Civil
Engineering, Vol. 16, pp. 247-253. .

8. Comair F., Gupta P., Ingenloff C., Shin G. and McKinney D. C., (2013) Water Resources
Management in the Jordan River Basin, Water and Environment Journal, Vol. 27, pp. 495-504. .

9. Demertzi K.A., Papamichail D.M., Georgiou P.E., Karamouzis D.N. and Aschonitis V.G. (2014)
Assessment of Rural and Highly Seasonal Tourist Activity Plus Drought Effects on Reservoir
Operation in a Semi-Arid Region of Greece using the WEAP Model, Water International, Vol. 39,
pp. 23-24.

10. Development Alternatives, 2007, Water Resources in Tikamgarh and Jhansi Districts - A Status
Report [Online].

11. Fayad A., Alameddine I., Najm M.A. and El-Fadel M. (2014) Developing A Hydrologic
Information System: Towards Promoting Sustainable Standardization, International Conference on
Hydroinformatics.

38
12. Hamlat A., Errih M. and Guidoum A. (2013) Simulation of Water Resources Management
Scenarios in Western Algeria Watersheds using WEAP Model, Arabian Journal of Geosciences,
Vol. 6, pp. 2225-2236.

13. Harma K. J., Johnson M.S. and Cohen S. J., (2012) Future Water Supply and Demand in the
Okanagan Basin, British Columbia: A Scenario-Based Analysis of Multiple, Interacting Stressors,
Water Resources Management, Vol. 26, pp. 667-689.
14. Hoff H., Bonzi C., Joyce B. and Tielbörger K. (2011) A Water Resources Planning Tool for the
Jordan River Basin , Water, Vol. 3, pp. 718-736.
15. Hunter C., Gironás J., Bolster D. and Karavitis C. A. (2015) A Dynamic, Multivariate
Sustainability Measure for Robust Analysis of Water Management under Climate and Demand
Uncertainty in an Arid Environment, Water, Vol. 7, pp. 5928-5958.

16. Ingol-Blanco E. and McKinney D. C., (2013) Development of a Hydrological Model for the Rio
Conchos Basin, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol. 18, pp. 340-35.

17. Jenkins M. W., Guilherme F. M., Francis K. L. and Miller S. N., WEAP as a participatory tool for
shared vision planning in the River Njoro Watershed in Kenya, Conference Proceedings, World
Water and Environmental Resources Congress 2005, Anchorage, Alaska, May 15-19, 2005.
18. Li X., Zhao Y., Shi C., Sha J., Wang and Wang Y. (2015) Application of Water Evaluation and
Planning (WEAP) model for water resources management strategy estimation in coastal Binhai
New Area, China, Ocean & Coastal Management, Vol. 106, pp. 97-109.

19. Lu. H, Huang L., Wang W. and Zhang H. (2011) Evaluation of the Impact of Planting Structure
on Water Resources, Environmental Engineering and Management Journal, Vol. 10, pp. 899-903.

20. Lu H. and Jing-ai W. (2012) Evaluate to Water Resources Vulnerability Using SWAT-WEAP
Model in Tributary of Xiliaohe River, Journal of Natural Resources, Vol. 27, pp. 468-479.
21. Malla A., Ahmad U. F., Rather M. A., Teli M. N. and Kuchhay N. A. (2014) Assessing Water
Demand And Supply For Srinagar City (J&K) India, Under Changing Climatic Scenarios Using
Water Evaluation And Planning Model (WEAP), International Journal Of Modern Engineering
Research (IJMER), Vol. 4, pp. 18-26.

22. Mehta V. K., Aslam O., Dale L., Miller N. and Purkey D. R. (2013) Scenario-Based Water
Resources Planning for Utilities in the Lake Victoria Region, Physics and Chemistry of the Earth,
Parts A/B/C, Vol. 61-62, pp. 22-31.
23. Mehta V. K., Haden V. R., Joyce B. A., Purkey D. R. and Jackson L. E. (2013) Irrigation demand
and supply, given projections of climate and land-use change, in Yolo County, California,
Agricultural Water Management, Vol. 117, pp. 70-82.

39
24. Mounir Z.M., Ming M. and Mounir I. (2011) Application of Water Evaluation and Planning
(WEAP): A Model to Assess Future Water Demands in the Niger River (In Niger Republic),
Modern Applied Science, Vol.5, pp.38-49.

25. Mugatsia A., Otieno F. A. O., Kipkorir E. C., Kibiiy J. and Shitote S. (2010) Impact of
introducing reserve flows on abstractive uses in water stressed Catchment in Kenya: Application of
WEAP21 Model, International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol.5, pp. 2441-2449.
26. Nouiris I., Yitayew M., MaBmann J. and Tarhouni J. (2015) Multi-objective Optimization Tool for
Integrated Groundwater Management, Water Resources Management, Vol. 29, pp. 5353-5375.
27. Page M., Berjamy B., Fakir Y., Bourgin Y., Jarlan L., Abourida A., Benrhanem M., Jacob G.,
Huber M., Sghrer F. and Simonneaux V., (2012) An Integrated DSS for Groundwater Management
Based on Remote Sensing. The Case of a Semi-arid Aquifer in Morocco, Water Resources
Management, Vol. 26, No. 11, pp. 3209-3230.
28. Purkey D.R. et al. (2008) Robust analysis of future climate change impacts on water for
agriculture and other sectors: a case study in the Sacramento Valley, Climate Change, Vol.87, pp.
109-122.

29. Rahimi R., Ooshaksaraie L. and, Karimzadega H. (2014) Economic Valuation of Water Resources
Using The Evaluation and Planning System ―WEAP (Case Study: Masouleh River), The Open
Access Journal of Resistive Economics (OAJRE), Vol. 4.
30. Regettli S., Cortes G., McPhee J. and Pellicciotti F. (2014) An Evaluation of Approaches for
Modelling Hydrological Processes in High-Elevation, Glacierized Andean Watersheds,
Hydrological Processes, Vol. 28, pp. 5674-5695.

31. Rosenzweig C., Strzepek K. M., Major D. C., Iglesias A., Yates D. N., McCluskey A. and Hillel D.
(2004) Water Resources for Agriculture in a Changing Climate: International case studies, Global
Environmental Change, Vol. 14, pp. 345-360.
32. Sampath S., Weerakoon S. B., Mishra B. K. and Herath S. (2014), Assessments of Irrigation Water
Requirement from DeduruOya Left Bank Canal to Supplement DeduruOya Left Bank Irrigation
Demand, Engineer, Vol. 47, pp. 17-32.

33. Sandoval-Solis S., McKinney D., Teasley R. L. and Patino-Gomez C. (2011) Groundwater
Banking in the Rio Grande Basin, Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, Vol.
137, pp. 62-71.
34. Sebhat M. Y. (2015) Assessments of Water Demands for the Juba and Shabelle Rivers in Somalia,
Integrated Journal of British, Vol. 2, pp. 16-29.

40
35. Suryawanshi R.A. and Shirke A.J. (2014) Watershed management of Subernarekha river basin
using WEAP, International Journal of Recent Trends in Science and Technology, Vol. 12, pp.156-
163.

36. Usha B. and Mudgal B. V. (2014) Climate Variability and its Impacts on Runoff in the
Kosasthaliyar Sub-Basin, India, Earth Sciences Research Journal, Vol. 18, pp. 45-49.

37. Varela-Ortega C., Blanco-Gutierrez I, Esteve P., Bharwani S., Fronzek and Downing E. T. (2016)
How Can Irrigated Agriculture Adapt to Climate Change, Insights from the Guadiana Basin in
Spain, Regional Environmental Change, Vol. 16, No. 1, pp. 59-70.
38. Wani S.P. et al. (2008) Community watersheds for improved livelihoods through consortium
approach in drought prone rain-fed areas, Journal of Hydrological Research and Development,
Vol. 23, pp. 55-77.

39. Young C., Joyce B., Purkey D., Dale L. and Mehta V. (2008) Embedding an evolving agricultural
system within a water resources planning model, American Geophysical Union, Fall Meeting.

41