60th International Executive Council Meeting & 5 th Asian Regional Conference, 6-11 December 2009, New Delhi, India

COMPARISON OF COMPUTED GROUND WATER TABLE BY SALTMOD MODEL WITH OBSERVED GROUND WATER TABLE FOR BHARUCH DISTRICT (GUJARAT)
M. K. Khandelwal
Central Soil Salinity Research Institute (ICAR), Regional Research Station, Bharuch

V. M. Yagnik
Sardar Sarovar Narmada Nigam Ltd., Patom, Gujarat

A. P. Bhavsar
Gujarat Water resources Development Corporation, Gandhinagar

Abstract Monthly average pan evaporation and potential evapotranspiration by Penman Monteith formula (CROPWAT 5.7), based on agro meteorological data of 1959-2003, recorded at Main Cotton Research Farm, Bharuch of the Navsari Agricultural University, are considered in the SALTMOD model (ver 14 of Aug 2004). Data on ground water table depth during pre-monsoon and post-monsoon seasons from different open wells and piezometers in the Bharuch district for the period 1970 to 2003 and data on rainfall from the corresponding taluka in the Bharuch district are collected from Gujarat Water Resources Development Corporation, Gandhinagar and District Collectorate, Bharuch. Groundwater table depth by end of post-monsoon season (Dec) for each of the location has been computed by the SALTMOD model under rainfed conditions. SALTMOD model is also used to compute ground water table under irrigated conditions of 250 mm and 450 mm, keeping in view of the recommendations of the SSNNL, Gandhinagar. Regression relationship and correlation of the computed ground water table on the observed ground water table for each of the open well and for each of the year has been established. The SALTMOD model in general, shows poor correlation of computed water level with observed ground water level during abnormal and surplus rainfall years. Assuming an average rainfall of 19812004, application of the model for the Bharuch district, shows that the ground water table under no irrigation and no drainage condition will come close to the surface with concomitant capillary rise by end of 5 or 6 years, thus resulting in waterlogging and salinity. Further application of 250 mm to 450 mm per annum irrigation by SSNNL in post kharif season would increase ground water table depth and thus aggravate the problems of waterlogging and salinity if the appropriate measures are not taken up timely. Thus, it is possible to use the SALTMOD model to calibrate and project future scenarios for the next five years or so in the region with reasonable accuracy. Correlation of the computed water table depth at the end of the first season (end of Dec), using the SALTMOD model under no drainage conditions with observed ground water table depth during post monsoon season (Oct-Dec) are found to be significant in case of Ankleshwar, Avidah, Bamanfalia, Bharuch, Chhindiapura, Chuli, Dahej Dediapada, Dharikheda, Gangpur, Kantiajal, Mandan, Mulad, Motisingloti, Mozda, Nana Hadwa, Nana Vasna, Prakhad, Pratapnagar, Sagbara, Sankhwad, Sarod, Sarsa, Siludi, Survani, Tankria, Vali , Virpur, and Waghpura, of the old Bharuch district.

1. INTRODUCTION The importance of irrigation in the Worlds agriculture is rapidly increasing. Although it is practised on a large scale mainly in arid and semi-arid regions, supplementary irrigation is becoming popular in sub-humid regions as well. The impact of irrigation speaks for itself in terms of increased crop production. However, the question as to how sustainable the achievements are still remains unanswered. Judging from history, it seems that large irrigation systems eventually failed in many regions because the knowledge and technology available to the society at that time were incapable of coping up with

the problems of water logging and soil salinity (Singh, et al 2002). Undoubtedly, soil salinity and water logging are the two most prevalent and widespread problems limiting crop production in irrigated areas. This is the consequence of giving scant attention to drainage while developing irrigation dependent agricultural production systems. The assessment of ameliorative management strategies requires the analysis of the existing irrigation and drainage systems as well as prediction of the potential consequences of changes to various hydrological factors and cropping system. To enable such an assessment in a quick and efficient way, computer aided analytical tools and models are needed. These models help evaluation of different development strategies, to suggest solutions and to predict medium to long-term consequences of adopting such strategies. Several models have been developed to describe the performance of artificial drainage systems, including predicting effect of system design on crop yield and hydrology (Singh, et al 2002). SALTMOD (ver Aug 2004) is an extended version of a similar model by the same name developed by Oosterbaan in 1989 and in 1998. Some applications of the SALTMOD viz. Oosterbaan and Abu Senna (1989) in Nile delta of Egypt; Rao et al. (1992) in Tungabhandra Irrigation Project, Karnataka, India, and Vanegas Chacon (1993) in the Leziria Grande Polder, Portugal are found in the literature. In this study, the focus is on the application of the SALTMOD model (Aug 2004 version) for command of Sardar Sarovar Irrigation Project under rainfed and no drainage conditions. Results of the model application and fine tuning of the sensitive parameters of the model would be helpful in predicting future situations. Cotton is the most favoured and suited kharif crop of the region (59.7%), followed by pigeon pea and wheat in the rabi, generally grown on the residual moisture in soils. 2. DATA Table 1 presents geographical location of the open wells, height of measuring point, reduced level above ground level, diameter of well, depth of well and depth of water bearing formation for all the wells coded from N-01 through N-60. Table 2 presents number of years of record, minimum, average, maximum and coefficient of rainfall, recorded ground water level during pre- monsoon and post-monsoon season for each of the above wells. Table 3 presents numerical values for constants and coefficients considered in the SALTMOD model for the district. The pertinent values are collected from the available literatures only. All the values for constants and coefficients are kept same throughout the data sets except the rainfall, where rainfall is kept separately for each of the year. Average of the pan evaporation is taken from Navsari Agricultural University, Bharuch center. Average of potential evapotranspiration is computed by CROPWAT model (ver 5.7) based on the monthly agro meteorological data of 1970-2004 from NAU, Bharuch. Ground water table is computed for each of the open well and for each of the year using the relevant data in the SALTMOD model (ver Aug 2004). Regression of the computed ground water level by end of the first season (Dec) on the recorded ground water level (post-monsoon) and correlation between them is established for each of the well and for each of the year during 1970 through 2004. The computed values and the recorded values are then compared by two sample method for each of the year and each of the well. Table 4 and 6 presents well wise and year wise significant correlation of computed and recorded ground water with recorded ground water level. Table 5 presents future scenario for selected open wells using the SALTMOD model.
Table 1:: General description of the open wells in Bharuch district (Gujarat) (Data source: GWRDC, Gandhinagar) Well No N-01 N-02 N-03 N-04 N-05 N-06 N-07 N-08 N-09 N-10 N-11 N-12 N-13 Village Tanchha Anklesvar Sajod Bharuch Sankhwad Chuli Dediapada Gangpur Motisingloti Mozda Hansot Kantiajal Sahol TALUKA Amod Anklesvar Anklesvar Bharuch Bharuch Dediapada Dediapada Dediapada Dediapada Dediapada Hansot Hansot Hansot Lati tude (d,m,s) 215425 213836 213708 214200 214342 213454 213820 213504 214037 214212 213455 212812 212703 Longi tude (d,m,s) 725348 730126 725408 730000 725100 733155 733636 734220 734203 733236 724838 724036 724537 MPH T (m) 1.50 0.50 0.55 0.85 1.50 0.60 0.60 0.60 0.85 1.00 0.70 0.60 1.00 RL (m) 13.50 17.84 7.55 19.18 11.63 143.11 129.82 203.13 202.62 157.64 11.10 6.17 16.60 W DIA (m) 3.50 2.43 1.05 2.43 3.10 2.10 3.90 2.60 2.90 2.70 1.85 6.40 3.00 W DEP (m) 18.10 12.50 4.20 12.45 11.75 11.20 8.20 5.52 8.25 7.75 8.70 9.25 7.18 W BEAR (m) 17.00 9.00 3.00 10.00 10.00 6.00 5.00 5.50 8.00 5.00 7.00 6.00 6.00 Contd.

Well No N-14 N-15 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-19 N-20 N-21 N-22 N-23 N-24 N-25 N-26 N-27 N-28 N-29 N-30 N-31 N-32 N-33 N-34 N-35 N-36 N-37 N-38 N-39 N-40 N-41 N-42 N-43 N-44 N-45 N-46 N-47 N-48 N-49 N-50 N-51 N-52 N-53 N-54 N-55 N-56 N-57 N-58 N-59 N-60

Village Sarod Tankaria Avidha Bhalod Debar Indor Mulad Nana Vasna Kapalsadi Padvania Prakhad Sarsa Vakhatpur Wadkhuta Waghpura Wanthewad Amletha Bamanfalia Chhindiapura Dharikheda Jesalpur Mandan Nana hadwa Nana zunda Navapara Poicha Pratapnagar Rajpipla Rel Sisodara Survani Thari Vadia Varkhad Virpur Sagbara Dahej Vagra Bhilod Bilothi Daheli Holakotar Mela Mirapor Netrang Siludi Valia

TALUKA Jambusar Jambusar Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Jhagadia Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Nandod Sagbara Vagra Vagra Valia Valia Valia Valia Valia Valia Valia Valia Valia

Lati tude (d,m,s) 220124 215946 214504 214912 214203 215412 214024 215237 214030 214112 214813 214618 214154 214324 214742 214037 215018 214430 215643 214912 215630 214736 214837 215254 215219 215718 214807 215230 215025 215407 215254 215507 215148 215025 215108 213324 214218 215025 213525 213145 213325 213044 213000 213000 213812 213119 213438

Longi tude (d,m,s) 725203 724218 731136 731018 732448 731500 730354 731508 730804 731305 731042 731319 730913 732125 732049 730703 732643 732513 734230 732500 733048 733743 732950 733548 732319 732730 732719 733000 731906 732130 734755 733324 733130 732703 732805 734730 723515 725049 731203 732625 731313 731500 731500 731949 732305 730549 730805

MPHT (m) 0.75 0.80 2.00 1.15 0.50 0.00 0.94 0.90 0.70 0.00 1.40 1.10 0.80 0.82 0.60 0.00 0.74 0.80 0.20 1.40 1.25 0.60 0.35 0.90 0.80 1.40 1.40 0.90 1.10 1.50 0.60 1.32 0.80 1.40 0.68 0.50 1.80 0.45 0.70 0.62 1.60 0.90 1.60 1.00 0.30 0.70 0.70

RL (m) 8.90 8.55 19.43 13.19 169.54 24.05 10.28 25.49 14.05 71.64 24.84 28.53 37.02 105.25 47.30 32.86 67.59 81.68 91.29 61.04 38.55 101.85 68.15 68.69 51.51 38.22 61.66 51.13 38.47 30.74 99.14 54.12 58.30 43.09 59.04 213.35 7.08 25.00 67.44 140.07 63.17 64.67 50.92 104.97 197.70 55.49 68.99

WDIA (m) 3.50 1.30 4.50 3.35 3.00 4.10 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.10 2.00 3.50 3.00 3.70 3.50 3.10 3.00 3.00 3.50 4.50 3.00 3.00 3.10 2.70 4.30 3.10 1.50 3.10 4.50 3.50 4.50 3.00 3.50 3.00 4.80 4.70 2.20 3.10 3.00 3.10 4.50 4.50 3.50 4.50 4.50 3.50

WDEP (m) 18.15 7.40 21.05 26.30 11.80 18.50 11.30 19.53 16.50 18.20 18.30 15.10 12.05 7.78 18.95 11.25 12.60 15.33 8.30 5.70 31.05 7.90 9.35 17.83 10.82 30.40 16.03 30.50 12.40 20.70 6.95 30.88 28.98 33.40 10.57 18.50 7.75 13.25 16.10 6.88 14.60 10.00 15.60 8.10 10.50 9.50 15.53

WBEAR (m) 12.00 7.00 9.00 25.50 10.60 15.00 10.00 19.00 15.00 6.00 16.50 10.00 10.00 4.00 12.00 5.00 6.00 10.00 6.00 4.00 24.00 5.00 7.00 10.00 8.00 26.00 9.00 14.00 12.00 20.00 5.00 22.00 25.00 32.00 6.00 12.00 6.00 12.00 8.00 6.00 11.00 6.00 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00 9.00

Table 2: General description of recorded rainfall, observed and computed groundwater table Well No N-01 N-02 N-03 N-04 N-05 N-06 N-07 N-08 N-09 N-10 N-11 N-12 N-13 N-14 N-15 N-16 N-17 N-18 N-19 N-20 N-21 N-22 N-23 N-24 N-25 N-26 N-27 N-28 N-29 N-30 N-32 N-33 N-34 N-35 N-36 N-37 N-38 N-39 N-40 N-41 N-42 N-43 Rainfall N MIN 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 233 293 293 117 117 449 449 449 449 449 364 364 364 252 252 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 139 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 321 Recorded Ground Water Table N MIN AVG MAX 10 17 12 32 22 21 22 22 21 28 35 29 23 35 35 26 20 15 12 23 12 16 22 18 19 17 19 22 22 26 16 24 23 15 18 25 22 22 23 35 20 27 13.10 1.62 0.57 4.22 1.70 3.40 2.60 1.30 3.25 2.80 2.50 1.50 2.20 8.75 1.32 2.78 12.10 8.10 10.72 3.18 12.85 3.65 1.55 11.00 7.75 4.75 0.45 4.90 1.90 2.24 3.25 0.60 25.05 0.65 1.09 5.45 4.90 20.90 5.25 0.90 7.47 10.78 15.84 3.86 2.29 7.82 5.42 5.80 4.39 2.25 4.75 3.97 4.49 4.35 3.87 12.81 3.21 8.36 22.23 9.13 14.40 7.23 15.62 13.39 4.55 13.72 10.17 9.02 2.14 14.15 4.12 5.49 5.37 1.78 27.56 1.93 4.07 8.61 5.83 24.27 7.28 21.00 9.70 17.36 17.58 8.00 4.05 12.35 9.00 10.80 6.18 4.60 7.70 6.50 8.39 7.60 5.45 18.35 6.98 17.75 25.70 11.75 17.20 10.68 17.90 14.55 15.40 16.70 13.10 11.05 5.80 18.70 6.80 10.70 6.40 4.30 29.95 6.10 8.70 16.10 8.00 27.12 10.85 30.00 11.10 20.00 Computed Ground Water Table N MIN AVG MAX 10 17 12 34 21 21 22 22 21 28 34 28 23 35 35 25 20 15 12 22 12 16 21 17 19 17 18 21 22 27 16 24 23 15 18 25 22 22 23 35 20 27 14.10 -0.35 -0.32 -0.62 -0.62 -0.51 -1.23 -0.78 -0.66 -0.73 -0.80 -0.77 -0.88 7.49 -0.28 4.12 13.20 -0.09 7.26 -0.12 8.29 4.76 4.50 4.66 2.43 -0.08 -0.39 5.75 -0.21 -0.35 -0.35 -0.47 18.20 -0.37 -0.29 4.38 -0.44 13.20 1.38 -0.29 -0.14 1.90 15.52 6.93 0.68 7.31 5.42 3.69 1.77 0.12 1.49 0.84 3.46 4.71 1.55 14.66 3.07 16.22 21.76 7.15 14.58 7.04 15.44 12.31 13.66 13.35 10.92 7.59 2.59 14.44 6.70 5.15 1.87 0.33 24.34 2.12 2.97 11.29 3.95 23.57 9.48 21.50 5.93 13.65 16.70 11.00 1.76 11.90 10.60 8.95 15.00 1.81 6.01 5.18 6.88 7.43 4.69 16.90 6.14 19.80 25.00 10.50 17.20 10.00 18.30 15.20 16.90 17.00 13.80 10.80 6.51 17.70 9.97 11.00 5.49 3.03 29.40 6.30 7.74 16.20 9.19 28.80 14.40 28.90 10.80 19.10

AVG 624 859 859 776 776 1107 1107 1107 1107 1107 838 838 838 625 625 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 834 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039

MAX 1079 1721 1721 1760 1760 2163 2163 2163 2163 2163 1758 1758 1758 1173 1173 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 1862 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333

CV (%) 42 42 42 49 49 36 36 36 36 36 43 43 43 38 38 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 45 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

CV (%) 7 40 53 24 39 30 22 29 21 21 36 38 24 23 43 40 18 10 10 24 8 19 61 9 11 18 56 25 36 48 12 48 4 82 45 31 11 7 20 35 11 12

CV (%) 5 56 106 52 74 100 199 656 145 206 74 49 112 13 64 23 14 42 17 36 16 22 22 24 24 38 82 21 44 80 118 269 15 102 104 32 91 17 40 30 64 30

Contd.

Well No N-44 N-45 N-46 N-47 N-48 N-49 N-50 N-51 N-52 N-53 N-54 N-55 N-56 N-57 N-58 N-59 N-60

Rainfall N MIN 32 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 32 321 321 321 321 321 523 182 182 297 297 297 297 297 297 297 297 297

AVG 1039 1039 1039 1039 1039 1079 616 616 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820 820

MAX 2333 2333 2333 2333 2333 1770 1502 1502 1871 1871 1871 1871 1871 1871 1871 1871 1871

CV (%) 40 40 40 40 40 31 47 47 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44 44

Recorded Ground Water Table N MIN AVG MAX 22 21 21 26 27 28 29 28 20 19 23 17 21 22 35 19 35 2.10 14.03 11.20 24.80 2.47 4.25 1.20 7.15 6.75 1.41 1.60 2.80 5.40 3.60 1.60 1.70 3.35 3.31 21.06 20.93 29.37 3.59 7.84 4.56 9.90 7.40 3.37 5.86 4.99 8.35 5.29 4.22 4.51 9.16 5.65 28.40 27.10 32.10 6.00 17.20 7.65 12.08 8.63 5.88 12.75 7.75 11.60 7.00 8.80 9.10 15.25

CV (%) 25 22 21 6 19 38 29 14 7 31 40 32 18 14 47 48 29

Computed Ground Water Table N MIN AVG MAX 22 21 20 26 27 28 29 28 20 19 23 17 21 22 35 22 35 -0.63 18.10 16.20 0.87 -0.23 -0.32 1.20 7.15 -0.24 -0.70 -0.31 -0.50 -0.26 -0.64 -0.83 -0.57 -0.57 0.89 24.56 22.83 25.63 3.61 9.42 4.56 9.90 11.57 1.50 9.43 4.94 11.10 3.12 5.17 4.76 9.94 4.99 29.30 27.40 31.80 8.99 15.90 7.65 12.08 14.60 4.99 13.10 8.51 14.10 6.62 9.01 8.01 14.00

CV (%) 167 14 15 25 98 60 29 14 29 105 40 65 29 73 64 60 42.

Table 3: Values for constants and coefficients considered in the SALTMOD for Bharuch District Line 3,1 3,2 4,1 5,1 5,2 6,1 6,3 8,1 9,1 9,2 9,3 9,4 11,1 11,2 11,3 11,4 12,1 12,2 12,3 13,2 17,1 Sym bol A Ks Ny Ts1 Ts2 A1 A2 RcB4 IaA1 EpA1 IaA2 EpA2 Pp1 EpU1 Pp2 EpU2 FsA FsB FsU Go1 Dr Description Area in ha. Number of seasons per year (Ks = 1, 2, 3 or 4) ! Number of years for which SALTMOD calculations are required (Ny<100) Duration of the first season (months) total duration of all seasons must be 12 Duration of the second season (months) total duration of all seasons must be 12 Area fraction occupied by irrigated group A crops in season 1 (0<=A1<=1) Area fraction occupied by irrigated group A crops in season 2 (0<=A2<=1) amount of water percolating directly from the irrigation system to subsoil in season 1 (m3/season per m2 total area) amount of water applied to the irrigated group A crop(s) in season 1 (m3/ season per m2 under irrigated group A crops) PET of irrigating A crop(s) during season 1 (m3/season per m2 land under irrigation A crops). Use EpA1 = crop coeff. x ref. ET amount of water applied to the irrigated group A crop(s) in season 2 (m3/ season per m2 under irrigated group A crops) PET of irrigat-ing A crop(s) during season 2 (m3/ season per m2 land under irrigating A crops). Use EpA2 = crop coeff. x ref. ET rainfall during season 1 (precipitation, m/season) potential evaporation of the non-irrigated area during season 1 (m3/ season per m2 unirrigated land). Use EpU = crop coeff. x ref. ET rainfall during season 2 (precipitation, m/season) PEV of the non-irrigated area during season 2 (m3/season per m2 unirrigated land). Use EpU = crop coeff. x ref. ET Storage eff. of water in rootzone of irrigated group A crop(s) (0<FsA<1) Storage eff. of water in rootzone of irrigated group B crop(s) (0<FsB<1) Storage eff. of rainwater in the rootzone of unirrigated lands (0<FsU<1) Outgoing groundwater flow through the aquifer during season 1 (m3/season per m2 total area) Thickness of the rootzone layer, Dr > 0.1 (m) Value 25.000 2.000 25 8 4 0.60 0.150 0.046 0.650 1.660 0.500 0.760 0.600 1.100 0.050 0.510 0.750 0.750 0.750 0.060 1.000 Contd.

Line 17,2 17,3 17,4 17,5 17,6 18,1 18,2 18,3 18,4 18,5 18,6 19,1 19,2 19,3 19,4 19,5 20,1 20,2 20,3 20,4 20,5

Sym bol Ptr Dx Ptx Dq Ptq Per Flr Pex Flx Peq Flq Cx0 Cq0 Cic Ch Cp CA0 CB0 CU0 Dw0 Dc

Description Total porosity of the soil in the rootzone layer, 0 < Ptr < Thickness of the transition zone, Dx > 0.1 (m) Total porosity of the transition zone, 0 < Ptx < 1 Thickness of the aquifer, Dq > 0.1 (m) Total porosity of the aquifer, 0 < Ptq < 1 Effective (drainable/refillable) porosity of soil in the rootzone 0 < Per < Ptr Leaching eff. In the rootzone, Flr > 0 Effective (drainable/refillable) porosity of soil in the transition zone 0 < Pex < Ptx Leaching eff. In the transition zone, Flx > 0 Effective (drainable or refillable) porosity of soil in the aquifer 0 < Peq < Ptq Leaching eff. In the aquifer, Flq > 0 initial salt concentration of soil moisture in the transition zone when saturated (dS/m) initial salt concentration of soil moisture in the aquifer when saturated (dS/m) salt concentration of the incoming canal irrigation water (dS/m) Salt concentration of incoming ground water (dS/m) Salt concentration of the rainwater ( e.g. in coastal areas )(dS/m) initial salt concentration of soil moisture of the rootzone, when saturated, in the A area (dS/m) initial salt concentration of soil moisture of the rootzone, when saturated, in the B area (dS/m) initial salt concentration of soil moisture of the rootzone, when saturated, in the U area (dS/m) Initial depth of the watertable below soil surface (m) critical depth of the watertable for capillary rise (m), Dc > Dr

Value 0.500 0.500 0.500 50.000 0.600 0.025 0.030 0.050 0.800 0.050 0.800 2.000 8.00 0.250 8.000 0.250 0.500 0.500 0.500 5.000 1.500

Table 4 Location wise comparison of computed ground water table SALTMOD model (Dec) with observed water table in Bharuch district Well ALL COMPUTED VALUES ONLY POSITIVE VALUES Code N-02 N-05 N-08 N-12 N-14 N-15 N-19 N-20 N-31 N-33 N-35 N-36 N-44 N-48 N-50 N-53 N-55 N-56 N-59 N-60 21 22 29 35 35 12 23 25 24 15 18 22 27 29 18 17 21 19 35 -0.060 -1.350 2.221 10.150 0.971 -0.255 -0.156 -9.450 -0.575 0.574 -2.000 -3.410 -8.280 -0.163 -0.990 -0.328 4.330 1.484 2.720 0.985 0.653 0.571 0.354 0.654 1.030 0.980 1.864 0.505 0.800 1.218 1.300 3.314 0.904 0.738 1.055 0.810 0.726 0.790 0.498 0.568 0.414 0.524 0.454 0.619 0.703 0.578 0.489 0.584 0.730 0.712 0.633 0.572 0.490 0.516 0.373 0.522 0.490 * ** A A ** ** * ** ** * ** ** * * ** ** ** ** * A A A R A A A A R A A A A A R 27 35 30 12 21 24 9 9 11 11 16 26 13 13 20 16 31 3.147 10.150 1.547 -0.260 5.245 -6.683 -0.030 2.429 1.080 -1.655 -1.832 1.580 0.130 3.580 5.223 3.490 6.210 0.437 0.355 0.630 1.030 0.324 1.600 0.670 0.532 0.808 1.016 2.091 0.608 0.614 0.558 0.771 0.467 0.538 0.386 0.524 0.543 0.619 0.377 0.519 0.942 0.725 0.673 0.731 0.660 0.503 0.527 0.512 0.580 0.475 0.620 * ** ** * NS ** ** * * * ** ** * * ** * ** A R A A A A A A A R R A R A R A R N A B R S D N 14 A 3.370 B 1.410 R 0.725 S ** NS D R A

N-data, A-Intercept, B-Regression Coefficient, R-Correlation Coefficient, S-Significant at five (*) and one (**) per cent level, D-Decision of the hypothesis based on two sample test

Table 5: Computer water table depth (m) under rainfed and irrigated conditions at Amod, Jambusar and Vagra taluka in Baratract Region (Bharuch district, Gujarat) (Data Source: GWRDC, Gandhinagar) Location Rain/ IW Year N-05 Sankhwad (Bharuch) N-12 Kantiajal (Hasnot) N-14 Sarod (Jambusar) N-15 Tankaria (Jambusar) N-19 Indor (Jhagadia) N-20 Mulad (Jhagadia) N-50 (Vagra) N-53 (Valia) Dahej Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 Rainfed I=0.250 I=0.450 0 11.80 11.80 11.80 9.25 9.25 9.25 18.15 18.15 18.15 7.40 7.40 7.40 18.50 18.50 18.50 11.30 11.30 11.30 7.75 7.75 7.75 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 9.50 9.50 9.50 15.50 15.50 15.50 1 7.91 3.63 -0.06 3.52 -0.11 -0.29 15 13.60 9.97 3.11 0.99 -0.14 14.30 10.10 6.51 7.13 0.88 -0.15 3.87 1.93 -0.10 11.40 7.38 2.27 11.40 7.38 2.29 5.00 -0.05 -0.23 11.40 7.38 2.29 2 2.80 -0.24 -0.49 -0.09 3 -0.04 -0.50 4 -.08 5 6

11.9 8.99 -0.01 0.96 -0.17 -0.35 10.20 -0.03 -0.39 1.13 -0.37 -0.55 1.13 -0.13 -0.33 7.33 -0.16 -0.52 7.33 -0.16 -0.52 -0.03 -0.36 -0.54 7.33 -0.16 -0.52

8.74 3.35 0.71 C 0.17 C 0.35 6.00 -0.37 -0.56 -0.15 -0.38 -0.57 0.80 -0.15 -0.33 1.44 -0.36 C 0.52 1.44 -0.36 -0.75 -0.13 C 0.36 C 0.55 1.44 -0.36 C 0.55

5.35 -0.11 C 0.71

1.29

-0.01 -0.38 -0.57 C -0.15 C -0.38

C -0.15

C 0.15 -0.14 C 0.36 -0.14 C -0.36 C 0.75 C -0.13 C -0.14 C -0.14

Bilothi

N-55 Holakotar (Valia) N-59 (Valia) N-60 (Valia) Siludi

Valia

-0.14 C 0.36

C 0.14

2.1

Principles of SALTMOD

Saltmod is a computer program for prediction of salinity of soil water, ground water and drainage water, the depth of water table and the drain discharge in irrigated agricultural lands, using different geo hydrological conditions, varying water management options, including the use of ground water for irrigation and different crop rotation schedules. It is based on seasonal water balances of agricultural lands. The input data needed are related to surface hydrology (rainfall, evaporation, evapotranspiration, irrigation, use of ground water and drain water and runoff for irrigation) and the aquifer hydrology upward seepage, natural drainage, pumping from wells). The other water balance components (downward percolation, upward capillary rise, sub surface drainage) are given as output. This model is used in the present study to compute ground

water level by end of Dec and compare with observed ground water levels during post- monsoon season. It facilitates the computation of soil salinity in the root zone, salinity of drainage effluent, drain flow rates, water table and several water balance components for different water management options over a long period of time. 2.2 Seasonal approach

SALTMOD is based on seasonal water and salt balances of agricultural lands. Four seasons in one year can be distinguished from among the possible seasons of dry, wet, cold, hot, irrigation or fallow seasons. Seasonal time step is considered in the computation method depending upon the specific situation of the study site. The number of seasons (Ns) is chosen between a minimum of one and a maximum of four. The higher the number of seasons considered, the larger the number of input data required. The duration of each season (Ts) is given in number of months (0 Ts 12). Since the model is developed to predict long term and tare more reliable, sufficient care was taken to input reasonably values for coefficients and constants. 2.3 Hydrological data

The model needs seasonal water balance components as input data. These are related to the surface hydrology (e.g., rainfall, evaporation, irrigation, reuse of drainage water and runoff) and to the groundwater hydrology (e.g., upward seepage, natural drainage and pumping from wells). The other water balance components (e.g., percolation, capillary flux and subsurface drainage) are obtained as output. 2.4 Soil strata

SALTMOD accepts four different reservoirs of which one is above the soil surface and three are below. These are named as (i) surface reservoir, (ii) shallow soil reservoir or root zone reservoir, (iii) an intermediate soil reservoir or transition zone and (iv) deep ground water or aquifer reservoir. The last three are porous reservoirs. The shallow soil reservoir is defined by the soil depth from which water evaporates and/or is taken up by the plant roots. It is considered to cover the root zone depth. This reservoir could be saturated or unsaturated, depending upon the water balance. The transition zone could also be saturated or unsaturated. If a horizontal subsurface drainage system is present, the drains are assumed to be placed in this zone only. Then, the transition zone is divided into two parts: an upper transition zone above the drain level and a lower transition zone below the drain. Water balances are calculated for each reservoir separately with a seasonal time step. 2.5 Salt balances

The salt balances are calculated for each of the three porous reservoirs, as mentioned in the previous section, separately. They are based on water balances and on the salt concentrations of the incoming and outgoing water. The initial salt concentrations of the water in the different soil reservoirs, in the irrigation water and in the incoming groundwater from the deep aquifer are required as input data to the model. Salt concentrations of the outgoing water, either from one reservoir into the other or the drainage effluent, are computed on the basis of the salt balance, with different leaching efficiencies. Here also a seasonal time step was adopted. In the model, the salt concentration is expressed as ECe, the values for which were obtained as explained under Soil-water sampling, measurements and analysis section. The amount of salt removed via drainage effluent during a season is based on the weighted average of salt concentration in the drainage effluents sampled during the season. The model has an option of computing salt balance if the drainage effluent is to be used for irrigation. However, in the present study this option was not considered as the salinity of the drainage effluent was as high as that of seawater and moreover the site had adequate fresh canal water supply in the rabi season. 3. 3.1 SCOPE, ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF SALTMOD Scope The output of SALTMOD consists of the following: salt concentration of different soil reservoirs at the end of each season seasonal average salt concentration of the drainage water seasonal average depth of water table and seasonal volumes of drainage water.

The output of the model is given for each season of any year for any number of years as specified in the input data. Within a

year, the output of the preceding season becomes the input to the succeeding season for the model operation. The model runs either with fixed input data, for the number of years determined by the user or with annually changed input values (e.g., rainfall, irrigation, saturated hydraulic conductivity etc.). The first option is used to predict future developments like changes in soil water quality based on long term average input values. In the second option, computations are done year by year. If this option is chosen, the model creates transfer files by which the final results (conditions) of the previous year (e.g., salinity, water table and water quality of drainage effluent) are automatically used as initial conditions for the subsequent period of simulation. This facility makes it possible to use various rainfall sequences drawn randomly from a known rainfall probability distribution and obtain a stochastic prediction of the resulting output parameters. When the simulations are performed with annual changes, it is not necessary to change all other input parameters. For example, in this study, saturated hydraulic conductivity that changed over the years, were used in the scheme of Simulation-II described in the Results and discussion section. Whereas, the parameters such as irrigation water quality, drainable porosity, leaching efficiency and many other parameters were kept at the same values for all the years of simulation. The model offers the possibility of developing a multitude of relations between varied input data, resulting outputs and time. 3.2 Assumptions

The entire Bharuch district has the similar cropping in kharif and subsequent rabi season and the entire area is only rainfed and has no drainage provisions. The model assumes uniform distribution of the cropping, irrigation and drainage characteristics over the entire experimental site. The minimum and maximum time step of computations is 1 and 12 months, respectively. All water movements in the various soil reservoirs are vertical; either upward or downward except the flow to subsurface drains, if it exists. The deep ground water reservoir has both horizontal and vertical flows. The model solves the Hooghoudts steady state formula to obtain the flow components from above the drain and from below the drain when the water table is below the soil surface. When the water table is above the soil surface, the model assumes the flow component as double of that obtained by using Hooghoudts equation. The model assumes the solute movement to take place as mass flow. It also assumes the location of the subsurface drain to be anywhere in the transition zone. The overall functioning of the model is on the basis of the principle of mass conservation. 3.3 Limitations

The effects of dissolution of solid soil minerals, macro and micronutrients and the chemical precipitation of poorly soluble salts are not included in the model. The model is interactive but lacks in standard graphics and incorporation of certain input values after creation of the input files. 3.4 Calibration of the model

Calibration of the model was done by considering the most relevant data from using the data of open wells and certain years with significant correlation and showing acceptable hypothesis. 4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION There are sixty open wells spread all over eight talukas of the Bharuch district (old). Reduced level of the open well range from 3.5 m to 203.13 m above ground level. Diameter of the well range from 1.05 m to 6.40 m. depth of the open well range from 4.20 m to 33.40 m. Depth of water bearing formation (aquifer) range from 3.0 m to 32 m (Table 1). Minimum of annual rainfall range from 117 mm (Bharuch taluka) to 523 (Sagbara Taluka), average rainfall ranged from 624 mm ) 616 mm (Vagra taluka) to 1107 mm (Dediapada taluka), maximum of annual rainfall ranged from 1079 mm (Amod) to 2333 mm (Nandod taluka) and coefficient of variation of annual rainfall 36 per cent (Dediapada taluka) to 47 per cent (Vagra taluka) during 1970-2004 (Table 2). Table 2 presents that recorded ground water level during post- monsoon season showed coefficient of variation of 7 per cent (Tancha, Amod) to 82 per cent (Mandan, Nandod). But computed ground water level by end of the first season (Dec) by the SALTMOD model showed high coefficient of variation of 5 per cent (Tancha, Amod) to 656 per cent (Gangpur, Dediapada). It is also noticed that open well in the vicinity of water body get influenced by levels in such water bodies. High coefficient of variation and negative values of the computed ground water level are mostly attributed to changes in annual rainfall, depth of well and reduced elevation of the well causing flow of the ground water from higher elevation to lower elevation, nearing to vicinity of the river Narmada and the Indian ocean. Negative computed ground water level by end of the first season (say Dec) by the Saltmod model during the high rainfall years shows in general that the ground water level comes close to the surface and shows stagnation of water and waterlogging over the ground surface. In fact, stagnation of water above the

ground surface is hardly seen in month of Nov and December during post- monsoon season. Further such high variation in ground water may be attributed to partition of rainfall and hydrological water balance over the months rather than whole season. Use of all 35 values of computed ground water including negative values with the corresponding observed values in case of open well (N-15) at Tankaria in Jambusar taluka show correlation coefficient of 0.454 at one per cent of significance. But use of all 30 values, after exclusion of negative values improves the correlation coefficient from 0.454 to 0.543 at one per cent level of significance. Use of the data pairs by two sample mean in both cases suggest that hypothesis may be accepted (Table 4). Similarly use of all 15 values of computed ground water including negative values with the corresponding observed values in case of open well (N-35) at Mandan in Nandod taluka show correlation coefficient of 0.584 at five per cent of significance. But use of all 9 values, after exclusion of negative values improves the correlation coefficient from 0.584 to 0.582 at five per cent level of significance. Use of the data pairs by two sample mean in both cases suggest that hypothesis may be accepted (Table 4). However, on the other hand, use of all 24 values of computed ground water including negative values with the corresponding observed values in case of open well (N-35) at Dharikheda in Nandod taluka show correlation coefficient of 0.489 at five per cent of significance and suggests that the same may not be accepted in view of two sample test. But use of all 9 values, after exclusion of negative values although improves the correlation coefficient from 0.489 to 0.942 at one per cent level of significance and suggests to accept the hypothesis using two sample test (Table 4). However, on the other hand, use of all 35 values of computed ground water including negative values with the corresponding observed values in case of open well (N-60) at Valia in Valia taluka show correlation coefficient of 0.490 at one per cent of significance and suggests that the same may be accepted in view of two sample test. But use of all 31 values, after exclusion of negative values although improves the correlation coefficient from 0.490 to 0.620 at one per cent level of significance but suggests that the same hypothesis may not be accepted by using two sample test (Table 4). Assuming that working of the SALTMOD model may be acceptable for the open well (N-15) at Tankaria in Jambusar taluka, the SALTMOD model was run to project the future scenario. It is noticed that assumed ground water level of 7.40 m (equivalent to depth of open well) would come to surface (say 0.71 m) by end of five year or so. Additional application of irrigation of 0.250 m by SSNNL would bring the ground water close to surface by end of third year. Further additional application of irrigation of 0.450 m by SSNNL would bring the ground water close to surface by end of second year (Table 5). Assuming that working of the SALTMOD model may be acceptable for the open well (N-60) at Valia in Valia taluka, the SALTMOD model was run to project the future scenario. It is noticed that assumed ground water level of 15.50 m (equivalent to depth of open well) would come to surface (say 0.14 m) by end of five year or so. Additional application of irrigation of 0.250 m by SSNNL would bring the ground water close to surface by end of third year. Further additional application of irrigation of 0.450 m by SSNNL would bring the ground water close to surface by end of third year (Table 5). Hence it is suggested that application of the SALTMOD model may not be as such adopted to project the future scenarios for the given conditions. Failing to establish adoption of working of SALTMOD model and prediction of ground water level in future, subject to various conditions, for any of the open well it was necessary to work out regression and correlation of computed and recorded values for each year of the observation to avoid influence of rainfall over the period for a particular open well. Use of the all the computed values of computed ground water level and the recorded ground water level show variation of correlation coefficient 0.564 at five per cent level of significance for year 1982 to 0.920 at one per cent level of significance for year 1987 (Table 6). Use of the two sample method suggests to accept the hypothesis that computed values by SALTMOD model may be accepted to be close to the recorded ground water level (Table 6 ) Use of all 33 values of computed ground water including negative values with the corresponding observed values, covering all the open wells in year 1995 show correlation coefficient of 0.732 at one per cent of significance. But use of all 24 values, after exclusion of negative values improves the correlation coefficient from 0.732 to 0.845 at one per cent level of significance. Use of the data pairs by two sample mean in both cases suggest that hypothesis may be accepted (Table 6).

Correlation coefficient of 0.831 at per cent level of significance remains unchanged with exclusion of eight negative values in year 1988 and two sample method suggest to accept the hypothesis. This could be possible due to exclusion of certain negative values in some of the open well with certain variation (Table 6). On the other hand exclusion of certain negative values (13) changes correlation coefficient of 0.663 at one per cent level of significance to non significant in case of 1683, which was a drought year for the entire district. This shows exclusion of certain negative values due to computational procedure of the model may matter accuracy of the model (Table 6).
Table 6: Year wise comparison of computed Ground Water Table by SALTMOD model (Dec) with Recorded Ground Water Table (Post Monsoon) for Bharuch district (Data Source: GWRDC, Gandhinagar) Considering all computed values only positive computed values N A B R D N A B R D * 1970 7 -11.88 2.54 0.762* A 3 -5.37 2.07 0.996 A 1971 7 -1.76 1.33 0.875** A 7 -1.76 1.33 0.875** A 1972 7 -3.55 1.45 0.935** A 7 -3.55 1.45 0.935** A 1973 7 -3.10 1.11 0.747 A 5 -1.78 1.14 0.876* A 1974 7 -0.43 1.20 0.873** A 7 -0.43 1.20 0.873** A 1975 7 -1.04 1.14 0.663 A 7 -1.04 1.14 NS A 1976 9 -4.74 1.40 0.779* A 1977 10 -5.17 1.80 0.885** A 9 -4.27 1.75 0.965** A 1978 16 2.54 0.81 0.474 A 15 3.30 0.74 0.465* A 1979 12 1.56 1.08 0.656* A 12 1.56 1.08 0.656* A 1980 16 3.73 0.81 0.618* A 16 3.73 0.81 0.618** A 1981 12 0.43 0.96 0.667* A 11 1.09 0.92 0.718* A 1982 14 2.75 0.98 0.564* A 14 2.75 0.98 0.564* A 1983 25 -0.50 0.97 0.663** A 12 7.73 0.47 NS A 1984 28 4.04 0.85 0.668** 28 4.04 0.85 0.668** R R 1985 32 2.38 0.92 0.789** A 31 2.86 0.89 0.789** A ** 1986 34 3.61 0.84 0.829** A 34 3.61 0.84 0.829 A 1987 33 1.70 0.96 0.920** A 33 1.70 0.96 0.920** A 1988 32 -0.26 0.91 0.831** A 24 2.07 0.77 0.830** A 1989 34 3.57 0.78 0.803** A 34 3.57 0.78 0.803** A 1990 35 3.28 0.77 0.806** A 35 3.28 0.77 0.806** A 1991 35 4.54 0.76 0.822** 35 4.54 0.76 0.822** R R 1992 35 2.00 0.73 0.789** A 32 3.14 0.65 0.790** A 1993 34 3.11 0.82 0.822** A 33 3.51 0.79 0.831** A ** 1994 35 0.23 0.62 0.702** 22 3.37 0.44 0.661 R R 1995 33 0.01 0.94 0.732** A 24 3.57 0.78 0.845** A 1996 33 2.66 0.81 0.797** A 33 2.66 0.81 0.797** A 1997 32 2.34 0.86 0.775** A 32 2.34 0.86 0.775** A 1998 32 0.89 0.74 0.757** A 28 1.65 0.69 0.737** A 1999 27 4.81 0.85 0.705** 27 4.81 0.85 0.705** R R 2000 24 4.69 0.69 0.708** A 24 4.69 0.69 0.708** A 2001 24 1.51 0.91 0.739** A 24 1.51 0.91 0.739** A ** 2002 22 3.90 0.75 0.686** A 21 1.42 0.75 0.686 A 2003 20 0.28 0.87 0.708** A 18 3.90 0.79 0.704** A 2004 17 3.57 0.76 0.603** A 17 3.57 0.76 0.603** A N-data, A-Intercept, B-Regression Coefficient, R-Correlation Coefficient, S-Significant at five (*) and one (**) per cent level, D-Decision of the hypothesis based on two sample test Year

5. CONCLUSION The water and salt balance model, SALTMOD, was applied to the data obtained from GWRDC, Gandhinagar for the Bharuch district under rainfed and no drainage condition. The first approach used grouping of the data over the years for each of the open well and the second approach used grouping of the data for all the open wells for each of the year 1970 through 2004. The computed values of ground water level by the model were compared with the observed ground water level for each of the open well and for each year. Significant regression and correlation have been briefly presented. However, projection of ground water level under rainfed and no drainage condition needs to be studied further. Acknowledgements The authors highly appreciate the help of Dr. R.J. Oosterbaan of International Institute for Land Reclamation and Improvement (ILRI), Wageningen, the Netherlands. They are also thankful to GWRDC, Gandhinagar for analysis and use of the data. The first author is very thankful to Dr. Gurbachan Singh, the Director, Central Soil Salinity Research Institute, Karnal and Dr. G. G. Rao, the Head at Regional Research Station, Bharuch for providing necessary computer help. REFERENCES 1. 2. 3. Oosterbaan R.J. and Abu Senna M. 1989. Using saltmod to predict drainage and salinity in the Nile Deltas. In: Annual Report (pp 6374). ILRI, Wageningen, The Netherlands. Oosterbaan R.J. 1998. SALTMOD ver 1.1: Description of Principles and Applications.ILRI, Wageningen, The Netherlands, 106 p. Singh Man. 2000. Modelling of Salinization and Nitrogen Losses Under Subsurface Drainage System. Ph.D. Thesis (Unpubl). Division of Agricultural Engineering. Post Graduate School. Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi 110012, India. 111 p. Singh, Man, Bhattacharya, A.K., Singh A.K. and Singh, A. 2002. Application of SALTMOD in coastal clay soil in India. Irrigation and Drainage Systems 16:213-231, Kluwer Academic Publishers. The Netherlands.

4.