CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME: A CASE STUDY ON WAKURDE LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME by IRJET Journal

CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME: A CASE STUDY ON WAKURDE LIFT IRRIGATION SCHEME

Pranoti S. Koli1 , S. S. Chavan2

1M.Tech Student, Dept. of Civil Engineering, T.K.I.E.T. Warananagar, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India

2Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, T.K.I.E.T. Warananagar, Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India ***

Abstract - Wakurde lift irrigation scheme is under Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation (MKVDC). A scheme is located in Wakurde of Sangali district, Maharashta State, India. It is major ongoing irrigation project of Krishna basin basically implemented for irrigating areas of Shirala and Valava Tal. in Sangali district also Karad Tal. in Satara district. Techno-economic viability of project is one of the important key factor having significant contribution in success of lift irrigation scheme. The aim of this study is to check economic feasibility of LIS and asses it’s social impact, as it is important to know that whether the project is beneficial or not. For this purpose, we calculated the economic feasibility and sanctioning of projects by working out benefit to cost ratio and Internal Rate of Return (IRR). The purpose of this study is to overcome problems is execution and cost-time overruns. We assessed actual facts and problems in implementation of this LIS. We also studied practical irregularities while running this scheme. In this study suggestions are given to improve efficiency of project and to overcome actual on field problems.

Key Words: MKVDC, economic feasibility, socio-economic impact, Lift Irrigation System, cropping pattern, benefit to cost ratio.

1. INTRODUCTION

WakurdeLiftIrrigationSchemeisunderWaranaIrrigationProjectwhichislocatedonWaranaRiverinKrishnabasin.Itis proposedtoliftwaterfrom(LBC)LeftBankCanalofWaranaproject.Itconsistsofmain2partsandagainfirstpartdividedinto 3stagesandsecondpartisdividedinto2stages.AspertheoriginalstandardapprovedbytheCorporationin 1998,itwas plannedtoirrigate15775hectaresofirrigatedareabypumpingwaterinoneareain3phases.AspertheproposedsecondRAA ofthisscheme,atotalirrigatedareaof28,035hectaresisproposedtobeirrigatedas12,275hain3phasesunderPart1and 15,760hain1phaseunderPart2.TotalcultivatedcommandareaofWakurdeLISprojectis33,062ha.runningtext.Theorder ofreferenceintherunningtextshouldmatchwiththelistofreferencesattheendofthepaper.Outofthatirrigablecommand areais28,035ha.ThecropstructureproposedinthefirstRAAapprovedwas126%and123%forSangliEastandSangliWest respectively.Ithad20%canecropforboththeregions.Accordingtotheproposedcropstructure,173.36gallonsofwateris requiredforModifiedPenmanmethodforirrigation.AneconomicfeasibilityofprojectisworkedoutbyBenefittoCostratio (B/Cratio)andInternalRateofReturn(IRR)methodswhichareconsideredaseconomicanalysismethods.

1.1 Necessity

India’sultimateirrigationpotentialis140millionhactersbutonly87millionhactersisutilizedthroughmajor,medium,minor irrigationprojectandgroundwater.Thisgapcanbereducedbyusingirrigationsystemofhigherwateruseefficiency.The conventionalmethodforconveyingwaterforirrigationinIndiahascertainlimitationsasevaporationlosses,seepagelosses, landacquisitionandthefts.Inordertoovercomethesedrawbacks,pipedistributionnetworksystemisbestalternative.Itis necessarytosearchinnovativealternativeformodernizationofexistingwaterdistributionnetworksystem.

Therearevariousirrigationmethodsavailablebutanimportanceof‘LiftIrrigationScheme’isunique.Thetotal8%LISof Maharashtrairrigates22000haoflandwhichfinancesRs.6462.5million.Basically,liftirrigationschemesareusedtoliftwater fromlowerleveltohigherlevelmainlyconsistsofwatersources(suchasdams,K.T.weirs,rivercanals),liftingmediumand conveyingmedium.Damsandcanalsareconstructedtoincreaseirrigatedareaatlowerlevelthandamlevelbutscarcityof waterremainedtheproblemforhigherareas.

Indiaismainlyanagriculturalcountryandwaterresourcesplaysvitalroleinirrigation.Nowadays,industrialization demands for more water availability which leads to reduce water available for irrigation. Stress due to water scarcity increasingdaybyday.Toreducethiswaterscarcityandmeetrapidwaterdemandofirrigation,adoptionofnewirrigation methodsisessential.WarnaandKrishnariversaretwomajorriverswhichflowinMaharashtrastateandarelinkedtogether byWakurdeLISinTal-Shirala,Dist-Sangali

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

1.2 Objectives

1. Tounderstand/examinewaterdistributionscenarioofWakurdeLIS.

2. TocheckeconomicviabilityofWakurdeLIS.

3. Toassessocio-economicimpactofscheme.

4. Torecommendmeasurestobetakentoincreaseplannedbenefits

1.3

Methodology

1. StudyofWakurdeLIS.

2. DatacollectionfromWaterResourceDepartmentrelevanttoobjectives.

3. Criticalstudyofcollecteddatawithrespecttofinancialaspects.

4. FindingoutBenefittoCostratio(B/C)andInternalRateofReturn(IRR).

5. Checkingeconomicfeasibilityofscheme.

6. Resultsandconclusion.

2. PROJECT DETAILS

2.1 Overview of Scheme

WakurdeliftIrrigationSchemeislocatedinTal.WakurdeofSangalidistrict.Itisanongoingmajorirrigationprojectof Krishnabasin.WakurdeLiftIrrigationSchemeisinthe‘RestofMaharashtraKrishnaValleyDevelopmentCorporation’.Wakurde LISisimplementedbypumping2.77perunitofwaterannuallyinleftcanalofWaranaproject.Therearethreephasesof24km canalwhichisinShiralaTal.SangaliDist.,Valvatal.SangaliDist.andKaradofSataraDist.

Stateleveltechnicaladvisorycommittee’sfeedbackaboutthisprojectisasfollows.

1. ApprovedBasicScheme-AspertheoriginalstandardapprovedbytheCorporationin1998,itwasplannedtoirrigate 15775hectaresofirrigatedareabypumpingwaterinoneareain3phases.Itcovers6380hectaresinShiralaTal.of Sanglidistrict,7195hectares inValvaTal.and2200hectaresinSataradistrict.Itwasproposedtouse4.60TMCof water.

2. ApprovedFirstRAA-Theschemewasapprovedbythecorporationintheyear2004byincorporatingPart2asperthe firstRAAandgivingjointapprovalforPart1andPart2.Accordingly,thetotalirrigatedareaunderthePartIwas5700 hectaresin3phasesand13875hectaresunderPart2in1958hectare.Itwasproposedtouse5.88TMCwater.Itcovers 3500hectaresinShiralaTal.ofSanglidistrict,13275hectaresinValvaTal.and2200hectares inKaradTal.ofSatara district.

3. ProposedSecondRAA-AspertheproposedsecondRAAofthisscheme,atotalirrigatedarea of28,035hectaresis proposedtobeirrigatedas12,275hain3phasesunderPart1and15,760hain1phaseunderPart2.Forthis6.12TMC waterisproposedtobeused.Itcovers7270hectaresinShiralatalukaofSanglidistrict,18565hectaresinValvataluka and2200hectaresinKaradtalukaofSataradistrict.

Therearethreephasesofleftbank24kmcanalas:6515ha.inTal.ShiralaofDist.Sangali,3560 ha.inTal.Walvaof Dist.Sangali&2200ha.inTal.KaradofDist.Satara.Itisplannedtoirrigateatotalareaof12275ha.Thedetailsaregiven below:

Table 3.4.1 Area to be irrigated

Sr.No. Taluka/District Part-1 Area(ha.) Part-2 Area(ha.) Totalarea(ha.)

1 ShiralaDist.Sangli 6515 755 7270

2 KaradDist.Satara 2200 2200

3 ValvaDist.Sangli 3560 15005 18565 Total 12275 15760 28035

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

2.2 Administrative Approval Details

Thedetailoriginaladministrativeapprovaloftheproject,thefirstRevisedAdministrativeApproval(RAA)andproposed administrativeapprovalareasareasfollows:

Table 3.4.2 Details of Administrative Approval

1) Administrative approval

2) FirstRAA

M.LostVs.M.Decision No.Wakurde/Usinyo/ MP2/Prama298/ (956/98)6991 dated9/12/1998 199596

DecisionMakrikhoviman /MP3/Wakurdeusinyo/8 560 dated25/10/2004 200304

AttheendofMarch2020,Rs.211.67crorei.e.23.83%oftheupdatedpriceand63.70%ofthesanctionedRAA amounthasbeenspent.

3. METHODOLOGY OF THE PROJECT

AcriticalanalysisofWakurdeLISistobecarriedoutintwophasesasfollows:

1. EconomicFeasibilityAnalysis

2. Socio-economicstudyofWakurdeLIS

3.1 Phase 1: Economic Feasibility Analysis of Project

Thereareseveralmethodsusedtocheckeconomicviabilityofproject.Fromthesemethodstwomethodsareusedin thisstudyareasfollows:

1. BenefittoCost(B/C)ratiowhichisalsoknownasprofitabilityindex.

2. InternalRateofReturn(IRR)

Economical feasibility study of the project

Theeconomicfeasibilityistheanalysisofthecostsandreturnsfromaprojectwithrespecttodeterminewhetherprojectis logicalornotandpossibletocompleteit.Itisoneofthecost-benefitanalysisoftheconsideredproject,whichconcludesthat whethertheprojectispossibletoimplementornot.Theeconomicfeasibilityanalysisisthemostlyusedtodecidetheefficiency ofanewproject.Itisalsoknownascostanalysis.Ithelpstoidentifytheexpectedreturnagainstanamountinvestedinthe consideredproject.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Forthis,twotypesofcostsarecalculatedwhichareknownasdevelopmentcostandoperatingcost.Byconsideringfuture valueoftheproject,anapproximatetimespanto receivethe returnsagainsttheinvestmentisalsocalculated.Economic feasibilitystudyhelpstoidentifyhowwellorhowpoorlyaprojectwillperform.

3.1.1 Benefit-Cost Ratio (B/C)

Thebenefitcostratioiscalculatedbydividingthepresentvalueofbenefitsbythatofcostsandinvestments.

FormulaforBenefittoCostRatio

Where:

BCR=BenefitCostRatio

PV=PresentValue

CF=CashFlowofaperiod(classifiedasbenefitandcost,respectively)

i=DiscountRateorInterestRate

N=TotalNumberofPeriods

t=PeriodinwhichtheCashFlowsoccur

Note:Inthisformula,bothpresentvaluesneedtobeinsertedwiththeirabsolute,non-negativeamounts.Ifweconsistently usednegativecashflowsforeitherthecostorthebenefitside,resultwillbenegative,thenneedtomultiplyitwith(-1).

Thebenefit-costratio(BCR)isalsoknownasProfitabilityIndex.Aprofitabilityindicatorusedincost-benefitanalysis todeterminetheviabilityofcashflowsgeneratedfromanassetorproject.TheBCRcomparesthepresentvalueofall benefitsgeneratedfromaproject/assettothepresentvalueofallcosts.ABCRexceedingoneindicatesthatthe asset/projectisexpectedtogenerateincrementalvalue.

CriteriaforBenefittoCostRatio

Rangeof(B/C)Ratio

BCR<1

BCR=1

BCR>1

3.1.2 Internal Rate of Return (IRR)

ProfitabilityIndex

Investmentwillnotbeprofitable.

Investmentisneitherprofitablenorloss.

Investmentwillbeprofitable.

Theinternalrateofreturncanbedefinedastheratewhichequatesthepresentvalueofcashinflowswiththepresent valueofcashoutflowsofaninvestment.Internalrateofreturnistherateatwhichthenetpresentvalueoftheinvestment iszero.Itiscalledinternalratebecauseitdependsonlyontheoutlay.

FormulaforInternalRateofReturn(IRR)

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

IRRhigherthanthediscountratesignifiesthatinvestmentisprofitable.Internalrateofreturn(IRR)isthepercentageof returnsthataprojectwillgeneratewithinatimeperiodtocoveritsinitialinvestment.Internalrateofreturn(IRR)isthe discountrateatwhichaproject’sreturnsbecomeequaltoinitial.ItistheratewhentheNetPresentValueamountstozero.It facilitatesthecomparisonofdifferentinvestmentoptionsandprojects.

3.2 Phase 2: Socio- Economic Study of Wakurde LIS

Inthisphaseofproject,Socio-economicstudyiscarriedoutwithfollowingaspects:

 Toassessocio-economicimpactofscheme.

 Torecommendmeasurestobetakentoincreaseplannedbenefits.

1. Assessmentofsocio-economicimpact:

Foranassessmentofsocio-economicimpactofscheme,followingpointsaretobestudied:

 ForwhichfactorsLISwillbefeasibleandfactorsaffectingfeasibilityofLIS

 HowLISaffectsonenvironmentalfactorsandonsocialfactors,alsoit’seconomicimpact.

2. Measurestobetakentoimproveplannedbenefits:

 ActualproblemsinimplementationofLISarefoundoutbyoverallstudy.

 Overallanalysisiscarriedouttoovercomethesedrawbacksthensuggestionsaregiventoimprovebenefits fromLISproject.

 Inwhichcase,implementationofWakurdeLISwillbeeconomicalandefficient.

 HowPDN(PipeDistributionNetwork)isbeneficialoverCDN(CanalDistributionNetwork)

4. DATA COLLECTION AND CALCULATION

4.1 Method 1. Annual Cost and Benefit Cost Ratio of Project

4.1.1Costoftheproject

Thetotalcostoftheschemeconsistsofthefollowing:

1. Fixedcostorinvestmentcost.

2. Operatingcost.

3. Maintenancecost.

A Direct Charges

1. Costofworks1-Headworks

Total Cost of the project

2. Establishmentchargesat10%oncostoftheprojectexcludingBLandsanduptodateexpenseonETP(03/2020uptodateETP ExpenseisRs.393.69Lakhs)

(1-HeadworksB-LandCost-Rs.666.63Lakhs) (2-MainCanalB-Landcost–Rs.3673.73Lakhs)

3. ChargesofToolsandPlants(Ordinary) At1%ofcostofworksexceptB-Lands

Deductions:

7689.01

Table4.1.1Costoftheproject

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

DeductSalvagevalueoftemporarybuildings@15%ofCostofthe temporarybuildings (CostofK-Buildings–Rs.111.11Lakhs)

Capitalisationofabatmentoflandrevenueattherateof8% (CostofBLands*0.5%)*8%

Auditandaccountchargesat1%oncostofworksexcludingthecostof ‘B’lands

Total cost of B Indirect Charges

TotalCostoftheProject(A)+(B)=

4.1.2 Revised Cost Of The Project

Table4.1.2.RevisedCostoftheproject

1. Interestonthetotalcostoftheproject@10%on Rs.90844lakhs

2. Depreciationontheproject@1%onRs.37152.33Lakhs (90844-2473.3-3029.8-48188.57)=37152.33

3 Depreciationofpumpingsystem(Mech,portion)

Lakhs Assuminglifeofmachinery12years@8.33%on Rs. 3029.80 0.0833

4 Depreciationofrisingmain@3.33%on 1687.04 Lakh Rs. 50661.87 0.0333 (AssuminglifeofrisingmainandPDN30years)

5 PowerchargesforliftirrigationasperHTPVIIasperSeparate statementofpipingmachinery

6 Annualmaintenancechargesasperseparatestatement Ref.(85.52+85.74)

7 Operational&MaintenanceChargesasGR27/08/2013 193.09 Lakhs

Rs. IP Amount 550* 35107 193.09 (282*390/200)

Hence the final revised cost of project is TotalofC 15026.95 Lakhs Say

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

4.1.3 Calculation Of Annual Benefits From Project:

Crop Composition Approved by Department of Agriculture

A. Pre project crop pattern

Existingcropstructureapprovedisfirsttakenasperthefollowing.

Table4.1.3A)ExistingCropStructure

B. PostProjectCropPattern

ApprovalofcropplanforWakurdeprojecthasbeenapprovedasperDistrictSuperintendentofAgriculture, Sangli.

Table4.1.3.B)Detailsofcropplanfortheproject

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET)

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net

TheproposedcropcompositionoftheprojecthasbeenreceivedaspertheletterNo.48/2009,dated03/01/2009ofDistrict Superintendent of Agriculture, Sangli and is being approved by the Commissioner of Agriculture, Pune. According to the proposedcropstructure,173.36gallonsofwaterisrequiredforModifiedPenmanmethodforirrigation.

State level technical advisory committee’s feedback

ThecropstructureproposedinthefirstRAAapprovedwas126%and123%forSangliEastandSangliWestrespectively.It had20%canecropforboththeregions.Approvedbyletterdated2009.Theareaunderthatcrophasbeenreducedby10%for both the areas and the percentage of other crops has been changed to 126% and 123% for Sangli East and Sangli West respectively.

4.1.4 Calculation of Net Benefits From Crop: Wakurde Lift Irrigation Scheme Tal: Shirala Dist: Sangali

A.ForSangali(East)–Statementshowingthenetbenefitsfor1000hectareunderirrigatedcondition

Table4.1.4A)NetBenefitsfor1000hectareforSangali–East

Kharif

B.ForSangali(West)-Statementshowingthenetbenefitsfor1000hectareunderirrigatedcondition

Table4.1.4.B) Netbenefitsfor1000hectareforSangali–West

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

NetBenefitFor6515Hectare =1197.59×7270÷1000=8706.49(Rs.Inlakhs)

Calculation of total net benefit

1. NetbenefitforSangali(East)=27301.33(Rs.InLakhs)

2. NetbenefitforSangali(West)=8706.49(Rs.Inlakhs)

3. TotalNetBenefit=(1+2)=36007.82(Rs.Inlakhs)

4. AnnualNetBenefits=36007.82–14559.08 =21448.74(Rs.Inlakhs)

Total Annual Benefits from project is 21448.74 (Rs.In lakhs)

4.1.5 Benefit Cost Ratio

Totalcostofprojectcalculated from4.1.2=15026.95(Rs.Inlakhs)

TotalAnnualBenefitsfromprojectcalculatedfrom4.14= 21448.74(Rs.Inlakhs)

B.C.RATIO=TotalBenefits/TotalCost =21448.74÷15026.95 =1.43

Hence Benefit to Cost (B/C) ratio for the project is 1.43

4.2 Method 2. Internal Rate Of Return Here,YearwiseNetbenefitsoftheprojectalongwithInternalRateofReturnisgiven: Table5.2.InternalRateof

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net

5. SOCIO-ECONOMIC ANALYSIS:

5.1 Factors Affecting Feasibility of Lift Irrigation/Water Supply Project:

1. Locationofthescheme.

2. Availabilityofwaterintheriverorthestream,withrespecttoirrigationseasons.

3. Numberofexistingirrigationandwatersupplyprojectsonthesameriverorstreaminbothupstreamand downstreamsectionsoftheproposedscheme.

4. Potentialforadditionalpumpingfromtheriverwithoutadverselyaffectingthewaterrequirementofexisting schemes/riparianusers.

5. Suitabilityofwaterforirrigation/watersupply.

6. Proposedcroppingpattern/croppingintensityinthecommandarea/watersupplydemandsofthepopulation.

7. Theextentoflanddevelopmentworkneededinthecommandarea.

8. On-farmwaterconveyancesystemproposed(openchannels/undergroundpipelines).PDNoverCDN Themethodofwaterapplicationproposed(surface/sprinkler/drip).

5.2 Actual problems in practical application of LIS:

1. Croppatternisnotbeingfollowedbyfarmers

2. Operationofvalvesandpressureinpipesshouldbeproperlycalculated.

3. Scouringofpipesanditsmaintenance

4. Distributionofwaterasperrequirement

5. Continuouselectricitysupplyisneeded

6. Difficultiesinfloodingsituation

7. Limitationonirrigationpotentialofparticularwatersource

8. Dependencyforlandacquisition

9. Illiteracyoffarmersmayleadtoimproperoperationofliftirrigationsystem

5.3 Suggestions / Recommendations To Improve Planned Benefits:

1. Croppatternsshouldbefollowedbyfarmers.

2. Atechnicalauthorityshouldbeappointedforexecutionandoperationofwaterdistributionsystem.

3. Regularinspectionandmaintenanceshouldbecarriedouttocheckblockageinpipes.

4. Pressureshouldbecheckedproperlywhiledesigningandoperatingliftirrigationsystem.

5. Cleaningofcanalsandsedimentremovalshouldbedoneperiodically.

6. Distributionofwatershouldbeasperrequirementandthereshouldbecheckonwastageofwater.

7. Pipedistributionnetworkshouldbepreferredovercanaldistributionsystem.

5.4 Advantages of using PDN (Pipe Distribution Network) over CDN (Canal Distribution Network) in LIS :

Disadvantages of canal system

1. Instagnantandopenwater,therecanbespreadofmosquitoes,wormsandinsects.

2. Thereistheftofwaterfromopencanal,duetowhichtherewillbeshortageofwaterasperrequirementforgenuine farmers.

3. Thegrowthofweedsalongcanalsidesandriverbed.

4. Ifregularmaintenanceofcanalisnotdone,hydrauliccapacityofcanaldecreasesduetosedimentdeposition.

5. Percentageincreasesinconveyanceefficiencyanddistributionefficiencywhichminimizeslosses

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Advantages of PDN over CDN

1. Waterisdistributedbypipestoentireareaoffarm.Hence,nosignificantamountofproductivefarmareaislostto cropproduction.

2. Therearenotransmissionlosseswhilesupplyingwateralsothereisnoleakageinpipelinesystemasitiswatertight. Asaresult,therearenoevaporationandseepagelosseswhichleadtosavingofwater.

3. Drainageproblemsarereducedasthereisnoseepage.

4. Laboursaving-25-50%lesslabourperunitareaofirrigationforpipedistributionforthecontrolofwaterincompare withopenchannel.

5. Permanence–Inpipedistributionnetwork,apipenetworkisproperlydesigned,madeofgoodqualitymaterialsand wellconstructed.Ithaslonglifespan.

6. Easeofconveyance–Watercanbedrawndirectlyfromwatersupplysourcetooutletpointsmostlyitispossiblefor undulating land. Water can be transported to areas such as across a depression or boosted uphill, which is not possiblewithopenchannels,unlessanelaboratestructureisbuilt.

7. Lowmaintenancecost–Incaseofopencanals,earthenstructuresaretobebuiltandmaintainedcontinuouslybut maintenancecostsforpipedistributionstructuresarelow,asthesystemisburiedunderground

8. Nochannelblockproblems–Thereisnoobstructiontoflowofwater,nochannelstobecomechokedwithweedsto hinderflow.

9. Bettercontrol–thereisbetterandeasiercontrolontheflowofwaterincaseofpipeswhichleadstomoreefficient irrigation.

10. Nohindrancetoequipment-Therearefewobstaclestohinderthemovementofagriculturalequipmentandfarm transport.Thisisanimportantfeaturewherefieldsaresmall.

11. Full and effective control of irrigation water resulting into taking up of crop diversification such as horticulture, vegetablesandothercashcropssuchasgroundnutetc.

6. RESULT AND DISSCUSION

FromEconomicAnalysis,for WakurdeLiftIrrigation Scheme,thetotal costworked outto beRs.908.44Crore thatis 181000Rs.perHectare.BenefitCostRatiooftheprojectis1.43whichisnearlyequalto1.5andisapprovedbycorresponding Governmentauthority.Henceprojectisefficient.InternalRateofReturn(IRR)oftheprojectis15.21%whichismorethan 12%whichfitstheprojectcriteria.Hencetheprojectisefficientandeconomicallyfeasible.

Fromsocio-economicanalysis,thefactorswhichaffectfeasibilityofLISarelocation,availabilityofwatersources,proposed croppingpattern,waterconveyancesystems.Manypointswerecametonoticewhile actualimplementationofLISsuchas operationofLIS,unfollowingproposedcroppingpattern,pressureinpipes,souring&maintenanceofpipedistributionsystem, distributionofwater,electricitysupply,limitationonirrigationpotential,problemsinlandacquisition,illiteracyoffarmers.

7. CONCLUSION

ThestudyconcludesthatB/Cratioofprojectis1.43whichisnearlyequalto1.5henceimplementationofthisprojectis profitable.InternalRateofReturn(IRR)forthisprojectisworkedoutas15.21%whichisgreaterthan12.5%henceprojectwill giveprofitablereturns.Fromthesetwomethodsofeconomicfeasibilitystudy(Phase1),itisconcludedthatprojectisfeasible. Second phase of project is to assess socio-economic impact of scheme and recommend measures to increase planned benefits. From socio-economic study of Wakurde LIS, it is concluded that even if there are some problems in actual implementationofLIS,LISismoreefficientbyusingPipeDistributionNetwork(PDN)alsoplannedbenefitswillincreaseif implementationiscarriedoutwithrecommendedmeasures.

REFERENCES

[1] Vidya Purandare, Dr.V.H.Bajaj (IOSR Journal of Humanities And Social Science, Volume 22, Issue 1, Ver. 5, Jan. 2017) “EconomicAppraisalofLiftIrrigationSchemes-BenefitCostRatio&InternalRateofReturn:CaseStudyofMhaisalLift IrrigationScheme”

[2] SeemaShiyekarandNandkumarKPatil(InternationalResearchJournalofEngineeringandTechnologyIRJET)Volume:04 Issue:01|Jan-2017“DesignofLiftIrrigationSystem-AngarasACaseStudy”

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 10 Issue: 03 | Mar 2024 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

[3] Vidya Purandare, Dr.V.H.Bajaj (International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology IJIRSETVol.5,Issue2,February2016)“WaterAvailabilityAnalysis:CaseStudyofLiftIrrigationScheme”

[4] JoséDonizettideLima,MarceloGonçalvesTrentin,GilsonAdamczukOliveira,DayseReginaBatistus,DalmarinoSetti(Int.J. EngineeringManagementandEconomics,Vol.5,Nos.1/2,2015)“Asystematicapproachfortheanalysisoftheeconomic viabilityofinvestmentprojects”

[5] M.S.Luhach,R.K.Khatkar,V.K.SinghandR.S.Khatry(AgriculturalEconomicsResearchReviewVol.17(ConferenceNo.) 2004pp107-113)“EconomicAnalysisofSprinklerandDripIrrigationTechnologyinHaryana”

[6] Techno-economicviabilityofliftirrigationscheme:macrostudy-chapter-iii