MWH Feasability Study Main Report - Eng

FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR THE 16 CENTRAL
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN MOLDOVA

PROPOSED FOR MCC FUNDING
MAIN REPORT
FINAL
PREPARED BY
MWH AMERICAS, Inc
PREPARED FOR
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

875 FIFTEENTH STREET, NW
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005
DECEMBER 2009
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR THE 16 CENTRAL IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN
MOLDOVA PROPOSED FOR MCC FUNDING
This report presents the findings of rapid feasibility studies for the 16 Central Irrigation Systems
(CIS) in Moldova. MWH was retained by the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) to
conduct these studies for the proposed rehabilitation of these existing 16 irrigation system
infrastructure that were identified by the Government of Moldova for funding from MCC. This
assignment was divided into two tasks:
Task 1 Feasibility Studies for Infrastructure Rehabilitation
Task 2 Environmental & Social Assessment of the Proposed Rehabilitation
The findings of Task 1, summarized in this report, are the result of activities undertaken over a
four and half month period between January 26, 2009 and June 19, 2009. This Feasibility Report
includes:
A Main Report
Annex 1 through 16
The findings of Task 2 are summarized in the report titled: Environmental & Social Impact
Assessment for the Proposed Rehabilitation of the 16 Central Irrigation Systems in Moldova.
Table of Contents
Table of Contents
PAGE
List of Abbreviations ...................................................................................................................... i
Executive Summary ................................................................................................................ES-1
1.0
Introduction
.................................................................................................................. 1-1
1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Project Objectives ................................................................................................... 1-3
1.3 Scope of Work ........................................................................................................ 1-4
1.4 Organization of the Report...................................................................................... 1-9
2.0
Systems under Consideration .............................................................................................. 2-1

2.1 Overview of a Typical Irrigation System................................................................ 2-1
2.2 CIS Considered for Rehabilitation .......................................................................... 2-4
2.2.1
Pump Stations .......................................................................................... 2-5
2.2.2
Electrical Systems .................................................................................... 2-6
2.2.3
Piping Network ........................................................................................ 2-8
2.2.4
Dams ........................................................................................................ 2-8
2.3 Description of Existing CIS Considered for Rehabilitation ................................... 2-9
2.3.1
Tetcani...................................................................................................... 2-9
2.3.2
Blindeti ................................................................................................. 2-10
2.3.3
Grozeti .................................................................................................. 2-10
2.3.4
Crpinenii de Sus ................................................................................... 2-11
2.3.5
Leova Sud .............................................................................................. 2-12
2.3.6
Chircani-Zrneti ................................................................................... 2-13
2.3.7
Cahul ...................................................................................................... 2-14
2.3.8
Jora de Jos .............................................................................................. 2-14
2.3.9
Lopatna .................................................................................................. 2-15
2.3.10 Conia ................................................................................................... 2-16
2.3.11 Criuleni .................................................................................................. 2-17
2.3.12 erpeni ................................................................................................... 2-17
2.3.13 Puhceni ................................................................................................. 2-18
2.3.14 Rocani ................................................................................................... 2-19
2.3.15 Talmaza .................................................................................................. 2-19
2.3.16 Suvorov .................................................................................................. 2-20
2.4 Other Donor Projects in the Irrigation Sector ....................................................... 2-22
3.0
Assessment of Existing CIS Infrastructure ......................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Assessment Methodology ....................................................................................... 3-1
3.1.1 Review of Previous Studies ..................................................................... 3-1
Feasibility Studies for the 16 CIS in Moldova Proposed for MCC Funding
Main Report -Final
i
December 2009
Table of Contents
3.1.2
3.1.3
3.1.4
3.1.5
3.1.6
3.1.7
3.1.8
3.2
4.0
Field Investigation ................................................................................... 3-1

Assessment of Mechanical Equipment .................................................... 3-1
Assessment of Electrical Equipment ....................................................... 3-3
Assessment of Pump Station Infrastructure ............................................. 3-4
Assessment of Existing Underground Pipe Network............................... 3-4
Assessment of Dams ................................................................................ 3-5
Assessment of Drainage Systems ............................................................ 3-8
Overview of Existing Conditions............................................................................ 3-8

3.2.1
Tetcani.................................................................................................... 3-10
3.2.2
Blindeti ................................................................................................. 3-11
3.2.3
Grozeti .................................................................................................. 3-12
3.2.4
Crpinenii de Sus ................................................................................... 3-13
3.2.5
Leova Sud .............................................................................................. 3-15
3.2.6
Chircani-Zrneti .................................................................................... 3-16
3.2.7
Cahul ...................................................................................................... 3-17
3.2.8
Jora de Jos .............................................................................................. 3-18
3.2.9
Lopatna .................................................................................................. 3-19
3.2.10 Conia ................................................................................................... 3-20
3.2.11 Criuleni .................................................................................................. 3-21
3.2.12 erpeni ................................................................................................... 3-22
3.2.13 Puhceni ................................................................................................. 3-23
3.2.14 Rocani ................................................................................................... 3-24
3.2.15 Talmaza .................................................................................................. 3-25
3.2.16 Suvorov .................................................................................................. 3-26
Assessment of Site Conditions............................................................................................ 4-1

4.1 Overview of Site Topography ................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Overview of Site Soil Conditions ........................................................................... 4-1
4.3 Salinity & Drainage Conditions .............................................................................. 4-2
4.3.1
Soil Salinity-Sodicity Assessment Methodology .................................... 4-3
4.3.2
Drainage Assessment Methodology ........................................................ 4-4
4.4 Site Conditions Specific the CIS under Consideration ........................................... 4-4
4.5 Soil Salinity and Sodicity Assessment.................................................................... 4-6
4.5.1
Crpinenii de Sus ..................................................................................... 4-6
4.5.2
Chircani-Zrneti ...................................................................................... 4-7
4.5.3
Cahul ........................................................................................................ 4-8
4.5.4
Talmaza .................................................................................................... 4-8
4.5.5
Suvorov .................................................................................................... 4-9
4.6 Drainage Assessment .............................................................................................. 4-9
4.6.1
Chircani-Zrneti .................................................................................... 4-10
4.6.2
Cahul ...................................................................................................... 4-12
Main Report Final
ii
December 2009
Table of Contents
4.6.3
5.0
Talmaza .................................................................................................. 4-14
Assessment of Water Resources & Water Quality ............................................................. 5-1

5.1 Summary ................................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.1
Viability of the Surface Water Sources to Meet Projected Agricultural
Demands .................................................................................................. 5-1
5.1.2
Adequacy of Surface Sources to Meet Other Demands........................... 5-2
5.1.3
Adequacy & Quality of Groundwater Sources to Meet Present & Future
Demands .................................................................................................. 5-2
5.1.4
Impacts of Climate Change on Surface & Groundwater Sources............ 5-3
5.1.5
Impact Water Use Actions by other Countries Dependent on
these Rivers .............................................................................................. 5-4
5.2 Data Collection ....................................................................................................... 5-4
5.2.1
Data Limitations....................................................................................... 5-5
5.2.2
Data Availability ...................................................................................... 5-5
5.3 Climate .................................................................................................................. 5-6
5.4 Surface Water.......................................................................................................... 5-8
5.4.1
Nistru River.............................................................................................. 5-9
5.4.2
Prut River ............................................................................................... 5-13
5.5 Groundwater ......................................................................................................... 5-16
5.6 Water In Storage ................................................................................................... 5-18
5.7 Water Quality ........................................................................................................ 5-20
5.7.1
Surface Water......................................................................................... 5-20
5.7.2
Groundwater .......................................................................................... 5-24
5.8 Water Use.............................................................................................................. 5-27
5.9 Water Availability ..................................................................................................5.31
5.9.1
Surface Water......................................................................................... 5-31
5.9.2
Groundwater .......................................................................................... 5-35
5.10 Climate Change......................................................................................................5.37
6.0
Proposed Rehabilitation Plans ............................................................................................ 6-1

6.1 Assumptions for Basis of Rehabilitation Plans....................................................... 6-1
6.1.1
Rehabilitation Based on Proposed Design Criteria .................................. 6-1
6.1.2
Rehabilitation Based on Minimum Water Pressure Conditions ...............6.2
6.2
Overview of Proposed Rehabilitation ..................................................................... 6-2

6.2.1 Tetcani...................................................................................................... 6-2
6.2.2 Blindeti ................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.3 Grozeti .................................................................................................... 6-4
6.2.4 Crpinenii de Sus ..................................................................................... 6-4
Main Report Final
iii
December 2009
Table of Contents
6.2.5
6.2.6
6.2.7
6.2.8
6.2.9
6.2.10
6.2.11
6.2.12
6.2.13
6.2.14
6.2.15
6.2.16
7.0
Leova Sud ................................................................................................ 6-5

Chircani-Zrneti ...................................................................................... 6-6
Cahul ........................................................................................................ 6-6
Jora de Jos ................................................................................................ 6-6
Lopatna .................................................................................................... 6-6
Conia ..................................................................................................... 6-6
Criuleni .................................................................................................... 6-6
erpeni ..................................................................................................... 6-6
Puhceni ................................................................................................... 6-7
Rocani ..................................................................................................... 6-7
Talmaza .................................................................................................... 6-8
Suvorov .................................................................................................... 6-8
Feasibility Level Cost Estimates for the Proposed Rehabilitation Projects ........................ 7-1
7.1 Summary ................................................................................................................. 7-1
7.2 Development of Units Cost ..................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.1
Pipe Network ........................................................................................... 7-2
7.2.2
Primary Civil Works ................................................................................ 7-3
7.2.3
Mechanical &Electrical Equipment ......................................................... 7-3
7.3
7.4
7.5
7.6
Preliminary & General Cost.................................................................................... 7-3

Contingencies.......................................................................................................... 7-4
Design & Construction Supervision Cost ............................................................... 7-5
Environmental & Social Mitigation Costs .............................................................. 7-5
7.6.1
Waste Management .................................................................................. 7-5
7.6.2
Compensation for Loss of Earnings (Economic Displacement) .............. 7-6
7.6.3
Environmental Monitoring & Potential Remediation Costs ................... 7-6
7.7 Escalation of Base Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 7-6

7.7.1
Assumptions............................................................................................. 7-7
7.7.2
Price Escalation ........................................................................................ 7-7
7.7.3
Exchange Rate ......................................................................................... 7-9
8.0
Assessment of Institutional Capacities ............................................................................... 8-1

8.1 Overview of Moldova Irrigation Sector Institution(s) ............................................ 8-1
8.1.1
Apele Moldovei ....................................................................................... 8-1
8.1.2
Technical Irrigation Stations (STI) .......................................................... 8-2
8.1.3
Existing Water Users Organizations ........................................................ 8-2
8.1.4
Proposed Arrangement for Management of the
Rehabilitated CIS ..................................................................................... 8-3
8.2
Assessment of Responsible Entities........................................................................ 8-4

8.2.1
Implementation Duties ............................................................................. 8-4
8.2.2
O&M Duties............................................................................................. 8-4
Main Report Final
iv
December 2009
Table of Contents
8.3 Prevailing Assumptions Associated with Proposed Institutional Plans.................. 8-5
8.4 Risks and Remedial Actions ................................................................................... 8-7
8.5 Technical Assistance............................................................................................. 8-13
8.5.1
Technical Assistance to Apele Moldovei for Implementation of CIS
Rehabilitation ......................................................................................... 8-13
8.5.2
Expanding Technical Assistance as Part of the IMT Program .............. 8-15
9.0
Assessment of Operations & Maintenance Plans ............................................................... 9-1

9.1 O&M Responsibilities ............................................................................................ 9-1
9.2 AMs Current & Past Performance ......................................................................... 9-1
9.2.1
Overview of Current Financial Management Practices ........................... 9-1
9.2.2
Past Financial Performance...................................................................... 9-2
9.2.3
Assessment of AMs Capacity for O&M............................................... 9-10
9.3 Assessment of WUOs Capacity for O&M .......................................................... 9-12
9.4 Annual O&M Budget to Sustain MCC Investment .............................................. 9-12
9.4.1
Assumptions........................................................................................... 9-12
9.4.2
Annual O&M Budget for Centralized (STI/AM) Management &
Decentralized (WUO) Management ...................................................... 9-14
9.5 Overview of Sound O&M Practices ..................................................................... 9-17
9.5.1
Operation and Maintenance Practices .................................................... 9-18
9.5.2
O&M Preventive and Normal Maintenance Plans................................. 9-19
9.5.3
O&M Workshops ................................................................................... 9-19
9.5.4
O&M Transport ..................................................................................... 9-20
9.5.5
WUO Office and Equipment ................................................................. 9-20
9.6 O&M Capacity Building ........................................................................................9.20
9.6.1
Financial Support for WUO ................................................................... 9-20
9.6.2
Financial Support for STI ...................................................................... 9-21
10.0 Implementation Management Plan ................................................................................... 10-1

10.1 Local Construction Capacity................................................................................. 10-1
10.1.1 Sizes of the Individual Central Irrigation Schemes (CIS) ..................... 10-1
10.1.2 Capability and Capacity of Local Construction Contractors ................. 10-1
10.1.3 Labor Availability .................................................................................. 10-3
10.2 Materials and Equipment Availability .................................................................. 10-4
10.3 Potential Concerns for Cost Overruns & Delays .................................................. 10-5
10.4 Implementation Approach .................................................................................... 10-6
10.4.1 General Standards and Procedures to be Adopted ................................. 10-6
10.4.2 Bidding and Contracting Approach ....................................................... 10-7
10.5 Implementing Entity ............................................................................................. 10-9
10.6 Implementation Plan ........................................................................................... 10-10
Main Report Final
v
December 2009
Table of Contents
11.0 Assessment of Financial Sustainability ............................................................................ 11-1

11.1 Overview of Appropriate Tariff Levels ................................................................ 11-1
11.1.1 Overview of Existing Tariff Structure ................................................... 11-2
11.1.2 Assumptions for Future Tariff Levels.................................................... 11-2
11.1.3 Appropriate Tariff Levels ...................................................................... 11-3
11.2 Assessment of Financial Sustainability ................................................................ 11-4
11.2.1 Potential Revenue Shortfalls .................................................................. 11-5
11.3 Sensitivity Analysis .............................................................................................. 11-6
11.4 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 11-9
12.0 Summary & Conclusions .................................................................................................. 12-1
12.1 Overview of Appropriate Tariff Levels ................................................................ 12-1
12.2 Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 12-2
Main Report Final
vi
December 2009
List of Tables
List of Tables
PAGE
ES-1
List of 16 CIS Proposed for Rehabilitation....................................................................ES-1
ES-2
Irrigation area within each CIS ......................................................................................ES-3
ES-3
Pump Station Serving 16 CIS ........................................................................................ES-5
ES-4
Areas irrigated in 2008 within the CIS under Consideration .........................................ES-9
ES-5
Summary of Estimated Implementation Cost for the Proposed CIS Rehabilitation

Projects.........................................................................................................................ES-11
ES-6
Preliminary Budget for Technical Assistance to AM ..................................................ES-13
ES-7 Basis of Annual Water Requirement Assumptions .....................................................ES-16

ES-8
Estimated Breakdown for the Unit Cost of Water for Year 2014 Assuming CIS under
WUO Management ......................................................................................................ES-17
ES-9
STI/AM Management ..................................................................................................ES-18
ES-10 Estimated Unit Cost of Water (MDL/m3) for Year 2020 & 2025 ...............................ES-19
ES-11 Planning Level Cost Estimates for WUO O&M Capacity Building ...........................ES-20
ES-12 Estimated Tariff Levels (MDL/m3) Based on Assumptions ........................................ES-26
ES-13 FIRR (2014-2040) ........................................................................................................ES-27
ES-14 Total Estimated Revenue Shortfall through 2025 Based on Current Assumptions .....ES-28
ES-15 Proposed MCC Investment for the Rehabilitation of 16 Proposed CIS ......................ES-29
1-1
List of 16 CIS Proposed for Rehabilitation...................................................................... 1-1
2-1
Area under Varying Pumping Heads ............................................................................... 2-2
2-2
Irrigation area within each CIS ........................................................................................ 2-4
2-3
Pump Stations Serving Tetcani CIS ................................................................................. 2-9
2-4
Pump Stations Serving Blindeti ................................................................................... 2-10
Main Report Final
vii
December 2009
List of Tables
2-5
Pump Stations Serving Grozeti .................................................................................... 2-11
2-6
Pump Stations Serving Crpinenii de Sus ..................................................................... 2-12
2-7
Pump Stations Serving Leova Sud ................................................................................. 2-12
2-8
Pump Stations Serving Chircani-Zrneti ...................................................................... 2-13
2-9
Pump Stations Serving Cahul ........................................................................................ 2-14
2-10
Pump Stations Serving Jora de Jos ................................................................................ 2-15
2-11
Pump Stations Serving Lopatna ..................................................................................... 2-15
2-12
Pump Stations Serving Conia ...................................................................................... 2-16
2-13
Pump Stations Serving Criuleni ..................................................................................... 2-17
2-14
Pump Stations Serving erpeni ...................................................................................... 2-18
2-15
Pump Stations Serving Puhceni ................................................................................... 2-18
2-16
Pump Stations Serving Rocani ..................................................................................... 2-19
2-17
Pump Stations Serving Talmaza .................................................................................... 2-20
2-18
Pump Stations Serving Suvorov .................................................................................... 2-21
3-1
Area under Irrigation in Moldova .................................................................................... 3-8
3-2
Areas irrigated in 2008 within the CIS under Consideration ........................................... 3-9
3-3
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Tetcani CIS ................................................... 3-10
3-4
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Blindeti CIS................................................. 3-11
3-5
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Grozeti CIS.................................................. 3-12
3-6
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Crpinenii de Sus CIS ................................... 3-13
3-7
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Leova Sud CIS .............................................. 3-15
3-8
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Chircani-Zrneti CIS.................................... 3-16
3-9
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Cahul ............................................................. 3-17
3-10
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Jora de Jos CIS.............................................. 3-18
Main Report Final
viii
December 2009
List of Tables
3-11
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Lopatna CIS .................................................. 3-19
3-12
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Conia .......................................................... 3-20
3-13
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Criuleni CIS .................................................. 3-22
3-14
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at erpeni CIS .................................................. 3-22
3-15
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Puhceni CIS ................................................ 3-23
3-16
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Rocani CIS .................................................. 3-24
3-17
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Talmaza CIS ................................................. 3-25
3-18
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Suvorov CIS.................................................. 3-26
4-1
Soil Salinity Risk Level ................................................................................................... 4-3
4-2
Soil Sodicity through ESP Level ..................................................................................... 4-3
4-3
Overview of Site Conditions at the 16 CIS being considered for Rehabilitation ............ 4-4
4-4
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Crpinenii de Sus....................... 4-6
4-5
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Chircani-Zrneti ....................... 4-7
4-6
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Cahul ......................................... 4-8
4-7
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Talmaza ..................................... 4-8
4-8
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Suvorov ..................................... 4-9
5-1
Moldovan Aquifer Development .................................................................................. 5-18
5-2
Major Moldovan Water Storage Facilities ..................................................................... 5-19
5-3
2008 - Prut River Water Quality Summary ................................................................... 5-20
5-4
2008 Nistru River Water Quality Summary ............................................................... 5-20
5-5
Permissible Salinity Limits for Classes of Irrigation Water .......................................... 5-22
5-6
Total Dissolved Solids in Prut and Nistru Rivers .......................................................... 5-22
5-7
Permissible SAR Limits for Irrigation Water ................................................................ 5-23
5-8
Sodium Adsorption Ratio Prut and Nistru Rivers ......................................................... 5-23
Main Report Final
ix
December 2009
List of Tables
5-9
Water Quality Standards - USEPA, Moldova, And Who .............................................. 5-25
5-10
Moldovan Aquifer Pollutants and Sources .................................................................... 5-27
5-11
Estimated Water Supply And Use In Moldova (2005) .................................................. 5-28
5-12
Prut River Water Availability After CIS Withdrawals

(Mid-April Through September).................................................................................... 5-33
5-13
Nistru River Water Availability After CIS Withdrawal

(Mid-April Through September).................................................................................... 5-33
5-14
Water Source Characteristics for Tetcani & Crpinenii de Sus ..................................... 5-34
5-15
Overview of IPCC Scenarios A2 and B2. (IPCC, 2000) ............................................... 5-37
5-16
Projections of Changes in the Average Air Temperature

and Precipitation In Moldova......................................................................................... 5-38
5-17
Projections of Average Annual Flow............................................................................. 5-38
5-18
Affect Of Climate Change on the Availability of Water for the Prut River Basin
Water through Year 2040............................................................................................... 5-39
5-19
Affect Of Climate Change on the Availability of Water for the Nistru River Basin Water
through Year 2040 ......................................................................................................... 5-39
6-1
Overview of Proposed Pump Stations at Tetcani ............................................................ 6-3
6-2
Overview of the Proposed Pump Stations at Crpinenii de Sus ...................................... 6-5
6-3
Proposed Additional Pipes & Hydrants at erpeni .......................................................... 6-7
6-4
Proposed Pipe Network at Puhceni ................................................................................ 6-7
6-5
Proposed Additional Pipes & Hydrants at Rocani ......................................................... 6-8
6-6
Proposed Additional Pipes & Hydrants at Talmaza ........................................................ 6-8
6-7
Overview of Proposed New Pump Stations at Suvorov .................................................. 6-9
7-1
Summary of Estimated Implementation Cost for the Proposed CIS Rehabilitation
Main Report Final
x
December 2009
List of Tables
Projects............................................................................................................................. 7-1
7-2
Historical Trends in Exchange Rate (MDL/US$).......................................................... 7-10
7-3
Inflation & Currency Exchange Factors used for Price Escalation ............................... 7-11
8-1
Preliminary Budget for Technical Assistance to AM .................................................... 8-14
9-1
Actual O&M Expenditure between 2004-2008 (in million MDL) .................................. 9-3
9-2
STI Revenues between 2004-2008 (in million MDL) ..................................................... 9-4
9-3
STI Revenues from Irrigation & Irrigation as a Percentage of Total STI 2004-2008 ..... 9-4
9-4
Calculated Shortfall in STI Operation of the Irrigation Services between 2004-2008 .... 9-5
9-5
State Support (in million MDL) to the STI between 2004-2008 ..................................... 9-6
9-6
State Subsidy to Cover O&M Cost versus O&M Expenditure........................................ 9-7
9-7
Chisinau STI O&M Expenditure Estimated at the Beginning of 2008 Season ............... 9-8
9-8
Basis of Annual Water Requirement Assumptions ....................................................... 9-13
9-9
WUO Management ..................................................................................................... 9-14
9-10
STI/AM Management .................................................................................................... 9-15
9-11
Estimated Unit Cost of Water (MDL/m3) for Year 2020 & 2025 ................................. 9-16
9-12
Planning Level Cost Estimates for WUO O&M Capacity Building ............................. 9-21
9-13
Planning Level Cost Estimates for STI O&M Capacity Building ................................. 9-22
10-1
Material and Equipment to be Used; Likely Sources .................................................... 10-4
11-1
Estimated Tariff Levels (MDL/m3) Based on Assumptions .......................................... 11-3
11-2
FIRR (2014-2040).......................................................................................................... 11-4
11-3
Total Estimated Revenue Shortfall through 2025 Based on Current Assumptions ....... 11-5
11-4
Revenue Shortfall through 2025 if Water Consumed is 50% less than Estimated Demand11-7
12-1
Proposed MCC Investment for the Rehabilitation of 16 Proposed CIS ........................ 12-1
Main Report Final
xi
December 2009
List of Tables
12-2
Irrigation Area within Each CIS .................................................................................... 12-1
Main Report Final
xii
December 2009
List of Figures
List of Figures
PAGE
ES-1
Location Of The 16 CIS Proposed For Rehabilitation......ES-2
ES-2
Typical CIS Scheme......ES-4
ES-3
Implementation Plan ES-24
ES-4
% Energy Subsidy Required to Offset Shortfall in Table ES-14.....ES-29
1-1
Location Of The 16 CIS Proposed For Rehabilitation.....1-2
2-1
Typical CIS Scheme.....2-3
2-2
Typical Power Supply for Pump Station..2-7
5-1
Precipitation Distribution In Moldova..... 5-7
5-2
Nistru River Basin. 5-10
5-3
Surface Water Flow Hydrographs For The Prut And Nistru Rivers, Moldova. 5-11
5-4
Annual Flow (Million m3/year) At Hrusca Station On The Nistru River From 1968
2007.5-12
5-5
Flood Events On The Nistru River Hrusca Gauging Station, Moldova. 5-13
5-6
Prut River Basin Map .5-14
5-7
Annual Flow (Million M3/Year) at Ungheni Station on the Prut River from 1961
2007.... 5-15
5-8
Flood Events On The Prut River Sireuti Gauging Station, Moldova. 5-16
5-9
Hydro-Geologic Columnar Section For Moldova.. 5-17
5-10
Piper Diagram - Prut River Water Quality Characteristics 5-21
5-11
Piper Diagram-Nistru River Water Quality Characteristics... 5-21
5-12
Seasonal Variations In TDA And SAR Components Prut River... 5-24
5-13
Seasonal Variations in TDS and SAR Components Nistru River.. 5-24
Main Report -Final
xiii
December 2009
List of Figures
5-14
Moldovan Deep Aquifer Drinking Water Suitability. 5-26
5-15
Regional Surface and Groundwater Used in Moldova. 5-29
5-16
1990 Water Use In The Prut Basin 5-30
5-17
1990 Water Use In The Nistru Basin..5-30
5-18
Comparison Of Surface Water To Groundwater Use In Moldova for 2006...5-36
7-1
Historical Average Annual Inflation Rates in Moldova... 7.8
7-2
Historical Trend in Currency Exchange (MDLUS$)..7-10
10-1
Contractual Relationships.........................................................................................10-12
10-2
Implementation Plan 10-13
11-1
% Energy Subsidy Required to Offset Shortfall in Table 11-3.. 11-6
11-2
% Energy Subsidy Required to Offset Shortfall in Table 11-4.. 11-8
Main Report Final
xiv
December 2009
List of Appendices
List of Appendices
Appendix A Historic Flow Data for Prut & Nistru Rivers

Appendix B Water Quality Data for Prut & Nistru Rivers
Appendix C Historic Water Use Data for Prut & Nistru River Basins
Appendix D Future Water Use Estimates for Prut & Nistru River Basins
Appendix E Assumptions for Basis of Design for Proposed Rehabilitation
Appendix F Apele Moldovei Organizational Chart
Appendix G Historic Revenue and Expenditure Data for Apele Moldovei
Appendix H Soil Salinity Evaluation Report
Appendix I Drainage Systems Evaluation Report
Appendix J Historic Electricity Tariffs in Moldova
Appendix K Inventory of Missing/Vandalized Electrical Components at Each CIS
Main Report -Final
xv
December 2009
List of Annexes
List of Annexes
(Under Separate Cover)
Annex 1:
Annex 2:
Annex 3:
Annex 4:
Annex 5:
Annex 6:
Annex 7:
Annex 8:
Annex 9:
Annex 10:
Annex 11:
Annex 12:
Annex 13:
Annex 14:
Annex 15:
Annex 16:
Project Profile Tetcani

Project Profile Blindesti
Project Profile Grozeti
Project Profile Crpinenii des Sus
Project Profile Leova Sud
Project Profile Chircani-Zrneti
Project Profile - Cahul
Project Profile - Jora de Jos
Project Profile Lopatna
Project Profile Cosnita
Project Profile Criuleni
Project Profile Serpeni
Project Profile Pugaceni
Project Profile Roscani
Project Profile Talmaza
Project Profile Suvorov
Main Report -Final
xvi
December 2009
List of Abbreviations
ACSA
AIPRE
AM
CEE
CIS
CITES
CNFA
DWS
EMEP
EU
EURO
FAO
FAS
GDP
GEF
GIS
GoM
HMS
ICP
IFAD
IMT
IMTPSP
INECO
ISO
IUCN
IPCC
LEAP
MAC
MAFI
MCA
MCC
MDL
MECTD
MENR
MRDA
MWH
NATO
NGO
OSCE
PIU
National Agency for Rural Development (Moldova)

Inter-rayon Production, Repairs, and Use Association (under AM)
Apele Moldovei
Central and Eastern Europe
Central Irrigation System
Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna
Citizens Network for Foreign Affairs
Drinking Water Standards
European Monitoring and Evaluation Program
European Union
EU currency
Food and Agriculture Organization
Foreign Agriculture Service
Gross Domestic Product
Global Environment Facility
Geographic Information System
Government of the Republic of Moldova
Hydro-meteorological Service
International Cooperation Program
International Fund for Agricultural Development (United Nations)
Irrigation Management Transfer
Irrigation Management Transfer Program Service Provider
National Institute of Ecology
International Standards Organization
International Union of Nature Conservation
International Panel on Climate Change
Local Environmental Action Plan
Maximum Allowable Concentration
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry
Millennium Challenge Account - Moldova
Millennium Challenge Corporation
Moldovan Lei (national currency)
Ministry of Ecology, Constructions and Territorial Development
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources
Moldovan Research and Development Association
Montgomery Watson Harza
North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Non-Governmental Organization
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe
Project Implementation Unit
Main Report - Final
i
December 2009
RFP
SAR
SEI
SOW
STI
TACIS
TOR
UN
UNDP
UNECE
UNEP
USA
USAID
USDA
USEPA
USU
VFD
WDC
WHO
WMO
WPI
WUO
Request for Proposal

Sodium Absorption Ratio
State Ecological Inspectorate
Scope of Work
Technological Irrigation Station (formerly AIPRE)
Technical Assistance for the Commonwealth of Independent States (EU)
Terms of Reference
United Nations
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Economic Commission for Europe
United Nations Environmental Program
United States of America
United States Agency for International Development
United States Department of Agriculture
United States Environment Protection Agency
Utah State University
Variable Frequency Drive
Water Data Centre
World Health Organization
World Meteorological Organization
Water Pollution Index
Water Users Organizations
Main Report - Final
ii
December 2009
Executive Summary
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) has been requested to assist Moldova with
transitioning to High Value Agriculture (HVA) for the purpose of increasing production
of high value-added fruits and vegetables. This is in keeping with MCCs goal of
fostering economic growth and alleviating poverty. Consistent with this goal, the
Government of Moldova (GoM) has requested MCCs assistance for the rehabilitation of
up to 16 Central Irrigation Systems (CIS).
The 16 CIS systems are supplied by surface waters contained within the Black Sea Basin,
in the watersheds of Moldovas two main rivers, the Nistru in the eastern portion of the
country and the Prut in the west. A list of the CIS considered for rehabilitation is
identified in the table below.
Table ES-1
List of 16 CIS Proposed for Rehabilitation
Prut River
Nistru River
1-1 Tetcani
11-6 Jora de Jos
3-2 Blindeti
3-6 Grozeti
4-5-1 Crpinenii de Sus
5-4 Leova Sud
11-7 Lopatna
12-3 Conia
14-2 Criuleni
14-6 erpeni
14-11 Puhceni
14-13 Rocani
17-2 Talmaza
17-3 Suvorov
6-6 Chircani-Zrneti
6-9 Cahul
* Cahul, Talmaza and Serpeni can be found under the name Masivul Cahul, Masivul Talmaza and Masivul
Suvorov, referring to the same area under irrigation command.
Figure ES-1 illustrates the location of the 16 CIS proposed for rehabilitation.
In addition to rehabilitating the CIS, MCC is also considering investing in the Irrigation
Management Transfer (IMT) program to establish and strengthen water users
organizations (WUOs) for the administration, operation, and maintenance of rehabilitated
CIS. The working premise of the MCC investment is that with the rehabilitation of the
CIS and transfer of management responsibilities to the water users (farmers), along with
providing access to on-farm irrigation equipment and market for their produce, farmers
will gradually move to more diversified crops and HVA production that will result in
increased farm incomes. This report addresses the findings of feasibility studies that is
limited to the rehabilitation of the CIS infrastructure.
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-1
Nistru River
1-1 Tecani
Ukraine
11-6 Jora de Jos
11-7 Lopatna
Prut River
14-2 Criuleni
12-3 Conia
3-2 Blindesti
3-6 Gozeti
14-6 Serpeni
4-5-1 Crpinenii de
sus
14-11 Pugcenii
Nistru River
Romania
14-13 Roscani
17-2 Masivul Talmaz

5-4 Leova Sud
17-3 Masivul Suvorov

6-6 ChircaniZrneti
6-9 Masivul
Cahul
Key:
Prut River
CIS for inclusion in final Feasibility and

Environmental Studies
River (Prut and Nistru)
Giurgiulesti - Danube
River port
Transnistria region
Proposed MCC road segments
graphics/Moldova/feasibility report/Figure ES-1.cdr
World Bank/EBRD/EIB roads segments (ongoing)

GOM road segments 2007
Planned GOM road segments 2008-2009
Not to Scale
FIGURE ES-1
LOCATION OF THE 16 CIS
PROPOSED FOR REHABILITATION
DECEMBER 2009
FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR THE 16 CIS

IN MOLDOVA PROPOSED FOR MCC FUNDING
Executive Summary
2.0
Overview of Systems under Consideration
Table ES-2 provides an overview of the irrigation area within each CIS that is being
considered for rehabilitation.
Table ES-2
Irrigation Area within Each CIS1
CIS Rehabilitation
Area of Irrigation
Project
(Hectares-Ha)
Tetcani
1,258
Blindeti
521
Grozeti
1,018
Crpinenii de Sus
1,815
Leova Sud
963
Chircani-Zrneti
4,417
Masivul Cahul
1,930
Jora de Jos
1,165
Lopatna
506
Conia
2,800
Criuleni
677
erpeni
1,107
Puhceni
856
Rocani
682
Masivul Talmaza
Masivul Suvorov
Total
2,468
13,394
35,577
1. Irrigation areas defined as the actual area irrigated

by the existing CIS infrastructure.
The CIS typically consists of a:

Primary system with a primary pump station located near the river intake, from
which water is pumped to another pump station (for additional lift) or storage
reservoirs with secondary pump stations and/or open channels to convey water to
the tertiary (pressure) pump stations; and
Tertiary system with one or more pressure pump stations designed to pump water
through a network of pipes that deliver water at hydrants throughout individual
farms.
A layout of a typical CIS is illustrated in Figure ES-2.
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-3
Executive Summary
Drainage System
Since, three of the CIS under consideration are located in the low plains of the Prut or
Nistru, engineering drainage systems are provided to remove excess water from the
irrigated fields. The source of this excess of water is mainly rivers (during high levels),
rainfall and irrigation. Draining excess water from the soil surface and the profile below
is necessary to maintain the water table below the root zone. This is essential for avoiding
salt accumulation around the root zone that would eventually contribute to soil salinity
conditions. Saline soils affect the crop yield of an irrigated area. The drainage systems
consist of a network of drainage canals collecting the excess of water from the fields
through which it is pumped back to either the Prut or Nistru rivers.
Pump Stations
An overview of the pump stations serving each of the 16 CIS is provided in the table
below.
Pump
Station
Table ES-3
Pump Stations Serving the 16 CIS
Irrigation
Number of Total Pump
Area
Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
313
Transit to SP-2
445
500
SR-3
SP-4
Transfer to SP-4
Transfer to SP-7
SP-4
260
SP-7
261
SP-11
SPR-12
SPR-12
SPR-12
SPR-12
Transfer
to SPR-12
389
240
240
140
NSG-1
NSP-1
Tetcani
3
2
3
2
Blindesti
3
2
1
1
2
4
Grozeti
3
3
2
2
Crpinenii de Sus
Transfer to NSP6
1
Transfer to NSP4
2
Head
(m)
330
880
330
440
105
90
105
57
380
360
180
90
105
500
63
92
90
50
120
95
660
Gravity Fed
420
360
120
139
2400
2200
92
100
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-5
65
87
36
Executive Summary
Pump
Station
NSP-2
NSP-4
NSP-4
NSP-7
NSP-7
S-28
S-2
S-5
Irrigation
Area
(Ha)
Number of
Pump
Units
Transfer to NSP4
280
2
3
648
3
567
2
320
1
Leova Sud
Transfer to S-2
6
9
(all
963
missing)
Chircani-Zrneti
1980
S-1
S-6
SPD-4
Drainage
3
3
2
SPD-5A
Drainage
SPP-3A
SPP-1
SPP-2
SPP-3
SPP-1
SPP-2
SP-1
SP-2
SPP
SP
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
S-1
2437
449
806
Drainage
675
Drainage
Drainage
235
Transfer to SP-1
100
259
Transfer to SP-2
80
278
213
Transfer to SP
358
148
986
353
Transfer to S-1
620
Cahul
4
4
2
3
3
3
Jora de Jos
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Lopatna
8
2
Conia
6
6
2
3
Total Pump
Capacity
(lps)
Head
(m)
2160
230
550
415
255
26.5
61
92
89
65
1560
898
128
53-91
660
200
750
670
800
57
57
54
57
13
3500
22
880
1200
1400
700
1200
3000
57
54
17
10
21
20
220
630
110
360
500
120
140
210
75
60
95
90
195
92
53
44
468
By gravity
180
110
880
440
1100
660
57
98
14
85
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-6
50
Executive Summary
Pump
Station
SP-4
NSP-1
NSP-2
NS-3
S-10
Irrigation
Area
(Ha)
578
263
459
122
Transfer to NS-3
96
S-14
Transfer to S-12
670
Transfer to S-14
437
S-17
S-18
438
418
S-20
S-22
Transfer to S-22
682
ONS-1
NS-2
Transfer NS-2
465
801
1202
Drainage
Drainage
Drainage
S-12
T-2
D-1
D-2
T-3
GNS
NSP
PNS-1
PNS-1
PNS-1
PNS-2
PNS-3
PNS-4
PNS-5
PNS-6
PNS-7
PNS-7
Transfer to NSP
Transfer to PNS1
1827
430
Transfer to PNS2
2069
939
2206
159
200
340
320
Number of
Pump
Units
Total Pump
Capacity
(lps)
Head
(m)
2
3
Criuleni
2
1
1
2
erpeni
2
4
4
2
Puhceni
3
3
Rocani
460
395
155
50
360
180
360
160
62
50
50
70
700
560
40
350
70
70
70
85
420
300
65
45
3
4
Talmaza
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
Suvorov
4
4
3
3
2
6
3
3
4
2
2
2
780
960
92
92
2800
660
800
1200
330
330
800
3000
5.5
70
90
90
10
10
20
20
6200
6200
2200
2200
1500
1620
710
2100
880
500
395
300
80
80
85
85
51
80
73
80
57
84
Fed by
gravity
55
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-7
Executive Summary
Pump
Station
Irrigation
Area
(Ha)
Number of
Pump
Units
Total Pump
Capacity
(lps)
Head
(m)
S-1
S-2
S-2
S-2
S-3
S-3
Transfer to S-2
770
1380
Transfer to S-3
2017
737
5
4
6
4
6
3
2260
720
1290
1650
1470
600
90
57
66
40
90
68
Note: Existing pump capacities are based on best available, reliable data. This will
need to be verified prior to detailed design.
For additional details on each of the CIS, please refer to its corresponding annex.
Piping Network
The area of 35,577 ha within the 16 CIS is covered by a total of 997.68 km of principal,
secondary and tertiary pipes varying in diameter from 1000 mm to 100 mm. Pipe
materials vary from concrete, asbestos cement and steel. From the underground pipe
network the water is distributed to the field through hydrants and sprinkler equipment.
Hydrants for sprinkler equipment are spaced at 50 72 m along tertiary pipes. The
distance between tertiary pipes varies in the range between 600 to 800 m.
In-field irrigation equipment, normally of 200 400 m length fitted with sprinklers
distributes the water under pressure to the crops. Sprinkler spacing is normally 18 x 24 m
up to 24 x 24m. Design pressure at the hydrant is of 3 6 bars and at the sprinkler
nozzles are normally 2.5 - 5 bars.
Dams
Dams are currently part of three CIS: Tetcani, Crpinenii de Sus and Suvorov.
Tetcani CIS was originally designed to be supplied with water entirely from a manmade
lake impounded by a dam. The dam is a compacted clay, earth dam, 13.6 m in height and
capable of storing a volume of water of up to 930,000 m3.
Suvorov CIS is partly (4,904 ha out of the total 13,389 ha) supplied by a manmade lake
impounded by a dam, 15 m in height and can store a volume of water of up to 8,000,000
m3. This is also a compacted clay earth dam.
Crpinenii de Sus was originally designed to supply the entire irrigation area (1,815 ha)
via a man-made lake impounded by a dam. The dam is also a compacted clay, earth dam,
13.5 m in height and capable of storing a volume of water of up to 12,206,000 m3.
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-8
Executive Summary
Institutional Background
The CIS in Moldova are owned by the Apele Moldovei (AM), an existing governmental
entity, and its operations are managed at the regional level by 12 State Controlled
Technical Irrigation Stations (STI).
AMs principle functions are to provide the policy direction and implementation for
water resources management. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of the
systems (CIS and potable water) rests ultimately with AM although the daily operation,
tariff setting and collection, and maintenance functions are delegated to the 12 STIs.
3.0
Overview of Existing Conditions
The existing CIS infrastructure was built in the early 1960s and subsequently
rehabilitated and expanded over the years, with the last wave of rehabilitation occurring
around the late 1980s. The total area under irrigation in 2008 is provided in provided in
Table ES-4.
Table ES-4
Areas irrigated in 2008 within the
CIS under Consideration
CIS
Area Irrigated (ha) 1
Tetcani
Blindeti
Grozeti
Crpinenii de Sus
Leova Sud
Chircani-Zrneti
Cahul
Jora de Jos
Lopatna
Conia
Criuleni
erpeni
Puhceni
Rocani
Talmaza
Suvorov
Total Area
52
0
20
69
0
0
0
119
47.5
642.9
46.5
0
55
123.9
85
2,528.9
3,789.7
1. Data Provided by each STI
Discussions with AM and the respective STI provided a myriad of reasons for this
decline, ranging from dilapidated, unreliable CIS infrastructure to land fragmentation and
foreign migration that has contributed to a general decline in agricultural activities. Due
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-9
Executive Summary
to limited resources AM has not been able to maintain or rehabilitate systems as required.
Based on its previous assessments, due to unfavorable locations and subsequent high
costs of pumping water, rehabilitation of some pump stations and some segments of the
pipe network were deemed unfeasible.
For additional details on the assessment of existing infrastructure please refer to Section
3.0 and the annexes corresponding to each CIS.
4.0
Assumptions for Basis of Rehabilitation Plans
Rehabilitation plans for each CIS were developed based on the assessment of its existing
conditions, and the existing CISs ability to deliver the required water for HVA crop
cultivation, as recommended in the USU report and as directed by MCC. Based on these
crop water requirements, the following criteria established the basis for infrastructure
needs:
Ability for the CIS to supply a flow of 1 lps/ha (established based on MCCs
acceptance of USU recommendation);
A minimum water pressure at the hydrants of 4 bars (established based on
discussions between MCC, MCA-Moldova and Apele Moldovei);
Energy efficient systems.
In defining the infrastructure requirements for the above criteria, the following
assumptions were made:
The typical watering equipment is assumed to be Reel Hose, Hand-moving
laterals, Drip irrigation equipment or of similar kind that function at the
minimum pressure identified.
Discharge rate of the water equipment is assumed to be 20 lps.
Pressure pump stations would need to have adequate capacity to meet the 1 lps/ha
criteria.
5.0
Overview of Proposed Rehabilitation
In summary, the proposed rehabilitation include:

Rehabilitation interventions identified and included in Section 3.0, based on
technical assessment of present condition of existing infrastructure (pump
stations, pipe network, hydrants, dams, drainage network etc.);
Replacement of pump units to provide capacity to meet the design criteria of 1
lps/ha;
New pump stations to provide the desired capacity of 1lps/ha where simply
increasing/replacing existing pumps capacities was not sufficient;
Main Report Final
December 2009
ES-10
Executive Summary
New pump stations at Tetcani and Crpinenii de Sus to feed the CIS directly from
the Prut River instead of their existing source, which in both cases are lakes
impounded by existing dams. In the case of Tetcani, water volumes in the lake is
not adequate to supply water at the desired capacity, while at Crpinenii, the
water in the lake was found to be highly saline and not conducive for long term
irrigation.
For additional details on the specific rehabilitation plans within each CIS, please refer to
Section 6.0 and the annexes corresponding to each CIS.
Main Report Final
ES-11
December 2009
Executive Summary
8.0
Operations & Maintenance Budgets
Traditionally, the budget for operating and managing the CIS are prepared by each STI
using the methodology and guidelines mandated in 2007. According to this mandate,
STIs must reflect all costs for operation so that they are self supporting. This budget, in
effect, should have two components: fixed cost (operation and maintenance of the
infrastructure, or O&M Cost) and energy cost. The O&M cost and the energy cost are
identified at the beginning of the season based on estimates of total water requested by
the farmers within its service area.
The amount of water needed per farm is determined by contracts signed between the STI
and the individual farmer prior to the beginning of irrigation season each year. The O&M
cost (cost for labor & materials) is estimated at each CIS by the managing STI by
employing a formula that takes into account the total amount of water requested by all the
farmers within its service area. Energy cost, which reflects the power (electricity) needed
to pump this contracted water, is estimated by the STI based on the cost per kilowatthours (KWH) for that particular CIS.
Based on current practices, energy cost is subsidized by the government. For this reason,
the energy cost component does not show up as a cost (or expenditure) on the STI
accounting sheets for past budgets. It should also be noted that the fixed component is
also subsidized by the state (O&M irrigation service subsidy). So the STI expenditure
only identifies O&M cost not covered by energy or O&M irrigation service subsidies.
The STI expenditure is typically estimated at the beginning of the season for identifying
tariff levels for that season.
Assumptions for Estimating Future O&M Budgets
The O&M budgets for the rehabilitated CIS assume that some CIS would be online by
2014. For the purpose of consistency, the annual O&M budget has been identified for all
CIS starting with at 2014.
Since the cost of operating and maintaining the system is based on delivering the total
water required each season, the annual O&M cost will increase with the increase in water
requirements over this period due to increased crop-water demand. This demand will
depend on the total area within each CIS being irrigated and the percentage of this area
being irrigated for HVA. This demand would increase as more farmers get organized and
begin irrigating and simultaneously transitioning to HVA crops. The assumption for %
HVA crops and areas being irrigated over the subsequent 12 years of operation was
provided by MCC and identified in Table ES-7.
Main Report Final
ES-12
December 2009
Executive Summary
CIS
Tetcani
Blindeti
Grozeti
Crpinenii
de Sus
Leova Sud
ChircaniZrneti
Cahul
Jora de Jos
Lopatna
Conia
Criuleni
erpeni
Puhceni
Roscani
Talmaza
Suvorov
Table ES-7
Basis of Annual Water Requirement Assumptions1
2014
2020
2025
% of Total
% of Total
% of Total
%
Area
Area
% HVA
Area
% HVA
HVA
Irrigated
Irrigated
Irrigated
45%
45%
45%
78%
42%
76%
92%
65%
86%
83%
66%
78%
93%
78%
99%
83%
67%
78%
45%
47%
68%
68%
80%
69%
45%
49%
69%
68%
82%
68%
45%
51%
70%
70%
83%
71%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
33%
58%
69%
42%
56%
42%
60%
73%
36%
36%
60%
76%
82%
66%
74%
66%
76%
87%
61%
61%
62%
71%
76%
65%
70%
65%
74%
74%
62%
64%
72%
89%
95%
79%
86%
78%
88%
100%
72%
74%
64%
71%
76%
66%
71%
65%
74%
73%
64%
65%
1. Assumptions provided by MCC. Water Requirements between the years are assumed to grow linearly.
Other relevant assumptions made in developing the annual O&M budget include the
following:
Farmers will be adequately equipped, resourced and organized by 2014 to support the
assumptions in Table ES-7.
WUOs will be certified, and in place with adequate capacity to start irrigation
operations during this period.
The unit price of energy (per KWH) is assumed to increase at an annual rate of 12%
as per discussions with Union Fenosa. Given, historic energy prices, this can be
considered conservative for the purpose of this feasibility study. Historic energy
prices in Moldova are provided in Appendix J.
Replacement cost for equipment is included in the O&M budget at a rate of 4% per
annum (based on a straight line replacement cost schedule per asset life of 25 years).
While the STI budgets include depreciation, for this study there is no depreciation
line item in the rehabilitated system budget.
Main Report Final
ES-13
December 2009
Executive Summary
Fixed cost for the centralized management of a single rehabilitated CIS was based on
O&M costs from 2007 STI expenditures, normalized over the total area irrigated and
number of pump stations, and pro-rated for operating the rehabilitated CIS. This was
adjusted to account for an inflation of 12.7% to get it to 2009 cost.
2009 Labor cost for WUO management is based on minimum personnel requirement.
The remaining components of the fixed cost were estimated to maintain parity with
historic STI expenditure for these items and adjusted by CIS based on discussions
with AM and information provided.
All costs are brought up to 2010 values using an inflation factor of 4 %. Costs are
inflated on an annual basis at 4 % for 2009 and 2010, then increased to 6% in 2011,
then increased to 9.3% per annum until 2025, when it is assumed production and
capacity have stabilized, and then are held flat until 2040.
Annual O&M Budget for Centralized (STI/AM) Management & Decentralized
(WUO) Management
The annual O&M budget contains the following components:
Fixed Cost.
Energy Cost.
Replacement Cost.
As per the above discussion, the main factor determining the O&M budget is the
estimation of the total water requirements. Further, based on the assumptions, fixed cost,
energy cost and replacement cost components were identified for each CIS starting in
year 2014 and through 2025. The total annual O&M budget was divided by the total
water requirement for that year to identify the unit cost of water.
Table ES-8 identifies the provides the breakdown for the three components of the unit
cost of water for the year 2014 assuming the total water requirements estimated based on
governing assumptions (Table ES-7) and WUO management.
Table ES-8
Estimated Breakdown for the Unit Cost of Water for Year 2014
Assuming CIS under WUO Management
Energy
Unit
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost as %
Cost of
CIS
Cost
Cost
Cost
of Cost of
Water
(MDL/m3) (MDL/m3)
(MDL/m3)
3
Water
(MDL/m )
Tetcani
0.50
2.87
1.06
4.43
65%
Blindeti
0.54
1.78
0.33
2.65
67%
Grozeti
Crpinenii de
Sus
0.2
1.86
0.41
2.47
75%
0.21
2.29
1.05
3.55
65%
Main Report Final
ES-14
December 2009
Executive Summary
CIS
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost
Cost
Cost
(MDL/m3) (MDL/m3)
(MDL/m3)
Unit
Cost of
Water
(MDL/m3)
Energy
Cost as %
of Cost of
Water
Leova Sud
ChircaniZrneti
Cahul
0.18
1.66
0.23
2.07
80%
0.19
0.67
0.25
1.11
60%
0.51
0.66
0.31
1.48
45%
Jora de Jos
0.27
1.95
0.37
2.59
75%
Lopatna
0.39
1.08
0.16
1.63
66%
Conia
0.13
0.94
0.17
1.24
76%
Criuleni
0.38
0.69
0.17
1.24
56%
erpeni
0.24
1.78
0.42
2.44
73%
Puhceni
0.21
0.74
0.22
1.17
63%
Roscani
0.28
1.49
0.25
2.02
74%
Talmaza
Suvorov
0.18
0.1
0.65
2.56
0.27
0.39
1.10
3.05
59%
84%
Similar breakdown is provided for the rehabilitated CIS assuming STI/AM management
in Table ES-9.
Table ES-9
Assuming CIS under STI/AM Management
Energy
Unit
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost of Cost as %
CIS
Cost
Cost
Cost
of Cost of
Water
(MDL/m3) (MDL/m3)
(MDL/m3)
3
Water
(MDL/m )
Tetcani
0.11
2.87
1.06
4.04
71%
Blindeti
0.04
1.78
0.33
2.15
83%
Grozeti
0.03
1.86
0.41
2.30
81%
Crpinenii de Sus
0.09
2.29
1.05
3.43
67%
Leova Sud
0.03
1.66
0.23
1.92
86%
Chircani-Zrneti
0.14
0.67
0.25
1.06
63%
Cahul
0.26
0.66
0.31
1.23
54%
Jora de Jos
0.42
1.95
0.37
2.74
71%
Lopatna
0.21
1.08
0.16
1.45
74%
Conia
0.25
0.94
0.17
1.36
69%
Criuleni
0.02
0.69
0.17
0.88
78%
Main Report Final
ES-15
December 2009
Executive Summary
CIS
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost
Cost
Cost
(MDL/m3) (MDL/m3)
(MDL/m3)
Unit
Cost of
Water
(MDL/m3)
Energy
Cost as %
of Cost of
Water
erpeni
0.03
1.78
0.42
2.23
80%
Puhceni
0.02
0.74
0.22
0.98
76%
Roscani
0.02
1.49
0.25
1.76
85%
Talmaza
Suvorov
0.18
0.39
0.65
2.56
0.27
0.39
1.10
3.34
59%
77%
The difference in the unit cost of water between the two management options is in the
fixed cost. Energy cost and replacement cost, being system specific, will be the same
under either management. However, the STI managed systems would have a slight
advantage in pooling its labor and material resources to operate multiple CIS, thus
resulting in a lower fixed cost component than that under WUO management. For more
details on the development of the unit cost of water, please refer to the supporting
annexes.
More importantly, Table ES-8 and ES-9 illustrate that regardless of the management, the
predominant factor driving the unit cost of water is the energy cost. Since the CIS in
Moldova relies on pumping water from the low river levels to higher elevations where
most of the CIS under consideration are located, the cost of pumping would be a
significant component of the cost of water. As these above tables illustrate, the energy
cost can be as low at 45% for a low lying CIS like Cahul, and as high as 84% for a
system like Suvorov, which relies of multiple lift stations in series to get water to the
irrigation areas. The fixed and replacement cost factors are relatively smaller in
comparison.
The estimated unit cost of water for 2020 and 2025 are provided in Table ES-10.
Table ES-10
Estimated Unit Cost of Water (MDL/m3) for Year 2020 & 2025
2020
2025
CIS
Centralized Decentralized Centralized Decentralized
Tetcani
6.40
6.73
10.90
11.40
Blindeti
3.84
4.39
6.54
7.26
Grozeti
3.96
4.11
6.78
6.99
Crpinenii de Sus
5.47
5.59
8.97
9.14
Leova Sud
3.49
3.65
6.01
6.22
Chircani-Zrneti
1.66
1.72
2.72
2.79
Cahul
1.90
2.20
2.99
3.37
Jora de Jos
4.53
4.37
7.60
7.40
Main Report Final
ES-16
December 2009
Executive Summary
CIS
2020
Centralized Decentralized
2025
Lopatna
2.44
2.61
4.14
4.36
Conia
2.27
2.14
3.77
3.60
Criuleni
1.51
1.87
2.56
3.03
erpeni
Puhceni
Roscani
3.89
1.64
3.12
4.12
1.84
3.36
6.59
2.76
5.39
6.90
3.03
5.71
Talmaza
1.70
1.71
2.77
2.78
Suvorov
5.86
5.51
9.84
9.39
Details of the total O&M budget (estimated unit cost of water) for each CIS through 2025
are presented in their respective annexes (Annex 1- 16) supporting this report.
O&M Capacity Building Support
A preliminary assessment for building O&M capacity for the decentralized (WUO)
management was identified. WUO capacities will need to be built from scratch to enable
it to takeover operation & maintenance management responsibilities. In the interest of
being self reliant, it would be ideal for each WUO to not have to depend on its respective
STI to borrow tools & equipment.
9.0
Implementation Management Plan
MWH recommends that MCA-Moldova contract the following parties directly for
implementation of the project:
Technical Assistance (TA) for the Implementing Entity (discussed in Section 8
and later in this Section);
An engineering firm to conduct the final design of the work and to prepare the
contract documents;
A supervising engineer to oversee that the construction contractor(s) adhere to the
requirements of their contract; and, naturally,
The construction contractor(s).
With regard to the construction contract(s), the overall project lends itself better to a
conventional design-bid-build (DBB) contract than a design-build (DB) contract, for the
following reasons:
DB contracts do not lend themselves well to underground work, nor to projects in
which rehabilitation is involved. The CIS includes both. It is better to have the
designer explore these issues in the field and define the scope in more detail, prior
Main Report Final
ES-17
December 2009
Executive Summary
to the project being bid. Otherwise, bidders would either include contingencies in
their bid and thus inflate their bid price, or bid the project low and pursue claims
later.
As the projects have been studied in some detail already, it is best to leverage that
information and complete the designs as soon as possible, instead of waiting for
the eventual successful bidder to engage a designer who, later on, would still have
to undergo a learning curve.
Under a DBB approach, field investigations and design work can conducted and
simultaneously with the prequalification process for contractors. Such work
could also occur simultaneously with implementation of the IMT program.
One normal advantage of a DB contract, simultaneous design and construction
work, does not truly exist on this project.
The sheer nature of this particular MCC program makes a DBB approach the only viable
option. It would be less expensive, take less time, and be less risky than a DB approach.
It is also recommended that larger international bidders be permitted to bid on the project.
The current international construction market is such that there should be significant
interest in the project. While this may change before any award of any CIS construction
contract, it is currently believed that the industry should still be fairly competitive in the
upcoming year or so.
Construction Packaging
As discussed in previous sections of this report, the overall project is made up of
numerous individual projects, which consist primarily of rehabilitation and/or
replacement of existing agricultural infrastructure. To increase the pool of potential
bidders, it may be advisable to afford bidders the option of bidding all projects or certain
groups of projects. This would attract larger contractors, who may otherwise find it
difficult to compete with medium-sized contractors, to bid on the overall project. A
single project (or fewer projects), in practice is easier to manage than having multiple
smaller projects.
For the sake of this study, the following bid packaging was assumed:
Bid Package 1 Rehabilitation of seven Prut River CIS projects (Tetcani,
Blindesti, Grozeti, Crpinenii de Sus, Leova Sud, Chircani-Zrneti, and Cahul).
Bid Package 2 Rehabilitation of nine Nistru River CIS projects (Jora de Jos,
Lopatna, Cosnita, Criuleni, Serpeni, Puhceni, Rocani, and Talmaza).
Bid Package 3 Rehabilitation of the Suvorov CIS in the Nistru River Basin.
This project was isolated as a separate bid package due to its size and technical
nature. Per Table ES-5, its implementation cost represents 47% of the total cost
of all CIS projects addressed in this study. Additionally, unlike all the other CIS
projects, its scope contains dam rehabilitation work, which require specialized
construction.
Main Report Final
ES-18
December 2009
Executive Summary
Final bid packaging would be dependent on MCCs selection of which CIS projects it
intends to fund, and refinements that would occur during the detailed design and bid
document preparation stage. The contractor prequalification stage may also warrant
further optimization of the bid packaging approach.
Main Report Final
ES-19
December 2009
Executive Summary
Implementation Plan
A detailed project implementation plan is provided as Figure ES-3. Five-day work weeks
were assumed to develop the schedule. Where days are shown on the schedule, they
should be considered as work days. The sequence shown on the schedule in which the
various projects are constructed reflect one set of possibilities; the actual sequence of
construction and intermediate milestones contained in the eventual construction
contract(s) should be determined nearer to the time of bid document issuance based on
which project areas, and which WUOs, are ready first. As little such information exists
as of the writing of this study, the sequence can be shuffled in any manner at this time.
An analysis of this schedule indicates that:
The time frame of five years is sufficient to undertake all the projects being
considered.
The establishment and registration of WUOs (December 1, 2010) is on the
projects critical path.
The construction / rehabilitation work is expected to last 2 to 3 years for all bid
packages.
Bid Package #3, which only includes the Suvorov CIS, involves rehabilitation of a
dam. Such work may require cofferdams and may be sensitive to high river flows.
As with all the of the CIS projects, the duration of the projects should be reevaluated as the design work proceeds.
Some flexibility exists in the schedule to postpone the issuance of bid documents
somewhat if delays occur in the registration of WUOs after December 1, 2010;
however, this would result in higher construction costs to accelerate construction
if the delays end up being significant, or would result in less time after
construction to monitor the performance of the constructed improvements and the
effectiveness of the WUOs, or both.
Similar flexibility exists in the schedule to handle potential delays resulting from
changed condition claims.
As some of the projects are relatively small, their performance, as well as that of
their respective WUOs, may be measured through two growing seasons, provided
they are scheduled to be among the first completed. Unless there are delays, it
should be possible to make such observations for at least one growing season on
all projects.
At this time, MWHs biggest concern relating to schedule risk (and thus also cost risk) is
the timely establishment of WUOs.
Main Report Final
ES-20
December 2009
Figure ES-3 - Implementation Plan

ID
1
Task Name
Compact Signing
Duration
0 days
Start
Thu 10/1/09
Finish
Thu 10/1/09
Implementing Entity Agreement
0 days
Tue 12/1/09
Tue 12/1/09
Compact Entry Into Force
0 days
Mon 3/1/10
Mon 3/1/10
5-year Compact Duration
261 wks
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 2/27/15
WUOs Established & Registered
0 days
Wed 12/1/10
Wed 12/1/10
Procure Technical Assistance
105 days
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 2/24/10
Establish RFP & TOR
8 wks
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 11/25/09
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Thu 11/26/09
Wed 12/2/09
MCC Approval
1 wk
Thu 12/3/09
Wed 12/9/09
10
Proposal Period
4 wks
Thu 12/10/09
Wed 1/6/10
11
Evaluate Proposals
3 wks
Thu 1/7/10
Wed 1/27/10
12
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Thu 1/28/10
Wed 2/3/10
13
MCC Approval
14
Contract Negotiation & Signing
15
Technical Assistance Services
1 wk
Thu 2/4/10
Wed 2/10/10
2 wks
Thu 2/11/10
Wed 2/24/10
1305 days
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 2/27/15
16
Mobilization; Inception Report
4 wks
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 3/26/10
17
Establish Communications Protocols
6 wks
Mon 3/29/10
Fri 5/7/10
18
Establish Financial Reporting Protocols
6 wks
Mon 3/29/10
Fri 5/7/10
19
General Oversight of Projects
257 wks
Mon 3/29/10
Fri 2/27/15
20
Procure Designer & Supervising Engr
105 days
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 2/24/10
8 wks
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 11/25/09
1 wk
Thu 11/26/09
Wed 12/2/09
21
Establish RFP & TOR
22
MCA-M Approval
23
MCC Approval
1 wk
Thu 12/3/09
Wed 12/9/09
24
Proposal Period
4 wks
Thu 12/10/09
Wed 1/6/10
25
Evaluate Technical Proposals
2 wks
Thu 1/7/10
Wed 1/20/10
26
Evaluate Financial Proposals
1 wk
Thu 1/21/10
Wed 1/27/10
27
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Thu 1/28/10
Wed 2/3/10
28
MCC Approval
29
1 wk
Thu 2/4/10
Wed 2/10/10
2 wks
Thu 2/11/10
Wed 2/24/10
1137 days
Mon 3/1/10
Tue 7/8/14
6 wks
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 4/9/10
30
Design / Supervising Engr Services
31
32
Field Investigations
22 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Fri 9/10/10
33
Finalize Designs
34 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Fri 12/3/10
34
Procure Contractor (see below)
65.4 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Tue 7/12/11
35
Prepare Bid Documents
28 wks
Mon 5/31/10
Fri 12/10/10
36
Mobilize Field Staff
37
Adminster Construction Contracts
38
Procure Construction Contractor
2 wks
Wed 6/29/11
Tue 7/12/11
156 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 7/8/14
327 days
Mon 4/12/10
Tue 7/12/11
5 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Fri 5/14/10
39
Prepare Constr Prequal Docs
40
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Mon 5/17/10
Fri 5/21/10
41
MCC Approval
1 wk
Mon 5/24/10
Fri 5/28/10
42
Advertise Project
6 wks
Mon 5/31/10
Fri 7/9/10
43
Contractors Prepare Quals
8 wks
Mon 7/12/10
Fri 9/3/10
44
Evaluate Quals / Shortlist Contractors
5 wks
Mon 9/6/10
Fri 10/8/10

Project: Moldova - 16 CIS
Date: Tue 8/11/09
2009
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
10/1
Qtr 1
2010
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2011
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2012
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
12/1
3/1
12/1
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Page 1
Deadline
Qtr 1
2013
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2014
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2
Qtr 2

ID
45
Task Name
MCA-M Approval
Duration
3 wks
Start
Mon 10/11/10
Finish
Fri 10/29/10
2 wks
Mon 11/1/10
Fri 11/12/10
2 wks
Wed 12/1/10
Tue 12/14/10
16 wks
Wed 12/15/10
Tue 4/5/11
46
MCC Approval
47
Finalize Bid Packaging
48
Bidding Period
49
Evaluation of Bids
6 wks
Wed 4/6/11
Tue 5/17/11
50
MCA-M Approval
2 wks
Wed 5/18/11
Tue 5/31/11
51
MCC Approval
1 wk
Wed 6/1/11
Tue 6/7/11
52
3 wks
Wed 6/8/11
Tue 6/28/11
53
54
Notice to Proceed
BP#1 Rehab Work - Prut River
2 wks
Wed 6/29/11
Tue 7/12/11
715 days
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 4/8/14
55
Mobilization
8 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 9/6/11
56
Tetcani
73 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 1/29/13
57
Blindesti
37 wks
Wed 1/30/13
Tue 10/15/13
58
Grozesti
45 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 7/17/12
59
Carpenenii de Sus
90 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 2/11/14
60
Leova Sud
37 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 5/22/12
61
Chircani-Zirnesti
91 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 6/4/13
62
Cahul
69 wks
Wed 7/18/12
Tue 11/12/13
63
64
Final Completion & Demobilization

BP#2 Rehab Work - Nistru River
8 wks
Wed 2/12/14
Tue 4/8/14
700 days
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 3/18/14
65
Mobilization
8 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 9/6/11
66
Jora de Jos
45 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 7/17/12
67
Lopatna
20 wks
Wed 7/18/12
Tue 12/4/12
68
Cosnita
50 wks
Wed 12/5/12
Tue 11/19/13
69
Criuleni
37 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 5/22/12
70
Serpeni
50 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 5/7/13
71
Puhaceni
45 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 7/17/12
72
Roscani
37 wks
Wed 5/8/13
Tue 1/21/14
73
Talmaza
77 wks
Wed 7/18/12
Tue 1/7/14
74
75

BP#3 Rehab Work - Suvorov
76
Mobilization
77
Suvorov
78
79
Turnover of Completed Work to WUOs
80
Monitoring of WUO Effectiveness
81
Compact Completion

Date: Tue 8/11/09
8 wks
Wed 1/22/14
Tue 3/18/14
705 days
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 3/25/14
8 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 9/6/11
125 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 1/28/14
8 wks
Wed 1/29/14
Tue 3/25/14
98 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 4/8/14
144 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 2/24/15
0 days
Fri 2/27/15
Fri 2/27/15
2009
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2010
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2011
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2012
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2013
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2014
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2
Qtr 2
2/27
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Page 2
Deadline
Executive Summary
10.0 Financial Sustainability

Financial sustainability is defined as the ability to cover operation and maintenance costs
through the collection and application of water user fees. Financial sustainability and the
subsequent analyses are limited to the ability of the WUO to operate and sustain the
proposed rehabilitated CIS.
Overview of Appropriate Tariff Levels
The first step in assessing the financial sustainability of the proposed investment is
identifying the appropriate annual tariff levels to meet the proposed annual O&M budget
required for undertaking sound O&M practices that ensure long term sustainability. Since
ability to pay or willingness to pay assessment was not part of the scope of this work, and
since adequate data was not available for review at the time of writing this report, an
assumption was made that the ability to pay, that is, to meet the tariff on the cost of
water, will only be met partially until full transition into HVA crops is attained.
Assumptions for Future Tariff Levels
Appropriate tariff levels for the future are based on the following assumptions:
The MCC funded rehabilitated CIS will be operated under decentralized WUO
management.
The cost of water will form the basis of identifying the unsubsidized tariff levels.
WUO will be authorized to collect tariffs, and equip themselves with the
necessary mechanisms and tools to levy tariffs that are needed to sustain their
budgets.
Adequate guidelines will be provided to WUO to determine O&M budgets and
tariffs. This is to ensure that current practices of estimating the fixed cost that
formulate tariff levels are not adopted without revision to address the shortfall and
potential system abuse of over estimating water needs that tend to drive the
tariff levels down at the beginning of the year.
The prevailing premise of the current sustainability analysis is the assumption that
with the HVA transition, the farmers will have the ability to pay the needed tariffs
over the long run and have a realistic profit. However, over the initial years, it
may be too optimistic to assume that the farmers will have the capacity to pay for
the water, which could be potentially three times what they are paying now. For
the purpose of this analysis, tariff levels are assumed to be 75% of the cost of
water in 2014 and gradually increasing to approximately 88% by 2020 and 100%
by 2024.
Main Report Final
ES-22
December 2009
Executive Summary
Appropriate Tariff Levels
The appropriate level of tariff represents the charge per unit of water that a farmer will
pay for the cost of that water. From a WUOs perspective, the tariff level that is
appropriate is that which will meet the unit cost of supplying water on an annual basis.
The cost of water for the years 2014, 2020 and 2025 was previously identified in Table
ES-8 and ES-9, respectively. The corresponding tariff level based on the above
assumption is provided in Table ES-12.
Assessment of Financial Sustainability

A measure of financial sustainability is made by an internal rate of return analysis, which
in effect determines the rate, which reduces a future stream of revenues and costs to zero.
This rate reflects the return on the project over time, and is a measure used to determine
whether investment in a project is justified. It is also helpful in ranking various
components of a project as worthy of investment as opposed to other components.
The implementation cost of the project are to be met through a grant and are thus treated
as a sunk cost, leaving the sustainability to be determined based on the unit cost of water
and tariff level assumptions identified above.
It should be noted that the FIRR is identified on full cost accounting with no subsidies,
and full water utilization of the estimated total water requirement. The FIRR values,
assuming the system lifespan through 2040 are low. This is expected given the
assumption of meeting tariff (revenue) against the recovery of the tariff itself (cost), but
still sustainable for the perspective of the WUO. Higher tariff levels could potential
increase these FIRR values; alternatively, lower tariff levels could decrease these values.
Potential Revenue Shortfalls
However, although Table ES-13 shows these investments to be sustainable in the long
run, the WUO will be running at a deficit during the initial years based on current
assumptions. The annual deficit would decrease as the tariff levels increase. Table ES14 tabulates the aggregate shortfall for each CIS over the course of the initial years
through 2025.
Main Report Final
ES-23
December 2009
Executive Summary
This varies from 4.85 million MDL in Criuleni to over 276 million MDL in Suvorov.
Despite that FIRR show these systems to be sustainable in the long run, the sustainability
in the short term would be a concern if the WUO do not have another source of revenue
to overcome these losses on a yearly basis during these initial years.
In looking at a potential funding source, it can be assumed that the current subsidies will
continue (at minimum, the energy component) in the near future even under the
decentralized (WUO) management. In which case, the percentage of energy subsidy
required to offset the identified shortfall is illustrated in Figure ES-4.
Main Report Final
ES-24
December 2009
Executive Summary
Figure ES-4
% Energy Subsidy Required to Offset Shortfall in Table ES-14
The level of subsidy in terms of percentage of the energy cost would vary from system
ranging from 12% at Chircani-Zrneti to approximately 44% at Tetcani. The total
subsidy over the period for each of the CIS would equal the shortfall identified in Table
ES-14.
11.0 Summary & Conclusions

Conclusions
Based on the technical, institutional and financial assessment of proposed rehabilitation
of the 16 CIS, the following can be concluded:
The rehabilitation of the 16 CIS under consideration will provide the necessary
infrastructure to support irrigation in an area covering 35,577 ha, which will be
capable of delivering the required water to support HVA, as per USUs crops
water demand recommendation.
The cost of rehabilitating the 16 CIS is significant. Based on discussions with
MCC, it is likely that not all 16 CIS would be selected for rehabilitation. Once
MCC identifies its investment plan, the implementation plan and schedule will
have to be revised accordingly.
If planned and coordinated properly, these projects can be rehabilitated within the
MCC prescribed five-year period.
A more detailed and accurate cost estimate would only be available at the end of
the detailed design of the rehabilitation works. A design based cost estimate
should provide MCC with an assessment of the adequacy of its proposed funding
levels and with the opportunity to develop/revise its investment plans in keeping
with its budget limitations.
Cost escalation based on future inflation and currency exchange trends also need
to be monitored to periodically assess the adequacy of the MCC investment to
Main Report Final
ES-25
December 2009
Executive Summary
meet its desired objectives. This will help identify potential shortfalls ahead of
time, and an opportunity for the Government of Moldova to seek supplemental
funding from other sources to ensure the completion of the MCC objectives in
Moldova.
AM would be the implementing entity for the MCC funded rehabilitation
program. However, technical assistance would be required to assist AM with its
responsibilities to ensure that the projects are implemented on time and on budget.
Although there are not inherent fatal flaws to any of the CIS under consideration,
several major risks were identified with the assumptions and the process
associated with the proposed IMT program as proposed in Section 8, which would
have near term sustainability impacts on the MCC investment, if the process and
the establishment of the WUO are not adequately incorporated or brought up to
capacity.
Based on current MCC plans of tying the IMT process with the rehabilitation
works, delays in the registration of the WUO would have an impact on the
construction schedule and risk the project not being completed on time and on
budget. To mitigate this risk, it would be critical for the IMT Consultant and the
Design Engineer to coordinate periodically so the IMT process informs the
rehabilitation schedule and the Design Engineer can develop the priority of
construction accordingly.
Assessment of the current financial practices in the irrigation sector identified the
following:
Energy subsidies are supposed to cover up to 100% of the energy cost.
However, there are still shortfalls in the payment to cover energy cost that
cannot be reconciled. The second subsidy (irrigation service subsidy)
provided by AM supposedly covers approximately 50% of the fixed cost.
However, the subsidies seem to be me significantly higher.
The revenues collected by STI from irrigation are a small fraction
compared to the state financing that goes to sustain irrigation operation.
Farmers current and historic tariff payments are significantly lower than
the levels needed to sustain irrigation operation without state financing.
Contracts for water often exceed actual amount irrigated. However, since
the fixed cost is based on the water required, the water tariff (in terms of
cost per cubic meter of water) ends up being lower at the beginning of the
year than what is required, which is only known at the end of the year.
This often results in revenues not being adequate to cover expenses that
are fixed.
Given the non-standardized and non-transparent accounting practices, its
not clear how the STI continues to maintain its operations with shortfalls
even with subsidies. It is assumed that STI offset revenues from other
services to balance its sheets.
In assessing future O&M budgets and the financial sustainability of the
rehabilitated system, the following should be taken into consideration:
Main Report Final
ES-26
December 2009
Executive Summary
Part of the task of ensuring WUO financial sustainability should be

providing guidance on standardized accounting practices so that the O&M
budget, tariff and, if applicable, subsidy process is transparent.
Energy cost is a dominant component of the unit water cost. Energy
management should have top priority and best practices instituted with a
goal toward reducing energy costs across the board for the rehabilitated
irrigation systems.
Given current assumptions, although the FIRR seems favorable, shortfalls
should be expected in the near term. Subsidizing energy cost would be of
significant benefit to the WUO (through 2025 based on current
assumptions) in offsetting potential shortfalls.
Alternatively, WUOs could be granted an infant industry protection to
cover shortfall in recovering tariffs while farmers are in a transition period
to HVA. This protection could be in the form of creating reserve accounts,
guarantee on loans, or at a minimum maintaining energy subsidies.
Further, a mechanism need to be established to addresses the current
practices of estimating water at each CIS at the beginning of each season.
The current practice allows farmers the opportunity to over estimate to
water requirements resulting in lower water tariff. This mechanism needs
to consider a range of options such as submitting either a surcharge or
remittance at the end of the growing season assuming a fixed tariff, or
establishing a variable tariff which is adjusted during the growing season
as a function of actual water used. As part of the TA, MWH recommends
that WUOs and STIs staff alike be given proper training in on-farm
irrigation water management, which will increase their capacity and
ability to save on water and consequently in energy cost.
A willingness and ability to pay analysis needs to be coupled with this
financial analysis in order to look at farmer generated revenue versus tariff
which will provide a more realistic and complete picture.
Main Report Final
ES-27
December 2009
Section 1 - Introduction
1.0
INTRODUCTION
This document presents the findings of the feasibility studies for the rehabilitation of the
16 Central Irrigation Systems (CIS) in Moldova.
1.1
Project Background
The goal of Millennium Challenge Corporations (MCC) proposed investment in

Moldova is to foster economic growth that leads toward poverty reduction. Since the
economy in Moldova is essentially agrarian, MCA funding has been requested to
improve the existing irrigation infrastructure that would lead towards providing reliable
access to water to facilitate higher agricultural productivity and foster a raise in overall
incomes. In keeping with this objective, MCC has been asked to assist Moldova with
transitioning to High Value Agriculture (HVA) to increase production of high valueadded fruits and vegetables through following three projects:
Improved irrigation Rehabilitation of up to 16 schemes with the Central
Irrigation Systems (CIS)
Access to finance A Revolving Fund to finance on-farm irrigation equipment
and larger post-harvest infrastructure investments.
Technical assistance/capacity building Support to farming operations in this
transition to HVA
The 16 CIS systems are supplied by surface waters contained within the Black Sea Basin,
in the watersheds of Moldovas two main rivers, the Nistru in the eastern portion of the
country and the Prut in the west. The specific irrigation schemes that will be assessed are
included in Table 1-1 and identified in Figure 1-1.
Table 1-1
List of 16 CIS Proposed for Rehabilitation
Prut River
Nistru River
1-1 Tetcani
11-6 Jora de Jos
3-2 Blindeti
11-7 Lopatna
3-6 Grozeti
12-3 Conia
14-2 Criuleni
5-4 Leova Sud
14-6 erpeni
14-11 Puhceni
6-6 Chircani-Zrneti
14-13 Rocani
17-2 Talmaza*
6-9 Cahul*
17-3 Suvorov*
* Cahul, Talmaza and Serpeni can be found under the name Masivul Cahul, Masivul Talmaza and Masivul
Suvorov, referring to the same area under irrigation command.
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-1
Nistru River
1-1 Tecani
Ukraine
11-6 Jora de Jos
11-7 Lopatna
Prut River
14-2 Criuleni
12-3 Conia
3-2 Blindesti
3-6 Gozeti
14-6 Serpeni
4-5-1 Crpinenii de
sus
14-11 Pugcenii
Nistru River
Romania
14-13 Roscani
17-2 Masivul Talmaz

5-4 Leova Sud
17-3 Masivul Suvorov

6-6 ChircaniZrneti
6-9 Masivul
Cahul
Key:
Prut River
CIS for inclusion in final Feasibility and

Environmental Studies
River (Prut and Nistru)
Giurgiulesti - Danube
River port
Transnistria region
Proposed MCC road segments
World Bank/EBRD/EIB roads segments (ongoing)
graphics/Moldova/feasibility report/figure 1-1.cdr
GOM road segments 2007

Not to Scale
FIGURE 1-1
LOCATION OF THE 16 CIS
PROPOSED FOR REHABILITATION
DECEMBER 2009

The fundamental basis for the HVA project is that Moldovas climate, topography, and
fertile agricultural soils provide the country with a potential comparative advantage in
HVA. The HVA proposal aims to support agricultural production of higher value-added
crops, requiring investment in CIS infrastructure and on-farm equipment. In conjunction
with its investment in the physical rehabilitation works, MCC is also considering
investing in the Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) program to establish and
strengthen water users organizations (WUOs) for the administration, operation, and
maintenance of rehabilitated CIS.
The working premise of the MCC investment is that with the rehabilitation of the CIS
and transfer of management responsibilities to the water users (farmers), along with
access to on-farm irrigation equipment and market for their produce, farmers will
gradually move to more diversified crops and HVA production that will result in
increased farm incomes. However, this feasibility study is limited to the rehabilitation of
the CIS.
1.2
Project Objectives
The primary objective of this assignment was to undertake feasibility studies to provide
the necessary information related to the technical, financial, institutional, environmental
and social aspects of the proposed rehabilitation of the 16 CIS in Moldova to benefit
MCC in its investment decision, and subsequently develop preliminary designs for the
selected investment.
In this capacity, MWH:
Analyzed prior work to gain a full understanding of the basis for proposed
investment, and frame the recommendations for technical, financial, and
institutional aspects of a successful program;
Assessed the environmental and social impacts of the proposed interventions in
light of prevailing local laws and MCC Environmental Guidelines, and
recommended a plan to mitigate potential negative impacts;
Worked in close and constant coordination with MCC, MCA-Moldova and
relevant GoM representatives early on to hone in on the key issues that will guide
the assessment and its outcomes;
Mobilized key expatriate technical staff with subject matter expertise in the
appropriate disciplines in a timely, concerted manner that allows for smooth
integration of multiple inputs into a holistic guidance document;
Identified conceptual plans for rehabilitation projects, project cost and associated
annual Operations & Maintenance Cost (O&M);
Conducted financial sustainability analysis for the rehabilitated systems and
identified appropriate tariff levels for sustaining the MCC investment;
Identified Technical Assistance to enhance local institutional capabilities for the
success of implementing the MCC investment within a five-year period, and to
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-3
sustain the investment by building up their O&M capacity to sustain this
investment for the long run; and
Summarized the assessments and discussed the findings with MCC prior to
developing designs for the selected interventions;
The scope of work of this project is divided into two tasks:
Task 1 Feasibility Studies for Infrastructure Rehabilitation
Task 2 Environmental & Social Assessment of the Proposed Rehabilitation
This report summarizes the findings of Task 1.
MWH completed the technical analysis and assessment based on review of existing
available information, and on information from on-going projects received during the
period allocated for the assigned tasks. In the process, MWH used professional judgment
in its assessment to compensate for gaps in information, if any, which could not be
readily addressed through available information sources within the time frame of the
assigned tasks.
1.3
Scope of Work
The scope of work designed to meet the study objectives as defined in the Terms of
Reference (TOR) for Task 1 includes the following subtasks:
1. Identify Technical and Environmental Fatal Flaws
This task included:
Collecting data, conducting site visits, and undertaking interviews with relevant
agencies responsible for project implementation.
Analyzing implementation schedule(s) to determine whether the projects can be
done in five years.
Assessing compliance with MCC environmental guidelines and Section 605(E)(3)
& local Moldova laws.
Determining if a technical, environmental, and/or social fatal flaw exists
Identifying major risks that could affect project implementation, cost,
performance, durability & environmental/social impact etc.
Developing Technical Memorandum on discovered fatal flaws.
The results on this subtask were summarized in the Technical Memorandum and
submitted under separate cover as draft on March 27, 2009. The final memorandum was
submitted on May 13, 2009.
2. Systems under Consideration
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-4
This task entailed:
Compiling background for each CIS project in conjunction with evaluation of the
existing condition for the 16 CIS.
Identifying Project Definition in coordination with identifying rehabilitation
requirements for each CIS.
Identifying linkages to and impact of other donor ongoing and proposed projects.
3. Analysis of Site Conditions
This task involved:
Collecting & reviewing available site and soil relevant data.
Identifying potential risks associated with prevailing soil conditions while
developing rehabilitation needs and identifying rehabilitation interventions for
each CIS.
Based on risk identified, assessing if necessary mitigation measures for the risks
has been considered in project design and cost.
Developing Scope of Work for undertaking soil and groundwater sampling to
address immediate soil salinity and drainage condition concerns.
4.
Soil & Topographic Surveys
These tasks included:

Submitting a scope of work to undertake soil and groundwater sampling activities
to address salinity & drainage conditions.
Undertaking activities upon MCCs approval.
Assessing the drainage characteristics.
Drafting a soil and topographic survey plan.
Submitting Draft Plan for MCC review & discuss with MCC.
Finalizing soil & topographic survey plan.
Undertaking soil survey and topographic survey activities per Final Plan.
Tasks in italics are to be undertaken as part of design after the feasibility study.
5. Water Resources and Water Quality
This task entailed:
Collecting available data,
Assessing viability of the surface water sources (Prut & Nistru Rivers) as a
reliable source of surface water supply to meet projected agricultural demands
based on available data.
Using available data, identifying other demands (including non-agricultural
demands) that rely on these source water sources and assess the adequacy of these
surface sources to meet these demands, including the anticipated irrigation
demands for the CIS around the country.
Based on available data, identifying demands that rely on groundwater sources
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-5
and assess the adequacy of these sources to meet present and future demands.
Based on available data, assessing the quality of the groundwater and its viability
to support demands dependant on it.
If the groundwater sources are determined to deteriorate, reviewing the viability
of shifting these demands to be met by the available surface water sources and its
impacts.
Based on available data, assessing the impacts of climate change on these surface
& ground water sources.
Assess the impact of changes in the water discharge in the Prut & Nistru Rivers
due to water use actions by other countries that are also dependent on these rivers.
6. Project Justification
This task included:
Identifying rehabilitation requirements within each CIS.
Developing a summary of the initial evaluation for each CIS for identifying
ballpark cost estimates.
Developing list of rehabilitation interventions for each of the 16 CIS.
7. Project Design
This subtask was proposed in two phases:
Phase 1 Project Definition - Feasibility Study.
Phase 2 Preliminary Design - Post-Feasibility Study. This task involved
digitizing existing infrastructure maps for each of the 16 CIS and incorporating it
with the GIS database developed by National Agency for Rural Development
(ACSA) for MCC.
This report only covers Phase I of this subtask. This involved:
Collecting data, undertaking field reconnaissance missions & interviews with
relevant stakeholders/agencies responsible for project implementation, and
developing methodology for data compilation and evaluation based on data
collected/available.
Evaluating the existing condition for the 16 CIS.
Identifying rehabilitation requirements for each CIS.
Developing rehabilitation intervention plans within each CIS including costs.
8. Project Cost
This task entailed:
Reviewing cost estimates for CIS infrastructure rehabilitation developed in the
USU Study.
Gathering latest unit cost data for items that require rehabilitation, and assisting in
development of ballpark cost estimates.
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-6
Developing a planning level cost estimate for each proposed rehabilitation
intervention that includes all necessary activities for the successful
implementation and subsequent operation, with accommodation for contingencies
and future price escalations from inflation and currency fluctuations.
Identifying O&M cost for the rehabilitated systems.
Develop a disbursement schedule over the implementation period.
9. Financial Sustainability
This task included:
Collecting data on tariffs, entities revenue collection process etc.
Reviewing O&M costs & including all associated sinking funds for developing
cash flow scenarios.
Calculating FIRR.
Conducting uncertainty or probabilistic and sensitivity analyses.
Developing recommendations based on financial analysis on appropriate tariff
levels for O&M cost recovery.
10. Operations & Maintenance
This task involved:
Conducting informational interviews with responsible, relevant entities.
Comparing past performance of agencies (Performance of Quality vs. budget).
Identifying costs and budget to sustain the rehabilitated system assuming the
existing centralized system and a potentially future decentralized system.
Based on information gathered, assessing adequate O&M budget for each
intervention and based on input from the financial sustainability task
recommending methods for increasing O&M funding.
Identifying recommendations on sound practice for O&M that protects MCCs
investment, including need for resource and equipment if not available in
Moldova.
11. Institutional Capacity & Capability
This task entailed:
Reviewing USU Study recommendation for future institutional arrangements.
Based on information gathered from previous tasks, assessing adequacy, quality
and competency of the responsible entities and the various water user
associations.
Identifying risks associated with the responsible entity and the recommended
USU plan, and identifying remedial actions to mitigate the risks.
Evaluating need for technical assistance (part of the remedial action), if necessary,
to be included as part of the MCA Program.
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-7
12. Implementation Management
Based on existing available information, this task entailed:
Reviewing information on:
a. Local construction capacity, and
b. Material & equipment availability.
Recommending the most appropriate implementation arrangement and specifying
Executing Agency and appropriate staff.
Recommending construction approaches (Design-Build, Design-Bid-Build etc.) to
mitigate delays and cost overruns.
Developing an implementation schedule based on the recommended
implementation arrangement and approach.
13. Technical Assistance
This task entailed proposing Technical Assistance (TA) to AM or other service entities to
assure successful implementation and sustainability of the MCC investment. (Terms of
Reference for the TA were not requested by MCC as part of this study).
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-8
1.4
Organization of the Report
The report provides a detailed description of the findings of this study in 14 sections with
a supporting appendix. A summary of each section is as follows:
Section 1 Introduction: Provides an overview of the study and the objectives of this
study.
Section 2 Systems under Consideration: Provides an overview of the 16 CIS under
consideration.
Section 3 Assessment of Existing CIS Infrastructure: Provides an overview of the
assessment of the existing CIS infrastructure to identify rehabilitation requirements.
Section 4 - Assessment of Site Conditions: Provides an overview of the soil salinity and
drainage conditions at potentially problematic CIS.
Section 5 Assessment of Water Resources & Water Quality: Provides an overview of
the assessment on adequacy of water resources to support the CIS rehabilitation projects
and the quality of the water.
Section 6 Proposed Rehabilitation Plan: Provides an overview of the rehabilitation
plans based on the rehabilitation requirements to sustain the proposed water demand
needed for HVA agriculture.
Section 7 Feasibility Level Cost Estimate for the Proposed Rehabilitation Projects:
Provides a planning level cost estimate for the implementation of each CIS rehabilitation
project.
Section 8 Assessment of Institutional Capacities: An overview and assessment of the
capacity and capabilities of the institution(s) expected to assume ownership, undertake
implementation and responsible for the operations and maintenance.
Section 9 - Assessment of Operation & Maintenance Plans: Identifies and assess the
required operations & maintenance capacity of the responsible institution to ensure
sustainability of the MCC investment.
Section 10 Project Implementation Plan: A summary of the proposed implementation
plan and schedule, including an assessment of material, equipment and construction
capabilities.
Section 11 Assessment of Financial Sustainability: An overview of the overall
financial sustainability given the anticipated revenues generated in light of the
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-9
appropriate tariff levels for the proposed investment and cost of operating and
maintaining the proposed rehabilitated CIS.
Section 12 Summary & Conclusions: Presents the summary of the findings and
overview of the conclusion based on these studies.
References: List of references referred to during the course of this project.
Appendices Appendix A K providing supporting detailed data.
Annexes 1-16: Accompaniment to this main report that provides detailed descriptions,
assessment and system information specific to each of the 16 CIS.
Main Report Final
December 2009
1-10
Section 2 Systems under Consideration
2.0
Systems under Consideration
This section provides a description of each of the CIS rehabilitation projects that are
being considered by MCC for funding. The description includes:
Overview of irrigation system in Moldova; and
Description for each CIS based on existing available information.
2.1
Overview of Irrigation in Moldova
Most of the irrigation development in Moldova occurred between 1960 and 1990. During
this period the irrigated area in the country increased from 75,000 ha to 310,000 ha.
About 110,000 ha of this total were developed in Transnistria east of the Nistru River.
The water sources for the irrigation systems are the Nistru River, the Prut River, and
artificial reservoirs and natural lakes in the interior of the country. At one time,
approximately 210,000 ha of the total area were served by irrigation systems located
along the Nistru and the Prut Rivers. The balance of the systems utilized the inland rivers
and lakes as a water source. Most of the systems are located in the central and southern
climatic zones of the country.
Prior to the breakup of the Soviet Union, farmers received their water through agreements
between the Department of Water Resources, an agency under the direction of the
Ministry of Agriculture and Food Industry (MAFI), and the farm on which they worked
(either a collective or a State farm). Irrigation was used on the collective and State farms
to produce large quantities of food both for home consumption and export within the
Soviet Union. In addition wine, nuts and other high-value crops were produced in the
country. However, there was little if any consideration of the pumping costs, nor concern
for the long-term replacement costs of the pumps and distribution system. Operation and
maintenance of the main pumping and distribution system was the responsibility of the
State while operation and maintenance of the on-farm irrigation system was the
responsibility of the collective and State farms. Similarly, the main pumping and
distribution system was owned by the State while the on-farm irrigation pumping and
distribution system belonged to the collective and State farms.
After the breakup of the Soviet Union in the early 1990's, land ownership was fragmented
when the farms were privatized and the land distributed based on equity considerations.
Moreover, ownership of the tertiary water delivery system that underlay the land was also
given to each landowner. When the land was distributed in many fragmented plots it
became difficult to operate the irrigation system. As a result of the collapse of the
collective farms there was drastic decline in the irrigation areas commanded by the old
systems. This was partly due to lack of maintenance, vandalism of the irrigation facilities,
and smaller farming operations coupled with higher market-based electric energy costs.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-1

The irrigation systems (CIS) developed typically consists of a primary pump station at
the water source, conveyance facilities, a balancing reservoir (basins) in some cases, a
secondary pump station and/or a tertiary pressure pump station, an underground (tertiary)
pipe network with hydrants, and on-farm irrigation equipment. Historically, the on-farm
equipment west of the Nistru in Moldova almost exclusively comprised large-scale
sprinkler irrigation systems that required high pressures at the hydrants. A layout of a
typical CIS is illustrated in Figure 2-1.
The irrigation systems in Moldova rely heavily on pumping water to the farms. The static
pumping head ranges from 40 m to more than 300 m. A distribution of pumping heights
in the irrigation schemes is presented Table 2-1.
Table 2-1
Area under Varying Pumping Heads
Pump Head
Area Irrigated % of Total
(m)
(Ha)
Area
Less than 50
27,980
18.0
50 to 99
100 to 149
150 to 199
200 to 299
300 and
above
Total
18,367
35,018
40,286
29,449
11.8
22.5
25.9
18.9
4,722
03.0
155,822
100.0
Note: Table 2-1 does not include Transnistria (110,780 ha), small-scale irrigation in the
interior of the country (21,300 ha), and other smaller schemes around the country.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-2
Not to Scale
FIGURE 2-1
TYPICAL CIS SCHEME
DECEMBER 2009

2.2
CIS Considered for Rehabilitation
As identified in Section 1.0, MCC is currently considering investing in some or all the 16
CIS proposed for rehabilitation. Table 2-2 provides an overview of the irrigation area
within each CIS.
Table 2-2
CIS Rehabilitation
Area of Irrigation
Project
(Hectares-Ha)
Tetcani
1,258
Blindeti
521
Grozeti
1,018
Crpinenii de Sus
1,815
Leova de Sud
963
Chircani-Zrneti
4,417
Masivul Cahul
1,930
Jora de Jos
1,165
Lopatna
506
Conia
2,800
Criuleni
677
erpeni
1,107
Puhceni
856
Rocani
682
Masivul Talmaza
Masivul Suvorov
Total
2,468
13,394
35,577

Given the scope and nature of the proposed investment, the rehabilitation of the CIS did
not include expanding the existing irrigation area.
The primary system consists of a river intake, a primary pump station located near the
river intake, from which water is pumped to another pump station (for additional lift) or
storage reservoirs with secondary pump stations and/or open channels to convey water to
the tertiary (pressure) pump stations.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-4

The tertiary system typically consists of one or more pressure pump stations designed to
pump water through a network of pipes that deliver water at hydrants throughout
individual farms.
Intakes at the suction end of the primary pump stations are used to extract water from the
source. Typically, intakes are built to avoid suction of silt from the river and are provided
with a steel screen to protect fish from being aspirated. A bank protection is also usually
provided at the intake location to avoid damage of the intake during the high water levels.
Since, three of the CIS under consideration are located in the low plains of the Prut or
Nistru, engineering drainage systems are provided to remove excess water from the
irrigated fields. The source of this excess of water is mainly rivers (during high levels),
rainfall and irrigation. Draining excess water from the soil surface and the profile below
is necessary to maintain the water table below the root zone. This is essential for avoiding
salt accumulation around the root zone that would eventually contribute to soil salinity
conditions. Saline soils affect the crop yield of an irrigated area. The drainage systems
consist of a network of drainage canals collecting the excess of water from the fields
through which it is pumped back to either the Prut or Nistru rivers.
2.2.1 Pump Stations
Each CIS comprises numerous irrigation systems each with multiple pump stations. The
objective of the individual pump stations is to either provide pressure and capacity for the
irrigation equipment or to convey water from one pump station to another. Based on the
application, irrigation or conveyance, the size, type and configuration of the station will
vary.
The primary/secondary pump stations are equipped with a number of pumps capable of
lifting water from a lower elevation (such as the river) to a pump station (or in some
cases irrigation land) at a higher elevation. The primary/secondary pump stations
typically have fewer pumps. In a few cases, these pump stations, in addition to lifting
water will also irrigate the land within their service areas. Alternatively, as is the case
with Cahul and Chircani-Zrneti, the primary pump stations function exclusively to
extract water from the source and pump it directly to the irrigation land.
The tertiary (pressure) pump stations are designed to provide the required flows at
adequate pressures to irrigate land within their service areas. Irrigation pumps usually are
smaller pumps and designed to provide the appropriate capacity and pressure for the
individual irrigation equipment used and total hectares to be irrigated. The service area
can vary in size from 90 ha to 2,000 ha. There are a total of 55 pressure pump stations
for all the CIS under consideration serving a total area of 35,577 ha. These pump stations
were designed to deliver water at the hydrants (at the end of the pipe network) at a
pressure ranging between 6 and 10 bars. This was adequate considering the watering
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-5

equipment used to irrigate the fields discharged water at a pressure range between 3 to 6
bars.
The overall configuration of primary and tertiary pump stations is similar. The stations
typically have a free water surface in the form of a retention basin. Retention basins serve
to hydraulically separate all the pump stations, and provide storage at each site to allow
for customized control of the station. Each pump is connected to the basin through a
network of buried suction piping. The pump types are consistent throughout the service
areas. Most pumps are horizontal split case pumps with electric motors. The discharge
piping is connected to a header that conveys flow to the irrigation system, or to a
downstream pump station. The piping at the pump stations is generally steel or ductile
iron with a series of isolation and check valves.
Most stations have ancillary systems to support the pumps or station. Those systems are
vacuum or priming pumps to ensure air is removed from the lines prior to pump startup.
This is a necessary function for the proper operation of the pumps. Some stations are also
equipped with drainage or sump pumps to remove any water that may collect on the
floor. The vacuum and drainage system vary in design and materials. Another ancillary
system found at most stations is a bridge crane. These cranes are necessary to properly
maintain the equipment at the station. The bridge cranes are either manually or
electrically operated.
2.2.2 Electrical Systems
All pump stations are fed with power by the local utilities at either medium voltage (MV)
level (10 kV, 6 kV, or 4 kV), and/or low voltage (LV) level (400 V). The adjacent
Substations, or Load Centers, next to or in the proximity of the pump stations are owned
and maintained by the power utility. The power supply starts with an incoming overhead
(OH) or underground (UG) power line, which originates from a Power Substation, and
ends with a step-down transformer usually placed next to the pump station.
There are three power suppliers (the Utility) in Moldova: Union Fenosa (the largest),
Rednord, and Moldelectrica. By convention, the demarcation point (DP) between Apele
Moldovei and the Utility has been established at the pump station wall transition
insulators if the connection is in overhead bus, or at the cable terminal in the switchgear
if the connection is underground. Upstream of the DP, the obligations for maintenance
and operations are assumed by the Utility, while downstream of the DP is the
responsibility of Apele Moldovei personnel. In all cases, the energy metering units are on
the low voltage side of the step-down transformers, so the upstream power losses are
absorbed by the Utility.
Figure 2-2 provides a basic schematic that illustrates the agreement between the two
entities.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-6

Figure 2-2
Typical Power Supply for Pump Station
Based on the above convention, the medium voltage power lines (35 kV, 10 kV, and 6
kV), the main power transformers, and the associated equipment (disconnect switches,
circuit breakers, fuses) are maintained by the Utility. There are several situations where
the above equipment is missing due to vandalism and/or theft. In such cases, as stipulated
by the national regulations, the Utility does NOT take the responsibility to rebuild the
power supply; this would remain as the burden of the Government, more specifically the
Ministry of Energy (ME). The same approach applies if the transformers for instance
need to be upgraded due to higher power demand by Apele Moldovei. The consumer (in
this case Apele Moldovei) is expected to pay for the upgrades/re-construction, and the
electrical equipment is then transferred to the Utility for maintenance. A preliminary
inventory of such equipment that would need to be rehabilitated is included in the present
report as Appendix K.
After discussions with Union Fenosa to find a compromise on this issue and to eliminate
a burden to the project, the Utility suggested that all these situations to be inventoried and
submitted to the ME. The ME has the authority to include such kind of works into the
Development Plan paid for by the Utility. This subject matter is worth pursuing with
ME since the estimated costs to fix the power supplies can reach as much as $1.5 million.
For the purpose of this study, this has been included in the feasibility level cost estimates.
Other issues like category of consumer, allowable voltage/frequency variations, and
maximum duration of power outages are not clearly defined in the contract with the
Utility. Union Fenosa proposes to review these clauses on a case by case basis, looking at
various factors like the condition of power supply, length, age, loads, demand, etc.
Currently, there is no Load Shedding program in effect in Moldova, since there is enough
power generated in the country to satisfy consumers around the clock. All pump stations
are fed with power from one source, only. If that fails, the pumps are dormant until power
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-7

is restored. At the time this Report is compiled, Union Fenosa cannot ensure Emergency
Diesel units for any pump station in case of long power outages
2.2.3 Piping Network
Underground pressure pipe network: the total area of the 16 irrigation systems of 35,577
ha is covered by a total length of 997.68 km of principal, secondary and tertiary pipes
varying in diameter from 1000 mm to 100 mm. Pipe materials are concrete, asbestos
cement and steel. From the underground pipe network the water is distributed to the field
through hydrants and sprinkler equipment.
Hydrants for sprinkler equipment are spaced at 50 72 m along tertiary pipes. The
distance between tertiary pipes varies in the range 600 800 m.
In-field irrigation equipment, normally of 200 400 m length fitted with sprinklers
distributes the water under pressure to the crops. Sprinkler spacing is normally 18 x 24 m
up to 24 x 24 m. Design pressure at the hydrant is of 3 6 bars and at the sprinkler
nozzles is normally 2.5 - 5 bars.
2.1.4 Dams
Dams are currently part of three CIS: Tetcani, Crpinenii de Sus and Suvorov.
Tetcani CIS was originally designed to be supplied entirely from a manmade lake
impounded by a dam. The dam is a compacted clay, earth dam, 13.6 m in height, and
capable of storing a volume of water of up to 930,000 m3.
Suvorov CIS is partly (4,904 ha out of the total 13,389 ha) supplied by a manmade lake
impounded by a dam, 15 m in height that can store a volume of water of up to 8,000,000
m3. This is also a compacted clay earth dam.
Crpinenii de Sus was originally designed to supply the entire irrigation area (1,815 ha)
via a man-made lake impounded by a dam. The dam is also a compacted clay, earth dam,
13.5 m in height, and capable of storing a volume of water of up to 12,206,000 m3.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-8
2.3
Description of Existing CIS Considered for Rehabilitation
The source of irrigation water for the 16 CIS under consideration is either the Prut River
or the Nistru River, or a lake impounded by a dam. Six of these CIS rely on the Prut
River, while the remaining nine are supplied via the Nistru River. The dams off the Prut
and Nistru Rivers are part of three of these CIS: Tetcani, Crpinenii de Sus, and a portion
of Suvorov. All 16 CIS require water to be pumped from the water source. A description
of each of the 16 CIS is provided below.
2.3.1 Tetcani
This CIS derives water from a dam on the Vilia River, a tributary of Prut River. The dam
is 13.6 m in height, 6.0 m in width and 125 m in length. It was built in 1963, made of
compacted clay. The maximum volume of water stored in the lake is 930,000 m3 and the
minimum volume is 222,000 m3. The slopes are protected with grass. The system is
served by one primary pump and one pressure pump station. Details of the pump stations
capacities are provided in Table 2-3.
Pump
Station
Table 2-3
Pump Stations Serving Tetcani CIS
Irrigation
Area
Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
Head
(m)
3
330
105
2
880
90
Transit to SP-2
443
4
380
105
500
2
440
57
SP-1
SP-1
SP-2
SP-2
313
The total irrigation area under this CIS is estimated to be 1,258 ha. The system was
previously designed assuming on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using a
number of 18 laterals type DNEPR.
The pipe network comprises:
Total Length 31,759 m;
Diameter range 100 mm to 1000 mm;
Pipe Material Steel, Asbestos-cement, Reinforced precast concrete, RTNS
(concrete-encased steel)
STI Briceni, a branch of Apele Moldovei a governmental agency - currently manages
the CIS. For additional details on the Tetcani CIS, please refer to Annex 1.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-9

2.3.2 Blindeti
This CIS derives water from the Prut River. The system is served by one primary pump
and two pressure pump stations. Details of the pump stations capacities are provided in
Table 2-4.
Pump
Station
Table 2-4
Pump Stations Serving Blindeti
Irrigation
Number Total Pump
Area
of Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
SR-3
SP-4
Transfer to SP-4
Transfer to SP-7
SP-4
260
SP-7
261
Head
(m)
3
2
1
1
380
360
180
90
63
92
90
50
2
4
105
500
120
95
Note: Existing pump capacities are based on best available, reliable data. This will need
to be verified prior to detailed design.
This CIS will cover an area of 521 ha. The system was previously designed assuming onfarm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using a number of 13 laterals type DNEPR,
and one lateral self-propelled type FREGAT. The pipe network consists of:
Pipe Material Steel, Asbestos-cement, Reinforced precast concrete, and RTNS
(concrete-encased steel).
STI Ungheni currently manages this CIS. For additional details on the Blindeti CIS,
please refer to Annex 2.
2.3.3 Grozeti
and one pressure pump stations. Details of the pump stations capacities are provided in
Table 2-5.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-10
Pump
Station
SP-11
SPR-12
SPR-12
SPR-12
SPR-12
Table 2-5
Pump Stations Serving Grozeti
Irrigation
Area
Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
Transfer
to SPR-12
389
240
240
140
Head
(m)
660
139
3
2
2
Gravity Fed
420
360
120
65
87
36
The system will cover an area of 1,018 ha. The system was previously designed
considering on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using 4 laterals type DNEPR,
8 laterals type DS 25/300, and 7 self propelled center pivot FREGAT. The
underground pipe network comprises:
STI Ungheni currently manages this CIS. For additional details on the Grozeti CIS,
2.3.4 Crpinenii de Sus
This CIS derives water either from the Prut River or from Lake Minjir on the Lpunita
River, a tributary of the Prut River. The lake is impounded by a dam. The dam is 13.5 m
in height, 6.0 m in width and 624 m in length, and was built in 1982 and is made of
compacted clay. The maximum storage volume of the lake is 12,206,000 m3 and the
minimum volume is 1,023,000 m3. The outer slope is protected with grass and the inner
slope is protected with reinforced precast concrete slabs.
The system is currently served by one primary pump station, two secondary pump
stations and two pressure pump stations. Details of the pump stations capacities are
provided in Table 2-6.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-11
Pump
Station
NSG-1
NSP-1
NSP-2
NSP-4
NSP-4
NSP-7
NSP-7
Table 2-6
Pump Stations Serving Crpinenii de Sus
Irrigation Area
Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
Transfer to NSP-1
Transfer to NSP-2
Transfer to NSP-4
280
648
567
320
6
4
2
3
3
2
1
2400
2200
2160
230
550
415
255
Head
(m)
92
100
26.5
61
92
89
65
The CIS covers an area of 1,815 ha. The system was previously designed for considering
on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using 51 laterals type DS 25/300, and 16
self propelled center pivot FREGAT. The pipe network consists of:
STI Hincesti currently manages this CIS. For additional details on the Carpineni CIS,
2.3.5 Leova Sud
and one pressure pump stations. Details of the pump stations capacities are provided in
Table 2-7.
Table 2-7
Pump Stations Serving Leova Sud
Irrigation
Pump
Head
Area
Pump
Capacity
Station
(m)
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
S-28
S-2
Transfer to S-2
963
6
9 (all missing)
1560
898
128
53-91
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-12

The system will cover an area of 963 ha. The system was previously designed for
considering on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using 18 laterals type
DNEPR, and 53 laterals type DS 25/300. The pipe network comprises:
STI Hincesti currently manages this CIS. For additional details on the Leova Sud CIS,
2.3.6 Chircani-Zrneti
This CIS derives water from the Prut River. Located in the low valley of the Prut River
the CIS requires drainage during non-irrigation and rainy seasons, and irrigation during
warm and droughty seasons. The irrigation system is served by three primary pump
stations operating as pressure pump stations too. The drainage system is served by two
drainage pump stations.
Details of the pump stations capacities are provided in Table 2-8.
Table 2-8
Pump Stations Serving Chircani-Zrneti
Irrigation
Total Pump
Pump
Number of
Head
Area
Capacity
Station
Pump Units
(m)
(Ha)
(lps)
S-5
S-1
S-6
SPD-4
SPD-5A
1980
2437
Drainage
Drainage
4
3
3
2
4
660
200
750
670
800
3500
57
57
54
57
13
22
The rehabilitated CIS is anticipated to cover an area of 4,417 ha. The system was
previously designed assuming on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using 48
laterals type DDA-100 MA. The pipe network includes:
(concrete-encased steel).
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-13

STI Cahul currently manages this system. For additional details on the Chircani-Zrneti
CIS, please refer to Annex 6.
2.3.7 Cahul
This CIS derives water from the Prut River. Located in the low valley of the Prut River
requires drainage during non-irrigation and rainy seasons, and irrigation during warm and
droughty seasons. The irrigation system is served by three primary pump stations
operating as pressure pump stations too. The drainage system is served by two drainage
pump stations. The pump station SPP-1 and SPP-2 serve both the irrigation and the
drainage system. Details of the pump stations capacities are provided in Table 2-9.
Pump
Station
SPP-3A
SPP-1
SPP-2
SPP-3
Table 2-9
Pump Stations Serving Cahul
Irrigation
Number
Total Pump
Area
of Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
449
806
Drainage
675
Drainage
Drainage
4
4
2
3
3
3
Head
(m)
880
1200
1400
700
1200
3000
57
54
17
10
21
20
considering on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using 45 laterals type DDA100 MA. The pipe network comprises:
STI Cahul manages this CIS. For additional details, please see Annex 7.
2.3.8 Jora de Jos
This CIS derives water from the Nistru River. The system is served by two primary pump
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-14
Pump
Station
SPP-1
SPP-2
Table 2-10
Pump Stations Serving Jora de Jos
Number Total Pump
Irrigation Area
of Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
235
Transfer to SP-1
100
259
Transfer to SP-2
80
272
213
SP-1
SP-2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
Head
(m)
220
630
110
360
500
120
140
210
75
60
95
90
195
92
53
44
considering on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using 5 laterals type DNEPR,
20 laterals type DS 25/300, and 5 self propelled center pivot FREGAT. The pipe
network consists of:
STI Orhei currently manages the CIS. For additional details, please refer to Annex 8.
2.3.9 Lopatna
This CIS derives water from the Nistru River. The system is served by two primary pump
Table 2-11
Pump Stations serving Lopatna
Pump
Station
Irrigation
Area
(Ha)
Number
of Pump
Units
Total Pump
Capacity
(lps)
Head
(m)
SPP
Transfer to SP
468
110
358
148
SP
By gravity
180
50
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-15

Note: Existing pump capacities are based on best available, reliable data. This
will need to be verified prior to detailed design.
The system will cover an area of 506 ha. The system was previously designed for
considering on-farm irrigation such as sprinkler irrigation using 13 laterals type DDN70. The pipe network comprises:
STI Orhei currently manages this CIS. For additional details, please see Annex 9.
2.3.10 Conia
This CIS derives water from the Nistru River. The system is served by five pump
stations. Details of the pump stations capacities and areas served are provided in Table
2-12.
Pump
Station
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
S-1
SP-4
Table 2-12
Pump Stations Serving Conia
Irrigation
Number Total Pump
Area
of Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
986
353
Transfer to S-1
620
578
263
6
6
2
3
2
3
Head
(m)
880
440
1100
660
460
395
69
98
14
85
155
50
This system will cover an area of 2,800 ha. The system was previously designed for
Sprinkler irrigation laterals DNEPR, sprinkler hand-move aluminum laterals, and
DDA 100MA a side-move sprinkler lateral pulled by a tractor, and Fregat center
pivot type. The pipe network includes:
Total length 105,770 m;
Pipe Material Steel, reinforced concrete, RTNS (concrete-encased steel), and
asbestos-cement;
STI Dubasari currently manages this CIS. For additional details, please refer to Annex
10.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-16
2.3.11 Criuleni
This CIS derives water from the Nistru River. The system is served by three irrigation
pump stations. Details of the pump stations capacities and areas served are provided in
Table 2-13.
Pump
Station
NSP-1
NSP-2
NS-3
Table 2-13
Pump Stations Serving Criuleni
Irrigation
Number
Total Pump
Area
of Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
459
122
Transfer to
NS-3
96
Head
(m)
2
1
360
180
62
50
1
2
360
160
50
70
Note: Existing pump capacities are based on best available, reliable data. This will need to
be verified prior to detailed design.
This system will cover an area of 677 ha. The system was previously designed for
sprinkler irrigation using laterals type Sigma, DD-30 and Dnepr. The on-farm watering
system for NSP-2 was the side-move sprinkler system pulled by a tractor; water was
suctioned by an auxiliary pressurizing pump attached to the lateral. The pipe network
comprises:
Pipe Material Steel, reinforced concrete, concrete-encased steel, and asbestoscement;
STI Chisinau currently manages this CIS. For additional details on the Criuleni CIS,
please see Annex 11.
2.3.12 erpeni
pump stations. Details of the pump stations capacities and areas served are provided in
Table 2-14.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-17
Pump
Station
S-10
S-12
S-14
Table 2-14
Pump Stations Serving erpeni
Total
Number
Irrigation Area
Pump
of Pump
(Ha)
Capacity
Units
(lps)
Transfer to S-12
670
Transfer to S-14
437
Head
(m)
2
2
700
280
70
70
280
70
350
85
sprinkler irrigation laterals Fregat a center pivot type, a side-move sprinkler lateral
DNEPR, the DD-100MA, and sprinkler hand-move aluminum laterals. The pipe
network consists of:
Diameter range 181mm to 530 mm;
Pipe Material Steel, reinforced concrete, and asbestos-cement;
STI Chisinau currently manages this CIS. For additional details, please see Annex 12.
2.3.13 Puhceni
This CIS derives water from the Nistru River. The system is served by two pump stations
independent from each other. Details of the pump stations capacities and areas served
are provided in Table 2-15.
Pump
Station
S-17
S-18
Table 2-15
Pump Stations Serving Puhceni
Total
Irrigation
Number of
Pump
Area
Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
438
418
3
3
420
300
Head
(m)
65
45
This will cover an area of 856 ha. The system was previously designed for sprinkler
irrigation using hand-move aluminum laterals. The pipe network comprises:
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-18

Pipe Material Steel and asbestos-cement;
STI Chisinau is currently managing this CIS. For additional details on the Puhceni CIS,
2.3.14 Rocani
This CIS derives water from the Nistru River. The system is served by one primary pump
station and one tertiary pump station. Details of the pump stations capacities and areas
served are provided in table 2-16.
Pump
Station
S-20
S-22
Table 2-16
Pump Stations Serving Rocani
Irrigation Area
Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
Transfer to S-22
682
3
4
780
960
Head
(m)
92
92
This system will cover an area of 682 ha. The system was previously designed for
sprinkler irrigation Fregat, a type of center pivot sprinkler on-farm irrigation system;
these are no longer in use or are too old for efficiently distributing the water. The pipe
network includes:
Pipe Material Steel and concrete-encased steel (RTNS);
STI Chisinau manages the CIS. For additional details on the Rocani CIS, please refer to
Annex 14.
2.3.15 Talmaza
pump stations and thee drainage pump stations. Details of the pump stations capacities
and areas served are provided in Table 2-17.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-19
Pump
Station
ONS-1
NS-2
Table 2-17
Pump Stations Serving Talmaza
Irrigation
Area
Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
D-1
D-2
Transfer NS-2
465
801
1202
Drainage
Drainage
T-3
Drainage
T-2
4
3
4
3
2
2
2
3
2800
660
800
1200
330
330
800
3000
Head
(m)
5.5
70
90
90
10
10
20
20
sprinkler irrigation using laterals Fregat (center pivot type), DDA-100 equipment,
and the hand-move aluminum sprinkler type. The pipe network comprises:
Pipe Material Steel, reinforced concrete, RTNS (concrete-encased steel), and
asbestos-cement;
STI Stefan Voda currently manages this CIS. For additional details, please see Annex
15.
2.3.16 Suvorov
This CIS derives water from the Nistru River. The Caplani reservoir, a part of the
Suvorov scheme, provides irrigation water storage retained by an earth dam made of
compacted clay. The height of the dam is of 15 m providing a maximum storage volume
of the reservoir is 8,300,000 m3 and a minimum volume of 1,000,000 m3. The
downstream slope is protected with grass and the upstream slope is protected with
reinforced precast concrete slabs. Details of the pump stations capacities and areas
served are provided in Table 2-18.
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-20
Pump
Station
GNS
NSP
PNS-1
PNS-1
Table 2-18
Pump Stations Serving Suvorov
Irrigation
Number
Total Pump
Area
of Pump
Capacity
(Ha)
Units
(lps)
Transfer to
NSP
Transfer to
PNS-1
1827
Head
(m)
6200
80
6200
80
2200
85
2200
85
1500
51
PNS-2
430
Transfer to
PNS-2
2069
1620
80
PNS-3
PNS-4
939
2206
3
3
710
2100
73
80
PNS-5
159
880
57
PNS-6
200
500
PNS-7
340
395
PNS-7
320
300
84
Fed by
gravity
55
S-1
S-2
Transfer to S-2
770
5
4
2260
720
90
57
S-2
1380
1290
66
S-2
Transfer to S-3
1650
40
S-3
S-3
2017
737
6
3
1470
600
90
68
PNS-1
sprinkler irrigation applied using center pivots type Fregat, DNEPR, DDA-100, and
solid set. The piping network consists of:
Total length: 327,601m;
Pipe Material Steel, reinforced concrete, concrete-encased steel, and asbestoscement;
STI Stefan Voda currently manages this CIS. For additional details on the Suvorov CIS,
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-21
2.4
Other Donor Projects in the Irrigation Sector
There are several international donor agencies involved in the irrigation sector in
Moldova. The following donor projects are not directly linked to the rehabilitation of the
CIS and some are not directly related to the irrigation sector, however they may have
links to the success of the outcome of the MCC investment, namely in the transition to
HVA.
World Bank: RISP II the second phase of the Rural Investment and Services
Program. The RISP II objective is to provide long-term support to accelerate
agricultural recovery and growth as a basis for future income growth and poverty
reduction by improving access of farmers and rural entrepreneurs to know-how,
knowledge and financial services, while building the capacity of the private and
public institutions to ensure the sustainability of these activities. It includes
irrigation finance services.
World Bank: AG Pollution Control (GEF) The project aims to increase the
use of mitigation measures by agro-industry and farmers to reduce nutrient
discharge into the surface and ground water bodies in Moldova.
World Bank: Road Sector Program Support Project This support aims to
reduce road transport costs for road users in Moldova by improving the condition
and quality of its road network and the way it is managed.
EU: European Neighborhood and Partnership Programme This program,
amongst other objectives, aims to contribute to poverty reduction and economic
growth in part by improving regional and municipal infrastructure, and border and
customs regimes to support trade.
United Nations Development Programme: Moldova Country Programme The overall objective is to facilitate Moldovas achieving the Millennium
Development Goals. It includes a good governance program and a regional and a
local development program.
The Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (SIDA)
concentrates on pro-poor economic growth amongst other areas.
The Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation's (SDC) programs in
Moldova include the promotion of the access to financial services for the rural
population.
The United Kingdom's Department for International Development (DFID)
provides aid to Moldova part of which is aimed at encouraging pro-poor
economic growth.
From April 2001, the Republic of Moldova has benefited from a technical grant
provided by the Japanese Government through the 2KR Moldovan-Japanese
Program for implementation of Increase of Food Production Project in
agriculture. Moldova Agricultural Producers Association is responsible for
running the project as the representative of associated farmers. The project helps
the farmers to procure (leasing) agriculture machinery including irrigation
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-22

(watering) equipment. The payment of the price of watering equipment is due
within 5 years. The interest rate due for the investment is covered by the project.
Up to the beginning of 2009, approximately 200 pieces of Reel Hose watering
equipment were procured and delivered to the farmers. For information see
http://www.uap.md/eng/2kr.php
Main Report Final
December 2009
2-23
Section 3 Assessment of Existing CIS Infrastructure
3.0 Assessment of Existing CIS Infrastructure

This section provides a description of the existing condition of each of the CIS being
considered by MCC. The description includes:
Overview of the assessment methodology; and
Assessment of existing CIS infrastructure and the need for rehabilitation.
3.1
Assessment Methodology
3.1.1. Review of Previous Studies

Previous studies made available by MCC, MCA, AM, AcvaProject and the National
Agency for Rural Development (ACSA) were reviewed for information on the 16 CIS
being considered for rehabilitation:
Original (as-built) drawings of the irrigation schemes provided by AcvaProject
were reviewed to identify the location and features of each irrigation scheme.
Irrigation Engineering, Hydrologic, and Agronomic Assessment Report issued
by Utah State University supplied preliminary information on technical conditions
and crop water requirements.
ACSA Database to review/update CIS command areas, and for relevant current
irrigation status and land ownership information within the 16 CIS.
3.1.2 Field Investigation
Over a period of three weeks, field reconnaissance missions were undertaken to
accomplish the following tasks:
Assess the existing conditions of the mechanical & electrical components at each
pump station.
Inquire of the presence and condition of the underground pipe network (includes
suction & discharge pipes associated with pump stations as well as on-farm
tertiary piping) based on discussions with STI operators and when possible with
farmers; and
Evaluate all ancillary infrastructures such as storage reservoirs, canals, dams, and
drainage systems etc that support the CIS.
3.1.3 Assessment of Mechanical Equipment
Driven by the schedule of the project, the assessment of the pump stations (for
assessment of mechanical and electrical equipment) were conducted during winter.
During winters, the irrigation systems are usually drained and taken off line. Due to the
Main Report Final
3-1
December 2009

lack of water at the basins, the mechanical equipment could not be operated to confirm
functionality. The assessment of the mechanical equipment was primarily based on visual
inspection of the equipment and conversations with the local operators who are familiar
with the stations operations.
The pumps and electric motors were assessed as good, fair or poor based on evaluation of
the following criteria.
Structural damage to the volute or bearing housing.

Visible corrosion or wear.
Damage to the seals or bearings.
Missing vent or priming piping.
Visible damage to the motor enclosure shafting or seals.
Visible corrosion on the motor windings.
Operator input.
Pump and motor units were assessed as good when all visual observations of the previous
criteria yielded favorable results. The pumping units were in good working order, and
should provide long equipment life. An assessment of fair was given to pumping units
that required minimum work to repair based on the above criteria. An assessment of poor
was rendered to equipment that was inoperable and required substantial repairs or
replacement.
The pump station piping was assessed as good, fair or poor primarily based on visual
inspection of the coatings. Piping assessed as good exhibited no visible defects along
with an intact coating. This type of piping was viewed as maximizing the life of the pump
station piping. An assessment of fair was given to piping that exhibited only slight
corrosion or required minor repairs. An assessment of poor was provided to piping that
showed considerable structural damage or corrosion.
Pump station valves, both isolation and check, were also assessed based on visual
observations. Assessment was primarily based on visible structural damage to the valve
or valve operator, signs of damaged seals or corrosion to the valve body and operator
comments. An assessment of good was provided to valves that were in good working
order and did not show signs of coating damage or corrosion. An assessment of fair was
provided to valves that were functional, but exhibited signs of corrosion or damage. An
assessment of poor was provided to valves that were inoperable.
Smaller ancillary systems were assessed based on missing components and corrosion on
the piping or valves.
Main Report Final
3-2
December 2009

3.1.4 Assessment of Electrical Equipment
During the field reconnaissance assessment, visual inspections at each pump station were
conducted to evaluate the condition of the main electrical components: switchgear,
control and automation panels, power and control cables, cable racks, grounding, and
lighting. Besides surveying the indoor electrical equipment owned and maintained by
Apele Moldovei, similar consideration was given to the outdoor equipment owned by the
local Power Utility: power transformers, circuit breakers, disconnect switches, and
overhead power lines. Nameplate data has been collected where safely accessible.
During detailed design, when the total installed power capacity for each pump station is
determined, analyses will need to be conducted to confirm the sizing, coordination and
other requirements of the electrical equipment:
Load Flow Analysis
The load flow study shall confirm that voltage and power flows would be within
acceptable range under steady state conditions. Acceptance criteria for load flow analysis
will be as follows:
Transformers and cables should not be overloaded.
Regulated buses should be at their regulation set-point without regulators at tap
limits.
Unregulated buses should be within +/-3% of nominal voltage (marginal limits),
or within +/-5% of nominal voltage (critical limits) per a widely accepted utilities
practice.
Short Circuit Analysis
The short circuit study shall confirm that the fault current levels would be within the
interrupting ratings of fuses and circuit breakers. Three phase fault momentary and
interrupting currents will need to be calculated.
Acceptance criteria for short circuit analysis will be required to verify that the three phase
fault currents for a pre-fault voltage equal to 105% of nominal, and the determined values
do not exceed the interrupting and momentary ratings of the selected equipment.
Arc Flash Hazard Analysis
Since significant injury risk exists due to electric arc flash hazards when work is
performed on energized equipment or in the proximity of it, this analysis will help
determine:
An Arc Flash Hazard Program that would provide clear-cut requirements for
protective equipment, work space and live work.
Main Report Final
3-3
December 2009

Minimum Approach Distances.
Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) and Clothing Policy.
3.1.5 Assessment of Pump Station Infrastructure
The pump station infrastructure was also assessed in keeping with the criteria identified
above in the assessment of mechanical equipment.
Water intakes: With these structure completely submerged, the assessment of the
condition of water intakes could not be carried out within the scope of this work.
However, based on previous experience, age of water intakes and reported
damages the present condition of water intakes was assumed.
Buildings: The condition of buildings was assessed based on age and visual
inspection.
Suction and discharge basins: The condition of suction and discharge basins was
assessed by the field investigation teams based on age, visual inspection of
bottom and slope linings, in field measuring of silt deposits depth and traces of
water leakage.
3.1.6 Assessment of Existing Underground Pipe Network
AcvaProject provided as-built drawings for the pipe network; they were the original
designers of most of these CIS. These as-built drawings are only available in paper
format. Copies of the as-built drawing of the CIS were sent ahead to the respective STI
prior the field reconnaissance mission with the request to provide an overview of the
condition (including existence) of the pipe network. During field visits to the CIS, the
information provided was discussed with STI in greater detail. Given the scope and
schedule for the project, it was not feasible to study every segment of the pipe network
beyond the cursory detail. These discussions were followed by random visits spread out
within the CIS recording information and measuring data where applicable. This became
the basis for assessing the existing condition of the pipe network.
Field data collection templates were developed and used during the field investigations to
document relevant features such as materials, diameters, number of lines and the present
condition of each section of pipe, along with an assessment of major damages and
failures of each section of pipe. These templates are provided in the supporting annexes
for each CIS as Table 1 and 2. This became the basis of whether to keep, repair or
replace a given pipe or a section of the pipe. The following specs were key factors in
making this assessment for primary & tertiary pipes:
Steel pipes under normal condition of operation lose about 0.1 mm/year of their
original thickness. By measuring the present thickness of pipes, the remaining life can
be estimated. Pipe thickness was measured using an ultrasonic device wherever
possible, in almost each CIS, but especially on segments that presented doubt on
Main Report Final
3-4
December 2009

whether to keep or to replace a particular section of pipe. In addition, for discharge
steel pipes, the minimum required thickness was calculated to check the ability of
existing pipe to withstand to normal pressure of water and to the overpressure and
negative pressure due to water hammer.
Reinforced precast concrete pipes for practical applications can potentially last
indefinitely. If the present condition was good it was assumed that such pipes can last
for another 25 30 years.
Precast concrete pipes type RTNS (concrete-encased steel) are sensitive to
corrosion of the steel encasing. Most of pipes made of such material are already
corroded and leaking.
Asbestos cement pipes can also potentially last indefinitely. The existing asbestos
cement pipes are supposed to last an additional 20 30 years; however, damage may
occur to this type of pipes due to high pressure or due to uneven soil settlement. Also
damage to asbestos cement pipes due to damage to hydrants caused by agricultural
machinery and people are very common.
Hydrants are made of steel and designed to last more than 50 years. But the hydrants
are most vulnerable to deterioration due to human activities. Most hydrants need
replacement of their valve, but there are many hydrants that require replacement of
their vertical (stem) section or their connection to underground pipe.
Valves are made of steel and designed to last more than 50 years. However, damage
to valves occurs primarily due to ageing of the closing mechanism and its sealing
materials.
Manholes: Most of the existing manholes, housing valves, are in good condition.
However, they need to be cleaned and provided with lids.
Watering equipment: existing watering equipment was identified and assessed
during visits and meeting with farmers and water users associations.
During the field investigation and meetings with operating personnel within each CIS the
present condition of pipes, hydrants, valves and manholes were documented on the asbuilt maps using the following color convention: red for missing or damaged beyond
repair, yellow for requiring repair, and green for good condition. Illustrative maps of the
required repairs and replacement are provided for each CIS in their respective annex as
Exhibit 2.
3.1.7 Assessment of Dams
A rapid engineering field reconnaissance of the three dams (at Tetcani, Crpinenii &
Suvorov) was performed, within the scope and schedule of this project, to evaluate the
Main Report Final
3-5
December 2009

general condition of the embankment and appurtenant structures to address, at a
minimum, the following criteria:
Visual Condition of the dam and water control features (outlet works and
spillway).
Height of dam and volume of materials contained.
Embankment (dam wall) conditions.
The reconnaissance included a ground review of the upstream and downstream slopes of
the dam, the spillway inlet and outlet structures, abutment contacts and the downstream
toe of the dam. The reconnaissance included observation for signs of erosion, missalignment or cracks in the embankment, a visual assessment of the condition of exposed
concrete structures, and an assessment of the overall condition of the structure.
As part of the reconnaissance, the condition and intended function of the structures were
evaluated relative to dam safety standards. For the reconnaissance, this primarily
consisted of visual observation of the condition of the embankment and concrete
structures. Embankment observations included:
Erosion of the slopes or abutment contacts.
Settlement of the crest of on the embankment slopes.
Alignment changes in the crest, bulging or concave shape of the embankment
slope.
Cracks in the embankment.
Condition of the upstream slope protection for wave action.
Concentrated seepage along the abutment contact or along the downstream toe of
the embankment.
Boils or points of concentrated seepage exiting downstream of the dam or near
outlet/spillway penetrations through the dam.
Access to the dam and across the dam to access the spillway and outlet works, and
the existence of instrumentation for monitoring of internal water pressures,
seepage flow rates and potential movement of the embankment and/or structures.
Reconnaissance of the concrete structures included observation for:
Cracking and/or displacement of walls or the slab for the spillway inlet and outlet
structures.
Signs of weathering and/or deterioration of the concrete.
Based on the site reconnaissance and review of the dam, outlet works and what was
visible of the spillway, recommendations for repair or replacement were developed.
Recommendations were generally based on the following:
Re-grading and graveling of the access crest or toe roads where access was
restricted or excessive rutting indicated inadequate road conditions for access
during an emergency.
Main Report Final
3-6
December 2009

Re-grading and seeding of the downstream slope where erosion or the current
embankment slope was irregular and could result in continued or accelerating
erosion that would be detrimental to the dam.
Condition of the upstream slope including the competency and coverage of the
slope protection. Slope protection is required on earth dams to provide erosion
resistance from wave action over the operating range of the reservoir. A single
breach of the slope protection exposing the underlying earthfill material to wave
action could allow rapid deterioration of the embankment during a storm, which
could lead to failure of the embankment. Limited and small areas of poor slope
protection coverage would be recommended for repair. Replacement of slope
protection is recommended if the damage, absence or condition of the slope
protection is extensive, and/or continued undermining due the condition of the
slope protection (e.g. concrete panels with gaps between adjacent panels and no
filter to control potential erosion) would be expected.
Existing instrumentation is in poor/unknown condition, or no instrumentation
observed, was recommended for installation.
Concrete that had exposed concrete reinforcing, significant displacement that
appeared to be post construction, and/or deterioration of the concrete itself due to
weathering was recommended for replacement. The exposed concrete shows
extensive freeze-thaw, wet-dry deterioration. It is our understanding the airentrained concrete was not available at the time of construction and the exposed
structures confirmed that condition. Given the age, lack of air-entrained concrete
and current condition, exposed concrete structures are recommended to be
replaced. The outlet works were submerged at the Suvorov and Crpinenii
projects and the conditions is unknown. Since the outlet works at these projects
are submerged, concrete deterioration is expected to be less.
Exposed steel piping for the outlet works showed a significant loss of corrosion
protection material on the outside of the piping. Reconditioning of the pipe, new
bedding and pipe supports were recommended. A pressurized pipeline extends
through the downstream toe of the dam at the Tetcani project. Current practice is
to relocate pipelines outside of the dam, or at a minimum encase the pipe in
reinforced concrete. Therefore, an upgrade to a minimum of a new reinforced
concrete encased pipeline through the pipeline segment along the downstream toe
of the dam.
In addition to the conditions observed during the site reconnaissance, two additional
technical concerns were noted. They were:
Pressurized pipelines in the embankment.
The apparent spillway capacity.
The apparent spillway capacity, based on typical design procedures at the time these
projects were designed and constructed, is likely only capable of passing a limited storm
capacity. Current design standards involve minimum spillway capacity based on the
Main Report Final
3-7
December 2009

hazard potential to land, population and environmental considerations downstream of the
dam, in the event of a dam failure. It appears that there would be population at risk
downstream of Tetcani, Suvorov and Crpinenii, and therefore the required spillway
capacity could be for the probable maximum flood. Current hydrologic conditions and a
risk or hazard classification based assessment are needed to determine the inflow design
flood and size an emergency spillway suitable for the site. No specific line item in the
repair/upgrade estimate has been included given the unknown nature of this item.
Based on the reconnaissance and a review of design drawings, a preliminary list of
repairs and potential upgrades that could be required to bring the structures up to current
engineering standards, was developed.
3.1.8 Assessment of Drainage Systems
A majority of the CIS under consideration is naturally and relatively well drained and
does not require or include engineered drainage systems. There are, however, four CIS,
that do include engineered drainage systems. These CIS are Chircani-Zrneti, Masivul
Cahul, Talmaza, and Suvorov.
The assessment of the existing engineered drainage systems entailed:
Inspecting surface and subsurface networks for conditions of silting, embankment
and section repairs.
Assessing crossings structures (bridges, culverts, irrigation pipes, and pedestrian
crossings) for repairs.
Evaluating drainage lift pumps stations for rehabilitation.
Details of the drainage system assessment are included in Section 4.0.
3.2
Overview of Existing Conditions
Available data was compiled to assess the total area being irrigated within each STI. This
list is limited to the eight (8) STI where rehabilitation of CIS is being proposed. A
summary of the irrigation areas under each STI based on 1998, 2007 and 2008 records is
Table 3-1
Area under Irrigation in Moldova
Area under Irrigation (Ha)
STI
19981
20071
20082
Briceni
8,519
7,582
7,582
Ungheni
9,155
11,019
11,019
Hincesti
12,446
12,046
9,593
Main Report Final
3-8
December 2009

STI
Area under Irrigation (Ha)

19981
20071
20082
Cahul
34,181
29,563
20,529
Orhei
3,737
3,242
2,464
Dubasari
7,621
8,184
8,184
Chisinau
21,889
24,891
22,202
Stefan-Voda
25,506
26,379
24,248
Total Area
123,054
122,906
105,821
1.
2.
Source: Information provided by AM.

USAID, et al, 2008
The data on the total available irrigation area within each of the STI was neither coherent
or consistent, so it was not possible to assess the percentage of the total available area
being irrigated. Also, data for area irrigated for years between 1998 and 2007 was not
readily available.
Between 1998 and 2007, although there were fluctuations within individual STIs, the
total combined area under irrigation for all eight STI was relatively stable. However,
there was a 14% decline in the total combined area irrigated between 2007 and 2008.
Discernible declines in area under irrigation occurred in Cahul, Hincesti, Stefan Voda and
Chisinau. Discussions with AM and the respective STI provided a myriad of reasons for
this decline, ranging from dilapidated, unreliable CIS infrastructure to land fragmentation
and foreign migration that has contributed to a general decline in agricultural activities.
Data was also compiled specific to the CIS under consideration for rehabilitation. The
total area under irrigation in 2008 is provided in provided in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2
Areas irrigated in 2008 within the
CIS under Consideration
CIS
Tetcani
Blindeti
Grozeti
Crpinenii de Sus
Leova Sud
Chircani-Zrneti
Cahul
Jora de Jos
Lopatna
Conia
Criuleni
erpeni
52
0
20
69
0
0
0
119
47.5
642.9
46.5
0
Main Report Final
3-9
December 2009

CIS
Puhceni
Rocani
Talmaza
Suvorov
Total Area
55
123.9
85
2,528.9
3,789.7
1. Data Provided by each STI
3.2.1 Tetcani
The table below provides an overview of the assessment of the existing CIS infrastructure
at Tetcani.
Table 3-3
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Tetcani CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired/ or Remarks
River Intake
Fish protection structures
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
Pump Stations
Number of Pumps
Number of Motors
Station Piping length (m)
Number of Station Valves
Number of Ancillary
Systems
Suction and discharge
pipe Length (m)
Number of Basins
Electrical Systems
10 kV Power Line
10 kV/0.4 kV Transformer
6 kV Switchgear
0.4 kV Switchgear/Control
Panels
Automation Panels
Motor Starting Devices
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
Underground Pipe Network
0
0
0
0
1
5
60
34
19
15
535
26
6555
2
3
2 Lineups
0
1 Lineup
2 Lineups
2 Lineups
0
0
2
2
0
0
0
0
Main Report Final
3-10
December 2009

Components
Need to be
Replaced
Need to be
8,446
103
32
0
184
0
Pipes Length (m)

Number of Hydrants
Number of Valves
Dam
Outlet Works
Inlet
Condition unknown
Pipe condition unknown.
Exterior asphalt corrosion
protection is significantly
weathered. Exterior corrosion
protection needs to be added.
Conduit
Spillway
Remove and
replace
Inlet
Condition unknown. Add

seepage diaphragm around
conduit.
Conduit
Stilling Basin
Remove and
replace
May be needed
Emergency Spillway
Instrumentation
Add piezometers
and movement
monuments
For more detailed assessment, please refer to Annex 1.

3.2.2 Blindeti
The table below provides an overview of the system assessment.
Table 3-4
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Blindeti CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
Number of Pumps
Number of Motors
3
0
0
Pump Stations
0
13
0
0
0
13
0
Main Report Final
3-11
December 2009

Components
Need to be
Replaced

20
10
Number of Ancillary
Systems
1
1380
pipe Length (m)
Number of Basins
0
Electrical Systems
10 kV Power Line
0
1
6 kV Switchgear
0
2 Lineups
Panels
Automation Panels
0
0
2 Lots
Power Cables/Racks
2 Lots
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
5,105
Number of Hydrants
131
Number of Valves
23
Need to be
Repaired
135
16
2
0
0
0
1 Lineup
1 Lineup
0
0
0
0
0
0
0

3.2.3 Grozeti
Table 3-5 below provides an overview of the assessment of the existing infrastructure at
Grozeti.
Table 3-5
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Grozeti CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
3
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
0
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
Number of Pumps
5
Number of Motors
9
0
0
0
4
0
Main Report Final
3-12
December 2009

Components
Need to be
Replaced

0
6
Number of Ancillary
0
Systems
845
pipe Length (m)
Number of Basins
0
Electrical Systems
0
10 kV Power Line
1
0
6 kV Switchgear
0
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
0
Power Cables/Racks
0
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
5,599
Number of Hydrants
48
Number of Valves
54
Need to be
Repaired
27
22
1
0
1
0
1 Lineup
2 Lineups
0
0
0
0
0
294
0

The table below provides an overview of the system assessment for Crpinenii de Sus
Table 3-6
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure
at Crpinenii de Sus CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
River Intake
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
Number of Pumps
Number of Motors
3
0
0
Pump Stations
29
29
0
0
0
0
0
Main Report Final
3-13
December 2009

Components
Number of Ancillary
Systems
pipe Length (m)
Number of Basins
10 kV Power Line
6 (4) kV Switchgear
Panels
Automation Panels
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
Number of Valves
Upstream Slope
Crest and Toe Road
Downstream Slope
Toe Drain
Inlet
Conduit
Stilling Basin
Inlet
Conduit
Stilling Basin
Emergency Spillway
Need to be
Replaced
Need to be
540
85
10
238
30
0
1170
0
Electrical Systems
4 Lots
4 Lots
3
5 Lineups
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5 Lots
0
5 Lots
0
7,900
0
438
188
0
43
Dam
Concrete slope
protection needs to be
replaced
Crest road needs regarding,
addition of sub base and base
course road surfacing.
Some regarding in areas that are
irregular.
Remove and replace
manholes, add
seepage weirs
Condition unknown
Condition unknown
Remove and replace
Remove and replace
Condition Unknown. Add
seepage diaphragm around
conduit.
Remove and replace
May be needed
Main Report Final
3-14
December 2009

Need to be
Replaced
Components
Instrumentation
Need to be
Add piezometers and

movement
monuments
This CIS is being reconfigured to pump directly from the River Prut, by adding 3 new PS
to pump directly to NSP-4 and NSP-7, and abandoning NSG-2 and the associated dam.
3.2.5 Leova Sud
The table below provides an overview of the assessment of the existing conditions at
Leova Sud.
Table 3-7
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Leova Sud CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
Pump
Motors
Station Piping
Station Valves
Ancillary Systems
pipes-Length (m)
Basins
2
0
0
Pump Stations
6
12
0
3
2
80
0
Electrical Systems
10 kV Power Line,
Transformers, CBs, DSs
6 kV Switchgear
Control Panels for 6 kV
pumps
Panels
Automation Panels
0
0
0
3
0
0
21
0
0
2
1 Lot
1 Lot
1 Lineup
2 Lineups
0
0
0
0
Main Report Final
3-15
December 2009

Components
Need to be
Replaced
2 Lots
2 Lots
Pipes Length (m)
3,055
Number of Hydrants
79
Number of Valves
40
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
Need to be
Repaired
0
0
0
247
0

Table 3-8 below provides an overview of the existing conditions of the infrastructure at
Chircani-Zrneti.
Table 3-8
at Chircani-Zrneti CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
Number of Pumps
Number of Motors
Number of Ancillary Systems
Suction and discharge pipe
Length (m)
Number of Basins
10 kV Power Line
6 kV Switchgear
Panels
Automation Panels
9
0
0
Pump Stations
14
20
125
34
9
1030
0
Electrical Systems
4 Lots
4 Lots
0
0
0
6
0
175
9
0
0
0
2 Lineups
0
0
0
5 Lineups
Main Report Final
3-16
December 2009

Need to be
Replaced
Components
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
Number of Valves
Channels Length (m)
0
5 Lots
5 Lots
30,130
745
101
Drainage Channel Network
0
Need to be
Repaired
0
0
0
0
0
0
69,240

3.2.7 Cahul
Table 3-9 provides an overview of the assessment of the existing infrastructure at Cahul.
Table 3-9
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Cahul
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
1700
0
Pump Stations
7
Pump Number
18
Motors Number
0
Station Piping Length (m)
18
Station Valves Number
Ancillary Systems
9
Number
Discharge pipe Length
1380
(m)
0
Basins Number
Electrical Systems
0
10 kV Power Line
1
0
6(10) kV Switchgear
1 Lineup
Panels
0
0
0
9
0
385
37
1
0
0
0
0
3 Lineups
Main Report Final
3-17
December 2009

Components
Need to be
Replaced
0
Automation Panels
0
1 Lot
Power Cables/Racks
1 Lot
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
10,567
Number of Hydrants
417
Number of Valves
50
Channels Length (m)
0
Need to be
Repaired
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
96,770

3.2.8 Jora de Jos
The table below provides an overview of the assessment of the Jora de Jos CIS.
Table 3-10
at Jora de Jos CIS
Need to be Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
5
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
0
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
9
Pump
17
Motors
0
4
Station Valves
4
Ancillary Systems
1380
pipes-Length (m)
Electrical Systems
0
10 kV Power Line
0
6(10) kV Switchgear
0
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
0
0
8
0
268
38
6
0
0
1 Lineup
4 Lineups
0
Main Report Final
3-18
December 2009

Components
Need to be
Replaced
0
0
Power Cables/Racks
0
Control Cables
8458
Pipes Length (m)
497
Number of Hydrants
109
Number of Valves
Need to be
Repaired
0
0
0
0
0
0

3.2.9 Lopatna
Table 3-11 provides an overview of the assessment of Lopatna CIS.
Table 3-11
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Lopatna CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
3
Sets
100
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
0
Pump
6
Motors
0
Station Valves
Ancillary Systems
2
pipes-Length (m)
0
Electrical Systems
10 kV Power Line,
1 Lot
0
6 kV Switchgear
1 Lineup
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
1 Lot
Power Cables/Racks
1 Lot
Control Cables
0
0
0
6
0
6
0
34
0
0
1 Lineup
0
0
0
0
Main Report Final
3-19
December 2009

Components
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
Number of Valves
Need to be
Replaced
Need to be
Repaired
0
199
89
0
0
0

3.2.10 Conia
The table below provides an overview of the existing infrastructure conditions at Conia.
Table 3-12
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Conia
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
9
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
215
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
Number of Pumps
16
Number of Motors
19
0
4
Number of Ancillary
0
Systems
Number of Basins
0
Electrical Systems
10 kV Power Line
0
1
6 kV Switchgear
0
3 Lineups
Panels
Automation Panels
0
0
Power Cables/Racks
2 Lots
Control Cables
2 Lots
Pipes Length (m)
12,461
Number of Hydrants
544
Number of Valves
58
0
0
0
3
0
404
26
12
0
0
0
0
2 Lineups
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Main Report Final
3-20
December 2009

3.2.11 Criuleni
The table below provides an assessment of the existing infrastructure serving Criuleni
CIS.
Table 3-13
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Criuleni CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
4
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
0
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
4
Pump
6
Motors
Station Piping Length
0
(m)
2
Station Valves
0
Ancillary Systems
0
Basins
Electrical Systems
0
10 kV Power Line
0
6(10) kV Switchgear
0
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
0
Power Cables/Racks
0
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
4,130
Number of Hydrants
196
Number of Valves
68
0
0
0
0
0
45
9
3
0
0
0
3 Lineups
0
0
0
0
0
18
0
Main Report Final
3-21
December 2009

3.2.12 erpeni
Table 3-14 below provides an overview of the assessment of the infrastructure serving
this CIS.
Table 3-14
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at erpeni CIS
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
2
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
130
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
8
Pump
8
Motors
0
(m)
12
Station Valves
0
Ancillary Systems
0
Basins
Electrical Systems
0
10 kV Power Line
2
10 kV/6 kV Transformers
2 Lineups
6 kV Switchgear
1 Lineup
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
3 Lots
Power Cables/Racks
3 Lots
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
7,083
Number of Hydrants
204
Number of Valves
61
0
0
0
0
0
65
6
5
1
0
0
0
2 Lineups
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Main Report Final
3-22
December 2009

3.2.13 Puhceni
The table below provides an overview of the system assessment for Puhceni.
Table 3-15
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Puhceni CIS
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
6
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
390
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
Pump
6
Motors
6
Station Piping
62
Station Valves
6
Ancillary Systems
1
Basins
0
Electrical Systems
10 kV/0.4 kV
1 Lot
0
6(10) kV Switchgear
2 Lineups
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
2 Lots
Power Cables/Racks
2 Lots
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
33,614
Number of Hydrants
383
Number of Valves
36
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Main Report Final
3-23
December 2009

3.2.14 Rocani
Table 3-14 below provides an overview of the assessment of existing infrastructure at
Rocani.
Table 3-16
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Rocani CIS
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
3
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
210
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
Pump
0
Motors
7
Station Piping - length (m)
0
Station Valves
0
Ancillary Systems
4
Basins
0
Electrical Systems
0
10 kV Power Line
2 Lineups
6(10) kV Switchgear
2 Lineups
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
2 Lots
Power Cables/Racks
2 Lots
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
5,310
Number of Hydrants
119
Number of Valves
17
0
0
0
3
0
0
15
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
Main Report Final
3-24
December 2009

3.2.15 Talmaza
The table below provides an overview of the conditions of the existing infrastructure at
Talmaza.
Table 3-17
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Talmaza CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
Repaired
River Intake
12
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
480
Valves Number
0
Pump Stations
Pump
9
Motors
28
0
Station Valves
8
Ancillary Systems
0
Basins
0
Electrical Systems
10 kV Power Line,
3
Transformer, CB, DS, Bus
1 Lineup
6 kV Switchgear
6 Lineups
Panels
0
Automation Panels
0
5 Lots
Power Cables/Racks
5 Lots
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
38,193
Number of Hydrants
593
Number of Valves
90
Channels Length (m)
0
0
0
0
19
0
575
61
6
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
15
48,000
Main Report Final
3-25
December 2009

3.2.16 Suvorov
Table 3-18 below provides an overview of the existing conditions of the system at
Suvorov.
Table 3-18
Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Suvorov CIS
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced
River Intake
Sets
Pipes Length (m)
Valves Number
Pumps
Motor
(m)
Station Valves
Ancillary Systems
Basins
10 kV Power Line,
Transformer, CB, DS, Bus
6 kV Switchgear
Panels
Automation Panels
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
Number of Valves
Upstream Slope
Toe Drain
12
570
0
Pump Stations
34
68
130
46
9
0
Electrical Systems
0
0
0
38
0
891
168
20
10
2 Lots
6 Lineups
4 Lineups
7 Lineups
7 Lineups
0
0
7 Lots
8 Lots
87,579
2,591
446
Caplani Dam
Concrete slope
protection needs to
be replaced
Remove and replace
manholes, add
seepage weirs
0
0
0
0
0
124
0
Main Report Final
3-26
December 2009

Components
Need to be
Replaced
Inlet
Conduit
Condition unknown
Condition unknown
Remove and Replace 10
meters of reinforced concrete
pipe
Bypass Pipeline to Stilling

Basin
Spillway
Inlet
Remove and replace

Condition Unknown. Add
filter diaphragm
Conduit
Stilling Basin
Emergency Spillway
Instrumentation
Need to be
Remove and replace

Add movement
monuments
May be needed
Rehabilitate existing
piezometers
Main Report Final
3-27
December 2009
Section 4 Assessment of Site Conditions
4.0 Assessment of Site Conditions

This section provides an assessment of the site conditions of the 16 CIS proposed for
rehabilitation. The assessment of site conditions for the purpose of this related study
entailed identifying parameters directly affecting crop production and productivity of the
irrigated land, i.e. topography and soil agronomic characteristics for all 16 CIS. The
section also addresses potential salinity and drainage problems raised in the Irrigation
Engineering, Hydrologic, and Agronomic Assessment Report by Utah State University
(USU), specifically for Crpinenii de Sus, Chircani-Zrneti, Cahul, Talmaza, and
Suvorov.
4.1. Overview of Site Topography

Moldova is located in southeastern Europe, bordering Ukraine to its north, east and south,
and Romania to the west. It has maximum dimensions of 350 km (north-south) by 150
km (east-west) and a surface area of 33,846 km2. The landscape is dominated by rolling
hills. The mean altitude of the country is 147 m above sea level (masl) and the highest
elevation is 429 masl around central Moldova.
The topography of the 16 CIS under assessment varies from flood plain elevations
ranging around 0-10 masl (such as the case with Talmaza along the Nistru and Cahul
along the Prut) to elevation at high benches between the two rivers at elevations as high
as 200 masl.
4.2. Overview of Site Soil Conditions

Moldova is richly endowed with soils highly suitable for agricultural production. Soils
are mainly:
Heavy textured which cover 64% of the territory covered by heavy loam soils and
17% by loam soils.
Carbonate (21% of the area), ordinary (21% of area), leached (favorable for many
agricultural plants covering 13% of areas), and typical black soils (9% of area),
the most favorable for arable agriculture, make up the heavy textured soils.
Alluvial soils, of which 55% are saline, cover 10% of the land.
Grey wood soils are found at elevations above 250-270 m and cover about 10% of
the country.
Over the last century, the average humus content of soils has decreased from 6% to 3.2%
due to anthropogenic activities. Poor agricultural practices have contributed to increasing
erosion and soil loss, with more than 17% of agricultural lands being heavily eroded and
33.9% of all arable lands (more than 858,000 ha) eroded to varying degrees. Erosion is
increasing at 0.9% annually, with annual soil losses to erosion of approximately 26
Main Report Final
4-1
December 2009

million tons of soil containing 700,000 tons of humus, 50,000 tons of nitrogen and 34,000
tons of phosphorus. These soil losses translate into annual agricultural losses of 525,000
tons of food crops and 57,000 tons of fruit and grapes. The highest incidences of erosion
have been recorded in the Calarasi, Ungheni, Cahul and Hincesti Districts.
Soil degradation also results from compaction due to the passage of heavy equipment,
although this has decreased in recent years due to farmers' lack of access to such
equipment.
In addition, in areas of alternating permeable and impermeable strata, under the right
hydrological conditions, landslides and/or land subsidence may occur and further
contribute to land degradation. Currently, landslides affect an area of 55,500 ha, mostly
within central Moldova. This area is increasing by 1,000 ha annually. There are
approximately 6,200 active ravines in the country, and nearly 80,000 ha that have been
completely degraded by ravines. Total annual losses to the Moldovan economy as a result
of soil degradation have been estimated at about US$ 251 million.
High soil alkalinity and salinity, commonly generated by poor irrigation practice in the
past, affect large areas of land in Moldova (107,500 ha and 112,200 ha respectively, of
which 30 to 35% are arable land). Overgrazing further exacerbates land degradation.
The soils within the CIS being considered are predominantly of the Chernozem type1.
These are generally deep and highly fertile rich black soils that cover approximately 75%
of the country. The type of soil found in Moldova that is of concern includes, Solonetz,
which as described in the USU report, is sodic, high clay content soil. Irrigation on
these soils would require reclamation and drainage. These soils are generally found in the
west, southwest regions of the country. Specific to the CIS in consideration, these soils
were observed to border the irrigation areas in Chircani-Zrneti and Cahul.
4.3. Overview of Salinity and Drainage Conditions

No historical records of fertilizers usage (or any other chemicals) were readily available.
However, groundwater contamination has been reported from abuse of fertilizers,
pesticides, and herbicides during the Soviet era. Previous available monitoring reports
from the early 1990s showed no indication of widespread salinity or sodicity problems
even in the CIS identified with potential problems. However, salinity and sodicity were
assessed in Crpinenii de Sus, Chircani-Zrneti, Cahul, Talmaza, and Suvorov. The
assessment results generally agree with the monitoring program reports. These findings
are discussed in greater detail in Section 4.5.
Periodic assessments of salinity (and by inference the drainage status) are required by law
in Moldova. However, such assessments have not been done for at least 10 years mostly
because of the lack of funds. To determine the current status of the salinity and drainage
22
1
http://eb.adbureau.net/jnserver/acc_random=3819702098/site=DARWIN_C/area=ARTICLES/aamsz=400x50/pageid=19112
Main Report Final
4-2
December 2009

to sustain irrigated agriculture in these CIS, MWH and MCC determined that it was
necessary to conduct a rapid assessment of the soil salinity-sodicity and drainage systems
at Chircani-Zrneti, Cahul, Talmaza, and Suvorov, and only salinity-sodicity in
Crpinenii de Sus.
4.3.1 Soil Salinity-Sodicity Assessment Methodology
To assess the salinity status of those irrigation systems, MWH carried out field studies in
these above listed areas using electrical conductivity meters that measured the resistance
to electrical current transmission directly in the field. This identifies the reconnaissance
level results of the potential salinity problems on the previously identified CIS. The soil
salinity was measured using the Field Scout EC 110 Meter by inserting the probe in the
soil at two different depths: at 30 cm and up to 60cm. During the field tests for salinity,
composite samples were collected and processed in the laboratory for sodicity analysis.
Tables 4-1 identify the threshold values for crop yield as function of salinity tolerance.
The threshold levels of sodicity through the exchangeable sodium percentage (ESP) are
identified in Table 4-2.
Table 4-1
Soil Salinity Risk Level
Electrical
Salinity Risk Level that
Conductivity
Affect Crop Yield
ECsw (S/cm)
<2000
2,000 to 4,000
4,000 to 8,000
8,000 to 16,000
Very low
low
moderate
high
> 16,000
very high
Table 4-2
Soil Sodicity through ESP Level
Exchangeable
Sodicity Risk Level
Sodium
that Affect Soil
Percentage
<3
3-6
6 - 10
10 - 15
Very low
low
moderate
high
> 15
very high
In general, soil salinity and high water table are closely related. At the CIS reported with
potential salinity-sodicity problems, drainage has been a concern and likely the probable
Main Report Final
4-3
December 2009

cause for the salinity-sodicity problems. Due to lack of funds, the maintenance of these
engineered systems has not been kept up to keep the water table below the root zone (at
least 2 m below the soils surface).
4.3.2 Drainage Assessment Methodology
Due to scope, budget, but more importantly schedule limitations, each and every piece of
the drainage systems could not be physically observed. Rather, MWH visited and
carefully evaluated typical sections of the drainage systems. The results of the rapid
assessment are found for the four systems that contain engineered drainage systems are
discussed in the following sections.
4.4. Site Conditions Specific the CIS under Consideration

General information related to topography, soil and drainage condition for each of the 16
CIS is identified in Table 4-3.
Table 4-3
Overview of Site Conditions at the 16 CIS being considered for
Rehabilitation
CIS
Tetcani
Blindeti
Topography
This CIS relief is undulated, located
in a medium elevation plateau. The
maximum elevation difference across
the CIS is approximately 50 m, with
slopes varying from 0.01 to 0.07.
This CIS terrain is relatively flat. The
maximum elevation difference is
about 40 m within the command area
of pump station SP-7.
Soil Type1
Drainage
Chernozem,
The farmland is provided with

good natural drainage. No
flooding protection is needed.
Chernozem

Carbonated
Chernozem,
which has
medium to
good potential
for HVA.
The farmland has good natural

drainage, with a water table
depth of 8m to 22m. No flood
protection is required.
Grozeti
The CIS relief is a relatively

undulated plateau. The elevation
difference across the CIS is about 133
m, with slopes ranging from 0.01 to
0.07.
Crpinenii
de Sus
The CIS relief is relatively flat. The

maximum elevation difference is
approximately 40 m within the
command area of pump station SP-7.
Chernozem
Leova
Sud
This CIS relief is a relatively flat

plateau. The maximum elevation
difference across this CIS is
approximately 90 m.
Chernozem
The irrigated farmland has

good natural drainage. The
water table depth ranges from
15m to 20m below the soil
surface; no flood protection is
needed.
average water table depth is
more than 5m; no flooding
Main Report Final
4-4
December 2009

CIS
Topography
Soil Type1
Drainage
protection is needed.
ChircaniZrneti
Cahul
Jora de
Jos
Lopatna
This CIS is in a flood plain. The

elevation difference within this CIS is
about 3 m, with slopes varying from
0.0005 to 0.0007.
This CIS is in a flood plain. The
elevation difference within the CIS is
approximately 3 m, with slopes
varying from 0.0005 to 0.005.
This terrain of this CIS is undulated,
with the farmland located on a
plateau. The maximum elevation
difference across the CIS of
approximately 68 m.
This CIS relief is relatively undulated
or a typical rolling hills landscape.
The maximum elevation difference
within the irrigated area is
approximately 74 m.
Chernozem
See Section 4.6.1
Chernozem
See Section 4.6.2
Chernozem

Chernozem
Conia
This CIS relief is relatively level. The

maximum elevation difference within
the irrigated area is approximately 11
m.
Chernozem
Criuleni
This CIS relief is relatively level. The

m.
Chernozem
erpeni
This CIS relief is relatively level to

undulated. The maximum elevation
difference within the irrigated area is
approximately 25 m.
Chernozem
Puhceni
This relief of this CIS is

approximately flat. The maximum
elevation difference within the
irrigated area is approximately 3 m.
Chernozem
Rocani
This CIS relief is undulated. The

m.
Chernozem
Talmaza
This relief within this CIS flat, it is

considered a flood plain; the
differential elevation within the
Chernozem

water table depth ranges from
10 m to 15 m. No flood
protection required.
good natural drainage; the
command area has been
protected with a dike to
prevent flooding from the
Nistru River.
drainage. The irrigated area
has been protected with dikes
to prevent flooding from the
Nistru River.
good natural drainage; the
command area lies on a
medium high plateau (above
82 masl) of the Nistru River.
No flood protection required.
drainage. The irrigated area
has been protected by dikes to
prevent flooding from the
Nistru River.
medium high plateau (above
86 masl) of the Nistru River.
No flood protection required.
See Section 4.6.3
Main Report Final
4-5
December 2009

CIS
Topography
Soil Type1
Drainage
irrigated areas contour lines is about

4 m on an extensive area.
Chernozem
Suvorov
medium elevation plateau of
the Nistru River.
1. Chernozem is ideal for HVA with a high production potential, provided a fertilization management
program is set in place. In general the soil is described as having good physical and chemical
characteristics of infiltration, water holding capacity, tilting, natural nutrient retention capacity and
fertility.
This terrain of this CIS is undulated
with medium rolling hills. The
elevation difference within the
irrigated area is approximately 60 m.
4.5
Soil Salinity and Sodicity Assessment
As mentioned above, soil salinity and sodicity assessment was undertaken at the
following CIS:
Crpinenii de Sus
Chircani-Zrneti
Cahul
Talmaza
Suvorov

There is no engineered drainage system at this CIS. The concern regarding salinity is
primarily due to Lake Minjir, which is the source of irrigation water for this CIS. The
lake water is saline.
The assessment methodology was previously discussed in Section 4.3.1. The summary of
data sampled and analyzed is provided in Table 4-4. For a more detailed discussion on
this assessment, please refer to Appendix H.
Table 4-4
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Crpinenii de Sus
Parameter
Depth (cm)
Salinity - ECsw
(S/cm)
ESP
(Exchangeable
Sodium %)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
999
806
313
316
566
556
Maximum
0-30 cm
1.73
30-60 cm
1.42
Minimum
0-30 cm
0.81
30-60 cm
0.54
Average
0-30 cm
1.27
Main Report Final
4-6
December 2009
30-60 cm
0.98

Based on the table above, the values for salinity are below 2000, which is considered
very low for salinity content risk. In addition, sodicity levels are below 3%, rendering
this to be very low level as well.
As discussed in Section 6.0, rehabilitation plans for Crpinenii de Sus will be developed
to draw water directly from the Prut River, thus eliminating the future source of salinity
at this CIS.
The summary of data sampled and analyzed for this CIS is provided in Table 4-5.
Table 4-5
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Chircani-Zrneti
Parameter
Depth (cm)
Salinity - ECsw
(S/cm)
ESP
(Exchangeable
Sodium %)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
0-30 cm
30-60
3,040
4,100
338
349
1,050
1,209
Maximum
0-30 cm
0.56
30-60 cm
5.29
Minimum
0-30 cm
0.39
30-60 cm
0.37
Average
0-30 cm
0.46
30-60 cm
2.26
The table above shows that salinity values are mostly within the low category for
salinity content risk to crops (i.e. between 2000-4000 as per Table 4-1). Maximum values
in the range of 3,000 to 4,100 S/cm were from samples taken in fields under
waterlogged conditions along the area east of pump station S-5. Soils in these areas could
be classified as saline. Please refer to Appendix H for more details including location of
these areas considered saline.
There are no sodicity problems. The exchangeable sodium percentage for both depths is
below the very low level threshold (less than 3%). The occurrence of water on the soil
surface is an indication of poor or non-existent drainage. Lack of movement of the water
through the soil profile and surface water evaporation may temporarily increase the salt
concentration; however, it does not necessarily mean that the soil is saline. If the situation
is not remediated by providing proper removal of excess water (drainage), with time the
soil will become saline.
To facilitate sustainable irrigation, drainage system at this CIS should be rehabilitated
and be maintained in a properly functioning manner. An annual monitoring program
should also be established to monitor groundwater tables, electro-conductivity and
specific salts as necessary to conduct salinity & sodicity assessments.
Main Report Final
4-7
December 2009

4.5.3 Cahul
The salinity and sodicity tests were undertaken to address concerns mentioned in other
reports. The summary of data sampled and analyzed for this CIS is provided in Table 4-6.
Table 4-6
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Cahul
Parameter
Depth (cm)
Salinity - ECsw
(S/cm)
ESP
(Exchangeable
Sodium %)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
1,595
1,800
344
502
1,061
1,074
Maximum
0-30 cm
1.02
30-60 cm
0.3
Minimum
0-30 cm
0.1
30-60 cm
0.12
Average
0-30 cm
0.42
30-60 cm
0.19
The results from the salinity tests are clustered around an average value of 1,000 S/cm,
which are classified as low salinity risk. The maximum values are also less than 2000,
further substantiating the low range of soil salinity risk for crops. The ESP results show a
very low risk of sodicity problems.
There are indications that lack of proper drainage could create a salinity problem over
time in the future. As such it is recommended that the drainage system be rehabilitated
and be maintained. Also, an annual monitoring program should be established to monitor
groundwater tables, electro-conductivity and specific salts as necessary to conduct
salinity and sodicity assessments.
For more detailed discussion of this assessment, please refer to Appendix H.
4.5.4 Talmaza
The summary of data sampled and analyzed for this CIS is provided in Table 4-7.
Table 4-7
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Talmaza
Parameter
Depth (cm)
Salinity - ECsw
(S/cm)
ESP
(Exchangeable
Sodium %)
Maximum
Minimum
Average
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
1,953
2,061
394
342
1,285
1,404
Maximum
Minimum
Average
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
3.01
3.23
0.53
0.55
1.77
1.89
Main Report Final
4-8
December 2009

The above results show that most of the samples taken at Talmaza fall in the very low
risk (below 2000) category for salinity. The recorded maximum and high value are in the
low risk classification. The high values could be attributed to drainage problems resulting
in water stagnation and salt build up from subsequent evaporation of this ponded water.
However, the sodicity values fall in the low risk even for the maximum values found. In
addition, a rising shallow water table could contribute to salt accumulation in the soil
surface. However, results indicate that soils are not saline; the risk of rising soil-surface
water evaporation each summer will increase the salt content very rapidly.
As such it is recommended that the drainage system be rehabilitated and maintained, and
annual monitoring program be established to monitor groundwater tables, electroconductivity and specific salts as necessary to conduct future salinity and sodicity
assessments.
For more detailed discussion of this assessment, please refer to Appendix H.
4.5.5 Suvorov
The summary of data sampled and analyzed for this CIS is provided in Table 4-8
Table 4-8
ECsw of Measured Soil Salinity and Sodicity Status at Suvorov
Parameter
Maximum
Depth (cm)
Salinity - ECsw
(S/cm)
ESP
(Exchangeable
Sodium %)
Minimum
Average
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
0-30
30-60
808
743
787
690
798
717
Maximum
Minimum
Average
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
0.51
0.53
0.51
0.53
0.51
0.53
The salinity measurement results currently indicate a very low risk condition. The
sodicity assessment also indicates no cause for concern. For more detailed assessment,
please refer to Appendix H.
4.6 Drainage Assessment

As discussed above, proper drainage, especially in low lying areas, is required to sustain
irrigation concerns related to rising high water table. Drainage assessment was
undertaken at the following CIS:
Chircani-Zrneti
Cahul
Talmaza
Suvorov
Main Report Final
4-9
December 2009

The drainage assessment report for the four CIS is provided in Appendix I. A synopsis of
that report is presented below.
During field visit, the drainage system at Suvorov was discovered to cover an area of
only 12 hectares. Given its relative insignificant size, the assessment of the system is not
considered here.
The occurrence of reeds, as observed in some cropland areas at Chircani-Zrneti is
evidence of a shallow water table. This vegetation is typical of wetlands and canals with
abundant water. Other indicators of high water tables are algae and soil crusting, which
were also observed in Chircani-Zrneti. The water table depth ranges from 0.5m to 4.0m
from the ground surface. The soil profile indicates good drainage capability; however,
removal of excess water from raising water table is needed.
The following provides a brief assessment of the various components of the existing
drainage system at this CIS.
Earthen Surface Canals
The earthen drainage canals total 69.24 km in this CIS. There are 13.84 km of collector
canals and 55.42 km of secondary canals. The drainage system covers nearly 100 % of
the irrigated area. There is an average sediment accumulation of approximately 0.5m to
0.8m in the collectors canals (b=3 m, h=4 m) and a lesser amount, up to 0.5m, in the
secondary canals (b=2 m, h=3 m) for those measured. Tall reed growth is pervasive in all
canals and is also growing on the banks of the canals in some areas. Water was observed
at a level of about two meters from the top of the canal banks when inspected on April,
2009. The original cross-section (side slopes and embankment) of the canals, that is
visible, is uniform although some minor sloughing is seen rarely.
Recommended Action
Remedial Cleaning. Clean the sediment and reed growth in the canals
immediately. The estimate of the current volume of sediment in the canals is
approximately 1.9 cubic meters/meter for the collectors and about 1.4 cubic
meters/meter for the secondary canals. Minimal reshaping of the canal
embankments needs to be done at this time.
Annual Inspection / Periodic Cleaning. The drainage system should be inspected
once a year and provisions for sediment cleaning and bank maintenance should be
made on an approximate five-year cycle. Weed control should be done on a more
frequent basis. A budget should be established for this purpose.
Main Report Final
4-10
December 2009

Sub-Surface Drainage Pipes
There are no maps or records of sub-surface drainage piping. During field inspection
there was no visual evidence of such pipes. Interviews with knowledgeable people also
provided no indication of the existence of such a system.
Recommended Action
Monitoring the Need. It is presumed that the sub-surface piping system does not exist.
Monitoring wells should be observed on an annual basis to determine whether the surface
canal drainage system is sufficient to serve the area without the necessity for subsurface
pipe system.
Monitoring Wells
There are 12 monitoring wells in this CIS. These wells are functional; however the
number of wells and spacing are not sufficient. If true observations are to be made in a
systematic fashion, then additional monitoring wells need to be installed.
Recommended Action: Construct approximately 55 new wells. These should be read on a
routine basis to monitor the effectiveness of the drainage system in the CIS.
Bridges
There are 18 bridges in this CIS that provide access across the canals. The bridge decks
are approximately 0.2m thick and 7.3m wide. These bridges are all in various states of
deterioration with spaulling edges present at many locations. Reinforcement steel is
exposed on many structural members. However, the bridges seem to be in reliable
structural condition. There is a problem with the erosion of the approaches up to the
bridges from the farm roads. There exist so-called sink holes at the entrances creating
difficulty in mounting the bridge. These need correcting and will only get worse with
time.
Recommended Action
Patching. Cleaning of exposed reinforcing steel and patching could add years of
service to these members. During final design it is recommended that each bridge
be looked at on a unit-by-unit basis.
Correct the Approaches. The approaches to the bridges have eroded away over
time. It would be useful to restore these approaches to allow better entry onto the
bridges and less wear and tear to the both the bridge and the vehicles. This is a
minor cost that will afford significant benefits.
Dikes
There are some dikes along the Prut River associated with this CIS. However, there have
been no recent cases of flooding reported in the area. The dikes in question were built
before the CostestiStanca dam was built on the Prut River. The failure of the dam might
cause overtopping of downstream dikes. Therefore, a study of dikes adequacy is required
in case of dam failure.
Main Report Final
4-11
December 2009

Recommended Action
The need to examine the adequacy of the dikes was discussed with Apele Moldovei.
Since the area at risk in case of dam failure is much larger than the area of the present
project, the proposed study should be a separate project on dikes and dams safety in
Moldova. For this reason, the associated costs for the proposed study for dikes adequacy
or for dikes rehabilitation are not included in the cost estimates for this CIS rehabilitation.
4.6.2 Cahul
The water table depth ranges from a depth of 1.5 to 5m below the ground surface.
The earthen drainage canals total 96.8 km in this CIS. There are 38.5 km of collector
canals and 58.2 km of secondary canals. The drainage system covers about 35 % of the
irrigated area, primarily in the lower level area in the area adjacent to the river. The
canals have an average sediment accumulation of approximately 0.5m to 0.8m in the
collectors canals (b=3m, h=4m) and a lesser amount, up to 0.5m, in the secondary canals
(b=2m, h=3m) for those measured. Tall reed growth is pervasive in all canals and is also
growing on the banks of the canals in some areas. Water was standing about two meters
down from the top of the canal banks when inspected on April 2009. The original crosssection (side slopes and embankment) of the canals, that is visible, is uniform although
some minor sloughing is seen rarely.
Recommended Action
made on an approximate five year cycle. Weed control should be done on a more
There are no maps or records of sub-surface drainage piping. During field inspection
there was no visual evidence of such piping existing. Interviews with knowledgeable
people also provided no indication of the existence of such a system.
Recommended Action
Monitoring the Need. It is presumed that the sub-surface piping system does not exist.
Monitoring wells should be observed on an annual basis to determine whether the surface
canal drainage system is sufficient to serve the area without the necessity for subsurface
pipe system.
Main Report Final
4-12
December 2009

Monitoring Wells
There were 12 monitoring wells observed at this CIS. The majority are operable. The
problem is that the number of wells and spacing are not sufficient. If true observations
are to be made in a systematic fashion, then additional monitoring wells need to be
installed. .
Recommended Action
Restore Monitoring Wells. Construct approximately 31 new wells. These should be read
on a routine basis to monitor the effectiveness of the drainage system in the CIS.
Bridges
There are 28 bridges in this CIS that provide access across the canals. The bridge decks
are approximately 0.2m thick and 7.3m wide. These bridges are all in various states of
deterioration with spaulling edges present at many locations. Reinforcement steel is
exposed on many structural members. However, the bridges seem to be in reliable
structural condition. There is a problem with the erosion of the approaches up to the
bridges from the farm roads. There exist so-called sink holes at the entrances creating
difficulty in mounting the bridge. These need to be corrected or will only get worse with
time.
Recommended Action
service to these members. During final design it is recommended that each bridge
be looked at on a unit by unit basis.
bridges and less wear and tear to both the bridge and the vehicles. This is a minor
cost that will afford significant benefits.
Dikes
The situation here is same as that encountered in Chircani-Zrneti. There are some dikes
along the Prut River associated with this CIS, however, there is no recent flooding
reported in the area. Failure of dam would also impact Cahul as well other populated
areas along Prut River, downstream of CostestiStanca dam.
Recommended Action
For reasons discussed in the case of Chircani-Zrneti, the proposed study of the
adequacy of the dikes should be a separate project on dikes and dams safety in Moldova.
Therefore, the associated costs for the proposed study for dikes adequacy or for dikes
rehabilitation are not included in the cost estimates for this CIS rehabilitation.
Main Report Final
4-13
December 2009

4.6.3 Talmaza
In Talmaza, waterlogged areas were found during field visits. Most of the land close to
the T2/T3 pump stations is saturated and/or with ponding water at the surface. Some
drainage canals had water at the level of the soil surface. No water table monitoring wells
exist in this CIS.
The earthen drainage canals total 48.0 km in this CIS. The drainage system covers about
100 % of the irrigated area. The canals have an average sediment accumulation of
approximately 0.2m to 0.5m in the canals (b=2m, h=2m and b=3m, h=3m). Reed growth
in the canals is not as pervasive here as at the other systems, but there are many trees
growing on the side slopes and in the canals, as well as on the embankments. It is
estimated that there are approximately 15 trees per kilometer of canal length. The trees
are estimated to be from 15 cm to 50 cm in diameter. Water is at the top of and in some
sections overflowing the canal banks when inspected on April 2009. The canal side
slopes are not clearly visible, but the cross-section appears to be round. Sloughing of the
embankment towards the center of the canals has diminished capacity.
Recommended Action
approximately 1.9 cubic meters/meter for the canals. Trees need to be cut and
reshaping of the canal embankments needs to be done at this time.
made on an approximate five year cycle. Weed control should be done on a more
Based on discussion with local authorities, there is 6 km of corrugated, slotted, plastic
drainage pipe throughout this area. It was installed between 1985 and 1992. The pipe is
63mm in diameter and reported to be bedded in 300 to 500cm of stone at a depth of
approximately 1.2 to 1.5m (not exceeding 2m). There is filter fabric installed around
the pipe. The pipe runs are spaced 20m to 30m apart. No inlet or outlet into the canals
could be found for inspection. However, the AM District Supervisor for this system
indicated that the drainage piping is plugged (i.e. silted). No as-built drawings exist for
this piping.
Recommended Action
Monitoring the Need. It is presumed that there is a failed sub-surface piping system in
this CIS. Monitoring wells should be observed on an annual basis to determine whether
the surface canal drainage system is sufficient to serve the area without the subsurface
pipe system. If a piping system is required, a new system should be installed instead of
attempting to rehabilitate the existing system.
Main Report Final
4-14
December 2009

Monitoring Wells
There were no monitoring wells at this CIS.
Recommended Action
Restore Monitoring Wells. Construct approximately 27 new wells. These should be read
on a routine basis to monitor the effectiveness of the drainage system in the CIS.
Bridges/ Culverts
There were no bridges observed in this CIS. However, there are 36 culverts that are in
need of attention (cleaning and or repair).
Recommended Action
Clean and/or repair 36 culverts in the system.
Dikes
There are dikes in place adjacent to the Nistru River. The top of the dikes is deeply
rutted. This area has reportedly flooded in 1970, 1980 and recently in July 2008. A dike,
which generally runs North/South through this site, divides approximately 75% of the
hectares to the west (closest to the Nistru River) and the remaining 25% to the east (this
section contains the old river bed). Only the easternmost part of this CIS was flooded
in 2008.
The scenario here is similar to that encounter in Chircani-Zrneti and Cahul, both along
the Prut River, with the only difference being that the dam in question is the Dubasari
Dam along the Nistru River.
Recommended Action
The need to examine the adequacy of the dikes was discussed with Apele Moldovei. For
reasons discussed for Chircani-Zrneti and Cahul, the associated costs for the proposed
study for dikes adequacy or for dikes rehabilitation are not included in the cost estimates
for this CIS rehabilitation.
Main Report Final
4-15
December 2009
Section 5 Assessment of Water Resources & Water Quality
5.0
Assessment of Water Resources & Water Quality
This section presents an overview of viability of the water resources in Moldova based on
available water quality and quantity data to support irrigation. In addition, an evaluation
of availability of water from existing sources to support prevailing water demands and
those resulting from the rehabilitation of CIS, including an assessment of the impacts of
climate change on these resources, is also provided.
5.1
Summary
5.1.1 Viability of the Surface Water Sources to Meet Projected Agricultural

Demands
The Prut and Nistru Rivers are the two major sources of surface water in Moldova.
Water use for the rehabilitated CIS is estimated based on assumptions of percentage of
total area irrigated and percentage of HVA (See Table 9-8 in Section 9.0). For the
purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the water use estimates identified for Year
2025 would be the optimal level of water use for each rehabilitated CIS.
Assuming that the rehabilitated CIS would be functioning at 95% efficiency (i.e.
5% water losses in the system), the seven proposed rehabilitated CIS along the
Prut River would extract a total of approximately 51.4 million m3 of water per
season. This accounts for approximately 7% of the Prut River flow (available in
Moldova) during average flow conditions and 13% of the flow during drought
conditions.
The nine proposed CIS rehabilitated irrigation schemes off the Nistru River
working at similar efficiency as the Prut CIS, would extract a volume of
approximately 98.3 million m3 of water per season from the Nistru River,
consuming approximately 6% of the flow in Nistru River during normal flow
conditions, and approximately 11% of the flow during drought conditions.
Since future water requirements are not readily available for the remaining CIS
along these river basins (due to a lack of an Irrigation Master Plan), the impact of
rehabilitating additional CIS on the river flows cannot be evaluated at this stage.
Similar assessment would have to be carried out while assessing viability of
future rehabilitation projects.
Two CIS proposed for rehabilitation, Tetcani and Crpinenii de Sus, use water stored in
reservoirs on small tributaries of the Prut River. Tetcani relies on the dam of the Vilia
River, and Crpinenii de Sus on the Lpunita River. Assessment of available data
indicates that these sources are not adequate to meet water required for irrigation.
Subsequently, the rehabilitation plan for Tetcani entails drawing water directly from the
Prut River.
Main Report Final
5-1
December 2009

In light of this, the proposed rehabilitation plans Crpinenii de Sus are based on
extracting water directly from the Prut River. This also mitigates the issue of salinity that
is inherent with the use of water from the Lpunita River.
5.1.2 Adequacy of Surface Sources to Meet Other Demands
According to Apele Moldovei (AM) and data available, the main demands for water from
the Prut and Nistru Rivers beyond irrigation are for industry, municipal water supply,
small agricultural activities, and fish farming. However, since 1990, there has been a
decline in the consumption of water for these activities due to economic stagnation and
the decline of industrial growth. Available data also reveals that water demand is
declining in all regions of the country.
Given the scope of this study, it was unable to reliably determine with available data how
increased demands for other uses (assuming economic growth) will impact water
availability for irrigation. However, in 1990 when water use for irrigation was considered
the highest, data showed that the water for irrigation accounted for being the most
predominant use in both basins. Irrigation accounted for:
72% of the Prut River Basin demands.
53% of the Nistru River Basin demands, while adequate water was available in
both river basins to meet other demands.
5.1.3 Adequacy & Quality of Groundwater Sources to Meet Present &
Future Demands
Groundwater is an important source of water in Moldova, but the use of groundwater has
declined considerably over the last 15 years due to various economic and environmental
reasons. The following is a brief summary of groundwater use and trends in Moldova
based on data available:
Abstraction of groundwater has been reduced over the last 14-15 years (In 2001
abstraction was 132,778,200 m3 as compared to 277,306,700 m3 in 1991).
About 6,600 deep wells have been drilled for groundwater abstraction of which
only 3,100 are still in use; the remaining unused wells need to be plugged to
prevent contamination.
Groundwater makes up 32-40% of the total water used for centralized water
supply for urban areas (industrial and domestic).
Shallow aquifer groundwater sources are used for non-centralized water supply
and the share of shallow groundwater in rural area reaches 95-100% of all water
used (54% of the rural population).
In 2006, approximately 8.89 million m3, or 51% of the water use in Prut River
Basin came from groundwater, and 9.7 million m3 of groundwater was extracted
Main Report Final
5-2
December 2009

in the Nistru River Basin including Transnistria, which represented about 13% of
the water use in the basin.
Regarding the quality of groundwater:
Overall water quality varies from highly mineralized, from which
industrial minerals can be extracted, to potable water, which can be
bottled.
Groundwater from deep aquifers is generally hard and low in total
dissolved solids with calcium & magnesium being the dominant cations
and bicarbonate the dominant anion.
Shallow groundwater is generally high in total dissolved solids with
predominant concentrations of calcium, magnesium, and bicarbonate.
Further, it is often polluted with high levels of bacteria and nitrates from
septic systems and farming practices.
Open well borings provide a pathway for contaminated surface and
shallow groundwater to reach the deep aquifers.
Susceptibility of the groundwater resources to pollution may limit its
viability to meet future demands unless defined actions are taken.
For shallow groundwater used for villages and for domestic water supplies,
NGOs are currently working with villagers to treat their groundwater prior to
use. Most low-cost treatment technologies do not adequately treat for nitrates,
pesticides, trace metals, and other potential pollutants present in groundwater.
However, with increased dependence on in-house treatment at the taps, the use of
groundwater may remain steady.
If the groundwater sources continue to deteriorate, current demands within the
Prut and Nistru River Basin could be shifted to its surface sources. However,
pumping and treatment costs could prove this to be expensive. More detailed
analyses will have to be performed to determine the best alternative on using
treated surface water or treating groundwater at the tap. For deep aquifers, the
best alternative is to prevent groundwater contamination by developing wellhead
protection programs. Plugging of abandoned wells, and other programs
specifically designed to reduce the potential for contaminants to enter these
deeper systems would be beneficial.
5.1.4 Impacts of Climate Change on Surface & Groundwater Sources.
Projections for Moldovas climate for future periods (up to 2069) indicate:
An increase in temperatures of 0.9 to 3.8C.
A decrease in precipitation in the summer and autumn of about 4 to 20%.
An increase in precipitation in winter and spring of about 2 to 13%.
Projections for Moldovas stream flow for future periods (up to 2069) indicate:
Flow in Prut River decreases by up to 20%.
Flow in Nistru River decreases by up to 18%.
Main Report Final
5-3
December 2009

Assuming these climate change conditions:
The seven rehabilitated CIS along the Prut River would extract approximately 9%
of the available water during average flow conditions and nearly 18% of the water
during drought conditions.
The nine rehabilitated CIS along the Nistru River would account for
approximately 8% of the available water in the Nistru River during average flow
conditions, and approximately 17 % of the water during drought conditions.
If additional CIS is planned for rehabilitation, then similar assessment would have to be
carried out to determine the impact of water extraction on these respective rivers.
5.1.5 Impact of Water Use Actions by other Countries Dependent on these
Rivers
Water used by Moldova from Prut and Nistru Rivers is governed by agreements with
Ukraine and Romania. These agreements are based on a 50 50 split in ownership of the
water, but do not specify environmental flows or specific flows that need to be released
from reservoirs. Since 91% of the water available to Moldova originates outside its
borders, making sure that these agreements are maintained is of vital importance to
Moldova in ensuring that the rehabilitated central irrigation schemes have a long-term
viability.
5.2
Data Collection
Water resources management responsibilities lies within four State agencies. Each has
direct responsibilities for the collection and processing of data on water and the reporting
of this information to different international institutions and committees (Tafi, 2005).
These are:
Apele Moldovei (AM) - The State Water Agency under the Ministry of
Agriculture, is the authority that approves the water use, coordinates the
authorization of water use, and controls the use of water for irrigation, water
abstraction, and the supply and discharge of water for industry, municipalities,
and farms. They are the main source for statistical reporting on water use.
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (MENR) - The governing body for
environmental protection of water and the only authority entitled to issue the
water use permit. Four institutional departments and agencies of the ministry
participate in water resource surveillance. These are:
State Ecological Inspectorate, which consists of 12 territorial
organizations and 4 zonal laboratories.
Hydro-meteorological service Hydrometeo (HMS).
State Geological Agency MoldaGeoM.
National Institute of Ecology.
Main Report Final
5-4
December 2009

The National Centre for Science and Preventive Medicine of the Ministry of
Health, including territorial Centers of Preventive Medicine, control overall water
quality for example for drinking water, surface and recreation waters.
The Department of Statistics and Sociology is responsible for water statistics
methodology and statistical reporting.
Each of these organizations is involved in the reporting process to international
organizations such the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), World Health
Organization (WHO), and others involved in international conventions concerning transboundary waters.
To assist these organizations develop an inter-institutional network for data exchange, a
Water Data Centre (WDC) was established in the Ministry of Ecology and Natural
Resources. According to Tafi (2005), this center was developed for use by participating
organizations involved in water management in Moldova. This center was based on a
Pilot Study performed by TACIS in 1998 and was operational until recently but is no
longer functional. There is considerable useful information within the WDC database.
These data were made available for this study.
5.2.1 Data Limitations
One of the basic problems with water data collection in Moldova is that there are many
institutions involved in water surveillance activities. Each one collects different
information on water resources status and often they do not coordinate their activities.
Duplication of activities is not uncommon and inconsistencies in information are
frequently observed. In addition, there is general lack of a database for groundwater, and
available information is based on an inventory carried out over 20 years ago. Due to
monetary constraints, there are no continuous automated flow-monitoring stations
functioning in the country, or up to date monitoring equipment or trained personnel.
Although water quality data is collected periodically at several locations throughout the
country, quality control and quality assurance of field and laboratory work is lacking.
Considerable historic information is kept in hard copy form making it very difficult to
access.
5.2.2 Data Availability
The majority of data used for the purpose of his study was made available through AM
and the HMS. Additional data came from the Institute of Geophysics and Geology and
the Institute of Biology within the Academy of Sciences. Climate change data was
obtained from the Office of Climate Change in the Ministry of Ecology and Natural
Resources and the Institute of Geography. Apa Canal (Water Supply & Sanitation
Utility) provided information of water supply and treatment. Considerable data was also
provided by MCA and obtained from technical reports completed by Utah State
University.
Main Report Final
5-5
December 2009
5.3
Climate
Moldova's climate is moderately continental: the summers are warm and long, with
average July daily temperatures of about 20C with a range between 23oC and 17oC; the
winters are relatively mild and dry, with January temperatures averaging -4C with a
range between -14oC and 2.8oC.
As presented in Figures 5-1, precipitation varies from up to 603 mm/year in the north of
the country to up to 482 mm/year in the south with potential evaporation ranging from
600 mm/year in the north to 790 mm/year in the south.
Main Report Final
5-6
December 2009

Figure 5-1
Precipitation Distribution in Moldova
Source: Merkley Et Al, 2009 and HMS, 2009)
Main Report Final
5-7
December 2009
5.4 Surface Water

There are two major rivers (Prut & Nistru)
basins in Moldova as well as an interfluvial
zone. Moldova manages water in both the
Prut and Nistru Rivers based on agreements
with Ukraine and Romania. These
agreements date back to legislation in the
1960s during the era of the former Soviet
Union
These previous arrangements have been
subsequently supplemented by a bilateral
Agreement between the Governments of the
Republic of Moldova and Ukraine on the
Joint Management and Protection of CrossBorder Waters (23 November 1994)
(Brlund et al 2005); agreements with
Romania including a Bilateral Agreement to
Operate Stanca Costesti Dam (1982), and a
Memorandum of Understanding for the
Cooperation on the Prut River between
Apele Romane (Romanian Waters) and
Apele Moldovei (Moldovan Waters)
(1995).
SURFACE WATER CHARACTERISTICS

The two major river basins in the country
are the Nistru on the east and the Prut on
the west.
Other rivers include: Raut, Bic, Botna,
Ichel,Cubolta, Ialpug,Cogilnic,Cainari,
Ciuhur, and Cahul.
Total length of rivers in Moldova - about
16 000 km
Number of water bodies - about 3 260
rivers and small streams (permanent and
intermittent)
Number of rivers:
Longer than 100 km - 7 rivers
50 km to 100 km - 11 rivers
5 km to 50 km - 34 River
15 km to 25 km - 77 rivers
Less than 15 km - 3 131 streams,
small streams
Density of river networks:
North 0.84 km/km2
Southeast 0.2 km/km2 and less
50 lakes which are mainly artificial with a
total water surface area of about 60 km2
Source: Merkley et al, 2009
These agreements provide for a 50 50 split in ownership of the water, but do not specify
an environmental (base) river flow or a specific flow that needs to be released from
reservoirs. Since about 90% of the water available to Moldova originates outside its
borders, ensuring that these agreements are maintained is of vital importance to Moldova
for sustaining the rehabilitated CIS over the long run.
There are major dams controlling water entering Moldova:
The Dnestrovsky (or its alternatively seen spelling Dniestrovsky) Dam and a
downstream buffer dam located just above the Moldovan border with Ukraine.
These dams control the flow and to some extent the overall water quality of the
Nistru River, especially the temperature since the outlet for the water is 12 meters
below the water surface. The downstream buffer dam is supposed to warm the
water but this dam is used for storage and a pumping system to move the water to
another reservoir. Flows are quite variable at the outlet to the Dniestrovsky and
over a period of 33 days during peak runoff (March 13 to April 15) the flow
varied from 647 m3/sec to 1,250 m3/sec with peak flows occurring on March 16.
Main Report Final
5-8
December 2009

Costeti-Stnca is a dam along the Prut River and jointly managed by Romania
and Moldova. It was built in 1979, length 70 km, maximum width - 3.6 km,
maximum depth - 34 m, surface area - 59 km2, storage capacity 450 million m3,
operated jointly with Romania.
Honoring these international agreements between Moldova, Ukraine, and Romania is
essential for sustaining water demands in Moldova. Changes in irrigation and extraction
practices upstream from either of these dams would have a profound effect on the
availability for water in Moldova. Concerns have been raised by NGOs and others that
management of the Dniestrovsky and the lower buffer dams on Nistru River is dominated
by Ukraine that risks not taking Moldovas interest while decisions are made. These
concerns should be addressed with the development of a long-term watershed
management plan for both river basins.
Several studies have been completed on both the Prut and Nistru basins including
multinational projects completed by the European Union TACIS, UNDP, OSCE/UNECE
(Brlund et al, 2005) and others. The following is brief geographic and hydrologic
overview of both the Nistru and Prut River basins.
5.4.1 Nistru River
The Nistru River flows through the eastern part of the country and is the largest single
water source in Moldova. Also known as the Dniester or Dnestr, the Nistru River and its
tributaries have a total basin area of 72,100 km2, of which 19,070 km2, or 27% of the
basin lies within Moldova. Its basin extends from the Carpathian Mountains in Ukraine to
the Black sea with a total length of 1380 km. As illustrated in Figure 5-2, the Nistru
Basin is divided into three segments:
Upper Carpathian in Ukraine from the river source to the Nizhny Village and the
Tlumach River.
Middle Podol from the Nizhny Village to Dubsari (Dubossary) Dam.
Lower, from the Dubsari (Dubossary) Hydropower Dam to the estuary.
The Nistru Basins hydrographic network has over 14,000 small rivers, which are up to
10 km long. The lack of large tributaries and presence of numerous small streams is a
characteristic feature of the Nistru Basin. The river network densities vary significantly
across the Basin, from 1-1.5 km/km2 in the upper (Carpathian) to 0.5-0.7 km/km2 in the
middle Podol segment and 0.2 km/km2 (Podol) and lower parts of the Nistru Basin.
Within Moldova, the river network density is 0.46 km/km2.
Main Report Final
5-9
December 2009

Figure 5-2
Nistru River Basin
Source: Brlund et al, 2005
Major tributaries in Moldova include the Bic which runs through Chisinau, Raut, Botna,
and Ichel (Brlund et al, 2005). Near Ciobruci Village in Moldova (148 km from the
mouth), the navigable channel of the Nistru River bifurcates to form the Turunchuk, or
Novy (New) Nistru, which joins the main Nistru River channel further downstream, near
Belyaevka Village (21 km from the mouth) . The Turunchuk Branch receives about 60%
of the Nistrus total flow. This area has an extensive system of natural lakes that are
located along the Nistru and Turunchuk channels. The largest of them include the
Kuchurgan Liman, Beloe Lake, Putrino Lake, and Tudorovo Lake. This area is
Main Report Final
5-10
December 2009

considered to be very significant for the protection and conservation of wetlands and their
biodiversity. The Hlyboki (Deep) Turunchuk splits from the main Nistru channel
downstream of the Mayaki Village. The Nistru drains to the Nistru Estuary via its two
branches, the Nistru and Hlyboki Turunchuk (Brlund et al, 2005).
Based on the gauging data collected in Moldova between 1961 and 2007, yearly water
discharge of the Nistru River averages 9,915 million m3/year with a maximum of 19,250
million m3/year and a minimum of 4,863 million m3/year. Historically, there has been
sufficient water available from the Nistru to supply large irrigation programs.
Two dams regulate flow in the Nistru: the Dniestrovsky (Dnestrovsky) dam and reservoir
and associated buffer dam in the Ukraine 20 km upstream of the border of Moldova and
Ukraine and the, Dubsari dam and reservoir in Moldova. Because these dams regulate
the Nistru River and about 90% of its flow originates in the Ukraine, it is difficult to
evaluate the affects of drought on the Nistrus flow because no data was available for
flow stations in the Ukraine. For the purpose of this study, flow records were evaluated
for the period of record, at the Hrusca Station on the Nistru River (Figure 5-3).
Figure 5-3
Surface Water Flow Hydrographs for
The Prut and Nistru Rivers, Moldova
Source: Merkley Et Al, 2009 And Moldova Hydro- Meteorological Service, 2009)
Main Report Final
5-11
December 2009

Annual flow is presented in Figure 5-4. Indicated on the figure (horizontal black line) is
the median flow for the period of record, 9312 million m3 per year with the 75 percentile
being 6593 m3 per year (red line). It should be noted that periods of drought would be
defined as a prolonged period with flows less than mean. The 75th -percentile flow line
would indicate a more severe drought.
Figure 5-4
Annual Flow (Million m /year) at Hrusca Station on The Nistru River From
1968 2007
3
Drought-related statistics were computed for the period of record, using annual flow
below the median value to indicate a drought. Eight droughts occurred during the period
of record (1968, 1972-1973, 1977, 1983-1995, 2000, 2003-2004, and 2007). The longest
of these droughts (drought of record) is over the 13-year period from 1983-95, which
contributed to a total deficit in water of 22,069 million m3 and an intensity of 1,698
million m3/year. Several other, shorter droughts had similar intensities.
Flooding has also occurred with the banks of the Nistru being overtopped on numerous
occasions. For the Nistru, flooding in Moldova is caused by large storm events or rapid
snowmelt occurring in the upper river basin (in Ukraine). Major flooding events have
occurred in 1941, 1955, 1969, 1974, 1980, and the summer of 2008. As illustrated in
Figure 5-5, the events of 1969, 1980, and 2008 had discharges in the Nistru River of over
3000 m3/sec. The 2008 flood was considered the most destructive flood in over 200 years
(Cazac, 2008). The peak flow of this event at the gauging station at Hrusca was around
3362 m3/sec.
Main Report Final
5-12
December 2009

Figure 5-5
Flood Events on The Nistru River
Hrusca Gauging Station, Moldova
Source: (Cazac, 2008)
5.4.2 Prut River

The Prut River lies within the Danube River Basin (See Figure 5-6). It is the second
largest water source for Moldova with its source in Ukraine and forms the border
between Moldova and Romania before flowing into the Danube River. The Danube
enters Ukraine and flows to the Black Sea. The Prut River basin area together with the
basin areas of Cahul and Yallug, which are also tributaries of the Danube, is 11,760 km2
or 35% of Moldova. The Prut River has a total length of 976 km of which 695 km are in
Moldova. Historically, water has been available from this river to supply moderately
large irrigation programs in the western part of Moldova.
Water discharge from the Prut River based on a period of record between 1961 and 2007
averages approximately 2,815 million m3/year with a maximum of 5,286 million m3/year
and a minimum of 1,083 million m3/year. The Costeti-Stnca dam and its reservoir is
located 100 km downstream from the Ukrainian border. Its management is shared
between Romania and Moldova to control flow in the river. In general, as illustrated in
Figure 5-7 and presented in Appendix A, high flows in spring correspond to snow melt in
the mountains with river flow being distributed as: 39% in spring, 34% in summer, 12%
in autumn and 15% in winter.
Main Report Final
5-13
December 2009

Figure 5-6
Prut River Basin Map
Source: UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project
Since, like the Nistru, a dam regulates the Prut and with most of its flow originating in
the Ukraine, it is difficult to evaluate the affects of drought on the Prut Rivers flow as no
data was available from gauging stations in the Ukraine. However, flow records were
evaluated for the period from 1961 to 2007 at the Ungheni Station on the Prut River and
illustrated in Figure 5-7. The horizontal black line represents the mean flow for the
period (2818 million m3/year), while the red line represents the 75-percentile flow (1684
Main Report Final
5-14
December 2009

m3/year). Again, periods of drought would be defined as a prolonged period with flows
less than mean. The 75th -percentile flow line would indicate a more severe drought.
Figure 5-7
Annual Flow (Million M /Year) at Ungheni Station on the Prut River from
1961 2007
3
Drought-related statistics were computed for the period of record, using annual flow
below the mean value to indicate a drought. Similar to Nistru, tight droughts are
observed during the period of record (1961-1964, 1966-1968, 1983-1987, 1989-1990,
1992-1995, 2000, 2003-2004, and 2007). The longest of these droughts (drought of
record) was over a 5-year period from 1983-87, which had a total water deficit of 3,768
million m3 with an intensity of 754 million m3/year. Several other, shorter droughts had
similar intensities.
Like the Nistru River, the Prut River is also susceptible to flooding. Major events have
occurred in 1941, 1955, 1969, 1974, 1980, and the summer 2008. As illustrated in Figure
5-8, the events of 1969, 1980, and 2008 had discharges of the Prut River over 3000
m3/sec. The 2008 flood was considered the most destructive flood in over 200 years
(Cazac, 2008). The peak flow of this event at the gauging station at Sireuti gauging was
around 3400 m3/sec.
Main Report Final
5-15
December 2009

Figure 5-8
Flood Events on The Prut River
Sireuti Gauging Station, Moldova
Source: Cazac, 2008
5.5 Groundwater
Groundwater in Moldova is extracted from 17 aquifers of different ages that are unevenly
distributed throughout the country. Water from these aquifers varies in water quality
between fresh to sweet to highly mineralized. Six aquifers are considered the most
important due to their sweet water quality nature, hydraulic characteristics and their
aerial extent. These six aquifer systems have been identified in various geologic
formations. These formations are numbered based on geologic age. Geologic age,
formation number, and estimated reserves for each of these six aquifer systems is as
follows:
Phreatic Quaternary (2.5 million years to present) which are normally found along
rivers including the Prut and Nistru (aquifer Q) -22 million m3.
Tertiary/Neogene (2.5 million to 23 million years).
Upper Sarmatian and Pontic (aquifers N2P NIS3+N1M) - 44 million
m3;
Middle Sarmatian (aquifer N1S2) - 110 million m3.
Lower Sarmatian Badenian (aquifer N1S1) - 770 million m3.
Cretaceous (75 million to 135 million years old) (aquifer K2S1+S) - 110 million
m3.
Figure 5-9 illustrates the hydrogeology columnar section based on Moraru and Anderson
(2005) description of the various aquifers in Moldova. This section presents a graphic
description of each geologic formation including formation number, its geologic age, and
hydro-geologic properties. It should be noted that formations including N1S3, portions
Main Report Final
5-16
December 2009

of N1S2, and K2S2+N1b are considered aquitards and have very low water bearing
ability.
Figure 5-9
Hydro-Geologic Columnar Section for Moldova
Age
Quaternary
Graphic
N2P
N1S3
N1S2
Cenezoic
N1S3+N1m
N1S2
Neogene
N1S2
N1S2
N1S2
N1S1
N1b
PreSilurian
Paleozoic
Silurian
Mesozoic
K2S1+S
Jurassic
Cretaceous
K2S2+N1b
GeologicDescription
HydrogeologicProperties
Alluvial,co l l uvi a l ,e ol i a n ,a nd
Th e s e a re i mpo rta n ta q ui fe rs
l a cu s tri ne we re forme d u ptopo f
i n ri ve rva l l e ys e s pe ci a l l yth e
Ne oge ns tra ta i nri ve rva l l e ys ,d own
Ni s trua ndthe Prut.I nth e
s l o pe fro mhi l l s ,i nfl a ta re s ,a nd i n o l d north e rnpa rtofthe coun try
th e s e a q ui fe rs dra i n di re ctl y
l a ke be ds .Th e s e d e po s i ts co ns i s to f
u ncon s ol i da te dto s e mi cons ol i da te d i n tothe ri ve rs ora re
re cha rge d.I nth e s ou the rn
cl a y,s a n d,gra ve l ,s i t,a nd pa l e o s o i l .
The s e de p os i ts ra n ge i n thi ckne s s from pa rto fthe s e d ra i na ge s ,cl a y
1 m to gre a te r th a n 25 m.
ofte n ove rl i e s the a qui fe r
Toton i a n ,Sarmatian(upper,middleand Ma n yde e pwe l l s pe n tra te
lower),Me oti ci a n,a n dPon ti ci a na ge d th e s e de e pa qui fe rs ys te ms .
rocks a re we l l de ve l o pe d i n Mol dova . Prod ucti o na n ddra wdownva ry
The To to ni a nrocks ,fou ndi nno rth,
con s i de ra b l yd e pe nd i ngon
we s t,a nds ou th e a s tp a rtofth e co untry th e ge ol ogi cs tru ctu re .We l l s
,co ns i s to fl i me s ton e a n dcl a ya n dva ry s u pp l yi ngwa te rfo ri ndu s tryor
i nth i ckn e s s b e twe e n1a n d20m
fo rme rs ta te fa rms mos tl i ke l y
Sa rma ti a nrocks a re di vi de di ntoth re e ha ve fo rme dl a rge cone s o f
h ori zon s a nd a re fou nd ge ne ra l l y
de p re s s i on.Re cha rge o ccurs
througho utthe cou ntry.The l i tho l ogyo f i n o utcro pa re a s a nd
the s e forma ti o ns con s i s tofl i me s ton e , downwa rdl e a ka ge from
s a n d,a n dcl a ya n da re up tos e ve ra l
ove rl yi n gQu a te rn a ryma te ri a l .
h und re ds ofme te rs th i ck.Ponti ci a n
Th e re a re s i xs e ts ofa qui fe rs
s e pa ra te d bycl a ya q ui ta rds .
a ndMe oti ci a n d e p os i ts a re ma i nl y
Th e s e a qui fe rs con s i s tof
foun di nte hs outhe rn p a rtofth e
s a nd s ta n dorl i me s to ne .
co untrya nd cons i s tofcl a y,fi n e
i d
d
dl
l
i
f
The s e ro cks a re e xpos e di n the va l l e y Aqu i fe ri s pre s e ntbu ti s
o fth e Ni s tru a nd i ts tri buta ri e s a nd
bra cki s hi nna tu re .
co ns i s to fch a l ki nte rb e d de d wi th fi ne
gra i n e dma s s i ve l i me s to ne .I ti s
e s ti ma te dtobe 510mth i ck.
The s e de p os i ts a re fo und we l l
Noa q ui fe r
d e ve l op e di nthe Dobroji a nde s s i oni n
s ou th e rn Mol do va .Ra ngi n gfro m
s a n ds to ne a ndcl a ys tone i n the l o we r
p orti o ntocl a y,l i me s tone wi th mi n or
b e ds ofgyps uma nda nhyd ri te i n the
u ppe rmo s tpo rti o nofs e que nce .Th e
tota l thi ckne s s i s be twe e n 70a nd1330
m.
The s e ro cks co ns i s to fs ha l e gra di ng
Noa q ui fe r
i ntoa gre e ni s hgra yq ua tzi te whi ch
u ncon fo rma l l yove rl i e s the cryta l l i ne
b a s e me nt.Ea rl yPa l oe zoi cs tra ta
a ppe a rs tobe mi s s i n go ve rmos to fthe
co untry.The th i ckne s s ofth e Si l uri a n
ra nge s fro ms e ve ra l me te rs to930m
i ncre a s i ngi n the s o uth
On l yi nth e s outhe rn p a rtofMo l do vi a Noa q ui fe r
i ncl os e proxi mi tytoth e Dob roji a n
d e pe s s i on.Ordovi ci a n,De voni a n ,
Ca rbo ni fe rou s ,a n dPe rmi n a re
p roje cte dto be p re s e ntb utha ve be e n
s tu di e dl i ttl e .
Source: Moraru and Anderson, 2005
Main Report Final
5-17
December 2009

The development of these aquifers in terms of water bearing thickness, yield, and number
of wells is presented in Table 5-1.
Table 5-1
Moldovan Aquifer Development
Average
Yield Number
Aquifer
Thickness
(m3/hr) of Wells
(m)
Quaternary
(phreatic)
Middle
Sarmatian
Lower
SarmatianBadenian
Cretaceous
Upper
Sarmatian
Pontic
10-15
1-3
150,000
100-300
2-10
500
50-100
3,000
2-100
500
3-10
50-100
5-10
50
N 50
C-100-200
S-200-260
N50-100;
NC-150-200
100-200 m in
the Prut
valley
100-200 m in
the Prut
valley
Source: MENR, 2003
The phreatic (Quaternary) aquifer has the highest number of wells. These wells are often
hand dug and are very shallow. These wells usually have a low yield and serve mainly for
domestic water use. The distribution of the deep aquifers varies throughout the country
with the Middle Sarmatian and Lower Sarmatian-Badenian aquifers being the most
widespread. Deeper aquifers can have yields of up to 100 m3/hr. It is uncertain if the
number of wells in these deeper aquifers is accurate for it is based on limited data.
According to Moraru et al (2005) of over 6,600 wells that have been drilled into the
deeper aquifers only about 3,100 are active. For the most part, the inactive wells remain
unplugged and act as a conduit for pollution from shallow groundwater and surface water
to reach the deeper aquifer systems.
5.6 Water In Storage

There are 3,000 existing lakes and reservoirs in Moldova. Of these, 126 have a storage
capacity of more than 1 million m3. Table 5-2 provides characteristics of the major dams
and reservoirs (great than 1.5 million m3 in storage capacity) in the country. In most
cases, dams and reservoirs have been built on small rivers to collect runoff. It is used for
Main Report Final
5-18
December 2009

various needs, irrigation being the primary use, with fishing, flood control, recreation and
tourism among others accounting for the other uses. Two major dams include:
Dubsari (or alternatively spelled Dubossary) on the Nistru with a length 128 km;
maximum width of 3 km; maximum depth of 20 m; a surface area of 67.5 km2;
and storage capacity of 203.4 million m3. This was built in 1954.
Costeti-Stnca on the Prut with a length 70 km; maximum width of 3.6 km;
maximum depth of 34 m; surface area of 59 km2; and storage capacity of 450
million m3. This was built in 1979 and operated jointly with Romania.
Table 5-2
Major Moldovan Water Storage Facilities
(>1.5 Mil m3 In Storage Capacity)
Water
Water body
River
Year Built
volume,
million m3
Badragii Vechi
Beleu (natural lake)
Ghidighici
Bic (natural lake)
Dubasari
Cahul (natural lake) *
Caplani
Ceaga
Cneazevca
Comrat
Congaz
Costesti
Costesti-Stynca**
Cuciurgan (natural lake)
Ialoveni
Manta (natural lake)
Mingir
Rezeni
Sarata Noua
Taraclia
Ulmu
Zgurita
Volontiri 1
Volontiri 2
Water
Surface, km2
Racovat
1989
4.9
2.1
1.0
6.26
Bic
Bic
1963
32.8
7.42
40.0
490.0
240.0
8.3
4.1
2.8
4.0
9.9
3.3
735.0
88.0
21.7
1.5
12.2
3.4
2.2
62.0
2.2
1.7
1.6
12.0
8.0
67.5
99.2
1.5
2,8
1.0
1.7
4.9
1.8
59.0
27.3
4.4
2.3
2.6
1.9
1.5
15.1
0.7
0.9
0.8
1.9
1954
Caplani
Ceaga
Sarata
Ialpug
Ialpug
Botna
1983
1960
1967
1957
1961
1962
1976
CuciurganIsnovat
1978
Lapusna
Botna
Sarata
Ialpug
Botna
Cainari
Bobei
Bobei
1982
1963
1967
1988
1961
1980
1957
1988
Main Report Final
5-19
December 2009
5.7 Water Quality

5.7.1 Surface Water
Tables 5-3 and 5-4 present summaries of water quality data based on a series of sampling
events at various locations along the Prut and Nistru Rivers and during various times of
2008. The entire data was provided by the Consiliul National Pentru Acreditare si
Atestare is presented in Appendix B.
Statistics
SO4 -
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Std. Dev.
85.18
119.34
55.96
87.24
17.01
Statistics
SO4 --
Average
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Std. Dev.
74.93
106.20
45.68
71.80
19.43
Table 5-3
2008 - Prut River Water Quality Summary
HCO3 -- Cl - ++ Mg ++ Na + K + TDS
184.52
222.72
154.08
183.06
21.26
19.79
23.98
14.56
19.55
2.49
53.11
64.13
46.09
53.11
4.93
12.72
17.63
8.51
12.77
2.48
28.38 11.42 396.77

40.20 18.10 501.10
17.50 4.30 319.90
29.35 10.35 392.35
8.55 4.51 52.59
Table 5-4
2008 Nistru River Water Quality Summary
HCO3 - Cl - ++ Mg ++ Na + K + TDS
190.17 31.5
213.70 47.86
167.81 20.84
189.95 27.75
13.42 8.94
63.02
71.14
52.10
63.11
6.45
13.07
26.40
6.00
12.38
4.38
22.73
37.10
2.10
23.40
10.17
11.72
50.50
0.90
10.00
10.39
405.91
478.10
311.72
408.70
53.38
SAR
Hardness
0.91
1.21
0.59
1.00
0.26
185.00
222.74
155.17
183.95
18.41
SAR Hardness
0.68
1.18
0.07
0.69
0.31
212.21
263.85
180.19
209.63
24.64
Figures 5-9 and 5-10 are Piper diagrams based on the above data. Piper diagrams are one
method used to show variations in water quality based on major anion and cation
concentrations. These diagrams indicate that waters from both rivers are dominated by
calcium-magnesium-bicarbonate ions, an indicative of the rainwater origin and calcium
rich soils over which rains fall
Main Report Final
5-20
December 2009

Figure 5-10
Piper Diagram - Prut River Water Quality Characteristics
Piper Plot
Legend
Legend
60
60
Cl
+
40
Mg
40
BE
E
D
C
E DC
EECB
BEE
DE
C
ABC
CBC
EDAED
C
BE
CDAD
CB D
C CE
20
A
B
C
C
D
D
E
E
B
E
C
80
+
Ca
<=
SO
4=
>
80
Camenca
Naslavcea
Palanca
Soroca
Sucleia
Vadul-lui-Voda
Valcinet
Varnita
Dubasari, Cocieri
Dubasari, Erjovo
Dubasari, Goieni
20
Mg
SO4
80
80
60
60
40
40
ED
A
C
C E
E
D
D
D
D EC
E
DB
D
E
C
C
C
E
B
C
ABE
C
C
E
E
B
A
BC
E
D
C
E
B
Na+K
80
40
20
20
40
60
80
Ca
20
60
EB
C C
E
C
C
D
EACDDDD
C
AE
20 B
EC
E BC EB
D
C
DC C
E AD
BE
BB E
C
HCO3
Cl
Figure 5-11
Piper Diagram-Nistru River Water Quality Characteristics
Piper Plot
Legend
Legend
60
60
40
40
g
+M
Cl
J
I
H
C
A
E
D
C
B
A
80
Ca
<=
+S
O4
=>
80
J
20
JA
C
HC
IH
IJH
AA
r.Prut, Leuseni
r.Prut, Leovo
r.Prut, Djiurdjiulesti
r.Prut, Caslita-Prut
r.Prut, Cahul
r.Prut, Branesti
80
60
60
40
C
C
A
E
C
D
B
H
A
C
JC
A
I
A
HJ
IJH
EA
C
B
D
C C
Na+K
HCO3
80
60
40
20
20
20
40
60
80
Ca
r.Prut, Sculeni
SO4
40
rez.Costesti-Stanca,sect.inferior
EC
A
C
D
BC
80
20
rez.Costesti-Stanca,sect.mediu (Cucunesti)
20
Mg
C
I HAA
JHH
A
I
rez.Costesti-Stanca,sect.superior (Badrajii Noi)
Cl
Source for above tables: Consiliul National Pentru Acreditare si Atestare
Main Report Final
5-21
December 2009

Two of the main indices for the suitability of these rivers for irrigation are total dissolved
solids, or salinity, and sodium adsorption ratio (SAR). SAR is ratio of calcium,
magnesium, and sodium ions in irrigation water, where the quantity (concentration) of
sodium ions is divided by the sum of calcium plus potassium.
Water with high salinity is toxic to plants and poses a salinity hazard to soils. Soils with
high levels of total salinity are called saline soils (Fipps, 2003). High concentrations of
salt in the soil can result in a physiological drought condition. That is, even though the
field appears to have plenty of moisture, the plants wilt because the roots are unable to
absorb the water. Water salinity is usually measured by the TDS (total dissolved solids)
or EC (electric conductivity). TDS is sometimes referred to as the total salinity because it
includes all ions including sodium, chloride, potassium, etc. It is measured or expressed
in parts per million (ppm) or in the equivalent units of milligrams per liter (mg/L). EC is
actually a measurement of electric current that can be passed through the water, the
higher the value, the more dissolved solids. This measurement can be made in the field.
Table 5-5 presents maximum permissible levels of salts for irrigation water based on
research work in the United States (Fipps, 2003). Color coding is used to present different
levels of acceptability.
Table 5-5
Permissible Salinity Limits for Classes of Irrigation Water
Concentration, Total Dissolved Solids
Class
Electrical Conductivity Total Dissolved Solids
(S/cm @ 25o C)
(mg/L)
Class 1: Excellent
Class 2: Good
Class 3: Permissible
Class 4: Doubtful
Class 5: Unsuitable
250
250 - 750
750 - 2000
2,000 3,000
> 3,000
175
175 - 525
525 1,400
1,400 2,100
> 2,100
Table 5-6 presents a statistical analysis of 2008 water quality data for Prut and Nistru
Rivers. When compared to the values in Table 2-5, these data indicate that, for the most
part, the irrigation waters used from both rivers are within the good range.
Table 5-6
Total Dissolved Solids in Prut and Nistru Rivers
Prut River
Nistru River
Statistic
TDS (mg/l)1
TDS (mg/l)2
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Std. Dev.
396.77
501.10
319.90
392.35
52.59
405.91
478.10
311.72
408.70
53.38
Source: Consiliul National Pentru Acreditare si Atestare

1. Based on 12 Samples taken in 2008
Main Report Final
5-22
December 2009

Irrigation water containing large amounts of sodium is of special concern due to sodiums
effects on the soil and poses a sodium hazard (Fipps, 2003). Sodium hazard is usually
expressed in terms of SAR or the sodium adsorption ratio. Again, SAR is calculated
from the ratio of sodium to calcium and magnesium. The latter two ions are important
since they tend to counter the effects of sodium. Continued use of water having a high
SAR leads to a breakdown in the physical structure of the soil. Sodium is adsorbed and
becomes attached to soil particles. The soil then becomes hard and compact when dry and
increasingly impervious to water penetration. Fine textured soils, especially those high in
clay, are most subject to this action. Table 5-7 presents maximum permissible SAR for
irrigation waters (Fipps, 2003).
Table 5-7
Permissible SAR Limits for Irrigation Water
Use
SAR Range
Low - Use on sodium sensitive crops such as
avocados must be cautioned
Medium - Amendments (such as Gypsum) and
leaching needed.
High - Generally unsuitable for continuous use.
Very High - Generally unsuitable for use.
1- 10
10 -18
18 - 26
>26
Calcium and magnesium, if present in the soil in large enough quantities, will counter the
effects of the sodium and help maintain good soil properties. This appears to be the case
for Prut and Nistru Rivers (See Table 5-8). This is due to the high calcium content of the
water originating from calcarenite aquifers, which is discharged into these rivers.
Table 5-8
Sodium Adsorption Ratio
Prut and Nistru Rivers
Prut River
Nistru
Statistics
SAR1
River SAR2
Mean
Maximum
Minimum
Median
Std. Dev.
0.91
1.21
0.59
1.00
0.26
0.68
1.18
0.07
0.69
0.31
Source: Consiliul National Pentru Acreditare si Atestare

Finally, seasonal trends give a good indication on how water quality varies with flow.
Figures 5-11 and 5-12 illustrate variations in water quality at Sculeni on the Prut River
and Vadul-lui-Voda on Nistru River. Both of these graphs show that during July of 2008,
substantial dilution took place in both rivers. This corresponds to a major flood event.
During low flows, both rivers had higher concentrations of salts.
Main Report Final
5-23
December 2009

Figure 5-12
Seasonal Variations in TDA and SAR Components
Prut River
Figure 5-13
Seasonal Variations in TDS and SAR Components
Nistru River
5.7.2 Groundwater
According to Moraru et al (2005), ten water quality parameters used to assess ground
water quality against standards developed by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), the Moldovan drinking water standards established in 1982, and the World
Health Organization (WHO). These include: pH, total dissolved solids (TDS), total iron
Main Report Final
5-24
December 2009

(Fe), manganese (Mn), arsenic (As), fluoride (F), chloride (Cl), nitrate (NO3), sulphate
(SO4) and selenium (Se). These standards are presented in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9
Water Quality Standards - USEPA, Moldova, and WHO
US EPA
DWS
WHO
Parameter
Unit
MCL
Secondary Moldova International
pH
TDS
Fe
Mn
As
F
Cl
NO3-N
SO4
Se
Std. Units
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
mg/l
6.5 8.5
500
0.3
0.05
0.01
4
2
250
10
250
0.05
6.0 9.0
1000
0.3
0.1
0.05
1.5
350
45
500
0.01
9.5
1000
0.3
0.4
0.01
1.5
250
50
500
0.01
In evaluating over 400 samples from the shallow phreatic aquifer and over 300 samples
from the deeper aquifers, Moraru et al (2005) determined that the shallow aquifer has
elevated levels above standards for each of the parameters with the exception of iron. The
deeper aquifers exceed standards for nitrates, sulfates, chlorides, fluoride, selenium, and
total dissolved solids.
Based on WHO standards, an evaluation was made of the deeper aquifers areas that are
suitable for drinking water (all parameters meeting standards). The results of this study
are presented in Figure 5-13. The green areas indicate ground water unsuitable for
drinking water consumption, while white (uncolored) areas indicate areas that are
suitable. Clearly the majority of the deep aquifer is not suitable. Similarly assessment for
shallow aquifers also came to the conclusion that this source is also unsuitable throughout
the country for drinking water.
Main Report Final
5-25
December 2009

Figure 5-14
Moldovan Deep Aquifer Drinking Water Suitability
Unsuitable
Suitable
Source: Moraru and Anderson, 2005
Pollution can be natural due to high iron concentrations in the formation, or due to man.
Table 5-10 presents a summary of the main pollutants that affect the major aquifers in
Moldova. Pollutant sources are many and can be directly attributed to farm practice and
the poor disposal of waste.
Main Report Final
5-26
December 2009

Table 5-10
Moldovan Aquifer Pollutants and Sources
Aquifer
Main
Pollutants
Quaternary
(Phreatic)
NO3-, NH4+,
SO42-, NO2-,
pesticides, oil
products
Middle
Sarmatian
BadenSarmatian
Inferior
Cretaceous
Superior
Sarmatian
(Prut Valley)
Pontic (Prut
Valley)
Solids, iron, sand

NO3-, NH4+,
SO42-, NO2-, F-,
hardness
F-, hardness
Pollution sources
Waste dumps, storage
places of pesticides,
fertilizers, septic
systems and oil
products
Fe in sand
Waste dumps, storage
places of fertilizers,
natural Ca and Mg
Natural Ca and Mg
Sand
Fe in sand
Sand
Fe in sand
Source: Menr, 2003
5.8 Water Use

According the Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources (1995), water in Moldova is a:
Source of vital human needs in drinking water.
Source of hygiene for human needs in its water supply for domestic and
economic activities.
Factor in ensuring food security.
Source of income (irrigation, industry, livestock).
Source of recreation, tourism, and entertainment.
Source of energy (hydroelectric).
Means of water transport.
Recipient (receiver) of wastewater and pollutants.
Source of biodiversity and means of ecological processes, which actually
provide and maintain all of the above management functions.
Surface water from both the Prut and Nistru Rivers, as well as rivers in the inter-fluvial
area, are used for domestic, municipal, industrial, irrigation, fish farming and small scale
agriculture use. Groundwater from fresh (suitable) shallow aquifers is used mainly for
domestic supplies. Many deep wells have been drilled into the deeper fresh water
Main Report Final
5-27
December 2009

aquifers of Neogene age. These wells are used for industrial and municipal supplies.
Because of past over extraction of groundwater, it is now illegal to use groundwater for
irrigation. Wastewater, which is often treated by municipalities and industry, is returned
to rivers and is available downstream from discharge points.
Table 5-11 presents a summary of water use and discharge for Moldova for 2005 based
on data provided by Apele Moldovei (AM).
Table 5-11
Estimated Water Supply and Use
In Moldova (2005)
Description
Million m3
Source
Surface Water
Groundwater
Total
Treated or untreated water discharged to
surface water bodies
Use
Drinking Water (Groundwater and Surface
Water)
Industrial Water (Groundwater and Surface
Water)
Central Irrigation System (Surface Water)
Small scale agricultural use and fish farming
(surface and groundwater)
716
135
852
690
119
583
44
35
Source: Apele Moldovei.
According to AM, per capita annual water use is estimated to be approximately 224 m3,
and approximately 34 m3 for drinking.
The variations in water use within the various regions of the country are illustrated in
Figure 5-14. In short, water usage has declined from peak usage rates in 1990 to
substantially lower levels in 2007. Basin water demand data is provided in Appendix C.
Main Report Final
5-28
December 2009

Figure 5-15
Regional Surface and Groundwater use in Moldova
Source: Merkley 2009 & Apele Moldovei
Currently, there is no National Irrigation plan and therefore it is difficult to determine

how increasing demands of industry will have an effect on availability of water for
irrigation. However, as shown in data from1990 (see Figures 5-15 and 5-16), when
water usage was at its highest, irrigation still made up for majority of water usage in
both basins (Prut River Basin, 72% and Nistru River Basin, 53%). At that time, water
was available in both river basins to meet the needed demand.
Main Report Final
5-29
December 2009

Figure 5-16
1990 Water Use in The Prut Basin
Figure 5-17
1990 Water Use in The Nistru Basin
Figures 5-15 and 5_16 need units. I assume these are million m3 per year (MCM). For
groundwater, the water of potable quality in fresh water aquifers (the Quaternary and
Neogene aquifers) constitutes about 50% of the reserves, except for the phreatic horizon,
where it is lower (20-30%) because of pollution. The deep groundwater reserves make up
Main Report Final
5-30
December 2009

about 1100 million m3, including 548 million m3 of drinking water quality. From these,
the Government of Moldova has approved approximately 1,189,200 m3/day for
consumption, including 934,000 m3/day for drinking and 255,000 m3/day for industrial
use. In some areas of the country, water in deeper aquifers (with suitable water quality) is
used for bottled drinking water. Groundwater from the Cretaceous aquifer in some areas
is highly mineralized with minerals such as boron, helium, and others. These minerals are
naturally occurring in these aquifers and in concentrations high enough that these
minerals are extracted for commercial use. In addition, groundwater in the Cretaceous
aquifer has higher than normal temperatures indicating geothermal water. (MENR, 2003).
5.9
Water Availability
5.9.1 Surface Water

To assess the availability of water for the rehabilitated CIS, data on water discharge,
flow, and precipitation was provided for the years between 1961 and 2007, a period of 46
years. In addition, water consumption data for industry, municipal water supply,
irrigation, and small agricultural projects was provided by AM, with supplemental data
provided by the State HMS. Irrigation requirements were based on the recommendation
provided in the MCC funded USU Study.
The analysis was based on an approach assuming the following conservative
assumptions:
Discharge data are based on gauging the Prut River at Ugheni and the Nistru
River at Hrusca during mid- April through September between 1961 and 2006.
Based on available data, water use for the Prut River Basin is based on data from
2006. Nistru River data is from 1999.
All water use data are assumed to be basin wide and include surface and
groundwater.
Returned water in the form of wastewater discharge for municipal and industrial
plants for both rivers are based on 2006 data presented in the cadastral database
on the Hydro-meteorological Service for 2006 (Hydro-meteorological Service,
2008).
Availability of water assumes a 50-50 sharing arrangement (per prevailing
agreements) between Romania and Moldova for the Prut River, and between
Ukraine and Moldova for the Nistru River. These agreements are based in part on
Soviet era legislation on water sharing issues that dates back to the 1960s. These
agreements are incorporated in Memorandum of Understanding and Bilateral
agreements between Moldova and Romania, as well as between Moldova and
Ukraine.
In compliance with prevailing practices, environmental/sanitary (base) river flow
requirements needs to be maintained for fish habitat and for sufficient dilution of
discharged waters. The analysis of available water for extraction takes into
consideration maintaining a base volume of 524 million m3 in the Prut, and 3,560
Main Report Final
5-31
December 2009

million m3 in the Nistru.
Drought conditions were assumed to be at 75-percentile flow level.
The analysis assumed that:
Water use for the rehabilitated CIS is estimated based on assumptions of
percentage of total area irrigated and percentage of HVA (See Table 9-8 in
Section 9.0). For the purpose of this analysis, it is assumed that the water
use estimates identified for Year 2025 would be the optimal level of water
use for each rehabilitated CIS.
The rehabilitated CIS would be functioning at 95% efficiency (i.e. 5%
water losses in the system).
The seven proposed rehabilitated CIS along the Prut River would extract a
total of approximately 51.4 million m3 of water per season.
The nine proposed rehabilitated CIS along the Nistru River would extract
a total of approximately 98.3 million m3 of water per season.
There is no return water from irrigated lands.
90% of water extracted from the river for potable water and industrial use
returns as treated or wastewater.
Data limitations included:
Discharge measurements are not taken continuously and are estimated based on
flow measured twice monthly. The records were available only for two stations on
the Prut and two stations on the Nistru. Therefore precise flow data at of intake
point of the CIS was not available.
Water use data provided by AM included both basin wide groundwater and
surface water use, which were not separated.
Canister data, which further separates use quantities, was provided only for 2006.
Water use data for the Nistru River basin after 1999 only includes water use for
Transnistria.
Environmental and sanitary flow requirements are based on work done by Lalikin
N.V. and Sirodoev I. G. (2004).
Little or no data is available for flow in the Vilia River feeding the Tetcani CIS.
The results for these analyses are presented in Table 5-12 (for Prut) and 5-13 (for Nistru).
For details see Appendix D.
Main Report Final
5-32
December 2009

Table 5-12
Prut River Water Availability after CIS Withdrawals1
(Mid-April through September)
Average Flow
Drought
Prut River
Conditions
Conditions
Seasonal Discharge (million m3)
1697
1008
Environmental/Sanitary Flows (million

m3)
240
240
International Agreement (million m3)
729
384
51
51
12
12
Rehabilitated CIS Irrigation

Requirements (million m3)
Other Demand including industry,
municipalities, etc. less Return Water
3
(Available
illi
)
Water
after Withdrawal
665
321
(million m3)
1. Assuming extraction of 1 lps/ha by all seven CIS proposed for rehabilitation
Table 5-13
Nistru River Water Availability after CIS Withdrawal1
(Mid-April through September)
Average
Drought
Nistru River
Flow
Conditions
Conditions
4870
3391
Environmental/Sanitary Flows (million

m3)
1632
1632
1619
879
98
98
111
111
1410
670

3
(Available
illi
)
Water
after Withdrawal
(million m3)
1. Assuming extraction of 1 lps/ha for all nine CIS proposed for rehabilitation.
Based on the analysis, the following can be concluded:

The seven proposed rehabilitated CIS along the Prut River would account for
approximately 7% of the Prut River flow during average flow conditions and 13%
of the flow during drought conditions.
Main Report Final
5-33
December 2009

The nine proposed CIS rehabilitated irrigation schemes off the Nistru River would
account for approximately 6% of the flow in Nistru River during normal flow
conditions, and approximately 11% of the flow during drought conditions.
Since future water requirements are not readily available for the remaining CIS
along these river basins, the impact of rehabilitating additional CIS on the river
flows cannot be evaluated at this stage. Similar assessment would have to be
carried out while assessing viability of future rehabilitation projects.
Two CIS proposed for rehabilitation, Tetcani and Crpinenii de Sus, use water stored by
dam reservoirs along small tributaries of the Prut River. Tetcani is fed by the Vilia River
with the aid of a small earthen dam, while the Crpinenii de Sus CIS depends on a large
concrete dam that captures water from the Lpunita River, which is a small tributary of
the Prut River. In the past, when Crpinenii de Sus was fully operational, water was
pumped to the reservoir from the Prut River to dilute the highly mineralized water from
the Lpunita River. These pumps are no longer present.
The inflow and outflow characteristics of these supply systems are provided in Table 514.
Table 5-14
Water Source Characteristics for Tetcani & Crpinenii de Sus
Crpinenii de
Description
Tetcani
Sus
Watershed Area (km2)
Inflow Average (m3/sec)
75% (m3/sec)
95% (m3/sec)
Max Storage (m3)
Minimum Storage (m3)
Available Storage (m3)
Irrigation requirement
(m3/sec)
Water Deficit (m3/sec)
Irrigation Time (days)
261
0.57
0.31
0.17
930,000
220,000
710,000
377
0.24
12,206,000
1,023,000
11,183,000
1.3
1.8
0.69
11.9
1.56
83
Source: Merkley et al, 2009 & Data collected by MWH
Based on data in the table above, it is apparent that the existing sources serving Tetcani
and Crpinenii de Sus are not adequate to meet water required for irrigation. Previous
analysis for Prut River (Table 5-12) includes these systems, so evaluation of an alternate
source of water supply would entail extracting water directly from the Prut.
Recognizing this deficit in water, the proposed rehabilitation plans for Crpinenii de Sus
call for extracting water directly from the Prut River. This also mitigates the issue of
salinity that is inherent with the use of water from the Lpunita River.
Main Report Final
5-34
December 2009

Design of the rehabilitation plans for Tetcani should entail a hydrologic study to verify if
the existing source is adequate to reliably supply water to meet irrigation needs. If the
study concludes that this source is inadequate, then the design of the rehabilitation of the
Tetcani CIS should entail drawing water directly from the Prut River.
5.9.2 Groundwater
Groundwater is an important source of water in Moldova; however, the use of
groundwater has declined considerably over the last 15 years due to economic and
environmental reasons. The following is a brief summary of groundwater use and trends
in Moldova.
Abstraction of groundwater has been reduced over the last 14-15 years (In 2001
abstraction was 132,778,200 m3 as compared to 277,306,700 m3 in 1991).
About 6,600 deep wells have been drilled for groundwater abstraction, but only
about 3100 are still in use. The remaining wells need to be plugged to prevent
contamination.
Groundwater accounts for 32-40% of the total water used for municipal and
industrial water supply in centralized water supply systems.
Shallow aquifers are used for non-centralized water supply and the share of
shallow groundwater in rural area reaches 95-100% from all water used (54% of
the rural population).
According to Moraru et al (2005), pollution of the aquifers is widespread mainly
due to improperly disposed of human waste, surface contamination entering the
aquifer through open wells and boreholes, and high nitrates from fertilizers.
Groundwater extraction in Moldova varies by region and use. According to Hydrometeorological service (2008), in 2006:
Groundwater extraction was between 0.2 and 1.0 lps/km2 in the north.
0.1 to 0.2 lps/km2 in the center.
0.05 to 0.1 lps/km2 in the south.
Data for specific groundwater use was not available by region or basin. However, for the
entire country including Transnistria, in 2006:
Approximately 26 million m3 was extracted from deep aquifers for municipal
water supplies with about 87 million m3 being extracted for domestic use from
shallow groundwater.
3.4 Million m3 was extracted for industrial purposes.
0.3 Million m3 for mineral extraction.
Figure 5-17 compares surface water use with groundwater use from deep aquifers for
2006.
Main Report Final
5-35
December 2009

Figure 5-18
Comparison of Surface Water to Groundwater use
in Moldova for 2006
Source: Apele Moldovei (2009) and Hydro-meteorological Service (2008)
This above figure indicates that overall, groundwater makes up about 40% of municipal
water supply and 20% of industrial water. And
It is uncertain at this time, if groundwater use will increase. Increasing pollution would
indicate that the volume of groundwater extracted will continue to decline even through
there are sufficient groundwater resources to meet future demands assuming that climate
change does not significantly alter the recharge of aquifer systems. However, with
increasing in-house treatment of groundwater at the taps, the usage of groundwater may
remain steady.
Using the Prut and Nistru River as an alternative to groundwater is possible but pumping
and treatment costs could render to be expensive. Currently, for shallow groundwater
used for villages and for domestic water supplies, NGOs are working with villagers to
treat the water prior to use. However, most low-cost treatment technologies are not
adequate for treating nitrates, pesticides, trace metals, and other potential pollutants found
in groundwater.
For deep aquifers, preventing contamination would ensure its continued viability as a
reliable source where available. The development of wellhead protection programs which
keep pollution sources away from wells, and plugging of abandoned wells, and other
programs specifically designed to reduce the potential of pollution from entering these
Main Report Final
5-36
December 2009

deeper systems could be undertaken.
5.10 Climate Change

Projections of future estimated climate change influence on Moldovas temperature,
precipitation and stream flow were summarized from Corobov, 2008; Lalykin and
Syrodoev, 2004; Srodoev and Knight, 2007 and Srodoev I.G., 2008 for two emission
scenarios A2 and B2 as identified in the table below.
Table 5-15
Overview of IPCC Scenarios A2 and B2. (IPCC, 2000)
Scenario Group
A2
B2
Population Growth
GDP growth
Energy use
Land-use changes
Resource availability
Pace of technological change
Energy type
High
Medium
High
Medium/high
Low
Slow
Regional
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Medium
Dynamics as usual
Temperature and precipitation averages for the 1961-1990 30-year normal time period
were used as the basis for Global Climate Model (GCM) derived climate change
predictions. Srodoev and Knight (2007) state that these changes would result in:
Warm winters with very short snow cover period.
Redistribution of precipitation among seasons, negatively affecting the storing
capacity during winter time and flow regime during the growing season.
Rising temperature and evapo-transpiration.
Increasing risk, severity, and area affected by droughts.
Growing severity and risk of extreme meteorological events.
There is a considerable concern of drought in Moldova as much of the agricultural crop
production is rainfed.
(Source: http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_profile_of_Moldova).
Projections by Corobov, 2008; Lalykin and Syrodoev, 2004; Srodoev and Knight, 2007
and Srodoev I.G., 2008 for Moldovas climate for future periods (up to 2069) indicate
(See Table 5-16):
An increase in temperatures of 0.9 to 3.8C.
A decrease in precipitation decrease in the summer and autumn of about 4 to
20%.
An increase in the winter and spring of about 2 to 13%.
Main Report Final
5-37
December 2009

Table 5-16
Projections of Changes in the Average Air Temperature and Precipitation in
Moldova
2010-2039
2040-2069
Time Period 1961-1990
Scenario - A2 Scenario - B2 Scenario - A2 Scenario - B2
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Annual
C
-2.1
9.5
19.9
9.7
9.2
C
1.2
0.9
1.9
1.4
1.3
%
56.4
9.8
9.5
14.6
14.5
Winter
Spring
Summer
Autumn
Annual
mm
105
125
204
108
542
mm
3.3
2.1
-20.8
-5.3
-21.6
%
3.2
1.7
-10.2
-4.9
-4.0
Average Air Temperature

C
%
C
1.8
83.9
3.0
1.7
18.3
2.2
2.4
12.0
3.8
1.7
17.6
2.8
1.9
20.4
2.9
Accumulated Precipitation
mm
%
mm
6.4
6.1
7.7
6.2
5.0
5.5
-31.8
-15.6
-41.5
-7.4
-6.8
-7.5
-27.5
-5.1
-36.7
%
142.2
23.4
19.1
28.5
31.7
C
2.4
1.8
3.4
2.7
2.5
%
113.3
18.7
16.9
27.6
27.5
%
7.4
4.4
-20.3
-6.9
-6.8
mm
13.2
16.4
-34.8
-4.0
-10.1
%
12.6
13.1
-17.1
-3.7
-1.8
Source: Corobov, 2008; Lalykin and Syrodoev, 2004; Srodoev and Knight, 2007 and Srodoev I.G., 2008
Projections for Moldovas stream flow for future periods (up to 2069) indicate (See Table
5-17):
Flow in Prut River decreases by up to 20%.
Flow in Nistru River decreases by up to 18%.
The implications of these changes include:
Increased irrigation water demands due to potentially higher evapo-transpiration.
Reduced rainfall during summer months.
Table 5-17
Projections of Average Annual Flow
Time Period Scenario Q (m3/s) Change (%)
2040-2069
2040-2069
River Nistru
Current
306
A2
260
B2
269
River Prut
Current
86
A2
72
B2
74
-18
-14
-20
-16
Source: Corobov, 2008; Lalykin and Syrodoev, 2004; Srodoev and Knight, 2007 and
Srodoev I.G., 2008)
Main Report Final
5-38
December 2009

It should be noted that a projected 6.8% decrease in precipitation under Scenario A2 in
the Nistru basin during 2040-2069 results in an 18% decrease in stream flow. Since 91%
of the flow in Moldova occurs outside its borders, the percentage changes in precipitation
do not easily translate into comparable changes in stream flow.
Replicating the analysis for water availability for the 16 CIS (See 5.9.1) under these
climate change impact additionally assumes an 18% decrease in flow would occur for
both rivers (this is considered conservative since projection presented above are to the
year 2069). These results are presented in Tables 5-18 and 5-19 and summarized in
Appendix D.
Table 5-18
Affect of Climate Change on the Availability of Water for the Prut River
Basin Water through Year 2040
Average
Drought
Prut River
Flow
Conditions
Conditions
Environmental/Sanitary Flows
(million m3)
(million m3)
Available Water after Withdrawal
(million m3)
1392
827
240
240
576
293
51
51
12
12
513
230
Table 5-19
Affect of Climate Change on the Availability of Water for the Nistru River
Basin Water through Year 2040
Average Flow
Drought
Nistru River
Conditions
Conditions
Environmental/Sanitary Flows (million m3)
Rehabilitated CIS Irrigation Requirements
(million m3)
municipalities, etc. less Return Water (million
m3)
Available Water after Withdrawal (million m3)
3994
1632
1181
2780
1632
574
98
98
111
111
972
365
Based on these analyses as summarized in the table above:

Main Report Final
5-39
December 2009

The seven rehabilitated CIS along the Prut River would extract approximately 9%
of the available water during average flow conditions and nearly 18% of the water
during drought conditions.
The nine rehabilitated CIS along the Nistru River would account for
approximately 8% of the available water in the Nistru River during average flow
conditions, and approximately 17 % of the water during drought conditions.
If additional CIS is planned for rehabilitation, then similar assessment would have to be
carried out to determine the impact of water extraction on these respective rivers.
Main Report Final
5-40
December 2009
Section 6 Proposed Rehabilitation Plans
6.0 Proposed Rehabilitation Plans

This section provides a summary of the proposed plans for rehabilitating the
infrastructure for each of the 16 CIS under consideration for MCC funding. These plans
are based on the rehabilitation requirements identified in Section 3.0. This section
provides:
Assumptions on the basis for rehabilitation.
An overview of the proposed rehabilitation plans.
6.1
Assumptions for Basis of Rehabilitation Plans
Rehabilitation plans for each CIS were developed based on the assessment of its existing
conditions, and the existing CISs ability to deliver the required water for HVA crop
cultivation, as recommended in the USU report and as directed by MCC. Based on these
crop water requirements, the following criteria established the basis for infrastructure
needs:
Ability for the CIS to supply a flow of 1 lps/ha (established based on MCCs
acceptance of USU recommendation).
A minimum water pressure at the hydrants of 4 bars (established based on
discussions between MCC, MCA-Moldova and Apele Moldovei).
Energy efficient systems.
In defining the infrastructure requirements for the above criteria, the following
assumptions were made:
The typical watering equipment is assumed to be Reel Hose, Hand-moving
laterals, Drip irrigation equipment or of similar kind that function at the
minimum pressure identified.
Discharge rate of the water equipment is assumed to be 20 lps.
Pressure pump stations would need to have adequate capacity to meet the 1 lps/ha
criteria.
Additional details on the basis of rehabilitation plans can be found in Appendix E.
6.1.1 Rehabilitation Based on Proposed Design Criteria
Since the present capacities of existing pump stations and underground pipe networks are
lower or equal to the requested capacity criteria (1 lps/ha), hydraulic analysis was
undertaken for each of the 16 CIS to assess the capacity the system to satisfy the required
design criteria. Subsequently, pumps and pipes were identified for rehabilitation. The
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-1

results of the hydraulic analysis, included in Annexes 1 16, were the basis of design for
rehabilitating the existing CIS.
6.1.2 Rehabilitation Based on Minimum Water Pressure Conditions
The CIS at Suvorov, Roscani, Serpeni, and Talmaza were originally designed to
accommodate higher pressure (5-7 bars) FREGAT pivot type watering equipment. This
equipment could cover a large area of irrigation land, thereby requiring the piping
network to be spaced out less densely. However, the equipment is worn out, obsolete and
high energy consuming, and would not function given the minimum pressure criteria of 4
bars. In order to accommodate the new proposed type of watering equipment (reel hose)
to replace the FREGAT, new additional pipes and hydrants were included as part of the
rehabilitation plans at these CIS.
6.2
Overview of Proposed Rehabilitation
In summary, the proposed rehabilitation includes:

Rehabilitation interventions identified and included in Section 3.0, based on
technical assessment of present condition of existing infrastructure (pump
stations, pipe network, hydrants, dams, drainage network etc.).
Replacement of pump units to provide capacity to meet the design criteria of 1
lps/ha.
New pump stations to provide the desired capacity of 1lps/ha where simply
increasing/replacing existing pumps capacities was not sufficient.
Replacement of existing pipes to higher diameter pipes to handle increased flows
(1 lps/ha) and minimize hydraulic energy losses.
Additional pipes and hydrants required for the new watering equipment to cover
the original irrigated areas.
New pump stations at Tetcani and Crpinenii de Sus to feed the CIS directly from
the Prut River instead of their existing source, which in both cases are lakes
impounded by existing dams. In the case of Tetcani, water volumes in the lake is
not adequate to supply water at the desired capacity, while at Crpinenii, the
water in the lake was found to be highly saline and not conducive for long term
irrigation.
6.2.1 Tetcani
The rehabilitation plans for Tetcani entails:
Replacement/Repair of the existing infrastructure as identified in Section 3.2.1;
and
Addition of two (2) new pump stations
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-2

The two additional pump stations are required to pump water directly from the Prut
River. As mentioned above, the volume of water in the lake, which is the original source
of water for this CIS, is not adequate to satisfy the crop water demand. Consequently, this
CIS is proposed to be supplied directly from the river. For this purpose, two existing,
abandoned pump station buildings can be rehabilitated to accommodate the need to pump
water from the Prut to Tetcani CIS. Also, the following existing infrastructure can be
used upon rehabilitation as part of the new pump stations:
Intake and fish protection structures (would not require rehabilitation).

Pumps & Motors.
Suction pipes.
Sections of discharge pipes.
Valves.
Basin.
With this new configuration, the dam would not be part of the CIS, thus no longer
considered for rehabilitation. The proposed schematic with these two pump stations are
provided in Exhibit 3 of Annex 1. The table below provides overview of the two
proposed pump stations.
Table 6-1
Overview of Proposed Pump Stations at Tetcani
Need to be
Need to be
Components
Replaced/Installed
Repaired
Mechanical Equipment
Rehabilitation old Pump Stations
NSG To pump from River
to accommodate the need for
NSP To lift to SP-1
pumping from the river.
9 (Total for both pump stations) to be repaired
Number of Pumps
1200 lps (per Pump Station)
Capacity of Pumps
Head of Pumps
Number of Motors
Suction and discharge pipe Length
(m)
Number of Basins
121 m (for NSG)

40 (for NSP)
9 existing motors to be repaired.
60
9
18
2
6245
0
New Electrical Systems

10 kV Power Line
6 kV Switchgear
0.4 kV Switchgear/Control Panels
2 Lineup
2 Lineups
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-3

Components
Need to be
Replaced/Installed
Need to be
Repaired
Automation Panels
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
For additional details on the Tetcani CIS, please see Annex 1.

6.2.2 Blindeti
The rehabilitation plans for this CIS entails replacement/repair of the existing
infrastructure as identified in Section 3.2.2. The proposed schematic for the rehabilitated
CIS is illustrated in Exhibit 3 of Annex 2.
6.2.3 Grozeti
The rehabilitation plans for Grozesti entails replacement/repair of the existing
The rehabilitation plans for Carpineni entails:
Replacement/Repair of the existing infrastructure as identified in Section 3.2.4.
Addition of three (3) new pump stations.
The three new pump stations are required to pump water directly from the Prut River. As
mentioned above, the lake, which is the original source of water for this CIS is of poor
quality for irrigation use. Consequently, CIS was configured for rehabilitation by
abstracting water directly from the Prut River.
To serve this need, three, abandoned existing pump station buildings are proposed for
rehabilitation. Similar to Tetcani, the rehabilitated configuration for the CIS would not
include the dam. So rehabilitation of the dam is no longer considered. Also, the
following existing infrastructure can be used upon rehabilitation as part of the new pump
stations:
Intake and fish protection structures.

Suction pipes.
Sections of discharge pipes.
Valves.
Basin.
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-4

The proposed schematic with these three pump stations are provided in Exhibit 3 of
Annex 4. Table 6-2 provides an overview of the three proposed pump stations.
Table 6-2
Overview of the Proposed Pump Stations
at Crpinenii de Sus
Need to be
Components
Installed/Repaired
River Intake
3
Fish protection structures Sets
Rehabilitation old Pump Stations to
NSG-1 (Pumping from River)
NSP-1 (Transit Pump to NSP-2)
accommodate the need for pumping
NSP-2 (Transit to Existing NSP-4)
from the river.
18
Number of New Pumps & Motors
1840 for each Pump Station
Capacity of Pumps (lps)
NSG-1 86m
NSP-1 - 90m
NSP-2 15m
660
Head of Pumps (m)

85
2
Suction and discharge pipe Length (m)
Number of Basins
2270
2 existing basins to be repaired

10 kV Power Line
6 kV Switchgear
Automation Panels
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
3
3
3 Lineup
3 Lineups
3
3
3
3
For additional details on the Carpineni CIS, please see Annex 4.

6.2.5 Leova Sud
The rehabilitation plans for Leova de Sud entails replacement/repair of the existing
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-5

The rehabilitation plans for Chircani - Zirnesti entails:
Replacement/repair of the existing infrastructure as identified in Section 3.2.6.
Increasing the pumping capacity at pump stations S-5 and S-1 by 1,100 lps each.
The proposed schematic for the rehabilitated CIS is illustrated in Exhibit 3 of Annex 6.
6.2.7 Cahul
The rehabilitation plans for Cahul entails replacement/repair of the existing infrastructure
as identified in Section 3.2.7. The proposed schematic for the rehabilitated CIS is
illustrated in Exhibit 3 of Annex 7.
6.2.8 Jora de Jos
The rehabilitation plans for Jora de Jos entails replacement/repair of the existing
6.2.9 Lopatna
The rehabilitation plans for Lopatna entails replacement/repair of the existing
6.2.10 Conia
The rehabilitation plans for Conia entails replacement/repair of the existing
6.2.11 Criuleni
The rehabilitation plans for Criuleni entails replacement/repair of the existing
6.2.12 erpeni
The rehabilitation plans for erpeni entails:
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-6

Additional underground pipes to supply areas originally equipped with
FREGAT center pivot.
Table 6-3 provides an overview of the additional pipe network to be installed as part of
the CIS rehabilitation at erpeni.
Table 6-3
Proposed Additional Pipes & Hydrants at erpeni
Recommended for
Components
Installation
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
4,060
80
6.2.13 Puhceni
The rehabilitation plans for Puhaceni entails:
Replacement of all existing pipes with larger diameter pipes to cope with the
increased capacity (1 lps/ha), and to reduce hydraulic energy losses.
Table 6-4 provides an overview of the replacement of the pipe network as part of this CIS
rehabilitation.
Table 6-4
Proposed Pipe Network at Puhceni
Recommended
Components
for Installation
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
Valves
33,304
369
34
6.2.14 Rocani
The rehabilitation plans for Rocani entails:
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-7

Table 6-5 provides an overview of the additional pipe network to be installed as part of
the CIS rehabilitation at Rocani.
Table 6-5
Proposed Additional Pipes & Hydrants at Rocani
Recommended
Components
for Installation
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
860
16
6.2.15 Talmaza
The rehabilitation plans for Talmaza entails:
The table below provides an overview of the additional pipe network to be installed as
part of the CIS rehabilitation at Talmaza.
Table 6-6
Proposed Additional Pipes & Hydrants at Talmaza
Recommended for
Components
Installation
Pipes Length (m)
Number of Hydrants
Valves
6,270
120
1
6.2.16 Suvorov
The rehabilitation plans for Suvorov entails:
Replacement/Repair of the existing infrastructure as identified in Section 3.2.16.
Addition of two (2) new pump stations.
The two new pump stations in series are required to pump water directly from the Nistru
River because the existing primary pump stations are not adequate to meet the desired
capacity. In addition, the existing pump station infrastructure and pump sizes limit the
ability to expand the pumping capacities, thus requiring parallel pump stations. These
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-8

two additional pump stations can be configured to pump directly to the lake that currently
serves existing pump stations S-2 and S-3 within this CIS.
The proposed schematic with these two pump stations are provided in Exhibit 3 of Annex
16. Table 6-7 provides overview of the two proposed pump stations.
Table 6-7
Overview of Proposed New Pump Stations at Suvorov
Recommended
Components
for Installation
River Intake
Fish protection structures Sets
2 (GNS-1 & PNS-1)
Number of Pump Stations
8
Number of Pumps
5000 per Pump Station
Capacity of Pumps (lps)
80m per Pump Station
Head of Pumps (m)
8
Number of Motors
100
24
2
Suction and discharge pipe Length (m)
Number of Basins
10 kV Power Line
6 kV Switchgear
Automation Panels
Power Cables/Racks
Control Cables
8,050
1
2
2
2 Lineup
2 Lineups
0
0
2
2
For additional details on the Suvorov CIS, please see Annex 16.
Main Report Final
December 2009
6-9
Section 7 Feasibility Level Cost Estimate for the Proposed Rehabilitation Projects
7.0
Feasibility Level Cost Estimate for the Proposed

Rehabilitation Projects
This section provides:

A Feasibility Level cost estimate based on estimated 2009 construction cost for
each CIS rehabilitation project based on system requirements identified in Section
6.0.
A cost breakdown for construction, engineering and contingencies for complete
implementation of the project.
Estimated implementation cost based on a preliminary estimate of project
schedule and accounting for inflation and currency exchange fluctuations.
7.1 Summary
The implementation cost includes construction costs for the rehabilitation of the irrigation
infrastructure, dams and drainage systems, first order environmental & social mitigation
costs, along with necessary contingencies based on current cost (2009). This cost also
reflects accommodation for projected inflation and currency exchange rates over the
proposed implementation period (March 2010 through March 2015).
These projects are still at the feasibility level. Therefore, the above cost estimate should
be considered for planning purposes only. This cost estimate does not include cost for
setting up the implementation unit, cost for MCA and/or MCC administration or
supervision of the compact and during project implementation. More accurate cost
estimates should be developed during detailed design. The details of the feasibility level
cost estimate for each of the proposed CIS rehabilitation projects are provided in their
respective annexes.
7.2
Development of Units Cost
Unit costs were compiled based on the assumption that the proposed projects would be
exempt from import duty or VAT.
7.2.1 Pipe Network
A unit cost database for the material required for construction was independently
developed for the purpose of identifying the cost for the CIS rehabilitation. The unit cost
of pipe represents cost of pipe fully installed based on the common trench & lay
practice. This cost represents:
Cost of supply and delivery of pipe and fittings for each diameter (150 mm
1000 mm) to site were those provided by local pipe manufacturer representatives.
Main Report Final
7-1
December 2009
Cost for excavation, backfill and compaction as published in latest edition of
Monitorul Constructiilor, a quarterly publication developed by the Ministry of
Construction and Territorial Development of the Moldova Republic.
Labor cost as published in Monitorul Constructiilor.
The unit cost for replacement and/or repair of hydrants, valves, manholes, air release
values were also developed in this manner.
The cost of rehabilitating the drainage system at three CIS (please refer to Section 4 for
details) that includes cleaning of drainage canals, restoration of monitoring wells,
repairing bridges and culverts are so identified separately and included as part of the
rehabilitation cost for the CIS.
7.2.2 Primary Civil Works
The cost for rehabilitating primary civil works components consisted of:
Repairing/replacing of intakes (including fish protection structures).

Repairing/replacing suction/discharge pipes.
Repairing pumping stations buildings.
Repairing suction/discharge basins.
Repairing river bank protection structures.
The unit rates for labor and construction were determined in a similar way as for pipes.
7.2.3 Mechanical & Electrical Equipment
The cost for selected pump/motor equipment and associated control panels, cabling,
piping, etc were obtained from well established and reputable pump producers like Wilo
(United Kingdom), Grundfos (Denmark), Aversa (Romania), and from local suppliers of
Russian/Ukraine brand pumps. The installed cost for the equipment was developed as
follows:
Installation of pumps and motors was assumed to be 30% of the equipment price.
Installing of electrical equipment was assumed to be 25% of the equipment price.
Installation of ancillary (valves, hoisting, priming, water meters, and drainage)
equipment at pumping stations was assumed 30% of the price of the equipment.
Unit costs were complied based on the assumption that the proposed projects would be
exempt from import duty and VAT.
7.3
Preliminary & General Costs
Preliminary & General (P&G) assumes costs associated with the Contractors contractual
requirements, establishment and operation of the camp, mobilization and demobilization
Main Report Final
7-2
December 2009
costs, provision of facilities for the Engineer, and method/time related costs that are also
location & site specific. Generally, P&G includes:
Contractor's Overheads, Profit, Bonds, and Insurance.

Site Establishment & Removal.
Discipline Related Supervision.
Transport To and From the Site of construction equipment (this does not include
shipping which is covered elsewhere).
Temporary Facilities (plants & shops).
Temporary Utilities (water, sewer, electric).
Stores, Offices, Lay-down Area.
Support Equipment and Tools, etc.
Taking these assumptions into consideration, and in keeping with prevailing feasibility
level standards, a P&G factor of 25% was used to estimate the above costs.
7.4 Contingencies
Contingency can be broadly defined as covering:
... costs that may result from incomplete design, unforeseen and
unpredictable conditions, or uncertainties within the defined project
scope. The amount of the contingency will depend on the status of design,
procurement, and construction; and the complexity and uncertainties of
the component parts of the project. Contingency is not used to avoid
making an accurate assessment of expected cost.
A contingency allowance has been added to the construction cost estimates to cover the
uncertainties in the civil and electrical/mechanical works that were identified based on
available information, and uncertainties with the construction market to offer competitive
bids in Moldova during the MCC implementation period. These contingent costs are
treated separately and are added, after all the costs are estimated, as a contingency
allowance.
At this stage in the development of the project, many uncertainties exist that increase the
risk of budget variation. The purpose of the inclusion of contingency is to ensure that
these variables are covered in the budget. For this estimate, the contingency allowances
are included to provide reasonable coverage for the following:
Uncertainties attributable to unforeseeable adverse geological conditions (rock
excavation will vary significantly).
Modifications in design resulting in an increase of work effort.
Minor items not detailed at this time.
Overlooked and unforeseen items that may not be included in the present
feasibility-level quantity estimates.
Main Report Final
7-3
December 2009
The allowance for contingency included in the cost estimate does not include coverage
for the following:
Modifications of labor and tax legislation.

Contingent risks that can be covered by insurance policies.
Force Majeure risks.
Increase in prices due to price escalation/inflation.
Again, keeping with prevailing engineering practice, at this level of feasibility planning, a
contingency figure of 35% is applied to identify the total construction cost.
7.5
Design & Construction Supervision Cost
Costs associated with engineering services include:

Detailed design, preparation of specs and contract documents, tendering,
evaluation and award of contracts.
Following analyses and studies as part of the detailed design activities;
o Pipe stress analysis
o Cathodic protection;
o Use of Variable Frequency Drives (VFD); and
o Inspection of intakes underwater.
Supervision of construction works, start up and commissioning, and project
management services.
In keeping with prevailing engineering practices, the cost for design engineering &
construction supervision services is estimated at 14% of the total construction cost.
7.6
Environmental & Social Mitigation Costs
The implementation costs identified for each of the 16 CIS in Table 1 also includes first
order cost estimates for environmental and social mitigation and monitoring. A brief
overview of the development of these costs is provided below:
7.6.1 Waste Management
Asbestos roofing sheets and waste from electrical installations in pump stations:
The costs are based on the assumption that an average of 2 tons of demolition
wastes will be generated at each rehabilitated pump station. Quantities of asbestos
sheeting are expected to be low as visual inspection of the pump stations during
site evaluation indicated that only about 10% of pump station roofs are made from
such sheeting. The cost of disposal includes the cost of transport to the closest
landfill: either Tintareni landfill in Anenii Noi Raion (Carpinenii de Sus, Leova
Sud, Chircani-Zirnesti, Cahul, Jora de Jos, Lopatna, Cosnita, Criuleni, Serpeni,
Main Report Final
7-4
December 2009
Pugaceni, Roscani, Talmaza and Suvorov) or Balti landfill in Balti Raion
(Tetcani, Blindesti and Grozesti), and a tipping fee. The asbestos roofing
materials will likely require additional management measures (immediate cover
with 15 cm of non-asbestos containing material such as soil or a dust suppressing
chemical), which may increase the landfill operator's cost. The median landfill
tipping fee in Holland, 90 Euros per load (1,350 MDL), (Source:
http://www.kape.gov.pl/PL/Wydarzenia/imprezy/20070618_20070619_a/prezenta
cje/18_czerwca/3_Huisman_SenterNovem.pdf) is used to account for this extra
cost to the landfill operator. This fee is slightly higher than that charged by the
Chisinau municipality to industries which accumulate industrial waste (1,250
MDL).
Replaced steel pipe and hydrants will be sold for scrap - income from scrap is
assumed to equal transport costs to scrap merchant.
All inert demolition waste will be disposed of locally.
7.6.2 Compensation for Loss of Earnings (Economic Displacement)
The compensation costs were estimated based on the following information:
Crop patterns and their relative portions in each CIS were determined from the
land user database.
Average earnings/hectare is based on the average of 2003 and 2007 earnings as
provided by ACSA.
It is considered likely that most land users will only lose one year's production
during rehabilitation.
Pipeline replacement and repair will require a 20 m wide easement.
Hydrants, valves and manholes on those sections of pipelines along which no
interventions occur are accounted for separately. Hydrant replacement requires a
20 m wide easement along a 7 m length of pipeline per replaced hydrant; hydrant
repair, and valve and manhole replacement and repair will disturb a 5 m x 5 m
area.
Where there is a series of hydrant, valve or manhole replacement and/or repair
interventions along a pipeline with no visible easement on the orthophotos, there
will be a need for a 20 m wide easement along the entire length of pipeline along
which interventions take place.
Pump station expansion in Chircani-Zrneti will require two 25 m x 25 m areas.
It is assumed pump station interventions will occur during off-seasons so as not to
impact irrigation.
7.6.3 Environmental Monitoring & Potential Remediation Costs
The cost identified includes weather monitoring and quarterly water quality monitoring
up and downstream of each CIS.
Main Report Final
7-5
December 2009
In addition, in Crpinenii, it has been brought to MCCs attention that there are signs of
soil contamination in the vicinity of a small pesticide blending station. This will require a
preliminary assessment, which if positive will dictate the need for a detailed assessment
which will include water samples from Lake Minjir (2 samples) and 8 shallow wells in
Voinescu. For the purposes of identifying a preliminary cost estimate, the contaminated
area is assumed to be 500 m x 500m to a depth of 5 m. At a dry soil density of 1.52/kg/m3
this amounts to 1,900 tons of soil. Cost is based on maximum predicted cost/ton (100
Euros/ton) in Finland for soil remediation for the period 2005-2025 (K. Jarvinnen, 2004.
Remediation costs of contaminated sites in Finland).
7.7
Escalation of Base Cost Estimates
The total construction cost, developed from the above discussed unit rates, are base-cost
estimates based on 2009 cost estimates. Since the proposed projects will be implemented
over the next five years, for budgeting purposes, it is necessary to escalate the base-cost
project estimates to account for the following:
Price escalation/Inflation.
Exchange rate variation.
7.7.1 Assumptions
Escalation of the base cost estimates is assumed based on the works being undertaken
within the five-year period. It is assumed that 20% of the activities will be completed by
2011; 40% by 2012; 30% by 3013; and the remaining 10% by 2014.
7.7.2 Price Escalation
Typically, escalated cost of construction works is affected by changes in cost of labor,
engineering, materials, construction equipment and fuel. There are two components of
works that need to be looked at separately in this analysis. One is the escalation rate for
the foreign cost component of the works (which is assumed to be everything from outside
of Moldova) and the other is the local cost component.
At this stage it is anticipated that the construction contractor(s) selected would most
probably be foreign, and likely from neighboring countries like Romania or Ukraine. It is
assumed that with the exception of the pipe, the remaining equipment and materials
necessary for rehabilitation will also be procured from these neighboring countries. At
this stage, labor is anticipated to be the major portion of the local component of the
implementation cost.
To quantify the effect of price escalation, sound judgment is required, which is based on
an analysis of the historical trend of the variables affecting the proposed projects and
what can be expected over the next three to five years.
Main Report Final
7-6
December 2009
Inflation within Moldova
Prediction of inflation is at best an imprecise exercise subject to potential wide
fluctuations and often times skewed by political influence and externalities. In an attempt
to arrive at a base inflation rate and forecast inflation during the implementation period,
data and reports were reviewed from the IMF, the Moldovan Handbook of Statistics, The
Economist, Economy Watch, and the World Economic Report.
The historical trend in general inflation was first analyzed. The information was gathered
for the last five years and is illustrated in Figure 7-1 below.
Figure 7-1
Historical Average Annual Inflation Rates in Moldova
At the beginning of 2009:

The IMFs macroeconomic indicators forecast Moldovan inflation for 2009 at
9.5%, then revised this figure in April 2009 downwards to 4% (World Economic
Outlook).
Moldovas Deputy Prime Minister forecasted an inflation rate for 2009 of 3.1%.
Predictions are that inflation should be low for the next several years, then, rise as global
recession abates and the effects of monetary policy instituted by governments translate to
both liquidity increase and growth spurts. Moldova has managed to have a relatively
strong GDP growth of 3-4% for 2008, which would tend toward a slight inflation.
For 2010:
The IMF forecasts that Moldovan inflation will rise to 5.8% in 2010.
Economy Watch forecasts inflation to rise to 5% in 2010 and remain at such
levels through 2013.
Main Report Final
7-7
December 2009
The IMF also forecasts that global growth would increase to 1.5-2.5% in the latter
part of 2010. This Global growth would translate into increased growth in
Moldova and presents an argument that liquidity and investment increase could
increase inflation.
Figure 7-1 illustrates gyrations in inflation from a high of 39% in 1999 to a significant
drop to 5.2% in 1998 then leveling to around 12% from 2000 to 2008, with an overall
average from 2001 through 2008 of 12.27%. Further, as evidenced by projections from
the various sources identified above, there is no clear consensus on what the inflation will
be next year or in the near future.
Therefore in an attempt to develop a conservative, yet supportable, inflation rate for
estimating the implementation cost for the CIS rehabilitation projects, the following is
assumed:
An inflation rate of 4% for 2009 and 2010 assuming the current economic
downturn will continue through 2010.
Assuming a global growth factor of 1.5%, the inflation rate is assumed to be 6%
in 2011.
Beyond 2011, the average inflation rate is assumed to be 9.3% and will hold
constant (at 9.3%) through 2014.
Inflation - Neighboring Countries
As identified above, majority of the mechanical and electrical equipment required as part
of the rehabilitation works might be procured from either Romania or Ukraine. The
Ukrainian currency, Hryvna (UAH), is tied to the US dollar and is subject to its
fluctuations. When the discount rate in the US falls, Ukraine prints UAH to buy US
Dollars thus resulting in a high inflationary environment; its current situation.
Subsequently, this also depreciates the value of the UAH against that of its neighboring
currencies, including MDL. Based on IMFs World Economic Outlook, inflation in the
Ukraine is 26% in April 2009 and unlikely to reduce in the near to mid term future.
In contrast, Romanias currency, New Leu, (RON), floats and its inflation is currently
around 6% depending on the source of data. The RON has recently slipped due to the
slowing of the economy.
Given the discrepancies in the inflation rates between these two neighboring countries,
the apparent complexities of identifying or projecting a foreign (outside of Moldova)
inflationary factor will have to studied in greater detail, which is beyond the scope and
duration of this feasibility study. However, recognizing the importance of identifying the
inflationary effects on the Moldovan Lei (MDL), which erodes external purchasing
power, local inflation rates were assumed for foreign cost components for the time being
while estimating the cost for implementation. This will have to be revisited by MCC as
more reliable information becomes available in future.
Main Report Final
7-8
December 2009
7.7.3 Exchange Rate
The MDL is considered to be a relatively stable currency. Three factors determine this
stability: remittances, foreign direct investment, and incomes from exports, which rose
significantly in 2008.
The economy has shown resilience during the current global economic downturn and its
currency has not declined precipitously as is the case with the UAH and RON.
Economists state Moldovan banks are as not exposed to the consequence of the current
global banking crises as those in its neighboring countries, but there are warnings that
Moldova would be vulnerable as remittances decrease or exports decline.
A summary of the average exchange rates over the past nine years are identified in the
table below.
Table 7-2
Historical Trends in Exchange Rate (MDL/US$)
Average Exchange
Period
Rate (MDL/US$)
January 2000-May 2009
12.52
11.19
10.52
May 1, 2009- May 24, 2009
11.26
May 24, 2009
11.24
Source. National Bank of Moldova website: 5/24/2009
Figure 2 provides an illustration in the trend of annual exchange rates since 2003.
Main Report Final
7-9
December 2009
Figure 7-2
Historical Trend in Currency Exchange (MDLUS$)
Based on the above data it is apparent that the rates are tending more towards a lower
exchange rate, with the average from the beginning of 2008 to present of 10.52. Another
source, The World Economic Outlook shows the average exchange rate from November
2008 to present to be an average of 10.4 with a low reaching 9.66 during this period.
Other sources, such as the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU) of The Economist, forecasts
the exchange rate in 2010 to be 12.55 MDL/US$. In predicting future exchange rates, the
National Bank states that MDL is not likely to drop significantly against the Euro or
Dollar anytime soon and the bank has enough reserves to keep the currency afloat against
any sharp drop in remittances.
Given the nature of the current economic crisis and in view of the relative stability of the
MDL against the dollar, for the purpose of this study and in the interest of remaining
conservative in our cost estimates, a rate of 10.52 MDL/US$ is used for the
implementation period. These figures should be revised as better information and
analysis become available.
In summary, the inflation and currency exchange rates that are used to establish the
feasiblity level implementation cost for the CIS rehabiliation are provided in the table
below.
Table 7-3
Inflation & Currency Exchange Factors used for Price Escalation
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
4%
6%
9.3%
9.3%
9.3%
Foreign Inflation
4%
6%
9.3%
9.3%
9.3%
Local Inflation
10.52
10.52
10.52
10.52
10.52
Exchange Rate MDL/$
Main Report Final
7-10
December 2009
Section 8 Assessment of Institutional Capacities
8.0 Assessment of Institutional Capacities

This section provides an assessment of the institution(s) within the irrigation sector in
Moldova responsible for implementing the MCC funded proposed CIS rehabilitation
projects, and proposed for operating & managing the rehabilitated systems. The
assessment includes:
Evaluating the capacity, quality and competency of these institutions to
satisfactorily perform this function.
Broadly identifying risks associated with lack of existing institutional capacity
or in the proposed management plan to satisfactorily meet desired results.
If risks are identified, recommending potential remedial actions or technical
assistance to minimize those risks that would have to be included in the MCA
compact
8.1
Overview of Moldova Irrigation Sector Institution(s)
8.1.1 Apele Moldovei

After its independence in 1991, the planning, construction, operation, and maintenance of
all irrigation systems in Moldova was the responsibility the Ministry of Agriculture, Food
and Industry (MAFI), operating through the Department of Water Resources. The
Department of Water Resources became a State consortium (AQUA) in the early 1990s.
In 1996, the agency Apele Moldovei (AM) was created (Decision of the Government of
the Republic of Moldova No. 317) under MAFI to replace AQUA with extensive
responsibilities for international and national water policy and management. In the
process, AM subsumed 14 State Controlled Technical Irrigation Stations (STI),
AcvaProiect, and several other departments. It also became responsible for contracting
with farmers for the delivery of irrigation water, for establishing water tariffs, collecting
hydrologic data, setting use limits, norms of operation and operation rules, and providing
for flood control. In 2007, AM became an independent agency, reporting directly to the
Prime Minister (Government of Moldova Decision No. 904). Much of its earlier
responsibilities remain the same, but with additional responsibilities for over 40
municipal water entities (enterprises).
AMs principle functions are to provide the policy direction and implementation for
water resources management. Responsibility for operation and maintenance of the
systems (CIS and potable water) rests ultimately with AM although the daily operation,
tariff setting and collection, and maintenance functions are delegated to the 12 remaining
STIs. The other two STIs have been disbanded. AM provides direct financial support to
the STIs and the enterprises.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-1

8.1.2 Technical Irrigation Stations (STI)
The STIs are organized around the various CIS schemes within their jurisdiction and are
divided into sectors, which are basically groups of CIS. Each STI typically has the
responsibility for operating 5 to 8 of the more than 80 CIS around the country. The STIs
are intended to be semi-autonomous regionally focused organizations, though in practice
they function as field offices of AM and receive significant State budgetary support
through AM.
Since virtually all these schemes involve pumping, the primary task of the STIs is to
operate and maintain the pump stations that provide water for irrigation. Additional tasks
include collecting water fees; recording electricity use for pumping; taking water orders
and making deliveries; computing, requesting and distributing irrigation energy subsidies
from the treasury to farmers; recording and reporting private use of irrigation water; and
various subsidiary economic activities including construction and wholesale trade in
agricultural products, fish, and construction materials. One or two STIs also have
domestic water supply responsibilities. STIs also maintain facilities for storing
equipment and for maintenance work.
The STI staffing norm is four staff to each operating pump station. Station staff typically
includes an experienced electrician and an experienced mechanic, along with welders,
plumbers and assistants. For stations that are currently not functional, 2 persons are
typically assigned to serve as watchmen. Staff is often local residents hired from nearby
villages and may work part-time and have farms of their own.
Headquarters offices of the STIs typically have a relatively small staff of 10 to 20
members, including the director, a chief engineer, a chief electrician, accountants, and
sector chiefs. In addition, many STIs have workshops where pumps, motors, vehicles and
other equipment are repaired. However pumps and motors requiring major repairs, such
as rewinding, are sent out to specialized, usually private, workshops in Chisinau.
8.1.3 Existing Water Users Organizations
To fill the void between the pump station delivering water and the farm, AM in the late
1990s began a program of establishing Water User Organizations (WUOs) across the
CIS. This has resulted today in a set of 26 WUOs with various degrees of functionality.
By many accounts the best performing of these is Dajida Prim, which was registered in
1998 as the first WUO in Moldova. Since then, at least one WUO, in Rocani, has
succeeded in organizing itself on its own initiative, completely without outside
assistance.
As represented by Dajida Prim and described in its bylaws, a WUO is a voluntary
association governed by a general assembly (GA) made up of all of its members. The GA
elects a council or management board headed by a Chairman. All who hold land titles in
the irrigated area automatically become members, regardless of whether they are
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-2

irrigating or not. Farmers who have leased land also become members. The WUO
submitted all the legal papers to become an association with support from AM. They are
presently organized as a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO). However, they need
to make changes in their statutes for tax-exempt status although they are a non-profit
organization.
The Chairman also serves as the chief operating officer of the organization (the
president). The WUO hired staff - an accountant and field workers who coordinate
irrigation operations at the tertiary level. At present, the infrastructure is operated by the
STI, but the WUO coordinates at the farm level for water delivery and revenue collection.
8.1.4 Proposed Arrangement for Management of the Rehabilitated CIS
As part of MCCs investment objectives in the irrigation sector in Moldova, it aims to
support agricultural production of higher value-added (HVA) crops with an Irrigation
Management Transfer (IMT) program to establish and strengthen WUOs for the
administration, operation, and maintenance of selected irrigation schemes.
Utah State University (USU) reported the results of an extensive review of management
arrangements for rehabilitated Central Irrigation Schemes in the country in its Irrigation
Management Transfer report (Merkley, et al., 2009). The report recommended that in all
cases management of the rehabilitated schemes be transferred to farmer-based WUOs.
In keeping with this plan, the Prime Minister has issued an executive order instructing
AM to develop and present a draft WUO law by 30 September 2009, for submission to
Parliament. MCA has also initiated work on a Transfer Agreement based on a template
prepared by USU.
The IMT report anticipates that new WUOs will be similar in structure to existing WUOs
established by AM over the past few years. Beyond this, at the writing of this report, the
details and description of the expected structure and functioning of the proposed WUOs
are still being developed.
There has been considerable discussion over the criteria for membership in the WUOs.
The IMT report advocates eventually restricting membership to landowners, with a more
pragmatic policy of allowing membership by either landowners or tenants over the
shorter term. The legal report (Utica and Hodgson, 2009) has a number of detailed
recommendations on this point, in general opting to restrict membership to landowners.
At the writing of this report, the current thinking with MCC was that the membership of
the WUOs would be limited to land owners and farmers who have a minimum of threeyear lease agreement for the land they are renting.
It is likely that the WUO structure that evolves will be relatively simple, given the size of
most of the schemes under consideration. This will include a General Manager or
Supervisor, an accountant for financial recordkeeping and a small team of technicians to
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-3

operate and maintain the pump stations. More complex maintenance and repairs to
mechanical equipment and infrequent tasks such as mechanical cleaning of open channels
will likely be outsourced, as it will not be cost effective for small WUOs to maintain such
infrequently-used capacities internally.
8.2
Assessment of Responsible Entities
8.2.1 Implementation Duties

The proposed MCC funded CIS rehabilitation projects might entail simultaneous
construction of up to 16 projects across the two river basins. Based on the current
institutions serving the irrigation sector in Moldova, AM would be the logical choice to
serve as the implementing entity to oversee that these projects are implemented within a
five year period, with support from its STIs.
The success of the MCC program in rehabilitating the proposed CIS depends on the
capacity and capabilities of Apele Moldovei (AM), as the proposed Implementing Entity,
to provide adequate resources to implement the project within the allocated time and
budget. AM currently operates under an employment limit of 40 persons, not including
its STIs. In the past, AM has relied on the Ministry of Roads and Construction for
assistance with tendering and construction. The organizational structure of AM is
provided in Appendix F.
There is a World Bank (WB) funded Project Implementing Unit (PIU) currently assisting
AM. Based on discussions with AM, MCA-Moldova, and MCC, the PIU can be relied
on to help with procurement activities.
8.2.2 O&M Duties
Although AM and STIs have the responsibility of operating and managing the irrigation
systems in the country, as discussed in Section 8.1.4, the proposed arrangement is for
WUOs to be formed to assume operation and management responsibilities of the
rehabilitated systems. Based on information available at the writing of this report, AM
will continue to retain ownership of the rehabilitated CIS infrastructure. Further, the
roles of AM and the STIs are assumed to become normative and regulatory by the end of
the project. However, AM and the STIs will continue to operate and be responsible for
the majority of the remaining (non-rehabilitated) CIS schemes in the country.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-4
8.3 Prevailing Assumptions Associated with Proposed

Institutional Plans
The current IMT program is based on the general assumption that the incentive structure
inherent in a user management has a clear comparative advantage over State
management. Other countries in the region, including Romania, Armenia, Turkey, and
Albania are transferring, or have transferred, irrigation system management to Water
Users demonstrating reportedly the feasibility of the approach.
As discussed in Section 8.1.3, there several examples of working WUOs in the country,
though none of them are currently operating an entire CIS or even a pump station, and
each function at different performance levels. Even the best of them will need extensive
training in planning, budgeting, accounting, record keeping, communication, and
management, in addition to technical training, before they are ready to function
effectively as system operators.
Assumptions in the IMT Framework
There are some assumptions in the framework as proposed in the IMT report that should
be revisited.
Assumption # 1: Each scheme should be operated by a single WUO. For larger
schemes such as Suvorov, which at full development would cover more than
13,000 hectares, this would be extremely difficult to accomplish in one go, and a
phased strategy of first creating smaller organizations based on secondary or
pressure pump station service area, with eventual federation to operate the main
system, would be a much more realistic approach. Following such an incremental
transfer strategy would also apply to other CIS like, Chircani-Zrneti, Talmaza
and Cosnita that cover larger areas and require operation of numerous lift and
pressure pump stations.
Assumption # 2: IMT agreements should be signed prior to the completion of
rehabilitation. The legal analysis (Utica and Hodgson, 2009) suggests that the
current legal basis may not support the transfer process. This suggests that the
transfer agreements should be developed in conjunction with a new WUO law and
should be based on it, rather than on current law.
Assumption # 3: Given sufficient training, handover of management
responsibility can take place instantaneously. It would more realistic to plan for
a phased transfer of management of the rehabilitated systems from the STIs to the
WUO staff. At a minimum, one season of joint management where the WUO
staff work can work with and learn from STI staff should be considered prior to
full handover. This strategy has been followed successfully in a number of
countries, especially when the irrigation infrastructure remains the property of the
State, as it will in Moldova. Not only will this allow WUO to develop the
capability for sustainable O&M over the long run, but will ensure that the State
infrastructure would be maintained at a high professional level.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-5

Assumption # 4: Capacity building for WUOs with minimal AM involvement.
The AM role in WUO capacity building and technical support is critical to the
sustainability of the IMT effort. In particular, AM should be involved in the
training needs assessment and capacity building of WUOs so that they (as
owners) are also knowledgeable on all matters related to WUO operations.
Beyond their inclusion in the IMT process, significant training and support to AM
to enable them to play this role effectively should be considered and integrated
into the WUO capacity building effort.
Assumption # 5: WUO members being involved in the detailed design stage.
Ideally it would be beneficial for the WUO members to be part of the
rehabilitation process that will give them an opportunity to learn about pumping
systems and repairs, and enable full transition to WUO management. However, it
is unlikely that the current IMT schedule, given the MCC five-year
implementation schedule, would accommodate this.
Concerns Expressed by Farmers
During field reconnaissance missions directed to assessing the existing infrastructure,
farmers expressed the following concerns:
Reluctance to join or assume management responsibilities prior to
rehabilitation. From the farmers perspective, this is understandable given the
high maintenance and repair costs associated with the operation of equipment
and facilities, which are old, and often in dilapidated condition. This is not a
barrier to forming a WUO, however, there might be resistance among farmers to
join an organization if theyre not guaranteed rehabilitated infrastructure. This
will need to be addressed as part of the IMT program.
Opposition to the idea of non-farming landowners being members of the WUO.
Farmers expressed confusion if both tenants and landowners are allowed to
belong to the WUO at the same time, resulting in double representation for
particular parcels of land. Other difficulties relate to the designation of a single
party who will be responsible for fee payment for each parcel and the party who
will be the target of legal recourse for arrears collection in the event of nonpayment. This will need to be addressed in the new WUO law being formulated.
Need for technical assistance for establishing and building capacity of WUOs.
Given that the CIS operation has always been state managed and Moldova does
not have a pedigree of a WUO managing an entire system, apprehensions about
assuming responsibilities without adequately building capacity of the WUO are
understandable. It is assumed that the IMT program addresses this concern.
Status of the WUO Law
A special purpose WUO law is not yet in place in Moldova. According to the Utica and
Hodgson (UH) legal report, a draft law was prepared by Moldovan legal experts in the
late 1990s for a World Bank project. However, this project never materialized and this
draft law appears to have lain dormant since.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-6

MCA-Moldova anticipates that this new law will be presented to parliament by
September 2009. However, according to UH, bringing a new WUO law into effect,
assuming the process started in January 2009, would result in an effective date for the
new law of February 2011. A fast track scenario, assuming strong political will, would
yield an effective date of April 2010.
MWH believes that a new WUO law must be in place before an IMT agreement can be
finalized and implemented. The two must be consistent with each other, and it should be
recognized that the law forms the foundation for the IMT Agreement and not vice versa.
Additionally, the schedule for the new law will have an impact on the IMT program
schedule. This would also trigger implications for the schedule of the CIS rehabilitation
program, since, at the writing of this report, the understanding is that the registration of
the WUOs is essential to commence construction.
8.4 Risks and Remedial Actions

There are a number of significant risks associated with the proposed institutional
management plan and process. Although, none are fatal, they still pose significant risks,
and if not properly mitigated, would impact the long term sustainability of the MCC
investment in CIS rehabilitation.
Risk # 1: Impotent WUOs fail to Achieve Sustainability. WUOs must have sufficient
powers, as well as competence and legitimacy in the eyes of water users, to become
effective and sustainable.
Key Issues
Current examples of WUOs are essentially associations of smaller farmers and
fail to include all water users within the CIS with little or no authority over the
system. Usually large farmers contract directly with STIs for water thereby
undermining the WUOs role.
Once a WUO takes on management control of pump stations, it becomes the only
supplier of public irrigation water supply to users and requires corresponding
authority over all potential users of water from the scheme.
In at least one existing WUO, officers include paid employees of AM and other
state agencies, raising questions about conflict of interest in WUO affairs.
Potential Solutions
Each WUO should be empowered through the proposed WUO law as the
authority to provide irrigation water using the state infrastructure within its
defined physical boundaries, thereby establishing its area of jurisdiction.
Insure that the new water law clarifies the basis for membership (land ownership
or other) and voting rights for governance of the WUO after establishment.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-7

Make WUO membership a requirement for receiving any form of subsidies within
its area of jurisdiction.
Include very clear conflict of interest rules for WUOs in the new WUO law that
preclude Government employees or local elected officials from holding elected
leadership or managerial positions in WUOs.
Risk # 2: Inadequate Definition of Apele Moldoveis Role & Involvement. As discussed
in Section 8.3, the proposed transfer approach appears to minimize the role of AM both
during WUO establishment and once the transfer agreement is signed. Consequently,
AM, as the national water agency, may not be attuned to, or capable of, an effective role
in supporting and strengthening WUOs following the close of the MCC-funded project.
Experience in many countries has demonstrated that long-term sustainability of WUOs
requires that WUOs and water agencies work together as partners.
Following conclusion of the MCC project, WUOs will still require support and technical
backstopping, and AM is the only agency in the country with the capacity to play this
role. In addition, as the MCC-funded project will only provide assistance to a small
percentage of CIS in the country, it is all the more important that AM and regional STIs
have the capability to help form sustainable WUOs at other CIS around the country.
Key Issues
AM and STIs are seen, in some quarters, as resistant to decentralization, and their
planned role in the transfer process is relatively modest.
There is concern that AM will give top-level agreement to the IMT process but
will fail to support it in practical terms.
By not integrating AM into the institutional development process, an important
learning and capacity building opportunity for AM is missed.
Current plans do not adequately or pro-actively consider possible future roles for
AM. If AM retains ownership rights on behalf of the State and the responsibilities
associated with the ownership rights, it is not clear how AM plans to maintain &
protect its rehabilitated assets when the responsibility of operating and
maintaining these assets is turned over to a WUO. This needs to be further
defined.
The Agreement states The roles of AM and AIPRE (STIs) will become
normative and regulatory by the end of the project. The current legal framework
does not provide for a regulatory role for AM for WUO managed systems. AM
and the STIs will continue to operate and be responsible for the majority of the
remaining CIS schemes in the country. It is also not clear how an entity that is
responsible for operating a majority of the remaining CIS schemes will also be
regulating itself and the WUOs responsible for the 16 CIS.
As previously discussed in Section 8.3, current plans do not provide for
restructuring and strengthening AM to create capacity for ongoing WUO support
and regulation.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-8

Potential Solutions
The IMT program should pro-actively coordinate with AM to develop a vision for
their post-IMT role. Alternatively, the role of the AM should be defined with
clarity in the proposed WUO law.
Create a new unit within AM to provide training and technical support (TTS) to
WUOs, both those formed under the MCC project and others to be formed in the
future. This may require changes to the legal code, which could be included in the
new WUO law. The new staff would be a mix of AM veterans and new hires to
combine the benefits of technical expertise and extensive experience with CIS
management with skills in training, business management, community
organization, and financial planning and management that are not currently
present in AM.
The proposed TTS unit could be integrated as part of WUO development and
capacity building strengthening.
As discussed previously provide for transitional management by STI and WUO
staff for at least one season to transfer skills needed by the WUO to sustainably
manage the State infrastructure once handover is completed.
Create a separate new unit within AM to provide oversight and regulation of
WUOs. This unit should be separate from the TTS unit to establish a non-partisan
regulatory stance.
Provide directed technical assistance through the IMT program for AM to support
restructuring and capacity building for both of these new units.
At this stage in IMT capacity development, including AM staff in international
study tours will pay rich dividends.
Risk # 3: Rigid Plans and Timetable for the MCC Program. The desire to meet target
milestones within the MCCs five-year program risks not addressing the scheme-wise
capacities, needs and limitations that will drive the transition from AM/STI management
to WUO management.
Key Issues
Current plans call for all the WUOs to be registered by December 2010.
Construction of the CIS rehabilitation depends on this milestone being met. But
given farmers concerns, as identified above, if the IMT process is not planned
and coordinated to address these concerns, it might take longer to organize the
WUOs. Significant delays in meeting this milestone would impact the
construction schedule and limit the construction period, which would have the
undesirable affect of increased construction cost. This is discussed in further
detail in Section 10.
There is confusion over the role WUOs are to play during rehabilitation.
Although, as discussed previously, it would be desirable for the WUOs to be
involved in rehabilitation, it is not likely that they would be in place to be
involved given the current MCC timeline.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-9

Beyond the issues of adequate training of the WUO to take over the management
of the rehabilitated CIS upon handover, there is still a risk that the WUO,
although registered, would not be completely in-place and staffed at the time of
handover.
CIS like Suvorov and Chircani-Zrneti are too large for a single WUO to fully
assume responsibility right away.
Potential Solutions
Allow flexibility in the process and timing of the transfer so that the Field Review
Committee (as proposed in the IMT program) with the advice of IMT Program
Contractor (IMTPSP Irrigation Management Transfer Program Service
Provider) can provide necessary input into a revised schedule for an effective
transfer arrangement process.
Its crucial that the design and construction plans be developed and prioritized
based on the evolution of the IMT program on a CIS wise-basis. The IMTPSP
and the design engineer should coordinate and interact constantly over the
implementation process so that opportunities can be explored for maximizing the
prevailing construction market environment, and minimizing cost overruns.
Clarify the role of WUOs in the design and construction management process.
Multiple WUOs should be considered for large systems. IMTPSP should work
with local STIs of large schemes selected for inclusion in the project to identify
suitable system sub-sections on which to base multiple WUOs.
Where multiple WUOs can be distinctly defined, involve the STI to operate the
main pump station and feeder pipelines until a federation of WUOs has the
capacity to assume overall system management responsibility. This could be
staged with WUOs initially assuming responsibility of secondary pressure pumps
and tertiary works and progressing up to main lift pump stations while acquiring
the training and skills transfer from the STI in the process. This can involve
secondment of STI staff, however, WUOs must have discretionary control over
all staff hiring.
STI involvement would also prove to be stopgap measure if the WUOs are not in
place by the time rehabilitation is complete. Alternatively, the proposed TTS unit
at AM could also help fill the necessary gaps while the WUO is brought up to
capacity.
Risk # 4: Future WUO Financial Sustainability. Over the long run, it is feasible that
with the transition to HVA, farmers will be able to afford the cost of water for irrigation
that is about two to three times what they pay now. Currently, the cost of water is
subsidized and STIs depend on support to manage the systems (See discussion in Section
9.2). Also the prevailing practice of developing O&M budgets and allocation of subsidies
is inefficient, complex and not transparent. In light of this, sustainability of the WUOs in
the absence of subsidies, especially during the initial years of the HVA transition is in
question. The risks associated with financial sustainability are discussed further in
Section 11.0
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-10

Key Issues
Without accurate understanding of the farmers ability to pay during the transition
to HVA, there is a potential for budget shortfall in the immediate years of WUO
operation.
Subsidy mechanisms are complex and opaque, and dont encourage economy of
water use. However, in the absence of the subsidies, financial sustainability of
WUOs is a concern if they have to manage shortfalls for multiple years in a
row, and have sufficient cash flow to pay for day to day operations.
Optimistic assumptions on transition to HVA, access to finance for on-farm
irrigation equipment, access to markets and increased incomes are not guaranteed
realities within the desired timeframe to ensure long term investment
sustainability.
Farmers not being able to transition to HVA crops, or not being able to pay
assumed tariff level could contribute to significant shortfall in revenues as is
discussed in Section 11.0, which raise short term sustainability concerns.
Potential Solutions
WUOs could be granted an infant industry protection to cover shortfall in
recovering tariffs while farmers are in a transition period to HVA. This protection
could be in the form of creating reserve accounts, guarantee on loans, or at a
minimum maintaining energy subsidies.
As discussed in Section 9.0 and 11.0, part of the task of ensuring WUO financial
sustainability should be providing guidance on standardized accounting practices
such that the O&M budget, tariff and, if applicable, subsidy process is transparent.
A willingness and ability to pay analysis needs to be undertaken in order to look
at farmer generated revenue versus tariff, which will provide a more realistic and
complete picture.
Energy cost will be dominant component of the unit water cost (as discussed in
Section 9 and 11). Energy management should have top priority and best practices
instituted with a goal toward reducing energy costs across the board for the
rehabilitated irrigation systems by at least 10%.
Risk # 5: Poor Integration of Physical and Institutional Work. The institutional and
physical works components of the project may not be sufficiently integrated. As
discussed as part of Risk # 3, close interaction between the IMTPSP and the design
engineer is crucial for future planning decisions. Although the implementing entity for
the CIS rehabilitation is AM, it is not clear who will assume the overall coordination of
the IMT and the CIS rehabilitation program.
Key Issues
Design Engineers, Construction Contractors and potential Technical Assistance
Consultants provided to assist AM during implementation may not have
experience working with IMT and farmer-managed schemes. Lack of
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-11

coordination will be frustrating, inefficient and could potentially lead to not
implementing the MCC program within the five-year period.
Coordination/cooperation of local farmers (if the WUO is not fully functional) is
crucial for the timely implementation of resettlement plans, compensation
payment for lost income during construction, and completion of the construction
works.
Potential Solutions
Develop and publicize clear management and coordination procedures for project
implementation of the MCC irrigation investment program taking into
consideration capacities and need for additional resources within either MCA and
or AM.
Include past experience with IMT-based projects in the advertised TORs for
procuring design engineers, or construction contractors or in technical assistance
provided to AM for implementation.
Coordinate construction schedules with each WUO (or with farmers) within each
CIS.
Risk # 6: Deficient Legal and Institutional Base. The legal and institutional basis for
WUO operations may be deficient or unbalanced.
Key Issues
The new WUO law might not be in place as anticipated. Utica and Hodgson
(2009) suggest that the currently envisioned timeline is unrealistically short.
The law and/or the transfer agreement may not deal adequately with issues vital to
WUO establishment and functioning, such as the specification and definition of
the legal members of a WUO, WUO tax status, and the relationship between
WUO members and clients for WUO services.
WUOs, even though they are non-profits, may be subject to burdensome VAT and
property taxes, which could raise their operating costs by 20 to 30% and threaten
their financial viability.
WUOs may be burdened with cumbersome legal, recordkeeping, and reporting
requirements designed to satisfy bureaucratic appetites rather than real monitoring
needs.
The burden of water use permit acquisition and renewal may transfer to WUOs
along with use rights.
Individual WUOs will lack the political strength and capacity to interact
effectively with AM and other regulatory agencies.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-12

Potential Solutions
Insure that other recent national experience with IMT, e.g. in Romania, Turkey,
and Armenia, is reflected in the proposed IMT law and associated transfer
agreements.
Include provisions in the WUO law that exempts them from VAT and property
taxes.
Provide a seat at the table for a knowledgeable WUO advocate during drafting
and review of the proposed WUO law and transfer agreements.
Develop outreach materials and a national program that informs WUOs and
perspective WUOs about the new IMT law.
Work with the MENR to develop a simplified procedure for WUOs to obtain
required water use permits.
Make the IMTPSP contractor, working with the AM Legal Office, responsible for
providing legal assistance to WUOs for completing registration and water
permitting processes the first time around.
Assist WUOs to organize a national association of WUOs once at least 5 WUOs
are organized and functioning to provide collective support and a unified voice.
8.5
Technical Assistance
8.5.2 Expanding Technical Assistance as Part of the IMT Program

The USU IMT report has proposed a comprehensive technical assistance (TA) package
for the IMT component of the project. Given the comprehensive nature of the proposed
package, the skills needed to accommodate the risk solutions suggested in Section 8.4 are
likely to be already included in it. However the following are suggested risk solutions
that need to be emphasized or incorporated as part of the IMT program:
Recognizing that the WUO capacity building and transfer process need the
maximum benefit of time, support from both local and international legal
specialists should begin immediately and not wait for the award of the IMTPSP
contract.
Primary focus should be the development of the new WUO law and the transfer
agreements associated with it. The remaining international legal support should
then be concentrated in a mission toward the end of the project to reassess the
effectiveness of the new WUO law and transfer agreements, and prepare any
needed amendments to the law or modifications to the transfer agreement
template. Local legal assistance would be required throughout the implementation
process to help WUOs over the various legal hurdles they might face as they
register the organization, hire employees, write contracts, and apply for water
permits.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-13

A strategic planning process involving top level officials from AM, MCA, MAFI,
and the Prime Ministers office should develop a vision of the future role of AM
in a post-IMT world, identify and fill information gaps, and prepare a long-range
development plan for AM. An external facilitator or Consultant could be retained
initially to define and foster discussion among the various agencies towards this
goal.
Develop and publicize clear management and coordination procedures for project
implementation of the MCC irrigation investment program taking into
consideration capacities and need for additional resources within either MCA and
or AM. This should also include close working interaction between the IMT and
the CIS rehabilitation program contractors.
Development and Training support for a new TTS unit within AM to support
WUOs and the separate new regulating unit. Training would include courses in
all aspects of WUO administrative operations, training of trainers, group
facilitation, and community organization, and study tours to places like Romania
and Turkey to observe established IMT programs.
Finally to ensure financial sustainability of the WUO, external funding sources or
continued support of the government through loans or subsidies needs to be in
place to cover potential shortfalls in WUO revenue during the initial years.
Main Report Final
December 2009
8-14
Section 9 Assessment of Operations & Maintenance Plans
9.0 Assessment of Operations & Maintenance Plans

This section provides an assessment of the institution in Moldova currently responsible
for the operation and maintenance (O&M) of the CIS, and the proposed O&M
institutional plans for MCC funded proposed CIS rehabilitation projects. The assessment
includes:
Assessment of the past performance of AM & the STIs.
Assessment of the proposed WUO to oversee O&M of the rehabilitated CIS.
Development of O&M cost & budget structure to sustain the MCC
investment.
Overview of sound O&M practices to ensure sustainability
9.1
O&M Responsibilities
As identified in Section 8.0, the O&M duties in the irrigation sector is the responsibility
of AM and the STIs. The primary O&M responsibilities entails responding to water
requests from farmers, collecting revenue from sale of water, performing small repairs on
the pumping stations, while operating and maintaining the pump stations for day to day
operations.
However, for the rehabilitated CIS, the MCC proposed plan is to develop Water User
Organizations (WUO) through the Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) program
supported by MCC in conjunction with the CIS rehabilitation program. The WUOs are
anticipated to assume its responsibilities of managing, operating and maintaining the
system infrastructure by the time the rehabilitation projects are completed.
9.2
AMs Current & Past Performance
9.2.1 Overview of Current Financial Management Practices

The financial management practices of AM and its subsections, the STIs, were assessed
(in terms of accounting, budget preparation, revenues, tariffs, subsidies, operations and
management) to understand how AM is funded, how it funds the STIs, how tariffs are
developed, how the STIs interact with farmers, and how subsidies are identified and
applied.
As discussed in Section 8.0, STI is a subsidiary of AM responsible for assisting AM at
the regional level, including operation and maintenance of the irrigation systems. The
STI, depending on its region, could be responsible for 5-8 CIS. The budget for operating
and managing the CIS are prepared by each STI using the methodology and guidelines
mandated in 2007. According to this mandate, STIs must reflect all costs for operation so
that they are self supporting.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-1

This budget, in effect, should have two components: fixed cost (operation and
maintenance of the infrastructure, or O&M Cost) and energy cost. The O&M cost and
the energy cost are identified at the beginning of the season based on estimates of total
water requested by the farmers within its service area.
The amount of water needed per farm is determined by contracts signed between the STI
and the individual farmer prior to the beginning of irrigation season each year. The O&M
cost (cost for labor & materials) is estimated at each CIS by the managing STI by
employing a formula that takes into account the total amount of water requested by all the
farmers within its service area. Energy cost, which reflects the power (electricity) needed
to pump this contracted water, is estimated by the STI based on the cost per kilowatthours (KWH) for that particular CIS.
Based on current practices, as is discussed below, energy cost is subsidized by the
government. For this reason, the energy cost component does not show up as a cost (or
expenditure) on the STI accounting sheets for past budgets.
It should also be noted that the fixed component is also subsidized by the state (O&M
irrigation service subsidy). So the STI expenditure only identifies O&M cost not covered
by energy or O&M irrigation service subsidies. The STI expenditure is typically
estimated at the beginning of the season for identifying tariff levels for that season.
Each STI develops water use tariffs to cover its costs with respect to each CIS. The
resultant tariff levels vary; in some cases there is one tariff for an entire STI, and in some
cases tariffs vary by CIS within a STI, or even by pump station service areas within the
CIS. In the latter case, the further a farmer is from the intake, the higher the tariff.
Generally, the higher the volume of water to be delivered results in a lower O&M cost
per m3 of water and potentially lower tariff for all within that STI since this spreads the
fixed cost over a larger number of units of water sold.
9.2.3 Assessment of AMs Capacity for O&M

Beyond the financial performance of the STI, discussions with AM, STI and farmers
during field visits identified several current limitations facing the STI in undertaking its
O&M mandate. Some keys concerns are highlighted here:
Since the Government subsidies for energy are paid at the end of the year, the STI are
required to pay the electric bills during the course of the year. However, the STIs
constantly struggle to juggle their limited financial resources to meet electricity
payments. Inability to pay results in electricity being cut off, thereby handicapping
farmers from being productive even if they are paying their tariff bills on time. To
compensate for this cash flow inequity, the STI is forced to apply tariff funds to cover
energy costs and shift revenues from other activities. So while there is no stated cost
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-2

there is the financial cost to the STI of carrying energy charges through the year until
compensated. For example, at present over 1,600 users owe the Chisinau STI over 1
million MDL for energy payments that they have advanced to ensure the farmers can
irrigate. Debts like these are one reason STIs have trouble turning pumps on earlier
in the spring as they have to wait for funds from the Government via AM.
STIs turn off the power in the fall and disconnect their pump stations in order to save
money as well as prevent vandalism. They then cannot turn them back on until all
energy bills are paid. As a result pumps stations often do not actually start pumping
water until mid-May while farmers need water starting in early April, or even late
March in some years. At some CIS, farmers pay the electric bill from the beginning
of the irrigation season in order to ensure water delivery, as this early water is critical
for a number of crops, including many HVA crops.
Farmers are not well informed about the subsidy system and consequently believe
that STIs receive more energy subsidy funds than they allocate. This has contributed
to distrust between the farmers and STI.
Many of the AM and STI staff members are quite senior and set in their ways. They
find it hard to adjust to the changes that have occurred in the rural area and with
agriculture in Moldova. Without a major influx of new, younger staff, AM and STIs
will soon reach a point where they no longer have the skills to manage the system. A
major increase in funding as well as a serious commitment to:
Improved systems management.
Scheduled maintenance.
Recruitment of a new generation of irrigation specialists are all required in
order for AM and STI management to increase irrigated area and service for
small farmers in the country.
Changes in the current financial practices for improved transparency and
financial credibility.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-3
9.3
Assessment of WUOs Capacity for O&M
As mentioned earlier in Section 9.1, the IMT program will facilitate the development of
the WUO to takeover the management of the rehabilitated CIS. However, for reasons
discussed in Section 8.0, the initial managerial and technical capacities of the WUOs are
likely at risk of not being fully adequate or appropriate to manage these systems. A
phased joint management approach with the STI would be a viable option to help build
the WUO capacity over the first season(s) of operation to ensure long-term independence
and sustainability of the MCC investment.
The minimum personnel requirement for WUO would include:
A General Manager/Supervisor.
An Accountant.
Operators/Technicians Assuming a minimum of 4 per pump station.
9.4
Annual O&M Budget to Sustain MCC Investment
Given the assessment of the prevailing financial situation of the STI, it is critical to plan
ahead to identify the actual budget for operating, managing but more importantly,
sustaining the rehabilitated CIS.
For this purpose, O&M budgets for the rehabilitation systems were estimated for
centralized (STI/AM) and decentralized (WUO) management.
9.4.1 Assumptions
The O&M budgets for the rehabilitated CIS assume that some CIS would be online by
2014. For the purpose of consistency, the annual O&M budget has been identified for all
CIS starting with at 2014.
Since the cost of operating and maintaining the system is based on delivering the total
water required each season, the annual O&M cost will increase with the increase in water
requirements over this period due to increased crop-water demand. This demand will
depend on the total area within each CIS being irrigated and the percentage of this area
being irrigated for HVA. This demand would increase as more farmers get organized and
begin irrigating and simultaneously transitioning to HVA crops. The assumption for %
HVA crops and areas being irrigated over the subsequent 12 years of operation was
provided by MCC and identified in Table 9-8.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-4

Table 9-8
Basis of Annual Water Requirement Assumption1
2014
2020
2025
CIS
Tetcani
Blindeti
Grozeti
Crpinenii
de Sus
Leova Sud
ChircaniZrneti
Cahul
Jora de Jos
Lopatna
Conia
Criuleni
erpeni
Puhceni
Roscani
Talmaza
Suvorov
% HVA
% of Total
Area
Irrigated
% HVA
45%
45%
45%
78%
42%
76%
92%
65%
86%
83%
66%
78%
% of
Total
Area
Irrigated
93%
78%
99%
45%
47%
68%
68%
80%
69%
45%
49%
69%
68%
82%
68%
45%
51%
70%
70%
83%
71%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
33%
58%
69%
42%
56%
42%
60%
73%
36%
36%
60%
76%
82%
66%
74%
66%
76%
87%
61%
61%
62%
71%
76%
65%
70%
65%
74%
74%
62%
64%
72%
89%
95%
79%
86%
78%
88%
100%
72%
74%
64%
71%
76%
66%
71%
65%
74%
73%
64%
65%
% of Total
Area
Irrigated
% HVA
83%
67%
78%
1. Assumptions provided by MCC. Water Requirements between the years are assumed to grow linearly.
Other relevant assumptions made in developing the annual O&M budget include the
following:
Farmers will be adequately equipped, resourced and organized by 2014 to support the
assumptions in Table 9-6.
WUOs will be certified, and in place with adequate capacity to start irrigation
operations during this period.
The unit price of energy (per KWH) is assumed to increase at an annual rate of 12%
as per discussions with Union Fenosa. Given, historic energy prices, this can be
considered conservative for the purpose of this feasibility study. Historic energy
prices in Moldova are provided in Appendix J.
Replacement cost for equipment is included in the O&M budget at a rate of 4% per
annum (based on a straight line replacement cost schedule per asset life of 25 years).
While the STI budgets include depreciation, for this study there is no depreciation
line item in the rehabilitated system budget.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-5

Fixed cost for the centralized management of a single rehabilitated CIS was based on
O&M costs from 2007 STI expenditures, normalized over the total area irrigated and
number of pump stations, and pro-rated for operating the rehabilitated CIS. This was
adjusted to account for an inflation of 12.7% to get it to 2009 cost.
2009 Labor cost for WUO management is based on minimum personnel requirement
identified in Section 9.3. The remaining components of the fixed cost were estimated
to maintain parity with historic STI expenditure for these items and adjusted by CIS
based on discussions with AM and information provided.
All costs are brought up to 2010 values using an inflation factor of 4 %. Costs are
inflated on an annual basis at 4 % for 2009 and 2010, then increased to 6% in 2011,
then increased to 9.3% per annum until 2025, when it is assumed production and
capacity have stabilized, and then are held flat until 2040.
9.4.2 Annual O&M Budget for Centralized (STI/AM) Management &
Decentralized (WUO) Management
The annual O&M budget contains the following components:
Fixed Cost.
Energy Cost.
Replacement Cost.
As per the above discussion, the main factor determining the O&M budget is the
estimation of the total water requirements. Further, based on the assumptions, fixed cost,
energy cost and replacement cost components were identified for each CIS starting in
year 2014 and through 2025. The total annual O&M budget was divided by the total
water requirement for that year to identify the unit cost of water.
Table 9-9 identifies the provides the breakdown for the three components of the unit cost
of water for the year 2014 assuming the total water requirements estimated based on
governing assumptions (Table 9-8) and WUO management.
Table 9-9
Assuming CIS under WUO Management
Energy
Unit
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost as %
Cost of
CIS
Cost
Cost
Cost
of Cost of
Water
3
3
3
(MDL/m ) (MDL/m )
(MDL/m )
Water
(MDL/m3)
Tetcani
0.50
2.87
1.06
4.43
65%
Blindeti
0.54
1.78
0.33
2.65
67%
Grozeti
Crpinenii de
Sus
0.2
1.86
0.41
2.47
75%
0.21
2.29
1.05
3.55
65%
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-6
CIS
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost
Cost
Cost
(MDL/m3) (MDL/m3)
(MDL/m3)
Unit
Cost of
Water
(MDL/m3)
Energy
Cost as %
of Cost of
Water
Leova Sud
ChircaniZrneti
Cahul
0.18
1.66
0.23
2.07
80%
0.19
0.67
0.25
1.11
60%
0.51
0.66
0.31
1.48
45%
Jora de Jos
0.27
1.95
0.37
2.59
75%
Lopatna
0.39
1.08
0.16
1.63
66%
Conia
0.13
0.94
0.17
1.24
76%
Criuleni
0.38
0.69
0.17
1.24
56%
erpeni
0.24
1.78
0.42
2.44
73%
Puhceni
0.21
0.74
0.22
1.17
63%
Roscani
0.28
1.49
0.25
2.02
74%
Talmaza
Suvorov
0.18
0.1
0.65
2.56
0.27
0.39
1.10
3.05
59%
84%
Similar breakdown is provided for the rehabilitated CIS assuming STI/AM management
in Table 9-10.
Table 9-10
Assuming CIS under STI/AM Management
Energy
Unit
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost of Cost as %
CIS
Cost
Cost
Cost
of Cost of
Water
3
3
3
(MDL/m ) (MDL/m )
(MDL/m )
Water
(MDL/m3)
Tetcani
0.11
2.87
1.06
4.04
71%
Blindeti
0.04
1.78
0.33
2.15
83%
Grozeti
Crpinenii de
Sus
Leova Sud
ChircaniZrneti
Cahul
0.03
1.86
0.41
2.30
81%
0.09
2.29
1.05
3.43
67%
0.03
1.66
0.23
1.92
86%
0.14
0.67
0.25
1.06
63%
0.26
0.66
0.31
1.23
54%
Jora de Jos
0.42
1.95
0.37
2.74
71%
Lopatna
0.21
1.08
0.16
1.45
74%
Conia
0.25
0.94
0.17
1.36
69%
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-7
CIS
Fixed
Energy Replacement
Cost
Cost
Cost
(MDL/m3) (MDL/m3)
(MDL/m3)
Unit
Cost of
Water
(MDL/m3)
Energy
Cost as %
of Cost of
Water
Criuleni
0.02
0.69
0.17
0.88
78%
erpeni
0.03
1.78
0.42
2.23
80%
Puhceni
0.02
0.74
0.22
0.98
76%
Roscani
0.02
1.49
0.25
1.76
85%
Talmaza
Suvorov
0.18
0.39
0.65
2.56
0.27
0.39
1.10
3.34
59%
77%
The difference in the unit cost of water between the two management options is in the
fixed cost. Energy cost and replacement cost, being system specific, will be the same
under either management. However, the STI managed system would have a slight
advantage in pooling its labor and material resources to operate multiple CIS, thus
resulting in a lower fixed cost component than that under WUO management. For more
details on the development of the unit cost of water, please refer to the supporting
annexes.
However, more importantly, Table 9-9 and 9-10 illustrate that regardless of the
management, the predominant factor driving the unit cost of water is the energy cost. As
discussed previously, since the CIS in Moldova relies on pumping water from the low
river levels to higher elevations where most of the CIS under consideration are located,
the cost of pumping would be a significant component of the cost of water. As these
above tables illustrate, the energy cost can be as low at 45% for a low lying CIS like
Cahul, and as high as 84% for a system like Suvorov, which relies of multiple lift stations
in series to get water to the irrigation areas. The fixed and replacement cost factors are
relatively smaller in comparison.
The estimated unit cost of water for 2020 and 2025 are provided in Table 9-11.
Table 9-11
Estimated Unit Cost of Water (MDL/m3) for Year 2020 & 2025
2020
2025
CIS
Centralized Decentralized Centralized Decentralized
Tetcani
6.40
6.73
10.90
11.40
Blindeti
3.84
4.39
6.54
7.26
Grozeti
3.96
4.11
6.78
6.99
Crpinenii de Sus
5.47
5.59
8.97
9.14
Leova Sud
3.49
3.65
6.01
6.22
Chircani-Zrneti
1.66
1.72
2.72
2.79
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-8

CIS
2020
2025
Cahul
1.90
2.20
2.99
3.37
Jora de Jos
4.53
4.37
7.60
7.40
Lopatna
2.44
2.61
4.14
4.36
Conia
2.27
2.14
3.77
3.60
Criuleni
1.51
1.87
2.56
3.03
erpeni
Puhceni
3.89
1.64
4.12
1.84
6.59
2.76
6.90
3.03
Roscani
3.12
3.36
5.39
5.71
Talmaza
1.70
1.71
2.77
2.78
Suvorov
5.86
5.51
9.84
9.39
In summary, as in the case with Table 9-9 and 9-10, the unit cost in Table 9-11 is the
unsubsidized cost for water. In other words, this cost is based on the fixed cost (labor and
materials needed for daily operations & maintenance) and energy cost identified based on
water requirements, and capital replacement cost built calculated at a rate of 4% per year
based on a 25-year full straight line depreciation schedule. The unit energy cost beyond
2014 will continue to be a significant component of the CIS O&M cost. Further, the
energy cost will be dependent on the market variation in unit cost of electricity.
Since these costs are the actual unsubsidized cost, they are significantly higher than the
current rates being paid by farmers. In addition, inflation though 2014 and 2025, which
have also been taken into consideration, is also contributing to this increase in cost.
However as discussed above, a good share of the cost operating and managing the CIS is
currently made up from state financing, leaving the farmers share to be a small fraction
of the total cost of water. If these subsidies are eliminated, the farmer would be looking
at tariff level along the magnitude identified in Table 9-10.
Details of the total O&M budget (estimated unit cost of water) for each CIS through 2025
are presented in their respective annexes (Annex 1- 16) supporting this report.
9.5
Overview of Sound O&M Practices
The best managed systems are those with a combination of water users management and
minimal government intervention; in other words, farmed-managed irrigation systems.
Generally governments provide technology transfer and funding for large investments
that cannot be taken on by the farming communities alone. A critical development in this
context is the farmers achievement of independent management of the irrigation
systems. However, that independency is limited to their financial capabilities and the
government has to be responsible for the major facilities to ensure the rational use of the
resource.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-9

Moldova has an opportunity to develop these relationships with MCCs assistance. As
discussed in Section 8.0, to support the creation of WUO it is essential to change current
laws. However, certain policy changes to reflect a commitment to environmental
concerns should also given due consideration. For instance, an integrated river basin
management approach can prepare the farmers for the management, operation and
maintenance of this investment, if sustainable production is the goal.
9.5.1 Operation and Maintenance Practices
In an irrigation system, the O&M activity is a long learning process. There are several
types of O&M plans. The appropriate one for a particular irrigation scheme is a result of
the economic capability of the users, the level of schooling and maturity of the
organization, the available initial support (technical and economical) from the
government, or other financing institutions. The commitment of the WUO is the most
important factor in the success of any O&M plan. A well developed plan provides
guidelines for:
The identification of problems impairing the system to supply water reliably and
equitably.
Development of solutions, which will address the causes not just the symptoms.
Provide experience from the field to achieve improvements of the system.
In the learning process, the authors Skogerboe and Merkley state that the O&M learning
process should emphasize maintaining instead of rehabilitating. The following
activities should be part of a maintenance program:
1. Existing information. This consists on any information pertaining to the irrigation
system that would help keep track of the physical inventory of the system; maps
of the command areas, records of the farms, crops and cropping patterns, and any
document containing history of works in structures.
2. Inventory of flow control structures. Location of all the structures which are good
for flow measurement. Measuring the water is an important element in problem
solving.
3. Operation control maintenance survey. This should be the first field activity;
identifying the essential structures for flow control and water measurement, and
the need for repairs.
4. Prepare a plan for the maintenance of those essential structures.
5. Gather maintenance information from the farmers/water users. The users know
best about their problems and can provide good information on the operational
problems of the systems, many of which are maintenance related.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-10

6. A diagnostic walk though maintenance survey. This is a detailed diagnostic done
in the field that lists all deferred maintenance needs along all networks. Each
maintenance need has to be documented in detail for the prioritization of technical
and economic solution of the problem.
7. The activities should also include the development of a normal maintenance
program, a catch up maintenance plan, and finances for implementation.
8. Once the above is completed, then preventive maintenance should be the goal of
the O&M program. This is the most economical and efficient way of keeping the
system working with the minimum of repairs, not to allow small problems to
become large.
9.5.2 O&M Preventive and Normal Maintenance Plans
It is assumed that a comprehensive O&M program will be crafted with the newly formed
WUO. The guidelines below should be used to develop normal & preventative O&M
plan that will ensure long-term systems operational sustainability. These plans should
include following information on:
Physical causes of maintenance problems.
Anticipated extent of maintenance problems.
Maintenance equipment requirements.
Labor required for maintenance.
Estimated annual cost of maintenance.
Preventive maintenance plan:
Maintenance issues.
Preventive maintenance activities.
Preventive maintenance requirements.
9.5.3 O&M Workshops

A major part of a sound O&M plan is ability of the operator to maintain a number of
large workshops with specialized tools, cranes, lifts, as well as large transport vehicles.
In the case of Moldova, AM and STIs have the capability to transport engines, pumps and
motors to Chisinau for major repairs above the capability of the local workshops. When
the large pumps stations are transferred to WUOs the first major maintenance problem
they will face is the lack of equipment and workshops to maintain and repair the engines,
pumps and motors. In most cases these are large, specialized pieces of equipment and
local mechanics and garages do not have the equipment required to work on these units,
or even to remove them from the pump station and transport them to a garage. Over time
it is assumed WUOs will purchase the tools and equipment they require.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-11

It may be possible for a WUO contract with the STI workshop in their area. This will
have to be taken into consideration as part of the IMT program.
9.5.4 O&M Transport
With hydrants spread over areas, the WUOs are going to require transport to move
personnel, as well as parts and tools. As soon as WUOs are being built up to capacity,
consideration would have to be made to accommodate transportation. In most cases they
may need a 4-wheel drive vehicle in order to be able to reach the sites when the roads are
difficult due to mud.
9.5.5 WUO Office and Equipment
The WUO will require an adequately furnished office to coordinate its activities. At a
minimum, the following equipment should be furnished to assist the WUO:
Furniture, computers, printers and fax machine.

Office supplies and small equipment such as staplers, file folders and photocopier;
Base radio and handsets or mobile phones for communicating with field staff,
wells and pump stations.
Excavator or Belarus type backhoe that can be used to dig up tertiary pipe and
hydrants as well as clean reservoirs.
Crane to pull pumps and motors as needed.
Small van or pickup for transporting maintenance materials and staff.
Niva type 4-wheel drive vehicle.
Welding machine and electrical meters and gauges for working on control panels.
Maintenance and shop tools for working on pump station pumps and motors.
Main Report Final
December 2009
9-12
Section 10 Implementation Management Plan
10.0
Implementation Management Plan
This section provides an assessment of the implementation of the proposed interventions.

This assessment includes:
Local construction capacity.
Materials, labor, and equipment availability.
Broadly identifying potential concerns for cost overrun and delay for each project
under consideration, and developing approaches to mitigate these concerns.
Recommendation of the most appropriate implementation approaches.
Identification of the appropriate Implementing Entity(s) and appropriate staff; and
Recommendation of a Project Implementation Plan (PIP) that includes an
implementation schedule based on the recommended implementation arrangement
and approach.
10.1 Local Construction Capacity

10.1.1 Sizes of the Individual Central Irrigation Schemes (CIS)
The CIS proposed for consideration for funding by MCC are spread across Moldova. The
rehabilitation plans for the CIS are discussed in Section 6.0. Further, Table 7-1 lists the
estimated implementation cost for each of the 16 CIS rehabilitation projects.
10.1.2 Capability and Capacity of Local Construction Contractors
As part of this feasibility study assignment, the capabilities and capacities of local
contractors were assessed. To gain a better appreciation of the Moldovan construction
industry, one needs to take into consideration historical factors, which have shaped the
Moldovan construction industry into what it is today.
Lack of opportunities for new infrastructure projects since Moldovan
independence and the demise of the Soviet Union and have hampered the
industry, since the Soviet Union central government was the source of most
construction funding. Even during the final years of the Soviet Union, funding
was difficult as the nation became increasingly financially unstable.
Contractors in communist countries such as the former Soviet Union were staterun entities. Per MWHs prior experience working in communist and post-soviet
nations, the speed at which construction was conducted by such contractors
tended to be much slower than in the west, as schedules were not necessarily
driven by economics. Labor efficiency was less than that in western countries;
construction was less mechanized. Accordingly, construction schedules tended to
drag out.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-1

In recent years, construction contractors in Moldova were privatized.
While
opportunities for Moldovan contractors have increased in the last few years, primarily in
the private sector, opportunities in the public works sector continue to largely languish
due to the financial condition of government. Assistance from foreign governments and
international financing agencies, such as the World Bank, the European Bank for
Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), MCC, and others, in addition to other
projects, resulted in investment in various infrastructure projects in recent years. These
have included:
Construction of a port on the Danube River, including a passenger terminal and
facilities for handling petroleum, grain, and shipping containers (completed);
A railroad in the Cahul area (completed).
Rehabilitation and installation of potable water piping in Chisinau (approx. 100
km of pipe) (nearing completion).
Modernization of Chisinau Airport (parts completed, other parts are being
planned).
Road projects financed by the World Bank and others (some are entering the
construction phase but many are still under design).
Road projects currently being considered by MCC.
CIS being considered by MCC as part of this feasibility study.
The road projects under consideration by the World Bank and MCC would likely vie for
the services of the same types of contractors as would be required for the CIS. Should
construction of many of the road projects occur simultaneously with CIS construction, it
is anticipated that the capacity of Moldovan earthmoving contractors as a whole will be
exceeded.
Individual Moldovan contractors have the capacity to construct some of the CIS, but none
have the capacity to do all of them. One such contractor, Lusmecon S.A., considered to
be the largest local contractor familiar with the types of work anticipated for the CIS has
performed the following value of construction work over the last three years: $13.3M in
2006; $17.3M in 2007; $13.1M in 2008 (based on 11.3 Lei per US$). Lusmecon claims
they have capacity to do more than this, but are limited by a lack of projects available to
bid on. They also claim that project financing and cash flow as the biggest limiting
factors they encounter. They are accustomed to receiving advance payments to allow
them to purchase needed materials and equipment at the onset of their projects.
The Ministry of Construction and Territory Development, the Moldovan government
entity charged with overseeing road development in the country, including those being
financed by the World Bank and EBRD, has engaged international bidders for their
projects. Experienced management and better construction equipment are the primary
reasons international contractors are preferred over local contractors as their prime
contractors. Moldovan contractors work as subcontractors to the international prime
contractors and such relationships have been proven to be largely successful.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-2

Our findings indicate that while local Moldovan contractors may have the capability and
capacity to construct many of the schemes (with outside financial help), an insufficient
number of local contractors exist to complete all of the schemes in the allotted time
within the MCC-mandated 5-year window. Even if fewer CIS are built, local contractors
could use help in financing, construction equipment procurement, project management,
western contracting terms and conditions, and project controls, to ensure they are
completed on time. For these reasons, MWH recommends that bidding be opened up
internationally. It is anticipated that even if a foreign contractor wins a project, they
would likely engage local contractors to do a large proportion of the work anyhow, in
order to keep their bids competitive.
10.1.3 Labor Availability
While there has not been a significant amount of construction in Moldova since the years
leading up to the eventual collapse of the Soviet Union, the technical nature of the work
is such that most of it can be executed by local labor. Sufficient skilled, semi-skilled and
general labor exists in the construction trades for this purpose, however much of this
labor pool has been migrating for better opportunities abroad. Expatriate assistance
however will likely be needed in the following more-skilled areas:
Senior project management in construction.

Staff accustomed to administering western construction contracts.
Project controls staff.
Short-term training in certain types of mechanized construction.
Supervising erectors and test engineers for the larger pumping plants.
There appears to be a substantial pool of well-educated Moldovans that have simply

lacked an opportunity to gain experience in these areas, due to lack of economic
opportunity within the country. Some are gaining such experience outside the country in
Western Europe and the USA, where opportunities are considerably more bountiful and
the pay much higher.
Over the duration of the program, locals should be able to gain considerable experience
in the above-listed areas by simply being exposed to these fields of expertise. MCC may
wish to consider having the construction bid documents require that contractors hire a
local understudy for each expatriate expert employed in country, in order to strengthen
in-country capabilities. Due to the relatively low local wages, any expatriate firm may do
this automatically anyhow. It is anticipated that economics alone will force bidders to
employ local labor to the greatest extent practicable.
Manufacturers of larger permanent equipment will likely mandate the presence of
manufacturers representatives (supervising erectors and test engineers) be present during
the installation and testing of their equipment. This is often necessary to ensure that
equipment warranties are maintained.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-3
10.2 Materials and Equipment Availability

While Moldova is a relatively small country, it does have a manufacturing base that
covers a gamut of basic building materials.
As part of this assignment, a list was developed of materials and equipment likely to be
used on the schemes. Moldovan and Romanian engineers and contractors were queried
as to likely sources of these items. A summary of the findings is contained in Table 10-1.
Table 10-1
Material and Equipment to be Used and Likely Sources
Likely Source
Material or Equipment
Comments
Countries
Pipe polyethylene
(the most likely type of pipe to
be used)
Pipe steel
Pipe reinforced concrete
Cement
Concrete block
Moldova, Romania
Moldova, Russia, Ukraine

Moldova
Moldova
Moldova
Moldova
Reinforcing steel
Moldova
Structural steel
Misc. metal fabrications (fish
protection structures, etc.)
Hydrants
Valves - gate
Valves - butterfly
Manholes
Pumps
Motors
10kV power line poles
10kV power line conductors
10kV power line accessories
6(10)kV switchgear
0.4kV switchgear/control
panels
Moldova diameters up to
250 mm. Romania larger
diameters.
Larger diameters are imported
Moldova Steel Works exports

its products to western
countries.
Moldova Steel Works exports
its products to western
countries.
Russia, Western Europe

Moldova
Ukraine, Russia, Romania,
Western Europe
Western Europe
Moldova
Russia, Ukraine, Western
Europe
Russia, Ukraine, Western
Europe
Ukraine
Ukraine, Russia
Western Europe
Western Europe
Western Europe
Western European valves

likely for durability reasons
Western European valves
Western European pumps
Western European motors
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-4

Material or Equipment
Automation panels
Motor starting devices
Power cables/racks
Control cables
Conduit
O&M spares
O&M vehicles
Likely Source
Countries
Western Europe
Western Europe
Moldova, Ukraine, Russia,
Romania, Western Europe
(above listed countries)
Japan, Western Europe
Comments
Moldova exports such to

western countries
Local contractors advise that importation of materials and equipment are rarely a
problem.
Natural construction materials such as sand, course aggregate, crushed stone, and fill will
naturally be obtained from sources in the vicinity of the various schemes.
10.3 Potential Concerns for Cost Overruns & Delays

The potential causes for overruns and delays include:
Currency risk.
Inflation.
Design creep (additional items get added to the design after the Entry into Force
starts).
Increase in material & construction cost dictated by the market place, both locally
and globally (driving bids higher than estimated).
Change orders and extras during construction.
Delays in meeting the IMT program milestones that are directly connected with
construction.
Of these factors, only three are controllable after the Entry into Force:
Design creep.
Cost for change orders and extras and during construction.
The IMT program schedule.
The remaining factors can be mitigated at the compact signing based on best information
available at the time. They will change based on factors uncontrollable by MCC or the
Moldovan government.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-5

Design creep is best managed by peer reviews of the designs. The potential problem may
be further mitigated by having an independent technical team review the designs at
various stages before their final completion. As stated our recommendations later in this
Section and in Section 8, designers should be included as part of the Technical Assistance
team so that such independent reviews may be conducted.
Given that much of the CIS work is rehabilitation work, there is a high risk of
encountering changed conditions while constructing the work which would lead to
change orders. To mitigate this risk, it is recommended that detailed field surveys be
made of the work early during the final design phase to verify field measurements and
assumed field conditions. As the exact quantities for rehabilitating underground work is
difficult to estimate with precision, it is also recommended that terms and conditions
within the construction contracts give precise instructions as to how changes in the work
will be priced for the sake of change orders. It is also recommended that the overall
implementation schedule include flexibility near the end of the MCC-mandated 5-year
window to accommodate extensions of time that need to be granted the contractors as a
result of changed field conditions.
Risk 3 in Section 8 identifies that delays in meeting the IMT program milestones will
delay construction. The most critical of these risks relate to the establishment of the
WUOs, which if not registered per schedule, could delay the date the construction bid
documents are issued. It is currently anticipated that this will not occur until December
2010. Should this not occur: (1) it may be necessary to shorten construction periods,
thereby increasing costs; or (2) shorten the amount of time between completion of
construction and the expiration of the 5-year compact window, thereby reducing the
amount of time both can observed before expiration of the compact; or (3) both. This
matter is discussed further in Section 10.7.
10.4 Implementation Approach

10.4.1 General Standards and Procedures to be Adopted
In terms of project implementation procedures, the following are recommended:
Fiscal Accountability The World Bank mandated, as part of the roads projects
currently being implemented, that a Project Implementation Unit (PIU) be
established. One of the mandates for the PIU was to employ western accounting
practices and to show financial transparency. Such practices should be utilized
for the CIS as well.
Environmental and Social Issues Safeguards in accordance with MCC
guidelines should be employed.
Procurement Plan MCCs Program Procurement Guidelines and World Bank
protocols for development and approval of such plans should be followed.
Consultancy Services MCC and World Bank guidelines for selection and
employment of consultants should govern.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-6

Construction Contracting MCCs Standard Bidding Documents for Procurement
for Large Works should be used. Also, a prequalification process should be
implemented to ascertain that contractors bidding a contract have sufficient
resources to execute the contracts within the established time frames. MCCs
Standard Pre-qualification Documents for Procurement of Works should be used
for this purpose. The prequalification process should be completed prior to
issuing bid documents to bidders. It is recommended that the pre-qualification
procedures be started early in the implementation process; it is a step that should
be managed so that it is not part of the critical path.
In order to avoid any disagreements later on, it is vital that the foregoing recommended
criteria, guidelines and procedures be memorialized in the Implementing Entity
Agreement (IEA) with the selected Implementing Entity.
10.4.2 Bidding and Contracting Approach
MWH recommends that MCA-Moldova contract the following parties directly for
implementation of the project:
Technical Assistance (TA) for the Implementing Entity (discussed in Section 8
and later in this Section).
An engineering firm to conduct the final design of the work and to prepare the
contract documents.
A supervising engineer to oversee that the construction contractor(s) adhere to the
requirements of their contract.
The construction contractor(s).
The contractual relationships between the various parties are shown on Figure 10-1,
located at the end of this Section.
With regard to the construction contract(s), the overall project lends itself better to a
conventional design-bid-build (DBB) contract than a design-build (DB) contract, for the
following reasons:
DB contracts do not lend themselves well to underground work, nor to projects in
which rehabilitation is involved. The CIS includes both. It is better to have the
designer explore these issues in the field and define the scope in more detail, prior
to the project being bid. Otherwise, bidders would either include contingencies in
their bid and thus inflate their bid price, or bid the project low and pursue claims
later.
As the projects have been studied in some detail already, it is best to leverage that
information and complete the designs as soon as possible, instead of waiting for
the eventual successful bidder to engage a designer who, later on, would still have
to undergo a learning curve.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-7

Under a DBB approach, field investigations and design work can conducted and
simultaneously with the prequalification process for contractors. Such work
could also occur simultaneously with implementation of the IMT program.
One normal advantage of a DB contract, simultaneous design and construction
work, does not truly exist on this project.
The sheer nature of this particular MCC program makes a DBB approach the only viable
option. It would be less expensive, take less time, and be less risky than a DB approach.
As mentioned earlier, it is recommended that larger international bidders be permitted to
bid on the project. The current international construction market is such that there should
be significant interest in the project. While this may change before any award of any CIS
construction contract, it is currently believed that the industry should still be fairly
competitive in the upcoming year or so.
Construction Packaging
As discussed in previous sections of this report, the overall project is made up of
numerous individual projects, which consist primarily of rehabilitation and/or
replacement of existing irrigation infrastructure. To increase the pool of potential
bidders, it may be advisable to afford bidders the option of bidding all projects or certain
groups of projects. This would attract larger contractors, who may otherwise find it
difficult to compete with medium-sized contractors, to bid on the overall project. A
single project (or fewer projects), in practice is easier to manage than having multiple
smaller projects.
For the sake of this study, the following bid packaging was assumed:
Bid Package 1 Rehabilitation of seven Prut River CIS projects (Tetcani,
Blindesti, Grozeti, Crpinenii de Sus, Leova Sud, Chircani-Zrneti, and Cahul).
Bid Package 2 Rehabilitation of nine Nistru River CIS projects (Jora de Jos,
Lopatna, Cosnita, Criuleni, Serpeni, Puhceni, Rocani, and Talmaza).
Bid Package 3 Rehabilitation of the Suvorov CIS in the Nistru River Basin.
This project was isolated as a separate bid package due to its size and technical
nature. Per Table 7-1, its implementation cost represents 47% of the total cost of
all CIS projects addressed in this study. Additionally, unlike all the other CIS
projects, its scope contains dam rehabilitation work, which requires specialized
construction.
Final bid packaging would be dependent on MCCs selection of which CIS projects it
intends to fund, and refinements that would occur during the detailed design and bid
document preparation stage. The contractor prequalification stage may also warrant
further optimization of the bid packaging approach.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-8

Intermediate milestones need to be established so that no one area is under construction
too long.
Designs should be standardized between the various CIS to ensure uniformity in the
quality of the finished projects and to minimize the numbers of spares required for
operation and maintenance purposes.
It is also recommended that the Bills of Quantities include a day-works schedule,
consisting of pre-established rates that would need to be competitively priced by bidders.
This would afford contract administration staff further flexibility in how change orders
based changed field conditions (as described earlier in this Section) may be equitably
handled to the mutual benefit of all parties. Given the nature of the works (rehabilitation
of buried works) there is likely to be many field changes in the actual works. For this
reason it is important to have skilled construction supervision people in the field with a
clear series of checks and balances to promote transparency in the execution of the works
and of change orders.
10.5 Implementing Entity

Apele Moldovei (AM) was identified as the Implementing Entity (See Section 8).
The following are institutional related risks that could markedly affect the effective
implementation of the CIS rehabilitation projects:
Deficient designs.
Deficient construction quality.
Insufficient management capacity.
Construction cost overruns.
Bid period difficulties.
Each of these risks has a major common element that can mitigate them, the
establishment of a Technical Assistance team (TA) formed within the AM organizational
structure. The TA unit should be formed as an outsourced entity responsible to AM, the
MCA, and the MCC for implementing the entire project. It is recommended that MCC
consider funding the cost of the TA as part of the project funding. The cost would be
budgeted to be approximately $3.0 million for the five-year program.
The details of the TA are furnished in Section 8.5 of this study. In addition to the
responsibilities indicated therein, the TA would be responsible for executing various risk
mitigation measures relating to project implementation such as:
Prequalification process.
Strategic bidding plan.
Standardized environmental management plan.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-9

Standard provisions for design standards, specifications, contract documents and
spare parts in contracts.
In addition, the TA would also be responsible for managing the consultants and finances.
In short, the TA will have the responsibility for design oversight, contract oversight, and
construction oversight and ensure timely completion of the projects being implemented.
Further it will ensure that all works will be performed through uniform specifications and
insure that each contract will be implemented using standardized construction
methodologies and standards.
10.6 Implementation Plan

A detailed project implementation plan is provided as Figure 10-2. Five-day work weeks
were assumed to develop the schedule. Where days are shown on the schedule, they
should be considered as work days.
The plan assumes bid packaging in groups as discussed earlier in this Section. The
sequence shown on the schedule in which the various projects are constructed reflect one
set of possibilities; the actual sequence of construction and intermediate milestones
contained in the eventual construction contract(s) should be determined nearer to the time
of bid document issuance based on which project areas, and which WUOs, are ready first.
As little such information exists as of the writing of this study, the sequence can be
shuffled in any manner at this time.
The plan shows the following interfaces with the WUOs:
WUOs Established and Registered (Activity #5): This is assumed to be December
1, 2010. (Assumptions relating to the establishment and registration of the WUOs
are covered in Section 8.) Finalization of bid packaging and the issuance of bid
documents to contractors (Activities #47 and #48) are dependent on this activity
being completed.
Turnover of Completed Work to the WUOs (Activity #79).
Monitoring of WUO Effectiveness (Activity #80).
An analysis of this schedule indicates that:
The time frame of five years is sufficient to undertake all the projects being
considered.
The establishment and registration of WUOs (December 1, 2010) is on the
projects critical path.
The construction / rehabilitation work is expected to last 2 to 3 years for all bid
packages.
Bid Package #3, which only includes the Suvorov CIS, involves rehabilitation of a
dam. Such work may require cofferdams and may be sensitive to high river flows.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-10

As with all the of the CIS projects, the duration of the projects should be reevaluated as the design work proceeds.
Some flexibility exists in the schedule to postpone the issuance of bid documents
somewhat if delays occur in the registration of WUOs after December 1, 2010;
however, this would result in higher construction costs to accelerate construction
if the delays end up being significant, or would result in less time after
construction to monitor the performance of the constructed improvements and the
effectiveness of the WUOs, or both.
Similar flexibility exists in the schedule to handle potential delays resulting from
changed condition claims.
As some of the projects are relatively small, their performance, as well as that of
their respective WUOs, may be measured through two growing seasons, provided
they are scheduled to be among the first completed. Unless there are delays, it
should be possible to make such observations for at least one growing season on
all projects.
At this time, MWHs major concern relating to schedule risk (and thus also cost risk) is
the timely establishment of WUOs.
MWH strongly recommends that the risks identified in Section 8 and in this section be
diligently pursued to ensure successful project implementation.
Main Report Final
December 2009
10-11
M ILLENNIU M
CHALLENGE CORPORATION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
CORPORATION (MCC)
MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE
ACCOUNT IN MOLDOVA (MCA)
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
(TA) FOR AM
DESIGN ENGINEER &

SUPERVISING ENGINEER
APELE
MOLDOVEI (AM)
CONSTRUCTION
CONTRACTOR(S)
FIGURE 10-1
CONTRACTUAL RELATIONSHIPS
DECEMBER 2009

Figure 10-2 - Implementation Plan

ID
1
Task Name
Compact Signing
Duration
0 days
Start
Thu 10/1/09
Finish
Thu 10/1/09
Implementing Entity Agreement
0 days
Tue 12/1/09
Tue 12/1/09
Compact Entry Into Force
0 days
Mon 3/1/10
Mon 3/1/10
5-year Compact Duration
261 wks
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 2/27/15
WUOs Established & Registered
0 days
Wed 12/1/10
Wed 12/1/10
Procure Technical Assistance
105 days
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 2/24/10
Establish RFP & TOR
8 wks
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 11/25/09
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Thu 11/26/09
Wed 12/2/09
MCC Approval
1 wk
Thu 12/3/09
Wed 12/9/09
10
Proposal Period
4 wks
Thu 12/10/09
Wed 1/6/10
11
Evaluate Proposals
3 wks
Thu 1/7/10
Wed 1/27/10
12
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Thu 1/28/10
Wed 2/3/10
13
MCC Approval
14
15
Technical Assistance Services
1 wk
Thu 2/4/10
Wed 2/10/10
2 wks
Thu 2/11/10
Wed 2/24/10
1305 days
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 2/27/15
16
4 wks
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 3/26/10
17
Establish Communications Protocols
6 wks
Mon 3/29/10
Fri 5/7/10
18
Establish Financial Reporting Protocols
6 wks
Mon 3/29/10
Fri 5/7/10
19
General Oversight of Projects
257 wks
Mon 3/29/10
Fri 2/27/15
20
Procure Designer & Supervising Engr
105 days
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 2/24/10
8 wks
Thu 10/1/09
Wed 11/25/09
1 wk
Thu 11/26/09
Wed 12/2/09
21
Establish RFP & TOR
22
MCA-M Approval
23
MCC Approval
1 wk
Thu 12/3/09
Wed 12/9/09
24
Proposal Period
4 wks
Thu 12/10/09
Wed 1/6/10
25
Evaluate Technical Proposals
2 wks
Thu 1/7/10
Wed 1/20/10
26
Evaluate Financial Proposals
1 wk
Thu 1/21/10
Wed 1/27/10
27
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Thu 1/28/10
Wed 2/3/10
28
MCC Approval
29
1 wk
Thu 2/4/10
Wed 2/10/10
2 wks
Thu 2/11/10
Wed 2/24/10
1137 days
Mon 3/1/10
Tue 7/8/14
6 wks
Mon 3/1/10
Fri 4/9/10
30
Design / Supervising Engr Services
31
32
Field Investigations
22 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Fri 9/10/10
33
Finalize Designs
34 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Fri 12/3/10
34
Procure Contractor (see below)
65.4 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Tue 7/12/11
35
Prepare Bid Documents
28 wks
Mon 5/31/10
Fri 12/10/10
36
Mobilize Field Staff
37
Adminster Construction Contracts
38
Procure Construction Contractor
2 wks
Wed 6/29/11
Tue 7/12/11
156 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 7/8/14
327 days
Mon 4/12/10
Tue 7/12/11
5 wks
Mon 4/12/10
Fri 5/14/10
39
Prepare Constr Prequal Docs
40
MCA-M Approval
1 wk
Mon 5/17/10
Fri 5/21/10
41
MCC Approval
1 wk
Mon 5/24/10
Fri 5/28/10
42
Advertise Project
6 wks
Mon 5/31/10
Fri 7/9/10
43
Contractors Prepare Quals
8 wks
Mon 7/12/10
Fri 9/3/10
44
Evaluate Quals / Shortlist Contractors
5 wks
Mon 9/6/10
Fri 10/8/10

Date: Tue 8/11/09
2009
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
10/1
Qtr 1
2010
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2011
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2012
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
12/1
3/1
12/1
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Page 1
Deadline
Qtr 1
2013
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2014
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2
Qtr 2

ID
45
Task Name
MCA-M Approval
Duration
3 wks
Start
Mon 10/11/10
Finish
Fri 10/29/10
2 wks
Mon 11/1/10
Fri 11/12/10
2 wks
Wed 12/1/10
Tue 12/14/10
16 wks
Wed 12/15/10
Tue 4/5/11
46
MCC Approval
47
Finalize Bid Packaging
48
Bidding Period
49
Evaluation of Bids
6 wks
Wed 4/6/11
Tue 5/17/11
50
MCA-M Approval
2 wks
Wed 5/18/11
Tue 5/31/11
51
MCC Approval
1 wk
Wed 6/1/11
Tue 6/7/11
52
3 wks
Wed 6/8/11
Tue 6/28/11
53
54
Notice to Proceed
BP#1 Rehab Work - Prut River
2 wks
Wed 6/29/11
Tue 7/12/11
715 days
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 4/8/14
55
Mobilization
8 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 9/6/11
56
Tetcani
73 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 1/29/13
57
Blindesti
37 wks
Wed 1/30/13
Tue 10/15/13
58
Grozesti
45 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 7/17/12
59
Carpenenii de Sus
90 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 2/11/14
60
Leova Sud
37 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 5/22/12
61
Chircani-Zirnesti
91 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 6/4/13
62
Cahul
69 wks
Wed 7/18/12
Tue 11/12/13
63
64

BP#2 Rehab Work - Nistru River
8 wks
Wed 2/12/14
Tue 4/8/14
700 days
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 3/18/14
65
Mobilization
8 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 9/6/11
66
Jora de Jos
45 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 7/17/12
67
Lopatna
20 wks
Wed 7/18/12
Tue 12/4/12
68
Cosnita
50 wks
Wed 12/5/12
Tue 11/19/13
69
Criuleni
37 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 5/22/12
70
Serpeni
50 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 5/7/13
71
Puhaceni
45 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 7/17/12
72
Roscani
37 wks
Wed 5/8/13
Tue 1/21/14
73
Talmaza
77 wks
Wed 7/18/12
Tue 1/7/14
74
75

BP#3 Rehab Work - Suvorov
76
Mobilization
77
Suvorov
78
79
Turnover of Completed Work to WUOs
80
Monitoring of WUO Effectiveness
81
Compact Completion

Date: Tue 8/11/09
8 wks
Wed 1/22/14
Tue 3/18/14
705 days
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 3/25/14
8 wks
Wed 7/13/11
Tue 9/6/11
125 wks
Wed 9/7/11
Tue 1/28/14
8 wks
Wed 1/29/14
Tue 3/25/14
98 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 4/8/14
144 wks
Wed 5/23/12
Tue 2/24/15
0 days
Fri 2/27/15
Fri 2/27/15
2009
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2010
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2011
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2012
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2013
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2014
Qtr 2
Qtr 3
Qtr 4
Qtr 1
2
Qtr 2
2/27
Task
Progress
Summary
External Tasks
Split
Milestone
Project Summary
External Milestone
Page 2
Deadline
Section 11 Assessment of Financial Sustainability
11.0 Assessment of Financial Sustainability

This section provides an assessment of the financial sustainability of the MCC investment
in the irrigation infrastructure in Moldova. The assessment includes:
Appropriate tariff levels to meet proposed O&M budgets.
Financial Internal Rate Return (FIRR) based on ability to meet O&M budget.
Sensitivity analysis to assess the elasticity in FIRR and potential shortfalls in
funding due to lower consumption of water below anticipated levels.
Financial sustainability is defined as the ability to cover operation and maintenance costs
through the collection and application of water user fees. The estimation of annual O&M
budgets (presented as unit cost of water) were previously discussed and identified in
Section 9.0 along with the assumptions that went into building this O&M budget
estimate.
Traditionally, financial sustainability is more just than meeting water tariffs. It is the
ability of farmers to stay in production at sufficient levels of revenue, in the long run, to
sustain their enterprises and that the payment of water tariffs are a line item in their
production budgets which are met along with all other line items. However, in this case,
financial sustainability and the subsequent analyses are limited to the ability of the WUO
to operate and sustain the proposed rehabilitated CIS.
Since ability to pay or willingness to pay assessment was not part of the scope of this
work, and also adequate data was not available for review at the time of writing this
report, an assumption needed to be made for the purposes of completing this analysis.
The assumption made was that the ability to pay, that is, to meet the tariff on the cost of
water, will only be met partially until full transition into HVA crops is attained.
Furthermore, based on discussions with MCC, it is assumed that with sufficient supply of
water, farmers will transition to HVA that will help realize increased incomes, adequate
to pay the tariffs that are estimated to be higher than current levels.
11.1 Overview of Appropriate Tariff Levels

The first step in assessing the financial sustainability of the proposed investment is
identifying the appropriate annual tariff levels to meet the proposed annual O&M budget
required for undertaking sound O&M practices that ensure long term sustainability.
Main Report Final
11-1
December 2009

11.1.1 Overview of Existing Tariff Structure
Section 9.2 provided a detailed analysis of the current financial practices. In short, the
STIs have been tasked with being self sufficient, yet have tariffs mandated to them which
in most cases are below operating costs. In summary:
Supported by current, non-transparent Government subsidies, the needed water
tariff is determined at the beginning of each year based on a portion of the fixed
cost.
Energy subsidies are supposed to cover up to 100% of the energy cost. However,
there are still shortfalls in the payment to cover energy cost that cannot be
reconciled. The second subsidy (irrigation service subsidy) provided by AM
supposedly covers approximately 50% of the fixed cost. However, based on the
discussion in Section 9.2, the subsidies seem to be significantly higher.
The revenues collected by STI from irrigation are a small fraction compared to
the state financing that goes to sustain irrigation operation. Farmers tariff
payments are significantly lower than the levels needed to sustain irrigation
operation without state financing.
Contracts for water often exceed actual amount irrigated. However, since the
fixed cost is based on the water required, the water tariff (in terms of cost per
cubic meter of water) ends up being lower at the beginning of the year than what
is required, which is only known at the end of the year. This often results in
revenues not being adequate to cover expenses that are fixed.
Given the non-standardized and non-transparent accounting practices, its not
clear how the STI continues to maintain its operations with shortfalls even with
subsidies. It is assumed that STI offset revenues from other services to balance its
sheets.
11.1.2 Assumptions for Future Tariff Levels
Appropriate tariff levels for the future are based on the following assumptions:
The MCC funded rehabilitated CIS will be operated under decentralized WUO
management.
The cost of water (as identified in Section 9.0) will form the basis of identifying
the unsubsidized tariff levels.
WUO will be authorized to collect tariffs, and equip themselves with the
necessary mechanisms and tools to levy tariffs that are needed to sustain their
budgets.
Adequate guidelines will be provided to WUO to determine O&M budgets and
tariffs. This is to ensure that current practices of estimating the fixed cost that
formulate tariff levels are not adopted without revision to address the shortfall and
potential system abuse of over estimating water needs that tend to drive the
tariff levels down at the beginning of the year.
Main Report Final
11-2
December 2009

The prevailing premise of the current sustainability analysis is the assumption that
with the HVA transition, the farmers will have the ability to pay the needed tariffs
over the long run and have a realistic profit. However, over the initial years, it
may be too optimistic to assume that the farmers will have the capacity to pay for
the water, which could be potentially three times what they are paying now. For
the purpose of this analysis, tariff levels are assumed to be 75% of the cost of
water in 2014 and gradually increasing to approximately 88% by 2020 and 100%
by 2024.
11.1.3 Appropriate Tariff Levels
The appropriate level of tariff represents the charge per unit of water that a farmer will
pay for the cost of that water. From a WUOs perspective, the tariff level that is
appropriate is that which will meet the unit cost of supplying water on an annual basis.
For the purpose of developing models for analyzing the cash flows of each irrigation
system and the subsequent FIRR, the cost of water was determined for each year through
2025 of the rehabilitated CIS assuming WUO management. The model results for each
CIS are represented in its respective annex accompanying this report.
In summary, for the purpose of the model, the costs increased per annum as a function of
both inflation and increased water use as farmers transitioned towards HVA. However, as
discussed above, it is assumed that farmers will not be able to pay the full cost of water
initially and therefore an appropriate tariff was established that might meet the farmers
ability to pay.
The unit cost of water for each year starting 2014, and the appropriate tariff
corresponding to this cost of water was determined for each CIS and is used in the cash
flow models. The cost of water for the years 2014, 2020 and 2025 was previously
identified in Table 9-9 and 9-10, respectively. The corresponding tariff level based on
the above assumption is provided in Table 11-1.
Table 11-1
Estimated Tariff Levels (MDL/m3) Based on Assumptions1
CIS
2014
2020
2025
Tetcani
3.32
5.89
12.54
Blindeti
1.99
3.84
7.98
Grozeti
1.85
3.60
7.68
Crpinenii de Sus
3.55
5.59
9.14
Leova Sud
1.55
3.20
6.84
Chircani-Zrneti
0.83
1.50
3.07
Cahul
1.11
1.92
3.71
Main Report Final
11-3
December 2009

CIS
2014
2020
2025
Jora de Jos
1.94
3.83
8.14
Lopatna
1.23
2.28
4.80
Conia
0.93
1.87
3.96
Criuleni
0.93
1.63
3.34
erpeni
1.83
3.61
7.59
Puhceni
0.88
1.61
3.34
Roscani
1.52
2.94
6.28
Talmaza
0.83
1.50
3.06
Suvorov
2.28
4.82
10.33
1.
Tariff levels are assumed to be 75% of the cost of water in 2014

and gradually increasing to approximately 88% by 2020 and 100% by 2024
11.2 Assessment of Financial Sustainability

A measure of financial sustainability is made by an internal rate of return analysis, which
in effect determines the rate, which reduces a future stream of revenues and costs to zero.
This rate reflects the return on the project over time, and is a measure used to determine
whether investment in a project is justified. It is also helpful in ranking various
components of a project as worthy of investment as opposed to other components.
The implementation cost of the project are to be met through a grant and are thus treated
as a sunk cost, leaving the sustainability to be determined based on the unit cost of water
and tariff level assumptions identified above in Table 11-1.
It should be kept in mind that the FIRR is identified on full cost accounting with no
subsidies, and full water utilization of the estimated total water requirement (as per
assumptions identified in Section 9.4). The FIRR values, assuming the system lifespan
through 2040, as identified in Table 11-2 are low. This is expected given the assumption
of meeting tariff (revenue) against the recovery of the tariff itself (cost), but still
sustainable for the perspective of the WUO. Higher tariff levels could potential increase
these FIRR values; alternatively, lower tariff levels could decrease these values.
11.2.1 Potential Revenue Shortfalls
However, although Table 11-2 shows these investments to be sustainable in the long run,
the WUO will be running at a deficit during the initial years based on current
assumptions. The annual deficit would decrease as the tariff levels increase. Table 11-3
tabulates the aggregate shortfall for each CIS over the course of the initial years through
2025.
Main Report Final
11-4
December 2009

Table 11-3
Total Estimated Revenue Shortfall through 2025
based on Current Assumptions1
Estimated Shortfall
CIS
(in million MDL)
Tetcani
Blindeti
Grozeti
Crpinenii de Sus
Leova Sud
Chircani-Zrneti
Cahul
Jora de Jos
Lopatna
Conia
Criuleni
erpeni
Puhceni
Roscani
Talmaza
Suvorov
23.44
7.28
17.15
35.90
14.53
39.24
16.47
19.28
5.36
20.28
4.85
11.51
6.54
9.83
16.08
276.07
1. Assumptions based on Section 11.1.2
This varies from 4.85 million MDL in Criuleni to over 276 million MDL in Suvorov.
Despite that FIRR show these systems to be sustainable in the long run, the sustainability
in the short term would be a concern if the WUO do not have another source of revenue
to overcome these losses on a yearly basis during these initial years.
In looking at a potential funding source, it can be assumed that the current subsidies will
continue (at minimum, the energy component) in the near future even under the
decentralized (WUO) management. In which case, the percentage of energy subsidy
required to offset the identified shortfall is illustrated in Figure 11-1.
Main Report Final
11-5
December 2009

Figure 11-1
% Energy Subsidy Required to Offset Shortfall in Table 11-3
As illustrated in Figure 11-1, the level of subsidy in terms of percentage of the energy
cost would vary from system ranging from 12% at Chircani-Zrneti to approximately
44% at Tetcani. The total subsidy over the period for each of the CIS would equal the
shortfall identified in Table 11.3.
11.3 Sensitivity Analysis

The cash flow models provided to MCC as part of this project is developed to allow for
assessing the FIRR and shortfall scenario for each CIS for the following scenarios:
Variations in % HVA and % area irrigation over the years.

Increase or decrease in water demand relative to the annual water requirement.
Variation in unit cost of electricity.
Changes in tariff levels.
Since the working assumption of the FIRR analysis is from the perspective of the WUO
supplying water to farmers, a realistic sensitivity at this level of the study would be to test
the results on the WUO if there is a decrease in water demand from that estimated for the
above analysis. Given current practices in Moldova, this is a situation that is very likely
to occur in the future.
A sensitivity analysis was run to determine the impacts to the base assumptions should
the actual water consumed be 50% less than the estimated volume (based on MCC
identified assumption of % HVA and % area irrigated as discussed in Section 9.4). There
is a potential for this to occur due to a myriad of factors, including high rainfall, farmers
decision not to irrigate, farmers not being prepared to switch to HVA or to irrigate at all,
which could all result in less water being consumed, meaning less revenue being realized
by the WUO, which would put it at risk of not meeting the fixed costs (albeit a small
component of the unit cost of water). The shortfall at each CIS under such a scenario is
presented in Table 11-4.
Main Report Final
11-6
December 2009

Table 11-4
Revenue Shortfall through 2025 if Water Consumed
is 50% less than Estimated Demand1
Estimated Shortfall
CIS
(in million MDL)
Tetcani
Blindeti
Grozeti
Crpinenii de Sus
Leova Sud
Chircani-Zrneti
Cahul
Jora de Jos
Lopatna
Conia
Criuleni
erpeni
Puhceni
Roscani
Talmaza
Suvorov
44.46
15.15
18.04
63.23
14.42
87.1
83.1
21.23
10.45
23.13
15.98
18.81
14.7
11.04
48.88
245.76
1. Estimated demand based on MWH Assumptions identified

in Section 9.4.
Comparing Table 11-3 and Table 11-4 shows that in the case of Leova Sud and Suvorov
shortfall decreased or remains unchanged.
To maintain consistency with our earlier analysis, the energy subsidy required to offset
this shortfall is illustrated in Figure 11-2.
Figure 11-2
% Energy Subsidy Required to Offset Shortfall in Table 11-4
Main Report Final
11-7
December 2009
Under this scenario, the energy subsidy required would increase from a low of 32% at
Chircani-Zrneti to 106% at Tetcani. Again, it should be noticed that these percentages
are relative. For example, although the total shortfall in Suvorov declined from 276
million MDL to 246 million MDL with a 50% decrease in water consumption, the %
energy subsidy required increased marginally from 33 to 54%.
Main Report Final
11-8
December 2009
11.4 Conclusions
As discussed previously, the financial sustainability only looked at O&M budgets and
tariffs under the assumption that operation and management is satisfied if all costs are
met through the levy of fees for water delivered. While the FIRR for each CIS is low,
they realistically reflect the working assumptions. The following should be taken into
account while considering the financial sustainability:
As discussed in Section 9.4, energy cost is the dominant component of the unit
water cost. Subsidizing this cost at levels illustrated in Figure 11-1 and 11-2
would be of significant benefit to the WUO in the near future (through 2025 based
on current assumptions) for offsetting potential shortfalls.
WUOs might have to be granted an infant industry protection to cover shortfalls
in recovering tariffs while farmers are in a transition period to HVA. This
protection could be in the form of creating reserve accounts, guarantee on loans,
or at a minimum maintaining energy subsidies at levels identified in Figures 11-1
and 11-2.
As discussed in Section 8.0, there are risks associated with the WUO not having
the capacity and capability to take on the roles and duties of managing the CIS
within the allotted time period (2010-20014), thus impacting financial cost
recovery and potentially pushing back scheduled HVA production.
Part of the task of ensuring WUO financial sustainability should be providing
guidance on standardized accounting practices such that the O&M budget, tariff
and, if applicable, transparent subsidy process.
Further, a mechanism need to be established to addresses the current practices of
estimating water at each CIS at the beginning of each season. The current practice
allows farmers the opportunity to overestimate water requirements resulting in
lower water tariff. This mechanism needs to consider a range of options such as
submitting either a surcharge or remittance at the end of the growing season
assuming a fixed tariff, or establishing a variable tariff which is adjusted during
the growing season as a function of actual water used.
A willingness and ability to pay analysis needs to be coupled with this financial
analysis in order to look at farmer generated revenue versus tariff which will
provide a more realistic and complete picture.
Energy management should have top priority and best practices instituted with a
goal toward reducing energy costs across the board for the rehabilitated irrigation
systems.
Main Report Final
11-9
December 2009
Section 12 Summary & Conclusions
12.0 Summary & Conclusions

12.1 Summary of Proposed MCC Investment
Each CIS, upon rehabilitation, would have a capacity of delivering water at the rate of 1.0
lps/ha at a minimum pressure of 4 bars. The area covered under each CIS is provided in
the table below.
Table 12-2
Area of Irrigation
CIS
(ha)
Tetcani
1,258
Blindeti
521
Grozeti
1,018
Crpinenii de Sus
1,815
Leova Sud
963
Chircani-Zrneti
4,417
Masivul Cahul
1,930
Jora de Jos
1,165
Lopatna
506
Conia
2,800
Criuleni
677
erpeni
1,107
Puhceni
856
Rocani
682
Masivul Talmaza
Masivul Suvorov
Total
2,468
13,394
35,577

12.2 Conclusions
Based on the technical, institutional and financial assessment of proposed rehabilitation
of the 16 CIS, the following can be concluded:
The rehabilitation of the 16 CIS under consideration will provide the necessary
infrastructure to support irrigation in an area covering 35,577 ha, which will be
Main Report - Final
12-1
December 2009
capable of delivering the required water to support HVA, as per USUs crops
water demand recommendation.
The cost of rehabilitating the 16 CIS is significant. Based on discussions with
MCC, it is likely that not all 16 CIS would be selected for rehabilitation. Once
MCC identifies its investment plan, the implementation plan and schedule
identified in Section 10.0 will have to be revised accordingly.
If planned and coordinated properly, these projects can be rehabilitated within the
MCC prescribed five-year period.
A more detailed and accurate cost estimate would only be available at the end of
the detailed design of the rehabilitation works. A design based cost estimate
should provide MCC with an assessment of the adequacy of its proposed funding
levels and with the opportunity to develop/revise its investment plans in keeping
with its budget limitations.
Cost escalation based on future inflation and currency exchange trends also need
to be monitored to periodically assess the adequacy of the MCC investment to
meet its desired objectives. This will help identify potential shortfalls ahead of
time, and an opportunity for the Government of Moldova to seek supplemental
funding from other sources to ensure the completion of the MCC objectives in
Moldova.
AM would be the implementing entity for the MCC funded rehabilitation
program. However, technical assistance would be required to assist AM with its
responsibilities to ensure that the projects are implemented on time and on budget.
Although there are not inherent fatal flaws to any of the CIS under consideration,
several major risks were identified with the assumptions and the process
associated with the proposed IMT program as proposed in Section 8, which would
have near term sustainability impacts on the MCC investment, if the process and
the establishment of the WUO are not adequately incorporated or brought up to
capacity.
Based on current MCC plans of tying the IMT process with the rehabilitation
works, delays in the registration of the WUO would have an impact on the
construction schedule and risk the project not being completed on time and on
budget. To mitigate this risk, it would be critical for the IMT Consultant and the
Design Engineer to coordinate periodically so the IMT process informs the
rehabilitation schedule and the Design Engineer can develop the priority of
construction accordingly.
Assessment of the current financial practices in the irrigation sector identified the
following;
Energy subsidies are supposed to cover up to 100% of the energy cost.
However, there are still shortfalls in the payment to cover energy cost that
cannot be reconciled. The second subsidy (irrigation service subsidy)
provided by AM supposedly covers approximately 50% of the fixed cost.
However, based on the discussion in Section 9.2, the subsidies seem to be
me significantly higher.
The revenues collected by STI from irrigation are a small fraction
compared to the state financing that goes to sustain irrigation operation.
Main Report - Final
12-2
December 2009

Farmers current and historic tariff payments are significantly lower than
the levels needed to sustain irrigation operation without state financing.
Contracts for water often exceed actual amount irrigated. However, since
the fixed cost is based on the water required, the water tariff (in terms of
cost per cubic meter of water) ends up being lower at the beginning of the
year than what is required, which is only known at the end of the year.
This often results in revenues not being adequate to cover expenses that
are fixed.
Given the non-standardized and non-transparent accounting practices, its
not clear how the STI continues to maintain its operations with shortfalls
even with subsidies. It is assumed that STI offset revenues from other
services to balance its sheets.
In assessing future O&M budgets and the financial sustainability of the
rehabilitated system, the following should be taken into consideration:
Part of the task of ensuring WUO financial sustainability should be
providing guidance on standardized accounting practices so that the O&M
budget, tariff and, if applicable, subsidy process is transparent.
As discussed in Section 9.4, energy cost is a dominant component of the
unit water cost. Energy management should have top priority and best
practices instituted with a goal toward reducing energy costs across the
board for the rehabilitated irrigation systems.
Given current assumptions, although the FIRR seems favorable, shortfalls
should be expected in the near term. Subsidizing energy cost would be of
significant benefit to the WUO (through 2025 based on current
assumptions) in offsetting potential shortfalls.
Alternatively, WUOs could be granted an infant industry protection to
cover shortfall in recovering tariffs while farmers are in a transition period
to HVA. This protection could be in the form of creating reserve accounts,
guarantee on loans, or at a minimum maintaining energy subsidies.
Further, a mechanism need to be established to addresses the current
practices of estimating water at each CIS at the beginning of each season.
The current practice allows farmers the opportunity to over estimate to
water requirements resulting in lower water tariff. This mechanism needs
to consider a range of options such as submitting either a surcharge or
remittance at the end of the growing season assuming a fixed tariff, or
establishing a variable tariff which is adjusted during the growing season
as a function of actual water used. As part of the TA, MWH recommends
that WUOs and STIs staff alike be given proper training in on-farm
irrigation water management, which will increase their capacity and
ability to save on water and consequently in energy cost.
A willingness and ability to pay analysis needs to be coupled with this
financial analysis in order to look at farmer generated revenue versus tariff
which will provide a more realistic and complete picture.
Main Report - Final
12-3
December 2009
References
13.0 References
Apele Moldovei. 1997, Rehabilitation and Institutional Development of the Irrigation
Sector-Final Report. AM, Chisinau (Sep. 1997).
Brlund, K. and Snoy, B., 2005, Transboundary Diagnostic Study for the Dniester River
Basin, OSCE/UNECE Project, Geneva, Switzerland. (file: Final Report_eng.pdf).
Clarke, R., and King, J., 2004. "The Atlas of Water" Earth scan, Myriad Editions, Ltd.,
Brighton, U.K. www.earthscan.co.uk, 127 pages.
Corobov, R., 2008, Regional Climate and Environmental Change: Moldovas Case
Study, PowerPoint presentation at the NATO Advance Workshop. Odessa, UA., August
23-28. Regional aspects of climate-terrestrial hydrologic interactions in EE. Retrieved
October 17,2008, from
http://neespi.org/web-content/meetings/Odessa_2008/Day_3_4_Corobov.pdf.
Cazac, V., 2008, Present River Water Resources of the Republic of Moldova and Their
Possible Evolution as a Result of Forthcoming Climate Warming, December 22, 2008.
Cazac, V., 2008, Catastrophic floods in Moldova in the summer of 2008, WMO
MeteoWorld, from
http://www.wmo.int/pages/publications/meteoworld/archive/oct08/moldova_en.html.
Dumitru, D., 2005, Prut River Basin. Opportunities For Transboundary Cooperation For
Local Authorities In Implementation Of The Prut River Basin Management Plan,
Regional Center for Strategic Environmental Studies ECOS, Republic of Moldova.
Eoearth.org from http://www.eoearth.org/article/Water_profile_of_Moldova
FAO, 2003, Aqua stats. Food and Agric. Organization of the United Nations, Rome,
Italy. www.fao.org/ag/agl/aglw/aquastat/main/
Fipps, G., 2003, Irrigation Water Quality Standards and Salinity Management Strategies,
Texas Cooperative Extension from http://lubbock.tamu.edu/irrigate/documents/2074410B1667.pdf.
IPCC, 2000, Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change.
Keith, John, and Gary Merkley, 2008, Institutional assessment, recommendations on
alternative water service and delivery arrangements, and identification of specific legal
and policy reforms to achieve sustainability and improved performance in the irrigated
agricultural sector, Republic of Moldova. International Irrigation Center, USU, Logan,
UT. (November).
Main Report Final
December 2009
13-1
References
Lalikin N.V., Sirodoev I. G., 2004, A few approaches to estimation of influences of
change and changeability of climate on water resources / In the book: Climate of
Moldova in the XXI-st century. Chisinau 2004, p. 176-212.
Loboda, Nataliya S., Glushkov, Alexander V., and Khokhlov, Valeriy N., 2005, Using
Meteorological Data for Reconstruction of Annual Runoff Series Over an Ungauged
Area: Empirical Orthogonal Function Approach to MoldovaSouthwest Ukraine Region,
Atmospheric Research 77 100 113.
Merkley, Gary Hill, Robert W., Gherciu, Viorel, Drost, Daniel, and Caron, 2009,
Irrigation Engineering, Hydrologic, and Agronomic Assessment Report-Republic of
Moldova, Submitted to the Millennium Challenge Corporation, Washington, D.C.,
Prepared by International Irrigation Center Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
Merkley, Gary, Raymond Rifenburg, Viorel Gherciu, John Keith, Oleg Uica, and
Stephen Hodgson, 2009, Irrigation Management Transfer (IMT) Program Design,
Republic of Moldova. International Irrigation Center, USU, Logan, UT.
Ministry of Ecology and Natural Resources-National Institute of Ecology, 2003, Republic
of Moldova State of the Environment Report 2003.
Ministry of Environment and Territorial Development, 2000, First National
Communication of the Republic Of Moldova Under the United Nations Framework
Convention on Climate Change.
Moraru, C. and Anderson, J., 2005, A Comparative Assessment of the Ground water
Quality of the Republic of Moldova and the Memphis, TN Area of the United States of
America, Council of International Exchange of Scholars, University of Memphis Ground
water Institute, and Academy of Sciences, Institute of Geophysics and Geology, Republic
of Moldova.
Munteanu, V, and Rusu, M, 2001,Monitoring of the Surface Waters in Republic of
Moldova and Integration in Eurowaternet, National Institute of Ecology, 3 Academiei Str.
Chisinau, MD-2028, Republic of Moldova, Proceedings Mtm-Iii - Monitoring in the
Republic of Moldova.
PA Consultants, 2004, USAID Agricultural Irrigation Assessment in Moldova Final
Report Volume 1 - Main Reports Phase I: Assessment Report - Phase II:
Recommendations for an Irrigation Strategy, November 2004.
Potop, V. and Soukup, J., 2008, Spatiotemporal Characteristics of Dryness and Drought
in the Republic of Moldova, Theor Appl Climatol, DOI 10.1007/s00704-008-0041-5.
Retrieved April 13, 2009, from www.springerlink.com/index/247p704k71v50t14.pdf.
Main Report Final
December 2009
13-2
References
Srodoev I. G. and Knight C. G., 2007, Vulnerability to Water Scarcity in Moldova:
Identification of the Regions. Buletinul Academiei de tiine a Moldovei. tiinele vieii3
(303): 159-166.
Srodoev I.G., and Knight C.G., 2008, Vulnerability to Water Scarcity in Moldova:
Likely Threats for Future Development. Present Environment and Sustainable
Development 2: 7-15 [Romania]
Skogerboe G and Merkley G. P., 1996, Irrigation Maintenance and Operations Learning
Process, Gaylord. Water Resources Publications, LLC
Tafi, Jana, 2005, Institutional Arrangements and the Water Data Centre Case study of the
Republic of Moldova, IWG-Env, International Work Session on Water Statistics, Vienna,
June 20-22 2005.
USAID, CNFA, Agro-Info and Apele Moldovei, 2008, Organization of Water Users for
Irrigation Purposes, Chisinau, Moldova.
UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project, undated, Support to the development of the Prut
River Basin Management Plan.
Utica, Oleg, and Stephen Hodgson. 2009. The legal framework for WUOs and irrigation
management transfer (IMT).
World Bank, 2001, Agricultural Strategy for Moldova. Washington, DC.
Zubcov, Elena, 2009, personal communication, Consiliul National Pentru Acreditare si
Atestare
Main Report Final
December 2009
13-3
Appendices
Appendix A
Historic Flow Data for Prut and Nistru Rivers
Main Report -Final
December 2009
Appendix A
Prut River - Ungheni - Flow in m3/sec
Year
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
January February March April
May
51
15
12
10
82
36
15
13
20
33
52
48
38
34
65
35
46
26
47
27
101
157
42
38
40
44
29
28
35
65
19
35
46
43
34
79
93
61
88
67
40
88
118
40
42
51
33
56
18
19
13
56
122
27
25
23
49
77
43
65
41
39
25
127
30
45
60
125
102
37
40
32
51
26
49
31
48
27
42
43
42
35
121
79
49
136
76
40
128
94
71
54
43
33
70
59
63
30
147
116
173
110
96
162
117
109
139
36
89
93
97
173
47
43
193
86
38
48
61
53
31
40
26
29
18
44
50
46
40
109
66
49
224
72
43
134
89
82
91
81
37
81
303
232
120
120
167
190
139
303
196
94
111
168
34
152
166
238
134
323
254
133
73
38
42
56
81
36
116
33
32
18
103
144
68
72
222
66
81
222
117
87
132
136
92
107
286
48
117
124
92
95
220
73
146
77
100
392
149
105
161
70
138
107
227
152
177
167
283
175
44
175
109
54
39
98
142
32
57
97
141
65
135
253
135
248
185
114
86
124
109
67
145
175
80
48
33
14
40
157
10
56
32
21
43
136
13
82
43
30
70
224
18
131
73
33
117
323
18
133
89
47
124
392
32
June
91
94
44
35
179
71
163
36
286
294
75
51
241
131
350
148
138
161
159
295
92
132
84
167
163
61
54
270
99
41
173
129
116
113
103
92
122
251
105
51
129
121
43
50
121
356
126
July
August
32
133
25
120
114
74
95
46
355
117
236
94
151
299
200
57
156
214
110
346
182
132
101
127
186
55
57
108
115
39
194
120
74
65
118
53
87
237
127
77
141
72
48
33
100
192
67
September
October November December
25
56
23
77
64
69
43
91
91
59
66
124
95
135
146
115
69
109
220
308
131
156
190
135
160
54
58
117
61
37
284
65
70
48
54
40
114
116
116
59
108
137
95
131
211
132
40
17
28
15
85
35
54
28
87
48
43
97
118
50
65
83
134
77
190
122
129
76
98
95
65
84
55
36
107
121
25
128
51
62
40
53
88
112
87
70
44
136
102
35
72
140
105
89
15
21
16
102
23
26
26
89
32
40
60
96
41
121
66
163
58
133
107
122
73
71
63
62
38
39
27
115
68
21
76
54
57
43
49
103
71
56
68
44
119
72
29
58
65
47
99
15
25
22
62
24
41
23
48
27
47
54
94
39
154
46
75
54
53
49
122
163
53
49
80
42
33
30
56
49
23
69
51
51
38
44
61
61
132
70
39
86
110
34
46
52
41
74
14
22
16
73
68
32
14
25
41
39
92
76
27
83
39
63
38
50
45
139
157
49
41
35
46
32
29
37
52
20
54
51
45
34
44
103
70
104
69
34
97
98
35
54
46
37
70
104
59
38
95
308
23
78
49
26
77
190
15
65
40
21
60
163
15
58
39
23
49
163
15
54
34
17
45
157
14
203
126
67
200
492
39
173
106
56
162
437
40
149
101
59
128
422
38
144
92
45
121
421
37
Average
49
75
48
69
94
73
78
66
119
123
97
89
101
100
118
98
110
119
121
168
142
107
69
85
85
51
37
95
69
34
93
70
75
54
65
110
90
122
123
66
93
110
72
66
98
129
66
Discharge
(mil m3)
1533
2360
1521
2168
2976
2319
2475
2069
3742
3869
3073
2811
3194
3165
3716
3104
3483
3747
3816
5286
4495
3372
2162
2670
2672
1608
1183
3001
2189
1083
2935
2217
2368
1693
2051
3483
2828
3866
3891
2086
2924
3466
2272
2095
3088
4067
2093
Flow (m3/sec)
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
136
79
42
121
356
35
125
69
34
114
355
25
Discharge in Million m3
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
129
88
36
107
421
28
136
79
50
106
332
32
219
116
79
187
600
48
340 357
188 239
86 125
303 332
837 1050
47
87
353
206
109
314
923
92
335
186
92
305
951
66
280
158
101
253
824
62
Page1
Appendix A
Prut River -Sirauti - Flow in m3/sec
Year
January
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
35
29
31
24
43
37
37
62
61
44
26
21
62
19,4
11,4
26,5
24,8
February
26
13
39
23
25
32
29
71
54
40
70
22
91
13
60
21
23
March
40
33
67
50
68
80
39
67
52
210
74
91
123
96
81
89
115
April
48
49
106
131
66
108
44
106
158
208
162
69
143
93
60
121
245
May
55
238
80
107
81
125
161
148
242
120
43
47
81
58
64
120
125
June
53
160
162
58
148
108
57
125
238
111
28
178
80
28
31
98
319
July August September October
36
214
70
60
56
85
40
75
196
108
77
120
53
97
46
46
132
November December Average
27
188
46
44
33
42
46
109
65
78
33
71
159
64
146
268
99
26
95
44
96
30
57
170
120
54
80
40
128
63
23
45
61
43
27
75
44
46
33
42
93
75
75
54
25
38
71
30
40
55
27
42
73
86
31
26
75
68
50
97
43
21
48
70
44
43
31
28
33
32
41
41
28
53
73
65
38
53
21
47
22
22
43
40
21
89
44
32
65
268
27
69
43
25
57
170
23
50
33
26
44
93
25
51
31
25
44
97
21
40
28
21
40
73
21
239
117
86
174
718
73
179
112
66
149
441
59
134
87
70
118
248
67
133
81
65
113
251
55
106
74
55
106
196
55
37
100
68
59
53
70
72
89
111
96
52
73
85
52
60
86
107
Discharge
(mil m3)
1177
3152
2144
1871
1674
2218
2257
2822
3498
3020
1626
2315
2676
1625
1891
2722
3376
Flow (m3/sec)
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
39
29
23
37
62
21
38
23
13
29
91
13
81
52
38
74
210
33
113
66
47
106
245
44
111
64
46
107
242
43
117
57
28
108
319
28
89
53
39
75
214
36
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
105
78
61
98
167
57
94
55
33
72
222
32
216
139
102
197
562
88
292
172
122
275
635
114
298
170
123
287
648
114
302
148
72
280
827
72
238
141
105
201
573
97
Page2
Appendix A
Nistru River - Hrusca - Flow in m3/sec
Anul
Martie
Aprilie
Mai
149
96.3
173
231
160
97.7
132
361
144
140
131
300
106
287
357
239
94.5
105
360
121
132
189
186
166
184
233
186
200
281
326
305
297
245
176
297
301
136
220
250
277
210
108
201
345
165
172
251
192
156
521
166
456
225
459
240
195
87.6
136
265
167
161
136
149
161
219
240
271
158
205
267
295
353
375
173
503
217
270
263
283
449
635
320
630
443
403
409
174
319
321
459
692
894
165
759
456
283
219
228
268
170
343
127
134
149
155
216
203
174
206
175
265
313
338
273
386
438
246
378
240
232
443
1130
646
289
271
447
146
538
1030
470
378
599
1070
439
500
499
350
303
174
126
441
237
332
302
350
368
253
398
656
328
554
687
696
360
400
362
371
496
937
276
184
337
903
389
238
348
219
442
459
344
598
363
504
580
572
342
333
460
192
152
219
785
159
266
258
275
245
391
550
524
551
511
390
374
328
295
200
600
390
203
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
209
139
98
188
361
95
247
166
135
218
521
88
331
205
148
278
894
127
466
322
173
399
1130
126
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
561
372
261
502
967
253
602
405
329
532
1272
214
886
550
397
745
2394
340
1209
834
447
1034
2929
327
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Ianuarie Februarie
Iunie
Iulie
136
134
1210
650
743
433
216
490
218
204
555
453
629
937
796
366
512
182
311
389
422
555
222
265
875
1010
343
378
294
524
332
311
365
475
450
294
219
187
351
187
534
327
474
282
184
179
350
343
311
241
233
263
322
191
300
289
266
230
496
333
780
832
365
391
209
268
456
611
325
261
156
183
147
155
419
215
748
399
252
246
Flow (m3/sec)
387
413
367
255
247
226
183
156
178
356
347
303
903
1210
1010
152
136
134
1036
1071
982
682
641
606
489
403
476
952
898
810
2419
3136
2705
407
353
359
August
Septembrie
Octombrie
445
225
235
179
227
270
365
456
223
236
213
410
791
495
261
301
191
139
232
217
194
243
180
549
176
284
162
184
289
476
387
301
226
529
368
160
512
484
464
225
530
178
209
251
327
137
212
265
425
244
402
180
382
294
189
134
111
153
276
170
375
370
157
188
175
501
179
214
592
319
284
289
192
459
248
171
217
241
317
463
422
125
173
179
230
135
404
226
330
178
327
141
467
288
166
150
120
148
181
160
236
207
189
349
212
267
190
231
435
461
426
241
200
331
396
162
220
253
209
253
Noiembrie Decembrie
209
120
219
207
279
144
694
160
199
150
191
203
474
396
154
127
103
165
106
133
237
214
168
368
557
334
187
247
266
223
550
253
188
371
340
154
279
205
286
310
126
157
221
337
222
109
322
120
210
108
246
221
534
306
179
104
98
248
116
129
180
214
184
225
290
222
185
186
268
338
276
319
195
293
266
135
271
187
199
298
313
216
162
252
791
139
276
180
137
246
592
111
250
177
135
223
467
120
254
164
119
212
694
103
221
174
108
218
534
98
837
579
434
675
2119
372
714
466
355
638
1534
288
671
473
360
597
1251
321
659
424
309
548
1799
267
592
465
289
583
1430
262
Media
302
388
399
296
245
273
374
353
349
296
360
355
550
419
324
251
212
236
215
174
282
290
183
285
261
286
215
248
354
356
459
360
294
367
343
228
252
330
394
290
Page3
Appendix A
Nistru River - Bender - Flow in m3/sec
Year
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974
1975
1976
1977
1978
1979
1980
1981
1982
1983
1984
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
January February
March
April
May
185
384
302
329
562
227
554
216
448
1030
398
273
328
192
485
522
401
647
407
577
673
595
345
322
433
172
138
243
816
126
267
238
262
204
347
602
547
593
617
398
371
316
330
249
642
447
189
267
54.7
116
98.1
176
237
127
129
136
161
234
217
113
146
379
165
124
136
343
130
366
467
238
118
116
373
127
141
181
178
130
150
226
166
131
167
228
330
311
260
178
291
306
190
213
180
212
249
126
189
59.3
234
601
216
254
180
260
449
194
202
259
235
164
580
171
498
252
515
291
232
105
186
315
157
168
140
142
159
183
215
154
128
228
262
274
407
401
178
553
290
201
219
192
390
292
326
344
107
702
790
980
622
465
655
485
362
433
182
334
480
570
836
1020
252
819
521
250
254
260
346
196
346
120
126
134
168
208
165
143
178
178
271
994
328
222
374
533
258
398
224
244
276
941
867
930
612
444
647
521
1450
764
355
277
563
160
534
1130
507
427
732
1210
536
501
503
430
361
176
143
494
198
352
205
285
303
183
300
636
272
533
776
743
330
395
401
356
486
1030
224
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
201
131
114
178
467
54.7
257
175
127
219
601
59.3
394
215
128
328
1020
107
521
302
178
486
1450
143
Average
75Percentile
95percentile
Median
Max
Min
539
350
305
477
1251
147
626
426
309
535
1467
145
1054
576
344
879
2732
287
1351
781
462
1260
3758
371
June
July
248
130
388
429
156
123
147
233
511
484
233
373
557
308
161
132
1320
870
927
467
249
590
227
234
572
496
606
938
862
414
535
197
316
413
515
600
244
283
965
909
325
412
279
578
287
318
365
494
507
407
173
158
357
167
571
299
437
326
144
122
272
332
228
180
184
162
214
122
194
217
236
162
460
269
732
1070
324
345
192
218
342
649
250
185
173
179
167
165
407
192
696
323
174
166
Flow (m3/sec)
403
392
358
256
221
180
176
158
125
371
316
308
1030
1320
1070
126
144
122
1080
1016
960
684
572
481
471
408
335
994
819
825
2759
3421
2866
337
373
327
August
September
October
November
December Average
110
291
90
193
338
365
174
415
276
299
206
249
291
444
471
242
246
287
413
1000
484
251
314
210
157
164
195
183
201
117
566
112
242
121
126
200
537
421
254
213
531
285
174
398
330
280
167
95.9
118
97.4
212
308
425
142
598
205
237
281
337
156
211
322
432
247
415
216
424
326
200
147
138
165
244
155
321
400
110
165
112
426
128
153
518
274
267
265
178
372
196
173
237
242
233
352
75.2
103
102
265
153
182
136
476
157
198
203
269
137
407
229
409
227
363
160
494
284
175
146
141
158
168
146
230
206
138
255
135
208
138
163
435
420
449
225
183
304
345
177
200
194
185
214
78.1
118
110
179
121
375
134
234
146
239
223
313
151
757
223
244
162
222
230
538
446
155
183
121
182
112
144
221
201
141
326
470
294
141
173
283
233
610
223
179
311
320
176
233
207
208
233
75.4
142
124
342
413
300
115
176
192
241
370
289
129
381
146
259
112
254
242
569
406
180
118
111
281
114
138
182
209
153
211
271
200
150
148
275
359
282
327
192
318
211
169
265
180
187
257
290
188
114
251
1000
90
255
161
111
237
598
95.9
229
155
113
198
494
75.2
241
153
114
221
757
78.1
229
149
113
209
569
75.4
777
504
304
672
2678
241
660
416
287
614
1550
249
614
415
302
530
1323
201
624
397
295
573
1962
202
613
399
302
560
1524
202
173
285
218
258
385
379
341
328
487
457
337
270
298
390
386
398
325
406
399
610
466
349
257
234
268
210
172
283
286
154
252
211
244
157
185
327
337
486
422
290
342
310
257
243
309
349
235
Discharge
(mil m3)
5474
8996
6891
8138
12134
11971
10756
10346
15371
14406
10632
8523
9391
12315
12186
12568
10269
12815
12591
19250
14706
11027
8102
7387
8450
6614
5425
8939
9033
4863
7947
6659
7705
4960
5846
10309
10622
15337
13328
9165
10798
9785
8102
7676
9757
11006
7421
Page4
Appendices
Appendix B
Water Quality Data for Prut and Nistru Rivers
Main Report -Final
December 2009
Appendix B
Nistru River and the lake Dubasari, 2008
Location
Date
SO4
--
HCO3
--
Cl
++
Mg
++
Na
Mineralization
(mg/l)
Water hardness
(mg-ecv/l)
r.Nistru, Valcinet
r.Nistru, Soroca
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
rez.Dubsari, Cocieri
r.Nistru, Vadul-lui-Voda
r.Nistru, Varnita
r.Nistru, Sucleia
r.Nistru, Palanca
13.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
01.03.2008
22.02.2008
01.03.2008
72,4
65
69,5
72,8
69,1
106,2
93
92,2
95,5
189,2
190,7
201,4
201,4
195,3
210,6
204,5
213,7
207,5
26,2
27,7
29,4
29,4
27,7
29,4
30,8
30,8
32,3
64,1
64,1
68,1
68,1
72,1
70,1
70,1
70,1
67,1
9,6
12
14,4
14,4
9,6
12
14,4
18
19,8
26.8
34.5
16.1
18.6
18.2
34.4
25.1
24.6
25.7
6.,0
14,7
8.4
10.2
7.3
15.4
11.4
7.7
7.3
395,3
408,7
407,3
414,9
399,3
478,1
449,3
457,1
455,2
4
4.3
4.6
4.5
4.4
4.4
4.7
5
5
r.Nistru, Naslavcea
r.Nistru, Valcinet
r.Nistru, Soroca
r.Nistru, Camenca
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
r.Nistru, Varnita
r.Nistru, Sucleia
r.Nistru, Palanca
19.05.2008
19.05.2008
19.05.2008
20.05.2008
20.05.2008
20.05.2008
20.05.2008
21.05.2008
21.05.2008
21.05.2008
21.05.2008
69,54
93,82
68,31
74,48
68,72
76,54
65,43
96,29
88,88
84,36
90,94
180
186,1
180
207,5
183,1
192,2
155,6
189,2
198,3
192,2
207,5
41,83
43,25
47,86
44,67
46,44
47,86
44,67
44,67
46,44
47,86
51,05
70,14
70,14
70,14
70,14
74,15
65,13
62,12
54,13
62,12
71,14
64,13
9
8,4
6
10,8
9
14,4
7,2
12,6
26,4
17,4
10,8
22.9
34.8
29.9
31.2
29.8
28.3
25.4
37.1
19.2
21.7
50.4
33,25
50.5
13.4
14.0
2.4
12.7
11.4
16.5
8.5
10.2
15.3
403,8
477,2
415, 6
452,8
413,7
437,1
371,8
450,8
449,1
444,5
490,2
4,25
4,2
4
4,4
4,45
4,45
3,7
4,25
5,3
5
4,1
r.Nistru, Naslavcea
r.Nistru, Valcinet
r.Nistru, Soroca
r.Nistru, Camenca
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
r.Nistru, Varnita
r.Nistru, Sucleia
r.Nistru, Palanca
18.07.2008
18.07.2008
18.07.2008
19.07.2008
20.07.2008
20.07.2008
20.07.2008
22.07.2008
22.07.2008
22.07.2008
22.07.2008
49,97
51,44
48,56
51,4
52,67
56,38
53,91
62,38
64,19
71,19
69,54
166,28
167,81
183,06
170,86
173,81
180,01
158,65
169,33
173,81
176,96
189,16
20,84
20,84
25,18
22,58
22,58
24,32
22,58
24,32
26,92
28,66
29,53
59,12
60,12
58,12
54,11
56,11
54,11
40,08
52,1
52,1
54,11
56,11
9,12
8,51
9,73
12,16
12,16
15,81
18,24
12,16
15,81
14,59
17,02
1.3
2.1
5.5
14.2
13.6
14.2
14.8
19.7
18.8
22.2
20.4
307,1
311,72
332,4
331,36
336,83
350,78
329,71
349,19
359,96
377,74
390,94
3,7
3,7
3,7
3,7
3,8
4
3,5
3,6
3,9
3,9
4,2
Main Report -Final
December 2009
1
0.5
0.9
2.2
6.0
5.9
20,15
11.4
9.2
8.3
10.0
9.2
++
178,49
23,45
62,12
9,73
11.6
r.Nistru, Valcinet
11.11.2008
45,68
178,49
23,01
62,12
10,94
9.1
r.Nistru, Soroca
11.11.2008
52,67
195,26
26,92
68,14
10,94
13.2
r.Nistru, Camenca
12.11.2008
105,34
216,62
24,75
68,14
15,81
30.1
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
12.11.2008
41,56
195,26
24,32
65,13
11,55
9.8
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
12.11.2008
48,15
216,62
27,36
64,13
17,02
12.9
12.11.2008
31,69
180,1
23,88
64,13
8,51
6.5
13.11.2008
51,03
198,32
27,79
62,12
14,59
13.6
r.Nistru, Varnita
13.11.2008
99,17
196,78
25,18
60,12
14,59
31.0
r.Nistru, Sucleia
13.11.2008
91,77
208,99
26,92
65,13
12,77
31.2
r.Nistru, Palanca
13.11.2008
98,35
210,52
26,05
61,12
16,42
31.3
r.Nistru, Olanesti
r.Nistru, Rascaieti
r.Nistru, Valcinet
r.Nistru, Soroca
r.Nistru, Sucleia
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
r.Nistru, Dubasari
12.02.2008
12.02.2008
13.02.2008
23.02.2008
22.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
23.02.2008
1,9
1,6
1,5
3
2,8
2,5
2,6
2,4
2
(mg/l)
13,43
13,49
13,54
13,8
13,57
14,39
15,04
14,8
14,23
14,14
Main Report -Final
December 2009
2
O2
%
96,2
95,9
96
97,8
100,1
105,6
109,5
108
103,3
101,6
Na
46,91
O2
Mg
++
11.11.2008
t,C
Cl
r.Nistru, Naslavcea
Date
HCO3
--
Date
Location
SO4
--
Location
Mineral
Suspension
(mg/l)
0,4
2,4
1,6
3
0,4
2,8
0,4
0,4
1,8
5,6
Mineralization
(mg/l)
5.2
4.2
5.6
13.4
4.2
5.2
3.2
6.2
14
13.8
14.7
Organic
Suspension
(mg/l)
0,2
1,2
2,4
1,2
2
1,2
0,2
0,2
0,2
1
Water
hardness
(mg-ecv/l)
337,45
3,9
333,49
372,68
4,3
474,11
4,7
351,82
4,2
391,28
4,6
317,81
3,9
373,6
4,3
440,84
4,2
450,58
4,3
458,46
4,4
Suspension
Total
(mg/l)
0,6
3,6
4
4,2
2,4
4
0,6
0,6
2
6,6
r.Nistru, Varnita
r.Nistru, Palanca
r.Nistru, Naslavcea
r.Nistru, Valcinet
r.Nistru, Soroca
r.Nistru, Camenca
Location
01.03.2008
01.03.2008
19.05.2008
19.05.2008
19.05.2008
20.05.2008
Date
4
5,8
11,2
12,4
16,9
17
t,C
13,36
13,56
11,36
15,31
15,38
11,62
101
107,2
101,6
140,5
154,6
117
O2
O2
5
1,8
0,8
1,2
1,6
3,6
1,4
0,6
4,8
5,6
4,8
4,4
6,4
2,4
5,6
6,8
6,4
8
Organic
Suspension
(mg/l)
1,6
1,6
3,6
2,6
1,4
1,4
5,2
Suspension
Total
(mg/l)
14,4
2,4
8
6,6
8
8,8
8,8
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
r.Nistru, Varnita
r.Nistru, Sucleia
r.Nistru, Palanca
20.05.2008
20.05.2008
20.05.2008
21.05.2008
21.05.2008
21.05.2008
21.05.2008
17,8
19,8
21
18,3
17
18,1
18,9
(mg/l)
11,11
12,5
16,44
10,68
9,31
9,58
8,62
%
113,6
132,6
178,1
110,3
93,8
98,6
89,9
Mineral
Suspension
(mg/l)
12,8
0,8
4,4
4
6,6
7,4
3,6
r.Nistru, Naslavcea
r.Nistru, Valcinet
r.Nistru, Soroca
r.Nistru, Camenca
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
r.Nistru, Varnita
r.Nistru, Sucleia
r.Nistru, Palanca
18.07.2008
18.07.2008
18.07.2008
19.07.2008
20.07.2008
20.07.2008
20.07.2008
22.07.2008
22.07.2008
22.07.2008
22.07.2008
14,2
16,8
20,6
21,5
22
22,5
22,8
22,4
25,2
25,5
26,3
7,73
13,15
8,8
12,03
9,57
8,36
10,61
8,57
7,39
7,02
7,25
73,6
131,8
94,7
131,7
105,6
93,1
118,7
6,52
86,1
82,2
85,9
0,4
0,2
1,2
2,4
4,8
4,4
0,8
1,6
2
1,2
7,6
0,4
0,2
1,4
5,2
5,2
1,2
2
2
7,2
6,8
1
0,8
0,4
2,6
7,6
10
5,6
2,8
3,6
9,2
8
8,6
r.Nistru, Naslavcea
r.Nistru, Valcinet
r.Nistru, Soroca
11.11.2008
11.11.2008
11.11.2008
10,5
9,8
7,9
8,01
9,89
11,12
70,6
85,9
92,4
0,4
0,4
3,2
0,4
0,4
1,2
0,8
0,8
4,4
Main Report -Final
December 2009
3
r.Nistru, Camenca
rez.Dubsari, Erjovo
rez.Dubsari, Goieni
r.Nistru, Varnita
r.Nistru, Sucleia
r.Nistru, Palanca
12.11.2008
12.11.2008
12.11.2008
12.11.2008
13.11.2008
13.11.2008
13.11.2008
13.11.2008
7,2
7,8
9,8
11,2
10
9,4
9,4
9,1
12,17
12,03
11,25
11,55
10,12
10,48
10,37
8,66
99,5
99,8
97,6
103,3
88,3
90,1
89,1
74
1,8
2
3,2
2
3,4
1,4
1,2
2
0,2
0,1
0,4
0,4
0,6
0,2
1,6
0,2
2
2,1
3,6
2,4
4
1,6
2,8
2,2
Prut River and the lake Costesti-Stanca 2008

Location
rez.Costesti-Stanc,sect.superior (Badrajii
Noi)
rez.Costesti-Stanc,sect.mediu (Cucunesti)
rez.Costesti-Stanc,sect.inferior
r.Prut, Brneti
r.Prut, Sculeni
Date
SO4
--
HCO3
--
Cl
++
Mg
++
Na
Mineralization
(mg/l)
16.05.2008
16.05.2008
17.05.2008
17.05.2008
18.05.2008
57,61
49,38
49,38
55,96
77,77
180,01
155,6
155,6
158,65
180,01
18,57
14,77
18,99
19,41
20,68
59,12
50,1
52,1
52,1
53,11
10,34
9,73
8,51
8,51
12,16
15.2
12.3
14.2
17.5
18.4
6.5
5.4
6.3
7.7
9.1
347,2
297,1
305,1
319,9
381,2
Noi)
r.Prut, Brneti
r.Prut, Sculeni
r.Prut, Sculeni
r.Prut, Leueni
r.Prut, Leovo
25.07.2008
25.07.2008
26.07.2008
26.07.2008
27.07.2008
24.08.2008
24.08.2008
21.08.2008
73,25
65,84
55,96
66,66
68,31
83,12
92,18
100,82
178,48
161,7
158,65
161,7
172,38
154,08
173,91
201,37
20,26
21,09
19,41
19,41
20,26
14,56
18,84
23,98
64,13
56,11
52,1
53,11
54,11
46,09
48,09
53,11
9,12
8,51
10,34
10,34
12,16
9,73
13,38
15,2
6.4
19.2
14.9
18.8
18.9
27.7
31.0
37.6
3.6
8.6
6.7
8.4
8.9
11.6
14.1
6.7
354,4
341,1
318.0
338,5
355,1
346,8
391,4
448,7
r.Prut, Calia-Prut
r.Prut, Cahul
r.Prut, Djiurdjiuleti
13.09.2008
14.09.2008
25.09.2008
92,99
91,35
92,99
199,84
201,37
202,13
17,55
18,41
19,69
49,09
51,1
53,11
13,38
13,98
13,98
37.2
34.9
34.2
16.6
15.7
15.8
426,6
426,7
431,9
Main Report -Final
December 2009
4
Noi)
r.Prut, Brneti
r.Prut, Sculeni
Location
24.10.2008
25.10.2008
25.10.2008
25.10.2008
79,83
77,36
80,65
119,34
213,57
175,43
186,11
222,72
28,97
20,75
21,73
23,01
Date
t,C
O2
O2
(mg/l)
76,15
62,12
64,13
60,12
12,77
9,73
12,16
17,63
Mineral
Suspension
(mg/l)
19.5
20.4
24.2
40.2
8.7
8.7
4.3
18.1
Organic
Suspension
(mg/l)
Suspension
Total
(mg/l)
Noi)
r.Prut, Brneti
r.Prut, Sculeni
16.05.2008
16.05.2008
17.05.2008
17.05.2008
18.05.2008
15,4
15,4
13,2
12,4
14,8
10,97
11,02
10,8
10,43
10,19
107
107,5
100,8
95,7
98,2
20
5,2
0,4
1,2
34,6
4,4
1
0,8
0,4
3
24,4
6,2
1,2
1,6
37,6
Noi)
r.Prut, Brneti
r.Prut, Sculeni
r.Prut, Sculeni
r.Prut, Leueni
r.Prut, Leovo
25.07.2008
25.07.2008
26.07.2008
26.07.2008
27.07.2008
24.08.2008
24.08.2008
21.08.2008
27
28,8
26,4
21,2
24,8
21,3
21,8
22
10,55
12,05
9
6,36
8,34
6,82
5,62
7,59
126,35
148,39
106,76
69,21
96,42
74,3
61,8
83,8
22,4
6,4
1,2
0,8
26,8
136,4
296,4
4,8
1,6
0,8
2,8
1,6
15,6
37,6
27,2
8
2
3,6
28,4
152
334
13.09.2008
14.09.2008
25.09.2008
25,4
21,5
16
5,98
6,83
8,1
69,9
74,4
79,9
20
124,4
68,4
4,4
16,8
11,2
24,4
141,2
79,6
24.10.2008
25.10.2008
25.10.2008
25.10.2008
12
13,2
13,2
13,4
11,53
9,62
10,19
10,19
104,9
89,7
95,1
95,5
71,2
0,4
1,2
12,4
9
0,3
0,5
0,6
80,2
0,7
1,7
13
r.Prut, Calia-Prut
r.Prut, Cahul
r.Prut, Djiurdjiuleti
Noi)
r.Prut, Brneti
r.Prut, Sculeni
Main Report -Final
December 2009
5
439,5
374,5
393,3
501,1
Appendices
Appendix C
Historic Water Use Data for Prut and Nistru River Basins
Main Report -Final
December 2009
APPENDIX C
Industry
244.83
244.83
245.1
234.89
240.72
240.67
220.95
209.09
198.9
171.86
75.72
61.68
54.12
50.13
49.38
53.45
55.12
58.99
158.8
116.96
107.77
108.58
81.89
61.62
60.2
48.67
56.3
53.27
16.81
15.99
16.09
15.92
14.23
12.38
12.19
10.68
Central
Irrigation
Systems
599.35
269.4
465.73
361.36
472.72
291.98
206.66
99.68
64.92
61.21
11.25
5.54
7.66
10.59
6.21
5.72
5.86
17.77
Agriculture
Fish
Farming
86.05
78.79
73.52
70.85
63.67
56.4
54.79
43.88
43.04
36.12
28.84
17.02
16.84
16.57
16.82
16.13
16.75
16.87
45.7
45.05
39.79
29.54
29.23
32.97
33.89
28.87
28.7
2.59
0.73
0.39
0.85
0.44
0.42
0.64
0.65
1.14
Agriculture
Fish
Farming
27.94
26.58
25.53
22.87
20.95
18.54
15.87
14
13.69
12.97
12.77
7.61
7.58
7.64
7.66
7.58
7.66
7.84
27.56
26.99
23.09
18.12
17.66
13.33
9.48
5.59
5.88
3.61
4.81
0.16
0.18
0.17
0.14
0.16
0.15
0.16
1200
FishFarming
1000
Agriculture
800
CentralIrrigation
Systems
Industry
600
400
200
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Drinking
Water
WaterUsage(milm3)
Nistru (water usage in mil m3)
NISTRURIVERBASIN
Prut Water Usage (mil m3)
18.83
17.6
16.8
16.33
15.81
14.74
12.78
11.61
10.68
9.08
6.26
4.95
3.93
3.58
3.35
3.43
3.4
3.8
13.77
13.57
12.36
11.43
8.55
6.54
5.8
5.18
5.15
3.07
2.65
2.06
2.11
2.07
2.18
2.43
2.46
2.09
Central
Irrigation
Systems
232.26
73.87
134.89
84.99
112.54
84.65
41.99
20.69
19.72
11.71
2.13
1.05
2.28
5.14
4.6
3.36
3.6
8.72
350
300
FishFarming
250
Agriculture
200
150
CentralIrrigation
Systems
100
50
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Industry
waterUsage(milm3)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Drinking
Water
PRUTRIVERBASIN
Interbasin Water Usage (mil m3)
6.94
7.47
6.63
6.98
6.13
5.51
4.97
4.46
4.32
3.75
3.65
2.91
2.16
2.09
1.99
2.68
2.03
2.01
3.64
4.2
2.75
2.86
2.3
1.76
1.42
1.25
0.86
0.76
0.69
0.46
0.35
0.39
0.45
0.54
0.34
0.39
Central
Irrigation
Systems
66.2
44.32
56.43
34.84
36.18
25.66
25.57
8.05
7.25
7.2
0.99
0.06
0.93
3.5
1.81
2.13
2
3.73
Agriculture
Fish
Farming
20.63
20.03
19.42
16.38
15.75
11.92
9.77
8.95
8.76
9.02
8.31
4.66
4.42
4.36
4.34
4.95
4.4
4.53
0
0
0
0
0
0
1.5
1.5
1.49
0.49
0.5
0.75
0.9
0.72
0.72
0.4
0.55
0.72
120
100
80
FishFarming
Agriculture
CentralIrrigationSystems
60
Industry
40
DrinkingWater
20
0
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Industry
WaterUsuage(milm3)
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Drinking
Water
INTERBASIN
Appendices
Appendix D
Future Water Use Estimates for Prut and Nistru River
Basins
Main Report -Final
December 2009
APPENDIX D
Estimated Water Use - Prut River

Total Water Requirements (1000 m3) - Year 2025
CIS
Blindeti
Masivul Cahul
Crpinenii de Sus
Chircani-Zrneti
Grozeti
Leova Sud
Tetcani
Hectares
1000
m3/hectare
521
1930
1815
4417
1018
963
1258
3.36
3.89
3.67
4.49
4.44
4.44
3.48
Total
April
May
June
July
August
156
671
594
1770
403
382
391
4,368
323
1387
1228
3659
834
789
809
9,027
312
1342
1188
3541
807
763
783
8,736
323
1387
1228
3659
834
789
809
9,027
323
1387
1228
3659
834
789
809
9,027
Sept
Total
312
1342
1188
3541
807
763
783
8,736
1749
7516
6653
19828
4519
4274
4384
48,922
1. Total Extracted is assumed to be an additional 5% of the Total Water Required

Other Water Uses (mil m3)
April 1530
0.09
0.04
0.65
0.01
0.54
1.33
-0.38
0.95
Industrial Requirements
Domestic Requirements
Agricultural Use
Fish Farming
Irrigation (other schemes)
Total Demand
Return Water
Net Demand
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
0.17
0.08
1.44
0.01
1.17
2.88
-0.75
2.13
0.17
0.08
1.44
0.01
1.17
2.88
-0.75
2.13
0.17
0.08
1.44
0.01
1.17
2.88
-0.75
2.13
0.17
0.08
1.44
0.01
1.17
2.88
-0.75
2.13
0.17
0.08
1.44
0.01
1.17
2.88
-0.75
2.13
0.96
0.46
7.85
0.06
6.39
15.72
-4.13
11.59
Average Flow Conditions (mil. m3)
Average Flow (based on Ughendi Station Data)

Environmental/Sanitary Flow
Less 50% based on International Agreements
Total Water Extracted for CIS (mil m3)
Total Water Utilized for Other Uses (mil m3)
Total Water Available (mil m3)
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
170.04
21.80
74.12
4.59
0.95
68.58
356.53
43.60
156.46
9.48
2.13
144.86
353.42
43.60
154.91
9.17
2.13
143.61
334.97
43.60
145.69
9.48
2.13
134.08
279.56
43.60
117.98
9.48
2.13
106.37
202.91
43.60
79.66
9.17
2.13
68.36
1697.44
239.80
728.82
51.37
11.59
665.86
% of
Available
Flow
7.05%
Drought Conditions (mil. m3)
75 Percentile Flow (based on Ughendi Station Data)

April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
94.09
21.80
36.14
4.59
0.95
30.61
238.51
43.60
97.46
9.48
2.13
85.85
205.68
43.60
81.04
9.17
2.13
69.74
186.01
43.60
71.21
9.48
2.13
59.60
157.76
43.60
57.08
9.48
2.13
45.47
125.97
43.60
41.19
9.17
2.13
29.88
1008.02
239.80
384.11
51.37
11.59
321.15
% of
Available
Flow
13.37%
CLIMATE CHANGE (18% decrease in flow)

Average Flow Conditions (mil. m3)
Average Flow (based on Ughendi Station Data)

April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
139.44
21.80
58.82
4.59
0.95
53.28
292.35
43.60
124.38
9.48
2.13
112.77
289.81
43.60
123.10
9.17
2.13
111.80
274.68
43.60
115.54
9.48
2.13
103.93
229.24
43.60
92.82
9.48
2.13
81.21
166.39
43.60
61.39
9.17
2.13
50.09
1391.90
239.80
576.05
51.37
11.59
513.09
% of
Available
Flow
8.92%
Drought Conditions (mil. m3)
75 Percentile Flow (based on Ughendi Station Data)

April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
77.15
21.80
27.68
4.59
0.95
22.14
195.58
43.60
75.99
9.48
2.13
64.38
168.65
43.60
62.53
9.17
2.13
51.23
152.53
43.60
54.47
9.48
2.13
42.86
129.36
43.60
42.88
9.48
2.13
31.27
103.30
43.60
29.85
9.17
2.13
18.55
826.58
239.80
293.39
51.37
11.59
230.43
% of
Available
Flow
17.51%
Total
Extracted
(1000 m3)1
1,836
7,891
6,986
20,819
4,745
4,488
4,603
51,368
APPENDIX D
Estimated Water Use - Nistru River

Total Water Requirements (1000 m3) - Year 2025
CIS
Conia
Criuleni
JoradeJos
Lopatna
Pugceni
Rocani
erpeni
MasivulSuvorov
MasivulTalmaz
Hectares
1000
3
m /hectare
2800
677
1165
506
856
682
1107
13394
2468
3.61
3.97
4.07
4.34
4.30
4.65
3.57
4.00
3.84
Total
1. Total Extracted is assumed to be an additional 5% of the Total Water Required
April 15 -30
2.21
7.16
3.01
0.28
5.08
17.74
-8.43
9.31
Industrial Requirements
Domestic Requirements
Agricultural Use
Fish Farming
Irrigation (other schemes)
Total Demand
Return Water
Net Demand
May
4.44
14.32
6.62
0.56
11.22
37.16
-16.88
20.28
April
May
June
July
902
240
423
196
329
283
352
4785
846
8,356
1864
496
875
405
680
585
728
9888
1748
17,270
1804
480
847
392
658
566
705
9569
1692
16,713
1864
496
875
405
680
585
728
9888
1748
17,270
Other Water Uses (mil m3)

June
July
Aug
4.44
4.44
4.44
14.32
14.32
14.32
6.62
6.62
6.62
0.56
0.56
0.56
11.22
11.22
11.22
37.16
37.16
37.16
-16.88
-16.88
-16.88
20.28
20.28
20.28
Sept
4.44
14.32
6.62
0.56
11.22
37.16
-16.88
20.28
August
1864
496
875
405
680
585
728
9888
1748
17,270
Sept
1804
480
847
392
658
566
705
9569
1692
16,713
Total
24.41
78.76
36.11
3.08
61.18
203.54
-92.85
110.69
3
Average Flow Conditions (mil m )
Average Flow based on Data from Hrusca Gauging Station

April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
604.32
148.33
228.00
8.77
9.31
209.92
1036.07
296.70
369.69
18.13
20.28
331.28
910.18
296.70
306.74
17.55
20.28
268.91
888.83
296.70
296.07
18.13
20.28
257.66
800.15
296.70
251.72
18.13
20.28
213.31
630.62
296.70
166.96
17.55
20.28
129.14
4870.18
1631.83
1619.17
98.27
110.69
1410.22
% of
Available
Flow
6.07%
Drought Flow Conditions (mil m3)
75 percentile Flow based on Data from Hrusca Gauging Station

April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
416.99
148.33
134.33
8.77
9.31
116.25
682.32
296.70
192.81
18.13
20.28
154.40
640.87
296.70
172.09
17.55
20.28
134.26
605.99
296.70
154.64
18.13
20.28
116.23
578.53
296.70
140.92
18.13
20.28
102.51
465.91
296.70
84.61
17.55
20.28
46.78
3390.62
1631.83
879.39
98.27
110.69
670.44
% of
Available
Flow
11.17%
CLIMATE CHANGE (18% decrease in flow)

Average Flow Conditions (mil m3)
Average Flow based on Data from Hrusca Gauging Station

April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
495.55
148.33
173.61
8.77
9.31
155.53
849.58
296.70
276.44
18.13
20.28
238.03
746.34
296.70
224.82
17.55
20.28
187.00
728.84
296.70
216.07
18.13
20.28
177.66
656.12
296.70
179.71
18.13
20.28
141.30
517.11
296.70
110.21
17.55
20.28
72.38
3993.54
1631.83
1180.86
98.27
110.69
971.90
% of
Available
Flow
8.32%
3
Drought Conditions (mil m )
75 percentile Flow based on Data from Hrusca Gauging Station

Total Water Utilized for CSI (mil m3)
April
May
June
July
Aug
Sept
Total
341.93
148.33
96.80
8.77
9.31
78.72
559.50
296.70
131.40
18.13
20.28
92.99
525.52
296.70
114.41
17.55
20.28
76.58
496.91
296.70
100.11
18.13
20.28
61.70
474.40
296.70
88.85
18.13
20.28
50.44
382.05
296.70
42.67
17.55
20.28
4.85
2780.31
1631.83
574.24
98.27
110.69
365.28
% of
Available
Flow
17.11%
Total
10,103
2,688
4,743
2,197
3,683
3,168
3,947
53,588
9,474
93,590
Total
Extracted
(1000 m3)1
10,608
2,822
4,980
2,307
3,867
3,327
4,145
56,267
9,948
98,270
Appendices
Appendix E
Assumptions for Basis of Design for Proposed
Rehabilitation
Main Report -Final
December 2009
APPENDIX E
Assumptions for Determing Total Water Requirements to Estimate Energy Requirements

Projection Provided by MCC
2014
2020
% Traditional
% HVA
% Traditional
0.66
0.62
0.68
0.70
0.65
0.70
0.78
0.71
0.68
0.76
0.74
0.74
0.65
0.64
0.62
0.83
0.34
0.38
0.32
0.30
0.35
0.30
0.22
0.29
0.32
0.24
0.26
0.26
0.35
0.36
0.38
0.17
0.78
0.72
0.80
0.83
0.79
0.86
0.99
0.89
0.82
0.95
0.88
1.00
0.78
0.74
0.72
0.93
0.67
0.64
0.69
0.71
0.66
0.71
0.78
0.71
0.68
0.76
0.74
0.73
0.65
0.65
0.64
0.83
0.33
0.36
0.31
0.29
0.34
0.29
0.22
0.29
0.32
0.24
0.26
0.27
0.35
0.35
0.36
0.17
83%
66%
78%
68%
68%
70%
62%
71%
76%
65%
70%
65%
74%
74%
62%
64%
17%
34%
22%
32%
32%
30%
38%
29%
24%
35%
30%
35%
26%
26%
38%
36%
93%
78%
99%
80%
82%
83%
72%
89%
95%
79%
86%
78%
88%
100%
72%
74%
83%
67%
78%
69%
68%
71%
64%
71%
76%
66%
71%
65%
74%
73%
64%
65%
% Traditional
% HVA
0.42
0.33
0.47
0.51
0.42
0.56
0.76
0.58
0.49
0.69
0.60
0.73
0.42
0.36
0.36
0.78
0.58
0.67
0.53
0.49
0.58
0.44
0.24
0.42
0.51
0.31
0.40
0.27
0.58
0.64
0.64
0.22
0.65
0.60
0.68
0.70
0.66
0.74
0.86
0.76
0.69
0.82
0.76
0.87
0.66
0.61
0.61
0.92
78%
42%
76%
47%
49%
51%
33%
58%
69%
42%
56%
42%
60%
73%
36%
36%
22%
58%
24%
53%
51%
49%
67%
42%
31%
58%
44%
58%
40%
27%
64%
64%
92%
65%
86%
68%
69%
70%
60%
76%
82%
66%
74%
66%
76%
87%
61%
61%
% HVA
Blindesti
Cahul
Carpinenii de Sus
Chircani-Zirnesti
Cosnita
Criuleni
Grozesti
Jora de Jos
Leova Sud
Lopatna
Pugaceni
Roscani
Serpeni
Suvorov
Talmaz
Tetcani
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
0.45
Tetcani
Blindesti
Grozesti
Carpinenii de Sus
Leova Sud
Chircani-Zirnesti
Cahul
Jora de Jos
Lopatna
Cosnita
Criuleni
Serpeni
Pugaceni
Roscani
Talmaz
Suvorov
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
45%
2025
Total %
Irrigated
Total %
Irrigated
% of Total Area
Irrigated
Page 1
APPENDIX E
USU Report - Agronomic Table 38

Estimated Water Requirements
per Assumptions
CerealandOilSeed
Scheme
Blindeti
Masivul Cahul
Crpinenii de Sus
Chircani-Zrneti
Conia
Criuleni
Grozeti
Jora de Jos
Leova Sud
Lopatna
Pugceni
Rocani
erpeni
Masivul Suvorov
Masivul Talmaz
Tetcani
Site
Ratio
0.97
0.99
1.02
0.99
1.01
1.01
0.98
1.00
0.98
0.99
1.01
1.02
1.02
0.98
0.99
0.97
Daily
HVA(m3/ha)
Monthly Vegetative Daily

64
81
68
81
68
68
65
67
80
66
68
68
68
80
80
66
1,636
1,894
1,734
1,894
1,604
1,604
1,664
1,590
1,881
1,567
1,601
1,608
1,608
1,867
1,889
1,830
3,681
4,790
3,902
4,790
3,928
3,928
3,746
3,893
4,756
3,893
4,889
3,936
3,936
4,780
4,722
3,184
Monthly
84
98
89
98
89
89
85
89
97
87
89
90
90
97
98
87
2,194
2,578
2,326
2,578
2,242
2,242
2,233
2,221
2,560
2,190
2,236
2,247
2,247
2,543
2,572
2,163
2014
Vegetative
4,614
5,758
4,891
5,758
4,899
4,899
4,695
4,855
5,717
4,788
4,889
4,908
4,908
5,746
5,676
3,864
4,075
5,113
4,364
5,285
4,338
4,467
4,463
4,449
5,226
4,510
4,889
4,649
4,346
5,123
5,061
3,713
2020
(m3/ha)
4,298
5,387
4,571
5,468
4,561
4,610
4,485
4,577
5,411
4,570
4,889
4,651
4,569
5,398
5,316
3,746
2025
4,303
5,408
4,582
5,478
4,567
4,617
4,484
4,574
5,412
4,571
4,889
4,646
4,572
5,407
5,332
3,747
Page 2
Appendix E
Proposed Rehabilitation Basis of Design Assumptions.
Code
1-1
CIS System
Area
Irrigated (Ha)
Proposed
Water
Demand
(m3/s) 1
1258
1.22
SP-1
313
0.30
SP-1
tr SP-2
PS ID #
Tetcani
Requested
Design
Discharge
(lps/Ha)
Original
(BOD)
Design
Discharge
(lps/Ha)
0.97
1.05
Pressure at
Minimum
Hydrants
Pressure at
Number of
Potential
Discharge of
based on
Hydrants based
Watering
Existing
Suitable OnWatering
MCC-MCAon
Equipment
Pump
Farm Watering
Equipment
AM
Manufacturer's
Operating at Capcity (l/s)
Equipment
(lps)
Recommend
Recommendatio
a Time
ation (Bar)
n (Bar)
Existing
Required
Pump Head
Capacity (l/s)
(m)
NGS & NSP

Source: Prut
AIPRE:
Briceni
SP-2
3-2
Blindeti
Source: Prut
AIPRE:
Ugheni
SR-3
SP-4
SP-7
3-6
Grozeti
Source: Prut
Ugheni
SP-11
SPR-12

Source: Prut
AIPRE:
Hnceti
NSG-1
NSP-1
NSP-2
445
0.43
0.97
500
521
0.49
0.51
0.97
tr SP-4
180
0.17
0.97
80
120
141
0.08
0.12
0.97
0.97
0.14
0.97
1018
tr SPR-12
tr SPR-16*
398
240
1.00
NSP-7
NSP-2
5-4
Leova Sud
Source: Prut
Hnceti
S-28
S-28
S-2
6-6
Chircani-Zrneti
Source: Prut
S-5
4
0.91
0.24
0.98
0.88
0.14
0.98
0.82
1815
1.85
NSP-2
4
to NSP-7
648
567
320
tr NSP-4
963
tr B-1
tr S-2, S-3
363
0.29
1.02
0.66
0.58
0.33
1.02
1.02
1.02
0.97
280
0.27
0.98
320
0.31
4417
4.37
1.96
0.98
0.99
1980
SPP-3A
449
AIPRE: Cahul
0.52
0.40
1.21
1.21
1.91
0.44
0
0.99
0.99
0.62
0.69
0.99
1.05
SPP-2
675
0.67
0.99
806
0.80
0.99
0.94
1165
1.17
0.24
1.00
0.94
Source: Nistru
SPP-1
235
AIPRE:Orhei
SPP-2
tr SP-1
100
259
0.10
0.26
SPP-1
1.00
1.00
0.66
0.56
tr SP-2
SP-2
11-7 Lopatna
Source: Nistru
AIPRE: Orhei
12-3 Conia
Dubasari
SPP
80
0.08
1.00
278
213
0.28
1.00
0.21
0.50
1.00
506
tr SP
358
0.35
0.99
0.15
0.99
SP
SP-1
SP-2
SP-3
S-1
148
2800
986
353
tr S-1
620
2.24
1.00
0.36
0.63
4
0.32
1.01
1.01
1.01
0.65
0.27
1.01
1.51
Nistru
NSP-1
677
459
0.68
0.46
1.01
0.79
AIPRE:
Chiinu
NSP-2
0.12
1.01
0.10
1.13
1.01
NS-3
Source:
Nistru
AIPRE:
Chiinu
AIPRE:
Chiinu
1.67
tr S-12
0.68
1.02
0.84
670
S-14
to S14
437
856
0.45
0.86
1.02
0.80
S-17
438
0.44
1.01
0.92
4
S-18
418
0.42
682
0.70
1.01
0.72
S-20
tr S-22
4
AIPRE:
Chiinu
S-22
17-2 Masivul Talmaza

Source:
Nistru
AIPRE:
tefan-Voda
682
2,468
ONS-1
0.70
1.02
1.41
880
90
920
90
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
1.02
New PS to supply water from

River
Capacity Ok
Estimated
Volume per
Year (m3) at
2014
70%
1,202,048
3,713
522,960
70%
207,524
1,578,906
70%
552,838
3,713
743,506
70%
292,149
3,713
835,400
70%
120,253
2,101,866
Ok since we've 2 hour capacity in

the SP-2 basin
20.00
22
330
105
440
101
0.99
20.00
24
440
57
480
37
0.96
No need to change existing pump.

But add an additional pump to
provide discharge capacity.
Capacity Ok
380
63
520
62
Existing pump curves can

provide capacity
360
92
260
88
Capacity Ok
Pump
Efficiency
(%)
Estimated
Volume per
Year (m3) at
2020
4,335,169
3,746
Estimated
Water
Annual
Consumption
Energy
per Year
Consumption
(KWh) at 2020
(m3/ha) at
2025
2,479,263
1,078,623
428,025
3,256,546
1,140,247
3,746
1,533,506
602,568
3,746
1,723,040
248,026
Estimated
Volume per
Year (m3) at
2025
4,383,778
3747
Annual
Energy
Consumptio
n (KWh) at
2025
432,824
3,293,060
1,153,032
3747
1,550,700
609,324
3747
1,742,360
250,807
955,368
70%
230,442
1,455,591
351,100
1,748,653
421,788
478,601
70%
163,853
729,192
249,646
876,005
299,908
20.00
180
90
180
90
1.00
Capacity Ok
4075
330,070
70%
115,571
4,298
502,891
176,082
4303
604,141
211,534
20.00
20.00
20.00
4
6
7
90
105
500
50
120
95
80
120
140
50
120
90
1.00
1.00
0.99
Capacity Ok
Capacity Ok
4075
4075
4075
146,698
220,046
258,555
70%
70%
70%
28,536
102,729
90,530
4,298
4,298
4,298
223,507
335,261
393,931
43,477
156,518
137,931
4303
4303
4303
268,507
402,761
473,244
52,231
188,030
165,702
70%
1,352,189
20.00
20.00
20.00
20
12
12
420
360
Change pumps
4463
4463
4463
799,327
482,006
482,006
70%
70%
73,134
178,146
4,485
4,485
4,485
1,535,241
925,774
925,774
140,465
342,159
4484
4484
4484
1,766,829
1,065,425
1,065,425
161,654
393,773
20.00
120
Capacity Ok
4463
281,170
70%
29,535
4,485
540,035
56,726
4484
621,498
65,283
3,563,916
70%
1,192,409
70%
1,247,870
139
1018
Not part of the assessment
Fed by Gravity
65
240
87
240
36
Capacity Ok
Change pumps
170
Fed by Gravity
Change pumps
2,044,510
39
95
1.00
1.00
140
27
1.00
1840
86
Rebuilt existing PS infrastructure

including new pumps.
1840
90
Rebuilt existing PS infrastructure

including new pumps.
3,563,916
880
New PS - To NSP-7 by gravity
1,741,704
20.00
14
230
61
280
59
1.00
20.00
34
550
92
680
85
1.05
Capacity Ok
Existing pump curves proves to
provide capacity
20.00
20.00
28
16
415
255
89
65
560
320
960
68
52
15
0.99
1.00
1560
128
960
123
20.00
18
360
81
0.99
New Pumps
5226
20.00
14
280
55
1.00
New Pumps
5226
20.00
16
320
43
1.00
New pumps
5226
1.00
Change pumps. Add a PS to

accommodate the 1000 l/s pumps
5285
Capacity Ok
Change pumps
New PS
3,926,823
5,641,565
5,641,565
2,597,105
4,519,177
1,887,545
6,652,973
1,975,338
6,652,973
2,757,062
Drainage
Pump Flow
(l/s)
Volume per
Annual
Annual
Annual
Drainage
year (m3) 2014
Volume per
Volume per
Energy
Energy
Energy
Pump Head (assume 25%
Consumption year (m3) 2020 Consumption year (m3) 2025 Consumptio
(m)
of the Irrigation
2014
2020
n 2025
water)
2,507,062
1,090,717
2,988,874
2,225,940
2,329,472
3,251,343
4364
549,805
70%
126,200
4,571
870,324
199,771
4582
1,026,354
235,585
4364
1,272,406
70%
420,769
4,571
2,014,178
666,064
4582
2,375,276
785,475
4364
4364
1,113,356
628,349
1,822,212
70%
70%
70%
294,539
127,117
106,338
4,571
4,571
1,762,406
994,656
2,884,502
466,245
201,222
173,202
4582
4582
2,078,367
1,172,976
3,401,630
549,833
237,297
198,508
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
39
660
57
35
200
57
25
20.00
20.00
28
93
670
750
57
54
20.00
23
880
57
2,264,610
70%
1,083,672
3,595,178
1,720,381
4,273,871
2,045,153
853,638
70%
269,004
5,411
1,355,192
427,056
5412
1,611,023
507,675
658,454
70%
140,892
5,411
1,045,327
223,673
5412
1,242,662
265,898
752,518
70%
125,888
5,411
1,194,659
199,854
5412
1,420,186
237,582
4,708,717
70%
1,172,416
5,468
7,578,094
1,886,858
5408
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
60
700
75
57
560
1860
69
78
0.99
Change pumps
New pumps and PS.
5285
5285
2,897,764
2,897,764
70%
70%
777,878
879,340
5,468
5,468
4,663,589
4,663,589
1,251,897
1,415,188
5408
5408
460
45
1.02
Capacity Ok
5113
1,033,014
70%
180,850
5,387
1,451,240
254,069
5408
1,748,442
306,100
8,888,238
5,469,857
5,469,857
2,213,069
32
700
10
640
67
0.95
Change pumps
5113
1,552,973
70%
404,798
5,387
2,181,708
568,684
5408
2,628,504
685,145
42
1200
54
840
70
1.04
Change the impellers on the

existing pumps.
5113
1,854,364
70%
505,001
5,387
2,605,121
709,456
5408
3,138,628
854,746
20.00
12
220
75
240
70
1.02
Capacity Ok
4449
4,577
817,368
222,595
4574
630
60
950
70
3,234,689
880,907
20.00
20.00
5
14
110
360
95
90
100
280
85
78
500
195
500
195
Change pumps
1.00
1.08
Capacity Ok
Capacity Ok
Capacity Ok because have
basin
4449
4449
470,463
70%
128,122
1,861,832
70%
507,035
200,197
518,510
70%
70%
66,203
157,344
1,143,125
70%
867,217
4,577
4,577
347,816
900,843
115,019
273,365
1,986,029
1,506,675
4574
4574
956,645
260,524
3,785,872
1,031,011
407,083
1,054,345
134,617
319,946
2,324,444
1,763,409
20.00
120
92
80
70
1.00
Capacity Ok
4449
160,158
70%
43,616
4,577
278,253
75,777
4574
325,666
88,689
20.00
14
140
53
280
50
1.01
4449
556,548
70%
108,261
4,577
966,928
188,089
4574
1,131,691
220,139
20.00
11
210
44
210
44
0.99
Change pumps
Capacity Ok
4449
426,420
70%
72,994
4,577
740,848
126,818
4574
867,087
148,428
468
110
506
108
70%
431,439
1,896,063
796,665
20.00
18
Fed by Gravity
4510
726,489
4571
1,554,705
20.00
1.00
Capacity Ok
4510
300,336
70%
4338
4338
49
18
180
50
148
39
1,026,826
Capacity Ok
Gravity Fed
57
98
14
85
980
360
1200
620
69
97
14
81
0.99
1.02
Change pumps
2,197,432
1,341,483
45,569
4,570
554,580
84,145
4571
642,727
97,519
70%
70%
70%
70%
516,684
260,043
127,375
381,396
4,561
4,561
796,697
400,972
196,405
588,090
4567
4567
954,985
480,637
235,427
704,932
20.00
31
1.00
Capacity Ok
4338
1,924,761
689,088
2,338,604
1,210,296
4,561
2,967,870
1,062,534
3,605,992
1,866,206
4567
3,557,527
1,273,638
4,322,432
2,236,985
20.00
29
460
155
580
180
1.00
Change pumps
4338
1,128,308
70%
790,132
4,561
1,739,786
1,218,337
4567
2,085,447
1,460,397
395
50
260
66
0.99
Capacity Ok
4338
513,400
70%
131,825
4,561
791,633
203,267
4567
948,915
243,652
Change pumps
4467
922,751
70%
251,294
4,610
1,565,943
426,455
4617
1,822,409
496,299
4467
245,263
70%
71,564
4,610
416,220
121,446
4617
484,388
141,336
4467
192,994
192,994
70%
70%
37,542
42,047
4,610
327,517
327,517
63,709
71,355
4617
381,157
381,157
74,144
83,041
3,947,341
1,382,122
20.00
23
360
62
460
70
1.00
20.00
180
50
140
75
1.15
20.00
360
160
50
70
100
100
50
56
1.04
700
70
1110
90
20.00
34
560
70
670
79
70
20.00
22
40
350
85
440
440
20.00
22
420
65
20.00
21
300
45
Change pumps
Capacity Ok
Capacity Ok
Change pumps
1.00
Change pumps
70
80
1.01
Change pumps
Change pumps
438
82
1.00
420
81
1.00
Change pumps
2,165,159
70%
758,109
4346
1,310,440
70%
402,757
3,338,402
1,168,908
4,569
2,020,532
621,001
4346
854,720
854,720
70%
70%
232,767
266,019
4,569
1,317,870
1,317,870
4889
963,622
70%
307,411
4,889
4889
919,621
70%
289,797
4,889
70%
471,798
70%
444,045
70%
28,841
13
500
22
2,626,061
178,790
4,226,318
287,740
4,956,988
337,486
539
57
3000
20
1,110,088
166,271
1,559,517
233,588
1,878,894
281,425
1,405,242
72,894
2,000,894
103,792
2,368,466
122,858
923,291
4,570
880
440
1100
660
Capacity Ok
Change pumps
800
1,468,332
1,659,854
20.00
20.00
780
500
20.00
20.00
20.00
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
20.00
No pumps existing at this

station
Capacity Ok
4572
2,389,086
734,274
358,897
410,168
4572
1,558,255
1,558,255
424,361
484,984
1,627,450
519,183
4889
1,884,416
601,160
1,553,138
489,434
4889
1,798,370
566,713
Masivul
Suvorov
801
0.79
0.99
1202
465
1.19
0.46
0.99
0.99
13,394
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
780
92
680
85
960
92
680
80
2800
5.5
460
1,426,717
Capacity Ok
2,759,645
912,581
3,168,272
1,047,709
4
20.00
34
1.00
Capacity Ok
4649
1,426,717
4,651
2,759,645
858,900
4646
3,168,272
986,079
330
10
48,611
40
10
2.44
tr NS-2
1.42
T-2
T-2
NS-2
17-3
147
102
Remarks
Estimated
Annual
Water
Energy
Consumption
Consumptio
per Year
n (KWh) at
(m3/ha) at
2014
2020
Estimated
Water
Consumption
per Year
(m3/ha) at
2014
Change pumps
14-13 Rocani
Source:
Nistru
1.48
S-12
14-11 Puhceni
Source:
Nistru
122
tr NS-3
96
1107
S-10
578
263
14-6 erpeni
1240
320
660
4
0.83
SP-4
14-2 Criuleni
105
Capacity
Provided
(lps/ha)
0.94
0.98
1219
1219
1930
SP-1
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
0.76
S-3 not identified for rehabilitation

0.36
S-6
S-1
11-6 Jora de Jos
330
to NSP-1
Masivul - Cahul
Source: Prut
0.98
0.98
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
16
1.14
240
140
AIPRE: Cahul
6-9
4
1.50
SPR-16 not identified for rehabilitation

0.39
0.24
20.00
0.81
tr SP-7
280
NSP-4
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
Required
Head (m)
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
1,059,056
Capacity ok
20.00
40
800
90
800
90
1.00
20.00
20.00
60
23
1200
660
90
70
1200
460
69
50
1.00
0.99
Capacity ok
Capacity ok
Capacity ok
1,507,967
1,784,986
5061
1,824,310
70%
638,764
5,316
2,597,595
909,522
5332
3,074,783
1,076,605
330
10
5061
5061
2,737,603
1,059,056
70%
170%
734,884
84,828
5,316
5,316
3,898,014
1,507,967
1,046,386
120,784
5332
5332
4,614,093
1,784,986
1,238,610
142,973
40
1000
10
20
400
20
13.13
GNS
tr NSP
6200
80
7100
80
Maintain existing pumps but

add a new set of pumps (4840
l/s) to pump water to the canal
for S-1. The reservoirs at PNS2,4,5,6&7 will be expanded to
provide adequate detention.
19,574,204
70%
6,092,189
27,953,665
8,700,176
33,967,471
10,571,886
NSP
tr PNS-1
6200
80
7100
80
Maintain existing pumps but

add a new set of pumps (4840
l/s) to pump water to the canal
for S-1. The reservoirs at PNS2,4,5,6&7 will be expanded to
provide adequate detention.
19,574,204
70%
6,092,189
27,953,665
8,700,176
33,967,471
10,571,886
PNS-1
PNS-1
1827
430
tr PNS-2
1.79
0.42
2260
82
5123
5123
70%
70%
70%
1,343,780
316,270
1,280,517
6,015,471
1,415,792
6,812,265
1,919,034
451,661
1,828,689
5407
5407
69
4,212,258
991,391
4,770,204
5,398
5398
1725
7,309,608
1,720,378
8,277,821
2,331,885
548,829
2,222,104
2.03
0.92
2.16
0.16
0.20
0.33
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
0.98
2070
940
2200
180
200
340
79
81
69
41
62
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.13
1.00
1.00
Change pumps
Change pumps
4,770,204
2,164,921
5,086,065
366,584
461,112
783,890
1,466,099
682,223
1,365,307
58,473
111,224
5398
5398
5398
5398
5398
5398
6,812,265
3,091,695
7,263,343
523,514
658,508
1,119,464
2,093,717
974,274
1,949,777
83,505
158,837
5407
5407
5407
5407
5407
5407
8,277,821
3,756,826
8,825,941
636,140
800,176
1,360,299
2,544,148
1,183,874
2,369,242
101,470
193,009
Fed by Gravity
5123
5123
5123
5123
5123
5123
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
PNS-7
2069
939
2206
159
200
340
PNS-7
320
0.31
0.98
320
42
1.00
Capacity Ok
5123
5398
5407
4840
80
New PS adjacent to GNS

New PS adjacent to NSP
Change pumps
Capacity Ok
Source:
Nistru
AIPRE:
tefan-Voda
PNS-1
PNS-2
PNS-3
PNS-4
PNS-5
PNS-6
0.98
0.98
1.07
4
0.71
0.76
1.13
1.48
1.36
0.67
Reel Hose,
Hand-moving
laterals and/or
Drip irrigation
equipment
20.00
20.00
90
0
2200
1500
85
85
51
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
20.00
104
47
110
9
10
17
1620
710
2100
880
500
395
80
73
80
57
84
20.00
16
300
55
GNS-1
NSP-1
S-1
S-2
S-3
tr S-2
770
1380
tr S-3
1940
S-3
814
S-2
S-2
0.75
1.35
0.98
0.98
1.90
0.98
0.80
0.98
0.93
0.79
1.00
Capacity OK
Change pumps
Capacity Ok
Capacity Ok
Capacity Ok
737,779
70%
120,552
11,306,466
70%
3,518,975
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
70%
3,518,975
3,958,847
283,172
854,091
988,097
1,392,090
5398
5398
70%
525,694
90
57
66
40
90
4840
4840
800
1300
2740
1940
80
90
41
69
40
80
1.04
0.94
97
2200
720
1290
1650
1470
1.00
Change pumps
5123
11,306,466
11,306,466
1,775,281
3,181,673
6,349,512
4,472,786
40
600
68
800
72
0.98
Change pumps
5123
1,876,726
20.00
20.00
40
65
20.00
20.00
Change pumps
Change pumps
5123
5123
1,053,613
172,159
16,146,616
5,025,402
1,280,282
209,196
19,620,316
6,106,541
5,025,402
5,653,577
404,394
1,219,715
1,411,089
1,988,026
5407
5407
5398
16,146,616
16,146,616
2,535,256
4,543,705
9,067,655
6,387,528
5407
19,620,316
19,620,316
3,080,678
5,521,214
11,018,424
7,761,707
6,106,541
6,869,858
491,393
1,482,119
1,714,663
2,415,720
5398
2,680,128
750,736
5407
3,256,716
912,245
Page 3
Appendices
Appendix F
Apele Moldovei Organizational Chart
Main Report -Final
December 2009
THE ORGANISATIONAL CHART OF APELE MOLDOVEI

AGENCY
TECHNICAL-SCIENTIFIC
COUNCIL
GENERAL DIRECTOR
PROJECT
IMPLEMENTATION UNIT
DEPUTY DIRECTOR
ECONOMICALFINANCIAL AND
PLANNING
UNIT
WATER MANAGEMENT
DEPARTMENT
DUNAREA
-PRUT
BASIN
UNIT
NISTRU
BASIN
UNIT
LAND
IMPROVEMENT
UNIT
(HYDRO
WATER
USE
UNIT
INVESTMENTS,
CONSTRUCTIONS
AND NEW
TECHNOLOGIES
UNIT
SECRETARIAT,
PR & HUMAN
RESOURCES
UNIT
AIPRE BENDER
AIPRE STEFAN VODA
AIPRE BRICENI
AIPRE UNGHENI
AIPRE CAHUL
AIPRE VULCANESTI
AIPRE CHISINAU
CIUMAI CHANNEL UNIT
AIPRE DROCHIA
ACVAPROIECT
AIPRE DUBASARI
STATE ENTERPRISE IPROCOM
AIPRE HINCESTI
COMPUTING CENTER
AIPRE ORHEI
STATE ENTERPRISE Hydrotechnic Node Costesti-Stinca
LEGAL
CONSULTANT
COLLEGE
WATER SUPPLY AND

SANITATION DEPARTMENT
WATER SUPPLY
AND SANITATION
SYSTEMS
DEVELOPMENT
UNIT
WATER SUPPLY
AND SANITATION
SYSTEMS
EXPLOATATION
UNIT
STATE INTER-RAYONAL
ENTERPRISE ACVA-NORD
INTER-RAYONAL UNIT FOR THE
EXPLOITATION OF THE SOROCABALTIAQUEDUCT
STATE ENTERPRISE UNIT FOR
REPAIRING THE ARTESAIN-WELL
FROM CHISINAU
STATE ENTERPRISE PRODUCTION
AND TRAINING CENTER CHISINAU
Appendices
Appendix H
Soil Salinity Evaluation Report
Main Report -Final
December 2009
SOIL SALINITY EVALUATION:

CRPINENII DE SUS, CAHUL, CHIRCANI-ZRNETI,
SUVOROV, and TALMAZA
By
Noemi Sabillon and Mohammed Shaban
Prepared for
MWH Americas, Inc.

Moldova CIS Feasibility Study and Environmental and
Social Assessment
funded by the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, USA

Social Assessment
Soil Salinity Evaluation Report
Noemi Sabillon and Mohammed Shaban, April 2008
Table of Contents
Section
Page
INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 1
BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................... 1
FIELD MEASUREMENTS OF SOIL SALINITY ............................................................................ 1
OTHER FIELD SIGNS OF SOIL SALINITY................................................................................... 2
WATER TABLE EFFECT ON IRRIGATED LAND ....................................................................... 2
RESULTS .............................................................................................................................................. 3
Soil Salinity ..................................................................................................................................... 3
Water Salinity ................................................................................................................................. 8
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................ 10
ANNEX 1:
ANNEX 2:
WATER DEPTHS IN WATER TABLE OBSERVATION WELLS

GEOREFERENCED SAMPLING SITES AND FIELD MEASURED ECSW
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Evaluated CIS areas and ECsw testing density..................................................................... 3
Table 3. ECsw Summary of measured Soil salinity status by CIS .................................................... 3
Table 4. Summary of equivalent ECe measured Soil salinity status by CIS ................................... 4
Table 5. Crop tolerance to salinity, ECe ............................................................................................. 8
Table 6. Field measured Electrical conductivity of different sources of water within evaluated
CIS. ......................................................................................................................................................... 9
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Surveyed CIS: Crpinenii de Sus, Cahul, Chircani-Zrneti, Talmaza, and Suvor. ..... 2
Figure 2. Spatial distribution of measured points: Crpinenii de Sus ............................................. 4
Figure 3. Spatial distribution of measured points: Cahul ................................................................. 5
Figure 4. Spatial distribution of measured points: Chircani-Zirnesti.............................................. 6
Figure 5. Spatial distribution of measured points: Talmaza............................................................. 1
Figure 6. Spatial distribution of measured points: Suvorov ............................................................. 1
Figure 8. Reeds in Chircani-Zirnesti ................................................................................................... 2
Figure 9. Algae and soil surface crusting ............................................................................................ 2
Figure 10. Drainage canal water levels ............................................................................................... 3
Figure 11. Waterlogged areas in the lowlands of Talmaza ............................................................... 3
Figure 12. Field salinity measurements: Chircani-Zrneti .............................................................. 4
Figure 14. Field salinity measurements: Crpinenii de Sus .............................................................. 6
Figure 15. Field salinity measurements: Masivul Talmaza ............................................................... 7
MWH Americas, Inc.
Contents - ii
MOLDOVA CIS FEASIBILITY STUDY AND ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL ASSESSMENT

SOIL SALINITY EVALUATION APRIL 2009
NOEMI SABILLON AND MOHAMMED SHABAN
Acronyms and Abbreviations

ACVAProiect
Ca
CIS
dS/m
EC
ECdw
ECe
ECsw
ECw
ESP
FAO
Fe
GPS
ha
Mg
mS/cm
MWH
Na
pH
ppm
SAR
SOW
TDS
S/cm
MWH Americas, Inc.
Institutul de Proiectare a Sistemelor de Godpodarie a Apelor ACVA

Proiect
Calcium
Moldova Central Irrigation System
deciSiemens per meter, a measure of the electrical conductivity
Electrical conductivity, measurement of soluble salts
Electrical conductivity of the drainage water
Electrical conductivity of a soil water extract from saturated paste
Electrical conductivity of the soil water solution
Electrical conductivity of the irrigation water
Exchangeable sodium percentage
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations
Iron
Global positioning system
hectare
Magnesium
miliSiemens per centimeter
Montgomery Watson & Harza (MWH Americas, Inc.)
Sodium
Soil reaction
parts per million
Sodium adsorption ratio
Scope of Work
Total dissolved solids
microSiemens per centimeter
Contents - iii

I.
Introduction
Crop production is often reduced because of a combination of factors such as climate,
crop and soil conditions. Within the soil, among other physical (and chemical)
characteristics, soil salinity could become a limiting factor for reaching potential crop
yields. Salinity content may affect the availability of water and nutrients to plants.
When soluble salts are in excess, and the crop is salt sensitive, its water intake
capacity is reduced as function of the salt content in the soil solution. Even if there is
water in the rootzone, the plant will not take water and will wilt. Salts content in the
soil can be originated in situ from decomposing (weathering1) of the soil parent
material or can be brought into the soil by fertilizers, salty water tables rise, or by the
irrigation water. All water contains salts, with time salts build-up within the soil
profile or at the soil surface if leaching and drainage is not provided. Crops ability to
withstand soil salinity content varies from crop to crop; however, most are susceptible
to increased amount of salts in the rootzone. Periodic monitoring of soil and
irrigation water is necessary in order to assess the salinity status of the soil, and to
implement a salinity management program when necessary. This type of assessment
even though it is required by law in Moldova, has not been done for at least 10 years
mostly because of the lack of funds. To determine the risk to sustained irrigated
agriculture on the potential rehabilitated CIS, MWH determined that it was necessary
to conduct a rapid assessment of the soil salinity and drainage systems in the
following CIS: Crpinenii de Sus, Cahul, Chircani-Zrneti, Talmaza, and Suvorov.
These systems were selected for the assessment for the reason outlined in the section
below.
The methodological approach and the required tasks and activities are described in the
Scope of Work (SoW), which is attached as Annex 1.
II.
Background
Previous studies2 have shown that there are signs of drainage and soil salinity hazards
in five of the sixteen CIS pre-selected to be considered for rehabilitation under the
Feasibility Study, Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Moldova (CIS)
project. These signs consist of water logging (surface ponding of water), and white
blemish coloring on the soil surface of cropped lands. The five CIS under
consideration are Crpinenii de Sus, Cahul, Chircani-Zrneti, Talmaza, and Suvorov.
To assess the salinity status of those irrigation systems, MWH carried out a field
study of these areas using electrical conductivity meters that measure the resistance to
electrical current transmission directly in the field. These meters provide
reconnaissance level results of the potential salinity problems on the previously
identified CIS. Crop yields can be affected by the amount and type of salts (common
are the Chlorides of Calcium, Sodium, Magnesium, Potassium) in the soil or in the
soil water. High content of salts impact the nutrients (and water) intake by crops,
details are explained in sections below.
III.
Field Measurements of Soil Salinity
the disintegration and decomposition of rocks and minerals by natural processes such as the action of frost or percolating ground
water
2
Irrigation Engineering, Hydrologic, and Agronomic Assessment Report Republic of Moldova, USU report February, 2009 Section
V.4.2 Soil Erosion and Salinization
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 1

The soil salinity was measured using the Field Scout EC 110 Meter by inserting the
probe in the soil at two different depths: at 30 cm and up to 60cm.
The Field Scout EC 110 Meter tester used for the reconnaissance of the soil salinity
measures the soil-water-salinity (ECsw). The standard parameter used to determine
salinity problems is the salinity measured on a saturated extract3 of the soil, ECe.
There is at least twice the volume of water in a saturated soil paste compared to the
amount of water at field conditions, therefore as a general rule of thumb, ECe is
considered to be half of the ECsw. In terms of water content, most of the areas
surveyed were close to field conditions4, meaning that the relation between ECe and
ECsw holds. The exception was in the lowlands of Talmaza where saturated or
waterlogged conditions were found.
The testing sites were chosen at random and geo-referenced with a GPS. The five
CIS are shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Surveyed CIS: Crpinenii de Sus, Cahul, Chircani-Zrneti, Talmaza,
and Suvorov.
Figures 2 through 6 show the spatial distribution of measured sites by CIS evaluated:
Carpineni de Sus, Cahul, Chircani-Zirnesti, Talmaza, and Suvorov.
The original proposed testing density was of 1 site per 100 ha; however, a change of
strategy was made in order to have the two teams working together in each of the
evaluated CIS, instead of taking measurements each team in a different CIS as per the
3
The saturated soil extract is the water extracted by pressure means from a volume of soil, which has been added distilled water
to saturation, the salinity content of this water extract is then measured as ECe.
4
Contrary to the saturated soil paste, soil at Field condition or at field capacity has much less water because it has been
naturally drained after saturation events like rainfalls, inundations or irrigations.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 2

original proposed work plan. This change of the field implementation plan and the
active involvement of the ACVAProiect Scientists allowed an increase in sampling
density to about 1 site per 25ha, therefore providing a better coverage. In the cases of
Carpinenii de Sus, where the relief is more undulating, and for Talmaza where
waterlogged areas are commonly present, the density was purposely further increased
to a density of about 1 site per 21 ha in Carpinenii de Sus and 1 site per 18 ha in
Talmaza (Table 1).
Table 1. Evaluated CIS areas and ECsw testing density

CIS
Affected
Measured Density
Area, ha
points
ha/site
Crpinenii de Sus
1815
87
21
Masivul Cahul
1449
65
22
Chircani-Zrneti
4839
144
34
Masivul Talmaza
1703
92
19
Masivul Suvorov
20
2
10
When possible, the salinity of the drainage canals, drainage ponds, surface ponded,
lake and river waters were also measured.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 3

Figure 2. Georeferenced spatial distribution of measured points, Crpinenii de Sus
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 4

Figure 3. Georeferenced spatial distribution of measured points, Cahul
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 5

Figure 4. Georeferenced spatial distribution of measured points, Chircani-Zirnesti
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 6

Figure 5. Georeferenced spatial distribution of measured points, Talmaza
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 1

Figure 6. Georeferenced spatial distribution of measured points, Suvorov
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 1

IV.
Other Field Signs of Soil Salinity

Surface salt accumulation was observed near
the pump station S-5 in the ChircaniZirnesti irrigation system (Figure 7). The
GPS coordinates for this site are N46
04.248 E28 06.303. At the site the ECsw
was greater than 3,000 S/cm and the EC
of the ponded surface water was greater
than 9,000 S/cm5. While the effect on
the soil is still in the low level risk of crop
yield reductions (more details in
following sections of the report), the
ponded water causing the salinity increase
and surface accumulation is within the
high range of risk (Table 2).
Figure 7. Soil surface salinity
Table 2. Soil salinity risk level

Electrical Conductivity
Salinity risk level
ECe
ECsw
to affect crop yields
dS/cm
S/cm
>2
>2000
very low
2 to 4 2,000 to 4,000
low
4 to 8
4,000 to 8,000
moderate
8 to 16 8,000 to 16,000 high
> 16
> 16,000
very high
V.
Water Table Effect on Irrigated Land

The occurrence of reeds in some cropland areas of the Chircani-Zirnesti is evidence of
a shallow water table (Figure 8). This vegetation is typical of wetlands and canals
with abundant water. Other indicators of high water tables are algae and soil crusting,
which were also observed in Chircani-Zirnesti (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Reeds in Chircani-Zirnesti
Figure 9. Algae and soil surface crusting
S/cm = microsimen per centimeter, is the mesure of electric conductivity, in this case is through the soil and the more salts in the
soil the higher the conductivity. More details at: www.horiba.com/process-environmental/features/water-
quality/the-story-of-conductivity/.../what-is-conductivity/
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 2

In Talmaza, the CIS with waterlogged areas, most of the land close to the T2/T3
pumping stations is saturated and/or with water ponded at the surface (Figure 10).
Some drainage canals have water at the level of the soil surface (Figure 11).
Figure 10. Drainage canal water levels
Figure 11. Waterlogged areas in the

lowlands of Talmaza
The elevation of the water table was measured by Mr. Michael Teske, the Drainage
Expert, in some observation wells that are still operating in the Circani-Zirnesti and
Cahul areas. Most of the points measured show that the water table is at a depth of
about 2 m below the soil surface. This could be an indication of a rising water table.
In irrigation systems, it is always recommended to keep water below from the root
environment, at a depth of at least 2 m below the soil surface, georeferenced data in
Annex 2.
VI.
Results
a. Soil Salinity
Table 3 shows the summary of the results of ECsw by CIS. The details of the field
measured soil salinity of the tested areas are included in annex 2. Table 4 shows
the same measurements of ECsw adjusted to the approximated equivalent of ECe,
as explained in sections III and table 2 in section IV above
Table 3. ECsw Summary of measured Soil salinity status by CIS
CIS
Chircani-Zrneti
Masivul Cahul
Crpinenii de Sus
Masivul Talmaza
Masivul Suvorov
MWH Americas, Inc.
Maximum salinity,
ECsw
(S/cm)
0-30 cm 30-60 cm
3,040
4,100
1,595
1,800
999
806
1,953
2,061
808
743
Minimum salinity,
ECsw
(S/cm)
0-30 cm 30-60 cm
338
349
344
502
313
316
394
342
787
690
Average salinity,
ECsw
(S/cm)
0-30 cm 30-60 cm
1,050
1,209
1,061
1,074
566
556
1,285
1,404
798
717
Page - 3

Table 4. Summary of equivalent ECe measured Soil salinity status by CIS
CIS
Chircani-Zrneti
Masivul Cahul
Crpinenii de Sus
Masivul Talmaza
Masivul Suvorov
Maximum salinity,
ECe (S/cm)
Minimum salinity,
ECe (S/cm)
0-30 cm 30-60 cm
1520
2050
797.5
900
499.5
403
976.5
1030.5
404
371.5
0-30 cm
169
172
156.5
197
393.5
30-60 cm
174.5
251
158
171
345
Average salinity,
ECe (S/cm)
0-30
cm
30-60 cm
525
604.5
530.5
537
283
278
642.5
702
399
358.5
Figures 12 to 15 show the detailed field salinity measurements data in charts by

irrigation system.
Chircani-Zimesti . Chircani-Zirnesti in the Prut River (Figure 12) shows the

measured points, which are aligned around the 1,200 S/cm value; there is no
appreciable difference between the measurements at the two different depths for any
of the tested fields. The maximum and other high values recorded in this CIS are still
within the low category for salinity content risk to crops. The sampled sites in this
CIS that attained from 3,000 to 4,100 S/cm were fields under waterlogged
conditions; therefore, the ECsw would be equal to that measured in a laboratory from a
saturated paste extract, ECe; the soils in these areas could be classified as saline
(Figure 12). The occurrence of water on the soil surface is an indication of poor or
non-existent drainage; lack of movement of the water through the soil profile and
surface water evaporation may temporarily increase the salt concentration, however, it
does not necessarily mean that the soil is already saline. If the situation is not
remediated by providing proper removal of excess water (drainage) with time the soil
will become saline.
Figure 12. Field salinity measurements: Chircani-Zrneti
4500
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
4000
3500
ECsw , uS/cm
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
5
CZ
_
CZ 9
_1
CZ 3
_1
CZ 7
_2
CZ 1
_2
CZ 5
_3
CZ 0
_3
CZ 4
_3
CZ 8
_4
CZ 2
_4
CZ 6
_5
CZ 0
_5
CZ 4
_5
CZ 8
_6
CZ 2
_6
CZ 6
_7
CZ 0
_7
CZ 4
_7
CZ 8
_8
CZ 2
_8
CZ 6
_9
CZ 0
_9
CZ 4
_
CZ 98
_1
CZ 02
_1
CZ 06
_1
CZ 10
_1
CZ 14
_1
CZ 18
_1
CZ 22
_1
CZ 26
_1
CZ 30
_1
CZ 34
_1
CZ 38
_1
42
CZ
_
CZ
_
Field measured sites
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 4

Conclusion for Chircani-Zirnesti. Measurements of salinity currently indicate a low

risk condition. There are indications that lack of proper drainage could create a
salinity problem over time in the future. As such it is recommended that the drainage
system be rehabilitated and be maintained as a properly functioning system. It is also
recommended that there be an annual monitoring program established to monitor
SAR calculations
Cahul. Figure 13 depicts the data for Cahul (also Prut River), the points in this case
are aligned around the value of 1,000 S/cm; the maximum and high values are also
in the low range of soil salinity risk for crops.
Figure 13. Field salinity measurements: Masivul Cahul

2000
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
1800
1600
ECsw , uS/cm
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
Ca
hu
Ca l_1
hu
Ca l_3
hu
Ca l_5
hu
Ca l_7
h
Ca ul_
hu 9
Ca l_1
hu 1
Ca l_1
hu 3
Ca l_1
hu 5
Ca l_1
hu 7
Ca l_1
hu 9
Ca l_2
hu 1
Ca l_2
hu 3
Ca l_2
hu 5
Ca l_2
hu 7
Ca l_3
hu 0
Ca l_3
hu 2
Ca l_3
hu 4
Ca l_3
hu 6
Ca l_3
hu 8
Ca l_4
hu 0
Ca l_4
hu 2
Ca l_4
hu 4
Ca l_4
hu 7
Ca l_4
hu 9
Ca l_5
hu 1
Ca l_5
hu 3
Ca l_5
hu 5
Ca l_5
hu 7
Ca l_5
hu 9
Ca l_6
hu 1
Ca l_6
hu 3
Ca l_6
hu 5
l_
67
Conclusion for Cahul. Similar results were encountered for Chircani. Measurements
of salinity currently indicate a low risk condition. There are indications that lack of
proper drainage could create a salinity problem over time in the future. As such it is
recommended that the drainage system be rehabilitated and be maintained as a
properly functioning system. It is also recommended that there be an annual
monitoring program established to monitor groundwater tables, electro-conductivity
and specific salts as necessary to conduct SAR calculations
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 5

Carpinenii De Sus. The values for Carpinenii De Sus in the Prut River are presented
in Figure 14, in this CIS all the values are in the very low ranking of salinity content
risk. Again a similar pattern is seen to the two previous systems. In fact, the
electroconductivity measurements were the lowest of the measured systems.
Note that there is not an engineered drainage system present in the Carpinenii CIS.
The concern about salinity here was attributed to drawing irrigation water from the
lake which has been known to be a bit saline. Note also, that the recommendation
rehabilitation schem for Carpinenii is to re-design so that the system pumps draw
directly from the river rather than from the Lake Minjir.
Figure 14. Field salinity measurements: Crpinenii de Sus
1200
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
1000
EC sw , uS/cm
800
600
400
200
C_
8
C_
11
C_
14
C_
17
C_
20
C_
23
C_
26
C_
29
C_
32
C_
35
C_
38
C_
41
C_
44
C_
47
C_
50
C_
53
C_
56
C_
59
C_
62
C_
65
C_
68
C_
71
C_
74
C_
77
C_
80
C_
83
C_
86
C_
5
C_
2
Conclusion for Carpenenii De Sus. Carpenenii does not contain an engineered

drainage system. The recommended solution to salinity concerns is to re arrange the
pumping method such that source of water is the low salinity river rather than the high
salinity lake. Because there is no drainage system existing there is obviously no
rehabilitation of drainage to be done.
Talmaza. Figure 15 shows the values for Talmaza which on average are around the
value of 1,400 S/cm; the recorded maximum and high values are also in the low
salinity risk classification. The high values shown in the graphs could be attributed to
drainage problems of water stagnation and salt concentration due to evaporation of
that ponded water.
In Talmaza, on the Nistru River, a rising shallow water table has brought salts to the
soil surface, Figure 15. Still this area is not considered a saline soil (same condition
as in Chircani-Zirnesti); however, the raising of soil surface water evaporation each
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 6

summer will increase the salt content very rapidly. The reason why these soils do not
show degradation due to salt accumulation has been frequent flooding in the area and
the relative low load of salts in the irrigation water6 (in addition to minimal irrigation
taking place). In contradiction, those floods, the elevation of the fields with respect to
the Nistru average water elevation, and the current inadequate drainage conditions,
are the causes for the high water table.
Figure 15. Field salinity measurements: Masivul Talmaza
2500
0-30 cm
30-60 cm
EC sw , uS/cm
2000
1500
1000
500
T_
1
T_
4
T_
7
T_
10
T_
13
T_
16
T_
19
T_
22
T_
25
T_
28
T_
31
T_
34
T_
37
T_
40
T_
43
T_
48
T_
51
T_
54
T_
57
T_
60
T_
63
T_
66
T_
69
T_
72
T_
75
T_
79
T_
82
T_
85
T_
88
T_
91
T_
94
Conclusion for Talmaza. Similar results were encountered as the other CIS except
somewhat higher in terms of electro-conductivity and more spatial variability.
Measurements of electroconductivity currently still indicate a low risk for salinity
condition. There are indications however that lack of proper drainage could create a
salinity problem over time in the future. As such it is recommended that the drainage
system be rehabilitated and be maintained as a properly functioning system. It is also
recommended that there be an annual monitoring program established to monitor
SAR calculations
Chemistry of Salinity
The ions generally associated with salinity are Ca, Mg, K, Na, NO3, SO4, Cl-, HCO3,
and CO3. To determine the salinity hazard, the ECe of the soil is compared with the
tolerance or sensitivity of the crop to be grown. In general, crop yields are impacted
as follows::
6
DRAFT Moldova - CIS Feasibility Study & Environmental and Social Assessment. Water Availability Assessment Report by Phillip E.
Brown
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 7

The ECe is less than 2 dS/m (or 2,000 S/cm, very low), most crop yields are
not affected; The ECe is between 2 and 4 dS/m or between 2,000 S/cm and
4,000 S/cm (low), some crop yields are affected;
The ECe is between 4 and 8 dS/m or between 4,000 S/cm and 8,000 S/cm,
(moderate), many crop yields are affected;
The ECe is between 8 and 16 dS/m or between 8,000 S/cm and 16,000 S/cm,
(high), only tolerant crops are not affected;
The ECe is greater than 16 dS/m or 16,000 S/cm (very high), even very
tolerant crop yields are affected.
The majority of the conductivity points measured in the field indicate a very low
salinity risk for crops. However, this condition would change if excess water
containing dissolved salt is allowed to evaporate from the soil surface. Water must
naturally percolate through the soil profile and should be removed from the cropped
fields by drainage. When water evaporates the salts are left behind and the salinity
content of the soil increases.
For a soil to be classified as saline, the measured ECe should be greater than 4 dS/m
or 4,000 S/cm. Where the soil moisture is close to field capacity or field conditions
(see footnote 4, page 2), the measured salinity will correspond approximately to an
ECsw of 8 dS/m or 8,000 S/cm.
Crops being grown in the potential affected areas are included in Table 5. With the
exception of wheat and sunflower that are moderately tolerant to salts, the other crops
are salt sensitive. Information on yield reduction is not documented, but currently
farmers are being able to grow the crops, which is a good indication that the soils are
still productive.
Table 5. Crop tolerance to salinity, ECe
Crop
ECe (dS/m) for a Yield potential of
100 %
90%
75%
Corn (forage) (Zea mays)
1.8
3.2
5.2
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa)
2.0
3.4
5.4
Wheat (Triticum aestivum)
6.0
7.4
9.5
Grape (Vitus sp.)
1.5
2.5
Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris)
1.0
1.5
2.3
Potato (Solanum tuberosum)
1.7
2.5
3.8
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) Moderately Tolerant
Source: Crop Tolerance and Yield Potential of Selected Crops as influenced by irrigation water salinity
(ECw) or soil salinity (ECe). FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29 Rev.1 Water quality for
Agriculture. 1989.
b. Water Salinity
Twenty one water samples were collected in the field and the salt content was
measured using a different probe on the same meter as used for the soil salinity
measurements (Table 5). In Carpinenii only the water from Lake Minjir was
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 8

measured. In general surface river waters have the lowest salt content and have no
restriction for their use, but salt is still added to the soil when they are used for
irrigation and insufficient drainage is provided; i.e during the growing season,
irrigating 1 ha of land with 10000 m3 of water with a ECw of 406 S/cm,
corresponding to a salt concentration of 0.26 g/l (0.26 kg/m3), will bring 2600 kg of
salt per ha per year. According to the Guidelines for Water Quality for Agriculture
(FAO, 1989), in order for irrigation water not to affect the availability of water to
crops, the electric conductivity (ECw) should be less than 3.0 dS/m (3000 S/cm), or
the Total Dissolved Solids (TDS) content less than 2000 mg/l. Water with ECw
greater than 3000 S/cm should not be used for irrigation unless appropriate irrigation
and drainage management programs are implemented.
Waypoint
ECw,
S/cm
CIS/ ID
GPS coordinates
SPP-3
Cahul
N45 52.981 E28 07.967
406
River
SPP-3
Cahul
N45 52.981 E28 07.967
1100
Drainage pond
60
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.503 E28 08.615
1450
Drainage canal
68
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.424 E28 09.092
1451
Drainage canal
80
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 58.046 E28 09.733
864
Drainage canal
85
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.291 E28 07.768
2390
Drainage canal
86
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.271 E28 07.805
1923
Drainage canal
94
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.153 E28 09.198
2300
Drainage canal
98
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.335 E28 10.823
1228
Drainage canal
101
Chircani-Zirnesti_S-5
N46 04.434 E28 09.463
4370
Drainage canal
Chircani-Zirnesti
N46 04.784 E28 06.803
1674
Drainage pond
102
Chircani-Zirnesti_S5
N46 04.261 E28 06.282
4360
Drainage canal
103
N46 04.262 E28 06.280
4420
Drainage canal
104
N46 04.251 E28 06.265
2770
Drainage canal
142
Chircani_S-1
N46 01.165 E28 07.036
1972
Drainage canal
163
Chircani-Zirnesti
N46 00.688 E28 07.572
1620
Drainage canal
Nistru
Talmaza
N46 39.942 E29 38.254
562
River
D2
Talmaza
N46 39.675 E29 38.080
688
Drainage pond
230
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.452 E29 43.868
3970
238
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.452 E29 43.868
883
Drainage canal
Surface
waterlogged
10
Carpinenii_NSP-7
N46 40.898 E28 18.512
1161
Lake Minjir
SPD-4
Source
Table 6. Field measured Electrical conductivity of different sources of water

within the CIS under study.
The highest salt concentrations were recorded in water in the drainage canals within
the Chircani-Zirnesti CIS. Most of the drainage water is stagnant, some even with
algae, which is a clear indication of slow or no movement at all. If this water is not
removed, the salt concentration will keep increasing as water evaporates and more
water is added. Unless the drainage system is rehabilitated the water table will keep
on rising bringing the salts to the root zone.
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 9

VII.
Conclusions and Recommendations

On Soil Salinity
The field evaluation results indicate that there is no salinity problem in most of the
fields, the highest readings were found in Chircani-Zirnesti which is due to stagnant
water. However, there is a potential salinity hazard to crops and soils if the excess
water in the fields is not removed. The CIS under this risk are Cahul and ChircaniZirnest in the Prut River, and Talmaza in the Nistru River. Evaporation of surface soil
water will increase salt accumulated at the soil surface, which in turn will have to be
removed by leaching through the soil profile. Crop yields will be affected if the
drainage system is not rehabilitated for Cahul, Chircani-Zirnest, and Talmaza; high
value crops are more sensitive to saline environment. Waterlogged soils will also
affect the tolerance of crops to soil salinity because of the reduced aeration within the
rootzone.
On Water Salinity
The salinity measurements recorded during the field assessment are also in the
medium to high levels; however, these results do not represent actual conditions; the
water is stagnant in the fields or with very little or no movement in the drainage
canals. In order to evaluate drainage water salinity the drainage system must be in
working conditions and irrigation should be taking place, which is not the case in the
evaluated CIS. Irrigation water, independent of the source (river, lakes, or reuse of
drainage water) must be monitored as it will be an additional source of salts added to
the soil. If a portion of these salts is not leached out regularly from the soils root zone,
the build-up of salts might reach concentrations that will reduce the availability of
water to crops.
Other Potential Issues
No visual signs of soil sodicity were observed, however, soil analysis such as
determination of SAR and pH are recommended to rule out such a possibility. Reports
provided by ACVAProiect Institute dated from 1975 and 1979 indicate no problems
with sodicity; however, due to lack of more recent data, a separate assessment is
recommended for these two parameters. The procedure cannot be performed by direct
measurements in the field as samples have to be collected in the field and processed in
a laboratory. Such evaluation is not part of the scope of work of this evaluation. The
absence of sodic soil means there is no need for chemical amendments.
In general, reclamation of saline soils is done by providing extra water in addition to
that needed for evapotranspiration (in irrigation terms this is known as the leaching
fraction). This extra water in excess of the irrigation requirement by crops is added to
the irrigation water to leach salts out of the root zone. At the time of these evaluations
amendments for salinity are not required; however, for the future sustainability of the
evaluated CIS, adequate drainage must be provided for removal of any excess.
Improving the drainage system should be enough to restore the waterlogged soils to
an adequate crop root environment. No soil amendment or reclamation is required;
therefore, no cost estimate is needed.
Although there is no cost associated with salinity correction, there is a significant
cost associated with salinity prevention in the form of rehabilitation of
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 10

drainage systems and monitoring and maintaining thes drainage systems. Those
costs all described in the companion report Drainage Evaluation
Recommendations
Set up monitoring programs for:
soil parameters (including Na, k, mg, and pH, and ECe)
drainage water salinity and water table fluctuation
The cost for these recommendations is included in the companion report Drainage
Evaluation
MWH Americas, Inc.
Page - 11

Annex 1.
Water depths in water table observation wells
Waypoint GPS Coordinates

1-17
N45 52.709 E28 10.126
2-19
N45 52.707 E28 08.911
3-20
4-22
5-24
6-25
7-26
8-27
9-29
10-30
11-31
12-32
13-33
14-35
15-37
N45 52.694 E28 08.351

N45 54.743 E28 08.229
N45 56.611 E28 09.109
N45 56.581 E28 10.172
N45 56.569 E28 10.521
N45 56.544 E28 11.165
N46 00.525 E28 07.038
N46 00.523 E28 07.061
N46 00.524 E28 07.069
N46 00.621 E28 06.023
N46 01.463 E28 05.722
N46 03.991 E28 06.327
N46 04.760 E28 06.860
16-38
N46 06.021 E28 08.270
MWH Americas, Inc.
Water Table Depth

(m)measured from the
soil surface
Clogged with soil
1.87
Clogged with soil 1 m from top of
well casing pipe
2.44
2.90
1.52
2.29
1.68
2.13
2.39
2.29
2.49
1.68
0.61
3.53
Clogged with soil 1 m from top of
well casing pipe
Annex 1- 1

Annex 2:
Georeferenced sampling sites and field measured ECsw
CIS
C_2
Carpinenii_NSP-7 N46 41.323 E28 16.719
537
565
Wheat, initial growth stage
C_3
570
481
C_4
519
422
C_5
479
431
Uncultivated, plowed, corn last crop
C_6
466
425
C_7
450
463
C_8
463
480
C_9
326
457
C_10
408
452
C_11
486
499
C_12
313
739
C_13
999
806
C_14
545
497

Uncultivated, plowed, corn last crop,
hilly area
hilly area
C_15
591
494
C_16
500
516
Uncultivated, plowed
C_17
557
586
Grape
C_18
537
544
C_19
493
541
C_20
408
515
C_21
477
512

upper part of a hilly area
lower part of a hilly area
C_22
606
535
C_23
539
430
Grass, moderate slope
C_24
573
543
Uncultivated, plowed, near level slope
C_25
528
554
C_26
614
606
C_27
580
614

Uncultivated, unplowed, moderate
slope
Uncultivated, unplowed, weeds,
moderate slope
C_28
591
550
C_29
531
340
C_30
546
606
Unplowed, trees
C_31
524
486
C_32
528
528
Grass, near level slope
C_33
460
464
C_34
606
674
Unplowed, trees
C_35
550
471
C_36
456
516
C_37
576
696
C_38
603
561
Grass
MWH Americas, Inc.
GPS Coordinates
30-60
0-30 cm cm
ID
Observation
Annex 2- 1

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
C_39
546
629
Unplowed, trees
C_40
535
550
Unplowed, weeds
C_41
490
520
Unplowed, weeds
C_42
486
576
C_43
513
475
C_44
423
554
C_45
629
539
C_46
322
341
C_47
355
316
C_48
623
484
C_49
540
549
C_50
682
620
C_51
469
560
Uncultivated, plowed, sandy soil

Wheat, initial growth stage, sunflower
last crop
last crop
last crop
last crop
last crop
C_52
675
620
C_53
683
804
C_54
601
531
C_55
647
575
C_56
636
562
C_57
607
605
C_58
593
577
C_59
618
600
C_60
559
573
Lavender
C_61
417
504
Lavender
C_62
544
538
C_63
549
536
Lavender
C_64
541
500
Lavender
C_65
504
529
C_66
476
560
C_67
534
513
C_68
565
546
C_69
798
715
Uncultivated, plowed, hilly area
C_70
798
681
Unplowed, weeds
C_71
779
745
C_72
685
723
C_73
715
629
C_74
524
580
C_75
606
614
C_76
501
629
Wheat, initial growth stage, near level
slope
slope
slope
slope
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 2

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
C_77 Carpinenii_NSP-4 N46 44.553 E28 17.334 621
580 slope
659 slope
651 slope
659 slope
625 slope
621 slope
633 slope
663 slope
415 slope
498 slope
550 slope
509 slope
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 3

30-60
0-30 cm cm
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
Cl_1
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.680 E28 08.620
1352
Cl _2
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.515 E28 08.717
992
Cl _3
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.305 E28 08.691
810
Observation
1009 slope
755 slope, soil sampled
1320 slope, DW sampled
Cl _4
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.780 E28 08.455
1080
1049
Cl_5
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.468 E28 08.530
698
502
Cl_6
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.255 E28 08.577
1396
1304
Cl_7
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.426 E28 09.119
1124
1288

Wheat, initial growing stage. Shallow
water table (<1m), ECdw= 1451
Cl_8
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.112 E28 09.194
1097
1751
Cl_9
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.036 E28 09.084
1250
1063
Cl_10
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.797 E28 07.932
1049
1112
Cl_11
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.678 E28 07.948
1086
1007
Cl_12
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.491 E28 08.021
989
914
Cl_13
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.456 E28 08.342
1056
1090
Cl_14
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.588 E28 08.312
1022
1090
Cl_15
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.738 E28 08.273
1056
1094
Cl_16
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.312 E28 09.861
1022
805
Unplowed, weeds
Cl_17
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.075 E28 09.987
1049
1034
Unplowed, weeds
Cl_18
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 53.859 E28 09.930
974
977
Unplowed, weeds
Cl_19
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 53.607 E28 09.662
842
1142
Cl_20
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 53.849 E28 09.520
771
606
Cl_21
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 54.071 E28 09.363
989
1064
Cl_22
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.697 E28 07.357
1034
1086
Cl_23
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.699 E28 07.634
1052
1067
Cl_24
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.702 E28 07.887
1026
1056
Cl_25
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.163 E28 07.926
996
794
Cl_26
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.150 E28 07.670
1004
1041
Cl_27
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.130 E28 07.438
921
1049
Cl_29
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.119 E28 08.258
1022
1052
Cl_30
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.441 E28 08.190
1022
580
Cl_31
Cahul_SPP-3
N45 57.711 E28 08.179
1015
857
Cl_32
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.979 E28 08.712
682
866
Alfalfa, re-growth
Cl_33
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.856 E28 08.791
805
1205
Cl_34
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.852 E28 09.012
658
825
Cl_35
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.850 E28 09.195
951
1022
Cl_36
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.770 E28 09.282
1191
994
Cl_37
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.834 E28 09.478
1014
1213
Cl_38
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 58.017 E28 09.598
1480
1800
Cl_39
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.977 E28 10.282
1375
1250
Alfalfa, re-growth
Cl_40
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.830 E28 10.295
1424
1350
Unplowed, weeds
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 4

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
Cl_41
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.894 E28 11.054
1460
1395
Cl_42
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.585 E28 11.098
1091
1577
Unplowed, weeds
Wheat, initial growth stage, corn last
crop
Cl_43
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.336 E28 08.790
1034
1086
Cl_44
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.370 E28 09.170
1090
1086
Cl_45
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.385 E28 09.564
947
1124
Cl_47
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.523 E28 10.087
1052
929
Unplowed, weeds
Cl_48
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.591 E28 10.302
955
794
Cl_49
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.591 E28 10.500
1045
1094
Cl_50
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.597 E28 10.698
1026
1034
Cl_51
Cahul_SPP-1
N45 57.597 E28 10.932
1015
1064
Cl_52
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.128 E28 07.920
706
527
Cl_53
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.054 E28 08.781
1419
1274
Alfalfa, re-growth
Cl_54
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.150 E28 08.690
1284
1129
Cl_55
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.400 E28 08.761
1165
1361
Cl_56
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.444 E28 09.201
1595
1569
Wheat now, corn previous crop

Uncultivated, plowed soil. Reduced
iron at about 30 cm
Cl_57
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.147 E28 09.294
885
1314
Cl_58
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.417 E28 09.933
1368
1340
Wheat, reduced iron at 30 cm
Cl_59
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.401 E28 10.093
1361
1559
Cl_60
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.511 E28 08.093
1041
1052
Cl_61
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.555 E28 08.479
1180
962
Unplowed, weeds
Cl_62
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.645 E28 08.857
1112
925
Cl_63
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.607 E28 09.240
1082
1045
Cl_64
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.590 E28 09.645
344
1064
Cl_65
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.603 E28 10.056
1154
685
Cl_66
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.462 E28 10.477
1120
917
Cl_67
Cahul_SPP-2
N45 55.359 E28 10.844
1030
854

Uncultivated, plowed, potato previous
crop
ID
CIS
ChircaniZirnesti_S-5
GPS Coordinates
CZ_1
CZ_2
CZ_3
CZ_4
CZ_5
CZ_6
CZ_7
CZ_8
MWH Americas, Inc.
30-60
0-30 cm cm
N46 04.248 E28 06.303
3040
Observation
Salt surface accumulation,
3610 waterlogged
N46 04.277 E28 06.325
642
4100
Grass
N46 03.977 E28 06.707
1294
2670
Alfalfa, re-growth
N46 04.141 E28 07.076
1396
1086
N46 04.321 E28 07.019
1101
1569
N46 04.549 E28 07.352
559
606
Uncultivated, corn previous crop
N46 04.476 E28 07.400
901
1157
N46 04.703 E28 07.583
1317
1931

Annex 2- 5

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
ChircaniCZ_9
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 02.320 E28 08.030 1361
2540 Wheat, initial growth stage
ChircaniCZ_10
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 04.249 E28 07.930 1370
1205 Uncultivated, REEDS
ChircaniWheat, initial growth stage, corn last
CZ_11
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.942 E28 07.856 910
1859 crop
ChircaniCZ_12
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.994 E28 07.663 1738
ChircaniCZ_13
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.942 E28 07.459 1418
ChircaniCZ_14
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.704 E28 06.788 1309
2770 Alfalfa, re-growth
ChircaniCZ_15
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.434 E28 06.779 934
ChircaniCZ_16
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.257 E28 06.587 471
ChircaniCZ_17
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.114 E28 06.726 507
ChircaniCZ_18
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.253 E28 06.886 590
ChircaniCZ_19
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.684 E28 07.318 1570
ChircaniCZ_20
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.648 E28 07.072 1337
ChircaniCZ_21
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.373 E28 07.231 840
ChircaniCZ_22
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.480 E28 07.585 1087
ChircaniCZ_23
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.334 E28 07.702 1136
ChircaniCZ_24
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.089 E28 07.616 895
ChircaniCZ_25
Zirnesti_S-5
N46 03.100 E28 07.351 836
624 Uncultivated, plowed
ChircaniCZ_27
Zernesti_S-5
N46 05.022 E28 07.221 1022
790 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_28
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.877 E28 07.591 1086
1124 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_29
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.848 E28 07.964 1011
ChircaniCZ_30
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.786 E28 08.336 1052
ChircaniUncultivated, plowed, potato previous
CZ_31
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.761 E28 08.726 1007
929 crop
ChircaniCZ_32
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.734 E28 09.119 1011
ChircaniCZ_33
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.707 E28 09.508 1007
ChircaniCZ_34
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.434 E28 09.463 929
809 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_35
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.465 E28 09.064 1015
535 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_36
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.480 E28 08.675 902
ChircaniCZ_37
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.514 E28 08.287 1011
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 6

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
ChircaniCZ_38
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.350 E28 08.486 1052
981 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_39
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.323 E28 08.875 1082
ChircaniCZ_40
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.293 E28 09.255 1127
768 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_41
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.257 E28 09.601 1075
ChircaniCZ_42
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.993 E28 09.532 1026
ChircaniCZ_43
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.989 E28 09.138 899
157 Unplowed, weeds
CZ_44
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.009 E28 08.748 1079
992 crop
CZ_45
Zernesti_S-5
N46 04.032 E28 08.347 989
1022 crop
ChircaniCZ_46
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.796 E28 08.272 1064
ChircaniCZ_47
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.768 E28 08.661 1079
ChircaniCZ_48
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.736 E28 09.051 955
932 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_49
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.687 E28 09.336 899
ChircaniCZ_50
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.409 E28 09.309 940
ChircaniCZ_51
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.442 E28 08.923 992
ChircaniCZ_52
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.161 E28 08.893 977
ChircaniCZ_53
Zernesti_S-5
N46 03.130 E28 09.284 1060
880 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_54
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.872 E28 09.226 1056
805 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_55
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.659 E28 08.966 408
ChircaniCZ_56
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.458 E28 08.705 974
ChircaniCZ_57
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.267 E28 08.421 1056
ChircaniCZ_58
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.320 E28 08.030 1064
ChircaniCZ_59
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.587 E28 08.084 1034
ChircaniCZ_60
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.725 E28 07.817 835
696 Unplowed, weeds
ChircaniCZ_61
Zernesti_S-5
N46 02.527 E28 07.710 1037
ChircaniCZ_62
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 01.437 E28 06.892 1301
ChircaniUncultivated, plowed, sunflower last
CZ_63
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 01.146 E28 06.788 1525
1500 crop
ChircaniCZ_64
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.937 E28 06.824 1436
ChircaniCZ_65
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.916 E28 06.416 1245
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 7

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
ChircaniCZ_66
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 01.079 E28 06.433 1183
ChircaniUncultivated, plowed, sunflower last
CZ_67
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 01.229 E28 05.992 822
1263 crop
ChircaniCZ_68
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 01.522 E28 05.766 1410
2310 Alfalfa, re-growth, REEDS
ChircaniCZ_69
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 01.494 E28 06.136 1405
ChircaniCZ_70
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 01.617 E28 06.725 1407
ChircaniCZ_71
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.490 E28 06.825 1584
ChircaniWheat, initial growth stage, sunflower
CZ_72
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.523 E28 06.487 1460
1786 last crop
ChircaniCZ_73
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.466 E28 06.128 1003
1004 Unplowed, uncultivated
ChircaniCZ_74
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.690 E28 06.031 651
ChircaniCZ_75
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.515 E28 05.880 338
ChircaniCZ_76
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.188 E28 06.052 1006
ChircaniCZ_77
Zirnesti_S-1
N45 59.873 E28 06.181 1276
ChircaniCZ_78
Zirnesti_S-1
N45 59.562 E28 06.679 1488
ChircaniCZ_79
Zirnesti_S-1
N45 59.469 E28 06.876 1028
ChircaniCZ_80
Zirnesti_S-1
N45 59.763 E28 06.675 1430
ChircaniWheat, initial growth stage, sunflower
CZ_81
Zirnesti_S-1
N45 59.744 E28 06.440 1214
1436 last crop
ChircaniCZ_82
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.028 E28 06.525 1041
ChircaniCZ_83
Zirnesti_S-1
N46 00.283 E28 06.428 1116
CZ_84
Chircani-Zirnesti N46 01.726 E28 07.124
1079
1011
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_85
741
1094
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_86
1127
1004
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_87
1082
1127
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_88
1150
1075
CZ_89
970
1139
CZ_90
816
1139
CZ_91
1131
831
CZ_92
1154
1124
CZ_93
1041
970
CZ_94
1131
1112
CZ_95
1090
1131
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_96
404
636
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_97
1000
966
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_98
1052
985
Alfalfa, re-growth
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 8

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
CZ_99
1041
1101
Alfalfa, re-growth
CZ_100
1034
1026
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_101
1097
1097
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_102
1071
1097
CZ_103
1041
1067
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_104
1022
1082
CZ_105
921
738
CZ_106
1045
1116
CZ_107
857
891
CZ_108
1067
550
CZ_109
981
1086
CZ_110
974
1082
CZ_111
1041
899
CZ_112
1030
809
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_113
1007
1030
CZ_114
902
1101
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_115
902
1004
CZ_116
981
1067
CZ_117
1056
1056
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_118
947
1082
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_119
850
1094
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_120
1019
1064
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_121
1015
1037
Alfalfa, re-growth
CZ_122
906
1004
CZ_123
842
1079
Wheat, development growth stage
CZ_124
805
1007
CZ_125
977
1041
CZ_126
891
1026
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_127
977
1071
Unplowed, weeds
CZ_128
1082
1026
CZ_129
1034
1060
CZ_130
1000
989
CZ_131
Chircani-Zirnesti
N46 00.194 E28 09.293
1011
1090
Unplowed, weeds
N46 01.826 E28 06.764
1335
1393
N46 01.821 E28 06.411
1325
1570
N46 01.872 E28 05.862
824
1661
Unplowed, weeds
N46 02.150 E28 06.087
748
2720
N46 02.188 E28 06.500
1251
1415
Alfalfa, re-growth
N46 02.279 E28 07.020
1286
1615
Alfalfa, re-growth
CZ_132
CZ_133
CZ_134
CZ_135
CZ_136
CZ_137
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 9

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
ChircaniCZ_138 Zirnesti_S-6
N46 02.124 E28 07.252 1239
N46 02.367 E28 07.385 990
N46 02.743 E28 07.308 484
N46 02.697 E28 06.778 1191
N46 02.859 E28 06.900 598
N46 02.894 E28 07.254 349
N46 02.807 E28 07.789 816
ChircaniUncultivated, plowed, soil sampled,
CZ_145 Zirnesti_S-6
N46 02.654 E28 08.042 1350
1513 reduced iron
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 10

30-60
0-30 cm cm
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
T_1
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.942 E29 38.254
944
1045
T_2
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.973 E29 38.872
1060
1178
T_3
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.990 E29 39.090
826
681
T_4
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.129 E29 39.401
993
1057
T_5
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.902 E29 39.806
903
1075
T_6
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.262 E29 39.846
1022
1359
T_7
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.314 E29 40.254
426
993
T_8
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.288 E29 40.461
596
667
T_9
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.456 E29 39.418
746
915
Wheat, initial growth stage,
sunflower last crop
T_10
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.453 E29 39.111
958
1231
T_11
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.385 E29 38.682
1149
1360
T_12
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.223 E29 39.096
1146
1113
T_13
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.150 E29 38.667
1280
1188
T_14
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.199 E29 38.265
1348
1316
T_15
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.376 E29 38.447
1212
1159
T_16
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.361 E29 39.412
667
884
Potato
T_17
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.627 E29 38.128
1362
1229
T_18
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.561 E29 38.516
1506
1699
Unplowed, weeds
T_19
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.405 E29 38.496
1711
1965
T_20
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.463 E29 38.113
1675
2061
T_21
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.532 E29 37.727
1892
1904
T_22
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.535 E29 37.335
1555
1880
T_23
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.518 E29 36.944
1760
1904
T_24
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.790 E29 36.823
1687
1941
T_25
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.810 E29 37.214
1326
1627
T_26
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 39.826 E29 37.559
1543
1121
T_27
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.102 E29 37.640
1748
1904
T_28
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.102 E29 37.264
952
2025
T_29
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.379 E29 37.270
1736
1880
T_30
Talmaza_NS-2
N46 40.399 E29 37.683
1675
1844
T_31
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.500 E29 42.528
600
511
T_32
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.322 E29 42.955
566
918
Unplowed, grass
Uncultivated, sunflower previous
crop
T_33
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.770 E29 42.628
1001
1236
T_34
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.666 E29 42.681
1029
1364
T_35
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.811 E29 43.046
394
342
T_36
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.670 E29 43.448
1259
1137
T_37
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.451 E29 43.841
1287
1011
T_38
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.307 E29 43.497
1308
1461
MWH Americas, Inc.
Observation

crop, shallow water table
Annex 2- 11

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
T_39
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.891 E29 42.214
1276
1281
T_40
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.693 E29 42.036
912
1136
T_41
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.336 E29 42.132
1213
1239
T_42
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.281 E29 42.507
1169
1018
T_43
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.022 E29 42.932
1235
955
T_44
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.898 E29 43.514
1502
1434
T_47
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.358 E29 42.686
1540
1558
T_48
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.521 E29 42.494
1421
1688

T_49
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.415 E29 42.183
1420
1465
T_50
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.208 E29 42.204
1466
1683
T_51
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.274 E29 41.933
1490
1368
T_52
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.435 E29 41.773
1616
1939
T_53
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.622 E29 41.965
1480
1515
T_54
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.629 E29 41.624
1506
1760
T_55
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.402 E29 41.504
1285
1306
T_56
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.836 E29 41.685
1348
1320
T_57
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.099 E29 41.923
801
706
T_58
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.055 E29 42.257
1022
916
T_59
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.871 E29 42.100
1349
1513
T_60
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.668 E29 42.161
1596
1476
T_61
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.948 E29 42.481
1491
1292
T_62
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.678 E29 42.366
1420
1540
T_63
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.767 E29 42.640
1485
1402
T_64
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.633 E29 42.752
1495
1525
T_65
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.811 E29 42.869
1411
1425
T_66
Talmaza_T-2
N46 36.582 E29 41.790
760
1113
T_67
Talmaza_T-2
N46 36.580 E29 43.671
1345
1460
T_68
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.188 E29 43.051
1024
1350
T_69
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.440 E29 43.178
1362
1470
T_70
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.608 E29 43.205
1603
1760
T_71
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.836 E29 43.309
1446
1494
T_72
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.870 E29 43.649
1458
1531
T_73
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.724 E29 43.797
1181
1591
T_74
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.571 E29 44.254
1482
1832
T_75
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.466 E29 43.920
1603
1808

MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 12

30-60
ID
CIS
GPS Coordinates
0-30 cm cm
Observation
T_76
Talmaza_T-2
N46 37.198 E29 43.738 1531
1748
T_78
Talmaza_T-2
N46 36.860 E29 43.832 1024
1832
T_79
Talmaza_T-2
N46 36.552 E29 43.955
1603
1760
Beans, potato last crop
T_80
Talmaza_T-2
N46 40.199 E29 41.175
613
626
Unplowed, weeds
T_81
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.908 E29 41.094
1289
1748
Unplowed, weeds
T_82
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.656 E29 41.105
1675
1651
Unplowed, weeds, high water table
T_83
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.396 E29 41.012
1760
1989
T_84
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.144 E29 40.853
988
759
Trees
T_85
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.885 E29 40.736
1627
1772
T_86
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.619 E29 40.637
1953
1362
Unplowed, weeds
T_87
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.417 E29 40.562
1699
1977
Unplowed, weeds
T_88
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.344 E29 40.942
1470
1844
Unplowed, weeds
T_89
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.617 E29 41.049
1784
1989
Unplowed, weeds
T_90
Talmaza_T-2
N46 38.889 E29 41.074
1253
1302
T_91
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.212 E29 41.191
1808
1929
T_92
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.483 E29 41.306
1736
1868
crop
T_93
Talmaza_T-2
N46 39.765 E29 41.503
916
952
Unplowed, weeds
T_94
Talmaza_T-2
N46 40.016 E29 41.465
711
674
Unplowed, weeds
T_95
Talmaza_T-2
N46 40.180 E29 41.446
700
1338
S_1
Zuvorov
N46 29.382 E29 52.884
787
743
S_2
Zuvorov
N46 29.368 E29 52.909
808
690
Unplowed, weeds
crop
crop
MWH Americas, Inc.
Annex 2- 13
Appendices
Appendix I
Drainage Systems Evaluation Report
Main Report -Final
December 2009
DRAINAGE EVALUATION:
CAHUL, CHIRCANI-ZRNETI,
SUVOROV, and TALMAZA
MWH Americas, Inc.

Social Assessment
funded by the
Millennium Challenge Corporation, USA
APPENDIX I
Introduction
Majority of the CISs under the MCC consideration are relatively well drained and
do not require or include engineered drainage systems. There are four CIS,
however, that do include engineered drainage systems. These CIS include:
Cahul,
Chircani-Zrneti,
Suvorov,
Talmaza
Periodic assessments of salinity (and by inference the drainage status) are
required by law in Moldova. The maintenance of these drainage systems have
been neglected over the last 10 to 15 years due to lack of maintenance funds for
cleaning and maintaining these systems. Due to inadequate drainage, there were
reports of salinity concerns in the soil. During MWH team field visits, anecdotal
observations were made of ponded water, water logged soils and other
indications of poor drainage. Adequate drainage (whether natural or engineered)
is essential for long-term sustainability of robust crop production to control
salinity, water logging of soils and standing water.
To determine the current status of the salinity and drainage to sustain irrigated
agriculture on the potential rehabilitated CIS, MWH and MCC determined it
necessary to conduct a rapid assessment of the soil salinity and drainage
systems in the following four CIS: Chircani-Zrneti, Cahul, Talmaza, and
Suvorov.
The cost of rehabilitating to correct salinity and drainage deficiencies can be
substantial. It was therefore important to obtain a gauge of the magnitude of the
cost involved in correcting salinity problems (if found) and drainage deficiencies
(if found) in these four CIS.
Relationship with Salinity Assessment Report
This report is a companion piece to the Soil Salinity Assessment Report
(presented as Appendix H). The activities summarized in the soil salinity report
involved an extensive sampling of soils and water to gather current data on
electro-conductivity (an indicator of salinity). Note that the major conclusion of
that activity are as follows:
1. No Current Salinity Problems. Current soil-water salinity as measured
indicates that the salinity risk is quite low.
2. Poor Drainage Could Cause Salinity Problems in Future. However,
drainage water canals were observed with elevated levels of electroconductivity. While there is not a need to remediate for current salinity
2|P age
APPENDIX I
problems, poor drainage, over time, could result in salinity problems as
well as potentially sodicity problems. Such problems could jeopardize the
investments in the CIS rehabilitation over the long run.
In short, the engineered drainage systems must be rehabilitated to good working
condition and maintained in good condition over time in order to ensure the
viability of the investment in the CIS rehabilitation.
Assessment of Drainage Systems - Methodology
The following section presents the results of the rapid assessment of the four
systems that contain engineered drainage systems. The time and budget
considerations limited the physical inspection of the entire drainage system within
each CIS. Instead, the MWH team visited and carefully evaluated typical sections
of the drainage system at each CIS. The selection of the typical sections was
developed in conjunction with AcvaProjects (MWH team member) experience,
discussions with Apele Moldovei staff on site, and examination of network maps.
Based on these inputs, typical sampling was extrapolated for system wide
estimates for remediation measures and costs. In addition to the one time capital
costs needed for rehabilitation, it is recommended that an allocation of
maintenance funding be made to perform proper on-going maintenance of these
systems. An estimate has been made of this on-going maintenance costs on a
system by system basis.
This report attempts to make an assessment on a system by system basis to
allow decision makers to pick-and choose individual CIS systems that may be
selected for further development.
It should be noted that the field observation part of this work was conducted in
early April in order to meet the MCC deadline for end of May decision making. As
such, irrigation was not yet in full operation during field visits. For this reason,
additional information should be gathered including (1) checking whether the
open drains have free outflow (brief submergence of the outlets is normally
acceptable), (2) checking if drains are discharging during and shortly after rain or
irrigation, (3) monitoring water levels in the collector and secondary canals, (4)
inspecting the field surfaces for wet spots, which would be signs of potential
water-logging, a few days after rain or irrigation, (5) checking the depth of the
water table in the monitoring wells.
Components of Drainage Rehabilitation General Terms
The rehabilitation of drainage systems can be an extensive process depending
on how far one wants to proceed with the rehabilitation. The components for
possible rehabilitation in the CIS systems examined were as follows:
Earthen Surface Canals. The surface canals are the backbone of the drainage
3|P age
APPENDIX I
system in the CIS observed. These canals were designed to convey away
excess drainage water and run-off to keep relatively poorly drained soils from
becoming water logged and susceptible to salinity. The problems typically
encountered without proper routine maintenance is the accumulation of sediment
in the canals as well as the deterioration of the side slopes of the canals. Both of
these developments significantly impact the hydraulic capacity of the systems.
When the capacity is diminished, the system ceases to function properly.
Sub-Surface Drainage Pipes. In some irrigation systems, sub-surface piping is
designed in the presence of heavy soils to convey drainage water to the canals.
Despite an extensive search for records at various locations, no records or maps
could be found of sub-surface pipes in the selected CIS. During the field visits, no
evidence of subsurface pipes was observed. Also, no evidence of clean out
manholes was observed.
Monitoring Wells. There exist some monitoring wells in the CIS. These are
useful for routine monitoring of the groundwater levels in the fields needed to
track the potential for water logging and adequacy of the drainage system. Based
on field observations, some of these wells are not non-functional and need to be
restored.
Bridges. There are many bridges in the area that provide access across the
canals. Field observation indicate that pre-cast concrete decks, beams and
columns are all in various states of deterioration with spauling edges observed at
many locations. Reinforcement steel is exposed on many structural members.
The supporting columns are plumb and appear to be well founded. No differential
settlement was noted. The bridge decks are generally level side to side and end
to end. Sink holes have developed at the majority of the bridges at points where
the adjacent land meets the bridge deck. Since more frequent and heavy
equipment travel is envisioned in the future, associated with high value
agriculture (HVA), structural analysis is required to assure integrity of every
bridge structure. Cleaning of exposed reinforcing steel and patching could add
years of service to these members, but assuring structural integrity must be the
first priority. Repairs of bridges were identified and a rough estimate of a unit
cost for minor rehabilitation of the bridges was established and extrapolated over
the number of bridges.
Dikes. In selected areas adjacent to rivers, dikes have been constructed to
protect from river flooding. The dikes in question were built after the Costesti
Stanca dam was built on the Prut River and the Dubasari Dam along the Nistru
Dam. The failure of the dam might cause overtopping of downstream dikes. The
need to examine the adequacy of the dikes was discussed with Apele Moldovei.
Since the area at risk in case of dam failure is much larger than the area of the
present project, the proposed study should be a separate project on dikes and
dams safety in Moldova.
4|P age
APPENDIX I
Pumping Stations. Drainage water is evacuated via pumping stations.
Rehabilitating the pump stations and operating the drainage pump stations is
likely a major cost of the rehabilitation of the drainage systems.
Drainage Assessment in the Chircani-Zrneti CIS
Earthen Surface Canals. The earthen drainage canals total 69.24 km in this
CIS. There are 13.84 km of collector canals and 55.42 km of secondary canals.
The drainage system covers about 100 % of the irrigated area. The canals have
an average sediment accumulation of approximately 0.5m to 0.8m in the
collectors canals (b=3,h=4) and a lesser amount, up to 0.5m, in the secondary
canals (b=2,h=3) for those measured. Tall reed growth is pervasive in all canals
and is also growing on the banks of the canals in some areas. Water was
standing about two meters down from the top of the canal banks when inspected
on April 6, 2009. The original cross-section (side slopes and embankment) of the
canals, that is visible, is uniform although some minor sloughing is seen rarely.
Recommended Action
immediately. The estimate of the current volume of sediment in the
canals is approximately 1.9 cubic meters/meter for the collectors and
about 1.4 cubic meters/meter for the secondary canals. Minimal
reshaping of the canal embankments needs to be done at this time.
Annual Inspection / Periodic Cleaning. The drainage system should be
inspected once a year and provisions for sediment cleaning and bank
maintenance should be made on an approximate five year cycle. Weed
control should be done on a more frequent basis. A budget should be
established for this purpose.
Sub-Surface Drainage Pipes. There are no maps or records of sub-surface
drainage piping. During field inspection, there was no visual evidence of such
piping. Interviews with knowledgeable people also provided no indication of the
existence of such a system.
Recommended Action
Monitoring the Need. It is presumed that there is no existence of a sub-surface
piping system. Monitoring wells should be observed on an annual basis to
determine whether the surface canal drainage system is sufficient to serve the
area without the necessity for subsurface pipe system.
Monitoring Wells. There were 12 monitoring wells that were observed in this
CIS. The majority are operable. The problem is that the number of wells and
spacing are not sufficient. If true observations are to be made in a systematic
fashion, then additional monitoring wells need to be installed.
5|P age
APPENDIX I
Recommended Action
Restore Monitoring Wells. Construct approximately 55 new wells. These should
be read on a routine basis to monitor the effectiveness of the drainage system in
the CIS.
Bridges. There are 18 bridges in this CIS that provide access across the canals.
The bridge decks are approximately 0.2m thick and 7.3m wide. These bridges
are all in various states of deterioration with spaulling edges present at many
locations. Reinforcement steel is exposed on many structural members.
However, the bridges seem to be in reliable structural condition. There is a
problem with the erosion of the approaches up to the bridges from the farm
roads. There exist so-called sink holes at the entrances creating difficulty in
mounting the bridge. These need correcting and will only get worse with time.
Recommended Action
service to these members. For purposes of the budget estimate, MWH has
established a unit cost for rehabilitation action on a typical bridge and multiplied it
by the number of bridges. During final design it is recommended that each bridge
be looked at on a unit by unit basis.
bridges and less wear and tear to the both the bridge and the vehicles. This is a
minor cost that will afford significant benefits
Dikes. There are some dikes along the Prut River associated with this CIS.
However, there is no recent flooding reported in the area. The dikes in question
were built after the CostestiStanca dam was built on the Prut River. The failure
of the dam might cause overtopping of downstream dikes. Therefore, a study of
dikes adequacy is required in case of dam failure.
Recommended Action
The need to examine the adequacy of the dikes was discussed with Apele
Moldovei. Since the area at risk in case of dam failure is much larger than the
area of the present project, the proposed study should be a separate project on
dikes and dams safety in Moldova.
Drainage Assessment in the Masivul Cahul
Earthen Surface Canals. The earthen drainage canals total 96.8 km in this CIS.
There are 38.5 km of collector canals and 58.2 km of secondary canals. The
drainage system covers about 35 % of the irrigated area, primarily in the lower
level area in the area adjacent to the river. The canals have an average sediment
accumulation of approximately 0.5m to 0.8m in the collectors canals (b=3,h=4)
6|P age
APPENDIX I
and a lesser amount, up to 0.5m, in the secondary canals (b=2,h=3) for those
measured. Tall reed growth is pervasive in all canals and are also growing on
the banks of the canals in some areas. Water was standing about two meters
down from the top of the canal banks when inspected on April 7, 2009. The
original cross-section (side slopes and embankment) of the canals, that is visible,
is uniform although some minor sloughing is seen rarely.
Recommended Action
once a year and provisions for sediment cleaning and bank maintenance should
be made on an approximate five year cycle. Weed control should be done on a
more frequent basis. A budget should be established for this purpose.
Sub-Surface Drainage Pipes. There are no maps or records of sub-surface
drainage piping. During field inspection, there was no visual evidence of such
piping. Interviews with knowledgeable people also provided no indication of the
existence of such a system.
Recommended Action
Monitoring the Need. It is presumed that there is no existence of a sub-surface
piping system. Monitoring wells should be observed on an annual basis to
area without the necessity for subsurface pipe system.
Monitoring Wells. There were 12 monitoring wells that were observed in this
CIS. The majority are operable. The problem is that the number of wells and
spacing are not sufficient. If true observations are to be made in a systematic
fashion, then additional monitoring wells need to be installed. .
Recommended Action
the CIS.
Bridges. There are 28 bridges in this CIS that provide access across the canals.
The bridge decks are approximately 0.2m thick and 7.3m wide. These bridges
are all in various states of deterioration with spaulling edges present at many
locations. Reinforcement steel is exposed on many structural members.
However, the bridges seem to be in reliable structural condition. There is a
problem with the erosion of the approaches up to the bridges from the farm
7|P age
APPENDIX I
roads. There exist so-called sink holes at the entrances creating difficulty in
mounting the bridge. These need to be corrected or will only get worse with time.
Recommended Action
service to these members. During final design it is recommended that each
bridge be looked at on a unit by unit basis.
bridges and less wear and tear to both the bridge and the vehicles. This is a
minor cost that will afford significant benefits
Dikes. There are some dikes along the Prut River associated with this CIS.
However, there is no recent flooding reported in the area.
Recommended Action
Examination of Adequacy of Dike. For reasons discussed in the case of ChircaniZrneti, the associated costs for the proposed study for dikes adequacy or for
dikes rehabilitation are not included in the cost estimates for this CIS
rehabilitation.
Drainage Assessment in the Talmaza
Earthen Surface Canals. The earthen drainage canals total 48.0 km in this CIS.
The drainage system covers about 100 % of the irrigated area. The canals have
an average sediment accumulation of approximately 0.2m to 0.5m in the canals
(b=2,h=2 and b=3, h=3). Reed growth in the canals is not as pervasive as at the
other systems, but there are many trees growing on the side slopes and in the
canals, as well as on the embankments. It is estimated that there are
approximately 15 trees per kilometer of canal length. The trees are estimated to
be from 15 cm to 50 cm in diameter. Water is at the top of and in some sections
overflowing the canal banks when inspected on April 8, 2009. The canal side
slopes are not clearly visible, but the cross-section appears to be round.
Slouching of the embankment towards the center of the canals has diminished
capacity.
Recommended Action
approximately 1.9 cubic meters/meter for the canals. Trees need to be cut and
significant reshaping of the canal embankments needs to be done at this time.
once a year and provisions for sediment cleaning and bank maintenance should
8|P age
APPENDIX I
be made on an approximate five year cycle. Weed control should be done on a
more frequent basis. A budget should be established for this purpose.
Sub-Surface Drainage Pipes. There is 6 km of corrugated, slotted, plastic

drainage pipe throughout this area. It was installed between 1985 and 1992.
The pipe is 63mm in diameter and is reported to be bedded in 300 to 500cm of
stone at a depth of approximately 1.2 to 1.5m (not exceeding 2m). There is filter
fabric installed around the pipe. The pipe runs are spaced 20m to 30m apart.
No pipe inlet/outlets to the drainage canals can be seen, so that the pipe could
not be inspected. However, the AM District Supervisor for this system indicated
that the drainage piping is plugged (i.e. silted). No as-built drawings exist for this
piping.
Recommended Action
Monitoring the Need. It is presumed that there is a failed sub-surface piping
system in this CIS. Monitoring wells should be observed on an annual basis to
area without the subsurface pipe system. If such a system is required, a new
system should be installed instead of attempting to rehabilitate the existing
system.
Monitoring Wells. There were no monitoring wells in this CIS.
Recommended Action
the CIS.
Bridges/ Culverts. There were no observed bridges in this CIS. However, there
are 36 culverts that are in need of attention (cleaning and or repair)
Recommended Action
Clean and/or repair 36 culverts in the system.
Dikes. There are dikes in place adjacent to the Nistru River. The top of the dikes
are deeply rutted. This area has reportedly flooded in 1970, 1980 and recently in
July, 2008. A dike, which generally runs North/South through this site, divides
approximately 75% of the hectares to the west (closest to the Nistru River) and
the remaining 25% to the east (this section contains the old river bed). The
easternmost part only flooded in 2008.
Recommended Action
Examination of Adequacy of Dike. The need to examine the adequacy of the
dikes was discussed with Apele Moldovei. For reasons discussed for ChircaniZrneti and Cahul, the associated costs for the proposed study for dikes
9|P age
APPENDIX I
adequacy or for dikes rehabilitation are not included in the cost estimates for this
CIS rehabilitation.
Drainage Assessment in the Suvorov
Upon inspection of the Suvorov CIS, it was discovered that the drainage system
comprised only 12 hectares of the massive Suvorov system (less than 1%).
Although there is no as-built information regarding the drainage piping, the local
operator states that there is 63mm diameter drainage piping spaced 14m to 17m
apart, but does not know the length. He also indicated that the piping never
worked. Any pipe that had an outlet into the drainage canals has been removed
during sediment cleaning through the years.
In conclusion, the drainage system in Suvorov, upon field investigation, became
a non issue because of its insignificant size. It was dropped from further
consideration.
10 | P a g e
Appendices
Appendix J
Historic Electricity Tariffs in Moldova
Main Report -Final
December 2009
Tarifele de livrare a energiei electrice consumatorilor n 1997-2008 (bani/kWh) Electric Energy tariffs for 1997 - 2008 (bani/KWh)
Jun97
Sep98
Dec98
Jun99
Mar00
Sep01
Aug02
Jul03
REDNordiNordVes
24.00
25.50
42.00
50.00
57.00
65.00
63.00
70.00
REDUnionFenosa
24.00
25.50
42.00
50.00
65.00
68.00
72.00
80.00
Source:REPORTofANRE:ActivitateaANREinanul2008publishedonwebsitehttp://www.anre.md/press/index.php?vers=1
16%
Dec04
70.00
78.00
Dec05
70.00
78.00
Dec06
70.00
78.00
REDNordiNord
Vest
REDUnionFenosa
120.00
80.00
60.00
40.00
20.00
01/06/2008
01/02/2008
01/10/2007
01/06/2007
01/02/2007
01/10/2006
01/06/2006
01/02/2006
01/10/2005
01/06/2005
01/02/2005
01/10/2004
01/06/2004
01/02/2004
01/10/2003
01/06/2003
01/02/2003
01/10/2002
01/06/2002
01/02/2002
01/10/2001
01/06/2001
01/02/2001
01/10/2000
01/06/2000
01/02/2000
01/10/1999
01/06/1999
01/02/1999
01/10/1998
01/06/1998
01/02/1998
01/10/1997
0.00
01/06/1997
8%
MDbani
7%
Aug08
120.00
110.00
100.00
19%
Jan08
108.00
98.00
140.00
15%
31%
Aug07
101.00
96.00
ElectricEnergyTariffs19972008
REDNordi REDUnion
NordVest Fenosa
Averageannualrate
increasebetween
1997and2008
Averageannual
Increasebetween
2006&2008
Averageannual
increasebetween
1998&2006
Jul03
70.00
78.00
Appendices
Appendix K
Inventory of Missing/Vandalized Electrical Components
at Each CIS
Main Report -Final
December 2009
APPENDIXK
InventoryofMissing/VandalizedElectricalComponentsatEachCIS
ITEM
ACTION
SUB-COMPONENT
QTY.
UNITS
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN CARPINENI CIS
NSG-1
Power
Supply
Add new
6 kV Overhead Line, 95 mm2, concrete poles

6 kV Disconnect Switch, 400 A
6 kV Circuit Breaker
6 kV Power Fuses
Main Power Transformer, 630 kVA, 6 kV/0.4 kV
Auxiliary Power Transformer, 25 kVA, 6 kV/0.4 kV
Connection to Switchgear (0.4 kV Bus)
Add new
10 kV Overhead Line, 70 mm2

10 kV Disconnect Switch
10 kV Power Fuses
Main Power Transformer 10 kV/0.4 kV, 1000 kVA
Auxiliary Power Transformer 10 kV/0.4 kV, 25 kVA
Connection to 0.4 kV Switchgear (Bus)
Add new

10 kV Power Fuses
Main Power Transformer, 10 kV/6 kV, 1600 KVA
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
Main Power Transformer 10 kV/4 kV, 1600 kVA
Connection to 4 kV Switchgear (Bus)
0.2
3
1
6
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
2
3
2
3
2
1
2
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
3
2
1
3
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
3
3
1
6
1
1
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
Lot
NSP-1
Power
Supply
NSP-2
Power
Supply
NSP-4
Power
Supply
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN CHIRCANI - ZIRNESTI CIS
S-1
Power
Supply

Replace, and Add 10 kV Power Fuses
new 6 kV xfmr Main Power Transformer 10 kV/6 kV, 2500 kVA
Page1of5
5
3
2
3
1
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
APPENDIXK
ITEM
ACTION
SUB-COMPONENT
QTY.
UNITS
0.1
2
6
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
0.1
2
6
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
0.8
2
1
3
1
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
S-6
Power
Supply
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
SPD-5A
Power
Supply
S-5
Power
Supply

Replace, and Add 10 kV Power Fuses
new 6 kV xfmr Main Power Transformer 10 kV/6 kV, 1000 kVA
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN COSNITA CIS

Power
Supply
Upgrade Main
Power
Transformer
from 400 kVA to
1,000 kVA
Ea
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN TETCANI CIS
SP-2
Power
Supply
Upgrade Main
Power
Transformer
Ea
Main Power Transformers TM 1000/10
Ea
AuxiliaryPowerTransformer6310/0,4V
Ea
Ea
Ea
1
1
1
Main Power Transformers TM 1000/10
Ea
AuxiliaryPowerTransformer6310/0,4V
Ea
Ea
Ea
1
1
1
NSP
Power
Supply
Replace

Circuit Breaker 10 kV la ST 110/10 kV Tecani
NSG
Power
Supply
Replace

Circuit Breaker 10 kV la ST 110/10 kV Tecani
Page2of5
APPENDIXK
ITEM
ACTION
SUB-COMPONENT
QTY.
UNITS
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN TALMAZA CIS
NS-2
Power
Supply
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
0.15
2
1
3
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
1.5
2
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
D-1
Power
Supply
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
6
1
1
1
D-2
Power
Supply
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
2
2
6
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN SUVOROV CIS
GNS-1
Power
Supply
Add new

10 kV Power Fuses
0.2
1
1
0.5
2
6
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
0.05
1
1
0.2
2
6
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
NSP-1
Power
Supply
Add new

10 kV Power Fuses
Page3of5
APPENDIXK
ITEM
ACTION
SUB-COMPONENT
QTY.
UNITS
PNS-2
Power
Supply

Add second Main 10 kV Disconnect Switch
Power
Transformer 10 10 kV Power Fuses
kV/6 kV, 2,500 Main Power Transformer 10 kV/6 kV, 2500 kVA
kVA, DS, and Auxiliary Power Transformer
CB
0.4 kV Circuit Breaker
Connection to Switchgear (Bus)
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
PNS-3
km
Power
Supply
Upgrade Main
Power
Transformer
from 1000 kVA
to 2,500 kVA
10 kV Power Fuses
Auxiliary Power Transformer
Connection to Switchgear (Bus or Cable)
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot or m
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN SERPENI CIS
S-10
km
Power
Supply
Upgrade Main 10 kV Circuit Breaker
Power Xfmr 10 kV Power Fuses
from 1000 kVA Main Power Transformer, 10 kV/6 kV, 1600 KVA
to 1600 KVA Auxiliary Power Transformer
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot or m
S-12
Power
Supply

Add 6 kV Xfmr, 10 kV Power Fuses
DS, CB
Main Power Transformer, 10 kV/6 kV, 1000 KVA
Connection to Switchgear (Bus)
Page4of5
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
APPENDIXK
ITEM
ACTION
SUB-COMPONENT
QTY.
UNITS
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW INPUHACENI CIS
SP-18
Power
Supply
Replace
km
10 kV Power Fuses
Main Power Transformer, 630 kVA
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
3
1
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN LOPATNA CIS
SP
Power
Supply
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
Auxiliary Power Transformer, 25 kVA
0.1
1
3
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN LEOVA CIS
S-2
Power
Supply
Replace

10 kV Power Fuses
Auxiliary Power Transformer, 25 kVA
3
2
2
1
1
1
1
km
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot
POWER SUPPLY MISSING OR REQUIRED NEW IN GROZESTI CIS
SP-11
km
Power
Supply
Upgrade Main
Power
Transformer
from 2500 kVA
to 5,000 kVA
35 kV Power Fuses
Page5of5
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Ea
Lot or m

MWH Feasability Study Main Report - Eng

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

MWH Feasability Study Main Report - Eng

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

FEASIBILITY STUDIES FOR THE 16 CENTRAL

IRRIGATION SYSTEMS IN MOLDOVA

MWH AMERICAS, Inc

MILLENNIUM CHALLENGE CORPORATION

Systems under Consideration .............................................................................................. 2-1

Assessment of Existing CIS Infrastructure ......................................................................... 3-1

Field Investigation ................................................................................... 3-1

Overview of Existing Conditions............................................................................ 3-8

Assessment of Site Conditions............................................................................................ 4-1

Talmaza .................................................................................................. 4-14

Assessment of Water Resources & Water Quality ............................................................. 5-1

Proposed Rehabilitation Plans ............................................................................................ 6-1

Overview of Proposed Rehabilitation ..................................................................... 6-2

Leova Sud ................................................................................................ 6-5

Preliminary & General Cost.................................................................................... 7-3

7.7 Escalation of Base Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 7-6

Assessment of Institutional Capacities ............................................................................... 8-1

Assessment of Responsible Entities........................................................................ 8-4

Assessment of Operations & Maintenance Plans ............................................................... 9-1

10.0 Implementation Management Plan ................................................................................... 10-1

11.0 Assessment of Financial Sustainability ............................................................................ 11-1

List of 16 CIS Proposed for Rehabilitation....................................................................ES-1

Irrigation area within each CIS ......................................................................................ES-3

Pump Station Serving 16 CIS ........................................................................................ES-5

Areas irrigated in 2008 within the CIS under Consideration .........................................ES-9

Summary of Estimated Implementation Cost for the Proposed CIS Rehabilitation

Preliminary Budget for Technical Assistance to AM ..................................................ES-13

ES-7 Basis of Annual Water Requirement Assumptions .....................................................ES-16

List of 16 CIS Proposed for Rehabilitation...................................................................... 1-1

Area under Varying Pumping Heads ............................................................................... 2-2

Irrigation area within each CIS ........................................................................................ 2-4

Pump Stations Serving Tetcani CIS ................................................................................. 2-9

Pump Stations Serving Blindeti ................................................................................... 2-10

Pump Stations Serving Grozeti .................................................................................... 2-11

Pump Stations Serving Crpinenii de Sus ..................................................................... 2-12

Pump Stations Serving Leova Sud ................................................................................. 2-12

Pump Stations Serving Chircani-Zrneti ...................................................................... 2-13

Pump Stations Serving Cahul ........................................................................................ 2-14

Pump Stations Serving Jora de Jos ................................................................................ 2-15

Pump Stations Serving Lopatna ..................................................................................... 2-15

Pump Stations Serving Conia ...................................................................................... 2-16

Pump Stations Serving Criuleni ..................................................................................... 2-17

Pump Stations Serving erpeni ...................................................................................... 2-18

Pump Stations Serving Puhceni ................................................................................... 2-18

Pump Stations Serving Rocani ..................................................................................... 2-19

Pump Stations Serving Talmaza .................................................................................... 2-20

Pump Stations Serving Suvorov .................................................................................... 2-21

Area under Irrigation in Moldova .................................................................................... 3-8

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Tetcani CIS ................................................... 3-10

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Blindeti CIS................................................. 3-11

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Grozeti CIS.................................................. 3-12

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Crpinenii de Sus CIS ................................... 3-13

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Leova Sud CIS .............................................. 3-15

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Chircani-Zrneti CIS.................................... 3-16

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Cahul ............................................................. 3-17

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Jora de Jos CIS.............................................. 3-18

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Lopatna CIS .................................................. 3-19

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Conia .......................................................... 3-20

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Criuleni CIS .................................................. 3-22

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at erpeni CIS .................................................. 3-22

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Puhceni CIS ................................................ 3-23

Assessment of Existing Infrastructure at Rocani CIS .................................................. 3-24