Journal of Indian Water Resources Society,

Vol 33, No.4, October, 2013

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF ETo ESTIMATION METHODS FOR

THE WATER BALANCE ESTIMATION–A CASE STUDY OF SIKTA
IRRIGATION PROJECT, NEPAL
Hari Datta Paudel and Ashish Pandey
ABSTRACT
In this study, five ETo estimation methods were applied for the water balance estimation of Sikta irrigation command area situated in
Gangetic plains of Western Nepal. The estimated annual average ETo values of the Sikta irrigation command area from the FAO Penman
Monteith; Modified Penman; Hargreaves’ methods; Class A Pan Evaporation with FAO Paper-56 (Allen et al., 1998) Pan coefficient and
Orang (1998) Pan coefficient was found to be 1311, 1530.9, 1643.12, 1372.5 and 1344.8 mm , respectively. The ETo values of FAO Penman
Monteith method matches closely with Pan Evaporation methods (with Orang coefficient and FAO Paper -56 coefficient) except in the
months of May-July and October. Pan Evaporation with Orang coefficient yielded closer value than that of FAO-56 pan coefficient as
compared to FAO Penman Monteith method. Therefore, Pan Evaporation with Orang (1998) coefficient method is found to be suitable ETo
estimation method for the planning of the Sikta irrigation project. Total annual irrigation water requirements, maximum possible utilization
of surface water resources and conjunctive use of ground water resources was found to be 512.2, 486.2 and 26.0 MCM, respectively. Thus,
ETo selection method highly affect the results of estimation of conjunctive use of ground water resources and has no significant effects in the
results of design discharge of the main canal.

Keywords: Evapotranspiration, Pan Coefficient, Irrigation, Water Balance.

INTRODUCTION of reference crop evapotranspiration (ETo) from Pan

Evapotranspiration (ET) plays an important role in water
balance studies of an irrigation command area. Accurate
estimation of ET is based on the empirical equations and
methods to calculate the standard crop evapotranspiration
(ETo) factor. During the last fifty years, a large number of
empirical methods have been developed and used to estimate
ETo (reference evapotranspiration). However, these results are
valid for certain areas and climatic condition of the world.
Therefore, selection of a suitable method of ET estimation is
another important aspect in irrigation water requirements.
Owing to difficulties in direct measurement, several
temperature-based, radiation based, pan evaporation based, and
combination-type equations are commonly used to derive
estimates of ETo. Innumerable worldwide studies have been
evaluated to judge the performances of these methods under
different climatological conditions (Michalopoulou and
Papaloannou, 1991; Amatya et al., 1995; Ventura et al., 1999;
Xu and Singh, 2002).
The pan evaporation method has been widely used in many
agro-meteorological stations; the measured evaporation of
water in a standardized container has been extensively used as
an ETo parameter and is applied in many irrigation studies and
real time irrigation scheduling. Pan evapotranspiration
methods clearly reflect the shortcomings of predicting crop
evapotranspiration from open water evaporation. The methods
are susceptible to the micro-climatic conditions under which
the pans are operating and the rigor of station maintenance.
Their performance proves erratic (FAO Irrigation and
Drainage, Paper No.-56). This method has been consolidated
in FAO No. 24 by standardization of the pan factor for
different climatic conditions and pan environments. Pan
Coefficient (Kpan) is also an important factor for computation
1. Officer, Department of Water Resources Development and
Management, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee-247 667. E-mail: 
hdpaudel@gmail.com.
2. Corresponding Author: Assistant Professor, Department of Water
Resources Development and Management, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee-
247 667, India, Uttarakhand, E-mail: ashisfwt@gmail.com,
ashisfwt@iitr.ernet.in.
Manuscript No.: 1360
Evaporation (Epan) method. Many researchers are working to
find out the best method to estimate pan coefficient and for its
localization. Sabziparvar et al. (2010) analysed 7 existing pan
models to estimate Kpan values for different climates of Iran.
Gundekar et al. (2008) evaluated the various approaches
proposed by Cuenca (1989), Orang (FAO-24 tables). The
values of Kpan recommended by the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO Paper-24) grossly overestimate the
measured values for a tropical climate of Brazil (Pereira et al.,
1995). Temperature methods remain empirical and require
local calibration in order to achieve satisfactory results. A
possible exception is the 1985 Hargreaves’ method which has
shown reasonable ETo results with a global validity (FAO
Irrigation and Drainage, Paper No.-56). Following an
improved understanding of the physics involved in crop evapo-
transpiration responses to vegetation characteristics, the
Penman-Monteith (PM) method has been proposed as the best
estimator of ETo (Allen et al., 1994).
However, owing to the fact that the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith
methods requires the input data of temperature, humidity, wind
speed, actual sunshine hours and radiation that may not be
available at all locations, effort have been made to identify
simpler methods for a few climate regimes of India. Lots of
research works are going on to localize some simple empirical
methods at various places. However, such findings may have
limited relevance in view of the significance changes that have
taken place in the past decade with regard to procedures for
estimation of ETo.
Looking to the above facts, the study aims to compare the
result of frequently used ETo estimation procedures for
selecting a suitable method for the water balance study of the
Sikta Irrigation Command are (Net Command Area of 30,050
ha) situated in Nepal.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Study Area and Data Availability
The Sikta Irrigation Project is located in the Banke district in
the Gangetic plain of the Western Terai of Nepal.
42 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
 
Geographically, the area lies between: 27 ̊57’ N to 28° 14’ N The region has a dry season from November till April. In the
latitudes and 81° 32’ E to 81°57’ E longitude (Figure 1). Its study area, about eighty five percent of rainfall occurs mainly
elevation ranges from 134 to 220 m (above mean sea level).It between July and September by the monsoon regime. The
has total cultivable area of 44,030 ha, gross command area of annual average rainfall and average annual rainy days are 1371
33,456 ha and net command area of 30,050 ha. The slope of mm and 58 respectively. The average annual temperature is
the study area varies from 1 to 3%. Land use/cover around 24° C. The average monthly minimum temperature is
classification of the irrigation command area is presented in 7° C in January and 37°C in the month of May. The average
Figure 1. monthly pan evaporation ranges from 1.99 mm/day in January

 
Fig. 1: Location and land use/ land cover classification of the study area 
43 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
 
Table 1: Existing Cropping Intensity
Season Percentage
Monsoon 96
Winter 71
Spring 1
Total 168

Table 2: Proposed Cropping Intensity and Pattern

Crop Crop Area Crop Crop Area
Crops Name CI Crops Name CI
Season (ha) Season (ha)
Paddy-I 15 4507.5 Sunflower 24 7212
Paddy-II 3 901.5 Wheat 10 3005
Paddy-III 57 17128.5 Berseem 24 7212
Monsoon Maize 13 3906.5 Gram 8 2404
(Kharif) Pigeon peas 8 2404 Lentil 16 4808
Vegetables 2 601 Winter Pigeon pea 8 2404
Sesame 2 601 (Rabi) Mustard 5 1502.5
Sub Total 100 30,050 Potatoes-I 1.5 300.5
Berseem 24 7212 Potatoes-II 1.5 300.5
Sunflower 8 2404 Vegetable-I 1 300.5
Spring Pigeon pea 8 2404 Vegetable-II 1 300.5
Vegetable 2 601 Sub Total 100 30,050
Sub Total 42 12,621 Annual Total 242 72,721

and 8.31 mm/day in May. The study area is located in
relatively humid zone. The monthly average humidity falls
between 58 % to 86% in the months of April and September
respectively. The average monthly wind velocity falls between
0.34 to 1.27 m/sec. The West Rapti River, with a 5459 km2
rain-fed catchment area, is the only surface water resource for
irrigation with relatively low flow during the dry season. The
existing cropping intensity is presented in Table 1. Proposed
cropping intensity and pattern are presented in Table 2.
Data Acquisition
There are three different rain gauge stations, namely, Khajura
(0409); Naubasta (0412) and Baijapur (0414) have been
installed within or nearby the study area. Station wise rainfall
contribution among these three stations calculated from the
Thiessen Polygon method is 94, 5.5 and less than 0.5 %
respectively. Due to very less contribution, the use of stations
0412 and 0414 is limited into the interpolation of the missing
data and the rain gauge station Khajura (0409) which is located
at the centre of the irrigation command area is considered as a
single station. The climatological data of the study area is also
recorded in the same station Khajura (0409). The daily
climatological data were converted into the 10 daily average
and the monthly data were interpolated graphically into the
daily average. The details of various climatological data are
presented in Table 3. The daily hydrological records of Rapti
river are available for 43 years from 1964 to 2004. The daily
discharge data is converted into the 10 daily averages
removing the outliers and again converted into 80%
dependable flow.
Methodology
Following five different and frequently used ETo estimation
methods were employed in this study.
• FAO Penman-Monteith: (Monteith, 1965 & 1981). As
per the equation recommended by FAO Irrigation and
drainage paper 56 (Allen et al., 1998).
• FAO-Modified Penman Method. As per description
of Doorenboss and Pruitt (1977).
• Hargreaves Method: As per the equation presented in
FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56 (Allen et al.,
1998).
• Pan Evaporation method (Class A pan): As described
by FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56 (Allen et al.,
1999); FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 24 (Orang,
1998)
Correction for Kc mid and Kc end: The Kc values (FAO
Paper-56, table 12) are typical expected values of average Kc
under a standard climatic condition, which is defined as a sub-

Table 3: List of available climatological data of station Khajura

S.No. Description Data Availability Data Type
1 Rainfall 1968 to 2007 (40 yrs.) Daily
2 Pan evaporation 1976 to 2003 (10 yrs.) Monthly
3 Max. and min. relative humidity 1976 to 2007 (32 yrs.) Daily
4 Max. and min. temperature 1968 to 2007 (40 yrs.) Daily
5 Wind speed 1976 to 2007 (23 yrs.) Monthly
6 Actual sun shine hour 1976 to 2007 (16 yrs.) Monthly

44 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
 
humid climate with average daytime, minimum relative RHmin : minimum relative humidity in %, and
humidity (RHmin) ≈ 45% and having calm to moderate wind
U2 : wind velocity at 2 m height from ground level in m/s.
speeds averaging 2 m/s.
Estimation of Effective Rainfall: If 80% rainfall were to be
The Kc mid and Kc end values of the FAO-56 bulletin (table
computed for each month then the probability of the sum of all
12) were corrected as per the recommendation given below:
of these represents an annual rainfall of extreme rarity (Mac
⎛ h⎞
0.3 Donald et al., 1990). Effective rainfall (Pe) estimation by
Kc(late) = Kc(Table12− FAO56) + ((0.04*(U2 − 2) −0.004(Rhmin− 45))⎜ ⎟ different methods as per the PDSP manual, DoI, Nepal; FAO
⎝ 3⎠ (AGLW) and USDA-SCS the later one gives reasonable value
⎛ h⎞
0.3 (Choudhary, 2008). Therefore, USDA-SCS method was
Kc(late) = Kc(Table12 − FAO56) + ((0.04* (U2 − 2) − 0.004(Rhmin− 45))⎜ ⎟ applied in this study.
⎝ 3⎠
Pe = (Pmon*(125-0.20*Pmon))/125 for Pmon ≤ 250 mm.
Where, h : prevailing average crop height of the locality in m.

Table 4: Corrected Kc values for different crop stages

S.No. Crop Season / Crop Crop Kc Calculation
Name Period Height for of Kc for
(Days) (m) Initial Mid Stage
Stage
RHmin (%) U2 Kc Kc % RHmin U2 (m/s) %
(m/s) (FAO- corr.* Change (%) Change
56)
A. Kharif:
1 Paddy-I 120 1 1.05 82.77 1 1.2 1.06 11.67 78.08 0.42 0.75 0.61 18.7
2 Paddy-II 150 1.2 1.05 80.43 0.53 1.2 1.05 12.50 74.81 0.34 0.75 0.61 18.7
3 Paddy-III 130 1 1.05 80.43 0.53 1.2 1.06 11.67 74.97 0.35 0.75 0.62 17.3
4 Maize 120 2 0.30 81.42 0.93 1.2 1.04 13.33 83.14 0.71 0.35 0.17 51.4
5 Pigeon Peas 150 2.5 0.50 74.49 0.42 1.15 0.98 14.78 72.13 0.61 1.1 0.95 13.6
6 Vegetables 110 0.6 0.50 79.95 1.00 1 0.89 11.00 83.32 0.80 0.8 0.68 15.0
7 Sesame 110 0.7 0.35 77.91 1.07 1.1 1.00 9.09 83.32 0.80 0.25 0.12 52.0
B. Rabi:
1 Sunflower 110 2 0.35 72.13 0.61 1.15 1.01 12.17 61.54 0.83 0.35 0.25 28.6
2 Wheat 120 1 0.70 73.34 0.57 1.15 1.03 10.43 63.14 0.79 0.4 0.32 20.0
3 Berseem 170 0.6 0.40 57.73 0.93 0.9 0.85 5.56 56.57 1.29 0.85 0.81 4.7
4 Gram 130 0.4 0.40 77.58 0.45 1.05 0.95 9.52 67.02 0.72 0.6 0.53 11.7
5 Lentil 130 0.5 0.40 75.98 0.50 1.1 1.00 9.09 63.14 0.79 0.3 0.23 23.3
6 Pigeon Peas 110 2.5 0.50 74.49 0.42 1.15 0.98 14.78 72.13 0.61 1.1 0.95 13.6
7 Mustard 90 0.8 0.35 78.77 0.39 1.15 1.02 11.30 75.39 0.53 0.35 0.23 34.3
8 Potato-I 110 0.6 0.50 75.96 0.36 1.15 1.04 9.57 78.24 0.38 0.75 0.63 16.0
9 Potato-II 110 0.4 0.50 78.77 0.39 1.15 1.05 8.70 74.06 0.57 0.75 0.66 12.0
10 Vegetables-I 120 0.4 0.70 77.05 0.37 1.05 0.95 9.52 79.40 0.38 0.95 0.84 11.6
11 Vegetables-II 120 0.4 0.70 73.04 0.61 1.05 0.96 8.57 66.35 0.72 0.95 0.88 7.4
C. Spring:
1 Berseem 180 0.6 0.40 65.21 0.76 0.9 0.82 8.89 56.22 1.27 0.85 0.81 4.7
2 Sunflower 110 2 0.35 52.66 1.19 1.15 1.10 4.35 56.05 1.29 0.35 0.29 17.1
3 Vegetables 120 0.4 0.40 50.97 1.12 1 0.97 3.00 56.57 1.29 0.35 0.31 11.4

Table 5: Field application and Conveyance Efficiencies

S. No. Efficiencies Factor
1 Field application efficiency Paddy: 0.85, Dry Foot Crops: 0.7
2 Conveyance and distribution efficiency:
i. Main canal 0.85
ii. Branch canal 0.80
iii. Distributory 0.90
iv. Water course 0.90
Total (2 ) 0.55
Overall Efficiency (1+2) : Paddy: 0.47, Dry Foot Crops: 0.39

45 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
 
  Land cover/land use classification

Net Command Area (NCA)

Decide future cropping intensity

& Pattern

ETo Estimation

Crop Coefficient (Kc)

Correction of Kc mid and Kc end, If (2<U2<2) m/s and (45<RH<84) %

Crop Evapotranspiration (ETc)

Allow for Land Preparation/ Pre-irrigation/Plantation as per crop types

Allow Deep Percolation (for Paddy only)

Calculate Total Crop Water Requirements (TCWR)

Estimate 80 % Dependable Rainfall (P80)

Estimate Effective Rainfall (Pe)

Calculate Net Crop Water Requirements

Allow Field Application Efficiency

Calculate Field Crop Water Requirements

Allow Distribution and Conveyance Canal Efficiencies

Calculate Intake Water Requirements (IWR)

Calculate 80% Dependable Run-off (Q80)

Calculate Environmental Flow (EF), (EF = 10% of Q80 + special ecological considerations, if

Deduct Downstream Water Allocation (DSWA), if any

Consider the Conjunctive Use of Ground Water

No 
If Q80 ≥ IWR+EF+DSWA
Go to CI,CP and NCA 
Yes
Final Water Balance Estimation
 
Fig. 2: Flow Diagram of Water Balance Estimation

Pe = 125+0.10*Pmon for Pmon > 250 mm.
The estimation of effective rainfall (10 daily bases) compared
with average and 80 % dependable rainfall is furnished in
Table 4 and Fig. 2, respectively.
Crop water requirements: The crop water requirement
was prepared on the basis of the net command area of 30,050
ha (Fig. 1) and the proposed cropping pattern (Table 2) of the
study area with 242 % cropping intensity in three different
crop seasons i.e. Kharif, Rabi and Spring. The values taken for

46 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
field application, conveyance and distribution efficiencies are
presented in Table 5.
Irrigation Water Requirement and Water Balance
Estimation: Flow chart of the methodology of irrigation
water requirements and water balance study is presented in
Fig2.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The comparison of the results of ETo estimated from various
methods are presented in Table 6 and Figure 3. The general
shape of graphs produced on the basis of Table 6 seems similar
among all methods. However, some interesting results are
obtained while comparision.
The results obtained from FAO Penman Monteith method
closely matches with Pan Evaporation method with FAO-56
and Orang pan coefficients. It yielded closure values of ETo
during 8 months from November to April, August and
September. Slightly lower values in three relatively hot and
dry months in summer like May, Jun and July including
October. Pan Evaporation with Orang coefficient yielded
closer value than that of FAO-56 while comparing with world
wise accepted FAO Penman Monteith method. Matching of
the results for 8 months and slight difference in rest of the four
relatively hot but dry months shows the weakness of the either
of methods to reflect the local climatic conditions. The result
obtained from this study was also compared with CROPWAT
8.0 software (as per Table 6) which yielded almost similar
values as FAO Penman Monteith values. The slight difference
(+1% values in CROPWAT 8.0) may be due to ignorance of
heat flux and due to variations of internal methods to calculate
the some parameters as per data availability, frequent updating
of software etc. compared to the results of FAO Penman
Monteith method. The Modified Penman method and
Hargreaves’ method yielded higher values throughout the year.
A high coefficient of correlation value of 0.999, 0.993, 0.972

Table 6: Comparison of the results obtained from various ETo estimation methods
SN Month 10 No. FAO Pan Modified Hargreaves’ CROPW
Daily of Penman Evaporation Penman Method AT 8.0
Days Monteith Method software
1 I 10 1.43 1.63 1.79 2.35 1.47
2 Jan II 10 1.53 1.62 1.85 2.53 1.58
3 III 11 1.76 1.78 2.10 2.77 1.81
4 I 10 2.07 2.10 2.49 3.10 2.14
5 Feb II 10 2.46 2.37 2.48 3.55 2.53
6 III 8 2.82 2.86 3.39 3.97 2.89
7 I 10 3.23 3.33 3.74 4.47 3.31
Mar
9 III 11 4.26 4.31 5.13 5.73 4.31
10 I 10 4.77 4.79 5.70 6.40 4.82
11 Apr II 10 5.22 5.25 6.09 6.74 5.25
12 III 10 5.59 5.63 6.69 6.95 5.61
13 I 10 5.72 6.06 6.81 6.80 5.75
14 May II 10 5.81 6.26 6.87 6.79 5.85
15 III 11 5.91 6.16 7.05 6.88 5.95
16 I 10 5.66 5.99 6.75 6.71 5.68
17 Jun II 10 5.28 5.83 6.23 6.22 5.28
18 III 10 4.76 5.59 5.55 5.50 4.81
19 I 10 4.38 5.26 5.07 5.15 4.41
20 Jul II 10 4.09 4.92 4.68 4.72 4.12
21 III 11 4.05 4.67 4.60 4.62 4.08
22 I 10 4.11 4.27 4.68 4.60 4.14
23 Aug II 10 4.06 4.30 4.54 4.49 4.06
24 III 11 4.15 4.17 4.61 4.39 4.16
25 I 10 3.84 4.08 4.33 4.03 3.86
26 Sep II 10 3.72 3.93 4.20 4.07 3.73
27 III 10 3.78 3.66 4.24 4.08 3.80
28 I 10 3.54 3.36 4.02 3.98 3.55
29 Oct II 10 3.28 2.99 3.83 3.94 3.29
30 III 11 2.89 2.70 3.41 3.76 2.92
31 I 10 2.52 2.44 3.01 3.54 2.54
32 Nov II 10 2.17 2.16 2.55 3.26 2.21
33 III 10 1.9 1.95 2.32 2.99 1.92
34 I 10 1.68 1.71 2.03 2.81 1.72
35 Dec II 10 1.56 1.64 1.90 2.64 1.60
36 III 11 1.47 1.63 1.81 2.48 1.51
Annual ETo (mm) 1311.0 1372.5 1530.9 1643.1 1323.7
47 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
 
FAO Penman‐Monteith Modified Penman  Hargreaves'
Pan Evapo. (FAO‐56) Pan Evapo. (Orang coeff.)
8.00

7.00

6.00

5.00
ETo in mm/day

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III I II III

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Months in 10 Days
 
Fig. 3: Comparison of the results obtained from various ETo estimation method

Table 7: Comparison of various methods of ET0, IWR and there utilization pattern in command area
SN. Methods Standard Crop IWR Utilization of SW Conjunctive use Design Discharge of
Evapotranspira Source of GW Resources Main Canal
tion (ETo)

mm/
% MCM % MCM % MCM % cumecs %
year
FAO Penman 1311.0 100.0 504.8 100.0 480.0 100.0 24.8 100.0 39.6 100.0
1
Monteith
Pan Evaporation 1344.8 102.6 512.2 101.5 486.2 101.3 26.0 104.8 41.8 105.6
2
(Orang Coeff.)
Pan Evaporation 1372.5 104.7 523.1 103.6 495.7 103.7 27.4 110.5 42.0 106.1
3
(FAO Paper-56)
4 Modified Penman 1530.9 111.5 578.1 114.5 537.7 112.0 40.4 162.9 41.4 104.5
5 Hargreave's 1643.1 107.3 625.1 123.8 567 118.1 58.2 234.7 41.7 105.3
 
and 0.937 was obtained for FAO Penman Monteith method method for the irrigation water requirements and water balance
with CROPWAT 8.0, Modified Penman method, Pan estimation at the planning stage of this irrigation project.
Evaporation method and Hargreaves’ method. According to this method, the total annual irrigation water
requirements considering the NCA of 30,050 ha with 242% of
Paddy is the main crop of the region and it needs peak
proposed cropping intensity and analysing 39 years rainfall
irrigation water starting from its land preparation, plantation
data it was found to be 512.2 MCM out of which 486.2 MCM
and continued up to its harvesting period. Having the closest
can be utilised from surface water resource as a run-off type
values with world wise accepted FAO Penman Monteith
irrigation system which is only about one fifth of the 80 %
method during eight months and slightly higher values during
dependable flow. The water deficit of 26.0 MCM during
the same crop (Paddy) period, the Pan Evaporation with Orang
February to June can be met through the existing and future
(1998) method is selected as the suitable ETo estimation
48 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
 
Table 8: Comparison of Water Balance Estimation based on different ETo methods
S. Particular of Items Units FAO Pan Evapo. Pan Modified Hargreaves’
No. Penman (Orang Evapo. Penman
Monteith coeff.) (FAO -56)
1 Standard Crop mm/year 1311 1344.8 1372.5 1530.9 1643.1
Evapotranspiration
% 100 102.6 104.7 116.8 125.3
(ETo)
2 Total Irrigation Water MCM 504.8 512.2 523.1 578.1 625.1
Requirements (IWR) % 100 101.5 103.6 114.5 123.8
3 Utilization of Surface MCM 480 486.2 495.7 537.7 567.0
Water Source % 100 101.3 103.7 112.0 118.1
4 Conjunctive use of MCM 24.8 26.0 27.4 40.4 58.2
Ground Water
Resources % 100 104.8 110.5 162.9 234.7
5 Design Discharge of cumecs 39.6 41.8 42.0 41.4 41.7
Main Canal %  100 105.6 106.1 104.5  105.3

ground water development. The comparative study of
irrigation water requirements and water balance estimation of
the irrigation command area based on the various ETo methods
are presented in the Tables 7 and 8 respectively.
From the comparison of various methods (Table 6) it is
concluded that variation is present in most of the items as per
the ETo value, approximately, at the same proportion except
there is a great variations in the ratio of conjunctive use of
ground water. However, there is no significant variation in the
result of design discharge of the main canal due to the
selection of ETo estimation method considering paddy as the
main crop.
CONCLUSION
Following conclusions are drawn from the present study:
1. Pan Evaporation with Orang (1998) coefficient yielded
closer value than that of FAO-56 pan coefficient and is
selected as the suitable ETo estimation method for the
planning purpose of this irrigation project.
2. Total annual irrigation water requirements, maximum
possible utilization of surface water resources and
conjunctive use of ground water resources was found to
be 512.2, 486.2 and 26.0 MCM, respectively.
3. Selection of ETo methods estimate effects the
estimation of conjunctive use of ground water resources.
4. There is no significant effect in the selection of ETo
methods estimates in the design discharge of the main
canal.
REFERENCES
1. Allen, R.G., M. Smith, L.S. Pereira, and A. Perrier, 1994.
“An Update for the Calculation of Reference
Evaporation”, ICID Bull. 43.
Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering”,
American Association of Civil Engineering (ASCE).
November/ December.
4. Choudhary, P.C., 2008. “Water Resources Management
for an Irrigation Project using DSS”, Unpublished: M.
Tech. Thesis, Department of Hydrology, IIT Roorkee.
5. Design Manuals (M.3) for Irrigation Projects in Nepal,
1990. HMG of Nepal, Deptt. of Irrigation, Planning and
Design Strengthening Project UNDP (NEP/85/013)
World Bank.
6. Doorenbos, J., and W. O. Pruitt. 1977. Crop water
requirements. FAO Irrigation and Drainage paper 24.
Food and Agriculture Organization of United Nations.
Rome, Italy.
7. FAO, 56, 1998. “Crop Evapotranspiration- Guidelines
for Computing Crop Water Requirements”. FAO
Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations FAO,
Rome, Italy, ch.1-8.
8. Gundekar, H. G., Khodke, U. M., Sarkar, S. and Rai, R.
K., 2008.  “Evaluation of pan coefficient for reference
crop evapotranspiration for semi-arid region”. Irrigation
Science - IRRIG SCI. ,26(2):169-175.
9. Michalopoulou, H. and Papaioannou, G., 1991.
“Reference crop evapotranspiration over Greece”.
Agric. Wat. Manag., 20, 209 - 221.
10. Orang, M., 1998. “Potential accuracy of the popular
non-linear regression equations for estimating pan
coefficient values in the original and FAO-24 Table,
Unpublished Rep.”, Calif. Department of Water
Resources, Sacramento.

2. Allen, R.G., L.S. Pereira, D. Raes, and M. Smith, 1998.
“Crop Evapotranspiration – Guidelines for Computing
Crop Water Requirements, FAO Irrigation and
Drainage” Paper 56, FAO, 1998, ISBN 92-5-104219-5.
3. Amatya, D.M., R.W. Skaggs, and J.D. Gregory, 1995.
“Comparison of methods for Estimating REF-ET.
11. Pereira, A.R., Villanova, N., Pereira, A.S., Baebieri,
V.A., 1995. “A model for the class-A pan coefficient”.
Agric Water Manage 76:75–82
12. Sabziparvar, A.A., Tabari, H., 2010. “Regional
estimation of reference evapotranspiration in arid and

49 
 J. Indian Water Resour. Soc., Vol. 33, No 4, October, 2013
 
semi-arid regions”. J Irrig Drain Eng ASCE 14. Jensen, M.E., Burman, R.D. and Allen, R.G., 1990.
136(10):724–73.1 “Evapotranspiration and Irrigation water requirement”
ASCE Manuals and report on engineering practice 70.
13. Xu, C.Y., and V.P. Singh. 2002. “Cross Comparison of
Empirical Equations for Calculating Potential
Evapotranspiration with Data from Switzerland”. Water
Resources Management 16:197-210.

50