DSpace Institution

DSpace Repository http://dspace.org

Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering thesis

2024-03

ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE
IRRIGATION POTENTIAL OF MILLE
WATERSHED IN AWASH BASIN
USING AHP-GIS AND SWAT MODEL

BANCH, TAREKE YIMER

http://ir.bdu.edu.et/handle/123456789/16054
Downloaded from DSpace Repository, DSpace Institution's institutional repository
 BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY
BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES
FACULTY OF CIVIL AND WATER RESOURCES ENGINEERING

IRRIGATION ENGINEERING AND MANAGEMENT

MSc THESIS ON:

ASSESSMENT OF SURFACE IRRIGATION POTENTIAL OF

MILLE WATERSHED IN AWASH BASIN USING AHP-GIS AND
SWAT MODEL

BY

BANCH TAREKE YIMER

MARCH, 2024
BAHIR DAR, ETHIOPIA
 BAHIR DAR UNIVERSITY

BAHIR DAR INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

SCHOOL OF GRADUATE STUDIES

FACULTY OF CIVIL AND WATER RESOURCE ENGINEERING

Assessment of Surface Irrigation Potential of Mille Watershed in Awash

Basin Using AHP-GIS and SWAT Model

By:

Banch Tareke Yimer

A thesis submitted to the school of research and post-graduate studies in

partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of master of science in
irrigation engineering and management

Main Advisor: Tewodros T. Assefa (Ph.D.)

Co-Advisor: Sisay A. Belay (Ph.D.)
March, 2024
Bahir Dar, Ethiopia

@2024 Banch Tareke

DECLARATION

This is to certify that the thesis entitled ‗‗Assessment of surface irrigation potential of
Mille watershed in Awash basin using AHP-GIS and SWAT model‘‘ submitted in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Irrigation
Engineering and Management under the Faculty of Civil and Water Resources
Engineering, Bahir Dar Institute of Technology, is a record of original work carried out
by me and has never been submitted to this or any other institution to get any other
degree or certificates. The assistance and help I received during the course of this
investigation have been duly acknowledged.

Name of the student Signature Date

Banch Tareke Yimer

I
II
ACKNOWLEDGMENT

First of all, I would like to praise the almighty heavenly God for his merciful help and
guidance throughout my life

I would like to express my deep gratitude, appreciation, and acknowledge to Dr.

Tewodros T. Assefa and Dr. Sisay A. Belay for their excellent way of support, technical
advice valuable comments, and suggestions for every step of my work from beginning to
end. I extend my heart full thanks for their guidance, positive interest, and encouragement
throughout my stay to do my best.

I would like also to thank Bahir Dar University for giving me a free scholarship and the
staff of the Irrigation Engineering and Management department of Bahir dar institute
technology who variously helped me at different stages of my work. Ministry of
agriculture and MOWIE experts thank you for providing the data I have requested.

Finally, my heart full of thanks go to my family and friends for motivating and
strengthening me and for their love and encouragement, without whom this work would
not have been completed. I express my deep gratitude to all whose names have not been
mentioned individually but helped me differently in my work.

III
ABBREVIATIONS (ACRONYMS)

DEM Digital Elevation Model

FAO Food and Agriculture Organization
GIS Geographic Information system
HRUs Hydrologic Response Units
LULC Land Use Land Cover
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
SRTM Shuttle Radar Topographic Mission
SWAT Soil and Water Analysis Tools
USGS United States Geological Survey
RS Remote sensing
CWR Crop water requirement
AWB Awash river basin
GPS Ground control point
MOA Ministry of agriculture
MOWIE Ministry of water, irrigation and electricity
NRM Normal ratio method
EMA Ethiopia mapping agency
AFSIS Africa soil information system
SCI Soil capability index
AHB Analytical hierarchy process
IDW Inverse distance weighted
ISRIC International soil reference information center
WGEN Weather generator
MCE Multi criteria evaluate
NSE Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency
RVE Relative Volume Error

IV
ABSTRACT

Assessment of irrigation potential is essential for the development of irrigation schemes

for addressing food security problems. This study focused on assessing surface irrigation
potential of Mille watershed in Awash basin Ethiopia. This was done by using GIS-
based Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP-GIS) techniques, a Hydrological Soil and
Water Assessment Tools (SWAT) model and a FAO CROPWAT 8.0 model. AHP-GIS
was used to identify suitable land for surface irrigation, the SWAT model was used for
stream flow simulation and CROPWAT model was used to estimate crop irrigation water
requirement for selected dominant crops within the watershed. The gross irrigation
requirement was calculated for three seletcted crops (wheat, sorghum and maize) and
compared with the available flow to get irrigation potential for surface irrigation. The
overlay results of various factors using the AHP-GIS technique under a 85% threshold
level gave 91,800 ha of the watershed as a suitable area for surface irrigation. The results
of model performance indicators for calibration and validation were in the acceptable
range (R2=0.88, NSE=0.87 & PBIAS 0.5) and (R2=0.85, NSE=0.83 & PBIAS=-0.7)
respectively. The annual average simulated stream flow was estimated as 17.3 m3/s and
the water demand required by the whole selected crops was 57.2 m3/s. Finally, the total
suitable irrigation potential of the study watershed was 25,783 ha, which can be irrigated
with the available flow of 17.2 m3/s. In general, this study indicated that the surface
irrigation potential of the Mille River watershed was limited by the simulated stream flow
of the watershed in that the water demand of the crops was much greater than the
simulated minimum flow of the rivers in major sub-watersheds. Therefore, to increase the
irrigation potential of the River sub-watershed other irrigation methods can be used and
construct a water harvesting structure.

Keywords: Land suitability, Analytical Hierarchy Process, Mille watershed, SWAT

model, CROPWAT Model, Calibration,Validation.

V
TABLE OF CONTENT
DECLARATION ................................................................................................................. I
ACKNOWLEDGMENT................................................................................................... III
ABBREVIATIONS (ACRONYMS) ................................................................................ IV
ABSTRACT ....................................................................................................................... V
TABLE OF CONTENT .................................................................................................... VI
LIST OF TABLE .............................................................................................................. IX
LIST OF FIGURE.............................................................................................................. X
LIST OF APPENDEX TABLE ........................................................................................ XI
1 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Background .......................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem ..................................................................................... 3
1.3 Objectives of the Study ........................................................................................ 4
1.3.1 Specific Objective ......................................................................................... 4
1.4 Research Questions .............................................................................................. 4
1.5 Significant of the Study ........................................................................................ 4
1.6 Scope of the Study................................................................................................ 5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 6
2.1 The Importance of Irrigation in Agricultural Development ................................. 6
2.2 Irrigation Potential in Ethiopia ............................................................................. 7
2.3 Irrigation Potential of Awash River Basin ........................................................... 8
2.4 Land Evaluation and Suitability Classification .................................................... 8
2.5 Irrigation Land Suitability Evaluation Factor .................................................... 10
2.5.1 Slope ........................................................................................................... 10
2.5.2 Soil .............................................................................................................. 10
2.5.3 Land Use and Land Cover .......................................................................... 10
2.5.4 Road Proximity, Urban Center ................................................................... 11
2.5.5 Water Availability....................................................................................... 11
2.5.6 Rainfall Deficit............................................................................................ 11
2.6 Assessment of Surface Water Resources ........................................................... 12
2.6.1 Hydrological Modeling ............................................................................... 12

VI
 2.6.2 Hydrologic Model Selection Criteria .......................................................... 13
2.6.3 SWAT Model and its Application .............................................................. 13
2.7 Overview of GIS Application ............................................................................ 14
2.7.1 Watershed Delineation ................................................................................ 14
2.7.2 Mapping ...................................................................................................... 15
2.7.3 Weighted Overlay Analysis ........................................................................ 15
2.8 GIS as a Tool for Irrigation Potential Assessment ............................................. 15
2.9 Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement............................................................. 17
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS .............................................................................. 19
3.1 Description of the Study Area ............................................................................ 19
3.1.1 Location ...................................................................................................... 19
3.1.2 Topography ................................................................................................. 20
3.1.3 Climate ........................................................................................................ 20
3.2 Source of Data and Method of Data Collection ................................................. 23
3.2.1 SRTM-DEM ............................................................................................... 23
3.2.2 Soil Data...................................................................................................... 24
3.2.3 Land Use Land Cover ................................................................................. 24
3.2.4 River Network and Stream Discharge ........................................................ 24
3.2.5 Road Network and Town Accessibility ...................................................... 24
3.2.6 Climate Data ............................................................................................... 25
3.3 Data Analysis ..................................................................................................... 25
3.3.1 Data Quality Checking ................................................................................ 25
3.3.2 Evaluation of Factors for Surface Irrigation Land Suitability .................... 28
3.3.3 Weighting of Factors and Overlay Analysis ............................................... 36
3.4 Assessment of Available Water ......................................................................... 38
3.4.1 Weather Data Preparation ........................................................................... 40
3.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis .................................................................................... 40
3.4.3 Calibration of Stream Flow Simulation ...................................................... 41
3.4.4 Validation of Stream Flow Simulation ....................................................... 42
3.4.5 Model Performance Evaluation .................................................................. 42
3.5 Estimating Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement .......................................... 44
3.5.1 CROPWAT Model...................................................................................... 44

VII
 3.5.2 Irrigation Potential Land by Availability Water ......................................... 46
3.5.3 Preparing Irrigation Potential Map ............................................................. 47
4 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS ................................................................................ 49
4.1 Results of Suitable Land for Surface Irrigation ................................................. 49
4.1.1 Slope Suitability .......................................................................................... 49
4.1.2 Soil Suitability ............................................................................................ 50
4.1.3 Land use land cover suitability ................................................................... 56
4.1.4 Urban suitability.......................................................................................... 58
4.1.5 Road suitability ........................................................................................... 60
4.1.6 Rainfall Deficit............................................................................................ 62
4.1.7 River Proximity result ................................................................................. 64
4.1.8 Weighting of Factors for Surface Irrigation Suitability Mapping .............. 66
4.1.9 Weight Overlay Results .............................................................................. 67
4.2 Water Availability Assessment Result ............................................................... 70
4.2.1 Stream Flow Sensitivity Analysis ............................................................... 70
4.2.2 Model Calibration for Stream Flow ............................................................ 71
4.2.3 Model Validation Results for Stream Flow ................................................ 71
4.3 Results of Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement .......................................... 75
4.3.1 Crop Water Requirement (CWR) ............................................................... 75
4.3.2 Gross Irrigation Water Requirement (GIWR) ............................................ 75
4.3.3 Available Monthly Simulated Flow and Monthly GIR of the
Sub_Watershed .......................................................................................................... 78
4.4 Irrigation Potential of Mille Watershed ............................................................. 80
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...................................................... 82
5.1 Conclusion.......................................................................................................... 82
5.2 Recommendation ................................................................................................ 82
REFERENCE .................................................................................................................... 84
APPENDIX ....................................................................................................................... 91

VIII
LIST OF TABLE

Table 3-1 Agro-climatic zones of Ethiopia ....................................................................... 21

Table 3-2 Slope suitability framework ............................................................................. 29
Table 3-3 Soil capability index suitability class and range ............................................... 33
Table 3-4 Random consistency index ............................................................................... 37
Table 3-5 Intensity of importance class, definition, and pairwise scale ........................... 37
Table 3-6 Meteorological station, locations and length of data series .............................. 40
Table 3-7 General performance ratings for recommended statistics ................................ 44
Table 4-1 Slope suitability and area coverage .................................................................. 50
Table 4-2 Soil capability index suitability result .............................................................. 56
Table 4-3 Land covers suitability result............................................................................ 58
Table 4-4 Urban suitability result ..................................................................................... 60
Table 4-5 Road suitability result ....................................................................................... 62
Table 4-6 Rainfall deficit suitability result ....................................................................... 64
Table 4-7 River suitability result ...................................................................................... 66
Table 4-8 Suitability factor's scale and weights ................................................................ 67
Table 4-9 Sensitive Parameters for Stream Flow in the Watershed ................................. 70
Table 4-10 Monthly stream flow calibration and validation model performance ............ 72
Table 4-11 Mean monthly flow (m3/s) of each sub-watersheds ....................................... 74
Table 4-12 Mean monthly flow (m3/s) after 20% was released........................................ 74
Table 4-13 Monthly net crop water requirement of each crop in mm .............................. 75
Table 4-14 Monthly gross irrigation water requirement of each crop .............................. 75
Table 4-15 Monthly (GIWR) of each crop under each sub_watershed .......................... 77
Table 4-16 Total GIWR in irrigation months under each sub_watershed ........................ 78
Table 4-17 Comparison of total GIWR and available simulated flow ............................. 79
Table 4-18 Irrigation potential (ha) of Mille sub-watershed ............................................ 80

IX
LIST OF FIGURE

Figure 3-1 Location map of the study area ....................................................................... 19

Figure 3-2 Topographic map of Mille watershed ............................................................. 20
Figure 3-3 Monthly average rainfall of meteorological stations ...................................... 22
Figure 3-4 Mean monthly maximum temperature of selected stations (2000-2019)........ 23
Figure 3-5 Mean monthly minimum temperature of selected stations (2000-2019) ........ 23
Figure 3-6 Consistency test for rainfall ............................................................................ 28
Figure 3-7 Watershed of Mille river ................................................................................. 29
Figure 3-8 Rainfall (a) and Evapotranspiration of the watershed (b) ............................... 36
Figure 3-9 General flow chart of the work ....................................................................... 48
Figure 4-1 Slope map (a) and Slope Suitability map (b) .................................................. 49
Figure 4-2 Soil type (a) and soil type suitability (b) ......................................................... 51
Figure 4-3 Soil texture (a) and Soil texture sutability (b) ................................................. 52
Figure 4-4 Soil depth (a) and Soil depth suitability (b) .................................................... 53
Figure 4-5 Soil drainage (a) and Soil drainage suitability (b) .......................................... 54
Figure 4-6 Soil capability index (a) and Soil capability index suitability (b) ................... 55
Figure 4-7 Land use land cover (a) and Land use suitability (b) ...................................... 57
Figure 4-8 Urban proximity (a) and Urban suitability (b) ................................................ 59
Figure 4-9 Road proximity (a) and Road suitability (b) ................................................... 61
Figure 4-10 Rainfall deficit (a) and Rainfall deficit suitability (b) .................................. 63
Figure 4-11 River proximity (a) and River suitability (b) ................................................ 65
Figure 4-12 Suitable land for surface irrigation ................................................................ 68
Figure 4-13 Suitable land (a) and Suitable land in each sub_watershed (b) at 85%
threshold level. .......................................................................................................... 69
Figure 4-14 Observed and Simulated Flow for Calibration.............................................. 71
Figure 4-15 Observed and Simulated Flow for Validation ............................................... 72
Figure 4-16 Monthly gross irrigation water requirement for the selected crops .............. 76
Figure 4-17 Suitable land potential and irrigation potential of Mille Watershed ............. 81

X
LIST OF APPENDEX TABLE

Appendix table 1: Rating of soil texture ........................................................................... 91

Appendix table 2: Rating of soil depth ............................................................................. 91
Appendix table 3: Rating of soil drainage classes ............................................................ 91
Appendix table 4: Stream flow data (m3/s) ...................................................................... 92
Appendix table 5: Mean annually rainfall data for the stations ........................................ 93
Appendix table 6: Mean monthly maximum temperature data for the stations ................ 94
Appendix table 7: Mean monthly minimum temperature data for the stations ................ 94

XI
1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background

The creation of irrigation systems and the mapping of possible irrigated areas may offer
ways to mitigate the effects of climate variability, improve productivity per unit of land,
and greatly raise the number of crops produced annually (Awulachew & Merrey, 2005).
The term "irrigation potential" describes the land's overall appropriateness as well as the
watershed's ability to be irrigated without negatively impacting agricultural growth
(FAO, 1997). Situations where natural rainfall is insufficient to consistently generate the
required agricultural yields and quality involve irrigating crops using surface and
groundwater sources (Makin, 2016). Relying too much on rain-fed agriculture hurts the
sector and the country's economy during periods of extremely variable rainfall and
frequent droughts.

Ethiopia has minimal irrigation and mostly relies on rainfall agriculture for its
agricultural output. Rainfall is the single most important element affecting the amount of
food available and the economy of the country. Estimates show that low-productivity
smallholder agriculture fed by rainfall accounts for over 90% of the food supply and the
GDP of the country (Birhanu, 2017). By increasing productivity and output, irrigated
agriculture provides the necessary raw materials for local agro-industries, boosting rural
income and assuring food security (Hussien et al., 2019). The low performance of current
irrigation systems can be attributed to inadequate operation and maintenance services,
issues stemming from inadequate planning and design, and insufficient incentives for
appropriate water management in state-run projects (Awulachew & Ayana, 2011).

Ethiopia has the potential to increase agricultural productivity through the expansion of
irrigated agriculture, given the availability of natural resources land and water. The actual
availability of land and water resources is constant, but the demand from the rapidly
expanding population is increasing, posing a tremendous challenge to planners and
managers. Utilizing these fixed and/or scarce physical resources land and water to
balance the demand of population pressure and stabilize the countries through increased

1
production of foreign earnings and employment opportunities requires appropriate
watershed management and the selection of an appropriate irrigation method.

One type of irrigation is surface irrigation, which involves applying water to a field via
gravity flow. It is the most traditional and often used technique for applying water to
agricultural areas. Furthermore, for appropriate design, good topography and knowledge
of the land and water resources are necessary (Frenken, 2005). Therefore, information
regarding the appropriateness of the soil, the availability of water resources, and the
water requirements of irrigable regions in terms of time and location must all be
integrated into the planning process for surface irrigation. The fact that land and water
resources have fixed physical availability while expanding demand presents a problem
for planners and managers. As a result, the challenge is balancing supply and demand in
these ever-challenging and complicated circumstances.

Ethiopia has created several irrigation projects in various regions of the nation in recent
years. However, because to various environmental, political, and managerial
considerations, the majority of these irrigation systems are not used to their full potential,
and irrigation as a whole does not provide the necessary contributions to the nation's
overall economic growth. Because the ultimate purpose of the national development plan
is to boost agricultural productivity, sustain crop production, and reduce food insecurity,
the irrigation subsector should be given priority (Ayana, 2011).

A good and well-developed database is essential for ensuring proper management of

watersheds and irrigation system design. In these situations, GIS is useful for gathering,
storing, and manipulating various data kinds. It also facilitates information extraction,
analysis, and easy mapping of data for geographical references. Under these conditions,
the variables that are relevant to the appropriateness of irrigation land have been
combined and weighed to create a single map using a geographic information system
(GIS) that is appropriate for surface irrigation development. To assess suitable land for
surface irrigation, this study was carried out. Following weighted overlay analysis using
Arc GIS, final appropriate maps were prepared for each suitability criteria. Surface water
resources were simulated in each sub-watershed using the SAWT model, and then
assessed using the river's stream flow data and quantified monthly.

2
The purpose of this study is to identify the surface irrigation potential and suitability of
Mille river in Semien (North) Wollo and Debub (South) Wollo Zones of the Amhara
Region, as well as Administrative Zone 4 of the Afar Region using Geographical
Information System (GIS) software. Mille River is one of the tributaries of Awash basin.
The development of irrigated agriculture in the waste is very poor regardless of its
importance to alleviate sustainable food production problems in the country. Therefore,
the evaluation and identification of potentially irrigable lands and the irrigation potential
of streams in the area play a vital role in enhancing people's life standards and the
irrigation sector of the country.

1.2 Statement of the Problem

Ethiopia is endowed with potentially huge irrigable land and ample water resources.
However, rural people frequently suffer from drought problems due to uneven spatial and
temporal distribution of water resources and land degradation. The country is also very
much affected by the alarmingly rising population pressure. Consequently, the production
of sufficient food and food security in the country currently becomes unattainable.

Especially today East Amhara and the administrative zone of Afar regions suffer from
political problems and a decline in agricultural production due to war. To resist those
problems, irrigated agriculture remains the engine of the economic development of the
country and improves the livelihood of people in the study area. However, this requires
knowing the total irrigation potential of the area and corresponding suitable physical
natural resources (water and land) in various basins and sub-basins, so that planned
irrigation development, that significantly contributes to the overall socio-economic
development is required to be realized.

Particularly, irrigated agriculture is not practiced in an organized and sustainable manner

in the Mille watershed in the lower part of Awash basin. Even traditional irrigation
practices in the area are very few and information is critically lacking about the available
resources for future irrigation planning. A study on analysis of future drought
characterization under multiple drought indices and climate change impact of Mille
watershed has been conducted by Asnake et at, (2023). However, this study did not cover
the land and water potential of the area for surface irrigation.

3
The extent and geographical demarcation of potentially irrigable lands with surface
irrigation methods and the surface irrigation potential of those streams have not been
studied and identified so far. Therefore; this study was to identify the surface irrigation
potentials of major streams in the Mille watershed and map the extent of potentially
surface irrigable lands in the area by using the Analytical hierarchy process-geographic
information system (AHP-GIS) and soil water assessment tool (SWAT) model.

1.3 Objectives of the Study

The main objective of this study is to assess surface irrigation potential of Mille
watershed in the lower Awash sub basin.

1.3.1 Specific Objective

 To assess the potential suitable land for surface irrigation in the watershed,
 To assess available surface water potential of the watershed.
 To evaluate the surface water sources for the available potential land using selected
crop water requirement estimation.

1.4 Research Questions

 How much land is available to be irrigated by surface irrigation method

 How much surface water is available in the watershed?
 Is there enough surface water sources for all potential suitable land?

1.5 Significant of the Study

In Ethiopia, most irrigation project designs do not consider or take the available water
resources data for each suitable irrigable land leads to insufficient water resources in the
irrigation season (Bayissa et al., 2017). Land suitability is one of the indicators of
irrigation development as well as the sustainability of land production, resource
utilization, and management, which gives a basis for the selection of irrigation methods
as well as the planning of new irrigation projects.

Mille River watershed is one among Awash River Basins of Ethiopia in which, the
available irrigable land and potential of water resources are not assessed in a scientific
way for optimizing the utilization of water and land resources. The present study

4
investigates surface irrigation potential by analysis of suitable land and surface water
resource potential in the watershed. The study was used by the planners, decision-makers,
and other concerned bodies, as a tool for decision-making on the planning and
implementation of irrigation development projects in the area according to its capacity.

1.6 Scope of the Study

The range of this study has been limited to assess the potential of surface irrigation in the
Mille River watershed based on land suitability factors such as slope, land use land cover,
soil data, socio-economic parameters (road and market access), climatic factor (rainfall
and evapotranspiration) and distance from the river (water supply). The study doesn‘t
include the chemical properties of soil for the determination of land suitability analysis.
In addition to that, it also focuses on the assessment of available surface water and its
potential in terms of surface irrigation by comparing it with gross irrigation water
requirement for the dominant crops in the watershed.

In this study geographic information system (GIS) is used to assess the potential of
surface irrigation and mapping potential areas integrated with the ArcSWAT model and
weighted overlay analysis using Analytical Hierarchy procedure (AHP) and Multi
Criteria Evaluation (MCE) whereas the CROPWAT software used for the determination
of crop water requirement of the study area.

5
2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 The Importance of Irrigation in Agricultural Development

Ethiopia has an abundance of rainfall and water resources, but its agricultural sector has
not yet fully benefited from irrigation and water management technology. Any nation
may increase output and lessen its susceptibility to climatic instability by advancing
irrigation and agricultural water management (Awulachew, 2010). The majority of
Ethiopia's rural population is among the poorest in the nation, with little to no access to
agricultural markets and technological advancements, little access to agricultural markets,
and limited opportunities to increase agricultural production due to inadequate rural
infrastructure. These problems make rural poverty and food insecurity more common,
especially in the highlands where there is a growing depletion of natural resources (Haile
& Kasa, 2015). There are several potential benefits to better water management for
agriculture in terms of reducing vulnerability and raising output (Awulachew, 2010).

Ethiopia is endowed with a substantial amount of water resources but very high
hydrological variability (Awulachew, 2012), compounded with a lack of appropriate soil
fertility management contributes to lower crop yield Worqlul et al., (2017) resulting in
high food insecurity and dependent country on food aid. Rainfall throughout the growing
season has decreased by 15% to 20% as temperatures have risen. This increases the
impact of drought, which has a significant impact on farmland output (Funk et al., 2012).
It is mentioned that the agricultural sector is dominated by subsistence rain-fed systems
with poor productivity in high-risk situations due to the coincidence of highly inhabited
regions and documented reductions in rainfall.

Although irrigation makes up just 20% of all farmed land, it provides 40% of the world's
total nutritional output (Guire, 2015). Therefore, with the effective use of land and water
resources, irrigation will play a vital part in the large rise in food production for the
improvement of food security and Ethiopia's economic growth (Haile & Kasa, 2015,
Sultan, 2013). The production function analysis done by Makombe et al.,(2007) shows
that irrigation could shift the agricultural production frontier to a higher level. But, rain-
fed agriculture plays a significant role compared with irrigation. However, within a
region that has only grown by 12%, worldwide agricultural production has doubled, and

6
part of this growth can be ascribed to enhanced irrigation (Bégué et al., 2018). According
to Bank., (2006) for a long time, boosting irrigation has been seen to be the most
effective way to mitigate the effects of drought and guarantee food security. The paper
highlights that, in the absence of more irrigation, Ethiopia's unpredictable weather acts as
a powerful deterrent to investment in agricultural advancements. Awulachew., (2010)
also outlined how Ethiopia's capacity to overcome significant obstacles including
population pressure, soil and land degradation, high climatic unpredictability, and low
agricultural production depends on well-managed irrigation development. Research in the
Lake Tana Basin revealed that, on average, the household incomes of those that practiced
irrigation were 27 percent higher than those who did not (Haile & Kasa, 2015). Another
study at Gubalafto distinct, North Wollo by Mengistie & Kidane., (2016) indicated that
irrigation has a great impact on enhancing farmer‘s livelihoods through a different
dimension, such as the possibility of growing different crops and improving agricultural
products, increasing income, and creating employment opportunity.

2.2 Irrigation Potential in Ethiopia

The estimations of irrigation potential of Ethiopia differ from one source to the other, due
to the lack of standard or agreed criteria for estimating irrigation potential in the country
(Awulachew, 2010). Ethiopia covers 112 million hectares (Mha) of land. The former
report, for example from Rahmato, (2008), showed the irrigation potential at a lowest of
1.0 and 1.5 million hectares, and a highest of 4.3 million hectares. There have also been
different estimates of the irrigation potential in Ethiopia. According to Gebremedhin &
Peden., (2002), the total irrigable land in the country measures 2.8 million ha. Tilahun et
al., (2011), on the other hand, give a figure 2.8 million ha. A total of 3.7 million ha had
been identified as potentially irrigable land (Awulachew, 2010).

According to Awulachew, (2010), Ethiopia has huge cultivable land (30 to 70 Mha), but
only about a third of that is currently cultivated (approximately 15 Mha), with the current
irrigation scheme covering about 640,000 hectares across the country from 640,000
hectares of irrigation nationwide includes 128,000 hectares from rain water harvest
(RWH), 383,000 hectares from small scale irrigation (SSI) and 129,000 hectares from
medium and large scale irrigation (MSI/LSI). The MSI/LSI includes the Fentale and

7
Tibila schemes. However, the study estimates that the total irrigable land potential in
Ethiopia is 5.3Mha assuming the use of existing technology, including 1.6 Mha through
RWH and groundwater. Most of these figures are derived by adding up the irrigation
potential of the country‘s twelve river basins (Awulachew et al., 2007).

2.3 Irrigation Potential of Awash River Basin

The Ministry of Water and Energy has identified 560 irrigation potential sites on the
major river basins. The total potential irrigable land in Ethiopia is estimated to be around
3.7 million hectares (without considering the groundwater potential and gently sloping
areas). The area under irrigation development todate is estimated to range between
160,000 - 200,000 hectares for the entire country. Estimates of the irrigated area vary, but
still is less than five percent of potentially irrigable land (Awulachew et al., 2007).

In Awash river basin 37 irrigation potential sites are identified out of which 5 are small-
scale, 18 are medium-scale, and 14 are large-scale. The estimated irrigation potential is
134,121 hectares. Out of these, a potential, 30,556 hectares are for small-scale, 24,500
hectares for medium-scale and 79,065 hectares for large-scale development. The
challenges includes amongst others: closing the gap between planning and
implementation of irrigation projects; improving the performance of existing irrigation
schemes; removing constraints on the scale-up of irrigation projects; and ensuring the
sustainability of water resources for irrigation (Nanesa, 2021).

2.4 Land Evaluation and Suitability Classification

Land evaluation is the process of matching a scientific standard procedure to the features
of land resources for specific applications. Planners can select land for various
applications by using the results of land appraisal and categorization as a guide. The
ability or appropriateness of a certain piece of land to defend purposes is known as land
suitability. The process of classifying land according to its appropriateness for a certain
purpose involves evaluating and categorizing a particular section of the land. The
assessment of land attributes and land use needs yields a measure of suitability (Pönka et
al., 2009).

8
According to Ritung et al., (2007), Potential land suitability refers to the appropriateness
of land following improvement as opposed to actual land suitability, which is evaluated
in its current state. The real land suitability is the land suitability based on the soil and
land conditions as they are right now, i.e., without any input. The adaptability of the land
that might be attained following improvements is known as potential land suitability.

The assessment of land performance when used for a specific purpose, involving the
execution and interpretation of surveys and studies of landforms, soils, vegetation,
climate and other aspects of land" is the official definition of land evaluation (FAO,
1976). In addition to this, Ritung et al., (2007) also describe land evaluation as the
process of aligning a scientifically standardized approach to the features of land resources
for certain applications. Planners and land users might utilize the data as a guide to find
alternate land uses.

George, (2005) divides the land's appropriateness into five categories: very suitable (S1),
somewhat suitable (S2), marginally suitable (S3), now not suitable (S4), and not suitable
(S5).Appropriateness of Land basic orders specifying whether the land is suitable (S) or
not suitable (N) for a certain purpose. Land Suitability Classes indicate the level of
appropriateness within a hierarchy; Land Suitability Land Suitability Units show
variations in necessary management within subclasses, whereas subclasses represent the
types of limitations or required improvements measures within classes. Whether the land
is judged to be suitable or not appropriate for the purpose under consideration (i.e., S or
N), respectively, is indicated or reflected in a land suitability order. The FAO framework
of land suitability classes divides land into two orders: suitable and not suitable, which
are denoted by the symbols S and N, respectively, on maps, tables, and other documents.

Order S suitability: land suitable for defined uses and expected to yield benefits that
justify the inputs, without unacceptable risk of damage to land resources.

Order N not suitable: Land that has qualities that appear to preclude sustained use of the
kind under consideration.

9
2.5 Irrigation Land Suitability Evaluation Factor

Four categories of factors determine whether the soil is suitable for irrigation: physical
properties (like permeability and available water content) that determine the soil's water
relationship; chemical properties (like soluble salts and exchangeable sodium) that affect
the soil's salinity/alkalinity status; drainage properties; and environmental factors like
slope (Abraham et al., 2015). In addition to these factors, land cover/land use types are
considered limiting factors in evaluating the suitability of land for irrigation (Meron,
2007).

2.5.1 Slope

Slope, which is typically given as a percentage, is the inclination or gradient of a surface.

The impact of the slope on runoff, drainage, erosion, and the selection of irrigation
techniques make it crucial for the creation and maintenance of soil. The choice of
irrigation techniques is significantly influenced by the land's steep slope. According to
FAO, (1999) standard guidelines for the evaluation of slope gradient, slopes which are
less than 2%, are very suitable for surface irrigation. But slopes, that are greater than 8%,
are not generally recommended.

2.5.2 Soil

Physical characteristics that are immutable and permanent are used in the evaluation of
soils for irrigation. These physical characteristics consist of depth, texture, and drainage
(Fasina et al., 2008). The suitability of a piece of land for ongoing irrigation is largely
dependent on its soil. Because of this, certain soils are deemed unsuitable for surface
irrigation, although they may be appropriate for micro- or sprinkler-irrigation, as well as
specific forms of land use (Ganole, 2010).

2.5.3 Land Use and Land Cover

LULC (Land use / Land Cover) is often used interchangeably. However, they are quite
different (Solomon, 2017). According to the Global Land Cover Network, land cover is
the physical cover of the earth that can be viewed from above or by remote sensing (RS),
comprising vegetation (either natural or cultivated) and human-made structures (roads,
buildings, etc.). Land cover also includes surfaces made of sand, bare rock, water, and

10
ice. A sequence of operations carried out to generate one or more products or services is
referred to as land use. One or more plots of land may be used for a specific land use, and
one plot of land may be used for many land uses. In this sense, definitions of land cover
or land use offer a foundation for determining whether a piece of land could be suitable
for irrigation (Jaruntorn et al., 2004).

2.5.4 Road Proximity, Urban Center

Access to the market is necessary for the acquisition and sale of agricultural products to
implement irrigation. The closeness to major paved highways and metropolitan areas
served as indicators of market accessibility.

2.5.5 Water Availability

Ensuring the availability of water is crucial to prevent any potential scarcity of irrigation
water. A portion of the scheme's investment may sit idle, agricultural output may suffer,
profits may drop, and there may be a shortage of water during some of the irrigation
season (Kashyap & Panda, 2001). Water availability is therefore a crucial consideration
when assessing whether a piece of land is suitable for irrigation based on the amount of
water available during that particular time of year.

2.5.6 Rainfall Deficit

The nation's high level of rainfall fluctuation and unpredictability are the primary issues
with rain-fed agriculture. Drought-related crop failures are common as a result of this
unpredictability. Evaluation of the climate is necessary for the development of irrigation.
The primary climatic elements that impact an area's appropriateness for irrigation
suitability evaluation are precipitation and potential evapotranspiration. By deducting
potential evapotranspiration from rainfall, the rainfall deficit is found. When the rainfall
shortfall is positive, there is no need for irrigation water; however, when the deficit is
negative, irrigation is advised, and when the negative value is bigger, irrigation is
required (Assefa et al., 2018).

11
2.6 Assessment of Surface Water Resources

In a stream, river, lake, or reservoir, for example, surface water is defined as water that is
exposed to the atmosphere and receives its nourishment from surface runoff. It is also one
of the most important resources that may be used for a variety of human activities,
including public, industrial, navigational, agricultural, and supply-demand functions. As a
result, understanding surface water potential and how to exploit it is essential to the
assessment, appraisal, and development of water resources. By measuring the amount of
runoff produced in the watershed, the watershed's water potential is evaluated (Daniel et
al., 2011).

The amount of water that is available for irrigation and the specific places to which water
may be carried at a reasonable cost must be considered when deciding whether to
enhance its usage. To ensure that gravity would water the whole field, it was ideal to have
the water supply located above the command area. It is also desirable for the water source
to be in the center of the irrigated area to reduce the size of the delivery channels and
pipes. As a result, it makes sense to build the irrigation system more cheaply by
shortening the irrigation canal's length and placing it near to the command area and
rivers. Estimating the amount of water available for irrigation and the most cost-effective
location for water delivery (Awulachew et al., 2007).

2.6.1 Hydrological Modeling

The elements of the hydrologic cycle are mathematically described by hydrological

models. They make a connection between the known (the input) and the unknown (the
output). The process of figuring out how the hydrological system functions to convert
rainfall into runoff is known as hydrological modeling. Their main applications are in the
fields of hydrological prediction and hydrological process comprehension. The main goal
of the hydrologic system analysis is to examine how the system operates and forecast its
result (Tadele & Förch, 2007). The runoff-generating mechanism that is taken into
account in each of the current hydrological simulation models may be used to categorize
them. In terms of model comparison, the way that stochastic and deterministic models
handle the unpredictability of hydrologic events frequently places them at the top of the
classification tree (Chow et al., 1988). To forecast flows, stochastic models make use of

12
local hydrometric data. These models are based on a study of historical occurrences,
often rainfall and river discharge, and allow for some unpredictability that produces
variable outputs (Ahmad et al., 2001; Tesfaye et al., 2006).

For the evaluation of a water balance, a variety of physically based spatially distributed
hydrological models are available. SWAT, CREAMS model, GLEAMS, EPIC,
Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution (AGNPS) Model, Hydrologic Modeling System
(HEC-HMS) of the Hydrologic Engineering Center, MIKE BASIN, and Simulator for
Water Resources in Rural Basins (SWRRB) are a few of these models.

2.6.2 Hydrologic Model Selection Criteria

According to Beven, (2011) four criteria for selecting model structures. They are,
1. The model's accessibility for the least amount of money and effort.
2. The model's capacity to provide the desired results to fulfill the project's goal.
3. The model's capacity to provide the outputs required to accomplish a certain
project's objectives is taken into consideration.
4. The capacity to compile a list of the assumptions the model makes and the capability
to verify the assumptions that are most likely to be restrictive concerning the
catchment's known response.
5. The capacity to enumerate the inputs needed by the model and determine whether or
not all of the data needed by the model can be supplied within financial and temporal
restrictions.
2.6.3 SWAT Model and its Application
The SWAT model is one of the most popular and generally recognized scientific
techniques for evaluating sediment transport, flow, and water quality in a river basin; this
has been demonstrated at international conferences and in publications and reports about
SWAT. The application of this model for direct and exploratory evaluations of the effects
of human activity, global climate change, and other broad land management concerns on
land and water resources has mostly been driven by the demands of various
environmental agencies (Gassman et al., 2007).

The SWAT model application was calibrated and validated in some parts of Ethiopia,
frequently in the Blue Nile basin. Through modeling of the Gumara watershed (in the

13
Lake Tana basin) Awulachew et al., (2009) indicated that stream flow and sediment
yield simulated with SWAT were reasonably accurate. Due to its free availability and
simple integration with sensitivity, calibration, and uncertainty analysis tools, SWAT is a
widely used model that may be easily used through the creation of geographic
information system (GIS) based interfaces. The online and open accessibility of basic
GIS data makes SWAT model application easier in data-poor locations (Kiros et al.,
2015).

2.7 Overview of GIS Application

A computer-based tool called a geographic information system (GIS) is used to integrate,

gather, store, retrieve, process, and display spatial data in to solve complicated planning
and management issues. GIS has grown in importance as a tool for comprehending and
addressing the world's most urgent issues with water and associated resource
management. We may gather, arrange, and comprehend the spatial relationships between
the data with the use of GIS ideas and technology. GIS analytic skills offer methods for
modeling and combining data to enable resource management choices at many different
scales, from local to global. Additionally, a GIS offers a way to visualize resource
attributes, which improves comprehension and aids in decision-making. Supporting the
process of making geographical decisions is the ultimate goal of GIS. GIS makes it easy
to handle the numerous data layers required for multi-criteria evaluation to determine
appropriateness (Jembere, 2017). The following subsections provide distinct explanations
of the most popular geographic studies that may be performed using a GIS.

2.7.1 Watershed Delineation

Determining a watershed's boundaries is the first step in delineating it. Arc GIS spatial
analysis employs DEMs data as input to demarcate watersheds through the integration of
Arc SWAT or hydrology tools (Jembere, 2017). DEM offers a solid depiction of the
topography, from which GIS technology can automatically create watersheds. Automated
watershed delineation approaches have been integrated into several GIS systems and
customized applications (Zhang & Montgomery, 1994)

14
2.7.2 Mapping

The main application of GIS is mapping where things are and editing tasks as well as for
map-based query and analysis (Monmonier, 1984). As an assortment of layers and other
components are displayed in a map view, the map depicts geographic information. A
typical map element consists of a data frame with map layers for a specified extent along
with a title, scale bar, north arrow, descriptive text, and symbol legend. For irrigation
districts, GIS mapping may be a useful tool for organizing, retrieving, and presenting
geographical data.

2.7.3 Weighted Overlay Analysis

Applying the same measuring scale of values to many and distinct inputs to produce an
integrated analysis is known as a weighted overlay. Geographic difficulties frequently
call for the use of GIS to analyze a wide range of variables. For example, weighing
characteristics like soil, slope, land cover, and distance from water sources is necessary to
determine the best location for irrigation (Monmonier, 1984).

Weighted overlay analysis employs an assessment scale from 1 (represents the least
appropriate factor) to 9 (represents the most suitable factor) to prioritize the effect of
these factor values. To identify eligible land for irrigation, weighted overlay only accepts
integer rasters as input, such as a raster of land cover, soil types, slope, and Euclidean
distance output (the straight line from the center of the source cell to the center of each
surrounding cell (Janssen & Rietveld, 1990).

2.8 GIS as a Tool for Irrigation Potential Assessment

GIS has been used in several previous studies to evaluate Ethiopia's potential for surface
irrigation; Meron., (2007); Hailegebriel., (2007). Negash., (2004) conducted a study on
irrigation suitability analysis in Ethiopia, the case of the Abaya Chamo lake basin. It was
a Geographical Information System (GIS) and took into consideration soil, slope, land
use land cover, and water resource availability in perennial rivers in the basin to identify
potentially irrigable land. Meron., (2007) conducted a study that carried out surface
irrigation suitability analysis of the southern Abay basin by implementing GIS
techniques. This study considered soil, slope, and land cover /use factors to find suitable

15
land for irrigation concerning the location of the available water resources and to
determine the combined influence of these factors for irrigation suitability analysis.

Hailegebriel., (2007) conducted a study on Irrigation potential evaluation and crop

suitability analysis using GIS and Remote sensing techniques in the Beles sub-basin,
Beneshangul Gumuz Region. The study considered slope, soil, land cover/use, water
resources, and climate factors in evaluating surface irrigation suitability. Kebede., (2012)
suggested a GIS-based surface irrigation potential assessment of river catchments for
irrigation development in Dale Woreda, Sidama Region. Identify potentially irrigable
land, irrigation suitability factors such as soil type, slope, land cover/use, and distance
from water supply (sources) were taken into account. The weighted overlay analysis of
these factors gave potentially irrigable land among river catchments.

Kassie et al., (2022) conducted a study on assessment and evaluation of irrigation

potential and water availability of the Abbay basin in Ethiopia. Identification of
potentially irrigable land was conducted by considered irrigation suitability factors such
as slope, land use land cover, Soil physical factors (soil type, soil texture, soil depth and
soil drainage), distance from water supply, climate factors (rainfall and
evapotranspiration), and socio-economic factors (market access such as proximity to a
road and city and population density). Birhanu et al., (2019) conducted a study on GIS-
based surface irrigation potential assessment for Ethiopian River basin. The study
considered slope, soil types, depth of soil, drainage suitability and distance from source to
water supply.

Kebede., (2010) suggested a GIS- based surface irrigation potential asssessment of river
catchments for irrigation development in Dale woreda, Sidama zone, SNNP. Helen.,
(2023) conducted a study on assessment of surface water and land resources potential for
surface irrigation potential use in the Jido river, rift valley lakes basin, Ethiopia. The
study considered topograph (slope), land use land cover, soil factors ( soil texture, soil
depth, soil drainage) and distance from water supply for land suitability assessment.

16
2.9 Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement

Crop water demand is the quantity of water needed to offset evapotranspiration from the
farmed land. Since crop water requirement refers to the amount of water that must be
supplied (positive sign), crop evapotranspiration refers to the amount of water that is lost
through evapotranspiration (negative sign). As a result, the values for crop
evapotranspiration and crop water requirement are identical, except for the opposite sign
(Das & Saikia, 2009). Crop evapotranspiration under standard conditions (ETc) is related
to reference evapotranspiration (ETo), an atmospheric parameter, using the crop
coefficient (Kc), an empirically determined ratio of ETc/ETo. The water that must be
provided through the irrigation system to guarantee that the crop obtains its entire crop
water needs, or the difference between crop water requirements and effective rainfall, is
referred to as net irrigation water requirements (Das & Saikia, 2009).

A piece of land has to be periodically supplied with water to cultivate a particular crop.
Rainfall on the land's surface is anticipated to provide the necessary moisture for the
growth of a particular crop or a mix of crops. However, the distribution of rainfall is not
entirely predictable in terms of time or location (Seleshi & Camberlin, 2006). Varying
crops need varying amounts of water under the same conditions, and a given crop uses
variable amounts of water over its whole life cycle (beginning, development, mid-season,
and late-season stages). Initially, a crop consumes water very slowly during sowing,
sprouting, and early development. In most crops, the rate will rise until it reaches its
maximum growth as they go closer to flowering, at which point it will decrease as they
get closer to maturity (Yee et al., 2012).

Crop type, growth stage, soil characteristics, and current climate all affect how much
water crops need. Crop evapotranspiration (ETc), water application loss (La), conveyance
loss (Lc), and special needs (Ls, such as land preparation and leaching) were added
together to determine the crop water need (CWR).

A basic water balance model included in the FAO Land and Water Development
Division's CROPWAT model enables the modeling of agricultural water stress situations
and yield decrease estimation based on proven techniques for determining crop
evapotranspiration Allen., (1998a) and yield response to water (Doorenbos & Kassam,

17
1979). A popular methodology for estimating ETo, ETc is the CROPWAT model. A
computer application called CROPWAT is used to plan and manage irrigation systems.

Calculating reference crop evapotranspiration, crop water requirements, and scheme

irrigation requirements are some of its fundamental tasks. While there are several ways to
calculate ETo, it has been suggested that the Penman-Monteith approach be used in
conjunction with other methods to calculate ETo using climatic data that include
temperature, humidity, sunlight wind speed (Allen,1998b).

The mathematical penman Monteith form of the combination equation is as follows:

( ) ( )
𝑇
( )
…… Equation 2.1

Where ETo is reference crop evapotranspiration (mm/day); Rn is net radiation at the crop
surface (MJ m2/day); G is soil heat flux density (MJ m-2/day); T is mean daily air
temperature (◦c) at 2m height; es is saturation vapor pressure (Kpa); ea is actual vapor
pressure (Kpa); es-ea is saturation vapor pressure deficit (Kpa); Δ is slop vapor pressure
curve (Kpa/◦c); U2 is the average wind speed at 2m height (m/s) and Y is psychometric
constant (Kpa/◦c).

18
3 MATERIALS AND METHODS

3.1 Description of the Study Area

3.1.1 Location

Awash River Basin is the most consumed and advantageously useable river basin in
Ethiopia. It covers a total of 114,123 km2 area and travels a distance of 1,280 km. The
study area Mille river originates from the Ethiopian highlands west of Sulula in the
Tehuledere Woreda south Wollo zone in the Amhara region. It is one of the major
tributaries of the Awash River Basin. It drains parts of the North Wollo and Debub Wollo
of the Amhara region that enters to lower Awash river basin and joins the main Awash
upstream of the Tendaho reservoir at Afar region (Amognehegn et al., 2023). The area of
the watershed is 4360 Km2 and geographically lies between 110 32‘31.73‘‘N and 390
35‘07.24‘‘E at the North high land of Wollo and 110 26‘38.83‘‘N and 400 55‘32.43‘‘E at
the confluence of the main Awash river (Figure 3-1).

Figure 3-1 Location map of the study area

19
3.1.2 Topography

The topographic features of the Mille river watershed (Figure 3-2) include gently flat to
undulating, rolling, and hilly mountainous landforms. Between the headwaters and
downstream, the elevation of the Mille watershed ranges from 454 to 3566 m a.m.s.l and
a mean elevation of 2010 meters. The higher elevation is found in the western part of the
watershed, Merrsa, Haike, Srinka, and Wuchale while the lower elevation is found in the
eastern part of the watershed, Bati and Mille. In the middle of the watershed, the
landscape is somehow gently sloping.

Figure 3-2 Topographic map of Mille watershed

3.1.3 Climate

Temperature and rainfall are the most important elements in characterizing the climatic
condition of a given region. The climate of Ethiopia can be classified in different ways
including the Rainfall regimes and agro-climatic zone classification systems. The most
commonly used classification systems are the agro-ecological zones. Under this
classification altitude, annual average temperature and average annual precipitation of the
area are considered (Table 3-1).

20
Table 3-1 Agro-climatic zones of Ethiopia

Hyper arid semi-Arid Sub-Humid Humid Alpine

Characteristics
(Bereha) (kolla) (Woyenadega) (Dega) (Wurch)
Altitude (m) < 800 800-1500 1500-2300 2300-3000 > 3000
Temperature (0c) > 20 20-18 18-16 16-13 < 13
Precipitation (mm) < 200 200-800 800-1200 1200-2200 > 2200

Source: (Ministry of Agriculture, 2000)

a) Rainfall

Based on the time series data from 2000 to 2019 as shown in Figure 3-3 and Appendix
table 5, the watershed receives rainfall annually on average between 355 mm in the rift
floor and 1193 mm in highland areas with an average of 774 mm. Two distinct periods
dominate it. There are dry and wet times here, the dry season begins in November and
lasts until April, whereas the wet season begins in June and ends in September. May and
October, the latter two months, are transitional months. While October marks the change
over from the wet to the dry season, May marks the change over from the dry to the rainy
season. The first rainy season, the shorter of the two starts from March to May while the
second starts around July and lasts until September, according to the Mille rainfall
pattern.

The weather system of the Lower Awash sub basin in general influenced by the position
of the Inter Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). The rainy season begins in July when
the position of ITCZ is to the north. Based on the climatic classification of the country,
the sub-watershed has a hot arid type of climate. Both distributions of precipitation and
temperature over the sub-watershed are strongly related to the altitude.

There are few meteorological stations within and around the watershed with different
lengths and types of records mainly concentrated in the upper part of the watershed.
Some of the rainfall stations considered for the watershed area are Bati, Merssa, Serinka,
Tita, Haik, Mille, and Worebabo.

21
 Bati Mille Tita Mersa Haik Werebabo Sirinka

Average monthly rainfall of each stations

8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Month
Figure 3-3 Monthly average rainfall of meteorological stations

b) Temperature
The mean monthly maximum temperature range varied from 24 to 31 oC (Figure 3.4 and
Appendix table 6) while the mean monthly minimum temperature varied from 10 to 17
o
C (Figure 3.5 and Appendix table 7) in the surrounding station of the Mille watershed.

Bati Mille Tita Mersa Haik Worebabo Sirinka

Mean monthly maximum temperature

45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month

22
 Figure 3-4 Mean monthly maximum temperature of selected stations (2000-2019)

Bati Mille Tita Mersa Haik Worebabo Sirinka

Mean monthly minimum temperature
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure 3-5 Mean monthly minimum temperature of selected stations (2000-2019)

3.2 Source of Data and Method of Data Collection

The data used for this study were varied in types and sources. Spatial data that included
DEM, Land Use, Land Cover and Soil Map were collected from online sources and
Awash River Basin Authority (ARBA). Daily climate variables (Rainfall, temperature,
Relative humidity, Wind speed, and Sunshine hour) were collected from the Ethiopian
National Meteorological Agency (NMA), while Daily discharge of Mille River at Mille
near Mille Village gauging Station was obtained from the Ministry of Water, Irrigation
and Electricity (MoWIE).

3.2.1 SRTM-DEM

The Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data are available from the United
States Geological Survey (USGS). 30 m resolution DEM was obtained from USGS and
used as input data in ArcGIS to delineate watersheds and to derive slope maps of the
watershed for irrigation suitability analysis. The slope is the main driving factor for
surface irrigation planning and must be considered in the suitability analysis of surface
irrigation. Therefore 30 m resolution DEM was used to assess the suitability of land using
slope.

23
3.2.2 Soil Data

Soil is a very important factor in the suitability assessment of irrigation. Soil properties or
data maps of the study area were obtained from online sources of Africa Soil Information
Services (AfSIS) and Awash Basin Authority. Africa soil information services data sets
have different soil physical properties like texture, depth, and drainage and therefore
these sites are the preferable data source for these studies. These data were used to assess
the suitability of the area for surface irrigation from a soil suitability perspective.

3.2.3 Land Use Land Cover

Land-use type is the most important factor for suitability analysis and is used to decide
which area is most suitable for irrigation during planning. Land use land cover data was
obtained from the Awash River Basin Authority (ARBA). These were used to identify the
land that is suitable for surface irrigation by considering land cover obtained from Awash
Basin based on the FAO framework of suitability analysis.

3.2.4 River Network and Stream Discharge

The River network is the most important factor for irrigation from a river water source.
The area that is close to the river gets water easily for crop production and the area that is
found far from a river cannot get water easily and is not suitable for irrigation. The major
river network of the study area was obtained from Awash Basin authorities. The flow
data of Mille River at Mille near Mille village were obtained from the Ministry of Water,
Irrigation and Energy (MoWIE). The river network data were used for assessing
irrigation suitability from a river network perspective. The river flow data helped to
assess surface water potential to irrigate the suitable land.

3.2.5 Road Network and Town Accessibility

The market outlet is an important factor for irrigation development. The market outlet
was assessed using road and city accessibility. The road network and city in the study
area were obtained from the Awash Basin Authority. This data is used to assess the basin
suitability of irrigation for market availability to purchase agricultural inputs and to sell
agricultural outputs.

24
3.2.6 Climate Data

Rainfall, temperature (max, min), wind speed, sunshine, and humidity are the most
influential climatic factors for assessing surface water, crop water requirement
calculation of the crop, and finding the suitability of land for irrigation. Twenty-year
daily rainfall, temperature, wind speed, sunshine, and relative humidity (2000 – 2019) of
seven (7) metrological stations in the basin were obtained from the Ethiopian National
Metrological Agency. These climatic data were used in the SWAT model for simulation
of stream flow, CROPWAT8.0 to calculate the water requirement of the crop majorly
grown in the watershed and also used to calculate potential evapotranspiration of the
watershed to find rainfall deficit for irrigation suitability assessment.

3.3 Data Analysis

Following the data collected from the different sources, the data analysis was carried out
using ArcGIS 10.3, SWAT Model, and CROPWAT8.0 model. The analysis focused on
the determination of the surface irrigation potential, mapping of the selected land
evaluation factors, GIS-based analytical hierarchy process for land suitability modeling,
determination of the total water requirements of crops, and quantification of the available
surface water in the watershed using the SWAT model.

The factors considered to assess the surface irrigation suitability analysis were Slope, Soil
characteristics (soil drainage, Soil type, Soil depth, and Soil texture), road proximity,
town proximity, rainfall deficit, river proximity, and Land use/land cover. (Hussien et al.,
2019, Yalew et al., 2016, Bagherzadeh & Gholizadeh, 2016, Yohannes & Soromessa,
2018). Those factors were selected based on the expert‘s opinion, literature review, and
natural condition of the study area. Using the ArcGIS tool, the reclassified raster of the
factors was weighted overlay to generate surface irrigation suitable lands. All the
analyzed data were presented in the form of maps, graphs, and tables, and later discussed
in a descriptive way.

3.3.1 Data Quality Checking

The climatic data must be checked for consistency before it is used for further analysis.
The rainfall, data is obtained from NMA it must be checked for its quality. This can be

25
done by checking if the date and time record is complete, unphysical values (negatives),
flat regions (sensor or transfer system fall out), and unphysical variation patterns.

3.3.1.1 Filling the Missing Climatic Data

Filling the missing data is very important for hydrological analysis. Available stations are
filtered out for a record length of 20 years from 2000-2019. Conditions sometimes
prevent complete records at every station. For gauges that require periodic observation,
the failure of an observer to make the necessary visit to the gauges may result in missing
data. Vandalism of recording gages is another problem that results in incomplete data
records. Data loss may occur as a result of an instrument failure based on mechanical or
electrical problems. Any such causes of instrument failure reduce the length and
information content of the record. So, it is often necessary to estimate or fill in this
missing record.

There are different methods to estimate these missing data, i.e. arithmetic mean method,
normal ratio method, inverse distance weighing method regression method, etc. However,
in this study, the missing daily rainfall has been filled using the normal ratio method. The
normal ratio method is used when the variation of the normal annual rainfall of the
surrounding stations exceeds 10% of the values of the station under consideration or is
being tested by the researcher (Šakalo, 2015).

It differs from the station average method in that it gives weightage for each
meteorological station and on the comparison of the methods to estimate missing values
in precipitation data with various ranges of missing values greater than 10% of missing
value normal ratio method gives a high R-value hence from the installed precipitation
data gauging station in and around the mille watershed. The percent missing precipitation
values are 12.44%, 15.78%, 17%, 14.75%, 14.2%, 19.8%, and 16.38% at Werebabo,
Haik, Bati, Meresa, Tita, Mille, and Sirinka metrology gaging station respectively. The
general formula for computing the rainfall at the missing station (PX) using the normal
ratio method is as follows

PX = ( + )………..Equation (3.1)

26
Where PX is missing the value of precipitation to be computed, P1, P2…..Pn is Rainfall
at the surrounding station, Nx is the normal annual rainfall at stations, N1, N2….Nn are
annual rainfall at the n surrounding stations and n is the number of stations used in the
computation.

3.3.1.2 Consistency Test

The consistency of the data can be checked by using a double mass curve. A common
data analysis technique for analyzing the behavior of records made of hydrological or
meteorological data at various places is called double mass curve analysis. It is used to
determine whether data corrections are required to make changes in the process of data
collection or other contexts. Changes in instrumentation, observation techniques, gauge
position, or environmental factors are only a few instances of the many potential causes
of these changes. Before using a hydrological or meteorological record for analysis,
double mass curve analysis is seen to be a critical tool to check for consistency.

A consistent record is one where the characteristics of the record have not changed with
time. A double Mass Curve is a plot of accumulated values of the station under
investigation against the accumulated value of another station, or accumulated values of
the average of other stations, over the same period. If a significant change in the regime
of the curve is observed, it should be corrected.

The correction factor is calculated as PX' =Px*

Where: Px' = corrected precipitation at station x,

Px =original recorded precipitation at station x

M' = corrected slope of the double mass curve and

M original slope of the double mass curve

According to the double mass curves analysis, all the stations in and around the Mille
watershed were consistent (Figure 3-6).

27
 Bati Mille Tita Mersa Haik Werebabo Sirinka

25000
Cummulative annual rainfall of each stations
R² = 0.9998
20000 R² = 0.9998
R² = 0.9997
15000

R² = 0.9996
R² = 0.9995
10000

R² = 0.9998

R² = 0.9978
5000
0

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

Cummulative Annual Rainfall of the Neighboring Station Groups

Figure 3-6 Consistency test for rainfall

3.3.2 Evaluation of Factors for Surface Irrigation Land Suitability

The assessment of the available irrigable land for surface irrigation was carried out by
considering land suitability evaluation factors such as slope, soil (depth, texture, type, and
drainage), LULC, Rainfall deficit, and distance from (river, road and town). First, the
individual suitability parameters were analyzed by using Arc GIS 10.3 software, and
finally, a weighted overlay was done for all factors to get a single suitability map.

3.3.2.1 Watershed Delineation

A watershed is defined as any surface area from which runoff resulting from rainfall is
collected and drained through a common outlet point. Mille watershed was delineated
using a 30-m resolution Global Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) Digital
Elevation Model (DEM) downloaded from the USGS website and imported to Arc
SWAT to delineate the watershed. A threshold area of 22,000 hectares was used to alter
the sub-watershed numbers appropriately. Finally, the watershed size was determined to

28
be 435,978 ha and 9 sub-watersheds were created for the whole watershed (Figure 3-7).
In terms of watershed area coverage sub_watershed 1 covered the lowest area (557 ha)
while sub_watershed 7 covered the highest area (37,866 ha ).

Figure 3-7 Watershed of Mille river

3.3.2.2 Slope Suitability Assessment

The slope gradient of the land has a great influence on land suitability. It influences
runoff, drainage, soil erosion control practice, and type of irrigation method to drive slope
suitability of the study area. The percentage slope map of the watershed was derived from
30 m resolution SRTM-DEM Using the ―Spatial Analysis tool, Surface, Slope‖ in Arc
GIS and slopes were re-classified based on (Jarvis et al., (2008), Worqlul, (2017)) using
the ―Reclassification‖ tool into five classes. Table 3-2 shows that the slope suitability
classification for surface irrigation and finally, the slope suitability map was developed
and data layers were prepared for further overlay analysis.

Table 3-2 Slope suitability framework

29
 Slope (%) Suitability class Definition
0-2 S1 Highly suitable
2-8 S2 Moderately suitable
8-12 S3 Marginally suitable
12-30 S4 Less suitable
>30 S5 Unsuitable

Source: (Worqlul et al., 2017, Jarvis et al., 2008)

3.3.2.3 Soil Suitability Assessment

Soil is a major factor in the suitability of land for Surface irrigation. Soil texture, soil
drainage, soil depth, and soil type are the major physical properties of soil that are very
important for the evaluation of the irrigation potential of the watershed. They affect the
root growth of the plant, the infiltration of water into the soil, and the production of
crops. These physical properties of the watershed were evaluated independently to
determine the surface irrigation potential of the watershed, this helps to see the land
capability of the watershed.

a) Soil type

Soil is a natural resource that can be categorized into different soil types, each with
distinct characteristics that provide growing benefits and limitations. The soil type map of
the watershed was derived from Awash Basin authorities. Soil type has impacts on
irrigation potential assessment and is considered as one factor to assess the suitability.

b) Soil texture
Based on its particle size, soils are divided into three major types of soil textures. These
include clay, silt, and sandy soils. These major types have mixtures of particles like silt-
clay, clay-loam, sandy loam, etc. Generally, clay, clay loam, and silt clay loam are
classified as fine-textured soils while sandy clay loam, loam, and silt loam are classified
as medium-textured soils and others like sandy soils are classified as coarser-textured
soils. The most important irrigation parameter (Water holding, movement of water
through the soil, water availability, and infiltration capacity) is influenced by soil texture.

30
This infiltration and water holding parameter affect the irrigation type selection, irrigation
interval, and other design parameters like furrow length, size, etc.

The soil texture data of the watershed were downloaded from the AFSIS soil database,
and data of the study area were clay, silty clay, clay loam, loam, sandy clay loam &
sandy loam. According to Worqlul, (2017), The soil texture was classified into four
groups based on the soil water holding capacity, namely very high holding capacity(S1)
(e.g. silt, silt loam, and silty clay loam), high capacity (S2) (e.g. silty clay, and clay), low
capacity (S3) (e.g. loamy sands), and very low (S4) (e.g. sands, and loamy sands).

c) Soil depth
Soil depth is the root space and the volume of soil from where the plant fulfills its water
and nutrient demand. Soil depth is the major factor of soil when determining the amount
of available water in a soil profile. Soil depth affects the plants that grow in them and
irrigation activity in agricultural practice. A deeper soil depth can provide more water and
nutrients to plants than a shallow soil depth. Soil depth also affects irrigation water and
interval, shallow soil requires less water at frequent intervals and larger soil depth
requires more water at long intervals to meet water requirements for their
evapotranspiration demand.

The soil depth data of the watershed were downloaded from the AFSIS soil database, and
data from a study area ranged from 24 cm to 175 cm. According to FAO, (1976), the
watershed was derived from Awash Basin authorities. Soil type has impacts on irrigation
potential assessment and is considered as one factor to assess the suitability., soil depth
greater than 100 cm was very suitable (S1), 80-100 cm was classified as moderately
suitable (S2), soil depth between 50- 80 cm, and classified as less suitable (S3) and soil
depth below 50 cm low suitable (S4).

d) Soil drainage
The soil drainage represents the rate at which water drains into the soil, lower drainage
rates will pour water on the soil surface while in well-drained soils water is removed
readily but not rapidly. Soil drainage is the most important soil parameter to assess soil
suitability for irrigation because drainage is the most important thing in irrigation

31
practice. In irrigation, adequate drainage is needed for proper crop growth and to get the
best yield. According to FAO evaluation techniques used for the evaluation of
permeability of soil properties of the land, soil drainage can be classified as well-drained,
moderately well-drained, imperfectly drained, poorly drained, and very poorly drained.

The soil drainage data of the watershed was obtained from the AfSIS data set. It has six
drainage classes well-drained, moderately well-drained, somewhat excessively drained,
poorly drained, somewhat poorly drained, and very poorly drained. Based on FAO
guidelines soil drainage class was ranging from highly suitable class (S1) to not suitable
class (S4). Highly suitability class (S1) indicates providing good aeration and growth for
crops and is classified under highly suitable for crop production, moderately suitable (S2)
releases water easily compared with well-drained type, marginally suitable (S3) stores
water in plant root and makes difficulty for air circulation in plant root and suitable class
(S4) not providing good aeration and growth for crops and classified under not suitable
class.

e) Soil capability index

After individual soil factors obtained from AfSIS and other sources were assessed, SCI
was calculated by rating individual soil factors (soil texture, soil depth and soil drainage)
from 100% (Appendet table 1, Appendet table 2 and Appendex table 3) based on their
importance to surface irrigation to assess the soil suitability of the watershed for
irrigation. The effect of soil physical characteristics was expressed using the soil
capability index (SCI), which is described as the suitability of soil for irrigation. Soil
textures (A), soil depth (B), and Drainage (C) were used to determine soil capability
index (SCI) and used for suitability analysis as a soil suitability factor.

SCI = A × ( )×( )…………Equation (3.2)

Note: SCI is soil capability index; A is soil texture rating; B is soil depth rating; C is soil
drainage class rating

The classification of SCI was done based on Sys et al., (1991) and Teka., (2010) for
suitability analysis. The highest SCI value indicates that the area is suitable for surface
irrigation and the lower value indicates that the area is less suitable, A high soil capability

32
index means that the soil has deeper soil depth, high water holding capacity, and well-
drained soil whereas a lower value indicates that the soil is poorly drained, shallow depth
and low water holding capacity. SCI was then reclassified into five suitability classes for
surface irrigation (Table 3-3).

Table 3-3 Soil capability index suitability class and range

Soil capability index Suitability class Definition
>80 S1 Highly suitable

60-80 S2 Moderately Suitable

45-60 S3 Marginally Suitable

30-45 S4 Less Suitable

<30 S5 Unsuitable

Source: (Sys et al., 1991, Teka., 2010)

3.3.2.4 LULC Suitability Assessment

Land use and land cover are also one of the potential factors for irrigation land suitability
assessment. The land use land cover data of the watershed was derived from Awash basin
authorities The suitability of land use for surface irrigation is categorized into four classes
based on FAO, (2016), from highly suitable class (S1) to not suitable class (S4) based on
their importance for surface irrigation potential with evident cost to change for cultivation
and environmental impacts under the watershed. Finally, the LULC type of watershed
was reclassified into three suitability classes named as, highly suitable, marginally
suitable, and not suitable.

3.3.2.5 Distance from Water Source (River Proximity)

River proximity is a significant factor that decides and ranks the areas to be irrigated
using surface irrigation from a surface water source. Agricultural land close to river
networks can get access to water easily for crop production and the area found far from
the river cannot get water for crop production. The mille river data was obtained from
Awash Basin authorities. Euclidean distances were calculated for each river in a
watershed and then an equal interval method was used for classified into suitability

33
classes for suitability analysis. The furthest point is found on the boundary of the
watershed and it is not suitable according to the river proximity factor.

3.3.2.6 Road Proximity and Urban Center

Implementation of irrigation requires access to the market to purchase agricultural inputs

and to sell agricultural outputs. The market outlet is the most dominant factor that affects
irrigation suitability of surface irrigation because agricultural products and inputs need
markets and road access to reach users and farmers (Anane et al., 2012; Assefa et al.,
2018; Kassie et al., 2022; Tercan & Dereli, 2020; Worqlul et al., 2017). These market
outlets are expressed by proximity to road networks and urban centers. Urban centers and
road networks that are included within the watershed are considered in this study.
Euclidean distances were calculated from road networks and urban centers and then
classified into suitability classes based on the equal interval approach for suitability
analysis (Worqlul et al., 2015).

The suitability of the market outlet was assessed by dividing the proximity map of the
road and urban center calculated using calculated Euclidean distance, with the nearest
proximity assigned as highly suitable (S1) to the farthest proximity which is not suitable
(S4). The nearest proximity area gets market access within a short distance for their input
and output to purchase and sell and the furthest proximity indicates that the users or
irrigators are fussing to purchase the agricultural inputs and to sell their output. The lands
close to the market and road are most suitable for surface irrigation according to market
accesses because they can get agricultural input and sell their output easily in the market
through road and city.

3.3.2.7 Climate

Irrigation is a practice designed to supplement rainfall deficit which means an imbalance

between water supplied for the crop and evapotranspiration demand. During the rainy
season available rainfall is high and there is no rain deficit for crop production in the dry
season evaporation is high the amount of available rain is very low and empty and crops
are stressed for water and supplied by irrigation water for their better growth and product.
The suitability of the climate for irrigation is assessed by rainfall deficit by considering

34
rainfall and evapotranspiration. Twenty-year daily rainfall, temperature, wind speed,
sunshine, and relative humidity (2000 -2019) of seven (7) stations in the watershed
obtained from the Ethiopian National Metrological Services Agency were used to
calculate the rainfall deficit.

The potential evapotranspiration of each station was calculated by the FAO Penman-
Monteith method using the above climatic data. After the calculation of annual potential
evapotranspiration and rainfall of each station, rainfall and evapotranspiration of the
watershed were estimated by interpolation using the Inverse Distance Weighting
interpolation (IDW) method.

The rainfall deficit was calculated by subtracting potential evapotranspiration from

rainfall. A positive rainfall deficit value indicates that the amount of rainfall is higher
than potential evapotranspiration and there is no irrigation requirement, while the
negative values indicate that the potential evapotranspiration is above available rainfall
and that suggests irrigation requirement; the higher the negative value, the higher
irrigation requirement. These data were classified by equal interval approach into
suitability classes for surface irrigation.

The watershed receives rain 355 mm which is low amounts to 1194 mm which is a high
amount and potential evapotranspiration of 757 mm which is low amounts to 1455 mm
high amount (Figure 3-7 a and b). The rainfall deficit of the watershed ranges between -
499 mm shortage rainfall to 345 mm excess rainfall. These rainfall deficit data were
classified by an equal interval approach into suitability classes for surface irrigation. The
higher positive value indicates that the area is suitable for irrigation and classified as a
highly suitable class (S1) and a higher negative value indicates that the area is less
suitable for irrigation and classified under a less suitable class (S4).

35
 Figure 3-8 Rainfall (a) and Evapotranspiration of the watershed (b)

3.3.3 Weighting of Factors and Overlay Analysis

After the irrigation suitability of each parameter was assessed and the suitability map
layer of each criterion was developed separately, an overlay analysis was done to
generate one suitability map in the Arc toolbox and tools from the spatial analysis toolset.
Saaty, (1977), developed a required model with logic for producing weights under the

36
AHP process with a weighted linear combination and he developed a comparison matrix
to compare a suitability parameter one to one with each other.

The pairwise comparison matrix was prepared to express the relative importance and its
scale of importance. The factors used in the suitability assessment were tabulated and
compared with each other resulting in column factors with the rows for their significance
to surface irrigation. The comparison was done using the value indicated in the table
above and a pair-wise matrix was prepared. Then the pair-wise comparison matrices were
filled and the weights of the factors were computed by normalizing the respective
eigenvector.

The weights we derived from the pairwise comparison matrix must be consistent, to
determine the consistency of the pair-wise comparison matrix, the consistency judgment
has to be checked for the accurate value of N by CR. The CR weights of the judgment
matrix characterized by CR ≤ 0.1 should be used for further analysis. If the consistency
ratio is greater than 0.1 the consistency matrix should be revised (Saaty, 1977).

Note: CR = consistency ratio, CI = consistency index, and RI = consistency index of

randomly generated matrix.

Table 3-4 Random consistency index

N 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

RI 0 0 0.58 0.9 1.12 1.24 1.32 1.41 1.46 1.49

Source: (Saaty, 1977)

CI =

Note, λmax = the largest or principal eigenvalue of the matrix and n = number of
elements being compared in the matrix

Table 3-5 Intensity of importance class, definition, and pairwise scale

Intensity of Definition Explanation

37
 Importance

Two factors contribute equally to the

1 Equal importance
object.
Somewhat more Experience and judgment are slightly
3
important favorable one over the other
Experience and judgment strongly
5 Much more important
favor one over the other
Experience and judgment are strongly
Very much more
7 favored one over the other, their
importance
importance is demonstrated in practice
The evidence favoring one over the
9 More Importance
other is of the highest possible validity
2.4.6.8 Intermediate value When compromise is needed
Source: (Saaty, 1977)

The weights were distributed to individual factors‘ suitability classes based on an equal
interval ranging technique, and the factors will be combined using the weighted sum
overlay technique to produce a suitability index map. The value of the suitability index
ranges from 0 (permanently unsuitable land) to 100 (most suitable land).

𝑆 = 𝛴𝑊𝑖𝑋𝑗 ………………………………………………. Equation 3.3

SS= W1 ∗ RP + W2 ∗ Slope + W3 ∗ SCI + W4 ∗ RD + W5 *Urban + W6 ∗ Road + W7 ∗

Land use where S is the suitable area, W is weight, W 1, 2, 3……7 is the weight of each
suitability factor; RP is river proximity; SCI is Soil capability index; RD is rainfall
deficit.

3.4 Assessment of Available Water

Runoff from a watershed produced by given precipitation is estimated using various

models. However, for this study surface water availability of the watershed was assessed
by using the SWAT model due to the model advanced for hydrological drought
forecasting in Africa in addition to its ability to be applied more simply with few
parameters, despite having high data requirements (Trambauer et al., 2013). Further, the
model is capable of predicting flow and sediment yields and performing further analyses
at the scale of hydrological responses unit (Mtibaa et al., 2018).

38
The metrological data of seven stations (Bati, Mille, Sirinka, Mersa, Tita, Haik, and
Worebabo), LULC data, LULC code, soil data, soil code, slope and DEM of Mille
watershed were used for the simulation of stream flow using SWAT model 2012. The
modeling technique included SWAT project setup, Watershed delineation, HRU
Analysis, Write Input Tables, Editing SWAT Input, and SWAT simulation. All the
techniques were accomplished based on the user guide of SWAT that is prepared by
(Winchell et al., 2010).

a) Watershed delineation
A Digital Elevation Model (DEM) with a 30-meter pixel size which gives topographic
information about the watershed was used. A watershed of the study area was delineated
based on the procedures explained in the SWAT user‘s guideline prepared by Winchell,
(2010). Accordingly, the DEM was imported to Arc SWAT to start automatic watershed
delineation and its projection was defined. Hence, to reduce the number of sub-
watersheds in the area twenty-two thousand (22000) hectares were taken as threshold
area or minimum drainage area, and then the flow direction and flow accumulation were
automatically calculated. The location of the stream flow gauging station (one outlet) was
manually added during the model setup process and the watershed was delineated with 9
sub-watersheds.

b) Hydraulic Response Unit (HRU) analysis

Based on the user guide prepared by Winchell, (2007) hydraulic response analysis was
done. Accordingly, the land uses land cover and soil map of the watershed were projected
before loading into the model and defined using the look-up table. Since the watershed
has a wide range of slopes between them multiple slope discretization operation was
selected over the single slope discretization. Based on the suggested minimum,
maximum, mean, and median slope statistics of the watershed five slope classes (0-2, 2-8,
8-12, 12-30, and 30) were applied. Hence, after land use /cover, slope, and soil were
reclassified, overlay analysis was done to determine the land use/soil/slope class
combinations. Finally, the process is completed 82 HRUs are created for the whole
watershed.

39
3.4.1 Weather Data Preparation

The Seven meteorological stations have precipitation data and temperature data, but only
three stations were synoptic stations having all types of climatic data (precipitation,
maximum and minimum temperature, relative humidity, sunshine hours, and wind
speed). These data were used for generating remaining weather data for other stations.
The daily climate data were processed using SWAT-weatherdatabase-v01803.
Accordingly, WGEN statistics and text files for each weather parameter were prepared
and used with the SWAT project. Finally, the weather generator data file WGEN user,
rainfall data, temperature data, relative humidity data, solar radiation data, and wind
speed data were selected and added to the SWAT model for further analysis.

Table 3-6 Meteorological station, locations and length of data series

Latitude Longitude Data
Station Name Elevation (m)
(degree) (degree) Serious

Bati 11.2 40.02 1660 2000-2019

Mille 11.42 40.77 487 2000-2019

Sirinka 11.75 39.61 1861 2000-2019

Tita 11.12 39.63 2553 2000-2019

Mersa 11.66 39.66 1578 2000-2019

Haik 11.3 39.68 1985 2000-2019

Werbabo 11.31 39.75 2065 2000-2019

Source: (National Meteorology Agency)

3.4.2 Sensitivity Analysis

Sensitivity analysis is the process of identifying the model parameters that exert the
highest influence on model calibration or model predictions. Sensitivity analysis
describes how the model output varies over a range of a given input variable. It is
necessary to identify key parameters and the parameter precision required for calibration.

40
In this case, sensitivity analysis is important to identify and rank parameters that have a
significant impact on the specific model outputs of interest. Therefore, for this study,
sensitivity analysis was done before the calibration process to identify important
parameters for model calibration. The average monthly stream flow data of 13 years from
2002 to 2014 of the watershed gauging station were used to compute the sensitivity of the
stream flow parameters.

After all the input data required for the SWAT model were properly loaded, sensitivity
analysis of parameters was done using the SWATCUP interface for the whole watershed
(Mtibaa et al., 2018). Before the model calibration parameter of sensitivity analysis was
done using the SWAT CUP sequential uncertainty fitting (SUFI2) algorithm global
sensitivity methods, or the whole catchment area. Parameters with small sensitivity
values do not significantly affect the output; hence they are neglected in the calibration
process. Parameters with medium and high sensitivity values have a significant effect on
the output of the model and are used for the calibration process to get better results.

The sensitivity of each parameter was identified by using the t-test, and p-values. P
values were used to determine the significance of the sensitivity a value close to zero has
more significance and the t-test provides a measure of sensitivity, hence larger absolute
values are more sensitive (Abbaspour et al., 2015). In this study, twenty parameters were
used for sensitivity; among twenty parameters twelve parameters are the most sensitive
parameter.

3.4.3 Calibration of Stream Flow Simulation

The simulation of the model with the default value of parameters in the watershed shows
relatively weak matching between the simulated and observed stream flow hydrographs.
Hence, calibration was done for sensitive flow parameters with observed average
monthly streamflow using SWAT-CUP. Flow calibration was done for 9 years (from
January 1, 2002, to December 31, 2010) which includes two years for model initialization
(warm-up). While in conducting calibration auto calibration was done. Auto-calibration
allows the model to change the parameters until both observed and simulated flow data
have been in the acceptable range automatically. After each simulation, the model

41
goodness-of-fit was evaluated and the model performance after adjusting all the
Parameters.

3.4.4 Validation of Stream Flow Simulation

Model validation is the process of demonstrating that a given site-specific model is

capable of making sufficiently accurate simulations, while ―sufficiently accurate‖ can
vary based on project goals (Refsgaard, 1997). The validation procedure involves running
a model using parameters that were determined during the calibration process and
comparing the predictions to observed data not used in the calibration. Flow validation of
the model for the watershed was carried out from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2014,
which is one-third of the measured stream flow data without further adjustment of the
parameters. The objective functions used for evaluation like coefficient of determination,
Nash Sutcliff efficiency, and percent of bias were in the acceptable range for the
validation time of the model in the monthly time step.

3.4.5 Model Performance Evaluation

Three methods for goodness-of-fit measures of model predictions were used during the
calibration and validation periods, these numerical model performance measures are
coefficient of determination (R2), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), and Percent of bias (
PBIAS) (Nash & Sutcliffe, 1970).

a) Coefficient of determination (R2)

The coefficient of determination is expressed as the squared ratio between the covariance
and the multiplied standard deviations of the observed and predicted values and is also
defined as the squared value of the coefficient of correlation. According to Moriasi et
al.(2007) for monthly time steps values between 0.75 and 1 are very good and -values
between 0.65 and 0.75 are good.

∑ (( )( ))
R2 = ( ) .............Equation (3.4)
((∑ ( )) (∑ ( )) )

Qo = observed discharge (m3/s), Qs = simulated discharge (m3/s), Qom = mean of

observed discharge (m3/s), Qsim = mean of simulated discharge (m3/s) and n is the

42
number of observations. R2 indicates how the simulated data correlates to the observed
values of data. The range of R2 extends from 0 (unacceptable) to 1. If the simulation is
accurate, is equal to one. An efficiency of R2 is equal to zero indicating that the model
predictions are as accurate as the mean of the observed data (Krause et al., 2005).

b) Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)

Moriasi et al. (2007) recommended for monthly time steps that NSE values between 0.75
and 1 are very good and NSE values between 0.65 and 0.75 are good. The efficiency,
NSE proposed by Nash & Sutcliffe, (1970) is defined as one minus the sum of the
absolute squared differences between the predicted and observed values normalized by
the variance of the observed values during the period under investigation.

∑ ( )
NSE = 1-
∑
…………………….Equation (3.5)
( )

Where Qi is the observed flow at ίth period, Pi is the simulated flow at the ίth period and Q
is the mean of the observed flow.

c) Percent of bias ( PBIAS))

Measure the average tendency of the simulated data to be larger or smaller than their
observed counterparts. The optimal value of PBIAS is zero, with low magnitude values
indicating accurate model simulation. Positive values indicate model underestimation of
PBIAS, and negative values indicate model overestimation bias (Gupta et al., 1999).

∑ ( )
RVE =
∑
∗ ………………………..Eq (3.6)

Where Pbais = percent of bias (%), Qob = observed flow (m3 /s), Qsim = simulated flow
(m3/s) and n is the number of observations.

43
Table 3-7 General performance ratings for recommended statistics

Statistics Very good Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory

R2 0.75-1 0.65-0.75 0.5-0.65 0-0.5

NSE 0.75-1 0.65-0.75 0.5-0.65 0-0.5

PBIAS < ± 10 ± 10 - ± 15 ±15 - ± 25 ≥ 25

Source: (Nash & Sutcliffe, 1970)

3.5 Estimating Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement

The water requirement of a crop depends on the climatic conditions. Under the same
condition different crops require different amounts of water and the quantities of water
used by a particular crop vary with its stage of growth. Initially during seeding,
developing and early growth a crop uses water at a relatively slow rate. The rate will
increase with the growth of the crop reaching the maximum in most crops as it
approaches flowering and then decline toward maturity. The irrigation water requirement
of crops was estimated by the CROPWAT model.

3.5.1 CROPWAT Model

The CROPWAT 8.0 is a computer program for the calculation of crop water
requirements and irrigation requirements based on soil, climate and crop data. In
addition, the program allows the development of irrigation schedules for different
management conditions and the calculation of scheme water supply for varying crop
patterns. The CROPWAT 8.0 can also be used to evaluate farmers ‗irrigation practices
and to estimate crop performance under both rain-fed and irrigated conditions. There are
several equations, developed by the FAO to calculate reference evapotranspiration (ETo),
crop water requirement (CWR), and irrigation. A comparison of CROPWAT with other
similar models shows that CROPWAT is a better tool for estimating the water needs of
plants (Kang et al., 2009).

a) CROPWAT model input data

i. Meteorological data

44
The CROPWAT 8.0 software uses the Climate data (Mean daily hours of sunshine,
(hours/day), Mean monthly wind speed (km/day), Monthly precipitation (mm), Mean
monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, per month (°c).

ii. Crop data

The major cultivated crops in the watershed were Sorghum, Maize and Wheat. The crop
coefficient (kc) and yield response (ky) for each crop within different growing stages
were selected based on FAO 56 manual (FAO., 1998).

iii. Soil data

Soil characteristics considered for estimation of crop water requirement are important to
available water content and depth of soil, the watershed soil is dominantly clay loam.

b) Data Analysis
The irrigation water requirement of one dominant crop in the watershed was analyzed by
using the CROPWAT 8.0 model. CROPWAT is a computer program developed by the
land and water development division of FAO that calculates reference evapotranspiration,
crop water requirements, irrigation water requirements, and scheme supply, to develop
irrigation schedules under various management conditions and to evaluate rain-fed
production and drought effects (Surendran et al., 2015).

It is used as a practical tool to carry out standard calculations for reference

evapotranspiration, crop irrigation requirements, cropping Patten, and more specifically
the design and management of irrigation schemes. It allows the development of
recommendations for improved irrigation practices, the planning of irrigation schedules
under varying water supply conditions, and the assessment of production under rain-fed
conditions or deficit irrigation (FAO, 1992). It is used as input meteorological data, crop
data, and soil data to estimate irrigation water requirements. The equation used to
calculate crop water requirements is listed below:-

ETc =ETo*Kc…………………Equation (3.7)

Where; ETc. is crop evapotranspiration, ETo is the rate of evaporation from an extensive
surface of green grass cover of uniform height, actively growing, completely shading the
ground and with no shortage of water and Kc is the crop coefficient during the initial,

45
mid and development stage. ETo Expresses the evaporative demand of the atmosphere at
a specific location and time of the year and does not consider crop and soil factors.

c) Penman-Monteith method for calculating ETo

It is the method used for estimating evapotranspiration when the data which are
temperature, relative humidity, radiation and wind speed are available.

( ) ( )
………………………..Equation (3.8)
( )

Where, ETo is the reference crop evapotranspiration (mm day-1 ), Rn is net radiation at
the crop surface (MJm-2 day-1 ), G is soil heat flux density (MJm-2 day -1 ), T is air
temperature (oC), u^2 is wind speed (ms-1 ), es and ea are saturation and actual vapor
pressures respectively (kPa), ∆ is slope vapor pressure curve (kPa oC -1 ) and γ is
psychrometric constant (kPa oC -1 ).

NIR = ETc − Pef ………………Equation (3.9)

NIR= Net irrigation requirement (mm)

Pef = affect rainfall (mm)

∗
𝐺𝐼𝑊𝑅 = …………..Equation (3.10)

Where; E = water conveyance efficiency

GIWR = Gross irrigation requirements (m3/month)

SWD = Scheme water demand (L/s/ha)

Acrop = Potential irrigable area to be cultivated with selected crop (ha)

GIR = ………………..Equation (3.11)

Where; GIR = Gross irrigation requirement and E = Efficiency of irrigation (%)1

3.5.2 Irrigation Potential Land by Availability Water

The surface irrigation potential of the Mille River sub-watershed in the study area was
determined during the dry season from November to March. The sub-watershed irrigation

46
potential was calculated from the minimum monthly averaged dependable flow in
January and the total maximum depth of irrigation (GIWR) in January of the selected
crops in each sub-watershed.

This is:

( )
IP (ha) =

Where; IP = irrigation potential, GIWR = is the maximum gross irrigation water demand
(m3/s) and Q (min) = is the available minimum simulated monthly averaged dpendable
flow in each sub-watershed (m3/s).

3.5.3 Preparing Irrigation Potential Map

To evaluate the irrigation potential of the River sub-watershed, the identified potentially
irrigated land, available surface water, and monthly gross irrigation water requirements
were compared. By developing an irrigation suitability model study that included
weighting the values of all the elements of data, potentially surface irrigable land was
found based on the given appropriate criteria. The map of possibly appropriate irrigable
locations in the sub-watershed is created by analyzing the individual suitability of each
element separately using a weighted overlay. The land suitability map was created by
comparing the quantity of minimum monthly averaged simulated available surface water
and the Gross irrigation water need of the appropriate land. Finally, overall suitable land
was developed.

47
General Framework of the Study
The general framework Figure 3-16 shows input data, procedures, and outputs to achieve
each specific objective.
Data
Collection

Soil DEM LULC River, Road, Hydromete Crop

orological Data
Data Data Data Urban Data
network

Soil Drainage Slope Lulc Proxi Rainfall SWAT CROP

map map mity Deficit Model WAT
Soil Texture
map
Soil Depth

Soil Type Available

Euclidian Water
Reclassify distance
(obs 2)

Weighted
Overlay
CWR

Reclassify Suitability
by SCI Class

Suitable land Irrigation potential

for Surface for surface irrigation
Weighted
irrigation
Sum
(obs 3)
(obs 1)

Figure 3-9 General flow chart of the work

48
4 RESULT AND DISCUSSIONS

4.1 Results of Suitable Land for Surface Irrigation

The result of suitable land for surface irrigation was obtained from the suitability factor
of slope, soil characteristics (SCI), land uses, climate, urban center, road proximity, and
river proximity, the results of each factor were assessed and interpreted separately in the
next section.

4.1.1 Slope Suitability

The result of the slope suitability of the watershed was found in the range of (0% to
328.8%), 0% indicates a completely flat or horizontal surface, while 328.8% indicates a
particularly steep slope within the watershed (Figure 4-1a). The suitability classes of
slope for the development of surface irrigation are shown in Figure 4-1b.

Figure 4-1 Slope map (a) and Slope Suitability map (b)

49
The slope suitability result is shown in Table 4-1. It showed that 3.94% of the area is very
suitable for surface irrigation, the watershed was found within 0-2% slope and is
classified as (S1); 28.96% of the watershed with the slope between 2%-8% is classified
moderately suitable for surface irrigation and classified as (S2). 16.31% of the watershed
had a slope between 8%-12% and is classified as marginally suitable classe (S3); 30.1%
of the area is less suitable and the slope is between 12%-30. Whereas the rest 20.69% of
the watershed was currently not suitable for surface irrigation, the slope is above 30%
and steep slope.

Table 4-1 Slope suitability and area coverage

No Suitability class Area coverage (Km2) % of total area coverage

1 S1 175.7 3.94

2 S2 1291.3 28.96

3 S3 727.3 16.31

4 S4 1342.4 30.1

5 S5 922.9 20.69

Most of the watershed area (67.1%) was covered by a slope that is greater than 8% not
suitable for surface irrigation.

4.1.2 Soil Suitability

a) Soil type
The results of the soil type analysis within the watershed indicate the presence of eleven
soil types. Those are Calcuric flubisols, Chromic luvisols, Chcambisols, eutric cambisols,
dystric nitisols, eutric regosols, haplic xerosols, Vertic cambisols, Vitric andosols, orthic
solonchaks and leptosols (Figure 4-2a). Soil type suitability map also shown in the figure
4-2b.

50
Figure 4-2 Soil type (a) and soil type suitability (b)

51
 b) Soil Texture
The results of the soil texture analysis within the watershed indicate the presence of six
soil texture classes, including clay, silty clay, clay loam, loam, sandy clay loam, and
sandy loam. Among these soil textures, clay loam and clay appear to be the dominant
types within the watershed covering 2544 km2 and 1083 km2 respectively (Figure 4-2a).
Figure 4-2b shows the suitability of each soil texture class.

Figure 4-3 Soil texture (a) and Soil texture sutability (b)

52
 c) Soil Depth
The result for soil depth of the watershed ranged from 24 cm to 175 cm (Figure 4-3a). A
soil depth of the watershed greater than 100 cm was very suitable (S1) and covered
50.81% of the watershed, 80-100 cm was classified as moderately suitable (S2) which is
23.62%, 16.92 % of the area had a soil depth between 50-80 cm and classified as less
suitable (S3) and the rest 8.65% of the watershed had a soil depth below 50 cm and
classified under classified S4 or very low suitable (Figure 4-4b).

Figure 4-4 Soil depth (a) and Soil depth suitability (b)

53
 d) Soil Drainage

Based on the result of soil drainage the watershed had six drainage classes these were
well-drained, moderately well-drained, somewhat excessively drained, poorly drained,
somewhat poorly drained, and very poorly drained (Figure 4-4a), and the result indicated
that 94.1% of the watershed have well and moderately well-drained soil type (S1), 3.3%
are somewhat excessively drained, and classified under moderately suitable (S2), 2.6 %
of the watershed is poorly and somewhat poorly drained soil and classified as marginally
suitable (S3) (Figure 4-4b).

Figure 4-5 Soil drainage (a) and Soil drainage suitability (b)

54
 e) Soil capability index
The result of the soil capability index of the watershed was calculated and the value
ranges from 38 to 100 (Figure 4-5a), and the calculated SCI value was then reclassified
into five suitability classes for further analysis (Figure 4-5b).

Figure 4-6 Soil capability index (a) and Soil capability index suitability (b)

55
Based on SCI suitability results, 48.56% of the watershed was highly suitable (S1) and it
showed very good soil for crop production and is characterized by good water-holding
capacity soil, deep soil depth, and well-drained soil, 30.65 % of the area was classified
under moderately suitable (S2), and indicated moderate water-holding, soil depth and
moderate drainage characteristics, 11.08% of the watershed was classified as marginally
suitable classes (S3) and reasonable soil depth and poorly drained soil and 4.49% of the
watershed was less suitable according to soil capacity index which showed shallow soil
depth and poorly drained soil whereas 5.22% of the area was not suitable for irrigation
and it showed shallow soil depth, low water holding capacity and very poorly drained
soil.

Table 4-2 Soil capability index suitability result

NO Suitability class Area coverage (km2) % of total area coverage

1 S1 2166 48.56
2 S2 1367 30.65
3 S3 492 11.08
4 S4 200.2 4.49
5 S5 233.1 5.22

Soil capability classifications provided valuable insights into the suitability of different
areas within the watershed of Mille for agricultural activities based on soil characteristics.
Highly suitable areas offered optimal conditions for crop production, while areas
classified as moderately suitable, marginally suitable, less suitable, and not suitable
showed varying degrees of limitations and might require different interventions or
alternative land uses.

4.1.3 Land use land cover suitability

The results of the land use land cover within the watershed were obtained from map
analysis which were rangeland, cultivated area, water body, tree, built area, and bare
ground. The dominant land cover was rangeland followed by cultivated area as shown in

56
Figure 4-6a. The result of the LULC classification of the watershed was found to be
highly suitable (S1), marginally suitable (S3), and not suitable (S4) (Figure 4-6b).

Figure 4-7 Land use land cover (a) and Land use suitability (b)

57
Land cover suitability results showed that 22.01% of the watershed was classified as
highly suitable (S1) which was cultivated land and very suitable for surface irrigation. On
the other hand, about 69.35% of the watershed was covered by grass and shrubland, this
type of land requires high cost for land preparation and was classified under marginally
suitable classes (S3). The remaining 8.64% of the area was not suitable for irrigation and
covered with forest, water, hard rock, and other unsuitable covers for irrigation (Table 4-
3).

Table 4-3 Land covers suitability result

No Suitability class Area coverage (Km2) % of total area coverage

1 S1 981.72 22.01
2 S3 3092.59 69.35
3 S4 385.32 8.64

Land cover classifications provided insights into the suitability of different land cover
types within the watershed for irrigation purposes. Highly suitable areas were found
already activated and suitable for irrigation, while marginally suitable areas required
additional preparations and investments to make them suitable for irrigation. The land
cover types classified as unsuitable were found inherently unsuitable for irrigation due to
their characteristics.

4.1.4 Urban suitability

The urban proximity map of the watershed revealed that the farthest point from the town
was located approximately 46 kilometers away (Figure 4-7a). This indicated that the area
was relatively distant from the nearest urban center within the watershed. It was classified
into four suitability classes based on the equal interval approach for suitability analysis
(Worqlul et al., 2017). The nearest proximity was assigned as highly suitable (S1) to the
farthest proximity which was not suitable (S4) as shown (Figure 4-7b).

58
Figure 4-8 Urban proximity (a) and Urban suitability (b)

59
The urban suitability result in Table 4-4 showed that 39% of the area was highly suitable
which would get market access easily within a short distance and the irrigator easily
would distribute and sell their output to the users within an 11 km distance, while 41% of
the watershed was found in moderate distance from the city and classified under
moderately suitable land ( 22 km distance). About 16% of the watershed got market
access within a 34 km distance (marginally suitable) while 3 % of the study area was
found 45 km away from the city and classified as a less suitable area for irrigation.

Table 4-4 Urban suitability result

No Suitability class Area coverage (Km2) % of Area coverage
1 S1 (<11423) 1692 37
2 S2 (11423 - 22846) 1877 43
3 S3 (22846 - 34269) 704 16
4 S4 (34269 - 45693) 187 4

4.1.5 Road suitability

Based on the road proximity map of the watershed the farthest point from the road was
found at a distance of approximately 17 km (Figure 4-8a). This suggests that the area is
relatively remote and located far away from major roadways within the watershed. The
suitability class of the road is shown in Figure 4.8b.

60
Figure 4-9 Road proximity (a) and Road suitability (b)

61
The result of road accessibility showed that 69% of the watershed was highly suitable for
surface irrigation and could get road accessibility within a short distance of 4 km for their
transport need (Table 4-5). On the other hand, 24% of the area was found 8 km away
from the road and classified under the moderately suitable class while 6% of the study
area was classified as a marginally suitable area located within 12 km. The remaining 1%
of the watershed was far from roads (16.5 km distance). This showed that the majority of
the study area was suitable for surface irrigation.

Table 4-5 Road suitability result

Suitability class
No Area coverage (Km2) % of Area coverage
range(m)
1 S1 (< 4133) 3089 69
2 S2 (4133 - 8266) 1052 24
3 S3 (8266 - 12399) 259 6
4 S4 (12399 - 16535) 61 1

4.1.6 Rainfall Deficit

Rainfall deficit analysis results indicated values ranging from -499 mm to 345 mm
(Figure 4-9a). A negative rainfall deficit value (-499 mm) indicated a deficit of rainfall in
the watershed. On the other hand, a positive rainfall deficit value (345 mm) indicated an
excess of rainfall in the watershed. The suitability class of rainfall deficit is shown in
Figure 4-9b.

62
Figure 4-10 Rainfall deficit (a) and Rainfall deficit suitability (b)

63
The rainfall deficit suitability result showed that 12% of the watershed was highly
suitable (S1) which receives a very high amount of annual rainfall indicating that less or
no irrigation water is required to compensate crop evapotranspiration. On the other hand,
57.5% of the area was classified as moderately suitable area (S2) and requires a moderate
amount of irrigation water while 23% of the study area requires high irrigation water to
composite their high evapotranspiration demand and was classified under marginal
suitable classes (S3). The remaining 7.5% of the area was found unsuitable for surface
irrigation which indicates that the area experienced high evaporation and less or no
rainfall.

Table 4-6 Rainfall deficit suitability result

No Suitability class Area coverage (Km2) % of Area coverage

1 S1 535 12
2 S2 2568 57.5
3 S3 1021 23
4 S4 336 7.5

The rainfall deficit suitability class provided information regarding the relationship
among rainfall deficit, evapotranspiration, and irrigation water needs within the
watershed.

4.1.7 River Proximity result

River proximity analysis results indicated that the farthest area of the watershed was
located approximately 33.2 km away from the main river (Figure 4-10a). The suitability
class of rivers for the development of surface irrigation is shown in Figure 4-10b.

64
Figure 4-11 River proximity (a) and River suitability (b)

65
The river suitability result showed that about 57% of the area coverage was found within
the nearest river proximity which was suitable to extract water easily from rivers for crop
production within 8 km. This area was as categorized highly suitable (S1). On the other
hand, 27% of the land was categorized under moderately suitable area (S2) located at a
distance between 8 to 16 km. Moreover, 13% of the study area was classified under
marginally suitable class (S3) located at a distance between 16 to 24 km while 3% of the
watershed was classified as unsuitable (S4) located at a distance from the river between
24 to 33 km.

Table 4-7 River suitability result

No Suitability class Area coverage (Km2) % of Area coverage

1 S1 (<8296) 2526 57
2 S2 (8296 - 16592) 1212 27
3 S3 (16592 - 24888) 585 13
4 S4 24888 - 33186) 137 3

4.1.8 Weighting of Factors for Surface Irrigation Suitability Mapping

The result of weighted factors was obtained and shown in Table 4-8. Based on the results
of the factors river proximity was the most influential factor followed by slope and soil
capability index. Table 4-8 shows the comparison of each suitability factor and the
weight value of each suitability factor.

66
Table 4-8 Suitability factor's scale and weights
Weight
Factors River Slope Soil RD Urban Road LULC (%)
River 1 2 3 4 3 4 5 30
Slope 0.5 1 3 5 3 4 5 25
Soil 0.33 0.33 1 5 4 3 5 18
RD 0.25 0.2 0.2 1 0.33 0.33 3 5
Urban 0.33 0.33 0.25 3 1 1 3 9
Road 0.25 0.25 0.33 3 1 1 3 9
LULC 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.33 0.33 0.33 1 4

Source: (Worqlul et al., 2017, Nigussie et al., 2019, Assefa et al., 2018, Kassie et al 2022)

SCI: is Soil capability index, RD is Rainfall deficit, UR is Urban center and LULC is
Land use land cover. After all the consistency ratio was calculated and found CR = 0.072
which is an acceptable value.

4.1.9 Weight Overlay Results

After each suitability parameter was assessed, reclassified and the weight was developed
separately the weights were distributed to individual factors of suitability classes based
on an equal interval ranging technique. The factors were combined using a weighted sum
overlay to obtain the final suitability map.

The suitability index map value (Figure 4-11) ranges from 43% to 100%, where 43% of
the suitability map value indicates least suitable land for irrigation and 100% of the
suitability map value indicates highly suitable for surface irrigation. As the percent of
suitability increased from the least suitable range (43%) to the most suitable range
(100%), the land suitability for crop production through irrigation increased and became
suitable at 85% threshold value of suitability. A similar resut was reported by (Kassie et
al., 2022) and (Assefa et al., 2018).

67
 Figure 4-12 Suitable land for surface irrigation
The suitability map of the watershed (Figure 4-11) was further classified at 80% and 85%
threshold values to know the suitable area for surface irrigation. However, it does not
mean to say that the area below 80% suitability value was not suitable for irrigation.
When a high initial investment cost for land preparation, construction of longer irrigation
canals to supply water, market access and road access would be fulfilled, it is possible to
bring the land suitable for irrigation.

The suitability map showed that 21% (918 km2) of the study area was suitable for surface
irrigation at an 85% threshold level while 46% (2005 km2) of the study area was suitable
for surface irrigation at an 80% threshold level. It shows that as the threshold level
decreases the suitable area increases but it needs a high initial investment cost for land
leveling and cleaning. When the threshold value increases to 100% the area becomes very
suitable and does not need extra cost for land preparation. Figure 4-12 shows the
suitability of the land for surface irrigation in the study area.

68
 Note: S is a suitable area and N is not a suitable area

Figure 4-13 Suitable land (a) and Suitable land in each sub_watershed (b) at 85%
threshold level.

69
4.2 Water Availability Assessment Result

An analysis of the water availability evaluation was conducted using the simulated stream
flow value. The model was running successfully and the observed flow data (Appendix
table 4) were used for model calibration and validation based on model parameters, using
Soil and Water Assessment Tool Calibration and Uncertainty software (SWAT_CUP).

4.2.1 Stream Flow Sensitivity Analysis

From the result of sensitivity analysis, twelve parameters out of twenty were found to be
the most sensitive based on t-statistic and p-value, while the other nine had less impact on
the model's output than the selected parameter (Table 4-9). Groundwater delay
(Gw_Delay.gw), SCS curve number (CN_2), maximum canopy (CANMX), and Base
flow alpha factor (ALPHA_BF) were the first and most critical factors as shown in Table
4-9.

Table 4-9 Sensitive Parameters for Stream Flow in the Watershed

Max Min Fitted
No Parameter Name t-Stat P-Value Rank
value value value
1 V__GW_DELAY.gw 450 30 34.04 11.22 0.00 1
2 R__CN2.mgt 0.2 -0.2 -0.03 -8.35 0.00 2
3 R__CANMX. hru 10 0 5.87 -6.78 0.00 3
4 V__ALPHA_BF.gw 1 0 0.64 5.23 0.00 4
5 R__SOL_K(..).sol 0.25 -0.25 0.08 -2.94 0.01 5
6 R__ESCO. bsn 1 0 0.20 2.36 0.02 6
7 V__GWQMN.gw 2 0 1.83 2.30 0.02 7
8 R__SOL_AWC (..).sol 0.25 -0.25 -0.25 1.93 0.06 8
9 R__REVAPMN.gw 500 0 91.35 1.80 0.07 9
10 V__RCHRG_DP.gw 1 0 0.64 -1.31 0.19 10
11 R__OV_N.hru 1 0.01 0.88 -1.26 0.21 11
12 V__CH_K2.rte 150 0 33.17 1.07 0.28 12

Note: R_indicates the existing parameter value multiplied by (1+ given value); V_
indicates the existing parameter value that is to be replaced by a given value.

70
4.2.2 Model Calibration for Stream Flow

The objective functions like the coefficient of determination (R2 ), Nash Sutcliff
efficiency (NSE), and percent of bias (PBIAS) were in the acceptable range for the
calibration time of the model in the monthly time step. R2, NSE, and PBIAS values were
found to be 0.88, 0.85, and -0.7% respectively (Table 4-10). The observed and simulated
stream flow values were reasonably fitted at a monthly time scale during the calibration
period. It showed that the simulated stream flow could be used for further analysis.
However, as shown in Figure 4-13, the model underestimated the stream flow to some
extent for the years 2002, 2003, 2005, 2007, and 2010, and overestimated the stream flow
for the year 2008.

35
observed simulated
Observed and simulated flow

30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan-02 Dec-02 Nov-03 Oct-04 Sep-05 Aug-06 Jul-07 Jun-08 May-09 Apr-10
Month

Figure 4-14 Observed and Simulated Flow for Calibration

4.2.3 Model Validation Results for Stream Flow

The observed and simulated stream flow values were fitted at a monthly time scale during
the validation period (Figure 4-14). The objective functions such as coefficient of
determination, Nash Sutcliff efficiency, and percent of bias were in the acceptable range
for the validation and the values of R2, NSE, and PBIAS were found to be 0.85, 0.83 and
0.5% respectively. It shows that the simulated stream flow could be used for further
analysis (Table 4-10).

71
 30
observed simulated

Observed and simulated flow

25

20

15

10

0
Jan-11 Jul-11 Jan-12 Jul-12 Jan-13 Jul-13 Jan-14 Jul-14
Month

Figure 4-15 Observed and Simulated Flow for Validation

Table 4-10 Monthly stream flow calibration and validation model performance statistics
Model
Performance Calibration Value Validation value Recommend
Remark
Measure (2002-2010) (2011-2014) ed Range
Parameters
R2 0.88 0.85 acceptable
>0.6
NSE 0.85 0.83 acceptable
>0.5
PBIAS -0.7 0.5 acceptable
±15
Note: R2 stands for the coefficient of determination; NSE stands for the Nash-Sutcliff
efficiency and PBIAS stands for the Percent of bias.

After several model runs (iterations), SWAT model resulted from a mean simulated
stream flow values for each sub_watershed at a monthly time scale (Table 4-11). In terms
of watershed area coverage, sub_watershed 1 covered the lowest area (557 ha) while
sub_watershed 7 covered the highest (37,866 ha) as shown in Table 4-15.
Correspondingly, the average stream flow for sub_1 (0.54 m3/s) was extremely lower
than the average stream flow of sub_7 (1.8 m3/s).

However, all available stream flow could not be used for irrigation. The source of
evidence from hydrological studies, environmental impact assessments, regulation and

72
policy frameworks, water rights and agreements and export consensus and
recommendation supports the recommendation of releasing 20% of the available river
flow for domestic and ecological purposes, helping to maintain a balanced approach to
water allocation that safeguards both human needs and the health of the watershed
ecosystem (Hailegebriel et al., 2007, Helen., 2023, Molalgn, 2023, Birhanu et al., 2017).
A reasonable amount of stream flow about 20% should be released to the downstream
environment and other consumptive purposes is a usual design procedure. Moreover, a
deducted (20% deduction) stream flow result was used for the surface irrigation potential
assessment of the Mille watershed (Table 4-12).

The average simulated stream flow was lowest in January while the highest simulated
flow occurred in August (Table 4-11). This implied that the lowest flow could be used for
irrigation purposes which could be the highest dependable situation. From this analysis
result, 5 months were selected for further analysis to evaluate the surface irrigation
potential assessment.

Practically, irrigation months (November to March) were selected depending on the study
site conditions where the area received rainfall starting in April (based on the rainfall
data). The mean monthly predicted water yield from November to March was important
to irrigate the selected crops. The effective irrigable area was calculated based on the
minimum mean monthly stream flow.

73
Table 4-11 Mean monthly flow (m3/s) of each sub-watersheds

Sub Month
watershed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Sub_1 0.54 1.13 4.13 5.77 2.87 0.4 12.58 17.19 3.45 0.97 4.31 0.72
Sub_2 1.57 1.78 9 22.74 17.85 5.41 72.97 74.28 19.21 10.36 6.81 2.41
Sub_3 4.3 3.42 14.61 23.24 13.12 4.44 51.35 89.85 23.72 7.84 7.86 5.99
Sub_4 3.69 2.16 18.52 29.53 16.53 5.8 63.4 108.47 29.85 10.13 9.59 3.76
Sub_5 2.16 1.98 3.42 7.41 7.43 4.42 16.25 22.29 13.63 8.46 5.17 3.06
Sub_6 1.75 2.01 7.96 11.26 6.58 1.4 25 34.86 8.46 2.31 6.63 3.72
Sub_7 1.85 2.35 2.74 3.28 4.63 4.94 22.11 40.43 21.49 8.44 5.8 3.58
Sub_8 2.7 6.03 19.75 19.77 17.24 4.96 74.85 79.78 17.63 7.79 6.82 2.7
Sub_9 3.09 2.88 4.94 7.46 6.35 3.27 13.68 22.74 14.01 7.86 6.23 4.22

Table 4-12 Mean monthly flow (m3/s) after 20% was released

Sub Month
watershed Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Sub_1 0.43 0.9 3.3 4.62 2.3 0.32 10.06 13.75 2.76 0.78 3.45 0.58
Sub_2 1.26 1.42 7.2 18.2 14.28 4.33 58.37 59.42 15.37 8.29 5.45 1.93
Sub_3 3.44 2.73 11.68 18.59 10.49 3.55 41.08 71.88 18.97 6.27 6.29 4.79
Sub_4 2.95 1.72 14.82 23.62 13.22 4.64 50.72 86.78 23.88 8.11 7.67 3
Sub_5 1.72 1.59 2.74 5.93 5.95 3.54 13 17.83 10.91 6.77 4.14 2.45
Sub_6 1.4 1.61 6.37 9.01 5.26 1.12 20 27.89 6.76 1.85 5.31 2.97
Sub_7 1.48 1.88 2.19 2.62 3.7 3.96 17.69 32.35 17.19 6.75 4.64 2.87
Sub_8 2.16 4.82 15.8 15.82 13.79 3.97 59.88 63.83 14.1 6.23 5.45 2.16
Sub_9 2.47 2.3 3.95 5.97 5.08 2.62 10.94 18.19 11.2 6.29 4.98 3.38

74
4.3 Results of Crop and Irrigation Water Requirement

4.3.1 Crop Water Requirement (CWR)

CROPWAT8.0 software gave different crop water requirements for different crops. Table
4-13 shows the monthly crop water requirement of wheat, maize, and sorghum which
were the three consecutive dominant crops selected for the study area. The highest (228
mm) and the lowest (203 mm) net crop water requirement was found for sorghum and
maize respectively. Similar results were reported by Birhanu, (2017) in areas of similar
climatic conditions.

Table 4-13 Monthly net crop water requirement of each crop in mm

Month
Crop Type
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
Wheat 5 39 88 76 1 209
Maize 4 63 92 69 0.2 228
Sorghum 2 49 73 70 8 203

4.3.2 Gross Irrigation Water Requirement (GIWR)

The result in Table 4-14 and Figure 4-15 shows the monthly gross irrigation water
requirement of the selected crops in (mm/ha). This result gave monthly water demands
for the selected three crops for the full growth stage that should be abstracted from the
river sub-watershed during the growing period.

Table 4-14 Monthly gross irrigation water requirement of each crop

Month
Crop Type
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Total
Wheat 45 62 209 73 95 484
Maize 30 149 167 120 0 466
Sorghum 30 132 142 103 71 478

75
The gross irrigation water requirement of each crop on the suitable land was estimated
using CROPWAT8.0 model and necessary information extracted from land suitability
results in the previous section.

Monthly gross water demand

250 Wheat Maize Sorghum
Water requirement (mm)

200

150

100

50

0
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Dry months
Figure 4-16 Monthly gross irrigation water requirement for the selected crops

For ease of evaluation of the GIWR in m3/s, suitable land coverage for each sub-
watershed was assumed as 30%, for wheat, 30% for maize, and 40% for sorghum (Table
4-15).

76
Table 4-15 Monthly (GIWR) of each crop under each sub_watershed

Sub_ Month
Suitable Crop Area of
waters
land (ha) type crop (ha) Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
hed
Wheat 167 0.03 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.06
Maize 167 0.02 0.1 0.11 0.08 0
Sub-1 557
Sorghum 223 0.03 0.1 0.1 0.08 0.05
Total 557 0.07 0.23 0.35 0.2 0.11
Wheat 4959 0.85 1.19 4 1.39 1.82
Maize 4959 0.58 2.85 3.2 2.29 0
Sub-2 16,529
Sorghum 6612 0.78 2.88 3.09 2.25 1.55
Total 16529 2.21 6.93 10.29 5.93 3.37
Wheat 3408 0.59 0.82 2.75 0.96 1.25
Maize 3408 0.4 1.96 2.2 1.57 0
Sub-3 11,360
Sorghum 4544 0.53 1.98 2.13 1.55 1.07
Total 11360 1.52 4.76 7.08 4.08 2.32
Wheat 3191 0.55 0.76 2.58 0.9 1.17
Maize 3191 0.37 1.84 2.06 1.47 0
Sub-4 10,635
Sorghum 4254 0.5 1.86 1.99 1.45 1
Total 10635 1.42 4.46 6.62 3.82 2.17
Wheat 660 0.11 0.16 0.53 0.19 0.24
Maize 660 0.08 0.38 0.43 0.3 0
Sub-5 2,201
Sorghum 880 0.1 0.38 0.41 0.3 0.21
Total 2201 0.29 0.92 1.37 0.79 0.45
Wheat 723 0.12 0.17 0.58 0.2 0.27
Maize 723 0.08 0.42 0.47 0.33 0
Sub-6 2,410
Sorghum 964 0.11 0.42 0.45 0.33 0.23
Total 2410 0.32 1.01 1.5 0.87 0.49
Wheat 11360 1.95 2.72 9.17 3.19 4.17
Maize 11360 1.33 6.53 7.33 5.24 0
Sub-7 37,866
Sorghum 15146 1.78 6.61 7.09 5.16 3.55
Total 37866 5.06 15.87 23.58 13.6 7.73
Wheat 2279 0.39 0.55 1.84 0.64 0.84
Maize 2279 0.27 1.31 1.47 1.05 0
Sub-8 7,597
Sorghum 3039 0.36 1.33 1.42 1.04 0.71
Total 7597 1.02 3.18 4.73 2.73 1.55
Wheat 796 0.14 0.19 0.64 0.22 0.29
Maize 796 0.09 0.46 0.51 0.37 0
Sub-9 2,653
Sorghum 1061 0.12 0.46 0.5 0.36 0.25
Total 2653 0.35 1.11 1.65 0.95 0.54

77
The total gross irrigation requirement in (m3/s) of crops in each sub-watershed for each
selected month was used for further analysis (Table 4-16).

Table 4-16 Total GIWR in irrigation months under each sub_watershed

Suitable land Month
Sub-watershed
(ha) Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
Sub-1 557 0.07 0.23 0.35 0.2 0.11
Sub-2 16,529 2.21 6.93 10.3 5.93 3.37
Sub-3 11,360 1.52 4.76 7.08 4.08 2.32
Sub-4 10,635 1.42 4.46 6.62 3.82 2.17
Sub-5 2,201 0.29 0.92 1.37 0.79 0.45
Sub-6 2,410 0.32 1.01 1.5 0.87 0.49
Sub-7 37,866 5.06 15.9 23.6 13.6 7.73
Sub-8 7,597 1.02 3.18 4.73 2.73 1.55
Sub-9 2,653 0.35 1.11 1.65 0.95 0.54

4.3.3 Available Monthly Simulated Flow and Monthly GIR of the Sub_Watershed

According to FAO, (1997) surface irrigation potential of the river sub-watershed in the
study area was obtained by comparing the gross irrigation water requirement in selected
suitable land and the available stream flow of the sub-watershed after releasing 20% of
the available flow in the sub-watershed. Table 4-17 shows the available monthly flows of
the corresponding sub-watershed and the total gross irrigation requirement of selected
crops.

78
Table 4-17 Comparison of total GIWR and available simulated flow
Available
Suitable Month
Sub Flow &
Land
watershed Total GIR
(ha) Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar
(m3/s)
Flow 3.45 0.58 0.43 0.9 3.3
Sub-1 557
GIR 0.07 0.23 0.35 0.2 0.11
Flow 5.45 1.93 1.26 1.42 7.2
Sub-2 16,529
GIR 2.21 6.93 10.29 5.93 3.37
Flow 6.29 4.79 3.44 2.73 11.68
Sub-3 11,360
GIR 1.52 4.76 7.08 4.08 2.32
Flow 7.67 3 2.95 1.72 14.82
Sub-4 10,635
GIR 1.42 4.46 6.62 3.82 2.17
Flow 4.14 2.45 1.72 1.59 2.74
Sub-5 2201
GIR 0.29 0.92 1.37 0.79 0.45
Flow 5.31 2.97 1.4 1.61 6.37
Sub-6 2410
GIR 0.32 1.01 1.5 0.87 0.49
Flow 4.64 2.87 1.48 1.88 2.19
Sub-7 37,866
GIR 5.06 15.87 23.58 13.6 7.73
Flow 5.45 2.16 2.16 4.82 15.8
Sub-8 7597
GIR 1.02 3.18 4.73 2.73 1.55
Flow 4.98 3.38 2.47 2.3 3.95
Sub-9 2653
GIR 0.35 1.11 1.65 0.95 0.54

The total gross irrigation water requirement of the selected crops for all 9 sub-watersheds
in January was 57.2 m3/s and the total available simulated flow in all watersheds in the
month of January also 17.3 m3/s (30%) of demand (Table 4-17).

79
4.4 Irrigation Potential of Mille Watershed

Based on the previous results, the monthly irrigation water requirements of the selected
crops in sub-watersheds 1,5 and 9 were less than the available minimum monthly stream
flow of all growing periods. Therefore, in these sub-watersheds, the irrigation potential of
the sub-watershed was equal to the potential suitable land, and for the remaining sub-
watersheds, irrigation water demand was higher than the available flow. According to
Michael., (2009), the critical command area was calculated for growing these crops with
available flow. In this regard, the comparison of the minimum monthly available flow
and gross irrigation requirement of crops was insufficient to irrigate the total area of
effectively suitable land. The irrigation potential of Mille sub-watersheds was shown in
Table 4-18.

Table 4-18 Irrigation potential (ha) of Mille sub-watershed

Sub Suitable Land Irrigation Potential % of irrigation

Watershed (ha) (ha) potential
Sub_1 557.37 557.37 100%
Sub_2 16,528.77 2,019.67 12%
Sub_3 11,359.62 5,519.28 49%
Sub_4 10,635.12 4,741.67 45%
Sub_5 2,200.68 2,200.68 100%
Sub_6 24,09.57 2,242.10 93%
Sub_7 37,865.70 2,376.95 6%
Sub_8 7,597.26 3,472.51 46%
Sub_9 2,653.20 2,653.20 100%
Total 91,800 25,783.43

The highest water shortage was found for sub_watershed 7 followed by sub_watershed 2
in which case such sub_watersheds have been located geographically under extremely
arid locations of the Afar region (Figure 4-17 ).

80
 Suitable Land (ha) Irrigation Potential (ha)

40000
Irrigable land potential
35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Sub_1 Sub_2 Sub_3 Sub_4 Sub_5 Sub_6 Sub_7 Sub_8 Sub_9

Sub_watershed

Figure 4-17 Suitable land potential and irrigation potential of Mille Watershed

The result of surface irrigation potential showed that in sub_watershed 7 and

sub_watershed 2, suitable land is higher than available water and had an irrigation
potential of about 6% in sub_watershed 7 and 12% in sub_watershed 2. In another hand
the water potential of sub_watershed 1, 5 and 9 is high and could irrigate the whole
suitable land (100%) ( Table 4-18 and Figure 4-17).

In general the total irrigation potential area of the Mille watershed for surface irrigation
was found to be 25,783 ha, which accounts for 5.9% of the total watershed area (435,978
ha) or 28% of the total suitable land (91,800 ha).

81
5 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusion

This research was done to access the potential suitable land, estimate available surface
water potential and to evaluate the surface water sources for the available potential land
using selected crop water requirement estimation, considering surface water sources
using GIS-MCE techniques in the Mille watershed. A total of seven factors were selected
to identify the suitable land for surface irrigation. Proximity to the river, slope and the
soil capability index were found to be the most dominant factors affecting the practice of
surface irrigation and their corresponding weights were 30%, 25% and 18%, respectively.
The potentially suitable land for surface irrigation a 85% suitability threshold level was
91,800 ha of the entire Mille watershed.

The SWAT model simulating result of the available stream flow within the watershed
was found to be 17.3 m3/s and the total gross irrigation water requirement of three
selected crops were 57.2 m3/s throughout the growing period in 9 sub-watershed of the
watershed. Comparing the gross irrigation water requirement of selected crops with
simulated dependable stream flow of Mille River, the total irrigation potential land of the
study area for surface irrigation was found to be 25,783 ha which accounts 28% of
potential suitable land and 5.9% of the total study area.

5.2 Recommendation

From the viewpoint of this study the following points are recommended for further
assessment:-

It is indeed important to consider a comprehensive set of suitability parameters for

surface irrigation potential assessment. Factors such as chemical properties of soil, water
quality, environmental aspects, and other water sources suitability parameters can provide
a more holistic understanding of the irrigation potential and help in obtaining reliable
results.

This study was focused on only three dominant crops such as Wheat, Maize and sorghum
to estimate irrigation water requirement of identified command areas, but the future

82
research should select additional crops in the watershed to evaluate irrigation water
requirement and to increase agricultural products for the livelihoods.

The available flow in the watershed was insufficient to meet the gross irrigation
requirements of crops during the dry season. To ensure sustainable irrigation
development, I recommended the construction of storage structures or the adoption of
water-saving irrigation methods such as drip/trickle and sprinkler irrigation, assessing
groundwater resources and implementing rainwater harvesting techniques are suggested
strategies to address the water deficit and enhance irrigation availability.

83
REFERENCE
Abbaspour, K. C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi, S., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., & Kløve, B.
(2015). A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe:
Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. Journal
of Hydrology, 524, 733–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027
Abraham, M., Daniel, H., Abeba, N., Tigabu, D., Temesgen, G., & Hagos, G. (2015).
GIS based land suitability evaluation for main irrigated vegetables in Semaz Dam,
Northern Ethiopia. Research Journal of Agriculture and Environmental
Management, 4(3), 158–163.
Ahmad, S., Khan, I. H., & Parida, B. P. (2001). Performance of stochastic approaches for
forecasting river water quality. Water Research, 35(18), 4261–4266.
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., Smith, M., & Ab, W. (1998). Guidelines for
computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Crop
Evapotranspiration, 1–15.
Amognehegn, A., Nigussie, A., Assega, M., Adamu, A., Adamu, G., & Assefa, N.
(2023). Analysis of Future Drought Characterization Under Multiple Drought
Indices and Climate Change Impact Conditions for Developing Best Strategic
Measures with CMIP-6 Climate Model in Mille Watershed, Lower Awash Basin,
Ethiopia.
Anane, M., Bouziri, L., Limam, A., & Jellali, S. (2012). Ranking suitable sites for
irrigation with reclaimed water in the Nabeul-Hammamet region (Tunisia) using
GIS and AHP-multicriteria decision analysis. Resources, Conservation and
Recycling, 65, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2012.05.006
Araya, A., Keesstra, S. D., & Stroosnijder, L. (2010). A new agro-climatic classification
for crop suitability zoning in northern semi-arid Ethiopia. Agricultural and Forest
Meteorology, 150(7–8), 1057–1064.
Assefa, T., Jha, M., Reyes, M., Srinivasan, R., & Worqlul, A. W. (2018). Assessment of
suitable areas for home gardens for irrigation potential, water availability, and
water-lifting technologies. Water, 10(4), 495.
Awulachew, S. (2010). Irrigation potential in Ethiopia: Constraints and opportunities for
enhancing the system. Research Report, International Water Management Institute,
Addis Ababa. International Water Management Institute, July, 1–59.
Awulachew, S. B. (2012). The Nile River Basin: water, agriculture, governance and
livelihoods. Routledge.
Awulachew, S. B., & Ayana, M. (2011). Performance of irrigation: An assessment at
different scales in Ethiopia. Experimental Agriculture, 47(S1), 57–69.
Awulachew, S. B., & Merrey, D. J. (2005). Assessment of Small Scale Irrigation and
Water Harvesting in Ethiopian Agricultural Development. International Water
Management Institute: International Water …, January 2014, 1–11.

84
 https://www.academia.edu/download/32299286/IWMI-Seleshi___Merrey-
Assessment_of_Small_Scale_Irrigation_and_WH_in_Ethiopia.pdf
Awulachew, S. B., Tenaw, M., Steenhuis, T. S., Easton, Z. M., Ahmed, A., Bashar, K. E.,
& Hailesellassie, A. (2009). Impact of watershed interventions on runoff and
sedimentation in Gumera Watershed.
Awulachew, S. B., Yilma, A. D., Loulseged, M., Loiskandl, W., Ayana, M., & Alamirew,
T. (2007). Water resources and irrigation development in Ethiopia (Vol. 123). Iwmi.
Ayana, M. (2011). Deficit irrigation practices as alternative means of improving water
use efficiencies in irrigated agriculture: Case study of maize crop at Arba Minch,
Ethiopia. African Journal of Agricultural Research, 6(2), 226–235.
Bagherzadeh, A., & Gholizadeh, A. (2016). Modeling land suitability evaluation for
wheat production by parametric and TOPSIS approaches using GIS, northeast of
Iran. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2(3), 1–11.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0177-8
Bank, T. W. (2006). Managing Water Resources to Maximize Sustainable Growth: A
Country Water Resources Assistance Strategy for Ethiopia. The World Bank
Washington, DC.
Bayissa, Y., Tadesse, T., Demisse, G., & Shiferaw, A. (2017). Evaluation of satellite-
based rainfall estimates and application to monitor meteorological drought for the
Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Remote Sensing, 9(7), 669.
Bégué, A., Arvor, D., Bellon, B., Betbeder, J., De Abelleyra, D., PD Ferraz, R.,
Lebourgeois, V., Lelong, C., Simões, M., & R Verón, S. (2018). Remote sensing
and cropping practices: A review. Remote Sensing, 10(1), 99.
Beven, K. J. (2011). Rainfall-runoff modelling: the primer. John Wiley & Sons.
BIRHANU, A. (2017). Gis-Based Surface Irrigation Potential Asssessment of Dirma
Watershed, Dembia Wereda, North Gonder Zone, Ethiopia.
Birhanu, A., Murlidhar Pingale, S., Soundharajan, B. S., & Singh, P. (2019). GIS-Based
Surface Irrigation Potential Assessment for Ethiopian River Basin. Irrigation and
Drainage, 68(4), 607–616. https://doi.org/10.1002/ird.2346
Daniel, E. B., Camp, J. V, LeBoeuf, E. J., Penrod, J. R., Dobbins, J. P., & Abkowitz, M.
D. (2011). Watershed modeling and its applications: A state-of-the-art review. The
Open Hydrology Journal, 5(1).
Das, M. M., & Saikia, M. Das. (2009). Irrigation and water power engineering. PHI
Learning Pvt. Ltd.
Doorenbos, J., & Kassam, A. H. (1979). Yield response to water. Irrigation and Drainage
Paper, 33, 257.
FAo, A. (1976). A framework for land evaluation. FAO Soils Bulletin, 32.
Fao, F. (2016). agriculture organization of the United Nations.

85
Fao, U. (1999). The future of our land: facing the challenge. Guidelines for Sustainable
Management of Land Resources. Food \& Agricultural Organization and United
Nations Environment Program, Rome, Italy.
Fasina, A. S., Awe, G. O., & Aruleba, J. O. (2008). Irrigation suitability evaluation and
crop yield an example with Amaranthus cruentus in Southwestern Nigeria. African
Journal of Plant Science, 2(7), 61–66.
Frenken, K. (1997). Irrigation potential in Africa: A basin approach (Vol. 4). Food &
Agriculture Org.
Frenken, K. (2005). Irrigation in Africa in figures: AQUASTAT survey, 2005 (Vol. 29).
Food \& Agriculture Org.
Funk, C., Rowland, J., Eilerts, G., Kebebe, E., Biru, N., White, L., & Galu, G. (2012). A
climate trend analysis of Ethiopia. US Geological Survey, Fact Sheet, 3053(5), 6.
Ganole, K. (2010). GIS-based surface irrigation potential: Assessment of river
catchments for irrigation development in Dale Woreda, Sidama Zone, SNNP.
Haramaya University.
Gassman, P. W., Reyes, M. R., Green, C. H., & Arnold, J. G. (2007). The soil and water
assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions.
Transactions of the ASABE, 50(4), 1211–1250.
Gebremedhin, B., & Peden, D. (2002). Policies and institutions to enhance the impact of
irrigation development in mixed crop--livestock systems. Integrated Water and Land
Management Research and Capacity Building Priorities for Ethiopia, 168.
George, H. (2005). An overview of land evaluation and land use planning at FAO. FAO
(Ed.). Rome, Italy: FAO.
Gupta, H. V., Sorooshian, S., & Yapo, P. O. (1999). Status of automatic calibration for
hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering, 4(2), 135–143.
Haile, G. G., & Kasa, A. K. (2015). Irrigation in Ethiopia: A review. Academia Journal of
Agricultural Research, 3(10), 264–269.
Hailegebriel, S. (2007). Irrigation potential evaluation and crop suitability analysis using
GIS and remote sensing technique in Beles Sub basin, Beneshangul Gumez Region.
Unpublished Masters Thesis, Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Hussien, K., Woldu, G., & Birhanu, S. (2019). A GIS-based multi-criteria land suitability
analysis for surface irrigation along the Erer Watershed, Eastern Hararghe Zone,
Ethiopia. East African Journal of Sciences, 13(2), 169–184.
Janssen, R., & Rietveld, P. (1990). Multicriteria analysis and geographical information
systems: an application to agricultural land use in the Netherlands. In Geographical
information systems for urban and regional planning (pp. 129–139). Springer.
Jaruntorn, B., Det, W., & Katsutoshi, S. (2004). GIS based land suitability assessment for

86
 Musa. Graduate School of Agricultural Science, Ethime University, Japan.
Jarvis, A., Reuter, H. I., Nelson, A., & Guevara, E. (2008). Hole-filled SRTM for the
globe Version 4. Available from the CGIAR-CSI SRTM 90m Database (Http://Srtm.
Csi. Cgiar. Org), 15(25–54), 5.
Jembere, T. K. (2017). Gis Based Surface Irrigation Potential Assessment In North
Gojjam Basin, Ethiopia.
Kang, Y., Khan, S., & Ma, X. (2009). Climate change impacts on crop yield, crop water
productivity and food security - A review. Progress in Natural Science, 19(12),
1665–1674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnsc.2009.08.001
Kashyap, P. S., & Panda, R. K. (2001). Evaluation of evapotranspiration estimation
methods and development of crop-coefficients for potato crop in a sub-humid
region. Agricultural Water Management, 50(1), 9–25.
Kassie, Y. A., Yimam, A. Y., Assefa, T. T., & Belay, S. A. (2022). Evaluating land
suitability and water availability for surface irrigation in the Abbay basin of
Ethiopia. Royal Society Open Science, 9(12). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.220674
Kebede, S. (2012). Groundwater in Ethiopia: features, numbers and opportunities.
Springer Science & Business Media.
Kiros, G., Shetty, A., & Nandagiri, L. (2015). Performance evaluation of SWAT model
for land use and land cover changes in semi-arid climatic conditions: a review.
Hydrology: Current Research, 6(3), 7.
Krause, P., Boyle, D. P., & Bäse, F. (2005). Comparison of different efficiency criteria
for hydrological model assessment. Advances in Geosciences, 5, 89–97.
Land, F. A. O., & others. (1997). Irrigation potential in Africa; a basin approach. 4.
Makin, I. W. (2016). Irrigation infrastructure for sustainable and improved agricultural
productivity. Topic Guide.
Makombe, G., Kelemework, D., & Aredo, D. (2007). A comparative analysis of rainfed
and irrigated agricultural production in Ethiopia. Irrigation and Drainage Systems,
21(1), 35–44.
McGuire, S. (2015). FAO, IFAD, and WFP. The state of food insecurity in the world
2015: meeting the 2015 international hunger targets: taking stock of uneven
progress. Rome: FAO, 2015. Advances in Nutrition, 6(5), 623–624.
Mengistie, D., & Kidane, D. (2016). Assessment of the impact of small-scale irrigation
on household livelihood improvement at Gubalafto District, North Wollo, Ethiopia.
Agriculture, 6(3), 27.
Meron, T. (2007). Surface irrigation suitability analysis of Southern Abbay Basin by
implementing GIS techniques. MSc thesis, Addis Ababa University.
Michael, A. M. (2009). Irrigation Theory And Practice-2Nd Edn: Theory and Practice.
Vikas publishing house.

87
Monmonier, M. S. (1984). Geographic information and cartography. Progress in Human
Geography, 8(3), 381–391.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith,
T. L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy
in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885–900.
Mtibaa, S., Hotta, N., & Irie, M. (2018). Analysis of the efficacy and cost-effectiveness
of best management practices for controlling sediment yield: A case study of the
Joumine watershed, Tunisia. Science of the Total Environment, 616–617, 1–16.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.10.290
Nanesa, K. (2021). Irrigation and Drainage Systems Engineering Awash River‘s the
Ongoing Irrigation Practices, Future Projects and its Impacts on the Environment of
Awash River Basin. 10. http://www.selamta.net/national_parks.htm
Nash, J. E., & Sutcliffe, J. V. (1970). River flow forecasting through conceptual models
part I—A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology, 10(3), 282–290.
Negash, W. (2004). GIS based irrigation suitability analysis: In Abaya-chamo basin in
southern Rift Valley. MSc Thesis. Arba Minch, Ethiopia.
Nigussie, G., Moges, M. A., Moges, M. M., & Steenhuis, T. S. (2019). Assessment of
suitable land for surface irrigation in ungauged catchments: Blue Nile Basin,
Ethiopia. Water (Switzerland), 11(7), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11071465
Pönka, A., Kotilainen, H., Rimhanen-Finne, R., Hokkanen, P., Hänninen, M. L., Kaarna,
A., Meri, T., & Kuusi, M. (2009). A foodborne outbreak due to Cryptosporidium
parvum in Helsinki, November 2008. Eurosurveillance, 14(28), 19269.
Refsgaard, J. C. (1997). Parameterisation, calibration and validation of distributed
hydrological models. Journal of Hydrology, 198(1–4), 69–97.
Ritung, S., Agus, F., & Hidayat, H. (2007). Land suitability evaluation with a case map of
Aceh Barat District.
Saaty, T. L. (1977). A scaling method for priorities in hierarchical structures. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology, 15(3), 234–281. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
2496(77)90033-5
Šakalo, V. K. (2015). Vladimir Vysockij: derbi dlinoû v žiznʹ. Izdatelʹ Zmicer Kolas.
Seleshi, Y., & Camberlin, P. (2006). Recent changes in dry spell and extreme rainfall
events in Ethiopia. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 83, 181–191.
Smith, M. (1992). CROPWAT: A computer program for irrigation planning and
management (Issue 46). Food & Agriculture Org.
Smith, M., Allen, R., & Pereira, L. (1998). Revised FAO methodology for crop-water
requirements. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), 51–58.
Solomon, H. (2017). Land Suitability Analysis For Agricultural Cultivation And Surface
Irrigation In Gunbur Watershed: Gis Based Fuzzy Multicriteria Decision Making

88
 Approach.
Sultan, D. (2013). Assessment of irrigation land suitability and development of map for
the Fogera catchment using GIS, South Gondar. Asian Journal of Agriculture and
Rural Development, 3(393-2016–23817), 7–17.
Surendran, U., Sushanth, C. M., Mammen, G., & Joseph, E. J. (2015). Modelling the crop
water requirement using FAO-CROPWAT and assessment of water resources for
sustainable water resource management: A case study in Palakkad district of humid
tropical Kerala, India. Aquatic Procedia, 4, 1211–1219.
Sys, C., Van Ranst, E., & Debaveye, J. (1991). Land evaluation. Part 2: Methods in land
evaluation. Agricultural publications.
Tadele, K., & Förch, G. (2007). Impact of land use/cover change on streamflow: the case
of Hare River Watershed, Ethiopia. Catchment and Lake Research, Proceedings 2nd
Lake Abaya Research Symposium (LARS), Arba Minch, Ethiopia.
Te Chow, V., Maidment, D. R., & Mays, L. W. (1988). Applied hydrology.
Teka, K., Van Rompaey, A., & Poesen, J. (2010). Land Suitability Assessment for
Different Irrigation Methods in Korir Watershed. Northern Ethiopia. Journal of the
Drylands, 3(2), 214–219.
Tercan, E., & Dereli, M. A. (2020). Development of a land suitability model for citrus
cultivation using GIS and multi-criteria assessment techniques in Antalya province
of Turkey. Ecological Indicators, 117(February), 106549.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.106549
Tesfaye, Y. G., Meerschaert, M. M., & Anderson, P. L. (2006). Identification of periodic
autoregressive moving average models and their application to the modeling of river
flows. Water Resources Research, 42(1).
Tilahun, H., Teklu, E., Michael, M., Fitsum, H., & Awulachew, S. B. (2011).
Comparative performance of irrigated and rainfed agriculture in Ethiopia. World
Applied Sciences Journal, 14(2), 235–244.
Trambauer, P., Maskey, S., Winsemius, H., Werner, M., & Uhlenbrook, S. (2013). A
review of continental scale hydrological models and their suitability for drought
forecasting in (sub-Saharan) Africa. Physics and Chemistry of the Earth, 66, 16–26.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2013.07.003
Winchell, M., Srinivasan, R., DiLuzio, M., & Arnold, J. (2010). ArcSWAT interface for
SWAT 2009 user‘guide. Temple, Texas: Blackland Research and Extension Center.
Winchell, M., Srinivasan, R., Luzio, M. Di, & Arnold, J. (2007). Arc-SWAT interface for
SWAT2005-User‘s guide. USDA Agricultural Research ….
Worqlul, A. W., Collick, A. S., Rossiter, D. G., Langan, S., & Steenhuis, T. S. (2015).
Assessment of surface water irrigation potential in the Ethiopian highlands: The
Lake Tana Basin. Catena, 129, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2015.02.020

89
Worqlul, A. W., Jeong, J., Dile, Y. T., Osorio, J., Schmitter, P., Gerik, T., Srinivasan, R.,
& Clark, N. (2017). Assessing potential land suitable for surface irrigation using
groundwater in Ethiopia. Applied Geography, 85, 1–13.
Yalew, S. G., van Griensven, A., Mul, M. L., & van der Zaag, P. (2016). Land suitability
analysis for agriculture in the Abbay basin using remote sensing, GIS and AHP
techniques. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 2(2), 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-016-0167-x
Yee, J. C., Shvartzvald, Y., Gal-Yam, A., Bond, I. A., Udalski, A., Kozłowski, S., Han,
C., Gould, A., Skowron, J., & Suzuki, D. (2012). MOA-2011-BLG-293Lb: A test of
pure survey microlensing planet detections. The Astrophysical Journal, 755(2), 102.
Yohannes, H., & Soromessa, T. (2018). Land suitability assessment for major crops by
using GIS-based multi-criteria approach in Andit Tid watershed, Ethiopia. Cogent
Food and Agriculture, 4(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2018.1470481
Zhang, W., & Montgomery, D. R. (1994). Digital elevation model grid size, landscape
representation, and hydrologic simulations. Water Resources Research, 30(4), 1019–
1028.

90
APPENDIX

Appendix table 1: Rating of soil texture

Soil Texture class Rating

Very fine sandy loam, fine sandy loam, loam, silt, silt loam 100
Loamy very fine sand, sandy loam, sandy clay loam, calcareous silty clay
95
loam, clay loam
Coarse sandy loam, loamy fine sand, non-calcareous silty clay loam, clay
90
loam
Clay 85
Loamy sand, very fine sand 80
Fine sand, loamy coarse sand, sandy clay, 65
Sand 60
Coarse sand 30

Appendix table 2: Rating of soil depth

Soil depth (cm) Rating

>100 100
80-100 90
50-80 80
20-50 60
<20 25

Appendix table 3: Rating of soil drainage classes

Drainage class Rating

Excessively drained and somewhat excessively drained 85
Well-drained 100
Moderately well drained 90
Imperfectly drained 70
Somewhat poorly drained 70
Poorly drained and very poorly drained 50

91
 Appendix table 4: Stream flow data (m3/s)
Station place: Nr. Mille village @ mille station
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Annual
2000 5.18 4.33 3.93 5.45 6.47 0.83 8.25 7.14 9.54 49.88 33.58 9.50 144.08
2001 6.92 4.38 11.69 4.82 5.72 2.51 23.07 36.19 20.49 6.39 3.83 3.19 129.20
2002 6.33 2.36 4.44 7.19 1.47 0.60 9.27 33.71 18.95 9.70 7.77 26.76 128.56
2003 3.61 4.29 6.38 2.98 5.92 5.50 11.65 56.97 17.66 12.64 10.37 16.66 154.64
2004 3.00 3.28 4.70 10.46 0.67 3.24 8.25 19.48 5.08 2.21 2.09 0.66 63.11
2005 0.91 0.33 5.33 12.43 13.90 2.61 15.83 30.87 35.19 2.82 1.69 0.06 121.95
2006 0.00 0.38 3.22 3.86 0.20 0.34 4.05 25.32 10.20 6.19 5.25 1.25 60.25
2007 3.48 4.23 6.82 10.96 5.58 0.03 39.29 26.82 4.48 0.43 2.42 2.33 106.87
2008 2.32 1.77 1.23 5.94 2.90 1.96 1.01 7.50 8.30 0.47 4.99 3.13 41.51
2009 1.80 1.05 0.29 1.76 1.45 1.14 3.92 7.14 9.32 6.80 3.43 2.03 40.12
2010 0.42 1.00 0.24 6.74 9.13 0.08 1.09 5.06 2.48 10.70 11.67 10.05 58.64
2011 1.28 0.28 1.72 1.04 16.31 12.63 8.95 65.09 14.20 10.71 7.22 5.09 144.51
2012 2.84 2.67 2.40 6.68 15.10 2.09 39.53 45.52 15.21 1.13 3.11 5.08 141.36
2013 0.37 0.54 1.31 2.88 0.91 0.72 5.34 12.97 2.31 0.85 0.42 0.38 29.00
2014 2.51 5.20 3.34 15.39 8.12 3.72 4.71 10.06 4.45 1.71 1.62 1.58 62.41
Ave 2.73 2.41 3.80 6.57 6.26 2.53 12.28 25.99 11.86 8.18 6.63 5.85 95.08

92
Appendix table 5: Mean annually rainfall data for the stations
Year Bati Mille Tita Mersa Haik Werebabo Sirinka Average
2000 945.5 450.8 1124.9 1061.4 1440.5 1216.4 1209.2 1064.1
2001 935.0 249.1 1124.9 1034.2 1414.0 1220.3 992.3 995.7
2002 832.0 464.6 1091.8 912.8 1251.8 1181.2 981.2 959.3
2003 923.8 472.2 1409.7 898.8 1076.6 1087.2 956.5 975.0
2004 852.1 344.3 1033.4 796.1 1103.9 1170.6 831.7 876.0
2005 909.4 252.7 1337.3 1003.3 1282.7 1203.8 1303.4 1041.8
2006 925.6 333.8 1275.8 1214.6 1176.3 1254.1 1098.6 1039.8
2007 834.5 433.0 1149.7 1028.1 1080.3 1126.8 1077.5 961.4
2008 832.0 222.7 854.6 763.0 915.8 896.5 942.3 775.3
2009 834.0 239.4 1012.6 908.8 1136.1 1168.5 867.9 881.0
2010 945.0 288.0 1425.0 1269.7 1445.0 1352.9 910.0 1090.8
2011 833.0 254.1 1041.0 828.5 1053.1 1106.9 917.3 862.0
2012 836.0 555.8 1015.6 1107.7 1139.6 1035.5 1079.7 967.1
2013 844.3 248.1 1025.0 923.7 1017.9 894.3 975.4 847.0
2014 945.0 507.7 1297.4 954.4 1195.0 1258.6 1267.5 1060.8
2015 929.0 345.9 858.9 807.8 832.7 821.5 778.0 767.7
2016 940.0 307.5 1233.5 1105.6 1280.5 1242.1 1243.3 1050.4
2017 854.0 368.4 1119.6 1291.6 1321.6 1324.1 1069.2 1049.8
2018 939.0 316.5 1267.0 1295.0 1213.9 1354.0 1234.2 1088.5
2019 945.0 446.6 1248.3 708.4 1164.1 1192.3 1045.6 964.3
Average 891.7 355.1 1147.3 995.7 1177.1 1155.4 1039.0 965.9

93
Appendix table 6: Mean monthly maximum temperature data for the stations

Month

Station Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Bati 24.47 25.44 28.11 29.17 31.16 32.96 30.87 28.61 28.84 28.35 26.66 24.99
Mille 32.73 33.17 36.50 38.89 40.79 42.82 40.58 38.19 39.66 38.32 35.15 32.99
Tita 19.69 21.36 22.09 22.49 23.82 25.41 23.76 22.48 22.25 21.42 20.99 19.81
Mersa 27.02 27.79 29.37 30.18 31.90 33.12 31.16 29.60 29.90 29.00 27.74 26.69
Haik 20.57 21.97 23.25 24.19 25.20 26.28 24.92 23.44 23.43 22.20 21.35 20.42
Worebabo 20.57 21.97 23.25 24.19 25.20 26.28 24.92 23.44 23.43 22.20 21.35 20.42
Sirinka 23.49 25.07 26.61 27.46 29.10 30.92 28.94 27.29 27.08 26.09 24.99 23.77

Appendix table 7: Mean monthly minimum temperature data for the stations

Month
Station
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Bati 10.18 10.54 13.42 14.67 14.91 16.30 16.36 15.33 14.18 10.96 9.82 8.89
Mille 20.47 22.46 24.01 26.34 28.47 30.36 27.39 25.15 28.27 26.40 23.53 21.81
Tita 7.29 8.40 9.47 10.55 11.08 11.81 12.02 11.65 10.60 7.94 6.42 6.17
Mersa 10.18 10.54 13.42 14.67 14.91 16.30 16.36 15.33 14.18 10.96 9.82 8.89
Haik 7.61 8.08 10.14 11.65 11.87 12.13 13.45 13.36 11.99 8.36 6.86 6.21
Worebabo 10.12 10.88 11.94 12.49 13.50 13.95 12.77 12.29 12.43 11.21 10.24 9.59
Sirinka 10.97 12.12 13.53 14.61 15.61 16.52 15.84 15.30 14.40 12.44 11.34 10.53

94