Installation of Pipes

Lecler NL and Harris AJ Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass (2019) 92 : 139-157
REFEREED PAPER
A FRAMEWORK AND METHODS TO ASSESS IRRIGATION

AND DRAINAGE DECISIONS
LECLER NL1,2 AND HARRIS AJ1
1Tongaat Hulett, Technology Group, Private Bag 3 Glenashley, 4022, South Africa
2School of Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, 4041, South Africa
Neil.Lecler@tongaat.com Alasdair.harris@tongaat.com
Introduction
Farmers worldwide are facing increasing pressure to be better stewards of the soil and water
resources they utilise. Often this requires an upgrade to an existing irrigation, drainage and/or
water management system. Upgrades should be based on a good understanding of irrigation
performance and the likely financial and environmental impacts of various choices.
Drainage problems are likely to develop insidiously over many years (Johnston, 1994). Also,
because implications of poor drainage may not be immediately obvious and can be relatively
difficult and expensive to address, many irrigation systems have been installed without
effective surface and sub-surface drainage. As a result, substantial areas of irrigated lands
become degraded over time. Thirty three per cent of irrigated land worldwide is reported to be
degraded with salinity problems caused by poor drainage (Machado and Serralheiro, 2017).
The option to take advantage of substantial advances in surface and sub-surface drainage
technologies should, therefore, receive serious attention in any consideration of an irrigation
performance upgrade. GPS control of equipment has enabled land forming with continuously
variable grades to be achieved relatively easily and cost effectively with minimal disturbance
of the topsoil when compared to laser levelling, thus facilitating excellent surface drainage.
Tile ploughs, also with GPS grade control, allow for precise and relatively easy and cost-
effective installation of sub-surface drains.
139
In this paper, a brief review of irrigation and drainage performance fundamentals is given to
put the proposed analysis methods and tools in context. A spreadsheet-based cashflow
budgeting tool which can be used to quickly assess implications of various irrigation and/or
drainage interventions and assumptions is described. The tool accounts for, among other
things, crop yield trends, repair and maintenance costs, labour, water and energy usage.
Results from using the tool to compare various irrigation and drainage upgrade scenarios are
shown and discussed. Methods and models to help predict implications of irrigation and
drainage changes on crop yields and water use, as reflected in the spreadsheet model, include
a proposal to use data from LiDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) systems.
Irrigation and Drainage Performance Fundamentals (after Lecler et al., 2008)
Any consideration of irrigation systems performance should consider the water balance, the
uniformity of irrigation water applications, the management of the water applications and the
surface and sub-surface drainage requirements.
The water balance
In Figure 1 the various fractions of the water balance which are involved in defining irrigation
performance at the field level are illustrated.
Figure 1. Various fates of water in the soil-plant-atmosphere system (ASCE, 1978).
The components of the water balance can be deemed, amongst other things, to be,
‘beneficial’, ‘non-beneficial’ and ‘consumed’ or ‘non-consumed’ (Burt et al., 1997; Reinders et
al., 2010). The aim of improved and more precise irrigation is to reduce as far as possible, the
non-beneficial components, especially the consumed, non-beneficial components such as
evaporation from the soil surface. Runoff and excessive deep percolation losses (i.e. more
than the leaching requirements needed to reduce a build-up of salts in the root zone) from a
field are non-beneficial and not consumed. If drainage is inadequate, excessive deep
percolation and even deep percolation matching the leaching fraction required to maintain a
salt balance, can lead to raised water tables and the development of saline conditions.
Uniformity of irrigation water applications
Irrigation uniformity refers to the evenness of irrigation water applications. Different

engineering indices are used to ascribe a numeric value to uniformity. A useful index is the
lower quarter distribution uniformity (DUlq) which is the average depth of water applied in the
140
Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Subject to the CABI Digital Library Terms & Conditions, available at https://cabidigitallibrary.org/terms-and-conditions
quarter of the field receiving the least amount of water divided by the average depth of water
applied to the whole field (Burt et al., 1997). Even if the timing and average magnitude of water
applications is well matched to crop water demand and soil water storage capacity, non-
uniformity results in some areas receiving relatively higher water applications, leading to
excessive deep percolation, nutrient leaching and/or run-off and other areas receiving
relatively lower water applications leading to crop water stress. The excess deep percolation
and/or run-off will also contribute to a higher water-table, the development of ponded areas,
and saline conditions if drainage is impaired.
The traditional approach to dealing with low uniformities, which was to increase water
applications so that the quarter of the field receiving the least amount of water, received
adequate water (Burt et al., 1997), was, therefore, not ideal. It has resulted in many
misconceptions in the understanding of irrigation efficiency, often encouraged inefficiency
(Lecler, 1996); ignored the likelihood of crop yield reduction on the areas receiving excess
water; ignored the likelihood that the excessive deep percolation on a major portion of a field
will lead to raised water tables and salinity issues and ignored the strain such an approach
places on water supplies. Irrigation practitioners should rather aim at improving the uniformity
of water applications and not confuse poor uniformity with poor irrigation efficiency. The
practice of increasing irrigation water applications to counter poor uniformity should be
discouraged (Reinders et al., 2010).
Water management
Managers of irrigation systems, by the appropriateness of their actions and/or instructions

often contribute the most to poor or good irrigation systems performance. Important
performance characteristics of an irrigation system which impact on how easily or well a
system is managed are:
 the inherent flexibility of the irrigation system in terms of the amount of water which can be
applied at each irrigation application,
 how frequently/flexibly the water can be applied,
 the associated labour requirements, and
 the rate at which water is applied.
Thus, in addition to cost effectiveness and robustness, characteristics of an irrigation system

capable of precision irrigation include:
• a great degree of operational flexibility,
• a water application method which results in reduced non-beneficial components of the
water balance, such as evaporation from the soil surface, runoff and/or excessive deep
percolation, and
• a high degree of uniformity in the spatial extent of water applications.
Whilst many irrigation systems fulfil requirements needed to be effective in theory, there are
also numerous issues in practice. For examples: the cost and relatively complex maintenance
requirements of drip irrigation; energy demands of overhead-sprinkler-systems in the context
of escalating energy prices; problems of poor irrigation uniformity associated with many
traditional ‘long’ furrow irrigation systems together with the challenge of matching the
frequency and amount of water applied to crop water requirements, especially on shallow soils
(Lecler, 2004). Thus, to improve performance, an irrigation system may need to be replaced
by a better-suited alternative and/or a drainage intervention may be required.
141

Surface and sub-surface drainage
Surface and subsurface drainage infrastructure manage excess water in or on the soil profile
to eliminate ponded zones within a field and to maintain the water table below the ‘root zone’
to avoid saturated and saline conditions which inhibit plant growth (Reinders et al., 2016). An
explanation of the dynamics of optimal soil, water and air management is given in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Management of water and air in the soil profile.
Results presented by Reinders et al. (2016) from a 13-year study showed that average grain
yields on those fields with adequate surface and subsurface drainage were double those of
fields with no drainage infrastructure. Further to this, the study demonstrated that yields on
the properly drained fields varied by 18% as opposed to 46% on those fields with no drainage
infrastructure indicating that crop resilience is bolstered by improving a field’s drainage
performance. Reinders et al. (2016) also reviewed a 5-year study where treatments included
irrigation only, drainage only, irrigation and drainage and a control. In the combined irrigation
and drainage treatment, average yields increased by nearly double those of the individual
irrigation only and drainage only treatments which on their own had already yielded significant
gains. This ‘greater than the sum’ improvement is likely due to adequate drainage assisting
with managing any negative impacts from non-uniform irrigation applications and/or imperfect
irrigation scheduling.
Gosnell (1970) reported a 35% reduction in cane yield with a water table 50 cm from the
surface and a relatively rapid decline in ratoon yields compared to treatments where the water
table was 75 cm or lower. Saline conditions developed in a region 20 to 30 cm above the water
table which likely explains the relatively rapid decline in ratoon yields with the shallower water
tables.
Adequate drainage needs to be in place to prevent ponded conditions and the development
of high water tables and saline conditions. Reinders et al. (2016) stress that effective drainage
is essential to maximising crop yields.
142

Methods to assess implications of irrigation and/or drainage interventions
Simulation models or field trials can be used to assess how changes to the irrigation and/or
drainage system and/or management practice will impact both crop yields and the water
balance. Recent developments in drones and remote sensing technologies also offer a
potential means to assess the likely benefit of interventions, especially drainage interventions.
Approaches and proposals to use models and remote sensing technologies to assess the
impacts of irrigation and drainage interventions are discussed here.
Models
Models rely on well-designed field trials for their development and verification but allow for
cost-effective extrapolation of results, provided representative information and data are
available. Models for assessing irrigation changes have been widely used, however, models
to assess drainage impacts are more complex. Data and information requirements for
modelling impacts of drainage interventions are far more onerous and drainage models are
relatively difficult to utilise (Armour, 2007; Reinders et al., 2016).
Lecler (2014) reports on numerous case studies involving the use of ZIMsched 2.0 model to
assess various irrigation interventions. ZIMsched 2.0 is a relatively unique model in that it
simulates impacts of irrigation uniformity in addition to accounting for:
 evaporation from the soil surface and transpiration in relation to:

- atmospheric evaporative demand,
- available soil water, including excess and/or deficient conditions,
- crop and rooting characteristics, the development of which are related to temperature
and thermal time,
- irrigation system type, for example, sub-surface drip irrigation versus overhead
sprinkler irrigation,
 stormflow (surface runoff), and
 deep percolation,
all of which relate to:
 rainfall effectiveness and

 crop yields.
Lecler (2004) proposed and demonstrated a method to assess performance of irrigation

systems which involved taking in-field measurements of the system characteristics such as
irrigation uniformity, application amounts and scheduling strategy, and then using these
together with ZIMsched 2.0 to predict how changes and/or improvements would impact
performance, i.e. crop yields and the water balance. If the changes or improvements could not
be made to an existing system, for example, by a simple intervention like replacing
inappropriate nozzles on a centre pivot to improve uniformity, the process provided information
on what benefits and characteristics a new improved irrigation system should have. Together
with information on associated costs for a new system or appropriate modification, an informed
decision regarding a change or upgrade could be made. Jumman (2009), for example, used
this approach in a case study where the costs and benefits of modifying a sprinkler system to
permit shorter cycle and stand times was investigated.
The use of models to predict implications of drainage interventions is relatively complex and
difficult. Thus, an alternative and novel method is proposed to assess drainage interventions.
The method leverages on developments in drone and remote sensing technologies.
143

Remote sensing technologies
LiDAR (light detection and ranging), can be used to scan an established sugarcane field from
the air (piloted or un-manned aircraft) to produce a map detailing the variability of the crop
canopy height (CCH’) within a field together with detailed topography (Harris et al., 2018).
Poswa and Miles (2018) showed some regression curves relating stalk height to harvested
stalk mass with R-squared values of between 84% and 88% for individual varieties with the
cane at an age of 3-7 months, i.e. a strong correlation between stalk height and crop yield.
This is to be expected because stalk heights in different parts of a field represent an integration
of growing conditions up until the time of measurement.
In creating a CCH map two surfaces are required, namely, the ground and the ‘top of canopy’
surfaces. Both surfaces can be created from LiDAR data acquired in a single flight, provided
that the flight takes place at an elevation which allows for a reasonable point density
(>10 ppm2) to ensure sufficient canopy penetration to detect the ground surface at a
reasonable resolution (1 point per 25 m2). Results from such a process are shown in Figure
3. The ground surface is subtracted from the canopy surface to produce the CCH map.
90
Transect 88
89
73
Replicated
87
74
plots
F
86
75
84
85
77
76
71
72
Canopy Profile Canopy Points
70 55
83 78
69
79 56
82 68
57 54
80 67
58
66 53
81 59
LEGEND 52
60 37
65
<all other
64
values> 61
51
38
50
EmpangeniTrial_0.5m_CHM.tif
62 49
39 36
40
35
<VALUE> 63 48
41
34
47 42 19
0 - 1.8 33
20
46 43
32
1.81 - 1.9 21 18
44 31
22
1.91 - 2 45 30 17
23
2.01 - 2.1 16 1
29 24
15
28 2
2.11 - 2.2 25
14
3
2.21 - 2.3 26 13
4
27 12
2.31 - 2.4 5
2.41 - 2.5 10
11
7
6
Ground Points
2.51 - 2.6
2.61 - 2.7 9
8
0 10
Meters
20
Plot boundaries Ground Surface

2.71 - 2.8
CCH Map – Plan View Transect Cross Section
Figure 3. A 1 m wide transect through a variety trial scanned with a

drone mounted LiDAR system (Microdrones MD1000).
Data was processed by Land Resources International (Barnes, 2019).
According to Maas and Hoffman (1977) the most common effect of soil salinity is a general
stunting of plant growth. Therefore, analysis of a CCH map in combination with a surface water
ponding map, should enable the impact of poor surface drainage on crop canopy height to be
definitively and spatially determined. Figure 4 below is an example of a ponding analysis
carried out in Optisurface land-forming software (http://www.optisurface.com/). Ideally the
ponding map should be overlaid with the CCH map. The relationship between ponding and
crop heights can be used to support a financial motivation for a drainage intervention by
comparing crop heights in relatively poor and ponded areas to crop heights in areas with no
ponding issues and using the height to yield relationship (Poswa and Miles, 2018) to estimate
the potential value of drainage interventions.
144

100m
Figure 4 Water ponding analyses carried out in Optisurface land-forming software indicating
deficient surface drainage.
To provide a more complete assessment, spatially representative soil samples pertaining to

sub-surface drainage issues can be overlaid with the CCH map and ponding map, for the
same field. Potential sub-surface drainage (water-table and salinity) issues in areas of
relatively low crop height can be assessed. There are many more factors that could influence
crop growth and therefore crop canopy height, however, the strength of the correlation
between the soil salinity and ponding depth layers and the CCH map is indicative of the
dominance these have on crop yield variability. If appropriate and spatially representative soils
data is available the Maas and Hoffman (1977) model (linking the electrical conductivity of
saturated soil paste extract, ECe, to crop yield) could assist in indicating the quantum of yield
improvement likely to accrue from improved sub-surface drainage and a reduction in soil
salinity (ECe), for specific field areas.
Tool to compare alternative investments in irrigation and/or drainage
A spreadsheet-based model was developed to compare different irrigation, surface and sub-
surface drainage options and combinations using a cashflow budgeting technique. The
equivalent annual benefit (or cost) considers the capital expenditure required to implement
irrigation and/or drainage improvements as well as differences in crop growing expenses
between the different systems. It enables the estimates of average annual returns for various
scenarios to be compared over various time periods. Many variables can be adjusted to reflect
conditions expected to be associated with a certain irrigation system and/or drainage regime
in terms of both yield predictions and associated capital, installation and operating expenses.
A rational accounting (or integration) of all these, especially operating and maintenance
expenses and yield projections, is important in assessing different systems and options.
Different irrigation and/or drainage options can be explored relatively efficiently including
implications of likely future scenarios, for example, the impact of relatively high inflation rates
(price increases) on electricity costs.
Base yield and crop yield decline with increasing ratoon age
A base yield and an initial yield decline rate are set, to account for crop yield decline with
increasing ratoon age. The base yield would be the yield expected in the plant crop of a field
targeted for an irrigation and drainage upgrade or intervention. The yield decline rate is the
rate that the crop yields decline with increasing ratoon age, as a per cent per annum. Starting
145

values can be determined, for example, using historical records filtered to reflect typical
conditions associated with the field in question.
Yield decline due to poor surface and/or sub-surface drainage
There are the options to add in an additional yield decline rate as a percent per annum to
reflect a situation where the yield decline due to poor surface and/or sub-surface drainage
worsens over time, i.e. the problem grows as is typical (Johnston, 1994). With irrigation
systems more likely to have run-off issues, such as overhead sprinkler and pivot systems, the
rate can also be adjusted relative to systems such as sub-surface drip, which are unlikely to
have run-off issues to the same extent.
Yield benefit due to improved surface and/or sub-surface drainage
The impact of improved surface drainage is reflected as a percentage increase in crop yields.
The quantum of the ponding problem and likely impact of addressing the problem could be
informed by using LiDAR data as described in this paper. The impact of sub-surface drainage
is likely to accrue more gradually, as leaching of salts takes effect (Reinders et al., 2016).
Therefore, there is the option to reflect a per cent increase in yields in the first year after sub-
surface drainage installation, a likely further increase in the per cent yield improvement in the
second year after installation and a further increase in the per cent yield improvement in the
third and subsequent years after installation. Gosnell (1970) showed data that drainage could
improve sugarcane yields by 35% while Reinders et al. (2016) reported that sugarcane yields
could improve by as much as 50% following a sub-surface drainage intervention.
Yield benefit due to an improved irrigation system
The impact of an improved irrigation system is reflected as a percentage increase in crop

yields. Improved yields are typically associated with improved uniformity and better matching
of irrigation applications with crop water requirements and soil water storage characteristics.
The ZIMsched 2.0 model is a particularly useful tool for predicting the quantum of irrigation
impacts for specific soils and climates as it accounts for irrigation uniformity and the impact on
crop yields of both too little and too much water (Jumman, 2009; Lecler, 1996, 2004).
Irrigation costs
Irrigation costs include:
 capital and installation costs

 repair and maintenance costs as a percent of the capital costs
 labour requirements
 typical irrigation water requirements
 typical power requirements.
Most typical costs associated with different irrigation systems can be obtained from service
providers and/or analysis of farm or estate records and data. Simulation models such as
ZIMsched 2.0 can be used to predict water requirements of different irrigation systems for
various field and environmental conditions. In the spreadsheet cashflow model, the electricity
charges were calculated from first principles based on pressure and flow requirements of the
various systems and assuming typical pump and motor efficiencies. An example of costs and
relative water and electricity use for the case study examples used in this paper are shown in
Table 1. For traditional long furrow irrigation, it was assumed that: concrete feeder canals are
replaced every 10 years, there are 80 m of feeder canal per hectare irrigated (i.e. furrows are
125 m long on average) and a feeder canal costs R210/m to replace.
146

Table 1. Costs and characteristics assumed and/or calculated for

different irrigation systems used in the case study scenarios.
R&M Annual Labour Avg Avg

Cost Installation
R&M Water Elec
(R/ha) (%) (R/ha) (%) (R/ha) (Ha/person) (mm/ha) (kW.h)
Land forming for surface drainage or
R furrow
10 000.00
perf 0% R - 0 R -
Sub-surface drainage R 18 000.00 0% R - 0.5 R 90.00
SSI irrigation pipes, SSI R 27 000.00 38% R 10 260.00 1 R 270.00 30 1100 63
Sub-surface drip, SSD R 40 000.00 6% R 2 400.00 4 R1 600.00 30 1100 845
Center pivot, CP R 25 000.00 4% R 1 000.00 4 R1 000.00 50 1300 1227
Sprinkler, SPR R 20 000.00 6% R 1 200.00 4 R 800.00 15 1400 1883
Long furrow, LF R - 0% R - R2 450.00 15 1500 0
Other growing and harvesting costs
Various growing costs can be accounted for in the cashflow analyses. In this paper
representative assumptions regarding the cost of land preparation, fertilisers, herbicides,
seed-cane, harvesting and haulage have been made as shown in the results. These could be
refined and added to for specific circumstances and cases, as may be appropriate.
Example application of the tools
Various irrigation and drainage scenarios were considered to illustrate how the tool can be
used to assess options for upgrading a poorly performing furrow irrigation field assumed to
have some drainage issues.
In the first scenario the option of upgrading to sub-surface drip (SSD) was considered. For this
exercise it was assumed that the infield dripper lines needed to be replaced after nine years
at a cost equivalent to 55% of a new complete system (Thompson et al., 2016) adjusted for
inflation. SSD has been shown to have potential to be a top-performing irrigation system in
terms of the water balance and attainable crop yields (Lecler, 2004), however, it is often the
most expensive irrigation system to purchase. Financial constraints may preclude addressing
drainage issues at the same time as installing SSD. If drainage issues exist, this scenario
would indicate performance gains due to a benchmark irrigation system on its own, i.e. without
drainage issues addressed concurrently?
In the second scenario the option of converting a poorly performing furrow field to centre pivot
without surface and sub-surface drainage correction was compared to converting it to an
overhead sprinkler system with surface and sub-surface drainage issues addressed. Centre
pivots typically perform relatively well in terms of attainable crop yields, being characterised
by relatively high uniformities and great degree of management flexibility relative to overhead
irrigation systems (Reinders et al., 2010). This scenario was selected to assess whether a
centre pivot with all its irrigation advantages would out-perform an irrigation system which
typically has more irrigation issues, for example, lower uniformities and less flexibility, but
which was integrated with appropriate drainage corrections?
In a final scenario, synergetic surface irrigation (SSI) is compared to SSI integrated with
improved surface and sub-surface drainage. SSI is a novel short furrow, long field irrigation
system described by Lecler (2016). Mills (2010) benchmarked an early form of SSI, named
automated short furrow (ASF) against sub-surface drip irrigation (SSD) in a replicated field
trial. ASF performed similarly to SSD in terms of yields achieved and water used, and thus the
yields and water use projections for SSI were assumed to the same as those for sub-surface
drip. Although the option of addressing surface and sub-surface drainage concurrently with
SSI adds substantially to the basic piping costs (cf Table 1) the option permits relatively
efficient large-scale design and installation of SSI systems, which otherwise would be
challenging. It was, therefore, considered to be an important scenario to assess.
147

For the long furrow irrigation scenario - additional yield decline due to surface and sub-surface
drainage was assumed to be 0.1% and 0.7%, respectively (first table in Appendix A). For the
pivot and sprinkler systems these decline rates where assumed to be 0.2% and 0.5% and for
SSD and SSI, 0.1% and 0.5%. Differences related to known characteristics of the different
irrigation systems, for example, ponding is typically less of an issue with furrow irrigation
compared with sprinkler and pivot irrigation, while over-irrigation and deep percolation are
typically more of an issue with furrow irrigation compared with pivot and sprinkler irrigation
(Lecler, 2004). The performance of SSI and SSD has been shown to be similar (Mills, 2010)
and SSD has been shown to have lower runoff and deep percolation losses compared to the
other systems (Lecler, 2004). All the assumed incremental yield decline rates associated with
poor drainage were relatively small and resulted in final yields been marginally different (refer
to Appendix A). What is important is to acknowledge and represent as realistically as possible
that drainage issues are likely to get worse over time rather than better (Johnston, 1994;
Gosnell, 1970).
For those scenarios where drainage was addressed, the yield benefit was assumed to be 10%
for surface drainage and 4%, 7% and 12% for subsurface drainage for the 1st, 2nd and 3rd or
more years, respectively. These are relatively conservative benefits compared with benefits
reported in the literature cited in this paper (cf. Reinders, et al. 2016 and Gosnell, 1970). A
novel methodology utilising LiDAR data was proposed to help corroborate estimates used for
specific fields and conditions.
The full details of the cashflow analyses are given in Appendix A. A summary of the equivalent
annual margins for the various options assumed in the scenarios are shown in Table 2.
Table 2. Summary of the equivalent annual margins* (EAM) for various irrigation and drainage
scenarios where the various options were considered as an alternative to a long furrow
irrigation system with some drainage issues
Synergetic
Synergetic
Long furrow Sub-surface Centre pivot Sprinkler with surface
surface
with drainage drip with with drainage drainage issues irrigation with
irrigation with
issues drainage issues issues addressed drainage issues
drainage issues
addressed
R17 558 R13 360 R16 174 R19 384 R21 186 R27 870
*Equivalent annual margin (EAM) is the transformation of the net present value of net cashflows of the scenario
into an equivalent annual amount.
Discussion and Conclusions
According to assumptions used in the scenarios, the sub-surface drip (SSD) system had much
better yields and used less water than the long furrow system (refer Appendix A, Table A1
compared to Table A2), as is typical. The financial analysis, however, indicated that SSD was
less profitable. This was an unexpected result considering the yield benefits and water savings
associated with sub-surface drip irrigation. A contributing factor was that in these scenarios
the electricity costs were inflated at a rate assumed to be 15% per annum. This is a relatively
high rate but also realistic for South Africa where the price of electricity has been increasing
at relatively high rates, like this. In this scenario it was assumed that the furrow system was
gravity-fed and, therefore, had no electricity costs; so, the contrast in electricity costs was
large but realistic for places where furrow irrigation is gravity-fed. The cost of replacing in-field
dripper-lines after nine years, as assumed for this scenario, also had a major negative impact
on the equivalent annual margin (EAM) of SSD. In the authors’ experience dripper lines have
148

been replaced after as little as three years or after as long as 12 years. The cost of replacing
dripper-lines should be included in an investment analysis. No gradual decline in irrigation
uniformity was assumed in this analysis. If dripper-lines have deteriorated to the extent that
they need replacement, a gradual decline in uniformity due to increased blockages is likely,
especially in the years just before the lines are replaced. Representing a gradual decline in
uniformity as reduced crop yields would have penalised the EAM of drip even further.
Although in the second scenario, the centre pivot system was predicted to have better crop
yields than the sprinkler system, mostly attributed to improved uniformities and more flexible
water application options, the option of including improved surface and sub-surface drainage
with the sprinkler system resulted in better overall performance (refer to Tables A3 and A4).
This scenario was selected for the paper as it highlights the potential benefits of drainage
improvements, especially if fields have drainage issues. Drainage improvements could far
outweigh differences between the characteristic or potential performance of different irrigation
systems on their own and, therefore, should not be neglected in upgrade decisions.
An attraction of synergetic surface irrigation (SSI) is the relatively low energy requirements,
operating and maintenance costs which reflected in its favour in the cash-flow analysis. The
system is also characterised by small, flexible and highly uniform water applications, which is
why its performance in terms of crop yields and water requirements has been shown to be
similar or better than sub-surface drip. There are major synergies in using advanced GPS
controlled surface-drainage/land-forming technology together with SSI. Used together, the two
technologies facilitate optimum surface drainage, with continuously variable grades, minimum
top-soil disturbance and ideal short-furrow (but long field) irrigation layouts; unlike with
traditional long-furrow irrigation, the layouts can be adapted with relatively minor modifications
to existing topography, for example, in-field ridges and/or valleys, which is a major advantage.
The design and installation process for SSI lends itself to incorporating improved surface
drainage and sub-surface drainage and the cash-flow analysis supports these interventions.
The EAM without improved surface and sub-surface drainage for SSI was R21 186 which was
far less than the EAM of R27 870 with improved surface and sub-surface drainage.
These scenarios highlight the impact that operating and maintenance costs can have on
overall profitability. Systems which potentially have excellent performance in terms of the
water balance and crop yield predictions such as sub-surface drip, can be severely
disadvantaged if operating and maintenance costs are relatively high. Systems with high
energy demands were severely penalised compared to systems which were comparably more
energy efficient.
The opportunity cost of water is not reflected in these analyses. In areas where water is limited
relatively to land, Lecler (1996) and Jumman (2009), for example, have shown that the
opportunity cost of water can be substantial and should be considered for specific contexts,
i.e. the benefit (or lost opportunity) can be substantial if the saved water can be used to grow
more crop, either during droughts or where more land is available. In such contexts, irrigation
systems which are potentially more efficient such as sub-surface drip, pivots and SSI will hold
additional advantages over less efficient systems.
The assumptions used for the various scenarios were based on a synthesis of the many
studies referred to in the literature cited. In the authors’ opinion they were conservative but
representative of typical performance characteristics, especially in a relative sense. Rational
methods and procedures to address specific fields and conditions were discussed, including
use of appropriate simulation models and a novel application of LiDAR data. These should
allow for more specific predictions of yield impacts and water usage. This will improve the level
of confidence attributed to a financial return for a specific irrigation and drainage intervention.
Nevertheless, cash flow analyses based on conservative assumptions and typical
performance characteristics were so distinctive that a rational decision should be facilitated
149

even if predicted impacts of drainage and/or irrigation interventions are not exact and a degree
of expert judgement and synthesis of literature is involved.
The weight of literature evidence and the investment analysis with realistic costs and
conservative yield projections, showed that investments in improved surface and/or sub-
surface drainage are likely to be worthwhile. Taken together with water and salt balance
fundamentals, these findings add weight to an argument for investing in improved drainage.
For effective resource stewardship, surface drainage should be adequately addressed on all
irrigation fields to avoid excessive ponding and help ensure soil and crop health are
maintained over time; together with more productive use of precious irrigation water.
Where soils mapping shows that deep drainage is likely to be inhibited, sub-surface drainage
should also be adequately addressed and is likely to be a very worthwhile investment. New
GPS-based technologies facilitate more effective and efficient drainage installations. The
opportunity costs of not investing in proper drainage are likely to be large, especially for future
generations.
REFERENCES
Armour R (2007). Integrated modeling for Sustainable Management of Salinity in the Lower Vaal and
Riet River Irrigation Areas; PhD Thesis. University of the Free State.
ASCE (1978). Describing irrigation efficiencies and uniformity. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage
Engineering 104(1): 35-41.
Barnes A (2019). Personal Communication (Email). Pietermaritzburg: Land Resources International.
Burt C, Solomon K, Merriam J, Clemmens A, Strelkoff T and Howell T (1997). Irrigation Performance
Measures: Efficiency and Uniformity. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 123(6): 423-
442. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)0733-9437(1999)125:2(97).
Gosnell JM (1970). Some Effects of a Water-Table Level on the Growth of Sugarcane. Irrigation 841-
849. Rhodesia Sugar Association Experiment Station, Chiredzi, Rhodesia.
Harris A, Rapson B and Tweddle P (2018). Poster: Yield Mapping in Sugarcane – The Step-Change
Enabler. 3rd Agricultural Engineering, Agronomy and Extension Workshop. Reunion Island.
Johnston M (1994). An evaluation of the four-electrode and electromagnetic induction techniques of soil
salinity measurement. Report No. 269/1/94. WRC Publications, Pretoria, RSA
Jumman A (2009). A Framework To Improve Irrigation Design and Operating Strategies in the South
African Sugarcane Industry. School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology,
University of KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
Lecler N (1996). Integrated methods and models for deficit irrigation planning. In: Peart R and Curry R
(Eds.), Agricultural Systems Modelling and Simulation. Dekker Inc, NY, USA.
Lecler N (2004). Performance of Irrigation and Water Management Systems in the Lowveld of
Zimbabwe. School of Bioresources Engineering and Environmental Hydrology, University of
KwaZulu-Natal, Pietermaritzburg.
Lecler N, Mills D and Smithers J (2008). Automated short furrow: a system for precision irrigation. 6th
Australian Controlled Traffic Farming Conference. Dubbo, NSW, Australia.
Lecler, NL (2016) A synergetic system to produce sugarcane using surface irrigation. International
Sugar Journal, CXVIII (1413)
Machado RMA and Serralheiro RP (2017). Soil Salinity : Effect on Vegetable Crop Growth.
Management Practices to Prevent and Mitigate Soil Salinization. Horticulturae 3(30): 1-13.
https://doi.org/10.3390/horticulturae3020030.
Maas EV and Hoffman GJ (1977). Crop salt tolerance - Current assessment. Journal of Irrigation and
Drainage Division, American Society of Civil Engineers 103(2): 115-134.
Mills D (2010). Development and assessment of an automatic short furrow irrigation system. School of
Bioresources Engineering and Environmental hydrology, Univsersity of KwaZulu-Natal,
Pietermaritzburg.
150

Poswa L and Miles N (2018). Poster: Leaf Nitrogen analysis and interpretation: A preliminary
investigation into improving the reliability of critical concentrations through the inclusion of crop
biomass. South African Sugar Technologist Association 91.
Reinders F, Oosthuizen H, Senzanje A, Smithers J, van der Merwe R, van der Stoep I, and van
Rensburg L (2016). Development of Technical and Financial Norms and Standards for Drainage of
Irrigated Lands (Vol. 1). Report No. 2026/1/15. WRC Publications. Pretoria, RSA
Reinders F, van der Stoep I, Lecler N, Greaves K, Vahrmeijer J, Benadé N, Ascough G (2010).
Standards and Guidelines for Improved Efficiency of Irrigation Water Use from Dam Wall Release
to Root Zone Application. Report No. TT 465/10. WRC Publications. Pretoria, RSA.
Thompson M, Shannon E and McDonnell P (2016). Low-cost drip irrigation – representative economic
analysis, Burdekin region. Department of Agriculture and Fisheries (DAF), Queensland.
151

Appendix A. Detailed cashflow analyses for various irrigation and/or drainage scenarios.
Table A1. Yield predictions and cashflow analysis for a long furrow irrigation system with some drainage issues.
Period Years = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Base Yield (t/ha) 100
Initial Yield Decline % 4.0%
Yield trends with ratoon decline 100 96 92 88 85 82 78 75 72 100 96 92
Additional Yield decline due poor surface drainage %/yr 0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2%
100 96 92 88 85 81 78 75 71 99 95 91
Additional Yield decline due poor sub-surface drainage %/yr 0.7% 0.7% 1.4% 2.1% 2.8% 3.5% 4.2% 4.9% 5.6% 6.3% 7.0% 7.7% 8.4%
S-surface 99 94 90 86 82 78 74 70 67 92 88 83
Surface 1st yr 2nd Yr >=3 yr
Drainage Yield Benefit 0% 0% 0% 0% 99 94 90 86 82 78 74 70 67 92 88 83
Irrigation Yield Benefit (final estimated yield) 0% 99 94 90 86 82 78 74 70 67 92 88 83
Cashflows
Inflation Loan Rate Unit R/Unit
Rate Term
Expenses (%) (yr)
Land forming for surface drainage 1 Ha 0.00 0.00

Sub-surface drainage 1 Ha 0.00 0.00
Solar pump system 1 Ha 0.00 0.00
Irrigation system 6% 1 Ha 0.00 0.00 0.00
Water 10% 15 Ml 150.00 -2475.00 -2722.50 -2994.75 -3294.23 -3623.65 -3986.01 -4384.61 -4823.07 -5305.38 -5835.92 -6419.51 -7061.46
Electricity (solar) 15% 0 kW.h 1.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
R&M 6% Variable R/ha 2450.00 -2597.00 -2752.82 -2917.99 -3093.07 -3278.65 -3475.37 -3683.89 -3904.93 -4139.22 -4387.58 -4650.83 -4929.88
Irrig Labour 7% 0.07 man days 200.00 -14.27 -15.27 -16.33 -17.48 -18.70 -20.01 -21.41 -22.91 -24.51 -26.23 -28.06 -30.03
Landprep 6% 1 traditonal 4760.00 -4760.00 -8041.92

Seedcane 4% 12 t 500.00 -6000.00 -8539.87
Ferts 8% 1 mix 4074.00 -4074.00 -4399.92 -4751.91 -5132.07 -5542.63 -5986.04 -6464.93 -6982.12 -7540.69 -8143.94 -8795.46 -9499.10
Herbicides and chemicals 8% 1 mix 1550.00 -1550.00 -1674.00 -1807.92 -1952.55 -2108.76 -2277.46 -2459.66 -2656.43 -2868.94 -3098.46 -3346.33 -3614.04
Harvest and Transport 6% 1 t 130.00 -13669.86 -13798.56 -13927.76 -14057.44 -14187.57 -14318.14 -14449.13 -14580.51 -14712.26 -21434.84 -21626.04 -21817.68
Revenue
ERC Sales 51584.36 51087.58 50592.99 50100.57 49610.32 49122.23 48636.30 48152.52 47670.88 68143.05 67453.73 66767.48
ERC % 12.5%
ERC price 4% 1 t ERC 4000.00 4160.00 4326.40 4499.46 4679.43 4866.61 5061.28 5263.73 5474.28 5693.25 5920.98 6157.82 6404.13
Cash Flows (excluding seedcane) -16384.00 26754.32 25238.61 23651.54 21986.97 20238.25 18398.12 16458.71 14411.47 -4334.69 24316.69 21616.14 32928.42
NPV discounted at 6% R 155 437.43

EAB discounted at 6% R 17 558.23
Payback 1
152

Table A2. Yield predictions and cashflow analysis for converting the long furrow system
with some drainage issues to sub-surface drip irrigation.
Period Years = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Additional Yield decline due poor surface drainage %/yr0.1% 0.1% 0.2% 0.3% 0.4% 0.5% 0.6% 0.7% 0.8% 0.9% 1.0% 1.1% 1.2%
100 96 92 88 85 81 78 75 71 99 95 91
Additional Yield decline due poor sub-surface drainage0.5%
%/yr 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0%
S-surface 99 95 91 86 82 79 75 72 68 94 90 86
Cashflows
Rate Term
Expenses (%) (yr)
Loan repayments
Irrigation system 6% 1 Ha 42400.00 -42400.00 -39398.65
Water 10% 11 Ml 150.00 -1815.00 -1996.50 -2196.15 -2415.77 -2657.34 -2923.08 -3215.38 -3536.92 -3890.61 -4279.68 -4707.64 -5178.41
Electricity (solar) 15% 845 kW.h 1.50 -1458.02 -1676.72 -1928.23 -2217.47 -2550.09 -2932.60 -3372.49 -3878.36 -4460.12 -5129.14 -5898.51 -6783.28
R&M 6% Variable R/ha 1600.00 -1696.00 -1797.76 -1905.63 -2019.96 -2141.16 -2269.63 -2405.81 -2550.16 -2703.17 -2865.36 -3037.28 -3219.51

Seedcane 4% 12 t 500.00 -6000.00 -8539.87
Ferts 8% 1 mix 4074.00 -4074.00 -4399.92 -4751.91 -5132.07 -5542.63 -5986.04 -6464.93 -6982.12 -7540.69 -8143.94 -8795.46 -9499.10
Revenue
ERC Sales 56857.09 56424.32 55993.36 55564.21 55136.86 54711.30 54287.52 53865.53 53445.31 76569.34 75967.66 75368.53
ERC % 12.5%
ERC price 4% 1 t ERC 4000.00 4160.00 4326.40 4499.46 4679.43 4866.61 5061.28 5263.73 5474.28 5693.25 5920.98 6157.82 6404.13

Payback 2
153

Table A3. Yield predictions and cashflow analysis for converting a long furrow system with some drainage
issues to centre pivot irrigation with no drainage issues addressed.
Period Years = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Additional Yield decline due poor surface drainage %/yr

0.2% 0.2% 0.4% 0.6% 0.8% 1.0% 1.2% 1.4% 1.6% 1.8% 2.0% 2.2% 2.4%
100 96 92 88 84 81 77 74 71 98 94 90
Additional Yield decline due poor sub-surface drainage
0.5%%/yr 0.5% 1.0% 1.5% 2.0% 2.5% 3.0% 3.5% 4.0% 4.5% 5.0% 5.5% 6.0%
S-surface 99 95 90 86 82 78 74 71 68 93 89 85
Cashflows
Rate Term
Expenses (%) (yr)
Loan repayments
Irrigation system 6% 1 Ha 26000.00 -26000.00 0.00
Water 10% 13 Ml 150.00 -2145.00 -2359.50 -2595.45 -2855.00 -3140.49 -3454.54 -3800.00 -4180.00 -4598.00 -5057.80 -5563.58 -6119.94
R&M 6% Variable R/ha 1000.00 -1060.00 -1123.60 -1191.02 -1262.48 -1338.23 -1418.52 -1503.63 -1593.85 -1689.48 -1790.85 -1898.30 -2012.20

Seedcane 4% 12 t 500.00 -6000.00 -8539.87
Ferts 8% 1 mix 4074.00 -4074.00 -4399.92 -4751.91 -5132.07 -5542.63 -5986.04 -6464.93 -6982.12 -7540.69 -8143.94 -8795.46 -9499.10
Herbicides and chemicals

8% 1 mix 1550.00 -1550.00 -1674.00 -1807.92 -1952.55 -2108.76 -2277.46 -2459.66 -2656.43 -2868.94 -3098.46 -3346.33 -3614.04
Revenue
ERC Sales 56283.81 55799.33 55317.38 54837.96 54361.06 53886.67 53414.79 52945.39 52478.48 75106.85 74439.79 73776.27
ERC % 12.5%
ERC price 4% 1 t ERC 4000.00 4160.00 4326.40 4499.46 4679.43 4866.61 5061.28 5263.73 5474.28 5693.25 5920.98 6157.82 6404.13

Payback 2
154

Table A4. Yield predictions and cashflow analysis for converting long furrow irrigation with some drainage issues to sprinkler irrigation and
addressing the drainage issues.
Period Years = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
100 96 92 88 85 82 78 75 72 100 96 92
S-surface 100 96 92 88 85 82 78 75 72 100 96 92
Cashflows
Rate Term
Expenses (%) (yr)
Loan repayments
Land forming for surface drainage 1 Ha 10000.00 -10000.00
Sub-surface drainage 1 Ha 18000.00 -18000.00
Water 10% 14 Ml 150.00 -2310.00 -2541.00 -2795.10 -3074.61 -3382.07 -3720.28 -4092.31 -4501.54 -4951.69 -5446.86 -5991.55 -6590.70
R&M 6% Variable R/ha 890.00 -943.40 -1000.00 -1060.00 -1123.60 -1191.02 -1262.48 -1338.23 -1418.52 -1503.64 -1593.85 -1689.49 -1790.85

Seedcane 4% 12 t 500.00 -6000.00 -8539.87
Ferts 8% 1 mix 4074.00 -4074.00 -4399.92 -4751.91 -5132.07 -5542.63 -5986.04 -6464.93 -6982.12 -7540.69 -8143.94 -8795.46 -9499.10
Revenue
ERC Sales 62025.60 63888.81 66399.01 66292.77 66186.71 66080.81 65975.08 65869.52 65764.13 94809.65 94657.95 94506.50
ERC % 12.5%
ERC price 4% 1 t ERC 4000.00 4160.00 4326.40 4499.46 4679.43 4866.61 5061.28 5263.73 5474.28 5693.25 5920.98 6157.82 6404.13
Cash Flows (excluding seedcane) -65584.00 32999.82 32782.07 32869.25 30886.07 28723.58 26360.53 23772.91 20933.56 1229.98 34353.94 30350.26 40104.70

Payback 2
155

Table A5. Yield predictions and cashflow analysis for converting long furrow irrigation with some drainage issues to
synergetic surface irrigation (SSI).
Period Years = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
100 96 92 88 85 81 78 75 71 99 95 91
S-surface 99 95 91 86 82 79 75 72 68 94 90 86
Cashflows
Rate Term
Expenses (%) (yr)
Loan repayments
Water 10% 11 Ml 150.00 -1815.00 -1996.50 -2196.15 -2415.77 -2657.34 -2923.08 -3215.38 -3536.92 -3890.61 -4279.68 -4707.64 -5178.41
R&M 6% Variable R/ha 270.00 -286.20 -303.37 -321.57 -340.87 -361.32 -383.00 -405.98 -430.34 -456.16 -483.53 -512.54 -543.29

Seedcane 4% 12 t 500.00 -6000.00 -8539.87
Ferts 8% 1 mix 4074.00 -4074.00 -4399.92 -4751.91 -5132.07 -5542.63 -5986.04 -6464.93 -6982.12 -7540.69 -8143.94 -8795.46 -9499.10
Revenue
ERC Sales 56857.09 56424.32 55993.36 55564.21 55136.86 54711.30 54287.52 53865.53 53445.31 76569.34 75967.66 75368.53
ERC % 12.5%
ERC price 4% 1 t ERC 4000.00 4160.00 4326.40 4499.46 4679.43 4866.61 5061.28 5263.73 5474.28 5693.25 5920.98 6157.82 6404.13

Payback 2
156

Table A6. Cashflow analysis and yield predictions for converting long furrow irrigation with some drainage issues to
synergetic surface irrigation (SSI) and addressing surface and sub-surface drainage issues.
Period Years = 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
100 96 92 88 85 82 78 75 72 100 96 92
S-surface 100 96 92 88 85 82 78 75 72 100 96 92
Cashflows
Rate Term
Expenses (%) (yr)
Loan repayments
Land forming for surface drainage 1 Ha 10000.00 -10000.00
Sub-surface drainage 1 Ha 18000.00 -18000.00
Water 10% 11 Ml 150.00 -1815.00 -1996.50 -2196.15 -2415.77 -2657.34 -2923.08 -3215.38 -3536.92 -3890.61 -4279.68 -4707.64 -5178.41
R&M 6% Variable R/ha 360.00 -381.60 -404.50 -428.77 -454.49 -481.76 -510.67 -541.31 -573.79 -608.21 -644.71 -683.39 -724.39

Seedcane 4% 12 t 500.00 -6000.00 -8539.87
Ferts 8% 1 mix 4074.00 -4074.00 -4399.92 -4751.91 -5132.07 -5542.63 -5986.04 -6464.93 -6982.12 -7540.69 -8143.94 -8795.46 -9499.10
Revenue
ERC Sales 64979.20 66931.14 69560.87 69449.57 69338.45 69227.51 69116.75 69006.16 68895.75 99324.39 99165.47 99006.81
ERC % 12.5%
ERC price 4% 1 t ERC 4000.00 4160.00 4326.40 4499.46 4679.43 4866.61 5061.28 5263.73 5474.28 5693.25 5920.98 6157.82 6404.13

Payback 3
157


Installation of Pipes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Installation of Pipes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Installation of Pipes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecler NL and Harris AJ Proc S Afr Sug Technol Ass (2019) 92 : 139-157

A FRAMEWORK AND METHODS TO ASSESS IRRIGATION

Irrigation and Drainage Performance Fundamentals (after Lecler et al., 2008)

The water balance

Figure 1. Various fates of water in the soil-plant-atmosphere system (ASCE, 1978).

Uniformity of irrigation water applications

Irrigation uniformity refers to the evenness of irrigation water applications. Different

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Managers of irrigation systems, by the appropriateness of their actions and/or instructions

Thus, in addition to cost effectiveness and robustness, characteristics of an irrigation system

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Surface and sub-surface drainage

Figure 2. Management of water and air in the soil profile.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Methods to assess implications of irrigation and/or drainage interventions

 evaporation from the soil surface and transpiration in relation to:

all of which relate to:

 rainfall effectiveness and

Lecler (2004) proposed and demonstrated a method to assess performance of irrigation

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Remote sensing technologies

Plot boundaries Ground Surface

CCH Map – Plan View Transect Cross Section

Figure 3. A 1 m wide transect through a variety trial scanned with a

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

To provide a more complete assessment, spatially representative soil samples pertaining to

Tool to compare alternative investments in irrigation and/or drainage

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Yield decline due to poor surface and/or sub-surface drainage

Yield benefit due to improved surface and/or sub-surface drainage

Yield benefit due to an improved irrigation system

The impact of an improved irrigation system is reflected as a percentage increase in crop

Irrigation costs include:

 capital and installation costs

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Table 1. Costs and characteristics assumed and/or calculated for

R&M Annual Labour Avg Avg

Other growing and harvesting costs

Example application of the tools

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Discussion and Conclusions

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Irrigation Yield Benefit (final estimated yield) 0% 99 94 90 86 82 78 74 70 67 92 88 83

Land forming for surface drainage 1 Ha 0.00 0.00

Landprep 6% 1 traditonal 4760.00 -4760.00 -8041.92

NPV discounted at 6% R 155 437.43

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Landprep 6% 1 traditonal 4760.00 -4760.00 -8041.92

NPV discounted at 6% R 118 279.43

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.

Additional Yield decline due poor surface drainage %/yr

Irrigation Yield Benefit (final estimated yield) 9% 108 103 98 94 89 85 81 77 74 101 97 92

Landprep 6% 1 traditonal 4760.00 -4760.00 -8041.92

Herbicides and chemicals

NPV discounted at 6% R 143 188.74

Downloaded from https://cabidigitallibrary.org by 120.28.217.223, on 03/28/24.