• TABLE OF CONTENTS
HIDE
 Front Cover
 Title Page
 Table of Contents
 Errata
 Preface
 Introduction
 Installation
 Capital cost
 Irrigation
 Operation costs
 Economic benefits
 Summary and recommendations
 Number of tube wells and area irrigated...
 Location of surveyed villages,...
 number of tube wells working in...
 Actual and normal rainfall recorded...
 Diameters and lengths of strainer...
 Diameters and lengths of strainer...
 Diameters and lengths of strainer...
 Rates of drilling by different...
 Districtwise chart showing the...
 Pattern of crops sown in the quinquennium...
 Intensity of croppings in montgomery...
 Intensity of croppings in multan...
 Intensity of croppings in rachna...
 Pattern of crops in acres
 Number of waterings given to different...
 Working of electric tube wells
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Cost of irrigation per hour of...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Cost of irrigation per acre on...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Working cost per acre irrigation...
 Cost per acre irrigation of diesel...
 Consumption of electricity
 Consumption of diesel oil
 Normal and actual outturn (in maunds)...
 Water rates charged by irrigation...
 Cost of tube wells according to...
 Chemical analysis of tube wells...
 Glossary of terms used






Group Title: Publication - Board of Economics Inquiry, Punjab, Lahore - no. 133
Title: Economics of tube well irrigation
CITATION PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE PAGE TEXT
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00054780/00001
 Material Information
Title: Economics of tube well irrigation
Series Title: Publication - Board of Economics Inquiry, Punjab, Lahore - no. 133
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Creator: Yasin, M. Ghulam
Publisher: Board of Economic Inquiry
Publication Date: 1965
 Subjects
Subject: Farming   ( lcsh )
Agriculture   ( lcsh )
Farm life   ( lcsh )
Spatial Coverage: Asia -- Pakistan -- Punjab
 Notes
Funding: Electronic resources created as part of a prototype UF Institutional Repository and Faculty Papers project by the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00054780
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier: oclc - 02205596

Table of Contents
    Front Cover
        Page i
    Title Page
        Page ii
    Table of Contents
        Page iii
        Page iv
    Errata
        Page v
    Preface
        Page vi
        Page vii
    Introduction
        Page 1
        Page 2
        Page 3
        Page 4
        Page 5
        Page 6
    Installation
        Page 7
        Page 8
        Page 9
        Page 10
        Page 11
        Page 12
        Page 13
    Capital cost
        Page 14
        Page 15
        Page 16
        Page 17
        Page 18
        Page 19
        Page 20
        Page 21
        Page 22
    Irrigation
        Page 23
        Page 24
        Page 25
        Page 26
        Page 27
        Page 28
        Page 29
        Page 30
        Page 31
        Page 32
    Operation costs
        Page 33
        Page 34
        Page 35
        Page 36
        Page 37
        Page 38
        Page 39
        Page 40
        Page 41
        Page 42
        Page 43
        Page 44
        Page 45
    Economic benefits
        Page 46
        Page 47
        Page 48
        Page 49
    Summary and recommendations
        Page 50
        Page 51
        Page 52
        Page 53
        Page 54
        Page 55
        Page 56
    Number of tube wells and area irrigated by them
        Page 57
    Location of surveyed villages, distance (in miles) from district headquarter
        Page 58
    number of tube wells working in the surveyed villages
        Page 59
        Page 60
    Actual and normal rainfall recorded at different raingauge stations in surveyed districts during 1963-64
        Page 61
    Diameters and lengths of strainer tubes and plain pipes in montgomery district
        Page 62
    Diameters and lengths of strainer tubes and plain pipes in multan district
        Page 63
    Diameters and lengths of strainer tubes and plain pipes in rachna doab
        Page 64
        Page 65
    Rates of drilling by different sizes of boring plants
        Page 66
    Districtwise chart showing the number of tube wells installed
        Page 67
        Page 68
    Pattern of crops sown in the quinquennium ending 1962-63
        Page 69
    Intensity of croppings in montgomery district
        Page 70
    Intensity of croppings in multan district
        Page 71
    Intensity of croppings in rachna doab
        Page 72
        Page 73
    Pattern of crops in acres
        Page 74
    Number of waterings given to different crops
        Page 75
    Working of electric tube wells
        Page 76
    Cost of irrigation per hour of electric tube wells in montgomery district
        Page 77
    Cost of irrigation per hour of diesel oil tube wells in montgomery district
        Page 78
    Working cost per acre irrigation of electric tube wells in montgomery district
        Page 79
    Working cost per acre irrigation of diesel oil tube wells in montgomery district
        Page 80
    Cost of irrigation per hour of electric tube wells in multan district
        Page 81
    Cost of irrigation per hour of diesel oil tube wells in multan district
        Page 82
    Working cost per acre irrigation of electric tube wells in multan district
        Page 83
    Working cost per acre irrigation of diesel oil tube wells in multan district
        Page 84
    Cost of irrigation per hour of electric tube wells in jhang district
        Page 85
    Cost of irrigation per hour of diesel oil tube wells in jhang district
        Page 86
    Cost of irrigation per hour of electric tube wells in Lyallpur district
        Page 87
    Cost of irrigation per hour of diesel oil tube wells in Lyallpur district
        Page 88
    Cost of irrigation per hour of electric tube wells in gujranwala district
        Page 89
    Cost of irrigation per hour of diesel oil tube wells in gujranwala district
        Page 90
    Cost of irrigation per hour of electric tube wells in sheikhupura district
        Page 91
    Cost of irrigation per hour of diesel oil tube wells in sheikhupura district
        Page 92
    Working cost per acre irrigation of electric tube wells in jhang district
        Page 93
    Working cost per acre irrigation 'of diesel oil tube wells in jhang district
        Page 94
    Working cost per acre irrigation of electric tube wells in lyallpur district
        Page 95
    Cost of irrigation per acre on diesel oil tube wells in lyalpur district
        Page 96
    Working cost per acre irrigation of electric tube wells in gujranwala district
        Page 97
    Working cost per acre irrigation of diesel oil tube wells in gujranwala district
        Page 98
    Working cost per acre irrigation of electric tube wells in sheikhupura district
        Page 99
    Cost per acre irrigation of diesel oil tube wells in sheikhupura district
        Page 100
    Consumption of electricity
        Page 101
        Page 102
    Consumption of diesel oil
        Page 103
        Page 104
    Normal and actual outturn (in maunds) per irrigated acre of different crops
        Page 105
    Water rates charged by irrigation department
        Page 106
    Cost of tube wells according to years of installation
        Page 107
    Chemical analysis of tube wells water of 24 surveyed villages
        Page 108
    Glossary of terms used
        Page 109
        Page 110
        Page 111
        Page 112
        Page 113
        Page 114
        Page 115
        Page 116
Full Text



gie o oarb of economic nquirp,
Punjab (s) Labore


PUBLICATION No. 133


General Editor:
DR. S.M. AKHTAR, M.A., PH.D. (LONDON)


The Economics of
Tube Well Irrigation


By
M. GHULAM YASIN, B.COM.
RESEARCH OFFICER


1965


PRICE : Rs. 4/-








Ibe l~oarb of (etonomit Inquirp,
Punjab (P) Kabore


PUBLICATION No. 133


General Editor:
DR. S.M. AKHTAR, M.A., PH.D. (LONDON)



The Economics of

Tube Well Irrigation


By
M. GHULAM YASIN, B.COM.
RESEARCH OFFICER


1965


(The Board of Economic Inquiry, Punjab (P) does not hold itself responsible
for any opinions expressed or conclusions reached by the writer in this report)










CONTENTS


Preface
Chapters-
I
m
IV
V
VI
VII


Introduction
Installation
Capital Cost
Irrigation
Operation Costs
Economic Benefits
Summary and Recommendations


Page

i
1
7.
14
23
33:
46
50


Appendices-
I Number of Tube Wells and Area Irrigated by
Them
II Location of Surveyed Villages, Distance (in Miles)
from District Headquarter
Number of Tube Wells working in the Surveyed
Villages
IV Actual and Normal Rainfall Recorded at
Different Raingauge Stations in Surveyed
Districts During 1963-64
V Dfameters and Lengths of Strainer Tubes and
Plain Pipes in Montgomery District ..
V-A Diameters and Lengths of.Strainer Tubes and
Plain Pipes in Multan District
V-B Diameters and Lengths of Strainer Tubes and
Plain Pipes in Rachna Doab
VI Rates of Drilling by Different Sizes of Boring
Plants
VII Districtwise Chart Showing the Number of
Tube Wells Installed..
VIII Pattern of Crops Sown in the Quinquennium
Ending 1962-63
IX Intensity of Croppings in Montgomery District
IX-A Intensity of Croppings in Multan District
IX-B Intensity of Cropping in Rachna Doab
X Pattern of Crops in Acres
XI Number of Waterings Given to Different Crops
XII Working of Electric Tube Wells
XIII Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube
Wells in Montgomery District
XIII-A Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Montgomery District
XIV Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric
Tube Wells in Montgomery District






XIV-A Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Diesel Oil
Tube Wells in Montgomery District
XV Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube
Wells in Multan District
XV-A Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Multan District
XVI Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric
Tube Wells in Multan District
XVI-A Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Diesel Oil
Tube Wells in Multan District
XVII Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube Wells
in Jhang District
XVII-A Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Jhang District
XVIII Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube
Wells in Lyallpur District
XVIII-A Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Lyallpur District
XIX Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube
Wells in Gujranwala District
XIX-A Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Gujranwala District
XX Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube
Wells in Sheikhupura District
XX-A -- Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Sheikhupura District
XXI Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric
Tube Wells in Jhang District
XXI-A Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Diesel Oil
Tube Wells in Jhang District
XXII Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric
Tube Wells in Lyallpur District..
XXII-A Cost of Irrigation per Acre on Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Lyallpur District
XXIII Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric
Tube Wells in Gujranwala District
XXIII-A Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Diesel Oil
Tube Wells in Gujranwala District
XXIV Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric
Tube Wells in Sheikhupura District
XXIV-A Cost per Acre Irrigation of Diesel Oil Tube
Wells in Sheikhupura District
XXV Consumption of Electricity
XXVI Consumption of Diesel Oil
XXVI Normal and Actual Outturn (in Maunds) per
Irrigated Acre of Different Crops
XXVIII Water Rates Charged by Irrigation Department
XXIX Cost of Tube Wells According to Years of
Installation .. .
XXX Chemical Analysis of Tube Wells Water of 24
Surveyed Villages











ERRATA
The Economics of Tube Well Irrigation

Page Line or table For Read


10 Table 4)
Col. 10
16 Line 8
16 ,, 22
18 Table 8)
Col. 4)
21 Line 11
23 4
27 Table 15)
Col. 5 5
31 Line 7
33 ,, 3
42 Table 26
Col. 2
42 Line 5 below table
42 Last line
43 Table 27 )
Cols. 8 & 9 )
44 Table 28 )
Col. 4
44 Table 28)
Col. 10
45 Table 29
Col. 3)
51 ,, 25
56 ,, 4


If


27.3
Item
Boing

801483
on
Lesee

100
Mturhing
Secondary

0.29
paisa 3 and 3
acre
5.17
3.72

Value

Value

146822.63
irrigation
Connection


27.4
Items
Boring

8014.83
One
Lessee

110
Maturing
Secondly

0.28
paisa 3 and 2
acre of the
5.16
3.73

Volume

Volume

146932.63
acre irrigation
Concession











PREFACE


A large number of tube wells have been installed in the northern
.districts of West Pakistan during the last ten years or so. In 1954-55,
:for instance, there were only 1,216 tube wells irrigating 87,313 acres of
.land in these areas. By 1962-63, the number of tube wells had increased
to 11,638 and the area irrigated by them to 10,32,440 acres. Immense
economic, financial and social benefits have been conferred by this
-means of irrigation and land reclamation upon the people of these areas
and the economy.

The present inquiry, which was carried out during the period from
.June 1963 to May 1964, aims at an economic appraisal of tube well
irrigation in specified districts including Multan and Montgomery and
some districts of the area lying between the Ravi and Chenab-popularly
-known as the Rachna Doab. An attempt has been made to cover a
,variety of agricultural and soil conditions.

The survey embraces 24 villages in all from which a sample of 100
-tube wells was selected for investigation. The data collected pertains
to such items as irrigation cost, working hours, energy consumed, number
of waterings, area irrigated, crops sown before and after tube well in-
:stallation, size of holdings and many others.

Largely, the tube wells have been constructed by the owners them-
-selves on their land and, on average, each owner cultivated 80.7 acres of
land and each tube well commanded 77.5 acres.

The inquiry has revealed some interesting facts about the compara-
tive cost of irrigation through tube wells operated by electric power as
against diesel power. It has been found that both capital cost and
operating cost were higher in the case of tube wells operated by diesel
engines. Thus, the average cost of a tub2 wall driven by diesel oil was
Rs. 9,707 as compared to Rs. 6,738 by electricity. The average cost of
irrigation by electrically operated tube wells came to Rs. 1.75 per hour

(ii)






and by diesel engine to Rs. 3.88 per hour. The cost of irrigating one
acre by electricity came to Rs. 3.73 and by diesel engine to Rs. 5.16.

The study points toward a variety of policy measures which could
be taken by Government to encourage further installation of tube wells
by private parties. Among these are provision of diesel oil at subsidized
rates, provision of electricity in rural areas, measures to ensure against
frequent breakdown of electric current, promotion of research to find
cheaper fuels and evolving improved machinery in order to reduce the
consumption of motive. power. The benefits of tube well irrigation
could be brought within the reach of small-holder by installing tube
wells on co-operative basis.

This inquiry has been conducted by Mr. Ghulam Yasin, B.Com.,
Research Officer of the Board, who deserves high appreciation for the
diligent and efficient manner in which he has collected the data and
interpreted it. The project was undertaken on the suggestion of Sir
William Roberts who also took personal interest in its programme and
gave valuable advice and guidance. For this the Board wishes to record
its gratitude. Mr. Majid Hassan Khan, Superintending Engineer,
Agricultural Machinery Organization, Lyallpur, gave us valuable assis-
tance which is gratefully acknowledged. Valuable comments were also
received from the Planning and Development Department of the Govern-
ment of West Pakistan on the initial draft for which we are very thankful.
Last but not the least high credit is due to Mr. H-. A. Syed, Deputy
Director of the Board, for his able supervision.


S.M. AKHTAR


(viii)











CHAPTER 1


INTRODUCTION

Agriculture is the main industry of Pakistan and forms the basis of
her economy. It provides livelihood to 85 per cent of the population
and contributes about 60 per cent to the national income. Agriculture
also provides raw materials for our manufacturing industries such as jute,
textile, sugar, leather, cigarettes, vegetable ghee, fruit preservation and
canning etc. It also earns about 75 per cent ef the entire foreign exchange
of the country.

Adequate supply of water for irrigation purposes is essential for
successful cultivation of land. It is rightly said that water is the deter-
mining factor in the countries where high yields are obtained. There
are indeed two sources of irrigation-natural and man-made or artificial.
The latter comprises of canals, wells, tanks, lakes, dams, streams, springs,
etc. and the former consists of rainfall, melting snow and inundation of
rivers. During 1962-63, out of the total cropped area of 283.86 lakh in
Northern Zone of West Pakistan as many as 194.62 lakh acres or
68.6 per cent were irrigated and 89.24 lakh acres or 31.4 per cent were
barani, that is, dependent upon rainfall for maturity of crops. Of the
irrigated area about 82.1 per cent received water from canals, 11.0
per cent from open wells, 5.3 per cent from tube wells, 0.1 per cent
from tanks and 1.5 per cent received irrigation from other sources. As
the timely and sufficient rainfall lies beyond human control, much re-
S liance cannot be placed on this source for attaining agricultural pros-
perity. In the year of excessive rainfall, there is plenty of water for rabi
sowing and adequate water supplies for kharif crops, while the shortage
of water in canals is recorded during the year of scanty rainfall, adversely
affecting both the harvests. There is thus a great need for providing a
sure source of water supply throughout the year. In order to meet the



S1. Includes former Punjab (Pak), Bahawalpur State and North Western Frontier.

1~






ECONOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


shortage of canal water, tube wells are the successful means for tapping
the underground water reservoir. It may be stated that in Multan and
Montgomery districts a large number of tube wells are being installed to
supplement canal water during the winter season when shortage of water
is particularly felt.

The twin menace of salinity and water-logging which the scientists
have described as 'Land Cancer' poses a serious threat to the agricultural
economy of the country. The richest and fertile lands of West Pakistan
commanded by controlled irrigation are gradually going out of cultivation
at a very rapid rate. The Land Reclamation Authorities estimate that
about one lakh acres of fertile land are being rendered unfit for cultivation
every year. So far about 3 million acres of cultivable land have already
gone out of cultivation, another 7 million acres are seriously affected and
about 11.5 million acres show some saline patches. It may be stated
that Rachna Doab, lying between Ravi and Chenab rivers in West
Pakistan, is badly affected by thur and sem; as about 1.5 millions acres
of land have been damaged in this region. As many as 1950 tube wells
have been sunk in this tract along the canal to bring about a gradual
decline in the water-table to reclaim water-logged area and to reclaim
land by providing adequate irrigation supplies which could be utilised for
leaching down the salts below the crop root level.

There is a large area in the province known as 'state waste land'.
The Government has leased out the cultivable waste land to farmers in
blocks of 200 acres per tube well. This measure has been adopted to
bring more land under plough to boost food production of the province.
A large number of tube wells have been sunk under the scheme. The
Provincial Government has also provided facilities and granted many
concessions in installing tube wells. It may be stated that a vast area of
304 lakh acres are cultivable waste in West Pakistan. It is obvious that
there are better potentialities of bringing new lands under cultivation if
adequate and regular supply of water is assured in the province.

Before the partition of Indo-Pakistan sub-continent tube wells were
mostly installed on the farms of the Agriculture Department for irri-

2






INTRODUCTION


gation or by the Health Department or the Railways for obtaining drink-
ing water. Some tube wells had also been sunk by big land owners for
irrigation purposes. According to the Agricultural Census of 1940,
there were 439 tube wells, of which 318 worked with oil engines and 121
were fitted with electricity in the former Punjab (Pak). A great impetus
to the installation of tube wells ibr irrigation purposes, however, was
given in 1952 when the rain fall failed and there was acute shortage of
water in canals the headworks of which were located in India. The
Provincial Government has also provided many facilities and granted
many concessions in sinking tube wells. As many as 1,216 tube wells
irrigating 87,313 acres were working in the 16 districts of the former
Punjab during 1954-55. Since then their number has been steadily in-
creasing year after year, bringing vast areas of arable land under plough.
As many as 1,868 1 tube wells were operating in 1956-57, which increased
to 3,135 in 1958-59 and to 11,638 in 1962-63. The cultivated area
under tube well irrigation increased from 1,45,179 acres in 1956-57 to
2,82,433 in 1958-59 and 10,32,440 acres in 1962-63. The number of
tube wells and area irrigated by them from 1954-55 to 1962-63 is given
in the Appendices.

The Provincial Government has approved a scheme for the installation
of tube wells for the benefit of small land owners in the province. Under
the scheme the Agriculture Department will undertake the work of
installation for zamindars owning an area of less than 250 acres of irri-
gated or 500 acres of unirrigated land. One-fourth of the total expendi-
ture to be incurred will have to be deposited by the land owners selected
under this scheme before the start of the work. The remaining amount
will be recovered from them in 20 half yearly equal instalments.

In view of the growing importance of tube well irrigation, the survey
on 'Economics of Tube Well Irrigation'was undertaken by the Board. The
survey was confined to Multan and Montgomery districts where short-
age of canal water was particularly felt and a large number of tube wells
had been installed in these districts, especially in the non-perennial tract.



1. Season and Crop Report, Director of Land Records.

3






ECONOMICS ov TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


In some of the villages, the WAPDA had supplied electric connections,
but a greater number of them were still run by diesel engines. The
Rechna Doab, i.e. the area lying between Rivers Ravi and Chenab, was
also surveyed. Most of this area is under perrenial canal irrigation and
the water-table has risen steadily over the whole of this Doab, affecting
the land through water-logging and salinity. An attempt has been
made to determine the effect of tube well irrigation on agricultural pro-
ductivity in the selected villages. The comparative costs of operation of
tube wells working with diesel engines and electricity were also
worked out.


The survey was conducted in six villages each of Multan and Mont-
gomery districts and 12 villages in the Rechna Doab (three villages each
in Jhang, Lyallpur, Gurjanwala and Sheikhupura districts). The
number of tube wells under study in these 24 surveyed villages stood at
100 of which 27 were situated in the Multan district, 26 in the Mont-
gomery district and 47 in the Rechna Doab area (10 tube wells in Jhang,
13 in Lyallpur, 18 in Gujranwala and 6 in the Sheikhupura districts).
It may be added that all the sample tube wells were owned by the far-
mers living in the villages. The water-table varied from 12 feet to 36
feet and were situated near large canal branches. The location of the
surveyed villages as regards their distance from the nearest railway station,
metalled road, market town, river and the main canal is given in the
Appendices and the number of tube wells selected for the survey is
given in the Appendices.


The normal annual rainfall in the surveyed tracts of Multan was
6.0 inches and in Montgomery 9.9 inches whereas the actual rainfall
recorded during the year 1963-64 was 3.6 inches and 4.0 inches res-
pectively. In the Rechna Doab districts, the annual normal rainfall was
12.8 inches in Jhang, 10.6 inches in Lyallpur, 16.7 inches in Gujranwala
and 14.7 inches in Sheikhupura. The actual precipitation registered
during 1963-64 was 6.9 inches, 6.2 inches, 12.9 inches and 12.2 inches
respectively. It may be stated that 1963 was comparatively a dry year.
The normal' and the actual annual rainfall -recorded at rain-gauge
stations in the surveyed districts is given in the Appendices.






INTRODUCTION


The most appropriate places for sinking tube wells would be near
large canals or branches-having a discharge of 10 cusecs or even lower
Sand where the water-table does not exceed 30 or 40 feet. Areas away
from canals where the water-table is under 20 feet are also regarded the
best sites for tube wells. It would ensure a plenty of water to be pumped
out by tube wells for irrigation of land. The water level below surface
ranged between 24 feet at Manzar Abad village to 36 feet at Jxngle
Burali village in Multan district. The water-table in Montgomery
district varies from 15 to 32 feet in the surveyed villages. The spring
level of all the villages surveyed in Rechna Doab does not exceed 17 feet.


The collection of data started in June 1963 and lasted for full one
year, that is, till May 1964. Information regarding the irrigation cost,
working hours, number of waterings, crops sown, supply of water, income
from sale of water, other operational difficulties etc. were collected by
visiting all the tube wells once in each month of the year. It may be
added that most of the data regarding particulars of tube wells, such as
their cost, size, discharge of water, kind of crops sown before installation
of tube wells, manufacturing firm, boring agencies, commanded area,
cultivating holdings of the owners etc; were gathered at the inception of
the inquiry and was again checked during the last monthly round.

The 100 tube wells were owned by 96 farmers. It may be stated
that one cultivator owned three and another two tube wells in Mont-
gomery district and one farmer in Lyallpur district had two tube wells.

The total area cultivated by the sample tube wells, owned by 96
persons, was 7,749.5 acres of which 84.9 per cent was owned by the tube
well farmers, 8.9 per cent had been taken on batai from other farmers
and 6.2 per cent had been taken on lease from the Government. It
would be interesting to note that there were four tube well owners who
had no land of their own, but had taken on lease 482 acres from the
Government. On the average each owner cultivated 80.7 acres and each
tube well controlled 77.5 acres. The classification of the tube well
owners and their cultivating holdings under tube wells irrigation is given
in the table on the next page:






ECONOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


TABLE 1
Tube Well Owners and Their Cultivating Holdings
Total all
Range of Montgomery Multan Rechna Doab surveyed Distt.
Cultivating --- I- --
Holdings No. Total No. Total No. Total No. Total
of area of area of area of area
owners acres owners acres owners acres owners acres

Having less than
12) acres 1 8.0 2 20.0 3 28.0
121 acres to less
than 25 acres 3 49.5 9 151.0 12 200.5
25 acres to less
than 37J acres 3 79.0 1 26.0 11 325.0 15 430.0
37J acres to less
than 50 acres 6 249.5 2 79.5 3 118.0 11 447.0
50 acres to less
than 75 acres 2 110.0 6 385.0 13 752.5 21 1247.5
75 acres to less
than 100 acres 1 91.0 3 238.5 1 91.0 5 420.5
100 acres to less
than 200 acres 4 511.5 8 1097.0 6 650.0 18 2258.5
200 acres and over 3 850.0 7 1642.5 1 225.0 11 2717.5

Total 23 1948.5 27 3468.5 46 2332.5 96 7749.5

The foregoing table shows that there were three tube well owners who
were cultivating less than 121 acres of land. The one tube well in Chak
2/4-L (Montgomery district) was located at about 2 miles from Okara
town and vegetables were raised on the farm. The other in Chak 222,
a suburb of Lyallpur city, was concentrating on growing fodder crops.
The third tube well was also being used for growing fodder crops and was
located at a distance of 4 miles from Chiniot town. It may be added
that tube wells irrigating small plots of land of even eight acres are
economical near big towns where high grade crops like vegetables and
fodder could be produced throughout the year.











CHAPTER 2


INSTALLATION

A good deal of water that comes down in the form of rain or snow
perculates into the different layers of the earth. The water of big dams
and canals also goes down into the ground. Thus water reservoir exist
at various depth of the earth. The water from the upper strata can be
drawn up and utilized for drinking and irrigation purposes through open
wells and water from the lower strata located at greater depth can be
tapped through tube wells.

A tube well is simply a long metallic pipe sunk deep enough to tap
water-yielding strata at various depths. This pipe is filled with a filter
or a strainer in the water bearing strata. At the top a pump driven by
electric motor or oil engine is fitted which pumps out the water from
the pipe. Having selected a suitable site for installing a tube well, a pit
about 8 feet wide and 10 to 15 feet deep is dug and the casing pipes fitted
with a sharp cutting shoe at the bottom are lowered. After lowering into
the pit, the casing pipes are held tight with wooden clamps. Actual
boring is done with a "sludger". This sludger is lowered into the tube
by a wire rope connected to a winch through a tripod. The sludger which
has a sharp cutting shoe is worked up and down inside the tube either
manually or by an engine. On the downward stroke of the sludger the
flap of the sludger attached just above the cutting shoe opens and the
loose material pounded at the bottom enters into the sludger. On the
up stroke the flap is closed and retains the enclosed material. This
continues until after 20 or 50 strokes the sludger is drawn out and emptied.
The material which comes out is carefully studied and a proper record
maintained to determine the extent of water bearing strata. The casing
pipe is loaded with sufficient weight which forces it down as the sludger
excavates at the bottom of the hole. Thus the boring continues. The
depth of boring varied from 90 feet to 425 feet in the surveyed districts.
As many as 88 per cent of the tube wells were bored between 100 feet
to 200 feet and the depth of 5 per cent of the tube wells was over 300






EcONoMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


feet. The following table classifies the tube wells according to their
depth of boring:

TABLE 2

Classification of Tube Wells according to Depth of Boring

No. of Total Average
Range of Boring tube Depth depth per
wells in feet tube well

Less than 100 feet 3 270 90.00
100 feet to less than 150 feet 55 6,763 122.96
150 200 29 4,518 155.79
200 250 3 600 200.00
250 300 4 1,061 265.25
300 350 300 200100
350 400 2 705 352.50
Over 400 feet 2 845 422.50

Total 99 15,062 152.14

All the tube wells having less than 100 feet of boring depth were in
Gujranwala district, bored upto 90 feet. It may be stated that all the
tube wells in Jhang, Lyallpur and Gujranwala districts were bored to
less than 200 feet. The two tube wells having over 400 feet of depth
were located in Montgomery. The account of 99 tube wells is given in
the table and the remaining 100th tube well was an open masonry well
in which 39 feet long pipe was lowered and on the top an electric motor
was fitted to lift the water. The district-wise depth of boring of tube
wells in the surveyed tract is given in the Appendices.

After the boring has been conducted upto the required depth and
the samples of the materials dug out have been examined by some expert
or hydrologist, the inserting of strainer is taken up. The main point to
be kept in view is that the maximum discharge of water should be obtained
out of a particular strata. The strainer pipe is lowered to touch against
water bearing strata. It may be added that the length of the strainer
pipe varies from 60 feet to 225 feet. As many as 80 per cent of the tube







INSTALLATION


wells in the surveyed tract had strainer tube upto 100 feet, 16 per cent
between 101 feet and 150 feet and 4 per cent over 150 feet. :In.the
Rechna Doab about 35 per cent of the tube wells were fitted with strainer
pipe having length upto 70 feet, 59 per cent had 71 feet to 100 feet and 6
per cent had strainer tube over 100 feet long. 'About 88 per cent of the
tube wells in the Montgomery district and 48-per cent in the Multan dis-
trict had strainer, tube from 70 feet to I100 feet long. As: many as 44
per cent of the tube wells in: Multan district had strainer pipe from 101
feet to i50-feet and 8 per cent over 150 feet. The following table classi-
fies the tube wells according to the length of strainer tubes in the surveyed
tract :

TABLE 3

Classsification of Tube Wells According to Length 'of Strainer Pipe
Montgomery Multan Rechna Doab Total Surveyed Tract

Range of No.of Total No. of Total No.of Total No.of Total average
Length tube- length length tube- length tube- length per tube
wells feet ,wells -feet.. wells -feet.. well's. et well feet


.Upto 50 feet
51 feet to 60ft.
61 "" 70"
71 80"
81 90"
91 "" 100 "'
101 125"
126 150 "
151 "" 175"
176 "200"
Over 200 feet


1 70
* 5 400
S4 .360
12 1,187
3 326


- -
- 5
- 11
4 320 10
2 175 10
7 693 8
6 707 1
6 835 -
1 170 1


1 .225


25 2,343 27 3,125 ..47 4,022 99* 9,490 95.86

One tube well has no strainer.

After the strainer tube is lowered, its upper end is plugged with
plain pipe to bring it to the ground level. The length of plain pipe
also varies from tube well to tube well and from village to village. They


. -.
5 300
12 829
19 1,520
16 1,435
27 2,680
10 1,143
6 835
2 323
1 200
1 225


-

60.0
69.1
80.0
89.7
99.3
114.3
139.2
161.5
200.0
225.0






ECONOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


ranged between 12 feet to 325 feet in the surveyed tract. The following
table classifies the tube wells according to length of plain pipe.

TABLE 4
Classification of Tube Wells According to Length of Plain Pipe
Montgomery Multan Rechna Doa Total Surveyed Tract
Range of No.of Length No.ofLengt No.of Lengt N.of h Length Average
Length tube- ube- in tube-in tube- in tube- in length
wells feet wells feet wells feet wells feet TW.Ft.

Upto 10 feet- -
11 ft. to 20 ft. 4 74 7 132 10 197 21 403 19.2
21" 30 3 90 12 311 13 367 28 768 27.3
31" 40 2 75 3 115 6 219 11 409 37.2
41 50 2 100 3 134 4 195 9 429 47.7
51" 75 7 430 2 145 5 320 14 895 63.9
76" "100" 2 180 7 650 9 830 92.2
Over 100 feet 6 1,574 2 280 8 1,854 231.8

Total 26 2,523 27 837 47 2,228 100 5,588 55.9

It would be seen from the above table that about 69 per cent of the
1-1- ^
ft'be wells hau pain pipe upto 50 feet long in the surveyed region, 23
per cent between 51 feet to 100 feet and 8 per cent of the tube wells were
fitted with over 100 feet of plain pipe. In the Montgomery district as
much as 58 per cent and in Rechna Doab about 30 per cent of the tube
wells were fitted with plain pipe over 50 feet long. As many as 71 per
cent of the tube wells in Multan district had plain pipe of 11 to 30 feet
long.

It may be stated that strainer tube is generally longer than the plain
pipe because it is considered that longer the strainer pipe, the more water
it would pump out. It was, however, found during the present survey that
6 tube wells of Okara tehsil in Montgomery district and 8 tube wells in
Rechna Doab area had plain pipe longer than the strainer tube. This
'could be attributed to the fact that upto certain depth the water was
saltish and unfit for cultivation. Therefore, deeper boring was conducted
,to get sweet water. In village 2/4-L at Okara tehsil in Montgomery
district where the water at spring level is.sweet, but brackish at greater
depth. In one instance boring upto 425 feet was carried on to get sweet
water while in the other five cases in-Montgomery district boring varied






INSTALLATION


from 275 feet to 420 feet. In the Rechna Doab the length of strainer
tube of the above mentioned 8 tube wells varied from 60 feet to 100 feet
while the length of plain pipe varied 80 feet to 150 feet.

The average discharge of water from the surveyed tube wells varied
from 0.28 cusecs to 2.34 cusecs, depending largely upon the quantity
of water available below ground and to some extent upon the length
and diameter of the strainer pipe. The diameter of the strainer pipe
varied from 3 inches to 10 inches in the case of the surveyed tube wells.
As many as 59 per cent of these tube wells were fitted with strainer having
6 inches diameter, 12 per cent with 7 inches, 11 per cent'with 8 inches,
10 per cent with 5 inches and 6 per cent with 4 inches. Theri were two
tube wells of which one had strainer pipe of 9 inches diameter and the
other of 10 inches. Out of the 47 tube wells in the Rechna Doab, 28
tube wells had strainer pipe having 6 inches diameter, 10 had 7 inches
diameter and 3 tube wells each had 8 inches and 4 inches diameter.
The diameter of strainer pipe of the two tube wells were 4 inches and
of one tube well 10 inches in the Rechna Doab. As many as 12 tube
wells had strainer tube of 6 inches' diameter, 5 of 8 inches, 4 of 5 inches,
3 of 4 inches and one of 9 inches diameter in the Montgomery district.
The diameter of strainer tube of 18 tube wells in Multan district was
6 inches, 4 of 5 inches, 3 of 8 inches, and 2 of 7 inches. The diameter of
strainer tube and plain pipe along with their length in feet is given in
the Appendices.

After the completion of tube well, pipe is generally put into a masonry
tank from where distributionery channels are taken out in suitable direc-
tions and on proper alignment, so that the water is carried to all the
fields with the minimum wastage. The delivery pipe is usually of small
length and varied from 5 feet to 60 feet in the case of the surveyed tube
wells. About half of them in the surveyed region had delivery pipe
upto 20 feet, 27 per cent between 21 feet to 30 feet, 15 per cent 31 feet to
40 feet and 6 per cent 41 feet to 50 feet. There were two tube wells each
fitted with 60 feet long delivery pipe. It may, however, be stated that
there were 5 tube wells where the length of delivery pipe was 5 feet each.
They were fitted with motor pump at the ground surface instead of near
the spring level. The inquiry revealed that sub-soil water level rises






EcoNOMIcs OF, TUBE-WELL IRRIGATION

during the rainy season thereby damaging:the plant and machineryif
installed near spring level surface.
The relation between the diameter of plain pipe and of delivery
pipe is shown in the following table :-
TABLE 5
Classification of Tube Wells according to Diameters of Plain Pipe and
Delivery Pipe
Range of Diameter
Rain inches Number of Tube Wells,
in inches

Plain | Delivery Mont- Multan Rechna Total
Pipe Pipe gomery Doab

3 3 1 -- 1
4 3 1 2 3
4 4 2 -3 5
5 4 2 1 5 8
5 5 2 3 5
6 5 7 1 12 20
6 6 5 17 22 44
6 7 1 1
7 6 1 2 3
8 6 5 1 6
8 7 1 1 2
8 7 1
9 8 1 -- 1

Total:
3" to 9" 3" to 8" 26 27 47 100
It would be seen from the above table that diameters of plain pipes
and delivery pipes of 55 per cent of the tube wells were the same while
in the case of 44 per cent of the tube wells diameters of delivery pipes
were less than that of the tube well pipes; 42 per cent were short by an
inch, one per cent by two inches and one per cent by half an inch. There
was one tube well in which the diameter of tube well pipe was shorter than
that of the delivery pipe by 1* inches. In this particular case it may be
pointed out that the land under tube well was getting irrigation from
canal also. The land being at a higher level, the canal water could not
reach the fields. So the motor pump was fitted in a manner to lift water
12






INSTALLATION


not only from the tube well but also from canal at one and the same time.
Therefore, the diameter of the delivery pipe was wide enough to lift
water from canal as well as tube well.
The Department of Agriculture has been installing tube wells in the
province for the last fifty years. A steady rise in the demand for tube
wells has been noted after Partition, but for the last five years has increased
to such an extent that it has became impossible for the Department to
meet this demand single handed. Therefore, many private firms have
cropped up in big towns like Montgomery, Pakpattan, Multan, Khane-
wal, Mailsi, Lahore, Lyallpur, Gojra, Gujranwala, Kamoke and Daska
to handle this unprecedented demand for installing tube wells in the
province. During the course of this inquiry it was found out that of
the 100 sample tube wells 22 were drilled by the Department of Agri-
culture, 11 in Rechna Doab, 8 in Multan district and 3 in Montgomery
district.
Prior to 1950 not a single tube well existed in the surveyed tract.
As many as 13 per cent of the sample tube wells were installed during
1950-54, about 34 per cent were sunk in the next 5 years, that is, 1955
to 1959 and 53 per cent were set up during 1960 to 1963. The oldest
tube well installed in 1950 was in Montgomery district and of the eight
tube wells completed in 1963, the year when this inquiry was started,
one was in Lyallpur district, two each in Jhang and Multan district
and three were in Montgomery district. The maximum number of tube
wells, that is, 24 were installed in 1962. At the time of undertaking this
inquiry, as many as 219 tube wells were working in the sample villages
of which 100 were selected for study. During the course of the inquiry,
that is, during the span of one year, 78 new tube wells were installed.
It may be added that no difficulty was experienced during the drill-
ing operation of tube wells. The soil of the surveyed tract being alluvial
and light, boring operation became very easy.
Five of the tube wells went out of order due to corrosion and incrusta-
tion during the course of the inquiry and had to be rebored. Two of them
installed in 1950 and 1959 were at Chak 644 in Lyallpur district, two
installed in 1952 and 1955 were at Chak No. 2/4L and 112/7 BR in Mont-
gomery district and the fifth tube well installed in 1961 was at' Jngle
Borali in Multan district.











CHAPTER 3
CAPITAL COST

The total investment on the installation of the 100 sample tube wells
amounted to Rs. 8,01,483. The average capital cost per tube well was
Rs. 8,014.83 which comprised of Rs. 6,257.96 for plant and machinery,
Rs. 944.04 for masonry work, Rs. 545.14 for boring, Rs. 118.32 for
fittings, Rs. 83.03 for transportation and Rs. 65.96 for other materials.
In the Rechna Doab, 47 tube wells were set up at a total cost of
Rs. 3,36,136. The average cost per tube well was thus Rs. 7,151.83 in
the Rechna Doab area as compared to Rs. 7,929.81 and Rs. 9,598.96 in
the Montgomery and Multan districts in the case of the sample under
study. It may be stated that the cost relates to out-of-pocket expenses-
the expenses which the owners had actually paid in cash only.

The cost of installation of a tube well by a farmer appears to be low
as compared to the cost estimated by various Government agencies con-
cerned with tube wells, such as the Water and Power Development
Authority (WAPDA), the Agriculture Department and the Irrigation
Department. The cost of a tube well having discharge of 3 cause estima-
ted by WAPDA for its Soil Control and Reclamation Project I is about
Rs. 83,460 with electric transmission facilities and about Rs. 51,360
without such facilities. The cost per cusec discharge thus came
to Rs. 27,820* and Rs. 17,120 on the above two basis respectively. The
Superintending Engineer, Agriculture Machinery, Lyallpur has estimated
the cost of installing tube well at Rs. 13,550 in the area having spring
level of 20 feet with 150 feet depth of boring for one cusec discharge
with 10 inches boring and 6 inches W.I pipe and brass strainer.

The cost of a tube well depends upon various factors, the main being
its size. For a large tube well, deeper boring is necessary requiring
longer pipe and strainer tube. Another factor which determines the cost


Under SCARP III, the cost per tube well is estimated about Rs. 140,226 and per
cusec discharge Rs. 38,812 including drainage works for removal of saline water and
electric transmission facilities.






CAPITAL COST

is the discharge of water. The greater the discharge of a tube well, the
higher would be its cost. The cost of pumping unit and engine also varies
with the discharge. Hence the overall cost of a tube well with greater
discharge will be more than that of a tube well with a smaller discharge,
installed under similar conditions. The cost of tube well also depends
upon the kind of material used. The steel pipes and brass strainers, for
example, are very expensive as compared to coir string or narial strainers.
The underground strata and spring level also affect the cost of a tube
well. The type of power applied for running a tube well also determines
its cost. A tube well driven oy electricity requires less capital investment
as compared to a tube well operated by diesel oil. It may be added
that there were 57 tube wells driven by electricity and 43 tube wells
worked by diesel engines. The following table shows the distribution
of capital cost among various items in the case of sample tube wells
operated by electricity and diesel engines.

TABLE 6

Cost of Tube Wells Driven by Electricity and Diesel Engine

Electric Diesel Engine
Items Total Average Percentage Total Average Percentage
cost per tube to total cost per tube to total
well well

Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.
Engine 165,045 2,895.52 42.9 227,500 5,290.70 54.5
PumpJ '31,231 726.30 7.5
Strainer 51,779 908.40 14.5 33,836 786.88 8.1
Blind pipe 54,569 957.35 14.2 29,573 687.74 7.1
Belts, pulley, 5
bolts valve etc. 533 9.36 0.2 31,730 737.91 7.6
Boring charges 32,149 564.02 8.4 22,365 520.12 5.4
Masonry work 63,150 1,107.90 16.4 31,292 727.72 7.5
Transportation 4,363 76.54 1.2 3,940 91.63 0.9
Fittings 5,892 103.37 1.5 5,940 136.14 1.4
Electric Wiring etc. 6,596 115.72 1.7 -

Total 384,076 6,738.18 100.00 417,407 9,707.14 100.00

The above table shows that diesel engine tube wells are more expen-
sive as compared to the electric tube wells because in the case of the for-






ECONOMICS OF TUBE WiLL IRRIGATION

'mer, the price of the engine has also to be incurred to drive the 'pump,
while in the case of the latter nothing is spent on this account. Ini the
case of the sample under study, the installation cost of a diesel tube w1ll
was higher by 44% as compared to that of an electric tube well. The
main item entering into the cost of tube well is plant'and machinery
which includes the cost of electric motor, diesel engine, pumping set,
strainer, blind pipe, belts, pulley, bolts valve, bearing, shafts, etc. These
item accounted for as much as 84.8 per cent of the total cost in the case
of diesel tube wells and70.8 per cent of the total cost ofthe electric
wells. The cost of plant and machinery on the average came to
Rs. 8,229.53 per diesel and Rs. 4,770.63 per electric tube well. The next
important item of cost is construction charges which include expenses on
the construction of pump house, laying the foundation of the well, con-
struction of water tank and concrete channels, etc. The average cost
on masonry work came to Rs. 727.72 per diesel tube well and Rs. 1,107.90
per electric tube well. The cost of tube wells according to the period
of installation is given in the Appendices.
The rate of boring varies from agncytgencytency. The Agricultural
Department' unidertakes boringa' a_ subsidized iate'of' Re' 0.75 per
foot whereas the, charges of private agencies vary from Rs. 2.50 to
Rs. 5.00 per foot. The underground strata is also responsible'fdr the cost
of boring. In hard clay and rock hoing is comparatively a slow process
involving higher cost as compared to the sandy strata. The proportion
of boring cost to the total cost of a diesel tube well was to 5.4 per cent
and that of electric tube well 8.4 per cent as the latter were bordd deeper.
On the average, the boring charges were Rs. 520.12 per diesel tube well
and Rs. 564.02 per electric tube well for the sample under study.
The share of the cost on fitting to total cost was about 1.5 per cent
and 1.4 per cent in case of electric and diesel tube well respectively.
The transport cost includes the expenditure incurred in bringing 'the
drilling equipment to the site of the well and cartage of plant and ma-
chinery from the purchasing market and it accounted'for about 1.0 Oper
cent ofthe total cost. It may be added that electric fittings were installed


1. Boring rates at different depth charged by the Agricultural Department is
given in the Appendices.






.. CAPITAL. COST
in the electric, driven .tube wells and involved about 1.7 per cent of the
total cost while nothing was spent under this head in the case of the diesel.
tube wells.

The following table shows the relationship of the total cost and the
depth of boring

TABLE 7
Relationship of Total Cost and Depth of Boring

Driven by Electricity Driven by diesel oil
Range of Depth No.of Total Average No.of Total Average
tube cost cost per tube cost costper
wells tube well wells tube well

Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.
Less than 100 feet 4 18,448 4,612.00 -
100 ft. to less than 150 ft. 26 1,47,124 5,658.62 29 2,79,891 9,651.41
150 "" "200" 16 1,17,028 7,314.25 13 1,25,796 9,676.62.
200" .250 2 13,068.. 6,534.00 1 11,720 11,720.00
250" 300" 4 40,551 10,137.75 -

300 $50" 1 10,870 10,870.00 .- -

350" 400" 2 18,775. 9,387.50 -
Over 400 feet 2 18,212 9,106.00 -

Total 57 3,84,076 6,738.18 43 4,17,407 9,707.14

It would be seenfrom the above table that the deeper the boring,
the higher the cost of tube well driven by diesel engine. In the case of
electrically worked tube wells, the average cost per tube well increased
upto the boring depth of 350 feet, except in the group of 200-250 feet.
The average cost was comparatively less in the case of tube wells with
boring depth of over 350 feet. It may be added 'that depth of boring
can affect the cost only if other factors ofcost remain the same.

..The boring depth of 59 per cent of the.sample tube wells was less,
than 150 feet while it varied from 150 feet to less than 250 feet in the







ECONOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


case of 29% of the sample. There were 4 tube wells which had boring
depth of 350 feet and over. All the tube wells driven by diesel engine had
boring depths from 100 feet to 250 feet whereas electric tube wells had
varied depths ranging from less than 100 feet to over 400 feet.

The following table shows the cost of tube wells classified according to
discharge of water in the surveyed tract:
TABLE 8
Relationship of Cost and Discharge of Water
No. of Total Average Total Average
Range of Discharge tube cost cost per discharge cost per
wells tube well cusec

Rs. Rs. Cusec Rs.
Upto 0.50 cusec .. 4 24,208 6,052.00 1.68 14,409.52
0.51 to 0.75 .. 4 30,447 7,611.75 2.29 13,295.63
0.76 to 1.00 .. 9 50,538 5,615.33 8.03 6,293.65
1.01 to 1.25" .. 20 1,43,807 7,190.35 22.75 6,321.19
1.26 to 1.50 .. 33 2,74,240 8,310.30 45.62 6,011.40
1.51 to 1.75" .. 18 1,50,860 8,381.11 29.14 5,177.08
1.76 to 2.00 .. 7 73,051 10,435.86 12.67 5,765.67
2.01 to 2.25" .. 3 31,705 10,568.33 6.55 4,840.46
2.26 to 2.50 .. 2 22,627 11,313.50 4.67 4,845.18

Total .. 100 8,01,483 8,01,483 133.40 6,008.12

It would be seen from the above table that 53 per cent of the tube
wells had water discharge from one cusec to one and a half cusecs and
the capital invested in them was 52.2 per cent of the total investment.
About one-fourth of the tube wells with a discharge of water from 1.50
to 2.00 cusecs were installed at 27.9 per cent of the total investment.
As many as 6.8 per cent of the investment was made in 5 per cent of the
wells having discharge of water of over two cusecs. The discharge of
water from 17 per cent of the tube wells varied from half a cusec to one
cusec and capital investment formed 13. 1 per cent of the total cost.

The cost of a tube well mainly depends upon its size. Bigger the
size, the greater the discharge of water and greater the cost. It would
be seen from the above table that the average cost of a tube well increases
as the water discharge goes up. The average cost per cusec, however,
decreases with the increase in the size of the tube well.

18






CAPITAL COST


The Department of Agriculture, West Pakistan, undertakes boring
and installation of pumps and strainers only. The remaining operations
viz.-supply and selection of pumps, engine etc. are carried out by the
farmers themselves. Out of the 100 surveyed tube wells, as many as 22
were drilled by the Agriculture Department. The total cost of these 22
tube wells amounted to Rs. 1,73,362, the average cost per tube well being
Rs. 7,880.09. The following table compares the cost of tube wells drilled
by the Department of Agriculture, West Pakistan, and those completed
by private firms:

TABLE 9

Comparing Cost of Tube Wells Drilled by the Agriculture Department
and by Private Agencies
.-.. No. of -Total Average cost per
Drilling Agency tube cost tube well
wells Rs. Rs.

Department of Agriculture .. 22 1,73,362 7,880.09
Private firms .. 78 6,28,121 8,052.83

Total .. 100 8,01,483 8,014.83

It would be seen from the above table that the cost of tube wells
drilled by the Agricultural Department was low by 2 per cent as com-
-pared to that of the other private agencies. The Department charges
Re. 0.75 per foot of boring whereas the rates of boringbyprivate agencies
vary from Rs. 2.50 to Rs. 5.00 per foot. Rates of drilling by different
sizes of boring plants of the Department of Agriculture are given in the
Appendices and the number of tube wells drilled by it in each district
is given in the Appendices.

An important element which affects the cost of a tube well is the
type of strainer used.. The brass strainer is more costly as compared to a
strainer wrapped with coconut string, called narial strainer. In the case
of the present sample, as many as 16 per cent of the strainers were of brass
and 83 per cent were of narial strainers in the surveyed tract. One tube
well had no strainer as plain tube had been fitted in open masonry well.






EcoNomIcs or TUBE :WLL IRRIGATION


Out of the 47 surveyed tube wells in the Rechna Doab, only three tube
wells had brass strainers. Seven of the 25 tube wells in the Montgomery
district and six of the 27 tube wells in the Multan district were fitted
with brass strainers. The cost of tube wells having brass strainers was
about 15 per cent higher than that of the narial strainer. It may, however,
be stated that the brass strainers are more durable. The following table
compares the cost of tube wells having brass strainers to those fitted with
narial strainers:


TABLE 10

Comparing Cost of Tube Wells Having Brass Strainers and Narial
Strainers

No. of Total Average cost
Kind of Strainers tube cost per tube well
wells Rs. Rs.

Brass Strainers .. 16 1,47,606 9,225.38

Narial Strainers .. 83 6,50,676 7,839.47

Total .. 99* 7,98,282 8,063.45

*One tube well had no strainer, as plain tube had been fitted in the open masonry
well.

The total capital invested in 100 sample tube wells amounted to
Rs. 8,01,483 and on the average the price per tube well comes to
Rs. 8,014.83. The cost of individual tube wells, however, varied from
Rs. 3,940 to Rs. 15,860. In the case of electric tube wells, the cost was
less than Rs. 6,000 for 44% of the tube wells while it ranged between
Rs. 6,000 to Rs. 8,000 in the case of 30% of the wells and between
Rs. 8,000 and Rs. 15,000 for 26% of the electric tube wells.

The cost of diesel tube wells varied from Rs. 6,800 to Rs. 15,860,
the average cost per. tube well being Rs. 9,707.14. As many as 63 per
cent of the diesel tube wells were in the cost group of; Rs. 9,000 to







CAPITAL COST


Rs. 15,000 while 33 per cent were in the cost group of Rs. 7,000 to Rs. 9;000.
The following table classifies the tube wells according to their total cost:
TABLE 11
Classification of Tube Wells According to Capital Cost
Electric Diesel
Cost Group No.of Total Average No.of Total Average
tube cost cost per tube cost cost per
wells (Rs.) tubewell wells (Rs.) tubewell
Rs. Rs.
Less than Rs. 5000 12 53,821 4,485.08 -
Rs. 5000 to less than Rs. 6,000 13 71,259 5,481.46 -
Ra. 6000 7,000 10 64,017 6,401.70 1 6,800 6,800.00
Rs. 7000" 8,000 7 50,390 7,198.57 5 38,183 7,636.60
Rs. 8000" 9,000 6 50,132 8,355.33 9 77,458 8,606.44
Rs. 9000" 10,000 3 28,637 9,545.67 14 1,34,678 9,619.86
Rs. 10000" 15,000 6 65,820 10,970.00 13 1,44,428 11,109.85
Ra. 15,000 and over 1 15,860 15,860.00

Total 57 3,84,076 6,738.18 43 4,17,407 9,707.14

Open percolation wells are suitable only for smaller holdings as
these give 0.15 cusec of water discharge. On an average, a masonry
well generally caters to 12 acres of land with one yoke of bullocks in both
the harvests-Kharf and Rabi. The construction cost of a masonry well
comes to about Rs. 2,500. Thus, the capital cost per acre controlled by
masonry well comes to Rs. 208 and to Rs. 300 after including the price
of the yoke. Taking into account the discharge of water, the 0.15 cusecs
are obtained by spending Rs. 3,600 on masonry well and the yoke. Thus,
the capital cost involved in getting on cusec of water from masonry well
comes to about Rs. 24,000.

According to the data collected during the course of the inquiry,
the total area cropped by the 100 sample tube wells was 9,830 acres. The
capital investment on irrigation as per cropped acre thus came to Rs.81.53
as compared to Rs. 300 estimated in case of the masonry well.

The total discharge of water of the 100 sample tube wells was 133.40
cusecs. The capital cost per cusec was thus Rs. 6,008.12 as compared to

21






EcoNoMIcs oF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION
Rs. 24,000 estimated about in the case of masonry well. The capital cost
of a tube well is thus substantially lower than that of a masonry well if
the discharge of water and the area cropped by the two types of wells are
taken into account.

It would be interesting to note that 86 per cent of the cultivators
had installed tube wells out of their own savings and 14 per cent of the
owners had secured loans to the extent of Rs. 1,16,000 i.e. 14.5 per cent
of the total capital invested in tube wells. The Agricultural Development
Bank, Pakistan is doing very commendable work in the rural areas by
providing credit facilities for the installation of tube wells to irrigate
culturable land. The 100 sample tube wells were owned by 96 farmers
of whom 4 each in Multan and Montgomery districts and 3 in Rechna
Doab had taken loans from the Agricultural Development Bank for
installing tube wells. Besides, one farmer had taken Rs. 15,000 as taccavi
from the Government and another had obtained a loan of Rs. 4,000
from the Village Co-operative Credit Society. Of the total credit, about
55 per cent was contracted in the Multan district, 23 per cent in the
Montgomery district and 22 per cent in the Rechna Doab. The average
amount of loan taken was Rs. 8,923 per farmer.










CHAPTER 4
IRRIGATION

The total area irrigated by the 100 sample tube wells was 7,749.5
acres. Thus, land controlled per tube well came to 77.50 acres. Of
the total land as much as 85 per cent belonged to the owners, 9 per cent
had been taken on batai and 6 per cent was cultivated by the lesee'culti-
vators.

Before the installation of tube wells, 45 per cent of this land was under
canal irrigation, 38 per cent was wasteland, 9 per cent was receiving
water through masonry wells and 8 per cent was irrigated by canal-cum-
open wells. The following table classifies the land according to the
means of irrigation before the installation of tube wells in respect of the
surveyed holdings:

TABLE 12

Means of Irrigation of the Surveyed Holdings before the Installation of
Tube Wells
I Mont- Rechna
Source of Irrigation gomery Multan Doab Total

Acres Acres Acres Acres
Canal .. 1,177.5 1,484.5 836.0 3,498.0
Open wells .. 80.0 647.0 727.0
Canal-cum-well .. 26.0 202.0 357.0 585.0
Wasteland .. 665.0 1,782.0 492.5 2,939.5

Total .. 1,948.5 3,468.5 2,332.5 7,749.5

It would be seen from the above table that 51 per cent of the total
land now irrigated by the sample tube wells in the Multan district was
banfar and 49 per cent was under irrigation. In the Montgomery district
34 per cent was wasteland and 66 per cent was receiving water through
canals and wells. In the Rechna Doab, as much as 79 per cent of the
land before the sinking of the sample tube wells was under irrigation and
23





EcONoMIcs OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION
21 per cent was lying waste. It may be added that 63 per cent of the
land in theJhang district before the working of tube wells was wasteland,
15 per cent was getting water from canals and 22 per cent was under
wells. The percentages of wasteland in the Sheikhupura and the Lyall-
pur districts was 23 and 8 respectively. All the land in the Gujranwala
district was being irrigated by masonry wells.

After the sinking of the sample tube wells, 2,194.5 acres or 28.3
per cent of the total cultivated land was under tube well irrigation while
5,555 acres or 71.7 per cent was under canal-cum-tube wells. It may
be added that in the case of the sample holdings of Mfultandistrict, about'
74 per cent was irrigated by canals-cum-tube wells and 26 per cent by'
tube wells alone. In the Montgomery district all the sample holdings
were receiving water from both the sources--tube wells and canals. In
the Rechna Doab as much.as 56 per cent of the area under study was
mainly under tube well irrigation while 44 per cent was under tube well-
cuin-canalirrigation. The districtwise classification of the land according
to the means of irrigation is given in the following table:

TABLE 13.

Area Irrigated by. Tube Wells
STube Tube well-
District well cam-canal Total.

Jhang .. 408.0 105.0 513.0
Lyallpur .. 65.0 503.0 568.0
Gujranwala .. 719.0 719.0
Sheikhupura .. 113.0 419.5 532.5

Total Rechna Doab .. 1,305.0 1,027.5 2,332.5
Multan .. 889.5 2,579.0 3,468.5
Montgomery .. 1,948.5 1,948.5

Total .. 2,194.5 5,555.0 7,749.5

It was noted during the course of the inquiry that before the installa-
tion of tube wells most of the area was under such crops which required
less water, e.g. cotton, wheat and millets. In the areas where there was
adequate supply of canal water, sugarcane, rice and fodder crops were







IRRIGATION


also sown. The acreage under these crops was, however, limited. As a
result of the assured supply of water by tube wells, the relative share of
more valuable crops like vegetables, fruit gardens, tobacco, etc., has
tremendously increased. The following table gives the sown area under
different crops in bcth the harvests :

TABLE 14
Pattern of Crops-1963-64
Area covered by the Sample Tube Wells
S----------------- Percent-
Per- age to
Crops Mont- Per- Multan Per- Rechna Per- Total cent. total
gomery cent- (Acre) cent- Doab cent- (Acre) age to sown
(Acre) age to age to (Acre) age to total Area*
total total total


(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9)
Wheat 643 25.2 1,242 33.2 751 21.2 2,636 26.8 34.9

Cotton 639 25.0 1,458 39.0 178 5.0 2,276 23.2 13.1

Rice 37 1.5 12 0.3 1,060 30.0 1,109 11.3 7.2

Tobacco 310 12.1 15 0.4 2 0.1 327 3.3 0.3

Sugarcane 33 1.3 48 1.3 121 3.4 202 2.1 4.5

Fruit garden 148 5.8 145 3.9 111 3.1 403 4.1 0.8

Vegetables 297 11.6 105 2.8 408 11.6 810 8.2 0.8

Fodder crops 318 12.4 611 16.3 674 19.1 1,603 16.3 20.7

Maize 78 3.0 46 1.2 133 3.8 257 2.6 17.7
Miscellaneous 53 2.1 58 1.6 96 2.7 207 2.1 17

Total 2,556 100.0 3,740 100.0 3,534 100.0 9,830 100.00 100.0


Average of the districts for the quinquennial ending 1962-63.

It would be seen from the above table that wheat, cotton, rice, fodder
and garden crops are the important crops covering about 90 per cent
of the total annual sown area irrigated by the sample tube wells. Major
crops in the Montgomery district are wheat, cotton, tobacco and fodder
crops occupying 25.2 per cent, 25.0 per cent, 12.1 per cent and 12.4

25






ECONOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION
per cent of the total area respectively. About 6 per cent of the total
annual sown area was under fruit gardens and 11.6 per cent under vege-
tables. As much as 88.5 per cent of the sown area of the sample in the
Multan district was under cotton, wheat and fodder. Acreage under
vegetables, fruit garden, and tobacco in the surveyed villages of the
Multan district were low but quite high if compared with the relative per-
centages of these crops for the district as a whole. The main crops in
Rechna Doab were rice, wheat and fodder covering about 70 per cent
of the total annual sown area. It may be stated that cotton was not an
,important crop in: the Rechna Doab tract, and only 5 per cent of the
total annual sown area is under this crop. It may be added that wheat
was the predominant crop in the Montgomery district, cotton in the
Multan .district and rice in the Rechna Doab region.

Tube well irrigation seems to have affected the cropping pattern of
the area under study. The tendency to bring large area under fruit
gardens, vegetables, tobacco, cotton and rice in the villages where tube
well irrigation is carried on is evident from a comparison of percentages
given in columns 8 and 9 of the above table. The cropping scheme in
percentages of the whole districts where this inquiry was conducted is
given in the Appendices.

It was noted that most of the tube wells had been installed near the
canals in order to get sweet water and to supplement the inadequate
canal water for growing crops. Obviously, the owners of tube wells were
bringing larger areas, under plough than was possible before the instal-
lation of tube wells. The intensity of cultivation has also increased con-
siderably. The intensity of cultivation in Rechna Doab was 152 per cent
while it was 131 per cent and 108 per cent in the surveyed families of the
Montgomery and Multan district respectively. The highest intensity of
162 per cent was noted in the case of the surveyed holdings of Gujranwala
district in the Rechna Doab region. The following table gives the
cultivated area held, total cropped area and the intensity of cultivation in
the case of the sample area along with the intensity of croppings for the
districts as a whole :-






.! IRRIGATION


TABLE 15 : :

Intensity of Cultivation under Tube Well Irrigation

Area of the Sample tube wells

District Total Cropped Intensity Normal
area area of Intensity in
cropping Distt.*

Gujranwala .; 719.00 1,166.00 162.17 118
Sheikhupura .. 532.50 789.75 148.31 108
Lyallpur .. 568.00 853.00 150.18 112
Jhang .. 513.00 725.50 141.42 91

Total Rechna Doab: 2,332.50 3,534.25 151.52 106
Montgomery .. 1,948.50 2,555.62 131.16 100
Multan ., 3,468.50 3,740.25 107.83 103

All Districts .. 7,749.50 9,830.12 126.86 106

Average for the quinquennial ending 1962-63.

The intensity of cultivation generally depends upon the size of the
holding and availability of irrigational water. The smaller the size of
the cultivating holding, the higher is the intensity of croppings and vice
versa. This holds true even where tube well irrigation is available. It
would be seen from the above table that intensity of croppings is com-
paratively low in the Multan district. This could be attributed to the
fact that owners of sample tube wells in the Multan district had larger
cultivating holdings where 89 per cent of the holding were over 50 acres
as compared to 43 per cent in the Montgomery district and 46 per cent
in the Rechna Doab. .As much as 97 per cent of the total area surveyed
in the Multan district belonged to the owners of over 50 acres. It may,
however, be stated that the percentages to the 'total area owned by the
farmers having more than 50 acres of.land was 80 in the Montgomery
district and 74 in the Rechna Doab. The intensity of cropping of each
surveyed firm is given in the Appendices.






ECONOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


The total area cultivated by the sample tube wells was 7,749.50
acres and the annual cropped area was 9,830.12 acres thus giving the
overall intensity of 127 per cent. Of the annual sown area, about 87.7
per cent was under field crops such as wheat, cotton, rice, tobacco, sugar-
cane, maize, fodder, etc. and 12.3 per cent was under garden crops i.e.
fruits and vegetables. The area of field crops matured under both the
harvests-Kharif and Rabi--was 8,616.37 acres out of which 52.4 per cent
was harvested in Kharif and 47.6 per cent in Rabi. The remarkable fact
is that Kharif croppings predominate over Rabi cropping whereas in the
districts as a whole Kharif harvest accounts for 40 per cent and Rabi
harvest 60 per cent of the cropped area. The tube well irrigation has
thus improved the acreage under Kharif harvest.

As regards the area under garden crops, about 61.7 per cent was
under crops maturing in winter season, 35.6 per cent ripened in summer
and 2.7 per cent of the area was under mixed cropping i.e: some trees
bearing fruits in winter and some in summer season. The following table
gives the acreage under different harvests in the case of the surveyed
area:

TABLE 16
Area Under Different Harvests

Mont- Rechna Total Sur-
Harvest gomery Multan Doab veyed area

Field Crops
Kharif 1963 939.37 1,873.38 1,706.00 4,518.75
Rabi 1964 1,172.00 1,616.87 1,308.75 4,097.62

Total 2,111.37 3,490.25 3,014.75 8,616.37
Garden Crops
Winter Crop 306.37 160.75 281.50 748.62
Summer Crop 124.38 89.25 219.00 432.63
Mixed Crops 13.50 19.00 32.50

Total 444.25 250.00 519.50 1,213.75

Total Field and
Garden Crops 2,555.62 3,740.25 3,534.25 9,830.12






IRRIGATION


It would be seen from the above table that Kharif harvest is more
important in the area irrigated by the sample tube wells. This is true
almost in all the surveyed districts except Montgomery where acreage
under Rabi field crops is larger than that of Kharif field crops. This may
be due to the fact that virginia tobacco, which is extensively cultivated in
this district, is a Rabi crop. It may be stated that the acreage under
winter garden crops is higher than summer crops in the case of the sur-
veyed area of all the districts. The remarkable fact of tube well irri-
gation in the surveyed tract was the non-existence of failed area of any
crop. All the acreage covered by different crops in both the harvests
matured fully. The pattern of cropping is given in the Appendices.
The requirements of water vary from crop to crop and from month to
month. Some crops like rice, sugarcane, tobacco, Rabi fodder, vegetables
etc. require high irrigation for their maturity, whereas wheat, cotton,
maize, oilseeds, etc. need moderate watering. There are some crops like
bajra, jowar, gram and pulses etc. extensively raised on dry tract. As a
rule, summer crops require a larger number of waterings than the winter
crops. Rainfall at times may do away with the need for one or two water-
ings. The physical composition of the soil has also much to do with the
number of waterings required for different crops. The following table
gives the number of waterings given by tube wells and canals to various
crops in the case of the surveyed holdings:
TABLE 17
Number of Waterings
No. of waterings Average No. of wa-
No. of by terings per field
Crops sample -- -
fields Tube Canal Total Tube Canal Total
well well

Rice .. 51 874 96 970 17.1 1.9 19.0
Cotton .. 55 364 90 454 6.6 1.7 8.3
Sugarcane .. 58 604 143 747 10.4 2.5 12.9
Maize .. 60 235 59 294 3.9 1.0 4.9
Wheat .. 85 309 42 351 3.6 0.5 4.1
Tobacco .. 17 185 44 229 10.9 2.6 13.5
Berseem .. 91 689 167 856 7.6 1.8 9.4
Vegetables .. 61 869 180 1,049 14.3 3.0 17.3
Potato 17 159 75 234 9.4 4.4 13.8
B- ra 17 33 1 34 2.0 2.0
29






EcoNOMIcs orFTUBE WELL IRRIGATION


It would be seen from the above table that the number of waterings
by tube wells far exceed those of canal for all the main crops. Of the
total number of waterings on the sample fields, as much as 83 per cent
were provided by the tube wells and only 17 per cent by the -canals.
Obviously tube well irrigation is responsible for the maturity of crops
and canals water was only supplementing the tube well irrigation in the
case of the surveyed area. The number of waterings given to different
crops in each surveyed district is given in the Appendices.

The number of waterings given to any particular crop is not fixed. It
varies from farm to farm, from village to village and from district to district.
In the case of rice, the number of waterings given to the sample fields
varied from 23 in the Rechna Doab to 9 in the Multan district. Next
to rice, vegetables are the most highly irrigated crops getting 17 waterings
on the average. Potatoes and tobacco also require excessive water for
their maturity receiving about 14 waterings while sugarcane got abuot
13 waterings. Rabi fodders i.e. berseem and lucerne got about 10 irri-
gations. Cotton is an important crop in the Multan and Montgomery
districts receiving on the average as many as 8.5 and 9.00 irrigations
respectively.. The average number of waterings given to maize and
wheat crops on the sample fields were 4.9 and 4.1 respectively. There
were 17 sample fields of bajra which received two irrigations from tube
wells and none from canal.

The total annual acre irrigation on the sample fields in the Rechna
Doab was 37,985, in Montgomery district 15,924 and in the Multan
district 17,144. On the average each tube well commanded 710.5 acre
irrigation in the surveyed tract. As the total sown area of the sample
tube wells in the surveyed districts was 9,830 acres, the average cropped
area receiving irrigation per tube well was 98.3 acres and the average
number of waterings given per cropped acre was 7.2.

The total discharge of water from the 47 tube wells in the Rechna
Doab was 64.17 cusecs as compared to 30.04 cusecs from 26 sample tube
wells in the Montgomery district and 39.19 cusecs from 27 sample tube
wells in the Multan district. The total discharge from all the 100 sample
tube wells was 133.40 cusecs, the average per tube well being 1.334 cusecs.





IRRIGATION


The average depth of each irrigation obtained through sample tube
wells worked out to 2.4 inches. It was 3.24 inches in the Multan district,
2.7 inches in the Montgomery district and 1.92 inches in the Rechna
Doab. The 100 sample tube wells worked for 1,31,550 hours during the
year 1963-64 for maturing 9,830 acres. Each cropped acre thus received
on the average 13.38 hours irrigation from the time of sowing to the
mturhing of crops.

The owners of the sample tube wells also sold water for' 8,785 hours
to other cultivators for the irrigation of crops. The total working hours
thus came to 1,40,335 during the year. On the average each tube well
worked for 1,403.35 hours annually. On the basis of eight hours a day
each tube well worked for 175.42 days in a year and raised on the average
98.3 acres of crops:

The following table shows the number of sample tube wells, area
cropped and total working hours in each of the surveyed district.

TABLE 18

Cropped Area and Annual Working Hours of Tube Wells

Number Cropped Hours taken Area
District of tube area in Working to irrigate cropped
wells acres hours per cropped per tube
acre well

Jhang .. 10 725.50 11,415 15.73 72.55
Lyallpur 13 853.00 13,241 15.52 65.62
Gujranwala .. 18 1,166.00 24,623 21.11 64.78
Sheikhupura .. 6 789.75 4,605 5.83 131.62

Total Rechna Doab 47 3,534.25 53,884 15.24 75.20
Montgomery .. 26 2,555.62 38,584 15.10 98.29
Multan .. 27 3,740.25 39,082 10.45 138.53

Total .. 100 9,830.12 131,550 13.38 98.30






ECONOMICS or Tus WELL IRRIGATION


As many as 71,053.15 acre irrigation was provided to 9,830.12
cropped area. The average number of waterings was thus 7.23. It
took about 1.85 hours to irrigate one acre. It may be added that the
average number of hours taken to irrigate one cropped acre is 16.41 for
electric tube well and 10.11 for diesel tube well. This shows that owners
of diesel tube well use the water economically as the cost of operation is
comparatively higher than that of the electric tube well. As many as
1.6 acre feet water is given by electric tube well as against 1.3 acre feet
by diesel tube well. The working of diesel engine tube wells and electric
driven tube wells of the entire sample is given in the Appendices.

After the installation of the tube wells, the owners never experienced
any paucity of water. During the season of rice cultivation, some of the
tube wells in the Rechna Doab worked continuously for 24 hours for
weeks without any decrease in the supply of water. No shortage of
water was recorded in the Multan and Montgomery districts as well.
There were some cases where some defects in the engines disrupted the
supply of water at times but no damage to any standing crop was recorded
due to this cause, as the defects were removed in time.

The chemical analysis of the quality of ground water pumped out in
24 surveyed villages was carried on by the Agricultural Chemist 11, Ayub
Agricultural Research Institute, Lyallpur. The analysis showed that
the water of 16 villages was fit for cultivation, of six villages was mar-
ginally fit for cultivation and of the remaining two villages it was unfit
for cultivation. Of the latter two villages, one village Bhangoo in Tehsil
Shorkot in Jhang district increased thur whereas in the second village
Thabal located in Tehsil and District Sheikhupura was.yielding normal
crops. No ill effect ofthur in this village was reported during the survey.
The farmers of this village diluted the tube well water with canal water
before applying it to their fields. The results of chemical analysis is given
in the Appendices.











CHAPTER 5


OPERATION COSTS


The cost of irrigation by tube wells can be divided into two compo-
nents. The capital expenditure, that is, the cost of owning the tube well
aid secoridary the cost'of operation of the plant. The operation costs can
further be sub-divided into fixed costs and variable costs. The annual
fixed costs of plant operation comprise of depreciation on tube well,
masonry work and interest charges on the capital invested. All these
expenses remain static in the total cost whether the irrigation equipment
is used much or little. The annual running or variable costs are directly
related to the actual use of the plant and machinery. These consist of
expenses on motive power, lubricants, repair charges, replacements,
driver's pay etc.

It is difficult to determines the economic life of a tube well and its
other accessories for fixing the rate of depreciation. In this connection,
the expert advice of the Superintending Engineer, Agricultural Machi-
nery, Lahore Region, Lyallpur was sought and he recommended 10 per
cent depreciation on tube wells and 2-1/2 per cent on pump house and
other masonry works. Interest on the capital outlay is charged at 6 per
cent, the rate charged by the Agricultural Development Bank on such
loans.

It may, however, be stated that depreciation is charged at fixed
rate according to the expected life of the plant and machinery. The
interest is calculated on the residual part of the original value. In this
way interest should be at 6 per cent per annum on the progressively
decreasing amount till the capital is fully covered by depreciation. An-
alternative method, which gives the-same result, but is more convenient,
is to charge interest at half the given rate on the original value until the
full value is recovered in the form of depreciation. Interest has thus
been charged at 3 per cent per annum on the original capital outlay of a
tube well for the entire expected period of its operation.






EcoNOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


The operation costs vary not only from district to district and village
to village but also from tube well to tube well located even in the same
village. The average operation cost per hour of the sample tube wells
is given in the following table :


TABLE 19
Average Operation Cost per Hour of the Sample Tube Wells


I Electric I


Diesel Oil


Items Cost Percentage Cost Percentage
to total to total


Interest on capital at 3%

Depreciation on tube well at
10%

Depreciation on masonry works
at 2j%

Driver's pay


Motive power


Lubricants


Replacements and repair
charges


0.13 8.02 0.25 6.60


0.36 22.22 0.79 20.84


0.01 0.62 0.02


0.52


0.02 1.24 0.39 10.29

0.96 59.26 1.73 45.65

0.01 0.62 0.28 7.39

0.13 8.02 0.33 8.71


1.62 100.00


3.79 100.00


It Would be seen from the above table that the cost of lifting
Water per hour from the tube wells worked by diesel engine came to
Rs. 3.79 as compared to Rs. 1.62 of the electric tube well. Obviously,
the operation cost of electric tube well is less than half of that of diesel
tube well. Of the total operation cost, about Rs. 1.06 or 28.0 per cent


Total






OPERATfOlq COSTS


related to fixed cost and Rs. 2.73 or 7~,0 per cent to variable or running
expenditure in the case of a diesel engine tube well and Re. 0.50 or 30.9
per cent and Rs. 1.12 or 69.1 per cent respectively for the electric tube
well. -The expenditure on all the items that enter into the cost ofrunning a
tube well are higher in the case of diesel engine tube well.

It may be added that of the total cost, items like interest and deprecia-
tions, are calculated on the installation cost of tube well whereas other
items of cost such as driver's pay, motive power, lubricants, replacements
and repairs are the out-of-pocket expenditure, the expenses which the
farmers actually incur in cash. The main item of cost is the motive
power, the energy consumed in units in the case of electric tube wells
and consumption of diesel oil in the case of oil engines. As much as
59.3 per cent of the total operation cost was incurred under this head by
electric tube wells as compared to 45.7 per cent in the case of the diesel
engine tube wells. Depreciation on plant and machinery and masonry
works taken together constituted about 22.8 per cent and 21.4 per cent
of the total cost of electric and diesel engine tube wells respectively.
The cost of lubricants which include grease, mobil oil etc. are much
higher in the case of diesel tube wells as compared to the electric tube
wells. The expenses incurred on repairs and replacement are also low in
the case of electric tube well by 40 per cent. As regards the driver's pay,
the average cost was Re. 0.39 for the diesel engine tube wellt and very
negligible e.g. Re. 0.02 per hour for the electric tube wells. It may be
stated that out of the 57 electric tube wells, drivers had been employed
for only 4 tube wells while the remaining 53 tube wells were operated
by the owners themselves. In the case of diesel engine tube wells, about
74 per cent of the owners had employed drivers to look after their tube
wells.

The cost under head "Driver's Pay" of those electric tube wells
operated by regular drivers came to Re. 0.15 per hour and of the diesel
tube wells came to Re. 0.48 per hour. So the total cost per hour of
irrigation including driver's pay would be Rs. 1.75 of the electric driven
tube wells and Rs. 3.88 of the diesel engine tube wells. The following
table gives the average cost of irrigating one acre by tube wells run by
electricity and diesel engines :






EcoNOMICs OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


TABLE 20

Operation Cost per Acre Irrigation


Electric Diesel Oil
Items --
Cost Percentage Cost Percentage
to total to total

Rs. Rs.
Interest on capital at 3% 0.29 7.79 0.34 6.58
Depreciation on tube well at 10% 0.82 22.04 1.08 20.89
Depreciation on masonry work at
21% 0.04 1.08 0.02 0.39
Driver's pay 0.04 1.08 0.53 10.25
Cousumption of motive power 2.20 59.14 2.38 46.03
Cousumption of lubricants 0.02 0.54 0.38 7.35
Repairs and replacements 0.31 8.33 0.44 8.51

Total 3.72 100.00 5.17 100.00

The cost of irrigation per acre came to Rs.3.72 for the electric tube
well and Rs. 5.17 for the diesel engine tube well. It may be added that
owners who had employed drivers had to incur Re. 0.39 as driver's pay in
case of electric tube well and Re. 0.66 per acre irrigation in case of diesel
engine tube well. So the total cost per acre irrigation by tube well worked
with electricity came to Rs. 4.07 and of diesel engine came to Rs. 5.30.
The electric tube well irrigated per acre for 2.3 hours and diesel tube well
took 1.4 hours to irrigate per acre.

There were 19 tube wells in the Montgomery district driven by
electricity completed at a cost of Rs. 1,41,283 and having an average
discharge of 1.022 cusecs per tube well. There were 7 diesel engine
tube wells installed at a cost of Rs. 64,892 and their average discharge of
water was 1.517 cusecs during 1963-64. The following table gives the
average operation costs per hour for the sample tube wells of the Mont-
gomery district :






OPERATION COSTS


TABLE 21

Average Operation Costs per Hour of the Sample Tube Wells in the
Montgomery District


Interest on capital at 3%


Depreciation on tube well at 10% 0.37

Depreciation on masonry work at

2 4/ .. 0.01


Driver's pay


Consumption of motive power

Consumption of lubricants

Repairs and replacements


0.01

0.06


Rs. Rs.

. 0.13 8.28 0.18


23.57 0.55


- 0.01


0.34

1.00 63.69 1.86


0.64 0.37 10.72


3.82 0.14


Total


.. 1.57 100.00 3.45


100.00


It would be seen from the above table that the cost of irrigation per
hour of the tube wells worked by diesel engine came to Rs. 3.45 as against
Rs. 1.57 of the electric tube wells. Nothing was incurred on driver's pay
in the case of electric tube wells as these were operated by the owners
themselves. Cost on all the items was comparatively higher in the case
of diesel engine tube wells.

The following table shows the cost of irrigation per acre of the two
types of sample tube wells in the Montgomery district:


5.22

15.94



0.29

9.86

53.91


4.06


____~I





ECONOMICS OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


TABLE 22

Average Operation Cost of Irrigating One Acre by the Sample Tube Wells
in the Montgomery District


Rs.


Interest on capital at 3%

Depreciation on tube well at 10%

Depreciation on masonry well at
2%

Driver's pay

Motive power


Lubricants


Replacements and repair charges 0.17


0.37 8.13 0.29 5.23


23.29


0.90 16;22


0.04 0.88 0.02 0.36

0.54 9.73

2.89 63.52 2.99 *53.87

0.02 0.44 0.60 10.81


3.74 0.21 3.78


Total


4.55 100.00 5.55 100.00


The complete data relating to the working cost per hour and per
acre irrigation for each of the sample tube wells of the Montgomery
district is given in the Appendices.

In the Multan district, the sample included 21 tube wells driven by
diesel engine installed at a cost of Rs. 2,11,124 with a total discharge of
water of 31.94 cusecs. There were 6 tube wells worked by electricity,
costing Rs. 48,048, having total discharge of 7.25 cusecs. The depth of
water-table varied from 26 feet to 36 feet. The following table shows
the cost of operation per hour of the two categories of tube wells in the
Multan district:






OPERATION COSTS


TABLE 23

Average Operation Cost per Hour of the Sample Tube Wells in the
Multan District


Electric Diesel Oil

Cost Percentage Cost Percentage
Sto total to total


Interest on capital at 3%


0.08 4.79


Depreciation on tube well at 10% 0.22


Depreciation on masonry work
at 2%


Driver's pay


Consumption of motive power

Consumption of lubricants

Repairs and replacements


Total


13.17


0.01 0.60

0.04 2.40

1.11 66.47


0.03


0.28 6.68

0.88 21.02


0.01 0.24

0.50 11.93

1.84 43.91


- 0.28 6.68


0.21 12.57

1.67 100.00


0.40 9.54

4.19 100.00


It would be seen from the above table that cost of operation of
electric tube well came to Rs. 1.67 as against Rs. 4.19 of diesel engine
tube well. In the case of the electric tube well, about two-thirds of the total
cost Was incurred ho the consumption of electric current, 13.77 per cent
on depreciation and 12.57 per cent on repairs and replacements. The
respective percentages of the diesel engine tube well were 43.9, 21.26 and
9.54. The driver's pay and consumption of lubricants formed 11.93
aid 6.68 per cent of the total operation Cost of tube well run by diesel
engine whereas expenditure on these items Were quite negligible in the
case of electric tube wells.


Items






EaONOMIcs OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


The following table compares the cost of per acre irrigation of the
tube wells driven by electricity and diesel engine:

TABLE 24

Average Cost of Irrigating One Acre in the Multan District

Electric Diesel Oil

Items Cost Percentage Cost Percentage
to total to total

Rs. Rs.
Interest on capital at 3% 0.30 4.64 0.47 6.63.
Depreciation on tube well at 10% 0.84 13.00 1.49 21.02
Depreciation on masonry work at
21% 0.04 0.62 0.02 0.28
Driver's pay 0.17 2.63 0.84 1.1.85
Consumption of motive power 4.29 66.51 3.12 44.00
Consumption of lubricants 0.02 0.31 0.47 6.63
Repairs and replacements 0.80 12.39 0.68 9.59

Total 6.46 100.00 7.00 100.00


The detailed statistics about the working cost per hour and per acre
irrigation for each of the sample tube wells in the Multan district are
given in the Appendices.

There were 47 sample tube wells in the Rechna Doab of which 32
were driven by electricity with a total discharge of 40.33 cusecs of water
during 1963-64. These had been installed at a total cost of Rs. 1,94,745.
The remaining 15 tube wells were operated by diesel engines and had
total discharge of 23.84 cusecs of water, their total installation completed
at cost being Rs. 1,41,391. The depth of spring level varied from 12
feet to 17 feet. The table on the next page shows the average operation
cost per hour of the two types of tube wells in the Rechna Doab:






OPERATION COSTS


TABLE 25

Average Operating Cost per Hour of Sample Tube Wells in the Rechna Doab


Items


Electric


Diesel Oil


Interest on capital at 3%

Depreciation on tube well at 10%
Depreciation on masonry work at
21%
Driver's pay

Consumption of motive power

Consumption of lubricants

Repairs and replacements


Total


0.15 9.15 0.26 7.54


0.43


26.22


0.81 23.48


0.02 1.22 0.02 0.58

0.01 0.61. 0.28 8.11

0.85 51.83 1.49 43.19

0.01 0.61 0.22 6.38

0.17 10.36 0.37 10.72


1.64 100.00


3.45 100.00


It would be seen from the above table that average operation cost
per hour of a tube well, run by electric power, came to Rs. 1.64 as com-
pared to Rs. 3.45 of the diesel engine tube well. The main items of cost
of electric tube well were motive power, depreciation on plant and ma-
chinery and repairs and replacements accounting for about 89.5 per cent
of the total cost. As many as 78 per cent of the total cost of running a
diesel engine tube well pertained to consumption of diesel oil, deprecia-
tion, repairs and replacement expenses. It may, however, be stated
that the expenses on driver's pay and consumption of lubricants were
paisa 28 and paisa 22 per hour in the case of diesel engine tube wells and
were very negligible i.e, one paisa each on the case of electric tube wells.

The table on the next page compares the cost of per acre irrigation
of tube wells driven by electricity and diesel engine in the Rechna Doab.

41







ECONOMICS OF TUBE WILL' IRRIGATION


TABLE 26

Average Operation Cost of Irrigating One Acre by Sample Tube Wells in
the Rechna Doab

Electric Diesel Oil
Items ---
Cost Percentages Cost Percentage
to total to total

Rs. Rs.
Interest on capital at 3% 0.25 8.96 0.27 7.76
Depreciation on tube well at 10% 0.73 26.16 0.82 23.56
Depreciation on masonry well at
21% 0.03 1.08 0.02 0.58
Driver's pays 0.03 1.08 0.28 8.05
Consumption of motive power 1.45 51.97 1.50 43.10
Consumption of lubricants 0.02 0.71 0.22 6.32
Repairs and replacements 0.29 10.04 0.37 10.63

Total 2.79 100.00 3.48 100.00

It would bs seen from the above table that cost of per acre irrigation
by the tube wells run by electricity is comparatively low in the Rechna
Doab also. Expenses incurred on driver's pay and consumption of
lubricants are enormously higher for the diesel engine tube wells-paisa
28 and 22 as against paisa 3 and 3 respectively of the electric tube wells.

The average depth of irrigation in Rechna Doab by a diesel engine
tube well was 1.58 inches as compared to 2,14 inches of the electric tube
wells. Thus cost per acre inch irrigation was Rs., 2.20 and Rs. 1.30
respectively.

Detailed information pertaining to the cost of operation per hour
and per acre irrigation for each of the sample tube wells in the Rechna
Doab is given in the Appendices.

The table on the next page summarises the cost of operation per
hour, per acre irrigation, per inch depth of irrigation and per cropped
acre two types of tube wells.






OPERATION COSTS

TABLE 27
Cost of Irrigation

Montgomery Multan Rechna Doab Surveyed Distt.
Category Diesel Elec- Diesel Elec- Diesel Elec- Diesel Elec-
engine tric engine tric engine tric engine tric

Average cost per hour 3.45 1.57 4.19 1.67 3.45 1.64 3.79 1.62
Average cost per acre
irrigation 5.55 4.55 7.09 6.46 3.48 2.79 5.17 3.72
Average cost per acre inch
irrigation 2.26 1.51 2.77 1.40 2.20 1.30 2.46 1.38
Average cost per cropped
acre 36.91 28.10 31.68 31.93 58.48 23.85 38.02 26.46

A comparative study of the cost of irrigation of tube wells driven
by electricity and by diesel engine under different headings given in the
above table shows that on the average irrigation by electric tube wells
was cheaper in the case of the sample under study. There was, of course,
one exception insofar as the cost of irrigation per cropped acre in the
Multan district was Rs. 31.68 for the diesel engines tube wells against
Rs. 31.93 for the electric tube wells. This was presumably due to the
fact that in the case of the Multan district sample, the crops irrigated
by electric tube wells received on the average 19.12 hours watering as
against 7.56 hours watering by diesel engine tube well.

The cost of pumping per unit of volume of water is not the same for
deep and shallow tube wells. It varies for a given discharge according
to the depth of tube wells. The running cost of a deeper tube well is
higher than that of a shallow tube well. The table on the next page
shows the cost of operation per lakh cubic feet of water and per hour
at different depth of tube wells.

Other factors being the same, the cost of pumping is also different
for the tube wells installed at the localities having different water-tables.
Higher the spring level, the lower would be the cost of operation for a
given discharge and vice versa. Table 29 oh page 45 shows the cost of
operation of tube wells according to water-table.

45-















TABLz 28
Cost of Operation of Tube Wells at Different Depths

Electric Tube Wells Diesel Tube Well
SDis- Work- Value of Opera- Cost per Dis- Work. Value of Opera- Cost per
Range of Depth charge ing water in tion charge ing water in tion ------ -
in hours lakh cubic cost lakh cubic our in hours lakh cubic cost lakh cubic Hour
cusec feet (Rs.) feet (Rs.) ( ) cusec feet (Rs.) feet(Rs.) (Rs.)


Less than 100 feet


100' to less than 150'


150' to less than 200'

200'" 250'


250'?' 300'

300' and above


1.30 1566


1.39 2277


1.34 2262

1.39 4701

1.39 974

1.22 1099


73.3

113.9


109.1

235.2


2,245

3,669


2,936

8,319


30.63

32.21


26.91

35.37


48.7 2,154 44.23

48.3 2,363 48.92


1.43

1.61


1.30

1.77


38.1


44.6

63.5


3,000


3,221

7,400


78.74


72.21

116.54


3.94


3.59

7.14


2.21 -

2.15 -






OPERATION COSTS


TABLE 29
Cost of Irrigation per Hour According to the Water Table

Electric Diesel Oil
Water Table No.of Total Total Cost No.o Total Total Cost
tube operation working per tube operation working per
wells cost hours hour wells cost hours hour

Less than 15 feet 25 46,046.27 29,225 1.58 15 55,423.10 16,062 3.45
15' to less 20' 9 23,093.34 14,833 1.56 7 37,129.83 10,788 3.44
20' less than 30' 13 29,182.12 17,854 1.63 20 88,026.55 21,262 4.14
30' and above 10 48,610.90 28,998 1.68 1 6,733.90 1,313 5.13

Total 57 146,822.63 90,910 1.62 43 187,313.38 49,425 3.79


About one-third of the owners of the sample tube wells sold water to
their fellow cultivators. The rates of sale varied from Re. 1 to Rs. 3
per hour in the case of electric tube wells and from Rs. 3 to Rs. 8 per hour
for the diesel engine tube wells. There were, indeed some instances
where only the actual cost of motive power consumed was charged by the
owners. They sold water for 8,785 hours against sale price of Rs. 23,910.
Thus the average sale price was Rs. 2.72 per hour.


There were 14 owners of tube wells in the Rechna Doab who supplied
water to 219 acres of paddy crop in return for the 1/3rd of the gross pro-
duce. Of these, 3 tube wells in the Lyallpur district irrigated 47 acres
and 11 tube wells supplied water to 172 acres in the Gujranwala district.
Of these tube wells, 10 were driven by diesel oil and 4 by electricity.
219 acres yielded about 4,818 maunds of paddy worth Rs. 72,270. The
one-third share of the gross produce that came to Rs. 24,090 accrued as
income to the tube well owners. The average income per acre of irri-
gation came to Rs. 110. The total cost of irrigation per cropped acre of
paddy was Rs. 61.38 in case of electric tube wells and Rs. 76.53 for the
diesel tube wells. So the gross profit per acre of Rs. 33.44 accrued to the
owners of diesel tube well and of Rs. 48.62 to the owner of electric tube
well. Out of this gross profits of tube wells owners had to meet one-third
of expenses on cost of fertilizers, sowing and harvesting charges, etc.
The share of the tube well owner in these costs came to Rs. 20.00 per acre.











CHAPTER 6


ECONOMIC BENEFITS

Tube well irrigation has conferred multifarious benefits. Crops re-
ceiving irrigation through this source no longer experience any shortage
of water. It facilitates adequate and timely supply of water throughout
the year.. The yields of crops have substantially increased due to the
extensive application of chemical fertilizers which require great quantity
of water to give optimum returns. The tube wells have enabled their
owners to bring culturable wasteland under plough and the intensity of o
cropping has also increased. Thus the gross value of agricultural pro-
ducts in these villages has risen considerably. Low yielding crops have
also given place to high yielding variety of crops and more valuable
crops are being cultivated. Better rotation of crops are being adopted
for restoring the fertility of the soil.

The economic benefits of tube well irrigation in terms of monetary
gains accruing to the owners of tube wells have been worked out. It is,
of course, very difficult to evaluate the crops grown on the fields parti-
cularly of the crops consumed as fodder. The procedure adopted for
working out the total value of crops was that the output of the principal
crops such as wheat, rice, sugarcane, cotton, tobacco and potato which
cover about 70 per cent of the total sown area of the surveyed families,
was multiplied by the harvest price. The price of wheat has been
taken at Rs. 15/- per maund, cotton Rs. 32/- per maund, paddy Rs. 15/-
per maund, potatoes Rs. 18/- per maund, gur Rs. 18/- per maund and
tobacco at Rs. 45/- per maund. The Virginia variety of tobacco in
Montgomery district yielded on the average Rs. 830/- per acre. The
average outturn per sown acre was worked out by means of dividing the
total output by the acreage of these principal crops. The same weightage
was given to other unaccounted crops such as fodder, garden crops and
other insignificant crops. The average outturn per sown acre multiplied
by the total sown area of the surveyed families gives the total value of
the crops.






ECONOMIC BENEFITS


According to the above method, the total value of crops sown on the
sample fields amounted to Rs. 44.57 lakhs during 1963-64. After exclud-
ing the cost of irrigation through tube wells at Rs. 3.35 lakhs, the gross
outturn of crops was Rs. 41.22 lakhs. If this land had not received irri-
gation through tube wells the value of crops would have come to Rs. 24.78
lakhs calculated at normal yield of each irrigated crop and normal intensity
of croppings obtained in each of the surveyed districts. Thus an addi-
tional gross income of Rs. 16.46 lakhs accrued to the farmers owing the
sample tube wells. It may be added that total initial capital cost of tube
wells was Rs. 8.01 lakhs. Thus, the owner will recover the cost of tube
well in a single year.

In estimating the net income from tube well irrigation, cost of pro-
duction of major crops has to be taken into account. The Board has
conducted a cost study of wheat, cotton, rice, sugarcane and tobacco
for the years 1961-62 to 1963-64. The cost of production per acre of crops
for 1963-64, the year when the survey on "The Economics of Tube Well
Irrigation" was undertaken, has been taken. These cost figures per acre
amount to Rs. 143/- for wheat, Rs. 206/- for cotton, Rs. 208/- for rice,
Rs. 311/- for tobacco and Rs. 477/- for sugarcane. The area of each
crop multiplied by the respective cost per acre gives the total cost of
--production of these five crops which covered about 67 per cent of the
total cropped area under sample tube wells. The average cost per
cultivated acre was worked out by dividing the total cost with the total
area of these crops. The resultant cost per acre multiplied by the total
cropped area would give the total cost of production of all the crops.

According to the calculation on the above basis, the average cost per
acre was Rs. 194, adding the cost of operation of tube wells at Rs. 34
per cropped acre, the cultivation cost per acre by tube wells came to
Rs. 228/-. The total cost of production of crops under sample tube wells
thus amounted to Rs. 22.41 lakhs in 1963-64. The total value of crops
sown (being Rs. 44.57 lakhs the net profit earned by the farmers was
Rs. 22.16 lakhs. Before tube well irrigation, these farmers secured a net
income of Rs. 8.86 lakhs, the net benefit due to tube well irrigation being
Rs. 13.30 lakhs. As the annual operation cost of sample tube wells was
Rs. 3.35 lakhs, the cost benefit ratio came to 1 : 4.





EcONOMIcs oF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION
The following table gives the cost benefit ratio of tube wells and
the net monetary returns attributable to tube well irrigation.

TABLE 30
Monetary Gains of Tube Wells

Before tube well Due to tube well
Irrigation Irrigation
Items Per Acre Total in Per Acre Total in
in (Rs.) thousands in (Rs.) thousands
(Rs.) (Rs.)

Gross value of crop
production 302 2,478 453 4,457
Cost of cultivation 194 1,592 228 2,241
Net value of crops
production 108 886 225 2,216
Net increase due to
tube well 117 1,330
Annual operation cost 34 335

Cost-benefit Ratio 1:4

Another beneficial effect of the tube well irrigation has been the
lowering of the water-table in the surveyed tract except in village Bhango
of Jhang district where salinity has increased which has rendered land
unfit for cultivation.

A remarkable good effect of tube well irrigation was noted at village
Kerala in the same district. Much of the area of the village had been
affected by thur before the installation of tube wells. Now all the affected
land has been reclaimed through tube wells, yielding normal harvests.

Many indirect benefits have also accrued to the provincial economy
as a result of tube well irrigation. The Government gets revenue from
the sale proceeds of the wasteland or lease money from the lessees. The
income of WAPDA has also increased as tube wells consume considerable
electric energy. Foreign exchange earnings of the country would increase
by exporting surplus agricultural produce resulting from increased agri-






EcONOMIC BENEFITS


cultural production due to the tube well irrigation. It would also save
valuable hard-earned foreign currency which is now being utilized for the
import of foodgrains. Thus, it would lead to the expansion of domestic
and international trades.

As regards the social benefits, the owners of tube wells command
great respect among their fellow farmers and are economically better off
as well. The feuds over the distribution and turns of canal water have
declined as shortage of water no longer exists in the village where 3 to 5
tube wells have been installed. It is, therefore, desirable that tube well
irrigation should be encouraged and credit facilities should be provided
to the farmers who want to set up tube wells in the land where under-
ground water is sweet and fit for irrigation purposes.











CHAPTER 7


SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Tube well irrigation provides a sure and adequate supply of water
throughout the year. A large number of tube wells have therefore been
installed during the last ten years at places where shortage of canal water
existed or where waterlogging and salinity.had affected the fertile land or
where arid land was lying waste due to the absence of water. During
1962-63 about 11,638 tube wells were working in the northern zone of the
West Pakistan, providing irrigation to 10,32,440 acres.l

The object of the present survey was to make an economic appraisal
of tube well irrigation in the Multan and Montgomery districts and in the
Rechna Doab, that is, the land lying between the Ravi and the Chenab
rivers. The survey was conducted in 24 villages, 6 villages each in Multan
and Montgomery districts, and 3 villages each in Jhang, Lyallpur, Gujran-
wala and Sheikhupura districts. The sample comprised of 100 tube wells
of which 27 were selected in Multan district, 26 in Montgomery district
and 47 in the Rechna Doab. The water-table of these villages varied
from 12 feet to 36 feet.

The inquiry was started in June 1963 and lasted till May 1964. The
data pertaining to irrigation cost, working hours, energy consumed,
number of waterings, acres irrigation, crops'sown, income from sale of
water etc. were collected by visiting each tube well once in each month
during the year. Besides, information regarding size and cost of tube
wells, discharge of water, kinds of crops sown before the installation of
tube well, manufacturing firms, boring agencies, commanded area, culti-
vating holdings etc. were gathered at the start of the inquiry and recollect-
ed at the end of the inquiry for verification.

As many as 96 zamindars owned the 100 sample tube wells cultivating
7,749.5 acres of land of which 84.9% was owned by them, 8.9% was


1. Season and Crops Report, 1962-63.






SUMMARY AND RzCOmxENDATzONS


taken on batai and 6.2% was on lease from the Government. On the
average, each owner cultivated 80.7 acres of land and each tube well
commanded 77.5 acres. It may be stated that there were three tube well
owners who cultivated less than half of a square of land. They were
growing vegetable and fodder crops and their land was located near big
towns. Before the installation of tube wells, about 45 per cent of the
land was under canal irrigation, 38 per cent was lying waste, 9 per cent
was under well irrigation and 8 per cent received irrigation through canals-
rum-masonry wells. Overwhelming area was under crops requiring small
quantity of water and where there was adequate supply of water, sugar-
cane, rice, tobacco and fodder crops were also grown on a limited scale.
After the setting up of tube wells as much as 28 per cent of the total land
came exclusively under tube well irrigation and 72 per cent under
canal-cum-tube wells. About 90 per cent of the total annual sown area
is now under wheat, cotton, rice, tobacco, fodder, fruits and vegetables.

The intensity of croppings has tremendously increased in the case of
farms getting irrigation through tube wells. The intensity of cultivation
in Gujranwala district was 162 per cent, in Lyallpur 150 per cent, in
Sheikhupura 148 per cent, in Jhang 141 per cent, in Montgomery 131
per cent, and in Multan 108 per cent. The normal intensity in these
districts was 118 per cent, 112 per cent, 108 per cent, 91 per cent, 110
per cent and 103 per cent respectively. It may be added that acreage
under Kharif crops was greater than that of the Rabi crops.

The total annual sown area in the surveyed tract was 9,830 acres and
irrigation was 71.053, so the average number of tube well watering given
per cropped acre was 7.2.

The total working hours includingg the sale of water during the year
1963-64 came to 1,40,335. On the average each tube well worked for
1,403.35 hours annually. On the basis of eight hours a day each tube
well worked for 175.42 days and raised on the average 98.3 acres of crops.

An abundant supply of water was recorded from all the sample tube
wells during the year. Some of them had worked continuously for 2"4
hours for days, but no shortage of water was reported. The underground
water is sweet and fit for cultivation except of one village in Jhang district
where it was creating thur.






ECONOMICs or TUBS WELL IRRioATION

The cost of a tube well depends upon its size, depth of boring,
spring level, quality of the material used and the underground strata. The
total cost of installing the 100 sample tube wells was Rs. 8,01,483. The
average cost per tube well was thus Rs. 8,014.83 of which about 87.1 per
cent was invested on plant and machinery, 11.8 per cent on masonry work,
6.8 per centon boring, 1.5 per cent on fittings, 1 per cent on transportation
and 0.8 per cent on other materials.

The average cost of a tube well driven by diesel oil was Rs. 9,707.14
as compared to Rs. 6,738.18 of the electric tube well. The majority of
the tube wells, that is, about 59 per cent were drilled less than 150 feet,
29 per cent from 150 feet to less than 250 feet, 8 per cent 250 feet to less
than 350 feet and 4 per cent of the tube wells had boring depth of 350
feet or more.

The discharge of water from the sample tube wells varied from 0.28
cusecs to 2.34 cusecs. About 53 per cent of the tube wells had water
discharge from one cusec to one and a half cusecs and the capital invested
in them was 52.2 per cent of the total cost. One-fourth of the tube wells
giving discharge of water from one and a half cusecs to two cusecs were
set up at 27.9 per cent of the total investment and 6.8 per cent of the
total capital cost was made in 5 per cent of the tube wells having discharge
of water over two cusecs. The discharge of water from 17 per cent of the
tube wells varied from 0.28 to one cusec and capital investment formed
13.1 per cent of the total cost.

Bigger the size of a tube well, the greater the discharge of water and
greater would be its cost. The average cost per cusec discharge tube
well was Rs. 6,008.12. The 100 sample tube wells irrigated and raised
crops on 9,830 acres. The capital investment on irrigation per cropped
acre came to Rs. 81.53.

The depth of tube wells varied from 90 feet to 425 feet. As many as
84 per cent of the tube wells are bored ranging from 100 feet to 200 feet.
The length of strainer tube of 75 per cent of the tube wells varied from
60 feet to 100 feet and the length of plain pipe of 69 per cent was between
11 to 50 feet.






SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


The strainer tube is generally longer than the plain pipe as the quan-
tity of water pumped out depends on the length of the strainer tube.
Where, however, sweet water was found at greater depths, the length
of plain pipe was longer than the strainer tube. As many as 14 such
instances, 6 at Okara in Montgomery district and 8 in Rechna Doab,
came to light during the course of the inquiry.

The discharge of water depends upon the quantity of underground
water and to some extent on the volume of the strainer tube, that is, the
length and diameter of the strainer pipe. The diameters of strainer
tubes varied from 3 inches to 10 inches. The majority of them i.e. 59
per cent had 6 inches diameter, 12 per cent 7 inches, 11 per cent 8
inches, 10 per cent 5 inches and 6 per cent 4 inches. One of the tube wells
was fitted with a strainer tube having 9 inches diameter and another
with 10 inches diameter.

The diameters of plain pipe and delivery pipe of 44 per cent of the
tube wells was 6 inches, 5 per cent 5 inches, 5 per cent 4 inches and 1 per
cent 3 inches. The diameter of delivery pipe of 44 per cent of the tube
wells are shorter than that of the main pipe and of one per cent has bigger
diameter.

The operation cost of irrigation by tube wells can be divided into two
parts. Firstly, the fixed expenditure which includes interest on capital
and depreciation on the cost of tube well. Secondly, the variable cost
which comprised of the expenditure on the consumption of motive power,
lubricants, replacements and repair charges and driver's pay. These
relate to the actual working of the tube well and are highly variable.

The average cost of irrigation of the tube well worked by electricity
and operated by hired drivers came to Rs. 1.75 per hour. The fixed
expenditure or overhead charges were Re. 0.50 and variable expenses
including driver's pay, were Rs. 1.25 consisting of electric energy Re. 0.96,
lubricants Re. 0.01 and repairs and replacements Re. 0.13. The average
cost of irrigation by diesel engine tube wells operated by hired drivers came
to Rs. 3.88 per hour comprising of Rs. 1.06 as overhead charges and
Rs. 2.82 as operation expenses including driver's pay; Rs. 1.73 on con-
sumption of diesel oil, Re. 0.26 on consumption of lubricating oils and
Re. 0.33 on repairs and replacements.






EcoNOMIcs or TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


The cost of irrigating one acre by electric tube well came to Rs. 3.73
as against Rs. 5.16 of the diesel engine tube well. The average cost of
irrigation by a tube well run by diesel oil is Rs. 38.02 per cropped acre
and Rs. 2.46 per inch of irrigation while the cost of electric tube well was
Rs. 26.46 and Rs. 1.38 respectively. It may be noted that irrigation
through diesel tube wells is more expensive than that by electric tube wells.

The owners have gained many advantages from tube well irrigation.
The adequate and timely supply of water has facilitated the reclamation
of arid lands, and the adoption of better rotation practices. The yields
of crops and intensity of the sown area has increased substantially.

The value of the total outturn of crops grown in both the harvests
on the sample fields amounted to Rs. 44.57 lakhs. Having excluded the
annual running cost of tube wells at Rs. 3.35 lakhs the gross income from
crops was Rs. 41.22 lakhs. At the normal intensity of cropping and the
normal yields of crops obtained in the surveyed districts, the value of
crops would have been Rs. 24.78 lakhs. So the farmers owning the tube
wells gained a surplus gross profit of Rs. 16.44 lakhs. The initial capital
cost of tube wells being Rs. 8.01 lakhs, the owners would recover the
capital cost of tube wells within a single year.

The total cost of production of crops under sample tube wells came
Rs. 22.41 lakhs ; Rs. 228 per acre. After excluding the cost of production
of crops the net income came Rs. 22.16 lakhs. It may, however, be stated
that the net income from crops before the installation of tube wells was
Rs. 8.86 lakhs. So the net increase in income due to tube well irrigation
came to Rs. 13.30 lakhs (22.16-8.86). The annual running cost being
Rs. 3.35 lakhs, the cost benefit ratio worked out 1: 4.

Tube well irrigation has indirect bearings on the economy of the
country. The state gets revenue in the form of lease money or cash on
sale of wasteland. The income of WAPDA rises as large quantity of
electric energy is consumed by tube wells. Surplus agricultural produce
is exported to earn foreign currency and to conserve foreign exchange
now being spent for importing foodgrains.






.SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS


Recommendations

The Government should provide diesel oil at subsidized rates to the
owners and regulate its supply throughout the year. It was noted during
the course of the inquiry that farmers had to purchase diesel oil at black
market rates during the peak season, especially when sowing of paddy is
in progress. The present concession of tax at 20 paisa per gallon of diesel
oil used for tube wells has benefitted a few cultivators only. The majority
of the farmers being illiterate, they cannot maintain accounts of purchase
and consumption of diesel oil to claim refund of duty. Obviously, they
are paying the normal prices as usual.

Rural areas should be electrified rapidly so that cheap motive power
is made available for agricultural purposes. New power connections
should be given liberally to the farmers who instal tube wells.

Frequent breakdowns of electric currents during the peak season is a
common complaint of tube well owners. Administrative and technical
steps should be taken to remove these defects.

Although the expenses of irrigation for a tube well driven by electric
power are low as compared to that of diesel tube well, yet they are higher
when compared with the water rates changed by the Irrigation Depart-
ment. It is, therefore, imperative that electric rates should be further
reduced.

Research should be undertaken to find a cheaper kind of fuel for run-
ning tube wells. Technical improvements in the existing machinery be
evolved to reduce the consumption of motive power.

Periodical laboratory tests of the tube well water be carried out to
determine its quality for irrigation purposes.

To encourage tube well irrigation where canal water is also available,
some concession in water rates be granted to the owners of tube wells
who supplement canal water through this source.

The Government should not incur a huge amount of capital in-
volving a considerable foreign exchange at this juncture when American
aid is uncertain, for undertaking Rechna Doab Scheme, Chhaj Doab
55






EcoNouios OF TUBE WELL IRRIGATION


Scheme and the Thai Reclamation Schemes. Instead, the installation
of tube wells be carried on by zamindars themselves with their own
resources. Let the Government provide pipe lines and other accessories
at control rates and boring be carried on at connection rates if bored
through Government Agencies and those zamindars who bored tube wells
from private agencies be granted a monetary relief, say, at Rs. 2/- per foot
of boring. In this way, a large number of tube wells would be installed in
the areas where the quality of the underground water is fit for cultivation.

Small land owners who cannot afford to have a tube well of their own
should be organised to instal tube wells jointly on co-operative lines.

The Agriculture Department should encourage tube well irrigation
in the areas where perennial supplies of water is insufficient and in arid
land where irrigation facilities do not exist.














APPENDIX I


Number of Tube Wells and Area Irrigated by Them


1954-55 j -1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 _1958-59 11959-60 1960-61 1961
Tube-wells Area Tube-wells Area Tube-wells Tube-wells f Tube-wells Tube-wells Tube-wells Area Tube-wels
District ---- irrigated -------- irrigated ---------- -- Area ----------- Area --Area---- Area -----irrigated -----
Wo- Out of Total (Acres) Work- Out of Total (Acres) Working Out of Total irrigated Working Out of Total irrigated Working ut ofotal irrigated Work- Out of Total irrigated Work-Out of Total (Acres) working Out of
Sing order i ing order order order (Acres) order order (Acres) order order (Acres) ing order (Acres) ing order order order
order order order order


1-62


133 2 135 13,104
207 3 210 11,055
38 38 7,523
113 6 119 7,156
49 49 3,759


Total Rachna Doab 540

Montgomery 274
Multan 50


11 515 42.597


6 280 14,213
- 50 4,665


177 3 180 10.254
234 5 239 19,789
43 -- 43 4,649
130 130 8,871
96 96 8,963

680 8 688 52,526


178 178 21,449 189
380 46 426 20,394 372


143


3 192 29,155
17 389 23,868


- 56 2,769 56 -- 56 6,193
143 10,071 183 183 14,826


96 2 98 8,738


853 48 901 63,421 922


331 8 339 24,004 331 8 339 26,155 381 11 3
87 --- 87 8,663 216 8 224 24,603 216 5 2


122 7 129 7,492


253 3 256 50,830 403
374 13 387 38,139 334
85 85 3,806 85
550 550 30,006 1,006
569 4 573 42,667 625


27 949 81,534 1,831 20 1,851 170,448 2,453


92 34,993
21 5,148


24 493 39,466 662
13 261 21,216 225


- 403 51,235 637
13 347 52,593 463
- 85 7.172 174
21 1,027 44,009 1,427
- 625 31 668 853


34 2,487 186,677 3,554

38 700 54,740 940
64 289 42,859 1,298


11 648 74,692 661
11 474 55,451 485
- 174 41,633 214
10 1,437 108,330 1,436
- 853 85,300 1,215


32 3,586 365,406 4,011

87 1,027 65,681 2,100
15 1,313 53,837 2,131


10 671 118,069 736
7 492 74,447 715
7 221 10,089 314
5 1,441 99,194 2,217
- 1,215 98,786 1,413


29 4,040 400,585 5,395


94 2,194 47,461 2,435
28 2,159 64,504 2,748


2 738 135,927
17 732 101,390
9 323 108,517
5 2,222 140,742
- 1,413 156,901


33 5,428 643,477


59 2,494 171,108
111 2,859 82,467


Total Surveyed Distt.

Punjab (16 Distts.)
Bahawalpur State
N.W.F.P.


864


17 881 61,475


1,098 16 1,114 85,193


1,400


1,150 66 1,216 87,313 1,418 77 1,495 116,249 1,745
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 25
N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A. 16


64 1,464 114,179 1,519

123 1,868 145,179 1,991
- 25 4,037 36
2 18 2,643 58


43 1,562 121,675

81 2,072 160,382
-- 36 6,798
2 60 4.942


2,548 57 2,605 231,130 3,340 136 3,476


- 5,792 134 5,926 484,924 B,242 151 8,393 512,550 10,578 203 10,781 897,052


3,038 97 3,135 282,433 3,877 154 4,031 331,752 6,367 187 6,554 546,859 8.954 185 9,139 577,249 11,405 233 11,638 970,419
49 49 3,807 53 53 4,526 183 30 213 11.672 444 36 480 20,549 501 9 610 31,852
111 111 15,702 130 130 14,921 137 137 26,796 138 138 19,122 156 156 30,169


---------------------------------------------------------------------


N.A. N.A. N.A. N.A.


1,786


125 1,911 151,859 2,085


83 2,168 172122


3,198 97 3,295 301,942 4,060 154 4,214 351,199 6,687 217 6,904 585,327 9,536 221 9,757 616,920 12,162 242 12,404 1,032,440


N. A. = ,ot available


Jhang
Lyallpur
Sheikhupura
Gujranwala
S Sialkot


Grand Total


N.A. N.A.


1962-63


___~C___~_ _~___~___~_ ______


_______________


~-------- ~ ----- ------I---


-----------------------~------


- ------ -------- ----------







APPENDIX II
Location of Surveyed Villages, Distance (in Miles)
from District Headquarter


District Village Metalled Railway Market River Main
Road Station Town Canal

Montgomery Chak 2/4L 0.75 3.00 3.00 -- 0.75
Behrampur 1.00 3.00 2.50 4.00 0.50
Chak 17/SP 0.12 3.50 4.50 1.50
Winjal 0.25 17.00 5.00 1.00
Chak91/9L 1.00 4.00 5.00 15.00 3.00
112/7BR 1.50 3.00 4.00 2.00 1.50
Multan Manzarabad 6.00 12.00 12.00 1.00 6.00


Jhang



Lyallpur


Gujranwala


Sheikhupura


Jungle
Barali 1.50
Qadarpur -
Chak 79/10R 0.25
Arain Wan 3.50
Raja Ram 9.00
Karala 0.25
Hasnana 0.12
Bhanga 0.12
Chak 226 0.75
Chak 222 0.50
Chak 644 1.50


Aroup
Dhillanwali
Kot Inayat
Khan
Chak 37
Thabal
Qila Masita


0.00
0.50


6.00
5.00
3.50
3.00
0.25
4.00
5.00
8.00
9.00
4.00
13.00
5.00
1.50


2.50 3.00


1.00
1.00
0.12


1.50
7.00
1.25


6.00
15.00
10.00
3.00
9.00
3.00
2.00
3.50
9.00
1.50
13.00


1.50
0.50
0.25
0.50
13.00 1.50
5.00 0.37
3.25 -
9.50 3.50
32.00 0.75
40.00 0.12
10.00 3.00


5.00 20.00 2.50
1.50 33.00 0.50

3.00 9.00 0.12


8.00
7.00
0.75


10.00
31.00
15.00


3.00
4.00







APPENDIX III

Number of Tube Wells Working in the Surveyed Villages


Name of the villages


Number of Tube-wells

At the Begin- Sample At the end
ning of the surveyed of the
Inquiry Inquiry


'Montgomery District

Chak 2/4L

Chak Behrampur

Chak 17/SP
Winjal

Chak 91/9L

Chak 112/7BR


Total


Multan District

Manzarabad

Jungle Barali

Qadarpur

Chak 79/10 R
Arain Wan

Raja Ram

Total


51 26 61



5 5 5

12 7 16

61 5 70

3 2 5

5 5 7

3 3 5

89 27 108

(Contd.)


___~_ __ __________________







APPENDIX III (Concld.)


Name of the village


Att
nin
Ir


Number of Tube-wells

he begin- Sample
ig of the surveyed
iquiry


Jhang District'
Karala
Bhanga
Husnana


Total

Lyallpur District
Chak No. 226
Chak No. 222
Chak No. 644

Total

Gujranwala District
Aroup
Dhillanwali
Kot Inayat Khan

Total


Sheikhupura District
Thabal
Chak No. 37
Qila Masita

Total

Total Rechna Doab


13 10 23



3 2 3
10 6 11
16 5 16

29 13 30



17 6 47
5 5 9
9 7 11

31 18 67



1 1 2
3 3 3
2 2 3

6 6 8


At the end
of the
Inquiry


___ ___)__~_) ______






APPENDIX IV


Actual and Normal Rainfall Recorded at Diferent Raingauge Stations in Surveyed Districts during 1963-64


June July August September October November December January February March April May Total
Recording AcalNormal Actual Aa Actua Normal I A al Norma Actual Normal Actual Normal Actual Normal Actual Normal ta N mal Actua l Normal Actual Normal
Station Actual -- Actual N m.. I . IActal Actual N al


Montgomery
Okara
Pakpattan
Dipalpur


0.09 1.01 1.10
- 0.80 0.99
0.23 0.88 0.37
- 0.87 1.01


Montgomery
District 0.89 0.87
Multan 0.08 0.50 0.82
Mailsi 0.51 0.20
Lodhran 0.46 0.18
Shujabad 0.37 0.07
Kabirwala 0.56 1.60
Khanewal 0.55 0.25
SVehari N.A. 0.26
Multan District 0.42 0.48
Jhang 0.28 0.89 3.90
Shorkot 0.80 0.78
Chiniot 0.49 1.17 1.62
Jhang District 0.26 0.95 2.10
Lyallpur 1.14 1.36 1.91
Toba Tek Singh 0.91 1.70
Samundri 1.18 3.73
Jaranwala 0.98 1.56
Lyallpur District 0.28 1.11 2.22
Gujranwala 0.75 1.81 -
Ramnagar 0.56 1.41 -
Wazirabad 3.14 1.66 -
Hafizabad 0.23 1.33 -
Shahjamal 0.31 1.51 4.24
Gujranwala
District 1.00 1.54 0.85
Sheikhupura 1.56 1.90 4.68
Shahdara 0.16 1.81 3.12
Nankana Sahib 1.17 1.93
Sheikhupura
District 0.58 1.63 3.24


2.74 0.60 2.64
2.68 2.10 2.65
2.64 0.77 2.14
2.77 2.67 2.62

2.71 1.53 2.51
1.92 0.97 1.59
1.29 2.76 1.65
1.46 1.45 1.44
1.19 0.30 1.38
1.81 0.71 1.59
2.16 0.77 1.59
N.A. 0.46 N.A.
1.40 1.06 1.32
7.30 2.40 2.28
2.93 1.44 2.21
6.06 1.36 2.94
5.43 1.73 2.48
3.02 1.26 3.14
2.14 0.50 2.48
2.99 1.00 2.62
2.87 4.32 3.53
2.75 1.77 2.94
6.10 6.29 2.25
5.32 3.99 2.03
5.44 6.77 1.41
4.40 5.13 2.95
4.39 4.00 4.35

5.13 5.24 2.60
4.35 4.07 4.59
4.73 4.60 4.71
3.08 4.15 2.69

4.05 4.27 4.00


- 1.15
1.66 1.21
0.95 1.21
- 1.19

- 1.19
0.65 0.59
- 0.64
- 0.40
- 0.75
- 0.64
- 0.44

- 0.49
0.43 0.93
- 0.83
0.62 1.31
0.35 1.03
- 1.58
0.52 1.00
- 1.05
0.60 1.77
0.28 1.35
3.05 2.54
2.38
5.42 2.47
1.62 1.86
6.36 -

3.29 1.85
1.60 1.63
0.52 1.20
1.40 1.13


- 0.06
0.19 0.06
- 0.04
- 0.07


0.05
















0.04
0.12
0.04


- 0.06 0.30 0.26 0.50 0.46
0.35 0.06 0.15 0.24 0.57 0.51
- 0.05 0.20 0.35 0.42
- 0.05 0.27 0.27 0.31 0.54


0.06 0.06 0.18 0.24 0.43 0.48
0.08 0.09 0.05 0.19 0.25 0.88 0.33
0.04 0.50 0.09 0.10 0.16 0.65 0.22
0.05 0.83 0.03 0.14 0.17 0.77 0.32
0.04 0.05 0.09 0.18 0.92 0.24
0.05 0.07 0.28 0.17 0.93 0.29
0.06 0.02 0.10 0.27 0.84 0.26
- 0.36 N.A. 0.07 N.A. 0.69 N.A.
0.05 0.24 0.04 0.14 0.17 0.81 0.24
0.09 0.22 0.06 0.50 0.27 1.03 0.41
0.08 0.12 0.07 0.29 0.20 0.93 0.35
0.12 0.42 0.09 0.55 0.26 0.84 0.52
0.10 0.25 0.07 0.45 0.24 0.93 0.43
0.15 0.19 0.09 0.35 0.21 0.95 0.41
0.21 0.07 0.21 0.27 0.91 0.27
0.07 0.12 0.47 0.23 0.84 0.39
0.18 0.09 0.08 0.28 0.70 0.36
0.15 0.05 0.09 0.28 0.25 0.85 0.36
0.31 1.02 0.18 1.18 0.58 1.28 1.28
0.11 0.15 0.52 0.25 1.01
0.21 0.19 0.57 1.86 1.23
0.22 0.32 0.11 0.32 0:43 0.69 0.89
0.23 0.17 0.52 0.36 1.33 0.67


0.22
0.19
- 0.14
0.26 0.12


0.27 0.16 0.40 0.49 1.08 1.02
- 0.06 1.00 0.36 2.10 0.79
- 0.27 0.61 0.46 0.99 0.77
- 0.13 0.13 0.27 0.82 0.40


1.18 1.32 0.09 0.15 0.15 0.58 0.36 1.30 0.65


0.19

0.06






0.08


0.55
0.52
0.42
0.57

0.51
0.33
0.31
0.24
0.30
0.34
0.48

0.29
0.46
0.24
0.68
0.46
0.60
0.37
0.47
0.68
0.53
1.21
0.93


- 1.19
0.04 0.99
- 0.81


1.02
0.71
0.94
0.61


0.30 0.40
- 0.51
- 0.42
- 0.54


0.07
1.11
0.38
0.42
0.32
0.72
0.75
0.62
0.62
0.43
0.53
0.11
0.36

0.14
0.22

0.09
0.29
0.34
0.30
0.27


0.24

0.38
0.08


0.47
0.44
0.21
0.22
0.28
0.32
0.27
N.A.
0.25
0.69
0.46
0.66
0.68
0.44
0.20
0.30
0.36
0.32
1.14
1.31
1.00
0.81
0.80

1.01
0.66
0.69
0.51


- 0.40 0.03 0.36
- 0.51 0.30
- 0.42 0.25
- 0.54 0.25

- 0.47 0.01 0.30
0.15 0.44 0.04 0.36
0.44 0.16 0.33
0.22 0.10 0.21
0.28 0.05 0.19
0.32 1.18 0.26
0.27 0.20 0.33
0.07 N.A.
0.02 0.25 0.26 0.24
0.33 0.69 0.20 0.39
0.05 0.46 0.11 0.29
0.35 0.66 0.16 0.53
0.24 0.60 0.16 0.40
0.44 0.28 0.40
0.27 0.22 0.33
0.10 0.39 0.13 0.37
0.47 0.36 0.46
0.14 0.37 0.16 0.39
0.41 1.14 0.11 0.77
0.42 1.31 0.59 0.69
1.00 0.42 0.66
0.45 0.81 0.60
0.80 0.13 0.47

0.26 1.01 0.25 0.64
0.30 0.66 0.35 0.53
0.38 0.69 0.48 0.25
0.40 0.51 0.35 0.35


0.06 0.75 0.06 0.62 0.36 0.62 0.39 0.38 12.16 14.69


2.92
6.01
4.26
4.26

3.96
4.16
4.75
3.89
1.75
5.42
2.91
2.53
3.63
9.72
4..44
6.52
6.89
6.08
4.20
6.53
7.85
6.16
14.46
6.15
17.91
9.07
16.89

12.90
15.66
11.31
9.52


10.09
10.05
9.14
10.28

9.89
6.88
5.66
5.22
5.25
6.42
6.70

6.02
14.46
8.92
15.00
12.79
11.84
8.52
10.18
11.92
10.61
19.31
17.17
17.03
15.40
14.56

16.69
16.43
16.66
10.97











APPENDIX V
Diameters and Lengths of Strainer Tubes and Plain Pipes in
Montgomery District

Diameter of Length of
Tube well Depth of
No. Screening Plain Screening Plain boring
pipe pipe pipe pipe

1. 5 Inch 5 Inch 100 ft. 250 ft. 350 ft.
2. 6 5 92 183 275
3. 5 4 70 216 286
4. 5 5 95 325 420
5. 4 4 100 325 425
6. 4 4 80 275 355
7. 6 6 100 100 200
8. 3 3 14 -
9. 6 5 100 50 150
10. 6 5 80 20 100
11. 8 6 190 30 220
12. 6 6 106 20 126
13. 9 8 90 20 110
14. 8 6 100 55 155
15. 8 6 80 35 115
16. 6 5 80 30 110
17. 6 5 90 30 120
18. 6 6 100 40 140
19. 6 6 100 60 160
20. 6 5 100 50 150
21. 6 6 90 60 150
22. 5 4 80 70 150
23. 6 5 100 65 165
24. 8 6 110 60 170
25. 8 6 110 60 170
26. 4 3 100 80 180











APPENDIX V-A
Diameters and Lengths of Strainer Tubes and Plain Pipes in Multan District
Diameter of Length of
Depth of
Tube well Screening Plain Screening Plain boring
No. pipe pipe pipe pipe
_______ ___- - -
Inch Inch ft. ft. ft.
1. 6 6 125 20 145
2. 7 6 85 20 105
3. 6 5 80 20 100
4. 8 7 100 20 120
5. 6 6 145 25 170
6. 6 6 225 25 250
7. 5 4 80 30 110
8. 6 6 150 76 225
9. 6 6 93 46 139
10. 5 5 100 40 140
11. 8 6 100 20 120
12. 6 6 102 70 172
13. 6 6 80 35 115
14. 6 6 80 30 110
15. 5 5 120 30 150
16. 5 5 90 40 130
17. 6 6 100 22 122
18. 6 6 100 43 143
19. 6 6 140 45 185
20. 8 7 130 21 151
21. 6 6 170 30 200
22. 6 6 130 21 151
23. 6 6 140 30 170
24. 7 6 120 20 140
25. 6 6 120 25 145
26. 6 6 120 22 142
27. 6 6 100 12 112











APPENDIX V-B


Diameters and Lengths of Strainer Tubes and Plain Pipes in Rachna Doab

Diameter of Length of
Tube well -- ---- Depth of
No. Screening Plain Screening Plain boring
pipe pipe pipe pipe


8 Inch
5
5
8
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
7
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
7
6
6
8
6
6
6
6


6 Inch
5
4
6
6
6
5
5
6
6
5
6
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
7
6
6
6
6


90 ft.
80
90
90
90
80
90
80
80
110
80
80
90
100
100
100
80
80
90
100
90
100
90
60
70
70
80


30 ft.
20
20
20
30
28
22
20
20
30
30
32
30
60
65
17
30
32
35
30
30
25
30
45
20
40
50


120 ft.
100
110
110
120
108
112
100
100
140
110
112
120
160
165
117
110
112
125
130
120
125
120
105
90
110
130

(Continued)


I~






APPENDIX V-B (Concld.)


6 Inch
6
7
4
4
6
7
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
10
6
6
6
7
4


6 Inch 70 ft. 40ft. 110 ft.
6 70 40 110
6 153 22 175
4 100 50 150'
4 100 50 150
5 70 20 90
6 70 20 90
6 80 75 155
6 64 100 164
6 65 80 145
6 60 90 150
6 60 90 150
6 60 90 150
6 60 100 160
7 200 100 300
6 70 60 130
6 70 60 130
6 90 20 110
6 100 150 250
4 70 130 200











APPENDIX VI


Rates of Drilling by Different Si;es of Boring Plants
Boring Rates (Per Foot) with Applicant's Labour


Depth Upto Above7.5/t Above9.51'Above 11.5"!Above 14"
7.5" upto 9.5" upto 11.5"1 upto 14.001i upto 16','


Abovel6't
upto 18"


- -1- -- -------'------ I-----
Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs.

0'-100' 0.75 1.50 3.00 4.00 5.00 6,00
101'-200' 0.75 2.00 3.50 4.50 5.50 6.50
201'-400' 1.50 2.50 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00
4011--600' 3.00 3.50 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
601'-800' 4.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00


Note: The above schedule includes charges on account of boring, teles-
coping, lowering, lining, shrounding and extraction of casing pipes,

Boring Rates inclusive of Labour


0'-100' 3.00
101'-200' 3.50
201'-400' 4.00
401'-600' 5.00
601'-8001 6.00


4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00


5.00 6.00 7.00 8.00
6.00 7.00 8.00 9.00
7.00 8.00 9.00 10.00
8.00 9.00 10.00 11.00
9.00 10.00 11.00 12.00


Note: The above schedule includes charges on account of boring,
telescoping, lowering, lining, shrounding, extraction of casing
footage allowance and cartage of plant from the railway
station .to the tube well site and back provided the distance
does not exceed 5.miles each way.












APPENDIX VII
Districtwise Chart Showing the Number of Tube Wells Installed


Division and District 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-158958-59 1959-60 16960-61 1961-62 1962-63


D.L Khan
DI. Khan
Bannu

Total

Peshawar
Mardan
S Hazara
Peshawar
Kohat

Total

Rawalpindi
Campbellpur
Rawalpindi
Jhelum
Gujrat


S 32 30 34
S 1 4

S 33 34 34



- 3 -

- 2 7 6
- -276
-J

- 1 7 7 6



- 1 4 1
- 1 1 1 1 3 -
- 1 3 22 24
- 3 7 10 10 11 1 4 31 24 -


- 5 7 11 10 11


1 5 39 25 25 25

(Contd.)


Total












APPENDIX VII (Conld.)


Division and District 1951-52 1952-53 1953-54 1954-55 1955-56 1956-57 1957-58 1958-59 1959-60 1960-61 1961-62 1962-63


sargodha
Mianwali
Sargodha
Lyallpur
Jhang

Total

Lahore
Lahore
Gujranwala
Sheikhupura
Sialkot

Total


Multan
D.G. Khan
Muzaffargarh
Multan
Montgomery

Total

Bahawalpur
Bahawalpur
Bahawalnagar
Rahim Yar Khan

Total

Grand Total


-- 1
8 10
27 78
7 16

42 105


1 7
13 12
3 4
9 16

26 39


1 5
5 -
23 37
3 17

32 59


2 8 4 7 7 6
6 15 12 8 7 7
38 30 45 48 59 53
33 35 32 15 46 37

79 88 93 78 119 103


19 5 7 10 8
25 27 56 47 43
7 10 11 17 15
28 40 42 60 36

79 82 116 134 102


11 10 7 7 10
4 8 4 5 8
17 40 41 39 45
29 47 45 48 70

61 105 97 99 133


7 10 22 46
23 13 24 24
67 82 93 110
32 63 110 95

129 168 249 275


12 23 37 39
42 68 61 "62
17 32 24 32
36 54 58 63

107 177 180 196


7 33 46 44
11 28 51 70
57 132 194 206
94 152 177 149

169 345 468 469


20 25 22
15 20 27 19 17 27 18 45 34 6 14 34
(12) (6) (15) (19) 36 38 30


15 20

115 228


19 17 27 18 45

258 307 329 372 388


34 62 77 86

489 817 1,040 1,088


1_-_1-_--1_------1----I---I- ) --


I


I '---------`------------- -


--


--


I-


---------















APPENDIX VIII

Pattern of Crops Sown in the Quinquennium Ending 1962-63


Percentage of different crops to Total cropped area in the surveyed districts
Average cropped
District area during the Cotton
Quinquennium Wheat Rice --- Sugar- Vege-
ending 1962-63 Ameri- Desi cane Tobacco Fruits tables Fodder Others Total
can


Jhang

SLyallpur

Gujranwala

Sheikhupura

Rachna Doab

Montgomery

Multan

Surveyed District


12,79,223

19,76,083

11,41,610

. 10,13,701

54,10,617

21,88,969

27,16,501

103,16,087


34.5 1.6 10.1 0.1 2.9

38.4 1.4 9.6 0.9 9.4

33.6 29.0 1.4 1.4 3.1

35.8 22.1 5.0 0.5 4.9

35.6 13.5 6.5 0.7 5.1

31.9 5.I 13.4 1.1 4.4

35.3 1.0 21.8 0.6 2.1

34.9 7.2 12.3 0.8 4.5


0.2 0.6 0.6

0.4 0.9 0.8

0.4 0.3 1.9

0.3 1.0 0.3

0.3 0.6 0.9

0.5 0.9 0.5

0.2 1.1 0.8

0.3 0.8 0.8


23.9 25.9

20.0 18.2

15.2 13.7

16.9 13.2

19.0 17.8

23.9 18.3

20.5 16.2

20.7 17.7











APPENDIX IX


Intensity of Croppings in Montgomery District

Owned Cultivated
Tube-well area area Intensity
No. (Acres) (Acres) (Percentage)


43
91
29
25
12.50
25
37.50
8
47
18
250
60
104
145
300
125
37.50
47
37.50
50
137.50
300
19


Total 1,948.50
t Irrigated by 3 Tube wells
$ Irrigated by 2 Tube wells


95.87
141.50
59.50
38.50
29.13
49.37
51.37
20.00
53.25
26.25
266.62
78.75
113.62
146.50
389.75
162.25
37.25
68.62
55.87
59.87
-190.25
384.50
37.00

2,555.59


229.95
155.49
205.17
154.00
233.04
197.48
136.99
250.00
113.30
145.83
106.65
131.25
109.25
101.03
129.92t
129.80
99.33
146.00
148.99
119.74
138.36
128.17*
194.74

131.16


I












APPENDIX IX---A


Intensity o

"Tube-well Owned.
No. area (Acres)
!- --


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
.26.
27.

Total


f Croppings in Multan Distrit

Cultivated, Intensity
area (Acres): (Percentage)


240.63 113.24
156.25 96.45
56.75 151.33
205.50 102.75
212.25 100.11
265.75 96.64
43.00 102.38
260.75 104.30
193.25 103.07
86.25 105.18
216.50 99.31
85.37 104.75
115.00 .1'15.00
75.50 125.83
90.00 156.52
168.50 i42.80
125.00 106.84
31.75 122.12
79.75 113.93
112.87 100.33
166.13 :110.75
,67.50 .129.81
150.00 100.00
73.75 101.72
287.00 104.36
88.63 118.17
87.50 119.86


3,685 3,4.2 078


212.50
162.00
S37.50
200.00
212
275
S42
250
.187.50
.82
218
81.50
100
60
57.50
118
'117
26
70
112.50
150
52
.150
72.50
275
75
73


1


3,468.50


3,740.25


- 107.83 ,











APPENDIX IX-B


Intensity of Croppings in Rachna Doab


Owned
area (Acres)


Tube-well
No.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.


Cultivated
area (Acres)


100
14
12
32
100
150
27
25
62
91
100
100
27
8
16.50
125
12.50
16
52
62
16
33


145.50
23.26
26.00
43.00
58.00
97.50
62.50
44.81
95.00
130.00
106.25
122.00
36.00
19.00
30.00
251.00
38.00
23.00
59.50
84.75
22.50
61.00


Intensity
(Percentage)


145.50
166.14
216.67
134.38
58.00*
195.50
231.48
179.24
153.23
142.86
106.25
122.00
133.33
237.50
181.82t
200.80
304.00
143.75
114.42
136.69
140.63
184.85


* Thur increase
t Irrigated by 2 tube wells (Contd.)







APPENDIX-IX B (Concld.)


Tube-well Owned Cultivated Intensity
No. area (Acres) area (Acres) (Percentage)

23. 26 55.00 211.54
24. 56 83.00 148.21
25. 20 40.50 202.50
26. 36 70.00 194.44
27. 19 34.00 178.95
28. 30 67.50 225.00
29. 53 77.75 146.70
30. 29 61.75 212.93
31. 24 35.50 147.92
32. 25 64.50 258.00
33. 50 72.00 144.00
34. 38 62.00 163.16
35. 50 75.00 150.00
36. 63 92.00 146.03
37. 40 55.25 138.13
38. 40 63.00 157.50
39. 50 62.75 125.50
40. 70 94.50 135.00
41. 125 150.00 120.00
42. 72 109.25 151.74
43. 62.50 83.25 133.20
44. 35 49.75 142.14
45. 13 24.00 184.61
46. 225 373.50 121.56

Total 2,332.50 3,534.02 151.54












APPENDIX X

Pattern of Crops in Acres


Crop Jhang Lyall- Gujran- Sheikhu- Mont- Multan Total
pur wala pura gomery


Wheat
Cotton
Rice
Barseem
Potato
Garden
Vegetables
Fodder
Tobacco
Jawar
Maize
Sugarcane
Gram
Lucern
Bajra
Melones
Miscellaneous


118.00 190.00
40.00 3.00
133.00 509.00
105.50 227.50
148.50 -
30.00 47.50
82.00 20.75
19.50 11.50
1.25
18.50 39.50
64.50 19.00
57.50 35.25
29.00 13.50
1.00 -
4.00 17.75
16.00
2.00 14.50


Total 725.56 853.00 1166.00 789.75 2555.61 3740.20 9830.12


180.50
133.00
47.00
56.75
51.00
32.00
68.06
36.50


21.50
45.50
15.50


20.75
5.00
12.50


262.50
2.25
371.00
76.00


2.00
6.25
4.50
0.50
34.00
4.00
12.50


1.00
4.25
3.00
6.00


643.13
638.87
36.50
155.37
160.37
147.50
131.37
84.00
310.00
68.63
78.50
32.87
40.50
10.50


5.00
12.50


1242.00
1458.50
12.00
232.75
66.83
144.50
33.87
189.13
15.00
140.00
46.00
47.75
14.00
48.75
9.00
2.50
37.62


2636.13
2275.62
1109.50
853.87
426.70
403.50
342.30
345.13
326.75
322.13
257.50
201.37
97.00
82.00
40.00
39.00

72.62


Total


725.56 853.00 1166.00


789.75 2555.61 3740.20 9830.12










APPENDIX XI
JNumber of Vat'rings Giv.' to Different Crops


Rice
Cotton
Sugarcane
Maize.
Wheat
Tobacco Virginia
Barseem
Vegetables
Potato
Jowar
Lucern


Rice
Cotton
Sugarcane
Maize
Wheat
Tobacco
Barseem
Vegetables
Jowar
Locern
Bajra
Mekudi


Rice
Cotton
Sugarcane
Maize
Wheat
Tobacco Desi
Barseem
Vegetables
Potato
Jowar
Lucern
Bajra


Mbhtgoinery District

13 -111 55 166 : 8.4 4.23 12.7
16 109 35 144 6.81 2.19 9.00
10 95 58 153 9.50 5.80 15.30
20 86 31 117 ,4.30 1.55 5.85
19 67 12 79 5.53 0.63 4.16
9 136 43 179 15.11 4.78 19.89
22 170 34 204 7.73 1.59 9.32
19 397 104 501 20.89 5.47 26.36
9 103 42 145 11-.44 4.67 16.11
19 65 23 88 3.42 1.21 :4.63
9 69 30 99 7.67 3.33 11.00

Multan District


4 18
27 180
15 167
16 56
27 94
3 21
27 183
21 276
26 83
13 80

2 10


17 35 4.50 4.25 8.75
50 230 6.67 1.85 8.52
32 199 11.13 2.13 13.26
9 65 3.50 0.56 4.06
15 .109 3.48 0.56 4I04
1 22 7.00 0.33 7.33
43 226 6.78 1.59 8.37
44 320 13.14 2.10 15.24
75 158 3.19 2.88 6.07
19 99 6.15 1.46 7.6i

5 15 5.00 2.5( 7.50


Rachna Doab


34 745
12 75
33 342
24 93
39 148
5 28
42 336
21 196
8 56
34 135
9 92
17 33


244- 769 21.91 ---0.74 22:65-
5 80 6.25 0.42 6.67
53 395 10.36 1.61 11.97
19 112 3.97 0.79 4.76
15 163 3.79 0.38 4.17
- 28 5.60 5.60
90 426 8.00 2.14 10.14
32 228 9.33 1.52 10.85
33 89 7.00 4.12 11.12
15 150 3.97 0.44 4.41
2 94 10.22 0.22 10.44
1 34 1.94 0.06 2.00













APPENDIX XII
Working of Electric Tube Wells

No. of Hours taken to
District tube Cropped Acre No. of Working irrigate per Cropped area
wells Discharge area irrigation waterings hours --Controlled per
Cropped i Acre tube well
cusecs (Acres) Acre irrigation (Acres)

Montgomery 19 19.33 1,560.38 9,413.82 6.03 2,7931 17.90 1.96 82.13
Multan 6 7.25 934.37 4,651.98 4.98 17,867 19.12 3.84 155.73
Jhang 8 9.49 550.00 5,324.37 9.64 9,555 17.37 1.79 68.75
Lyallpur 8 10.38 606.50 3,794.50 6.26 8,519 14.05 2.24 75.81
Gujranwala 11 12.65 716.50 8,603.13 12.01 15,608 21.78 1.81 65.14
Sheikhupura 5 7.81 740.00 4,494.75 6.06 4,320 5.82 0.96 148.40

Total 57 66.91 5,107.75 36,282.55 7.13 83,800 16.41 2.2 89.64

Working of Diesel Oil Tube Wells

Montgomery 7 10.71 995.25 6,510.37 6.54 10,653 10.70 1.63 142.17
Multan 21 31.94 2,805.87 12,491.53 4.45 21,215 7.56 1.69 133.61
Jhang 2 3.44 175.50 1,040.00 5.93 1,860 10.60 1.80 87.75
Lyallpur 5 8.24 246.50 3,605.25 14.62 4,722 19.16 1.31 49.30
Gujranwala 7 10.27 449.50 10,942.95 24.34 9,015 20.06 0.82 64.21
Sheikhupura 1 1.89 49.75 180.50 3.63 285 5.73 1.60 49.75

Total 43 66.49 4,722.37 34,770.60 7.36 47,750 10.11 1.4 109.82


















APPENDIX XIII

Cost of Irrigation per flour of Electric Tufb Wells in Montgmery District


SCapital Consump- Replace- Interest Depreciation Total
Tube- Year of waDpth Size of Average Cropped cost of tion of Lubr- ments and Driver's on capital-- otal Cost
well instal- water engine discharge acreage tube- motive cants repair pay @ 3 % on tube- on building c9st working per
No. nation table of water wells power charges well @ 19% @ 21 % hours hour
(Feet) (H.P.) (Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (R) (R.) ) (Rs (R.) (R.) (Rs.) (Rs.)


20 1.22 95.87 10303.00 1063.65 10.00 40.00
20 1.27 141.50 9907.00 2069.23 8.00 100.00
10 0.47 59.50 8355.00 571.72 7.00 -
18 0.53 38.50 9500.00 1131.84 9.00 -
10 0.48 29.13 8712.00 235.84 8.00 -
10 0.67 49.37 8472.00 1081.12 10.00 41.00
10 0.88 51.37 6743.00 938.94 6.00 -
5 0.28 20.00 3201.00 258.90 9.00 -
20 1.19 53.25 6415.00 1975.95 10.00 50.00
15 0.89 26.25 4956.00 2884.50 12.00 -
20 1.69 162.25 4930.00 2166.16 9.00 1367.00
20 1.34 37.25 5772.00 2153.58 8.00 114.00
20 1.60 68.62 7080.00 1017.00 10.00 20.00
20 1.86 55.87 9230.00 2450.29 11.00 -
10 0.51 59.87 5135.00 441.63 10.00- 17.00
22 1.27 190.25 10890.00 4087.20 12.75 220.00
25 1.27 384.50 7113.00 7613.83 18.00 15.00
27 1.33 7229.00 -
15 0.58 37.00 7340.00 1030.02 12.00 9.00


309.09
297.21
250.65
285.00
261.36
254.16
202.29
96.30
192.45
148.68
147.90
173.16
212.40
276.90
154.05
326.70
430.26


910.30
840.70
805.50
800.00
801.20
802.20
614.30
320.10
491.50
415.60
443.00
457.20
613.00
723.00
448.50
889.00
1289.20


30.00 2363.04 1099 2.15
37.50 3352.64 2023 1.66
7.50 1642.37 1101 1.49
37.50 2263.34 1091 2.07
17.50 1323.90 437 3.03
11.25 2199.73 1827 1.20
15.00 1776.53 1148 1.55
684.30 722 0.95
37.50 2757.40 2069 1.33
20.00 3480.78 3364 1.03
12.50 4145.56 2094 10.98
30.00 2935.94 2262 1.30
23.75 1896.15 910 2.08
10.00 3511.19 2375 1.48
16.25 1087.43 765 1.42
60.00 5595.65 3484 1.61
36.25 9402.54 4937 1.90


- 220.20 584.00 37.50 1892.72 1596 1.19


Total 317 19.33 1560.35 141283.00 33171.40 179.75 1993.00 4238.76 12248.30 480.00 52311.21 33304 1.57


1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
S6.
S7.
8.
9.
10.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.


1962 20.50
1952 20.50
1950 20.50
1954 20.50
1960 20.50
1956 20.50
1955 20.50
1960 20.50
1962 19.00
1961 19.00
1960 23.00
1961 23.00
1962 23.00
1963 23.00
1963 23.00
1953 32.00
1955 32.00

1962 32.00


--


480.00 52311.21 33304 1.57


Total 317 19.33 1560.35 141283.00 33171.40 179.75


1993.00 4238.76 12248.30


















APPENDIX XIII-A


Cost of Irrigation pet Hour of Diesel Oil Tube Wells in Montgomery District


[ Capital Consump- Replace- Depreciation
Tube Yearof Depth Size of AverageCropped cost of tion of Lubri- ments & Driver's Interest Total Total Cost
Te Ya on capital fCC Dbeprecitiong
well instal- of water engine discharge acreage tube diesel cants repair pay on capital on tube on building cost working per
No. lation table of water wells oil charges @ 3% well @ 10% @ 2j% hours hour
(Feet) (H.P.) (Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) Rs.


266.62

78.75

113.62

146.50

389.75


8950.00

7851.00

12905.00

9685.00

8110.00


1607.00

1591.50

1553.00

5145.00

10106.00


250.00

315.00

267.50

1000.00

2175.00


330.00

80.00

40.00

580.00

365.00


420.00 268.50

235.53

387.15

840.00 290.55

2400.00 765.03


735.00

765.10

1260.50

868.50

2362.60


40.00

5.00

7.50

25.00

48.87


3650.50

2992.13

3515.65

8749.05

18222.50


791

735

408

2642

6212


4.62

4.07

8.62

3.31
o2
2.93 t


- 8126.00

- 9265.00


- 133 8.41 995.24 64892.00 20002.50 4007.50


1395.00 3660.00 1946.76


5991.70 126.37 37129.83 10788 3.45


*3 Tube-wells owned by one Zamindar.


1959

1963

1962

1955

1953-57



1961


Total -


'-----~






















APPENDIX XIV


Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric Tube Wells in Montgomery District


Depth Capital Consump- Replace- ; Interest Depreciation Cost of
of Size of Average cost of tion of Lubri- ments Driver's on capi- Total Cost of Cost of Acre per acre
Year o water engine discharge Cropped tube motive cants & repair pay tal @ on tube- on cost sale of acre irri- irri- irri
instal- table ofwater acreage wells power charge% well building water gation gation nation
lation 10% @ 2u %
(Feet) (H.P.) (Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (R) (R) (Rs) (Rs.) (Rs-


10303.00 1063.65 10.00
9907.00 2069.23 8.00
8355.00 571.72 7.00
95.00 1131.84 9.00
8712.00 235.84 8.00
8472.00 1081.12 10.00
6743.00 938.94 6.00
3201.00 258.90 9.00
6415.00 1975.95 10.00
4956.00 2884.50 12.00
4930.00 2166.16 9.00
5772.00 2153.58 8.00
7080.00 1017.00 10.00
9230.00 2450.29 11.00
5135.00 441.63 10.00
10890.00 4087.20 12.00
7113.00 7613.83 18.00
7229.00
7340.00 1030.02 12.00


40.00
100.00




41.00



50.00

1367.00
114.00
20.00

17.00
220.00
15.00

9.00


- 309.09 910.30 30.00
- 297.21 840.70 37.50
- 250.65 805.50 7.50
- 285.00 800.00 37.50
- 261.36 801.20 17.50
- 254.16 802.20 11.25
- 202.29 614.30 15.00
- 96.30 320.10 -
- 192.45 491.50 37.50
- 148.68 415.60 20.00
- 147.90 443.00 12.50
- 173.15 457.20 30.00
- 212.40 '613.00 23.75
- 276.90 723.00 50.00
- 154.05 448.50 16.25
- 326.70 889.00 60.00
- 430.26 1289.20 36.25

- 220.20 584.00 37.50


2363.04 2363.04 581.92 4.06
3352.64 3352.64 1495.83 2.24 .
1642.37 1642.37 449.98 3.74
2263.34 1006.02 1257.32 198.00 6.35
1323.90 1323.90 142.78 9.27
2199.73- 200.40 1999.33 354.78 5.64-i
1776.53 1776.53 431.03 4.12
684.30 684.30 91.26 7.50
2757.40 445.55 2311.85 331.38 6.98,
3480.78 2688.30 792.48 145.50 5.45
4145.56 693.00 3452.56 759.50 4.55!
2935.94 1922.70 1013.24 200.11 5.06
1896.15 149.76 1746.39 351.50 4.97
3511.19 1870.72 1640.47 333.25 4.92
1087.43 340.80 746.63 226.50 3.30
5595.65 5595.65 1202.00 4.66
9402.54 9402.54 1896.75 4.96

1892.72 159.46 1733.26 221.75 7.82


Total 317 19.33 1560.35 141283.00 33171.40 179.75 1993.00 4238.76 12248.30 480.00 52311.21 9476.71 42834.50 9413.82 4.55


1962
1952
1950
1954
1960
1956
1955
1960
1962
1961
1960
1961
1962
1963
1963
1953
1955

1962


20.50
20.50
20.50
20.50
20.50
20.50
20.50
20.50
19.00
19.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
23.00
32.00
25.00

32.00


1.22
1.27
0.47
0.53
0.48
0.67
0.88
0.28
1.19
0.89
1.69
1.34
1.60
1.86
0.51
1.27
1.27
1.33
0.58


95.87
141.50
59.50
38.50
29.13
49.37
51.37
20.00
53.25
26.25
162.25
37.25
68.62
55.87
59.87
190.25
384.50

37.00


- 4238.76 12248.30 480.00 52311.21 9476.71 42834.50 9413.82 4.55


Total 317 19.33 1560.35 141283.00 33171.40 179.75 1993.00



















APPENDIX XIV-A

Working Cost per Acre ltrtiatioh of Diesel Oil Thbe Wells in M6ntgomery District


Capital Replace- Interest Depreciation
Year of Depth of Size of Average cost of Cqoisimp- Lubi- ments & Driver's on ----- Total
iistal- water- engine discharge Cropped tube tion of cants repair pay capital on tube- on build- cost
nation table of water acreage well diesel oil charges @ 3% well @ 10% ing @ 2j%
(Feet) (H.P.) (Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)


Cost of Cost of Acre Cost of
sale of acre irri- irri- per acre
water nation nation irriga-
tion
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)


1959 19 22 1.20 266.62 8950.00 1601.00 250.00 330.00 420.00 268.50 735.00 40.00 3650.50 3650.50 392.00 9.31

1963 19 22 1.15 78.75 7851.00 1591.50 315.00 80.00 235.53 765.10 5.00 2992.13 130.24 2861.89 434.75 6.58

1962 19 45 2.34 113.62 12905.00 1553.00 267.50 40.00 387.15 1260.50 7.50 3515.65 887.86 2627.79 423.62 6.19

1955 15 24 2.20 146.50 9685.00 5145.00 1000.00 580.00 840.00 190.55 868.50 25.00 8749.05 8749.05 1716.50 5.10

1953 } 8110.00
195 15 20 1.52 389.75 8126.00 10166.00 2175.00 365.00 2400.00 765.03 2362.60 48.87 18222.50 1822.50 3543.50 5.14
1961 9265.00

Total 133 8.41 995.24 64892.00 20002.50 4007.50 1395.00 3660.00 1946.76 5991.70 126.37 37129.83 1018.10 36111.73 6510.37 5.55






























Tube- Year of
well instal-
No. nation


6.

2i 7.

8.

9.

10.

12.


Depth of Size of
water- engine
table
(Feet) (H.P.)


36.00 25

36.00 15

36.00 22

36.00 20

36.00 15

36.00 20


APPENDIX XV

Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube Wells in Multan District


Capital Consump- Replace-
Average Cropped cost of tion of Lubri- ments & Driver's Interest
discharge acreage tube motive cants repair pay capit
of water wells power charges @ 3
(Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs) Rs.) (Rs.


1.69 265.75 10979.00 6842.37 15.00 2195.00 329.3

0.78 43.00 5330.00 1615.27 9.00 159.9

1.39 260.75 11468.00 5937.57 13.00 150.00 840.00 344.C

1.15 193.25 6835.00 4294.85 11.25 1500.00 205.0

0.80 86.25 5258.00 1088.67 8.30 157.7

1.44 85.37 8178.00 1383.60 9.25 82.00 245.3


on
al
/o
)

17

i0

14

15

'4

'4


Depreciation
D Total Total Cost
on tube- on building cost working per
well @ 10% @ 21 % hours hour
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)


942.90 38.75 10363.39 5071 2.04

433.00 25.00 2242.17 2230 1.01

996.80 37.50 8318.91 4701 1.77

580.00 25.87 6617.02 4184 1.58

425.80 25.00 1705.51 1493 1.14

717.80 25.00 2462.99 1302 1.89


- 117 7.25 934.37 48048.00 21162.33 65.80 3927.00 840.00 1441.44


_~ 1~~_1__ ~


Total -


4096.30 177.12 31709.99 18981 1.67




















APPENDIX XV-A
Cast of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube Wells in Multan District

Replace- Depreciation
Tube- Year of Depth of Size of Average Cropped Capital Consump- Lubri- mts& Driver's Interest on----- ----- Total Total Cost
well instal- water- engine discharge acreage cost tion of cants repair pay caoital on tube- on building cost working per
No. nation table of water diesel oil charges @ 3% well @ 10% @ 2j% hours hour
(Feet) H.P. (Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs (R.) (.) (R.)s.) (Rs.)
1.i 1952 23.50 20 1.78 240.63 9240.00 3228.00 489.00 720.00 277.20 874.00 12.50 5600.70 1893 2.96
2. 1952 23.50 20 1.19 152.25 9823.00 1593.50 290.00 30.00 1200.00 294.69 912.30 17.50 4337.99 952 4.56
3. 1960 23.50 17 1.29 56.75 7540.00 821.25 131.25 55.00 720.00 226.20 714.00 10.00 2677.70 576 4.65
4. 1955 23.50 32 2.33 205.50 9722.00 2864.00 522.00 50.00 720.00 291.66 932.20 10.00 5389.86' 1091 4.94
5. 1954 23.50 20 1.52 212.25 11880.00 2107.00 410.00 15.00 840.00 356.40 1128.00 15.00 4871.40 1298 3.75
11. 1960 36.00 20 1.75 216.50 11530.00 2922.00 520.50 1110.00 720.00 345.90 1103.00 12.50 6733.90 1313 5.13
13. 1955 29.50 22 1.50 115.00 11805.00 1826.50 225.50 400.00 960.00 354.15 1120.50 15.00 4901.65 1008 4.86
14. 1956 29.50 20 1.50 75.50 10360.00 1701.00 214.00 898.00 480.00 310.80 956.00 20.00 4579.80 1036 4.42
15. 1961 29.50 18 1.35 90.00 9868.00 1946.00 264.75 25.00 720.00 296.04 891.80 23.75 4167.34 1061 3.93
16. 1960 29.50 16 1.11 168.50 8505.00 2635.00 427.00 875.00 960.00 255.15 780.50 17.50 5950.15 2078 2.86
17. 1952 29.50 18 1.36 125.00 8911.00 2156.00 297.50 480.00 267.33 791.10 25.00 4016.93 1456 2.76
18. 1963 27.00 22 1.76 31.75 10342.00 864.00 125.50 310.26 994.20 10.00 2303.96 403 5.72
19. 1962 27.00 22 1.38 79.75 10930.00 1625.50 227.25 327.90 1023.00 17.50 3221.15 898 3.59
20. 1962 28.00 40 1.77 112.87 8639.00 1754.00 280.25 683.00 630.00 260.79 829.30 10.00 4177.34 511 8.17
21. 1962 28.00 26 1.70 166.13 11720.00 2161.00 330.00 2455.00 960.00 351.60 1132.00 10.00 7399.60 1037 7.14
22. 1963 28.00 22 1.55 67.50 9543.00 1961.00 287.50 625.00 286.29 884.30 17.50 4061.59 1002 4.05
23. 1955 28.00 22 1.36 150.00 10210.00 2478.00 335.00 883.00 600.00 306.30 951.00 17.50 5570.80 1348 4.13
24. 1962 28.00 22 1.24 73.75 9781.00 1239.00 202.00 403.00 293.43 908.10 17.50 3063.03 673 4.55
25. 1961 26.00 20 1.28 287.00 10578.00 2909.50 340.00 300.00 720.00 317.34 987.80 17.50 5592.14 1296 4.31
26. 1961 26.00 20 1.39 88.63 10272.00 1277.00 207.00 83.00 120.00 308.16 997.20 7.50 2999.86 762 3.94
27. 1958 26.00 20 1.83 87.50 9925.00 1479.50 220.00 200.00 277.75 957.50 8.75 3143.50 883 3.56


312.50 94760.45 22575 4.19


- 459 31.94 2802.76 211124.00 41548.75 6346.00


----


Total -


9090.00 11280.00


9090.00 11280.00


6315.34 19867.00


























APPENDIX XVI

Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Electric Tube Wells in Multan District


Year of Depth Average Capital Con-
instal- of water- Size of diFcharge Cropped cost of sumption
lation table engine of water acreage tube of motive
wells power
(Feet) (H.P.) (Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs.)

1959 36.00 25 1.69 265.75 10979.00 6842.37

1961 36.00 15 0.78 43.00 5330.00 1615.27

S 1959 36.00 22 1.39 260.75 11468.00 5937.57

1961 36.00 20 1.15 193.25 6835.00 4294.85

1959 36.00 15 0.80 86.25 5258.00 1088.67

1961 36.00 20 1.44 85.37 8178.00 1383.60

Total 117 7.25 934.37 48048.00 21162.33


Lubri-
cants


(Rs.)

15.00

9.00

13.00

11.25

8.30

9.25

65.80


Replace- Driver's Interest Depreciation Total
ments and pay on-- cost
repair capital on tubewell on build-
charges @3% @IC% ing@2 2%
(Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.)

2195.00 329.37 942.90 38.75 10363.39

159.90 433.00 25.00 2242.17

150.00 840.00 344.04 996.80 37.50 8318.91

1500.00 205.05 580.00 25.87 6617.02

157.74 425.80 25.00 1705.51

82.00 245.34 717.80 25.00 2462.99

3927.00 840.00 1441.44 4096.30 177.12 31709.99


Cost of Cost of
sale of acre
water irriga-
tion
(Rs.) (Rs.)

10363.39 1

2242.17

8318.91

1327.20 5289.82

92.34 1613.17

210.37 2252.62

1629.9 130080.08


Cost of
Acre per acre
irri- irri-
gation gation
(Rs.)


431.11

319.88

1290.25

908.7

283.5(

418.49

4651.98


7.24

8 7.01

6.45

i 5.82

0 5.69

S5.38

8 6.46


























APPENDIX XVI-A


Working Cost per Acre Irrigation of Diesel Oil Tube Wells in Multan District


Depth Size of Average Cropped Capital Consump- Lubri- Replace- Driver's Interest Depreciation Total Cost of Cost of Area Cost per
ofwater- engine discharge acreage cost of tion of cants ments& pay on cost sale of acre irriga- acre
table of water tube well diesel oil repair capital on tube- on build- water irriga- tion irra-
cbarges 3% well @ 10% ing @ 2j% tion nation
(Feet) (H.P.) (Cusecs) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) ) Rs.) (Rs.) (Ps.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Rs.) (Acres) (Rs.)


1.78 240.63 9240.00
1.19 152.25 9823.00
1.29 56.75 7540.00
2.33 205.50 9722.00
1.52 212.25 11880.00
1.75 216.50 11530.00
1.50 115.00 11805.00
1.50 75.50 10360.00
1.35 90.00 9868.00
1.11 168.50 8505.00
1.36 125.00 8911.00
1.76 31.75 10342.00
1.38 79.75 10930.00
1.77 112.87 8639.00
1.70 166.13 11720.00
1.55 67.50 9543.00
1.36 150.00 10210.00
1.24 73.75 9781.00
1.28 287.00 10578.00
1.39 88.63 10272.00
1.83 87.50 9925.00


3228.00
1593.50
821.25
2864.00
2107.00
2922.00
1826.50
1701.00
1946.00
2635.00
2156.00
864.00
1625.50
1754.00
2161.00
1961.00
2478.00
1239.00
2909.50
1277.00
1479.50


489.00
290.00
131.25
522.00
410.00
520.50
225.50
214.00
264.75
427.00
297.50
125.50
227.25
280.25


30.00
55.00
50.00
15.00
1110.00
400.00
898.00
25.00
875.00



683.00


330.00 2455.00
287.50 625.00
335.00 883.00
202.00 403.00
340.00 300.00
207.00 83.00
220.00 200.00


459 31.94 2802.76 211124.00 41548.75 6346.00 9090.00 11280.00 6315.34 19867.80 312.50 94760.39 6142.96 88617.43 12491.53 7.09


Year of
instal-
lation


23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
23.50
36.00
29.50
29.50
29.50
29.50
29.50
27.00
27.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
28.00
26.00
26.00
26.00


720.00
1200.00
720.00
720.00
840.00
720.00
960.00
480.00
720.00
960.00
480.00


360.00
960.00

600.00

720.00
120.00


277.20
294.69
226.20
291.66
356.40
345.90
354.15
310.80
296.04
255.15
267.33
310.26
327.90
260.79
351.60
286.29
806.30
293.43
317.34
308.16
277.75


874.00
912.30
714.00
932.20
1128.00
1103.00
1120.50
956.00
891.80
780.50
791.10
994.20
1023.00
829.30
1132.00
884.30
951.00
908.10
987.80
997.20
957.50


12.50
17.50
10.00
10.00
15.00
12.50
15.00
20.00
23.75
17.50
25.00
10.00
17.50
10.00
10.00
17.50
17.50
17.50
17.50
" 7.50
8.75


5600.00
4337.99
2677.70
5389.86
4871.40
6733.90
4901.65
4579.80
4167.34
q50.15
4016.93
2303.96
3221.15
4177.34
7399.60
4061.59
5570.80
3063.03
5592.14
2999.86
3143.50


5600.70
4337.99
2677.70
5389.86
4871.40
6733.90
4371.91
4579.80
4167.34
5950.15
4016.93
954.04
2553.41
3564.59
7399.60
3717.34
5075.20
2585.28
5355.09
2550.70
2164.50


1031.63
540.75
259.75
873.38
525.75
671.75
707.00
741.00
853.00
1220.50
972.50
117.75
363.75
402.38
517.26
422.50
567.00
277.87
759.00
342.01
325.00


5.43
8.02
10.31
6.17
9.26
10.02
6.18
6.18
4.89
4.88
4.13
8.10
7.02
8.86
14.31
8.80
8.95
9.30
7.06
7.46
6.66


529.74




1349.92
667.74
612.75

344.25
495.60
477.75
237.05
449.16
979.50


- I' "












APPENDIX XVI

Cost of Irriation per Hour of Electric Tube WeUs in Jang Distriet

Yer of installation 1963 1962 1963 1962 1961 1962 1962 1952 Total


Depth of water-table (feet)
Size of engine (H.P.)
Average discharge of water (cusecs)
Cropped acreage

Capital cost of tube well (Rs.)
Operation cost (Rs.) :
Consumption of motive power
Interest on capital 3%
Depreciation of tube well @ 10%
Depreciation of masonry work at 2j%
Driver's pay
Lubricants
Replacements & repair charge-

Total

Total working hours
Operation cost per hour


14.50
15
1.45
145.50
5,712


14.50
10

1.05
23.26
5,205


14.50
7.50
0.45
26.00
3940


14.50
15
1.66
43.00
5,792


17.25
10

0.97
62.50
4,728


17.25

10
1.03
44.81

4,495


17.25
15

1.49
95.00
5,091


17.25
15
1.39
130.00
5,891


97.50
9.49
570.07
40,854.00


630.33 583.93 706.60 778.24 919.54 729.32 1,584.012,167.78 8,099.75
171.36 156.15 108.20 173.76 141.84 134.85 152.73 176.73 1,2l5.62
461.20 415.5 301.00 478.2 419.8 389.5 426.10 424.10 3,315.40
27.50 26.25 23.25 25.25 13.25 15.00 20.75 41.25 192.50


11.75 14.75 11.75 9.25 22.50 17.00 15.50 9.50 112.00
110.00 202.00 65.00 49.00 940.00 75.00 300.00 850.00 2,591.00

1,412.14 1,398.58 1,215.80 1,513.70 2,456.93 1,360.67 2,499.09 3,669.36 15,526.27

704 943 781 737 1,553 1,189 1,518 2,277 9,702

2.01 1.48 1.56 2.05 1.58 1.14 1.65 1.66 1.60












APPENDIX XVII-A

Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube Wells in Jhang District


Year of installation 1955 1962 Total


Depth of water-table (feet)

Size of engine (H.P.)

Average discharge of water (cusecs)

Cropped acreage

,Capital cost of tube well (Rs.)

Operation cost (Rs.) :
Consumption of motive power
SInterest on capital at 3%
Depreciation of tube well at .100/,
Depreciation on masonry work
at,.2%
Driver's pay.
Lubricants
Replacements & repair charges

Total

Tokal working hours

Operation cost per lour ;


14.00 14.00 -

22 22 44

1.78 1.66 3.44


58.00 97.50

15,860.00 9,900.00


1,666.00
475.80
1,286.00


75.00
984.00
235.00


2,217.00
297.00
885.00


26.25


296.00
175.00


155.50


25,760.00'


3,883.00!
772.80
2,171.00


101.25
984.00,
531.00'
175.00


4,721.80 3,896.25 8,618.05,

880 1,160. 2,040-


: .5,37


,4.22:


'86


3..36
:'


::


i











SAPtENDIX Xvnt

Cost of Irrigation per Hlour of Electric Tube Wells in Lyalpur District


Year of installation 1963 1962 1958 1960 1962 1955 1950 1962 Total


Depth of water-table (feet)

Size of engine (H.P.)

Average discharge of water (cusecs)


Cropped acreage

Capital cost of tube well (Rs.)
Operation cost (Rs.):
Consumption of motive power
Interest on capital at 3%
Depreciation on tube well at 10%
Depreciation on masonry work at 2j%
Driv-r's pay
Lubricants
Replacements & repair charges

Total

Total working hours

Operation cost per hour


13.50 13.50 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 -

15 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 120

1.25 1.28 1.44 1.14 1.13 1.50 1.14 1.14 10.38

106.00 122.00 36.00 19.00 30.00 251.00 38.00 602.00
106.00 122.00 36.00 19.00 30.00 251.00 38.00 602.00


5,095 5,703 4,755 4,945 6,182 16,415 7,375 50,470

525.66 2,180.15 630.97 461.27 494.48 3,684.81 495.95 8,473.29
152.85 171.09 142.65 148.35 185.46 492.45 221.25 1,514.10
434.50 497.30 390.50 464.50 513.20 1,321.50 627.50 4,249.00
18.75 18.25 21.25 7.50 26.25 80.00 27.50 199.50
405.00 405.00
8.50 16.50 7.00 10.75 14.00 17.50 11.25 85.50
65.00 310.00 25.00 150.00 30.00 700.00 50.00 1,330.00

1,205.26 3,598.29 1,217.37 1,242.37 1,263.39 6,296.26 1,433.45 16,256.39

748 2,447 682 464 491 3,538 484 8,854


1.61 1.47


1.78 2.68 5.57


2.96 1.84


* Information relating to two tube wells owned by the same person.


CO
CO.


..













APPENDIX XVI-A


Cost pf Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube Wells in Lyallpur District


Year of installation :1960 1956 1959 1959 1958 Total

Depth of water-table (feet) 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75 12.75
Size of engine (H.P.) 18 16 16 18 22 90

Average discharge of water
(cusecs) 1.62 1.62 1.46 1.44 2.10 8.24
Cropped acreage 23.00 59.50 84.75 22.50 61.00 250.75

capital cost of tube well (Rs.) 6,800.00 7,500.00 7,960.00 8,325.00 11,150.004 1,735.00

Operation cost (Rs.) :
Consumption of motive
power 1,225.00 ,932.00 1,384.00 908.00 2,080.00 6,529.00
Interest on capital at 3% 204.00 225.00 '238.80 249.75 334.50 1,252.05
Depreciation on tube well
at 10% 650.00 .730.00 769.00 802.50 1,050.00 4001.50
Depreciation on masonry
work at 2j% 7.50 5.00 6.75 7.50 16.50 43.00
Driver's pay 175.00 100.00 275.00
Lubricants .330.00 164.75 302.00' 168.00 422.50 1 387.25
Replacements and repair
charges 470.00 70.00 105.00 117.60 762,00
Total 2,886.502,126.75 2,875.55 2,340.75 4,020.25 14,249.80

Total working hours 843 790" 1,238 645 1,206 4,722

Operation cost per hour 3.42 2.69 2.32 3.63 3.33 3.02












APPENDIX XIX

Cost of Irrigation'per Hour of Electric Tube Wells in Gujranwala District


Year of installation

Depth of water-table (feet)
Size of engine (H.P.)
Average discharge of water
(cusecs)
Cropped acreage
Capital cost of tube well (Rs.


Operation cost (Rs.):
Consumption of motive
power
Interest on capital at 3
Depreciation on tube w
at 10%
Depreciation on mason
work at 2j%
Driver's pay
Lubricants
Replacements & repair
charges
Total
Total working hours
Operation cost per h


S1958 1957 1962 1959 1961


I .1958 j1962 1957 j 1959 j 1962 1959 jTotal


13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 13.50 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00 12.00
14 15 15 15 15 15 15 5 5 -15 15 144

1.50- 1.13 .1.03 1.02 1.17 1.33. 1.52 0.88 0.94 0.83 1.30 12.65
55.00 83.00 40.50 70.00 34.00 67.50 77.75 61.75 ,35,50 64.50 72.00 661.50

5620.00 6279.00 4255.00 7000.00 6290.00 5655.00 7253.00 6524.00 6274.00 4400.00 4568.00 64118.00


842.63 842.61 778.53 1208.35 1042.07 1055.28 1519.77 1212.08 575.86 1153.16 1637.82 11868.16
% 168.60 188.37, 127.65 210.00 188.70 169.65 217.59 195.72 188.22 132.00 137.04 1923.54
*ell
487.00 522.90 402.50 602.00 564.00 532.50 590.30 567.40 542.40 555.00 378.30 5544.30
ry
18.75 26.25 5.75 24.50 16.25 8,25 67.25 21.25 21.25 21.25 19.63 250.38
12.00 21.25 6.25 17.50 10.25 14.50 9.25 13.00 14.00 22.25 12.00 152.25
98.50 187.00 95.00 10.00 10.00 175.00 22.00 94.50 18.00 60.00 769.00
1627.48 1788.38 1415.68 2072.35 1831.27 1554.18 2404.16 2031.45 1436.23 1701.66 2244.79 20107.63
1065 1114 905 1339 1198 1200 1306 3122 1652 1222 1566 15689
iour 1.53 1.61 1.56 1.55 1.53 1.63 1.84 0.65 0.87 1.30 :1.43 1.31


--- -- --------- --- -------- --------------














APPENDIX XIX-A

Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube Wells in Gujranwala District


Year of installation

Depth of water-table (feet)
Size of engine (H.P.)
Average discharge of water (cusecs)
S Cropped acreage

Capital cost of tube well (Rs.)
Operation cost (Rs.):
Consumption of motive
Interest on capital at 3%
Depreciation on tube well at 10%
Depreciation on masonry work at 2}%
Driver's pay
Lubricants
Replacements & repair charges

Total

Total working hours


Operation cost per hour


S1952 1951 1958 1962 1962 1952 1958 Total

11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 11.75 -
16 16 18 14 18 16 16 114
1.46 1.30 1.36 1.57 1.31 1.52 1.75 10.27
62.00 75.00 92.00 55.25 63.00 62.75 94.50 504.50

9,800.00 9,274.00 9,040.00 7,332.00 8,922.00 8,967.00 10,746.00 64,081.00


1,845.00 1,504.00 2,267.50 1159.00 1679.00 2400.00 2,270.00 13,124.50
294.00 278.22 271.20 219.96 267.66 269.01 322.38 1,922.39
922.50 877.40 837.50 648.20 799.70 809.20 984.60 5,879.10
14.38 12.50 16.63 21.25 23.13 21.88 22.50 132.27
450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 450.00 '450.00 3,150.00
434.00 115.00 260.00 245.00 92.00 110.00 270.00 1,526.00
95.00 1,220.00 1,470.00 191.00 506.00 1,181.75 230.00 4,893.75

4,054.88 4,457.12 5,572.83 2,934.41 3,817.49 5,241.84 4,549.48 30,628.05

1,285 1,081 1,432 916 1,061 1,625 1,615 9,015

3.16 4.12 3.89 3.20 3.60 3.23 2.82 3.40


- -- --













APPENDIX XX

Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Electric Tube Wells in Sheikhupura District


Year of installation

Depth of water-table (feet)

Size of engine (H.P.)


Average discharge of water
(cusecs)


1955 1962 1 1961 1958 1962 Total


16.50 16.50 16.50 14.75 14.75

25 15 15 12.50 10 77.50


2.25 1.60- 1.60 1.39 0.97 7.81


Cropped acreage 150.00 109.25 83.25

Capital cost of tubewell (Rs.) 10870.00 6150.00 4648.00


373.50 24.00


740.00


6325.00 11310.00 39303.00


Operation cost (Rs.):,
Consumption of motive
power 979.25
Interest on capital at 3% 326.10
Depreciation of tube well
at 10% 980.00
Depreciation on masonry
work at 2j% 26.75
Driver's pay
Lubricants 9.00
Replacements and repair
charges 470.00

Total 2791.1


1392.32 731.45 790.97
184.50 139.44 339.30


550.00 114.80 966.00


16.25
105.00
17.00


12.50
105.00
16.25


41.25


16.75


10.00 383.50 855.00


360.76 4254.75
189.75 1179.09


517.50 3428.30


28.75 125.50
210.00
10:00. 69.00


26.00


1744.50


S2275.07 1802.94 3009.27 1132.76 11011.14


Total working hours


687 1463 713 974 543 4380


Operation cost per hour 4.06 1.55 2.53 3.09 2.05 2.51










APPENDIX XX-A

Cost of Irrigation per Hour of Diesel Oil Tube Wells in Sheikhupura District


Year of installation 1958

Depth of water-table (feet) 7.00

Size of engine (H.P.) 18

Average discharge of water (cusecs) 1.89

Cropped acreage -49.75


Capital cost of tube well (Rs.)

Operation cost (Rs.) :
Consumption of motive power

Interest on capital at 3%

Depreciation on tube well at 10%
Depreciation on masonry work at 21%
Driver's pay
Lubricants
Repair charges

Total

Total working hours

Operation cost per hour


9,815.00


426.00

294.45

948.50

8.25
65.00
125.00
60.00

1,927.20

285

6.76













APPENDIX XXI

Working Cost per 4Rre Irrigation of Eletrie Tube Wds in Jheg Distrit


Year of installation

Depth of water-table (feet)
Size of engine (H.P.)
Average discharge (cusecs)
Cropped acreage

Capital cost of tube well (Rs.)

Operation cost (Rs.):
Consumption of motive power
Interest on capital at 3%
Depreciation on tube well at 10%
Depreciation on masonry work at
2%
Driver's pay
Lubricants
Replacements & repair charges
Total

Cost of sale of water

Cost of irrigation
Acre irrigation

Operation cost per acre irrigation


1963 1962 1963


1962


1961,


1962 1962


1951


Total


14.50 14.50 14.50 14.50 17.25 17.25 17.25 17.25 -
15 10 7.50 15 10 10 15 15 97.50
1.45 1.05 0.45 1.66 0.97 1.03 1.49 1.39 9.49
145.50 23.26 26.00 43.00 62.50 44.81 95.00 130.00 570.07

5,712.00 5,205.00 3,940.00 5,792.00 4,728.00 4,495.00 5,091.00 5,891.00 40,854.00

630.33 583.93 706.60 778.24 919.54 729.32 1,584.01 2,167.78 8,099.75
171.36 156.15 108.70 173.76 141.84 134.85 152.73 176.73 1,215.62
461.20 415.50 301.00 478.20 419.80 389.50 426.10 424.10 $,315.40

27.50 26.50 23.25 25.25 13.25 15.00 20.75 41.25 192.50
i
11.75 14.75 11.75 9.25 22.50 17.00 15.50 9.50 112.00
110.00 202.00 65.00 49.00 940.00 75,00 300.00 850.00 2,591.00

1,412.14 1,398.58 1,215.80 1,513.70 2,456.93 1,360.61 2,499.09 3,669.36 15,526.27
207.48 23.10 230.58

1,412.14 1,398.58 1,008.32 1,513.70 2,456.93 1,360.67 2,475.99 3,669.36 15,295.69

547.00 254.50 142.50 385.50 677.50 219.37 687.00 1,315.00 4,228.37

2.58 5.50 7.08 3.93 3.63 6.20 3.60 2.79 3.62


C(-*------~I-.II--LII*~TICI(C~-rr-~--C -C




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs