See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/360768620

Rainwater harvesting LITERATURE REVIEW

Chapter · May 2022

CITATIONS READS

0 1,639

1 author:

Dawod Rasooli Keya

Kurdish Scientific Alliance
59 PUBLICATIONS 41 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Dawod Rasooli Keya on 21 May 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Rainwater harvesting

LITERATURE REVIEW

Dawod Rasooli Keya

Ph.D. Soil and Water Conservation
Assist. Prof. and Lecturer at Erbil Polytechnic University
2.1. General
Water harvesting for dryland agriculture is a traditional water
management to ease future water scarcity in many arid regions of the world
(Prinz and Singh, 2000). It is an ancient art practiced in the past in many parts
of North America, North Africa, China and India (Oweis et al., 1999) and can
be defined as the process of intercepting stormwater from a surface such as a
roof, parking area, or land surface and putting it to beneficial use (Philips,
2005). In its broad sense it will be defined as the "collection of runoff for its
productive use" (Critchley and Siegert, 1991). More specifically, in crop
production, water harvesting is essentially a spatial intervention designed to
change the location, where water is applied to augment evapotranspiration that
occurs naturally in relevant areas where the rainfall is reasonably distributed in
time, but inadequate to balance potential evapotranspiration (ET) of crops
(Oweis et al., 1999). Oweis et al. (1999) also, reported that more precisely
water harvesting can be defined as the process of concentrating rainfall as
runoff from a larger catchment area to be used in a smaller target area. This
process may occur naturally or artificially and the collected water is either
directly applied to an adjacent agricultural field or stored in some type of (on-
farm) storage facility for domestic use an as supplemental irrigation of crops.
For landscape use, water harvesting is defined as the capture diversion,
and storage of rainwater for plant irrigation and other uses (Waterfall, 2006).
Examples of landscapes are parks, schools, commercial sites, parking lots
apartment complexes and small scale residential landscapes.
It appears from the above definitions that water harvesting is a general
term used for all the different techniques to collect runoff or flood water for
storage in the soil profiles or in tanks that can be used for the production of
crops, trees or fodder. Also it can be a collection of runoff water for human and
livestock consumption.
 Although the term water harvesting is used in different ways, the
following are among its characteristics (Oweis et al., 1999):
1. It is practiced in arid and semiarid regions, where surface runoff often
has an intermittent character.
2. It is based on the utilization of runoff and requires a runoff producing
area and a runoff receiving area.
3. Because of the intermittent nature of runoff events, storage is an
integral part of water harvesting system.

2.2. Water harvesting advantages and disadvantages

2.2.1. Advantages
Runoff farming has potential to increase the productivity of arable and
grazinglands by increasing the yields and by reducing the risk of failure (Prinz
and Malik, 2003). Prinz and Malik (2003) also, facilitate re or afforestation,
fruit tree planting or agroforestry. Furthermore, they have showed that unlike
pumping water, water harvesting saves energy and maintenance costs and helps
in decreasing the other valuable water source like ground water. Prinz (2000)
has shown that Geographical Information Systems (GIS) can help in
determination of areas suitable for water harvesting. Although it requires
expertise for evaluating site suitability and in designing the system, it does not
necessarily depend on high technology (Evenari and Nessler, 1986). The
continued application of conventional breeding and the recent developments in
non-conventional breeding offer considerable potential for improving cereals
yield growth in rainfed environment (Rosegrant et al., 2002).
2.2.2. Disadvantages
Although runoff farming methods can increase the water availability, the
climatic risk exists in years with extremely low rainfall, it can not compensate
for water shortage (Prinz and Malik, 2003). Also, Prinz and Malik (2003) have
reported the following drawbacks for such system: Successful water harvesting
projects depend on farmer experience and trial and error rather than on
scientifically well established techniques; agricultural extension services have
often limited experience with it; possible conflict between upstream and
downstream users and requires relatively large labour. Prinz (2000) noticed that
it has possible harm to fauna and flora adapted to running waters and wetland.
Runoff farming requires a relatively large watershed area, which concentrates
its rainfall into a small catchment basin (Bean and Saubel, 1972). In addition,
appropriate investments and policy reforms will be required to enhance the
contribution of rainfed agriculture (Rosegrant et al., 2002).

2.3. Historical perspectives:

2.3.1. Historical perspectives all over the world
Historically, agricultural methods using surface runoff and rainwater
harvesting techniques were first practiced extensively in west Asia and North
Africa (WANA) (Oweis et al., 2004). Water harvesting techniques are believed
to have originated in Iraq, the cradle of agriculture, over 5000 years ago
(Falkenmark et al., 2001). Nasr (1999) have mentioned that the first water
harvesting system in history was built in the Middle East and North Africa
(MENA) region and signs of early water harvesting structures are believed to
have been constructed over 9000 years ago in the Edom mountains in southern
Jordan. In the Negev desert of Palestine, water harvesting systems dating back
4000 years or more have been discovered (Evanari et al., 1971). These schemes
involved the clearing of hillsides from vegetation to increase runoff, which was
then directed to field on the plains.
The remains of dams, reservoirs and other enduring, ancient water storage
and delivery structures, coupled with its unique, spectacular mountain terraces
confirm that historically Yemen's inhabitants have used a wide variety of water
harvesting systems throughout the country's various agro-ecological zones. The
historic Marib dam is central to the Yemen identity (Ghalib and Bamatraf,
2004). Ghalib and Bamatraf (2004) have also shown that the ruins of several
flood-control systems have been excavated by archeological missions at
different sites. The structures served as flood breakers, sediment traps and water
stores. The most spectacular and famous parts of these systems are the tanks
known as Saharij.
In Baluuchistan, Pakistan, two runoff farming techniques were applied in
ancient times: the Khuskaba and the Sailaba system (Oosterbaan, 1983). The
first one employs bunds being built across the slope of the land to increase
infiltration, while the later one utilizes flood in natural watercourses that are
captured by earthen bunds.
In west Rajastan, India large bunds were constructed as early as the 15th century
to accumulate runoff. These "Khadin" create a reservoir which can be emptied
at the end of the monsoon season to cultivate wheat and chickpeas with the
remaining retained moisture (Kolarkar et al., 1983). A similar system called
"Ahar" was developed in the state of Bahar (UNEP, 1983). Furthermore, a
system known as "haveli" is practiced in areas with black cotton soil in central
India. According to this system, fields are embanked on four sides to retain
water in the field until the beginning of October and a few days before sowing
rabi (winter) crop; the excess water is drained off.
Wesemael et al. (1998) showed that runoff was collected and stored in
underground cisterns or aljibes in the semiarid part of Spain. The catchment
area included rocky slopes, dirt roads and gentle slopes with crusted surfaces.
Eugene and Dutt, (1980) indicated that water harvesting systems have
been used in the south western United States for domestic, animal, field crops
and deciduous trees and vine crops. Fink et al. (1979) pointed out that a research
program on water harvesting was established at the U.S. Water Conservation
Laboratory in Phoenix, Arizona in 1959 to commence laboratory and field
studies.
 Evenari and Koller, (1956) pointed out that the Nabatean people (200
B.C. to 630 A.D.) have practiced the ancient runoff farming in the Negev desert
in Palestine through leaving steep lands bare to encourage runoff during the
brief, intense rain storm characteristic of the region. Records showed that a
variety of crops were grown including barley, wheat, legumes, grapes, figs and
dates in the drainage bottomlands below the catchment.
The importance of rainwater in Libya as a resource is reflected in the fact
the total precipitation above 100 mm isohyte in northern Libya exceeds 30
billion m3/yr. Out of this amount, less than 3% is efficiently used (Alghariani,
1987). This valuable resource was more used in ancient times, as revealed by
historical and archeological studies (Goodchild, 1952). Alghariani (2004) has
shown that water harvestings in Libya are classified into two basic categories:
1) systems based on harvesting the floodwater of wadis, gullies and channel
flow, and 2) systems based on harvesting rainwater of local origin through
runoff collection from rooftops and overland flow.
Among the well-known water harvesting systems in use in Morocco's
arid and semiarid area are matfia (cistern), which was introduced into the
country by the Portuguese in the 16th century, when they colonized cities on the
coast of the Atlantic Ocean, and the rhettara (qanat), an underground water-
harvesting system developed during the period of almohad (AD 1147 -1269).
Mechlia and Quessar (2004) have reported that the various water
harvesting techniques (which are used on approximately one million hectares
within Tunisia) are considered to be an integral part of the country's national
heritage. Furthermore, they have shown that the water harvesting techniques
includes: 1) runoff harvesting that makes use of runoff as collecter, thus
eliminating the need for storage-included among such systems are the related
micro-catchment techniques called, meskat and Jessour; 2) floodwater
harvesting and spreading or spate irrigation using diversion dykes (mgoud), and
3) runoff water collection and storage in reservoirs of variable capacities. At
present, 500 hill lakes are in operation out of a planned 1000 lakes, with an
estimated overall capacity of 500 million m3 (Alouani, 1997).
In Syria, many water structures and constructions are found in Damascus,
at Hama, on the banks of Orontes and in many other parts of Syria. This
development was associated with the Abbasid Caliphate (AD 750- 1258)
(Soumi and Abdel Aal, 2004). Moreover, it was shown that the indigenous
water harvesting systems are comprised of Abar Rommani, Birak and
Khazzanat, Qanawat Romani, Nawair and etc.
Ghaleb and Bamatraf (2004) have reported that the historic Marib dam,
associated with pre-Islamic Yemeni civilization, is central to the Yemeni
identity. The dam was built on a 400 –m wide gorge which catches the runoff
from the 10 000 km2 watershed of Wadi Saba. Water was diverted through the
north and south sluices to irrigate two gardens: north (Shamal) and south
(Yamin), mentioned in the Holy Koran. The dam and its hydraulic and irrigation
structures collapsed around the year 610 AD. Also the ruins of several flood-
control systems, which served as flood-breakers, sediment traps and water
stores, the most spectacular and famous parts of these systems are the tanks
known as saharij, which were built to supply water to the costal city of Aden in
ancient time. Furthermore, Ghaleb and Bamatraf (2004) have shown that the
indigenous water harvesting systems includes terraces, Kuruf and Birak
(roofless man made cisterns; Siqayat (roofed tanks); Saharij (nine elevated
tanks); Niqab (roofed cistern) and Mawajel (Sud or dam).
In Egypt, water harvesting systems are confined to the north coastal and
the north eastern costal zone to serve rangeland and cereals crops (Salem,
2004). The stems includes dikes, contour furrowing, soil ripping or chiseling,
small-catchment water harvesting, inter-sand-dune farms, summer crop farms,
Roman-style cisterns, reinforced concrete tanks and groundwater harvesting.
The latter comprises: open galleries, Mawasi system and Qanats.
In Jordan, there are indications of early water harvesting structures being
constructed in sites more than 4000 years old. Pools, hafair (earthen tanks dug
ito the ground), and cisterns have been found in most ruins and archeological
sites in the country (Fardous, 2004). Also, Fardous (2004) pointed out that
water was delivered to Petra (capital of Nabatean). This water was channeled
and piped to the city during winter in cisterns and excavated rock reservoirs.
Furthermore, Fardous (2004) has reported that different water harvesting
techniques can be found in Jordan such as cisterns, water ponds and Hafair and
water conservation works like earth banks, gradoni terraces, bench terracing,
contour stone terracing stone and reinforced concrete structures,
microcachments, and check dams.
2.3.2. Water harvesting in Iraq
As stated earlier, water-harvesting techniques are believed to be
originated in Iraq, the cradle of agriculture, over 5000 years ago (Falkenmark et
al., 2001). The Iraqi people have a long history of water interception, collection
and storage (Al-Khafaji, 2004).Their skills in water harvesting are demonstrated
by some techniques that are still in operation today others are witnessed by
ruins that still remain.
A review of relevant literature and personal communications, coupled
with field visits have shown that the following water harvesting systems have
been identified in Iraq (Al-Khafaji, 2004) :
1. Saharij: is a local name given to a cave in which runoff water is stored. By
this technique wadi runoff water is intercepted and directed to a nearby cave. It
was established in the fifth century and is still operational at monastery (the
Deir Mar Metti or Siant Metti Monastery).
2. Kahariz: it is date back to Assyrian period in Iraq (1300 – 600 BC). The aim
of this technique is to force groundwater to flow out from the surface of the
ground same distance away downhill and widespread in Sulaimani, Kirkuk,
Erbil and Sinjar.
3. Faydah System: the flat area of a wadi in which water collected is called,
locally, a Faydah (Flood depression). An example of such a wadi is Wadi Tubal
in the Iraqi desert. Ponds and wells were dug in selected sites along the
pilgrimage road (the famous Zubaida Pilgrimage Road between Baghdad and
Mecca) to collect runoff water from nearby wadis and waterways.
4. Khabrat: it is a type of artificial pond by which rainwater is collected in low
lying sites. An example of such harvesting pond is the one developed near an
oasis 160 km along the international Rutba highway between Iraq and Jordan.
5. Sidood: They are small dams used to intercept wadis of the desert region in
an on-going governmental project. About 7 dams out of 20 proposed dams have
already been constructed. Examples of such dams are Rutba and Umm Altturfat
dams, constructed on the Horan and Al-Abaiydh wadis.
6. Kharijah: is a bottle-shaped pit used to collect water seeping through the
ground. Such as system Al-Nazzaza pit, 50 km to the west of Mosul.
7. Jiban: a shallow well, 2 to 3 m deep, dug in the bed of a wadi to collect water
seeping from the sediment of the wadi's bed which is saturated by runoff water.
Such wells can be found in western and Jezira zone. Some of them were dug
hundreds of years ago.
8. Hassay: Hassay is an area in which sand deposits overlay a hard pan
formation and when the sand is excavated, water can be reached. Such a system
can be found in the western desert and used by nomads.
It is worthy to mention that cisterns or wells were also dug in the
mountainous area of Iraqi Kurdistan regions such as those dug at Amedy,
Peramagroon and Qandil in Qaladiza, but to keep snow for summer use.
It seams from the above review that until recently great attention has not been
given to this topic in spite of increased demand for water by all sectors and
construction of a group of dams on the Twin Rivers and their tributaries by the
neighboring countries. However, many researches by the IPA center at Nineveh
and Baghdad were conducted to solve the problem of water scarcity, but the
results have not been published yet.
2.3.3. Water harvesting in Iraqi Kurdistan Region:
Although the water crisis has become a critical issue nowadays in the
region, no water harvesting projects have been set up yet on a large scale
(Sulaiman, 2000). Furthermore, he has shown that dry farming is highly
influenced by rainfall depth and its distribution and there is substantial runoff
loss and soil erosion during the spring season when the rainfall intensity
exceeds the soil infiltration capacity.
More recently some earthen dam has been constructed such as Dohuk
dam in Dohuk, Chaqchaq dam in sulaimani. Also, small earthen ponds were
constructed at Zawita, 20 km to the northeast of Dohuk, which has a length of
60 m and a height of 3m. The Agriculture Directorate of Dohuk (1997) has
reported that several private earthen ponds were constructed outside the
governorate of Dohuk to irrigate small orchards during the summer season.
Sulaiman (2000) has performed a field experiment to evaluate some soil
treatment for inducing runoff in Dohuk and recommended crude oil and the
chemical treatments as the first and second choices respectively. Yahya (2000)
recommended use of sodium salt for controlling seepage from earthen ponds
constructed on fine textured soils. On the other hand, Fattah (2004) has
observed the order of effectiveness of applied treatments on reducing seepage as
follows:
Na2CO3 > compaction > cattle manure > control.
2.4. Water harvesting components
Oweis (2004) has shown that the components of any water harvesting systems
include:
1. Catchment area: it is part of the land that contributes some or all its share
of rainwater to a target area outside its boundaries.
2. Storage facility: a place where runoff water is held from time to time. It is
collected until use. Storage can be surface reservoirs, subsurface
reservoirs, in the soil profile or in ground water aquifer.
3. Target area: it is the area where the harvested water is used. In
agricultural production, the target is the plant or the animal, while in
domestic use, it is the human being or the enterprise and its needs.
 On the other hand, Oweis et al. (1999) presented the following components:
a) runoff producing catchment; b) runoff collection scheme; c) runoff storage
facility, and d) cultivated or cropped area. They also stated that there is a
general agreement that the first two components are found in all water
harvesting systems. Furthermore, they clarified that the confusion starts with
component (c) and this component raised three important questions: 1) is the
runoff water stored in a surface reservoir or directly in a soil profile? ; 2) is the
collected water applied to the cropped area immediately or later? and 3) are the
cultural practices of the crop under supplemental irrigation the same as under
irrigated conditions?
2.5. Types of water harvesting
Different authors have classified water harvesting methods in various
ways (Sulaiman, 2000). Pacey and Cullis (1986) classified rainwater harvesting
techniques into three broad categories: external catchment systems,
microcatchments, and rooftop runoff collection. However, a brief description of
water harvesting techniques along with subtypes is given below (Prinz and
Singh, 2000):
1. Rainwater harvesting: this is defined as a method for inducing, collecting,
storing, and conserving local surface runoff for agriculture in arid and
semiarid regions (Boers and Ben-Asher, 1982). This in turn includes: a)
water collected from roof tops, courtyards and similar compacted or
treated surfaces, used for domestic purposes and garden crops; b)
microcatchment water harvesting: is a method of collecting surface
runoff from a small catchment area and storing it in the root zone of an
adjacent infiltration basin. This type of harvesting is called runoff
farming water harvesting which is characterized by Oweis et al. (1999):
the absence of surface storage; the collected runoff is directly applied to
the cropped area and the agricultural practices are in accordance with the
catchment characteristics and c) microcatchments water harvesting or
harvesting from external catchments: here runoff from hill-slope
 catchments is conveyed to the cropping area located at hill foot on flat
terrain.
2. Floodwater harvesting or large catchment water harvesting or spate
irrigation: it can be defined as the collection and storage of creek flow for
irrigation use. It may be classified into: a) floodwater harvesting within
streambed, the water flow is dammed and as a result, inundates the valley
bottom of the flood plain. The water is forced to infiltrate the wetted area
and can be used for agriculture or pasture improvement; b) floodwater
diversion: the wadi water is forced to leave its natural course and
conveyed to nearby cropping fields.
3. Groundwater harvesting: it is employed to cover traditional as well as
unconventional ways of ground water extraction like Qanat systems,
underground dams and special types of wells. For instance, qanats, which
consist of a horizontal tunnel that taps underground water in an alluvial
fan, brings it to the surface due to gravitational effect. It is widely used in
Iran, Pakistan. Subsurface dams and sand storage dams are other
examples of groundwater harvesting. By these methods, flow of
ephemeral streams is obstructed in a river bed and stored in the sediment
below ground surface and can be used for aquifer recharge. Oweis et al.
(2001) presented a simplified classification as show in Figure (2.1).
According to this classification water harvesting is categorized into:
1) Microcatchment methods. This category can be further subdivided
into rooftop systems and onfarm systems. The common systems of
the later one in West Asia and North Africa (WANA) are contour
ridges, small pits, runoff strips, meskat, semicircular/ trapezoidal
bunds, Negarim, interrow systems and contour bench terraces.
2) Microcatchments which can be further subdivided into: a) Wadi-
bed systems like small farm reservoirs, wadi-bed cultivations and
Jessour; b) off-wadis systems like water spreading, large bunds,
Hafir, Tanks and Liman, cisterns and hillside conduits.
 According to Nasr (1999) there are two basic types of runoff farming
systems: 1) the direct water application system, where runoff is stored in the soil
of the crop growing area and 2) the supplemental water system, where collected
water is stored offsite in some reservoirs and later used to irrigate a certain crop
area.
According to Critchley and Siegert (1991) generally, two runoff farming
water harvesting groups are generally recognized: rainwater harvesting and
flood water harvesting. Rainwater harvesting can be further divided into
microcatchment and macrocatchment runoff farming types. Floodwater
harvesting can also be divided into streambed and through diversion runoff
farming types. Figures (2.2) and (2.3) depict that water harvesting was
categorized based on source
 Figure (2.1) Classification of water harvesting types according to Oweis
et al. (2001)

storage, productive use, and main plant production category with further
subdivision.
Oweis (1999) proposed a scheme for water harvesting classification. In
this scheme, supplemental irrigation (SI) is considered as a subcomponent as in
Figure (2.3).

2.6. Kinds of storage

2.6.1. Above-ground water storage
Regarding kind of storage, Prinz and Singh (2000) have declared that
when the collected rainfall is stored in the soil matrix, its application will be
limited to the rain season. To allow cropping outside the rainy season, a number
of storage media are employed, ranging from Ferrocement tanks of little m3
content to large reservoirs, storing millions of m3. Agrawal and Narian (1997)
have reported that without tank systems, paddy cultivation in large parts of
India is impossible.

2.6.2. Underground storage

As several disadvantages are connected with surface storage of water
such as large evaporation losses, loss of storage caused by siltation, pollution
problems and loss of agricultural land, under ground storage may be an
interesting alternative (Prinz and Singh, 2000). This storage can be done in near
surface aquifers (e.g. in wadi beds) or in man made caves or underground
constructions to store water (Cistern). Often the walls of these cisterns are
plastered; their water losses by deep percolation or by evaporation can be
minimal. In India, underground tanks with a plastered catchment can be found
(Agarwal and Narain, 1997).
Figure (2.2) Category of water harvesting systems by source according to Critchley
and Siegert (1991).
Figure (2.3) A schema for water harvesting classification (after Oweis, 1999).

2.7. Runoff strips

Oweis (2001) indicated that runoff strip is a system that is common in
West Asia and North Africa (WANA) under which the farm divided into strips
along the contour. An upstream strip is used as a catchment, while a
downstream one is cultivated. The strip with crops should not be too wide (1-3
m), while the catchment width is determined in accordance with the amount of
runoff water required. Furthermore, Oweis (2001) has shown that runoff strip-
cropping can fully mechanize and needs only a relatively low input of labor.
Under good management, continuous cultivation of cropped strips can build up
soil fertility and improve soil structure, making the land more productive
(Oweis et al., 2002). Moreover, they demonstrated that this technique is highly
recommended for barley cultivation and other field crops in large stepped areas
of WANA, where it can reduce risk and substantially improve production. One
of the drawbacks of this system is the uneven distribution of water across the
strip width. This is true, especially when: 1) the land slope is low; 2) the width
is too large and 3) ridges formation during plowing along the upper part of the
strip (Oweis et al., 2002). Additionally they have shown that ICARDA has
introduced a simple tool pulled by seeding machine, which forms small
grooves. These grooves insist rapid flow of runoff water within the cropped
strips.
Although runoff-farming methods can increase the water availability, the
climatic risks still exists and in years with extremely low rainfall, it cannot
compensate for water shortage (Prinz and Malik, 2003). Prinz and Malik (2003)
also, showed that further disadvantages are: 1) successful water harvesting
projects often based on farmer's experience and trial and error rather than on
scientifically well established techniques, and therefore can not be reproduce
easily; 2) agricultural extension services have often limited experience with it.
Oweis et al. (2004) pointed out that this technique is applied on gentle
slopes, and the cropped strips are cultivated every year. Additionally, they
demonstrated that clearing and compaction may be undertaken to improve
runoff.
On the other hand, Oweis (2004) revealed that unlike macrocatchment
systems, the farmer has control, within his farm, over both the catchment and
target area, and all the components of the system are constructed inside the farm
boundaries. Also, he showed that it is only adopted in the drier environment
because of the loss of productive land, where cropping is most risky.
In Australia, Kenyon (1929) obtained domestic and livestock water
supplies for farms from an artificial catchment. The catchment area was an area
of 26000 ft2 covered with galvanized sheet iron and the collected water was
discharged into storage tanks. In western part of this continent, topography
modification in the form of catchment treatment has been practiced for a long
time. They are known as roaded catchments and consist of parallel ridges
(roads) of steep, bare and compacted earth. They were surveyed at a gradient
that allows runoff to occur without causing erosion of the intervening channels
(Burdass, 1975; Laing, 1981).
Critchley and Siegert (1991) have shown that floodwater harvesting has
been introduced for the desert area of Arizona for more than 1000 years ago. In
New Mexico, traditional runoff was practiced in Sororan desert by the Papago
Indians and other groups. Brush weirs were used to spread the flood waters
(Nabhan, 1984). In Ne-Brazil, a modified form of the "zay' systems was
introduced in 1986 (Prinz, 1996). In Burkina Faso, the success of contour bunds
and the traditional zai planting pits was widely acknowledged (Pacey and
Cullis, 1991; Ouedraogo and Kabore, 1996). In this region, large areas of
laterite soils have a low infiltration rate capacity, are hard rock and crusted with
a hard pan surface (Ouedraogo and Kabore, 1996). Farmers use stone contour
bunds to reduce the speed of runoff allowing infiltration into the zai, which
collects and concentrates the runoff.

2.8. Main design parameters for water harvesting

2.8.1. Main design parameters for microcatchments water harvesting
Prinz and Malik (2003) and Oweis et al. (1999) revealed that the basic
design input for runoff farming water harvesting stems include: 1) topography
of the area; 2) soil type including texture, water retention capacity, soil depth,
infiltration characteristic and hydraulic conductivity; 3) Climate including daily
rainfall for a reasonable number of years (at least 15 years), evaporation,
transpiration and 4) crop including rooting depth, growing season, critical stages
of growth and spacing. However, the necessary steps for design can be
summarized as follows (Oweis, 2004; Oweis et al., 2001; Critchley and Siegert,
1991):
1. Determine the design annual runoff coefficient of the selected site. It can be
measured using field plots or by using field rain simulators.
2. Determine the design crop water requirement. Normal methods of estimating
crop evapotranspiration may be used with unestimated stress coefficient
reflecting the level of stress the crop can be expected to tolerate during the dry
period.
3. The design should not be base on average values of rainfall in the area, but on
lower values, to ensure greater dependability of the system. Generally, the
design should be able to provide water to the plant economically at least three
years out of four, i.e., a dependability level of 75%.
4. The ratio of the catchment area to the cropped area is determined. An
allowance for non-uniformity of water distribution and deep percolation in the
cropped area should be provided through a storage efficiency factor. This is
represented by the ratio of the volume of the harvested water in the effective
depth of the root zone to the total volume of water harvested.
5. The shape and dimensions of the cropped and catchment areas are decided
after knowing their sizes depending on the type of the system, the kind of the
crop and the topography. The engineering works required can then be planned.
These include system layout, details and quantity of the earth or stone works
and of other water control structures.

2.8.2. Main design parameters for macrocatchment and floodwater

Many investigators (Oweis, 2004; Oweis et al., 2001; Critchley and
Siegert, 1991) have declared that macrocatchment and floodwater systems
usually involve the design of a small dam, diversion structures and the requisite
water conveyance, distribution systems and facilities to store water for
subsequent use. Also, they showed that the size of a macrocatchment or
floodwater is not under the designer control. The designer merely determines
the extent of the cropped area to be served by the expected runoff.
2.9. Parameters which must be considered to select the most suitable area
for water harvesting.
2.9.1. Rainfall
The useful rainfall factors for design of a rain or floodwater harvesting
system include: 1) number of days in which the rain exceeds the threshold
rainfall of the catchment, on weekly or monthly basis; 2) probability and
reoccurrence for the minimum and maximum monthly rainfall; 3) frequency
distribution of storms of different specific intensities (Prinz and Singh, 2000).
Oweis (2004) pointed out that rainwater harvesting is advantageous in drier
environment, where low and poorly distributed, normally make agricultural
production impossible. Esser (1999) reported that the most suitable areas for
runoff farming are those with an average rainfall of 300 – 600 mm. Hudson
(1987) has shown that the climate affects the method. For instance
Mediterranean climates have winter rainfall and low evaporation which make
possible runoff farming with mean annual rainfall down to 100 mm in the
Negev desert in Israel (Evanari et al., 1982) and in Tunisia (Damagnez, 1979).
But with tropical summer rainfall and high evaporation, water harvesting is
most likely to be useful in areas with more than 250 mm.

2.9.2. Soil factor

The suitability of a certain area either as catchment or as cropping area in
water harvesting depends strongly on its soil characteristics (Prinz and Singh,
2000). These characteristics can be summarized as follows (Prinz and Singh,
2000; Critchley and Siegert, 1991; Oweis et al., 1999):
1) Soil texture: the soil texture has an influence on other soil characteristics like
infiltration rate and available water capacity. Oweis et al. (2001) have pointed
out that soil texture should be considered because it affects soil erosion in the
catchment. Also, soil texture along with soil depth determine the total water-
storage capacity of the soil profile, and this in turn, controls the amount of
water that can be made available for crops during dry periods. The medium-
textured soil like loam is best suited for water harvesting because they are
ideally suited for plant growth. A serious limitation for the application of water
harvesting is soils with a sandy texture. If the infiltration rate is higher than
rainfall intensity, no runoff will occur (Critchley and Siegert, 1991). Further,
Hudson (1987) have reported that clay soils are suitable for deep flooding with
subsequent cropping because they have low infiltration rates and high moisture
storage capacity; 2) structure: a good soil structure is usually associated with
loamy soil and relatively a high content of organic matter; 3) depth: deep soils
have the capacity to store the harvested water. Two meter depth or more is
ideal, though rarely found in practice; 4) fertility: in many area where systems
may be introduced, lack of moisture and low soil fertility are the major
constraints to plant growth; 5) salinity / sodicity: sodic and saline soils should
be avoided for water harvesting system, because these soils can reduce
moisture availability directly or indirectly, as well as exerting direct harmful
influence on plant growth; 6) infiltration rate: a very low infiltration rate can be
detrimental to water harvesting because of waterlogging in the cultivated area.
On the other hand, it leads to high runoff, which is desirable for the catchment
area. Therefore, the soil of the cropped area should take precedence, i.e., it
should be sufficiently permeable to allow adequate moisture to the crop root
zone without causing waterlogging problems; 7) available water capacity: in
water harvesting systems which pond runoff, it is vital that this water can be
held by the soil and available to the plants; 8) constructional characteristics:
generally, the soils which should be avoided are those which crack on drying
and those which form erodible bunds.

2.9.3. Topography
Although water harvesting systems may be implemented on a wide range
of slopes, topography is still a major factor in the selection of the appropriate
technique (Oweis et al., 2001). Generally, steeper slopes with shallower soils
are used as catchments, and cropping is allocated to gentler slopes, where soil
is deeper. This allows the less productive shallow soil to contribute its share of
rain to the deeper, more productive soil. With a given inclination, the runoff
volume increases with the slope length. The slope length can be used to
determine the suitability of macro- or micro- or mixed water harvesting
decision making (Prinz et al., 1998). The land form along with slope gradient
and relief intensity is other parameters that determine the type of water
harvesting (Prinz and Singh, 2000). Water harvesting is not recommendable for
areas where slopes are greater than 5% due to uneven distribution of runoff and
large quantities of earthwork required which is economical (Critchley and
Siegert, 1991).

2.9.4. Hydrology and water resources

The hydrological processes relevant to water harvesting practices are
those involved in the production, flow and storage of runoff from rainfall within
a particular projected area (Prinz and Singh, 2000). They have also shown that
the rain falling on a particular catchment area can be effective (as direct runoff)
or ineffective (as evaporation and deep percolation). The quantity of rainfall
which produces runoff is a good indicator of the suitability of the area for water
harvesting.

2.9.5. Socio economic conditions

The chances for success of a water harvesting project are much greater if
resource users and community groups are involved from early planning stage
onwards (Prinz and Singh, 2000). They also mentioned that the farmer
capabilities of the average farmer, the cultural behaviour together with religious
belief of the people, attitude of farmers towards the introduction of new farming
methods, the farmer knowledge about the irrigated agriculture, land tenure and
property rights and the role of women and minorities in communities are crucial
issues. Tauer (1992) and (Oweis et al., 2001) have referred to the fact that in the
past many water harvesting projects have failed simply because water rights,
land tenure and use were not taken fully into account. Humborg (1992)
considered the distance between the suitable areas and the villages as an
important criterion. Siegert (1994) has referred to the fact that the existing or
planned infrastructures as well as regional development plans have to be taken
into account when planning a water harvesting scheme. Prinz and Malik (2003)
have shown that labour is the most important economic factor if local material
is used.

2.9.6. Environmental and ecological impacts

Prinz and Singh (2000) revealed that if the use of natural resources (land
and water) is suddenly changed by water harvesting, the environmental
consequences are often greater than foreseen. Oweis et al. (1999) have realized
that dry area ecosystems are generally fragile and have a limited capacity to
adjust to change. Also, Prinz and Singh (2000) have declared that new water
harvesting systems may intercept runoff at the upstream part of the catchment,
thus depriving potential downstream users of their share of the resources.

2.9.8. Costs
The quantities of earth / stonework involved in construction
directly affects the cost of a scheme or, if it is implemented on a self basis,
indicates how labour intensive its construction will be (Critchley and Siegert,
1991).
However, Prinz and Malik (2003) have shown that rainwater harvesting is
advantageous in the following circumstances: 1) in the drier environment where
rainfall is low and unevenly distributed; 2) where crops are produced with low
yields and a high risk of failure; 3) in areas where water supply for domestic
and animal production is not sufficient; and 4) in arid land suffering from
desertification.

2.10. Design models for catchments cultivated area ratio

 Few investigators used a runoff area-root area ratio to determine the
optimum size of microbasins (Cohen et al., 1967; Evenari et al., 1971;
Fairbourn, 1974). But this ratio was based on empirical assumptions about the
best ratio, not on scientifically generated data (Gurduno, 1980). In addition,
Gurduno (1980) has shown that in later stages, investigators formulated
statistical models. Estimations for sizes of microbasins were based on
precipitation and crop consumptive use.

2.11.1 Crop production systems

For crop production system, calculation of catchment: cultivated area
ratio is based on :
WH = Ewr ……….………………………………………..… [2.1]
where:
WH = Water harvested (mm)
Ewr = Extra water required
But water harvested can be expressed as:
WH = CA * DR * C * F ………………………………… [2.2]
where:
CA = Catchment area (m2)
DR = Design rainfall (mm)
C = runoff coefficient
F = Efficiency factor
Also extra water required can be expressed as:
Ewr = C (ET – DR) ………………………………………… [2.3]
Where:
C = Cultivated area (m2)
ET = crop water requirement (mm)
By substituting the expressions for WH and Ewr in equation [2.3]:
CA * DR * C * F = C (ET – DR) …………………………..… [2.4]
Upon rearrangement Equation [2.4], the following formula is obtained:
Catchment area ET − DR
= ……………………………….. [2.5]
Cultivated area DR * C* F

Oweis (1999) presented a rough and first order approximation for the area
ratio:
( ET + We − Wo − DR )
Catcment : cultivated area ratio = C ….. [2.6]
DR x K
Where:
Wo = available water in the entire root zone at the end of the season in excess of
the permanent wilting point.
We = available water in the soil to the same depth, at the beginning of the
season. Equation [2.6] is based on the assumption that no deep percolation
occurs below the root zone of the crop.

2.11.2. Systems for row crops

Tover (1977) has shown that an equation was formulated for estimating
the size of microbasins based on root area size, runoff coefficient, crop
consumption and precipitation during the vegetative cycle and can be applied to
plants cultivated in rows, fields or individually:
(C P ) D r
D = Dr + ………………………………………...…. [2.7]
KP

Where:
K = runoff coefficient
P = precipitation
D = micro basin area, which equal to the distance between rows, in cm, for
crops like corn and soybeans or the width between planting areas (strips) in m,
for field crops like barleys, grasses or wheat; or the surface area of tree wells in
m2, for such trees as fruit trees.
Dr = root area that corresponds to the diameter in cm of the planting zone for
row crops; or to the width in m between strips for field crops; or to the land area
in m2 that tree roots occupy.

2.11.3. Systems for trees

It was shown that the catchmnet:cultivated area ratio is difficult to
determine for systems where trees are intended to be grown and considered
sufficient to estimate only the total size of the macrocatchment (MC), i.e., the
catchment and cultivated area, for which the following formula can be used:
(FAO, 1991):

WR - DR
MC= RA x …………………………….…… [2.8]
DR x K x EFF
where:
MC = total size of macrocatchment (m2)
RA = area exploited by root system (m2). As a rule of thumb, it can be assumed
that the area to be exploited by the root system is equal to the area of the canopy
of the tree.
DR= design annual rainfall (mm)
K = runoff coefficient (annual)
EFF = efficiency factor.
Furthermore, it was shown that the main reasons for estimating the total size of
the catchment (FAO, 1991) are: 1) rough estimates of water requirements of
indigenous, multi-purpose species commonly planted in water harvesting
systems are available; 2) it is difficult to determine the proportion of the total
area which is exploited by the root zone; 3) different stages of root
development.

2.11.4. Systems for rangeland and fodder

 In most cases, it is not necessary to calculate the ratio C: CA for systems
implementing fodder production and / or rangeland rehabilitation (FAO, 1991).
Also, it is shown that as a general guideline, a ratio of 2:1 to 3:1 for
microcatchments (which are normally used) is appropriate.

2.12. Factors affecting runoff

The depth of collected runoff for a given rainfall event depends upon a
long list of Variables (Alfaro, 1980; Morin and Kosovsky, 1995; Pruski et al.,
1997). The following are among the more important ones:
2.12.1. Rainfall event characteristics
Oweis et al. (1999) revealed that both rainfall intensity and distribution
greatly affect runoff coefficient. Furthermore, they demonstrated that
theoretically and experimentally, each steady rainfall rate corresponds to a
specific runoff coefficient value provided the rainfall intensity exceeds the
infiltration rate of soil and all other factors in the system remain the same.
Also, they have shown that more water is lost as infiltration in a catchment with
cracking soil under higher rainfall intensities than under lower intensities for the
same depth of rainfall. A host of investigators Chow (1964), Varshney (1979),
and Sharma (1979) have pointed out runoff from a drainage basin is also
affected by other climatic factors like interception, evaporation and
transpiration. The process of runoff generation continues as long as the rainfall
intensity exceeds the actual infiltration capacity of the soil, but it stops as soon
as the rate of rainfall drops below the actual rate of infiltration (Critchley and
Siegert, 1991). Furthermore, they reported that the average size of raindrops
increases with the intensity of a rainstorm. In a high intensity storm the kinetic
energy of raindrops is considerable when hitting the soil surface. This causes a
breakdown of the soil aggregates as well as soil dispersion with the
consequence of driving fine soil particles into the upper soil pores. This results
in soil crusting.
2.12. 2. Soil type
 Soil porosity determines its storage capacity and affects the resistance of
water to flow into deeper layers, i.e., it affects the soil infiltration capacity
(Critchley and Siegert, 1991). Additionally, they have shown that porosity
differs from one soil type to another, and the highest infiltration capacities can
be observed in loose, sandy soils, while heavy clay or loamy soils have
considerable smaller infiltration capacities. Moreover, they claimed that soils
with high clay content are the most sensitive for forming a cap (crust or seal)
with subsequently lower infiltration capacities. Oweis et al. (1999) stated that
the infiltration capacity depends on the soil moisture content prevailing in a soil
at the onset of a rainstorm. It is expected that the slope of the relationship
between runoff and rainfall for a given catchment area to increase with time, as
the soil surface becomes more compacted under the impact of a rainfall (Oweis
et al., 1999).

2.12.3. Vegetative cover

Critchley and Siegert (1991) have concluded that an area which densely covered
with vegetation, yields less runoff than bare ground. They explained the
decreased runoff rate on the basis of: 1) a dense vegetative cover shields the soil
from the rain drop impact and reduces the crusting effect; 2) the root system and
soil organic matter increase the soil porosity thus allowing more water to
infiltrate and 3) vegetation also retards the surface flow particularly on gentle
slopes. Many investigators have observed that the surface runoff increased by
converting trees to grass covers (Beattie, 1969; Gifford, 1973). Additional
factors that affect the effectiveness of vegetation cover are land slope, type and
depth of soil, varieties of plants and the percentage of total precipitation
occurring as snow (Frasier, 1975; Cooley et al., 1975).
2.12.4. Land slope
Sharma et al. (1986) reported that steep slopes yield more runoff than
those with gentle slopes. This may be due to lower flow velocities and
subsequently a longer time of concentration. This means that the water is
exposed for a longer duration to infiltration and evaporation before it reaches
the measuring point (Oweis et al., 1999). In addition, it was observed that the
quantity of runoff decreased with increasing slope length. Omer (1999) has
found that the time of concentration, Tc, is inversely relate to the slope of the
watershed in and around Erbil. The later was defined as the time needed for a
drop of water to reach the outlet of a catchment from the most remote location
in the catchment.
2.12.5. Catchment size
Oweis and Taimeh (1996) reported that the runoff coefficient at a site in
Jordan ranging from 6 percent to 77 percent for natural bare soil depending on
both the rainfall and the size of the catchment. Critchley and Siegert (1991)
have pointed out that the runoff efficiency (volume of runoff per unit area)
increases with decreasing size of the catchment, i.e., the larger the size of the
catchment the larger the time of concentration and the smaller the runoff
efficiency.
2.4.6. Antecedent water content
Antecedent soil moisture conditions have been used to represent
variability of the Curve Number in the SCS method for predicting direct runoff
(Rallison and Miller, 1981). Longobardi et al. (2003) indicated that the rainfall-
runoff transformation is a non-linear process and the most important cause of
non linearity is represented by the effect of antecedent conditions. Critchley and
Siegert (1991) indicated that when plotting the runoff coefficients against the
relevant rainfall depths, a satisfactory correlation is usually observed, but a
much better relationship would be obtained if in addition to rainfall depth, other
parameters such as antecedent soil moisture, rainfall intensity and rainfall
duration are measured. The antecedent water content of the soil in the catchment
affects the infiltration rate. Raghunath (1985) has shown that the quantity of
runoff produced by a storm depends on the soil moisture deficiency of the basin
at the onset of the rain, but the direct determination of moisture conditions
throughout the basin at the beginning of the storm is not feasible. In addition,
he demonstrated that the soil moisture decreases logarithmically with time
during periods of no precipitation,
I t = I o K t ………………………………………………………. [2.9]

where:
Io = the initial value of initial precipitation index (mm)
It = reduced value of initial precipitation index (mm)
t= time (days)
K = a recession factor ranging normally between 0.85 and 0.98.

2.12.7. Other considerations

Some authors proposed a dependence of runoff ratio on percentage of
impermeable catchment area (Schaake et al., 1967; Boughton, 1987). Oweis et
al. (1999) revealed that the runoff coefficient is also affected by catchment
geometry and soil surface condition. Treating the soil surface physically or
chemically (or both) can significantly increase the runoff coefficient, but it also
increases costs (Oweis et al., 2001).

2.13. Threshold value

The threshold retention of a catchment is the depth of rainfall required for
wetting infiltration and filling of the surface storage capacity of the catchment
before initiation of runoff (Oweis et al., 2001).
The threshold rainfall depends on the physical characteristics of the area
and varies from catchment to storage area. In areas with only sparse vegetation
and where the land is very regularly shaped, the threshold rainfall may be only
in the range of 3 mm while in other catchments this value can easily exceed 12
mm, particularly where the prevailing soils have a high infiltration capacity
(Critchley and Siegert, 1991).
On the other hand, Fink et al. (1979) reported that the threshold rainfall
is related to surface wetting and surface roughness factors, while the runoff
efficiency after threshold relates to surface infiltration rate. A threshold rainfall
events (e.g. of 5 mm/event) is used in many rainfall-runoff models as a start
value for runoff to occur (Prinz and Singh, 2000). On the other hand, Oweis and
Taimeh (1996) reported a threshold value of 2.2 mm at a research center in
Jordan, while Perrier (1990) suggested values between 3 to 6 mm depending on
the surface conditions of the catchment. In Dohuk, Sulaiman (2000) has
observed that the threshold value ranged from 0.05 to 5.86 mm under different
soil treatments. The crude oil and control treatments gave the lowest and highest
threshold values respectively. He also revealed that the threshed value under
gravel covered polyethylene is affected by the degree of cleanness of gravel.
During a seven-year study, Sharma et al. (1986) have observed that the
threshold value was initially large (4.7 to 6 mm) due to large infiltration rate
and surface storage capacity, but gradually decreased to 2 to 3 mm as a soil
crust had formed and hardened. Similar results were obtained by Critchley and
Siegert (1991) who found that for a given catchment area the threshold value
tended to decrease with time, as the soil surface becomes more crusted and
compacted under the impact of rainfall.
Using a computer model, it was noticed that the runoff volumes were
22.9, 21.4 and 20.1 m3 when the threshold values were 4, 5 and 6 mm
respectively (Boers, 1994).

2.14. Runoff Measurement

There is notable lack in literature on reliable and practical methods or
techniques for determining runoff from smaller catchments [those ranging in
size from a few to several hundred square meters] (Oweis et al., 2001). One way
to determine runoff is by experimentation using field plots or by using rain
simulators.
2.14.1. Runoff plots
The use of runoff coefficients which have been derived for watersheds in
other geographical locations should be avoided for the design of a water
harvesting scheme (Critchley and Siegert, 1991). Shanan and Tadmor (1979)
recommended that at least 2 years should be spent to measure rainfall and runoff
data before any large programme starts. Critchley and Siegert (1991)
recommended a minimum size of 3 -4 m in width and 10-12 m in length. Also,
they gave further descriptions and specification as follows: 1) care should be
taken to avoid sites with special problems such as rills, cracks or gullies
crossing the plot; 2) the gradient along plot should be regular and free of local
depressions; 3) care must be taken not to disturb or change the natural
conditions of the plot such as destroying the vegetation or compacting the soil;
4) around the plots metal sheets or wooden planks must be driven into the soil at
least 15 cm of height above ground to stop water flowing outside into the plot
and vice versa.; 5) a rain gage must be installed near the plot; 6) a gutter with a
gradient of 1% towards the collection tank is required to collect the runoff. The
soil around the gutter should be backfilled and compacted; 7) the joint between
the gutter and the lower side of the plot may be cemented to form an apron in
order to allow a smooth flow of water from the plot to the gutter; 8) the
collection tank may be constructed from stone masonry, brick or concrete
blocks, but a buried barrel will also meet the requirement; 9) the tank should be
protected against evaporation and rainfall; following every storm, the volume of
collected water in the rain gauge and runoff tank must be measured, and 10) any
silt which may have deposited in the tank and in the gutter must be cleared.
For large plots, or when large amount of runoff are expected, it is
practical to store the whole of the runoff, and some device is used to divide it
accurately so that a known fraction can be separated off and stored (FAO,
1993).

2.14.2. Volumetric method

This method is applied to measure small flows by direct measurement of the
time to fill a container of known volume (FAO, 1993) . When water flow is
diverted into a pipe, the rate of flow can be estimated from measurement of jet
or from the height of rise of jet when the pipe is arranged to discharge vertically
upward.
2.14.3. Velocity area method
This method depends on measuring the average velocity of flow and the
cross-sectional area of the channel and calculating the flow from (FAO, 1993):
Q=A×V …………………………………………………….. [2.10]
where:
Q = discharge (m3 /s)
A= cross-sectional area (m2)
V = velocity of flow (m/s)
The velocity of flow can be measured with the aid of a floating object, a
submerged weight to the float, a strongly colored dye, chemical or radioisotope
and more accurately by a current meter.
It is interesting to note that the velocity of flowing water in a stream or
open channel can be estimated by empirical formulas such as Manning's
formula (FAO, 1993):

R 2/3 S1/2
V= …………………………………………...…. [2.11]
n
where:
V= the average velocity of flow (m/s)
R= hydraulic radius (m)
S= the average gradient (m/m)
n = manning roughness coefficient
Or Elliot's formula:
V = 0.3 mh …………………………………………………. [2.12]
where:
V = the average velocity of flow (m/s)
m = the hydraulic radius (m)
h = the channel gradient (m /km).
2.14.4. Rating a gauging station
When the discharge of a stream or channel is plotted versus the depth of
flow (stage), the gauging station is described as being rated. Subsequent
estimates of flow can be obtained by measuring the stage at a permanent
gauging post and reading off the flow from the rating curve (FAO, 1993).
2.14.5. Gauging structures
It was noticed that gauging the flow in natural streams can never be
precise because the channel is usually irregular and so is the relationship
between stage and flow rate. So it is preferable to use any type of weirs
(submerged, sharp crested, and broad crested) or measuring flumes (Parshall
and H flumes) (FAO, 1993).
2.12.6. Water level records
If a hydrograph is required, the rate of flow can be measured with a water
level recorder with time (FAO, 1993). In the past, the standard method was a
float whose rise and fall in a stilling well was recorded by a pen on a
clockwork-driven chart. Most commonly used today is the pressure transducer
in which the deflection of a membrane is sensed electrically.

2.15. Estimating runoff

2.15. 1. Maximum runoff rates
The maximum runoff rate can be used to estimate the maximum flood
levels and may be required for the design of channels, culverts or drains (FAO,
1993). Schwab et al. (1981) have shown that the rational formula can be used to
estimate the peak runoff rate and take the following form in metric units:
CIA
Q= ……………………………………..…… [2.13]
360
where:
Q = peak runoff rate (m3 /s)
I = rainfall intensity (mm/h)
A = catchment area in hectare
C = dimensionless runoff coefficient.
To get the value of I, it is necessary to estimate the time of concentration.
The next step is to obtain the highest intensity of rain which is likely to last for a
given gathering time. Local rainfall records should be used if possible;
otherwise it can be estimated from a special curve which relates me to duration,
which was originally derived from rainfall records in Australia and Africa
(FAO, 1993).
Also Cook's method can be applied to estimate peak runoff rate. In cook's
method there are three factors, namely, the vegetative cover, the soil type and
drainage and the land slope. The appropriate value is selected for each of the
above mentioned three factors and these values are summed together to obtain
the catchment characteristic (CC). The maximum peak flow can be read from
the available table provided by Hudson (1993) depending on the value of CC
and catchment area in ha. Corrections factors must be applied to take into
account the shape of the catchment and the return period because the special
table gives runoff for round or square shaped catchment and for a 10-years
probability.

2.15. 2. Runoff quantity or yield

In arid regions, there is no reservoir of groundwater and so no seepage
flow. The amount of runoff is the rainfall minus the losses. In semiarid climates
the annual runoff can be estimated by subtracting the estimated the annual
evapotranspiration from the annual rainfall (FAO, 1993). The annual
evapotranspiration ranges from 300 to 800 mm depending on land use and
altitude. The average loss can be determined from the plot of cumulative runoff
versus cumulative rainfall. Furthermore, it was shown that in arid climate, the
loss is the infiltration and evaporation and the yield can be obtained by
applying the loss of 10 to 20 mm from the depth of each storm.
2.15.2.1. USDA-SCS (1964) method
A more accurate method is USDA-SCS (1964) method. According to this
method, the loss varies with the amount of rainfall and the amount of moisture
which can be absorbed by the soil, or

( I - 0.2 S ) 2
Q= ………………………………………………. [2.14]
( I + 0.8 S )
where:
Q = runoff (mm)
I = storm rainfall intensity (mm)
S = amount of rainfall in mm which can soak into the soil during the storm.
It was also declared that one possibility is to assume a constant value for
a given catchment, or allowance is made for different soils and different soil
moisture conditions (FAO, 1993). A more accurate method is to calculate the
weighted curve number (CN). The appropriate CN for each subarea is selected
based on soil group, hydrologic condition, treatment or practice and land use or
cover. Thereafter from the plot of the relationship between rainfall and runoff
for different curve numbers, the yield can be obtained (USDA-SCS, 1964).
2.15. 2. 2. Infiltration method
Garg (1979) has demonstrated that the volume of runoff can be obtained
when the infiltration capacity curve is superimposed on the rainfall intensity
pattern. He has also shown that in a large area, the infiltration capacity and the
rainfall rate will vary from point to point. Under these conditions, runoff values
are computed by using infiltration indices. The - index can be derived by
constructing supra rain curves. The supra rain is the cumulative occurring in a
storm period in excess of the assumed value of - index (Varshney, 1979).
Chow (1964) has shown that this index represents the average infiltration rate
in such a manner the volume of rainfall in excess of this rate will equal the
volume of storm runoff.
2.15. 2.3. Empirical formula
Empirical formulas are regional and are based on the correlation between
observed runoff and observed rainfall. Examples of such models are (Sharma,
1979; Gupta, 1979; Subramanya, 1984):
R (cm) = 0.94 P (cm) – 35.6
R=bP
R = B Pm
P ( P - 17.8 )
R= ………………………………………….…. [2.15]
254
where:
R = runoff
P = rainfall
b and m are parameters

2.16. Runoff inducement

Runoff inducement is the practice of treating and sealing land surfaces to
decrease infiltration and surface retention and increase runoff (Critchley and
Siegert, 1991). Furthermore, Critchley and Siegert (1991) have shown that the
high rates of runoff induced by such treatments may cause considerable soil
erosion. Under this situation, it is necessary to stabilize the surface against
erosion by water. To achieve this, the length of bare surface over which water is
allowed to accumulate and runoff must be carefully designed (Critchley and
Siegert, 1991). Major channels that carry water must be grassed or lined to
prevent scouring (Rose, 1990).
Considerable researches have been done on the methods and materials for
the reduction of surface retention and infiltration of water (Emerson et al., 1987;
Frasier et al., 1987; Madramootoo and Norvile, 1993). On the contrary,
sometimes, it possible to use natural sites without treatment. For instance, the
Navajo in Arizona used runoff from sandstone outcrops to water alluvial soil at
the base of hills (Billy, 1981). However, the various runoff-inducing surface
treatments can be classified as follows:

2.16.1. Mechanical treatment

Evanri et al. (1961) have referred to the fact that this method is the oldest
type of water harvesting, dating back more than 4000 years. It consists of
grading, smoothing and of sometimes compacting the soil surface (Frasier,
1980). Burdass (1975) has shown that this technique has been used extensively
in Australia in the form of “roaded" or large ridge and furrow catchments.
Care must be taken in designing the lengths, angles and uniformity of
catchment slopes to minimize soil erosion (Hollick, 1975). Fine soils with
significant quantities of nonexpanding type clays can be smoothed and
compacted to yield significant quantities of runoff (Frasier, 1980). In addition,
Frasier (1980) demonstrated that yearly maintenance is required to control
weeds and to repair any areas damaged by erosion.
This means that sloping surfaces are cleared of vegetation and loose
stones, and materials are removed to reduce interception of rain and obstruction
of overland flow (Critchley and Siegert, 1991). Fink et al. (1970) have pointed
out that this treatment is characterized by: 1) low runoff efficiency; 2)
efficiencies vary greatly with storm, season or year and 3) relatively
inexpensive to installation.
Tadmor and Shanan (1969) have revealed that by simple treatment of the
surface, such as the removal of vegetation or moving stones on the surface gave
rise to significant increase in the yield of runoff. They also reported that in the
northern Negev, with an annual rainfall of 250 mm, removing the vegetation
decreased the infiltration rate by 40 to 50 percent and increased the runoff from
7 to 21 percent. The reason for this effect is partly that the plant cover gives
protection against the raindrop impact and lessens the crusting effect, while the
plant roots and surface litter increase the infiltration. On the other hand Evanari
et al. (1981) have reported that clearing the stones from the surface and piling
them into mounds increased the runoff in the Negev desert.
In most cases, under this treatment the water quality is highly affected by
soil erosion, and makes water inappropriate for domestic uses. Therefore, land
slope and runoff velocity should be reduced to minimize the hazard of soil
erosion (Hollick, 1975).

2.16.2. Chemical treatments

A wide range of chemicals have been used to increase runoff by sealing
the surface (Hollick, 1982). Soil sealing with chemicals are relatively cheap and
have potential to seal unsuitable soils and natural catchment areas to provide
reliable water supplies (Wine Industry Association of Western Australia, 2006).

2.16.2.1. Sodium salts

Sodium salts have also been extensively studied in the USA and India
(Dutt, 1981; Karan and Julka, 1981). This type of chemical deflocculates the
soil, so providing fine particles to seal the surface in the same way as bentonite
(Hudson, 1987). Common table salt, NaCl, is usually the cheapest source of
Na+. When weeds are removed from the catchment and Na+ is added to the
soil, the infiltration rate is reduced dramatically (Dutt et al., 1981). Frasier
(1975) has reported that a sodium salt treatment requires a minimum quantity of
expanding clay type in soil. On the other hand, Steven and Dutt (1984) observed
that no apparent problems have been arisen in 12 years use of sodium chloride
at a rate of 1.12 kg /m2, mixed into the surface 2 to 5 cm of a sandy clay loam
soil in which grapes and fruit trees were grown.
2.16.2.2. Paraffin wax
Paraffin wax, basically a water repellent treatment and can be sprayed
onto the catchment surface at a rate of 1.0 to 1.5 kg /m2 (Fink et al., 1973). It is
best suited to containing less than 20% clay and two climates where soil
temperature exceeds the average melting point (52 to 54 oC) during some part of
the year (Frasier, 1980). Runoff efficiencies from this treatment are often
between 80 and 99%.
Oweis et al. (2001) have noticed that the use of emulsified paraffin wax
developed in Iraq tripled the amount of runoff when sprayed over a
microcatchment near Aleppo, Syria. The project team from Iraq has succeeded
in emulsifying the wax by using low cost additives and in developing a small
sprayer for spraying.
It was noticed that the forage yield was increased to about 16 folds over
that of the control upon application of refined paraffin wax at a rate of 1.1 kg/
yd2 (Schreiber et al., 1978). It is interesting to note that the wax application rate
can be reduced to 0.25 kg/m2 when antistripping agent is added (Fink, 1982).
The findings of Frasier (1975) and Fink et al. (1980) have shown that its
effectiveness decreased over time more rapidly than other five treatments due to
failure caused by freezing and thawing.

2.16.2.3. Silicon
Many chemical compounds like silicon can induce water repellency in
soils. Dutt et al. (1981) have shown that when silicon with water as a carrier
fluid, was sprayed onto a prepared catchment surface at a rate of 700 to 1000 kg
silicone per hectare, reacted with the soil complex, bonding to the soil particles
to form a water repellent layer 1 to 2 cm. Furthermore, they observed that runoff
efficiencies were initially 85 to 95%, but decreased to 60 to 70% in 3 to 5 years.
Myers and Frasier (1969) have clarified that the decrease was attributed to
silicon deterioration and erosion of treated soil. In addition, they have shown
that addition of chemical additives like a long chain water emulsion latex can be
mixed with silicon to stabilize the silicon treated soil.

2.16.2.4. Crude oil

Of the various materials that bind and seal the soil surface, crude
petroleum solution appear to be among the most feasible (Oweis et al., 1999).
Moreover, they showed that water repellents are able to bind loose soils, but the
presence of a high percentage of clay in the soil may cause cracks due to
shrinkage and swelling. Also, they reported that various additives may improve
the weathering resistance and stability of the treated surface. Their application
and dilution rates can be adjusted to achieve the desired soaking or penetration
depth. Sulaiman (2000) evaluated the effectiveness of different soil treatments
to induce runoff from runoff plots, and revealed that polyethylene and crude oil
occupied the first and second rank efficiency respectively.

2.16.2.5. Other chemicals

Myers et al. (1967) have demonstrated that when asphalt is applied by
spraying, it offers considerable promise for building low cost and impermeable
catchments. Dalton et al. (1995) observed that the application of cut-back
bitumen at a rate of 1.2 L m-2 tended to give more runoff than 0.6 L m-2.
Myers and Fraiser (1974) have concluded that field fabricated asphalt
fiberglass coverings are dependable means of producing water for livestock and
many rangeland areas. Three chemicals, namely, a polymer, tall oil and bitumen
emulsion were recommended to be applied to road catchment sites (Wine
industry of Western Australia, 2006).

2.16.3. Flexible membranes

Flexible membranes such as polyethylenes, polyvinyls, and synthetic
rubbers, acrylic, and butyl have been applied to catchments to induce runoff
(Hudson, 1987). Further, he reported that the main problems with these
membranes are that they tear easily and degrade quickly. Additionally, they
demonstrated that butyl rubber suffers less from these problems, but is too
expensive for most uses. Cluff (1980) has indicated that flexible covering of
catchment has two principal problems: deterioration and wind damage. Dutt et
al. (1981) have shown that covering sheeting treatments with a 1-cm to 2-cm
layer of pea-sized gravel can hold the membrane in place and provide protection
from mechanical damage. They also reported that the gravel layer retains
approximately the first 2 mm of each rainfall event and runoff is essentially
100% of all precipitation in excess of 2 mm. Poor runoff performance is
obtained when small holes are made in plastic sheeting due to improper
installation. Moreover, there is possibility of puncturing due to seed
germination, especially when the gravel is not clean or when dust is deposited
on the gravels (Frasier, 1975).

2.16.4. Rigid membranes

Many conventional materials can be used on water harvesting catchments
like concrete, timber and metal sheets (Dutt et al., 1981). Also they have shown
when concrete is properly mixed and cured, it will be durable, but it shrinks and
cracks when used to covered large areas. Furthermore, they showed that runoff
from concrete catchments is usually between 60% to 90%. The water losses are
due to surface depression storage with subsequent evaporation and losses from
cracks (Hudson, 1987).
Laurritzen (1967) observed that sheet metal roofs provide durable, low
maintenance runoff apron installations. The costs can be reduced by placing the
sheet metal on the ground. A cheaper material in roofing felt which can be laid
in strips with the edges sealed together. There have been a few applications in
USA, but the materials are too easily damaged and too short-lived to justify the
cost (Hudson, 1987). Hugo (1980) evaluated the effectiveness of eight
catchments of diverse design and noticed that the elevated metal structure was
the most efficient trap for collecting runoff water. However, Oweis et al. (1999)
 revealed that application of a rigid surface to cover the catchment is
prohibitively expensive, but it has a long useful life expectancy (up to 20 years
or more).
It is commendable to mention that highway and road catchments are
considered a potential source of harvested runoff for livestock, supplemental
irrigation for forage and highway beautification (Sulaiman, 2000). Cooley et al.
(1975) have shown that about 4700 m3 of runoff water can be collected per km
of the internal highway systems of the state of Wyoming under an average
rainfall depth of 250 mm. One drawback of this technique is contamination by
oil from vehicular traffics (Sulaiman, 2000).

View publication stats