‘Persia – especially Seistan’ [‎143v] (285/949)

8
"We thus see that, from Bandar-i-Kamal Khan downwards to the Band-
i-Seistac, the Afghans take off only yooths of the whole river above the Band-
i-Seistan, and an equal amount below it, whereas the Persians at, or below, the
Band-i-Seistan take off nf 0 ths of the whole volume of the Helmand which
passes Bandar-i-Kamal Khan; and that the Persians are only able to utilise
Xooths of the water which goes down the Pariun, the remainder flowing on into
the Hamun.
51 . As regards the Helmand from Bandar-i-Kamal Khan upwards to
Budbar, we find that there are the following Afghan canals (not included in
the above calculations) whose volumes, during the spring crop season, are
recorded below:—
Itudbar canal ...
Chahar Burjak canal
Bandar-i-Kamal Khan, old canal ...
Bandar-i-Kamal Khan, new canal
Total
25 cusecs.
30 „
16 „
12 ..
83
The Eudbar canal actually takes offatPulalak; the Chahar Burjak canal at
Puza Mashi; and the two Bandar-i-Kamal Khan canals opposite Chahar
Burjak. It is important to note that the Chahar Burjak and the Bandar-i-
Kamal Khan old canals are both capable of very large future extension, which
would irrigate lands below Kila-i-Path and in Tarakun, respectively. The
Afghans are not likely to be able, by themselves, to effect anything like the
full amount of possible extension; but, even with their present methods, they
could draw off a very appreciable portion of the volume of the Helmand at the
time of low river, thereby largely affecting the volume available below Bandar-
i-Kamal Khan.
If we consider the whole amount of water taken by Persians and Afghans
respectively, in the spring crop season, from Rudbar downwards, we find that the
volume of the Helmand (calculated at the head of the Rudbar canal at
Pulalak) is appropriated as follows:—
By Afghans ... ... ... ... ... 16/100ths
„ Persians ... ... ... ... 62/100ths
Flows unused into the Hamun ... ... ... 22/100ths
52 . Although the Persians use this large proportion of the volume of the
• This waste by flooding fallowlands does much Helmand, it must not be Supposed for a
moment - that - the y reall y rp i uire s ° “uch
roads «nd paths. water for their cultivation. A large
a. h. McMahon. portion is wasted * owing to their careless
system of irrigation, and, as I will endeavour to prove, a considerably smaller
supply of water would amply suffice for their actual requirements.
53 . Our measurements and observations have clearly proved that the
average “ duty ” of water in Persian Seistan, or, in other words, the amount of
land irrigated by a fixed quantity of water, amounts, during the season of spring
crops, to 53 acres of land to one cusec of water.
54 . The average spring crop duty of the four big Punjab perennial canals
for 1901-02 works out at 173 acres of land to one cusec of water. Applying
the Punjab scale to Persian Seistan, the 141,000 acres (the normal area)
of spring crop cultivation would require only about 815 cusecs, i.e., less than
^th of the volume of the Helmand at Bandar-i-Kamal Khan ( 4,290 cusecs).
55 . It should be remembered, also, that not only does the cool, fine soil of
Seistan require less water than Punjab soil, but the cold Seistan winter, with its
showers of rain, and occasional snowfall, would enable Seistan to do with less
surface watering than would be the case in the Punjab at that season. The
“ duty ” ought, therefore, to be greater than in the Punjab.
56 . It is, therefore, reasonable to state that Persian Seistan could amply
irrigate considerably more than its present area of cultivation -with £th only
of the volume of the Helmand at Bandar-i-Kamal Khan, if husbanded and