Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Natural and Environmental Sciences (ICONES)September 9-11, 2014, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

ISSN 2407-2389

16

Water Quality on the Tsunami Impacted Irrigation Area of Krueng Geupu inAceh Besar District

Susi Chairani, Syahrul, Purwana Satriyo, Dewi Sri Jayanti, Rita Frisilia

Department of Agricultural Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Syiah Kuala University

Abstract. The Irrigation Area of Krueng Geupu which located at Layaeun Village, Leupung Sub District, Aceh Besar District,was terribly hit by the 2004 tsunami. The water source for irrigation used to derived from Krueng Geupu (Geupu River),which could irrigate the whole irrigation area of 191.35 ha. The water quality in this irrigation area had severalparameters that fulfilled the water quality standard established by the Government’s Rule No. 82 in 2001. Parameterswhich had been analyzed in laboratory were physical and chemical parameters. Physics parameters were temperature,total dissolved suspension (TDS), turbidity, and electrical conductivity (EC), whereas chemical parameters were ferrum(fe), hardness, pH, biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), and chemical oxygen demand (COD). Both parameters showed asignificant differences during wet and dry seasons. The tsunami caused the sea water intrusion in soils or land nearby thesea. The results showed that the value of sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) was exceeding the maximum limit established bythe Government’s Rule. These results indicated the irrigation water was in poor condition because it had a high level ofnatrium due to tsunami. The irrigation system in this area had several damages which cause the inefficiency indistributing irrigation water to paddy field.

Keywords: water quality, the irrigation area, Krueng Geupu, tsunami, Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)

INTRODUCTION

Water is a vital element in life. Without it, it is impossible for human beings to sustain the life. In agriculture,water plays an important role in production processes. Water is used as the main source in irrigation. Inpractices, it is also used for consumption and daily needs. In addition, water is also used for irrigation, industry,and recreation [5]. One of the ways to manage the water sources in a watershed or catchment area is tomaintain the quality of water. Water gets polluted everyday due to human activities which impacts human’slife, especially in agriculture. Water pollution is the action of adding the organisms or other substituents intowater, until it reaches the level which disturbs the usage of water [5].

This study emphasized on water quality in a water source located in Leupung Irrigation Area. This study aimedto find out the standardization of water quality and water management. Water quality is water properties andthe content of living creatures, elements, energy, or other components in water. Water quality is stated inseveral parameters, such as physical parameters (temperature, turbidity, dissolved solids), chemicalparameters (pH, dissolved oxygen, BOD [4], metal content), and biology parameters (planktons and bacteria)[1]. Based on the Government Rule No. 82 in 2001 as presented in Table 1, water can be classified into fourclasses: Class 1: water for drink without any initial treatment, Class 2: water used as the main source for drinkthrough distillation, Class 3: water for fishery and cattle, and Class IV: water for agriculture and industry.

TABLE 1. Government’s Rule No. 82 in 2001, December 14, 2001 about Management of Water Qualityand Controlling Water Pollution.

Parameter UnitClass

I II III IVPHYSICS

Temperature oC 24-30 24-30 24-30 24-30Soluted residue mg/l 1000 1000 1000 2000Suspended residue mg/l 50 50 400 400Kekeruhan NTU 25 (-) (-) (-)Electrical Conductivity Umhos (-) (-) (-) 2250

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Natural and Environmental Sciences (ICONES)September 9-11, 2014, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

ISSN 2407-2389

17

ANORGANIC CHEMISTRYpH 6-9 6-9 6-9 6-9BOD mg/l 2 3 6 12COD mg/l 10 25 50 100DO mg/l 6 4 3 0Total Phosphat as P mg/l 0.2 0.2 1 5NO3 as N mg/l 10 10 20 20NH3-N mg/l 0.5 (-) (-) (-)Arsenic mg/l 0.05 1 1 1Cobalt mg/l 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2Barium mg/l 1 (-) (-) (-)Boron mg/l 1 1 1 1Selenium mg/l 0.01 0.05 0.05 0.05Cadmium mg/l 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01Chrom (VI) mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.01Cuprum mg/l 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.2Ferrum mg/l 0.3 (-) (-) (-)Cobalt mg/l 0.03 0.03 0.03 1Mangan mg/l 0.1 (-) (-) (-)Mercury mg/l 0.001 0.002 0.002 0.005Zincum mg/l 0.05 0.05 0.05 2Chloride mg/l 600 (-) (-) (-)Cyanide mg/l 0.02 0.02 0.02 (-)Fluoride mg/l 0.5 1.5 1.5 (-)Nitrit as N mg/l 0.06 0.06 0.06 (-)Sulphate mg/l 400 (-) (-) (-)Free Chlorine mg/l 0.03 0.03 0.03 (-)H2S mg/l 0.002 0.002 0.002 (-)

MICROBIOLOGYFecal Coliform Total/100 ml 100 1000 2000 2000Total Coliform Total/100 ml 1000 5000 10000 10000

RADIOACTIVITYGross A bq/l 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1Gross B bq/l 1 1 1 1

ORGANIC CHEMISTRYOil and Fat µg/l 1000 1000 1000 (-)Detergent as MBAS µg/l 200 200 200 (-)Phenol µg/l 1 1 1 (-)BHC µg/l 210 210 210 (-)Aldrine/ Dieldrine µg/l 17 (-) (-) (-)Chlordane µg/l 3 (-) (-) (-)DDT µg/l 2 2 2 2Heptachlor and Heptachlor epoxide µg/l 18 (-) (-) (-)Lindane µg/l 56 (-) (-) (-)Methoxychlor µg/l 35 (-) (-) (-)Endrine µg/l 1 4 4 (-)Toxaphan µg/l 5 (-) (-) (-)

The Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) has established some criteria for water classification based onelectrical conductivity (EC), salinity, and natrium (SAR) as presented in the following Table 2, 3 and 4,respectively.

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Natural and Environmental Sciences (ICONES)September 9-11, 2014, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

ISSN 2407-2389

18

TABLE 2. Water Classification based on Electrical Conductivity (EC) [2].

Criteria of Water Irrigation UsageWater Classification EC (dS/m)

Class 1 Very good ≤ 0.25Class 2 Good 0.25 – 0.75Class 3 Permitted 0.76 – 2.00Class 4 Called in doubt 2.01 – 3.00Class 5 Not permitted ≥ 3

dS/m at 25oC = mmhos/cm

TABLE 3. Water Classification based on Salinity [5].Water Classification Salinity (mg/l)

Clear/ fresh < 500Medium 500 – 1500Brackish 1500 – 5000Salty > 5000Very salty 35000Bitter > 35000

TABLE 4. Water Classification based on SAR [5].Class DescriptionS1 Water containing low natrium level (SAR < 10)

Water can be used for irrigation to most of soils. Plants which are sensitive to Na+, its natriumaccumulation has to be taken care of.

S2 Water containing medium natrium level (SAR : 10 -18)This water is dangerous for soils which have high adsorption rate. This water can be used on soils withcoarse textures, containing gypsum or soils containing organics matters with good permeability.

S3 Water containing high natrium level (SAR : 18 – 26)This water producing high concentration of Na+ for most of soils. It takes special treatment and leachingto utilize this water.

S4 Water containing a very high natrium level (SAR : > 26)This water is not recommended for irrigation, except soils containing a very low salinity.

METHODS

The research was conducted by taking samples on a river in Leupung Village, Aceh Besar District. The sampleswere taken based on agricultural activities which got hit by tsunami and location that not hit by tsunami. Then,the samples were analyzed in laboratory.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The Irrigation Area of Krueng Geupu is located at Layaeun Village, Leupung Sub District, Aceh Besar District.This irrigation area was terribly hit by the 2004 tsunami. This area used to have a dam and used to be atourism resort. The water source for irrigation used to derived from Krueng Geupu (Geupu River), which couldirrigate the whole irrigation area of 191.35 ha. People’s acitivities in the irrigation area of Krueng Geupu weremostly cultivating paddy in the rice field. They also used to utilize the irrigation water to wash and to take abath. Discharge measurement had been conducted during the dry season, resulting discharge of 3.75 m3/swith the average velocity of 0.1 m/s, meanwhile discharge in wet season was 22.74 m3/s with the averagevelocity of 0.33 m/s.

Water QualityThe change of water quality during dry and wet seasons in the Irrigation Area of Krueng Geupu are presentedin Table 5 and 6, respectively.

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Natural and Environmental Sciences (ICONES)September 9-11, 2014, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

ISSN 2407-2389

19

TABLE 5. The Change of Water Quality during dry season.

No Parameter UnitResults

MethodWater in Water out

1 Temperature oC 27.50 26.30 SNI 06 – 6989 – 23 - 20042 TDS mg/l 91.40 4.490.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 1 - 20043 Turbidity NTU 0.32 0.78 SNI 06 – 6989 – 25 - 20054 pH - 8.30 7.81 SNI 06 – 6989 – 11 - 20045 DHL µs/cm 161.24 3.590.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 1 - 20046 Ferrum (Fe) mg/l 0.3385 0.1548 SNI 06 – 6989 – 4 - 20057 Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/l 0.08 0.91 ASTM SD 1426 - 038 Calcium (Ca) mg/l 46.00 122.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 13 - 20049 Magnesium (Mg) mg/l 0.73 146.26 SNI 06 – 6989 – 12 - 2004

10 Phospat (PO4) mg/l 0.11 0.18 SNI 06 – 6989 – 20 - 200411 BOD mg/l 0.23 0.07 SNI 06 – 6989 – 58 - 200412 COD mg/l 5.00 9.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 15 - 200413 Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l 117.00 306.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 13 - 200414 Natrium (Na) mg/l 99.706 21.450 Spectrophotometer

TABLE 6. The Change of Water Quality during wet season.

No Parameter Unit Results MethodWater in Water out

1 Temperature oC 26.00 27.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 23 - 20042 TDS mg/l 83.80 2.050.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 1 - 20043 Turbidity NTU 10.20 2.40 SNI 06 – 6989 – 25 - 20054 pH - 8.33 7.57 SNI 06 – 6989 – 11 - 20045 DHL µs/cm 157.34 3.570.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 1 - 20046 Ferrum (Fe) mg/l 11.249 0.70 SNI 06 – 6989 – 4 - 20057 Ammonia (NH3-N) mg/l 0.26 1.32 ASTM SD 1426 - 038 Calcium (Ca) mg/l 72.00 220.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 13 - 20049 Magnesium (Mg) mg/l 61.05 2.44 SNI 06 – 6989 – 12 - 2004

10 Phospat (PO4) mg/l 0.06 0.05 SNI 06 – 6989 – 20 - 200411 BOD mg/l 0.37 0.21 SNI 06 – 6989 – 58 - 200412 COD mg/l 4.00 5.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 15 - 200413 Hardness (CaCO3) mg/l 180.00 550.00 SNI 06 – 6989 – 13 - 200414 Natrium (Na) mg/l 92.80 274.75 Spectrophotometer

FIGURE 2. Water Quality in the Irrigation Area of Krueng Geupu covering: a. Temperature, b. TDS, c. Turbidity,d. pH, e. EC, f. Ferrum, g. Ammonia, h. BOD, i. COD, j. SAR, k. Hardness, and l. Phospate.

Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Natural and Environmental Sciences (ICONES)September 9-11, 2014, Banda Aceh, Indonesia

ISSN 2407-2389

20

From Figure 1, parameters of water quality which were within standardized quality in the Irrigation Area ofKrueng Geupu were temperature and pH. Meanwhile, other parameters, such as TDS, turbidity, EC, ferrum,ammonia, BOD, COD, SAR, hardness, and phosphate were significantly changing in dry and wet seasons. TheTDS increased during the dry season due to the anorganic sediment in the watershed of Krueng Geupu. TheBOD and COD of water in and out indicated that the irrigation water did not get polluted by fertilizers orpesticides applied by farmers in paddy field during both seasons. During the wet season, ferrum and ammoniasignificantly increased. Ferrum increased due to the decomposition of organic matters from agriculturalactivities, whereas the ammonia was due to the residue of urea used for fertilizer, biota cultivation and deadalgaes. The water hardness was caused by magnesium or calcium ions. A high quality water had low hardness.The water contained low magnesium or calcium and once it got reacted with soap, the soap would not form afoam [6].

Based on the analysis, the SAR value of water in during dry season was 2.06 mg/l and water out was 1.81 mg/l.Meanwhile, in wet season, the SAR value of water in and out were 1.13 mg/l and 2.60 mg/l respectively.According to the Government’s Rule No. 82 in 2001, the SAR value of water in during the dry season was notpermitted by the standardized limit for Class IV which has been established. It was vice versa with the dryseason, in wet season, the SAR value of water in and water out was exceeding the maximum limit establishedby the Government. According to [3], the effect of salinity can cause the dry physiology on plants.

The EC value of water in and out were 0.19 and 1.90 respectively. This showed that the EC value of water inwas classified into a very good condition for irrigation, whereas the EC value of water out was still permitted.The pattern was quite the same with the EC value of water in and out during the wet season. The EC value ofwater in and out were 0.18 and 1.7 respectively. The analysis results showed that the EC value of water in wasclassified into a good condition as well as the EC value of water out. The polluted water did not only cause thefailure of cultivation of water biota but also could endanger the consumers. From the observation, the mainsource of irrigation did not get polluted. System of irrigation that had been built in the area of paddy field wasnot quite efficient for agricultural activities. This was caused by the damages which occurred in severalirrigation channels. Therefore, the distribution of water irrigation was not good enough to reach theagricultural lands. The inefficient irrigation caused the damages on agricultural productivities, such as theunhealthy of paddy growth.

The controlling of water pollution was the effort to prevent the water pollution as well as the treatment ofwater quality to guarantee the water quality in accordance to standardization of water quality. The succeedkey to budidaya of water biota was to stabilize the water quality in fishponds. To keep water stable during thepreservation of water biota, the supporting and influencing factors need to have full attention. Starting fromthe main source of water which had to be in good quality and the condition in the water body to maintain thewater quality during the cultivation of biota.

CONCLUSION

The parameters of water quality which included physical, chemical and biology parameters, indicated theirrigation water in the Irrigation Area of Krueng Geupu was in poor condition due to a high level of natriumcaused by tsunami. The irrigation system in this area had several damages which cause the inefficiency indistributing irrigation water to paddy field.

REFERENCES

1. Effendi, H. 2003. Telaah Kualitas Air bagi Pengelolaan Sumber Daya dan Lingkungan Perairan. Kanisius. Yogyakarta.2. FAO. 2005. Final Report for SPFS-Emergency Study on Rural Reconstruction along the Eastern Coast of NAD Province.

Government of the Republic of Indonesia, Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Agriculture Organization of the UnitedNation. Nippon Koei Co. Ltd.

3. Gunes. A., A. Inal, and M. Alpaslan. 1996. Effect of Salinity on Stomatal Resistance. Proline, and Mineral Composition ofPepper. J. Plant Nutr. 19 : 389 - 396

4. Metcalf and Eddy. 2003. Waste Water Engineering : Treatment and Reuse. Edisi IV. Mc Graw Hill Inc. New York.5. Ministry of Water Management. 1975. Guidelines for Irrigation and Water Management. Jakarta.6. Sastrawijaya, A., dan Tresna. 1991. Pencemaran Lingkungan. Gadjah Mada University Press. Yogyakarta.

7. Sugiharto. 1987. Pengelolaan Sumber Daya Air. Bogor.