Regarding the former, a map should be prepared showing all watercourses, chaks and contours.[35] On this map new lines for the watercourses can be shown, the principles enunciated in Chapter II., Art. 9, being generally followed, but in such a way as to utilise existing watercourses and outlets as far as possible. The work often consists in the abolition of a certain number of watercourses, when these are too close together and run parallel to one another. There may, however, be little gain in amalgamating two such watercourses if they serve two different villages. There is nothing to prevent the people from dividing the watercourse into two as soon as it gets away from the canal, and they are likely to do this in many cases. When one branch has a flatter slope than the other it would lose command if it took off further down. The people on the steeper branch might not agree to using the flatter one because of silt trouble, or increased height of embankment. In a new project it is not difficult to get the people to do what is needed, but when once irrigation has become established it is often difficult to get suitable changes made. The advantages of amalgamating watercourses, though appreciable, have been a good deal exaggerated. The chief advantage is gained by reduction in the sizes of outlets. Then, however many branches the watercourse may have, they can only run in turns and not all together. It may happen that two watercourses, though taking off near one another, run in different directions and that the chaks are of suitable shapes and sizes. In such a case the only advantage of amalgamating is that it saves an outlet in the canal bank. No saving in the length of watercourse will be effected because there will be a bifurcation as soon as the watercourse leaves the canal boundary. If both outlets are of suitable design and proper size or require only slight alteration, both can remain but otherwise amalgamation can be effected. In some cases amalgamation might give a discharge greater than that usually allowed for an outlet but this need form no obstacle. The chief reason for limiting the discharge is the alleged inability of the farmers to manage a large channel. This matter is exaggerated as already stated (page 74). In the case under consideration it obviously makes no difference whether there are two watercourses each discharging 5 c. ft. per second, or one discharging 10 c. ft. per second, and immediately dividing into two. Very small watercourses should, when possible, be joined to others but if there is no other near enough they must generally remain, however small they may be. [35] In small remodelling schemes the lines of existing watercourses show how the country slopes, and a contour plan is not a necessity.