Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SCS is to be jlfPlimented on dividin~ their s~ area into subunits" <br />;!lnalyzing each se_tely and later prioritizing th~its for implementation <br />of a planned program based on their cost effectiveness for salinity reduction. <br />Resources were not available for my evaluation to consider each subunit <br />individually. All anal)'Ses are based on consideration of the entire SCS study <br />area as a composite of the subunits. <br /> <br />Agency planners apparently worked together in the earlier stages of planning <br />and were checking information with each other. However, as the SCS report <br />completion preceded that of USBR, coordination of water budget data seems to <br />have broken down. I do not believe SCS planners have ever seen tIle draft <br />hydrosalinity report that I obtained from USBR for reference. <br /> <br />The USBR water budget, page 68, considers precipitation as well as irriga- <br />tion water and apparently considers the total land area wi thin the study boun- <br />daries rather than just the irrigated acres. This approach is preferred. The <br />USBR report acknowledges that the increments of flow for the "pre-project" <br />condition are well outside of desired levels of accuracy ~iven the complexity <br />of the situation anti lack of accurate input data. A larlle value is shown for <br />"other consumptive uses",. but it is difficult to identify that which should <br />be subtracted from irrigation delivery. Also, no evaporation is sho"," from <br />the precipitation increment, unless this is considered to be a consumptive <br /> <br />use. <br /> <br />This all points to the complexities of a situation that defies precise <br />analysis and taxes the process of using good judgemert. To better understand <br />the water budget, I have developed my own which is labeled "KRK 'llater Budget". <br />This is shown on page 15 The unit values used in my budget are as open to <br />question as those used by others. <br /> <br />Some thoughts on elements of the water budget follow. <br /> <br />Groun and Onfarm I)i tches <br /> <br />The Groue Ditch increment of the SCS plan includes non_~I canals or <br />1itches that serve more than one farm. SCS estimates that 235 miles or 100% <br />of these ditches should be out in closed pioe for Plan ~ 5, the selected plan. <br />The SCS water bud<!l!lt for this item shows 2000 aCt ft. of seenage for the "present <br />condition", 3000 ac. ft. for "future without" and 0 aCt ft. for Plan # 5. <br />The difference between "present" and "future without" aopeared to be too lar~e. <br />Upon review of the SCS basic data it is found that the values ....ere really 2270 <br />and 2565, respectively. Even thoul\h, the level of accuracy may justify roundinl\ <br />to 1000's, in this case rounding provides a misleadin~ result. Therefore, it <br />is sUl'.s>:ested that the fi~e be shown to the nearest 100 ac. ft. <br />