Laserfiche WebLink
<br />~;{) <br /> <br />~ <br />to- . <br />~ <br />..... <br /> <br />.'....... <br />.. ~~.J <br /> <br />that there was adequate moisture at these sites. The producer at <br />. sites 26/51 and 61 is of the opinion that there is a high water' <br />table in these fields arid that he does not need to irrigate as <br />much. <br /> <br />currently, the monitoring water budget program does not have the <br />capacity to adjust for high water table. Additionally, there is no <br />equipment on hand that could give a quick reliable estimate of soil <br />moisture in the field to make needed adjustments to the computer <br />generated values. The existing M&E Water Balance Program does not <br />allow for any adjustment of computer generated soil moisture <br />values. At some sites, actual field moisture checks indicate that <br />there -is more water in the soil profile than indicated by <br />calculated values. This shows that maybe ETa is being over- <br />estimated for some crops. <br /> <br />According to M&E water budget, five surge sites (21, 51, 56, 60, <br />and 61) were under-irrigated or close to being under-irrigated. <br />Deep percolation at these sites varied from at to 13.4t of net <br />water requirement (ETa).. Several field checks of-site 56 during <br />the irrigation season, indicated the field was dry at times-. <br />However, the producer was happy with his surge system and indicated <br />that he had excellent apple prOduction and did not think that he <br />needed to apply more water. <br /> <br />The greatest deep percolation losses occurred at sites 31, 37, 54, <br />and 59 with over 30 inches per acre of deep percolation or over <br />loot of net water requirement. Of the 22 sites monitored in 1993, <br />sites 57, 58, and 59 were the onlY ones without improved irrigation <br />systems. These sites were irrigated using old earthen ditches with <br />siphon tubes. . <br /> <br />- \ <br /> <br />Deep percolation of 5.4 inches at site 57 and 4.3 inches at site 58 <br />was much better than other sites with improved systems. Site 58 <br />was able keep deep percolation below 1St 'of net irrigation <br />requirement with an unimproved system (Tables 2 and 3). <br />However, this site is located below the Highline Canal and could be . . - <br />partially SUb-irrigated through seepage from the canal. Afield <br />moisture check was not done during the season to see-if there is a <br />high water table. site 59 had over 50 inches.of deep percolation, <br />the highest for all sites monitored. There were problems at this <br />site. with the inflow weir being submerged and trash buildup. . I <br />Adjustments were made to the data to reflect.this condition, <br />however, more studies need to be done in 1994. Sites 57 and 58 <br />will be land levelled and have improved systems installed before <br />the next irrigation season begins. <br /> <br />site 54 had an earthen ditch with siphon tubes in 1992. In spring <br />of 1993 this site was land levelled and an improved irrigation <br />system with concrete ditch and siphon tubes was installed before <br />the 1993 irrigation season. Monitoring of this newly improved site <br />showed that in the first year of land and system improvement, <br /> <br />19 <br />