My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP10689
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
10001-10999
>
WSP10689
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:14:18 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:27:59 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8273.600
Description
Colorado River Basin Salinity Control - Federal Agencies - USDA
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1994
Author
USDA
Title
Grand Valley Salinity Project - 1993 Annual Monitoring and Evaluation Report
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Annual Report
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
<br />....-~. <br />\1>-.3 <br />", :~;:' <br /> <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />~ <br />.... <br /> <br />~': <br /> <br />,:,:.)'1 <br />\:;:':;' " <br /> <br />rate in inches per hc~r. This data, the average infiltration rates <br />for the different soils monitored in the Grand Valley were <br />determined (surface irrigated sites only) and provi~ed in Figure 2; <br />The infiltration rates vary- from a low of 0.17 inches to a high ,of <br />0~38 inches per hour. <br /> <br />In the infiltration rate calculation, the wetted perimeter was not <br />taken into consideration and the data shown in Figure 2 is <br />based on lOOt wetted acreage. In the Grand Valley, it can be. <br />safely assumed that with furrow-irrigation the wetted perimeter is <br />actually less then sot. This !Deans that the appl,ication <br />infiltration rates shown in Figure 2 could be doubled for sites <br />with every row irrigation-to get an estimate of average soil intake <br />rate (a conservative estimate based upon having only half,_ sot, of <br />the soil surface actually wetted). Alternate row irrigation is <br />also fairly common in the Valley, and with this method the wetted- <br />perimeter may be assumed to be about 25t. In alternate row <br />irrigation situation, the application infiltration rates may be <br />multiplied by a factor of four in order to estimate soil intake <br />rate. :'; I,.. : <br /> <br />\. . <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Infiltration rate for the first irrigation is generally higher for_ <br />annual row crops, but not necessarily so for perennial crops <br />The monitoring data indicates that for most soils, the infiltration <br />rates may be-higher than previously thought. Irrigation M&E-data <br />from 1985 to 1989 als'o indicates this to be true. Therefore, for. <br />salinity IWM planning purposes "infiltration rate planning ranges" <br />based on 1986 to 1990 M&E data have been provided to the field <br />office planners. .These infiltration rate'ranges seem to provide a <br />better estimate of projected deep percolation, flow rate and - <br />irrigation efficiency. The planning infiltration. ranges and <br />average infiltration rates from 1986 to 1990 are provided below. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />Ave~ Infiltr.lplanning2 soil Inta~e3 <br />Rates tM&E) Ranges F~ily <br />soil Tvce lin/hrl lin/hrl lin/hrl <br />Billings silty Clay loam 0.20 0.41 - 0.61 0.3/0.4' <br />Fruita clay loam 0.44 0.89 - 1.33 0.40 <br />Genola clay loam 0.31 0.61 - 0.92 0.40 <br />Hanksville silty clay loam 0.21 0.41 0.62 0.30 <br />Mesa clay loam 0.40 0.81 - 1.21 0.40 <br />Ravola clay loam/fvsl 0.26 0.51 0.770.4/0.5 <br />, InfUtrat(an rate. be.sed on _an esthr.ates whh 951 conHOence 'ntervlt; vetted perimeter wea J\Ot hken 'nto <br />consideration. eltlllOtel baled on dati collected f,en 1986 to 1m. <br />ZYetted Irel tlken Into conslderltlon ISO to JJ percent). <br />J Soil Intltl fllllly baled on the Old Solll Guidi , <br /> <br />27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.