My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
WSP11421
CWCB
>
Water Supply Protection
>
Backfile
>
11000-11999
>
WSP11421
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/26/2010 3:17:22 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 4:58:36 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Water Supply Protection
File Number
8276.855
Description
Grand Valley Unit-Colorado River Basin Salinity Control Project
State
CO
Basin
Colorado Mainstem
Water Division
5
Date
1/1/1993
Title
1993 Report to the USDI-Bureau of Reclamation - Grand Valley Demonstration Project
Water Supply Pro - Doc Type
Report/Study
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
19
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 /> '<I" <br /> l. .., <br />. C'.J <br /> ...... <br /> -.- , <br /> (.) <br /> <br />M11, When this field was conventionally irrigated the run was split in tl1e <br />middle but was successfully irrigated in one run when surge irrigated. Fewer <br />side by side comparisons were possible in the orchards. <br /> <br />4) Cooperative Extension and Soil Conservation Service personnel have <br />actively promoted irrigation water management concepts by personal visits <br />with water users, newsletter articles. workshops. and demonstrations. <br /> <br />The values listed in the table may be Questionably low, The numbers may best be <br />used to identify trends that are apparent. During each of the years there is a > 3: 1 <br />advantage to the surge system applications. Each year there is less deep <br />percolation from either system than during the previous year. These trends <br />indicate improved irrigation water management by the cooperators. Cooperators <br />have also been warned of potential salt build up if adequate leaching water is not <br />used. It is suggested they take soil samples on an annual basis for salinity analysis <br />to be aware of any salt build up in their irrigated fields. <br /> <br />TILLAGE and SURGE: <br /> <br />The bean field on farm E303 was divided into conventional tillage and conservation <br />tillage sectors. In addition to surge and conventional irrigation, evaluations were <br />made of wheel track and non-wheel track furrow flows. <br /> <br />Sediment content of run off waters were made from this field using Imhoff cones, <br />conventional irrigation. <br /> Furrow Deep <br />T i llaqe ~ Inflow outflow Infiltrated Dercolation <br />Cony. wheel 34.4 10.9 23.7 2.7 <br />Cony. non-wheel 38.0 8.2 29.8 9.0 <br />Cons. wheel 35.8 21.8 14.0 -6.9 <br />Cons. non-wheel 35.1 16.3 18.8 -0.9 <br />Surqe irriqation <br /> Furrow Deep <br />Tillaqe ~ Inflow Outflow Infiltrated Dercolation <br />Cony. wheel 21.3 7.7 13.6 -7.8 <br />Cony. non-wheel 19.8 3.9 16.0 -4.5 <br />Cons. wheel 23.7 6.6 17.0 -4.4 <br />Cons. non-wheel 20.9 7.5 13 .4 -8.0 <br /> <br />All of the above units are in acre inches per acre. All set times were all 12 hours. <br />This reflects the less water applied to the surge sets where the water was divided <br />into the two surged sets in the 12 hour period. <br /> <br />It is interesting to note that more runoff and less infiltration occurred on the <br />conservation tillage side of the conventionally irrigated portion of the field than on <br />the conventionally tilled portion. One would have expected the opposite to occur <br /> <br />7 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.