Laserfiche WebLink
<br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br />I <br /> <br />V-8 <br /> <br />the water district. <br />The map of the irrigation system (figure 1-1) shows <br />that the upper canal has several major loops that could be <br />shortened by a pipeline. A pipeline from station lJ to the <br />water district intake could reduce the distance by 2,200 <br />feet and increase the gradient from .0008 to .0011, <br />The major repair need for the upper canal is the elimi- <br />nation of ditch losses by seepage. If the low-flow losses <br />are at least J cfs and losses at high flows are JO% of the <br />amount diverted, the potential for saving water in the upper <br />canal is some amount between 2,200 and J,600 acre feet per <br />year, This amount could provide for more efficient water <br />deliveries to the water district and to water users and als.o <br />provide water for delivery to as much as 1,000 acres of land <br />in addition to that land presently served. There is a sur- <br />plus of previously irrigated land within the service area <br />that was retired because of the reduction in available water. <br />There are two possible means to reduce the seepage loss <br />from the canal; either put the water into a pipeline or place <br />a concrete lining in the canal. The board of directors of <br />Beaver Park Water has stated its desire that any canal im- <br />provements have a capacity of 50 cfs at least to station 95 <br />(the water district intake), <br />In order to carry a 50 cfs capacity at the present <br />gradient of .0008, it would require a concrete trapezoidal <br />channel with a bottom width of three feet and a maximum <br />depth of three feet with side slopes of 1-to-l. A pipeline <br />on an average grade of ,0011 would require a 42-inch pipe, <br />A third alternative would be a combination of a pipeline of <br />a smaller size to carry the low flows in conjunction with the <br />existing unlined canal to carry the remainder of any high <br />flows. This combination would not result in as great a <br />savings of water as the other two alternatives but would be <br />able to save the J cfs loss (2,200 acre feet) in conveying <br />low flows to the water district and to storage, At a .0011 <br />gradient, a 24-inch pipe could carry 9 cfs and an 18-inch <br />pipe could carry 4,5 cfs, <br />