WSP01564 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

t~'}1991 Irrigation Monitoring: In 1991, twenty three irrigation ->>' monitoring sites were establ ished in 18 differ'!lnt fields with improved <::) irrigation systems (Table 1, Figure D. Of the 18 fields monitored, o 13 of them had one monitoring site each, five of them had two ~ monitoring sites for side by side comparison of conventional with 00 surge irrigation. For each site monitored in 1991, information on soil type, texture and intake rate, slope, field size, length of run, and irrigation systems is provided in the individual site summary data sheet located in Appendix D. Figure 1 shows the location of the 1991 irrigation monitoring and evaluation sites. All 1990 monitoring fields were monitored in 1991 with the exception of fields 12 and 27. Site 45 was dropped because the owner decided to irrigate the whole field with surge system. These three sites were dropped because of problems with ownership changes and fi~Id irrigation operations. Field 13 was reactivated again after a few years of not being monitored; the original cablegation system was replaced with a new surge system. However, one new field (49/50) was added in 1991 (Tab I e 1>. '''''Q) k-s& ~~,;.~-0 In 1990 four surge sites (39, 41, 44, 46) were added to four different fields where conventional sites were located for comparison of surge with conventional irrigation (Table D. These sites were established in conjunction with Col,orado State Cooperative Extension's and the Bureau of Reclamation's "Surge Project" in order to provide them with accurate inflow and outflow data. Each ~ooperator was provided with a surge valve and a controller and trained in the use of surge valves. The surge system was set up prior to the first irrigation and used throughout the season. In 1991, two more fields were added for comparison of surge and conventional irrigation (26/51 and 49/50). Howev.r, site 45 from 1990,was not used for comparison. Therefore, five comparison sites were establ ished in '1991. Of the 23 sites monitored, one had microspray ~ystem, two had siderol sprinkler systems and 20 had surface irrigation systems. I~rigation systems at each site is provided in Table 2. At each field with a surface irrigation system, automated electronic flow recorders were instal led to measure the volume of inflow and outflow. These flow recorders were connected to electronic data recorders. The recorders measured inflow and outflow every 10 or 30 minutes. The measured flow data was recorded and stored in the data recorders. At siderol I sprinkler or microspray irrigation system sites, the volume of inflow was obtained from in-I ine mechanical flow meters located on the sites. There is no surface runoff and the volume of outflow was therefore not measured. For these sites, outflow values were considered to be evaporation losses (Table 2). :~~l~~i .;,,:.-,> 8