WSP02972 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

reduced the amount of water for a sorghum crop to about 21. inches. In 1966, he applied only 25 inches to his sorghum crop. In 1967, he applied 18 inches and in 1968, 35 inches. Although water applied for sugar beets should not be compared with water for sorghum, the example does indicate the relative impact of metering. The.case cited is an example of the efficiencies that should result as people install meters. In summary, Mr. Herpich said some of the possible changes he foresees in the future in management and/or technology include: 1) Intensified water measurement programs; 2) Early organization and operation of ground-water management districts; 3) Utilization of all known recharge technology; 4) Capture and uti 1 ization of all .drainage waters, surface and subsurface; and 5) An evaluati.on of all aspects of inter-basin transfer. In the discussion that followed, Mr. Herpich clarified the term recharge as the recharge occurring in organized irrigation districts, which has not fully been utilized. In answer to a question, Mr. Herpich said he felt that 50 percent of the irrigators would have meters in the next ten years, even though they cost anywhere from $300 to $500 each. He felt that once a .meter is installed, the irrigator will see how he can cut down on the quantity of water pumped. Professor Dean Bark reviewed briefly the effects that precipitation, temperature, and evaporation losses have on agriculture, and touched briefly on the possibil ity for weather modification. He described some of the parameters used to evaluate the weather and explained some of the work he had been doing in the field of cl imatic probabilities.. Professor Bark suggested that averages were orten misleading. He used the example at Garden City where on 58 days there was sufficient precipitation to measure greater than a trace; .however, over half of the annual precipitation occurred during nine of the 58 days. At Colby, there are 71 days with more than a trace of precipitation; however, ten days account for 50 percent 'of the annual precipitation. He questioned if altering the precipitation by 10 to 15 percent, by weather modification, was sufficiently significant to be beneficial to crops. Professor Bark felt there were opportunities that would benefit agriculture in the futur.e, from cl imate. rilodificat.ion, such as hail surpression and other adverse elements. In summary. he cite.d the use of the Palmer method. for defining a drought. More research is needed on probability models for describing the climate as it relates to precipitation and tempe\ature. The discussion dealt with weather modification. In response to a question, Professor Bark indicated it was doubtful that.weather or climate modification would, or could, affect refative humidity, temperature, or wind except in small ways. He expressed doubts on 6.