Laserfiche WebLink
<br />0470 <br /> <br />2 ft/day, the estimated acreage needed for spreading areas was 31 acres, <br />68 acres, 198 acres, and 98 acres, respectively, for each of the four <br />test areas. <br /> <br />To determine whether the development of ground-water mounds beneath <br />the recharge ponds would be a problem, equations developed by Hantush <br />(1967) were used to estimate the position of the mound at the end of <br />the 3D-day recharging period. These ca~ulations showed that each <br />individual spreading slte may be Siz~~~t~~imize the mounding <br />'., ........ <br /> <br />problem. Obviously, the lithologY'bf.the~nsaturated zone will have <br />.', '" ,'" <br />( - " I <br />a controlling effect on the fo~a~ion oJ ground-water mounds, but <br />t, "1 <br />would require detailed onsitefgeologjt investigations. <br /><... . ~'> <br />f":- . I <br />,.. , .... i <br />Potential Problems <" ....j <br />F'..."l <br />It should be pointed ~t'''ihe~ that even though the theoretical <br />equations indicate that '~rlogging beneath individual recharge sites <br />may be kept to a minimum, waterlogging due to raising of water tables <br />down-gradient from the recharge sites may be a problem. This is <br />particularly true for those areas that lie relatively close to the <br /> <br />river. Plate 1 delineates those areas where the water table generally <br />lies less than 10 feet below the land surface. Any recharge in <br /> <br />the proximity of these areas, particularly north of the river from <br /> <br />north of Sterling to the end of the study area, has the potential of <br />contributing to already high water tables down-gradient from the <br /> <br />proposed recharge sites. <br />