WSP04817 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r'~ t--J f... OJ Using the average values from Table 2, [with values from the Grand Vallev rGV) Salinity Proiect M&E Proaram. 1994 Annual Report - Table 4, TEN YEAR SUMMARY OF DATA shown at the end of each statement for comparison], the following data is presented: 1) The amount of water applied to the field and not leaving the field is shown as Depth and the average is 40.1. acre inches. GV 1.994 value = 41..J.. 2) The actual evapotranspiration (ET) is shown as an average of 20.3 inches. GV 1994 value = 27.3. This is due to the difference in climate and to the difference in crops of those fields monitored, ie. in the LG ~ broccoli and in the GV - alfalfa. 3) The average deep percolation was 23.2 inches. GV 1994 value = 16.1. A higher deep percolation is due to the differences in items 1) and 2) immediately above - in the LGCU a greater "depth" applied to the monitored fields and a lower ETa. site numbers 23 and 25 allow for comparison of conventional gated pipe systems with site numbers 24 and 26 which have surge controller systems. The average deep percolation for these sites was 26.8 and 26 respectively; however, it should be noted that the surge controller for site number 25 was not used properly. Also, considering the statistical data collection alone, the Colorado state University Cooperative Extension Surge Program provides much broader base on which to compare conventional vs. surge irrigation. Their report, December 1994, Lower Gunnison Basin Surae Research and Demonstration proiect, summarizes data from 33 sites. 4) The seasonal application efficiency average was 27 percent. GV 1.994 value is 44 percent. 5) Surface runoff average was 35 percent of the total water applied to the field. GV 1994 value was 28 percent. J.O