Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Ollll'i4 <br /> <br />e Table 1.-Groundwater recharge volume summary <br /> (acre-feet) <br />Site Water source 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 Total <br />1 Cottonwood 0 177 0 593 1.140 1,140 3.050 <br />2 Cottonwood 36 531 250 971 761 442 2.991 <br />3 Dry Creek 0 0 139 740 971 1,040 2.890 <br />4 Dry Creek 0 17 212 1.050 1,030 1,070 3,379 <br />5 Dry Creek 0 141 34 226 269 282 952 <br />6 Murtaugh Lake 42 1.164 1,285 1,964 2.217 1,080 7.752 <br />7 Murtaugh Lake 0 0 103 930 483 624 2.140 <br /> Totals 78 2,030 2,023 6.474 6,871 5,678 23,154 <br /> <br />e <br /> <br />All of the project wells were successfully used for injection. No significant problems were <br />encountered with plugging, air locking, silting, or biological growth. The simple non- <br />mechanical sedimentation and filtering systems proved very effective for these purposes. <br /> <br />Portions of the delivery systems for sites 6 and 7 were shared, with pressure distribution <br />piping that was used for irrigation. When sprinkler systems started and stopped, it was <br />common to shutdown the distribution system to avoid overpressurizing the system and <br />water hammer. A pressure relief valve was installed between the distribution system and <br />the delivery line to an injection well. When a sprinkler was shut down, the increase in <br />system pressure opened the valve, and the distribution system flow was diverted into the <br />injection well. This simplifies operation of the sprinkler system and increases the amount of <br />water recharged. In many irrigation systems, some of the water that the project is <br />recharging is considered blowoff water and is discharged to a drain. <br /> <br />Groundwater table responses in the vicinity of the injection well sites were significant. <br />Observation wells' recorded responses were generally consistent and meaningful. <br />Groundwater tables in some areas were raised sufficiently during the life of the project, <br />which was reflected in improved pumping lifts and well production for local irrigators. <br /> <br />The general experience of the project was that the construction and operation of the <br />groundwater recharge system was straightforward and no more difficult than operating <br />existing irrigation systems in this area. All of the project construction, operation, and <br />maintenance was accomplished with local resources and contractors. The only outside <br />technical resource required for project operation was laboratory analytical work for water <br />quality monitoring. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />7 <br />