Laserfiche WebLink
The SAR of water from wells GC1, GC2, and GC3 have been typically near 2. No <br />definite trends are shown by the data. <br />The Twenty Mile Sandstone water (well GDl) has had variable SAR values from 0.5 to <br />4.4. Although a long term trend does not exist, the SAR values have been declining since 1989. <br />Some of the variation could have been affected by the length of pumping prior to sampling. The <br />SAR from well GD2 has generally been close to 0.5. Bach-JI weal GD3 seems to contain water with <br />a similar SAR value. <br />The early SAR values from well GEl were close to 20, while the more recent values have <br />been less than 12. This change in SAR values could be caused by an increased rate of movement <br />of Bound water in this azea due to the early drawdowns and recent recovering water levels. These <br />SAR values with the TDS of this water should not make irrigation prohibitive for most soils. S.AIt <br />values from wel GE2 ve varied from 3.6` t~_ The 1994 value_was 35,_up from the 1993 value <br />u <br />of 24. A lazge variation of values from well GE3 hays also been observed with the most recent value <br />at7.7. ~ hc~.~a <br />zo.:.-V~. -~~ <br />SAR has generally been below one for well GF1 and abovJ at webs G~d GF3. ~ <br />Both GF2 and GF3 had decreases in 1994. These values are thought to be representative of natural <br />conditions in these aquifers at this location. The SAR values for GF2 and GF3 could create a <br />problem for irrigation on tight soils. Water from well GF4 and GFS o contains high SAR values'. <br />The SAR value for water from well GF6 has varied from 0.34 to 6.2. Backfill well GF7 has <br />exhibited S.4~ values between 7 and 23 with a most recent average of 8. Limited data from back~ll <br />4.*• <br />well GFl ] indicates a low value at less than one. <br />~J <br />3-]0 <br />