Laserfiche WebLink
<br />more recent values have been close to 12. This change in SAR <br />values r_ould be caused by an increased rate of movement of ground <br />water in this area due to the early drawdowns and recent recovering <br />water levels. These SAR val,ies with the TDS of this water should <br />not make irrigation prohibitive for most soils. SAR values from <br />well GE2 have varied from 3.6 to 152. Although the 1989 SAR of 152 <br />was notir_eably higher, the 1992 value of 43 is also above average. <br />A large variation of values frr_~m well GE3 ha.s also been observed <br />with the tt,ost recent value at 7.0. <br />SAR has generally been below one for well GF1 and above 30 at <br />wells GFZ and GF3. These values are thoueht to be representative <br />of natural conditions in these aquifers at this location. The SAP, <br />• values for GF2' and GF3 could create a problem £or irrigation on <br />tight soils. Water from well GF4 and GF5 also contains high SAR <br />values. The SAR value for water from well GF6 has varied from 0.34 <br />to 6.2. Backfill well GF7 has exhibited SAR values between 7 and <br />23. Limited data from backfill well GF11 indicates a low value at <br />less than one. <br />SAR values for wells GP1 and GP2 are approximately 11 and 5 on <br />the average. SAR v.slues for well GP3 are less than 2, while values <br />from well GP4 have shown a very wide range from 32 to 177. <br />Well GP5 has had SAR values from 22 to 74. SAR values for <br />well GP6 have been below 4 for the last five years. The SAR vali.tes <br />f:•om well GP7 .s re below 1 , while the values from well GP3 have <br />• varied from 7.5 to 29. The average SAR from well GP9 is; <br />approximately three. <br />3-11 <br />