Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> <br />' been slightly less than 10, while the last two complete analyses in <br />August 1985 and September 1986 have shown SAR values significantly <br />' higher. A definite trend in SAR is not observable. <br />' The SAR of water from wells GC1, GC2, and GC3 have been typically <br />' near 2. No definite trends are shown by this data. <br />' The Twenty Mile Sandstone water from well GC~1 has had variable <br />SAR values from 0.5 to 4.5. A trend of these va:Lues does not exist <br />' but some of the variation could have been affected by the length of <br />' pumping prior to sampling. The SAR from well GD2 has generally been <br />close to 0.5. <br />' The early SAR values from well GE1 were close to 20 while the <br />' more recent values have been close to 10. The change in SAR values <br />could be caused by an increased rate of movement of ground water in <br />' this area due to the drawdowns. These SAR values with the TDS of this <br />' water should not make irrigation prohibitive for most soils. SAR <br />values from well GE2 have varied from 3.6 to 40. More data is needed <br />' with time to determine if a significant increasing trend exists, A <br />similar large variation of values from well GE3 have also been <br />' observed. <br />' SAR has generally been below 1 for well GF1 and above 30 and 40 <br />' at wells GF2 and GF3, respectively. These values are thought to be <br />representative of natural conditions in the aquifer. The SAR values <br />I, <br />3-10 <br />