Laserfiche WebLink
The early SAR values from well GE1 were close to 20 while the <br />more recent values have been close to 10. These SAR values with the <br />TDS of this water should not make irrigation prohibitive for most <br />soils. SAR values from well GE2 have varied from 3.6 to 40. More <br />data is needed with time to determine if a significant increasing <br />trend exists. A similar large variation of values from well GE3 have <br />also been observed. <br />SAR has generally been below 1 for well GF1 and above 30 and 40 <br />at wells GF2 and GF3, respectively. The SAR values for GF2 and GF3 <br />could create a problem for irrigation of tight soils. Water from well <br />GF4 and GF5 also contains high SAR values. The :iAR value for water <br />from well GF6 has declined gradually and additional monitoring with <br />time is needed to establish a good mean for this well. <br />The SAR value from the Pyeatt wells has gener~slly been between 1 <br />and 3. A slight decreasing trend could exist in wells P1, P5, and P8. <br />The SAR values from well GZ2 have been low {less than 1). The SAR <br />values from alluvial wells GBB1, J1, and Coy have been approximately <br />6, 1, and 2, respectively. <br />3.4 OTHER CONSTITUENTS <br />The major constituents other than the carbonates are presented on <br />pages B-46 through B-54. The heavy metals with ari asterisk by their <br />symbol are total measurements while the others are dissolved <br />concentrations. Dissolved and total concentrationns are similar for <br />most of the heavy metals, except for iron concentrations where the <br />total values are generally significantly greater. <br /> <br />3-6 <br />