Report to the United States Department of the Interior,
Bureau of Reclamation Cooperative Agreement
for Surge Irrigation Research and Development Program,
Grand Valley Unit
SUMMARY
As a result of a grant from the USDI, Bureau of Reclamation (# 0-FC-40-09270,)
to Colorado State University Cooperative Extension, surge irrigation valves and
controllers were supplied to 128 farm sites within the Grand Valley of Colorado.
The purpose of these installations is to test and demonstrate surge technology to
area farmers. The equipment also enables irrigators to improve their irrigation
efficiency and to reduce the deep percolation and its resultant salt loading of the
Colorado River. The valves were installed by the cooperators on fields of corn, alfalfa,
small grain, beans, pasture, and orchard crops.
Cooperative Extension personnel studied 149 irrigation events throughout the
1993 irrigation season. Of these 140 provided usable data, and 41 events provided
comparisons between conventional and surge. Results of the irrigation evaluations
with surge, as well as with conventionally irrigated fields, indicated that the surge
irrigations were instrumental in reducing deep percolation of excess irrigation water.
The 41 direct comparison evaluations from the 1993 irrigation season indicated
that deep percolation was reduced by 21 acre-inches which translates into a salt load
reduction of 28 tons.
Reducing deep percolation losses by 560 acre inches during the 4 irrigation
seasons indicates the potential savings due to equipment improvements. The 560
acre inches of deep percolation reduction left over 1,000 tons of salt in place.
Additional benefits may be achieved with improved water management.
Projections based on the average salt load reduction over the four year period
indicate a total salt saving of 1,617 tons during the 1993 season. This salt reduction
of 1,617 tons should continue during the life of the equipment assuming that current
water management practices continue.
BACKGROUND
Surge irrigation has been recognized for a number of years for its ability to
enhance irrigation water advance across a field. The principle involves a valve
operated by a motorized controller which switches the irrigation water from one side of
the field to the other at prescribed times. The first application advances down a short
portion of one side of the set before the water is switched over to the alternate side to
advance the water the same distance. It is powered by a solar collector attached to a
battery and is relatively maintenance free. The number of cycles of alternating the
water from one side to the other is dependent upon the soil type, length of irrigation
run and the amount of water available for the irrigation. After the initial alternating
times (called "out times") the cycles are decreased in length of time to soaking, or
cutback times. At this point, the field should be wetted through to the end and excess
water runoff ("tailwater") should be minimized.
Several theories exist as to why surge irrigation works. The most accepted
version is that the water may continue to penetrate the soil even after the irrigation
water is removed from it; this may result in some soil "sealing" by breaking of some
capillary flow and less penetration when the next "surge" of water is applied. Thus, the
water may travel further down the furrow with less water applied than if the water had
been applied continuously. As a result, vastly improved irrigation efficiencies have
been realized by many irrigators and the conclusions have been published in several
journals.
THE GRAND VALLEY:
The Grand Valley is situated in west central Colorado. In any given year, about
60,000 acres are irrigated by gravity flow water delivered through mostly unlined
canals from the Colorado River. The entire area is underlain by a saline marine
formation known as Mancos shale. Since the irrigation water is plentiful and
inexpensive, considerable over-irrigation occurs. This over-irrigation coupled with
leakage from the unlined canals contributes about 600,000 tons of salt annually from
the shale through return flow to the Colorado River drainage. Principal crops are corn
for both grain and silage, alfalfa hay, small grains and orchard fruits. Smaller
acreages of onions, dry beans and soybeans are scattered throughout the valley.
Production on a per-acre basis is good.
THE SURGE PROJECT:
One hundred twenty-eight cooperators were invited to participate in the USBR
sponsored surge project over the four year period from 1990 through 1993. The
cooperators were given either an in-line surge valve, a gated pipe "T" shaped surge
valve or a ported ditch surge gate, together with an appropriate controller. One unit
was made available for each farmer selected. After a short workshop on the use of
the surge valves, the cooperators installed them in their irrigation systems and began
to use them for their first irrigations. The Cooperative Extension team was able to
study 149 conventional and surge irrigations throughout the 1993 irrigation season.
Both inflow and outflow of a single furrow were measured with v-notch furrow flumes
and automated data gathering devices. A furrow that had no wheel traffic upon it
was selected for the evaluation. This presented conditions conducive to the greatest
amount of deep percolation and least runoff of the applied water (a worst-case
scenario). Forty-one of the irrigations produced useable data. The remainder were
rendered unusable due to furrow washouts and crossovers and occasional
malfunctions of the data gathering equipment. Some of the flumes became silted
making the data questionable.
Total acres included 32 acres conventionally irrigated and 28 acres irrigated by
surge methods during the 1993 irrigation season. All fields are not listed on the
attached tables due to data collection problems.
The SCS monitoring team monitored two of the fields, and provided total inflow
and outflow water measurements from the fields. Evapotranspiration values for the
crops and software for evaluating data were also provided by the monitoring team.
EVALUATION:
Irrigation events were recorded on 149 occasions throughout the 1993 crop year
with 140 events yielding useable information. The 2 primary causes of unusable data
include water breaking out of the furrows and the "v" notch flumes silting up. In
addition, birds pulled the string from the flumes and small animals (skunks and
raccoons) disturbed the floats on occasion. The two fields monitored by SCS
provided the most reliable data and projections will be made from this information.
These fields are identified as M51 and M55 on the data sheet in the farm number
column included with this report. The other farm numbers are those where individual
furrow flows were measured. See data sheets.
Note that some farms have negative numbers in the deep percolation column.
This indicates deficit irrigation (the water used by the crop was not replaced totally by
the irrigation water) and it increases the efficiency to an unrealistic number. Some
fields are believed to be sub-irrigated with water from a higher elevation. The cause of
the deficit irrigations on the other fields is unknown. Perhaps the method of
calculating evapotranspiration may need to be refined, and some data collection error
may have occurred. A crop planted earlier or later than the reference crop, used for
evapotranspiration calculations, will use water differently than the reference crop.
Daily evapotranspiration rates provided by the monitoring section of the Soil
Conservation Service were used to determine soil moisture deficits between most
irrigations. The initial soil moisture deficit prior to irrigation was determined by the
hand feel method which was substantiated by a gravimetric evaluation of selected
samples.
A comparison of fields identified as M11, M15, M43, M51, and M55 shows a
difference in water use between the same crops in different years and a difference in
crop use on the same farm (M43).
Field comparisons
ACRE INCH ACRE INCH ACRE INCH
FIELD APPLIED/a. RUN-OFF/a. DEEP PERC./a.
NUMBER CONV. SURGE CONV. SURGE CONV. SURGE
M11-90 34.6 29.1 4.4 8.8 10.9 2.0
M11-91 51.8 44.3 3.7 11.4 15.9 5.0
M15-90 76.9 49.3 32.5 16.9 20.7 10.7
M15-91 69.5 50.2 24.1 14.8 23.1 14.5
M15-92 67.4 45.6 20.7 6.0 26.5 19.5
M43-90 65.8 50.8 16.2 17.5 31.2 13.7
M43-91 85.2 71.8 36.0 24.7 23.7 22.3
M43-92 61.5 67.0 18.0 14.2 14.2 26.6
M51-91 32.5 22.2 16.3 9.8 4.1 2.1
M51-92 38.1 21.9 15.4 8.0 5.7 0.0
0M51-93 24.5 19.1 8.2 7.4 1.1 0.0
M55-93 55.5 42.2 12.2 8.7 9.0 1.0
DATA ANALYSIS:
Note the increased water use on farm M11 between 1990 and 1991. This is a
well-managed orchard but water management can be improved by adjusting the
timing of the cut-back cycles to reduce runoff. Also, reduced set times combined with
proper cutback cycle timing should reduce deep percolation. This field was converted
to surge irrigation for the 1992 season.
Farm M15 reduced the total amount of water used during the 1991 season when
compared to 1990 but set times were about the same so deep percolation was
increased during 1991. Seventeen of the 19.5 inches of deep percolation occurred
during the initial irrigation of the corn during crop year 1993.
Increased water use on farm M43 reflect the change from corn to alfalfa. During
the year of alfalfa establishment -1991- a larger amount of water is used to assure
seed germination and seedling development. Examination of set time and furrow flow
data, not included here, indicate extended set times during the second and sixth
irrigations and reduced furrow flow rates during the second irrigation.
Data obtained from field M51 indicates the operator understands irrigation water
management as it pertains to this field.
Field M55 results show improved water management and reduced deep
percolation with the surge system. Comparisons between fields that were full field
monitored and fields that were evaluated by single furrow measurements are
desirable, but a limited number of fields have total irrigation events available for
comparison. Fields that lend themselves to full field evaluations are difficult to find
since few have isolated inflows and outflows for accurate flow measurements.
SALT LOAD REDUCTION:
Salt load reduction estimates made from the 5 fields that were fully monitored by
the SCS monitoring team during the past four irrigation seasons are shown below.
Salt load reduction from selected fields.
(A) (B) (C) (D) (E) (F) (G) (H)
Acre Inch reduction
Surge Salt from Surge Tons
Farm Acres Tons/a.i. 1990 1991 1992 1993 Total (B)x(C)x(G)
M11 7.5 0.280 8.9 10.9 19.8 41.6
M15 16.6 0.263 10.0 8.6 7.0 25.6 111.8
M43 4.8 0.341 17.5 1.4 -12.4 6.5 10.6
M51 9.6 0.263 2.0 5.7 1.1 8.8 22.2
M55 5.0 0.28 8.0 8.0 11.2
Total 197.4
The 197.4 tons of salt saved divided by the 43.5 acres indicates an average salt
reduction of 4.5 tons per acre over the four year trial from these selected fields.
The cost of the surge equipment purchased under this agreement, used on these
five farms, was $6,557.00. This equipment is assigned a 15 year life under the USDA
portion of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program.
This equipment cost of $6,557.00, amortized at 8% for the 15 year life of the
surge units, divided by 4.5 tons/per acre times 43.5 acres equals $3.91 per ton of salt.
The tons of salt per acre inch of deep percolation, shown in column C, is less
than the weighted valley wide average of 0.337 tons per acre inch, shown in Table 1
"EFFECTS OF ONFARM WATER MANAGEMENT". Note that these factors are
used on the data sheets as salt tons/ acre inch on the data sheets for 1990, 1991, 1992,
and 1993. These numbers have been generated by USBR and USDA for the different
areas of the Grand Valley based on measured salt contributions.
The total salt contribution from each field, where data was obtained, has been
calculated using the number of acres under surge, the acre inch reduction of deep
percolation due to the use of surge irrigation, and the tons of salt produced per acre
inch of deep percolation. These numbers and the total are shown in the right column
of the data sheets.
Additional, incalculable, salinity benefits can be expected to have occurred in that
not all irrigation events on all farms were evaluated each year.
DEEP PERCOLATION REDUCTION:
The amount of deep percolation in acre-inches by conventional and surge
irrigation, divided by the acres in each for all years, indicates a deep percolation
savings as a result of surge irrigation, as shown below:
Comparison of deep percolation, by system, in acre inches per
acre.
Year Conventional Surge
1990 5.6 1.5
1991 4.6 1.5
1992 1.1 0.4
1993 0.7 0.03
Several reasons may exist for the declining deep percolation as shown in the above
data:
1) Winter moisture and spring rains may have left the soil in the fields in a
condition conducive to packing which increased the soil bulk density. Increased bulk
density reduces infiltration rates. Weather conditions during the corn planting seasons of
1992 and 1993 were such that they inhibited work in corn fields. This reduced tillage
lowered or minimized the loss of stored soil moisture which reduced the amount of early
irrigation.
2) The farmers who requested surge units at the start of the program were either
the more innovative farmers or the ones with the most serious irrigation problems.
3) The last group of farmers to request surge units were more involved with
orchard crops; generally, orchard fields have shorter furrow rows, are easier to manage
under conventional irrigation systems and may show less advantage to the surge system.
This is supported by the data from field M11. When this field was conventionally
irrigated the run was split in the middle but was successfully irrigated in one run when
surge irrigated. Fewer side by side comparisons were possible in the orchards.
4) Cooperative Extension and Soil Conservation Service personnel have actively
promoted irrigation water management concepts by personal visits with water users,
newsletter articles, workshops, and demonstrations.
The values listed in the table may be questionably low. The numbers may
best be used to identify trends that are apparent. During each of the years there is a
>3:1 advantage to the surge system applications. Each year there is less deep
percolation from either system than during the previous year. These trends indicate
improved irrigation water management by the cooperators. Cooperators have also
been warned of potential salt build up if adequate leaching water is not used. It is
suggested they take soil samples on an annual basis for salinity analysis to be aware
of any salt build up in their irrigated fields.
TILLAGE and SURGE:
The bean field on farm E303 was divided into conventional tillage and
conservation tillage sectors. In addition to surge and conventional irrigation ,
evaluations were made of wheel track and non-wheel track furrow flows.
Sediment content of run off waters were made from this field using Imhoff cones.
Conventional Irrigation
Furrow Deep
Tillage Type Inflow Outflow Infiltrated Percolation
Conv. wheel 34.4 10.9 23.7 2.7
Conv. non-wheel 38.0 8.2 29.8 9.0
Cons. wheel 35.8 21.8 14.0 -6.9
Cons. non-wheel 35.1 16.3 18.8 -0.9
Surge Irrigation
Furrow Deep
Tillage Type Inflow Outflow Infiltrated Percolation
Conv. wheel 21.3 7.7 13.6 -7.8
Conv. non-wheel 19.8 3.9 16.0 -4.5
Cons. wheel 23.7 6.6 17.0 -4.4
Cons. non-wheel 20.9 7.5 13.4 -8.0
All of the above units are in acre inches per acre. All set times were all 12 hours.
This reflects the less water applied to the surge sets where the water was divided into
the two surged sets in the 12 hour period.
It is interesting to note that more runoff and less infiltration occurred on the
conservation tillage side of the conventionally irrigated portion of the field than on the
conventionally tilled portion. One would have expected the opposite to occur upon
visual inspection of the field; great amounts of residue left from the previous crop of
corn in the furrows created a very rough furrow structure which should have led to
impeded flows and less runoff. A possible explanation to this phenomenon is that no
tillage was performed on this side of the field; rather, the original furrows and beds
were simply re-shaped. Some packing of the surface soil may have occurred during
the re-shaping process which may have reduced infiltration of the irrigation water.
The fact that surge irrigation negated the effect of tillage or no tillage on
infiltration and runoff amounts is also of interest. This result has significant
implications regarding future procedures of crop residue handling and surface
irrigation and should be studied in detail. Surge irrigation may offer a significant
advantage when conservation tillage procedures are applied to a surface irrigated
field.
The forty percent reduction in water use obtained by surge irrigation as
compared to conventional irrigation on the field is of great significance. Explanations
for this occurrence have been elicited elsewhere.
Several reasons may exist for the apparent large negative deep percolation
values. This field site is located about 8.5 miles from the weather station that was
used to generate the evapotranspiration data used to estimate soil moisture deficits.
There is the possibility of a micro-climate change between the two sites. ET estimates
as used in the Grand Valley may be higher than needed. A water table condition may
exist on this site which would modify the ET estimates for the field.
FOLLOWUP:
Attempts were made to contact each surge unit recipient to determine their
acceptance of the surge concept. A questionnaire was used to document the
responses. A copy is included. Responses are summarized as follows:
Acres in surge sets ranged from 2 to 8, while conventional, companion sets
ranged from 0.5 to 6.4 acres.
Time to start a conventional set ranged from 0.5 minutes to 120 minutes with
surge start time ranging from 1 to 120 minutes.
The various crops listed include: alfalfa, corn small grains, orchard, and pastures.
The fertigation concept is most useful on annual grass crops such as corn and
11 % of the farmers used this method.
Yield differences were not noticed by the cooperating farmers.
Fields were probed by 76% of the farmers during irrigation events.
Various methods were used to determine when to irrigate. Many farmers are on
a rotation system so they must irrigate when the have a turn at the water. These water
users indicated that they can complete their irrigation in less time due to the use of the
surge system.
Additional surge equipment was purchased by 23% of the farmers.
Most farmers (83%) were comfortable using the surge systems.
Most of the problems listed by the respondents were of a minor nature such as
the outmost cover of the solar collector peeling off. Several (3) had premature battery
problems.
Some of the comments by users are included here:
"Great system"
"Some field slopes and soil types on Orchard Mesa make the use of surge
more complex than it would if the fields had a uniform slope and soil type"
"Wished I could afford to convert whole farm to surge"
"Runoff decreased, better irrigation of hard to irrigate areas, first irrigation of
season on newly plowed fields much more efficient"
"Surge is an excellent system, should be used on all areas"
"Works good"
"A real work and water saver"
"Surge computer needed repair"
"I would recommend the surge system to be used more"
"I think it is great"
"While I haven't noticed any difference in yields, a definite improvement can be
seen in the trees at the end of the season. I attribute this to better infiltration
due to the surge system and especially the information on the computer
readout"
"I would like to know how to gradually set gates open more as the elevation
increases from the end cap to the surge valve. This is a real problem with time
getting a field to irrigate properly until the summer is over"
"We have only had the opportunity to use surge one year. Due to soil
conditions (shale) and length of experience with crop rotation we had no
comparison to crop yields"
"I really like using the surge as it doesn't leave a lot of tail water and over
soaking on part of the field"
"The surge system has helped put a more uniform irrigation. Much easier and
a great time saver for me"
"Seems very efficient"
"The surge system has cut the time and water use in half, and am pleased with
more uniform tree growth"
"Surge set requires additional time, as more area is getting irrigated throws off
irrigation schedule"
"Still trying to use my fields irrigation with surge"
"The surge system saves me water and is also more efficient, as opposed to
the traditional methods of irrigation"
"We have been extending the run on the surge side because we were not
getting enough infiltration"
"Saves water & time"
"Works good! Uses 1/2 the water as compared with conventional system or 2
times the ground with same amount of water"
"Saves water"
"Works good. Saves time and water"
"Controller will not shut off valve completely"
"Excellent system - saves lots of time and expense"
"Have trouble keeping unit charged"
"Believe that the block that surge sets has not been correctly leveled making
the surge erratic. At end of irrigation must go back and manually override
system and irrigate missed creases"
"If the system is managed properly it is very efficient. If not it can cause many
problems"
"I work with sloping land and the surge seems to work very well for me. It has
saved me time, and uses less water to do the same job"
"Overall efficiency is great - less time to water and use less water probably only
1/3 as much. Deep percolation eliminated - not much run off"
" I feel it works better on shorter field than long runs"
"Trying to use the quick-connect set screws we found the hole did not line up,
consequently the set screws were destroyed. Being unstable, the unit moved
enough to break the main gear in the controller. Had to send it to Texas for
repair"
"Couldn't use this summer because of a stuck valve"
"Need individual help programming surge valve"
SURVEY SUMMARY:
Information from the survey sheets was compiled and it is projected that
equipment purchased by these grant funds is used on 1040 acres of alfalfa, 560 acres
of corn, 300 acres of small grains and beans, 150 acres of orchard crops, and on 50
acres of other crops including pasture.
The salt reduction from all acres due to the use of the surge equipment is
projected to be 1,617 tons in 1993. This reflects the averaged salinity reduction over
the period of the study and the averaged value of the salt contributions from the 13
salinity contributing areas in the Grand Valley.
Local benefits include reduced irrigation applications, fertilizer savings, and the
surge equipment in place.
Total expenditures for surge equipment, evaluation equipment, seasonal labor for
evaluations, mileage, and reporting costs total about $260,000.
At the end of FY93, 243 surge units had been requested by cooperators in the
Grand Valley Unit as part of the cost-share approach of the Colorado River Salinity
Control Program. An additional number of units, not readily quantifiable, have been
purchased by area farmers using their own funds. Nearly all of these units are in
place because of the surge demonstrations in the area made possible through this
grant and other Extension activities.
IMPLICATIONS:
The benefit to downstream water users is the 560 acre inches that was not
percolated through the soil profile on the surge irrigated portions of the fields and the
resultant salt loading reductions as shown by the combined data. This is the
measured total from the farms irrigation systems evaluated over the four year period.
See column 12 of the attached data sheets under the heading of acre inch reduction
of deep percolation. This value is different than the projected value calculated if all
farms were measured at all irrigations. Note that 1,000 tons were measured during
the course of the study but that 1,617 tons were projected during the 1993 irrigation
season. This difference is partially due to not having the equipment available to
measure each irrigation event during the season on all farms and the necessity of
averaging salt load reduction values.
Improved irrigation water management by irrigators and/or reduced application
rates due to irrigation equipment hardware changes do not save water on basin-wide
basis. Those who expect to harvest this "saved" water do not understand the
hydrological cycle.
Water that is deep percolated past the root system in the Grand Valley is
eventually returned to the Colorado River for use downstream. This time period is
variable but based on observations of the various drainages in the valley the quantity
of water deep percolated from irrigations is back in the river by April of the following
year. This water is degraded in quality but the quantity has not been significantly
reduced. The purpose of the Colorado River Salinity Control Program is to address
water quality, not quantity. If less water is diverted because of better irrigation water
management the flow will be available downstream at an earlier date but there will not
be more flow available. While the water is underground in the irrigated areas it is
subject to less evaporation than while in the major reservoirs downstream; this
concept is often overlooked.
Deep percolation reduction made possible by surge units purchased with cost-
share and private funds is beyond the scope of this study, but will be included as part
of the total USDA salinity reduction report.
Water crossing over from one irrigated furrow to another prevented accurate flow
measurements on some fields. This implies poor irrigation water management. More
frequent and/or deeper furrowing by the farmer may remedy this problem. An
additional solution may be leveling on grade by laser or by conventionally controlled
equipment.
Silting of the flow measuring flumes may be indicative of excess furrow flows, a
steep grade, poor furrow compaction, high silt load in the irrigation water, and/or
recently cultivated ground. Future studies should consider identifying the cause and
quantifying the amount of silting. Adequate manpower and equipment to measure the
sediment content of the water during an irrigation are needed.
1994 PLANS:
The grant from Bureau of Reclamation, USDI, has been used for this
demonstration and evaluation program and has been terminated after 1993.
Evaluation equipment will be available for use and continued irrigation evaluations will
be made using Cooperative Extension funds.
Plans for the 1994 crop year include continued furrow flow evaluation, immediate
processing of data and quick return of the information to the farmer, and increased
emphasis on improved water management by the cooperators.
Comparison of nitrate nitrogen,sediment and phosphorous contents of the tail
water of the surge sets and conventional sets will be made when funding is available.
Results of the surge fertigation program as noted in a previous report and
irrigation water management concepts as determined by the surge demonstration and
evaluation program will be stressed at meetings and workshops in the area.
DATE SHEETS
Surge Irrigation Research, Development, and Demonstration - 1993
Acre inch Acre inch Acre inch
Farm Number Acres Applied/a. Run-off/a. Deep perc./a.
# Crop Of Irrig. Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge
M51 Corn 7.0 16.9 9.6 24.5 19.1 8.2 7.4 1.1 0.0
M55 Orchard 8.0 5.0 5.0 55.5 42.2 12.2 8.7 9.0 1.0
E201 Corn 6.0 6.0 6.9 39.1 24.0 2.1 1.5 2.8 1.6
E210 Orchard 6.0 0.7 1.4 69.3 55.3 4.1 1.1 1.1 0.3
E235 Beans 6.0 0.4 0.8 43.3 39.1 1.7 1.0 1.6 1.4
E303 Beans 7.0 0.9 0.9 35.8 21.4 2.1 0.9 0.1 -0.9
E311 Corn 1.0 1.3 2.6 7.4 3.1 1.8 2.4 5.9 -2.5
41.0 31.2 27.2 274.9 204.2 32.2 23.0 21.6 0.9
Acre Inch Salt Salt
Farm Reduction of Ton/A.I. Load
# Deep Perc. Reduction
M51 1.1 0.341 3.6
M55 8.0 0.280 11.2
E201 1.2 0.592 4.9
E210 0.8 0.280 0.3
E235 0.2 0.280 0.0
E303 1.0 0.350 0.3
E311 8.4 0.350 7.6
20.7 28.0
Surge Irrigation Research, Development, and Demonstration - 1992
Acre inch Acre inch Acre inch
Farm Number Acres Applied/a. Run-off/a. Deep perc./a.
# Crop Of Irrig. Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge
M15 Corn 6 18.9 16.6 67.4 45.6 20.7 6.0 26.5 19.5
M43 Alfalfa 6 2.4 4.8 61.5 67.0 18.0 10.3 14.2 26.6
M45 Alfalfa 5 5.6 11.3 60.0 54.9 13.2 12.8 22.6 17.3
M51 Corn 8 17.6 9.6 38.1 21.9 15.4 8.0 5.7 0.0
E19 Orchard 1 1.6 2.2 25.6 11.4 13.8 3.3 6.1 2.8
E27 Corn 2 1.3 12.7 3.5 8.7 0.0 1.7 -0.1 -0.6
E71 Corn 3 1.5 12.0 18.5 19.1 8.5 10.7 5.1 0.4
E73 Corn 1 3.7 10.3 14.6 7.2 4.6 0.7 6.1 2.6
E77 Grass-A 1 12.5 7.5 10.0 12.6 0.2 3.1 7.8 7.7
E81 Alfalfa 1 28.3 8.7 13.0 7.9 2.2 0.9 4.8 1.0
E83 Orchard 6 0.3 0.8 25.1 23.0 8.7 7.0 8.2 7.9
E85 Alfalfa 4 3.6 10.4 28.4 31.8 7.9 10.3 -0.1 -0.1
E201 Corn 6 6.9 13.8 36.4 33.0 6.2 13.3 12.8 1.4
E203 Orchard 3 1.8 1.8 4.8 10.8 0.3 2.3 0.8 -5.0
E210 Orchard 3 0.9 1.9 30.6 17.8 4.9 3.4 8.9 -2.9
E212 Alfalfa 2 1.8 33.0 4.1 1.7 1.1 1.0 0.0 -4.8
E217 Grass-P 3 2.1 4.3 19.0 20.5 11.0 9.8 5.8 1.2
E235 Corn 4 2.2 7.0 25.0 19.7 3.2 2.7 9.9 5.3
65 113.0 168.7 485.7 414.6 140.0 107.3 144.1 80.2
Acre Inch Salt Salt
Farm Reduction of Ton/A.I. Load
# Deep Perc. Reduction
M15 7.0 0.263 30.6
M43 -12.4 0.341 -20.3
M45 5.3 0.341 20.4
M51 5.7 0.341 18.7
E19 3.3 0.280 2.0
E27 0.5 0.258 1.6
E71 4.7 0.263 14.7
E73 3.5 0.234 8.5
E77 0.2 0.234 0.3
E81 3.8 0.234 7.7
E83 0.3 0.592 0.2
E85 -0.9 0.341 -3.3
E201 11.5 0.341 54.1
E203 5.8 0.281 2.9
E210 11.8 0.592 13.3
E212 4.8 0.263 41.6
E217 4.6 0.475 9.5
E235 4.6 0.280 8.9
63.9 211.3
Surge Irrigation Research, Development, and Demonstration - 1991
Acre inch Acre inch Acre inch
Farm Number Acres Applied/a. Run-off/a. Deep perc./a.
# Crop Of Irrig. Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge
M11 Orchard 5 4.30 7.50 51.8 44.30 3.70 11.40 15.90 5.00
M15 Corn 6 18.90 16.60 69.5 50.20 24.10 14.80 23.10 14.50
M43 Alfalfa 6 2.40 4.80 85.2 71.80 36.00 24.70 23.70 22.30
M51 Corn 6 19.00 9.60 32.5 22.20 16.30 9.80 4.10 2.10
E11 Corn 1 5.40 9.10 16.0 8.18 4.07 3.59 4.64 -2.72
E12 Alfalfa 5 4.00 6.00 90.5 48.60 14.10 3.70 39.20 7.60
E14 Beans 2 4.58 11.50 26.5 22.90 8.90 12.80 7.60 -4.90
E17 Sm. Grain 1 3.40 6.80 23.0 14.40 0.20 1.40 20.10 10.30
E18 Corn 2 6.60 6.60 33.1 30.80 0.90 3.10 19.60 14.60
E19 Orchard 3 1.58 2.20 73.0 106.00 24.40 48.80 26.30 35.50
E20 Sm. Grain 3 0.36 1.38 73.8 69.80 41.30 41.50 18.40 14.10
E26 Beans 6 0.57 6.64 47.9 37.80 8.80 4.40 18.10 12.40
E27 Corn 6 2.50 5.60 45.6 37.70 10.00 6.50 13.30 8.80
E29 Sm. Grain 2 0.96 12.50 18.8 9.50 2.20 0.70 8.90 1.10
E32 Corn 3 0.19 1.74 39.9 39.30 7.50 6.60 16.90 17.30
E34 Alfalfa 2 1.00 2.50 19.4 14.80 10.90 6.60 -9.90 -10.20
E36 Alfalfa 1 3.30 2.00 27.2 12.60 8.70 6.40 7.70 -4.60
E50 Pasture 3 1.90 3.80 68.7 57.00 13.10 5.90 39.70 35.20
E55 Sm. Grain 1 7.10 16.20 10.1 8.30 0.00 3.00 -1.80 -3.40
E57 Orchard 2 1.80 3.60 11.4 5.20 2.30 1.10 0.17 -5.90
E58 Alfalfa 3 2.11 2.11 54.1 39.30 21.50 11.50 12.30 7.50
E62 Grass 6 1.86 4.81 47.7 37.90 0.50 1.00 17.00 6.60
E68 Orchard 2 0.53 1.32 25.3 22.50 3.30 6.80 9.10 2.70
E72 Corn 1 6.60 6.60 28.1 30.30 3.20 17.90 19.50 6.95
E73 Corn 1 6.70 11.60 6.7 2.90 1.10 0.67 1.73 -0.50
E75 Sm. Grain 1 4.98 9.96 19.1 9.90 1.60 4.00 13.50 1.80
E77 Sm. Grain 5 2.60 2.97 58.1 46.20 23.40 14.90 12.10 8.60
E80 Orchard 5 0.58 1.16 71.0 45.50 3.00 11.10 38.00 4.40
E81 Pasture 2 2.90 5.80 46.2 23.50 24.10 7.50 5.10 -1.10
E83 Orchard 11 0.96 1.70 122.0 58.10 52.50 17.50 55.80 26.90
E85 Corn 2 2.50 3.50 60.5 41.30 6.10 2.80 32.90 33.20
E95 Alfalfa 4 2.48 4.80 59.7 39.30 13.70 15.90 23.50 1.10
90 115.80 176.99 1174.0 945.88 295.07 284.62 536.24 267.23
Acre Inch
Reduction of Salt Salt
Farm Deep Perc. Ton/A.I. Load
# by Surge Reduction
M11 10.90 0.280 22.9
M15 8.60 0.263 37.5
M43 1.40 0.341 2.3
M51 2.00 0.341 6.5
E11 7.36 0.234 15.7
E12 31.60 0.234 44.4
E14 12.50 0.234 33.6
E17 9.80 0.234 15.6
E18 5.00 0.280 9.2
E19 -9.20 0.280 -5.7
E20 4.30 0.350 2.1
E26 5.70 0.341 12.9
E27 4.50 0.263 6.6
E29 7.80 0.263 25.6
E32 -0.40 0.263 -0.2
E34 0.30 0.280 0.2
E36 12.30 0.280 6.9
E50 4.50 0.263 4.5
E55 1.60 0.258 6.6
E57 6.07 0.280 6.1
E58 4.80 0.263 2.7
E62 10.40 0.341 17.1
E68 6.40 0.280 2.4
E72 12.55 0.280 23.2
E73 2.23 0.234 6.1
E75 11.70 0.234 27.3
E77 3.50 0.234 2.4
E80 33.60 0.280 10.9
E81 6.20 0.234 8.4
E83 28.90 0.592 29.1
E85 -0.30 0.341 -0.4
E95 22.40 0.341 36.7
269.01 419.26
Surge Irrigation Research, Development, and Demonstration - 1990
Acre inch Acre inch Acre inch
Farm Number Acres Applied/a. Run-off/a. Deep perc./a.
# Crop Of Irrig. Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge Conv. Surge
M11 Orchard 4 4.30 7.50 34.6 29.1 4.4 8.80 10.9 2.0
M15 Corn 8 18.90 16.60 76.9 49.3 32.5 16.90 20.7 10.7
M43 Corn 5 2.40 4.80 65.8 50.8 16.2 17.50 31.2 13.7
M45 Sm. Grain 5 5.60 11.30 60.7 39.2 28.2 12.10 16.8 11.2
12 Alfalfa 4 4.00 6.00 66.4 44.2 12.4 5.60 31.6 16.2
14 Beans 2 4.58 11.50 26.8 20.1 11.5 6.20 9.1 7.7
24 Corn 1 4.34 8.10 28.6 14.2 8.7 1.70 15.2 7.8
26 Beans 6 0.57 6.64 63.4 35.8 6.6 8.20 48.2 19.0
28 Alfalfa 1 4.48 8.95 10.5 10.5 0.4 2.30 7.4 5.5
32 Corn 3 0.19 1.74 89.6 63.2 13.5 8.80 65.7 43.6
34 Alfalfa 3 1.00 2.50 30.5 19.6 9.7 5.50 5.9 0.0
40 Orchard 1 0.67 5.22 29.6 21.9 13.1 11.30 11.2 5.4
42 Sm. Grain 2 2.90 5.90 18.1 7.8 8.2 1.60 4.6 0.7
44 Beans 1 3.95 8.00 38.0 24.7 8.6 9.00 26.2 12.4
50 Pasture 2 1.90 3.80 13.5 12.5 3.6 2.80 0.5 0.2
56 Orchard 2 0.60 1.40 45.1 21.0 21.9 2.10 13.5 9.2
58 Alfalfa 1 2.11 2.11 30.0 12.0 19.4 4.00 7.6 4.9
62 Grass 3 1.86 4.81 18.0 13.7 5.2 1.60 -1.1 -1.8
68 Orchard 1 0.53 1.32 8.4 8.9 1.6 3.00 -1.1 -2.0
70 Orchard 3 1.60 3.30 79.2 51.5 36.5 28.30 22.9 3.8
74 Alfalfa 1 1.26 2.27 38.5 17.3 0.9 1.52 32.4 10.6
76 Beans 1 3.18 6.68 24.2 13.0 3.2 0.00 16.6 8.6
80 Orchard 2 0.58 1.16 13.8 11.7 5.3 1.10 2.2 1.4
62 71.50 131.60 910.24 592.04 271.58 159.92 400.44 194.56
Acre Inch
Reduction of Salt Salt
Farm Deep Perc. Ton/A.I. Load
# by Surge Reduction
M11 8.90 0.280 18.7
M15 10.00 0.263 43.7
M43 17.50 0.341 28.6
M45 5.60 0.341 21.6
12 15.48 0.234 21.7
14 1.40 0.234 3.8
24 7.40 0.234 14.0
26 29.20 0.341 66.1
28 1.90 0.258 4.4
32 22.10 0.263 10.1
34 5.90 0.280 4.1
40 5.80 0.280 8.5
42 3.90 0.341 7.8
44 13.80 0.341 37.6
50 0.30 0.263 0.3
56 4.30 0.280 1.7
58 2.70 0.263 1.5
62 0.70 0.341 1.1
68 0.90 0.280 0.3
70 19.10 0.280 17.6
74 21.80 0.263 13.0
76 8.00 0.280 15.0
80 0.80 0.280 0.3
207.48 341.67
Colorado State University, U.S. Department of Agriculture and Colorado counties cooperating. Cooperative Extension programs are available to all without discrimination. No endorsement of products is intended nor is criticism implied of products not mentioned.
|
