EPA-600/2-77-179a
August 1977
Environmental Protection Technology Series
PREDICTION OF MINERAL QUALITY OF
IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW
Volume I. Summary Report and
Verification
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into nine series. These nine broad cate-
gories were established to facilitate further development and application of en-
vironmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The nine series are:
1 Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
6. Scientific and Technical Assessment Reports (STAR)
7 Interagency Energy-Environment Research and Development
8. "Special" Reports
9. Miscellaneous Reports
This report has been assigned to the ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION TECH-
NOLOGY series. This series describes research performed to develop and dem-
onstrate instrumentation, equipment, and methodology to repair or prevent en-
vironmental degradation from point and non-point sources of pollution. This work
provides the new or improved technology required for the control and treatment
of pollution sources to meet environmental quality standards.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/2-77-179a
August 1977
PREDICTION OF MINERAL QUALITY
OF IRRIGATION RETURN FLOW
VOLUME I
SUMMARY REPORT AND VERIFICATION
by
Bureau of Reclamation
Engineering and Research Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
EPA-IAG-D4-0371
Project Officer
Arthur G. Hornsby
Source Management Branch
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
ROBERT S. KERR ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
ADA, OKLAHOMA 74820
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Robert S. Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify
that the contents necessarily reflect the views and policies of
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor does the mention of
trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or
recommendations for use.
11
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate
administration of the major Federal programs designed to protect the
quality of our environment.
An important part of the Agency's effort involves the search for
information about environmental problems, management techniques and
new technologies through which optimum use of the Nation's land and
water resources can be assured and the threat pollution poses to the
welfare of the American people can be minimized.
EPA' s Office of Research and Development conducts this search
through a nationwide network of research facilities.
As one of these facilities, the Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory is responsible for the management of programs to:
(a) investigate the nature, transport, fate and management of pollutants
in groundwater; (b) develop and demonstrate methods for treating waste-
waters with soil and other natural systems; (c) develop and demonstrate
pollution control technologies for irrigation return flows; (d) develop
and demonstrate pollution control technologies for animal production
wastes; (e) develop and demonstrate technologies to prevent, control
or abate pollution from the petroleum refining and petrochemical
industries; and (f) develop and demonstrate technologies to manage
pollution resulting from combinations of industrial wastewaters or
industrial/municipal wastewaters .
This report contributes to the knowledge essential if the EPA is
to meet the requirements of environmental laws that it establish and
enforce pollution control standards which are reasonable, cost effective
and provide adequate protection for the American public.
William C. Galegar 0
Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental
Research Laboratory
ill
-------
ABSTRACT
This volume of the report outlines the purpose and scope of the return
flow research and specifically explains the capabilities of the conjunc-
tive use model for predicting the mineral quality of irrigation return
flow. The purpose of the research was to develop a conjunctive use
model which would (1) predict the salinity contribution from new irri-
gation projects and (2) predict the change in return flow salinity that
would result from operational changes on existing projects.
The model developed and described herein describes the chemical quality
in terms of eight ionic constituents and total dissolved solids. A nodal
concept has been used to facilitate subdividing the project area along
physical or hydrologic boundaries as desired. The study may be limited
to 1 or as many as 20 nodes.
A description of the Vernal Field Study which describes the physical
setting for the model testing is included. A narrative describing
the problems encountered with the original data is included. A data
collection program was initiated to fill the gaps. The model satisfac-
torily simulated the new 2-year data base. Tables and figures showing
the computed-observed comparisons from the verification are included.
Results of model operations for the Cedar Bluff and Grand Valley areas
are also described.
It is concluded that the model can satisfactorily be used to simulate
irrigation return flows if sufficient data are available, especially
groundwater hydrology and chemistry.
This report was submitted in fulfillment of Project EPA-IAG-D4-0371 by
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Engineering and Research Center, under
the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection Agency.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iv
List of Figures vii
List of Tables viii
Acknowledgments ix
Sections
I Conclusions 1
II Recommendations 2
III Introduction 3
Purpose and Scope of the Research 3
Description of the Five Volumes 4
Related Studies 6
Model Capability 7
IV Vernal Study Area 9
Approach 9
Preliminary Model Testing with Existing Data 10
Description of New Input Data 12
Verification and Testing with New Data 13
Study No. 1 14
Study No. 2 14
Study No. 3 16
-------
CONTENTS - Continued
V Cedar Bluff Study Area 50
Description of Area 50
Input Data 50
Verification and Testing 51
Model Study No. 1 51
Model Study No. 2 53
Model Study No. 3 53
VI Grand Valley Study Area 54
Description of Area 54
Description of Input Data 55
Verification and Testing 56
Study No. 1 56
VII References 58
VI
-------
FIGURES
No. Page
1 Vernal Simulation Study No. 3 - Node 1 19
2 Vernal Simulation Study No. 3 - Node 2 20
3 Vernal Simulation Study No. 3 - Node 3 21
4 Cedar Bluff Simulation Study 52
5 Grand Valley Simulation Study 57
Vll
-------
TABLES
No. Page
1 Vernal Simulation Study - Predicted/Observed
Salt Load Leaving Each Node (mg/1) 15
2 Vernal Simulation Study - Predicted/Observed
Salt Pickup in Each Node (tons/acre-foot) 17
VT.11
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The cooperation of a number of state and federal agencies, the local
water users, and two state universities is hereby acknowledged for
the services they rendered in the collection of field data and the
preparation of this report.
1. The full cooperation of the Environmental Protection Agency was
received throughout the study period. Field installations and field
work were thoroughly reviewed by EPA personnel and procedures for
developing the model were periodically reviewed to provide assurance
that the mathematical model would fulfill the requirements of EPA.
Preparation of the report received the full guidance and support of
THE EPA office at Ada, Oklahoma. Funding for the entire research
study was provided by EPA.
2. A research study of this nature requires the collection of field
data from operating projects and data collection is dependent on the
cooperation of the water users and irrigation managers. Mr. Lawrence
Siddoway, the Secretary-Manager of the Uinta Basin Conservancy District
in the Vernal area, cooperated fully in the collection of field data
and assisted in the selection of sites for meteorological equipment.
Individual water users cooperated by allowing the installation of
observation and test wells on their property.
3. The United States Geological Survey installed gaging stations to
measure the inflow and outflow of water from Ashley Valley and at
other locations within the Vernal study area. The USGS also drilled
a test hole deep in the shale in Ashley Valley to determine if any
upward movement of water through the shale could be detected. The
USGS assisted in obtaining data for Bureau use that was collected on
the Cedar Bluff Unit in Kansas for the Kansas State Health Department.
Other water supply records of the Geological Survey were used freely
in preparation of the report.
4. The National Weather Service of the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration provided instrumentation for the Vernal
weather stations and routinely maintained the equipment during the
study period. The equipment consisted of solar radiation measuring
devices, evaporation ponds, rain gages, anemometers, and temperature
and humidity measuring equipment.
5. The Provo, Salt Lake City, and Denver Offices of the Bureau
of Reclamation were involved in conducting this reasearch study.
Volume II was prepared mainly by the Central Utah Projects Office
in Provo, Utah, and the remaining three volumes were prepared by
ix
-------
the Engineering and Research Center in Denver, Colorado. Bureau
soils scientists familiar with soil and vegetation conditions in
the Vernal area made the land use studies to determine the quantity
and type of vegetation in the valley on both the cropped and non-
cropped areas. The services of a Bureau of Reclamation lysimeter
expert from Albuquerque, New Mexico, were required in designing and
installing the lysimeters at Vernal. The lysimeter data were neces-
sary to determine consumptive use from noncropped areas.
6. A concurrent research study for EPA was conducted by Utah State
University in the Vernal area. The final report for this study has
been published as EPA-R2-73-265 entitled "Irrigation Management for
Control of Quality of Irrigation Return Flow." The advice and assist-
ance of University representatives were obtained on such matters as
lysimeter planting and consumptive use determinations.
7. Data collected by Colorado State University from the Grand Valley
area were used to made the verification runs in Section VI of this
volume. Those data are contained in a report entitled "Evaluation of
Canal Lining for Salinity Control in Grand Valley" and is designated
EPA-R2-72-047 dated October 1972.
-------
SECTION I
CONCLUSIONS
This research was concerned with the development of procedures for
predicting the mineral and nutrient quality of return flows from
irrigation. Actual field conditions that typify irrigation develop-
ment in the western United States were studied. In each study area,
the research involved characterizing field conditions, applying com-
puter models to predict quality of the percolating irrigation water,
determining the effect of the percolating water on drainage effluent,
and evaluating system changes on quality of return flow.
The percolation of water through soil in the process of irrigating
crops results in very complex chemical relationships. Both the
mineral and nutrient content and the quantity of return flow are
difficult to predict under conditions found in irrigated agriculture.
In developing a predictive mathematical model to simulate the effect
of irrigation on water quality, it was relatively simple to duplicate
surface conditions. The complexity of the problem stems from not
having sufficient knowledge of subsurface conditions such as soil
chemistry, volume of groundwater, aquifer capacity, depth to barrier,
and drainage characteristics. Variation in soil types within short
horizontal distances makes the acquisition of this type of data
costly, and it is not always available as needed.
This study dealt with three irrigated areas in attempting to verify
the predictive conjunctive use model - the Vernal, Utah area; the
Grand Valley, Colorado area; and the Cedar Bluff, Kansas area.
Adequate data were available for the Vernal area and the verification
effort was minimal. Less data were available from the Cedar Bluff
area with respect to the groundwater body, and the verification
proved to be much more difficult. The chemistry of the return flow
water is dependent to a large degree on the volume and chemistry of
the subsurface water. Although the quality of the groundwater was
well established, considerable adjustment of the groundwater volume
was necessary in order to simulate existing conditions. This sug-
gests that the primary requirement in the simulation process is to
have a good knowledge of hydrologic conditions, including the ground-
water body, and particularly to establish a hydrologic balance in the
system.
-------
SECTION II
RECOMMENDATIONS
The complexity of the salinity problem as it relates to irrigated
agriculture is borne out by these studies. The need for a mathem-
atical prediction model to assist in understanding the salinity and
nutrient problem is now more clearly evident. The usefulness of the
model in simulating project conditions has been demonstrated and its
ability to forecast changes resulting from improved management has
also been demonstrated in a limited way.
Although model development and testing have been hampered by the
lack of sufficient data, confidence could be extended by the collec-
tion of additional data and testing the model under a variety of con-
ditions. The two primary functions of the model are (1) to predict
the salinity effect from new irrigation projects and (2) to predict
the change in salinity that might result from operational changes on
existing projects. Some further work should be undertaken, particu-
larly on Item 2, since the results could be quickly monitored and
since there is very little development of new irrigation projects
underway.
Model development has demonstrated that data of good quality and
quantity are the primary requirements in achieving a good simula-
tion of irrigation project conditions. Another requirement would
be a good basic knowledge of hydrologic conditions in the study
area. If these elements are lacking, difficulty can be expected
in simulation results.
A comparison of month-by-month observed and predicted values with
the annual values in the various studies indicates that the pre-
dictions are more reliable on an annual basis than a monthly basis.
Since a great many factors influence salinity levels on a monthly
time frame, decisions related to salinity projections based on
model studies should be limited to annual values.
-------
SECTION III
INTRODUCTION
GENERAL
Control and alleviation of salinity in the southwestern United States
require critical methods for assessing water quality impacts of pres-
ent and future resource developments. Under an agreement between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Bureau of Reclamation, this
research project was designed to fulfill such a need. The investiga-
tion utilized data from existing irrigation projects and focused on
evaluating the effects of irrigation on the quality of return flow
water. Methods have been developed to predict the effect of new
irrigation projects on downstream water quality by the use of math-
ematical models and high-speed computers. The study started in 1969
using existing field data and a partially developed mathematical
model.
PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE RESEARCH
After passage of the 1965 Water Quality Act, it became urgent to
upgrade polluted waters and to protect clean waters. Because of the
increasing salinity, particularly in the southwestern United States,
it was considered advisable to examine the special problems related
to salinity to see if it could be reduced or maintained at a given
level. It was well understood that a certain level of salinity
existed naturally from mineral weathering of soils and another
portion was added by mineral springs, but the amount contributed by
irrigated agriculture was uncertain and difficult to measure. The
purpose of this study was to use an existing irrigation project and
measure the changes resulting from irrigation and then develop a
mathematical model to see if the changes could be simulated or
predicted.
If goals of the Water Quality Act are to be met, existing water-use
patterns will, in many cases, require change. These changes, for
the most part, will need to be accommodated within the constraints
imposed by water rights and water right laws. Irrigators can be
expected to resist change unless impacts of the changes can be
specified beforehand.
The conjunctive use model developed by this research is expected
to help answer such questions as: (1) What effect would improved
water-use efficiency have on the return flow water quality,
(2) would the change to a higher efficiency increase or decrease
-------
salt loading, (3) what influence would development of new irriga-
tion projects have on the salt load, (4) what effect would canal
lining have on salinity, and (5) what is the effect of drainage
systems on salinity? Such questions involve many complexities
and cannot be answered easily. This research was needed to
better define and understand the relationship between irrigated
agriculture and the salt loading of streams. Of the various
physical phenomena involved in developing water projects, water
quality is one of the most important and least understood. One
of the most complex problems involves predicting the quality of
return flows from irrigated land and nonirrigated land. Water
development projects encompass many diverse situations, each of
which will affect water quality in different ways. These involve
multiple reuse of surface water, recycling of groundwater for
irrigation use, and combined surface and groundwater use. The
water quality returned to the streams under these varying condi-
tions requires a different analytical approach for each condition.
Return flows can be measured and the effects of ongoing projects
assessed by well-planned hydrologic studies, but when a new land
area is brought under irrigation or the water supply of an exist-
ing irrigated area is altered, predictions of impacts on water
quality will be required.
In light of the conditions cited above, the stated purpose of this
research effort has been to develop procedures for predicting irri-
gation return flow water quality and development of simulation pro-
grams for the study of water quantity and quality on a basinwide
basis (6) .
DESCRIPTION OF THE FIVE VOLUMES
This report on the "Prediction of Mineral Quality of Irrigation
Return Flow" has been prepared in five volumes which are described
briefly as follows:
Volume I
Volume I contains an overview of the research including the
purpose and scope of the research, descriptions of the study
areas and input data, the approach to the study, a description of
the preliminary model testing with existing data, and conclusions
and recommendations. The volume also contains the verification of
the conjunctive use using Vernal data and results of processing the
Cedar Bluff data and the Grand Valley data.
-------
Volume II
Volume II includes a description of the Vernal field study, how
the data were collected, and results of the data collection. Also
described are the land classification studies; drainage; water sup-
ply and irrigation under the historical setting; and the current
studies of groundwater, hydrology, canal losses, and land use
wherein data were collected for verification of the model.
Volume III
Volume III includes a user's manual for the simulation submodel,
the development of the mathematical relationships, and a complete
computer listing of the simulation submodel. The mathematical
formulas used in the model are included along with assessments
of the limitations of the procedures and algorithms used in the
model. The user's manual details the step-by-step procedures
needed to apply the model to any situation requiring the pre-
diction of mineral quality of return flow from irrigation. It
includes flow diagrams that give a general understanding of the
program rationale. Subroutines have narrative descriptions which
define the functions, the arguments, and the limitations.
Volume IV
Volume IV contains the development of the data analysis package.
It includes detailed data analysis subroutines which can be used
to analyze data prior to input into the simulation model.
Volume V
Volume V includes a discussion of the return flow quality model.
This model was developed under contracts with the University of
Arizona and by Bureau of Reclamation personnel over a period of
about 5 years.
The model utilizes a number of sophisticated subroutines to simu-
late unsaturated flow in one dimension, two-dimensional saturated
flow to a tile or open channel drainage system, consumptive use of
water by crops, nitrogen transformations, uptake of nitrogen by
crops, solution-precipitation of lime and gypsum, ion pairing,
C02 - Ca++ = HC03~ interactions, and ion exchange. The subroutines
are interfaced to allow nonsteady and steady state predictions
of salt and nitrogen movement from the soil surface to the drain.
-------
In addition, as described in Volume V, this model can be inter-
faced with the conjunctive use model. Volume V also includes
verification results, test runs, and complete user's manuals for
this model.
RELATED STUDIES
The work done by Utah State University (1) on the Vernal Unit
included detailed studies of water and salt movement on an exper-
imental farm. They conducted a highly detailed study on a very
small area aimed at identifying the nature of the salt output from
the farm. This required the installation of closely spaced drains,
a sprinkler irrigation system, weighing lysimeters, and making con-
sumptive use measurements. They also investigated the practicability
of controlling the salinity releases. Each drain included a measuring
device and facilities for obtaining samples for water quality analysis.
The purpose of the research was to develop and field test rational models
for predicting the salt and water status within the soil between the time
of entry as irrigation water and the time of departure as drainage water
or evaporation from the soil or transpiration by the plant. The model
development resulted in a "simplified" model and a "detailed" model. The
simplified model was intended to provide a tool for irrigation manage-
ment. It was formulated to require a small amount of computer time and a
minimum of field data as input and to allow consideration of a wide range
of variation of factors affecting the quality of irrigation return flow.
It was expected that the model would predict gross effects. The main
purpose of the detailed model was to understand the specifics of simul-
taneous water and salt flow through the crop root zones. The detailed
model was based more closely on known physical principles and laws gov-
erning water movement through partially saturated soils. The results of
the studies indicate that control over quality of soil profile effluent
will require precise control of water on the farm, particularly the depth
and timing of irrigations.
Colorado State University conducted a study for the Environmental
Protection Agency titled "Evaluation of Canal Lining for Salinity Control
in the Grand Valley ( (5) . This study proposed to determine the effect of
salinity management practice on conditions in the basin. The objectives
were to: (1) demonstrate the feasibility of reducing salt loading in the
Colorado River system by lining conveyance channels to reduce unneccesary
groundwater additions and (2) extend the results of this study to evalu-
ate the method for applicability to the problem in the Grand Valley and
the Upper Colorado River basin.
The study evaluated conditions in the area prior to construction of
lining and then reevaluated conditions after lining had been completed.
-------
The plan was to collect data in order to define both water and salt flow
systems. The data were collected generally from 1969 through 1971 but
only the 1970-1971 water year data were considered sufficient to apply
on the prediction model.
MODEL CAPABILITY
The conjunctive use model has those capabilities required to simulate
simultaneously the use of water resources within a river basin from
both surface resources and subsurface or groundwater resources.
These capabilities include the resource magnitude as well as its
chemical quality. The chemical quality of the water resource is
characterized in terms of eight inorganic ionic constituents and
total dissolved salts.
The overall simulation model has as a basis a nodal concept or
structure which facilitates the mathematical representation of a
river basin and a simple compact manner of performing calculations,
many of which are iterative in design.
A river basin can be studied as one node or as many as 20 nodes. The
model is designed for a maximum of 20 nodes; however, this maximum is
determined by the limitations of the computer system being used. The
number of nodes used in a particular river basin study will be a deci-
sion the analyst must make on the basis of data available, the number
of response points desired, and the physical features within the river
basin. The node then as a common denominator can be used to represent
the simplest river basin study to one that is quite complex.
*
The node can include the simulation of one or all of the following
features:
1. Ten tributary inflows
2. Ten demands of water resources, both surface and subsurface
3. The operation of a surface reservoir
4. The operation of a power facility
5. The operation of a subsurface reservoir (aquifer)
6. The percolation of surface waters vertically through a soil
profile
7. The operation of a pumping facility
8. The determination of return flows, both magnitude and quality,
when given consumptive use and conveyance losses
The electronic computer application of the conjunctive use simulation
model consists of 24 subroutines or functions plus the executive or
main program. The FORTRAN listings included as part of Volume III for
-------
the main program, as well as the subroutines and functions, are filled
with comments at pertinent points. The extensive use of these comments
is meant to aid in describing the flow of the model and to provide infor-
mation within the listings that would be helpful in making program modi-
fications or conversions to other computer systems as either become
necessary.
The return flow quality model provides a highly sophisticated and
detailed simulation of salt and nutrient movement from the soil surface
to a tile or open-channel drainage system. This model can be interfaced
with the conjunctive use model to provide basinwide simulation capabili-
ties involving more than one node.
8
-------
SECTION IV
VERNAL STUDY AREA
Irrigation began in the Vernal area of Ashley Valley almost 100 years
ago, and by 1900 most of the irrigable lands in the valley had been
placed under production by diverting directly from Ashley Creek. The
Ashley Creek drainage is on the south slope of the Uinta mountains, and,
consequently, the spring runoff from snowmelt is of relatively short
duration. Historically, the farmers applied as much of the heavy runoff
as possible and were then subject to having practically no water in the
late summer months. This condition was partially alleviated in 1962 by
construction of the offstream Steinaker Reservoir to store runoff for use
when Ashley Creek flows diminished. This resulted in a different method
of irrigation in the valley, but the storage is still not sufficient to
meet the needs of the whole valley. Evaluation of the data collected in
1971 and 1972 indicates that the same condition still persists, to a
degree, in that much more water is applied in the early season than is
required. Consumptive use values were computed for the area showing that
deliveries exceeded requirements in May and June and were deficient later
in the season. Location of the reservoir offstream is partially respon-
sible for this condition since the lands cannot all be served directly
from the reservoir. It is believed, however, that the situation could
be improved if irrigation scheduling were instituted and deliveries
were more in line with consumptive use requirements. This, in turn,
would result in less deep percolation and theoretically less pickup of
salt from the shale surface. Further description of the Vernal area is
contained in Volume II, Vernal Field Study.
APPROACH
The Vernal study has been conducted in two phases. The first phase
consisted of testing the mathematical model with data that existed
prior to initiation of the agreement between the two agencies. The
Bureau of Reclamation had collected data in the Vernal area for other
purposes during the period from 1957 through 1962, and an analysis of
these data indicated that they could be used for developing and test-
ing a mathematical model. Accordingly, the data were assembled and
the model tested. After a number of attempts, a successful, limited,
prediction model was developed.
The results of this preliminary model testing gave indications of the
kinds of data that should be collected for model verification for the
second phase. The most significant gap in the existing data proved to
be the lack of consumptive use values from both the natural vegetation
and the farmed areas along with continuous water quality data from sur-
face sources.
-------
A data-gathering program was outlined that provided for installation
of lysimeters, continuous conductivity recorders, additional gaging
stations, observation holes, soil test holes, and weather stations.
A land use survey was conducted, pumping tests were made, a shale
leakage test was made, and inflow-outflow studies were made.
Data were collected for a 2-year period to again test the mathematical
model. The results of testing with the new data indicated some adjust-
ment in the model was required to attain a satisfactory prediction.
The mathematical model has been designed as a general model that would
be applicable to a data set from any location in accordance with EPA
requirements, and it also has capability far beyond the data input
from the three projects tested - Vernal, Grand Valley, and Cedar Bluff.
The study of the Vernal area was ideal with respect to the large areas
under irrigation and the relatively large increases in salinity as the
water traversed the irrigated lands in the valley.
The design of the simulation model incorporated the simultaneous use
of both surface and subsurface water resources and the representation
of these resources in magnitude and chemical quality. The preliminary
studies lumped the entire area into one gross simulation of the opera-
tional features. The results pointed up the need for breaking the area
into smaller subareas in order to better define the existing conditions.
These subareas were later called nodes and this resulted in the develop-
ment of the nodal concept in the design of the simulation model. Addi-
tional applications of the model to the Vernal data using nodal divi-
sions resulted in continued refinements. The nodal division points
represented natural physical divisions within the Ashley Valley.
The results of the early simulation studies using the 5-year historic
period also indicated that it was not possible to obtain a hydraulic
balance of surface flows in any of the nodes unless an exchange mech-
anism was included in the simulation model to allow the surplus sur-
face water to enter the aquifer as a lateral transfer or conversely
to allow a deficit of surface water to be drawn from the-aquifer.
This exchange mechanism in effect becomes a "black box" approach to
the uncertainties related to the disposition of the return flows.
PRELIMINARY MODEL TESTING WITH EXISTING DATA
Initial efforts to verify the model were made with data collected
earlier for other project purposes, as previously indicated. The
chemical data were not complete, and, in order to have monthly data,
it became necessary to supply missing months by inspection or rough
10
-------
correlation. Consumptive use data were developed without the bene-
fit of concurrent weather information, and, as a result, inconsist-
encies were found in applying both the chemical quality and consump-
tive use data to the model. The inconsistencies in data concerning
consumptive use were dampened in the overall system by allowing the
excesses and deficiencies to accumulate in the aquifer storage
facilities.
All effort to obtain explicit or deterministic analyses of the
chemical exchanges in the return flow waters was discarded
in favor of statistical inference which measures the chemical
exchanges on a probabilistic basis. It was found that the use of
statistical inference enables the prediction of return flow chemis-
tries, constituent by constituent, at about the 92.5-percent level.
To obtain data for the statistical inference study, it was assumed
that all waters available for diversion, with the exception of
extremes, were applied to irrigation and the measured aquifer chem-
istries from each node (drain outflow) represented the chemistry of
the return flows. Even though there was some significant difference
in the distribution functions, constituent by constituent, if the
distribution function obtained for the chemical constituent of
highest concentration was used, all other constituents could be
estimated with a simple transform with respect to the fitting
parameters. This technique was justified because of the low
sensitivity of those constituents of lesser concentrations. The
high level of predictability, and the fact that variance was not
significantly different than 1.0, produced a peculiar situation.
It was found that not only had the daily sampling fluctuations been
dampened by the longer time period of monthly reporting, but also,
in several cases, the supposedly observed data had been obtained
for missing periods by simply using the mean as the expected value.
This particular manipulation would also account for the inconsistency
in the distribution function for the lower concentrated constituents.
At the conclusion of the above-described analyses and with the use
of statistical inference techniques, several simulations were made
of the Vernal Unit using the conjunctive use model. In each of these
simulations, parameters describing the allotment of inflow waters to
each of the nodes were manipulated until the system was in balance
hydraulically or quantitatively. The last of these simulations was
one that compared predicted aquifer capacities with those as com-
puted for the historic period 1958 through 1962. In each of the
nodes, with the exception of one, a high rate of divergence existed
between the aquifer capacities as observed and those that were pre-
dicted with the use of the model. The divergence was expected
because the inconsistencies of consumptive use had been accumulated
in the aquifer.
11
-------
It should be noted from the previous discussion that no effort was
made to simulate waters percolating through the soil profile. This
simulation was not required because of the very low sensitivity to
the overall objective as provided by this type of simulation. Also,
the rate of change of chemistry in the aquifer, time period by time
period, was not significant.
The above-described applications had exhausted the conceivable manip-
ulation of parameters and existing basic data pertinent to the Vernal
Unit. From these several applications, it was concluded that the
total objective in studying the Vernal area with the historic time
sets was satisfied. It was further concluded that the ongoing sam-
pling format of data in the Vernal area would have to be changed to
render a more meaningful predictive model. Some of the expected
ramifications of the new data being collected with the changed
sampling format are: (1) a lower level of predictability with the
use of statistical inference because of the impact of the true sam-
pling fluctuations, (2) a higher degree of consistency in the esti-
mate of consumptive use, and (3) the elimination of, or at least a
considerable reduction in, the divergences of the experienced and
predicted aquifer capacities.
It was clear at this point that a set of statistical techniques was
needed that would enable a comprehensive analysis of the consisten-
cies of all basic data sets that might be used in further applica-
tions of the model in other project areas. The use of the data
analysis techniques would eliminate many of the trial and error
methods that were required in the preliminary Vernal study and
would, in addition, create a more meaningful assignment of node
configuration with respect to total analytical objectives. The
concurrent analyses of other projects would aid in the evaluation
of the mathematical and statistical techniques included as a part
of the sensitivity and data analysis concept. Many of the tech-
niques employed in the data analysis concepts are an integral part
of the stochastic concept in developing larger samples from smaller
historic time sets.
DESCRIPTION OF NEW INPUT DATA
The Vernal area could logically be divided into three nodes repre-
senting three natural physical divisions, so new data were collected
at each of the node or division boundaries in 1971 and 1972 in order
to assess changes within the nodes. This entailed collecting flow
and quality data on canal flows and stream flows and computing con-
sumptive use values for the types of vegetation contained within
the nodes. An additional important factor was defining the volume
12
-------
and chemistry of water contained in the groundwater body. Observa-
tion holes and test holes were located throughout the area..
Periodic samples were taken from each hole and analyzed and the
water levels in each hole were logged. Permeability rates were estab-
lished and the water-holding capacity of the soil was determined, and,
from these data, the volume of water in each node was computed. Depth
to shale had previously been established by drilling the observation
holes and test holes through the soil to the shale surface. The shale
was considered relatively impermeable.
Previous studies indicated the salt pickup in the Vernal area had to
be derived from the groundwater body since the chemistry of the out-
flowing water was nearly identical to that of the groundwater while
the inflowing water from Ashley Creek contained a very low concentra-
tion of dissolved solids.
The quality of the groundwater differed substantially from one loca-
tion to another, so the values were averaged in order to obtain an
initial groundwater condition for the model study. The groundwater
is very high in sulfate, the primary composition of the Mancos Shale
which underlies the valley. An early attempt to model the chemistry
of the outflows without considering the groundwater quality failed.
Water quality throughout the area was determined by electrical con-
ductivity measurements combined with periodic sampling and complete
analysis in the laboratory. The quantity of water in the canals and
Ashley Creek was obtained from stream gaging stations with continuous
recorders and from staff gages read by project personnel. Canal losses
were previously determined from studies made by the Soil Conservation
Service.
The Vernal area was ideally adaptable to model analysis because all
the inputs and outflows were measurable to a good degree of accuracy.
A hydrologic balance was easily obtained, thereby simplifying analy-
sis by the computer.
VERIFICATION AND TESTING WITH NEW DATA
The initial testing of the conjunctive use model with existing Vernal
data pointed up the deficiencies in these data and set the stage for
collection of new data during the 1971-72 period. As soon as all the
new data were collected and tabulated, a new series of conjunctive use
studies were initiated. A good hydrologic balance was obtained and the
corresponding chemistry was used as collected in the field without any
manipulation or correlation. The first computer run indicated the new
13
-------
data to be far superior to the existing data and that the results of
the model runs would be much more reliable than the previous runs.
This also leads to the premise that a model will simulate conditions
only when sufficient and accurate data are obtained for verification.
Study No. 1
This study was made without the use of the internodal transfer option
in transferring flows from one subsurface storage facility (aquifer)
to another subsurface storage facility. Also in this study the return
flows were directed to the subsurface storage facility for mixing dur-
ing the same time frame. The results of this study were discarded
because the aquifer in Node 3 showed small, negative, storage values
for the months of March and October 1972. These negative storage
values invalidated the system hydrologic balance for the period of
study.
Study No. 2
This study was made using the internodal transfer option. The con-
straint in the use of this option is that transfers will be made only
from the node immediately upstream from the node in deficit. Also,
in this study, return flows were directed to the aquifer for mixing
in the same time frame. The mixing of the internodal transfers were
handled in a like manner.
During the period of study, a total of 1,088 acre-feet were trans-
ferred to Node 3 (103) from Node 2 (102) as internodal transfers.
These transfers were required for the months of March and October
1972.
For the purpose of validating the model, two comparisons were made
for this study and the subsequent Study No. 2. These comparisons
were considered as the most meaningful because of the short period
of study and the simplicity of the model application.
The first comparison, as shown in Table 1, is that of comparing the
salt load, leaving each node as predicted by the model to the salt
load observed as leaving each node. Although some months in this
comparison show a large difference between the predicted and
observed values, the totals and the means for the period of study
are reasonably close as the summary shown below indicates:
14
-------
Table 1. VERNAL SIMULATION STUDY
Predicted/Observed Salt Load Leaving Each Node
(Mg/1)
Ul
Year
1971
1972
Month
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Total
Mean
Node
Without
soil column
335/386
70/141
43/143
134/148
245/174
294/241
188/546
488/804
480/880
493/678
462/830
471/476
149/268
60/141
63/135
181/162
296/181
328/184
452/384
5,232/6,897
275/363 =
0.758
1
With soil
column
335/386
72/141
43/143
147/148
327/174
430/241
234/546
791/804
777/880
802/678
744/830
772/471
179/268
60/141
71/135
262/162
526/181
626/184
943/384
8,141/6,897
428/363 =
1.179
Node
Without
soil column
825/1,082
141/500
223/428
321/264
527/363
581/681
792/1,022
1,041/1,242
1,047/1,242
1,029/1,258
1,090/1,189
957/1,243
268/573
114/371
162/442
513/361
812/414
713/455
803/923
11,959/14,053
629/740 =
0.850
2
With soil
column
825/1,082
141/500
225/428
334/264
527/363
643/681
865/1,022
1,156/1,292
1,145/1,242
1,138/1,258
1,200/1,189
1,044/1,243
268/573
114/371
167/442
604/361
1,029/414
924/455
1,040/923
13,389/14,053
704/740 =
0.951
Node
Without
soil column
1,626/2,017
500/1,115
528/1,178
1,416/1,352
2,895/1,918
2,936/1,271
1,256/1,641
1,877/1,727
1,940/1,831
2,294/1,704
2,595/1,704
2,367/1,647
729/2,151
371/1,498
541/1,195
1,609/2,016
1,938/1,652
2,265/2,038
1,597/2,011
31,180/31,666
1,641/1,667 =
0.984
3
With soil
column
1,626/2,017
500/1,115
428/1,178
1,296/1,352
2,684/1,918
2,709/1,271
1,213/1,641
1,725/1,727
1,758/1,831
2,000/1,704
2,161/1,704
1,902/1,647
672/2,151
371/1,498
524/1,195
1,407/2,016
1,789/1,652
2,135/2,038
1,620/2,011
28,520/31,666
1,580/1,667 =
0.948
-------
Node 1 qoi) Node 2 (102) Node 3 (103)
Totals (ppm)
Predicted 5,232 11,959 31,180
Observed 6,987 14,053 31,666
Means (PPm)
Predicted 275 629 1,641
Observed 363 740 1,677
Absolute differ-
ences expressed
as a percent of
the observed 24 15 2
The second comparison in Table 2 shows the salt load pickup in each
node as predicted by the model and the salt load pickup as observed.
The characterizations made for the first comparison are also valid
for this comparison and a similar summary is shown below:
Node 1 (101) Node 2 (102) Node 3 (103)
Totals (tons/
acre-foot)
Predicted 4.528 6.930 23.296
Observed 6.747 9.768 23.956
Means (tons/
acre-foot)
Predicted 0.238 0.364 1.226
Observed 0.355 0.514 1.260
Absolute differ-
ences expressed
as a percent of
the observed 33 29 3
Study No. 5
This study used the internodal transfer option as was used in Study
No. 2. However, in this study the return flows were directed to the
soil column simulation and after percolating through the soil were
mixed with the waters in the subsurface storage facilities with a
one-time frame lag.
The same comparisons were made for this study as were made for Study
No. 2, the results of which are also shown in Tables 1 and 2. The
comparison of the salt loads leaving the system is summarized as
follows:
16
-------
Table 2. VERNAL SIMULATION STUDY
Predicted/Observed Salt Pickup in Each Node
(tons/acre-foot)
Year
1971
1972
Month
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
Jun
Jul
Aug
Sep
Oct
Total
Mean
Node
Without
soil column
0.264/0.334
0.007/0.103
0.000/0.136
0.072/0.091
0.201/0.105
0.280/0.208
0.074/0.562
0.513/0.942
0.450/0.992
0.489/0.740
0.446/0.947
0.444/0.437
0.071/0.232
0.017/0.091
0.014/0.112
0.141/0.115
0.284/0.128
0.327/0.131
0.434/0.341
4.528/6.747
0.238/0.355=
0.670
1
With soil
column
0.264/0.334
0.010/0.103
0.000/0.136
0.089/0.091
0.314/0.105
0.465/0.280
0.136/0.562
0.925/0.942
0.852/0.992
0.909/0.740
0.831/0.947
0.846/0.437
0.112/0.232
0.017/0.091
0.025/0.112
0.251/0.115
0.597/0.218
0.732/0.131
1.102/0.341
8.477/6.747
0.446/0.355
1.256
Node
Without
soil column
0.597/0.946
0.000/0.488
0.109/0.388
0.235/0.157
0.481/0.257
0.462/0.599
0.334/0.646
0.332/0.596
0.228/0.493
0.477/0.789
0.354/0.488
0.660/1.049
0.000/0.415
0.000/0.350
0.037/0.418
0.478/0.272
0.858/0.317
0.718/0.367
0.570/0.733
6.930/9.768
= 0.364/0.514 =
0.708
2
With soil
column
0.597/0.946
0.000/0.488
0.112/0.388
0.250/0.157
0.544/0.257
0.547/0.599
0.433/0.646
0.479/0.596
0.361/0.493
0.626/0.789
0.504/0.488
0.779/1.049
0.000/0.415
0.000/0.350
0.044/0.418
0.602/0.272
1.152/0.317
1.006/0.367
0.892/0.733
8.931/9.768
0.470/0.514 =
0.914
Node 3
Without
soil column
0.770/1.271
0.000/0.837
0.000/1.019
1.567/1.480
3.444/2.115
3.066/0.802
0.318/0.842
0.864/0.660
0.950/0.801
1.409/0.607
1.913/0.701
1.529/0.580
0.213/2.147
0.000/1.533
0.134/1.024
1.698/2.251
2.072/1.684
2.463/2.153
0.916/1.479
23.296/23.956
1.226/1.260 =
0.973
With soil
column
0.740/1.271
0.000/0.837
0.000/1.019
1.405/1.480
3.157/2.115
2.758/0.802
0.261/0.842
0.657/0.660
0.702/0.801
1.009/0.607
1.322/0.701
0.897/0.550
0.136/2.147
0.000/1.533
0.112/1.024
1.422/2.251
1.870/1.684
2.286/2.153
0.947/1.479
19.681/23.956
1.035/1.260 -
0.821
-------
Node 1 C101) Node 2 (102) Node 5 (103)
Total (ppm)
Predicted 8,141 13,474 28,520
Observed 6,897 14,503 31,666
Means (ppm)
Predicted 426 709 1,501
Observed 363 739 1,667
Absolute differ-
ences expressed
as a percent of
the observed 17 4 10
The comparison of the salt pickup in each node is also summarized as
follows:
Node 1 (101) Node 2 (102) Node 5 (103)
Totals tons/
acre-foot)
Predicted 8.477 8.931 19.681
Observed 6.747 9.768 23.956
Means (tons/
acre-foot)
Predicted 0.446 0.470 1.035
Observed 0.355 0.514 1.260
Absolute differ-
ences expressed
as a percent of
the observed 26 9 18
Figures 1-3 are graphic presentations of the predicted versus observed
quality of outflow from each node from Study No. 3.
18
-------
2,500
2,000
1,500
«=l
>»
o»
1,000
500
I I
I T
VERNAL SIMULATION STUDY No. 3-NODE I
Observed
/
/—I
1971
1972
Figure 1. Vernal simulation study no. 3, node 1.
-------
2,500
zpoo
1,500
1,000
500
\ I I
I I
I I I I I I
VERNAL SIMULATION STUDY No. 3-NODE 2
Observed
I I I I I I I
J I I
I I I I I
1971
1972
Figure 2. Vernal simulation study no. 3, node 2.
-------
3,000
2,500
—\
i r
VERNAL SIMULATION STUDY No. 3-NODE 3
2,0001
10 01
1,500
1,000
500
y*—Predicted
\
1971
Figure 3. Vernal simulation study no. 3, node 3.
1972
-------
SAMPLE OF VERNAL SIMULATION RUNS
Nos. 1, 2, and 3
22
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR THE VERNAL PROJECT
NODE NUMBER = 101 MONTH OF MAY YEAR 1971
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
ASHLEY CREEK AT HEAD OF SYSTEM
FEEDER CANAL TO STEINECKER RESERVOIR
INFLOH FROM STEINECKER RESERVOIR
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOHS FROM NODE
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 3
UPPER CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 2
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 1
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 245
& ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 11
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOH TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOH FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOH FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOH TO AQUIFER FROM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOH FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOHS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOH FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
18160
4800
1324
3430
0
1508
4264
2014
984
1115
24086
687
1369
1369
0
0
9885
9885
0
0
0
CA
PPM
"22
22
38
23
22
23
26
38
142
126
117
23
23
0
0
38
23
15
16
1
"NUMBER OF
MG
PPM
4
10
5
4
2
5
10
63
82
27
5
5
0
0
10
5
5
0
NA
PPM
2
2
6
2
2
1
6
34—
61
13
2
2
0
6
2
3
3
0
CODES'":
CL
PPM
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
23
20
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
= 3 -
S04
PPM
17
17
59
21
17
~ 13
16
59
314
272
107
21
21
0
0
53
21
31
35
3~
PAGE NO. 4
HC03
PPM
37
37
53
38
37
33
43
53
200
265
192
38
38
0
0
56
38
17
19
1
CO 3
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N03
PPM
"0
0
0
0
0
- o -
0
0
o
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
65
65
143
72
65
58
73
143
678
707
362
72
72
0
0
141
72
68
75
6
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.089
0.089
0.195
•" 0.099
I
0.089
0.080
0.100
0.195
0.922
0.962
0.494
0.099
0.099
0.000
0.000
1
0.192
0.099
0.093
0.103
0.010
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FtfR-mrTEWAU-pROJECT" "
NODE NUMBER = 1C2 MONTH OF MAY YEAR 1971
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 4
UPPER CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 10
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 6
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 5
ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 8
" £ SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOW TO AQUIFER FROM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUII-LOHS FROM NOUk
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE COBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
9885
2810
0
645
2624
452
416
2655
19272
422
283
263
0
0
6792
0
0
0
CA
PPM
36
36
~ 16
27
119
55
155
226
257
38
38
0
0
— 84
36
45
145
0
NUMBER OF NODES = 3
MG
PPM
10
10
J
6
47
21
96
99
72 "
10
10
0
0
10
34
-0
NA
PPM
6
6
f
1
19
6
58
26
40
6
6
0
0
25
6
19
£9
-0
CL
PPM
3
3
0
0
6
4
18
11
— 24
3
3
0
0
T
3
4
4
0
' PAGE" NO.
S04 HC03
PPM PPM
53
53
13
16
377
- 51
665
695
354
53
53
0
" 296
53
242
Z4Z
0
55
56
30
48
78
106
120
173
377
56
56
o
0
80
56
24
24 '
0
C03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
"0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-5--
N03
PPM
0
0
0
0
-- o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
141
141
53
76
608
193
1056
1146
939
141
141
0
0
500
141
358
358
0
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.192
0.192
'
0.073
0.105
0.627
0.263.
1.437
1.559
1.278
0.192
0.192
0.000
0.000
0.680
0.19Z
0.486
0.488
0.000
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR THE VERNAL PROJECT
NODE NUMBER = 103 MONTH OF MAY YEAR 1971
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT HEAO OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
6792
3630
0
CA
PPM
84
84
NUMBER OF NODES
MG
PPM
45
45
NA
PPH
25
25
CL
PPM
7
7
= 3
S0<»
PPM
2~96
296
PAGE NO. 6
HC03
PPM
80
80
C03
PPM
0
0
N03
PPM
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
500
500
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.680
0.680
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 1
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 2
ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW AT JENSEN, UTAH
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
to AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
°" RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOW TO AQUIFER TO RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
332
2a
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY ''FOR "THE" VERNAL "PROJECT
NODE NUMBER = 101 MONTH OF JUN YEAR 1971
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
ASHLEY CREEK AT HEAD OF SYSTEM
FEEDER CANAL TO STEINECKER RESERVOIR
INFLOH FROM STEINECKER RESERVOIR
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOHS FROM NODE
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 3
UPPER CANAL OUTFLON CAGE NO. 2
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 1
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 245
& ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 11
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOW TO AQUIFER FROM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FFOM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED!
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
37970
<>690
0
6S65
0
V171
7639
4268
0
6440
26142
1311
<»227
4227
0
0
22488
22488
0
0
0
CA
PPM
14
14
0
14
14
- ~15
24
0
"79
120
70
14
Ik
0
0
35
21
21
0
NUMBER OP NODES - 3
MG
PPM
3
3
0
3
3
2
2
0
33
77
15
3
3
0
0
11
3
6
6
0
NA
PPM
2
2
0
2
2
0 '
2
0
24"
57
10
2
2
0
0
7
2
5
5
-0
CL
PPM
1
1
0
"T"
1
0
1
0
8
19
8
1
1
0
0
3
1
1
1
-0
S04
PPM
10
10
0
10
10
10
11
0
182 "
254
52
10
10
0
0
60
"10"
49
49
-0
'"PAGE" MO. '
HC03
PPM
"23
23
0
23
23
21
36
0
113"
270
117
23
23
0
0 "
51
" 23
27
27
0
C03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
• o
0
0
0
0
0
"7"
N03
PPM
-Q .._
0
0
fl-
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
' 0
0
0
._... 0
0
"0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
43
43
0
43
43
39
60
0
"386 ~
664
216
43 "
43
0
... 0 .
143
43"
100
100
-0
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.059
0.059
0.000
0.059 '
0.059
0.094
0.082
0.000
0.525
0.904
0.295
0.059
0.059
0.000
0.000
0.195
0.059
0.136
0.136
-0.000
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR THE VERNAL PROJECT
NODE NUMBER = 102 MONTH OF JUN YEAR 1971
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 4
UPPER CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 10
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 6
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 5
M ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 8
-j
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS'
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOH FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOH FKOM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOH TO AQUIFER FROM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOH FFOM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOH TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
"— ' TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED. OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
~ OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
22488
5460
0
2621
4504
632
0
10760
19977
622
0
0
1509
1509
18537
18537
0
0
0
CA
PPM
35~~
35
18
19
126
0
118
224
234
0
0
224
224
- 80
50
29
45
15
NUMBER OF-
MG
PPM
11
11
2
2
43
0
58
97
75
0
0
97
97
36
18
17
24
7
NA
.PPM
7
7
0
1
16
0
38
26
53
0
0
26
26
Z3
9
13
15
1
NODES"
CL
PPM
3
3
1
0
7
0
11
11
20
0
0
11
11
7
3
3
3
0
= 3
S04
PPM
60
60
13
10
326
o
364
679
399
0
0
679 "
679
239
110
128
~1T9
50
PAGE NO.
HC03
PPM
— 5I—
51
25
29
106
0"
121
176
339 ~
0
0
"176
176
85
61
23
33
10
COS
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
N03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
iw~
143
48
48
574
o
672
1127
953 "
0
0
"1127
1127
428
223
205
2*5 ~
80
SALTS
TONS/AF
0 . 1 95
0.195
•
0.066
0.065
0.782
"" 0.000
0.914
1.533
1.297
0.000
0.000
1.533
1.533
0.583
0.304
0.279
•Jl"~ ^ >*A*
0.388
0.109
-------
"RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVEUSE "STUDY FOR THE~"VERNAL PROJECT
NODE NUMBER = 103 MONTH OF JUN YEAR 1971
NUMBER Or NOOES~= 3
PAGE NO." 9
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOH AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 1
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 2
ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW AT JENSEN, UTAH
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
£ AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TPANSFER OF FLOH FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOH TO AQUIFER 10 RIVER
TPANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOH TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOH FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE IOBSERVEO - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN SYSTEM
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
18S37
6600
0
696
212
10280
6460
68<»
549
549
0
0
11188
11188
0
0
0
0
0
CA
PPM
80
80
19
197
216
585
800
80
80
0
0
203
80
123
123
-0
189
66
MG
PPM
36
36
2
69
107
223
361
36
36
0
0
99
36
63
63
-0
96
33
NA
PPM
23
23
1
68
59
52
231
23
23
0
0
56
23
33
33
0
54
21
CL
PPM
7
7
0
11
19
19 ~
70
7
7
0
0
17
7
io
10
0
16
5
SOI»
PPM
23«T
239
10
6(1
4.063
5.600
0.583
0.583
0.000
0.000
1.603
0.583
1.019
1.019
-0.000
1.544
0.525
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR- THE VERNAL
NODE NUMBER = 1C1 MONTH OF JUL YEAR
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
ASHLEY CREEK AT HEAD OF SYSTEM
FEEUEK CANAL TO STEINECKER RESERVOIR
INFLOW FROM STEINECKER RESERVOIR
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 3
UPPER CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 2
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 1
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 245
S£ ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 11
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RFTURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOW TO AQUIFER FROM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FPOM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
PROJECT
1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
10730
0
7952
6870
0
2
-------
'RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR TH£~VE&NAL PROJECT'
NODE NUMBER = 102 MONTH OF JUL YEAR 1971
NUMBER OF~NOOES"= 3
PAGE NO.
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOH AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 4
UPPER CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 1C
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 6
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 5
ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOH GAGE NO. 8
•o
~ "SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOH TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOH FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOH FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOH TO AQUIFER FROM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOH FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOH TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE I08SERVEO - PREDICTED!
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
12741
5730
0
1392
1057
352
4564
1160
19290
656
0
0
1514
1514
8525
8525
0
0
0
CA
PPM
40"
40
- 27 -
30
76
- 50 "
180
224
272
0
0
224 "
224
62
73
-10
22
32
MG
PPM
12
12
6
6
27
" 19
79
96
"83
0
0
- 96
96
"24
27
-2
12
14
NA
.PPM
6
6
2
9
4
51
27
' 44
0
0
~27
27
10
10
-0
3
CL
PPM
3
3
1
5
2
14
12
23
0
0
12
12
4
5
-0
0
1
S04
PPM
53
53
14
14
171
53
564
668
358
0
0
'668
668
116'
162
-46
63
109
HC03
PPM
63
63
54
82
94
168
182
' 428
0
0
182
182
85
6
27
21
COS
PPM
0
0
o
0
0
fl
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
N03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
" 148
148
.... 76
82
332
" " 177
975
1120
- 996 ""
0
0
1120 '
1120
" 264
321
-57
115
172
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.203
0.203
0.104
0.112
0.45ZK
0.242
1.326
1.524
1. 356
0.000
0.000
1.5Z4
1.524
" 0.359
0.437
-0.078
0.157
0.235
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR THE VERNAL
t
NODE NUMBER = 103 MONTH OF JUL YEAR
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 1
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 2
ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW AT JENSEN, UTAH
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
w AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
"* RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
INFLOW TO AQUIFER TO RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN SYSTEM
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
" PROJECT" "
: 1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
8525
7110
0
<»93
257
1750
7693
709
0
0
1085
1035
2500
2500
0
0
0
0
0
CA
PPM
62
62
29
216
207
568
630
0
0
566
568
173
282
-108
110
219
171
280
MG
PPM
Zk
Zk
6
137
1<*0
"222"
ZkS
0
0"
222
222
113
110
3
89
85
113
109
NA
PPM
10
10
139
123
66
102
0
"0
66
66
101
66
90
Zk
100
3k
CL
PPM
k
k
0
19
27
23
ki
0
23
23
21
12
8
16
8
21
12
= 3
S0
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY' fO\ THE VERNAL PROJECT
NUMBER OF
NODES
= 3
Hfl
NODE NUMBER = 101 MONTH OF JUL YEAR 1971
VOLUME
ACFE FEET
CA
PPM
MG
PPM
NA
PPM
CL
PPM
S04
PPM
HC03
PPM
b{ NO.
"COS"
PPM
10
N03
PPM
TOTAL
PPM
SALTS
TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
ASHLEY CREEK AT HEAD OF SYSTEM
FEEDER CANAL TO STEINECKER "cS£RVOIR
INFLOW FROM STEINECKER RESERVOIR
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IOKAL DEMAND
10730
0
7952
6870
0
32
0
33
35
5
0
10
7
2
0
6
4
0
0
4
2
11
0
50
27
58
0
56
57
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
81
0
138
105
0.111
0.000
0.188
0.144
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
-HISHLINE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGi NO. 3
UPPEC CANAL OUTFLOW GAG£ NO. 2
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOW GA^E NO. 1
srRvicr CANtL OUTFLCW GAGE NO. 245
1 {o ASHLEY CPEiK OUTFLOK GAGZ NO. 11
2490
2858
434
735
30
'~ 29
50
35
135
7
6
19
10
2
1
4
6
0
0
2
4
18
19
17
53
5Q
336
55
50
56
192
0
0
0
" 0
0
0
0
0
0
89
8u
177
695
0.120
0.*242 ^
0.1H8
0.946
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME **AME
RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVE? TO AQUIFER
INFLOW TO AQUIFER F=?OM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
364SC
" 1371"
0
0
929
929
93
"175~~
0
0
93
93
57
39"
0
0
57
57
42
20
0
0
42
42
14
11
0
0
14
183
I3T
0
" 0
138
iaa
205
289
0
205
205
0
" 0
0
... . 0
0
D
0
0
0
0
0
401?
- 53C"
C
- - o
498
nyo
0.678
O.'2l
0.000
0.000
0.678
0 . 676
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL C3SERVCD OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW F>OM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
12741
0
40
31
1
12
11
1
6
b
-0
3
,1
0
53
i'-i
63
bt»
0
u
-0
0
u
0
148
1'*'*
0.2C3
0.183
0.020
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
oasE"v=:D CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
0
D
8
6
6
5
4
4
z
2
42
25
5
9
0
u
0
a
67
52
0.091
0 . 072
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY1 FOR THE ViiRNAL ^OJbUI
NODE NUMBER = 102 MONTH OF JUL YEAR 1971
NUMdcK Uh NUUtb = J
VOLUMC CA MG
ACRE FEET PPM PPM
NA
PPM
CL
PPM
•-Abb. NO. ll
SO* HC03 C03
PPM PPM PFM
N03-
PPM
TOTAL
PPM
SALTS
TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL Si-IQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT MEAD OF NODE
OIVE»SION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IHEAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NOCF
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOW GAG£ NO. *
" "- " UPPSF CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 10
CENTPAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGS NO. 6
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOW GAG* NO. 5
ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW GAG£ NO. 9
w
w SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME -*AME
RcTURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOU FROM e.IV€R TO AOUIFEF
INFLOW TO AOUIF-I-J F^OM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AOUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER F*0>1 AQUIFER "" ~
INTERNODAL TRANS FROM UPSTREAM AOJIFER
127*1
5730
0
1392
" 1057 ""
352
1160
19290
0
151*
0
li 0
*0
27
"30
76
50
180
"272
3
0
0
12
12
6
fa
27-
19
79
96
HJ
0
U
96
~96""
0
6
6
1
9
51
27
0
0
27
27
0
3
3
1
1
5
Z
12
2-5
0
o
12
0
53
53
",/•
171
56*
663
~3*3
0
668
66H
0
63
63
*•••
82
168
192
*1»8
0
0 '" ' •
Ifl?
182 '
0
0
0"
0
0
0
0
0
0
o ••-
0
o - —
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 ""
0
0
" D
0
0
0
0
0
-I!?-
76
32
332
"177
975
1120
"996
0
• o
1120
1120
0
0.203
"0.203
i •
0.10*
" 0.112
0.1*52
0.2*2
1.326
1.52*
1.356
0.000
" 0.000 —
0.000
•" COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBStRVtU !)UI PLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FPOM THIS NODE
— SIMPLfc OIFUKtNCt: (OBSERVED -PREDICTED)
"CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE " "
' OBSERVED CHANGE '
PREDICTED CHANGE
8525
8525
U
0
0
62
73
-10
22
32
27
"^
12
10
10
-0
3
14
5
-0
U
1
116
162
-lf&
6-5
109
85
6
-27
21
~o
0
U
0
0
0 '
0
U
D
0
— 26*""
321
'*"
115
172
o!*37
-U.U^B
0.157
0.235
-------
"RRMftCH IN CONjUN^TrVE "USr STODrTOR-THE"-\/?RNAr PROOTtT
NUMBER OF NODES = 3PAGf NO. 1Z
MODE NUMBER = 103
MONTH OF JUL
YEAR 1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
CA MG NA CL S0«» HC03£03 N0~3~
PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM PPM
"TOTAL SALTS
PPM TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA"
SHORTAGE FROM THE I3EAL DEMAND
8525
7110
0
62 2
62 2
t» 10
k 10
„
<«
116
"116
91
"91"
0
0"
0
0
26«»
26
179
36
1270
133*.
1.728
1.815
-------
'RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE US= 'STUDY TffR THE "VET? MAC' PROJECT
NODE NUMBER = 101 MONTH OF ATJS YTAT
i 1971
— voi; DM EL-
ACRE FEET
PPM
, NUMBcK U
HG
PPM
NA
PPM
1- NUUtS '
CL "
PPM
= 6
SOT
PPM
KAbt NU« 1J
~ HC03 "
PPM
C03
PPM
N03 "
PPM
TOTAL
PPM
SALTS
TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
ASHLEY CREEK AT HEAD OF SYSTEM
FEEDtF. CANAL TO STETNECK2R RESERVOIR
INFLOW FROM STEINECKFR RESERVOIR
" DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IPcAL DEMAND
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NOOt
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 3
" ' UPPEF- CANAL OUTFLOW GAGi NO. 2
CENTFAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 1
SERVICZ CANAL OUTFLOW GAGS NO. 2<*5
S ASHLEY CREIK OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 11
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS &ND FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION "
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
•"• INFLOW TO AQUIFER FROM PIVEP.
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
' • "INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW F=OM THIS" NODE ' " " "
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE " "
«,9«0
0
6030
6070
0
667
• -" 1661.
1.553
610
36922
1221
0
D
2701
2701
76«.l
0
0
0
31
0
32
32
31
" 35""
63
32
170
96
159~~
0
D
96
95
«...
-10
13
2T"
9
0
9
9
11
27
' 9
62
56
0
0
56
56
!«,
-11
r
T5
1
0
5
3
2
7
56
0
0
I»T
6
Ib
-8
7
15
0
0
2
1
1
6
2
0
U
!«.
3
b
-2
2
5
27
u
35
2k
62
35
0
0
136
ISb
70
-16
1.2
~ 5B
53
" IT
51.
56
129
165
208
0
0
208
2UH
66
" 108" "
12
55 "
0
0
0
U
0
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-0
0
- o
0
0
0
0
0
. .... D
0
0
0
0
0
0
o —
0
u
0
0
0
0
0
97
0
113
10 =
110
102"
232
113
6^0
1.99
526
0
"V
-70
76
1U7 -
0.132
o.ooo •
0.15<«
- ;
0.150
0.139
0.316
1.197
0.679
'• 0.716
0.000
0.000
0.679
0.679
0.237
0.333
-0.096
0.105
0.201
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY, FOR THE ViRNAL PROJECT " " '
NODE NUMBER =102 MONTH OF AUG
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE . FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT HEAD OF NOOE
DIVERSION TO SU3PLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
09SERVEO OUTFLOWS FROM NOOE
HIGHLIME CAMAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. l»
UPPER CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 10
Cf.NTPAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 6
SERVICE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 5
ASHLTY SREEK OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 8
YEAR 1971
"" VOLUME"
ACRE FEET
76U1
0
288
~ 700
212
660
CA
PPM
if if
lit
31
31
102
39
1 3 if
NUMBER OF
MG
PPM
K,
ik
8
9
35
9
101
NA
PPM
8
a
1
1
17
5
67
NODES
CL
PPM
3
3
1
0
6
2
18
= 6 PAbt NO. l«f
PPM
70
70
23
23
265
806
HC03
PPM
66
" 66"
55
T8
9 4 7
0.129
0.130
0.61.6 A
l!667
& SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS tNP FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOW FR01 IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AOUIFEF.
INFLOW TO AOUIFER FROM RIVf.P.
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER F'OK AOUIFER
IMTEPNOOAL TPANS FROM UPSTREAM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INOEX
TOTAL OBSERVtO OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
- ~ " 09SEFVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
16632
7«»9
0
0
1596
1598
0
Hi 2 5 If
0
0
0
226
293
0
0
226
226
0
70" "
113
-TO
25
69
96
93
0
0
96
0
"29"
(f<4
-lb
"T5~~
30
26
57
0
0
28
28
0
17
16
1
9
7
12
22
0
0
12
12
0
6
-1
1
3
655
-------
RESEARCH IN "CONJUNCTIVT'USE STUDr TO? THE"Vi*N/
NODE NUMBtft"= 103 MONTH OF AUG YE/
IL PROJECT
JR 1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEtT
Hunutx ur- iNuutd = 3
. — CA—
PPM
MG
PPM
Nff
PPM
~CL"
PPM
ST)«»
PPM
KAbt NUt
"HC03" C03
PPM PPM
15
N03
PPM
TOTAl
PPM
. SALTS
TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OBSERVED INFLOW AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREH
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
03SERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 1
... ONFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 2
ASHLEY CPEKK OUTFLOW AT JENSEN, UTAH
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AMD FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME "xAME
~ bj RETURN FLOW FR01 IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVE'. TO AQUIFER
INFLOW TO ACUIFHH MOM f-LVtF"
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO *{IV£R F?OM AOUIFdR
INTERNODAL TRANS FROM UPSTREAM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INULX "
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NOO-!
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFfcRtNCt (03SERVEO - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NOOE
09SERVEO CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN SYSTEM
OBSERVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
<»25'.»
««25<»
20U6
89
" 365
960
7317
"" (*25
0
0
1<*1I»
li»l«»
0
"l«»li*
1<«1<»
• " o
— 0
0
0
- o
70
' 7F
33
322
253
573
702
0
— ' 3
573
573
0
"""260
573
~~-312
' 190
503
229
5<»2
29
29~
9
152 '
167
22<»
— 2g&
0
Q
22^»
" 2?i»
0
"153
22<»
-70
12V
19<»
1<»|«
~21T~
17
17"
1
iUi~
168
69
" 17 6""
0
0
69
" 69
0
150
69
61
"T33 —
51
1U9
67~
5
— -5
1
' 2«»
33
25
"53
0
0
25
" 25"
0
-29
25
i»
— zj
19
28
~ ?>t
206
2"0^
23
1268
1335
1337
"2060
0
0
1837
1817
0
17.UQ
1937
-596
~ 103l»
1631
1212
~1809
68
' 68
58
218
157
333
~ 693
0
0
333
333
0
Ic7~
333
--165
OB
26<«
113
279
0
0
0
0
0
0
..... . Q
0
0
0
... 0-
0
0
0
0
- -- o
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
" 0
0
"0'
0
0
0
"' 0
0
0
" 0
0
0
"- 0
363
363
97
2038
20i«l
2895
3633
C
r
2895
"2895
0
191P
2895
-977
1555
2532
1821
2796
0.<»9'«
O.i«9<» " '
0.132*
2.773
2.777
3.938
•"«».SM
0.000
0 . UUU
3.938
3.938
0.000
2. buy
3.938
" -1.329
2.115
3.<«U(»
2.<»77
3.806
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY F0<* THE VERNAL P^OjfCT
NODE NUMBER =101 MONTH OF SEP YEAR 1971
VOLUME CA
ACRE FEET PPM
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
ASHLEY CREEK AT HEAT OF SYSTEM
FEEDER CANAL TO STEINECKER RESERVOIR
INFLOW FFOM STEINECKER RESERVOIR
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IDEAL DEMAND
3750
0
1705
3151*
0
30
0
38
33
NUMBER OF
MG
PPM
7
0
10
8
NA
PPM
2
0
6
3
NODES
CL
PPM
0
0
1
1
= 3
PAT,) NU. Ib
"S04" "HC03 C03
PPM PPM PPM
19
"0"
59
31
55
' 0 ""
53
5i»
0
— o"
0
0
N03
PPM
0
D ""
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
86
0 '"
11*3
105
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.120
0.000
0.195
U.1UJ
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FkOM NODE
HIGHLINE CANAL OUTFLOW GAGi NO. 3'
UPPER CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 2
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 1
SERVICE CAMAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 21*5
oo ASHLEY CREEK OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 11
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS 6NO FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
RETURN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQJIFER
INFLOW TO AQUIFER FROM RIVER
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVFR
INFLOW TO *.IVER FROM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX
TOTAL 03SERVLD OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW FROM THIS NODS
SIMPLE DIFFFPEN3E (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
1*1*9
1671*
120
1269
900
351*1*2
622
0
" T)
2111
2111
i*i*12
1*1*12
0
39
.11
62
38
121
98
168
0
0
98
93
53
-10
10
9'
25
"10
58
56
"1*3
0
- (T
56
56
20
31
-10
2
1
6
6
1*8
1*0
17
0
"0
1*0
1*0
12
21
-8
1
0
i*
1
10
11*
5
0
0
11*
1«*
3
f
-3
31
23
60
59
185
161
0
0
1*5
iat>
115
1U'J
10
67
58
123
" "53 "
119
210
275 "
0
" 0
210
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE- USr'STTOV FOT'THE'VERNATrTRDJETTT
NUMBER UH
NUDES = 3
- NODE NUM3ER'= 10Z MONTH OF SEP YEAR 1971
VOLTJHe
ACRE FEET
CA
PPM
^G
PPM
NA
PPM
CL
PPM
KAOL NO. If
S0<« HU03
PPM PPM
"CO 3 N03
PPM PPM
-TOTAL
PPM
SALTS
TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OP SURFACE FACILITIES
03SE"VEO INFLOW AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE IPcAL DEMAND
<4«»12
2591
0
53
53
20
20
12
1Z
3
3
115
115
72
7Z
0
0
0
0
2<»1
Z<*1
0.326
0. J2»
OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
HI5HLINE CANAL OUTFLOW CASE NO. U
• - UPPER CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 10 •" "
CENTRAL CANAL OUTFLOW GAGS NO. 6
SKRVICP CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 5
w ASHLEY CRE-IK OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 8
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS ftND FLOW TRANSFERS
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
' " R!iTUKN FLOW FROM IRRIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVER TO AQUIFER
IIIFLOW TO AOUIFEK HUOM hIVtR
TRANSFER OF FLOW FR.CM AQUIFE0 TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FPO* AQllIFiR
INTEFNOOAL TRANS FROM UPSTREAM AQUIFER
135
"™ 873
21U
61
1690
17783
3-J9
0
D
115i»
115!»
0
32
31
119
" 30
137
229
""357"
0
3
229
229
0
7
•• -- g
«»7
I<»
38
95
135"
0
0
95
95
0
0
I
19
6
61
29
t<4
0
a
25
?9
0
1
ff
6
Z
19
12
2Z
0
0
12
12
0
14
23
377
I>8
615
6OM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (03SEPVEO - PREDICTED)
- CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODE
— - - - OBSERVED CHANGE' ~ '" "' "
PREDICTED CHANGE
2975
2975
D
0
0
126^
121
i»
_... T7
63
57
-------
RESEARCH 'IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY F"0* THE VERNAL PROJECT
. NUMBtK OF
NODES
= 3
NODE NUMBER = 103 MONTH OF SEP YEAR 1971
OPERATIONAL SEQUENCE OF SURFACE FACILITIES
OTSEFVEO INFLOW AT HEAD OF NODE
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
SHORTAGE FROM THE ICtAL1 DEMAND
03SEPVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAG*; NO. 1
OUTFLOW AT USGS GAGE NO. 2
ASHLEY CFEF.K OUTFLOW AT JENSENi UTAH
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
2975
2975
345
123
104
1710
CA
PPM
126
126
31
273
243
MG
PPM
57
57
V
9
102
135
NA
PPM
37
37
1
92
64
CL
PPM
12
12
0
15
19
504
PPM
385
335
23
912
811
Hflbt NO.
"RCOT"
PPM
127
127
57
201
193
T03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
10
N03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
"TOTAL"
PPM
631
681
95
1497~
1345
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.927
0.9Z7
,
0.130
"2.036
1.830
SUBSURFACE OPERATIONS AND FLOW TRANSFERS **
AQUIFER CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME FRAME
g RETUPN FLOW FROM IRCIGATION
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM RIVE'. TO AQUIFEP.
INFLOW TO AQUIFE" F*OM PIVcR
TRANSFER OF FLOW FROM AQUIFER TO RIVER
INFLOW TO RIVER FROM AQUIFER
INTERNODAL TRANS FRCM UPSTREAM AQUIFER
COMPARISON INDEX '
TOTAL OBSERVED OUTFLOWS FROM NODE
PREDICTED OUTFLOW F'OM THIS NODE
SIMPLE DIFFERENCE (OBSERVED - PREDICTED)
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN NODt
OBSERVED CHANG;
PREDICTED CHANGE
6328
297
0
0
1942
1942
0
1942
1942
0
0
0
580
0
0
580
"560
0
-235"
590
-344"
109
228
571
0
0
223
' 228
0
99
228
-T29
41
170
75
370
0
0
75
75
0
' 61
75
-13
Z4
38
26
120
0
0
26
~26~
0
IT"
26
-8
5
14
1849
3855
0
1849
~I85T~
0
764
1843
~T<)'8"4
379
1464
352
1275
0
0
352
352
0
352
-167
224
0
D
0
0
0
ff
0
0
0
0
o •
0
0
D
0
c
0
0
0
— TT
0
' "TJ
— - o
0
2936
6B1J?
0
U
2936
"2936
0
1271
2936
-1665
2254
3.994
9.274
0.000
0. UUO
3.994
3.994
0.000
1.729
3.994
-2.265
0.902
3.066
CHEMICAL CHANGES IN SYSTEM
OBSEFVED CHANGE
PREDICTED CHANGE
0
0
204
5W
91
220
59
73
17
25
745
fB30
129
?97
0
0
0
0"
1183
2B4B
1.609
3V874
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE US£ STUOY FOR THE VERNAL
NODE NUM81' = 101 MONTH OF APJ> Y?.AR
OPET'.ATICNiL S^niJENC-: OF SURFACE FACILITIES
flSHLSY Cce>:K AT HEA
-------
RESCAP.CH IN CUMJUNCTIy/r USF STUDY FQO TH*T V?RNAL PROJECT
NUMBER OF
NODES = 3
PAGE NO.
2
HOOF NUMBER = 102 MONTH OF AP3 Y»AR 1971
opt-RATiQNiL siGUFi'ic,: OF SIJFFACF FACILITIES.
ons^fvio INFLOW AT HMO OF NOD~.
0!V£csiOM TO S'IPFLY IRRIGATED AP^A
SHOPTAOT F-OH TH' Ir. r.AL DEMAND
O^St-oV^O OUTFLOWS Ft'OM MODE
HIGHLIT CANAL OUTFLOW GAGf MO. 4
UDPr* CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 10
C'MTtAL CA.'JAL OUTFLOW Ktr>'~ HO. 6
•M».V1C- PA:jflL OUfFLf-W Gtjf: NC. 5
ASHLEY CP?.-;< OUTFLOW GAG1?: NO. 8
*.
I.S.y.BSlipFAC'. OP PfTIONS. r-MD FLOW .TRANr-F^PS
*OU1FE' COtiOITIONS OF LUST TlHil F^AME
IRRIGATION P»:TUSH FLOW TO SOIL COLUMN
TJANSF,P OF FLOW FF.CM °.IM^° TO AOUIFCR
INFLOW TO '.niJiFi-c F«-OM FH/'-.S
TFANSFr-? OF FLOW F^Orl AOUIF£C TO ',IVcR
INFLOW TO "-IV!f* F°0''l AOUIF\»
INT-P.NODAL Tf-A-IS FRC'1 Ui-ST'^rAH AOUIF-1P,
coMPARir.o^ itn-:.x " "
TOT At 0".S'-»ViO OUTFLOWS FPOM NOO^
PS.EOICTn .JUTFLO-i F'.OM THIS NOOf
SIMPLE OIFF-FtNC-. (CjQS£=iV^O - PRfTOICTEO)
*
CHEMICAL CHANGS IN NOPi
01S£FV£0 CHANG£
PREDICTtTO CHANG1
VOLUME
ACRF FEET
1365
63t>
0
0
307
160
117
1170
20200
95
0
G
1023
1023
0
...
1754
175i»
0
0
0
CA
PPM
73
73
0
37
_ 206
50
2.50
22<*
<*90
0
0
22ff
22U
0
196
161
3<*
122
38
MG
PPM_
2fl
28
0
11
93
19
...._.! 15. _
99
191
0
0
98
93
0
39"
69
19
60
itO
NA
_EPM
22
22
0
3
_ 33
-------
RtStiPCH IN OMJI-NCTIV-. USf STUOV ~0& THE VtPNAL FfrfcJECT M
NODE NUM8EP =103 MONTH OF APR
OPF.-.ATICNAL S'OUF.MC-.: OF SURCACF FACILITIES
OTSFfVn I'lFLOVI AT H£AO Of NOO'I
OIVz^SION TO SUPPLY IR^.IG ATf.C AREA
SHORTAG- F'OM THr II'/AL TSMANO
OT^'^.VLD ouT^tows F.-OM MODE
OUT^LO^I AT USGS r.flr, ' MO. I
OUTFLOW AT U3GJ GSG~ 110. 2
ASHLEY CF^IK OUTFLOW AT JENSEN, UTAH
SU'IS'/FFAC: OP '.CATIONS iM'JD FLOU TS;ANSF-;PS
AnUIFE" CONOITIOMS OF LAST Tl!-1r. FRAME
ft I" = ir,ATTOM Pi-;TOR 1 FLOW TO SOIL COLUMN
T~AN?F c >• FLOW FF;^'I ~l\l~.- TO AOUICE?
ItlFLCW TO iCUIF"' F-'OM "IV-. ".
T:!ANSF-'C OF FLOW F5.: '1 AC'JTF^C TO 3IVER
INFLfW TO -ilVE-3, FPOM AQUIFER
IMT'PNjnfiL Tr/S.JS F5CM UPST^CAM AOUIFER
COMPARISON iinf>
TOTAL O^Sr-VrO OUTFLOWS F^.OM MOD-"
P^EOlCm :)UTFLOH Fr OM THIS NOOE
SIM^L^ DIFPcP£NC' (H^SIPV-D — PREDICTED)
CHi. "ICAL CH,'.t4';rr. IN MOr'K
P^EOICTtO CHANG- _ _ _
CHCMICAL CHfiH^cg Xij SYfTFM
ORS£?V,0 CH£Nr,.,
.. pc^Q ICTF."1 0WANG-I
YEAP. 1971
VCHiMl
ACRt FEET
I7tk
802
0
0
0
1350
6020
80
0
0
39 e
398
0
1350
1350
0
0
0
0
0
CA"
PPM
196
196
0
0
278
535
1966
0
0
585
585
0
279
310
-32
32
lllf.
2<«0
272
MG
PPM
89
39
0
0
162
211
394
0
0
211
211
0
162
125
37
73
35
150
113
mjeir'or-RDUH!
~ NA " " CL
PFM PPM
53 16
53 16
0 0
0 0
152 35
34 14
534 170
0 0
0 0
34 14
34 14
0 0
152 35
47 16
104 19
' 99 ~ 18
-5 -0
149 34
44 15
5 = 3
S04
PPM
643
643
0
0
1301
1936
6454
0
0
19*6
1986
0
1301
1039
261
657
395
1264
1002
" "PAGE" NOT
HC03
PPM
166
166
0
0
174
190
1671
0
0
190
190
0
174
173
0
7
7
116
115
C03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-20
-20
"3
N03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
1082
1082
0
0
2017
2927
10855
0
0
2927
2927
0
2017
1626
390
934
543
1876
1465 "
SALTS
TONS/AF
1.473
1«<»73
* •
0.000
0.000
2. 744
3.982
14.763
0.000
0.000
3.982
3.982
.0.000
2.744
2.212
0.531
1.271
0.740
2.552
2.020
-------
RESEARCH IN OTNJUNCTIV" USE STUDY FO? THE Vr.PNAL PCOJECT
NOOt MUMS" = 1D1 »10NTH OF MAY YFA.R 19
'"" v
ACF
OPERATIONAL SIOUENCr: OF SURFACE FaCILITIFS
.. 4SHLTY V'-t.-y AT HEA3 OF SYSTFM
F~EO[R CAN-IL TO "STcINECKCR RESERVOIR
INFLOW "CM STil'ICCKr-R P -IS" r'tfOIc
OIVcPSTOr TO S'JPHLY IRo.IGATtO AREA
SHORTAC.r FJOM 7H- I'LAL DEMAND
03r7"V". P OUTFLOWS FPOH NOD?
HTGHLIMf naMfi|_ OUTFLOW GAGF NO. 3
u°Pr.r lArai. OUTFLOW Gar,? no. 2
CINT-AL CA;IAL OUTFLOW GAGr. NO. i
TRVIC". T.A I*L OUTFLPV GAr,c: NC. ?«t5
£_„. A*HL-:Y cr-E;< OUTFLOW GBG: NO. n_.
SUC,SURFAC-: OPTFATIO'i? iMO FuOW T9ANSF£=S
UOUIFF- COfif'ITIONS OF L4ST TIM1; FxAMC
IDRIGATIOII <-f TU^'I CLOW TO SOIL COLUMN
T»ANSF"f., 0" FLOH._FROM RIVE3 TO aOUIFE.R
INFLOW Tn'rOL'IF-iV F-OM "ilViF
1--ANSFT' f)r FLOU F?r'l ao'JIFtf- TO RIVE.P
INFLOW TO -!lV£a. FROM ftQUIFi-.R
COMPARISON IMDTX
TOTAL 0^tr-'V:.D OUTFLOWS F^.CM NOO?.
P^iDICT-'.Tl JUTFLOH F-OM T'll? N00~
STMPLE. iJFF'ff.NCr (r.OS£KVEn - PRiTDICTF.D )
CHEMICAL cni'i.;rs IN Norr
ons^rvo c-iAnr,=
P=?£OICTlf) OHAfiGi
71
CLUM£
E_FE.ET
16160
U8UO
132<»
3<»30
0
1506
20lJ
... H15
2*»0fi6
6d7
1369
1369
0
,0
9865
9885
0
0
0
CA
_PPM
22'
22
23
22
23
26
3d
127
117
23 _
0
0
33
23
15
16
1
NUMBER OF NOOFS = 3
MG "
10
5
if
2
5
10
. 63
32
27
5
5
0
0
10
5
5
5
0
NA
PPM
2
2
6
2
2
2
1
6
62
"13
2
2
0
0
6
2
3
3
0
~"C'L
PPM
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
1
20
0
0
o
0
0
3
0
3
3
0
PPM
17
17
59
21
17
13
16
59
278
107
21
21
0
0
53
21
31
35
3
PAGE NO. <«
HC03 "COS ~ NC
PPM PPM Pf
37
37
53
38
37
33
53
_200
28<»
" 192
36
38
0
0
56
38
17
19
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
)3
'M
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
b
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL SALTS
PPM TONS/AF
65
" 65
72
65
58
73 . . .
678
"362
72
7?
0
0
72
68_
75
6
0.089
0.089
0.195
0.099
0.089
O.OflON
0.100
0.195
0.922
0.972
0.099
0.099
0.000
0.000
0.192
0.099
0.093
0.103
0.010
-------
RES^RCH IN CONJUNCTIVE ust STUDY FOR THE VE
N09L NUH3-.R = 102 MONTH OF MAY
:RNAL PF.OJe.CT
YEAS 1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
NUMBER OF NODES = 3
CA
PPM
MG
PPM
NA
PPM
CL
PPM
S04
PPM
PAGE NO.
HCC3
PPM
C03
PPM
5
N03
PPM
TOTAL SALTS
PPM TONS/AF
opc.p.tTicnaL 5-oue.NC-: OF SU^FACF. FACILITIES
OTSiErV"0 IJFLCW MT H-'AO OF NOOF-
TIVEPSIO'l *0 SUPPLY IR^IGATin fljj-fi
S^O'TAGF F-">OH TH" I^FflL O'IKANO
03^1?VFr OUTFLOW^ Fi'PM lvO'?T
HIGHLINr CV1AL OUTFLOW 3Ar,=; NO. 4
uppip wi'i4_ OUTFLOW GftSE NO. 10
C-'NT"AL CA IAU OUTFLOW GAGT NO. 6
S'.RVICl CA'IAL OUTFLOW GAS£ NO. 5
6SHLFY CPFIK OUTFLOW GAGi NO. 3
"2810
0
64P
2llz
2655
38
39
18
- 2/ -
113
55
155
10
10
3
" 6"
47
21
38
6
6
1
~ 1 '
19
6""
58
3
3
0
6
18
53
53
13
16 "
377
665
56
56
30
" 48
73
106
120
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
III
53
76
606
193
1056
0.192
0.192"
'
0.073
0.105
0.827
0.263
SUf3SUPcfiC" OP"PATIOI!? AND FLOW TRANSFERS
ATUIFF-' C-Tf.TITIONS OF LAST TIMr F3.AMF
TpRitATinn R-:TUR-I FLCW TO SOIL COLUMN
T=A'JSF-.P OF FLON F^.0"| FIV~-. TO AOUIFES
IfiFLCW TC 4CUIFC". F-CM PIV^R
T°ANSF-C' nc FLON Fppc AOUIFFC TO FIVFP
INFLCW TO -IVr.< F- Ov AfJUIF;.^
INT"CNOOAL TRA'IS F = n'-1 UFoT^EAM AOUIFEli'
~ COMPAP.ISON INOC.X
" TOT-L oirr'VFn OUTFLOWS F=OM MOD*:
P-EDICT"n iL'TFLO^ FrOM THIS NODI
3IMPLF 1 IFrt' K.CNC- C^nSilRV^Q - PR!:DICTt"D)
CHEMICAL CHANGS, IN MOT r
JSoiJ^n^JJlrrtE
19272
263
233
0
0
0
6792
6792
0
0
0
225
257
3H
35
0
0
0
31*
38
45
0
99
72
10
10
0
0
0
10
34
-0
26
40
6
6
0
0
0
25
6
19
19
-0
11
24
3
3
0
0
7
3
4
4
0
696
354
53
53
0
0
I)
296
53
242
0
17?
377
56
56
0
0
0
60
56
24
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0 "
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1144
939
0
o "
0
500
358
358
0
1.556
1.278
0.192
0.192
0.000
0.000
0.000
" 0,680
0.192
0.488
0.488
0.000
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR THE
NODE NUMBL'O = 103 MONTH OF MAY
OP'-ftATiGNftL s-ptJCMQ-- QC siip^arp FA.QTHTTFS
O^Sfl^V'n IJFLOH AT MTAO OF NODE
OIVC:PSIOM ro SUPPLY IRRIGATED AP?A
SHO°TAr,r F.-.OM TH<. I"?AL OEMAND
OR££->V^O OUTFLOWS F^OM NOOF.
nuTFLnw fit nsr,<5 r,ar,- NO, 1
OUTFLOW AT lISTo r.£G! NO. 2
ASHL'JY CP--K C'.ITPLPj-1 AT J-MS--N, UTAH
SURSUF.FAC-: op~e>ATinr!t ttio FLOW TRANSF-RS
^ 60UIF;3 C W'lTIO'l1: OF L4ST TIMi F^AK1:
<* I*i?.IGATTOU FST'JPii -LO^ TO SOIL COLUMN
TPANEF--R o- FLOW FPCM RIVI:C. TO AauicER
1 NFL CM TO »rUIPc -. Fr-OM RIV-TR
TOANSF-R OF FLOW FPOM ACUIFFR TO RIVEP
ItlFLCH TO 3.lVt'. FHO' AOUTFtR
lUTtPNOOAL TRANS FROM UPSTREAM AOUIFcR
VERNAL PROJECT
YEAR 1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
6792
3630
0
332
20<»
2230
5702
362
396
396
0
0
0
. NUMBER OF
CA ""
PPM
3 it
8 it
28
233
-2J,<4
582
8«»7
0
0
0
MG NA
PPM PPM
s-
6
110
101
212
«»53
0
0
0
25
25
1
95
_72
36
255
25
25
0
0
0
NODES
CL
PPM
7
7
1
= 3
S0<4
PPM
296
296
16
15 81.9
30 730
15
79
7
7
0
0
0
1937
2969
296
296
0
0
0
' PAGE
HC03
PPM
eo
80
<.8
209
185
169
810
80
80
0
0
0
NO.
C03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
6
N03
PPM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
PPM
500
500
79
2929
50 1«*
500
500
0
0
0
SALTS
TONS/AF
0.660
0.660
'
0.108
l.'..689_
3.984
6.820
0.680
0.660
0.000
0.000
0.000
COMPART SON IN')«!X
TOTAL CnCC'W'O OUTFi OWS FROM NOOE
PREOICTcT 'JUTFLOW F- OM THIS N00=:
5IHPL^ niFF---.:iC- (nss-RV-ro - psfOICTED
CHrMICAL OH(\f|i;r? VI NO""
OqSERV'-D CHANG-.
CHEMICAL' OHAfK.-'S IN SY~TiM
OTScrVSO C'IANG£
PREDICTS OHfiN".£
2766
2766
i) 0
0
0
0
0
"I
103
109
q
172
62
90
<*5
45
-0
95
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE US£ STUDY FOR THE VERNAL PROJECT
NOO.: NUMBER = 101 MQNTH OF JUN YEAR 1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
NUMBER OF
CA MG
PPM PPM
NA
PPM
NODES
CL
PPM
= 3
S0l»
PPM
PAGE
NO
HC03 C03
PPM PPM
. 7
N03 ""
PPM
TOTAL SALTS
PPM TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL S-:OU*NC'. OF SUMACS FACILITIES
ASHLEY CcF.r:K AT HEAP OF SYSTEM
FF.E3EP CANJL TO STillflECK::* SCSERVOIR
INFLOW F?oi ST£Iii£Ctr"P PrS^PVOIP
OIVErSIOH TO r'JP^LY IS°IGAT£0 AR£A
SHO'Ttr.r F->CM TH-: IPCAL DEMAhO
03S£'V-C OUTFLOWS F'->OM NODE
HIGHLINr CANAL OUTFLOW GAG\ NO. 3
UPP"-' CANAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 2
CCNTPAL CAMAL OUTFLOW GAGT NO. i
S'RVIC' CAnfiL OUTFLOW GA3t NO. 2«»5
*} ASHL.CY CR;::K OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 11
SU^SIJS.FAC^ OP^ATIOHS ANO FLOW TRANSFSPS
AQUIFtT' CONDITIONS OF LAST TIMC F->AME
IRRIGATION PETU".1, FLOW TO SOIL COLUMN
T-iv~5 TO AQUIFER
~~ "" "T NFL CM" TO "iQUIF£'i' FPOM PIVr'P.
T = AMCC"= OP FLOW ponM AOUI^fP TO =IVEP.
IIIFLOW TO -ivf;3. FF.OI- AouiFt1?
co'ip"«Risoa :M')CX
TOTAL OT!^-V:. n 0'/TFLOWS FPOM NOOf:
P"£3ICT1-"r' lUT^LO'l F.OM THIS NOO'!
SIMPLf OIFF-=CNC: (PRSJRVLO - PRKOICTEO)
CHEMICAL CHtir.F.S IN NOC'c
OTSEPVT0 CHANGi
P-'EDICT-'O "HANOJ
37970
1*690
0
6565
0
«»171
7609
<*268
0
6i«
-------
"F.ScARCH IN CONJUNGTIVK USE ~STUDY FO', THE VERNAL PF~6jtCf'
NUMBER OF NODES
PAGE NO. 6
MONTH OF JUN
YEAR 1971
VOLUME
ACRF FEET
CA
PPM
MG
PPM
NA
PPM
CL
PPM
S0<»
PPM
HCC3
PPM
C03
PPM
N03
PPM
TOTAL
PPM
SALTS
TONS/AF
. QRESAJI ON.AL ..SIQUENCi ..05_. SU".FA.C E.. F_A.C.ILLI1£S_
O^SEPV^.O I'lFLOW AT HC^o 0^ NODE _
DIVERSION TO SUPPLY IRRIGATED AREA
__Fj3g^ TH^ IPCAL IHMANO
22U86 _35
5«»60 35
0
11
11
60 51
60 51
1«»3 0.195
0.195
_______ OBSERVED OUTFLOWS..
NODE".
_Hir,HL,lNF. C-JNAL OUTFLOW GARF. NO,.
(jopcp cA-hAi. OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 10
_C1NI E A.L_C AH.4
S'v«VICc CAUAL OUTFLOW GAGE NO. 5
A'-HLFY Cr5~.K OUTFJLOW .GARE...NO.. 8
_... 2621 18 Z.
«f50«» 19 2
&3 5 126 ft 3_
000
__.107aCI. 118 58.
.0.
1
0~
38
.1.
0
_Z.
0
.11
13
10
"o
39<»
25
29
108
0
121
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
(,£
1.8
57k
0
672
0.066
0.065
0.782
0.000**,
0 . 91 f»
op..:^«TTO>iS '
FLOW TRANSFERS
AIUIFK^ C'INPITIDNS OF LAST TIMS FRAME
IDRK,ATinn FfTU^N FLOW TO ^OIL COLUMN
|t;ftNSF:;o QC PLOW F=.C;1 ^IM^.'-. TO AOUIFtT.
INFLOW TO ^rjuiFd;-- F-OM Riv.1?
T=ANSF-P OF FLON F»OM ACUIFC!1 TO RIV6R
MFLCM TO ^ivr.? rqorf AOUIFFR
IMT^RNOD&L .T°ANS FROK UF3T*.FAM AQUIFER
19977
622
0
0
1509
1509
0
227
23*»
0
0
227
227
0
93
75
0
0
98
98
0
25
53
0
0
25
25
0
11
20
0
0
11
11
0
703
399
0
0
703
703
0
168
339
0
0
168
168
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1151
953
0
0
1151
1151
0
1.567
1.297"
0.000
0.000
1.567
1.567"
0.000
COMPARISON IH;J£X
TOTAL 1"!n.r,S--V-:0 OUTFLOWS FnOM NOOK
PfcOICTSO JUTFLO>l_FJp:i THIS NOOc
"SIMPLE"6"iFt"fc~ii.£Nc." cc'ijSEWED -
18537
18537
CHEMICAL r.H4Ni;r.s IN
" 'CHANGE
80
_50
29"
36
18
17
23
9
13
7
3
3
239
112
126
65
60
2«»
0
0
0
0
0
0
(*26
225
203
0.583
0.307
0.277
0
0
15
7
15
1
3
0
179
52
33
9
0
0
0
0
285
82
0.388
0.112
-------
RESEARCH IN CONJUNCTIVE USE STUDY FOR THE VERNAL PROJECT
NUMBER OF NODES = 3
NODE NUH(?^P a 103 MONTH OF JUN YEAR 1971
VOLUME
ACRE FEET
CA
PPM
MG
PPM
NA
PPM
CL
PPM
S0«»
PPM
PAGE NO. 9
HC03 C03 N03
PPM PPM PPM
TOTAL SALTS
PPM TONS/AF
OPERATIONAL SZQUsMC!. OF SURFACC FACILITIES
ousspv'o INFLOW AT H-IA.O OF NODE
DIVc-SIOri TC SUPf'LY IRD.IGATFO APfA
SHOp.TAi~r F?CM THi IHcAL D£NANQ
08S!l-tf£0 OUTFLOWS F=OM NOD-
OUTFLOW AT UrGi f.AGF NO. 1
OUTFLOW AT USGS C.A3 = NO. 2
ASHLfY C"£-K OUTFLOW AT J€HScNt UTAH
SU^SllRFACr OP-:RAT:OflS AMD FLOW TRANSFERS
AOUIF7.C CONDITIONS OF LAST TIME F*.AME
& IRRIGATION = tTU3.'l FLOW TO SOIL COLUMN
T94NSF-P Or FLOW FRflM "IV£P TO AO'JIFER
IMFLCK Tn inuiFi-. F~OM civ*'*
T->A«1S«=":^ Of FLOW F90H ftOUIcE° TO 5JTVER
I'JFLCH TO »IViv'. FKOh AOUI^-'R
It4T£PN3DAL THAUS F9.0H UPSTREAH AOUIF2R
COMPtP.ISOU TU1F.X
TOTAL .)t"-"-'Vrb OUTFLOWS F'OM NODE ~'"
PJnOICTf.O JUTFLOW F-OM THIS NOOf
•5IMPLF OIFF£r.tNC . (C3S£*VeO - PR'.'OICTCO)
CMf'lICAL ^HAMr.ES IN MOIC
oas^i-v n CHJNG:
t^EIICT-^ OHAWr,?
CHEMICAL CHAtr,e.S IN SYSTEM
o-issFv:n CHANG"
P-'.£OICT!!r CHAMUi
18537
6300
0
696
212
10280
61*60
6I><»
5i»9
5i»9
0
0
0
11186
11188
0
0
0
0
0
do
80
19
197
316
51*1
800
SO
SO
0
0
0
203
SO
123
123
-0
189
66
36
36
2
69
107
20<»
361
36
36
0
0
0
99
36
" " 63 ~
- 63
-0
96
33
23
23
1
66
59
<<<•
231
23
23
0
0
0
56
23
33
33
0
5<»
21
7
7
0
11
19
18
70
7
0
0
0
17
7
10
10
0
16
5
239
239
10
60i«
771
1889
2379
239
239
0
0
0
"721
239
<»82
«»82
0
710
228
85
55
29
168
167
177
8<<6
85
85
0
0
0
159
85
7<*
7
-------
SECTION V
CEDAR BLUFF STUDY AREA
DESCRIPTION OF AREA
The Cedar Bluff Irrigation District is located north of the Smoky
Hill River and downstream from Cedar Bluff Dam, which is approxi-
mately 13 miles southwest of Ellis in west central Kansas. The
district includes about 6,600 irrigable acres in Ellis and Trego
Counties.
The irrigated lands are located on a loess-covered terrace at an
elevation of 25 to 60 feet above the level of the flood plain and
60 to 120 feet below the level of the surrounding rolling uplands.
Terrace deposits, up to 70 feet thick, overlap and fill channels
eroded in relatively impermeable shale and limestone. The perme-
ability of the unconsolidated sediments over most of the area is
adequate to permit deep percolation of rainfall and irrigation
water.
The chemical composition of the natural groundwater is determined
chiefly by the soluble minerals in the soil and rock. Calcium
derived from the dissolution of limestone and gypsum is the pre-
dominant cation in nearly all well waters. Bicarbonate from lime-
stone and sulfate from gypsum are the predominant anions.
Precipitation while not a factor in the Vernal study is a very
important part of consumptive use at Cedar Bluff and amounts to
almost 23 inches a year. The rainfall is sufficient to cause
dilution of surface and groundwaters.
INPUT DATA
The data used for the Cedar Bluff study were collected by the
Environmental Health Services of the Kansas State Department of
Health, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation,
and other agencies. In 1964 these agencies began collecting data
to evaluate the progressive effects of irrigation on the chemical
quality of ground and surface water in and adjacent to the newly
established Cedar Bluff Irrigation District. The data include
records of measurement of rainfall, water levels, water discharge,
chemical analysis of groundwater, surface water, and soil. Data
were collected on pesticides and sediment but were not used in this
study. The data collected generally cover the period 1966-71 so the
50
-------
study period selected was 1966 through 1970. More than 100 observa-
tion wells were installed in and adjacent to the irrigation district
by the various agencies.
Chemical analysis and runoff at the two principal stations above and
below the Cedar Bluff area were obtained from the U.S. Geological
Survey water supply papers (2, 3, 4) for the 5-year period. Data
for the soil column were obtained from Bureau of Reclamation records.
Examination of the chemical analyses of water from the observation
wells revealed a wide variation in the chemical quality from well to
well and at different times in some wells.
VERIFICATION AND TESTING
Prior to making the first model test of the Cedar Bluff data, several
assumptions were required to fill voids in the available information.
They were:
1. The volume of the groundwater aquifer was not defined and
an initial assumption of 15,000 acre-feet was made.
2. The total surface area between the two gaging stations is
220 square miles, and it was assumed that precipitation percola-
tion from the entire area would contribute to the aquifer.
3. One soil sample chemistry analysis was available, and it was
assumed that it was representative of the entire area.
The initial trial indicated the fallacy of Assumption No. 2. The
growth in the aquifer volume was so great that the model run failed
after processing a few months of data. The catchment area was arbi-
trarily reduced to a size which kept the aquifer volume at the end of
the 5-year analysis at approximately the initial level.
Model Study No. 1
The conjunctive use model was used to process the 5 years of data
using the original Assumptions No. 1 and 3 and the revised precipita-
tion catchment area. All irrigation and precipitation infiltration
greater than the consumptive needs of the vegetation were passed
through the soil profile, and the effluent was mixed with the aquifer
water. Transfers were then made from the aquifer to the river to make
up the difference between measured system inflows and outflows.
Figure 4 contains plots of the observed water quality at the outflow
gage versus the quality predicted by Study No. 1. It is obvious that
the assumptions of aquifer size and/or soil chemistry are not valid.
51
-------
tfOOf
CEDAR BLUFF SIMULATION STUDY
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
Figure 4. Cedar Bluff simulation study.
-------
Model Study No. 2
A new assumption as to aquifer size was made and the 5-year data base
was processed again. A total aquifer volume of 215,000 acre-feet was
used for this study. The soil profile return flow option was again
used in this study.
The results of this study are also plotted on Figure 4. Although
these results show better agreement than Study No. l, they do not
necessarily verify the model operation. The quality of outflow
water from the system has very little variation with time, although
a slight deterioration trend in quality is noted over the 5-year
period. This same trend is apparent in the water discharged to the
river from the reservoir, however, and the large aquifer volume has
the effect of a large damper by releasing relatively constant qual-
ity water to make up the river outflow.
Model Study No. 5
This study is identical to No. 2, except the percolating return flow
was not adjusted for salt pickup from the soil profile. The results
of this study are very similar to Study No. 2 and are not plotted on
Figure 4.
The Cedar Bluff analyses do not serve as adequate verification of
the model due to the gross assumptions made during the study proc-
ess. Additional data concerning the nature of the aquifer and the
soil chemistry are believed to be available and should be pursued
if further model verification is desired.
53
-------
SECTION VI
GRAND VALLEY STUDY AREA
DESCRIPTION OF THE AREA
The Grand Valley of Colorado is near the western edge of Mesa County.
Grand Junction, the largest city in Colorado west of the Continental
Divide, is located in the Valley. The Valley covers an area of about
122,000 acres. The Valley was carved in the Mancos Shale formation
(a high salt bearing marine shale) by the Colorado River and its trib-
utaries and for the most part is surrounded by steep, rough terrain.
Deep canyons flank the valley to the southwest; a sharp escarpment
known as the Book Cliffs rises above it to the north and northeast;
foot slopes of the Grand Mesa lie to the east; and rough, broken and
steep, hilly land that borders high terraces or mesas lies to the
south. Within the Valley, the irrigated lands have developed on
recent alluvial plains consisting of broad coalescing alluvial fans
and on older and higher alluvial fans, terraces, and mesas. Other
lands in this arid setting, where rainfall averages only about
9 inches per year, include the stream flood plains and rough broken
land occurring as terrace escarpments, high knobs, and remnants of
former mesas.
A total of about 76,000 acres is served water by various irrigation
entities with approximately 42,000 acres under Federal projects.
Major crops produced in the valley are corn, sugar beets, small
grains, alfalfa, and various orchard crops. Most of the salts con-
tributed from irrigated areas are thought to be leached from the soil
and underlying Mancos Shale and washed into the river by deep percola-
tion and water delivery system losses.
Mancos Shale is a very thick sequence of drab gray fissile shale
that lies between the underlying Dakota sandstone and the overlying
Mesa Verde formation. The thickness of the shale usually varies
between 3,000 and 5,000 feet. Due to this great thickness and its
easy credibility, the shale forms most of the large valleys of west-
ern Colorado and eastern Utah. It is of marine origin and contains
marine fossils at many locations. Geologic studies suggest that the
shale was deposited as mud in the shallow water of a very extensive
late Cretaceous sea and that the region was gradually subsiding which
emplains the great thickness of the formation. Because of its marine
origin, the shale contains a high percentage of salts; the high salt
content is borne out by the many white patches of alkali on both irri-
gated and nonirrigated surfaces. The type of salts present in the
shale are mostly calcium sulfate with smaller amounts of sodium
54
-------
chloride, sodium sulfate, and magnesium sulfate, The evidence that
calcium sulfate is the most common salt is verified by the existence
of the mineral gypsum commonly found in crystal form in open joints
and fractures of the Mancos Shale.
Due to the compactness of the clay and silt particles making up the
shale, the formation is not considered as water bearing at depth.
However, the weathered zone near the surface does transmit small
quantities of water along joints, fractures, and open bedding planes.
This zone is the area from which percolating water, often originating
from irrigation of croplands, dissolves out salts present in the shale.
A gravel and cobble layer also has been found under some of the irri-
gated areas in the Grand Valley and is believed to serve as an aquifer
for groundwater. Previous studies have identified areas where the
groundwater has an upward pressure gradient in the cobble aquifer due
to the confining effect of the Mancos Shale beneath and the tight clay
soil above. This situation is believed to be responsible for some areas
of high water tables. The gravel and cobble layer may be ancient stream
deposits from the Colorado River and may not be continuous throughout
the Valley.
The area selected for study by Colorado State University is comprised
of about 4,600 acres. As stated by the University, the area was selec-
ted for its accessibility in isolating most of the important hydrologic
parameter but had the important advantage that it allowed five irriga-
tion companies to participate in one unit. The principle effort was to
gather preconstruction data from the 4,600-acre area, install canal and
lateral lining, and finally collect post-construction data to determine
if lining had any effect in reducing salinity. The University acknowl-
edged some difficulty in collecting data from the area since it could
not be isolated from other parts of the Grand Valley irrigated areas.
DESCRIPTION OF INPUT DATA
The data collected by Colorado State University (5) consisted of
miscellaneous measurements of canal and lateral water quantity and
quality. The University personnel also installed flumes on the drains
to measure the drainage properties. Piezometers and observation wells
were installed to log the depth to groundwater and to obtain samples of
the groundwater for salinity analyses. Seepage measurements were also
made on the canals and laterals. Water year 1971 was used for this
analysis.
The groundwater data indicated large variations in total dissolved
solids both with time and location within the study area. Canal and
55
-------
drain measurements were more consistent; however, they were not avail <-
able at regular intervals throughout the study period and were extrapo-
lated to cover the period. No measurements were available of Colorado
River flow upstream and downstream from the test area; therefore, the
quantity and quality of subsurface outflows were estimated from hydrau-
lic conductivity measurements and sample analyses from the observation
wells.
VERIFICATION AND TESTING
Study No. 1
The outflow from the Grand Valley test area is comprised of (1) the
discharge in the drains which is mainly surface runoff with some
groundwater interception and (2) subsurface groundwater flow to the
river. Both these discharges must be simulated for model verification.
For Study No. 1, an aquifer volume of 12,000 acre-feet was assumed to
underlie the study area. Figure 5 is a plot of the model simulation
for the period October 1970-September 1971.
More data would be required for verification of the model in the
Grand Valley test area. Definition of the size of aquifer, the
relation of the groundwater underlying the test area to the total
aquifer, the measurement of subsurface outflows, and more frequent
collection of quality data are minimal requirements for additional
data for this purpose.
56
-------
10,000
GRAND VALLEY SIMULATION STUDY
Observed subsurface outflow
Predicted subsurface outflow
Observed surface outflow
Predicted surface outflow
1970 1971
Figure 5. Grand Valley simulation study.
-------
SECTION VII
REFERENCES
1. King, Larry G., and R. John Hanks. "Irrigation Management for
Control of Quality of Irrigation Return Flow." EPA-R2-73-265,
Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, D.C. 307 pp. (1973)
2. Leonard, Robert B. "Effect of Irrigation on the Chemical Quality
of Low Streamflow Adjacent to Cedar Bluff Irrigation District,
Kansas." Kansas State Department of Health - Environmental
Health Services, Topeka, Kansas. 17 pp. (1968)
3. Leonard, Robert B. "Variations in the Chemical Quality of Ground
Water Beneath an Irrigated Field, Cedar Bluff Irrigation District,
Kansas." Kansas State Department of Health - Environmental Health
Services, Topeka, Kansas. 20 pp. (169)
4. Leonard, Robert B. and Gerald A. Stoltenberg. "Compilation of Data
for Water Quality Investigation, Cedar Bluff Irrigation District,
Kansas." Kansas State Department of Health - Division of Environ-
mental Health, Topeka, Kansas. 158 pp. (1972)
5. Skogerboe, Gay lord V., and Wynn R. Walkerk. "Evaluation of Canal
Lining for Salinity Control in Grand Valley." EPA-R2-72-047,
Office of Research and Monitoring, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington D.C. 199 pp. (1972)
6. U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation and Federal
Water Pollution Control Administration. "A Joint Research Proposal
on the Prediction of Mineral Quality of Return Flow Water from
Irrigated Land." Office of the Chief Engineer, Denver, Colorado.
44 pp. plus Appendices (1968)
58
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-77-179a
2.
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION- NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
PREDICTION OF MINERAL QUALITY OF IRRIGATION RETURN
FLOW, VOLUME I, Summary Report and Verification
5. REPORT DATE
August 1977 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Bureau of Reclamation
Engineering and Research Center
Denver, Colorado 80225
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1HB617
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG-D4-0371
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Lab.-Ada, OK
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ada, Oklahoma 74820
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
VOLUME II, III, IV, V
(EPA-600/2-77-179b thru 179e)
16. ABSTRACT
The development and evaluation of modeling capability to simulate and predict the
effects of irrigation on the quality of return flows are documented in the five
volumes of this report. The report contains two different modeling packages which
represent different levels of detail and sophistication. Volumes I, II, and IV
pertain to the model package given in Volume III. Volume V contains the more
sophisticated model. User's manuals are included in Volumes III and V.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS C. COS AT I Field/Group
Mathematical Model, digital simulation,
scheduling, Irrigated land, Evapotrans-
piration, Agriculture, Agronomy, water
pollution, water loss
Irrigation Return Flow
02 C/D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
69
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
Unclassified
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
59
ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1977-757-056/6531 Region No. 5-11
------- |