United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research EPA 600 2-80-080
Laboratory May 1980
Ada OK 74820
Research and Development
Long-Term Effects of
Land Application of
Domestic
Wastewater
Camarillo, California
Irrigation Site
-------
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/Z-80-080
May 1980
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF
DOMESTIC WASTEWATER:
Camarillo, California, Irrigation Site
by
Ralph Stone
James Rowlands
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Los Angeles, California 90025
Contract No. 68-03-2362
Project Officer
William R. Duffer
Wastewater 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 mention of trade names or commercial products constitute
endorsement or recommendation for use.
ii
-------
FOREWORD
The Environmental Protection Agency was established to coordinate the
administration of 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 including the development and demonstration of
soil and other natural systems for the treatment and management of munici-
pal wastewaters.
Although land application of municipal wastewaters has been practiced
for years, there has been a growing and widespread interest in this practice
in recent years. The use of land application received major impetus with
the passage of the 1972 amendments to the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act. The 1977 amendments to the Act gave further encouragement to the use
of land application and provided certain incentives for the funding of
these systems through the construction grants program. With the widespread
implementation of land application systems, there is an urgent need for
answers to several major questions. One of these questions regards the
long-term effects of land application on the soil, crops, groundwater, and
other environmental components. This report is one in a series of ten
which documents the effects of long-term wastewater application at selected
irrigation and rapid infiltration study sites. These case studies should
provide new insight into the long-term effects of land application of
municipal wastewaters.
This report contributes to the knowledge which is essential for the
EPA to meet the requirements of environmental laws and enforce pollution
control standards which are reasonable, cost effective, and provide adequate
protection for the American public.
William C. Galegar
Director
Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory
Hi
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of an assessment of the long-term impacts on crops,
soils, and ground-water resulting from irrigation with secondary-Lated Zfc pd
effluent The concentrations of pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals andTsdh ST oils,
C±££^
-------
CONTENTS
Foreword • '"
Abstract iv
Figures vi
Tables x
List of Special Abbreviations xy
Acknowledgments . xvi
1. Introduction 1
2. Conclusions 4
3. Recommendations - 9
4. Site Selection 11
5. Sampling and Monitoring Program 18
6. Wastewater Irrigation Evaluation 43
References °9
Bibliography 108
Appendices
A. Site Description 114
B. Sample Collection and Analytical Methods 135
C. Well Log and Schematic Design of Test Well 151
D. Analytical Data. . 154
E. Statistical Tables • • 178
F. Graphic Evaluation of the Water Analyses 186
G. Agricultural Balance Tables 211
H. Contracts with Farmers > 241
261
Glossary
-------
FIGURES
Number Page
1 Site locations: California 12
2 Stud/ area - test and control farm sites . 17
3 Soil sampling at the test site . 23
4 Sterile leachate sampler system schematic 25
5 Leachate collection probe 26
6 Lysimeter probe leachate collection and moisture release curves ... 27
7 Falling vacuum lysimeter, vacuum dissipation with time 29
8 Idealized soil moisture profile as a function of time after an
application of surface water. »«. 30
9 Lysimeter installation 31
10 Lysimeter installation . 32
11 Control site lysimeter locations 33
12 Test site lysimeter locations . 34
13 Field sampling 36
14 Irrigation sampling locations 37
•\
15 Idealized cross-section; showing wells and groundwater levels 40
16 Monitoring well locations 42
17 Soils organic content - 46
18 Soils organic content 46
vi
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number page
A-l Study area - test and control farm sites ............. 115
A-2 Geologic map of project area ................. 118
A-3 Ventura county groundwater basin boundaries, 1953 ....... 120
A-4 Geological cross- section along B-B1 .............. 129
A-5 Site soil map ............... . ...... ., IOQ
A-6 Geological cross-section along A-A1 .............. 133
C-l Well log and schematic design of test well 1 ........... 151
C-2 Well log and schematic design of test well 2 .......... 152
C-3 Well log and schematic design of test well 3 .......... 153
F-l Test and control fecal colifbrm analyses in irrigation, leachate, and
well water ............
F-2 Test and control site total colifbrm analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ....................... 1 gy
F-3 Test and control site total dissolved solid analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water ....... . ........... 100
I oo
F-4 Test and control site boron analyses in irrigation, leachate, and
well water ......................... 189
F-5 Test and control site chloride analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water .......................
................ 190
F-6 Test and control site fluoride analyses in irrigation, leachate, and
well water ....... ;
F-7 Test and control site nitrate-nitrogen analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water ................... 192
F-8 Test and control site total nitrogen analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ................ . ......
vl 1
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
F-9 Test and control site total organic carbon analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water ... ............... 194
F-10 Test and control site phosphate analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ...................... 195
F-l 1 Test and control site sulfate analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ......................
F-l 2 Test and control site potassium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ...................... 197
F-l 3 Test and control site sodium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ...................... 198
F-l 4 Test and control site calcium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ............ .......... 199
F-l 5 Test and control site magnesium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ...................... 200
4
F-l 6 Test and control site barium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ............ .......... 201
F-l 7 Test and control site cadmium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water .................... .. 202
F-l 8 Test and control site chromium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ...... ... ........... .. £03
F-l 9 Test and control site copper analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ..... ............... .. 204
F-20 Test and control site lead analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ......... . ............ 205
F-21 Test and control site molybdenum analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ................. ... « . 206
F-22 Test and control site nickel analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water ...................... 207
viii
-------
FIGURES (continued)
Number Page
F-23 Test and control site zinc analyses in irrigation, leachate, and
well water 211
F-24 Test and control site arsenic analyses in irrigation,leachate,
and well water 212
F-25 Test and control site selenium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water 213
ix
-------
TABLES
Number Pag
1 Site Selection Criteria ................... 13
2 Summary of Final Site Selection Criteria Data on Five California
Site ....... ... ....... ............ 14
3 Test and Control Sites - Revised Site Sampling and Analysis
Program (September, 1 976) ................. 19
4 Monitoring Well Depths .................. 39
5 Soil Physical Characteristics ................ 45
6 Statistical Summary of Irrigation Water ............ 47
7 Statistical Summary of 50 cm Leachate ............ 49
8 Statistical Summary of 1 00 cm Leachate . . ......... 50
9 Comparison of Mean Values of Irrigation Water and Leachate
According to Depth . ................... 52
1 0 Statistical Summary of Upstream (#1 ) and Lateral (*2) Test Well
Tops ...... ..................... 54
1 1 Statistical Summary of Upstream (#1 ) and Lateral (*2) Test Well
Bottoms ................ . ........ 55
12 Statistical Summary of Upstream 0*1 ) and Downstream (*3) Test
Well Tops ..... ................... 57
13 Statistical Summary of Upstream (*1 ) and Downstream (^3) Test
Well Bottoms ....................... 58
14 Initial Soil Chemical Analyses (October 1976) ......... 59
15 Statistical Summary of Initial Control and Test Site, Soil
Chemical Analyses .................... 63
-------
TABLES
Number Page
16 Final Soil Chemical Analysis (September 1977) 65
17 Statistical Summary of the Final Control and Test Sites, Soil
Chemical Analyses . . 69
18 Statistical Summary of Control Site Initial and Final Soil
Chemical Analyses 71
19 Statistical Summary of Test Site Initial and Final Soil
Chemical Analyses • 74
20 Initial Soil Biological Organism Analyses (October,1976) ... 76
21 Final Soil Biological Organism Analyses (September;977) ... 77
22 Statistical Summary of Biological Organism Analyses of the
Initial and Final Soil Samples 79
23 Comparison of the Irrigation Water Analyses with the Water
Quality Criteria for Municipal and Irrigation Water Supplies . . 80
24 Comparison of the Leachate Analyses with the Water Quality
Criteria for Municipal and Irrigation Water Supplies 81
25 Comparison of the Groundwater Analyses with the Water
Quality Criteria for Municipal and Irrigation Water Supplies . . 82
26 Test Site Agricultural Use History 84
27 Control Site Agricultural History 85
28 Control and Test Sites Pesticide Application, 1965-1975. .... 86
29 Crop Tissue Analyses 87
30 Expected Range of Elements in Healthy Crop Tissue 88
31 Water Balance - Yearly Average for Period 1971 to 1977 ... 90
32 Summary of Estimated Total Water Used and Nutrient Supplied by
the Irrigation Water - Yearly Average for Period of 1965 to 1977 91
xi
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number Pq9e
33 Site Summary Nutrient Balance (1965-1977) 93
34 Summary of Crop Nutrient Uptake (1965-77) 94
35 Test and Control Sites - Crop Costs and Sales Comparison ($/M 95
36 Effective Value of Wastewater Nutrients, (1965-77) 97
A-l Ventura County, California—Local Temperature Norms and
Wind Patterns , ] 1 6
A-2 Chemical Analyses of Ground and Surface Water Supplies ... 121
A-3 Ventura County Characteristics of Crop Yield and Water Use . . 122
A-4 Water Reclamation Plant: Influent and Effluent Water Quality
(1975) 124
A-5 Waste Discharge Requirements for Surface Disposal of Water
Reclamation Plant Effluent , 128
A-6 Agricultural History of Control Site 134
B-l Reid Activities Log 137
B-2 Field Sample Report 139
B-3 Field Activities Log 142
B-4 Soil Tests • • 143
B-5 Field Activities Log 144
B-6 Soil and Crop Preparatory Methods 146
B-7 Analytical Methods . . • • 147
D-l Analytical Results: Test Effluent 155
D-2 Analytical Results: Control Irrigation 156
D-3 Analytical Results: Test Lysimeter, 50 cm 157
xii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number page
D-4 Analytical Results: Control Lysimeter, 50 cm ......... 158
D-5 Analytical Results: Test Lysimeter, 100 cm .......... 159
D-6 Analytical Results: Control Lysimeter, 100cm ........ 160
D-7 Analytical Results: Test Lysimeter, 300 cm .......... 161
D-8 Analytical Results: Test Well, On-Site, Top ......... 162
D-9 Analytical Results: Test Well, On-Site Bottom ........ 163
D-10 Analytical Results: Test Well, Lateral, Top ......... 164
D-ll Analytical Results: Test Well, Later, Bottom ......... 165
D-12 Analytical Results: Test Well, Downstream, Top ....... 166
D-13 Analytical Results: Test Wei I, Downstream, Bottom ...... 167
D-14 Individual Soil Analyses, Initial Sampling (October, 1976). .. 168
D-15 Individual Soil Analyses, Final Sampling (September, 1977) .. 174
E-l Statistical Comparison Between Tesf Effluent and Control
Irrigation Water ..................... 178
E-2 Statistical Comparison Between Test and Control Leachate at
50cm .......................... 179
E-3 Statistical Comparison Between Test and Control Leachate at
100cm ......................... 180
E-4 Mean and Standard Deviation of Test Leachate at 300 cm ... 181
E-5 Statistical Comparison Between Top Levels of Test Wells 1 and 2 182
E-6 Statistical Comparison Between Bottom Levels of Test Wells
E-7 Statistical Comparison Between Top Levels of Test Wells 1 and 3 1 84
xiii
-------
TABLES (continued)
Number
E-8 Statistical Comparison Between Bottom Levels of Test Wells 1 and
3 185
G-l Test Site Water Balance, 1971-1978 211
G-2 Control Site Water Balance, 1971-1978 212
G-3 Test Site Estimated Total Water Used and Nutrient Supplied in the
Irrigation Water 1965-78 213
G-4 Control Site Estimated Total Water Used and Nutrient Supplied in
the Irrigation Water 1965-78 214
G-5 Test Site Nutrient Balance and Value, 1965-77 215
G-6 Control Site Nutrient Balance and Value, 1965-75 224
G-7 Test Site Crop Yield and Nutrient Uptake, 1965-77 ...... 235
G-8 Control Site Crop Yield and Nutrient Uptake, 1965-77 237
G-9 Test and Control Sites Crop Costs and Sales Comparison ($/na). . 239
XIV
-------
LIST OF SPECIAL ABBREVIATIONS0
ABBREVIATIONS
AE — acid extractible
C — composited sample 0 -e., the sample was composited with another
sample)
CEC -- cation exchange capacity
EX -- exchangeable
Fa - full
FC — fecal coliform
NA — not available
NES ~ not enough sample
Org ~ organic
Sp -- spring
Su ~ summer
T -- total digestible
TC -- total coliform
TDS -- total dissolved solids
TOC — total organic carbon
W ' — winter
WE — water extractible
a Conventional biological and chemical symbols and abbreviations are not included in
the above listing.
xv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We gratefully acknowledge the helpful support and direction provided by
Dr. William R. Duffer, Project Officer; Mr. Richard E. Thomas,Research Soil Scientist,
Wastewater Management Branch of the Robert S. Kerr Environmental Research Laboratory,
Ada, Oklahoma; and Mr. Albert W. Ahlquist, Contracting Officer.
The excellent cooperation and assistance of the following individuals, agencies,
and companies enabled the successful performance of this work.
CAMARILLO SANITARY DISTRICT
Mr. David L. Atkinson, Manager-engineer
Mr. Basil Trueblood, Treatment Plant Supervisor
Mr. Fred Hernandez, Treatment Plant Foreman
CITY OF CAMARILLO
Mr. Joseph Howard, City Engineer
INDIVIDUALS AND COMPANIES
Mr. Raphael Brucker, Test and Control Site Farmer
Mr. Michael Brucker, Second Control Site Farmer
Mr. George Powell and Mr. James Elliot, the Adamson Companies
Mr. Fred Steward, Agri-Serv, Inc.
COUNTY OF VENTURA, CALIFORNIA
Department of Public Works, Flood Control District
Mr. John Turner, Hydrologist
Mr. Michael M. Mukae, Associate Hydrologist
Environmental Resource Agency
Mr. Donald W. Koepp, R. S.
Principal Sanitarian
Environmental Health Division
xvf
-------
REGIONAL
Mr. R. A. Brendler, Farm Advisor, University of California, Cooperative Extension
Mr. Richard Farnsworth, Engineer, United Water Conservation District
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Department of Water Resources, Southern Df strict
Mr. Richard E. Angelas, Chief Resources Evaluation Section Planning Branch
XVII
-------
SECTION 1
INTRODUCTION
The widespread application of treated waste water for irrigation is limited primarily
by certain economic, technical and public health uncertainties about the impacts of such
use. In addition to costs, there is concern rhat the quality of our foodstuffs, land
resources, and groundwater resources may be partially impaired due to residual contamin-
ants present in the treated effluent. For instance, high total salt concentration (salinity)
of irrigation water can greatly reduce the total crop yield. Concentrated dissolved
solids can severely deter plant growth. The salt content of the soil moisture strongly
affects the osmotic relationships within plants since high salinity interferes with the
plant's ability to take up water. Furthermore, saline irrigation water may create an un-
favorable nutrient balance in the soil. Undesirable concentrations of toxic heavy metals,
or salts in treated effluent may originate from Hie discharge of noxious chemicals by
manufacturing plants, commercial or even domestic sources having, for example, photo-
graphic dark rooms or zeolite water softeners.
Salinity may also adversely affect the structure of the soil by changing the chemical
and physical properties of clays and other minerals. For instance, when calcium is the
predominant cation, the soil usually has a granular structure which is easily worked and
readily permeable. As the calcium is replaced by sodium, however, the clay becomes
dispersed and the soil becomes less workable and more impermeable.
Trace heavy metals and other toxic constituents in the irrigation water may be
dangerous for two reasons. Many trace metals are phytotoxic. Aluminum, boron, copper,
manganese, selenium, and silver are some of the more notable examples. Phy to toxins may
kill a plant outright, but more often they inhibit and weaken its growth, reduce yield,
or produce a food product of inferior qualify. Another potential problem lies in bio-
magnification - the tendency for many plants to absorb and concentrate some toxic sub-
stances. This tendency is pronounced in the case of the absorption of mercury by aquatic
algae and fish in the food chain, but similar problems may occur in terrestrial plants,
albeit to a lesser extent. Some of the toxic substances which are subject to biomagni-
fication are cadmium, molybdenum, selenium, and fluoride. In food crops, this could
present a hazard to human health. The significance of long-term application of heavy
metals to agricultural soils, from waste water irrigation will depend on whether these
metals are ultimately absorbed by plants, or if they assume inert chemical forms in the
soil that cannot be absorbed by plants, or are leached into the groundwater.
-------
Pathogens can also be a problem when irrigating with sewage effluent. This is of
particular concern when the crop is to be consumed raw by humans* Pathogenic protozoa,
bacteria, viruses, and other organisms can enter plant tissues in a variety of ways and may
even be found in the edible portion of the plant. One solution to this problem is to irri-
gate only grasses or pasture land with reclaimed water; however, there is still concern
about possible bacterial or other infection of grazing livestock. Some pathogens present
in raw sewage may also represent a hazard to the plants • Certain fungi,bacteria, proto-
zoa, and nematodes can attack vegetation,damaging the growing planrs,and severely
affecting the yield.
Dissolved salts, heavy metals, and pathogens also pose a potential danger to the
usable groundwafer supplies. Usually, the nature of the soil is such that insoluble solids,
some ions, heavy metals, and pathogens are effectively removed by adsorption, precipi-
tation, or exchange within the first few feet of fine-grained soil. However, a bypass of
raw sewage, such as through an uncapped well or bedrock fissure directly into potable
groundwater aquifers, may cause an epidemic or other contaminative outbreak. Never-
theless, land disposal in general, has been found to be a superior biological filter,
greatly reducing health hazards and other adverse environmental impacts when contrasted
with water disposal.
Before irrigation with sewage effluent can be significantly expanded, a detailed
assessment of its long-term effects is required. The purpose of this study was to evaluate
the long-term environmental and cost impacts resulting from irrigating farm land with
secondary treated municipal effluent. The major areas of concern were: impacts of the
waste water on groundwater, soils and crop quality; changes in the crop yield and uptake
of minerals; costs of crop production using waste water; and the environmental health
hazards. Specifically, the objectives were to:
o Sample soils (at the begining and the end of the monitoring program), harvested
crops, and water (irrigation water, leachate, and upper groundwater).
o Contrast the effluent-treated test site biological (including pathogens), physical
and chemical characteristics of the soils, crops, irrigation water, percolating water
and groundwater with similar data obtained at the control site.
o Contrast the agricultural costs and crop yields.
o Evaluate other environmental and health effects.
The first step in implementing the study was to select a separate effluent irrigation site
and a paired normal irrigation site. This was done by reviewing a computerized list of
existing effluent irrigation sites supplied by the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
as well as by reviewing current literature. A group of 30 candidate sites in California
were selected for intensive technical evaluation based on the preselection criteria. Of
these, five locations were chosen for visitation and final review. Camarillo, California,
classified as having a semi-arid climate, was ultimately selected for the assessment of
-------
the long-term environmental impact of irrigating with sewage effluent. Separate test
and control sites were obtained.
Site specific but uniform monitoring programs for both the test and control sites at
Camarillo were developed. Soil samples, collected at several depths at the beginning
and at the end of the monitoring program, were examined for biological organisms and
physical properties, and analyzed for chemical constituents (including nutrients, heavy
metals, and salts).
The tissues of harvested crops were tested for pathogens and chemical constituents.
Chemical and biological analyses were made twice each month on the irrigation waters
(treated effluent from the test site and municipal water supply from the control site)perc-
olating water, and upper groundwater. The data collection, laboratory analyses, and
office studies were conducted over a 24-month period, including 18 months of field
sampling from August,! 976 to January ,1978.
-------
SECTION 2
CONCLUSIONS
The long-term effects from crop Irrigation of municipal secondary treated wastewater
were evaluated by comparing a test site irrigated for over 10 years with secondary treated
effluent, with a similar control site irrigated with normal potable water. General conclu-
sions on land disposal by crop irrigation include those related to overall site and effluent
impacts and requirements.
Due to a combination of variable crop irrigation schedules and the total irrigation
volume being less than the effluent volume/ facilities for effluent storage and bypass into
a stream bed were needed at Camarillo. Where sufficient cropland is available to utilize
all of the effluent from a wastewater plant for crop irrigation, storage facilities would
still be needed due to the variable crop irrigation schedules.
Irrigation water was applied by furrow irrigation at the test and control sites when the
crops had grown above ground. Avoidance of spray irrigation reduced the potential public
exposure to the wind-blown effluent. No flies or sewage odors were detected on the
effluent irrigated test site. After over 18 years of continuous land disposal of effluent at
Camarillo/ no adverse health effects were reported on farm workers, consumers, or waste-
water treatment plant personnel. Available information on the incidence of illness of
farm and treatment plant workers indicated no difference from other local farm or indus-
trial workers. A well oxidized, clear, odor-free disinfected effluent is desirable to
avoid potential dangers and nuisances that may be associated with effluent land disposal,
Farmers and their advisors were neither knowledgeable about, nor saw great benefits
in using reclaimed wastewater effluent for crop irrigation. Education and information
programs for fanners on the availability and cost benefits of using effluent for crop irri-
gation would enable farmers to more realistically assess effluent irrigation for their crops.
Although use of treated wastewater for land irrigation requires a separate set of water
pumping and distribution lines, the irrigation costs were lower when compared with con-
ventional water supplies because of the lower cost of effluent.
The areas of concern in using treated effluent for irrigation water included: hazards
to farm workers' health, contamination of the soils, crops, or the groundwater underlying
the effluent irrigated site, changes in the crop yield/ uptake of minerals and nutrients/
-------
costs, and nuisances. Specific conclusions relating to these areas of concern are pre-
sented below:
BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF WATER AND SOILS
1. The major significant difference between the test site effluent and the control
site irrigation water was the total dissolved solids which was 36 percent higher in the
test site effluent. In particular, sodium and chlorides (by 140 and 270 percent) con-
tributed most of the higher dissolved solids. The test site effluent also provided con-
siderably greater nutrient value: total nitrogen by 330 percent, phosphates by 2,260
percent, and potassium by 810 percent. The heavy metals, in general, did not differ
significantly between the test and control sites' irrigation waters. The minerals boron
and fluorides (by 270 and 160 percent) were significantly greater in the test site effluent.
The total and fecal coliform averaged about 57,000 MPN/100 and 220 MPN/100 ml,
respectively, in the test site effluent as compared to 2 MPN/100 ml for both in the
control site irrigation water. The statistical evaluations showed that the differences
were probably insignificant due to a large standard deviation in the test site data. The
difference is, however, meaningful in that essentially no ( < 2 MPN/100 ml) coliform
were detected in the control site irrigation water.
2. The leachate, at the 50-and 100-cm depths, from the test site generally did not
differ significantly from the control site leachate. In fact, the following constituents,
which were significantly different in the irrigation water, did not differ significantly
between the test and control site leachate samples: total dissolved solids (at the 50 cm
depth), fluorides, total nitrogen, total organic carbon, phosphates, sodium, and copper.
Only potassium and sulfates were significantly different at both depths. The total dis-
solved solids, calcium and zinc, at the 100-cm depth were lower by 23, 62, and 58
percent, respectively, in the test site leachates, while boron was significantly higher,
by 57 percent. Chlorides, fluorides, molybdenum, and lead showed probable signifi-
cant differences at the 90 to 95 percent level.
3. Some leachate constituents increased in concentration with depth. For both
the test and control sites, the total dissolved solids increased from below, 1,000 mg/l in
both irrigation waters to over 1,900 mg/l at the 100-cm subsurface depth. Similarly, ni-
trates, (by about 600 percent), total nitrogen (by about 100 percent), and sodium (by
about 25 percent) also experienced significant increases in concentration with depth for
both sites. The indication is that these constituents were readily leached from the soil.
Effluent land application proved an effective method of attenuating total organic carbon
and phosphates as shown by the decrease in concentration with depth for these latter
constituents at the test site. Total and fecal coliform were effectively attenuated at
both the test and control sites.
4. The samples from the on-site/lateral and downstream well at the test site
showed that some total dissolved solids (including chlorides, magnesium and sodium
-------
as primary constituents)leached through to the upper layer of the groundwater. Total
nitrogen, and nitrates likewise, were greater in the groundwater test samples downstream
from the test site, indicating that nitrogen passed through the soil. The other nutrients,
potassium and phosphates//ere either utilized by the crops or retained in the soil. In
fact, potassium was found to be present at lower levels downstream from the test site.
Boron, fluoride, and total organic carbon, which were significantly greater in the test
effluent, were at lower levels in the groundwater. Heavy metals, and total and fecal
coliform, did not differ significantly in the on site, lateral and downstream groundwater
samples.
5. The chemical characteristics of the test and control site soils differed for both
the initial samples and final samples taken about one year later. Some soil constituents
that changed during the one-year period between samplings included the cation exchange
capacity which increased from 12.2 to 24.0 at the control site, and from 14.3 to 29.0
at the test site. These increases were supported by significant increases in exchange-
able, calcium (26 percent) and exchangeable magnesium (69 percent) in the control site
soil, and an increase of exchangeable magnesium in the test site soils. Thus, the in-
creases in cation exchange capacity in soils at both sites indicated that lime had been
added. A substantial quantity of lead pollution was found in the control site soil, which
was attributed to the close proximity of the control site to a heavily travelled interstate
highway. The control site soil contained nearly 1,400 percent more total and acid ex-
tracted lead at the Ho 10-cm subsurface soil depths than the test site. The difference
in lead content was not observed below the 10-cm depth.
I
6. The biological populations of protozoa, nematodes, and total and fecal coliform,
were similar for both the test and control sites in the initial and final soil samples. In
all cases the biological populations decreased with depth. No statistically significant
differences were identified between the test and control site soil biological populations.
The biological population was reduced to non-detectable or near non-detectable levels
after percolation into soils below 100-cm depths.
TEST SITE GROUNDWATER QUALITY COMPARISON
The analytical results of the test sites' groundwater samples for the study period were
compared with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 1975 interim primary drinking
water regulations and the water quality criteria for municipal water supplies,with the
results found as follows:
1. Water quality criteria for potable and other uses was not exceeded in the ground-
water samples at any time in any of the three wells (on-site, lateral, downstream) for
fecal coliform, barium, copper, nickel, zinc, arsenic, and selenium.
2. Water quality criteria for total dissolved solids, sulfate,and nitrate were ex-
ceeded in all three wells about 100 percent of the time.
-------
3. The criteria were exceeded at various times in all three wells for cadmium
(average 62 percent), chromium (average 44 percent), and lead (average 79 percent).
Other less toxic constituents also exceeded the criteria in all three wells by varying per-
centages.
4. There were not significant differences in the upper groundwater sample consti-
tuents in the on-site, lateral or downstream test site monitoring wells.
CROP TISSUE ANALYSES
1. Spinach leaves at the control site were found to exceed the expected levels for
the following elements: calcium (4,950 versus 100 to 2,000 mg/kg, magnesium (7,080
versus 500 to 1,200 mg/kg), and copper (22 versus 1 to 20 mg/kg).
2. Broccoli at the test site exceeded the expected range for the following elements:
phosphorus (6,037 and 11,712 versus 300 to 1,000 mgAg), calcium (2,025 and 7,725
versus 100 to 1,500 mg/kg), potassium (10,000 and 13,737 versus 1,000 to 3,000 mg/kg),
and magnesium (2,821 and 4,600 versus 500 to 1,500 mgAg).
SOIL NUTRIENTS
1. The nutrients in the soil samples at the test site increased, on an average annual
basis, by the following amounts: nitrogen (27 kg/ha/yr), phosphorous (331 kg/ha/yr),
and potassium (29 kg/ha/yr). The increase was attributed to the nutrients added in the
effluent being greater than the leaching and crop uptake of nutrients. All of the po-
tassium taken up by crops at the test site was provided by the effluent.
2. On the control site, nitrogen (57 kg/ha/yr) and potassium (42 kg/ha/yr) were
depleted, and phosphorus increased (72 kg/ha/yr).
3. The total nutrients provided by the wastewater in kg per hectare per year were:
nitrogen - 391; potassium - 312; and phosphorus - 156.
CROP YIELDS
1. The crop yield on the test site averaged 12 percent greater for tomatoes, and 4
percent greater for broccoli than on the control site over a 13-year period.
2. The physical appearance of crops grown with effluent was similar to crops grown
with potable water.
CROP ECONOMIC ANALYSIS
1. The net profit per hectare on identical crops grown on the test site exceeded the
profits for the control site by an average of $278 for tomatoes and $188 for broccoli.
-------
The higher test site profits resulted from the lower cost for the effluent compared to the
cost of purchasing potable water and fertilizer.
8
-------
SECTION 3
RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Special studies on viruses present in effluent applied to and present in edible crops
should be conducted. The studies would provide a meaningful data comparison for exist-
ing effluent and conventional water irrigation crop sites. Analyses should be conducted
for selected viruses such as polio and influenza in the treated wastewater, soils, crops,
leachate and groundwater.
2) Toxic elements found in the wastewater may enter crops. Standard bio-assay testsare
recommended to assess the toxicity of the effluent, crops, soils, leachates, and ground-
water at land disposal sites. Bio-assay methods should include bacterial tests, fish ex-
posure, or other techniques. Biochemical oxygen demand or bacterial respiration tests
should also be used as an indicator.
3) Plant and animal disease studies are desirable to assess the potential effects of effluent.
The work should include field and controlled laboratory scale tests to define quantitative
effluent parameters.
4) Epidemiological studies should be conducted on the health of the populations surround-
ing the effluent Irrigation sites.
5) Public agency personnel, farmers, farm workers, and farm advisors associated with
reclamation and conventional water supply sites should be surveyed for attitudes toward
the effectiveness of wastewater land disposal irrigation.
6) Industrial wastewater pretreatment programs on plant effluent quality and land disposal
should be investigated.
7) A demonstration and an educational program should be developed to acquaint farmers
with the availability, usefulness and cost-effectiveness of effluent for crop irrigation.
8) Vertical type studies of the quality and marketability of effluent-irrigated crops
starting with the farmers,processors and distributors to the consumers should be performed.
-------
9) Pilot tests and field demonstrations to optimize crop yields and define realistic
effluent irrigation rates should be conducted.
10) The nutritional value of food or other crops grown with wastewater irrigation should
be compared to food or other crops grown with conventional water.
11) Studies to assess the future viability of the land disposal alternative in areas where
communities are rapidly growing should be performed. The survey should assess the
availability of existing farm land for effluent irrigation, and the encroachment of various
types of development on existing effluent irrigation programs.
10
-------
SECTION 4
SITE SELECTION
PRELIMINARY SCREENING
The search for an appropriate test site began with a list provided by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency indicating wastewater treatment plants in California,
Nevada, and Arizona which employed effluents for irrigation. This was supplemented by
additional information obtained during a literature survey. From over 100 candidate sites,
thirty California sites were chosen for closer study. These community sites are shown on
Figure 1. The sites were then evaluated by the criteria shown in Table 1.
Based on these criteria, five sites were selected for final screening; they are also
shown on Figure 1. Telephone calls and confirmatory letters were sent to the concerned
authorities at toe five selected sites to explain the project and to request their coopera-
tion for field visits.
FINAL SELECTION
The five California sites were visited and inspected during the second week of
February 1976. On-site inspections related to soils, crops, treatment works, effluent
storage facilities, irrigation procedures, staffing, anticipated future land use, potential
control site locations,etc. The advantages and disadvantages of each are summarized in
Table 2. From this information, two California sites were ultimately selected as being
potentially the best in fulfilling the general criteria. They were visited once again
during February,1976; this time in the company of Dr. William Duffer, Project Officer.
The review visits developed further information supplementing that previously gathered.
In April ,1976, the Prefect Officer approved toe Camarillo test site. A detailed
description of the project site is included as Appendix A, "Site Description." A map
showing the Camarillo area is shown on Figure 2.
11
-------
Escalon
Waterford Community Services
Corning
Loyal ton
Kern County S.D.
CamarMlo S.D.
Chino Basin M.W.D.
San Bernardino
-Banning
Edstern M.W.D., Sanjjcinto
Fresno
Cutler
Paso Robles
Bakersfield
Terra Bel la
Sewer Main
District
Ventura
Las Virgenes M.W.D
Rossmoor Sanitation Inc.
San Clemente-
Legend
O Initially Reviewed Sites
• Field Visaed Sites (final screening)
II Test Location
0 50 100 200 300
Scale (km)
Figure 1. Site locations: California.
12
-------
TABLET. SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
Parameter Criteria
Provision for secondary treated effluent
Continuous irrigation with effluent 2~ 10 years
Average daily effluent flow £ 365 kiloliters
Average annual effluent application 1.83 meters
Availability of records on local ground water quality
Future continued use of the site for irrigation
Availability of the test site of a comparable control area
unaffected by the effluent irrigation operation and
receiving normal irrigation water within 1.6 km
Cooperation of local authorities and farmers
A variety of major crops grown on effluent-irrigated land
Proximity of land receiving the effluent to the treatment plant
Sites located in arid and semi-arid regions
13
-------
TABLE 2. SUMMARY OF FINAL SITE SELECTION CRITERIA DATA ON
FIVE CALIFORNIA SITES
Site
Effluent
Type
Irrigation
Period
(years)
Irrigated
Area
(hectares)
Advantages
Disadvantages
Confi-
dential
Primary
treated
40
890.7
Kern Primary and 30
County some secondary
Sanitation treated
District
ents into surface waters. Wells
available for sampling ground-
water.
Variety of crops available for Upstream control site not available
study. No discharge of efflu- due to residential development. Full
cooperation of tenant farmer is
doubtful. Very little monitoring
data is available on effluent. No
available historic soil and vegeta-
tion data. Natural irrigation water
is mixed with effluent irrigation.
Primary treated effluent used for irri-
gation. Three-hour one way driving
time from Los Angeles Company of-
fice. No monitoring wells other
than groundwater supply wells.
445.3 No discharge of effluent into
surface waters. Wells availa-
ble for sampling groundwater.
Upstream control site not available
due to residential development.
Full cooperation of tenant farmers
is doubtful. Limited monitoring
data available on effluent operations
Primary/secondary effluent mixture
is used. Three-hour one way drive
to Los Angeles Company office. No
monitoring wells other than ground-
water supply wells.
(Continued)
-------
TABLE 2. (continued)
Irrigation Irrigated
Site Effluent Period Area Advantages
Type (years) (hectares)
China Basin
Municipal
Water
District
Confiden-
tial
Tertiary 52
treatment
since 1973.
Secondary
treated ef-
fluent used
prior to
1973.
Tertiary 6
treated
Golf course uses Excellent data on monitor-
492 million li- ing program since 1973.
ters/yr. Remain- Wells are available for
der is discharged sampling groundwater.
into Santa Ana Our company designed the
River. facility and thus has know-
ledge of operation.
Golf course and Excellent data on effluent
freeway landsca- monitoring program. Con-
Disadvantages
No similar golf course control site
available within 1 .6 km. Limited
historic data available on soil and
groundwater. No monitoring wells
exist other than groundwater wells.
Control golf course uses herbicide,
fungicide, and sewage sludge soil
Ol
Camarilla
Sanitation
District
ping, and treat-
ment plant
grounds are irri-
gated.
Secondary 10
and tertiary
(partial)
treated
182.2
trol golf course irrigated
with normal water supply is
available upstream. Tenants
will cooperate. Soil ana-
lyses data for past 5 years
available from tenant.
Drinking water well
on both sites for sampling
groundwater.
A variety of row crops (vege-
tables) are grown on effluent-
irrigated land. Excellent his-
toric data on effluent. Full
cooperation from tenant farm-
er is anticipated. Similar
conditioner which created different
conditions between the test and con-
trol sites. No historic data are
available on groundwater. Quan-
tity of effluent used for golf course
irrigation is not known. Majority
of effluent is discharged into a
river.
No other monitoring wells besides
groundwater wells. No historic
'data on groundwater or soil. Con-
ventional irrigation water may be
mixed with effluent irrigation water
during peak summer irrigation.
(continued)
-------
CT»
TARI F 7. frnntJmm,!}
Effluent
Site Type
Camarillo
Sanitation
District
(continued)
Irrigation
Period
(years)
Irrigated
Area
(hectares)
" ' " •..!.. •-rL_u ~
Advantages
farm and crops nearby for control
site. Groundwater wells can be
used for sampling. Full coopera-
tion from sanitation district is assured.
One-hour one way drive from Los
Angeles office .
=
Disadvantages
-------
SANTA BARBAi
LOS ANOE
Scale in km
Source: 1*
Figure 2. Study area - test and control farm sites.
17
-------
SECTION 5
SAMPLING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Following the site selection process outlined in Section 4, the general objectives
described in Section 1 were implemented by developing a tentative sampling and analy-
tical program. After submission to the Project Officer in June, 1976, the program was
revised in September 1976 to render it more site specific. The final field sampling and
laboratory test program used for Camarillo is presented in Table 3. Sampling procedures
and analytical methods used are referenced in Appendix B.
TEST AND CONTROL SITE MONITORING
The comparison of critical parameters between an effluent-irrigated test site and a
conventionally-irrigated control site is basic to the assessment of long-term effluent
application effects. Monitoring and sampling activities on test and control sites at each
location were identical and closely coordinated by timing to minimize external factors.
Coordination of monitoring and sampling involved the following practices:
o Using uniform field sampling methods and equipment.
o Sampling test and control sites on the same day.
o Using identical sample storage, handling,and analytical procedures.
o Using the same personnel for sampling/analysis at both sites.
Where individual farm procedures or factors differed between the test and control sites,
these differences were evaluated and described.
Descriptive information was obtained from each site for the following:
o Historical farming practices.
o Fertilizer and pesticide application rates.
o Irrigation water source, quality, quantity, and frequency.
18
-------
TABLE 3. TEST AND CONTROL SITES - REVISED SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS PROGRAM (September 1976)
Sample
Type
Location
Sampling Number
Frequency of Samples Constituents for Analysis
Number of Analyses
per Site
Test Control Total
Soil
Soil
Irrigation
water
2 samples per site.
Depths of 0-2, 2-4,
9-11,29-31,95-105
(10 sub-samples com-
posited per sample),
195-205, and 295-305
cm.
2 samples per site.
Depths of 0-2,2-4,
9-11,29-31,95-105
(10 sub-samples com-
posted per sample),
195-205 and 295-305
cm*
1
1st mo. and
after 1 crop
is harvested
Treatment plant or 2 x/month
main irrigation pipe- 13 months
line
14 Moisture and organic content, 98 98 196
hydraulic conductivity, par-
ticle densiry,bulk density,
particle size distribution.
Soil pH (7)
28 CEC,extractabIe Soluble Salts 1,288 1,288 2,576
(Ca,Mg,K,Na),P(asPO,),N
(as NO and KjN), B, Cf,F,
Cu, Ag,Hg,Pb , Cr,Cd,As,Ba,
Mn,Mo,organic P,extractable
P, Se,Zn; exchangeable cations
(Ca,Mg, Na, K);extractable
metals (Mg,As,Cu,Ag,Hg,Pb,
Cr,Cd,Mn,Ni,Se/Zn);PCB,
total and fecal col if orm, proto-
zoa, and nematodes (46)
Total soils
26 TDS,coliform, fecal and 78 78
total (3)
1,386 1,386 2,772
156
(continued;
-------
ro
o
Sample
Type Location
Irrigation
water (Cont.)
Sampling
Frequency
Monthly
composites
of 2x/month
samples, 13
times
TABLE 3
Number
of Samples
(continued)
Constituents
IS P(as POJ,NC
Mg,CI,F,Cr,
Mo,Se,Zn,to
PCB,S04,Ni
for
Analysis
r
c4,Cu
tal N,
(24)
K Pb Na
,B,As,Ba,
TOC,WOC
Number of Analyses
per Site
Test Control Total
312
312
624
Groundwater 3 wells per site,each 2x/mor\th at 192
at 2 depths within the 2 depths with-
groundwater aquifer in each well,
32 times
Monthly com- 96
posites of 2V
month samples,
16 times
Lysimeter 3 places, 2 depths Composited at 48
(150 & 300 cm be- each depth 2x/
came 50,100, & 300 month,24 times
cm)
Monthly com- 24
posited at each
depth
TDS,coliform,total and fecal(3) 576 576 1,152
P(asPOJ,NCJ ,Ca,K,Pb,Na, 2,3042,304
Mg,C!,F,Cr,Ca,Cu,B,A^Ba,
Mo,Se,Zn,total N,TOC,TVOC,
PCB,S04,Ni,(24)
Same as irrigation water (3) 144 144
288
Same as irrigation water (24)
Total water and moisture
576 576 1,152
3,990 3,990 7,980
(continued)
-------
PO
TABLE 3 (continued)
Sample
Type
Crops -
lettuce and
tomatoes
Sampling
Location Frequency
4 sets of 5 composited 1 each
plant samples of leaves
and fruit
Number
of Samples
8
8
Constituents for Analysis
Coliform, total and fecal
NQ-N/Ca,P/K/Na/Mg/Mo/Pb/
Number of Analyses
per Site
Test Control Total
16 16 32
160 160 320
Cr,td,Cu,B,Fe,As,Ba,CI,S,
Mn,Se,Zh,(20)
Total crops
Total analyses
176 176 352
5,552 5,55211,104
-------
o Climatic data (wind,temperature precipitation, etc.).
o Hydrogeology.
o Soil characteristics.
o Crop type, rotation, planting and harvesting dates, and yield.
o Farm worker health data.
o Crop market factors.
These data are presented in Appendix A, "Site Description."
SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION
In accordance with the final program, soil samples were obtained prior to the first
crop planting at the beginning of the monitoring, and after the last crop was harvested
at the end of the monitoring. Soil samples were taken at seven depths (1, 3, 10, 30,
100, 200 and 300 cm) and analyzed for the physical, chemical, and biological para-
meters indicated in Table 3. Ten sampling points were distributed uniformly throughout
the area of each site for the shallow sampling (up to 100 cm). Deep samples (200 and
. 300 cm) were taken at two locations at each site where the drill rig and backhoe had
access. Appropriate soil collection procedures were followed for biological, physical
and chemical analyses as detailed below and illustrated in Figure 3.
Biological and Chemical Sample Collection
Obtaining unconta mi noted soil specimens for biological analysis proved to be a com-
plex sampling procedure:. Several methods were used to collect "clean" samples from
seven depths at each location. Taking soil samples with a 15 cm diameter auger drill
was found to be unacceptable due to the difficulty of preventing soils of different depths
from intermixing during the collecting operation. Soil samples taken with a stainless
steel,manually-operated probe were also subject to contamination during extraction.
Trenching with a backhoe was found to be an effective means of obtaining good clean
samples at the test and control sites. Hence, 3-meter deep trenches were excavated at
the desired locationsand the selected depths were measured down the side wall of each
trench. A disposable sterile spatula was used to scrape away approximately 2 cm of the
exposed trench side wall to uncover the undisturbed soil. Next, the uncontaminated
soil was transferred from inside each side wall location into a sterilized sample container
using a second sterile spatula. During the sampling at the Camarilla site, It was deter-
mined that an undisturbed sample could also be easily obtained by removing a bucket of
soil from the desired depth with a mechanical backhoe, and then taking the undisturbed
biological soil specimen from the center of an unbroken clod of soil excavated at the
desired depth.
22
-------
Soil probe
a. Shallow soil samp I ing with soil probe,
b. Shallow soil sample collection with
sharpshooter shovel.
c. Collecting deep soil sample from
drill auger.
d. Collecting deep soil sample from
backhoe excavation.
Figure 3. Soil sampling at the test site.
23
-------
Once taken, samples were transferred immediately to an ice chest refrigerated at
4 to 8° C where they remained until analyzed. Generally, all samples- were composited
in the laboratory and analyzed in accordance with recommended methods referenced in
Appendix B. Biological examination was started within 24 hours after sample collection.
Because unstable chemical compounds were also subject to time constraints, soil speci-
mens for chemical analysis were ordinarily collected at the same time as the biological
samples, and in the same manner.
Physical Samples
Soil samples were also collected and physically analyzed for their density, moisture
content, organic content, hydraulic permeability and particle size distribution. Shallow
samples, 30 cm or less, were collected with hand tools. Deeper sampling employed a
15-cm diameter powered auger drill. Use of the drill, and standard methods for deter-
mining physical properties are further described in Appendix B.
LYSIMETER SAMPLES
The leachate samp I ing program was designed to provide percolated water data at
specific depths to allow comparison of chemical and biological balances and changes at
both the test and control farm sites. The leachate was analyzed for the constituents
itemized in Table 3. Figure 4 shows a schematic of the leachate sampling system.
Lysimeter Design
The Iysimeters installed at the study sites were constructed using 60-cm sections of
PVC, Class 125 psi, 5-cm O.D. pipe as shown in Figure 5. A 7 cm long by 4.7 cm dia-
meter ceramic porous cup was attached to one end of the lysimeter probe pipe. The cups
had a wall thickness of 0.23 cm with pore openings in the 1 -2 // range. The other end
of the lysimeter probe pipe was fitted with a number 10 rubber stopper through which two
0.6-cm O.D. polyethylene tubes were extended. One polyethylene tube extended the
length of the lysimeter probe and was used to remove collected leachate samples. The
other tube terminated 1 cm below the rubber stopper and was used as a vacuum inlet for
the lysimeter. Both tubes were fitted with gas-tight valves which controlled the Internal
vacuum and leachate sample flow.
Field Development
A series of field development tests were first carried out to determine the optimum
vacuum conditions for the I ysi meters. Figure 6 shows the amount of vacuum suction that
was needed to extract leachate from Camarilla soils as a function of their percentage of
soil moisture. The soil moisture percentages in the agricultural topsoil were high enough
for leachate collection, using a vacuum lysimeter, only immediately following irrigation
or rainfall. The use of falling vacuum lysimeters avoided the expense of providing a
continuously operating vacuum pump. This,however, necessitated embedding the porous
24
-------
Valves
Vacuum Line
to
Ol
200 Mesh
Sand
Sterilized
Connector
Tubing
No Scale
,..
Ground Surface
Sterilized
Sample
Bottle
Vacuum Pump
Valves and tubing are normally buried and covered with a metal plate for pro-
tection from farm equipment damage.
Lysimeter
Probe
Figure 4 • Sterile leachate sampler system schematic.
-------
Vacuum Line-
I I
II M
rrr
i
rr
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
i
60 cm
7cm
No Scale
Valves
Sample Line
#12 Rubber Stopper
Class 125 psf PVC
Pipe
Epoxy Seal
Porous Cup (pore size 1-2
Figures. Leachafe collection probe Qysimeter) schematic.
26
-------
ro
10,000
1,000
100
10
E
u
0.1
0.01
0.001
10
50
20 30 40
Percent Moisture (dry weight)
Figure 6. Lysimeter probe leachate collection and moisture release curves,
-------
cup In a slurry of 200-mesh sand. The sand slurry encasement served two purposes- it
transported moisture by capillary action into the lysimeter cup, and it helped prolona th-
vacuum duration. r y e
It was determined that an applied vacuum of over 630 mm of mercury (0.838 bars)
could collect moisture for 36 hours. The lysimeter vacuum loss curve is illustrated in
Figure 7. The soil moisture profile changed as a function of time between water applica
tions as illustrated in Figure 8. Thus, by applying a 36-hour vacuum to the lysimeters "
within one to three days after irrigation or precipitation, the peak soil moisture could b«
sampled at the different depths.
Installation
^ Lysimeters were installed at soil depths of 50, 100, and 300 cm at three locations
within each field, as illustrated in Figures 9 and 10. The locations of the lysimeter
probes are illustrated in Figures 11 and 12 for the Camarillo test and control sites.
For the 300 cm deep lysimeter probe, a hole was excavated with a heavy duty mech-
anical auger drill rig or backhoe and the hole bottom was filled to a depth of 20 cm with
200-mesh sand slurry. Then, the probe was inserted, ceramic cup downwards, into the
center of the slurry bed. After placing the lysimeter probe, the hole was backfilled and
compacted with layers of the excavated soil to 60 cm below the ground surface. The
sampling and vacuum lines were then coiled and placed beneath a protective metal plate
at the 60 cm depth to protect against farm equipment damage, and the hole was then
completely backfilled with native soil. Finally, the topsoil was also well-compacted to
prevent water from bypassing or channeling down into the lysimeter and causing an un-
representative short-circuited leachate sample. Care was taken to minimize the altera-
tion of the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics during the backfilling and
to avoid interference in the farm operations.
The shallow lysimeters (50-and 100-cm depths) were installed somewhat differently.
A trench approximately 90 cm long was excavated by hand shovel at the selected loca-
tion to a depth of 50 cm. At one end of the trench, a hole was dug to a depth of 100
cm. The lysimeter was then installed in this hole following the backfill procedure for
the 300-cm depth probes described above. A second lysimeter, with its porous cup
pointed downward and towards the 100-cm lysimeter probe, was then installed at an
angle of 10° with respect to the horizontal in the original trench. The sample and va-
cuum lines were run back to the other end of the trench and covered with a metal plate.
Next, the trench was completely backfilled. Lysimeters were evacuated after their ini-
tial installation. The initially collected water, which was introduced with the 200 mesh
sand slurry, was extracted and disposed.
Sampling Procedure
Initially, the lysimeter probes were evacuated following each field irrigation or
28
-------
£
J
ro E
x> g
u
o
400
500
400
300
200
}00
0
12
15 18
21 24 27 30 33 36 39
Time (hrs)
Figure 7. Falling vacuum lysimeter, vacuum dissipation with time.
42 45
-------
Surface
oo
o
a.
V
"o
to
O)
I
o
Day 1
Da.X 2 Day 3
moisture, percent dry weight
Increasing Time, days
Schematic
(not to scale)
Day 4
R9ure 8. Healized soil moisture profTle 04 a function of time cfter an application of surface water.
-------
a. Drilling 6" diameter borehole.
b. Coating lysimeter porous cup with 200-
mesh sand slurry.
c. Lysimeter ready for placement in sub-
soil.
V-
d. Adding 200-mesh slurry sand bed to
bottom of lysimeter borehole.
Figure 9. Lysimeter installation.
31
-------
a. Inserting lysimeter into borehole.
b. Backfilling hole with 200-mesh sand
and soil.
*
c. Tamping backfill top soil.
d. Protective metal plate offset fror
lysimeter and covering coiled
sample lines.
Figure 10. Lysimeter installation.
-------
o
2500
Scale: 1 mm = 50
m
Legend
O Lysimeters placed at 50-and 100-
cm depths
O
o
Figure 11. Control site lysimeter locations,
33
-------
o
Howard Road
2500
Scale: 1 mm = 50
m
Legend
O Lysimeters placed at 50-and 100-cm depths
D Lysimeter at 300-cm depth
Figure 12. Test site lysimeter locations.
34
-------
natural precipitation to maximize the amount of leachate collected. Within two days of
evacuation, the lysimeters were then sampled to remove all the collected leachate. To
avoid non-representative reactions from occurring and to prevent reabsorption of the
sample by the soil as the vacuum dissipated and the 200-mesh sand encasement dried, the
leachate sample was allowed to remain in the probe no longer than two days. Sterile
collection procedures were used for all the samples. The leachate removal apparatus
was sterilized each time before use to prevent contamination of bacteriological samples.
Leachate samples were then removed via the lysimeter sampling probe using a hand-
operated vacuum pump as depicted in Figure 4. After sampling, the rubber stopper on
the sample bottle was replaced with a sterile lid, each probe was re-evacuated, and the
sample lines were reburied to protect against damage by farm equipment. Leachate
samples were refrigerated at 4° C while in transit and up until time for the laboratory
analyses. Bacteriological tests were started within 24 hours after the samples were col-
lected. As the study progressed, the lysimeters were sampled and evacuated at two-
week intervals. Occasionally, the shallow lysimeters were damaged during field plow-
ing and required replacement. Figure 13 illustrates the field sampling.
Other investigators have reported erroneous nitrate and phosphate concentrations
from analysis of leachate collected with porous ceramic cup lysimeters (2). Apparently,
NO3 and PO4 ions can be adsorbed onto the ceramic cup walls as they pass through.
This effect was avoided by pretreating lysimeters in nitrate and phosphate solutions to
reduce possible adsorption need. At the Camarillo site, a number of lysimeters were
installed which proved unproductive, probably because high soil porosity provided little
retained moisture. The amount of leachate collected from these lysimeters was increased
by using a much larger volume of 200-mesh sand bedding than the original lysimeters had.
The standard sand volume was increased approximately threefold to about 4 cubic deci-
meters for each ceramic lysimeter cup.
IRRIGATION WATER
Undesirable constituents may be introduced into the soil and groundwater via the
application of irrigation water. Analyses of this water provided significant baseline
data from which to quantitatively determine the important constituents. The analyzed
constituents are listed in Table 3. The sampling locations are shown on Figure 14.
Effluent samples from the Camarillo wastewater treatment plant were collected daily
by means of a 24-hour automatic composite sampler positioned between the chlorination
contact basin and the irrigation holding pond.
Three flow-rated portions of the daily composited samples were composited into three
sample bottles for a period of two weeks and stored at 4-8° C by refrigeration. The con-
trol site was irrigated with combined deep well (on-site) water and city water. Every
two weeks a grab sample of the city water was obtained and when the well was operated.
Each grab sample was subdivided into three sample bottles. Each sample was then pre-
served in the same manner as the effluent bi-weekly composite sample. One sample
35
-------
a. Metal detector to locate
buried lysimeter.
b. Sterile well water sampler.
c. Sterile lysimeter sampler.
d. Lysimeter leachate discharge.
Figure 13. Field sampling.
36
-------
Sewage
Treatme
Plant v
A
Source: 1.
Scale in km
Legend
Irrigation water sampling point
Figure 14. Irrigation sampling locations,
37
-------
was taken and stored under sterile conditions for bacteriological analyses; the other two
samples were acidified and preserved in accordance with U.S. EPA recommended
practices.
CROP SAMPLING
^One of the most important parameters affecting land application of wastewater is the
possible uptake of undesirable constituents by crops. Quantitative chemical and bacter-
iological analyses performed on crop samples are listed on Table 3.
For each crop, five sampling points were selected. The sampling points were at
least 7.5 m from the edge of the field and were uniformly spaced throughout. Individual
plants were sampled only if they appeared to be representative of the field as a whole.
Large, small, malformed, discolored or other unusual plants were not sampled. The pro-
cedure used for the collection of test plant tissue samples varied depending on plant
types and intended analyses. Tissue specimens for bacteriological analyses were taken
stored, and transported under sterile conditions. Vegetable crops were sampled at har-
vesting time. At each of the five sampling locations in each field, samples of five
flowers and five leaves were collected for chemical analysis, and one flower and one
leaf were collected for bacteriological analysis. These samples were maintained at 4 to
8 C until analysis, which commenced within 24 hours after tissue collection. Samples
taken for chemical analysis were composited for digestion (see Appendix B for a descrip-
tion of the plant tissue analysis method).
GROUNDWATER WELL SAMPLING
Three groundwater monitoring wells were drilled at the Camarillo test site. The ob-
jective was to assess any change in the groundwater which may have been caused by the
infiltrating leachate. Table 3 lists the constituents whose concentrations were deter-
mined from chemical analysis.
The criteria which governed the installation of the groundwater monitoring wells
were: to place the wells upstrearrw>n-site and downstream of the groundwater aquifer for each
test or control site where possible; to drill through stratigraphically identifiable forma-
tions and obtain samples, and to avoid faults where drainage water could short-circuit
directly to the monitoring well; to minimize the impact of field well installation proce-
dures on farming; and to construct sampling wells which were not to exceed 30.5 m fn
total depth with the lower3-6 m placed in the uppermost aquifer yielding at least 15|pm,
Data were obtained on soils and groundwater during the well drilling. IntheCamar*
illo study area, the sites were found to be underlain by interbedded clays, silts, and
water-bearing fine-to-medium grained sands (see Appendix A). Table 4 lists the depths
of the water-bearing strata. The slope of the hydraulic gradient was determined to be
approximately one percent toward the northwest (see Figure 15).
38
-------
TABLE 4. MONITORING WELL DEPTHS
CO
o
Depths (m)
Site Well Water-bearing Strata Perforated Casing
Camarillo T-l 5-6, 14-15 5-14
T-2 16-20 2-18
T-3 15-16 2-15
a 2/24/77.
b 2/28/77.
c 4/8/77.
Water Elevation,
Static Water Level M.S;L.
5a 27°
nb 23b
10C 21C
-------
N79°W
Test We 1 1 Test We 1 1 Test Wei 1
3 2 ]
(pro ected) (oroiecterft
•
(
^^^
i
0 200
1 i
Scale in m
Legend
^
^ ^
^
'
m
1
..
r
- 30
s
_I
- 25 °°!
V
• 20 1
0)
UI
- 15
. 10
__ J jGroundwater Surface
Figure 15. Idealized cross-section showing wells and groundwater levels,
40
-------
Using the cable tool method, three wells were installed in Camarilla, California
between mid-January and early March 1977. Figure 16 shows the well locations. The
first well was drilled with an open hole, but water in the formation caused caving which
slowed the installation. It was then decided to encase all further holes with 20 cm dia-
meter steel as they were drilled to speed up the work. Some bentonite clay drilling
mud and a small amount of cement were employed to keep the first well hole from caving,
Very little drilling mud and no cement were used to drill the other two wells. At the
control site, in April/1977/ a well was drilled to a depth of 34 m without encountering
water? hence, it was abandoned and backfilled. Other test wells were not drilled since
the groundwater depth was believed to be too deep (> 30 m).
41
-------
Control »/[
Site -vd
; .^•.•>>i^ i^. i «x
Jil- ••?.f- / ^
/ M\l? yv,' •^!'=^i
Source: 1
Scale In km
Legend
Well location
14. M
-------
SECTION 6
WASTEWATER IRRIGATION EVALUATION
After the field sampling and analytical planning schedule (described in Section 5) ^
was established, the field sampling and laboratory analyses were initiated. The first soil
and crop samples were collected during October and November, 1976. The groundwater
monitoring wells were completed in March, 1977.
The comprehensive irrigation water, soil, crop, leachate, and groundwater test
program was performed from March,1977 through February, 1978. The final set of soil
samples was taken between October and December, 1977. Plant samples were collected
whenever the crops were harvested. The analytical results and the evaluation of the soil,
plant, and water studies are presented in this section.
Statistical comparisons were made of the test and control site analyses to test for any
significant differences between conditions at the two locations. Three basic data condi-
tions existed between the test and control sites: (1) the data were significantly different,
(2) the data were similar, and (3) the data were below the analytical method detection
limits1, inconsistent, or insufficient for determining any statistically significant difference
or similarity. The following three statistical tests were employed to analyze the data
as follows: difference of means by the hypothesis test (H-test) or the student t-test, and
the difference in variability by the chi-square distribution test. Detailed explanation of
these statistical tests may be found in any statistics textbook. Difference of means was
generally the main criteria used for determining if significant differences existed between
the test and control sites. The t-test was used as the criteria for significance in the
difference of means whenever the number of samples were small (usually less than 10).
The chi-square test was used to check the difference in variability between the test and
control sites. The statistical tests were applied to complete the following data compari-
sons between the test and control sites:
o Control site irrigation water versus test site wastewater effluent.
o Leachate - comparison between test and control sites by depth.
o Groundwater - up to 30-meters depth below the ground surface; the on-site and
downstream shallow groundwater samples were compared statistically for the test site.
There were no control wells.
43
-------
o Soils - test versus control sites for initial and final samples; iniHal versus final test
and initial versus final control site samples.
The statistical analyses are presented in two data tabulations. The sample means
standard deviations, and statistical confidence levels (in percent) are given on one tabu-
lation in Appendix E. The mean values and percentage difference in mean values be-
tween the test and control sites are summarized by confidence level categories for each
type of sample ana/or sample location in this section.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SOILS
The physical soil characteristics, determined on boring samples taken in October
1976, are presented in Table 5. Some accumulation of organic content (3.7 to 6.2 pe'r-
cent dry wt.) was found in the upper 30-cm depth on the test site but diminished to 1.8
percent dry wt., at lower sampling depths. The control site showed less organic content
than the test site down to 100 cm (2.9 to 3.8 percent dry wt.), and greater moisture con-
tent at deeper depths (4.7 and 5.0 percent dry wt., respectively, at the 200-and 300-cm
depths). Figure 17graphically illustrates the change in organic content with depth.
Dry bulk densities were similar for the test and control sites, and generally ranged
from 1.4 to 1.7g/cc. Particle density was slightly less at the test site, from 2.42 to
2.78 g/cc, as compared to 2.70 to 2.83 g/cc for the control site.
The moisture content of the soils samples at the test and control sites generally
increased with depth, as shown in Figure 18; differences in the curve shape were due to
sampling at different time periods from the time moisture was last applied to the sites.
WATER ANALYSES
Graphical representations of the water analyses trends are presented in Appendix F.
These figures illustrate the changes which occurred at the test and control site during the
duration of the monitoring program for the irrigation water, the leachate from the lysi-
meters, and the groundwater from the wells. The biological and chemical results and
statistical significance of the water analyses are discussed in the following paragraphs.
Irrigation Water Analysis
The statistical comparisons for the irrigation water are shown in Table 6. The consti-
tuents which were significantly higher in the test effluent, when compared to the control
irrigation water, were total dissolved solids by 36 percent, boron by 270 percent, fluor-
ides by 160 percent, and total organic carbon by 810 percent. The constituents contrib-
uting to the total dissolved solids were, generally, higher in the test effluent: chlorides
by 125 percent, and sodium by 140 percent.The test effluent, however, was significantly
lower in sulfate concentrations by 15 percent. As expected, the test effluent showed high-
nutrfent values in that total nitrogen,phosphates ,and potassium were significantly greater
by 330/2,260; and over 265 percent, respectively. Nitrates, by 120 percent,
44
-------
TABLE 5 . SOILPHYS1CAL CHARACTERISTICS?
en
Horizon
(cm)
Test
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
USDA Particle Density
Classification (g/cc)
Clay loam
Same as above
Same as above
Same as above
Loam, clay loam.
sandy clay loam
Clay loam
Sandy clay loam,
silty clay loam
Clay loam, sandy
clay loam
Clay loam
Clay loam, sandy
clay loam
Same as above
Clay loam
Silty ctay,sand
Loam
2.58
2.60
2.74
2.48
2.78
2.66
2.42
2.70
2.78
2.78
2.75
2.78
2.83
2.83
Hydraulic Moisture
Dry Bulk Density Conductivity Content
(g/cc) (cm/sec x 10"5) (% dry wt.)
1.5
1.45
1.4
1.45
1.45
1.5
1.7
1.57
1.55
1.55
1.55
1.48
U46
U2
1.96
0.91
10.8
5.55
2.9
0.44
1.8
2.33
3.05
2.55
2.02
2.27
20.0
27.3
8.5
11.8
14.1
15.4
16.3
19,5
20.6
7.0
(2.0
13.6
14.4
12.4
13.9
15.4
Organic
Content
(% dry wt.)
5.2
3.7
6.2
5.0
3.6
3.4
1.8
2.9
2.5
3.8
3.9
3.8
4.7
5.0
f*As averages of two locations within each field.
Varying soil types are for different locations,
-------
1 ~-
Legend Organic Content (% dry wt)
— • — Control site
•• Test site
Figure 17. Soils organic content.
3 -
10 -
8- 30
100 -
200
300
5 10 15 20
Moisture Content (% dry wt)
Figure 18. Soils organic content.
-------
TABLE 6 . STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF IRRIGATION WATER
Constituent/ 96 - 99%
Form Mean Values %
Control Test DIff.
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less than 90%
Mean Values % Mean Values %
Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
Indeterminable Results
Mean Value %
Control Test Diff.
TC
FC
TDS 733
B 0.23
Cl 73
F 0.61
NO,-N
TNJ 3.5
TOC 3.8
PO.-P 0.5
SOT 227
K 4 4.6
Na 88.4
Cn
\fO
Mg
' TJ
Ra
DU
^" J
Cd
Cr
Cu 0.13
Mo
Ni
1^1
DU
rb
7n
fc-n
As
995 +36
0.85 +270
166 +125
1.6 +160
2.1 4.6 +120
15.0 +330
34.7 +810
11.8 +2,260
194 -15
16.9 +265
212 +140
0.17 0.08 -53
0.06 -54
0.05 0.10 +100
Se
? Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
b The average value, in mgAg/ °f results from seven depths.
<2
<2
49.6
40.1
0.01
0.03
0.10
0.08
0.07
0.01
n f\l
57,000° a
220° a
54.7 +10
33.7 -16
0.02 +100
0.02 -33
0.11 +10
0.05 -38
0.05 -29
0.01 0
n 0.1 n -
c The percent the test result increased (designated by
a *+•" sign) or decreased (designated by a " - " sign)
over the control .
-------
and nickel, by 100 percent, showed probable differences (at the 90 to 95 percent confi-
dence level) in being higher in the test irrigation water. Copper was significantly lower
by 54 percent and barium was significantly higher (at the 90 to 95 percent confidence
level) in the test effluent when compared to the control irrigation water. The total coli-
form and fecal coliform did not test statistically different between the test and control
waters; however, the actual values show that the test effluent was much higher than the
control water in coliform counts. The other const?tuents(calcium,magnesium,cadmium
cnromium,molybdenum,lead,zmc,arsenic,and selenium) were not significantly different
between the test and control sites. Thus, the constituent s comprising the total dissolved
solids and the nutrients were the major contributors to the differences between the test
and control irrigation waters. In general, the metal concentrations in the test effluent
were^similar to those found in the control irrigation waters. This is probably due to
efficient control of metals in the sewage treatment process and the sewage being pri-
marily of domestic origin.
Leachate Analysis
The leachate at the 50-cm depth showed no highly significant differences between
the test and control sites (see Table 7), except for sulfate and potassium, which were
about 75 percent higher and 38 percent lower at the test site Respectively. Those con-
stituents showing probable significant differences at the 90 to 95 percent confidence
level between the test and control sites were chlorides and lead, which were about 14
and 71 percent higher in concentration at the test site,respectively. During the second
half of the test program, the differences in the lead concentrations as shown in Tables
D-3, Appendix D, were insignificant. Fluorides and chromium also show some statis-
tically probable differences; however, due to the low levels present in the samples and
the detection limits of the analytical tests, the differences between the test and control
site samples were insignificant. None of the remaining constituents showed any signifi-
cant differences between the test and control site leachates.
At the 100-cm depth, the test site leachate was more significantly different from the
control site, as shown in Table 8. In addition to the sulfate and potassium ions, which
showed the same trends at the lower depth,boron was significantly higher by 57 percent
at the test site, whereas, the test site was significantly lower than the control site in
total dissolved solids by 23 percent, sulfates by 68 percent, calcium by 62 percent, and
zinc by 58 percent. Nitrates and molybdenum, by 63 and 60 percent,respectively'
were significantly higher (at the 90 to 95 percent confidence level) at the test site/
whereas chlorides,fluorides, chromium, and lead were found significantly lower at'the
test site.There were no statistically significant differences between the test and control
sites for the total and fecal coliform, total nitrogen, total organic carbon,phosphates,
sodium,magnesium,barium,cadmium, copper,nickel,arsenic and zinc. In general,onfy
boron, potassium,and nitrate were significantly higher in the test site 100-cm depth
leachate. This was in contrast to the applied irrigation water in which the test effluent
was also significantly greater in total dissolved sol ids, fluorides, total nitrogen,total
organic carbon,phosphates, sodium,and copper.
48
-------
IO
Constituent/ 96-99%, c
Mean Values %
Form
Control Test Diff.
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less than 90%
Mean .Values % Mean Values %
Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
Questionable Results
Mean Value %
Control Test Diff.
TC
TDS
B
Cl
p
NO--N
TN
11^
TOC
PO.-P
sol
K 4
k. l
No
Mg
n
Ba
Cd
Cr
rf»
Cu
Mo
N!
Pb
•
As
Se
4
<2
1 ,996 1
0.74
217 247 +14
1.1 0.75-32
28.2
27.5
27.2
3.8
434 267 -38
15.4 26.9 +75
93.9
127
0.11
0.03
0.02 0.05 +150
0.12
0.13
0.07
0.07 0.12 +71
0.43
0.02
0.02
7 +75
<2 0
,741 -13
0.89+20
34.6 +23
36.6 +33
26.1 -4
4.8 +26
247 +14
112 +19
155 +22
0.19+73
0.02-33
0.19+58
0.12- 8
0.10+43
0.41 -5
0.01 -50
0.01 -50
. =^===========
a Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
b The average value/ in mg/kg, of results from seven depths.
C The percent the test result increased (designated by
a "+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign)
over trie control.
-------
TABLE 8 . STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TOO CM LEACHATE
Constituent/ 96 - 99%b c
Form Mean Values %
Control Test Diff.
TC
FC
TDS 2,505 1,920 -23
B 0.65 1.02 +57
Cl
f
NO_-N
TN3
TOC
PO.-P
SO* 881 284 -63
K 4 12.4 16.1 +30
Nc
Ca 195 74 -62
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn 0.59 0.25 -58
As
Sc
Significance Level, Percent
90-95% Less than 90% Indeterminable. Results0
Mean Values . % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Control Test biff, Control Test Diff.. Control Test Diff.
27
4
288 227 -21
0.9 0.7 -22
32,5 53.0 +63
34.1
29.4
3.0
284
135
0.22
0.02
0.05 0.02 -60
0.13
0.10 0.16 +60
0.05
0.13 0.09 -31
0.01
0.01
29
<2
47.5
19.1
2.9
267
121
0.23
0.02
0.14
P. 07
0.01
0.01
+7
-75
39
-35
-3
-6
-10
+5
0
48
-40
0
0
? Indeterminable because -values were less than detection limit v The percent the test result increased (designated by
b Th« average value. In mgAg, of results from seven depths. o3wr"rf49con
-------
Table 9 compares the mean values of the water data (irrigation and leachate),
between the test and control sites according to soil depth. Also included in the table for
each constituent are the levels of confidence for the correlation coefficient developed
between the test and control sites. The total dissolved solids increased from less than
17000 mg/l at zero depth to over 1,900 mg/I at the 100-cm subsurface depth at both the
test and control sites. A 99 percent confidence level indicates that there is a high cor-
relation between the two sites. Similarly, nitrates (from 4.6 mg/l and less, to 32.5 mg/l
and more), total nitrogen (from 15 mg/l and less, to over 34 mg/l), and sodium (from
212 mg/l or less, to over 265 mg/l) increased in concentration with depth, for both the
test and control sites. Again, a 99 percent confidence level showed that the increase of
these constituents occurred at both the test and control sites. Probable correlations (at 95
percent level of confidence) existed between the test and control sites' magnesium data.
As shown, the magnesium concentration generally increased with depth. Since magnes-
ium is a soluble cation, it would be expected that it would leach out with depth. The
total organic carbon and the phosphate show probable negative correlation (95 percent
confidence level) between the test and control sites. Both these control site constituents
increased with depth from 3.8 mg/l TOG and 0.3 mg/l PO4-P to 29.4 mg/l TOG, and
3.0 mg/l PCU'P/ respectively. In contrast, these test site sample constituents decreased
from the top of the soil down to the 300-cm depth. As shown earlier, and in Table 6, the
total organic carbon, a measure of the organic content, found in the test effluent was
over eight times greater than the control site irrigation water. Thus, the decrease at the
test site shows that the soil was effective in attenuating the organic material found in the
test effluent. Although the data shown for the control site seem to contradict the above
statement, as stated previously, the difference in total organic carbon between the test
and control sites' leachate was insignificant. As will be explained later in this section,
fertilizer in the form of phosphates and other nutrients was applied to both the test
and control site. The additional organic matter at the control site may have been from
vegetation which was plowed under. For phosphates,the values between the test and con-
trol site leachate samples were, again, not significantly different. The total quantity of
phosphate applied as fertilizer was significantly greater than the quantity obtained from
either the irrigation control water or the test effluent. Thus, in relation to the total
quantity of phosphates added (by fertilizer and irrigation water), there was no apparent
difference between the test and control sites.
The confidence .levels for the heavy metals were not calculated because there were no
distinct increases or decreases of concentration with depth. Therefore, with most of the
heavy metal concentrations being low and near the detection limit of the analytical
method, a valid correlation behind the two sites could not be calculated.
The total and fecal coliform showed no significant difference between the test and
control sites (one high value for the test site was not included due to an error in sampling).
In fact, the decrease of coliform at the test site indicated that the coliform count was
greatly reduced with passage through the soil.
51
-------
TABLE 9.
COMPARISON OF MEAN VALUES OF IRRIGATION WATER AND LEACHATE
ACCORDING TO HFPTHQ
Depth Total Colif> Fecal Col if.
(cm) Cont. Test Cont. Test
0 <2 57,000 <2
50 4 40 <2
100 85 180 4
300 — 14 —
Level of <80
Confidence - %
(correlation coefficient)
220
<2
<2
5
<80
b TDS
Cont . Test
733 995
1,9961,741
2,5051,920
— 1,719
<95
B
Cont.
0.23
0.74
0.65
Test
0.85
0.89
1.00
1.14
• •
Cl
Cont . Test
73
217
288
<80
166
247
227
220
<80
==
Cont
0.6
1.1
0.9
=====
F
. Test
1.6
0.8
0.7
1.0
< 80
u,,
N03-N TN
Cont . Test Cont . Test
•"•^••^"•^
2.1
28.2
32.5
••^••H^BH
4.6 3.5
34.6 27.5
53.0 34.1
62.2 —
^o
15.0
36.6
47.5
63.8
~90~~
Depth
(cm)
50
100
300
TOC
Cont . Test
3.8 34.7
27.2 26.1
29.4 19.0
11 .2
-90
po4-p
Cont . Test
0.3 11.8
3.8 4.8
3.0 2.8
0.2
<80
so4
Cont . Test
227 194
434 267
881 284
« 246
80
K
Cont. Test
4.6
15.4
12.4
<8
16.9
26.9
16.1
11.6
5
No
Cont. Test
88
217
284
99
212
247
267
300
L
Co
Cont . Test
50
94
195
<5
55
112
74
83
3
==^=^^—
Mg Ba
Cont . Test Cont . Test
40 34 0.17
127 155 0.11
135 121 0.22
— 174 —
— <55
-------
There appears to be little correlation between the test and control sites for boron,
chloride, fluoride, sulfate, potassium, copper, and barium. Sulfate, however,
increased with the depth at both sites but at a slower rate at the test site. There may not
be a good correlation between the sites for potassium because of different amounts of
fertilizer applied. The lack of correlation for the remaining constituents were due to the
real significant differences between the test site effluent and the control site irrigation
water, as noted previously.
Groundwater Analysis
The test wells were statistically evaluated to determine possible groundwater con-
tamination by the effluent irrigation water. There were no control wells; however,
because the on-site well (1) was near the entry of the test site, it could be considered a
control-type well. Thus, the on-site well, considered to be the control, was compared
with the lateral well (2) downstream and north of the test site, and the downstream
well (3) west of the test site.
Table 10 and 11 present the statistical comparison between the upper and lower
layers of the on-site and lateral test monitoring wells. The monitoring wells sampled the
leachate at the upper layer of the groundwater rather than the entire groundwater stratum.
The coliform count for the lateral well (2) sample was significantly higher than the on-
site well (1). Fecal coliform was less than 2 (below the detection limit) at both ground-
water sites. The downstream well (3) samples showed similar results.
Since the total dissolved solids content in the leachate continually increased through
the soils, it would be expected that the dissolved solids would also increase downstream
from the on-site groundwater. However, the difference in the total dissolved solids
between the lateral and the on-site well samples was insignificant. This may be explain-
ed by noting that the sulfates,a probable dissolved salt, decreased about 32 percent while
the chlorides significantly increased by 84 percent at the upper layer of the monitoring
wells, and 78 percent at the lower layer of the well; thus, even though the total dis-
solved solids remained nearly the same, the salt content did increase significantly at the
lateral groundwater site. Magnesium, another dissolved salt, was 118 percent higher at
the upper layer of the lateral groundwater than in the on-site well water. Of the nutri-
ents, the nitrates and total nitrogen passed through the soil into the groundwater, evi-
denced by a significant increase of about 27 percent at the top of the lateral well site as
compared to the on-site groundwater. The lower layer of the lateral well samplings
showed an even larger, 64percent, increase in nitrate and total nitrogen content. The
other nutrients, potassium and phosphates showed relatively insignificant differences be-
tween the on-site and lateral wells. Only potassium, at the top of the lateral well, was
significantly lower than the on-site well water, and the phosphates showed probable
significant increases (confidence level between 90 and 95 percent) at the lower level of
the lateral well. Of the heavy metals, only copper, at the top of the wells, showedany
significant increase (level of confidence of 96 to 99 percent) in the lateral groundwater,
as compared to the on-site well location. The otherheavy metals and the other inorganic
53
-------
01
TABLE 10. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TEST WELL TOP SAMPLES - UPSTREAMQ )VS tATERALg)
99%
Significance Level,
9°95%
Percenr
Le* than 90%
Form
TC
FC
TDS
B
Cl
F
NOj-N
TN
TOC
''Qt
SOT
K
No
Co
i »
Mg
Ba
f+-l
Ca
Cu
Mo
Ni
f*l_
Pb
^»
Zn
A
As
Se
====;
a .
Moan
V
Hi
262
39.9
41.3
1,379
11.6
76.6
0.04
0.17
.
Values %C
483 +84
50.9 +28
51 .9 +26
931 -32
5.2 -55
167 +118
0.07 +75
0.09 -47
- — h. V*
Mean Values % Mean
(1) fc) Dlff* ,1)
<2
<2
3,004
0,88
1 jO
9.0
0.4
288
178
0.13
0.02
0.09 0.04 -56
0.10
0.09
0.05
0.01
0.01
M • 1 IV) 1 1 *• V
Values
/ells
22
<2
3,232
0.67
1.3
11.9
0.4
258
204
0.12
0.02
0.10
0.10
0.06
0.01
0.01
/« iiiuutenninaoie KesuirS
% Mear> Value %
Dlff Wells _4 rx-rr
Ultt* (i) (2) Dlff-
i,ioo
0
+8
-24
+30
+32
-10
+15
-8
0
0
+11
720
0
0
Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
The average value, in mgAg, of results from seven depths.
The percent the test result increased (designated by a
the S'Snir T decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over
-------
TABLE 11. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TEST WELL BOTTOM SAMPLES-UPSTREAMQ) VS.LATERAL
en
en
Constituent/ V6 - 99%,
Form Mean Values %c
Wells/2) Diff.
TC
FC
TDS
B
Cl 297 530 +78
F
NOj-N 38.2 62.6 +64
TN 38.6 63.2 +64
TOC
P04-P
SO4 J,386 923 -33
K
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo 0.19 0.11 -42
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
Significance Level, Percent
90-95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results0
Mean Values % Mean .Values % Mean, Value %
WellS(2) 0;ffi Wel^v D!ff, Welffcv DIff>
\ / \ ^ / \ ^ 7
<2
<2
3,524
1.14 0.81 -29
1.27
10.3
0.28 0.66 +140
8.6
299
166 199 +20
243
0.03
O.Q3
0.10
0.05
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.01
0.01
45
<2
3,330
i.ii
14.7
5.8
257
176
0.12
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.11
0.12
0.05
0.01
0.01
2,250
0
-6
-13
+43
-33
-14
-28
-8
-33
-60
+20
+10
+33
-28
0
0
P Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
Jhe average value, in mg/kg, of results fram seven depths.
0 The percent the test result increased (designated by a
Jl+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over
the control.
-------
constituents were not significantly different, or were lower in the lateral groundwafer.
Tables 12 arid 13 present the statistical comparison between the on-site groundwater
and the downstream groundwater. Since the location of the downstream well (3) was
below and across the test site, whereas the lateral well was located to the same side as
the on-site well, the on-site/downstream comparisons may be more representative of the
actual environmental impact. As shown in the tables, there were no significant differ-
ences in the heavy metal concentrations between the on-site and downstream ground-
waters. This was expected since the effluent, for the most part, did not differ signifi-
cantly from the control irrigation water. The results show that the fecal coliform count
in the downstream and on-site groundwaters were below the analytical detection limits.
The effluent fecal coliform were removed by the soil, thus, no fecal coliform reached
the groundwater from the effluent. The total dissolved solids were another group of con-
stituents which were significantly different in the irrigation waters. The impact of the
dissolved solids' penetration to the groundwater is shown by the significantly greater con-
tent of total dissolved solids (by 30 and 14 percent) and chlorides (by 37 and 23 percent)
in upper and lower levels of the downstream well locations, respectively. Magnesium,
at the top of the downstream well, was also significantly higher by some 280 percent.
The nitrates and total nitrogen nutrients were higher in the downstream groundwater
locations but did not increase as much as in the lateral well water. This shows that the
nitrogen content of the leachafe readily percolated through to the groundwater and was
then diluted with the flow of the water downstream. The other nutrients, potassium and
phosphorus, did not appear k> leach through to the groundwater. In fact, the potassium
content was significantly less in the downstream groundwater.
The other constituents (boron, fluorides, and total organic carbon),significantly dif-
ferent between the test and control irrigation waters, apparently increased during the
percolation through the soils. The concentrations of these constituents became more
similar with increasing depth, and were found to be insignificantly different between the
on-*ite and downstream well locations.
Soil Analysis
The differences between the test site and control site soils will ultimately influence
the characteristics of the leachate and the groundwaters. Two sets of soil samples at seven
depths were collected - one before the water monitoring program was started and the
other, near the end of the monitoring program (approximately one year later). The results
of the initial soil samples are presented in Table 14. The results are listed by depth; the
mean value and standard deviation are also given. In Table 15 the correlation coefficients
are presented for four levels of correlation by constituent. The correlation coefficient
was used to determine if there were any significantly similar trends between the test and
control sites.
56
-------
TABLE 12. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TEST WELL TOP. SAMPLES-UPSTREAM(l) VS. DOWNSTREAM (3)
en
Significance Level, Percent
Constituent/
Form
TC
FC
IDS
B
Cl
F
NOg-N
TN
TOC
P04-P
S04
K
Na
Ca
Mg
Ba
Cd
Cr
Cu
No
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
Se
96
(1) *
<2
3,004
262
39.9
41.3
11.6
72.6
"99%K r
Values" %C
'ells i-t:ff
(3) Dlff*
49 2,950
3,916 +30
358 +37
52.8 +32
53.9 +31
4.65-60
280 + 286
P Indeterminable because values were less
The average value, in mg/lqj, of results
90 - 95%
Mean., Values %
Wells pi.rr
(1) (3) Dlff
1,379 1,644 +19
288 301 +5
than detection limit.
from seven depths.
Less than 90% Indeterminable Results
MflanWe)i?IuQS
' (1) 0)
<2 <2
0.88 0.99
1 .02 1 .23
9.0 13..0
0.4 0.5
178 198
0.13 0.14
0.02 0.02
0.09 0.07
0.04 0.06
0.17 0.22
0.10 0.10
0.09 0.11
0.05 0.05
0.01 0.01
0.01 0.01
% Mean... Value %
~.lf We Is _..„
Diff. (^ (3) 2iff.
0
+13
+21
+44
+25
+11
+8
0
-22
+50
+29
0
22
0
0
0
c The percent the test result increased (designated by a
".+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over
the control.
-------
TABLE 13. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF TEST WELL BOTTOMSAmES-
en
oo
Significance Level, Percent
Constituent/ 96 - 99% b
Form Mean Values %
Wells n!ff
(1) (3) Dlff'
TC
FC
IDS 3,524 4,002 +14
B
Cl 297 366 +23
F
NQr-N
*f k. i
TN
TOT
i x^*
P04-P
r* ^^*
so4
K~
Na
^»
Ca
» *
Mg
Rn
DU
Cd
Cr
Cu
Mo
IT!*'
Nil
1 'll
Ph
ru
7n
**H
As
r%»
Se
kJC
90 - 95%
Mean Values %
Wells Diff
(1) (3) Dlff'
<2 410 20,000
38.2 44.3 +11
38.6 45.6 +18
8.6 5.2 -40
0.10 0.03 -70
Less
Mean
0)
<2
1.14
1.3
10.3
0.28
1,386
299
166
243
0.13
0.03
0.05
0.19
0.10
0.09
0.07
0.01
than 90%
Values
'ells c
<2
1.05
1.1
13.5
0.60,
1,586
294
190
295
0.16
0.02
0.07
0.23
0.10
0.12
0.08
0.01
Indeterminable Results0
% Mean Value %
(1) (3) ' "
0
-8
-15
+31
+114
+14
-2
+14
+21
+23
-33
+40
+21
0
+33
+14
0
0
. The percent the test result increased (designated by a
The average value, in mgAg/ of results from seven depths. "+" sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" signiover
the control, ' "
-------
TABLE 14. INITIAL SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES (OCTOBER 1976}c
tn
mg/kg unless noted B
Site Depth
Test
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control
Mean
Std. Dev.
(cm)
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
WE
7.8
6.3
6.5
6.4
6.5
5.2
4.3
6.1
1.0
5.2
4.8
4.1
4.4
4.0
5.1
5.1
4.6
0.5
Cl
WE
209
150
lOr
250
150
150
125
160
49
175
100
250
175
175
150
125
164
47
— F— NOg-
WE WE
11 82
20 28
12 18
14 37
4 56
10 79
18 46
1271 4936
531 24.32
7 150
2 60
4 8
7 44
4 25
8 35
4 30
5.1450
2.1946
INT NL
A
T
966
732
975
925
1,115
1,100
978
970
126
840
654
493
566
570
667
444
604
130
P04
WE
15
16
20
22
102
42
1.6
12.6
73
27
30
16
25
8.6
3.1
4.0
16. 11
11.1
? P
„ Organic
AE T
902
582
859
638
542
632
1,043
742
190
640
692
635
671
416
422
312
541
153
165
150
< 20
< 20
149
145
305
135
98
316
281
235
40
245
540
371
2yy
152
WE
104
112
121
122
50
39
22
81
43
129
134
132
141
48
56
49
98
44
K '
f
EX
1,770
1,780
1,660
1,500
785
600
1,000
1,300
494
1,670
1,610
,490
,590
,210
,720
,220
1,4'51T
186
• Na
WE
226
217
220
216
238
230
257
229
14
234
168
243
144
158
176
197
88
37
^^^HBMBMHH
AE
9,930
11,160
11,000
8,400
10,100
13,300
12,200
10,865
1,587
6,020
5,955
6,470
7,740
8,180
11,300
11,700
8,19CT
2,408
Cu
WE
96
104
92
78
88
63
90
8/
13
52
22
54
25
96
174
165
8J
63.
EX
4,800
3,720
3,860
3,800
2,500
2,200
3,900
3,543
895
2,390
2,815
2,620
3,110
2,600
2,550
2,600
"t, 667
231
(continued)
-------
TABLE 14 . (continued)
Site Dep
(en
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
th
i) T
8,050
5,700
10,360
5,840
6,490
5,575
9,800
7,331
2,094
5,940
6,500
5,570
4,700
8,735
3,600
10,600
6,617
2,395
•MBB^MHBB^^V
fv
AE
2,820
2,240
2,780
2,890
2,060
2,160
2,900
£* m *J*t'O
371
1,880
1,680
1,980
1,860
2,020
1,720
1,460
1,802
196
-
'a
WE
62
68
60
62
58
54
81
60
4
86
50
93
30
32
53
34
54
25
EX
550
389
479
530
594
882
765
598
170
353
458
490
599
596
728
314
~W
150
CEC*
21.9
17.1
15.7
13.8
12.6
9.2
9.9
14
37
20.6
12.0
10.1
7.7
8.8
10.8
15.1
12.1
4A
3 Ag
T AE
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20< 1.0
_ —
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20<1.0
<20< 1.0
<20< 1.0
<20< 1.0
<20< 1.0
=====
Ba
T
706
880
560
1,110
650
960
2,010
1,015
477
435
380
623
413
392
807
840
562
204
Cd
T t
10 1
6 1
<5 2
7 1
5 1
<5 1
<5 1
5.Q i
2.8 (
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5 1
<5 1
<5
— . (
^E
.6
.5
.0
.8
.4
.3
.8
)J2
.5
.9
.8
.6
.5
.2
.25
.5
X26
==
(
T
111
144
135
130
118
100
106
120'
16
142
149
148
149
131
131
163
144
11
—
•^
AE
17
18
16
14
16
16
18
16
1.6
12
14
12
6
13
5
10
10.1
3.6
;
C
T
28
?5
31
24
27
28
27
2.31
49
30
32
26
47
23
29
33
10.1
u
AE
3.1
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.5
4.6
0.4
2.0?
\26
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.2
1.5
1.8
0.2
17
0.9
=====
M
T
419
380
474
433
419
357
407
417"
37
413
544
515
335
412
336
410
473
80
•
n
AE
238
175
200
206
176
149
197
— 1 65
18
166
161
138
156
159
177
198
1 65
ia
(continued)
-------
TABLE 14 . (continued)
SHo
Test
Mean
Depth
(cm)
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mo
T
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
SH. Dev.
Control
Mean
Std. Dev
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
30
30
20
30
20
30
30
27.14
4.88
Ni
T
91
81
93
86
96
71
75
84.71
9.43
54
74
78
54
70
50
66
63.71
11.04
AE
17
17
16
20
19
16
16
17.33
1.60
11
14
12
10
12
13
8
11.48
2.17
T
63
67
51
57
47
50
44
54.
8.
122
115
126
46
55
41
54
121.
49.
5.
6.
Pb
AE
3.8
4.2
4.0
6.6
4.6
3.8
3.6
,U 4.41
,49 1.04
64
59
55
5.0
4.4
3.6
3.0
00*59.5'
00*3.98*
57'4.77'
68k0.91k
Zn
1
Th AE
— 8.1
— 7.6
-- 8.6
— 8.3
-- 5.0
<5.0 6.1
— 8.0
a 7.40
a 1.34
- 8.4
- 9.4
— 7.1
— 7.2
— 7.9
5.0 4.4
5.0 4.8
a 7.02
a 1.83
As
T
3.7
5.2
3.0
2.9
2.2
3.4
2.6
3.30
0.99
8.4
9.4
7.1
7.2
7.9
4.4
4.8
7.03
1.83
AE
0.5 <3
0.5 2
0.6 <1
1.4 <1
0.3 <1
0.4 <1
0.4 <1
0.59<1
Hg
T AE
.0<0.09
.0<0.05
.0<0.05
.0<0.05
.0<0.05
.0<0.05
,0<0.05
.0 <0.05
Se
T AE
<2.0 <0.10
<2.0 <0.10
<2.0 <0.10
<2.0 <0.10
<2.0 <0.10
<2.0 <0.10
<2.0 <0.10
<2.0 <0.10
0.37
1.7<1
1 .7 <1
1 .7 <1
1.0 <1
0.5 <1
0.3 <1
0.4 <1
1.53
-------
The soil analyses were compared by statistically evaluating the difference in means
between the test and control sites by using the H-test. The statistical summary of the
initial soil samples is presented in Table 15. The test site was significantly greater
(level of confidence between 96 and 99 percent) than the control site in the following
constituents: by 30 percent for water-extracted boron; by 480 percent for water-
extracted fluoride; by 60 percent for total nitrogen; by 33 percent for acid-extracted
sodium and exchangeable calcium; by 41 percent for acid-extracted magnesium; by 80
percent for total barium; by 70 percent for acid-extracted chromium; by 35 percent for
total molybdenum; and by 33 and 55 percent for total and acid-extracted nickel, res-
pectively.
Those constituents which were lower in content at the test site were organic phos-
phorus, water-extracted sodium, total chromium, total and acid-extracted lead between
1-and 10-cm depth, and total and acid-extracted arsenic between 1-and 30-cm depth.
The nearly 150 percent increase in lead content in the first 10 cm of the control soil was
likely due to the proximity of the freeway and the subsequent vehicular fallout from
air pollution. Total copper content with a level of confidence between 90 and 95
percent, was considered significantly lower at the test site. The differences between
the test and control sites for the other constituents [water-extracted chloride, nitrates,
phosphate, potassium, calcium, and magnesium; exchangeable potassium, calcium and
magnesium; cation exchange capacity; total silver, cadmium, magnanese, lead (from 30-
to 300-cm depth), mercury, and selenium;]and acid-extracted silver, cadmium, copper,
manganese, lead (from 30-to 300-cm depths), arsenic (from 100- to 300-cm depths)
mercury, and selenium did not differ significantly between the test and control soils.
Most of these constituents which showed significant differences between the two sites
are either water- or acid-extracted samples; therefore, although the actual total con-
tent is generally the same, the difference in the extracted constituents was possibly
due to different physical characteristics of the soils (see Table 5), such as hydraulic
capacity, etc. Other differences might possibly be due to the land uses and fertilizer
application prior to the study.
Near the end of the water monitoring program, a final set of soil samples at seven
depths were collected and chemically analyzed. The results of these analyses are pre-
sented in Table 16. For most of the constituents, the contents of the test site did not
statistically correlate with the control site. The primary reason for a low degree of
correlation was probably due to the contents changing insignificantly through the depths
of the soil; therefore, a comparison of a decreasing or increasing trend could not be
obtained. Total nitrogen and acid-extracted copper decreased in content with depth
about 65 percent for total nitrogen from 3-cm to 300-cm depth, and 65 percent for the
test site extracted copper and 48 percent for the control site copper. Water-extracted
chloride water- and acid-extracted phosphates, exchangeable potassium, and total
digested magnesium and chromium contents generally decreased with depth.
62
-------
TARIE 15 STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF INITIAL CONTROL AND TEST SITES, SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Significance Level, Percent
a
Constituent/ 96-99%b 90-
Form Mean Values % Mean
Control Test Diff. Control
B
Cl
F
NOg-N
PO4P
P
Porg.
K
Na
Ca
Mg
CEC
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
WEd 4.7
WE
WE 2.2
WE
Te 605
WE
AEf 541
T 289
WE
EX9
WE 189
AE 8,200
WE
EX 2,670
T
AE 1,800
WE
EX
T
AE
T 563
T
AE
T 145
AE 10
6.1
12.7
970
743
136
229
10,900
3,540
2,540
1,015
120
17
+30
+480
+60
+37
-53
-17
+33
+33
+41
+80
-17
+70
- 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results
Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
164
50
16
98
1,460
84
6,620
54
500
12.2
161
49
13
82
1,300
87
7,330
61
600
14.3
-2
-2
-19
+20
-11
+4
+11
+13
+ 12
+17
< 20 < 20
<1.0
-------
TABLE 15 (continued)
Constituent/ 96
Form Mean
Control
Cu T
AE
Mn T
AE
Mo T <20
Ni T 64
AE 11
Pb T
(1-1 Ocm) 121
(30-300 cm)
AE
(1-10 cm) 60
(30-300 cm)
Zn T
AE
As T 7.0
AE
(1-30 cm) 1.5
(KD-SOQcm)
Hg T
AE
Se T
AE
- 99% b
Values %
Test Diff.
27 >+35
85 +33
17 +55
54 -55
4.4 -93
3.3 -53
0.6 -60
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results0
Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
34 27 -21
1.7 2.1 +24
424 413 -3
165 165 0
49 54 +10
4.0 4.4 +10
0.4 0.6 +50
< 1.0 < 1.0
< 0.05 0.05
< 2.0 < 2.0
< 0.1 < 0*1
.Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
The average value, in mg/1<9/ of results from seven depths or as noted.
c The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+"
sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over the control.
*T=total digestible. hValue re_
AE= acid extractible. ported as
9EX= exchangeable. meq/1 OOgm.
-------
TABLE 16. FINAL SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSIS (SEPTEMBER 1977)°
tn
rag/kg unless noted
W _.^
Site
Test
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control
Mean
Std. Dev.
Depth
(cm)
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
B
WEC
2.3
2.1
2.0
1.6
2.1
2.0
1.3
1.9
0.3
1.5
1.7
1.9
2.1
1.7
1.9
0.8
1.6
0.4
Cl
WE
270
290
228
155
165
124
166
199
63
249
186
113
135
124
113
124
149.14
50.67
F
WE
6
5
6
5
8
8
7
6.4
1.2
6
11
26
23
27
27
19
19
8.3
N03-N Nb ?0A
O
WE
65
68
63
69
47
13
20
49
23
58
37
47
__
57
36
63
49
11
,
T
705
902
796
531
536
261
319
578
238
577
737
741
—
317
169
266
462
249
~T
WE
12
22
15
13
7.3
< 1.0
<1.0
10
7.8
14
21
29
31
22
6.3
<1.0
17
11
P
a
AEe
399
419
424
323
352
225
240
340
82
300
323
240
251
222
147
258
248
56
P
Organic
T
115
75
210
115
70
50
<20
92
63
85
289
120
<20
75
275
100
136
105
WE
101
148
120
34
22
9
11
63
57
93
78
115
117
14
23
29
67
44
K
f
EX
1,600
1,760
1,670
1,160
815
848
920
128
413
2,020
1,630
1,300
1,110
745
850
796
1,208
478
Na
WE AE
285 9,850
275 10,300
255 10,100
215 9,590
320 8,410
315 12,500
300 8,590
280 9,905
39 1,353
240 3,030
185 2,800
165 2,850
185 2,910
210 5,270
205 11,300
205 12,100
199 5,751
23 4,162
Ca
WE
43
77
63
17
16
13
14
34
26
22
13
5
4
58
173
99
53
62
EX
3,490
3,450
3,630
3,610
3,580
4,170
3,710
3,662
239
3,200
3,140
3,120
3,000
3,860
3,580
3,590
3,355
3,947
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (continued)
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
^ Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mean
Std. Dev.
T
17,000
10,300
12,300
19,500
21,700
26,700
21,400
18,414
5,697
11,800
11,700
107300
10,900
12,800
15,600
18,100
13,028
2,818
Mg
AE
1,360
2,160
1,730
1,970
1,840
1,870
1,940
1,838
249
,310
,330
,170
,340
,240
,180
1,360
1,275
78
CECg Ag
WE
77
85
69
28
21
15
22
45
30
47
17
9.
12
37
55
37
21
18
EX
664
654
666
653
1,090
1,050
1,340
873
282
1,020
938
5 905
882
993
506
699
849
184
T AE
29.5<20 <1.0
26.9<20 <1.0
29.3<20 <1.0
23.8<20 <1.0
36.7<20 <1.0
28.7<20<1.0
29.0<20<1.0
29 <20<1.0
3.9 — -
25.5<20 <0.1
30.5<20 <0.1
24.5<20<0.1
21.3<20<0.1
19.5<20 <0.1
23.5<20<0.1
23.5<20<0.1
24 <20 <1 .0
3.5 — —
Ba
T
595
331
369
691
397
704
563
521
155
831
781
826
822
821
863
767
816
32
Cd
T
6
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
—
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
<5
—
AE
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.7
2.2
1.9
1.5
1.8
0.2
1.9
1.5
1.5
1.4
1.1
1.3
1.6
1.5
0.25
Cr
T
165
166
131
123
158
155
235
161
36
139
196
137
143
189
137
226
(67
36
AE
4.1
4.7
4.5
3.7
3.3
2.6
4.4
3.9
0.7
3.5
3.3
3.6
2.9
5.2
4.1
3.7
3.8
0.7
Cu
T
42
31
27
23
29
33
35
31
6.1
45
45
47
40
36
29
34
39
6.7
Mr,
AE
6.3
6,3
6.?
5 3
3.7
1 7
2.2
4,5
1.9
7.7
6.7
6.R
5.9
5.2
4.0
4.0
5.8
1.4
T
538
548
505
525
535
560
519
532
18
473
487
470
461
499
506
501
4a*>
18
AE
190
196
193
143
135
129
131
159
31
168
152
132
98
95
115
106
124
28
(continued)
-------
TABLE 16 (continued)
Site D
Test
Mean
Std. Dev.
Control
Mean
Std. Dev.
>epth
(cm)
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mo
T
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
~
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
__
T
81
81
76
77
57
71
64
77
7
71
78
80
68
66
65
73
72
6
Ni
AE
7.9
8.3
8.1
9.0
7.6
7.2
7.5
7.9
0.6
9.5
10.1
9.9
9.8
8.3
5.7
6.3
8.5
1.8
Pb
T
40
31
36
45
22
25
37
33.7
8.20
162
180
156
64
52
24
30
166!1
42' L
12.5h
18.2'
AE
6.5
6.5
7.2
5.7
4.8
4.4
3.5
5.5
1.3
43.4
42.5
35.5
9.4
5.8
5.1
5.0
40 4h
o'3I
4.3*
2.1'
Zr
T
114
92
99
9S
138
87
91
102
18
98
110
70
87
105
98
89
93
13
i
AE
20
22
22
22
10
7.3
8.2
15.9
7.0
20
8.9
11
9.5
9.7
8.9
7.1
10.7
4.2
As
T AE
<2.0 <0.
<2.0 <0.
<2.2 <0.
<2.0 <0.
<2.0 <0.
<2.0 <0.
<2.0 <0.1
<2.0 <0.1
— - —
<2.0 <0.
10.1 <0.
9.4 <0.
7.0 <0.
5.1 <0.
2.5 <0.
4.8 <0.
5.7 <0.1
3.4 -
Hg
T AE
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
__ —
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
<0.5 <0.05
—
Se
T AE
12 <0.1
7.4<0.1
16 <0.1
8.9<0.1
24 <0.1
25 <0.1
14 <0.1
15 <0.1
7
27 <0.1
24 <0.1
22 <0.1
17 <0.1
21 <0.1
29 <0.1
17 <0.1
22 <0.1
5
aAverages of two sub-compacted samples. T = total digestible
blotal nitrogen = nitrates plus kfeldahl nitrogen. ®AE =acid exchangeable
°WE = water exchangeable. EX = exchangeable
SReported as mea/100 gm
.1 -to 10-cm depth.
'30-to 300-cm depth
-------
Table 17 presents the statistical summary comparing the test and control sites for the
final soil samples. The constituents which were significantly greater in content at a 96
to 99 percent confidence level at the test site were acid-extracted phosphorus, by 37
percent; water and acid extracted sodium, by 41 and 72 percent, respectively; total
magnesium, by 42 percent; cation exchange capacity, by 21 percent; cadmium, by 20
percent; and total and acid-extracted manganese, by 10 and 29 percent, respectively.
The following constituents showed some significant differences (between 90 and 95 per-
cent level of confidence), for chlorides, by 34 percent; exchangeable calcium by 9
per cent; and acid-extracted magnesium, by 44 percent. The following constituent
concentrations were less in the test site soils than in the control site soils; fluorides, by
68 percent; total barium, by 36 percent; total copper by 21 percent; total and acid-
extracted lead from 1 to 10 cm, by 80 and 86 percent, respectively; total arsenic, by
65 percent; and total selenium, by 32 percent.
In comparing the results of the final soil analysis with those of the first set, the
acid-extracted potassium and total copper were greater at the test site by the same
percentage; and extracted sodium, and magnesium were again higher at the test site,
whereas, total and acid-extracted lead down to a 10-cm depth, and total arsenic were
lower at the test site. Once more, the substantially greater lead content within the first
10 cm of the control site was due to the air pollution fallout caused by the automobiles
traveling the nearby freeway.
The water-extracted chlorides, fluorides, sodium, and barium show reversed trends
between the test and control sites. That is, the chloride and sodium contents were
greater at the test site at the time of the final sampling, while these constituents were
lower in the initial test site samples. This was understandable since the test effluent
caused a buildup of salt content at the test site. Barium and fluorides were lower in the
final test soil samples than in the initial test soil samples. Thereversal of the barium
content may have been due to the greater uptake of the constituent in the test-grown
tomato plants (discussed later in this section).
Additional statistical comparison between Initial and final soil analyses for the con-
trol site is presented in Table 18. The constituents which showed statistically significant
(96 to 99 percent confidence level) increases between the initial and final soil samplings
were: fluoride by 290 percent; exchangeable calcium by 26 percent; total and exchange-
able magnesium by 96 and 69 percent, respectively; cation exchange capacity by 96
percent; total barium by 45 percent; acid-extracted copper by 240 percent; total lead in
the first 10 cm by 37 percent; acid-extracted lead between 30 and 300 cm by 58 per-
cent; acid-extracted zinc by 53 percent; and selenium by 1,000 percent. Total
manganese and total nickel, by 13 to 14 percent, also saw probable signficant (90 to 95
percent) increases. These data show that there was no significant change in the consti-
tuents (water-extracted chloride, sodium, magnesium, and calcium) comprising the
dissolved solids; consequently, the buildup of total dissolved solids in the leachate (733
to 2,505 mg/l from zero to 100-cm depth) was due only to the irrigation water rather
68
-------
TABLE 17. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF THE FINAL CONTROL AND TEST SITES, SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Constituent/ 96 - 99% b
Form Mean Values %
Control Test Diff.
B
Cl
F
NOg-N
N
PO4-P
P
Porg.
K
Na
Ca
Mg
u
CECh
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
WEd
WE
WE 19.9 6.4 -68
WE
T6
WE
AEf 249 340 +37
T
WE
EX9
WE 199 281 +41
AE 5,750 9,900 +72
WE
EX
T 13,000 18,400 +42
AE
WE
EX
24.0 29.1 +21
T
AE
T 816 521 -36
T
AE 1.5 1.8 +20
T
AE
Significance Level, Percent
90-95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results
Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
1.7
149 200 +34
49.7
468
11.4
136
67
1,210
53
3,350 3,660 +9
1,280 1,840 +44
30.6
849
167
3.8
1.9 +12
49.3 -1
579 +24
10.0 -12
92 -32
64 -4
1,250 +3
35 -34
45.3 +48
874 +3
< 20 < 20
<1.0 "^l.O
< 5 < 5
162 -3
3.9 +3
(continued)
-------
TABLET7(continued)
Constituent/ 96 - 99%,
Form Mean Values %
Control Test Diff.
Significance Level , Percent
90-95% Less than 90%
Mean Values % Mean Values %
Indeterminable Results
Mean Value
%
Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff. Control Test Diff.
Cu T 39 31 -21
AE
Mn T 485 533 +10
AE 124 160 +29
Mo T
Ni T
AE
Pb T
(1-10 cm) 166 34 -80
(30-300 cm)
AE
(1-1 Ocm) 40.5 5.5 -86
(30-300 cm)
Zn T
AE
As T 5.7 <2.0 >-65
AE
Hg T
AE
Se T 22 15 -32
AE
, Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
The average value, in mg/kg, of results from seven depths.
The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+"
5.8
72
8.5
42
6.3
94
10.7
6 T-
f AE
, EX
n . . ,
4.5 -22
<20
77 +7
7.9 -7
34 -19
5.5 -13
103 +10
15.9 +49
< 0.1
< 0.5
< 0.05
< 0.1
: total digestible.
= acid extractible .
= exchangeable.
1 _ i I _ _ /t f\f\
<20
< o.l
<0.5
<0.05
<0.1
, sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign)over the control. " Value reported as meq/100 gm.
water extractive.
-------
TABLE 18. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF CONTROL SITE INITIAL
AND FINAL SOIL CHEMICAL ANALYSES
Constituent/
Form
B
Cl
F
WEd
WE
96 - 99%
Mean Values
Initial Final
4.7
5.1
1.7
19.9
b %
Diff.
-64
+290
NOg-N WE
N
PO4-P
P
Porg.
K
No
Ca
Mg
u
CECh
Ba
Cd
Cr
Te
WE,
AEf
T
WE
EX9
WE
AE
WE
EX
T
AE
WE
EX
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
541
289
2,670
6,6?n
502
12.2
563
10.2
249
136
3,360
13,360
849
24.0
816
3.8
-54
-53
+26
+96
+69
+97
+45
-63
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less
Mean Values % Mean
Initial Final Dlfft Initial
164
50
604
16
98
1,460
189
8,200
84
1,800 1,280 -29
54 31 -43
1.5
145
than 90% Indeterminable Results'3
Values % Mean Value %
c. , Diff. Diff.
Final Initial Final
149
50
468
18
67
1,210
199
5,750
53
1.5
167
-9
0
-23
+13
-32
-17
+5
-30
-37
<20 < 20
< 1 .0 < 1 .0
<5 < 5
0
+15
(continued)
-------
TABLE 18 (continued)
ro
Constituent/
Form
Cu T
AE
Mn T
AE
Mo T
N! T
AE
Pb T
(1-10 cm)
(30-300 cm)
AE
(1-10 cm)
(30-300 cm)
Zn T
AE
As T
AE
Hg T
AE
96
Mean
Initial
1.7
165
27
11
121
60
4.0
*
7.0
1.0
Se T <2.0
AE
-99%b
Values
Final
5.8
124
<20 '
8.5
166
40
6.3
10.7
<0.1 •
22*
Significance Level, Percent
c 90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results0
% Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Diff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff.
34 39 +15
+240
424 485 +14
-25
•>26
64 72 +13
-23
+37
49 42 -14
-33
+58
+53
7.0 5.7 -19
->90
< 1.0 <0.5
<0.05 <0.05
1,000
<0.10 < 0.10
k Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
cThe average value, in mg/kgr of results from seven depths.
The percent the test resylfr increased (designated by a "+"
8"01*1 X a "™ OV6r C0
, T = total digestible.
AE = acid exrracrible.
EX = exchangeable.
-------
than extraction from the soil. Another consideration was the increase in the cation
exchange capacity, and the corresponding increase in the exchangeable calcium and
magnesium during the period of the water monitoring program. This indicated that com-
paction and more clay-like characteristics of the soil developed during the monitoring
period. There is no readily explainable reason for the buildup of fluorides. The in-
crease in magnesium was probably due to the inclusion of the exchangeable magnesium
into the soil matrix. The lead increase was most likely due to the continual pollution
from the automobiles. There was a general buildup of barium,cooper,nickel,zinc,and
selenium.
Table 19 summarizes the statistical comparison of the test soil between the initial
and final samplings. As shown,the exchangeable magnesium and the cation exchange
capacity significantly increased between the initial and final soil analyses. Similar to
the control site, the test site soil appeared to have been compacted and changed to
more clay-like characteristics. Water soluble sodium also significantly increased,
confirming the results of the increased compaction. The acid-extracted and total
copper, acid-extracted zinc, and total selenium showed significant increased content
in test site soil as did the control soils. The soil content of the water-extracted boron,
fluoride, calcium, total nitrogen,acid-extracted magnesium, phosphorus, chromium,
manganese, nickel,total and acid-extracted arcsnic, and total barium and nickel were
all lower in the final sample.
The results of the initial biological soil anal^es are presented in Table 20, which
show that both the control site and test site soils effectively reduced the population of
the protozoa,nematodes, and total coliform with depth. Although the protozoa popula-
tion was still 100 per 10 grams at the 300-cm depth, the total population had been re-
duced by 100-fold. The nematodes and total coliform counts were reduced to below
the detection limit at the 300-cm depth. There were no reported fecal coliform counts
at any depth. The confidence level for the correlation between the control and test
sites show that both soils very similarly and effectively attenuated the biological pop-
ulation with depth.
The final results of the biological analyses are presented in Table 21. In contrast
to the initial sampling, the final set of soils showed that only the reduction of the
protozoa populations of the test soils correlated significantly with the control soils.
With depth, the protozoa population was reduced from more than 103/IO g to less than
20/10 g. Another significant difference relating to the protozoa population is that both
sites in the final sampling were reduced to below the detection limit, whereas the
initial samples showed reduction to only 100/lOg at both sites. The nematodes, total
coliform, and fecal coliform counts in the final test soil did not correlate with the final
control site. Ttere were higher counts of nematodes in the control soil, particularly
between 30-and 100-cm depths. Although the control soil did not show detectable total
and fecal coliform counts at 200-cm depths and below, the test site soils contained more
73
-------
TABLE 19. STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF
Constituent/
Form
B
Cl
F
NOg-N
N
P04-P
P
P org.
K
No
Ca
Mg
h
CEC
Ag
Ba
Cd
Cr
WE a
WE
WE
WE
A
Te
WE
AC
^At
T
WE
fl
EX9
WE
AE
WE
EX
T
AE
WE
EX
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
96-99%,
Mean Values %c
Initial Final Diff.
6.2
12.7
970
743
229
87
7,330
2,540
599
14.3
1,015
120
17
1.9
6.4
579
340
281
35
18,400
1,840
874
29.0
521
162
3.9
-69
-50
-40
-54
+23
-60
+150
-28
+46
+103
-49
+35
-77
Significance Level, Percent
90 - 95% Less than 90% Indeterminable Results0
Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Initial Final [Jiff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff.
161
49
13
136
82
1,300
r
10,900
3,540
61
5.1
1.6 1.8 +13
200
49
10
92
64
1,250
9,900
3,670
45
<5
+24
0
-23
-32
-22
-4
-9
+4
-26
< 20 < 20
*
>-2 5.1 5 >-2
(continued)
-------
TABLE 19 (continued)
en
Constituent/
Form
Cu
Mn
Mo
Ni
Pb
Zn
As
LJ-.
Ma
i iy
Se
T
AE
T
AE
T
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
T
AE
AE
T
AE
Significance Level,' Percent Q
96 - 99% , 90 - 95% Less than 90% indeterminable Results
Mean Values %C Mean Values % Mean Values % Mean Value %
Initial Final Diff. Initial Final biff. Initial Final Diff. Initial Final Diff.
2.1
413
85
17
54
7.4
3.3
0.6
<2.0
4.5
533
77
8
34
16
2.0
<0.1
15
27 31 +15
+114
+29
165
-9
-53
-37
4.4 5.5 +25
+116
>-39
>-83
>+650
160 -3
<20 <20
< i n < 05
I • U \J ++J
<0.05 <0.05
< 0.1 < 0.1
Indeterminable because values were less than detection limit.
° The average value, in mg/kg, of results from seven depths.
c The percent the test result increased (designated by a "+"
sign) or decreased (designated by a "-" sign) over the control.
WE= water extract!ble.
f T= total digestible.
AE = acid extract!ble.
? EX = exchangeable.
Value reported as meq/100 gm.
-------
TABLE 20 . INITIAL SOIL BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM ANALYSES (OCTOBER 1976)
Site
Control
Mean
Std. Dev.
Test
Mean
Std. Dev.
Depth Protozoa
(cm) (Pop/10 gm)*
1 1 x 104
3 1 x 104
10 1 x 102
30 1 x 102
100 20
200 1 x lO?
300 1 x 102
2.9 x 103
4.8 x 103
1 1 x 104
3 1 x 104
10 1 x 103
30 1 x 103
100 1 x 103
200 1 x 102
300 1 x 102
3.3 x 103
4.6 x 103
Nematodes
(Population/10 gms)
25
55
45
60
45
0
0
32
25
30
100
75
110
65
0
0
54
45
Total Coliform
(MPN/gm)
7.0 x 104
2.9 x 105
1.2x 105
4. Ox 103
7.0 xlO2
2.0 xlO2
<20
6.9x 104
1.1 x 105
l.lx 105
4.1 x 105
2.8 x 105
3. Ox 104
2.0 xlO2
<20
<20
1.2x 105
1.6x 105
Fecal Col J form
(MPN/g^
< 20
< 20
< 20
< 20
< 20
< 20
<20
< 20
0
< 20
< 20
<20
< 20
<20
<20
< 20
<20
0
Level of Can-
fide nee
(correlation 00>0
co-efficient
(between control
and test - %)
QDry weight soil.
76
-------
TABLE 21 . FINAL SOIL BIO LOGICAL ORGANISM ANALYSIS
(SEPTEMBER 1977)
Site
Control
Mean
Depth
(cm)
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Std. Dev.
Test
Mean
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Std. Dev.
Protozoa' Nematodes Total Col I form
(Pop/10 gmf (Population/10 gms)" (MPN/g m)a
3.5 xlO3
3.4 xlO3
7.8 xlO3
1 .2 x 1 03
<20
<20
<20
2.3 xlO3
3
2.9x10
7.8x 103
8.2 xlO3
1 .3 x 1 04
l.SxlO3
9.5 x 102
<20
<20
4.5 xlO3
5.1xl03
9
0
0
70
10
0
0
13
26
10
0
10
0
0
0
0
3
5
> l.SxlO5
2.0 xlO4
2.1 xlO4
1.2xl04
1.9xl02
<20
<20
3.6xl04
A
6.4x10
8. Ox 104
4.0 xlO4
2.3 xlO5
4.1 xlO4
1.1 xlO4
9.9 xlO3
5.9 xlO3
6.0 xlO4
7.9 xlO4
Fecal Coli form
(MPN/gm)Q
5.7 xlO4
<20
<20
<20
3.6xlO]
<20
<20
... ..
8.2x10
4
2.2x10
1.1 xlO2
1.6xl03
l.SxlO3
5.5 xlO1
<20
8.7X101
<20
4.6 xlO2
6.9x 102
Level of Con-
fidence
relation
(Cor-
Coef-
ficient between
Control
and Test
99.9
< 80
< 80
<80
Dry weight soi I.
77
-------
o
than 5x10 MPN/g of total coliform between 200 and 300 cm, and the fecal coliform
count was 87 at the 200-cm depth. Even though the trend of reduced populations with
depth were not similar between the test and control sites during the final samplings, the
mean averages of the biological organisms' populations for all depths were not signifi-
cantly different between the test and control sites, and between the initial and final
soils, as shown in Table 22. The only significant exception being nematodes,less by
94 percent, in the final test soils when compared with the initial test soils. Con-
sequently, the soils were generally effective in reducing the biological organisms.
There were no major differences between the test and control sites in the land treat-
ment of biological organisms.
WATER QUALITY COMPARISON
The analytical results of the irrigation water, leachate,and groundwater sampled at
the test and control sites were compared to the EPA interim drinking water regulations
and the California water quality criteria for beneficial uses. Tables 23 to 25 show the
percent of times that the constituents in the test and control sites' water samples ex-
ceeded the selected water quality criteria. The 500 mg/l recommended municipal
water criteria for total dissolved solids was exceeded 100 percent of the time in all
phases of the control and test sites which included the irrigation waters, leachate from
the lysimerers,and the groundwater.
The comparison of the water quality criteria with the irrigation waters indicated
that barium,copper,nickel,zinc,and arsenic water quality criteria were not exceeded
in any samples. The irrigation water applied to the control site and the effluent
applied to the test site did not exceed the water quality criteria for chloride. Total
and fecal coliform,boron,fluoride,nitrate,and selenium permissible limits were not
exceeded by the control irrigation water; but the quality criteria for sulfate in 14 per-
cent of the samples, cadmium in 50 percent, chromium in 20 percent,and lead in 36
percent were exceeded. The effluent at the test site exceeded the total coliform
criteria in 72 percent of the samples,fecal coliform in 28 percent, boron in 38 percent,
fluoride in 88 percent,nitrate in 9 percent and sulfate in 6 percent.
Comparing the results of the leachate values with the permissible criteria indicated
that the following constituents at the test site exceeded the water quality criteria less
often than at the control site: fluoride,20 to 50 percent for the test site and 40 to 57
percent for the control site; sulfate, 38 to 60 percent compared to 88 to 100 percent for
the control; and chromium at the 100 cm depth, 18 percent compared to 44 percent.
The test site exceeded the water quality criteria more often than the control site
leachate did for: chloride, 38 and 33 percent at the 50-and 100-cm depth in the test
site leachate, and 0 and 75 percent in the control site, and was exceeded in 12 percent
of the samples at the test site 300-cm level. The results may signify that the chlorides
in the control site soil are readily leached,while much of the chlorides in the test site
were retained In the soil. The nitrate criteria was exceeded 100 percent of the time in
the test soil, and 75 to 83 percent of the time at the control site. The criteria were
exceeded by chromium at the 50-cm depth, 36 percent in the test site soil compared to
11 percent at the control site. The percent of time that the total and fecal coliform,
78
-------
TABLE 22: STATISTICAL SUMMARY
AND
OF BIOLOGICAL ORGANISM ANALYSIS OF THE INITIAL
FINAL SOIL SAMPLES.
Significant Level, Percent
vo
Comparison
Relationship
Initial Control/Test
Final Control/Test
Control Initial/Final
Test Initial/Final
96 - 99%
Constituent Mean Values %
Control Test Diff.
Protozoa
Nematodes
Total Col i form
Fecal Co li form
Protozoa
Nematodes
Total Col i form
Fecal Col i form
Protozoa
Nematodes
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Protozoa
Nematodes 54 3 -94
Total Coliform
Fecal Coliform
Mean
Control
2.9 x 103
32
6.9 xlO4
<20
2.3 xlO3
13
3.6 xlO4
8.2 xlO3
2.9 xlO3
32
6.9 x 104
<20
3.3 xlO3
1.2xl05
<20
Less than 90%
Values
Test
3.3 x 103
54
1.2x 105
<20
4.5 x 103
3
6.0 x 104
2.2 x 104
2.3 xlO3
13
3.6 x 104
8.200
4.5 xlO3
6.0 xlO4
460
%
Diffo
+14
+69
+74
0
+96
-77
+67
+168
-21
-59
-48
+36
-50
.>2,000
-------
00
o
TABLE 23. COMPARISON OF THE IRRIGATION WATER ANALYSES WITH THE WATER
QUALITY CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLIES
Site
Test
Control
Source
Effluent
Irrigation
======
Percent of Time Constituent Exceeded Water Quality Criteria
TC FC
(100 MPNf (20 MPN)
72
0
28
0
Percent of Time
Site
Test
Control
Source (1 ,
Effluent
Irrigation
Permissible criteria for
, unless otherwise noted.
Recommended maximum
o
TDS
(500 mg/l)
100
100
Constituent
B , u F UNCV-N so,
(1 .0 mg/l) (250 mg/l) (1.0mg/lf(l 0 Sg/lf (250. mg/D
38
0
0 88 9 6
0 0 0 14
Exceeded Water Quality Criteria
80 /c Cd Cr c Cu Ni , Pb Zn As Se
,0 mg/l) (00)1 mg/l) (0.05 mg/l) (l.Dmg/1) (02 mc/inOjD5mg/l)c(5 mg/|) (0.05 mg/lf(O.Ql mg/lf
0 61
0 50
each constituent
Source: 3,
concentration in
1 I r .1 r»r+ A
14
20
is given in
irrigation
0
0
0
0
parenthesis: water
waters. Source: 4.
48 0 06
36 0 00
quality criteria for municipal water supplies,
Maximum contaminant level for the EPA interim primary drinking water regulations, 1977. Source: 5.
-------
Site
Test
Control
TABLE 24.
Lysi meter
Depth (cm)
50
100
300
50
100
COMPARISON OF THE LEACHATE ANALYSES WITH THE WATER QUALITY
CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLIES
Percent of Time Constituent Exceeded Water Quality Criteria
TC FC TDS B Cl F , NO~-N
(1 OC MPNf (20 MPN) (500 mg/l) (1 .0 mg/l) (250 mg/l) (1.0mg/lf(l 0 mg/lf
5 0 100 45 38 20 100
9 0 100 57 33 30 100
7 7 100 73 12 50 100
0 0 100 33 0 57 83
14 0 100 9 75 40 75
SO,
(250 mg/0
57
60
38
88
100
00
Percent of Time Constituent Exceeded Water Quality Criteria
Site
Lysimeter Ba Cd Cr Cu Ni b Pb Zn As c Se
Depth (cm) (1.0 mg/l) (00)1 mg/l) (00)5 mg/l) (IjOmg/l) (02 mg/l) (0.05mg/l) (5 mg/l) (0.05 mg/l) (0,01 mg/l)
Test
Control
50
100
300
50
100
0
0
0
0
0
73
45
33
70
80
36
18
20
11
44
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
79
36
80
91
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
11
0
a Permissible criteria for each constituent is given in parenthesis: water quality criteria for municipal water supplies,
, unless otherwise noted. Source: 3.
Recommended maximum concentration in irrigation waters. Source: 4.
c Maximum contaminant level for the EPA interim primary drinking water regulations, 1977. Source:5.
-------
TABLE 25. COMPARISON OF THE GROUNDWATER ANALYSES WITH THE
WATER QUALITY CRITERIA FOR MUNICIPAL AND IRRIGATION WATER SUPPLIES
oo
Site
Test
Well
Location
On -site
Lateral
Downstream
Depth
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
Top
Bottom
(100
0
0
15
12
26
33
Percent of
rc FC
MPNf (20 MPN)
0
0
0
0
0
0
Percent of Time
Site
Test
Well
E
Location Depth 0 .0
On-gite
Lateral
Down-
stream
Top 0
Bottom 0
Top 0
Bottom 0
Top 0
Bottom 0
la Cd
mg/l )° (0.01 m
64
67
73
50
55
62
Time Constituent Exceeded
TDS
(500 mg/l)
100
100
100
100
100
100
Constituent
B
0 .0 mg/l)
45
78
9
33
64
56
Exceeded
Water Quality Criteria
<-' F , NCX-N SO,
(250 mg/l) (1.0mg/lf(l 0 mg/l)c(250 rng/D
71
80
100
87
91
89
Water
60
60
89
75
78
62
Quality Criteria
88
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Cr Cu Ni , Pb Zn As r Se
g/l) (0.05 mg/l) 0 JO mg/l) (02 mg/l frojOS mg/l) (5 mg/l) (0.05 mg/l) (0.01 mg/l)C
60
50
38
43
38
33
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
75
70
70
89
80
89
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Permissible criteria for each constituent is given in parenthesis: water quality criteria for municipal water supplies,
, unless otherwise noted. Source: 3.
Recommended maximum concentration in irrigation waters. Source: 4,
Maximum contaminant level for the EPA interim primary drinking water regulations, 1977, Source: 5.
-------
cadmium, lead,and selenium were exceeded was similar for the test and control sites.
Lead was exceeded at both the test and control sites about 80 percent of the time for the
first TOO cm. At the 300-cm test field depth,lead exceeded the criteria only 36 percent
of the time. The buildup of lead in the upper 100 cm of soil may have been due to the
close proximity of the sites to the freeway and the subsequent retention of airborne lead
from auto exhaust. The results at the 300-cm depth indicated that the lead was not
readily leached.
The groundwater exceeded the water quality criteria for nitrate and sulfate 100 per-
cent of the time, except for the nitrate at the top of the upstream (Well 1). The amount
by which the total coliform exceeded the standards increased from none for the on-site
well to 30 percent in the downstream well. Chromium contamination decreased from 55
to 35 percent from the on-site well to the downstream well. Lead pollution increased
from 72 percent at the on-site well to 85 percent at the downstream well. The fecal
coliform and the selenium levels were not exceeded.
AGRICULTURAL BALANCES
The agricultural use histories of the tes>t and control sites are summarized on Tables
26 and 27, respectively. Ninety percent of the irrigation water on the control site was
from on-site wells,and 10 percent from municipal wells. Irrigation with secondary
effluent on the test site began in 1966, replacing Calleguas Municipal Water District
water in all but two irrigations per year.
Some small differences in the amounts of different fertilizer and pesticides per
hectare between the test and control sites are evident from Tables 26 and 27. Overall,
the total quantity of fertilizers and pesticides per hectare was slightly greater on the
control site. The pesticide applications are summarized in Table 28 for tomatoes and
broccoli.
Crop Tissue Analysis
The results of the total crop tissue analyses are presented in Table 29. The con-
centration of most of the analyzed elements were within the expected range for normal
agricultural crops shown in Table 30. A direct comparison of the concentration of
various analyzed elements between crop tissues grown on the test and control sites was
difficult because of the differences seen in crop genera,species and varieties. Never-
theless, the large differences seen in the concentration of particular elements were
evaluated.
It was found that the uptake of boron in the edible parts of the tomatoes and
broccoli was much greater in the control site plants; that is,an average of 0.35 mgAg B
was found in the test site plants compared to an average of 2.6 mgAg B in the control
site crops. There was no significant difference in the concentration of boron in the
leaves. The tomatoes grown in the effluent irrigated soil contained more phosphorus-
41 and 88 mgAg as PO4 in the leaves and fruit, respectively, as compared to 24 and
34 mgAg as PO, in the control site tomato leaves and fruit,respectively. Other con-
stituents in which crop tissues in the effluent site plants were greater than those found
83
-------
TABLE 26. TEST SITE AGRICULTURAL USE HISTORY
Year
Quarter
Crop
Irrigation
(cm/yr)
Fertilizer
(kg/ha)
Pesticide
(amount/ha)
1977
00
1976
Fa,W
Sp,Su
Broccoli
Tomato
174
Fa,W
SP/Su
Broccoli
Tomato
176
449(11-48-0)
449 (26-14-0)
560 (12-27-0)
392(11-48-0)
449 (26-14-0)
560 (12-27-0)
2.31 (Monitor 4)
3.51 (Bravo 6F)
2.3 I (Grithion 2S)
6.3 I (Thiodan 3)
2.2 kg (Lannate)
0.8kg(Benlate)
2.3 I (Monitor 4)
3.5 I (Bravo 6F)
2.3 I (Grithion 2S)
6.3 I (Thiodan 3)
2.2 kg (Lannate)
0.8kg (Benlate)
1975-
Fa,W Broccoli 141
1967
(repeated) Sp,Su Tomato
392(11-48-0)
449 (26-14-0)
560 (12-27-0)
2.3 1 (Monitor 4)
3.51 (Bravo 6F)
2.3 1 (Grithion 2S)
6.3 1 (Thiodan 3)
2.2 kg (Lannate)
0.8 kg (Benlate)
-------
TABLE'27. CONTROL SITE AGRICULTURAL HISTORY
oo
01
Year
1977
1976
1975-
1966
Quarter
Fa, Wi
Sp, Su
Fa, Wi
Sp, Su
Fa, Wi
(repeated) Sp, Su
Crop
Broccoli
Tomato
Spinach
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Irrigation Fertilizer
(cm/yr) (kg/ha)
151 449(11-48-0)
449(26-14-0)
505(21-7-14)
147 449(11-48-0)
449(26-14-0)
505(21-7-14)
139 393(11-48-0)
449(26-14-0)
505(21-7-14)
Pesticide
(amount/ha)
1 .8 1 (Bravo 6F)
4.7 1 (Monitor 4)
2.3 1 (Grithion 25)
6.3 1 (Thiodan 3)
2.2 kg (Lannate)
2.4 kg (Benalate)
1.81 (Bravo)
4.71 (Monitor 4)
2.3 1 (Grithion)
6.3 1 (Thiodan 3)
2.2 kg (Lannate)
0.8 kg (Benalate)
1.81 (Bravo 6F)
4.71 (Monitor 4)
2.31 (Grithion 2S)
6.3 I (Thiodan 3)
2.2 kg (Lannate)
0.8 kg (Benalate)
-------
TABLE28. CONTROL AND TEST SITES PESTICIDE APPLICATION, 1965-1975
CO
o
Pesticideb
Parameters
Common Name ,
Chemical Name
b
Insecticide on Pesticide
Manufacturer
Recommended Dose (1/lp.a,
unless otherwise noted)
Rate of Application (l/hQ/
unless otherwise noted) ,
Number of Applications
Contact Time (days)
, b
Remarks
Tomato
Benelate
Benomyl
Pesticide
DuPont
0.62 -2 .5 kg
0.86 kg
3
7-14
Tomato
Guthion-25
0.0-Dimethyl
S-Phosphonodi-
thioate
Insecticide
Chem Grow
2.5-3.7
2.5
1
14
Toxic to fish,
birds, and
wildlife. Keep
out of water
bodies . Not
applied when
runoff is likely
to occur.
Cropa/c
Tomato0' Broccol i
Thiodon-3 Monitor-4
Pyrenone O . S-Dim-
ethyl phos-
phoramidi-
thioate
Insecticide Insecticide
Canadian Chem Grow
Hoscht, Ltd.
6.5 2-4
3.0 2.5
1 1
7 21
Toxic to fish Toxic to fish,
birds, and birds, and
wildlife. wildlife. Keep
Keep out of out of water
water bodies, bodies. Not
Not applied applied when
when runoff runoff is 1 ike-
is likely to ly to occur.
occur.
Broccoli
Bravo GF
Chlorothaloni
Insecticide
Diamond Shamrock Co.
2-2.5
1.5
2
7-10
Toxic to fish,
birds, and
wildlife. Keep
out of water
bodies . Not
applied when
runoff is likely
to occur.
a Information supplied by site farmer.
Information from manufacturers.
Note: , The test and control sites farmer uses the same insecticides, pesticides, and application rates on similar crops.
d For 1976.
-------
TABLE 29. CROP TISSUE ANALYSES
oo
MPN/g
Site
Test
Date
Harvested
July 1977
Dec. 1977
Control Oct. 1976
July 1977
Jan. 1978
Total
Fecal
Type Col i form Co li form
Tomato
Broccoli
Spinach
Tomato
Broccoli
Leaves 0
Fruit 0
Leaves 10
Head 5
Leaves 200
Leaves t)
Fruit 0
Leaves 0
Head 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
B
0.40
0,19
0.45
0.5
37
0.55
1.76
0.75
3.5
Constituent (mgAg)
Cl NO3-N
88
P-PO.
4
41
88
25
30
165 6,390
24
36
20
12
s-so4
1,190
24
99
66
355
3,650
113
158
57
K Na Ca Mg
31,200 4,20023,60011,500
18,100 6,10023,70014,500
48,500 23,500 22,400 15,900
76,500 8,150 2,40010,400
7,530 22,800 4,950 -7,000
52,300 5,300 2,350 6,230
37,900 900 825 3,520
86,200 16,200 20,600 1 6,800
24,800 4,250 2,20010,800
Constituent
Site
Test
Date
Harvested
July 1977
Dec. 1977
Control Oct. 1976
July 1977
Jnn. 1978
Type
Tomato
Broccoli
Spinach
Tomato
Broccoli
Ba
Leaves 42
Fruit 28
Leaves 62
Head 29
Leaves 30
Leaves 13
Fruit 5
Leaves 61
Head 47
Cd
5
< 2
< 2
< 2
9.2
6
<2
<2
<2
Cr
3.1
2.0
< 2.0
< 2.0
22
6.6
3.9
< 2
< 2
Cu
210
62
18
20
22
22
20
14
12
Fe
990
280
398
405
.512
1,070
490
308
344
Mn
46
4
178
75
116
180
11
264
84
(mgAg)
Mo
Ni
< 10 280
< 10
< 25°
< 25
68
< 10
< 10
40
< 25
5
8
16
b
19
13
8
15
Pb Zn As Se
27 71 2.1<0-5
27 35 2.1 °-8
10 68 3.4
11 152 4.5
50 110 < C.5 <0.5
48 45 1.1 0.3
19 87 1.0 0.1
12 84 6.1
16 186 8.0
i The value is an average of four analyses, one or more which wero less than the detectable limit of 10 mg/kg.
Nickel crucibles were initially used to digest the crop samples, therefore nickel was not determined.
-------
Constituent (mgAg)
Crop
Broccoli
Corn
Cotton
Forage
Small grain
Sorghum
Spinach
Tomato 0
As
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-2
0-1
0-1
.01-1
B
10-50
10-50
10-50
10-100
10-60
10-70
10-70
10-100
Cd
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-3
0-1
0-3
0-3
0-3
Cr
0-1
0-3
0-1
0-1
0-1
0-2
0-1
~~
Cu
1-20
1-30
1-30
1-10
1-40
1-30
1-20
1-30
Mo
1-50
1-5
1-10
1-5
1-10
1-5
1-10
0.7-5
Ni
0.1-3
0-3
0-2
0-5
—
0-3
0.1-1
0-3
Pb
0-10
0-10
0-10
0-5
0-10
0-10
0-10
1-10
Se
0-2
0-1
0-1
— b
—
0-1
0-1
0-2
Zn
30-100
20-200
10-200
20-100
30-100
10-100
30-150
40-200
Constituent (% or 104 mgAg)
Crop
Broccoli
Corn
Cotton
Forage
Small grain
Sorghum
Spinach
Tomato
Ca
0.1-1.5
0.1-1.5
0.5-1.5
0.2-1.2
0.4-1
0.1-1.5
0.1-2
1.0-2.5
K
1-3
1-2
0.7-1.5
0.1-1
1.3
1-2.5
1-3
0.2-1
Mg
0.5-1
0.5-
0.2-
0.1-
0.2-
0.5-
0.5-
0.7-
.5
.5
0.
0.
0.
.5 0.
.2
.5
N
1.3
1-2
4-1
2-0
4-1
5-2
1-3
1-3
Na
__b
.5
.5 —
.7
0.04-1
.5
.5
— —
P
0.3-
0.1- .5
0.5-
0.2-
0.2-
0.1- .5
0.3-1
0.3-1
.Sources: 6-26.
Not determined.
-------
in the control site crops included: sodium (6,100:900 mgAg in the fruit); magnesium
(11,500 and 14,500 mgAg for the control grown leaves and fruit); barium (the test
leaves and fruit contained 42 and 28 mgAg,and the control site crops contained 13 and
5 mgAg, respectively); zinc (the test-grown leaf tissues contained 71 mg/kg while the
control tissues had 45 mgAg Zn); and arsenic (the test leaves and fruit contained 2.1
and 2.1 mgAg,whereas the control samples had 1.1 and 1.0 mgAg/respectively).
The uptake of the following constituents was lower in the test site tomatoes than
the control site crop: sulfur (test leaves and fruit equalled 1,190 and 24 mgAg as SO
and the control-grown tissues contained 3,650 and 113 mgAg as SO.)? chromium 4/
(3.1 and 20 mgAg were found on the test site tomato leaves and fruit,respectively,
while the control site leaves and fruit equalled 6.6 and 3.9 mgAg); iron (the test site
tomato fruits had 280 mgAg Fe,while 490 mgAg Fe was found in the control site fruits);
manganese (the test site leaves and fruits contained 46 and 4 mgAg,respectively,while
the corresponding control site samples contained 180 and 11 mgAg); nickel (the test
site tomato fruit contained 5 mgAg while 13 mgAg was found for the control site fruit)-
lead (the leaves grown in the test soil had 27 mgAg,whereas the control leaves con-
tained 48 mgAg; and zinc (the test fruit contained 35 mgAg and the control fruit con-
tained 87 mgAg).
The tomato leaves contained from 10 to 30 times more copper (210 mgAg in the
test crop and 22 mgAg in the control-grown leaves) and nickel (280 mgAg in the test
leaves/and 19 mgAg in the control crop) in the test plants; whereas,the controlled
grown tomato leaves contained about 5 times more manganese (46 mg/kg in the test
compared to 180 mgAg on the control crop). There was no significant difference for
all the other constituents. The test site broccoli leaves contained less magnanese (178
mgAg compared to 264 mgAg) than the control crop. There were no other significant
differences.
Water Balance
The water balance estimate for the 1 6 ha test site and the 20 ha- control site is
given in Table 31. Precipitation and irrigation data,based on treatment plant records
were estimated for the test site during the seven-year period, 1971 through 1977. The
potential evapotranspiration losses were calculated for broccoli (50.8 in the winter) and
tomato (50.8 in the summer). The remaining irrigated water entered the soil and per-
colated into the upper groundwater. The irrigation procedure was the same for both test
and control sites,and consisted of using sprinklers at the time of pre-planting and initial
planting, followed by furrow irrigation when the plants were growing above ground
Precipitation, irrigation,and evapotranspiration data for the control site were similar
to those shown for the test site on a per hectare basis. Table 32 gives the nutrients
supplied by water effluent irrigation for the test and control sites. For the 13-year
period from 1965 through 1977, the test site effluent nitrogen and potassium nutrient
values were about double those found in the control site irrigation water. The test
effluent provided eight times more phosphorus than the control site irrigation water.
89
-------
TABLE 31. WATER BALANCE - YEARLY AVERAGE FOR PERI OD 1971 TO 1977
10
o
Precipitation
Site
TestS
h
Control
Total
(cm)
A
29
29
Effective0
(cm)
B
23
23
Total
1,000 cu m)
C
256
308
Irrigation
u
Total
(cm)
D
160
153
Effective0
(cm)
E
151
152
Total
Effective
Water
(cm)
Fe
174
175
Average
Evapo-
transai ration
(cm)d
G
102
102
Average
Leachate
(cm)
Hf
72
73
Runoff coefficient is percent of precipitation lost through runoff. Runoff coefficient: 0.1.
Estimating that 8,000 M per day of the treated effluent is diverted by percolation, evaporation, etc.
^Irrigation efficiency, the percent of total applied which is not lost to runoff, was estimated to be 82 percent.
Source: .24.
eF = B + E Please refer to column headings, line 5 above.
H = F - G Please refer to column headings,line 5 above.
H Area: test area, 16 ha; total effluent irrigated area, 182 ha.
hArea: 20 ha.
-------
TABLE 32. SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USED AND NUTRIENT SUPPLIED BY
THE IRRIGATION WATER - YEARLY AVERAGE FOR PERIOD OF 1965 TO 1977
Precipitation0 Irrigation1*
(cm/ (cm/ (cm/ (Cm/
Site crop)4 yr) cr0p)d yr)
A
Test 18
Control 18
B C D
35 78 156
35 77 155
Total Water Fertilizer Value In Effluent Irrigation0
fcm/l (cm/ (m9/0
crop)d yr) N p K
E® Ff G
95 191 25 10 20
94 189 13 2 8
(kg/hq/crop,d (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
Hg i&
195 78 156 391 156 312
101 9 76 201 19 151
° Weather Data: Camarillo Fire Station.
Site farmer.
c Estimated to be the same as existing irrigation water.
Based on two crops per year.
«E = A+C.
' F = B + D.
H = C+ G.
11 1 = D+G. j
Please refer to column
headings line 6 above.
Note: AH numbers were rounded off to nearest whole numberc
-------
Agricultural Balances and Comparisons
The nitrogen,phosphorus,and potassium nutrient quantities applied to the test and
control sites from 1965 to 1977 are summarized on Table 33. Detailed water and nu-
trient balance calculations are given in Appendix G. There was a net increase in all
three nu.trients in the soil sampled at the test site, and a net decrease in nitrogen and
potassium in the control site soil samples. The test site effluent irrigation water pro-
vided twice as much nitrogen and potassium,and eight times as much phosphorus as the
control site conventional irrigation water. Overall, the test site received more nu-
trients than the control site. In addition to the irrigation waters, nutrients were added
as fertilizer to both sites. The total input during the 13-year period for the test site was,
for N7P and K (26,78, and 33 percent,respectively), greater than the total input to the
control site.
The test and control site crop yield and nutrition data are presented in Appendix G
and are summarized in Table 34. The combined nutrient uptake efficiency at the control
site (61 percent) was about 50 percent greater than at the test site (43 percent). Crop
uptake for all three nutrients was greater at the control site than at the test site. The
quantity of each of the three available nutrients used by plants at the test and control
sites ranged from 2.5 percent for nitrogen to 11 percent for potassium. Thus, the diff-
erence in crop uptake efficiency was not due to differences in uptake quantities,but
rather to the total amounts of available nutrients exceeding the uptake capacity re-
quired for the crops. Crop yields on the test site were 12 and 4 percent greater for
tomatoes and broccoli Respectively, than on the control site over a 13-year period.
The test and control site crops were tested by eight persons to compare taste and appear-
ance. The test site crops tasted and looked as good as or better than the same control
site crops.
Economic Analysis
Crop cost and income analyses are summarized in Table 35. The average profit per
acre for the last three years shown was greater for similar crops on the test site than for
the control site; the cost for the irrigation water on the control site was the primary
cause of the higher costs that resulted in lower profits. The test site effluent nutrient
value was a second beneficial effect.
The annual dollar value per hectare of nutrients available in the reclaimed effluents
applied at the test site were estimated to be: 1977 - $595; 1976 - $600; and 1975 -
$484. The equivalent values were based on the cost to purchase an equal quantity of
nutrients as commercial fertilizer. The total available nutrients were not used since
some nutrients percolated through the soils and thus remained in the leachate and en-
tered the groundwater.
An evaluation of the effective added values of nutrients in the effluent and irriga-
tion water are summarized in Table 36. Since the farmer also provided ample
92
-------
TABLE 33. SITE SUMMARY NUTRIENT BALANCE (1965-77)
Input/Output
Input
Fertilizer
Irrigation
Total Input
Output
Crop Uptake
Leachate
Atmosphere
Total Output
Topsoil Residual
N
2,840
4,765
7,605
2,754
4,367
130
7,121
354
Total Nutrients (kg/ha/13 yr period)
Test Site Control Site
P K N P
5,254
1,907
7,161
2,697
157
0
2,854
4,307
0
3,805
3,805
1,932
1,497
0
2,441
376
3,470
2,587
6,057
2,655
4,007
130
6,792
-735'a
3,783
243
4,026
2,774
320
0
3,094
932
K
923
1,946
2,869
2,152
1,265
0
3,417
-548
Negative value indicates topsail depletion of nutrient.
93
-------
TABLE 34. SUMMARY OF CROP NUTRIENT UPTAKE (1965-77)
Site
Test
Control
a
Estimated
Nutrient
Supplied
(kgAa/yr)
N P K
584 547 291
465 308 221
Estimated
Nutrient
Uptake0
(kgAa/yr)
N P K
212 208 149
218 213 166
Uptake
Efficiency
N P K
36 42 52
44 69 70
Combined
Nutrient
Uptake
Efficiency
43
61
Crop
Yield
1 ,000 kg/ha/yr
8.4b
2.7C
2*.6C
, Yearly average during thirteen year period
Tomatoes.
Broccoli.
-------
TABLE 35. TEST AND CONTROL SITES
CROP COSTS AND SALES COMPARISON ($/na)a'b
Ol
Year Site &
19 Crop Cultivation
77 Test Site
Tomato
Broccoli
Control Site
Tomato
Broccoli
76 Test Site
Tomato
Broccoli
Control Site
Tomato
Spinach
75 Test Site
Tomato
Broccoli
Control Site
Tomato
Broccoli
775
944
775
944
720
883
720
457
674
821
674
821
Irrigation
Water
103e
68e
OO
445
272f
87s
61e
361
296
80e
53e
361
241
Fertilizing0
92
184
92
184
83
172
83
166
79
184
79
184
Harvesting
Packaging,
& Selling
1,306
495
1,306
495
1,221
430
1,221
0
1,136
430
1,136
430
Land
432
309
432
309
432
309
432
309
432
309
432
309
Total
Costs
2,708
2,000
3,050
2,138
2,543
1,855
2,817
1,228
2,401
1,797
2,682
1,985
Crop
Sales
Price
1,089
2,174
1,089
1,976
3,503
2,179
3,503
1,482
4,095
2,870
4,095
2,870
Estimated
Profit
-1,619
174
-1 ,961
- 162
960
324
686
254
1,694
1,073
1,413
885
(continued)
-------
TABLE 35 . (continued)
table is based on 1975-1978 costs. Costs for the years 1965-1974 would be relatively similar, but vary with the
.economic factors for those years.
From source 26.
^From Table 33 on Nutrient Balances for Camarillo, California sites.
Based on $61.75/hectare-month for appropriate growing period, from Source 1.
.Farmer uses fresh water for sprinkler irrigation at planting time, and for final irrigation before harvest.
The final irrigation and fertilizer application were omitted due to rain.
-------
TABLE 36. EFFECTIVE VAUUE OF WASTEWATER NUTRIENTS (1965-77)
Test Site
Nutrient Source/Use N P
Ferti lizer Supply (kg/ha/yr) 2,840 5,254
Crop Uptake (kg/ha/yr) 2,764 2,697
Net Supplied by Wastewatera(kg/ha/yr) ~
Maximum Value of Nutrient Supplied 0 0
by Irrigation15 ($)
Total Value (1965-1977) ($)
Avg. Value per Year ($)
K
0
1,932
1,932
1,275
1,275
98
N
3,470
2,835
—
0
Control Site
P
3,701
2,774
—
0
K
923
2,152
1,229
811
811
62
Assumes that all of the crop intake in excess of fertilizer applied was from effluent or regular irrigation water. Some of
.the nutrients may come from the soil, but the amount is not known.
1965 to 1977 total value.
-------
commercial nitrogen and phosphate fertilizer,it was assumed that no effluent nitrogen
and phosphorus would be taken up by the plants. This assumption provided a conserva-
tive estimate of the effluent nutrient value. It was assumed in this analysis,however,
that all of the potassium used by the crops came from the effluent.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL OBSERVATIONS
The Camarillo Sanitary District's Water Reclamation Plant was located in primarily
a rural area that was intensively farmed to produce three crops per year of high value
garden vegetables. The plant was a modern,well operated facility,and the well stabil-
ized secondary effluent was chlorinated,without significant aesthetic problems. Odors
resulting from the plant or test site were not noticeable. No flies attributable to the
effluent were observed at the test site.
A review and comparison of illness among farm workers at the test site and treat-
ment plant employees with control site farm workers showed no difference in illness
that could be attributed to the use of effluent for crop irrigation. The use of furrow
irrigation when plant growth was above ground reduced the potential for contamination
that might occur if spray irrigation was used.
98
-------
REFERENCES
1 . U.S. Geologic Survey maps.
2. Hansen E. A and A. R. Harris. Validity of Soil-Water Samples Collected with
Porous Ceram.c Cups. Soil Sci. Soc. of Amer. Prac., 39:528:536, 1975
3. California Administrative Code, Section 1017.
4-
Criteria, ,972, Washing, D. C., United sjes
' Regu.a-
6. Chaney R L. Crop and Food Chain Effects af Toxic Elements in Sludaes and
Effluents. In: Proceeding, of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municbal
*' SnWIl^111011111 PrinC?Plesand Perspectives. New York:
9 . Norwood, L . M. , et al . Progress Report of Reclamation of Wastewater Forage
OopTnals. Sonoma County Agricultural Extension, University of California!
10. Hawf, C. R., and W. E. Schmid. Uptake and Translocate nf 7- LI
Plants. Plant and Soil, 27:249-260, 1967° lmnslocatlon of Z'"c by Intact
11. Hewitt^. J. Metal Interrelationships in Plant Nutrition- 1 FfWt. «f Q
JntnJc^;::^^^^
99
-------
12. Joham, H . E. The Nutritional Status of the Cotton Plant as Indicated by Tissue
' Tests. Plant Physiology, 26:76 89, 1951 .
•
13. Johnson, R. D., R. L. Jones, T. D. Hinesly, and D. J. David. Selected
Chemical Characteristics of Soils, Forages and Drainage Water from the Sewage
Farm Serving Melbourne, Australia. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
January 1974.
14. Jones, L. H. P., S. C. Jarvis, and D. W. Cowling. Lead Uptake from Soils by
Perennial Ryegrass and Its Relation to the Supply of an Essential Element (Sulphur).
Plant and Soil, 38:605-619, 1973.
15. Merrill, H . C. W. . et al . Effects on Vegetation of Irrigation with Waste Treat-
ment Effluents and Possible Plant Pathogen Irrigation Interactions. Phytopathology,
59: 1181-1191.
16. Motto, H. L., et al. Lead in Soils and Plants, Its Relationships to Traffic Volume
and Proximity to Highways. Environmental Science and Technology, 4(3):231-237.
17. Nishita, H., R. M. Haug, and G. V. Alexander. Influence of Organic Matter
on the Availability of Certain Elements to Barley Seedlings Grown by a Modified
Neubauer Method. Plant and Soil 39: 161-176,1973.
18. Page, A. L. Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge When Applied to
Agricultural Lands. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency.
1973, EPA 670/2-74-005.
19. Plank, C. O., D. C. Martens, and D. L. Haoolock. Effect of Soil Application
of Fly Ash on Chemical Composition and Yield of Corn (Zea Mays L.) and in
Chemical Composition of Displaced Soil Solutions. Plant and Soil, 42:465-475,
1975.
20. Procopiou, J. A. Wallace, and G. V. Alexander. Microelement Composition of
Plants Grown with Low to High Levels of Sulfur Applied to Calcareous Soil in a
Glasshouse. Plant and Soil, 44:359-369, 1976.
21 . Purves, D. and E. J. Mackenzie. Effects of Applications of Municipal Compost
on Uptake of Copper, Zinc, and Boron by Garden Vegetables. Plant and Soil,
•39:361-371, 1973.
22 " wT*' W' E" 6t al* Ve9ekjtlon Responses to Irrigation with Treated Municipal
vvastewater |n: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through
forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University, 1973.
Soc ^; Rou9nan/ and E. D. Watters. Lead and Cadmium Content of
o Fru.t and Vegetables. J|. Sci. Fd. Agric., 24:447-449, 1973.
100
-------
24. U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. Selected Chemical Characteristics of Soils, For-
ages, and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm Serving Melbourne, Australia.
January, 1974.
25. Abd Al Rahman, A.A., and J.E. Bierhuizen. The Effect of Temperature and Water
Supply on Growth, Transpiration, and Water Requirements of Tomatoes Under Con-
trolled Conditions. Technical Bulletin 13, Institute for Land and Water Manage-
ment Research, Wageningen (Netherlands), 1960.
26. Brendler,R.A., and R.C. Rock. Costs and Practices for Row Crops. Cooperative
Extension, University of California. December 1975.
27. Mukae, M. M., and J. M. Turner. Ventura County Water Resources Management
Study-Geologic Formations, Structures and History in the Santa Clara-CalTeguas
Area. Ventura County Department of Public Works Flood Control District, 1975.
28. California State Water Resources Board. Ventura County Investigation. Bulletin No.
12, Vol. I and II, Octo. 1953, revised April 1956.
29. James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Camarlllo Sanitary District Draft
Project Report for Improvement fo the Water Reclamation Plant. April 1977.
30. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Soil Survey. Ventura Area,
California. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing Office, April 1970.
31. Black, C. A., D. D. Evans, J. L. White, and L. E. Ensminger, eds. Methods of
Soil Analysis, Parti. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965.
32. Black, C. A., D. D. Evans, J. L. White, and L. E. Ensminger, eds. Methods of
Soil Analysis, Part II. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965.
33. American Public Health Association. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water
and Wastewater, 14th ed. Washington, D. C. 1976.
34. Kansas State University, Manhattan (Agricultural Experiment Station). Sampling and
Analysis of Soils, Plants, Wastewaters, and Sludge. Suggested Standardization and
Methodology. Research Publication T70.
35. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis
of Water and Wastes. Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental Research Center, 1974
EPA-625/6-74-003a. '
101
-------
SECTION 7
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Baur, D. C., and W. B. Fryer. Undesirable Plant Responses to Irrigation with Treated
Municipal Wastewater. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge
Through Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University Press, 1973.
Bennison, G. W. Groundwater: Ifs Development, Uses, and Conservation. 1947.
Berg, G., et al. Viruses in Waste, Renovated, and Other Waters. Cincinnati:
National Environmental Research Center, 1971.
Bierhizen, J. E. Water Quality and Yield Depression. Wageningen (Netherlands):
Institute for Land and Water Management Research, 1969.
Black, G. R. Particle Density. In: C. A. Black, ed., Methods of Soil Analysis,
Part I. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 371-373.
Boawn, L. C. and P. E. Rasmussen. Crop Response to Excessive Zinc Fertilization of
Alkaline Soil. Agronomy Journal, 63: 874-876, 1971.
Bouwer, H., J. C. Lance, and M. S. Riggs. High Rate Land Treatment II. Water
Quality and Economic Aspects of the Flushing Meadows Project. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 46(5): 844-859, May 1974.
Bouwer, H. et al. Renovating Secondary Sewage by Ground Water Recharge with
Infiltration. Phoenix, Ari zona: Agricultural Research Service, 1972.
Bowen, J. E. Manganese-Si I icon Interaction and Ifs Effect on Growth of Sudan Grass,
Plant and Soil, 37: 577^588, 1972.
Brendler and Rock. Cost and Practices for Row Crops in Ventura County. Riverside,
California: University of California Cooperative Extension, 1975.
Broadbent, F. E. Organics. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois; July 9-13, 1973.
102
-------
Broadbent, F. E. Soil Transformation of Nitrogen in Effluents. Paper presented at the
Symposium on Land Treatment of Secondary Effluent. Boulder, Colorado, 1973.
Brown, R. E. Significance of Trace Metals and Nitrates in Sludge Soils Jl Water
Pollution Control Federation, 47(12): 2863-2875, Dec. 1972.
Broyer, T. C C. M. Johnson and R. P. Huston. Selenium and Nutrition of Astra-
galus. Plant and Soil, 36: 651-669,1972.
Butler, R. M N. H. Wooding and E. A. Myers. Spray Irrigation Disposal of Waste-
water. Hamsburg, Pennsylvania: Dept. of Environmental Resources, 1972.
California Administrative Code, Section 1017.
California State Division of Mines and Geology. Geology and Mineral Resources
Study of Southern Ventura County, Calif. Preliminary Report 14, 1973.
Canadian Environmental Protection Agency. Recommended Groundwater and Soil
Sampling Procedures. 1976.
Carlson, C. A., et al. Overland Flow Treatment of Wastewater. U. S. Army Corps
of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, 1974.
Carroll, T. E., D. L. Maase, J. M. Genco, andC. J. Ifeadi Sludae-Soil-Plant
Interaction In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal
Sudges and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, July 1973.
Chapman H. D Cation Exchange Capacity. |n: C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soi I
Analysis, Part II. Mad.son: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1968, p. 891-
Chapman , H. D Diagnostic Criteria for Plants and Soils. University of California
Division of Agricultural Science, 1966.
Chen et al Trace Metals in Wastewater Effluents. Jl. Water Pollution Control
Federation, 46 (12): 2663-2675, Dec. 1974.
T"Gtm"t ** "" C'*X of Boulder.
Dadolina V. T. Effect of Sewage Irrigation on the Fertility of Sod Podzolic Loamy-
Sandy Soils. Pochvovedenie (Moscow), 76: 65-73,1971.
103
-------
Day, A. D., J. L. Stroehlein, and T. C. Tucker. Effects of Treatment Plant Effluent
on Soil Properties. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 44(3): 372-375,
March 1972.
Differential Susceptibility in Some Sorghum (Sorghum Vulgare) Genotypes to Zinc
Deficiency in Soil. Plant and Soil, 39:423-427, 1973.
Ditri, F. M., T. P. Smith, H. Bouwer, E. A. Myers, and A. R. Overman. An Over-
view of Four Selected Facilities That Apply Municipal Wastewater to the Land.
Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Prepared
for U. S. EPA Technology Transfer Program.
Doneen, L. D. Evaluating the Quality of Irrigation Water in Ventura County. State
Department of Water Resources Bulletin, 75, Vol. II., 1959, p. 33.
Dugan, G. L., et al. Land Disposal of Wastewater in Hawaii. Jl. Water Pollution
Control Federation, 47(8): 2067-2081, 1975.
Ellis, B. G., A. E. Erickson, B. D. Knezek, and A. R. Wolcot. Impact of Waste-
water on Soils. East Lansing, Michigan: Institute of Water Research, Michigan
State University, Oct. 1972.
Ellis, B.C. The Soil as a Chemical Filter. In: Proceedings of Symposium on Recycl-
ing Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through Forest and Crop Land.
Michigan State University, 1973.
Epstein, E. Mineral Nutrition of Plants: Principles and Perspectives. New York: John
Wiley, 1972.
Feddis, R. A. Effects of Water and Heat on Seedling Emergence. Jl. of Hydrology,
16:341-359, 1972.
Fetter, C. W., Jr., and R. G. Holzmacher. Groundwater Recharge with Treated
Wastewater. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 46(2):261-263, Feb. 1974.
Flash, K. W. Land Resources. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling
Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois, July 1973.
Follett, R. H., and W. L. Lindsay. Changes in DTPA-Extractable Zinc, Iron,
Manganese and Copper in Soils Following Fertilization. Soil Science Soc. Amer.
Proc., 35:600-602, 1971.
Gadgil, R. L. Tolerance of Heavy Metals and the Reclamation of Industrial Waste.
Jl. of Applied Economics, 6:247-259, 1969.
104
-------
Gardner, W. H. Water Content. In: C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis
Part I. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 82-125.
Griffin, R. A., et al. Effect of pH on Removal of Heavy Metals from Leachate by Clay
Minerals. In: Residual Management by Land Disposal: Proceedings of the Hazard-
ous Waste Research Symposium.EPA-600/9-76-015, July 1976.
Hagan, R. M., H. R. Haise, andT. W. Edminster. Irrigation of Agricultural Lands.
Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1967.
Harwood, L. M., et al. Progress Report of Reclamation of Wastewater Forage Crop
Trials. Sonoma County Agricultural Extension, University of California, 1974.
Hawf, C. R., and W. E. Schmid. Uptake and Translocation of Zinc by Intact Plants
Plants and Soils, 27:249-260, 1967.
Hewitt, E. J. Metal Interrelationships in Plant Nutrition: 1. Effects of Some Metal
Toxicities on Sugarbeet, Tomato, Oat, Potato, and Narrowstem Kale Grown in
Sand Culture, Jl. of Experimental Botany, 4:57-69, 1973.
Hinesly, T. D., R. L. Jones, and E. L. Ziegler. Effects on Corn by Application of
Heated Anaerobically Digested Sludge. Compost Science, 13:26-30, 1972.
Huang, J. C. Effects of Selected Factors on Pesticide Sorption and Desorption in the
Aquatic System. Jl. Water Pollution Control Federation, 43(8): 1739-1747. Aug.
I f/ \ •
Hyde, H, C. Utilization of Wastewater Sludge for Agricultural Soil Enrichment. Jl.
Water Pollution Control Federation, 48:77-90, Jan. 1976.
Jacobs, L. W., et al. Arsenic Sorption by Soils. Soil Sci. Soc. Amer. Proc 34-
750-4, 1970. '
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Camarilla Sanitary District
Facilities Plan Addendum to the Water Reclamation Plant. 1977.
James M. Montgomery, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Camarillo Sanitary District Draft
Financing and Avenue Plan for Improvements to the Water Reclamation Plant
May 1977.
James M. Montgoermy, Consulting Engineers, Inc. Camarillo Sanitary District Draft
Environmental Impact Report for Improvements to the Water Reclamation Plant.
Jeris, J. S., etal. Pilot-scale, High-rate Biological Denitrification. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 47(8): 2043-2057, 1975.
105
-------
Joham, H. E. The Nutritional Status of the Cotton Plant as Indicated by Tissue Tests.
Plant Physiology, 26:76-89, 1951
Johnson, R. D., R. L. Jones, T. D. Hinesly, and D. J. David. Selected Chemical
Characteristics of Soils, Forages and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm Serving
Melbourne, Australia. Prepared for U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, January 1974.
Jones, L. H. P., S. C. Jarvis, and D. W. Cowling. Lead Uptake from Soils by
Perennial Ryegrass and its Relation to the Supply of an Essential Element (Sulphur).
Plant and Soil, 38:605-619, 1973.
Kansas State University, Manhattan (Agricultural Experiment Station). Sampling and
Analysis of Soils, Plants, Wastewaters, and Sludge. Suggested Standardization
and. Methodology. Research Publication 170.
Klein, S. A., D. Jenkins, R. J. Wagnet, J. W. Bigger, and M. S. Yang. An
Evaluation of the Accumulation, Translocation and Degradation of Pesticides at
Land Wastewater Disposal Sites. Washington, D. C. : U.S. Army Research and
Development Command. USA - DA DA - 17-73-C3109. Nov. 1974.
Kroontje, W., J. N. Judy, and H. C. H. Habne. Effects of Detergent Laden Water
on the Growth of Corn. OWRR Project A-041-VA/VPI-WRRC-Bull 62. Blacks-
burg, Virginia: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Aug. 1973.
Lance, J. C., et al. Oxygen Utilization in Soils Flooded with Sewage Water. Jl.
of Environmental Quality.
Larkin, E. P., J. T. Tierney, and R. Sullivan. Persistence of Viruses on Sewage Irri-
gated Vegetables. Jl. of the Environmental Engineering Division, ASCE, 102
(EE-1): 29-35, Feb. 1976.
Larsen, V., J. H. Axley, and G. L. Miller. Agricultural Wastewater Accommodation
and Utilization by Various Forages. A-006-Md.-14-01-0001-790. University of
Maryland, Dept. of Agronomy, July 1972.
Letey, J., et al. Soil Aeration. In: R. M. Hagan, ed. Irrigation of Agricultural
Lands. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, 1967.
Lindsay, W. L. Inorganic Reactions of Sewage Wastes with Soils. In: Proceedings
of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluents on Land.
Champaign, Illinois. National Association of State Universities and Land Grant
Colleges, 1973, p. 91-95.
Linsley, and Franzini. Water Resources Engineering. McGraw Hill, 1972.
106
-------
Magistad, O. C., and J. E. Christiansen. Saline Soils, Their Nature and Manage-
ment. Circular No. 707. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1974.
Matlock, W. G., et al. Sewage Effluent Pollution of a Groundwater Aquifer. Paper
presented before the American Society of Agricultural Engineering, Winter Meet-
ing, Chicago, Dec. 1972.
McCulloch, A. W., et al. Ames Irrigation Handbook for Irrigation Engineers. Mil-
pitas, California: W. R. Ames Co., 1967.
Merrill, H. C. W., et al. Effects on Vegetation of Irrigation with Waste Treatment
Effluents and Possible Plant Pathogen Irrigation Interactions. Phytopatholoav
59:1181-1191. Y'
Miller, R. H. Soil Microbiological Aspects of Recycling Sewage Sludges and Waste
Effluents on Land. In: Proceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Munici-
pal Sludges and Effluents on Land. Champaign, Illinois. National Association of
State Universities and Land Grant Colleges, 1973, p. 79-90.
Motto, H. L., et al. Lead in Soils and Plants, Its Relationships to Traffic Volume and
Proximity to Highways. Environmental Science and Technology, 4(3): 231-237.
Mukae, M. M., and J. M. Turner. Ventura County Water Resources Management
Study - Geologic Formations, Structures and History in the Santa Clara-Calleguas
Area. Ventura County Department of Public Works Flood Control District, 1975.
Muskegan County Wastewater Management System. Design Seminar for Land Treatment
of Municipal Wastewater Effluents. Oct. 1975.
National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Environmental Study
Board, ad hoc Committee on Water Quality Criteria, 1972. Water Quality
Criteria, 1972. Washington, D. C.: United States Government Printing Office
1974.
National Water Well Association. Water Well Technology. 1973.
Nishita, H., R. M. Haug, and G. V. Alexander. Influence of Organic Matter on the
Availability of Certain Elements to Barley Seedlings Grown by a Modified Neu-
bauer Method. Plants and Soils,39: 161-176, 1973.
Osiname, O. A., E. E. Schulte, and R. B. Corey. Soil Tests for Available Copper
and Zinc in Soils of Western Nigeria. Jl. Sci. Fd. Agri., 24: 1341-1349, 1973.
Overley., F. L. Cover Crops in Apple Orchards on Arsenic Toxic Soils. Bulletin 514
Washington Agricultural Experiment Station, 1970.
107
-------
Page, A. L. Fate and Effects of Trace Elements in Sewage Sludge When Applied to Agri-
cultural Lands. Washington, D. C.: 0. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1973.
EPA 670/2-74-005.
Parizek, R. R., et al. Wastewater Renovation and Conservation. Pennsylvania State
University, 1967.
Peterson, S. A., W. L. Smith, and K. W. Malueg. Full Scale Harvest of Aquatic
Pianist Nutrient Removal from a Eutrophic Lake. Jl. Water Pollution Control
Federation, 46 (4): 697-707, Apr. 1974.
Phosphorus Removal from Aerated Lagoon Effluent. Jl. Water Pollution Control
Federation, 46(12): 2696-2703, Dec. 1974.
Plank, C. O., D. C. Martens, and D. L. Hallock. Effect of Soil Application of Fly
Ash on Chemical Composition and Yield of Corn (Zea Mays L.) and in Chemical
Composition of Displaced Soil Solutions. Plant and Soil, 42:465-476, 1975.
Poonia, S. R., and D. R. Bhumbla. Effect of Gypsum and Calcium Carbonate on Plant
Yield and Chemical Composition and Calcium Availability in a Non-Saline Sodic
Soil. Plant and Soil, 38:71-80, 1973.
Pound, C. E., and R. W. Crites. Characterization of Municipal Effluents. In: Pro-
ceedings of the Joint Conference on Recycling Municipal Sludges and Effluent on
Land. Champaign, Illinois, July 1973.
Pound, C. E., and R. W. Crites. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land Application.
Vol.11. EPA-660/2-73-0066. Washington, D. C.: U. S. Government Printing
Office, 1973.
Powell, M. G. Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater Effluents.
Prepared for the Technology Transfer Program, U. S. Environmental Frotection
Agency, 1975.
Pratt, P. F. Digestion with Hydrofluoric and Perchloric Acids for Total Potassium and
Sodium. In: C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis, Part II. Madison:
American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 1019-1021.
Pratt, .P. F., et al. .Nitrates in Effluents from Irrigated Lands. University of California,
the Kearney Foundation of Soil Science, 1974.
Procopiou, J. A. Wallace, and G. V. Alexander. Microelement Composition of
Plants Grown with Low to High Levels of Sulfur Applied to Calcareous Soil in a
in a Glasshouse. Plant and Soil, 44:359-369, 1976.
108
-------
Purves, D. and E. J. Mackenzie. Effects of Applications of Municipal Compost on
Uptake of Copper, Zinc, and Boron by Garden Vegetables. Plant and Soil
39:361-371, 1973.
Rao, P. S. C., et al. Estimation of Non-reactive and Reactive Salute Front Locations
in Soils. In: Residual Management by Land Disposal: Proceedings of the Hazard-
ous Waste Research Symposium. EPA-600/9-76-015, July 1976.
Reeve, R. C. Hydraulic Head. In: C. A. Black, ed. Methods of Soil Analysis
Part 1. Madison: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., 1965, p. 180-196.
A Review of Concentration Techniques for Trace Elements in the Environment- Interim
Report. 7/74-2/75. EPA/560/7-75/002. EPA Contract 68-01-2925. Nov.
1975, 489 p.
Singh, B. N. A Method of Estimating the Numbers of Soil Protozoa Especially Amoe-
bae Based on Their Differential Feeding on Bacteria. Annals of Applied Biology,
33:112-119, 1946. K y
Singh, B. N. Culturing Soil Protozoa and Estimating Their Numbers in Soil.
In: D. K. McE. Kevan, ed. Soil Zoology. New York: Academic Press, Inc.,
1955, p. 403-411.
Soil Science Society of America , Inc. Soil Testing and Plant Analysis: Part II -
Plant Analysis. Madison: SSSA, 1967.
Sopper, W. E., and L. Kardos. Conference on Recycling Treated Municipal Waste-
water Through Forest and Cropland. EPA 660/2-74-003, March 1974.
Sopper, W. E., et al. Vegetation Responses to Irrigation with Treated Municipal
Wastewater. In: Recycling Treated Municipal Wastewater and Sludge Through
Forest and Cropland. Pennsylvania State University, 1973.
Stevenson, F. J., and M. S. Ardakani. Organic Matter Reactions Involving Micro-
nutrients in Soils. In: Micronutrients in Agriculture. Madison: Soil Science
Society of America, Inc., 1972.
Sullivan, R. H., M. M. Cohn, and S. S. Baxter. Survey of Facilities Using Land
Application of Wastewater. Prepared for Office of Water Programs Operations,
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, July 1973.
Taylor, A. W., et al. Soil Adsorption of Phosphates from Wastewater. In: Factors
Involved in Land Application of Agricultural and Municipal Wastes. USDA
Agricultural Research Service, July 1974.
109
-------
Thomas, B., J. A. Roughan, and E. D. Wat-tens. Lead and Cadmium Content of Some
Canned Fruit and Vegetables. Jl. Sci. Fd. Agric., 24:447-449, 1973.
Thomas, R. E. Land Disposal II -An Overview of Treatment Methods. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 43:1476-84, July 1973.
Thomas, R. E., et al. Soil Response to Sewage Effluent Irrigation. In: Proceedings
of the Symposium on Municipal Sewage Effluent for Irrigation. Louisiana Poly-
technic Institution, 1968.
Todd, D. K. et al. Polluted Groundwater: A review of the Significant Literature.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1974.
Tofflemire, T. J., and F. E. Van Alstyne. Land Disposal of Wastewater. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 46 (6): 1201-1208, June 1974
Tofflemire, T. J. and R. A. Fernan. Land Disposal of Wastewater. Jl. Water
Pollution Control Federation, 47(6): 1344-1351, June 1975.
Ulrich, A., and C. M. Johnson. Analytical Methods for Use in Plant Analysis. Sub-
mitted for publication, 1957.
Ulrich, A., et al. Plant Analysis, A Guide for Sugarbeet Fertilization. Submitted
for publication, 1957.
Ulrich, A., and F. J. Hills. Principles and Practices of Plant Analysis. In: G. W.
Hardy, ed., Soil Testing and Plant Analysis, Pt. II. Madison: Soil Science
Society of America, Inc., 1967, p. 11-25.
University of California, Berkeley. The Soil Mantle as a Wastewater Treatment
System. SERL Report No. 67-11.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Selected Chemical Characteristics of Soils, Forages,
and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm Serving Melbourne, Australia.
January, 1974.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Assessment of the Effectiveness and Effects of Land
Disposal Methodologies of Wastewater Management. Wastewater Management
Report 72-1, 1972.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Ecological Assessment for Wastewater Management in
Southeastern Michigan. Institute of Water Research, Michigan State University,
1973.
110
-------
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Hygienic Assessments of Alternative Systems. School of
Public Health, University of Michigan, 1973.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Irrigation and Collection Facilities for Southeastern
Michigan Wastewater Management Program. Dow Engineering, Inc., 1972.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Land Treatment of Wastewater in Southeastern Michigan.
Dept. of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, 1973.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Selected Chemical Characteristics of Soils, Forages
and Drainage Water from the Sewage Farm Serving Melbourne, Australia. January
I 7 / T1 •
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wastewater Irrigation Using Privately Owned Farmland
in Southeastern Michigan. Dow Engineering, Inc., 1973.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Wastewater Management by Disposal on the Land. 1972.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. Sprinkler Irrigation. In- SCS
National Engineering Handbook. Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1968.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, U.S. Salinity Laboratory. Diagnosis and Improvement of
Saline and Alkali Soils. Agricultural Handbook No. 60, 1954.
U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Weather Bureau. Climatography of the U.S. No. 84-4
Climatic Summary of the U.S. Supplement for 1951 through 1960, California/
Washington: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1964.
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Biological
Problems in Water Pollution. Division of Water Supply and Pollution Control.
Cincinnati, 1965.
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. Groundwarer
Contamination. Cincinnati, 1961.
U.S. Dept. of Health, Education and Welfare, Public Health Service. SolidWaste/
Disease Relationships - a Literature Survey. Cincinnati: National Center for
Urban and Industrial Health, 1967.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Apollo County Park Wastewater Reclamation
Project, Antelope Valley, California. EPA-600/2-76-002, March 1976.
Ill
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Demonstrated Technology and Research Needs
'for Reuse of Municipal Wastewater. Cincinnati: National Research Center, 1975.
EPA- 670/2-75-038.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Design Seminar for Land Treatment of Munici-
pal Wastewater Effluents. Technology Transfer, Part II. Sept. 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Evaluation of Land Application Systems.
EPA-430/9-75-001, 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Application of Sludge Effluent and
Sludges: Selected Abstracts. EPA-660/2-74-042. Ada, Oklahoma: RobertS.Kerr
Environmental Research Laboratory, 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Application of Wastewater. EPA-903/
9-75-017. Proceedings of a Research Symposium sponsored by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region III. Nov. 1974.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Land Treatment of Municipal Wastewater
Effluents, Design Factors - 1, Case Histories. Technology Transfer. Jan. 1976.
U.S.'Environmental Protection Agency. Manual of Methods for Chemical Analysis of
Water and Wastes. EPA-625/6-74-003a. Cincinnati, Ohio: Environmental
Research Center, 1974. Washington Agriculture Experiment Station, 1970.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Overland Flow Treatment of Raw Wastewater
with Enhanced Phosphorus Removal. EPA-600/2-76-131, June 1976.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual for Nitrogen Control.
Technology Transfer. 1975.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Process Design Manual for Phosphorus Removal.
Technology Transfer. 1971.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Residual Management by Land Disposal.
EPA-600/9-76-015.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Survey of Facilities Using Land Application of
Wastewater. EPA-430/9-73-006.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Wastewater Treatment and Reuse by Land
Application. EPA-660/2-73-006a.
U.S. Geologic Survey. Map 1-845-C.
112
-------
U. S. Geologic Survey. Map 1-845-F.
U. S. Geologic Survey. Map 1-845-G.
U. S. Geologic Survey, Map 1-845-H.
U. S. Geologic Survey. Water Resources Investigations 77-10.
n0;/* ' Qon
-------
APPENDIX A
SITE DESCRIPTION
GENERAL AREA CHARACTERISTICS
Introduction
The Camarillo Sanitary District's reclaimed water irrigation project area is situated
in Ventura County, California, approximately 24 km east of the City of Oxnard and the
Pacific Ocean as shown on Figure A-l. The following sections summarize some of the
available information about the local environment, agriculture, and wastewater treatment.
Climate
The average normal temperatures recorded at nearby weather stations in the Ventura
Regional County Sanitation District (VRCSD) are given in Table A-l. Temperature
extremes in the inland areas are greater than those near the Pacific Ocean, even though
average annual temperatures are almost identical.
Prevailing winds (see Table A-l)arepredominant|y west, northwest onshore and
averaged 10 kilometers per hour. The wind directions often experience diurnal reversal
(i.e., the wind direction reverses and blows offshore from the canyons during the even-
ings). During the May and June spring period, the wind direction reverses and results in
prevailing offshore southerly winds. The diurnal pattern again prevails when the even-
ing breezes blow onshore.
Precipitation varies from a minimum of 30 cm in the vicinity of Camarillo and the
lowland areas.
Potential annual water evapotranspiration ranges from 76 cm in coastal areas to 71
cm in the interior; during the all-year agricultural growing period, evapotranspiration
ranges from 74 cm along the coast to about 50 cm in inland areas.
The local dry season is normally from early May through the end of November but
supplemental water irrigation is practiced throughout the year.
114
-------
Control .(I
Site -'-v
Scale in km
Source: 1,
Figure A-l . Stody area - test and centre! ferm
115
-------
TABLE A-l. VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA — LOCAL TEMPERATURE NORMS AND WIND PATTERNS
Period
Jan.
Feb.
Mar.
Apr.
May
June
July
Aug.
Sept.
Oct.
Nov.
Dec.
Annual
Average
Santa Paula
12
14
14
14
17
18
20
20
19
17
14
11
16
Temperatures
Oxnard
12
12
13
14
15
16
18
18
18
17
15
13
15
(degrees C)
Ojai
10
11
13
15
17
19
23
23
22
18
14
11
16
Mean
Speed (kph)
9.2
10.1
11.1
12.2
12.1
11.4
10.9
10.6
10.1
9.7
9.3
8.8
10.5
Wind Patterns0
Prevailing
Direction
WNW
W
W
W
S
S
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
WNW
Fastest
Speed (kph)
59
64
56
71
48
34
37
37
37
60
56
63
71
a .. _ .. , . _
Source: Weather Bureau located In Los Angeles/California.
-------
Geology
The Camarlllo sites (test and control) are located in the Transverse Range geomor-
phic province, in the Pleasant Valley Basin. Geological formations present in this
province include igneous and metamorphic rocks of pre-Cretaceous age, marine and con-
tinental sediments of Cretaceous to Recent age, and volcanic rocks of Tertiary age
The site is bordered on the south and east by outcrops of Miocene volcanics in or near
the Santa Monica Mountains. These included basaltic flows and agglomerates with some
mterbedded sediments. Basaltic and andesitic intrusions are also associated with the
volcanics. Formations in the Pleasant Valley Basin include recent and upper Pleistocene
alluvium underlain by the marine San Pedro and Santa Barbara formations? These forma-
tions in turn are underlain by the Pico and Santa Margarita formations, Modelo Shale,
and volcan.cs of Miocene age. All fomnations In the Pleasant Valley Basin area, with
the exception of recent deposits, are to some extent deformed. Structures in the area,
including fold axes and faults, trend in an east-west direction .(See Figure A-2.)
Soils
Soils of Ventura County vary markedly in type, composition, and depth, as well as
m other physical and chem.cal properties, in accordance with the origin of the parent
material, nature of deposition, and age and degree of development since the time of
deposition. In general the soils could be divided into three broad groups: (1) residual
soils, wh.ch have been developed in place from the disintegration and weathering of
consolidated rocks, both of sedimentary and basic igneous origin, and which comprise a
relatively small area,,Dccupymg the rolling hills and ridges at the perimeter of the
mtenor valleys; (2) old valley filling and coastal plain soils, which are derived from
elevated, unconsol,dated waterlaid deposits which have undergone marked changes since
their deposmon, and wh.ch occur both on hills and rolling lands, and on smooth and
eroded marine or stream terraces, and (3) recent alluvial soils, which are derived from
sediments that have undergone little or no change or internal modification since their
deposition, and wh.ch cover nearly the entire coastal plain of the Santa Clara River
Valley and its tributaries. Recent alluvial soils comprise the largest area in the County
presently developed to either irrigated agriculture or urban development. These soils
have heir origin ma variety of materials, including shale, sandstone, conglomerate,
basic igneous rocks, and old valley filling deposits (28).
A detailed description of the characteristics of the project area soil conditions are
presented in the Test and Control Site sections.
Hydrogeology
The sites are located within the Pleasant Valley Basin of the Santa Clara River
hydrolog.c un.t. The principal aquifers within this basin are deep and composed of
continental and marine sediments of Recent and Pleistocene age and the underlying San
Pedro and Santa Barbara formations. In certain areas, wells are supplied from fractured
117
-------
0
Scale in km
Legend
Source: 28.
• Control site
• Test site
-- Fault
Figure A-2. Geologic map of project area.
118
-------
volcanic rocks of the Tert.ary system, or from fissures In crystalline or consolidated rocks
of pre-Quarternary age. The Fox Canyon member of the lower PleistocenT an Pedro
formation supphes most of the water used in the Pleasant Valley Basin. GroundwateT is
also obtamed from sand and gravel lenses in Recent and Upper Pleistocene depots and
to a minor extent, from aquifers in the Santa Barbara fonrSon (underlie San Peto
rhr^inand£srthTrecand fissur%s in voiwnic r°cks ^ *• £*»«$£
of the basm. Both the Fox Canyon aquifer and aquifers in the Sanfa Barbara formation
are confmed by sediments of low permeability. Groundwater from the Oxnard ™e£
Basm moves under pressure, through the Fox Canyon aquifer to the Pleasant Valley
Aquifers in the Pleasant Valley basin are supplied primarily by subsurface inflow
from ad,acent basms: from the Oxnard Forebay Basin though th Fox Canyon aquifer
and from the East Las Posas and Santa Rosa Basins in the ^Ileguas
-------
R 2 J VI
LEGEND
CROUNO WATER BASIN BOUNDARY
• 35NI KCY WELL
£. - E' 1-INE Of GEOLOGIC SECTION
Source: 28.
Figure A-3. Ventura County grogndwater basin boundaries, 1953.
120
-------
Inorganic Chemicals
(mg/l)
Arsenic
Barium
Bicarbonate
Boron
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Chloride
Copper
Cyanide
Fluoride
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nitrate
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Sulfate
Zinc
— • IT 11JJ WI_J
Calif. Health Dept.
Limiting Concentration
0.01
1.0
0.01
0.05
500°
1.0
0.2
0.6-1.7d
0.3
0.05
0.05
0.005
10
1 W
0.01
500.0C
5.0
,~ .^..^^ .JWIXI*-^.L. Y¥**icK aurrucs
Typical Groundwater
._ Camarillo Water Department
Well "A"a
< 0.005
226
0.2
1/\/\
IM1
w
56
wW
< 0.1
0.5
< 0.1
< 0.05
27
< 0.05
1/k
.0
< 0.01
"Trt
79
247
0.2
Wall "R"
en D
———————
< 0.005
232
0.2
^
tt
oo
10
38
< 0.1
0 5
v »w
< 0.1
< 0.05
0*J
/o
< 0.05
**
0.0
< 0.01
••
76
170
0.2
Total Dissolved Solids
, Sampled 10/76.
Sampled 1/77.
, Upper limit.
Temperature dependent
Source: 29.
1,000°
605
121
-------
TABLE A-3. VENTURA COUNTY CHARACTERISTICS OF CROP YIELD AND WATER USE°
ro
Crop
Sugar beets
Broccoli
Cabbage
Cauliflower
Head lettuce
Spinach
Lima beans
Celery
Pimento peppers
Tomatoes
Season (mo)
Dec. -Oct.
Aug. -Jan.
July-Dec.
Dec. -May
July-Jan.
Aug. -Nov.
Dec. -May
May-Sept .
Year-round
March-Oct.
April -Nov.
Water Use
Seasonal Mean
(cm/hectare)
61
20
20
20
20
10
25
76
46
36-56
Production
(kg/hectare)
150(1974)
1,300
1,255
911
1,025
—
6,044
3,537
—
> 2,023
Mean
Consumption
° Information supplied by Farm Advisor, University of California, Cooperative Extension.
b 1975 data.
-------
basin. The average flow during this study was approximately 8,500 cubic waters per day.
Sludge d,gest.on is accomplished by either two-stage heated anaerobic digestion o7
aerobic digestion The Pacific Sod Company transports the dried sludge from the plant
site for use as a soil conditioner in growing sod.
Well controlled, industrial waste discharges contribute approximately ten percent
of the flow and presents minimum water quality problems. Camarillo plans to limit future
industnal growth to l.ght mdustry in order to help protect their area from environmental
degradation.
TablejA-4 presents the plant's reported 1975 influent and effluent water quality
charactenst.es, me hiding imgaflon reuse and creek discharge flows. Discharge require-
ments for disposal of the plant's effluent are shown in Table A-5.
TESTSITE
General
The Camarillo test site receiving reclaimed effluent is 16 hectares of a 182 hectare
farm located at Rancho Road, along Conejo Creek, approximately 0.6 km west of the
treatment plant as shown in Figure A-l. The farm is irrigated with a piped effluent,
pumped d.recty from the treatment plant or the elevated open storage reservoir. Excess
plant effluent is discharged info Conejo Creek.
Geology
The test site is located over a buried valley with a buried ridge to the west. Earth
materials underlymg the site consisted of a western thickening wedge of Upper Pleisto-
cene alluvium composed of fines with sand and gravel lenses (see Figure A-4).
The thickness of the fop-lying alluvium is approximately 52 m in the western
portion of the test site. The strata thins out eastward and southward against the Santa
Monica Mountams and westward to an unknown thickness over a buried ridge. Avail-
able well logs indicate an increase in alluvium thickness northward from 52 m at the
southwestern part of the site to 106 m some 850 m away.
Soils
Three types of soils are reported on the site by the U. S. D A (see Fiaure A «n
These include soils from the Mocho Series, Hambrigl Ser^? aiS Hu±. SerTes ^
_ Mocho lx>am (MoA) covers the majority of the site. This soil is found on the
alluvial plain and is derived predominantly from sedimentary rocks. It is composed of a
grayish-brown, calcareous loom 1.5 m or more deep. It is about 18 to 35 percent clay
123
-------
TABLE A-4. WATER RECLAMATION PLANT: INFLUENT AND
EFFLUENT WATER QUALITY.(1975)°
Month or
Item
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
Month or
Item
January
February
March
April
May
Juno
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
Flow Rate
(103 cum)
Total A°'gy
320.7 10.3
292.6 10.5
316.5 10.2
309.4 10.3
312.0 10.1
309,5 10.3
320.3 10.3
317.5 10.3
318.5 10.6
316.5 10.2
321.7 10.7
334.2 10.8
3,788.5 NAP
315.8 10.4
Effluent Use BOD5
Irrigation
50
0.2
0
26
100
100
100
88
70
100
80
93
NAC
67
Suspended iolids
Influent Effluent
(mg/lfter) (mg/liter)
252
263
240
285
250
231
218
237
228
204
233
226
NA
239
7.3
s'.Q
6.2
7J
8.8
9.0
11.5
9.3
8.4
8.4
8.9
NA
8.0
>
Creek
Discharge
50
99.8
100
74
0
0
0
12
30
0
20
7
NA
33
Removal
97
98
98
98
97
96
96
95
96
96
96
96
NA
97
Influent
(mg/liter)
236
224
206
233
206
203
184
187
182
185
196
212
NA
205
Effluent
(mg/liter)
10.7
13.4
9.8
6.9
10.2
9.4
8.7
10.5
7.7
8.2
7.5
8.3
NA
9.3
Influent Effluent
(mg/liter) (mg/liter)
16
11.2
12
10
10
11.5
12
8
11
10
11
NA
11.1
•• — *—
<0.1
-------
TAB LE A-4. (continued!
Month or
Item
Tempera-
ture
TDS Chloride
Boron
f C) (mg/liter) (mg/liter) (mg/liter)
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
17.4
17.7
16.7
18,9
22.7
24.0
24.7
26.3
25.3
22.8
20.8
16.0
NA
21.1
_-
900
874
870
849
840
812
840
770
828
803
816
NA
837
__
147
149
152
153
147
153
152
145
139
137
147
NA
147
__
0.28
0.07
0.69
0.52
0.95
0.95
0.97
1.00
0.80
0.85
0.82
NA
0.72
Turbidity
(JTU)
4.3
3.3
2.0
2.3
4.9
5.4
6.0
3.9
2.8
1.5
2.1
2.1
NA
3.4
Fecal
Total
Colifbrm Coliform
(MPN/
1 00 ml)
__
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
NA
<2
(MPN/
100ml)
<2
< 2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
<2
NA
<2
Month or
Item
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
pM
7.2
7.0
7.1
7.3
7.3
7.1
7.4
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
7.5
NA
7.3
Dissolved
Oxygen
(mg/liter)
4.1
3.7
5.3
3.1
4.6
3.5
4.1
3.8
4.2
3.0
4.9
3.1
NA
4.0
CI2
Added
(kg)
1,641
1,768
1,645
1,699
1,947
1,963
2,016
2,181
2,015
2,208
2,248
2,241
23,572
1,965
C!
12
SO.
Residua!
(kg)"
2.17
2.45
2.36
2.09
2.09
2.13
1.72
2.31
2.72
2.40
3.18
2.68
NA
2.36
(mg/liter)
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
<0.01
NA
<0.01
(mg/liter)
— .
~
199
219
287
236
182
193
211
215
233
200
NA
218
Oil and
Grease
(mg/liter)
—
4.6
1.5
1.8
3.2
1.2
1.6
3,0
1.8
2.4
1.5
2.0
NA
2.2
(continued)
125
-------
Month or
Item
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
Novembei
December
Total
Average
Fluoride MBAS
(mg/liter) (mg/liter) NO,,
0.89 0.2 0.3
0.87 0.1 0.7
0.88 0.1 0.3
0.50 0.1 0.5
0.50 0.1 0.4
0.50 0.1 0.5
0.50 0.2 0.7
0.50 0.1 1.0
0.40 0.2 0.2
0.60 0.2 0.2
1.10 0.2 0.6
NA NA NA
0.66 0.1 0.5
Nitrogen (mg/liter)
NO3 NH3 Organic
3.0 8
5.9 17
1.1 16
1.7 11
1.9 12
1.2 12
0.4 11
2.2 11
1.9 16
0.7 13
1.3 15
NA NA
1.9 13
4
3
1
4
3
1
1
4
3
NA
2
Month or
Item
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
-
Rainfall
(cm)
0.00
5.84
7.29
2.16
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.64
0.00
0.00
15.93
1.33
• •
Radioactivity
(pc/liter)
Alpha Beta
r
—
<8
--
0+4
— -
0+3
NA
3+
"•
23+
•"•
7+
™~
28+2
v—
36l2
NA
241
Cd
0.01
••"•
<0.01
1
<0.01
w_
<0.01
NA
<0.01
Heavy Metals (mg/liter)
Total Cr Cu Pb Hg
0.1 0.1
__
<0.01 0.02
<0.01 <0.1
< 0.01 < 0.03
NA NA
<0.03 <0.1
0.05 0.005
<0.05 0.002
<0.05<0.002
<0.05<0.002
NA NA
<0.05<0.005
(continued)
126
-------
Month or
Item
January
February
March
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
November
December
Total
Average
a . . t •. • . . . .
Nf
-»
-------
TABLE A-5. WASTE DISCHARGE REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE DISPOSAL
OF WATER RECLAMATION EFFLUENT
Discharge Point
Parameter Conejo Creek
rarumeici —„•.•» p»
(All units mg/l NPDES CA0053597 Surface Irrigation Spray Irrigation
except as noted) Effective 7/1 /78 WCB Order 74-383 Title 22
BODC
5
Suspended Solids
Fecal Coliform (MPN/100 ml)
Oil and Grease
Settleable Solids (ml/1)
Turbidity (JTU)
TDS
Chloride
Chloride and Sulfate
Boron
Detergents (MBAS)
Residual Chlorine
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium (total)
Copper
Lead
Mercury
Nickel
Silver
Zinc
Cyanide
Selenium
Phenols
Nitrogen (total)
Chlorinated Hydrocarbons
Toxicity (TU)
Fluoride
PH (-log (H+) )
T(°F)
_ _ .._ — — — ^ •^^^•.^™ i_ji!!jr
20
15
200
10
0.1
10
1000
175
500
1.0
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.01
0.005
0.2
0.05
0.001
0.1
0.02
0.3
0.1
0.01
0.1
30
0.002
1.5
1.2
6.5
-------
Test Site
Perched Water
sfcS^^rrrCT*^^--
LENSES OF WATER SEARING ALLUVIUM
LOWER AQUIFER SYSTEM'
HUENEME.FOX CANYON. AND Or,,,CS CA>.Y0N
SEMIPERMEABLE MATERIALS
AQUICLUOE-MATERIALS OF LCA PfriVEiB!UTY
.,-.
.:.-.•] VOLCANIC ROCKS—NONWATER-BE
Horizontal
scale in
Source: 29
— UNCONFORMITY
FAULT-ARROWS INDICATE RELATIVE
Figure A-4 Geological cross-section along B-B'
(See Figure A-2 for location of section)'
129
B1
-150
- 100
50
SEA
LEVEL
--50
--100
--150
-200
--250
J,
--300 J
--350 _«
LU
--400
--450
--500
--550
--600
-------
Scale in Km
Source: 30.
Figure A-5. Site soil map,
130
-------
Pemeabmty •• m°*™ «- *•
Hombright very rocky loam (HaG) covers approximately 5 percent of the rest site
v^Ji^
^JMt^^r^^^^^jt^*
n^!50/0.^ aPP"xlmate'y 5 Per«nt of the site. This soil
n and is derived predominantly from weathered sedimentary
... j i i ° Cm th'ck/ var?es from a l!9hf 9r°y to dark brown and from
light sandy loam to a loamy sand. It is mildly to moderately alkaline and calcareous soil.
The lower horizon ,s about 109 to 124 cm thick and is also mildly to moderately alkaline
and calcareous The soil permeability is relatively good and surface runoff is very slow
resulting in little erosion hazard. y '
Site Hydrogeology
Alluvium overlies the Miocene volcanics. These essentially unconfined sand and
grave lenses and fractured volcanics are recharged through surface water inflation
from irrigation prec.p.fation, and stream inflow. Groundwater movement through the
deeper volcamcs ,s slow, due to the relative tightness of these rocks, while return flol
seepage const.tutes minor recharge to the lenses. Contours on the effective ba^of the
groundwater reservo.rmdicatethat the base declined towards the north and west The
Ventura County hydrologists are uncertain about groundwater movement directions, and
stated that movement may posibly be either toward the north or west, or may follow7e
contours of the land toward the west and southwest. Groundwater movemenTcan b7
hampered by the buried volcanic ridge to the west of the test site if the permeable lenses
abut against the non-fractured volcanics and if the groundwater level lies below the level
of the ridge.
trsite ,, most £2tf tS±£ HE*tKiittJfc:£;3i!-
*rrrr^tio; L-JTES .*• ~nt °f *- —- w
CONTROL SITE
General
1
2.8km
The Camanllo control s.te ,. 19.6 hectares near U. S. Highway 101, approximately
nor hwesterly of the test site; the location is shown in Figure A-1. IrSSSoT
water is obtained rom the city's potable distribution system. The farmer at times aug-
ments this supply from an on-site deep well. 9
131
-------
Site Geology
The earth materials underlying the control site are representative of the main part of
the Pleasant Valley basin. Approximately 90 m of topmost alluvium composed of s.lts
and cayTw th sand and gravel lenses, overlie the San Pedro and Santa Barbara forma-
^ons (Rgure A-6). Included in these formations are the Fox Canyon and Gnmes Canyon
aquTfer ~nes. The San Pedro and deeper formations do not have s.gmf.can hydrolog.c
cont nuity with the upper alluvial waters because the relatively .mperv.ous mes m the
aMuviu^ preven inflation of these upper groundwaters This alluvium -s thus commonly
called™ cap. The alluvial sands and gravel are essentially unconfmed and are recharged
by surface infiltration.
Soils
The two types of soils identified at the control site as shown in Figure A-5, are from
the Mocho Series and Sorrento Series.
Mocho Loam (MoA) covers most of the site. It is formed on a! luvial P'«'^ fans,
largely by decomposition of the sedimentary rocks. It .s a gray, sh -brown, calcareous
Z 150 cm Tmore deep. It contains 18 to 35 percent clay, that ,s moderate y alka-
li and ^ calcareous. The permeability is moderate and surface runoff ,s slow,
resulting in little erosion hazard.
The Sorrento silty clay loam (S x A) covers approximately 15 percent of ^ site. It
is formed on the alluvial fans and plains by alluvium wh.ch ,s also derved from | the
sedimentary rocks. The soil is grayish-brown and ranges from a neutral to rn.UHy alka me
loam abou748 cm thick. Below this topsoil is a brown * light gray layer of moderately
alkaline heavy loam that becomes calcareous between 61 and 109 cm. The total depth
of the lower horizon is 152 cm or more. Permeability ,s moderately slow.
Hydrogeology
Studies of groundwater movement in the upper alluvial aquifers have not been com-
pleted. Local government agency hydrologists suggest that groundwater probably moves
southward following the slope of the land topography.
The control site is located between the Springville fault and the Camarillo fault
and is separated from the test site by the Camarillo and Bailey faults (F.gyre A-2). The
Camarinrfault is located approximately 91 m south of the contro s.te. It- d.splaces
upC alluvium and is, therefore, considered to be active Al uv.al groundwater levels
onThe north and south sides of the fault are shown to be a bamer to groundwater move-
ment, since the north side is perched. The control and test sites do not have hydrolog.c
continuity.
132
-------
LEGEND
CO
Co
UPPER AQUIFER SYSTEM;
OXNARO AND MUCU AQUIFER ZONES
LOWER AQUIFER SYSTEM'
HUENEME. FOX CANYON, AND GRIMES CANYON AQUIFER ZONES
SEMIPERVEABLE MATERIALS
[ 1 MXJICLUDE-MATERIALS OF LOW PERMEABILITY
| VOLCANIC ROCKS—NON WATER-BEARING
—• UNCONFORMITY
FAULT-ARROWS INDICATE RELATIVE MOVEMENT
0 1
Horizontal Scale
In km
Source: 27.
Figure A-6. Geological cross-section along A-A1.
(See Figure A-2 for location of section)
-------
Agriculture
The aaricultural history of the control site is summarized in Table A-6. Ninety per-
cent of the crop Sgation^water employing both sprinklers and furrows is denved from
on-site wells,and about ten percent from municipal wells.
Year
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
TABLE A-6.
Crop
Season
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
r II
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
Winter
Spring
Summer
Fall
, AGRICULTUR
L . =±=====
Crop
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
-
AL HISTORY OF CONTROL
Crop
Year Season
1973 Winter
Spring
Summer
_ ||
Fall
1974 Winter
Spring
Summer
r- II
Fall
1975 Winter
Spring
Summer
_. II
Fall
1976 Winter
Spring
Summer
i- II
Fall
1977 Winter
Spring
Summer
i- ii
Fall
1978 Winter
Spring
~ "- —
SITE0
Crop
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Broccoli
Tomato
Spinach
Broccoli
'Information supplied by Farm Advisor, University of California, Cooperative
Extension.
134
-------
APPENDIX B
SAMPLE COLLECTION AND ANALYTICAL METHODS
SOIL SAMPLE COLLECTION METHOD
so.l strata would occur very slowly in the deeper strata in contrast to the shailow^r »i
n contrast the uptake othe nutrients by the root zone of the crops with n TfTrst
100 cm could cause significant changes in the upper soil layer.
Collection Procedure
IL
•
walls of the .rench using proper steril,
Depth of Sampling
*"
° ^> 2, 2 to 4, 9
2) Deep soil samples were collected at depths of 195 to 205 cm and 295 to 305
cm
135
-------
Sample Treatment
1) Samples for microbiological examination were placed in previously sterilized test
tubes. Additional soil was placed into Whirl-Pak bags.
2) Immediately after collecting each sample, the sample containers were marked with
pertinent data; including date, location, depth, and site taken.
3) The soil samples were refrigerated in an ice chest containing dry ice while on loca-
tion.
4) A field activities log (see Table B-l) was filled out at the time of sampling and sent
with the samples.
BI-WEEKLY WATER QUALITY SAMPUNG PROGRAM
Samples of the irrigation water, the groundwater from the wells, and the leachate
from the lysimeters were collected for analyses every two weeks. Two^eek composites
of the treatment plant effluents were collected by the plant operators. Pnor to collec-
tion, three bottles were prepared for preservation. For each sample, one bott e was
acidified with nitric acid, another with sulfuric acid, and the th.rd was *«f <"*<*•
Only one sterilized bottle was provided for each lys.meter sample because of the, limi ed
volume of leachate which could be collected. After collecting the sample each bottle
was properly labeled to describe their date, location, depth (if approbate), and type
of preservation. For each sample or group of samples, a f.eld sample repor (see Table
B-2) was completed and accompanied the shipment of samples to the laboratory. After
collection and while in transit, the samples were stored In an ,ce chest conta.mng dry
ice. Upon arrival to the laboratory, the samples were refrigerated at 4 C until analyzed.
Specific sampling methods for each type of sample are described below.
Treatment Plant Effluent
1) The treatment plant operator composited a daily sample of secondary effluent over a
two-week period. The sample was refrigerated at 4 C during thu period of time.
2) The sample was picked up on the same day that the other samples were collected for
shipment.
Control Site Irrigation Water Samples
Control site irrigation water samples, at Camarillo, were collected from the water
lines which fed the irrigation systems.
136
-------
1 . Site Location:
TABLE &-1
FIELD ACTIVITIES LOG
Collection of Soil Samples for Agronomical Purposes
Shallow & Deep Soil Sample Collection
?f P°SSibIe; If ^ Un!* °re ««,
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
(213)478-1501 and 879-1 115
JobNo.
the.. Return
( ) Test site; ( ) Control site (check one)
2. Observer:
•^••iV-B^MWM*^
3. Date of Observation:
4. Soil Description
a. Soil color;
Soil type: ( ) loom; ( ) silt; ( ) clay; ( ) sand; ( ) gravel; ( ) ofnef
Soil moisture;
Soil odors:
Soil condition: ( ) hard pack; ( ) loose; ( ) other
Soil surface condition;
g. Date of last soil tillage;
h. Date of last irrigation;
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
5. Depth to Groundwater Table:
6. Sample Collection
(Check off ( ) when collected.)
a. Section 1
-------
b. Section 2
Depth (cm)
0-2
2-4
9-11
29-31
95-105
195-205
295-305
c. Section 3
Depth (an)
0-2
2-4
9-11
29-31
95-105
195-205
295-305
7. Samples Mailed
Date
TABLE B-l (continued)
2 3
Subsomples
4567
10
Time
Shipper
Please use space on reverse for additional comments.
Page 2 of 2
138
-------
TABLE B-2
FIELD SAMPLE REPORT
Collection of Sample for Anal/Meal Work
Return completed reports with samples to:
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
Date:
Time:
Job No.
Location:
Date Last Sample Taken:
Weather:
Sampler:
Volume:
Color:
Temperature:
Date shipped:
Remarks:
Observer:
Sample Type: wastewafer; irrigation water; lysimeter; deep well
Source:
Odor:
Turbidity:
Bottle coded:
Sample in shipment:
Received by:
Delivered to lab
Checked by:
10/76
139
-------
Leachote Col lection from Lysimeters
1) The protective metal plate placed above the coiled lysimeter lines was located using
a metal detector.
2) The metal plate and lysimeter lines were carefully uncovered using a shovel.
3) A sterilized sample bottle was connected to the proper lysimeter line and the sample
was collected using a vacuum pump. (See Figure 4,Section 5).
4) After the sample was collected, the sample bottle was carefully detached from the
vacuum line, and a sterilized bottle cap was quickly placed on the bottle.
Groundwater Sample Collection
1) A sample for bacteriological analysis from the top and bottom of the groundwater wells
was taken first, using a fest tube apparatus. The test tube apparatus consisted of a test
tube covered by a cone-shaped aluminum foil. A tiny hole at the top of the cone provid-
ed an exit for air entrapped in the test tube while holes punched in the lower portion of
the cone allowed the sample to enter the tube. A clean siring was attached to the test
tube to allow the collector to handle the apparatus without contamination. The whole
apparatus was sterilized before use.
2) The string was tied to a rope and the test tube apparatus was lowered to the desired
sampling depth. When the test tube was full, the apparatus was removed from the well,
and the foil top replaced with a sterilized test tube cap.
3) The water level in the well was measured, using a steel tape, and then was recorded.
4) The water was then evacuated from the well with a submersible pump.
5) When the well had recovered to it* previous level, water samples were token from
the top and bottom of the well. Two samples were taken from each depth; one was
acidified with nitric acid, and the other was acidified with sulfuric acid.
COLLECTION OF PLANT TISSUES FOR ANALYTICAL WORK
Tissue Sample Collection
1) Each site was divided into 4 sectors.
2) The sampler started at the center of the southwestern quarter and walked toward the
north.
140
-------
3) While walking, tissues were collected from four to six plants, according to crop and
at 5 randomly selected locations. The fifth sample location was near the center of the
rvtrl-liUMXtorn car*finn
t
\
northwestern section.
4) From this point, the sampler walked towards the east,
taking samples of plant tissues as before. The sampler con-
tinued walking and taking random samples of plant tissues,
completing the pattern shown in the adjacent diagram.
Time of Sampling
Samples were collected just before harvesting the crop to determine the quality of the
crop as was used.
Tissue Sample Collection for Total and Fecal Coliform
1) Just before harvesting, two plants with entire root systems were dug up from 5 loca-
tions selected at random in each section.
2) The top portion of the plants were clipped and stored in Whirl-Pak bags.
3) The sterile bags were refrigerated in an ice chest, containing ice, while in transit
to the laboratory.
4) Upon arrival to the laboratory, analyses of the samples were begun.
Sample Treatment ,
1) All the sample bags were identified as to date, location, type of crop, and any other
pertinent data. r 7
2) A field activities log (see Table B-3) was filled out at the time of sampling and
shipped with the samples.
? I- * ^J^Tt ^ °f -^ PIT HfUeS Were refrlserated In the field and were
delivered to the laboratory in Los Angeles on the day of collection,
SOIL TESTING METHODS
Prior to planting, soil samples were collected and analyzed for bulk density,
hydrauhc conductivity mo.sture content, organic content, particle density, and particle
s,ze d.str,but,on The test methods used are listed in Table B-4. A field activitieVlog
was completed after the soil sample for bulk density was collected (see Table B-5)
141
-------
TABLE B-3
FIELD ACTIVITIES LOG Job No.
Collection of Plant Tissues for Analytical Work
Please return completed form to:
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
(213) 478-1501 and 879-1115
1. Site Location:
( ) Test site; ( ) Control site (check one)
2. Observer: ..
3. Date of Observation: ; ? Time:,
4. Meteorological Infqrmotion
meteorological inrqrmanon
(Obtain daily temperature and precipitation data from the nearest recording station. Make
a log of system operation for at least a month prior to sampling.)
a
5. Crop Description
a. Crop name:
b. Purpose:
c. Crop sowing date:
d. Crop height:
e. Expected date of harvesting: . _
6. Fertilizer Application
Name Pate Quantity per acre
7. Pesticide, Fungicide, Insecticide Application
Name Date Concentration per acre
Please attach copies of available literature on the pesticides, etc., used.
Page 1 of 2
142
-------
Test
TABLE B-.4 SOIL TESTS
-
Method
Source
(page number)
Bulk density
Hydraulic conductivity
Moisture content
Organic content
Particle density
Particle size distribution
Source: 3land32.
Core
Constant head
Gravimetry,oven
drying
Volati I ization, furnace
Pycnometer
Hydometer
375
214
92
1,397
371
546
143
-------
TABLE B-5
FIELD ACTIVITIES LOG Job No.
Determination of Bulk Density of Soil Using Core Method
Samples will be taken at beginning and end of study. Answer in listed units of measure, if possible;
If other units are used, please specify them. Return completed forms to:
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
10954 Santa Monica Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90025
(213)478-1501 and 879-1115
1. Site Location:
( ) Test site; ( ) Control site (check one)
2. Observer: _^__^________
3. Data of observation; . ; Time:
4. Soil Description
a. Soil Color: _______————
b. Soil Type: ( ) loam; ( ) silt; ( ) clay; ( ) sand; ( ) gravel; ( ) other
c. Soil Moisture; ______—_—
d. Soil Odors:
e. Soil Condition: ( ) hard pack; ( ) loose; ( ) other
f. Soil Surface Condition:
5. Depth to Groundwater Table (m):
Please make additional comments on reverse.
144
-------
LABORATORY ANALYTICAL METHODS
Many aforementioned chemical and physical analyses were performed on the efflu-
ents from the Camari Mo secondary treatment plants, the irrigation waters, the
leachate from the lysimeters, the groundwaters, and the digested and extracted soil and
crop samples. All the analyses performed, the methods used, and the references for the
methods are shown in Tables B-6 and B-7and in priorly noted tables.
QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
An on-going quality assurance program has been maintained by Stone to assure the
precision and accuracy of the data resulting from the laboratory analyses. Guidelines
established by the Analytical Quality Control Laboratory of the United States Environ-
mental Protection Agency have been followed. These included the following:
1) Water samples for chemical analysis were collected according to the American Pub-
lic Health Association recommended procedures (33), and preserved by nitric acid or
sulfuric acid acidification, and refrigerated at 4 C.
2) Samples were labelled by priority at the time of collection and logged when they
' f""J '" the laboratory. Physical conditions at the time of sampling were
3) All laboratory personnel complied with minimur, educational requirements and were
thoroughly trained in the tests which were assigned to them.
4) Records were kept of all activities in the laboratory. The laboratory work sheets
were permanently stored in an indexed binder. The analytical information for reagent
preparation, standardizations, etc., were recorded. Instrumental variables, such as the
temperatures of the ovens and incubators, or spectrophotometer settings were calibrated
against known standards and recorded at the time of testing on a daily basis.
5) Reagent grade chemicals and doubfy treated deionized and/or distilled water were
used.
6) All reagents and standard solutions were properly labelled and stored.
7) All standards and reagents were replaced on a fixed schedule according to their
allowable shelf life and use periods.
8) Conductivity measurements of distilled and deionized water were taken periodically
to assure their quality. ^ 7
9) Instruments were routinely calibrated and maintained according to manufacturers'
recommended schedules, or more frequently.
145
-------
TABLE B-6. SOIL AND CROP PREPARATORY METHODS
Method
Comment
Reference0
(page number)
Cation exchange capacity
Exchangeable cations
Extra etian,wate?
Extraction,acid
Total digestion
Sodium saturation
The decant piloted to 250 ml in q volu-
metric flask, was analyzed for potassium,
calcium, and magnesium
Soil-to-water ratio of 1:10. Analysis was
performed on sample ground with mortar and
pestle to pass a 100-mesh sieve
Same as water extraction, except 0.1 Nl
hydrochloric acid was substituted for dis-
tilled water.
Wet digestion with perchloric-nitric acid
and hydrofluoric acid
899
899
9b,935
935
11'
? Source:. 13.
Source: 15.
146
-------
Test
Metal
Arsenic
Barium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Copper
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Molybdenum
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
Zinc
Physical
Total dissolved
solids
Specific conduct-
ance0
Water
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Type
Soil
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
TABLE
Crop
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
B-7. ANALYTICAL METrfODS
Importance
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Minor
Major
Major
Rationale Method
May tend to biomagnify Atomic absorption
(gaseous hydride)
Atomic absorption
May tend to biomagnify Atomic absorption
Nutrient Flame emission
Atomic absorption
Phytotoxin Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
Nutrient,vital to photo- Atomic absorption
synthesis
Atomic absorption
Cold vapor technique
May tend to biomagnify Atomic absorption
Atomic absorption
May affect plant growth Atomic absorption
Phototoxin, may bio- Atomic absorption
magnify (gaseous hydride)
Atomic absorption
Flame emission
Atomic absorption
Gravimetric
Salinity has major im- Electrometric
pact on plant response
Reference
(page number)
95
97
101
103
105
108
112
114
116
118
139
141
143
145
146
147
155
267
275
(continued)
-------
TABLE.B-7 .(continued)
oo
Type
Test Water0 Soilb Crop0 Importance
Inorganic
Boron
Chloride
Fluoride
Nitrogen
Total Kieldahl
Nitrate
PH
Phosphorous
Total
Phosphate
Organic phosphate
Sulfate
Organic
Total organic carbon
Microbiology
Col ifbrm
Total
Fecal
Nematodes
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X X Major
X X Major
X Minor
X
X
X
X X
X
X
X
Major
X X
X X
X
X
Reference
Rationale. Method (page number)
Phytotoxin Colorirnefric (Curoumin)
Salinity has major Titrimetric (Mercuric
impact on plant nitrate)
response
May tend to bio- Colorimetrlc (SPADNS)
magnify
Nutrient Digestion
Colorimetric (Brucine)
Electro metric
N^rient
Colorimetric (Ascorbic
acid)
Colorimetric (Ascorbic
acid)
Colorimetric (Startnous
chloride)
Turbidimetric
Combustion
Multiple tube fermen-
tation
Multiple tube fermen-
tation
13
29
59
175
197
239
481 e
481 e
f
1038f
277
M/H
e
916
e
922
Baermann funnel techni-lSl?*
que
Sinah method
1513f
(continued)
-------
TABLE B-7(continued)
k Water: includes treatment plant effluent,irrigation water, lysimeter leachate,and groundwater.
c Soil: includes analyses of soils which were digested, acid and water extracted, and exchanged
, Crops: includes digestion and water extraction of leaves and fruit.
Source: 35 unless otherwise noted.
f Source: 33
Source: 32
-------
10) Standard procedures (33,35)or other literature sources approved by the Urn ted States
Environmental Protection Agency, were used. Supervisory personnel prov.ded assurance
that the established procedures were strictly followed.
11) A minimum of 10 percent of the samples were duplicated, or were spiked with known
amounts of standards.
12) Intermittently, special samples such as distilled water were supplied as routine field
co lected samples; the laboratory staff knew of this field staff practice. Control charts
based on duplicate and spiked sample results, were used da.ly fo maintain a h.gh quality
of work. Samples were re-run if the results of the duplicates and/or spikes were out of
the established control ranges.
13) All analytical results were checked by laboratory supervisors and approved by com-
pany management.
150
-------
-APPENDIX C
WELL LOG AND SCHEMATIC DESIGN OF TEST WELLS
Formation
Clayey fop soil
Sflty clay
Sandy silry clay
Silty sand
Medium sand
Coarse sand
Fine sand and clay
Coarse sand and clay
Clay and rock fragments
". 4 cm) .
ine-med. sand
Legend
Water first encountered.
S
in
X
> o
BiL
6
s.8
•
I
10
' 15
Figure C-l. Well log and schematic design of test well 1
I 3 I
-------
Formation
Clay w/ rock fragments
F. sand & clay to poorly
sorted sand in clay
Poorly sorted sand in clay
with some rock fragments
Clay
Poorly sorted sand in clay<
Med to coarse sand w/some.
fine sand tnterbeds
Sanitary seal
"I
a.
I
6
n
if
o SL
•. C]
T» M
J> •-
T °
10
_c
8-
a
.15
-20
Legend
Water first encountered
Figure C-2. Well log and schematic design of test well 2.
152
-------
Formation
Clayey sand
Clayey sand w/ rock fragments
Si I ty sand
Clay i
Clayey sand
Legend
_J— Water first encountered
^ ~>
-.
Sanitary
Seal
'erf orations
120°/0.3m)
r°
•
•5
•10
-15
.16
17
18
Figure C-3. Well log and schematic design of test well 3.
153
-------
APPENDIX D
ANALYTICAL DATA
All the values listed in Figures D-l to D-13 were printed to two decimal places in
order to simplify the computer programming. The actual reported values for the consti-
tuents were carried to the following decimal places.
• Whole numbers: total and fecal coliform, total dissolved solids, chloride,
sulfates, sodium, and calcium.
• One decimal place: total nitrogen, potassium, and molybdenum.
• Two decimal places: boron, fluoride, nitrate-nitrogen, barium, cadmium,
chromium, copper, nickel, lead, zinc, arsenic, and selenium.
The other constituents (total organic carbon, phosphate, and magnesium) were reported to
three significant fitures.
154
-------
JABil£^AN.AiY^ TEST EFFLUENT
• MPN/tOO ml *
10/M/76 NES
1C/2V76 NES
11/ 7/76 1.25E+06
11/21/76 NtS
12/ 7/76 NES
12/21/76 250.00
I/ 1/77 NES
1/21/77 2500.00
2/14/77 NtS
3/ 1/77 NtS
3/14/77 eoy.oo
4/ 1/77 NtS
4/U/77 79000.00
5/ 1/77 9iuU.OJ
5/ 7/77 24000.00
5/21/77 17000. UO
6/ 7/77 70.00
6/21/77 33U.OU
7/ 7/77 90.00
7/21/77 1400.00
6/ 7/77 8U.OO
6/21/77 0.00
9/ 7/77 1100.00
9/14/77 790.00
10/ 1/77 50.00
10/ 7/77 70.00
10/21/77 35000.00
I1/ 7/77 330.00
11/21/77 330.00
12/ 7/77 790.00
12/21/77 2800.00
I/ 1/78 490.00
t/ 7/78 0.00
!
10/14/76 125. UU
10/21/76 ntS
11/ 7/7o 143.00
11/21/76 122.00
12/ 7/76 ad.UU
12/21/76 9U.OO
I/ 1/77 104.00
1/21/77 114.00
2/14/77 19.00
3/ 1/77 26.00
3/14/77 NtS
4/ 1/77 23.00
4/14/77 20.00
5/ 1/77 56.00
5/ 7/77 28.00
5/21/77 c
6/ 7/77 27.00
6/21/77 c
7/ 7/77 22.00
7/21/77 c
8/ 7/77 NES
8/21/77 c
9/ 7/77 20.00
9/14/77 c
10/ 1/77 22.00
10/ 7/77 c
10/21/77 26.00
1I/ 7/77 c
11/21/77 24.00
Ml 7/77 c
12/21/77 25.00
I/ 7/7b 23.00
NES
NES
0.00
NES
NES
0.00
NES
0.00
NES
HtS
O.bO
NtS
20.00
SU.OO
90.00
3300. 00
0.00
0.00
0.00
20.00
5.00
0.00
0.00
90.00
0.00
0.00
1700.00
50.00
0.00
220.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
"9
20.90
2U.OO
31.10
31.10
19.90
20.50
23.50
25. dO
26.40
41.00
NES
26.40
75.00
26.40
19.58
28.30
c
14.85
c
44.60
c
35.20
c
69.70
c
46.00
C
40.00
c
53.00
C
38.00
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
900.00
VdO.OO
842.00
NES
N£S
1240.00
1/SO.uO
1020.00
906.00
692.00
NES
830.00
934.00
930.00
928.00
NES
972.00
836.00
1078.00
1270.00
900.00
1052.00
900.00
1096.00
1088.00
O.OS
0.01
0.02
0.03
O.UO
0.08
0.01
0.04
0.30
NES
NES
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.02
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.03
c
0.08
C
0.02
c
0.10
c
0.19
c
O.OS
c
0.15
B
0.80
0.72
0.87
0.27
0.14
1.08
1.09
0.44
1.15
1.19
0.83
0.72
1.39
0.64
1.53
0.19
0.92
c
0.29
c
0.91
c
1.26
c
1.06
c
1.08
c
c
0.97
C
1.0S
Cd
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.03
0.01
0.02
0.01
0.04
0.02
0.03
0.03
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.01
0.02
0.02
c
0.02
0.02
e
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
C
O.Q1
c
0.01
Constituent (• a/I)
Cl
162.00
193.7Q
161.40
185.90
166.00
125.00
123.00
NtS
129.00
130.15
160.00
NcS
163 00
182.00
17*. GO
199.00
237.00
151.00
182.00
213.00
170.00
183.00
196.60
c
179.00
1.90
F
2.90
1.50
1.86
NES
NcS
1.93
1.88
NcS
0.78
1.72
NES
1.15
1.01
1.65
1.02
1.71
1.76
NcS
1.9S
2.54
1.09
0.95
1.20
N03
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
13.80
1.10
0.73
0.81
3.10
8.00
4.60
4.36
8.20
7.00
1.10
4.50
1.75
TN
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
N£S
NES
NtS
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
3.75
c
6.20
25.80
24.00
17.00
16.20
19.40
14.60
NES
C
'7.60
TOC
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
19.00
NES
NES
NcS
25.00
49.00
C
39.00
c
39.00
e
51.00
e
42.00
C
39.00
c
33.00
18.00
C
34 00
C
26.00
P04
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
15.60
14.10
NES
11.40
11.00
NES
12.50
16.40
14.00
2.90
5.40
13.70
NES
13.20
C
11.32
c
13.23
C
11.00
C
10.80
11.80
C
12.00
12.30
SJ4 .
162.00
106.00
166.00
161.00
NcS
110.00
130.00
NtS
220.00
250.00
166.00
NcS
NcS
220.00
210.00
C
130.00
C
194.00
185.00
C
180.00
222.00
c
274.00
255?00
e
293.00
C
227.00
K Na
8.90 231.00
11.60 353.00
20.10 NES
12.20 NES
21.00 315.00
12.40 365.00
24.00 N£S
18.60 NtS
17.50 170.50
21.40 172. i5
17.7Q 195.00
21.00 409.50
16.50 147.40
21.00 200.00
'5.4o 12o.50
18.60 c
15.10 130.90
C c
13.50 129.00
C c
'6.10 183.00
c c
17.20 202.00
C c
16.40 155.00
C c
16.50 190.00
c c
15.90 200.00
c c
16.90 192.00
c c
17.10 171.00
Const 1 tuent (mg/l ) ••••«••
Cr
O.Oo
0.04
0.07
0.07
0.00
0.05
0.02
0.00
0.03
0.01
o.ot
0.02
0.02
0.00
0.07
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.02
c
0.02
0.01
0.01
c
0.02
0.01
Cu
0.02
0.07
0.05
0.03
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.09
0.09
0.04
0.08
0.13
0.07
0.03
0.06
0.02
0.07
0.03
0.05
O.OB
0.03
0.06
0.08
0.03
Mo
NcS
NES
HcS
NES
0.10
0.10
NtS
0.10
0.10
NES
0.10
0.20
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
Ml
U.20
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.40
0.20
0.11
0.50
0.03
0.03
NtS
0.11
0.06
0.03
0.02
c
0.07
C
0.05
c
0.12
C
0.02
C
0.02
C
0.03
e
0.03
c
0.03
C
0.02
Po
0.00
0.10
0.00
0.10
0.03
0.05
O.uO
0.03
0.06
NcS
0.02
0.00
0.02
0.10
0.07
0.06
NES
c
0.04
c
0.10
e
0.03
e
0.08
c
0.03
c
0.06
c
0.07
C
0.07
in
0.00
0.09
O.OS
0.03
0.05
0.00
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.08
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.03
c
0.05
C
0.08
e
0.05
e
0 06
C
o.os
c
0.06
c
0.06
C
0.06
As
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.02
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
NES
NtS
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.03
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
Se
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ot
0.00
c.oo
0.01
0.01
NES
NES
0.01
0.01
0.10
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
e
0.01
155
-------
TABLE P-2. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: CONTROURRJGAT[ON
MTION
3/21/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/21/77
8/ 7/77
8/21/77
»/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
\ll 7/77
U/21/77
I/ 7/76
• MPN/100 ml *
TC FC TUS
NES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NES NES
0.00 NES
0.00 780.00
0.00 612.00
0.00 NES
0.00 682.00
0.00 676.00
0.00 690.00
0.00 664.00
0.00 NtS
0.00 894.00
0.00 590.00
0.00 662.00
0.00 970.00
0.00 320.00
0.00 706.00
0.00 632.00
0.00 842.00
0.00 670.00
8
0.29
0.21
0.20
0.34
0.23
e
0.16
C
0.18
e
0.30
c
0.16
C
0.30
C
0.26
C
0.13
Constituent (nig/1 >
Cl F N03
NES
71.00
70.70
89.00
76.00
C
70.00
62.00
c
83.00
C
57.00
C
76.60
C
53.00
c
94.00
0.30
0.29
0.20
0.80
c
0.77
C
0.90
c
0.84
C
0.76
c
0.92
C
0.45
C
0.45
3.10
0.50
e
1.77
4.00
C
0.70
C
0.50
c
8.20
c
3.10
c
0.10
c
0.80
0.30
TN
NES
0.30
c
2.00
13.00
c
0.70
0.50
c
8.20
c
6.60
C
0.10
c
1.60
1.30
TOC
NES
4.50
c
3.00
9.00
5.00
C
4.00
c
3.00
c
7.30
0.50
0.50
0.50
P04 S04
1.16 NES
0.28 240.00
0.30 c
0.90 210.00
1.19 210.00
0.4) 200.00
0.12 222.00
0.10 213.03
C C
0.10 274.00
0.10 200.09
0.10 234.00
0.80 238.00
K
6.20
3.90
4.10
4.00
6.60
4.00
4.20
3 60
c
4.20
e
4.50
4.50
5.40
N«
110.00
69.00
84.00
66.00
C
83.00
60.00
c
162.00
c
77.00
C
73.00
66.00
8d.OO
Constituenttag/l)
12/ 7/76
3/21/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/21/77
8/ 7/77
8/21/77
W 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
Ml 7/77
12/21/77
M 7/70
Ca
NES
NES
63.00
55.00
56.00
38.00
e
48.00
C
39.90
c
52.00
e
41.00
c
55.00
c
44.00
Mg 88
20.40 0.20
NES 0.60
20.46 0.10
19.80 e
28.90 0.20
26.30 0.40
c c
61.60 0.07
e c
46.20 0.09
C c
67.70 0.07
e c
53.00 0.03
C C
35.00 0.06
C C
50.00 0.06
C C
44.00 0.10
Cd
NES
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.01
C
0.02
C
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
Cr
0.01
0.06
0.02
0.03
0.06
0.02
C
0.02
e
0 02
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.04
c
0.01
Cu
0.05
0.12
0.20
c
0.14
0.10
c
0.13
e
0.17
c
0.15
c
0.17
C
0.03
c
0.20
c
0.07
Mo
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
o.to
e
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.06
0.10
HI
NES
0.10
0.10
c
0.07
0.02
0.05
c
0.02
c
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.0)
0.03
Pb
0.04
0.30
0.05
0.05
NES
0.11
0.04
0.09
0 03
0 03
0.03
0.06
0.07
Zn As
0.04 NES
0.03 NES
0.07 0.01
C C
0.07 0.01
0.03 0.04
0.06 0.01
0.09 0.01
0.11 001
0.07 0.01
0.03 0.01
o.id o.oi
0.07 0.01
5e
0.01
NES
0.01
e
0.01
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
156
-------
TABLE D-3. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST LYSIMETER, 50 CM
1/21/77
11 1/77
3/21/77
4/ 1/77
4/14/77
4/21/77
5/ 1/77
5/14/77
i/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/2V77
7/ 7/77
7/J1/77
8/ 7/77
3/21/77
S»/ 7/77
*/U/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/7«
1/21/78
1C
0.00
0.00
NES
NES
0.00
780.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.uo
0.00
50.00
0.00
70.00
O.Ou
0.00
0.00
NcS
20.00
NeS
FC IDS
0.00 NtS
0.00 2600.00
NcS NES
NES NES
0.00 NES
20.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 2758.00
0.00 1582.00
0.00 2290.00
0.00 1418.00
0.00 1784.00
0.00 1410.00
0.00 1328.00
0.00 NcS
0.00 1906.00
0.00 18b6.UI
0.00 NcS
O.uO UOu.oJ
0.00 1182.UO
0.00 1364.00
NcS NCS
0.00 1612.00
NES 1994.00
a
0.78
0.88
1.32
0.16
NES
c
0.58
0.51
c
1.36
c
0.30
e
1.17
c
NES
c
1.76
NcS
c
0.90
c
1.16
£
0.70
Const ltuent(ng/l )
Cl F N03
NES
NES
NcS
NES
NES
c
320.00
299.00
230.00
c
196.00
206.00
£
246 00
359.00
NES
c
211.00
143.00
215.00
NES
NES
NES
0.36
NES
0.7Q
1.47
0.28
0.93
0.73
1.41
£
0.80
NES
0.67
£
0.33
0.61
NES
23.00
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
61.20
C
ItS
42.90
26.10
13.00
c
NcS
2v.70
44.00
36.30
TN
NES
NcS
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
65.00
c
NES
C
NES
27°20
15.40
c
NES
29.70
44.60
37.50
TOC
la.bo
NES
NES
NES
NES
25.00
34.00
23.00
c
62.00
c
42.00
38.00
15.40
c
NES
c
4.00
13.90
c
11.50
P04
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
c
.NES
3.50
c
3.86
c
5.61
c
4.04
C
NES
c
2.30
c
NES
e
3.60
c
3.70
c
11.60
$04
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
c
210.00
316.00
c
349.00
217.00
c
215.00
C
264 00
c
c
NcS
C
242.00
c
242.00
C
227.00
K Na
NcS nES
NcS NtS
16.00 3'U.OO
30.00 365.00
NES NES
c c
40.00 360.00
28.00 297.00
c c
20.90 155.00
c c
40.60 146.00
C c
33.50 130.00
c c
32.20 245.00
23.30 233.00
c c
21.40 31i.0o
e c
20.10 177.00
c e
20.00 201 .00
C C
21.30 250.00
•••••••••••"•••••••••• •••••• 1 1 ••
... — .
1/21/7'
21 1/77
3/21/77
4/ 1/77
4/21/77
5/ 1/77
>/ 14/77
i/il/77
t>/ 7/77
b/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
V/ 7/77
9/14/77
IO/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/18
1/21/78
Ca
.«_._«...
NES
NtS
160.00
NES
C
310.00
212.00
c
153.00
c
116.00
c
42.00
c
57.00
e
67.60
e
65.00
c
33.00
c
94.00
e
80.00
Mg 81
— ~— ----- — ....
NES 0.03
NcS 0.05
240.00 0.20
NcS NES
C c
NcS 0.70
6*. 00 0.10
c c
56.00 0.10
c c
64.00 0.10
C c
106.00 NES
c c
700.00 0.26
e «
107.00 0.12
c e
160.00 0.33
c e
42.00 0.14
c c
68.00 0.10
c c
75.00 0.21
Cd
........
0.03
0.03
NES
0.02
0.02
0.01
£
0.01
0.03
0.01
C
0.02
c
0.02
e
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
Con»tltu«nt(og/|)
Cr Cn " it.
0.18
0.17
NES
0.08
£
0.03
0.07
0.03
0.03
£
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
£
0.04
0.01
0.34
0.03
0.15
NeS
0.49
0.09
0.44
C
0.20
0.39
0.13
0.11
0.03
0.07
0.11
0.05
0.10
0.10
0.10
NES
0.10
0.10
c
NcS
c
0.10
e
NES
c
0.10
C
0.10
0.10
c
0.10
e
0.10
c
0.30
U I
nl
0.22
0.16
NES
0.2V
e
0.16
NES
c
0.13
c
0.08
c
0.07
e
0.03
C
0.02
c
0.05
c
0.04
C
0.05
c
0.03
Pb
0.20
0.20
NES
0.20
c
0.29
0.06
c
0.15
c
0.18
C
0.06
C
0.04
C
0.04
C
0.03
c
0.02
C
0.08
c
0.09
Zn
NES
0.33
NES
0 27
c
1.22
0.09
c
1.0)
c
0.60
C
0.55
C
0.19
e
0.27
e
0.06
e
0.37
C
0.18
C
0.12
As
NES
NES
NES
NES
c
NcS
NES
C
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
NES
C
0.01
e
0.01
c
0.01
Se
0.00
0.00
NES
NES
c
0.01
0.01
e
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
NcS
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
157
-------
TABLE D-4. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: CONTROL LYSIMETER, 50 CM
l/U/77
1/21/77
ii 1/77
*/ 7/77
4/21/77
V 1/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/2V77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
S/ 14/77
IO/ 1/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77-
11/21/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/7(J
1/21/78
• Mr>N/100 ml •
TC FC IDS
6.UU 0.00 NtS
O.OU 0.00 rttS
0.00 O.OU ncS
0.00 O.OU NtS
0.00 0.00 NtS
O.OU 0.00 NtS
0.00 0.00 NtS
0.00 0.00 NF.S
O.UJ (J.UJ N-'>
0.00 0.00 NES
0.00 0.00 NES
0.00 0.00 NES
0.00 0.00 1808.00
20.00 0.00 1780.00
0.00 0.00 NES
0.00 0.00 1936.00
0.00 NES NES
NtS NES NES
NES NES NES
50.00 0.00 2068.00
0.00 0.00 2390.00
N£S NtS NtS
Constitueot(mg/l )
d
0.63
1.02
U.62
NtS
C
0.77
0.39
NES
l).4t
C
NES
NES
C
1.40
c
1 .11
NES
NtS
NtS
0.81
c
0.20
Cl
NcS
131.00
113.00
NES
c
176.00
199.00
NtS
220. M
c
209.00
NES
C
235.00
c
226.00
NES
NES
NES
295.00
c
356.00
F
NtS
1*5
NtS
NES
c
1.13
0.45
NtS
o.*s
C
1.43
NES
C
1.48
c
1.40
NES
NES
NES
0.61
C
1.29
Itj3
NES
NES
15.00
NES
NES
22.50
NES
NtS
37.70
C
36.80
NES
c
5.00
c
21.00
NES
NES
NES
59.50
C
NES
T«
NES
NtS
NtS
NES
c
34.60
NES
NtS
37.7Q
C
NES
NES
c
5.60
c
22.10
NES
NES
NES
61.70
C
3.15
TOC
NES
NtS
NES
NES
c
13.00
28.00
NI-:S
47/J'J
c
39.00
NES
c
NES
c
20.00
NES
NES
NES
16.50
C
NES
PU4
NES
3.45
NES
NtS
c
10,30
3.90
NES
3,'J5
C
5.50
NtS
C
0.19
c
1.78
NES
NES
NES
1.50
C
3.80
S04
220.00
3*0.00
270.00
Ktb
c
NtS
509.00
HtS
5M.U3
c
407.00
NES
C
520.00
c
452.00
NES
NES
NtS
555.00
C
NES
K
23.00
NtS
15. 50'
NtS
c
20.00
NES
10. Id
17. 50
c
28.80
NtS
c
8.80
c
10.50
14.7Q
NES
NtS
10.20
C
9.90
Na
ix. S
2*5.00
136.00
NtS
C
220.00
210.00
.ViS
'o3.00
C
133.00
NtS
c
238.00
c
212.00
235.00
NES
NES
225.00
C
320. OJ
Constituent lmg/l>
1/14/77
1/21/77
21 1/77
3/21/77
4/21/77
V 1/77
5/14/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ t/77
10/21/77
It/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/78
Ca Mg da
NtS 27.60 0.02
NtS NtS 0.01
NtS 46.00 0.01
NtS NeS NtS
c c c
NES NtS 0.04
108.00 36.63 NES
107.00 63.30 NES
C C C
37.00 144.10 0.20
NES NtS NES
c c c
75.00 151.00 0.20
c c c
88.40 190.00- 0.12
6.60 190.00 0.21
NES NtS NES
124.00 232.00 0.11
C C C
205.00 140.00 0.21
\
Cd
0.06
0.02
O.OJ
0.06
c
0.01
0.01
0.01,
c
0.03
NES
c
0.02
c
0.02
NES
NES
0.01
c
0.01
Cr
0.02
0.03
0.02
NES
c
0.01
0.01
0.02
C
0.06
NES
c
0.02
c
0.02
0.01
NES
0.04
C
0.01
Cu
0.06
0.03
0.15
NES
e
0.02
0.11
0.22
c
0.10
NtS
c
0.16
c
0.20
NES
NES
0.15
C
0.06
Mo
0.40
0.10
0.10
NES
c
0.10
0.10
fCS
e
0.10
NES
c
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
NES
0.10
C
0.10
Nl
0.07
0.10
0.09
NES
c
0.07
c
0.10
c
0.09
NES
c
0.03
c
0.03
0.05
NES
0.07
C
0.03
Pb
0.07
0.08
0.06
NES
c
0.08
0.08
0.06
c
0.11
NES
c
0.02
c
0.05
0.10
NES
0.06
c
0.10
Zn
HES
NES
NtS
NES
C
0.46
0.62
0.68
C
NtS
NES
c
0.42
c
0.21
0.23
NtS
0.30
c
0.54
A:
0.01
o.ot
o.oi
NcS
C
0.04
c
NES
C
0.04
NES
c
0.03
c
0.01
NES
NES
0.01
c
0.01
Se
0.01
0.01
0.07
NES
c
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
NES
c
0.01
c
0.01
NES
NES
0.01
c
0.01
'*••••»•
158
-------
TABLETS. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST LYSI METER, 100 CM
" MPN/100 ml •
1/21/77
2/ 1/77
3/21/77
4/ 1/77
4/14/77
4/21/77
5/ 1/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
b/ 7/77
8/21/77
(•/ 7/77
10/ 1/77
1u/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/76
1/21/78
TC
6.00
6.00
NcS
NES
0.00
0.00
0.00
3300.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
490.00
O.OU
0.00
u.OO
Su.uO
U.UO
20. UO
U.uO
20. OU
0.00
20.00
0.00
NES
PC IDS
0.00 2600.00
0.00 2200.00
NES NES
NES NtS
0.00 NtS
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
20.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 1572.00
U.OO 1592.00
NtS 2002.00
0.00 130U.OO
O.UU 1360.00
0.00 1574.00
U.UU 2042.00
U.OO 233U.UU
U.UQ 2100.00
0.00 2500.00
0.00 2110.00
O.Ob 1580.00
NcS 1920.00
B
1.10
1.27
0.93
0.27
1.10
c
0.68
0.36
c
0.48
c
0.13
c
1.49
c
NtS
1.36
c
1.40
C
2.11
c
1.70
C
0.90
Constltuent(«o/l )
Cl
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
17J.OO
115.00
c
137.20
c
150.00
c
193.00
c
266.00
201.00
C
311.00
c
365.00
c
336.00
C
233.00
F
NES
N£S
NcS
0.32
NES
NES
0.60
0.80
c
0.83
c
1.04
c
0.85
c
NtS
1.02
c
0.34
c
0.67
c
0.33
C
0.45
N03
83.00
NcS
NES
NES
NES
c
63.00
39.90
c
NES
c
NcS
c
38. 2U
c
57.50
22.00
c
53.00
c
62.00
c
38.50
C
53.00
TN
NES
NES
NcS
NES
NcS
c
NES
NcS
c
37 20
c
NcS
C
38.20
c
*!>
23.50
c
55.60
c
62.00
c
61.90
c
54.00
TOO
15.90
15.00
NES
NES
NCS
c
18.00
17 00
c
24.00
c
35 00
e
28.00
c
21 .00
21.00
c
21.20
c
11.00
c
12.00
c
9.00
P04
0.30
0.51
NES
NcS
NES
C
NtS
3.06
c
3.60
c
2.80
c
3.46
c
NcS
3.10
c
5.00
c
2.20
c
0.70
c
7.18
S04
NES
t.ES
NES
NcS
NtS
c
230.00
197.00
c
200.00
c
200.00
c
264 00
c
264 UO
256.00
c
322.00
£
43*. UO
c
310.00
e
250.00
K Na
9.60 532.00
11.20 211.00
NcS NES
22.00 460.00
19.00 NcS
C NtS
".00 233.00
NES 139.00
c c
19.20 125.40
c c
17.00 11200
c c
21.80 221.00
c c
17. 7y 255.00
7.40 105.00
c c
2U.20 270.00
c c
16.60 317.00
c c
14.90 390.00
c c
17.10 2dO.OO
1/21/77
2/ 1/77
3/21/77
4/ 1/77
4/14/77
4/21/77
5/ 1/77
5/14/77
5/2V77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
6/ 1/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
It/ 7/77
M/21/77
I2/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/78
1/21/7&
Ca
71.00
ICS
NtS
NcS
60.00
c
125.00
62.00
e
65.00
C
61.00
C
40.00
C
76.00
41.80
c
85.00
c
95.00
C
117.00
C
62.00
Mg Ba
88.00 NtS
NtS NcS
NcS NcS
NCS NcS
250.00 NtS
NtS c
191.00 o.ao
28.70 NcS
C c
30.80 0.10
C e
51.20 0.10
C c
131.00 0.20
c c
99.00 0.20
104.00 0.08
c c
235.00 0.25
c c
81.00 0.28
c c
198.00 0.23
c c
79.00 0.23
Constituent lug/ 1)
Cd
NcS
NCS
Nti
0.02
0.10
NcS
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.02
C
0.01
c
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
e
0.03
c
0.01
Cr
0.06
NcS
NCS
0.06
0.01
NcS
0.02
NtS
C
0.01
c
0.02
C
0.03
C
0.02
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.01
Cu
0.22
NiS
0.09
NtS
0.16
c
0.13
0.07
c
0.20
c
0.23
c
0.27
c
0.09
0.06
c
0.07
c
NES
c
0.19
e
0.02
Mo
0.10
0.13
0.10
u.io
0.50
c
0.20
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.30
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.18
C
0.20
HI
O.«1
0.12
NES
NtS
0.16
c
0.08
NtS
C
0.06
C
0.07
C
0.06
c
0.03
0.02
e
0.06
c
0.04
c
0.08
c
0.02
Pb
0.11
0.11
rltS
0.20
0.01
NES
0.09
0.05
C
0.06
C
0.16
C
0.10
c
0.07
0.05
c
0.10
e
0.13
c
0.06
e
0.08
Zn
0.08
0.08
HES
0.27
0.04
C
NES
0.47
C
0.30
C
0.08
C
0.53
C
0.21
0.14
c
0.08
c
0.94
c
0 22
c
0.12
As
0 01
0.01
hcS
NcS
NcS
c
0.02
NES
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.02
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0 01
c
0.01
S«
0.01
0.01
NcS
NcS
NtS
C
0.0'
O.Ol
c
NtS
C
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
e
0.01
159
-------
» MrWIOO ml •
1/14/77
1/21/77
2/ 1/77
4/14/77
4/21/77
V 1/77
5/ 7/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
8/ 7/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
IO/il/77
11/ 7/77
Vil 7/77
12/il/77
I/ 7/78
ro
NES
0.00
3.00
0.00
1300.00
0.00
NES
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
30.00
70.00
130.UO
BO. 00
o.uo
NtS
FC TJS
NtS NtS
0.00 NES
0.00 2210.00
20.00 NES
20.00 NES
20.00 NES
NES 2760.00
20.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 NES
0.00 2670.00
0.00 2366.00
0.00 3176.00
0.00 2230.00
0.00 2076.00
0.00 NES
0.00 2
-------
TABLE I>7. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST LYSIMETER, 300 CM
* MPN/100 ml •
1/14/77
1/21/77
2/ 1/77
4/14/77
5/14/77
o/ 7/77
6//1/77
9/ 7/77
4/14/77
tO/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
12/21/77
1/21/78
TC
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.ou
0.00
200.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NES
FC TOS
o.oo NtS
0.00 1062.00
a. oo 25UO.OO
0.00 85U.OO
0.00 NtS
70.00 NES
0.00 1774.00
0.00 NtS
0.00 1870.00
0.00 NES
0.00 2068.00
0.00 1474.00
0.00 1782.00
0.00 1946.00
NES 1866.00
a
0.36
1.69
1.27
1.12
1.10
0.44
0.88
c
1.40
C
1.20
c
1.24
1.40
1.10
Constituent (mg/l)
Cl
27V. 00
NtS
171.00
Id!. 00
NES
225.00
160.00
c
236.00
232.00
c
234.00
22d.OO
242.00
F
1.61
NES
NtS
NtS
NES
0.55
1.78
c
1.70
C
NES
c
0.35
0.70
0.62
N03
NES
NtS
NES
31.00
NES
34.70
43.70
C
65.30
c
87.00
C
70.00
69.00
96.50
TN
NES
NtS
NtS
NES
35.80
43.70
65.30
c
NES
C
70.00
70.70
97.50
TOC
NtS
NtS
NtS
17.00
NES
4.00
20.00
c
12.00
c
25.00
c
9.00
0-.50
2.00
Pu4
NES
NtS
NES
0.10
0.66
0.10
0.36
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
0.10
0.20
504
140.00
NtS
240.00
220.00
NES
334.00
240.00
326.00
309.00
141.00
260.00
250.00
20.10 431.00
16.40 4U3.0U
U.OO 161.00.
11.40 154.00
19.00 NcLS
9.5u 165.00
15.00 300.00
7.00 337.00
7.20 280.00
6.00 330.00
6.30 315.00
7.40 375.00
Constituent (mg/l >
H/21/76
1/14/77
1/21/77
21 1/77
4/14/77
5/14/77
b/ 7/77
b/21/77
*/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
12/21/77
V21/TO
Ca
105.00
96.00
NtS
NtS
6U.OU
90. UO
IKS
C
fctt.OO
67.30
C
73.00
94.00
72.00
Mg Ba
13.10 0.01
61.00 0.03
NtS 0.01
NtS 0.11
Neb NtS
67.10 0.10
205.00 MtS
C C
230.00 0.10
C C
233.00 0.06
C C
225.00 0.17
300.00 0.09
210.00 0.19
Cd
0.01
0.00
0.03
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.02
e
0.01
0.01
0.01
Cr
0.03
0.05
0.23
0.13
0.05
0.01
0.02
C
0.02
e
0.02
c
0.01
0.02
0.01
Cu
0.02
0 06
0 12
0.07
0.16
0.34
o.oa
c
0.06
C
0.08
C
0.03
O.M
0.0)
Mo
NES
NES
0.40
0.40
0.50
0.30
NES
C
0.30
C
0.10
c
0.20
0.40
0.30
Nl
0.01
0.03
0.44
0.12
0.16
0.06
0.12
C
0.04
C
0.01
c
0.08
0.10
0.03
Pt>
0.10
0.03
0.03
0.06
0.05
0.05
O.'O
C
0.06
c
0.02
C
0.01
0.04
0.05
Zn
0.06
0 02
0.05
0.03
0.04
0.15
c
0.05
c
0.11
e
0.04
0.10
0.03
As
0.00
0 01
0.00
NES
NES
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
Se
0.01
0.00
0.01
0 01
NES
0 01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
-—•--
161
-------
TABLE 0-8. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST WELL, ON-SITE, TOP
• MPM/100 ml "
2/21/77
i/ 7/77
3/21/77
4/ '/77
4/14/77
»/ 1/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
O/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
O/ 7/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/2V77
'V 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/2' /r?
V 7/7d
1/21/76
TC
NES
NEb
NtS
NtS
NtS
HcS
O.UO
0.00
O.UO
U.OO
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
NES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
0.00
0.00
FC TOS
NLb 2906.00
Hcb NtS
NtS NtS
NtS NtS
NLS NtS
uf> NLS
O.OU 3o60.00
O.UO 3620. OO
O.UO 3000.00
O.UO 3432.00
0.00 3320.00
O.CO 3294.00
0.00 3390.00
0.00 2565.00
0.00 2812.00
0.00 2820.00
NES NES
0.00 2824.00
0.00 2952.00
0.00 2960.00
0.00 2498.00
0.00 2576.00
0.00 2364.00
0.00 2274.00
0.00 2312.00
6
NtS
HcS
0.55
NtS
NtS
NtS
0.19
0.44
1.22
C
0.17
c
1.07
c
1.25
C
1.04
c
0.97
C
0.93
C
1.40
C
1.30
Const 1 tuent (mq/l )
Cl
NcS
240.00
IttS
287. UO
263.00
22V. 00
256.50
207.60
268.00
c
233.00
c
276.00
c
287.00
C
257.00
c
250.00
c
279.00
C
246.00
C
247.00
F
N£S
0.56
NcS
NtS
NcS
NES
0.62
c
0.50
C
1.36
c
1.21
c
1.58
C
1.34
c
1.50
c
1.19
C
0.70
c
0.65
N03
NCS
NES
NES
NES
NcS
NcS
45.00
C
36.60
C
35.50
c
41.20
c
46.00
C
32.00
e
33.00
c
40.00
c
43.00
C
41.50
TH
NcS
NcS
NtS
NcS
NcS
NcS
45.10
c
N£S
c
35.50
c
41.30
c
46.00
c
32.80
c
35.30
c
40.00
C
53.00
C
42.50
TOC
9.00
NcS
NcS
NES
N£S
24. UO
7.00
c
12.00
C
11.00
c
9.00
c
7.50
C
13.00
c
11.50
c
1.50
C
1.50
C
0.50
P04 504 •
NtS 1100.00
0.10 *£S
NcS i»cS
NcS llcS
NCS MCS
1.70 1000.00
o.ao mu.oo
c c
1.10 1200.03
c c
0.18 2UCJ.OO
c c
0.32 1350.00
c c
0.07 1460.00
c c
0.10 1131.00
C C
0.10 1310.00
c c
O.H 1125.00
C c
0.10 1035.00
c e
0.10 1145.00
K
NcS
xcS
hcS
NcS
NtS
14.30
14.50
15.40
1J.20
C
15.90
c
10.20
c
9.00
c
9.60
c
9.10
c
8.10
C
7.70
C
12.60
Na
172.70
NcS
NtS
NcS
NcS
Hi*
230.20
375.00
167.00
c
171. UO
c
350.00
c
332.00
c
308. 00
c
345.00
c
316.00
c
306.00
C
380.00
Constltuentlmg/l)
2/21/77
3/U/77
3/21/77
4/ 7/77
5/ 1/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
8/ 7/77
8/21/77
W 1/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
V 7/7o
1/21/70
Ca
NES
NES
NES
NES
NES
321 .00
c
215.00
c
233.00
c
NES
c
136.00
c
125.60
c
130. UO
c
1.50.00
C
165.00
c
145.00
Mg da
NES NES
NES NES
NES NES
NES NES
NES NES
NES 0.12
NES c
NES 0.30
c c
13.09 0.10
c c
85.50 0.11
c c
119.00 0.35
c c
72.40 O.Od
c . c
52.00 U.03
c c
62.00 0.05
c c
114.00 0.03
c c
63.00 0.12
Cd
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.02
NES
0.01
0.01
0.03
c
0.05
c
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
Cr
0.22
NES
NES
NES
0.06
0.20
c
O.M
c
0.19
e
0.20
C
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
O.U3
c
0.01
Cu
0.05
NES
NES
NES
0.03
0.07
c
0.03
c
0.07
C
0.03
c
0.03
c
0.05
c
0.02
c
fl.07
c
0.06
c
0.01
Mo
0.02
NES
NES
N£S
NcS
0.01
c
0.20
c
0.10
e
0.20
c
0.20
c
0.10
c
0.20
c
0.20
c
0.29
c
0.30
Nl
NES
NcS
NES
NES
NES
0.17
c
0.19
c
0.15
c
0.15
c
0.02
c
0.02
e
0.04
c
O.O7
c
0.12
c
0.03
*>b
0.10
NES
NES
NES
0.09
0.06
0.06
0.11
C
0.12
c
0.07
c
0.03
c
0.16
c
0.15
c
0.05
c
0.05
c
O.Od
Zn As
0.06 NES
NES NES
NES NES
NES NES
0.04 NES
0.06 NES
0.07 c
0.08 0.01
c c
o.oa 0.02
c e
0.07 0.01
c c
0.04 0.01
c c
0.03 0.01
c c
0.03 0.01
c c
0.06 0.01
c e
0.03 0.01
c c
0.03 0.01
Se
NES
NtS
NES
NES
NtS
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
e
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
162
-------
TABLE J>9. ANALYTICAL RESULTS- TEST WELL, ON-SITE BOTTOM
• MPN/IOO ml •
2/21/77
3/ 7/77
5/21/77
&/ V77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
b/ 7/7)
a/21/77
V/ 7/77
S/H/77
1U/ 1/77
lo/ 7/77
10/21/77
It/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
M 7/78
1/21/78
TC
NtS
NES
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
o.oo
u.ou
O.uO
0.00
0.00
HtS
o.oo
o.oo
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
FC TUS
NES NES
NES NtS
0.00 360U.OO
0.00 36flb.OO
0.00 3444.00
O.OU 3100.00
0.00 4432.00
o.ou 3i
-------
TABLE CHO. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST WELL, LATERAL, TOP
• ,'lr'N/IOO ml «
3/21/77
«/ 7/77
4/14/77
5/ 1/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
8/ 7/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
1i/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/7«
1/21/7
-------
TABLE D-l 1. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST WELL, LATERAL, BOTTOM
• MPN/100 ml •
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
11 7/77
7/21/77
d/ 7/77
6/21/77
V 7/77
»/I4/77
10/ 1/77
1u/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
U/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/7d
1/21/7*
TC
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
490.00
0.00
StS
30. UU
u.oo
420UO.UU
7u.OU
4u.0u
O.UO
O.uO
20.00
50.00
0.00
0.00
FC TOS
0.00 3470.00
0.00 3744.00
0.00 3660.00
0.00 3960.00
0.00 3766.00
0.00 3772.00
NtS 3031. UU
0.00 3264.00
O.uu 3*10.00
0.00 357U.OO
0.00 3*60.00
0.00 3158.00
U.OU 33uO.OO
0.00 307e.OO
0.00 24*2.00
0.00 2778.00
0.00 2616.00
0.00 3020.00
B
0.62
1.15
c
0.71
C
0.55
c
1.08
c
0.62
c
0.75
c
0.58
c
1.30
e
0.7Q
Const 1 tuent ln\g/ 1 )
Cl
488.00
468.00
c
NES
c
546.00
c
604.00
c
550.00
c
SSi.OO
c
SIS. 00
c
515.00
c
445.00
r
e
0.50
c
1.05
c
1.33
c
1.34
c
1.2d
c
1.73
c
1.09
e
0.79
e
0.84
N03
c
66.00
c
60.00
c
62.90
c
75.20
c
67.00
c
62.00
c
54.00
C
64.50
c
52.00
TN
c
66.80
c
60.80
c
63.20
e
75.20
c
66.30
c
62.00
C
54.00
C
65.50
C
93.00
roc
c
8.90
c
25.00
c
11.00
c
8.00
c
44.00
c
20.20
c
0.50
C
9.00
c
5.50
P04 504
0.80 c
1.78 920.00
c c
1.43 1100.00
c c
1.03 930.00
c c
0.13 930.00
c c
0.10 930.00
c c
0.10 766.00
c c
0.27 965.00
C C
0.10 895.00
C C
0.90 825.00
K
5.70
4.90
c
6.40
c
5.00
c
6.00
c
6.»0
e
5.20
c
6. JO
C
6.0U
C
5.90
Na
277.00
159.00
c
157.00
c
297.00
c
320.00
c
260.00
c
302.00
c
218.03
C
298.00
C
330.00
Constituent (mg/l )
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
9/ 7/77
SI/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
IO/il/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
1*7 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/7*
1/21/7«
Ce
c
188.00
C
2)2.00
c
102.00
c
200.00
c
147.00
c
20d.OO
c
212.00
c
247.00
C
215.00
Mg Ba
92.70 c
118.00 0.10
c c
118.20 0.10
c c
253.00 0.13
c c
195.00 0.29
c c
276.00 0.10
c c
220.00 0.07
c c
119.00 0.10
c c
255.00 0.04
C C
110.00 0.12
Cd
0.01
0.04
C
0.05
c
0.01
c
0.02
e
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.03
c
0.01
Cr
c
0.06
e
0.07
c
0.12
c
0.03
e
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.01
Cu
c
0.03
e
NES
C
0.06
c
0.04
e
0.09
c
0.03
c
0.08
c
0.10
C
0.03
Mo
C
0.10
e
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
e
0.10
e
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.10
e
0.20
HI
C
0.20
C
0.22
c
0.19
c
0.04
e
0.04
c
0.06
c
C.04
c
0.13
c
0.03
Pt>
0.06
0.19
c
0.20
c
0.14
e
0.02
c
0.09
e
0.20
c
0.12
c
0.06
C
0.07
Zn At
0.06 e
0.06 0.01
c c
0.09 0.02
c C
0.07 0.01
c e
0.02 0.01
c c
0.02 0.01
c e
0.03 0.01
c c
0.06 0.01
e c
0.06 0.01
C C
0.03 0.01
Se
e
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
G
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
165
-------
TABLE 0-12. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST WELL, DOWNSTREAM, TOP
" Mr-N/IOd ml •
3/21/77
4/ 7/77
5/ 1/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
8/ 7/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
IO/ 1/77
IO/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
V 7/76
t/21/78
1C
NtS
NtS
htS
200.00
O.OU
0.00
0.00
0.00
50.00
0.00
20.00
130.00
170.00
0.00
70.00
230.00
20.00
0.00
0.00
5400.00
0.00
0.00
FC TOS
NtS NtS
«ES NtS
NES NtS
0.00 4190.00
0.00 4050.00
0.00 4220.00
0.00 4068.00
0.00 4260.00
0.00 4222.00
0.00 3936.00
0.00 3386.00
0.00 3892.00
0.00 4066.00
0.00 4222.00
0.00 3880.00
0.00 3936.00
0.00 4040.00
0.00 3750.00
0.00 3828.00
0.00 3094.00
0.00 3452.00
0.00 NtS
6
NES
1.12
NES
0.40
0.44
1.62
c.
0.45
c
0.94
c
1.51
c
1.28
c
1.29
C
1.16
C
1.10
c
0.60
Constltuent(«ig/l)
Cl
341 .00
NcS
215.00
367.00
364.90
365.00
c
314.00
c
369.00
c
350.00
c
353.00
c
368.00
577.50
C
343.00
c
327.00
F
NES
tiES
NtS
1.10
c
0.59
c
1.27
c
1.49
c
1.63
c
1.60
c
1.93
C
1.16
c
0.85
c
0.65
N03
NtS
NtS
NES
52.90
64.50
c
52.40
c
52.40
C
36.70
c
40.00
c
44.50
65.00
C
61.00
c
59 00
TN
NES
NES
NES
54.00
NES
65.50
C
52.80
c
53.40
c
37.70
c
43.50
c
45.70
C
65.00
C
61.40
c
60 00
TUG
NES
NES
NcS
12.00
NES
10.00
C
32.00
c
15.00
C
14.00
c
3.00
c
18.70
c
6.00
C
1.00
c
Id. 00
HU4 S04
NtS 1350.00
NES NcS
NES NcS
0.60 2060.00
0.9C NES
1.61 1600. UO
c c
0.44 2330.00
c c
0.21 1250.00
c c
0.10 1680.00
c e
0.10 1583.00
C C
0.10 1088.00
c c
0.10 2000.00
c c
0.10 1730.00
c c
0.90 1390.00
K
NES
mi
NcS
5.10
5.70
4.70
c
4.70
C
3.10
c
4.00
c
4.40
c
3.30
c
4.20
c
5.00
c
7 00
Ns
NES
ncS
247.15
345.00
165.00
c
loo.OJ
c
320.00
c
335.00
e
310.00
c ,
365.00
315.00
c
318.00
C
3dO.OO
Const Ituentlng/l )
3/21/77
4/ 7/77
5/14/77
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
8/ 7/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
IO/ V77
IO/ 7/77
10/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
V 7/7o
t/21/76
Ca
UEb
NES
273.00
c
180.00
C
241 .00
c
NES
c
145.00
C
158.10
C
170.00
c
178.00
C
231 .00
c
210.00
Mg ria
NtS NcS
NES NcS
132.33 0.10
132.16 NES
175.40 0.30
C C
133.87 0.10
c c
385.00 0.09
c c
525.00 0.10
C C
512.00 0.07
e c
300.00 0.10
c c
233.00 0.14
C C
288.00 0.15
C C
263.00 0.20
Cd
u.ui
0.08
0.02
0.01
0.05
C
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.02
c
0.02
e
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
Cr
NtS
NES
0.14
c
0.24
C
0.18
c
0.05
C
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.02
c
0.01
C
0.03
C
0.01
Cu
NES
0.08
0.07
C
0.05
C
0.09
c
0.05
C
0.03
c
0.06
C
0.02
c
0.09
C
0.09
c
0.01
Mo
NES
NES
0.10
NES
0.30
C
0.20
c
0.30
c
0.10
c
0.10
c
0.20
c
0.20
C
0.21
C
0.50
Nl
NtS
NES
0.15
NES
0.21
C
0.'4
e
0.15
c
0.04
c
0.04
c
0.09
c
0.06
c
0.13
c
0.03
Pb
NES
NES
0.07
0.05
0.19
C
0.18
c
0.12
c
0.02
C
0.09
c
0.20
c
0.13
c
0.07
c
0.09
In As
NtS NtS
NES NES
o.oa o.oi
0.09 NES
0.08 0.01
C C
0.05 0.02
c c
0.06 0.01
c c
0.03 0.01
c e
0.02 0.01
C C
0.04 0.01
c c
0.06 0.01
c c
0.06 O.U1
C C
0.02 0.01
Se
NcS
NtS
NES
NES
0.01
C
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.0'
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
166
-------
TABLE D-13. ANALYTICAL RESULTS: TEST WELL, DOWNSTREAM, BOTTOM
• MPN/100 ml «
5/21/77
6/ 7/77
6/21/77
V 7/77
7/21/77
&/ 7/77
6/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
W 7/77
lu/21/77
11/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
I/ 7/70
1/21/70
TC
0.00
2C.OO
0.00
0.00
130.00
0.00
50.00
50.00
1300.00
3 WO. 00
2 JO. 00
17u.OO
0.00
170.00
O.Ou
1600.00
0.00
o.oo
FC IDS
0.00 3950.00
0.00 4190.00
0.00 4090.00
0.00 4410.00
20.00 4252.00
0.00 4460.00
0.00 3564.00
0.00 3900.00
0.00 40B4.00
O.OU NcS
0.00 3*66.00
o.uu 3*»2.00
0.00 3960.00
O.UO 373U.UU
O.uO 3702.00
0.00 3754.00
O.OU NL!>
O.OU NtS
B
0.47
0.69
C
0.42
C
1.28
c
1.57
C
1.34
C
1.2V
C
0.96
C
1.30
C
1.20
Constlttent(mg/l )
Cl
381.70
361 .00
c
406.00
C
390.00
c
345.00
c
355.00
C
345. UO
C
367.00
c
339.00
C
327.00
f
c
0.61
c
1.26
C
0.33
C
1.69
C
1.60
c
1.62
c
1.0*
c
0.76
c
0.76
N03
C
40.70
C
42.10
C
30.40
c
46.90
C
39 00
C
42.00
C
47. uO
C
56.50
c
52.00
TN
C
42.00
C
43.20
C
31.70
c
47.20
C
40 50
C
43. 5O
C
47.00
C
62.10
c
S3. 00
TOC
C
12.00
C
36.00
C
15.00
C
9.00
C
20.00
C
19.50
C
6.50
c
0.50
C
1.00
P04 S04
0.30 c
1.97 1500.00
c C
1.14 2330.00
C C
0.98 1450.00
c c
0.13 1680.00
C c
0.10 1583 00
C C
0.10 1572. OO
C C
0.27 1415.00
c c
0.12 1310.00
C C
0.90 1435.00
K
5.10
4.50
C
6.20
C
5.20
c
4.00
c
4.40
C
4.30
C
5.70
c
4.80
c
5.10
Ma
C
165.00
C
167.00
C
330.00
c
363.00
C
310.00
c
3«O.OJ
C
275.00
c
321 .00
C
335.00
5/21/77
&/ 7/77
6/21/77
7/ 7/77
7/21/77
B/ 7/77
8/21/77
9/ 7/77
9/14/77
10/ 1/77
10/ 7/77
10/21/77
1I/ 7/77
11/21/77
12/ 7/77
12/21/77
V 7/70
1/21/7B
Ca
c
130.00
c
249.00
c
NES
C
156.00
c
143.60
c
173.00
c
176.00
c
225.00
C
215.00
Mg Bo
127.49 c
175.00 0.10
c c
134.20 0.10
c c
N£S 0.13
C c
375.00 0.22
c c
524.00 0.13
c c
515.00 0.05
c c
242.00 0.22
c e
315.00 0.21
C c
250.00 0.26
Cd
0.01
0.03
c
0.03
c
0.01
c
0.02
C
0.02
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.02
C
0.01
Const ltu»nt(mg/l )
Cr Cu Mo
c
0.06
c
NES
c
0.0)
c
0.03
c
0.02
c
0.06
c
0.01
C
0.03
c
0.01
c
0.16
c
0.09
C
0.07
C
0.03
C
0.06
c
0.02
c
0.07
c
O.Ott
e
0.02
c
0.30
c
0.10
c
0.30
C
0.40
C
0.10
c
0.20
c
0.20
c
0.20
C
0.30
Nl
c
0.20
c
0.13
c
0.13
C
0.04
C
0.02
e
0.06
C
0.07
c
0.10
c
0.03
Pb
0.06
0.17
c
0.15
c
0.16
C
0.02
C
0.09
c
0.20
c
0.13
c
0.13
c
0.09
Zn As
0.20 c
0.12 0.01
c c
0.08 0.02
c c
0.13 0.01
c c
0.03 0.01
c c
0.02 0.01
c c
0.04 0.01
c c
0.03 0.01
c e
0.03 0.01
C C
0.02 0.01
Se
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
c
0.01
167
-------
TABLE 0-H INDIVIDUAL SOIL ANALYSES,INITIAL SAMPLING (OCTOBER, 1976)c
00
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
B
WEd
8.1
7.5
7.9
7.2
5.3
6.4
6.5
6.8
6.1
6.4
5.8
7.1
5.2
5.3
3.7
5.0
Cl
WE
200
150
100
250
150
150
125
F
WE
14
9
9
25
15
9
16
11
22
9
4
4
9
11
9
27
N03-Nb N°
WEb TC
160
3
50
5
35
2
70
4
110
2
125
33
90
2
920
1000
979
890
575
1005
945
980
875
920
1130
1100
1090
1110
886
1070
WEb
12
18
10
21
14
26
13
32
5.2
15
4.8
3.6
-------
VO
TABLE F>14
Site Depth
(cm)
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
B
d
WE
5.4
4.9
5.1
5.0
4.7
3.9
4.3
4.1
3.9
5.3
4.4
3.5
4.9
5.8
4.6
4.5
5.4
5.6
Cl
WE
175
100
250
175
175
150
125
F
WE
8
6
8
2
2
2
6
9
6
7
4
4
10
10
6
3
6
3
WE1*
250
51
110
10
15
2
50
37
50
1
35
35
50
10
T°
740
830
950
620
688
491
495
596
700
400
610
530
665
710
626
460
435
438
WEb
12
42
17
42
13
18
32
18
8.0
9.2
0.8
5.4
< 1^0
7*.2
F*
A*
259
1020
264
1120
310
960
302
1040
212
620
404
440
363
260
(continued)
P
Organic
r>
120
512
460
102
460
<20
60
<20
240
250
160
920
120
622
WE"
97
161
73
196
118
145
92
190
54
41
61
51
37
61
K
EX5
1700
1640
1600
1620
1610
1380
1620
1560
1260
1150
1630
1210
1240
1200
Na
WEb AEb
227 9100
242 2940
158 9300
177 2610
246 10000
240 2940
124 12600
165 2880
156 11800
159 4560
188 13400
165 9180
158 11300
236 12100
Ca
WEb EX
94 2400
10 2380
35 3120
9 2510
81 2730
26 2510
32 3080
18 3140
42 2490
150 2700
160 2640
188 2460
102 2430
228 2760
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-14 (continued)
Site Dept
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
7500
8600
5810
4600
7720
13000
7480
4200
6380
6600
4950
6200
9800
Me
AEb
4700
951
3550
923
4500
1050
4750
940
3250
880
3500
810
4400
1410
WEb
98
26
114
22
97
24
104
21
94
21
85
22
125
37
EX
558
543
449
329
368
590
470
590
881
307
1610
155
1220
310
CECh Ag ,
T AEb
22.8<20 1.0
21.0<20 < 1.0
16.3<20 < 1.0
17.9<20 < 1.0
15.1<20 < 1.0
16.3<20 < 1.0
16.2<20 < 1.0
11.5<20 < 1.0
12.5<20 < .0
12.7<20 < .0
10.4<20 < .0
8.1<20 < .0
11.1<20 < .0
8.7<20 < .0
Bfi £
TE Tb
1360 <5
520 20
1140 <5
620 12
560 6
560 < 5
1700 <5
520 14
860 < 5
440 10
820 < 5
1100 <5
1060
3280 <5
740 6
d , Cr
AEb T
1.8 102
1.4 120
1.7 176
1.3 112
1.8 120
2.2 150
1.8 158
1.7 102
1.4 136
1.4 100
1.4 108
1.2 92
2.7 113
0.9 98
AE Tb
22 22
7 34
23
14 22
20 28
24
20 34
12 28
10 28
18 24
15 26
18 22
12 28
21 26
20 30
16 26
:u h
AEb
3.1
1.7
1.4
1.9
1.5
4.6
0.4
/
426
412
358
402
432
516
514
352
420
418
338
376
364
450
In
AE
180
243
276
179
171
217
184
192
170
255
199
153
134
164
121
173
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-14 (continued)
Site Depth b
(cm) T
Control 1 4670
7200
3 5610
107400
5940
5200
30 4000
5400
1006070
11400
230 3600
300 4550
16600
AEfe'9
2600
1150
2500
890
2770
1200
3250
480
3300
750
2750
680
2250
660
WEb
151
22
78
22
150
36
42
18
29
36
80
26
50
18
EX
313
353
384
532
375
604
599
__
616
575
306
1150
216
411
CECh Ag ,
T AE
22.7 <20 < .0
18.5 <20 < .0
13.0 <20 < .0
11.0 <20 < .0
10.4 <20 < .0
9.8 <20 <1.0
7.7 <20 <1.0
7.7 <20 <1.0
9.3 <20<1.0
8.3 <20 <1.0
12.8 <20<1.0
8.8 <20<1.0
11.9 <20<1.0
18.3 <20 <1.0
T£ Tb
810 <5
60 6
638 6
126 <5
1140 6
106 <5
702 <5
124 <5
664 <5
120 6
748 <5
118 <5
1580 <5
100 <5
d
AEb
1.5
1.5
1.7
2.1
2.1
1.4
2.0
1.1
1.8
1.2
1.5
0.8
1.3
1.2
Cr
160
124
170
128
158
138
156
142
118
144
136
126
154
172
AE
20
5
12
11
15
10
13
2
12
3
13
13
ND
6
7
6
13
11
(
68
30
28
32
34
30
28
24
70
24
26
20
24
34
-u
AE
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.2
1.5
1.8
0.2
+*
362
464
636
452
596
434
304
366
408
416
328
344
380
440
n
AE
120
201
177
140
182
142
135
186
152
130
155
163
149
205
165
231
(continued)
-------
TABLE D-14,(continued)
ro
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mo
Tb
<20
<20
<20
<20
20
<20
20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
24
<20
Ni
Tb AE
88
94
78
84
88
98
94
78
96
96
80
62
78
72
19
15
18
15
19
14
18
15
25
18
20
15
17
15
17
Pb Zn
Tb AEb Tb AEb
60
66
88
46
72
30
70
44
64
30
62
38
66
22
5.7 --
2.0
— —
5.7
2.8 -
6.0
2.0 —
6.3 -
7.0 —
5.5
3.8
5.5 5.0
2.2 5.0
5.3
1.9 5.0
12
4.3
11
4.2
13
4.2
13
3.6
7.5
2.5
8.5
3.7
13
3.1
As
Tb AE
5.6
<2.0
9.0
<2.0
4.8
<2,0
2.9
3.0
<2.0
4.8
2.1
3.6
<2.0
0.5
0.5
0.6
1.4
0.3
0.4
0.4
Hg Se
T AE T AE
<1.0 0
3.5 0
< 1.0
< l.Q
<1.0 0
<1.0
<1.0 o
<1.0 o
< 1.0
<1.0 0
< 1.0
<1.0 o
<1.0
< 2.0
.09 < 2.0
.05 < 2.0
< 2.0
< 2.0
.05 < 2.0
< 2.0
.05 < 2.0
.05 < 2.0
< 2.0
.05 < 2.0
< 2.0
.05 < 2.0
< 2.0
0.1
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
0.10
(continued)
-------
TABLE CH4 (continued)
co
Site Depth
(cm)
Mo
T*
Ni
,
AE
Pb
Tb
Zn
AEb Tb
AE"
T
As
b AE
Hg Se
T AE T
AE
^Control
1
3
10
30
100
200
300
.All values
D
r
60
<20
60
<20
40
<20
60
<20
40
<20
60
<20
60
<20
in mg/kg
Analyses done on a
N = NO-
-N+KjN
64
44
78
70
90
66
50
58
70
70
46
57
80
52
12
17
3
17
11
12
13
10
10
8
6
19
5
22
12
3
7
13
116
128
138
92
136
116
40
52
44
66
44
46
36
84
24
99
30
87
31
81
29 < 5.0
8.0 —
2.0 —
1.8 -
7.0 --
1.8 -
5.4 <5.0
1 .7 < 5.0
__
4.2 <5.0
1.7 <5.0
12
4.9
14
4.7
11
3.2
11
3.3
1.8
14
1.8
6.4
2.3
8.2
1.5
14
3
10
2
10
4
6
2
8
.0 1.7
.6
.0 1.7
.7
.0 1.7
.4
.0 1.0
.2
.0 0.5
<2.0
5,
.0 0.3
<2.0
2.4 0.4
<2.0
<}.Q <2.0
<1.0<0.05 <2.0
<1.0 <2.0
1.6 0.05 < 2.0
<1.0 <2.0
<1.0 0.08 < 2.0
<1.0 <2.0
<1.0<0.05 <2.0
<1.0 <2.0
<1.0<0.05 < 2.0
<1.0 <2.0
<1.0 0.05 < 2.0
<1.0 <2.0
<1.0 0.05 < 2.0
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
<0.10
unless noted.
composite
.
of three
samples
0
WE = wafer extractive.
T = total.
AE = acid extract! ble.
? EX = exchangeable.
mg/100 gm
-------
TABLE D-15. INDIVIDUAL SOIL ANALYSES,FINAL SAMPLING (SEPTEMBER, 1977)°
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
B
WEC
2.0
2.5
2.8
1.4
2.0
2.0
1.5
1.7
2.0
2.2
2.0
2.0
1.2
1.4
2.0
0.9
1.8
1.7
1.7
2.1
1.0
3.1
1.4
2.1
2.2
1.7
1.1
1.5
Cl
WE
290
250
290
290
207
249
166
145
145
186
124
124
166
166
270
227
186
186
124
103
124
145
124
124
82
145
103
145
F
WE
6
6
4
5
7
5
5
5
8
9
8
8
7
7
9
4
13
10
27
26
20
27
27
27
—
27
27
12
WE
53
76
75
61
62
64
93
45
9
84
13
12
14
26
90
26
27
46
47
-—
3
—
39
75
20
51
39
87
-^ N
i
Td
723
686
996
808
654
937
682
380
348
724
300
221
235
403
715
440
697
781
729
>706
380
>257
338
296
137
200
218
314
b-4
WE
14
9.6
14
31
14
15
11
16
6.2
8.4
< 1.0
< 1.0
< 1.0
0.6
14
13
26
17
—
29
—
31
29
16
10
2.5
--
<1.0
-P P
AE6
404
394
415
424
443
404
300
443
469
235
339
in
206
274
300
300
300
346
267
213
241
261
202
241
130
163
273
2,41
P
Organ! c
T
160
70
80
70
220
200
110
120
50
90
20
80
<20
<20
30
140
80
570
170
70
<20
<20
50
100
420
130
190
<20
WE
91
no
150
140
120
120
45
23
22
22
9
9
12
10
no
80
83
73
120
no
74
160
12
16
18
29
18
41
K
EXf
1680
1520
1740
1790
1670
1660
1220
1100
834
797
885
810
1000
840
1970
2060
1690
1590
1310
1290
1100
1110
651
847
670
627
822
709
Na
WE
280
290
280
270
250
260
210
220
280
360
330
320
300
300
270
210
170
200
300
130
160
210
200
220
260
150
170
240
Ca
AE WE
10100 20
9630 65
10100 77
10600 77
10300 60
9900 66
9450 16
9720 19
8460 17
8370 15
12800 14
12200 13
9000 14
8190 14
2460 28
3600 16
2800 7
2790 19
2780 5
2910 5
2950 3
2860 5
6000 66
4530 50
10000 108
12600 238
10500 100
13600 98
EX
3540
3430
3420
3490
3566
3750
3610
3610
3480
3670
4240
4110
3800
3610
3100
3300
3180
3110
3120
3120
2810
3180
3750
3760
3770
3390
3400
3780
iconrmued)
-------
TABLE D-i5.(continued)
tn
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
T
18000
16000
9800
10800
11000
13600
16000
23000
15000
28400
20800
32600
24000
18800
12400
11200
12200
11200
9800
10800
11000
10800
14800
10800
16200
15000
15400
20800
M<
AE
1340
1370
2200
2110
1730
17X
1990
1950
1880
1800
1940
1810
2050
1820
1560
1060
1260
1390
1080
1270
1230
1450
1230
1250
1210
1140
1360
1370
3.
WE
77
78
84
86
67
72
25
31
27
16
16
14
22
22
65
30
10
25
10
9
8
16
45
28
66
43
50
24
EX
592
735
654
655
652
678
688
619
1050
1130
1000
1090
1600
1070
904
1130
937
938
818
991
742
1020
799
1200
581
432
272
1130
CEC Ag
T AE
26.1 <20<1.0
32.9 <20< .0
26.1 <20< .0
27.7 <20< .0
27.7 <20< .0
31.0 < 20 < .0
24.8 <20< .0
22.8 <20< .0
36.5 <20< .0
36.8 <20< .0
26.1 <20<1.0
3T.3 <20<1.0
32.6 <20<1.0
25.4 <20<1.0
24.8 <20<1.0
26.1 <20<1.0
31.0 <20<1.0
30.0 <20<1.0
24.5 <20<1.0
24.5 <20
-------
TABLE D-15 (continued)
en
Site Depth
(cm)
Test 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Control 1
3
10
30
100
200
300
Mo
T
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
42
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
<20
30
<20
<20
<20
-------
TABLE D-15 (continued)
, All values in mg/kg unless noted.
KjN.
WE * Water extractive.
T = Total.
f AE = Acid extract ible.
EX= Exchangeable.
meg/100 gm.
-------
00
APPENDIX E
STATISTICAL TABLES
TABLE E^l.STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST EFFLUENT AND CONTROL
IRRIGATION WATER
C.T.EFFLUENT • MPN/100 ml •
TC FC
SAMPLES 25
MEAN 57053.30
STi). DEY. 2.44E+05
C.T.EFFLUEHT
Ca
SAMPLtS 21
MtAN 54.71
STJ. OtV. 42.67
25
221 .80
710.43
Hg
24
33.73
15.07
C.C.lHrtlijATluN* Kr>N/100 ml »
TC FC
SAVLfcS 10
MtAN 0.00
STD. Ofcv. 0.00
C.C. IRRIGATION
Ca
SAMPLES 10
MEAN 49.59
STO. DEY. 7.70
1o
0.00
0.00
Hg
12
40.11
16.56
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
TC FC'
H-TEST 75.00
Qll-S^UAfc
T-TtST ioQ
86.00
$80
•LtYtLS of uJ*F 1 OtNOt uF OlFFtrttNCt
Ca Mg
n-TcST >75
CMl-ivUA«£ iN.OO
T-TciT »BO
*7i
SbO
ifau
TOS
21
995.43
130.55
da
22
0.08
0.07
TuS
15
732.67
119.64
8a
12
0.17
0.16
(I)
TOS
99.00
sac
59.00
(»
da
42.00
99.00
95.00
S
25
0.85
0.36
Cd
25
0.02
0.0'
6
12
0.23
0.07
Cd
12
0.01
0.01
B
99.00
99.00
99.00
Cd
S75
9V. 00
48l)
Const ltuent(n
-------
TABLE E-2. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST AND CONTROL
LEACHATEAT50 CM
vo
CTL-50
SAMPLES
Me Aw
STi). OtV.
ca-so
SAMPLES
He AN
STD. DEV.
CCL-50
SAMPLES
MEAN
STD. D£V.
OCL-50
SAMPLES
Hi AN
STU. OcV.
• MPN/100 ml
TC FC
22
41.82
162.05
Ca
12
112.47
79.55
22
0.91
4.17
Mg
It
155.36
180.33
*
TOS
15
1741.07
456. 23
3a
13
0.19
0.17
» MPN/100 ml •
TC FC TOS
19
4.00
11.77
Ca
0
«3.0d
55.75
18
0.00
0.00
«S
10
127.06
78.53
•LtVcLS UF CONrlOtNCt OF DIFFERENCE
TC FC.
H-TEST
CHI-Sg'JArtE
T-TEST
475
99.00
460
475
$80
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
Ca Mg
H-TEST
CHI -SQUARE
T-TEST
$75
95.00
$80
S75
99.00
S80
5
1996.40
221.82
3a
10
0.11
O.Od
(»
TOS
90.00
99.00
$80
(J)
Ba
35.00
99.00
$80
6
13
0.89
0.44
C
12
0.07
0.02
TOO
475
90.00
480
Pb
94.00
99.00
90.00
P04
8
4.78
2.71
Zn
13
0.41
0.35
P04
9
3.81
2.74
Zn
8
0.43
0.16
P04
475
480
460
Zn
475
99.00
480
S04
10
267.10
59.43
As
8
0.01
0.00
S04
9
433.67
117.83
As
9
0.02
0.01
S04
99.00
95.00
99.00
As
81.00
99.00
480
K
13
26.87
7.47
Se
12
0.01
0.00
K
11
15.36
6.15
Se
11
0.02
0.02
K
99.00
80.00
99.00
Se
78.00
99.00
480
Hi
13
246.62
79.53
Na
11
217.00
55.71
Na
475
99.00
(80
4 - LESS THAN
-------
TABLE E-3. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TEST AND CONTROL
LEACHATEAT 100 CM
oo
o
CTL-100
SAMPLES
MEAN
STO. DEV.
CTL-100
SAMPLES
MtAN
STO. oe\r.
CCL-100
SAK^LtS
Mr AN
STO. OtY.
CCL-100
SAMPLES
MtAN
STO. DEV.
» MPN/100 ml •
TC FC
22 21
177.82 0.95
688.80 4.26
Ca Mo
13 13
73.91 120.52
24.73 71.95
• MPN/1CO ml •
TC fC
22 21
84.66 3.81
270.00 7.35
TOS
15
1920.13
352.78
Const ltuent(mg/l)
B
15
1.02
0.54
Cl F
11 11
227.47 0.66
83.54 0.26
N03
10
53.01
15.76
TN
7
47.49
13.60
TOC
13
19.08
6.90
P04
11
2.90
1.94
S04
11
284.09
96.18
K
14
16.09
4.37
Na
14
266.60
118.55
Constituent (ma/ 1 )
SB
10
0 23
0.14
Cd
13
0 02
0.02
Cr Cu
13 13
0.02 0.14
0.02 0.08
Mo
16
0.16
0.10
Nl
13
0.07
0.04
Pb
15
0.09
0.05
Zn
14
0 25
0.24
As
12
0 01
0 00
Se
12
0.01
0.00
Constituent (rag/ 1)
TOS
12
2505.42
536.65
a
12
0.65
0.27
Cl F
10 11
26d.42 0.91
42.32 0.36
K03
6
32.48
20.09
TN
5
34.14
21.84
TOC
9
29.39
18.74
P04
9
3.03
1.68
S04
9
881.44
315.32
K
11
12.44
2.95
Na
8
284.00
107.62
Constituent tag/ 1)
Ca Mg
9 9
195.03 134.71
69.98 69.91
Ba
7
0.22
0.18
Cd
12
0.02
0.01
•LEVaS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE (*)
H-TEST
CHI -SQUARE
T-TEST
TC FC
§75 85.00
99.00 99.00
$80 80.00
TOS
99.00
}80
99.00
B
97.00
99.00
95.00
•LEVaS OF CuNFIDtNCe OF OlFFErttNCt (J)
rt-TtiT
CMl-SwUMt
T-TtST
Ca Mg
99.00 $75
99.00 SeO
99.00 SOU
Ba
$75
sao
»ao
Cd
*75
99.00
$tO
Cr Cu
11 11
0.05 0.13
0.03 0.06
/ PAGE
C! F
96.00 93.00
99.00 580
90.00 90 00
/ PA3E
Cr Cu
94.00 $75
90.00 80.00
90.00 $oO
Mo
12
0.10
0.01
Nl
9
0.05
0.04
Pb
12
0.13
0.04
Zn
11
0.59
0.33
As
9
0.01
0.01
Se
10
0.01
0.00
1 7-/5/7B
N03
96.00
{80
90.00
TN
77.00
$30
S80
TOC
83.00
99.00
90.00
P04
175
$80
ISO
S04
99.00
99.00
99.00
K
98.00
99.00
95.00
Na
$75
$80
580
2 7/5/78
Ho
97.00
99.00
90.00
Nl
62.00
$80
$80
Pb
93.00
180
90.00
Zn
99.00
560
99.00
As
575
90.00
580
Se
575
160
> - LtiS TnAN
-------
o>
TABLE E-4. MEAN AND STANDARD DEVIATION OF TEST LEACHATE
,AT.300CM=
CTL-JOO
SMPLES
•'•CAN
STO. DtV.
CTL-300
SAMPLES
MtAN
sTJ. i£V.
• HPN/100 nl »
TC
14
14.29
51.51
FC
14
5. CO
18.03
TOS
10
1719.20
456.23
a
12
1.12
0.40
Const ltuent("ic/l>
Cl
10
220. SO
3'. 36
f :o3
7 a
1.04 62.15
0.56 22.31
TN
6
63.63
20 05
TOC
a
11 .19
8.35
f>04
9
0.20
o.ia
S04
10
246.00
64.29
K Na
12 11
11.61 300.09
5.06 95.60
Constituent(-c/l)
Ca
9
82.81
14.2!
*9
9
173 SO
90.26
3a
10
0.09
0.06
Cd
'1
o.ct
0 01
Cr
'2
0 05
0 06
Cu Vo
12 9
0 '0 0.32
o ya o.i'
Nl
'2
O-'O
0 M
Pt>
12
0 05
0 03
Zn
12
0 03
0 07
As
9
0 01
0 00
Se
11
0 01
0 00
-------
TABLE E-5. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TOP LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 1 AND 2.
CO
ro
CTK-2-T • MPN/100 ml «
TC fC
SAMPLES 20
MEAN 820.00
bTJ. OtV. 3482. dd
CT»-2-T
Ca
SAiVLtS 10
MtAN 204.33
ST0. DEV. 52.12
20
0.00
0.00
Mg
11
166.38
64.54
CTH-1-T • MPN/100 ml *
TC FC
SAMPLES 18
MEAN 0.00
STD. DEV. 0.00
CTW-1-T
Ca
SAMPLES 9
MEAN 178.40
STO. OEV. 63. Ob
18
0.00
0.00
Mq
8
72.62
32.02
•LtVtLi or CuNF 1 OcNCc uF DIFFERENCE
TC FC •
H-TtiT *75
CHt-SvUAKt
T-TtST ieO
•LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
C8 Mg
H-TtST S75
CHI-SOUARE sao
T-TEST $80
99.00
99.00
99.00
TOS
19
3232.00
362.61
Ba
10
0.12
0.07
TOS
19
3004.16
458.29
3a
10
0.13
0.10
()>
TOS
90.00
560
60.00
(*)
8a
575
80.00
$80
a
12
0.67
0.30
Cd
13
0.02
0.01
3
12
0.88
0.41
Cd
15
0 02
0.01
d
63.00
seo
60.00
Cd
575
580
»eo
Const ltuent(mq/l )
Cl F " N03
14
462.86
6S.23
10 10
1.27 50.87
0.33 5.92
ConsTituent(mg/l )
Cr Cu Mo
10
0.04
0.03
11 11
0.07 0.09
0.03 0.03
Const ltuent(mc/l )
Cl F " N03
15
261.37
20.24
11 10
1.02 39.90
0.39 5.22
Constituent (no/ 1 J
Cr Cu Mo
12
0 09
0.08
Cl
99.00
9i.OO
99.00
Cr
S5.00
99.00
90.00
12 11
0.04 0.17
0 02 0.09
TN
10
51.93
6.77
Ni
10
0.10
0.06
TN
9
41.28
5.95
NI
10
0.10
0.06
/ PAGt 1 V5/76
F N03 TN
85.00 99.00
S63 S&O
ou.OO 9S.OJ
99.00
$80
99.00
/ PAGE 2 V5/78
Cu Mo Ni
97.00 98.00
99.00 99.00
95.00 95.00
J75
S80
S80
TOC
9
11.94
10.39
Pb
11
0.10
0.05
TOC
12
8.96
6.13
Pb
13
0.09
0.04
TOC
S75
99.00
$80
Pb
575
90.00
S60
P04
9
0.39
0.3&
Zn
11
0.06
0.02
P04
12
0.40
0.50
Zn
13
0.05
0.02
P04
S75
60.00
S60
Zn
S75
580
seo
S04
10
930.80
122.05
As
9
0.01
0.00
S04
12
1378.83
328.32
As
9
0.01
0.00
S04
99.00
99.00
99.00
As
S75
99.00
}80
K
11
5.21
0.56
Se
9
0.01
0.00
K
12
11.53
2.87
Se
10
0 .01
0.00
K
99. 00
99.03
99.00
Se
Na
11
257.87
60.21
Na
12
288.41
76.74
Ha
575
580
580
5 - LESS THAN
-------
TABLE E-6. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN BOTTOM LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 1 AND 2
CTH-2-B
SAMPLES
MEAN
STD. OEV.
CTW-2-8
SAMPLES
ME AM
STD. 0€V.
CTW-1-3
SAM^LtS
KtAN
iTJ. uev.
CTn-1-b
SAMr-LtS
ft AN
STO. 0£V.
• MPK/100 ml •
TC
17
5454.12
21636.58
Ca
9
199.00
38.84
FC
17
0.00
0.00
Mg
10
175.69
67.61
TOS
18
3330.50
364.36
Ba
9
0.12
0.06
B
10
0.31
0.25
CO
10
0.02
0.01
• * - LtSS THAN
-------
TABLE E-7. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN TOP LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 1 AND 3
oo
CTW-3-T
SAMPLES
MEAN
STO. OEV.
CTX-3-T
SAMPLES
KtAN
STO. OtV.
CTW-1-T
SAMPLES
MEAN
STO. OtV.
CTW-1-T
SAVPLES
MEAN
STD. 0£V.
• MPN/100 ml «
TC FC
19
331 .05
1197.02
Ca
9
190.46
40.30
19
0.00
0.00
Mg
11
260.16
136.09
» MPN/100 ml •
TC FC
18
0.00
0.00
Ca
9
178.40
63.06
18
0.00
0.00
Mg
8
72.62
32.02
*L£VfcLS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE
TC FC
H-TtST
T-TtST
77.00
$60
•LfcVtLS OF CONFIDENCE OF OlFFtKcNCE
Ca Mg
M-TEST
CHl-SOUASE
T-TtST
$75
80.00
$80
99.00
99.00
99.00
TOS
18
3916 22
312.86
da
10
0.14
0.07
TOS
19
3004.16
458.29
Ba
10
0.13
0.10
C»
TOS
99.00
90.00
99.00
(»
Ba
$75
60.00
$80
a
12
0.99
0.41
Cd
13
0.02
0.02
8
12
0.83
0.41
Cd
15
0.02
0.01
a
$75
$60
$60
Cd
$75
9*. 00
$80
Const ltuent(mg/l>
Cl F N03
13
358.03
74.69
10 10
1.23 52.84
0.42 9.40
Const ltuent(mg/l )
Cr Cu Mo
10
0.07
0.08
11 10
0.06 0.22
0.03 0.12
Const ltuent(mg/l )
Cl F N03
15
261 .87
20.24
11 10
1.02 39.90
0.39 5.22
Constltuent(ng/l )
Cr Cu Vo
12
0.09
0.08
Cl
99.00
5*. 00
99.00
Cr
$75
$30
$80
12 11
0.04 0.17
0.02 0.09
TN
10
53.90
8.89
Nl
10
0.10
0.06
TN
9
41.28
5.95
Ni
10
O.'O
0.06
/ PA3E 1 7/5/78
F N03 TN
75.00 99.00
$80 99.00
$60 99.00
99.00
99.00
99.00
/ PAGc 2 7/5/76
Cu Mo Nl
85.00 76.00
95.00 80.00
GO. 00 $80
$75
$80
$80
TOC
10
12.97
8.52
Pb
11
0.11
0.05
TOC
12
8.96
6.13
Pb
13
0 09
0.04
TOC
7d.OO
95.00
$80
Pb
$75
99.00
$80
P04
11
0.47
0.47
Zn
11
0.05
0.02
P04
12
0.40
0.50
Zn
13
0.05
0.02
P04
$75
$30
$30
Zn
$75
80.00
$80
S04
11
1643.73
358.92
As
10
0.01
0.00
S04
12
1378.83
328.32
As
9
0.01
0 00
S04
93.00
$80
90.00
As
$75
90.00
$80
K Na
11 11
4.65 301.65
1 04 73.45
Se
0.01
0.00
K Na
12 12
11.63 238.41
2.87 76.74
Se
10
0.01
0.00
K Na
99.00 $75
99.00 $60
9*. 00 $60
Se
$ - LESS THAN
-------
TABLE E-8. STATISTICAL COMPARISON BETWEEN BOTTOM LEVELS OF TEST
WELLS 1 AND 3
00
01
CTX-3-B
iAHrt.ES
Me AN
STD. DEV.
CTW-3-B
SA.Vrt.ES
H£AN
STO. DEV.
CTW-1-B
SAMPLES
MdAN
STO. OEV.
'CTrf-1-tf
SANi'LtS
MEAN
STO. UEV.
• MPN/100 ml •
TC
1b
412.22
871.33
Ca
8
189.95
33.86
FC
13
1.11
4.58
Mg
9
295.30
141.73
TOS
15
4001 .60
247.80
3a
9
0.16
0.07
d
10
1.05
0.36
Cd
• j
0.02
0.01
• HPN/100 ml •
TC
17
0.00
0.00
Ca
9
165.67
29.22
'LEVaS OF CONFIDENCE OF 0!
M-TEST
CHI -SQUARE
T-TEST
TC
95.00
90.00
FC
17
0.00
0.00
Mg
B
242.86
105.95
FFERENCE (
FC
$75
$80
TOS
17
3523.59
395.23
da
&
0.13
O.US
a
10
1.14
0.43
Cd
11
0.03
0.02
Const ltuent(ng/l)
Cl F N03
10 9 9
365.B7 1.C8 44.29
25.51 0.47 7.60
Const ltuenttmg/1)
Cr Cu '-to
899
0.03 0.07 0.23
0.02 0.04 0.09
Constituent (no/ 1)
Cl F N03
11 11 9
296.57 1 27 33 22
43 64 0.42 6.73
Constituent (ma/I)
Cr Cu HO
10 d 10
0.10 0.05 0.19
0.12 0.02 O.uS
TN
9
45.59
7.98
HI
9
0.10
0.06
TN
9
38 64
6.70
HI
8
0.10
0.07
TOC
9
13 50
10.94
Pb
to
0.12
0.05
TOC
8
10 29
4 14
Pb
11
0.09
0.06
P04
10
0.60
0.60
Zn
10
0.08
0.06
P04
11
0 28
0.30
Zn
11
0.07
0.04
S04
9
1586.11
2d2.19
As
9
0.01
0.00
S04
8
1386 25
263 98
As
9
0.01
0.00
K
10
5.19
1.14
Se
9
0.01
0.00
K
10
8.59
4 .97
Se
9
0.01
0.00
») / PAGE 1 7/5/76
TOS
99.00
90.00
99.00
8
$75
$60
$80
'LEVaS OF CONFIDENCE OF DIFFERENCE <})
H-TEST
Cril -SQUARE
T-TEST
Ca
88.00
$80
80.00
Mg
$75
80.00
$80
3a
$75
$80
iao
Cd
ei.oo
99.00
$80
Cl F N03-
99.00 $75 92.00
80.00 $80 $80
99.00 $80 80.00
TN
95.00
$80
90.00
TOC
$75
99.00
$60
?04
88.00
99.00
80.00
S04
86.00
$80
80.00
/ PAGE 2 7/5/73
Cr Cu Mo
93 00 $75 75.00
99.00 99 00 $80
80.00 $80 $80
Si
$T5
$80
$80
Pb
$75
$30
$80
Zn
$75
95 00
$80
As
$75
99.00
$80
K
96.00
99.00
90.00
Se
Na
9
294.00
73.97
Na
11
293 85
82.51
Ma
$75
$80
$80
$ - LtSS THAN
-------
APPENDIX F
GRAPHIC EVALUATION OF THE WATER ANALYSES
CO
4000
2000
"i n
0
o
\
Z
Q_
2
~ 30
E 40
o
«-
•- n
o
U
0
o
o
20
10
0
Irrigation Water
20
10
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
1.0
0.5
5 10 15 °'°
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
50 cm Leachate
20
10
5 10 15
Tims (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
1.0
^^°*^ .
0.5
r\ n
5 10 15 °-°
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
•
5 10 15
Tima(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream.
•
•
^
5 10 15
Time (months)
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-l . Test and control fecal coliform analyses in trrigatien,
leachate, and well water.
Test i , (t) Control. ., (c)
Upper— — — Lower—)(—
-------
CO
E
o
0
Z
a.
E
o
U
o
*-
o
106
5 x 105
1
200
100
o
2 x 104
4
10
0
Irrigation Water
900
450
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
1.0
0.5
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•MHB^MHV JC ^MW
50 cm Leachate
1000
500
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
105
5 x 104
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
5 10 '15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
. *»
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure
5 10 15
Time (months)
F-2 . Test and control site total col I form analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water.
Test. , (t) Control (c)
Upper —. — — Lower _»)(_
-------
CO
CD
500
— , 0
o>
E
VI
•o
"o* 3000
-------
00
\o
1.0
0 5
OA
.0
•—• *
V.
o>
E
"W
2
1
o
c
o
o
2
1
n
Irrigation Water
2
1
• . ^™«.«» 0
5 10 15
Time(monrhs)
300 cm Leachate
1.0
0.0
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
»
•s**
50 cm Lenchate
1.0
0 ,.
5 10 15 °-°
Time(months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
— -x-~
^ 0.5
1 ,j. -. 0.0
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
b
5 10 15
7ime(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
— X-^*
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test and control sfte.boron analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water.
—.-, (t) Control ..... / (c)
Upper — — . — LoYter—x—
-------
UD
O
200
inn
IUU
~ 0
o>
E
300
150
-o
o
.c
u
700
350
Irrigation Water
^^ 400
5 10 15
Time (months)
300 cm Leachate
500
250
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
=^X—
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
400
. . • ' 200
5 10 15
Time(months)
Tsst Weii 1 - On Site
900
— — X— """"
""— — ~ •*""""* 450
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
***** ^
^
5^ 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test . ft) Control
Figure F-5 . Test and control site chloride analyses in iMgal-ion,
leachate,and well water.
Upper— _ «. Lower -^)(—.
, (c)
-------
o>
E
3.0
i e
1 ,3
o n
,2
1
0
2
1
0
Irrigation Water
1.0
- n s
"•".
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
i.o
• ' • b 00
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
-*^
50 cm Leachate
2
1
0
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
X" 2
, , „ 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
— — x«-»
5 10 15
Time (months)
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-6 . Test and control site fluoride analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Test , (t) Control , (c)
Upper— — — Lower __)( _
-------
10
O)
— •
itrogen
Z
r
o
Z
10
5
0
100
50
0
80
40
0
Irrigation Water
100
^^ 50
r)
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
50
^x-^ 25
0
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
^=i
50 cm Leachate
100
77T. *
• • ' - n 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
90
45
0
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
. -^___
5 10 '15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
— X—
5 10 15
Time (months)
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-7 Test and control site nitrate-nitrogen analyses in irrigation,
leachate, and well water.
Test.. / (t) Control t (c)
Upper— — — Lower—jf—«
-------
to
CO
30
15
0
o>
80
c
o 40
0)
o
^ 0
o
0
t-
80
40
0
Irrigation Water
80
40
. 0
50 cm Leachate
50
^^ 25
100 cm Leachate
•
rrr:
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Tima(months) Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
50
"" 25
j - 0
Test Well 1 - On Site
' =1=
45
n
Test Well 2 - Downstream
—X—
*
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Timefmonths) Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
=^=
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-8 . Test ancT control site total nitrogen analyses in irrigation,
Jeachate, and well water.
Test , (t) Control...... (c)
Upper— — — Lower—,)(—•
-------
60
30
0
o>
~
c 30
o
_Q
0 .,
0
C Q
O
0>
o
o
£ 40
20
0
Irrigation Water
70
!77 35
• , , 0
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
30
15
0
50 cm Leachate
40
, n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
50
X^ 25
. . n
100 cm Leachate
*
• • "
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
S
^—
5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time (months) Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
' «*>
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-9 . Test and control site total organic carbon analyses In irrigation,
leachate, and well water.
——, (t-) Control f (c)
Upper— — — Lower—.)(—.
-------
vo
tn
20
10
• V
0
D)
E
M 0.8
3
O
VI
O
_c
°- 0.0
o
a.
M
O
£ 2
1
0
Irrigation Water
10
5
*S
"*" n
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
2
1
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
==-4^
50 cm Leachate
6
«*
n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Wei 11 - On Site
2
1
• ,,"*"f . n,n
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
X
5 10 15
Time(months)
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-10. Test and control site phosphate phosphorus analyses
in irrigation, leachate, and well water.
Test , (t) Control , (c)
Upper—. _ — Lower_a.^a«>
-------
300
150
0
^^
^.
TO
w
400
200
• 0
.2
3
lA
2000
1000
0
irrigation Water
400
• • 200
_ . . ... . . , n
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
2000
• - 1000
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
.
— X
»
• • • 1
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
2000
. . • • * 1000
n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
1000
500
,., , ! „„„ 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
.
54 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
^ss
•
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test , (t) Control ,
Figure F -11. Test and control site sulfate anaFyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
(c)
Upper— _ _ Lower—v—.
-------
30
15
~" 0
V.
O)
20
10
? 0
M
M
O
O
Irrigation Water
50
25
?
5 10 15
Time (months)
300 cm Leachate
10
^^^^. 5
-— -• • ,, , 0
5 10 15
Time(months)
50 cm Leachate
20
•~7 . . . . . 10
n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Welll - On Site
^fe* 8
4
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
'
'
5 10 '15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
r^2r^
5 10 15
Time (months)
10
5
0
Test Well 3 - Downstream
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure p-12 . Test and contra f site potassium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Test f (t) Control , (c)
Upper— — ~ Lower_2f~*.
-------
00
500
250
o
^^
^
0)
500
50
0
£
3
Irrigation Water
400
•^___
t n
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Lftachate
400
200
n
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
1000
— — 500
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
400
200
n
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
* • • • • •
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
5 10 15
Time (months)
•
o
400
200
Test Well 3 - Downstream
5 TO 15
Time (months)
i iiua \iiiumii3/
Figure F-13. Test and control site sodium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Test i, (t) Control , (c)
Upper— — — Lower _x__
-------
10
vo
100
50
n
\
o>
^
100
50
E °
u
o
Irrigation Water
300
150
_•„._..... 0
10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Loachate
400
200
i_- . 0
5 10 15
Time(months)
50 cm Leachate
300
^ 150
,,."<*,,*.... n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
300
-»*. 150
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
• .
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
— """"
5 10 15
Time(months)
300
150
Test Well 3 - Downstream
5 TO 15
Time (months)
Figure F-14 . Test and control site calcium analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Test , (t) Control , (c)
Upper— — — Lower—x—
-------
90
45
^ 0
Irrigation Water
300
50 cm Leachate
300
"^^ 150
*
100 cm Leachate
•
; ^-^
\ 5 10 15 5 10 15 5 10 15
ra Time(months) Time(months) Time(months)
300
150
S E
.2 0
M
c
O)
D
600
300
0
300 cm Leachate
400
^X^ 200
Test Welll - On Site
600
f^ 300
«
5 10 15 5 10 15
Time(months) Time (months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
as:
5 10 15
Time (months)
•
• • i
5 10 15
Timo (months)
Test.
Figure F-15 . Test and control site magnesium analyses in irrigation, leachate, Upper
and well water.
_, (t) Control , (c)
— — Lower—«v—
-------
ro
o
1.0
0.5
^ 0.0
0)
0.2
0.1
E 0.0
0
CD
0.30
0.15
0.00
Irrigation Water
0.4
0.2
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0,4
^^^~ 0.2
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
• • i
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
0.70
0.35
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.30
,. 0.15
5 10 15 °-°
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
.
—
• • • • •
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
=*•=
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-16. Test and control site barium analyses In irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Upper— — — Lower..— jf—.
-------
0.04
0.02
~ 0.00
o>
^E
0.030
.015
S E
2 0.000
E
TJ
o
O
0.030
0.015
0.000
Irrigation Water
0.04
* , 0.02
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.050
- .1 - ..,., , . 0 025
. . , n nnn
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
0.02
*• r-. . o.oi
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.08
n nn
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
^"S&
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test.. ft) Control
Figure F-17 . Test and control site cadmium analyses in irrigation/ leachate,
and well water.
Upper— — — Lower __)(.-•.
, (c)
-------
0.08
0.04
_ 0.00
o
~
0.2
ro *
0
OO
E 0.0
3
"i
o
&•
.c
0.06
0.03
0.00
Irrigation Water
0.04
• ^ 0.02
ft nn
51 A 1C'
IU IO
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.2
0.1
00
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
^*s
50 cm Leachate
0.10
.^^^^ 0.05
* 0 00
51 A 1C
10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.10
n nn
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
• ^^^*
*
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
^
5 10 15
Time (months)
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-1& Test and control site chromium analyses In irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Test , (t) Control , (c)
Upper— ... — Lower—.)(—
-------
ro
o
1.0
0.5
0.0
o>
E
0.4
0.2
0.0
Q.
O.
O
U
0.2
0.1
0.0
Irrigation Water
' ••••' 0.6
•— o.3
, i ..... 0 0
5 10 15
Time (months)
300 cm Leachate
0.090
0.045
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
^1*—
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
0.3
0.15
**-
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
,, 0.10
0.05
n nn
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
,
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
^
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test— . M Control
Figure F-19. Test and control site copper analyses In irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
, (c)
Upper— —. — Lower—x—
-------
ro
0)
£
0.6
0.3
On
•v/
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.2
0.1
0.0
Irrigation Water
0.30
0.15
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.2
• ^-^^_ o.i
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
5 '10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
0.2
'*"'•• oo
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.2
- x OJ
. o,0
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
'
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
. — * —
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-20. Test and control site lead analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Upper— — — Lower—x—"
-------
no
0.2
0.1
0.0
D>
0.6
E
c 0.3
o
•o
^_ 0 0
o
0.50
0.25
0.00
Irrigation Water
09
.£.
o.i
• — - 00
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.30
— ...,. _ o 15
5 10 15 °-°°
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
k
V
50 cm Leachate
' 0.10
,._i ........ o on
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.10
0 OS
A_ o 00
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
=-Jt=5
5 10 15
Time (months)
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-21. Test and control site molybdenum analyses In irrigation,
leachate, and well water.
Test- M , (0 Control
Upper—. — — Lower— )
, (c)
-------
ro
o
6
3
V.
o>
*-
0.50
0.25
U 0.00
o
Z
0.0
0.1
0.0
Irrigation Water
0.30
0.15
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^_^ /\ /\/\
. • ... . . . t 0.00
51 rt 1C
10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.2
0.1
n n
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
—7^
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
0.30
0.15
* ^^^^^^^» f\ /\/\
, -jr 0.00
5»1 f\ 1 c
10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.2
^^•7^; o.i
,„,_ . oo
5 10 15
Time(months)
100 cm Leachate
•
* * . * *
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
=--*.-=-
* •
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-22 . Test and control site nickel analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Upper— — — Lower— jf—
, (c)
-------
1.0
0.5
0.0
o>
0.30
0.15
o
CO
0.00
u
c
N
0.2
0.1
0.0
Irrigation Water
1.0
-_ ' 0.5
... ff
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.10
0.05
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
•
^
5 10 15
Time (months)
50 cm Leachate
1.0
^ 0.5
• ._... L_. ...... n n
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.10
A nn
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
•
'*'••.
•""
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
•
— ta
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test . M Control
Figure F-23. Test and control site zinc analyses In irrigation,, leachate,
and well water.
Upper— — — Lower—.)£—•
-------
0.030
0.015
0 010
\
o>
^e
0.02
_ , n M
no u.ui
o
VO
0.00
c
o
Irrigation Water
0.02
1
n nn
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.030
n nno
5 10 15
Time(months)
50 cm Leachate
0.02
. . . n nn
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
0.02
Oni
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
• ^™^i^™^*
5 10 15
Time (months)
Test Well 3 - Downstream
0.010
0.005
0.000
5 '10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-24 . Test and control site arsenic analyses in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Test , fr) Control , (c)
Upper— — — Lower—)f—
-------
o>
E
c
4)
.010
0.005
0 000
0.02
.01
0.00
Irrigation Water
0.01
0 00
5 10 15
Time(months)
300 cm Leachate
0.010
0.000
5 10 15
Time(months)
50 cm Leachate
0.02
0.01
. n eft
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 1 - On Site
=S= 0.02
0.01
n nn
5 10 15
Time (months)
100 cm Leachate
5 10 15
Time(months)
Test Well 2 - Downstream
-PC--
5 10 15
Time(months)
0.010
0.005
0.000
Test Well 3 - Downstream
5 10 15
Time (months)
Figure F-25 . Test and control site selenium analysis in irrigation, leachate,
and well water.
Test , (t) Control , (c)
Upper— — — Lower—.)(—
-------
APPENDIX G
AGRICULTURAL BALANCE TABLES
TABLE G-.1. TEST SITE WATER BALANCE, 1971-1978
ro
Precipitation
Item
lotal
Avg.
Year Total
19 (cm)
T~ B
78 9 16
77 29
76 28
75 21
74 36
73 39
72 28
71 24
205
29
Effective0
(cm)
C
12
23
22
17
29
31
22
19
163
23
Total
(1000 cu m)
D
NA
279
281
225
242
240
273
253
1,793
256
Irrigation
Tota|b
(cm)
E'
NA
174
176
141
152
150
171
158
1,122
160
Effective0
(cm)
F
NA
164
165
133
143
141
161
149
1,056
151
Total
Effective
Water
(cm)
G6
NA
187
187
150
172
172
183
168
1,219
174
Average
Evapo-
transpira-j
tions (cm)
H
NA
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
714
102
Average
Leachate
(cm)
lf
NA
85
85
48
70
70
31
66
505
72
Test Area; 16 ha
Total
effluent irrigated area;
182 ha
i Runoff coefficient is percent precipitation lost through surface runoff. Runoff coefficient = 0.2.
Estimated values.
, Irrigation efficiency is the percent of the total applied which is not lost to runoff. Irrigation efficiency = 94%(estimated).
Source: 7»
J G = C + F.
I = G-H.
January only (not included in averages).
-------
TABLE G-2. CONTROL SITE WATER BALANCE, 1971-1978
ro
ro
Year
19
Item A
Total
Avg.
Area:
78y
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
20 ha
Precipitation Irrigation
Total Effective** Totaf Totalb
(cm) (cm) (1000 cu m) (cm)
B C D E
16
29
23
21
36
39
28
24
205
29
12
23
22
17
29
31
22
19
163
23
303
294
278
340
335
297
306
2,153
308
151
147
139
170
167
147
153
1,074
153
Effective0
(cm)
F
150
146
138
168
165
146
151
1,064
152
Total
Effective
Water
(an)
G
173
168
155
197
196
168
170
1,227
175
Average
Evapo- Average
transpira-. Leachafe
Hons (cm) (cm)
H |f
102
102
102
102
102
102
102
714
102
71
66
53
95
94
66
68
513
73
k Runoff coefficient is percent of precipitation lost through surface runoff. Runoff coefficient; 0.2.
Estimated value.
j Irrigation efficiency is the percent of the total applied which is not lost to runoff. Irrigation Efficiency =99%.
Source: 7^
a I=G-H-'
January only (not Included in averages).
Note: All numbers are rounded off to the nearest whole numbers.
-------
TABLE G-3. TEST SITE ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USED AND NUTRIENT SUPPLIED IN
THE IRRIGATION-WATER 19&5-7R
co
Year Precipitation0
19
crop)d yr.)
Item A B C
78 e 8 16
77 15 29
76 14 28
75 10 21
74 18 36
73 19 39
72 14 28
71 12 24
70 21 42
69 27 54
68 12 24
67 23 46
66 13 26
65 23 47
Total 229 460 1
Avg. 18 35
jCamarillo Fire Station weather
ifte farmer.
Irrigation Total Water
(cm/ (cm/ (cm/ (cm/
crop) yr) crop)* yr)
D E Ff G9
87
88
70
76
75
85
79
70
76
75
85
79
70
,015
78
data*
174
176
141
152
150
171
158
141
151
150
170
158
141
2,033
156
102
102
80
94
94
99
91
91
103
87
108
92
93
1,236
95
204
204
162
188
189
198
182
183
206
174
216
184
188
2,478
191
—•-i-
N
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
_- - — —
Fertilizer Value in Effluent Irrigation*
fag/l) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
P K N Ph K N P. K
H lh j'
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
January only,
F = B + D
^Estimated to be same as existing irrigation water. 8G~'
Based on two crops/year.
C+E
20
20
20
20
2C
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
217
220
175
190
188
213
197
176
190
188
213
198
176
2,541
20 195
•j:
Note
DxH
Ex H
: All
lit l*Al
87
88
70
76
75
85
79
71
76
75
85
79
71
1,017 2
78
numbers
n M* ivvtWn i
174 435
176 440
140 350
152 380
150 375
171 425
158 395
141 352
152 380
150 375
170 425
155 395
141 352
,029 5,079
156 391
rounded off
174 348
176 352
140 280
152 304
150 300
170 340
158 316
141 282
152 304
150 300
170 340
158 310
141 282
2,033 4,058
156 312
to nearest
-------
ro
TABLE G-4.
CONTROL SITE ESTIMATED TOTAL WATER USED AND NUTRIENT SUPPLIED
_ , IN THE, IRRIGATION WATER. 19f&-7fi
n h
Year Precipitation Irrigation Total Water Fertilizer
•jo
(cm/ (cm/ (cm/ (cm/ (cm/ (cm/ (m£/l)
crop)0 yr) crop)* yr ) crop)0 yr) N P K
Item A BCDEFG3 H
78e
77
76
75
74
73
72
71
70
69
68
67
66
65
8
15
14
11
18
19
14
12
21
27
12
23
13
23
Total 230
Avg.
• Weather data:
Site farmer.
c
j Estimated to be
18
16
29
28
21
36
39
28
24
42
54
24
46
26
47
460 1,
35
Camarillo Fire
same
75 151
73 147
69 139
85 170
83 167
73 147
77 153
73 145
78 156
85 169
79 158
81 162
73 145
004 2,009
77 155
Station.
90
87
80
103
103
87
89
93
105
97
102
94
96
1,226
94
as existing irrigation water.
180
175
160
206
206
175
177
187
210
193
204
188
192
2,453
189
fF
9 G
h 1
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
13
= B+ D
>=C+E
= DxH
2
2
3
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1
8
i j =
Note
Value in Control
(ka/ho/crop)0
N P. K
lh
98 9
95 9
91 8
111 10
114 10
95 9
99 9
95 9
101 10
UO 9
103 10
105 9
95 9
,312 120
101 9
Ex H
72
70
64
83
83
70
71
75
84
77
81
75
77
982
76
Irrigation
(ks/ha/yr)
N P K
J1
196
191
181
221
217
191
199
189
203
220
205
211
189
2,613
201
: All numbers rounded off
18 144
17 140
16 128
20 165
20 165
17 140
18 142
19 150
21 168
19 154
20 163
19 150
19 154
243 1,963
19 151
to nearest
Based on two crops/year,
January only.
whole number.
-------
TABLE G-5. TEST SITE NUTRIENT BALANCE AND VALUE, 1965-77
ro
en
Year
19
Crop
Fertiliser
Useda
Fertilizer
Applied0
Recommended
Fertilizer
Fertilizer
Cosl13
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/^rop) (kg/ha/yr) ($/ha/£rop) ($Aa/yr)
NPK NPKNPK
1 II Ml IV V VI VII VIII IX
65 Tomato 17 27 0 560 90 *
Broccoli 11 48 0 392 150 21
26 14 0 449 1,401
66 Tomato
Broccoli
H
67 Tomato
Broccoli
68 Tomato
Broccoli
69 Tomato
Broccoli
70 Tomato
Broccoli
u
i
1
50 60 1 08
50 0 108
240 280 60 76 292
i
-
(continued)
-------
TABLE <5-5 (continued)
ro
Year
19
Crop
Fertilizer
Used"
K
N P
III
Fertilizer Recommended Fertilizer
Applied Fertilizer Cost
c d c d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kgAq/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kgAVy) ($Aa/crop) ($/h°/yr)
N P K N P K
IV V VI VII VIII IX
71 Tomato 12 27 0 56
Broccoli 11 48 0 39
Broccoli 24 14 0 4-
72 Tomato
Broccoli
u
73 Tomato
Broccoli
u
74 Tomqto
Broccoli
n
75 Tomato
Broccoli
H
0 90 3(
2 150 25C
9 1 ,401
76 Tomato 12 27 0 560
Broccoli 11 48 0 392
26 14 0 449
77 Tomato 12 27 0 560
Broccoli 11 48 0 449
" 26 14 0 449 1.4
58
) 60 108
) 0 108
240 280 60 76 292
i
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-S(continued)
ro
Year Crop Fertilizer Fertilizer
19 Used" Applied0
*"™^"™ fo/ \
1Q Q
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K
1 II III IV V
Total 18,270
Avg. 1,405
1 ' -=zi_- is:
Recommended Fertilizer
Fertilizer Cost0
e d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) ($Aa/crop) ($/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
VI VII VIII IX
3,120 3,640 780 3,796
240 280 60 292
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-5 (continued)
co
Fertilizer Nutrients in
Year Nutrlentsb Effective Irrigation Water*-
19 c d c d
(kg/Wcrop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
NPKNP KNPK NPK
X XI XII XIII
65 67 151 0 156
43 188 0 155
108 63 0 218402 0
66
67
68
69
70
186
186
200
199
177
176
179
178
63 125
62 124
75 146
74 145
80 160
80 160
71 141
70 141
72 143
71 143
311
372
399
353
125 249
149 291
160 320
141 282
Value of Nutrient
in Irrigation'3
ft/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
NPKNP
IV XV
103
102
123
123
132
131
117
116
118
118
42
41
49
49
53
53
46
47
47
47
82
82
96
96
105
106
93
93
95
94
357 143 286
166
165
66 133
67 132
331
133 265
109
109
44
44
88
87
205
246
263
233
236
218
83
98
106
?3
94
88
K
164
192
211
186
189
175
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-5,(continued)
ro
10
Fertilizer
Nutrients In
A
Year Nutrients'3 Effective Irrigation Water"
19 c d
c
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/Wyr) (kg/ha/crop)
N P K N P K N
X XI
71 67 151 0 186
43 188 0 187
108 (
72
73
74
75
76
3 0 21 8 402 0
202
201
177
176
179
178
167
166
207
, 206
77 67 151 0
49216 0 205
108 63 0 205
224 430 0
Total 2,8305,251 0
Avg. 218402 0
P
XII
75
74
81
80
71
70
72
71
67
66
83
82
82
82
K
149
149
161
161
141
141
143
143
133
133
165
165
164
163
d
0a/yr)
N P
XIII
J73 149
403 161
353 141
357143.
333 133
413 165
410 164
4,765 1,5(7
367 147
K
298
322
282
286
266
330
328
3,805
293
Value of
Nutrient
in Irrigation
c
ft/ha/crop)
N P
IV
123 48
123 48
133 53
133 53
117 47
116 46
118 47
118 47
110 44
110 44
137 55
136 54
136 54
135 54
K
98
97
107
106
?3
93
95
94
88
88
109
109
108
108
N
246
266
233
236
220
273
271
2,620
200
d
($/ha/yr)
P
XV
98
106
93
94
88
109
108
1,041 2
80
K
197
213
186
189
176
218
216
,078
160
(continued)
-------
Total Nutrient
Supplied
c
Nutrient Uptake
by Crop
Nutrient Removal by Leachate
Year (kg/ha/crop)
-------
TABLE ,G-5 (continued)
ro
ro
Year
19__N
72 269
352
73 244
327
74 246
329
75 234
317
76 274
357
77 272
362
Total
Avg.
c
Total Nutrient
Supplied
d
(Icg/ha/crop)
E
XVh9
232
331
222
321
223
322
218
317
234
333
233
361
K
161
161
141
141
143
143
133
133
165
165
164
164
(kg/ha/yr)
N P ,K
XVII n
621 563 322
571 543 282
575 545286
551 535266
631 567330
634 594 328
7,605 7,161 3,805
585 551 293
Nutrient Uptake
by Crop
c d
(kg/ha/crop)
N
112
115
107
110
109
105
90
102
106
110
106
110
P
XVIII
100
105
102
106
102
100
110
107
101
104
101
104
K
60
80
70
82
80
76
80
79
78
73
78
73
Nutrient Removal by
d
(kg/ha/yr)
N P
XIX
227 205
217208
214202
193 217
216205
21 6 205
2,754 2,037
213 207
K
140
152
156
159
151
151
1,932
149
N
397
343
343
235
416
416
4,367
336
Leachate
(kg/ha/yr)
P
XX
16
14
14
10
17
17
157
12
K
146
126
126
86
153
153
1,497
115
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-5 (continued)
ro
l>0
ro
Year
19
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Total
Avg.
Nitrogen
Losses to
Atmosphere
(kgAa/yr)
XX!
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
130
10
N
-20
95
•^•54
231
-71
52
31
-13
1
8
113
-11
-8
354
27
Nutrient Residual in
Topsoil
(kg/ha/yr)
P j
XXII'
306
309
332
325
331
344
342
343
321
329
308
345
372
4,307
331
K
0
49
1
88
85
8
30
36
4
4
21
26
24
376
29
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-5 (continued)
f Site formei1.
Ventura County Farm Advisor.
** Individual crop.
Total crops.
® Estimated to be same as existing irrigation water.
Estimated.
?XVI = X + XII (Columns).
. XVII = XI + XIII (Columns).
1 XXII = XVII - (XIX + XX + XXI) (Columns).
-------
Year Crop PeT!^ Fertilizer Kecommended Fertilizer
19 Used Applied0 Fertilizer*1 Cosf
c a c d c d
M _ „ (kji/ha/crop) (kgAa/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) ($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
IN r N NPKNPK
' " l» IV V vi VP,, K x/m
65 Tomato 21 7 14 505 100 3
Broccoli 11 48 0 393 200 30
26 14 0 449 1,347
66 Tomato
Broccoli
n
67 Tomato
Broccoli
n
68 Tomato
Broccoli
69 Tomato
Broccoli
70 Tomato
Broccoli
n
!
5 70 121
0 0 108
300 335 70 131 360
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6(continued)
ro
ro
tn
Year Crop Fertilizer Fertilizer Recommended Fertilizer
19 Used" Applied* Fertilizer15 Cost6
' °' c d c d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/Sa/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) ($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
NPK NPKNPK
I II 111 IV V VI VII VIII IX
71 Tomato 21 7 14 505 100 3
Broccoli 11 48 0 393 200 30
26 14 0 449 1,347
72 Tomato
Broccoli
73 Tomato
Broccoli
74 Tomato
Broccoli
ii
75 Tomato
Broccoli
\
76 Tomato 21 7 14 505
Spinach 11 48 0 449
» 26 14 0 449 1,«
5 70 121
\Q 0 108
300 335 70 131 360
100 35 70
387 79 79
)3 487 11
121
123
4 149 131 37
5
77 Tomato 21 7 14 505 100 35 70 121
Broccoli 11 48 0 449 200 300 0 108
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
ro
CM
Year Crop Fertilizer
19 Ussd01
1 T /ft/ v
(%)
N P K
1 II III
77 Broccoli 26 14 0
(cont.)
Total
Avg.
Fertilize^
Applied
c d
(kg/ho/erop) (kg/ha/yr)
IV V
449 1 ,403
17,758
1,366
Recommended
Fertilizer
c d
Fertilizer
Cost11
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) ($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
VI VII
335 70
4,0874,134 489
314 318 76
VIII IX
131 360
4,695
361
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
ro
Fertilizer
Nutrients
Nutrients in
Effective Irrigation
c d C
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop)
Year NPKNPK NP
19 X XI XII
65 106 35 71 91
43 189 0 93
117 63 0 266 287 71
66
67
68
69
70
105
104
102
101
10S
109
101
100
94
93
i
10
9
10
9
10
10
10
9
11
10
10
9
K
76
76
75
74
81
60
77
77
83
83
75
74
Water6
d
(kg/ha/yr)
N P K
XIII
187 19 152
209
203
218
201
187
19 149
20 161
1? 154
21 166
19 149
Value of Nutrient
in Irrigation
c d
($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
NPKNPK
XIV XV
62
60
69
69
67
67
71
72
67
66
62
61
7 50
6 50
123 13
7 49
6 49
138 13
7 53
6 53
134 13
7 51
6 51
14413
7 55
7 55
133 14
7 49
6 49
123 13
100
98
106
102
110
98
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
Fertilizer Nutrients in
Nutrients Effective Irrigation Water*
c d c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/y)
YearN PKNPK N P K N P K
19 X XI XII XIII
71 106 35
43 189
117 63
72
73
ro
ro
00
74
75
76 106 35
49 215
117 63
77 106 35
49 215
71 99
0 98
0 266 287 71
95
94
108
107
110
109
90
89
71 95
0 94
0 272 313 71
71 97
0 97
9
9
~
9
8
10
10
10
10
8
8
9
8
9
9
71
70
70
69
82
81
82
81
64
63
70
69
72
71
197
189
215
219
179
189
IB 141
17 139
20 163
20 163
16 127
17 139
Value of Nutrient
in Irrigation
c d
($/ha/crop) ($/ha/yr)
N P K N P
XIV XV
65
65
63
62
71
71
73
72
59
59
63
62
64
64
6 47
6 46
6 46
5 46
7 54
6 54
7 54
6 54
6 42
5 42
6 46
5 46
6 47
6 47
130 12
125 11
142 13
145 13
118 11
125 11
K
93
92
108
108
84
92
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
ro
vo
Year
19
77
(cent.)
Total
Avg.
Fertilizer
i
Nutrients
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
X XI
117 63 0 272 313 71
3,4703,783 923
267 291 71
Nutrients in
Effective Irrigation Waterc
e d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
XII XIII
194 18 143
2,587 243 1,946
199 19 150
Value of Nutrient
in Irrigation
c d
N P K N P K
IV XV
128 12 94
1,708 162 1,285
131 12 99
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
Total Nutrient
Supplied
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P LK
ear xv,g Xvn h
65
66
67
68
69
70
200
253
211
264
208
261
215
269
207
260
200
253
45
261
45
261
45
262
45
261
46
262
45
261
147
76 453 306 223
146
74
475 306 220
152
80
469 307 232
148
77
484 306 225
154
83
467 308 237
146
74
453 306 220
Nutrient Uptake Nutrient Removal by Leachate
by Cropf
c d d
(kg/ha/crop) (kgAa/XO (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K N P K
XVI II XIX XX
80
100
88
120
74
100
80
130
100
138
80
130
120
90
152
92
140
84
110
93
107
95
120
92
80
40
180 210 120 367
83
53
208 244 236 268
80
45
74 224 125 390
84
52
210 203 136 357
81
82
238 202 163 403
80
53
210 212 133 273
30 116
22 84
31 123
29 113
32 127
22 86
(continued)
-------
ro
CO
Year N
19
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
205
258
201
254
214
267
216
269
196
249
201
254
203
257
Total Nutrient
Supplied
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/y)
P K N PL K
XV!9 XVI! h
44
261
44
260
45
262
45
262
43
260
44
260
44
287
142
70
463 305 212
141
69
455 304 210
153
81
481 307 234
153
81
485 307 234
135
63
445 302 198
141
69
461 330 210
143
71
Nutrient Uotake Nutrient Removal by Leachate
by Crop*
c d d
(ke/ha/crop) (kg/ho/yr) (l<£/ha/yr)
N P K N P K N P K
XVI! I XIX XX
102
140
95
135
92
102
90
100
80
100
92
103
84
120
120
100
110
102
115
107
107
118
100
110
no
64
125
91
82
63
242 220 145 258
85
107
230 212 192 251
103
100
194 222 203 357
80
60
190 225 14C 361
120
130
180 210 250 201
94
80
195 174 174 251
81
54
20 82
20 79
28 113
29 114
16 64
20 79
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6- (continued)
ro
co
ro
Total Nutrient
Supplied
c d
(kg/ha/crop) (kg/ha/yr)
Year N P
19 XVI-
77
(cont.)
Total
Avg.
K N .P K
XVIIH
466 331 214
6. .057 4,026 2, 869
466 310 221
Nutrient Uptake
by Crop
c d
Nutrient Removal by Leachate
d
(kg/ha/crop) (kgAa/y)
N P K N
XVI II
204
2,655
204
P K
XIX
216 135
2,774 2,152
213 166
N
270
4,007
308
(kg/ha/yr)
P
XX
21
320
25
K
85
1,265
95
(continued)
-------
TABLE G-6 (continued)
ro
CO
co
Year
19
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
Total
Ayg.
Nitrogen
Losses to
Atmosphere
(kg/ha/yr)
XXI
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
130
10
Nutrient Residual in
Topsoil
N
-104
-11
-105
-93
-184
-40
-47
-36
-80
-76
54
5
-18
-735
-57
(kg/ha/yr)
P .
XXI!1
66
40
52
74
74
72
65
72
57
53
77
136
94
932
72
K
-13
-100
-16
-24
-53
1
-15
-61
-82
-20
-116
-43
-6
-548
-42
(continued)
-------
ro
TABLE G-6 (continued)
, Site former.
Ventura County Farm Advisor.
co , Individual crop.
-f^ a _ , '
Total crops.
. Estimated to be same as existing irrigation water.
Estimated.
?XVI = X + XII (columns).
. XVII = XI + XIII (columns)
1 XXII = XVII-(XIX + XX + XXI) (columns).
-------
TABLE G-7. TEST SITE CROP YIELD AND NUTRIENT UPTAKE, 1965-77
CO
01
YearC
19
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Crop0
a
Tomato
Broccoli
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Yield Green Yield Dry Nutrient Nutrient Uptake
Weight (tons/ Weight6 Supplied' Uptake* Efficiency
ho/yr) (tons/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr) (%J
NP KNPKNPK
100
38
97
37
107
37
92
30
90
40
100
38
no
38
112
38
8.3
2.8
8.1
2.7
8.9
2.7
7.6
2.2
7.5
3.0
8.3
2.8
9.1
2.8
9.3
2.8
100
529 527 249 115
97
590 551 291 110
110
617 562 320 105
92
571 543 282 90
90
575 545 286 120
100
549 525 265 115
110
591 551 298 117
112
621 563 322 115
no
97
120
110
107
117
105
107
160
102
80
98
93
103
100
105
84
47 41 79 53
80
60 35 42 48
73
82 35 40 48
72
68 32 39 50
70
81 37 48 53
97
60 39 34 59
99
50 38 36 50
60
80 37 36 43
Combined
Njfrient
Lptake
Efficiency
(%)
58
42
41
40
46
44
41
39
(Continued)
-------
TABLE G-7 (continued)
CO
CTl
Year
19
73
74
75
76
77
Crop0
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
Yield Gre*«n Yield Dry Nutrient Nutrient
Weight" Weight0 Suppl?edf Uptake f
(1 000 kg/ha/yr) (1000 kg/hq/yr) (kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P
107
38
109
37
90
37
102
37
99
37
8.9
2.8
9.0
2.7
7,5
2.7
8.5
2.7
8.2
2.7
Total
Avg.
b
d
Tomato = 1 .
Broccoli =2.
Site farmer.
Source 26
107
571 543 282 110
109
575 545 286 105
90
541 535 266 103
106
631 567 330 110
103
634 594 328 107
102
106
102
100
110
107
101
104
105
104
Uptake
Efficiency
K N P K
70
82 38 41 54
80
76 37 38 59
80
79 36 41 60
78
73 34 36 46
77
77 33 35 50
7,595 7,151 3,805 2,758 2,701 1,935
584 547 291 212 208 1493642 52
Combined
Nutrient
Uptake
Efficiency
44
45
46
49
39
43
Estimate: Tomato dry weight - 8.3% of green wt.
f Broccoli dry weight = 7.4% of green wt,
Estimated.
-------
TABJEG-8. CONTROL SITE CROP YIELD AND NUTRIENT UPTAKE, 1965-77
ro
co
Year
19
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
Yield Green Yield Dry Nutrient Nutrient Uptake
Crop Weight1* Weighfe Suppliedf Uptake1 Efficiency
(1000 kg/na/yr) (1 000 kgAt/yrXkoAcv/yr) (kg/ha/yr) (%)
NP KNPKNPK
aTomato
bBrocco!i
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
80
32
88
38
74
32
80
42
100
44
80
42
102
102
95
43
6.6
2.4
7.4
2.8
6.2
2.4
6.6
3.1
8.4
3.3
6.1
3.1
8.6
8.6
8.0
3.2
80
453 306 223 100
88
475 306 220 120
74
469 307 232 100
80
484 306 225 130
100
467 308 237 138
80
453 306 220 130
102
463 305 212 140
95
455 304 210 135
120
90
152
92
140
84
no
93
107
95
120
92
120
100
no
102
80
40 40 69 54
83
53 44 80 52
80
45 37 73 54
84
52 43 66 60
81
82 51 66 69
80
53 46 69 60
82
63 52 72 68
85
107 51 70 91
Combined
Nbtrient
Uptake
Efficiency
54
62
55
56
62
58
64
71
(Continued)
-------
TABLE G-8 (continued)
ro
GO
00
Year
19
73
74
75
76
77
Total
Avg,
i Tomato .,= 1
cBroccoli= 2
jSite farmer.
Cropc
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
Spinach
1
2
•
•
Estimate based on Cost
Yield Green
Weightd
(1000 kgAq/yr)
92
33
90
32
80
32
100
11
105
31
and Practices for Row
Yield Dry Nutrient Nutrient
Weight6 Supplied f Uptakef
(1000 kg/ha/yr)(kg/ha/yr) (kg/ha/yr)
N P K N P K
7.7
2.4
7.6
2.4
6.7
2.4
8.4
0.8
9.2
2.3
481
485
445
445
460
6,045
465
307
307
303
304
331
4jjw
308
Crops in Ventura County,
92
234 102
90
234 100
80
198 100
92
210 103
84
214 120
115 103
107 100
107 80
118 60
100 120
110 130
110 94
64 80
125 81
91 54
Uptake
Efficiency
(%)
N P K
40
39
40
44
44
72
73
69
57
65
87
60
100
83
63
Combined
Nutrient
Uptake
Efficiency
(%)
66
57
70
61
57
2,8692,8352,7742,152
221 218 213 16644
Pub . by Co-operative
69
Extension
70
,Univ.
61
of Calif.
e Ventura,Calif. Dec. 1975.
Estimate:Tomato dry weight =8.3.of green wt.
- Broccoli dry weight = 7.4% of green wt.
Estimated.
-------
ro
CO
Year Site &
19 Crop
77 Test Site
Tomato
Broccoli
Control Site
Tomato
Broccoli
76 Test Site
Tomato
Broccoli
Control Site
Tomato
Spinach
75 Test Site
Tomato
Broccoli
Control Site
Tomato
Broccoli
Cultivation
775
944
775
944
720
883
720
457
674
821
674
821
Irrigation
Water
103e
68e
445
272f
87*
61°
361
296
80°
53*
361
241
Fertilizing
92
184
92
184
83
172
83
166
79
184
79
184
Harvesting,
Packaging,
& Selling
1,306
495
1,306
495
1,221
430
1,221
0
1,136
430
1,136
430
Land
432
309
432
309
432
309
432
309
432
309
432
309
Total
Costs
2,708
2,000
3,050
2,138
2,543
1,855
2,817
1,228
2,401
1,797
2,682
1,985
Crop
Sales
Price
],089
2,174
1,089
1,976
3,503
2,179
3,503
1,482
4,095
2,870
4,095
2,870
Estimated
Profit
- 1,619
174
- 1,961
- 162
960
324
686
254
1,694
1,073
1,413
885
(continued)
-------
TABLE G- 9. (continued)
This table is based on 1975-1978 costs. Costs for the years 1965-1974 would be relatively similar, but vary with the
, economic factors for those years.
From Cost and Practices for Row Crops in Ventura County. Cooperative Extension, University of California.
£ j From Table 33 on Nutrient Balances fcr Camarillo, California sites.
o Based on $61,75/hectare-month for appropriate growing period, from Source 1.
. Farmer uses fresh water for sprinkler irrigation at planting time, and for final irrigation before harvest.
The final Irrigation and fertilizer application were omitted due to rain.
-------
APPENDIX H
CONTRACTS WITH FARMERS
CAMAR1LLO TEST SITE LEASE
AGRICULTURAL LEASE
This Lease is executed at Canarillo/ California, on
the day of by and between MARY H. SMITH,
TRUSTEE OF THE MARY H. SMITH TRUST, JOSEPH R. HOWARD and PATRICIA
C. HOWARD, husband and wife, and CONE JO MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL PARK,
a California corporation, hereinafter collectively called
"Landlord" and RIP BRUCKER RANCH CO., a California corporation,
hereinafter called "Tenant."
Recitals:
Landlord severally but collectively owns certain
parcels of real property described in Exhibit "A" attached
hereto and Tenant desires to lease said property for purposes
of farming. Therefore, it is agreed between the parties hereto
as follows:
1. Property Leased: Landlord hereby leases to Tenant
the following real property situated in the County of Ventura,
State of California:
a. The premises with the appurtenances consisting
of a total of three hundred sixty ind nine-tenths (360.9) acres
usable for farming row crops; said acreage and area and the
allocation of rent among the area is more particularly described
in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof. The pro-
perty owned by Ben Zolin is not included or a part of this Lease.
2. Term: The term of this Lease shall begin on the
.first day of and 'end on the thirty-first day of
unless sooner terminated as hereinafter provided.
3. Rental: Tenant agrees to pay to Landlord an annual
rental for the use and occupancy of the premises described in
Exhibit "A" in the amount of
Dollars ( ), payable in quarterly installments
of DOLLARS
( J in advance commencing and there-
after on the .first day of April and July and October during the
term hereof. Tenant's obligation, if any, pursuant to paragraph
lOb of the 'Lease shall be payable together with the January
installment of rent.
^Except as hereinafter provided in paragraph lid,
no deductions or offsets shall be mads against the rentals
accruing and becoming due in any year during the Lease terra.
241
-------
7. Water - Water Supply: The parties hereto acknow-
ledge that an agreement between MARY H. SMITH .and the Camarillo
Sanitary District gives to MARY H. SMITH the right to the use
of water from the Camarillo Sanitary District facilities located
on Exhibit "A" at no charge to MARY H. SMITH. Therefore, as
long as MARY H. SMITH has the right to use said- water from the
Camarillo Sanitary District, without charge, Landlord will use
its best efforts to supply or cause to be supplied to Tenant
from the Camarillo Sanitary District facilities the water neces-
sary for proper irrigation during the tern of this Lease,
without charge; provided that Tenant agrees to pay all cost
connected with transporting the water to the reservoir. Tenant
shall use all water supplied from the Camarillo Sanitary
District exclusively upon the leased premises and said water
shall not be suffered by Tenant to go to waste. Landlord does
not and shall not warrant the sufficiency or suitability of
water supplied to the leased premises, and shall not at any
time during the lease term fee liable in damages or otherwise
for the failure to supply water hereunder for any cause beyond
the reasonable control of Landlord. In the event that the
water supply should become insufficient for agricultural purposes
or should become contaminated so that farming cannot be continued
on the leased premises, Tenant shall have the right, upon sixty
(60) days written notice to terminate all or a portion of this
Lease. In the event that the Camarillo Sanitary District levies
a charge for the water now being supplied to MARY H. SMITH and
the leased premises, Tenant shall promptly reimburse for Tenant's
use of the water in proportion to the total use of the water
supplied by Camarillo Sanitary District, or in the alternative,
Landlord shall have the right, upon ninety (90) days written
notice to Tenant to terminate this Lease.
The use of the water v/ell depicted in Exhibit "A"
is for domestic purposes only and is not to be used for agricul
tural purposes as herein described.
8. Disclaimer of Warranty - Soil Suitability:
Landlord makes no warranty of the soil suitability for growing
the crops that Tenant may grow under the terms of this Lease.
9. Utilities: Tenant shall pay for all electric
power and other services supplied to the leased premises.
10. Taxes:
a. All state, county and local taxes which,
during the term of this Lease, may be levied on or become due
againsb all buildings constructed by Tenant, equipment, crops
and/or personal property owned by Tenant shall be paid by
Tenant.
242
-------
4. Payment of Rent: Installment rent payments shall
be made payable to MARY H. SMITH or NOMINEE as agent for the
various Landlords of said premises.
5. Use:
a. Landlord leases the premises to Tenant for
the purpose of planting, growing, and harvesting crops for
consumption and for no other purpose.
b. Tenant agrees to use and occupy the premises
in careful and safe manner and not to commit or suffer any waste
thereon; maintain the premises in a neat, clean and farmer-like
condition; keep the premises free of all trash and litter left
by labor crews in and around the farm areas; -use due diligence
in keeping down all weeds and in preventing the same from going
to seed; and Tenant shall rfot commit, or permit others under
Tenant's direction or control to commit, on the leased premises,
waste, or a nuisance or any other act that could disturb t.he
quiet enjoyment of Landlord or any other tenant of- Landlord on
adjacent property,
6. Maintenance, Repairs and Alterations:
a. Landlord shall not be obligated to make any
repairs, alterations, additions or improvements in or to or
upon the leased premises or any building or other improvement
thereon. Tenant shall at all times during the term of this
Lease, at his sole cost and expense, keep and maintain all
buildings and other improvements on the leased premises in
good order and repair.
b. Tenant shall during the term of this Lease
properly maintain and repair the reservoir and water pumping
facilities connected with Tenant's operation or the leased
premises;.it being understood and agreed that the water from
the reservoir will be used by Tenant for the purposes described
herein, as well as used by Landlord for those areas of property
owned by Landlord not a part of this Lease and those areas
owned by CONSOO MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL PARK which require' irrigation.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, Landlord has no obligation to
maintain, repair, replace, reimburse or partially reimburse
Tenant for costs incurred in connection with water pumps and
related facilities, pipelines, and/or the maintenance and repair
of the reservoir on the leased premises. In addition, Tenant
shall not pernit the water level in said reservoir to bs le'ss
than one hundred . feet ( 100 ) above sea
level unless the Landlord consents thereto. As a rule of thumb,
the water level in the reservoir should be full enough so that
cattle can obtain water and the CONEJO MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL PARK
can irrigate but low enough so that during the rainy season the
reservoir may serve as a retention basin.
243
-------
b. Tenant shall, in addition to all other sums
agreed to be paid by it under this Lease, pay to Landlord upon
demand all real estate taxes which shall, during the term of
this Lease be assessed against the leased premises in excess
of the taxes assessed for the fiscal tax year 1975-1976.
c. The parties hereto acknowledge that the
premises described in Exhibit "A" is, as a result of an agree-
ment between MARY H. SMITH and the County of Ventura, included
within the agricultural preserve pursuant to the California
Land Conservation Act of 1965 as adopted by Ventura County
{Ventura County Ordinance Code Section 8120 - 0 et.seq.).
In the event MARY H. SMITH violates the terms and conditions
of said contract with a resulting penalty assessment and/or an
increase in the amount of tax assessment against the leased
premises, Tenant shall not be responsible for payment of said
increase in tax or penalty assessment. Thereafter, the amount
of all real estate taxes levied or assessed against the premises
during the terra hereof which exceeds the amount of taxes levied
or assessed against the premises during the tax year prior to
a violation of the Land Conservation Agreement shall be paid by
MARY H. SMITH-except that the Tenant Shall continue to pay the
amount of tax in excess, if any, between the 197D-1976 tax year
and the tax year prior to the violation of said Land Conservation
Agreement by MARY H. SMITH which results in an increase in the
tax rate or a penalty assessment.
11. Early and/or Partial Termination:
a. In addition to Tenant's right to terminate
this Lease, or portion thereof as provided in paragraph 7, in
the event of the death of RAPHAEL BRUCKER, the Tenant, RIP
BRUCKER RANCH COMPANY, may elect to terminate this Lease upon
giving Landlord written notice six (6) months prior to the
actual termination. Furthermore, in the event of the death of
RAPHAEL BRUCKER, Landlord shall have the right to terminate
this Lease upon giving Tenant written notice one (1) year prior
to-actual termination with the understanding that the terra of
this Lease in either event may be extended to the expiration
of the harvest of any crop or crops existing at the time of
the death of RAPHAEL BRUCKER.
b. MARY H. SMITH, TRUSTEE OF THE MARY K. SMITH
TRUST, as owner of that certain three (3) acre parcel of property
described in yellow on the map attached as Exhibit "A", shall
have the right to terminate this Lease insofar as it affects the
approximate three (3) acre parcel of property described in
Exhibit "A", xtpon giving Tenant written notice, sixty (60) days
prior to actual termination with the understanding that the _
actual date of termination will'be extended until the expiration
of the harvest of any crop or crops then existing on that portion
of the leased premises.
244
-------
c. CONEJO MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL PARK, as owner of a
parcel of property described by map in Exhibit "A," attached
hereto, may require additional acreage for its operation during
the term of this Lease from that area marked in yellow on said-
map. Upon receipt of written notice, Tenant agrees to terminate
this Lease as to that amount of area required by CONEJO MOUNTAIN
MEMORIAL PARK. Written notice of termination shall be given
Tenant not less than thirty (30) days prior to the harvesting
of any crop then growing on that portion of the leased premises.
Actual termination shall occur upon the harvesting of said crop
or crops upon that portion of the leased premises desired to
be used by CONEJO MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL PARK.
d. Partial abatement of Rent: For each acre
or fraction thereof that is relinquished by Tenant as a result
of any Landlord's exercise of its rights under'this paragraph,
the rent shall be reduced by . per acre for land relinquished
within the area designated in blue on the attached map, and .
per acre 'for land relinquished within the area designated in black
on the attached map.
12. Rights of Others: This Lease is subject to (a)
all existing easements, servitudes, licenses, and rights of way
or canals, ditches, levees, roads, highways, telegraph, telephone
and electric power lines, gas lines, pipelines, and other
purposes .whether recorded or not, and (b) the rights of other
tenants under any existing or future oil, gas and mineral lease
or leases from Landlord affecting the entire or any portion of
the premises, whether recorded or not.
13. Entry by Owner: Tenant shall permit Landlord,
and Landlord's agents and assigns, at all reasonable times,
to enter the leased premises, and to use the roads established
on the premises now or in the future, for all lawful purposes.
14. Reservations: Landlord reserves all oil, gas and
other minerals and substances in and under the leased premises
and the zight, without joinder of or consent by Tenant, to enter
into oil or gas leases affecting the leased premises, or any
part thereof, and the rights of Tenant herein at all times shall
be subordinate to the rights of any lessee under any such oil
or gas lease, subject to crop damage" compensation; and Landlord
reserves the right to dedicate or convey any portion of the
leased premises for street, highway, drainage, sewer, trans-
mission lines or similar purposes, and any portion of said
premises so dedicated or so conveyed shall from the date thereof
no longer be affected by this Lease; provided, however, that:
Tenant shall be entitled to an abatement of rent as provided
in Paragraph lid hereof.
15. Alterations: Tenant shall not make, or permit
to be made, alterations of the premises, without first obtain-
ing Landlord's consent. Additions to, or alterations of the
245
-------
premises shall become at once a part of the realty and belong
to the Landlord.
16. Compliance: Tenant shall comply with all require-
ments of all governmental authorities, in force either now or
in the future including the terms and previsions of the Land
Conservation Act Contract, affecting the premises and shall
faithfully observe in its use of the premises all laws, rules,
and regulations of these authorities in force either now or in
the future. If Tenant fails to comply with any such law,
regulation, or rule, Landlord reserves the right to take necessary
remedial measures at Tenant's expense, for which Tenant agrees
to reimburse Landlord on demand.
17. Landlord's Non-Liability: Landlord shall not be
liable for any loss, damage or injury of any kind whatsoever
of the person or property of Tenant, or of Tenant's employees,
guests, or invitees or of any other person whomsoever, caused
by any -use of the leased premises, or by any defect in any
building, structure or other improvement thereupon, or arising
from any accident on said premises or any fire or other casualty
thereon, or occasioned by the failure on the part of Tenant to
maintain said premises in safe condition, or by any nuisance made
or,suffered on said premises, or by any act or omission of
Tenant, or of any member of Tenant's family,, or of Tenant's
employees, guests, or invitees, or arising from any other cause
whatsoever; and Tenant hereby waives on his behalf all claims
and demands against Landlord for any such loss, damage or injury
of Tenant, and hereby agrees to indemnify and save Landlord
free and harmless from liability for ar.y such loss, damage or
injury to other persons, and froni all costs, expenses and other
charges arising therefrom and in- connection therewith.
Tenant shall, at its cost and expense, at all
times during the term of this Lease, maintain in force for
the joint benefit of Landlord and .Tenant, a broad form compre-
hensive coverage policy of public liability insurance by the
terms of which Landlord and Tenant are named as Insured and are
indemnified against liability for damage or injury to the
property or person (including death) of any Tenant or invitee
of Tenant or any other person entering upon or using the leased
land, or any structure thereon, or any part thereof, or arising
from the use and occupancy thereof. Such insurance policy or
policies shall be maintained on the minimum basis of
Thousand Dollars for damage to property,
for bodily injury to wit
the death of one (1) person, and
( * for bodily injury or death in any one CD accident.
18. Assignment and Subletting: Tenant shall not assign
this Lease, or any'rights under it, and shall not sublet the
entire or any part of the premises, or any right or privilege
appurtenant to the premises, or permit any other person (tne
agents and servants of Tenant excepfed) to occupy or use the
246
-------
entire or any portion of the premises, without first obtaining
Landlord's vritten consent. A consent to one assignment, sub-
letting, occupation, or use by another person is not a consent
to a future assignment, subletting, occupation or use by another
person. An assignment or a subletting without Landlord's consent
shall be void, and shall at Landlord's option, terminate this
Lease. No interest of Tenant in.this Lease shall be assignable
by operation of law without Landlord's written consent.
19. Remedies on Default: Except as otherwise provided
herein, should Tenant default in the performance of any covenant
or provision herein with reference to the payment of rent or
other payment of money, and such default continues for ten (10)
days after receipt by Tenant of written notice from Landlord of
such default, or should Tenant default in the performance of
any other covenant or provision herein, other .than the payment
of money, and such default, if curable, is not cured within
thirty (30) days after service upon Tenant of a written notice
thereof from Landlord, or if said default is not curable within
thirty (30) days, Tenant fails to commence a cure within thirty
(30) days and thereafter fails to diligently prosecute such
cure to completion, Landlord shall have the following remedies:
(a) Termination of lease and damages. Landlord
may terminate Tenant's right of possession to the leased premises
and may recover a sum or sums that shall then be or that., shall
thereafter become due and payable to Landlord hereunder, and any
such termination shall not prevent Landlord from enforcing the
payment of any such sum or sums by any remedy provided by law.
(b) Reentry. Landlord may, with or without
terminating the lease, reenter the leased premises and take
possession thereof after giving the notice of reentry required
by law.
(c) Remedies cumulative. None of Landlord's
rights herein specified in the event of a default by Tenant shall
prejudice any other legal remedies available to Landlord other
than those herein enumerated and the remedy described by Civil
Code §1951.4 is available to Landlord.
(d) No waiver. Efforts by Landlord to mitigate
the damages caused by Tenant's breach of this lease shall not
waive Landlord's right to recover damages under this paragraph.
For the purpose of subparag-raph (a) above, the following shall
not constitute a termination of Tenant's right of possession:
(1) Acts of- maintenance or preservation or
efforts to relet the property;
247
-------
(2) ApDointwent of a receiver upon initiative
of Landlord to protect Landlord's interest
under this lease.
20. Trade Fixtures: Tenant shall retain title to all
trade and specialized fixtures which Tenant installs upon the
leased premises, such as pipelines. At the termination of
this Lease, provided Tenant is not in default, Tenant may remove
those fixtures to which it has retained title, provided that
upon such removal of fixtures Tenant restores the 'premises to
substantially the same condition as they were at the outset of
this Lease.
21. Condemnation:
(a) Definition of terms: The .terra "total taking"
as used in this paragraph means the taking of the entire leased
premises under the power of eminent domain or a taking of so much
of 'said land as to prevent or substantially impair the conduct
of Tenant's business thereon. The term "partial taking" means
the taking of a portion only of said land which does not con-
stitute a total taking as above defined.
(b) Total taking: If during the term hereof
there shall be a total taking by public authority under the
power of- eminent domain, then the leasehold estate^of Tenant
In and to.the leased premises shall cease and terminate as of
the date the actual physical possession thereof shall be so taken.
(c) Partial taking: If during said term there
shall bo a partial taking of the leased premises, this Lease
shall terminate as to the portion of said leased premises
taken upon the date upon which actual possession of said
portion of said leased premises is taken pursuant to said eminent
domain proceedings/ but said Lease shall continue in force
and effect as to the remainder of said leased premises. The
rental payable by Tenant for the balance of the Lease term shall
be abated in the ratio that the square footage ground area of
the leased premises taken bears to the total ground area of said
leased premises at the time of such taking.
(d) Allocation of award: All compensation and
damages awarded for the taking of the leased premises or any
portion thereof shall, except as otherwise herein provided,
belong to and be the sole property of Landlord, and Tenant shall
not have any claim or be entitled to any award for diminution
in value of its leasehold hereunder or for the value of any
unexpired term of this Lease; provided, however, that Tenant
shall be entitled to any award that nay be made for the taking
of or injury to Tenant's improvements (including crop damage),
or on account of any cost or loss Tenant may ascertain in the
removal of Tenant's fixtures, equipment and furnishings, or as
248
-------
a result of any alterations, modifications or repairs which may
be reasonably required by Tenant in order to place the remaining
portion of the leased premises not so condemned in a suitable
condition for the continuance of Tenant's tenancy. Other than
as hereinabove provided, Tenant irrevocably assigns and transfers
to Landlord any right to compensation or damages to which Tenant
may become entitled during the term of thi§ Lease by the condemna-
tion of the entire or a part of the leased premises.
(e) Effect of termination: If this Lease is
terminated, in whole or in part, pursuant to any of the provisions
of this paragraph, all rentals and other charges payable by
Tenant to Landlord hereunder and attributable to the leased
premises taken, shall be paid up to the date upon which actual
physical possession shall be taken by the condemnor, and the
parties shall thereupon be released froa all further liability
in relation thereto.
(f) Voluntary conveyance: A voluntary conveyance
by Landlord to a public utility, agency or authority under
threat of taking under the power of eminent domain in lieu of
formal proceedings shall be deemed a taking within the meaning
of this paragraph.
22. Attorneys*-1 Fees: In any action or proceeding by
either party to enforce this Lease or any provision hereof, the
prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs incurred and '
to reasonable attorneys' fees.
23: Notices: Any notice to be given to either party
by the other shall be in writing and shall be served either
personally or by mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows:
Landlord, c/o MARY H. SMITH, TRUSTEE, 1767 Pancho Road, Camarillo,
California 93010; Tenant, RAPHAEL BRUCKER, 1090 Pancho Road,
Camarillo, California 93010.
24. Surrender and Removal:
(a) Upon the expiration of the tern of this Lease
or any. earlier termination thereof, Tenant shall surrender to
Landlord possession of the leased premises and all improvements
(trade fixtures excepted) constructed and installed thereoii in
the same condition as when received, reasonable use, wear, tear
and damage by fire, act of God or the elements excepted. In
addition, Tenant shall disc the soil in suitable condition for
the growing of other crops upon surrender of the leased premises
or any portion thereof.
(b) Upon the expiration of the Lease term, or
any sooner termination of this Lease, Tenant agrees to execute,
acknov/ledge and deliver to Landlord a proper instrument, in
249
-------
writing, releasing and quitclaiming to Landlord all right, title
and.interest of Tenant in and to the leased premises and all
improvements thereon.
25. Legal Effect: All covenants of Tenant contained
in this Lease are expressly made conditions.
The provisions of this Lease shall, subject to
the. provisions on Assignment - Subletting, apply to and bind
the heirs, successors, executors, administrators and assign
of all parties to this Lease; and all parties to this Lease
shall be jointly and severally liable under it.
26. First Refusal; Landlord shall have the right to
negotiate a lease with third parties upon terms and conditions
satisfactory to landlord, the term of said lease to be subsequent
in time to the lease term as described herein. If Landlord-does
negotiate a lease with a thi*rd party(ies) on terms and conditions
satisfactory to Landlord, then Landlord shall give the_Tenant
the right to extend the term of this Lease for the period of
time and on the same terras and conditions as negotiated between
Landlord and said third party(ies). Tenant shall have thirty
(30) days within which to exercise its right to extend the term
of this Lease upon the same terms and conditions as offered to
said third party(ies). If Tenant does not exercise its rights
within the time limit described herein, Landlord thereaf-ter
shall have the right to lease the lease premises, or any portion
thereof, to a third party(ies) without further obligation to
Tenant upon termination of the lease term. If the Tenant
exercises the rights as described herein, the parties sfrail
immediately execute an amendment to this Lease incorporating the
same terms and conditions as offered to said third party (ies).
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed
this Lease as of the date first above written, signed by all
of the Landlords and by the Tenant.
RIP BRUCKER RANCH CO.,
a California corporation
MARY^H.^SMITH, TRUSTEE
"PATRICIA C. HOWARD
"Tenant"
CONEJO MOUNTAIN MEMORIAL PARK,
a Cali-fornia corporation / I
' „ / \Fk-f/r:Kr-. A
By
f-
"Landlord"
250
-------
EXHIBIT "A"
Attached to this Exhibit "A" are two maps which incorporate the
leased premises. The area within the red markings consist of
185.1 acres. The annual rent f6r said acreage is ner
acre, or The area within the blue marking? consists
of 93.8 acres. The annual rent for said acreage is
per acre or The acreage within the black markings
consists of 82 acres. The annual rent for said acreage is
per acre or The total annual rent is
The taxes attributable to the leased premises for the 1975-76
fiscal tax year were $ The taxes attributable to
the leased premises for the 1976-77 fiscal tax year are
The tax increase from 1975-76 is The tax base for
the computation of additional increases in real property taxes
and assessments attributable to the leased premises is
The property comprising the Ceased premises is located in Ventura
County, California, and represents portions of Ventura County
tax assessor parcel nos. 234-0-040-120; 234-0-060-040; 234-0-060-150;
234-0-040-110 (Joseph Richard Hov.'ard's 2 acre parcel North of
Conejo -Creek); 234-0-060-120 (Cemetery); and 234-0-060-140
(Joseph Richard Howard's residential property).
The areas designated in yellow on the attached maps are those
areas where the landlord is reserving the right to terminate said
portions of property from the terms of this lease pursuant to
the terms and conditions of paragraph 11 of said lease.
251
-------
CAMARILID CONTROL SITE LEASE
FARM LEASE
LOT 5
This farm lease is entered into by and between the
FitzGerald Ranch Management, a joint venture, hereafter
referred .to as "Landlord" and Michael Brucker, hereafter
referred to as "Tenant".
The parties agree that:
1. LEASED PROPERTY. Landlord hereby leases to
Tenant and Tenant hires from Landlord on the terms and
conditions hereinafter set forth .those certain premises
situated in the County of Ventura, California, consisting
of 41.77 acres described on Exhibit A attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
3. USE OF THE LEASED PREMISES. Tenant shall use
the leased premises solely for the purpose of planting,
cultivating and harvesting crops at Tenant's own expense.
252
-------
5. WATER. Water necessary for the irrigation of
the crops to be grown on the leased premises by Tenant
shall be available to Tenant from well number 2. located
on Lot 5. Rancho Calleguas. subject to the following terms
and limitations:
(a) The right to use water pertains only Co
Landlord's 19.9 percent share of the water from the well
(number 2) on Lot 5 as set forth in a Water Agreement as
to Producing Water Well and Trans Lines dated March 12.
1965, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit li
as modified by, and subject to the provisions of a letter
dated 'from Haskins and Sells, a copy of
which* is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
(b) Water from well number 2 shall be used
only on the leased premises and shall be used only for
Tenant's fanning under this lease. Tenant shall not export
water from well number 2 to lands other than the leased
premises for use thereon.
(c) Landlord shall not be liable to Tenant for
any water shortage from well nuiaber 2 and does not warrant
the quality or quantity of the water available from well
number 2 or any other source will be suitable or sufficient
for Tenant's farming operations under this lease.
If Tenant is unable to obtain sufficient water for
farming operations from the leased premises from well number
2, the City of Catnarillo, or another purveyor of water. Tenant
may terminate this lease with the termination to be effective
ninety (90) days after Tenant has served written notice of
termination upon Landlord invoking the termination provision
of this paragraph.
Tenant may use the underground concrete pipelines
253
-------
stands and irrigation pots for irrigation pui-poses and
Tenant acknowledges same are now in good condition. Tenant
shall pay for any and all repairs, leaks or damage to
pipelines that may develop during the terra of this lease.
Tenant shall not relocate any underground pipelines with-
out first obtaining Landlord's consent to such relocation.
6. WATER CHARGES AND METER READINGS. Tenant shall
pay Landlord monthly for water the amounts due and payable
in accordance with the letter from Haskins & Sells dated
and attached hereto as Exhibit C.
7. RESTORATION OF LAND. Prior to
Tenant shall disc the land twice and to the extent directed
by Landlord shall restore the leased property to the condi-
tion in which it was received or to such improved condition
as may have resulted from any improvement made thereon by
Landlord or Tenant during the term of this lease.
8. TERMINATION. Landlord, at its option, may ter-
minate this lease in the event Tenant fails to perform any
obligation to be performed by him herein or does some act
prohibited herein. This lease shall terminate on the date
a written notice of termination specifying Tenant's default
or "breach of lease and Landlord's election to terminate the
lease is served in the manner provided by paragraph 13 of
this lease unless, in the case of a default, such default
is cured within ten (10) days after service of such notice.
9. SURRENDER. Upon the expiration of this lease,
or its prior termination, Tenant shall quietly and peacefully
vacate the leased premises and surrender the possession
thereof to Landlord.
254
-------
after deposit in the United States mail.
14. COMPLIANCE WITH LAW. Tenant shall, at its
own cost and expense, conduct all operations on the premises
in accordance with all applicable state, county and municipal
statutes and ordinances and in accordance with regulations
issued.by the State Department of Agriculture, State Depart-
ment of Public Health and the Health Officer of Ventura
County.
15. LIENS. Tenant shall promptly discharge or
cause to be discharged any valid lien, right in rem. . claim
or demand of any kind, except one in favor of Landlord,
arising, or existing with respect to the leased premises or
for materials or equipment furnished therefore or for any
part thereof. If any lien is not promptly discharged by
Tenant, Landlord may discharge the same and Tenant shall
reimburse Landlord for the cost thereof.
16. WASTE. Tenant shall not commit or suffer to
be committed any waste upon said premises, or any nuisance
or other act or thing which may disturb the quiet enjoyment
of persons occupying land surrounding the leased premises
except noise or disturbance from the use of the premises
as provided in this lease.
17- FAILURE TO INSIST ON COMPLIANCE. Landlord's
failure to take advantage of any default or breach of
covenant on the part of Tenant or to insist upon the per-
formance of any of the terms, covenants and conditions of
this lease shall not be a waiver or relinquishment of Land-
lord's right to the future performance of such terms,
covenants and conditions. Tenant's obligations with respect
to such future performance shall continue in full force and
effect. No custom or practice which may develop between the
255
-------
parties in the course of administering this lease shall.
bo construed to waive or lessen the right of Landlord to
insist upon the performance by Tenant of any term,
covenant or condition thereof.
18. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. Terms,, covenants,
and conditions contained herein shall apply to and bind the
successors, heirs and assigns of both parties hereto.
19. ATTORNEYS' FEES. In the event suit shall be
brought for the recovery of any rent to be paid by Tenant
under this lease or because of Tenant's breach of any other
provisions herein, Tenant shall pay to Landlord reasonable
attorneys' fees as fixed by the court.
20. WEEDS AND PESTS. Tenant shall, during the
term of this lease, control all vreeds, noxious or other-
wise, growing on the leased premises and the margin of
any roads adjacent thereto. Tenant shall, during the term
of this lease, furnish all materials and labor necessary
to poison and otherwise control all rodents and other pests
on the premises.
21. CONDEMNATION. If the leased property or any
part thereof is taken by condemnation, or incident to tlie
exercise of the power of eminent domain (hereinafter referred
to as "condemnatioa") the following shal'l apply:
(a) Termination of the Lease. If the entire
leased property is taken or acquired by condemnation this
lease shall terminate, such termination to take effect as
of the date taking becomes effective by the passage of title
to the leased property to the'Condemning authority pursuant
to court order or by the physical taking of possession of
256
-------
the leased property by the condemning authority which-
ever is earlier.
If only a portion of the leased premises is
taken or acquired by or incident to condemnation and a
part thereof remains which can be used for farming pur-
poses, this lease shall, except to the part actually
taken, .remain in full force and effect.;
(b) Adjustment in Rent. If only a portion
of the leased property is taken by condemnation and a
part thereof remains which can be used for farming purposes.
rent payable under this lease shall be adj-ysted as follows :
Area of leased property
lient payable after remaining after Rent payable
date of taking " condemnation _ x prior to
Area or leased property condemnation
before' condemnation
Such adjustment in rent shall take effect on the
date title passes to the condemning authority pursuant to
court order or on the date the condemning authority takes
physical possession of the property, whichever is earlier.
Apportionment of Condemnation Award. For
purposes of this lease the crops grown on the leased property
by Tenant shall be considered personalty. Unless the fair
market value of the crops growing on the leased property
taken at the time of taking is determined to be a part of
the realty in fixing the fair market value of the realty in
the condemnation proceeding, Tenant shall not be entitled
to any portion of the condemnation award and Tenant as
partial consideration for execution of this lease hereby
assigns to Landlord all compensation to which he may be
entitled by law by reason of the condemnation.
257
-------
If the fair market value of the crops growing on
the leased property taken is determined to be a part of
the realty in fixing the fair market value of the realty
in the condemnation proceeding, Tenant shall be entitled
to receive the difference, if any, between the fair market
value of the crops on the portion of the leased property
taken at the time of taking and the proceeds, if any,
actually received by Tenant from the harvest and sale of
said crops.
For purposes of this subparagraph the leased property
shall be considered "taken" when a summons is issued in
the condemnation proceeding, or when the condemning authority
takes physical possession of the portion of the leased
property taken, whichever is earlier.
22- OH. AND GAS LEASE. Landlord shall have the
right during the lease term to lease the leased property
to persons other than Tenant for the purpose of taking oil
and gas therefrom. Tenant shall have the right to designate
any drilling sites on the leased premises and any routes of
ingress and egress and Landlord will consult with Tenant prior
to entering into any oil and gas lease for the purpose of
fixing the location of drilling sites and routes of ingress
and egress. Any such oil and gas lease shall provide for
compensation to Tenant for .the fair market value of any crops
destroyed or damaged by reason of exploration or production
under the oil and gas lease.
.23. FLOODING. Landlord does not warrant the
sufficiency of any apparent'work or provision made for the
control of flooding on the leased premises and does not
warrant any work for the .control of flooding of the
leased premises has been made and does not warrant that the
.leased premises will not flood.
258
-------
Beginning .-it a point in the north line of
Lot 5. Randio Callcr.nnr,, in Lho County of
Ventura, State of California, as per t:np re-
corded in Book 17. page 16 of Maps, dir-tant
Norrh 89° 53* Wost 2.ill.56 L'ooc from the north-
c;u;t corner of said Lot 5, then-re
1st: - South 0° 03' 30" East 2331.05 feet
to the north line of the l.-nd described us
PARCEL 1 in deed to the stnte of f.ali :"cnr.ia
recorded in book 1555, page 1U of Official
Records,thence along said north line
.2nd: - South--89° 55' 38" West 73.7.9 feet to
the easterly line of the land described as
PARCEL 5 in deed to the state of California re-
corded.,in bo«k 1136, page 320 of Official Records,
thence along the boundary of said land' by the
following three courses
3rd: - North 21° 52' 27" West 10.77 feet, thence
4th: - South 89° 55' 38" West 20.00 feet, thence
5th: - South 21" 43' 43" West 10.77 feet to the
north line of said PARCEL 1, thence along said north
line
6th: - South 89° 55' 38" West 685.31 feet, thence
7th: - North 1° 38' 02" West 2133.87 feet to the
beginning of a tangent curve concave easterly havine
a radius of 3S2 feet, thence
8th: - Northerly along said curve through an
angle of 19° 40' 17", an arc distance of 131.15
feci: to the northwesterly line of said Lot 5,
thence along the boundary of said Lot by the follow-
ing two courses
9t>h: - North. 40° 40' East 28.39 feet, thence
10th: -South 89° .53' East 809.38 feef to the
point of beginning.
EXHIBIT A
259
-------
(c) Notwithstanding the termination date
as above provided, the termination shall be subject to
Tenant's right to complete the growing and harvesting of
crops on the leased premises at the time- the notice of
intent to terminate has been given with acreage to be
surrendered by Tenant as harvest is completed.
(d) There shall be an abatement of rentals
for the remainder of the term of the lease in proportion
to the acreage sole and surrendered by Tenant and any
prepaid rents with respect to such acreage shall be
returned to Tenant at the time of sale.
(e) Tenant shall have the right to terminate
the lease as of the termination date (or completion of crop
harvest) if the portion of the premises sold would leave the
remainder an uneconomical unit for the farming purposes of
Tenant.
27. CAPTIONS. The captions to the paraeraPns of
this lease are not a part of the provisions thereof.
Executed on .
FITZGERALD RANCH MANAGEMENT, a
joint venture.
andlord
MICilAEL BRUCKER
Tenant
260
-------
GLOSSARY
boreholes: Subsurface exploration holes drilled or excavated to obtain earth samples.
Boreholes may be drilled to any depth for soil and leachate samples, test well
installation, and groundwater aquifer detection.
groundwater: The upper aquifer that receives the percolated irrigation water.
lysimeter: A porous ceramic-tipped cup device used to extract, when a vacuum is
applied, a sample of percolating water from subsoil.
spatula: A sterilized hand tool in a protective wrapper used to collect uncontaminated
soil samples.
tail water: The surface runoff water from an irrigated field.
test well: A special well constructed info the upper aquifer groundwater for sampling
the groundwater.
well baler or well pump: Devices that may be used for pumping and obtaining groundwater
samples from test wells. Varies in size depending on the well diameter. Well balers
may consist of a weight, a test tube, a stopper, and a cord for collecting samples in
a well. Well pumps are mechanical devices used to extract water from a well.
261
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/2-80-080
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION NO.
4. TITLE ANDSUBTITLE
LONG-TERM EFFECTS OF LAND APPLICATION OF
DOMESTIC WASTE WATER: Camarillo, California,
Irrigation Site
5. REPORT DATE
May 1980 issuing date
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Ralph Stone and James Rowlands
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Ralph Stone and Company, Inc.
Los Angeles, California 90025
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
A35B1C
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
68-03-2362
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
1/76 " 2/78
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/600/15
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the results of an assessment of the long-term impacts on crops,
soils, and groundwater resulting from irrigation with secondary-treated municipal
effluent. The concentrations of pathogens, nutrients, heavy metals and salts in soils,
sproundwater, and crops irrigated with secondary-treated wastewater were compared to
the concentrations in soils, groundwater, and crops irrigated with conventional water
supplies. Test and control sites at Camarillo, California were selected as case studies
for comparisons. Both sites produced row crops for human consumption and were
irrigated primarily by the furrow method. The test site had been irrigated with
effluent for over ten years. The control site had never received wastewater but had
been irrigated for at least ten years with conventional water. Lysimeters were placed
at various depths in the soil of the test and control sites to test for the constituents in
the leachate. Sampling wells were drilled at the test site to determine the upper
groundwater quality affected by the leachate.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
Camarillo, California
land application
municipal wastewater
secondary pre-treatment
slow rate system
c. COSATI Field/Group
land use
sewage effluents
trace elements
nutrient removal
sewage treatment
water chemistry
13F
91A
68D
18. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
RELEASE TO PUBLIC
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
280
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
262
ft U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: IMO -657-146/5718
------- |