RETURN IRRIGATION WATER
CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
EDWARD F. ELDRIDGE
DIRECTOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION PROJECT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
REGION IX
PORTLAND, OREGON
May 1, I960
-------
RETURN IRRIGATION WATER
CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
EDWARD F. ELDRIDGE
DIRECTOR
RESEARCH AND TECHNICAL CONSULTATION PROJECT
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
REGION IX
PORTLAND, OREGON
May 1, I960
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FOREWORD- 1
DEFINITIONS 2
SUMMARY -r 3
PART I - IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE 7
I. Magnitude of Irrigated Area 7
II. Economic Value 10
III. Supplemental Irrigation --,.- 12
PART II.- IRRIGATION WATER 13
I. Quantity Considerations
Overall Quantity Involved
Methods of Application
Rates of Application
Depletion
II. Quality Considerations-....-.---------- 16
Salinity and Salt Balance
Classification
Boron
Bicarbonates
PART III - IRRIGATION RETURN FLOWS 22
I. Quantity Involved _-.-.---------- 22
II. Sources of Return Flow----..---- 22
III. Quality, Factors Affecting ..---. 25
Evaporation and Transpiration
Leaching
Saline and Alkali Soils
Cation Exchange
Reclamation of Land
PART IV - RETURN FLOWS VS WATER USES- 28
I. Uses and problems*---- 28
II. Salinity and Hardness > 28
Examples
Effects on Water Uses
Methods for Estimating Salinity
III. Temperature ._---_-..--..--.---- 39
Example
Significance
IV. Turbidity and Color 40
V. Nutrients and Aquatic Growth--------------- 40
VI. Tastes and Odor - 43
VII. Nitrates * 45
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS - cont.
VIII. Insectides and Herbicides -- ---- 47
IX. Sanitation - Bacteriological-- -------- 48
APPENDIX A - SALINITY AND HARDNESS
Rio Grande and Pecos River-- ------- --------- 53
Yakima River 65
Sunnyside Valley Irrigation District--------- 67
Arkansas River---------- - - ---- --- 69
Sutter Basin, California------- . .,.-- 71
Upper Colorado River Basin-- -- 73
Columbia Basin Project------------------------ 74
Boise River, Idaho-- -- ------ 77
San Joaquin and Sacramento-------------------- 77
Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta----------------- 85
APPENDIX B - EXAMPLES OF TEMPERATURE EFFECT 89
Yakima River Basin
APPENDIX C - WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS - 99
Domestic supply, sanitary-------------------- 99
Domestic supply, physical and chemical--------- 100
Boiler waters----- --------.- -- 102
Industrial supply --.... ..-._...._-_ 102
Fish and aquatic life 102
APPENDIX D - REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY 106
References--- ---- ------ 106
Bibliography of related articles--------- 113
CONVERSION TABLE 120
-------
LIST OF TABLES
Table I - U. S. Irrigated Agriculture ------------- 8
Table II - Irrigation Water - Quantity and Cost- -------- 11
Table III - Water Use in the United. States 14
Table IV - Increase in Salts and Ions as a Result of Irrigation- 31
Table V - Turbidity and Color of Return Flows --------- kl
Table VI - Nitrate Content of Drainage Water, Oxnard Plain Area,
Ventura County, California- ------------- M5
Table VII - Sampling Points, Rio Grande and Pecos River ----- 55
Table VIII - Salt Content, Rio Grande and Pecos River- ------ 56
Table IX - Rio Grande, Discharge and Mineral Content ------ 60
Table X - Salt Content - Yakima River (1951) 66
Table XI - Input and Output Salt Concentration, Sunnyside Valley
Irrigation District - .___-_____- 68
Table XII - Salt Content Arkansas River ------------- 70
Table XIII - Input and Output of Mineral Salts, Sutter Basin,
California .__-. 72
Table XIV - Salinity Increase, Grand Valley Project, Colorado - - 73
Table XV - Salinity Data, Upper Colorado River Basin ------ 76
Table XVI - Salinity of Water in the Columbia Basin Project - - - 79
Table XVII - Salt Pickup, Boise River Basin, Idaho -- 80
Table XVIII - Quality of San Joaquin and Sacramento Rivers-* - - - - 83
Table XIX - Quantity of Water Applied to Crops, Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta ------------------- 86
Table XX - Water Applied to and Drained from Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta -------------------- 87
Table XXI - Magnitude of Diversion, Yakima Project- ------- 91
Table XXII - Station No, 1 - Yakima River - Temperatures ----- 9^
Table XXIII - Station No, 2 - Yakima River - Temperatures ----- 95
Table XXIV - Station No. 3 - Yakima River - Temperatures ----- 96
Table XXV - Limiting Physical and Chemical Characteristics for
Domestic Water- ------------------- 101
Table XXVI - Quality Requirements for Boiler Water 103
Table XXVII - Water Quality Requirements for Industrial Uses- - - - 10U
-------
LIST OF FIGUHES
Figure 1 - Irrigated Agriculture in the United States ------ 9
Figure 2 - Classification of Irrigation Waters ---------19
Figure 3 - Irrigation Project ---------------- 37
Figure h - Relation of Phosphate, Odor and Plankton ------- 1|I(.
Figure 5 - MPN of Wapato Irrigation Water and Return Flov - - - - 50
Figure 6 - Sampling Stations, Rio Grande and Pecos River- - - - - $k
Figure 7 - Salt Burden, Rio Grande and Pecos- ----------57
Figure 8 - Rio Grande Sampling Points -------------- 59
Figure 9 - Rio Grande, Concentration Dissolved Salts- ----,.- 62
Figure 10 - Rio Grande, Weight Dissolved Salts ---,------63
Figure 11 - Shift in Mineral Composition ------------- 6k
Figure 12 - Upper Colorado River Basin --------------75
Figure 13 - Columbia Basin Project ----------------78
Figure Ik - Central Valley, California --82
Figure 15 - San Joaquin River -----.».-_._-----_ 84
Figure l6 - Yakima River - Temperature Stations- ---------90
Figure 17 - Temperature Increase, Yakima River ----------97
Figure 18 - Chandler Station No. 2, Yakima River -<- 98
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The contributions of information and assistance of the following
persons in the preparation of this report are gratefully acknowledged.
Dr. L. V. Wilcox, Assistant Director, U, §. Salinity Laboratory,
Ua S. Department of Agriculture, Riverside, California
Mr. P. JR. Nalder, Project Manager, Bureau of Reclamation,
Ephrata, Washington
Dr. C. E. Veirs, Head laboratory Section, Region 4, Bureau of
Reclamation, Salt Lake City, Utah
Mr, F. Co Hart, Regional Drainage and Ground Water Engineer,
Region 1, Bureau of Reclamation, Boise, Idaho'
Mr. Meyer Kramsky, Principal Hydraulic Engineer, California
Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California
Mr. W. L= Lamar, Area Chief Branch of Quality of Water, U. S.
Geological Survey, Menlo Park, California
Mr. J. L. Ogilvie, Acting Assistant Director, Region 7; Bureau
of Reclamation, Denver,- Colorado
Dr. David B. Willets, California Department of Water Resources,
Los Angeles, California
Dr. R. 0. Ensign, Assistant Director, Agriculture Experiment
Station, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho
Mr. James M, Morris, Jr., Senior Hydraulic Engineer, California
Department of Water Resources, Sacramento, California
Dr. V. C. Bushnell, Chief, Regional Laboratory Unit, Bureau of
Reclamation, Boise, Idaho
Mr. Leslie B. Laird, U. S. Geological Survey, Portland, Oregon
Professor R, 0. Sylvester, Civil Engineering Department, University
of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Professor Jerry Orlob, Civil Engineering Department, University of
California, Berkeley, California -*
-------
RETURN IRRIGATION WATER -
CHARACTERISTICS AND EFFECTS
FOREWORD
This paper will show and document, by means of references to
published material, that return irrigation water is a major factor
affecting the quality of surface and ground waters in a considerable
portion of this country. In considering this effect and its magnitude,
it is necessary to have up-to-date knowledge regarding the acreage
of land under irrigation, the quantity and quality of the water re-
quired lEor irrigation, the disposition and use of this water, the
factors influencing the quantity and quality of the water returned
to surface or ground supplies, and the effects of this return flow
on further use of the supplies in a complex of multiple uses.
This investigation has shown that the potential water quality
problems involve changes in salinity and hardness, temperature, tur-
bidity, nutrients and aquatic growths, odor and taste, nitrates, and
sanitary quality. Each of these factors is developed and documented
and the actual and potential effects on water uses are analyzed. The
major water uses considered are domestic and industrial water supply,
fisheries, recreation and irrigation.
A considerable mass of field data pertinent to the problem of
the quality of return irrigation water has been collected. Very little
of this information relates to the effects of the quality of the return
irrigation water on water uses other than irrigation. However, these
data are useful in an interpretation of these effects. As would be
expected, there are voids in the information,
-------
DEFINITIONS
Since most of the data and information contained in this report
was taken froa agricultural literature, some of the terms used have a
meaning which differs from that used in other fields. The following
terms are defined to avoid misunderstanding.
Irrigation water Water diverted from a surface or ground
water source for the purpose of irrigating
land.
Return irrigation Water which returns to a surface or ground
water , water as a result of irrigation practices.
Salts Dissolved mineral matter including mineral
salts.
Salinity Concentration of dissolved mineral salts.
Salt balance The quantity of salts entering an area by
way of the Irrigation water as compared
with the quantity of salts removed from
the area by return water.
Consumptive use The water lost by evaporation and trans-
piration.
-------
SUMMARY
Insofar as possible, using existing data, the various problems
related to the quality of return irrigation waters and its effect on
water uses have been discussed and documented in this report. Doc-
umentation was accomplished by reference to specific examples. Where
additional information is needed, this is so stated. The following is
a summary of the results of this study:
1. Return irrigation water is a major factor affecting the
quality of surface and ground waters of large sections of this country.
Some of these effects are apparent or can be inferred from the results
of studies and experience with the use of waters containing these
return flows. Other effects are only indicated and their magnitude and
significance is not entirely in evidence.
2. There is a distinct difference between irrigation in the
arid western states and supplemental irrigation in the humid areas
of the East so far as the return flow problem is concerned. Although
there is a lack of data concerning return irrigation flows in humid
areas, the evidence available indicates that supplemental irrigation
will not significantly affect water quality in these areas. This report,
therefore, deals with the situation as it exists in the arid areas
west of the Mississippi River and only brief mention is made of irri-
gation in humid areas.
3. The magnitude of the return flow problem is indicated by
the quantity of water involved in the irrigation of land. In 1956,
over 36,000,000 acres were under irrigation in this country of which
91 percent was located in 17 western states. Some authorities feel
that by 1970 most of the potential area in these 17 states, over
51,500,000 acres will be irrigated. However, the increasing cost
of facilities and lack of water will undoubtedly retard the rate
at which the remaining acreage is developed.
4. About 128,000,000 acre feet or almost 41 trillion gallons
of water are used annually for irrigation.
5. An average of about one-third or 14 trillion gallons of
this water is returned to surface or ground water sources as return
irrigation water. The quantity of water returned varies from 20
to 60 per cent of the water diverted for irrigation. The remainder
is lost by evaporation and transpiration.
6. Return flows may be made up of three components; namely,
overflow, runoff, and seepage (drainage). These are present in vary-
ing proportions in the return water.
-------
7. Successful irrigation requires that a "salt balance" be
maintained in the soil which means that the salt (dissolved mineral
matter) output by-way-of the return flow must equal or exceed the
input by-way-of the irrigation water. Since this salt is contained
in a much smaller quantity of water, the concentration in return
flows is always greater than that of the irrigation water unless
there is storage of salts in the soils. High salt concentration
will eventually damage the soil for cropping and is avoided when
at all possible.
8. Examples are discussed in the Appendices of this report
from which it appears that salt concentrations in return flows are
from 5 to 10 times greater than that of the irrigation water.
9. Mineral concentration is one of the major quality factors
affecting the use of water containing return irrigation flows, and
it is desirable to be able to roughly estimate the expected concen-
tration of salts in return flows from new projects. The various
factors influencing this concentration are discussed in the report
and a suggested method and formulae by which such an estimate can
be made are developed.
10. Not only is there an increase in salt concentration,
but there is also a shift in the proportion of the various cations
and anions which make up these salts.
11. Most ions increase, but the percentage increase of each
differs. Of the cations, the percentage increase in calcium is low-
est, while sodium is usually the greatest. In some cases, however,
magnesium showed a greater increase than sodium, probably due to its
presence in the rock formations of the area. The anion, bicarbonate,
increases but slightly and in some cases diminishes. Both sulfate
and chloride increase greatly with one or the other leading in specific
areas.
12. Hardness as calcium and magnesium is from 400 to 700 per
cent greater in return flows than in the irrigation supply. In most
cases the major increase is in the permanent or non-carbonate hardness.
13. From the standpoint of the use of the water containing
return flows, the increase in hardness is perhaps the most significant.
This involves problems of water treatment which are both complex and
costly in order to make the water usable. In fact, some waters are
rendered economically useless due to this hardness and salinity problem.
14. Temperature is one quality of return irrigation water con-
cerning which evidence is incomplete. However, there are indications
that irrigation causes substantial increases in the temperature of water
receiving return flows. High water temperatures emphasize tastes and
odors, increase the quantity of water needed for cooling, cause more
-------
rapid growth of aquatic weeds, increase the rate of decomposition of
organic substances, interfere with the propagation and development of
some types of aquatic life and activate columnaris disease in certain
types of fish. Evidence is presented which indicates that water tem-
peratures in the Yakima River increased 10° to 20°F as a result of
irrigation.
15. Turbidity is a quality of return flows which can be largely
controlled by preventing runoff and erosion of soil. Turbidities of
from 200 to 1000 have been observed in return flow drains and canals.
This factor is a definite problem in some areas, but in most cases
there is a lack of data on which to evaluate it.
16. There is a limited amount of data available which indicates
that return flows may contain compounds which cause color in water sup-
plies. The problem is undoubtedly more significant in some areas than
in others.
17. In the over-all analysis neither color or turbidity appear
to be outstanding qualities of return irrigation flows. It is desirable
however, that tests for turbidity and color be included in future
studies of this problem.
18. A quality of return flows which appears to have consider-
able significance is involved with nutrient concentrations, especially
nitrogen and phosphorous. Profuse growths of algae in ditches receiv-
ing return water indicate the presence of these key elements, however,
data as to actual concentrations are rather meager.
19. Some data are available which show high nitrate concen-
trations in seepage water from irrigated land. However, the concen-
tration is decreased rapidly due to plant growth in the ditches, con-
sequently nitrates in surface waters receiving the return flow are
usually low.
20. Almost no direct information is available regarding the
phosphate content of return flows. Increasing difficulties with
slime and algae, together with increased phosphate content in streams
below irrigation projects, point to the need for further study of this
phase of the return flow problem.
21. A phase of the nitrate problem involves the high concen-
trations found in some ground water supplies. Nitrogen compounds,
both organic and inorganic, are converted to nitrates by soil bacteria.
Since nitrates are very soluble, they will be contained in the soil
water and that portion which escapes the root zone of plants will be
removed by the drainage water. If this drainage water reaches the
ground water, the nitrates may tend to accumulate since there are no
plants to utilize them. Of course, this situation is not limited to
-------
irrigated land and the relative contribution of return flows to the
ground water nitrate problem is yet to be determined. Nitrates in
water supplies cause methemoglobinemia in infants, if the concentration
exceeds about 10 ppm as nitrogen.
22. The contribution of return irrigation water to the taste
and odor problems of water supplies is substantiated by experience of
water works operators and by studies made in the Rio Grande area.
Tastes and odors are the result of the growth of organisms and their
subsequent decomposition. One investigator has indicated that the
chief contributors are organisms known as actinomycetes, which grow
on or in living algae and plants. He indicates that phosphorous is
the limiting factor in the growth of these organisms.
23. High concentration of mineral salts, especially chlorides
and sulfates, may also be a source of taste problems in water supplies
containing return flows.
24. Recent years have seen the development of numerous chem-
icals for insect sprays, weed control, and other agricultural purposes.
Return irrigation flows may be a medium by which these chemicals can
enter both surface and ground waters. However, there is a difference
of opinion of investigators in this regard, although in no case has
any direct evidence been presented to support these opinions. Most
of these chemicals are extremely toxic to fish and present a poten-
tial hazard to humans worthy of further investigation.
25. The sanitary quality of return irrigation flows is in-
fluenced by the condition of the irrigation water applied and by the
degree of contamination in the irrigated area. The bacterial content
of the applied irrigation water is substantially reduced by its use
for irrigation. Bacteria are almost completely removed by passage
through from 4 to 7 feet of soil.
26. There is evidence of the contamination of both surface
and ground water by direct runoff of irrigation water. In some cases
this runoff is directed into underground aquifers which has resulted
in the contamination of well water supplies. Experiments with the
recharge of aquifers by diluted sewage has indicated that the travel
of bacteria beyond 100 feet is negligible unless in a fissured area
or gravel strata.
27. Return irrigation flows may carry bacterial contamin-
ation into surface and ground waters depending upon local conditions.
However, this contamination is not a direct result of irrigation ex-
cept in those cases where runoff of irrigation" water may flush con-
taminated material from the land into these waters.
-------
PART I
IRRIGATED AGRICULTURE
I. MAGNITUDE OF IRRIGATED AREAS
Present
Irrigation is a major use of water in many parts of this
country, especially in the arid and semi-arid regions of the West (1)
However, supplemental irrigation is expanding rapidly in the humid
Eastern States, thereby increasing this water use in those areas.
The magnitude of this water-use problem is governed by the location
of the irrigated areas, as well as the acreage under irrigation.
It is estimated that there are almost 250,000,000 acres of
land under irrigation in the world today.(2). India and China lead
with approximately 70,000,000 acres each. The United States is
third.
Table I contains data regarding the magnitude and distri-
bution of irrigation in this country (3). The total area under
irrigation in the United States in 1956 was 36,002,627 acres. Of
this area 32,661,501 acres were located in 17 Western States and
3,341,126 acres in all other states. Table I also shows, in order,
the 20 states having the greatest irrigated acreage.
Future
A 17 per cent increase in irrigated acreage in the U. S.
occurred during the two-year period (1954 to 1956) covered by the
data in Table I. Almost 5,500,000 acres were added during this
period. Most of this increase (4,568,554) acres) was in the 17
Western States. Although the acreage in all other states only
increased 722,620 acres, the percentage increase was 28 per cent.
About 41 per cent of the land under irrigation is contained
in two states, Texas and California. The largest increase in
irrigated acreage during the 1954 to 1956 period occurred in Texas
(over 1,500,000 acres). Six states increased more than 100 per
cent in area irrigated during this period (see. Table I). The
greatest percentage increase was in Iowa, from 2,396 to an estim-
ated 20,000 acres or 818 per cent.
The rise in irrigated agriculture since 1890 is shown in
Figure 1. This curve shows a sharp rise since 1930 and there is
-------
U. S. Total
17 Western States
Other States
1. California
2, Texas
3, Idaho
4. Colorado
5. Nebraska
6. Montana
7- Utah
80 Oregon
9« Wyoming
10. Arizona
11. Washington
12. Arkansas
13- Florida
Ik. New Mexico
15. Kansas
l6. Louisiana
17 Nevada
18. Oklahoma
19. Mississippi
20. South Dakota
Increase of over
Iowa
Maine
Georgia
Oklahoma
Virginia
Delaware
30,711,453
28,092,947
2,618,506
TABLE I
U. S. IRRIGATED ACREAGE*
Acreage 1956 Acreage
36,002,627
32,661,501
3,3^1,126
7,750,000
6,962,234
2,405,089
2,382,000
2,012,320
i,890,ooo
1,612,108
1,575,000
1,300,000
1,150,000
947,ooo
892,936
821,282
800,000
722,575
711,000
700,000
285,175
157,000
120,000
100$ in:
20,000
6,900
80,000
45,500
11,000
Increase
17
16
28
7,048,792
5,439,000
2,324,571
2,263,000
1,393,733
1,890,000
1,072,682
1,^90,397
1,262,632
1,250,000
778,135
857,390
428,282
649,615
420,000
707,818
567,498
107,981
132,490
90,371
2,396
1,097
27,701
21,805
5,553
10
28
3
5
44
-_
50
6
3
-9
22
4
92
23
72
1
23
164
19
33
818
529
189
164
116
100
Sprinkler**
3,064,463
2,010,062
1,054,401
400,000
575,015
130,ooo
33,110
201,230
28,000
3,325
157,500
8,000
1,000
228,000
54,756
180,000
3,000
100,000
39,650
12,000
100,882
54,000
20,000
20,000
6,850
79,200
45,050
11,000
*Taken from the 1957 Directory and Buyers Guide. (3)
**31.5$ of irrigation in "other states" use sprinkler vhile only
6.1$ of area in 17 western states are sprinkled.
8
-------
JO
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
ACRES
MILLION
/v
/
/
/
IRI
<
/'"
X
RIGATED /i
.GRICULTU
IN THE
UNITED STATES
i
Y<-'
,^^^^^«^<
YEAR
RE
1
/
/
/
/
,
/
/
/
i-r
/O
/
-/
/
/
/
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 (940 1950 I960
FIGURE I
-------
every indication that this rise will continue (4). Irrigation, accord-
ing to Flaigg (2), "constitutes one of the major solutions to this
country's need for food," hence it can be expected that most of the
potential acreage in this country will be developed in the not too dis-
tant future.
The National Resources Board estimates that the ultimate irrig-
able area in the 17 western states is 51,534,900 acres. During the ten
years between 1946 and 1956 the acreage under irrigation has increased
at the average rate of about 1.8 million acres per year. At this rate
the ultimate will be reached by 1966 or 1967. However, due to increasing
cost of irrigation facilities and the competition for water by other
water uses, the rate at which land is placed under irrigation may not be a
as rapid as the ultimate acreage is approached. A major portion of the
irrigable land in the west may be under irrigation by 1970. According
to Ackerraan (5), on the basis of economic considerations irrigation
"comes out badly in most comparisons" with other water uses. Ackerman
gives irrigation but an additional 15 million acres west of the 98th
meridian on the basis of available water.
The situation in the eastern humid states is much different.
The estimate of potentially irrigable land in the east is 125,000,000
acres. Only a small portion of this land is presently irrigated, although
supplemental irrigation is increasing rapidly in many areas. The acre-
age which will eventually be irrigated in the eastern states will depend
largely on the availability of water.
II. ECONOMIC VALUE
Economic considerations pertinent to this project are contained
in the following tabulation, Table II, which was taken from the 1950
U. S. Census of Agriculture, U. S. Department of Agriculture for the year
1949 and projected to 1956 on the basis of increased acreage. It is
recognized that the 1956 estimate of investment is subject to consider-
able error due to a difference Irr^unit costs, since the estimate was
not corrected by reference to the cost index. These data deal largely
with irrigation on arid lands.
The investment in irrigation facilities in this country is an
estimated $2,530,000. The cost of the water for irrigation purposes
in the western states is about $180,000,000 per year. Although this
represents a substantial annual investment in water on an acre-foot
basis, the average of $1.58 is low when compared with the cost of water
for many other purposes.
The future place of western irrigated agriculture in the econ-
omic development of the water resources of the Nation is not entirely
10
-------
TABLE II
IRRIGATION WATER - QUANTITY AND COST
1949
United States
Land under irrigation, acres
Capital investment
17 Western States
Land under irrigation, acres
Capital investment
Water, total, acre-feet
Water, surface " "
Water, ground " "
Cost of water, total
Cost per acre
Cost per acre-foot
Rate of application-ac.-ft. ac.
Low rate (Rio Grande)" "
High rate (Idaho) " "
Reservoirs, number
capacity, ac-ft.
Canals, ditches & pipeline, miles
All Other States
Land under irrigation, acres
Capital investment
25,787,455
, 500, 000
36,002,627
$2,530,000,000
24,270,566 32,661,501
$1,832,500,000 $2,460,000,000
128,000,000
95,441,000
72,226,000
23,215,000
$133,598,000
$5.38
$1.58
3.4
2.2
6.1
7,393
42,332,466
159,400
1,516,889
$54,000,000
$180,000,000
$119,000,000
11
-------
clear at this time. As the demand for water increases this cost, there
will undoubtedly be a shift to uses other than agriculture (5).
III. SUPPLEMENTAL IRRIGATION
Supplemental irrigation is practiced in the humid areas of the
East largely to improve the production rather than to provide for new
kinds of agriculture. In 1956 over 3,341,000 acres were under supple-
mental irrigation in the 31 Eastern States. About 32 per cent of this
land was irrigated by sprinkler systems. Flooding is used for rice
fields mostly in Louisiana and Arkansas. Furrow application is prac-
ticed in the citrus fields of Florida. About two-thirds of the acreage
irrigated in the East is located in the above three states. The poten-
tial for supplemental irrigation is governed largely by the economic
advantage resulting from increased production as compared with the
capital investment and operation costs. The quantity of water required
is small when compared with that needed in arid areas, but may be a
limiting factor in some areas.
Little, if any, information is available regarding the quality
or quantity of return flows from supplemental irrigation, problems of
quality experience in the arid Western States are not likely to exist
under supplemental irrigation, or, if they do, their magnitude will be
comparatively small. Most of the quality problems in arid regions are
due to evaporation and transpiration and to the presence of soluble
salts in the soils under irrigation. Low application rates, low evap-
oration and transpiration rates, lack of high concentrations of soluble
salts in soils preclude major problems from return irrigation flows.
The principal effect of supplemental irrigation on other twter uses
will be related to the quantity rather than quality.
12
-------
PART II
IRRIGATION WATER
I. QUANTITY CONSIDERATIONS
Over-all Quantities Involved
The quantity of water used for irrigation can be expressed
by one of four methods (6): First, by consumptive use, which is the
amount of water lost by evaporation and transpiration from a cropped
area; second, by the amount delivered to the farms, which includes
the seepage and evaporation from distribution ditches or sprinkler
system in addition to the consumptive use; third, by the entire water
diverted from the streams or pumped from the ground, which is the
sum of the amount of water delivered to the farms, the canal losses
by evaporation, transpiration and seepage, and the overflow back to
the stream; and fourth, by the over-all supply for irrigation and
includes evaporation from reservoirs as well as the water diverted
'or pumped to the irrigation project. The latter is the one most
commonly used.
The 1949 Census of Agriculture estimates that 95,441,000
acre-feet of water (over 31 trillion gallons) were used for irrigation
during that year. Of this amount about 75 per cent was taken from
surface sources and 25 per cent from ground supplies. Projecting
this to 1956 on the basis of acreage irrigated, the amount of water
used for that year was about 128,000,000 acre feet or almost 42
trillion gallons. (Assuming that this quantity is used over an
irrigation season of 128 days at the rate of 1,000,000 acre feet
per day, the flow required to supply this quantity would be 490,000
cfs which is approximately equal to two Columbia Rivers at average
flow and about five at low flow).
This demand for water presently exceeds any of the other
water uses except power. The Geological Survey (6) has estimated
the amount of water withdrawn from surface and ground sources in
1950 for rural, municipal, industrial, irrigation and water power
purposes. The following tabulation indicates the percentage of the
total for each of the uses (omitting hydro-electric power).
Use
Rural
Municipal
Industrial
Irrigation
Ground
8.8
11.1
17.1
63.0
Total 100.0
Surface
0.5
6.7
47.5
45.3
100.0
Total
1.9
7.5
42.1
48.5
100.0
13
-------
(The above estimates include brackish water used for industrial
purposes, which makes the industrial percentage higher than it should
be if based on fresh water alone. However, it is not possible to sep-
%arate fresh from salt water uses in areas where tidal waters are used
"for industrial supply).
Engineering and Public Works, Library of Congress (7) projects
1900 and 1955 water-use data to the year 1975 (Table III). An increase
of 37 per cent in water used for irrigation during the period from 1955
to 1975 is indicated. It is expected that by that time much of the
irrigable land, especially in the West, will have been developed. This
projection indicates that industrial uses will exceed irrigation use
by that date.
TABLE III
WATER USE IN THE UNITED STATES
1900
Use
Rural & municipal
Industrial &
commercial
Irrigation*
Totals
mRd
5,000
15,000
20,000
40,000
T.
12
38
50
mgd
22,000
120,000
120.000
262,000
1.
8
46
46
mRd
37,000
246,000
170.000
453,000
\
9
54
37
*The above estimates are based on the assumption that irrigation use
..occurs every day in the year. Actually, the season of maximum use is
not much greater than four months. This represents a much greater
variation than occurs in other uses, although there are seasonal
variations in every case.
Methods of Application
There are four methods of application of irrigation water;
namely, flooding, furrow, sub-irrigation and sprinkler. Flooding is
used where soil salinity is a problem and is best applied to pastures,
alfalfa and orchards. Furrow application is used with crops that are
planted in rows. Sub-irrigation requires a system of subsurface tiles,
.but is not used where there is a problem of salinity.
Progress in the development of equipment for sprinkler irri-
gation has resulted in a substantial increase in this method of appli-
cation. Table I shows tha acreage irrigated by^sprinklers (over
3,000,000 acres). About 8.5 per cent of all irrigation in 1956 was by
sprinkler systems. It appears thatthe increased use of this type
of application will have a significant effect on conserving the quantity
of water used for irrigation.
14
-------
Rates of Application
The Census of Agriculture estimated the average rate of appli-
cation of water to land in the 17 Western States during 1949 was 3.4
acre feet per acre. The rates ranged from a low of 2.2 acre feet in
the Rio Grande Valley to 6.1 acre feet in Idaho. .Rates as high as 10
and 12 acre feet have been used in isolated instances. Rates of appli-
cation in humid areas are usually much lower than those in the arid
West and vary from 6 to 15 inches per year (0.5 to 1.25 acre feet).
\
Application rates are governed by a number of factors such as:
the availability and cost of water; local and climatic conditions;
methods of application; crops; soil types; and the quality of water
used. There is also a considerable difference of opinion among farmers
regarding the amount of water required. Excessive use is common in
areas where water is available at low cost. This practice results in
erosion and ponding of water in the lower areas and is a factor in
the quality of return flows.
There is considerable variation in the losses through the
several operations of irrigation systems (2). For instance; canal
losses vary from 15 to 40 per cent of the water diverted; wastage
from canals and laterals vary from 5 to 35 per cent; farm wastes,
from 5 to 10 per cent, and seepage, from 5 to 60 per cent.
Depletion (8) (9) (10) (11) (12) (5)
Irrigation is a consumptive use of water only insofar as
water is lost by transpiration and evaporation. Overflows from canals
and laterals, runoff from land and seepage, except for the loss due to
evaporation, will return either to the surface or ground water. It is
estimated that about 74 million acre feet of water applied for irri-
gation was lost in 1955 through evaporation and transpiration (5).
In the initial stages of the operation of certain projects
using surface supplies, storage in the subsurface strata may be almost
100 per cent of the seepage water. As the ground water elevations rise,
more and more of the ground water will find its way into surface waters
until an equilibrium is reached. At this point the return to the stream
may be almost equal to the volume of seepage water. In this case no
further permanent storage will occur.
Consumptive use as applied to irrigation includes evapotrans-
piration losses throughout the system, from the, reservoir to the point
where the return flow reaches the surface or ground water supply.
Evaporation in reservoirs accounts for a substantial portion of this
consumptive use and has been estimated to be about 15 million acre
feet per year. This is about 35 per cent of the total reservoir
capacity available for irrigation. Since this represents a major loss,
15
-------
efforts are being made to reduce it by the addition of monoraolecular
surface films.
Excessive weed growth along canals and ditches causes signif-
icant losses depending upon the type of growth and its magnitude.
Phreatophytes are a class of plants known to cause high transpiration
losses. Salt cedars which grow along canals in areas of Texas, Ari-
zona, and California are said (1) to consume more than 20 million
acre feet of water per year. Willows, cattails and sedges also con-
sume large quantitites of water. These trmres are being controlled
in a measure by the use of herbicides to reduce the weed growth.
Farm losses by evaporation and transpiration vary widely.
The Columbia Basin Interagency Committee made a study of consumptive
use (11) by various crops and under three different climatic con-
ditions in the Columbia River Basin Project. This study indicated
that losses ranged from 19.8 inches per season in an upland area
to 24.8 inches on an exposed southern slope. The average was 24
inches or 2 acre feet per aciJie per season.
The Geological Survey (8) in an evaluation of the consump-
tive use of water has estimated stream flow depletions due to
agriculture in each of the sub-basins of the Columbia Basin. These
depletions vary from 1.25 to 2.20 acre feet pe,r acre. The average
was'jl.75 acre feet per acre, which compares favorably with the con-
clusions of the Interagency Committee. The irrigation season in
the Columbia Basin is fairly short and evapotranspiration losses
are undoubtedly lower than in such areas as the Yuma and Imperial
Valleys where seasons are long. The average for the Western States
is generally considered to be about two-thirds of the quantity di-
verted for irrigation.
II. QUALITY CONSIDERATIONS
Water for irrigation must meet special quality requirements.
These requirements differ from those of water-used for domestic and
industrial purposes (13). An excellent water for one may be inferior
for the other. For instance: Irrigation water should be relatively
high in calcium and magnesium, whereas, a soft water is preferred for
domestic use; boron in irrigation water should not exceed 1 to 2 ppm,
although these concentrations are not important in domestic water
supplies; and silica, nitrate and fluoride are undesirable in domestic
water, but in the normal concentrations present no hazard in irrigation
water. -*
Criteria for irrigation water are developed on the basis of
salinity, sodium, boron, and bicarbonate concentrations. These are the
important factors determining the usability of the water for this purpose.
16
-------
Salinity and Salt Balance
The growth of plants is affected by high salt content in the
soil water. Plants differ in their tolerance to salinity. Electrical
conductivity (14) (15) is normally used to measure this concentration.
Water is divided into four groups in relation to the salinity
as measured by conductivity in micromhos per centimeter at 25°C (EC x
(EC x 10*>). These are designated in terms of Cj_, C£> C~, and C^ as
follows: (13) (14) (15)
C^ - Low Less than 250 micromhos/cm
C2 - Medium 250 - 750 micromhos/cm
C-j - High 750 - 2250 micromhos/cm
C^ - Very High Above 2250 micromhos/cm
About one-half of the waters used for irrigation in the West
comes within the range of 250 to 750 micromhos/cm, which in terms of
dissolved mineral solids is about 175 to 500 ppm.
Salts are concentrated in the soil by the removal of water
through evaporation and transpiration. The amount of mineral matter
taken up by the plants is not sufficient to be significant in the
over-all salinity problem. Thus, almost the entire bulk of salts
contained in the applied water is contained in the soil solution.
To this may be added material which is dissolved from the soil,
fertilizers, or soil conditioners. It is necessary that these salts
be removed by the drainage water, otherwise both the soil and crops
will be adversely affected. Therefore, it is important to maintain
a "salt balance" in which the output of salinity equals or exceeds
the input. When this situation exists, the salt balance is said to
be favorable.
The removal of these salts from the soil requires the use of
water in excess of the requirements of the plants. The amount needed
varies with the type of soil and the nature of the subsurface strata.
This water is called seepage or drainage water and is an important
component of return flows, since it contributes the major portion of
the salts contained in these flows. It may enter the ground water
or may return to the stream by-way-of seepage into drainage systems
or ditches.
Plants have difficulty in obtaining water from saline solutions.
The characteristic of soils, however, are not adversely affected by
high concentrations of salts, if sodium is low in comparison with
calcium and magnesium. Sodium renders soils impermeable to air and
water, and when wet these soils become plastic and sticky. The effect
of sodium on the soil is measured (16) by the "sodium-adsorption-ratio"
which is a ratio of sodium ion to calcium and magnesium ions. The
17
-------
following formula (13) is used:
SAR = Na
An SAR of 8 is considered generally satisfactory, 12 to 15 is marginal
and above 20 will cause serious consequences and will require special
management practices. The application of gypsum (calcium sulfate) to
the soil is a management practice used when the "sodium effect" is
serious. SAR data must be used in combination with total salt content
since the higher the salts the more sodium can be tolerated. This has
resulted in a classification of irrigation waters.
Classification of Irrigation Waters
Irrigation waters have been classified on the basis of conduc-
tivity and sodium-adsorption-ratio. While there are differences in
opinion as to the use of these classifications (17), the one developed
by the Department of Agriculture (16) (21) is perhaps the most compre-
hensive. This classification is diagramed in Figure 2. The slope of
the curves in Figure 2 take into account the relationship of the sodium
effect to conductivity.
The following interpretation is made of this method of class-
ification:
Salinity factors -
GI (low salinity water) can be used on most crops and soils.
Normal leaching will serve to remove accumulated salts except in soils
of extremely low permeability.
G£ (medium salinity water) requires a moderate amount of leach-
ing to maintain salt balance. Most crops, except those very sensitive,
can be grown without special arrangements for the control of salinity.
3 (high salinity water) requires soils of good permeability
or the use of special drainage systems and salinity control practice.
Crops should be salt tolerant,
C^ (very high salinity water) is not normally satisfactory
for irrigation. If used, soils must be permeable* drainage adequate
and crops very tolerant to salt. Considerable water will be necessary
for adequate leaching.
18
-------
-n
o
c
^
m
S4
S3
SI
-30
-27
24
21
S2 ₯
O
j= 15
O
>
O
-------
Sodium Factors -
S^ (low sodium water) Is usable on most soils. Some very
sodium-sensitive crops may be injured.
82 (medium sodium water) will cause difficulty on fine soils,
especially if leaching is restricted and cation exchange is high.
May be used on soils of good permeability.
83 (high sodium water) will cause sodium effects in most soils
and require special drainage and the addition of organic matter to
improve leaching. Cases were the soil is high in gypsum are exceptions.
The addition of calcium may be indicated, if it does not produce a
salinity problem.
84 (very high sodium water) is not satisfactory for irrigation
unless the water is low in salinity, and if gypsum or other chemicals
can be added without creating a significant salinity problem.
Boron
Boron in certain concentrations is toxic to plants. However,
there is a variation in tolerance lJy species which is influenced by
climatic and other factors. The tolerance ranges given in the liter-
ature (16) (18) (19) are as follows:
Sensitive crops 0.33 to 1.25 ppm
Semitolerant cropsO.67 to 2.50 ppm
Tolerant crops 1.00 to 3.75 ppm
Sensitive crops include fruits, nuts, and beans; seraitolerant
crops include cereals, vegetables, and cotton; tolerant crops include
alfalfa, sugar betts, and asparagus (13).
Bicarbonate and Carbonate
Bicarbonates in irrigation water tend to render calcium more
soluble. When calcium bicarbonate enters the soil an increase in tem-
perature or evaporation may precipitate the calcium as calcium carbon-
ate which tends to hold the calcium in the soil. This is of importance
since it keeps the calcium content of the soil high. This reduction
of calcium in the drainage water results in an increase in the sodium-
adsorption ratio (13).
Some waters contain "residual sodium carbonate" which is
defined (20) as the sum of the equivalents of normal carbonate and
bicarbonate minus the sum of the equivalents of calcium and magnesium.
Those who have studied the carbonate problem have concluded that water
containing less than about 66 ppm residual normal sodium carbonate can
20
-------
be safely used as irrigation water, between 66 and 132 ppm is marginal
and waters above 132 ppm are not suitable for irrigation.
21
-------
PART III
RETURN IRRIGATION WATER
I. QUANTITY INVOLVED
The proportion of the irrigation water which returns to the
stream or ground water varies over a wide range. It depends largely
on the definition of the term "return flow." When applied to surface
waters it is usually considered to be that portion of the water
diverted for irrigation which returns to the water course from which
it was taken. In the case of ground water sources, it is the quantity
of irrigation water which enters the ground water strata by recharge
or seepage.
Actually the return flow is that portion of the water which
is not lost by evaporation or transpiration. On this basis the average
quantity of return flow over the Western States is considered to be
about one-third of the quantity of water diverted.
The quantity of water diverted for irrigation in 1949 and the
estimate for 1956 was given in a previous tabulation (Table II). The
estimate for 1956 was 128,000,000 acre feet which is almost 42 trillion
gallons. If one-third of this returns to the source, the total quan-
tity of water involved in the return-irrigation-flow problem is about
14 trillion gallons.
There is a wide variation in the quantity of return flow.
It is governed by much the same factors as govern the quantity of
water diverted for irrigation. These factors are: availability and
cost of water; methods of diversion and application; management and
control; precipitation; temperature; soil; crops; etc. The variation
is between 20 and 60 per cent of the water diverted.
Quantity has a distinct influence on the quality of the return
water. Usually the greater the quantity the lower the concentration of
dissolved salts. This may not always be true, however, since insuf-
ficient water applied at one period may leave salts in the soil which
will be removed when more water is applied.
II. SOURCES OF RETURN FLOW
The source of the return flow influences both its quantity and
quality. There are .three major sources, namely; overflow (wastage),
runoff, and seepage (drainage). Two diagrams have been prepared to
illustrate the major sources. The first is for a surface water supply
22
-------
FLOW DIAGRAMS
SURFACE SUPPLY
Source
of
Irrigation
Supply
*
J
Evaporation
Transpiration
Seepage to ground water
Overflow (wastage)
Water
diverted
to
laterals
Water
applied
to
land
Evaporation
Transpiration
Seepage to ground water
Evaporation * A
__.BJ Transpiration '
; Seepage to ground water
Return Flow
GROUND SUPPLY
Source
of
Irrigation
Supply
Pumped
to
laterals
Return Flow
Evaporation
Transpiration
Seepage
Runoff
i
23
-------
in which the ground water storage elevation has reached an equilibrium
and most of the seepage is returned to the surface supply. The Columbia
and Yakima Basin Projects are typical of this type.
The second is for a ground water supply where the return flow
recharges the ground supply and where little, if any, of the return fl.ov
enters surface streams. In some projects of this type drainage wells
are provided to return the runoff and, in some cases, drainage to the
ground water. Examples of this type of flow exist in certain areas cf
Idaho and California. With some variations these two diagrams are
typical of most irrigation projects.
Overflow is that portion of the water diverted which is in ex-
cess of irrigation needs and is used to assure an available supply and
in some cases to maintain a water elevation in the canal system suffi-
cient to supply all laterals. It may vary widely in quantity over the
season. When irrigation needs are low,the return flows may consist
largely of these overflows.
Overflow water probably changes less in quality than that from
either of the other two sources. There may be a rise in temperature
due to storage in the canals, and evaporation may slightly increase
salt concentration. Otherwise, the quality of this flow should be much
the same as that of the water diverted.
"Runoff" consists of water applied in excess of that which
can be reclaimed by the land. It may be necessary to apply excess
water to assure that the water reaches all portions of the land,
however excessive application without a legitimate reason is not un-
common. The quality of this water may be distinctly different than
that of the water diverted. It may be high in temperature because of
being exposed in pools on the land. It may be high in turbidity due
to surface erosion, may contain fertilizer elements washed from the
surface of the land, or it may be contaminated by bacteria from
human and animal excreta.
"Seepage or drainage water" is the water that enters the soil
and passes into the subsurface strata. The depth of penetration varies.
An impervious strata immediately below the soil or a system of drain-
age tile may direct the water to surface drains. If the ground water
elevation is near the surface an equilibrium may be established where
the quantity of water which returns to surface sources is equal to the
quantity entering the ground.
The latter situation is presently developing in the Columbia
Basin Project. Prior to the development of this project ground water
elevations were from 100 to 200 feet below the surface. These elevations
are rising generally over the basin and in some of the more completely
developed areas have reached the point where ground water is flowing
24
-------
into surface ditches or collecting in low areas from which the water
may reach surface water courses. Thus, in these cases seepage becomes
a component part of the surface return. This is a situation common to
many reclamation project areas.
In those cases where ground water is used for irrigation or where
ground water elevations are low, much, if not all, of the seepage water
is returned to the ground supply. This is common to areas in California
and Idaho.
The quantity of seepage water is equally as variable as the
return flow from the other sources. It not only varies by location, but
in any given location will vary with the quantity of water applied,
climatic conditions, temperatures, and the stage of development of the
crop.
As will be shown later in the discussions of specific cases
(Appendix A), the salts contained in the drainage water will differ in
the proportion of the various ions from that in the applied water. The
major changes are in sodium, bicarbonate, sulfate, and chloride content.
III. FACTORS AFFECTING QUALITY
Evaporation and Transpiration
Evaporation and transpiration are the principal factors affect-
ing the quality of return irrigation flow. Salts contained in the
irrigation water are concentrated by the removal of water and are re-
tained in this concentrated form in the soil water.
Leaching
The quantity of water applied to the land is important since it
must be sufficient to remove the excess salts from the soil. This
quantity is known as the leaching requirement and varies from 6 to 25
per cent of the quantity of water applied. This water is usually applied
during the irrigation season, but may be added after the crops are
removed.
jiources and Significance of Sajj.ne_and_Alka_l 1 Soils (21)
Saline and alkali soils may contribute to the quality of return
irrigation flows through the removal of salts by leaching. Such soils
contain excessive concentrations of salts or exchangeable sodium or
both, and require special management practices.
There are very few locations where the weathering of primary
minerals in the soils or rocks is sufficient to form a saline soil.
Saline soils usually occur in areas that receive salts from other locations.
25
-------
Water is the carrier. Marine deposits such as the Mancos shales of
Utah, Colorado, and Wyoming, and salt intrusion in sea coast areas
may cause saline soils. These marine deposits are high in calcium
and magnesium sulfate and greatly influence the salt content of return
flows in areas where they exist. Salt formations from land locked
seas are also an influencing factor.
There are four general types of soils based on salinity-alka-
linity considerations (21), namely:
1. Saline soils in which the conductivity of the saturated
soil extract is greater than 4000 micromhos per cm at 25°C and the
exchangeable sodium percentage less than 15.
2. Saline-alkali soils where conductivity is greater than
4000 micromhos and per cent of exchangeable sodium greater than 15.
3. Nonsaline.-alkali soils where conductivity is less than
4000 micromhos and exchangeable-sodium-percentage greater than 15.
4, Nonsaline-nonalkaline soils where -conductivity is less
than 4000 micromhos and sodium percentage less than 15.
Saline-alkali soils occur in arid and semiarid regions.
They are nonexistent in humid regions. In arid regions leachings
are not transported far, due to high evaporation and transpiration
rates.
Restricted drainage is a factor contributing to salinity, due
largely to low permeability or high water table. Surface drainage-
ways are usually poorly developed in low rainfall areas and some
basins are entirely without surface outlets to permanent streams.
Low permeability may result from unfavorable soil structure or the
presence of water-tight: layers. Nonsaline soils may become saline
as a result of irrigation, since in some cases the need for artificial
drains is not recognized.
Cation Exchange (21)
Soil particles adsorb and retain cations on their surface as
a result of electrical charges on the soil particles. These may be
replaced by other cations in the soil solution (cation exchange).
Sodium, calcium, and magnesium are readily exchanged.
Cation adsorption occurs mainly on fine silt, clay or organic
matter in the soil. Many kinds of minerals and organic material have
exchange properties. The capacity to adsorb and exchange cations is
known as "cation-exchange-capacity" (21) and is usually expressed in
milliequivalents per 100 gms of soil. There is a relation between
26
-------
the proportion of cations on the soil and the concentration in the
soil water.
The process in general is: Calcium and magnesium present in
soil water are adsorbed on soil particles up to the limit of the soils
capacity. As the soil solution becomes concentrated due to evapotrans-
piration, the solubility of calcium sulfate, and calcium and magnesium
carbonates are exceeded. The adsorption of these cations together
with their removal by precipitation leaves a greater proportion of
sodium. Under such conditions a part of the adsorbed calcium and
magnesium is replaced by sodium.
(The cation-exchange-capacity of a soil is determined by sub-
jecting a weighed quantity of soil to a normal solution of ammonium
acetate. Ammonium ions are adsorbed and an equivalent amount of other
cations displaced),
Reclaiming Land Having High Salt Content
Another factor which influences the quantity and quality of
return irrigation flow, especially the drainage water portion, is that
of the reclaiming of land which has accumulated harmful quantitites of
salts. This is a situation which may occur in areas where water for
irrigation is in short supply for a number of years. An example is the
salt build-up in the Rio Grande Valley during 1955 and 1956, which is
discussed in Appendix A 1. It may occur also in those areas where the
soils naturally contain excessive quantitites of soluble salts.
Such lands, if the sodium content is low, can usually be re-
claimed by applying water in the amount of one foot per each foot
depth of soil. This quantity of water will normally remove about 80
per cent of the salt. If the soil contains undesirable quantitities
of boron, reclamation may require up to 3 feet of water per foot of
soil depth since boron leaches slowly.
Soils which contain undesirable concentrations of sodium can
be successfully reclaimed by leaching, provided the water has a high
calcium and magnesium content in proportion to sodium or provided the
upper soil contains gypsum. If these conditions are not met, it is
necessary to add gypsum. It may not be economical to reclaim soils
of low permeability.
27
-------
PART IV
RETURN IRRIGATION WATER VS WATER USES
I. USES AND PROBLEMS
There are a number of water uses which may be affected by the
quality of return irrigation flows. The major ones considered here
are: municipal water supply, industrial supply, boiler waters, rural
supply, fisheries as may involve the aquatic environment, esthetic
and recreational values as concerned with aquatic growth, the assim-
ilation of sewage and industrial waste effluents, and recharge of
ground water.
The effect on these uses will be developed by the analysis
of data from specific examples on the basis of seven problems which
can and do result from the return irrigation water. These problems
are:
Salinity and hardness
Temperature
Turbidity
Nutrients and aquatic growths
Odors and tastes
Nitrates and fluorides
Toxicity (insecticides and herbicides)
Sanitation (bacterial)
Each of the above will be discussed by first presenting specific data
to document the problem and then relating these data to specific
water uses wherever they may apply. Documentation by means of dis-
cussions of specific examples has been appended to the main body
of this report. (See Appendices A, B, and C).
II. SALINITY AND HARDNESS
Examples of Salinity of Return Flows (Appendix A)
As previously indicated, successful irrigation requires that
a favorable salt balance be maintained in the soil, which means that
the salt output must equal or be greater than the input. Except in
newly developed irrigation areas or where alkaline soils are involved,
the major portion of the salts which accumulate in the soils are those
contained in the irrigation water applied. A comparatively small
amount may be added by way of fertilizers or soil conditioners and,
in some cases, by gypsum applied to correct the sodium ratio. The
28
-------
principal source of the salt content of return irrigation flows, there-
fore, is that salt contained in the irrigation water. Not only is the
return flow water from irrigated land always higher in salt concentration
than the irrigation water applied, but there is a shift in the proportion
of the various ions present. (See Table IV).
Ten examples are given in Appendix A to illustrate the factors
which influence or are related to salinity and hardness of return irri-
gation flows. These examples are discussed briefly below.
1. Appendix A 1 - Rio Grande and Pecos River.
This example illustrates the effect of irrigation water of high
salt, concentration on the salinity of the river receiving the return
flows. Under average flow conditions (1945), salt concentrations in the
Rio Grande increased almost 11 times from 190 to 2060 ppm (Table IX,
Appendix A). Hardness as CaC03 increased from 111 to 631 ppm of which
over 500 ppm (79 per cent) was permanent hardness.
The effect of draught and the consequent lack of water for proper
drainage is illustrated by the data collected during 1955 and 1956
(Table IX). This resulted in an unfavorable salt balance and the reten-
tion of salts in the soil.
A shift is indicated in the proportion of the ions contained in
the drainage water as compared to that in the water applied (Table IV).
Of the cations, sodium showed the greatest increase, 21.4 times as com-
pared with 5.1 and 7.5 times for calcium and magnesium respectively.
These data were taken from the 1945 averages since this was considered
to be an average year (Table IX, Appendix A). Of the anions, chloride
increased in concentration 129 times as compared respectively with 2.4
and 10.5 times for bicarbonate and sulfate. The shift to sulfate and
chloride is normal for drainage water, however, in this case the magni-
tude of the increase in chloride was exceptional, due to a displacement
of very saline shallow ground water under the project,
2. Appendix A 2 - Yakima River Basin
In contrast with the Rio Grande, the concentration of salts in
the irrigation water of the Yakima Basin was low (Table X, Appendix A).
Water is more plentiful and the return flows do not affect \the salinity
of the river in the same proportion as when water is in short supply.
Nevertheless, the salt content increased about 7 times. Hardness in-
creased from 33 to 134 ppm as CaC03 °^ which about 50 ppm (37 per cent)
was permanent hardness.
3. Appendix A 3 - Sunnyside Irrigation District
This example demonstrates an area where the salt balance is
favorable. The district is located in the Yakima Valley. Salt
29
-------
centrations in the applied water were low.
The average of two seasons results (Table XI, Appendix A') shows
that salts in the return flow were 5 times that of the irrigation water
in spite of the fact that the quantity of return water was 41 per cent
of the latter. Pickup from the soil is therefore indicated.
The change in proportional ion concentration (Table IV) was not
as pronounced as in areas where the salt concentration is high. Sodium
did increase more than calcium or magnesium, but the shift to sulfates
was not pronounced. Percentage-wise chlorides increased considerably
(trace to about 15 pptn). However, the concentration of chlorides in the
return water was not significant. Hardness increased from 44 to 299
ppm as CaCOj, of which 188 ppm (63 per cent) was permanent hardness.
4. Appendix A 4 - Arkansas River
This is an example similar to the Rio Grande in that the salinity
of the applied water is high. Water quantity is apparently not as
critical and, therefore, the increase in salt concentration resulting
from return flow is not as great. However, there was an increase of
almost 6 times between the stations sampled (Table XII, Appendix A).
Sodium again showed the greatest increase, followed by magnesium
and calcium (Table IV) = Anions increased in the order - chlrride,
sulfate and bicarbonate. Harduess of the irrigation water was 212 ppm as
CaCC>3, 75 ppm of which was permanent. Hardness oi the river water below
the project was 890 ppm of which 650 ppm or 73 per cent was permanent.
5. Appendix A 5 - Sutter Basin
This is an example which direccly demonstrates the quality of
raturn flows since the input and output of a specific irrigated area
was sampled. The average of the results of a five-year period of
study (Table XIII,) Appendix A) showss Salts increase from 125 ppm
to 893 ppm or 7.1 times; calcium 4.6 times; magnesium 6.9 times; sodium
12.7 times; bicarbonate 2.9 times; sulfate 4.6 times; and chloride 40
times (Table IV). The increases in magnesium and chloride are exceptional
and noteworthy as being typical of conditions in California irrigation
areas. Hardness increased from an average of 72 to 480 ppm as CaC03,
of which 208 ppm (43 per cent) was permanent.
6. Appendix A 6 - Upper Colorado River
This example is another illustration of the quality of return
flows as related to an irrigation water of high salt content (Table XIV,
Appendix A). The increase in salt concentration was about 5.6 times.
Of special interest is the high magnesium and sulfate increase
and the decrease in chloride. The latter situation was not observed
30
-------
TABLE IV
INCREASE IN SALTS AND IONS
AS A RESULT OF IRRIGATION
Location Number of times greater than in irrigation water
1
2
6
7
Salinity
10.8
7.0
C (-)
p.U
5»9
7-1
5-6
7.8
Ca
5-1
U ij-
3»7
4.6
k,k
5 »3
Mg
I:!
5^5
6.9
6.°o
Na
21.4
8 T
14.7
12.7
3-5
17.2
HC03
1 R
1 = 8
2=9
1.6
5-2
sou
10,5
1 Q
J-,y
8,6
15,0
18,0
Cl
129.0
3.0
11.5
4o00
*
8,0
*Decrease
(l) Rio Grande "between Otowi bridge and Fort Quitman (Table IX).
(2) Yakima River between Easton and Prosser.
(3) Average of 19^3-^ input and output on an irrigation district
(Table XI).
(4) Average of 19^-0-^1 data on Arkansas River between Pueblo and
Holly (Table XII).
(5) Average of five years of data on input and output of an irri-
gated area (Table XIII).
(6) Data collected on a short stretch of the Colorado River between
Cameo and Grand Junction (Table XIV).
(7) Input and output data of an irrigation project in Boise River
Basin (Table XVII).
31
-------
at any other location for which data were reviewed. A similar in-
crease in magnesium was found to be common in California and to
occur in a somewhat lesser extent in other areas. Sulfates appear
to be common to the Colorado River drainage area and they are high
in concentration in the water of the main river (Table XV, Appendix A),
7. Appendix A 7 - Columbia Basin project
The Columbia Basin project is too new and the quantity of
available water so abundant that significant data regarding return
flows are not yet available. One of the potential problems involved
in this basin is that of ground water elevation and quality. Present
data are too meager as yet to interpret the effect of irrigation
drainage on ground water supplies. This situation is an example of
a new project with good quality water in abundant supply.
8. Appendix A 8 - Boise River
The data presented in Table XVII, Apendix A. shows an increase
of almost eight-fold in the salinity of the Boise River. All ions,
including chloride, increased substantially. The relative increase in
sodium and sulfate ions were highest.
9. Appendix A 9 - San Joaquin and Sacramento
The San Joaquin River is typical of a stream which shows
trends toward mineralization. However, the data (Table XVIII,
Appendix A) is complicated by dilution from many tributaries and
can only be used to indicate the general salinity trend. The ionic
concentrations follow the same trends as in most of the cases dis-
cussed previously.
10. Appendix A 10 - Sacramento - San Joaquin Delta
The study reported here is an example of the increase in salt
concentration resulting from irrigation. The results, however, were
somewhat complicated by salt water intrusion and canal leakage into
return flows.
Return Water Salinity, Summary
In a previous item of this report the statement was made that
the average quantity of return irrigation water is about one-third of
the quantity of irrigation water applied. If this is the case, then
the salt content of the return flow should be three times that of the
irrigation water unless there is a significant quantity of the salts
already contained in the soil or subsurface water. In all of the
examples (Appendix A) reviewed above (Table IV) the over-all increase
was greater than three times. In fact, the lowest was five times.
32
-------
This means that either the water was used more than once, the return
flow was less than one-third of the irrigation flow, or a signficant
portion of salts contained in the soil was dissolved by the passage
of water.
The other significant change in water quality resulting from
irrigation is the shift in the relative concentration of the various
ions. The proportion of sodium to calcium and magnesium is always
higher in the return water, possibly due to the precipitation of cal-
cium carbonate and to ion exchange. Magnesium remains fairly constant
in quantity although changing in concentration.
There are exceptions to the latter statement, especially in
certain areas of California and Colorado (Table IV), where magnesium
showed a significantly greater increase in concentration as compared
to calcium. This was explained (25) as being due to the high per-
centage of ferro-magnesium minerals in the rocks and soils of the
area.
Effects on Water Uses
Appendix C discusses pertinent water quality requirements for
domestic supply, boiler waters, industrial supply, and fish and wild-
life protection and propagation. The quality of water for irrigation
supply was discussed early in this report. These requirements should
be used as criteria in interpreting the effect of irrigation on the
quality of water for the specified uses.
The magnitude of the salinity due to return irrigation water
is usually not sufficient to affect fish and wildlife or the aquatic
environment in the receiving water unless the salts contain toxic
elements (26) £7) (28) (29).
The principal effects of the salt build-up due to irrigation
return flows are on the use of the water for water supply, domestic
and industrial, including steam or hot water installations. Water
with salts in excess of 500 ppm is not considered satisfactory for
domestic supply although water of higher concentration is in use in
some areas because it is the only supply economically available.
Such a water cannot be used for high pressure boilers. In
fact, the limit of solids in water for boiler pressures in excess
of 400 psi is about 50 ppm. The latter, however, would not constitute
a reasonable criteria for water affected by return irrigation flows.
(Most waters used for high pressure boilers require extensive treat-
ment). The domestic requirement for dissolved solids (500 ppm)
appears to be a more realistic criteria on which to evaluate the
effects of return irrigation flow salinity.
Table XXVII (Appendix C) gives the requirements for water
33
-------
used by various industrial operations. If industries of the type
requiring solids concentrations below 500 ppm are involved, the
evaluation must be adjusted accordingly.
Hardness has an even more sifnificant effect than concen-
tratloosof solids as regards the use of the water for domestic or
industrial supply. Waters are classified as moderately hard, if the
total hardness as CaCO-j is between 100 and 200 ppm (Appendix C).
Usually water with a hardness above 200 ppm is not satisfactory
for domestic or industrial use without softening.
The type of hardness, carbonate (temporary) or non-carbonate
(permanent) is an important consideration especially when the water
is used in hot water or steam facilities. Carbonate hardness forms
a soft scale or sludge which is removable. Hardness due to sulfates
and chlorides of calcium and magnesium (permanent hardness) forms a
hard scale and causes imbrittlement. While irrigation increases
both types of hardness, by far the major increase is in the perm-
anent hardness.
Increasing the hardness of water increases the cost of that
water to the user. These costs are in the removal of the, hardness
compounds in preparation for use. One of the first costs is that
of soap or detergents. These compounds are not effective as cleaners
until they have been added in excess of the quantity needed to react
with the hardness of the water. While the cost of detergents does
not increase in the same proportion as that of soaps, an increasing
amount is required as the hardness becomes greater. The following
tabulation taken from a recent report by Aultman (30) shows the
comparison of the annual cost of soap and detergents and the increase
due to hardness for a family of five persons.
Hardness as CaCOa Soap Detergent
ppm dollars dollars
Soft 32.9 30.2
100 46.0 39.0
200 59.5 48.0
300 73.0 , 56.5
400 86.5 65.5
500 100.0 74.5
The above tabulation indicates an average increase in cost
per 100 ppm of hardness for soap of $13.50 per year and for deter-
gents $9.00 per year.
When the hardness of water exceeds 200 ppm there is a demand
for water softening. If community softening is not provided, many
households (from one-third to one-half) on the system will purchase
34
-------
or contract for household water softeners. Howson (31) reports that
the servicing of these softeners on a contract basis costs the house-
holder an average of $18.00 per year.
Municipal water softening, while less expensive to the indiv-
idual than household softeners, still involves a substantial additional
cost. Estimates made in 1951 including all costs and fixed charges
indicated the cost of water softening to be about $31.00 per million
gallons ($10.10 per acre foot) per 100 ppm of hardness removed. Seidel
(32) in an analysis of water works data in 1955 states that rates charged to
to users for municipal water softening are from 20 to 40 per cent greater
than for treatment not including softening.
These costs are based on the average hardness situation where
permanent hardness is normally less than temporary. The high proportion
of permanent hardness resulting from irrigation return flows will sub-
stantially increase the cost of chemicals used by either the lime=soda
or ion-exchange softening processes. The examples previously discussed
show that the proportion of permanent hardness in the return irrigation
flow increases as the hardness increases.
The increase in hardness of water used for water supply is there-
fore an economic problem, the significance of which can be illustrated
by the following hypothetical situation using the above cost units. A
community is using a stream as a source of water supply. Since the hard-
ness averages 200 ppm, the water is not softened. An irrigation project
is located above the city with the result that the hardness of the supply
is increased to 600 ppm. Until municipal softening is provided, soap
costs to the individual household are increased $54.00 per year or deter-
gent costs, $36.00 per year. Municipal softening when initiated will add
$124.00 per million gallons to the cost of water for the community.
Many wateis affected by return irrigation flows are not usable for
domestic purposes unless diluted by water of lower salt content. Iq some
cases softening is not practical due to the cost and to the complicated
nature of the processes required to produce a usable water. Softening
processes usually leave sulfates and chlorides of sodium in the finished
water. As will be shown later, there are limits to the desirable con-
centration of these ions. Their removal requires several stages of ion-
exchange each of which add to the expense. In, these cases, supplying
dilution water to reduce the salt concentration may be more desirable
and less expensive than water treatment.
The following situation is quoted from a report by Swenson (33).
"A recent example is the proposed irrigation project at Canton, Oklahoma,
about thirty miles above the Oklahoma City municipal water supply reser-
voirs. Investigations showed that the increase in mineral content, part-
icularly chlorides, would impair the city water supply. The total solids
in the return flow would be at least three times that of the applied
35
-------
water. Total hardness would increase from 300 to 900 ppm and chlorides
from 130 to 390 ppm. The increase could be higher than these estimates.
It was estimated that the two flood control reservoirs above the project
would have to provide a minimum of 40,000 acre-feet a year to dilute
the irrigation return flow satisfactorily." Since the return flow in the
above cases was estimated as 30,000 acre-feet even with this dilution,
the water supply would still be very hard (450 to 500 ppm) and the chlor-
ides would be near the marginal concentration (over 200 ppm).
Method for Estimating Salinity
In the planning for new irrigation projects, an estimate of the
salinity effects on the stream receiving the return flow is desirable.
The following method for estimating the salinity in the stream below the
point of irrigation return flow has been suggested by L. V. Wilcox,
U. S. Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, California:
Let ** A - Concentration of salts in water diverted to the
Project, ppm.
B - Quantity of water diverted, acre-feet per day*.
C - Surface evaporation from canals and laterals,
acre-feet per day*.
D - Concentration of salts in water applied, ppm.
D = BA
B - C (1)
E - Quantity of water applied to the land, acre-feet
per day*.
E = B - C (2)
F - Evapotranspiration, acre-feet per day*.
G - Return flow, acre-feet per day*.
G = E - F (3)
H - Soluble salts leached from soil, ppm.
I - Concentration of salts in return flow, ppm.
DE
H (4)
G
J - Overflow, acre-feet per day*. (This is the
quantity of water that dilutes the return flow
36
-------
IRRIGATION PROJECT
QUANTITY- T->
DIVERSION
STREAM
CONCENTRATION
QUANTITY
QUANTITY J
CONCENTRATION K
RETURN! DITCH
G QUANTITY
CONCENTRATION
37
FIGURES
-------
or the discharge in the stream at a point just
above the drainage return).
T - Total discharge of stream just above point of
diversion of irrigation water, acre-feet per day*.
J « T - B - C (5)
(Assuming that B is the only diversion from the
stream and that there are no inflows).
K - Concentration of salts in the stream below the
return flow, ppm.
K = (JD) + (GI) (6)
J + G
^Quantity can be expressed in any desired unit if
the same unit is used throughout.
**See schematic diagram, Figure 3.
Notes:
The evaporation rate for the area can best be determined by the
use of pans anchored on water surfaces as recommended by the U. S.
Weather Bureau.
Evapotranspiration (F) can be estimated from curves given in
various text books (34).
Soluble salts in the soil may supplement the salts added by
way of the irrigation water. Whether or not this is a significant
amount will depend upon the type of soil and the status of the irrigation
project. This value can be estimated by field tests using equipment such
as the lysimeters used by the University of California Sanitary Engin-
eering Research Laboratory in an investigation of the effects of spread-
ing sewage on soils (35).
Soil is placed in the tank over a bed of gravel. Trays filled
with gravel are located at foot intervals and at points such as to inter-
cept about one-third of the water as it percolates through the soil.
The soil is saturated with the irrigation water after which the quantity
of water which will be applied to the land is applied to the soil in
the tanks maintaining a constant head. The soil water is withdrawn,
measured and analyzed for salinity. The increase in salt concentration
(H) is calculated by subtracting the concentration of salts in the water
applied (D) from the results of the analysis. The tank should be cover-
ed to prevent evaporation. The results should be reported in the same
units of concentration (preferably ppm) as previously used in the estimate.
38
-------
III. TEMPERATURE
Irrigation Increases Water Temperature
Evidence regarding the effect of irrigation and return
irrigation flows on the temperature of a receiving water cannot be
completely documented. The only data found to be available which
.indicates a temperature effect is that presented in Appendix B.
The data were collected from thermograph readings in three locations
in the Yakima River, Washington. The first station was just below
major diversions and above return flows. The second was below most
major return flows and the third near the mouth of the river. The
water temperature increase at the second station was 9 to 19°F above
that at Station 1, while between the second and third the increase
was only 1.5°F.
The conclusions drawn from this study was that irrigation
and return irrigation flows did have a significant effect on the tem-
perature of the Yakima River and that similar temperature effects
may occur in other irrigation areas. It was also indicated that there
is a correlation between water and air temperatures.
Significance of Temperature.
Temperature is a significant factor involved in the use of
water for domestic and industrial purposes and especially in water
used for cooling purposes. Temperatures above 55 to 60°F emphasize
tastes and odors in water used for drinking purposes and cause it
to lose its palatability. Also, the higher the temperature of a
water used for cooling purposes, the more water is required.
The major effect of water temperature in many areas will be
on the aquatic environment and fishery and in these cases it may be
critical. Appendix C indicates the temperature requirements of
various types of fish. Certain types are adapted to warm water fish
and will tolerate temperatures of 90°F or more, but game fish
propagate and develop best at temperatures of 60 to 68°F.
Salmon are perhaps the least tolerant to high temperatures,
especially in spawning areas and large numbers of fish will not
spawn at temperatures in excess of 63°F. Disease is a critical
factor in salmon of the Northwest when temperatures reach 70°F and
above. From the example in Appendix B, it will be noted that temper-
atures in the lower Yakima River often reach 70° and even 80°F dur-
ing summer months. Columnaris disease is known to be prevalent in
this area of the river and has destroyed much of the population of
migrant salmon.
39
-------
There is much yet to be done to document the effect of return
irrigation water on the temperature of surface streams. This factor
may prove to be of considerable significance.
IV. TURBIDITY AND COLOR
The turbidity of return irrigation flows is the result of
erosion of soil and is contained largely in runoff and overflow. Erosion
is objectionable from the standpoint of land values as well as water
quality and should be avoided. Here, again is a quality of return
flows which has received little study.
Examples of the turbidity of return flows are shown in Table V
for drains and creeks in the Yakima irrigation areas. While the turbid-
ity of many of the drains was high, the increase in the river was not
exceptional because of dilution (from 2 to 14). Appendix C indicates
that the turbidity of a satisfactory domestic supply should not be over
10.
From data available it appears that turbidities resulting from
return irrigation flows are not normally of major significance. In
most cases they can be controlled by lining canals and ditches where
velocities are in the scouring range and by reducing runoff by improving
application practices.
Color is another problem which has not been given attention.
Table XXVI shows the increase in color of water in the Yakima River.
The drains and creeks in the Yakima area carry largely return irri-
gation flows, hence the increase in color is primarily due to irri-
gation. Table XXV, Appendix C, indicates that a satisfactory water
supply should have a color not to exceed 20. Cdlor is also critical
for waters for some industries as shown in Table XXVII, Appendix C.
Although studies in the Yakima project indicate that return flows
may affect the turbidity and color of receiving waters, the significance
of these quality characteristics cannot be further evaluated at this
time.
V. NUTRIENTS AND AQUATIC GROWTHS
Minerals are essential to the growth of aquatic plants and other
organisms such as algae, aquatic weeds, reeds, slime producing bacteria,
etc. Three elements are of major importance as nutrients supporting this
^growth, namely, potassim, nitrogen, and phosphorous. Potassium is
usually present in natural waters. Any nitrogen deficiency can be made
up by the plant through fixation, but phosphorous seems to be the key
limiting element (36) (37) (38). Observations by Sawyer on lakes in
Wisconsin have indicated that concentrations of inorganic phosphorous
above 0.01 ppm may cause excessive growths. Other investigators (39)
(40) indicate that both nitrogen and phosphorous are limiting elements
and give 0.3 ppm total nitrogen and 0.015 ppm phosphate as necessary for
40
-------
TABLE V
TURBIDITY AND COLOR OF RETURN FLOWS
YAKIMA VALLEY
Sampling Point
Yakima River above diversions
Teanaway Creek
Selah drain
Selah-Moxee Canal
Moxee drain
Drain 2, Wapato
Toppenish Creek
Corral Creek
Snipes Creek
Spring Creek drain
Grandview drain
Granger drain
Sulfur Creek drain
Sulfur Creek drain & wasteway
Yakima River below diversions
Turbidity
Units
2
113
10
18
239
93
2k
kl
178
119
1+5
33
19
39
Ik
Color
Units
k
207
13
36
160
30
33
kQ
70
66
38
38
21
28
19
-------
the growth of aquatic organisms.
There seems to be a difference of opinion among investigators
regarding the contribution of irrigation return flows to the nitrogen
and phosphorous content of receiving waters. Goudey (41) describes
two examples where the use of nitrogenous fertilizers and sulfur com-
pounds on irrigated land adversely affected water supplies and increased
slime growths in distribution systems. Hanley and Bendixen (38) state
that "For any great quantity of phosphate to appear in irrigation
return waters, the phosphate would have to excape fixation by the grow-
ing crops and precipitation in the soil. Nitrates do not seem to be
a serious problem in streams receiving irrigation drainage and probably
wasteful quantities of phosphate fertilizer would have to be applied to
irrigated land in order to contribute major quantities of phosphate
to surface waters."
Silvey, however, points out (42) that phosphate may enter the
return flows in two ways. First, the precipitated calcium phosphate is
converted to soluble phosphate when the soil pH approaches 7.0. Studies
by the Texas Research Foundation (42) utilized "tagged" phosphorous
and found that 5 mg of phosphorous was removed by percolation from an
area to which 25 mg was applied. Secondly, Silvey states that a high
percentage of the phosphate utilized by the plant is contained in the
leaf. Those leaves are coverted to humus in the soil. This humus
containing the phosphorous compounds will float when dry and may be
washed into the return flow ditches by the application of water. Also,
through oxidation the organic phosphorous compounds in the humus are
converted to soluble phosphates.
R. 0. Sylvester from preliminary studies of irrigation return
flows in the Yakima river, Washington has data which indicates that
the nutrient content of water from subsurface drains is higher than
that of surface drains. These data indicate that the total phosphorous
in water from surface drains varied from 0.9 to 3.9 pounds per acre
per year and the total nitrogen from 2.5 to 24 Ibs/acre/yr. In nub-
surface drains the phosphorous varied from 2.5 to 8.9 and total nitro-
gen from 38 to 166 Ibs/acre/yr. On the basis of this limited data it
appears that a considerable portion of the fertilizers added to the
land are being carried off into the drainage water.
In this same study the nutrient content of the river receiving
this drainage increased, but not in the magnitude indicated by the con-
tent of the drainage water. This was due to the uptake by aquatic
plant life. This plant life was abundant in the drains and streams
studied. Much of it was flushed from the streams by the autumn and
spring freshets. The decomposition of this material in stream-run
reservoirs may cause a build up of nutrient material of significant
magnitude.
42
-------
There is very little information available to support these
contentions. However, considering the small amount of nitrogen and
phosphorous necessary for the growth of algae and other aquatic plants
and the fact that these growth are excessive in return ditches and-in
streams receiving return flows, there can be little doubt that nutrients
are contributed to surface waters by way of these flows. The relative
significance of this contribution is yet to be determined.
VI. TASTES AND ODORS
Aquatic growths, organic material, organic decomposition products
and certain mineral salts are responsible for tastes and odors in water
supplies. Any one or all of these substances may be contained in return
irrigation flows.
Silvey (42) (43) has indicated that much of the taste and odor
problems of communities on the lower Rio Grande is due to the irrigation
projects in that area. Many of these communities obtain water supplies
from the canal systems. Nutrients in the return flows support the growth
of aquatic organisms as previously discussed. These organisms grow in
reservoirs, canals, ditches and streams and contribute considerable
organic matter to the water.
Certain of these plants produce amines, esters, fatty acids
and aromatic compounds in the course of growth. As the plants die and
decay through bacterial decomposition, taste and odor producing com-
pounds are formed. However, Silvey states that "the most common direct
contributors of taste and odor are not algae, higher plants or animals,
but organisms known as actinomycetes which grow on or in living algae
and plants and on the remains of dead animals." He gives in some
detail the process by which actinomycetes produce odors and the con-
ditions favorable to their growth. As previously stated, he points
to phosphorous as the limiting factor and has developed the curves
shown in Figure 4 to support this contention. As a conclusion he states
that he "is inclined to offer the association of actinomycetes and
algae in different stages as the major cause of tastes and odors in
water supplies." If this is a fact, then the contribution of phos-
phorous by way of return irrigation flows attains added significance.
Salts in certain concentrations also cause tastes in drinking
water supplies. For instance, most persons can detect the taste of
concentrations above 200 to 250 ppm. The taste becomes objectionable
when the chloride concentration exceeds 500 to 600 ppm. Chlorides in
this range and above are not uncommon in waters affected by irrigation
return flows (Appendix A). Such waters, of course, have other objection-
able qualities which in most cases makes treatment mandatory.
The removal of tastes and odors from water supplies is a com-
plex and costly operation. This factor should be taken into account
in the development of reclamation projects.
43
-------
RELATION OF
PHOSPHATE, ODOR 8 PLANKTON
a:
UJ
iX
(0
2
tr
?
a.
I
CL
JAN
MAR
MAY
JULY
SEPT
NOV
FIGURE 4
-------
VII. NITRATES IN WATER SUPPLIES
Nitrates in water supplies have special significance in that
it has been indicated that concentrations in excess of 10 ppm nitrate
as nitrogen (about 44 ppm NO-j) is dangerous when the water is used
for infant feeding. This concentration of nitrarte may cause methem-
oglobinemia in the infant and can be fatal, depending upon the indiv-
idual's susceptibility (62).
Ammonia and organic nitrogen compounds are oxidized by soil
bacteria to nitrates. Since nitrates are soluble they will be con-
tained in the soil water. A major portion will be utilized by the
plants and the remainder will be removed by the drainage water.
Most of the analysis of surface waters containing return ir-
rigation flows reviewed in the course of this study have not indicated
high nitrogen concentrations. (Tables 9, 12, 13 and 16, Appendix A).
An inspection of thousands of analyses of surface waters influenced
by return flows has revealed no nitrate content even approaching the
limits given above. However, this does not mean that nitrates are
not present in seepage from irrigated land. The general presence
of algae and other plants in return ditches and streams receiving
return flows has been felt to indicate that the drainage water must
often contain high nitrates.
Table VI was prepared from data collected by the California
Department of Water Resources from a study in the Oxnard Plain Area,
Ventura County, California. The water supply used for irrigation in
this country is largely from ground water sources. The nitrate con-
tent of two well waters said to be typical of this supply averaged
about 3 ppm nitrate. The nitrate content of samples of drainage
water collected near the source varied between 21 and 84 ppm. The
results may be typical of drainage water in which the nitrates have
not yet been utilized by plants.
In spite of the high nitrate content of the drainage in the
Oxnard area, it seems reasonable to conclude that nitrate contributed
by return irrigation flows will not present a problem in surface
water supplies. However, the situation with regard to ground water
supplies receiving irrigation drainage may be different as discussed
below.
Nitrates in soil water as it drains downward will not be
utilized once it escapes the area inhabited by the plant roots. If
there is no outlet into surface waters or if the drainage is retained
for long periods in the water table, the nitrates will tend to in-
crease along with the other salts.
High nitrates are not uncommon in well waters in many areas.
Records of the Washington State Department of Health of water from
45
-------
TABLE VI
NITRATE CONTENT OF DRAINAGE WATER
OXNARD PLAIN AREA, VENTURA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
Nitrate as NOo
Location Date ppm
Drain on Oxnard Road 8-4-52 28.7
Ditch near Port Hueneme 8-4-52 21.0
Ditch at Hueneme Road, Bridge 520 6-6-52 49.6
8-4-52 56,0
5-12-53 37.2
Revilon Slough 2-27-53 2k,Q
1-27-56 56.9
Ditch, Hueneme Rd. west of 101 6-6-52 57,0
2-27-53 68.1
Ditch West 5th, west of West Rd, 8-4-52 64,5
1-14-53 63.0
Ditch, Alt 101, S. of Nauman Rd. 8-4-52 74.5
1-14-53 84.0
Ditch on Pleasant View Rd. 6-6-52 44.6
8-4-52 74.0
46
-------
wells in Eastern Washington sampled in 1949 and 1950 show that 167
out of 222 contained nitrates. In 22 of these, the nitrate content
exceeded 10 ppm as nitrogen and varied from 11 to 113 ppm. Over
half of the wells having a high nitrate content were dug wells and
xwere less than 30 feet deep. However, the well having the highest
content was a drilled well over 100 feet deep.
There is no direct evidence that all or even a part of the
nitrate in these wells resulted from irrigation drainage. In fact,
there is considerable evidence to the contrary in the case of some
of the wells in these areas underlined with igneous and lava rocks.
It is difficult to document data of this kind on the basis of well
water analysis alone. However, some of the wells were in irrigated
areas and were less than 20 feet deep and contained in excess of 20
to 25 ppm nitrate as nitrogen (88 to 110 ppm
Further indications that return flows contribute to the nitrate
content of ground water are contained in well water analysis reported
by the California Department of Water Resources (25). Of 115 wells
containing nitrates in the Lower San Joaquin Valley, 18 contained more
than 10 ppm, and 13 more than 20 ppm nitrates as N03. None of the
wells examined exceeded the limits for infant use.
While the data available regarding the effect of irrigation
on the nitrate content of ground water are far from conclusive, it
may be inferred that there is a potential problem concerning which
further study should be made. Nitrate determinations should be in-
cluded in all routine analyses of ground and surface waters where
irrigation water is involved.
VIII. INSECTICIDES AND HERBICIDES
There is considerable evidence that insecticides and herbicides
applied to plants and land have entered streams and caused extensive
fish kills (44) (38) have added to the load of persistent organic
chemicals in our water supplies. The fire ant control program of
the Department of Agriculture will apply dieldrin and heptachlor to
over 30 acres. The production of organic agricultural chemicals
has increased 5-fold during the last 10 years (from 125 million pounds
in 1947 to 570 million pounds in 1956). However, there is no direct
evidence that these chemicals enter waterways by way of return irri-
gation flows. Hanley and Bendixen sum up the matter in the following
quotes (38): "Whatever problems which may exist now or in the future
are not necessarily associated with irrigation. It seems likely that
insecticide problems are more likely to be encountered in humid areas.
The greatest water pollution danger would probably exist when a high-
intensity, short-duration rainfall occurs just after heavy application
of an insecticide." Actually, however, there is no indication that the
problem as it relates to return irrigation flows has ever been inves-
tigated.
47
-------
Many insecticides persist for long periods in the soil, they
exhibit strong toxicity to fish and aquatic life (45) (46) (47) (48)
(49). (Toxaphene constitutes 617. of the insecticides applied (44),
benzene hexachloride - DDT mixture 34%, aldrin 4%, arsenate 1%.
Toxaphene is the most toxic, killing trout in concentrations of 0.005
ppm. Dieldrin 96-hour TI^ values range from 0.005 to 0.042 ppm).
It seems reasonable to assume that some of this material will be
washed into return drains and streams by runoff from irrigation.
Whether or not the concentration is sufficient to affect the aquatic
environment would depend upon the situation and requires further
investigation.
Copper sulfate and other types of chemicals are used in canals
and ditches to reduce algae and weed growth. In the Columbia Basin
Irrigation Project 40 to 50 tons of copper sulfate per season is used
for algae control. Much of the copper in this case will collect in the
muds of Potholes Reservoir, which is used as a fishing and recreation
area. To date there are no reports of damage to aquatic life.
During recent years, numerous new chemicals have been developed
for weed control. Some, but not all of these exhibit toxic effects
on fish and other aquatic organisms (45) (48) (50) (51). Flaigg in
1953 reported (3) that there were no ill effects from the use of herb-
icides for weed control and salt cedar destruction by the Bureau of
^Reclamation. However, since these chemicals are toxic (52) and since
they are applied in such a manner as to have easy access to return
irrigation flows, the only conclusion that can be made is that herb-
icides used for the control of weeds in irrigation projects present
a potential toxicity problem in receiving waters. This is a situation
which is not easily assessed and which will require a more direct
study than can be obtained by depending upon reports of fish kills.
IX. SANITATION - BACTERIOLOGICAL
The major sources of contamination of return irrigation water
by bacteria are:
1. Irrigation water which has been contaminated by sewage
bacteria prior to its application. Numerous surface
streams which are diverted for irrigation receive either
raw or treated sewage prior to diversion. The Yakima
Basin presents a typical example of this situation. A
survey in 1951 (53) indicated an average bacteria con-
centration at the entrance to the Sunnyside diversion
of 28,210 per 100 ml. The sources of this contamination
are the effluents from municipal sewage treatment plants
which discharge to the river above the diversion.
48
-------
2. Rural septic tanks, cesspools, and refuse dumps, the
effluent and seepage from which may enter ditches or
be carried by irrigation drainage into ground or surface
waters.
3. Runoff of land which may flush animal excreta and other
contamination into return flows. Typical of this source
of contamination is a situation which existed in the
Minidoka area. Snake River Basin, Idaho. There are no
surface flows in this area. Water for irrigation is
pumped from the ground. Runoff and seepage are collected
and returned to the underground basalt formations by
way of drainage wells. There is a rapid movement of
underground water in this area and the drainage wells
are cased only through the over-burden. Significant
bacterial concentrations are found in shallow domestic
wells in the area.
The travel of bacterial contamination in surface canals is
shown on Figure 5, taken from the Yakima River Report of the Washing-
ton Pollution Control Commission (53). The Wapato irrigation area
where this study was made is self-contained. Water from the main
canal is diverted into four laterals below which are five drains
for return flows.
The MPN (most probable number of bacteria per 100 ml) at
the diversion is 28,210. This is reduced largely by die-away to
6770 in 14 miles and to 5750 in 20 miles. Drain 1 which receives
return flow showed an MPN of 1600; drain 2, 7000; drain 4 1580; and
in the main drain 4290. While in all cases there was a reduction
or improvement over the bacterial concentration in the water applied,
the results show the effect of the contaminated irrigation water on
that of the return flow is probably due to overflow or run-off into
the drains.
Bacteria entering the soil are not concentrated as are salts.
In fact, the soil does an excellent job of removing the organisms.
The travel of bacteria in soil and underground strata has been exten-
sively studied by many investigators. The results of these investi-
gations vary widely. This is to be expected because of the variation
in the conditions of the experiments. Some investigators use pol-
luted waters, others strong sewage, while other investigations involved
treated or diluted sewage. These reports indicate that bacteria will
travel in the ground distances varying from 10 to 800 feet. (Numbers
from References on bacterial travel).
There is apparently very little lateral movement of bacteria
until the ground water is reached. Movement in the ground water is
49
-------
3
;u
m
28,210.
WAPATC
DIVERSION
/
)
7000.
DRAIN 2
- -1 I +
£/ 15,980
',*=*
J LATERAL 2
6770-, J
11,700
||__p_RAIN_3_
LATERAL 3
57,902
DRAIN 4
/ LATERAL 4
MPN of WAPATO
IRRIGATION WATER
and
RETURN FLOW
MILF9
MAIN DRAIM
-------
naturally in the direction of flow. Bacteria are removed by strain-
ing, sedimentation on soil particles, and die-away.
The most recent and extensive studies of bacteria travel in
soils and ground water have been made in California in connection with
the recharge of underground aquifers (54) (55) (56) (57) (58) (59).
Briefly, the conclusion reached by the California experiments with
the travel of bacteria in the fine soils studied are: (56)
1-. A definite inverse relationship exists between coliform
count and depth of soil.
2. The disappearance of bacteria with depth is very rapid.
The bacterial count dropped below the Public Health Service standard
for potable waters (1 coliform per 100 ml) in depths varying from
4 to 7 feet.
3. The number of bacteria penetrating one foot or more of
soil is independent of the number in the applied water.
Experience with coarse soils lead to the conclusion that it
was not "practical to write any specifications of the minimum distance
from the ground surface to the water table which should be maintained
in order to prevent coliform bacteria from reaching the ground water."
These tests would seem to indicate that with fine soils, unless
the water table is near the surface, there is little chance of con-
tamination of ground water supplies by drainage water from irrigation.
With coarse soils there is a chance that some contamination may reach
the ground water, but that the bacterial concentration will be greatly
reduced.
The California experiments also included a study of the travel
of coliform in the ground water. The results are not completely com-
parable to the travel of irrigation water which reaches the ground
water because diluted sewage was used in the studies and introduced
into the aquifer under pressure. Bacteria would not be expected to
travel as far in the same media when introduced by way of seepage
and, therefore, the conclusions will be on the safe side. The con-
ditions, however, were more nearly similar to those where return flows
are returned to the aquifer by drainage wells as in the Idaho area
previously mentioned.
The pertinent conclusions reached were: 1. Bacteria moved
'more slowly than the transport water; 2. The rate of movement was
greatest in the direction of normal ground water flow; 3. The most
distant point of coliform travel was 100 feet in the direction of
normal flow and bacterial travel beyond this point was negligible;
4. Prolonged recharge did not cause bacteria to extend beyond their
51
-------
initial distance of travel; 5. The rate of bacterial removal with
distance is a function of the aquifer characteristic known as filter-
ability.
In view of the experience with both spreading and direct intro-
duction of contaminated water into the aquifer, it was concluded that
'unless the spreading would be on a thin coarse soil over a fissured
strata, the ground water contamination would not be a serious matter.
The reasons for this conclusion given in the California reports are
as follows (56): 1. There is a drastic reduction in organisms occur-
ring during infiltration; 2. There would be a tendency for dilution;
3. Since no gradients can be imposed by percolating water, the limited
initial travel of bacteria in the studies may be interpreted as evidence
of the small importance of sewage spreading as a public health hazard.
With this experience as a basis, it seems reasonable to con-
clude that under most conditions return irrigation water (which will
normally contain a much lower concentration of bacteria than the
^nedia used in the California experiments) does not constitute a serious
public health problem by way of the contamination of ground water sup-
plies. There are naturally exceptions to such a conclusion and local
conditions must be taken into account in a determination of hazards in
specific cases. Among the most likely exceptions are water supplies
from shallow wells near the irrigation area and the introduction of the
contaminated water into fissured strata or strata of coarse gravel.
In these cases, straining, precipitation and dilution may not be ade-
quate to remove the initial organisms.
Regrowth and die-away is another factor which may influence
the general conclusion given above. Coliform bacteria will eventually
die out completely, however, they may survive for long periods depend-
ing upon the conditions available for growth. These conditions have
been the subject of considerable study and will not be discussed here
(57).
52
-------
APPENDIX A
-------
APPENDIX A
SALINITY AND HARDNESS
The following examples will illustrate the increase in salinity,
the change in the composition of mineral constituents, salt balance,
and the effect of the lack of water for proper drainage, all of which
are related to the quality of return irrigation water.
RIO GRANDE AND PECOS RIVERS
Increase in Salinity
The Rio Grande and its tributary, the Pecos River, are classic
examples of the increase in mineral content due to the use of water for
virrigation (60). These rivers have been studied rather intensively since
the U. S. Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, California, started its salt
balance investigation in 1932, This is a situation involving large
concentrations of salts. The investigation of the Rio Grande problem
was given special recognition in February 6, 1950, when the Subcommittee
on Hydrology, Federal Interagency River Basin Committee established a
network of stations on Western rivers, specifically to study the quality
of water for irrigation. Fourteen stations were established on the
Rio Grande River system, four of which were on the Pecos. Figure 6
and Table VII show the approximate location of these stations.
Sampling was started in 1951 by the Geological Survey and the
results reported in G.S. papers (22) (23) (24) (25). Table VIII shows
the runoff in acre-feet per year and the salinity at each station for
the four-year period 1951 through 1954. The salinity is reported in
1000-ton units of dissolved solids and the concentration as the weighted
average in ppm.
The water of this river system is used several times for irri-
gation. Salt concentrations increase as the water proceeds downstream.
Low flows at certain locations indicate that much of the water is either
lost by evaporation and transpiration or is retained as ground water.
In these cases, the salt content is highest showing that the return
flows from irrigation are largely composed of seepage. The Pecos River
'is very high in mineral content as it enters the lower river. Trib-
utaries below the Pecos tend to dilute the salts and lower their con-
centration in this section.
The bulk of salt carried by the river and the salt balance is
shown in Table VIII. The year 1951 appears to be an average year. The
salt concentration (1951) in tons of dissolved solids is plotted on
Figure 7 for the 14 stations on the Rio Grande and Pecos River. There
is evidence of salt retention in the areas represented by stations 48
53
-------
SAMPLING STATIONS
RIO GRANDE 8 PECOS
RIVER
MEXICO
(7^ MEXICO
FIGURE
-------
TABLE VII
SAMPLING POINTS RIO GRANDE AND PECOS RIVERS
Approximate Mileage
No. Location Near Between Stations From Gulf
Rio Grande River
1*3 Lobatos, Colo. 0 11+20
kk San Ildefonso, N. M. 135 1285
^5 San Marcial, N. M. 1^0 11^5
U6 Elephant Butte Outlet ^5 1100
Vf El Paso, Texas 130 970
k8 Fort Quitman, Texas 80 890
h9 Upper Presidio^ Texas l60 730
50 Langtry, Texas 250 U80
51 Eagle Pass^ Texas 115
52 Roma^ Texas 225
Pecos River
53 Alamorgorde, N. M. 0 1035
5^ Artesia, N. M. 150 885
55 Orla, Texas 85 800
56 Comstock, Texas 310 U90
55
-------
TABLE VIII
Salt Content, Rio Grande and Pecos Rivers
River
Sample:
Point :
No. :
1951*
Runoff Dis .
1000 a.f. ppm
Solids
1000 -ton
Runoff
1000 a.
1952*
Dis.
f. ppm
Solids
1000 -ton
19^3*
Runoff Dis.
1000 a.f. ppm
Solids
1000-ton
Runoff
1000 a.
19 54*
Dis.
f . ppm
Solids
1000 -ton
Rio Grande
Pecos
Rio Grande
below
Pecos
±3
44
45
46
47
148
4?
53
fr
55
&
50
51
52
80
395
118
451
273
50
49
149
139
110
147
864
1311
1990
235
242
567
588
924
2605
1635
1680
3270
4580
2530
593
643
555
28
130
91
360
342
177
109
3to
619
687
506
69k
11146
1500
448
1378
685
5^3
284
11
13
126
110
49
104
694
998
1094
167
188
349
422
740
3960
3960
1590
3220
6780
2350
529
583
597
103
358
322
312
286
59
7
272
484
455
332
498
791
838
135
549
256
554
269
25
98
80
7
85
336
669
925
248
237
558
443
753
2740
1890
3530
9760
1890
604
506
445
46
176
194
333
275
93
252
385
99
218
276
460
560
72
451
104
27
102
13
40
67
74
64
2019
953
4203
2245
225
237
781
6900
1015
1415
570
2190
3510
6790
438
565
443
389
24
144
110
253
141
25
31
198
354
592
1200
540
2528
1187
56
-------
1400-
1200 -
l^/N/N
IOOO -
(/J
G
8003
G
W
600
c
u.
>
c
cr
400£
c
200 -
l
6C
4(
2(
i
i
0
t-
»-*
i
»
i
>
>
i
i
43 ^
)C
)C
)C
53
SALT BURDEN
RIO GRANDE and PECOS
1951 n
54 55
PECOS RIVER
Confluence
4.
, [
i
r
4
1
56 j
i
1 ,
' 4
^
-
T«i
«
mm
^
1
51
-------
and 49, however, it may be,that return flows do not enter the river
in these areas.
The year 1954 was exceptional in that during the winter months
there was almost no flow in the river at several stations (48 and 49).
A severe flood occurred in June. During this month over 1,500,000 tons
of salt were carried by the river at station 51. Undoubtedly salts
accumulated in the soil were at least partially removed by flood waters,
Effect of Drought on Salinity
The two years which followed the 1954 floods were periods of
drought when water for irrigation was not available in sufficient
quantity to maintain a favorable salt balance in certain areas of the
Rio Grande Project- This Is demonstrated by a special salt balance
study made by the U. S. Salinity Laboratory, Riverside, California,
in cooperation with the International Boundary and Water Commission
and the Geological Survey. The data involved in this discussion were
taken from unpublished reports (38) (61). The results of a similar
study in 1945 are included for comparison with the data from 1955 and
1956.
The section of the river under survey is that between Otowi
Bridge near Santa Fe, New Mexico, and Fort Quitman on the Texas-
Mexico boundary (Figure 8). There are irrigation projects along much
of this section of the river, however, the salt balance studies are
being made in the "Rio Grande Project" between Caballo Dam and the
El Paso-Hudspeth Country line above Fort Quitman. Figure 8 shows the
location of the seven sampling points used for these studies. They
are described as follows:
SP 1 - Otowi Bridge near Santa Fe.
SP 2 - San Marcial at upper end of reservoir.
SP 3 - Elephant Butte Dam at lower end. _ ~""
SP 4 - Caballo Dam, upper limits of Rio Grande project.
SP 5 - Leasburg Dam.
SP 6 - El Paso
SP 7 - Fort Quitman just below lower limits of Rio Grande
Project.
The discharge at Otowi Bridge for the year 1945 was slightly
above the average of the twenty-two years of record, 1,131,550 and
1,019,000 acre-feet per year respectively. Discharges during 1955
and 1956 were 43 and 35 per cent of the average at SP 1, Otowi Bridge.
The flow at SP 7 was almost nil during these two years.
Table IX shows the weighted mean concentration of salts at
each of the seven stations for the years 1945, 1955 and 1956. The
58
-------
DSANTA FE
OTOWI BR.
SP & I
CJALBUQUERQUE
RIO GRANDE
SAMPLING POINTS
Scale I" = 30 mi.
JAN MARCIAL
SP ^ 2
ELEPHANT BUTTE DAM
* 3
CABALLO 0AM
SP # 4
fLEASBURO DAM
5
MEXICO
NEW MEXICO
Jb "|EL PASO
SPM6
TEXAS
59
:ORT QUITMAN
SP>^ 7
Figure 8
-------
TABLE IX
RIO GRANDE - DISCHARGE AND MINERAL CONTENT
(Weighted. Mean Concentrations)
Item
1945
Discharge, 1000
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Dissolved Salts
i255
Discharge, 1000
Conductivity
Dissolved Solids
Calcium
Magnesium
Sodium
Bicarbonate
Sulfate
Chloride
Nitrate
Dissolved Salts
1956
Discharge, 1000
Conductivity
Sampling Points - Nos*
ac o -ft ,
ppm
it
it
ir
it
it
it
- 1000 tons
ac . -ft .
ppm
ii
ii
ii
-------
concentration of total dissolved salts for the three years are plot-
ted on Figure 9. Table IX also shows the total weight of salts
carried by the river at each station. There are plotted on Figure 10.
Figure 9 shows the gradual increase in mineral salts concen-
tration during the normal flow period (1945) when water was available
for removing the salts from the soil. The output of salts exceeded
the input as indicated on Figure ID. Return flows were responsible
for much of this increase in concentration, which was almost 1000
"per cent. The quantity of discharge at the lower station was about
one-third of that available in the stream above the projects.
The situation was different during the low flow years of 1955
and 1956. The use of water during this period was almost completely
consumptive. Concentrations of salts, while contained in a lesser
volume of water, did not reach the magnitude of the more normal period.
The increase in concentration was only 300 per cent as compared with
1000 per cent in 1945. However, from Figure 10 it is apparent that
almost the entire bulk of salts added by way of the irrigation water
remained on the lands of the area during these years. It is apparent
that the salt balance is unfavorable and, if the situation continues,
the value of the lands for crops will be significantly lessened,.
Another factor which may be significant in view of future
uses of the water is that these accumulated salts will be contained
in future discharges when the drought is broken. The magnitude of
the problem created will depend on the extent of the rainfall and
the season during which it occurs. During each of 1955 and 1956 al-
most 300,000 tons of mineral salts were retained in the area.
Change in Mineral Characteristics
Of equal, if not greater importance, to the use of water con-
taining return irrigation flows is the change in the proportions of
the major mineral constituents. Table IX shows the weighted mean con-
centration in ppm of the major positive and negative ions at each of
the seven stations for the^three periods. The data for 1945 were used
to compute the per cent calcium, magnesium and sodium based on total
cations and bicarbonate, sulfate and chloride based on total anions.
The percentages are shown in Figure 11.
Sodium showed the greatest percentage increase, although all
cations increased in concentration. The sodium content at Fort Quit-
man at the lower end of the project (Station 7) during 1945 was 461
ppm compared to 16 ppm at Station 1.
Hardness as calcium carbonate increased from 110 to 620 ppm.
While this is a considerable increase, it is even more significant
from the standpoint of water supply that the increase was almost
61
-------
RIO GRANDE
DISSOLVED SALTS
-------
600
RIO GRANDE
DISSOLVED SALTS
SAMPLING STATIONS
-------
-00
-50
<
ID
O
cc
!jj
U.
to
0
V)
o
£S£l
i
N to
ost0 v
s
;:
^
to
O;
xx
\\^1
a)
-90
Ha
No
No
-70
KH
-50
ui
^
o
UJ
>
O
Q.
UJ
O
cc
N(3
Na
No
Na
Na
Na
Na
«
Mg
^
Co
SHIFT
IN
MINERAL
COMPOSITION
S
Mg
Ca
-30 uj
Co
Ca
Co
Ca
Co
Co
Co
-10
STATION
Co
Co
234567
2345
6k
FIGURE //
-------
entirely permanent hardness. Figure 11 shows a shift in percentage
to sulfate and chloride downstream with a major shift to chloride
at Station 7.
.Significance of Salinity Changes
The water quality condition in the Rio Grande resulting from
the use of water for irrigation is an example of stream pollution
(63). The salt content of the water from Fort Quitman to below
the confluence of the Pecos is too high to be safe for irrigation
use. The salt content is diluted by tributaries in the lower river
and is reused for irrigation at Roma and Brownville.
Water from much of the river, especially below El Paso
(Station 47) to Roma is rendered unsatisfactory for domestic and
industrial water supply due to the increase in salts. Because of
the high sulfate and chloride content the water cannot be used
for the production of steam and is unsatisfactory for most house-
hold and industrial uses unless treated by means of expensive ion-
exchange methods. These elements also render the water unpalatable.
YAKIMA RIVER, WASHINGTON
Results of Surveys
The total irrigable area in the Yakima Valley is 621,000
acres of which more than 450,000 acres is actually under irrigation.
Water from the Yakima River system is used for irrigation several
times as it proceeds down the valley.
The water of the river originates in the Cascade mountains
and is low in solids and of excellent quality. At no location is
the salt content sufficiently high to interfere seriously with its
reuse for irrigation.
The Washington Pollution Control Commission in 1951 made an
intensive study of the river (64). The results obtained at eight
sampling stations on the main stem are summarized in Table X and
show the increase in salinity due to return flows. Most of the
return flow enters the river below the Wapato diversion. The over-
all increase in salt content was more than 700 per cent. Total
hardness increased from 33 ppm to 134 ppra as CaCO?.
Washington State College in September and October 1927 made
a survey of the Yakima Project (65). Most of these samples were
collected in the area below the Wapato diversion.
The results showed that the solids content of the water
applied as irrigation water (Sunnyside canal water) was less than
200 ppm and that of the return water varied from 400 to 600 ppm.
65
-------
TABLE X
SALT CONTENT - YAKIMA RIVER (l95l)
Sampling Miles Dissolved
Station Travel Solids (ppm) Remarks
Easton 0 4l
So, Cle Elum 17 k$ Small diversions
Ellensburg kk 63
Rosa Dam 71 51 Major diversion
Wapato Dam 92 7^ Major diversion
Toppenish 108 326 Major return
Granger 115 3^8 Major return
Sunnyside 128 358 Major return
66
-------
Seepage water was generally high in salt content but varied widely.
Most of the seepage water samples contained from 500 to 5000 ppm
dissolved salts. There were 90 samples in this classification. Eight-
een contained salts in excess of 2000 ppm, 14 above 1000 ppm, and
57 between 500 and 1000. Sulfate and chloride content were high
and were approximately equivalent to the alkaline-earth bases indicating
a low carbonate concentration. Sodium was not determined as such.
Significance as Regards Water Use
While the salt content of the Yakima River during the study
period increased about 700 per cent due primarily to return irrigation
flows, the concentration was not sufficient to preclude the use of the
water for domestic or industrial purposes. The hardness of 134 ppm
was not objectionable for a domestic supply. Chlorides and sulfates
did not reach proportions which would cause difficulties in industrial
uses. However, a change in salt concentration of the magnitude in-
dicated represents a deterioration even though the water may still
be usable.
SUNNYSIDE (WASHINGTON) Valley Irrigation District
An investigation of the salt balance in the Sunnyside Valley
Irrigation District (a part of the Yakima valley) was made by the
Rubidoux Laboratory, Riverside, California, under an agreement with
the Bureau of Reclamation and Bureau of Plant Industry. This inves-
tigation covered a 20 month period from October 1942 to July 1944.
The purpose of the study was to determine the salt input and output.
The results are contained in unpublished reports by C. S.
Scofield (66) and L. V. Wilcox (67). The irrigation water was measured
and sampled at a station on the main canal about 2 miles north of
Granger, Washington. Drainage water was sampled at 5 stations on
the drainage system. Two of these stations represented the entire
drainage output of the District. The area of land under irrigation
in this District was 37,896 acres. The concentration of salts in
ppm of the respective constituent is shown in Table XI.
The input of irrigation water for the two years was 167,931
and 164,060 acre-feet respectively. On the same basis the volume
of return flow was 68,033 and 62,456 acre-feet respectively. The salt in
input was IS,785 and 17,784 tons as against an output of 34,682 and
30,423 tons for the two years respectively. The volume of return
flow in 1943 was 41 per cent of the applied water and in 1944, 38
per cent. The salt balance was considered favorable.
It is of interest to note that the nitrate content increased
by several fold. Also of interest is the following quotation taken
from one of the reports (67): "The fact that the output of nutrient
67
-------
TABLE XI
INPUT AND OUTPUT SALT CONCENTRATION
SUNNYSIDE VALLEY IRRIGATION DISTRICT
19*0 1944
Item Input Output Input Output
Water-acre
Dissolved
Ca
Mg
Na and K
HC03
304
Cl
N03
feet
salts-ppm
M
11
1!
It
11
11
11
167,931
74
11
4
6
60
42
T
1.2
68,033
375
50
17
54
ill
81
16
10,3
1614-, 060
74
11
4
1
63
40
T
T
62,456
359
46
17
51
109
7^
14
7.5
68
-------
constituents, potassium, nitrate and phosphate exceeds the input is
not regarded as having any serious implication in respect to the sus-
tained productivity of the soil of the District. The quantitities
involved are small and an excess of output of these constituents is
to be expected where the salt balance is favorable." This output of
nutrients, however, is significant from the standpoint of aquatic
growths in the streams below the project.
ARKANSAS RIVER
Upper River
Over 500,000 acres of land are under irrigation in that portion
of the Arkansas River Basin located in Colorado (68). The return flow
in the section between Pureblo and Holly, a distance of about 176 miles
is in excess of 200,000 acre-feet per year (38) (69). Surveys made
in this area starting abou.t 1898 (70) show the increases in salinity
due to the return flows.
Typical of these are the results of an investigation by the
Bureau of Reclamation for the water year 1940-41 (38) (69). These
results are shown in Table XII. The runoff pattern is characteristic
of a stream that is utilized to its maximum for irrigation in that the
flows decrease in spite of the influence of tributaries. Solids con-
centrations increased from 346 to 2034 ppm, about 600 per cent.
Table XII shows a shift in the proportional composition of the
mineral ions similar to that experienced in the Rio Grande. The pro-
portion of sodium increased substantially, while that of calcium de-
creased. Magnesium remained fairly constant. The proportion of sul-
fate and chloride ions increased, while bicarbonate decreased. How-
ever, the chloride did not increase in the same proportion as was in-
dicated in the Rio Grande. Sulfate content of the water at the last
station was 76 per cent of the total negative ion concentration, while
the chloride was only 6 per cent. At the last station on the Rio
Grande the sulfate was 39 per cent and the chloride 51 per cent.
Lower River
The U. S. Geological Survey, as part of its network of stations,
has established eight stations on the Arkansas and its tributaries,
the Cimarron and Canadian. An analysis was made of the results ob-
tained at these stations during the period 1951 through 1954 (23) (24)
(25) (38). The data do not show a progressive increase in solids con-
centration proceeding downstream, undoubtedly due to dilution by large
volumes of water from tributaries as compared to the quantity of re-
turn flows. Water leaving the Colorado stretch of the river contained
dissolved solids in weighted average concentrations between 1500 and
1700 ppm. These were reduced to 500 and 900 at the lower sampling point
located at the Oklahoma-Arkansas border.
69
-------
TABLE XII
SALT CONTENT ARKANSAS RIVER
Water Year 1940-41
Station
No.*
1
2
3
4
5
Runoff
1000
acre ft.
503
568
108
310
169
Dissolved
ppm
346.
542
1088
1376
203^
Solids
1000
tons
237
419
160
580
468
Ca
ppm
59
92
15^
170
217
: Mg
s
: ppm
15
24
45
6l
83
: Na
e
:_ppm
18
40
99
158
24l
:HC03
8
:ppm
137
165
207
195
243
: SO^:
« 0
ft
: ppm:
122
249
555
775
1050
Cl
PPm
7
12
27
36
81
: NO^
-5
*
: ipm
2.5
4.3
2.5
1.8
4.3
^Station 1
2
4
5
Pueblo
Nepasta
La Junta
Caddoa
Holly
70
-------
-SUITER BASIN, CALIFORNIA
The U. S. Regional Salinity and Rubidoux Laboratory, in coop-
eration with the Sutter Mutual Water Company, conducted salt balance
studies in the Reclamation District No. 1500 in Sutter County, California,
during two periods, 1931 through 1933, and 1946 and 1947. The results of
the 1946 and 1947 studies are contained in unpublished reports of the
laboratory (71) (72). These reports contain data from the 1931 - 33 sur-
vey for comparison with those of the later study.
The acreage under irrigation was 45,028 acres. The input of
water during 1947 was 299,300 acre-fee.t and the output 152,110 acre-
feet. On an acre basis the input was 6.65 acre-feet; return flow
3.38 acre-feet; and consumptive use 3.27 acre-feet. During 1946 the
latter was 3.46 acre-feet.
The composition of the irrigation input and drainage output
for each of the years of the five-year period are shown in Table XIII.
Total dissolved salts in the drainage water were approximately 5 times
greater than in the irrigation supply in 1947 and 6 times in 1946.
The increase in salts during this period was substantially less than
that of the three years of the earlier period (7, 10 and 7 times res-
pectively for 1931, '32, and '33). According to the reports of the
laboratory (72) this was probably due to salts from a "very saline
ground water that underlies the area" and which may have been grad-
ually removed by leaching.
Sodium increased as expected, however, the considerable in-
crease in magnesium is noteworthy. In other areas, such as the Rio
Grande and Arkansas (see Figure 11), magnesium content remained
rather constant even with substantial increases in calcium. Other
differences apparent from a study of the data are:
1. A greater than usual increase in bicarbonate. In other
waters studied the bicarbonate content did not increase
substantially. In this case the bicarbonate content of
the drainage water was over 300 per cent of that of the
irrigation supply.
2. The sulfate content of both irrigation water and drain-
age w,;s much lower than would be expected from the results
of irrigation in other areas.
3. The chloride content increased by a much greater percent-
age than any of the other ions.
From these data it is apparent that chlorides of calcium, mag-
nesium and sodium were present in the soils or shallow ground water
of this region and that they have been gradually leached into the
drainage water. The laboratory's report indicates that these salts
may come from the artesian ground-water aquifer and that there was
71
-------
TABLE XIII
INPUT AND OUTPUT OF MINERAL SALTS
SUTTEE BASIN, CALIFORNIA
Year
1931
1932
1933
191*6
1947
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Input
Output
Salts
ppm
140
1008
125
1294
i4o
950
103
603
125
6ll
Ca
17
77
15
96
15
67
12
52
14
52
Mg
10
59
10
78
8
57
6
41
8
40
Na
11
150
12
193
16
152
9
105
13
102
HC03
107
268
97
283
100
276
75
277
88
255
Ovjl
J L
PPm
8
30
5
36
6
31
7
36
11
25
Cl
PPm
9
364
6
518
11
335
5
184
9
197
N03
ppm
0.12
0,06
0.12
0.06
0.31
0.50
0.31
0.62
T
0.25
-------
less contamination from this source during the latter period.
This study indicates the variations which are possible in
return irrigation flows in different regions of the country. These
variations have many causes which are related to the specific con-
ditions existing in the region.
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
Return irrigation flows are, of course, but one of several
factors affecting the salinity of a flowing stream. A natural stream
increases in salt content as it flows downstream toward its mouth, as
is illustrated by the results of analyses reported for six stations
(73) over much of the main stem of the Colorado River from Hot Sulfur
Springs, Colorado, to the main Yuma canal. Dissolved salts increased
from 64 ppm to 699 ppm, or almost 11 times. The major increases were
in sodium, 6 to 104 ppm (17 times), sulfate, 3.5 to 300 ppm (85 times)
and chloride, 2 to 82 ppm (41 times).
The report (73) gives the causes for the increase in salinity
as natural inflow of ground water and the return wastes from industry
and agriculture. The stretch of the river near Grand Junction is used
extensively for irrigation. This area is served by the Grand Valley
Diversion Dam near Cameo, Colorado. The increase in salinity between
this diversion and the main river at Grand Junction (about 25 miles)
is shown in Table XIV. This table (73) also shows the salt content
of a drain carrying return flow from this project. Of interest in
the data in Table XIV is the decrease in chloride ion and large in-
crease in magnesium.
TABLE XIV
Salinity Increase, Grand Valley Project, Colorado
Dissolved Ca Mg Na HC03 S04 Cl
Solids
1*
2*
3*
1151
1553
6400
118
145
522
31
66
434
244
290
855
239
256
388
270
565
4054
348
320
241
*No. 1 - Colorado at Cameo above Grand Valley diversion.
No. 2 - Colorado at Grand Junction.
No. 3 - Drain in Grand Valley Project near Loma.
The mean annual discharge of the Colorado between 1925 and 1930
was 15,700,00 acre-feet. This water carried over 12 million tons of
73
-------
salts most of which was contributed by drainage of irrigated land
in the upper basin.
Scofield (63) states that future diversions in the upper basin
will decrease flow, but not the salt burden. When the Colorado program
has been completed, stream flow will be reduced to 8 to 10 million acre-
feet passing through Grand Canyon. This water will carry at least the
same burden of salt as contained in the 16 million acre-feet of 1932.
Users for irrigation in the lower valley must use water with twice the
salt concentration and therefore will be required to use more water
for proper drainage to maintain a favorable salt balance. Even in
1932 an adverse salt balance was indicated for the Imperial Valley.
In 1930 - 32 the input was 3 million tons and the output slightly less
than 2 million.
/
Table XV contains the means of salinity data for 1947 to 1955
collected by the U. S. Geological Survey (74) on the upper Colorado
River. Figure 12 shows the location of these sampling stations. The
23 stations are located on the main stem and principal tributaries from
Hot Springs, Colorado, to Lees Ferry, Arizona. From these data it is
possible to observe the factors which influence water quality at the
various sampling stations, but the papers do not contain specific data
relative to the quality of return irrigation flows. This quality, as
in most reports, is implied in the analysis of the river samples and is
not separated from other influencing factors.
COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT .
The Columbia Basin irrigation project is comparatively new. At
the present time approximately half of the potential one million acres
has been authorized for development by the Bureau of Reclamation. Much
of the authorized area is under irrigation, but has largely been developed
during the past few years.
Water is pumped from the Columbia into artificial reservoirs from
which it flows to two main canals serving the upper portion of the project.
Most of the return flow and excess water from the upper area is collected
in Potholes Reservoir from, which canals serve the lower area. Thus, the
area is self-contained so. far as the use of water is concerned. Rainfall
is very limited, especially in the summer.
In the initial stages of the development of the areas much of
the drainage water was retained in the ground water. Ground water eleva-
tions have risen in the developed areas and in some cases ground water is
presently overflowing into surface drains. It is expected that eventually
equilibrium will be reached over the entire project, and essentially all
drainage water will enter surface waters.
Several surveys have been made in the area to determine the extent
of the salinity increase resulting from irrigation return flows. One of
74
-------
ARIZ.
UPPER COLORADO
RIVER BASIN
75
FIGURE
-------
TABLE .XV
SALINITY DATA, UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN
(Water Years 191*6-1955)
Irrigated Mean annual
.area above discharge
Sampling station 1000
Station * 1000 acres acre-feet
1 13 271
2 15 1*27
3 70 1707
^ 160 2859
5 238 1586
6 36 486
1 530 4843
8 150 1128
9 7^ 238
10 21 49
11 65 907
12 21 341
13 331 3803
14 30 473
15 18 129
16 551 4392
17 36 105
_ f\
18 15
19 1149 8952
20 52 732
21 30 562
22 190 1422
23 13^2 11126
^Sampling stations
1. Colorado at Hot Sulphur Springs
2. Eagle at Gypsum
3, Colorado at Glenwood Springs
4. Colorado at Cameo
5. Gunnison near Grand Junction
. Dolores near Cisco
7t Colorado near Cisco
8. Green near Green River, Wypming
9. Blasks Fork near Green River
10. Henry's Pork at Linwood
11. Yampa near Maybell
TO T J .Li. "1 _ ft 1 TJI
Mean Mean Mean
dissolved hardness sulfate
solids as CaCOo
Pgg ppm ppm
78 47 6
511 311 195
391 183 87
590 250 142
1042 559 574
1672 454 323
993 454 411
398 238 170
1105 506 624
1118 708 574
248 142 62
466 200 160
^32 254 178
552 286 175
3682 1431 2398
635 310 215
2987 1305 1863
2182 1212 1193
851 435 387
238 137 75
466 278 189
652 348 351
802 4l8 380
13. Green at Jensen
14, White near Watson
15. Price at Woodside
16. Green at Green River , Utah
17. San Rafael near Green River
18. Dirty Devil near Hite
19- Colorado at Hite
20. San Juan near Blance
21. Animas at Farmington
22. San Juan near Bluff
23. Colorado at Lees Ferry
-------
these was conducted during 1954 and 1955 (26) (27). The second consists
of a continuing series of samplings conducted by the Bureau of Reclam-
ation. The data from five of these series were reported in unofficial
tabulations during the period 1956 and 1957. The study covers nine sur-
face and six well water samples. The locations of the surface water sam-
ples are shown in Figure 13. The averages of the five series are shown
in Table XVI. The increase in salinity caused by return flow is not. as
yet significant, since the area is not completely developed and large
amounts of water, of low salinity are available.
Sampling stations 1 and 10 (Table XVI) represent respectively
the water in and out of the project. The major increases in salt content
involve sodium, magnesium, sulfate and chloride. Calcium remained almost
constant. The increase in magnesium is to be expected in the low con-
centration involved since magnesium carbonate is approximately ten times
more soluble in cold water than calcium carbonate.
Table XVI shows the salt content of the six wells from which
samples were collected. The ground water contains considerably more
salt than the surface water. The portion of this salt which may be due
to irrigation drainage cannot be determined from the available data,
since there is no history of the salt content of the well water involved.
BOISE RIVER, IDAHO
A series of samples collected during 1948 and 1949 in the Boise
River Basin, (Idaho) (75),. indicate the magnitude of salt pickup due to
irrigation in that area. The increase is demonstrated by the results
obtained at two stations (Table XVII). The first was located at Diver-
sion which represents the water applied. The second was from the return
flow in Notus Canal. The concentration of salts increased by almost 8
times, the greatest involving sodium, sulfate and chloride. Other areas
covered by the report of this study show similar return flow quality
patterns.
The University of Idaho, in cooperation with the Bureau of
Reclamation, have completed a project to determine the quality of ground
water in the Boise Valley (76). A large number of samples were collected
from a total of 60 stations, mostly existing wells. These sources of
water were classified according to their value for irrigation. However,
since there was no historical background indicated, the results do not
indicate the effect of irrigation drainage on ground water quality.
SAN JOAQUIN AND SACRAMENTO
The California Department of Water Resources in 1951 initiated a
survey of the quality of surface waters in California. A total of 150
stations were selected on 90 major streams of the State. Seventy-nine
of these were located in the central valley which drains from the north
to the Sacramento River and from the south to the San~Joaquin River.
Nine stations were located on each of the main stems of these two rivers.
77
-------
LAKE /"
ROOSEVELT
EQUALIZING
^RESERVOIR
MAIN CANAL
lU
Ct
4
CD
s.
3
J
o
u
J//
"%
*
\
j«
l__
L.
PROJECT
BOUNDARY
COLUMBIA BASIN
PROJECT
9V/
/
FIGURE 13
-------
TABLE XVI
SALINITY OP WATER IN THE COLUMBIA BASIN PROJECT
Sampling
Station
1.
2.
3-
1*.
5«
6,
7-
8.
9-
10.
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Lake Roosevelt
Frenchman Wasteway
Moses Lake
Wasteway
Potholes E.
.Canal Mile 0
Lind Coulee
Scooteney Wasteway
Potholes E.
Canal Mile 26
Potholes E,
Canal Mile 38
Potholes E.
Canal Mile 66
Well*
Well
Well
Well
Well
Well
EC
25°C
150
213
396"
20k
3^5
301
159
335
321
318
83^
653
1+31
955
495
517
Ca
ppm
21
22
28
25
24
32
21
24
2k
2k
92
44
38
58
4o
31
Mg
ppm
5
8
15
8
13
10
6
13
12
12
46
44
16
^5
25
37
Na
ppm
2
10
33
8
28
15
4
26
2k
2k
20
37
26
86
25
29
HCOo
ppm
76
91
182
101
163
113
82
159
15*
1U6
201
299
201
530
173
263
sok
ppm
12
20
33
19
27
37
13
2k
25
26
214
203
52
63
34.
51
Cl
ppm
1
k
11
k
10
12
1
11
10
10
12
12
10
2k
16
3
N03
ppm
0.8
0.5
2.0
2.0
1.1
2.5
0.7
0.5
0.2
0,5
68,0
1.8
3-1
13.6
69.0
20.0
*See location on Figure 13
79
-------
TABLE XVII
SALT PICKUP, BOISE RIVER BASIN, IDAHO
River at Return flow Percent
Test Diversion at Notus Canal Increase
Dissolved salts ppm 60 ^56 778
"E.G. at 25°C, x K)3 0,10 0.76
Ca 11 58 527
Mg 3 18 600
Na 5 86 1720
HCO3 k9 252 515
SCty 8 Ikk 1800
Cl 5 to 800
80
-------
(See Figure 14)* A major portion of the irrigated areas of California
lies in the lower central valley (San Joaquin).
The results of the surveys for 1951 through 1956 are reported
in two bulletins (77) and (78). A series of tests made during September
of 1956 are typical of the water quality on the main stems of the rivers
at this season which is representative of the dry period when irrigation
has about reached its peak (Table XVIII and Figure 14).
The marked difference between salt content of the water of the
two rivers is shown in Table XVIII. Some of this difference can be
accounted for by dilution from more abundant rainfall and runoff in
the northern area, as well as a more complete "Ijiajcjbting of the alluvium
in past geological time" (78, page 20). A major source of salts in the
San Joaquin River water, however, is return irrigation flows. The effect
is most apparent in periods of low flow when sodium is high in comparison
to other cations, and sulfate and chloride are greater than bicarbonate.
The above referred to reports state that the San Joaquin shows
a continuing trend toward greater mineralization. It is expected that
this trend "will continue until imported waters are available to provide
sufficient dilution to carry off the increasing amounts of return irri-
gation flows---."
li
The increasingly poor quality of water available in the lower
San Joaquin Valley and the concern caused by this trend have led to an
investigation of water quality in that area. This investigation resulted
in an Interim Report prepared by the Department of Water Resources (25).
The following statement pertinent to a consideration of return flows is
taken from this report: "As a result of the development of lands within
a potentially productive agricultural basin, return flows generally in-
crease as the quantity of applied water increases. Such return flows
comprising irrigation water, effluent ground water and ground water pump-
ed for water table control, may be either beneficial or detrimental as
illustrated by conditions in the lower San Joaquin River. Due to an
increase in concentration of mineral constituents by various factors,
such as consumptive use and leaching, return flows tend to degrade better
quality waters with which they are mixed. On the other hand, return
flows in which mineral constituents are not excessive supplement and
often times supply waters required by downstream users."
Data in this report (25) shows the high magnesium content of
some surface and ground waters. This magnesium content is said to be
related to the type of rocks in the drainage areas involved, due to high
percentages of ferro-magnesium minerals in these rocks.
Figure 15 was taken from the report (25, Plate 7) and shows the
average dissolved solids concentration for the periods 1938 to 1950, and
81
-------
/
\
v DRAINAGE
X AREA
\ BOUNDRY
CENTRAL
VALLEY
CALIFORNIA
32
FIGURE 14
-------
TABLE XVIII
QUALITY OF SAN JOA^UIN AND SACRAMENTO RIVERS
Sampling
Station
Dissolved
solids
ppm
Ca
ppm
Mg
ppm
Na
ppm
HCO,
j
ppm
SO,
H-
ppm
Cl
Ppm
San Joaquin
1, At Friant 27 2 1 2 l6 2 T
2. At Mendota 304 29 13 57 112 k6 Qk
3. At Dos Palos 314 31 12 6l 115 ^7 85
k. At Grayson k6$ kl 18 99 162 82 122
5. Maze Road 312 30 11 6k 112 36 91
6. At Vernalis 299 30 11 57 119 32 8l
7. Mossdale Br. , 327 32 13 6k 128 3^ 92
8. Garwood Br. 315 31 12 63 126 35 88
9. At Antioch 3&L 18 16 96 85 32 158
Sacramento
10.
11,
12.
13.
Ik.
15.
16,
IT.
At Delta
At Keswlck
At Redding
Hamilton City
Knights Landing
Sacramento
Snodgrass Slough
Rio Vista
118
73
72
78
125
82
1^3
129
9
10
10
10
Ik
10
16
15
7
3
3
5
8
5
9
8
11
5
5
5
Ik
9
18
15
80
57
56
63
95
62
103
98
2
3
4
3
12
6
12
13
6
T
T
1
6
5
Ik
9
83
-------
MILES
600
200
DC
CD
73
m
SAN JOAQUIN
RIVER
-------
and 1951 to 1954, Much of the increase in salt from Mendota to Fremont
Ford is due to return flows. Water of better quality from tributaries
below Fremont Ford serves to somewhat reduce the concentration in the
lower river.
»»
SACRAMENTO - SAN JOAQUIN DELTA
The California Department of Water Resources during the period
from May 1954 through October 1955 made a detailed water quantity and
quality survey of water applied to and drained from the Sacramento -
San Joaquin Delta lowlands (79). The Delta consists of about 469,000
acres of land, 374,000 of which are farm lands. These lands are at or
below sea-level and are protected by dikes. The area is interlaced by
600 miles of canals. During the period of the survey about 292,000
acres of this area were irrigated using surplus water from the Sacra-
mento Valley.
«
The purposes of the survey were to determine the quantitites
of water applied to the irrigated crops and the "extent and sources
of degradation in quality of the channel waters from the Sacramento
River to the Tracy Pumping Station." These two points represent the
inflow and outflow of the Delta respectively.
Surface soils are of two types, sedimentary mineral ranging
from loamy sand to clay and organic ranging from mucky loam to peat.
The area was divided into three parts on the basis of soil types;
namely, the north mineral, middle organic, and south mineral. There
are six major irrigated crops raised on Delta lowlands. Methods of
irrigation vary from furrow type to sprinkler. Most irrigation is in
late spring and summer. Due to an increase in salinity in the channel
waters, some farmers cease irrigation in late summer to prevent damage
to crops.
Salinity increases in the soil during the irrigation season.
The salts are removed in the fall when ample water is available by
applying excess water to the irrigated land. (An item of interest is
the quantity of water applied for various crops. These data are given
in Table XIX as a matter of record).
Drainage water is collected in lateral drains and pumped to the
main canals. There are 206 pumping plants involving 319 pumps used to
transfer drainage water to the canals. This drainage water was measured
and analyzed as was the water applied. The total quantity of water
applied in the area was 656,000 acre-feet per season or an average of
2.25 acre-feet per acre. The results of measurements and analyses made
during March through October 1955 are shown in Table XX.
The analysis of the salt contribution by irrigation return flows
in this area is complicated by possible sea-water intrusion, seepage
85
-------
TABLE XIX
QUANTITY OF WATER APPLIED TO CROPS
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA
Crop
Weighted mean depth in inches
North mineral Middle organic South mineral
Field corn
Alfalfa
Sugar Beets
Tomatoes
Pasture
Asparagus
17.6
28.2
22,6
29A
25-9
^3.3
39-0
ko.9
l6~6
17,6
50. l*
1*5.0
31.0
99.7
7-9
86
-------
TABLE XX
1955
WATER APPLIED TO AND DRAINED FROM
SACRAMENTO-SAN JOAQUIN DELTA
Applied Water
Salt""
Quantity concentration
Acre-ft. ppm
Drainage Water
Salt
Quantity concentration
Acre i-ft ppm
March.
April
May
June
July
August
September
October
6,560
26,240
45,910
118,060
216,450
170, 540
65,590
6,560
237
205
183
158
198
246
262
245
32,419
37,628
49,813
71,084
80,606
72,170
43,116
30,017
723
673
437
373
331
335
440
475
87
-------
from canals to drainage collection ditches and by rising water from
deep strata. However, the conclusion drawn from the study is:
"The Delta Lowlands act as. a salt reservoir storing salts obtained
largely from the canals during the summer, when water quality in such
canals is most critical and returning such accumulated salts to
canals during the winter when water quality is least important. The
highest concentration of salts (85,5 ppm) in drainage water occurred
in January, 1955. This conclusion is based on irrigation use since
concentrations of salts may affect other uses during the winter as
well as other period of the year. "
-------
APPENDIX B
-------
APPENDIX B
TEMPERATURE
YAKIMA RIVER BASIN, WASHINGTON
As a part of a survey of the Yakima River in 1955 by the Wash-
ington Pollution Control Commission, thermographs were installed at
three stations to record the air and water temperatures. The objective
was to obtain information regarding the effects of irrigation and return
irrigation flows on the temperature characteristics of the water of the
stream. These data are unpublished but have been made available for
this report.
Station Locations
The location of the three stations are shown on Figure 16. The
first, "Station No. 1" was located at Donald-Wapato Bridge (River mile
80) which is below major irrigation diversions and above points of return
flow. A flow recorder is located in the river near this station (at
Parker).
Station No. 2 was located at the "Chandler power drop" (River
mile 30) about 50 miles below No. 1. This station is below the major
return flows, and any influence of return flows on the temperature of the
river should be reflected by the recordings at this station. A flow
gaging station is located at Kiona about 5 miles below No. 2. The flow
time between stations 1 and 2 is approximately 35 hours.
Station No. 3 was located about 1/2 mile above the mouth of the
river where it enters the Columbia and 30 miles below No. 2. Only a
comparatively small amount of water is diverted from the river between
the lower two stations and only a limited amount of return flow enters
the river in this section. The flow time between stations 2 and 3 is
approximately 9 hours.
*.'
Period of Data Collection
Temperature data was collected for the period of July until the
middle of October. However, for the purpose of this analysis, that
collected during August and September will be used, since irrigation
was at its maximum during this period. The year 1955 was an average
flow year. Water temperatures, therefore, may not be representative of
the maximum possible during periods of low flow. However, this is a
factor of magnitude and is not an influencing factor in this analysis,
although it may have serious implications in the Yakima Basin during
those periods when larger proportions of the river flow are diverted.
89
-------
(
35
(O*
c
-i
0>
YAKIMA RIVER
TEMPERATURE STATIONS
-------
Diverstons
Three major diversions are located in the river above the first
.stations: Rosa diversion about 10 miles above the City of Yakima; Wapato
diversion five miles below Yakima and about five miles above station
No. 1; and the Sunnyside diversion, two and one-half miles above station 1.
Table XXI indicates the magnitude of the diversions at each of
these dams during the two-months period (August and September, 1955).
TABLE XXI\
Magnitude of Diversion (cfs)
Date Rosa Wapato Sunnyside
August 5 939 1775 1270
August 18 1006 1640 1280
September 1 954 1525 1195
September 15 704 1470 1045
September 29 544 1315 860
Return Flow. Quantity
The flow of the Yakimais gaged by stations at Parker and Kiona.
The gaging at Parker is representative of the flow at station No. 1.
That at Kiona is sufficiently representative of the flow at station
.'No, 1 for the purpose of this analysis. There is a lag of about
1 1/2 days between the flows at these two stations. The difference
between the flows, corrected for this lag, represents the flow of
return irrigation water. The average for August was 1250 cfs and
for September 1650 cfs. Using the diversion flows from Table XXI
as roughly representative of the average diversion for each of the
two months, estimates of the percentage return were made as follows;
August:
Average combined diversions 3955 cfs
Average return flow 1250 cfs
Per cent return 31.7
September:
Average combined diversions 3204 cfs
Average return flow 1650 cfs
Per cent return 51,5
Two-months Period;
Average combined diversions 3504 cfs
Average return flow 1447
Per cent return 41.3
91
-------
August data are considered to be typical for this area. Decreased
temperatures near the end of September resulted in a decrease in the
water applied to the land and a subsequent increase in overflow. This
accounts for the higher percentage return.
Air and Water Temperatures
Tables 22,23, and 24 give the maximum, minimum and average temper-
atures of both air and water at stations 1, 2, and 3 respectively for the
two-months (August and September, 1955).
Maximum water temperatures at the three stations are plotted in
Figures 17, This plot indicates the effect of irrigation and irrigation
return flows on the water temperature of the river. The water temperatures
at station 2 were 9 to 19°F above those at station 1. This is the area
of major return flows. There is only a slight increase in water temper-
ature between stations 2 and 3. The difference in flow time of the river
in each case does not account for the wide variation in the increase in
temperatures at these stations. The average increase in water temperature
between stations 1 and 2 is about 14°F and between stations 2 and 3,
about 1.5°F.
It is not possible from the data collected to determine definitely
whether the major increase occurred in the canals or ditches or as a
result of the application of the water to the land. It is clear, however
that there was a definite correlation between air and water temperatures.
This is to be expected, of course, since the conditions causing increases
or decreases in temperatures qf water and air are the same. (Figure 18
shows the maximum air and water temperatures at the Chandler station,
No. 2).
Figure 18 shows the return flows in cfs at station 2. Since there
is no correlation between the temperatures and the quality'of return flow,
it can be assumed that at least a significant part of the increase in the
temperature of the water diverted for irrigation occurs in the canals and
ditches.
Figure 18 also shows the effect of a decrease in temperature on the
volume of return flow. This is due to several factors among which are:
a decrease in application, since less water is needed; lower losses due
to transpiration and evaporation; and greater overflows.
Conclusion
Irrigation and return irrigation flows appear to have a significant
effect on the temperature of the water of the Yakima River.
From the data presented here, it can be concluded that similar
effects occur in other reclamation areas.
92
-------
The increase in water temperature is directly correlated with the
air temperature. It should, therefore, be possible to predict (roughly
at least) the possible effects of irrigation on water temperatures. This
is an area for further study with a good chance of arriving at a usable
method.
93
-------
TABLE XXII
STATION NO. 1
Donald-Wapato Bridge
Water and Air Temperatures in Degrees of Fahrenheit
August
September
Water Temp.
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Max.
65
62
61
62
64
64
64
62
62
63
62
62
58
59
59
59
60
60
61
60
58
59
58
57
56
56
57
57
57
57
57
Mln.
57
56
53
53
55
56
56
55
53
53
55
53
51
51
51
52
52
52
53
53
50
51
50
48
48
48
49
49
50
49
Avg.
61
59
57
57
59
60
60
58
57
58
58
58
54
55
55
55
55
56
56
56
54
55
54
52
52
53
52
53
53
53
53
Air Temp
Max.
84
79
80
86
90
95
92
85*
85
90
87*
81
81
84*
87*
85*
86
87*
88
82
81*
83*
81
80
77
78
83
81
88
89
86
Mln,
61
60
56
54
55
57
62
55
55
55
69
62
55
55
6l
62
59
59
68
60
51
60
59
57
53
55
53
60
53
59
54
Avg.
73
70
68
69
72
76
77
70
70
72
78
71
68
70
74
74
68
74
78
71
68
72
70
69
65
67
68
71
70
74
70
Water Temp.
Max.
56
57
58
58
57
57
55
54
55
56
55
53
48
47
47
48
48
49
50
50
46
45
48
48
47
46
44
45
45
45
Min,
48
50
51
51
50
50
51
49
48
48
47
46
47
45
43
43
42
43
44
45
42
40
4l
43
4l
41
43
41
39
39
Avg.
52
53
54
54
53
53
53
51
52
52
51
48
46
45
46
45
45
47
47
44
43
44
45
44
43
44
43
42
42
Air Temp .
Max.
88*
89
92
91
91
91
87
76
82
84
82
78*
65
65
64
67
70
76
80
67
64
65
72
71
73
70
58
64
68
69
Min.
53
55
62
58
56
58
71
63
53
53
59
47*
50*
50
46
46
46
51
46
47
47
37
46
43
40
38
55
45
39
4l
Ave,
71
72
77
75
73
74
79
70
67
68
71
63
57
57
50
56
58
64
63
57
56
51
59
57
56
54
56
60
53
55
-------
TABLE XXIII
STATION NO. 2
Chandler
Water and Air Temperatures in Degrees of Fahrenheit
August
Date
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Water Temp.
Max. ""
74
74
73
73
75
76
75
75
75
. 76
77
74
73
74
74
74
76
75
74
74
74
73
72
70
71
71
71
71
73
72
Min.
67
66
65
64
64
66
67
67
66
66
67
66
64
64
65
65
65
66
67
66
64
65
65
64
63
62
62
63
62
63
74
AVg.
70
70
69
69
69
71
71
71
71
71
72
70
68
69
69
69
70
71
71
70
.69
69
69
68
66
66
66
67
67
68
68
Air Temp.
Max.
88
86
84
87
96
99
97
87
88
95
95
85
90
90
89
92
98
94
89
86
92
98
85
80
84
85
84
89
94
Min.
60
48
45
46
50
52
57
53
48
50
54
48
46
46
49
51
50
53
56
53
51
53
53
52
47
43
Ji O
]|O
47
46
45
Avg.
74
67
65
67
73
76
77
70
68
73
75
66
66
68
70
70
71
75
75
71
69
72
75
68
63
63
64
64
68
67
69
Water Temp.
Max.
73
72
72
72
72
71
71
67
69
69
69
68
64
61
60
62
62
62
63
63
60
60
61
60
61
60
58
70
59
60
Min.
63
64
65
65
65
56
65
64
62
62
62
61
61
60
56
57
56
57
57
59
57
55
56
55
54
57
55
54
Avg.
68
68
69
68
69
68
68
66
66
66
65
65
63
60
58
59
59
59
60
61
59
58
58
57
57
^ i
57
57
57
57
57
Air Temp.
Max.
96
97
^ \
92
94
96
92
80
89
x
89
87
75
1 S
68
68
72
72
83
^
74
i
66
66
70
70
i **
73
i »**
79
62
68
70
Min.
46
48
54
68
52
57
^ 9
59
^ x
58
x w
53
S » Jl.
59
ss
55
s tf
51
x-1-
53
95
-------
TABLE XXIV
STATION NO, 3
Richland
Water and Air Temperatures in Degrees of Fahrenheit
August
September
Water Temp.
Date
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2k
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
Max.
75
Ik
7k
75
76
78
77
77
76
77
77
77
75
7k
7k
7k
75
76
76
76
75
7^
73
73
72
71
72
71
72
73
73
Min.
69
68
66
67
68
69
70
69
69
69
70
70
68
68
69
68
67
69
70
70
68
68
67
67
65
65
66
66
66
66
67
Avg.
72
71
70
71
72
7k
7k
73
73
73
7k
7k
72
71
72
71
71
73
73
73
72
71
70
70
69
68
69
69
69
70
.-.70
Air Temp,
Max.
95
91
87
88
9k
100
104
100
91
9k
100
101
90
90
95
92
96
99
95
88
92
9k
91
87
81
89
92
89
98
102
Min.
67
54
52
54
56
61
64
59
57
60
62
55
57
54
57
58
56
60
67
59
55
56
55
54
55
49
51
61
54
57
57
Avg,
81
73
70
71
75
8l
84
80
74
77
81
78
74
72
76
77
74
78
83
77
72
74
75
73
71
65
70
77
73
78
80
Water Temp.
Max.
74
74
75
73
74
72
72
70
71
70
69
66
65
60
63
63
64
64
64
63
6l
62
61
62
61
60
60
60
61
Min.
66
68
69
68
68
69
68
65
66
66
64
65
61
58
59
59
59
60
60
6l
57
58
58
57
57
59
58
57
57
Avg.
70
71
72
71
71
71
70
68
69
68
67
66
63
59
6l
61
62
62
62
63
59
60
60
60
59
60
59
59
59
Air Temp.
Max.
98
99
101
101
99
101
101
96
84
91
95
90
83
78
69
73
74
79
85
75
71
73
76
75
76
81
68
68
69
Min.
53
55
6l
65
60
62
64
60
55
54
56
48
50
56
50
51
44
48
46
56
48
37
48
40
40
45
57
42
4o
Avg.
76
77
81
83
80
82
83
78
70
73
76
69
67
67
64
60
59
6l
63
71
62
5^
61
58
58
6l
69
5£
55
55
96
-------
APPENDIX C
-------
8 13 17 21 25 29 2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30
-------
-:
-
c:
;o
m
<-AIR TEMP.
CHANDLER-STATION 2
YAK1MA RIVER, 1955
WATER TEMP.
TURN FLOW
SEPTEMBER
AUGUST
-------
APPENDIX C
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS
Water quality requirements are governed by the use to be made of
the water. The major uses which may be affected by the quality of
return irrigation flows are: Community and rural domestic supply, in-
dustrial supply, irrigation, stock and wildlife watering, fish and aquatic
life propagation, boiler water supply, recreation, including boating
and sports fishing, commercial fishing, and sewage and industrial waste
effluent disposal.
The quality of irrigation supply, since it directly affects the
quality of irrigation return water, has been discussed in detail in
the main body of this report. Water quality requirements or criteria
for other uses will be presented here. This information is essential
to an interpretation of the effects of return irrigation flows on these
uses.
Domestic Supply. Sanitary
Water used for drinking and other domestic purposes should meet
sanitary quality provided for by the U. S. Public Health Service Drink-
ing Water Standards (80) (81). These standards provide for two con-
ditions, namely, the quality at the source, if treatment is required
and provided; and the quality of the water delivered to the consumer.
These two conditions merge into one in the case of rural and many com-
munity supplies. The sanitary quality of water delivered to the con-
sumer is well established and is controlled by public Health agencies;
therefore, it will not be discussed in detail here. Of more significance
to the return water study is the need for treatment and the conditions
governing this need. The Public Health Service Manual of Recommended
Water-Sanitation Practice (81) classifies water into four groups as
regards the treatment requirements on the basis of sanitary requirements.
These are:
"Group 1, Water Requiring No Treatment. This group is limited
to underground waters not subject to any possibility of contamination,
and meeting in all respects, the requirements of the PHS Drinking Water
Standards."
"Group 2. Waters Requiring Simple Chlorination, or Its Equivalent.
This group includes both underground and surface waters subject to a low
degree of contamination, and meeting the requirements of the PHS Drink-
ing Water Standards in all respects except as to coliform bacterial
content, which should not average more than 50 per 100 ml in any month."
.-«
"Group 3. Water Requiring Complete Rapid-Sand Filtration Treat-
ment of Its Equivalent, Together with Continuous Postchlorination.
99
-------
This group includes all waters containing numbers of coliform bacteria
averaging not more than 5000 per 100 ml in any one month and exceeding
this number in more than 20 per cent of all samples examined in any one
month."
"Group 4. Waters Requiring Auxiliary Treatment in Addition to Com-
plete Filtration and Postchlorination. This group includes waters meeting
the requirements of Group 3 with respect to the limiting monthly average
coliform numbers, but showing numbers exceeding 5000 per 100 ml in more
than 20 per cent of the samples examined and not exceeding 20,000 per ml
in more than 5 per cent of the samples examined in any one month."
Domestic Supply, Physical and Chemical
Table 25 gives the limiting physical and chemical quality character-
istics recommended for waters for domestic use.
Hardness is one of the most significant water quality characteristics
affected by return irrigation flows. Waters are usually classified in
relation to hardness as follows: (In terms of ppm as
Class 1 - Soft -0 to 55 ppm
Class 2 - Slightly hard -56 to 100 "
Class 3 - Moderately hard -100 to 200 "
Class 4 - Very hard -200 to 500 "
Among the objectionable features of a hard water when used for
domestic purposes are scalling in water heating equipment, the cost of
soap, scum, and effect on clothes during washing. These problems largely
involve economic considerations.
Water having a hardness less than 75 ppm is generally considered
satisfactory for domestic use. Hardness from 75 to 150 ppm does not
usually interfere seriously with its use for most domestic purposes or
cause a demand for water softening. Hardness above 150 ppm is marginal
and if above 200 ppm many homes will provide water softening devices or
a public demand may require community softening facilities. This is not
to say that waters in excess of 200 ppm hardness are not used for domestic
supplies. Hard water is used in many cases, however, its use is expensive
and attended with difficulties.
Boiler Waters
The requirements for a good boiler water are - entire freedom from
turbidity and non-carbonate (permanent hardness) and a total hardness not
to exceed 35 ppm. All hardness must be removed .if the water is used in
high pressure boilers. Corrosion is caused by mineral acids and salts.
Magnesium chloride is especially objectionalable since it,.breaks down in
the boiler to form hydrochloric acid. Excessive concentrations of salts
100
-------
TABLE XXV
LIMITING PHYSICAL AND CHEMICAL
CHARACTERISTICS FOR DOMESTIC WATER
Physical
Turbidity
Color
Taste and odor
Chemical
Dissolved solids
Fluoride
Arsenic
Iron and manganese
Magnesium
Chloride
Sulfate
Nitrate as N
COo normal
Not greater than 10 ppm
Not greater than 20 ppm
Not objectionable
pH
o,
Not greater than 500 ppm
1.5 ppm
0.05 ppm
0.3 ppm
125 ppm
250 ppm
250 ppm
10 ppm
120 ppm
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
'"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
"
10.6 ppm
101
-------
cause foaming. Sulfates and chlorides of sodium cause imbritClement
and reduce the life of boiler tubes and surfaces. Table 26 shows some
of the quality requirements for boilers of various pressures (86).
Industrial Supply
The quality of water for industrial uses is often more exacting
than for domestic supply. Because of the wide variation in industrial
processes, there is an equally wide variation in the desirable quality
of water.
The sanitary requirements for water for most food industries is
the same as that for domestic use. Other characteristics can only be
considered in a very general way. Table 27 was prepared from several
reports (74) (78) (82) (83) (84) (85) (86) and indicates the range
of quality desired in an industrial water.
Fish and Aquatic Life
Information regarding the water quality requirements for fish
and aquatic life is scarce and much of it is not dependable. So many
factors influence the effects of water constituents on aquatic life
that a concise statement regarding a specific requirement is not possible.
For instance, adverse water quality may affect fish in many ways.
It may interfere with migration, destroy them due to toxicity, provide a
favorable media for disease, interfere with spawning, destroy eggs and
young fish, and prevent the production of an adequate food supply. Fish
in various stages of growth may react differently to water quality
(26) (27) (28) (88) and the species may have different requirements.
Constituents react differently under varying temperature and hardness
or alkalinity conditions or they may be synergistic or antagonistic.
Because of these variations, the actual effect of a specific
water on aquatic life can only be determined by bioassay. However, there
are some general conditions which can be applied.
Temperature is one of the more critical factors affecting fish
life. Here again the type offish and the location governs the tolerance
to temperature. Tarzwell (29) reports as follows: Peak temperatures in
the northern states should not exceed 93°F for warm water fish or 80°F
for trout. In the South temperatures up to 96°F can be tolerated by
resident fish. For best production summer temperatures for game fish
should range from 60 to 68°F.
According to Frazer River studies (87) salmon (sockeye) react
more to increased temperature as they approach their spawning grounds.
Large numbers will not spawn if the temperature exceeds 63°F. Prior to
102
-------
TABLE XXVI
SOME WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR BOILER WATER
Total solids
Turbidity
Total hardness
Bicarbonate
Carbonate
Sulf ate -Carbonate ratio*
Silica
PH
Xil . U-X,)U
3000-500
20
80
50
200
1:1
^0
8.0
_L;JU-£±UU
2500-500
10
to
30
100
2:1
20
Q.k
c:pu-tuu
1500-100
5
10
5
to
3:1
5
9.0
wer
50
1
2
0
20
3:1
1
9.6
:k : Na2 C03)
103
-------
TABLE XXVII
WATER QUALITY REQUIREMENTS FOR INDUSTRIAL USES
Use
Total Turbidity Color Hardness Alkalinity
Solids
ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm pH
Baking
Brewing, light
Brewing, dark
Carbonated beverage
Canning
Confectionary
Ice
Laundering
Plastic
Pulp and paper
Groundwood
Kraft pulp
Sulfite
Paper
Tanning
Rayon, pulp
Rayon, production
500
1000
850
100
300
200
300 .
200
200
100
10
10
10
2
10
5
50
25
15
5
20
5
0,3
10
10
5
20
15
10
5
10
5
250
75
50
180
100
100
50
50
8
55
75 6.5-7.0
150 7-0
50
7-0
50
135 8.0
50
7.8-8.;
10k
-------
reaching the spawning areas they will tolerate temperatures up to 70°F.
At and above 70°F, however, columnaris disease may wipe out large pop-
ulations of the salmon. These studies indicate that these salmon will
die when the mean water temperatures exceed 68°F for a period of several
days.
Other pertinent requirements for maximum fish production are:
Hydrogen ion concentration - 6.7 to 8.6.
Dissolved oxygen above 5.0 ppm.
Specific conductance at 25°C 150 to 500 mhox 10"6 (1000 to 2000
mho x 10 permissible in western alkaline areas).
Dissolved solids up to 3000 ppm if not toxic and are physiologically
balanced.
Suspended solids (turbidity) such that the millionth intensity level
for light penetrations will not be less than 5 meters.
Carbon dioxide, not over 30 ppm.
Ammonia, not over 1.5 ppm
DDT - concentrations less than 0.1 ppm may be lethal.
Fluorides - not over 100 ppm
Nitrates and phosphates - not toxic
Calcium, magnesium, sodium sulfates and chlorides are apparently
not toxic in normal concentrations.
105
-------
APPENDIX D
-------
APPENDIX D
REFERENCES AND BIBLIOGRAPHY
References
1. Ritter, J. R. "The Need for More Intensive Use of Water in the Arid
West", Proceedings Conference on Water Reclamation, Sanitary Engin-
eering Research Lab., University of California, page 15. (Jan. 26,
1956).
2. Flaigg, N. G. "The Effect of Irrigation and Return Flow on Water Sup-
plies," Southwest Waterworks Journal, 34, 9, (March 1953).
3. "Irrigation Engineering and Maintenance, 1957 Directory and Buyers
Guide." (August 31, 1957).
4. U. S. Department of Agriculture "Irrigation Agriculture in the West,"
Misc. Publication No. 670. (Nov. 1948).
5. Ackerman, E. A. "Water Resource Planning and Development in Agriculture,"
Amer. Assoc. Advancement of Science. (Dec. 29, 1958).
6. Mackichan, Kenneth A. "Estimated Use of Water in the United States -
1950," Geological Survey Circular 115, May 1951.
7. Vawter, Wallace R. "Water Supply and Use," Hearings before Subcom-
mittee on Rivers and Harbors, House Committee on Public Works,
July 20, 1955 and March 12, 1956.
8. Geological Survey. "Irrigation and Stream Flow Depletion in the
Columbia River Basin above The Dalles, Oregon," Water Supply Paper
1220 (1953).
9. Water Management Subcommittee, Columbia Basin Interagency Committee
Report. "Report on Streamflow Depletion, Columbia River Basin."
(May 1957).
10. Water Management Subcommittee CBIAC. "Appendix to Report on Stream-
flow Depletion, Columbia River Basin." (May 1957).
11. Technical Subcommittee for Operating Plan CBIAC. "Return Flow Study,
Columbia Basin Project Area." (May 9, 1952).
12. Griddle, W. D. "Consumptive Use of Water - A Symposium - Irrigated
Crops." Trans. ASCE JJL7, 991, Paper 2524 (1952).
13. Wilcox, Lloyd V. "Water Quality from the Standpoint of Irrigation."
J.A.W.W.A. 50, 650. (May 1958).
106
-------
14, Wilcox, Lloyd V. "Water Quality for Irrigation Use." U. S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Technical Bull. 962. (September 1948).
15. Richard, L. A., C. A. Bower and Milton Fireman. "Tests for Salinity
and Sodium Status of Soil and of Irrigation Water." U. S. Dept.
of Agriculture, Circular No. 982. (July 1956).
16. Wilcox, Lloyd V. "Classification and Use of Irrigation Waters."
U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Circular No. 969. (Nov. 1955).
17, Doneen, L. D. "Quality Evaluation of Irrigation Waters." Proceed-
ings Conference on Water Reclamation, University of California,
Page 34. (Jan. 26-27, 1956).
18. Scofield, C. S. "The Salinity of Irrigation Water." Smithsonian
Institute Annual Report. 1934 - 35. Pages 275-287 (1936).
19. Eaton, F. M. "Boron in Soils and Irrigation Waters and Its Effects
on Plants with Particular Reference to the San Joaquin Valley in
California." U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Technical Bull. 448,
page 131 (1935).
20. Eaton, F. M. "Significance of Carbonates in Irrigation Waters."
Soil Science, £9, 123 (1950).
21. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Handbook No. 60 (Feb.
1954).
22. Geological Survey. "Quality of Surface Waters for Irrigation,
Western United States, 1951," Water Supply Paper 1264 (1954).
23. Geological Survey. "Quality of Surface Waters for Irrigation,
Western United States, 1952," Water Supply Paper 1362 (1955).
24. Geological Survey. "Quality of Surface Waters for Irrigation,
Western United States, 1953," Water Supply Paper 1380 (1957).
25. Geological Survey. "Quality of Surface Waters for Irrigation,
Western United States, 1954," Water Supply Paper 1430 (1958).
26. Sylvester, R. 0. "Water Quality Studies in the Columbia Basin."
Bureau of Commercial Fisheries, Special Scientific Report -
Fisheries No. 239. (May 1958).
27. Sylvester, R. 0. "Research and Investigations on the Quality of
Water of the Columbia River and Its Effects on the Fisheries
Resource." U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Mimeographed
Report. (Jan. 10, 1957).
107
-------
28. California Water Pollution Control Board. "Water Quality Criteria."
Publication No. 3 (1952).
29. Tarzwell, C. M. "Water Quality Criteria for Aquatic Life." U. S.
Public Health Service, Sanitary Engineering Center Report.
30. Aultman, W. W. "Synthetic Detergents as a Factor in Water Softening
Economics." J.A.W.W.A. J50, 1353 (Oct. 1958).
31. Howson, L. R. "Economics of Water Softening," J.A.W.W.A. 43, 253
(1952).
32. Seidel, J. F. and E. R. Baumann, "Statistical Analysis of Water
Works Data for 1955." J.A.W.W.A. 49, 1531 (Dec. 1957).
33. Swenson, H. A. "Irrigation Runoff as a Factor in Stream Pollution."
U. S. Geological Survey Report to Pollution Control Council,
Pacific Northwest Exhibit H. May 1, 1957.
34. Meyer, Adolph F., John Wiley and Sons, "Elements of Hydrology."
Second Edition, Sixth Printing (Nov.1946), pages 455 - 458 and
261-281.
35. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California.
"An Investigation of Sewage Spreading on Five California Soils."
Technical Bull. No. 12, IER Series 17 (June 1955).
36. Sawyer, C. N. "Fertilization of Lakes by Agricultural and Urban
Drainage." Jour. Northeast Water Works Assn. 61. 109 (1947).
37. Sawyer, C. N. "Some Aspects of Phosphate in Relation to Lake
Fertilization." Sew. Ind. Wastes .24, 768 (1952).
38. Cunningham, M.B., P. D. Haney, T. W. Bendixen and C. S. Howard.
"Effect of Irrigation Runoff on Surface Water Supplies."
J.A.W.W.A. 45, 1159 (Nov. 1953).
39. Chu, S. P. "The Influence of the Mineral Composition of the Medium
on the Growth of Planktonic Algae. II The Influence of the
Concentration of Inorganic Nitrogen and Phosphate Phosphorous."
J. Ecology 31, 2 (1943).
40. Neess, J. C. "Development and Status of Pond Fertilization in
Central Europe." Trans. American Fisheries Soc. 76. 335 (1949).
41 Goudey, R. T. "Developing Standards for the Protection of Ground
Water."' J.A.W.W.A. 39, 1010 (Oct. 1947).
108
-------
42. Silvey, J. K. G. "Relation of Irrigation Runoff to Tastes and Odors."
J.A.W.W.A. 45, 1179 (Nov. 1953).
43. Silvey, J. K. G. and A. W. Roach. "Laboratory Culture of Taste and
Odor Producing Aquatic Actinomycetes." J.A.W.W.A. (Jan. 1959).
44. Young, L. A. and H. P. Nicholson. "Stream Pollution Resulting from the
Use of Organic Insecticides." The Progressive Fish-Culturist 13,
193 (Oct. 1951).
45. Surber, E. W. and A. F, Bartsch. "Are Chemicals Killing Our Fish and
Wildlife." Outdoor America, (Sept.-Oct. 1952). Reprint by U. S.
Public Health Service.
46. Doudoroff, P., M. Katz and C. M. Tarzwell. "The Toxicity of Some New
Organic Insecticides to Fish." Public Health Service mimeographed
report. (No date).
47. Tarzwell, C. M. and C. Henderson. "Toxicity of Dieldrin to Fish."
Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc. 86, 245 (1956).
48. Tarzwell, C. M. "Some Pollutional Effects of the Use of Algicides,
Herbicides, Fungicides, Pesticides and Insecticides." Presented
at Am. Inst. of Park Executives, New Orleans, Louisiana. (Oct. 15,
1958).
49. Tarzwell, C. M. "Toxicity of Organic Insecticides to Fishes."
Presented at 12th Ann. Conv. S. E. Assn. Game and Fish Commissioners,
Louisville, Ky. (Oct. 21, 1958).
50. Surber, E. W. "Control of Aquatic Growths In Impounding Reservoirs."
J.A.W.W.A. 42, 735. (Aug. 1950).
51. Goudey, R. F. "Chemical Weed Control." J.A.W.W.A. 3>8, 186. (Feb.1946).
52. U. S. Public Health Service. "Selected Bibliography of Publications on
Undesirable Effects Upon Aquatic Life by Algicides, Insecticides
and Weedicides." Public Health Bibliography Series No. 13.
(June 1, 1954).
53. Washington Pollution Control Commission. "An Investigation of Pol-
lution in the Yakima River Basin." Technical Bulletin No. 9 (1951).
54. University of California. "Water Spreading for Ground-water Recharge."
Proceedings of Conference on Committee on Research in Water Resources.
(March 19, 1957).
55. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California.
"Final Report on Investigation of Travel of Pollution."
(Dec. 31, 1954).
109
-------
56. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California.
"Studies in Water Reclamation." Technical Bull. No. 13, IER
Series 37. (July 1955)
57. Orlob, G. T. and R. B. Krone. "Movement of Coliform Bacteria
Through Porous Media." Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory,
Univ. of California. (Nov. 30, 1956).
58. Sanitary Engineering Research Laboratory, University of California.
"An Investigation of Sewage Spreading on Five California Soils."
Technical Bulletin 12, IER Series 37. (April 1955).
59. Greenberg, A. E. "Field Investigation of Waste Water Reclamation
in Relation to Ground Water Pollution." California Water Pollution
Control Board Publication No. 6. (1953)
60. Lippincott, J. B. "Southwest Border Water Problems." J.A.W.W.A.
_31, 1 (Jan. 1939).
61. Unpublished reports of the U. S. Salinity Laboratory (1956 and
1957).
62. Walton, Graham. "Survey of Literature Relating to Infant Metnemo-
globinemia Due to Nitrate-Contraminated Water." J.A.P.H.A. 41
986 (August 1951).
63. Scofield, C. S. "Stream Pollution by Irrigation Residues." J.
Ind. Engr. Chem. 24, 1223 (Nov. 1932).
64. Washington Pollution Control Commission. "An Investigation of
Pollution in the Yakima River Basin." Technical Bulletin No. 9
(1951).
65. Wright, C. C. "Surface and Subsurface Waters of the Yakima and
Klamath Reclamation Projects." State College of Washington
Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin No. 228 (July 1928).
66. Unpublished report by C. S. Scofield for Rubidoux Laboratories
dated June 9, 1944.
67. Unpublished report of L. V. Wilcox and C. E. Nelson for Rubidoux
Laboratories dated March 7, 1945.
68. U. S. Public Health Service Publication No. 160 (-1951). "Summary
Report on Water Pollution: Southwest-Lower Mississippi Drainage
Basins."
69. U. S. Bureau of Reclamation, Region 7, Denver, Colorado. "Initial
Development Gunnison - Arkansas Project - Roaring Fork Diversion,
Colorado." Appendix D. Water Supply. (Jan. 1959).
110
-------
70. Headden. W. P. "Colorado Irrigation Waters and Their Changes."
Colo. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 82 (1903).
71. Unpublished report of Rubidoux Laboratory dated 1947.
72. Unpublished report of the U. S. Salinity Laboratory dated April 1948.
v
73. Howard, C. S. "Quality of Water in the Upper Colorado River Basin."
Trans. Am. Geophysical Union, 29. 375 (June 1948).
74. U. S. Geological Survey. "Quality of Surface Waters in the United
States." Water Supply Papers (1947 to 1955 inclusive).
75. Jensen, M.C. , G. C. Lewis and G. 0. Baker. "Characteristics of
Irrigation Waters in Idaho." University of Idaho Agr. Expt.
Sta. Research Bulletin No. 19 (Feb. 1951).
76. Lewis, G. C. "Cooperative Water Quality Study in Boise Valley."
Univ. of Idaho Agr. Expt. Sta. Report (Sept. 1, 1958).
77. Department of Water Resources, Water Quality Investigations Report
No. 15. "Quality of Surface Waters in California, 1951, 1954."
(Nov. 1956).
78. Department of Water Resources, Bulletin No. 65. "Quality of Sur-
face Waters in California, 1955, 1956." (Dec. 1957).
79. California Department of Water Resources Report No. 4. "Quantity
and Quality of Water Applied to and Drained from the Delta
Lowlands. Investigation of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta."
(July 1956).
80. Department of Health, Education & Welfare, U. S. Public Health
Service, Public Health Reports. "Public Health Drinking Water
Standards, 1946." Vol. 6J., 371-384 and Reprint No. 2697 (March
1946 arid March 1956).
81. U. S. Public Health Service, Public Health Bulletin No. 296. "Manual
of Recommended Water-Sanitation Practice." (1946).
82. Moore, E. W. "Progress Report of the Committee on Quality Tolerance
of Water for Industrial Uses." Journal New England Water Works
Assn., 54, 271 (1940).
83. American Water Works Association. "Water Quality and Treatment, 1951"
84. ASTM, Special Technical Pub. No. 148. "Manual of Industrial Water."
(1953).
Ill
-------
85. U. S. Geological Survey. "Water Requirements of the Aluminum Industry."
Water Supply Paper 1330 C (1956).
86. U. S. Geological Survey. "Water Requirements of the Rayonand Acetate--
Fiber Industry." Water Supply Paper 1330 D (1957).
87. International Pacific Salmon Fisheries Commission, New Westminster,
Canada. "A Review of the Sockeye Salmon Problems Created by the
Alcan Project in the Nechako River Watershed." (1953).
88. Ellis, M. M. "Detection and Measurement of Stream Pollution," U. S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Fisheries Bull. 22 (1937).
112
-------
Bibliography
(Numbers of referenced articles given under each classification)
Irrigated Agriculture
Reference numbers - 1, 3, 4, 21, 69
Israelson, 0. W. "Irrigation Principles & Practices." 2nd
Edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc. (1950).
National Resources Planning Board, U. S. Government Printing
Office. "Regional Planning, IV, Upper Rio Grande" and "X, Pecos
River." (1938) & (1942).
Water for Irrigation Use - Quantity and Quality
Reference numbers - 5, 6, 7, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20,
22, 23, 24, 25, 60, 70, 73, 75, 76, 79
Symposium - Chemical Engineering News 29. 990. "Water for
Irrigation Use." (March 12, 1951).
Scofield, C. S. "Salt Balance in Irrigated Areas." J.
Agri. Research 6J., 17 (1940).
Hill, Raymond A. "Salts in Irrigation Water," Proc. Amer.
Soc. Civil Engineers. 67, 975 (1941).
Wilcox, L. V. "The Quality of Water for Irrigation Use."
Tech. Bull. 962, U. S. Dept. of Agri., page 22. (Sept. 1948).
Blaney, H. F. and W. D. Griddle. "Determining Water Require-
ments in Irrigated Areas from Climatological and Irrigation Data."
U. S. Dept. of Agri., Soil Conservation Service, Tech. Paper 96
v(1950).
""*
Thome, T. P. and D. W. Thorne. "Irrigation Waters of Utah:
Their Quality and Use." Utah Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. No. 346 (1951).
Swenson, F. A. and W. K. Back. "Ground Water Resources of
the Paintrock Irrigation Project, Wyoming." U. S. Geological Survey
Circular No. 96, 31 (1951).
U. S. Geological Survey Paper 1376. "Feasibility of Ground-
water Features of the Alternate Plan for the Mountain florae Project,
Idaho."
Abstract of Papers, Public Health Service Report. "Conference
on Polluted Irrigation Waters, El Paso, Texas." (Jan. 27, 1950).
113
-------
Water for Irrigation Use - Quantity and Quality - continued
Chapman, E. N. "Sewage Contaminated Irrigation Water - A Major
Public Health Problem in the West." Amer. J. Pub. Health 2J5, 930 (1935).
Dunlop, S. G., R. M. Twedt & Wen-Lan Lou Wang. "Salmonella in
Irrigation Water." SIW 213, 1118 (Sept. 1951).
Lowe, R. P. "Quantitative Estimation of Salmonella in Irrigation
Water." SIW 24, 1015 (August 1952).
U. S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bull. 962. "The Quality
of Water for Irrigation.11 (Sept. 1948).
Scofield, C. S. "Salt Balance in Irrigated Areas." J. Agri.
Research 6.1, 17 (1940).
McCallum, R. D. and M. S. Mayhugh. "Quality of Irrigation Water
of the Hollister Area of California." U. S. Dept. of Agri. Tech. Bull.
746 (1941).
Wilcox, L. V. "The Behavior of Boron in Soils." U. S. Dept, of
Agri. Tech. Bull. 696 (1939).
Forbes, R. H. "The River-Irrigation Waters of Arizona - Their
Character and Effects." Ariz. Agri. Expt. Sta. Bull. 44 (1902).
Hayward, H. E. and 0. C. Magistad. "The Salt Problem in Irrigation
Agriculture. Research at the United States Regional Salinity Laboratory,"
U. S. Dept. of Agri. Misc. Pub. 607 (1946).
California Division Water Resources Bull. 40. "South Coastal
Basin Investigation, Quality of Irrigation Waters." (1933).
Smithsonian Institute Annual Report 1935. "The Salinity of Irri-
gation Waters." (1936).
J. Agri. Research 61. "Salt Balance in Irrigated Areas." (1940).
Headley, F. B. "Quality of Irrigation Water in Relation to Land
Reclamation." J. Agri. Research 21 (1921).
U. S. Department of Agriculture Tech. Bull. 264 (1931). "Boron
in Irrigation Waters."
Magistad, 0. C. "Interpretation of Analysis of Irrigation Waters
and Their Relative Tolerance to Crop Plants." U. S. Dept. Agri., Bureau
Plant Indus., Soils & Agri. Engr. (1943).
114
-------
Water for Irrigation JJ^se - Quantity and Quality - continued
Maclntire, W. R., S, N. Winterberg, L. B. Clements, L. S. Jones, and B.
Robinson. "Fluorides, Effects on Irrigation." Ind. Eng. Chem. 43. 1797
(1951).
U. S. Public Health Service. "South Platte River Basin Water Pol-
lution Investigation." (July 1950).
Wilcox, L. V. "Water Quality Requirements for Irrigation." Pro-
ceedings Conference on the California Ground Water Situation, page 121.
(Dec, 3-4, 1956).
Doneen, L. D. "Salination of Soil by Salt in Irrigation Water."
Trans. Amer. Geophysical Union. (Dec. 1954).
Willets, D. B. and C. A. McCullough. "Salt Balance in Ground Water
Reservoir Operation." J. Irrigation and Drainage Division, Proc. ASCE,
Paper 1359. (Sept. 1957).
Agri. Handbook No. 60, 1-160. "Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline
and Alkali Soils." (Feb. 1954).
Reclamation Manuals on Water Studies, Vol. Iv, V and VII. Bureau
of Reclamation.
Maclntire, W. H., S. H. Winterberg, L. B. Clemens, L. S. Jones
and B. Robinson. "Fluorides, Effects on Irrigation." Ind. Eng. Chem.
43, 1797 (1951).
Geological Survey. "Ground Water Factors Affecting Drainage in
the First Division, Buffalo Rapids Irrigation Project, Prairie & Dawson
Counties, Montana." Paper 1424 (1958).
Eckstein, Otto. "Water Resource Development, Economics of Project
Development." (A book).
\
Return Irrigation Water. Quantity and Quality
Reference numbers - 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 33, 36, 37, 38, 42, 61, 63, 65,
66, 67, 71, 72
Colorado Agri. College Bull. 279. "Return of Seepage Water to the
Lower South Platte River in Colorado." (1922).
Wiseman, J. W. "Potential Conflicts Between Supplemental Irrigation
and Pollution Abatement Programs." SIW 2|7> 1284 (Nov. 1955).
Howard, C. S. "Irrigation as a Source of Stream Pollution."
USGS Congress of Pure and Applied Chemistry (1951).
115
-------
Return Irrigation Water, Quantity and Quality
Malerhofer, C. R. "Drainage in Relation to a Permanent Irri-
gation Agriculture." ASCE Paper 1506 (Jan. 1958).
Water Quality - General
Reference numbers - 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 41, 62, 64, 68, 73,
74, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88
Banks, H. 0. and J. H. Lawrence. "Water Quality Problems in
California." Trans. Am. Geophysical Union JJ4, 58 (Feb. 1953).
Rawn, A. M. and F. R. Bowerman. "Planned Water Reclamation."
SIW 29, 1134 (Oct. 1957).
Bartsch, A. F. and S. F. Mulford. "Reclamation and Utilization,
Waste Water Studies, California." California Water Pollution Control
Board Publication No. 9 (1954).
President's Materials Policy Commission. "Resources for Freedom."
Vol. 5, Report 9, page 83 (1952).
Lowry, R. L. "Discussion of Consumptive Use of Water." Trans.
ASCE 117, 1023 (1952).
U. S. Public Health Service. "Kansas River Basin Water Pollution
Investigation." (June 1949).
Porges, Ralph. "Who Gets How Much of What Kind of Water -
from Where and Whom?" Water Work Engineering (Feb. 1957). Reprinted
by U. S. Public Health Service.
Nutrients
Reference numbers - 36, 37, 39, 40
J. N. E. Water Works Assn. 61. 109. "Fertilization of Lakes by
Agricultural and Urban Drainage." (1947).
Insecticides and Herbicides
Reference numbers - 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51 52
Lawrence, J. M. "Toxicity of Some New Insecticides to Several
Species of Pond Fish." Prog. Fish Culturist JL2, 141 (1,950).
Irrigation with Sewage & Waste Effluents
Reference number - 35
Hunt, H. J. "Supplemental Irrigation with Treated Sewage."
SIW 26, 250. (March 1956).
116
-------
Irrigation with Sewage and Waste Effluents - continued
Hutchins, W. A, "Sewage Irrigation as Practiced in Western Staces."
U. S. Department of Agr. Tech. Bull. 675, 1-59 (1939).
Merz, R. C. "A Survey of Direct Utilization of Waste Waters."
Calif. Water Pollution Control Board Publication 12 (1955).
Stone, R. "Irrigation with Waste Water." Public Works 86, 97 and
134 (Nov. 1955).
Henry. C. D., R. E. Moldenhaner, R. E. Engelbret and E. Gruog.
VSewage Effluent Disposal Through Crop Irrigation." SIW 26, 123 (Feb.1954).
Lamb, Paul. "Waste Disposal by Sprinkler Irrigation." PNW Ind.
Waste Conference (April 1956).
Skulte, B. P. "Irrigation with Sewage Effluents." SIW 28, 36.
(Jan. 1956).
Bacterial Travel in Underground Strata
Reference numbers 57, 58, 59
Butter, R. G. , G. T. Orlob and P. H. McGauhey. "Underground Move-
ment of Bacterial and Chemical Pollutants." J.A.W.W.A. 46, 97 (Feb. 1954).
Monograph 15, Rockefeller Inst. Med. Research. "Investigation on
Soil Pollution and Relation of Various Types of Privies to Spread of
Intestional Infections." (Oct. 10, 1921).
Ditthorn, F. and A. Lauerssen. "Experiments on the Passage of
Bacteria Through Soil." Engr. Rec. 60, 642 (Dec. 1909).
Stiles, C. W. H. R. Crohurst and G. E. Thomas. "Experimental
Bacteria & Chemical Pollution of Wells via Ground Water and Factors
Involved." Hyg. Lab. Bull. 147 (June 1927).
*, >
Dappert, A. F. "Tracing Travel and Changes in Composition of Under-
ground Pollution." Water Works & Sewage .79, 625 (August 1932).
Caldwell, E. L. "Pollution Flow From Pit Latrine When Permeable
Soils of Considerable Depth Exist Below Pit" and "Studies of Subsoil
Pollution in Relation to Possible Contamination of Ground Water from
Human Excreta Deposited in Experimental Latrines." Infectious Disease
62, 125 and 273 (1938).
Dyer, B. R. and T. R. Bhaskaran. "The Present State of Our Know-
ledge of Soil and Ground Water Pollution." Indian Medical Journal 78.
561 (1942).
117
-------
Bacterial Travel In Underground Strata - continued
Meinzer, 0. E. "General Principles of Artificial Ground Water
Recharge." Econ. Geology 41. 191 (1946).
Stiles, C. W. and H. R. Crohurst. "The Principles Underlying
the Movement of B. Coli in Ground Water with the Resultant Pollution
to Wells." Public Health Reports JJ8, 1350 (June 1953).
McGauhey, P. H. and R. B. Krone. "Report on the Investigation
of Travel of Pollution." Calif. Water Pollution Control Board Pub.
No. .11, 219 (1954).
Hodgkinson, Carl. "Removal of Coliform Bacteria from Sewage
by Percolation Through Soil." San. Engr. Res. Lab. , University of
California IER Series 90, No. 1 (1955).
Orlob, G. T. and R. G. Butter. '"Use of Soil Lysimeters in Waste
Water Reclamation Studies." Jour. San. Engr. Div., ASCE, Proc. Sep.
No. 1002, 25 (1956).
Die Away of Bacteria.
Rector, F. L. and H. J. Danbe. "Longevity of Bacillus Coli in
Water." Abs. Bact. Soc, of Amer, Bact. 1:60, 57 (1917).
Winslow, G. C. A. and B. Cohen. "Relative Viability of B. Coli
and Aerogenes in Water." J. Inf. Disease 23. 82 (1918).
Winslow, G. C. A. and 0. R. Brook. "The Viability of Various
Species of Bacteria in Aqueous Suspensions." J. Bacteriology 13. 82
(1918).
» Yound, C. C. and M. Greenfield. "Observations on the Viability
of the Bacterium Coli Growing Under Natural and Artificial Conditions."
Am. Pub. Health .13, 270 (1923).
Skinner, C. E. and T. J. Murray. "The Viability of B. Coli and
B. Aerogenes in Soil." J. Inflect. Disease 38, 37 (1926).
Streeter, H. W. "A Formulation of Bacterial Changes in Polluted
Water." SWJ 6, 208 (1934).
Pratt, A. D. Am. J. Hyg. 35, 437 (1935).
Parr, L. W. "The Viability of Coli-Aerogenes Organisms in Culture
and Various Environment." Inf. Disease £0, 291 (1937).
118
-------
Die-Away of Bacteria - continued
Phelps, E. B., John Wiley and Sons. "Stream Sanitation." (1944).
Rudolfs, W. L. L. Falk and R. A. Ragotzke. "Literature Review on
the Occurrence and Survival of Enteric, Pathogenic, and Related Organisms
in Soil, Water, Sewage and Sludges, and on Vegetation, I. Bacterial &
Virus Diseases." S-IW 22, 1261 (1950).
Wang, Wen-Lan Lous and S. C. Dunlop. "Animal Parasites in Sewage
and Irrigation Water." SIW 2£, 1020 (August 1954).
119
-------
CONVERSION TABLE
I Acre-- 43,560 square feet
1 Cubic foot ! = 7.5 gallons
I Acre foot - 325,851 gallons
1 Million gallons- -----= 3.07 acre-feet
1 Acre foot per day = 2 cubic feet second (approx)
Milliquivalents per liter (Meq/1) to parts per million (ppm)
Multiply meq/1 by equivalent weight.
Parts per million (ppm) to milliequivalents per liter (Meq/1)
Divide ppm by equivalent weight
Equivalent weights
Calcium ion---------------*---"--"'"--'1----- 20.04
Magnesium ion---- --e 12.06
Sodium ion---- » 23.00
Bicarbonate ion------------------- ---= 61.01
Sulfate ion = 48.03
Chloride ion------- --- » 35.46
Nitrate ion --- - 62.01
120
------- |