est Florida
Water .,Management District
Prepared by
April 1991
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA
WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
AGRICULTURAL
COST ANALYSIS OF
IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION
MEASURES
CONTENTS
Section No.
Page
1
Introduction
l-l
2
Definitions
2-1
3
Methodology and Assumptions
3-l
4
Existing Irrigation Practices and Irrigation
Efficiencies and Available Water Conservation Measures
4-l
Estimation of Potential Efficiency Gains, Management
and System Improvements, and Implementation Costs
5-l
Implementation Ccsts for New and Supplemental
Irrigation Systelr
6-l
5
6
Appendix A. List of Sources for Cost Information
Appendix B. Cost Analysis of Water Conservation Measures
Appendix C. Engineering Technical Note FL-17.
Farm Irrigation Rating
Method (FIRM). USDA-Soil Conservation Service.
Appendix D. Base Irrigation Systems by Crop Type--Figures 1 through 10
TABLES
4-l
Base Citrus Irrigation System Components
4-20
4-2
Container and Field-Grcwn Ornamentals Irrigation System
Components
4-22
Tomatoes and Vegetable/Row Crop Semi-Closed Ditch and
Micro-Irrigation Drip Irrigation System Components
4-23
Strawberry and Vegetable/Row Sprinkler and MicroIrrigation Drip Irrigation System Components
4-24
Smarp of Irrigation System Management Practices and
Capital
Improvements --Base and Improved Irrigation Systems
4-25
Agricultural Irrigation: Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM Method--Solid Set Sprinkler-Strawberries on Plastic
Mulch, Tailwater Reusec!
5-14
Management and System Techniques and Efficiency Factors,
Solid Set Sprinkler System-- Strawberries (Tailwater Reused)
5-15
Implementation Cost of Management and System Techniques,
Solid Set Sprinkler System-- Strawberries (Tailwater Reused)
5-16
Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM Method--Solid Set Sprinkler-Strawberries on Plastic
Mulch, No Tailwater Reused
5-18
Management and System 'Techniques and Efficiency Factors,
Solid Set Sprinkler System-- Strawberries (No Tailwater Reused)
5-19
Implementation Cost of Management and System Techniques,
Solid Set Sprinkler System-- Strawberries (No Tailwater Reused)
S-20
4-3
4-4
4-5
1A
1B
1c
2A
2B
2c
dbtm0051048.51
ii
TABLES
(Continued)
Page
3A
Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM Method--Solid Set Sprinkler-Citrus
5-21
3B
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors, Solid Set
Sprinkler System--Citru:
5-22
3c
Implementation Cost of P;anagement Techniques, Solid Set
Sprinkler System--Citrus
5-23
Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM Method--Solid Set Sprinkler-Container Nurseries
5-24
Management Techniques alld Efficiency Factors, Solid Set
Sprinkler System--Conta:.ner Nurseries
5-25
Implementation Cost of Management and System Techniques
Solid Set Sprinkler System--Container Nurseries
5-27
Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM Method, Semi-closed Ditch, Tomatoes and Vegetables
5-28
Management and System Txhniques and Efficiency Factors,
Semi-Closed Ditch Systen--Tomatoes and Vegetables
5-29
Implementation Cost of ftianagement and System Techniques,
Semi-Closed Ditch Systefn--Tomatoes and Vegetables
S-30
Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM Method--Volume Gun-Traveling--Citrus and
Vegetables/Row Crops
5-32
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors, Volume Gun:
Traveling--Citrus and Vegetables/Row Crops
5-33
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques, Volume Gun:
Traveling System--Citrt:s
5-34
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques, Volume Gun:
Traveling System--VegerableslRow Crops
5-35
Agricultural Irrigatiori Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM
Method--Micro-Irr:.gation
Spray-Citrus
5-36
4A
4B
4c
5A
5B
SC
6A
6B
6Cl
6C2
7A
7B
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors, Micro-
Irrigation:
7c
8A
8B
Spray Systl:em--Citrus
5-37
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques, MicroIrrigation:
Spray Sysf:em--Citrus
5-38
Agricultural Irrigation Efficiency Rating-Modified
FIRM Method--Micro-Irr,igation
Drip-Strawberries,
Tomatoes, and Vegetabl%/Row Crops
5-39
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors, MicroIrrigation:
Line Sourmze Emitters (Drip)--Strawberries,
Tomatoes, and Vegetable/Row Crops
S-40
dbtm005/048.51
iii
TABLES
8Cl
8C2
(Continued)
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques, MicroIrrigation:
Line Source Emitter (Drip) System-Strawberries and Vegetables/Row Crops
5-41
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques, MicroIrrigation:
Line Source Emitter (Drip) System-Tomatoes and Vegetables
5-42
1
Cost of New Irrigation Systems
6-2
2
Cost of Adding Supplemental Irrigation System
6-3
dbtmOOS1048.51
iv
CH2M HILL wishes to acknowled~~;e the contribution of a number of individuals
who participated in the development of this report. Their participation in
preparation of this report is greatly appreciated.
Jay Yinglin,:
Ron Cohen
We also appreciate the contri'lutions of Dr. Allen G. Smajstrala at the
Institute of Food & Agricultu,ral Sciences at the University of Florida,
Dr. Gary Clarke, Gulf Coast R%sssearch Center, Dunham Well Drilling, Inc. of
Winter Haven, Florida, and Gr'ovigation Inc., of Orlando, Florida and other
industry
representatives.
dbtm005/048.51
Section 1
IH'l'RODUCTIOtJ
The purpose of this report i; to estimate the incremental costs of
improving agricultural irrigation efficiency either through enhancing the
management and maintenance of existing systems or through conversion to a
The report only addresses efficiency
higher potential efficiency systems.
improvements in supplemental irrigation systems.
Water savings benefits
are addressed implicitly thrwgh changes in efficiencies and estimated
pumping costs.
The base irrigation systems $:onsidered in this report, along with the types
of crops irrigated by these .systems are the following:
Irrigation System
Solid-Set
Crop Type
Citrus,
Sprinklers
Strawberries,
Nursery
Volume Gun--Traveling
Citrus, Vegetable/Row Crop
Micro-Irrigation:
citrus
Spray
Micro-Irrigation: Line Sourc:e
Emitters (Drip)
Strawberries,
Tomatoes,
Vegetable/Row Crops
Semi-Closed
Tomatoes,
Rote:
Ditch
Vegetables
For the purpose of this re Ott, a base system is the typical or
representative system in t R e area.
The general approach of the :;tudy involved the following tasks:
.
A literature search to access information regarding the
application efficiencies of selected low and high potential
agricultural irr:..gation technologies.
.
Definition of ex:.sting irrigation practices and determination
of irrigation efj'iciencies in the District's area.
.
Estimation of tht! irrigation efficiencies that could be
realized by
implementing management and maintenance improvements to
increase ef'f iciencies and
dbtm005\018.51
l-l
converting irom low potential efficiency systems to high
potential efficiency systems.
.
Estimation of
COSI.S
associated with improving efficiencies.
Capital costs were estimated where capital investment would be required to
increase efficiency in the ex,,sting irrigation system and for converting to
Equipment cost for tensiometers and
a high potential efficiency srstems.
flow meters, as well as const,:uction costs, and one-time installation costs
are included as capital costs, Capital costs were annualized at 10 percent
interest, over a S-year or lo-year period. Cost analysis contain design
life data obtained, where pos'eible, from experts in the field such as
researchers, manufacturers, contractors, and consultants. Capital costs
are presented as costs per acre.
Periodic costs necessary for the normal
operation and maintenance of aach system were also estimated.
These costs
are presented in cost per acre.
This report has seven sections, reflecting the general approach followed in
executing the project.
Section 2 presents definitions of irrigation,
efficiency and economic terus.
Section 3 summarizes the methodology and
assumptions applied in the study.
Section 4 describes existing irrigation
methods, irrigation efficiencies and water conservation measures practiced
in the District.
The cost oi implementing water conservation measures is
presented Section 5.
Sectior 6 presents the cost for new and supplemental
irrigation systems.
Section 7 addresses pumping cost savings and other
cost
considerations.
A reference list of the literature search done for
this project is presented in the Appendix. Also included in the Appendix
are drawings for the base irrigation systems by crop type, a copy of the
USDA-Soil Conservation Engintkering Technical Note FL-17 describing the FIRM
method, and a cost analysis of water conservation measures.
The use of brand names in th s report is in no way intended as any form of
product
endorsement.
dbtm005\018.51
1-2
Section 2
DEFIBITIOUS
This section presents definitions of terms used in this report to help
clarify and convey their intended meanings.
IRRIGATION
TERMS
Drip irrigation. A method of micro-irrigation in which water is applied to
the soil surface through emitters as discrete or continuous drops, or tiny
streams.
Flow rates are typically less than 3 gallons per hour for point
source emitters and 1 gallon >er hour per foot of lateral for line source
emitters.
Emitter.
Device used in micr>-irrigation to control discharge from lateral
lines.
Types include drippers, spray jets, or any other device by which
water exits from the system.
Micro-irrigation.
Low pressute irrigation systems in which water is
distributed through closed pinelines.
Water is applied with emitters
directly to or very near the foil surface, either above or below the ground
surface, in discrete drops, continuous drops, small streams, or a spray.
Flows and pressures are typic;llly low. Types of micro-irrigation includes
drip and micro-spray.
Micro-spray
irrigation.
A mil:ro-irrigation method characterized by the
application of water to the soil surface as a spray or mist. Discharge
rates are generally less than 30 gallons per hour from each emitter.
Semi-closed ditch irrigation.
A method of surface irrigation in which
water is brought to the field in a closed pipeline, then released into
lateral ditches or furrows.
Acre Inch.
Measurement used 10 represent inches of water used per acre;
1 acre-inch - 27,154 gallons.
Sprinkler
irrigation.
A presr#urized irrigation system in which water is
distributed through pipes to the field and applied through a variety of
outlet sprinkler heads or nozzles.
dbtm0051017.51
2-l
Supplemental
deficiencies
Irrigation.
in effective
Irrzgation required to supplement any
rainfall.
in irrigation method that raises the water
table.
Water is introduced tr, the field through lateral ditches or underground pipes and moves horizontally by subsurface flow to form a perched
water table on an existing hardpan layer or naturally occurring high water
table.
Water flows by capill+iry rise from the perched water table to the
root zone of the plants.
Surface or seepage irrigation
Volume
gun.
Large sprinkler that discharges high volumes of water at high
pressures.
EFFICIENCY TERMS
(Es). The ratio of the volume of irrigation
water available from a reservoir to the volume of water delivered to the
reservoir.
This ratio is normally less than 1.0 because of seepage, evaporation, and transpiration loEses, but can be approximately 1.0 for water
pumped from an aquifer.
In the District's case, the Es is usually 1.0,
because reservoirs are seldaD1 used for irrigation.
Reservoir
storage
efficiency
Water conveyance efficiency (EC).
The ratio of the volume of water
delivered for irrigation or other use to the volume of water placed in the
conveyance system.
This rat:.0 is normally less than 1.0 for open channel
conveyance systems, but may i)e approximately 1.0 for pipeline conveyance
systems.
In the District's b:ase, the EC is usually 1.0 because irrigation
water is usually supplied fr#lrn on-farm wells or lakes.
Low potential irrigation efflciencp irrigation systems. An irrigation
system used for a particular commodity that has a lower potential irrigation efficiency than the tinproved system for the same commodity.
For
example, overhead sprinkler systems used for citrus are defined as
potential low irrigation efficiency systems.
An irrigation
system used for a particular commodity that has a higher potential irrigation efficiency than the low irrigation efficiency system for the same
commodity.
For example, under-tree micro-spray systems used for citrus are
defined as potential "high" irrigation efficiency systems.
High potential irrigation efficiency irrigation systems.
dbtm005/017.51
2-2
The potential l o w and high irrigation efficiency systems described in this
report are as follows:
Potential L0w Irrigation
Efficiency System
Potential High Irrigation
Efficiency System
citrus
Solid-set sprinklers or
volume-gun sprinklers:
traveling
Micro-irrigation:
Tomatoes/
Vegetable
Row Crops
Seepage
Combination seepage and
micro-irrigation: line
source emitters (drip)
Strawberries/
Vegetables
Solid-set sljrinklers
Combination solid-set
sprinklers and microirrigation:
line
source emitters (drip)
Container
Nurseries
Solid-set srxinklers
Combination solid-set
sprinklers and microirrigation:
point
source emitters
Cotmnoditv
spray
Potential attainable irrigation application efficiency (Ep). A ratio less
than 1.0 representing the potential application efficiency attainable for a
particular irrigation system that is well designed and well managed.
Irrigation system application efficiencies will vary widely depending on
the design and management of the system and local soil and weather
conditions.
Management factor (Fm). A factor used to estimate the effects of management and maintenance of the irrigation system on the efficiency of the
system.
The factor is subjectively derived and is based on techniques from
the Soil Conservation Service Farm Irrigation Rating Method (FIRM). In the
FIRM, values are assigned to several evaluating factors to estimate the
effect of management on irrigation efficiency.
dbtm005/017.51
2-3
The evaluating factors used ;tre maintenance, water measurement, irrigation
and water delivery and soil condition.
skill, soil moisture/schedul:ng,
Using the FIRM, a number is ;issigned between 0.9 and 1.0 for all management
evaluating
factors.
System Factors.
.L factor used to estimate the effects of the
delivery of water to the fana field on the efficiency of the system. The
factor is subjectively derivtzd and is based on techniques from the Soil
Conservation Service Farm Irrigation Rating Method (FIRM). In the FIRM,
values are assigned to several evaluating factors to estimate the effect of
the irrigation system configuration
on irrigation efficiency.
Irrigation
The evaluating factors used are conveyance, uniformity of application,
percent of root zone wetted, delivery system, land surface, tailwater, and
climatic effect.
Using the FIRM, a number is assigned between 0.7 and 1.0
for all system evaluating factors.
The ratio of the volume of
irrigation water stored in the root zone for crop use to the volume of
water delivered from the irrigation system. This ratio is always less than
1.0 because of losses due tc evaporation, wind drift, deep percolation,
lateral seepage, and runoff that may occur during irrigation. The ratio is
defined here as the product of the potential attainable irrigation
application efficiency times the irrigation management factor:
Irrigation application efficiency (Ea).
Ea = Ep x Fm
Overall farm irrigation efficiency (Eo).
The overall farm efficiency is
defined as the product of tke reservoir storage, water conveyance, and
irrigation
application
efficiencies:
Eo = Es x EC x Ea
The overall farm irrigation efficiency for most farms in the District will
be close to the irrigation cxpplication efficiency. For farms in the
District that use wells for their water supply and deliver water to their
farms in pipelines, the reservoirs storage and water conveyance
efficiencies are close to 1 0 and Eo = Ea.
dbtm0051017.51
2-4
Management
Factors
Md -
Water Measurement,
Water must be measured to each field for
optimum irrigation water management.
The measurement at the
farm delivery point can be translated to each field if the
pressure is not s;llit.
S
- Soil Moisture/scht!duling.
The soil moisture deficit in the
root zone must be measured (monitored) and irrigations
scheduled to obta:.n good water management.
I
- Irrigation Skill. Good management requires an operator trained
in how to apply tile water. An automated system can be properly
managed to substitute for a trained irrigator. More skill will
be required to mar&age a sprinkler or trickle system.
M
-
W
- Water Delivery. IO properly irrigate the crop, water must be
available when needed at the rate for optimum application.
Generally water is supplied by wells and water delivery is not
a problem.
SC -
Maintenance.
The system and the fields must be maintained in
Nozzles on sprinklers
order to be managed at its potential.
have to be replaced; fields need to be releveled; structures
(flashboards) for water control have to be replaced when they
deteriorate;
spray emitters must be unplugged and maintained in
proper position tc obtain desired wetted area; and system leaks
must be repaired.
Soil Condition.
Conservation tillage, no till, crop residue
use, and a conservation cropping system are management tools to
improve soil conditioning and facilitate better irrigation on
cropland.
Crop residues on the soil surface increase intake,
reduce runoff, and reduce water lost by evaporation from the
soil surface. Generally, such practices are not required or
used in southwest Florida and are not significant factors.
dbtm0051017.51
2-5
Irrigation
System
Factors
F
-
U
The degree of application
- Uniformity of appi.ication.
uniformity is a cc,ntrolling factor in obtaining desired results
from irrigation.
A
- Area wetted. Per:ent of root zone wetted affects how
effectively crops utilize the water applied with trickle
irrigation.
D
- Delivery system. Variations in pressure and flow rates affect
the uniformity of water applied in the system.
L
- Land surface. Surface roughness is a very major factor
influencing the performance of subirrigation and surface
irrigation
methods.
Laser leveling and land leveling with
proper furrow length will improve irrigation application,
particularly uniformity.
T
-
C
- Climatic effect. Spray type, wind speed, humidity and
temperature affects sprinkler evaporation and drift loss. The
climatic factor (c) will depend on factors that are system
(nozzle size) ant season specific and could not be generalized
for the purposes of this report. In circumstances where it is
reasonable to as!:ume that c will be a significant factor, it
should be estimated and used in system efficiency calculations.
ECOIIOMIC
Capital
Conveyance.
On-fiiRD conveyance system losses are defined by
type of conveyancr?.
Earthen ditch losses are estimated based
on soil permeabil..ty and water table position.
Tailwater.
Percent of loss depends on system design, percent
recaptured, and system operation.
TERMS
Costs
Outlays for real property, p..ant, equipment, and other depreciable
investments.
dbtm005/017.51
2-6
Net Costs
The difference between total costs and benefits, or revenues.
Irrigation
Energy
Costs
Cost per hour of pumping def.;ned as rates per kilowatt-hour or fuel cost
per gallon.
Operating effic:iency of a pump depends upon the combination of
gallons per minute, discharge pressure, and pump speed.
Base
Irrigation
Efficiencies
Irrigation efficiencies exis*:ing for a given baseline system.
is the utilization ratio of ':he delivery of system.
Attainable Potential Irrigatzon
Efficiency
Application Efficiencies
Irrigation efficiencies obta:.ned. through better management and maintenance
procedures or the conversion to high potential efficiency systems.
Water
Conservation
Measures
Operation, Maintenance and Gpital Improvements to obtain water savings.
There are two main categories for the purpose of this report: management
techniques and system technicues.
CAPITAL
COST
Capital costs are calculated as a cost per acre, at 10 percent annualized
over 5 or 10 years. Using Lotus software, the following formula was used:
Payment ($, interest percent [lo percent], t of years [S]) c acres
Example:
The capital cost for installing a tensiometer with automatic shut-off if
$12,787.60
(citrus). Number of years of expected useful life--S years.
Interest --lo percent. Number of acres--40 acres.
Payment ($12,787.60, lo%, 5) + 40
3,37i.34 + 40 = $84.33/year
dbtm005/017.51
2-7
This lotus procedure produces the same result as using the capital recovery
factor.
O&M
Operation and Maintenance cos':s are also calculated on a per acre basis.
Example:
Maintenance cost for scheduling irrigation with tensiometers for a 40-acre
citrus grove using a sprinkler system is $392.
392 + 40 = $9.80/acre
dbtm005/017.51
2-8
Section 3
METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIOWS
The following basic steps were taken to estimate the costs associated with
implementing agricultural irrigation water conservation measures within the
Southwest Florida Water Management District:
.
A literature search was conducted to collect information
concerning agricultural irrigation methods practiced within the
District.
.
The basic crop types produced in the District were identified:
strawberries,
they are citrus, container
nurseries, tomatoes,
and vegetable/row crops.
.
The types of irrigation systems currently in use for each of
these crops were identified.
.
\
Each type of irrigation system was reviewed and categorized as
either a low or high potential efficiency system.
.
Means
.
The cost of increasing efficiency in low-efficiency systems and
converting low-efficiency systems to high efficiency ones
was
estimated.
.
Consultation with irrigation system distributors, IFAS, SCS,
industry representatives and District's staff concerning cost
and use of systexrs.
for increasing the efficiency of low-efficiency systems
and converting low-efficiency systems to high efficiency were
identified.
The following paragraphs describe the methods and assumptions applied in
implementing this process.
The literature search was corducted to develop information on irrigation
practices, irrigation efficiencies, and water conservation measures with
potential application within the District. The literature search included
accessing databases for engineering, agricultural, and scientific studies.
dbtm005\019.51
3-1
The search concentrated on obtaining data relating to Florida studies to
ensure that information found wi,uld be relevant to this effort.
Documents selected for the list of references for this project include
reports, papers, journal articles, magazine articles, extension service
The list of references was
publications,
texts, and other references.
derived from information provided by the District, the University of
Florida, and two computerized databases.
Selected agencies and organizations were contacted to determine the type
and quality of information available. Agencies contacted included the
University of Florida Agricultural Engineering Department, the Institute of
Food and Agricultural Science (IFAS) , and the Soil Conservation Service.
Special effort was made to reccver data relating to the agricultural
practices in use within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Southwest
Florida Water Management District.
The District provided CH2M HILI with copies of several irrigation related
papers and references to review.
References were also selected from the
District's report entitled "Sot&rce of Information for Best Agricultural
Water Management Practices" prcvided in the District's consumptive use
permit application packet.
References were added to the list from the
bibliography from work on the iigricultural Field Scale Irrigation
Requirements Simulation Model conducted by Dr. Allen Smajtrala at the
University of Florida Agricultl:ral Engineering Department.
A search of the University of Florida library system computerized card
catalog was conducted for irril;ation related subjects. The Institute for
Food and Agricultural Sciences (IFAS) was the single largest contributor
for the reference list.
Several other agencies and org,mizations were contacted for information
regarding irrigation equipment, practices and procedures:
.
California State University,
Technology
.
Florida Citrus Mutual
Florida Irrigation Society
dbtm005\019.51
3-2
Fresno - Center for Irrigation
.
United States Deoartment of Agriculture Soil Conservation
Service-- both county and state offices
.
Florida Agricultural Statistics Service
The items from the literaturfz search were reviewed and evaluated before
they were included in the recerence list. The results of the literature
search are included in an ap;lendix to this report.
System characteristics incluiing equipment, management, and maintenance
were evaluated.
Estimates ol the design life of equipment and of
management and maintenance training requirements were prepared based on
manufacturers and literature sources.
The costs associated with improving the efficiencies in the low potential
efficiency systems and converting from low to high potential efficiency
systems were estimated.
The:;e included capital costs, management,
equipment including tensiomel:ers, flow meters, power units, computer
equipment, and energy costs.
Periodic costs for normal opc?ration and maintenance of each system were
estimated.
Higher labor rates and higher levels of labor effort, such as
compiling and analyzing data for maintenance of irrigation schedules, were
reflected in the costs of certain high-efficiency systems. Area irrigation
contractors and IFAS personnt!l were contacted for cost and economic
information, as well as IFAS literature.
After all the operation and rlaintenance costs associated with efficiency
improvements were estimated, they were converted to cost per acre. Capital
cost was estimated through tkbe following steps:
.
The capital cost for implementing a given improvement in a
system was annuaI.ized for 5 or 10 years at 10 percent interest
rate.
Examples of pumping cost savings resulting from improved irrigation
efficiency were calculated ar;d may be found in Section 7.
Other cost considerations such as permitting and the displacement of
cropland for improvements are also addressed in Section 7.
dbtm005\019.51
3-3
Section 4
EXISTING IRRIGATION PRACTICES AND
IRFLICATION EFFICIENCIES
AND AVAILABLE WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
This section describes irrigi.tion practices currently prevalent in the
project area, the water use c,fficiencies achieved through those practices,
and measures available to irx,igators to conserve water. Irrigation practices, efficiencies,
and contervation measures are presented for each of
the three basic categories of irrigated crops produced in the District:
citrus ; container-grown ornan,entals; and vegetable/row crops.
There are numerous different types or irrigation systems used for
irrigating each of the three crop categories. The principal types of
irrigation systems, including their system components and operation and
maintenance,
are described below.
The systems described are base systems,
or those currently used in the District area, and which are operating at
various levels of efficiency, depending on site soil and weather conditions
and management practices.
The description of each irrigation system is followed by an appraisal of
measures available to the irrigator to improve the system's efficiency and
conserve
water.
Table 4-5 at the end of this section presents a summary of improved
management practices applicable to both the base and improved configurations of each type of irrigation system, regardless of crop irrigated,
and the types of capital improvements generally applicable in the District.
dbtm005\020.51
4-l
4.1 CITRUS IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Irrigations systems for citrus discussed in this study (e.g., seepage can
also be used but it is not zI.ddressed in this report) can be grouped into
two categories: sprinkler (zncluding volume gun), and micro-irrigation
systems.
Examples of these types of systems are described below. System
components are summarized irk Table 4-l. Sketches of system layouts for
each system discussed are presented in Appendix D.
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Most sprinkler irrigation f>r citrus groves in the District are permanent,
overhead, solid-set systems using small impact sprinklers. A few groves
are irrigated with volume g'ms , mounted on either a portable base or a
traveling device.
BASE SPRINKLER SYSTEM COMPWENT ASSUMPTIONS
Permanent
Solid-Set
Systems
Permanent solid-set systems are discussed in this cost analysis because
many producers still have these systems. However, new solid-set systems
have not been frequently installed in the last 10 years.
The base solid-set system irrigates 40 acres with small impact sprinklers
A 12-inch
mounted on steel vertical ripe risers, 20 feet above the ground.
well with the water level 50 feet below ground surface, supplies water to
the system.
The system pump delivers about 1,480 gallons per minute (gpm)
at 40 pounds per square inch (psi) and is driven by a 95-horsepower
(hp)
diesel engine.
Water is distributed withir the grove in buried PVC pipelines, ranging in
diameter from 6 to LO inches.
The network of laterals is separated into
two sets of four groups, eech group controlled by a separate valve. The
laterals are spaced 60 feet apart, and the sprinkler risers are spaced
60 feet apart along each literal.
The risers are l-inch-diameter, 20-foot
steel pipe.
A 6- by 6- by 24-inch concrete block is used to anchor each
riser.
Each sprinkler del:vers about 6.1 gpm (0.16 inch per hour) at an
average pressure of 40 psi.
dbtm005\020.51
4-2
Volume Gun Systems
Volume gun systems are discussed in this cost analysis for purposes of
costs comparisons for the few producers that still have the old volume gun
systems.
New volume gun systems have not been frequently installed by
producers within the last dec‘ade.
The base volume gun system irrigates 40 acres with one volume gun. A
12-inch well with a water level 50 feet below the surface, supplies water
to the system. A 45-hp dieset engine drives the pump that supplies about
460 gpm at 85 psi to the volume gun.
Water is conveyed to the grovl:! in an S-inch buried PVC pipeline and within
the grove in a B-inch PVC mai:lline with five riser outlets. The outlets
are spaced 260 feet apart.
T:le traveling volume gun is fed by a 4-inch
flexible hose connected to ri:er outlets.
The volume gun is mounted on a
15-foot riser on a carriage connected to a cable. The cable pulls the
carriage and the hose on the !,:round toward the mainline.
BASE SPRIHRLER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ASSUMPTIONS
The diesel engine is lubricatlzd and serviced at regular intervals. The
system discharge pressure at ,:he pump is monitored daily to check for
changes in pressure that may ndicate broken or plugged pipes or sprinklers
or other problems with the sy:;tem.
The geardrive for the pump is
lubricated and serviced at
rei;ular
intervals.
The conveyance and distribution piping is checked during each application
to look for leaking pipes or *ralves.
Pipes or valves with apparent leaks
are repaired or replaced.
The
the
dry
set
moisture condition of the soil or the trees is used as
when to irrigate.
Water is applied to the grove when
enough or the trees appeal* to need water. Irrigations
schedule such as 8 hours every 4 days or 4 hours every
Solid-set
an indicator of
the soil "feels"
may also be on a
3 days.
System
The solid-set sprinkler systecl is operated by opening and closing valves on
the distribution laterals.
The valves for the base system are operated
manually.
Valve operation can be automated to operate the valves with an
dbtm005\020.51
4-3
electric signal. The base system irrigates 20 acres at a time (one half of
the grove). Irrigation sets last about 9 hours.
The solid-set system can provide some degree of frost-protection. Water is
applied to the entire grove when a frost event is forecasted. Water is
applied to the grove during the daytime to wet the ground to provide some
frost protection from the release of heat from the water at night. The
system is shut off during freezing conditions to prevent tree breakage from
ice buildup.
Sprinklers that are not operating properly (i..e not rotating, have a
shortened throw, etc.) are repaired or replaced.
Travaling
Gun
The traveling volume gun irrik;ates one travel lane at a time, and is moved
from travel lane to travel laxte to irrigate the entire grove. The flexible
hose for the traveling volume gun is connected to the riser outlet and the
carriage is pulled to the end of the travel lane. The carriage and flexible hose are pulled toward thrz riser outlet by the cable as the volume gun
discharges water. When the gtln reaches the outlet, it is shut off. The
gun is moved to a new travel ..ane and the same steps are repeated. The gun
takes about 2 hours to travel one lane.
The traveling volume gun can lot cover the entire grove to provide frost
protection.
For the purposes of this doculnent,
synonymously.
volume and traveling guns are used
SPRINRL.ER SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS
Proper maintenance and managesent of an irrigation system can save water.
Tools such as tensiometers, flowmeters, and rainfall shut-off devices can
also help, if they are properly installed and operated.
A catch-can test for the system can be conducted annually to examine the
uniformity of the sprinkler system's application. Sprinklers in areas with
non-uniform water distributicn are checked for worn nozzles or washers or
other problems and repaired cr replaced. After the first year of increased
dbtm005\020.51
4-4
maintenance,
the nozzles and washers are regularly replaced, on 25 percent
of the sprinklers every year, in a 4-year rotation.
There are a variety of irrigation scheduling methods. TWO methods for
citrus include the use of tensiometers and the accounting method. Two sets
of tensiometers can be installed, one set in each half of the grove. Each
set consists of two tensiometers, one to a 6-inch depth and the other to a
36-inch depth.
The tensiometers are read every day to monitor the status
of the soil moisture. When the soil moisture reaches a certain level,
irrigations are scheduled to refill the soil profile.
Scheduling irrigations using the accounting method requires information on
daily water use and rainfall.
Crop water use is tracked, along with
rainfall.
When the cumulative water use, minus rainfall, reaches a given
level, an irrigation is scheduled.
A device to shut off irrigation flow during rainfall can be incorporated
into the system controls to turn the irrigation system off after a set
amount of rain has fallen or the required soil moisture level is reached.
MI(:RO-IRRIGATION
SYSTEMS
The majority of micro-irrigation systems used in the District are microspray and spinner systems.
These systems operate at pressures from 5 to
30 psi and distribute water directly over the tree root zone, which reduces
the evaporation losses common to sprinkler systems.
However, because only
a small part of the tree root system is irrigated, more frequent
applications are required.
BASE MICRO-IRRIGATION COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS
The base micro-spray system irrigates 40 acres of citrus from a 12-inch
well.
The vertical turbine, diesel driven pump delivers about 1,450 gpm
of water to the system at abxt 30 psi. The system uses filtration equipment to prevent clogging and is equipped with chemical injection equipment
to apply fertilizers, pesticides, and anti-clogging agents (chlorine or
other bactericides) to the water. The system is equipped with a backflow
prevention device to prevent the chemicals from being introduced into the
groundwater supply.
dbtm005\020.51
4-5
The mainline and submains are buried PVC pipe, ranging in diameter from 4
to 10 inches. The manifolds and laterals are polyethylene pipe. One
30 gal/hour emitter is located beneath each tree.
BASE
MICRO-IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
OPERATIONS
AND
MAINTENANCE
ASSUMPTIONS
The diesel engine for the bass micro-irrigation system is lubricated and
The system discharge pressure at the pump
serviced at regular intervals.
is monitored daily to check for change8 in pressure that may indicate
broken or plugged pipes or emitters or other problem8 with the system. The
geardrive for the pump is lubricated and serviced at regular intervals.
The conveyance and distribution piping is checked during each application
Pipes or valves with apparent leaks
to look for leaking pipes or valves.
are repaired or replaced.
The micro-spray system is operated by opening and closing valves on the
distribution
laterals.
The valves for the base system are operated automatically.
The entire grove is irrigated simultaneously to provide frost
control.
The base system uses a sand filter that operates with an automatic backflush cycle.
The pressure across the filter is monitored
regularly to make sure the backflush system is operating correctly.
The emitters are checked weekly to look for proper operation, including
plugged emitters, disconnectrid emitters, dry areas and stressed plants. If
any emitters have been knocked over, they are placed upright. If an
emitter has been broken or sxolen from the field (by vandals or animals),
the emitter is replaced.
The moisture condition of thl: soil or the appearance of the trees can be
used as an indicator of when to irrigate.
Water is applied to the grove
when the soil "feels" dry enxlgh or the trees appear to need water. Irrigations may also be on a set schedule such as 2 hours every 3 days or
1 hour every other day.
MICRO-IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS
Proper maintenance and management of an irrigation system can save water.
Tools such as tensiometers, flowmeters, and rainfall shut-off devices can
also help , if they are properly installed and operated.
dbtm005\020.51
4-6
An annual water quality test will check for the presence of iron, sulphur,
and other constituents that lead to physical and biological clogging.
Chlorine injection rates can be adjusted to match the quality of the water
and keep clogging to a minimum.
There are a variety of irrigation scheduling methods. 'ho methods for
citrus include the use of tensiometers and the accounting method.
Two sets
of tensiometers are installed, one set in each half of the grove. Each set
consists of two tensiometers, one to a 6-inch depth and the other to a
36-inch depth.
The tensiometers are read every day to monitor the status
of the soil moisture.
When the soil moisture reaches a given level,
irrigations are scheduled to refill the soil profile.
Tensiometers can be incorporated into the automatic system controls. The
tensiometers control when the irrigation system is turned on and when it is
shut off. This level of system control relies on keeping the tensiometers
maintained (i.e. filled with water, air bubble released, contact switches
checked, etc.).
Scheduling irrigations using the accounting method requires information on
daily water use and rainfall.
Crop water use is tracked, along with rainfall. When the cumulative water use, minus rainfall, reaches a given
level, an irrigation is scheduled.
A rainfall shutoff device can be incorporated into the system controls to
turn the irrigation system off after a set amount of rain has fallen or the
required soil moisture leves is reached.
4.2 CONTAINER NURSERIES IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Irrigation systems for container nurseries can be grouped into two
categories: sprinklers and micro-irrigation systems.
Examples of both
types are described below.
A typical nursery raises ornamentals and trees
in containers. The nursery is divided into four irrigation zones, based on
the age and type of plant grcrlm.
There is a zone for one-, two-, three-,
and seven-gallon containers.
There are 75,000 one-gallon, 37,500 twogallon, 25,000 three-gallon, 2nd
10,700 seven-gallon containers in the
nursery considered in this analysis.
The number of containers is based on
typical container densities, allowing room for roads and paths in the
nursery.
dbtm005\020.51
4-7
Base system components are summarized in Table 4-2. Sketches of system
layouts for each system discussed are presented in Appendix D.
SPRINKLER SYSTEMS
Permanent,
solid-set, overhead sprinkler systems are used to distribute
water to ornamental nurseries.
A few nursery operators use spray heads
instead of impact sprinklers, especially for greenhouse irrigation. An
impact sprinkler system is used as the base system for this study.
BASE SPRINRLER SYSTEM COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS
The base system irrigates 10 acres of ornamentals with small impact
sprinklers mounted on S-foot vertical pipe risers. A lo-inch well, with
the water level 50 feet below ground surface, supplies water to the system.
The system pump delivers abour 730 gpm at 40 psi to the sprinklers. The
pump is powered by a 40-hp ditsel engine.
Water is distributed with bur:.ed PVC mainlines and laterals, ranging in
diameter from 8 to 10 inches.
The laterals are spaced 40 feet apart and
the sprinklers are placed at iLO-foot intervals along the laterals.
Sprinklers are mounted on top of S-foot steel pipe risers. Each sprinkler
delivers about 2.86 gpm at a j>ressure of 40 psi, to apply an average of
about 0.17 inch of water per lour .
BASE SPRINRLER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ASSUMPTIONS
The diesel engine is lubricatfzd and serviced at regular intervals. The
system discharge pressure at :he pump is monitored daily to check for
changes in pressure that may indicate broken or plugged pipes or sprinklers
or other problems with the system.
The geardrive for the QUIUQ is
lubricated and serviced at regular intervals.
The conveyance and distribution piping is checked during each application
to look for leaking pipes or qalves.
Pipes or valves with apparent leaks
are repaired or replaced.
The moisture condition of the containers or the plants or trees is used as
an indicator of when to irrigate.
Water is applied when the soil "feels"
dbtm005\020.51
4-8
Irrigations may
dry enough or the plants or trees appear to need water.
also be on a set schedule such as 2 hours every day or 3 hours every other
day.
Overhead sprinkler systems are operated by opening and closing valves on
the laterals that supply the sets of sprinklers.
The base system has four
sets of laterals, but all the laterals are operated together for frost
protection or for relieving heat stress.
The valves may be manually or
automatically
controlled.
SPRINRLER SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS
Proper maintenance and management of an irrigation system can save water.
Tools such as tensiometers, flowmeters, and rainfall shut-off devices can
also help, if they are properly installed and operated.
A flowmeter can be installed to monitor the amount and rate of water
applied to the nursery.
Changes in flowrate may indicate there are leaks
or blockage in the conveyance, distribution, or application system.
A catch-can test for the system can be conducted annually to examine the
uniformity of the sprinkler system.
Sprinklers in areas with non-uniform
water distribution are checked for worn nozzles, washers, or other problems
and are repaired or replaced.
Sprinkler spray patterns can be adjusted to
eliminate irrigation of non-production areas.
After the first year of
increased
maintenance, the nczzles and washers are regularly replaced, on
25 percent of the sprinklers every year, in a 4-year rotation.
A tailwater recovery pond can be installed to reduce runoff losses. The
recovery system may consist of a l/4 acre storage pond (unlined), a collection system (a polyethylene ground cover and collection ditches), and a
separate pump to pump out of the pond.
There may be pathogen problems with
recovery systems in nurseries.
This matter needs to be investigated
further.
MICRO-IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Micro-irrigation systems operate on pressures of approximately 30 psi and
distribute water to plants, either with a point source emitter spray,
bubblers or individual tubing.
Evaporation losses are much lower than with
dbtm005\020.51
4-9
overhead
sprinklers, and water use efficiency is high when water is applied
directly to the container or close to the plant.
Most micro-irrigation systems require some type of filtration equipment to
prevent clogging of the emitters or spray heads. Chemical injection
equipment is frequently provided for application of fertilizers, pesticides, and anti-clogging (to reduce bacterial clogging) agents to the
water.
When chemical injection equipment is used, the irrigation system
must be equipped with a backflow prevention device to ensure potentially
harmful chemicals are not introduced into the water supply.
RASE MICRO-IRRIGATION COMPONRlllT ASSUMPTIONS
The base micro-irrigation sys!.em uses emitters to apply water to 10 acres
of container-grown ornamental:;.
Different emitters are used in each of the
four sections of the nursery; l/2 gallons per hour (gph) for the 1 gallon
containers, I gph for the 2 gillon containers, 1.5 gph for the 3 gallon
containers, and 3.5 gph for tie 7-gallon containers. The well for the
system supplies about 1,000 gpm at about 30 psi to the drip lines.
Polyethylene submains and lat#?rals supply water to the emitters.
BASE MICRO-IRRIGATION SYSTEM 13PERATION AND MAINTENANCE ASSUMPTIONS
One irrigation zone consists >f four of the sixteen sections in the base
example system.
Each irrigation zone can be irrigated separately. Xrrigation scheduling is important, because each container receives only a
small amount of water during an irrigation set. Frequent, light applications are required.
The moisture condition of ths containers or the plants or trees is used as
an indicator of when to irrigate.
Water is applied when the soil "feels"
dry enough or the plants or trees appear to need water. Irrigations may
also be on a set schedule such as 2 hours every day or 3 hours every other
day.
MICRO-IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS
Proper maintenance and managkiment of an irrigation system can save water.
Tools such as flowmeters can also help, if they are properly installed and
operated.
dbtmOO5\020.51
4-10
A flowmeter can be installed to monitor the amount and rate of water
applied to the nursery.
Changes in flowrate may indicate there are leaks
or blockage in the conveyance, distribution, or application system.
Tools
A rainfall shutoff device
such as flowmeters and shutoff valves can help.
can be incorporated into the system controls to turn the irrigation system
off after a set amount of rain has fallen.
4.3 VEGETABLE/ROW CROP IRRIGATIOE SYSTEMS
Most tomatoes and some vegetables and row crops in the District are
irrigated with a seepage system or seepage systems coupled with a microirrigation system.
Most strawberries and some vegetables and row crops in
the District are irrigated with sprinkler systems, including solid set and
volume gun (primarily solid set), or sprinkler systems coupled with drip.
Examples of both types of systems are described below. Both systems
generally use plastic mulch to maintain the bed shape during rainfall
events and to reduce weeds and water loss during the early growing stages
of the plants.
Base system components for the systems discussed below are
summarized in Table 4-3 and 4-4 at the end of this section. Sketches of
system layouts are presented in Appendix D.
4.3.1
SUBSDRFACE
IRRIGATION
SYSTEMS
Four main variations of subsurface irrigation are practiced in the
District:
open ditch seepage, semi-closed ditch seepage, sub-irrigation,
and crown flood.
The semi-closed ditch is the most common type of subsurface system used in the District, and semes as the base subsurface
irrigation system for tomatoes and vegetables/row crops.
BASE SEMI-CLOSED DITCH SYSTEM COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS
A semi-closed ditch system irrigates by water table management. A water
table is established above an existing water table or above a restrictive
soil layer by pumping water ilto open lateral ditches. The components of
this system consist of a well, pump, power source for the pump, a conveyance pipeline from the pump to the field, and a number of lateral
ditches off the mainline.
Th? base system irrigates 60 acres of vegetable
or row crops.
A l2-inch well, with water level 25 feet below ground
dbtm005\020.51
4-11
surface, supplies water to the system.
The system pump delivers about
600 gpm at 15 psi to the ditches.
The pump is powered by a 20-hp diesel
engine.
The water is conveyed by underground PVC mainlines and submains, ranging in
diameter from 6 to 8 inches, to open lateral ditches. The lateral ditches
Ditches are constructed with an arrow-shaped
are usually 25 feet apart.
tillage device, about 10 inches deep and 18 to 20 inches wide at the top.
The beds are about 3 feet acrcss and 8 to 10 inches high. The ditches for
the base field are 1.300 feet.
Flashboards are installed to retain water.
BASE
SEMI-CLOSED DITCB SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ASSUMPTIONS
The diesel engine is 1ubricatc:d and serviced at regular intervals. The
system discharge pressure at j.he pump is monitored daily to check for
changes in pressure that may :.ndicate broken or plugged pipes or other
problems with the system.
Th15 geardrive for the pump is lubricated and
serviced at regular intervals
The conveyance and distribution piping is
Pipes
checked during each applicatic>n to look for leaking pipes or valves.
or valves with apparent leaks are repaired or replaced.
Water is released into the ditches to raise the water table 16 to 18 inches
from the field surface.
In general, the water is pumped continuously, with
minimal monitoring of the water applied to the field.
SEMI-CLOSED DITCH WATER CONSEUJATION IMPROVEMENTS
Proper maintenance and manageaent of an irrigation system can save water.
Tools such as flowmeters and shallow monitoring wells can help, if they are
properly installed and operated.
Other capital intensive improvements,
such as leveling the field, shortening the lateral ditch length, installing
a tailwater recovery system, and installing micro-irrigation systems, can
save
water.
A flowmeter can be installed and used to set the pump flowrate. There is
usually a reduction in water use by the crop at night.
The diesel pumping
unit can be throttled back at night, then returned to the full pumping rate
in the daytime.
Inexpensive
float-type, shallow monitor wells can be used to save water.
These wells consist of s1ottf.d PVC well casing and float. The float is
dbtm005\020.51
4-12
marked with targets for the critical water table levels for starting and
stopping the system.
When the water table falls belaw the critical level,
the system is turned on.
When the water table rises to the upper level,
The monitor well can be equipped with a remote
the system is turned off.
switch to turn the pump off remotely when the water table reaches the
desired level.
The fields can be leveled to improve water distribution efficiency and
reduce runoff.
The Soil Conservation Service provides assistance with
land-leveling,
including using computer programs to help determine the
minimum amount of soil to move to level a field.
Lateral ditches can be shortifned to improve the uniformity of water
distribution in the field. ,\n additional submain, valves, access paths or
roads, and drainage ditches .Ire required to shorten the ditches.
A tailwater recovery system (:an be installed to recycle runoff and reduce
The system consists of a set of
ground or surface water withtirawals.
collection ditches, a pond, %.md a second pump to deliver water to recycle
water to the field.
The ditc:hes are already in place for drainage of the
field.
The pond for the 60-lucre base system would be 10 feet deep and
l-1/2 acres. The second pum11 would have the same flowrate as the pump for
the well. An additional cost involved in setting up a tailwater recovery
system is that of taking lant. out of production, if no unused land is
available.
A micro-irrigation system car. be installed for supplemental irrigation
after the field is bedded ant: fumigated and the plants are established.
The following section describes such a system.
SEMI-CLOSED DITCH COUPLED WITH MICRO-IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Micro-irrigation systems operate on pressures of approximately 30 psi and
distribute water to each plant by drip irrigation, either with a point
Evaporation losses are much lower
source emitter or individual tubing.
than with other systems, and water use efficiency is high when water is
applied directly to the plant or rows.
Most micro-irrigation systems require some type of filtration equipment to
prevent clogging of the emitters.
Chemical injection equipment is frequently provided for application of fertilizers, pesticides, and anti-
dbtm005\020.51
4-13
bacterial agents to the water.
When chemical injection equipment is used,
the irrigation system must be equipped with a backflow prevention device to
ensure potentially harmful chemicals are not introduced into the water
suPPlY*
BASE MICRO-IRRIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL SYSTEM COMPONENT
ASSUMPTIONS
The system consists of the stmi-closed ditch system for field preparation
and plant establishment, as c.escribed earlier, along with a microirrigation system.
The base micro-irrigation system irrigates 60 acres of
vegetable/row
crops.
The components the system consist of a well, pump,
chemical injector, backflow I,revention device, filtration equipment,
mainline, submain, and line t*ource emitters. A 12-inch well, with the
water level 25 feet below the: ground surface, supplies water to the system.
The system pump delivers aboltt 1,500 gpm at 30 psi to the emitters through
polyethylene mainlines and srtbmains ranging in diameter from 6 to
12 inches.
The pump is paweT,-ed by a 20-hp diesel engine. The line source
tubing is laid down in the i:ldividual bedding rows. The system is designed
to deliver about 25 gpm per .icre.
BASE MICRO-IRRIGATION SUPPLEMENTAL SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
ASSUMPTIONS
Under this system, the grower uses a semi-closed ditch system to bed,
fumigate, and pre-irrigate fx transplants or to start plants. Once the
bedding plants have been established, the grower converts to irrigating the
crops with the supplemental drip irrigation system.
The diesel engine for the base system is lubricated and serviced at regular
intervals.
The system discharge pressure at the pump is monitored daily to
check for changes in pressure that may indicate broken or plugged pipes or
emitters or other problems with the system.
The geardrive for the pump is
lubricated and serviced at regular intervals. The conveyance and distribution piping is checked during each application to look for leaking pipes
or valves.
Pipes or valves with apparent leaks are repaired or replaced.
The base system uses a sand filter that operates with an automatic
backflush cycle.
The pressure across the filter is monitored regularly to
make sure the backflush system is operating correctly. The drip system can
be controlled manually or actomatically.
A timer or controller can be used
to open and close valves as needed for irrigation.
dbtm005\020.51
4-14
The moisture condition of
used as indicators of when
"feels" dry enough or the
also be on a set schedule
other day.
the soil or the appearance of the crop can be
tc irrigate.
Water is applied when the soil
plants appear to need water. Irrigations may
such as 2 hours every 3 days or 1 hour every
SUPPLEMENTAL MICRO-IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS
Improvements for the semi-closed ditch have been discussed earlier. This
section addresses improvements for the drip portion of the system. Tools
such as tensiometers on the drip portion of the system and flowmeters can
help, if they are properly installed and operated.
An annual water quality test gill check for the presence of iron, sulphur,
and other constituents that lead to physical and biological clogging in
drip systems.
Chlorine injection rates can be adjusted to match the
quality of the water and keep clogging to a minimum.
There are a variety of irrigation scheduling methods. Two methods include
the use of tensiometers and the accounting method.
Two sets of tensiometers can be installed, one set in each half of the field. Each set would
consist of two tensiometers, one to a 6-inch depth and the other to an
18-inch depth. The tensiometers are read every day to monitor the status
of the soil moisture. When the soil moisture reaches a given level,
irrigations are scheduled to refill the soil profile.
Tensiometers can be incorporated into the automatic system controls for the
drip portion of the system.
The tensiometers control when the irrigation
system is shut off.
This level of system control relies on keeping the
tensiometers maintained (i.e. filled with water, air bubble released,
contact switches checked, etc.),
Scheduling irrigations using the accounting method requires information on
daily water use and rainfall.
Crop water use is tracked, along with rainfall. When the cumulative water use, minus rainfall, reaches a given
level, an irrigation is scheduled.
dbtm005\020.51
4-15
4.3.2 SPRINKLER
IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
Several types of sprinkler sys:ems are used for strawberry and vegetable
production in Florida.
The diiferent types of sprinkler irrigation systems
are: solid-set and permanent sqstems, lateral-move systems, gun sprinklers,
The most common sprinkler irrigation systems
and micro-irrigation systems.
in the District are solid-set or gun sprinklers. Another type of system is
the combination of solid-set sprinklers and micro-irrigation systems. The
solid set sprinklers are used for field preparation, crop establishment,
The micro-irrigation system is used for supplemental
and frost protection.
Examples of both types of systems are
irrigation after crop establishment.
described below and system components are summarized in Table 4-4.
Sketches of system layouts for solid set sprinkler with micro-irrigation,
volume gun sprinkler and solid set sprinkler systems are found in Figures
8, 9 and 10 of Appendix D.
BASE
SPRINKLER SYSTEM COMPONENT ASSUMPTIONS
Solid-Set
Systems
The base solid-set system irrs.gates 20 acres with small impact sprinklers
mounted on vertical risers, l-foot above the ground. A 12-inch well with
the water level 2.5 feet below ground surface , supplies water to the system.
The system pump delivers about, 1,584 gpm at 50 psi and is driven by a 85-hp
diesel engine.
Water is distributed within tlte field in buried PVC pipelines, ranging in
diameter from 2 to 12 inches.
The laterals are spaced 48 feet apart and
the sprinklers are spaced 48 *feet apart along the laterals. Each sprinkler
delivers about 4 gpm at SO ps',.
The system is designed for an application
rate of 0.25 inch per hour fo.- frost protection. However, normal operating
rates are 0.15 to 0.20 inch p+z hour.
Volume Gun
Guns may be either traveling 3r portable gun sprinklers. A traveling gun
sprinkler can either be moved by hand or self-propelled by a cable tow
system or hose-drag traveler. Portable gun sprinklers are mounted on a
frame that can be moved by tractors or mounted on top of trucks. The
volume gun sprinklers typically used for vegetable and row crop irrigation
in the District are self-propelled.
The base volume gun system irrigates
dbtm005\020.51
4-16
20 acres with one cable-tow, volume gun. A 12-inch well with a water level
25 feet below the surface, sitpplies water to the system. A 40-hp diesel
engine drives the pump that :,upplies about 460 gpm at 85 psi to the volume
gun.
Water is conveyed to the field in an 6-inch buried PVC mainline with three
riser outlets. The outlets are spaced 260 feet apart. The traveling
volume gun is fed by a 4-inc1: flexible hose connected to riser outlets.
The volume gun is mounted on a carriage connected to a cable. The cable
pulls the carriage and the hclse on the ground toward the mainline.
EASE SPRINKLER SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ASSUMPTIONS
The solid-set sprinklers are operated by opening and closing valves on the
distribution
laterals.
Control may be manual or automatic. Water can be
applied by the solid-set system to the entire field during freezing
conditions.
There is no freeze protection provided with the volume gun.
The flexible hose for the trsveling volume gun is connected to the riser
outlet and the carriage is pclled to the end of the travel lane. The
carriage and flexible hose are pulled toward the riser outlet by the cable
as the volume gun discharges water.
When the gun reaches the outlet, it is
shut off. The gun is moved to a new travel lane and the same steps are
repeated.
The gun takes about 2 hours to travel one lane.
SPRINRLER
SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS
Proper maintenance and management of an irrigation system, using tools such
as tensiometers and flowmeters, if they are properly installed and
operated, can also save water.
A catch-can test for the system can be conducted annually to examine the
uniformity of the sprinkler system.
Sprinkler spray patterns can be
adjusted to eliminate irrigation of non-production areas. Sprinklers in
areas with non-uniform water distribution are checked for worn nozzles or
washers or other problems , and are repaired or replaced.
After the first
year of increased maintenance, the nozzles and washers are regularly
replaced, on 25 percent of the sprinklers every year, in a 4-year rotation.
There are a variety of irrfgation scheduling methods. Two methods include
the use of tensiometers and the accounting method. Two sets of tensio-
dbtm005\020.51
meters can be installed, one sat in each half of the field. Each set
consists Of two tensiometers, one to a 6-inch depth and the other to a
18-inch depth. The tensiometers are read every day to monitor the status
of the soil moisture.
When the soil moisture reaches a given level,
irrigations are scheduled to refill the soil profile.
Scheduling irrigations using the accounting method requires information on
daily water use and rainfall. Crop water use is tracked, along with
rainfall.
When the cumulative: water use, minus rainfall, reaches a certain
level, an irrigation is schedt.led.
Tailwater recovery systems ma!* also be incorporated whenever crops are
grown on plastic.
dbtm005\020.51
4-18
SPRINKLFeR IRRIGATION SYSTEM WITH
MICRO~.IRRIGATION COtfPOt?ENTS
This system consists of the srlid-set sprinkler system, as described
The base
e a r l i e r , along with a supplemc?ntal micro-irrigation system.
micro-irrigation system irrig,ltes 20 acres of strawberries or vegetable/row
crops.
The components of the system consist of a well, pump, chemical
injector, backflow prevention device, filtration equipment, mainline,
submain, and line source emitzers.
A 12-inch well, with the water level
25-feet below the ground surf(ice, supplies water to the system. The system
pump delivers about 500 gpm a.‘: 30 psi to the emitters through polyethylene
mainlines and submains rangin:,; in diameter from 4 to 6 inches.
The pump is
powered by an ZO-hp diesel en$;ine.
The line source tubing is laid down in
the individual bedding rows.
The system is designed to deliver about
25-gpm per acre.
SUPPLEMENTAL MICRO-IRRIGATION SYSTEM OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE ASSUMPTIONS
Under this system, the grower uses sprinklers to form beds, pre-irrigate
for transplants or start planr:s, and frost protection. Once the bedding
plants have been established, the grower converts to irrigating the crops
The micro-irrigation system can be
with the drip irrigation systt?m.
A timer or controller can be used to
controlled manually or automar:ically.
open and close valves as needtkd for irrigation. In most systems, the
laterals or drip lines are op#!rated at the same time.
SUPPLEMENTAL MICRO-IRRIGATION SYSTEM WATER CONSERVATION IMPROVEMENTS
Improvement for the sprinkler have been discussed earlier. Proper
maintenance and management of an irrigation system can save water. Tools
such as tensiometers and flowrleters can also help, if they are properly
installed and operated.
1rrit;ation scheduling was also described earlier
in the sprinkler improvements
An annual water quality test Trill check for the presence of iron, sulphur,
and other constituents that lt!ad to physical and biological clogging.
Chlorine injection rates can Ire adjusted to match the quality of the water
and keep clogging to a minimuri.
dbtm005\020.51
4-19
Table 4-1
lhse Citrus lrrigntion System Components
Solid Set
Sprinkler
item
Micro-Irrigation
Volume Gun
Comments
Grove
Size
Tree Spacing
Number of Trees
40 acres
20 x 30 feet
2904
40 acres
LO x 30
2904
40 acres
20 x 30
2904
Assume property is 1320 x 1320 ft
Adapted from SCS FL Irrigation Guide
44 rows x 66 trees/row - also agrees with Ft. AG
SIMS Service!lJSDA
Well
Diameter
Capacity
Depth
To water
Drawuowu
12-inch
1600 gpm
500 feet
50 feet
,:,
1t1 cLLL,
12-inch
1600 gpm
5W feet
50 feet
‘1,
,\I r--r
IGLL
12-inch
*6w gpm
500 feet
50 feet
10
1” fnnt
IlL.
From conversations with SCS, IFAS. and extension
personnel in state, UF, Research Center, and
county offices
Pump
Capacity
Required Lift
Pipe Losses
Riser
Sprinkler Pressure
TDH
1450 gpm
60 feet
IO feet
0 Scet
70 feet
140 feet
I480 gpm
60 feet
IO feet
20 feet
95 feet
185 feet
4fa gpm
60 feet
IO feet
15 feet
195 feet
280 feet
Diesel
75%
70 hp
Diesel
75%
95 hp
Diesel
75%
45 hp
Power =
Chlorine
None
None
To prevent iron and sulphur bacterial slimes
from forming
TDH = Req’d lift + pipe loss + riser
height + sprinkler pressure
Flow (gpm) x TDk I (ft)
Power Unit
SPe
Efficiency
Size
Chemical
Injection
dbtmOO5\021.51
4-20
3,960 x Efficiency
Table 4-l Conlinued
Item
Solid Set
Volume Gun
Micro-lrriealion
Sprinkler
4- to IO-inch
for 8 sections
above-ground
laterals
6- lo IO-inch
for 8 sections
buried with
20 feet risers
6- and 8-inch
for 5 outlets
4-inch hose
connects to main
Buried pvc mains and submains
Above-ground polyethylene laterals for
micro-irrigation
Spray
Impact
Volume gun
Example systems based on Appendix IO-A from
SCS Florida Irrigation Guide
2904
30 gal/hr
30 psi
25 feet
One emlIter
per tree
One
484
6.1 gpm
40 psi
96 fee1
One
460 gpm
85 psi
418 feet
lanes 260 tt wide
660 ft long
Ten lanes
Irrigation
Applicalion ra1e
Flowrate per acre
Appl efticienLy
Duration
Frequency
30 gal/h r/1 ree
34 gpm/acre
80 percent
7 hours
6 to 7 days
0. I6 inch/hr
74 gpm/acrc
70 percent
12.5 hours
6 to 7 days
Fros1 Proteclion
During even1
Before even1
Distribution System
Mainline
Valving
Laterals
Irrigalion
JYpe
Comments
System
Number
Flowrate
Pressure
Wetted diameter
Spacing
Number of zones
dbtmOO5\021.51
60 tr x 60 11
Two
0.37 inch/hr
65 percent
2 hours, 6-7 days
None
4-21
Impact using Rainbird
30 WH with 5/32-x l/8-inch nozzles
Volume gun using Rainbird
IWC with 1.2Y-inch nozzle
IFAS recommends 20 gpm/ac for irrigation and
33 gpm/ac for cold protection
Duration based on 0.75 in/f1 water
Holding capacity, 5 fr roo1ing deplh, and
l/3 available Water Holding Capacity (awe)
depletion
Tabk 4-2
Contairncr and Fkld-Gmwn Omxuncnlnls
hiplion System Componenls
Item
Comments
Spnnkler
Micro-lmgatton
NUtSC~
Size
1 -gal Contamers
:-gal Contamers
3-gal Containers
7-gal Contamers
10 acres
75.000
37.000
25.ooo
10.700
10 acres
75.000
37.500
Y.ooo
10.700
Assume property IS 400 feet X 600 feet
Four quai secttons for l-gal. ?-gal. 3-gal. and
7-gal contatners. Based on densrttes trom
Hillsborough County extenston office
Well
Diameter
CapCllV
Depth
To Water
Drawdowtl
lo-inch
1 .OOO gpm
300 feel
50 feet
10 feet
lo-tnch
1.000 gpm
300 feet
50 fee1
10 feet
From conversations wtth SCS. IFAS. and
extenston personnel in state. UF. research
center. and county offices
Pump
capacit!,
Rqutred Lift
Pipe Losses
Riser
Sprinkler Pressure
TDH
625 gpm
60 feet
10 feet
0 feet
70 feet
140 feet
730 wm
60 feet
10 feel
5 feel
95 feet
170 feet
Dle&
75%
M-hp
Diesel
75%
40-hp
Chemtcal hyectton
Chlorine
None
To prevent iron and sulphur bactertal
slimes from forming
Distribution System
Mainline
Valving
LalCdS
(i- and S-inch
For four zones
Aboveground polybutv
8- and lo-inch
For one zone
Buried PVC
Buned
Impact
256
2.86 gpm
Examples systems based on Appendix IO-A
from Florida irtigation guide
Impact ustng Rainbird 20H wtth l&inch
nozzle
TDH = required lift + pope loss + rtser
height + sprinkler prcssttre
Power Unit
Type
Efficiency
Size
ene
Flow (gpm) x TDH (ft)
Power =
3.960 x Efficiency
PVC matns and submatns
Sprinkler
Type
Number
Flowlate
Pressure
Wetted Diameter
Spacing
Number of Zones
Irrtgatton
Application
Flawrate per acre
Appl. Efficiency
Duratton
Frequency
Frost Protection
dbtmOO5/OU51
DIP
148.200
1R to 3.5 galihr
30 ps’
One emttter per conta ner
Four
40 P’
96 feel
10 feet x 40 feet
One
Varies
91 gpm/acrc
80 percent
15 days
1 day
0.17 Inch/hour
73 gpm/acre
70 percent
2 hour
1 day
During
4-22
Event
Operate entire sprtnkler system for frost
protectton
IFAS recommends 0.15 to 0.2
protectton
in/hr for frost
Tnbk 4-3
TomMae and Vegetable/Row Crop Semi-Closed Ditch and Mkro-lrri+ion Drip
I~rription SJnkm Componenls
IlCm
Field Size
Bed Layout
WCII
Diameter
Depth
To Water
Dnwdaam
Well capacity
Pump
w=w
Rqmred Lift
Pipe Losses
Riser
Sprinkler Prcssurc
TDH
Semi-Closed Ditch ,-
60 acres
3 lee across
8-10 incha high
60 acres
3 feet across
8-10 inches high
Assume property is 1.320 feet x 1.980 feet
bed layout obtainad from extension and
SCS personnel
12-inch
300 feel
25 feet
5 feet
2.000 gpm
12-inch
300 feel
25 feel
5 feet
2.000 gpm
From convemaf~ons with SCS. IFAS. and
extension penonnel in stale. LJF, research
enter, and county offices
600 mm
30 feel
5 feet
1500 gpm
TDH = required lift + pope loss +
height + sprinkler pressure
35 feel
0 feet
35 fee-!
70 feet
10 feel
0 feel
10 feel
115 feet
Power Unit
Efficiency
SiZC
Diesel
Diesel
75%
?O-hp
75%
60-hp
Chemtcal InJection
None
Chlorine
g-inch
b-Inch
On outlets
Ditches IO inches deep.
20 inches wide. and
8- and 12.inch
b-mch
Distribution SFtem
Mainline
Submam
Valving
LalCralS
Comments
Micro-lmgatlon
nser
Flew (gpm) x TDH (ft)
Power =
3.960 x Efficiency
Buned PVC mams and submams
Aboveground polyethylene submams
Line source tubing
300 feet long
660 feet long
Irrigation
System
Type
Number
Rcwrale
P!essure
Wetted Diameter
Spacing
Ditch
Line source enutter
boo .spm
1.500 gpm
15 psi
301
3 feet
Tubing along each bed
25 feel
Examples based on SCS Florida trrigauon
guide and discusslons with SCS and
cxlenslon SeMCe
Irrigation Operauon
Application Rate
Flowme per acre
Appl. Efficiency
Duration
Frequency
0.6 gpm/lOO feet
10 gpm/acrc
50 percent
bdays
Weekly
0.5 gpm/lOO feet
25 gpmlacre
80 percent
4 hours
SCS designs 10 gpm/acre and 25 gpm/acrc
Frost Protection
None
None
Seepage and drip systems do
frost protection
prolectlon
dblmOOSID24.51
4-23
Duration based on 0.75 inch/feet water
holding capacity. 2 feel rooting depth.
and 113 AWC depletion
not provide
Tabk 44
slm*k~ and VegelabkfRow Crop Sprinkkr and Mkro-irrigation Dtip
lrrlpalion System Componcnfi
Item
Solid-set Sprinkler
Field Size
Bed Layout
Well
Diameter
Depth
To Water
Drawdown
Well Capactty
20 act-es
3 feet across
8-10 inches high
Q-inch
400 wm
25 feel
10 feel
2.000 gpm
Vol rme Gun
Comments
Micro-Irrigatton
20 acres
3 feet across
g-10 I lches htgh
20 acres
3 feet across
g-10 inches htgh
Assume property is 660 feet
x 1.320 feet bed layout
obtatned from extenston and
SCS personnel
12-in< h
gi im
3 fett
10fett
2.000 gpm
12-inch
200 feet
25 feel
10 feel
2.000 feet
From conversattons with SCS.
IFAS, and extension personnel
in stale. LJF. Research Center.
and county offices
46Ogjm
35 fef t
10 fetl t
4 feel
1% tc,et
245 I4 et
500 mm
400
Pump
c-v=?
Rq’d Lift
Pipe Losses
Riser
System Pressure
TDH
Power Unit
Efftciency
Size
Chemical
Distribution
Mainline
Submatn
Valvtng
Laterals
Injection
1.584 gpm
35 fee-t
10 feet
1 foot
115 feet
161 feet
35 feel
10 feet
0 feet
70 feel
115 feet
Diesel
75%
85 hp
Diesel
75%
20 hp
Option
Opttonal
TDH = Rq’d lift + pope loss +
nser height + sprinkler preasute
Flow (gpm) x TDH (ft)
Power =
3960 x Efficiency
System
12-inch
6-inc!!
Buried PVC Mains
Burted PVC Submatns
For : outlets
4-mcil hose
connects to mam
Lme source tubmg
000 feet long
Imgatton System
Type
Number
Flowrate
PrrsStKe
Wetted diameter
Spacing
Number of zones
Irrigation operation
Application rate
Rowrate per acre
Appl efficiency
Duration
Frequency
Frost
protection
dbtmOO5UtZ3.5 1
Impact (9Mth)
392
4.04 gpm/spr
50 psi
83 feet
48 feet x 48 feet
One
Volu ne Gun
One
460 I: pm
85 psi
418 I ?et
260 t; travel lanes
Six I; nes
0.15 in&hour
0.37 nchihour
70 percent
4.5 hours
During event
Lute source
Emttter
500 gpm
30 psi
Example based on SCS Ronda
Imgatton guide and discussion
wtth SCS and extension service
Tubing along each bed
Ten lanes
Tubing uses one emitter
65 p’rcent
2 holirs
0.5 gpm per 100 feet
25 gpm/acre
80 percent
4 hours
SCS designs 10 gpmiacre and
25 gpmlacre
Duratton based on 0.75 In/ft water
Holding capacity. 2 ft rooting
depth. and ln awe depletion
Non,
None
4-24
every 18”
Table 4-5
SUMMARY OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM MAHAGEME#T
PRACTICES AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS-BASE AND IMPROVED IRRIGATION SYSTEMS
MANAGEMENT
PRACTICES
Water Supply System
Base
Lubricate and service diesel engine
Change oil/filter, check fluids at manufacturer's
suggested
intervals
Annually check/inspect for regular maintenance
Monitor pump discharge pressure
Check for changes in pressure that may signify pipeline
breakage,
leaks , worn impellers, etc.
Lubricate and service geardrive for pump
Check lubricant levels on pumps
Check pump operation speed, etc.
Improved
Install flowmeter to monitor flow
Check for high flow due to leaks or worn nozzles
Check for low flow due to blocked pi elines, clogged
filters or nozzles or other pump pro % lems
Inspect/repair/replace pump parts
Check for lower pressures that may indicate pump problems
Check pump and impellers for repair or replacement
Sprinkler Systeai
Base
Check conveyance and distribution systems for leaks
Look for leaking pipes or valves
Replace or repair leaking parts
Check sprinklers
Look for broken sprinklers (e.g not rotating, shortened
throw, etc.)
Check/repair/replace broken springs, impact arms,
nozzles, etc.
Monitor distribution system pressures
Look for uneven pressure in the system
Possible leakage or blockage in the mains, laterals, or
valves
Decide when and how much to irrigate
Irrigate on a set schedule (e.g. 2 hours every day,
4 hours twice a week)
Use past experience such as how soil "feels" or the
appearance of the plants or trees
Improved
Schedule irrigations with tensiometers or with the accounting
method
Conduct catch-can tests annually to check sprinkler
distribution and uniformity
Check sprinkler heads for worn nozzles, washers, and other
parts
Replace sprinkler nozzles in a four year rotation; 25% each
year
dbtm005\020.51
4-25
Table
4-5
Continued
Micro-Irrigation: Drip or Spray
Base
Clean screen or sand filters (daily, weekly, or automatically)
Monitor pressure loss across filter
Monitor chlorine injection rates
Check mains, submains, and laterals for leaks/blockage
Check emitters for proper operation
Look for plugged emitters and unplug
Look for disconnected emitters
Look for dry areas and stressed plants or trees
Citrus - check spray emitters and stakes
Look for emitters tipped over and upright
Nurseries - check drippers
Plug cr shut off unused laterals and emitters
Vegetables - look for dry areas and plants with visible
signs of stress
Irrigate on a set schedule or from past experience
Improved
Schedule irrigations with tensiometers or with the accounting
method
Automatic controls - based on tensiometer/computer programs
Check water quality for biological clogging, especially if
filters clog frequently, and overcompensating for decreased
flow with longer irrigation times
Flush laterals annually
Row crops - sample drip er operation by cutting through mulch
to examine how much of t ed is wet after an irrigation
Seepage System
Base
Check mains and submains for leaks/blockage
Visually monitor flow of water with irrigation water either
continuously or periodically distributed through the ditches
Improved
Monitor water tab.&e with shallow well
Schedule water application using monitoring well
Install automatic shut-off switch to shut down system when
water table has reached desired depth
Level seepage fie.lds by using laser leveling equipment
Increase uniformity of application and reduce runoff from
the field
Install subsurfacts tile systems to maintain water table level
Install underground distribution system
Reduce runoff and evaporation of water in the ditches
Install recovery systems to use runoff from seepage systems
Decrease row lengths to increase uniformity and reduce runoff
More pipe and valves to distribute the water
Reduce length of run for drainage flows
Cycle pumps or throttle back
Electric - turn the system on for a short period, then
off. For example, 2 hours on and l/2 hour off
Diesel - throttle power unit back to reduce pumping rate
during the evening and night when the water use rate is
lower
dbtm005\020.51
4-26
Table
CAPITAL
4-5
Continued
IMPROVEMENTS
Tensiometer
Install at least one per irrigation zone
Preferably two at each location to monitor soil moisture at two
zones (shallow and deeper)
Inspect weekly in the field
Purge air/refill tubes with deionized water
Check vacuum gauge for proper operation
Inspect and clean each year
Water shutoff during rainfall
Install to shutoff system during rainfall events
Not used with system using plastic mulch
Can be automated to shut off irrigation system.
Water table monitoring
Install shallow water table monitorin well
Slotted PVC well casing, PVC float po Ie marked with target and
critical water table levels
Can be automated to shut off irrigation system
Laser
leveling
Level seepage fields tc reduce runoff and increase uniformity of
irrigation
Return flow/tailwater return system
Row crops - Install pond, sump, and collection system (ditches); well
pumps into pond, separate pump for irrigation system
Nursery - install catchment system and storage pond
Possible pathogen cycling, possible problems with bacteria
dbtm005\020.51
4-27
Section 5
ESTIMATION OF POTENTIAL EF'FICIENCY GAINS,
MANAGEMENT AND SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS, AND
IkfPLFMENTATION COSTS
This section presents an apprciach for estimating supplemental irrigation
efficiencies in the existing cystem, selecting management and system
improvements available to increase efficiencies, and estimating efficiency
gains and implementation cost:'.
The system efficiencies addressed in this
section are essentially the same irrigations efficiencies discussed in the
Water Use Caution Area criterJa of the District's Water Use Permitting
Rule, Chapter 40D-2, Florida I\dministrative Code. Agricultural water users
in the District that exceed their permitted water quantities because of low
irrigation system efficiencie: may wish to consider some of the water conservation measures suggested :n this section to potentially lower their
water
use.
This study does not directly z%ddress the efficiency of using irrigation
systems for non-supplemental Irrigation uses such as field preparation,
crop establishment and frost/freeze protection.
However, many of the water
conserving techniques suggested for supplemental irrigation may also
improve the efficiency of the system for non-supplemental uses.
The approach that has been deteloped is a planning tool designed to address
"typical" system improvements and should be used as such. However, each
irrigation system is unique.
Agricultural water users should consult the
local office of the Soil Consemation Service or a reputable irrigation
consultant for a system evaluation to determine which improvements would be
the most appropriate and cost-effective for their particular system.
The method chosen for estimating system efficiencies and evaluating
improvements is derived from the Farm Irrigation Rating Method (FIRM)
developed by the USDA Soil Cor.servation Service (see Appendix C). However,
some modifications have been nlade to adapt to local conditions. For
example, the potential system efficiency for volume gun sprinklers was
increased from 67% to 75% to z:ccount for the humidity conditions prevalent
in the District, which are much higher than in the western United States
where the system was developei. Discussions with IFAS irrigation experts
indicate this change to be appropriate.
Also, some evaluation factors
considered by the FIRM are not considered significant under local conditions and practices, and have been deleted for the sake of simplicity.
The deletion of factors is adciressed where appropriate.
dbm005\042.51
5-L
The method for estimating irrigation efficiency presented in this report
has its greatest value in evaluating change , not in estimating the absolute
level of efficiency of the exi.;ting irrigation system. The process of
estimating the incremental CDS: of improving irrigation efficiency includes
the following steps:
.
Estimate the irrigation efficiency of the present system
through a professional system evaluation or by comparing the
present system to the system descriptions found in FIRM,
.
Determine the appropriate potential system efficiency of the
current system,
.
Examine available management and system improvements to gain
efficiency,
.
Estimate potentia.. efficiency gains resulting
management and sy:;tem improvements,
.
Estimate the cost of implementing the management and/or system
techniques to real:h the desired efficiency level for the
existing system,
.
Estimate the costs associated with replacing the current system
or retain the current system for field preparation, crop
establishment or frost protection and add a higher potential
efficiency system for supplemental irrigation purposes,
.
Estimate the pumping cost savings and any other costs
associated with each option, and
l
from
different
Compare the net Costs of the likely options.
This step by step process car. help determine which management and/or system
improvement techniques would provide the best results. Also, it can help
to assess the cost-effectivertess of implementing improvements, installing
supplemental
systems, or charlging to an entirely new system that is better
designed or has a higher pota?ntial efficiency.
Three key elements are evaluated
efficiency.
dbm005\042.51
when estimating an irrigation system's
5-2
.
The management of the irrigation system. The decisions of when
and how much water to apply can be based on measuring water
flow, monitoring soil moisture and knowing how to operate the
irrigation system efficiently.
A good management plan will
allow the water user to utilize less water without jeopardizing
crop yields.
.
The irrigation system.
How well the key components are
designed, constru.:ted and maintained are important factors in
determining the irrigation efficiency of the system. For a
sprinkler system, the key components are conveyance, uniformity
of sprinkler pattern, variation in nozzle pressure, and
climatic effect.
The most important components for subirrigation (seepa systems are conveyance, uniformity of
water table, capacity to maintain the desirable water table,
surface slope, anl the prevention of tailwater loss. The main
components of micro-irrigation systems are conveyance, area
wetted and flow variation.
The key components for a surface
system are conveyance, irrigation length, surface slope and
prevention of taiiwater loss.
.
The potential efficiency of the system. The system potential
efficiency is the obtainable efficiency when the irrigation
system is performng optimally for the site specific
conditions.
The FIRM uses management and system characteristics to define the
efficiency of the irrigation system. An efficiency factor is associated
with each of the management t~zchniques applicable to a particular type of
system.
The four management ;:echniques considered in this study are:
Md
s
I
M
Management Techniqu~?s
Use of water flow measuring device
Soil moisture monitorin; and scheduling
Irrigation skill level
Maintenance condition 0: the system
FIRM Potential Ranges
.90 - 1.0
.90 - 1.0
.90 - 1.0
.90 - 1.0
For Maintenance (M), a factor of 1.0 applies only to a new well-designed,
well-constructed
system.
Thesrefore, existing irrigation systems cannot be
assigned a perfect score of 1.000.
The water delivery and soil condition
factors used in FIRM are assurled not to be significant and are not con-
dbm005\042.51
5-3
sidered.
In the case of wate-: delivery, water is typically supplied by
In the
on-farm wells and is not subject to off-farm delivery restrictions.
case of soil conditions, the zppical soils and cultural practices of the
area make irrigation efficiency less responsive to factors such as
conservation tillage, crop residue use and conservation cropping as are
those examined in the original FIRM study.
The management factors are multiplied to calculate the composite management
factor (CMF) used in the estisation of the system's efficiency.
The system element is characterized by the following factors:
FIRM Potential Ranges
System Techniques
F
Type of farm conveyance system Delivery of water to farm field
.85 - 1.0
U
Uniformity of application
.75 - 1.0
A
Percent of area wetted of the root zone
.80 - 1.0
D
Water delivery system - varies by
irrigation system.
1.0
It is assumed that water delivery
systems are well-designed and wellconstructed.
For this reason, all
irrigation systems are given a factor
of 1.0 or n/a, as appropriate.
L
Land siope and conditicm
TL
Tailwater = [(T - 5)/100]
.85 - 1.02
where:
T - % water loss as tailwater
TR
Tailwater reuse - 1 - (R - 5)/100]
where:
R - I tailwater reuse
A copy of the Farm Irrigation Rating Method (FIRM) is presented in
Appendix A.
It is important to note that the equations for TL and TR in Attachment 2,
page 2 of 2, in the FIRM article are misleading. The equations presented
in this report have been verified with the USDA Soil Conservation Service
state office in Gainesville, Florida.
dbm005\042.51
5-4
The composite system factor (CSF) is the product of the multiplication of
the applicable system factors.
The system efficiency is then estimated by
the following formula:
System Efficiency = SPE x CMF x CSF
where:
SPE = System Potential Efficiency,
CMF = Composite Management Factor, and
CSF = Composite System Factor
To estimate the efficiency of the present system the agricultural producer
has two options available: 1) to assume, based on firm factor descriptions and his or her knowledge of the system, a system efficiency rating or
2) to request the local USDA Soil Conservation Service or a qualified
consultant to visit the site and determine, by field inspection, the system
efficiency.
The system potential efficiencies of the irrigation systems
considered for this report as referenced in the tables are:
Irrigation
Solid
Solid
Set
Set
System
Sprinkler
Sprinkler
Crop Type
Strawberries on plastic
nulch-- tailwater reused
85.00
strawberries on plastic
nulch--No tailwater reused
85.00
85.00
Solid
Set
Sprinkler
Citrus
Solid
Set
Sprinkler
Container
Ditch
lomatoes
Semi-closed
Volume
Gun
Micro-irrigation
System
Potential
Efficiency
nurseries
and vegetables
80.00
Citrus and vegetable/row
trops
75.00
Citrus
85.00
Spray
dbm005\042.51
85.00
5-5
Micro-irrigation
Drip
Ftrawberries
row crops
and vegetables/
90.00
The data pertaining to the irl.igation systems by crop types, the management
and system techniques availab1.e to increase efficiency, their respective
efficiency gains and the impl*+mentation costs are presented in tabular form
to facilitate their use.
The tables are arranged in groups numbered 1
through 8 denoting an irrigat,on system typical of a given crop as follows:
Table No.
Irrigation System/Crop Type
1
solid Set Sprinkler - Strawberries on plastic
nulch--Tailwater
recovery and land laser
Leveling
considered
2
Solid Set Sprinkler--Strawberries on plastic
nulch--Tailwater
recovery and land laser
leveling not considered
3
Solid Set Sprinkler--Citrus
4
Solid Set Sprinkler--Container nurseries
5
Semi-closed ditch--Tomatoes and vegetables
6
Volume Gun-Traveling-- Citrus and vegetable/row
crops
7
Micro-Irrigation Spray--Citrus
8
Micro-Irrigation Drip--Strawberries, tomatoes
and vegetables/row crops
Each table has three parts.
The "A" tables are examples of how a given
irrigation system may be improved from one level of efficiency to another.
Each line in the table characterizes the irrigation system at a different
level of management and system performance. It should be noted that the
system characterizations in t:he "A" tables are only examples. Each can be
customized to the reader's specific system conditions by using the management and system factor descrl-ptions in Attachment 2 of the FIRM found in
dbm005\042.51
5-6
Appendix C of this document.
The ttBtt tables list appropriate management
techniques and system improve?ments that can be used to increase irrigation
system efficiencies and thei], assigned FIRM efficiency factors. The "C"
tables contain the annual per' acre costs of implementing the management
techniques and system improvc!!ments found in the "B" tables. Multiple cost
tables have been provided fol, irrigation systems that are typically used on
more than one crop type.
Fol' example, in the case of volume gun-traveling,
used on both citrus and vegec.ables, different costs tables (Tables 6Cl and
6C2) are provided to account for differences in annual costs per acre. The
differences are mainly attritlutable to the differences in typical crop
field, farm and grove sizes.
The following example demonst.rates the methodology and the use of the
information in the tables,
Assume for a moment, that you have a strawberry
farm using a solid set sprinkler irrigation system with tailwater recovery
and you want to improve the tifficiency of your system. Based on the
management and system factor descriptions found in FIRM, further assume
that the system matches the one rated "FM" or "Fairly Managed" in Table LA.
The table shows the followin!; information regarding the irrigation system:
System
Efficiency
Rating
FM
F
1.000
Composite
Management
Factor
0.71
Management Factors
Md
S
I
M
0.900 0.900 0.950 0.925
U
1.000
A
rla
System
Potential
Effic.
85.00
0
1.000
L
0.950
System Factors
104%
@Y
TL
TR
0.010
0.866
System
eff. wltail
56.98
Composite
System
Tw
0.991
-hJ/O
w/t
Factor
0.866
0.94
System
Factor wlot
0.82
System
eff. wlo tail
49.77
The first column on the table: gives the system efficiency rating. These
ratings were developed only to illustrate how various systems may be
improved in similar discrete steps and are not intended as a judgement of
the operation of any particuar irrigation system. They are not found in
FIRM.
The irrigation system we have chosen as an example is rated "FM" or
fairly managed. The complett? list of ratings considered is:
dbm005\042.51
5-7
PM
= Poorly Managed
FM
= Fairly Managed
LWM = Low Well Managed
AWM = Average Well Managed
HWM- Highly Well Managed
The management factors for th+ different management techniques are listed
next.
Each management technique has a range of factors going from .900 to
1.00 representing different lIavels of management intensity. The "B" tables
list the conditions/options considered for each of the management techniques, and the factors that nave been assigned to them. The factor of
.900 for Md (water measurement) indicates that water use is not metered
either at the farm level or the field level.
The factor of .900 for S
(soil moisture scheduling) assumes that soil moisture is not measured and
is not taken into account in scheduling irrigation. The factor of .950 for
I (irrigation skill) indicates that the person operating the irrigation
system is a full time employee working part time on the irrigation system
but has not had any specialized irrigation training. The factor of .925
for M (maintenance) indicates that the maintenance level for the system is
"fair".
The Composite Management Factor (Cm) for the system is calculated as
follows:
Md x S x I x M = Composite Management Factor
0.9000 x 0.9000 x 0.950 x 0.925 = 0.71
Next, the System Factors are listed.
Because it may be almost as costly to
reconfigure an entire system that was poorly designed or constructed as it
is to replace it, it is assumed in all of the examples that the irrigation
system was well designed and constructed and adheres to proper spacing and
row length criteria.
Many sj'stem characteristics are therefore assigned a
factor of 1.000.
It is assumed that water is tlelivered from the well to the field by pipe
(rather than by earthen channel or other means) and the factor of 1.000 for
F (farm conveyance) indicate21 that the pipe is sound. The factor of 1.000
for U (uniformity) reflects the assumption that the system was well
designed and constructed and also indicates that the proper nozzles have
been selected. The factor o? NA for A (area wetted) indicates that this
does not apply because it is a measure of uniformity more particular to
dbm005\042.51
5-8
micro-irrigation systems thar sprinkler systems. The factor of 1.000 for D
(delivery system) again reflects the assumption that the system was well
designed and constructed and indicates that pressure variance at the
sprinkler nozzle as a percentage of average pressure is 20% or less. The
factor of .950 for L (land stArface) indicates that the land surface has
been at least rough graded ard the land slope and condition is essentially
uniform.
Since strawberries are generslly grown on plastic, the generation of
tailwater (runoff) is a factcr that should be taken into account whether a
tailwater recovery system is considered or not, othewise efficiencies will
be overestimated.
This holds true for all crops grown on plastic where
runoff occurs, or where seepage irrigation systems are also designed for
drainage and runoff is likely.
Tailwater has been taken into account in
all the tables where appropriate.
For this example, it is assumed that
pumping length is a continuous 3.5 hours and 18.42 of the water pumped
returns to the pond as tailwster.
It is further assumed that 104% of the
tailwater is reused (the ponc collects additional water from rainfall and
the water table).
If tailwater recovery was not used, the proper "T"
factor (l'w/o) used in calculating the Composite System Factor (CSF) would
simply be equal to TL, which is calculated as:
TL = 1 - [(T - 5)/100]
where:
T = the percent of water pumped lost as tailwater, or
l- [(18.4 - 5)/100] = .E66
If tailwater recovery is usec, the proper "T" factor (Tw) used in
calculating the Composite System Factor would also require the calculation
of TR, the tailwater reuse factor, which is calculated as:
TR = 1 - [(R - 5)/100]
where:
R = the percent of tailwater that is reused, or
l- [(104 - 5)/100]
= .OlO
Tw is then calculated as:
dbm005\042.51
5-9
Tw-
l-
[(TL)(TR)I,
l- [(.866)(.01)]
of
= .991
Since tailwater recovery is ust?d, the Composite System Factor is calculated
as:
F
x
U
x
D
x
L
x
Tw
=
CSFwt,
or
1.000 x 1.000 x 1.000 x 0.350 x 0.991 = 0.94
If tailwater recovery was not Ised, the Composite System Factor would be
calculated as:
F
x
U
x
D
x
L
x
Tw/o
=
CWFw/ot,
or
1.000 x 1.000 x 1.000 x 0.950 x 0.866 = 0.82
Once the Composite Management Factor (CMF) and Composite System Factor
(CSF) have been calculated, tb,e System Efficiency (SE) of the irrigation
system using tailwater recovery is calculated as:
CMF
x
CSFwt
x
SPE
=
SE
where:
SPE = System Potential Ef:iiciency, or
0.71
x
0.94
x
85.00
.=
56.98
If tailwater recovery was not used, the System Efficiency would be
calculated as:
CMF
0.71
x
CSFw/ot
x
0.82
x
x
SPE
85.00
= SE, or
=
49.78
To improve the efficiency of the example irrigation system, the following
steps could be taken:
dbm005\042.51
S-10
.
Review the management and system factors associated with the
existing system.
.
Review the management and system improvements found in the "B"
table that have not yet been implemented.
.
Calculate the estimated implementation cost of the selected
improvements
Continuing with our example from Table LA, assume it is necessary to
improve the system efficiency from the current fairly managed system
efficiency level of 56.98 to 3 higher efficiency approximated by the
average well managed system eEficiency in the example of 75.99. Table 1A
shows the management and system factors associated with both efficiency
ratings.
System
Efficiency
Rating
Md
FM
AWM
F
U
1.000 1.000
1.000 1.000
Manag*zment Factors
S
I
0.900
1.000
A
na
na
D
1.000
1.000
0.900
0.950
0.950
1 .ooo
Systell Factors
104%
@Y
L
TL
TR
0.950 0.865
0.010
1.000 0.94i.
0.010
System
Potential
Effic.
85.00
85.00
Tw
0.991
0.991
Composite
Management
Factor
M
0.71
0.90
0.925
0.950
TWIO
0.866
0.941
Composite
System
Factor
0.94
0.99
System
eff. wltail
System
eff. w/o tail
56.98
75.99
49.78
72.15
wit
System
Factor w/at
0.82
0.94
The specific management techn.,ques and system improvements chosen from
Table IB to attain the higher level of efficiency are as follows:
dbm005\042.51
5-11
Management
Factor
Ttachnique
Efficiency
Factor
Chosen
1.000
Md
Install flatr meter at each field
S
Measure soit moisture with
a tensiomet'zr
.950
Hire a full-time, untrained employee
to operate rhe irrigation system on a
part-time basis
.950
Institute a scheduled maintenance
program
.950
I
M
System
Factor
L
Efficiency
Factor
Improvement Chosen
1.000
Have field precision graded
The costs for implementing the chosen techniques and improvements on the
strawberry farm example using a solid set sprinkler system with tailwater
recovery are found in Table 1C. Annual per acre costs are based on the
typical field or grove acreage for each crop type. Capital costs are
annualized.
It is further assumed that the annual costs are spread over
only one crop per year since market conditions or weather may preclude the
growing of two crops on the same acreage within a single year. Any
additional crops grown on ths same acreage during the year would significantly lower per acre costs.
The costs of the chosen techniques/
improvements are listed below':
Management Technique - System Improvement
Install flow meter at field :.evel
$
Install and maintain tensiomc!ters
I3
11
Upgrade from part-time to fu..l-time, untrained
employee to devote a fixed nlunber of hours during
dbm005\042.51
Annual
Cost/Acre
5-12
the growing season to operatng
the irrigation system
Implement a scheduled
and maintaining
mainte,lance
93
program
Precision grade the field (t, better manage runoff)
Total Annual Cost Per Acre
29
527
S 673
If the tailwater recovery system was not already in place, the additional
annual cost per acre would b3 $342.
The agricultural grower is n>t required to implement any of the management
techniques or system improvelnents presented. However, they are options for
increasing system efficiency,
The change from the present to the improved
system efficiency may follow alternative paths.
Irrigation efficiency
change more for some systems with changes in maintenance; others will be
affected more by instituting irrigation scheduling.
Actual changes in
efficiency are affected to a certain degree by many site-specific factors
such as soil type and the skLl1 and intuition of the system operator. The
magnitude of change in efficiency for a given technique may be somewhat
larger or smaller, therefore, than would be indicated by the assigned
efficiency factor.
Also, so-ne producers may have already implemented some
techniques or improvements wlich would, of course, lower the total cost of
improving system efficiency.
The efficiency factors assigNled to specific conservation measures or
management techniques are only estimates.
However, these factors provide a
uniform and simple method to analyze agricultural irrigation efficiency and
the water that may be saved oy either improving efficiency in the existing
system or replacing it, when more cost-effective, with a system with a
higher system potential efficiency.
The costs of new supplemental irrigation systems, both low and high system potential efficiency, are
addressed in Section 6.
It is important to note that although there are costs associated with the
implementation of management techniques and system improvements, cost
savings may result from reduced pumping and excessive leaching of fertilizers and other agricultural chemicals.
Cost savings resulting from
reduced pumping are addressed in Section 7.
dbm005\042.51
5-13
TABLE IA
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
Solid Set Sprfnkler
System
E=JencY
Ratfng
- StrawberrIes
Managarnent
on plastic mulch, Taflwater
Facbrs
Reused. H Tailwater Recovery, 104% Reused, 85% Potential System
S
I
M
Factor
(FIRM)
-..
Cornposke
System Factrxa
Mmegemnt
Md
3_.--_
Effldency
(1)
@Y 1 0 4 %
F
U
A
D
L
TL
TR
Tw
Compostte Composite System
System
System Potentfal System
Efffc.
eff. w tall
T w/o Factor w/t Factor w/at
System
eff. w/o tail
PM
0 900 0.900
0.900
0.900
0.66
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
0.900
0.843
0.010
0.992
0.643
0.89
0.76
65.00
49.77
42.30
FM
0.900 0.900
0.950
0.925
0.71
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
0.950
0.866
0.010
0.991
0.866
0.94
0.82
65.00
56.98
49.77
LWM
1.000 0.900
1.000
0.950
0.66
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
0.950
0.891
0.010
0.991
0.891
0.94
0.85
65.00
66.43
61.40
AWM
1.000 0.950
1 .ooo
0.950
0.90
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
0.941
0.010
0.991
0.941
0.99
0.94
65.00
75.99
72.15
HWM
1.000 1.090
1.000
0.975
0.98
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.020
0.956
0.010
0.990
0.956
1.01
0.96
65.00
63.72
80.65
PM = Poorly Managed
I$L Yi~i2lpd
AWM = Average Well Managed
,HWM = Hlghfy Well Managed
R
u
n
o *f
f.
Md
S
I =
M =
= Water Measurement
= Soil Moisture Scheduling
Irrigation Skill
Maintenance
F
U
A
D
=
=
=
=
Farm Conveyance System
Uniformity of Application
Percent Root Zone Wetted
Delivery System
L =
TL =
TR =
Tw
Twlo
Condition of Land Surface
Tailwater Generation Factor
Tailwater Reuse Factor
= System Tailwater Factor with Recovery
= System Tailwater Factor without Recovery
Y = -1.46 + 6.59 x X - 0.26 x XA2 (Stanley, et al, 1989)
where: Y = return flow as a percentage of pumping
X = continuous pumping time in hours
@4.0 hrs Y =
20.72 , TL = 643
@3.5 hrs Y =
18.40 , TL = ,866
@3.0 hrs Y =
15.95 , TL = 991
@2.5 hrs Y =
10.94 , TL = .941
@2.0 hrs Y =
9.36 , TL = .956
l(1) The pond draws additional water from the water table and rainfall runoff.
5-14
Management
and System
Solid Set Sprinkler
Table 1B
Techniques and Efficiency Factors
System-- Strawberries (Tailwater
Efficiency
Conservation Measurements--Ma:lagement
Water
Measurement
.
.
Soil
.
.
.90
1.00
Scheduling
(S)
.90
None
Soil Moisture--Me.&surement
Only,
.95
Tensiometer
.
Factors
(Md)
None
Meter at each fieLd
Moisture
Reused)
1.00
Schedule Irrigation
- Using Te.lsiometer and the
Accounti-lg Method
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
.
.
.
Part-time employe?? working as needed
on irrigation system
.90
Full-time employe ,* working part -time
on irrigation system, untrained
.95
Full-time employezs working part-time
on irrigation system, trained
1.00
Maintenance' (M)
.
.
.
.
Poor --no schedulesf maintenance, necessary
repairs not immediately performed
.90
Fair-- no schedule'i maintenance, necessary
repairs done proml>tly
.925
Good-assumes schelfuled flushing of mains and
inspection of sprinklers, mains, submains,
laterals, and replace broken sprinkler heads
(10 percent per yl?ar)
.95
Excellent-assumes scheduled maintenance and
implementation of preventive maintenance
program; for example, replacement of
25 percent sprinkler nozzles every year on
a h-year rotation
.975
Conservation Measurements--System
Land Slope and Condition--Lev+zling
.
.
l
.
(L)
Fairly uniform
Essentially uniform--rough graded
Precision grade-l.and leveled
Precision grade-l..iser leveled
dbtm005/026.51
s-15
.90
.95
1.00
1.02
Table 1C
Implementation
Cost of: Management and System Techniques
Reused)
Solid Set Sprinkler System-- Strawberries (Tailwater
Page 1 of 2
Irrigation
Ranagement Technique
System
Solid Set Sprinkler
(20 acres)
Water Measurement (Md)
Flowmeter-- capital cost annualized,
installation cost, operation and
maintenance
Cost/Acre1
s 13
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
Soil Mcisture--Measurement
l
Tensiometer --capital cost
annualized,
installation cost,
operation and maintenance
11
Soil Moisture Scheduling
l
Irrigation by Tensiometer
ard the Accounting Method
Irrigaticn
Labor Skill (I)
. Full-time employee working part-time
on irrigation system, untrained
(l/3 time for 5 months @ $7/hour,
20-acre farm)
93
Full-time employee working part-time
on irrigation system, trained (l/3
time for 5 months @ $9/hour, 20-acre
farn)
120
l
l
Autcmated Irrigation System
- Assuming diesel power
units
60
- Assuming electric power
units
21
Maintenaxe
l
l
dbtm005/027.51
20
(M)
Schtiduled flushing of mains,
inspection of sprinklers, etc.,
10 nercent of sprinkler heads
reptaced
29
Scheduled maintenance and
implementation of preventive
maintenance
43
5-16
Table 1C
Implementation Cost of Management and System Techniques
Solid Set Sprinkler System-- Strawberries (Tailwater
Reused)
Page 2 of 2
Irrigation
System
Solid Set Sprinkler
(20 acres)
Cost/Acre
:;ystem Technique
Land Slope and Condition--Leveling (L)
l
l
l
Essentially
uniform--rough
graded
Precision grading--land leveled
Precision grading--laser leveled-assunes site has been land leveled
Tailwater Recovery System (TR)
$264
528
73
342
' Capital cost and installation cos: were annualized at 10 percent interest, over
5 years except for the Tailwater %ecovery System which was annualized over
10 years.
dbtm005/027.51
5-17
TABLE 2A
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
Solld Set Sprfnkfer
Sy8tem
Efffdanoy
Rating
- Strawberries on plastic mulch, no Tailwater Reused, 85%
Management
Md
Factors
S
I
Potentfal
System Factors
@Y
D
L
TL
COfTlpOSlt8
M
Management
Factar
F
U
System Effldency (FIRM)
A
Composite Composfte System
System
System Potendal System
T w T w/o F&or w/t Factor wlot
Efflc.
eff. w tail
TR
System
eff. w/o ta
PM
0.900 0.900 0.900 0.900
0.66
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
0.843
na
na
0.843
na
0.84
85.00
na
47.0
FM
0.900 0.900 0.950 0.925
0.71
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
0.866
na
na
0.866
na
0.87
85.00
na
52.3
LWM
1.000 0.900 1.000 0.950
0.86
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
0.891
na
na
0.891
na
0.89
85.00
na
64.7
A W M
1.000 0.950 1.000 0.950
0.90
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
na
lJ.Y4I
rta
il.&t
;;.uu
..L.
-rl
&
HWM
1.000 1.000 1.000 0.975
0.98
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
na
0.956
na
0.96
85.00
na
79.2
PM =
FM =
LWM
AWM
HWM
Poorly Managed
Fairly Managed
= Low Well Managed
= Average Well Managed
= Highly Well Managed
. .
Runoff Cd&aua.~
M d = Water Measurement
S = Soil Moisture Scheduling
I = Irrigation Skill
M = Maintenance
F
U
A
D
=
=
=
=
X = continuous pumping time in hours
hrs Y =
hrs Y =
@3.0 hrs Y =
@2.5 hrs Y =
@2.0 hrs Y =
@3.5
0.956
na
na
Farm Conveyance System
Uniformity of Application
Percent Root Zone Wetted
Delivery System
Y = -1.48 + 6.59 x X - 0.26 x XA2 (Stanley, et al, 1989)
where: Y = return flow as a percentage of pumping
@4.0
u.941
20.72
, TL = .843
18.40 , TL = .866
15.95 , TL = .891
10.94 , TL = .941
9.36 , TL = .956
I
5-16
L =
TL =
TR =
Tw
Tw/o
Condition of Land Surface
Tallwater Generation Factor
Tailwater Reuse Factor
= System Tallwater Factor with Recovery
= System Tallwater Factor without Recovery
l
Table 2B
Management and System Techniques and Efficiency Factors
Solid Set Sprinkler Syrltem-- Strawberries
Conservation
Water
Tailwater
Reused)
Efficiency
Measurements--Management
Measurement
.
.
(No
Factors
(Md)
.90
1.00
None
Meter at each field
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
.
None
.
Soil Moisture--Measurement
Tensiometer
.
.90
Only,
Schedule Irrigation
Using, Tensiometer and the
Accounting Method or
.95
1.00
Using, Tensiometers with
Automatic Shut-off
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
.
.
.
Part-time employee working as needed on
irrigation system
.90
Full-time employee working part-time on
irrigation system, untrained
.95
Full-time employee working part-time on
irrigation system, trained
1.00
Maintenance'
.
.
.
.
(M)
Poor--no scheduled maintenance, necessary
repairs not immediately performed
.90
Fair --no scheduled maintenance, necessary
repairs done promptly
.925
Good-assumes scheduled flushing of mains,
installation of screens, and inspection of
sprinklers, mains, submains, and laterals
.95
Excellent-assumes scheduled maintenance and
implementation of preventive maintenance
program; for example, replacement of
25 percent sprinkler nozzles every year on
a 4-year rotatior
.975
' A factor of 1.0 applies only to a new, well-designed, well-constructed
system.
dbtm0051028.51
5-19
Table 2C
Implementation Coat of Management and System Techniques
Solid Set Sprinkler System-- Strawberries (No Tailwater Reused)
Irrigation
System
Solid Set Sprinkler
(20 acres)
rlanagement Technique
Water Measurement (Md)
Flowmexers--capital cost annualized,
installation cost, operation and
mainterlance
Cost/Acre'
$ I3
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
Soil M#>isture--Measurement
l
TQznsiometer --capital cost
alnzualized, installation cost,
operation and maintenance
11
Soil Moi:;ture Scheduling
. Irrigation by Tensiometer
a,ld the Accounting Method
Irrigation
l
l
l
20
Labor Skill (I>
Ful..-time employee working
par:.-time on irrigation system,
unt:,*ained (5 months @ $7/hour, 20-acre
fazx)
Ful.--time employee working part-time
on -rrigation system, trained
(5 Ilonths @ $9/hour, 20-acre farm)
93
120
Automated Irrigation System
- Assuming diesel power
units
60
- Assuming electric power
units
21
Maintenance (M)
l
l
Scheduled flushing of mains,
inspection of sprinklers, etc.
10 percent of sprinkler heads
replaced
29
Scheduled maintenance and
implementation of preventive
maintenance
43
' Capital cost and installation cost were annualized at 10 percent interest, over
5 years.
dbtm0051029.51
5-20
TABLE 3A
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
Solid Set Sprinkler
- Citrus, 85% Potential System Efficiency (FIRM)
-
System
Management
Factors
EtWd~Cy
Rath
Md
S
PM
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.900
FM
0.900
0.900
0.950
LWM
1.000
0.900
1.000
-AWM
1.000
HWM
1.000
PM =
FM =
LWM
AWM
HWM
I
System F-ore
U
A
D
0.66
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
85.00
0 00
55 77
0.925
0.71
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
85.00
0.00
60.50
0.950
0.86
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
85.00
0.00
72 68
0.950
1.ooo 0.950
0.90
1 000
1 000
na
1
na
0.00
1.00
85.00
0.00
76.71
1.000
1.000
0.98
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
0.00
1.00
85 00
0 00
82.88
0.975
Md = Water Measurement
S = Soil Moisture Scheduling
I
= Irrigation Skill
M = Maintenance
F
U
A
D
L
TL
000
na
na
TR
na
na
na
na
= Farm Conveyance System
= Uniformity of Application
= Percent Root Zone Wetted
= Delivery System
5-21
T
na
na
w
T
Composite Composite System
System
System
Potential System
System
w/o FactorwIt Fectorw/ot Effic.
eff. w tail eff. w/o tal I
F
Poorly Managed
Fairly Managed
= Low Well Managed
= Average Well Managed
= Highly Well Managed
M
composne
Management
Factor
L = Condition of Land Surface
TL = Tallwater Generation Factor
TR = Tailwater Reuse Factor
Tw = System Tailwater Factor with Recovery
Twlo = System Tailwater Factor without Recovery
Table 3B
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors
Solid Set Sprinkler System--Citrus
Conservation
Efficiency
Measurements--Mar.agement
Factors
Water Measurement (Md)
.
.
.90
1.00
None
Meter at each fie1.d
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
.90
.
None
.
Soil Moisture--Merisurement
Tensiometer
.
Only,
Schedule Irrigation
Using Tensiometer and the
Accounting Method or
.95
1.00
Using Tensiometers with
Autom;Itic Shut-off
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
.
.
l
Part-time employe a working as needed on
irrigation system
.90
Full-time employee working part-time
on irrigation system, untrained
.95
Full-time employee working part-time on
irrigation system, trained
1.00
Maintenance' (M)
.
.
.
.
Poor--no scheduled maintenance, necessary
repairs not immediately performed
.90
Fair-- no scheduled maintenance, necessary
repairs done promptly
.925
Good--assumes scheduled flushing of mains,
replacement of sprinkler heads, inspection
of mains, submains, and laterals
.95
Excellent--assumes scheduled maintenance and
implementation of preventive maintenance
program: for example, replacement of
25 percent sprinkler nozzles every year on
a 4-year rotatior
.975
' A factor of 1.0 applies only to a new, well-designed, well-constructed
system.
dbtm005/030.51
5-22
Table 3C
Implementation (.ost of Management Techniques
Solid Set $~prinkler System--Citrus
Irrigation
System
Solid Set Sprinkler
(40 acres)
Ptanagement
Cost/Acre'
Technique
Water Mea ;urement (Md)
Flowmeters --capital cost annualized,
installation cost, operation and
s
7
maintenance
Soil Mois:ure Scheduling (S)
Soil Mcisture--Measurement
l
Tensiometer --capital cost
installation
annualized,
operation and maintenance
cost,
22
Soil Moisture Scheduling
l
Irrigation by Tensiometer
and the Accounting Method
Irrigation
l
l
l
32
Labor Skill (I)
Full-.time employee working
part,.time on irrigation system,
untriiined (l/2 time for 12 months
@ $7'hour, SO-acre grove)
Full.,time employee working
part,.time on irrigation system,
trailted (l/2 time for 12 months
@ $9'hour, SO-acre grove)
Autorlated
91
117
Irrigation System
- Assuming diesel power
units
50
- Assuming electric power
units
30
Maintenanze (M)
l
l
Schecluled flushing of mains,
inspection and replacement of
sprirtklers, etc.
30
Schetiuled maintenance and
prevrtntive maintenance program
38
' Capital cost and installation cost were annualized at 10 percent interest, over
5 years.
dbtm005/031.51
5-23
TABLE 4A
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
Solid Set Sprinkler
System
ElRdency
Rating
- Container Nurseries, 85% Potential System Efficiency (FIRM)
Management Factors
Md
S
I
System Factors
COllpdte
M
Management
Factor
F
U
A
D
L
TL
90%
TR
T
w
T
Composite Composite System
Potential System
System
System
System
w/o Factorw/f Faotorwlot
Efflc. eff. w tall eff. w/o ta
PM
0.900 0.900 0.900
0.900
0.66 1 .OOO
0.750 na
1.000
na
0.690
0.150
0.897
0.690
0.67
0.52
85.00
37 50
28.8(
FM
0.900 0.900 0.950
0.925
0.71 1.000 0.850 na
1 .ooo
na
0.690
0.150
0.897
0.690
0.76
0.59
85.00
46.10
35.4f
LWM
1.000 0.900 1.000
0.950
0.86 1.000 0.900 na
1.000
na
0.690
0.150
0.897
0.690
0.81
0.62
85.00
58.64
45.1:
4WM
1.000 0.950 1.000
0.950
0.90 1 .OOO
0.950 na
1.000
na
0.690
0.150
0.897
0.690
O.&l
U.bb
u3.uu
05.J.3
Ju.L:
-fWM
1.000 1.000 1.000
0.975
0.98 1.000 1 .OOO na
1.000
na
0.690
0.150
0.697
0.690
0.90
0.69
85.00
74.30
57.11
W =
‘M =
-WM
4WM
iWM
Poorly Managed
Fairly Managed
= Low Well Managed
= Average Well Managed
= Highly Well Managed
M d = Water Measurement
S = Soil Moisture Scheduling
I
= Irrigation Skill
M = Maintenance
F
U
A
D
=
=
=
=
Farm Conveyance System
Uniformity of Application
Percent Root Zone Wetted
Delivery System
ES% of growing area In square bedding trays @ 0% runoff
?5% of growing area in “container to container” spaced round containers
@ 21.5% runoff
3% of growing area in “empty container” spacing @ 60.7% runoff
>omposite Runoff Percentage E .25 x(O)+ .25 x(.215)+ .5 x(.607) = 0.36
mperiect spacing of containers reflected in System Factor U
’ Assumes the containerized plants are growing on plastic mulch
5-24
L =
TL =
TR =
Tw
Twlo
Condition of Land Surface
Tailwater Generation Factor
Tailwater Reuse Factor
= System Tailwater Factor with Recovery
= System Tailwater Factor without Recovery
Table 4B
Management Te,chni.ques
and Efficiency Factors
Solid Set Sprinkler System--Container Nurseries
Page 1 of 2
Conservation
Water
Measurement
.
.
Efficiency
Measurements--Management
(Md)
.90
1.00
None
Meter at each f icld
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
.
None
.90
.
Soil Moisture--Measurement Only,
Tensiometer
.95
.
1.00
Schedule Irrigat:.on
Usixq; Tensiometer and the
Accolnnting Method or
Using; Tensiometers with
Automatic Shut-off
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
.
.
.
Part-time employcie working as needed
on irrigation syf:tem
.90
Full-time employtie working part-time
on irrigation syr:tem, untrained
.95
Full-time employcke working part-time
on irrigtion sysl.em, trained
1.00
Maintenance' (M)
.
.
*
.
Poor --no schedulttd maintenance, necessary
repairs not immediately performed
.90
Fair--no schedulc:d maintenance, necessary
repairs done promptly
,925
Good--assumes scheduled flushing of mains,
replacement of sprinkler heads, inspection of
mains, submains, and laterals
.95
Excellent--assumtts scheduled maintenance and
implementation 0111 preventive maintenance
program; for example, replacement of
25 percent sprinkler nozzles every year on
a 4-year rotatiorl
.975
dbtm0051032.51
5-25
Factors
Table 4B
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors
Solid Set Sprink.l.er
System--Container Nurseries
Page 2 of 2
Efficiency Factors
Conservation Measurements--Maniigement
Nozzle Selection and Spacing (JJ)
.
.
.
.
.
Uniformity--60 per,:ent
Assumes no effort ,n achieving uniformity
.75
Uniformity--70 per:ent
Assumes minimal efEort
.85
Uniformity--75 perzent
Assumes appropriate spacing and positioning
of pots for uniformity of the sprinkler system
.90
Uniformity--80 percent
Assumes conducting catch-can test annually to
examine uniformity of sprinkler systems,
performing adjustments
.95
Uniformity--85 percent or greater
Assumes conducting catch-can test regularly
to examine uniformity of sprinkler systems,
performing adjustments
1.00
' A factor of 1.0 applies only to a new, well-designed, well-constructed
system.
dbtm005/032.51
5-26
Table 4C
Implementation Cost of Management and System Techniques
Solid Set Sprinkler System--Container Nurseries
Irrigation
System
Solid Set Sprinkler
(LO acres) .
Management
Technique
Water Measurement (Md)
Flowmeters --capital cost
annualized,
installation
cost, operation, and
maintenance
Cost/Acre'
S 26
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
soil Moisture--Measurement
Tensiometer --capital cost
annualized,
installation
cost, operation and
maintenance
48
C,oil Moisture Scheduling
Irrigation by Tensiometer
and the accounting method
91
l
l
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
untrained (l/4 time of 12 months
@ $7/hour, lo-acre farm)
l
l
l
364
Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
trained (l/4 time of 12 months
@ W/hour, lo-acre farm)
468
Automated Irrigation System
- Assuming diesel power units
162
- Assuming electric power
units
83
Maintenance (M)
l
Scheduled flushing of mains,
replace 10% of sprinkler heads
per year, etc.
60
* Scheduled maintenance and
preventive maintenance
program
72
Nozzle Selection and Spacing (U)
* Uniformity--75 percent
l
0
3
Uniformity--80 percent
* Uniformity--85 percent or
greater
Tajlwater Recovery System (TR)
13
521
' Capital cost and installatic>n cost were annualized at 10 percent
interest over 5 years, except for the Tailwater Recovery System which
was annualized over 10 year:;.
dbtm005\033.51
5-27
TABLE 5A
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
Semiclosed
System
EWeclcy
Rating
Ditch, tomatoes and vegetabies
Managament
Faotors
Md
S
I
PM
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.900
FM
0.980
0.900
0.950
LWM
1.000
0.900
AWM
1.000
HWM
1.000
composite
Management
Factor
Recovery, 104% Reused, 65% Potential System
Effldency
(FIRM)
System Factors s
Composite Composite System
System
Potential System
System
104% (1)
System
D
L
TL
TR
T w T w/o Fectorw/t Factorwlot
Etffc. aff. wtali eff. w / o t a
F
U
A
0.66
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
0.900
0.750
0.010
0.993
0.750
0.89
0.68
80.00
46.86
35.4:
0.925
0.78
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
0.950
0.795
0.010
0.992
0.795
0.94
0.76
80.00
50.44
46.0:
1.000
0.950
0.66
1 .OOO
1.000
na
1.000
0.950
0.845
0.010
0.992
0.645
0.94
0.80
60.00
64.43
54.9:
0.950
1.000
0.975
0.93
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
0.885
0.010
0.991
0.885
0.99
0.89
80.00
73.44
65.5t
1.000
1.000
0.975
0.98
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
1.020
0.918
0.010
0.991
0.918
1.01
0.94
80.00
76.63
73.01
P M = P-Managed
FM = Fairly Managed
LWM = Low Well Managed
AWM = Average Well Managed
HWM = i-iighfy Well Managed
M
- if Tailwater
M d = Water Measurement
S = Soil Moisture Scheduling
I = irrigation Skill
M = Maintenance
F
U
A
D
=
=
=
=
Farm Conveyance System
Uniformity of Application
Percent Root Zone Wetted
Delivery System
L =
TL =
TR =
Tw
Twlo
Condition
Tailwater
Tailwater
= System
= System
of Land Surface
Generation Factor
Reuse Factor
Tailwater Factor with Recovery
Tailwater Factor without Recovery
Poor - 3O% (this percentage from Prevatt et al. 1980 was for season-long including crop establishment, therefore would likely be poor percentage for
supplementat
IFair - 25.5% (assumed percentage runoff for fair based upon an average of 30% above and 21% from Stanley, 1964)
#(Subsequent runoff reduction based on average percentage reductions in runoff (19.7%) for decreases in irrigation time
based on Stanley runoff equation.
Refer to Table 1 for Solid Set Sprinkler
- Strawberries.)
Low Well
20.5
IAvg. Well 16.5
High Well 13.2
(1) The pond draws additional water from the water table and rainfall runoff.
5-28
irrigation
Only)
Table 5B
Management and System Techniques and Efficiency Factors
Semi-Closed Ditch System--Tomatoes and Vegetables
Conservation Measurements--Management
Water
Measurement
Efficiency
(Md)
.90
.98
None
One meter serving multiple fields
Meter per field
l
l
l
Factors
1.00
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
.90
. None
Soil Moisture--Shallow Wster Table Monitoring Well4 per field
l
.95
Schedule --cycle or throttle back pump in conjunction
with soil moisture measurement
l
1.00
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
l
l
l
Part-time employee workirg as needed on irrigation
system
.90
Full-time employee working part-time on irrigation
system, untrained
.95
Full-time employee working part-time on irriigation
system, trained
1.00
Maintenance'
l
l
l
l
(M)
Poor--no scheduled maintenance , necessary repairs not
immediately
performed
.90
Fair --no scheduled maintenance, necessary repairs done
promptly
.925
Good-assumes scheduled inspection of mains, inspection
and repair of flash boards, ditch maintenance to remove
debris and repair effects of erosion
.95
Excellent --assumes scheduled maintenance and
implementation of preventive maintenance program; for
example, replacement of flash boards, recondition ditch
,975
Conservation Measurements--System
Land Slope and Condition--1evsling (L)
Fairly uniform
Essentially uniform--rough grading
Precision grading--land level
Precision grading--laser level
l
l
l
l
Efficiency
Factors
.90
.95
1.00
1.02
' A factor of 1.0 applies on17 to a new, well-designed, well-constructed
system.
dbtm005/035.51
5-29
Table 5C
Implementation Coat of Management and System Techniques
Semi-Closed Ditch Systa--Tomatoes and Vegetables
Page 1 of 2
Irrination
Svstem
Semi-Closed
(60 acres)
Ditch
Management Technique
Cost/Acre'
Water Measurement (Md)
Fluwmet.ers --capital cost annualized,
installation cost, operation and
maintenance
l
l
One meter serving multiple fields
One iaeter per field
$
2
4
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
l
l
Shallow Monitoring Well--capital
cost annualized, installation,
operation, and maintenance
Schedule --cycle or throttle back
pump in conjunction with soil
moisture measurement (electric or
diesel pumps)
Irrigaticn Labor Skill (I)
l
l
l
Full,-time employee working part-time
on irrigation system, untrained
(113 time months @ $7/hour,
120-acre farm)
16
Full-time employee working part-time
on irrigation system, trained
(l/3 time months @ $9/hour,
120-acre farm)
20
Automated irrigation system
21
Maintenarce (M)
l
l
dbtm005/036.51
Assumes inspection of flash boards,
ditch maintenance, over period of
2 weeks a year
Assumes replacement of flash boards,
recondition of ditch, etc.--labor
over a period of 4 weeks and rental
of equipment every 3 years
S-30
9
22
Table 5C
Implementation Cost of Management and System Techniques
Semi-Closed Ditch System--Tomatoes and Vegetables
Page 2 of 2
Irrigation
System
Semi-closed
(60 acres)
Ditch
System
Technique
Costlkre
Land Slolle and Condition--Leveling (L)
l
Essentially uniform--rough grading
l
Precision grading--land leveled
l
Precision grading--laser leveled-assumes site has been land leveled
Tailwatel
Recovery System (TR)
$264
528
73
183
' Capital cost and installation cost were annualized at 10 percent interest over
5 years, except for the Tailwater Recovery System which was annualized over
10 years.
dbtm005/036.51
5-31
TABLE 6A
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
Volume Gun - Traveling - Citrus & Vegetable/Row Crops, 75% Potential System Efficiency (Smajstrla, et al, 1988)
System
EM-Y
Rattna
Management Factors
Md
S
I
M
cornposlte
Management
Factor
System Factors
F
U
A
II
L
TL
TR
T
w
T
Composffe Cornporlte System
System
System
Potential System
Syster
w/o Fector w/t Factorwlot Efflc.
eff. w tall eff. w/o
PM
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.66
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
75.00
0.00
49.
FM
0.980
0.900
0.950
0.925
0.78
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
75.00
0.00
56
LWM
1.000
0.900
1 .ooo
0.950
0.66
1.000
1 .OOO
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
75.00
0.00
64.
AWM
1.000
0.950
1.000
0.950
0.90
1 .OOO
1.000
na
l.WlcI
na
na
na
na
rid
u.uu
I .""
;;.;;
C.""
- -c
.-T
U‘.
HWM
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.975
0.98
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
75.00
0.00
73.
PM = PoorIy Managed
FM = Fairly Managed
LWM = Low Well Managed
AWM = Average Well Managed
HWM = Highly Well Managed
M d = Water Measurement
S = Soil Moisture Scheduling
I = Irrigation Skill
M = Maintenance
F
U
A
D
=
=
=
=
Farm Conveyance System
Uniformity of Application
Percent Root Zone Wetted
Delivery System
5-32
L
=
Condition of Land Surface
TL = Tailwater Generatlon Factor
TR = Tailwater Reuse Factor
T w = System Tallwater Factor with Recovery
Twlo = System Tailwater Factor without Recovery
Table 6B
Management
Volume
Gun:
Te&niques
and Efficiency Factors
Traveling--Citrus and VegetableslRow Crops
Conservation Measurements--Management
Water
Measurement
Efficiency
(Md)
None
One meter service multiple fields
Meter per field
l
l
l
Soil
Moisture
Scheduling
.90
Soil Moisture--Measuremer.t Only, Tensiometer
l
Schedule Irrigation
- Using Tensiometer and the Accounting Method or
- Using Tensiometers with Automatic Shut-off
l
.90
.98
1.00
(S)
None
l
Factors
.95
1.00
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
Part-time employee workir,g as needed on irrigation
system
.90
Full-time employee working part-time on irrigation
system, untrained
.95
. Full-time employee workirg part-time on irrigation
system, trained
1.00
l
l
Maintenance'
(M)
Poor--no scheduled maintenance,
immediately
performed
l
l
l
necessary repairs not
.90
Fair--no scheduled maintc,nance, necessary repairs done
promptly
.925
Good--assumes scheduled flushing and inspection of mains
and periodic inspection of equipment
.95
. Excellent --assumes scheduled irrigation and implementation of preventive mair.tenance program
.975
' A factor of 1.0 applies only to a new, well-designed, well-constructed
s y s t e m .
dbtm005/037.51
5-33
Table 6Cl
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques
Volume
Gun:
Irrigation System
Volume Gun:
Traveling (40
acres)
Traveling System--Citrus
danagement
Technique
Cost/Acre'
Water Measurement (Md)
Flowmeters --capital cost
annualized,
installation
cost, operation, and
maintenance
Cmne meter serving multiple
fields
l
. Cne meter per field
$
3
7
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
Soil Moisture--Measurement
Tensiometer --capital cost
installation
annualized,
cost * operation, and
maintenance
22
soil Moisture Scheduling
Irrigation by Tensiometer
and the Accounting Method
32
l
l
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
* Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
untrained (112 time for 12 months
@ $7/hour, 80-acre grove)
l
Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system
trained (l/2 time for 12 months
@ $9/hour, 80-acre grove)
Maintenance (M)
* Scheduled flushing of mains
and periodic inspection of
equipment
* Preventive maintenance program
' Capital cost and installatil,n cost were annualized at 10 percent
interest, over 5 years.
dbtm005\038.51
5-34
91
117
18
31
Table 6C2
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques
Volume
Irrigation
Gun:
Traveiling System--Vegetables/Row Crops
System
Volume Gun:
Traveling (20 acres)
Cost/Acre'
Management Technique
Water Measurement (Md)
Flcawmeters --capital cost
anrualized,
installation
COLtz, operation, and
mazntenance
One meter serving two
:ields
l
l
s 7
13
one meter per field
So:1 Moisture Scheduling (S)
!;oil Moisture--Measurement
Tensiometer --capital cost
annualized, installation
cost, operation, and
maintenance
10
:;oil Moisture Scheduling
9 Irrigation by Tensiometer
and the Accounting Method
17
l
Irz<igation Labor Skill (I)
a Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
untrained (l/2 time for 4 months
@ S7lhour, 160-acre farm, 80
planted acres)
28
* Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
trained (l/2 time for 4 months
@ S9/hour, 160-acre farm, 80
planted acres)
36
Ma:.ntenance (M)
+ Flushing of mains and periodic
inspection of equipment
Preventive
' Capital cost and installation
interest, over 5 years.
dbtm005\039.51
maintenance
program
cost were annualized at 10 percent
5-35
6
13
4GRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
dlcro-irrigatkm
System
3rldalcy
Rating
Spray - Cftrus, 85% Potential
Menagement Factors
Md
S
I
System Effidency (FIRM)
M
Management
Fector
Composite Composite System
System
System Potential System
System Factors
COlTlpOSk9
F
U
A
D
L
TL
TR
T w T w/o Factor w/t Fector
wlot Efffc.
eff. w
tail
System
eff. wfo ta
‘M
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.66
1 .OOO
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
85.00
0.00
55.7;
vvf
0.900
0.900
0.950
0.925
0.71
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
85.00
0.00
60.5(
.WM
1.000
0.900
1.000
0.950
0.86
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
85.00
0.00
72.6t
\WM
1.000
0.950
1.000
0.950
0.90
1 .OOO
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
85.00
0.00
76.7'
iWM
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.975
0.98
1.000
1.000
na
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
85.00
0.00
82.81
‘M = Poorly Managed
‘M = Fairly Managed
.WM = Low Well Managed
rWM = Average Well Managed
IWM 3: Highly Well Managed
Md = Water Measurement
S = Soil Moisture Scheduling
I = Irrigation Skill
M = Maintenance
F = Farm Conveyance System
U = Uniformity of Application
A = Percent Root Zone Wetted
D = Delivery System
5-36
L =
TL =
TR =
Tw
Tw/o
Condition of Land Surface
Tallwater Generation Factor
Tailwater Reuse Factor
= System Tailwater Factor with Recovery
= System Tailwater Factor without Recovery
Table 7B
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors
Micro
Conservation
Water
l
l
Measurement
Irrigation:
Spray
System--Citrus
Measurements--Management
Efficiency
Factors
(Md)
.90
1.00
N o n e
Meter per field
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
l
l
l
.90
None
Soil Moisture--Measuremer.t Only, Tensiometer
Schedule Irrigation
- Using Tensiometer and the Accounting Method or
- Using Tensiometers with Automatic Shut-off
.95
1.00
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
l
l
l
Part-time employee workir,g as needed on irrigation
system
Full-time employee worki1.g part-time on irrigation
system, untrained
.95
Full-time employee workir,g part-time on irrigation
system, trained
1.00
Maintenance'
l
(M)
Poor --no scheduled maintc.nance , necessary repairs not
immediately
performed
. F a i r --no scheduled maintenance, necessary repairs done
l
l
.90
.90
promptly
.925
Good --assumes scheduled ilushing of mains, inspection
of mains, submains, laterals and emitters, adjustment
to chlorine injection rates
.95
Excellent --assumes schedL.led maintenance and implementation of preventive mair,tenance program: for example,
replacement of 10 percent: of emitters on an annual basis
and annual water quality test
.975
' A factor of 1.0 applies only to a new, well-designed, well-constructed
system.
dbtm0051043.51
5-37
Table 7C
Implementation Coat of Management Techniques
Micro-Irrigation:
Irrigation System
Micro-Irrigation:
Spray (40 acres)
Spray System--Citrus
Management Technique
Cost/Acre'
Water Measurement (Md)
Flowmeters --capital cost
annualized,
installation
coEt, operation, and
maintenance
$ 7
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
:;oil Moisture--Measurement
Tensiometer--capital cost
installation
annualized,
cost ( operation, and
maintenance
22
!;oil Moisture Scheduling
Irrigation by Tensiometer
and the Accounting Method
32
l
l
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
* Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
untrained (l/2 time for 12 months
@ $7/hour, 80-acre grove)
84
s Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
trained (l/2 time for 12 months
@ $9/hour, 80-acre grove)
108
b Automated Irrigation System
- Assuming diesel power units
- Assuming electric power units
47
27
Maintenance (M)
* Scheduled flushing of mains
and inspection of emitters
b Scheduled maintenance and
preventive maintenance program
' Capital cost and installation cost were annualized at 10 percent
interest, over 5 years.
dbtm005\044.51
5-38
22
34
TABLE 8A
AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY RATING - MODIFIED FIRM METHOD
Mkro-frrlgatlcn
System
EfflCh~
Ratfng
Dtlp - Strawberrfes,
Tomatoes, and Vegetable/Row Crops, 90% Potential System Effidency (FIRM)
Management Factors
Md
S
I
M
Composite
Management
Factor
System Fectors
F
U
A
D
L
TL
TR
T
w
Compostte Composite System
System
System
Pctentlal
Twlo Fectorwh Factorwlot Effic.
System
eff. w tall
System
eff. w/c tail
PM
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.900
0.66
1.000
na
1 .OOO
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
90.00
0.00
59.05
FM
0.900
0.900
0.950
0.925
0.71
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
90.00
0.00
64.06
LWM
1.000
0.900
1.000
0.950
0.86
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
90.00
0.00
76.95
AWM
1.000
0.950
1 000
0.975
0.93
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1.00
90.00
0.00
63.36
HWM
1.000
1.000
1.000
0.975
0.98
1.000
na
1.000
1.000
na
na
na
na
na
0.00
1 .oo
90.00
0.00
87.75
-.
PM = Poorly Managed
FM = Fairly Managed
LWM = Low Well Managed
AWM = Average Well Managed
HWM = Highly Well Managed
Md
S
I =
M =
= Water Measurement
= Soil Moisture Scheduling
frrigation Skill
Maintenance
F
U
A
D
=
=
=
=
Farm Conveyance System
Uniformity of Application
Percent Root Zone Wetted
Delivery System
=
Condition of Land Surface
L
TL = Tailwater Generation Factor
TR = Tailwater Reuse Factor
= System Tailwater Factor with Recovery
Tw
Tw/o = System Tailwater Factor without Recovery
1
I
5-39
Table 8B
Management Techniques and Efficiency Factors
Micro-Irrigation: Line Source Emitters (Drip)-Strawberries, Tmmtoes, and Vegetable/Row Crops
Conservation Measurements--Management
Efficiency
Factors
Water Measurement (Md)
.90
1.00
. None
Meter per field
l
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
l
l
l
.90
N o n e
Soil Moisture--Measuremert Only, Tensiometer
Schedule Irrigation
- Using Tensiometer and the Accounting Method or
- Using Tensiometers with Automatic Shut-off
.95
1.00
Irrigation Labor Skill (I)
l
l
l
Part-time employee working as needed on irrigation
system
.90
Full-time employee working part-time on irrigation
system, untrained
.95
Full-time employee workbIg part-time on irrigation
system, trained
1.00
Maintenance' (M)
l
l
l
l
Poor--no scheduled maintnsnance,
immediately
performed
necessary repairs not
.90
Fair--no scheduled maintenance, necessary repairs done
promptly
.925
Good--assumes scheduled flushing of mains and inspection/
repair of emitters
.95
Excellent --assumes sched;lled maintenance and implementation of preventive maintenance program: for example,
replacement of 10 percent of emitters on an annual basis,
changing filter media, etc.
,975
' A factor of 1.0 applies only to a new, well-designed, well-constructed
system.
dbtm0051040.51
S-40
Table 8Cl
Implementation Cost of Management Tecbniques
Micro-Irrigation:
Line Source Emitter (Drip) Spsta
Vegetable/Row Crops
Strawberries and
Irrigation
System
Micro-Irrigation:
Line Source
Emitters (20 acres)
Management
Technique
Cost/Acre'
Water Measurement (Md)
Flowmeters --capital cost
annualized,
installation
cost, operation, and
maintenance
$ 13
Soil Moisture Scheduling (S)
Z+oil Moisture--Measurement
Tensiometer--capital cost
installation
annualized,
cost, operation, and
maintenance
11
!>oil Moisture Scheduling
Irrigation by Tensiometer
and the Accounting Method
20
l
l
Irl.i.gation Labor Skill (I)
* Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
untrained (113 time for 5 months
@ $7/hour, 20-acre farm)
93
* Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
trained (l/3 time for 5 months
@ $9/hour, 20-acre farm)
120
Automated Irrigation System
- Assuming diesel power units
- Assuming electric power units
59
19
Ma:.ntenance (M)
Scheduled flushing of mains,
inspection of emitters, etc.
22
+ Scheduled maintenance and
preventive maintenance
34
' Capital cost and installation cost were annualized at 10 percent
interest, over 5 years.
Note: Grown on fields designed for overhead sprinkler crop establishment.
dbtm005\041.51
5-41
Table 8C2
Implementation Cost of Management Techniques
Line Source Emitter (Drip) System
Micro-Irrigation:
Toamtoea and Vegetables
Irrigation System
Micro-Irrigation:
Line Source
Emitters (60 acres)
-, Management Technique
Water Measurement (Md)
Flowmeters --capital cost
annualized,
inetallation
coat, operation, and
majntenance
Cost/Acre'
$
4
So:,.1 Moisture Scheduling (S)
!ioil Moisture--Measurement
Tensiometer --capital cost
annualized, installation
cost, operation, and
maintenance
10
soil Moisture Scheduling
. Irrigation by Tensiometer
and the Accounting Method
12
l
Ircigation Labor Skill (I)
* Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
untrained (l/3 time for 4 months
@ $7/hour, 120-acre farm)
12
m Full-time employee working
part-time on irrigation system,
trained (l/3 time for 4 months
@ $9/hour, 120-acre farm)
16
Automated Irrigation System
- Assuming diesel power units
- Assuming electric power units
27
14
l
Maintenance (M)
. Scheduled flushing of mains,
inspection of emitters, etc.
l
Scheduled maintenance and
preventive maintenance
6
15
' Capital cost and installat:-on cost were annualized at 10 percent
interest, over 5 years.
Note: Grown on fields designcld for semi-closed ditch crop establishment.
dbtm005\042.51
5-42
Section 6
IMPLEMEMTATIOU COSTS FOR MRW MID
SUPPLRHEHTAL
IRRICATIOR SYSTEM
In Section 5, the method for s+stimating the efficiency of the existing
irrigation system, the management improvements available to improve the
efficiency and the implementa,cion coats were discussed. However, not all
agricultural growers concernel:i with irrigation system efficiencies would
have an irrigation system in ,elace. Furthermore, the agricultural water
user, when contemplating irri,gation efficiencies, would have the option to
add a more efficient supplemental system where the old system must be maintained for crop establishment or frost protection, or replace the entire
existing system, when cost-effective, with a higher efficiency system.
Table 1 presents the cost of lew irrigation systems by crop type. The cost
is presented in a per acre basis and it applies only to the distribution
system.
Unless noted, the cogts of well, pump and power units are not
included. Costs are not annualized and include material and installation
only. Operation and maintenance coats are not included. Coat figures were
obtained from irrigation contractors in the area, induetry repreeentative,
and printed articles as noted on the tables.
Table 2 presents the cost of adding a supplemental irrigation system with a
high potential efficiency eysrem by crop type. The cost is presented in a
per acre basis. Cost figures were obtained from irrigation contractors in
the area and industry represeatatives.
dbtmO051083.51
6-l
Table 1
Cost of New Inigation
Systems’
Citrus
Micro-Irrigation Spray4
Vegetable/Row Crops’
Strawberries7
Container Nurseries
Tomatoes and Vegetables”
‘Costs are not annualized and include material and installation. Operation and
maintenance costs are not inclulded.
21m’gation Systems for Crop Frvduction in Florida: Desctiption and Costs. D.J.
Pitts; AG. Smajstrla 1988. Ccst estimate includes water supply unit. It does not
include the cost of land farming. Price is based on specifications in Table 4-3.
3Costs include only buried pipe;is and risers. Volume gun cost is approximately
$15,000-$18,000.
4Costs include material and insr..allation. Cost is based on specifications in
Table 4-3. It includes the power unit. Cost estimates were obtained from irrigation contractors in the area and Irrigation Systems for Crop ??vductionin
Florida: Description and Costs D.J. Pitts; A.G. Smajstrla 1988.
5A volume gun-traveling system can be used alone. If micro-irrigation drip is used,
volume gun-traveling system is required for crop establishment.
6Costs include water supply unit.
‘A solid set system can be usec:: alone. If micro-irrigation drip is used, a solid set
sprinkler is necessary for frost freeze protection.
%osts include water supply umt. Price is based on specifications in Table 4-6.
‘Costs include water supply unjt. Price is based on specifications in Table 4-6.
“Costs include water supply unit. Price is based on specifications in Table 4-4.
l’Inigation Costs for Tomatoes i~duch’on in Florida. D.J. Pitts, A.G. Smajstria,
D-Z. Haman and G.A. Clark ‘1988. Semi-closed ditch can be used alone. If
micro-irrigation is used with tomatoes and/or vegetables, it needs to be used in
combination with a semi-closeId ditch system.
‘hosts include water supply unit.
dbtmOO5Kl47.5
1
6-2
Table 2
Cost of Adding Supplemental Irrigation System
Crop Type
Base
1rrig;rtion System
Supplemental
irrigation System
Cost/
Acre
Vegetable & Tomatoes
Semi-closed ditch
Micro-Irrigation Drip
$8W
Strawberry
Sprinkler
Micro-Irrigation Drip
7972
I Semi-closed ditch
I Citrus
I
I Overhead Sprinkler
I Vegetable/Row Crop I Volume Gun
Container Nurseries
Overhead Sprinkler
I Micro-Irrigation Spray I
9163 1
I Micro-Irrigation Spray I
us3 II
I Micro-Irrigation Drip
797 II
Micro-Irrigation Drip
I
797
‘Cost includes $560/acre for materials and $298/acre for installation. Total cost is
not annualized. Maintenance cost is approximately $106 per year. Cost is
calculated on a gross acreage basis and based on information provided by
irrigation contractors in the are:, and industry representative. Conversion to net
production acreage is accomplisned by applying a factor of 0.67.
2Cost includes $499/acre for materials and $298/acre for installation. Additional
cost may be incurred on a yearhr basis for added operation and maintenance.
For converting these costs to a IBet acreage basis, a factor of 0.83 can be applied.
These costs were derived from rnformation provided by irrigation contractors in
the area and industry represenntive.
3Cost estimates were obtained from irrigation contractors in the area and industry
representative. Cost estimates ijlclude material and installation.
dbtmOO5/046.5 1
6-3
Section 7
PUMPING COST SAVINGS AND OTHER COST CONSIDERATIONS
Sections 5 and 6 addressed the costs of improving system potential
efficiencies to conserve water.
Some of these costs may be partially
offset by lower pumping energ) costs resulting from an increase in the
irrigation system's efficient?.
A method for calculating these savings,
including examples, is presented in this section.
Other savings may also result from reduced pumping and runoff. Less
fertilizer and other agri-chemicals may be required if leaching resulting
from excessive irrigation is l,educed.
Reduced runoff may also have benefits beyond the farm gate, such as reduced pollutant loading into lakes,
streams and rivers.
Such savy.ngs are site-specific and difficult to
quantify and are not addresset in this report. Reduced pumping will also
reduce wear and lengthen the :ife of the pump and power unit.
Finally, some system improvemrnts may cause additional costs to be
incurred.
Local and water martagement district permits may be required if
the improvements alter a farm s current surface water management system.
Persons considering alteratiorts such as the addition of a tailwater
recovery pond or other major alterations should contact local and water
management district permittin?; offices to determine the cost of any permits
that may be required.
The addition of a tailwater rtcovery system pond or other alterations such
as the shortening of row lengths may also displace land that is currently
in production. The cost incurred in displacing cropland would be the net
income that could have been gc,!nerated on that land if it had remained in
production.
The reduction in net income from displaced cropland is
addressed in the latter half of this section.
Pumping Cost Savings
Pumping cost savings resulting; from improved system efficiency may be
estimated with a few relative:.y simple calculations. The first example
addresses an improvement in efficiency that does not involve a change in
the design of the system.
The? second example applies if the system design
or type of irrigation system :.s changed. As a rule of thumb, if changes
make a significant difference in the water horsepower equation results (see
below), then the design of thr! system has been changed and the second
dbm005\043.51
7-1
example should
land leveling
cantly change
example may be
be used.
Generally, changes in management factors and minor
(as long as row dimensions don't change) will not signifithe results of tne water horsepower equations and the first
used.
Example 1.
If the efficiency of the system is improved due to changes that do not
affect the physical layout of the system, the basic cost savings equation
is:
CSA
WHP x ECF x HRP x ECOST
CSA
pumping cost savings in $/acre
WHP
water horsepower required
ECF
an energy consumption-per-hour conversion actor
where:
hours of reduced pumping time due to increased system
efficiency, ard
ECOST =
the per unit cost of energy
Referring back to the strawbel-ry farm example, pumping cost savings will be
calculated for the solid-set .;prinkler system that does not use tailwater
recovery.
The pumping cost sjlvings of a system utilizing tailwater
recovery is more difficult to estimate without site specific information
because of the increased comptexity of the system. The estimation of
savings on other systems withJut tailwater recovery, however, is relatively
straightforward.
Water horsepower is calculate.1 as:
WHP = (Qgpm x TDH) + 3,,)60
where:
Qwm
TDH
dbm005\043.51
= pump capacity il gallons per minute, and
= total dynamic haad in feet
7-2
The pump capacity and total dynamic head data should be available from the
design plans for the irrigation system. Data on the example system are
found in Table 4-4.
Referring to the Solid-set Sprinkler column, it can be
seen that the pump capacity is 1,584 gallons per minute and the total
dynamic head (TDH) is 161 feet. If the TDH must be calculated, the formula
may be found in the Comments cz~lumn of the same table. The water
horsepower required for the system is, therefore:
WHP = (1,584 x 161) + 3,360 = 64.4
The energy consumption-per-hour factors are derived from Florida
Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin AE-62 by Smajstrla and Harrison.
The factors for the various energy sources for pump power plants are as
follows:
Electricity
Gasoline
Propane
Diesel
factor
factor
factor
factor
=
1 - (1.18) based on 1.18 hp-hr/IWH
motor efficiency of 88%.
=
1 i (11.54) based on 11.54 hp-hrlgallon
P
1 + (9.2) based on 9.2 hp-hr/gallon
I
1 + (14.58) based on 14.58 hp-hrlgallon
For the strawberry farm example,
diesel power unit is used.
and
the diesel factor will be used since a
TO estimate the reduction in hours pumped, it is necessary to know:
I) the
2) the old system efficiency and
supplemental crop irrigation requirement,
the new system efficiency to calculate the gross irrigation requirements,
and
3) the pump capacity.
'Ihe supplemental irrigation requirement is the
amount of water the crop needs for optimum growth over and above that
supplied by effective rainfall.
The gross irrigation requirement is the
supplemental irrigation requirement adjusted for inefficiency of the irrigation system in supplying water to the root zone of the plants where it is
needed.
Assume that the supplemental crop irrigation requirement is 20 acre-inches.
From the previous example in Table 1A in Section 5, the system efficiency
for the fairly managed system is 49.82.
The average well managed system
efficiency is 72.2%.
The gross irrigation requirement for low efficiency
dbm005\043.51
7-3
The gross irrisystem (GIR,) is therefore 20/.498, or 40.2 acre-inches.
gation requirement for the hil;her efficiency system (GIR2, is 201.722 or
27.7 acre-inches.
The amount: of water that could be saved by improving
the efficiency of the system is then calculated as:
Acre-Inches Saved (AZS) = GIR, - GIR, = 12.5
The last item that must be estimated, hours of reduced pumping (HRP) is
calculated as:
HRP =
AIS
Qgpm
x 27,154
-
60
where:
AZS
27,154
Qgpm
60
=i
acre-ilches of water saved, calculated above,
the factor for converting from acre-inches to
gallons,
the pump capacity in gallons per minute, and
the factor for converting from minutes to hours.
=
=
z
Substituting into the equatisn, we have:
HRP - 12.5
x
27,154
-
1,584
+
60
=
3.57 hours saved
Finally, the per unit cost cf energy is inserted into the cost savings
equation.
Electricity costs should be in dollars per kilowatt hour (m).
Gasoline, diesel and propane should be in dollars per gallon. Nonagricultural readers should note that fuels sold for on-farm agricultural
use are generally exempt frcm road taxes. To avoid over-estimating fuel
cost savings, per-unit fuel costs should be gotten from fuel jobbers
supplying agricultural operz<tions.
Assuming diesel fuel costs $1.20 per
gallon we may now substitutcb into the original pumping cost savings per
acre equation:
CSA * WHP x ECF x HRS x ECOST, or
CSA = 64.4 x (1 + 14.58) x 3.57 x 1.20 = $18.92
The improvement in the efficiency of the example solid-set system yields an
estimated pumping cost savings of $18.92 per acre for the crop.
dbm005\043.51
7-4
Example2
In this example, it is assumed that the strawberry grower wants to change
from the fairly managed solid-set sprinkler system used in Example 1, to an
Neither system is
average well managed micro-irrigation drip system
The overhead sprinkler system will be
assumed to use tailwater reco'very.
retained for field preparation, crop establishment and frost protection.
This conversion involves a change in basic system design (that would substantially change the results of the water horsepower equation) SO the
pumping cost must be estimated separately for each of the systems and then
compared to calculate the savings.
The pumping cost-per-acre equation for each system is:
PCA = WHP x ECF x HPR x ECOST
where:
PCA
ECF
HPR
ECOST
= pumping cost-per-acre
= water horse F.uwer required
- the energy consumption-per-hour factor
= hours of pumping required, and
= energy cost-F,er-unit
For the solid set sprinkler system, the only change from the equation in
Example 1. is that we must nod calculate the hours of pumping required
The rest of the values may be taken
instead of the hours of pumping saved.
from those calculated in Example 1.
Again assume that the supplemental
irrigation requirement is 20 acre-inches, the system efficiency is 49.8%
and 40.2 acre-inches would have to be pumped to meet the needs of the crop.
The calculation of the hours ,f pumping required would be as follows:
HPR = AIR x 27,154 + Qgpm + 60
where:
AIR
27,154
Qspm
60
HPR
dbm005\043.51
=
=
=
=
acre-inches rh!quired
the conversion factor from acre-inches to gallons
the pump capacity in gallons per minute, and
the conversior, factor from minutes to hours, or
40.2 x 27,154 + 1,584 t 60 = 11.5 hours
7-5
The pumping cost-per-acre for the solid-set sprinkler system would then be:
PCA = 64.4 x (1 + 14.85) x 11.5 x $1.20 = $59.84
The data required to calculate water horsepower for the drip system is also
found in Table 4-4 under the Micro-irrigation column. Substituting the
drip system pump capacity (500 gpm) and total dynamic head (115 ft) data
into the equation for water horsepower found in Example 1, the water
horsepower required for the drip system is:
WHP = (500 x 115) + 3,96( = 14.5
The system efficiency of the al'erage well managed system (83.41) is found
in Table 8A of Section 5.
Aga:.n assuming a supplemental irrigation
requirement of 20 acre-inches, the gross irrigation requirement for the
drip system would be 201.834 0:' 24 acre-inches. When comparing the costs
of pumping between a non-micro-,irrigation
system and a micro-irrigation
system, an additional adjustmexbt should be made to the gross irrigation
requirement for the micro-irrit;ation system. This adjustment accounts for
the extra water used to flush rlicro-irrigation systems after cleaning or
the application of chemicals.
Practices vary widely but an additional 5%
of the gross irrigation requirc?ment may be used as a rule of thumb. The
acre-inches required would the71 be 24 x 1.05, or 25.2 acre-inches.
The
hours of pumping for the drip niystem would then be calculated as:
HPR = AIR x 27,154 + Qgprn - 60, or
HPR = 25.2 x 27,154 + 501) - 60 = 22.8 hours
Substituting the calculated vaiues for WHP and HRP and again assuming a
diesel fuel cost of $1.20 per sallon, the pumping cost per acre for the
drip system would be:
PCA = WHP x ECF x HPR x ZCOST, or
PCA = 14.5 x (1 A 14.85) x 22.8 x 1.20 = $26.72
The supplemental irrigation punping cost savings per acre that could be
achieved by converting from tha fairly well managed solid-set sprinkler
system to the average well managed micro-irrigation drip system would be:
$59.84
dbm005\043.51
- $26.72 = $33.12
7-6
CROPLAND
DISPLACEMENT COSTS
Some system improvements, such as tailwater recovery, may require that some
land be taken out of productior if idle land is not available. When this
occurs, the appropriate cost tct consider is the net income that will be
lost from the disp.laced acreage'.
The consideration of loss of net income
provides a more accurate basis for comparison between efficiency
improvements that displace crollland and those that don't.
Net income is the revenue rece:ved from the sale of the crop* less the
Net income varies widely from year to year
costs incurred in producing it
depending on yields and market:..
A farmer who keeps good records could
estimate average net returns pt-r acre over a number of years. The
estimated net income loss along; with the other costs of the improvements
can then be balanced against tite need to meet regulatory requirements,
reduced pumping costs and any other savings that may occur.
For non-agricultural readers, ;innual estimates of net income per acre for a
variety of crops are published by the Institute of Food and Agricultural
Sciences (IFAS) at the Univers:.ty of Florida. The estimates are based on
representative costs and returxm for crops in the regions in which they are
typically grown.
The estimateci net returns for various price and yield
combinations for 1988-1989 are presented as an example.
Estimated Net Returns for Various Price and Yield
Combinations in the Plant City Area, 1988-89
Dollars Per Flat
Yield
(flats)
6.00
1,400
1,600
1,800
2,000
2,200
hource :
-2.602.00
-2.164.00
-1,726.OO
-1.288.00
-850.00
laylor,
Florida
-
7.75-
9.50
- 52.00
tt36.00
l,t124.00
2,;112.00
3,ooo.oo
2,298.OO
3.436.00
4,574.oo
5,712.OO
6,850.OO
11.25
4,748.OO
6,236.OO
7,724.OO
9.212.00
10,700.00
13.00
7,198.OO
9,036.OO
10,874.OO
12,712.OO
14,550.oo
'L.G. and Sco7.t A. Smith. Production for Selected
Vegetables.
IFAS, Economic Intormation Report. 1988-89
Production costs and estimated net returns are for a Western Florida
representative strawberry farm
This information was obtained from the
IFAS, Economic Information Report for 1988-1989, entitled Production for
Selected Florida Vegetables.
dbm005\043.51
7-7
Such tables,' in combination witlL the typical per acre yields and historic
can be used to estimate average net
returns.
prices generally found in the rr?ports
dbmO05\043.51
7-8
Appendix A
LIST OF SEGJRCES FOR COST INFORMATION
SWFWMD IRRIGATION EFFICIENCY STUDY
REitFERENCE
LIST
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING EXTENSION REPORTS
Haman, Dorota Z., Allen G. Smajstrla, and Fedm S. Zazueta. 1987. Water Quality Problems Affktinn MicroInigauon in Florida. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Extension Report 87-2 (twiscd).
Harrison, Dalton S. 1978. Collection of Data on Crop Rcsuonsc to Irrigation in Florida. IFAS, Agricultural
Engineering Extension Report 78-4.
Harrison, Dalton S. 1983. Evapotranspiration @‘I’) and Net Irrigation Rcwirem~~‘!ts
and Centml Florida IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Extensi~ Report 83-10.
(NIR) for CROPS in South
Harrison, Dalton S., Allen G. Smajstrla, and James M. Stanley. 1981. Sminhler hrination Costs for Row Crous
in North and Northwest Florida IFAS, Agricukural Engineering Extension Report 81-2.
Smajstrla, Allen G. 1980. Problems Associasd with Poorly Designed Low-Volume Irritation Systems for Citrus.
IFAS, Agricultural Engincermg Extension Report 80-8.
Smajstrla, Allen G. 1981. Designins Trickle :tigation Systems for Uniformity. IFAS, Agricultural EngkCring
Extension Report 81-7.
Smajstrla, Allen G. 1981. Hydmulics of Trickle Irrigation Systems-II. Design of Trickle Irrigation Laterals.
IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Extension Report 81-8.
Smajstrla, Allen G. 1981. Hydraulics of Trickle Irrigation Systems-III. Design of Trickle Irrigation Manifolds
and Mainhcs. IFAS, Agricultural Enginming Extension Report 81-9.
Smajstrla, Allen G. 1987. Backflow Prevent& Reouirements for Irrigation Systems Using Municipal Irrigation
IFAS, Agxicultmal Engineering Extwwion Report 87-20 (revised).
SUPP~S.
Smajstrla, Allen G., and Dalton S. Harrison. ,981. Trickle Irrigation for Nurseries and Gmenhousts-I. Suaahetti
Tube Systems. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Extension Report 81-4.
Smajstia, Allen G., and Dalton S. Haniaon. 1982. Considerations in Converting from Hiah Presswe (PermatKutt
Overhead and T~V&IIR Gun) to Low Prcssuqc (Trickle) Irrination Systems for Citrus. IFAS, Agricultural
Engineering Extension Report 82-8.
Smajstrla, Allen G., and Dalton S. Harrison. 1982. Measuring Pumping Efi&&.s of Seenage Irrigation
Systems. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Extension Report 82-29.
Smajstrla, Allen G., and Dalton S. Hsrrison. 1986. Power Rcwircments and Cost Estimates for Irrigation
Pumping. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Extension Report 861 (revised).
Smajstrla, Allen G., Dalton S. Harrison, and Fe&o S. Zameta
1984. Hydra&c Characteristics of Porous Tridrle
Irrinafion LatcraJs. IFAS, Ag.ticuhural Engineering Extension Report 84-2 (wised).
Smajstrla Allen G., F&o S. Zaxueta, and Dorota Z. Haman. 1985. Soil Characteristics
Florida. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Exwnsion Report 85-2 (mviscd).
Affcuina
Irk&on in
Smajstda, Akn G.. Brian J. Botnan, Gary A Clark Dorota Z. Haman, Forrest T, Izuno, and Fcdro S. Zmwta.
1988. Basic Irrigation SChCdulinR in Florida. IFAS. AgkulturaI Euginccring Extension Report 88-10.
SWFWMD Irrigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
April 2, 1990
Page 2
Smajstrla. Allen G., Brian J. Boman. Gary A. Clark, Dorota Z. Haman. Dalton S. Harrison, Forrest T. Izuno. and
Fedro S. Zazueta. 1988. Efficiencies of Florida ~4nricultural Irxination Systems. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering
Extension Report 88-12.
AGRICULTURAL ENGINEERING FACT SHEETS
Clark, Gary A., and Dorota Z. Haman. 1988. ~xro&rkation on Mulched Bed Systems: Irrigation Depths.
IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet AE-72.
Haman, Dorota Z.. and Gary A. Clark 1988. F$inas and Connections for Flexible Polyethylene Pipe Used in
Micro tinationSystems. IFAS, Agricultural En8ineexing Fact Sheet AE-69.
Haman, Dorota Z.. and Forrest T. Izuno. 1988. Principles of Micro Irrigation. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering
Fact Sheet AE-70.
Haman, Dorota 2.. Allen G. Smajstrla, and Fedrc S. Zazueta 1987. Media Filters for Trickle Irriaation. IFAS,
Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet AE57.
Haman, Dorota Z., Allen G. Smajstrla, and Fedrc S. Zazueta. 1987. Settling Basins for Trickle Irrigation in
Florida IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet AE-65.
Haman, Dorota Z., Allen G. Smajstrla, and Fedro S. Zazueta. 1988. Screen Filters in Trickle InirZation. IFAS,
Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet A&61.
Harrison, Dalton S. 1978. Irrigation Plans Avaiiable. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet AE-8.
Harrison, Dalton S. 1980. tinationEfficiencier: IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet A&21.
Izuno. Forrest T. 1987. Principles of On-Farm Water Management. IFAS, Agricultural Engineering FLU Sheet
AE-59.
Izuno. Forrest T., and Dorota Z. Haman. 1987. Basic Irtiaation Terminolonv. IFAS, Agriculhxal Engineering
Fact Sheet AE-66.
Smajstrla, Allen G.. and Dalton S. Harrison. 19Ei8. Power Requirements and Cost Estimates for Irrigation
IFAS, Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet AE-62.
Pumping.
Smajstrla Allen G., Dalton S. Harrison, and Ga.rl A. Clark 1983. Irrigation Lateral Cost Per Acne. IFAS,
Agricultural Engineering Fact Sheet AE30.
Smajstrla Allen G., Dalton S. Ha&on, and James M. Stanley. 1983. Evaluating Irriaation
IFAS, Agricukural Engineering Fact Sheet AE-2k
PumDina
Svstem.
Smajstrla, Allen G., Fedro S. Zazueta, and Dorol,a Z. Haman. 1989. Potential Impacts of Improper Irrination
System Design. IFAS, Ag&&ural Engineering Fact Sheet AE-73.
zaplct.a, Fedm S. 1985. Understaadina the Cor~cepts of Uniformitv and Efkiencv in Iniaation. IFAS,
Agriculhual Engineering Fact Sheet AE-43.
Zazueta, Fedro S., Allen G. Smajstrla, and Dalton S. Harrison.
IFAS, Agricultural Engiwering Fact Sheet AE-45.
1987. Glossaw of Trickle Irrination Temxs.
April 2, 1990
Page 3
SWFWMD Irrigation Efficiency Study
Refenzncc List
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE BULLETINS
Albregts, E.E.. and C.M. Howard. 1984. Shawknv Production in Florida. IFAS. Cooperative Extension
Service Bulletin 841.
Baldwin. L.B.. and RR Carriker. Water Resource Management in Florida. IFAS. Coopemtive Extension Service
Bulletin 206.
CIadc, Gary A., Craig D. Stanley, and Allen G. Smajsrrla. 1988. Micm-Irrkation on Mulched Bed Svstems:
Components, System Capacities. and Managemerg. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Savice Bulletin 245.
Harrison, Dalton S., Allen G. Smajstia, and Fedro S. Zazueta. 1983. Surinkler, Trickle, and Other Iniaation
Systems: Cost Estimates for Citrus and Orchard Crops. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service BuIietin 197.
Harrison, Dalton S., Allen G. Smajsaia RE. Choate, and Gerald W. Isaac% 1985. Ininarion in Florida
Agriculture in the ‘80’s. IFAS, Cooperative Ext:m:nnon Service Bulletin 196.
Harrison, Dalton S., Allen G. Smajstrla, and Fedlro S. Zszueta 1981. Irrigation Svstems and Cost Estimates for
Row Crop Production in Florida. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service BuIletin 216.
Izuno, Fonest T., Dorota Z. Haman, and Gary P . Clark 1988. Water Table Monitor& IFAS, Cooperative
Extension Service Bulletin 251.
Smajstrla, Allen G.. Dalton S. Harrison, and Giuy A. Clark. 1985. Trickle Irrigation Schedulina 1: Durations of
Water Applications. IFAS, Cooperative Extensm,n Service Bulletin 204.
Smajstrkt, Allen G.. Dalton S. Harrison, and Ferlro S. Zameta 1985. Agricultural Water Measurement. IFAS,
Cooperative Extension Setice Bulletin 207.
Smajstria, Allen G., Dalton S. Harrison, and Fe&o S. Zazueta 1988. Field Evaluation of Trickle Irriaation
Systems: Unifomuty of Water Awlication. IF&% Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 195.
Smajstria AlIen G., Gary A. Clark, S.F. Shih, Fe&o S. ZaPlets. and Dalton S. Haxzison. 1984. Potential
Evaootranspiration Probabilities and Distributionis in Florida. IFAS, Coopcxativc Extension Service Bulletin 205.
Smajstrla, Allen G., Dalton S. Harrison, W-J. Bc&r, Fedro S. Zazueta, and Dorota Z. Haman. 1988. Backflow
IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 217.
Prevention Requutments of Florida Iniaation Systems.
Smajstrla, Allen G.. Brian J. Bornan, Gary A. Clark. Dorota Z. Haman, Forrest T. Izuno, and Fedro S. Zazueta.
1988. Basic Irrigation Scheduling in Florida IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Bulletin 249.
Smajstria, Alkn G., Brian J. Boman, Gary A. Clads, Dorota Z Haman, Dalton S. Harrison, Forrest T. Izuno, and
Fedro S. Zazueta. 1988. Efftciencies of Florid,i Anriculturai Iniaation Svstems. IFAS, Cooperative Extension
Service Bulletin 247.
COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE C
W3JLARS
Bennett, J.M., Dalton S. Harrison, and AlIen G. Smajstria 1984. Water Use and Irrkation Management of
Florida Aeronomic Crops. IFAS, Cooperative Iktension Service Circular 586.
SWFWMD Irrigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
April 2, 1990
Page 4
Bennett, J.M., G.A. Marlowe, Jr., and L.B. Baldwin, 1982. Conservation of Irrigation Water in Vercetable
Production. IFAS. Cooperative Extension Service Circular 533.
Choate, R.E., and Dalton S. Harrison. 1984. bigate by the Accounting Method. IFAS, Cooperative Extension
Service Circular 43 1.
Clark, G.A., B.K. Harbaugh, and C.D. Stanley. 1988. Inination of Container and Field Grown Omamentals:
System and Management Guidelines. IFAS, CoDpemtive Extension Service Circular 808.
Haman, Dorota 2.. Allen G. Smajstria, and Gaq A. Clark. 1988. Water WeIls for Florida Irrigation Svstems.
IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Circular 8k13.
Harrison, Dalton S., and Allen R Overman. 1985. Handbook of Irriaation Tables and Useful Formulas. IFAS,
Cooperative Extension Setice Circular 434.
Harrison, Dalton S., J.F. Gerber, and R.E. Choale. 1987. Surinkler Irrigation for Cold Protection. IFAS,
Cooperative Extension Service Circular 348 (Technical).
Hochmuth, G.J.. ed. 1988. Cabbage Productio~l Guide for Florida. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service
Circular 117-E.
Hochmuth. G.J.. ed. 1988. Cucumber Production Guide for Florida. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service
Circular 101-E.
Hochmuth, G.J., ed. 1988. Pepoer Production ciuide for Florida. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Circular
102-E.
Hochmuth. G.J., ed. 1988. Strawberry Production Guide for Florida.
Circuhr 142-C.
IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service
Hochmuth, G.J., ed. 1988. Tomato Production Guide for Florida. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Circular
98-C.
Hochmuth, G.J., Steve Kostiwicz, and William Stall. 1987. Row Covers . . for Commercial Vegetable Cultuxe in
Florida. IFAS. Cooperative Extension Service t’ircular 728.
Hochmuth, G.J., D.N. Maynard, and S.P. Kovac:h. 1988. Irrigation - Selection of an Irrigation System for C~~JD
Production in Florida IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Circuk 784.
Izuno, Forrest T. 1987. Water Budgeting for High Water Table Soils. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Setvia
Circular 769.
Izuno, Forrest T., and Dorota 2. Haman. 1987 Factors to Consider When Ap&ina Seepage Irrigation and
Drainage. KFAS, Cooperative Extension Service: Circular 729.
Izuno, Fonest T., Gary A. Clark, Dorota 2. Hanan, Allen G. Smajsaia, and Donald J. Pitts.
Monitoring of Farm Water Tables. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Circular 731.
1989. Manual
Kovach, Steven P. 1984. Determination of Water Requirements for Florida Vegetable Crops. IFAS, Cooperative
Extension Service Circular 607.
Irrigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
SWFW?vlD
Apd 2, 1990
Page 5
Kovach, Steven P. 1984. Iniection of Fextilixers into Drip Irrigation Systems for Vegetables. IFAS, Cooperative
Extension Service Circular 606.
Pit@, Donald J.. and Allen G. Smajstrla. 1989. Irrigation Systems for Crou Production in Florida: Descriutions
and Costs. IFAS. Coapcrative Extension Service Circular 821.
Smajstia AlIen G., and Dalton S. Harrison. l&)88. Measurement of Soil Water for Irrigation Management.
IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Circular .L32.
Smajstrla AlIen G., Dalton S. Harrison, and Frti X. Dumn. 1981. Tensiometers for Soil Moistme
Measurement and Irrigation Scheduling. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service Circular 487.
Smajstda, AlIen G., Dalton S. Harrison, and J.(:. Good. 1986. Performance of Initration Pumuinn Systems in
Florida.. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service &cu&r 653.
Tucker, David P.H. 1985. Citrus Irrigation Mitnanement. IFAS, Cooperative Extension Service CircuIar 444.
OTHER
PUBLICATIONS
Albrcgts, E.E., and CM Howard. 1986. Cyclmg higation Water for Freezt Protection during a Radiation
Freexe. Soil and Crou Science Societv of Florida Proceedings 45:125-128.
Albrcgts, E.E., C.K. Chandler, and G.A. Cl& 1987. Freeze Protection for Strawberry. Dover AgriculturaI
Research and Education Center Research Report DOV1987-1.
American Society of Ag&uhural Engineers, Soil and Water Division, Microirrigation Committee. 1989.
EP405 - Design, Installation and Performance of Trickle Irrigation Systems. In Standards 1989,36th edition.
R.H. Hahn and E.E. Rosentmter, ed St. Joseph, Michigan.
Bliesner. Ronald D. 1986. Field Evaluation ot Trickle Irrigation Efficiency. Irrigation and Drainage ?7:382-393.
Boman, Brian J. September 1989. Emitter ant Spaghetti Tubing Effkcts on MicrosprinkIer FIow Uniformity.
Citms and Vegetable Maaaxine 53(1):22, 73-82.
Bos. M.G., and J. Nugteren. 1974. Irrigation Efficiencv in Small-Farm Areas. International Commission on
Irrigation and Drainage, New Delhi. India.
Bourgeois, Wayne J., Alvin 1. Adams, and Dame1 H. Ovenvortmann.
June 1987. Temperature Mod&&on in
Citrus Trees Through the Use of Low-Volume hrigation. HortScience 22(3):398-400.
Bowen, John. June 1986. Drip Irrigation May Bring Considerable Benefits to the Grower. Atibusiness
Worldwide 8(6):28-29.
Brown, Cindy P. May 1988. Growing Foliage 80’s Style. Florida Grower and Rancher
81(5):12-13.
Burt, Charks. 1985. Power and Water Efficiency in A~&tltmai hination. The Great PG&E Energy Expo Post Conference Seminar - Irrigation Bfficienq .
Chesness, J.L., D.L. Co&an, and J.E. Hook. :986. Pmdicting Seasonal Irrigation Water Requirements on
Coarse-Textumd Soils. Transactions or the American Society of Agrhlmml Eugiuecrs 29:1054-1057.
April 2, 1990
Page 6
SWFWMD Lnigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
Chic. Gary A., C.D. Stanley, E.E. Albregts, and Pedro S. Zazueur. 1989. Surface Runoff During Sprinkler
Irrigation of Mulched-Bed Grown Strawberries. ;$oil and Cron Science Societv of Florida Proceedinas 48:87X).
Clark, Gary A., Fedro S. Zazueta, C.D. Stanley, & E.E. Albregts. 1987. Tailwater Recoverv Ponds in
Strawbeny Production. Dover Agricultural Research and Education Center Research Report DGV1987-1.
Cohen, Ron, and Bill Smith. December 1987. “‘tip, Drip, Drip...” Florida Grower and Rancher 80(12):20-21.
Council for Agricultural Science and Technology
Agribusiness Worldwide 11(7):20-u).
July 1989. Irrigation Systems for Every Application.
Csizinszky, A.A. 1979. The Importance of Irrigation Frequency and Fertilkr Placement in Growing Vegetables
with Drip Jrrigation. Proccedinas of the Florida State Horticultural Societv 92:7680.
Davies, F.S., and L.K. Jackson. 1985. Methods of Cold Protection for Young Citrus Trees. IFAS, Fruit Crops
Fact Sheet FC-75.
Devlin. Chris. January 1987. Water Managemetlt - The Advantages of Metering Water. Citrus Jndusw
68( 1):28-33.
Donitz, Efrairn. January 1990. Using Irrigation for Frost Protection. hiRation Journal 40(1):12-16.
Fisher, Jim. May 1986. Jrrigation - Florida Irrigation Society Pushes for Lkensing of Installem. Citrus Industrv
67(5):18-2066.
Fisher, Jim. October 1986. Options - MicrospkkJers and Tree Covers Provide New Options for Cold
Protection. Citrus Industry 67(10):4,7-10.14.
Fisher, Jim. May 1987. Future Bright for Micrc, and Drip Irrigation. Citrus Indus~ 68(5):4,8-g.
Fisher, Jim. May 1987. Micro-Irrigation Park Established at Seffner. Citrus lndustrv 68(5):14-16.
Fisher, Jim. May 1987. Water Management Is &xi Neighbor Policy, Pemble Says. Citrus Industn 68(5):4849.
Fisher, Jim. December 1989. New Irrigation &stem for the Future. Florida Grower and Rancher 82(12):30.
Florida Agricultural Statistic Service. April 198’). VeRetable Summary. Florida Agricuhural Statistics Service,
Marketing Division.
Flotida AgriculturaJ Staustic Service. December 1989. Citrus Summary 1988-89. Florida Agricuhural Statistics
Service, Markting Division.
Florida Irrigation Society. 1989. Standards and Suecikttions
for A~~i~~lt~ral Production Irrigation Systems -
Draft.
Ford, Harry W. July 1984. Clogging - The Problem of Emitter Clogging and Methods for Control. Citrus
lrdmy 65(7):4649,52&O.
Giay, Michael A., and Rudolf F. Zelenka Gctooer 1986. Pmssum-Compensated Emitters O&r High
Performance in Drip Systems. A&business Worldwide 8( lO):lO-11.
SWFWMJ3
Irrigation Efficiency Study
April 2, 1990
Page 7
Reference List
Graddy, Julie. January 1990. Water. Citrus and Vegetable Magazine 53(5):14-16.
Robert M., Howard R. Haise, and Talcott W. Edminster. eds. 1967. Iniaation of Agricultural Lands.
American Society of Agronomy Monograph Number 11. Madison, Wisconsin.
Hagan,
Harbaugh, B.K., and C.D. Stanley. 1985. Guidelines for the Use of Caoillarv Mat, Spanhetti Tube and Trickle
Irrigation for FIoricuhure Crows. IFAS, Gulf Coast Research and Education Center Research Report
BRA1985-18.
Harrison, Dalton S. 1978. Irrigation Svstems for Crop Production in Florida. WRC-8. IFAS, Water Resources
Council.
Harrison, Dalton S., and R.CJ. Koo. 1978. Irrigation Methods for Production of Citrus in
IFAS, Water Resources CounciL
Florida WRC-10.
Hedhmd, John D. and Paul K. Koluvek. 1985. Xating Systems to Evaluate On-farm Water Conservation.
Proceedings of the Stnxialty Conference of Irrigation and Drainage Division of the American Society of Civil
Engineers -- Development and Management Aspects of Irrination and Drainaae Svstems. pp 131-135.
Hemphill, Tom. January 1990. Feeding Peppen Through Drip Irrigation. American Vegetable Grower 38( 1):5&
61.
Henley, R.W. 1983. Water Conservation in Commercial Nurseries. IFAS, Department of Ornamental
Horticulture Fact Sheet OHC-12 (formerly OHC-41).
Hillel, Daniel. July 1988. Modem Irrigation Systems: Knowing the Basics. Atibusiness Worldwide 10(7):1018.
Hoadley, Brent, and Dewayne L. Ingram. 1981. Drip Irrigation for the Woody Ornamental Nursery. IFAS,
Ornamental Horticulture Committee Fact Sheet OHC-5.
Hoadley, Brent, and Dewayne L. Ingram. 1982. Water Management - A Key to Oualitv Container Grown Plants.
IFAS, Ornamental Horticulture Committee Fact ,3heet OHC-3.
Jensen, M.E. 1983. Design and Operation of F,um Irrigation &stems. American Society of Agricultural
Engineers Monograph 3. St. Joseph, Michigan.
King, W.J., and W.M. Anderson. January 1987. Try Trickling Your Tne. Iniaation Journal 37(1):28-29.
Koo, R.C.J., and RL. Reese. 1975. Water Disttibution and Evaporation Loss fkom Sprinkler Irrigation in Claus.
Proceedinns of the Florida State Horticultural So& 88:5-9.
Koo, R.C.J., and A.G. Smajstrla. 1984. Effkcts of Trickle higalion and Fertigation on Fruit Production and
Juice Quality of ‘Valencia’ Orange. Proceedinp~; of the Florida State Horticultural Society 97:8-10.
Koo. R.C.J.. and J.S. Rogers. 1976. Water Disribution and Evaporation Loss from Sptinkler Irrigation in Citrus.
Florida Aaricultural Experiment Stations Joumai, Series No. 7065.
Krezdom, A.H. 1981. Determinin g When and iIow Much to Irrigate. Florida Grower and Rancher 74:26.
Lap&r, Jackie. November 1986. Jet Versus L rip. Florida Grower and Ran&r 79(11):20.
SWFWMD Irrigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
April 2, 1990
Page 8
Lee, Jim. May 1979. The importance of Quality Design and Quality in Low Volume Irrigation. Citrus and
Vegetable Magaxme 42(9):24-26.
Lee, John H., John R Elk, and Ronald D. Lacewell. 1984. Valuation of Improved Irrigation EfJiciency from an
Exhaustible Groundwater Source. Water Resource Bulletin 21(3):441447.
Lee, John H., Ronald D. Lacewell, John R EUis, and Duane R Reneau. 1984. Estimated Farm Level Benefits of
Improved Irrigation Efficiency. Texas Water Resources Institute Bulletin TR-133.
Locascio. SJ., and J.M. Myers. 1975. Trickle Irtigation and Fertilization Methods for Strawberries. Proceedks
of the Florida State Horticultural Societv 88:185- 89.
Locascio, S.J., and J.M. Myers. 1979. Water and Nutrient Application by Trickle Irrinarion for Vegetables.
IFAS, Vegetable Crops Department Report 27-1979.
Mahoney, Michael P. November 1980. Irrigatioar Efficiency Program Offered by IFAS. Citrus and Vegetable
Magazine 44(3):6,28.
Meeker, Darcy. July 1988. Trickle Irrigation Grawing More Tomatoes and Other Crops. Florida Grower and
Rancher 81(7):25.
Merriam, John. 1977. Efficient Irriaation. CaIitornia Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, CaIifornia.
Merriam, John L.. and Jack Keller. 1978. Farm Irrigation System Evaluation: A Guide for Manauement. Utah
State University, Logan, Utah.
Myers, J.M., and S.J. Locascio. 1972. Efficient? of Irrigation Methods for Strawberries. Proceedings of the
Florida State Horticultural Society 85:114-l 17.
Myers, Stephen C., and Mark Rieger. January l’~89. Fight Frost with MicrosprinkIers. Fruit Grower 109(1):6-7.
Nakayama. F.S., and D.A. Bucks, ed. 1986. Trickle Itriaation for Crop Production: De&t, Operation. and
Management. Elsevier Science Publishers BV, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Nef, Dennis L., and Robert Spiva. 1986. Irrinaqon System Investment AnaIvsis. California AgriculhtraI
Technical Institute Bulletin No. 860906.
Pair, Claude H., ed 1983. Irrigation. The Irrigation Association, Silver Springs, Maryland
Parsons, Larry R. 1984. MicrosprinkIer Irrigation for Citrus Cold Protection. IFAS, Fruit Crops Fact Sheet FC69.
Parsons, Larry R. May 1987. Management of I. ow Volume Irrigation Systems for Citrus. Citrus
68(5):5-9,12.
IndusU~
Parsons, Larry R. 1989. Management of Micro~Irrip;ation Systems for Florida Citrus. IFAS, Fruit Crops Fact
Sheet FC-81.
Pitts. Donald J, and Gary A Clark. 1990. Comoarison of Drip Irrigation to Subirrigation for Tomato Production
in Southwest Florida. Proposed for Anplied EI@r~&? in Aaricultural.
SWFWMD Irrigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
April 2, 1990
Page 9
Prevatt. J.W., C.D. Stanley, and A.A. Csizins~ . 1981. An Economic Evaluation of Three Systems for Tomato
Production. Proceedimzs of the Florida State Horticuhuml Society 94:166-169.
Pxevatt, J.W., C.D. Stanley, and S.P. Kovach. 1984. An Economic Comparison of Vegetable Irrigation Systems.
Proceedinas of the Florida State HorticuhumI St& 97:213-215.
Prevatt. J.W., C.D. Stanley, and W.E. Waters. 980. Evaluation of a Water Conveyance and Recovery System
for Seep Irrigation. Proceedinas of the Florida :jtate Horticultural Society 93:253-256.
Reitz, H.J., et al. 1977. Water Requirements for.Citrus. IFAS, Water Resources Couhl Fact Sheet WRC-4.
Rogers, J.S., and D.S. Harrison. 1977. Irrigam~n Water Requirements for Aaronomic CIWS in Florida WRC-5.
IFAS. Water Resources Council.
Rogers, J.S. and GA. Marlowe, Jr. 1981. Water Needs of Florida Vegetable Crops. WRC-2. IFAS, Water
Resources Council.
Schwab, G.O., R.K. Freven, T.W. Edminster, wrd K.K. Barnes. 1981. Soil and Water Conservation Engineering.
John Wiiey & Sons, New York.
Schwartz, Deborah. March 1989. Drip Inigati )n Use Increasing. Florida Grower and Rancher 82(3):16.39.
Schwartz, Deborah. November 1989. Manatee County Growers Wrestle with Growth, Water Issues. Citrus and
Vegetable Maaakre 53(3):63-66,70-71.
Smajstrla, Allen G., and Richard S. Hanson. 1’)79. Evaporation Effects on Sprinkler Irrigation Efficiencies. Soil
and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceeding 39:28-33.
Smajstrla, Allen G., and R.C.J. Koo. 1984. Effects of Trickle Irrigation Methods and Amounts of Water Applied
on Citrus Yield. Proceedings of the Florida State Horticuhural Societv 97:3-7.
Smajstrla Allen G., and R.C.J. Koo. 1986. U ;e of Ten&meters for Scheduling Citrus Trickle Irrigation.
Proceedinns of the Florida State Horticultural Society 99:51-56.
Smajstrla, Allen G., and Fedro S. Zazueta. 1987. Estimating Irrigation Requirements of Sprinkler Irrigated
Container Nurseries. Proceedinns of the Florioa State Horticultural Society 100:343-348.
Smajstrla, Allen G., Dorota 2. Haman, and Fec.ro S. Zazueta. January 1989. Potential Impacts of Improper
Irrigation System Design. Citrus Industry 70(1):4,8-g.
Smajstrla, Allen G., Fedro S. Zazueta and Dorota Z. Haman. 1988. Potential Impacts of Imuroper Irriaation
System Design. IFAS, SS-AGE-807.
Smajstrla Allen G., D.R Hen&, D.S. Harrisoil, and F.S. Zazueta. 1984. Improved Seepage Inigation Bfficiency
by Controlled Water Application, Proceedings of the Florida State HorticulturaI Society 97:181-187.
Smajstrla, Allen G., L.R Parsons, K. Aribi, and G. Veledis. May 1987. Response of Young Citrus Trues to
Irrigation. Citrus Industrv 68(5):23-28.
Smith, Matt C., R. Wayne Skaggs, and John E Parsons. 1985. Subimigation System Control for Water Use
Efkiency. Transaction of the American So&xv of Agrkultural Engineers 28(2):489-496
April 2, 1990
Page 10
SWFWMD Irrigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
Solomon, Kenneth H. 1988. Irrigation Svstem
Publication No. 880105.
Selection. California Agricultural Technology Institute
Solomon, Kenneth H. 1988. Irrigation Systems and Water Amkation
Technology Institute Publication No. 880104.
Efficiencies. California Agricultural
Solomon, Kenneth H., and David Zoldoske. Mr+.y 1987. Manage Microirrigation Effectively. Fruit Grower
107(5):13-15.
Stanley, C.D. 1984. Recovery and Reuse of Rk.moff Water from Seep Subirrigation on Florida Flatwood Soils.
Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida Proceew 43:55-58.
Stanley, C.D. 1986. Evaluation of a Field Metnod for Estimating the Water Budget of Seepage-Subirrigated
Tomato Crop. Proceedinns of the Florida State ,Horticultural
Society 99:343-347.
Stanley, C.D., E.E. Albxcgts, F.S. Zazueta. and :j.A. Clark. 1987. Water Reouimments and Drip Iniaation for
Strawberry Production. Dover Agricultural Research and Education Center Research Report DOV1987-1.
Stanley, C.D., G.A. Clark, E.E. Albregts, and F S. Zazueta. 1989. Reduction of deep aouifer withdrawls for
overhead-irrigated strawbeny production using a tailwater recovery system: An evaluation of management
considerations and design characteristics. IFAS, Gulf Coast Research and Educaaon Center. Bradenton, Florida.
Stanley, C.D., J.S. Rogers, J.W. Prevatt, and WE. Waters. 1980. Subsurface Drainage and Irrigation for
Tomatoes. Soil and Crop Science Society of Flprida Proceedings
40:92-95.
Thompson, Stephen A. February 1988. Patterns and Trends in Irrigation EfEciency. Water Resources Bulletin
24( 1):57-63.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservati,on
Service. 1982. Florida Irrigation Guide. Gainesville, Florida
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Technical Note FL-17. Gainesville, Florida.
1987. Farm Irriaation Rating Method. Engineering
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservat\on
Service. 1989. Proiect Summary and Report of Fiscal Year
1989 Activities for the Mobile Irriaation Laboratories - Draft. Palmetto, Florida.
Weatherspoon, D.M., and C.C. Hanell. 1980. Evaluation of Drip Irrigation for Container Production of Woody
Landscape Plants. HortScience 15(4):488-489.
Woods, Chuck. December 1988. Future Water Restriction May Cause Growers to Use Drip Irrigation. Florida
Grower and Rancher 81(12):18-19,26.
Zachariah, G.L., et al. 1977. Florida’s Water: A Shared Resoume.
WRC-7. IFAS, Water Resources Council.
Zazueta, Fedro S., and Allen G. Smajsula. July 1986. Computem - Software for the Citrus Industry. m
Industry 67(7):26-28.
Zazueta. Fedro S., E.E. Albregts, and CD. Stanley. 1986. Rainwater Harvesting and Irrigation Tailwater
Recovery to Reduce Water Use for Fruiting Strawberries. Soil and Croo Science Societv of Florida Prowxhas
45:129-131.
SWFWMD Irrigation Efficiency Study
Reference List
April 2, 1990
Page 11
Zazueta, Fedro S., Allen G. Smajstrla, and Daltlxt S. Harrison. May 1986. Irrigation Management - Computer
Management of Trickle Irrigation Systems. Citiw indusay 67(5):43-45,48-51.
November 1986. Public-Domain ,C;oftware Goes Soft on Farmer’s Budgets. Irrigation JournaI
36(11):2&
. January 1987. Trickle Irrigation Emerges as Prefixed Means of Watering Orchards. Agribusiness
Worldwide 9( 1):24-27.
July 1987. Microirrigation Makin:{ Less Water Do More. Irrigation Journal 37(7):20-22.
. MAY 1988. Checkbook ScheduIiny Aids Irrigation Efficiency. tiaationJournal 38(5):30.
July 1988. Mobile Irrigation Lab Can Help Users Save Water. Irrigation Journal 38(7):17-19,29.
October 1989. Mobile Lab Contwues Irrigation System EvaIuations. Citrus and Vegetable
Magazine ;3(2):19.
Appendix B
COST ANALYSIS OF WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
APPENDIX B- 1
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION COST OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
STRAWBERRIES (TAILWATER REUSED) (1)
S
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
--__
Solid-Set
s
CONSERVATION
~
I
MEASURES
__--~~~~
Water
F
i System
-..-__
(unit)
Measurement
Sprinkler
20 acres
X(X)
150
no(:
I ((1
I4
I4
70
II(l
I4
7
2x
7
28
28
-I -1
I I
70
I4
7
I.&or to lnstnll
(2lrrs/lcfrsionlctcr; S7.(X)/lrr)
I.abor lo Kcad-lnspect/Wcck (1 hr/system, 21 weeks, $7 lX)/hr)
Labor to Clsan,lrrspcc~/Annual (4 hrs/systcm; $7.00/lrr)
Cost of Acumul~ng h4ell~od i&or, Daily
(IO rnrrt/dny, 150 clays; $7.(X) hr)
140
28
28
7
28
I
I
iutomated
26
I.17
28
21
37
7
I.17
2x
I 7.i
4.1
Total
COSI
!?
7
I75
rensiometers with Accounting Method
COSI of Tensiometer
(l/10 acres)
Total
Annual
350
39
Diesel Irrigation System
Cosl
of Tcnsi~~rrrcIcr (2 lerrsiomcters @ $7O/unit)
I.abor 10 IIISIOII (2 hrs/tensiomcter; .$7.(XJ/lw)
Ilcctrrc Swilchcs (I/tensiomelcr
Wire Cost (1320 r’~@ $.12/fr)
@ $5O/rrnil)
Bury Wire (1320 f~ @ $ 36/f1)
Ongoing 0 & hl ($147.OO/year)
Annual 0 clc hl (4 hrs/systcm:
Aulomalic
Control
$7.00)
Total
70
I40
I4
50
15X
475
28
loo
15x
37
7
26
42
475
125
147
28
3000
147
28
3000
I47
28
701
1.029
17i
I,20
APPENDIX B- 1
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION COST OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
STRAWBERRIES (TAILWATER REUSED) (1)
~-
~--
A~ualizcd
WATER
IRRIGATION
SYSTEh4
______I~
~~
CONSERVATION
MEASURES
--~~-~
Solid-Set
SfJfhkk
~--
$
(unit)
COST ITEMS
-l----T
per
System
-~
AMU~
Total
Capitd
Maintenance
cost
cost
ANlUal
cost
Automated Electric Irrigation System
2oacm
Cost of Tensiometer (2 tensionrters @ $70/unit)
70
I40
I,abor to install (2 hrs/tensiometcr; $7.oO/hr)
lilecmc Switches (I/tensiomcter @ $X/unit)
14
50
28
1
IOU
158
26
42
125
WireCosl(132o1l(i $.12/fi)
Bury Wire (1320 Ii @ S 3hlli)
158
475
475
Ongoing 0 B hl (%147.(MQ~r)
147
-ci”
147
-‘I~
&\
Annual (I & RI (4 flrs/bysuu,
b~.ouj
TOtid
Maintenance
Flushing
Mains
&
37
147
?Y
237
175
Inspection/Replacement
of SprinlLlw
Cost of Elushing hlalns (2 hrs/wk;5 mths;$7.00)
280
70
280
70
280
Cost or lnspccting Sprinklers (2 hrs/mth;5 mths;$7.W/hr)
Cost of Krpla~ing
234
234
234
10% of Sprinklerheads (39 heads @$6.(X)/ca)
70
584
Total
Rwcntive
412
584
Maintenance
Cost of Flushing Mains (2 hrs/wk;S mths;$7.M)
COSI of Inspcct~ng Sprinklers (2 hrs/mth;S mths;$7.OO/hr)
Cost of Kcplacing IO% of Sprinklerheads (39 heads @$h tWl/ea)
Cost of Replacing 25% of the sprinkler nozzles
(.25 x 3Y2=YX @:sl .(Io/e.~)
I&or 10 replacc 110Acs
(.25 hrb x YX heads @ S7.00/hr)
Total
280
70
280
70
280
70
234
234
234
Y8
YX
YX
172
172
172
x54
854
APPENDIX B- 1
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION COST OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
STRAWBERRIES (TAILWATER REUSED) (1)
-~WATER
IRRIGATION
CONSERVATION
SYSTEM
MEASURES
Solid-Set
Uniformity
COST ITEMS
-~-_I.._ -1~
$
(unit)
--___
-~-__
5
per
___.
-____~
Annual
hlaio%oance
AMU~
System
cost
___--_.
cost
- - - -
275
Spiotder
1,451
20 acres
1.451
1,451
k&ion Leveling
Cosl of I.cvcli~g (>?.(J(Xl/,~rcj
2,MKJ
40.000
TOLlI
Lough Grading
(Yost ~~f(iratllng (6l,O(H)/xrc)
1,0(H)
Total
20,ow)
Total
l(l.552
10.552
10.5s2
5,276
5,276
5.276
‘dwater Recovery System
18.000
2,929
4,ooo
4,MW)
651
18.889
18,889
3,071
18,0(X)
Pump Cost
Plpc COSI
1 .WO II of pipe (@ $4.(X)/fl
I’ond COSI
fS0lc.y. - 37,178 c.y.
I.aboratory COSl
hlainlcnance
50
140
COSI (I hr/weck/S month crop length)
Total
6.654
190
6,844
APPENDIX B-2
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION COST OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
STRAWBERRIES (NO TAILWATER REUSED) (1)
COST ITEMS
___I--.
%&d-Set
1I
1!
Water Measurement
Sprinkler
20 acres
Scheduling
s
s
per
(unit)
System
AllllUllli7X
d
Capital
coat
“low Meters
Cost of Meter (I/~g’s~~m)
B(KI
SK
I .abor
150
1X
14
14
I<) lnslall
Annual hlainlcll;IlIcc
(2 Im; $7.(X)/b)
2li
Total
schedule
4f
Annual
1
Total
=+===I
Maintenance
ANllld
cost
cost
14
251
14
26’
Irrigation with Tensiometers
1I,>
I .uhor tcr lns1;11l
(?lrr/lcr~r~t~n~elcr.
b7 1X)/h)
Labor
I<) Kcad-lll>pcct/Wcck (I hr/sysrcm.
I abor
lo t:lc;lll,lnspcc~~lAIlnu;~l
28
21 weeks; $7 (K)/hr)
(4 hrs/systcm;
7
$7.OO/hr)
Total
knsiomten
147
28
28
44
I75
with Accounting Method
Cost of Tensiometcr
(I /I 0 acres)
I,abor
to Install
(2llrs/lcnsionleler;
I.abor
IO Kcad-lnqxct/W;cck (I hr/system,
I.ahor to Clcarl,lrlspuct/Arlnudl
$‘I.fXVhr)
I40
37
14
28
7
7
7
28
28
I
1
21 weeks; $7.(Jo/hr)
(4 hrs/sysrcm;
cost of AccounIing Method I-abor.
70
$7,OO/hr)
147
28
Daily
(IO min/day, I50 days; 17.tWJ hr)
Total
I75
44
3 50
4utomated Diesel Irrigation System (1)
Cost of Tcnsiomctcr (2 tcnsiometers @ $TlO/unit)
70
I40
$7.W/lir)
14
28
7
lllcctric Swilchcs (I/tcnsiomctcr @ $50/unit)
50
100
26
1 .abor
to Irislall
(2 hrs/tcnsionieler;
Wire Cost (1320 I @ $.12/1’1)
158
158
Bury
475
475
147
147
28
28
Wire (1320 ft @ $.36/h)
Ongoing 0 & M ($147.(K)/ycar)
Annual 0 & hl (4 hrs/systcm;
$7.00)
Automatic Controller
3(Knl
Total
3MlO
37
42
I25
147
28
791
1.029
I75
I
APPENDIX B-2
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
IMPLEMENTATION COST OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
STRAWBERRIES (NO TAILWATER REUSED) (I)
s
per
blrtualim
5
(unitj
System
cost
._I
WATER
IRRIGATION
-..
SYSTEM
_ _ _ _ _ _ _
CONSERVATION
-
MEASLJRfiS
-_
COSI
ITEMS
-
Solid-Se1
Lutormtcd Electric irrigation System (I)
SpinIcIer
C’oht of ‘l‘cnswmctcr (2 tcnslomcters @ 67O/untt)
70
20 acres
I .ahor
14
IO IlIstnll
(.2 Ilrs/lcnslon~ctcr; $7 wllr)
lilcctnc Switches (I/tensiomcter
Wire COSI (1320 ft@
f@ $5O/unit)
50
l4Cl
28
IO0
cost
___-
7
26
158
158
42
475
415
I25
I17
1 11
28
28
f
Annual
37
$.12/ft)
lushing
Total
cost
Bury Wire (1320 CI Q $.36/ft)
11’
28
237
TOtid
Maintenance
AIUlUal
Maintenance
Capital
175
412
Mains & tnspectiort/Rcplawnent
sprinklers
(‘OSI of f.lushing
Mains (2 hrs/uk;5 mths;%7.00)
(‘ost of lnspccring Sprinklers (2 hrs/mth;5 mths;$7.00/hr)
(‘oar of Kcplacing 10% of SpCnklerhcads (3Y heads @$h.oCI/ca)
280
280
70
70
234
234
70
234
5x1
Total
‘reventive
2x0
584
Maintenance
Cw+t 01 I:lushing
Mains (2 hrs/uk;5 mths;$7.(K))
(:ost of inspecting Sprinklers (2 hrs/mth;5 mths;$7.OO/ltr)
Cost of Heplacing 10% of Sprinklerheads (39 heads @$6.(X)/es)
2X0
280
2x0
70
70
70
234
234
234
YX
98
YX
Cost of replacing 25% of the sprinkler nozzles
(.25 x 392=0X @$I .(K)/ca)
I.ubor to replace
noulcs
(.25 hrs x 98 heads
@ $7.oO/hr)
172
Total
1) Kefers to Table 2C in Section 5
172
172
854
854
APPENDIX B-3
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
crrRus (1)
I
--__
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
I
CONSERVATION
I
MfWWRES
I
COST ITEMS
Water
Measurement
Spritlkk
4oacres
per
Syste.m
-.-___
Flow Meters
COSI of Meter (l/40 acres)
I.;rhtr 10 In,1all
Annual M;untcnance
(2 hrs; $7.(K)/hr)
Total
Scheduling
s
(unit)
-
I
Solid-Set
$
Schedule Irrigation with Tensiorxters
Cosl of renslomcter (4 tenwometers/t@ b IU/unuj
Labor lo lnsklll
(2hr/tenslomcler;
$7.OO/hr)
I,ahor IO Head Inspect/Week (2 hrs/wcck; $7.OU/hr) 52 weeks
I.ahor to (:lcan,lnspect/Annual
(2 hrshcns~omctcr, $7.OO/hr)
i
xuo
800
150
14
150
14
I(!
LW
14
14
56
14
56
56
Total
Ten&meters
4nmlalizu
Capital
Coat
ANlual
Total
Maintenance
cost
-
Annual
cost
211
40
251
14
14
265
I-1
14
728
88
56
784
872
with Accounting Method
Cost of Tensiometer (4 tensiometen/@ $7O/unit)
Labor to Install
(2hr/tensiomcter; $7.OO/hr)
I.abor to Kead-Inspect/Week (2 hrs/week;
70
14
$7.00/hr)
Labor to Clcan,lnspect/Annual
(2 hrs/tensiometer, $7.00/t@
Cost of Accounting Method Labor. Daily (10 min/day; $7.oO/hr)
280
56
14
14
56
56
1
1
Total
Automated
-1
i
I
Electric irrigation
74
14
728
56
426
88
I.210
1.29I
System (1)
COSI of Tensiometer (4 tensiometers @ S7O/unit)
I.abor to Install (2 hrspensiometer; $7.OO/hr)
lllcctric Switches (I/tensiomcter
@ $SO/unit)
Wire Cost (2310 ft@ $.12/ft)
Bury Wire (23 10 ft @ $.36/ft)
Weekly Maintenance & Inspection (2 hrslwcek;
Annual Cleaning & Inspection (8 hrs; $7.OO/lu)
S7.00/hr)
Total
70
14
280
56
14
14
50
200
53
277
832
277
832
73
219
14
56
14
56
728
433
56
784
1.217
APPENDIX B-3
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
ANltlaIiztd
WATER
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
CONSERVATION
MEASURES
L I
capital
cost
~-~-
COST - ITEMS
- -
Solid-Set
70
14
Sprinkler
40 acres
50
277
832
14
3h
3000
2x0
56
200
277
R32
14
36
3000
TOtA
;iushiug Mains & Inspection/Replaaxnent
of Sprinklers
COSI of Flushing Mains (2 hrslwk; S7.00/hr)
14
Cost of Inspecting Sprinklers (2 hrslmth; $7.oU/hr)
Keplacc 10% ol~sprinklcrhcads
(4X4/40 acres. 48 heads @ $6.OO/ca.)
14
14
14
2xx
2X8
Annual
Maintenance
Cost
.__~..
--r---
Cost ol lnspectq Sprinkhxs (2 hrs/mth; $7.t.)o/hr)
Installation of screens (sprinklerheads) (484/40 acres;
4X heads @ $6.oO/ca.)
Water Quality Testing
72X
.I 0
791
1,224
7x1
2,(x)X
72x
168
2nx
14
14
14
72X
14
16X
28X
28X
121
121
212
2xx
121
212
1517
Total
-I) Kefers IO table 3C in Section 5
cost
53
73
2 10
1184
212
I,abor Cost
Total
AMU~
74
14
Total
%eventive Maintenance
Cost of Flushing hlains (2 hrslwk; S7.0o/hr)
___.-
1184
1517
APPENDIX B-4
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
CONTAINER NURSERIES (1)
L
I
WATER
IRRIGATION
CONSERVATION
SYSTEM
MEASURES
Solid-Set
Water Measurement
S&lklCr
lOSCl-3
COST
s
(Unil)
ITEMS
I blow Meters
Cost of Meter (I /I 0 acres)
I.abor
to Install
Annual Marnlcnance (2 hrs; $7.00/hr)
S
4onualim
AMU&
Total
per
Cltpitd
Maintenance
Annual
System
cost
800
8oCI
150
150
14
14
COSI
-
211
Total I
Scheduling
cost
-
40
I4
251
14
2t
Schedule Irrigation with Tensiometers
Los1
01 I enSIomeier
I.abor
IO Install
;\I
(4 rens~ornelrn/~ .b/~,/uru~j
(2hr/rensiometer;
I .ahor
IO Keatl-lnapxl/Weck
I .ahor
IO
$7.(K)/hr)
(1 hrs/week; $7.oO/hr)
Clca~~.lns~cr/Annual (4 hrs/syshzm;
$7.OO/hr)
14
iou
56
7
7
28
28
Total
~ensiorneters
Cosl
I4
364
28
88
392
48
with Accounting Method
of Tensiometer
(4 tensiometen/@ $‘lO/unil)
I.abor
to Install
I.abor
to Read-Inspect/Week (1 hrs/week; $7.00/hr)
I .abor
;;
(2hr/lcnsiomefer; $7.oo/hr)
IO Ciean,lnspect/AnnuaI (4 hn/sysiem; $700/hr)
COSI of Accounting Method Labor,
Darly (10 min/day;
$7.OO/hr)
70
280
74
14
56
14
7
7
28
28
28
1
1
426
Total
364
88
818
9a
iutomated Diesel Irrigation System (1)
Cosl
of Tensiomcter (4 tensiorneters
@ $7O/uniI)
70
280
$7.00/hr)
14
56
15
lilectric Switches (lPensiomelcr @ $50hmit)
50
20
53
Wire COSL (2310 1~ @ $.12/11)
277
277
73
Bury
832
832
219
364
364
28
28
3000
3mO
I.&or
10 lnslall
(2 I~rsAensiomclcr;
Wire (23 10 fi @ %.36/f1)
Ongoing 0 & hl
Annual 0 & hl (4 hrs/syslcm;
$7.OO/hr)
Automatic Controller
Total
74
364
28
791
1.225
392
1,61
APPENDIX B-4
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
CONTAINER NURSERIES (1)
.._-
~ ~_. -
WATER
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
____.Annual
Total
CONSERVATION
Maintenance
AMUd
MEASURES
-___
COSI
cost
-___
___-
~-
71)
Maintenance
Flushing Mains, Filters, lnspcction
COSI of Flushing hlaina
Cosr
56
50
z!(M)
277
277
us2
832
363
- />
-0
364
T-. v
7
7
of Sprinklers, etc.
(1 hrslwk;
$7.00/h)
of Inspecting
(W)/ca )
I54
Sprmktcrj (I hrlmrh;
I
$7 oU/hr)
t 54
154
I
Rwentivc
$7 (K)/hr)
7
7
sprinkterhcads;$h
00/ca )
154
(I hr/mlh;
%7.00/hr)
Cost of Kcplzing 25% of 256 Sprinkler nozztes
(64 x $ t .OO/ccl)
Cost (l/4 hr x ?O@ S7.f#)/hr)
15-t
7
7
h4
64
53
53
TOId
CatchCan
I 54
84
61
53
7 19
719
Test, Annually
Labor lo Perform
Equipment
(4 hn; $7.00/hr)
(20 cans, ruler)
Total
I
364
of f&placing Stwnklerheads (10% of 256
(lost of Inspecting Sprinklers
Uniformity
602
Maintenance
<losr of Flushing Mains (I hrs/wk;
I.&or
x.1
602
Tolat
Cost
36.1
of Replacing Spnnklcrtvxds (10% of 256
sprinklcrhcnds;$h
(‘OSI
2x0
14
28
28
5
5
28
5
33
33
APPENDIX B-4
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
CONTAINER NURSERIES (1)
I-
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
WATER
CONSERVATION
MEASURES
COST ITEMS
Solid-Set
Sl.lliIlklCr
Iatch-Can
lOacres
liquipmcnt
-.
.
s
s
per
(unit) ISystem
4mlaalized
Capital
Cost
AMId
Maintenance
cost
Test and Adjustmxts
Labor IO Perform
(16 hrs, $7.0o/hr)
(X0 cans, ruler)
112
112
20
20
112
20
132
lotal
Tailwater Recovery System
Pumn Coot
I K.ooo
1
18,ooo
2.Y20
Pipe Cost
500 ft of ppc @ $4.owfl
Pond Cost
2,tx)o
2.000
326
$.50/c.y. 18.X88
I.aboratory Cost
Maintenance COSI
0,444
9,444
50
1.537
L.Y.
(I hr/wcck,
50
7
$7.0o/hr)
Total
1) Refers
IO
Table 4C in Section 5
TO&l
Annual
cart
50
364
1
4.192
414
13
APPENDIX B-5
SOUTIIWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
TOMATOES AND VEGETABLES (1)
SYSTEM
semi-closed
MEASURES
COST
ITEMS
I
-
s
Annualized
s
PeT
Capital
Maintenance
Annual
(unit)
System
cost
cost
cost
AMU~
Total -
I
Water Measurement
Ditch
60 acres
ncx,
150
biXJ
14
I4
150
TOIA
ill
40
11
251
10
30
7
2x
265
6X
TOtid
‘hrottle
I ‘I
Back Pump
COSl Of 1 hKllliCIjZiik hlnli’
1” COflJU”“l”‘”Wllh SOli
motslurc
mcasurcnrnl (I R hr/day;85 days;$71HJ/hr)
Shallow hlonitor
Well anJ lnsiallation
4
2!Jx
17
6X
Cost
($17/well; 4 wells)
366
Total
Lutomated
Irrigation System
COSI of 4 Monitoring Wells @ $17/uni1
17
6X
IX
Elcc~ric
50
200
53
384
384
101
576
576
152
140
140
Suitches (4 sultches @ $SO/unit)
Wire Cost
Hury
(3200 II @ $.12/11)
Wire (IhO Ii @I $ 36/ft)
Ongoing
0 & hl (Sllo/yr)
Annual 0 k hl (,I hrslsyslccll.
.$7.00/1Ir)
2x
Aulomalic C’cxNrr)llcr
3lKJO
2x
3tKJo
Maintenance
nspection
701
1,115
TolaJ
I.283
and Repair
Cost of Inspection of IGsh Ibards.
dilch
maintcnancc
(2 wks/yr, 8 hours/day; $7.OO/hr)
560
Total
560
~___
560
APPENDIX B-5
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
TOMATOES AND VEGETABLES (1)
-~I_
WATER
IRRIGATION
SYSTEM
CONSERVATION
--
MEASURES
SfXlli-ClOSCd
I
-m-_Lp-.
-
-
CoS?‘ITEMS
.~
Replacement and Reconditioning of Ditch (2)
Ditch
Cosr
6oacres
of Replacement of Flash
Boards,
recond1tlon
o f ditch. elc. (4 wk\/yr; 8 hours. $7.0Oi?tr)
KCIIL~
o f liquiprrlcn~
(2 days @ $IW/day)
I
/
__..-
-
s
(unit)
I120
200
1121)
.aser
Total
Maintenance
Annual
CcKt
cost
I I20
200
200
Total
uniformity
ANUll
1320
1320
Leveling
COSI ol I .cvei~ng
;\~sww~
i’rxlslon-graded ($275 (lo/xx)
275
16.500
Total
4,353
4,353
4,353
Yecwon Lxvelmg
Cost o f Ixveling (%2,OtXl/acrc)
2,lXMJ
l2O.w.I
Total
3 1,656
31.656
3 1,656
Lough Grading
Cost
of Grading (I 1,IK~O/acre)
1‘(XX)
60,00(1
15,82X
Total
15,828
15,828
‘aitwater Recovery System
Pump Cost
Plpc
3.000 II 01 p p s (@ $4.OO/lr
Pond
I5.000
I5JMHI
2,44 I
12,000
12,(HXI
I,95 1
37.778
37,778
6.148
COSI
COSL
$SOfc.y.
l .aboralory
15,555 C.Y.
Cost
100
1
Maintcnancc C~SI ( I brfweek; $7.00/hr)
loo
I(K)
7
Total
1) Refers
IO
2) f;lashbr)ards
IO.542
Table 5C in Section 5
used on seepage systems
are 2’x 4’ trca~cd
bwrds will1 a uxlul lilt ol’ovcr 10 years.
Mauxial cr)s~ IS m~runwl
364
and not ~ncludcd
in calculation
461
Il.006
APPENDIX B-6.1
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
TRAVELING SYSTEM - CITRUS (1)
- I
Vdum Gul
-.
f
(
U
Nl
I ) I
-~___~
WaIcr
-
s
per
k innuatized
AMIMI
Total
Maintenance
Annual
-1 C o s t
Capital
COSL
System
-
-/- __-.
Measurement
Traveling System
40 acres
XfYI
X(Y)
tsc1
150
14
1 4
;cheduie irrigation with Tensiorrretis
(‘ost d fcflsi0rcIcr (4 Icns~omelers ai $70/uniI)
I abor II) Inslall
(2 hrs/Ic~~~~rn~lclcr;
$7.00/hr)
I ;&II IO Kcatl l~~\t~‘/Wceh I2 hrs/sysIcm. 52 wks; $7 O!l/hr)
I.ahor
IO
Clcatl,lnspccI/Annulll
IX hrs/sysIcm; $7.00/hr)
7(1
2x0
75
I4
Sh
14
t4
56
14
t4
265
72x
56
X8
Total
with Accounting Method
(4 Iensiomelew al $70/unil)
Cost of TensIomcler
I ahor IO Install (2 hrs/reusiomcler; $7.OO/hr)
I.ahor IO Read-tnspccI/Weck (2 hrs/sysIem, 52 wks; $7.(K)/hr)
I1
2st
T&at
Scheduling
211
-IO
56
7x1
812
I’ensiometers
I .ahor 10 (‘lwrl,lnspccI/Anl~~~‘ll (8 hrs/systcm; 57.ONhri
Cost of Accounling hlclhod I.&or. Daily
(IO mm/day, 365 days; $7.(Y)/hr)
70
14
280
56
14
56
14
56
t
1
Gshing
72x
vi
4 2h
t ,210
1,298
of Mains/Inspection
I4
COSI of Flushing MainsJlnspcccuorI (2 hrs/wk; 52 wks; $7.(Xt/hr)
14
‘reventive
Maintenance
COSI of Flushing Mains/lnslxcIion
(2 hrs/wk; 52 wks; $7.(W)/hr)
I~~spccl~o~i ol Votumc Gun/l%luipmenl
(2 hrslmonth; $7.0cMhr; t 2 months)
Inspecf I’lpcs/l.eaks (4 hrs/mIh; $7 (0 hr)
Total
72X
72X
Tolal
I) Refers to Table 6CI in Section 5
14
88
Total
Maintenance
7-t
I4
14
14
2R
14
28
728
72X
I ox
336
1232
1232
APPENDIX B-6.2
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
TRAVELING SYSTEM - VEGETABLE/ROW CROPS (1)
WATER
lRRIGATlON
CONSERVATION
f
MEASURES
Volume Gun
Water
Measurement
I’raveling System
COST
ANtWlli?Xd
Annual
Total
Capital
Maintenance
ANlUal
cost
Cost
Cost
P o w Metem
COSI
20 acre3
(Unil)
.~~
ITEMS
s
per
System
of Mc~cr
I.ahor IO Install
X(X)
X(X)
150
150
I4
14
‘111
40
251
Scheduling
IJ
14
265
ichedule Irrigation with Tensiorneters
Cost of’fensiomcter
Labor IO Inatsll
(2 tcnsiotneters at $70/unit)
(2 hrsltcnstometer; SI.U.J/hr)
l.ahor to Kcad-lllhpcct/Wcck
t I hrshy~tcm, 4 ulonths, $7 iJ0/111)
Iahor II) (‘lcarl,lnspect/Anr~ual (4 hrs/system; $7.oO/hr)
70
I40
14
La
7
1
28
2x
Total
37
I
1 I!,
28
44
147
191
fensiometers with Accounting Method
Cost of Tenbiomcter
Labor to Install
I.abor
(2 lensiometers at $7O/unil)
(2 hrs/tensiometer; $7.OO/hr)
to Kead-lnbpcct/Weck
(I hrs/system, 4 months; $7.OO/hr)
I.ahor 10 (:l~arl.lnspect/Annual (4 hrs/systcm; $7.OO/hr)
70
140
37
14
28
7
7
7
I IY
28
28
28
<hi of Accounttng Method I,atxx, Daily
(IO m~n/day.
I40
I20 days; W(NJ/hr)
Total
Maintenance
44
287
331
?ushing of Ma.ins/lnspection
Cost of Flushing Mains/lnspcction
7
II’)
(I hrs/wk; 4 months; $7.OO/hr)
Total
II0
119
‘rzventive Maintenance
COSI
of Flushing Mains/lnspcction
7
II9
7
II’)
7
28
266
(1 hrs/wk; 4 months; $7.oO/hr)
Inspectron
of Volun~
(iun/lJquipmcnl
(1 hr/wk; 4 months; $7.W/lu)
Inspect Pipes/l.eaks (1 hrs/mth; 4 months; $7.00 hr)
Total
I) Refers to Table 6C2 in Section 5
266
-_i
APPENDIX B-7
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
MICRO-IRRIGATION: SPRAY SYSTEM - CITRUS (1)
dl
f
F
COST ITEMS
h&rc&figation:
Water Measurement
(uni1)
AMWI
1
Total
1
Syslem
Rowm%fm
Spay
40 acres
X(X
1%
211
4(
)
I4
LSI
Scheduling
265
Schedule Irrigation with Tensiometers
Cosl
.I
o f I‘cnsiomcrcr
t
I,
.., ,..)
.,
,_..
:>i_._
(I/IO acres)
r- ,>,\ ,.
I. %l-,,id,
7(
2X(1
r
J”
..:_,__,
i
74
. 1
It
14
72X
56
56
xx
7x4
8 7 2,
Tensiometers with Accounting Method
Cost of Tensromelcr
(l/10 acres)
I .&or 11) Inskill
(Lllr/lelrslomeIer;
$7.Oo/hr)
I .atxrr IO Kcad -Inspxt/Week (2hr/systcm; $7.00/1u)
Clean and Inspect. Annual (Xhr/system;
$7.00/hr)
7C.
2x0
74
14
14
56
56
I4
14
(‘ost of Acrounung Method I.atxx, Daily (IOmin/day; $7 (X)/hr)
I
Tolal
,
_
:
> ! -,
I
72X
56
I
56
88
4 26
I.210
1,298
Automated Diesel Irrigation System (1)
Cost of Tcnsiomctcr
labor
lilcclrrc
IO
Irrs~:rII
Su~rlchcs
(l/10 acres)
(21rr/lcnsionlcter;
$7.OO/hr)
(I/rensiometer)
Wire C~rsi (IYXO It@
5 12/fi)
.’
Bury Wire (Y9O It @ $.36/11)
Ongoing 0 & M ($72XOO/ycar)
Annual 0 B hl (8 hrs/system;
$7.00)
Aulomatrc Control
Tolal
/
70
2x0
14
56
74
14
50
200
53
238
238
63
356
356
94
728
728
56
56
300()
3U)o
72X
56
791
1,089
7x1
I.873
1
APPENDIX B-7
SOUTHWEST FLOKIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
MICRO-IRRIGATION: SPRAY SYSTEM - CITRUS (I)
I
IRRIGATION
WATER
CONSERVATION
I
$
MEASURES
COST ITEMS
(unit)
1-- __ ---- -.-. -- -4utornated Electric irrigation System (1)
(:(%I 01 I cnslomIcr
t1110 acrcsj
I.ahor IO Inst:ill
(2ttr/l~rlsl(,rrlcler; $7.00/hr)
Micro-irrigation:
SPY
40 acres
I:lcclrlc
swlIclIL:?I
(I/lctlslulllckr)
Wire Cosl (19X0 It @ $.12/11)
bury Wire (990 It @ $.3h/ll)
Ongn~ng 0 & hl ($72X Oo/yc;ir)
Antlllal
0 & hl (X Ilrs/s~slcrrl;
$7.00)
I
Maintenance
. . ..l
i;lushing Mains & inspection of Emitters
(lost of Flushing hlain (2 hrsluk; 52 weeks;$7.(Kl/hr)
COSI
of lnspccung
llmicters (2 hrs/mlh; 12mrhs;$7.OO/hr)
s
ANiualiZ4
per
Capital
cost
Syste.m
70
14
50
23X
356
728
56
-~--I
2x0
56
200
2311
356
728
56
72X
168
728
72X
168
168
896
-
Total
3wentive Maintenance
COSI of Flushing Main (2 hrs/wk; 12 mths;$7.(X)/hr)
Cost
728
168
Labor lo Collecl Sample
175
7
of Inspecting finu~~crs (2 hn/mlh, 12mihs;$7.00/hr)
Waler Qualily Test Annual
Replace 10% 01 llmittcrs (2004
lield al $ I .OO/ca.)
cnullers
in a
lypical
290
Total
1) Refers to Table 7C in Section 5
728
56
7x1
728
72X
168
175
16H
7
175
7
2r90
290
l-%X
1 fM?
8%
1368
APPENDIX B-8.1
SOlJTl IWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
STRAWBERRIES AND VEGETABLE/ROW CROPS (1)
s
per
System
Micro irrigation
I
Line Source
Water
-
Measurement
Emitters
X(KI
IX
20 acres
14
211
JO
251
(‘OS1 nf’l‘cllslomelcr (l/IO acres)
I.;ibor lo install (2 hrs/tenslometer;
140
$7.(M)/hr)
I ahor
IO
Read lnapcct/Wcek (1 hrs/system. 5 months; S7.o(V?n)
I.ahor
IO
Clcan,lnspcct/Annual
28
7
2R
(4 hrs/systcm; $7.oO/h1)
Total
70
I.abtrr ICI Install (2 hrsltensiomctcr; $7.OO/hr)
I.ahtrr to Read-ln~pect/Wcek (I hrlsystem, 5 months; $7 (XVhr)
I.&or IO (‘lcan,lns~ct/Annual
(4 hn/system;
Cost of AccounGng Method Labor, Daily
14
7
28
UOO/hr)
t, I(1 mlniday. I SO days; $‘l.oO/lir)
I 40
28
,a
I .&or 1~) Install
..:
-
(2 hrs/tcnsiomctcr;
lilcctnc Suitchcs (l/tcnsiomeler
Wire Cosl (1050 ft @ S. 12/f1)
@ $SO/unil)
. _
Bury Wire (IO.50 Ii @ $.36/ft)
I
Ongoing 0 & M ($147.OO/year)
Annnal 0 & hl (4 hrs/system; $7.00)
Automatic Controller
1
70
140
14
50
28
‘I 26
37x
147
28
3000
Total
157
28
44
$7.W/hr)
100
126
378
147
115
350
37
7
26
33
100
147
2x
28
Jo00
175
37
7
7
1
Automated Diesel Irrigation System (1)
Cost of Tcnsmmctcr (2 tensiomcters @ $7O/unil)
_’
I47
2x
28
Total
,
37
7
44
Tcnsiomctm
with Accounting Method
CosI of To~srometer (l/IO acres)
265
791
995
I75
APPENDIX B-8.1
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
STRAWBERRIES AND VEGETABLE/ROW CROPS (1)
_ -~--___
_--.__
WATER
S
(unit)
CONSERVATION
MEASURES
Micro lnigation
Line
COST
ITEMS
-I
I
s
ptr
4Mualized
Olpiital
cost
-. .-^
System
AMU~
Total
Maintenance
Annual
Cost
cost
_~-~-___--
Automated Electric Irrigation System (1)
Source
(Iosl of Tcnsiometcr (2 tension~tcrs @I $7O/unii)
70
140
Emitters
I ahor
14
28
7
20
lilectr~ Switches (I/lcnsiometcr @ $%)/unit)
50
loo
26
acres
10 Ins~ll
Wire Cost
I3nry
$7 (K)/hr)
(1050 Ir @ $ I 2/(-i)
Wire ( ItIS
Ongcnng
/\nnniu
(2 hrshcnsiomcux;
Ir @ S 7h/ll)
0 6 hl (S147.o(~/~car)
0 b: ht (4 nrs/~)sLerr~,
5,.00~
126
126
378
378
I47
147
_
&U
Lti
Total
9ushing
h&ins & lnspedm
5 months; $7 (K))
Emliters (2 hn/mth; 5 months;f7.@/hr)
Kepair limitters (2 hrslmlh;
33
IO0
I.17
3.2
203
175
378
of Emitters
Cost of Flushing Mains (2 hrslwk;
Cost of inspccung
37
5 months; $II.(K)/hr)
14
I4
294
14
I4
70
14
I4
Total
70
434
434
‘reventive Maintenance
Cost of Flushing
Mains (2 hrs/wk;
21 weeks;
$7.00)
14
14
291
Cost of Inspecting limiuers (2 hn/mth; 5 months;f7.00/hr)
14
14
70
Repair limitters (2 hri/mth; 5 months; $7 tx)/hr)
I4
14
Waicr Quah~y
I.ahor
Replace
field
‘Ies~
IO Collcc~
loo
Sarnplc
10% 01 enullcrs
7
1440 cmlllers
IO Table 8Cl in Section
5
Iw
7
7
1n a typical
at $1 (X)/w
144
Total
I) Refers
70
100
I44
14‘1
685
685
APPENDIX B-8.2
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICIJL’IIJRAI,
IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
TOMATOES & VEGETABLES/ROW CROPS (1)
- .--.-
-..-- ~- -~-
IRRIGATION
WATFBCONSERVATION
SYSTEM
MEASURES
Micro Irrigation
Water
Measurement
Line source
Emitters
60 acres
$
per
I
COST ITEMS
Annuahzer
Capital
-System
- - - -
cost
.-
Flow Meters
Cost of Meter
Xof
Labur ISI Inst.tll
1 sr
211
40
I
Annual hlaintcnarrcc
(2 hrs. $7.(K)/lw)
Scheduling
Total
Annual
cost
____-
cast
1-l
I4
Total
AMU~
Maintenance
251
14
26
Schedule irrigation with Tensiometers
Lost ot I ensromctcr (0 tcnswmeters @ b/OJ~urul)
l.abor to Insti~ll
(2 ilrs/lerl~iorrletcr, $7 (X)/hr)
I.ahor to Read-lrr~pcct/Wcck (3 hrskystcm. 4 months; $7.OO/hr)
l .ahor IO (:lcarl.fn\pcct/Annrl,ll (I 2 hrs/systcm; $7.0O/hr)
/lJ
4LI
111
I4
21
84
21
22
81
81
Total
rensiornetcrs
with Accounting Method
Cost of Tensiomcter
(6 ten&meters @ $70/unit)
I.abor to Install
(2 hrs/tcnriometer;
I.ahor to Read-luqxct/Wcck
$7.OO/hr)
(3 hrs/system, 4 months, $7 OO/hr)
I.ahor to Clcan,lnspcct/Annual
(12 hrs/systcm; $7.OO/hr)
Cost of Accounting Method Labor, Daily
(IO min/day. I20 d3)s; 97 (K)/hr)
131
70
42(!
14
21
84
21
84
84
1
I4
50
3H6
Wire Cost (3220 II(r!) $.lZ/lt)
Bury Wire (1610 h @ $.36/n)
Ongoing 0 & hl (S357.00lyear)
Annual 0 & M (4 hrs/systcm; $7.00)
Automatic Controller
Total
42(1
84
300
3X6
580
580
357
357
28
3wO
28
3000
57
357
84
133
70
I.obor lo Inst:dl
(2 hrs/lcnsiometcr; $7.oO/hr)
lilectric Swilchcb (I/tensiomctcr @ $SO/unit)
-14 I
Ill
22
1
TOtill
4utomated Diesel Irrigation System (1)
Cost of ‘l‘cnsiomctcr (6 tcnsiomcters @ $7O/unrt)
351
x1
141)
581
71
III
22
79
IO2
153
357
28
791
I.258
385
I@
APPENDIX B-8.2
SOUTHWEST FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
COST ANALYSIS OF AGRICULTURAL IRRIGATION WATER CONSERVATION MEASURES
TOMATOES & VEGETABLES/ROW CROPS (1)
-
WATER
IRRIGATION
CONSERVATION
SYSTEM
MEASURES
h&-o Irfigation
ANlualized
s
s
COST
ITEMS
Capital
per
System
e,m-(ufw
AMld
Total
AMU~
Maintenance
cost
Cost
cost
Automated Electric irrigation System (1)
Line soura
70
420
i II
Insldl (2 hrsl~ensiometer; S7.00/hr)
14
84
22
Swllchcs (I/tensiometcr r@ $SO/unit)
50
300
79
Wire Cosl (3220 II @ S 12/ft)
386
386
102
Ilury Wire (I 6 10 11 @ 5 ‘36/f1)
580
580
I53
Ongl)lng 0 & hl (5357 (X)/year)
357
7Y
357
lY
Cost of 3 ensiomcl~~
Etinen
I .ahor
IO
6Oacnz.s
I+xXnc
,,.iiiii.L -I..
j_
(6 tensiometers @ %7tJ/unil)
- 1,
‘ (i ,.2..
,,ulA;-‘.,,
8 C’
i/I,> ,
Total
357
7x
467
-385
852
Flushing Mains & Inspection of Emitters
Cost
of Flushing Mains (2 hrs/wk; 4 months; $7.00)
Cost nl lnspecong
I!mlucrs (2 hn/mth;4 months;$7.ot)/hrj
Repair limiucrs (2 hrs/mth; 4 mths; $7.00/hr)
I4
I4
238
14
I4
56
14
I4
‘I‘Ol,d
56
350
350
Preventive Maintenance
Cost of Flushing Mains (2 hrs/wk; 4 months: $7.(x))
14
I4
Cost of Inspecting Emitters (2 hrs/mth;4 months;$7.OO/hr)
14
14
56
Repair I<mrttcrs
14
14
56
loo
loo
7
7
7
432
432
432
(2 hrs/mth; 4 months; $7.oO/hr)
Water Qu.dity ‘I CSI
I.abor
Kcplace
to Collccl Salnple
10% of cmitten
‘I’OlLil
YC? in Section 5
100
4320 emitters tn a typical
tield at $ I .OO/ca
I) Kcfcrs lo ‘fable
23X
889
889
Appendix C
EHGINEZRING TECENICAL NOTE FL-17
FARM IRRIGATION RATING METHOD (FIRM)
USDA-SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
State-Off&e; Room 248
401 S.. E. First Avenue
Gainesville, FL 32601
May 6, 1987
ENGINEERING TECHNICAL NOTE FL-17
Re:
FARM IRRIGATION RATING METHOD (FIRM)
The primary goal of the Farm Irrigation Rating Method is to provide the fieLd
office with a tool to: (11 plan with the Landowner onfarm irrigation
improvements to achieve a specific level of water management and conservation;
and (2) determine the amount 2f water conserved when a practice or group of
measures is installed.
for
improving
systems for more efficient water use can be
The potential
determined by field investigations. The real challenge is to develop a viable
method for comparing the present irrigation system and management to feasible
modifications which result in more efficient irrigation systems and
improved
management.
A good rating system is needed because complete field evaluations
are
sometimes
difficult and require manpower and money which are frequently
unavailable.
FIRM was deveL.>ped using published data for most factors and
estimates
based
on field ex:Jerience
for others.
FIRM needs to be tested
against
field
trials and comi>Lete field evaluations to refine and
improve
factors used in the system.
16 nnt WPd t o
reucP system
evaluations but is to be usl?d as a tool in determining how the irrigation
system and management can be inproved.
FIRM provides a uniform and s .mple method to analyze onfarm irrigation water
conservation.
It provides go,,d documentation of the effects of change.
It
can document effects of annuaL practices or increments of a conservation plan
for a farm unit.
The method i; the product of three elements:
.
1.
The onfarm water managemttnt - The human element involves decisions which
can be scientifically based on measuring water, monitoring soil moisture,
and knowing how to operal:e the irrigation system efficiently.
It also
involves
farmer decisions on a maintenance program,
tillage
operation,
and conservation cropping systems.
How the water delivery s y s t e m i s
operated
also affects decisions on when and how much water to
Once a system is in operation, a management plan is needed.
w
LY l
2.
DIST:
The onfarm irrigation sy:,tem - For a sprinkler the key system components
are conveyance,
uniform;.ty of sprinkler pattern,
variation in nozzle
pressure,
and climatic ef feet.
Key system components for subirrigation
are conveyance, uniformjty of water table, capacity to maintain the
desirable water table, stirface slope, and prevention of tailwater LOSS.
Key system components for trickle system are conveyance, area wetted, and
flow variation.
components
for surface system are conveyance,
Key
irrigation length, surfacr slope and prevention of tailwater Loss.
A, F, ENG, SNTC
-l-
-
3..
"potential
The
potential
eEficiency
o f the system - The system
optimally
performing
unit
for
the
site
specific
efficiency' -for an
physical layout can be determined from the attached Table 1.
For future
conditions,
a properly designed and installed system utilizing the Latest
technology is desired.
app Licab Le to
The onfarm water management eleuent is deEined by six factors
The
either a surface, sprinkler, subirrigation, or trickle irrigation sys tern.
six management factors:
(1)
Md
-
Use of water ELow measuring devices (fig 2a)
(2)
s
- Soil moisture monitoring and scheduling (fig
(3)
1
-
(4)
M
(5)
w
(6)
SC
Irrigation skill Level (fig 2~)
- Maintenance condition oE the system (fig
-
F
(2)
u
2d)
The water delivery constraint (fig 2e)
- Soil Condition (fig 2f)
The onfarm
factors are:
(1)
2b)
irrigation system element is defined by
selected
Eactors.
The
- Type of farm conveyaaze syetem (fig 3)
-
tion
Uniformity of appiica
Sprinkler (fig 4a)
Subirrigation (fig 4bl
Crown F Lood (fig 4~)
Surface
(3)
(4)
A
D
-
Percent
deep,
-
of
(fig
4d)
root
zone
well drained
- Area wetted by trickle system emitters on
5).
soils (fig
Water delivery system
Sprinkler (fig 6a)
Subirrigation (fig 6b
Crown Flood (fig 6c
Trickle (fig 6d)
(5)
L
- Condition of land
sur:iace
Subirrigation (fig 7a
Crown Flood (fig 7b
Surface (fig 7c)
(6)
T
-
Tailwater ( Eig 8)
-2-
-
(7)FIRM
c
--- Climate EEfect-(fig
9
as an equation E;>r an irrigation system where E is
expressed
potential
efficiency.
---------------
Sprinkler
Subirrigation
FILM = E x FUDC x MdSIMWSc
----------- FI'U4
= E x FUDLT x MdSIMWSc
Trick Le -_-_-__ -w-m _ _ _ _ _ _ FI’Qf = E x FAJj x &-jSIMWSc
Surface ___--_-----------
FIIW = E x FULT
x &jSIMWSc
An example of how FIRM evaluates a change in the
management
follows:
onfarm irrigation system and
For this exampLe, the improvement; to a flow through, open ditch subirrigation
system were installing an underg$cound pipe line to replace an earthen channel
in sandy soil with water table 1. i ft below delivery ditch hydraulic gradient
recommendh:d spacing of Laterals is being used (U, no
(F from 0.8 to 1 .O);
change > ;
only 90% of daily peak 'Jas being deiivered and with improvements in
natural ground varied
c a p a c i t y i s 1 0 0 % o f d a i l y p e a k usr? (D Erom .95 t o 1 .O>;
0.5 Et but will be Leveled (L Erom 0.95 to 1 .O); 30% of water is being-Lost as
tailwater,
but a structure fol: water controi will be installed to reduce
tailwater Lost to 15% CT from 0.7 j to .90); the only change in management will
be
the installation of observation wells
to schedule irrigations and manage
water table between planned leve Ll3, previously no monitoring was being done (S
from 0.90 to 1.0).
Potent&al Efficiency, E
The
potential
subirrigation
improved.
efficiency is obtai led from Table 1.
Eighty percent (80%) for a
system
with open channel Laterals was used
for present and
.S.utpm Ehaents
Product
FxUxDxLxT
Present
0.8 x 1.0 x 0.95 IL 0.95 x 0.75
=
.54
Improved
1.0 x 1.0 x 1.0 x 1 .o x 0.9
=
.90
MihxSxIxMxWxSc
Product
Present
0.90 x 0.90 x (1.95 x 0.95 x 1.0 x 1.0 =
.73
Improved
0.90 x 1 .o x 0 95 x 0.95 x 1 .o x 1 .o
.81
Potential
Efficiency
E
x
Sys i-em
ELerlent
x
FUD i,T
Management
Element
MdSIMWSc
=
=
Farm Irrigation
Rating Method
FIRX
Present
80%
X
.51'
X
.73
=
32%
Improved
80%
x
.9(1
X
.81
=
58%
-3-
The _ ~iaprovements
in SyS tern
lnd management should
result in an onfarm
irrigation rating change from .12X to 58%.
The FIRM change can be translated
into water conserved.
If the average net consumptive use for-a normal year i6 _
7.53 inches for potatoes in climatic zone 2, the-reduced water use would be:
Potential
EEficiency
ac-in./ac
Present
Improved
m
.80
+
7.53
.80
+
Present
9.41. +
Improved
w
+
0
+
Conserved
+
Systell
Elemenlt
ac-in /ac
Management
ELement
ac-in./ac
+
=
IC
IC
1
-LI1.
7.53 +7.53-A= 7
.
(.801(.54)
.80
(.80)(.54)(.73)
(.80)(.54)
C
A-La.
.80
Total
5
I
3
.3154
+7.53-A(.80)(.90)(.81)
(.80)(.90)
7.53
.5832
8.02
+
6.45
=
23.88
6.97
+
4.00
=
10.97
The total water conserved dtring a normal year was computed to be 10.97
inches,
with 6.97 inches resulting from system improvements and 4.00
inches
achieved by improved management. Similar computations can be made to indicate
water conserved for any change in either the system or management eiemeat.
Another example is the conversion of one system to another as follows:
Present: Subirrigation
Improved: Trickle
Crown Flood
(Spray Jet)
80%
85%
Potential Efficiency
E
Management ELement
MCI
S
I
None
None (0.90)
None (0.90)
Auto (1.0)
(0.90)
None (0.90)
Parttime
(0.90)
M
Good (0.95)
W
Arranged (0.95)
SC
New
f1.001
Management Element
(1.0)
Demand (1.0)
Il.00)
Limited
0.66
0.81
'i
System ELement
F
Earthen CanaLs - WT 51
U
24" beds - 25' width
A
D
F&D time - 24 hrs
L
Fair - Elev DiEf. 1.0'
T
70% is tailwater, loo:! reused
System E Lement
FIRM
I
(0.85)
(0.95)
( - >
Cl.01
(0.90)
(0.98)
UPS (1.0)
( - 1
50% (1.0)
FLOW variation +5X (1.05)
0.71
11;
1.05
80% x .:,6 x .71 = 37%
85% x .81 x 1.05 = 72%
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
FL
-
-
Trial
File Code 21
FARH IRRIGATION RATING METHOD
Cooperator:
em-akz
d
sm/t'h
Identification
No.:
Field OEfice:
bf%!%&79
-L5?zL
Prepared by:
Farm
Name/Field
Conservration
District: A/.
Couaty:&L
F/Or idO
Date:
'$'&/a7
Checked
Water Management Dis
by
d%flwhfm
No.
ih?/o/sd,/d 2
fie/dsdLZ/3
1
Present Improved Present Improved
POTENTIAL EFFICIENCY (E)
*mm
(Md).Fi,g 2a
ure w tSJ.FrgJ$
Lrrieation (I). Fiv 2c
e (HI. Fie 2d
titer Deliverv (UJ. Fu
SC),
-
FiP 2f
:w
%
/,a7
/oi7
a-q,(7 95
/:m
/do
/coo
MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Mdxsx1xMxwxsc
- FxUxLxT
- Sudace
FIRM - E x Management
Elent x Svstem
A
El-t
Normal Net Irrigation
Reauirement
(Inches)
Gross Irrigation Requirement
(Inches) NNIR + FIRM
Water Conserved
(Present - Imoved) (&&sl
&pa Irriated (Acres)
Total Water Conserved
(AC-in)
-5-
~ 0 q-5
a:95
/ou
/900
-
Remarks
FIRM has
not in estimating
in evaluating change,
the
absolute
v a l u e o f -onfarm irrig4ation e f f i c i e n c y .
It would be
preferable to
call the end product a rating of water use, present and improved. The FIRkl can
p r o v i d e a n a p p r o a c h t o compare the present and
future
onf arm i r r i g a t i o n
consistently by using a standard set of syetem and management modifiers.
i t s g r e a t e s t vaLidit*r
FIRM provides a relative rating,
It is the product of up to twelve management
a n d sys tern
factors
t o r a t e c o n s i s t e n t l y f r o m o n e l o c a t i o n to another
the
effectiveness
0f
i r r i g a t i o n practices.
When a potentia I e f f i c i e n c y i s
s e l e c t e d f o r a s p e c i f i c f i e l d a n d i r r i g a t i o n system,
the rating will evaluate
the difference between the grostt volume of farm delivery and the net
consumed
the p l a n t . Additiona 1 evzt Luations are needed for special water use
to
by
determine
for
froet p r o t e c t i o n ,
h o w e f f i c i e n t t h e qratem w i l l a p p l y w a t e r
waste utilization,
fertigation,
o r c h e m i g a t i o n a s examplea- FIRM represents
.
typica L c o n d i t i o n 8
and will only provide a rating of change.
It will n o t
.
FIRM is
a v a l u a b l e t o o l f o r kenti f y i n g t h e i n c r e m e n t s o f c h a n g e i n
onf arm
water use that can result from improvement in system or management
irrigation
elements.
FIRM can be trans Lated into water conservation terms,
euch a 8
reduced demand8
for water,
and amount of water
r e d u c e d losaee a n d Waste,
conserved.
-6-
Attachments - Eng.neering Technical Note FL-17
Attachment 1
Definition;
Attachment
2
Tabulation of Evaluating Factors
Attachment
3
Table 1.
jystem Potential EEficiencies (E)
Attachment 4
Table 2.
'otential
Attachment
5
Figures 2a - 2f.
Attachment
6
Figure 3.
Attachment
7
Figures 4a - 4d.
Evaporation Rate
I
Management Factors
Farm Conveyance Factor (F)
Uniformity Factors (U>
Attachment 8
Figure 5.
Attachment 9
Figures 6a - 6d.
Delivery Factor (D)
Attachment 10
Figures 7a - 7c.
Land Surface Factor (L)
Attachment
11
Figure 8.
Tailwater Factor (T)
Attachment 12
Figure 9.
Climatic Effect (C)
Attachment
Tables 11-j
sizes
and
different
under low,
- 11-12.
A guide to recommended nozzle
pressures with expected CU values
Eor
application rates and sprinkler spacings
moderate, high, and extreme wind conditions.
13
Attachment 14
Area Wetted (A)
Farm Irrig.ttion Rating Method - Trial Form
-7-
.
ENG TECH NOTEFL-if
Attachment _r
1 OE 2
-
DEFINITIONS
blanapment Fat tars
Md- Water Measurement.
Water
must be measured to each Eield
for optimum
irrigation water management.
The measurement at the Earm delivery point
can be translated to each field if the head is not split.
S
Soi 1 Moisture/scheduling.
The soil moisture deficit in the root zone
must be measured (monitored) and irrigations scheduled to obtain good
water management.
I
Irrigation Skill.
Good m.anagement requires an operator trained in how to
An automated s y s t e m c a n b e p r o p e r l y m a n a g e d t o
ape LY the water.
substitute
for a t r a i n e d i r r i g a t o r .
More met hanica 1 s k i l l w i l l b e
required to manage a sprinkler or trickle system.
M
Maintenance.
A system ccctst be maintained in order to be managed at
its
potential.
N o z z l e s on sprinklers have to be replaced; fields need to be
re Leve led ;
s true tures
Ear water contra 1 have to be replaced when they
deteriorate;
emitters must be unplugged and maintained in proper
spray
position to obtain desired wetted area;
and
system leaks must be
repaired.
w-
Water De livery.
T o properly i r r i g a t e t h e c r o p , water must be aveilab le
when needed at the rate f3r optimum application.
Uncontro 1 led water i s
not norma 1 Ly avai lab le a IL season,
every year.
In short supply areas
there is probably lower eEficiency than in full supply areas.
If you are
on a rotation and receive water on a preset interval, whether you need it
or not,
there is a tend,ency to over irrigate during part of the season
a n d not have sufficient water during peak use periods.
An arranged
system is one where you can request water from an i r r i g a t i o n company
0SU8 1 ky
t h e r e i s some storage.
fixed
There c a n b e r e s t r i c t i o n s ,
operation, or limited r8t?s during the se8son which reduces efficiency. A
demand system
with full control of when and how much is ideal Ear good
water management.
l
SC - Soil Condition.
Conserv.ltiontillage, n o t i l l ,
crop residue use) and 8
conservation
c r o p p i n gSt’s tern
are
management
soil
t o o l s t o improve
conditioning and Eacilital:e better irrigation on cropland. Crop residues
on the soil surface increitse intake, reduce runoff, and reduce water Lost
by evaporation from the s o i l . surface.
ENG TECH NOTE FL-17
Attachment 1
2 of 2
mtion
SvsrPm
Factors
F-
Conveyance.
Onfarm convey ante s y s t e m l o s s e s a r e d e f i n e d b y t y p e o f
conveyance.
Earthen
ditch
losses
are e s t i m a t e d b a s e d o n
soi L
p e r m e a b i l i t y a n d w a t e r tablt p o s i t i o n .
U-
o f appiication.
The degree of application uniformity
Uniformity
controlling factor in obtair ing desired results from irrigation.
A-
Area wetted.
Percent of root zone wetted affects how effectively crops
utilize the water applied with trickle irrigation.
D-
Delivery
system.
uniformity of water
L-
Land surf ace.
Surface roughness is a very major factor influencing
the
performance of subirrigation
and surface
irrigation
methods.
Laser
Leveling and
land Leveling with proper irrigation Length will
improve
irrigation application, particularly uniformity.
T-
Tailwater.
Percent of
and system operation.
C-
effect.
Climatic
wind speed,
Spray
we B
affects sprinkler evaporation and drift Loss.
Varia tic ns
in pressure
applied in the system.
loss
depends
on
and
system
flow
rates
af feet
is
a
the
design,
percent
recaptured,
humidity
and
temperature
LOCAL CRITERIA
C o n d i t i o n 3 typicai t o y o u r a r e a s h o u l d b e i d e n t i f i e d .
In addition,
identify
condition3 unique to the area or outside normal operations.
For example, open
channels used for conveyance in the muck area will normally not have excessive
seepage
LOSS
although
the p e r m e a b i l i t y o f m u c k m a y b e r a p i d .
The area
normal Ly
has a
high water
table
and
the seepage
Loss
contributes
to
maintaining the water tab Le,
s o a F f a c t o r o f .85 m a y b e a p p r o p r i a t e .
Wind
and evaporation would not affect below canopy sprinklers as greatly as
above
tree canopy sprinklers.
Tailwater f a c t o r i s b a s e d o n p e r c e n t o f w a t e r l o s t a s
tailwater and the percent reused.
Underground ripeline - Sound
UnderSround Pipalinc - Symrcm
Leaks
P o r t a b l e Pipeline
C o n c r e t e L i n e d Chmnelo
Earthen Chmncla i n Soila w i t h :
Vary alov psrmability
Sandy aoil rltb u@ter t a b l e
b e l o w U.C. $1 tt
Slow parmability
Sandy aoil with water t a b l e
baler H.C. from 1 t o 2 f t
Modrratrly rlow parmmbillty
S a n d y roll with water trblr
2 . 0 ft balm > B . C .
Nad~rrrc prrredt; 1; y
Lpld pwwrbility
NOM
farm D e l i v e r y
lhch lirld
None
S o i l ttoiature
sOi1 lfaflturr and S c h e d u l i n g
-
1 .oo
.93
.95
.95
0.83
0.85
0.75
0.65
0 .
-- ._.%
0.25
5
‘.
1 .oo
.9s
.90
.8I
.I5
-m
IhIcontrollcd
Rotation
6
lbd trrq
kd ,.otmC
Arraoged
Fixed d u r a t i o n
ktrictcd
tkmitcd rate
Demand
L i m i t e d rate
Darcrcrictcd
0.70
0.72
0.11
0.76
A
l
Irrigation
..
Canter
l
rprinklrr rpmAnSr which aeat tba praccica rtrdmd
for
Syrtcmr (Coda 442) uy b e rrrumad t o baw a U Pactoc o f 1 .
P
diatrlburioo
C.
0.95
I .oo
1.04
1 .I0
i
v
o
t
uniformicy
rod Lateral-)(ove
D
O
Syateu - 0~ l
o
c
a
l
Spriaklcr
tut data on
- bV.rlrL Ipw U
Avua(, YciSbtad Catch
pfxcd lateral and Periodic-Move
Syereu - S e l e c t Cu2 f r o m Tablas 1 1 - 9 t o
.-12. MS, S e c t i o n 1 5 . Irrigation, Chapter 11. attachad, uoufrcturcr data
ubec l rrllable. o r f r o m local tilt data.
Sared on tha Cu2 aalact tbe
rcprcrentrtiw ralur from f i g 4*.
Subirrltatioo
Spuiat o f
l*trrala
irri(arion
kcomrndcd rp.cinS
lair l
pacinj (1.5 I &e. apacing)
Poor rpreiog ( 2 . 0 x ICC. rpaci.S)
1 .oo
0.0s
0.60
rllll~ll.11
lo11
‘II
SYS1I.H
Gubirrilacion-Crown
Bcdd ins
tlcd
Height
I"
,,1,.,1
I,.,,,.,
I,,,:
,,,,,
I'.,<
4
,,,"
csll
Subirrigation-Crown
lloc4
Tlw required t o f l o o d and
application
depth
Ylood
m
(Inches)
- ILF
IIF
30
24
18
12
I UF
Hed
I .oo
.95
.90
.fl5
Surfre*
Y i d t h (Feet)
<
UP
60
a4
100
blood Time
I .oo
.90
.&I
(Ilra)
drain
the
D r a i n i n g Tim (Hra)
24
36
40
24
36
40
1 .o
0.90
o.ao
!Lhunt
l.eqth o f
Dealgncd
I.5
I
Irrlgatlon
Run
Lcn(th
1 .oo
Demtgned
2.0 x Deslgncd
Length
.a5
L e n g t h
.60
(Pw) P e r c e n t Aree Mettcd
0: CbO root xorm
L S h r u b Ltopn
J O or grc*ccr
40
30
(vcll
20
Ed* Ima, scctioa
PU.
15,
xrrfg~tlon.
d r a i n e d moilr)
tleld
l,tops
a0 or *re*tcr
70
60
1 .oo
.95
.89
SO
Chapter
7 . pa‘.
O n
molta (flatwoodm)
with w.tat table dcptba
wblcb
CapillrrP
rim (upflux) “II A - 1 . 0 0 t o 0.95.
uintrioad.
“8. the above.
Lough
- 0.25
- 0.50
- 0.73
- 1.00
Lava1
- 0.5
Lv*l
Oal forr
Poor
.80
1 .oo
0.95
o.a5
0.7s
2 2 f o r rthodr o f detrrrinitq
prorlda
Ubsrr
water
“.t,r
t
o
cable
pllntr bP
1s
not
rair
Poor
lough
-
1 .oo
0.90
1.0
1.1
2.0
0.10
0.70
1.02
1 .oo
I .o
0.95
0.90
0.95
0.90
0.15
Subirri2rtion
Prrceat o f puk u,. that c.n b e d e l i v e r e d
drily coomidori~ l ffieicacy of rymtco
1001
WI
WI
7OZ
1 .o
0.95
0.90
0.85
No tdlvrtar
reused
tellurter rrurad
TL - recceot
o f vat*; loas .a tallwrt*t minum 5
tl - htcrat tollrrtrr reused l
hur S t 100
TL
l
100
1 - (TL) (12)
Table - 1
Syetem Potential Efficiencies (E)
Sprinkle Irrigation
Percent
Fixed Lateral (SoLid Set)
85
Traveling
67
Gun
Gun
60
Center-Pivot
85
Lateral
87
Move
Periodic Move Lateral
75
Subirrigation
Underground Conduit
85
Open Ditch (Irrigating Later2118 or Furrows)
Crown
FLOW Through
80
Backup
75
Flood
80
Trickle Irrigation
Emitters
85
Point Source Emitters
90
Line Source Emitters
90
Spray
Surface Irrigation
Graded Furrow
80
Level
85
Furrow
-
-_
-.
-
Table 2
Potentirll Evaporation Rate
(Itches per Day)
l.matic Zone of FLorida
ENG TECH NOTE -FL---i;
Attachment 4
1 of I--
-
ENC TECH NOTE--FL-l 7
--Attachment 5
1 of 1
1,
-------111
ON
\
- - - -- NOIlvlu3SNOJ
\
1
------- t33I)NILIYV
h
L
.
o31lwll
Q)
2
----31*&l
:
% - - - - - -
----~otmma
----lNIlOWV
z
---‘03bld
if
Q
Q
032JlYLS3L(
:
+
93x14
a3uoow
,
‘m
031J1Qow
gj
--------NOIl~‘IOM
G”
;------ O3llOMlNO3Nil
m
m
“:
tlOl3Vj -M
z;s
C0
2
W
u
. >
0”
-\
-$
-1
hl II
39*1111
- - - 3 s n 3mf3~
dot15
-
_
ENG TECH NOTE FL-17
-Attachment 6
1 of 1
UPS - Underground Pipeline - Sound
U PL - Underground Pipelice- System Leaks
PP - Portable Pipe
CL - Concrete Linec Channel
Earthen Channels
VS -Very Slow Permeability
WT+Sandy Soil With Water Table Below H.G. I ft. or Less
S -Slow Permeab’ility Soils
WT(I fo2kSandy Soil With Water Table Below H.G. Between 1 and2ft.
MS- Moderately Slow Permeability
WT(2t )-Sandy Soil With Water Table Below HG. 2f t
M-Moderate Permeabiiity
R
-Rapid
Permeability
Fig.30Farm Conveyance Factor (F)
a
0.95
F 0.90.
0
Height of Bed in Inches
Uniformity,
Percent
100
80
60
’
Width of Bed i n Fe&
Fiq.4a-Uniformity
Factor (U) For Sprinkler Irrigation
I
Fiq.4c-Uniformity Factor (U) for Crown Flood
Example: Determine U for Crown Flood with
b e d s o f 2 4 i n c h h e i g h t o n d 80ft. width.
,
HF=0.90
WF=O.91
u~0.90x0.91=0.81
1.00
.90
.I30
.SOY
Poor
Spacing
I
Foir
Spocinq
Irrigation Lateral Spacing
Fig.4b-Uniformity Factor (U) For Subirrigation
-70
.60
2.0x
Dcrigned
Length of
of Run
Run
De$ied
Length of Run
Designed
Length of Run
,4d-Uniformity Factor (U) for Surface Irrigation
/
I
ENG TECK NOTE FL-l.7
-.
-
Attachment-8
1 Qf 1.
Tree And Shrub Crops
45
50
60
65
55
=ield Crops
70
75
80
Percent Area3 Wetted (Pw) of Root Zone
(well drained soil)
Fig.5 A r e a W e t t k d ( A )
1.0.
8
b
2
b
.95~.
.90
.85.,
.t301,
48hrs.
Pressure Variance at Sprinkler Nozzles as a
Percent of Average.
Fig.6a-
Delivery Factoy (D) For Sprinhler
Capacity of Delivery System in Percent of Daily
Peak Use
Fig.6b-Delivery Factor (D) For Subirrigation
36hrs.
24hrs.
F l o o d i n g a n d D r a i n i n g Time in Hours
Fig.6c-Delivery
lrriga t Ion
Factor (D) for Crown Flood
Flow Variation as a Percent of Design Flow
Fig.6d-Delivery
Rate
Factor (D) for Trickle Irrigation
”
zz
K-4
a
$T
c ul .1
.-
ENG TECH NOTE FL-17
-
--
14~tachment 1 0
1 of 1
-
I .oo
CM0
0.77 cr/‘~
o
Rough
0.X
P o o r 050Unifown
:
025
Level
Variation of Natural Ground Along Irrigation
Lateral in f’eet.
Fig.7a-Land
Surface Factor (L) for Subirrigation
I .oo
E
i2
_:
0.85
5 0.70 EY
2.0
Rough
I.“’
Poor
1.0 Fair
.50 Level
:
O
Difference in Elevalion on Crown of Beds in a
Irrigation
Urrt.
Fig.7 I-Land Surface
Fig.Tc-Land Surface Factor (L) for Surface Irrigation
ENG TECH NOTE FL-1 7
Attachment i 1
1 of 1
l.OO-
,
ag 0.75.
I-
\
J” 0 . 5 0
l-
I
I
I
I
o*zwILt
VI
0
IO
20
30
I
I
1
4 0
50
I\1
I
60
Y-L
70
80
90
too
Percent Tailwater Lass and Percent of Tailwater
Loss Reused,
Fig.80Tailwater Factor (T)
T= TL - ( No Tailwater Reused )
T= I - (TLUR) (Tailwater Reused)
E x a m p l e : F o r t y ilercent o f w a t e r a p p l i e d i s tailwater:
7-s TL= 0 . 6 5
Tailwar,er
return system is installed which
reuses 80% of the tailwater now:
T= I- 0-L) O-W= I- (0.65)(0.25)=0.84
ENG TECH NOTE FL-17
Attachment 12
1 of 1
3ZIS 31ZZON
Table 11-9.-A guide to recommended nozzle sizes and pressures with expected average CU values for different application rates and sprinkler spacings under
low wind conditions 10 to 4 mph)
Sprinkler
.__
Spacing
ft x ft
30 x 40
30 x 50
9n v c o
Water application
rate, iph
- - i 0.02 iph
0.10
0.15
0.20
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
3132
30
82
3132
50
83
7164
45
82
l/8
46
83
9164
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu. %
3132
40
83
7104
40
88
118
45
86
9164
50
86
118
9164
Ii/.?:,
Nozzle, inch
Pi bJJUi e, pY1
cu, %
40
88
7164
30
78
l/8
35
82
'
ii:
iii
9164
35
86
118x3132
40 x 40
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
40 x 50
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
5132
35
78
40 X 60
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
6132
50
83
60 X 60
0 25
Operation
Nozzle,
Pressure, psi
cu, %
inch
3116
\
0.30
0.35
0 . 4 0
9164X3132
ii4
6132
40
85
5132
11164
ii:
ii
11/64
50
86
dllb
60
87
5/32X3/32
6132X3/32
ii
2
5132X3132
35
83
6132X3132
45
84
11/64X3/32
ii
ii
11164
60
85
3116
60
86
13i64
50
84
7132
13164
65
88
7132
7132
80
88
1:
5132X118
35
90
'
3116X3132
ii
l/4
88
88
z
cl
I-’ >
Table 11-10.-A guide to recommended nozzle sizes and pressures with expected average CU
under moderate wind conditions (4- 10 mph)
.
Sprinkler
Spacing
vnir~es
for different application rates and sprinkler spacings
t;
I
Water opplicotion rate. iph t 0 02 iph
~_I_I
- 0.10
0.15
0.20
3132
30
82
3132
50
85
7164
45
,85
l/8
psi
9164
45
83
5132
40
84
9164x302
40
85
30 x 50
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu. %
3132
40
70
7&J
40
75
118
45
84
9164
50
84
5132
45
84
11164
45
87
11164
50
85
‘In Y fin
Nozzle. inch
Presq11w rl<i
cu, %
.
118
40
80
9164
45
84
5132
45
84
1 l/64
45
84
3116
45
us
3116
50
9164
35
83
118x3132
5132x3132
35
84
5132x3122
40
87
5132x 118
35
86
5132
35
76
5/32x3/32
35
76
5/32x3132
45
76
11/64x3/32
40
83
3116x3132
40
84
11164
ii;
3116
ii
13164
50
84
7132
50
85
13164
7132
65
83
7132
80
84
68
84
ft x ft
30 x 40
40
x 40
40 x 50
Operation
Nozzle, inch
Pressure,
cu, %
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu. %
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
7164
30
80
l/8
35
83
,
Nozzle, inch
Pressure. psi
cu. %
4132
40 X 60
60 X 60
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
3116
--
%Z
n
L- rr
3
z
I-?
0.25
!!:
60
80
L
65
82
0.35
0.30
0.40
I
Ob
II4
1
Table 11-l 1.-A guide to recommended nozzle sizes and pressures with expected average CU volucs
under high wind conditions (lo-15 mph)
Sprinkler
Spacing
ft x ft
Operation
30 x 40
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, p31
cu, %
30 x 60
30 X 60
Nozzle. inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
for different application rates and sprinkler spacings
Water application rate, iph t 0.02 iph
__~-~I - -.-~~~ ~__l-~
~____
0.10
0.15
0.20
3132
30
75
3132
50
7164
45
80
7164
40
70
Nozzle, inch
Pressure. psi
cu. %
0.25
0.30
_~.- -~-~____-
0.35
0.40
6132
40
5132
45
86
86
11164
55
88
118
9164
80
45
04
45
84
118
46
9164
50
6132
45
81
82
87
11164
60
88
9164
#’
5132
sx
3116
46
84
3116
;;
11/64
45
81
9164
36
82
6132
35
81
1 l/64
35
80
11164
60
86
3116
46
85
6t32
60
78
11164
50
80
3116
60
80
13164
60
82
11164
60
3116
74
'78
13164
60
81
7132
60
82
13164
66
66
7132
65
68
7132
80
80
l/4
68
82
-
50
86
,
118
40 x 40
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu. %
40 x 60
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
5132
40 X 60
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
6132
60
68
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
3116
60
64
60 X 60
36
80
35
77
i
50
I
133--
nZ
0
Table 11-12.-A guide to recommended nozzle sizes and pressures with expected average CU values for different application rates and sprinkler spacings
under extreme wind conditions (15-20 mph1
--___--__
Water application rate. iph -t 0.02 iph
Sprinkler
___.~
Spacing
0.15
0.20
0.25
rt x rt
Operation
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.10
-~______
3132
7164
116
Y/64
Nozzle, inch
5132
5132
3132
30 x 40
Pressure, psi
50
45
45
45
40
45
30
cu, %
69
72
13
75
76
02
85
Nozzle. inch
Pressure, psi
cu. %
118
45
74
9164
50
77
5132
45
80
ht..--,.
L‘V&Lla,,
Pressure. psi
cu, %
9164
45
60
5132
45
65
11164
45
75
40 x 40
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
9164
35
70
5132
35
72
40 x 50
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
5132
35
55
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
5132
50
64
30 x 50
30 X 60
40 X 60
60 X 60
:- .,.
a....,
Nozzle, inch
Pressure, psi
cu, %
c
I
11164
50
81
1 l/64
55
64
11/64
35
76
11164
SO
81
3116
45
84
5132
50
60
61164
50
70
3116
50
75
13164
50
77
11164
60
70
3116
50
73
13164
50
74
7132
50
75
7132
00
66
l/4
68
75
--+3
WFI
;i!
.J
1 ,I
(! I
u.,.;
-
-.
.
-
>.I
.,
^
_
_
_
Attachment 1lbf
-
FL-Trial Form
U.S. Department of Agriculture
" ;I Conservation Service
i/a;
File Code 210-l
FARM
IRRIGATION RATING METnOD
Cooperator:
Identification No.:
Location:
Conservation District:
County :
Fie Ld Office:
Prepared by:
Water Management Distric
D
a
t
e
: Checked by:
Date:
Farm Name/Field No.
Remarks be
Pre:ient Improved Present Improved
POTENTIAL EFFICIENCY (E)
(Table 1)
1
EL- x Svsfpm ELeglenr
ater Conserved
-k-rid -__I____-
I
I
I
I
I
Appendix D
BASE IRRIGATION SYSTEMS BY CROP TYPE
FbGURES 1 THROUGH 10
lo-m-90
AREA: 40 ACRES - 1320’ X 132C,’
TREES: 20’ X 30’ SPACING = 2934 TREES
- 10’ MAIN
- ONE OF EIGHT ZONES
- 10’ MAIN
\
‘2” LATERAL W/5 SPRINKLERS
6 ’ SUBMAIN
60’ X 60’ SPRINKLER SPACING
484 SPRINKLERS/G.1 gpm PER SPRINKLER
8 ZONES/2 SETS
SYSTEM FLOW RATE = 1480 gprl
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1’ = 200’
FIGURE 1
SWFWMD IRRIGAllON STUDY
CITRUS SOLID - SET SPRINKLERS
BASE SYSTEM
AREA: 40 ACRES - 1320’ X 1350’
TREES: 20’ X 30’ SPACING = 2’304 TREES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
/’ 0’
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
ct
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
260’
I
I
TRAVEL LANE -I
260’ TRAVEL LANES/660’ LON(;
TEN SETS
SYSTEM FLOW RATE = 460 gprl
I
I
”
I
I
I
I
I AINUNE
7
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
,
6 ’ SUBMAIN
A
Y
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
0
I
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1’ = 200’
FIGURE 2
SWWMD IRRlGAllON STUDY
CITRUS -vVM#
AREA: 40 ACRES - 1320’ X 1320’
TREES: 20’ X 30’ SPACING = 2904 TREES
WELL
CONTROLS/BACKFLOW
CHEMICAL INJECTION
- VALVES
PREVENTION/
- 8” SUBMAIN
- 8 ’ SUBMAIN
- 6 ’ SUBMAIN
- 4 ” SUBMAIN
- 1’ LATERALS (TYP)
3’ LATERAL
2904 EMITTERS/30 gph EACH
8 ZONES/l SET
SYSTEM FLOW RATE = 1350 gprn
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1’ = 200’
FIGURE 3
SWFWMD IRRIGATION STUDY m
CITRUS MICRO-IRRIGATION
BASE SYSIEM
-_ -. _,.,,
AREA: 10 ACRES
660’ x 660’
BACKFLOW PREVENTION
CHEMICAL INJECTiON
flLlER
8’ MAINUNE
d-
75,000 1 GALLON CON’IAINERS
WITH I4 gph EMIlJERS
10,700 7 GALLON CONTAINERS
WITH 3.5 gph EMITTERS
/)
- 6 ’ SUBMAIN
r\I- LATERALS WITH
75,000 I4 gph EMIllEF:S
8’ MAINLINE
37,500 2 GALLON CONTAINERS
MTH 1 gph EMITTERS
25,000 3 GALLON CONTAINERS
M!lTH 2 gph EMITTERS
I
SECONDARY MESH flLTER
PRESSURE REGULATOR
t SOLENOID VALVE
SECTION
1 GALLON
NUMBER
EMITTE:R
LATERAL
EMITTERS FLOW RATE LENGTH
75,000
l/2 qph
7 5 , 0 0 0 ft
2 GALLON
37,500
1 cJP/i
7 5 . 0 0 0 ft
3 GALLON
25,000
10,700
2 9P’
7 5 , 0 0 0 ft
3 . 5 !iph
7 5 , 0 0 0 ft
7 GALLON
TOTAL
APPROXIMATE SCALE: l-=100’
148,200
FIGURE 4
SWFWhdD IRRIGATION STUDY NURSERY MICRO-IRRIGATION -
10-30-90
AREA: 10 ACRES - 660’ X 660
4 SECTIONS WITH 1 GAL, 2 GAL,
3 GAL, AND 7 GAL CONTAINERS
FwEU
,/-8’ MAIN
-6’ MAIN
4” SUBMAIN
/
2’ LATERAL VhTH
8 SPRINKLERS
40’ X 40’ SPRINKLER SPACING
APPROXIMATE SCALE: 1 == 100’
256 SPRINKLERS TOTAL - 4 SE:CTlONS
64 SPRINKLERS/SECTION Q 2.:3
gpm/SPRINKLER
SYSTEM FLOW RATE = 720 gprn
FIGURE 6 SWFWMD IRRIGATION STUDY m
NURSERY-SPRINKLERS m
BASESYSTEM w
AREA: 60 ACRES - 1320’ X 1980’
rf
v
,-/BEDS
LATERAL DITCH
*
CHECK OlTCH
8’ MAINLINE
+L2=
6’
SUBMAIN
APPROXIMATE SCALE: l-=300
FIGURE 6
SWMMD IRRlGAllON S N D Y w
VEGETABLE/ROW CROPS- B
SEMI-fE=
B
AREA: 60 ACRES - 1320’ X 1980‘
FLUSH VALVE,
/UNE SOURCE
2FRS AL0NG
LATERAL DITCH
c
CHECK DITCH
8’ SUBMAIN
I
I
-0 SECONDARY FILTER
. SOLENOID VALVE
. PRESSURE REGULATOF
l
C
OR CONTROL VALVE
1320’
SCALE” l-=300
FIOURE 7
SWMMD IRRIGAllON STUDY
VEGETABLE
OW CROPS-SEMI-CLOSED
DI P
Cl-l WllH MICRO-IRRIGATION
BASE SYSTEM
AREA: 20 ACRES
MICRO-IRRIGATION
/MAIN
//-
PRIMARY FlLTER
CHEMICAL
INJECTION
l
l
l
SECONDARY FILTER
SECONDARY VALVE
PRESSUREREGULAY-OR
OR
FLOW CENTRAL VALVE
SPRINKLER
MAIN
SPRINKLERLATERALS
FLUSH ‘IALVE-
l&---HLINE SOURCE
EMIT lERS
+ ZING 13fas
MICRO-IRF~IGAllON
SUB-MAIN
SPRINKLERS
E+--
SF RINKLER
Lb TERALS
FIWRE 8
SWIWMD IRRIGATION STUDY m
VEGETABLE
SCALE: 1’ = 200
OW CROP-SOLID SET m
SPRINKLER@TH MlCR~-4R&~2CllO&j B
AREA: 20 ACRES
---LELL
SCALE: 1’ = 200’
L
260’
4
FIGURE 9
SWlWMD IRRIGATION STUDY
VEGETABLE OW CROPVOLUME GU IGRSPRINKLER
BASE SYSTEM
AREA: 20 ACRES - 660’ X 1320’
SCALE: 1’ = 200
FIGURE 10
SWWMD IRRlGATlON STUDY
VEGETABLE
OW CROPS
SPRINKLER SYSl& SOLID SET
BASE SYSTEM