STATE OF UTAH DEPARTHENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Technical...

STATE OF UTAHDEPARTHENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

Technical Publication No. 52

SEEPAGE STUDY OF CANALS IN BEAVER VALLEY,BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH

by

R. W. Cruff and R. W. MowerHydrologists, U.S. Geological Survey

Prepared by. t1,e United States Geological Survey

in cooperation with':::Je i."'::ah DeDartment of Natural Resources

Division of Wdter Rights

1976

Summary . . , . . . . . . , . . . . . . . " • •Referenc~s cited. • • • • •••••Publi~ations of the Utah Department of Natural Resources,

Division of Water Rights ••••••••••••••.•

· . .

. . '" . .

CONTENTS

Abs trac t. . • . . . . . • •Introduction.•...• :Methods of investigation ••Seepage measurements ..••Geohydrology••.•••..Evaluation of canal systems

Manderfield Ditch.Last Chance Canal.Christiansen DitchMammoth Canal •••••.City Ditch • . • • • • .Owens Ditch. • • .• .••..South Field Ditch. • ••••Patterqon Ditch.Aberdare Canal

.." .

. . .

..

· . .

· . .· .

· ,· . .· . .

r • •

Page

113356678899

1010111112

38

ILLUSTRATIONS' ..

Figure 1. Map shmoJing location of canals used in this study. 2

2. Map of MaI\dE:rfie~d Ditch showing measuri~g sites · , · 13

3. Map of Last Chance Canql and Christiansen Ditchshowing measuring sites . . . · · · . · 14

4. Map of Mammoth Canal showing measuring sites 15

5. Map of City Ditch showing measuring sites. · 16

6. Map of Owens Ditch showing measuring sites · 17

7. Map of South Field Ditch showing measuring sitesand observation well. . . . . . . · · . • · · · 18

8. Map of Patterson Ditch showing measuring sites · 19

9. Map of Aberdare Canal showing measuring sites. 20

10. Graphs showing gage height at recorders that hadchange in gage height during seepage run. · . • 21

III

ILLUSTRATIONS ~ Continued

Page

Figure 11. Graphs show~qg gain or loss for reach~s o£ thec ana 1s. . . . ! • • • , ~. • • • • ... 23

12. Hydrograph showing seasonal ~ter~level fluctuationsin an observation well in Beaver Valley, 1974 . . . 27

TABLES

Table 1. Gain or loss determined from seepage measurements forreaches of canal(:l. . . . • • . . • • 28

2. Measurements made on the canals ••

Metric (SI) units

Most numbers are given in this report iq English units followedby metric units in paren~hese~. The cQnversion factors used are:

29

EnglishUnits' , I Abbreviati~q

(Mul tiply) i-

Cubic feetpet" second

(by)

O.0283~

ME:tricUI\i.t,a

(to obj:a:i.ll)

Cubic metresper s,fr0nq

Abbreviationi I

Cubic feet persecond per mile .01760

Cubic metres perse~ond per kilometre (m 3 /s)/km

Feet

M;i1es

ft

mi

.3048

1.609

Metl;'es

Kilometres

m

km

Water temperature is given in degrees Celsius (PC), which can beconverted to degrees Fahrenheit by the following equation:

IV

SEEPAGE STUDY OF CANALS IN BEAVER VALLEY,

BEAVER COUNTY, UTAH

by

R. W. Cruff and R. W. MowerHydro1ogi~t61 U,S. Geo1Qgica1 S~rvey

ABSTRACT

A study of the gains .or los~es of nin~ ca~al~ near l3ea¥er, Utah,was made to aid in the water allocation of the canal systems. Thecanals included in this study are Manderfield Ditch, Last Chance Canal,Christiansen ~itch, Mammoth Canal, City Ditch, Owens Ditch, South FieldDitch, Patt~J;So:q Ditcp~ a~? Abe-rd~r~,C~n{lL Four f)ets of s.eeP'llg~ meq8urements were made during 1974,but flow was observed in all nine canalsonly during the set of measurements made in June. Adjustments for fluctuations in flow in the canals were made from informqtion obtained fromwater-stage re~ofd~ra op~~~te4 ~t ~elect~d location~ along the canalsduring the time of each seepage run.

The canals studied in Beaver Valley have small to moderate gainsor losses. The tota.). avera&e lo~s f,oll' aJ.,J. ( npngaining reaches, whichhave an aggregate length of 21. 2 miles (34.1 kilometres), was 4.8 cubicfeet per second (0.14 cubic metres per second). During the seepage runsan average total of 200.6 cubic feet per second (5.68 cubic metres persecond) entered the nO,~Min;l.n~,reach~s~ ,The ,gB;tning feaches hBV~ anaggregate length bf 4.1 miles (6.6 kilometres). Most of the water thatis lost from canals reappears in lower canals or the Beaver River and:Lts tr ibu tar ies.

INTRODUCTION

This report gives the results of the second of a series of cana1seepage st4dies in Ut;:ah by the u.s. G~olo~ica~ Survey· in ~ooperation

with the Utah Depatt~ent of Natural Resources, Division of Water Rights.The Division of Water Rights, when allocating water along canal systems,needs to know if an individual canal gains or loses water by seepage.It is desirable also to know wrere wate,r is lOjt and ·how much "f the lostwater returns to the stream system downstream. The information is bestobtained by detailed gaging of canals and by a general study of theentire hydrologic system at and near the canals.

This report describes the study of canals in Beaver Valley (fig.1), Beaver County, Utah. The canals included are Manderfield Ditch,Last Chance Canal, Christiansen Ditch, Mammoth Canal, City Ditch, OwenEiDitch, SQuth "ij':t,e.1ld Ditch. PaH~rson Ditcry, ~nd AbEJrdarl'l Canal (see figs.2-9).

1

.~ '~ ,

38"30'-

38"15'-

112"45'

I

I112"45'

Bas e fro m U. ~. Ge 0 log i:c.a ISurvey 1:250,000 serie's:'Richfield,1958 0 1 2 3 t 5 6 MILES

f-T--Lr-+-r-L'rl---.,>-.-~01 23456 KILOMETRES

CONTOUR INTERVAL 200 FEET (60 METRES)DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

R.6W.

.. '

112 "30'

I

T.27S.

T.28S.

--38"15'

Figure r.-Ma~ sh~wlng 16cation of c~nal~ used in this study.

u .. ; ,·',ti

2

The canal-seepag~ study was made concurrently with a generalhydrologic study of Beaver Valley, the results of which will be published separately. Data obtained for the more comprehensive study werefreely used to assist in the preparation of this report.

METHODS OF INVESTIGATION

A reconnaissance was made of all canals in the valley during thefall of 1973. The following items were determined: locations of maincanal controls, turnouts, and return flow channels; the nature of therocks in which the canals are cut; the nature of vegetation above andbelow the canals; and the land use above and below the canals.

Using the information from the reconnaissance, reaches of ninecanals were selected and measuring sites were located within each reach.The reaches were selected to represent typical geologic and hydrologicconditions at the various canals. The reaches selected were betweensites Ml and M2 and sites M3 and M7 on Manderfield Ditch (fig. 2), between sites Ll and L2 on Last Chance Canal (fig. 3), between sites Mland M5 on Christiansen Ditch (fig. 3), between sites Ml and M7 on Mammoth Cqnal (fig. 4), between sites Ml and M6 on City Ditch (fig. 5),between sites Ml and M7 on Owens Ditch (fig. 6), between sites Ml and M8on South Field Ditch (fig. 7), between sites Ml and M7 on PattersonDitch (fig. 8), and between sites Ml and M7 on Aberdare Canal (fig. 9).

Four sets of seepage measurements were made during 1974, coveringthe periods April 30 to May 2, J4ne 10-13, August 5-7, and September 24and 25. F~ow was observed in a~l nine canals only during the June setof measurements; therefor~, the number of sets of seepage measurementsavailable for any given canal varies from one to four. Measurementswere ~de in each canal at most of the selected measuring sites,turnouts, and inflow points. Figures 2-9 show the sites where measurements were made and the turnouts and inflow points that had flow duringat least one of the sets of seepage measurements. The date and time ofmeasure~ent, the discharge of each measurement, and the temperature andspecific conductivity of the water at some of the measurement sites aregiven in table 2.

Stage recorders were installed at the head of each canal exceptChristiansen Ditch. The latter was monitored by a recorder that wasinstalled at site L2 on Last Chance Canal, about 300 ft (90 m) upstreamfrom the head of Christiansen Ditch (fig. 3). In addition, continuouswater-stage records were obtained at the head of each principal reach.The water-stage records for those sites that had changes in stage duringthe seepage runs are shown in figure 10.

SEEPAGE MEASUREMENTS

The results, expressed in gain orgiven in table 1. The procedures useddescribed in the following pageq.

3

loss along theto obtain these

canals,results

areare

A computation was made of the flow that would be expected at eachmain canal measuring site, assuming no losses or gains. Beginning withthe flow at the head of each reach and proceeding in a downstreamsequence, all turnout flows were subtracted and all measured or estimated inflows were added. The computed flow at each downstream site wasadjusted for fluctuations which originated above the reach beinganalyzed. Information required to make this adjustment is the change inflow with time at the head of the reach, the time of measurements at thehead of the reach and the downstream measuring site, the distancebetween the head of the reach and the downstream site, and the velocitythat the water moves downstream.

The change in flow with time at the head of the reach was determined from the recorded stage and the discharge measurements at the headof the reach. The times of the two measurements are available fromtable 2. The distance between sites was determined from figures 2-9.The velocity at which the water would be expected to travel downstreamwas determined from the equation for controlled channel reachespresented by Boning (1974).

As an example, assume that the measurement at the head of thereach was 20.0 ft 3 /s (0.57 m3 /s) at 0800 hours, the measurement at thedownstream measuring site was made at 1000 hours, the discharge at thehead of the canal was dropping at the rate of 0.5 ft 3 /s (0.01 m3 /s) perhour, the estimated travel velocity was 1 ft/s (0.3 m/s), and thedistance between the two points was 3,600 ft (1,100 m). The travel timewould be the dis tance divided by the veloc ity:

3,600 ft (1,100 m) -;-1 ft/s (0.3 m/s) = 3,600 seconds or 1 hour.

To make the adjustment, the travel time is subtracted from the time ofthe downstream measurement (1000 hours - 1 hour = 0900 hours) to· give acomparable time for flow at the head of the canal. From the water-stagerecords and the measurements available for the head of the canal, theflow at 0900 hours was calculated as 19.5 ft 3 /s (0.55 m3 /s), or anadjustment of -0.5 ft 3 /s (0.01 m3 /s). This adjustment was then appliedto the computed value of the downstream measuring site.

The computed value was then subtracted from the measured value todetermine the amount of gain or loss between the head of the canal andthe downstream measuring site. The amount of gain or loss was thenplotted as a function of distance downstream from the canal head. Thiswas done for each main canal measuring site for each set ofmeasurements.

Depending on the rate of gain or loss shown on tnese plots, or ifthe plotted points showed large amounts of scatter, or if an inflow orturnout was not readily measurable and a main canal measurement had tobe made above and below the site, some of the canals were segmented intoshorter reaches. The data for each of the newly defined shorter reacheswere then plotted in figure 11, with the gain or loss at each main canalmeasuring site plotted as a function of distance from the head of thereach. A straight line was fitted through the plotted points for each

4

reach, and the amount and rate of gain or loss from the reach wasdetermined from this line. The amount and rate of gain or loss by reachare shown in table 1.

Within a given reach, the amount of gain or loss varied in eachset of seepage measurements and among the several sets of measurements.This variation is shown by the scatter of the plotted points in figure11. The scatter is attributed to one or more of the following: poormeasuring conditions, changes in the rate of seepage loss from thecanal, changes in the rate of seepage return to the canal of ground andirrigation water, undetected overland flow from nearby irrigated fields,and the inability to adjust completely for fluctuations in the amount offlow within a given reach. At City Ditch, reach Ml-M2, and AberdareCanal, reach M3-M5, the scatter was so large that there was no justification for drawing an average line. For these two reaches, a maximumand a minimum line were drawn and the values noted as such in table 1.

No results are presented for reach M3-M4 on Christiansen Ditch,reach M2-M4 on Mammoth Canal, and reach M5-M6 on Patterson Ditch. SitesM3 and M4 on Christiansen Ditch are above and below a turnout, respectively; thus, the flow of the turnout would be equal to the differencein the two measurements. Only one set of seepage measurements wasavailable for reach M2-M4 on Mammoth Canal, and these measurements werebelieved to be erroneous. The walls in reach M5-M6 on Patterson Ditchhad a number of small breaks that were leaking; but the leaks were notmeasurable.

GEOHYDROLOGY

The irrigated part of Beaver Valley is underlain by valley fill,which has been derived largely from erosion of the nearby highlands.The valley fill attains thicknesses of several hundred feet, and it maybe divided into three general units on the basis of age and permeability.

The oldest material probably is part of the Sevier River Formation of Tertiary and Quaternary age, which has been mapped in detail ina small section of the northern part of the study area by Callaghan andParker (1961) and by reconnaissance methods at other places in BeaverValley (Stokes, 1964). Most exposures in the study area are of a finegrained semiconsolidated material that appears to have relatively lowpermeability.

The next youngest material forms terraces a ,few tens to a fewhundred feet above the general level of the valley. It is older alluvium of Quaternary age. The upper surface, except for a few inches ofsoil in most places, consists of as much as 25 ft (7.6 m) of well-cemented coarse gravel, which is generally underlain by an undeterminedthickness of loosely cemented finer grained valley fill. The permeability of the older alluvium is probably only slightly greater than thatof the Sevier River Formation.

5

The youngest material covers the main floor of Beaver Valley to adepth of less than 200 ft (60 m) in most places. This younger alluviumof Holocene age is mainly unconsolidated sand and gravel with somediscontinuous interbedded unconsolidated to loosely consolidated beds ofclay and silt, overlain with a mantle of soil generally less than 2 ft(0.6 m) thick. The relative permeability ranges from low for the siltand clay to high for the gravel.

Most of the canals and irrigated farmlands are on the youngeralluvium, although there is a moderate amount of farming on soils derived from the older alluvial terraces. Only a few miles of canal and asmall amount of irrigated land are on the Sevier River Formation.

Much of the unconsumed irrigation water seeps to the underlyingground-water reservoir, and water levels rise rapidly in the spring.After peak streamflow and maximum diversions for irrigation, usually inlate June or early July, water levels decline as the ground water moveslaterally and is intercepted by the lower-lying Beaver River and itstributaries, canals, ditches, and topographically low areas. For thisreason, some canals and other streams may lose water at certain times ofthe year and gain water at other times.

EVALUATION OF CANAL SYSTEMS

Most canals that were studied in Beaver Valley have small tomoderate gains or losses. The total average loss for all nongainingreaches, which have an aggregate length of 21.2 mi (34.1 km) during the1974 seepage runs was 4.8 ft 3 /s (0.14 m3 /s) (table 1), and the averageunit loss "~s 0.23 (ft 3 /s)/mi or 0.004 (m 3 /s)/km. During the seepageruns an average total of 200.6 ft 3 /s (5.68 m3 /s) entered the nongainingreaches, thus the loss was only 2.4 percent of the available water.

Four canals in Beaver Valley were observedthe 1974 seepage runs. The gaining reaches have4.1 mi (6.6 km), but data are insufficient withmeaningful average.

to gain water duringan aggregate length of

which to compute a

Most of the water that is lost from canals reappears in lowercanals or the Beaver River and its tributaries, thus once again becomingavailable for diversion for irrigation. Practically all the remainderis consumed by evapotranspiration in native pastures. The amount ofwater that returns to canals or the Beaver River and its tributariesversus the amount consumed in pastures is not known.

Manderfield Ditch

Manderfield Ditch diverts from the right bank of Indian Creek inthe SW~ sec. 25, T. 27 S., R. 7 W. (fig. 2), and has a capacity of about20 ft 3/s (0.6 m3/s) at the head. Reach M1-M2 of Manderfie1d Ditch isconstructed in older alluvium, consisting of loosely cemented gravel.This material has low permeability when dry, and it becomes even lesspermeable as water is turned into the canal during the irrigationseason. This may account for the slight apparent loss at the beginning

6

and none thereafter. There is nothis reach, thus the small apparent

may be due to measurement error.gain or loss in this reach.

of the irrigation season in Aprilevidence of ground-water inflow ingains in June, August, and SeptemberFor all practical purposes there is no

Reach M3-M7 of Manderfield Ditch is constructed in younger alluvium derived mainly from the underlying older alluvium. The younger alluvium consists of silty to gravelly materials which have low permeability when wet. This accounts for the relatively low rate of loss duringthe last three seepage runs.

Last Chance Canal

Last Chance Canal diverts from the right bank of North Creek inthe SW~ sec. 29, T. 28 S., R. 6 W. (fig. 3), and has a capacity of about30 ft 3 /s (0.8 m3 /s) at the head. The first 2,300 ft (700 m) of thecanal downstream from site Ll is constructed in younger alluvium. Theremaining 2,000 ft (610 m) of the canal to site L2 is constructed inolder alluvium.

The younger alluvium is mainly sandy to coarse gravel, whichunder natural conditions probably has moderately high permeability. Thematerials along the bed of the canal have become relatively impermeable,however, because of silting and compaction during many decades of use.

The older alluvium is mainly moderately cemented gravel which,where unweathered, has extremely low permeability. In places where theolder alluvium is weathered, it has high permeability. Silting andcompaction in the canal during many decades, however, has resulted inthe older alluvium becoming relatively impermeable also.

The section of the canal that is underlain by older alluvium hasshown evidence of at least intermittent leakage. On }my 7, 1975, numerous seeps were observed just below the canal bed with discharge ratesof as much as 0.01 ft 3 /s (0.0003 m3 /s). The numerous cottonwoods on thehillside below the canal also suggest appreciable seepage from thecanal. Moist soil areas on the hillside below the canal from about 100to 500 ft (30 to 150 m) upstream from site L2 were also evident. Aconsiderable amount of ground water is being discharged in marshy areasat the foot of the hill below the canal. The geology and topographysuggests that the source of the marsh water is canal seepage.

The bed of the canal had been disturbed by cleaning prior to receiving water in the spring of 1975, an operation that probably is notdone every year. This may account for the losses visibly observed inMay 1975. Silting of the canal bed between cleaning operations probablygreatly reduces the rate of seepage from the canal. This was furtherindicated on June 2, 1975, when an inspection of this subreach revealedthat no water was flowing from any of the seep areas observed during theinspection on May 7. Also, the only moist soil observed was at the siteof the largest seep observed on May 7.

7

Christiansen Ditch

Christiansen Ditch is the leftmost channel of a four-way split ofthe Last Chance Canal near the center of sec. 30, T. 28 S., R. 6 w.(fig. 3), and has a capacity of about 10 ft 3 /s (0.3 m3 /s) at the head.Reach Ml-M3 of Christiansen Ditch is construc ted in older alluvium orshallow soils derived therefrom on Last Chance Bench. Seepage runs inMay and June 1974 show average losses of 0.7 ft 3 /s (0.02 m3/s) (seetable 1 and fig. 11). Losses were greatest in May due to the largerflow and probably because water had been in the ditch for only a fewdays.

Reach M4-MS runs along the foot of Last Chance Bench and is constructed in younger alluvium derived from the older alluvium of LastChance Bench. Seepage runs in May and June 1974 show average losses of0.2 ft 3 /s (0.006 m3 /s) (see table 1 and fig. 11). Losses were greatestin May due to the much larger flow and probably because water had beenin the ditch for only a few days. The unit loss in both reaches MI-M3and M4-MS is 0.3 (ft 3 /s)/mi or 0.01 (m 3 /s)/km (table 1).

Mammoth Canal

Mammoth Canal diverts from the right bank of the Beaver River inthe SW~ sec. 18, T. 29 S., R. 6 W. (fig. 4), and has a capacity of about120 ft 3 /s 0.4 m3 /s) at the head. Reach Hl-M2 of Hammoth Canal isconstructed in older alluvium and runs from the base of a terrace atsite Ml to a point about midway up the terrace at site H2. The materials are loosely to moderately cemented sandy gravel to coarse gravel, except for small local areas where the material has been weatheredand reworked to form a thin mantle of younger alluvium. The unweatheredalluvium probably has extremely low permeability, and the weatheredalluvium has low to moderate permeability. The materials in the bed ofthe canal have become relatively impermeable, however, because ofsilting and compaction during many decades of use.

Seepage runs inAlthough the magnitudecuracy of the measuringthickets of willows and

August and September 1974 showed small losses.of the measured loss is within the degree of acdevices, losses along the reach are confirmed byareas of moist soil below the canal.

Reach M4-M6 is constructed in older alluvium, and bed conditionsare the same as in reach Ml-M2. The seepage run in June suggests aslight gain; but as there is no source of inflow above the canal, theapparent gain is probably due to instrument error or undetected fluctuating flow rates in the reach. There are no wet areas, water-lovingvegetation, or other visible indications of loss below the canal.

Reach H6-M7 is constructed in younger alluvium; consequently, thepermeability of the canal bed and the loss due to seepage are potentially large. A seepage run in June 1974 showed a loss of 0.96 ft 3 /s(0.027 m3 /s). The canal was cleaned in the spring of 1974, however, andthe seepage rate observed in June probably diminished as time elapsed.

8

City Ditch

City Ditch heads in the N~ sec. 23, T. 29 S., R. 7 W. (fig. 5),and has a capacity of about 60 ft 3 /s (1.7 m3 /s) at the head. It receives water from the Beaver River and (or) the Mammoth Canal. CityDitch is constructed in younger alluvium consisting of a mantle of sandyor gravelly soil generally less than 1 ft (0.3 m) thick underlain by asmuch as 200 ft (60 m) of unconsolidated sand and gravel. The permeability of the soil mantle in its undisturbed state probably ranges frommoderate to high. The permeability of the bed materials of the canalhas decreased, however, owing to silting and calcareous deposits.

Seepage measurements show a gain in reach Ml-H2. The gain, however, is not from ground-water inflow because the canal is above thewater table. The gain may represent undetected direct surface runofffrom adjacent fields, undetected change of diversion rates, measurementerror, or a combination of all three.

Seepage measurements suggest that the amount of gain or loss isinsignificant in reach M2-M6. The small gains or losses observed inthis reach may result from the same factors described in the precedingparagraph.

Owens Ditch

Owens Ditch diverts from the left bank of the Beaver River in theSW~ sec. 18, T. 29 S., R. 6 W. (fig. 6) and has a capacity of about 20ft 3 /s (0.6 m3 /s) at the head. Reach Ml-M7 of Owens Ditch runs from thebase of a terrace at site Ml, near the diversion from the Beaver River,to the top of the terrace at site M5, from whence it runs across theterrace and drops about halfway down the opposite side at site M7. Itis constructed in older alluvium; and the materials are loosely tomoderately cemented sandy gravel to coarse gravel, except for smalllocal areas where there is a mantle of sandy or gravelly soil about 12 ft (0.3-0.6 m) thick that has been derived from the older alluvium.The unweathered alluvium and the soil probably have low permeability.The materials in the bed of the canal have become relatively impermeable, however, through silting and compaction during many decades ofuse.

The seepage runs showed a loss of 1.3 ft 3 /s (0.037 m3 /s) or almost 20 percent of the diverted water (fig. 11). The rate of loss permile of ditch, however, was only 0.3 (ft 3 /s)/mi or 0.005 (m 3 /s)/km.

A few intermittent wet areas were observed below Owens Ditch.The leakage is probably through burrow holes of rodents in the ditchbed. Phreatophytes were not observed in these areas; thus, it is assumed that the rodent holes are periodically sealed by silting or caving, resulting in intermittent leakage. Above site M4, small patches ofcottonwood were observed below the ditch, an indication of a permanentleaky section.

9

South Field Ditch

South Field Ditch diverts from the left bank of the Beaver Riverin the SE~ sec. 22, T. 29 5., R. 7 W. (fig. 7) and has a capacity ofabout 10 ft 3 /s (0.3 m3 /s) at the head. All of South Field Ditch isconstructed in younger alluvium consisting of a mantle of sandy loamsoil, probably at least 2 ft (0.6 m) thick at most places, underlain byas much as 200 ft (60 m) of unconsolidated sand and gravel. The bottomof the ditch probably is in the soil mantle along its full length. Thepermeability of the soil and ditch bed is probably low to moderate. Thebed is cleaned every year, thus preventing a reduction of permeabilityby silting.

The water table is above the ditch bed at all times in the general area of reaches M4-M5 and M7-M8. The water table is above theditch bed during the irrigation season in about three-quarters of theentire canal. A hydro graph for an observation well about 100 ft (30 m)east of the approximate mid-point of reach ~15-M6 shows that in 1974 thewater table rose rapidly from April 5-27, then rose slowly from April 28to July 12, then declined slowly through the remainder of the year (fig.12). This ground-water inflow is the reason for the general gain inSouth Field Ditch from spring to early fall.

Pa tterson Ditch

Patterson Ditch diverts from the left bank of the Beaver Rivernear the center of sec. 29, T. 29 S., R. 7 W. (fig. 8) and has a capacity of about 20 ft 3 Is (0.6 m3 Is) at the head. All of Patterson Ditch isconstructed in younger alluvium overlain by a mantle of sandy loam soil,probably at least 2 ft (0.6 m) thick at most places in reach Ml-M5, butless than 2 ft (0.6 m) thick in reach M5-M7. As much as 200 ft (60 m)of unconsolidated materials, ranging from clay to boulders, underliesthis mantle. The bottom of the ditch probably is in the soil mantlethroughout its full length. The permeability of the soil and ditch bedis probably low to moderate. Drastic disturbance during cleaningoperations prevents sealing of the ditch bed.

The ditch bed lies below the water table at intermittent intervals throughout its length, and these intervals expand and contract withthe rise and fall of the water table that corresponds approximately withthe fluctuations shown by the hydrograph of the observation well infigure 12. When the water table is at its highest level, usually inlate June or early July, probably more than 90 percent of the length ofthe ditch is below the water table; but when the water table is at itslowest level, usually in March or early April, probably less than 50percent is below the water table. An analysis of the seepage-runmeasurements suggests a balance between gain and loss in the ditch, butbecause of poor measuring conditions, an absolute conclusion cannot bedetermined. The ditch probably has a net gain during certain periods ofthe year, however, as suggested for the August seepage run by anincrease in specific conductance of the water at downstream sites (table2) •

10

Aberdare Canal

Aberdare Canal diverts from the left bank of the Beaver River inthe NE~ sec. 35, T. 29 S., R. 8 W. (fig. 9) and has a capacity of about20 ft 3 /s (0.6 m3 /s) at the head. All of the Aberdare Canal isconstructed in younger alluvium, overlain by a sandy to gravelly soilmantle, probably less than 2 ft (0.6 m) thick in most places. Unconsolidated materials ranging from clay to coarse gravel and having athickness of 0-100 ft (0-30 m) underlie most of the mantle. There maybe short reaches where the soil is underlain by semiconsolidated clay tofine gravel. The permeability of the ditch bed is probably low in reachMI-M3 and extremely low in reach M3-tt7.

The ditch bed lies below the water table at intermittent shortintervals in the reach from Ml to perhaps 0.2S mi (0.4 km) downstreamfrom M2. Farther downstream, the bed is believed to be above the watertable at all times. Occasionally during the irrigation season, however,water may be perched locally beneath fields along the upper side of thecanal where the semiconsolidated clay and gravel are at shallow depths.

Aberdare Canal gained in each reach between sites Ml and MS dur-ing the June seepage run, and it gained in reach Ml-M2 during all threeseepage runs. The gains in reach M2-tIS probably are largely from shallow perched bodies of ground water beneath the adjacent fields at a timewhen irrigation diversions were at a peak.

SUMMARY

The gains or losses determined for nine canals studied in BeaverValley were small to moderate. The aggregate length of the canals was25.3 mi (40.7 km), of which only 4.1 mi (6.6 km) showed gains. Thenongaining reaches had an aggregate length of 21.2 mi (34.1 km), with anaverage total flow of 200.6 ft 3 /s (5.68 m3 /s) entering the reaches. Theaverage loss for the nongaining reaches was 4.8 ft 3 /s (0.14 m3 /s); thus,the average unit loss was 0.23 (ft 3 /s)/mi or 0.004 (m 3 /s)/km.

11

REFERENCES CITED

Boning, C. W., 1974, Generalization of stream travel ratession characteristics from time-of-travel measurements:Survey Jour. Research, v. 2, no. 4, p. 495-499.

and disperU.S. Geol.

Callaghan, Eugene, and Parker, R. L., 1961, Geologic map of part of theBeaver quadrangle, Utah: U.S. Geol. Survey Mineral Inv. Field Studies Map MF-202.

Stokes, W. L., ed., 1964, Geologic map of Utah: Utah Univ.

12

III,'/

MILE

12

~I I

'. /r-*EXPLANATION

Canal measuring sitemeasured during at

least one seepage run

Diversion turnout fromcanal with flow muring

at least one seepage run

I I.5 1 KILOMETRE

CONTOUR INTERVAL BO FEET (24 METRES)DOTTED LINE REPRESENTS 40-FOOT (12-METRE) CONTOUR

DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

Base from U.S. Geological Surveytopographic quadrangle: Beaver, 1958

Figure 2.-Map of Manderfield Ditch showing measuring sites.

13

EXPLANATIONCanal measuring site

measured during atleast one seepage run

/ Diversion turnout from~ canal with flow during

11 at least one seepage run

M3.L1

t-'+:-

Base from U.S. Geological Surveytopographic Quadrangle: Beaver,195 B

o ~ 1 MI LEI I I I II I jo .5 1 KILOMETRE

CONTOUR INTERVAL BO FEET (24 METRES)DDTTED LINE REPRESENTS 40-FOOT (12·METRE) CONTOUR


Figure 3.- Map of Last Chance Canal and Christiansen Ditch showingmeasu ring sites.

Base from U.S. GeologicalSurvey lopograph ic quad-rangle: Beaver, 1958

o ~ MILEI 'I----l-~_-,--I--------'o .5 1 KILOMETRE

CONTOUR INTERVAL 80 FEET (24 METRES)OOTTEO LINE REPRESENTS 40-FOOT (12-METRE) CONTOUR




EXPLANATION

TI~Diversion turnout fromcanal with flow during


Figure ~.-Map ot Mammoth Canal showing measuring sites.

15

Diversion turnout fromTI~ canal with flow during


.....0\

Base from U.S. Geological Surveytopographic Quadrangle: Beaver,1958

o ~ 1 MI LEI I I II I 'I I I I f

o .5 1 KILOMETRECONTOUR INTERVAL 80 FEET (24 METRES)

OOTTEO LINE REPRESENTS 40-FOOT (12-METRE) CONTOUROATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

MI-



Figure 5.-Map of City Ditch showing measuring sites.

')!, .\: ,,", /~(. '

/"

Base from U.S. GeologicalSurvey topographic Quad-rangle: Beaver, 1958

MILE



Diversion turnout fromcanal with flow during


Return flow site to thecanal with flow during


.5 1 KILOMETRECONTOUR INTERVAL 80 FEET (24 METRES)

OOTTEO LINE REPRESENTS 40-FOOT (12-METRE) CONTOURDATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEt

Figure G.-Map of Owens Ditch showing measuring sites.

17

• 7

t-'co

M8 M7

EXPLANATIONC4nal measuring site

-M3 measured during atleast one seepage run

i rTI Diversion turnout from~ canal with flow during


r' RI Return flow site to the;-- cana~ with flow during


• Observation well

Base from U.S. Geological 1) ~ 1 MILESurvey topographic Quad... I i I, I' I 'I I I I I

rangles: lleaver, 1958 1) .5 1 KILOMETRECONTOUR INTERVAL 80 FEET (24 METRES)

OOTTEO LINE REPRESENTS 40-FODT (12-METRE) CONTOUROATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

Figure 7.-Map of South Field Ditch showing measuring sites andobservation well.

Base from U.S. GeologicalSurvey lopographl C Quad.rangle: Beaver, 1958

EXPLANATIONCanal measuring sitemeasured during at


o ~ MILEf· 'I " ' -,----------'o .5 1 KILOMETRE

CONTOUR INTERVAL 80 FEET (24 METRES)DOTTED LINE REPRESENTS 4D·FOOT (12·METRE) CONTOUR






Figure 8.- Map of Patterson Ditch showing measuring sites.

19

,~I. -·RI

R2






at least one seepage run~

.M3

~

J2

CANALR~

No

Base from U.S. Geological Surveytopographic quadrangles; Adamsville, 1958; Minersville. 1958;Greenville. 1971; and 8eaver. 1958

o ~ 1 MILEI! !, II I I (

o .5 1 KILOMETRECONTOUR INTERVAL 80 FEET (24 METRES)

DOTTED LINE REPRESENTS 40-FDOT (12-METRE) CONTOURDATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL

Figure 9.-Map of Aberdare Canal showing measuring sites.

5-2-7~Site L2

Site M3Manderfield Ditch

Last Chance Canal

4. 1 Maod~'~::~:~ ~;:e.,1 6~;:-" ,I ~l,'"

jI __~ ._-----Jl.35

4.4,.---- I

4. 5

4.0 f---------

3. 9

4.6...............z 4.5 f---------

Last Chance Can alSi te L2~

6-13-n1.40",....

a:........::£

....;:; 1. 7 Mammoth Canal Site M2 6-13-7~

O. 5 ~

....x....'" 1. 6c

'" l....'"c'"

1.5 f-------------------------------------j

O. 3

Mammoth Canal Site M~ 6-13-7~

O. 2

o.05

O. 11-----------------------

4.8

~ 1. 45

4 . 7City Ditch Site MI 5-1-7~

4.61 . 40

4.50L __-"-__---L_ -+--t-----fo---12--~4-__f6--~8--;O----,'21-2-----,'24

HOUR

Figure IO.-Gage height at recorders that had change in gage heightduring seepage run.

21

4.6 - City Ditch

T

Si te MI

4.5 f--------------------------- --._----. -----------------~

4. 2

1 . 25

0.3

0.3

- O. 30

z:

enw

'"- . O. 15:;;:IE

o. 2

....:c

- O. I 0 ~_______----1 w

:r

8-G-7q

Site MI

G-II-7q

Site MI

Site MI

Site MI

Aberdare Canal

City Ditch Site MI~-----------

South Field Ditch

Aberdare Canal

Patterson Ditch

-\._---_._---~

Aberdare Canal Site MI 8-6-7q ~---

City Ditch Site MI 9-25-7q-----------~~---~--------

f-.---------------

f--------------._------------.--------------------I

f----------------------- ----- - --------- ---------

f-------------------------------------

South Field Ditch Site MI 9-2q-7q

f--------------------------~--===

f------- ---~---:---=-----""------""'=:-=..:.---:::::.......---------____I

f-----------------------------------------------------l

f---------------------------\-----.l -10

•

25

4.1

4.0

3.9

3 . 0

2.9

1.1

1 .0

O. 9....w O. 5w~

• O. 4....:c

'"w:c O. 3w

'"...'" 0.2

1 • 0

O. 9

o. 8

1 .0

0.9

O. 8

O. 7

0.6

O. 5

___---.L__--L .l __. _Lo 246 B

Figure 10.- Continued.

L 11 0 1 2

HOU R

22

1 41

1 5

_1 L1 6 20

-l_:22 24

z

'":::>u

a:c

cZC

'"'...en

a:...<L

en...a:.......:E

enenc...

L-.L...l..._.._.L.'-__ -0. 0252 4 6 8

Manderl ie Id Oi tch (M3-M7)

EXPLANATION• Point from which change was computed• Seepage run of April and May 1974o Seepage run of June 1974• Seepage run of August 197~

6 Seepage run of September 197~

L2I

LII

Last Chance Canal (Ll-L2)

Manderl ield Ditch (Ml-M2)

MI M2 M3 M~ M5 M6 M7I I I I I I I

DISTANCE, IN THOUSANDS OF ME TRES0 0 I

+1 -~--r- -1+ 0 . 025 +2 - '1--'+0.050

J.,"•

+ 1

• +0.025

1

-I ~_L~.0 2 4

,} ::1'"'"_,=. _-1-0.025o 2 4 6

z

'":::>'"'

'"c

'"...<L

czc

'"'...en

enenc...

c

'"MII

M2I

M3I

M~

IM5I

z:c

'"

3--r--'I

8 1 0 1 2DISTANCE, IN THOUSANDS OF FEET

+0.025

o•

=- -:----_-'--..J- 0 . 0254

+I~O_,1

!

o -

-~-I L ---1 •

o 2

Christensen Ditch (Ml-M3) Christensen Ditch (M4-M5)

Figure II.-Gain or loss for reaches of the canals.

23

MII

M2I

+0.025

DISTANCE, IN THOUSANDS OF METRES+ ,0 , 2

-1 L-__-'--_--L---'- L--'__--'- 0 . 025o 8

EXPLANATION• Point from which change was computed• Seepage run of April and May 197~

o Seepage run of June 197~

• Seepage run of August 197~

6 Seepage run of September 197~

Mammoth Canal (M' - M2 )

00 zz 00 '-''-'

M~ M5 M6 '"'" '"'" I I I '"'" '"'" ........

+:r

2· 3 '"..... '"'" I I 'I -l+0.025 '"'" ........0

Lm'"::IE.. 0

::> ..'-' :::>

'-'

z

- ,f- d'" 0 10 I 2'" '"0

'"-' 0

-''" Mammoth Canal (M4·M6)0

'"0zc

z

'" c

'"M6 M7I I

+ 10

+0.025

-1 -0.025o 2 4 6DISTANCE, IN THOUSANDS OF FEET

Mammoth Canal (MB-M7)

Figure II.-Continued.

24

cz

'"uw

'"

Ml M2 M2 M3 Mij t.fi M6I I 1 I I I 1

DISTANCE, IN THOUSANDS OF METRES

+ 60 0 1 2 3\ +2 r -T I ---rT T- ---I

l+0.150+0.050

+4 +1 +0.025

0 u .u

~ 0 . 75

+2I',

...-1

[', ... -0.025u

'"z'"uw

'"

City Ditch (MI.M2) 0.050

<D::>u

z

.- 3-0.075

<D::>u

z

City Ditch (M2.M6)'"'"'"...la:

'"z

MII

M2I

M31

MijI

M5I

M6I

M7I

'"'"'"...la:

'"z

0.0-===-_,---_ I 2 3 4 5 6

--roT---T~·- -,- 'I-~ --,- - -\' -: "-1-: ""__L-_-"-__L L_.L L __ L __----L....-l.---.l . _LJ L _~_~ - 0 . 050

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22DISTANCE, IN THOUSANDS OF FEET

Owens Ditch (MI·M7)

-I --

-2o

EXPLANATION• Point from which change was computed• Seepage run of April and May 197ijo Seepage run of June 197ij• Seepage run of August 197~

6 Seepage run of September 197ij

Figure 11.- Continued.

25

MI M2 M3 ~ M5 M6 M7 M8I I I I I I I

OISTANCE, IN THOUSANOS OF METRES

+2

f~~- 1 2 3

T-T r TT ~TI to. 0500 EXPLANATION

• [',

• • Point from which change was computed+1 . Seepage run of April and May 19711-

0 Seepage run of June 19711-[', • Seepage run of August 19711-. [, Seepage run of September 19711-

0 •-10-~-

l-~J __ _L, . _J1 -0.0252 4 6 I 0 1 2

South Fie Id Oitch (Ml-MB)

MI M2I I

+29

cz +1 l-- 00c..>wen

'" •w0..

l- •WW...

I- 10 2

M3 M3I I

-

•

MIlI

•

M5I

M6I

M7I

o

•

+0.050

+0.025

-0. 025B

cZo'c..>wen

Patterson Oi tch (MB-M7)-0.050

'"::> Patterson Oitchc..>

z(Ml-M3)

--L-L- I-2 I I

0 2 4 Ben Patterson oi t c h (M3-M5 )en0....

MI M2 M3'" I I I0

z....

+20~

I I+0.050

+1 0+0.025

0[,

0 _L_~__.L_L__0 2 4 6 B

Aberdare Canal (M 1 - M2 and M2-M3 )

M3I

+1

M4I

o

M5I

+0.075

+0.050

+0.025

z

eneno....

'"oz

....'"

AbertJare Canal (M3-M5)

: - __~_~I~ r:::o 2 B

IN THOUSANDS OF FEET

M7I

M6I

M5I

+10 2

_I __L~ -~: r:::o 6 B

DISTANCE,

Aberdare Canal (M5-MB and MB-M7)

Fi gu re I I . - Cont i nued.

26

Locat ion of wei I is shown in figure 7

2O~

-uc

...; ...

~~ 15~'"--'0",20~c

>---'c .."00--'

~: 20,a..~ ,~ ... -J:--a-n-.-L---:F:-e- b-.~L--M:-:-a-r-.~-A:-p-r-.~-:M-=--a-y-~J:-u-n-e--L-:J:-u'--I-y--'-'--A:--u g. -'--"S-e-p-ot-.-'-''--O"c'--t-.-'-----::H:-o-v--.-L,--O:-e-c~.

Figure 12.-Seasonal water-level fluctuations in an observation wellin Beaver Valley, 1974-.

27

Table 1.--Gain or loss determined from seepage measurements for reaches of canals

Average Graphic averageNumber of amount (from fig. 11)

Canal Reach Li t~10 logy Length seepage entering Gain(+) or loss(-)(ft) measure- reach

ments (ft 3 /s) ftJ/s (ft 3 Is) Imi---_.

Manderfield Ditch Ml-M2 Older alluvium 5,000 4 6.8 0 0M3-M7 Younger alluvium 6,600 4 5.4 -.3 -.2

Last Chance Canal LI-L2 Younger alluvium 4,300 3 12.7 0 0in upper thirdof reach; olderalluvium inlower two-thirds

Christiansen Ditch Ml-H3 Older alluvium 11,800 2 8.5 -.7 -.3M4-M5 Younger alluvium 3,800 2 1.9 -.2 -.3

Marrnnoth Canal Hl-M2 Older alluvium 7,600 2 41.6 -.7 -.5M4-M6 do 10,900 1 13.1 0 0M6-M7 do 4,100 1 13.3 -.9 -1.2

City Ditch Ml-M2 Younger alluvium 2,800 4 26.7 (ll) ~11 )M2-M6 do 9,600 4 27.1 0 0

Owens Ditch Ml-M7 Older alluvium 20,400 2 6.9 -1.3 -.3

South Field Ditch Ml-M8 Younger alluvium 12,800 4 3.6 +1.9 +.8

Patterson Ditch MI-M3 do 3,700 3 11.8 0 0M3.,M5 do 7,000 3 7.1 0 0M6-M7 do 4,300 3 4.8 0 0

Aberdare Canal Hl-M2 do 1,000 3 7.3 +.8 +4.2M2-M3 do 6,300 3 10.7 0 0

• M3-M5 do 5,100 2 10.7 0./) (!!.I)M5-M6 do 1,600 2 10.2 ··.7 - 2.3M6-M7 do 5,200 2 8.0 () 0

Total 133,900 238.2

II Average not determined; minimum and maximum values of +0.4 to +5.8.21 Average not determined; minimum and maximum values of +0.8 to +10.9.31 Average not determined; minimum and maximum values of -1. 2 to +2.0.!:.I Average not determined; minimum and maximum values of -1.2 to +2.1.

28

Table 2.--Measurements made on the canals

Site: Land M, main canal; R, inflow; T, diversion.Discharge: e, estimated.

Specific Water

Site Date Time Discharge conductance temper-(ft 3 js) (micromhos per ature

cm at 25°C) (OC)

Manderfie1d Ditch

1974M1 Apr. 30 0850 12.92M2 0930 12.65M3 May 2 0845 8.05 125 5.0T1 0905 .02eM4 0935 8.37 120 6.5

T2 0945 .01eM5 1015 9.11 120 7.0T3 1050 7.76 8.5M6 1110 .04 122 9.5M7 1125 .06 120 14.0

M1 June 10 1420 8.73M2 1510 8.99M3 June 12 1020 8.67 93 ,..T1 1050 6.01M4 1120 1. 90 98

M5 1200 1.85 93M6 1250 2.00 93M7 1310 1.88 93M1 Aug. 5 1430 3.34 101 16.5M2 1500 3.45 98 19.5

M3 0945 3.40 105 14.0T1 1010 .03M4 1025 3.61 101 15.5T2 1040 .01M5 1055 3.ll 100 17 .0

T3 1135 3.01M6 1150 .18 100 18.0M7 1215 .16 100 20.5M1 Sept. 24 1100 1. 74 118 8.5M2 ll35 1. 91 112 12.0

M3 1220 1.60 ll8 15.0M4 1250 1.68 116 16.5

29

Table 2.--Measurements made on the cana1s--Continued

Specific WaterSite Date Time Discharge conductance temper-

(ft 3 /s) (micromhos per aturecm at 25°C) (OC)

Manderfie1d Ditch--Continued

1974M5 Sept. 24 1320 1.52 114 18.0T3 1350 1.39M6 1405 .10 118 19.0M7 1425 .09 108 20.0

Last Chance Canal

Ll Apr. 30 1440 12.50 115 9.0L2 1535 12.86 113 9.5L1 June 13 0840 20.46 84 7.5L2 0920 21.12 88 8.0L1 Aug. 7 0830 5.18 145 1.1.5L2 0910 4.63 145 13.0

Christiansen Ditch

M1 May 2 1030 9.83 120 6.0M2 1155 9.09 120 9.0T1 1220 .04eM4 1250 3.36 130 11.5M5 1315 3.07 135 13.5

M1 June 13 0820 7.18M2 1050 6.88 81T1 1115 .3eM3 1145 6.23 88 14.0M4 1210 .51

M5 1250 .42 88 24.0

Mammoth Canal

M2 June 13 1305 62.90 93T2 1500 .20T3 1450 .89

30


Specific Water

Site Date Time Discharge conductance temper-

(ft3 / s) (micromhos per atureem at 25°C) ( DC)

Mammoth Cana1--Continued

1974M3 June 13 1335 62.97 87M4 1410 13.06 87M5 0855 14.24 87T5 0905 1.34M6 1000 13 .33 87

M7 1030 12.37M1 Aug. 5 1410 24.28 125T1 1430 .2eM2 1450 23.38 125M1 Sept. 25 1350 12.66 145 16.5

T1 1405 .1eM2 1430 11.86 145 16.5

City Ditch

M1 May 1 0850 45.24 85 4.0T1 0925 1.59T3 1000 .05T4 1005 1.40M2 1020 48.05 85 5.0

T6 1040 2.01T8 1100 .30T9 1120 .52M3 1200 41.52 85 6.5T11 1135 2.94

T13 1310 20.52T14 1305 1.27M4 1350 17 .61 85 9.0T17 1325 .72T18 1410 .65

T19 1435 1. 24M5 1500 12.16 85 10.5T20 1525 .72T2l 1545 .07T23 1550 .01

31



(ft3 /s) (micromhos per aturecm at 25°C) (OC)

City Ditch--Continued

1974M6 May 1 1610 11.89 90 11.5Ml June 11 0800 42.01 95T1 0825 .94T2 0830 .90T3 0900 2.10

T4 0905 .12M2 0925 41.14 95T5 0940 2.40T7 0950 .67T8 0955 .05

T9 1020 .41M3 1040 38.27 93T10 1100 .35Tll 1110 .87T12 1115 1. 70

T13 1145 18.60T14 1155 .71M4 1250 15.90 95T17 1305 .76T18 1310 .77

T19 1320 1.57M5 1325 11. 21 94Tn 1410 .01eT23 1415 .01eM6 1520 11.46 95

M1 Aug. 6 0915 12.56 125 12.5T1 0940 .22T3 0950 .54T4 0955 .03M2 1010 12.20 125 14.0

T5 1025 .93T7 1035 .49T8 1045 .01eT9 1055 .39M3 1110 10.29 125 15.0

32



(ft3 / s) (micromhos per aturecm at 25°C) (OC)

City Ditch--Continued

1974T11 Aug. 6 1135 0.32T12 1135 .99T13 1150 3.99T14 1140 .84T15 1220 .01e

M4 1245 3.34 125 17 .5Tl7 1300 .39T18 1305 .27T19 1315 .88M5 1330 1.58 125 19.0

M6 1435 1.59 125 22.0M1 Sept. 25 0840 6.96 165 8.0T1 0855 .01eT3 0910 .19M2 0930 7.19 150 9.0

T5 0945 .27T8 1000 .16T9 1020 .12M3 1035 6.01 150 10.0T11 1100 .94

Tl2 1100 .01T13 1115 2.62T14 1105 .43T15 1130 .03T16 1135 .02

T17 1145 .03M4 1200 1. 97 150 12.0T18 1245 .25T19 1305 .55M5 1320 1.40 145 15.0

T22 1345 .05T23 1350 .01M6 1425 1.33 150 16.5

33




Owens Ditch

1974M1 June 12 0950 6.89 88T1 1010 .1eM2 1050 6.64 88M3 1140 6.36 88M4 1220 6.22 88

M5 1305 5.72 92T2 1330 2.41R1 1350 .35T3 1405 .32M6 1450 3.82

M7 1535 3.06 92M1 Sept. 25 0945 1. 22 140 9.5T1 1010 .05 9.5M2 1040 .67 140 12.0M3 1130 0

South Field Ditch

M1 May 1 0855 3.78 105 5.0M2 0940 3.49 100 6.0T1 1050 .66 7.5M3 1130 2.58 100 10.0M4 1235 3.53 155 12.0

M5 1315 4.47 200 13.5T4 1315 4.47M6 1430 .19 605 20.0M1 June 12 0910 7.49 122 10.0M2 0955 7.04 118

T1 1035 .73 U.5M3 1140 5.89 114T2 1150 .2eT3 1200 1. 73M4 1230 5.61 140 15.0

R3 1240 1. 73M5 1400 7.98 168 16.5T4 1400 7.98

34




South Field Ditch--Continued

1974M6 June 12 1425 0.22 540 21.0M1 Aug. 5 1240 1. 99 152 20.0

R1 1300 .2eM2 1310 2.20 156 20.5

T1 1340 .07

R2 1350 .5eM3 1410 2.04 158 21.0M4 1450 3.90 195 18.5M5 1525 4.37 232 18.5M6 1600 3.79 252 21.0

M7 1640 4.32 252 21.0M8 1700 4.53 255 21.0M1 Sept. 24 1150 1.01 160 13.0M2 1230 1.15 160 14.5M3 1315 1.24 165 16.5

M4 1400 1.88 200 16.0M5 1435 2.28 265 15.5T4 1500 .2eM6 1520 2.12 300 15.0M7 1555 2.51 300 18.0

Patterson Ditch

M1 May 1 0920 11.25 190 7.0Tl 0925 .39M2 1020 11.18 200 10.0T2 1050 4.37T3 1150 .33

T4 1210 .63R2 1220 .1eT5 1220 .12M3 1230 5.32T7 1240 .01e

T8 1250 .01eT9 1310 .01eT10 1320 oOle

35



(ft 3 / s) (micromhos per aturecm at 25°C) (OC)

Patterson Ditch--Continued

1974T11 May 1 1345 0.28M5 1415 4.86M6 1445 2.57T13 1505 .01eM7 1550 1.95

M1 June 11 0845 13.58 385M2 0945 14.58 400T2 1005 8.01R1 1015 1.0eT3 1025 1.60

T4 1045 1.57R2 1055 .2eT5 1100 .2eM3 1120 7.29 398R3 1135 .1e

T6 1140 .02M4 1200 7.81 398T8 1220 .1eM5 1300 7.63M6 1330 6.76 398

T14 1345 .2eT15 1345 .2eT16 1350 .2eM7 1410 7.05M1 Aug. 6 0935 10.64 355 14.5

M2 1010 10.27 360 15.5T2 1035 3.69R1 1050 2.0eT3 1100 .75T5 1140 .2e

M3 1210 8.75 395 18.0M4 1300 5.84 395 18.0M5 1410 6.89 420 20.5M6 1440 5.00 415 20.0M7 1510 5.52

36


Specific Water

Site Date Time Discharge conductance temper-(ft 3 /s) (micromhos per ature

cm at 25°C) (OC)

Aberdare Canal

1974M1 June 11 0830 10.84 550 11.0R1 0850 .7eR2 0900 .92M2 0950 12.86 560 13.0R3 1010 .5e

M3 1150 13.80 565 16.5M4 1225 14.34 560 18.0T4 1240 .5eT5 1345 5.45M5 1425 9.91 565 22.0

M6 1500 9.38 565 24.0M1 Aug. 6 0855 7.76 520 14.0R1 0930 .79 375 18.0R2 1000 4.19 480 18.0M2 1040 13.30 495 17 .0

T1 1110 .42 18.0T2 1140 .2eM3 1230 12.43 490 18.0T3 1250 .66 18.0R5 1310 .2e

T4 1320 .2eT5 1345 .10M5 1405 10.46 488 18.5M6 1440 9.51 485 19.0T6 1515 5.24 19.5

M7 1600 4.08 480 20.0M1 Sept. 25 0900 3.72 550 9.5R1 0910 .25eR2 0925 1. 22 620 10.0M2 1005 6.04 570 10.0

R4 1045 .25eM3 1105 5.85 570 11.0M6 1240 5.04 560 12.5M7 1350 5.44 570 16.5

37

PUBLICATIONS OF THE UTAH DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES,DIVISION OF WATER RIGHTS

(*)-Out of Print

TECHNICAL PUBLICATIONS

*No. 1. Underground leakage from artesian wellsFillmore, Utah, by Penn LivingstonGeological Survey, 1944.

in the Flowell area, nearand G. B. Maxey, U.S.

No.2. The Ogden Valley artesian reservoir, Weber County, Utah, by H. E.Thomas, U.S. Geological Survey, 1945.

*No. 3. Ground water in Pavant Valley, Millard County, Utah, by P. E.Dennis, G. B. Maxey and H. E. Thomas, U.S. Geological Survey, 1946.

*No. 4. Ground water in Tooele Valley, TooeleThomas, U.S. Geological Survey, in UtahRept., p. 91-238, pIs. 1-6, 1946.

County,State

Utah, byEng. 25th

H. E.Bienn.

*No. 5. Ground water inDistrict, DavisU.S. Geological53-206, pIs. 1-2,

the East Shore area, Utah: Part I, BountifulCounty, Utah, by H. E. Thomas and W. B. Nelson,Survey, in Utah State Eng. 26th Bienn. Rept., p.1948.

*No. 6. Ground water in the Escalante Valley, Beaver, Iron, and WashingtonCounties, Utah, by P. F. Fix, W. B. Nelson, B. E. Lofgren, andR. G. Butler, U.S. Geological Survey, in Utah State Eng. 27thBienn. Rept., p. 107-210, pIs. 1-10, 1950.

No.7. Status of development of selected ground-water basins in Utah, byH. E. Thomas, W. B. Nelson, B. E. Lofgren, and R. G. Butler, U.S.Geological Survey, 1952.

*No. 8. Consumptive use of water and irrigation requirements of crops inUtah, by C. o. Roskelly and Wayne D. Criddle, 1952.

No.8. (Revised) Consumptive use and water requirements for Utah, by \~. D.Criddle, K. Harris, and L. S. Willardson, 1962.

No.9. Progress report on selected ground water basins in Utah, by H. A.Waite, W. B. Nelson, and others, U.S. Geological Survey, 1954.

*No. 10. A compilation of chemical quality data for ground and surfacewaters in Utah, by J. G. Connor, C. G. Mitchell, and others, U.S.Geological Survey, 1958.

*No. 11. Ground water in northernthe period 1948-63, by R.Geological Survey, 1965.

Utah Valley, Utah: A progress report forM. Cordova and Seymour Subitzky, U.S.

38

*No. 12. Reevaluation of the ground-water resources of Tooele Valley, Utah,by Joseph S. Gates, U.S. Geological Survey, 1965.

*No. 13. Ground-water resources of selected basins in southwestern Utah, byG. W. Sandberg, U.S. Geological Survey, 1966.

*No. 14. Water-resources appraisal of the Snake Valley area, Utah andNevada, by J. W. Hood and F. E. Rush, U.S. Geological Survey, 1966.

*No. 15. Water from bedrock in the Colorado Plateau of Utah, by R. D.Fe1tis, U.S. Geological Survey, 1966.

*No. 16. Ground-water conditions in Cedar Valley, Utah County, Utah, byR. D. Fe1tis, U.S. Geological Survey, 1967.

*No. 17. Ground-water resources of northern Juab Valley, Utah, by L. J.Bjorklund, U.S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 18. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Skull Valley, Tooele County, Utah, byJ. W. Hood and K. M. Waddell, U.S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 19. An appraisal ofbasin, Utah, bySurvey, 1968.

the qualityD. C. Hah1

of surface water in the Sevier Lakeand J. C. Mundorff, U.S. Geological

No. 20. Extensibns of streamflow records in Utah, by J. K. Reid, L. E.Carroon, and G. E. Pyper, U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 21. Summary of maximum discharges in Utah streams, by G. L. Whitaker,U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 22. Reconnaissance of the ground-water resources ofmont River valley, Wayne County, Utah, by L. J.Geological Survey, 1969.

the upper FreBjorklund, U.S.

No. 23. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Rush Valley, Tooele County, Utah, byJ. W. Hood, Don Price, and K. M. Waddell, U.S. Geological Survey,1969.

No. 24. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Deep Creek valley, Tooele and JuabCounties, Utah, and E1ko and White Pine Counties, Nevada, by J. W.Hood and K. M. Waddell, U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 25. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Curlew Valley, Utah and Idaho, byE. L. Bo1ke and Don Price, U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

area,E. L.

No. 26. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Sink ValleyElder Counties, Utah, by Don Price andGeological Survey, 1969.

Tooele and BoxBo1ke, U.S.

No. 27. Water resources of the Heber-Kamas-Park City area, north-centralUtah, by C. H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

39

No. 28. Ground-water conditions in southern Utah Valley and Goshen ValleYtUtah t by R. M. Cordova t U.S. Geological SurveYt 1970.

No. 29. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Grouse Creek valleYt Box Elder CountYtUtah t by J. W. Hood and Don Price t U.S. Geological SurveYt 1970.

No. 30. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Park Valley area t Box ElderCounty, Utah t by J. W. Hood t U.S. Geological SurveYt 1971.

No. 31. Water resources of Salt Lake County, Utah t by Allen G. Hely, R. H.Mower t and C. Albert Harr t U. S. Geological Survey t 1971.

No. 32. Geology and water resources of the Spanish Valley area, Grand andSan Juan Counties, Utah t by C. T. Sumsion t U.S. Geological SurveYt1971.

No. 33. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Hansel Valley and northern Rozel FlattBox Elder County, Utah, by J. W. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey,1971.

No. 34. Summary of water resources of Salt Lake CountYt Utah t by Allen G.Hely, R. W. Mower, and C. Albert Harr, U.S. Geological Survey,1971.

No. 35. Ground-water conditions in the East Shoreand Weber Counties, Utah, 1960-69, by E.Waddell, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

area, Box Elder, Davis tL. BoIke and K. H.

No. 36. Ground-water resources of Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho, by L. J.Bjorklund and L. J. McGreevYt U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 37. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Blue Creek Valley area, Box ElderCounty, Utah, by E. L. BoIke and Don Price, U.S. Geological Survey,1972.

No. 38. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Promontory Mountains area, BoxElder County, Utah, by J. H. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

No. 39. Reconnaissance of chemical qualitysediment in the Price River Basin,Geological Survey, 1972.

of surface water and fluvialUtah, by J. C. Mundorff, U.S.

No. 40. Ground-water conditions in the central Virgin River basin, Utah, byR. M. Cordova, G. H. Sandberg, and Wilson McConkie, U.S.Geological Survey, 1972.

No. 41. Hydrologic reconnaissance of Pilot Valley, Utah and Nevada, byJerry C. Stephens and J. H. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1973.

No. 42. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the northern Great Salt Lakeand summary hydrologic reconnaissance of northwesternJerry C. Stephens, U.S. Geological SurveYt 1973.

40

DesertUtah t by

No. 43. tvater resources of the Milford area, Utah,water, by R. tv. Mower and R. M. Cordova,1974.

with emphasis on groundU.s. Geological Survey,

No. 44. Ground-water resources ofElder County, Utah, byGeological Survey, 1974.

the lower Bear River drainage basin, BoxL. J. Bjorkland and L. J. McGreevy, U.S.

No. 45. Water resources of the Curlew Valley drainage basin, Utah andIdaho, by Claud H. Baker, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.

No. 46. Water-quality reconnaissance of surface inflow to Utah Lake, byJ. C. Mundorff, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.

No. 47. Hydrologic reconnaissance of the Wah Wah ValleyMillard and Beaver Counties, Utah, by Jerry C.Geological Survey, 1974.

drainage basin,Stephens, U.S.

No. 48. Estimating mean streamflow in the Duchesne River Basin, Utah, byR. W. Cruff, U.S. Geological Survey, 1974.

No. 49. Hydrologic reconnaissance ofColorado, by Don Price andSurvey, 1975.

the southernLouise L.

UintaMiller,

Basin,U.S.

Utah andGeological

No. 50. Seepage study of the Rocky Point Canal and the Grey MountainPleasant Valley Canal systems, Duchesne County, Utah, by R. W.Cruff and J. W. Hood, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975.

No. 51. Hydrologic reconnaissancelard, Beaver, and IronGeological Survey, 1976.

of the Pine Valley drainage basin, MilCounties, Utah, by J. C. Stephens, U.S.

No.

No.

WATER CIRCULARS

1. Ground water in the Jordan Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah, by TedArnow, U.S. Geological Survey, 1965.

2. Ground water in Tooele Valley, Utah, by J. S. Gates and o. A.Keller, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

BASIC-DATA REPORTS

*No. 1. Records and water-level measurements of selected wells and chemicalanalyses of ground water, East Shore area, Davis, Weber, and BoxElder Counties, Utah, by R. E. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey, 1961.

No.2. Records of selected wells and springs, selected drillers' logs ofwells, and chemical analyses of ground and surface waters, northernUtah Valley, Utah County, Utah, by Seymour Subitzky, U.S.Geological Survey, 1962.

41

No.3. Ground-water data, central Sevier Valley, parts of Sanpete, Sevier,and Piute Counties, Utah, by C. H. Carpenter and R. A. Young, U.S.Geological Survey, 1963.

*No. 4. Selected hydrologic data, Jordan Valley, Salt Lake County, Utah, byI. W. Marine and Don Price, U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.

*No. 5. Selected hydrologic data, Pavant Valley, Millard County, Utah, byR. W. Mower, U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.

*No. 6. Ground-water data, parts of Washington, Iron, Beaver, and MillardCounties, Utah, by G. W. Sandberg, U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.

No.7. Selected hydrologic data, Tooele Valley, Tooele County, Utah, byJ. S. Gates, U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.

No.8. Selected hydrologic data, upper Sevier River basin, Utah, by C. H.Carpenter, G. B. Robinson, Jr., and L. J. Bjorklund, U.S.Geological Survey, 1964.

*No. 9. Ground-water data, Sevier Desert, Utah, by R. W. Mower and R. D.Feltis, U.S. Geological Survey, 1964.

No. 10. Quality 'of surface water in the Sevier Lake basin, Utah, by D. C.Hahl and R. E. Cabell, U.S. Geological Survey, 1965.

*No. 11. Hydrologic and climatologic data, collected through 1964, Salt LakeCounty, Utah, by W. V. Iorns, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Borr, U.S.Geological Survey, 1966.

No. 12. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1965, Salt Lake County, Utah, byW. V. Iorns, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U.S. Geological Survey,1966.

No. 13. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1966, Salt Lake County, Utah, byA. G. Hely, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U.S. Geological Survey,1967.

No. 14. Selected hydrologic data, San Pitch River drainage basin, Utah, byG. B. Robinson, Jr., U.S. Geological Survey, 1968.

No. 15. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1967, Salt Lake County, Utah, byA. G. Hely, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U.S. Geological Survey,1968.

No. 16. Selected hydrologic data, southern Utah and Goshen Valleys, Utah,by R. M. Cordova, U.S. Geological Survey, 1969.

No. 17. Hydrologic and climatologic data, 1968, Salt Lake County, Utah, byA. G. He1y, R. W. Mower, and C. A. Horr, U.S. Geological Survey,1969.

42

No. 18. Quality of surface water in the Bear River basin, Utah, Wyoming,and Idaho, by K. M. Waddell, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 19. Daily water-temperature records for Utah streams, 1944-68, by G. L.Whitaker, U. S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 20. Water-quality data for the Flaming Gorge area, Utah and Wyoming, byR. J. Madison, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 21. Selected hydrologic data, Cache Valley, Utah and Idaho, by L. J.McGreevy and L. J. Bjorklund, U.S. Geological Survey, 1970.

No. 22. Periodic water- and air-temperature records for Utah streams,1966-70, by G. L. Whitaker, U.S. Geological Survey, 1971.

No. 23. Selected hydrologic data, lower Bear River drainage basin, BoxElder County, Utah, by L. J. Bjorklund and L. J. McGreevy, U.S.Geological Survey, 1973.

No. 24. Water-quality data for theWyoming, 1969-72, by E.Geological Survey, 1972.

Flaming Gorge Reservoir area, Utah andL. BoIke and K. M. Waddell, U.S.

INFORMATION BULLETINS

*No. 1. Plan of work for the Sevier R~ver Basin (Sec. 6, P. L. 566), U.S.Department of Agriculture, 1960.

*No. 2. Water production from oil wells in Utah, by Jerry Tuttle, UtahState Engineer's Office, 1960.

*No. 3. Ground-water areas and well logs, central Sevier Valley, Utah, byR. A. Young, U.S. Geological Survey, 1960.

*No. 4. Ground-water investigations in Utah in 1960 and reports publishedby the U.S. Geological Surveyor the Utah State Engineer prior to1960, by H. D. Goode, U.s. Geological Survey, 1960.

*No. 5. Developing ground water in the central Sevier Valley, Utah, byR. A. Young and C. H. Carpenter, U.s. Geological Survey, 1961.

*No. 6. Work outline and report outline for Sevier River basin survey,(Sec. 6, P.L. 566), U.s. Department of Agriculture, 1961.

*No. 7. Relation of the deep and shallow artesian aquifers near Lynndyl,Utah, by R. W. Mower, U.S. Geological Survey, 1961.

*No. 8. Projected 1975 municipal water-use requirements, Davis County,Utah, by Utah State Engineer's Office, 1962.

No.9. Projected 1975 municipal water-use requirements, Weber County,Utah, by Utah State Engineer's Office, 1962.

43

*No. 10. Effects on the shallow artesian aquifer of withdrawing water fromthe deep artesian aquifer near Sugarville, Millard County, Utah, byR. W. Mower, U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.

*No. 11. Amendments to plan of work and work outline for the Sevier Riverbasin (Sec. 6, P.L. 566), U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1964.

*No. 12. Test drilling in the upper Sevierand Piute Counties, Utah, by R. D.U.S. Geological Survey, 1963.

River drainage basin, GarfieldFe1tis and G. B. Robinson, Jr.,

*No. 13. Water requirements of lower Jordan River, Utah, by Karl Harris,Irrigation Engineer, Agricultural Research Service, Phoenix,Arizona, prepared under informal cooperation approved by Mr.William W. Donnan, Chief, Southwest Branch (Riverside, California)Soil and Water Conservation Research Division, AgriculturalResearch Service, U.S.D.A., and by Wayne D. Criddle, StateEngineer, State of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1964.

*No. 14. Consumptive use of water by native vegetation and irrigated cropsin the Virgin River area of Utah, by Wayne D. Criddle, Jay M.Bagley, R. Keith Higginson, and David W. Hendricks, throughcooperation of Utah Agricultural Experiment Station, AgriculturalResearch Service, Soil and Water Conservation Branch, Western Soiland Water Management Section, Utah Water and Power Board, and UtahState Engineer, Salt Lake City, Utah, 1964.

*No. 15. Ground-water conditions and related water-administration problemsin Cedar City Valley, Iron County, Utah, February, 1966, by Jack A.Barnett and Francis T. Mayo, Utah State Engineer's Office.

*No. 16. Summary of water well drilling activities in Utah, 1960 through1965, compiled by Utah State Engineer's Office, 1966.

*No. 17. Bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey water-resources reports forUtah, compiled by Olive A. Keller, U.S. Geological Survey, 1966.

*No. 18. The effect of pumping large-discharge wells on the ground-waterreservoir in southern Utah Valley, Utah County, Utah, by R. M.Cordova and R. W. Mower, U.S. Geological Survey, 1967.

No. 19. Ground-water hydrology of southern Cache Valley, Utah, by L. P.Beer, 1967.

*No. 20. Fluvial sediment in Utah, 1905-65, A data compilation by J. C.Mundorff, U.S. Geological Survey, 1968.

*No. 21. Hydrogeology of the eastern portion of theUinta Mountains, Utah, by L. G. Moore andBureau of Reclamation, and James D. MaxwellSoil Conservation Service, 1971.

44

southD. A.

and Bob

slopes of theBarker, U.S.

L. Bridges,

*No. 22. Bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey water-resources reports forUtah, compiled by Barbara A. LaPray, U.S. Geological Survey, 1972.

No. 23. Bibliography of U.S. Geological Survey water-resources reports forUtah, compiled by Barbara A. LaPray, U.S. Geological Survey, 1975.

45

STATE OF UTAH DEPARTHENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Technical...

Documents

Transcript of STATE OF UTAH DEPARTHENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES Technical...