The details of option 4 are presented below.
Cut-fill maps have been created at a 1/10th foot drop per 100 feet with a cut-fill ratio of 1.3. The cut fill values are outlined in the following table. Piping estimations are approximate, but additional piping may be needed, though the total amount probably will not make much of a difference from the estimations presented here.
The cut fill map for option 4 is given below.
The details of option 3 are presented below.
Cut-fill maps have been created at a 1/10th foot drop per 100 feet with a cut-fill ratio of 1.3. The cut fill values are outlined in the following table. Piping estimations are approximate, but additional piping may be needed, though the total amount probably will not make much of a difference from the estimations presented here.
The cut fill map for option 3 is given below.
The details of option 2 are presented below.
In this option water flow is modified to go from South to North on the North end of the field and from North to South on the South end. Using surface design software in concert with GIS allows for the evaluation of various scenarios in a similar way.
The cut fill map for option 2 is given below.
The details of option 1 are presented below.
Cut-fill maps have been created at a 1/10th foot drop per 100 feet with a cut-fill ratio of 1.3.
The cut fill map for option 1 is given below.
A set of four different scenarios for irrigating the alfalfa field at the Acoma Waste Water Treatment Facility (WWTF) was presented to RMCI and IHS. Scenarios development is a useful planning and decision-making tool. The posts that follow this one will demonstrate some of the differences in the cuts and fills and total earthwork as required by each option.
Each option has three associated maps :
i. a waterflow-bench map,
ii. a cut-fill map, and
iii.a dimensioned materials drawing
and tables to summarize key information.
Each option has its own advantages and disadvantages like options that use less pipe and fewer valves but require more earthwork.
The below table outlines the Materials Requirements for each Irrigation Options.
The Land Requirement Analysis for the Acoma Waste Water Treatment Facility was done as follows.
The below table represents our most current analysis of the amount of land required to effectively meet the needs of the current treatment facility. As can be seen in the summary table, the House Count Estimate, which is the current anticipated flow for the facility, will require 16 acres of land at an application rate of 2.75 acre/feet year.
Table 3: Water and Land Requirements.
The reduced irrigation schedule can be justified for the below reasons.
1. Alfalfa is a crop that is highly susceptible to over-watering, as water logged roots make an easy target for soil-borne bacteria and other diseases that can easily weaken or kill a stand of alfalfa when conditions are favorable.
2. The highly precise laser leveling of the field will greatly increase the field’s irrigation efficiency, as the water will move across the surface and penetrate deeply into the soil profile.
3. Taking into account the rainfall events, which although they are infrequent in the desert Southwest, can sometimes be torrential and well above averages in our highly variable climate.
The above estimate is an average but further analysis of the field’s water efficiency has to be done. Agricultural Innovations can undertake this in the coming weeks, as we have yet to take into account soil types for the field’s water efficiency and the crops water requirements.
This blog and all its content is sponsored by RMCI Inc. General Contractors. 
