Facebook
X (Twitter)
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
Delicious
LinkedIn
StumbleUpon
Surface irrigation return flows vary
Authors
Kenneth K. TanjiMuhammad M. Iqbal
Ann F. Quek
Ronald M. VanDe Pol
Linda P. Wagenet
Roger Fujii
Rudy J. Schnagl
Dave A. Prewitt
Authors Affiliations
Kenneth K. Tanji is Associate Water Scientist and Principal Investigator, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Muhammad M. Iqbal is Junior Developmental Engineer, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Ann F. Quek is Staff Research Associate III, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Ronald M. Van De Pol was Postgraduate Research Water Scientist, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Linda P. Wagenet was Research Assistant, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Roger Fujii is Research Assistants, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Rudy J. Schnagl is Research Assistants, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis; Dave A. Prewitt is Staff Research Associate I, Department of Land, Air, and Water Resources, University of California, Davis.Publication Information
Hilgardia 31(5):30-31. DOI:10.3733/ca.v031n05p30. May 1977.
PDF of full article, Cite this article
Abstract
Much attention is being focused on irrigation return flows as a result of recent legislation on water quality and pollution control and the concern for water and energy conservation. State-wide, surface irrigation return flows are nearly nonexistent where water normally is scarce or expensive. This report describes the variations in flow and quality characteristics of surface drainage waters from two irrigation districts in Californias Central Valley, and the factors that contribute to such variations.
Tanji K, Iqbal M, Quek A, VanDe Pol R, Wagenet L, Fujii R, Schnagl R, Prewitt D. 1977. Surface irrigation return flows vary. Hilgardia 31(5):30-31. DOI:10.3733/ca.v031n05p30
Also in this issue:
Water for tomorrowWater supply: Policies and planning programs
Local planning for future water supplies: Santa Barbara County case study
State policy developments in water reclamation
Wildlands and watershed management
Ground-water management
Can water pricing encourage conservation? Some principles and some problems
Saltier irrigation
Irrigation management conserves water
Cotton responses to irrigation
Irrigation management service–a new water-management tool
Drip irrigation in California
Vineyard irrigation in the Salinas Valley
Drainage problems in the San Joaquin Valley—an interagency approach
Irrigation efficiencies in the Tulare Basin
Nitrogen fertilization and water pollution
U.C. guidelines for interpretation of agricultural water quality
Monitoring salt levels in farmland drainage
Sources and fate of nitrogen in the southern San Joaquin Valley floor
Nitrate-nitrogen in the unsaturated zone below irrigated fields
Hydrobiological studies in the sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Trace elements in wastewater
Water quality requirements for floricultural operations
Recharging and recycling ground water—the fresno experience
Irrigation trial with morro bay wastewater
Irrigating with wastewater in Sonoma County
Using food- processing wastewater for irrigation
Management of water resources in rainfed agriculture
Reducing transpiration to conserve water in soil and plants
Water use on pot chrysanthemums can be cut
Aquatic weeds and their control
Energy: Can irrigation with municipal wastewater conserve energy?
Energy for irrigation
Response of clusters of Vitis vinifera grapes to 2,4-D and related compounds