v—VV.’ _,, ECONOMIC COMPARISCN OF :FIVE SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPING WATER RESOURCES FOR IRREGATION IN BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHEGAN The-sis for “we Degree M M. S. MECHIGAN STATE UNIVERSETY Marvin N. Shearer 1961 LIBRARY ” Michigan State University ABSTRACT ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF FIVE SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPING WATER RESOURCES FOR IRRIGATION IN BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN by Marvin N. Shearer The purpose of this study was to analyze existing irri- gation water development designs, costs, and procedures; and to analyze alternate development systems which might reduce development costs and the "surge" demands made on small streams. Sixteen irrigation systems obtaining water from surface sources and twelve irrigation systems obtaining water from well sources were studied by farm survey. Wide variations were found in the design and operation of the systems which resulted in extreme differences in the cost of pumping water. Five different systems for developing water for irri- gation were studied by budgetary analysis. It was found that pumping direct from a surface source to a field lost some of its economic advantage over other systems when the water source and field were separated by a distance of 1000 feet or more at 16.6 and 33.2 gallons per minute per acre pumping capacities. Nearly all of the economic advantage was lost when the distance amounted to 2000 feet or more. Use of small pump - holding pond combinations compared favorably economically with other methods and proved effec- tive in reducing "surge" demands on small streams. In the example system used in this analysis the demand on the stream was reduced from 797 gallons per minute to 70 gallons per Marvin N. Shearer minute while maintaining the same irrigation pump capacity. Tables were developed which enable quick comparison of estimated pumping costs for 5 water development systems under a variety of water location and pump capacity situations. These comparisons can be useful as an aid in determining the most desirable type of water development system for a spe- cific area to be irrigated. ECONOMIC COMPARISON OF FIVE SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPING WATER RESOURCES FOR IRRIGATION IN BERRIEN COUNTY, MICHIGAN BY Marvin N. Shearer A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Resource Development 1961 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author acknowledges and expresses appreciation for the helpful suggestions and assistance received from C. R. Humphrys and M. H. Steinmufller of the Department of Resource Development, C. R. Hoglund of the Department of Agricultural Economics, E. H. Kidder of the Department of Agricultural Engineering, M. E. Caldwell of the Berrien County Extension Staff, J. T. Stenson of the Michigan State Water Resources Commission, and the farmers and equipment dealers who provided the basic data. ii ACKNOWLE LIST OF LIST OF LIST OF Chapter I. II. III. IV. APPENDIX TABLE OF CONTENTS DGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . TABLES O O O O O O O O O O O O O ILLUSTRATIONS . . . . . . . . . . APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . Reason for This Study . . . . Previous Studies and Investigations . Objectives and Scope of This Study . . ANALYSIS OF EXISTING IRRIGATION WATER DEVELOPMENT IN BERRIEN COUNTY . Definitions . . . . . . Description of Area . Procedure . . . . . . . Analysis of Data . . . . Summary of Chapter II . BUDGETARY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPING WATER FOR IRRIGATION . . General Criteria for Design of Procedure . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Systems . . . . . Summary of Chapter III . . . . CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . Implications . . . . ... . . . BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii Systems Page ii iv vii WOON 10 12 17 25 28 28 29 3O 38 41 41 42 45 55 Table LIST OF TABLES Page Cost of Irrigating Specific Crops in Michigan . . 6 Occurrence of Drought in the East Lansing Area . 7 Percent of Systems Irrigating Various Size Acreages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Percent of Systems Pumping Water Various Distances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Percent of Systems Using Surface and Well sources 0 o I o o o o v o o o o I I D O u o o o 14 Cost of Pumping with Surface and Well Systems . . 24 iv LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure 1. Acres Irrigated in Michigan by Years . . 2. Sources of Water for All Irrigation Purposes, 1959 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Location of Sample Farms . . . . . . . . . 4. Relationship of Acres Irrigated to Investment in Pumping Equipment, Mainline, and Reservoir or well 0 l O O O O I 0 O I I O O O O D O O 5. Relationship of Acres Irrigated to Pumping Capacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6. Relationship of Pumping Capacity to Hours Used Per Year 0 O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O O 0 7. Relationship of Pond Capacity to Pond Investment 8. Relationship of Distance Between the Surface Water Source and the Field Irrigated to Total Pumping Cost Per Acre-Inch . . . . . . . . . . 9. Relationship of Pumping Capacity to Total Pump- ing COSt Per Acre- InCh o o o o o o o O o o o o 10. Relationship of Source of Water for Individual Systems to Total Pumping, Fixed, and Operating Costs Per Acre-Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Relationship of Hours Used Per Year to Total Pumping Cost Per Acre-Inch . . . . . . . . . . 12. Relationship of Total Acres Irrigated to Total Pumping Cost Per Acre-Inch . . . . . . . . . . 13. SYStem A o o o o o o o I o o o o o O I o o o o o 14. Relationship of Distance Between Surface Source and Field Irrigated to the Total Pumping Cost Per Acre-Inch for System A . . . . . . . . . Page 13 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 30 30 Figure Page 15. System B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 16. R.elationship of Depth of Well and Pump Setting to Total Pumping Cost Per Acre-Inch for System B . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 17. System C . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 18. Relationship of Distance Between Surface Source and Holding Pond to Total Pumping Cost per Acre-Inch for System C . . . . . . . . . . . 34 19. System D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 20. Relationship of Depth of Well and Pump Setting to Total Pumping Cost Per Acre-Inch for System D . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 21. System E . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 22. R.elationship of Distance Between R.ented Well and Holding Pond to Total Pumping Cost Per Acre- Inch for System E . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 23. Relationship of Five Water Development Systems under Various Operating Situations and at Three Pumping Capacities to Total Pumping Cost Per Acre-Inch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 vi LIST OF APPENDICES a. Characteristics of Surface Systems b. Characteristics of Well Systems . 0. Data for Water Development System d. Economical Mainline Selection for e. Data for Water Development System f. Data for Water Development System g. Data for Water Development System h. Data for Water Development System 1. Operation of Small Pump - Holding Combination . . . . . . . . . . Interview Data Sheet . . . . . . . . . . vii A . . . System A B . . . C . . . D . . . E . . . Pond Page 46 47 48 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION The development of the aluminum extruded pipe for port- able sprinkler irrigation and the economically favorable agricultural situation following the Second World War made possible an expansion of sprinkler irrigation throughout the United States which often reached epidemic proportions. Irrigation appeared profitable and it followed that millions of dollars were invested in irrigation equipment. Irrigation was practiced in the humid portion of the United States prior to 1900. Until recently, however, water users in this area had not been concerned about the consump- tive nature of irrigation because the acreage irrigated and water consumed was small compared to the overall supplies. It was not until surface water shortages occurred that in— terest in water rights and the conservation of existing water supplies developed. Within the last decade the nation'has awakened to the seriousness of the dwindling water supply. There are now few organizations, or state or federal agencies concerned with natural resources that do not have an active program in some phase of water resource development. Cities have had to find new sources of water to supply the increased demand. Indus- trial and urban expansion in some areas has been limited because of inadequate water supplies. Stream pollution has become a problem. The farmer has had to take a second look at his rights associated with his immediate water supply and the supply he will need in the future. Reason for This Study Michigan has an abundance of ground water in many areas. Inventory reports prepared by the Michigan State Water Resources Commission show that much of this water is located at depths which should be economical for irrigation purposes. Because of the increasing competition for water by all users and the growing shortages in surface supplies during the low stream-flow periods, the development of ground water has become important to the general welfare of Michigan.1 Interviews with persons associated with water develop- ment suggest that one of the reasons that ground water has not been developed more extensively for irrigation is the assump- tion that ground water development costs are too high compared with development costs associated with surface sources. Cursory study of the costs related to development of the two water sources, however, shows that as the distance between the land irrigated and the surface water source increases, development of ground water becomes more feasible until, it finally becomes more economical to develop than surface water. Michigan operates under the riparian doctrine and as 1A. Allan Schmid discusses Michigan water problems in detail in Michigan Water Use and Development Problems, Michi- gan Agricultural Experiment Station Circular Bulletin 230, East Lansing, Michigan, 1961. such, the legal aspects of water use for irrigation favor ground water as a source of supply. The use of surface water for irrigation is subject to challenge at any time. This becomes important economically when investments, usually amounting to thousands of dollars, are considered. The relative costs of various systems of water develop- ment for irrigation are important in determining what water will be developed and how it will be developed for future irrigation use. Some systems can have important consequences on the general water supply picture because of their effect on the "surge" demands placed on small streams. Previous Studies and Investigations The Michigan Water Resources Commission found that irrigation of agricultural lands in Michigan increased from 2,550 acres in 1930 to 52,893 acres in 1959. Another 15,588 acres of cemeteries, parks, golf courses, and other miscella- neous areas were irrigated in 1959.2 Figure 1 shows only slight tendency for the growth rate to decrease. Annual weather variation was a major influence on the increase in irrigated acreage during any one year. The water applied to these lands was drawn from streams, excavated sumps, drain ditches, wells, and farm ponds. Figure 2 shows the sources of water for all irrigation in Michigan and in Berrien County in 1959. The location of the irrigated areas in Michigan was most 2Water Use for Irrigation (Lansing: Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1959), pp. 37-38. 75,000 Total 50 ,000 - Acres * Irrigated 25,000 A 1930 1940 1950 1960 Year Fig. l.--Total acres irrigated in Michigan by years. 2% City Surface _, Systems Surface Combined Systems 4 State of Michigan5 Berrien County Fig. 2.--Sources of water for all irrigation purposes, 1959. 31bid., pp. 39—40. 4Summary of Irrigation - Berrien County, Unpublished mimeograph prepared from information collected by Michigan Water Resources Commission by field interviews with irrigators. Field study was completed in April 1959. 5Water Use for Irrigation, p. 33. 5 _concentrated in Berrien, Van Buren, and Wayne Counties which contained 34 percent of the total irrigated land.6 These counties were major producers of high value vegetables and fruits. Investments per farm in irrigation equipment was found by Hoglund, Kidder, and Vary to range from $700 to $50,000 on 176 farms studied in 46 counties of the lower peninsula in 1956. Ponds and reservoirs costing from $80 to $1000 were used by 40 percent of the farmers irrigating less than 30 acres. Ten 8-inch wells varying in depth from 95 feet to 290 feet cost from $1060 to $3850, and thirteen lO-inch wells varying in depth from 90 feet to 340 feet cost from $1100 to $4600. Annual charges for pump, power unit, and reservoir or well varied from 42 percent to 48 percent of the total cost of the irrigation systems. Annual fixed charges for the entire systems varied from $13 to $20 per acre irrigated.7 A number of studies have been made on the economics of irrigating certain crops in Michigan. These are summarized in Table 1. The difference in cost of irrigating field corn from wells and from surface sources was very slight - less than 8 percent. In two different studies depreciation, interest, and repair of irrigation systems was found to vary from 41 percent 7C. R. Hoglund, E. H. Kidder, K. A. Vary, "The Economics of Irrigating in Michigan," Quarterly_Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 39, No. 1 (November, 1956), pp. 208-209. TABLE l.--Cost of irrigating specific crops in Michigan - -_ Cost Per Ac. In. No. of Total Irri. Crop Ac. Inch Applied Irri. Cost Per Acre potatoesa $7.72 3.6 2.9 $27.77 pickling Cucumbersb 8.76 2.8 2.2 24.53 Field CornC 3.24 6.0 3.0 19.43 (using surface water) Field Cornd 3.50 6.0 3.0 21.00 (using wells) aC. R. Hoglund, K. T. Wright, "Economic Analysis of the Michigan Potato Enterprise," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 42, No. 4 (May,l960), pp. 686-703. bC. R. Hoglund, "Economics of Growing and Irrigating Pickling Cucumbers," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agriculhnal Experiment Station, Vol. 40, No. 4 (May,l958), pp. 796-805. 0C. R. Hoglund, "Economics of Irrigating Corn, Quartenbr Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 40, No. 3 (February,1958), pp. 669-678. dIbid. to 59 percent of the total annual cost of irrigation.8’9 Irrigation requirements in Michigan vary greatly from year to year. Kidder and Wheaton suggest a design capacity capable of applying up to 1% inches per week under average conditions or up to 2 inches per week for crOps which may be extremely sensitive to soil moisture conditions. They make no recommendation as to how many hours the irrigation system should be used per week to apply the recommended quantity of 8Hoglund,Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 3, p. 667. 9Hoglund,,Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 4, p. 801. water. However they do provide a formula by which a farmer can calculate the pumping capacity required to supply the required amount of water to a given acreage in a given number of pumping hours per week.10 Kidder and Davis suggest a minimum application rate of one-tenth to one-eighth of an inch per hour for frost protec- tion.11 This requires a pumping capacity of 45 and 57 gallons per minute per acre respectively. Hoglund evaluated the occurrence of drought conditions based on weather bureau data at East Lansing. This is sum— marized in Table 2. TABLE 2--Occurrence of various periods with less than 0.2 inches of rainfall per day for months of June, July, August, and Septiaber, 45 year period, 1911—1955, East Lansing, Michigan Consecutive Days With Less No. of Years Total No. of Than 0.2 Inches Per Day Occurring Times Occurring 1 week (5-9 days) 45 164 2 weeks (10-19 days) 42 134 3-4 weeks (20-29 days) 19 20 over 4 weeks (30 or more days) 6 8 10E. H. Kidder, R. Z. Wheaton, Supplemental Irrigation in Michigan, Extension Bulletin 309 (R.evised), Michigan State University, October, 1958. 11E. H. Kidder, J. R. Davis, Frost Protection with Sprinkler Irrigation, Extension Bulletin 327 (Revised), Michi- gan State University, n.d. 12 Hoglund, Quarterly Bulletin, Vol. 40, No. 3, p. 671. Objective and Scope of This Study The purpose of this study was two-fold, (l) to analyze existing irrigation water development designs, costs, and procedures; (2) to analyze alternate development systems which might reduce development costs and the "surge" demands made on small streams. The study was conducted in one county. However, results are adaptable to the state-wide situation. Berrien County was selected for this study because more than 14 percent of the irrigation in Michigan was carried on within its boundaries and because the proportion of irriga— tion from ground water and surface water sources in Berrien County was very similar to the state-wide irrigation with- drawals from these sources. This was not an economic study of irrigation in the usual sense but rather a cost analysis study to justify and encourage development of water resources for irrigation in a manner that would reduce the "surge" demands placed on small streams, direct development of water used for consumptive pur- poses to a more secure source, and place the decision as to which water resource should be developed on an economic base. CHAPTER II ANALYSIS OF EXISTING IRRIGATION WATER DEVELOPMENT IN BERRIEN COUNTY Definitions A well is any artificial cased opening through which ground water is sought. Ground water is water located beneath the soil surface which is sought through artificial cased openings. Surface water is any stream, pond, reservoir or excavation other than a well from which water is obtained. Total pumping cost includes annual charges for invest- ments in: water source development, pump, motor, and main— line. It also includes the annual expenses for fuel and maintenance associated with delivering water to the edge of the field at 140 feet of pressure. A surface system is an irrigation system which obtains water from a surface source. A well system is an irrigation system which obtains water from a well. The population is the group of irrigation farmers in Berrien County represented by the 1959 Water Use for Irriga- tion report of the Michigan Water Resources Commission. The sample population is the group of farmers repre- sented by the returned questionnaires sent out from the 10 Berrien County Agent's irrigation mailing list. The sample is the group of farmers represented by the names drawn from the sample population. Description of the Area Berrien County is located in the southwestern corner of Michigan, bordering Lake Michigan on the west and Indiana on the south. The area is 569 square miles or 364,160 acres.1 It contains less than 2 percent of the total cropland in Michigan, but over 14% percent of the irrigated cropland.2 Major crops irrigated are small berries, fruits, and vegetables. Fifty-eight percent of the irrigated land re- ceives water from surface sources; 32 percent receives water from ground supplies.3 The area is typified by "(1) A broken belt of high sand dunes, a quarter of a mile to a mile or more in width, border- ing Lake Michigan along most of its front in the county; (2) a belt of undulating to level land, some 4 to 8 miles in width which includes some flat, poorly drained land and depressions or valleys between sand ridges; (3) a belt of higher gently rolling to hilly country, some 6fto 9 miles in width, occupy- ing most of the central and eastern parts of the county; 1J. A. Kerr, N. M. Kirk, Elbert Southworth, Soil Survey of Berrien County Michigan, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture (WaSH— ington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1927), p. 1343. 2Water Use for Irrigation (Lansing: Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1959), p. 19. 3Summary of Irrigation - Berrien County, Unpublished mimeograph prepared from information collected by Michigan Water Resources Commission by field interviews with irrigators. Field study was completed in April,l959. ll (4) high, smooth to undulating and pitted outwash plains, oc- cupying most of the southeastern part of the county; (5) the terraces of the St. Joseph and Paw Paw Rivers."4 The area is drained primarily by the Paw Paw River, the Galien River, and the St. Joseph River. The drainage areas are rolling, glaciated, ranging in elevation from 578 feet at Lake Michigan to about 800 feet elevation on the east.5 There appears to be no immediate problem of adequate water supplies from surface sources for lands adjacent to the main streams, Problems have occurred, however, in the small tributaries and in swampy areas where ponds are used. Ground water is found in the glacial drift which varies in thickness from not less than 100 feet to more than 400 feet 6 based on present records. Wells are rarely over 200 feet 7 deep. In many instances ground water can be obtained in suf- ficient quantities at depths which can be reached by horizon- tal centrifugal pumps located on the surface of the ground. Acreage of land irrigated has in many cases been adjusted to the water supplies available. Most of the irrigated agriculture has developed north of an east-west line drawn through Berrien Springs, and is located generally on the coarser textured soils. 4Kerr, Kirk, Southworth, p. 1343. 5Ibid., p. 1345. 6Water Resource Conditions and Uses in the Paw Paw River Basin (Lansing: Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1955LIL9. 7Personal inspection of field study records of the Michigan Water Resources Commission. 12 Procedure Selecting Sample Questionnaires were sent to approximately 400 persons on the Berrien County Agent's irrigation mailing list asking in- formation about source of water, distance water is pumped to the first field and other information the County Agent desired for his files. Of one hundred seventy-nine returned, 13 in- dicated no irrigation and 24 were answered unsatisfactorily. The remaining questionnaires were separated into well system and surface system groups. Those which indicated both surface and well systems were put into the well system group unless it was apparent that the well system was supplemental to the sur— face system. Those farmers irrigating less than 5 acres were removed from both groups. Thirteen cases were drawn at random from the well system group. One of these was later removed because the farmer was no longer irrigating. Those farmers using surface water were divided into groups according to the distance between the water source and the field irrigated. Seven cases were drawn from the 0-999 foot group, 5 from the 1000-1999 foot group and 4 from the 2000 foot and over group. The locations of the sample farms are shown in Figure 3. Sample, Sample Population, Population Comparisons Some information about the population of sprinkler sys- tems in Berrien County was known. The sample was compared with Fig. / . I ,’ I O / l/ / n / A , ’/ I .' '1 X | ,~/ BENTO .. x ’ HARE ...p, I 33%.... .i,. ‘ . Sketch map showing location A” . Xit | of the Berrien County area, Michigan x‘x . X + I O I x '- " o o . I . O / 4' x BERRIEN ' I Well Source PRINGS ' Surface Source x l I I NILES '.'-?;£';:: : "- ‘1: J I / NEW BUFFALO , , ‘ O - - - . - - - - - - _ - - _ - '-J BERRIEN COUNTY 3.--Location of Sample Farms 14 the sample population and/or the population in Tables 3, 4, and 5. TABLE 3.--Percent of systems irrigating specified acreages Acres Percent of Systems Irri- a gated Sample Sample Population Population 0 - 9 7 21 30 10 - 19 18 31 31 20 - 29 21 16 16 30 - 49 47 18 13 Over 49 7 14 10 aWater Use for Irrigation, p. 22. TABLE 4.-—Percent of systems pumping water various distances Distance from Water Percent Of Systems Source to Fleld Sample Sample Population 0 - 999 feet 44 50 1000 - 1999 31 32 2000 feet + 25 18 TABLE 5.—-Percent of systems using wells and surface water sources Percent of Systems Source . a Sample Sample Population Population Wells 45 27 32 Surface 55 73 68 a Summary of Irrigation — Berrien County. 15 Gathering Data Data was obtained from the 29 farmers by personal inter- views made by the author. A sample interview data sheet is shown on page 54. The author was introduced to the farmers through a let- ter by Munns Caldwell, county agent with the Cooperative Extension Service in Berrien County. Appointments were made with each farmer by telephone the day prior to the visit by the interviewer. In all cases the interviewer was welcomed into the home and was frequently given access to the farm records for the purpose of obtaining the desired information. The respondents were very cooperative and did not hesitate in supplying any of the information requested. Such items as investment, fuel consumption, maximum number of sprinklers used at one time, distance the water is pumped, and pipe sizes used should not be subject to either misinterpretation or excessive error. It is on these items that most of the calculations are based. Computations Fixed costs - all equipment was depreciated on a 15 year schedule. Wells were depreciated on a 30 year schedule and ponds were depreciated on a 10 year schedule. All interest on investments was calculated at 6 percent on one-half the invest- ment. Repairs and maintenance of equipment was calculated at 3 percent of the initial investment per year. Labor for putting up and taking down the system was charged at $1.00 per hour. 16 Fuel and oil costs were combined and computed at $0.23 per gallon of gasoline. Electricity costs were estimated at $0.0225 per horse- power hour ($0.03/kwhr.). Pumping rates given by farmers were checked against fuel consumption and the maximum number of sprinklers in operation at one time. When there were extreme differences, the pump pressure and sprinkler capacities were used as a guide. Hours of operation varied considerably from year to year. The maximum hours systems were used in either 1959 or 1960 was recorded. The hours of operation were determined first by estimating, then by enumerating, then by checking when pos- sible against annual fuel consumption. Presenting Data The total cost of delivering one acre-inch of water to the edge of the field being irrigated under a pressure of 140 feet was calculated.8 No equipment or labor expenses beyond the edge of the field being irrigated were included. Charac- teristics of the systems and the total pumping cost per acre inch were compared to determine existing relationships. This cost should not be confused with the cost of applying an acre-inch of water which is the basis for analysis used in most irrigation studies. 17 Analysis of Data Description of Systems Investment It was expected that the investment in pumping equipment, reservoirs,and wells would tend to increase as the acreage irrigated increased. Figure 4 shows there was a wide scatter of investments with only a slight tendency for them to go up with an increase in acres irrigated. The variation in invest- ments for the same acreage irrigated was caused by a number of factors including differences in equipment requirements, the availability of low cost pumping units which were incorporated into some of the systems, and lack of appropriate design. 12 O ' $400/ c. ‘ Well Source 10 - ,///~Surface Source Investment in 6' $1000.00 Acres Irrigated Fig. 4.--Re1ationship of acres irrigated and investment in pumping equipment, mainline, and reservOir or well. 18 Pumping Capacity It was expected that the pumping capacity of the sys— tems would tend to increase as the acres irrigated increased. Figure 5 shows that this did not occur. There were wide variations in the pumping capacity of the systems on a per acre basis. In general,pumping capacities were much higher for surface systems than for well systems. Only one well system, as contrasted to 9 surface systems, had a capacity over 20 gallons per minute per acre. 40 gpm/Ac. / //‘—Surface Source ' ' / Well Source * 0 pm/Ac. 800 . 10 Pumping /ylwhf . Capacity 600d» 1000 T L. / // K // . 4' «r X 1 n x’ // /. X /’/ 400 b /x ./’ 5 C .x -- , jammflr' G. P. M. u, r x - ,W A}, ,,/ *- P I X X x/ ‘ r ’/,,. 200 i’ fl" .-"/ " ,f-b’” " / . .x . ‘ ‘ ‘_ ,. I- I ’l I - ' ‘ ’ ’ / 0 .1 l L l ___l 10 20 30 4O 50 60 70 80 Acres Irrigated Fig. 5.—-Relationship of acres irrigated to pumping capacity Hours Used Per Year It was expected that the greater the pumping capacity; per acre, the fewer hours the system would tend to be operated per year since it could apply the same quantity of water in less time. Figure 6 shows that this relationship did not exist. 19 000 - o 500 r- X Hours 400 b Used Well Source 300 ' x Surface Source per . x/ Year 200 ' Ox .. O X 100 #- OX. x x o x x x xx x x. O J n J n J 4 10 20 30 40 50 60 Pumping Capacity in gpm/Acre Fig. 6.-—Re1ationship of pumping capacity to hours used per year. Cost of Ponds There was no relationship found between the cost or size of the ponds and relationship, as seen ponds and capacity of of excavated material Pumping Cost Cost of pumping irrigated is affected acres irrigated, but there was a good in Figure 7, found between cost of ponds. The mean cost per cubic foot was $0.005 or $0.136 per cubic yard. water under pressure to the field berg: by a number of factors. Whenever any one of these factors shows a relationship to the cost of pumping, the economic effect of this factor becomes impor- 20 4000 F Pond 3000 - 4 Investment $ x 2000, in Dollars 1000 - x X 0 l l ‘ n. H l 2 3 4 5 6 7 Capacity in 100,000 Cubic Feet Fig. 7.--Relationship of pond capacity to pond investment. tant and the management of the irrigation program and system should be analyzed with respect to it. Some of these factons are more important economically than others. A number of these factors were compared with the cost of pumping an acre-inch of water under a pressure of 140 feet to the edge of the field being irrigated. Pumping Cost Related to Distance That Water Was Pumped It was expected that due to increased investment in pipe, increased power requirements needed to overcome pipe friction, and increased labor required to put up and take down additional mainline pipe, the cost of pumping water wand tend to increase as the distance it was pumped increased. Figure 8 shows that this relationship did not exist. Other factors screened the effect of distance on pumping costs. 21 18- 16' x 14P 12* Per ' 10 ' Acre . x Inch 8 § L 1000 2000 3000 Distance in Feet Fig. 8.--Re1ationship of distance between the surface water source and the field irrigated to total pumping cost per acre-inch. Pumping Cost Related to Capacity Per Acre It was expected that as the pumping capacity per acre increased, the cost per acre-inch of water pumped would tend to increase due to the larger equipment required to handle the increased quantity of water. Figure 9 shows that the slight tendency for this to be true was masked by the wide variation between systems. This variation was caused prin- cipally by the variation in prices paid by farmers for abumn 22 18 U I X 16' x 14 - ,/-Well Source L , x Per 10 . l/x-Surface Source - x Acre 8 Inch 10 20 30 40 50 60 GPM/Acre Fig. 9.--Relationship of pumping capacity to total pumping cost per acre-inch. identical equipment, the cost and type of equipment required for different water source situations, and the quantity of water pumped annually to which fixed costs were assigned. The wide variation in the fixed costs per acre-inch of water pumped is shown in Figure 10. Pumping Cost Related to Hours Used Per Year It was expected that the more hours a system was used per year, the lower the cost per acre-inch of water pumped would tend to be. This relationship should exist due to the spreading of the fixed costs over a longer operating period. 23 20_ U Fixed costs t I Operating costs $ 15; FF? L '1 ._ Per E 10— Acre : Inch 51 ct Surface Systems Well Systems Fig. 10.--Relationship of source of water for individual systems to total pumping, fixed, and operating costs per acre-inch. Figure 11 shows that this relationship did exist. It is in— teresting to note that there was more variation in the costs for well systems than for surface systems,‘ This was caused by the wide variation in well construction and pump require- ments needed to meet the variety of situations where well sources were developed. Cost of Pumping Related to Source of Water It had been generally accepted that the cost of pump- ing from wells was higher than pumping from surface sources. Table 6 shows that this assumption was not valid and this comparison could not be made due to the wide variation with- in each system type. Comparisons could be made only between specific system situations. 24 20 ' t .. . X r + " ° $ 10 : . Surface Source Pe 8 b x x r 6 ; l/<:Well Source Acre _ . ‘ x 5 111011. 4' .Xx .K K . R O o ,(X 2L ' 1 1 1 1111111 1 j 1L4 10 20 40 60 80 100 200 400 600 Hours Used Per Year Fig. ll.--Relationship of hours used per year to total pumping cost per acre-inch. TABLE 6.--Cost of pumping an acre—inch of water with surface and well systems Surface System Well System $17.39 per Ac. In. $12.91 per Ac. In. 16.39 5.80 16.84 5.76 13.22 5.39 9.06 5.17 7.66 FF 5.05 7.56 . 4.07 5.73 Common Median 3.82 5.40 _J 3.37 4.06 2.64 3.93 2.39 3.78 2.13 3.72 3.19 2.44 2.34 25 Cost of Pumping Related to Acres Irrigated It was expected that the cost of pumping an acre—inch of water would tend to decrease as the acres irrigated in- creased due to more efficient utilization of a larger system. Figure 12 shows a tendency for this to be true but the varia— tion in costs for systems irrigating less than 30 acres was so great that this relationship becomes obscure. 18 ~ X ' x 16 " x r 14 - Well Source $ - x ./— 12 - Per L 10 _ Surface Source Acre _ x /— Inch 8 h x x 6 . . o 9 x 1%. 4 " x X X g . O x 2: x 0: x F O 1 j 1 1 # 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Total Acres Irrigated Fig. 12.--Re1ationship of total acres irrigated to total pumping cost per acre—inch. Summary Chapter II Description of Systems The wide variation found in the cost of pumping a given quantity of water with the systems studied indicates a lack of thorough consideration of both design and operation 26 alternatives. Capacities of surface systems varied from 7 to 58 gal- lons per minute per acre with a median of 27, and well sys- tems varied from 5 to 60 gallons per minute per acre with a median of 9. Investments for surface systems varied from $30.00 to $490.00 per acre with a median of $170.00, and well systems varied from $60.00 to $307.00 per acre with a median of $75.00. Hours surface systems were used per year varied from 30 to 500 hours with a median of 90, and well systems varied from 50 to 600 hours with a median of 150. Pond investments varied from $150.00 to $5000.00 per pond with an average earth moving cost of $0.136 per cubic yard. Cost of Pumping Cost of pumping water varied from $2.34 to $17.39 per acre-inch with a median of $5.56 for surface systems, and from $2.13 to $12.91 per acre-inch with a median of $4.56 for well systems. The common median was $5.11 per acre-inch. Wide variations prevented any meaningful pumping cost compar- ison between surface and well systems as groups. The number of hours the irrigation systems were used had more effect on the cost of pumping an acre-inch of water than any other single item. This suggests the economic importance of finding additional uses for existing systems and also the importance of purchasing sprinkler systems 27 initially designed with lower per acre pumping capacities so they can operate over a greater period of time annually. Figure 8 shows the economic importance of fixed costs per acre-inch of water pumped. Those systems operated for the shortest period of time each year had the largest fixed cosus per unit of water pumped. CHAPTER III BUDGETARY ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATE SYSTEMS FOR DEVELOPING WATER FOR IRRIGATION It is important that farmers planning on developing water for irrigation study alternate development possibil— ities from both an economic and water supply standpoint. Five systems of developing water for irrigation were here evaluated: (1) Direct pumping from streams, (2) Direct pumping from wells, (3) Small centrifugal pump at stream used in conjunction with holding pond and irrigation pump at the field irrigated, (4) Small turbine at well used in conjunction with holding pond and irrigation pump at the field irrigated, and (5) Rented well and pump used in con— junction with holding pond and irrigation pump at the field irrigated. General Criteria Assumed for Design of Systems Irrigation Criteria 1 Size of irrigated area per farm . . . . . . 24 acres Gross annual application . . . . . . . . . 6 inches3 Peak rate of consumptive use . . 0.22 inches per day Michigan Water Resources Commission 1959 report showed average sized area irrigated per system to be 26.37 acres in Michigan and 23.15 acres in Berrien County. Requirements for specific crops may vary from one to 10 inches. Six inches was considered an average assuming that more than one crop was irrigated with the system. 3Kidder and Wheaton, p. 9. 29 Equipment Capacities % of Time in Hrs. Used GPM/Acre Total GPM Operation (Peak) Per Year 11.8 283 50 ' 230 16.6 393 36 164 33.2 797 18 81 Depreciation and Interest Schedule Depreciation Annual Unit Period Interest Maintenance Pump, motor mainline, etc. 15 years 0.06 0.03 x Invest. Pond 10 .06 none Well 30 .06 none Procedure Costs of equipment and services required to develop water for irrigation were obtained from dealers serving Berrien County. The total cost of pumping one acre-inch of water under a head of 140 feet to the edge of the field irri- gated was computed for the five systems. The assumed crite- ria and data pertaining to the design of the systems is found on pages 28, 29, and 48 through 52. In the summary analysis, the cost of pumping an acre— inch of water with each of the five systems of water develop- ment was compared to determine the relative economic merits of each. 30 Analysis of Systems System A Centrifugal Pi Pe Line Field Pam, p Y Surface I \,\ A. 4A .A .x /\ - 4 a Source 0° \/ 7—w‘- / ‘\ ' ' -J” a ‘ a Fig. 13.--System A Water was pumped directly from a surface source to the field being irrigated as shown in Figure 13. The distance from the water source to the field varied from 0 to 4000 feet. Results are shown graphically in Figure 14 and in [tabular form in Table C of the appendix. 12 - _ "1 10 .. . 11.8 gpm/acre I! 16.6 gpm/acre __ r E] 33.2 gpm/acre $ 8 ' Per b 6 ~ __ Acre # Inch 4 b 2 . 0 L . .- .- 1000- 2000 3000' 4000— Distance in Feet Fig. l4.--Re1ationship of distance between surface source and field irrigated to total pumping cost per acre-inch for System A. 31 Increasing the capacity from 11.8 gallons per minute per acre to 33.2 gallons per minute per acre increased the total pumping cost $0.84 per acre-inch when the field was adjacent to the water source and $5.86 per acre-inch when the field was 4000 feet from the water source. As the distance from the water source to the field in- creased from 0 to 4000 feet, the total pumping cost increased $2.54 per acre-inch for a capacity of 11.8 gallons per minute per acre and $8.17 per acre-inch for a pumping capacity of 33.2 gallons per minute per acre. System B - - Ll... ! Well Source Pipe Line Field Y \ q. >’\\"\\ \I‘ - ”= Q/Efl/é ~‘ ‘ \\/ x/Q 4 ‘ V a f T"\ Fig. l5.--System B Water was pumped directly from a well located in or adjacent to the field being irrigated as shown in Figure 15. Calculations were made for 3 pump settings, 3 well depths and 3 system capacities. Results are shown graphically in Figure 16, and in tabular form in Table e of the appendix. Increasing the capacity from 11.8 gallons per minute per acre to 33.2 gallons per minute per acre increased the 32 .m sopmmm no“ confluence 905 pmoo mcwmssm Hoooe op weeeeom mean one 5503 Ho eoooo mo afiemeoflpeflomuu.ma .wflm poem a“ Ham; Ho spoon OOm OON OOm OON OOH OOm OON OOH J l [I 1 L whodéaw «.mm D . w [I ohow\85w O.OH ms oucaéfim w..: I L_.L OH weeopom mofipeom weeeoom 955 9:5 _ 55 noon end soon ooH :ooom on coca ogo< .85 33 total pumping cost $1.15 per acre-inch at the 50 foot pump setting with a 100 foot well depth and $3.05 per acre-inch at the 150 foot pump setting with a 300 foot well depth. Increasing the well depth from 100 feet to 300 feet in- creased the total pumping cost $1.41 per acre-inch with the 50 foot pump setting and 11.8 gallons per minute per acre capacity, and $1.42 per acre-inch with the 100 foot pump setting and 11.8 gallons per minute per acre capacity. Increasing the pump setting from 50 feet to 150 feet in a 200 foot well increased the total pumping cost $1.56 per acre—inch at a pumping capacity of 11.8 gallons per minute per acre and $1.77 per acre-inch at a pumping capac- ity of 33.2 gallons per minute per acre. System C Fig. 17.--System C Water was pumped from a surface source with a small electric pump at a rate of 70 gallons per minute as shown in 4 Figure 17. The 4 acre-foot holding pond and small pump had a combined capacity sufficient to furnish 24 acres with three 4 See page 54 for operation of pump-holding pond combination. 34 lfi-inch irrigations in 3 weeks. The irrigation pump was identical to the one used in System A when the land irrigated was located adjacent to the water source. The distance from the water source to the field irri- gated varied from 1000 to 4000 feet. Results are shown graphically in Figure 18 and in tabular form in Table f of the appendix. II 11.8 gpm/acre ll 16;6 gpm/acre 8" E] 33.2 gpm/acre $. - 6- _ F"— Per _ Acre 4- Inch 5 2L , Ob _- 2000 3000 Distance in Feet Fig. 18.--Relationship of distance between surface source and holding pond to total pumping cost per acre-inch for System C. Increasing the irrigation pumping capacity from 11.8 gallons per minute per acre to 33.2 gallons per minute per acre increased the total pumping cost $1.23 per acre-inch when the field and pond were located at any specific distnme from the water source. Increasing the distance from the source of water to the pond from 1000 feet to 4000 feet increased the total 35 pumping cost $1.58 for all three irrigation pump capacities. System D Holding Pond Irrigation Small Well ' Pump 3 \ ’\\. /“ ’ i 02 K i I! x”\\ ’\\ Law é \,. A’ Q» ‘ v ,\ 't // ,’ I \\//\ 4\ Q / // / ’\\\///Q\///$ //\ 9 a / Fig. 19.--System D Water was pumped from a small well with a 70 gallons per minute capacity electric turbine to a holding pond as shown in Figure 19. The 4 acre-foot pond and turbine had a combined capacity sufficient to furnish 24 acres with three lfi-inch irrigations in 3 weeks. The small well and holding pond were located adjacent to the field irrigated. The irrigation pump was identical to the one used in System A when the land irrigated was located adjacent to the water source. Three well depths, three pump settings, and three irrigation capacities were considered. Results are shown graphically in Figure 20, and in tabular form in Table g of the appendix. Increasing the irrigation pump capacity from 11.8 to 16.6 gallons per minute per acre increased the total pumping cost $0.35 per acre-inch, and from 16.6 gallons per minute per acre to 33.2 gallons per minute per acres increased the total pumping cost $1.23 per acre-inch in all cases. Increasing the well depth from 50 feet to 100 feet in- creased the total pumping cost $0.46 per acre inch with a 25 36 foot pump setting. Increasing the pump setting from 25 to 125 feet in the 150 foot well increased the total pumping cost $1.07 per acre-inch. 25 Foot 75 Foot 125 Foot Pump Pump Pump Setting Setting Setting 8 _ I. 11.8 gpm/acre _ 16.6 gpm/acre $ [3 33.2 gpm/acre 5 . Per _ —— —‘ .1 Acre 4 - Inch ' 2 L 0 L — 100 150 100 150 150 Depth in Feet Fig. 20.--Relationship of depth of well and pump setting to total pumping cost per acre-inch for System D. System E Rented Well Holding Pond Irrigation and Pump GT” Pump £5= ' _ . 24‘] r \ §‘ /](,[ 5 W ’ ' gr. ‘4 ' ' __‘: x' x , x . '\\\4\\\a e. e ’ Fig. 21.--System E Water was purchased from a neighbor at a charge of one- 37 half the fixed cost per acre-inch of water plus the fuel cost per acre-inch based on the neighbor's cost. This amounted to $2.44 per acre-inch for a 50 foot pump setting in a 100 foot well and a pumping capacity of 283 gallons per minute. Water was stored in a 4 acre-foot holding Innui located adjacent to the field irrigated as shown in Figure 21. Three- inch aluminum mainline was used to convey the water from the pump to the pond. The distance from the well to the pond varied from 1000 feet to 4000 feet. The irrigation pump identical to the one used in System A when the land irrigated was adjacent to the water source was used to pump the water from the pond to the field. Results are shown graphically in Figure 22 and in tab- 'u1ar form in Table h of the appendix. - 11 . 8 gpm/acre In 16.6 gpm/acre 10 F D 33.2 gpm/acre 8- __ $ __ '1 Per 6 - (3 Acre _ ,9 4 r i Inch _ 5; 2 - h '//.A 0 L __. .AL L__ / - 1000 2000 3000 4000 Distance in Feet Fig. 22.--Re1ationship of distance between rented well and holding pond to total pumping cost per acre-inch for System E. 38. Increasing the irrigation pump capacity from 11.8 gal- lons per minute per acre to 33.2 gallons per minute per acre increased the total pumping cost $1.23 per acre-inch for all situations. Increasing the distance between the pond and the well from 1000 to 4000 feet increased the total pumping cost $1.39 per acre-inch. Summary of Chapter III The graphic summary of pumping costs for the five dif- ferent systems (Figure 23) includes all of the situations of Systems A, C, and D for which computations were made, but only the 50 foot pump setting situations for System B and the 25 foot pump setting situations for System D. When the field irrigated was located 1000 feet or less from a surface source of water, it was more economical to use System A with a pumping capacity of 11.8 gallons per minute per acre than any other. It made little difference however, whether System A, B, C, or D was used at a pumping capacity of 33.2 gallons per minute per acre at 1000 feet distance. The effect of the distances involved in Systems A, C, and E were directly comparable. With the field irrigated located 2000 feet from the surface source of water, System A had an advantage at 11.8 gallons per minute per acre capacity System C had a decided advantage however, with the field located 2000 feet from the surface source, at the 16.6 39 11.8 gpm/acre 16.6 gpm/acre 33.2 gpm/acre 12.. 10 - $ r- 8r Per r1 I'll Acre 6 ~ [1 on Inch P Ea 4~ % 2.. O- A 13 C I) E A I! C I)VE A I3 C I) E Type of Water Development System Fig..23. --Relationship of five water development systems oper- ating under various situations and at three pumping capacities to total pumping cost per acre-inch. Ft. Situation Description PR . (D ‘< System "A" - Pumping direct from 4000 Distance from sur- surface source to field. 3000 face water source 2000 to field. 1000 "B" - Pumping direct from well (located at field) to field. 200 foot pump setting. 300:} Well depth with 50 100 q 4000 Distance from sur- 3000 ' face source to pond. 2000 1000i "C" - Small centrifugal pump at stream source holding pond and irriga- tion pump at field. 1501 Well depth with 25 p- 100 foot pump setting. 501 "D" - Small turbine at well with holding pond & irrigation pump at field. 4000-L Distance from rented 3000 well to pond. 2000 1000_ "E" - Rented well with holding pond and irriga- tion pump at field. I33] 19: 1923 133 ISRJI 40 gallons per minute per acre and 33.2 gallons per minute per acre capacities and at all capacities when the field was located 3000 feet or more from the surface source. When ground water was available in a 100 foot well and a 50 foot pump setting was adequate (this included 83 percent of the wells included in the sample), it was almost as economical to use System B as System A at the 11.8 gallons per minute per acre capacity when the field to be irrigated was located 2000 feet from the surface water source. It was more economical at capacities of 16.6 and 33.2 gallons per minute per acre when the field to be irrigated was located 2000 feet from the surface water source and at all capacities when the field was located 3000 and 4000 feet from the water source 0 CHAPTER IV CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS Conclusions In general, irrigation systems studied in Berrien County exhibited a lack of consideration of alternatives. This resulted in excessive variation of irrigation costs. There was no justification for assuming that either surface systems or well systems were more expensive than the other. The wide variation in total pumping cost found among systems using like water sources indicates that any such comparison would be valid only if it were made between spe— cific systems in either category. The use of small pumps at surface and well sources used in conjunction with holding ponds and irrigation pumps compared favorably with all other methods studied for devekxk. ing water for irrigation when the distance between the sur- face source to the field irrigated was 2000 feet or more, and under certain conditions when the distance was 1000 feet or more. At the rental charge assumed in this study, use of a rented well in conjunction with a holding pond and irriga- tion pump did not compare favorably with any other system under any situation except direct pumping from a surface source to the field being irrigated at a rate of 33.2 galknm 42 per minute per acre when the source and field were separated by a distance of 4000 feet or more. "Surge" demands placed on small streams could be re- duced appreciably by use of a small pump and holding pond combination in place of direct pumping from a surface source to the field irrigated. In this study the pumping demand placed on the stream was reduced from 797 gallons per minute to 70 gallons per minute while maintaining same irrigation pump capacity. Implications Although this study was made in only one county, it is the author's opinion after visiting with academic, profes- sional and lay people, and studying publications concerned with water resource development in Michigan that the conclu- sions reached in this study are applicable to the major agricultural areas of the state. Irrigation is often expensive in Michigan, however more consideration of the economic aspects of irrigation system design and operation will reduce costs and result in greater acceptance of irrigation as a desirable production practice on a greater variety of crops. This in turn will result in a greater demand on existing water resources. The results of the evaluation of water development methods in this study should be useful in determining economical methods of extend- ing surface and ground water supplies. The results of this study indicate that development of ground water has a decided economic advantage over surface 43 water in particular situations. This advantage, together with water right uncertainties associated with surface water supplies, makes the use of ground water particularly desir- able for irrigation. This suggests that farmers should give more consideration to the use of ground water as a source of irrigation water supply. A complete ground water inventory of Michigan is an essential step for the development of this resource. The wide variation in the design and operation of sprinkler systems found by this study implies that there was an educational need whichvms not being adequately met. This situation was also suggested during the interviews with the respondents. They asked questions regarding the hydraulics of sprinkler systems, soil—moisture-plant relationships, irrigation of certain crops during periods of high tempera- tures and humidity, and the advantages of using either well or surface water as a source of supply. Many of the answers can be found in research already completed while some may require new projects. The Cooperative Extension Service of Michigan State University occupies a position of high pres- tige and public confidence and is in an ideal position to supply this needed education. During the period of this study the author noticed a reluctance by a number of persons to accept development of water resources as something desirable. It is this author's opinion that a flow resource, such as water should be in— tensely developed and used to enrich the state's economy. 44 This development can be for any single or combination of uses and it is recognized that the direction the development takes can result in conflict. Non-development by reason of "poten- tial conflict" however is an economic loss to the state. APPENDIX 46 .pcoEpmo>cH Eopmmm x mO.O pm ooanHpmm AHnmoh acoEQHSOm .hmeohlpcoEQHsdo van .Hosm .Aonnq o .u:o&umo>:H map m 2 OO. an oode50Hno pmohopoH HH< .mnnom OH go>o ooanoopmoo hHo>aomoh .mhmo> mH no>o ooanoohmoo quHoHdE new 5555 n .OOOH .aannOHz .mpcsoo clohom .mo>nsm Show Eon“ «Home OO.¢ On.H SN.N om ooom b mwm . . . . oovm ow ov.m NN.H mH.¢ mNH oom mH Omv w.O OOOm mOmH mm N>.m Hw.H Hm.H mbH O¢ON mo ovm . . . . mama n mm.m Hm.N NO.H OOm OOOm vH Ohm . . . . OOOm ON vm.m mm. Hv.H Omm ovmm ON Omm m.N OOOH mmmm mm wv.m hm. bv.H OOm ONmH OH OOm N.v ovmm HOOH Om Oh.OH mm.v NV.NH om OOON mm 0mm ode one OONN O mm.hH mO.v vm.MH ow OOON mm OOV b.H Own mmwm NH vm.mH NH.N Nb.MH ow ONmH mm oow oxHo OOOm mmmm mm Om.n wO.N wv.m Om OOOH mH OOm w0.0 OmH ObOH ON wn.m ON.H mm.m OOH OONH mm Nmm n.O mHm wHOH NH mm.mH wv.m wh.m Om OOm mm own O.H oom OHON OH OO.b vm.m mm.m ov OOOH NN OOm nouHo Omv mmvm mm OH.m wH.H HO.N OON ovo OH Omm v.m OONN HvON om mn.m OO.N bO.m OOH OOm w Omm . . . . menu O3 oo.m a om.mw om.o a an cos om com . . . . a eoHHw oH anew 95 :H Heeoe owefioc oooxam nod ceased o<\smo saw on :0 OH nHo> sop .Hnnn IHoQO .homo gowns sH .os no Iaowom Iwmm moho< noculoho< ~05 pmoo mhsom .mHn .onmdo 55:5 HHo>Homom udoEpmo>GH deopmmm 00dwhsm Hm moHpmHhoponhnnoll.d mHm:H gang x m0.0 pd “Homohlmadm can .Hosw .aonnq o .uaospmo>:H on» m x OO. pd ooansoHdo pmopoch HH< .mhnoz om uo>o OoanooQQoO HHoz .mawoz OH ho>o Oodeothoo 55:59 .OOOH .cansoHS .mpasoo :loaom .mo>hsm Show E055 manna Om.N hm. N¢.H OOH m OOO b ON OOOH OOb Om NO.v OO.H OH.N OOH k OON b OO OHHN OOh ow Om.m OO.H mm.m OOH O OOO ON HO OOOH OOOm OO Nw.m Hm.H HO.N Ob mH OOh mm OO OOOH OOHN Om OH.N O¢.H mu. OOO v HOH HH mm OOOH OOO ow O0.0 NH.H Ow.m Om OO OOO NN OOH OOOH OOON OH Oh.m Hv.m Om.m OON OH OOO VO ONH mem HwOb OV HO.NH Om.m Om.m OOH O OOH OO OOH OOON OOOH ON hm.m VO.H OO.N OOH HH Nam 5 OO OOO OOOH om hH.O vO.H mm.m VOH OH new 5 OHN OOON OOON ON VO.N NN.H Nv.H OON 5 OOO OH mm OOO OOOH Ow ow.n a nH.mn oo.mw ooH m oom ma ooH aspen oovmn m9 Hdpoe c.2050 dnome Ado» #05 o<\250 250 hope; 09 Hdpoe HHoa .mmm .Hth noaHlono< you pmoo .HoQO .mhm .onado 5E35 pm .swmon HHoz pcospmo>cH moho< «msopmmm HHoB Ho mOHpmHhoponhn50Il.n HHOOB 48 TABLE c.—-Data for water development System A Distance Mainline Pumping Equip Sump Total Cost Water Diameter Capacity Invest- Invest— per Acre- Pumped Ft Inches GPM ment ment Incha 0 ... 11.8 $1100 $320 $2.07 “ . . 16.6 1500 " 2.42 " 33.2 2500 " 3.30 1000 4 11.8 1770 320 2.91 " 5 16.6 2410 " 3.39 " 6 33.2 3700 " 4.61 2000 4 11.8 2440 320 3.77 " 5 16.6 3320 " 4.39 " 6 33.2 4900 " 5.93 3000 5 11.8 3830 320 4.71 " 5 16.6 4230 " 5.33 " 8 33.2 9250 " 9.42 4000 5 11.8 4740 320 5.61 " 6 16.6 6300 " 6.92 " 8 33.2 11500 " 11.47 TABLE d.——Economical mainline selection for System Aa Total GPM Pipe Dia. Head Loss Pipe Cost Inches per 100 Ft per Ft 283 4 5.3 $0.67 398 5 3.4 .91 797 6 5.2 1.20 ... 8 2.25 aThe economical pipe size was determined by computing the total cost of pumping per foot of pipe for the given quantities of water through various pipe sizes. A pumping period of 220 hours per year was assumed. 49 TABLE e.——Data for water development System B 1 .Pump Depth Well Well Pwmp Pump Total Setting of well Dia. Invest- Invest- Capacity Cost per Feet Feet .Inches menta ment GPM/Acre Acre-Inch 50 100 8 $2240 $2234 11.8 $3.91 n n 10 2880 2303 16.6 4.25 n H 12 3560 2882 33.2 5.05 50 200 8 3840 2234 11.8 4.61 n n 10 4880 2303 16.6 5.13 n n 12 5960 2882 33.2 6.11 50 300 8 5440 2234 11.8 5.32 n u 10 6880 2303 16.6 6.01 n H 12 8360 2882 33.2 7.17 100 100 8 2240 2690 11.8 4.55 " " 10 2880 2970 16.6 5.08 n H 12 3560 4050 33.2 6.33 100 200 8 3840 2690 11.8 5.26 " " 10 4880 2970 16.6 5.97 " " 12 5960 4050 33.2 7.38 100 300 8 5440 2690 11.8 5.97 H " 10 6880 2970 16.6 6.85 n H 12 8360 40 50 33 . 2 8 o 44 150 200 8 3840 3440 11.8 6.17 " " 10 4880 4214 16.6 7.31 n H 12 5960 5457 33.2 8.88 150 300 8 5440 3440 11.8 6.88 n H 10 6880 4214 16.6 8.19 n n 12 8360 5457 33.2 9.93 aWell costs were calculated at $2.00 per foot per inch of the well diameter with 20 feet of screen allowed each well at the following costs: 8" at $32.00 per foot, 10" at $44.00 per foot, and 12" at $58.00 per foot. 50 TABLE f.--Data for water development System C Distance Irri. Cost Cost Cost Cost per Acre-Inch Water Pump of of Hold— Source Pond Pumped Capac. Small Main- ingb to to d Total Ft GPM/Ac Pumpa line Pond pondc Field 1000 11.8 $120 $ 530 $1000 $1.56 $1.78 $3.34 " 16.6 " " " " 2.13 3.69 " 33.2 " " " " 3.01 4.57 2000 11.8 150 1060 1000 2.09 1.78 3.87 H . 16.6 H H H H 2. 13 4. 22 H 33.2 H H H H 3.01 5. 10 3000 11.8 175 1590 1000 2.62 1.78 4.40 n 16.6 H n n n 2.13 4.75 " 33.2 " " " " 3.01 5.63 4000 11.8 200 2120 1000 3.14 1.78 4.92 H 16.6 n n n n 2.13 5.27 H 33.2 H H H H 3.01 6.15 a Electric horizontal centrifugal 70 gallons per minute unit. bThe holding pond was square and had a capacity of 48 acre-inches. Estimated cost does not include sealing. gElectricity was estimated to cost 0.0125 per horse- power hour. It was expected that the unit could be hooked to an existing farm service and would operate at the low rate in the domestic schedule. If a separate meter were required, the rate would be approximately doubled. These are the same costs calculated for System A with the field located adjacent to the water source. 51 TABLE g.--Data for water development System D Well Well Pump Pump Irr. Pump Cost_per Acre-Inch Depth Invest- Invegt- Set. Capacity Source Pond t8 Total Ft menta ment Ft GPM/Acre To Pondc Field 50 $ 780 $ 730 25 11.8 $2.04 $1.78 $3.82 n n n H 16.6 " 2.13 4.17 H H H n 33.2 " 3.01 5.05 100 1180 730 25 11.8 2.22 1.78 4.00 n H H " 16,6 " 2.13 4.35 n n n n 33.2 " 3.01 5.23 100 1180 1320 75 11.8 2.82 1.78 4.60 n n n n 16.6 " 2.13 4.95 n u n H 33.2 " 3.01 5.83 150 1580 730 25 11.8 2.40 1.78 4.18 _n n n n 16 . 6 H 2. 13 4 . 53 n n n n 33.2 " 3.01 5.41 150 1580 1320 75 11.8 3.00 1.78 4.78 n n n H 16 . 6 " 2 . 13 5 o 13 H n n n 33.2 " 3.01 6.01 150 1580 1670 125 11.8 3.47, 1.78 5.25 n n n n 16.6 " 2.13 5.60 H n n n 33.2 " 3.01 6.48 aA 4-inch diameter well with 20 feet of screen. well cost was estimated at $8.00 per foot and the screen; $19.00 per foot. A 70 gallons per minute deep well turbine operating at 3500 rpm and driven with an electric motor. power hour. an existing farm service and would operate at the low rate in If a separate meter were required, the domestic schedule. the rate would be approximately double. c Electricity was estimated to cost 0.0125 per horse- It was expected that the unit could be hooked to These are the same costs calculated for System A with the field located adjacent to the water source. 52 TABLE h.--Data for water development System E Dis. Invest- Invest- Cost per Acre-Inch Well To ment in a ment in Main- Wellb Irri- Field Mainline Holding line Rent gatiog Total Ft Pond & Res. Pump 1000 $ 530 $1000 $1.37 $2.44 $1.78 $5.59 H H H H H 2.13 5.94 H H H H H 3.01 6.82 2000 1060 1000 1.83 2.44 1.78 6.05 H H H H H 2.13 6.40 H H H H H 3 . 01 7. 28 3000 1590 1000 2.30 2.44 1.78 6.52 H H H H H 2.13 6.87 H H H H H 3.01 7.75 4000 2120 1000 2.76 2.44 1.78 6.98 H H H H H 2.13 7.33 H H H H H 3.01 8.21 aAll 3-inch diameter. bBasis for this charge is discussed on pages 36 and 37. cThese are the same costs calculated for System A with the field located adjacent to the water source. 53 TABLE i.—-Operation of 70 gallons per minute pump and 4 acre- foot holding-pond to provide adequate water for three lfi-inch irrigations in 3 weeks to 24 acres Water Quantity in Acre-Inches Description per Acre 2.0 in storage + 1.1 pumped into pond lst week - 1.5 removed lst week 1.6 available at start of 2nd week + 1.1 pumped into pond 2nd week - 1.5 removed 2nd week 1.2 available at start of 3rd week + 1.1 pumped into pond 3rd week - 1.5 removed 3rd week on available at start of 4th week 54 INTERVIEW DATA SHEET Berrien County Irrigation Study Item and Description Price Pwmp Make gpm Head____Turb.___Cenr___ Motor H.P. Elec.___0as.___Diese1___Irac.___ Mainline, Dia. Total Feet -———— Source of Water Well Dia. Depth Ft., Screen Length Pumping Level Ft. W.T. Lvl. Reservoir____Dimensions x x Stream Distance from field irrigated Ft. Labor Maintenance of pumping plant man hours/yr. APutting up and taking down mainline man hours/yr. Installing pump in stream man hours/yr. Other Information Sprinkler spacing x . Nozz. Dia. x No.______ Acres Irrigated____. No. of Irrigations in1959 1960 __ Fuel Consumption;____0a1/hr. Hours of Operation 1959 Fuel Cost Coupler Brand From whom purchased Satisfied yes, no BIBLIOGRAPHY Becker, M. H., Mumford, D. Curtis. Sprinkler Irrigation Cosfis for Vegetable Costs. Oregon AgriEu1tura1 Experiment Station Bulletin 463, Oregon State University, 1949. Becker, M. H. Sprinkler Irrigation Costs and Practices. Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 532, Oregon State University, 1953. Farm Management Research Methods in Irrigation Problems. Storrs Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin5337, University of Connecticut, 1958. Hoglund, C. R-, Kidder, E. H., Vary, K. A. "The Economics of Irrigating in Michigan," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 39, No. 1 (November, 1956), pp. 208-209. Hoglund, C. R- "Economics of Irrigating Corn," Quarterly Bulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 40, No. 3 (February, 1958), pp. 669-678. Hoglund” C. R- "Economics of Growing and Irrigating Pickling Cucumbers," Quarterlnyulletin, Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 40, No. 4 (May, 1958), pp. 796— 805. Hogluxld, C. R., Wright, K. T. "Economic Analysis of the Michigan Potato Enterprise," Quarterly Bulletin, Michi- gan Agricultural Experiment Station, Vol. 42, No. 4 (May, 1960), pp. 686-703. Kerr, J. A., Kirk, N. M., Southworth, Elbert. Soil Survey of Berrien County, Michigan. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, TEShington: U. S. Government Printing Office, 1927, p. 1343. Kidder, E. H., Wheaton, R. Z. Supplemental Irrigation in Michigan. Extension Bulletin 309 (Revised), Michigan State University, October, 1958. Kidder, E. H., Davis, J. R. Frost Protection with Sprinkler Irrigation. Extension Bulletin 327 (Revised), Michigan State University, n.d. 56 Michigan Water Resources Commission. Water Resource Condi-‘ tions and Uses in the Paw Paw River Basin. Lansing: Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1955. Michigan Water Resources Commission. Water Use for Irrigatknn Lansing: Michigan Water Resources Commission, 1959. Michigan Water Resources Commission, "Summary of Irrigation - Berrien County." Unpublished information collected by Michigan Water Resources Commission by field interviews with irrigators. Study was completed in April, 1959. (Mimeographed.) Otto, Merton L., Pine, Wilfred H. Sprinkler Irrigation Costs and Returns. Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 381, Kansas State College, 1956. Schmid, A. Allan. Michigan Water Use and Development Prob- lems. Michigan Agricultural Experiment Station Circuhu' Bulletin 230, East Lansing, Michigan, 1961. Stippler, Henry H. Sprinkler Irrigation in the Pacific North- west. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture Information Bulletin No. 166. Washington:- U. S. Government Printing Office, 1956. Thorfinnson, T. S., Swanson, Norris P., Epp, A. W. Cost of Distributing Irrigation Water by the SprinklerAMethod. Nebraska Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 455, University of Nebraska, 1960. Water,Rights Conference. A collection of papers delivered at the Water Rights Conference held at Michigan State University, March 29, 1960. Wolfe, John. Buying a Sprinkler System? Here's How! Oregon Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 548, Oregon State University, 1955. Woodward, Guy 0. (ed.) Sprinkler Irrigation. 2nd ed., Washington, D. C.: Darby Printing Company, 1959. REM {33E GiéL‘f MICHIG III 3 l STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES I; m IIIIUIIII mu 1 93 03174 6443 ' .w A <-“‘ 4.--,”