Irrigation & Drainage Systems Engineering

Drip irrigation is a reliable and efficient way to deliver water to the soil; however, drip emitter clogging is a major concern when irrigating treated wastewater. Four types of drip irrigation emitters from three manufacturers were analyzed over a one-year period to monitor the incidence of clogging and its effect on irrigation uniformity. A controlled laboratory experiment was conducted using two different types of pressure compensating emitters designed for reclaimed wastewater, one type of non-pressure compensating emitter designed for reclaimed wastewater, and one type of non-pressure compensating agricultural emitter designed for potable water applications. Emitters of each type distributed tap water, primary treated septic tank effluent, and secondary treated sand filter effluent. Emitter flow rates were measured each month to identify clogged or flow restricted emitters. Some clogging was seen in each type of emitter over the course of the experiment and emitter flow rates fluctuated over time, suggesting that clogging was gradual and often incomplete. Many of the emitters exhibited a cyclical flow rate indicating that clogging was reversible. The emitters distributing septic tank effluent exhibited the most significant reduction in flow. The most severely clogged emitter experienced a reduction of 63% after one year of irrigation with septic tank effluent. Secondary treatment using the sand filter showed the least clogging in all four types of emitters. One of the reclaimed wastewater emitter types experienced an average reduction in flow of 1% while the other two actually increased in flow by1% and 4% after one year of irrigation with effluent from a sand filter. Water quality appeared to have a more pronounced effect than did emitter type. The effect of wastewater type on emitter discharge was +3.3% for tap water, -9.4% for septic tank effluent and -0.3% for effluent from secondary sand filtration. While the agricultural drip emitters experienced a significant negative impact after one year of operation the three drip emitters designed for distributing septic tank effluent and reclaimed wastewater showed little clogging and a high degree of uniformity.

Potential water consumption for irrigation scheduling in North Dakota was typically calculated from a reference Evapotranspiration (ETref) using the Jensen-Haise method and its associated crop coefficient (Kc) curves developed in the 1970’s and 1980’s. The ETref method proposed by the American Society of Civil Engineers, Environmental and Water Research Institute (ASCE-EWRI) reference evapotranspiration task force has shown to be more accurate and therefore more widely used than any other methods. However, to apply the ASCE-EWRI method for irrigation scheduling requires a corresponding change of the Kc curves associated with the Jensen-Haise method. In this paper, a comparison of ETref estimates for 11 methods, including the ASCE-EWRI and the Jensen-Haise methods, was conducted using 18 years of data collected in southeastern North Dakota. The results show that the annual ETref by the Jensen-Haise method was nearly the same as the ASCE-EWRI grass ETref, but with a higher Root Mean Square Deviation (RMSD), 0.903 mm d-1, and a lower coefficient of determination (R2) 0.8659. The ETref comparison for the growing season only shows an RMSD of 1.007 mm d-1, R2 of 0.7996 and 8.13% overestimation. The ETref by the Jensen-Haisemethod has a higher monthly ETref than the ASCE-EWRI in June, July, and August, and a lower monthly ETref for all other months in an 18 year period. The ETref comparisons also show that the modified Penman method used by the High Plains Regional Climate Center (HPRCC Penman) has the best accuracy and correlation with the ASCE-EWRI ETref method. Indeed, all alfalfa based ETref methods, including Kimberly Penman and HPRCC Penman, show better performance than the grass based ETref methods, including FAO24 Penman, FAO24 Radiation, FAO24 Blaney-Criddle, Priestley-Taylor, Hargreaves, and the Jensen-Haise methods.

Storm runoff is considered one of important water resources for urban areas. Over a geologictime, streams and lakes are periodically refreshed with flood water and continually shaped with the flood flows. Urban development always results in increases of runoff peak rates, volumes, and frequency of higher flows. As a result, flood mitigation has become a major task in urban developments. Before 1970’s, storm water drainage systems in an urban area were designed to remove flood water from streets as quickly as possible. From 1970 to 1980, the US EPA conducted a nationwide stormwater data collection and reached a conclusion that stream stability is more related to frequent, small storm events rather than the extreme, large events. Since man-made stormwater systems were designed to pass extreme events, the large inlets and outlets release frequent events without any detention effect. As a result, urban pollutant and sediment solids are transported and deposited in the receiving water bodies. Under a US Congress mandate starting in 1980’s, a nationwide stormwater best-management-practices (BMPs) program was developed and implanted in major metropolitan areas. The tasks in BMPs include: (1) retrofitting the existing drainage facilities to achieve a full-spectrum control on peak flows, and (2) applications of Low-Impact -Development (LID) designs to reduce runoff volumes under the post-development condition. With the latest observations in climate change, the uncertainty in the design floodhas imposed unprecedented challenges in flood mitigation designs. The flexibility in freeboards and easements need to be refined in order to accommodate the changes in extreme rainfall events. This paper presents a summary of the Green approach in stormwater management and LID designs as the engineering measures to preserve the watershed regime.